Brett McMurphy and Andy Katz of ESPN.com have reported that NBC has verbally offered the remnants of the Big East between $20 million and $23 million per year for six years for the conference’s TV rights for all sports (including both football and basketball). That would be approximately $2 million per year for each school in the league. By way of comparison, each individual school in the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12 (and depending upon who you talk to, soon the ACC) will make about as much TV money on its own annually than the entire Big East conference. This is the latest news in the stunning decimation of the Big East since the league rejected an offer from ESPN two years ago worth an average of $130 million per year. During that time frame, the Big East has lost 5 football members that have actually played in the league (Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Rutgers and Louisville), 8 non-football members (Notre Dame, Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and Marquette) and 2 3 schools that defected before they even played a down of Big East football (TCU, Boise State and San Diego State). In the middle of that process, the conference also lost its place in the college football postseason structure, where it failed to secure a “Contract Bowl” slot (with its former BCS AQ counterparts Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC) and is now part of the “Gang of Five” non-power conference group (with the MAC, Conference USA, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt as new counterparts). The Big East made a huge gamble in taking its sports rights to the open market when it turned down that lucrative ESPN offer and even the largest conference naysayers couldn’t have predicted how badly that decision would backfire.
The argument that ESPN systemically devalued the Big East to the point where it was effectively destroyed is taken as gospel by many Big East partisans. It started back in October 2011 with a quote from the then-AD at Boston College stating that ESPN “told [the ACC] what to do” in the wake of Pitt and Syracuse defecting to the ACC. This line of thinking then continued on as the Big East lost more access in the new college football playoff system than any other conference (in fact, they’re likely going to be the only league that will end up making less money in the new format than it does in the current BCS system) and then suffered a literal avalanche of defections in the past 5 months.
However, it wasn’t the Bristol-based network that effectively killed off the Big East as we once knew it. Instead, Fox, in its pursuit of becoming the main competitor to ESPN in US sports television, ended up pulling the trigger. Consider two critical moves:
(1) Big Ten expands with Maryland and Rutgers – When the Big Ten added Maryland from the ACC and Rutgers from the Big East, Jim Delany wasn’t looking to aid its first tier national TV slate that’s being shown on the Disney networks of ABC and ESPN (unlike the addition of Nebraska in 2010). Instead, the main beneficiary from this expansion was Fox, which is 51% owner of the Big Ten Network (BTN), since it now has an argument that the network should be carried on basic cable in the New York City and Washington, DC markets. If anything, this move was terrible for ESPN since it makes Fox/BTN much stronger on the East Coast and took away schools from the two main conferences – the ACC and Big East – in which the Worldwide Leader owns all tiers of conference multimedia rights. Without Fox and the BTN, the Big Ten doesn’t take Rutgers directly from the Big East or indirectly causing Louisville to defect (since the ACC replaced Maryland with the Cardinals). The Big East still had the ability to survive as a viable football conference with Louisville and Rutgers in the fold, but once they were gone, Boise State (and subsequently San Diego State) didn’t believe that they would receive enough TV money to justify being complete western geographic outliers.
(2) Catholic 7 leave the Big East… because Fox convinced them to do so – A few weeks after the Rutgers and Louisville defections, the 7 remaining Catholic non-football schools (DePaul, Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence and Marquette) decided to split off from the Big East’s football members in order to form a new league (hereinafter called the “Catholic 7”). Multiple reports from both ESPN (including the McMurphy/Katz report linked above) and Sports Illustrated have stated that Fox is the leading suitor for the rights to the new Catholic 7 league with offers of between $30 million and $40 million per year depending upon whether it has 10 or 12 schools. That represents the Catholic 7 making around $3 million per year for basketball rights, which is more than the NBC offer to the Big East of $2 million per year for both basketball and football.
I’ve previously set forth reasons why the Catholic 7 would be more valuable than the new Big East even when they don’t offer any football (namely that football in and of itself isn’t what’s driving value and the Catholic 7 brand names and markets are much stronger top-to-bottom in order to garner a premium). Even if you don’t want to believe that’s the case in terms of comparing the inherent values of the Catholic 7 versus the Big East, a Tweet from Brett McMurphy on Saturday should put this into clearer focus:
Do you see what occurred here if this is true? Fox approached the Catholic 7 before they split off, which means it’s not so crazy to believe that Fox wanted them to split off. So, if you believe that Fox is overpaying for the Catholic 7, then you might be right. However, the point is that Fox needed to overpay the Catholic 7 in order to serve as a catalyst for them to split off. If Fox just merely offered “fair market value” to the Catholic 7, then they likely would have stayed in the hybrid. (Anyone that thought that the Catholic 7 would have split off without the knowledge that they’d be getting paid more compared to staying in the hybrid Big East isn’t thinking straight.) There needed to be an extraordinary financial windfall from Fox in order for the Catholic 7 to take the extraordinary step of splitting off from the Big East football schools. As a result, it’s almost pointless to try to compare the on-the-court basketball quality of the Catholic 7 versus the New Big East. The amounts that are being offered by Fox to the Catholic 7 reflect a “blood money” premium offer that they couldn’t refuse, whereas the Big East isn’t going to garner any premium at all and will be subject to the “normal” market forces in play.
That leads to a corresponding question: why would Fox do this? Why would it want to pay this much for the Catholic 7 instead of, say, simply bidding for the entire hybrid Big East? Well, let’s take a step back and examine what Fox actually needs in terms of sports content. The reality is that Fox (and when I say “Fox”, I really mean its new cable networks Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 as opposed to over-the-air Fox) already has a fairly full sports slate in the fall with Major League Baseball, NASCAR, Pac-12 football and Big 12 football rights. As a result, they don’t have much of a need for other college football games. The biggest programming gap that Fox has right now is during the winter, where its cable networks are pretty much wide open outside of some Pac-12 basketball rights.
I’ll put on my own tinfoil hat here, where my semi-educated guess is that Fox: (a) no longer had much interest in the New Big East football product after Rutgers and Louisville left, (b) still had interest in the Big East’s basketball product in order to provide winter programming and (c) didn’t want to get into a bidding war with NBC and/or ESPN to buy a Big East package for both basketball and football when all it really wanted was basketball. As a result, Fox went straight to the Catholic 7 (who represented most of the schools that they wanted to showcase for basketball, anyway) and offered up enough money that would simultaneously be a financial boon to those schools while allowing the cable network operation to save money compared to a competitive bidding situation for the all-sports hybrid Big East rights. It’s the very essence of a “win-win” for both the Catholic 7 and Fox here.
Meanwhile, the Big East has been left with only one legit suitor with NBC since Fox obviously has no interest (seeing that it made an offer to the Catholic 7 to split up the league), CBS has little funding for its fledgling CBS Sports Network and ESPN has had lukewarm feelings toward the league. Without a bidding war, the already thrifty Comcast/NBC organization zero incentive to drive up the price of the Big East on its own, so this very low offer reflects that reality. Either NBC takes the Big East rights or ESPN comes in to match it with its right of first of refusal (which the McMurphy/Katz article notes that the Worldwide Leader has), but there’s no other potential fountain of cash out there.
Sometimes, it’s not quite as simple as saying “UConn is a much better basketball program than DePaul, therefore, UConn should get paid more than DePaul”. Timing matters in conference realignment and TV contracts, so in this case, Fox had a specific need in a situation where the Catholic 7 was in the right place at the right time. Granted, that’s no consolation for the fans of schools that are left in the Big East and who may need to start hanging up pictures of Rupert Murdoch on their dartboards instead of Mickey Mouse.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Blackhawks DL)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go BLUE!
LikeLike
Luv ya Lions!
LikeLike
It isn’t “overpaying” if they are making money on it.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, that’s very true. Fox could very well make money on the deal (or at least justify it in the event that Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 end up with the basic cable carriage that they’re looking for). I think the overall idea is that it was going to take a large amount to cajole a group from the status quo position.
LikeLike
Precisely ~ there is a difference between “fair market value” in the sense of $1 more than the second highest bid and “fair market value” in the sense of a fair share of the advertising and cable rights market value of the content. That is, “fair” as in “value in a fair rights market auction” versus “fair” as in “a fair share of prospective rights revenue”.
Consider ESPN’s $130m offer for the current Big East. At 30% of the value for BBall, that places a value of $40m for current Big East Basketball. And that was the maximum “contract share” promised in the deal with Boise State, but arguably. Given the imbalance between strength of Big East Football and Basketball, Basketball could well have been 35% to 40% of the prospective revenues driving that bid, which would price Big East basketball including Rutgers (market) and Louisville (brand) at $45m-$50m.
So $30m-$40m as a fair market value for the Basketball rights of the C7 subtract Rutgers, Louisville, UConn and UC but plus some more of the cream of non-football Division 1 seems quite reasonable.
As the post says, its paying more than one would have to bid of the league already existed, but if Fox wanted the league to exist in the first place, they had to pay a “fair share of prospective revenues” value, rather than a “competitive market value in an auction market”
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
3 than never played a down: TCU was supposed to go as well.
LikeLike
Yup. What a bloodbath!
LikeLike
That was my first thought, but TCU may have bolted before the Big East turned down the ESPN deal. I don’t remember the exact dates.
LikeLike
Kylepitt is correct. TCU replaced Texas A&M in the Big 12 even before Missouri officially decided to leave. So, that was all after the Big East turned down the ESPN deal.
LikeLike
Yep, just checked. Big East declined the ESPN deal in July 2011 and TCU announced their departure in October 2011.
LikeLike
Oh man, I can’t believe that I forgot to include them! “TCU to the Big East” was something that I advocated for a long time while they were in the MWC. I’ll update that pronto.
LikeLike
I was thinking you missed them but wasn’t sure of the dates. How can you forget the conference killers? Darrell Royal once said of TCU after an upset loss, “They’re like cockroaches. Its not what they pick up and carry off. Its what they fall into and mess up.”
The conferences they have fallen into:
RIP TIAA
RIP SWC
RIP WAC
CUSA shadow of its former self (only UAB and USM charter members)
Big East shadow of its former self (only UConn long time member and not for football)
The MWC would join that list, but TCU joined the Big East and jinxed it, sending Boise and SDSU back to the MWC. Still they lost BYU and Utah.
LikeLike
Which reminds me that given the TV offer, the NuBigEast might think about their basketball standing and number of Big Dance appearances, and be better off with Southern Miss (current Sagarin BBall 50th at 80.77, about the same as the average ranking of the Pac-12 and Mountain West and higher than the #7 SEC, #8 A-10 or #9 Missouri Valley) rather than Tulsa (current Sagarin BBall 160th at 73.32, which is dragging down the average of #11 Conference-USA)
LikeLike
Historically, Tulsa has a much stronger basketball program even if that’s not true at the moment.
LikeLike
Is that only stronger than they are at present, or generally stronger than Southern Miss / Middle Tennessee over the past decade?
LikeLike
Tulsa has generally been stronger than USM in basketball over the last 20 years, if not always. USM has only been to the tourney 3 times and hasn’t won a game. Tulsa has been there 14 times.
LikeLike
Ah, and I see they had one run to the regional finals. 12-14 in NCAA tournament appearances, 11-8 in the past twenty years looks a lot better than their more recent rankings ~ its just that the most recent of those appearances was 2002.
Well, that puts a better spin on their bid.
LikeLike
of course the only person still active in College Athletics that was involved in the death of the SWC and collaterally the WAC. is UT’s Deloss Dodd. You may want to check for his fingerprints on all of those as well.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe (who investigated SMU, which many believe was the downfall of the SWC) has a nifty twitter account in his name!
LikeLike
Go Hawks!!!
LikeLike
For now, Connecticut is the biggest loser, diminishing from a multiple national basketball champion and BCS bowl participant to a member of a league of also-rans. The ACC won’t take Storrs until it needs it (probably alongside Cincinnati)…although if the Big 12 was sufficiently Machiavellian, it might pursue the two UCs, if only to destabilize the ACC by depriving it of the two programs it would need if replenishment was required. In a scenario where Virginia and Georgia Tech go to the Big Ten, the ACC would be stuck at 12 — and if the Big 12 then successfully wooed Florida State and Clemson, it would dwindle to 10 for football, lose its CCG and look a lot less attractive to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
<em… if the Big 12 was sufficiently Machiavellian, it might pursue the two UCs, if only to destabilize the ACC by depriving it of the two programs it would need if replenishment was required….
There’s Machiavellian, and then there’s foolish. Taking the two UCs would cost the Big XII too much money, for too little value. If the ACC is unstable enough to lose Virginia and GT, then the Big XII can probably hook FSU and Clemson without taking on two extra schools that it clearly doesn’t need.
the ACC would be stuck at 12 — and if the Big 12 then successfully wooed Florida State and Clemson, it would dwindle to 10 for football, lose its CCG and look a lot less attractive to Notre Dame.
The ACC wouldn’t be stuck at 12; it would replenish, most likely with USF and one other school, such as Memphis or Navy. Notre Dame doesn’t care whether the ACC has 12 or 10 schools; it only cares if the ACC continues to have its bowl access.
LikeLike
FSU only wants to go to the Big XII unless it has ‘multiple’ partners, just Clemson probably doesn’t work YET as FSU prefers the B10/SEC. It sounds like FSU wants Miami, Clemson and one other ACC school.
LikeLike
Yes, this is why the Big12 is a “second mover”. All the schools that would be worth its while to add are not going to be going to the Big12 unless the ACC is destabilized. And the most worthwhile ones wouldn’t pick a Big12 invitation unless they are confident there is no BigTen and/or SEC (depending on school) invite coming.
If the Big Ten or SEC moves, and then especially if the other moves, there will be opportunities, though the Big12 may still have to add four in order to construct a “Big14 East” that is preferable to sticking it out in a “New ACC” that bears a striking resemblance to the Old Big East.
LikeLike
The only fault with this is that UVA/VTech, Duke/UNC/NCState/WakeForest (UNC ‘owns’ NCState’s board) won’t move without one another–in some cases it requires state legislatures to approve it.
I especially don’t see Tobacco Road leaving. UVA won’t leave without VTech (and vice versa), the only school that MIGHT leave is GTech and that’s only if they can realistically join UGA in the SEC.
FSU might leave. Clemson I sincerely doubt, but it could.
okay, big deal.
USF, Cincy, UCF, Navy, ECU aren’t the best in the world but they’d be able to step up. UConn, on the other hand, will be a very, very, VERY last resort.
LikeLike
Virginia and North Carolina can probably move to the Big Ten with little difficulty if Virginia Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC simultaneously.
LikeLike
UVA will will not insist that VT comes with them. Just that they land safe. VT can go to SEC
UNC will not insist that NC State come with them. Just that they land safe. NC State can go to SEC
UNC WILL hwoever insist that Duke comes with them
GT has no friends.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight. USF, Cincy, USF, ECU and Navy can step up in conference. But UConn will be a very very very last resort. Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
Last resort for the ACC, yes, not the Big Least. They’ll be the flagbearers for the Big Least.
LikeLike
I’m curious where you’re getting that from. The Louisville AD said that, before a last-minute switch was made, UConn was very close to getting the ACC invite after Maryland left. A number of ACC sources said that UConn and Cincy would probably get the next two bids.
LikeLike
I think you flipped your wig.
LikeLike
So the ACC has raided and pillaged five Big East schools (Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt) dating back to 2004, but the plucking of Rutgers by the B1G (which then allowed the ACC to take a sixth (!!) Big East team in Louisville) is seen as the catalyst that broke the conference’s ability to be a player in big boy football.
Damn you, Delanyyyyyyyy!
I know. Timing matters. Yada yada. But my god the ACC gets such a pass. Now, after being the biggest conference cannibal of the last decade, they get to play the poor victim card while mean ol’ Delany and Slive come together to discuss how best to carve up the most valuable parts of this conference.
LikeLike
It could have as easily gone in the other direction, had the Big East been more aggressive than the ACC. It could have wooed Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State as all-sports members in 2002 or so, joining a football conference that already had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Rutgers and Temple. With Connecticut reaching I-A status, you would have had 12 football members and a CCG. Meanwhile, the ACC would have shrunk to six members and would have been the league forced to take in Conference USA emigres. There was going to be only one strong conference east of the Alleghenies.
LikeLike
Not “easily”. That was the problem with the hybrid structure to the old Big East. You couldn’t add any new teams without basically overloading the basketball side of things. And Clemson, GTech and FSU were not going to join as football only members. The Big East had no ability to grow.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“But my god the ACC gets such a pass.”
You say that like killing the BE is a bad thing or the B10 is getting some horrible press for doing it.
LikeLike
Um, yea… Actually a lot of people are upset about the Big East being broken up (mostly Big East basketball fans), and the B1G, Delany in particular, is definitely being portrayed as a destroyer of college sports, long time conference rivalries, etc. in the quest to maximize profits.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard a peep from anyone. Have you heard it from anyone outside the northeast? It would be a bigger story if the ACC collapsed, but the BE has been seen as a dead conference walking for a long time.
LikeLike
@Blapples: So the ACC has raided and pillaged five Big East schools . . . .
No, they haven’t. Conferences are voluntary membership organizations. The ACC had a better product at the time (and still does), and those schools took advantage of it.
Assuming you believe in capitalism, that is how it should work. Failed conferences (like the Big East) ought to pay a market penalty for their errors, and successful ones ought to reap the benefits.
LikeLike
MHVer3 reporting tonight that B1G will meet in April to vote on 2-6 more members (this comes from a source at OSU and a source at Penn State). If they go past 16, they go to 10 game schedule. UVA is a lock, at least right now. Believes this will open up Orange Bowl to renegotiation.
LikeLike
I officially put MHVer3 in the same category as Greg Swain and the Dude. Just too much nonsense to give any credence to anything coming out.
LikeLike
Is there a website we can go to to read that info?
LikeLike
I believe MHVer3 is his twitter handle and his name on the WV Scout board. IMHO – Don’t waste your time.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That is some smart crystal-ball reporting. Around the new year, “The Dude” was reporting dates for UVA announcing that it was moving as “early next week”. Giving himself until April for the VOTE and no prediction of the announcement gives MHVer much more leeway.
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
College Baseball starts Friday. My Tigers versus Vincent’s turtles.
LikeLike
The bib game Friday is Stanford at Rice. 😉
LikeLike
loki – congrats on your Owls taking 2 of 3 from Stanford.
LSU’s weekend attendance in sweeping Maryland was 34,334.
LikeLike
If the B1G is actually considering Vandy I think the PAC might/should consider Rice.
LikeLike
I thought the Dude and MHVer3 may be the same guy.
LikeLike
No, just both from West Virginia. They do talk to each other. And MHVer3 is known for talking to himself.
LikeLike
Gotta love competition in the TV industry.
If you think about it the BE schools all won … that is those who left the league. Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse get somewhat more than the BE turned down. West Virginia, TCU, and especially Rutgers quite a bit more. And the C7 will double their revenue.
The losers are three: USF, UConn, and Cincy.
Two of them (USF and UConn) have terrible and stupid and way overpaid leadership, and the 3rd (Cincy) simply didn’t have enough time to get things together – they need another 5-10 years like Jurich had at Louisville.
Good luck Bearcats, screw the other two. As for the BE, the rest are happy (LOL the newbees bought the Brooklyn Bridge)
LikeLike
How long have UConn and USF been playing Division 1 football again?
I’m still hopeful that UC will get into the ACC. Sometime before August 15th, there will be some announced departures from the ACC (but perhaps not enough departures to make The Dude and MHVer truly happy) and the ACC will reload.
LikeLike
Forget, even Boise State came out better, pushed the MWC to rework their TV contract and their distributions, which while not FBS level, could easily double what the new Big East works out to for each school.
LikeLike
Reminds me of Danny Devitto in “Other Peoples Money” when he discovered this company that was worth more dead than alive (i.e., sold for scrap). That is the Big East
LikeLike
At Big East meeting in Dallas last month, a rumor was floated that the Catholic 7 would bring in UConn and Cinci in all sports other then football, then UConn and Cinci would place their football teams in the MWC.
UConn came out and publicly denied the rumors, but now that it looks like UConn and Cinci will get no more then $2 million, and the Catholic 7 will get $3 million in TV revenue, why not explore that option? You would be in a better basketball conference that geographically makes more sense then the Big East now, and if you can make enough in the MWC just to pay the cost to travel, they would still make more then they would in the Big East. Likely the MWC could pry away Houston and SMU from the Big East if this happened, so you would then be in, by far, the best non auto birth playoff conference, and even if Houston and SMU don’t come along, the MWC would be equal at worst compared to the conference your leaving.
This obviously would be beneficial to UConn and Cinci and in a vacuum great for the Catholic 7 (Classic East) which would be retaining the two best remaining teams from the Big East and for the MWC your adding two teams that have made it to BCS games and give you some exposure for your teams on the east coast. The problem I see is that if you want to build a stable league would you bring in two schools that will not be happy until they are in the ACC or another big conference? Do you want to deal with rumors that they are leaving each year? Would it be worth the temporary advantage?
I think it could still be worth it. I think if you build your league in a way that UConn and Cinci make sense, but if they leave you don’t have to scramble to find new teams. If the Catholic 7 picked up 5 teams as is rumored to get to 12, then threw UConn and Cinci on top of that with the other university and your TV partner understanding that this is possibly only a temporary bonus and then when they leave we are still a tight 12, then it could possibly work.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21540637/cincinnati-uconn-caught-between-big-east-catholic-7-mountain-west
LikeLike
The biggest advantage of bringing along UConn and Cincy is that it would give the C7 the 2 FB votes they need to actually dissolve the Big East. That would allow them to leave whenever they wanted without penalty and let them keep the name “Big East” amongst other things.
LikeLike
@Frug, good point. This would not likely accelerate departure as the talk right now is summer of 2014, summer of 2013 is probably not possible at all… though the Big East does not have a basketball media contract in place for 2012-2013 yet (it does cover football for 2013 season).
But as you say, If you could get UConn and Cincy to come along, even if just for a few years, being able to dissolve the league, take the name, and distribute credits and departure penalties the way you would like would be highly advantageous.
Honestly, other then South Florida, the remaining teams under this scenario shouldn’t receive any revenue anyways since at this moment they have not contributed anything.
LikeLike
Sorry, basketball for 2013-2014.
LikeLike
The reality of the matter is Connecticut , Cincinnati, South Florida, SMU & Houston will not remain in the Big East (Or whatever it is called) five years from now. One thing I do not see is the Huskies and Bearcats parking their teams in the Mountain West until the move somewhere else. Why? If I am the Mountain West, I see an opportunity to pick up two Schools who will more likely make a long-term commitment to my Conference (Houston & SMU) who are located far closer to where most of my Schools play (Texas), plus Houston will be heading into a brand new facility, so the growth potential is there as well. South Florida looks like a real possibility for the ACC, if the Conference has Miami & (or) Florida State poached by the Big XII, SEC or Big 10. Basically, Connecticut and Cincinnati are in the same boat as USF (Although I believe USF should be a higher priority for the ACC (If Florida State leaves which I suspect will happen)). I think the next two Schools to switch Conferences will be SMU & Houston, to makes too much sense for all concerned.
LikeLike
But what’s the value to the MWC? Making themselves the clear #6? Is that worth anything? Just makes it easier for Houston or ECU to go unbeaten in the BE.
LikeLike
The benefit to the Mountain West is expansion into Texas (Without adding the likes of UTEP). Keep in mind Texas is one of the top recruiting areas in the Country. Beyond that, Ii you look at some of the Schools in the Mountain West, there are some that are either who cares (San Jose St), offer little growth opportunity (Wyoming), or Both (New Mexico). As far as being unbeaten in the Big East is concerned, keep in mind, Houston will NOT go unbeaten in the Big East, because they likely will not be playing in the Big East (I see them in the Mountain West).
LikeLike
I was referring to Cincinnati and UConn.
LikeLike
I doubt that any conference is going to feel very good about taking two schools, Cincinnati and UConn, who are known to be itching to leave for the ACC at the first opportunity.
It does not help your conference when the two most prominent members are openly pining to be elsewhere. If the MWC and the C7 want anything, it’s stability.
Now, SMU and Houston to the MWC makes a lot more sense to me.
LikeLike
This is the main reason why such a plan is unlikely.
UConn and Cincy represent an ongoing “instability” factor if they are in the a conference outside of the ACC.
In the Big East, they’re the first two to replace ACC teams that move to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12.
In the MWC (for fb) and Catholic-7 (for bb), they bring that instability factor to those two conference.
Better to leave such things alone.
LikeLike
Precisely. Invite UC and UConn for Olympic Sports into the Classic East, and they could well have their exit already announced in the Classic East’s first season.
The only stability in admitting a football school to the Classic East would be a school that has thrown in the towel on chasing a bigger conference membership, and that kind of school wouldn’t be applying to be FB-only in the MWC over halfway across the country … they’d be applying to be the second FB-only school in the MAC.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Imagine if Fox, somehow, got UCONN in the B1G ( I realize what a monumental long shot that would be). That would put Fox in ESPN’s back yard. It makes me wonder why ESPN would not push for the ACC to take UCONN when they had the chance?
LikeLike
Because Fox would much rather save that spot for UNC or UVa or Georgia Tech.
We’re at 14, the spots are getting limited now. Need as many spots as possible for Southeast expansion.
LikeLike
According to West Virginia bloggers the Big 10 is going to conspire with the Big XII and SEC to take every school except Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
Those guys are nuts. I’ve never seen people throw as much crap at a wall to see what sticks.
There’s a more than even chance that nothing changes with the Big 5 for a long time from where we are currently.
LikeLike
The Big 10 and Big XII are in discussions as to whether to put up a “No Panthers allowed” sign on their future tree fort.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Pingback: The Morning Mix | CollegeBasketballTalk
GBR
LikeLike
Spartans > Wolverines. Go Green!
LikeLike
If Fox Sports doesn’t have much of a need of additional college football games with its 51% share of the BTN along with Pac 12 and Big XII games, do you think they will make a competitive bid for the Big Ten’s Tier 1/2 football and men’s basketball when the current television contracts end in a few year’s time?
LikeLike
@cutter – I think Fox would be very interested in the Big Ten 1st tier rights, but it would likely be more to fill out slots on the over-the-air network with its commitment to prime time games along with open Saturday afternoon spots as more MLB games shift to cable. The Big East has little to no value as an over-the-air property, so it would have been a pure cable play for Fox (and that’s not where they need more college football).
Now, what’s interesting is that ESPN might be the more desperate party here. Losing Big Ten games would leave gaping holes in the schedules if ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. My long-term belief is that ESPN won’t let that happen – just like they did to keep the NFL and SEC, ESPN will pay up to the Big Ten. Fox might get a smaller package (e.g. a prime time package that could be created if you read between the lines of what Delany said about “prime” games yesterday).
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank – Your comments are pretty much in line with my thinking. Fox could become something akin to what CBS Sports currently is with the SEC for prime time games. And yes, ABC/ESPN will be in a position where they don’t want to lose the B1G on Saturday afternoons.
So how do you think this all plays out in the 9 v. 10 conference game decision/debate in the B1G? Will they go to ten games because it offers better inventory to the networks and five home/road conference games per year to help competitive balance? Or do they go with nine games in order to keep at least seven at home each season and increase the probability of more interesting home-and-home matchups outside the B1G region?
ESPN’s last B1G blog post yesterday talked about the divisions being shaped by time zones, i.e., geography. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/71477/time-zones-might-shape-b1g-divisions The entry had a link to MSU AD Mark Hollis talking about wanting to showcase Michigan State in Chicago, which would indicate a preference for being in the western division. Do you think that’s going to happen or will it be Purdue going to the west with MSU in the east?
LikeLike
Right now 10 is likely just a discussion thing. To open minds and to have something to debate against 9.
It’s extremely unlikely that the conference moves to 10 games before it secures a 15th and 16th member.
LikeLike
The key to the debate of the # of conference games is to “move the bacon” if you will. By moving the default level to 9 games, they basically made it fiat accompli. But you can only do that by making this a debate 9 v 10 rather than 8 v 9.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten ADs are that unsophisticated. They had already agreed to do 9 games previously, before the Pac-12 alliance temporarily put the idea on ice.
Used car salesmen can trick unwary customers like that. I don’t think it works with Jim Delany and the Big Ten ADs.
LikeLike
Thing is, among the Big Ten AD’s are those who would benefit more from the 10 game schedule, so so all that is necessary is to raise the question whether in going to 14 schools and 7 school divisions, they play 8, 9 or 10.
Those lining up for fewer games have no substantial difference in 8 or 9 ~ trading off a second level Home and Home OOC for a conference Home and Home is at worst a wash, possibly an upgrade since conference record is on the line. So put the question of 8, 9 or 10 on the agenda, and it quickly becomes 9v10 on its own.
LikeLike
I was thinking about this when I read the article as well, and I thought the proposed B1GW teams will likely push to keep MSU and Michigan in the same division. This would eliminate protected cross-overs for Michigan and give the western teams more chances to play Michigan. Purdue would have the protected rivalry game with Indiana, so Indiana would have less exposure to the western teams at the expense of more exposure to Purdue. This scenario would still guarantee MSU plays in Chicago once every four years (once per class).
LikeLike
Conversely, the eastern school may well push to send MSU west in an attempt to give some balance to the divisions.
LikeLike
@ Brian,
That may be true, but I guess my thinking is that the benefit/demand for more access to Michigan by the B1GW schools would outweight any perceived difference in strength between MSU and Purdue (assuming the decision is between Purdue and MSU going west).
For non-king B1G schools, records/relative strength can vary significantly in a short amount of time. Ten years ago, Purdue would have been considered a stronger football program than MSU, so I’m not sure there’s a strong case to be made for sending MSU west based on competitive balance. Will B1G ADs feel the same way?
LikeLike
Quacs,
“That may be true, but I guess my thinking is that the benefit/demand for more access to Michigan by the B1GW schools would outweight any perceived difference in strength between MSU and Purdue (assuming the decision is between Purdue and MSU going west).”
1. MSU wants to go west and PU doesn’t (as far as I know).
2. MSU is a much better program now than PU.
3. With 9 games, they still get MI twice every 12 years.
4. Less MI also means more OSU and PSU (twice every 6 years instead of every 7, essentially).
5. Net result is 7/9 (0.78) of an eastern king annually versus 6/7 (0.86) if MSU is in the east. That’s 1 less king game every 12 years, roughly.
6. But PSU isn’t MI, you say. Well, they’d only get 1 fewer game against OSU and MI every 10 years.
7. As I showed elsewhere, MSU in the west does provide better balance.
8. MSU in the west also provides better brand balance.
LikeLike
@ Brian – here’s my response “Brian style”-
1. MSU wants to go west and PU doesn’t (as far as I know).
>I agree that MSU wants to go west, but I bet PU also wants to go west too, especially if they keep their IU rivalry protected and maintain the ND game (which could buffer losing some eastern king appearances with the IU crossover). Have you seen anyone from PU say they would rather go east? I would expect PU would want to go west for the same reasons MSU does.
2. MSU is a much better program now than PU.
>Delany and B1G PTB have consistently said these are long term decisions, not ones based on the immediate past. MSU has only been significantly better over the last 3-4 years.
3. With 9 games, they still get MI twice every 12 years.
> That’s not a lot. I would bet every B1GW team would rather play Michigan more often.
4. Less MI also means more OSU and PSU (twice every 6 years instead of every 7, essentially).
> As you say below, playing PSU isn’t nearly the same as playing Michigan – not nearly as appealing or lucrative for B1GW teams.
5. Net result is 7/9 (0.78) of an eastern king annually versus 6/7 (0.86) if MSU is in the east. That’s 1 less king game every 12 years, roughly.
> So, not only do B1GW teams play fewer kings, but a higher frequency of PSU and less Michigan? That’s even less appealing for all 6 B1GW teams.
6. But PSU isn’t MI, you say. Well, they’d only get 1 fewer game against OSU and MI every 10 years.
> See above.
7. As I showed elsewhere, MSU in the west does provide better balance.
> I believe you took a sample of win/loss records over a ten year timeframe. If we look at the last fifteen years, we can see PU has made more bowls, and had more Rose Bowl appearances than MSU. I don’t think the two programs are much different strength-wise, especially when taking a longer term view of both teams. I think anyone that says MSU is a significantly better football program than PU is clouded by recency bias.
8. MSU in the west also provides better brand balance.
> I lukewarmly agree with this, but only because of MSU’s basketball success, not because MSU’s perceived strength as a football program. I still think MSU and PU are very close on the Q-score spectrum, but this is meaningless anyway since brand balance is not a criterion the PTB have claimed they will use to select divisions.
MSU going west is better for MSU, but worse for six other schools, and arguably for Purdue as well. Will the B1G PTB cave for MSU if the other six or seven schools express their preference for MSU in the east, especially when MSU going east still gives them games against NU just about once for each class? What if NU agreed to have MSU as a protected rival – that would satisfy MSU’s two top preferences in division realignment without sacrificing the others access to Michigan. I’m not sure NU would go for that, but the point is there are other ways to satisfy MSU’s Chicago love and still keep them east.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“I agree that MSU wants to go west, but I bet PU also wants to go west too,”
Based on what?
“especially if they keep their IU rivalry protected”
Obviously that’s a condition for wherever they go.
“and maintain the ND game”
That’s not going anywhere.
“(which could buffer losing some eastern king appearances with the IU crossover).”
But they can go east and get those OSU and MI games, too.
“Have you seen anyone from PU say they would rather go east?”
Have you seen anyone from PU say they would rather go west?
“I would expect PU would want to go west for the same reasons MSU does.”
NW means nothing special to PU and PU isn’t trying to get out from under the shadow of IN. MSU will play MI annually regardless but that game is huge for PU. So is OSU.
“Delany and B1G PTB have consistently said these are long term decisions, not ones based on the immediate past. MSU has only been significantly better over the last 3-4 years.”
MSU is better over the past 5, 10 and 20 years. It’s been a bigger gap lately, but the gap has been there over the long haul, too. That doesn’t mean PU can’t catch up, but their ceiling is lower.
“That’s not a lot. I would bet every B1GW team would rather play Michigan more often.”
And yet they all seem OK putting OSU and MI and PSU all in the east. They can’t have it both ways.
“6. But PSU isn’t MI, you say. Well, they’d only get 1 fewer game against OSU and MI every 10 years.
> See above.”
Your above complained that PSU wasn’t MI. Here I removed PSU from the equation. 1 game every 10 years is not a valid complaint.
“I believe you took a sample of win/loss records over a ten year timeframe. If we look at the last fifteen years, we can see PU has made more bowls, and had more Rose Bowl appearances than MSU.”
MSU has a significantly better B10 record over the past 5, 10 and 20 years. 15 years cherry picks when they were basically equal (PU was up and MSU was down in years 11-15).
“I don’t think the two programs are much different strength-wise, especially when taking a longer term view of both teams.”
I do. MSU has been the bigger brand for a long time. Stadium size is indicative of their relative status.
“I think anyone that says MSU is a significantly better football program than PU is clouded by recency bias.”
Or isn’t clouded by liking PU. MSU is a top 30 program all-time in W%, PU is top 60 (28 vs 58). It’s #30 vs #44 if you look at total Ws. MSU has national titles and PU doesn’t.
“I still think MSU and PU are very close on the Q-score spectrum,”
Maybe in IN.
“but this is meaningless anyway since brand balance is not a criterion the PTB have claimed they will use to select divisions.”
They don’t have to say it. They did it last time. It’s part of balance which is still #2 on their list.
“MSU going west is better for MSU, but worse for six other schools, and arguably for Purdue as well.”
WI is really the only school it is notably worse for, and they want to play MSU more. There are miniscule differences for the rest.
“Will the B1G PTB cave for MSU if the other six or seven schools express their preference for MSU in the east,”
Is it caving if half the schools feel one way and half the other? MSU wants the west and PU hasn’t said they don’t want the east. That’s enough reason right there to do it.
“What if NU agreed to have MSU as a protected rival – that would satisfy MSU’s two top preferences in division realignment without sacrificing the others access to Michigan.”
If that happened, then MI/MN would also get locked and everyone would play MI less anyway.
LikeLike
Regarding the relative strength of Purdue vs MSU (conference winning % in 5 year increments from 1940 onward)…
LikeLike
That graphic from Scarlet_lutefisk above shows that over the last 30-40 years, there hasn’t been a major difference in conf winning percentage between the two schools. The graphic doesn’t cherry pick years – the “best fit curves” merge around 1975 and are almost the same down to present day.
I *speculate* that Purdue wants to go west for the some of the same reasons MSU does – maintaining active recruiting channels in Chicago (for both students and athletes), and once PSU returns to prominence, having fewer kings in the division to compete with on a yearly basis, especially with ND on their yearly schedule. That’s not unreasonable or necessarily incorrect, and I don’t need to prove anything – I freely admit I’m speculating. Also, NU doesn’t mean any more or less to MSU than it does to PU as you infer in your response – MSU just wants to maintain access to Chicago.
Moving MSU west and instituting a UM/MSU crossover creates an imbalance for B1GW’s access to B1GE schools. Sure, you can backfill gaps created from the UM/MSU crossover w/ OSU and PSU, but I still think B1GW schools would prefer equal access to all B1GE programs rather than more of one and less of another. This is a league that trumpets equality as one of its core strengths. I know that the division format creates an imbalanced schedule by its very nature, but why exacerbate this imbalance for B1GW schools and their access to UM, a very important program for all of the B1GW teams? This would be benefit MSU, but cost six B1GW schools. You can believe those costs are insignificant, I just don’t happen to agree.
Also, it’s not unreasonable to believe B1GW schools accepted PSU, OSU and UM in the same division while requesting that MSU be placed in the east to maintain a more balanced schedule. This is the essence of compromise, not “having it both ways” as you state. It’s not a hypocritical stance to give and take during this process.
I couldn’t care less where Purdue ends up – I have no dog in that fight – and I don’t like Purdue any more than I like MSU. I just think that recency bias skews a lot of people’s opinion of the relative strengths of MSU and PU, and it looks to me like Scarlet’s graphic bears that out.
LikeLike
I’ll split the baby here. I agree with Brian that MSU is a better long- and short-term brand than Purdue. But it’s not so dramatically better that it would tilt the decision, unless the other factors are tied.
We can all enumerate the other factors at play. How the B1G ADs would weigh them is not so clear. The Legends/Leaders split wasn’t very popular; so obviously, the way the ADs think is not always aligned with the way the fans think.
I suspect that the negotiation in the room is a delicate dance. Iowa can say, “We want to play Nebraska every year,” and it is uncontroversial. But access to Chicago is useful to many teams, not just MSU. So if Mark Hollis says, “I’d like to be in the west, so that we can play in Chicago every other year,” 13 other guys might say they want the same thing. If he insinuates that he wants to be in the west because the schedule will be easier, he won’t get a lot of sympathy for that either. ADs have to at least put up a show of thinking on behalf of the whole league.
For the record, Illinois is Purdue’s second most-played rivalry, behind Indiana, and ahead of even Notre Dame, so perhaps they’d want to keep that. Michigan State is Northwestern’s least-often-played Big Ten rivalry (mainly because the Spartans joined the league much later than the other pre-Penn State schools).
So I don’t think there is any particular history to the Michigan State-Northwestern rivalry, other than the Spartans simply wanting it for their own benefit. There’s nothing wrong with a little selfishness, at times, but I doubt it will prevail unless it’s what the ADs already want, for better reasons.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“That graphic from Scarlet_lutefisk above shows that over the last 30-40 years, there hasn’t been a major difference in conf winning percentage between the two schools. The graphic doesn’t cherry pick years – the “best fit curves” merge around 1975 and are almost the same down to present day.”
And the huge gap before that shows why MSU is a bigger brand.
“I *speculate* that Purdue wants to go west for the some of the same reasons MSU does – maintaining active recruiting channels in Chicago (for both students and athletes),”
PU is much closer to Chicago, plus they have a smaller fraction of their alumni in Chicago IIRC. Still, you are welcome to speculate, of course. The difference is that we have evidence that MSU wants to go west.
“and once PSU returns to prominence, having fewer kings in the division to compete with on a yearly basis, especially with ND on their yearly schedule.”
MSU has NEVER said that fear of tougher teams is why they want to go west. That’s also speculation by you, and goes against what some of their fans have said. It also goes against the math which says it wouldn’t make a huge difference.
“Also, NU doesn’t mean any more or less to MSU than it does to PU as you infer in your response – MSU just wants to maintain access to Chicago.”
Show me all the quotes from Burke about playing NW being PU’s second most important game. Hollis has been saying that for years, and Alvarez has said MSU is campaigning to go west. He could have mentioned PU at the same time, but didn’t.
“Moving MSU west and instituting a UM/MSU crossover creates an imbalance for B1GW’s access to B1GE schools.”
No more so than IN/PU being locked would. It just changes the teams involved.
“Sure, you can backfill gaps created from the UM/MSU crossover w/ OSU and PSU, but I still think B1GW schools would prefer equal access to all B1GE programs rather than more of one and less of another.”
1. Equal access is impossible with a locked game. They’ll have equal access to the other 6, though.
2. PSU is not an equal replacement for MI for some schools, but OSU is pretty equivalent team for all but MN. The increase in OSU games would almost equal the loss of MI games.
“This is a league that trumpets equality as one of its core strengths.”
So that means it shouldn’t matter who goes where. Since MSU wants the west, they should get it unless PU is campaigning just as hard for it.
“I know that the division format creates an imbalanced schedule by its very nature, but why exacerbate this imbalance for B1GW schools and their access to UM, a very important program for all of the B1GW teams?”
WI wants to play MSU more according to their fans. IL prefers OSU to MI slightly, so they get what they want. In addition, all these teams seemed to support sending OSU and MI east knowing that this sort of decision would have to be made.
“Also, it’s not unreasonable to believe B1GW schools accepted PSU, OSU and UM in the same division while requesting that MSU be placed in the east to maintain a more balanced schedule.”
It’s not unreasonable, but none of the leaks support it. They’ve said they agree on sending 3 kings east and are debating where MSU and PU go. If it was conditional on MSU also going east, then the western schools wouldn’t have supported the 6/6 split. That’s not the word we’ve been hearing, though.
“This is the essence of compromise, not “having it both ways” as you state.”
It’s compromise if they made it a condition of agreeing to send OSU and MI east. It’s hypocritical to agree to sending them east and then complain about not playing MI enough when there were 50/50 odds of MI/MSU being locked.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I agree with Brian that MSU is a better long- and short-term brand than Purdue.”
Hah. My plan has worked. I’ve forced you to agree with me on something. The brain washing will now begin.
“But it’s not so dramatically better that it would tilt the decision, unless the other factors are tied.”
I wouldn’t say tied, but close. I agree we’re not talking MI versus IN here.
“So if Mark Hollis says, “I’d like to be in the west, so that we can play in Chicago every other year,” 13 other guys might say they want the same thing.”
I can almost guarantee RU, MD, PSU and OSU wouldn’t make that claim (it certainly wouldn’t be credible), and clearly NW and IL wouldn’t. So at most 7 other guys would say it. Now subtract the obvious western schools (NE, WI, IA, MN) since they’ll clearly get that chance and you’re down to MI, MSU, PU and IN. We know MI is going east with IN, so it becomes just the two. And we know Hollis is saying it but we haven’t heard it from Burke.
“If he insinuates that he wants to be in the west because the schedule will be easier, he won’t get a lot of sympathy for that either.”
Nor should he.
“For the record, Illinois is Purdue’s second most-played rivalry, behind Indiana, and ahead of even Notre Dame, so perhaps they’d want to keep that.”
Yeah, the Purdue cannon has meaning. IL would also like to keep Illibuck. They tend to be the school getting screwed with this setup because they are near the E/W border.
“So I don’t think there is any particular history to the Michigan State-Northwestern rivalry, other than the Spartans simply wanting it for their own benefit. There’s nothing wrong with a little selfishness, at times, but I doubt it will prevail unless it’s what the ADs already want, for better reasons.”
Until we hear that PU also wants it, there’s no reason to deny MSU.
LikeLike
Hah. My plan has worked. I’ve forced you to agree with me on something. The brain washing will now begin.
I agree with you most of the time. I just don’t write a lot of posts to that effect, as there is no point unless I have something different (or additional) to say.
LikeLike
Will they go to ten games because it offers better inventory to the networks and five home/road conference games per year to help competitive balance?
Some of these concerns are more imagined than real. As long as all the teams in a given division have the same number of home/road games, competitive balance is not really an issue.
Moreover, even in the current 8-game structure, most teams play 3 OOC home games, and those are part of the Big Ten inventory anyway, regardless of opponent. Of course, Indiana vs. a BIg Ten team is going to get better ratings than Indiana vs. Ball State or Western Kentucky; but no one forced the Hoosiers to schedule those games; they did that to themselves. And with one less OOC game, what will Indiana drop? Will it drop Ball State (a game it ought to win easily), or will it drop USF (a game it could lose)?
Or do they go with nine games in order to keep at least seven at home each season and increase the probability of more interesting home-and-home matchups outside the B1G region?
Ohio State has said they intend to keep their competitive OOC games, and I believe Michigan will as well. What’s interesting is what the bottom half of the conference will do.
LikeLike
About 90% of me believes that the Big Ten is simply going to 9 conference games, with 10 only being a theoretical discussion point.
The last 10% of me, though, looks at it from the perspective of a school like, well, Illinois. Sure, Ohio State has a nice slate of non-conference games lined up and if Purdue and Michigan State are able to maintain their Notre Dame series long-term (which isn’t necessarily a given since the Irish are giving priority to maintaining the Stanford series above them, much less Navy and USC), then they’ll obviously want to keep those games. For the “masses” of the Big Ten, though, how many non-conference opponents are out there that would be more intriguing (or more bluntly, would sell more tickets) than having more games against Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska? The vast majority of Big Ten schools don’t really play other marquee non-conference opponents – they’re typically schools that are at about the same level of quality or worse (or have some type of historical tie-in like Purdue-ND or Iowa-Iowa State). Maybe Big Ten ADs are starting to ask themselves about whether there’s any point to going through the headache of non-conference scheduling when the schools that your fans want to see and buy tickets for are located in your very own conference. Once again, a school like Ohio State or Michigan that can sell 100,000-plus seats whether they’re playing a MAC opponent or Notre Dame won’t necessarily think of it from that angle, but I’m sure the Illinois/Indiana/Northwestern/Minnesota-types that have to work to sell tickets (and aren’t as concerned about having a pristine on-the-field record to compete for a national championship) have a different perspective.
LikeLike
@Frank-
I’m of roughly the same mind you are right now concerning the nine v. ten game conference game discussion. I have to think that the athletic directors are going to be a bit conservative here in their thinking and put themselves in a situation where they can more readily schedule seven home game per year, which means nine conference games. It may just be an interim measure at this point to be implemented in 2016 because the conference may have 16 or more members by then.
But with the cost of pay for play non conference opponents going up and given some of the revenue figures that have been tossed around regarding annual conference distributions being buttressed by post-season and television revenue, I could also really see them considering a ten-game conference model as well.
If nothing else changed, a ten-game conference schedule with fourteen total teams could mean a 6-1-3 setup that would accomplish Delany’s stated goal of having the conference teams play one another as much as possible. With this setup, every team would play the other at least twice over a four year period.
I do agree with you that schools do vary in their practices concerning non-conference game scheduling. For some, it’s a path to get enough victories to get to a bowl game. For others, it’s a way to showcase their program on a large stage and to be in the post-season discussion for the BCS or in a few years, the four-team playoff.
One of the takeways I had from some of the articles written about the division split in the Big Ten is that the athletic directors really seem to value having their division opponents within a reasonable driving distance of one another. I suspect their thinking is that if I have to sell tickets for a less than stellar opponent’s game, it makes sense to be more accessible to that other team’s fans so they fill up the seats. That’s one of the reasons why I never thought that inner-outer division alignment wouldn’t work and it’s also one of the reasons why I suspect Northwestern was not interested in going to the east division (per the ChiTrib).
What do you think would be the fallout if the Big Ten was an “early adapter” of a ten-game conference schedule? Would other conferences follow the B1G’s lead (SEC, ACC)? Would it be a clear signal that the B1G intends to expand? Would schools be willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven home games in order to have at least one compelling non-conference game per year or would this kill off major inter-conference play? And if the B1G does have conference games in the first three weeks of September on a regular basis, what does that do to the non-conference schedule? I don’t think programs would be willing to play a major opponent late in the season in the midst of conference play.
LikeLike
What do you think would be the fallout if the Big Ten was an “early adapter” of a ten-game conference schedule? Would other conferences follow the B1G’s lead (SEC, ACC)?
The other conferences would send Jim Delany a thank-you card for making their playoff access easier, and the Big Ten’s harder.
Would it be a clear signal that the B1G intends to expand?
They already signaled that anyway.
Would schools be willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven home games in order to have at least one compelling non-conference game per year or would this kill off major inter-conference play?
I think the lower half of the Big Ten will stop scheduling competitive OOC opponents.
And if the B1G does have conference games in the first three weeks of September on a regular basis, what does that do to the non-conference schedule? I don’t think programs would be willing to play a major opponent late in the season in the midst of conference play.
I think you’re right about this: the marquee OOC matchups will continue to be in September. I don’t think any conference schedules those games after October 1, aside from traditional rivalries and games against independents.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd-
It’s interesting that you say a ten-game Big Ten Conference schedule would make access to the four-team playoff easier for other conferences? Why would that be the case? If B1G teams opted to swap out a difficult non-conference opponent for a difficult conference opponent, it’s really a no change situation. Mind you, we also don’t know the exact parameters the committee will use for choosing these four teams, but being a conference champion and strength of schedule are supposedly part of it.
As far as B1G expansion goes and clear signals, I’d say they’re still a bit murky at this point. Are the ADs saying they could see a larger conference? Absolutely. I even think it will happen as well. But there’s been no definitive statement from Delany that this is absolutely our plan. But the adoption of a ten-game schedule would definitely be another tell about where the conference is going.
I do agree with you that the lower half of the conference will stop scheduling any comparable or major non-conference opponents. Getting into a bowl game is key–just look at what Minnesota just did with their schedule. Also, if the marquee non-conference games are going to be played earlier in the year, then I imagine the early B1G matchups (in the first three weeks of September) aren’t gong to be between the major programs. You”ll see Ohio State-Indiana or Michigan-Minnesota as possibilities more than, say Michigan-Wisconsin or Ohio State-Nebraska.
Assuming Michigan State does go to the west and is Michigan’s protected rival, that means UM would play some combination of three of the following schools in a ten game schedule: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois. If the B1G were to break this up, it’d be Neb-NW-Minn for two years, then Wis-IA-IL for the other two years. Given those options, I could see the Wolverines playing Minnesota or Illinois earlier in the season than Iowa, Northwestern, Nebraska or Wisconsin.
LikeLike
@cutter: It’s interesting that you say a ten-game Big Ten Conference schedule would make access to the four-team playoff easier for other conferences? Why would that be the case? If B1G teams opted to swap out a difficult non-conference opponent for a difficult conference opponent, it’s really a no change situation.
Ohio State says that they intend to play one major OOC opponent every year. I assume Michigan and Nebraska will do the same: they have certainly scheduled the games, out to 2020 and beyond.
If there are ten conference games, that would give the “kings” — the schools more likely to win the conference in most years — eleven games against major-conference opponents. It would also give them six road games at least half the time.
Compare that to the status quo, where these schools seldom play more than nine or ten major-conference opponents (sometimes only eight), and seldom more than five road games (sometimes only four).
I think it’s fairly apparent that this system will more frequently produce a Big Ten champion with multiple losses, who would probably not be ranked in the top four, and would therefore probably not make the playoff.
Jim Delany, of course, was anti-playoff for years, and that the Rose Bowl was his top priority. The idea of a ten-game conference schedule is quite consistent with that, as the B1G’s Rose Bowl deal does not require the conference champion to be a great team; it only requires them to win the conference somehow.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
I read Gene Smith’s comments about wanting to have Ohio State continue playing at least one major non-conference opponent per year, so I assume he’d be willing to do that even with a ten-game conference schedule.
But let’s say Frank is right and Michigan State does go to the west. Ohio State is looking at playing Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue and a depleted Penn State in the near future. That’s not exactly Murder’s Row with the onlly real opposition in the division being Michigan.
Let’s make Ohio State’s protected cross divisional game Illinois because of the Illinibuck. So that means OSU would have its other contests with three of the following–Wisconsin, Nebraska, Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa and Minnesota. By our definitions, one of those teams is a “king” in Nebraska.
So you have a schedule with one king annually (Michigan), one depleted king (Penn State) and and a third king semi-annually (Nebraska). Then you add one major non-conference opponent to that list. On the top end, that’s actually a pretty typical Ohio State schedule. Where the difference is might be the bottom side.
For example, OSU’s 2012 opponents were Miami (Ohio), Central Florida, California (home-and-home) and Alabama-Birmingham. In a ten-game conference schedule for OSU, Cal and one of those three other teams would be on it. The two dropped teams (let’s say UCF and UAB) would have been replaced by some combination of Maryland/Rutgers and/or a team from the west division. I don’t see that as a major strength of schedule upgrade for Ohio State.
You could make the same sort of argument for Michigan or Nebraska, but I think the larger point is that a ten-game conference schedule only gets appreciably more difficult if you add high quality programs to your conference. If Florida State and Notre Dame were #13 and #14 on the list instead of Maryland and Rutgers, then I would agree with your point. The B1G would have six major program “kings” out of 14 instead of the four out of fourteen that we have now.
We’ll see what happens. I think we’re both agreed that if the Big Ten does opt to play conference games during the first three weeks of September, then the major non-conference opponents would only be played in that same time frame. It might be a little tougher to match up a date with a major opponent if there is only one slot available in September. It’s not impossible, but it may be a bit more difficult.
That leaves me with one more thought. One reason why the Big Ten might go to a ten-game conference schedule earlier rather than later is that it allows the athletic directors more time to plan ahead and to get their non-conference games in place. If they go to nine and leave the possibility of ten in the future, It could make their jobs a bit tricky. To be frank, that’s not the most compelling reason to go to ten conference games, but it’s just a thought.
How far out do you think the conference will release its schedules this spring? Will they only go for 2014/5 or will the extend it out a few more years beyond that?
LikeLike
@cutter: If OSU goes from eight home games to six, and they replace UCF/UAB with two Big Ten teams, you don’t think the schedule gets harder? Remember, they’re making a decision that’s going to have a long tail; Penn State won’t be under sanctions forever.
One reason why the Big Ten might go to a ten-game conference schedule earlier rather than later is that it allows the athletic directors more time to plan ahead and to get their non-conference games in place.
All they’d do is pick a date well into the future, and say: “Don’t schedule more than two games past this year.”
LikeLike
@ Frank ~ I reckon the lineup is both ends against the middle, the big stadium schools and those at the very bottom who want three cupcakes to have a better chance a going bowling against the middle, with those who have an annual Home and Home OOC series making the balance likely to tilt to 9 games.
LikeLike
cutter,
“But with the cost of pay for play non conference opponents going up and given some of the revenue figures that have been tossed around regarding annual conference distributions being buttressed by post-season and television revenue, I could also really see them considering a ten-game conference model as well.”
The big schools still make a huge profit off a home game after paying the other team.
“What do you think would be the fallout if the Big Ten was an “early adapter” of a ten-game conference schedule?”
Everyone else would point and laugh.
“Would other conferences follow the B1G’s lead (SEC, ACC)?”
Of course not. Who rushed to join the P12 at 9 games?
“Would schools be willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven home games in order to have at least one compelling non-conference game per year or would this kill off major inter-conference play?”
I think it would largely kill off good OOC games. Gene Smith says OSU would keep playing them, but I hope the accountants would tell him otherwise. There is talk of the B10 making schools whole for not having a 7th home game (maybe drop gate sharing), but they can’t replace the loss of fan interest from fewer home games.
“And if the B1G does have conference games in the first three weeks of September on a regular basis, what does that do to the non-conference schedule?”
It screws them up. You’ll have to buy the games later in the year, because no AQ coach will accept a road OOC game in November.
LikeLike
cutter,
Regarding SOS:
1. Road games are harder than home games.
2. Conference games are harder than OOC games because the opponent knows your style and your personnel so well. That’s why lesser teams can pull upsets in conference but rarely do OOC.
3. Assume the extra games are against 2 median B10 teams. For 2012, median in the B10 was #32 in Sagarin. That would be #3 in the ACC, #2 in the BE, #6 in the B12 and P12, #9 in the SEC and #1 in all non-AQs. That doesn’t leave many OOC options that are the same or better than 2 median B10 teams. In other words, adding 2 B10 games makes the scheduler harder.
Going to 10 games means more losses. Until they prove otherwise, it’s hard to believe they’ll reward a tougher schedule with 2 more losses, especially when part of the difficulty comes from location rather than opponent. Maybe you get by with 1 more loss, but the B10’s bad reputation won’t help there either. In essence, the B10 will lose more often and miss out on playoff spots because of it. Both of those things will reinforce the B10’s bad reputation, leading to more missed spots.
LikeLike
For my post above, assuming a 9 game league slate with the current 14 teams. 10 games would give MSU more access to Chicago.
LikeLike
Yes, mathematically that’s true. The question is whether the other 13 members would agree to play 10 games (unless they already want that anyway), just to do MSU a favor.
LikeLike
@cutter – I don’t really know if 10 conference games necessarily impacts TV inventory that much. This is probably more of a “ground game” concern for the schools – the plebeians of the Big Ten might be coming to the conclusion that they’d rather trade 1 or even 2 non-conference games in exchange for playing Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska more often. As much as we talk about TV revenue here, game day ticket sales are still the driving force behind athletic department finances.
It’s good to see all the comments coming out of the Big Ten that geography is going to be priority #1 in creating the new divisions. My gut feeling is that Michigan State will end up in the West and everyone will have a permanent cross-division rival like they do now. Whether it’s going to actually be true on the field or not, the perception is going to be that the East has the power with Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State (despite the likelihood of PSU being weak compared to the other 2 until the effect of their sanctions have run their course). Putting Michigan State in the West and keeping both Indiana and Purdue in the East mitigates that perception a bit.
LikeLike
@Frank – I could make arguments both ways about where Michigan State is going to end up. I just don’t know what the Big Ten athletic directors will think about the eastern division having Michigan and Ohio State along with a depleted Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue and Indiana. While we acknowledge that PSU has been a historic king, the perception of that program given its well publicized problems and the division itself may be that it’s not as competitive as it should be and that MSU should be in place of PU.
One thing I found looking at Michigan’s past budgets is that annual conference disbursements (which include television revenue) have been a growing piece of the revenue pie relative to all other sources, including ticket sales. If the conference is really looking at disbursements of $43M by 2017, that could well means that most of the budget of the B1G schools is covered by that revenue source and not tickets sold to the general public. That said, I’m sure they’re looking at what having fewer home games would mean to donations, PSLs, etc. as well.
We’ll see what happens. I do think they’ll adapt a nine-game conference schedule for 2016 and publish it with the disclaimer that it’s subject to change. 2014/5 will stick at eight games because of the existing non-conference games already scheduled. And if the conference adds two or four more members, we’ll toss all this out the window. 🙂
LikeLike
Frank, the idea of putting Michigan St in the West, might create three no votes (Michigan, Michigan State & Minnesota (No annual game vs Michigan)). I hate to admit it, but as far as Penn State is concerned, a number of possible schools in the West do not care if they play my Nittany Lions or not (Guess why Indiana moved their home game to Maryland?), which is quite different than Michigan & Ohio State (Sickening to admit this). You can apply that to Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State, Minnesota and of course, the Hoosiers, so they will not exactly cry if Penn State is not on their Schedule (Unless it is expressing regret over not having a guaranteed win in basketball). The sad thing is at Penn State we care zero about College Basketball (Sort of like Football at Bloomington, Indiana). How bad is it? A Wrestling match at the Rec Center has better attendance than a hoops game at the Jordan Center, and our attendance in Hockey is far superior as well.
LikeLike
@ Frank: One of the interesting thing is what it will mean for the mid-tier Big East / Mountain West teams. If the B1G is going to play only two non-conference games schools like Purdue will not schedule Cincinnati or Marshall in the future. That’s too big a risk for a loss. They will make sure they play Eastern Michigan or similar directional from the MAC and Eastern Kentucky or some similar 1-AA school. This will starve schools like Cincinnati and Houston from some of the money they need since they are only getting $2,000,000 from their Big East contract. There is virtually no chance that a school like Purdue will ever actually play at Cincinnati or Toledo again. This will put tremendous strain on the budgets of the Big East schools since they have a national footprint and will have insane travel costs wtihout the revenue to support those costs.. Are we on the path to have a more pronounced tier of schools between 1-A and 1-AA whose teams for economic reasons are going to have to organize regionally. Does it make more sense for Cincinnati to be in the MAC with Miami, Toledo and Ohio where they will have the same access to the major bowls that they have in the Big East? Does it make more sense for SMU and Houston to return to a conference with Rice, Tulsa and UTEP for the same reason. You may have national mega-conferences and a return to tier-2 regional conferences. Those conferences won’t have national television deals but they will provide important regional programming.
LikeLike
@Otts: The folks at Cincinnati think they and/or UConn have the next ticket up to the Big Leagues, as soon as the ACC loses two more teams—which everyone expects will happen. Even after the current round of re-alignment, the Big East has a considerably better reputation than the MAC. For a school like Cincinnati, stepping down to the MAC would amount to capitulation. I doubt that the travel costs are onerous enough to justify taking such a huge step down.
Besides that, if you look at Cincinnati’s past and future schedules, they are not hugely dependent on getting games with the Big Ten. At most, it’s one game a year, which they can easily replace in other ways.
LikeLike
@Otts ~ all SMU and Houston have to do to get one or more of Tulsa, Rice and UTEP is to wait for a bit. They are not likely to play four seasons without one or more of those three in the NuBigEast.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I just don’t know what the Big Ten athletic directors will think about the eastern division having Michigan and Ohio State along with a depleted Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue and Indiana.”
1. The new divisions start in 2014
2. The 9th game starts in 2016 or so (automatically helps with balance)
3. PSU should be near full strength by 2018
PSU won’t be down for long in the new setup. It would be silly to make a major decision like this based on 4 years of PSU down an unknown amount. PSU was better than many thought they’d be this year.
Also, there’s no reason not to expect RU to be a midpack B10 team to start. Much like NW, they aren’t what we all remember them as. Now that they are in a real conference, they might reasonably be expected to improve, too. Purdue should solidify under Hazell. I don’t know where MD will fit in, but they must have bottomed out under Edsall.
“One thing I found looking at Michigan’s past budgets is that annual conference disbursements (which include television revenue) have been a growing piece of the revenue pie relative to all other sources, including ticket sales. If the conference is really looking at disbursements of $43M by 2017, that could well means that most of the budget of the B1G schools is covered by that revenue source and not tickets sold to the general public. That said, I’m sure they’re looking at what having fewer home games would mean to donations, PSLs, etc. as well.”
Yes, TV money is rapidly catching up to ticket sales. It’ll pass it for the smaller school if it hasn’t already, but the big boys should still make more from tickets for a while. OSU should be making $42-50M in ticket sales in the next few years.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I hate to admit it, but as far as Penn State is concerned, a number of possible schools in the West do not care if they play my Nittany Lions or not (Guess why Indiana moved their home game to Maryland?), which is quite different than Michigan & Ohio State (Sickening to admit this).”
Why is it sickening? Doesn’t PSU prefer to play eastern rivals to IN or MN? Why wouldn’t those feelings go both ways? Don’t you prefer your lifelong friends to new acquaintances?
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten will be offered a similar ABC-Fox plan as the Big 12 got.
LikeLike
I think FOX will be VERY interested in getting valuable B1G rights whenever available, to help propel FS1+2 distribution across the board, to create synergies with BTN and to weaken ESPN in order to access some of the money the WWL charges carriers.
When the Pac-12 and Big XII deals were negotiated, FOX’s main need was to create a strong CFB package for their broadcast network (which IMHO they did; actually, add on a few marquee B1G games a year and they would be stronger than ABC especially on Saturday nights).
Plus, FOX didn’t have a national sports net (or two) to sell like they do now. IIRC, B1G is the Conference with more population across its footprint.
LikeLike
The split will be far worse for the football side of the Big East, which is reportedly looking at a best-case offer from NBC
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/21427455
Another shining moment for the IOC. Wrestling has been dropped from the 2020 games for consideration between Wushu, Sport Climbing, and Roller Sports.
I can’t say I’m the biggest wrestling fan, but how can they justify dropping one of the ancient sports over things like Dressage. It’s just asinine.
LikeLike
Unbelievable.
Its best for the Olympics to drop a sport done pretty much around the globe in favor of obscure sports? One of the sports from the ancient Greek Olympics? And its a sport that can be done by people of different sizes without access to a lot of money and equipment. Maybe Nike isn’t paying enough sponsorship money.
LikeLike
If you follow wrestling you know that it has been under siege by the IOC for two decades. Beginning with reducing the number of wt classes from 10 to 8, then 7. Insisting on reducing match duration, weight class must be decided in 1 day, qualifiers to limit entrants, and in 2004 the complete alteration of the rules turning it into a hybrid tennis (2 out of 3 rounds regardless of total score), sumo (stepping out of bounds scores same as a takedown or 1 pt exposure),and lottery (scoreless period results in random draw to create wrestling from a position that neither contestant could achieve on their own, and 90% of time draw winner scores from). All this was decided by TV, marketing reps, IOC governance, advertising reps, but no one involved in the sport until they were told to take it, or risk exclusion from the Olympic$.
Should have retained the integrity of the sport and been excluded, rather than unrecognizably bastardize the sport – and get excluded anyway. Backlash in the US may be very muted as many, like me, have stopped following the international styles in anything other than a passing way inspire of being involved with wrestling since 1965.
Big lesson: market your sport. But do not alter the sport in order to market it, certainly not at the dictate of not invested commercial enterprise! You may lose some income, or more, but you retain your soul.
LikeLike
I thought that two out of three rounds was odd this last time and wondered why that had changed.
LikeLike
It’s totally a fabricated “competition”. Nothing against the competitors or coaches, they are just playing the cards they were dealt. But when you can win a match without scoring (and the opponent has)? Or win a round in spite of trailing? Best thing for wrestling may be to get away from the IOC and rebuild as an actual competitive sport. I’ve advocated that since they began reducing the number of wt classes.
LikeLike
They should ask to be moved to the Winter Olympics. The Winter Olympics would get more participating countries, and the IOC in return could allow it to return to being a wrestling competition.
LikeLike
It’s probably a matter of not “contributing” enough to the “right” people.
http://tracking.si.com/2013/02/12/ioc-drops-wrestling-from-2020-olympics/
LikeLike
I’ve been advocating for a while now that the Summer Olympics (which are now gigantic) should be split in to a Summer Olympics and Indoor Olympics. The Indoor Olympics would actually have some of the most popular sports (gymnastics & swimming as well as wrestling, boxing, basketball, & volleyball) while the Summer Olympics would feature sports that take place outdoors (track is the big one). Baseball can be brought back as well.
4 year cycle for all 3:
Year 1 Summer: Indoor Olympics
Year 2 Summer: Summer Olympics
Year 4 Jan: Winter Olympics
The Olympics would take place every 1 to 1.5 years (exciting sponsors) but the 4 year cycle would remain for all sports.
There are a ton of reasons to do this: Besides allowing more sports, it would allow the Summer Olympics to always take place in the same part of the year (NBC would much prefer always July/August, after the NBA and NHL end but before football starts), yet southern hemisphere countries like Australia could still host the Indoor Olympics in what for them is the dead of winter.
LikeLike
This sounds like a great idea. It would also be nice if NBC showed some competition at the Olympics instead of all the human “interest” stories.
LikeLike
Or four ~ the team olympics, for sports with teams of more than four people, indoor, outdoor summer, outdoor winter.
But it could go a way in that direction if they moved some gymnasium sports to winter. Which ones would move would be drive, of course, by ratings. Gymnastics would stay in summer, but if they decided that the rating for wrestling and proper volleyball didn’t draw the ratings for the Summer Olympics, move it to the Winter Olympics.
LikeLike
Going to 3 Olympics sounds fine, although you shouldn’t separate between ‘indoor’ and ‘outdoor’. Call them ‘Alpha Olympics’ and ‘Omega Olympics’, or whatever.
The reason the IOC tries to cut sports when it adds new ones is it wants to keep the costs from growing too much larger for host cities. Oftentimes the cities have problems finding uses for all the facilities they build for summer games, leading to little used facilities that cost a lot to build and then cost a lot to maintain.
So you’d want to split the outdoor and indoor summer events between the 2 Summer Olympics; every large city can use some outdoor stadia and indoor arenas . Afterwards, some of those can be re-purposed to appropriate venues if necessary. If a Berlin Olympics hosts a summer Olympics that has baseball but not soccer, that baseball park can be built to be re-shaped into a soccer stadium after the Olympics.
Shifting events between summer and winter Olympics is also a good idea. I know the NHL hates having Olympic hockey in the middle of their season, so that can move to one of the Summer events even as some summer events go to the Winter games.
LikeLike
M(ag)H
Except that people will have trouble remebering what events are in which. Indoor/Outside is a simple split.
Also, it would allow southern hemisphere countries like Australia to host one of them in their dead of winter.
LikeLike
FtT: great article.
As you all know, I have commented many times about the street fight going on between FOX and ESPIN. I had not yet processed the reports that FOX approached the C7 before they split off. And now add the “news” (to me) that the Big East “inventory” was ESpin “inventory”, it is clear that this was a very nimble move by FOX. FOX picked up 2 CFB and 10-12 Bball “properties” and denied these to ESpin.
And the fact that FOX is “overpaying” seems, IMO, yet more proof that the networks and conferences are playing long-term strategies here. They are spending $$ now to accomplish 20-year goals. ESpin spent a lot of $$ on the LHN to keep the BXII intact and keep some of that “inventory” with ESpin; FOX spent $$ to hasten the end of the Big East and get some Bball inventory to enhance the long-term viability of FoxSports 1 and 2 and to diminish the value of other Big East “properties” “owned” by ESpin; the B1G may go to 10 conference games and take less $$ short-term to accomplish longer-term goals of conference cohesion.
I think it is also worth noting the zero-sum nature of CFB and Bball from the networks’ collective perspectives. As FOX grows, it grows at the expense of ESpin. This last move took 12-14 “properties” from Espin. There are only a finite number of “properties.”
By contrast, this also shows (again) the brilliance of Delany and the BTN. The BTN is not playing a zero-sum strategy. They are trying to expand the “pie” by finding cable-tv “value” in what ESpin can’t/doesn’t want to broadcast (that is, the “body bag” football games, olympic sports, hockey, lax. etc.). And slowly, that additive strategy is working.
Frank, my only criticism is the photo. This is NOT conspiracy theory and tin-foil hat terrain. This is straight-forward hard-nosed business. To the networks, teams are “properties” and “inventory” and the goal is to get as many “properties” under contract as you can and to deny as many as possible to the opposition. I don’t think there is any question the networks are influencing and manipulating conference realignment/consolidation.
Delany understands. Proof is the B1G’s no-apologies in-the-dark-of-night hostile take-over of cash-strapped Maryland. This not conspiracy theory; this is what the networks and the powers conferences are DOING.
LikeLike
You might note that it was Fox, not ESPN, that saved the Big 12. ESPN promised not to cut the contract. Fox delivered a new contract 450% higher than the old one. ESPN’s LHN deal was a little further down the road. That deal wasn’t until January 2011.
LikeLike
hmm… interesting. I’ll just ignore that. Why let facts get in the way of a good story. LOL
In all seriousness, that is interesting. Wonder what the FOX strategy was there? Why would FOX be interested in keeping the BXII alive?
LikeLike
Because even though Fox has part of the Pac-12 deal, a Pac-16 with Texas/OU is far more expensive per team.
It’s in the interests of both Fox and ESPN to keep Texas/OU separate from the Pac-12 because they already pay for both conferences. They don’t want to pay another level of magnitude more for those 16 teams.
And Fox has regional deals with plenty of the Big 12 teams for Tier 3 rights that helps fill their regional sports programming.
LikeLike
They didn’t “overpay.” They paid a fair price. And they got inventory. Noone knew who would win the Pac contract. It was later Fox and ESPN got together to thwart NBC.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — How FOX (Not ESPN) Killed Off the Big East For Good | Atlantic Coast Convos
Pingback: Conference Realignment–ACC Needs to be Wary of History Repeating Itself | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
🙂
LikeLike
Pretty dumb comment by dodds.
Top 3 out of the last 6 seasons for Mizzou
12-2
10-3
10-4
Bottom 3 out of the last 6 seasons for Texas
5-7
8-5
9-4
And in Basketbal Mizzou has been significantly better than Texas for a while now.
In baseball Mizzou won the series with Texas last year and won the Big 12 title.
So I’m not sure what sport that would be true in. Not Softball, Mizzou has been above Texas there for a few years. Women’s soccer has been pretty even. Maybe tennis? Track and field? And this is considering UT’s budget is twice the size of Mizzou’s.
LikeLike
I think he was talking about the whole program.
He’s ticked because Missouri cost the conference $15 million in WV exit fees. He likes to make every $ he can.
LikeLike
There’s a reason he is often listed as Delo$$ Dodd$.
LikeLike
Well if all he’s talking about is money than no doubt Texas has Missouri beat.
LikeLike
He’s talking about measurements like the Director’s Cup. Its been a bad couple of years by Texas standards overall. Baseball had its worse year in a long time last year. Basketball has struggled the last couple of years. Football hasn’t done great. We haven’t won the swim title since 2010. Some of the spring sports haven’t done as well as usual. UT finished 15th in 2010 in the Director’s Cup, 12th in 2011 and 6th in 2012. The 8 years prior to that were more typical-2nd, 2nd, 10th, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 5th, 6th. 2001 when they were #19 was the last previous year UT wasn’t top 10. If you did a cumulative Director’s Cup over the last 20 years, UT would probably be either 2nd or 3rd (Stanford #1, UT or UCLA most likely #2).
So there are a lot of complaints about the relative lack of success, particularly in the high profile sports. He’s defending it by saying a bad year by Texas standards is a good year for a lot of schools. And since Missouri cost him money, that’s probably why he chose Missouri to take a shot at.
LikeLike
Yeah, Missouri isn’t competitive enough in the non-revenue sports to score all that high in the directors’ cup. Usually in the 30s or 40s.
As far as that $15M, Mizzou paid that off with their exit fee. The Big 12 basically broke even on that deal.
LikeLike
Another post on ESPN’s B1G blog about how Delany is looking at partnerships, different bowl setups and how he wants to push individual conference members to schedule better non-conference games – See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/71489/b1g-open-to-alliances-for-scheduling-bowls
One excerpt on non-conference scheduling:
Delany points out that different Big Ten programs have different goals, whether it’s competing for national championships or making bowl games on a regular basis. But the message from the league office to its members is to push themselves more in non-league scheduling.
“What we’ve got to do is upgrade,” Delany said. “It doesn’t make any sense to be playing people from different divisions with fewer scholarships [FCS]. It doesn’t make sense for everyone to be playing Southern Cal and Texas, but there’s comparability there that we could seek out. We’re trying to find out ways that we can create fair schedules, good schedules, healthy schedules for our teams, our players, our coaches and our fans.”
END OF EXCERPT
Cutter’s Comment: It sounds like Delany wants the B1G teams to upgrade the inventory of non-conference games and drop the Division 1-AA opponents (FCS). While that may not effect the major programs in the conference, it will definitely touch on a number of the others.
LikeLike
Delany has been saying that same thing for years. You’ll notice how little impact it has had. He can’t force them to change, and many schools view their priorities as more important than upping the TV deal another $1M.
LikeLike
I’ve advocated on this blog that each of the major conferences, while negotiating with the networks promise:
1) no FCS games
2) 10 games a year against major conference opponents (with 9 conference games, every school would need 1 ‘major’ OOC game), with 1/2 of them at home (or a neutral game that they maintain the TV rights for).
This would make the TV packages more valuable, so the networks would bid more (offsetting the losses). An individual school that failed to meet the scheduling requirements (unless a truly last minute happening made it impossible) would forfeit a percentage of TV money back to the networks.
I think it would be great for college football.
Good for the Big Ten for adopting the no FCS rule!
LikeLike
Yeah, good for us right up until we never make the playoff because we lose more OOC games while the SEC thrives on I-AA wins on their way to 3 playoff teams per year.
LikeLike
The SEC’s dominance in CFB will not end until the oversigning problem is solved. Either the SEC (West) has to stop or the B1G has to start. And this is a competitive advantage for the SEC (West). Every school experiences attrition between NLOI day and the August “deadline” for being at 85. For B1G schools, any attrition means the school is under the 85 limit. For the SEC (West), attrition just gets them to the full strength at 85. ‘Bama oversigned by 6 to 10 players a couple of weeks back. Saban’s 2013 March to 85 started off with a BANG with four players arrested for robbery. Sad that happened, but will have no impact on ‘Bama’s ability to win.
My point is that the # of cupcakes and bodybag games is trivial compare to other factors that will lead the SEC to multiple bids in the playoffs.
LikeLike
Where do you get that Bama oversigned by 6 to 10 players this past signing period? Bama signed a total of 26 kids, with several of those backcounting against last year’s class. The SEC schools can no longer sign more than 25 kids against a class. Now they can only “oversign” if they undersigned the previous year.
And btw, UF signed 29 kids and UGA signed 32 kids in this class. So the “SEC (West)” being the only SEC schools that “oversign” insinuation that goes around on this blog gets a little old.
LikeLike
bamatab,
Oversigning isn’t about the 25 limit, it’s about the 85 cap.
Hypothetical example:
Say AL had 85 people on scholarship last year with no walk-ons among those 85. Now say 20 players graduate/go pro/quit/transfer by February 1. AL can legally sign 25 recruits, but they only have 20 spots open. That would be oversigning by 5 if they signed 25 recruits.
The reason the SEC west gets that reputation is because they earned it.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
Average Class Size 2002 – 2010
SEC West
Auburn 28.11
Miss. State 27.44
Arkansas 26.56
Ole Miss 26.33
Alabama 26.11
LSU 24.89
SEC East
South Carolina 26.89
Kentucky 25.11
Tennessee 24.00
Florida 23.33
Georgia 23.00
Vanderbilt 21.22
Considering a full class is 25, I presume you can see why others take issue with this. The highest number in the B10 was 24.22 for PU. OSU, PSU and MI were all below 22 (OSU was at 20.00).
To be fair to the SEC West, those aren’t the only teams that do it. But they are most of the good teams that do it.
Average size > 25:
SEC W – 5 – AL, AU, AR, MS, MSU
SEC E – 2 – SC, UK
B12 – 3 – ISU, KSU, OkSU
BE – 2 – UL, WV
P10 – 1 – OrSU
ACC – 0
B10 – 0
Clearly there was something different about recruiting in the SEC West than anywhere else.
LikeLike
Just for the heck of it ,I went back and checked the number of 5 stars on the major rating services from OH. There was a total for all 4 was 1. On scouts Ohio State had 4 (5 stars) but only 1 was from Ohio ,the other 3 were not from Ohio and were not rated 5s by the other services. Quite simply something smells. Southern and Texas bias ?
LikeLike
“On scouts Ohio State had 4 (5 stars) but only 1 was from Ohio ,the other 3 were not from Ohio and were not rated 5s by the other services. Quite simply something smells. Southern and Texas bias?”
The only thing that smells is Scout’s ratings. Their ratings as a whole are usually not as close to the other 3 major recruiting sites (Rivals, 247 Sports, & ESPN) as the other 3 are to each other. I’ve gotten to where I use 247’s composite rankings to get a better feel for the actual classes since it uses all 4 of the major sites rankings in their composite formula, not just their own.
LikeLike
Simply saying ‘X school signs more in an average class’, without examining things further, is not much of a charge. Any school that gets a higher percentage of its players for less than 5 years (4 years playing + 1 redshirt year) is going to need to sign more players:
-A school that recruits more Juco players will need to sign more each year (they start with less eligibility)
-A school that uses less redshirts will need to sign more each year (they’ll be out 1 year sooner)
-A school that has more people leaving early for the NFL will need to sign more each year (oftentimes the same players who are in the previous category)
-A school that takes a chance on more marginal students will need to sign more, as more of these will not qualify or drop out. (unlike others, I don’t think it’s an immoral act to take a chance on such students)
-A school that takes more transfers from other schools will need to sign less, as transfers don’t count as recruits.
There’s a lot of SEC schools that meet more of first four categories than a given Big Ten school, and that’s not sinister.
I know a lot of you are going to say ‘blah blah Houston Nutt’, but not everyone who signs more players than Northwestern is Houston Nutt.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“Simply saying ‘X school signs more in an average class’, without examining things further, is not much of a charge.”
Like any stat, it’s can only tell part of the story, sure. But it is a quick way to show that one small group of schools is very different from the others. It’s different from the SEC East and every other major conference.
“-A school that recruits more Juco players will need to sign more each year (they start with less eligibility)”
No credible school should have a large number of JUCO players, especially ones they sent to a diploma mill out of high school.
“-A school that uses less redshirts will need to sign more each year (they’ll be out 1 year sooner)
-A school that has more people leaving early for the NFL will need to sign more each year (oftentimes the same players who are in the previous category)”
No other kings came close to AL’s numbers, IIRC.
“-A school that takes a chance on more marginal students will need to sign more, as more of these will not qualify or drop out.”
This is a good point, and invites two responses.
1. The recruiting services should do a better job of redoing their rankings in August to show only the players that actually made it to the team and stressing that those are the real rankings. That helps the SEC by not counting all the players they signed knowing they couldn’t make it and had to place in a JUCO, so it looks less like they are running off tons of players. It also helps everyone else by making it a more level playing field for comparing classes for all the schools that recruit by the spirit of the rules.
2. Why is any self-respecting major university accepting people that can barely graduate from high school and can’t even match the incredibly low standards the NCAA has to qualify?
“(unlike others, I don’t think it’s an immoral act to take a chance on such students)”
Oh, please. They aren’t “taking a chance on them.” They’re hoping that between cherry-picking easy classes and majors and having a stable of tutors doing all their work for them, they can keep them eligible with a 2.0 long enough to help them win some games. Taking a chance would be if there was some cost to them if it didn’t work out and they actually cared if the players succeed in life.
“-A school that takes more transfers from other schools will need to sign less, as transfers don’t count as recruits.”
Do you really think that’s why AL took 55 more players than OSU over 9 years?
“I know a lot of you are going to say ‘blah blah Houston Nutt’, but not everyone who signs more players than Northwestern is Houston Nutt.”
No, but there is quite a bit of room between signing 37 and the 19/year of NW.
It’s important to point out that these numbers predate the recent recruiting rule changes and now the four year scholarship (for those that give them). The numbers gap should shrink.
LikeLike
In case anyone is interested in the Maryland non-compete, the Washington Post has it up with a story on it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/university-of-maryland-releases-big-ten-non-disclosure-agreement/2013/02/04/5aa35c52-6ed8-11e2-aa58-243de81040ba_blog.html
LikeLike
@Quacs – That’s a very straightforward and standard NDA. You could literally copy and paste that document and use it for any type of business transaction.
LikeLike
Interesting post from MrSEC concerning B1G expansion.
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/big-ten-to-add-more-conference-games-is-this-another-lure-for-uva-gt-unc-and-duke/#more-267138
LikeLike
Good comments as well. Especially concerning FSU to the B1G.
(MrSEC’s writing style is very similar to FTT’s. Do you have an evil twin you’re not telling us about?)
LikeLike
I tend to agree with virtually everything he says.
The Big Ten is considering 9 versus 10 right now but the 10 game schedules are likely to be in conjunction with expansion to 16 or 18.
I am also of the opinion that the Big Ten’s interest in JHU is very real (and not just because I’ve spent 4 years convincing myself that it’d be a brilliant move). The lure to bring them into the CIC as well as set up an elite lacrosse league is a valuable opportunity that shouldn’t be passed up if it is possible to pull it off.
LikeLike
I have no idea if Johns Hopkins would go to the Big 10, but it certainly would make some of the Lacrosse playing Schools in the ACC (Such as North Carolina) look long and hard at the Big 10 if they ever decided to leave the ACC and choose between the SEC and Big 10. Keep in mind the SEC does not have a lot of Schools playing Lacrosse (Florida I know is one), while the Big 10 is on the rise. To be fair, the SEC has a great baseball Conference (Particularly LSU, Florida & Georgia), and the Big 10 is awful at it, so that becomes a wash. Obviously the SEC is best in football, but not so hot in hoops (Except Florida & Kentucky), the Big 10 is the exact opposite (Only Ohio State Football is great. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska (And when sanctions end) Penn State can be). But if you look at Academics and Research $$$$$ it is not close. Big 10 all the way, and Hopkins would simply make that disparity even greater.
LikeLike
This dynamic is very similar to the one that played out with the Big 12 that led to Nebraska and Colorado leaving, right?
Regardless of what takes place with the exit fee lawsuit, ESPN could come in and sweeten its offer to the ACC to hold it together which is what ultimately happened with the Big12 before the second round of departures (Mizzou and aTm).
A big chunk of the league could depart leaving the rest of the conference in big trouble, similar the much discussed Texas/Oklahoma schools leaving for the Pac12. This could play out with either a package of old school ACC members departing for the B1G, or a package of ACC schools with the right 3rd tier assets leaving for the Big 12.
Or it could end up a slow leak, does ESPN care that much if UVA and GT were to leave and head to the B1G? Would it raise an eyebrow if NCState and Virginia Tech decided to head to the SEC?
IMHO, ESPN probably is primarily focused on keeping access to ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson and then holding onto UNC/Duke for the winter months.
LikeLike
The Big XII similarity breaks down in a few ways. In the Big XII, Texas and Oklahoma are the football kings, and they also run the conference: if those two schools are in agreement, they get what they want, every time. So the dynamic in the Big XII was very simple: if they stay, you’ve got a league; if they leave, you don’t. To put it differently: anywhere that Texas and Oklahoma want to be, you can always assemble a league around them, no matter who else may stay or go.
In much the same way that Texas and Oklahoma run the Big XII, the North Carolina schools run the ACC. But the North Carolina schools are football weaklings: they have just one league title between them in the last 20 years (Wake Forest, 2006). The schools who keep winning the league are relative newcomers, who do not have long-term emotional ties to the ACC.
LikeLike
That would certainly be consistent with a lot of thinking on this board concerning the addition of Johns Hopkins for lacrosse in concert with further expansion to 18 members.
I actually feel that Florida State might not be such an outlier as he believes. Yes, it is a non-AAU school, but given its location and the status of its football program, it’d be a valuable add to the conference in terms of what it could do for the athletic departments’ bottom lines.
He’s right about the Big Ten being in a position to sell a very compelling package to any school it may opt to invite into the conference. I’ve also heard that Virginia and Georgia Tech would be the next likely pair to join the conference once the ACC/Maryland lawsuit is completed, so that’s consistent as well.
In the remarks section, he does admit that have three 6-team divisions isn’t workable per the NCAA regulations. With a ten game schedule and 18 schools in fixed divisions, it’d be a 8-2 setup and it’d take ten years to play every team in the other division twice in a home-and-home setup.
In a straight east west lineup, it’d go like this:
East: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State
West: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
With two 5-team pods and two 4-team pods swapping out every two years, it’d take six season to play every other team twice in a home-and-home setup. If UVa, Duke, UNC and Ga Tech join the current lineup, then the pods could be like this:
Pod A (4 teams): Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B (4 teams): Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Pod C (5 teams): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Pod D (5 teams): Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
In Years 1 & 2, Pods A and C form one division with Pods B and D the other
In Years 3 & 4, Pods B and C form one division with Pods A and D the other
Teams would play the eight teams in its own division and two from the pod its own size (A&B, C&D).
LikeLike
I tend to agree that FSU has a much better shot than he gives them credit for. But overall, I consider him a very sober-minded source, and well worth reading.
I’ve said this before: pods suck. In your proposed alignment, half the time Michigan, MSU, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin would be in the same division. If you were a Big Ten AD, you’d be laughed out of the room if you proposed that.
The scheduling format won’t ever be perfect, but it can’t be that imperfect.
LikeLike
It’s a tough combination of programs to work with because you want to keep the inter-state rivalries in place while keeping the pods regional. That lineup above does that, but as you mention there would be a perceived competitive imbalance between the divisions half the time if the status quo remained in place.
As far as athletic directors laughing are concerned, if the television networks are writing big checks with this lineup, those ADs will be laughing as they deposit them in the bank. But ideally, you’d like to split up the major programs into different pods. A possible swap could have Penn State in Pod D with Maryland in Pod C to balance it out a bit more, but then you lose the annual OSU-PSU game. It’s all trade offs at this point.
When you do these types of exercises, you realize why a program like Florida State or Notre Dame would be attractive additions to the Big Ten outside of the dollars and cents. At the minimum, adding those two schools would make for perhaps a better pod system:
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Pod B: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana
Pod C: Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Purdue, Notre Dame
Pod D: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
This set up keeps much of the regionalism intact, but also loses some of the instate rivalries. OTOH, it also splits up the major programs 1-2-2-1 among the four pods and you can’t do much better that that. Two-thirds of the time, the major programs would be split within the divisions 3-3. With nine conference games on the schedule, that leaves three non-conference games for each team to schedule as they see fit.
Of course, if Notre Dame wants to remain a hold out and a program Pittsburgh takes their place, then you could do something like this:
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State
Pod B: Michigan, Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod C: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland
Pod D: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
When Delany talked about having nine or even ten conference games per year, he said that the teams in the conference want to play one another more often than not. If that holds as the conference expands, then a pod system is the best way to accomplish that objective while trying to hold onto the more important/rivalry games each year.
LikeLike
As far as athletic directors laughing are concerned, if the television networks are writing big checks with this lineup, those ADs will be laughing as they deposit them in the bank.
The trouble is, I don’t think your lineup achieves that. It’s not in the Big Ten’s competitive interest (and therefore, in its TV interest) to have waaaaaay imbalanced divisions half the time. We can’t predict future performance, but your proposed alignment is so far unbalanced that it wouldn’t be a close call.
I agree that if the Big Ten lands FSU and Notre Dame, a pod structure becomes at least possible. Your proposed structure (with FSU and ND included) would work, with just one extra rule: in the years when Illinois and Northwestern aren’t in the same division, then they play each other as a protected crossover; likewise, Indiana and Purdue. (This assumes 10 conference games.)
Otherwise, your structure protects every rivalry that I believe the conference would regard as essential (i.e., no way in hell they’d sacrifice it). One could argue at the margins about exactly which rivalries are essential, but I don’t think they would ever sacrifice the in-states, UM-OSU, or WI-MN.
As I indicated two or three FTT posts ago, I do think there are far better ways.
Simplistically, if the NCAA didn’t require divisions, you would schedule the way the Big Ten did before Nebraska joined: protect whatever 2 or 3 games each team requires, and then put together a full slate among the remaining games, whatever way you want. At the end of the season, the top two face off in a CCG.
This has the advantage of protecting ONLY those games you really need to protect. In your structure, you fail to protect some games that the teams really want, and you protect others that nobody wants.
If the NCAA refuses to change the rule, then you just create two arbitrary divisions every year, with an algorithm that protects the minimum rivalries that you care about, and otherwise just arranges the teams into fictitious one-year divisions using whatever algorithm you choose (I could easily come up with several).
You can’t say that’s too complicated, because no sport other than football fixes its schedule more than a year in advance; and before Nebraska joined no school was guaranteed more than two protected games.
LikeLike
Marc,
With no divisions, I’d go for the simple math:
18 teams, 10 games – 3 locked, 7 games against the other 14
18 teams, 9 games – 5 locked, 4 games against the other 12
20 teams, 9 games – 4 locked, 5 games against the other 15
The one exception is:
20 teams, 10 games – 1 locked, 9 games against the other 18
That needs to become:
20 teams, 10 games – 3 locked, 7 games against the other 16
LikeLike
Or you have 3 “divisions” and split the middle division 3/3 each year.
Hard to see a fixed 9/9 split that would make sense with 4 more ACC schools.
LikeLike
Three “divisions” with the middle “division” split in half to form two divisions … is four groups.
Two six school anchor groups and two three school swing groups, or two four school anchor groups and two five school swing groups would both work.
LikeLike
He may mean splitting the middle 6 differently every time, so they really aren’t like normal pods.
Years 1-2: OSU/MI/MSU, GT/PU/IN
Years 3-4: OSU/MI/GT, MSU/PU/IN
Years 5-6: OSU/MI/PU, GT/MSU/IN
Years 7-8: OSU/MI/IN, GT/PU/MSU
Years 9-10: OSU/GT/MSU, MI/PU/IN
Years 11-12: OSU/PU/MSU, GT/MI/IN
Years 13-14: OSU/IN/MSU, GT/PU/MI
Years 15-16: OSU/GT/PU, MI/MSU/IN
Years 17-18: OSU/GT/IN, MI/MSU/PU
Years 19-20: OSU/PU/IN, MI/MSU/GT
LikeLike
cutter,
“In the remarks section, he does admit that have three 6-team divisions isn’t workable per the NCAA regulations. With a ten game schedule and 18 schools in fixed divisions, it’d be a 8-2 setup and it’d take ten years to play every team in the other division twice in a home-and-home setup.
In a straight east west lineup, it’d go like this:
East: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State
West: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech”
That’s horrible. The B10 minus OSU and MI and PSU but with NE versus the ACC. That sucks for everyone.
“With two 5-team pods and two 4-team pods swapping out every two years, it’d take six season to play every other team twice in a home-and-home setup. If UVa, Duke, UNC and Ga Tech join the current lineup, then the pods could be like this:
Pod A (4 teams): Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B (4 teams): Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Pod C (5 teams): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Pod D (5 teams): Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
In Years 1 & 2, Pods A and C form one division with Pods B and D the other
In Years 3 & 4, Pods B and C form one division with Pods A and D the other
Teams would play the eight teams in its own division and two from the pod its own size (A&B, C&D).”
You have to balance the pods better than that. A > B and C > D. I’m sure Richard can remind everyone of his 6 pods of 3 plan. I’d go 2 pods of 6 and 2 pods of 3, I think.
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C1 – OSU, GT, PU
C2 – MI, MSU, IN
E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
Lock OSU/MI, MSU/GT and PU/IN. Rotate C1 and C2 every two years. W and E play 2 rotating games against the other (no home and homes), so they get everyone in 3 years. C1 and C2 play alternating home and homes against the two teams they aren’t locked with. That gives decent balance and exposure to everyone while keeping the rivalries alive.
LikeLike
@Brian
Your east/west example is why I said it was hard to see a fixed 9/9 split that made any sense. That one is a total non-starter.
LikeLike
That wasn’t my split, that was his. I quoted it to show how bad it was. You’re correct, there is no good 9/9 split for the B10. That’s why I’ve suggested going to 22.
Real B10 – OSU, MI, MSU, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, NE
ACC – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, Miami, ND, BC (sub in others if you prefer)
If you get 24, then PSU can slide west with the B10 schools.
Play 10 games in division with no crossovers.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech would probably prefer to remain with its ACC brethren.
LikeLike
vp19,
Probably, yes, but the E needs a power for balance and PSU should be with RU and MD. Besides, GT would still play the ACC teams half the time, plus GT never had strong FB rivalries with UNC, Duke and MD. In exchange, they get OSU and PU (enginerd battle) annually and the rest of the B10 teams 1/3 of the time.
GT definitely gets the short end of this alignment, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not that bad. Their biggest rivals are UGA, Auburn and Clemson, none of which are options.
GT games played:
1. UGA – 102
2. AU – 86
3. Duke – 80 (no rivalry since Duke stinks so bad)
4. Clemson – 76
5. AL – 52
6. UNC – 48
11. UVA – 35
17. UMD – 21
GT isn’t losing much there compared to getting to play UNC, Duke, UVA and MD.
Also, consider travel distances:
UNC & Duke – 380 miles
IN – 525
UVA – 540
OSU – 567
PU – 600
IL – 621
UMD – 651
MI – 711
NW – 734
PSU – 757
MSU – 779
IA – 815
RU – 841
WI – 867
NE – 999
GT isn’t driving anywhere, first of all. Second, being in the east wouldn’t save that much travel for them. This distance and the lack of strong ACC rivalries are why I pulled GT into the central group.
LikeLike
@Brian-
It’s interesting that you criticize the NE v. ACC lineup since that’s what the Inside-Outside division alignment would have done on an annual basis–and that was one your were advocating earlier when there were discussions surrounding what a 14-team B1G would look like.
The problem with the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 setup is the same one we have now with the Legends and Leaders–a possible rematch in a conference championship game one week after the Michigan-Ohio State game. Unless you’re willing to move the date of the game, your lineup would go against what the UM and OSU ADs have recently said about the upcoming alignment scenario..
While I appreciate the “balance” argument, you’re thinking like the French General Staff again by assuming these football programs are going to remain static vis-a-vis their relative strengths through the seasons this plan is adapted. Do you know how the new teams admitted to the B1G are going to be like in the future now that they have greater resources and play in a better football conference?
I actually do like the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 arrangement for all the reasons you describe except the one above, so here’s my modification to solve the problem mentioned above:
W – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State
C1- Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue
C2 – Illinois, Michigan State, Indiana
E – Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke
With a ten-game conference schedule, they could get through everyone in three years with no home and homes or six years with home and homes. Is it a tough road to hoe for Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska? Sure, but OSU played UM, UW and UN-L this season and went undefeated while Nebraska did the same thing and got to the Big Ten Championship Game (where they got blasted by Wisconsin in the rematch).
Besides, television would love having Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State playing one another each year along with Penn State playing one or two of those teams as well. As a Michigan fan, I’m game. How about you?
Michigan Conference Schedules
Years 1 & 2 – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Years 3 & 4 – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, Duke
Years 5 & 6 – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Maryland, North Carolina
LikeLike
@cutter: Why the obsession with static 4- and 5-team pods? They are totally unnecessary. They solve no problem, while introducing many others. Every permutation you’ve suggested has issues that are easily avoided with one answer: no pods.
While I appreciate the “balance” argument, you’re thinking like the French General Staff again by assuming these football programs are going to remain static vis-a-vis their relative strengths through the seasons this plan is adapted. Do you know how the new teams admitted to the B1G are going to be like in the future now that they have greater resources and play in a better football conference?
There is overwhelming evidence that college football programs tend to revert to their historical averages. Michigan may have a few bad years, but it returns to strength. Illinois may have a few great years, but it returns to mediocrity.
Now, across a 14-team Big Ten, there will probably be one or two surprising teams. But you can’t put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State, and Wisconsin in the same division, and then say, “We have no idea how well they’ll do.” The odds of that many teams defying their historical average are vanishingly small.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
The reason why the WAC used the pod-system and why the Big Ten might do it if the conference goes to 16 teams or better was stated quite plainly by Jim Delany when he talked about the conference adopted 9 or 10 conference games. Simply put, he wants to see the B1G teams play one another as much as possible. That same sentiment was echoed by UM AD David Brandon as well.
Once you get to 16 teams and decided on static divisions, there are two options:
1. A 9-game schedule with a 7-2 split. In a home-and-home arrangement for games with teams in the opposite division, it takes eight years to get through them. If the B1G went away from the home-and-home, then each team could play the other at least one time in a four year period.
2. A 10-game schedule with a 7-3 split. The same as above, except we’re talking six years for the home and homes in an opposite division.
A pod system with sixteen teams in a 4X4 setup and a nine-game schedule has each team playing the other at least twice in a home and home setup. Problem solved.
Are you seriously suggesting that an 18- or 20-team B1G have fixed divisions? We’re talking about 8-1 or 8-2 splits for the former and 9-0 and 9-1 splits for the latter. Now if you think at that point the conference should act as two mini-conferences (Big Ten East, Big Ten West) administered by one entity. than I’d happily endorse that.
Why can’t you put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State and Wisconsin in one division? I actually expect all of them to be excellent to good per their historic norms, so why not showcase those teams? If those programs can’t run that gauntlet, do they really belong in the national championship discussion or in a four-team playoff? If strength of schedule is one of the criteria for the playoff, what’s the objection here?
The SEC manages to have a number of high profile games within and between division teams and they’ll have more of them when they adopt nine conference games. The SEC East has Florida, Georgia,Tennessee, Missouri (admittedly a down year for them) and South Carolina. The SEC West has Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU and Texas A&M. It hasn’t slowed them down vis-a-vis national titles.
No, I’ll stick to my guns on this. The networks would like that lineup. The fans who pay for PSLs and tickets and luxury boxes deserve a good line up of home games for their money–especially with one less every other season. In my original lineup, teams would play all the ones in their region as well–also a plus for the fans.
LikeLike
@cutter: You misunderstand me. I am not advocating static divisions in a 16-20 team Big Ten. I am advocating no divisions or pods whatsoever. Protect only those rivalries that you care about — no more, and no fewer — and write whatever schedule you want, as the Big Ten did before Nebraska joined.
You can either stage a CCG between the top teams, or create artificial divisions to remain within the literal wording of the rule. You can always put Michigan and OSU in the same division, if you want. I could come up with a dozen ways of doing it, without pods.
Your proposed system, based on the WAC system, changes the divisions every couple of years, but it’s hampered by artificial pods that have no actual value: Purdue doesn’t want to play Maryland every year, so don’t make them, just because static pods force you into it. You don’t need the pods. They’re a crutch that just makes the result worse.
Why can’t you put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State and Wisconsin in one division? I actually expect all of them to be excellent to good per their historic norms, so why not showcase those teams?
You’re borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. By creating one super-division, you’re also creating a lousy one. You’re not adding value, just re-arranging the value that already exists. Where it breaks down is in the CCG, where you’re liable to have an underwhelming match-up.
LikeLike
cutter,
“It’s interesting that you criticize the NE v. ACC lineup since that’s what the Inside-Outside division alignment would have done on an annual basis”
Nebraska versus the ACC? New England versus the ACC? What? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
As for Inner/Outer, you’re talking apples and oranges. Your plan involves 6 new teams, all medium to light weights in football, all in one division. There is no balance, and whichever B10 teams get stuck in the division with all the newbies get screwed. Inner/Outer had only 2 new teams and had a balance of power with OSU, MI and MSU versus NE, PSU and WI.
“and that was one your were advocating earlier when there were discussions surrounding what a 14-team B1G would look like.”
You seem to conveniently forget that I advocated that only if the B10 stuck to 8 games. It wouldn’t require locked crossovers. That was the basis for my supporting it. I didn’t give it universal support.
“The problem with the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 setup is the same one we have now with the Legends and Leaders–a possible rematch in a conference championship game one week after the Michigan-Ohio State game. Unless you’re willing to move the date of the game, your lineup would go against what the UM and OSU ADs have recently said about the upcoming alignment scenario.”
First, it’s an artificial problem. It’s never happened yet so we have no way to know what it would be like. OSU/MI on Saturday night is not UCLA/Stanford during rush hour on Friday. Second, they’ve said they’d do what is best for the conference in terms of divisions. Third, you can split the middle 6 in multiple ways as I showed elsewhere. OSU and MI could be together with MSU and PSU in the other group (OSU/MI/IN vs PSU/MSU/PU, for example).
“While I appreciate the “balance” argument, you’re thinking like the French General Staff again”
Making you the Nazis? Heil cutter! You might want a different analogy.
” by assuming these football programs are going to remain static vis-a-vis their relative strengths through the seasons this plan is adapted.”
You’re the one making assumptions. Did I ever say that’s what would happen?
“Do you know how the new teams admitted to the B1G are going to be like in the future now that they have greater resources and play in a better football conference?”
Yes. I know all.
“I actually do like the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 arrangement for all the reasons you describe except the one above, so here’s my modification to solve the problem mentioned above:
W – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State
C1- Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue
C2 – Illinois, Michigan State, Indiana
E – Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke”
Yuck.
“As a Michigan fan, I’m game. How about you?”
No. It’s a horrible plan. It’s bad for almost everybody.
LikeLike
Whether this expansion scenario has now entered the realm of conventional wisdom or not, the consensus seems to be growing, which has to make the ACC nervous.
LikeLike
Comcast is buying out GE’s 49% stake in NBCUniversal according to WSJ.
It doesn’t change the direction of anything since Comcast has been in control of NBC’s recent moves as majority owner, but it’s an indication that Comcast is all in on content.
LikeLike
Comcast buying out GE is good news. I wonder if they will do the Country a favor and get rid of MSNBC, and all of the awful shows on NBC and the bad films at Universal (I admit I liked “The Fast & the Furious” series. (Of course, Jordana Brewster, Eva Mendes, guns and muscle cars are my thing)) Basically, I cannot watch that Network with the exception of Football, Hockey & Golf.
LikeLike
This is OT, David, but why do you capitalize so many words? Are you of German descent?
LikeLike
The Dude of WV just tweeted: “The biggest hurdle for FSU and the B1G – Michigan”.
Given that Michigan has the B1G’s highest research budget, and voted Nebraska out of the AAU, that is not a crazy claim.
LikeLike
Too bad he doesn’t say how many other hurdles there are, and how much lower they are.
LikeLike
WI will be another hurdle, and almost as high as MI.
LikeLike
Making claims that sound plausible is what he’s actually good at. Accuracy is his issue.
LikeLike
Well, if the Big Ten Conference is seriously discussing Florida State as an invitee, then the conference is likely going from 14 to 18 pretty quickly. There might be some scenario for FSU to come in with Georgia Tech, but that would leave Virginia hanging in the wind unless there was a commitment in place for one of the Carolina schools (preferably UNC).
So which one do you invite as #4 if Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech are lined up? Duke or Florida State?
LikeLike
With those givens, Florida State in a heartbeat. At least, that’s my opinion as a fan and businessman. Duke would no doubt have some pull with the academics who actually get to make the decision. Duke is terrible in football, but their basketball program is one of the best brands in all of sports. Academically, they run rings around FSU, and most of the Big Ten.
The reality is, if you have got any four of those five to leave the ACC, the fifth would almost certainly accept a Big Ten invite. The only question, then, is whether you go to 20 right away (and if so, with whom), or do you hang out for the ideal 20th member.
LikeLike
Some ‘expert’ on the BTN thinks the expansion bomb is going to drop sooner rather that later because the schools don’t want to go through conference realignment (scheduling etc.) more than once.
LikeLike
With those 5 to make 19, you’d have to think Delany would wait for a call from South Bend. If that doesn’t come, he has to choose from Miami, VT, NCSU, UConn, Syracuse or BC. None of those are exciting, but all have some positives. You can’t stay at 19 long term unless you don’t need divisions.
LikeLike
I think you’d have to include Pitt on the list of options (which at least would be an AAU option). Yes, they duplicate a state but so does NC St, Va Tech and Miami (FL) in that situation.
LikeLike
Or Pitt.
Once you’ve added FSU and FL (and well as 3 other states and 4 extra AAU schools), it may make sense to add a school who is a perfect fit in every way but doesn’t bring any extra TV sets in order to get a member like Michigan (which would find Pitt agreeable and wants to play schools who are close by) to vote for the package.
LikeLike
I didn’t include Pitt for these reasons:
1. PSU dominates in FB in PA. Not true for UVA, FSU or even UNC.
2. PSU has been in the B10 for 20 years, so it’s already B10 territory. VA and NC would still need converting.
3. Population: FL – 19.3M, PA – 12.8M. You can justify adding Miami to gain more south FL fans while Pitt adds a lot less. It also means a major media market getting the BTN for sure.
That’s not to say Pitt shouldn’t be on the list at all, I just thought they were too low on the list to include.
LikeLike
I would advocate for Miami if not for the place being underwater several decades from now.
LikeLike
I’m not sure Miami has any local fans. They sure don’t show up anyway if they do.
LikeLike
metatron,
Yes, Miami has a bandwagon fanbase that only shows up for big games. But south FL is full of B10 alumni that will happily go to the games. And Miami fans might be more interested in MI, OSU, PSU and NE than many of the ACC teams. Besides, Miami is a large TV market with plenty of CFB fans.
LikeLike
Brian – in an earlier discussion about all the B1G alums in the ATL that would prop up GA Tech, I asked you if you would buy season tickets to GA Tech. I seem to remember you saying “no.” Assuming most B1G fans are like you, I fail to see the value when Atlanta and Miami may be “full of B10 alums” but will only attend a GA Tech or Miami game when they play your team. Also, like ATL, the vast majority of cable subscribers are not B1G fans. Asking non-B1G fans to pay for the BTN on expanded basic is probably a non-starter as well.
I’m not so sure that Miami even has “plenty of CFB fans.” My impression has always been that Miami is a Dolphin town, and then a bandwagon town, whether it be the Heat or Hurricanes. The bandwagon never seemed to jump on the Marlins, even when they were good. Maybe with a combination the new stadium and a competitive team, the band wagoners may show up. I have now knowledge of the NHL Panthers.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – in an earlier discussion about all the B1G alums in the ATL that would prop up GA Tech, I asked you if you would buy season tickets to GA Tech. I seem to remember you saying “no.” Assuming most B1G fans are like you,”
That would be a terrible assumption. It’s just too much money to me, but others may feel otherwise. I wouldn’t buy season tickets for OSU even if I lived in Columbus due to the prices, either. Clearly tens of thousands of people disagree with me on that.
LikeLike
Brian –
“That would be a terrible assumption. It’s just too much money to me, but others may feel otherwise. I wouldn’t buy season tickets for OSU even if I lived in Columbus due to the prices, either. Clearly tens of thousands of people disagree with me on that.”
This discussion is interesting. I have a friend who grew up as a Nebraska fan and is an Illinois alumnus. He just moved to Alpharetta, Georgia (Atlanta suburb) and would be ecstatic if Georgia Tech joined the Big Ten so that he could see his two favorite teams play in person less than an hour away from his home.
LikeLike
Stephen,
I might buy single game tickets when OSU is in town to play GT, but I wouldn’t buy GT season tickets to get them. It’s just not worth that much to me. I know plenty of people would do it, though.
LikeLike
If it makes sense to bring in the Johns Hopkins University into the B1G fold for Lacrosse and the CIC, and it certainly seems to, the B1G may as well invite MIT to compete in rowing.
LikeLike
I could see MIT as an additive to, say, BC, if BC is #20. It might alleviate some of the concerns about academics.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the presidents think about it that way. In the hypothetical case where MIT joins for rowing, it doesn’t make BC more acceptable than they were before. (MIT doesn’t compete in Division I rowing, so the idea is way, way out there — far more than Johns Hopkins for lacrosse.)
LikeLike
Yes, this was my reaction to the idea that the Big Ten is looking at expanding with UVA, FSU and John Hopkins Lacrosse, with the academic appeal of UVA and JHU overcoming the resistance to FSU ~ there’s no obvious reason why that would be a three school package deal, so the obvious response would be to accept JHU for Lacrosse and invite them as a guest member of the CIC, and then move on to the UVA and FSU proposal.
LikeLike
You need to add a couple points to add context to this document.
1. The BE president and all but 4 of the schools approved the ESPN bid three years ago. They didn’t have the required majority (11 to 4). The 4 schools that voted against the offer all left. So, it’s not really accurate to say the rejection of the deal was myopic.
2. I’d like to see how the deals shake out when all is said and done, because we still don’t know what anyone is going to make. But assuming the numbers are correct, you can’t compare these because you are essentially comparing apples to oranges. Who owns tier 2 and tier 3 for the BE? Does Fox own all the rights of the C7? Don’t imagine that this is an insignificant question for the likes of UConn. It earns $24.75 million a year in broadcasting and licensing rights (mainly the coach’s shows on SNY and all the games shown there as well, but added to that the IMG contract).
UConn is not going to give up those rights. That’s why this comparison is not apt.
3. I don’t consider Fox the killer of the conference since the C7 split should have happened many years ago regardless. They all voted to split in 1992 (ironically, UConn got the Catholics to agree to take on the football schools) and in 2004 (but the money loss for the Catholics was too great, and brokering an agreement was impossible). In spirit, the conference schools had split already. And when you realize that the vast majority of the NCAA credits came from Ville, Syracuse, Pitt, and especially UConn, the strength of the conference in basketball was not going to be hurt much (though G’town has had a recent resurgence).
For all these reasons, I’m not buying the idea that the Fox money is some sort of coup.
Also realize that the BE has over $70 million in its coffers of NCAA credits, as well as $68 million in exit fees, and it will recoup some more from ND, Ville and Rutgers’ departure, as well as the negotiations with the C7. So there’s a lot of dough there. For schools like Cincy and UConn, the licensing money plus the load in the bank vault should last for at least 5 years until there is more clarity.
LikeLike
Do you have a source on #2? Texas isn’t making $25 million from the Longhorn network…
LikeLike
It’s not just Tier 3. It’s not just the games on SNY. It’s also the coaching show and all licensing through IMG. If you look at the USA Today NCAA database, you’ll see $24.75 million under licensing for UConn. Which is $10 million a year from IMG (they produce the coaches’ shows and also market the school), $1.2-1.5 from women’s bball, and then the men’s bball and football are separate. I suspect that adds up to about $15m when you include IMG. Then the rest of the $9m is in marketing/ads at the games. So, UConn is going to protect that $first 15 million at the very least that’s tied into the SNY games and shows.
LikeLike
“But assuming the numbers are correct, you can’t compare these because you are essentially comparing apples to oranges.”
To a certain degree, no doubt… Every conference’s contracts are different in the rights a school retains vs. what are pooled. The value of retained rights is also going to differ for every school. That said, and we’ve discussed it here on previous blogs, I think these differences are largely over blown.
“Who owns tier 2 and tier 3 for the BE? Does Fox own all the rights of the C7? Don’t imagine that this is an insignificant question for the likes of UConn.”
We’ll like I said above, I don’t think it as big as you are trying to make it out to be.
“It earns $24.75 million a year in broadcasting and licensing rights (mainly the coach’s shows on SNY and all the games shown there as well, but added to that the IMG contract).”
1) That $24.7 million isn’t mainly their coaches shows, no way… 2) The Syracuse IMG contract is an $80 million/10 year deal or $8 million a year. Nebraska, Michigan, and Ohio State all have larger IMG deals than that in a conference that has less “2nd and 3rd tier” rights. 3) According to the the USA today database you are using for your $24.75 million a year in “broadcasting and licensing rights,” under the same column Michigan is at $46.75 million and Ohio State is at $43.6 million, again in a conference that has less 2nd and 3rd tier rights. I’m not sure how you want to explain that.
“It’s not just Tier 3. It’s not just the games on SNY. It’s also the coaching show and all licensing through IMG. If you look at the USA Today NCAA database, you’ll see $24.75 million under licensing for UConn. “
See above though. Michigan is earning almost double that in a conference most would say doesn’t have any 2nd tier rights and has some of the more limited 3rd tier rights.
LikeLike
It’s impossible for me to figure out what portion of the tv rights are aggregated under the $24.75 million. I know only portions of it which you can find in the press, such as the fact that UConn’s IMG deal is worth $10 million a year, and that’s IMG putting together the shows. Beyond that, there are deals with SNY for women’s bball at $1.2-$1.5m a year. For some reason, UConn’s football and men’s basketball is not announced. Say that together they make $3 million, that’s $4.2 to $4.5. This is why I stated that about $15m of the $24.75m comes from broadcasting rights. By the way, if you compare UConn’s licensing to Rutgers or the average ACC member ($17 million) UConn’s is way higher. Rutgers’ huge TV market hasn’t been captured yet, whereas UConn’s is saturated with UConn 4 days a week.
LikeLike
“It’s impossible for me to figure out what portion of the tv rights are aggregated under the $24.75 million. “
I don’t think you need to though. That is what I’ve been trying to tell you. When Michigan is nearly doubling that amount without any third tier television rights in the two major revenue sports; that is a fairly good sign it doesn’t matter.
“I know only portions of it which you can find in the press, such as the fact that UConn’s IMG deal is worth $10 million a year, and that’s IMG putting together the shows.”
It isn’t $10 million. It is an $80 million deal over 10 years, so an average of $8 million. Again, Nebraska and Ohio State both have IMG deals larger than that. Said IMG deal is going to be had in virtually any conference for UCONN. For the purposes of apples to oranges comparisons in your first post, they are pretty darn close regardless of the conference and thus largely irrelevant. Even in the SEC where schools retain the rights to a football game, most of the contracts are only in the range of $10 million a year.
And it isn’t just coaches’ shows. I’d wager those are some the less valuable things in the deal. The IMG/Learfield deals typically cover radio rights, corporate sponsorships, advertising both on the media platforms and in stadium, and potentially managing media rights retained by the schools.
LikeLike
The reason I mention the IMG deal is because they do produce the shows and the shows so far have gotten very high ratings. To give you but one example, the women’s games have been the highest ranked show on TV not only on cable, but on all TV including network, with the coaches show doing half of that. If UConn were to leave SNY for a comprehensive Fox deal in the C7, all that would be lost. So how do you monetize that? I’m thinking again it’s more than $4.5m (the direct SNY tier 3 payout) but probably not too much more.
LikeLike
The reason I mention the IMG deal is because they do produce the shows and the shows so far have gotten very high ratings.”
Yes but the production, distribution, and advertising pertaining to the shows is covered in what IMG paid UConn $8 million a year for. It is covered in what IMG pays Nebraska $8.7 million a year for.
“To give you but one example, the women’s games have been the highest ranked show on TV not only on cable, but on all TV including network, with the coaches show doing half of that. If UConn were to leave SNY for a comprehensive Fox deal in the C7, all that would be lost. “
Another moot point. Short of joining the Big Ten (and even then it looks like schools have plenty of games to do with as they please especially non-conference) no conference has as you put it a “comprehensive” deal for women’s basketball. It is a sport that UConn is fairly unique in being able to monetize.
“So how do you monetize that? I’m thinking again it’s more than $4.5m (the direct SNY tier 3 payout) but probably not too much more.”
I don’t see anything about a $4.5 million SNY payment on the internet. I see stuff about a sub $2 million rights fee payment from SNY for women’s basketball. It is unclear if UConn gets all of that or not.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing some points here. UConn also did a deal with SNY for football and men’s basketball, not only women’s basketball. That’s the $4.5m I’m referring to. If UConn doesn’t get it, then who does? They did the deal, they get the proceeds. As for IMG, yes they produce the show–but there is no show if there is no game! That’s the point. IMG does not get money for UConn’s tier 3 rights.
LikeLike
“I think you’re missing some points here.”
I don’t believe I am…
“UConn also did a deal with SNY for football and men’s basketball, not only women’s basketball.”
I see no evidence of this deal at all on the internet and quite frankly I don’t think it is possible. Those are ESPN’s rights. I see more circumstantial evidence though that the SNY content (other than the women’s basketball) is sublicensed from ESPN the rights holder for the conference. This means any direct financial benefit of the football games for sure and more than likely the basketball games as well broadcast on SNY goes not to UConn, not to the Big East, but to ESPN.
“That’s the $4.5m I’m referring to.”
Like I said above, I’m not convinced this $4.5 million exists. The women’s deal is clearly on the side (but still not clear that UConn is getting 100% of the $4.5 million/4 year deal).
“If UConn doesn’t get it, then who does? They did the deal, they get the proceeds. “
Well as noted above, the men’s rights may not have been retained by the school to give to SNY. And even if there was a “deal” it wasn’t necessarily UConn that negotiated it (IMG) and it wouldn’t necessarily be UCONN getting all or part of the revenue (IMG). That would all depend on what UConn ended up selling to IMG when they signed their contract.
“As for IMG, yes they produce the show–but there is no show if there is no game! That’s the point.”
They not only produce the show. They are responsible for distributing it and selling advertising for it. They’ve basically paid UConn for the rights to the show. No different than ESPN paying the Big East for the right to football and basketball games.
“IMG does not get money for UConn’s tier 3 rights. ”
Yes they do. That is why they are willing to pay schools $8+ million. 3rd tier rights in the sense that it is anything retained by the school is a broad range of things. The coaches shows (ads and distribution), the radio rights(ads and distribution), potential television rights, in stadium advertising, corporate sponsorships are all 3rd tier rights. They also are the things IMG and Learfield buy from the schools. Buying those rights shifts the risk over to IMG. The tradeoff is IMG also is in line to get any excess profits. The schools have sold their rights to them just as conferences sell their 1st and 2nd tier rights to ESPN or Fox. ESPN and Fox bear the profits and or losses depending on how they monetize the inventory they buy.
LikeLike
You are without a doubt definitely wrong on this. ESPN does not have the BE’s tier 3 rights, and UConn sells those rights direct in deals with SNY.
http://www.ctpost.com/football/article/UConn-SNY-announce-three-year-contract-605055.php
IMG gets the money from the shows around the games. But without the games, there are no shows.
SNY pays ESPN for production. But it pays UConn for the rights.
LikeLike
“You are without a doubt definitely wrong on this.”
No I am not.
“ESPN does not have the BE’s tier 3 rights”
In a sense no one does. ESPN controls the rights for football and basketball.
From MattSarz’s site,
“Big East – UPDATED: Same as the ACC. ESPN owns everything. Schools can buy back some content from ESPN (some OOC basketball, replay rights, etc.).”
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2012/05/third-tier-rights-what-are-they.html
“UConn sells those rights direct in deals with SNY.”
That article you linked to provides no such evidence of this.
“IMG gets the money from the shows around the games. But without the games, there are no shows.”
Yes, but they also get money directly from the games via radio broadcasts, and other multimedia rights. The IMG’s and Learfield’s of the world basically pay to become the 3rd tier rights holders for the schools they have deals with. That is IMG’s college business model.
“SNY pays ESPN for production. But it pays UConn for the rights.”
The fact that ESPN is willing to produce the games is a pretty good indicator the games were ESPN’s to begin with. And again, if these games are ESPN’s, no UConn is not getting paid for the rights to games that they don’t have the right to sell.
Especially in a basketball power conference like the Big East was, ESPN is going to come in and pay for everything. Short of the SEC and now the Big XII, and their exceptions are very public, major conference schools don’t get the rights to valuable content like football games. They assigned those rights to the conference and the conference sold them off to ESPN.
LikeLike
You write this: “Yes, but they also get money directly from the games via radio broadcasts, and other multimedia rights. The IMG’s and Learfield’s of the world basically pay to become the 3rd tier rights holders for the schools they have deals with. That is IMG’s college business model.”
And you write this: “And again, if these games are ESPN’s, no UConn is not getting paid for the rights to games that they don’t have the right to sell.”
So, which is it? Does UConn give rights to IMG? And, if so, hen why did you write that it doesn’t have the rights to sell?
The article I linked to said that UConn contracted with SNY. So, you think the contract is charity? Or is the article wrong? We know ESPN has the right to these games, but that doesn’t mean it shows them. It doesn’t. So why does ESPN take a fee to produce? Because, one, it defrays the cost of production, and two, ESPN does show these games out of market on ESPN3.
LikeLike
“So, which is it? Does UConn give rights to IMG? And, if so, hen why did you write that it doesn’t have the rights to sell?”
Those two statements aren’t contradictory at all. Statement 1) IMG is a 3rd tier rights holder for colleges Statement 2) In this situation these are not 3rd tier rights. If ESPN has the rights to Big East football games and chooses to sublicense some UConn games to SNY, that is a separate transaction that does not involve UConn’s and or IMG’s rights.
“The article I linked to said that UConn contracted with SNY.”
It says SNY reached a deal to show 300 hours of programming. That doesn’t say anything about how the programming was acquired, who is getting paid and how much.
“So, you think the contract is charity?”
Of course not. Although the University is certainly going to be pleased with the publicity SNY provides.
“ Or is the article wrong?”
I don’t know that I would say the article is wrong necessarily. It just doesn’t mention where anyof the content is coming from and anything about compensation.
“We know ESPN has the right to these games, but that doesn’t mean it shows them. It doesn’t. So why does ESPN take a fee to produce? Because, one, it defrays the cost of production, and two, ESPN does show these games out of market on ESPN3.”
In the old Big XII contract, Fox had the rights for anything not shown on ABC for football. That is a lot of inventory and more than Fox could fill (this is pre games on FX and pre games on Big Fox). Fox sold sublicensed games to TBS for a while, Versus (now NBC Sports), and ESPN. The SEC and ACC have had sub-licensed syndication packages with Raycom and Jefferson Pilot, etc. So when you have more inventory than you can show, you sell it.
This happens at the network level though. ESPN paid for the games and they can do with them as they please subject to their agreement with the Big East. Some conferences have clauses for profit sharing if the rights are sub-licensed, some conferences have clauses where they have to sign off on any sub-licensing deal. But this is all taking place above the school level.
You want me to belive that UConn has a separate unreported contract for football and basketball games that it probably doesn’t own with unreported income. Let’s try this a different way. Look how easy it is to find the value of the UConn IMG deal and the SNY women’s basketball deal. Why is there nothing on the basketball/football?
LikeLike
Good feature on Maryland’s wrestling program, which is looking forward to the challenge of the Big Ten: http://maryland.247sports.com/Article/Maryland-Wrestling-Coach-Kerry-McCoy-has-Terps-Thriving-116332
LikeLike
Very few non-revenue sports conferences as brutal as Big Ten wrestling.
LikeLike
UVA, UNC, Duke all pass the wrestling test. I hope all adds do.
LikeLike
That’s why I think those three schools will lean towards Big Ten as opposed to SEC if push comes to shove. The SEC doesn’t sponsor wrestling, or men’s soccer, or men’s and women’s lacrosse. Kind of hard to park all those teams in a lower-tier conference (e.g., MAC, C-USA) and then retain your top 25 status in the Directors’ Cup.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten does get those 4, it’ll give the Pac-12 a run for its money as far as non-revenue sports goes.
LikeLike
The question isn’t whether they’d prefer the B1G or the SEC, but what it would take to shake them loose from their current moorings.
LikeLike
2 SEC schools offer Men’s soccer, and a different 2 play women’s lacrosse. If 2 ACC schools joined, I could see Slive moving to get a couple more current schools playing those sports to add to the SEC inventory.
If the upcoming network really does have the reported financial projections, I hope the conference passes a requirement that each school adds at least 2 sports (1 men, 1 women) to their current offerings.
LikeLike
That would be like watching the Bad News Bears play the Yankees.
LikeLike
Only tangentially related but the IOC can take a flying leap.
LikeLike
Hopefully they undo their decision before finalizing the list of sports. They have another meeting in May and the final one in September, I believe.
LikeLike
Unless there is an unbelievably massive international backlash wrestling (in the Olympics) is dead. The executive committee wants it gone because it doesn’t provide the massive kickbacks other sports do.
ccrider had an excellent post earlier giving some information about the poor treatment wrestling has dealt with at the hands of the IOC.
To be brutally honest IMO opinion it’s time to just tear the whole thing down and start over.
LikeLike
It will be Russa, all the ‘stans, Iran, plus Turkey and Japan who both are bidding on the ’20 games that have the juice to maybe get this reversed. Quite a few of their top political leaders are former wrestlers and very avid. I’m not sure the board members that voted this thing would be safe visiting many of those places unprotected. In some places their wrestling fans make SEC football fanaticism seem like the British Royalties polite, subdued attendance at Wimbledon.
LikeLike
I respect the true wrestling, the one with the tradition going back to the ancient Greeks. Never understood adding dirt biking or women’s boxing to the program. Score another one for political correctness.
LikeLike
No kidding….wtf……seems like there were 90 different rowing competitions in the summer…no room for baseball, softball, wrestling?
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Doh
LikeLike
No network killed the Big East. It was the make up of the Big East from the beginning that killed it. A make shift group of part time, football only and basketball only schools. There was no stability from day one. THAT is what eventually killed the Big East, NOT some TV network.
LikeLike
Now you are arguing whether killing the Big Least was murder or euthanasia. I think that Fixed Sports did indeed kill the Big Least ~ but lean toward the euthanasia side.
LikeLike
No more FCS opponents for B1G.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190943281.html
LikeLike
THANK GOD!
LikeLike
Eastern Michigan’s phone is going to be ringing off the hook.
LikeLike
UMass and all the other “new” I-A’s will get a ton of calls, too. Also NMSU and Idaho since they will be independents and desperate for games.
LikeLike
If only NMSU could play two games a week in September, they’d have no trouble putting together a 12 game schedule.
LikeLike
Pat,
It’s funny to see Alvarez decrying the poor OOC scheduling of the B10. Pot, meet kettle.
LikeLike
Something you’ll never see in the SEC (and they’d be dragged kicking and screaming out of it if the playoff rules require that to happen). Good for the B1G. Another reason why I’ve become a fan of this conference. Now if they can swing another 4 to 6 schools then they’re good to go.
LikeLike
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190943281.html?ipad=y
Good scoop on Big 10 I found on Texas board. No more FCS. Purdue or MSU likely in west according to Alvarez.
LikeLike
Follow
Chad
@TeddyGreenstein – Unexpected side benefit to 10 game conf. schedule: the Big Ten’s name would make sense again. Kinda.
LikeLike
That’s why the 20 team conference will work out on the branding side. B1G east B1G west.
Tradition and brand awareness maintained.
LikeLike
I think it should be the B1G Classic and B1G Money Talks divisions.
LikeLike
Interesting that Michigan State is actively lobbying to be in the West.
This confirms something that I posted a couple threads ago asking Michigan State fans if they’d rather have a better chance of success than being in the same division as Michigan.
Definitely makes sense to get the last spot in the West than be in the East with OSU/Michigan/Penn State.
LikeLike
MSU’s largest alumni group is in Chicago and they do a lot of recruiting in that area and throughout Illinois which is also moving west. It’s a short drive for the fans from East Lansing to Evanston and tickets are easy to get. Wouldn’t be surprise to see MSU as Northwestern’s first opponent at Wrigley Field. Also, Wisconsin is a big rival and will be in the west, plus it sets up the possibility of playing Michigan twice in one season. As a resident of the state of Michigan, I would love to see the teams in separate divisions.
LikeLike
As an MSU man, I’m coming around to the idea. Not sold on the idea yet, but I wouldn’t be upset about it happening either.
LikeLike
Strikes me as a very risky move for MSU.
First, you put yourself at a disadvantage vs your division rivals by playing a more difficult schedule on average.
On top of that, you guarantee yourself fewer games in the recruiting rich states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.
LikeLike
Their schedule wouldn’t be that much harder because they’d play OSU and PSU less often than everyone else.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d imagine Northwestern being in the West is important since their AD has said on a couple of occasions that they view the Chicago visits as the second most important thing to playing Michigan on an annual basis.
LikeLike
MSU in the west would guarantee annual games with NU, MI and WI, all of which are highly desirable for MSU.
NE and IA are pretty well enjoyed as well. So assuming a 9 game season, 5 games are guaranteed interesting matchup for the MSU fanbase and I’m sure there will be more in most years. I’m a big fan of the season-ender. Maybe we can set up NW or WI as a locked season ender; that would be interesting.
I also think it could help MSU’s recruiting frankly as they might be able to break away a little bit from UM and OSU.
If we can keep ND as a more or less annual affair, we’d have good home schedules every year. I’d rather play ND than anyone else OOC – no question.
The downside is not playing OSU or PSU as much. I’m not overly concerned about playing MD and Rutgers often.
There are a lot of positives to it.
LikeLike
If Michigan St goes East then Michigan can have a Little Brown Jug Bye Week every year as their crossover.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Interesting that Michigan State is actively lobbying to be in the West.”
Do you have a link to go with that? I’m not doubting you, but I haven’t seen any recent quotes to that effect.
“This confirms something that I posted a couple threads ago asking Michigan State fans if they’d rather have a better chance of success than being in the same division as Michigan.”
Didn’t you get mixed answers to that? I know at least one of the MSU guys said they’d rather be in the east and beat the best despite me showing that MSU would expect to lose an extra game per year that way.
“Definitely makes sense to get the last spot in the West than be in the East with OSU/Michigan/Penn State.”
More importantly, it improves balance a little.
I used B10 results from 2003-2012 to determine W% against each team. For NE, I assigned the average of PSU and MI. I looked up the conference W% of all 14 teams and found RU was about the average of NW and PU, so I used that value across the board, and MD was about the average of PU and MN, so I used that value across the board.
The following table is the number of expected wins in a 9 game season for 3 different alignments. The first number is for E/W with MSU in the west (only MI/MSU locked). The second is with MSU in the east (only IN/PU locked). The third is for no divisions (the ideal balanced schedule).
IL – 1.97, 1.94, 2.01
IN – 1.25, 1.20, 1.44
IA – 5.16, 5.16, 5.01
MI – 5.95, 5.89, 5.89
MSU – 4.91, 4.81, 4.94
MN – 3.23 , 3.30, 3.25
NE – 5.75, 5.83, 5.78
NW – 4.41, 4.49, 4.23
OSU – 7.15, 7.29, 7.24
PSU – 5.79, 5.72, 5.66
PU – 3.94, 4.16, 3.90
WI – 5.82, 6.06, 6.00
MD – 3.57, 3.48, 3.57
RU – 3.99, 3.91, 4.07
Notes:
1. E/W really hurts IN and helps IA, NW and PSU.
2. MSU in the west hurts WI, PU and OSU the most while helping MSU, RU and MD. I know OSU seems counter-intuitive, but they have a better record against MSU than PU over the past 10 years. That shouldn’t continue, but I didn’t fudge any of the data.
3. I didn’t include the numbers, but MSU in the west comes much closer to the balanced schedule of no divisions (difference of 1.24 versus 1.63 wins in the sum of absolute differences)
4. MSU in the West is mathematically more fair. It also better balances the brands, which is often the more important form of balance. MSU gets 2 rivalries they want (WI and NW) while keeping MI. WI gets everyone they want, including MSU.
LikeLike
zeek,
I found a link.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190957011.html#!page=0&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
“I know Michigan State was lobbying in the West Division instead of the East.”
LikeLike
I did get mixed answers, but if jj is coming around that helps tip the balance I suppose.
And yeah, it’s better for balance to have Michigan State in the West than Purdue for sure.
Michigan State’s potential is more similar to Wisconsin and Iowa than any other school in the Big Ten of the non-kings.
LikeLike
I also hope that they only lock Michigan-Michigan State if this is the case. I don’t like the idea of Penn State locked into Nebraska as well as the other two kings, and who would Ohio State get locked into? Wisconsin?
LikeLike
I reckon Ohio State would get locked into Illinois.
LikeLike
@Bruce
As an Illinois fan I would like that, but I could see Michigan pushing back against that idea. It would give the Buckeyes a much easier path to the CCG.
LikeLike
But, but, but … TRADITION!
I’d rather the Buckeyes not be locked at all, and see the balance of the other division more often. If That School Up North doesn’t want being locked to the Spartans to give the Buckeyes an easier path, they can damn well pull for MSU in the eastern division.
LikeLike
frug,
It is OSU’s second biggest rivalry, just like MSU is for them.
But I hope they won’t lock anything but the one split in-state rivalry.
LikeLike
MSU in the West is mathematically more fair.
The options are within ~1/4th of a win for practically all teams, in all scenarios. One win every four years is close enough to be, in essence, statistically tied. There is probably at least that much error in the analysis, due to the fact that 3 out of 14 teams don’t have much history competing against the others.
MSU gets 2 rivalries they want (WI and NW) while keeping MI. WI gets everyone they want, including MSU.
I suspect the debate among the Big Ten ADs is whether this arrangement is giving WI and MSU a bit too much of what they want, at the expense of the other western teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“One win every four years is close enough to be, in essence, statistically tied.”
It’s not a statistically significant difference given the inherent error in estimating 3 teams and the yearly fluctuations for teams anyway (or at least I can’t show that it is significant), but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
“I suspect the debate among the Big Ten ADs is whether this arrangement is giving WI and MSU a bit too much of what they want, at the expense of the other western teams.”
Has anyone heard of PU wanting to be in the west? If not, that means the two schools in question both want the same thing. So let’s look at the rest:
Favor MSU in west – WI
Don’t really care – OSU, PSU, MD, RU
Don’t really care as long as split rivalry is locked – MI, IN
Favor MSU in east – IL (PU cannon), maybe NE, IA, MN, NW (SOS reasons)
I don’t see SOS concerns winning the day, especially when the math doesn’t support that as an issue for most teams. So where is the expense to the west? As I’ve shown elsewhere, they won’t play kings that much less often.
All eastern kings – 1 in 12 years lost
OSU and MI only – 1 in 10 years lost
I don’t see enough cost to not give MSU and PU what they seem to want.
LikeLike
Didn’t the Buckeyes AD say something along the lines of a schedule with Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland every year being less than exciting? While the Buckeyes might prefer to swap Indiana for MSU, the Spartans is an upgrade in terms of selling that ticket book.
LikeLike
He said he didn’t want RU, MD, IL, IN and PU every year. That would have been 5 of 8 games back when he said it. Now you have 9+ games and IL isn’t included. That’s very different. Besides, many fans in western OH and IN go to the games at PU.
LikeLike
Maybe Masochist State University football needs a new approach. They’ve been beating their heads against a wall for almost 30 years.
LikeLike
One idea:
Especially if the Big10 becomes the Big20, but even if they don’t, they may lobby the NCAA to allow schools in those conferences who don’t play a conference championship game an exemption to participate in a kick-off-classic-type 13th game the last weekend of August every 4 years.
On net, that would likely be more lucrative for the B10 as well as pretty much every other conference outside of the SEC, and even the SEC may drop their title game in order to have 4 schools (in a 16 school league) participate in a kick-off-classic-type game every 4 years and so that they don’t decrease their chances of sending 2 schools to the 4-team playoff.
With 20 schools, the B10 could have 5 schools playing in that type of game every year. They could have one matchup against the Pac, one against the B12, one against the ACC (or, if the ACC refuses to play because of the raiding, one against the BE), and one against the SEC if they’re allowed to as well as one against the MAC (which would essentially be an extra home game for the B10 school). For those schools who are insistent on having 7 home games, an extra 13th game every 4 years would allow for 10 conference games, 1 major OOC opponent, and still 7 home games (if they face a MAC or SunBelt school in the kickoff game) 3 of every 4 years.
Thinking about this more, if the SEC joins in, the B10 could have 5 series:
vs. SEC
vs. Pac
vs. B12
vs. MAC (for schools who want an extra home game)
vs. SunBelt (for schools who want an extra home game)
With an expansion to 20, B10 schools would already be regularly visiting places in the Midwest and the entire Eastern seaboard.
This setup would allow B10 schools to visit the rest of the south and the west as well.
LikeLike
If FSU, GTech, UNC, Duke, UVa, and Pitt are added to form a B20, I would want 3 protected games with 10 conference games (meeting the nonprotected schools 7/16 of the time, so every class would play almost every other conference member home and away over 4 years).
OSU-Michigan
FSU-PSU
FSU-UNL
Would be annual games (as well as a bunch of others that I figured out).
FSU gets a little bit of a tougher schedule, but they also have the best recruiting grounds (over 16 years, in 12 years, all the kings would face the same number of kings:2 each for 10 years and 4 each for 2 years; the other 4 years, FSU faces all 4 kings while the other 4 face 2 each). All members of the current 14-school B10 would have an annual series with a king except for Northwestern, Maryland, and one of IU/PU (I have them rotating in a spot against OSU). Even those schools who don’t have an annual series with a king would face a king 35/16 of the time, or a little over twice a year on average. That’s worse than in the 12-school B10, when the least often a school would face a king on average was 2.4 times but better than in the traditional 10-school B10, when a school faced a king only 1 or 2 times a year.
You could have only 2 protected games, allowing you to meet the other schools 8/17 of the time, but that would mean sacrificing annual series like Iowa-Wisconsin, the Little Brown Jug game, and either UNL-FSU or UNL-Wisconsin, which to me would not be worth it given the minimal gain.
LikeLike
The NCAA and the schools have shown they no longer want the kickoff classics.
LikeLike
greg – the neutral site opening weekend big ooc games are gaining momentum though. In addition to Atlanta and DFW, add Houston to list for the upcoming season.
Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Game – Bama v. VA Tech
Cowboys Classic – LSU v. TCU
Texas Kickoff Classic – OK State v. Miss State
LikeLike
Alan, I agree those games are coming back, but they aren’t an exempt game like they used to be. THAT concept has been squashed.
LikeLike
They weren’t wanted back when the haul of a regular season game was a fraction of what it is now and the revenue of an exempt game wasn’t directly controlled by the conferences.
Exempt games that bring in 8 figures with revenues that flow to the conferences directly may be a different story. Especialy if they can be packaged as an experience for the players. Kind of like a pre-season bowl game experience.
LikeLike
Also, with the exemption for a 13th game every 4 years, a school could have 7 home games every year even with 10 conference games if they are OK with playing a major OOC opponent only 3 out of 4 years.
LikeLike
Especially if the Big10 becomes the Big20, but even if they don’t, they may lobby the NCAA to allow schools in those conferences who don’t play a conference championship game an exemption to participate in a kick-off-classic-type 13th game the last weekend of August every 4 years.
Which conferences are you thinking of? Currently, every major conference except the Big XII has a CCG. And the Big XII will probably have one within the next five years. I don’t see any scenario where the SEC gives up its championship game; it’s one of the most valuable non-bowl games in the sport.
So what you’re talking about, really, is just adding a 13th regular-season game for some teams. Once you’ve done that, why limit it to four or five teams per conference? Bear in mind, some schools could play up to 16 games (13 regular-season, CCG, two playoff games). There are concerns about the battering the players’ bodies would absorb.
A more likely scenario is that they add a 13th game for FBS teams to host FCS teams, in a sort of regular-season tune-up in late August that wouldn’t count in the standings. A number of coaches have said they want this.
LikeLike
Marc:
Think outside the box. My proposal is either/or. Either a conference title game or kick-off classics (in order to limit the total number of non-postseason games to 13). Yes, many conferences have conference title games now, but except for the SEC and B10, they’re not all that lucrative; likely not as lucrative as several kick-off classics, so I forsee those conferences abandoning title games for kick-off classics if they have a choice. Even the SEC might for the reason I gave above if the kickoff classics bring in more dough.
LikeLike
@Richard: The people in the sport who know the real numbers don’t agree with you.
LikeLike
Marc:
Feel free to share those “real numbers” (any what they think about 1 title game vs. several kick-off classics) any day that you like.
LikeLike
@Richard: Feel free to share those “real numbers” (any what they think about 1 title game vs. several kick-off classics) any day that you like.
I didn’t say that I have the real numbers; only that the people who do are not proposing your system.
What I know is that several conferences have added CCGs in recent years. The one major conference that doesn’t have a CCG (the Big XII) is calling for liberalized rules, that would make it easier to stage one.
No one is calling for your idea.
LikeLike
Marc:
“I didn’t say that I have the real numbers”
Pity; I was willing to be convinced with some data.
“What I know is that several conferences have added CCGs in recent years.”
Right, because in a system where pre-season 13th games are not allowed, it’s logical to play CCGs instead.
“No one is calling for your idea.”
Possibly because many folks are like you and unwilling to think outside the box. Also possibly because regular season games didn’t go up in so much value until relatively recently. Also because megaconferences didn’t exist in the past.
No one was calling for CCG’s either until the SEC did one and showed how lucrative it is.
No one was calling for a conference network until the B10 did one and showed how lucrative it is, so the “no one has proposed it yet” argument is a weak one.
LikeLike
@Richard: The set of things that hasn’t been done is infinite. Most ideas in that infinite set will never be done, because they are terrible.
College football is an inherently conservative sport: change comes very slowly, and usually not until there has been very considerable public discussion. So before such a change would be made, the people in charge would be talking about it. Right now, they’re not. They’re actually moving in the opposite direction. Hence, I readily conclude that it ain’t happening in the foreseeable future.
Maybe they’re wrong, but intuitively, your idea sounds just awful, so I’m not surprised that no one is pursuing it.
LikeLike
Mark:
“College football is an inherently conservative sport: change comes very slowly, and usually not until there has been very considerable public discussion.”
I must have missed the very considerable public discussion before the B10 decided to launch a conference network or the SEC decided to hold a CCG.
LikeLike
@Richard: Since NCAA rules had to be changed for the SEC to stage a championship game, there was extensive discussion of that, whether you noticed it or not.
The Big Ten network didn’t require any public discussion, because the NCAA doesn’t regulate which channel broadcasts your games.
LikeLike
“Since NCAA rules had to be changed for the SEC to stage a championship game”
The SEC exploited (or leveraged) an existing rule to stage their title game.
LikeLike
Marc,
You’re simply wrong about there being a discussion before the SEC planned a CCG.
Given that, I have little faith that you are right about what people in power in college football think.
LikeLike
Marc:
No, the NCAA rule allowing CCG was already in existence. The SEC simply took advantage of an existing rule, enacted to help oversized lower level conferences arrive at a logical, acceptable championship.
LikeLike
@Richard: I’m not going to spend an hour doing google research to disprove you.
I have little faith that you are right about what people in power in college football think.
I’m not the one proposing something new. I have nothing to prove.
LikeLike
And it did take the 80’s OU lawsuit to end the NCAA regulating TV broadcasts.
LikeLike
@Marc
You’re wrong. Everyone on this board has told you that you are wrong. The only discussion was in that article posted in the last thread when the NCAA head tried to tell the SEC commissioner not to use the existing rule, that it wasn’t meant for Division I football.
LikeLike
@bullet: I have no disagreement with anything that you have said on this subject, or for that matter, anyone other than @Richard.
LikeLike
Who wouldn’t want to trade and market a game pitting two teams that have possible immediate NC aspirations for preseason exhibition games between teams that may be contenders, or may suck…
LikeLike
. . . teams with possible immediate NC aspirations who could be knocked out of the running by the title game.
LikeLike
Join the B12…
LikeLike
It’s about eyeballs. There’s a reason why playoffs get more than the regular season.
LikeLike
metatron:
I agree that it’s about eyeballs. The question is how much more of a premium a CCG draws over a regular game. Note that for a 12-school conference, the CCG only has to draw 1.5 times more than a regular game to be more worthwhile than my proposal of late August games every 4 years, but for a 20-school conference, the CCG would have to draw 2.5 times more.
Schools in conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt can count on 3 X $1M = $3M in guarantees annually under my proposal. Does the MAC currently get that much for its CCG? I’d be a little surprised if they do.
LikeLike
You’re forgetting something: exclusivity. People are watching the playoffs even if their teams aren’t in it, and they often have wide-open windows where nothing else is on. Advertisers will pay more for big games. They always have and always will.
To say nothing of the actual emotional attachment that a championship run can do for the viewer. I mean, you’re essentially proposing MLB drop the World Series for 105 games spread between 30 teams.
LikeLike
metatron:
Exclusivity is all fine and good, but if the CCG brings in less financially than 5 kickoff classics, what inherent value does exclusivity have?
“Advertisers will pay more for big games. They always have and always will.”
It almost seems like you didn’t read my post. I didn’t dispute that a CCG will bring in more money than 1 regular season game, but will it bring in more than 1.5 times more or more than 2.5 times more money?
“To say nothing of the actual emotional attachment that a championship run can do for the viewer. I mean, you’re essentially proposing MLB drop the World Series for 105 games spread between 30 teams.”
Actually, it’s more like dropping the divisional playoff series, unless you’re saying that the B10 CCG means more to you than the Rose Bowl or national title game.
Speaking of which, when did you become so attached to the B10 CCG? Did you feel a vast, empty, unfillable void in your soul the 100+ years when the B10 didn’t hold a CCG? Did no B10 team ever stage a title run before 2011?
LikeLike
Actually, it’s more like dropping the divisional playoff series. . . .
Nevertheless, in case you’ve noticed, MLB is increasing the number of divisional playoff games, not curtailing them.
Speaking of which, when did you become so attached to the B10 CCG?
The practical reality is, without it, you could easily have two 8-1 teams who didn’t play each other, and no fair way to decide which one gets the Rose Bowl or playoff bid. That becomes far more probable as the conference grows.
LikeLike
Marc:
The B10 had that situation a bunch of times when we had 10 and then 11 member schools.
The world did not end.
Personally, I’m all for using the old Rose Bowl tie-breaker of the school that hadn’t been there the longest getting to go.
I sometimes wonder just how old some folks on this board are.
LikeLike
Actually, @Richard, I am probably older than you. I remember rule that very well.
I’m just asking you: who is it, with decision-making influence in the sport, that has shown any indication of pining for those old days? Everything they are saying and doing, is moving in the opposite direction.
Can you show me one example to the contrary. Just one?
LikeLike
So…follow the Oregon example a couple years ago and lose a NC shot first week by losing (to LSU in this example) by playing a high profile opener? How much value is lost for each game the rest of the year?
Is this just a re-do of the B12 attempt to get a 13th game without enlarging the conference?
LikeLike
The substantive problem, is this:
You’d be adding 20 new football games the weekend before the current regular season. (As I understand @Richard’s proposal, it’s four games per conference, for all five of the major conferences.)
There aren’t enough time slots in one weekend for all of those games to be featured; many of them would be relegated to undesirable time slots on second- or third-tier networks, with a number of competing games played simultaneously. Moreover, it would be a weekend in late August, traditionally a low ratings period, when many viewers are on late summer holidays, and not yet focused on football. Those games aren’t all going to be Michigan vs. Alabama. You’re going to have miscellaneous Purdue vs Texas Tech type games too, that aren’t big draws, except perhaps for the fans of those two schools.
In contrast, the CCGs are shown on a weekend when most teams are no longer playing. They have featured time slots on major networks, without a ton of other games competing with them, and with a major bowl appearance or playoff spot at stake. My guess is that one big game at the end of the season is worth more money to the SEC than four overlapping and far less meaningful ones in late August.
And that’s before you consider all of the competitive issues (conference championships not decided on the field, uneven numbers of games, extra road trips, etc.).
LikeLike
ccrider55:
A team could lose luster after a kickoff classic-type game, but it could gain it as well.
The same holds true for conference title games. Plus, if a 4-team playoff had been in place, Oregon probably would have gotten in.
Note that in a world with a 4-team playoff, you will find yourself in a situation where a team may be better off by losing and not making the conference title game than by winning and going. For instance, in 2012, UGa went to the CCG because they beat UF, but UF likely would have benefitted if a 4-team playoff was in place as they would have been selected while UGa would have had to beat ‘Bama to make the playoff.
Imagine the uproar that would have resulted.
Marc:
Superconferences have not existed up to now. Nor has a 4-team playoff. With the changing landscape, people may well discover that the old ways were better after all.
LikeLike
Jr size super conferences (large enough to hold CCG, the only truly distinguishing feature) have existed and have CCG’s. The PAC and B1G have joined in. The only conference to no longer hold one is the one that got raided/abandoned to a level they were unable to replenish with valuable enough schools to not net a loss getting back to 12 including the CCG value.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that most CCG’s are not the SEC title game either.
The TV ratings for most CCG’s just aren’t that impressive. A regular season Texas-KSU game outdrew the Pac CCG and the regular season OU-TCU game outdrew the ACC CCG (by a lot):
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/
LikeLike
“Keep in mind that most CCG’s are not the SEC title game either.”
Huh? Of course only the SEC CCG is the SEC title game.
Yeah, I get it. But I call BS. Will every year be great? No, but OSU/ Neb or USC/Ore certainly are potentially their equal, at least to the regions and fan bases.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that most CCG’s are not the SEC title game either.
Part of your premise, though, was that the SEC would drop their game, and I have a lot of trouble imagining that. You are correct that some conferences’ CCGs have not been blockbusters.
LikeLike
Did you guys read what I wrote? Here it is again:
“On net, that would likely be more lucrative for the B10 as well as pretty much every other conference outside of the SEC, and even the SEC may drop their title game in order to have 4 schools (in a 16 school league) participate in a kick-off-classic-type game every 4 years and so that they don’t decrease their chances of sending 2 schools to the 4-team playoff.”
Notice the word “may”. How does that become me premising this idea on the SEC dropping their CCG?
Even if they don’t, the B10 and other leagues may find it more lucrative to hold the kickoff classics instead.
ccrider:
Sure, the CCG’s may be more lucrative. In fact, I’d expect them to be more lucrative than regular season games. But the key question is if they are more than 1.5 times as lucrative (to a 12-school league), more than 2 times as lucrative to a 16-school league, and more than 2.5 times as lucrative to a 20-school league.
LikeLike
For simplicity assume media contract is 80% for FB. PAC (because i remember their numbers…i think) is getting 4.4mm per contracted game. Fox supposedly paid 25mm for the CCG plus other obligations. I think the game itself was about 15mm of that. So you’re over 3X the reg season, before diluting the season with additional games of questionable value.
LikeLike
ccrider55:
That’s only the TV revenue, though.
For conferences like the Pac that has to host on school sites (the B12 as well if they ever expand to 12 and hold a CCG) and the ACC (and a bunch of lower conferences) who usually don’t come close to selling out their CCG, 2 regular season games almost certainly bring in more ticket revenue than 1 CCG.
Overall, I’d wager that the extra money a CCG brings in over a regular season game is less than double for most conferences and possibly less than 1.5 times for some conferences.
LikeLike
Which conferences would drop their CCG in order to have a kick-off classic?
I can’t see the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 or ACC doing it. So that leaves the Big 12 and whichever Mid-Majors would do it.
I don’t follow any of the Mid-Majors closely except the MAC ~ surely the MAC wouldn’t trade a kick-off classic weekend to give up their championship game. Their CCG is typically their biggest profile game of the year ~ and the only big profile game where a MAC school is guaranteed to come out as winner.
LikeLike
It all comes down to money. A 14-school B10 may not find it more lucrative, but a Big20 may find kick-off classics featuring 5 B20 teams to be more lucrative than 1 CCG.
Again, note that, outside of the SEC CCG, ratings for CCG’s just aren’t all that impressive.
That “biggest profile game of the year” for the MAC garnered a 0.9 rating.
LikeLike
It’s not ratings, but what is bid for the CCG that matters, and that’s done years in advance. Far more certainty at ESPN/Fox/etc that a CCG will be valuable. Far more certainty that media really isn’t looking for a boatload of more exhibition/preseason inventory, too.
LikeLike
Uh, the CCG bids are based off of projected ratings. The networks are not in the business of losing money, and if the CCG’s get only 1.5 times the ratings of a regular season game on average, they’ll get only 1.5 times the payout of a regular season game.
As for inventory, I disagree. Unlike in pro football, there are no exhibition games in college football; these games would count just as much. Also, if you haven’t noticed, the networks (and sports fans) have an insatiable appetite for NFL pre-season games (due to boffo ratings).
LikeLike
I understand. But the media bidding on a CCG package isn’t bidding billions over a decade plus for maybe 500+ games. They are bidding on the POTENTIAL ratings of a few games at the end of seasons that have separated the wheat from the chaff. A year that doesn’t meet expectation wont be felt at all compared to over biding for regular season contract.
LikeLike
0.9 compared to what regular season ratings? Bowling Green – Ohio 0.5, Ball State – Toledo 0.4, Toledo – UNI 0.4, Akron – Toledo 0.4, Ohio – Ball State 0.2, Ohio – Kent State 0.1
Play a bunch of FCS schools, at the same time that big name schools are playing a bunch of FCS schools, and if they get on TV at all there’s no reason to expect them to rate above 0.1 to 0.2.
LikeLike
A 14-school B10 may not find it more lucrative, but a Big20 may find kick-off classics featuring 5 B20 teams to be more lucrative than 1 CCG.
Once you allow 25 percent of the schools to play a 13th game, why not just allow everyone to play it? The CCGs have a sporting purpose, i.e., to determine a champion. And you have to earn your way there, on the playing field.
Once you introduce games for the sole purpose of expanding the season (and making money from it), the other 75 percent are likely to say, “Why not us?” I’m not really seeing the logic of limiting it to a quarter of the programs. There is no rhyme or reason to that.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
Except that MAC schools would be playing a bunch of guarantee games against power conferences, drawing higher ratings and bigger guarantees, not each other.
LikeLike
Marc:
“Once you introduce games for the sole purpose of expanding the season (and making money from it), the other 75 percent are likely to say, “Why not us?” I’m not really seeing the logic of limiting it to a quarter of the programs. There is no rhyme or reason to that.”
In order to limit the wear and tear on athletes. Once every 4 years means a kid only plays an extra game once over his school career (while someone on ‘Bama’s squad could have played a bunch of extra games over his career with a CCG setup). The other programs will be allowed to play the extra game when their turn comes, so I don’t see anyone saying “why not us?”
Oh, and let’s be real: the CCG’s are money grabs, plain and simple. The B12 currently has a very fair, simple, and elegant way of determining a conference champion, yet they still want to hold a CCG (for no good reason other than getting more money).
LikeLike
@Richard: I entirely agree with you that CCGs are money grabs, but there is a legal fiction at work. The NCAA purports to promote player safety, amateurism, and fair play. For every rule, they can at least claim that is the purpose, even if it also happens to make money.
Those who vote on the rules would ask, I think rightfully: how are these goals advanced by more-than-doubling the number of teams that play an extra game; and once you’ve allowed that, what is the rationale for stopping there? What meaningful difference is there [in terms of player safety] between one game every three years, rather than one every four? After all, comparatively few players actually see much action for four full seasons.
LikeLike
“he B12 currently has a very fair, simple, and elegant way of determining a conference champion, yet they still want to hold a CCG (for no good reason other than getting more money).”
I’ll point out that their system produced 2 co-champions this year, and could produce more than that in future years.
Of course, the Big 12 also understands that ties also come up with divisions.
LikeLike
At least the in division ties cannot occur between teams that have not met.
LikeLike
No current B12 ties involve teams that haven’t met either.
LikeLike
“@Richard: I entirely agree with you that CCGs are money grabs, but there is a legal fiction at work. The NCAA purports to promote player safety, amateurism, and fair play. For every rule, they can at least claim that is the purpose, even if it also happens to make money.”
Really? What was the noble purpose of going from 11 regular season games to 12 regular season games?
As for the 13th game every 4 years, it can be spun as a cultural enrichment experience; an opportunity for every player who plays 4 years to experience something akin to a bowl game at least once (if their conference sets it up that way) even if their team isn’t good enough to go to a bowl ever during their playing career. Even if the game takes place in their home stadium, I’d require the kickoff classics to organize kickoff breakfast/lunch/dinners and events over a day or 2 for the players.
Note that they can be played either Saturday or Sunday; I’d schedule most on Sunday.
LikeLike
Brian:
That’s the point. Full round robin in division to eliminate what is eliminated by full RR in a conference small enough to achieve it, and is required of divisions in larger conferences to qualify for the 13th game as a CCG (as you know). It doesn’t eliminate ties.
LikeLike
The biggest move Delany made was when Penn State was down taking Rutgers and Maryland. Penn State was considering a move to ACC. With the whole eastern seaboard locked up. The ACC could have made a move to a super conference with Notre Dame.
That was not something the B1G could let happen. Which to get the ball rolling it gave Maryland a full share right away unlike Nebraska.
LikeLike
Maryland will have to pay their 6 year buy in at a later time when their financial situation is less problematic.
That’s the only difference between them and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Given the Big Ten GOR, how the heck could Penn State have left for the ACC, especially considering the huge penalty it had to pay the NCAA? Delany’s add of Maryland and Rutgers helped prevent the Big Ten from becoming invisible on the eastern seaboard for the next few years (PSU basketball gets no ink at all outside State College) and will pay off in the long run.
LikeLike
Theoretically, PSU might have left the B1G the next time the GOR was up for renewal. I never thought there was much chance of that happening.
LikeLike
Penn State was never leaving the Big !
LikeLike
This. 1000x this.
LikeLike
The biggest move Delany made was when Penn State was down taking Rutgers and Maryland. Penn State was considering a move to ACC. With the whole eastern seaboard locked up. The ACC could have made a move to a super conference with Notre Dame.
That would have been huge… if it was possible (which it isn’t)
LikeLike
Lots of great lines on the Alabama arrests:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130212/NEWS/130219947
Dan Wetzel-Bama boosters need to step it up. Got players arrested for beating students and stealing to buy vending machine snacks. No $100 handshakes?
Andy Staples-I think its an Alabama rule that if you are going to commit a crime, take a few underperforming upperclassmen with you.
EverydayshouldbeSaturday-After seeing Auburn pull off the legendary Switzer Slam, a national title, Heisman and Fulmer Cup all in the same year-Alabama naturally had to attempt the same one day.
And a Texas fan on ShaggyBevo commenting on Texas’ recent troubles-Mack can’t even teach this &#%$ correctly. FIRST you win the *(#$&!$ title, THEN you get arrested.
LikeLike
I the twitter hashtag #ParoleTide was funny (sorry bamatab)
LikeLike
Pingback: Pitt Blather Permalink » Remains of the Big East
If the B1G invites UVA/UNC/DUKE/GT/FSU (as well as Johns Hopkins) and they accept,
but ND doesn’t wish to join at number 20 I would look for another jaw-dropper in the form
of VANDERBILT. The offer to join a conference with that much academic fire power, yearly pay out, and newly expanded Southern footprint would be hard to resist. I know SEC fans can’t imagine one of their own defecting, but that’s my dark horse and I’m sticking with it.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt’s never leaving the SEC. It just doesn’t make sense.
In any case, I don’t understand why the Big Ten wouldn’t sit at 18 and wait for Notre Dame. It wouldn’t really even be waiting, 18 is a full conference. Getting ND after that to go to 20 would be gravy (may take 30 years though).
LikeLike
Oh gee. Okay. Thanks for setting me straight. If you don’t mind, please humor me. If the scenario I laid out occurs, explain how it ‘doesn’t make sense’. That’s quite a bar to clear, considering the Universities involved. I look forward to your expert analysis.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt’s not going to get an invite to the Big Ten. They don’t bring a monetizable market that they can claim (they probably have less claim to Nashville than Georgia Tech has on Atlanta).
As far as culture and the like matter, there’s no real fit there. They’re a worse fit than Duke probably as far as cultural fit goes. I spent 3 years at Vanderbilt, and it’s as different from Northwestern as I can imagine two private universities of similar academic standing being.
In any case, where’s the money in it? Duke brings a top 10 hoops program and its rivalries in that arena.
Why would a school leave the SEC for similar payouts in the Big Ten?
LikeLike
I’m not really seeing what either side gets out of it.
Tennessee is not an especially coveted media market, and whatever it may be worth, the dominant school is UT. Vandy football and basketball games don’t attract much fan attention. They would probably dilute the Big Ten media deal. Academically, the Big Ten would probably be very happy to have Vandy, but not at the expense of taking on a school that doesn’t carry its weight financially.
When the new media deals are settled, I doubt that the SEC and the Big Ten payouts are going to be very far off. Schools will abandon rivalries if the money is good enough. But we’re not talking ACC vs. Big Ten, where the discrepancy will be huge. We’re talking SEC vs. Big Ten, where there won’t be much difference.
Vandy’s best major sport is baseball, and the SEC is obviously a much better home for that sport than the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
Speaking of Vandy – Welcome to the SEC facilities arms race.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130212/SPORTS0602/302120045/Vanderbilt-looks-ways-improve-stadium.
From the article:
“Vanderbilt is building a $31 million indoor practice field and multi-purpose facility that is due to be completed about Oct. 31. There also are more planned phases for renovations to McGugin Center.
Vanderbilt Stadium underwent several changes prior to last season that included artificial turf, a new video board and a berm in the open end zone that offered hillside seating. The berm expanded the stadium capacity to 40,550.
Williams said he thinks the ideal stadium capacity at this point would be 45,000, with the likely area for additional seating being in the corners or back of the open end zone.
“We’re going to meet with some people who have done some renovations, have them come in and walk the stadium with a number of our people and look at plans of the stadium as it is now,” Williams said. “We’ll get the possibilities and attach the cost to it.”
Part of the planning for stadium changes will have Williams and other key university figures setting up trips to visit and study approximately eight new or recently renovated college stadiums.
Williams cited California, Houston, SMU, Stanford, TCU and Wake Forest as probable stops. Houston has plans for a $105 million stadium that will seat 40,000 with built-in expansion options to reach 60,000.”
The SEC schools currently planning or constructing stadium renovations/expansions include LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Mizzou, A&M, Kentucky and now Vandy.
LikeLike
It would be a jaw dropper for a reason ~ it doesn’t offer a net benefit either Vanderbilt or the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think Missouri is more likely to go to the B1G than Vanderbilt.
LikeLike
Apologize if this already posted, do not have the time to go read all the other psots. Interesting post from Mr SEC…………..
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/big-ten-to-add-more-conference-games-is-this-another-lure-for-uva-gt-unc-and-duke/
UNC And Duke?
February 12th, 2013 11:38 AM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Schools: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Tags: ACC, Big Ten, GT, North Carolina
Send This Story To A Friend
The Big Ten will move to at least nine conference football games per season and possibly 10 according to league commissioner Jim Delany. The move has been rumored for several weeks, but Delany confirmed the decision yesterday:
“There’s real recognition that we now live in two regions of the country, and we want to make sure those are bound together as best we can, so more games (makes sense). Eight games is not on the table. It’s nine or 10.”
Ohio State AD Gene Smith also said: “There’s television considerations there when you have intriguing conference matchups that are better than some of our non-conference matchups, that’s an important piece.”
That could also be an important piece for the SEC moving forward. Under current plans, the Big Ten, Pac-12, and Big XII will all be playing at least nine conference games per year. The SEC currently plays eight league games. The SEC’s format results in one more cupcake game per year for each school and fewer visits to and from conference rivals.
Eventually — as we’ve stated for more than a year — the Southeastern Conference will move to a nine-game schedule. It will have to (barring a scheduling alliance with another conference). Its television partners and the league’s own SEC Network will require such a move for content purposes. And with a selection committee deciding each year’s four playoff participants, the SEC won’t be able to allow other leagues to claim their teams are playing tougher schedules. There is already a move to “spread the wealth” of football championships or else there would be no new playoff in the first place. If members of the selection committee can point to something as simple as “SEC teams play more creampuff non-conference games,” you better believe they’ll do so in order to get teams from as many leagues as possible into the playoffs each year.
But look again at Delany’s statement. “We now live in two regions of the country,” meaning the Midwest and the East. There are hardly as many Big Ten schools in the East as there are in the Midwest. But more are probably on the way.
In recent weeks we’ve reported that our sources have said Virginia and Georgia Tech have both had contact with the Big Ten. We’ve been told those schools are waiting to see the final bill Maryland will have to pay to get out of the ACC before they decide whether or not to follow the Terrapins’ lead. Everyone and their brother is now reporting the same thing (or at least reporting on the reports that are already out there).
There have also been rumors that the Big Ten is wooing North Carolina, Duke, Boston College, and Florida State. At MrSEC.com, we don’t see BC or FSU as being realistic partners with the Big Ten as they lack AAU status, but we’ll mention the rumors just the same.
By adding Maryland and Rutgers late last year, Delany’s league made it clear that it is a) looking to add large numbers of cable households for its Big Ten Network and b) trying to expand southward. As Delany himself has mentioned time and again, part of the decision to look south is driven by population shifts and demographics. Several Big Ten states have the slowest growth rates in the country. Some of the fastest growing states are in the South. So if you want more television revenue and you need robust populations to create new students and donors, clearly you try to grab a number of top schools farther south.
So what’s this have to do with adding conference games?
A move to nine or 10 conference games could be a lure to a number of ACC schools. “Come with us and you can continue to pal around with a number of your old buddies.” If the Big Ten — and this is simply speculation — were to add Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the recently nabbed Maryland and Rutgers, well, that would be an East Division.
And Delany seems to be considering several moves that would please the ACC schools on his wish list.
There have been recent rumblings that the Big Ten might add lacrosse power Johns Hopkins to its roster of teams in some partial capacity. That league’s academic consortium — the Committee on Institutional Cooperation — already includes the University of Chicago, once a full-fledged Big Ten member before it downshifted out of the world of big-time athletics. Opening a door to Johns Hopkins for lacrosse and the CIC would not require a paradigm shift as the Big Ten already has a partial member.
Now consider the fact that the Big Ten has three lacrosse-playing schools who have to play that sport in other conferences. And also keep in mind that the four current, lacrosse-playing ACC schools are Maryland (moving to the Big Ten), Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke. Hmmm.
Let’s take a step back and look at the big picture here. Delany has said that his league has to pay attention to population shifts into the Sun Belt region. He’s just grabbed Rutgers and Maryland. One of those schools brings the nation’s largest television market into the Big Ten fold. The other provides the Washington, DC and Baltimore markets as well as a gateway into the South. Adding Johns Hopkins would give the Big Ten the opportunity to create a lacrosse league for new ACC targets and it would further strengthen the Big Ten’s academic reputation. Finally, Delany’s league will be adding conference games which will allow any new ACC targets to play each other more often and soften the blow of realignment/expansion.
That’s a lot to sell to the administrations of Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Duke.
They could join the richest college conference (which also makes the Big Ten a stable college conference). They could enter a peer group of some of the top academic universities in the country (including the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins). Lacrosse schools like Virginia, Duke and North Carolina could partner with Johns Hopkins, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan to form a strong league. And those Eastern/Southern teams could play each other more often in football and basketball.
Imagine a Big Ten consisting of three six-school divisions:
West Central East
Illinois Indiana Duke
Iowa Michigan Georgia Tech
Minnesota Michigan State Maryland
Nebraska Ohio State North Carolina
Northwestern Penn State Virginia
Wisconsin Purdue Rutgers
It would be hard for the SEC or any other conference to match such a league in terms of cable households, nationally-known sports brands, and academic reputation. If the Big Ten could pull all of that off it would — in theory — set itself up for years of success to come.
LikeLike
The interesting thing about UNC and Duke is that they are the only ACC schools that haven’t been ranked in the final AP football poll in the BCS era.
LikeLike
I am not sure it has been touched on in here but I have interesting theory about the BIG’s latest moves. I think the BIG is attacking the SEC’s strangle hold over college football.
1. Jim Delaney last winter encouraged all BIG schools to start offering 4 year scholarships. This is an assault on the SEC’s schools (not all as I think Florida and Georgia don’t) advantage in oversigning. If this becomes the standard, Alabama and LSU won’t be able to get rid of underclassmen who are not performing and replace them with new recruits so easily.
2. No longer scheduling FCS schools is not only to improve the BIG’s quality of schedule, but a response to the SEC. Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina were all ranked in the top 5 this year based on only beating themselves. None of them played a division 1 school out of conference until their rivalry game against the ACC the last week of the season, which all happen to be in their own state. The SEC also likes to schedule FCS schools late in the season to allow for defacto bye weeks to break up tough conference play, that the BIG currently grinds through.
3. Increasing to 9 or 10 conference games is great for television. It will definitely force the SEC to match especially if they want to get that extra tv money boost. Last Georgia and Alabama didn’t have to play a single ranked power in the other division. That helped in keeping loses down. Increasing the number of conference games will increase the chances of these schools meeting more often, thus increasing their loss total.
4. This isnt a football point as much as it is competition in expansion. Trying to add John Hopkins as a partial member would be great all around for the BIG, but is also a shot at the SEC. The SEC has been rumored by the Sportingnews to be pursuing UNC and Duke for three years now. One of the biggest hurdles the SEC faces is its academic reputation and the fact it doesn’t offer all the sports that UNC and Duke play in conference. Lacrosse, despite what some think, is of some importance to those schools. Adding JHU significantly adds to the academic prestige of the BIG even more and creates a very strong and appealing lacrosse league. In what will be a close decision for UNC either way, adding lacrosse could be that little bit that sways the university’s decision.
5. This is pure conjecture, but the news of FOX starting a competitor against ESPN is interesting for the BIG against the SEC. Espn are king makers in college sports, and for some sports in general. They actively promote some teams and stories over others. If the BIG goes to Fox, does that weaken Espns power in college football. Would the BIG take the initial hit in national recognition by going to Fox just to weaken ESPN in the long run? I think it might.
LikeLike
fat lot of good those things will do you if you can’t sign top 20 recruiting classes.
LikeLike
Andy, athletic programs do not live by football alone…although now that Mizzou is in the SEC, I can see you being indoctrinated into that belief.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
So, where did Missouri end up in this year’s recruiting rankings? National? In-conference?
LikeLike
According to the SB Nation wrap up:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2013/2/11/3976050/college-football-recruiting-2013-sec-conferences
… 38th, 14/14th in SEC, falling below 7/14th in Big Ten (w/RU&MD), 5/10th in Big12, 4/12 Pac-12, 8/15 in ACC (w/ND).
LikeLike
General comment to those on the Board espousing rotating pods: change the name to something better.
On the previous thread (or the one before that), someone complained that “pods” would never be accepted because they were too strange. Someone responded by saying that the “fans would be educated.”
The first step in “educating” the fans is to choose a name that is comfortable and familiar. I suggest forever dumping the word pods and just say rotating division (“RDs”).
Feel free to suggest other names.
the marketing for RDs is straightforward: every conference has divisions; the BIG has divisions; the NFL has divisions that are 4 teams; the B1G will have divisions that are 4 teams. So, it’s not strange and weird and the butt of jokes. Oh, and our divisions rotate; pretty cool that they rotate, huh? Yep, the B1G is innovative with its rotating divisions,
by contrast, “pods” sounds weird. Pod-people, drink pods, peas in a pod, pod rhymes with odd and no one wants to be odd. Pod is just an ugly sounding word. A doddering clod plodding along sees a nodding toddler on the sod while while drinking from a pod wearing a mod cod-piece made to look like a codfish which is really just a big wad of cash. The only pod that’s not odd is an iPod.
LikeLike
Yes, it always makes me think of Invasion of the Body Snatchers when I read a discussion of “pods”
“Group” sounds a lot less nerdy than “pod”. “Rotating divisions” would be the annual championship divisions ~ or “Alternating divisions” if its the anchor group and swing group system.
LikeLike
The 1996-98 WAC always referred to “quads,” which sounds more collegiate to begin with.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, some or all of the Big Ten’s quads may have five members in them (or three and six if we divide the teams up that way). I don’t know if that term would work.
How about the term “regions”? That might be coupled with a geographic or directional term to differentiate one from the other.
I was criticized earlier for this hypothetical 18-team conference setup, but I’ll use it again to show the example:
Plains Region: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Mid-West Region: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Mid-East Region: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Coastal Region: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Maryland
The problem now is how do you describe the two divisions. East-West doesn’t work because the two regions permanently assigned to a division are both in the eastern part of the country.. Names probably won’t work because someone would feel left out. Colors are possible (Black Division/White Division), but not very interesting.
I hate to do this, but–
The Leaders Division could have the Plains and Coastal Regions in Years 1 & 2 while the Legends has the Mid-West and Mid-East Regions.
In Years 3 & 4, the Leaders Division has the Plains and Mid-East Regions and the Legends as the Mid-west and Coastal Regions in it.
LikeLike
@cutter You’re essentially saying that the Plains schools will never play the Mid-West school, and the Mid-East schools will never get to play the Coastal schools. How is that a good thing?
Pods can work when the pods have an equal number of schools in them. I.e. 4 pods of 4 (16 schools), or 4 pods of 5 (20 schools). I don’t see how four pods work at 18 schools.
LikeLike
You’ve got to switch it to 4 on both ends and five in the middle, because you have to put the Kings Group playing away to each East Coast team more frequently than once every decade.
Plains as is.
Central: Illinois, Northwestern Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers
East: MSU, TSUN, OSU, Penn State, Maryland
Coast: UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU (or Duke, if that was the four).
Plains / Coast play through in four years with 9 conference games, two years with 10 conference games, North/East plays through in five years with 9 conference games, to/three years with 10 conference games.
Massively unbalanced, but no way to make it not massively unbalanced without break up OSU/PSU. If it is assumed that the expansion is worth sufficient to drop OSU/PSU to once every three years, you can have:
Plains: UNL, IA, MN, WI, IL, NW
North: MSU, TSUN, OSU
Central: IN, Purdue, PSU
Coast: Rutgers, MD, UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU
… which is a bit more balanced.
LikeLike
@Blapples
If you have a ten-game conference schedule, a team like Michigan would play the four teams in its region (MSU, OSU, PSU, RU), the four teams in the other region (either Mid-West or Plains) and two from the Coastal Region (4-4-2). If you do a home and home for all these schools, that scenario has Michigan playing all the teams in the conference at least twice in a six-year period.
If the conference adopts a nine-game schedule, then its 4-4-1 and with no home-and-home for the Coastal Region schools, it would take five years to get through them. Now that would be problematic.
I do agree with you that the pod (regions) system is cleaner with 16 or 20 teams in four regions of four or five teams apiece. With 16 teams, a team could play each program in the conference a minimum of twice in four years with a home and home (and with 20, its twice in six year with a home-and-home). 18 doesn’t work as well.
If you scroll up, you’ll also see a discussion about having two pods of 6 and two pods of 3. The teams in the pods with 3 members would play each other annually in a fixed game while rotating between the two larger divisions. That’s certainly another way of doing it.
In the midst of all this discussion about pods for 16 or 18 or 20 teams, the one thing you have to keep an eye on is what’s happening to college athletics at large. We’ve written about the possibility whereby Division 1-A shrinks into a 64- to 80-team entity. At that point, we might be talking about four super conferences with two large fixed divisions apiece (of 8 to 10 teams each) as part of a structure to support an eight-team playoff (with the super conference championship game being the first round of the playoff). If that were to happen, all this discussion about pods or regions will become a thing of the past.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“You’ve got to switch it to 4 on both ends and five in the middle, because you have to put the Kings Group playing away to each East Coast team more frequently than once every decade.”
I’d restate that as the outside pods should be the same size and so should the middle pods. It doesn’t matter which is 4 and which is 5 for that purpose. You make the ends 4 because the western group of 4 works much better than any group of 5.
“Plains as is.
Central: Illinois, Northwestern Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers
East: MSU, TSUN, OSU, Penn State, Maryland
Coast: UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU (or Duke, if that was the four).”
You can’t do that to Rutgers. 6 and 3 works better based on the teams.
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
N – MI, MSU, IN
E – OSU, GT, PU
S – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
Lock OSU/MI, MSU/GT and PU/IN and play 8 division games. Games between the S and W rotate every year. You scramble the groups of 3 every two years (in order of locked games) so all of those teams play each other.
1. MI, MSU, IN vs OSU, GT, PU
2. MI, MSU, PU vs OSU, GT, IN
3. MI, MSU, GT vs OSU, IN, PU
4. MI, OSU, IN vs MSU, GT, PU
5. MI, OSU, PU vs MSU, GT, IN
6. MI, OSU, GT vs MSU, PU, IN
7. MI, OSU, MSU vs GT, PU, IN
“Massively unbalanced, but no way to make it not massively unbalanced without break up OSU/PSU.”
Dropping that game has to be on the table at 18. It’s too much of a constraint in a divisional alignment.
LikeLike
Scrambling the groups is driven there by having locked cross division games which is driven by putting MSU, TSUN and OSU in different groups. But its too tinkery. The benefit of the tick tock system is there are only two division lineups, so of all the rotating divisions, its the least confusing for normal people.
Break PSU from OSU, and we’re back to the 4/5/5/4 with the Illinois schools in the “North” and the Indiana schools in the “East”
West: UNL, IA, WI, MN
North: NW, IL, MSU, TSUN, OSU
East: IN, PU, PennSt, MD, Rutgers
South: 4 ACC newbies.
After all, MSU wants to play That School Up North and Northwestern, Illinois wants to play Northwestern and OSU, OSU wants to play That School Up North and that School Up North wants to play OSU and MSU.
As far as strength of schedule and the easier path to the CCG for PennSt than for OSU and TSUN, no telling whether Purdue will go on an upward cycle and Rutgers will grow into a Prince. So long as there is one King in the 4 ACC newbies, its as well balanced as one can make a system looking at four incumbent kings and none of them in the South.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Scrambling the groups is driven there by having locked cross division games which is driven by putting MSU, TSUN and OSU in different groups.”
It’s mostly driven by only playing 9 games in an 18 team conference. If I can use 10 games, I wouldn’t rotate the middle groups. They’d have 1 locked game and 1 rotating game, so they play everyone twice in 4 years.
“Break PSU from OSU, and we’re back to the 4/5/5/4 with the Illinois schools in the “North” and the Indiana schools in the “East””
No. Those groups never work well because you either split important rivalries or have terrible balance.
“West: UNL, IA, WI, MN
North: NW, IL, MSU, TSUN, OSU
East: IN, PU, PennSt, MD, Rutgers
South: 4 ACC newbies.”
You chose terrible balance.
“As far as strength of schedule and the easier path to the CCG for PennSt than for OSU and TSUN, no telling whether Purdue will go on an upward cycle and Rutgers will grow into a Prince.”
PSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, NW, MN, IL
Are you seriously suggesting that makes sense?
“So long as there is one King in the 4 ACC newbies,”
Huge assumption since many don’t think FSU will even get consideration.
“its as well balanced as one can make a system looking at four incumbent kings and none of them in the South.”
No, it isn’t.
LikeLike
“PSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, NW, MN, IL
Are you seriously suggesting that makes sense?”
If the Big Ten adds six schools straight with no Kings, all from one side of the current conference footprint, you either accept some competitive imbalance or engage in geographic contortions that make the widely unpopular Leader vs Legends look geographically sensible by comparison.
And of course, that’s just one cycle, and assumes that the conference realignment process itself ignores competitive balance. If the conference realignment process has more respect for competitive balance, its a substantially better cycle:
FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, NE, WI, IA, MN
FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL vs PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN, NE, WI, IA, MN
LikeLike
If the Big Ten adds six schools straight with no Kings, all from one side of the current conference footprint, you either accept some competitive imbalance or engage in geographic contortions that make the widely unpopular Leader vs Legends look geographically sensible by comparison.
The ACC schools already agreed to be in a conference where they’d be traveling as far south as Miami, and as far north as Boston, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh, with occasional trips to South Bend. You can probably add Cincinnati and UConn to that list, next time the ACC has a vacancy. Even in the current Big Ten, most games are plane trips for the teams, and only a minority of them attract traveling fans who arrive by car in very substantial numbers.
Leaders/Legends was ridiculed because of the exceedingly dumb names and just one or two oddities that the fans disliked: splitting Iowa from Wisconsin and Minnesota; splitting Michigan and Ohio State. They also did themselves a disservice by insinuating that UM-OSU might be moved to an earlier date in the season. Though this never happened, the negative publicity created the impression that they didn’t give a damn about the fans.
Once you expand to 18 teams, a lot of the scheduling goals are in tension with one another. It’s a matter of choosing your poison. Travel, as an issue, is much overrated, as long as teams get the key rivalries they care about. The Big Ten has apparently decided not to go with the Inner/Outer alignment, but it was more about getting Michigan and Ohio State into the New York/Washington markets. The actual travel difference wouldn’t be huge, bearing in mind that with nine conference games, you play three opponents in the other division regardless of the alignment.
It also invites ridicule if a team is sent across the country for no good reason, e.g., a hypothetical pod of Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, and Purdue. I think they would try to avoid this.
I agree with you that the scheduling problems are far more acute if they go to 18 schools without FSU, as you get a cluster of schools in the same region, none of which are great at football. If you don’t break them up to some extent, you’re almost certain to end up with an intolerable competitive imbalance .
…no telling whether Purdue will go on an upward cycle and Rutgers will grow into a Prince
There is a pretty long history suggesting it’s improbable that both of those events will occur.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“PSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, NW, MN, IL
Are you seriously suggesting that makes sense?”
“If the Big Ten adds six schools straight with no Kings, all from one side of the current conference footprint, you either accept some competitive imbalance or engage in geographic contortions that make the widely unpopular Leader vs Legends look geographically sensible by comparison.”
That’s not some competitive imbalance, it’s a ridiculously large amount of it. Based on the last 10 years of conference play, you have 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 vs 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 by conference W%. Swap PSU and GT for MN and IL and you’d have a clean sweep.
“And of course, that’s just one cycle,”
Yes, otherwise known as half of the time.
“and assumes that the conference realignment process itself ignores competitive balance.”
It your realignment plan that makes no sense. I’m saying the B10 would be too smart to follow geography so strictly as to cause that embarrassment of a lineup to happen. If, on the other hand, you mean the additions ignoring balance, that makes no sense. It’s not who you add, it’s where you put them.
“If the conference realignment process has more respect for competitive balance, its a substantially better cycle:
FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, NE, WI, IA, MN”
You replaced #18 with #3 (and everyone else drops down a notch, obviously). That’s all that changed. 7 of the top 10 are still on one side half the time.
LikeLike
I agree completely and was thinking along the same lines. The worse thing the Big Ten could do is say we are using pods and these are it. It would sound better to most to say the divisions will rotate, but every team will have x teams it plays every year (and then list those teams).
LikeLike
They should just lock whichever rivalries they feel are necessary, and let the rest of the schedule rotate freely, according to whatever rotation rules are deemed useful.
Static pods (or groups, or quads) are unhelpful, because you wind up competitively unbalanced, or you invent extra rivalries that no one wants. There is no need to lock groups of four or five schools permanently together. The NE/WI/MN/IA quad works really well. But others are just made-up contrivances that have no basis in geography or history.
Everyone just assumes the B1G would do this, apparently for no other reason than because the WAC did it. Is there any reason, besides that? It seems that people are twisting themselves into the shape of a pretzel, to create a structure that no one needs, doesn’t work very well, and was a failure the one time it was tried.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“They should just lock whichever rivalries they feel are necessary, and let the rest of the schedule rotate freely, according to whatever rotation rules are deemed useful.”
Except for making it hard to obey the NCAA rules, that makes perfect sense.
“Static pods (or groups, or quads) are unhelpful,”
Wrong.
“The NE/WI/MN/IA quad works really well. But others are just made-up contrivances that have no basis in geography or history.”
Yeah, UNC, UVA, Duke and MD have nothing in common. Why would anybody group them together?
“Everyone just assumes the B1G would do this,”
No they don’t. They discuss it because the B10 could do it and perhaps they think the B10 should do it. As usual, you’re the one making assumptions.
“Is there any reason, besides that?”
Frequency of play while following the current NCAA rules to allow a 13th game exemption for the CCG.
LikeLike
@Brian:
<em“They should just lock whichever rivalries they feel are necessary, and let the rest of the schedule rotate freely, according to whatever rotation rules are deemed useful.”
Except for making it hard to obey the NCAA rules, that makes perfect sense.
It is trivially easy to rotate the schedule, without pods, while complying with the existing rules. All you need to do is have two divisions. No rule says that you need have static four- and five-team subdivisions within the divisions. That’s just one way of doing it.
“Static pods (or groups, or quads) are unhelpful,”
Wrong.
Oh, yeah? Show me a pod alignment that doesn’t have fictitious rivalries, and that doesn’t separate any rivals that actually want to be together.
“The NE/WI/MN/IA quad works really well. But others are just made-up contrivances that have no basis in geography or history.”
Yeah, UNC, UVA, Duke and MD have nothing in common. Why would anybody group them together?
I didn’t say none of the others work. But in every structure I’ve seen, you wind up with some teams arbitrarily thrown together, or historical rivals separated. Why do that, when you don’t have to?
“Everyone just assumes the B1G would do this,”
No they don’t. They discuss it because the B10 could do it and perhaps they think the B10 should do it. As usual, you’re the one making assumptions.
OK, correct me: what other ways are under discussion.
“Is there any reason, besides that?”
Frequency of play while following the current NCAA rules to allow a 13th game exemption for the CCG.
As I said, pods aren’t required to follow the rule [assuming, for argument’s sake, that they couldn’t just get the rule changed].
LikeLike
“Its trivially easy to rotate the schedule” ~ the thing is that if you have a collection of locked games for each school and a round robin schedule, a lot of of the schedule rotations fall off the list of feasible choices.
As far the claim of it being trivially easy ~ that’s a bit of handwaving, isn’t it? Give a demonstration of the first four years of the division rotation, and how they respect all Big Ten rivalries and offer so much better divisional balance and make so much more geographic sense than eastern and western anchor groups and two central groups alternating between the two.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF: This is how it works:
1) Decide which rivalries you want to protect. Let’s assume the current 14 teams plus UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, and ND, for a total of 20. You might protect the following:
UM: OSU, MSU
OSU: UM
MSU: UM
WI: MN
MN: WI
NW: IL
IL: NW
ND: PU
PU: ND, IN
IN: PU
NE: IA
IA: NE
PSU: RU, MD
RU: PSU
MD: PSU
UVA: DK, UNC
DK: UNC, UVA
UNC: DK, UVA
GT: FSU
FSU: GT
This is just a possible list. Arguments could be made for protecting more or fewer games than that. This is just an illustration. Within the “classic Big Ten,” I didn’t protect any game if that game has been unprotected at any point within the last 20 years. I didn’t protect MD with the rest of the ACC, because they’ve already decided to give that up. But I did give each school at least one guaranteed annual game. Some have two.
2) Now, it is not a difficult combinatorial problem to generate two divisions that protect every one of these rivalries. There are many, many solutions. Brian could probably tell us exactly how many. He is good at that.
With 9 conference games, every rival needs to be in the same division. With 10 conference games, a team can be in the opposite division as one of their rivals, since every team will have an opposite-division flex game. If you’re separated from your rival, that’s the flex game; otherwise, the flex game can be any opponent.
You can also impose constraints, such as: “No more than 4 kings in a division” (the kings being UM, OSU, PSU, NE, FSU, and ND). Even with that constraint, there are many solutions.
So anyway, you generate divisions with those constraints. A year later, they rotate to another combination using the same algorithm, mixing up the schools as much as possible while retaining the rivalries. These divisions can be generated as long in advance as you want. [On another thread, I suggested generating them dynamically, based on performance the preceding season. That is not at all necessary, but it is one available option.]
The advantage of this, is that you protect exactly what is wanted, and no more. You don’t, for instance, create an artificial “Purdue-Maryland” annual game that no one wants, just because you needed a five-team pod.
To give but one example of the many possible rotations, the first divisions could be:
A: UM, OSU, MSU, UVA, UNC, DK, NW, IL, NE, IA
B: PSU, RU, MD, ND, PU, IN, GT, FSU, WI, MN
And then…
A: UM, OSU, MSU, PSU, RU, MD, NW, IL, GT, FSU
B: ND, PU, IN, UVA, UNC, DK, NE, IA, WI, MN
And then…
A: UM, OSU, MSU, ND, PU, IN, NW, IL, WI, MN
B: PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, DK, NE, IA, GT, FSU
In that rotation, everyone plays everyone at least once in three or six years, with no rivalries broken. It can rotate annually, or bi-annually, as wanted. The above examples work with 9 conference games. With 10 conference games, many more divisions are possible, since rivals can be split.
If you prefer settled scheduling, the rotation can be announced as many years in advance as you’d like. It could also be adjusted dynamically according to performance (my preference, but not at all necessary).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It is trivially easy to rotate the schedule, without pods, while complying with the existing rules. All you need to do is have two divisions. No rule says that you need have static four- and five-team subdivisions within the divisions. That’s just one way of doing it.”
I never said you had to have static pods to do it. Your way is so trivial that you have yet to even show that it works when preserving all the appropriate games. I haven’t said it won’t work, but it will be harder on the scheduler. What is the rotation? What is the frequency of games for each pairing?
“Oh, yeah? Show me a pod alignment that doesn’t have fictitious rivalries, and that doesn’t separate any rivals that actually want to be together.”
That’s impossible. Many fan bases disagree on which are real rivalries and which aren’t. I’ve given multiple pod examples that preserve all the necessary games. You’ve failed to show a problem with someone having an annual game against a team they aren’t rivals with yet.
“I didn’t say none of the others work. But in every structure I’ve seen, you wind up with some teams arbitrarily thrown together,”
You mean like NW/PU and MSU/PSU? Those are from the days of 11 teams and no divisions, but needed to make scheduling easier. We have them now with 12. Guess what? You’ll have them at 14, too.
“OK, correct me: what other ways are under discussion.”
Just recently? Changing the NCAA rule to go with no divisions, static divisions and various sizes and types of pods have all been discussed. Richard always has his 6 pods of 3 plan for 18 teams, too.
LikeLike
Sure arguments COULD be made “for protecting more or fewer”, but you didn’t actually present the argument for protecting so few. I presume the actual argument for not even protecting all of the old traditional rivalries in the conference, never mind the games that are really appealing as travel partners is that the more rivalries you protect ~ and the more actual demonstrated benefit of doing the scheduling that way instead of with groups ~ the harder it is to draw up the divisions.
IA ~ UNL, WI, MN
MN ~ IA, WI, TSUN
MSU ~ TSUN, NW
OSU ~ TSUN, IL, PSU
IL ~ OSU, NW, (??? Illini fans, y’all tell me)
TSUN ~ OSU, MSU, MN
… and it starts to get substantially harder, because its really hard to have an average of two and a half protected rivalries without it being a fairly densely connected graph.
LikeLike
Your way is so trivial that you have yet to even show that it works when preserving all the appropriate games.
I did it above. About three FTT blog posts ago, I did another. I could give a third, fourth, fifth; as many as you want.
I haven’t said it won’t work, but it will be harder on the scheduler.
The scheduler is a Big Ten employee. He is well paid to do this. We’re all tossing this stuff out in our spare time, by some definition. If I make it your job, you’ll do better (I assume).
“Oh, yeah? Show me a pod alignment that doesn’t have fictitious rivalries, and that doesn’t separate any rivals that actually want to be together.”
That’s impossible.
You can come a good deal closer than your last attempt. Eliminate all of the fictitious rivalries. Protect whatever you define as necessary.
You’ve failed to show a problem with someone having an annual game against a team they aren’t rivals with yet.
Opportunity cost. Since we clearly can’t preserve everything, every fictitious rivalry you create, carries the cost of multiple desired games that can’t be played. That’s why it’s better to protect no more than necessary — given whatever definition of “necessary” you want.
Of course I agree that fans will not have the same view of what is “necessary”. But I assume you’d agree that an annual Michigan State/Georgia Tech rivalry (which I believe was part of your scenario) is “necessary” by no rational definition. By protecting it, other Big Ten teams and the Yellowjackets see each other less often.
Why protect a game that no fan of either school has agitated for, when others they want are left unplayed for years at a time?
“I didn’t say none of the others work. But in every structure I’ve seen, you wind up with some teams arbitrarily thrown together,”
You mean like NW/PU and MSU/PSU?
That’s a system no longer in use. There were a lot of jokes about that made-up MSU/PSU rivalry. What was so great about that system, that would make you eager to return to it?
Of course, those were simpler times: you saw 80 percent of your conference mates every year, and no team was off your schedule for more than two years at a time. Then, they’d be back again for at the next eight years or so. With a 20-team Big Ten, inefficiencies like that are far more costly.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“1) Decide which rivalries you want to protect. Let’s assume the current 14 teams plus UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, and ND, for a total of 20. You might protect the following:
UM: OSU, MSU
OSU: UM
MSU: UM
WI: MN
MN: WI
NW: IL
IL: NW
ND: PU
PU: ND, IN
IN: PU
NE: IA
IA: NE
PSU: RU, MD
RU: PSU
MD: PSU
UVA: DK, UNC
DK: UNC, UVA
UNC: DK, UVA
GT: FSU
FSU: GT
This is just a possible list. Arguments could be made for protecting more or fewer games than that. This is just an illustration.”
It’s a ridiculously minimalist list that even you know is crap. Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
“2) Now, it is not a difficult combinatorial problem to generate two divisions that protect every one of these rivalries.”
It becomes harder when you have a more realistic list.
“There are many, many solutions. Brian could probably tell us exactly how many. He is good at that.”
Count them yourself. It’s an important part of your argument to show how this plan works.
“The advantage of this, is that you protect exactly what is wanted, and no more. You don’t, for instance, create an artificial “Purdue-Maryland” annual game that no one wants, just because you needed a five-team pod.”
And the harm in PU playing MD annually would be what?
“To give but one example of the many possible rotations, the first divisions could be:
A: UM, OSU, MSU, UVA, UNC, DK, NW, IL, NE, IA
B: PSU, RU, MD, ND, PU, IN, GT, FSU, WI, MN”
Which shows several rivalries that should be kept but are split.
Again, I’m not saying it won’t work but you reduced it to a trivial problem here.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF:
Sure arguments COULD be made “for protecting more or fewer”, but you didn’t actually present the argument for protecting so few. I presume the actual argument for not even protecting all of the old traditional rivalries in the conference, never mind the games that are really appealing as travel partners is that the more rivalries you protect ~ and the more actual demonstrated benefit of doing the scheduling that way instead of with groups ~ the harder it is to draw up the divisions.
You’re absolutely correct that it is possible to so tightly constrain the problem that an acceptable rotation becomes impossible.
But even in the system they’re considering NOW (with East-West), UM-MN and OSU-IL are not going to be protected. They were also not protected in the scheduling system before Nebraska joined.
Now, I think it’s obvious that if some rivalries had to be sacrificed in an 11 or 14-team Big Ten, they surely will have to be in a 20-team Big Ten. As I said in my post, if a particular rivalry has not been protected historically (the last 20 years or so), then it’s hard to make the argument that it is essential in a 20-team league.
But it is clearly possible to give each school their one or two “must haves”. And if you can do that, why wouldn’t you? In a 20-team league, I am not sure you can give anyone three or four annual rivals, without someone else making a larger sacrifice.
Likewise, it seems apparent that if you give schools a “made-up” rivalry, you are creating an extra scheduling constraint that no one really wants, and in so doing, taking away flexibility for other useful games to take place.
LikeLike
This is just a possible list. Arguments could be made for protecting more or fewer games than that. This is just an illustration.”
It’s a ridiculously minimalist list that even you know is crap. Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
I believe most of what I left unprotected, has been unprotected at some point in one of the recently employed systems. If they were willing to leave it unplayed some years in an 11, 12, or 14-team Big Ten, how can it suddenly be essential in a 20-team Big Ten?
I think the only exception is that I didn’t protect PSU/OSU, but I think in your proposal you didn’t protect it either.
Just for fun, rewrite your own proposal without fictitious rivalries, but protect whatever you want to protect. If you want to max-protect, go ahead, but don’t protect anything unless you need it. Now see how much more the rest of the conference gets to play each other, because, e.g., Georgia Tech isn’t locked into Michigan State every year.
All I am really saying is, don’t protect more than you need to, so that the remaining teams get to play each other more often.
LikeLike
I have to throw in my 2 cents:
Any scheme where the game for the pig or the game for the Jug or even Iowa-Wisconsin or even UNL-Wisconsin (which, according to Alvarez is a high-priority series for UW nowadays) or even OSU-PSU (without Pitt joining and taking the place of OSU) or UMD-UVa are not protected is not a realistic list. MSU also wants to visit Chicagoland very often as well.
Ironically, Duke & UVa do not have to play annually. I have no idea why you threw that in there.
LikeLike
@Brian: Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
Umm….why? Georgia Tech and FSU’s rivalries, both with each other and with the rest of the ACC, are fairly recently minted. Maryland was prepared to give up 100 percent of its ACC rivalries to join the Big Ten.
Penn State and Nebraska had no annual rivalries with any Big Ten teams before joining the league. During the long period of an 11-team Big Ten, no team had more than two protected rivalries. Some of those were highly meaningful (UM-OSU), but some were just made-up, so that every team would have two. You know that PSU-MSU wasn’t that important, because as soon as Nebraska joined, they kicked it to the curb.
LikeLike
“I believe most of what I left unprotected, has been unprotected at some point in one of the recently employed systems.”
Floyd. The game for Floyd has been played continuously since the Great Depression.
Just wondering, are you a Nebraska, UMD, or Rutgers fan?
“All I am really saying is, don’t protect more than you need to, so that the remaining teams get to play each other more often.”
Have you thought this through? With 10 conference games in a 20 school league, protecting 2 games and rotating the rest means you face the non-protected schools 8/17th of the time. Protecting 3 games and rotating the rest means you face the non-protected schools 7/16th of the time. That’s a 3.3% increase in frequency. That’s 1 extra game vs. each non-protected school every 30 years, or one extra HaH series every 60 years. If you think that’s worth killing off the oldest trophy game either (the LBJ game) as well as a bunch of lesser rivalries, you need your priorities examined.
Also, if FSU joins, I’m pretty certain that the B10 would want FSU-PSU and/or FSU-UNL to become protected rivalries (for the TV value). Likely both.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I did it above.”
That comment wasn’t there when I wrote that.
“About three FTT blog posts ago, I did another.”
Then copy and paste should make it easy to do.
“You can come a good deal closer than your last attempt.”
Probably not. On the other hand, teams regularly play a lot of conference games against teams they don’t care about.
“Eliminate all of the fictitious rivalries. Protect whatever you define as necessary.”
I hereby define I all the games I locked as necessary. Problem solved.
“Opportunity cost. Since we clearly can’t preserve everything, every fictitious rivalry you create, carries the cost of multiple desired games that can’t be played.”
And yet you’ve failed to produce a viable list of all these desired games that are being lost and how much more valuable they are than the “unwanted” locked teams. Most schools don’t really care who fills out their schedule beyond a certain set of teams. That reduces the opportunity cost.
“Of course I agree that fans will not have the same view of what is “necessary”. But I assume you’d agree that an annual Michigan State/Georgia Tech rivalry (which I believe was part of your scenario) is “necessary” by no rational definition. By protecting it, other Big Ten teams and the Yellowjackets see each other less often.”
Actually, it was mathematically necessary. That’s as rational as it gets. I had OSU/MI and IN/PU locked to preserve important rivalries. That left MSU and GT to play each other. That locked game could go away with 10 conference games. Or maybe it stays because MSU wants GA access for recruiting and GT has limited interest in IN or PU.
As for other teams seeing GT less because of MSU/GT, that only applies to OSU, MI, IN and PU. I think they’d rather keep their major rivalries locked than play GT more often. The other 12 teams would get them 50% of the time.
“Why protect a game that no fan of either school has agitated for, when others they want are left unplayed for years at a time?”
Again, what are all these neglected games that fans want that my system ignored?
“That’s a system no longer in use.”
Nice reply from Mr. “If it’s never been done before it’s a ridiculous idea and not worth discussing.” Now past methods are also no longer worthy of discussion. Way to limit any disagreement.
“There were a lot of jokes about that made-up MSU/PSU rivalry. What was so great about that system, that would make you eager to return to it?”
It preserved the major rivalries and gave an equal rotation through the other 8 teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
Umm….why?”
NE – WI, IA, MN, maybe PSU
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, IA, MN, NW (look how much of their base is from or in Chicago)
MN – NE, WI, IA, MI
NW – IA, IL, MSU
MSU – MI, NW
MI – OSU, MSU, MN
Get the idea?
“Maryland was prepared to give up 100 percent of its ACC rivalries to join the Big Ten.”
Out of financial need, yes. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t want to play them if they were also B10 members. Some history is better than none.
LikeLike
“You’re absolutely correct that it is possible to so tightly constrain the problem that an acceptable rotation becomes impossible.
But even in the system they’re considering NOW (with East-West), UM-MN and OSU-IL are not going to be protected. They were also not protected in the scheduling system before Nebraska joined.”
But in the scheduling system before Nebraska joined, the schools in the conference played most of the conference most of the time.
And if your point is that your system is no WORSE in protecting rivalries than static divisions or alternating groups … then why go with your system? Static divisions are simpler, alternating groups are simpler. Static divisions are simplest, at the cost of not seeing half the conference very often, alternating groups are not as simple, for the gain of seeing the majority of the conference every two years.
If it can be BETTER at protecting the fabric of rivalries that have grown up over the past century and half century, then you’ve got a case for living with the downsides of your system.
LikeLike
@Richard: Ironically, Duke & UVa do not have to play annually. I have no idea why you threw that in there.
It was really just an illustration. I’m more trying to ask, “Why protect extra games annually that no one has asked for?” The actual set that’s necessary to protect is less meaningful; we all have different opinions on that.
But it is useful to have a sense of history: there were four years that Michigan and Minnesota didn’t play, between Penn State’s entry to the league and the current divisional set-up. And in the proposed east-west set-up, it appears they’ll again go some years without playing.
So, how essential is that?
LikeLike
You’re assuming that the LBJ game won’t be protected in an E-W setup.
Also, there’s a giant difference between playing 75% of the time and playing less than half the time in my book.
LikeLike
But if teams have to give up their second or third or fourth most desired games … how is that fundamentally any different from forming divisions from rotating or alternating groups that also can only respect two to four out of most team’s desired collections of games?
At least with alternating or rotating groups, there is certainty that you’ll get to play the others in your group on an ongoing basis.
LikeLike
And that is shifting the goalposts mid-post. You say “why protect games nobody has asked for”. MSU has asked for NW, MN has asked for TSUN, IL has asked for OSU, the four western schools have asked to play each other, Penn State got the two east coast entrants THEY asked for, so I will treat that as asking for those games.
How ESSENTIAL? Well, obviously there are different priorities, some games are more important to one school than the other, and sometimes in a conference you can’t get what you want so you make the best of what you can get.
Lots of systems can protect a small number of “essential” games, especially when leeway is granted to dictate to schools an arbitrary cut-off of how “essential” their preferred games are to protect. If THAT’S all that the system can offer, its doesn’t seem to be offering very much.
LikeLike
And that is shifting the goalposts mid-post. You say “why protect games nobody has asked for”. MSU has asked for NW, MN has asked for TSUN, IL has asked for OSU, the four western schools have asked to play each other, Penn State got the two east coast entrants THEY asked for, so I will treat that as asking for those games.
How ESSENTIAL? Well, obviously there are different priorities, some games are more important to one school than the other, and sometimes in a conference you can’t get what you want so you make the best of what you can get.
This is what makes Purdue to the West/Michigan State to the East a preferable setup in terms of keeping members satisfied — protecting not only the Old Oaken Bucket, but the Little Brown Jug, Illiniwek, MSU-Northwestern (these first four as crossovers) and the Purdue-Illinois game (in the West division). You can legitimately argue that it lessens divisional balance, but if more members are happy, it would override that disadvantage. And while you can’t assume this is a short-term move, there’s a reasonably good chance (thanks to the upcoming TV deal) that before the 2010s are up, the Big Ten will have more than 14 football-playing teams.
(P.S. The first time I saw the term “TSUN,” I thought someone had misspelled the acronym for Cal State Northridge. Oh, you crazy Buckeyes.)
LikeLike
And that is shifting the goalposts mid-post. You say “why protect games nobody has asked for”. MSU has asked for NW, MN has asked for TSUN, IL has asked for OSU, the four western schools have asked to play each other, Penn State got the two east coast entrants THEY asked for, so I will treat that as asking for those games.
Shifting the goalposts…how? Everyone agrees that it’s impossible to preserve every desired rivalry annually. Even the current system fails to do that, and it only gets harder when you add teams.
It therefore seems to me rather obvious, that you shouldn’t gum up the system with unsought locked rivalries, because that’s fewer slots available for the games the schools really want.
Beyond that, I am not advocating a particular number of rivalries to protect. My idea is about the opposite kinds of games — those no sane person would believe need to be locked, like GT/MSU or Purdue/Maryland.
And my suggestion is: don’t.
LikeLike
vp19,
“protecting not only the Old Oaken Bucket, but the Little Brown Jug, Illiniwek, MSU-Northwestern (these first four as crossovers) and the Purdue-Illinois game (in the West division).”
It’s a big assumption that the B10 will choose to lock a bunch of crossover games. We know they’ll have to lock 1. It’s unclear that they’ll lock more than that. Limiting everyone to 1 rotating game really reduces how often teams can play. If only IN/PU gets locked in your version, then how do you feel about it?
“You can legitimately argue that it lessens divisional balance, but if more members are happy, it would override that disadvantage.”
But will more teams be happy? That hasn’t been shown. We’ve yet to hear who prefers PU in the west and who prefers MSU in the west. We can guess, but we may well be wrong. If it’s split 7/7 or 8/6 or maybe even 9/5, doesn’t it matter how much they care more than how many prefer 1 over the other?
LikeLike
Pods is a term the NCAA uses in the tourney. But terminology doesn’t matter here. Call them whatever you want for PR. For practical use, though, pods is the accepted term when discussing the issue on the internet. Pods are just a means to an end and the B10 never needs to talk about them publicly. They can just discuss having dynamic divisions are whatever BS term makes you feel better about yourself.
LikeLike
@ Brian: You said: “Pods is a term the NCAA uses in the tourney. But terminology doesn’t matter here. Call them whatever you want for PR. For practical use, though, pods is the accepted term when discussing the issue on the internet. Pods are just a means to an end and the B10 never needs to talk about them publicly. They can just discuss having dynamic divisions are whatever BS term makes you feel better about yourself.”
My, you were in a foul mood yesterday. I hope you got a good night’s sleep and are less cranky and irritable today.
You say “terminology doesn’t matter.” I disagree. “Leaders” and “Legends” are good examples of bad names. “Edsel” is another classic example of a bad name. The Chevy “Nova” was shunned by Spanish speaking consumers because “No va” in Spanish means “it does not run.”
Naming matters. The “Rose Bowl” sounds wonderful; the “Broccoli Bowl” not so much.
You say that the NCAA uses the term “pods.” First, I’ve never heard the term “pods” used by the NCAA. But, whatever. Second, I still think “pods” is a bad name even if the NCAA has used the term. Just because it has been done, doesn’t mean it needs to continue. Dead hand of the past begone !
You also say that “pods is an accepted term.” I did not say otherwise. If it makes you feel better about yourself to limit yourself to the “accepted term,” feel free. My post was an attempt to suggest that the “accepted term” has limitations and that there are better alternatives.
You say finally: “They [the B1G] can just discuss having dynamic divisions are whatever BS term makes you feel better about yourself.” (I assume “are” = “or”). As should be clear, the name matters and is not “BS.”
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“You say “terminology doesn’t matter.””
No, I said it doesn’t matter here, as in on Frank’s blog. That word is kind of important to the meaning of my sentence. PR experts can decide on the proper term if and when the B10 decided to use them.
“You say that the NCAA uses the term “pods.””
They do. It’s their fairly new method of grouping schools for the first 2 rounds to reduce travel.
LikeLike
More news on the lower-level realignment front — UMass Lowell, already Div I for hockey, will upgrade the rest of its program from Div II and go to America East, replacing Boston University in that market. Another rejection for NJIT, which has sought America East or Northeast Conference membership for years: http://collegesportsinfo.com/2013/02/13/report-umass-lowell-to-join-america-east/
LikeLike
I’m not a huge Clay Travis fan, but this article is absolutely brilliant:
http://outkickthecoverage.com/texass-deloss-dodds-grapples-with-losing-legacy.php
LikeLike
Typical Travis drivel. I’m sure you like it because it returns the unneccessary shot Dodds took at Missouri. The last half of the article is just stupid. But .500 for Clay Travis. Hits his norm.
LikeLike
I think UT and Oklahoma better turn it around quickly on the recruiting trail or this article will be written many more times in the future.
LikeLike
Yeah, he’s always over the top. Tone it down about 50% and it’s accurate.
LikeLike
Clay Travis knocking it out of the park! Lack of a conference network will eventually lead to the demise of the B12. Longhorn Network is a cluster f…….
LikeLike
Not saying anything but interesting article about scheduling from a ND perspective:
http://www.subwaydomer.com/2013-articles/february/notre-dame-the-big-ten-and-the-future-schedule-battle.html
LikeLike
I know I am in the minority among Irish fans; but I hate the animosity between the B1G and the Irish. For the most part its been a fun struggle through the years, I love the Michigan St series as well as the Michigan series these past few years. I understand the sentiment and angst by some in the fan bases on each side; but College Football is better as a whole when Notre Dame and Michigan/Michigan St are playing. This is sad to me.
LikeLike
@OrderRestored83: As far as I can tell, all three of Notre Dame’s regular rivals in the Big Ten wanted to keep playing Notre Dame. It’s true that some (sadly ignorant) fans say, “To Hell with Notre Dame.” But that attitude is not shared by the athletic directors.
It was Jack Swarbrick’s decision to cancel the Michigan series.
His apparent reasoning was that if he plays annual series with Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Navy, Stanford, and USC, that locks six games a year. The ACC league office is going to determine five other games, for a total of eleven. That would leave him with just one game a year under his control. He wanted more flexibility than that.
LikeLike
@Marc
Yeah, as of now it sounds like the MSU and Purdue games will continue; but for how much longer? As for the Michigan series ending, regardless of whose decision it was; it was a bad one for the game. I went to both Michigan/ND games and the atmosphere was only rivaled by games against ‘SC. College Football needs that. I was outspoken against the partnership with the ACC; I don’t feel a connection to any of those schools (and could care less about playing any of them outside BC/Miami/Florida St). Who knows where this will end up; but games like Michigan/Notre Dame shouldn’t be sacrificed in the process.
LikeLike
@OrderRestored83: My guess is that Swarbrick will keep the Purdue series, no matter what. They’re Notre Dame’s third most-frequent rival (after Navy and USC), and they have a better winning percentage against Purdue than either MSU or Michigan.
LikeLike
Michigan State’s AD said last month that they would continue to play Notre Dame but probably only 4 of 6 years instead of the previous 8 of 10. Both schools want to schedule other rivals periodically. By the way, the cancellation of the Michigan vs ND series had been rumored for well over a year. No big surprise, other than maybe the way Swarbrick delivered the message to Brandon.
LikeLike
@Pat-
Once I saw that Notre Dame had agreed to a four-year series with Texas that included season opening games in 2015/6, I thought the UM-ND series was potentially on the ropes. If the Irish had kept the Wolverines on the schedule, the first two games for those seasons would have been UT followed by UM. That’s not smart scheduling for any college football team.
Brandon was asked about the Notre Dame series cancellation in the following article from 25 September 2012–http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/09/dave_brandon_explains_notre_da.html
While Brandon says he wasn’t surprised that Notre Dame wanted to opt out of the contract after they joined the ACC, he did say that Swarbrick never contacted him about ending the series in the immediate aftermath of that decision (announced on 12 September). The first formal notice he had was when Swarbrick handed him the opt out letter before last season’s game.
Brandon also said he didn’t realize the 2012 games was going to count as part of the three-game notice until after it was over and he was headed back to Ann Arbor and pulled the letter out of his pocket. Until that point, I think he assumed the 2015 game was still on the schedule.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I wouldn’t say “To Hell with Notre Dame”, but as a Michigan alum and fan, I was happy to see the series end. My freshman year in Ann Arbor was 1978–the same year the UM/ND series was resurrected. That game was pretty much a “don’t miss” game for years after I graduated because the series was so great.
The problem is that when Penn State came into the conference, the 85-scholarship limit was introduced and a half dozen years after that, the BCS came into being. All that meant that a non-conference schedule with three pretty good opponents went down to one, and that one was Notre Dame.
At that point, I wanted to see some more variety in Michigan’s non-conference schedule when it came to the one major home-and-home series the Wolverines played. I didn’t want ND completely off the schedule, but it would have been fine if they were part of a rotation (maybe 2 years out of every 6 or 8) with some of the other major college football powers. That really hit home when I attended the 2005 (?) Rose Bowl in person against Texas. Here was a team that Michigan had never played before meeting for the first time (for the record, UM hasn’t played LSU either). It was a great game and an even better experience and it whet my appetite for non-conference games against the other major programs in the country.
We’re in early days yet on the non-conference scheduling as far Michigan is concerned because there was supposed to be an agreement with the Pac 12, then it ended, now we’re looking at 9 or 10 conference games, etc. UM does have a home-and-home set with Arkansas–that’s okay, but not really a ND comparable opponent like Oklahoma or Florida State or USC.
Who knows? If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten Conference as part of a 18- or 20-team setup, those games with Michigan and Michigan State could become annual affairs again. As far as I’m concerned, having ND as a regular conference opponent would be just fine.
BTW, Bo Schembechler was prepared to end the ND series in the very earlier 90s, but he left the AD job before he was able to change anything. I have it on good authority that Bill Martin considered it as well. Not all of Michigan’s AD’s in recent times have been in love with Notre Dame, and seeing that Jack Swarbrick didn’t give David Brandon a head’s up regarding the ending of the series before he handed him that letter right before last season’s game, I imagine he isn’t in love with them right now either.
LikeLike
@cutter: You may have better contacts at Michigan than I do. But you can count up the number of ADs at Michigan since 1978. If they disliked the series that much, why did they keep renewing it?
I don’t know what Dave Brandon thinks of Jack Swarbrick now, but he sure sounded disappointed when he was handed that letter—not merely by the way in which it was done, but also the fact that the series was ending. Up to that point, I saw no inkling that he wanted to end it.
LikeLike
I honestly thought a fairly large portion of the M crowd was very disrespectful to ND. They are 2 very different places. Might be the same the other way around as well, but I was closer to the M crowd.
LikeLike
Just an addendum on this point: it’s hard to schedule OOC opponents of Notre Dame’s stature. You can look up the one or two-dozen [we could dispute precisely how many there are] potential marquee opponents, and look up their availability. Michigan isn’t the only school trying to schedule them.
Brandon just hooked Arkansas for 2018-19, after being turned down (reportedly) by a number of others. [We’ll assume for argument’s sake that Arkansas is of comparable stature to Notre Dame, which they really aren’t.] An additional problem is that a lot of the potential marquee opponents are in the south, and a hot-weather September game in their stadiums would put Michigan at a rather considerable disadvantage.
Some Michigan fans got tired of Notre Dame, but the rivalry produced a very large number of iconic games, including three of the last four years. (I am considering them iconic not just because they were Michigan wins, but how they were won; some of the ND wins fit that description too.)
I’m not saying I don’t want variety in the schedule, because I do. I am just pointing out that it’s easier said than done.
LikeLike
@ Marc
I agree with all of what you said. The loss of the series, to me, is a sad thing.
LikeLike
@Marc
A lot of Michigan’s scheduling problems are their own fault though. About a year ago Brandon said that Michigan would no longer play any road OOC games besides ND and it had a major effect on their future schedule.
He has since reversed it (obviously) but it takes time to catch up. Similar schools like Texas, USC and OSU have games scheduled out as far as 10 years.
LikeLike
@frug: You are entirely correct, although the problem pre-dates Brandon; Bill Martin scheduled a bunch of cupcakes, too. My comment was really addressing the people who think Notre Dame can easily be replaced on the schedule with comparable opponents; they can’t.
This year, for instance, Ohio State’s OOC opponents are Buffalo, San Diego State, Buffalo, and the return game at Cal — and the Buckeyes have been scheduling up for a while now. I assume Cal was the best they could do, and although they’re not chopped liver, they’re not Notre Dame.
The Buckeyes’ future home & homes are Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, North Carolina, TCU, Oregon, Boston College, and Texas. A few of those are clearly of Notre Dame’s stature, but several are not.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shepherd-
Don Canham was responsible for getting the Michigan-Notre Dame series back on the calendar. He contacted ND in 1969 and the first game played was in 1978.
Canham was replaced by Schembechler, who as I mentioned earlier, nearly cancelled the series during his tenure from 1988-90. Bo always wanted that ND game to be the mutual season opener for both teams, but Notre Dame began scheduling games prior to playing Michigan after Holtz got there. If Bo had stayed on as AD longer, the series may have ended in the early 1990s.
His successor, Jack Weidenbach, was only there for two years, but he did two things. The first was to change Michigan’s schedule so that UM would have a game in hand when they played ND. The second was to contact his counterpart at Notre Dame and get a scheduling agreement in place that would make UM-ND the season opener again. That was the plan for 1998 and 1999.
Joe Roberson was the next UM AD, but he was only there for four years (two of which included a break in the ND series) before he was replaced by Thomas Goss (1997-2000). As we both know, Goss was fired for mismanagement of the athletic department. But something interesting happened on his watch.
In 1999, Michigan and Notre Dame were scheduled to play one another in Ann Arbor in what was supposed to be the two teams’ season opener (like it was in 1998). What ND did, however, was play Kansas in the Eddie Robinson Classic a week earlier (28 August) in what was clearly a prep game for Michigan. Lloyd Carr made a public statement about ND breaking a “gentleman’s agreement”, but never elaborated on it. I asked Carr about that at a charity event years later and he told me that ND “conveniently forgot” the agreement that Weidenbach had made with ND in early 90s. Let’s just say he wasn’t real happy about that, and to no surprise, Michigan has never again tried to open the season with Notre Dame. UM has always put at least one warm up game on the schedule before playing the Irish.
Bill Martin considered cancelling the series late in his tenure, but held off because he was leaving as AD and was going to let Brandon make the decision for keeping it or not. I never got a good feel for why he was considering it, but Brandon made it very clear in public that he wasn’t happy with having Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State on the schedule as either all road game or all home games. ND wouldn’t budge because they wanted to play Michigan in South Bend when they played USC in LA and vice versa. I don’t know if Brandon was working with the B1G on getting the conference schedule changed, but happily for him, Notre Dame solved the problem by joining the ACC and cancelling the series.
To be completely frank, neither school needs the other. They didn’t play one another from 1910 through 1978 with two exceptions–games in 1942/3 during World War II. Both of them are big time programs that have profitable athletic departments, recognizable and marketable brands, lots of loyal fans,etc. As far as any future scheduling between the two programs, it’s clearly not in Notre Dame’s immediate future and it may not be in Michigan’s either. The B1G is going to at least a nine-game conference schedule, and if the decision is to make it ten, I don’t know if there’d be much opportunity for such a game. The conference is also looking at expanding, and how that works out along with the way the playoff system is finally set will also effect on Michigan sets up its non conference games.
LikeLike
USC again…
http://reignoftroy.com/2013/02/13/usc-baseball-frank-cruz-fired-as-head-coach/
And Kiffin outlasts both basketball and baseball coaches.
LikeLike
Another Big 10 voice (Gerry Dinardo) doubts the B1G ever plays at only 14:
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/2/12/3974794/ote-interview-with-gerry-dinardo-part-2
LikeLike
They’re running out of time to add someone in time for the 2014 season. Integration takes a year or more usually.
LikeLike
Besides, Dinardo is dumb as a stump. He thinks moving OSU/MI to September is a good idea.
LikeLike
Nebraska accepted the Big Ten’s invitation on June 12, 2010 and became a conference member on July 1, 2011. See–http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276551
It’s a theoretically possible scenario. Outside of the exit fee, I don’t believe there are any other requirements for programs to leave the ACC, such as a waiting period.
If the ACC-Maryland lawsuit is settled in three or four months and schools are still willing to move in the wake of the settlement, then precedent shows that additional schools could be integrated into the Big Ten in time for the 2014 football season.
Goodness knows that Delany will have had plenty of time to vet the candidate schools, gauge their interest and gather the opinions and address the concerns of the COP/C and ADs these past months and through the last spring/early summer in order to quickly make a decision.
Notre Dame announced it was joining the ACC on 12 September last year. Maryland and Rutgers joined the Big Ten a little over two months later. If the conference is prepared to issue and accept invitations like I imagine they will be, the whole process could happen even faster than that.
LikeLike
Texas A&M, and then TCU, and then Mizzou, and then West Virginia, all announced they were leaving with even less notice than Nebraska gave.
LikeLike
DiNardo was born in NY, played at ND & only coached at a B1G school for 3 years out of a 3 decade long career.
Regardless of where he is currently employed, Gerry is not a Big 10 voice.
LikeLike
He was a mediocre coach, but he has been covering the league regularly for several years and has contacts the rest of us could only dream about. He could be wrong, but I’d say he is manny degrees more reliable than the two West Virginia tweeps.
LikeLike
Just for laughs:
(JHU is Division III in every sport except lacrosse. Moving up to Division I would be an arduous process, in which they’d get clobbered for years and would have no value to the Big Ten. That’s to say nothing of the expense, given what I have to assume are highly sub-standard facilities by Division I standards.)
LikeLike
That would alleviate all the associate membership and minimum number is sports concerns. And probably get them considerably more (if not full) conference distribution.
LikeLike
I’m guessing the Big Ten would make them park their DI sports in another conference for a few years before they would be part of the Big Ten.
Of course given the source of this report, who knows what will really happen.
LikeLike
I think this would cost them the B10 offer. That would truly make them a partial member, and I don’t see the B10 accepting that. They wouldn’t for ND (all but FB), why would they for JHU lacrosse?
LikeLike
I agree Brian, you get too close to the slippery slope if JHU somehow adds back a lot of D-1 programs.
If it’s just men’s/women’s lacrosse, it’s easier to make an exception
LikeLike
It’s not an exception if they join the B1G in all sports. Raising the other sports to D1 eliminates both the minimum number requirement and the associate member concern. What am I missing? How is this a problem, assuming their distribution is at a level commensurate with their contribution (academics consideration included)?
LikeLike
I really don’t take this story seriously…although when the NCAA was debating the grandfathering rule, there was talk JHU would move its other teams to Div I if it was otherwise not allowed to play Div I lacrosse. (Had that happened, though, Hopkins probably would have joined the Patriot League, not the Big Ten.)
LikeLike
@ccrider55: It’s not an exception if they join the B1G in all sports. Raising the other sports to D1 eliminates both the minimum number requirement and the associate member concern. What am I missing? How is this a problem…?
Raising the other sports to D1 would be very expensive and would take years. People complain when Big Ten teams play FCS squads, in games that are usually not even close to competitive (Appalachian State vs. Michigan aside). Hopkins plays two full levels below FCS. Their football stadium seats 8,500. Their basketball gym seats 1,100. Against any Division I team, they’d get slaughtered.
LikeLike
Satisfying the all D1 opponents requirement, and maintaining a cupcake game. Win, win 🙂 .
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“It’s not an exception if they join the B1G in all sports. Raising the other sports to D1 eliminates both the minimum number requirement and the associate member concern. What am I missing?”
I responded to frug saying they would park the other sports in another D-I conference.
“How is this a problem, assuming their distribution is at a level commensurate with their contribution (academics consideration included)?”
Bringing a bunch of terrible teams to the B10 is a problem. B10 teams all get paid the same amount, and JHU couldn’t possibly earn their share. Or are you claiming they’d get paid nothing from FB and hoops money? Would they buy into the BTN? How would they get paid from it?
LikeLike
I figured you were responding to frug after I posted.
Perhaps compensate JHU FB along the lines of what currently is being paid for weak “buy” games (maybe with a requirement of a percentage going to improvements)? I don’t know. But do you think Chicago would have been kicked out if, rather than choosing to drop down, it said it would begin rebuilding over time?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“But do you think Chicago would have been kicked out if, rather than choosing to drop down, it said it would begin rebuilding over time?”
Back then, no. Look how long they let NW suck. But nowadays, yes. Can you imagine giving an equal annual split to a team that make IN look like a FB king and PSU like a hoops king? Chicago would just be stealing money. I think they would be required by the B10 to put much of their conference payout directly into serious attempts to get competitive or face getting the boot.
LikeLike
Brian:
“I think they would be required by the B10 to put much of their conference payout directly into serious attempts to get competitive… ”
I think that is what I was suggesting for JHU, except using what is currently being paid for FB cupcake games as a starting point (rather than trying to discover what is not discoverable – the value JHU would bring to B1G FB).
LikeLike
The Big Ten isn’t going to give them a full distribution (or anything near that) unless they generate enough economic value. The conference already has the state’s flagship school (Maryland), and it would be many years before JHU’s other teams were competitive against Division I talent. I don’t know the precedents for making the leap from Division III to Division I, but I imagine it is an arduous climb. A basketball game like Johns Hopkins at Indiana would probably be really, really ugly.
LikeLike
Unless the team has had a worse loss since I was a student in the early 90s, the worst loss was at UVA in the early 80s, when Hopkins still played DI schools on occasion.
Yep, that’s a DIII team going against Ralph Sampson.
LikeLike
Little-known fact: Jim Valvano’s first head coaching job was at Hopkins.
LikeLike
Chip Kelly was also a Hopkins coach (as a coordinator).
LikeLike
SIAP. A list of where active NFL players went to high school. This could be part of why Rutgers and Maryland were added and why North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech would be desirable.
http://www.maxpreps.com/news/J_G3Olz0lUaivTrWxlHrLQ/where-every-active-nfl-player-went-to-high-school.htm
LikeLike
Note that if you don’t count FL and TX, there are actually more NFL players from the 14-school B10 footprint than the SEC footprint (467 vs. 431). Just FL+TX produced 457, however (though the SEC certainly doesn’t get the vast bulk of TX football players). If anything, this shows how desirable FSU should be (Miami as well if they weren’t going to be underwater before I die).
LikeLike
Well, if you’re not counting FL and TX, you shouldn’t really count U of Florida and Texas A&M, and the SEC comes out ahead on a per-school basis.
467/14=33.36
431/12=35.92
LikeLike
Barely a difference, and even if you exclude TX & FL, the SEC has to share the talent-rich states of GA & SC with schools from other major conferences while the B10 shares only PA & IA (and no one has ever accused IA of being loaded in football-talent).
Halve the numbers for GA, SC, PA, & IA, and you get
427/14=30.5
349.5/12= 29.125
It’s pretty clear to me that the SEC advantage in talent can be explained by (besides more emphasis and money spent on recruiting) the proximity of most SEC schools to FL & TX.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-fighting-illini-news-illinois-creates-chicago-athletics-advisory-board-20130212,0,2733184.story
Frank, I didn’t see your name on IL’s new Chicago advisory board.
LikeLike
New thread, same topic:
18 teams – add UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
Rivalry chains off the top of my head:
NE – WI – MN – IA – NW – IL – OSU – MI – MSU
NE – IA – WI – NE – MN
OSU – PSU – RU
MI – MN
MSU – NW
IL – PU – IN
PSU – MD – UVA – UNC – Duke
GT – UVA
Something has to give no matter what.
Let’s examine my pods:
1. W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
Lots of preserved rivalries, plus highly desirable access to Chicago/IL for the western teams who have large fan/alumni bases there.
Unneeded games – IL doesn’t care much about the western 4 AFAIK with the possible exception of IA. They’d rather play OSU and MI.
Missing games – MI/MN, OSU/IL, MSU/NW
2. E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
Again, many preserved rivalries plus eastern partners for PSU.
Unneeded games – RU against UVA and UNC, PSU versus UVA, UNC and Duke
Missing games – PSU/OSU
3. C1 – OSU, GT, PU; C2 – MI, MSU, IN; OSU/MI and PU/IN locked
Rivalries preserved.
Unneeded games – GT against everyone, OSU/PU, MI/IN, MSU/IN
Missing games – MI/MN, OSU/IL, MSU/NW, GT/UVA
Conclusions
All the missing games would be played 50% of the time. With 10 games, all games would be played at least 33% of the time. Everything except W versus E would be 50% or 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s not terrible.
What about Marc’s latest obsession?
NE – WI, IA, MN, maybe PSU
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN, NW
MN – NE, WI, IA, MI
NW – IA, IL, MSU
IL – NW, OSU, PU
PU – IL, IN
IN – PU
MI – OSU, MSU, MN
MSU – MI, NW
OSU – MI, IL, PSU
PSU – OSU, RU, MD, maybe NE
RU – PSU, MD
MD – PSU, UVA, UNC, maybe GT & Duke
UVA – MD, UNC, GT, maybe Duke
UNC – UVA, Duke, maybe GT & MD
Duke – UNC, maybe MD & UVA & GT
GT – UVA, maybe MD & UNC & Duke
You really can’t make clean divisions despite his claims. Something has to give, just as it does with pods or any other system. The main difference is that pods focus on local rivalries and are easier to understand in many ways. It means the western schools play each other a lot and the eastern school less often (and vice versa). If everyone had the same number of fixed games, it would be simpler conceptually but hard to form divisions. I fail to see this as a panacea. The old system with no divisions would accomplish \what he wants, but requires a rule change obviously.
Frequency of play
This is the great opportunity cost Marc was worried about, so let’s examine it.
Everyone has 4 locked games as part of Marc’s scheme (they all have the same number for ease of math):
4 – 100%
13 – 38% or 46% (9 or 10 games)
Pods of 6/3/3/6:
A. One of the 6
5 – 100%
6 – 50%
6 – 17% or 33% (9 or 10 games)
B. One of the 3 (1 locked crossover)
3 – 100%
12 – 50%
2 – 0% or 50% (9 or 10 games – the 0% is the reason for rotating the groups of 3)
Comparison
1. 10 games
Marc – 4 x 100% + 13 x 46%
Pod of 6 – 5 x 100% + 6 * 50% + 6 * 33%
Pod of 3 – 3 x 100% + 14 * 50%
That not very different. The pod of 3 is almost exactly the same. The pods of 6 play the farthest teams less often and the nearer ones more often than in Marc’s plan (an advantage of pods).
2. 9 games
Marc – 4 x 100% + 13 x 38%
Pod of 6 – 5 x 100% + 6 * 50% + 6 * 17%
Pod of 3 – 3 x 100% + 12 * 50% + 2 x 0%
The differences are bigger here. Again, the pod of 6 teams get to play the nearest teams the most but now there games against the farthest teams are fairly rare (1 in 6 years). The pod of 3 teams actually can’t play each other. That’s why you implement a rotation of those groups of 3.
OSU, GT, PU vs MI, MSU, IN – OSU/MSU, OSU/IN, GT/MI, GT/IN, PU/MI and PU/MSU never play
The easy part is to swap IN and PU every two years (off cycle from when the pods of 3 trade divisions, ideally). That would knock IN/OSU, IN/GT, PU/MI and PU/MSU off the list as they get played. That leaves OSU/MSU and MI/GT. The fix for that is swapping OSU and IN, and then GT for IN/PU.
In short:
OSU, GT, PU vs MI, MSU, IN
OSU, GT, IN vs MI, MSU, PU
OSU, MI, MSU vs GT, PU, IN
OSU, PU, IN vs MI, MSU, GT
OSU, MI, GT vs MSU, PU, IN
OSU, MI, MSU vs GT, PU, IN*
* – This one gets repeated so OSU/MSU is also 33%
OSU games:
MI – 100%
GT – 61%
PU, IN – 53%
MSU – 33%
This also means OSU and MI are in the same division half the time.
LikeLike
Why would you wait two years to swap groups? If the aim is to play each other more often, swapping groups annually would let you play each other more often.
LikeLike
I would swap annually, but this is another one of the Big Ten’s traditions, which some would claim is essential, and others would not. Historically, the schedule has always rotated in two-year increments, I don’t know how far back it goes, but it’s at least 20 years.
I suppose the idea is that if Georgia Tech comes in and beats you, you want the opportunity for revenge the following year, and vice versa.
LikeLike
The issue I can see with 9 conference games is that a particular division lineup will be 5 home games in one cycle and 4 the return, so for the Hawkeyes and Purdue and maybe MSU with annual OOC rivalries, running H-A-H-A-…, they’ll want those to offset, Home when they have 4 Home in conference and Away when they have 5 Home in conference … which is easiest to do if they tick tock first, then swap.
LikeLike
I am swapping on two different schedules:
After Year 1 – swap groups of 6
After Year 2 – change groups of 3
After Year 3 – swap groups of 6
After Year 4 – change groups of 3
etc
Y1: W + C1 vs E + C2
Y2: E + C1 vs W + C2
This makes sure everyone in C has played all the E and W teams before mixing up the C groups. The rotating games change every year.
Y3: W + C3 vs E + C4
Y4: E + C3 vs W + C4
etc
The changing C groups make sure all the C teams play each other.
LikeLike
Brian’s summary is in the zip code of what I was suggesting, but I would alter it to an extent.
The league clearly has a desire to integrate new members, by having them play all of the other members reasonably often. It also has a desire to preserve rivalries that already exist. Those goals are in tension, because the more you protect, the fewer games are available for non-locked teams to play each other.
Brian’s math assumed that, in my proposal, every team has four locked games. That, I believe, is more than necessary — given that no Big Ten team (in the current 14-team league) has more than two teams that it has played every year. It would be passing strange that as the league grows to 18 or 20, suddenly there is a need to protect more than you did historically. Each time the league has grown, more annual rivalries have been given up than added.
Brian made an attempt to list unneeded rivalries in his system, but I think he exaggerated, for instance:
2. E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
Again, many preserved rivalries plus eastern partners for PSU.
Unneeded games – RU against UVA and UNC, PSU versus UVA, UNC and Duke
Rutgers has no particular history against any of those teams except Penn State. As I noted upthread, Maryland had already made the decision to relinquish annual games against the rest of the ACC, so it would be a bit odd if the Terps now said, “We have to play them every year.”
So all I am really saying is: make a list of what actually needs to be protected, and let the rest float, which thereby gives every team more regular access to every other team. What games should be protected is debatable, and certainly a very desirable discussion. I am sure that will be the main argument when and if this actually happens in the Big Ten.
Now, it is fairly apparent that Brian’s static system works. If you delete the unneeded rivalries (however you define “unneeded”), and let them float, it still works, but a team like GT or Rutgers sees the rest of the Big Ten more often, and vice versa.
That is really the essence of my idea: protect what you need to protect, and no more.
LikeLike
“It would be passing strange that as the league grows to 18 or 20, suddenly there is a need to protect more than you did historically.”
It seems quite normal to me. As the league grows, the average frequency of the *unprotected* games drops. I wouldn’t be thrilled about the Illibuck not being played every year, but if it was four years on, two years off, or two years on, two years off, that’s easier to accept than it not being played for four years straight.
So having to protect games wasn’t a big historical issue because for forty years, it wasn’t hard to do. It only arose quite recently, in the past two decades, with the first of the four newbies joined the conference after four decades of stability. Some schools felt at the time that the Big Ten didn’t always get that scheduling right. It became a bigger issue and one that in some quarters it is argued strongly that they didn’t get right when the Big Ten went to divisions.
As far as I can understand your argument, its that the schools with good reason to be concerned that they will end up being screwed by rotating the divisions on a seat of the pants ad-hoc should just trust the Big Ten to get it right the next time they have a go at it. At least with the various division lineups and rotating divisions, they can fight to avoid being screwed when the structure is being established, rather than just trusting that they’ll end up doing OK when the schedules are actually drawn up.
LikeLike
As far as I can understand your argument, its that the schools with good reason to be concerned that they will end up being screwed by rotating the divisions on a seat of the pants ad-hoc should just trust the Big Ten to get it right the next time they have a go at it.
I hadn’t considered that angle at all. For the sake of present discussion, I assume that the Big Ten can be trusted to A) implement whatever is agreed to; B) equitably allocate whatever is left to the league’s discretion. (Of course, it could be that, based on past experience, the ADs will want to spell out matters that were previously left unspecified.)
If the league actually can’t be trusted to do that, it’s a whole new angle I hadn’t thought about, but it’s not a concern I have ever heard to any significant degree. For what it’s worth, some of my fellow Michigan fans think Delany deliberately wrote an anti-Michigan schedule. I am not buying it.
LikeLike
“If the league actually can’t be trusted to do that, it’s a whole new angle I hadn’t thought about, but it’s not a concern I have ever heard to any significant degree. For what it’s worth, some of my fellow Michigan fans think Delany deliberately wrote an anti-Michigan schedule. I am not buying it.”
It doubt its an issue that the school up north is going to have to lose much sleep over ~ when the conference dropped down to eight conference games in the mid-80’s and started skipping the whole round robin, its not like the Buckeyes or the school up north had any substantial reason to complain about the scheduling in the late 80’s, and that is on top of that drop to eight being in their interest in the first place.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Brian’s summary is in the zip code of what I was suggesting, but I would alter it to an extent.”
That seems reasonable since it was your system.
“Brian’s math assumed that, in my proposal, every team has four locked games.”
I gave them all the same number for simplicity. Why list a bunch of options when once makes it clear? I realize you allowed/intended a varying number for each team. I chose 4 because several schools I listed had 4. Going smaller would have been an odd choice.
“That, I believe, is more than necessary”
And many of us have disagreed with you about the number.
“It would be passing strange that as the league grows to 18 or 20, suddenly there is a need to protect more than you did historically.”
Not to me. As half the league becomes newbies, it’s even more natural to want to preserve rivalries. Besides, I think you’ve been too binary in your thinking. You’ve said any rivalry that hasn’t always been preserved holds no value now. I’d say that previous lost rivalries were because the B10 valued other things more and because they still stayed frequent (as PSU was added). The B10 didn’t want to lose WI/IA, they just wanted balance a little more. Now they want to preserve rivalries more, so WI is going back west.
“Unneeded games – RU against UVA and UNC, PSU versus UVA, UNC and Duke
Rutgers has no particular history against any of those teams except Penn State. As I noted upthread, Maryland had already made the decision to relinquish annual games against the rest of the ACC, so it would be a bit odd if the Terps now said, “We have to play them every year.””
1. MD is the only other school in easy driving distance for RU, and proximity drives rivalries. As for Duke, many of their students come from NJ and they have a ton of alumni in NYC. The RU/Duke game seems fairly natural to me.
2. You saying something doesn’t mean the world agrees. MD decided they needed more money slightly more than they needed to play those ACC teams. They didn’t suddenly decide those teams meant nothing to them. Everyone but you in the B10 thinks it is natural for MD to annually play some/all of their former ACC mates that join the B10. Some history is better than none. I promise the MD AD would ask for it to happen.
LikeLike
Very good breakdown of the split and who got what. It’s amazing how much simple economics drive College Sports.
LikeLike
I really wonder if those folks who want less protected games in order to play everyone else more have thought through the math.
For instance, with 10 conference games in a 20 school league, protecting 3 games and rotating the rest means you face the non-protected schools 7/16th of the time. Protecting 2 games and rotating the rest means you face the non-protected schools 8/17th of the time. That’s a 3.3% increase in frequency. That’s 1 extra game vs. each non-protected school every 30 years, or one extra HaH series every 60 years. 1 extra game every 30 years against Rutgers, GTech, or some other B10 school that I have don’t consider different from any other isn’t worth killing off any half-way decent rivalry for, IMHO. Would it mean that some series that aren’t natural rivalries would be protected annually if there are 3 or 4 protected games for everyone? Sure, but what’s the harm in that? If I don’t consider 8 schools to be different from one another in terms of fan fervor, does it matter if I play 1 annually and the other 7 a little less rather than all 8 equally?
LikeLike
I was looking at a difference somewhat more dramatic than that. Let’s consider Florida State. Of the teams considered likely Big Ten switchers, FSU did not regularly play any of them until they joined the ACC in 1992. (I am excluding UF and Miami, neither of which is frequently mentioned as a likely Big Ten add.)
Assume a 20-team Big Ten and 10 conference games per year. If you put FSU in a static five-team pod, they have 6 games available vs. the rest of the conference. It would take six years for every team not in FSU’s pod to play at least one home & home with them.
If you protect Georgia Tech and no more,(*) they have 9 games available vs. the rest of the conference. It would take four years, rather than six, for every other B1G team to play a home & home with FSU.
Whatever denominator you use, that’s much better than a 3.3% improvement, in terms of giving every team a recurring trip to Florida, and getting Florida State on every B1G team’s schedule, which I believe would be a high priority goal in the scenario where FSU joins the league.
In one scenario suggested above (not by me), Purdue would share a pod with Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, and Notre Dame, meaning that 30 percent of its annual conference schedule would consist of recurring games with teams it has no historical affinity with. I have to think that, given the choice, many Purdue fans would prefer to let those games float among the rest of the conference.
Now, I understand that no system is perfect, but the imperfections usually come from not being able to satisfy every constraint, not from introducing new constraints (i.e., annual games vs. Maryland, Rutgers and Penn State) that no one asked for or wanted. Why do that, when you don’t ahve to?
LikeLike
However, the odds that the B10 would have FSU have 1 permanent series while Iowa has 3 are essentially nil. The B10 has always had the same number of protected series for everyone, so the question is between 2 protected series (where a lot of meaningful rivalries would not be protected), 3 protected series (where almost all rivalries would be protected), or maybe 4 protected series (where any rivalry of any significance is protected).
Oh, and I’m against pods. Just have protected series and rotate if the conference gets to 20.
LikeLike
… the odds that the B10 would have FSU have 1 permanent series while Iowa has 3 are essentially nil. The B10 has always had the same number of protected series for everyone…
Once you get to a 20-team Big Ten, the league will obviously be doing many things it has never done before; the only question is which ones.
There aren’t precisely three schools that make sense as FSU’s annual rivals. After you get past Georgia Tech (the closest geographically), there aren’t two schools that make sense, at the cost of seeing the rest of the league less often.
Consider Northwestern: after Illinois, their next most frequently played rivalries are Wisconsin and Minnesota, games no one has proposed to lock. They’ve played the rest of the original B1G with fairly consistent frequency, so there just aren’t two particular games (after Illinois) that it makes particular sense to elevate to a privileged status above all the rest.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
I really think you’re underestimating the value of at least a basic level of consistency or familiarity. It sounds crazy but I think most people would prefer to know at least 30% of their team’s schedule off the top of their head.
If FSU has one locked game a year… hell, why not just be Independent with a B1G scheduling agreement? You’re telling us that 3 games is too structured? You’d see every conference member within three years.
We’re very close to agreeing on how to best navigate a 20 Team B1G schedule, but I just don’t see 3 games as being akin to a set of handcuffs. I think FSU would enjoy playing the 3 protected games that I gave them below. (GT, UNC, NEB)
Even if you had varying numbers of protected games among the schools, I don’t think you would cycle FSU through the league noticeably faster.
To top it off, scheduling would be far easier.
LikeLike
“Once you get to a 20-team Big Ten, the league will obviously be doing many things it has never done before”
Such as, for instance, petitioning the NCAA to allow each school to play an extra kickoff classic game every 4 years.
Anyway, actually, I think you’re just displaying your ignorance of what other schools consider important. Northwestern fans definitely want to play Iowa far more than 50% of the time. They would be our second-most important series. We definitely don’t consider all games other than against Illinois to be the same. MSU’s AD considers a trip to Chicagoland every other year (that is, playing Northwestern annually) to be their second-highest priority.
As for FSU, I fully expect the B10 to set up 2 annual series between them and 2 of the other 4 kings (probably UNL and PSU, though maybe UNL and Michigan if PSU-UNL and PSU-OSU are still protected as annual series) for TV purposes.
Again, have you thought through the math? Sure 3% is less often (as is 7%), but what makes even less sense to me (as a Northwestern fan) than elevating some schools above others is sacrificing the Iowa series so that we can have an extra HAH with some random B10 school that we don’t care as much about every 30 or 60 years. To me, it _defnitely_ makes sense to elevate the Iowa game at the expense of an HaH with UMD or IU every 30 or 60 years. As a Michigan fan, are you willing to sacrifice the Jug game so that you can have an extra HaH with Duke, Rutgers, and GTech every 30 or 60 years? I know that Minnesota wouldn’t be willing.
LikeLike
I think you’re just displaying your ignorance of what other schools consider important. Northwestern fans definitely want to play Iowa far more than 50% of the time.
You kiddn’ me? Of course I know that. I’m just saying that — assuming the Big Ten gets to 20 members — which I neither favor nor am predicting — it is not realistically possible to lock Northwestern/Iowa. I haven’t seen any suggested structure that does so, unless it ruthlessly ignores many other equally important rivalries.
That does lead some fans to suggest two divisions, comprising “Old Big Ten,” “New Big Ten.” If you want to believe they’d do that, go ahead and keep believing.
LikeLike
“I’m just saying that — assuming the Big Ten gets to 20 members — which I neither favor nor am predicting — it is not realistically possible to lock Northwestern/Iowa.”
Why not? 4 locked rivals in a 10-game schedule. No divisions. Play everyone else equally. It’s about as realistic as anything else out there.
LikeLike
“I’m just saying that — assuming the Big Ten gets to 20 members — which I neither favor nor am predicting — it is not realistically possible to lock Northwestern/Iowa.”
Why not? 4 locked rivals in a 10-game schedule. No divisions. Play everyone else equally. It’s about as realistic as anything else out there.
Mathematically, it is possible. But Northwestern’s four most common Big Ten opponents are: Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Indiana. Iowa’s four most common opponents are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, and Indiana.
We already know that if Iowa is asked which games it wants, the top three are going to be Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska. Assuming they lock four, would those two schools request each other as #4, and would the ADs agree to that? Quite a few teams would like a bi-annual game in Chicago; not just Iowa.
More importantly, would they lock four? In the 11-game format (pre-Nebraska), the Big Ten protected two, not four, rivalries. Northwestern’s protected games were Illinois and Purdue. Would they go to four locked games, when two was considered sufficient before?
We also know that most schools in the conference want to see the “kings” as much as possible. It’s beyond rational argument that UM-MSU and UM-OSU are going to be locked. If they go to four locked games, Minnesota will surely get one of the remaining two slots against Michigan. Which fourth school will “win the lottery,” and get Michigan at home every other year? Do you think the rest of the ADs will believe that is a good idea?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“We already know that if Iowa is asked which games it wants, the top three are going to be Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska. Assuming they lock four, would those two schools request each other as #4, and would the ADs agree to that? Quite a few teams would like a bi-annual game in Chicago; not just Iowa.”
Let’s try it as a thought experiment with the 12 teams. These are my guesses at the top 4 choices for each school to play, roughly in order (last one is my least confident pick). If I struggle for 4, I’ll add teams that want to play them.
NE – IA, WI, MN, PSU
WI – MN, IA, NE, MSU
IA – MN, WI, NE, NW
MN – WI, IA, MI, NE
NW – IL, IA, MSU, PU
IL – NW, OSU, PU, IN
PU – IN, IL, NW, MI
IN – PU, IL, OSU, PSU
MI – OSU, MSU, MN, PU
MSU – MI, NW, WI, PSU
OSU – MI, IL, IN, PSU
PSU – OSU, NE, MSU, IN
The only one that really felt forced was PSU/IN to finish the set. Adding RU and MD changes things, obviously.
RU – PSU, MD, NW, IA
MD – PSU, RU, PU, NW
PSU – OSU, NE, RU, MD
MSU – MI, NW, WI, IN
IN – PU, IL, OSU, MSU
IA – MN, WI, NE, RU
NW – IL, MSU, RU, MD
PU – IN, IL, MI, MD
I could also drop IN/IL instead of IA/NW to fill the last spots for RU and MD.
Going to 20 makes more changes depending on the 20. UVA, UNC and Duke would all play each other. GT might play the NC schools while MD plays UVA. FSU would get GT and 3 others. ND should get in with PU, RU, MSU and MI.
NE – IA, WI, MN, PSU
WI – MN, IA, NE, MSU
MN – WI, IA, MI, NE
IA – MN, WI, NE, NW
NW – IL, MSU, RU, IA
IL – NW, OSU, PU, IN
IN – PU, IL, OSU, FSU
PU – IN, ND, IL, MD
MI – OSU, MSU, MN, FSU
MSU – MI, NW, WI, ND
OSU – MI, IL, IN, PSU
PSU – OSU, NE, RU, MD
RU – PSU, MD, ND, Duke
MD – PSU, RU, PU, ND
UVA – UNC, MD, Duke, GT
UNC – UVA, Duke, GT, FSU
Duke – UNC, UVA, GT, RU
GT – UNC, Duke, FSU, UVA
FSU – GT, UNC, MI, IN
ND – MSU, PU, MD, RU
Not many feel forced here except IN/FSU and most requests are satisfied. I don’t see many conflicts of somebody having a clear preference that was denied. There is probably a better set, but this is a decent start.
LikeLike
I don’t see many conflicts of somebody having a clear preference that was denied.
I think you’ve covered all of the recurring and hotly desired rivalries, and most of the others make some sense: Rutgers-Duke is inspired.
But if they finally manage to get Notre Dame into the conference after 20+ years of courtship, would they assign the Irish to Rutgers and Maryland every year? I’m having trouble imagining the conversation where the ADs would think that was the best idea.
I think there might be some typos: you have Maryland on Virginia’s list, but not vice versa.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think you’ve covered all of the recurring and hotly desired rivalries, and most of the others make some sense: Rutgers-Duke is inspired.”
As little as Duke cares about FB, I figured at least let them play near their fan base.
“But if they finally manage to get Notre Dame into the conference after 20+ years of courtship, would they assign the Irish to Rutgers and Maryland every year?”
I was thinking ND would want the east coast access so they play in NYC or DC every year.
“I think there might be some typos: you have Maryland on Virginia’s list, but not vice versa.”
Corrected version:
NE – IA, WI, MN, PSU
WI – MN, IA, NE, MSU
MN – WI, IA, MI, NE
IA – MN, WI, NE, NW
NW – IL, MSU, PU, IA
IL – NW, OSU, PU, IN
IN – PU, IL, OSU, FSU
PU – IN, ND, IL, NW
MI – OSU, MSU, MN, FSU
MSU – MI, NW, WI, ND
OSU – MI, IL, IN, PSU
PSU – OSU, NE, RU, MD
RU – PSU, MD, ND, Duke
MD – PSU, RU, UVA, ND
UVA – UNC, MD, Duke, GT
UNC – UVA, Duke, GT, FSU
Duke – UNC, UVA, GT, RU
GT – UNC, Duke, FSU, UVA
FSU – GT, UNC, MI, IN
ND – MSU, PU, MD, RU
LikeLike
I was thinking ND would want the east coast access so they play in NYC or DC every year.
I certainly can see why the Irish would be fond of that. I’m just wondering if the rest of the league would be willing to placate them to that extent.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
I was thinking ND would want the east coast access so they play in NYC or DC every year.
“I certainly can see why the Irish would be fond of that. I’m just wondering if the rest of the league would be willing to placate them to that extent.”
They are sending OSU and MI east to play MD and RU to build them up now. Why wouldn’t they be willing to send ND instead, especially if that was the deal required to get ND to join?
The two strongest B10 rivalries with ND were kept and nobody but PSU really has any history with MD and RU. Besides, everyone acknowledges that ND has the largest eastern fan base. Everyone plays the other 15 teams 40% of the time, so they’ll all get their east coast access. Feel free to show me a better list that is reasonable and at least somewhat balanced.
LikeLike
@Brian: They are sending OSU and MI east to play MD and RU to build them up now. Why wouldn’t they be willing to send ND instead, especially if that was the deal required to get ND to join?
As I understand it, they are not merely trying to build up MD and RU, although that is part of it; they are also trying to give OSU and UM access to a region where they have a lot of fans (compared to the rest of the Big Ten). Beyond that, an east-west split also allows the western teams to play each other every year, which they want. So the same decision pleases many people at once.
Maryland and Rutgers are “projects”; Notre Dame is a king. I imagine the whole league would want them on their schedule. Beyond that, if the word got out that the league gave the Irish any scheduling favors, the fan reaction would be…unprintable.
And that’s even assuming the Irish would demand that. In a Big Ten that ND would feel compelled to join, you’ve probably got Georgia Tech, Penn State, Florida State, and North Carolina too—all teams the Irish have some history with. They probably could have had Maryland and Rutgers on their schedule almost anytime they wanted, but rarely scheduled them.
Feel free to show me a better list that is reasonable and at least somewhat balanced.
Given the premise of locking four games per team, I think you’ve done an excellent job. If I could improve it, it wouldn’t be by much. You admitted yourself that, in some cases, the fourth team is something of a coin flip. I don’t disagree with that.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As I understand it, they are not merely trying to build up MD and RU, although that is part of it; they are also trying to give OSU and UM access to a region where they have a lot of fans (compared to the rest of the Big Ten).”
They don’t want to give OSU and MI access to fans for their own good, but to help the BTN.
“Beyond that, an east-west split also allows the western teams to play each other every year, which they want. So the same decision pleases many people at once.”
And letting ND play MD and RU wouldn’t?
“Maryland and Rutgers are “projects”; Notre Dame is a king. I imagine the whole league would want them on their schedule.”
Who is them? Plenty of people don’t want RU or MD on their schedule. As for ND, everyone still would get them at least 40% of the time. The same is true of FSU, OSU, MI, PSU and NE (whichever they aren’t locked with. That’s 2.4 kings for everyone every year before considering the locked games with kings.
“Beyond that, if the word got out that the league gave the Irish any scheduling favors, the fan reaction would be…unprintable.”
Not when everyone else got favors. It’s only if they got special treatment that people would complain.
LikeLike
“So the same decision pleases many people at once.”
And letting ND play MD and RU wouldn’t?
We already know that teams want to play the kings as much as they can. If Delany actually manages to hook ND, the next question will be, “How can we get them on the whole league’s schedule, as often as the math allows?” Locking them with two of the league’s newest members probably wouldn’t be the first idea that comes to mind.
Anyhow, your premise was that Notre Dame might request this, which would be odd, in that the Irish have so seldom scheduled those two schools.
Notre Dame vs. practically anybody is a top media draw, so the league would probably not want to concentrate their access to two teams. If the Irish ever join (about as likely as me being the next pope), I’d be surprised if that’s the solution they arrive at.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“We already know that teams want to play the kings as much as they can.”
Many teams want to play certain kings more than others. And beyond a minimum number of games, they don’t want too many kings. 6 kings in 20 teams means at least 2.4 king games for everyone each year. Other than rivalries, I’m not sure how many more kings games most teams want. Only NW and UVA didn’t have a locked king in my list, meaning all the other non-kings play at least 3 king games while they get 2.4. The kings vary from 2 to 3.2 king games per year.
“If Delany actually manages to hook ND, the next question will be, “How can we get them on the whole league’s schedule, as often as the math allows?” Locking them with two of the league’s newest members probably wouldn’t be the first idea that comes to mind.”
Everyone knows ND would get at least 2 locked games (PU and MSU). Who else would they want? There are lots of options. RU, MD, GT, FSU and MI all come to mind. The first 4 offer unique east coast access, but maybe they feel MD is redundant with Navy and want GT instead. That’s doable.
“Anyhow, your premise was that Notre Dame might request this, which would be odd, in that the Irish have so seldom scheduled those two schools.”
I had to make choices to fill out the grid. It’s not hard to swap it to RU and GT or some other pair.
“Notre Dame vs. practically anybody is a top media draw, so the league would probably not want to concentrate their access to two teams.”
Right. Look how the B10 has forced PU and MSU to stop playing ND every year so other teams can get a shot now. As you say, it doesn’t matter who ND plays so why not let them play a few of their favorites annually? The other schools can play the other kings.
LikeLike
Corrected version:…of four locked rivalries per school.
Brian has now arrived at something very close to the idea I am proposing — namely, that it is better to give schools the rivalries they actually want.
The only difference is, he tops up each school’s list with four rivals, regardless of whether four is the number that’s wanted. For Minnesota, four is perfect: they get exactly the schools they prefer (Wisc, Neb, Iowa, Mich). It’s also perfect for Purdue: they get Note Dame, Indiana, Northwestern, and Illinois.
For some, four is too few. The ACC refugees would all (probably) like to keep playing each other frequently. But if you have six schools (GT, FSU, MD, VA, NC, Duke), each can lock up to three others, not five. (Some, in fact, don’t even get three in Brian’s scheme.)
Notre Dame has 34 or more meetings with Purdue, MSU, NW, GT, and Mich. Instead, they get just two of these, with the other two slots going to schools (Maryland, Rutgers) whom they’ve seldom played.
For some, four is too many. Indiana and Florida State are the obvious ones, with each given a rivalry with the other, for no other reason than to give each school an equal number. But the proposed Michigan-FSU locked rivalry, though no doubt a good one, is just one of many plausible fourth games you could have given to either school.
It is a short step from there, to locking only what is necessary; and see what flexibility this gives the league. There is no need for the unlocked games to be played with equal frequency. You can increase the frequency of classic B1G vs B1G games, classic ACC vs ACC games, the frequency of king vs king games, or whatever you want. Notre Dame can be rotated through the league with equal frequency, or it can see the kings more frequently, or it can see its historical rivals more frequently. The options are numerous.
In contrast, where you lock pods or lock a specific number of rivals, you wind up with contrived ahistorical rivalries, with others relegated to second-tier status, because the putative 16, 18, or 20-team league just doesn’t break down into these even-numbered groupings. It does for some teams, but it doesn’t work for all of them.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Brian has now arrived at something very close to the idea I am proposing”
Maybe I did, but my goal was to find four locked games per team. That was the topic you and Richard were debating, including whether there would be fighting over certain schools and such. I just wanted to provide an actual list to look at to see how it might work.
It’s your job to show a list for your plan. You did it before but then disavowed it because we all jumped on you about it being too minimalist. Until you do, you’re just wasting space with this topic. You keep talking about it but refuse to produce this plan so we can critique it. How can we evaluate how much it would be better if you refuse to show it?
“For some, four is too few. The ACC refugees would all (probably) like to keep playing each other frequently.”
Hold it now. What happened to the argument about how loose the ties of FSU and GT to the rest of the ACC are? What happened to FSU already not liking their ACC schedule? Suddenly they want it back rather than MI every year?
“Notre Dame has 34 or more meetings with Purdue, MSU, NW, GT, and Mich. Instead, they get just two of these, with the other two slots going to schools (Maryland, Rutgers) whom they’ve seldom played.”
Which I explained, and I continue to wait for you to propose a better plan. But that’s not what you do, is it? You argue against the specifics of everyone else’s plans but keep yours nebulous so nobody can critique it.
“It is a short step from there, to locking only what is necessary; and see what flexibility this gives the league.”
If it’s such a short step, why do you keep refusing to take it? You’ve been rambling on about your great plan for days/weeks. How come it never shows up on here? Or is it all talk and you don’t actually have a plan?
LikeLike
@Brian:
It’s your job to show a list for your plan. You did it before but then disavowed it because we all jumped on you about it being too minimalist.
I have no preference for the number of rivalries to lock. What I have seen, is that in every plan based on static pods or a fixed number of locked games, inevitably some are “forced,” “made-up,” “fictitious,” or whatever word you would like to use. In some schemes, desired rivalries get kicked to the curb, because the pod isn’t big enough.
So I am wondering, why be in thrall to that? Lock only the ones you really want—whatever they may be. At the point where you’re saying, “I need a fourth locked rival for Indiana: stop.” If it’s not immediately apparent, then it’s not needed (as an annual game).
“For some, four is too few. The ACC refugees would all (probably) like to keep playing each other frequently.”
Hold it now. What happened to the argument about how loose the ties of FSU and GT to the rest of the ACC are? What happened to FSU already not liking their ACC schedule? Suddenly they want it back rather than MI every year?
This was in comparison to the plan you had suggested, where FSU would play Indiana more often than it would play Maryland. My actual view is that if FSU joins the league, the ADs would probably want to spread out access to the Florida market, rather than concentrating it with Michigan and Indiana. Once you erase those two locked games, an extra 20 percent of FSU’s conference slate is freed up. There’s a wide variety of ways those games could be used.
All I was saying was that if you DO lock four FSU games, Indiana and Michigan wouldn’t be two of them. But I don’t think they ought to lock four.
“Notre Dame has 34 or more meetings with Purdue, MSU, NW, GT, and Mich. Instead, they get just two of these, with the other two slots going to schools (Maryland, Rutgers) whom they’ve seldom played.”
Which I explained, and I continue to wait for you to propose a better plan.
Which I did: lock Purdue, and that’s it. From there, the league has numerous options better than yours, for how to schedule Notre Dame’s 10 conference games: rotate the remaining Irish games with equal frequency among members of the league; or give them a predominant rotation among teams they’ve historically played, with a less frequent rotation among the others. Alternatively, lock both Purdue and Michigan State, and do the same.
Your explanation wasn’t crazy, but it was pretty close: no one would come up with Maryland and Rutgers, without the artificial constraint of locking four games per school. Notre Dame as an independent, with its broad scheduling discretion, never did that.
There really is no reason (mathematically or historically) to lock the same number of games per team, nor to put them into equal-size pods. I assume you understand, combinatorially, that when you remove needless constraints from a system, your flexibility increases. “Florida State has to play Indiana every year” is a needless constraint. So is “Purdue has to play Maryland every year.” So is Georgia Tech/Michigan State.
Once you remove those constraints, the league can do whatever it wants with the extra games. If you have a scheduling idea that works with contrived/fictitious annual games, it also works if you remove those games, and instead use the new found flexibility to satisfy other needs, whether it be extra king vs king games, extra “old Big Ten” games, or whatever you would like.
LikeLike
where FSU would play Indiana more often than it would play Maryland
Typo: I meant Virginia.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I have no preference for the number of rivalries to lock.”
Bull. You complain about everyone else keeping too many. That means one of two things:
1. You do have a preference, so you’re lying now.
2. You’re complaining for absolutely no reason and with no basis, so you’re being a jerk.
“What I have seen, is that in every plan based on static pods or a fixed number of locked games, inevitably some are “forced,” “made-up,” “fictitious,” or whatever word you would like to use.”
Frankly, I don’t want to hear it until you man up and post your list of real rivalries. I’m sick of you badmouthing everyone else’s plans while providing no substance of your own. Put up or shut up.
Until then, you have nothing of value to say on this subject so I’m done.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I was looking at a difference somewhat more dramatic than that. Let’s consider Florida State. Of the teams considered likely Big Ten switchers, FSU did not regularly play any of them until they joined the ACC in 1992. (I am excluding UF and Miami, neither of which is frequently mentioned as a likely Big Ten add.)
Assume a 20-team Big Ten and 10 conference games per year. If you put FSU in a static five-team pod, they have 6 games available vs. the rest of the conference. It would take six years for every team not in FSU’s pod to play at least one home & home with them.
If you protect Georgia Tech and no more,(*) they have 9 games available vs. the rest of the conference. It would take four years, rather than six, for every other B1G team to play a home & home with FSU.”
It seems wise to you to make policy based on the history of FSU (newish to the ACC) and RU (no history with anyone but PSU) as opposed to all the other teams that do have some strong ties? What if FSU isn’t coming? That leaves RU as the only team with no history and GT as an outlier.
I understand your concept and the basic idea you’re trying to promote, but your arguments make no sense. Acting like most B10 teams only need to preserve 1 game is silly and undermines your point. As Richard points out, the B10 has always chosen to lock the same number of games for each team. Many of us think that might change for the new 14 arrangement, but I don’t see why it would for your plan for 18+ (much more similar to the old 11 system). Once you get to 3 or 4 games locked, how much does your plan help?
LikeLike
@Brian: What if FSU isn’t coming?
I don’t believe they are. That just happened to be one of the scenarios under discussion. I was just giving an example, not a schedule that required FSU’s presence.
Acting like most B10 teams only need to preserve 1 game is silly and undermines your point.
I don’t believe that at all. Let me say it again: I am not suggesting to lock 1 game per team. Rather, I recommending against locking annual rivalries that have no history, like Purdue/Maryland.
As Richard points out, the B10 has always chosen to lock the same number of games for each team.
This is quite true, but we could make a long list of things the Big Ten had always/never done, until it stopped/started doing them. The merits (or demerits) practically always need to be something better than, “We’ve always/never done that.”
Even in the 14-team Big Ten, many of us have debated whether, if Michigan State goes West, every team will have a locked game, or only Michigan/MSU. I don’t think it’s a done deal either way, is it?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
What if FSU isn’t coming?
“I don’t believe they are. That just happened to be one of the scenarios under discussion. I was just giving an example, not a schedule that required FSU’s presence.”
My point is, FSU is one of the very few teams without multiple strong ties to other teams. Without them, your list of counterexamples gets really small. If 17 of 18 teams really want to preserve 2 or 3 or 4 games, then not doing it because 1 team only cares about 1 game is silly.
Acting like most B10 teams only need to preserve 1 game is silly and undermines your point.
“I don’t believe that at all. Let me say it again: I am not suggesting to lock 1 game per team. Rather, I recommending against locking annual rivalries that have no history, like Purdue/Maryland.”
That’s exactly what you suggested when you made a list with mostly 1 game per team.
“The merits (or demerits) practically always need to be something better than, “We’ve always/never done that.””
Except when discussing how to decide a conference champion apparently. Then precedent is all that matters.
LikeLike
FSU is one of the very few teams without multiple strong ties to other teams. Without them, your list of counterexamples gets really small. If 17 of 18 teams really want to preserve 2 or 3 or 4 games, then not doing it because 1 team only cares about 1 game is silly.
OK, I’ll give another example. Let’s take Georgia Tech: their history with the ACC teams is only a bit longer than FSU’s. GT has no historical ties to any B1G team. I think the league might prefer to give all the Big Ten teams comparable access to the Georgia recruiting market.
You could put GT into a locked pod, and a couple of Big Ten teams would get disproportionate access to the Georgia market, for no good reason. Or you could let GT “float”, so that all the teams visit GT (and vice versa) with equal frequency.
Am I out of my mind, to suggest that the latter might be more in line with the league’s objectives? (This assumes the premise of adding GT, which I am not that excited about.)
In my scenario, I suggested locking GT and FSU, though it is worth noting that even the ACC doesn’t do this today, and neither of their locked ACC rivals (Wake Forest, Clemson) is considered a B1G candidate.
If GT joins with UVA, they might consider locking them and no other. I have no idea how passionately Yellowjacket and Cavalier fans feel about that game; I doubt that many of them drive to the other stadium with any regularity.
“I am not suggesting to lock 1 game per team. Rather, I recommending against locking annual rivalries that have no history, like Purdue/Maryland.”
That’s exactly what you suggested when you made a list with mostly 1 game per team.
I was merely illustrating a possible schedule where the number of protected games is not identical for every team. That was all I was trying to show. The concept still works if you protect more; it just takes longer for every B1G team to play at every other B1G team.
Having said that, in the scenario that I gave, almost every rivalry that I left unprotected has been unprotected at some point in the recent past, so it wasn’t something crazy, such as unlocking Minnesota-Wisconsin.
“The merits (or demerits) practically always need to be something better than, “We’ve always/never done that.””
Except when discussing how to decide a conference champion apparently. Then precedent is all that matters.
It applies there too.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“OK, I’ll give another example. Let’s take Georgia Tech: their history with the ACC teams is only a bit longer than FSU’s. GT has no historical ties to any B1G team. I think the league might prefer to give all the Big Ten teams comparable access to the Georgia recruiting market.”
1. Duke is GT’s 3rd most played opponent at 80 games (trails UGA and Auburn).
2. UNC is #6 at 48 games, 3rd among ACC teams (Clemson is 2nd)
3. UVA is a small football rivalry and their 11th most frequent opponent at 35 games, 4th among ACC foes.
4. Those are also closest to their fan base, so better road games for them.
5. FSU also has meaning for them.
“You could put GT into a locked pod, and a couple of Big Ten teams would get disproportionate access to the Georgia market, for no good reason. Or you could let GT “float”, so that all the teams visit GT (and vice versa) with equal frequency.
Am I out of my mind, to suggest that the latter might be more in line with the league’s objectives? (This assumes the premise of adding GT, which I am not that excited about.)”
Yes, you’re out of your mind. It makes more sense to keep GT with similar teams if you can. Again, this is you saying well FSU and GT are outliers so everyone else should sacrifice a ton of rivalries.
In an 18 team scenario using 6/3/3/6 I have moved them to a group of 3, but that’s only locking 2 or 3 games. They still see everyone else 50% of the time except teams in the other pod of 3. Is it ideal? No. But some eggs are always broken in the making of an omelette.
“I was merely illustrating a possible schedule where the number of protected games is not identical for every team. That was all I was trying to show. The concept still works if you protect more; it just takes longer for every B1G team to play at every other B1G team.”
That may have been your purpose but that isn’t the message you conveyed. Everyone else took that as you saying the other games didn’t need to protection. Perhaps because you also said this:
“Having said that, in the scenario that I gave, almost every rivalry that I left unprotected has been unprotected at some point in the recent past, so it wasn’t something crazy, such as unlocking Minnesota-Wisconsin.”
Yes, it was crazy. That’s what we all keep telling you. Letting a game drop from annual to 75% because the league grew to 11 doesn’t mean everyone is also fine with that game dropping to 40%. Letting a game drop to 40% due to the division split doesn’t mean people didn’t want the game to be more frequent. People wanted to keep WI/IA, but that would mean them each playing their unlocked foes only 25% of the time. Balance forced their split and the 8 game schedule meant they couldn’t have 2 locked games. WI/MN is the more valuable rivalry, so it was preserved instead. But you take those games and say they should be treated just the same as any random B10 game and the rest of us know that’s silly. Teams value every other schools differently. few teams want to play Duke more at the expense of any B10 foe.
No divisions:
20 teams, 9 games:
Lock 1 – 1 x 100%, 18 x 44%
Lock 2 – 2 x 100%, 17 x 41%
Lock 3 – 3 x 100%, 16 x 38%
Lock 4 – 4 x 100%, 15 x 33%
Going from 1 to 2 is a difference of roughly 1 game every 30 years. From 2 to 3 is 1 game every 27 years and 3 to 4 is 1 game every 24 years. From 1 to 4 the difference is 1 game every 9 years. In simple terms, every rivalry should be locked because the cost is so low.
For 10 games, the numbers are:
1 – 18 x 50%
2 – 17 x 47%
3 – 16 x 44%
4 – 15 x 40%
1 to 2 – 1 every 34 years
2 to 3 – 1 every 30 years
3 to 4 – 1 every 27 years
1 to 4 – 1 every 10 years
Again, locking is good.
Pods:
20 teams, 9 games, pods of 5, no locked games obviously
4 x 100%, 15 x 33% (same as above)
20 teams, 10 games, pods of 5
Lock 0 – 4 x 100%, 15 x 40% (same as above)
Lock 1 – 5 x 100%, 14 x 36%
20 teams, 10 games, pods of 5, 2 anchor pods
Lock 0 – 4 x 100%, 10 x 50%, 5 x 20%
Just for argument’s sake, pods of 6 and 4
Group of 6 – 5 x 100%, 8 x 50%, 6 x 17%
Group of 4 (1 locked game) – 4 x 100%, 12 x 50%, 3 x 0%*
Group of 4 (no locked games) – 3 x 100%, 12 x 50%, 4 x 25%
* – this is why the smaller groups need to rotate or not have locked games
LikeLike
It makes more sense to keep GT with similar teams if you can. Again, this is you saying well FSU and GT are outliers so everyone else should sacrifice a ton of rivalries.
I realize it’s easy to lose track…but I have seen quite a few pod proposals on this board where GT is not put in a pod with Duke, UNC, and UVA, but rather, where they get made-up locked rivalries with the likes of Michigan State. I totally agree with you that if you put them with logical partners, those are the logical ones. I could not agree more.
That may have been your purpose but that isn’t the message you conveyed. Everyone else took that as you saying the other games didn’t need to protection.
Well….now that I have clarified that that was not the idea, we can stop arguing things that no one is actually disagreeing with.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I realize it’s easy to lose track…but I have seen quite a few pod proposals on this board where GT is not put in a pod with Duke, UNC, and UVA, but rather, where they get made-up locked rivalries with the likes of Michigan State.”
Yes. My pod plan for 18 teams in which they have 3 whole games locked. Of course, that plan depends on the last 4 being UVA, UNC, Duke and GT. If we add FSU and/or ND instead, things change.
I’d prefer to keep GT in an ACC pod in my plan, but it doesn’t work as well that way. Instead, I force GT to play 3 of OSU, MI, PSU, MSU , PU and IN. Oh, the horror. Except for UNC and Duke, I still gave them the closest teams for the most part. I also gave them 3 kings fairly often. I’d rather do that to one school than mess up several real rivalries like most other pod plans do. I’m not convinced GT would complain much either, and I have some idea how they think.
From an earlier comment of mine:
Also, consider travel distances:
UNC & Duke – 380 miles
IN – 525
UVA – 540
OSU – 567
PU – 600
IL – 621
UMD – 651
MI – 711
NW – 734
PSU – 757
MSU – 779
IA – 815
RU – 841
WI – 867
NE – 999
LikeLike
I thought the idea of scrapping divisions, pods, etc. in favor of 3 protected games sounded appealing. Here is how I would set it up in a 20 Team B1G.
I really think all but 2 or 3 games would be looked forward to by both teams.
This is assuming the B1G adds: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame, and UConn. If you don’t like UConn as the 20th, sub in Syracuse, BC, or whoever you prefer.
Illinois – NW, OSU, GT (3 good matchups. Illinois is lobbying for GT in expansion)
Indiana – PUR, NW, RUT (2 out of 3 good matchups. That’s fair for doormat Indiana)
Iowa – NEB, WISC, MINN (3 out of 3. Iowa’s dream setup.)
Maryland – PSU, UVA, UNC (3 out of 3. PSU and two ACC friends)
Michigan – OSU, MSU, MINN (3 out of 3. Little Brown Jug took precedence over ND)
Michigan State – MICH, ND, NW (3 out of 3. Sparty’s dream setup.)
Minnesota – WISC, MICH, IA (3 out of 3. Minny’s dream setup.)
Nebraska – IA, WISC, FSU (3 out of 3. Only complaint is it’s potentially pretty tough.)
Northwestern – ILL, MSU, IND (3 out of 3. Someone has to take Indiana.)
Ohio State – MICH, PSU, ILL (3 out of 3. Great setup.)
Penn State – MARY, OSU, UCONN (2 out of 3. However, sub in Syracuse and this looks better)
Purdue – IND, ND, GT (3 out of 3. Purdue, like Illinois is lobbying for GT)
Rutgers – UCONN, Notre Dame, Indiana (2 out of 3. Best Rutgers could hope for)
Wisconsin – MINN, NEB, IA (3 out of 3. Perfect setup.)
Florida State – GT, UNC, NEB (3 out of 3. Two ACC foes and national power Nebraska)
Georgia Tech – FSU, ILL, PUR (2 out of 3. GT gets old rival, but would’ve liked another southern game.)
North Carolina – UVA, FSU, MARY (3 out of 3. Three old ACC foes.)
Virginia – UNC, MARY, UCONN (2 out of 3. Two ACC foes and and east coast UConn or Syracuse.)
Notre Dame – PUR, MSU, RUT (2 out of 3. However, Rutgers gets them in NYC every other year.)
UConn/Syracuse – RUT, PSU, UVA (2 out of 3. Those could blossom over the years.)
The only unfavorable game that I see from both sides would be Indiana vs. Rutgers, and maybe the UVA vs. UConn/Syracuse game.
What original B1G rivalries were not protected? Purdue/Illinois (Purdue Cannon), Michigan State/Indiana (Old Brass Spittoon).
LikeLike
Blapples,
“I thought the idea of scrapping divisions, pods, etc. in favor of 3 protected games sounded appealing.”
It does to most people, I think, but it’s against the rules for now. After stating that, there isn’t much to discuss. Pods offer more to discuss as you can use different sized pods and put different teams in them and rotate them in different ways. Also, pods are currently within the rules.
LikeLike
IF the B1G stays at 14 teams for awhile (2014-17), how about an East division (5 fixed members) & a West division (5 fixed members), & 4 floaters:
Example:
West – NE, IA, MN, WI, NW
East – Mich, OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland
Floaters – IL, PU, MSU, IU
This set up makes since geographically & it could be used to schedule most all of the necessary rivalry games. Being a floater team would be advantageous. The floaters would play 2 years in one division & then 2 years in the other division. They would get to play all other B1G teams home & home over a 4 year period, while still giving flexibility to protect their rivalry games in the years they are not in their rivals division.
The only problem, what are the odds that the B1G stays at 14 teams until 2017?
LikeLike
hskrfb fan,
“IF the B1G stays at 14 teams for awhile (2014-17), how about an East division (5 fixed members) & a West division (5 fixed members), & 4 floaters:
Example:
West – NE, IA, MN, WI, NW
East – Mich, OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland
Floaters – IL, PU, MSU, IU”
The concept works. The issue would be having to lock a bunch of games, obviously. Also, I’m not sure groups of 5 are ideal. And really, does this improve much over fixed divisions?
These are rough numbers (the locked rivalries change the numbers, but you get the picture).
Group of 5 teams:
MI, NW – 5 x 100%, 3 x 75%, 5 x 33%
Others – 4 x 100%, 4 x 75%, 5 x 40%
MSU, IL – 1 x 100%, 9 x 67%, 4 x 50%
Others – 8 x 75%, 2 x 67%, 3 x 50%
Divisions (assuming MSU in west):
MSU, MI – 7 x 100%, 6 x 33%
Others – 6 x 100%, 5 x 47%, 2 x 33%
Is that better? If so, is it enough better to have to deal with floaters?
LikeLike
….it’s against the rules for now. After stating that, there isn’t much to discuss.
The Big Ten could get that rule changed without breaking a sweat. The only question is which member of the Corleone family they send to Indianapolis to get it done.
Mathematically, you can also come pretty darned close to @Blapples’ proposal by creating “nonce” divisions every year, and then breaking them up the next year when the schedule rotates.
Indeed, that would be a pretty good way of getting the rule changed, assuming they don’t just change it immediately. Once it became clear that the division requirement was really just a formalism with no actual structure, it wouldn’t last much longer.
[Note: I am describing what the B1G could easily get done, if it wanted. It’s not a prediction of what they will do, nor is it my own preference.]
LikeLike
“The Big Ten could get that rule changed without breaking a sweat.”
The B1G, the PAC, and others have asked to have the rule changed in the recent past. No dice. Perhaps if the ginormous conference comes to pass, perhaps there would be consideration given, but its hardly an even net at best. Certainly not a “no sweat” proposition.
LikeLike
Not disagreeing, but when did the B1G do that?
LikeLike
I’m not precisely sure. There wasn’t/isn’t an announcement every time a conference or school asks for some kind of exception or variance to a particular rule. It was stated several times (by conference reps, IIRC) during the PAC expansion, and the resultant division makeup “discussion”, that several potential proposals would be explored but that the B10 and others had been turned down (or perhaps informed that asking would be futil) over similar/same requests.
LikeLike
I don’t honestly recall any serious attempt by the B1G or the PAC to get the rule altered. To the best of my recollection, the B1G almost immediately (upon adding Nebraska) started discussing what the divisions would be. I don’t remember any other option getting much airtime.
Here is one way it could go down:
We already know that the Big XII would like to see the rule altered. You’re saying the PAC did too, and we’re assuming that the B1G would as well. It would take Mike Slive about 15 minutes to realize that he might want to benefit from it at some point, so he would be on board.
Now, the current structure of the NCAA is that about 60-80 schools bring in most of the revenue, but several hundred schools’ approval is required to change anything. The 60-80 are already known to be unhappy with this, and have dropped hints about breaking away. OSU’s Gordon Gee has said so explicitly.
This isn’t like the “Total Cost of Attendance” rule, which Indiana State vetoed. Had it passed, every FBS school would have had to increase their expenses, or would have risked falling even farther behind. Altering the scheduling rules around a game that most of the major conferences already play anyway isn’t going to hurt Indiana State.
So the Indiana States [assuming for argument’s sake that they like the current rule as is] are going to say: “Do we really want to stand in the way of the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, and SEC, when we gain nothing by obstructing them, lose nothing if the new rule passes, and our objection just gives those conferences another reason for breaking away?”
I don’t think it’s a close call.
LikeLike
It wasn’t really an attempt to change because the exploration of the likelihood of success suggested it would be futil and unsuccessful. This is why I’d raise the possibility of success above now contengient upon conference exceeding 16. At that size there may be compelling legitimate competitive arguments to be made that the current rules are inadequate for obese conferences.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The Big Ten could get that rule changed without breaking a sweat.”
I’ll just say, “What ccrider55 said.”
“Mathematically, you can also come pretty darned close to @Blapples’ proposal by creating “nonce” divisions every year, and then breaking them up the next year when the schedule rotates.
Indeed, that would be a pretty good way of getting the rule changed, assuming they don’t just change it immediately. Once it became clear that the division requirement was really just a formalism with no actual structure, it wouldn’t last much longer.”
I’m disagree that confusing all your fans and getting mocked by the media is “a pretty good way of getting the rule changed.”
LikeLike
New division each year wouldn’t be just random, and I don’t think it would need to be. You’d still be scheduling to meet the full RR in each new division each year. To me the rule still serves its purpose and would stand. They didn’t create a rule precluding reshapeing divisions yearly when the 13th as a CCG rules.
LikeLike
@ccrider: Yes, exactly. That is what I was trying to suggest.
LikeLike
Then no rule change is required, just a willingness to create/schedule divisions yearly that conform to the rule.
LikeLike
It’s funny how so many of you have latched onto this whole idea of a Big 20. Personally, I think the idea of the B1G going over 16 is 1) a very bad idea, and 2) not all that likely.
LikeLike
At this point, neither 16 nor 18 is likely, but I would put higher odds on 18 than on 16. It would seem easier to sell a package deal to UVa/UNC/Duke/Ga Tech than to try to just take 2 if the ACC does splinter.
LikeLike
There’s a chance of that. There’s also a chance that the SEC grabs up UNC plus one more. And there’s a chance UNC wants no part of this and the B1G doesn’t get them either.
But whatever happens, the B1G will regret going past 16 if they do. 18 or 20 schools is no longer a conference. It’s something else. The “Big Ten” as we knew it would be dead and replaced by this new thing that nobody understands.
LikeLike
Andy, where did Missouri park wrestling after joining the SEC? And are there any other Tiger teams that play in sports the SEC doesn’t sponsor?
LikeLike
The MAC.
LikeLike
Since the MAC is where West Virginia placed men’s soccer, that makes sense.
LikeLike
My best guess:
70% chance that the Big Ten stays at 14 beyond 2016
20% chance that the Big Ten goes to 18 with UNC/UVa/Georgia Tech/Duke
9% chance that the Big Ten goes to 16 with UVa/Georgia Tech
1% chance that the Big Ten goes to 20 with non-AAU’s included
The reason why the 70% is so high is that the ACC may end up being stable because FSU may balk at going to the Big 12 (which has no identifiable consensus on expansion) and may not have other offers. If that’s the case, then UNC/UVa/Duke/Georgia Tech have no reason to leave, and Va Tech/Clemson also have no reason to leave.
I think it’s at least twice as likely that the Big Ten moves to 18 than 16; the opportunity to offer those 4 similar schools (academically/athletically/etc.) seems to be more favorable than just offering UVa/Georgia Tech. An 18 team Big Ten has a legitimate East Coast wing.
I don’t think 20 has much of a shot; that means involving non-AAU’s and I think Michigan and Wisconsin will balk given how much authority they have in research circles.
As far as the JHU situation:
30% chance that JHU joins
70% chance that JHU doesn’t (I think women’s lacrosse is the deal-breaker, they pulled out of ALC to get away from the Big Ten and SEC money spending squads and have noted the difficulty in getting at-large bids while in the ALC; joining the Big Ten with Maryland would make it worse).
LikeLike
Michigan and Wisconsin didn’t balk at adding Nebraska. So we know they don’t mind a non-AAU if the football and brand is good. Remember, Michigan was the head of the AAU committee that tossed Nebraska. Prior to Nebraska becoming a B1G candidate, that committee convened and didn’t have the votes to oust them. So Michigan, chairing the committee, stalled the vote and waited until the next session a year later when that committee was reconstituted with members favoring Nebraska’s ouster. The whole thing was engineered. And when the former Pres. of Wisconsin (now at Amherst College) was interviewed about Nebraska, she touted their academics but then stated that Nebraska’s academic status was not part of the discussion for entry to the B1G. This information was all discovered in FOI request filed by a Nebraska newspaper, which revealed the President of Nebraska’s emails with the Presidents of Penn State (Graham Spanier, former Pres. at Nebraska) and Northwestern, who were giving Nebraska the ugly blow-by-blow behind the scenes.
LikeLike
That’s reading it as if the balking of Big Ten Presidents at adding a non-AAU school reflects strongly held personal convictions. If it is rather a political calculation by successful academic politicians, the issue with UNL would not have been whether it was heading out the door in fact, but how many potential opponents in the various university communities were aware that UNL was heading out the door.
“So Michigan, chairing the committee, stalled the vote and waited until the next session a year later when that committee was reconstituted with members favoring Nebraska’s ouster.”
That sounds to me like the Michigan President wanted the add to go through, and was delaying the ouster from the AAU until it could no longer threaten to derail the move.
LikeLike
Nebraska at least is its state’s flagship and has many of the characteristics of many Big Ten institutions (e.g., land-grant). Florida State is the #2 public university in its state, and lacks the academic heft of Georgia Tech, perceived as the #2 university in Georgia (but with an AAU status the #1 lacks).
LikeLike
I sense 18 members is seen as the maximum for the Big Ten. You can play a 9- or 10-game football schedule in a number of ways, as we’ve argued, and it also allows you to play an 18-game schedule in men’s and women’s basketball, enabling one home-and-home and 16 single games. I doubt there’s really much enthusiasm for a 20-game conference basketball schedule, which you would need in a 20-member league in order to play everyone (the Northeast Conference did a 20-game sked some years ago, but only because its members’ gyms are so small it’s next to impossible to schedule out-of-conference home games against Div I teams). With hoops of both genders, wrestling and ice hockey, the Big Ten doesn’t need that much more inventory come winter.
Moreover, I can’t see the SEC enlarging beyond 16 because football scheduling would become way too difficult given what its members would demand.
LikeLike
I think if JHU joins, the difficult thing will be determining a “fair” monetary share for JHU’s associate lacrosse membership. Would it be something like 120% of the highest lacrosse budget of other big ten schools? (the adder to compensate for common facilities that the other schools’ might take advantage of on their campuses.) How can JHU be compensated fairly to be competitive in B1G lacrosse for the long term?
LikeLike
Eh, I’d guess 80% nothing happens, 10% some sort of divided victory between the SEC and B1G with both going to 16, 10% some crazy super-huge B1G monstrosity.
And I think that 10% is an optimistic estimate.
There’s an awful lot of excitement over something that has a 90% chance of not happening.
LikeLike
Gordon Gee (OSU Pres):
“I believe there is movement towards three or four super conferences that are made up of 16-20 teams.”
David Brandon (UM AD):
“and a lot of people think the ultimate landing place is 20″
Dave Joyner (PSU AD)
” I don’t see them staying at 14″
These three are making statements like this on the record and you two put the odds at 10% to 20% that they’ll even go to 16? I’ll take those odds all day long.
80% to 16 within a year
50% to 18/20 within three years
You don’t get a this much public smoke from guys like these without a lot of fire underneath. Delany & Co. know exactly what enticements to use to get who they want.
JHU is a brilliant first step.
LikeLike
I think its 99.9% that B1G wants to go beyond 14. But it takes two to tango. Its not certain UVA will say yes or that an acceptable #16 will say yes. GT’s comments about wanting to be with UVA, UNC and Duke could be interpreted as a signal to go to 18.
LikeLike
I agree with GLS in that some within the B1G desire a national conference. The question is whether they’d be able to pull it off in time. What’s more interesting is the reaction from B1G-haters and fans of other conferences who fear something like this may actually happen. It gives me pleasure watching them sweat a bit.
LikeLike
Reading tea leaves is a fools errand, but just the fact that ND has decided they’re not in as big a hurry to leave the BE as they thought and (if accurate) that JHU is even considering the B1G over the ACC, implies that they see the ACC in a state of flux.
LikeLike
“I think 20 is where this ends up” risks the danger of extrapolating trends and missing turning points. The experience of 16 or 18 could well lead to an upward revision in the value required to make an expansion to 20 worthwhile.
I wouldn’t put the odds of expanding to 16 in a year at 80% ~ as we’ve seen with the Big East collapse, sometimes moves take longer to accomplish even when one side would rather move quickly. But I’d put the odds of expanding to 16 within three years at maybe 90% ~ for even numbers, put that at 2:1 of getting it done before every playing a 14 school schedule, so 60% 1 year, 30% in 2-3 years.
Indeed, under its bylaws, the ACC is a conference that you can leave quickly, with the unsettled question being “at what price?” Notification by 15th of August is enough for leaving July 1 the following year.
LikeLike
Based on what ? Just how you feel ? Ok, but say ,it’s just my guess.
LikeLike
Correct, FSU has no interest whatsoever in the B12. It’s the linchpin that holds the ACC together.
LikeLike
On the other hand, given the schools that the Big Ten wants, the odds that UVA will move before the ACC is destabilized is greater than the odds that UNC will move before the ACC is destabilized. So if the Big Ten moves first, it could well be two are announced, and that shakes things up enough that the Big Ten ends up with four by 15 August.
LikeLike
I agree with both your comments. I just feel (based on the loose lips quotient) that at least one ACC school (UVA or GT) is already in the bag and that it will happen sooner rather than later.
UNC is the wild card. I really have no clue how they will react.
LikeLike
Transic,
Absolutely. Seeing Coach K in panic mode….priceless.
LikeLike
If ONLY one school is in the bag, then that would EXPLAIN the loose lips quotient, since a move doesn’t work unless they destabilize the ACC enough for two to jump.
LikeLike
I think some are hoping 20-22 turns into a new v old b10 set up, thus undoing the latest expansion. It can’t be that way though for just that reason. We’ve crossed the rubicon friends. B10 will never be the same.
LikeLike
okay, but how is that even a conference? It’s two conferences linked by a championship game and a tv deal. what’s the point?
LikeLike
Make more money? Consolidate power?
LikeLike
bleh. how much more money? How many more millions per school for adding Duke and Georgia Tech? I’m dubious about how much money there would be in such a move. UNC + UVA to 16 = gold mine. But there are diminishing returns the more you expand, because you have to multiply contract increases by 20 times just to see an affect for each member school.
LikeLike
Not when you approach near monopoly size.
LikeLike
I’ve never seen anyone suggest Duke Plus GTech as a pair. Both of them add gross revenue, and arguably neither of them add enough gross revenue to raise the average.
Hence we see the two adds which are clear prospects to raise the average ~ UVA and UNC ~ and see them paired up with two other AAU schools that would provide SOME increase in value so that the paired add does not water down the value of UNC or UVA as much as an add lie Pitt would do.
But they don’t both get included if FSU can be pushed through. In that case, if a safe landing for NC State in either the SEC or Big12/Big14 East is sorted out, and the ACC is sufficiently destabilized that UNC wants to move, then UVA, UNC, GTech and FSU.
The notion that UNC won’t move without Duke seems likely to be confusing moves. Its quite possible that the SEC doesn’t move to the SEC without Duke coming along and NC State having an assured seat in the Big12. The reason there would be upgrading SEC academics and upgrading SEC basketball, which on the current Sagarin rankings is presently playing High Mid-Major BBall rather than Major conference BBall ~ nestled in with the MWC, the A-10 and the Missouri Valley. But Big Ten academics don’t need upgrading for UNC to move, and Big Ten BBall doesn’t need upgrading for UNC to move, so the “only if Duke moves too” doesn’t seem as likely to apply for a UNC move to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Typo: “Its quite possible that the SEC doesn’t move to the SEC without Duke coming along and NC State having an assured seat in the Big12.”
Its quite possible that UNC doesn’t move to the SEC without Duke coming along and NC State having an assured seat in the Big12.
LikeLike
That is the point. Put all the newbies none of us wants to associate with in their own division and ignore them until the CCG rolls around.
LikeLike
Well, play them once in a while ~ just as in the days of 11 regular season games in the early 80’s, the Big 10 played a 9 game round robin and two OOC games and played teams outside of the Big Ten “once in a while”. Its turning a conference into modern Major League Baseball, eith AL and NL teams playing each other sometimes but not very often.
Which is, of course, not a recipe for conference cohesion. If an effort is being made to build a conference that can survive for decades more, building a conference that can be split cleanly, if the current economic impetus toward bigger conferences should reverse, does not seem to qualify as building for the future.
LikeLike
Bruce, I agree, which is why I’m for no divisions and 3-4 protected series with rotation of the rest (and a 10 game league schedule).
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Well, play them once in a while”
No, I meant what I said. Put it in context. I was responding to this conversation:
jj – “I think some are hoping 20-22 turns into a new v old b10 set up, thus undoing the latest expansion.”
Andy – “okay, but how is that even a conference? It’s two conferences linked by a championship game and a tv deal. what’s the point?”
For those hoping for what jj describes, the whole point is to not play those teams. Ever. Play the B10 teams you know and then play standard OOC games. Almost nobody in the B10 has a strong history of playing RU or those ACC teams. Those aren’t OOC games those fans want.
“Its turning a conference into modern Major League Baseball, eith AL and NL teams playing each other sometimes but not very often.”
But the fans jj is describing want the old MLB, where you never met until the World Series. They aren’t looking for interleague play.
“Which is, of course, not a recipe for conference cohesion.”
They don’t want cohesion. They want to segregate all the new schools and just deal with a B10 that makes sense to them.
LikeLike
“For those hoping for what jj describes, the whole point is to not play those teams. Ever.”
Playing one of those teams in a given year would not be such a big deal as all that. I’m not claiming that for those hoping for what jj describes, “not playing those teams, ever” would be an UNSATISFACTORY outcome … just that it is going overboard to characterize them as being ADAMANT about not playing any of those schools, ever.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Playing one of those teams in a given year would not be such a big deal as all that.”
It would be to those people. Remember, we’re only talking about the subset of people that want to expand just so the old B10 becomes its own division of the new B10. Their only goal is to grow their way out of being stuck playing the newbies.
“I’m not claiming that for those hoping for what jj describes, “not playing those teams, ever” would be an UNSATISFACTORY outcome … just that it is going overboard to characterize them as being ADAMANT about not playing any of those schools, ever.”
No, it isn’t. Their only goal for expansion is to make those teams go away. They don’t want that so they can turn around and play them anyway. Very few B10 teams play the newbies or ACC 4 often at all. These aren’t teams fans are clamoring to play OOC. Duke/NW accounts for almost 1/3 of all such games in the past 20 years with 10 games played.
LikeLike
“It would be to those people. Remember, we’re only talking about the subset of people that want to expand just so the old B10 becomes its own division of the new B10. Their only goal is to grow their way out of being stuck playing the newbies.”
So you are claiming that those who would like to play something as close to a traditional bona fide schedule as possible would view playing either four, five, six, seven and eight traditional bone fide Big Ten schools and five, four, three, two and one games against newbies (respectively) as all identical, equally unsatisfactory outcomes.
All I am doing is pointing out that in reality they wouldn’t. In reality, they would treat the prospect of playing eight bona fide Big Ten schools and one newbie as much closer to playing all nine bona fide Big Ten schools than playing four bona fide Big Ten schools and five newbies.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“So you are claiming that those who would like to play something as close to a traditional bona fide schedule as possible would view playing either four, five, six, seven and eight traditional bone fide Big Ten schools and five, four, three, two and one games against newbies (respectively) as all identical, equally unsatisfactory outcomes.”
No, I’m not. You completely made that up to feel good about yourself. I said playing even one of them would be a big deal to those people. I never compared 1 vs 2 vs ….
“All I am doing is pointing out that in reality they wouldn’t.”
No, you’re assuming they wouldn’t really mind playing 1 of them. They would. Their sole purpose in proposing future expansion is to never have to play RU and MD and …. They don’t want the occasional crossover with them, they don’t want to be affiliated with them at all. They certainly don’t want those games forced on them by the B10. If they wanted to play those teams, they’d schedule them OOC.
You don’t have to agree with them, but stop saying they don’t feel the way they feel.
LikeLike
Andy it all depends on how you define a conference. Jim Delany said this during the Maryland and Rutgers adds. Why have you decided that a conference is defined as having 16 teams or less? Is the SEC a conference at 14 teams when playing 8 conference games or is it a scheduling arrangement with a championship game? If the SEC expands to 16 and stays at 8 conference games, would it be defined as two conferences with a scheduling arrangement and championship game? Who says a conference can’t be defined as having 4 divisions with 5 teams each where you play everyone in your division and two teams from the other divisions each year? Who says that the NCAA won’t increase the number of allowed regular seasons games to 13? Why is 16 ok but 18 or 20 would be a very bad idea? It seems to me once conferences went past 12 teams, all conferences ceased to be defined by old paradigms.
LikeLike
A college football conference has been a set of schools who regularly play each other in pursuit of a conference championship. Schools playing EVERY other school annually was dropped by the Big Ten in the mid-80’s, but until this decade, each school played 80%+ of the other schools in the conference in any given year, so conference cohesion wasn’t really an issue that came up.
Now its something that has to be taken into account. At 14, the big challenge is division lineup, since 9 conference games allows three cross division games, so even with a locked cross division game, and even with two year home and home cross division series scheduling, each school will see 11/13 or 85% of the conference over a four year cycle. That’s close to the cohesion of an 11 school conference playing eight games, and the Big Ten lived with that reasonably well for a couple of decades.
At 16, to get similar cohesion you need to either have rotating divisions or 10 conference games, both of which have upsides and downsides. And it gets hard for 18, then 20, after which point the complete round robin in division required under NCAA rules for hosting an extra football conference championship game begins to be a serious constraint, on top of the problem of cohesion.
LikeLike
Big22, BAYBEE!!! !!!
LikeLike
Andy,
“It’s funny how so many of you have latched onto this whole idea of a Big 20.”
Not really. It’s an internet discussion, not a business meeting.
“Personally, I think the idea of the B1G going over 16 is 1) a very bad idea,”
I think going over 12 fits that description.
“and 2) not all that likely.”
Likely doesn’t really matter when you are discussing things. The likely stuff stops being interesting after a while.
LikeLike
Fair enough Brian. This is all a bad idea and it probably won’t happen, but these guys can talk about it for 200 posts a day if they feel like it. They’re off on some fantastical ego trip of the B1G conquering the universe. To what end, i don’t know. But I’m sure they’ll all get to wear those old timey general hats at some point. Maybe some frilly shoulder pads.
LikeLike
Though the 20 team Big Ten’s are a model of moderation compared to the 24 school SEC’s that pop up in the comments at MrSEC. Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, UNC …
… one would be surprised that they leave USC, UCLA, OSU and that school up north alone in their Empire Builder game, except that the purpose is to have the SEC championship game be the formal play-in for one spot in the CCG and the Big Ten and Pac-12 playoff for the other one.
LikeLike
Yes, there are idiots and fools everywhere.
LikeLike
I don’t think 20 is out of the question. I don’t think they will pull the trigger, but they are openly talking about it, so its not like the discussion is about UCLA joining the SEC.
I agree that beyond 12 is not a good idea. 12>14>16 is a whole lot > than 18 which is a whole lot > 20. 20 may be Delaney’s legacy, that he ultimately led to the disentegration of the Big 10. I don’t think a Big 20 lasts more than 20-25 years tops.
LikeLike
I like you.
LikeLike
It’s funny how so many of you have latched onto this whole idea of a Big 20.
Since several people in the Big Ten, like Gordon Gee, have mentioned 20 as a possibility, it’s more serious than funny.
But I think most of the conversation is: “If the B1G went to 20, who would be added, and what would be the implications?” That doesn’t mean we’re in favor of it, or that we consider it a certainty.
Personally, I think the idea of the B1G going over 16 is 1) a very bad idea, and 2) not all that likely.
I agree with others who’ve said, that once they get to 16, eighteen becomes pretty likely. Almost every plausible candidate for #15-16 comes from the ACC. It’s hard to believe that if the ACC loses two more schools, it would remain stable thereafter. And I think it’s pretty clear that there are at least four ACC schools the Big Ten would be happy to have.
okay, but how is that even a conference? It’s two conferences linked by a championship game and a tv deal. what’s the point?
That’s clearly false. It is quite easy to put together a 20-team schedule, where all play all in a three-year period, and every school gets to play at least its top two rivalries annually, and select others more often (though not annually). The merits of this arrangement can be debated, but not its feasibility.
For what it’s worth, I am pretty sure the B1G would want to integrate all the newbies into the schedule, not to put them in a walled garden where they hardly ever see the rest of the conference. I’d say that a four-year all-play-all rotation is the minimum they would consider acceptable.
Let me reiterate: I am not saying what I want personally, but what I think the league would do, based on various presidents and ADs’ comments.
LikeLike
Everything they say is a lie.
You guys think that Jim Delany went from “air-tight”, “no rumors” to Chatty Cathy? He knows every President is reading these things and talking to each other. He and the school officials he’s enlisted are trying to destabilize the other conferences, but to what end?
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t believe any of it. Nothing that’s come out so far makes me think it’s all that likely.
LikeLike
Mr SEC seems to have a somewhat different take.
LikeLike
so?
LikeLike
So…inspite of whatever my personal feelings about he B1G continuing on toward becoming the obese10, many who have more insight (including those in your new conference) seem to be convinced its coming. And some even propose logical and reasoned arguments, rather than expound personal preferences. Everyone has claim to there personal preference. I’m more interested in what a likely outcome will be. I can love it or hate it later.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if this has been already but the ACC Commissioner, John Swofford made some comments over the state of that conference earlier this week.
Part I: http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/52335/on-the-record-acc-commissioner-john-swofford
Part II: http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/52337/on-the-record-john-swofford-part-ii
LikeLike
Here’s what killed the Big East: Disunity, Woeful Planning, Institutional Differences, Mistrust, Elitism
Basically, a bunch of formerly independent Eastern schools were unwilling to lose their old identities after getting into a conference. Had a clear, long-term vision been articulated amongst the members, probably most of the destruction could have been avoided.
LikeLike
Ehh. The hybrid was never going to be viable long term. Too many disparate interests.
Really, the only thing that is surprising about the collapse of the Big East is that it didn’t happen earlier.
LikeLike
Is it that complicated? The problem is simple: too many of them sucked at football. As a result, their football revenues were poor, compared to the other BCS leagues. Therefore, those with better options moved to more lucrative conferences. Every time a team moved, the league lost value. It was like making a snowball—in reverse.
Two major errors stand out, the rejection of Penn State and the rejection of the TV deal. Reverse those mistakes, and the Big East is probably a lot better today. One doesn’t need a lengthy list of reasons for those blunders. They were just stupid.
LikeLike
There still would have been losses by the Big East if the $130M/year deal offered in mid-2011 had been signed. Pitt was talking to the ACC at that time, anyway. I think that Syracuse was, too. The ACC’s TV deal at the time was still better than the Big East’s $130M deal would have been, on a preschool basis, and Syracuse and Pitt joining only helped increase the ACC payout even more. Those two were leaving no matter what.
Next, TCU wasnt going to turn down the offer to replace A&M in the Big 12 even if that TV deal had already been signed. That league was TCU’s end game, not the distant Big East.
With Syracuse, Pitt, and TCU now out of the Big East picture, does anyone think West Virginia wouldn’t have left the Big East, too?
So, by the end of 2011, the Big East would have lost 4 schools (including TCU) with it without having that TV contract in place.
It’s a little less certain Notre Dame would have left, but Louisville wouldnt have stuck around when an opportunity to flee to the ACC came up.
By this point, ESPN would have forced a major reduction in TV payout, though by how much is hard to say. Still, with a contract in writing alreadyin place, maybe that would have been eenough for Boise State and San Diego State to follow through. Perhaps even enough to lure in additional western members like Air Force (to complement Navy) and/or UNLV.
Would the Catholic 7 still have split off? Maybe. Fox Sports might have been willing to pay more than what the reduced Big East payout was.
Either way, signing that deal in 2011 would have led only to a littke more damage control, not a saved conference.
LikeLike
Saved them from what?
Losing their status as a “Major football conference”? No, of course not. I never took that status seriously, so I’ve long looked at them as de facto the “Best of the Rest” football conference and only nominally a Major conference.
Losing their status as “the Best of the Rest”? It’s not certain that it would have, but it would have had a chance of doing so, as you describe, presumably under the heading of “damage control”.
Losing their status as a “Major basketball conference”? I think that it might have. The $130m contract valued Big East basketball at $40m. If the contract is revalued to $100m, it values Big East basketball at $30m. I don’t know that its as easy to break the C7 away with an offer of $30m to $40m in that setting.
LikeLike
The Big East was essentially dead before it started, because the formula that allowed other conferences to succeed (large flagship and land grant schools with statewide followings) was unavaiable to the Big East. The Northeast traditionally has been dominated by private schools, especially the Ivy League.
When the Ivies demphasized their sports–many years before the Big East–it left a huge hole in the Northeast, and no one was there to step up. New England’s public schools made little effort to play major college football until fairly recently. New York’s were D3 until even more recently. Pitt and Penn State were never going to be enough, and schools like Syracuse and Boston College were always going to be at a disadvantage.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/02/13/if-big-ten-squeezes-fcs-out-potentially-devastating-for-uni/
I-AA schools are concerned about the B10’s plan to not play I-AA’s any more. It’s not so much the B10 stopping as it is other I-A conferences also stopping. That will make more demand for buy games with other schools, driving down the price.
I linked an IA article about it, and their AD says it’s not a done deal. He still wants to play UNI on occasion it sounds like. I also saw a MN article about it, and not surprisingly MN is a bit concerned about the impact on their bowl chances.
LikeLike
If you have to beat an FCS team in order to get into a bowl game, you don’t deserve to be in a bowl.
LikeLike
Stephen
I agree with your sentiment, but “deserve” has zero to do with almost all bowl game appearances.
The only bowl that matters to me for the B10 is the Rose because there is a clear line to it. No votes, no popularity contest, no tv issues, no bs.
LikeLike
What jj said X10.
LikeLike
I really don’t see the difference between playing a 1AA and playing Florida Atlantic or Eastern Michigan. If the B1Gs replace their 1AAs with quality opponents I’ll be impressed. But they won’t.
LikeLike
If you compare the already-announced future schedules to the past 5-10 years or so, you’ll see that many Big Ten schools have been gradually improving. Wisconsin has scheduled future home & homes with Washington, Washington State, BYU, and Virginia Tech. It might not be murderer’s row, but compare that to 2008, when their OOC slate consisted of Akron, Marshall, Fresno State, and Cal Poly; or 2009, when it was Northern Illinois, Fresno State, Wofford, and Hawaii.
There might not be a whole lot of difference between the better FCS schools and the bottom of the FBS, but not everyone can play Eastern Michigan. The schools are still going to schedule one-and-dones, but even a bad FBS opponent is usually more of a test than just about any FCS school.
LikeLike
Question for everyone: Your school’s conference is about to implode. You can select 4 schools to take w/ you to your new conference. What 4 schools do you select?
I’m an IU grad. I’d want Purdue, Ohio St., Michigan and Illinois. Losing the others wouldn’t be ideal, but I’d take those 4 and it wouldn’t even be all that difficult a decision.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
I’m a Florida State fan. Assuming only Florida could be guaranteed as an annual non-conference game (and that the conference FSU joined wouldn’t be the SEC), I would want Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and either UNC or NC State.
LikeLike
Kansas fan. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and K-State.
LikeLike
Do we have to take 4, or is 4 just the limit? I’d rather take just MI, IL and IN for OSU. If I had to take 4, my fourth would depend on the destination I suppose. I have no clear preference.
LikeLike
I just used 4 because of all the theorizing of the 5some of UNC/UVA/GT/Duke/FSU going to the B1G in one fell swoop or over the course of time.
LikeLike
Michigan fan… I’d take Ohio State, Illinois & MSU then there is nobody else I’m particularly tied to in the conference. Minnesota used to be a rivalry a long time ago but there pretty irrelevant in football now. Nobody else stands out though I love how PSU hates us (Michigan) so much and beating up on them.
LikeLike
Illinois fan. I find this question really tough. I’d go Wisconsin, Michigan, Purdue, OSU.
LikeLike
I’m a Nebraska grad. I would want to take Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin and Penn State. I’m from the Big 8 Era and have strong ties to the first two. I think a Wisconsin rivalry developing has some real possibilities.
LikeLike
Kansas? I always thought Nebraska’s big rivals in the Big 8 were Oklahoma and Colorado.
LikeLike
They are, but with KU, they get a home game every year. 🙂
LikeLike
Buckeye born and bred (that is, my Dad met my Mom in Columbus because he came to grad school to study chemistry, and my Mom went to OSU when I was a kid and when she was a Senior we got to go to the horseshoe) … um, that school up north and …
… hmmm, that’s hard. Lessee, that school up north, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Michigan State.
LikeLike
Why would you pick NE and MSU? WI is bad enough, but we’ve played a lot at least. I’m sensing a lot of recency bias here.
Most common opponents:
MI – 108
IL – 96
IN – 82
WI – 78
NW – 74
IA – 63
PU – 55
MN – 50
MSU – 40
PSU – 27
NE – 4
MI is our obvious major rival, but IL is our only trophy rival and our second most frequent opponent by a big margin. MSU has been in the B10 for 40 more years than PSU and we’ve only played them 13 more times. I included IN because of the basketball rivalry and the short drive for a road FB game.
LikeLike
Yes, its recency bias for MSU ~ they’ve only been in the league for sixty years, but they were in the league when I was born, and I came to like them in the 70’s. As far as Nebraska, its because my Dad grew up in South Dakota, so obviously he followed the Huskers.
LikeLike
Ohio State fan here. I would take Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, and Illinois. Wiscoonsin would be strongly considered.
LikeLike
Nitt here. For the next four years, IU, IU, IU and IU. 🙂
LikeLike
OSU fan. I would take: school up north, State Penn, Wiscy and Ilinoise. Play MinnySoda and Purdont for OOC games.
LikeLike
Texas fan
OU, Texas Tech, Kansas (basketball rival), Rice.
And as a Kentucky fan
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Indiana.
LikeLike
I did not realize that Indiana had joined the SEC.
LikeLike
Mizzou and Michigan alum. For Mizzou I’d take Florida, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, and Georgia.
For Michigan I’d take Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
LikeLike
Also a UM/MU alum.
Ridiculous. You’re in denial.
MU – Admit it, (1) Kansas. After that, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Illinois.
Really? Vandy? Georgia? Lot of history and emotion there…. If that doesn’t fire you up, what will?!? Where do I buy my tickets?
LikeLike
UVa alum…MD, UNC, VT & Duke
LikeLike
Maryland alum…since the university is in transition, I’ll choose four from both the ACC and Big Ten.
ACC: Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson and Georgia Tech.
Big Ten: Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan.
LikeLike
Eventually you’ll get em all except Clemson. Not bad.
LikeLike
Stanfrod fan here. All we REALLY care about are Cal, USC, and UCLA.
LikeLike
http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5809:explosion-in-sports-media-rights-means-3-monthly-fee-increase-on-directv-&catid=57:television&Itemid=122
Cable companies adding a RSN fee to bills.
LikeLike
Interesting that the Astros and Rockets haven’t hit DTV in Houston yet.
LikeLike
Related: Why Boxing lost popularity.
http://deadspin.com/5984525/why-football-wont-go-the-way-of-boxing-yet
LikeLike
Interesting. I don’t think its lack of TV, though. I think more its the alphabet titles and corruption and the big names avoiding each other. If you’ve got one champ, it can be recognizable. When you’ve got 4….
But the biggest fights being on PPV don’t help. I saw Leonard/Hearns, but never did it for any others.
LikeLike
But the biggest fights being on PPV don’t help. I saw Leonard/Hearns, but never did it for any others.
I see that the UFC has taken note, and allowed big fights to be shown on FOX
LikeLike
Mr. SEC has a realignment update, and it makes for good reading.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – That’s a great look at things. I highly recommend it.
LikeLike
Search ‘Big Ten Expansion’ on google/news and your posts often come out near the top.
I would be interested to know who from the B1G hierarchy reads this site. I’ll bet they all
‘browse’ it intermittently. Delany has said in interviews that he loves to surf the net and see what people are saying about the B1G.
………If you’re reading this Jimbo FLORIDA STATE yesterday!
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if they are. PBC was played for a fiddle (if he was ever honest), once they found out they had a leak.
Which is exactly why I think this Florida State talk is a smokescreen.
LikeLike
So…who here are they playing to discover a leak? Wouldn’t that mean there is something to be leaked?
LikeLike
Nobody. I’m saying they’re purposely distributing false information to create confusion and panic in the ranks of every other conference.
I have to believe that no matter what they say, Notre Dame is the end game. The Big Ten might be prepared to move on, but it seems as though they are very purposely and very publically dragging their feet and riling up every one of Notre Dame’s fears (a superconference, < 8 conference games, a destablized and impotent ACC). Delany is burning the Sibylline Books.
LikeLike
Don’t misunderstand me; I don’t think they’re taking those actions specifically to cajole Notre Dame (these are things that the league wants and needs), but they are doing these things very publically and deliberately which is uncharacteristic of all prior Big Ten operations.
LikeLike
Great article, thanks for the link. MrSEC is a real straight shooter.
Rounding out the B1G with UVA/UNC would be great, but Delany & Co. are expanding the
the long term, which is why I think they build a bridge all the way to the deep South.
LikeLike
When it comes to 20, I think the Presidents are just going to say no. They seem to be sold on 16 (not that they ACC presidents are necessarily sold), but IMO 20 will get shot down.
LikeLike
I wish I could be that confident. The number 20 is already out there from Big Ten inside sources. Let’s suppose that UVA and GT are 15-16. It’s hard to imagine UNC and Duke being “shot down,” when the people doing the shooting are the same ones who approved 13, 14, 15, and 16.
LikeLike
One person with Big Ten ties posted on a Maryland message board that an ACC member has already agreed to be #15, and that Delany has extended an invitation to another to be #16 (all of this pending the outcome of the Maryland lawsuit, of course, I would think). However, if said candidate #16 says no, Delany would go ahead and add an SEC member as #16.
My conjecture is that #15 is Georgia Tech, the #16 Delany wants is Virginia, and if the Cavs turn him down, SEC #16 would be Vanderbilt — probably the one SEC member that could leave for the Big Ten without a colossal uproar from alumni. Yes, I’d rather have UVa than Vandy, but were this to happen (and I have my doubts it will),
* An eventual Big Ten expansion to 18 might leave Duke out in the cold if UVa and UNC subsequently join.
* The SEC would need a 14th member…hello, Virginia Tech?
LikeLike
vp19,
“One person with Big Ten ties posted on a Maryland message board that an ACC member has already agreed to be #15, and that Delany has extended an invitation to another to be #16 (all of this pending the outcome of the Maryland lawsuit, of course, I would think). However, if said candidate #16 says no, Delany would go ahead and add an SEC member as #16.”
That person is wrong. Either they’ve been lied to or they’re making this up. Maybe the ACC stuff is more or less right, but nobody is leaving the SEC.
“My conjecture is that #15 is Georgia Tech, the #16 Delany wants is Virginia, and if the Cavs turn him down,”
It would most likely be one of those two, anyway.
“SEC #16 would be Vanderbilt — probably the one SEC member that could leave for the Big Ten without a colossal uproar from alumni.”
Vandy has strong SEC ties. Their alumni would complain, too.
LikeLike
The only SEC school that would even consider leaving would be Mizzou and I think it is pretty clear how the Big Ten feels about them.
As for Vandy? Not only would they never leave, the Big Ten would never add them. They aren’t worth anything.
LikeLike
Of course, let’s not forget that Gordon Gee used to head Vandy, so he might have some pull with administrators in Nashville. From a VU perspective, going to the Big Ten might propel it into perception as a more national institution along the lines of Duke. And Vandy has some tradition as a rival to Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Neither party benefits by Vandy joining the Big Ten. Tennessee isn’t a much coveted market, and even if it is, Vandy doesn’t deliver it. I think we’ve seen in recent years that, for enough money, almost any tradition can be broken. But in the end, SEC money and Big Ten money are going to be similar, so Delany doesn’t have much to offer them. The Big Ten is a better conference academically, but Vandy is doing just fine where they are.
Athletically, the SEC is better for Vandy. In football, they’re going to get creamed wherever they are, but in the Big Ten they’d have a much tougher time in basketball. Baseball is a good sport at Vandy, and for that sport the SEC is clearly the better home.
LikeLike
Another problem Vandy might have is attendance. They already have a small stadium that generally has empty seats. If they were in a conference where visiting fans had to travel even further they might see less money from ticket sales.
LikeLike
I hope bullet is right that they stop before 20. Teams beyond 16 better mostly be of the Notre Dame, Florida State, Texas variety.
LikeLike
bullet, I agree. 20 is nutso.
LikeLike
As others have said, good article. One thing that is taken for granted with BTN is how unique its success is to the big ten. Having lived in Florida, I can tell you that no Floridians are going to pay any attention to a UT/UGa hoops game the way people in Illinois and Indiana will watch UW/UMinn. I just don’t think you can fill 9 mo of programming on a “SEC network” of rerun football games. The B1G is developing Hockey into a BTN draw, and perhaps soon Lacrosse. That, combined with flagship schools and large dispersed alumni give you something that is farily unique to the B1G. Nice to see Mr.Sec appreicating the academic angle. For a long time my SEC friends have told me that all that is important in all this is football, and laughed at me when I brought up the CIC.
LikeLike
I’m reasonably sure that Baseball, track & field and women’s gymnastics would all garner some TV viewing down in SEC land.
LikeLike
I’m a loooong way from SEC land and I’d love to be able to watch SEC baseball, track, gymnastics, and wrestling (I know, but I’m old enough to remember when many of their schools fielded teams).
LikeLike
Football alone drives a vast majority of the BTN revenues (supplemented by basketball), it would do the same for every other conference. The trick is to 1. get on basic cable 2. get respectable ‘carriage’ fees from cable companies and satellite providers, it wasn’t an easy task for the B10 and is no sure thing for other leagues without as rapid as a fan base like the Pac 12 or ACC. Once you’re on basic cable, you’re in TONS of households, many of whom don’t care about the local university but are paying a portion of their cable bill to support the BTN…
I’d expect the SEC to have the same type of success the B10 has with its netowrk; B10 has the advantage with basketball and potentially hockey while the SEC has a huge advantage in baseball. Probably a wash.
LikeLike
What is overlooked in the discussion of realignment is this: It is not about Academics vs Sports (Although there certain snobs who feel that way). It is about $$$$$, and it does not matter how schools and conferences get them. Call it “Research Grants” call it Television Packages” call it “Demographic Changes” it is still about money, and what certain schools and or conferences bring to the table or not. That is why Nebraska is still in the Big 10 (Despite being thrown out of the AAU, and having an academic ranking of 101), and the same for Vanderbilt in the SEC (Despite being uncompetitive in the SEC East). Let me use, another example: The very issue of would Penn State be allowed in the Big 10 came down to one school: Northwestern: Only when NW was assured that they would not be thrown out of the Conference, did they vote in favor of PSU. Northwestern basically brings a lot to the table (Number 12 Academic Ranking), as does Penn State, which is why both schools are in the Big 10, and are in strong positions as far as the Big 10 is concerned (The fear of losing Penn State to the ACC is why Maryland & Rutgers were invited into the Big 10). Conversely, a weaker school like Minnesota (Ranked 68th in Academics), which has had its football team operate like a piker living off Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and the rest for decades, had no option but to join the Big 10 Hockey Conference (Even though they never wanted to leave the WCHA), otherwise they risked being expelled from the conference. Basically It is all about money.
LikeLike
You lost me on Minny being a weaker academic school. Perhaps you should qualify “undergraduate school” based on US Knows Everything News as your source because when you factor in the other equally relevant metrics & alternate publications in the academic rankings world, Minny clearly jumps to the top third of the BIG, above say Northwestern in many graduate school rankings. Also, Minny had a nice run under Mason & damn near pulled an upset in their bowl game this year. Minny matters in other sports that do have relevance: hockey (an unquestionable blueblood), wrestling (3 NC’s), baseball (5 conference championships since 2000) & volleyball (3 FF’s in the past decade) – all these sports are televised on BTN. Minny has also won the second most NC’s (10) in the BIG since 2000. Conference membership and alignment is not as football focused as you & too many on these boards think. Trust me I know – wink.
LikeLike
Minnesota has not won a Hockey Title since 2003 (Duluth won in 2011 that about says it all), so they do not qualify a a hockey blue blood. They have not been to a major bowl in over a century (Even Washington State & Purdue top that), and they do not dominate Big 10 Wrestling and Volleyball (Penn State does!). Here is another number that is shocking: Since Penn State entered the Big 10, they have beaten Penn State ZERO times on the football field (Not talking about the NCAA lets screw Paterno vacated wins). I admit I spoke harshly when it came to possibly throwing the Gophers out of the Conference, but if the choice was Penn State, Northwestern or Minnesota being kicked out, I bet the Gophers would be selected (Even before Purdue and Indiana). Basically in football, Minnesota does little for the Conference (Sort of like Penn State in basketball), so when it meant it was time to leave the WCHA (The place where the Gophers are at their “Best”) Minnesota simply had to follow sports leaders like Wisconsin & Michigan and simply go.
LikeLike
What’s the deal? You lost me on your athletic facts. Minnesota played in the 62 Rose Bowl and have beaten PSU 4 out of 12 games since PSU joined the B1G. I think you have Minnesota confused with the Hoosiers who are 0 and 16 in football versus our Nitts. Go Gophers!
LikeLike
“Minnesota has not won a Hockey Title since 2003 (Duluth won in 2011 that about says it all), so they do not qualify a a hockey blue blood.”
Blue blood meaning “long time traditional power”? I’m not sure that phrase means what you think that it means. “Not winning the national championship for nearly a decade” does not disqualify a school from being a blue blood in a sport.
LikeLike
Whoa dude. Have you ever heard of the Governor’s Victory Bell? Minny beat PSU 4 consecutive times in football under Mason, including the great 1999 upset. But I do somewhat get your point about Minny football – no one here believes we have an upper echelon BIG program.
My lost friend, here’s a little Minny hockey history to chew on:
20 Frozen Fours
5 NC’s
6 Second Places
Winning, all time records against the following:
Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Denver, North Dakota, Boston College, Wisconsin, Minn Duluth (all these teams, minus Duluth, have won multiple NCs)
Boston U is the only blue blood with a winning record against Minny, all time, and the series is quite close: 15-12-2
Of all D1 college programs, Minny has sent the most first round picks to the NHL the past 12 years, including the league’s current leading scorer: Thomas Vanek.
And last but not least, the “1980 Miracle On Ice” roster had 8 Minny Players & 12 Minnesotans. The HC, Herb Brooks, is also a Minnesotan & had he chosen to stay in college hockey, he would have dominated for many years. He won 3 NC’s in just 7 years of coaching at Minny. Btw, no other state has produced as much NHL talent as Minnesota – the kids don’t just go to Minny or Mn Duluth. Many of the great players in Minnesota go onto Wisconsin, North Dakota, Denver, Colorado College and even out to Hockey East.
Other points: BIG charter members are never at risk of being removed, a 100 plus years is too long to terminate. Really, no team is at risk of being removed, not even PSU after the scandal. It’s the other way around, a team chooses to leave the BIG.
Btw, I have immense respect for PSU’s athletic department, outside football the past decade. It is only PSU that has won more NCAA NC’s than Minny amongst BIG members the past 15 years.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt there has ever been any consideration of kicking any school out of the B1G. If the Big Ten ever booted a school simply for the sake of money I would instantly stop being a B1G fan and lobby, as best a measly Buckeye fan could do, to go independent, however sad that may make me. The only instance which I can think of that may have caused some consideration of being kicked out was the recent issues at Penn State, which I don’t recall has ever been reported to have been considered. With that said, once in the Big Ten, always in the Big Ten, or so I hope.
LikeLike
FYI, my last post was aimed at David Clueless Brown. Also, a correction to this post in questiont: ND has never won a NC in hockey, but they have been a rival under Lucia’s tenure (ND Alum).
LikeLike
Being in the 60s in US News is pretty good for a public school with a huge enrollment……….
Also, the last few years or so Minnhehaha has been in the top 20 in the Director’s Cup standings………
I do wonder about the lack of pride Minnesotans feel about the state U….they just don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for the university as places like Iowa or Wisconsin…..never really have understood that…..
LikeLike
I have a bit of trouble believing that Minny was at any risk whatsoever of being expelled from the conference.
LikeLike
I missed this, but apparently the NCAA changed how it calculates RPI for 2013.
The revised RPI formula is as follows:
* Each road victory will be valued as 1.3 instead of 1.0
* Each home win will be valued at 0.7 instead of 1.0.
* Neutral-site games will retain the same value of 1.0.
http://www.cornnation.com/2013/2/15/3991104/2013-college-baseball-rpi-changes-what-effect-will-they-have
LikeLike
… in baseball.
LikeLike
I apologize if this has been posted, but the Catholic 7 apparently reached out to Memphis.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-02-11/sports/37022090_1_mike-aresco-football-schools-big-east
Accustomed to membership in a league where at least 50% of members make the NCAA Tournament, several of whom usually go deep into the tournament, the C7 need to maximize the number of units they get from it.
LikeLike
Yup, the revenue from reaching and advancing in the tournament is a major source of revenue for this C7 basketball league. They’ll want as good as basketball schools as they can land.
LikeLike
@wmwolverine,
I agree. The interesting thing for the C7 is how it determines what is the best approach to expansion. They have several, potentially competing factors to consider:
– Maximizing the Fox Sports contract
– Maximizing potential NCAA Tournament appearances
– Minimizing travel costs and missed class time (yes, it should be a factor), which could add up if the league grows really far to the west
– Minimizing flight risks (UConn & Cincinnati come to mind)
– Creating conference cohesion. (Basketball is priority number one, I assume, but how much does geographic sensibility mattet? How much does lack of FBS programs matter? How much does the size and makeup of the student body matter?)
Butler and Xavier are shoo-ins for good reason: they meet the qualifications in all areas. But schools #10, #11, and #12 are less obvious.
One school that would hell with NCAA appearancss as well as anyone is Gonzaga, whicb has made the Big Dance every year since ’98 or ’99. The Zags also have more brand recognition than several C7 schools and other candidates.
If Gonzaga calls for a western partner, wouldnt BYU make for a good partner? They would be a better TV draw than St. Mary’s and, over time, ought to be a more reliable winner than the other often-mentioned partner for Gonzaga, St. Mary’s. BYU is better funded and has better history, regardless of this year’s results.
How would the C7 compare VCU to Richmond? How much is Dayton’s chances of getting in hurt by Xavier’s presence nearby? How does Creighton’s small market but strong support and strong recent seasons compare with Saint Louis’ relatively weak recent seasons but large market and improved facilities?
And how do all of these “safe” candidates in the Midwest/Virginia compare with the allure of more recognizable but very distant candidatss like BYU and Gonzaga?
LikeLike
BYU may be desired, but they aren’t candidating anywhere (other than loving the attention they have gotten from realignment without actually participating).
LikeLike
Yes, but that doesn’t mean they’d turn down the C7. That league would allow for football independence, which is still a stumbling block for returning to the MWC or even joining the Big 12. It would provide a league which, like the WCC, would be comprised almost entirely of religious institutions. It would offer more money, which always helps. It would offer far more exposure, which, as we know, was BYU’s primary motivation in going independent in the first place, even more than money.
As a bonus, joining the C7 would also allow BYU to continue enjoying the attention it gets from realignment. Being in the C7 would not make them less interesting for the Big 12 or MWC. The rumors and speculation would persist with those conferences whether BYU is in the WCC or the C7.
LikeLike
Those are reasonable arguments. But BYUtv would suffer, unless the C7 would grant them full TV rights. Remember, this is a church proselytizing. It’s not a school simply trying to help fund an athletic department, and drawing viewers to BYUtv year round is very important.
LikeLike
OT – Florida State lost money from the ACC Championship game.
http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1472519
LikeLike
The article illustrates many of the flaws of the whole CCG concept. The ACC had the same problem the Big Ten had: in one of the divisions, the top two schools were ineligible. But even if they had been, the best Coastal Division team was a mediocre North Carolina squad at 8-4 (5-3). A re-match between FSU and Clemson would have been far more compelling. The two were both 7-1 in the league, 10-2 overall, and had played an entertaining 49-37 game earlier in the year.
LikeLike
Please note that they didn’t include FSU’s share of the TV value of the game when saying that. It was just expenses and losses on unsold tickets versus the payout and reimbursed expenses. They also didn’t include the value to them of winning the ACC and making the BCS.
LikeLike
The TV money is value split by all ACC members. What was being pointed out is that Boston College and Wake Forest made more $$$ by staying home than FSU did by playing the CCG and BCS bowl.
LikeLike
They also ignored the free publicity, any merchandise sales and future gains from FSU winning the ACC (season ticket sales, etc). Sure, the ACC paid them less than they spent on unsold tickets. That’s not the whole picture. That’s all I’m saying.
LikeLike
Of all the things I don’t believe, this type of claim is near the top. You’d have to believe all the conferences are fighting to give away money, and/or that the WAC, Mac, etc are the winners in bowl/championship money game.
LikeLike
This is why I’m in favor of a 20 team conference with two divisions that don’t play each other very often. If you had a 10 game conference schedule, played 9 in your division, and 1 in the other division (it would have a bit more meaning then a general non conference game, in the same way one Pac 10 game would have been fun, especially with the history with the conference in the Rose Bowl) and the championship game would likely match teams that had not already played each other that season, making, for at a minimum, a unique game through lack of duplication.
Being a Nebraska fan I hated all the years in which we played teams in the championship game we had already played, I was not excited one bit about playing Wisconsin again this year.
If Nebraska wasn’t such a huge geographic outlier I would suggest keeping the original Big 10 in one conference “Classic 10” and put Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, in a “New Big 10” division. It’s not as if Nebraska has much history with the core of the big 10. Teams like Wisconsin and Iowa who should be geographic rivals of Nebraska in the Big 10, have barely met historically. Since 1950 to before Nebraska joined the Big 10, Nebraska had played Iowa 6 times, Wisconsin 4 times. Excluding Minnesota and Penn State which Nebraska played 20 and 11 times during this period, over 60 years Nebraska matched up with the remaining Big 10 opponents only 31 times.
If the “New Big 10” included Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State and Georgia Tech, Nebraska would have some good rivals. Nebraska has played many important games against Penn State and Florida State that impacted National Championships for all three teams, while there are some weird animosity with Nebraska fans toward Notre Dame that goes back to Four Horseman days, just the history of those two teams coming together makes for an instant rivaly. Georgia Tech won their national championship in the early 90’s against Nebraska in a bowl game so that adds some flavor. The rest of the usual suspects Nebraska has not played or only once, Rutgers 1, Duke 1, North Carolina 1, Virginia 0, Maryland 0.
Would I like to build up some history with Iowa and Wisconsin? Yes, but would I care if Nebraska was thrown in a Western Division with Penn State? Not at all. It keeps the original “Big 10” together and Nebraska fans travel and alumni are all over the place. Plus as a side bonus the team in the worst state for high school football talent in the Big 10 (Nebraska) would be in a division with a state with the best talent (Florida).
LikeLike
And you people want to add them.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Go Huskers!
LikeLike
A shift in topic here. Excited to see Minny and Wisky play at Soldier Field – BTN. Thus far, BTN hockey coverage has been so so because Michigan, MSU and OSU are having oddly bad years, Wisky as well. Only time will tell with PSU. I’m going to miss the WCHA, by far the best college hockey conference the past 30 years – though BC’s run the past decade has been amazing. I know MSU and Michigan have had obvious success during their CCHA run, but the conference has never measured up, with consistency, to the greatness & depth of the WCHA. The ingredients are certainly in place for powerful BIG hockey league, but the teams must maintain their crucial border and in-state rivalries outside the conference.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8953431/espn-week-meet-nbc-big-east-offer-sources-say
ESPN is on the clock. They have to match NBC’s offer by Thursday for the BE’s rights through 2020.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/42381/big-east-mailblog-119
On the same topic is a mail bag question from ESPN’s BE blog:
“Rob in Big East Forever, N.J., writes: Whats up with this pathetic TV/Media rights verbal offer? Let me get this straight, two years ago the Big East wanted a $300M per year deal. They turned down a $130M per year deal, now the remaining schools and the new additions are possibly getting a $20M per year deal? So, schools like USF, Cincy and UConn are going to bring in roughly $2M per year, when they could have brought in as much as $10M per year under the offer turned down, while a school like Rutgers, moving on to the B1G, will make upwards of $25-$30M per year, more money than all 12 future Big East schools will make in a year combined? I really thought that $20-23M quote I read had to be a mistake, no?
Adelson: This is not a typo nor is it a mistake. Our general rule is to comment completely once news is made official, so I will have plenty more whenever a deal is signed. For now, all I can say is this: It appears as if realignment has indeed relegated the Big East to second-tier status in more ways than one. This report, and the others that have followed listing the same dollar figures, essentially validate those who believe the Big East is essentially another version of Conference USA.”
—
Also interesting to me was this Q&A:
“CardFanDan at the center of the universe writes: The BIG’s proposal to move to 10 league games only serves to make the conference more insular and gives the playoff committee little by which to evaluate a team other than the highly subjective strength of conference measure. Can you present ANY argument that having 10 league games in a 12-game season is good for college football?
Adelson: I am at a loss with this one. I have been a proponent of eight-game league schedules because I think it is important for conferences to go out and play each other. Yeah, there are some duds and a few FCS games sprinkled in there, but at least you get some variety and the potential for a blockbuster nonconference matchup, plus an opportunity to see how you stack up against other competition. I don’t love nine-game league schedules, which is what most are moving toward. But 10 just seems preposterous. Add in the championship game, and a team could be playing 11 Big Ten games out of 14 on the schedule. For another perspective, our Big Ten bloggers argued both sides earlier this week.”
We should keep this in mind when discussing schedules. Outside reactions do matter since a committee is picking teams. However, I think those opinions would start to change if a conference was 18 + teams. Her dislike for 9 makes sense when focused on the BE where even 8 was never an option until now.
LikeLike
I doubt they match it. NBC Sports likely has only a few mid-week games, with the rest appearing on more desirable Saturday afternoons and evenings. In order to offer the same schedule, ESPN would require many more games online or on ESPN Plus. While NBC may have some Big East games online, they’ll have more on their national sports network. ESPN cannot offer that. ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, and ESPNU are already too full to offer the same amount of exposure on a cable network.
Because inventory is so full at ESPN, the best it could do is not a matching offer, but a counter offer, where more games are midweek, on ESPN Plus, and online, but the payout is higher.
If I’m ESPN, I save the company money and , more importantly, space on the networks for when the Big Ten rights are up for bid in 2016, not to mention the growing number of games in immediate seasons by the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten. Heck, ESPN may need to save space in case of Big 12 expansion and for the Boise State home games package, which, remember, is separate from the MWC package.
LikeLike
Can’t find space on their eight channels? Trying to skimp and recover that billion dollar one school expenditure that barely sees the light of day? 🙂
LikeLike
@ccrider,
Can’t find space on Saturdays. Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac-12, BYU home games, and Boise State home games would take priority for every time slot. Other days of the week, sure, but NBC won’t require Tuesday-Friday football, at least not as much.
———-
I’m not quite following what youre saying with your other comment. Were you referring to the Longhorn Network? Heck, maybe that could be a place for Big East games to get parked, especially Houston and SMU games.
LikeLike
Yes on LHN.
Houston/SMU on LHN? Ummmm…no. They get left behind, have trouble getting invites to self distructive conferences, can’t get reinvited to make B12 numerically correct and enable CCG again, but now they ride to the inventory rescue of the king that banished them originally?
I’m not saying ESPN would or should bid, only that they could.
LikeLike
AFAIR, that’s part of the argument of the schools who voted against taking the $130m (all of whom are now gone) ~ that all too often the Big East games were relegated to ESPNU. And that was when the Big East had far more recognizable names ~ a collection of Princes and contenders, if no Kings.
Even before news of the offer, we’d expect the NuBigEast to end up at NBC Sports for much the same reason as the Mountain West ended up at CBS Sports.
LikeLike
It depends on what rights ESPN has with the inventory. At this price ESPN may be able to make money by reselling most of the inventory while just broadcasting the best. It might be worth it to ESPN to keep it off of NBC.
Adding up all of what ESPN/FOX will be paying for the old BE (Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Louisville, WV, TCU, Rutgers, C7) and new schools totals about $150M. Shows the replacement schools added little TV value.
LikeLike
CFN has been doing their composite schedule analysis all week. Here is the B10’s. I’ll just show the top few games each week, but the whole list is in the link.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1266965.html
August 31
1. Northwestern at California
2. Penn State vs. Syracuse (in East Rutherford, NJ)
3. Northern Illinois at Iowa
4. Purdue at Cincinnati
September 7
1. Notre Dame at Michigan
2. Syracuse at Northwestern
3. Cincinnati at Illinois
September 14
1. UCLA at Nebraska
2. Wisconsin at Arizona State
3. Ohio State at California
4. Iowa at Iowa State
5. Illinois vs. Washington (in Chicago)
6. UCF at Penn State
7. Notre Dame at Purdue
September 21
1. Michigan State at Notre Dame
2. Purdue at Wisconsin
3. Michigan at Connecticut
4. San Jose State at Minnesota
5. Missouri at Indiana
September 28
1. Wisconsin at Ohio State
2. Iowa at Minnesota
October 5
1. Ohio State at Northwestern
2. Michigan State at Iowa
3. Minnesota at Michigan
4. Penn State at Indiana
5. Illinois at Nebraska
October 12
1. Northwestern at Wisconsin
2. Michigan at Penn State
3. Nebraska at Purdue
4. Indiana at Michigan State
October 19
1. Iowa at Ohio State
2. Wisconsin at Illinois
3. Minnesota at Northwestern
4. Purdue at Michigan State
5. Indiana at Michigan
October 26
1. Penn State at Ohio State
2. Northwestern at Iowa
3. Nebraska at Minnesota
4. Michigan State at Illinois
November 2
1. Michigan at Michigan State
2. Northwestern at Nebraska
3. Wisconsin at Iowa
4. Ohio State at Purdue
5. Illinois at Penn State
6. Minnesota at Indiana
November 9
1. Nebraska at Michigan
2. BYU at Wisconsin
3. Penn State at Minnesota
4. Iowa at Purdue
5. Illinois at Indiana
November 16
1. Michigan State at Nebraska
2. Michigan at Northwestern
3. Ohio State at Illinois
4. Purdue at Penn State
5. Indiana at Wisconsin
November 23
1. Michigan State at Northwestern
2. Nebraska at Penn State
3. Michigan at Iowa
4. Wisconsin at Minnesota
5. Illinois at Purdue
6. Indiana at Ohio State
November 30
1. Ohio State at Michigan
2. Penn State at Wisconsin
3. Iowa at Nebraska
4. Northwestern at Illinois
5. Minnesota at Michigan State
6. Purdue at Indiana
December 7
Big Ten Championship, in Indianapolis
Comments:
9/28 – 10/26 stinks in that 3 of the 5 weeks there are only 4 games. There are some good games those weeks though.
9/28 – WI@OSU*, IA@MN
10/12 – NW@WI, MI@PSU*
10/26 – PSU@OSU*, NW@IA
* – night game potential
As for November schedules:
Leaders favorites:
OSU – @PU, bye, @IL, IN, @MI
PSU – IL, @MN, PU, NE, @WI
WI – @IA, BYU, IN, @MN, PSU
PSU has the toughest November with OSU having the toughest last game. Of course, that just means OSU and WI play their tougher games earlier.
Legends favorites:
MI – @MSU, NE, @NW, @IA, OSU
MSU – MI, bye, @NE, @NW, MN
NE – NW, @MI, MSU, @PSU, IA
NW – @NE, bye, MI, MSU, @IL
Tough schedules all around. I’m guessing the B10 will focus on the Leaders in October and the Legends in November.
LikeLike
B10 needs more inventory.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1266962.html
Also, here are CFN’s rankings of schedule difficulty:
“Toughest Schedules
Based on home games as well as who the teams play when. From toughest to easiest …
LEADERS
1. Purdue
2. Illinois
3. Penn State
4. Ohio State
5. Indiana
6. Wisconsin
LEGENDS
1. Iowa
2. Northwestern
3. Michigan
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Minnesota”
LikeLike
Will the new media rights deal make Navy turn down the Big East?
They get more for Army-Navy and their ND games I assume than the Big East’s $2 million per year, so what exactly would be the point of joining that grouping?
Wouldn’t they have to give their Army-Navy and ND games’ TV revenue to the conference if they do join?
LikeLike
Some games are not part of any league’s television package. They are arranged by TV networks (usually ESPN) and by local events planners. The Cowboys Classic (such as BYU-OU, LSU-Oregon, and TCU-Oregon State) and Chick-Fil-A Kickoff (Clemson-Auburn, Boise-Georgia) are not part of ESPN’s SEC, Big 12, ACC, P12, or MWC package. Rather, they are separate deals entirely, and my understanding is that they benefit the schools involved directly, not their conferences.
This is how I expect the Army-Navy game to be treated. It is a neutral site game where both schools receive payouts.
The Notre Dame @ Navy games may be different. They are held in Baltimore, but Navy is the designated home team. The Big East may have rights to those games.
LikeLike
Those games are part of the conference’s packages. The PAC and/orSEC certainly would allow neutral site games (UO/LSU) as long as ESPN, or whoever, as long as the parties agree to it and the rights are purchased. These schools don’t get to be part time independent (except ND and BYU).
LikeLike
Actually, the PAC just banned schools from playing one off neutral site games like UO-LSU.
LikeLike
I do remember that now. But that confirms that it is the PAC’s to decide.
LikeLike
Interesting. That makes sense.
In this case, Navy should reconsider joining.
Let’s say that the ND@Navy and Army-Navy games currently garner Navy an average of $3M/year. (The amount may be different, but the number does not change my point.) If Navy’s TV revenue for those games are required to be distributed evenly, their share for those games suddenly becomes a paltry $250K/year, and that’s assuming they remain a separate, more lucrative deal on CBS rather than being absorbed into the NBC Sports package.
Reducing that payout so low still would have resulted in an overall net gain for Navy if the Big East had gotten even a $40M/year deal. But because the Big East payout is so low, Navy is being asked to take a loss, even though the option of independence remains.
It’s been said that Navy feels that independence is no longer viable. Well, without the Big East, Navy still has several schools available to help fill out its schedule: Army, Air Force, Notre Dame, BYU, New Mexico State, Idaho, and an FCS school should be easy to schedule every year, both early and late in the season. Sun Belt, MAC, C-USA, and MWC schools will remain flexible for a school of Navy’s profile, and would be willing to schedule home-and-homes. Then, especially early in the year, there will be plenty of major conference schools willing to play Navy, even if those schools are the likes of Duke, Wake Forest, Indiana, and Vanderbilt.
Maybe the Big East will make special exceptions for Navy. Refusing to do so for Boise State likely cost them millions per member. Refusing to do the same for Navy would only make matters worse.
LikeLike
It’s been said that Navy feels that independence is no longer viable.
I am not sure who said that, or on what authority. Army plans to remain independent, and the two schools play similar schedules. Navy has managed as an indy until now, and it only gets easier, as there a number of other schools sharing that status. What’s more, the Big Ten is (supposedly) going to start spreading out their schedule, which will create more open dates in the latter part of the season. Navy is an attractive opponent for just about anyone.
I think they joined the Big East strictly for the money, and now that the dollars are no longer what they were, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them reconsider.
LikeLike
Michael, the other thing is, the current Army-Navy deal (worth around $5 million per year for both teams combined) expires in 2018.
That game should be worth $8 million or more per year when they sign a new deal.
If you’re Navy, that’s $4 million per year for just that one game.
How can you accept the Big East’s deal and give up that $4 million per year plus the ND game which probably generates an additional $1 million per year (home game every other year) on average.
They’re basically taking a 50% pay cut to join the Big East if they have to give up that TV revenue…
LikeLike
Like Boise State and the MWC, Navy is important enough to the shattered remnants of the NuBigEast to make special provisions.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a link for historical tv ratings for college basketball and football. I found a complete list for 2012 on sportediawatch.com, but have not been able to find game by game ratings for previous years.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Terrapins, big win against Duke in what might be their last matchup? (not sure as to that last part).
LikeLike
They’ll meet again at least once next season, but this well could be Duke’s last visit to College Park. And in a way, I hope it is (and I would’ve said that no matter the outcome tonight). The Terp fan base has distorted this game to a ridiculous degree, considering how relatively little was on the line in recent years. (You want a rivalry? Check out Maryland-N.C. State during the David Thompson years, when so much more was at stake, especially seeding in an ACC tourney when only the winner advanced to the NCAA tournament.) Time for Maryland fans to move on and create new, healthy rivalries in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think the best part of this for both sides is that the Big Ten is experiencing a renaissance at the top in hoops (Indiana and Michigan back to performing well), and Turgeon has Maryland pointed in the right direction.
There’ll be plenty of big tilts between those two plus Michigan State/Ohio State/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Illinois and Maryland.
LikeLike
Purdue too. They’re down now but Painters a darn good coach andwill have tthem back to form in a season or two.
LikeLike
@vp19
Maryland Student section during the game and celebration afterward…
LikeLike
Oops…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G1qoZxWAsk8#
LikeLike
B10 basketball holds a lot of promise going forward. With the exceptions of Northwestern and Rutgers, the rest are capable of being good enough to reach the NCAAs. I’d say Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Wisconsin, Maryland and Ohio State would be most talked about.
LikeLike
I’d argue that PSU & Nebbie are worse than Northwestern & (probably) Rutgers.
LikeLike
They’re certainly bringing up the rear of the conference, but you can’t win at everything.
LikeLike
How short everyone’s memories are. Purdue was rock solid for several years. Who knows how well theyd have done had Robbie Hummel not torn his ACL twice. Then there’s a little dropoff and suddenly they’re nothing, yet Michigan and Minnesota are just stlar despite far less success over the long haul.
LikeLike
Well Michigan is a special case because they’re a big name due to the residual Fab Five memory.
But you’re right about Purdue vis-a-vis Illinois/Minnesota.
LikeLike
Overreact much?
Saying “Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Wisconsin, Maryland and Ohio State would be most talked about” hardly reduces Purdue to ‘nothing’, especially when it is prefaced with “B10 basketball holds a lot of promise going forward. With the exceptions of Northwestern and Rutgers, the rest are capable of being good enough to reach the NCAAs”.
B1G BB Conference records since 2002:
Wisconsin 130 53 0.7104
Michigan St 125 58 0.6831
Ohio State 119 64 0.6503
Illinois 105 77 0.5769
Purdue 101 83 0.5489
Michigan 90 93 0.4918
Indiana 89 94 0.4863
Iowa 75 107 0.4121
Minnesota 73 109 0.4011
Northwestern 60 122 0.3297
PSU 46 136 0.2527
Nebraska B1G 7 24 0.2258
Neb BXII 53 91 0.3681
Neb Total 60 115 0.3429
LikeLike
Edit: Oops, looks like you were actually replying to Zeek & not Transic. Still the response was a bit overly heated given the original post.
LikeLike
One opinion column calling for separating Michigan and Michigan State.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130216/OPINION03/302160324
LikeLike
He gets so much wrong in that piece that I have a hard time agreeing with him. He says going to 10 games is obvious because 9 would create unfair races. Apparently the concept of giving all 7 teams in one division the same number of home games is too complicated for him. He even tries to justify dropping all the good intersectional OOC games to make 10 games happen.
I’ve only seen 2 real arguments for sending MSU east:
1. The punishment of PSU.
2. Teams in the west playing MI less often.
The problems, of course, are that PSU’s future success is unknown and that the western teams would only play MI slightly less often.
LikeLike
I stopped reading the Michigan sports columnists years ago — and I’m from there — because they’re so clueless.
LikeLike
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/02/penn_state_says_costs_of_sandu.html
Penn State University says it has now spent more than $27.6 million in costs related to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
…
– $13 million for internal investigations and communications, including the Freeh Report;
– About $7.5 million in the university’s legal defense;
– $3.95 million for the legal defense of other individuals, including former Penn State President Graham Spanier and others;
– Roughly $1.3 million for externally initiated investigations;
– And $1.8 million for other expenses.
Note that this (obviously) does include the $60 million in NCAA fines and $12 million in Big 10 withholdings that are being spread out over the next four years or the indirect costs like lost ticket and merchandising revenue.
LikeLike
Catholic 7 to add Richmond or Siena in east, Saint Louis, Xavier, Dayton and Butler in west for 12 school conference.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/catholic-7-schools-including-georgetown-charting-a-new-yet-familiar-path/2013/02/16/f1eaa870-7876-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html
LikeLike
Xavier, Dayton, and Butler we’ve known to be locks for a while.
Saint Louis isn’t too much of a surprise given that they’re located in a major city with good facilities.
“Creighton, another Catholic school considered a potential candidate, is considered too far west (Omaha, Neb.) for teams in non-revenue sports to travel.”
This on the other hand is a surprise to me. I had thought Creighton would be high on the list given their basketball quality, but they consider it to be too far to the West. I suppose that makes sense given that we’re not talking Big Ten money here like we were with Nebraska-Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think the article is just repeating conventional wisdom. Points against having any real information include mentioning divisions – no big time basketball conference has divisions since all teams play each other and I highly doubt this new conference will use them. He also mentions a fight over MSG between the C-7 and the rest of the Big East which is also highly unlikely – the rest of the Big East are not wanted by MSG and its highly unlikely they will try to retain it with only UConn and Temple anywhere near NYC.
Only 2 locks are Xavier and Butler – the Villanova coach openly visited XU when Villanova was in Cincinnati to play UC and the Butler bulldog mascots visited the Georgetown bulldog mascots when Butler was in DC playing GW. I’ve not seen any show of public support for St. Louis, Dayton, etc. which leads me to believe they haven’t decided yet. Richmond is a rich school, in a close but not duplicated market and they aren’t Catholic so it dilutes the Pope Conference stereotype. I’d be really surprised at Creighton since they are in the middle of nowhere in terms of this conference alignment and really aren’t that good.
LikeLike
I think Creighton could be just as sucessful as a Marquette if they continue to grow and build as they have in the past decade or two. It’s possible they could get lost in the shuffle in a conference with the C7 schools, or it could put them on the map and offer a lot of advantages they don’t currently get in the MVC.
They are routintely in the top ten for attendance for all college basketball programs. And that is against MVC opponents.
Not sure how much the C7 is looking beyond basketball, but CU men’s soccer has been to the last two College Cups and has one of the best collegiate soccer venues. Baseball has been to the NCAA tournament the last two years and plays at T.D Ameritrade, home of the College World Series. Women’s basketball and volleyball have made recent tournament appearances, and have they own on campus arena. They seem to have a pretty well-rounded athletic program and the AD is now on the NCAA basketball selection committee.
What also probably helps Creighton is that they are not only Catholic, but Jesuit and a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Georgetown and Marquette are also in the AJCU (as is Xavier).
All that said, I think the chance of Creighton getting an invite if the C7 expands to only 10 members to be about zero. If it goes to 12 members, I’d guess 50%.
LikeLike
@Mark,
The fight about MSG would not be between the remaining/incoming Big East members and the C7. The fight would be between the Big East leftovers and MSG itself about whether MSG can nullify the contract altogether as a result of all the defections, thus allowing MSG to become available to multiple options, including the C7 league, ACC, and Big Ten. If MSG cannot nullify the contract, its argument then becomes that its contract was to host schools who were in the Big East at the time the contract was signed. Seven of those schools will be in the C7 league. Only three will be in the remaining Big East.
The C7 doesn’t even have to worry about MSG because MSG will do that fight for them. Plus, the C7 knows it is the only league that would be willing to play its tournament there every year and have that willingness reciprocated by Madison Square Garden.
LikeLike
MSG has already confirmed they have a clause in their contract allowing them to void their contract with the BEast if it undergoes significant membership change (and I’m pretty damn certain losing 75% of your membership since the deal was signed qualifies).
LikeLike
The fight, then, will be over which league gets the Big East name, how much exit fees will be for leaving prior to summer 2015, which league gets how much NCAA tournament earnings, which league gets exit fees from departing members like Syracuse & WVU, and whether the C7 does wait until 2014 or goes ahead leaves this summer. Fox may push for the C7 to leave this year to help jump start its new work. (Maybe offer a “signing bonus” that covers extra costs for leaving the conference so early.)
It will be very difficult to get the league together by this summer. There are all those legal issues listed above. It may be too much to ask all those A-10 members to pay their exit fees for leaving on a very short notice. But, again, they may still be able to pull it off if Fox is willing to help cover costs for helping the schools get out early.
One other question to consider: if the C7 does break off this summer, where does Notre Dame go? Do they stay in the remaining Big East? Do they follow their Catholic brethren for a year in their league? Such a scenario could allow for a smaller, 8-10 team league for the first year while some or all of the A-10 schools spare themselves from increased exit fees. This is what Temple did by waiting an extra year to join the Big East; leaving this past summer would have been far costlier.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has already said they are staying. Rutgers and Louisville are staying for 2013 also, although they haven’t come out and announced it. They only thing still in question for 2013 is the C7.
LikeLike
Yes, the question is what the MSG does for March 2015 going forward, not what it does in March 2014. Selling the last big hurrah won’t be hard. The C7 playing through a last season of the Old Big East before starting up in 2014/2015 may not be locked in stone, but it seems highly likely. And obviously that would line up neatly with a bid to the MSG to play their conference tournament annually at MSG.
LikeLike
“no big time basketball conference has divisions since all teams play each other”
. . . except for the SEC most of the time when it had 12 schools.
2 divisions would mean each school plays schools in its division twice (for 10 games) and schools in the other division once (for 6 games).
If Butler, Xavier, Dayton, & SLU are added, all schools in the west would be able to bus to one another (a big deal for the non-revenue sports).
Providence to DC is a little far (and Richmond is farther still), but still possible. Albany’s not much closer.
Rejecting Ruichmond for Siena seems wacky on the surface (Richmond’s extremely rich for it’s size as well; look at its endowment), but Siena has actually been to the Big Dance more often the past 5 seasons.
I wonder if the C7 would consider expanding to 14, adding both Richmond & Siena as well as Creighton.
LikeLike
The SEC ditched the divisions for BB though because they realized they were pointless.
The Big XII used the football divisions for scheduling (you played everyone in your division twice and everyone else once) but didn’t have actual BB divisions. I think that might be the better option for the C7 in BB.
As for non-revs? It’s hard to do divisions since not all the schools sponsor the same sports.
LikeLike
If you’re using divisions for scheduling, you might as well award the top teams in each division a title. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the best team out of 6 who play the same schedule.
The SEC initially dropped its basketball divisions because it felt people didn’t respect the west division…they felt that they might get an extra bid (or better seeding) in the tournament if Alabama or whoever was listed as 10-6 in the SEC instead of 10-6 in the SEC West. Since they were still using division scheduling, this made little sense. The tournament organizers do look at who you actually play.
With expansion, the divisions are now truly gone from scheduling.
The SEC gives division titles in some sports (like Volleyball and Soccer) that don’t use divisions for scheduling. That is truly pointless.
LikeLike
The only surprise here might be Siena, but I think that’s a program to keep an eye on. Albany-Schenectady-Troy is a bigger market than people realize, and Albany has an arena that seats five figures.
LikeLike
Siena is 6-21 in a league with Fairfield, St Peter’s and Niagara. Someday they might be good enough for the CAA or the “new” A-10 if there are mass departures. Their inclusion makes the article a joke.
LikeLike
Well this certainly shoots holes all over my Gonzaga/BYU theory, especially if Creighton is being deemed too far west!
LikeLike
As a former Omaha resident (not necessarily a Creighton fan) I’m disappointed they may be out of the picture. Though Omaha is solidly a Husker Football town, Lincoln is a bit too far to travel for mid week sports so Omaha over the years has adapted Creighton as their own, even though it’s a relatively small Catholic school. It’s hard to find tickets for Creighton Basketball games and Soccer matches. I couldn’t imagine how hard it would be to get a ticket if Georgetown came to town. Omaha is another 6 hours away by car from St Louis, so it is pretty far away, so I understand.
LikeLike
I’ve come to take this league as a cemented 9-team conference (C7 plus Butler and Xavier) sorting through three more candidates.
If indeed BYU and Gonzaga are deemed too far west (understandably, considering non-revenue sports’ travel costs), then the non-FBS school that should help best maximize NCAA Tournament appearances is VCU. After them, it’s a close call between Creighton and Dayton. Richmond and Saint Louis are a peg below, and Siena is at the bottom.
If Creighton is being eliminated, it must be due to distance alone. Saint Louis, Marquette, and DePaul might be the only schools that could bus there, assuming both St. L and Creighton were both to get in. Xavier, Butler, and Dayton would be a loooong bus ride for all those non-revenue teams. But passing on Creighton would certainly be passing on one of the five best non-FBS basketball programs east of the Rockies.
If VCU doesn’t get in but Siena does… wow! That would make me wonder how Butler got in because, clearly, this league would be much more about being Catholic than about basketball.
In the end, my bet is that the five new schools will be :
Butler
Xavier
Dayton
Saint Louis
Richmond
LikeLike
I don’t think you can underestimate the importance of schools being together in the past. St. Louis was in CUSA with Marquette and Notre Dame and in Great Midwest with those two and Dayton. That plus geography + population give Dayton and St. Louis an edge over Creighton.
And it makes sense to have a 6th eastern school. Did see another article where Sienna guy said C7 hadn’t contacted them. But Sienna, Northeastern, Richmond all make some sense as eastern schools in new markets. Duquesne is just too bad, otherwise they would make sense. Fairfield and Hartford don’t have enough fan support or success, so I don’t think the BE looks at the state of Connecticut. They aren’t going to duplicate Philadelphia, so the eastern options are pretty limited.
LikeLike
Residual effects of the C7’s raid on the A-10:
A-10, which has 16 this year, will be reduced to 9 members. Charlotte (C-USA), Temple (Big East Football), Butler, Xavier, Saint Louis, Dayton, and Richmond (C7 league) would all be leaving.
A-10 would replinish to at least 12. Candidates would include George Mason, UNCW, and College of Charleston of the CAA; Detroit, Loyola Chicago, Cleveland State, and Wright State of the Horizon; Creighton of the MVC; Davidson of the Southern; and Siena of the MAAC. Most likely would be George Mason and Siena, while the rest are less are less obvious.
The MVC may end up not losing anybody. Creighton may be too far for the A-10, too. But UMKC may still prove right in bolting from the Summit to the unstable WAC because the Horizon League may have to replenish its ranks with Summit League schools.
The domino effects are going to be interesting.
LikeLike
If the Summit gets raided, Denver U will be the conference killer of the Rockies.
LikeLike
Richmond would give the Classic East a 6th for Lacrosse ~ after Rutgers left, all five remaining Big East Lacrosse schools are in the C7, aka Classic East.
Also, from the news of Atlantic Sun starting a Lacrosse conference (which Richmond at present plans to join as an affiliate), a multi-sports conference that sponsors six+ team Lacrosse championship does not have the two year probation for AQ that a Lacrosse-only conference faces. So if the Classic East includes Richmond, Classic East Lacrosse would be an AQ conference from the outset. Otherwise they would lose their AQ, since the two year extension on AQ for a Lacrosse conference that drops below six would not apply to them as a newly formed conference.
LikeLike
Boyd’s world intended strength of schedule seems to reveal great disparity in regional scheduling strategy. Perhaps it’s just an artifact of the depth of strength within conference play, but I would have expected the SEC and ACC to be better represented if that’s the case.
http://www.boydsworld.com/baseball/sos/sos2013.html
A move to the B1G by UVA would seem to not necessarily preclude scheduling that could maintain their position as Neb is at #68 just ahead of UVA. A fair number of B1G teams are in top 150.
LikeLike
According to that site, if I am reading it correctly, the Big Ten’s average SoS is 13th, while the ACC’s is 5th. It’s hard to see how UVA could join the B1G without taking a hit.
LikeLike
It doesn’t show conference strength. It does show the whole seasons intended SoS, and OOC intended SoS. UVA scheduled 239th toughest OOC while Neb scheduled 27th to land beside each other in the whole season SoS. Obviously somebody has considerable room to schedule “up” if there was a need.
LikeLike
If you could start from scratch and create a 12 school conference for your favorite school, what would it be?
I’d go with:
Missouri
Illinois
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Indiana
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
LSU
Texas
Texas A&M
Good academics, good football, good basketball, all contiguous.
LikeLike
No Kansas? Hm.
LikeLike
I was trying to pick areas that would be good for recruiting. There aren’t too many recruits in Kansas. Also, I’m pretty sure they’re going to lose AAU status in teh near future, and as it was I only had 7 out of 12 AAU schools, I didn’t want to water it down any more than that.
LikeLike
Creating a 12 team conference from scratch and Andy doesn’t even pick his school’s biggest rival from the past 100 years?
Sounds like the same petty bitterness that Andy accuses Kansas of for not scheduling Missouri since the SEC move.
LikeLike
Well, I thought the whole point of “from scratch” meant history would not be factored in. If I was going by history I’d pick the old Big 8 plus Illinois, Iowa, Arkansas, and SMU, as those are the schools Missouri has played the most over the years.
LikeLike
Well, it was your question, so I guess you can define it how you want.
But I think you can have history and rivalries be a factor without just selecting the 11 teams you’ve played more than anyone else. There are usually teams that you play every year that no one would care much if they dropped off the schedule. Iowa State, basically, for most of the old Big Eight schools (and probably Oklahoma State too, from most everyone besides the Sooners.
For Missouri, I think you have to have:
Kansas
Nebraska
Oklahoma (pretend that you can form a conference of whoever you want, you don’t have to worry about schools being tied together like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State)
I don’t think anyone else from the old Big 8 is a must.
Illinois would be another must, that you did have.
After those four there would be pros and cons to everyone else.
I was thinking there might be some old blood between Missouri and Iowa from way back. That would have potential as a border rivalry. Arkansas seems like another natural regional rival. Especially now that Anderson is coaching the Hogs. They certainly had a heck of a basketball game the other night.
LikeLike
That’s a fair way of doing it. I was thinking in terms of starting completely from scratch without considering previous affiliations. So then my criteria became: 1. contiguous conference, 2. Strong academics, 3. Strong football, 4. Strong basketball, 5. Strong recruiting grounds.
If I added history as a factor and ranked it, say, 3rd, then I guess the 12 would have to be:
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M
LSU
Vanderbilt
Still a good conference, basically trading Notre Dame, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee for Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa. Wouldn’t be that much worse for it overall. Excluding history I’d prefer Notre Dame to Nebraska, Kentucky to Kansas, Indiana to Iowa and Tennessee to Oklahoma, but factoring in history all four of those would be reversed.
LikeLike
That would be a pretty stout conference. Makes me think of the original proposed “Super Conference” from back in the 60’s. Let me look that up and see who it included and I’ll post it here somewhere. Pretty sure it had Alabama, USC, Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. It never got off the ground as I think everyone realized they would just kill each other.
LikeLike
Besides, unlike KU fans, Missouri fans are generally ok with the idea of non-conference rivalries.
LikeLike
You’re pretty much forced to, now that you’re in the SEC.
LikeLike
I’d create the Appalachian Conference.
West Virginia
Penn State
Pitt
Cincinnatti
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Kentucky
Tennessee
Clemson
Georgia
Alabama
Schools that are either located in the Appalachians, or which draw a substantial part of their fanbase from that region. I’ll admit there are a few stretches, but there aren’t 12 BCS level universities in obvious locations to choose from.
LikeLike
The Original Big 10….Duh
LikeLike
You only want Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue and Wisconsin?
LikeLike
This IU fan would go with:
–PSU
–Pitt
–Indiana
Purdue
–ND
–UK
–Illinois
–Missouri
–OSU
–Michigan
–MSU
–Wisconsin
So…..no Minnesota, Iowa, NW, Nebraska from present BIG
LikeLike
Illinois fan here.
My conference would be:
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Indiana
Purdue
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Nebraska
🙂
LikeLike
Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Penn State, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Minnesota, Missouri & Rutgers…
Iowa, Nebraska are left behind as they don’t provide enough in academics, recruiting grounds or markets. Indiana, Purdue, MSU, Northwestern double-up their present states.
LikeLike
Northwestern, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Penn, Cal, Chicago, Duke, Stanford. The Ivies go national. Don’t worry about the cost of travel. We’d be able to afford it. NU has a chance of finally making the NCAA Mens BB tournament.
LikeLike
It all depends on the rules:
Is 12 mandatory? Conferences are better with 10 teams and no CCG.
Ignoring money:
OSU, MI, IA, WI, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, MSU
All about the money:
OSU, MI, PSU, NE, UT, OU, USC, OR, UW, ND, UF, UGA, AL, LSU, FSU, TAMU
No divisions, 10 games (2 locked), CCG for the two best teams
LikeLike
In the age of super conferences I’m going to 16. The CAP (Consortium of Academic Peers):
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
Illinois
Minnesota
Stanford
Cal
UCLA
USC
Washington
Florida
Georgia
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
Pitt
UGA is a work in progress.
LikeLike
Pitt over PSU? The sanctions are definitely going to be hurt but do you think they will fall behind the Panthers?
LikeLike
Conference bylaws state – ‘do no evil’.
Northwestern could easily replace Pitt and I wouldn’t lose any sleep.
Advantages Pitt: larger enrollment, higher ceiling
Advantages NU: produces more journalists, better academics
LikeLike
FSU fan:
FSU
Florida
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
NC State
UNC
Georgia
Tennessee
Alabama
Virginia Tech
I wouldn’t be gravely disappointed for FSU to end up in the Big Ten with almost none of those teams, if and only if the ACC was being raided and was beyond saving. (And by saving, I mean beyond reach of being reasonably competitive with the power conferences.)
As I’ve said before, I like FSU’s presence in the ACC. I don’t dislike playing a few schools I didn’t like Virginia and Pitt. I could do without Wake Forest, Duke, and Syracuse. Louisville’s… okay. But those schools help prop up basketball, which is what made FSU’s victory last year in the ACC Tournament all the more meaningful.
I would want to keep affiliation with the ACC schools closest to FSU and build new rivalries with SEC schools who are closest, except for Auburn.
I think the average FSU fan would want a group of 12 like this:
FSU
Miami
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Auburn
Alabama
Clemson
South Carolina
LSU
Texas A&M
Virginia Tech
LikeLike
Lets see … I think I would take the nine schools that were playing the Buckeyes every year back when I was a teenager, so that makes OSU, that school up north, MSU, PU, IN, NW, IL, WI, MN and Iowa. And probably add my dad’s Cornhuskers and Notre Dame.
Though if Notre Dame refused to join a conference, I’d probably go with the other big independent in this part of the country, Penn State.
LikeLike
Here’s my 12 team conference with OOD rivals with a 5-1-2 schedule.
SEC WEST SEC EAST
LSU Alabama
A&M Georgia
Arkansas South Carolina
Ole Miss Tennessee
Miss State Auburn
Florida State Florida
Dropped Vandy, Kentucky & Mizzou (sorry Andy, last one in first one out) and picked up FSU.
LikeLike
If I could blow up CFB and start over, here’s my new D-IA.
Private School League (PSL) with 16 teams
East – BC, Syracuse, Duke & Miami (FL)
South – Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Tulane & Tulsa
Texas – Rice, Baylor, TCU & SMU
West – Northwestern, BYU, USC & Stanford
The West may be a little awkward with BYU, but that’s the way it works when I’m the CFB Czar.
SEC with 18 teams
West – A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss & Miss State
East – NC State, UNC, Clemson, VA Tech & South Carolina
Central – Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee & Kentucky
South – Georgia, GA Tech, Florida & Florida State
Current SEC minus Mizzou & Vandy, picks up former member GA Tech, solidifies states of Florida & South Carolina, picks up public schools in North Carolina and one in Virginia. Remains a Southern Conference.
B1G with 18 teams
East – Rutgers, UConn, Maryland, Penn State & Virginia
Central – Pitt, Ohio State, Michigan & Michigan State
North – Minnesota Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue & Indiana
West – Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa & Iowa State
Current B1G minus Northwestern, picks up AAU schools in Pitt, Iowa State, Mizzou and UVA, solidifies the DC and NY markets with UVA & UConn. Remains a mostly Northern conference with 16 AAU schools out of 18 total.
Pac -16
South – Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma & OK State
East – Kansas, K-State, Colorado & Utah
West – Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA & Cal
North – Oregon State, Oregon, Washington & Washington State
Current Pac-12 minus Stanford & USC, picks up the states of Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas in the Central Time Zone, picks up two football kings and one basketball king.
Coast to Coast to Coast Conference (CCCC) with 16 teams
big EAST – West Virginia, Cincy, Louisville & South Florida
CUSA 3.0 – Memphis, Houston, Southern Miss & UCF
WAC 2.0 – Fresno State, Nevada, Boise State & Hawaii
MWC 2.0 – San Diego State, UNLV, Colorado State & New Mexico
Independents
Notre Dame
Army
Navy
Air Force
LikeLike
Alan,
NW gets screwed on travel.
LikeLike
Andy – you could call it the Mississippi River Tributary League.
LikeLike
For a 12 team conference I’d go with this using a 5-3 conference schedule with no permenant rivals:
West: LSU, aTm, Texas, Oklahoma, Arky, Ole Miss
East: Bama, auburn, Tenn, UGA, UF, FSU
For a 16 team conference I’d go with this using a 7-2 conference schedule with no permenant rivals:
West: LSU, aTm, Texas, Oklahoma, Arky, Ole Miss, Mizzou, Kansas
East: Bama, auburn, Tenn, UGA, UF, FSU, USCe, UNC
For a 20 team conference I’d go with this playing just the 9 division games in conference (no pods):
West: TAMU, Texas, Oklahoma, OK ST, Arky, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St., Mizzou, Kansas,
East: Bama, auburn, Tenn, UGA, UF, FSU, USCe, UNC, Kentucky, Clemson
With that said, I doubt a team would make it out of the conference schedule without at least a couple of loses most years.
LikeLike
And for a 10 team conference I would go with this:
Bama, auburn, Tenn, UGA, UF, FSU, LSU, aTm, Arky, Ole Miss
LikeLike
Anyone remember the proposed “Super Conference” from teh 1960’s that never got off the ground?
Alabama, USC, Texas and Oklahoma were supposedly in talks to create a coast-to-coast conference of some of the best schools.
Only information I could find on it from a quick Google search was a few paragraphs on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconference
” (Besides)Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, and Alabama), LSU. Arkansas, Texas Tech, Ole Miss, Nebraska, UCLA, Notre Dame, and Georgia Tech were among the other teams mentioned as candidates for the conference, which would span from coast-to-coast in a time when most college athletic conferences were very localized. Big Ten powers Michigan and Ohio State were not included in this exclusive membership despite their status as elite programs”
I’d be interested to read more on it. Especially why Michigan and OSU were spefically mentioned as not being included. Too north? Too entrenched in the Big Ten?
Odd to me that Texas Tech is included. Did the Longhorns have a “Tech Problem” back in the 60s too? Of course that is 13 total schools so doubtful that all would have been included in the final version. But I wonder how college sports would look today if that had formed with everyone mentioned except say, texas tech?
LikeLike
Found this under wiki history of the P12:
“Following “pay-for-play” scandals at California, USC, UCLA and Washington, the PCC disbanded in 1959. When those four and Stanford started talking about forming a new conference, retired Admiral Thomas J. Hamilton interceded and suggested the schools consider creating a “power conference.” Nicknamed the “Airplane Conference”, the five PCC schools would have played with other major academically-oriented schools, including Army, Navy, Air Force, Notre Dame, Penn, Penn State, Duke, and Georgia Tech among others. The effort fell through when a Pentagon official vetoed the idea and the service academies backed out.[28]”
LikeLike
Okay, this is a little off topic, but we pretty much beat the hell out of B1G realignment, so a brief diversion is in order. In case you haven’t noticed the NHL is actually playing hockey these days and the league is scheduled to vote on conference realignment the week of February 25th. It sounds like the original four conference plan from 2011 is going to be tweaked to appease a few teams that have complained loudly. Rumor has it Winnipeg wants to play with it’s neighbors in Western Canada and Tampa Bay wants closer competition in it’s division, namely Carolina and Washington. And Columbus wants to play in the east. Apparently, a compromise has been reached moving a few teams around but nobody is talking yet on the record.
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/13/nhls-realignment-plan-has-been-tweaked/
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/22010/rest-easy-winnipeg-realignment-is-coming
LikeLike
It sucks.
LikeLike
balls, that is.
LikeLike
Pat,
Here’s the old plan:
Atlantic – New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Washington and Carolina
Eastern – Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo, Florida and Tampa Bay
Central – Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, St. Louis, Chicago, Minnesota, Dallas and Winnipeg
Western – Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado
—
My tweaks:
Western – Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg
Central – Nashville, St. Louis, Chicago, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Florida and Tampa Bay
Atlantic – New Jersey, Philadelphia, Boston, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Washington and Carolina
Eastern – Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo
All the teams in the Western and Central get an extra percentage of the TV deal to cover travel costs.
LikeLike
New Dude post.
http://www.sportsmancave.com/expansion-expose-big-10-bangs-the-war-drums/
Nothing too interesting really except for this
The Big 10 estimates that Georgia Tech, by partnering with Purdue and Illinois, would receive an additional $1 billion dollars in research grants over the next 10 years.
LikeLike
I like how what he states in the opening paragraph isn’t actually supported by the following quote it’s referring to. lol
LikeLike
Yeah, I also liked that he referred to DiNardo as a “Big Ten official” even though he is nothing more than a studio analyst.
I guess in Dudeland anyone on the league’s payroll is an “official”.
LikeLike
That’s another one to add to the decoder ring. We saw in a previous episode that “opening formal talks” includes tentative preliminary explorations. “Big Ten Official” means “Deposits a paycheck from the Big Ten or the Big Ten Network.” It wouldn’t be surprising if “inside source” includes “sold turf when they refurbished the campus quad and heard a rumor”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a few actual inside sources, since if you wanted to spread a rumor without your fingerprints on it, the general amplification of things under the Dude’s hands would help obscure the source.
LikeLike
frug,
GT would be partnering with a lot more schools than PU and IL. MI, PSU and WI would also be in there for sure. Of course, GT has been partnering with schools like PSU for years.
Other things from his piece:
“My Big 10 sources continue to say that FSU is engaged in talks with the Big 10 but has significant resistance from within the conference and is unlikely to receive an invitation.”
I’m not surprised. We all know the B10 takes academics seriously. Add in the distance/culture gap and I can see many presidents balking.
“FSU, in my opinion, is the most valuable football commodity in the ACC. I’m not sure how the Big 10 can reject FSU given all the benefits the Seminoles would bring to the conference.”
I agree on their value. That doesn’t make it hard to understand the B10 saying no. You just have to accept that money isn’t everything.
“The only drawback to FSU’s candidacy is the lack of AAU membership, but, given the advantages the Seminoles offer, how can the Big 10 turn them down especially when FSU has a concrete plan to obtain AAU membership?”
And this shows he doesn’t understand much about the AAU. At least 10 schools have “concrete plans” for how they’ll get into the AAU. But the AAU doesn’t want to grow, so they need several schools to get voted out first. Beyond that, the applicants need to get to at least the middle of the AAU members ranks and none of them are close.
LikeLike
Why on earth are you guys acting like “The Dude” is anything more than a bad fiction writer?
LikeLike
Because it bugs you. It’s all part of our secret anti-MO conspiracy.
LikeLike
Well ok then. As long as you admit it.
But seriously The Dude is a tool. He’s been making very specific, very wrong predictions on a weekly basis for years now. And yes, he repeatedly predicted that WVU would be invited into the SEC instead of Mizzou. He had “sources” and was “100% certain”. He’s a HUGE liar and a tool.
LikeLike
That was another WV person(s) who were predicting WV into SEC. According to the WV people, he was one of the first to say, no, WV was going to the Big 12.
LikeLike
He said it too at first, and for a pretty long time before he backtracked. He got it right only when it was extremely obvious.
LikeLike
The secret to the Dude’s ongoing audience is that almost everything he says is just on the right side of plausible. The Gerry DiNardo and Oliver Luck interviews that are the article’s centerpiece really happened. DiNardo isn’t a “Big Ten official,” but he is an employee of the Big Ten’s network, which counts for something. Compared to some of the Dude’s past articles, there is nothing in this one that’s so outlandish that you’d reject it out of hand (like B.C. to the Big Ten). In fact, some of it (like the resistance FSU faces in the Big Ten) sounds exactly right.
LikeLike
He follows rumors and reposts them. He’s developed a better filter by paying attention to the indignant comments to his articles and to what people tweet him. All he does is tell people what they want to hear. He’s a wish fulfillment factory.
LikeLike
I have been fooling around with a model to rate the economic impact of all the expansion candidates. The one surprise to me is that Duke rates a lot higher than I would have thought. Much has been written about college football driving expansion…but some interesting tv ratings from last year.
College Football on ESPNU:
415k–Virginia v Virginia Tech
287k–Maryland v Clemson
192k–Duke v Ga. Tech
College Basketball on ESPNU
381k–Clemson v Duke
365k–Elon v Duke
189k–Georgia St. v Duke
29k–Rice v Georgia Tech
College Football on ESPN
2.6M–Northwestern v Michigan
2.2M–Illinois v Ohio State
2.1M–Iowa v Michigan St.
College Basketball on ESPN
3.0M–Duke v Kentucky
2.3M–Ohio State v Duke
2.2M–Duke v N.C. State
Shocking to me that a Georgia St v Duke basketball game can draw as much as a Georgia Tech v Duke football game. Or that Elon v Duke in basketball can draw almost as much as the Va Tech- Virginia football game. Or Duke vs NC State can draw more than the Iowa v Michigan St.
When you consider the amount of inventory that Duke basketball brings, Duke can add as much economic value as schools like Virginia, Georgia Tech, Maryland, etc.
LikeLike
JB,
“When you consider the amount of inventory that Duke basketball brings, Duke can add as much economic value as schools like Virginia, Georgia Tech, Maryland, etc.”
I don’t see where you factored BTN subscriptions into the value. Duke doesn’t bring millions of cable households in at $1 per month.
LikeLike
That’s only if you think that cable boxes are the end-all and be-all of economic criteria. You also have to look at what a future TV partner would want. Let’s say for the sake of argument it is News Corp/Fox. Surely for their upcoming Fox Sports 1 network a bunch of Duke basketball games would be golden for them. Sure, it’s possible that they could do they same if Duke wound up in C-7. But why deny yourself the opportunity to bring the conference some $$$ for Fox airing some Duke Bball games?
LikeLike
Because FB is worth more than BB and every game Ohio St. and Nebraska against Duke is game they aren’t playing against each other or Wisconsin.
Plus, Duke gets you very little you wouldn’t get from UNC.
Not saying Duke doesn’t have value, but its not a clear cut financial winner like UNC or even UVA.
LikeLike
Duke is one of the best brands in college basketball and an academic powerhouse (better than most of the Big Ten). I have trouble believing the Big Ten wouldn’t be interested in Duke, assuming they were available.
But Duke is the third or fourth move in the chess game. They won’t move without North Carolina; N.C. won’t move unless the ACC is fatally undermined; and the ACC won’t be fatally undermined unless it loses at least two to four more schools.
So assuming it happens at all, the most likely scenario is that Delany gets UVA and GT, then waits for the ACC to crumble a bit more, and then makes his next move.
LikeLike
People here have a blind spot for basketball.
Duke is a very valuable property for the B1G, particularly when it comes to driving BTN subscriber fees in all the new markets its attacking. 20 Duke bball games would make a very big impact in negotiations with Cable/Satellite partners up and down the East coast.
Subscriber fees are NOT binary in-market and out-of-market.
LikeLike
thought many of you might find this Houston Chronicle article interesting with its networks comments (LHN,SECN,Fox,RSNs). ESPN President is in Houston for NBA all-star game. Actually had to close the Galleria Mall in Houston there were so many people there it exceeeded fire code (hard to imagine you could get that many people there without already occupying all the parking spots.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2013/02/espn-president-talks-about-longhorn-network-fox-sports-challenge/
LikeLike
They can still be patient another 3-4 years at least given how young the LHN is.
The SEC’s distribution in Texas will be interesting more than anything. Texas A&M + SEC fanbase should be big enough to get Houston fully at least.
I have no clue as to whether they can get Dallas with that. Their viewership numbers in Texas are pretty good though.
LikeLike
They can be patient for 20 years if they choose to. It isn’t going to break Disney/ESPN. It will contribute to the question: what exactly they are receiving for their investment, what was the primary purpose?
LikeLike
When the LHN was created, there was a line of thought (that I agree with) that said that the LHN was a way for ESPN to keep TX in the Big12 w/o having to pay other Big12 teams. Without the LHN, TX may now be in the PAC12 or doing something else.
LikeLike
I know. Just a bit of gentle ribbing of those who suggested (1) that a 24/7 single school channel was a great idea and (2) that the payment actually reflected the market value of the available tier 3 inventory. Actually, the amount UT is getting doesn’t come close to the investment ESPN is estimated to be making.
LikeLike
I think if B20 fans want to don their general’s hats, twirl their mustaches, and sway the gold frilly strings on their shoulder pads while conquering the known college-sportsverse, they’d better hope like hell for a rapid disintegration of the ACC.
I think the deadline for such a complete, and IMO foolish, conquest (which would actually basically just be a merger), is just two or three years. Right now the B1G holds a significant advantage in that their B1G Network is up and running and profitable. As the SEC Network gets off the ground and becomes more and more profitable, that advantage will diminish. Same goes for the SEC academic consortium. It’s just starting now, but over the years it will become more of a factor. With each passing year the gap between the SEC and B1G becomes less in these areas. The SEC will never pass the B1G in academics, just like the B1G will never pass the SEC in football. The B1G will also always be mostly a northern Great Lakes conference, even if you add a school from New Jersey hear and a school from Maryland there. But right now you do have some huge advantages, and some of them will diminish over time. So this is absolutely the optimal time for the B1G to strike. Every year from here on out their case gets weaker.
My prediction: breaking up the ACC will not happen quickly, if at all. Those schools are fairly happy together. The Big 12 and SEC won’t disturb the balance for anything short of FSU plus one for the Big 12, and UNC plus one for the SEC. FSU and UNC don’t want to leave. So the B1G won’t have any help. They’ll have to do all of the breaking-up themselves. Maryland was a low hanging fruit. They were not particularly well-integrated into the ACC, much like Missouri with the Big 12. Other targets are better integrated as well as more financially stable. They’ll decide that there’s no hurry and will stick together for a while. Also there will be internal resistance inside the Big Ten to move to 20. It will (rightly) be seen by many as a complete destruction of the Big Ten and the creation of some new unprecedented monstrosity with completely unknown potential consequences. As the years drag on, the B1Gs advantage will shrink. In a few years talk of B20s will die down and we’ll look at more realistic scenarios: three 12 school leagues and a couple of 16 school leagues.
LikeLike
How can you be not fully integrated when you are a founder?
How is the SECN going to alter the difference between ACC and B1G income? I don’t think there a short time limit that this difference would be significant.
You aren’t really suggesting the SEC consortium is going to approach the CIC before mid century (at the earliest)?
LikeLike
I said Maryland was like Missouri in it’s lack of full integration. Missouri helped found what would become the Big 8 more than a century ago. It was always at the eastern periphery of that league and not 100% integrated. But if anything it was more integrated than Maryland in that Missouri had strong rivalries with Kansas and to a lesser extent Nebraska and Oklahoma. Maryland’s rivalries weren’t all that strong in any direction. Of all ACC founding schools Maryland was by far the easiest to pick off.
As for the importance of the SECN, it will muddy the waters as to the obviousness of a move to the B1G. If the SECN is doing well, making tons of money, and stable, then the SEC becomes that much more of a viable option.
As for the SEC consortium, it will likely never be as big as the CIC, but if the SEC Consortium can get going and become something of a factor, then schools like UNC and Duke would have an alternative to choose from. The SEC will be able to say, no, it’s not the CIC, but it is a functional academic consortium with many of the same benefits that will grow and advance over the next few decades. At the moment the SEC Consortium isn’t much. In a few years it will be more.
Notice I’m not saying that the B1G couldn’t expand to 20 in a few years or that it will become impossible. I’m saying that it’s easier now than it will be in the future.
LikeLike
Perhaps.
I thought Missouri was fine with B8, but not so much the B12.
I agree ACC either stands or falls in the next few years, but it has nothing to do with forecasted SECN money or consortium. Research triangle not really needing too much help 🙂 . It will be a matter of deciding to stick together in currently tougher financial circumstances or jumping ship now. There aren’t really any changes likely to effect that measurement in the next decade so if you’re going to go, soon would be better. If not, settle in for the long haul.
I also hope the Obese20 doesn’t come to pass, but I do see the reasoning that makes it a not completely stupid move. Reasoning that I wouldn’t follow but understand many others would.
LikeLike
Missouri tried to join the B1G in the early 90s before the B12 started, and has had eyes on it for decades before that. The SEC was never really a point of discussion until recently, but judging by the way the state has reacted it was probably only because nobody really though of it, not because they ever would have been against it if somebody did.
LikeLike
also, ccrider, there are two separate issues I’m talking about. One, will the ACC break up? My guess is no, and yes that is independent of the SECN. Two, will the B1G expand to 18 or 20? That is related to the SECN and the SEC academic consortium. The only reason for the B1G to even be able to expand to include 20 of the top sports-playing research universities is if they all feel that there are no other decent options so they have to band together into one B1G bloated monstrosity. If there are other perfectly viable options closer to hope I’d have to think they’d take a long hard look at them before joining the B20.
LikeLike
To your second point. I don’t think waiting to join a lesser bloated academic for perhaps a similar amount of athletic money is a viable choice. The choice is between the ACC and a change. Choosing change would probably mean the B1G among the targeted schools, now or in a decade.
LikeLike
Maybe so. But UNC fans are a lot more interested in the SEC than the B1G. North Carolina has more in common with Florida than Michigan. If some of those other factors even out then the decision becomes tougher.
LikeLike
Fans don’t get a vote.
LikeLike
Are you serious? Of course they do. If not fans then at least boosters, alums, and season ticket holders, all of whom are fans. If you don’t think they’re a factor you’re fooling yourself.
LikeLike
If you are fortunate the response of fans will be taken into consideration. Far more likely is extremely wealthy donors may influence decisions. But even they only influence, they don’t decide. Even U of Nike, err, UO has made decisions Phil knight didn’t appreciate, OkSU has occasional dust ups with T Boone, and others. Most times the schools work to get the booster to support their decision/direction.
LikeLike
The only reason for the B1G to even be able to expand to include 20 of the top sports-playing research universities is if they all feel that there are no other decent options so they have to band together into one B1G bloated monstrosity.
It’s not merely a question of whether they have decent options. If the B1G is offering $20 million a year more, that’s a lot better than merely “decent.”
Ironically, a 20-team B1G is better for them than a 16-team B1G, as Delany could offer a schedule in which they’s still see most of their ex-ACC brethren a good deal of the time.
As to whether the fans get a vote, I’d say it’s a mixed bag. It is fairly obvious that many realignment moves in recent years have not been what the fans would have voted for. Have the fans ever vetoed a conference switch that a school concluded was in its financial interest?
LikeLike
Once the SEC Network gets going the SEC will offer just as much money as the B1G.
It will then become an issue of geography/cultural fit vs academics. In a post below I ran the numbers on the academic side. If the SEC Academic consortium can get going then were talking potentially a five billion dollar SEC Academic consortium with UNC and Duke, which of course wouldn’t be as high as the B1G, but might be close enough to be acceptable.
So like I said, there could be more than one viable option.
And maybe some are happy about the idea of a monster Big 18 or Big 20, but plenty wouldn’t be.
LikeLike
The SECN is 5 years behind the Big 10 network. At its current earnings, that’s $35-$40 million per school over 5 years. TV contracts are currently averaging around $21 million for B1G and $14 million for SEC. When this deal gets done, the SEC will at least get back to its pre-expansion $17 million, but its not clear how much more as more content is likely dumped into the network. And the B1G will renew its tier 1 after 2016-17. Its not likely the SEC catches up prior to the renewal of contracts in the 20’s. SEC will be ballpark. But its doubtful it will be as much.
LikeLike
“Once the SEC Network gets going the SEC will offer just as much money as the B1G.”
Possibly athletic money, maybe even probably. But it won’t match the disparity in academic $$’s, which dwarf the athletic budget.
Again, it’s not the SEC vs B1G. It’s the ACC deciding if they hold together in spite of current lower valuation, or whether change has become unavoidable. If the second opinion becomes reality then choice becomes a possibility. Think like a president, not a fan, if that time comes.
LikeLike
“Once the SEC Network gets going the SEC will offer just as much money as the B1G.”
Why is this assumed to be true? The B1G retained control of enough content so that they brought the rights to the games, Fox built the network and they basically split the revenues 50/50.
All stories about the SEC network mention some of the SEC’s ESPNU games moving to the cable network. That implies that the SEC schools did NOT retain enough game rights to fill the cable network’s schedule.
So why will ESPN go for the same 50/50 split if they are bringing more to the table than Fox did (and why would the ACC make any significant money from a cable network if they don’t own any game rights)?
LikeLike
Phil:
Each of the original 12 schools already retained one FB game each, and we don’t know for sure how the additional inventory that aTm and Missouri brought will be accounted for.
LikeLike
“Each of the original 12 schools already retained one FB game each, and we don’t know for sure how the additional inventory that aTm and Missouri brought will be accounted for.”
That’s my point. One game each for 14 teams is only one live game a weekend for the 14 week season, which is not enough to build a network on. It seems that ESPN is moving some of the least desirable games (ESPNU) from the Tier 2 contract to the new network.
Why is the SEC going to make as much money for a cable network they had to bleed ESPN’s Tier 2 deal to fill as the B1G who had all the games freely available??
Correct me if I am just forgetting the B1G having to buyback games to start the BTN.
LikeLike
You are probably correct about the 12. Many disagree with me but I contend that aTm and Missouri bring an additional 14 games to 16 games/year to a contract that has all its T1 and T2 slotted in prime spots. 2games/wk, sometimes 3 should be enough to get going on their own. This is the threat that ESPN will probably work with them over. Allowing more games, and perhaps better matchups for a significant piece of the action.
Frankly I’m surprised they seemingly aren’t following the PAC’s wholly owned model. Where will you find a more rabid fan base that will drive carriage within, and a more successful on field product that will drive carriage outside the footprint. ESPN paid last time to keep a conference network from happening, and are now willing to pay to be a part of one starting. How much clearer can it be that there is great value to be had? And all of it, not half? I may be wrong, but it seems by conferences getting in bed with their customers they are giving away dollars over concern about dimes.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
They may not have a choice. Without partnering with ESPN they might not have enough content to fill a network.
LikeLike
None of us know how much TV money the SEC and B1G will get in a few years, but I think it’s a safe bet to say there won’t be much difference between the two.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You are probably correct about the 12. Many disagree with me but I contend that aTm and Missouri bring an additional 14 games to 16 games/year to a contract that has all its T1 and T2 slotted in prime spots.”
How did those rights not get folded in when MO and TAMU started getting paid under the SEC deals? Did ESPN pay two more teams for no reason?
LikeLike
Before A&M and Mizzou joined the SEC, the conference (through ESPN) was syndicating something like 10 games a year to the cable networks FSN and CSS. The games held by individual schools add up to 12 games per year. Expansion added about 14 games per year in inventory.
That’s about 3 games per week on the new SEC cable network without yet touching the games that were previously on ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU. Of course 1) you have to decide where those added 14 games are in the weekly selection process (probably right in the middle) 2) If the SEC tries to increase the quality of games scheduled, that will result in less ‘buy’ games and more home-and-homes which will cut some of this bottom inventory.
There will probably be some games take from what used to be on the ESPN networks, but there probably won’t be more than 1 a week. ESPN will be profiting from this network as well as the conference, so they are going to want it to succeed.
LikeLike
Here’s the breakdown of televised SEC football games on various platforms prior to the additions of A&M and Mizzou.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/134288/sec-television-faq.aspx
CBS – 15
ESPN/ESPN2 – 19
ESPNU – 16
SEC Network (syndicated) – 13
FSN – 8
CSS – 6
PPV – 12
The FSN and CSS syndication agreements expire at the end of the 2013-14 seasons. That’s the reason for the SECN beginning operation at the beginning of the 2014 season.
My best guess is that the new SECN will get the FSN, CSS and new inventory created by the addition of A&M and Mizzou. The syndicated SEC Network could survive, as well as the PPV game. The SECN may also take some additional inventory from the local basketball and baseball packages. Some ESPNU games could be shipped over to the SECN as well. That move could make room for additional ACC games on the U, moving them over from ESPN3.
CBS has an exclusive 3:30 Eastern time window, so SECN games could only be broadcast during the noon and night windows.
LikeLike
@Alan – The syndicated, FSN, CSS, and PPV add up to about 3 games a week in a 13 week season. I would expect that just like the BTN there will be some overflow channels so that the SECN can show multiple games at once (for what would have been the PPV games against FCS teams). For that reason, I expect ESPN to move some, if not all, of the ESPNU games to the SECN. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the SEC does the same thing as the Big Ten did with ABC and get CBS to give up its exclusive windows.
LikeLike
@ Brian: “How did those rights not get folded in when MO and TAMU started getting paid under the SEC deals? Did ESPN pay two more teams for no reason?”
ESPN pays the conference for the right to select a certain number of games, after the broadcast networks have made thier pick. With the entrants, there are more games to choose from each week, so its been an increase in the media value of having that choice of games.
The change in conference composition triggered a renegotiation, the results of which are expected to be announced shortly. There are, however, there are rumors extant that the new terms will end up with the contract going up by an amount to restore the per school share to what it was before expansion, so it looks like it may end up “as if” ESPN had bumped up their payment to “pay two more teams”.
LikeLike
The thing to remember is that other than the 12 games held back by the schools (presumably the 12 PPV), all the existing content is owned by CBS or ESPN. ESPN also has rights related to sports other than football. Its unclear without seeing the contract, as others have said, who owns the rights to the additional games from the two new teams. So that is why ESPN definitely gets a % of the new network. They will be contributing content.
LikeLike
“How can you be not fully integrated when you are a founder?”
And yet the relative isolation of Maryland in the ACC was brought up in multiple accounts of the background to the move. Part of that is the institutional bias toward Tobacco Road. And part of it was the assymmetry in rivalries, where Maryland seemed to rank the rivalry higher than the supporters of the other school did.
(That is, in the revenue sports ~ this wouldn’t seem to apply to Maryland and Virginia in Lacrosse, for example.)
LikeLike
Sometimes, people seek complicated explanations when simple ones will do. The Maryland athletic department was practically bankrupt. That was why they took the Big Ten’s phone call. “We’re not really integrated in the ACC” was then a convenient explanation for a move that was, at its root, financially motivated. (Nevertheless, Maryland president Wallace Loh had a lot of explaining to do, to fans angry about the move.)
… part of it was the assymmetry in rivalries, where Maryland seemed to rank the rivalry higher than the supporters of the other school did.
That happens in other leagues too. Minnesota gets a much bigger kick out of beating Michigan at football (the once per decade, or so, that it happens) than Michigan does out of beating them.
Maryland thought they had a great rivalry with Duke and UNC, but to Duke and UNC, Maryland was just another league game.
LikeLike
Everyone who reported on the move said Maryland’s financial situation was the main driver. Nobody who reported on the relative isolation of Maryland in the ACC said that it was the primary driver. So saying that finances was the main driver is not really disputing any of those accounts.
Insert what m(Ag) said, here. And “Maryland thought they had a great rivalry with Duke and UNC, but to Duke and UNC, Maryland was just another league game,” is reinforcing the point, rather than contradicting it.
As far as President Loh having a lot of explaining to do to angry fans ~ not as long and hard a time as the President of UNC would have had in explaining the same move if it was UNC in the same boat. That’s part of why lots of onlookers view UNC as not likely to move unless the ACC is substantially more destabilized than it is today.
LikeLike
If Maryland was still playing Duke, UNC, and Viriginia twice every year in basketball and UNC and Virginia every year in football they would probably have a lot harder time accepting the move. Viriginia was the only one they were playing frequently any more.
LikeLike
Short memories. The B1G was competitive year-to-year with the SEC as the top fb conference most of the 90s and into the mid-00s with the Big 12 right behind. The game emphasizes speed a little more than it used to, but there hasn’t been that dramatic a change. If it was all about recruiting grounds, Notre Dame would be a Duke. They are in a basketball state.
Competitive strength of conferences is cyclical. Now academic reputations take a whole lot longer to change. And finanical situations take even longer to change, barring some fundamental change. The ACC has taken a dip relative to the rest due to the aging of the college basketball audience and increase in value of football. The cable/internet/TV changes could be a fundamental change. But most likely, the B1G will still be financial top dog. And the SEC will be 2nd. But the Pac 12 and Big 12 will be competitive financially.
I think the ACC will splinter in the next two years, or will be stable for the next 15 years or more. IMO a slow disentegration is the least likely scenario.
LikeLike
The Big 12 will be competitive T1/T2 with the other conferences naturally. For the schools that matter, Texas/OU/Kansas, they’ll have the T3 packages with Fox (or LHN-ESPN) to make up the rest of the difference.
As far as academics go, most public schools in the Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 (and Pac-12/ACC) are fairly similar as far as undergraduate rankings go. The Ivies and other top privates dominate the top 20 listings, and then the publics take up most of the next 80-120 slots. In that sense, much of the SEC is already caught up.
But when you’re talking about research funding/graduate program PhD production; that’s going to take many decades to equalize if ever.
There’s a reason the AAU membership has only changed slowly of late now that they don’t want to add more net members. Very few non-AAU BCS schools are even close to qualifying for AAU membership by the research funding metrics that matter.
LikeLike
We talk about schools like Va Tech, FSU, Georgia being competitive academically a lot on this blog.
And they are in terms of the quality of their undergraduate education. But none of them are even close to AAU membership. Va Tech and FSU are in the 90s and Georgia is below (if I recall correctly).
The latest additions were in the 30s.
LikeLike
The schools closest to joining the AAU are Wake Forest, Miami, Va Tech, NC State, Georgia, and FSU. You could also maybe add Utah to that group. Only the first two are close enough to make it in the short term. The last three or four are probably at least a decade away. Anybody not listed there will probably not get there in then next 20-30 years. Also, Kansas, Oregon, and Iowa State should probably not be AAU and will probably lose membership. Missouri, Buffalo, and Indiana are in that next tier that aren’t really in any danger now but have less room for error. Tulane and Rice are strong academically but do very little research so they might be targets for removal as well.
LikeLike
According to the AAU document that came out of Nebraska, VPI, NCSU, Georgia and FSU aren’t close. The top of the list includes Utah, UC-Santa Cruz, RPI, Wake Forest, Miami (FL), UI-Chicago, Cincinnati and Colorado St. VPI, NCSU, Georgia and FSU are well down and ranked near S. Florida, Louisville and Kentucky. If the Big 10 invites FSU, they know FSU will not be AAU in the next 20 years if ever.
LikeLike
hm, was that list actual candidates and how close they are to being invited, or just research dollars? Seems odd CSU and Utah would rank so high considering how low their undergrad rankings are. I didn’t list Santa Cruz, RPI, etc b/c they aren’t D1 schools, but yes they are probably ahead of some of the others in line.
LikeLike
Andy, the list is from Nebraska’s document in defense of their AAU membership.
It included the AAU’s actual measurement metric that is used to rank schools for membership criteria:
Click to access u-of-nebraska-aau-membership-review.pdf
(The AAU list is on page 7-8)
Georgia Tech was #31 and Boston University was tied for #37 with Dartmouth; they’re the two latest additions.
#3-30 are all AAU (that’s a full half of the AAU right there).
Basically, for a new university to enter the AAU, they have to be near the top half of the AAU already.
Utah at #49 and Miami at #59 are the only BCS schools even remotely close to AAU membership. I’m not sure though that either is extremely close yet. Ga Tech and BU were shoe ins by those metrics given that they were both right at the 50%ile range.
LikeLike
This is also why there’s more talk of schools getting kicked out of the AAU.
Nebraska and Syracuse were #109 and #105 and both are gone.
There’s still some low ranked universities in there at #94 (has medical), #87 (has medical), #83 (has medical), #81 and a few in the 70s.
That’s the bottom eighth of the AAU. Whatever school that is at #94 is in particular risk the next time they have a purge.
LikeLike
The other point to bear in mind, is that the schools above VT, FSU, Miami, et al, are not standing still. They’re all trying to move up the curve too, especially the bottom-tier AAU schools that know they’re at risk of getting booted out.
For a school like FSU to get in, they need to outperform their historical norm by a substantial margin while hoping the schools ahead of them fail to do the same.
LikeLike
@Zeek, the list you show is redacted, but an approximate list to use would be the ranking of federal research dollars.
Ranking existing AAU schools by federal research dollars to see who exactly is at risk of getting kicked out. (including only Division 1A schools)
Click to access research2011.pdf
1. Michigan (2)
2. Washington (3)
3. Wisconsin (6)
4. Minesota (6)
5. Stanford (9)
6. UCLA (10)
7. Pitt (11)
8. Duke (12)
9. UNC (13)
10. PSU (16)
11. USC (19)
12. Ohio State (20)
13. Vanderbilt (22)
14. Georgia Tech (22)
15. Texas (24)
16. Northwestern (27)
17. Illinois (32)
18. Arizona (33)
19. UC Berkely (34)
20. A&M (35)
21. Iowa (38)
22. Maryland (39)
23. Colorado (40)
24. Florida (42)
25. Virginia (44)
26. Purdue (52)
27. Michigan State (55)
28. Buffalo (56)
29. Rutgers (57)
30. Missouri (69)
31. Tulane (74)
32. Indiana (96)
33. Iowa State (83)
34. Kansas (100)
35. Oregon (109)
36. Rice (114)
I’d say if anyone is at risk of getting kicked out of the AAU it’s the bottom 10 on this list, with the bottom 5 being the most at risk.
LikeLike
wups, Iowa State should be ahead of Indiana.
LikeLike
Andy,
“@Zeek, the list you show is redacted, but an approximate list to use would be the ranking of federal research dollars.”
That would be a terrible approximation. Federal funding is only one of 8 primary metrics they use. They equally weight National Academy members, awards won and citations. More importantly, they normalize all 4 categories based on faculty size. Thus, a school with a low research total can get a high ranking in normalized funding.
Take #1 Rockefeller University for example:
Fed Exp. – 81
Nat’l Acad. – 23
Awards – 47
Citations – 52
Normed: 2, 1, 1, 1
Thus, they are ranked #1. This normalization is part of what hurt NE. The funding for their ag faculty didn’t count but those faculty were used in the normalization. Just that one factor cost them 10 spots on the list. That higher place might have been enough to keep them in the AAU. At #99, they might have survived. #94 didn’t go through a vote to be kicked out, after all.
“29. Rutgers (57)
30. Missouri (69)
31. Tulane (74)
32. Iowa State (83)
33. Indiana (96)
34. Kansas (100)
35. Oregon (109)
36. Rice (114)
I’d say if anyone is at risk of getting kicked out of the AAU it’s the bottom 10 on this list, with the bottom 5 being the most at risk.”
If this was all that mattered, then yes. Go back and normalize them by faculty size.
T – 109/1140 = $95.6k/person
R – 56.3/650 = 86.6
ISU – 96.5/1709 = 56.5
RU – 151/2844 = 53.1
OR – 61.5/1900 = 32.4
KU – 73.1/2529 = 28.9
MO – 119/4347 = 27.4
IN – 78.5/3155 = 24.9
That’s a very different list. Different schools may count their faculty differently, so don’t take these numbers as gospel. I just used the numbers from Wikipedia.
LikeLike
Rice is not at risk.
LikeLike
It is irrelevant to include Rutgers’ position in a 2011 ranking of research schools because in 2011 they didn’t control any of the UMBNJ medical school. Considering they are in the middle of taking over the majority of that asset right now, the real number for RU will be from 2014 onwards.
LikeLike
Yes, I would remove Rice, Tulane, and Rutgers from the bottom of that list.
Rutgers will get a huge boost to its numbers from the absorption of the NJ medical school system.
Rice and Tulane have great numbers when normalized.
LikeLike
You have to be careful not to confuse your personal preference with the actual facts and motivation of the parties; else, you wind up with a post like the above.
Maryland was “not particularly well integrated into the ACC”? They were one of its founding members. FSU “doesn’t want to leave”? Then why did they (along with Maryland) vote against the exit fee? It would be hard to imagine a clearer indication that they are open to better options.
You’re probably right that if the SEC Network gets off the ground, it will narrow the income disparity between them and the Big Ten. I think most people are assuming that this network will, in fact, happen. But its success will only serve to emphasize to the members of the ACC that, by standing still, they are losing money.
You are probably wrong that the SEC’s academic consortium “will become more of a factor.” The CIC was founded in 1958. Thirteen of its soon-to-be fourteen members are AAU schools. The SEC simply has no way to compete with that in the foreseeable future.
When you’ve got a conference of 15 members, as the ACC does, undermining it only requires one or two to “follow the money.” Although the ACC has plenty of options to replenish, starting with Cincinnati and UConn, every addition will be less valuable than the last school they lost, which could lead to a repetitive devolution, much like what happened to the Big East. Every departure makes it easier for the next one to leave.
It’s not quite clear from your post, whether you are saying that the ACC is safe from being raided, or whether you are merely saying that the Big Ten won’t ever get to 20 schools. Those aren’t quite the same thing. I don’t think there are six more plausible schools unless FSU is one of them, but I can imagine two or four more quite easily. It won’t necessarily happen all at once.
I think if B20 fans want to don their general’s hats, twirl their mustaches, and sway the gold frilly strings on their shoulder pads while conquering the known college-sportsverse, they’d better hope like hell for a rapid disintegration of the ACC.
The fact that we are having this discussion, does not necessarily mean that we are actually eager to see it happen.
LikeLike
I’ll respond to this with a couple of responses. First, I already addressed the “not well integrated” comment above when responding to zeek.
As far as what I’m saying, on the one hand I’m saying that I don’t think it will be easy for the Big Ten to become the Big Twenty, or even the Big Eighteen. I think there would be very little if any resistance to going to 16. After that there will be some difficulty.
Also, I’m saying that it would take quite a bit of instability to motivate UNC and Duke to jump ship. Also, I think it would be somewhat difficult for their fans and alums to accept joining a northern conference. So I think it’s a pretty heavy lift to get those two, and presumably they would need to be 17 and 18 if the Big Ten is going to 18 or 20. And I don’t think that the Big Ten can count on any help from the SEC or Big 12 in terms of further destabilization to shake those guys loose. So yes, if the Big Ten pries off a couple more ACC schools to get to 16, the ACC can backfill with UConn and Cinci. UNC and Duke will still have a great basketball league. They can still sit and wait and see what they want to do. And every year they wait the SEC will become more of a viable option for them.
I’ll get to the SEC Consortium in a few minutes.
LikeLike
I agree that UNC and Duke will be very difficult to pry loose. But if there is “very little resistance to going to 16,” apparently you’re assuming that Delany can get UVA and GT.
Well, if he gets those two, then the ACC will be categorically weaker: either it will have two fewer schools, or it will replenish with two out of three from UConn, Cincinnatti and USF, none of which are as good as the schools they’d be losing.
At some point FSU reads the handwriting and jumps to the Big Ten, Big XII, or SEC, probably taking partners with them. Now that VT is no longer tied at the hip with UVA, VT gets an SEC invite and runs.
With every move, UNC is king of an eroding kingdom. Then, Jim Delany shows them how they could earn $43 million a year, or about $20 million more than they’re getting in the ACC. UNC looks around, and realizes that the league they’re so fond of is getting nicked with a thousand cuts.
This isn’t a prediction of how it will necessarily go down, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see that it could happen.
LikeLike
Marc, I don’t think the SEC will invite anyone unless or until they get UNC. The SEC will not invite FSU unless UNC goes to the Big Ten. Then, maybe.
The Big 12 has already invited FSU. They said no. I don’t see that changing any time soon. They want the SEC or B1G, and can you blame them?
The SEC will not invite VA Tech at this point. Maybe as a backup plan if UNC goes to the B1G they might invite VA Tech plus FSU or maybe NCSU. But until then it’s not happening.
So basically you have to hope that you pry loose UVA and GT, the ACC adds UConn and Cinci, and then UNC and Duke still want to leave anyway, and that when they do leave that they don’t want to go to the SEC. Also, you have to get pretty much all 16 B1G schools on board with the crazy idea of expanding to 18 or 20 schools, which might be difficult.
I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m just saying there’s a chance this takes many years, if it happens at all. And the longer it takes, the stronger of a position the SEC will be in.
LikeLike
“At some point FSU reads the handwriting and jumps to the Big Ten, Big XII, or SEC, probably taking partners with them. Now that VT is no longer tied at the hip with UVA, VT gets an SEC invite and runs.”
There’s a big difference in this between FSU having an opportunity to move to the SEC and/or the Big Ten or FSU having in opportunity to move to the Big12. It seems likely that FSU’s preference for the ACC is strong enough that losing UVA and GTech in favor of any two out of UC, UConn and USF would not flip it. So for the FSU to the Big 12, the “at some point” lies AFTER more destabilization than just losing GTech and UVA.
Does the SEC hold out hoping to land UNC, or does it go for the pair of VTech and NC State that would likely be available if UVA and GTech have moved to the Big Ten? There’s your $64m question. If the SEC makes an offer to VTech and NC State, then UNC’s “NC State problem” has been solved, and its much more likely to listen to a pitch from the Big Ten.
Now in this, if the SEC gives up on UNC, it could also go with FSU and VTech, which would leave UNC with its NC State problem intact, but perhaps the Big12 can convince Miami, Clemson, NC State and Pitt to make the break. If the SEC takes NC State and VTech, the Big Ten might overcome academic opposition and invite UNC and FSU.
So there are various permutations, but the Big Ten taking a pair of ACC schools only seems likely to start the ball rolling if the SEC follows up with two more invitations.
LikeLike
Supposedly Slive has said that he would prefer to stay at 14 for a couple of years to allow aTm & Mizzou to fully integrate into the SEC before expanding again. But then again, he also kept saying that the SEC was satisfied to stay at 12 and wasn’t looking to go to 14, but they did. And we all know that 14 teams in a pain in the back side from a scheduling standpoint.
But with that said, I think he can afford to wait UNC out for a couple of years if needed. If it becomes apparent that they aren’t going to come to the SEC, then I think he will decide if NCST is worth the grab (if they truly will bring all of the NC markets), or would blocking off FL by taking FSU would be a better grab (I think VT gets in regardless in the situation of UNC not going to the SEC). But I think he waits until UNC makes their decision first.
LikeLike
Supposedly Slive has said that he would prefer to stay at 14 for a couple of years to allow aTm & Mizzou to fully integrate into the SEC before expanding again. But then again, he also kept saying that the SEC was satisfied to stay at 12 and wasn’t looking to go to 14, but they did.
I don’t think Slive is ever gonna tell you when he is ready to expand.
And we all know that 14 teams in a pain in the back side from a scheduling standpoint.
Do we know that? I haven’t given much thought to SEC scheduling, but Big Ten scheduling appears to get harder as schools get added.
But with that said, I think he can afford to wait UNC out for a couple of years if needed.If it becomes apparent that they aren’t going to come to the SEC, then I think he will decide if NCST is worth the grab (if they truly will bring all of the NC markets), or would blocking off FL by taking FSU would be a better grab (I think VT gets in regardless in the situation of UNC not going to the SEC).
UNC is the Kate Upton of realignment right now. They’re the ones no one in their right minds would say “no” to. Virginia Tech and N. C. State are different, because neither one is getting a Big Ten invite, so he can afford to be patient.
It is not clear to me whether he would actually feel obliged to “block” the state of Florida by taking FSU. Some have suggested this, but the case they make doesn’t sound compelling.
LikeLike
Total Research 2008 dollars
Click to access research2010.pdf
I added up the SEC’s total research budgets and the B1G’s total research budgets.
SEC: 3.793B vs B1G: 6.901B
in theory add UVA and GT to B1G: 7.681B
add UNC and Duke to SEC: 5.086B
So if the SEC Academic Consortium gets up and running as a functional entity, the SEC could point to UNC and Duke and say if you join us then the SEC consortium won’t be all that far behind the CIC and could eventually catch up over the long term.
Sure it’s not as good as being able to say that it is already the best, but if other factors are weighted in there as well then it makes this factor less of an issue.
Note, Alabama-Tuscaloosa seems to do basically no research. It seems to all go on at UAB. Same for Arkansas vs Arkansas-Little Rock. Ole Miss seems to do almost no research. So those three are total duds for this metric and bring down the SEC’s average.
Another note, the bottom 6 of the B1G and the top 9 of the SEC overlap as far as research dollars, but there are only 3 SEC schools that would really fit in with the top 8 B1G schools as far as research dollars: Vanderbilt, Florida, and Texas A&M. But add in UNC and Duke to the SEC and GT and UVA to the B1G and the top 11 SEC schools would basically fit in with the bottom 7 of the B1G in terms of research, and the top 5 SEC would fit in with the top 9 B1G. So there would be a lot more overlap. And as I showed overall the B1G’s research budget would only be about 51% bigger instead of 81% bigger, and the existence the SEC academic consortium plus the addition of 4 more AAU schools would likely lend to an increased emphasis on research among SEC member institutions, and that gap might close further. Anyway, that would be the selling point if it came down to it.
LikeLike
Andy – the main author of the report you linked above was the president of the LSU system at the time the report was released. Louisiana’s wonderboy governor recently had him fired though.
LikeLike
Andy- on the expenditure list any idea where Nebraska fell on it?
LikeLike
Click to access research2011.pdf
NE was #93 for federal research expenditures with $83.7M for 2011. In their AAU report, NE was #100 for 2005-2007 average together.
LikeLike
This post is the equivalent of Tokyo Rose broadcasting the imminent collapse of American forces in WWII.
The disparity, academically, between the SEC and B1G is FAR greater than the SEC’s football superiority. You had been go read MrSEC’s latest. He lays out in stark and accurate terms the hard truths of expansion and who will benefit most.
LikeLike
MrSEC has never impressed me.
I’m not saying what he says can’t or won’t happen. But I do think it’s far more likely that they won’t than that they will.
LikeLike
Also if you look a few inches above I laid out exactly what the academic disparity is, for better or worse.
LikeLike
And without the bowl ban OSU may well have been in the national title game this year.
The B1G is not that far away from the SEC if you consider their bowl performances this year against much higher ranked SEC opponents. Alabama is dominant, no doubt about that.
LikeLike
Didn’t the B1G go something like 2-7 in bowls and the SEC went 6-3? or maybe I’m wrong…
LikeLike
Alright, I’ll try to translate my comment in a way you can understand.
Our supposedly crappy teams were competitive against their supposedly great teams, meaning were not that far away. Much closer than your delusional claims of academic parity.
LikeLike
Hm, that’s nice. Last I saw the final rankings the SEC had teams ranked #1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 20, and the B1G had teams ranked #16 and 23. But you’re right you almost caught us!
LikeLike
And perhaps the B1G will be greater than the SEC in CFB… At least that is much more likely than your comparison in academics.
LikeLike
If you’re responding to me, I’m not sure what you mean. I said that the B1G does 81% more research than the SEC and if UNC and Duke were to join today (and UVA and GT joined the B1G) it would be more like 51%. I also said that if the SEC Academic Consortium took hold and SEC member institutions increased their research focus then they could close the gap somewhat. Not sure what there is to argue about here.
If the B1G invested more heavily into football they could catch up to the B1G somewhat in football as well. Also if they added Florida State and Notre Dame that would help.
LikeLike
I agree, I think all of this speculation of schools leaving the ACC is not going to happen, The only one that could clearly offer a significant increase of money right now is the Big 10, The SEC and Big 12 might offer slightly more but not for the hassle, unless Maryland gets to walk away relatively cheaply, than FSU might want to go, as might Miami, each have financial problems (or NCAA isssues too) but other than that, who is really all that valuable that would want to go that the Big 10 wants.
UNC and NC state share a board of Governors that I don’t see how you could get enough of a vote (19?) to pass a vote to leave the other school behind. I know I’ve been told that this is not an obstacle on here before but I really don’t see how it’s not THE obstacle. It in no way shares ANY of the state politics issues that A&M\UT has\had. Think of it this way, If A&M had had to get a vote from a board of regents that also was in charge of UT’s welfare, would the issue have ever made it out of commitee? I really don’t think so.
LikeLike
Barry Alvarez says East-West split likely in football; 9-game conference schedule optimal:
http://lacrossetribune.com/sports/college/barry-alvarez-east-west-split-likely-in-football–game/article_22c93bb5-2a72-5706-a944-8d3edcf000e3.html
There are also details on the Wisconsin athletic department budget.
LikeLike
Not much new in there from a B10 POV. I did like this bit:
“I did prefer 10 until I sat down and put a pencil to it,” he said. “I don’t know if we’d ever get seven home games (with 10), so I guess I’m leaning toward nine.
“If you go to 10, you can forget about seven home games. You better make up the difference in the TV revenue, so that’s why I like nine.”
A major drawback to a nine-game schedule is the inequity. Some teams would play five home games in a given season and others would play four.
That’s all the explanation you need for why they’ll go to 9 games. I don’t know why so many people find the concept of one division playing 5 home games and the other 4 so difficult.
If the B10 is smart, they’ll play up the crossover games and concentrate them into a few weeks. Play up the east/west rivalry aspect of it so even the bleh games take on some importance. Make the winning division the home team for the CCG (like golf, you keep the honor until it’s taken away).
LikeLike
Naturally they’ll screw it up and have 4 teams play 5 home games in one division and 3 in the other division play 5. I’m with you that I can’t understand how they don’t get how simple a fix it is to have one division play 5 and the other play 4.
LikeLike
Are you saying that where football is concerned, the Big Ten is not as smart as the ACC (which in 2013 will have its guaranteed crossover games at Atlantic Division sites and the other crossover game at Coastal sites)? I find that hard to believe.
LikeLike
I’m just joking (I hope). It’s just humorous to see them act like the answer isn’t in front of their noses as per the 9 game home/away splits.
LikeLike
fIt’s no surprise that Alvarez is looking at the bottom line in all this seeing that he has a $31.05M balloon payment coming up and an overall increase in the athletic department budget of nearly $20M.
That said, I suspect most of the athletic directors are thinking in much the same way when it comes to the bottom line. Endorsing a ten-game conference schedule at this juncture means either having two pay for play non-conference games (and none against 1-AA opponents if the B1G policy is followed across the board) in order to have seven home games a year or accepting seasons where a program has only six home games on the schedule.
Their thinking may change once the new televisions negotiations ramp up and the projected revenues streams come closer to reality. Couple that with a conference that may have 16 or more members before long and we will probably see them revisit the issue again. Also keep in mind unless the Big Ten programs opt to cancel some non-conference games for 2014/5, we won’t see a nine-game conference schedule earlier than 2016. By that time, this discussion may be moot.
I live the idea of having the conference championship game at the stadium of the higher rated team. I wish college football would do that with their 4-team playoff system as well, but that’s a move that wouldn’t work with their current corporate relationships.
I also like the idea of having the cross over games being incorporated in the middle of the season and promoted/emphasized by the conference.
I also see that Alvarez feels confident that Wisconsin will be grouped with or have annual matchups with Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota. Yet another indication of an east-west split along with Ohio State AD Gene Smith saying there was a “strong likelihood” that Michigan and OSU will be in the same division–see http://tracking.si.com/2013/02/19/ohio-state-michigan-same-big-ten-division-gene-smith/#
The question now comes down to where does Michigan State go–east or west?
If west, then MSU joins Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern.
If east, then MSU joins Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland and probably Indiana.
If teams #15 and #16 accept an invitation to join the conference this summer, they come from the ACC and the conference opts for two fixed 8-team divisions starting in the 2014 season, then UM, OSU, PSU, RU, MD and those two teams would make seven of the eight members in the east. If Michigan State stays west, then Indiana probably stays east. If MSU goes east, then Indiana and Purdue both end up in the west.
16 Team Option #1 (Two Fixed Divisions) –
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State
East : Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, +2
16 Team Option #2 (Two Fixed Divisions) –
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
East, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, +2
With nine conference games, that’s a simple 7-2 split starting in 2016. If the B1G opts not to have the cross-divisional games home-and-home, then each team will play all the others in the opposite division once in a four-year period. Since Option #2 keeps all the instate rivalries intact without created fixed cross-divisional contests, that may be the route the B1G adopts.
With an eight game conference schedule in 2014/5 (7-1), Option #1 could work for fixed divisions with fixed cross divisions opponents (Michigan-Michigan State, Indiana-Purdue) for those two years. But it also works for Option #2 as well, and it might make sense to go that route if the B1G is firm about a plan to go to nine conference games on a timetable where that starts in 2016.
LikeLike
I live the idea of having the conference championship game at the stadium of the higher rated team. I wish college football would do that with their 4-team playoff system as well, but that’s a move that wouldn’t work with their current corporate relationships.
It’s really about what makes more money. The Pac-12 puts their CCG in the stadium of the team with the best record, because they were doubtful that a neutral-site game would sell. If the Big Ten can’t fill the stadium in Indy, you could see them move to that system. I think that’s the only way they’d do it.
The playoff games are basically going to be bowl games, played in cities that have a long history of supporting that type of event. It’s also the fairest way of doing it. I mean, imagine if you’ve got Florida and Ohio State at 12-1, and it comes down to a poll vote or a committee deciding whether a game in December is played in Gainesville or Columbus.
LikeLike
How fair is that hypothetical playoff game between Florida and Ohio State if it’s played in Miami or Orlando or Tampa? Those locations are all in UF’s home state, so that would solidly be to the Gator’s advantage. You might even say the same about Atlanta.
Any committee is going to have to seed the teams anyway, correct? The plan is to pick the top four programs, rank them 1 through 4 and the playoff games at the bowl locations would have 1 versus 4 and 2 versus 3 in the semi-final games. If there’s no consideration regarding the bowl location for ranking the teams, why should it matter if the home stadiums of the higher ranked team is used? Also, if you want further motivation for having a big regular season, then hosting a playoff game at your stadium would certainly be part of it.
I do agree with you on the money angle. The Big Ten can make sure it makes its coin by having the game in Indianapolis and garnering a portion of the revenue from the luxury boxes, etc. for its corporate sponsors. They couldn’t make the same sort of arrangement if the game was at a college stadium. Can you imagine the stink that would happen if a regular season luxury box renter was shut out of his suite for a playoff game? Yikes.
But if the game is poorly attended (which is what happened last season), then perhaps they’ll reconsider it and put it back on campus. And if it’s cold, so what? It doesn’t seem to hurt the NFL playoffs very much.
LikeLike
Of course you’re right that bowl games offer an inherent advantage to the southern team. But at least those games are not on the actual home campus of either team. (They haven’t clarified exactly how the committee will work, but as they have two locations available, perhaps they’ll avoid putting teams into their home state in the opening round. There’s obviously not much they can do about the championship game.)
Any committee is going to have to seed the teams anyway, correct? The plan is to pick the top four programs, rank them 1 through 4 and the playoff games at the bowl locations would have 1 versus 4 and 2 versus 3 in the semi-final games. If there’s no consideration regarding the bowl location for ranking the teams, why should it matter if the home stadiums of the higher ranked team is used?
I chose my example quite deliberately. Two 12-1 teams from the Big Ten and SEC are obviously going to make the playoff. It is not controversial. But when a committee is voting on which team gets to play at home, suddenly it changes the whole cast of the decision. This is quite different from the pro leagues, where home field advantage is decided entirely by rules spelled out in advance, requiring no judgement or voting by anyone.
The committee’s work will be inherently controversial, but that doesn’t mean we have to exacerbate it.
And if it’s cold, so what? It doesn’t seem to hurt the NFL playoffs very much.
In the NFL, all the teams play cold weather games to some extent. In college, I’ll bet there are ACC and SEC teams full of players who have literally never in their lives played a cold-weather game.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I am not suddenly sympathetic to the SEC. Remember, I am a Big Ten fan. There is nothing I’d like more, than to see Alabama face Wisconsin in 15-degree weather. I am just pointing out what the argument would likely be. There’s no way the SEC will agree to that, and there’s no way it will be done without them on board.
LikeLike
I suppose they could opt to make sure that a team doesn’t play in its home state, but if they want to see out the game, it would make sense for one of the teams to be “local”. That’s especially true because you’re going to be splitting potential demand for tickets between two games–the semi-final and the possibility of the team showing up in the final game two weeks later. Of course, I guess you could always cover the empty seats with a tarp?
I don’t think it’s much different picking teams to be in a playoff and rating them one through four if they use campus sites or bowl sites. Why should it be a factor? Would these committee members really be worried if it’s a cold or a warm weather site? If we think they’re going to consider weather, will they also be thinking about the size of the stadium as well? Or the type of surface they’ll be playing on? How about the local practice facilities so that the visiting team can do a proper walk through? Why limit yourself to just weather as a factor for picking which team should be rated higher than the other?
I absolutely agree with you that the SEC/ACC and probably a few other conferences would not want to play at conference sites for the reason you state. I’m sure that’s why Delany’s trial balloon on this thing went nowhere. But again, they have the deck stacked in their favor now anyway in terms of where these bowls are located, so why rock the boat?
LikeLike
cutter,
“How fair is that hypothetical playoff game between Florida and Ohio State if it’s played in Miami or Orlando or Tampa? Those locations are all in UF’s home state, so that would solidly be to the Gator’s advantage. You might even say the same about Atlanta.”
The higher ranked seed is supposed to get the location advantage. So if OSU plays UF in FL, it’s because UF was ranked higher by the committee. If OSU was higher, it would get played at a neutral site if possible. The sites look to be LA, Phoenix, Dallas, NO, Atlanta and Miami. UF would only get a huge edge in Miami (and maybe Atlanta), and even there the OSU fans would turn up in droves. Bowl tie-ins will be preserved in the playoffs if possible, and giving home field advantage to the lower seed will be avoided.
LikeLike
Playing the CCG at the higher ranked team’s stadium is a terrible idea unless you’re UM or OSU. Just say no to popularity contests.
LikeLike
Why is it a horrible idea? Do you think it’d be a problem if the game was hosted in Lincoln, Nebraska or Madison, Wisconsin? What about Happy Valley or East Lansing? They’re all great college setting with big stadiums.
LikeLike
I think he means that if a “king” and a “non-king” have identical resumes, the “king” tends to have the higher ranking. For instance, in the final Sagarin computer poll, Notre Dame and Ohio State were 5th and 13th respectively, but the AP human voters ranked them 3rd and 4th.
LikeLike
correct Marc.
I’d also clarify that going by ranking allows 3rd parties to control the conference by their votes. A neutral site is 100% B1G controlled and objective to the competitors.
LikeLike
So if you are an Aggie and win a Heisman you no longer have to go to class:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/johnny-manziel-taking-only-online-courses-only-campus-233900102–ncaaf.html
All sports mgmt courses, too. Good to see A&M fit right in with the SEC. No comment from FedEx.
LikeLike
http://www.utexas.edu/ce/uex/online/
please explain how this is any different?
LikeLike
Vince Young – UT Graduate
LikeLike
Update on ACC lawsuit from the Baltimore Sun. Attorney General Gansler is making this a political feud when he probably should be hiring a NC attorney group to fight this lawsuit. Note his comments in the link
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bal-north-carolina-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-acc-suit-vs-maryland-20130218,0,5372429.story
Nemo
LikeLike
Isn’t this ultimately a question for the Supreme Court?
LikeLike
I do not think this case will go to the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
It’d have to go on appeal to get there. This was a race to file suit to determine the ‘home court’ advantage. Maryland lost the race, so they’re trying every avenue to dismiss the claims.
LikeLike
I’ve heard they are trying to get it to appeal within the MD/DC area. Since Gansler, the AG, is running for Governor that may make things more difficult than they could have been had he simply let a good law firm handle it. I’m not a lawyer so it may be a State issue involved which of course would make him responsible for its pursuit. I know he had to be involved in the decision to exit the ACC.
LikeLike
the University of Maryland is asserting sovereign immunity in its capacity as an arm of the state of Maryland so the AG is the proper authority.
LikeLike
Interesting analysis of CIC research dollars: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/b1g-expansion-dollars-research-edition
LikeLike
Seeing information like this just re-affirms my belief that Duke AND UNC will merit Big Ten invites. If BTN is making its big push as a major TV player from midwest to southeast to New England…than UNC and Duke basketball will get TV traction all winter long. Duke academics are so, so attractive to the Big Ten. Yes, football is a snoozer, but if Delany has a football powerhouse or two in mind (FSU, ND, Texas?), then taking a bottom-feeder like Duke isn’t going to dilute his product too much. (He wouldn’t scorn Duke because he’s a UNC grad, would he?!?!)
At this point, I just can’t see how 20 teams isn’t in the Big Ten’s future. No two schools make sense as 15 and 16 to just stop…
LikeLike
Maryland 247 site reporting North Carolina has Big Ten offer, Virginia on deck? See http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2013/2/19/4005512/report-north-carolina-has-big-ten-offer-virginia
LikeLike
Jeff Ermann Jeff Ermann @insidemdsports
“Big 10 talk buzzing again. #UVA being mentioned often as likely to join. Georgia Tech still in the mix. #UNC, the big domino, has an offer.”
LikeLike
UNC and VA and stop would make a lot of sense…….if UNC would go for it, which they wouldn’t…
LikeLike
The thing is, once you accept the premise of admitting UVA and UNC, you’re not going to say no to Duke. And you’re not going to want an odd number of schools, so you’re probably not going to say no to GT either.
So the only scenario where the Big Ten stops at 16 is if the next two are UVA and GT. Then, just maybe, the Carolina schools wil stick together, and without them Delany has nowhere to go, unless the presidents are willing to take FSU.
Of course, a report that UNC has a Big Ten offer is not exactly news. UNC already knows, without being invited, that they could join any conference they want. They also know that if they join the Big Ten, they can probably bring three other schools with them.
LikeLike
There seems to be a cultural dynamic between Duke, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to some degree. A couple of comments–one from GaTech’s new athletic director and another from some of the lacrosse coaches–gives me the impression that they’re a sub-group within the conference.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Virginia and Georgia Tech are #15 and #16. Between the SEC courting UNC and Duke along with the dynamics of the North Carolina Board of Governors with dual ties to Chapel Hill and North Carolina State, there are some real barriers to deal with before UNC comes to the Big Ten (either with or without Duke).
But as Mr. SEC write, the Big Ten has a unique combination of money and academics to offer any potential invitee to the conference. With universities looking at having less state support and athletic departments often losing money (and with UNC pinching pennies in its AD), you have to imagine the authorities in the state will consider it pretty closely.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t you say know to Duke, after admitting UVA and UNC? Both UVA and UNC likely increases the average revenue per school, while once UNC is in the Big Ten, adding Duke is highly unlikely to increase the average revenue per school. It would be more likely to water down revenue per school.
LikeLike
Duke’s research budget exceeds that of every Big Ten school except Michigan and Wisconsin, and athletic revenues are peanuts next to research. Even fairly small research synergies, in percentage terms, would justify the dilution of TV revenue—assuming that is true.
That dilution would probably not be very much, if any, because Duke’s basketball games are so valuable. People will watch Duke basketball vs. any opponent, much as they tune in for Notre Dame football, even when the Irish play Tulsa.
LikeLike
I agree with you cutter.
Based on the similarities in the schools’ offerings and their budgeting priorities, it seems as if UNC/UVa/Duke are a combo with Georgia Tech also being alike, when you look at their non-revenue sports.
That’s also why I don’t think we’ll ever see 16 for the Big Ten. A move to 18 is likely to be consummated before we ever actually see 16 teams take the field.
LikeLike
@ Marc, that value for Duke basketball games is why Duke is likely to add to gross revenue ~ among the school that would be making an even number, Duke would be more appealing than Pitt, which wouldn’t add any appreciable amount of value to the Tier 1 / Tier 2 rights.
But UNC+Duke has much the same problem for BTN revenue as Penn State + Pitt for the BTN or, for a hypothetical SEC Network, Florida + FSU ~ its more overlap in areas where the first already has a strong case for carriage on its own than expansion into new markets.
If Duke is a cost of getting UNC, the cost would be well worth it ~ though that may be more the case for the SEC than for the Big Ten, where from a UNC perspective, UNC+Duke would be a part of both upgrading SEC basketball from Mid-Major strength to being a Major BBall conference, and upgrading the top rungs of SEC academics so they are more or less equivalent to the top rungs of today’s ACC.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF: Obviously we’re both guessing, but I think some useful distinctions can be made.
Athletically, Pitt is not a national brand. They’re a bit like Purdue or Illinois, sometimes competitive in the revenue sports, but seldom a major part of the story, outside of their region. Academically, they’d be in the upper half of the Big Ten, but they wouldn’t be a blockbuster.
In comparison, Duke basketball is one of the best brand names in all of sports. And academically, adding Duke is almost like adding Harvard. They’re nearly that good.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
Don’t forget that Duke is big in NJ/NYC and that hoops is huge there. That can make an impact on BTN access and rates.
LikeLike
The analysis of CIC research dollars is interesting, but I suspect that it relies on a number of unwarranted assumptions. Like so many things in the expansion discussion, it’s analogous to a discussion by a group of Eskimos about the world’s best tropical beaches. Flawed premises are sure to ruin the conclusion.
In this case, one of the things I question is whether the “government influence” would be the same for private schools as public schools. Syracuse and Duke get large government influence scores, but is that realistic, given that they are private? I’ll admit that I don’t know the answer, but I certainly don’t think it’s something that can be assumed.
LikeLike
Research money to any school private or public brings jobs to a state. Duke is a small university enrollment wise, but Duke Medical Center and its surrounding satellite campuses are a large employer. Also there are many jobs associated with research (secretaries, technicians) that aren’t just school employees.
LikeLike
According to that Northwestern site, neither brings a strong enough Quidditch game and therefore receives a Nay.
LikeLike
Here’s a comical view of realignment. Hilarious.
LikeLike
I honestly can’t see any of them moving without at least three ACC partners. Once the MD situation is resolved I think you’ll see a foursome of UVA/UNC/DUKE/GT join. Followed by an offer to ND and the school of their choice (TX anyone?…naw, I didn’t think so). If they aren’t interested FSU and my eternal dark horse, the Lacrosse loving, hillbilly Harvard known as Vanderbilt.
LikeLike
At 18, you could theoretically wait ND out for decades.
20 seems like a permanent stopping point; I’m not sure the presidents have considered anything beyond 20 since 22 and 24 start to make 18-20 seem easy to pull off.
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame will ever come into the BIG. The BIG is going to 9 games. If you add Stanford, USC, and Navy, that is the entire football schedule for ND. I think they will get a sweetheart deal from the Big 12 if the ACC dies. I can only see ND entering the BIG if the Big 12 dies as well.
LikeLike
If you think that UT and OU will eventually end up in a Pac-16, then perhaps you could wait a decade or two to see what shakes out?
At 18, the Big Ten has control of all its demographics issues and won’t really have to jump to 20 quickly.
LikeLike
The ACC won’t die, it’ll just become the old Big East.
That was fine for Notre Dame once, it’ll be their purgatory forever.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21732309/cincinnati-president-sends-holiday-card-nippert-stadium-plans-to-acc-presidents
UC president sent ACC presidents holiday cards and update on plans to expand their football stadium.
LikeLike
Everything depends on FSU.
The MD-ACC lawsuit is a red herring. UVA and GT wavering.is inconsequential.
Its all about FSU. The moment FSU decides its competitive position vis-a-vis its SEC rivals is significantly enhanced by moving conferences the ACC is done.
ESPN can hold the ACC together as long as FSU stays on board. It can always cause the per school payout to be competitive with other conferences. That is pretty easy for ESPN even if the ACC gets skunked in the MD lawsuit, ESPN would just have to write a bigger check if the worst case happens on that $52MM payout.
I really don’t think money matters in this game, I think it all boils down to FSU and perception. Specifically, what is the perception of the ACC as a football conference going to be in 5 or 10 years? Living in the ACC, can FSU still sell recruits that its in the major leagues if it lives in the ACC?
If FSU decides its going to stay then they’ll circle the wagons and the ACC will live on. If FSU decides to go then the ACC will be carved up faster than a Yellowfin Tuna at the Tsukiji Market.
LikeLike
Rough number of “TV homes” as defined by Nielsen Research for 2012-13 season in conference footprints (not complete, only examines the top 115 markets – ie, markets with more than 250K TV homes):
Big Ten – over 35 million (including expanded footprint into New York (Rutgers and Big Ten alumni) and Washington, D.C. (Maryland and other Big Ten alumni)).
ACC – also over 35 million (including expanded footprint into New York (Syracuse and alumni) and Washington, D.C. (Virginia and alumni)).
SEC – 25 million (including Houston (Texas A&M)).
PAC 12 – 19 million
Big 12 – 12 million
Mountain West 7.5 million (including Denver)
Big East? Who knows? If you look at just the primary markets where the conference teams reside, the count is over 21 million TV homes. Ie, good enough for 4th place, ahead of the PAC 12 and Big 12. But the recent $20 million per year FOX offer isn’t anywhere close to PAC 12 or Big 12 money.
So, even if the ACC lost Virginia (and the 2.3 million TV homes in the DC market and the 1.7 million in the rest of Virginia) and NC and Duke (and the 2.9 million TV homes in NC), and Georgia Tech (and the 2.3 million TV homes in Atlanta) the ACC would still have 26 million TV homes in its conference footprint. That’s still more than the SEC and over 7 million more than the PAC 12. But the ACC would likely suffer backlash similar to the Big East, albeit the footprint by the ACC leftovers would be stronger than the Big East’s tenderfoot tread.
* Note also, that by adding Clemson and Florida State, the Big 12 could potentially increase its footprint by over 8 million TV homes (Florida and South Carolina), or a 67% increase. Or in other words, that would be a killing for the Big 12…but it also might be a reason Clemson and FSU balk at Big 12 expansion, unless the Big Ten triggers Armageddon.
LikeLike
Did the SEC markets also include the Kansas City & St. Louis (Mizzou)? Also it has yet to be determined if aTm brings the DFW market (not to mention any other of the TX markets).
LikeLike
A&M has enough alumni to bring a good piece of DFW. Maybe even San Antonio now. The issue in Texas is that Houston and Dallas are pro sports markets.
Pros are #1, #2 and #3
UT is #4
UH and Tech compete with A&M for #5 in Houston and DFW respectively.
LikeLike
Pingback: Marquette Wire : COLUMN: A few years in, the BIG EAST is doing fine without ESPN JS1 EN2