Conference realignment observers have been chatting about the Big Ten raiding the ACC for awhile, but there were two separate reports today from sites with fairly good track records that point to this possibly occurring sooner rather than later. InsideMDSports, which is the site that was among the first to report that Maryland was heading to the Big Ten, has Tweeted that North Carolina has an offer from former Dean Smith disciple Jim Delany and that Virginia and Georgia Tech are in the mix. Meanwhile, Mr. SEC has his own post about how UVA and Georgia Tech have spoken with the Big Ten, but there won’t be any moves until there’s clarity in the ongoing Maryland/ACC lawsuit.
As I’ve stated previously, this all jives with what I believe the Big Ten wants to do with expansion. The demographic shift to the South (both in terms of sheer population and football recruiting) has been a concern of the Big Ten for quite awhile – recall the results of the conference’s expansion study back in 2010 before they added Nebraska. UVA in particular would give the Big Ten flags on both sides of the Washington, DC metro area, which might end up being the second most important market for the conference after Chicago when all is said and done. (New York City is obviously the great white whale for college sports, but penetrating that market is going to be a long-term process for the Big Ten. DC, on the other hand, can be turned into a legit “Big Ten town” immediately with the right combo.)
UNC, as one of the most prominent brand names in college sports that can deliver its entire home state all on its own, is at or near the top of the list of both the Big Ten and SEC, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if Delany had offered his alma mater an invite years ago. However, I’ll reiterate that the Tar Heels are going to be one of the toughest nuts to crack in conference realignment (if they’re even crackable at all) since TV money alone isn’t going to sway them. The ACC culture is strong at that school and, even if there are other defections from that league, UNC alone could keep the rest of the conference together just as the presence of Texas kept the Big 12 together.
Georgia Tech is a name that is brought up in Big Ten expansion discussions fairly regularly. In a vacuum, there’s a lot to like about Georgia Tech – a great academic school in a top TV market and football recruiting area that is one of the largest destinations for Big Ten grads outside of the Midwest. The problem, though, is that the SEC rules (and likely always will rule) Atlanta. If there is a broader Southern expansion for the Big Ten (e.g. UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech and Florida State are all added to create an 18-school Big Ten), then there probably is enough of a critical mass of fans in the Atlanta market where it’s worth it to be the #2 conference there (as it’s such a strong college football market overall). I’m not a fan of it being a lone geographic outlier in the South, though, which is close to what it would be if only UVA were to be added with the Yellow Jackets.
At the same time, as someone that implored people to “think like a university president and not like a fan” when it came to conference realignment back in 2009, I’ve now come full circle in badly wanting to make sure that the Big Ten ends up with at least one more legit football power if it is going to continue expanding. Unless Notre Dame suddenly gets conference religion, the only realistic option on that front is Florida State and, by several accounts, the Seminoles are there for the taking. As I’ve stated before, Florida State hits virtually every metric that the Big Ten is looking for long-term: football power, growing population and massive TV markets. I understand better than most people about the importance of TV markets and academics to the Big Ten, yet this expansion gravy train is still ultimately fueled by football games that sports fans actually want to sit down and watch. Let’s hope that if the Big Ten actually is able to further raid the ACC (and I’ll be a skeptic of that occurring until the day that there’s an actual announcement) that Jim Delany (who I’m sure is more than open to the prospect of adding FSU) is able to remind the university presidents that there still needs to be football branding on top of collecting large metro areas and research institutions.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Washington Post)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
It does feel that things are gaining traction. Maybe the Dude did know something! Yikes!
LikeLike
Throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick, right? It’s tabloid journalism/tweeting.
LikeLike
Or as a corollary to JohnC’s colorful saying, even a broken clock is right twice a day. MHver and anyone wh cites him as a “source” are sorely lacking in credibility.
LikeLike
Emmert–
LikeLike
GO BEARS
LikeLike
Hope we grab them all.
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.
Reply
LikeLike
I do not think ESPN is willing to pay enough to keep the ACC whole. They did pay up to keep the Big XII intact, but the income disparity has grown, and even ESPN does not have the resources to keep paying substantially more for things than they are worth.
LikeLike
The idea is that ESPN would lock up ACC rights even longer, and more importantly, make sure they’re worth something by keeping Florida State onboard. Without the Seminoles, the ACC will really be devalued and ESPN’s deal is worthless.
Besides, with the Big East all but dead, there’s surely enough money to shift around.
LikeLike
Oh, I understand the purported idea. I just don’t think the math works. You can’t run a business by consistently paying far more for things than they are worth.
Without the Seminoles, the ACC will really be devalued and ESPN’s deal is worthless.
That deal almost certainly has provisions to allow it to be renegotiated or exited entirely if there is a substantial change of membership. (Besides, the ACC will survive in some form: it will become what the Big East used to be, plus Wake Forest.)
LikeLike
“You can’t run a business by consistently paying far more for things than they are worth.”
They aren’t going to lose money, perhaps their profit may be lower than they’d like. Besides, that may not be the calculation. Perhaps, as with keeping the B12 alive, the cost of not helping the ACC may be considerably higher than the cost of helping in the longer view.
LikeLike
The ACC will survive, but ESPN would be the bagholder.
The cost of paying more to Florida State and the ACC might well cost ESPN less in the long run, versus letting the Big Ten/SEC consolidate all the capital and bargain from a stronger position. This is to say nothing of the Big Ten Network, an actual competitor to ESPN.
LikeLike
I don’t know that I agree with this. FSU hurts. But there is still Miami and Virginia Tech. I saw someone who claimed to work in the ACC office (and he seemed pretty credible) say the ACC would just move on w/o FSU (but he didn’t believe they would leave). If only FSU and Louisville or Georgia Tech left, I could see the ACC surviving. Now if Clemson or Miami or VT joined FSU it would all be over. If UVA and UNC leave with or without FSU leaving, everyone will quickly head for the exits.
LikeLike
Miami’s about to have the hammer come down on them.
LikeLike
@bullett
If it leaves, its highly unlikely that FSU is going to leave by itself so its essentially a given that another of the football powers leaves with it. That is part of the calculus here.
If that were to happen the ACC as a football conference has a major issue. The schools that are left, UNC and VT for example, are going to be faced with the reality of not seriously competing for the National Championship or they will try and jump to one of the other 4 conferences that do have access to the Championship. Faced with that choice, I think anyone that can jump takes that opportunity. That is why, in my estimation, it really is FSU that holds the key to the conference’s future.
LikeLike
The schools that are left, UNC and VT for example, are going to be faced with the reality of not seriously competing for the National Championship or they will try and jump to one of the other 4 conferences that do have access to the Championship.
UNC has never so much as sniffed a national championship in football, unless you count their #3 finish in the AP poll in 1948. In the BCS era, they haven’t even concluded a season in the top 25. VT is a better football school, but has never made it to the BCS championship game; with a four-team playoff, their path gets easier.
The main issue with these schools is not competing for the national championship, but facing a perpetual disadvantage in television revenue, due to the lack of entertaining games in their league.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shephard
I don’t know when TV influence started to weigh heavily on these decisions but I do know that everything the ACC has done pursuant to conference affiliation for about the last 35 years has been pro-football.
For me that is enough evidence to suggest that at least collectively, the ACC has long viewed competing nationally in football as a priority. Individual schools may see things differently but I have a very strong suspicion that an ACC without FSU is going to look very unattractive relative to their other options for a school like UNC.
As I see it the biggest reason to stay right now is Tradition. When you consider that the denizens of Tobacco Road had to hold their noses to invite Louisville and is are now suffering from the ignominy of receiving Valentine’s Day cards from Cincinnati, well I doubt we are more than one or two steps away from those schools waving the white flag on the whole charade.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac: I totally agree that football drives everything. But it’s regular-season football and the bowl slate overall, not national championship access.
That’s why the Big Ten is the wealthiest conference, despite only 3 BCS championship game appearances (all by one school) and only one win.
LikeLike
@Marc Shephard
Its about managing risk. As soon as it is riskier to stay than it is to move, schools are going to move.
We may already be at that moment for UVA and GT, for the rest of the ACC, the tipping point is when FSU decides it can no longer stay in the ACC.
LikeLike
@Marc: FSU beat VA Tech in the BCS title game in the late 90’s.
LikeLike
Sorry…my error (re: VT).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“UNC has never so much as sniffed a national championship in football, unless you count their #3 finish in the AP poll in 1948.”
Not true. At the end of Mack Brown’s tenure, they were competing to unseat FSU and win a title. In 1997 they went 11-1 with a loss to FSU in a hyped November game and ended up #6. That’s sniffing a title to me.
“VT is a better football school, but has never made it to the BCS championship game;”
VT played FSU in the 1999 title game aka the 2000 Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
I had definitely forgotten that VT season. Leaving aside whether UNC “sniffed” the title (one can always debate what word describes a particular aberrent season), the real thrust is that 95 percent of schools are not particularly concerned with whether they’ll play for the title (a rare or entirely non-existent occurrence for most of them), but rather about predictable, recurring revenues. That is why reaching the Rose Bowl was, for so many years, far more important to most of the Big Ten presidents than instituting a playoff. And it’s why the Big Ten is so wealthy, even though 11 of its 12 teams have never made it to a BCS championship game.
LikeLike
It would be cheaper for ESPN to make a side deal with MD. Get MD to agree to the full ACC exit fee but secretly pay it for them through shell companies and back alleys.
LikeLike
A good point but perhaps unrealistic? This seems like a pretty big political issue in MD which would seem to make it unlikely a side deal like that would stay a secret. If it were to be exposed that would weaken the ACC’s case in future exit fee battles.
I still don’t think it matters. FSU has to decide this spring if it wants to stay in the ACC or not.
LikeLike
Unrealistic and probably illegal, but cheaper.
LikeLike
If there is any chance all, Jim Delany should target the Univ of Florida.
LikeLike
Opinions vary one whether the University of Florida is a zero percent change or a chance under 0.1%. But its surely too small a chance to justify investing a lot of time and effort into it.
LikeLike
Stupid. The SEC would simply pick up FSU within a nanosecond and gator fans would burn Gainesville to the ground. Of all of the insane expansion scenarios, uf to the B1G is at the top. Ain’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
You are right, if there were any chance at all. And there’s not.
LikeLike
The schools in the SEC have no reason to leave. They are just like those in the B1G – academically successful, well funded, and set with traditional rivals. The B1G has no reason to waste the time or money trying to get any of these schools to join. The B1G should actually ditch the Pac- (whatever it is now) and focus on dealing with the SEC for annual bowl games. Michigan vs. Florida, OSU vs. Alabama, Nebraska vs. Texas A&M, PSU vs. Tennessee, Wisconsin vs. LSU. I’d love to see these teams go at it on a regular basis.
LikeLike
Agree on FSU, Frank. If FSU is added (either in a Big18 or Big20), it’s fairly easy to guarantee all schools an average of 2 kings a year (and thus at least 1 king visiting your home stadium) on the schedule, which is the bare minimum that I believe is acceptable as that’s what the B10 had in the “Big 2, Little 8” days. With 18 schools, only 4 kings, and protected games, however, it’s much harder to get all schools an average of 2 kings on the schedule a year.
LikeLike
I count 5 kings in that hypothetical 18-20. Who are you not considering a king? Penn State or Nebraska? Penn State is already weathering the sanctions better than most predicted.
LikeLike
@Blapples – I think Richard is pointing out the issue of not adding another king like FSU but still going up to 18.
LikeLike
Oh, ok. I see now. Thanks.
LikeLike
How are the 80’s? i hear they are nice this time of year.
penn state has been an under performing also ran since they joined the b1g 20+ years ago. #2 in fan base, #2 in financial support, #40 in recruit rankings and a nice solid ~17th average on the field. I guess Fordham is a ‘King’ too?
LikeLike
“How are the 80′s? i hear they are nice this time of year.”
——————————–
The 80’s are great, and yes this time of year is fabulous for them. I was just listening to “I Wanna Dance with Somebody,” “Livin’ on a Prayer,” and “With or Without You” just last night. Even mixed in Madonna and Robbie Neville. Fabulous home improvement background music. I may have even heard Dexy’s Midnight Runners.
“#2 in fan base, #2 in financial support”
———————————
Even if I concede this point, which I’m not, that’s still a “king” as it puts them either ahead of Michigan or Ohio State, depending on who you are claiming as #1.
“#40 in recruit rankings and a nice solid ~17th average on the field”
———————————
What does this have to do with being a King? Kings fill stadiums pretty much regardless of recruit rankings and on the field performance. Notre Dame is a King despite being largely irrelevant for the past 25 years too, outside of last year.
” I guess Fordham is a ‘King’ too?”
——————————–
I don’t know, you didn’t list their rankings in fan base, financial support, recruitment, or on-the-field performance. Since you have access to such numbers, please share.
LikeLike
But how do you split the divisions with that group of 18?
LikeLike
No divisions.
3 (or 4) protected series.
Play the rest equally (9 or 10 conference games).
LikeLike
Adding UVA, UNC, GT and FSU?
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, OSU
E – FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PSU, MI, MSU
Lock OSU/MI and nothing else. Go to 10 games, and play an 8-2 schedule (8-1-1 for OSU and MI). No other split makes sense unless people come around on Inner/Outer.
Or try pods:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, PU, IN
E – OSU, PSU, RU, MD, IL
S – FSU, GT, UNC, UVA
Again, go to 10 games and play 8-2 except for locking OSU/MI (they play 8-1-1).
LikeLike
Richard,
Even with 4 kings it’s pretty easy to average 2 kings per team at 18 or 20. Static divisions would have at least 2 kings in each if people used their brains (somehow the B10 will fail to achieve this with only 14 teams). Pods would have 1 king in each pod.
LikeLike
I trust that Delany knows what he is doing. However, if their end game is 18-20, and they don’t add FSU, this will be a failure. It could blow up in their faces even with them.
LikeLike
Not sure how this could blow up in their faces. The only (plausible) scenario where they don’t make more money is if the cable sports bubble has burst by 2016, but if they could happen even if they stay put.
LikeLike
The original schools could get unhappy about not playing each other often enough. The TV deal could be less than expected. You could see a group splitting off. I think if they go to 20 it happens. May take 20 or 30 years, but split happens. Just too difficult to keep that type of group together when some of you never see each other except at the conference meetings.
Every other conference that’s gone to 16 or higher has quickly split. You have differing objectives, differing cultures, differing finances, differing values, differing geography.
And everyone has a lot fewer conference titles.
LikeLike
Yep, bullet nailed it. I was also referencing the fact that if you go from 12 team to 18 or 20 without adding AT LEAST one king then you are seriously harming your on-field product and killing your SOS for the new playoff.
LikeLike
If the presidents prefer to have Duke as #18 instead of Florida State, you can whine all you want. It won’t change anything.
LikeLike
While UNC/UVA/UMD/Rutgers are far from football powers, I think they have had reasonable successes the past decade. GaTech is probably a notch above those 4. But Duke is far below. FSU together WITH Duke might be palatable for all parties though.
One more spot left then…hmm…who could that BE?
LikeLike
Using the WAC experience to predict the future is probably going to miss the mark.
LikeLike
You’re talking about some pretty unlikely scenarios.
The original schools could get unhappy about not playing each other often enough.
I think they’ve been talking about this for a long time. Whether we like the idea or not, it’s unlikely that they failed to realize this.
Just too difficult to keep that type of group together when some of you never see each other except at the conference meetings.
That’s why I think they would adopt a schedule where everyone plays everyone reasonably often; rather than a schedule where you’ve got “old Big Ten” and “new Big Ten,” and some schools don’t play each other for years at a time.
Every other conference that’s gone to 16 or higher has quickly split.
There aren’t a lot of conferences that have gone to 16, so to say “they’ve all quickly split” is a pretty meaningless statement.
LikeLike
Southern Conference twice (SEC and ACC came out of it), Great Northwest, Lone Star, WAC, Big East. Not exactly meaningless.
Missouri Valley hasn’t gone to 16, but it overexpanded twice and disentegrated (Big 8 formed from it and much of the original CUSA was in MVC in late 60s/early 70s and left). In the early 70s MVC moved to 12 and they were talking about it as the first superconference. With Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, New Mexico St., St. Louis, Drake, Bradley and others, it was a basketball powerhouse at the time. Most of the schools left shortly thereafter.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think they’ve been talking about this for a long time. Whether we like the idea or not, it’s unlikely that they failed to realize this.”
If the B10 has shown anything lately, it’s that they don’t understand their own fans. Division names, moving OSU/MI, adding RU and MD, etc. If they press hard enough, the fans will revolt and they won’t see it coming. Ratings, attendance and donations will all drop and the COPC will wonder why. They aren’t normal people and they don’t understand regular people very well.
LikeLike
Anything above 14 is effectively 2 conferences even with 10 conference games but the powers in the league know that. Schools only leave conferences for one reason – money. Even a 20 team league is viable as long as the bottom doesn’t fall out of ESPN/Fox television contracts.
As a Buckeye fan I’d be ok with an Eastern Division of Rutgers/Va/Maryland/NC/GaTech/PSU/Mich/OSU/Ind. While I’d miss games vs Iowa I wouldn’t be that broken up about it. I’d bet the fans of most teams would adjust faster than you think.
LikeLike
I would never accept that division. I’ll stop watching OSU before I watch those division games.
LikeLike
Which is why “pods” can work better going forward for a mega-conference, not divisions. I don’t want to see my PSU play in the weak part of ACC (no VaTech, Miami, or FSU). I’ve grown accustomed to most of the Big Ten schools. Even I agree with Brian’s sentiment as a loyal OSU fan.
But even if PSU got put in a pod with a few ACC schools, the knowledge that their Out-of-pod games would include various Big Ten schools would make me happy.
LikeLike
Fricking Indiana? Only two other actual Big Ten teams in the conference and you want us to be stuck with fricking Indiana?
This is the kind of alignment that inspires people speculating on expansion to play around with some varient of the WAC’s quads system ~ the realization that in the name of expansion, the Buckeyes might end up being flogged off to the all new ACC-Plus, essentially leaving the Big Ten as such, but being allowed to keep using the brand.
If that’s the alignment, then feel free to put Purdue in the East with Fricking Indiana and swap the Buckeyes to the west. Sure the locked game with TSUN means we wouldn’t play Penn State as much, which would upset the bean counters, but as for me, it was a nice couple of decades having Penn State in the Big Ten as such, be seeing you in the the occasional “Big Ten Branded” OOD game. as well as whenever we might happen to meet the ACC-Plus division champion in the “Big Ten Branded” Championship Game.
LikeLike
The original schools could get unhappy about not playing each other often enough.
If you grow large enough the original schools can play each other as often as they do now.
The TV deal could be less than expected.
As I noted above, that could happen anyways.
Just too difficult to keep that type of group together when some of you never see each other except at the conference meetings.
They would still play in BB and other sports.
Plus, as long as they are all making more money working together than they would split it wouldn’t matter.
Every other conference that’s gone to 16 or higher has quickly split. You have differing objectives, differing cultures, differing finances, differing values, differing geography.
They would all have the same objective; represent the school and make as much money as possible. Their cultures and values of the proposed schools is the same as the current schools (they’re all elite research universities that care about the academic side of athletic alignment). Geography doesn’t matter much in modern college athletics and there are already massive financial disparities in the Big Ten (look at the budgets of tOSU and Northwestern) and it has created any issues.
LikeLike
There’s only one Northwestern. Now.
Its easier to deal with the money with 10 or 12 than if there are 20. There’s also diminishing returns. There are only 3 time slots a day, so you are televising opposite yourself. You slice up your audience smaller and smaller. They are trying to expand with schools that mostly don’t have a great football pedigree, so its doubtful UVA, UNC, Duke and GT expand the audience enough.
LikeLike
There’s only one Northwestern. Now.
And?
There’s also diminishing returns.
That I agree with, if for no other reason than you have to split the CCG revenue more ways. That said, diminishing returns doesn’t automatically mean you lose money.
There are only 3 time slots a day, so you are televising opposite yourself. You slice up your audience smaller and smaller.
That’s what regionalized coverage is for.
They are trying to expand with schools that mostly don’t have a great football pedigree, so its doubtful UVA, UNC, Duke and GT expand the audience enough.
I would have agreed with you 6 months ago, but if the Big Ten is convinced it can turn a profit on Rutgers I don’t see any reason why those schools would be losers.
LikeLike
bullet,
Maybe they count on these new schools not adding much to FB. The FB TV slots are mostly full but they can add a lot of quality programming for winter and spring. When they add a good FB game, great. Otherwise throw it on BTN7 for the locals to watch.
LikeLike
Boiler up!
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
UNC and UVA are the schools
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
It’s very easy to be hung up on things like “4 super conferences” or nice round conference numbers like 16 and 20…or to complain about losing traditional rivalries. We all want to make this fit in an easy to digest bucket or label, but at the end of the day, I think that this is about the conference CEO looking for “acquisitions” to increase the overall value of the business and increase the return to the “owners” (I.e. the b1G schools). Just as banks and airlines are consolidating, conferences will as well. When identifying potential targets, market size, acedemics, institutional fit, culture, are all considered…just like they are considered when businesses merge.
I can see a scenario in which the b1G takes BC, UVA, GT, UNC, Duke, FSU, Vandy and Miami..maybe even Florida….then looks west to Kansas and possibly Oklahoma and Texas. Why not grow to 25 or 30 teams and own content that will have interest nationally and rival the NCAA. Forget about competing with the SEC, this is about making a play for the dollars going to the NCAA for national tournaments, sponsorships, media rights. Etc. The research dollars, TV rights dollars, etc will be huge.
LikeLike
You are substantially overvaluing Boston College. As SEC-oriented as Atlanta is, Georgia Tech would have far more impact in that market than BC would in metro Boston.
LikeLike
Never forget. The substantial majority of schools’ revenues are NOT from TV. Over-expansion may put the rest at risk.
LikeLike
The substantial majority of schools’ revenues are NOT from TV.
That is only partly true. It is accurate for schools like Texas and Florida, but for schools like Northwestern TV money makes up close to half their athletic budget.
LikeLike
And I’ll add that even schools where TV money doesn’t make up an actual majority of the AD budget at many it will still be the single largest contributor.
LikeLike
Vandy and UF aren’t leaving the SEC. That’s as bad as saying OSU will leave for the SEC.
LikeLike
you had 4 kings, a couple queens, and an already nationwide presence/revenue model, with 12 schools.
it almost appears as if the B10 conference is acting as a separate entity from the legacy schools that made it up. (or should i say, the B10 conference and News Corp).
if with their blessing, then i see that as a big mistake on the part of the legacy schools.
as the conference gets larger, conference revenues get larger, and the conference as a whole and commissioner gain power. (and News Corp gains rights and revenues, without ever having to win a bid).
but that doesn’t mean the legacy schools are better off, financially or otherwise, when everything is broken down per school
unless an added school or set of schools could move the B10’s national meter, not just their region, proportionally more than the added shares of the pie they will take, (which they can’t), the legacy B10 schools will be worse off financially than had they stayed at 12,
and take a big hit on the sovereignty front as well.
whether the B10 stays with a similar rights model as the current Disney one, for future higher tier rights,
or pursues a sub fee based one, as with BTN and current lower tier rights,
regardless, with either scenario, it’s difficult to see how expansion benefits the legacy schools more than it hurts them.
LikeLike
“unless an added school or set of schools could move the B10′s national meter, not just their region, proportionally more than the added shares of the pie they will take, (which they can’t), the legacy B10 schools will be worse off financially than had they stayed at 12, …”
The ‘not just their region’ is not a useful filter here ~ UVA, UNC and FSU would each carry more than their own weight, even if they add up their numbers in different ways. Tier1 broadcast network rights may be the most lucrative per football game, but in deals with split broadcast/cable rights, the Tier2 cable rights have been more total, and the strong regional appeal moves the needle on value to cable networks. And as far as the BTN income, its regional appeal that matters the most.
OTOH, add GTech and Duke as a pair to reach 16, and yes, the ten legacy Big Ten schools and the two more established entrants might be worse off than without adding them. Either GTech or Duke are “even” schools, to take one or three adds and make them an even two or four.
LikeLike
“The ‘not just their region’ is not a useful filter here ~ UVA, UNC and FSU would each carry more than their own weight, even if they add up their numbers in different ways. Tier1 broadcast network rights may be the most lucrative per football game, but in deals with split broadcast/cable rights, the Tier2 cable rights have been more total, and the strong regional appeal moves the needle on value to cable networks. And as far as the BTN income, its regional appeal that matters the most”.
flat not true, neither UVA, nor UNC, nor UMd, nor RU, carry their own weight by moving their state to within the footprint. (and spare me the RU flipping NYC, even with YES, fairy tale).
do the math, they don’t even come close to covering.
and FSU can barely cover, if and only if it could flip the entire state of Fla to paying “in footprint” BTN fees.
and highly unlikely that FSU can flip the entire state of Fla, or even most of it. (nor could GT flip much of Ga).
especially considering that Disney and the SEC are planning to launch an SEC Network.
and BTN revenues have not yet surpassed tier 1 revenues. (not that it would matter).
if they do in the near future, it will be a short lived phenomena that will cease when the tier 1 rights are redone in a few yrs.
LikeLike
skeptic,
“flat not true, neither UVA, nor UNC, nor UMd, nor RU, carry their own weight by moving their state to within the footprint. (and spare me the RU flipping NYC, even with YES, fairy tale).
do the math, they don’t even come close to covering.”
1 cable household = $1/mo = $12/year
85% of all households have cable/satellite/whatever
Thus, 1 household equals $10 per year.
Click to access Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
NJ = 3.2M households = $32M
MD = 2.2M = $22M = $23.3M with half of DC
DC = 0.27M = $2.7M
VA = 3.1M = $31M = $32.3M with half of DC
NC = 3.8M = $38M
That’s a rough estimate of just their value to the BTN from subscription fees, half of which the B10 gets. Then there is advertising revenue. Then there is the increase in the tier 1 package values due to the larger footprint and any improvement in the inventory. Then there is the value of increased inventory for the BTN. Then there is the CIC value. Then there is increased bowl/playoff money. Then there is increased NCAA tournament shares.
Tell me again how none of these schools come close to covering, please.
LikeLike
And its not either/or ~ value is cumulative. Its quite possible for UNC to only cover half of its weight with BTN revenues, only cover half of its weight with the value football adds to Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights, and only cover half of its weight with the incremental value it brings to Tier 2 Big Ten basketball … and still more than cover its weight.
For UNC, it seems likely to more than carry its weight with expected incremental value for BTN revenues and incremental value for Big Ten basketball Tier 2 rights … any extra value in Tier 2 football contracts would be gravy.
Remember that with the BTN, the Big Ten is not getting a rights payment, it is getting a share of net revenues, and a substantial portion of fixed costs for a 12 school BTN are common to a 16 or 18 team BTN. Since its past break-even, a substantial share of its incremental gross revenue will be incremental net revenue.
LikeLike
@skeptic: do the math, they don’t even come close to covering.
Jim Delany has a full-time professional staff doing the math. You’re a hobbyist on a fan message board. Whose math do you think I believe?
LikeLike
The math in acquisitions is to verify the decision, to disprove it if it is really bad or to renegotiate price. Acquisitions are essentially done by the instinct of the leaders. And all the math is based on assumptions which can get tilted based on what decision the leaders want. Sometimes the leaders don’t care what the math says. There’s either a strong instinctive feeling that its right or its simply ego.
In the B1G’s case, its based on TV consultants giving them guesses on what will happen in a rapidly changing industry. The Big East is one conference that has guessed horribly wrong.
You certainly can be justified in having more faith in Delany’s crew than a message board poster, but if you have blind faith that Delany’s crew is getting it right, you obviously don’t have any experience in how acquisitions really work.
LikeLike
@bullet: I do not have blind faith in Delany’s math (and by the way, I have done quite a few acquisitions and know how they work). But @skeptic didn’t give any math at all. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and Delany at least has one eye, if not more.
LikeLike
I disagree, skeptic. FSU by itself might not deliver the state of Florida, but don’t forget about all the B1G alumni in the state. FSU fans + B1G alumni will deliver the state for the BTN.
LikeLike
Florida is a state of 19m people. It is not NECESSARY for FSU to deliver the whole state for FSU to more than carry its weight. Plus FSU adds value as a national brand in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 contract negotiations.
LikeLike
Pingback: Big Ten Expansion, ACC Contraction? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
What is the point of being in a ‘conference’ of 18 or 20 teams? Here, we’re talking about 9- or 10- team divisions, meaning 8- or 9- games a season simply against your division, which is what you used to play against a conference. In an 8-game division schedule, how many games do you play against the other division?
If we’re putting Florida State, UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, and Georgia Tech in the Big Ten East, they’re joining Maryland, Rutgers, and who else? Ohio State and Penn State? Meaning the rest of the B1G just lost Ohio State and Penn State?
I’m a West Coast guy, so this isn’t making much sense to me, logistically. And in the bigger scheme of things, if that goes down, then what happens to the other conferences? Grant of Rights means the Big XII doesn’t change except to add, meaning the PAC doesn’t have anyone to add; ACC doesn’t disappear but becomes the new Big East; SEC takes whomever they deem desirable remaining from the ACC? Not sure what the end game is to this yet.
LikeLike
At this point, conference expansion is less about logistics and more about property value. So the Big Ten is expanding so they have more inventory to sell out to television partners and their own network. Nothing else. Delaney and the rest of the conference leadership don’t appear to be concerned with how well institutions “fit,” or how easily the league can continue to function. I’d think the end game for the B1G (and possibly the SEC too) would be to expand to the size of two conferences, allowing an easier path for at least one team to get to the playoff. That way, they get paid and continue to grow their respective footprint.
This doesn’t seem like the cleanest way to do all this, but without starting from scratch, that’s really not an option.
LikeLike
What is the point of being in a ‘conference’ of 18 or 20 teams? Here, we’re talking about 9- or 10- team divisions, meaning 8- or 9- games a season simply against your division, which is what you used to play against a conference. In an 8-game division schedule, how many games do you play against the other division?
I think everyone agrees that once you get to 18-20 teams, you no longer have static divisions, because even with 10 conference games, you’d hardly ever see the other half of the league. It would really be more like two leagues with a scheduling deal.
So at 18-20, you’d either re-shuffle the divisions every year or two, or get the rule abolished that requires you to have divisions at all. Some way or other, they’d arrange it so that everyone plays everyone with acceptable frequency.
This is not an argument in favor of 18-20, just explaining how it could work.
LikeLike
“It would really be more like two leagues with a scheduling deal.”
Almost. Difference being you have control and don’t have to depend on the whims of another conference (see: B1G/PAC alliance).
LikeLike
But you really don’t have control. The invaders are already inside the gates. With an alliance you have to work with the other guys, but internally you have a lot more flexibility.
LikeLike
Not sure what the end game is to this yet.
The end game is actually pretty clear and has been for (at least) two years; increasing consolidation of power by the top conferences leading to the top 64-80 schools breaking away from the present NCAA structure (at least in FB and MBB) and uniting (at least loosely) into a “single super conference”.
LikeLike
What isn’t clear, is exactly how and when it happens.
LikeLike
You’re assuming
1. Divisions.
2. 8 conference games (almost certain to be more).
LikeLike
“If we’re putting Florida State, UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, and Georgia Tech in the Big Ten East, they’re joining Maryland, Rutgers, and who else? Ohio State and Penn State? Meaning the rest of the B1G just lost Ohio State and Penn State?”
Michael gets it.
LikeLike
Nah, Michael (and you) aren’t willing to think outside the box.
No divisions are required.
LikeLike
Yes, there you have in a nutshell the argument for eastern and western anchor groups and two swing groups in the middle ~ unlike static divisions, it guarantees that “the rest of the Big Ten” either gets OSU and Penn State annually, or else OSU and Penn State in alternating home and home cycles.
LikeLike
It’s very easy to be hung up on things like “4 super conferences” or nice round conference numbers like 16 and 20…or to complain about losing traditional rivalries. We all want to make this fit in an easy to digest bucket or label, but at the end of the day, I think that this is about the conference CEO looking for “acquisitions” to increase the overall value of the business and increase the return to the “owners” (I.e. the b1G schools). Just as banks and airlines are consolidating, conferences will as well. When identifying potential targets, market size, acedemics, institutional fit, culture, are all considered…just like they are considered when businesses merge.
I can see a scenario in which the b1G takes BC, UVA, GT, UNC, Duke, FSU, Vandy and Miami..maybe even Florida….then looks west to Kansas and possibly Oklahoma and Texas. Why not grow to 25 or 30 teams and own content that will have interest nationally and rival the NCAA. Forget about competing with the SEC, this is about making a play for the dollars going to the NCAA for national tournaments, sponsorships, media rights. Etc. The research dollars, TV rights dollars, etc will be huge.
LikeLike
I agree with your sentiments but the list of teams isn’t realistic. No team is going to leave the SEC and the B1G won’t take private schools like BC, Duke, or Miami or poor academic schools that add little value like Kansas and Oklahoma. The NC/Va/GaTech moves are to lock up the North East and they can do by taking a few schools from the ACC. The Big 12 and SEC will do the rest leaving the remaining North East football schools without a home. This will mean in 20 years schools like Syracuse and Boston College will be as relevant as Princeton in football as their product on the field slowly slides to become the equivalent of AAA in baseball.
LikeLike
Duke is a reasonable possibility even though it is a private school. They’re a legit basketball king which means they probably carry their own weight in BTN revenue potential enough to justify adding them alongside UNC (higher $ rates in North Carolina markets and up/down the coast).
LikeLike
Because its basketball that they are a power in, they likely don’t carry ALL of their own weight, but they carry some of their own weight, and so could be reasonably be expected to pair up with ANY of UVA, UNC or FSU as a pair that would more than carry its own weight.
LikeLike
Don’t forget the value of tournament credits. They’re worth about $250k per year for 6 years, and you earn 1 for every tournament game except the NCG.
Credits for Duke:
2012 – 1
2011 – 3
2010 – 5
2009 – 3
2008 – 2
2007 – 1
2006 – 3
2005 – 3
2004 – 4
2003 – 3
Average = 2.8/year
Value = $4.2M/year
Add the increase in the tier 1 hoops deal, the value to the BTN of all those hoops games and non-revenue sports (lacrosse, etc), as well as increased BTN subscriptions in NYC. Now add CIC value. How sure are you that they don’t carry their weight?
LikeLike
@ Brian: As far as the CIC, I’m talking about carrying their weight in terms of conference payout ~ the CIC is one substantial reason why the Big Ten could well prefer them despite diluting the conference payout.
As far as NCAA units, yes, that’s certainly part of why Duke would be expected increase gross revenue, although probably not an increment in gross revenue equal to their conference payout (though past performance is no guarantee of future returns, yadda, yadda, yadda).
The concentration of media value in the NCAA tournament is pretty much why Duke doesn’t carry their own weight. They surely would carry their own weight in terms of general media value, but the majority of college basketball media value is diverted to fund other things (including subsidizing football via the NCAA athletic scholarship subsidy). If, to take one scenario, the big schools forced concessions on NCAA tournament income in return for not breaking big time college football out of the NCAA, those NCAA units could easily double or tiple, and the massive weight given to football in conference realignment would give way to a greater balance between football and basketball.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“@ Brian: As far as the CIC, I’m talking about carrying their weight in terms of conference payout ~ the CIC is one substantial reason why the Big Ten could well prefer them despite diluting the conference payout.”
Fair enough. I’m just saying there are multiple ways to carry your weight overall. IN adds value via hoops, NW through academics and non-revenue sports, etc. Duke is NW with IN’s hoops. If you don’t think Duke can pay their own way, what about the current 14 members? How many of them would you say carry their own weight?
LikeLike
@Brian
Actually, to be honest Northwestern doesn’t carry their own weight (at least financially). They clearly being subsidized by the other 11 schools.
As for the others? Purdue and Minnesota definitely benefit more from being in a conference with OSU and UM than the vice-versa, but the public schools all bring more to the table than they take away.
LikeLike
That sounds like B12 talk…
LikeLike
@ccrider
It’s true of all major conferences. The SEC schools are subsidizing Vandy and MSU, the ACC is subsidizing Wake and possibly BC, the PAC is subsidizing Wazzu and probably Oregon St and the Big XII is subsidizing ISU, Baylor and TTU.
LikeLike
frug,
“Actually, to be honest Northwestern doesn’t carry their own weight (at least financially).”
Even after considering academics and their value to the CIC? Are you accounting for the games they host against the bigger names that boost the value of the inventory?
“As for the others? Purdue and Minnesota definitely benefit more from being in a conference with OSU and UM than the vice-versa, but the public schools all bring more to the table than they take away.”
How does PU carry their weight but Duke doesn’t? IU brings all the IN homes to the BTN by itself. Duke is a hoops king, PU isn’t. Duke is better in research. Where is the edge for PU? Their mediocre football? How does that bring value?
LikeLike
Frug:
Perhaps i read denegration where there was none? Yes, in any conference that engages in any sharing of income those in the lower half are being perhaps subsidized, definitely assisted, by those above. But if you believe that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts then even the “bottom” schools are contributing to everyone’s increase (even the top).
LikeLike
@Brian
I never said Duke wouldn’t carry their weight. They would be at least a break even number.
Yes, Northwestern contributes to the CIC, but Nothwestern’s academic value isn’t nearly as far ahead of the rest of the Big Ten (especially at the graduate level) as their athletic value is behind. And if the Big Ten just wanted more inventory they could have got far more value by swapping NU for someone like Missouri or Kansas who would deliver new markets and draw more national attention.
Now, that said, I am not in way, shape or form suggesting the Big Ten should dump Northwestern. At most they cost the other schools $1 million each and that is no where near enough money to throw away 115 years of tradition.
@ccrider
I’m not denigrating Northwestern, and I certainly don’t think that the Big Ten would be better off dumping them.
As for your greater point, I do believe that, generally speaking, there is strength in numbers and (overall) the whole is greater than the sum of the parts when it comes to athletic conferences, but that doesn’t mean some parts aren’t still dragging down the rest of the conference. Wazzu (for example) continues to sell home games despite the fact the PAC banned schools like Oregon and USC from playing in one off neutral site games, even though the net effect of both actions is the same (the conference loses broadcast rights to a game so one school can pocket a check).
To put it in sabremetric terms, every conference has a “replacement level” which would be the amount of value a random “scrub level” school (say the most valuable school that would join without hesitation) and anything below that would be subsidized. For the PAC (again as an example) the scrub level school would probably be UNLV, and it is safe to say the PAC would make more money by swapping WSU for UNLV.
Again, if I don’t mean to denigrate any schools (and if any Northwestern alums like Richard want to chime in, I’m happy to hear what they have to say) but that’s how I see it.
LikeLike
Just stop. If the B1G cease to be Midwestern, then I cease to care about it. AN Ohio State schedule full of Maryland, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and whatever else south of the Mason-Dixon, before New Years (or before the B1G season) has zero interest to me.
The rivalries are what make it compelling. These are already in danger and we need a decade at least to absorb Rutgers and Maryland. Dipping south of DC is a huge mistake, and will dilute the product even more.
LikeLike
Maybe we should just let the Big Ten expand and grab everyone. Then arrange the divisions within the 64-team league to look like the major conferences used to. Problem solved?
LikeLike
Then what’s the damn point?
LikeLike
Has there ever really been much of a point to all this beyond “money?”
LikeLike
Yes, before the idea of cable subscriber fees turned this into a rent seeking expedition, expansion was about adding big-time programs that people wanted to watch.
It’s a crazy world when Oklahoma and Florida State are left waiting in line while Rutgers and Maryland are let inside.
LikeLike
Yeah, crazy. Academics, research, and demographics meaning something? Bahh!
LikeLike
It’s a crazy world when Oklahoma and Florida State are left waiting in line while Rutgers and Maryland are let inside.
Were this the SEC, you’d be right. But we’re talkin’ Big Ten, where prowess at King Football won’t necessarily allow you to pass scrutiny at the door.
LikeLike
@metatron
It’s not a quest for subscriber fees that is keeping FSU and OU on the outside, it’s academics and conference politics.
LikeLike
Keeping the $$$’s?
LikeLike
If the B1G cease to be Midwestern, then I cease to care about it.
I think Jim Delany is willing to lose you, if he gets the whole state of North Carolina in return.
LikeLike
Which he wouldn’t, and it’ll be far more that stuart that this league looses.
LikeLike
More importantly, the fans he drives off will probably be vehemently anti-B10, not just neutral. They take every opportunity to bad mouth the product, try to convince others not to watch or support it, etc. In exchange, you get lukewarm fans that mostly prefer hoops and aren’t really committed to the B10. You need a pretty high ratio of gains to losses to make that work.
LikeLike
Sounds a lot like SEC fans !
LikeLike
That type of anti-publicity hasn’t really hurt the SEC.
LikeLike
Matt,
I think he means that the former B10 fans would become like SEC fans in their anti-B10 sentiments. That has had an impact on the B10.
LikeLike
The rivalries are what make it compelling. These are already in danger and we need a decade at least to absorb Rutgers and Maryland.
Ironically, the best way to preserve traditional rivalries would be more expansion.
If the Big Ten went to 22 they could just stick PSU with Rutgers and the ACC schools and then split into Midwestern and Atlantic divisions.
LikeLike
That is what’s going to happen, except it will be 20 with Michigan/Penn State going east.
The Dude is in crisis mode now that his unimpeachable ‘B1G source’ has told him
UVA/UNC/GT/FSU is a done deal by 2017. This news hit him so hard he had to go on a bike ride to clear his head. That guy REALLY want’s FSU in the B12
LikeLike
Nah. If the Big Ten gets those four the ACC will crumble and the Big Ten will grab ND and someone else and toss them both in the Atlantic division.
LikeLike
Huh? You still have to have two from the (pre-Rutger/MD) B1G go east in a 20 team conference. It’ll be PSU and UM.
LikeLike
Whoops. Did the mental math wrong.
LikeLike
“The Dude is in crisis mode now that his unimpeachable ‘B1G source’ has told him
UVA/UNC/GT/FSU is a done deal by 2017. ”
Remember to use your Dude Decoder Ring: an unimpeachable Big Ten source telling him those four is a done deal translates into normal human speak into an impeachable source with some connection to the Big Ten telling him that there is a faction of the Big Ten that wants UVA/UNC/GTech/FSU.
(Hell, if I were a Big Ten “insider” I’d put my hand up to be added to that faction.)
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
You could preserve rivalries by putting Ohio State in the West and locking the game with Michigan. If, after that game those two would otherwise play again in the conference championship, the loser of that game gets skipped in favor of whatever team is next in line. Should add a bit of interest to The Game.
LikeLike
Pingback: Maryland and Rutgers to join Big Ten? - Page 3
While “there won’t be any moves until there’s clarity in the ongoing Maryland/ACC lawsuit”, the reality is that it won’t be official until the last possible moment that teams need to give the ACC notice of the move. Even if MD wins its lawsuit with the ACC, it will still likely have to pay something. As long as the ACC withholds money from the schools leaving, no one is going to want to trigger that withholding until the last possible moment. Schools will try to minimize the time between when ACC payments end and B1G payments begin.
LikeLike
what people seem to be forgetting is that if Maryland wins the lawsuit against the ACC, then expect Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St. and maybe Iowa St. to challenge and sue over the GOR….Texas barely kept the Big 12 together and it’s far more unstable than the ACC…..and if anybody thinks that the Pac 12 is just going to sit idly by is mistaken….the Pac 12 covets and wants the Oklahoma schools and the Pac 12 isn’t going to expand with MWC/Conf.-USA teams as leftovers……and UNC and UVa ain’t going anywhere……
LikeLike
Why the heck would those B12 schools sue over the GOR? Those schools wants to be in the B12, and the GOR is what holds it together. Iowa State, KSU, or OkSU wouldn’t challenge the GOR in a million years.
The P12 could have had both OK schools a couple years ago and turned them down.
LikeLike
“the Pac 12 covets and wants the Oklahoma schools”
Then whey did the Pac 12 tell them “Thank you but no thank you” only a couple of years ago?
LikeLike
if Maryland wins the lawsuit against the ACC, then expect Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St. and maybe Iowa St. to challenge and sue over the GOR….
Those schools wanted the GOR. Kansas, I think, is the only one of them that might—I stress, might—move if otherwise not constrained.
You need to bear in mind the basis of the Maryland lawsuit: that the exit fee is punitive. No one has suggested that the GOR is punitive. If it could be invalidated, which I doubt, it would have to be on another legal theory, and I am not sure what that would be.
LikeLike
Go BLUE!
LikeLike
Pingback: Is My School an Expansion Target? A Handy Guide to Conference Realignment | Atlantic Coast Convos
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Well played Indiana, we still have the better Tom.
Go State!
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Will Miami getting slammed by NCAA change ACC poaching scenarios?
LikeLike
Doubtful. Miami has already absorbed many of the penalties (2 year bowl ban, some scholarship restrictions). Unless they get hit worse than PSU, they’ll be OK soon.
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
Big win for Mizzou tonight over the Gators. We finally have all our guys healthy.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-recruiting-changes-shrink-nus-sphere-of-influence#husker-recruiting-changes-shrink-nu-s-sphere-of-influence
Great article out of Omaha by Dirk Chatelain. It pretty much shows why the Big Ten is going for a major East Coast grab.
LikeLike
Not a big fan of Dirk. Here’s another perspective with a good interactive graphic.
http://www.cornnation.com/2013/2/19/4003606/the-500-mile-radius-an-even-greater-obstacle-for-nebraska-football
LikeLike
I don’t think the two takes necessarily disagree, although the Corn Nation article correctly points out that Dirk’s approach might come off as too narrow minded in that Nebraska is simply going to where the talent is in terms of recruiting rather than trying to mine its backyard as hard as it did in Osborne’s days.
Still, I think both confirm the reasons why the Big Ten is going for a major East Coast grab. That’s where the future recruits and students are.
LikeLike
TM,
I have a couple of issues with that article.
First, it assumes that a 500 mile radius applies to all schools. NE can have one that big because it’s a king. Lesser programs have no pull that far away. Also, many schools don’t need a radius that big. Miami can do just fine recruiting in a 50 mile radius. Besides, a staff can only deal with so many recruits. Schools in a hotbed like TX or FL actually don’t want a huge radius like that.
Second, the circle is a dumb plan anyway. It doesn’t account for geography, population distribution or the locations of other schools. A more realistic area would be all of MT, WY, CO, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO, WI and IL as the core grounds, with NE dominant in all but the B10 states. OK, CA, TX, OH and FL should be recruited selectively. I didn’t add much population for the core, but I did add area. The population comes from the other areas.
Third, it normalized the recruits. Per capita data is not useful here. It should just be the total number of recruits in the area.
LikeLike
Is it possible that the rating source is pro south and all the players ratings are bogas ?
LikeLike
There’s a definite concern that players in other regions are getting overlooked as Southern players get far more attention by recruiting services.
But it’s also a feedback loop; as major programs like Ohio State and Michigan as well as programs in the Southwest and West go to the South for players, that effect will strengthen.
LikeLike
In other Mizzou news, Frank Haith recieved a notice of allegations from the NCAA tonight, but no charges of unethical conduct, thus no potential for show cause, so he will continue to be Mizzou’s coach. Looks like it will finally be over soon. That investigation went on for 2 years.
LikeLike
Jim Delaney would be the big winner in all of this. Fans across the states in the ACC would be the losers, and I’m pretty sure a sizable number of fans across B1G country would feel at a loss, too.
LikeLike
I think Delany drove the bus on Nebraska.
The more recent East Coast strategy is being more driven by the presidents.
It intrigued me more than anything when Loh said that Maryland was approached two years ago at AAU meetings by the Big Ten presidents. I’m pretty sure that was at their own direction rather than Delany.
This grab at 4 more AAUs on the East Coast seems more like a Big Ten president’s dream scenario than Delany’s master plan.
LikeLike
What makes you think they are mutually exclusive? This notion, perpetuated by a few on here, that the Presidents and Delany are natural adversaries in this process is not born out by the comments of Gee, Brandon and other B1G figures. In fact, they all seem to be on the same page. The primary driving force in expansion is the BTN. A successful BTN benefits everyone from the Presidents down to the fans. Couple this with the fact that all but one of the expansion candidates are academic/research powerhouses and I see little room for disagreement.
FSU’s lack of AAU status could potentially be a point of contention, but unlike many, I think the Presidents are pragmatic and far-sighted enough to see the enormous benefits of having Florida in the footprint.
LikeLike
I’m not saying they’re adversaries.
I think Delany and the presidents have all been on board in both directions; I’m just saying that I think Delany was more of a driving force with Nebraska whereas the presidents are more of a driving force with Maryland/Rutgers and expansion into the Southeast.
LikeLike
This notion, perpetuated by a few on here, that the Presidents and Delany are natural adversaries in this process is not born out by the comments of Gee, Brandon and other B1G figures. In fact, they all seem to be on the same page.
Delany is the presidents’ employee. He serves at their pleasure. Naturally, they are all on the same page.
I think some of us believe that if Delany had unconstrained freedom to act, he would have no hesitation to add FSU, but the presidents may need some convincing. This does not mean they are adversaries, only that they come to this with slightly different perspectives.
LikeLike
SIAP
An attempt at quantifying CIC expansion.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/b1g-expansion-dollars-research-edition
LikeLike
The most interesting part of this story is the part that the AAU plays in it since we don’t really know how definite a factor that is.
But it’d be interesting to see a Big Ten with 18 or 19 AAU members (minus Nebraska plus UChicago and JHU as CIC members).
That’d give the Big Ten schools almost an entire third of the organization’s membership.
LikeLike
Also, based on the numbers we’ve seen, there’s a reasonable possibility that Indiana is one of the bottom 4 schools in the AAU by AAU metrics (one of those 4 in the 80s or 90s) along with possibly Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, and Oregon.
That’d be an interesting debate the next time they try to shrink the membership.
LikeLike
Poor Steven Bench. Thrown into the “wolves” of Virginia as a freshman. I thought it was an Illinois picture at first….
LikeLike
Frank,
This is probably a decent time to revisit the VT versus FSU discussion.
Academics
Click to access research2011.pdf
2009 Federal Expenditures
VT – #58, $148.4M
FSU – #71, $117.3M
2009 Total Research
VT – #41, $396.7M
FSU – #93, $195.2M
VT – #32 Public research school according to CMUP
FSU – #44
—
NE’s AAU report:
VT – #91
FSU #94
—
The net result is that VT is a better school from the B10’s POV, but still non-AAU so a reach.
Athletics
Football:
FSU is a new king, VT is a prince
Stadiums:
VT – 65,632
FSU – 82,300
Hoops:
Nothing special from either
Director’s Cup (2012, 2011, 2010):
FSU – #5, 9, 5
VT – #35, 45, 38
Niche sports of interest:
VT – wrestling, W lacrosse, M hockey (club)
FSU – sand volleyball
FSU is better here, especially for FB but overall as well. VT fits better in terms of their sports, though.
Other
Population:
FL – 19.3M (6.4M per AQ school)
VA – 8.2M (4.1M)
VA + DC – 8.8M (4.4M)
Geography:
VT
1. Would lock up DC
2. Splits the state with UVA
3. Contiguous
4. Kind of out of the way to get to
FSU
1. Only contiguous if VT/UVA, UNC and GT get added, too
2. Splits the state with SEC and ACC potentially
3. Would help solidify GA if GT was in (south GA is big on FSU)
4. Kind of out of the way to get to
Culture:
VT – southern/military/Appalachian
FSU – southern
Summary
It depends how you weight the various factors. FSU brings more athletically (FB king, recruiting, etc) but VT is better academically. VT is closer to the current footprint and more culturally similar to the rest of the B10 than FSU. FSU would be isolated unless GT also joins. VT would double up in VA for the B10 presumably, but that may be necessary for BTN purposes. Adding VT assures the B10 of the SEC not getting into VA.
FSU is the more lucrative choice for the B10, but VT is better for the CIC. I don’t know if either will get serious consideration, but I think both should.
LikeLike
FSU is the more lucrative choice for the B10, but VT is better for the CIC. I don’t know if either will get serious consideration, but I think both should.
The difference is, that if you’ve got UVA, the marginal value of VT isn’t great. FSU adds a whole state that they won’t otherwise have.
VT is better academically, but still not a school that the CIC would lust to have, by any means. If you’re going to add a school for non-academic reasons, you might as well add the best one athletically.
(There is probably a better measure of fan support than state population divided by the number of AQ schools in the state, but I don’t know what it is offhand.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The difference is, that if you’ve got UVA, the marginal value of VT isn’t great.”
That’s if you have UVA, and I did note that. We actually don’t know their marginal value, though. Where will UVA get the BTN on at full price versus where would UVA and VT get it on at full price? How much does their research add to the CIC? How much does their FB prowess add to the value of TV deals over not having them? All of that is up in the air.
“FSU adds a whole state that they won’t otherwise have.”
Does it? Or does it only get on in parts of the state? Or is it everywhere but not at full price?
“VT is better academically, but still not a school that the CIC would lust to have, by any means.”
Also a point I noted.
“If you’re going to add a school for non-academic reasons, you might as well add the best one athletically.”
You also skipped the cultural and geographic issues. Those have to be a factor. Another possible factor would be keeping the SEC out of VA. All of that has to be taken into account.
“(There is probably a better measure of fan support than state population divided by the number of AQ schools in the state, but I don’t know what it is offhand.)”
It would probably involve ratings, but those are hard to find. I presented both ways to view it (whole state or partial state) because I know some people prefer each approach.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Mess Beyond Miami
add
LikeLike
What’s everybody’s opinion on the final number: 16, 18, or 20. 16 works for four 4 team groups rotated into 2 divisions or 2 divisions outright in a 9 game schedule. Everybody would play each other at least once in a four year period. 20 works into four 5 team groups as well with everyone playing each other once in a 3 year period. Not sure how 18 works with a 9 game schedule. I guess you could do three 6 team groups but then you would need a conference semifinal. 2 conferences of 9 teams at 9 games doesnt work as you wouldn’t play everybody in the other conference at least once in a 4 yr period. It almost has to be 16 or 20 for scheduling purposes, but I doubt they would add that many teams so quick, but I can’t see them just adding ony 2 ACC teams and leaving valuable properties for other conferences to grab.
LikeLike
I think that, to them, scheduling is a second-order problem. It won’t be determinative of whether they add zero, two, four, or six more schools. I think they are agreed in principle to add up to six more, provided they are the right six (as they define them). I also think they are prepared to wait at 14, 16, or 18 for a considerable period of time, if the schools they want aren’t available.
I am inclined to disagree that 20 is easier to schedule than 18. The more you add, the harder it gets. On the one hand, if you’re the Big Ten, you want “everyone to play everyone” reasonably often. You don’t want schools on islands that aren’t integrated with the rest of the conference. But the more schools you have, the harder it is achieve that while also preserving annual (or nearly annual) games that fans want.
Bear in mind, basketball scheduling is a big deal too. Just like football, it gets harder the more teams you add.
LikeLike
Bear in mind, basketball scheduling is a big deal too. Just like football, it gets harder the more teams you add.
And once you get beyond 18 members (technically 19, but no one will stop at that number), you can’t play an 18-game conference schedule without not playing somebody. And I doubt the Big Ten, or any major conference, really wants to play a 20-game basketball schedule.
LikeLike
I think four 5 team divisions are easy to schedule for both football and basketball. Rotating division so you play the 4 teams in your division plus the 5 from another for a total of 9 games in football. Everybody will play each other once every 3 years. In basketball, play your division mates twice for 8 games, and two other divisions for 10 games for a total of 18. Everybody would play each other every other year at least. Yes you would play everybody every year but every other year isn’t terrible.
LikeLike
…four 5 team divisions are easy to schedule…
Depends on your definition of “easy”. For instance, it’s pretty obvious that Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa would be together. But whomever you choose for the fifth in their group would be separated from a partner it normally plays annually, and in your system would see its mate only one year in three.
LikeLike
It all depends on who is added, but your right that rivalries could be ruin. If Kansas is in the final six, you could go:
Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa
OSU, Michigan, Msu, Northwestern, Illinois
PSU, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland
UVA,UNC, Gt, Duke, FSU.
PSU/OSU is the only rivalry broken up. If ND joins instead of Duke, you could drop UMD with the other ACC schools and put the Irish with PSU to make up for the lost rivalry. Until we know who the teams are, it’s hard to say how many rivalries are lost and whether it really matters.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey: I agree that you can put together a tolerable pod rotation if Kansas is one of the teams. I don’t think it’s the best system, but it doesn’t have a fatal flaw that immediately disqualifies it. The trouble is, there aren’t any good Kansas rumors right now. If Delany is talking to them, it’s the world’s best-kept secret.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shephard ~ Given the logistics of cross-over games between 5 team groups, in a 10 game conference schedule, OSU could have PSU as one of the two cross division games played two years on and two years off.
Individual rotations should be with three schools to have every school played over a three years period ~ three schools CAN be played with an individual rotation because of the way that Home and Away slots in for a 3-school cycle~ call them 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3:
2.1H, 3.1A
2.1A, 3.2H
2.2H, 3.3A
2.2A, 3.1H
2.1H, 3.2A
2.2A, 3.3H
… so rotations of two or four schools should be full two year Home and Away series, but rotations of three schools may be individual Home or Away once through then the reverse the next three years.
If Illinois plays Indiana and Purdue 2on/2off, OSU plays Penn State and Purdue 2on/2off, the 2on/2off ring might be:
IL – IN / Purdue
OSU – Purdue / PSU
TSUN – PSU / MD
NW – MD / Rutgers
MSU – Rutgers / IN
LikeLike
@Psuhockey ~ now cut off Kansas, which is not happening in this decade, and cut the next ACC raid(s) to either 4 or 2&2, and you have the 4/5/5/4 alignment.
LikeLike
I agree with Marc that the scheduling issue is not a major priority for conference expansion.
The primary issue for the conference is expansion of the CIC research consortium. In terms of revenue to the universities, this far outstrips the amount of money surrounding what the athletic departments generate and spend.
The secondary issue is making the athletic departments as financially self-sufficient as possible. In that regard, the main driver will be what optimizes the upcoming television contract negotiations that are due to take place in three years’ time.
I suspect the conference is also concerned with how the perceive the future for college athletics is going to shake out. If the B1G leadership is convinced there will be some sort of contraction within the ranks of Division 1-A in concert with a change in the relationship between the larger conferences and the NCAA, then they could be positioning themselves for that as well.
As far as scheduling is concerned, the B1G could go to two fixed 8-team divisions and have each team play the other at least once in a four year period if they opt not to have home-and-home games for cross-divisional play. This assumes a nine game conference schedule.
If a pod system is utilized for a 16-team conference, then four 4-team pods would allow the teams in the B1G to play one another at least twice in a four-year period with a nine game conference schedule and with home-and-home series.
If a pod system is utilized for a 20-team conference, the four 5-team pods would allow the teams in the B1G to play one another at least twice in a six-year period with a nine game conference schedule and with home-and-home series. Without the home and home series setup, this could be done in three years. That would mean changing the divisional line up annually rather than bi-annually, and that may be a pretty confusing approach for the fans and media.
Frank’s post illustrates some of the thinking here, i.e., that the conference still intends to expand and that the ACC is the conference where the invitees are likely to come given the demographics, the nature of the institutions in terms of academics/research and because the B1G is in a position to give them a markedly better deal from the position of money and through the CIC. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech all seem to form a subset within the ACC culturally and they are the four schools that are identified as likely candidates. Florida State is non-AAU, but it does help to a large degree on the athletic/Big Ten Network/television negotiation side of the ledger. That brings the B1G to 19 members.
Which program is #20? Notre Dame would probably be the best choice if they were willing to join. From a research/AAU standpoint, Pittsburgh would also be a good choice, but perhaps less so in terms of what they would bring to the athletic department finances part of the equation.
We’ll see what happens. The timetable for all this happening is driven in part by when the television negotiations are due to take place. The question here is this–does the B1G need to have the expanded conference “in place” before, in or shortly after 2016? It may also be driven by what other conferences do, particularly since the SEC is planning on launching its network early in 2014.
LikeLike
With 18 its 4/5/5/4 or 5/4/4/5, with the middle two swapping between the outside two every second year.
West: WI, MN, IA, UNL
North: NW, IL, MSU, TSUN, OSU
East: PSU, IN, PU, MD, Rutgers
South: UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU
With 10 conference games, the groups of 4 play their cross-division games against each other, either with one locked cross-group rival and the other three in an individual rotation over three years, or in two pairs of home and away series.
The groups of 5 play two teams cross group in home and away series and three teams in a single game rotation across three years, which completes a home and away series across six years.
LikeLike
Unless it’s 6/3/3/6.
LikeLike
I really can’t see them going past 18, for many of the reasons some others have posted. They claim scheduling is secondary, and maybe it is, but at some point you aren’t really a conference, you are your own league. In football, I can’t see them playing more than 9 conference games in the regular season, and even getting there will be a fight. So, if they’re going to insist on some form of protected, crossover games, then you can have no more than 8 teams in your division (as you have to play a divisional round robin to stage a CCG, though you could change the divisions annually like a pod system suggests).
They’d have to go to 10 conference games annually to go beyond 18 teams. Given that the schools just nixed a 9 game conference schedule at some point in the past year, I really doubt they’d go past 18 teams unless they really, really want are available. Those would be UNC, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Virginia. Some other combination that included Duke, Virginia Tech, or Clemson I think would be considered if it forced one or more of the above to jump ship.
If they do go with some form of Pod based system, can we all agree that geographically based names are the best? Your divisions every year would be something like NorthSouth, NorthWest, SouthEast, etc. After 2 years of the current format, I still don’t know without using Google which division each school is in.
LikeLike
On top of that, you pretty much preclude the possibility of further expansion. Do you take Duke, Georgia Tech, FSU and Miami and skip on the possbility of ever getting Notre Dame?
LikeLike
ND ain’t ever coming, and the B1G would be better off by moving on.
LikeLike
I think they have…and with a vengeance.
LikeLike
I no longer think the big will ever ask ND. They should prob pair up with Texas,you know birds of a feather.
LikeLike
Do you take Duke, Georgia Tech, FSU and Miami and foreclose the possibility of every getting Notre Dame? If you want those four, then sure. The questions there are whether you DO want those four, and whether you’ve shaken up the ACC enough to pry UVA and UNC loose, only to pry them loose for another conference. Duke, Georgia Tech and Miami would all stand behind UVA and UNC in desirability as adds to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I was assuming UVA and UNC were 15 and 16.
LikeLike
If you were able to get UVA and UNC at 15 and 16, then it would be a question of whether FSU could pass muster. FSU plus a pair that would have more appealing academics ~ Duke or GTech ~ would be expected to be a payout-increasing expansion. I have a hard time seeing the Big Ten invite Miami, and GTech+Duke seems like a payout-diluting add.
If UVA+UNC were AVAILABLE as a pair, I’d be awful tempted to not pick the fight over FSU, take the home run and call it a game.
LikeLike
I agree that the numbers probably don’t work for Duke/GT. Beyond that, I don’t think Duke would be a first mover. It would move either with, or after, UNC. Whatever may be the probability of UNC moving, Duke (on its own) has to be less.
If UVA+UNC were AVAILABLE as a pair, I’d be awful tempted to not pick the fight over FSU, take the home run and call it a game.
We don’t know how close (or far away) FSU is. If there’s majority support, but lacking one or two votes, would I continue to push? Yes, I think so. From a competitiveness standpoint, if you accept the premise of expansion, then I think you want another king, and FSU is the only one on the board.
LikeLike
From recent discussion, getting to nine seems to be much closer to a done deal than a tough fight, and that is driven by the expansion to 14.
LikeLike
gregenstein,
“In football, I can’t see them playing more than 9 conference games in the regular season, and even getting there will be a fight.”
Um, they’ve agreed to at least 9 already and seriously considered 10. That’s with only 14 teams.
“Given that the schools just nixed a 9 game conference schedule at some point in the past year,”
More recently they apparently agreed to 9+ starting in 2016 just like before.
“If they do go with some form of Pod based system, can we all agree that geographically based names are the best?”
No. They must choose 4 elitist buzzwords that all start with the same letter and gives no clues as to which school is where.
LikeLike
I got it:
Power
Passion
Pride
Pseudo-Intellectuals
LikeLike
Marc:
Agree on the need for 12th game, but that was an all D1 season length rule change. It had nothing (necessarily) to do with deciding conference championships.
Disagree on B12 CCG “problems”. The rule functioned perfectly. 1: It is the conference that determines how to tiebreak for division championships. 2: The possibility exists for the top 6 teams to be in the same division in any year. It is the conference that create divisions that makes that this more or less likely, and it isn’t the NCAA’s responsibility to alter rules to compensate when things don’t go as hoped.
LikeLike
Elitist buzzwords it is!! jj’s suggestion is as good as any.
I missed the news about 9 conference games becoming more likely, so that changes the discussion a bit. To me, though, they’d still have to go to 10 games to have than 18 teams just because of the protected-crossover games. If they ever get to the point where that is eliminated, then I think 20 is possible.
LikeLike
gregenstein,
“Elitist buzzwords it is!! jj’s suggestion is as good as any.”
I’m leaning towards using Latin words.
“I missed the news about 9 conference games becoming more likely, so that changes the discussion a bit.”
Fair enough. Nobody catches all the news.
“To me, though, they’d still have to go to 10 games to have than 18 teams just because of the protected-crossover games.”
Since they considered 10 this time, I think they will make that jump if they go beyond 16. Even at 16 they might do it. As for protected games, we don’t know what they have in mind. At minimum, they’ll protect the one major rivalry they split (MI/MSU or IN/PU). They may also lock 1 game for everyone else, but I don’t think they will. Locking MD and RU with someone isn’t right. Everyone in the west should get equal east coast access in my opinion. Also, at 16 or beyond the split may allow for no locked rivals being needed.
If they insist on locked games, I’d go:
NE/PSU
WI/MD
IA/PU
MN/IN
NW/RU
IL/OSU
MSU/MI
or
NE/PSU
WI/MSU
IA/MD
MN/MI
NW/RU
IL/OSU
PU/IN
9 games, 14 teams:
1 locked = 6 in division x 100% + 1 locked x 100% + 6 rotating x 33%
0 locked = 6 in division x 100% + 7 rotating x 43%
The difference is roughly 1 game per decade against each of those 6 rotating teams (going from 4.3 to 3.3) in exchange for 6 more games against that locked team.
“If they ever get to the point where that is eliminated, then I think 20 is possible.”
9 games, 16 teams:
1 locked = 7 in division x 100% + 1 locked x 100% + 7 rotating x 14%
0 locked = 7 in division x 100% + 8 rotating x 25%
10 games, 16 teams:
1 locked = 7 in division x 100% + 1 locked x 100% + 7 rotating x 29%
0 locked = 7 in division x 100% + 8 rotating x 38%
9 games, 18 teams:
1 locked = 8 in division x 100% + 1 locked x 100% + 8 rotating x 0%
0 locked = 8 in division x 100% + 9 rotating x 11%
10 games, 18 teams:
1 locked = 8 in division x 100% + 1 locked x 100% + 8 rotating x 13%
0 locked = 8 in division x 100% + 9 rotating x 22%
You really need pods or no divisions for 16+.
LikeLike
Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water!
Just let me state that I’m not in favor of conference that big. While 16 seems roughly managable, you are basically at what I would consider the point of diminishing returns. Not in the fiscal sense, as I’m sure there’s facts somewhere to prove certain schools added past 16 still make money. Just that it wouldn’t feel like a conference. Even at 14 and 16 it’s starting to feel like a conglomorate.
I really don’t want to see locked games anymore though, and I like the idea of pods as it gives the schedule more variety. 16 teams, 10 conference games, 4 pods, and 1 “locked” crossover I think is where this is headed in the relatively near future. Whether that causes mass ACC chaos is unknown, but I don’t think there will be further expansion without Virginia.
LikeLike
I like the idea of pods as it gives the schedule more variety. 16 teams, 10 conference games, 4 pods, and 1 “locked” crossover I think is where this is headed in the relatively near future.
Once you’ve made the baby step from static divisions to static pods, the next step is to have nothing static at all, aside from those rivalries that are deemed mandatory to protect every year. Every pod arrangement I’ve seen protects more than is really needed, because in most of the believable expansion scenarios, the league doesn’t really align itself in neat four-team groupings that preserve historical or geographic affinities. In most of the proposed alignments, at least one team is thrown in with three others with whom it shares no affinity, because the math requires equal-size pods.
LikeLike
Logic says if you can decide first and second in a non fixed format then you can decide first and the competitive reason/justification, the necessity of an extra (13th) game is gone.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: Logic says if you can decide first and second in a non fixed format then you can decide first and the competitive reason/justification, the necessity of an extra (13th) game is gone.
I totally agree with you, but there was no competitive necessity for the 12th regular-season game either (nor for the 11th, nor for the 10th); yet, they approved it. Nor does the 13th game, in the manner now operated, always produce the most satisfactory competitive result, e.g., the Big XII in 1999 and 2008.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: [I think you inadvertently replied in the wrong place, but I’m putting my comments here to keep the discussion together.]
I mentioned the 12th regular season game, merely to point out that not every rules change needs to be driven by a competitive necessity. Neither of us is a party to the rulemaking process, but I don’t think every proposal is greeted with: “Sorry, unless you can prove you really need that, we aren’t giving it to you.” We are in a deregulatory climate right now, and many schools are openly and publicly challenging the NCAA’s value.
The limit on the number of games is meant to ensure a proper balance between athletics and academics. The fact is, every FBS conference with at least 12 teams is playing a CCG. Altering the rule (to eliminate the requirement of divisions) would have no bearing on the number of games played. It would simply give conferences the discretion to decide for themselves which two teams are eligible, any way they choose. Whether it would produce better, worse, or just the same results, ought to be left up to those who would be most affected by the decision, i.e., the leagues.
Obviously, there still need to be rules, but for the life of me I cannot imagine how any university president could think their school or their student-athletes would be harmed by this. Either s/he comes from a league that wants to use the more liberalized rule. Or s/he comes from a league that does not, in which case it simply doesn’t affect them at all, as the decision lies wholly within a league and affects no one outside of it.
The only conceivable reason I can think of for maintaing the rule as written, is the paternalistic view that a bunch of centrally-managed bureaucrats is better able than the conferences themselves, to decide or constrain the qualifications for playing a game that is already going to be played anyway.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Obviously, there still need to be rules, but for the life of me I cannot imagine how any university president could think their school or their student-athletes would be harmed by this.”
Then you have a very bad imagination.
“Or s/he comes from a league that does not, in which case it simply doesn’t affect them at all, as the decision lies wholly within a league and affects no one outside of it.”
Completely not true. What happens in one I-A conference impacts all the other I-A teams in some way.
“The only conceivable reason I can think of for maintaing the rule as written, is the paternalistic view that a bunch of centrally-managed bureaucrats is better able than the conferences themselves, to decide or constrain the qualifications for playing a game that is already going to be played anyway.”
Yeah, CFB would be much better off if every conference can make up their own rules. The SEC can expand to 85 person classes and 250 player teams. The B10 can outlaw the forward pass. The B12 can switch to playing 7 on 7. That would be great.
LikeLike
Oops, old eyes and a small cell phone screen. 😦
Again, I guess we disagree in principle. To me the only justifiable reason to hold a CCG as an extra game is because the size of a conference precludes enough games to get a reasonable result. Perscribing a method that insures games are NOT a random mix and that the winner of each half doesn’t risk being excluded from a popularity contest, or tragically uneven scheduling, seems perfectly reasonable. This is not the case: “…a game that is already going to be played anyway”. Perhaps someday the rule changes. Until then, it’s create a CCG within the current regular season, get to twelve teams, or get an extra week of Bowl preparation 🙂 .
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“What’s everybody’s opinion on the final number: 16, 18, or 20.”
It should be 10, I’d settle for 11, I can deal with 12, 14 stinks, 16 is bad, 18 is terrible, 20 is an abomination, 22 is pointless but doable and 24 might work best given 14 to start. All that said, what do you mean final? I’d expect something like this based on announcements:
14, 16, 18, pause, 20-22, 12
At some point I think the B10 may grow so big that it splits like the WAC did.
Works OK with 9 games and no divisions – 14, 16, 18
Works OK with 9 games and divisions (no locked games) – 14, 16, 20, 22, 24
Works OK with 9 games and pods – 14, 16
Works OK with 9 games and divisions (1 locked game) – 14
Works OK with 10 games and no divisions – 14, 16, 18, 20
Works OK with 10 games and divisions (no locked games) – 14, 16, 18, 22, 24
Works OK with 10 games and pods – 14, 16, 18
Works OK with 10 games and divisions (1 locked game) – 14, 16
“Not sure how 18 works with a 9 game schedule. I guess you could do three 6 team groups but then you would need a conference semifinal.”
You split the middle group of 6 into two pods of 3. Between swapping pods between divisions and changing the makeup of the pods of 3, it works out.
In order of locked rival when in groups of 3
W1 – NE, NW, IL
W2 – IA, WI, MN
C1 – MI, MSU, PU
C2 – OSU, GT, IN
E1 – PSU, RU, MD
E2 – UNC, Duke, UVA
Year 1 – W+C1 vs E+C2
Year 2 – W+C2 vs E+C1
Year 3 – C+W1 vs E+W2
Year 4 – C+W2 vs E+W1
Year 5 – C+E1 vs W+E2
Year 6 – C+E2 vs W+E1
If you don’t like that, leave C as the group always split up and shift the membership of the pods of 3 every 2 years.
“2 conferences of 9 teams at 9 games doesnt work as you wouldn’t play everybody in the other conference at least once in a 4 yr period.”
Unless that’s what you want. But the B10 already discussed 10 games for 14 teams. With a new TV deal and some financial changes they would likely go to 10 games by the time they hit 18 teams. 2 divisions of 9 with 10 games is OK.
“It almost has to be 16 or 20 for scheduling purposes,”
No it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Pingback: Big 10 Expansion Petition | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — Has the Big Ten Extended Invites to North Carolina and Virginia? | Atlantic Coast Convos
Why is it a foregone conclusion that the B1G would go past 16? Seriously, speculation is fun and all, but why has it considered a fait accompli that the B1G would go past 16?
If it stops at 16, with UVa and UNC, you also get pretty easy divisions:
East: PSU, UNC, UVa, Rutgers, UMD, OSU, UM, IU
West: MSU, PU, NU, Neb., Iowa, UW, Minn., ILL.
Reasonably geographical divisions. A good amount of rivalries preserved. Indiana and UM prefer being in the east because of alumni presence in the northeast (especially NYC). MSU is happy because it gets its regular Chicago exposure (massive MSU alumni presence in Chi). Wisconsin gets Iowa and Neb every year. PSU gets several nearby rivals.
Moreover, a 9 game schedule would allow for 7 division games, 1 cross-division protected rival (critical in some cases to preserve some key rivalries, such as MSU-UM, IU-PU, PSU-Neb.) and 1 rotating rival. A 10 game schedule would allow 2 rotating rivals.
Beyond 16, then I direct you all to Mr. SEC’s dead-on history lesson about the long-term stability of large conferences. In the modern age, with media rights driving the train, 16 is a good balance between additional revenues and maintaining historical bonds critical to the survival of college athletics. Beyond 16, the historical bonds will inevitably fray (unless, of course, the NCAA allows for a 13th regular season game).
Also, don’t forget Gordon Gee’s statements that some schools in the midwest were also potential targets, too (here’s looking at you, Kansas). I would take Kansas over Duke or GT any day, based on third-tier rights, a reputable research university, dominant basketball, presence in good markets (Kansas City, along with other midwestern and southwestern cities), built in rivals, and the ability to balance east-west divisions.
LikeLike
Why is it a foregone conclusion that the B1G would go past 16?
I don’t know about “foregone conclusion,” but a number of Big Ten ADs, presidents, etc., have mentioned numbers like 18 and 20. The fact that we discuss those numbers does not mean we prefer it, or consider it inevitable.
LikeLike
people mentioning something doesn’t at all mean it’s likely.
LikeLike
Mainly because of comments such as those of Georgia Tech’s leadership that they’d like to be with UNC/UVa/Duke as an essential grouping as well as the fact that the Big Ten seems to first be targeting UVa and Georgia Tech.
I don’t see the Big Ten’s leadership saying “no” to Ga Tech and Duke.
LikeLike
Duke and Ga. Tech are very attractive, and if 18 was the target, both would be locks (absent, of course, ND seeking admission to the B1G, which we should acknowledge even if the odds are slim/none). And I am sure Ga. Tech would want to be with Duke, UVa, and UNC–just as I am sure that Wake Forest wants to be with them too. And there is no way Wake is getting an invite to any other conference.
Plus, Duke and UNC are, to a very real sense, redundant. The only real benefit to both, as you correctly noted, is their annual basketball game. But that is hardly a reason to take a team. UNC delivers NC as well–and likely better than–Duke. Duke has a marginal presence in other cities, an.
Also, the less said about Duke football, the better (except for this hilarious article: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/losing-helps-duke-win-football-lawsuit)
Furthermore, based on Delany’s ties to UNC, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was/is using Ga. Tech in order to entice UNC.
LikeLike
@Winscott – I agree that Duke and UNC are largely redundant in TV market terms (although their basketball program could help BTN carriage in NYC/NJ). However, it’s more than possible that the Big Ten simply doesn’t have the option to take UNC alone from the state of North Carolina. The ultimate choice might be whether it’s worth it to take Duke in order to also get UNC or not having any chance of getting UNC at all. It’s akin to how Larry Scott had to offer an entire wing of 6 schools in order to get Texas to come to the table. Now, it helps that Duke isn’t a Texas Tech or Oklahoma State-type institution – the Big Ten obviously would love Duke’s academics and they are at least a legit blue blood in the revenue sport of basketball. So, if UNC says that Duke needs to come with them in order to take a Big Ten invite, then I don’t think Jim Delany would even blink twice. It would be a done deal. Now, the scenario that would be problematic for the Big Ten isn’t UNC protecting Duke, but rather UNC needing to protect NC State. That’s something much harder for the Big Ten presidents to swallow.
LikeLike
@Frank- I completely agree. I am assuming that UNC is not tethered/handcuffed to Duke. If it is, then absolutely, both should be accepted without any real thought and deliberation.
I also agree that a UNC-NCState handcuff would be very hard for B1G presidents to accept, and would likely mean neither joins the B1G.
My only point is if there is no tether/handcuff, then UNC and Duke would be redundant, with Duke’s potential benefit in NYC/NJ very limited due to the presence of UM, PSU, Rutgers, NU, Indiana, and Wisconsin alumni in NYC/NJ.
LikeLike
@Wainscott: I do think that you are vastly — I do mean, vastly — underestimating the national brand power of Duke basketball. They are one of the rare teams in any sport that attracts a broad national audience, no matter whom they are playing. When you add the research synergies and academic strength, I think the Big Ten presidents would consider Duke an obvious add, whether UNC demanded it or not.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd- No doubt that Duke is a premier, top 3-5 national brand in Basketball (along with Kentucky, Kansas, and UNC) and on that point, there is nothing to add.
However, from the BTN perspective, assuming UNC joins the B1G, I don’t see what cities/regions Duke brings to the table. Nebraska brought its state, but also rabid alumni in California, Arizona, Texas, and elsewhere who would suscribe to the BTN. Duke is iffier as a driver of BTN subscriptions and/or a bludgeon for the BTN to use to force its way onto the Basic Tier. UNC alone does that within the state. Does Duke do that in Atlanta? DC is covered, so is NYC, Phila, Chicago, other midwestern cities. . Maybe it leads some alumni around the country to subscribe to the Sports Tier on their cable system, but I don’t see Duke’s use to the BTN if UNC is on board.
Now, Duke without UNC can deliver much of what UNC can. All I am saying is that you don’t need both, and the economics tilt toward UNC.
LikeLike
Duke would help in carriage negotiations and advertising sales. And they’re a research powerhouse. B1G would love to have them.
LikeLike
As I see it the UNC Board of Govenors act as the congress for the entire UNC\NC state system. I can’t see them cutting off thier left hand (NC State) just so thier right hand can get a bigger athletic diamond ring or CiC discount card. They would end up being the deciding factor about UNC. Granted what the hell do I know abut it.
LikeLike
Frank,
UNC can’t cover an extra share even if it came by itself.
you bring Duke with it, making 2 new shares when the state can’t even cover 1, and you only increase the loss to the legacy schools.
and TWC and Cablevision aren’t putting BTN on basic, at “in footprint” basic rates, in NYC. (and YES won’t change that).
LikeLike
@skeptic
UNC could easily cover their own share. North Carolina is the 10th largest state in the country (and will pass Michigan very soon) and UNC can get the BTN in the whole state.
As for the national contracts? They would be an average draw by Big Ten standards in football and the biggest draw in BB.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
As Marc Shepard pointed out, I think you’re still undervaluing Duke. More to your point of what areas will Duke help with that UNC doesnt? It has a huge presence in the NYC/NJ area – to the point where they can be discussed in the same breath as Michigan/OSU football and Rutgers, in general, when talking about the critical mass of BTN programming necessary to warrant BTN on basic carriage.
That’s an area I see that Duke adds where UNC doesn’t quite as much. Additionally, if adding Duke, along with UNC, could help take basic rates in the NC, DC, and NYC/NJ markets from (just tossing a number out) something like $.85 to $.90 per household, that’s just gravy on top of adding the state of North Carolina with UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
It’s not a foregone conclusion that the B1G would go beyond 16 schools, but it is a plausible scenario consistent with the conference’s stated goals and the collective assessment on this board (not to mention some of the comments made by conference athletic directors).
If you feel that the primary goal of the conference is to expand the CIC research consortium, then a combination of Virginia and North Carolina would certainly do it. By extension, Duke and Georgia would also be primary candidates for exactly the same reason.
If you feel that another goal in concert with improving the conference’s academic profile is financial self-sufficiency for the B1G athletic departments through increased television revenue (thru the BTN and via the new television contracts being negotiated in a few years), then a program like Florida State is also a considered possibility. At that point, we’re at a potential 19 schools instead of just 16.
One of the reasons why Kansas isn’t seen as a likely candidate is the belief that Kansas State would have to be included as part of any deal. Another one is demographics–the population in the state simply isn’t growing as large as those in the southeast portion of the country.
The reason why pods are discussed at all is because there is a historical precedent (16-team Western Athletic Conference) and because the system would allow teams play one another within the conference more than a fixed division alignment would. The B1G has consistently said that it wants to play the teams in the conference more rather than less (thus the discussion about nine or ten conference games in the future) and pods is the best way to achieve that goal in a conference with 16 or more members.
As far as historic bonds are concerned, I think the horse is already out the barn and munching in the tall grass when it concerns college athletics. Conferences have formed, grown, expired, reformed, expanded and contracted throughout the history of university sports. While some rivalries have managed to survive all that, others have gone away and some of those have been replaced by new rivalries. And through all of that, college sports (particularly football and men’s basketball) have consistently grown and become some of the most popular spectator events in the country.
We’ll see what happens in due course. One expectation is that once the Maryland/ACC lawsuit is settled, there could be further movement. OTOH, circumstances may provide a catalyst such that invitations are given out and accepted prior to that taking place.
LikeLike
@Cutter- Good points. However, the WAC’s experience with pods was, to borrow from Hobbes, “nasty, brutish, and short.” The WAC split up after 4-5 years of life with four 4-team pods. I doubt administrators and presidents–most of whom where around during the WAC’s experiment–would want to go down that path. As for the historic bonds, the B1G still has them, what with all the rivalry trophies and hatred borne out of proximity. The horse might be out of the barn to a small degree, but those bonds are still strong in many parts of the B1G and are easily preserved.
I agree that western division schools playing Michigan once every 7 years would be patently unacceptable to those schools, and a solution might be a 10-game schedule with 2 rotating rivals, in addition to a locked rival. But 10 games presents its own host of issues (7 home games, marquee non-conference games, ets.)
LikeLike
I don’t think you can compare the BIG with the WAC. That’s like comparing the NFL to the XFL.
LikeLike
Certainly, a direct B1G-WAC comparison would be comical for the reason you stated. Indeed, comparing the B1G and the present-day WAC is more akin to the NFL and afl2.
But all I am saying is that less than 20 years ago, another collegiate athletic conferences tried the pod system, and it failed spectacularly, and that experience (one which Delany and others are doubtless aware of) should give them great pause before proceeding down that path.
LikeLike
Why does everyone keep making this mistake? Every month someone on this blog says the WAC failed because of pods. The expansion failed because of money.
The 16-school WAC failed because they added a bunch of schools in ‘markets’ (like Rice & SMU) without checking to see if these schools had any following in those markets. Unsurprisingly, the ratings didn’t impress television executives, and the new 16 team conference wasn’t going to make much more money than the original 8 teams all by themselves.
When the original schools figured they could raise their payout by separating themselves again, they did so.
The pods (quadrants) is something journalists bring up, because they’re lousy at following money (they were even worse in the early 90s). The success of the expansion was always going to hinge on the money.
LikeLike
@Wainscott: I’m sure the Big Ten ADs would study the WAC experience closely for lessons. There was so much wrong with tha WAC that it’s far from clear that the pod scheduling system was really the fatal flaw. I am a pod skeptic, but I prefer something more dynamic, not less.
LikeLike
“I doubt administrators and presidents–most of whom where around during the WAC’s experiment–would want to go down that path.”
But they prefer to follow the example of the SWC, BE, WAC 2.1, near collapse of B12, current ACC situation, all the other conference reorganizations, assimilations, failures?
I think there is little, if anything, about the WAC experiment that will inform the B1G decision makers.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Why is it a foregone conclusion that the B1G would go past 16?”
It isn’t. But the number 20 has been uttered by some of TPTB, and thus people speculate.
“If it stops at 16, with UVa and UNC, you also get pretty easy divisions:
East: PSU, UNC, UVa, Rutgers, UMD, OSU, UM, IU
West: MSU, PU, NU, Neb., Iowa, UW, Minn., ILL.”
Easy but crappy. B10 – OSU – MI – IN + NE versus ACC + BE + PSU + OSU + MI + IN
Since when did OSU and MI agree to leave the B10 and join the ACC?
“Indiana and UM prefer being in the east because of alumni presence in the northeast (especially NYC).”
Even MI would like to play B10 teams on occasion.
“MSU is happy because it gets its regular Chicago exposure (massive MSU alumni presence in Chi). Wisconsin gets Iowa and Neb every year. PSU gets several nearby rivals.”
That leaves a bunch of team that might not be so happy.
“Also, don’t forget Gordon Gee’s statements that some schools in the midwest were also potential targets, too (here’s looking at you, Kansas).”
ND is also in the midwest. And Gee says a lot of things. Don’t you forget that 16-20 has been mentioned.
“I would take Kansas over Duke or GT any day, based on third-tier rights,”
Duke is worth the same or more, especially with the BTN trying to crack NYC.
“a reputable research university,”
GT and Duke are both much better research schools. Not even close. MCUP list for federal expenditures:
12. Duke – $439M
22. GT – $322M
100. KU – $73M
“dominant basketball,”
See Duke.
“presence in good markets (Kansas City, along with other midwestern and southwestern cities),”
Atlanta and NYC are pretty good. So is Charlotte.
“built in rivals,”
Who? NE in football? Duke/MD is a rivalry in hoops (mostly for MD) and lacrosse. Duke/UNC is real and valuable (should those both be added). None of the 3 have strong ties to existing B10 members really.
“and the ability to balance east-west divisions.”
You shouldn’t add a school just for that.
You also forgot demographics and state population (BTN subscribers), both of which favor Duke and GT. On the other hand, you also ignored culture which would favor Kansas. What about decent football (GT)?
LikeLike
I do not see the allure of pods, either rotating or static. Divisions are far simplier and easier for the average mortgage-paying, child-raising, hard-working B1G or college football fan to understand without having to spend time to look it up.
Most fans still cannot identify the teams in Legends and Leaders because most don’t have the time to spend to memorize relatively trivial things like “Which division is Purdue in?”. But they will somehow embrace rotating pods and learn who is in what pod and which pods is playing which, and who is in that other pod?
K.I.S.S.
LikeLike
I do not see the allure of pods, either rotating or static. Divisions are far simplier and easier for the average mortgage-paying, child-raising, hard-working B1G or college football fan to understand without having to spend time to look it up.
Because, without pods or dynamic scheduling, certain teams would go many years without playing each other. For instance, in your proposed east/west, if there’s a 9-game league schedule and Michigan-Minnesota are locked, the rest of the western division would see Michigan only once in seven years. I think the league and the ADs would consider this intolerable.
LikeLike
I agree with you that it will require some mental dexterity by the fans to understand that the pods would rotate on a bi-annual basis
But as Marc Shepherd notes in his comments, a fixed division system with nine or even ten conference games means it takes awhile for teams to play one another–much longer than a pod system.
What I think the fans would understand, however, is which teams are in that division in that particular year–regardless of the size of the conference (16, 18 or 20 teams). They’ll realize that most of the conference games will be played against teams in their division (which is currently the case) and that the division champions will meet in the B1G Conference Championship game (which is also currently the case). In that regard, there’s actually not going to be much change.
LikeLike
I think Cutter and Marc Shepherd raise a good point about how pods might increase the frequency of teams playing each other. And I also agree that a divisional system is by no means perfect (ex. Northwesten hosting UM once every 7 years would be a terrible thing). I just think that the ease by which the casual fan can know and understand the makeup of a division, as welll as the intense difficulties in forming balanced pods, makes the divisional format the lesser of two evils.
For example, if there are 16 teams and 4 pods, do the 4 kings each headline a pod, or are they geographic? Assuming UM and OSU are in different pods, they still must play annually. Moreover, schools would play 2 full pods, and part of a third. And God only knows what the B1G mamarketing department would name 4 pods.
At a certain point, its important to note that athletics, as has often been said, is at the end of the day, the toy department of life. As we get older, we have less time to devote to what we would focus on as teenagers. The easiest organizational system, by virtue of how most other sports are organized, is the division/conference format. Its what people are conditioned to understand and accept. I don’t think the B1G has the single-handed ability to change how fans comprehend a conference’s organizational set up–and I don’t think the benefits are so great as to outweigh the real chance of failure.
LikeLike
@Wainscott: It’s worth noting that in the NFL, all you know is that there are three particular teams you play every year. There is a system for determining the remaining 10 games of the schedule, but most people don’t know what it is: they just wait for the schedule to come out, and see who they’re playing that year. This doesn’t seem to have harmed the NFL.
So it is hard for me to believe that fans need to know they’re in a locked group of eight. In fact, if you told them that they’d have one visit to Chicago every 14 years, they’d figure out pretty quickly that this was not the system they wanted.
LikeLike
Yes, “You play these three or four teams every year, you pay every Big Ten school at least once every three years.” That’d be the tl;dr message from a number of workable systems.
LikeLike
“You PLAY these three or four schools every year”. Whom you pay to play in your two or three OOC games is, of course, a separate matter.
LikeLike
The NFL schedule is ridiculously easy to know and I think most non-casual fans are well aware of it.
Also does not hurt to know that 6/16 game and 3/8 home games will always be against the “rivals”
LikeLike
I think a large majority of NFL fans have no idea how the schedule works because they don’t care. They know who they’ll play twice every year and they’ll look at the schedule to see the other 10. The same would be true of pods.
LikeLike
@Wainscott You know who else uses “pods” with resounding success? The NFL. Yes, they call them “divisions”, but they have 4 divisions in each conference.
Why is college football so stuck on strictly 2 “divisions/pods/sisterhoods/etc.” within a conference? People don’t have trouble remembering the AFC North “pod”, or the NFC East “pod”.
LikeLike
Because due to the myth of student athletes playing AAA minor league football in the SECm Big Ten, Pac-12 and etc., the number of practices they have and games they play is limited, and there is at present no permission to have a semi-final, final conference championship.
Allow a two round championship, and the conference can divide into three divisions, play three division champions and wild card, the division round robin only requires five games, so even playing nine conference games would allow every team to play every other team in a three year cycle.
LikeLike
I was hoping folks would bring up the NFL, as on the surface its a good comparison, but fails in the final analysis.
NFL: 32 teams, 16 games, 4 team divisions. 16 team playoff. No preserved non-divisional rivalries (NE-IND play most years because 1st place teams play other 1st place teams). NFL does not make a real effort to foster non-divisional rivalries. There is no other football league for upset/disenfranchised former rivals to jump to.
B1G: 14/16/? teams, 12 games (for now). The critical difference is that the close-knit nature exists because of rivalries–ones that might seem insignificant to the outsiders (ex. Iowa-Wisconsin). Without those rivalries, there is no mystique, no allure to the college game. Unhappy schoo;ls can potentially jump to another conference (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/67531/alvarez-b1g-added-to-avoid-losing-psu).
Tne NFL is the most powerful, most lucrative league on the continent. But because they essentially have pods does not mean they would work in college, with less games, more hardcore rivalries, and more history. Moreover, there is no other professional league that unhappy teams can jump to. If UM and OSU down the road become dissatisfied with the B1G, they can leave. NFL teams don’t have that ability.
Anywho, just my two cents. Debate is good. Passion is good. Its what makes college sports different from the pros (and this is coming from a NYer who did not give two turds about the college game before going to a B1G school for undergrad).
LikeLike
@Waiscontt: You need to take the NFL analogy for its intended purpose: to disprove the statement that a rotating schedule confuses the fans too much. The NFL (indeed, all the pro sports) show that this isn’t the case.
You’re entirely right that CFB fans have a larger network of schools they want to see on a recurring basis. Static 8-team divisions frustrate that aim. You suggested:
East: PSU, UNC, UVa, Rutgers, UMD, OSU, UM, IU
West: MSU, PU, NU, Neb., Iowa, UW, Minn., ILL.
In this system, Michigan fans will see North Carolina about 7X more often than they’ll see Wisconsin (assuming 9 conference games and Minnesota locked). They’re smart enough to figure out that there’s a better way.
LikeLike
@Wainscott You misinterpreted the argument as Marc Shepard said. You argued that pods are too complicated because the dumb general public won’t like that they can’t rattle off the schedule off the top of their head.
I don’t have the Cincinnati Bengals schedule memorized outside of Pittsburghx2, Baltimorex2, and Clevelandx2 and I sleep very well at night. If someone told me Ohio State had a pod of Team A, Team B, and Team C and that the rest of the schedule would rotate through the rest of the conference, I would do just fine with that. I’m also becoming a big fan of forgoing divisions/pods and simply protecting 3 games per school (like when the B1G added Penn Stat), rotating the rest of the schedule, and taking the top 2 teams for a CCG.
Two static divisions don’t work for all the reasons people have laid out. You’re basically going to be locking 1 or 2 teams (one of which is likely Ohio State or Michigan) out of playing any of the original B1G with any frequency. That doesn’t work for any of the parties involved.
Now, if we get to 22 teams, you could essentially ship Penn State off to play in the B1G East and have the original B1G + Nebraska in the B1G West. But that’s not a conference. Its 2 conferences with a scheduling agreement and a CCG.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd- Fair enough. I just don’t think that pods are the way to go because of the learning curve involved with 1) organizing the pods 2) scheduling the pods, and 3) learning the makeup of the pods. Not that this would be hard to learn, but it would take time that most fans just dont want to devote to have to learn something as relatively trivial as pod makeup.
People know B1G membership because its been around for over 110 years. People are alos resistant to change. Adjusting to a larger B1G, and the attendant side-effects is enough og a system shock for fans–no need to complicate matters with knowing and understanding pods. In the NFL, the pod system (which is essentially what the divisions are) works because there is not the same level of care or concern about non-0divisional opponents. People aren’t confused because, in addition to being the system in place for 40 years, it ju out of division rivalries are less important, and the pod makeup less important. People care less about the NFL’s inter-division schedule.
Anywho, fun sparing with you–I am glad you’re a good sport and not someone who takes disagreements personally. I don’t think the division system is all that great–indeed, I wish the NCAA did not require them to have a championship game. A 9 or 10 game round robin would be best because it would allow for more fluid schedules and ensure more teams see each other.
LikeLike
There are two separate issues in scheduling. What mechanism do you use? And how do you market it? There’s no question that a system with two static divisions of eight is very simple to explain. But in that system, there is a VERY large inequity between how often a team meets anothter team in its own division, and how often it meets teams in the other divisions.
If they actually WANT that inequity, then all is well. In that case, the simplest solution turns out to be the best one, too. Otherwise, they have a dilemma: do they implement the simpler schedule, when that doesn’t actually give us what we want? Or do they do something more complex, and then work on how to market it?
LikeLike
There is no need for a fan to learn how the championship division schedule is organized over time ~ if they learn who is in their group, they know who they are going to play every year. If they look at the divisional standings on ESPN, they know who is in their division that year.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I do not see the allure of pods, either rotating or static.”
Frequency of play against all the other teams in the conference, especially the true B10 teams.
Basis for comparison:
11 teams, 8 games, no divisions:
2 locked teams – 2 teams 100%, 8 x 75%
Comparison with and without pods
1. 12 teams, 8 games, no locked games for simplicity:
2 divisions – 5 x 100%, 6 x 50%
No need for pods
2. 12 teams, 8 games, 1 locked game
2 divisions – 6 x 100%, 5 x 40%
4 pods – 3 x 100%, 9 x 56%
Pods could keep rivalries over 50% of the time, but not needed.
3. 14 teams, 8 games, no locked games for simplicity:
2 divisions – 6 x 100%, 7 x 29%
4 pods – 3 x 100%, 10 x 50% OR 2 x 100%, 8 x 50%, 3 x 67%
Playing teams 50% of the time versus 29% is a big difference. This is where pods shine.
4. 14 teams, 9 games, no locked games for simplicity:
2 divisions – 6 x 100%, 7 x 43%
4 pods – 3 x 100%, 6 x 50%, 4 x 75% OR 5 x 100%, 8 x 50%
Pods help less as the number of games increases.
5. 14 teams, 9 games, 1 locked game:
2 divisions – 7 x 100%, 6 x 33%
4 pods – 3.5 x 100%, 9.5 x 58% (rough numbers because the math is ugly)
This gets you back to where pods are helpful.
6. 16 teams, 9 games, no locked games for simplicity:
2 divisions – 7 x 100%, 8 x 25%
4 pods – 3 x 100%, 12 x 33%
Pods don’t help much here.
7. 16 teams, 9 games, 1 locked game:
2 divisions – 8 x 100%, 7 x 14%
4 pods – 4 x 100%, 11 x 45%
Back to a hug gain from pods.
“Divisions are far simplier and easier for the average mortgage-paying, child-raising, hard-working B1G or college football fan to understand without having to spend time to look it up.”
Nobody denies that. But certain setups really beg for the use of pods (or no divisions) to keep games frequent.
“Most fans still cannot identify the teams in Legends and Leaders because most don’t have the time to spend to memorize relatively trivial things like “Which division is Purdue in?”.”
There’s no excuse for a B10 fan not to know. Once you know where your school is, you only need to learn the 5 other teams in that division. if you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s because you don’t really care.
“But they will somehow embrace rotating pods and learn who is in what pod and which pods is playing which, and who is in that other pod?”
They don’t need to know all that. They only need to know who’s on my team’s schedule this year (that was true back in the days of 11, too), and what games are on TV this weekend (TV Guide or equivalent will tell you just like always).
LikeLike
Thanks for the breakdown, Brian. Good stuff.
I don’t know what will happen next for Big Ten expansion. But I hope that PODS will be the result…and I think your study backs up that PSU (my team) should have 3 regional foes (ideally OSU, UMD, Rutgers, but I’m flexible for a more Southern ACC team thrown in there) and 1 locked foe (ideally Nebraska, which I think is feasible since the Big Ten will want to protect its marquee games, even if it means tougher schedules for their alpha dogs). I don’t care about Purdue and Iowa and even Michigan rotating on and off the schedule every few years. But regional foes and a marquee game (at least Nebraska OR Ohio State) are optimal in my opinion.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
How big would the T1 Big Ten hoops contract get with UNC and Duke?
We talk alot about their possible impact on the BTN, but outside of the UNC-Duke game, the Big Ten owns most of the big ratings matchups regardless.
IU-Michigan and IU-Michigan State are the top two rated games this year.
With UNC and Duke, the Big Ten would have to get something like $7-8 million per year per team for just hoops.
This is also a part of why I think Duke is a given.
LikeLike
C7 is $36-$48 million total ($3-$4 million per school-12 schools). Don’t see how UNC and Duke bring in $112-$128 million (16 X 7-8 per school).
LikeLike
The conference would probably end up owning at least a half of the top 15 rated regular season games every year. You don’t think that’s worth $7-8 million per school?
LikeLike
That’s from $112m to $144m that you are saying ~ and, no, I don’t think it would.
Duke and UNC being added to form a 16 or 18 team conference adds multiple top match-ups, but also subtracts a few match-ups as well, since a number of big Home and Away annual series go to Home or Away.
If the Once Was Big East was worth $130m with its basketball considered half of the value or less, then its hard to see an incremental value for UNC and Duke basketball in the nine figures. Low eight figures sees more plausible ~ say, +$20m, which would be +$1.1m~$1.25m per team. Maybe $1.5m over time when NCAA units are added in.
If half of that incremental value goes to Duke, then there’s your dilution of the conference payout when Duke is invited. For UNC, its on top of the value of cable carriage in NC and the value of its football, which if not at the level of FSU still has value in a number of top fifty media markets.
LikeLike
No, it’s not. Basketball, even at the superpower UK/Duke/UNC/Kansas level, brings in much less than football, and it’s not even close. You don’t even have to take my word for it.
Go check out the contract amounts that big time college basketball brings to each conference. It’s chump change compared to the kind of money that FBS football brings in.
The B1G isn’t expanding into the southeast to get better basketball players or better basketball schools. It’s doing it to expand football’s recruiting window and to ensure that the B1G adds faster growing states into its core football area.
LikeLike
@Chuck – Yes and no. I agree that the first tier TV contracts for conferences are 99% about football. The South also provides a stronger football recruiting presence. However, basketball is actually extremely critical in terms of getting basic cable carriage for the BTN and other conference networks. That’s the sport that keeps the lights on for a conference network beyond the 12 week football season even if the ratings on a per game basis are lower. If the Big Ten is able to add UNC, for example, the BTN’s carriage in North Carholina will end up having more to do with UNC basketball than its football program. We already have a situation like that with the state of Indiana. So, it’s a broad misnomer to say that basketball doesn’t bring value. It may not bring much value to a league like the Big 12 that doesn’t have its own conference network, but it’s a much different story for the Big Ten with the BTN.
LikeLike
Think about it like this, a Big Ten with UNC/Duke/Indiana/Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State (as well as the rest of the other hoops draws like Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue) would be able to claim at least 7-8 matchups annually that would draw over a 2.0 nationally.
Most leagues can’t put together more than two matchups that draw that rating…
LikeLike
The Big Ten already renewed their basketball deal, so not much if any. The money would have to come from advertisements on the BTN, but let’s not delude ourselves to think premier matchups would fall to the network.
LikeLike
Saban easily wins the oversigning sweepstakes.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21733077/oversigning-index-on-another-front-its-still-alabama-and-everyone-else
LikeLike
Interesting. I will add on Texas with 86 according to his list-The Texas site I saw just before signing day had 82-67 remaining and 15 signees. There were also 3 roster players who were non-scholarship.
LikeLike
As a resident of the great state on Minnesota I am proud that our state flagship university managed to both make the oversigning list and have the worst rated recruiting class in the Big. This could not have been easy.
DR
LikeLike
this is precisely why the SEC has won seven in a row. the SEC West will continue winning as long as they continue to oversign.
this is a huge competitive disadvantage for the B1G. the SEC (West) must stop or the B1G must start.
LikeLike
Beau – There are three B1G members on that list too, as well as two schools (UTx and ND) that the B1G lusts after.
In the BCS era, the SEC West has won 6 championships (Alabama – 3; LSU – 2; and Auburn – 1). LSU and Auburn aren’t on the list. Ole Miss and A&M are, but haven’t sniffed any NCs since the 60s (Ole Miss) and the 30s (A&M).
The factor about half of the teams on that list have in common is 1st or 2nd year coaches.
LikeLike
That list also only tells part of the story. What’s more important is the four year total number in the first column. That number shows the long term trend rather than just a potential outlier. Using those numbers the 3 SEC schools on the list have signed 105, 105 & 101 players over 4 years whereas the 3 B1G schools brought in 96, 94 & 86. Having nineteen more players come through your roster over a single graduating period is pretty significant.
LikeLike
@Alan
Because it’s a terrible article. Michigan State has signed 86 guys over four years but will be 2 over the limit? That should set off your ‘journalist playing with numbers he doesn’t understand’ alarm The fact that a few Big Ten teams have 1 or 2 extra guys is most likely due to people that will not be a part of the 2013 season that have not been made public.
For example, Michigan will have exactly 85 on scholarship this fall due to 2 kids that will no longer be playing football next year. The athletic department has not released this information to the media yet.
The difference with Saban and Les Miles is they do things like sign 5, 6, 7 guys over the limit and never explain it…then you have stories about guys being told to transfer, using medical hardship scholarships 5-6x more than the NCAA average, having a scholarship yanked after moving into the dorms and taking summer classes, etc etc etc.
One is standard terrible use of data by a journalist. The other is oversigning.
LikeLike
Ted – LSU isn’t on the list, even though LSU had a record number of draft-eligible players declare for the NFL draft this season. LSU also has the second highest graduation rate for football players, only behind Vandy. I’m not aware of LSU using medical hardship scholarships 5-6x the NCAA average.
There will always be player attrition at every school, some more than others. But to assume that running kids off is the only reason SEC West schools have attrition that exceeds the B1G is simplistic. Most three and four star recruits would rather play football than sit on the bench, even if its a very nice bench at a prestigious school. If a multi-star recruit isn’t playing, he may want to transfer. It looks like that happens more in the south than it does in the north. Maybe the bench-sitting player in the north decides to stay because he ‘s attending an AAU school. Maybe a bench-sitting player in the south is more likely to transfer because he thinks he’s an NFL talent that just needs to get on the field more.
Discipline issues, academic casualties, injuries, new coaching staffs, homesickness, and the NFL draft are also contributing factors in player attrition.
LikeLike
@Alan – LSU is one of the team’s I root for. I wouldn’t say I’m a big fan but I enjoy watching LSU when they’re on. They’re probably my favorite SEC team. From my perspective, Les Miles is willing stretch the signing budget farther than most. That impression is probably shaped by a couple of high profile incidents (i.e. they player that moved into the dorms before being told he didn’t have a scholarship) and I’m willing to admit may not be entirely fair.
On the flip side, I wish Bo Pelini had paid attention to how Les managed his roster. Nebraska’s three Big Ten classes have all been undersigned.
LikeLike
The Big Ten should never start. I don’t care if they lose forever.
It’s a terrible thing to do to these kids and anyone involved in the process should be ashamed of themselves.
LikeLike
This is another reason the B1G wants UVa:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-15-universities-wealthy-alumni/story?id=18539608#all
See #11 on the list.
LikeLike
Michigan and Northwestern on the list too. Interesting.
LikeLike
Because they want a public donation?
LikeLike
The addition of the UVA is perfect . UVA fits with the big ten .The NC schools do not fit, just leave them alone it their ACC . Finally who is 16 ,I again vote for Pitt ,small TV but very good in everything else. The loss of Pitt and UVA will alow the ACC to remain stable . Maybe in 20 years we can look at NC .There is no reason to rush and cause internal problems in the Big .
LikeLike
Pitt and UVa would be my choices too. Sadly, Pitt will not happen.
Maybe if Pitt had kept their program at where it was in the 70s and early 80s.
LikeLike
A bit off topic, but maybe not entirely. I would like to see more programming on the BTN that talks about things the schools are up to and/or their histories from an academics or human interest angle. I think that would be a good selling point for everyone and could help build cohesion in the world of expansion. How many talking head shows and reruns do we really need anyway.
LikeLike
I’m hoping they do make a second channel if the conference goes up to 18 members. There’s a lot of extra programming that could be added eventually like the stuff you’re talking about…
LikeLike
jj,
They used to have more of that but the ratings tanked. Reruns and talking heads do better.
LikeLike
And they’re cheaper.
LikeLike
LMAO. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/2/20/4006746/conference-realignment-story-template
LikeLike
That really is very funny. Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
While UNC is an attractive target for my B1G, the timing seems off. Living in the Triangle, I believe a BiG response is far down the to-do list for UNC. There is no Chancellor (he just left for WashU). The AD has 2 years of tenure and no real power. The school is working through academic fraud where athletes received high grades for bogus classes. The Board of Governors is fighting with the Legislature over funding.
I believe UNC and others will join the B1G by the time the BTN contract is up for renewal in 2 years. If the new Chancellor is from a B1G institution then we can look for a Maryland-Loh repeat for B1G membership.
LikeLike
As a Triangle resident, can you shed light on UNC vs. Duke?
My non-resident understanding is that UNC is the overlord of the state, based on the sheer size of its alumni base, whereas outside of Durham, Duke is hated as an elitest, snooty private school. (Kind of like the NU-ILL split, minus the hatred). I also know that Duke has a wealthier and more national alumni base than UNC. What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
Just an aside… Bad analogy, my friend (Chicagoan with degrees from both). U of I has much more cache downstate than in Chicago, which is where 70% of the population resides. It’s U of I’s great failure in being meaningful in Chicago that in large part allows the MSUs and NDs of the world to recruit there.
Admittedly, NU is kind of ‘just there’ minding its own business, but it’s making grand efforts to improve its presence in Chicago (marketing, the Wrigley initiative, etc.). Hell, U of I-Chicago is better situation than U of I -Champaign / Urbana, at least wrt basketball.
LikeLike
I can vouch for that, Duke is hated outside of Durham (in basketball) and not followed in football at all. I have a lot of friends who pay for tickets to watch a specific team coming to duke to deliver them a whooping. As for UNC as the overlord, yeah thats true also. Lot of UNC fans, but in raleigh you have a lot of NC state fans as well. I guess what I am saying is if you want most of north carolina (say 60%) UNC can deliver, but NC State and Duke are the other 40%
LikeLike
UNC carries the state from an audience perspective. Duke is an Ivy League school which happens to be 15 minutes from UNC. Duke has a small but wealthy alumni base in DC and NYC. The rivalry is only about basketball as neither program has national aspirations in football. Both compete in Olympic sports and are Top 20 Directors Cup programs (as is UVa).
LikeLike
Its the first tier contract with ABC/ESPN that is coming up for renewal. The Big Ten owns a big chunk of the BTN, so there is no contract expiration issue with the BTN.
LikeLike
Here is something that doesn’t get brought up enough. UNC and NCSTATE are run by the exact same board. There is absolutely no way that those two schools can split. It will not happen. I also believe that UNC will not leave Duke although that would be possible. If Delaney wants UNC, he’ll have to take NCState. Make no mistake Slive will take all three if he has too.
LikeLike
If NC State has a nice lucrative landing spot in the SEC, I can’t see how they would mind. Both schools would profit greatly as would the triangle in general. Imagine the business that area would do if NC State had rotating home games against UF, UGA, Tenneessee, South Carolina, and Alamba, LSU, and Texas A&M every once in a awhile and UNC had rotating home games against PSU, Michigan, OSU, and Nebraska and Wisconsin occasionally. There would be at least 4 knock out dates with large traveling fan bases willing to dump money into the Triangle every year. Most boards are made up of business people and politicians. They would love that.
LikeLike
the SEC doesn’t want NC State. They want UNC. If anything they’d likely take FSU over NCSU, and might even refuse to take NCSU if it would mean the B1G didn’t get UNC.
LikeLike
That gets brought up constantly in the discussions in this board, but rather in terms of UNC not being able to leave NC State stranded in a wounded ACC. If NC State was assured of landing in a conference that it was happy to be in, would it necessarily have to be the same conference as UNC ended up in?
LikeLike
I have pondered the NCState-UNC issue as well. The Board which governs both schools also controls the other 16 member institutions. The Boards primary purpose is to keep schools from duplicating expensive programs. The Board can influence but not stop any institution.
When the ACC split into the Atlantic and Coastal Divisions (only slightly better than Legends and whatchacallit) UNC and Duke were kept together while NCState was paired with Wake Forest. I think UNC can politically maneuver any outcome it chooses.
LikeLike
The problem is that I am pretty sure UNC has no interest in letting State in the SEC without them. If State was in the SEC it would immediately become more prestigious in football than UNC. If I know UNC, they won’t let State become more prestigious than them in anything. I know a bunch of UNC alums are paranoid that State in the SEC could be another Texas A&M which hasn’t worked out well for the Longhorns. Not to mention, State would immediately be the third or fourth best basketball program in the SEC and could conceivably compete for a title every year. In the Big 10, UNC would not be able to have anywhere near the level of dominance it has historically had. I know the Tarheels would hate seeing The Wolfpack win titles every couple years while they struggle to win one in five. My understanding is that the board has an board has an equal number of members from UNC and NCState. No way do they split. On a side note, I’m not sold that the SEC would take NC State alone or even necessarily in a pair with Va Tech. That would mean that the SEC would look like it was being forced to take the schools the BIg Ten didn’t want, which I don’t think sounds or looks too appealing.
LikeLike
That would mean that the SEC would look like it was being forced to take the schools the BIg Ten didn’t want, which I don’t think sounds or looks too appealing.
The SEC already did that when they took Missouri…
LikeLike
That is a fair enough point.
LikeLike
No it isn’t. The SEC didn’t want Nebraska along with the B1G and then had to settle for Missouri for their 12th spot. The SEC moved to 13 and 14 before the B1G and thus got 1st crack at that tier of addition. Right now the SEC and B1G are both after the exact same school for their 15th spots. Totally diferent than the Nebraska/Missouri decision that the B1G had.
LikeLike
The SEC didn’t want Nebraska along with the B1G and then had to settle for Missouri for their 12th spot.
What?
LikeLike
You’re saying UNC vs NCSU for spot #15 of the B1G and SEC is the same thing as Nebraska vs Missouri for spot #12 of the B1G. It’s not. For one, the SEC already had a school #12: Arkansas. Also, the SEC didn’t want Nebraska. So no, it’s not the same thing.
The B1G didn’t want Missouri as #12, but they very well could have as a #14, just like the SEC did. There was never a point in time where both conferences were expanding at the same time, competing for the same school and the B1G got it and the SEC settled for their second choice. This has never happened.
LikeLike
So what you are saying (and let me summarize) is that Missouri wanted to join the Big Ten, the Big Ten didn’t want them and then the SEC took them.
LikeLike
Average attendance figures from 2012 for recent movers and rumored movers.
Texas A&M 87,014
Nebraska 85,517
Florida State 75,601
Mizzou 67,476
VA Tech 65,632
West Virginia 55,916
NC State 54,106
North Carolina 50,286
Louisville 49,991
Rutgers 49,188
Miami 47,719
Virginia 46,650
TCU 46,047
Colorado 45,373
Utah 45,347
GA Tech 43,955
Pitt 41,494
Syracuse 37,953
Maryland 36,023
UConn 34,672
Cincy 29,138
Duke 28,170
LikeLike
I’m amazed Duke was that high. They must count a lot of empty seats as sold tickets.
LikeLike
This was their best season since Spurrier was coach.
Looking at the final AP poll ratings in the BCS era, there were only 4 Big 5 schools who didn’t ever place. Supposedly, the SEC wants two of them. Pretty easy to guess who the other two besides UNC and Duke are. Think NCAA bb titles. UK and IU.
LikeLike
So you’re saying NCST football will be more successful because of a tougher SEC and NCST BB will be more successful because of a tougher B1G eh?
LikeLike
I didn’t say more successful. I said more prestigious. The games that NC State would get in the SEC would be much bettere than UNC in the Big Ten. Especially for recruiting purposes. The SEC has a perception (largely real partially overblown) that it it is far superior football conference to the Big Ten. If you’re a recruit in Charlotte, would you rather play in the SEC or the BIg Ten? For most kids in the South, and North Carolina is definitely the South, that’s a no-brainier.
LikeLike
Pingback: News and Rumors 2-20-13 « Conference Expansion
It looks like WVU’s move to the Big 12 has them running in the red this year, but a lot of that has to do with the exit fee that they had to pay the Big East. But with that said, according to the article predictions are that losses could continue for many years to come.
http://www.register-herald.com/collegesports/x1633486561/Is-West-Virginia-s-move-to-Big-12-Conference-worth-the-red-ink
LikeLike
IMHO – the Mountaineers made the right decision. What that article is assuming is that the AD wouldn’t be in debt if it didn’t move. I imagine they would still have significant budget problems if they stayed in the Big East.
LikeLike
The writer is not taking the long view. WVU in the nBE would be looking at 15-20 million less TV revenue per year. Deficits look bad at a school that has normally been in the black, but the present revenue crunch, even if it lasts a few years, will be a blip compared to the long term bloodletting that would result from remaining in the big east, which was the only available alternative to paying to join the big 12.
LikeLike
Deficit was for the last year WVU was in the Big East. WVU needs to compare B12 $$ to the new BE contract $$ to see how they did. They came out way ahead. Even 50% share for 2012-13 is way ahead of what they would receive in the BE. If they had a full B12 share which they will get in 2015-16 it would have been a profit. So the deficits will not last too many years and will be lower than what would have occurred if WVU had stayed in the Big East.
LikeLike
If the SEC or Big Ten can provide a better future, don’t think for a minute that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas won’t bolt from the Big 12. The grant of rights don’t last forever and there is always a business solution to get out of contractual commitments.
What if the goal for the end game for both the SEC and Big Ten is to get to 18-20 teams? What about this?
SEC adds Texas and Oklahoma in the West and Virginia Tech and NC State in the East. goes to 18 teams with 3 six-team pods. Play 5 against your pod and 2 from each of the other two pods for a 9-game conference schedule. Play everyone in the conference at least every 3 years.
East pod – Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Kentucky
Central pod – Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
West pod – Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
Big Ten adds Virginia, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Kansas. 20 teams in 4 five-team pods. Play 4 against your pod and 2 from each of the other three pods for a 10-game conference schedule. Play everyone in the conference at least every 3 years (some more often).
South – Florida State, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, Virginia
East – Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, Michigant State
Central – Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas
ACC – again raids the Big East – left with: Miami, Clemson, Wake Forest, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame (partial member still) grabs Cincinnati, South Florida, and UConn from the Big East. Stays at 11 for Olympic sports. 10 for football.
However, the PAC 12 might have an attractive bid for Texas and Oklahoma if the PAC 12 is willing to accommodate Oklahoma State and perhaps Texas Tech.
Big 12 raids the MWC by grabbing Boise State, BYU, Air Force, UNLV, and SDSU and grabs Houston and Memphis from the Big East. Goes to 14 teams with a conference championship.
Big East leftovers Temple, UCF, Tulane, Navy, and East Carolina grab whatever they want from the C-USA, Sun Belt, and MAC and carry on.
LikeLike
“If the SEC or Big Ten can provide a better future, don’t think for a minute that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas won’t bolt from the Big 12.”
SEC has supposedly shown interest in Texas and Oklahoma in the past, heavy interest in Texas, and they’re still in the B12. It may happen, but they aren’t pining away for an invite.
“SEC adds Texas and Oklahoma in the West”
Good luck adding those two without OkSU or Texas Tech. Not impossible, but its a hurdle.
LikeLike
Although, who thought Texas A&M would be able to leave without Texas? Issue with Texas and Oklahoma (to the SEC or PAC 12) is whether either conference wants OSU or TTech. This time around, I don’t think the PAC 12 would be willing to take OSU or TTech. In terms of potential value, Oklahoma State doesn’t seem to add much that Oklahoma doesn’t? Same is true for Texas Tech and Texas.
More likely scenario for PAC 12 expansion, would be for the conference to go after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. They would need one other school to get to 16. Candidates could include UNLV or BYU, but I’d bet they would go after Iowa State first.
LikeLike
Iowa State in the PAC? I’ll take the odds on that.
LikeLike
…who thought Texas A&M would be able to leave without Texas?
We’re talking about opposite cases. Texas A&M was the “little brother” school in the Big XII. They could leave, and the Big XII remained viable, since it still had Texas. But if Texas leaves, the Big XII (as we have known it) probably can’t survive.
LikeLike
Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The reason A&M was able to leave was because the state legislature was out of session for two years and the only person who could call them back into the session was the governor who was an Aggie that was too busy running for president.
Contrast to ’94 when the Big XII was being formed. At that time Texas and TAMU were only schools the Big 8 wanted, but because the legislature was in session the Speaker of the House ordered them to take Texas Tech and the Governor and Lt. Governor (an extremely powerful office in Texas since s/he is also the president of the Senate) forced them to take Baylor as well.
LikeLike
@frug: It’s still the opposite situation. If the Big 8 had taken only Texas and TAMU, Tech and Baylor would have had to join a second-tier league, so the politicians ensured they were protected. In contrast, A&M leaving the Big XII didn’t jeopardize anyone; in fact, it paved the way for one of the former SWC schools (TCU) to play with the big boys again.
LikeLike
Kinda the same as UT wouldn’t have been allowed to “leave” them uninvited.
LikeLike
Oops… I restated what you said. Sorry…:(
LikeLike
None of the political stuff is binary. KU/KSU, OU/OSU, UNC/NCSU, UVA/VT. They all have _possible_ political entanglements, but they all have various factors impacted by time of year, who is currently in certain political offices, etc. etc.
The UVA/VT situation was a very specific circumstance, where the ACC vote came down exactly on the number of votes needed, which allowed the UVA politicians to force the situation. Had the vote been nearly unanimous, UVA’s vote wouldn’t have mattered and VT wouldn’t have been forced in.
Another poster just pointed out the situational differences between the B12 and TAMU moves.
LikeLike
@Marc
Except that if Texas had wanted to, they could have ditched Tech and A&M last year also.
For that matter, if the state legislature had been in session or a less sympathetic governor in office, UT probably could have blocked A&M from leaving (A&M timed their departure to coincide with the legislative session ending).
In Texas the issue ditching siblings in only an issue if the legislature is in session.
LikeLike
In Texas the issue ditching siblings in only an issue if the legislature is in session
Don’t forget about Ken Starr and his lawsuit.
LikeLike
He never filed it and wouldn’t have.
LikeLike
“Candidates could include UNLV or BYU…”
Or it could include an up and coming JC, or a non mainstream seminary?
You haven’t been paying attention to this for long, have you?
LikeLike
Quite the contrary. Neither UNLV nor BYU is an academic fit with the PAC 12. But, if the PAC 12 needs a 16th school, both UNLV and BYU will be on the radar.
The PAC 12 does not dominate the Las Vegas market. The move of the PAC 12 basketball tournament to Vegas shows that the PAC 12 is trying to get this market.
UNLV basketball would compete right away in the PAC 12 basketball. UNLV also plans to construct a 60k-seat, state-of-the-art on-campus football stadium. This will make UNLV football competitive. Don’t right off UNLV so quickly in the long term view of expansion.
BYU alumni already abound and BYU travels well, especially in the PAC 12 footprint. BYU would help the PAC 12 own the Utah and Vegas markets and solidify the PAC 12 footprint throughout the West.
But, my point was that the PAC 12 would likely look at other options before seriously considering either UNLV or BYU. But, both UNLV and BYU provide value and there aren’t many such alternatives in the West.
LikeLike
“The move of the PAC 12 basketball tournament to Vegas shows that the PAC 12 is trying to get this market.”
No. They moved to a world wide entertainment center that can attract fans of all schools (even the one and done) at low cost that obviously don’t any more, or never did, care to go to LA yearly.
On BYU, possibility<0. Their inclusion in any package, including UT (see: Baylor) would be a deal breaker. It is just the way it is.
LikeLike
UNLV is a potential target, but BYU is a flat out never ever going to happen in this lifetime. The PAC is even more hardline on their no religious schools recruitment than the Big Ten is on their AAU requirement.
LikeLike
“Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The reason A&M was able to leave was because the state legislature was out of session for two years and the only person who could call them back into the session was the governor who was an Aggie that was too busy running for president.
Contrast to ’94 when the Big XII was being formed. At that time Texas and TAMU were only schools the Big 8 wanted, but because the legislature was in session the Speaker of the House ordered them to take Texas Tech and the Governor and Lt. Governor (an extremely powerful office in Texas since s/he is also the president of the Senate) forced them to take Baylor as well.”
The Governor at that time was Ann Richard, (now dead) and the Lt. Governor was Bob Bullock (now dead as well). Although they were both democrats and Baylor alums and previous drinking buddys, by 1994, they couldn’t stand the sight of each other. Ann wanted to actually run the government and Bob was the Lt. Governor, who actually had the power. Bob was very happy to let Bush come in and be the figurehad while he ran the state. in 1994 Anne wasn’t even a facto in the decision, her base didnt care about college football and Ann was to busy trying to be reelected. just FYI
“For that matter, if the state legislature had been in session or a less sympathetic governor in office, UT probably could have blocked A&M from leaving (A&M timed their departure to coincide with the legislative session ending).”
My paranoia theory is that Gov. Perry told A&M to back down from going to the SEC in 2010 until he had gotten a big enough war chest agivend the legislature was out of session to go to the SEC. The Longhorn network was a gift to A&M because it gave them a reason to bolt.
but then again what the hell do I know.
LikeLike
At least as long as David Boren is the president Oklahoma won’t leave Okie St. even they could (and with a Cowboy governor they probably can’t anyways)
LikeLike
“However, the PAC 12 might have an attractive bid for Texas and Oklahoma if the PAC 12 is willing to accommodate Oklahoma State and perhaps Texas Tech.”
That was the PAC’s offer three years ago. Supposedly the PAC turned down OU and OkSU a couple years ago on their own. Who knows if the original offer to the four together would be repeated.
LikeLike
I think they would take all four, but only if UT ditched the LHN.
LikeLike
If TEXAS wanted a new home they would go to the PAC or the B1G. I don’t think they would even consider the SEC.
If the B1G could rope in ND, I think the B1G would become very attractive to them. If not, the PAC along with Oklahoma would be my guess.
LikeLike
I’ve heard it mentioned b4, but never had it clarified…does the Big Ten require expansion candidates to be in states contiguous to the Big Ten footprint?
LikeLike
I don’t think it is a requirement. But probably a preference. What about Big Ten expansion with UVA (Virginia/DC), UNC (North Carolina), Vanderbilt (Nashville – 1 million+ TV homes), and Georgia Tech (Atlanta).
Vanderbilt might actually be competitive in the Big Ten South and the SEC probably wouldn’t mind.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten went to 20, Vandy might be part of the expansion in return for the presidents approving Florida State.
LikeLike
Glad to see someone else sees the plausibility of Vanderbilt. If the B1Gs southeast expansion goes as planned and they add Hopkins for Lacrosse, I think Vandy is a very real possibility.
Especially as a counterweight to FSU. Yes, Vandy is a founding member of the SEC, but an academic outlier that would feel right at home in an elite conference with southern partners UVA/UNC/DUKE/GT. Unlikely, but certainly plausible.
LikeLike
Glad to see someone remembering JHU. Amazing how suddenly they have almost disappeared from the conversation.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone (even at JHU) denies they’re fielding offers from conferences, I just think they’re waiting to see how it all plays out before deciding.
LikeLike
ccrider55
I don’t think we’ve forgotten JHU. They’re just sitting there percolating.
They probably have an offer and are going to take their time about deciding what to do. It’s not an easy decision; they still have to figure out the TV deal on men’s lacrosse and how they’d make money in the Big Ten (what cut of BTN revenue would they get if they had to give up their ESPNU contract?) along with questions about whether they could compete in women’s lacrosse in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The Big Ten isn’t elite. We’ve got four prime schools, two of which are rebounding and two of which are floundering. Restarting the Magnolia league isn’t going to change that, and will harm the strength of schedule overall.
LikeLike
I think @GLS was referring to elite academics, not elite performance on the football field.
LikeLike
To paraphrase Cardale Jones: I can’t watch school.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt “delivers” Nashville worse than BC “delivers” Boston.
LikeLike
which is to say about the same as GA Tech “delivers” Atlanta.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech has a much better following in Atlanta than BC or Vandy do in their home markets.
That said, it is clearly not even close to the dominant school.
LikeLike
frug – here’s the 2012 average attendance figures.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/college_football_regular-seaso.html
GA Tech – 43,955
Vandy – 37,860
BC – 37,020
Considering that GA Tech is a public school with much larger enrollment, a much larger alumni base, and a much larger metro area, the numbers back me up that Vandy delivers Nashville about as well as GA Tech delivers Atlanta. In fact, it looks likes Vandy does a slightly better job.
LikeLike
“frug – here’s the 2012 average attendance figures.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/college_football_regular-seaso.html
GA Tech – 43,955
Vandy – 37,860
BC – 37,020
Considering that GA Tech is a public school with much larger enrollment, a much larger alumni base, and a much larger metro area, the numbers back me up that Vandy delivers Nashville about as well as GA Tech delivers Atlanta. In fact, it looks likes Vandy does a slightly better job.”
—
Correct. UGA is less than 70 miles from downtown Atlanta and is almost a suburb (in fact I’ve commuted between the two before.) In contrast UTn is 180 miles from Nashville, and so while they dominate the Nashville market, they certainly don’t feel a part of it. Having lived in both Atlanta and Nashville, I’d say Vandy and GA Tech (under)perform about equally in their home markets, for different reasons and in different ways. Vandy’s broadcasts seems more 2nd rate and GT’s more professional, but a bigger percentage of Nashvillians (intentional, no letters please) follow Vandy than Atlanta residents follow GT.
LikeLike
Alan,
You have to look at more than just that.
GT’s home games were Presbyterian, UVA, Miami, MTSU, BC, BYU and Duke. There’s not a single team that travels well in the bunch. They had UGA, Clemson, UNC, VT and MD on the road. Your link shows them down 9% from last year while Vandy was up 15% from last year.
That means last year the numbers were more like:
GT – 48,300
Vandy – 32,900
That’s roughly 50% more for GT. Considering stadium size, that’s a big difference.
LikeLike
Its about an hour and 15 minutes from downtown Atlanta to the UGA campus. And that’s without a freeway and includes a number of stoplights. Usually takes about 65 minutes from the edge of the city limits of Atlanta to campus. Think downtown Atlanta to downtown Athens is just over 55 miles.
LikeLike
I can only find records for both schools going back to 2003, but last year was only the second time (and the first since 2008) that G-Tech averaged less than 10,000 more attendance than Vandy.
Maybe things are shifting, but last year was probably an anomaly.
LikeLike
frug – Atlanta is the #9 MSA with a population of 5.36mm, while Nashville is the #37 MSA with a population of 1.6mm. Vandy is planning on expanding their stadium and is trending up. GA Tech peaked in the 1950s.
Brian – given the relative size of the metro areas and using your 2011 attendance numbers, Vandy still has twice the support in Nashville than GA Tech receives in Atlanta.
Both are in NFL cities. GA Tech has twice the enrollment and more than half of their students are from Georgia, while only about ten percent of Vandy’s students are from Tennessee. In spite of all GA Tech’s advantages, any way you cut it Nashville supports Vandy much better than Atlanta supports GA Tech. So yes, Vandy delivers Nashville better than GA Tech delivers Atlanta. That’s why, at least from an athletic perspective, GA Tech is a terrible choice for B1G expansion.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“frug – Atlanta is the #9 MSA with a population of 5.36mm, while Nashville is the #37 MSA with a population of 1.6mm. Vandy is planning on expanding their stadium and is trending up. GA Tech peaked in the 1950s.”
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130212/SPORTS0602/302120045/Vanderbilt-looks-ways-improve-stadium
They hope to expand to a whopping 45,000. GT expanded to 55,000 10 years ago. They’ll be sad to learn they peaked 60 years ago.
“Brian – given the relative size of the metro areas and using your 2011 attendance numbers, Vandy still has twice the support in Nashville than GA Tech receives in Atlanta.”
Why on earth are you assuming some sort of linear fit should apply here? Is LSU 5 times more popular than UGA because they both sell out and Atlanta is 5 times bigger? How many of those fans in Nashville were even Vandy fans?
LikeLike
Just by chance both Vandy & GT were in my list of extreme long shot candidates when I looked into the historical performance of various B1G teams & potential future numbers right after Nebraska joined and they were deciding on how to choose divisions…
LikeLike
@Alan
You are absolutely right. In fact that is the same reason Vandy delivers Nashville better than USC does in LA.
After all, USC only averaged 232.3% more attendance per game than Vandy but the LA metro area has 800% the population of Nashville, ergo Vanderbilt has 3.5 times as much support in Nashville than USC does in LA.
LikeLike
“In spite of all GA Tech’s advantages, any way you cut it Nashville supports Vandy much better than Atlanta supports GA Tech.”
Unless you allow it to be cut in terms of absolute level of support. If you cut it that way, Atlanta supports GTech better than Nashville supports Vandy.
LikeLike
frug – on a percentage basis, yes. There are obviously a lot more USC fans in L.A. than there are Vandy fans in Nashville due to the size of the MSA. There’s probably also a higher percentage of people in L.A. that are completely oblivious to CFB than in Nashville as well.
My original point was that Vandy delivers its market “about the same as GA Tech ‘delivers’ Atlanta”. 2/20/13 at 7:23pm. I stand by that statement. Neither deliver their market. On a raw number basis, GA Tech performs a little better, while on a percentage basis Vandy comes out on top. Both schools lose out to their NFL teams and thier state schools. GA Tech may even be behind Auburn in Atlanta.
The bottom line is that neither Vandy nor GA Tech give the B1G a good presence in their respective city, state, or region. Both Atlanta and Nashville are big NFL and SEC towns. In either Atlanta or Nashville, the B1G would be an afterthought, or worse, ridiculed as offering an inferior product.
The B1G shouldn’t try to compete with the SEC in the South, just as the SEC shouldn’t try to compete with the B1G in the North. If the B1G feels compelled to expand, they ought to go after UVA to get both sides of the DC market. The DC burbs aren’t really Southern anymore. But going into North Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida panhandle is a different matter. Charlotte may not be Birmingham, but its not Minneapolis either.
If the B1G can secure UVA, it ought to look at VA Tech to lock down Virginia and lock the SEC out, UConn to assist with the NYC market, Pitt, or Kansas.
I don’t know if Delaney wants the ACC’s blood on his hands. The moves described above probably won’t cause the implosion of the ACC. If the B1G took UVA and VA Tech, UConn, Pitt, or Kansas, it probably wouldn’t compel the SEC to respond.
LikeLike
@Alan: Your comment is contradictory, since you suspect Delany might not “want the ACC’s blood on its hands,” but you suggest that he would take two Virginia schools to “lock the SEC out.” My guess is: neither. He is not out to harm his colleagues; but he also doesn’t give a damn about their well-being, if he sees a way to make more money for his bosses. He would add UVA and VT together if he thought it made more money than adding UVA and someone else, or doing nothing. All of this talk about Vandy and Kansas is a red herring, because neither is available. No schools is leaving the SEC, and Kansas can’t hang K-State out to dry. Delany knows he could have had Pitt at any time, and as far as we know, he never so much as sniffed at them.
LikeLike
But going into North Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida panhandle is a different matter. Charlotte may not be Birmingham, but its not Minneapolis either.
Ummm, the ACC was founded by a bunch of Mid-Atlantic schools but I seriously doubt they have any regrets about going into the Deep South to add FSU.
Anyways, as elite public research universities the Big Ten has (at least) as much in common “culturally” with UNC and G-Tech as the SEC does with Missouri (an AAU school from a state that is 2/3 Midwestern) and Texas A&M (and AAU school that is 100% Southwestern), and I don’t think anyone is expecting the SEC to have long term problems with those additions.
(I’ll also add that as the conference that has lead the nation in MBB attendance, revenue and TV ratings for years the Big Ten is also good economic fit for UNC as well)
LikeLike
The elusive goal of “cultural fit” is easy to wish for, but difficult to define. The only real constant in the Big Ten is that all of its members are academically elite. (And until recently, all were in the AAU.)
Except for Northwestern, they’re all either THE flagship state school, or a VERY strong second (as in Michigan State or Purdue). In a hypothetical world where Northwestern hadn’t been a member all along, you’d probably say: “No chance they’re getting an invite.” But as far as I can tell, no one in the Big Ten, at least in modern times, has ever seriously suggested that Northwestern doesn’t belong.
Culturally, Nebraska and Pennsylvania don’t have much in common at all, but both are in the Big Ten footprint.
It’s well known that the Big Ten issued Notre Dame an invite years ago, and the Notre Dame faculty voted to join. Despite being in the footprint geographically, you could argue that Notre Dame is more culturally alien to the rest of the Big Ten than any school currently in the league, or any of those currently under serious discussion.
Of course, the states in the current Big Ten footprint are not culturally homogeneous. Parts of southern Ohio feel more like Kentucky than the midwest. (Cincinnati’s airport actually IS in Kentucky.) Indiana is far more conservative than any other midwestern state. Rural parts of Pennsylvania have more in common with Appalachia. And so on.
So, when one says that UNC (for example) is culturally southern, and would never fit, I am not really sure how true that is.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“My original point was that Vandy delivers its market “about the same as GA Tech ‘delivers’ Atlanta”. 2/20/13 at 7:23pm. I stand by that statement.”
I still disagree. GT does better than you give it credit for.
“Neither deliver their market.”
That I agree with.
“Both schools lose out to their NFL teams and thier state schools.”
True.
“GA Tech may even be behind Auburn in Atlanta.”
Not even close. Trust me on that.
“The bottom line is that neither Vandy nor GA Tech give the B1G a good presence in their respective city, state, or region.”
1. Let’s be clear. Vandy is not now, never has been nor ever will be a viable B10 candidate. They have less than zero interest in leaving the SEC.
2. There is room for GT to grow. 10 years ago they were a bigger presence in Atlanta than they are now. The SEC’s recent run has drowned out the ACC in the southeast. GT in the B10 would be of more interest to the media as a story (for a while at least), and OSU and MI and PSU and NE coming into town would be big deals.
3. The ACC did GT no favors. FSU and Clemson are both in the other division. That left GT with no big name ACC FB schools that would travel well to Atlanta. The lack of success by all ACC teams hurt everyone in the league, too.
4. The national focus has shifted more to national titles than ever before. That hurts an above average program like GT that will almost never compete for a national title.
“In either Atlanta or Nashville, the B1G would be an afterthought, or worse, ridiculed as offering an inferior product.”
It already is. What might change is that when some of these people actually see a good B10 team play, they may acknowledge that the B10 isn’t so bad.
“The B1G shouldn’t try to compete with the SEC in the South, just as the SEC shouldn’t try to compete with the B1G in the North.”
If the B10 added GT, I don’t think the idea would really be to compete with the SEC in GA. The goal, I’d think, would be to become the clear #2 behind the SEC in GA (displacing the ACC) while getting more GA recruits, more BTN money and more research funding for the CIC.
Just to be clear, I’m not in favor of the B10 adding GT (or anyone else). I’m just debating some of your arguments against it.
“If the B1G feels compelled to expand, they ought to go after UVA to get both sides of the DC market. The DC burbs aren’t really Southern anymore.”
I agree UVA should top the list (well, ND will always top it in terms of value, I suppose).
“But going into North Carolina, Georgia, and the Florida panhandle is a different matter.”
NC isn’t that different from southern VA. UNC would feel comfortable with UVA and MD and would respect the state of IN’s love of hoops. Also, UNC isn’t NC. The research triangle is more northern than the rest of NC. It’s all shades of gray. There are clear differences, but also some similarities. I’m not even sure you need to have one unifying culture in that sense. The focus on academics, research and a wide variety of non-revenue sports is a common culture that is just as important.
“Charlotte may not be Birmingham, but its not Minneapolis either.”
Columbus isn’t Minneapolis or Newark. St. Louis isn’t Birmingham. These new large conferences are not one culture anymore.
“If the B1G can secure UVA, it ought to look at VA Tech to lock down Virginia and lock the SEC out, UConn to assist with the NYC market, Pitt, or Kansas.”
I’ve trotted out the idea of VT as you probably know. With UVA that would make 16 and a wall to keep the barbarian hordes of the SEC trapped in the south. Is there more value in getting even bigger? Not with UConn or Pitt, and KU is not an option. Going beyond 16 would require going further south (UNC or FSU).
“I don’t know if Delaney wants the ACC’s blood on his hands.”
I don’t get that view. Schools leaving the ACC voluntarily isn’t anything Delany should feel bad about. The ACC painted themselves into this corner if this were to happen. Don’t insist on Raycom being part of the deal. Don’t focus on hoops over FB for so long. If the B10 can make a lot more from these same schools, you’re doing something wrong.
“The moves described above probably won’t cause the implosion of the ACC. If the B1G took UVA and VA Tech, UConn, Pitt, or Kansas, it probably wouldn’t compel the SEC to respond.”
I don’t see a need for tit for tat anyway. Slive has to look for what helps the SEC, not how big the B10 is. Once the SECN details are known, then he can decide what makes sense. Is FSU worth it to the SEC? Many speculate they would try to block the B12 from getting into FL, but do you waste a spot on blocking someone else (same issue the B10 has with VT)? Is adding NC to the network worth adding UNC and NCSU if the politicians demand it? The SEC may be better as is regardless of what the B10 does.
LikeLike
Any talk of Vandy or Florida leaving the SEC is pure crazy. That is all.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt would be only a complementary addition (if Big Ten presidents sought a counterweight to Florida State as member #20). I doubt pursuing Vandy would be a lead-pipe cinch, but joining the Big Ten — especially alongside the likes of members from adjacent states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech — could have some allure for its administration.
LikeLike
No, Andy’s right about this. There is no chance.
LikeLike
Agreed Andy. There should absolutely zero talk of anyone ever leaving either the B1G or the SEC.
LikeLike
The Big Ten openly courted Texas, so it’s clearly not an absolute requirement. The only unknown is precisely what it would take to justify an exception.
LikeLike
“Courting” might be a bit strong, perhaps had exploratory discussions. I may be wrong, but my understanding was UT approached the B1G, but wore out their welcome quickly.
LikeLike
“I may be wrong”
Yes you are, once again.
LikeLike
So…UT politely declined a wonderful offer of being one among equals, out of loyalty to the B12. Got it. Didn’t have anything to do with media rights and partner requirements? They would have quietly put those former requirements that were splitting the B12 away, not offered them as a price to join?
I’ve been misinformed before, and will be again.
LikeLike
@JEH – I seem to rember and interview with Delany around 2010 saying that schools do not need to be in contiguous states.
LikeLike
There is no requirement, but that said, geography is a factor mostly for the outlier. The B1G won’t fool about adding a school “just for football” like the Big East was doing. It’s all or nothing, which could present a problem for a school like Florida State trying to send their olympic sports on trips to Minnesota and Wisconsin all the time.
It’s much easier on the palette if, once in a while, the road trip was just to Georgia and North Carolina.
LikeLike
Even if it were a rule it wouldn’t matter. The league could just vote to waive the requirement.
LikeLike
It is known to be a publicly expressed preference of some stakeholders. But on the other hand, if GTech was available, the Big Ten schools where Engineering has a lot of clout would argue for setting contiguity aside if need be. An advantage of UVA/UNC/GTech/FSU is it would make FSU contiguous, which would take one possible objection off the table for a school sure to attract one very big objection and which might not be able to withstand additional objections on top.
LikeLike
JEH,
No, it doesn’t have to be contiguous according to the bylaws.
LikeLike
I’ve read in other places that a school lacking AAU membership has absolutely zero chance of getting into the B1G. Also, I’ve read that a few B1G members wanted to rescind Nebraska’s membership after they lost AAU status. But, there were not quite enough votes to get this done. I think FSU is a pipe dream. I’d love to see the B1G add FSU, Miami (FL), GaTech, UVa, UNC, Duke, Clemson and one other school in the East or South. This would allow there to be two divisions of 11 teams. A Midwest and a South/East division that would be very representative of culture and geography and would allow for the preservation of the rivalries the 22 schools most care about. But, this is also a pipe dream.
LikeLike
@Rich –
I’ve read in other places that a school lacking AAU membership has absolutely zero chance of getting into the B1G.
Notre Dame isn’t AAU and would be invited if it wanted in.
I’ve read that a few B1G members wanted to rescind Nebraska’s membership after they lost AAU status. But, there were not quite enough votes to get this done.
Think that through and you will see that’s not true. 1) Nebraska’s AAU status was lost less than a year after its Big Ten invite. 2) Wisconsin and Michigan were leading the charge to remove Nebraska. Nebraska’s AAU stauts isn’t an issue.
LikeLike
I’ve read in other places that a school lacking AAU membership has absolutely zero chance of getting into the B1G.
We know this is not true, because Notre Dame had an invite previously, and it’s widely believed they could get in at any time, if they wanted to. I have never heard of any push to boot Nebraska out of the Big Ten. At the time Nebraska was admitted to the league, the review of their AAU membership was already underway, and the Big Ten presidents must have known that it might not end favorably. I am pretty sure that either Michigan or Wisconsin was on the AAU committee that was reviewing Nebraska’s status.
LikeLike
AAU membership is an easy way to answer concerns about academic status ~ as noted, Notre Dame is an example of a school with a good enough academic status that it doesn’t need to be an AAU school to pass muster.
Whether three very good academic standing schools that taken together offer top 25 grad school programs across the board is sufficient to get the academic snobs to hold their nose and accept FSU is a question that may not be sorted out yet. If UNC is not yet available, it might be a question that waits until the SEC makes a first move.
LikeLike
Rich,
“I’ve read in other places that a school lacking AAU membership has absolutely zero chance of getting into the B1G.”
It’s not true. Certain schools can get in without AAU status, like ND. But solid academics is important.
“Also, I’ve read that a few B1G members wanted to rescind Nebraska’s membership after they lost AAU status. But, there were not quite enough votes to get this done.”
They knew NE might get voted out when they invited them to join the B10. Besides, even if a few (MI and WI, maybe NW) wanted NE out, they wouldn’t have anywhere near enough votes. It would be roughly 2-11 or 3-10.
“I think FSU is a pipe dream.”
They are unlikely, yes.
“I’d love to see the B1G add FSU, Miami (FL), GaTech, UVa, UNC, Duke, Clemson”
Clemson has no shot. None.
LikeLike
What if you turn this whole expansion discussion on its head and the Big 12 gets proactive and beats the Big Ten to the punch? Adds 6 ACC schools to get to 16. Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Louisville. The Big Ten could still get UVA and UNC (and perhaps Duke and Syracuse…AAU members). The ACC wouldn’t die, but would definitely receive a demotion. The Big 5 would become the Big 4 and the Group of 5 would become the Group of 6.
Big 12 pods:
LoneStar: Texas, TTech, TCU, Baylor
West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
North: Iowa State, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia Tech (the least cohesive pod – Iowa State is an outlier)
South: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State
LikeLike
You don’t think the B12 has suggested this? Nothing official obviously, because no one is leaving the ACC until it is crumbling. And the B12 doesn’t have the ability to set that off.
LikeLike
Is Big Ten expansion to grab UVA and UNC enough to set it off? Or does the ACC just regroup and add UConn and Cincy/Temple?
LikeLike
Temple? You know it’s a bad day when Temple’s mentioned as a candidate.
LikeLike
If UNC leaves every school that can will hit the exit. The SEC will be the first call with the B12 as the backup. The calculation at that point will not be last year’s payout of the ACC vs. B12, but what the future payout difference will be after the ACC’s is cut. Since the new Big East (CUSA2) is getting slightly more than CUSA money, a depleted ACC (BE2) is likely to get a 50%+ cut in TV money. .
LikeLike
In addition to the the NuBigEast (which I reckon is actually more like BE3), we can look at the Big East before the most recent round of raiding kicked off, when they were hovering on the borderline between AQ and Best of the Rest status and were offered $130m annually. Take a paycut for not having AQ status, and somewhere in the $5m to $10m per school payout conference would not be surprising, which would make for a conference standing midway between the Majors and the current Mid-Majors.
LikeLike
UVA follows UMD to Big Ten.
SEC then goes for VaTech…
…if FSU and Clemson know that an SEC invite isn’t coming, they’ll then bolt to the Big 12.
The ACC can scramble to fill those 4 spots…but the value (particularly FSU’s football/markets/recruiting ground) will be far, far less.
At that point, I think the floodgates would be opened…and UNC/Duke would become Ground Zero for SEC/Big Ten fight.
LikeLike
Or, get to 18 teams, and have three 6-team pods:
West: TTech, TCU, Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State,
Central: Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Louisville, West Virginia, *Pitt/Syracuse/Cincy
Southeast: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, *Miami/Duke
Or, get to 20 teams, and have four 5-team pods:
West: TTech, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, *BYU/Boise State/UNLV
Central: Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
North: Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
Southeast: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech
LikeLike
How do you expect B12 to pull this off? They can’t guarantee their current per-school payout to new members. It’d be a gamble. Why would these teams leave the ACC en masse? Especially the ones that may have a chance at the B1G or SEC.
LikeLike
Boscatar,
for that to happen six teams need to run, give up whatever the exit fee is (20-52 mil) all so they can jump into a conference that makes 20 mil/team/year and maybe make 36 mil over the lifetime of the contract. Im not a math major but if you pay 20 to leave, and you make 36 more, but you also have to pay travel costs, it probably isn’t happening. No I believe that the ACC reloads and keeps going. Just to make everyone aware, I’m not a ACC nut I just live in raleigh
LikeLike
The exit fee might be $10 million, not $50 million. That’s why all eyes are on the Maryland lawsuit.
If the Big 12 adds 4-6 teams from new markets, especially if it includes good football markets like Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, the Big 12 TV contract is going to continue to make $25+ million per team per year. Possibly more. If the ACC settles for a $20 million exit fee and if the ACC payout is $17 million, it only takes about two years to make the jump worth it. And this doesn’t factor in the piles of cash that will come when the redesigned Big 12 consistently gets teams into the playoff (which the ACC will have a hard time doing).
Consider, which late-season match-ups would drive TV ratings more?
Texas v. Clemson, Oklahoma State v. Florida State, Oklahoma v. Georgia Tech?
OR
Pittsburgh v. Clemson, Boston College v. Florida State, Wake Forest v. Georgia Tech?
Travel costs are not that big of a deal if a strong ACC contingency comes along. And Austin and Dallas are closer to Tallahassee than Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston.
LikeLike
The problem is, FSU is going to jump until they are absolutely convinced
A. The ACC is no acceptable
and
B. They aren’t getting an SEC or Big Ten invite
(Actually those are both true for G-Tech, V-Tech and NC State as well)
I also suspect Miami would get an invite ahead of one of the non-FSU ACC schools unless they get hit with PSU like sanctions
—–
That said if the Big XII pulled this off I think it is far more likely that they would simply go East-West (with ISU in the East). The Texas and Oklahoma schools would all prefer to stay together (even though the only matchup that HAS to be played is the RRR), and the Oklahoma and Kansas schools would fight like hell to ensure they continue to play in Texas twice a year.
Meanwhile, FSU would want as many games against the Eastern schools as possible since (as they have publicly discussed) half of all their out state alumni live in ACC states, while only 10% live in Big XII states (something I suspect is true for all the ACC schools). Plus East-West (if it included Miami) would give everyone in the East an annual game in Florida.
Really, the only loser in E-W is ISU (who would no doubt be pissed about losing games against traditional rivals and bi-annual games in Texas), but as (arguably) the least valuable school still in a major conference the remaining schools could either buy them off in the form of extra conference distributions (they could say it was for the extra travel costs the Cyclones would endure) or just tell them if they don’t like the divisions they are more than welcome to join the MAC.
LikeLike
*A. The ACC is no longer acceptable
LikeLike
They might already have made that determination, but noone knows except them.
LikeLike
Not going to happen.
LikeLike
What’s the incentive for those 6 ACC schools to go to the Big 12? At least half of those have to think that an SEC and/or B1G invite could plausibly be on the table at some point, so why make a relatively lateral move and cut off that possibility? Someone like BC, Wake or one of the Big East refugees I could maybe see pre-emptively moving because they’d probably be SOL in an ACC collapse, but I have a hard time seeing those six choosing to start the ball rolling without getting an SEC or B1G invite.
LikeLike
What if you turn this whole expansion discussion on its head and the Big 12 gets proactive and beats the Big Ten to the punch? Adds 6 ACC schools to get to 16. Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Louisville.
The problem is a combination of all the reasons others have given.
The Big XII’s TV contract is paying them practically SEC money, and they get to split it among only 10 schools. Also, they don’t divide TV money equally: the big guys get more. Lastly, they’re growth-constrained, because a lot of their schools are in tiny markets, and they’re not going to have a league-wide cable network either. So they simply can’t add six schools without diluting revenue.
On top of that, FSU and Georgia Tech both covet Big Ten invites (assuming they covet anything at all), while VT and N. C. State could get SEC invites if their state sister schools go to the Big Ten. None of these schools will go to the Big XII unless the ACC starts to collapse, or unless they know for sure that the Big Ten and/or SEC are no longer realistically available to them.
So the Big XII needs to wait for the other shoe to drop. If the Big Ten takes two other ACC schools, while giving FSU a firm “no”, then FSU would start considering the Big XII. I am not sure how many schools the Big XII would take, but it’s hard to see six that would be accretive to revenue. The most I could see is four.
LikeLike
Also, they don’t divide TV money equally: the big guys get more.
Not anymore. The Big XII adopted equal revenue sharing this year.
LikeLike
I was going to point that out too. However, with the rise of conference networks aren’t we approaching a similar imbalance. Won’t revenue from LHN, Sooner network, etc and the likelihood that the majority of the B12 will not come close to the top earners numbers just represent a shift in the method used to continue uneven distribution? Wasn’t this one of the concerns expressed by some of those exiting recently?
LikeLike
Thanks for the correction; I had missed that story. Of course, no conference shares literally everything equally. That’s part of the reason why B1G teams that fill huge stadiums every weekend are wealthier than those that don’t. The disparity is greater in the Big XII because they don’t have a conference-wide cable network, and UT is not required to share all of its LHN revenue [if there is any] with the rest of the league.
A team like Iowa State isn’t in much of a position to complain, because if they weren’t in the Big XII, where would they go?
LikeLike
Spartans Buckeyes. Sparty doesn’t fear the nut.
LikeLike
Why would they? They should win by 15.
LikeLike
BTN DEVOURS ESPN.
How about this for an idea: 42 schools.
That’s 20 in the B1G via the actual B1G going to 20 and then doing a merger with the BXII and the P-12. The extra six for the B1G are Duke, UNC, GT, UVa, Pitt and FSU (the CoP/C makes an exception since we’re going to 42).
The Pac-12 and BXII (except TX) are interested because of the BTN and the boatloads of money. Texas is outvoted. All 42 schools love the idea of 49% share of a tv network that is devoted to college sports.
With 42 teams, the BTN gets on the basic cable tier for 90+ cents per cable subscriber in every market in every State across the Union. Boatloads of $$.
The BTN becomes the greatest competitor to ESPN. The $$ is so good, eventually the SEC wants in; the BTN and FOX devour ESPN.
Hyperbole aside, it’s an interesting way to get to superconferences and has the advantage of a tv network 49% owned by the schools.
LikeLike
Pac12 still doesn’t see a reason to only get a 49% share when the P12N is 100%. Perhaps with the merger the PAC gains the B1G rights and returns 85%, keeping 15% for overhead?
Just kidding…sorta.
LikeLike
good point; I forgot the PAC-12 is 100% owned. OTOH, the BTN is successful ! Jury still out on the P12N; plus, no reason there can’t be duplications, right? just a matter of negotiation.
LikeLike
It’s good to have Fox own 51% for this round of the BTN.
Look at it this way; they’re the ones with the incentive to force the BTN down everyone’s throats in NYC, D.C., and potentially Atlanta if Georgia Tech comes around.
Those are all difficult markets to crack.
In 20 years, we can re-evaluation the deal and figure out if the Big Ten should own more or less…
LikeLike
MrSEC’s latest (SIAP). http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/dont-like-the-idea-of-20-team-conferences-dont-worry-they-wont-last-long/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mrseccom+%28MrSEC.com%29
Basically: “Don’t worry, 20-team conferences won’t last.”
LikeLike
Yes, but the truth of the matter lies in the comments section, where larryphelps20 writes:
The elephant in the room and the most likely conference to go to 18 or 20 is the B1G. In your rundown you list the transformation and distintegration of the various southern conferences. However, you fail to acknowledge that barring Michigan (who left the B1G in 1907 and rejoined in 1917) no other university has left the conference AND kept their varsity athletics. None. Zero. Nada. Why is that? Well, the glue that holds the B1G together comes in the form of something much stronger than merely an association of athletics. The conference’s higher commitment to academics and specifically research is what has bound it together and will bind it together going forward. These are institutions of higher learning above all else and while yes, it’s possible if the B1G gets to 18-20 members that some might splinter away. It isn’t very plausible. What other collection of academic and athletic universities would want to leave that AND come to the conclusion that they would be better off as a university? I just don’t see it.
LikeLike
The truth is that commonality breaks down as you expand more and more. That’s why 20 puts B1G at long term risk. Maryland and Rutgers aren’t midwest schools, but are very much B1G like universities. Maryland was the only match in the ACC. The ACC AAU schools are much smaller than the B1G AAU schools.
As I said previously, the Great Northwest (which stretched from Hawaii to Alaska to New Mexico), the Lone Star (TX/OK/AR), the MWC and Big East all got big and splintered. The Missouri Valley had the same evolution as the southern conferences. It got bigger with more different types of schools and splintered twice. The B1G and MAC have stuck with similar schools. That’s why they haven’t had as much turmoil.
LikeLike
As the saying goes, the definition of insansity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
LikeLike
You make fair points.
But the main reason why a Big Ten 18-20 would likely hold together is that the schools all need each other.
The current 12 Big Ten schools need the 6-8 East Coast teams that would be coming in for demographics, and those 6-8 East Coast teams would need the Big Ten’s football/basketball old-line money.
That might be why it’d hold together. Nebraska only has around 1.8 million people. Nebraska needs the East Coast.
Academic integration over time would also help.
LikeLike
The truth is that commonality breaks down as you expand more and more.
The truth is that many small conferences no longer exist, either. Being small offers no assurance of stability, as the now-defunct Southwest Conference could attest.
The Big East was inherently flawed, and was never safe at any size. It needed to sponsor football, or it was going to lose its football-playing members, once the modern TV era made it no longer practical for major schools to be independent. This led directly to the strange bifurcated structure that was the cause of its undoing.
So I think you need to look at what has successful conferences succeed, and what made failed conferences fail, rather than simply to say that there is some particular number, beyond which a conference cannot grow.
LikeLike
Yep, the Big 8 was small and had a lot in common, but disappeared.
LikeLike
It morfed, didn’t disapear. It took in refugees from collapsing SWC, and choose to begin again as a new conference. It could have (perhaps should have?) kept their history.
LikeLike
ccrider55 — It didn’t just morph. They had to combine with the Texas schools because of their bad demographics and then they lost three of their eight original members to other conferences (Colorado to the Pac 10, Texas A&M to the SEC, and Nebraska to the Big 10). Being small and cohesive is not
LikeLike
The truth is that commonality breaks down as you expand more and more.
The SWC schools all had plenty in common, and that still failed.
Yes, over expansion can create problems but so can trying to maintain the status quo (like the Big East not adding PSU).
LikeLike
Someone should take the time to run the numbers on every major NCAA athletic conference to see how many of them have failed what their membership was when/if they did. Otherwise this is just cherry picking data and is mostly meaningless.
LikeLike
No, the SWC schools had little in common, except location. That and SMU death penalty, terrible TV contracts, no ability to keep recruits and Arkansas defection to the SEC, killed it.
LikeLike
Rice had the smallest undergrad student body in I-A. Texas the largest.
Texas and A&M were flagships, Houston a commuter school and Tech a school way out in west Texas.
Rice was quirky, SMU preppy and Baylor didn’t dance.
TCU paid its running back and repented. A&M tried to buy a running back with a car but Eric went to SMU, keeping the car. SMU paid everyone and didn’t repent.
4 schools were in pro sports markets. They got left behind. 4 weren’t. They went to the Big 12.
Texas and A&M were committed to women’s athletics. Baylor didn’t really believe in it at the time. The others didn’t have the money.
There was very little in common other than being Texas schools.
Ultimately, the Cowboys and Oilers killed it. But all the cheating and the 1984 court decision against the NCAA accelerated the end.
LikeLike
No, the SWC schools had little in common, except location.
How about 80 years of history for starters?
LikeLike
80 years of history doesn’t mean much when circumstances like demographics and TV deregulation change the game.
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m saying this: Bullet is right.
If history had any relavance we would still sing God save the king
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m saying this: Bullet is right.
If history had any relavance we would still sing God save the king
Except Bullet is the one who keeps arguing that history repeats itself…
LikeLike
So the original Big Ten schools would comprise half of a twenty member league. Midwestern schools would be 11/20.
You understand that we’re giving up control of this conference?
LikeLike
That is a hugely important point that gets glossed over a lot.
LikeLike
I think right now we’re fine. But over time the PJM block might start voting all together. Bringing in a pile of acc teams could be a problem. The core B10 needs to hold control.
LikeLike
And why I believe 16 or 18 is the stoping point. And for those still thinking ND is still the B1G’s white whale, I offer that Delaney has finished the book and informed the COP/C how it came out.
LikeLike
With the ship broken and almost all dead?
LikeLike
Who exactly is the “we” here? Unless you’re a university president (in which case you probably wouldn’t be on a fan message board), you never had control in the first place?
LikeLike
We are the engine of this vehicle: the fans and voters who ultimately control what happens to this league.
As both a fan and a taxpayer, I have more of a stake in this enterprise than the officers charged with running it.
LikeLike
The original 13 colonies lost control after 37 more states were added. I think they’ve gotten over it.
LikeLike
No, not really. The factionalism present in Colonial America festered until the American Civil War and still lingers if the electoral maps and trends are any indication.
LikeLike
I’m more aligned with metatron here. We is the vested parties whose flagship institutions these are. We is not fans in general.
A related upside to the expansion, and another likely reason not to double up states, is we just gained 6 senators. This too poses the same risk of losing control of the conference, but now that risk is pretty nonexistent.
LikeLike
Marc has a good point.
You have to be willing to give up a measure of control in order to get the demographic gains from the Southeast.
That means 4-6 of those teams coming in, and Northern teams comprising only 66-75% of the conference from the current 100%.
It’s obviously a tradeoff as the UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech/UVa (along with possibly Maryland) bloc may end up trying to push issues as a group, but that’s a tradeoff that the Big Ten COP/C seem willing to make.
LikeLike
Zeek:
Sure he does. It’s like any other nation or company building effort. I’m just saying there is a real risk of loss of cultural control. It’s small, but it is real. The targets bring far in excess at this point, but there is a tipping point out there somewhere.
LikeLike
“The factionalism present in Colonial America festered until the American Civil War and still lingers if the electoral maps and trends are any indication.”
The factionalism wasn’t between the old colonies and new states. In fact, the new states tended to follow the old colonies.
LikeLike
The crucial difference Richard, is that we’re not sending colonists to found new schools. We are aligning with powers of equal footing.
This is more akin to the dysfunctional European Union than our republic.
LikeLike
In the EU, the strong economies aren’t willing to subsidize and be tied more strongly to the weak economies while the weak countries didn’t get their budget in to shape (some lied about it).
How is that relevent to the B10? The conference is already extremely tied together (with a lot of subsidizing). Unless you add a non-team-player like Texas that isn’t willing to share the wealth, I fail to see what factionalism would arise.
LikeLike
That entire article is extremely poorly reasoned, but point #2 (that the bottom schools will get jealous of the top schools and leave) is particularly inept. When was the last time anyone left a conference because someone else made more money?
The fact is, all four schools that left the Big XII were “haves”, all the Big East schools that bolted were “haves” and the first three MWC schools to bolt (Utah, TCU and BYU) were all “haves”. I can’t honestly believe that he is suggesting that ISU would ever threaten to leave the Big XII. The fact is, you are way way better off being the poorest school in a major conference than the richest in a non-major.
LikeLike
Actually, the threat is the “haves” getting tired of sharing with the “have-nots” and leaving during a time of opportunity or during a time of financial stress.
LikeLike
The threat is the haves worrying about becoming have nots compared to those in other conferences… all of whom share more equally once the SECN gets started. Talk of resenting sharing with conference mates is either a red herring, or a symptom that the B12 bears closer watch as the time remaining on the GOR dwindles.
ISU had no ability to threaten (eminently replaceable) but would have bolted in a heart beat if a B1G invite had been extended.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Yes, if ISU issued an ultimatum, “do this or we WALK!”, the Big 12 would seem likely to respond by starting a replacement committee. Indeed, for ISU, they could well vote to free ISU’s media rights if they agree to wait until the replacement is free to join the Big 12.
LikeLike
“That entire article is extremely poorly reasoned”
—–
Well, Mr. SEC is often an idiot. Albeit a somewhat connected idiot who is good at aggregating SEC articles, but when he extrapolates, predicts, and analyzes he often proves to be an idiot.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
I tend to agree with him, but not for any of his reasons.
1. Lack of solidarity
This is a problem for lesser conferences and in past times, but things have changed. The B10 isn’t changing what they look for in a member. The lines of geographical regions are blurring. The differences between the midwest and atlantic regions aren’t what they were 50 years ago. The same is true for the SEC and the P12. The teams that moved are happy with where they are and their conferences are happy to have them. It’s not a weird merger like the B12 or the WAC.
2. Class warfare
There will always be tiers, but being at the bottom of a power conference is an order of magnitude better than being at the top of a non-AQ league. The bottom tier aren’t crying over the lot in life. Besides, larger conferences also mean more company at the bottom. They’ll still have a similar distribution as now, just with more schools in total.
3. Outside influences
He mostly talks about the media here. While technology changes, the corporations in charge change less often. Businesses tend to consolidate, though, and that’s what we’re seeing now. As money has become more important, conference are following the same rules. Conferences are less likely to spinoff their top level because the other schools add value in other ways (academically, teams to beat, other sports, etc).
4. History
His examples mostly stem from the years when teams rode trains to road games and there was no TV. Of course having 30+ teams was stupid back then. That doesn’t say anything useful about the idea of 16-20 teams in a world of airplanes, national TV coverage of games, the internet and the constant moving that is mixing the various cultures.
—
My reason would be the future. At some point the conferences may well merge athletically to be a bigger version of the NFL/NBA/MLB. The tighter coordination will improve the money but end the concept of conferences. They’ll morph into subsets of 1 giant league used just for scheduling, and by that stage they’ll revert to their former, smaller size.
LikeLike
@Brian:
You said: “They’ll morph into subsets of 1 giant league used just for scheduling, and by that stage they’ll revert to their former, smaller size.”
100% agreed with this idea. Not necessarily predicting it, but that is a plausible scenario looking into the misty future. My lighthearted suggestion of a 42-team B1G was aimed at this kind of idea. A new Div. 1 of CFB where the whole division owns its own TV network. In that world, the 42-team B1G peacably (sp?) splinters into 10-12 team groupings for scheduling with 1-3 playoff “rounds.”
And really, think about it. The B1G writ large where the ADs get together and decide divisions, and scheduling and number of games, etc. The B1G seems to work very easily; imagine if all of the upper tier of CFB was under one organizational umbrella?
By the way, to throw some chum into the water (grin): A 42-team B1G is one scenario where the SEC might be vulnerable to poaching. FL, A&M and Vandy would surely feel the lure of the AAU super conference. So, let’s say a 45-team B1G.
As for the general idea of whether a 20-team B1G can stay together: I agree with commentators above and to the MrSEC article re: the CIC and the AAU status of the member schools. That is the thing that makes the schools the “same” which helps with cohesion and that sense of “family” (or whatever you want to call it). Put it another way: everyone is talking in terms of regional geographic “culture” and speaking in terms of the people living in and around the campuses. But the CIC and AAU status = a type of “academic culture.” That can be powerful. Campuses are their own little worlds within the cities and communities where they physically exist. I lived in Chicago and I can tell you that Hyde Park (UofC) is a very different place compared to the rest of Chicago. So “academic culture” (along with shared sports experiences) might be sufficient to glue together a 20-team B1G.
LikeLike
A lot of people seem to be getting the NCSU board of directors wrong. Here’s some help with that.
The NC St Board of Directors
North Carolina State University is a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina (UNC) system. According to The UNC Code, NC State shall have a board of trustees composed of thirteen persons: eight are elected by the UNC Board of Governors, four are appointed by the governor, and the remaining member is the president of the student government, ex officio.
http://www.ncsu.edu/about-nc-state/university-leadership/board-of-trustees/
LikeLike
Board of Governors for the University of North Carolina
The UNC Board of Governors is the policy-making body legally charged with “the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance of all affairs of the constituent institutions.” It elects the president, who administers the University. The 32 voting members of the Board of Governors are elected by the General Assembly for four-year terms. Special members are non-voting members with varying terms. Such members are former chairs of the board, former governors,and the president of the UNC Association of Student Governments, or that student’s designee.
http://www.northcarolina.edu/bog/index.htm
LikeLike
Mike, there are 2 Boards, for for the UNC System and one for each campus. The UNC-CH campus board makes decisions important to Carolina. I suspect Delaney sent an invite to the UNC-CH board. It will be a political decision where the AD, legislature, key alums, and all boards will have some influence. But the decision to leave the ACC and join the B1G will belong to the UNC-Chapel Hill board.
LikeLike
@Bob – The more people that know, the more likely it will be leaked. If there was any contact from the Big Ten, I would be very surprised that anyone other than the president and (at most) one or two members of the BOG are aware of it. This is exactly how Maryland made their move. No one wants a repeat of how the Big 12 was formed.
LikeLike
Fair point Mike. The Maryland process will not likely work at UNC. The MD President made the recommendation to his board. There are no in-state rivals to consider. Few care about MD athletics. The dire finances at MD athletics required an immediate solution. Delaney wisely stepped in. Swofford and the ACC sat on the sidelines.
For UNC to leave in the next 2 years there will need to be several conditions: a dynamic Chancellor, probably with a B1G academic background. a unified UNC-CH Board. a financial model for B1G membership that cannot be matched by the ACC. resolution of the current athletic-academic scandal.
I don’t think there is any rush to move. UNC will not go to the SEC. The football-first mentality, the lower academic standards, the oversigning, the coaching pay scales are all reasons why UNC is not an SEC fit.
LikeLike
Nothing there contradicts the claim being made, that both schools operate under the same Board of Governors, since the NC State Board of Trustees are 2/3 appointed by the UNC Board of Governors. Indeed, it underlines why the UNC Board of Governors have to take the interests of both into account: assuming that the governor appointees are made to pander to influential NC State alumni, those four Trustees would be able to campaign against a move by the UNC Board of Governors to screw NC State.
LikeLike
Over at the ‘College Crosse’ site conspiracy minded folks are having a field day with the sudden creation of an official B1G lacrosse site (skeletal as it may be). One commenter even claims that MD accepting was contingent on an JHU invite. Here’s the meat of the very short post:
Is the Big Ten getting serious about pursuing a men’s lacrosse conference with, presumably, Johns Hopkins as an associate member for lacrosse purposes? If a skeleton website with a picture of a female soccer player, a bunch of circular and placeholder links, and an existence that requires some link-cracking (or a simple Google search) to find means “Yes, definitely,” then Johns-Hopkins-to-the-Big-Ten conspiracy theorists have a little more fuel today than they did recently.
LikeLike
field day….get it?
LikeLike
http://instantostrich.com/
LikeLike
Here’s the link.
LikeLike
This comment to the Lax article made me laugh:
“You know where I’m coming from on the Hopkins thing…
but it really sounds like there’s some legitimacy to some of the various UNC/UVa/Georgia Tech (not a lacrosse program) smoke out there as well.
It would certainly fit in well with Jim Delany’s “Fuck You Notre Dame” platform for conference expansion.
by sullivti on Feb 20, 2013 10:31 AM EST reply “
LikeLike
That is as close to a smoking gun as you will likely find. What would JH’s voting power be? It can’t be 100% outside the CIC.
LikeLike
I’d imagine they only get a vote on lacrosse matters but as far as the money and BTN goes, no clue.
LikeLike
Pac 12 has Boise for wrestling as well as other associates. Don’t know why an associate lacrosse member is such a big deal.
LikeLike
Because the Big Ten has never done it. Forming a Big Ten championship has always been a matter of 6 or more Big Ten schools sponsoring the sport, and then a championship is formed of Big Ten schools and Big Ten schools alone. Indeed, when the rule was first written, “6” meant “when a majority of Big Ten schools sponsor the sport”.
A conference that has had associate members before can form a championship with associate members by following the rules already laid down. The Big Ten has a blank sheet of paper, which isn’t always an advantage.
LikeLike
Many different conferences teams, in sports not sponsored by their own conference, participate in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation. Would that be associate membership?
LikeLike
bullet,
For the same reason the Rose Bowl is a big deal – the B10 is just different from everyone else in some unusual ways.
LikeLike
So you guys against adding JHU for lax only, here’s a hypothetical: would be against Chicago starting a soccer (or field hockey or swimming or whatever) and competing in the Big Ten?
LikeLike
So you guys against adding JHU for lax only, here’s a hypothetical: would be against Chicago starting a soccer (or field hockey or swimming or whatever) and competing in the Big Ten?
I’m in favor of JHU, not opposed, but I think it’s a poor comparison. JHU is a king in a sport the B1G lacks, but wants to add. They’re also an academic and research king: adding them to the CIC would be like adding Harvard. In contrast, any sport Chicago would add at the Division I level would probably be terrible for many years to come. They’re already in the CIC, and you can’t add them twice.
LikeLike
So you guys against adding JHU for lax only, here’s a hypothetical: would be against Chicago starting a soccer (or field hockey or swimming or whatever) and competing in the Big Ten?
@Ted – As bullet pointed out a post or two ago, current NCAA rules prohibit them from doing that.
LikeLike
@Ted ~ there are eight schools that were grandfathered in on ability to operate one men and one women D1 sport with scholarships, back when Division Three did their big rules upgrade in 2004 ~ Johns Hopkins is one of them.
Four were hockey schools, two were soccer schools, JHU in Lacrosse and I forget the fourth men’s sport, maybe men’s volleyball? One of the hockey schools does women’s water polo rather than women’s hockey as their Title IX partner. One of the two soccer schools has since dropped down anyway.
The only other one among the eight that is remotely similar would be RPI in hockey (AFAIR not presently AAU), but the Big Ten no longer needs an extra team to form a men’s hockey championship, and needs two to form a women’s hockey championship, so its not really the same situation.
LikeLike
JHU fields around 22 teams…including wrestling!
LikeLike
And twenty of those are non-scholarship Division 3 sports. The difference between that and a club sport would seem to be the school paying for Div3 travel as opposed to making a grant in aid of club sport travel, and the coach employed by the athletic department rather than the student recreation department.
LikeLike
NCAA doesn’t sponsor, support, administer, regulate, or hold championships in club sports. It’s amusing as a D1 fan to belittle lower divisions, but it isn’t constructive or informative.
I still wonder if JHU might not be considering raising a number of other sports to D1 and actually dropping the rest truly to club status. This would satisfy the all in requirement (although I feel lacrosse as their only D1 already satisfies that) as well as the more problematic minimum number of sports required.
LikeLike
I still wonder if JHU might not be considering raising a number of other sports to D1 and actually dropping the rest truly to club status. This would satisfy the all in requirement (although I feel lacrosse as their only D1 already satisfies that) as well as the more problematic minimum number of sports required.
The jump from D3 to D1 is a substantial expense, and most of their teams would get crushed for many years to come. They don’t have the facilities for it, either. I think their basketball gym seats something like 1,100-1,200. I don’t see any way they do this, just for a non-revenue sport like Lacrosse.
LikeLike
@ccrider: Between formulating and approving new Big Ten bylaws to establish how associate membership works, and taking a Division Three athletic department to Division One status, the former seems a lot less trouble than the latter.
If there are schools that are concerned about the precedent, writing the bylaws so its only for the special case of a school with split division sports could be done to lay “slippery slope” concerns to rest. If it had just been institutional inertia, then the appeal of getting JHU in as a secure guest member of the CIC seems like it should be sufficient to overcome the inertia.
In any case, Johns Hopkins is not going to be making any decision in the middle of the Lacrosse season, so this is something that will be worked out one way or the other in summer. And for all we know its just a fallback plan anyway, in case UVA, UNC and/or Duke do not end up being invited to the Big Ten.
As far as “NCAA doesn’t sponsor, support, administer, regulate, or hold championships in club sports. It’s amusing as a D1 fan to belittle lower divisions, but it isn’t constructive or informative.”
If there is some fundamental, basic difference between non scholarship “varsity” and non scholarship “club” sports, it surely isn’t which group of sports bureaucrats organizes their championship. So as amusing as it may have been for you to belittle club sports because they are not “sponsored. supported, administered, or regulated by the NCAA, nor participate in NCAA championships”, it isn’t constructive or informative.
LikeLike
Your description of the difference applies to club FB and BB too. What group rules and administers a sport is what distinguishes them. Bringing a club sport to D1 status is just a rolling start. D3 is in the game, just with different rules and regulations for the various levels.
The true difference is what people can be charged to watch D1, hence the label revenue producers, and what gets reinvested to perpetuate the money cycle.
LikeLike
The core difference between Division 1 and Division 3 is that being non-scholarship, Division 3 actually is about intercollegiate competition between student-athletes. Which is what inter-mural club sports are about as well. Neither are rife with the rank hypocrisy that runs through the Division 1 revenue sports.
LikeLike
Since the Big Ten has never had an associate member, those bylaws would have to be written. One would presume that they could start out with some formulation copied from other conferences with associate members, and pass it by some committee of Big Ten members and JHU to see if there are any issues that need to be sorted out.
As far as money, they either need to carve out JHU’s home game television contract with ESPNU or make those revenues right, and on top of that add some small pro-rata share of Big Ten Network revenues. If you did a pro-forma allocation of 60% of BTN to football, 30% to Basketball and 10% to the non-revenue sports, you could give JHU an equal non-revenue sport share without much dilution of BTN revenues.
LikeLike
Since the Big Ten has never had an associate member, those bylaws would have to be written.
I’m pretty sure the Big Ten’s bylaws aren’t in the public record, so we don’t actually know whether the addition of JHU would require any sort of rewrite.
LikeLike
Even if the person in charge of considering LAX expansion for the Big Ten hadn’t mentioned it, it would be quite unusual for a conference that has never had and has never before contemplated having an associate member to have invested the time in writing up the rules for associate membership.
LikeLike
@Bruce McF: You referred to a bylaw, and we have no basis for saying that. Bylaws tend to be solemn things, which are changeable, but are not easily or frequently. That doesn’t mean they can’t be changed, however. Look at how often the U. S. Constitution has changed, and it’s harder to amend than most organizations’ bylaws.
Yes, obviously if JHU joined, a new procedure would need to be devised, as the issue of sharing revenue with an associate member never arose before. Plenty of things never arose before. That fact alone can’t be the sole reason for not doing them, or nothing would ever change.
LikeLike
Not sure how this a smoking gun vis-a-vis Hopkins. All it demonstrates is that they getting the infrastructure in place to potentially sponsor lacrosse.
LikeLike
Not necessarily JH, but they’re not going to the trouble of doing that for nothing. And they’re not likely planting that for some reason related to expansion issues. I think it’s real and it means lacrosse is on deck for delivery in one form or another. Outside chance it’s just a club page, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
I agree with frug’s point. Many/most of the B10’s top targets (UVA, UNC, Duke) play D-I lacrosse. There’s no real reason to think this is about JHU.
LikeLike
That being said it is still significant as it means the B1G is planning on officially sponsoring LAX. As none of the current schools has plans to start a new LAX team that means that they are most likely looking at a new conference member.
LikeLike
Except they already have six women’s teams, and are likely in conference expansion talks with one or more schools with men’s LAX teams, so it could be the people assigned to work up the women’s LAX framework doing the men’s framework at the same time as a contingency. If neither the women’s nor the men’s LAX had six teams coming on board, it would be a more definite sign.
LikeLike
as for “smoking gun,” this comment:
“This isn’t the smoking gun I thought it was at first.
I plugged the URL for the men’s lacrosse page into the Wayback Machine, and it’s been around since at least March 27th of 2012. (link) It looks the same for the women’s lacrosse page. It doesn’t look like there’s been any change in the year or so since; maybe other sports have their own page as well?
Also, we in the Big Ten don’t just want Johns Hopkins just for lacrosse or to make us smarterer: they’re going to supply the doctors for our Frankenstein’s monsters that will soon overrun the Northeast (don’t tell anyone, though).
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
by Nicholas Jervey on Feb 21, 2013 9:55 AM EST reply ”
Sigh … having no idea what/where the “Wayback Machine” is, I am constantly reminded that the internet makes me feel stupid.
LikeLike
Wayback Machine is archive.org.
Here is the B1G lacrosse page history:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.bigten.org/sports/m-lacros/big10-m-lacros-body.html
I also noticed that the B1G lacrosse pages now redirect to the B1G homepage, which they didn’t do last night.
LikeLike
How is the money distributed for B1G Hockey? I can’t believe LAX would be much different?
The hockey schools have got to be getting more than the rest.
LikeLike
How is the money distributed for B1G Hockey? I can’t believe LAX would be much different?
The hockey schools have got to be getting more than the rest.
Most of the revenue comes from football and basketball, and currently every school plays both. It’s a very different story if a school joins ONLY for lacrosse. You’re obviously not going to give them a full share, but what DO you give them? Bear in mind, JHU has a TV contract with ESPNU, so they’re bringing something to the table, as well.
LikeLike
The way that the money is distributed for Big Ten Hockey is: “We, the BTN, will broadcast 30 of your games live. That will increase your exposure and if more people show up to buy tickets to your games, you get to pocket the extra ticket revenue”.
Everyone plays football and basketball, which attracts the cable carriage which brings in the money, everyone contributes non-revenue olympic sports which help on a secondary level, reducing churn rates in areas where the BTN is in a subscription premium sports package and subscription rates to Big Ten Direct online streaming of the live content that doesn’t get picked up by the BTN cable network.
And everyone gets an equal share of the rights and the Big Ten’s share of the profits.
To allocate the revenues for an associate member in a non-revenue sport, you need to arrive at some notional share of the Big Ten Network rights to allocate to the non-revenue sports, and then give the associate member their equal share of that. My suggestion was to make a pro forma allocation of 60% football, 30% basketball and 10% non-revenue sports, and then an associate member of a non-revenue sport would get an equal share of 10% of the Big Ten payout ~ at present in the range of $700,000. That sets a nice high bar to recruiting associate members, which I would like since I don’t want the Big Ten to turn into one of those conferences that recruits associate members willy-nilly.
What I can’t find is the value of the Johns Hopkins deal with ESPNU. The cleanest arrangement is if the Big Ten LAX Conference can get an upgraded deal from ESPNU, to carry all the JHU home games and additional Big Ten home games, and include the value of that in the pro-forma non-revenue sports share, but I don’t know whether the end result would be more money than JHU presently receives.
LikeLike
Though its not certain that Johns Hopkins is the target of the gun. If, hypothetically, UVA was ready to move as soon as the Big Ten sorts out a suitable partner for the move, then that would also be 6 LAX Men’s teams and so the normal way things go would be a Big Ten Men’s LAX championship.
And it could just be a contingency: they’ll almost certainly be starting a women’s LAX championship, and since the framework is similar, they may as well lay down the framework for both, just in case a men’s championship is sorted out.
LikeLike
Slightly off-topic. Stanford has become the first school to raise $1,000.000.000 in one year.
http://news.yahoo.com/stanford-university-1st-college-raise-1b-051248286–finance.html
LikeLike
Only three FBS School in the top ten, all from the PAC.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/top-10-fundraising-colleges-at-a-glance/2013/02/20/c7962e16-7b1c-11e2-9c27-fdd594ea6286_story.html
LikeLike
While this is a great accomplishment, it’s hard to look at the numbers without some more context – such as how many schools are currently in the middle of major fundraising initiatives and rank them based on that.
For example, University of Michigan’s last major fundraising initiative was from 2004-2008 which raised $3.2 billion, placing the school at around the #4 mark if you annualized that at around $600M per year. Their next major campaign is going to start sometime this year.
Looking at overall endowments might be a better indicator, if I were to venture a guess.
LikeLike
Another way to look at it s to see how they change from year to year. One article I saw said in the last 30 years Stanford was #1 14 times, Harvard 15 times. I think the other year was Michigan.
LikeLike
The most intriguing thing I suppose is just how much money the California schools manage to raise in general whether it’s the public schools or private schools.
LikeLike
So most of you are still talking about the B1G expanding past 16 schools, eh?
And many are talking about it as if it’s a damn near certainty at this point.
Why?
So I’ve seen lots of rumors and talk about Virginia and Georgia Tech making the move. So I’ll grant that there might be something going on with that. Maybe.
But who gets you past 16?
There hasn’t been even a peep out of UNC or Duke. Nothing. Not even a crazy rumor from one of the performance artists like “The Dude”. Just a lot of hoping and wishing and praying and thinking and planning and dreaming. But nothing real. UNC fans don’t want to join the B1G. They want ACC or SEC. UNC shares a board of governors with NCSU. They’d need a home. The SEC isn’t going to take NCSU without UNC. They would likely take both. In fact, they’d likely take the whole research triangle if they could get them. Duke hasn’t said a word. The argument used to be on here that the B1G probably wouldn’t be interested in Duke. Now Duke to the B1G is being talked about as a foregone conclusion. Well somebody had better tell Duke about this because I haven’t heard a peep out of them.
So let’s say UNC and Duke are not interested in joining the B1G. Who can you add to get past 16? Notre Dame’s an obvious one, but they don’t seem very likely now, do they? Texas was the hot topic on here for months, but that looks like a no go. Frank’s all hot and heavy for Florida State now, but their academics rank below Mizzou, and many of you thought you were too good for Mizzou, so I’m not sure how you think FSU’s going to fly. Maybe you could take VPI with UVA? Really lock down the Virginia market. That would seem like a reasonable move. Of all non-AAU schools, VPI is closer than the vast majority. They probably wouldn’t get membership for at least another 10-20 years, but at least they’re somewhat close. Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn seem to have completely fallen out of favor on here, even though they were all talked about as serious options a couple of years ago (probably Pitt was the least serious, but only b/c of the geographic redundancy with PSU).
To sum up, I still believe the B1G will either stop at 14 or expand to 16. I see zero evidence to support an expansion past 16. Yes two or three B1G presidents mentioned it in conversation as a possibility, but that’s hardly proof of anything.
Moving past 16 would be very controversial. It would be a huge departure from the past, would greatly dilute the traditions of the original Big Ten, and there would almost certainly be diminishing returns with each addition to the league. Going to 16 is an easy move. It makes sense. Find a couple good schools and everybody sings on. Past that it can become a mess.
And then there’s the trouble of finding 4 or 6 schools that fit and would earn enough.
Until I see some kind of sign that UNC is willing to abandon the ACC for the B1G (and not the SEC) then I don’t think it’s all that likely that the B1G will go past 16.
The Big 12 obviously can’t attract away FSU so there’s no imminent destabilization. The SEC isn’t going to take NCSU or anyone else unless it becomes clear that they can’t get UNC. The ACC can replace UVA and GT if needed with UConn and Cinci. UNC can still have it’s basketball league.
UConn, Cinci, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Wake Forest, UNC, Duke, NCSU, Miami, FSU, Clemson, Boston College, Virginia Tech…
UNC and Duke could live with that league. Lots of good basketball there. They could just stay put. The SEC’s not going to do the B1G any favors and shake UNC loose for you. That’s a heavy lift you’re going to have to make on your own. And frankly I don’t think you’re strong enough to make it.
LikeLike
@Andy… You have seen first hand what happens when a girl literally throws itself at a conference. It leaves its fans rationalizing how they would have been 14. Last I decked, Rutgers was available as 13 2 years ago. Missouri was not wanted as 12, 13, or 14 or else it would have been in the B1G. Be happy the SEC was the landing spot… It is a good place to land from a football and $ standpoint.
As for the Carolina schools… If the do leave, it will be in MD type secrecy instead of MO putting themselves on the market.
I hope there is no movement, as talking about potential movement is very good entertainment.
LikeLike
Kevin, good to see you admit the obvious, which is that none of this is real and it’s all for entertainment purposes.
Your smack talk right there was for entertainment purposes only as well and has no basis in fact. Obviously the B1G didn’t like the Missouri + Rutgers combo. Missouri + someone else might have been a different story. If what I’ve heard from people who should know is accurate, then Missouri was to join the B1G if it came with the right partner(s) but those partner(s) did not pan out and no other suitable partner(s) were found before Missouri joined the SEC.
If a school has to be so secretive then why are UVA and GT all over the rumor mill? Are they lifting their skirts and throwing themselves? Did Texas A&M lift their skirts and throw themselves? How about Colorado? Utah? West Virginia? TCU? I don’t think Mizzou has a monopoly on people talking before the move is made. If anything Maryland, Syracuse, and Pitt were the rare exceptions to the rule.
LikeLike
You are making some false analogies here. As we are talking specifically about teams who either have joined or are rumored to be close joining the B1G the actions of schools who have transitioned between other conferences is completely irrelevant.
Nebraska, Rutgers & Maryland are the three schools have that have joined the B1G over the past several years. None of those schools gave any indication they were going to move until either the papers were signed or at least a fait accompli. Maryland is not the exception among it’s relevant peers, it’s the norm.
Now the reason there is lots of speculation surrounding certain schools right now (UVA, UNC, GT etc) is because those are the schools that on paper appear to be the best fit for what people think the B1G is trying to accomplish. There was also public speculation around Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska as well as schools like Missouri, Kansas & such.
The fact that there have been no public statements or leaks from UVA, GT or UNC is essentially meaningless as the other additions followed the same pattern. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now why are people here seriously talking about a >16 team B1G? Because high profile individuals within the B1G are also openly discussing the possibility. That isn’t a coincidence. Now granted E. Gordon Gee probably doesn’t have as much insight as to the inner workings of the B1G as your mythical insider but we must make do with what we have.
All that being said I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the program that most closely parallels how Missouri has handled re-alignment is WVU.
LikeLike
Rutgers leaked to the media interest in the B1G multiple times. So did Nebraska. Maryland is the only one that didn’t. Gov. Rick Perry talked to the media about A&M to the SEC long before it actually happened. CU talked about the Pac 12 a ton before their move. So did Utah. Louisville threw themselves at the Big 12 to no avail. Virginia Tech threw themselves at the ACC. And on and on. There is almost always talk of a move before the move. Georgia Tech’s president recently made stronger indications about interest in the B1G than anyone who worked for Missouri ever did. The only person associated with Mizzou to ever talk about the Big Ten was Governor Jay Nixon, and he did so off-the-cuff in response to a reporter’s question. He never said another word about it, nor did anyone else associated with Mizzou. Yet that one brief off-the-cuff answer has reached near legendary proportions to the point where some of you idiots are acting like not only did Mizzou “lift their skirts” and “throw themselves” at the SEC, but we were the only ones to ever do so in the history of realignment. That is hilariously wrong.
And now you’ve got a handful of people saying 18 or 20 is “possible”. Well whoopty-do. Color me unimpressed. As I said, a whole lot has to happen before you’re ever going to get to 18 or 20, and most of it is highly unlikely. People can talk about whatever they want. It doesn’t mean a thing.
LikeLike
should read people saying Mizzou “throw themselves” at the B1G
LikeLike
@Andy: Maryland to the B1G wasn’t the only surprise. So were Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC. Notre Dame’s switch was kept under wraps too. I’m not an advocate of an 18-20 team B1G, but if the best evidence you’ve got is that the targeted schools aren’t talking openly, that’s pretty weak.
You’re cherry-picking quite a bit, too. As I recall, the Mizzou president claimed absolute fidelity to the Big XII and was even the chair of its council of presidents until a very late stage of its negotiations to flip.
LikeLike
Marc, your recall is very bad, apparently. Mizzou’s President’s commitment to the Big 12 was worded so weakly that it was a running joke.
If me citing a lack of evidence as evidence is weak evidence then you having a lack of evidence is weak evidence as well.
LikeLike
@andy
I’m assuming you are an SEC guy, I lived in Greensboro and taught for several years and became very acquainted with a large number of Duke & UNC graduates, If I am convinced of anything it’s that neither of those two schools ever end up in the SEC. I agree with Frank that the ACC is much stronger than most people think however, if the ACC is truly unstable, then UNC, Duke, GTech, & UVA will only go to the BIG.
1.Academics
2.Academics
3.Academics
4.Academics
” There hasn’t been even a peep out of UNC or Duke. Nothing. Not even a crazy rumor from one of the performance artists like “The Dude”.
There wasn’t a peep out of Maryland until it was a done deal, the PTB at those schools signed confidentiality agreements with the BIG. If there is smoke there is a fire, and there is clearly smoke. Not hearing anything out of those schools is a red flag that maybe something has been signed, because talks are going on.
“The SEC’s not going to do the B1G any favors and shake UNC loose for you. That’s a heavy lift you’re going to have to make on your own. And frankly I don’t think you’re strong enough to make it.”
The BIG didn’t need any help to shake Maryland lose, didn’t need any help shaking Nebraska lose, and if, and I know it’s a big IF, UNC comes lose, or see’s the writing on the wall they are in the BIG yesterday. Large flagship university, great research, world class olympic sports, UVA, UNC, & Gtech are the same, Duke is NW with a top notch basketball team and a rabid east coast following.
Mr. SEC writes about this and agrees that the BIG has 2 major chips in it’s corner that the SEC can’t compete with: BIG network & the CIC
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/which-conference-will-win-the-realignment-war-it-depends-on-your-definition-of-win/
I still think it’s unlikely, but not as far fetched as you do. maybe this is the flavor of the week, Lord knows those flavors change more in conference realignment than in a middle school full of 11 year olds. However, the BIG seems to get what it wants, and i think TPTB at the ACC schools that matter would rather be apart of the preeminent sports & research conference, rather than a watered down ACC version of the Big XII
LikeLike
Certainly an academic like yourself would hear that academics are important above all else. No surprise there. But again all I see in your post is what I see in all the others. Pure speculation based on basically nothing but your own imagination.
LikeLike
“I’m assuming you are an SEC guy, I lived in Greensboro and taught for several years and became very acquainted with a large number of Duke & UNC graduates”
Quite evidently does not qualify as “pure speculation based on basically nothing but your own imagination”, unless your claim is that Ginger King imagined living in Greesnboro and becoming acquainted with a large number of Duke and UNC graduates.
LikeLike
and his buddies in Greensboro know what about the Big Ten expanding past 16 exactly? Oh yeah, nothing.
LikeLike
“and his buddies in Greensboro know what about the Big Ten expanding past 16 exactly?”
What they would know about the Big Ten expanding beyond 14 would be exactly as indicated in the comment. The comment did not make any claim to be privy to the Big Ten’s plans. It referred to the inclination of people at UNC and Duke. It gave his view of that inclination and how he came by that view.
“Oh, yeah, nothing.”
As if a one-eyed Missouri homer is the best qualified impartial judge of who has what sense of what the sentiments are within UNC and Duke regarding the SEC.
LikeLike
@Andy: … all I see in your post is what I see in all the others. Pure speculation based on basically nothing but your own imagination.
Now you’re just being silly. Plenty of Big Ten sources (presidents, ADs, coaches) have said that don’t think they aren’t done expanding. You can debate how likely it is, or whether it’s a good idea. You can’t just call it “imagination.”
LikeLike
Nobody has said “we will go over 16”. All they’ve done is said “well maybe we could do that, or not”. That is not news.
LikeLike
Andy,
“So most of you are still talking about the B1G expanding past 16 schools, eh?
And many are talking about it as if it’s a damn near certainty at this point.
Why?”
1. To drive you away.
2. What else is there to talk about?
LikeLike
Yep, all I see here are a bunch of bored B1G fans in a circle jerk.
LikeLike
@Andy: Yep, all I see here are a bunch of bored B1G fans in a circle jerk.
If so, why do you post here?
LikeLike
@Marc, I’m sorry, am I interrupting your circle jerk?
LikeLike
LOL. Crudely put, but I suspect that some of us are bored at work. We give a read between projects/calls and throw an idea or two onto the board. Then back to work.
I suspect that 75%+ of the Board agrees with you that going past 16 is unlikely. Many have said as much and then, in the same post, they go on to say: “but if the B1G did ….”
Throwing the cold water of reality on the Board’s topic if the week/month/quarter will do no good.
Until something concrete actually happens, the Board will have fun discussing the possibilities. Plus, whether legit or not, there is a constant rumor stream about UNC, GT and UVa. The internet (this Board included) is a massive echo chamber.
As said, the echoing will stop when something happens. The B1G divisions is a good example. Months of people proposing variations and offering guesses as to what the B1G would decide. That has all died off now that 12 of 14 are “decided” (at least based on media reports).
LikeLike
And you clearly approve of and are an enthusiastic supporter of circle jerks judging by your wholehearted participation in it. Congrats! 🙂
LikeLike
oh, I’m here, but I’m neither jerking nor recieving jerks. Sucks for me I guess?
LikeLike
Was that last pun intended?
LikeLike
Conference realignment: Can ACC take schools for their word?
By Jeremy Fowler | College Football Insider
In early December, ACC presidents issued a statement of solidarity to address speculation about conference realignment.
Nearly a month later, about six weeks ago, the topic came up between the ACC and North Carolina, which said it hadn’t had any contact with other conferences, according to a source.
Without babysitting, the ACC is keeping tabs on its membership since the Big Ten lured the cash-strapped Maryland Terrapins in November.
But if an ACC school is going to leave eventually — and the speculation persists with schools such as UNC, Georgia Tech and Virginia — the ACC might be the last to know. That’s how realignment works.
“At some point, you have to take people for their word,” said the league source.
It comes down to this: The ACC has enough to offer that it would take a major greed play for a school to leave for another conference.
This begs the question: Isn’t greed the catalyst of conference realignment? At least in part, yes. I think administrators want peace of mind as expenses balloon, and a bigger vault helps ease a president’s anguish over that next $100 million stadium renovation project.
Whether Maryland is an ACC anomaly or an appetizer to more realignment feasting isn’t so clear-cut. Nothing should surprise anymore. But what’s clear is no conference outside of maybe the SEC has a chance to maximize television value the way the Big Ten can.
The additions of Maryland and Rutgers prompted commissioner Jim Delany to talk about opening an East Coast office, where he’ll likely have enough square footage for more than two members.
Big Ten revenue projections could reach $40 million per school by 2020, according to reports. Some in the industry are skeptical of that number, but when running this by two television experts, they say the Big Ten’s tradition and national brand can help them sell the East Coast markets they need.
Despite all that, the Big Ten still has to persuade a school to wreck its own tradition and potentially damage a conference. Maybe that won’t matter if the money talks loudly enough, but remember the Big Ten capitalized on a school that was so financially deflated that it was cutting sports. Not that other schools don’t have debt, but Maryland was in a more dire situation than other in its own conference.
FSU faced a $2.4 million shortfall based on USA Today reports of revenue/expenses, which, coupled with its disapproval of the league’s vote to implement a $50 million exit fee, makes the Seminoles potentially explosive in realignment.
In some ways, the Big Ten will take what it can get, whichever school from a power conference is willing to bolt, possibly one with an Association of American Universities affiliation. Heck, UConn and Cincinnati out of the Big East would probably love to join.
The ACC isn’t in bad financial shape. The 15-year media rights deal with ESPN pays $3.6 billion, and the addition of part-time lover Notre Dame (five football games per year plus other sports full time) should net each ACC school at least an additional $1 million per year. The Orange Bowl contract and playoff money will help.
The league is looking into an ACC Network to help bridge the financial gap, but it’s hard to say how much money ESPN is willing to deliver. It’s already working with the SEC on a deal.
Maybe the exit fee will stave off realignment, unless Maryland can change that. It’s fighting this in the courts. If the $50 million dwindles to $20 or $30 million, that changes things.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21736743/conference-realignment-can-acc-take-schools-for-their-word-
LikeLike
But if an ACC school is going to leave eventually — and the speculation persists with schools such as UNC, Georgia Tech and Virginia — the ACC might be the last to know. That’s how realignment works.
If anyone should know this, it’s the ACC, from its snaring of Pittsburgh and Syracuse in September 2011. The head of the Big East didn’t know about it until he was told while at the West Virginia at Maryland game that weekend.
LikeLike
One ACC poster made the comment last summer that everyone but Maryland, Clemson and FSU was delighted with the revised ACC contract ($17.1 million). One point towards ACC staying together is that the $12.9 million contract just kicked in last year and the renewal is kicking in, so all the ACC schools, while making less than the rest of the Big 5, are making considerably more than they were before.
LikeLike
@Andy: Do you have a whole library of these posts written in advance? Every time FTT writes a new blog post, you post a recycled version of essentially the same comment.
LikeLike
You do realize the same could be said of nearly every frequent poster on here. That’s because literally thousands of posts have been posted on the exact same topic for going on 3 years now.
LikeLike
Andy I agree that the Big shouldn’t go past 16 . My choices are UVA and Pitt. I do not agree with your conclusion that all the /some off the schools in NC would then happly join the SEC. Come on ,they think of you as red necks.As you pointed out before, they want to run there own show .The South they represent is not the south of the SEC . If the big stops at 16 the ACC lives.
LikeLike
I agree that UNC would rather stay in the ACC than the SEC. I do know that UNC fans (and maybe boosters) strongly prefer the SEC to the B1G. That may or may not matter.
LikeLike
While Pitt would seem very unlikely, its not a move that would destabilize the ACC much. UVA would destabilize the ACC more, but not as much as FSU receiving and accepting an invitation from either the Big Ten or SEC.
LikeLike
As a fan, I would love VA and PITT and stop……..that would not be a conquer the world or a maximizing profit scenerio but it would add great travel games for OSU, IU, Purdue, UM, Michigan, Rutgers, and MD, as well as two top-notch schools and 1 basketball mini-power.
LikeLike
Oh, as a FAN ~ hell, Pitt and Columbus are similar distances from this part of Northeast Ohio.
I don’t see it happening unless ONLY UVA is available among UVA/UNC/Duke/GTech, Delany hits a brick wall with FSU, and the inclination of UVA to move has a countdown timer on it.
Which I guess means, to paraphrase Dumb and Dumber, I’m saying there’s still a chance.
LikeLike
Despite the proximity, Pitt never meant anything to me. Now I just wish them ill at every turn because of Mark May. I’d support any school in the US over Pitt joining the B10.
LikeLike
I didn’t think we were too good for Mizzou until I started reading your drivel. Go away.
LikeLike
The truth hurts.
LikeLike
You hurt.
LikeLike
Yo mama.
LikeLike
@Andy
I think you’re joined the French Army’s General Staff circa 1940. They saw no evidence that German tanks and armored vehicles could move through the Ardennes Forest, but look what happened there. Blitzkrieg and France’s surrender in matter of weeks.
Why would moving past 16 teams be controversial? It’s been talked about as a possibility for awhile now, including as points of discussion among Big Ten athletic directors who have been interviewed about expansion. What would be the controversy here? Conference realignment has taken place forever in college athletics. Television money has been an integral reason for many of these moves for at least the past two decades. It doesn’t seen to me we’re breaking any new ground here outside of how an 18- or 20-team conference would operate.
Would some commentators think this is a harbinger of things to come? Yes, sure, but the super conference idea along with the contraction of Division 1-A/FBS has been talked about for awhile now. Given where things are trending now, who would be shocked if we saw some entity emerge with 64 to 80 programs in it organized around four or five large conferences?
What Big Ten traditions would be diluted here? Would the basic composition of the conference change with any of the members we’ve discussed? Most of these schools are either the flagship universities of their state or in the case of Duke, a private school. All of them outside of FSU are AAU members with strong research portfolios that would be valuable to the CIC. They all have varied sports programs with at least 20 sports apiece (and in the case of UNC, 28) that could compete with the current B1G membership.
Why do you think there would be diminishing returns if the conference added more members? One of the major goals of this exercise is to make the B1G athletic departments more self-sufficient financially? What makes you think the conference leadership would take any step that would hurt them in terms of overall net revenue per school?
We’re all making our best assessments based on the information available. While you’re concentrating, for example, on what the NC Board of Governors would do, are you also looking at the state of finances in North Carolina itself and how that’s going to effect higher education (especially with Art Pope taking over as the state’s budget director)? What do you think the state government is going to do if UNC were provided the opportunity not only to put its athletic department on a firm financial footing, but also join an organization that could help bring more federal research dollars to the state?
We’ll see what happens regarding North Carolina, but I do agree with you to the degree that getting UNC into the B1G will be more difficult than UVa or GaTech. The B1G has some tangible assets in place that would make it attractive to the decision makers in Chapel Hill and in the state capital. It’d be unwise to dismiss them out of hand.
LikeLike
@ Cutter,
Certainly you raise some valid points, your prose is laced with good wit and to some degree humor. But if you think going beyond 16 isn’t going to dilute cultural togetherness & raise issues of tradition falling by the wayside you are a bit stuck in economic determinism. Perhaps better on-the-ground research is needed on your part: a sense of how the alum, administrators, respective fan-bases of some of these so-called particular expansion candidate schools feel-think about losing long-term membership and history in exchange for the grand old conference – the money. It’s not the sort of enthusiasm you may choose to take refuge in. This isn’t your fantasy Risk world.
Frankly, BIG expansion, and I’m speaking hypothetically here, that seeks UNC, certainly ND, likely Duke,and God forbid Tx, will meet tremendous resistance by their fanbases. Thus casting the BIG as a Wall Street type takeover – no thanks. Do BIG fans, more importantly administrators, really want such a reputation? Even Md, for the most part, wasn’t keen on becoming future BIG members. The ACC has a lot of pride and tradition. Why not? They’ve been the dominant hoops conference since the rise of the modern era (1985). A lot of great rivalries have developed there over the decades. They’ve also become dominant in other sports that admittedly take a back seat to football (soccer, field hockey, lacrosse). ACC baseball is certainly on the rise, much further ahead than BIG baseball. While I agree ACC football is not quite the brand of the BIG, the two are quite close in terms of ability & on-field performance. Moreover, both are far behind the SEC, along with the rest of the conferences.
I truly want to caution pro-BIG expansion types at this point. It’s ultimately much better if the conference expands to include schools who are more in the middle or slight favor of joining the BIG – as far as ACC candidates are concerned. Only FSU fits this criterion & I believe in part because they want to force the SEC’s hand. The vast majority of FSU fans prefer the SEC as their ultimate landing place. To think even UVa or GT prefer the BIG over the ACC is a bit delusional, but I do agree with others, they are more open than the above, esp ND (that ship sailed) and UNC. If only this expansion was driven by hoops, enthusiasm & to some degree less emphasis on academic pedigree: UConn and Kansas would clearly jump aboard – esp UConn. Louisville would have jumped as well – an underrated school and city that could be on par with the average BIG school in terms of academics in say 30 years.
At the end of the day, the BIG is loaded with tradition, academic excellence, cultural depth & a loyal, long-term fanbase – this has all been achieved and maintained by current membership – let’s not take this for granted. But BIG baseball is awful, which matters to ACC candidates. BIG football too often flames during bowl season, so ACC candidates don’t see much of an upgrade in competitive edge. BIG basketball has won only 3 NC’s in the modern era & has too often come in second place – too often – and the best recruits frequently bolt the footprint (see especially the UIUC). Sadly, even in this great year of BIG basketball anything less than a NC will be a failure due to media perception and self-inflicted hype.
In the end, quality versus quantity becomes more relevant to expansion candidates than we think. Just my opinions kind sir, just my opinions.
LikeLike
and a Pennsylvania blogger who concurs.
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/02/big_ten_expansion_north_caroli.html
(ht: Rittenberg)
LikeLike
Excellent article. This guy gets it. A must read.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
A bit over the top, but yes, the author and I share the same, general view points. GT, Duke and UVa would have far more cultural compatibility than UNC & these 3 would still be different enough in the BIG – for at least a half decade. Va is becoming more Yankee, pardon the crude term, than NC will in the foreseeable future. The Research Triangle & say Asheville have culturally changed along Northernesque lines, but never downplay the rest of the state – quite Southern & will remain so.
FSU would be odd, but I think more fans than not want out of the ACC – but as stated, they’d prefer the SEC by 2-1 odds (<– not scientific), just not the administrators I suppose. Florida is also more pluralistic than UNC. Northeasterners and Midwesterners have far more social presence in Florida, which is quickly becoming the California of the East Coast.
No doubt mainstream culture has condensed in the age of digital technology – post-modernity in the academic sense – and such a seismic cultural shift is here to stay, I get it. But fans will always enjoy shorter road trips more than plane rides or double-digit to near double-digit hour car trips, esp in warmer weather. It's too bad we don't have European type train system.
Geographic intimacy is what makes all conferences ultimately tighter – including the BIG.
LikeLike
David Jones wrote much more eloquently than me, but its the same point I have been making for months.
LikeLike
Under the traditional definition of a conference, I agree. However, I think the projected quasi-merger with the ACC will serve to redefine what a conference is. There’s no doubt that there will effectively be two cultural spheres within the new B1G. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any glue.
With conferences owning their own networks, larger is better, and money matters. But secondly, we aren’t dealing with random schools… we are talking about a merger of some of the best academic schools in the country. There may always be a schism between football schools, but the CIC is going to be one powerful unit that any school will both feel at home in, and will never choose to leave willingly.
LikeLike
The David Jones blog should be required reading for everyone in this and the other echo chambers.
A lot of the people who follow conference expansion surely also enjoy Risk and similar games, and get a bit of a thrill when they see it happening in real life. But the common wisdom of expansion seems to have no room for assessing cultural fit. Frank in particular has ignored, even scoffed at it. I think that’s a tremendous mistake for anyone who wants the conference to stick together longterm.
LikeLike
I’m anti-expansion, but he lost me as soon as he tried to frame this as a moral issue. That’s nonsense. Then his crap about how this would hurt the people of NC. Really? Nobody is talking about cancelling UNC hoops, just changing some of their schedule. I think the brave people of NC would survive just fine.
The ACC is only 60 years old and has changed a lot over the years.
Timeline:
1953 – ACC forms with MD, Clemson, SC, Duke, UNC, NCSU and WF (7)
1953 – UVA joined (8)
1971 – SC left (7)
1978 – GT joined (8)
1991 – FSU joined (9)
2004 – VT and Miami joined (11)
2005 – BC joined (12)
2013 – Syracuse and Pitt join (14)
2014 – ND joins partially (15)
2014 – MD leaves (14)
2014 – UL joins (15)
2 of 7 founding members are gone or will be gone. 10 new schools have joined at various times. Only 1/3 of the 2014 ACC will be founding members, but 1 of them leaving will destroy the ACC? I don’t buy it.
Then he compares this to the Nazis. That should end any discussion of this piece. Last I checked, Delany didn’t have plans to slaughter millions of Carolinians or the means to do so.
He follows up with this gem, “This is why: People belong with their own kind.” Hey, let’s use the rationale for segregation. That’s a great idea when discussing the south.
He talks about how many PSU fans feel like they still don’t belong. Well, that’s because he’s talking to eastern PA fans of PSU. You know, the ones who just got RU and MD added so they’d feel more at home. But expansion is bad, because other cultures don’t belong, right? Well, perhaps MD will feel more at home with more ACC teams. Conversely, any future ACC teams will have at least 1 old friend in the bunch.
In addition, he ignores the chance that people in the south and midwest might have things in common despite not having the same things in common with the easterners in PA. I’d argue that rural cultures often share a lot of values and don’t share them with the cities (Atlanta vs GA, Charlotte vs NC, Chicago vs IL, midwest vs east coast, etc). He also ignores that UNC has been in a league ranging from Boston to Miami for years. They don’t exactly fit like a glove in the current ACC either. A future B10 with 2+ other former ACC schools, some hoops-mad schools like IN, PU, MSU and IL, and a bunch of elite state flagship research universities wouldn’t be a terrible fit for them.
LikeLike
Bikemore,
“But the common wisdom of expansion seems to have no room for assessing cultural fit. Frank in particular has ignored, even scoffed at it.”
You’re just wrong. This blog has discussed cultural fit in all its dimensions more often than any other site that discusses conference realignment. Just because we aren’t discussing it now doesn’t mean we never considered it. We’ve had the discussion and moved on.
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/
Go back to Frank’s first post that made him a “star” (12/27/2009) and see what criteria he listed for choosing potential candidates.
“There are 6 categories (Academics, TV Brand Value, Football Brand Value, Basketball Brand Value, Historic Rivalries/Cultural Fit, and Mutual Interest) that receive different weights depending upon how important they are in the decision-making process.”
He was talking about fit before anyone else but Delany. Everyone else just talked football teams. We’ve had years to discuss it.
Besides, Frank has been one of the staunchest proponents of the ACC being strong. He’s defended their ability to stay together more than anyone else, and fit has been a big part of his argument.
LikeLike
Brian – you say that “We’ve had the discussion and moved on.”
That sums up a lot of what I find so ridiculous about some of the posts here. You really, truly believe that you’ve reached some sort of collective wisdom on many of these subjects, thereby allowing you to now “move on.” People who challenge the conclusions that you think you’ve reached are simply deemed to be wrong, and in some cases racist, as your previous post implies.
The fact that you and others may think that cultural fit is a non-issue does not make it so. I continue to believe that you’re missing a big part of the picture by wilfully ignoring it.
LikeLike
No, he said culture does matter. What culture are we talking about? It’s not t-shirt fan culture. It considers politics in as much as it impacts the universities involved. But primarily it is the university presidents and chancellors, and the universities they run. This isn’t state wide electoral politics.
LikeLike
Bikemore,
“Brian – you say that “We’ve had the discussion and moved on.”
That sums up a lot of what I find so ridiculous about some of the posts here. You really, truly believe that you’ve reached some sort of collective wisdom on many of these subjects, thereby allowing you to now “move on.””
Good for you. Unfortunately, you assume that reaching the end of discussion means we reached some group consensus. Instead, if you bothered to actually look at some of that discussion, you’d see that we reached a point where nothing new was being said and no more minds were being changed. Thus we moved on to new topics. There is no point in continuing a discussion once everyone has made up their mind. It doesn’t mean we all suddenly dropped the issue from our minds, but we got sick of repeating ourselves.
“People who challenge the conclusions that you think you’ve reached are simply deemed to be wrong,”
Of course I deem anyone that reaches a different conclusion from mine as wrong. So do all the people that disagree with me. It’s not like we all agree on any issue around here.
“and in some cases racist, as your previous post implies.”
No, I flat out stated that his arguments were horrible. He compared the B10 to the Nazis and later made that statement. It’s not my fault he said the exact same thing that a racist might say.
“The fact that you and others may think that cultural fit is a non-issue does not make it so.”
Unfortunately for you I never said it was a non-issue. I pointed out that there are many aspects to culture that the writer ignored and that he used bad logic (B isn’t like A, and B isn’t like C, so A isn’t like C). Culture isn’t just one thing, and the culture of the school is different from the culture of it’s location. The question of cultural fit is about shades of gray and how different is too different. There is no correct answer, just opinions, and only those of TPTB matter.
“I continue to believe that you’re missing a big part of the picture by wilfully ignoring it.”
I continue to believe that you have no idea what I or others think on many issues and show your ignorance every time you tell us what it is that we think. Just because we aren’t discussing an issue currently doesn’t mean we’ve made a decision or ignored the issue. It means you walked into an ongoing conversation and missed the first part of it.
LikeLike
@gfunk-
I think you mistakenly identify the stakeholders of a particular university and its athletic program with the actual decision makers who have to evaluate whether or not a school will move to another athletic conferece.
For example, you cite fan bases reaction as a point of consideration that should go into this decision. Now I’ll grant you that fan base support can help guide a decision–the case of Texas A&M leaving the Big XII for the SEC is a perfect example. OTOH, as we know with Maryland, there was a close circle of decision makers who went forward with the move based on a very pragmatic reason that not only providing more revenue for the athletic department and bringing back sports that had recently been cut, but also because it afford UMd to join the CIC, which it’s schedule to do one year prior to the Terrapins becoming a member of the B1G on the athletic side.
I rather suspect that schools will expand or contract the number of decision makers regarding moving to another conference based on its own unique situation and management style. I recall, for example, the utter free for all that took place at Notre Dame back in 1999 when there were discussion about them becoming the 12th member of the Big Ten. You had students, alums, staff, professors, administrators, fund raisers, etc. all arguing and pointing in different directions about what should have been done. ND may have been one of the few examples I can think of where a conference move wasn’t made due to these wider reactions.
In sum, what I’m saying is that there’s no single right way to do this, and that includes how much input the stakeholders you identify should be part of the ultimate decision. If past is prologue, then most of the decisions to move to other conferences will actually be closely held by a small group of people and not the larger university community.
Now as far as revenue is concerned, I can only reiterate what I’ve written before in my analysis of the athletic department finances of all the target schools in the ACC. Without going at it in length, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Duke and North Carolina are essentially revenue neutral operations overall, but have specific problems that I’ve outlined in earlier posts. Virginia is in the best financial situation in terms of overall revenue, but it relies very heavily on student fees (over $900 per student) and contributions to keep its operations in the black. In sum, all of them could put themselves on much firmer financial footing joining the Big Ten or the SEC given the conference distribution projections both organizations are offering.
You also talk about the quality of ACC programs, but keep in mind that they need money not only to operate, but to compete. In simple terms, if ACC schools are being outspent by SEC and B1G programs across the board in athletics, then they’re going to operate at a continual competitive disadvantage that is not going to be rectified. Those disadvantages are going to manifest themselves in coaching salaries or recruiting budgets or facilities upgrades or a combination of the above.
In an environment where schools are being squeezed by reductions in state budgets in concert with a prolonged economic dowhturn, university leadership has to make real decisions going forward–and it extends beyond the viability of the athletic department. As I’ve written before, the target universities are also major research schools with large budgets (many times more than the athletic departments) that are competing for funds. In a competitive environment where multiple schools are submitting proposals for funding, being part of the CIC is what is called in military jargon, a “force multiplier”. MGoBlog has an excellent breakdown that you can read here–http://mgoblog.com/diaries/b1g-expansion-dollars-research-edition
One final thing. You describe the Big Ten’s actions as something akin to a Wall Street takeover, but that’s a real mischaracterization of what’s going on here. Jim Delany isn’t buying their stock or firing their board of directors or downsizing the company and sell off the parts for profit. He and the conference presidents and chancellors are talking to, consulting with and ultimately inviting schools to join the B1G. That’s a voluntary decision by the schools who receive the invites. Now outside of a non-disclosure agreement, those universities have the option to go about the decision making process in the manner they see fit–and they can always say no to what is actually a business proposition if they feel it’s not to their overall benefit by whatever measure they want to use.
LikeLike
If A&M’s president is to be believed, their fans were not relevant. He said he made up his mind in 2010 and was just waiting for the right time. He did his best to stir up the fan base and may have been manipulating them to support what he had already decided to do.
LikeLike
I recall the websider writer who first called the aTm to the SEC as still alive and well not many months after the 2010 episode. He consistently and steadfastly claimed it was an almost done deal long before the “groundswell.” Whenever apparent roadblocks arose he continued to believe his admin sources when they told him almost nothing could stop it. He did seem to have very reliable sources regarding aTm, and to a lesser extent Missouri’s move.
LikeLike
So in other words, while the fans were not decisive, they were relevant, or A&M wouldn’t have invested effort in generating a pro-move faction among the fan base.
LikeLike
Yes. The decision had been made, and building support is pretty much a universal strategy as rumors leak. Perhaps that’s backwards, rumors leak to begin building support (or identify resistance).
LikeLike
Cutter, you are absolutely correct: If North Carolina and some of the others would join the B10, it would be a Vertical Integration not Horizontal. What does it mean? It means the B10 goal is to expand the footprint of the B10 (And naturally the Television Market), into new areas (Such as North Carolina), not monopolize their current markets (This is what would happen in Western Pennsylvania if say Pitt joined the B10). The funny thing about Expansion is the only ones who really are against it are: 1: Schools left behind (Like Cincinnati). 2: Fans of Schools. As an example: Like most Nitt fans, I certainly would prefer seeing Pitt & West Virginia to Michigan & Michigan State (No shock I am a Steeler and Penguin fan). I know the Penn State fans in the Easern part of the State (Such as in Philadelphia) don’t agree with me about this, but if you look at our basketball recruiting history, you see an inability to recruit decently in Philly. Why? Because we are not considered a local school (Unlike: Villanova, Penn, LaSalle, Temple & even St Joes). 3: Those people who are for “Purity” and who are against Capitalism. But the reality of the matter is what we think really does not matter. As long as Penn State is doing better financially, they will stay in the B10, and if UNC thinks they can make a lot more $$$$ leaving the ACC they certainly will, and the B10 will be happy to have them.
LikeLike
“Frankly, BIG expansion, and I’m speaking hypothetically here, that seeks UNC, certainly ND, likely Duke,and God forbid Tx, will meet tremendous resistance by their fanbases.”
However, these are membership organizations not publicly trade corporations ~ if UNC leaves the ACC in response to a Big Ten invitation, it will be a voluntary move by UNC, not a hostile take-over.
I loved a good game of Risk when I was younger, but at the same time I would be quite pleased if the Big Ten would stop at 14, because, unlike Risk, there’s no end game where there is only going to be one winner. I loved a good game of Monopoly when I was younger, but at the same time, we have to recognize that the Major Conferences are not playing Monopoly, they are playing Oligopoly, with Three, Four and Five winners all possible outcomes, and in all of those possible outcomes, the Big Ten will be one of the winners.
However, given the present finances of cable TV, it seems likely that the only way the Big Ten stops at 14 for an extended period of time if tries to expand and its targets end up turning it down, and then toward the end of the current decade, a decline in cable household penetration starts to take fuel off the fire of conference realignment.
LikeLike
@Cutter is making some very good points here. I thought I’d take a minute to jump up and down and make sure people are reading his wisdom.
1. People that think of this as “Conference Expansion” (from 12 to n) might be missing the larger point that it is actually a long and painstakingly arduous contraction. Essentially FBS (or Division 1-A if you prefer) are being separated into two groups.
2. Within the two groups there is something of a consolidation of power and a revenue optimization effort going on.
3. University Presidents and the Boards that oversee them are under a great deal of strain these days. There are budget pressures, major issues with student outcomes, a developing student loan crisis, and rapidly increasing pressure from very high quality/very low cost online courses. Here is a letter from a new President at a major research institution to give you a sense on how one of them views some of these pressures: http://www.purdue.edu/president/messages/2013/130118-MED-letter.pdf
Add it all up and I would just caution people that the way we view conference expansion (from 12 – n) today might be completely different than how we view the topic 5-10 years from now.
What looks like a brazen money grab today might in fact one day be seen as obvious and necessary moves. These changes, which seem dramatic in some ways, might very well seem very minor in the years ahead against the backdrop of what could be some massive changes to the University system in general and to College Athletics in particular.
LikeLike
There’s nothing “obvious” or “necessary” about combining North Carolina with Nebraska, Virginia with Wisconsin, or Georgia Tech with Michigan State. It’s a senseless money grab.
LikeLike
In a conference that already spans from Nebraska to Maryland, adding Virginia and North Carolina is at least as obvious, and is probably more so, than adding Boston College and Syracuse to a league that includes Clemson and Miami.
What you call a “money grab” is the way collegiate athletics has worked for decades. That ship has sailed.
LikeLike
Oh, it’s a money grab, but there’s nothing senseless about it. These schools are making decisions with a spreadsheet in one hand and with a view of what they feel is best for their universities based on the criteria that want to use. I have to imagine given the run up we’ve seen to date that any additional schools that join the B1G will have had plenty of time for mature reflection on what they should do.
I know you’re butt hurt by the fact Missouri was rejected by the Big Ten, but your rantings are becoming a bit tedious. Maybe you should stay away from this board for awhile and come back again in a few months when there’s more hard information on what’s going to happen. Perhaps you should wait for the conclusion of the ACC/Maryland lawsuit, for example?
Of course, when you consider recent SEC expansion, what’s so “obvious” or “necessary” about combining Texas A&M with South Carolina or Missouri with Florida? How about future scenarios where LSU is combined with Virginia Tech or Arkansas with NC State? Do those make “more sense” because they’re all located in the old Confederacy?
LikeLike
It’s a senseless money grab.
If they are doing it for money then it’s not senseless…
LikeLike
Kind of like how there is something obvious about combining North Carolina with Missouri, North Carolina State with Texas A&M and Virginia Tech with Arkansas? Not sure why making sound business decisions is a money grab.
LikeLike
As opposed to linking Missouri with Georgia and South Carolina. What is your great new found affinity with palmettos and peanuts? Last time I drove through Missouri I saw corn fields.
LikeLike
Missouri was a slave state.
LikeLike
Also, until recently tobacco was a pretty big crop in Missouri. And they still grow cotton in southern Missouri. Missouri borders 3 SEC states: Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. But nice try.
LikeLike
Contrast that to North Carolina, which has basically nothing in common with any of the original Big Ten schools.
Some of you may find me tedioius because I keep poking gaping holes in your silly theories.
LikeLike
@ drwillini ~ the boundary between The South and The Midwest may not be precisely defined, but it clearly runs THROUGH Missouri, not along the Missouri state boundary line.
What’s bizarre is placing Missouri in the Eastern Division of the SEC, but if the SEC expands with two adds from the ACC, that is a peculiarity that can be fixed.
LikeLike
It’s not that bad. Missouri mostly wants to play the border schools Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, and Arkansas, and the way the schedule is set up Mizzou plays all 4 every year starting in 2014 when Arkansas takes over as Missouri’s cross-divisional rival, unless the conference changes before then.
LikeLike
Andy,
“There’s nothing “obvious” or “necessary” about combining North Carolina with Nebraska, Virginia with Wisconsin, or Georgia Tech with Michigan State. It’s a senseless money grab.”
You mean like combining Mizzou with UF, except without the money grabbing part? Yeah, that was pretty senseless.
LikeLike
@Andy…
You realize that its 2013 and we are talking about major universities here right?
Slavery was outlawed almost 150 years ago. I really don’t see what that and tobacco production has to do with the topic. Are there huge federal grants available in tobacco research?
LikeLike
Gee, Andy, with your references to slavery, tobacco and cotton, one wonders why Mizzou hadn’t targeted joining the SEC for decades. We heard so much talk coming out of Columbia about that, didn’t we?
Maryland has a similar slavery/agricultural heritage to Missouri, but most residents here know the state can’t be judged iin 2013 by 1853 or 1933 standards. And while the surprise move to the Big Ten caught most off guard, as people learn the many academic, athletic and economic benefits of membership, leaving the ACC increasingly becomes less painful.
LikeLike
you realize I brought up slavery, tobacco and cotton in direct reference to drwillini bringing up corn in Missouri. It was a direct rebuttal to that.
No I don’t think it’s all that relevant, but those are the facts. Missouri was a slave state. They grow tobacco and cotton. They border Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Large parts of the state speak with a southernish accent. Missouri has a hell of a lot in common with several SEC states/schools.
North Carolina has almost nothing in common with the Big Ten schools/states.
Feel free to gang up on me with your bs nonsense arguments though. Strength in numbers, right?
LikeLike
Are you saying being former slave states is the tie that binds the SEC schools together and should make NC a natural fit in that conference? Why would NC want to have that association. Good grief Andy, slavery ended a long time ago. To keep associations based upon those lines is counterproductive. NC will make a fiduciary decision that is in it’s long-term best interests if it comes to leaving their current conference. It could be the SEC. It could be the Big 10. One way or another the numbers will tell a story and I doubt it will be related to which conference has more schools in former slave states. If those regions continue growing with significant numbers of Big 10 graduates and transplants from the “dying” rust belt, those regions will become more and more “northern” while the rural areas will remain “southern” and not much different than the rural areas of Iowa, Indiana, Illinois or Missouri for that matter. NC the school would fit fine culturally in the Big 10. There are differences but not so much that they can not be overcome.
LikeLike
Missouri was a slave state. They grow tobacco and cotton. They border Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Large parts of the state speak with a southernish accent.
Yes, which would explain why they were dying to get a Big Ten invite.
North Carolina has almost nothing in common with the Big Ten schools/states.
What does Nebraska have in common with new Jersey? Both are now in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
nobody wants to be bound by slavery. it’s just one of the must readily obvious signs of the cultural divide. Michigan has more in common with New Jersey than it does with North Carolina.
As for Missouri, it’s basically two states in one. Missouri was a state divided, and still is. St. Louis fits right in with the Big Ten. Other areas fit in with the SEC. That’s why it could go either way.
LikeLike
Partisan nonsense doesn’t interest me. This is a perfect example of the issue. There was a non-partisan discussion going on yet you were hellbent on turning it into yet another partisan debate, which leads to silly partisan retorts, which leads to you talking about slavery and tobacco.
Seriously, this is idiotic.
LikeLike
I brought up slavery and tobacco because drwillini said Missouri can’t be in the SEC because Missouri grows corn.
None of this is partisan. I went to Mizzou for undergrad when it was a Big 12 school, went to Michigan (a Big Ten school) for graduate school, and now work for a Pac 12 school in California and attend mostly Pac 12 games. My loyalties are all over the place.
What I’ve said in this discussion is far more logical than most anyone else here, including you.
I was responding to an idiotic statement about corn with an equally idiotic statement abou tobacco and slaves. Yeah they grow corn in northern Missouri, so what? They grow cotton in southern Missouri.
As for slavery, how many slave states are there in the Big Ten? answer: zero, soon to be one, Maryland. That’s out of, what, 11 states? And how many non-slave states in the SEC? Zero. So how is that not relevant? Slave state/non-slave state doesn’t directly matter today, no. But it’s a telltale sign of the culture of a state/region. North Carolina is a southern state. There are no less than three former slave states to the north of it. You don’t think that matters? If not, you are sorely mistaken.
LikeLike
^I rationalize it by Union/Confederate lines, and you know, pretend the occupied/divided states were loyal after all.
LikeLike
Andy, in this little sub-thread you responded to a post that talked generically about conferences expanding beyond 12. There was not a single mention of a conference or university in the thread yet you responded with one of your partisan posts.
Your initial response was idiotic as it completely ignores on of the primary drivers in all of this, institutional fit. One could argue that UNC, GT and UVA fit better in the B1G than they do even in the current ACC based on academic peers, research focus, their relationship with their States, etc. However, you ignore all of that and end up posting some nonsense about tobacco and slavery.
Don’t blame drwilllini, you started this little bout with stupidity.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac, the only stupidity is thinking that this is only about institutions. These instiatutions are made up of people. The people have regional identities. This isn’t a board game, it’s real life. Culture matters. Ignore it at your own peril.
LikeLike
ACC threat advisory level.
LikeLike
That’s a well done chart. Only thing I’d change is to move UNC down to below Duke at the “Guarded Risk of Secession”; other than that, looks accurate.
LikeLike
Main reason I say that despite the fact that they’d move either before or in tandem with Duke is that 1) they’re dealing with all sorts of academic-athletic issues that have roiled their leadership, and 2) there’s still the NC State situation to resolve.
LikeLike
Most of the Big 12 expansion rumors involve Miami coupled with FSU now. At one point it seemed noone was interested in Miami, but the rumors are that Fox is, so the Big 12 is. Makes sense.
LikeLike
Miami makes a ton of sense for the Big XII. FSU would like to keep playing both Miami and UF every year. That gets pretty hard to do if all three are in different conferences, but easy to do if both move together to the Big XII. That’s one thing the Big XII can offer that the Big Ten won’t.
It would also give the Big XII a fourth king and better competitive balance when they split into divisions again. Presumably, if the Big XII gets FSU and Miami, then they get Clemson too, and the big question is who’s #14.
(All of this assumes that the Big Ten moves first; I don’t see any school leaving the ACC unless the Big Ten moves again.)
LikeLike
I tend to agree. FSU + Miami gives the Big 12 a MAJOR presence in Florida, and while the SEC is still king there, it’s much more competitive, and the ACC becomes irrelevant there.
LikeLike
Miami is a king in name only, with fan support an inch deep. And on the field, Wake Forest has had more success in the post-expansion ACC than the Hurricanes.
LikeLike
@vp19: I’m pretty sure Miami games attract far better TV ratings than Wake Forest games. That’s what makes them a king, not their recent won-lost record. (Although, for what it’s worth, the chances of Miami eventually returning to glory are quite a bit better than the chances of Wake Forest getting there for the first time.)
LikeLike
Miami has name recognition off 2-3 decades of winning big which ended around a decade ago.
The name value that they bring to matchups won’t go anywhere though unless they’re bad for an extended period.
LikeLike
Miami’s fan support is clearly limited, but they also at least may bring the potential to peel off the Miami area from the rest of the Florida (where the SEC is #1), and there’s still a lot of talent there. In the right hands, they could potentially be really good again, and even if not, they bring a fair amount to a league just by the merit of being #1 in a high talent area (Miami).
I suspect that’s not really enough for B1G or SEC to be all that interested, but a next tier league like the Big 12 could very well find that to be quite attractive. Especially since the U compares reasonably well on the overall merits to recent adds like TCU (redundant market presence, very up and down historically) and West Virginia (not much recruiting talent or media market in that state, not a historical power), much less other programs tossed around as potential Big 12 adds.
LikeLike
Too much talent in South Florida for Miami to stay down, they should be a top 15 program even if their facilities are awful.
LikeLike
@wmwolverine
There’s a ton of talent in Houston and New Orleans too, but that has helped Rice or Tulane.
It’s hard small elite private schools to stay competitive when they aren’t cheating.
LikeLike
How do you define “competitive”? Even if you exclude USC, both Stanford and Northwestern (with far higher academic standards for athletes and located in worse-far worse, in the case of NU–local recruiting grounds) have done pretty well in their respective leagues.
LikeLike
@frug
It’s different in South Florida though. Down here, Miami is much more like USC is in South California than anything else.
It’s roughly equal with Florida and Florida State with the right coaches. There’s no reason why Miami can’t pull in top 10 classes annually with the right coaching staff (if they get out under this NCAA cloud).
LikeLike
@zeek – I’m a believer in this. Miami is located in arguably the best pound-for-pound recruiting region in the country. That’s going to always serve as a buoy for them and why you can’t count them out long-term. I’m not big on using the excuse of “all they need is the right coach” for the vast majority of programs, but I truly believe that it’s the case where Miami absolutely has the structure to excel as long as it has the right coach. The location alone is just too good.
LikeLike
There’s a ton of talent in Houston and New Orleans too, but that has helped Rice or Tulane.
Competitiveness in collegiate athletics tends to be self-reinforcing. The best athletes want to go where they’ll win, so they pick schools with a history of winning. As a result those schools keep winning, and the cycle repeats itself.
It has nothing to do with being private. There is no logical reason why Nebraska is terrific at football, and Kansas isn’t; but in basketball, it’s the reverse. Schools, for whatever reason or accidents of history, became “kings” in certain sports. Once acquired, that status is difficult to lose. If you don’t have it, it’s difficult to attain.
It’s hard small elite private schools to stay competitive when they aren’t cheating.
You paint with far too broad a brush. USC has been strong in football for decades, and no one has suggested that they cheated the entire time. I’m pretty sure Notre Dame has never had a major violation.
In basketball, there are a number of private schools with very strong records over a long period of time, with no insinuation of persistent cheating.
LikeLike
@Marc
Competitiveness in collegiate athletics tends to be self-reinforcing. The best athletes want to go where they’ll win, so they pick schools with a history of winning. As a result those schools keep winning, and the cycle repeats itself.
Well Miami doesn’t have a history of winning. Prior to 1980 they were nothing, so it is entirely possible that history is repeating itself. Maybe ’81-’03 was the anomaly.
USC has been strong in football for decades, and no one has suggested that they cheated the entire time. I’m pretty sure Notre Dame has never had a major violation.
USC isn’t a small private school. It has 38,000+ students.
Notre Dame is an exception to a lot of rules. It’s the only small private school to ever win consistently.
There is no logical reason why Nebraska is terrific at football, and Kansas isn’t; but in basketball, it’s the reverse.
Kansas is good at basketball because the founder of their program invented the game. Nebraska is good at football because they were the first school in the region to actually invest in the sport (the Big 8 was nicknamed Nebraska and the Seven Dwarfs for decades until Oklahoma had their rise).
LikeLike
@Zeek
Admittedly I don’t live down there, but nothing suggests that Miami has anywhere near the local support that USC does. USC generally averages 75,000 attendance in down years. Miami is lucky to break 60,000 when it’s on a title run.
LikeLike
@frug
I agree with your point about fan support, but USC has had a number of years in the 50s in attendance (1999-2001). Of course, Miami had a year where they only drew 28k.
LikeLike
Yeah, I exaggerated that, but my overall point was USC’s good years are better than Miami’s, and their bad years are no where near as putrid as the Hurricanes.
LikeLike
Also note that USC is much larger than Miami. c.37k total for SC and c15k total for Miami. Southern Cal is very very large for a private school.
LikeLike
Yes, USC & NYU are gigantic for private schools. No coincidence that they’re in the 2 largest metropolitan areas. BU is another private that is as big as a state school.
The only other 2 privates that are over 30K are religious (BYU and Liberty).
LikeLike
“It would also give the Big XII a fourth king and better competitive balance when they split into divisions again. Presumably, if the Big XII gets FSU and Miami, then they get Clemson too, and the big question is who’s #14.”
Pitt would probably still be available, and they’d make a reasonable match with a current Big12 school that is at present isolated all by its lonesome on an island. A mountainous (though progressively less so over time) island.
LikeLike
As someone who has spent almost all of my life in South Florida, the argument that Miami doesn’t have fan support is not at all true. When Miami is winning in any sport, The U is the biggest thing in town, or no worse than tied for first with the Dolphins. The problem for Miami is that their fans only come out when they’re really good, or when they’re playing FSU or UF. If Miami got good again, it would come close to selling out the stadium again. It’s just a Miami thing. There’s too much to do in Miami other than sports. Not to mention the heat. Nobody wants to stand in crowd of 60,000 in 100 degree heat to watch their team get annihiliated. But even if those fans don’t show up to gameday, they do watch the games on television which is what this is all about. Another thing for potential conferences to consider is the Latin American market. If Larry Scott thinks he can market California schools in China, Japan, and Korea, whoever takes Miami could certainly at least make the attempt with Latin America. If the Big 10 were wise, they’d take Miami and FSU. Before you scoff, Miami is extremely close to AAU status. Not to mention Big 10 alums. Don’t have the figures, but I’d bet there are more Big 10 alums within a two hour driving distance of UM’s stadium than anywhere outside of the Midwest and possibly New York City.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey
The problem is unless Miami is winning 10 games a year they are dead weight, and they have never demonstrated they can sustain that level of performance without cheating.
LikeLike
I would argue that no major program has ever maintained success without cheating.
LikeLike
For Nostradamus or others familiar with the B1G TV contracts:
A question arose on what the BTN is distributing. From the Michigan FOIA tax return release which showed total B1G distributions of $24.6 million, it appears the BTN distributed a total of $7.2/school million including rights fees and profit distributions. Originally, I thought that was on top of rights fees. So what is BTN distributing total?
What I do know about the B1G contracts:
ESPN/ABC expires 2016-17 averages $100 million/year
CBS basketball expires 2016-17 averages $12 million/year
Fox CCG expires 2016-17 averages $24 million/year (saw $145/6 years)
BTN 2007-2031-32 averages $112 million/year
The above averages to $20.67 million/year/school.
So what is that BTN $112 million? Does it include profit distributions and how does that relate to the $7.9 (times 11 schools is $87 million) and $7.2 that have been distributed the last two years.
LikeLike
The $112 million is just the average expected value over 25 years ($2.8 billion spread over 25 years); starting at $60-65 million and going up to $175-180 million over that 25 year period. It’s just the normal gain rate of a television contract averaged over the 25 years. But that was just the expected value for an 11 school Big Ten over 25 years; the numbers should be significantly higher with Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers for the remaining 20 years. Thus, that $112 million number is effectively meaningless now.
Here’s the actual numbers for 2011:
2011 numbers (from SNL Kagan):
BTN revenue: $242 million
BTN profit: $79.2 million
The payouts to schools are made up of a split of that profit and rights fees since Fox owns 51%.
LikeLike
So per school, you’re looking at around $4-5 million per school of the $7.2 million coming from rights fees and the remainder from BTN profit.
LikeLike
Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking, but the answer is that the $2.8 billion over 25 years (or $112 million per year) that you’re asking about includes rights fees and profit distributions.
The $7.9 million per school in 2011 and $7.2 million per school in 2012 include both as well.
LikeLike
I believe that is only rights fees. Profit distributions are on an ex post basis.
LikeLike
Thanks. You exactly answered my question.
LikeLike
The $2.8 Billion is only rights fees and was for the original 11 schools. Those rights fees have been adjusted for the new school additions.(Nebraska only to date) Terms have not be released.
BTN distributions per school in 2013/2014 are close to $10 million. Profit distributions are likely minimal at this point. We don’t know exactly how the profits are distributed as true conference ownership % remains somewhat of a mystery.
LikeLike
“If News Corp. hits its financial projections, which are based on a guaranteed rights fee, an equity share agreement with the league, the full 25-year life of the deal and hitting all sales thresholds, it would translate into an average of $112 million annually paid to the conference and $10.18 million to each school.”
The $2.8 billion was the total 25 year payout for an 11 school Big Ten.
LikeLike
The rights fees were tied to financial hurdles because Fox was taking a big risk. If the network failed to gain basic carriage then Fox would not be on the hook to pay rights fees for 25 years. This has nothing to do with profit distribution. The network has far surpassed the initial threshold.
LikeLike
The ‘major’ driving force of expansion is new markets and inventory for the BTN. That inventory (even mediocre BTN content like Indiana/Northwestern) are receiving good ratings (in their local markets), significant carriage fees, advertising rates…
Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina has a lot of population, cable/satellite subscribers.
LikeLike
Yeah, if we do end up with a Big Ten with 18-20 teams, the 25 year payout (including the past 5 years) is likely to probably end up around $4-5 billion as opposed to the predicted $2.8 billion for the 11 team configuration.
LikeLike
@Zeek,
This is from a 2008 10-Q filed by News Corp
“In July 2007, the Company entered into a contract with the Big Ten Conference for rights to telecast certain Big Ten Conference sporting events through fiscal 2032. The Company will pay approximately $2.8 billion over the term of the contract for these rights.”
Taken literally, the $2.8 billion is the rights fee only. It certainly is possible that News Corp is looking at this knowing from the start that they’d end up becoming the majority owner and would be paying BTN 49% of the profits, but I’m not sure I would’ve worded the above blurb the same way if that were the case.
—-
I still go back and forth on what that $2.8 billion actually includes or doesn’t include.
LikeLike
@ bullet – Since those are averages and we are already in the back half of the contract the current numbers are above the average payout.
LikeLike
So the difference between $87m and $112m is the difference between the revenue generated last year and an average of projected revenues over 25 years.
LikeLike
ESPN Matches NBC’s offer.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5238&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=catholic-7-and-big-east-ready-to-make-plans
Those moves will start to speed up once the Big East decides its television status with either ESPN or NBC as the prime rights holder. ESPN on Thursday “matched’ the NBC offer of a week ago.
LikeLike
$20-23 million is a really cheap price to pay to keep the Big East content away from NBC Sports Network.
LikeLike
jersey guy really really needs an editor.
ESPN may as well throw $23M at Big East for ESPN3 filler. Though it looks like their matching offer isn’t truly a match.
LikeLike
Per the SBJ article that Quiet Storm cites below, ESPN has matched the money, they are still negotiating on whether ESPN is matching the exposure, with ESPN looking at possibly sublicensing some games to Fox Sports One. IIRC, getting slotted into ESPNU so often was cited as a problem with the present Big East ESPN contract, at the time that a minority of the Big East (who have all since escaped to greener pastures) knocked back the $130m ESPN offer.
LikeLike
Mike,
Of more interest to me was this bit:
“With 10 teams for the next few years, the Big East also will make a strong push to get the a rule change lowering the number of teams necessary to hold a championship game from 12 to 10 teams.”
That will make 2 leagues pushing for that. It’s not in the interests of any of the BE’s competitors to help them out by supporting such a change, though. Their campaign could actually hurt the B12’s push for the same thing.
Speaking of which, I like how the B12 has said they are in no hurry to add a CCG even if they do get the rule changed. I’m thinking that hurts their odds of winning.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1268404.html
Bowlsby said Wednesday that proposal is intended to deregulate how conferences are allowed to determine a champion.
“If that includes a playoff between two high-ranked teams, that’s fine,” Bowlsby said. “If it requires a playoff between the winners of two divisions, that’s fine. But it shouldn’t have to be two six-team divisions. It could be two five-team divisions. It just seems like an obvious place where deregulation makes a lot of sense.”
So he wants deregulation, but is fine with the rule still requiring divisions. He just wants the number dropped from 12 to 10. That’s not deregulation. It’s just changing the regulations.
How do all you fans of this proposal feel? Would you support that change? It wouldn’t help with superconferences, just ones with 11 or fewer teams.
LikeLike
But his first proposal allows handling of 15+ conferences really easy.
If it’s just highest two ranked teams then you can come up with any system you want whether no divisions or 3+ divisions.
LikeLike
Sure, but he doesn’t care if that part gets changed according to his statement. He just wants any conference to be able to form divisions and get the 13th game division.
LikeLike
Ah, but I’d imagine we see something that would satisfy larger conferences as well. It’s not as if the bigger conferences have a stake in helping the Big 12 and Big East.
LikeLike
We might see that. I just wanted to note his hypocrisy. He says it’s about deregulation, but he’s happy if all that changed is the number of teams from 12 to 10.
LikeLike
It’s not in the interests of any of the BE’s competitors to help them out by supporting such a change, though. Their campaign could actually hurt the B12′s push for the same thing.
Other leagues will see their request, and say: “Hmmmm, we might want that ourselves one of these days.” I suspect that will trump the fear that it would allow the Big East to get ahead.
The mood among NCAA members is deregulatory right now. Obviously, there are exceptions. The “total cost of attendance” rule didn’t pass, because that rule would have hit schools directly in the pocket book. Something more abstract, like revising the rule about which conferences can stage a championship game, has a far less concrete affect on other leagues that choose not to take advantage it.
So he wants deregulation, but is fine with the rule still requiring divisions. He just wants the number dropped from 12 to 10. That’s not deregulation. It’s just changing the regulations.
I think you misread him. He’s saying that either method of organizing — a CCG between the two highest-ranked teams, or a CCG between the winners of two five-team divisions — ought to be allowed.
In sports and just about every other field, the word “deregulation” does not usually mean the complete absence of regulation. It just means “less regulated than it was before.” Dropping the number from 12 to 10 permits everything that was permitted before, and then some.
Similarly, abolishing the infamous “bagels and cream cheese” rule was described as deregulation. It does not mean that schools can do anything now. It means there’s at least one thing they’re allowed to do, that they weren’t allowed before.
LikeLike
“…revising the rule about which conferences can stage a championship game…”
You should never decide which conference is allowed to do something. It should be about why the need for, and the method to qualify for, an additional game.
What is in place is a rule that allows for any conference that chooses to conform to have an extra game to decide the championship. Conferences under 12 are capable of reasonably discovering their champion within the 12 allowed games, with room for OOC games.
LikeLike
Agreed. There is no justification for a ccg for conferences under 12.
LikeLike
You should never decide which conference is allowed to do something.
The actual rule, if adopted, would be phrased in a neutral way, without reference to a particular conference. [Having said that, the NCAA rules are rife with individual and case-specific exemptions, such as the rule permitting Johns Hopkins to have a Division I sport in a Division III athletic department.]
It should be about why the need for, and the method to qualify for, an additional game.
One might ask why people not in the conference are telling the conference what it supposedly needs. Maybe we ought to let conferences decide their own needs.
What is in place is a rule that allows for any conference that chooses to conform to have an extra game to decide the championship. Conferences under 12 are capable of reasonably discovering their champion within the 12 allowed games, with room for OOC games.
Obviously some people don’t think so, or conferences wouldn’t be proposing to change it.
LikeLike
Marc:
I may be wrong, but isn’t JHU being allowed a grandfather clause? Being allowed to continue under what rules were applicable at the time, not creating a new rule strictly for a few?
“One might ask why people not in the conference are telling the conference what it supposedly needs”
They aren’t. The conferences in question are asking for an exception to the 12 game rule. The basis of the request is the difficulty for conferences of twelve (or larger) to reasonably decide a champion without potentially eliminating OOC games. Smaller conferences can request the same relief, and perhaps changing landscape ($$$) will allow for it, but to me it lacks the need part of requesting an exception.
Conferences proposing the change are not suggesting they are unable to reasonably discover their champion within the 12 allowed games. They simply want to be able to hold a 13th, an extra game, to arrive at an equally (?) viable result.
LikeLike
“One might ask why people not in the conference are telling the conference what it supposedly needs”
They aren’t.
I’m quoting you. You said, “It should be about why the need for . . . an additional game.”
The conferences in question are asking for an exception to the 12 game rule.
As I understand it, they aren’t asking for an exception. They are suggesting that the rule itself ought to be altered.
Conferences proposing the change are not suggesting they are unable to reasonably discover their champion within the 12 allowed games. They simply want to be able to hold a 13th, an extra game, to arrive at an equally (?) viable result.
I’m not sure if they would put it that way…but yes, in essence, they are saying they would like to have the option of going about it differently. My feeling is, if I am a voter on this rule, my reaction would be: “They’re big boys in the Big XII. Whether I like it or not, and whether I want it in my conference or not, the issue is wholly within their conference, and doesn’t affect me, so let them do as they please.”
LikeLike
Marc:
Ok, semantics. It’s a rule codifying an exception to the 12 game rule.
“They are suggesting that the rule itself ought to be altered.”
And the reason it needs altering?
“They’re big boys in the Big XII. Whether I like it or not, and whether I want it in my conference or not, the issue is wholly within their conference, and doesn’t affect me, so let them do as they please.”
1: I’m not sure they are big boys 😉
2: Rules governing number of allowed games for all the schools is not wholly within each conferences discression.
3: It will effect me, and others.
4: I think having, and abiding by rules is preferable to letting “them do as they please.”
LikeLike
@ccrider55: “They are suggesting that the rule itself ought to be altered.”
And the reason it needs altering?
Wrong question: what’s the reason it ought to persist?
2: Rules governing number of allowed games for all the schools is not wholly within each conferences discretion.
In the first place, one might ask: why shouldn’t it be? I mean, at one time conferences weren’t allowed to decide how many games to televise. I remember listening to Michigan-Notre Dame games on the radio, because one school or the other had reached its NCAA-mandated allotment of televised games. A couple of schools actually had to sue to get that dumb rule abolished. Maybe the NCAA isn’t the best qualified party to decide whether your league can play a championship game, just as it wasn’t the best qualified party to decide if your game could be on TV.
In the second place, one might ask: once you’ve agreed in principle that CCGs are allowed to exist, why constrain which leagues can have them? I know there was a reason, originally. Even the dumb bagels-and-cream-cheese rule had a reason, originally. Times change.
The expansion of the regular season from 11 to 12 games happened in a similar way. For a while, the 12th game was allowed only under certain limits (an exception, as you put it), hence you had branded games like the Kickoff Classic and the Chick-fil-A classic. Once the sport had concluded that some teams could play a 12th game, it became difficult to justify why all couldn’t play it—so now they do.
And of course, before the regular season was 11 games, it was 10; and before that it was 9. Every time it expanded, there was someone to say: “Oh, the horror!!!”
3: It will effect me, and others.
How?
4: I think having, and abiding by rules is preferable to letting “them do as they please.”
Well, to be fair, no one has suggested NOT abiding by rules. Some folks have suggested changing them. Rules change all the time.
LikeLike
“Wrong question: what’s the reason it ought to persist?”
We should abandon the number of games limit?
“Maybe the NCAA isn’t the best qualified party to decide whether your league can play a championship game”
They aren’t. They are allowing an extra game for conferences of certain sizes and larger, to competitively decide a champion, and perscribing how to qualify for that extra game.
“…once you’ve agreed in principle that CCGs are allowed to exist, why constrain which leagues can have them?”
You haven’t. You have a set of requirements. Any league that meets them can qualify for a 13th game, to be used as a CCG. There is no requirement that those at or above 12 must avail themselves of this. Only that they have met the threshold, if they so choose. Neither are they prohibiting any conference from using one of the 12 allowed games as a CCG.
“Well, to be fair, no one has suggested NOT abiding by rules. Some folks have suggested changing them. Rules change all the time.”
Fair enough. There are wise, unwise, and sometimes downright dumb rules…and rule changes. I appreciate when you call a duck, a duck. Be honest and say you want the benefit of the 13th game without reaching the membership numbers that would make it a competitive necessity to decide a champ.
(Puts on tinfoil hat): If the 13th is successfully attained, don’t be surprised when an exception to the 13 game limit is created enabling conferences of, oh…say 18 or more to have a 14th weekend for conference semi finals. (Takes off tinfoil hat.)
LikeLike
“Wrong question: what’s the reason it ought to persist?”
We should abandon the number of games limit?
Thinking out of the box…yes.
But more specifically, I am reacting to the specific rule change these conferences asked for, which is not a complete elimination of the number-of-games limit.
“Maybe the NCAA isn’t the best qualified party to decide whether your league can play a championship game”
They aren’t. They are allowing an extra game for conferences of certain sizes and larger, to competitively decide a champion, and perscribing how to qualify for that extra game.
We’re into semantics now. They permit leagues to stage a CCG, but only if certain other requirements are met. They could also permit leagues to stage a CCG, and leave the decision entirely up to each league.
So the intent of my comment was: having permitted a CCG in principle, maybe they aren’t the best qualified party to further circumscribe which leagues can have them.
You haven’t. You have a set of requirements. Any league that meets them can qualify for a 13th game, to be used as a CCG. There is no requirement that those at or above 12 must avail themselves of this. Only that they have met the threshold, if they so choose. Neither are they prohibiting any conference from using one of the 12 allowed games as a CCG.
You’re pointing out, as I understand, that leagues have additional options that they have elected not to use. No one would dispute that. The question is why they shouldn’t have the option they actually want.
Be honest and say you want the benefit of the 13th game without reaching the membership numbers that would make it a competitive necessity to decide a champ.
It doesn’t seem to me especially true, that these games are competitively necessary in a 12-team league, but serve no competitive purpose in a 10-team league. All of the methods currently in use, or used in the past, are capable of producing highly unsatisfactory results. They also work well, at times.
(Puts on tinfoil hat): If the 13th is successfully attained, don’t be surprised when an exception to the 13 game limit is created enabling conferences of, oh…say 18 or more to have a 14th weekend for conference semi finals. (Takes off tinfoil hat.)
I wouldn’t be surprised either, given that the number of games has been increasing for decades.
LikeLike
“The question is why they shouldn’t have the option they actually want.”
Because it defeats the reasoning and purpose for allowing the 12 game limit exception. If the reason and purpose are no longer necessary, the 12 game limit is gone. Why shouldn’t ND and BYU get a 13th game? They are big boys and should get what they want? Heck, I don’t like the number limit for spring practices, or scholarships, or the value of it, or whether a booster can hire a prospect/player.
Because they want it just isn’t a credible reason. If they want it and can get the membership to agree, then fine. Just please, stop cloaking it as necessary for a CCG. It’s simply an extra game.
LikeLike
. . . it defeats the reasoning and purpose for allowing the 12 game limit exception. If the reason and purpose are no longer necessary, the 12 game limit is gone. Why shouldn’t ND and BYU get a 13th game? They are big boys and should get what they want?
If they want it, then as far as I’m concerned, let them have it.
But of course, one can draw finer lines here. In 1999, Nebraska and KState tied with 11-1 (7-1) records at the top of the Big XII North. Texas won the South at 9-3 (6-2). All three had played the other two, with each beating one and losing to the other. No team defeated both. Competitively — assuming the game exists at all — Nebraska vs. KState would have been the better match-up; instead, the rule forced them to play the less-satisfactory rematch of Nebraska vs. Texas, which the ‘huskers won easily.
There was also the notorious 2008 season, when three South teams tied at 11-1 (7-1), each having beaten one of the others. The tie couldn’t have been fully resolved without playing a two-round championship. But without the current NCAA rule, at least two of them could have decided it on the field. Instead, only one did, against a 9-3 (5-3) Missouri team, who got clobbered.
Heck, I don’t like the number limit for spring practices, or scholarships, or the value of it, or whether a booster can hire a prospect/player.
There is a difference. The Big XII doesn’t only play Big XII teams. If they give out unlimited scholarships while everyone else gives out 85, then the Big XII has an advantage in games against other leagues. Obviously, the same would be true if the Big XII practiced more than other leagues, or paid its players.
Here, we are talking about a game that would be played ONLY within the Big XII itself. Moreover, it’s a game the NCAA has no principled objection to, since other leagues play it. That differs, say, from amateurism, which is a bright line that no one is allowed to cross.
As I noted upthread, the reason we have 12 regular-season games at all, is because some teams were already playing 12, with the Kickoff Classic and similar affairs. Once you have allowed some people to do it, it gets harder to explain the reasons for denying it to others.
LikeLike
“Here, we are talking about a game that would be played ONLY within the Big XII itself.”
No, they are playing NCAA sanctioned football with rules that govern all equally.
“Moreover, it’s a game the NCAA has no principled objection to, since other leagues play it.”
And they have no objection to a CCG in smaller conferences, and in any manner they choose (KSU v Neb if you like) as long as its done within the 12 allowed. The principled objection is “because we want to” doesn’t trump the rules, and why they were generated.
LikeLike
“Here, we are talking about a game that would be played ONLY within the Big XII itself.”
No, they are playing NCAA sanctioned football with rules that govern all equally.
That part is disputed by no one. I was explaining the reason why this isn’t the same as allowing everyone unlimited scholarships. It was a response to that particular point. No one has suggested that the Big XII would play a game the rules don’t allow.
“Moreover, it’s a game the NCAA has no principled objection to, since other leagues play it.”
And they have no objection to a CCG in smaller conferences, and in any manner they choose (KSU v Neb if you like) as long as its done within the 12 allowed.
We’re in semantics again. The thing they have no principled objection to, is a CCG after 12 regular-season games have been played. This is in distinction to the rules against paying player salaries, or the rules requiring all players to wear helmets, which are absolute and have no exceptions.
The principled objection is “because we want to” doesn’t trump the rules, and why they were generated.
Actually, “because we want to” is an excellent reason. We live in a capitalist society. Our bias is to let people do as they please, and let the marketplace decide which ideas are best. When you tell someone, “you can’t do it that way,” you need a valid reason, and it needs to remain valid, not merely to have been valid at some point in the past.
The trend in the NCAA is de-regulatory: I’m sure you saw the news stories when a bunch of rules were abolished. They are starting to realize that they had regulated too much.
LikeLike
Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree. We already see backlash from schools and coaches regarding the deregulation of recruiting rules. They know the negatives, and want someone to tell them they can’t do what they don’t want to but will have no choice to do, or be at a disadvantage.
Stricter regs on over signing would be welcomed by many.
I agree that the schools getting selected to play in preseason may have promoted the move to 12. But that came long after the extra game exception was created and is completely unrelated. You advance to a CCG be winning a division. You got into a kick off classic or whatever through a uncompetitive selection process.
Invite Rice and Houston back, and hold a CCG by the same rules everyone else does 🙂 .
LikeLike
@ccrider55: Thanks for the civil dialogue (not always a given here).
You are right that some schools and coaches disagree with some of the new rules. Remember, the Big Ten coaches voted unanimously against the ninth conference game, and look at where it got them. Almost every rule is probably supported by someone. I’m just pointing out that the trend right now is de-regulatory. And bear in mind: recruiting rules affect everyone, whereas a CCG affects only the league choosing to play it.
Right now, the NCAA has approval ratings only slightly better than Congress. It’s built on enough hypocrisy to fill a book as large as its own antiquated rule book. No school yet has told the NCAA to go ____ itself, though some are starting to talk about it.
Invite Rice and Houston back, and hold a CCG by the same rules everyone else does.
Which is exactly why I think the amendment will pass. The bottom-feeder leagues would rather not give the Big XII another reason to expand. Obviously, they’d probably rather take two ACC schools; but then the ACC would take two Big East schools, and the BE would take two C-USA schools, and C-USA would take…I don’t know who, but you get the idea.
None of these leagues want to be telling the Big XII, “You’ve got to get bigger.”
LikeLike
Marc,
You know your reading of the rule is idiosyncratic. You’ll never convince anyone to change their mind on this issue and vice versa so please stop bringing up this same fight about what the rule does or doesn’t do.
As the cherry on top of the B12’s stupid crusade on this, they don’t even want to stage this CCG. Bowlsby said they wouldn’t rush to have it even if they do get the rule changed because not everyone rakes in money for having one. That tells me there’s no reason to change the rule to allow a 10 team conference to have a CCG.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Other leagues will see their request, and say: “Hmmmm, we might want that ourselves one of these days.” I suspect that will trump the fear that it would allow the Big East to get ahead.”
Most of their competitors already have 12 teams. What is their incentive? If they want the change later, they can vote for it then. It only hurts them now.
“The mood among NCAA members is deregulatory right now.”
Not necessarily. They want to drop some rules in areas they feel are over regulated. That doesn’t mean they want to deregulate across the board as you note. So why jump to the conclusion that this is an area they want to change?
“Something more abstract, like revising the rule about which conferences can stage a championship game,”
I’m not having that argument again. That is NOT what the rule does. It says what you need to do to qualify for a 13th game exemption for a CCG.
“has a far less concrete affect on other leagues that choose not to take advantage it.”
Helping the competition hurts you. That’s very concrete.
“I think you misread him.”
No, that’s exactly what he said. He’s fine if the only change is to drop the number from 12 to 10. He’s also fine if it changes more, but that doesn’t change my point.
“He’s saying that either method of organizing — a CCG between the two highest-ranked teams, or a CCG between the winners of two five-team divisions — ought to be allowed.”
No, he isn’t. He said he’s fine either way. It’s a quote. Re-read it.
“If it requires a playoff between the winners of two divisions, that’s fine. But it shouldn’t have to be two six-team divisions. It could be two five-team divisions.”
“In sports and just about every other field, the word “deregulation” does not usually mean the complete absence of regulation. It just means “less regulated than it was before.” Dropping the number from 12 to 10 permits everything that was permitted before, and then some.”
Changing the number is not deregulating. It’s changing the regulation.
LikeLike
The InsideMDSports guy is now “clarifying” what he is hearing in regards to UNC on twitter.
Jeff Ermann @insidemdsports
The #SEC also remains a viable option for #UNC. Legit mutual interest, per multiple sources. Heels a crown jewel of the realignment picture.
Jeff Ermann @insidemdsports
Seems to be some confusion. So it’s clear, I’ve reported nothing to the effect that UNC is Big 10-bound; just that Big 10 wants the Heels.
LikeLike
“legit mutual interest” between UNC and the SEC? But people said on here that was not possible.
LikeLike
Legit mutual interest between UNC and the SEC is certainly possible. Pointing out that it would be slumming as far as BBall and academics goes does not mean there is no interest from some UNC stakeholders in he move.
As far as the people who say that the drop in academic and BBall standards is so profound that those pushing for a move to the SEC will in the end by frustrated … I dunno. That’s not the part of SEC-land that I lived in for six years.
LikeLike
SEC basketball could potentiall include: Kentucky – 8 national titles, 52 NCAAs, UNC – 5 national titles, 51 NCAAs, Duke – 4 national titles, 32 NCAAs, Florida – 2 national titles, 17 NCAAs, Arkansas – 1 national title, 29 NCAAs, Missouri – 25 NCAAs, Alabama – 20 NCAAs, LSU – 20 NCAAs, Tennessee – 19 NCAAs.
Not exactly a wasteland.
An SEC with UNC and Duke would include 6 AAU schools and a total research budget of over $5B. Not as good as the B1G but solid, and not that far from the Pac 12. Comfortably ahead of the rest.
LikeLike
Are any of those laurels getting a bit dry and dusty? Looking at that you’d not expect the SEC to be a three bid conference ~ yet here we are, and a three bid SEC would surprise nobody.
LikeLike
Yes, SEC basketball isn’t good this year, and the average quality isn’t normally as good as the Big Ten. But an SEC team is the CURRENT NCAA CHAMPION. How is that ‘dry and dusty?’
If Duke and UNC had joined the SEC this year, the SEC would have 6 of the last 8 NCAA basketball champions. SEC schools would be almost as successful in producing titles in basketball as in football!
(I admit, I’m not a basketball guy, and had to look up the list of recent champs on wikipedia to get the exact numbers, but even I knew the SEC has many more recent ‘laurels’ than the Big Ten.)
LikeLike
man, shut up. you’re opinions are so slanted and asinine. no one gives a f’ what you think.
LikeLike
Bruce – over the last ten years, the three SEC teams (UK, UF & LSU) have made five appearances in the Final Four, winning three NCs. Over that same time three B1G teams (Illinois, Ohio St & Mich St) have made six appearances in the Final Four, winning ZERO NCs.
The SEC is not as deep as the B1G, but the SEC has collected more hardware.
LikeLike
Alan is exactly right. The top few teams in the SEC are as good or better on average than the top teams in any other conference. The problem is depth. The lower level SEC basketball programs need to improve. But certainly with UNC and Duke the SEC would have 7 or 8 very solid basketball programs, which is more than most any other league could say.
LikeLike
Bottom line, SEC has 6 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championships in the modern era, twice as many as the BIG. Sure, the BIG has better depth and more FF’s, but as a BIG fan over the years, it’s quite obvious the conference has choked in NCG’s – 6 of the last 7 appearances: The Phantom 5 (92 & 93), IU (2002), MSU (2009), OSU (2007), and Illinois (2005).
I tell you all this expansion craze would be easier for the BIG had they won more NCG’s in football & basketball than lost. Perennial runners up don’t help the cause, thus too often BIG fans have to resort to money and academic prestige arguments with their fantasy expansion scenarios. I don’t like it, such talk looks snobby and sometimes desperate (shifting demographics to the South, we need the recruits – btw, not the case with basketball at all). People fail to realize that football is incredible in many southern states and Tx because of shared and maintained culture – like Chicago hoops or Minnesota hockey. Culture can always change.
I’d rather see the conference win more NC’s in these particular sports, esp basketball. Very tired of seeing so many great basketball recruits leave the footprint. Winning football NC’s, doesn’t bother me as much because there has never been a playoff – when the day finally comes the SEC will never have a run like the past 7 years – justice through parity will prevail. Book it!
LikeLike
Right now, the SEC only has two consistently elite teams that have virtually carried the entire conference since Arkansas was good in the mid-90s.
Over the past 15 years, outside of Florida and Kentucky, only LSU can claim a single Final Four appearance.
That’s it.
The Big Ten on the other hand has had like 6 or 7 teams reach the Final Four in that time frame with Michigan State and Ohio State each reaching a handful along with 5 different teams in the national championship game over the past 11 years.
You can’t even compare the two conferences. Michigan State is as elite as Florida and Indiana is as elite as Kentucky.
Going beyond that the Big Ten also has Maryland now (championship in 2002 and Final Four in 2001).
You can’t claim with a straight face that SEC basketball has been anything outside of Florida and Kentucky over the past 15 years. They’re carrying that entire conference.
LikeLike
Alan, that’s an interesting cutoff date of 10 years ago.
Michigan State and Ohio State both reached 1999 Final Four
Michigan State was the 2000 champion and Wisconsin reached the 2000 Final Four
Michigan State and Maryland reached the 2001 Final Four
Maryland won the 2002 championship and Indiana was the runner-up.
LikeLike
Andy–Don’t forget Missouri——the 1939 Omaha Holiday Tourney champs……..
LikeLike
@gfunk,
Make that 7 of the last 8 NCG appearances. Michigan State lost the ’09 final to UNC.
LikeLike
zeek – I was responding to Bruce’s question, “Are any of those laurels getting a bit dry and dusty?”
Are you really arguing that 10 years isn’t a round, fair, commonly used number to examine recent history? If I had used 11 or 13, I could see your argument, but 10? Come on, zeek.
LikeLike
zeek – you shouldn’t give the B1G credit for Maryland’s success in the ACC from 11 and 12 years ago, especially since they aren’t even a member of the B1G yet.
LikeLike
The SEC is not as deep as the B1G, but the SEC has collected more hardware.
Depth brings more revenue, though.
LikeLike
Alan, my point is this; if you compare a 14 team Big Ten to a 14 team SEC; here’s what you’re looking at:
Big Ten has 7 or 8 teams that you can reasonably think will get to a Final Four in the next 10 years.
SEC has 2 along with Arkansas and LSU having history in the sport (but I’m not sure what their current potential is).
LikeLike
SEC has always been underrated in basketball. But there has been a slump the last 3 or 4 years. The Pac 12 has had a bigger slump. And the Big 10 has had a similar slump in a similar time frame in football. That doesn’t mean its permanent.
LikeLike
As I showed a few posts up, there’s more ways to count depth than just national titles. NCAA appearances are also a decent measure. In the theoretical scenario of UNC and Duke to the SEC and UVA and GT to the B1G, the SEC would have:
Kentucky 52
UNC 51
Duke 36
Arkansas 29
Missouri 25
Alabama 20
LSU 20
Tennessee 19
Florida 17
Vanderbilt 13
Texas A&M 12
Mississippi State 10
Georgia 10
Auburn 8
South Carolina 8
Mississippi 6
Indiana 36
Illinois 29
Michigan State 26
Purdue 25
Ohio State 24
Maryland 23
Iowa 22
Michigan 19
Wisconsin 18
Virginia 17
Georgia Tech 16
Penn State 9
Rutgers 6
Minnesota 6
Nebraska 6
Northwestern 0
By that measure the SEC would actually be the stronger basketball conference historically. I’m pretty sure they’d lead in national titles, final fours, and NCAA apperances, and at least as far as NCAA appearances the historical depth would be better as well.
LikeLike
zeek – since re-alignment got kicked off in 1992, five SEC schools (UK, UF, Ark, LSU & Miss St) made 14 FF appearances and won 6 titles. In the same time, and counting Maryland, eight B1G schools (Ill, Ind, MD, MI, Sparty, MN, OSU & WI) have made 18 FF appearances and won 2 titles.
I don’t dispute that the B1G is deeper, but the SEC is more successful in acquiring hardware. Three different SEC teams (UK – 12, 98 & 96; UF – 07 & 06; and Ark -94) have won six titles. During that time, only Sparty won a title in 2000. Future B1G member Maryland did win it all in 02.
Recently, A&M, LSU, Vandy South Carolina, Bama, Tennessee, and Miss State have been competitive, but not consistent. Mizzou has been consistently good, but has underachieved in the tournament.
It all depends on how you measure success. If depth is how you measure success, the B1G wins, but its closer than one might think.
LSU and Alabama have good young coaches that can recruit and will get better. Vandy graduated everybody from last year, so there are really bad this year. Ole Miss is making moves in a positive direction and should make the NCAAs this year. Recent football success has eclipsed everything in the conference though, in spite of SEC schools hiring successful young coaches and paying competitive salaries.
My Tigers are on the way back and should be a consistent tournament team within the next few years. First year coach Johnny Jones is an LSU grad and Dale Brown disciple, having played and coached for him. Louisiana produces some good basketball talent. Johnny was hired for his recruiting prowess, but we have all been pleasantly surprised that he appears to be a pretty good bench coach as well. Look for good things from my Tigers in the future.
LikeLike
@Andy- You might want to re-check your NCAA appearance numbers. I didn’t go through them all, but you’ve got a slew of errors. Here are the correct NCAA appearances for a few of them. I also include Final 4s for these schools:
Michigan—23 and 6 Final 4s
OSU——–28 and 11 Final 4s
Purdue—–26 and 2 Final 4s
Minnesota-11 and 1 Final 4
Also, your list while impressive looking when you add UNC and Duke when you remove them you’re left w/ a decent list of teams. But, decent is about all they are. The SEC has a grand total of 1 team (Kentucky) in the top 20 of all-time wins. The B1G has 3. The B1G is better than the SEC in hoops at the top, in the middle and at the bottom.
LikeLike
Lobills, got my numbers here, I assum they’re fairly accurate, maybe off by a little?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Tournament_bids_by_school
LikeLike
Also, Lobills, I agree that the B1G is better than the SEC in basketball right now. I’m just saying add UNC and Duke and the two leagues are similar and the SEC might even be a little better. Basically the SEC is 2 good programs shy of equalling the B1G in basketball. Their only real shot at evening it up would be to add UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
@Andy- They aren’t that far off. Most just by 1. Minnesota was the big one 6 vs. 11. No biggie.
LikeLike
@ Michaeil in Raleigh,
Re-read my post – I counted 2009 MSU (second place). Of course I did, that’s my program. I said 6 of 7 because we won it in 2000. I broke down the second place finishes per year, per school. But yeah, again, the BIG is a stellar 1-7 in basketball NCGs since 1992. Unacceptable.
LikeLike
@ Alan ~ While its mostly the current season with the SEC sitting in the Sagarin rankings down among the better Mid-Majors that I’m needling Andy about, because he’s such an over the top SEC spin merchant ~ and the SEC was surely one of the Major basketball conferences when I was in Knoxville in the early 90’s ~ the success of Florida and the success of Kentucky’s one and done teams have distracted from a conference slump that is more than just a one year thing.
LikeLike
Andy: “I’m just saying add UNC and Duke and the two leagues are similar and the SEC might even be a little better.”
So if you unspin it, “we’re not as good as the Big Ten, so we’re close enough that if you join us, it will help us catch up!”
When the Big Ten’s pitch includes, “Join us and the Big Ten will be the strongest basketball conference both when you join and over the long haul”.
LikeLike
BruceMcF, it’s funny how bias can taint the brain. I’m an “over the top SEC spin merchant” because I make posts that reflect positivley of the SEC that I’m careful to be accurate and modest in, and readily admit to the SEC’s faults, and that comes accross to you and being a “spin merchant”. Okay. I’d love to see any example ever of me exaggerating anything at all in favor of the SEC. I’m 99.9% sure I haven’t.
You on the other hand admit in the very same post that you are exagerating to an indefeninsible level merely to “needle me”. So who’s the “spin merchant” again? Projecting much?
LikeLike
How on earth is is “spin” if I say (direct quote): “Basically the SEC is 2 good programs shy of equalling the B1G in basketball. Their only real shot at evening it up would be to add UNC and Duke.”
Maybe your definition of the word “spin” is wildly different from mine. But in my world if I were spinning I wouldn’t be that honest, modest, and straightforward.
LikeLike
Example: “I’d love to see any example ever of me exaggerating anything at all in favor of the SEC. I’m 99.9% sure I haven’t.”
Sorry, couldn’t help it. I’m done.
LikeLike
Yes, that was an exaggeration, but not in favor of the SEC. I do engage in semantical exaggerations at times for emphasis. It is part of my conversational style. But I don’t spin or exagerate facts. The truth is plenty good enough.
LikeLike
So if you add two top-5 basketball programs of all time, which happen to both be academic powerhouses as well, then the leagues will be close to equal? That is a pretty weak argument for the SEC.
That’s like telling Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy that if they join your golf team you will be about as good and popular as the next best team.
LikeLike
The SEC already has the #1 winningest basketball program of all time, and another that has won 2 national titles in recent years, and 5 programs in the top 40 all-time in NCAA appearances. So no, it’s not like that. As I said, they just need a couple more top level programs to match the Big Ten. As it is they’re a couple programs behind. Not trying to spin anything.
LikeLike
Andy, you do more spinning than a washing machine.
LikeLike
oh no you di’int!
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone said it was not possible. They just thought UNC would prefer the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Perhaps in your mind, Andy.
The overall opinion here has always been that North Carolina could go either way regarding the Big Ten and the SEC. We’re aware of the discussions about Slive having targeted UNC and Duke for the SEC and we’re certainly aware of Delany’s interest. UNC is likely going to be pulled both ways and with the SEC Network due to ramp up early next year, having a presence in the states North Carolina and Virginia would be a logical step for the SEC to take.
At this point, we’re discussing the merits, pros and cons of North Carolina going in one conference or the other. Both can make a case and I suspect the leadership in Chapel Hill are going to have an interesting decision to make in due course. They can stay in the ACC under the current television contract and try to maintain 28 sports with an athletic department that essentially has no net revenue or move to another conference–B1G or SEC–and become part of the first super conference in major college athletics.
LikeLike
certainly there have been a few reasonable posts like the one you just made, but the unreasonable ones have not been only “in my mind”. There have been a ton of dismissive posts about how UNC would never go to the SEC. I’m not sure how you missed them.
LikeLike
@Andy: You’re right that there are a lot of dismissive posts, and there shouldn’t be. But aren’t you the king of dismissive posts? As in this bon mot “all I see here are a bunch of bored B1G fans in a circle jerk.”
LikeLike
Perhaps because I have the wisdom to dismiss them as not being noteworthy?
I mean, seriously, if you want to stomp your feet about the dynamics of a message board and how people will throw their opinions into a discussion with small knowledge, then be my guest. By and large, I find most people who are regular contributors on this board have generally thought out their responses and have something to back them up. I might not agree with the conclusions, but I often find some merit in them. I’ll leave the simple scorn up to you.
LikeLike
wait, so I should not engage with or disagree with the multitudes of ignorant and imbicilic posts on here because a few of them are reasonable? okay…
LikeLike
…so I should not engage with or disagree with the multitudes of ignorant and imbicilic…
I see very few ignorant and imbecilic posts here. Actually, the combined intelligence of this board is remarkable—certainly much more than the fan boards of specific schools, including my own. A lot of the comments you dismiss as “ignorant” and “imbecilic” are pretty smart, or are at least reasonable, which is not the same thing as saying we agree with them.
LikeLike
Marc, the best course of action at this point is to stop feeding the troll.
LikeLike
ok, marc, not that many imbicilic posts. but plenty that are naive and fantastical and wildly unrealistic.
LikeLike
Scarlet, so I’m the troll, huh? I make a perfectly sane and reasonable post and a bunch of loony toon fruitcakes gang up on me. I guess that makes me a troll.
LikeLike
He sounds like he’s spent the whole day backtracking now.
LikeLike
Here is the SBJ article on ESPN matching NBC’s offer. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2013/02/21/Big-East.aspx
LikeLike
I expected this. ESPN will not only keep this inventory away from NBC, but will make a tidy profit reselling it thanks to NBC’s low offer.
LikeLike
The BE has yet to approve. ESPN matched the money but the BE still has to decide if they matched the coverage. More games on lesser channels could mean the BE says no.
LikeLike
Is it possible that the talk about expanding to 18 or 20 teams is merely a rouse, meant to keep the realignment discussion going? Obviously, UVa and UNC would feel more comfortable jumping conferences if they could bring along their best rivalries.
From UVa’s perspective…UNC, VT and Duke are important rivalries; discussions about GT and FSU provide cover from concerns that the B1G would be too foreign for a southern school. A potential expansion to 20 teams allows all these schools to be considered. The dream scenario for UVa-to-the-B1G would be:
South pod- UVa/VT/UNC/GT/FSU
East pod- UMD/Duke/NW/Rutg/PSU
North pod- UM/MSU/OSU/IN/Pur
West pod- MN/WI/IL/IA/NB
It’s easier to contemplate a shift in conferences when rivalries and traditions can be maintained.
LikeLike
From 1936 to 2004, Virginia Tech and Virginia were not in the same conference. (UVa left the Southern Conference in ’36, while Tech remained; the Gobblers were not invited to the new ACC in 1953, and UVa accepted an invitation that December.) I have no doubt the Cavs would still play Tech in all sports as a Big Ten member.
LikeLike
Speaking as a Virginia Tech alumnus and fan, whether or not UVA and VT play in football isn’t the issue (It’s only been an annual game since 1970). The issue is, and has been since the 2003 ACC expansion saga, whether or not the governor and state legislature will allow UVA to financially harm VT by weakening their conference’s television product. Virginia isn’t Texas. The state government isn’t concerned with the on field product of it’s universities. They’re concerned about the financial impact at two of the state’s top three public universities (William & Mary competes at the FCS level and therefore isn’t part of the football money equation).
LikeLike
I have some understanding of the history of ‘Hoos v Gobblers rivalry.
Nevertheless, the passion has really grown during the past 8 years. With both teams in the ACC competing for the same championships, it has become much more fun during games. Even though VT is still dominating in the football series, there is more excitement.
If UVa gets an invitation from the B1G, I’d be stunned if VT also gets one. VT has made the ACC a much better athletic conference. If VT needs to flee the ACC, then their cultural DNA is much more suited to the SEC.
LikeLike
I agree that, should the ACC become unstable, VT would be betters suited for the SEC. However, it’s still a big assumption that if UVA were to go to the B1G, VT gets a quick invite to the SEC. If the SEC were to decide to stay at 14 even if the B1G expands, that would leave VT stranded in a weakened ACC and UVA would have done the same thing the state refused to allow them to do in 2003. That’s the point I was trying to make. While continuing the on field rivalry is nice. It wouldn’t be a priority for the state.. The financial implications of VT being left behind in a weakened ACC would be.
LikeLike
Pablo,
A ruse by whom and for what purpose? Who can get that many people in on a ruse and not have any leaks? Is the ruse supposed to fool the fans or the schools? How would they deal with the backlash when it’s revealed to be a ruse?
If the B10 doesn’t want to go past 14, they don’t gain from any more talk. If they want 16, I don’t see how they gain from talking about 20. It will set false expectations and lead to hurt feelings.
LikeLike
Because some schools (Notre Dame) have reservations about joining larger conferences. Sixteen in manageable (somewhat), but twenty is unwieldy.
LikeLike
A ruse by the B1G PTB to help shake lose UVa and / or UNC. It’s easier for these schools to start serious discussions about moving if there is a possibility of a mass movement. Eventually a couple of the desirable targets may jump.
A 20 school conference seems risky. Larry Scott seems like a visionary risk taker. Jim Delaney and the B1G presidents…not so much.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“A ruse by the B1G PTB to help shake lose UVa and / or UNC. It’s easier for these schools to start serious discussions about moving if there is a possibility of a mass movement. Eventually a couple of the desirable targets may jump.”
So first they anger the B10 fans that don’t want to expand, especially to the south. Then they upset the ACC fans of multiple schools by suggesting their team may join the B10. Then they tell the fans of the 2 schools selected that it’s even worse because you’re actually only bringing 1 neighbor instead of the rumored 3 or 5.
How is that helpful? TPTB at the ACC schools will know the truth. Are they in on this plan to lie to their fan bases? Why aren’t they leaking the truth?
LikeLike
@ Pablo: Nothing they’ve ever said has indicated they’ll decide to go to 20 and then look for the best schools they can find. And “20 is a possibility” and “some people think 20 is where it ends up” is perfectly compatible with only going to 20 if the schools are available that makes it worthwhile.
With the “right” schools, its substantially less risky than with the “wrong” schools.
AND, with any luck, disagreement over who the right schools are and/or unavailability of the schools required to justify going to 20 will keep it from happening.
LikeLike
Are Syracuse, Boston College and Pittsburgh “foreign” when it comes to the schools of the ACC located south of the Potomac River? What about Louisville?
I do agree with you that if a number of schools make the jump together, it might be an easier transition for them. We’ve had the AD at Georgia Tech and some of the lacrosse coaches in the ACC talk about how Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech form a subset within the conference, so the idea of them going together has some plausibility. That’s why one scenario discussed on this board is a move from 14 to 18 rather than 14 to 16.
You’re correct in thinking that they could go in a pod together as part of a 20-team setup. We might have differences in how you’d put together your pods, but what you’re proposing isn’t to far fetched (perhaps outside of having Northwestern in the East pod with Maryland, Duke, Rutgers and Penn State).
As far as this being a ruse, I don’t see what anyone who is a serious stakeholder in this has to gain from playing games about expansion.
LikeLike
Cutter,
It will take years to evaluate how well Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville assimilate to the ACC. My guess is that they will appreciate the familiarity of a few ex-Big East schools that have paved the way. The mere fact that all three excel in hoops (although that is not reason they joined) makes them not ‘foreign’ to the ACC.
With regards to Boston College, I do believe that they still feel somewhat out of place. The Mason-Dixon Line was the old geographic limit of the ACC, BC stretched the old boundary by a lot and has never fully fit-in. They’ve had no geographic partner, they’ve dominated in hockey ( a sport no other ACC school supports), they’re the lone Catholic school with an overwhelming undergraduate focus (even Wake, with its small enrollment has some research cred). Now that Syracuse and Notre Dame are joining the ACC, BC will be able to renew better rivalries.
With regards to UVa in the B1G, I believe that southern culture is something that Virginia is very proud and interested in maintaining. It is easier to not feel like an outlier, when you are amongst schools with similar traditions.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“With regards to UVa in the B1G, I believe that southern culture is something that Virginia is very proud and interested in maintaining. It is easier to not feel like an outlier, when you are amongst schools with similar traditions.”
How many schools does it take to make you feel comfortable, though? For a long time, UVA had 5 neighbors in the ACC (MD, 4 in NC). While southern, I’m not sure how similar WF, Duke and UVA really are. In addition, UVA’s academics means it looks down on NCSU. So are we really talking about MD and UNC? One is already in the B10 and the other is often rumored as the partner for UVA. How out of place would an elite state flagship and research university with a strong non-revenue sports program feel in the B10 with MD and UNC? They’ll still play VT OOC, so they don’t lose that. GT is also a rumored partner and is in their division for FB. So are Pitt and Miami. Replacing Pitt with PSU is an improvement, right?
My point is, the ACC isn’t what it used to be. The differences UVA would face now aren’t as large as they would have been 10 years ago. If they are in a conference with BC, Syracuse and Pitt, the culture shock of being in the B10 just can’t be that bad.
LikeLike
It will take years to evaluate how well Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville assimilate to the ACC. . . . With regards to Boston College, I do believe that they still feel somewhat out of place.
Relative to what? There’s practically zero chance that these schools would ever say, “This was a mistake. We should have stayed in the Big East.”
It’s a different story when you start talking about the ACC founder schools, who have genuine, sentimental attachment to the league they created together. Joining another conference would mean giving something up that they actually care about.
LikeLike
If the ACC implodes, Pitt and SU will likely be left in a worse situation than if they were in the BE with the C7 and a $14 million a year contract.
LikeLike
I was referring to the earlier comment about their “assimilation” into the new league, not the scenario where that league ceases to exist at all.
LikeLike
btw – it’s true that neither Northwestern nor Duke get a fair shake in my football alignment…but at least those schools have large shares of their student body from the northeast. Also, neither school is a football power. Most importantly, it allows the other 3 divisions to be geographically compact while balancing the football powers.
LikeLike
if UNC joined the B10, was able to flip all pay tv households in NC from “out of footprint” to “in footprint” BTN fees, and was the only school to come from the state, it still couldn’t cover the extra share of revenues they would command. (so no way can NC cover 2 shares, were Duke to come too).
nor can RU, (without NYC, which isn’t happening even with YES), nor can UMd, (even with DC), nor can UVa.
and FSU can’t cover without flipping the entire state, which also ain’t happening.
and GT could maybe flip metro Atlanta, but that’s about all.
U Texas is the only school even remotely mentioned that could be even a possible financial plus for legacy schools, and they ain’t happening.
expansion is a big plus for News Corp, (News Corp is the big winner in all this), but a financial net loss for legacy schools, once you figure in the added shares.
think i’m wrong, then show me the math to prove it.
figure the pay tv households in a given state that take at least an expanded basic level of service. (figure 85% of total census households),
then figure the added revenue if you can flip the entire state from “out of footprint” to “in footprint” fees. (assuming you can flip the state).
here are a few articles that reference in footprint and out of footprint BTN sub fees
http://www.multichannel.com/content/tv-rights-pacts-distribution-deals-could-follow-dominos-college-sports-conference-realignmen
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/10/Media/BigTenNet.aspx
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/11/19/maryland-big-ten-realignment/index.html
the Multichannel News article says 70 plus cents per sub per mo in footprint, 10 cents out of footprint
the Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal quotes 80 cents per sub per mo in footprint, 15 cents out of footprint.
the SI article says $1.10 in footprint, (which i think is way high as an average, but go with it anyway if you wish), and 10 cents out of footprint.
remember, you’re only using the difference between the in and out of footprint fees to figure the gain from flipping a state, not the full in footprint fee.
add in about 12% of fee revenues for estimated ad revenues.
then subtract out News Corp’s split. (figure 50%)
then see if you can cover a $24 plus mil current worth of a share.
good luck finding a credible target school that even comes close to covering an extra share of the B10 revenue pie.
easy to show expansion as a net gain for the league as a whole, but not for the legacy schools once you figure in the extra shares.
so why can’t they cover, when they bring more tvs and more markets?
because the current B10 isn’t 12 schools with a 9 state revenue model.
it’s 12 schools with a 50 state revenue model.
even though revenues are higher in the footprint states, the B10 still has a strong presence and revenues from the other 41 states as well. (and folks in every state already get those same Disney B10 games that folks in the midwest get).
an expansion school can only incrementally increase revenues within their state.
they can’t significantly raise revenues outside their state.
it’s the revenues that the league already gets from the other 41 states, tier 1 and 2, that keeps expansion schools from being able to cover a full share of the pie.
again, if you think i’m wrong, show me the math.
don’t just say i’m wrong because i must be. (maybe i am wrong, but i require evidence of that).
and don’t just speculate that everything will be fixed when we re-negotiate everything.
so why is this all happening?
good question, and i’m guessing a pretty interesting discussion could be had on that topic.
LikeLike
Fire Delaney now! Sheesh. And the COP/C too! He does their bidding and its obvious they have no clue. Idiots, all!
Oh wait…which conference is the richest and academically strongest and has the most envied (and now copied) media innovation?
LikeLike
@skeptic: You’ve proven you know how to use google. Gold star. The thing is, the university presidents do too — or they have professional staffs that do it for them. Making money for his bosses is practically the only thing Jim Delany is paid to do, and so far he has never failed at it.
So, you’re asking me to believe that suddenly he is doing his damndest to lose money for them, a fact readily proven through elementary use of google? Yeah, right.
LikeLike
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to call out the additions for not paying for themselves when the B1G has made the conscious (and smart) decision to NOT reopen their ABC/ESPN deal so that they can get to the open market as soon as possible.
Even then, I have read that the $24mm figure you cited involved multiple sources of revenue and the TV income was more like $18mm (11-ESPN, 7-BTN).
Using the conservative figure of 2.5mm NJ cable households, an $0.80 average of your “in footprint” gains, 12% for advertising and a 50% split with Fox, gets you to the estimate of Rutgers bringing approximately $13.5mm in additional BTN revenue to the conference just by capturing New Jersey.
That’s not too far from $18mm considering:
-We are counting the non-NJ part of the NYC DMA as $0 when we are hopeful that with Fox leveraging the YES network the number will be well north of that.
-We are counting the 6-7 home games Rutgers brings to Big Ten control as $0 when that will be monetized for some number of millions in the next deal.
-The demographics in the northeast are such that the BTN network should be able to get more for advertising in these markets than they currently average.
LikeLike
@ Skeptic: lots of interesting questions, but I would have preferred YOU doing a bit of math and research. I also think you are missing a lot of components of the B1G’s annual revenue. The BTN’s piece of the revenue is about $7-8m currently.
Per Zeek above on the Board.
*****
“zeek says:
February 21, 2013 at 11:06 am
Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking, but the answer is that the $2.8 billion over 25 years (or $112 million per year) that you’re asking about includes rights fees and profit distributions.
The $7.9 million per school in 2011 and $7.2 million per school in 2012 include both as well.”
****
The short of it: I don’t the extra cable fees have to add up to $24m a year; only about $8m.
I am intrigued, so I’ll take up the challenge and take a look at North Carolina.
Click to access Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
According to TVB dot org, NC has 2,084,400 cable households (“CHH”)
For ease of math, let’s use the Sports Illustrated numbers for “in-footprint” vs. “out-of-footprint” so we get an extra dollar per CCH per month. I’ll round down: 2m x $1.00 x 12 = $24m
Let’s do 10% for ad revenue (again for ease of math) and we now have $26.4m. Divide by two = $13.2m for the BTN.
So, it looks like the extra cable fees from the State of North Carolina would pay for UNC’s share of the BTN revenue distribution to the B1G. Indeed, the extra cable fees would almost pay for both Duke and UNC.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – Interesting data there about cable households by state and I wonder if your estimate is even undercounting the impact. When looking at that chart, I don’t believe that they’re including satellite providers such as DirecTV, which accounts for the wide variances in percentages between states. I know that overall cable network penetration is around 90% of households across the country, they’re missing a lot of households that are getting satellite services instead of traditional hardlines cable. The number for each state that we should probably use is 90% of the total TV households figure. In the case of NC, that would be 3,375,000 cable and satellite households. At $1.00 per month per household, that would be $40,500,000 extra per year coming from the state of NC just from cable fees. Obviously, we have some other factors (half of that goes to Fox, ad money raises that number but the subscriber fee bump might not be as great for DirecTV people since the BTN already has national carriage on that provider, etc.), but from the back of the napkin calculations, UNC and Duke should pay for themselves fairly easily by bringing the state of NC just with the BTN.
LikeLike
Pretty much.
You don’t need to do much more than back of the napkin calculations to see that UNC (and Duke) would pay for themselves.
It’s pretty much intuitive.
LikeLike
@ FtT. Thanks for the extra information. I noted that Illinois had only 58% CHHs and that seemed really odd. I did not realize that the satellite providers were not included. That explains the wide variation.
this article is a couple of years old, but it talks about wired cable providers vs. what they term alternative delivery systems (ADSs) such as satellite and internet. http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/47812/cable-penetration-hits-21year-low
LikeLike
an interesting article about Nielsen now adding internet connected TVs to the definition of “tv household.”
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/tvs-connected-to-the-internet-to-be-counted-by-nielsen/
LikeLike
This tvb.org website is really interesting. Lots of links and articles about media platforms, viewing trends, etc. I recommend a visit if only to see the massive amount of content.
Anyway, this was an interesting summary of trends in the last year of tv watching.
some interesting tidbits: last summer, we all watched an extra 90 minutes of tv; we are more and more watching time-delayed tv. “On a Monthly Time Spent basis, 18-49 year-old adults spent 14 times as many hours watching video on television versus the Internet, and 26 times as many hours versus mobile phones.”
“TV households are still adding new technologies but none so much as Tablets. Year-over-year, Tablets grew 19.8% to 17.4 million in TV Homes. DVRs are getting closer to 50 percent of TV households, growing +2.7% to 50.3 million, and High Definition TV sets also grew +1.6% to 88.1 million. DVD/BluRay Players saw a slight decline (-1.1%) to 95.9 million.”
In the article, there is a link to the underlying Nielsen quarterly report. Some interesting stuff in there too. There was a chart breaking down types of viewing by race. Thought it was interesting. It would not let me c&p the whole chart, but only the numbers.
White, AA, Hispanics, Asians
Broadcast Only
9% 12% 15% 12%
Wired Cable
51% 53% 44% 51%
Telco [not sure what this is. Telephone company?]
9% 9% 7% 13%
Satellite
32% 27% 34% 25%
http://www.tvb.org/trends/273069
LikeLike
Telco are the internet packet subscription networks, like AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FIOS. They basically flip the model of cable companies that sell internet services over the cable, by providing internet service and then feeding their “cable” channels over the internet connection as a high QOS priority feed from their intra-net servers.
LikeLike
Frank,
while you’re 90% overall pay tv penetration figure is probably close to correct, for our purposes here, 80% is probably more correct.
previously i said go with 85% of households, but i wanted to error on the high side.
85% is what i usually use when doing the math, but wouldn’t be surprised if 80% wasn’t closer to correct.
90% probably would be close for total penetration, but for our purposes, we need households taking at least an expanded basic or equivalent level of service.
many homes take just limited basic, which is mostly just the local broadcast nets, and maybe C-Span, some home shopping, and maybe weather.
Comcast, Dish Net, UVerse, and some other providers, also offer low cost “family” packages that carry some well known basic channels, but not the expensive ones like ESPN, TNT, or BTN, that carry most of the sports.
the latino population grows daily, and they subscribe to pay tv, but many get mostly Spanish language packs that don’t include BTN, even within the footprint.
the limited basic group is probably the largest, but between limited basic, the latino, and the family package subs, that would probably account for at least another 10% of homes. (limited basic probably makes up 10% by itself).
you also use $1 per sub per mo bump for flipping the state, which is probably also high, (i doubt the major players other than possibly Dish, are even paying $1 per sub), and the fact that BTN already gets out of footprint fees in NC.
i know the SI article i linked referenced a $1 difference, but as i said next to the link, i think their “in footprint” fee is high.
still, using the highest fee quote i’ve seen in any publication, and using 90% instead of a more correct one, and using the most populated state mentioned where there would be any chance for 1 school to flip the whole state, (assuming it could flip the whole state, and would come alone), you still were way short of break even. (other states fall even shorter of covering)
i’ll help you here, as i did not include any gate share, so you could probably add another 3 mil there, which brings you closer to break even.
that said, again, looking at a best case scenario, on the most populated state being discussed with any chance of one school flipping the whole state, using 90% instead of a more realistic 80%, and using the highest of sub fee quotes, you still don’t reach break even.
and what’s the dollar figure on the legacy schools giving up their sovereignty of their conference and half their long time football rivals?
it will no longer be the legacy schools’ conference, (if it still is now). NOT A SMALL THING.
what’s the dollar value on that loss?
and schools will be giving up half their highest profile traditional rivals. NOT A SMALL THING.
what’s the dollar value on that loss?
i don’t think it’s really sunk in to fans yet, that Iowa and Wisc and Illinois and Minn and NW fans will no longer be seeing OSU and Mich and MSU and PSU in their stadiums anymore, except maybe once every 6 yrs or more.
and what’s the impact on travel costs, and on minor sports.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IF AND WHEN THIS ALL GOES POOF, AND DOESN’T GO AS HOPED FOR, WITH STRANGE BEDFELLOWS BROUGHT TOGETHER ONLY BY THE PROMISE OF A YET TO BE PROVEN GOLDEN GOOSE.
yes, future tier 1 and 2 rights will be enhanced some, but i think it’s very debatable how much, and not Delany, nor anyone at News Corp, nor any media guru alive, can accurately predict just what that impact will be. nor will they be able to break it down even after the fact.
tier 1 and 2 rights will go way up, (assuming no major shifts in the current multichannel dynamics between now and then), but they will go up expansion or not.
B10 spin will credit any and all gains to expansion, but that will be disingenuous at best.
and as i said, even after the fact, there will be no way to quantify how much, if any, of said gains were due to expansion, and how much were due to industry dynamics.
remember, all the Disney games are already shown and watched nationwide, and will continue to be, regardless of expansion.
and everyone has just brushed aside the fundamental reason why the numbers don’t add up.
it’s because all tiers already have a 50 state, not 9 state, revenue model, split only 12 ways.
common sense should dictate that therefore it should be difficult for a new school to cover a share.
not vice versa.
any new school would need to move the meter not only regionally, but nationally, to justify a cut of already national revenues.
i see no golden goose here, and certainly no guaranteed one.
i do see the loss of a conference, of sovereignty, of rivalries, and of loss to other conferences as collateral damage. which are all guaranteed.
and i see only News Corp as the big winner.
yes, i question the leadership of the legacy schools here.
somebody should, and no one else is.
LikeLike
And well over beating the average BTN contribution. So long as we are talking about teams that will bring substantial value to either national broadcast or cable contracts, and add substantial non-media conference revenue, its not necessary to cover the entire conference payout out of the BTN earnings alone.
LikeLike
There’s so many issues with this post, I’m not sure where to begin.
In the first place, the Big Ten earns a rights fee as part of the Big Ten Network agreement. My understanding of the situation was that the rights fee was increased when Nebraska was added to the conference and will again be increased for further additions. Even if it isn’t, it will be accounted for in the next BTN agreement in 20 years. That already accounts for a majority of what each school receives from the BTN agreement right now.
Secondly, advertising revenue has already started to become as important to the Big Ten Network as cable subscriptions. When you talk about great basketball draws like UNC and Duke, their ability to increase viewership on the BTN (directly on the BTN or by taking up slots from CBS/ESPN and pushing big draws like Indiana/Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State to the BTN more often) will also expand advertising revenue directly as ratings increase from better matchups on the BTN.
Third, the Big Ten’s Tier 1 contract is massively undervalued right now; probably by a factor of 2x at least, maybe as high as 2.5x.
Fourth, Fox is the one who is incentivized to get more cable subs for the BTN given that they currently take a majority of the profit from it, and as they roll out FS1 and FS2, they’ll have more of an incentive to tie the BTN to those and to YES in primary markets.
In my opinion, there are no two additions on the field as favorable as UNC and Duke. Even if they share a state, they should each add significantly more than the $25 million that they’d take annually (as of right now). As far as the BTN goes, those two schools are an obvious slam dunk.
LikeLike
This is also why UNC and Duke are probably the top 2 choices for the SEC as well for their future network.
There aren’t many TV properties as valuable as UNC/Duke; they bring one of the biggest and fastest growing states, and they bring impressive basketball ratings in that state. All of which makes them prime additions for a cable network.
LikeLike
Also, think about what a blow to ESPN’s college basketball coverage it would be to lose the C7 followed soon after by Duke/UNC. The B1G getting those two schools would make the contract battle in a few years very interesting.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 10’s Tier I is that undervalued. The Big 12’s Tier I only went up 2/3, from $60 million to $100 million per year. Most of the increase was in Tier II. While it should go up significantly, I would be very surprised if the Big 10’s Tier I contract doubled. ABC/ESPN aren’t getting more games.
LikeLike
“The Big 12′s Tier I only went up 2/3, from $60 million to $100 million…”
But it was for a conference missing 1/3 of those in the prior contract, and for a smaller 10 team conference, and had the prior payout not reduced because of the drop in numbers. Assuming realignment chaos hasn’t hit the B12 it is very reasonably to have expected a doubling, or more.
LikeLike
TV consultants said CU was a drag (Coloradans want to ski and watch pro sports), MU was a wash (Cardinals and Royals) and A&M had value but was a duplicate market. Nebraska was the only real loss. WVU and TCU have more BCS appearances and higher poll rankings than the first 3. So there wasn’t a huge loss of value. And on Tier I, you get the same number of games regardless of the number of teams in the league, so larger leagues add no direct value.
In AP poll appearances in the BCS era:
12 Nebraska 163
19 TCU 115
23 W. Virginia 113
26 Texas A&M 92
33 Missouri 72
48 Colorado 42
LikeLike
I understand who left and who came in. I disagree they are close to a wash. But assuming they are, you still have reduced the number of teams, the chance that one or two of four have an unexpectedly good year. Enough to get selected to a tier 1 game, and a chance to have that game be against one of the other three. TCU and WVU have only one opportunity a year to achieve that, other tier 1 appearances may only be duplicates because of opponent.
Hope that is less confusing than I fear. Basically I’m saying there are more chances at quality games with 12 than 10, or that the missing four provided potentially six games between themselves (depending on scheduling) compared only one matchup between the new two. Plus the value of a CCG and potential matchups leading up to it, but lets skip that for this comparison. That pushes higher quality to tier 2.
LikeLike
@bullet
Regardless of what that TV exec. said, there was that survey a couple of years ago which listed Texas A&M among the 4 most watched Big 12 teams outside of the Big 12 footprint (Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska were the other 3).
Even if the home market was duplicated by Texas, the fact that A&M grabbed viewership better than the other 8 teams had to be the primary consideration when you’re talking about national TV deals.
LikeLike
Though if the two teams that get interesting in the same year are in different divisions, with 12 teams and 9 conference games, there’s a 1/3 chance they don’t play each other. Hence the insistence on only expanding with “the right schools”.
LikeLike
bullet, you’re so full of it. you dismiss Missouri because of the Cards and Royals, but then ignore the Rangers, Astros, Cowboys, Texans, Spurs, Rockets, Mavericks, etc.
LikeLike
Here is the overall historical standings of the AP poll, based on total points:
1. Oklahoma
2. Ohio State
3. Michigan
4. Nebraska
5. Notre Dame
6 USC
7.Alabama
8. Texas
9. Florida State
10. Florida
11. Miami (FL)
12. Penn State
13. Tennessee
14. LSU
15. Georgia
16. Auburn
17. UCLA
18. Texas A&M
19. Washington
20. Virginia Tech
So the Big 12 lost number 4 and number 19. Colorado is #22 and Mizzou is #48. WVU checks in at #30 and TCU checks in at #37.
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/total_points.cfm?decade=all&rows=50
LikeLike
@Andy
The TV people told the Big 12 that losing Missouri and CU didn’t hurt. That surprised everyone.
Oilers, Cowboys, etc. That’s why TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston got left behind.
Texas normally doesn’t sell out Reliant Stadium when they play Rice.
You’re just too full of Missouri.
LikeLike
@Franktheag
Definitely true that WVU and TCU are below CU and A&M over history. And that has some value in selling T-shirts and tickets when they are opponents. But for the more casual fan (i.e. the ones the networks are trying to attract), its what have you done for me lately. What CU has done doesn’t help attract TV viewers today because they’ve been lousy for a mere 5 or 6 years. Now if Notre Dame is lousy for 5 or 6 years, they get a little more slack. But when you get below the kings, there’s not as much fan forgiveness.
LikeLike
bullet, think about it. How is it possible that the TV people told the SEC that Missouri was a good addition, and they also told the Big 12 that losing them didn’t hurt? Something doesn’t add up here, and it’s your version that doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Context is everything, and none of us were parties to the conversations. Given the type of TV deal the Big XII had, I can see why CU and Mizzou were seen as not adding much. That doesn’t mean TCU and WV are better: I am sure the league would have preferred to keep its original schools, if it had had the option.
Mizzou was an “even-numbered school” to the SEC. They got chosen only after a much better school (A&M) had taken the league to an odd number. Once that happened, I have no doubt that Mizzou was the best name available, by far, for the 14th slot.
The historical AP poll is only a crude measure of fan support. I am guessing that TCU draws better ratings in Texas than you’d guess from their mediocre historical performance. They are worth far more to the Big XII than they would be to anyone else.
LikeLike
Simple. The SEC needed a #14. They also were obviously looking at a network where Missouri has more value than a WVU.
And I said Missouri was a wash, not a washout. Losing Missouri didn’t hurt the per school value of the contract because Missouri was average for the conference.
LikeLike
Sounds like sour grapes to me. The SEC was more than happy to take an AAU school that is the only D1 school in a state of 6.1M people with decent football and basktball programs. I can see how the Big 12 would ike to pretend like it doesn’t matter. But nobody believes you.
LikeLike
@ FrankTheAG:
thanks for posting that link. i know it’s complete trivia, but really cool. So, since there are 24,000 points (approximately) per season, to overtake OKLA, tOSU only has to stay at #1 for a couple of years and OKLA be unranked. 🙂
LikeLike
bullet: “ABC/ESPN aren’t getting more games”. But the Big Ten could well be getting more Tiers.
“Tier1” and “Tier2”, after all, refer to the order at which multiple rights owners pick games. If total rights under the ABC/ESPN Tier1 deal earn more money split up into separate national broadcast rights and cable rights deals, they’ll be split up. If the per-game bidding means it takes a consortium partner for ABC/ESPN to land the rights, they’ll have to add a consortium partner, and divide the games between themselves, or someone else gets the rights.
You’ve got a trade-off between network economies in bundling broadcast and cable rights and diminishing returns in terms of how many games you broadcast/narrowcast from a given conference schedule, to be sure, but with enough different bidders, both individual networks and consortia, the Big Ten stands to capture an equitable share of the increase in its rights media value since its last contract was signed, when cable football games were not as lucrative as they are today.
LikeLike
1) when UNL was added, they didn’t redo all the rights, they just did Neb. (other states won’t be as easy).
2) figure about 12% of fee revenues for an advertising estimate. (not enough to put schools over the top).
3) yes, the tier 1 contract is now relatively quite undervalued, but absent a change in industry dynamics between now and then, it will go up significantly regardless of expansion, and we all know that.
4) yes, News Corp/Fox is the big winner in all this. not the legacy schools.
5) you can have your opinion on UNC and Duke, but together they won’t generate another 50 mil a yr, nor did you even attempt to make a credible mathematical case that they would. (give me real numbers).
it’s easy to talk in platitudes and make unsupported statements.
much harder to show real facts and numbers.
come back when you have some.
LikeLike
“it’s easy to talk in platitudes and make unsupported statements.”
On example:
“3) yes, the tier 1 contract is now relatively quite undervalued, but absent a change in industry dynamics between now and then, it will go up significantly regardless of expansion, and we all know that.”
This is an example. It will go up significantly without expansion and it will go up significantly with expansion. That is a true statement, but an empty platitude, because the “significantly” is not necessarily the same dollar amount in both cases. With the right school, the “significantly” is a bigger number in the second case.
There are two lines of contrary argument that the change in national media value is nil or negligible, and for neither of them does the empty platitude that “rights income will go up substantially with or without expansion” serve to make the case:
(1) The media value will not be increased, or
(2) The media value will be increased but the Big Ten will not be able to gain a share of that increase.
(1) is certainly false for FSU, UNC, and Duke, no matter which conference they end up in, as all through of which are national brands. FSU being a national football brand is worth more as a national brand, affecting both the broadcast and cable value, while UNC and Duke would primarily affect the value of national cable rights ~ and cable rights could be split by sport as well as split by tiers, if there are differential needs for programming in fall and in winter,
If you are arguing (2), I reckon you are just trolling the site. With as many different networks in the running for Big Ten rights as there are, and as much advertising and cable subscription revenue channeled into live sports as there is at the moment, if there is a move that increases the gross media value of the Big Ten, the Big Ten will be reaping some of that increase in gross media value.
LikeLike
i still see only platitudes and no solid facts.
for one thing, it’s because there are no facts on the matter, if talking tier 1,2 impacts.
what UNC or Duke or FSU or anyone else brings a few yrs from now in 1st and 2nd tier deals, is purely speculation.
and even after a deal is done, there would still be no way, even for the B10 side of the bargaining table, to quantify how much they moved the meter.
if you negotiate with them as members, you’ll know the number you got. but you won’t know the number you would have gotten without them.
what those outside looking in see as pluses for the B10, is that it’s tier 1,2 contract is up in a few years, and the B10’s 3rd tier set up. (BTN).
BTN can’t easily be duplicated, because the template that launched it no longer exists.
all conferences would like their own net for 3rd tier in the mold of BTN, but even if they were contractually free to do so, they still would find it hard to pull off.
not because they are inferior to the B10, or have inferior markets, but because the dynamic that was integral in the successful launch of BTN no longer exists, and has been replaced with a very different dynamic.
that key element was News Corps control of Directv at the time.
those now controlling DTV have a very different agenda on such matters. an opposite agenda you might say.
and there is no other entity now in existence, with the complete set of skills and resources that News Corp brought to the table then.
it will be interesting to see what kind of success Disney and the SEC have with the proposed SEC Net.
since it’s now hard for News Corp, (or anyone else), to launch such a network elsewhere, or get certain schools out of existing conference contracts, what News Corp is doing is making an end run around those 2 problems, and bringing new schools into the existing network, since it already exists, and the new schools get separated from their current 3rd tier contracts, by separating themselves from their conference.
the BTN impact of a new school is something we can estimate, presuming the school can flip the state. (or the part of the state we can estimate it can flip).
the 1st/2nd tier impact, can only be hoped for and speculated on.
there are only so many 1st and 2nd tier saturday games each wk,.
you logistically can only show 3 B10 saturday games a wk, per channel.
more inventory only helps to a point when talking national, and with every game per wk more than 3 , (noon, 3:30, 8 pm), you’re just canibalizing your own product more and more and more.
not such a big deal looking regionally, which BTN does.
but if talking national games, your getting diminishing returns with anything past 3 games a wk, because you’re competing with yourself.
with PSU, OSU, Neb, Wisc, MSU, Iowa, the B10 can already find compelling matchups every saturday.
FSU is a big name, but it’s not Mich, OSU, Bama, UT, USC, big.
as far as moving the national meter, how much better if any, is FSU-MSU, than PSU-Wisc, or Mich-MSU, or OSU-MSU, or PSU-MSU?
and that’s talking FSU.
RU, UVa, UNC, GT, UMd, don’t move the national meter one inch against anybody in football.
and when a new school mostly brings only it’s own region, it’s hard for it to earn a full cut of an already national pie.
if we added RU, UVa, UNC, GT, UMd, and FSU, we’ve increased the shares by 50%.
we call estimate their $ impact on BTN, per the number of homes they can hopefully flip. (which we can also guesstimate if being pragmatic), because it’s a known formula.
we can only speculate on any impact on tier 1 and 2, and would still never know the answer, even after the fact.
but i will speculate that considering the brands the league already possesses, that those schools don’t move the tier 1,2 meter by another 50% over what the league could get for those rights in a few yrs, with the current 12.
LikeLike
the BTN impact of a new school is something we can estimate, presuming the school can flip the state. (or the part of the state we can estimate it can flip).
the 1st/2nd tier impact, can only be hoped for and speculated on.
So what you are saying is that is ok to guess how much revenue schools will bring to the BTN but not to the national TV deals.
LikeLike
So you are saying it is OK to guess that the value is $0, but not OK to guess that the value is greater than $0 ~ since your argument is premised on the semantic game of saying its a “substantial increase either way” and pretending that means its an identical increase either way unless it can be proven otherwise.
We can argue over how much of an increase in value they represent, but for the national brands, if you are arguing for a $0 increase in media value, then the burden of proof stands with you.
LikeLike
This is not just about television. This is also about research money. The Federal Governments budget is completely out of whack and there is a danger of funds being cut. There will be greater competition for funds in the future. The BIG is being proactive and creating a gigantic influence in that realm. Currently the BIG has a voting block of 14 AAU members with U of Chicago out of 60 United States schools (62 total). Add JHU, you have 15 out of 62. If the BIG expands to 20 and adds at least 5 AAU schools, that gives them almost a full 1/3 voting block in that organization. Decisions made by the AAU are done with 2/3 majority. Any decision (who’s in, who’s out, etc) made in the AAU would have to go thru the BIG. One of the principle functions of the AAU is lobbying for funds.
The BIG currently stretches across 11 states, for 22 Senators. If they go to 20 and add at least 5 new states, that’s 32 senators out of 100. Again almost 1/3 influence over the entire Senate. Senators love bring home money to their home state. Some will say that adding huge population centers adds television viewers; it also adds a lot of Congressmen. Congressman love bringing money back to their district. So look at the state of Georgia. Both University of Georgia and Georgia Tech are bidding for a federal research grant. Georgia Tech has a greater pull in the House because of all its delegates from the city of Atlanta which dwarf that of Athens. The Senators don’t care which school gets it as long as the state of Georgia gets the money. So now GT says they will partner on the study with Purdue, so they now can add the senators for Indiana and any of their house delegates that care. University of Georgia has no shot at that grant. The SEC is only now building their own research cooperation but it could be a little late in the game. The SEC does cross as many states but no where near as many house delegates. They rely on Florida, Texas, and Georgia for its bulk influence. If the BIG moves into Georgia and Florida, they will essentially cut the SEC academic cooperation off at its knees. And good luck getting Alabama and Univ of Georgia into the AAU thru the BIG’s voting block. Sports and television might just be cover for an acedemic expansion.
LikeLike
Absolutely true. But they’re two birds of the same feather. The Presidents are well aware of the need to create new revenue streams (BTN) for fear that Federal funding could be cut back in the future. That is the primary reason I think FSU (or Miami) is a near certainty. A B1G presence in Florida is far more important than just AAU status. It’s money, political power and population.
LikeLike
From todays Detroit Free Press:
“Research officials at the University of Michigan are preparing themselves for what could be a big cut in funding — up to $40 million this year — should the federal sequesters go through next week and slow the flow of federal research money.”
LikeLike
I agree that FSU makes way too much sense to let current AAU status get in the way. The question to me was who will be in the final group. I do think 20 based on the 1/3 theory and Gee’s comment will be the final number whether that is in two years or 10. Anything more than that I doubt would stay together. UVA, UNC, GT all makes sense with FSU. The question is the last two. Does the BIG wait till the Big 12’s gor runs out to try for Kansas and Texas? Do they go after Vanderbilt and would they even except? Do they double up in Carolina and take Duke? How many AAU votes are exceptable? How many states? We might be talking BIG expansion for a long time until that 20 school number is hit as there are not 6 clear cut schools that fit into AAU and or new states.
LikeLike
To clarify, by 1/3 theory I mean 1/3 voting block in the AAU and the Senate.
LikeLike
Ha! You and I think alike. That pretty much sums up my list of questions as well.
LikeLike
psuhockey,
I think you just nailed it with the “Sports and television might just be a cover for an academic expansion.” Truth be told, Clinton raised raised research grant funding by 100% and that is simply not sustainable. Thus, the competition for funding will become even more fierce than it is on any football field. Having friends in high places has always been beneficial…
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
interesting post, and a different perspective on everything.
were i to play devil’s advocate with admittedly no knowledge on that side of things, i’d say you are approaching the issue from a ‘league as a whole pov, rather than an individual legacy school perspective. (which is what i’ve been looking at)
a conference can gain while the member schools lose.
all the talk has been of conferences as a whole.
the only talk from a school pov has been regarding the potential targets, but none on the impacts to the legacy conference schools. (outside of my takes on things).
the partnering with PU scenario tried to address that, but it ignores that GT would have to share any treasure if it partnered, and ignored that schools from other conferences could pool political resources as well.
and not sure i see were schools in different conferences couldn’t partner just as easily as schools in the same conference, were it mutually beneficial to do so.
you’ve also brought in a potential competitor of PU for that grant to the league, so in hypotheticals, i suppose there could be potential downsides as well.
still, thanks for the different take on things, and the food for thought.
i will give thought to what you said.
LikeLike
Conferences in which members stress their own point of view = weaker and/or unstable. See: SWC, BE, B12, etc. The B12 has managed to achieve some stability by the overlord giving up something (tier1 and 2 equally split) and everyone giving up financial ownership to their most marketable commodity (GOR) and ability to move.
Stable conferences have membership with a shared understanding and belief that the best interest of the conference IS the number one interest for each.
LikeLike
You’ve got it backwards. More stable conferences have similar members who have similar interests.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Absolutely. But which is MORE stable? A conference made up of self centered cutthroat individuals who look at other members as similarily motivated competitors, or one that looks at the other members as integral parts of an army much larger than any individual school could ever hope to be (U of Phoenix excepted 🙂 )?
LikeLike
You’ve got it backwards. More stable conferences have similar members who have similar interests.
No, he has it right. If you didn’t know the history, would you think Vanderbilt belonged in the SEC? How about Northwestern in the Big Ten? How similar are the interests of Stanford and Washington State?
LikeLike
They are all looking out for themselves and competing. There’s no difference. Destroying other conferences is some kind of altruism? Other than as a homer, its impossible to describe anything the ACC, B1G, SEC (and for that matter MWC) have done in expansion as anything other than cutthroat. Swofford, Delany and Slive have harmed college athletics (other than bringing in a lot of $ for lucky schools) through their actions. So you are saying its ok to massacre another group if you protect your own (See America’s history with the Indians)?
@Marc
Stanford, UW, Cal, USC and UCLA once seceded from the other Pac schools, leaving the Oregon schools, WSU and Idaho behind.
Vanderbilt is the exception in the SEC. Until 20-25 years ago, all those states and the other 9 schools were pretty similar. B1G schools other than Northwestern are pretty similar. You’ve got a bunch of enormous state research universities mostly in populous states.
LikeLike
Other than as a homer, its impossible to describe anything the ACC, B1G, SEC (and for that matter MWC) have done in expansion as anything other than cutthroat. Swofford, Delany and Slive have harmed college athletics (other than bringing in a lot of $ for lucky schools) through their actions. So you are saying its ok to massacre another group if you protect your own (See America’s history with the Indians)?
Schools have been switching conferences since….forever. This is not something Swofford, Delany, or Slive invented. When exactly did it become a sin to do this? Conferences are just voluntary associations, which schools join or leave when it suits their self-interest.
The schools that joined the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC, wanted to join. You heap all your scorn on the league commissioners, but fail to mention their willing partners: the schools that switched.
That’s how it should work. We are a capitalist society. We thrive on competition. The reward of running a successful conference is that others want to join. The punishment for failure is that schools with better options go elsewhere.
The analogy of the Americans and the Indians is false: no Indians volunteered to be conquered or slaughtered. Every school joining the ACC, B1G, or SEC, has done so eagerly.
Stanford, UW, Cal, USC and UCLA once seceded from the other Pac schools, leaving the Oregon schools, WSU and Idaho behind.
My point exactly: there really isn’t the cultural similarity among them that you claim.
LikeLike
“They are all looking out for themselves and competing.”
Yes, and some schools have discovered that causing a rising tide within the conference is in their schools best long term interest. Others compete with conference members and treat them as conquered territory. Think nation states and mutual defense treaties vs feudal lords and competing city states.
“There’s no difference.”
Other than knowing which way to watch for danger and where to look for support?
“Destroying other conferences is some kind of altruism?”
Who mentioned altruism? Is it not in your self interest to develope relationships that serve to promote the group, and better protect from the predation of the feudal lord(s)?
LikeLike
@marc
cc is saying some schools are much worse than others and the B1G is angelic. Its not true. I’m simply pointing out that everyone is looking out for their self-interest and not being too concerned about the collateral damage. They’re all the same.
LikeLike
“Stanford, UW, Cal, USC and UCLA once seceded from the other Pac schools, leaving the Oregon schools, WSU and Idaho behind.”
It was cheating by those (except Stanford) that caused the conference’s dissolution. No secession involved. Interestingly it was during those 4 years of independence that OrSU had it greatest success. Several strong years, a Liberty Bowl win (when it was Big), a Heisman, Mel Counts led basketball success (close loss to Bill Russell’s USF). I point these out as it wasn’t a case of abandoning leaches, more like UO, OrSU, and WSU left the cheaters. They accepted being invited back following the five you cited implimenting stricter eligibility and amateur rules for the new conference.
LikeLike
“cc is saying some schools are much worse than others and the B1G is angelic”
I must not be communicating effectively…
I’m not saying the B1G is angelic at all in its dealings with external entities.
“I’m simply pointing out that everyone is looking out for their self-interest”
I agree completely. Our disagreement is about the method and structure a school, or group of schools employ to go about protecting that self interest.
LikeLike
bullet,
“So you are saying its ok to massacre another group if you protect your own (See America’s history with the Indians)?”
We are talking economics, not actual killing, right? Of course it is OK.
LikeLike
Every thing depends on who is in the final pool. If John Hopkins is added, they would in all likely take a share greater than their actual value from the athletic money pool. So a school like Penn State will lose money on that side. However, Penn State Medical Center will gain by partnering with JH Medical Center and not necessarily in research grants. Simply sharing resources thru the CIC with arguably the best medical center in the county would benefit all university hospitals in prestige and thus in drawing in top doctors and patients.
As far a competition for grants, yes each school does potential lose on an individual grant by partnering with another school for it. But by partnering, each school has a greater chance of landing more grants. So yes you will split a $50 mil grant in two, but you might now be able to be apart of three such grants, bring up you own personal total.
Other schools could pool their political power but the BIG has that already established. They would be racing to catch up. By gaining a dominate influence in the AAU, the BIG would have an influence over arguably the top research institutions in the country thru that organization. The SEC has recently created an academic corporation and Univ of Georgia is trying to get into the AAU. Georgia is one of the better research schools on the SEC. The BIG voting group can block Georgia from getting in. Thru Georgia Tech, they can start limiting the Univ of Georgia funding using the power of the AAU and the CIC, which also does lobbying. So by containing the Univ of Georgia from becoming a bigger research institution, they are in essence containing the SEC academic corporation. If the BIG takes Vanderbilt, they would severely wound it.
LikeLike
“As far a competition for grants, yes each school does potential lose on an individual grant by partnering with another school for it. But by partnering, each school has a greater chance of landing more grants.”
There also a question of the risk in investing in facilities here ~ and while the funded research may pay for the cost of the facilities, an individual grant quite often does not cover the full capital cost. If you invest in the facilities required to be in the running for a grant, but fail to land the right grants, that capital cost can end up on the University’s capital costs.
And here, having an average 1/3 share of six grants may be the same facilities commitment as a full share of two grants, but its substantially less risky, since a particular research program failing to get an additional grant reduces the paid workload of three participants by 1/6 of their commitment, rather than reducing the paid workload at one participant by 1/2 of their commitment.
LikeLike
Your problem, skeptic, is that you are only thinking about in terms of in market vs. out of market.
That is a simple way to think about it directionally but in reality the rates are all negotiated cable system by cable system at the local level.
Everybody knows the ratings. The cable systems know it and so do ESPN, Fox and the battery of consultants that are analyzing this stuff in detail. You would have to know at least some of the following to start to put together a realistic analysis:
1. You do realize that ESPN will soon be at a weighted average of $8 per subscriber per month nationally, right? Think about that vs, the reported per sub rates of $.80 and $.10 for the B1G. What do you think accounts for that gap? Do you think the BTN might be able to move the needle on its rates both in Columbus, OH and Sacramento, CA going forward? How much impact do the new brands make on that calculus? In other words, can you compel Dish/DirectTV, and the out of market cable systems to pay more than the oft-cited $.10 if you add a slate of Duke and UNC basketball games along with even more Tier 2 and 3 football games, etc? How much more?
2. Expanding the footprint widens the market of advertisers who are viable prospects, what is this worth in terms of inventory and pricing pressure on current eyeballs?
3. The B1G will soon be going to the open market with a set of Tier 1 and Tier 2 inventory that is amongst the most attractive sports content available from November through March. There will be at least 3 massive media companies bidding on that content and one of them is going to be left out of the market. The B1G will have a TON of leverage here without new content but if you add some of the possible brands to the mix the leverage is even more intense. Roughly how much is the incremental leverage worth during those negotiations, let alone the increased number of Tier 1 contests?
When you start to understand all these elements then you can begin to put together some projections on the status quo vs. the potential additions.
LikeLike
“then see if you can cover a $24 plus mil current worth of a share.”
You can’t get the math right until you pose the right question ~ I see lots of lovely math in my own field of economics used to arrive at silly conclusions because it was applied to arrive at the implication of silly premises.
If the premise is that UNC must add ~$24m to to grow rather than dilute the conference payout, that is reasonable. UNC would receive a in premium in media value projections because of more rapid demographic growth, but there are downside risks as well to any expansion, and the Big Ten has already reduced the urgency of expansion into demographically growing areas with the MD/Rutgers expansion.
But as already argued above, it is not necessary to cover ALL of the conference payout from A SINGLE incremental contribution by a school, because dollars added by a school from various revenue sources ADD TO each other rather than REPLACE each other.
So it is not necessary for the BTN increment to cover the entire conference payout.
The sponsorship incomes for a new large and growing state population and the prospective NCAA units income surely cover UNC’s share of revenues other than media rights deals. So we are aiming at ~$18m.
The back of the envelope calculations of several people show UNC comfortably adding more than the BTN share of the conference payout. Adopt a per household increment of $0.60 instead, you’ll still get more than $7.2m.
So your conclusion rests on your assumption that adding UNC cannot change the value of the Tier 1 media rights by one cent.
But the Tier 1 media rights are a combined rights deal that can be split into Tier 1 broadcast football rights and Tier 2 football and basketball rights (which can themselves be split if there is a higher total bid for that arrangement). And the media rights go out onto the market for a new long term deal in a couple of years, and so your assumption that UNC will not add any incremental value to the national media contract
And on the open market, your assumption that UNC will not add one cent to the national media rights does not stand up to scrutiny: it would clearly add to the value of a Tier2 cable football and basketball rights deal ~ football in regional coverage, since while the pick of the week by the broadcast partner may have substantial value on the east coast, the value of the remaining Big Ten inventory on the east coast is going to be weaker; and obviously basketball as a national brand. So UNC would more than carry its weight in Tier2 cable rights, which are the larger of those two. With UNC more than carrying its weight in both Tier2 and the BTN Tier3 rights, it’ll carry its weight in the total, since the Tier 1 rights are the smaller of the three (though the biggest payout on a per-game basis).
For FSU, the computation would be even easier, since it adds value to the Tier 1 broadcast rights, the Tier 2 cable rights, and the Tier 3 BTN rights, so it can’t help but add value to the total of the three. Its a national brand, so obviously it will comfortably carry its fair share of non-media-rights conference income. And that is, after all, FSU’s chance: the argument that its surplus revenues are needed to be able to justify a second add that would make the academics happy, such as Duke or Georgia Tech, both of which would certainly add gross revenue ~ with a focus on Tier 2 rights for Duke, and on BTN payout for Georgia Tech ~ but likely by an insufficient amount to avoid diluting the conference payout.
As far as combinations that work, in terms of willingness to move, UVA/GTech might be there or thereabouts, but its a finer calculation whether they carry their weight than we’ll be able to do back of the envelope using publicly available information. UVA/UNC seems certain to work, given that UVA is at the very least there or thereabouts on its own and there are network economies with the pair, but it seems unlikely that UNC will be a first mover. UNC/Duke as well, where the network economies are even stronger, but it seems unlikely that either UNC/Duke are first movers.
The reason I am skeptical about Pitt getting a look in is that the only scenario I see for that is only UVA and Pitt willing to move among the AAU schools and academic status being a sticking point for FSU, but with Pitt’s regional media value being so redundant for a conference that has Penn State, and the incremental value from UVA hard to see at being double the current payout, I think the pair would be a clear dilution of payout, and the Presidents are not in it to reduce their athletic department revenues.
FSU/UVA, FSU/GTech, FSU/UNC, FSU/Duke all seem likely to work financially, though FSU would likely say UVA is too far to work as a soutthern travel partner, but the academic resistance being the open question there. The Big Ten presidents seem willing to play a bit fast and loose with that, as shown by the UNL invitation, where if they can get over the hurdle at the time of the invitation, they will wear the discontent later if academics find they have been sold a pig in a poke, but its still an issue. If the academics were to propose to fight FSU’s admission to the CIC, that would undermine one of the Big Ten’s appeals TO FSU.
We could speculate ~ its plausible, but speculation still ~ that working on sorting out a JHU add but being in no particular hurry about it could well be working on whether its possible to get a shiny object to placate academics about an FSU add. FSU is just starting to look at its options, so the natural timing for JHU to move, after LAX season is finished, could well be the time that FSU would be in a position to say yes or no. And the most natural pairwise move for FSU, FSU/GTech, doesn’t carry academic clout across the board. Its not every Big Ten school where the Engineering school alone has the clout to shout down the academic grad schools. Bring the medical schools on board, however, and now its not many Big Ten schools where The Academy can stand up to the big research money earners ~ too many academic grad schools have too much of their research grant funding and TA stipend funding tied up with doing service for one or both of those big money earners.
This is all more complex than the Maryland move, where they already had a school as an expansion target that lacked a pair to make it work, which made a natural pair with Maryland, and where both were AAU members so that academic status issues were not going to arise. The increases complexity of expanding by two or four out of the ACC alone means they could easily sort out two or three “we’ll move if” schools and still be left without an expansion that works out.
LikeLike
Big 12 or SEC supporter?
LikeLike
skeptic,
There’s a newfangled thing you should look into. It’s called a shift key. Use it. You’re not e.e. cummings.
“if UNC joined the B10, was able to flip all pay tv households in NC from “out of footprint” to “in footprint” BTN fees, and was the only school to come from the state, it still couldn’t cover the extra share of revenues they would command. (so no way can NC cover 2 shares, were Duke to come too).”
So? Oh, I get it. You actually think that is the only way UNC can add value to the B10. That’s funny.
By your reasoning, none of the current members can pay for their own shares either. Why are major media companies paying the B10 so much then? It’s the best racket ever.
LikeLike
Please don’t feed the troll.
LikeLike
Agree.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/search?q=troll+pictures&hl=en&client=safari&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Q68nUaPiCaTviQLqo4CIBQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=568&bih=211#i=90
LikeLike
Which one?
LikeLike
You.
LikeLike
My fondest hope is a left field addition of both Missouri and Texas to the Big Ten – good for several hundred entertaining posts, I should think.
LikeLike
ESPN and Dish lawsuit details. Neat, if you are in to that sort of thing.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/194167/espns-preschlack-dish-trial-is-personal.html#axzz2LfkL65Rp
LikeLike
Not sure if this has been posted, but in addition to the BE data, there is a comment on the SEC’s deal. Also says the ACC deal will likely be $19 million. Previous articles said $18 million (other than propaganda pieces). If true, ESPN is paying ACC $28 million for having 2.5 guaranteed ND games a year (when they already have some ND games). That’s more than the $15 million NBC is paying for 7.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8972975/big-east-conference-espn-finalizing-7-year-130-million-media-deal
LikeLike
Considering that they were already averaging 2-3 games against ACC teams naturally (once Pitt gets there if you look at past and current scheduling before the 5 game agreement), they’re really just gained 1 or 2 ND home games above what they already would have had off of natural schedules.
It seems like just another boost to money to try to equalize the ACC with the other conferences as much as they can justifiably do so.
LikeLike
Er, ACC home games*.
LikeLike
ESPN must really fight like hell to keep the ACC alive with the uncertainty over the next B1G contract.
At one point ESPN was the clear leader in CFB coverage. If the ACC blows up and ESPN loses the B1G contract, we would be left with 4 conferences that matter and ESPN would have:
1-most of the SEC but not the best game of each week
2- half of the Pac12
3-half of the B12
4-none of the B1G
That doesn’t seem very dominant.
LikeLike
I’m skeptical ESPN really does that. But if they do go to 19 with the ACC, I might be convinced.
LikeLike
Remember that the $19 million is average over the life of the contract and the new money the ACC got after they added ‘Cuse and Pitt was almost entirely backoaded, with a huge portion of it coming in the form of a lump sum payment in the final year of the deal (which ESPN forced the ACC to agree to extend by four years).
I’d be interested to know if the new ND money is payed out similarly.
LikeLike
I’ve seen that about the lump sum, but I don’t remember seeing it anywhere but on message boards. Was there any credible source for that?
LikeLike
I guess I don’t remember hearing anything about a lump sum from any serious source. I can find some vague stuff on a scout message board referring to a tweet from the dude.
The current pre-Notre Dame ACC deal ended up being a $3.6 billion /14 year deal. That is about $17.14 million per 14 teams per year on average. If you give the 14 teams $14 million a year in year 1 and grow the contract at 3% annually, you get an average of $17.18 million a year per team. Obviously like any other television contract for any conference, we’ve started at a discount and to meet the average it will finish at a premium. At 3%, it would be $20.8 million per team in the final year.
I’m not sure if this is what Frug is referring to as a back-loaded lumps sum payment or not. If it is though, regardless of the chatter from some schools like Florida State, that is completely standard in any college contract.
LikeLike
The WVirginians and I think some other place (Clemson maybe?) talked about there being something other than an escalated contract. Don’t remember exactly what was said, but it basically went up very slowly until there was a significant increase (50-75%) in the last couple of years. But as I recall, it was just message board and not anything credible.
LikeLike
Sorry i’m tired tonight and flubbed the math there. It was $3.6 billion/15 years. Still $17.18 million per each of the 14 teams on average over the life of the contract. $14 million in year 1 at a 3% growth rate annually puts the final year 15 payment at about $21 to $21.5 million.
LikeLike
@bullet,
Why would ESPN possibly want to do that though? The standard escalation allows them to keep up with inflation, manage their expenses, and gradually payout more money over the life of the deal as ESPN gradually increases ad rates and subscriber fees.
The only answer I can think of is that they want to give the ACC an incentive to stay together under a lump sum scenario, but I just don’t see it.
The math gets trickier when you try and factor in that the ACC isn’t going to go for a deal that pays their teams less than the previous 2010 deal on a per year basis in the near term, something you’d pretty much have to do to account for a significant lump sum at the end. I just don’t see the lump sum idea as likely at all.
LikeLike
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/05/14/Colleges/FSU.aspx
To be honest, I don’t remember where I heard about the lump sum payment (and could be confusing it with something else) but I do know the contract was pretty back loaded (or more specifically has more aggressive escalators in later years compared to other conference deals)
When the ACC first signed the deal they said it would be $4 million a year raise per school over the life of the deal, but (as the article notes) it takes nine years (keep in mind the original contract was only for 12 years) before they actually see a true $4 million bump (they will only be getting $1 million extra in first year of the deal). What that means is virtually all the new money is packed in the 4 additional years that ESPN forced the ACC to tack onto the end of the deal.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“Why would ESPN possibly want to do that though? The standard escalation allows them to keep up with inflation, manage their expenses, and gradually payout more money over the life of the deal as ESPN gradually increases ad rates and subscriber fees.
The only answer I can think of is that they want to give the ACC an incentive to stay together under a lump sum scenario, but I just don’t see it.”
I’m not saying they did it, but what about these:
1. It let’s the ACC announce a bigger total number for the deal without costing ESPN as much in net present value as a standard escalating deal would.
2. They expected to renegotiate the ACC’s deal before it runs out, bumping the lump sum even further into the future or spreading it out over the next 20 years.
3. They thought expansion would let them change the deal before it ended, so they put all the big money at the end.
LikeLike
If ESPN was paying extra in order to gain the longer contract that they wanted, it makes sense to put the incentive for signing a longer contract in the added years.
Whether its a lump sum or a more aggressive escalator ~ in either event there’d be some fans hearing that it was backloaded and then repeating that as a lump sum payment at the end of the contract.
LikeLike
@Frug
“When the ACC first signed the deal they said it would be $4 million a year raise per school over the life of the deal, but (as the article notes) it takes nine years (keep in mind the original contract was only for 12 years) before they actually see a true $4 million bump (they will only be getting $1 million extra in first year of the deal). What that means is virtually all the new money is packed in the 4 additional years that ESPN forced the ACC to tack onto the end of the deal.”
That is try if you use a standard 3 to 4% escalation rate through the live of the contract. Nothing in that quoted text tells me that the deal is any more “back-end loaded” than any other contract. They basically signed a brand new deal. That means start at the deep discount again, you won’t see the average amount or the $17.1 million per school until about 9 years in, etc.
LikeLike
@Brian,
For number 1, that would be true if they are negotiated with a fixed NPV budget to work with. I’m not sure of that is the case or not. But if we assume the deal was going to be $3.6 billion over 15 years, back end loading doesn’t lead to a huge NPV difference for either party. A quick 5 minute calculation if you significantly back-end load the last 3 years of the deal only gives each ACC school about $2 million or $145,000 each year over the 15 years in present value dollars.
And from ESPN’s perspective, while you may save $30 to $50 million in present value terms you also all of the sudden are going to have a year where your profitability margins go to crap on the ACC contract. 3 to 4% escalation may cost slightly more than back-end loading the contract in present value terms, but it also makes budgeting incredibly simple for ESPN.
For 2, That is certainly possible. But then again if you are the ACC, I’m not sure why A) you’d willing agree to it either time or B) not use the lump sum at the end of the new existing deal as a basis going forward. This is all somewhat dependent on recourse over expansion in the contract.
For 3, Most plausible of the 3. I just don’t see any evidence that this was done. We’ll find out fairly soon though when we see ACC revenues for this past season.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF,
“If ESPN was paying extra in order to gain the longer contract that they wanted, it makes sense to put the incentive for signing a longer contract in the added years.”
Not necessarily. ESPN’s incentive to pay extra is 1) that it is contractually obligated in some form. And 2) the fact that they locked up the rights for additional time is incentive in itself.
“Whether its a lump sum or a more aggressive escalator ~ in either event there’d be some fans hearing that it was backloaded and then repeating that as a lump sum payment at the end of the contract.:
Sure, but like I said, I’ve yet to see anything remotely credible on it other than rumblings from West Virginia fans who were long gone already. I also remember a Florida State board of regents or equivalent member going crazy when the contract was signed. However, from what I recall at the time it sounded like he simply was failing to understand that all contracts pay more money at the back end. $17.1 million over 15 years per team doesn’t mean you’ll get $17.1 million in any one of the 15 years. Some years it will be less, later years it will be more.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus
I’m skeptical until I see something more definitive on whether there is a lump sum or not. Those articles don’t make it clear if the writers have an understanding of escalation clauses.
Now the ACC could want such a lump sum to advertise their deal as better than it really was. Its clear the office has not been very forthcoming with the schools. The Clemson AD was commenting that he didn’t know what the deal was.
The accounting shouldn’t be any different for ESPN regardless of whether they have a lump sum or not. So ESPN would be indifferent.
LikeLike
Another incentive for the ACC to have a lump sum would be as a defacto exit fee. If you don’t stay until the end of the contract, you don’t get the real benefit.
LikeLike
@ Nostradamus: I don’t see how what you said contradicted what I said. Its natural for the side of a negotiation who wants something extra to pay a premium for that thing. If it was ESPN who wanted the longer contract, and the ACC not keen on a longer contract, then ESPN would have to pay a premium to get what they want. Given the moral hazard, ESPN would of course insist on placing that premium IN the extra years.
I didn’t comment on how likely it would be for such a premium to be a lump sum, but rather on the near certainty that if the contract is backloaded in any way whatsoever, somebody on the internet will end up describing it as a lump sum payment at the back end.
LikeLike
@bullet,
“I’m skeptical until I see something more definitive on whether there is a lump sum or not. Those articles don’t make it clear if the writers have an understanding of escalation clauses.”
I missed Frug’s link before and Dan Wetzel’s article is the one I recalled from the time with the FSU Trustee. I sat down at the time and it was fairly easy to get the numbers to match the statement that the ACC schools won’t see the $4 million average life of contract difference until 2021 through standard escalation. I have a feeling that article is the source though, and if that is the case there is nothing there to point to a lump sum. It is basically a mere side effect of negotiating a new deal with ESPN.
“The accounting shouldn’t be any different for ESPN regardless of whether they have a lump sum or not. So ESPN would be indifferent.”
All of the sudden in year 13, 14, or 15 they would suddenly have a massive expense increase. I’m not saying that ESPN can’t pay the bills or anything like that. I’m just saying from a business perspective, I’m not sure that is the way ESPN would want to do things. Standard escalation works quite well for them.
“Another incentive for the ACC to have a lump sum would be as a defacto exit fee. If you don’t stay until the end of the contract, you don’t get the real benefit.”
True but it would come at the cost of up front revenue and I’m not really sure most schools would be willing to give up revenue now on the off chance of sticking it to someone if they hypothetically leave.
LikeLike
@BruceF
“Its natural for the side of a negotiation who wants something extra to pay a premium for that thing. If it was ESPN who wanted the longer contract, and the ACC not keen on a longer contract, then ESPN would have to pay a premium to get what they want. Given the moral hazard, ESPN would of course insist on placing that premium IN the extra years.”
Certainly. I’ll preface this by saying I could be misreading the situation and a lot of it depends on the language in the contract which we don’t have access to re: ACC expansion… But I don’t think the ACC had much leverage to demand a premium for the 3 extra years here. The ACC added two schools and wanted more money on a per school basis than the contract they just signed 2 years before. ESPN said we’ll tell you what. Here are your options. We’ll give Pitt and Syracuse an equal share under the existing deal. Or here is what we’d be willing to give you with an extra 3 years for your rights. Like I said, I could be misreading the situation, but the ACC certainly didn’t many if any cards at all to be demanding a premium for the extra years. The rights aren’t on the open market.
“I didn’t comment on how likely it would be for such a premium to be a lump sum, but rather on the near certainty that if the contract is backloaded in any way whatsoever, somebody on the internet will end up describing it as a lump sum payment at the back end.”
And I agreed with you and still do on this…
LikeLike
@Nostradamus
For Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) they can’t put a lump sum in a contract and defer the expenses. They would have to average it over the life of the contract. That’s the reason in reverse that Fox paid a “signing bonus” to the Big 12 of $20 million on the new contract instead of extending or revising the existing contract. That $20 million gets expensed over the life of the new contract instead of being expensed now.
If its the same net present value, it really doesn’t matter much to them. They’ve certainly got no problems deferring paying out cash and increasing their cash flow in the interim.
Can’t believe we’re on this board talking accounting principles.
LikeLike
The joke goes something like:
There were 3 accountants from an insurance company in a bar. They were laughing at how boring the actuary was.
What’s next? The actuarial life expectancy of the aging population in the Big 10 states?
LikeLike
@bullet – Don’t anger an actuary.
LikeLike
Nostradamus: “ESPN said we’ll tell you what. Here are your options. We’ll give Pitt and Syracuse an equal share under the existing deal. Or here is what we’d be willing to give you with an extra 3 years for your rights.”
Where you say “here is what we’d be willing to give you with an extra three years for your rights” IS a premium for an extra 3 years of the rights. If they were offering those two options, it would be perfectly sensible for the second option to have a steeper escalator to backload more of the additional value INTO those three years.
LikeLike
@bullet, thanks for the GAAP refresher.
LikeLike
@BruceF,
“‘Where you say “here is what we’d be willing to give you with an extra three years for your rights” IS a premium for an extra 3 years of the rights.’
If they were offering those two options, it would be perfectly sensible for the second option to have a steeper escalator to backload more of the additional value INTO those three years.”
Due to the extra years I’d actually expect the opposite. I’d expect an equal or lower growth rate. All things else equal, a shorter time frame is going to require a higher growth rate or escalation factor. All things aren’t necessarily equal here though as we can play with the initial discount rate as well, but I’d still expect a smaller or equal escalation rate over a longer term deal.
LikeLike
From The ACC’s perspective if so much of this money is hypothetically back-loaded into the last 3 years of the deal (basically the 3 year extension they signed); it becomes a legitimate issue as to whether or not they should’ve signed a new deal at all. Occam’s razor still is that the ACC basically signed a new standard escalation deal for 15 years. We won’t know for certain probably until May to July when end of year financial numbers start getting leaked for schools/conferences.
LikeLike
From The ACC’s perspective if so much of this money is hypothetically back-loaded into the last 3 years of the deal (basically the 3 year extension they signed); it becomes a legitimate issue as to whether or not they should’ve signed a new deal at all.
I’ve been saying that for a long time.
The fact is, the ACC’s decision making over the past 3 years has been disastrous so it wouldn’t shock me at all.
—–
Personally, in some ways this reminds me a bit of big league teams signing player still on their rookie contracts to extensions that include a couple of their free agency years.
In the first three years the deal (the per-arbitration years) the player will make close to the league minimum. The next three (the arbitration years) will see the players salary creep up, until it explodes from years 7-whatever, when the salary will be close to market rate.
Anyways, since ESPN effectively has the ACC cost controlled for the next 12 years (to borrow as baseball term), it would make sense that they would put almost all the new money in the extension years, since in that case they would be buying out the ACC’s chance to hit the open market.
That said, you are right it will be awhile before we know for certain what is up with the ACC’s contract (if we ever do)
LikeLike
Mizzou killing it today in the non-revenue sports. #7 Mizzou softbal beats #5 Florida 4-3, and #6 Mizzou wrestling beats Brian’s #5 Buckeyes 28-6 in Columbus.
LikeLike
Correction, the wrestling meet was at the NWCA National Duals in Minneapolis. Mizzou has now beaten Maryland, Purdue, and Ohio State. Will face #1 ranked Oklahoma State tomorrow morning.
LikeLike
Oklahoma St is ranked #3 in wrestling
http://www.intermatwrestle.com/rankings/college/Team
LikeLike
okay, well I was going by this one:
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/wrestling/d1
LikeLike
Let’s see how Missouri wrestling does after a few years of being parked in the MAC and not being in a conference with (wrestling) brand names such as Iowa State or Okie State. I think Andy soon will learn why UNC and Duke have no interest in parking their men’s soccer, wrestling or both lacrosse programs, as they would have to do in the SEC.
LikeLike
vincent – but UNC and UVA would be OK with parking their 3rd biggest sport (baseball) in the B1G’s baseball wasteland?
LikeLike
Mizzu’s only concern would be if the administration decided to not support it. This does concern me as many schools have cut it. Many of those top 10 revenue SEC schools had squads in the past, some very good ones (LSU comes to mind), but choose to move the money into already huge FB budgets. The Tigers will be top 20 as long as it has a modicum of support.
LikeLike
Alan, at least the Big Ten sponsors baseball as a sport, and it has a long history in the conference (e.g., Branch Rickey coaching at Michigan a century ago). It’s not a particularly strong conference now, but add any number of UVa, UNC, GT and FSU from the ACC and things could pick up a bit.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see if Missouri can keep bringing in quality wrestlers now that they are in the MAC. I didn’t even realize that the SEC doesn’t compete in the sport. And wow look at the B1G teams in the top 25. Talk about a powerhouse conference in that sport. Same with basketball too. Only one SEC bball team in the top 25…yikes.
LikeLike
Pretty sure there isn’t much of a wrestling ‘conference schedule’…or at least, there wasn’t in the small Big 12. Everyone schedules there own meets and then has a conference title game.
Just looked at OU this year, and they indeed do have 3 meets against the other ‘Big 12’ wrestling schools. They also have 1 meet against Mizzou. Those 4 meets are still less than half of their schedule.
I don’t think conference affiliation matters much in that sport.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“Pretty sure there isn’t much of a wrestling ‘conference schedule’…or at least, there wasn’t in the small Big 12. Everyone schedules there own meets and then has a conference title game.
Just looked at OU this year, and they indeed do have 3 meets against the other ‘Big 12′ wrestling schools. They also have 1 meet against Mizzou. Those 4 meets are still less than half of their schedule.
I don’t think conference affiliation matters much in that sport.”
The B10 has an 8 meet conference season as about half of the total season. EIWA has a 7 meet schedule. Smaller conferences obviously have fewer meets. Affiliation matters.
LikeLike
But Missouri has a long history of being in the Big 12, with only a few conference meets each season. Will switching around really hurt them?
LikeLike
Missouri had been in a conference with uber power OkSU. Now they’re in the MAC. I would have to think it will impact their recruiting.
LikeLike
Andy, as a Missouri alum, I am begging you to please stop…. You are trying WAY too hard for some form of validation, either for MU or the $EC….. This is not the place.
LikeLike
And, I enjoy following the MAC as much as anyone….
LikeLike
Hallelujah. I love this blog and especially enjoy reading through the comments, but good lord enough already.
LikeLike
Norm – Andy is in every new post by Frank touting Missouri. We have had grand debates about how the B1G screwed the pooch on not accepting Missouri vs. Nebraska. It was a fun little back in forth and Andy will not back down even when all the facts are against him in defending his Uni.
I just checked out the Men’s NCAA D1 basketball rankings and Missouri is unranked. This is their marque program and it isn’t performing. Then you take a peek at last years train wreck in football as well as their #40 recruiting rankings in this football class and Missouri doesn’t seem to be the juggernaut that Andy keeps touting. I have predicted that Missouri’s flash in the pan success with Chase Daniels is over not to be seen again for another 20+ years.
What I find most interesting is that Andy notes that Missouri is outstanding at most everything however upon graduation he quickly went to California to a PAC school for employment.
LikeLike
Missouri is also unranked in men’s college baseball. Andy – hit us with some hardcore, unsubstantiated propaganda my man!
LikeLike
actually this post was entirely made to troll Brian and his OSU fandom. I don’t really care if anyone else reads them.
LikeLike
Norm, just so you understand where I’m coming from, and it’s no secret, I’ve been commenting on this blog for several years now. There are a few people on here that i regularly banter with. That’s one of if not the main reason I’m here. The banter. With those guys. They do it too. Sometimes it gets a little stupid I agree. And yet we keep on doing it.
They troll me plenty. I troll them back. Mizzou beat OSU 28-6 at something today. Had to mention it on here.
LikeLike
Perhaps you could get his e-mail address and leave the rest of us alone?
LikeLike
Watching the Detectives,
“Perhaps you could get his e-mail address and leave the rest of us alone?”
Gee, thanks for throwing me under the bus.
LikeLike
@Andy….please take your trolling and head over to ESPN Big Ten blog, you will be more than welcome. This is absolutely the premiere site on “conference” realignment and your homerism is simple pollution. Also, as a OSU fan I have nothing against Mizzo, or you for that matter, please don’t single handily change that by degrading the conversation on this site.
LikeLike
the conversation on this site was degraded years ago. A ton of nonsense on here. Me pointing out that Mizzou beat OSU 28-6 in wrestling is a tear drop in an ocean of nonsense.
LikeLike
In other words Andy is saying that the trolling is going to continue. If everyone ignores the troll it will go away. It is some kind of mental sickness to get your rocks off by trying to upset folks on a message board. It is a special kind of crazy.
LikeLike
Agreed Dan…I just hate to wade through a lot of BS and Troll drivel to enjoy a truly intellectual conversation. Most on this site refrain from homerism for the greater good of attempting to keep a logical, factual based, and sometimes spirited flow to this topic.
LikeLike
dan just snookered you. he’s a bigger troll than me.
LikeLike
Andy, thank you for clogging up the blog with an update no the Missouri women’s softball team. Frank can you move the blog to a site that allows us to block/ignore posters who just jam up an otherwise excellent blog with great posters?
LikeLike
danimation, you’ve clogged up this blog with dozens of trolling posts directed at me over the last year or two. You’re more guilty of this than I am. Wow you’re a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Perhaps we should ask the others on here who are going to be honest? My posts have been fact based.
LikeLike
so have mine. and yours have been purposefully trolly on a regular basis.
LikeLike
Andy was pro-Mizzou, but certainly not a troll for a long time, while you and a few other Nebraska supporters relentlessly, and pointlessly, started trolling Mizzou in threads that had nothing to do with the University. Most readers, I think, just skimmed over it, but Andy would respond, and now he is bringing it up himself all the time.
LikeLike
Ag my comments where in response to Andy stating that adding Nebraska was a major mistake and that Nebraska and Missouri are equals in relation to what they would bring to the B1G. If another fan was trolling him that is fine but that is the primary time I responded to him. Otherwise than that I have just read the content and ideas from Frank and the other quality posters here.
LikeLike
liar.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/02/22/the-end-of-bracketbusters-may-it-rpi/
Conference expansion killed the Bracket Busters event. This year is the last one. The event is dying because too many of the teams have moved into better conferences that don’t participate or their conference has a deal with NBC instead of ESPN.
It’s a shame this was collateral damage. It was a good chance to see some of the little guys play.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21742887/smu-drops-baylor-from-2013-schedule-adds-montana-state
Another downside to expansion. SMU is dropping Baylor for 2013 because of their move to the BE. They do have TAMU, TT and TCU OOC to go with their new FCS game. They didn’t want their OOC to be too hard with their new and “improved” BE schedule.
LikeLike
In a way, it was probably the easiest game to drop of the 4 games given that Baylor seems to be okay with skipping this Baylor@SMU game on the annual rotation.
LikeLike
I’m sure it was. TCU is a bigger rivalry and maybe TT is too. TAMU is a bigger name and may be more lucrative to keep than Baylor. I just hate to see an AQ team replaced by a I-AA because you moved into the BE.
LikeLike
So, talking about What SEC basketball would look like with UNC + Duke got me interested in seeing what the SEC would look like in all sports if those 2 joined. With many people on this board saying there’s no way they would join because of Lacrosse, I wanted to see what it would look like for every sport. Certainly the SEC would be showing them this sort of information.
I went over every sport the SEC offers except for Equestrian. Neither UNC nor Duke offer that NCAA trial sport (the 4 SEC schools that do offer it dominate the sport, of course). For each other sport, I tried to list the # of schools in a recent poll, the number of recent championships the SEC would have, and, in some cases, the number of recent final four or world series appearances.
* means UNC and/or Duke helped SEC numbers here
+ means Duke does not appear to sponsor the sport
Baseball-
8 of top 11*; 9 of top 17* in Baseball America’s latest rankings
3 of last 4 champions
16 CWS participants* (out of 40 total) in last 5 years
Basketball (men)
only 2* in current top 25
6 of last 8* champions
1 final four team* each of the past 5 years
Basketball (women)
7 teams in top 16* in current top 25 AP
3 of last 6 champions
only 3 final four teams in past 5 years
Cross Country (men)
only 1 team in final top 25 of USTFCCCA rankings
no champion since 2000 (Arkansas still has most titles in Division 1)
Cross Country (women)
3 teams* in final top 25 of USTFCCCA rankings
no champion since 1988
Football
7 teams in final AP top 23
last 7 BCS champions
Golf (men)
9 teams in top 25* of current Golfweek rankings
2 champions in last 8 years (4 in last 14 years)
Golf (women)
8 teams in top 19* of current Golfweek rankings
6 of last 12* champions (Duke has 4)
Gymnastics (women) +
7 teams in top 23 of NCAA.com rankings
7 of last 8 champions
Soccer (women)
4 teams in top 14* of final topdrawersoccer.com rankings
4 of last 7 champions* (all North Carolina)
Softball +
6 of top 10; 8 of top 20 in ESPN.com/USA rankings
current champion
17 WCWS participants (out of 40 total) in last 5 years
Swimming & Diving (Men)
6 of top 17* in CSAA rankings
6 of last 10 champions (all Auburn)
Swimming & Diving (Women)
5 of top 10; 7 of top 19* in CSAA rankings
1 of last 5 champions; had won previous 9 in a row
Tennis (Men)
8 of top 16*; 11 of top 24* in ITA rankings
2 champions in last 6 years (2007 & 2008)
Tennis (Women)
4 of top 5*; 6 of top 10*; 7 of top 17* in ITA rankings
3 of last 4 champions*
Indoor T&F (men)
top 3; 5 of top 19 in USTFCCCA rankings
last 3 champions; 25 of last 29 champions (mostly Arkansas)
Indoor T&F (women)
5 of top 9; 6 of top 14 in USTFCCCA rankings
only 1 (2009) champion in last 7 years; had won previous 4 in a row
Outdoor T&F (men)
last 4 champions
Outdoor T&F (women)
Would be last 5 champions, but LSU had a title vacated because of a drug test
Volleyball (women)
2 in AVCA final top 20
no champions (and no recent final 4 appearances)
A few currently non-sponsored sports (with SEC Network money, perhaps a few schools add sports):
In Women’s Lacrosse-SEC would have 4 teams, all in top 25 of NCAA RPI rankings, 3 in top 7
In Women’s Rowing-SEC would have 4 teams, none ranked
In Men’s Soccer-SEC would have 4 teams, only UNC ranked in coaches poll
In Men’s Wresting-SEC would have 3 teams, only Mizzou ranked in coaches poll (#6)
For the 2 new schools, only field hockey, fencing, and men’s lacrosse teams have no current counterparts.
Overall, a very strong and appealing athletic conference. I didn’t realize how good UNC’s baseball has been recently, I’m sure they’re more concerned than many of you think about the well-being of that program.
The 2 schools would bring men’s conference basketball to another level (as an aside, the current SEC is full of coaches in their first or second year…some of these will succeed and be solid programs in a few years). Women’s basketball, already with several programs that are challenging the elite of UCONN and Stanford, will be excellent. The biggest boost would be to women’s soccer. That’s a sport the SEC has been improving at (adding A&M and Mizzou helped), but those 2 programs would be a big boost.
In many other sports, it will be the SEC who will have the chance to elevate the performance of UNC and Duke, as they’ll compete with numerous top 25 teams..
The main weakness in the conference would be Volleyball and Cross Country. Nevertheless, it isn’t hard to see the advertisements for the SEC Network: “The Real Conference of Champions”.
LikeLike
Lacrosse is a bigger deal in the state of Maryland and probably the NY/NJ region as well than it is in North Carolina.
I don’t think lacrosse would be a deal-breaker for UNC/Duke going to the SEC.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“Overall, a very strong and appealing athletic conference. I didn’t realize how good UNC’s baseball has been recently, I’m sure they’re more concerned than many of you think about the well-being of that program.”
I don’t think that’s fair. Many of us have said for a long time that baseball would be an issue for any of the ACC schools.
“Nevertheless, it isn’t hard to see the advertisements for the SEC Network: “The Real Conference of Champions”.”
Yeah, get back to me when you get anywhere near the P12 on that one.
LikeLike
If the Pac 12 has more championships in recent years (and I’m not sure they do), it’s only because they offer more sports. The SEC would be the best in most sports it offers, including some of the favorites nationally and regionally. The 2 conferences are very competitive in sports like Swimming & Diving, Track and field, Softball, and Baseball.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA by themselves have 80% the SEC total NCAA team championships.
LikeLike
Andy:
SEC has as many bowling NCs as the PAC has in wrestling, one.
LikeLike
OK, I took a look at UNC. What we’re talking about here are the following sports that UNC would have to find a home for:
Men’s fencing
Women’s fencing
Men’s Lacrosse
Women’s Lacrosse
Men’s Soccer
Men’s Wrestling
Women’s Field Hockey
Women’s rowing
Yes, most SEC schools don’t sponsor most of those sports, but by the look of it most ACC schools don’t sponsor a lot of them either. Mizzou is working out just fine in the MAC. Doesn’t really make much difference. Just got third place in the national duals with wins over Maryland, Purdue, Ohio State, and Iowa. North Carolina could join Missouri there. Maybe a few SEC schools can start sponsoring a few of these sports with all the new money they’ll be making.
Maybe fencing and wrestling are high on their priority list, but I doubt it. They can find suitable homes for all of their sports if needed.
LikeLike
this was supposed to go below so I’ll repost it there.
LikeLike
Click to access combined.pdf
All time NCAA team titles:
1. UCLA – 108
2. Stanford – 103
3. USC – 96
4. OkSU – 51
5. LSU – 42
The P12 won 9 of them in 2011-2012, so they aren’t resting on their laurels. According to Wikipedia, the SEC averages about 7 per year since going to 12 schools. I assume that will increase with the new additions.
All time individual NCAA titles:
1. Stanford – 448
2. USC – 368
3. TX – 317
4. MI – 293
5. UCLA – 262
6. OSU – 235
7. UF – 229
Like I said, get back to me when you get close. Besides, “Conference of Champions” is a registered trademark of the P12. It’s not a criticism to say the SEC isn’t the P12 when it comes to NCAA titles. Nobody is.
LikeLike
A lot of those are in water polo and field hockey. Just sayin’. And I actually work for one of those schools on that list.
LikeLike
Andy, you are right about water polo, but the PAC 10 (12) has NEVER won a field hockey title. It looks like the ACC has been the dominant conference in field hockey, especially lately. Actually, NONE of the schools on that list of team titles has ever won a field hockey championship.
LikeLike
Suddenly those don’t count? But every one the SEC won was in an important sport, right? Everyone knows you’d count them if MO or a real SEC school won them. This sort of crap is why so many people tell you to stop spinning.
LikeLike
aTm will definitely give the SEC a boost in M and W track (indoor and out), not that they weren’t already strong there.
LikeLike
Brian, don’t play dumb. You know damn well that the more schools compete in a sport the harder it is to win a title. The sports that the SEC competes in are played by 200 or more schools. Sports like water polo are played by a couple dozen. Huge difference.
LikeLike
Andy,
“The sports that the SEC competes in are played by 200 or more schools.”
Wrong as usual. Women’s bowling, rifle, women’s gymnastics, wrestling, women’s rowing, …
LikeLike
Andy:
We talk about NCAA D1 (or whatever the levels are named now) championships. I believe we even include FB now even though there isn’t an official NCAA D1 championship event. That is the lone exception people recognize for the list of championships (not “I don’t think it should count”), and the SEC currently seems to benifit from that.
LikeLike
Brian, what? The SEC doesn’t compete in wrestling, bowling, or that other stuff as far as I know. What are you talking about?
LikeLike
Andy, I don’t understand what your point is? I think the number of scholarship sports a school sponsors says a lot about that school’s commitment to athletics, in general. The argument that the SEC only participates in sports that it can compete in at the highest level is so lame. If they have so much money, why in the world would they not be able to compete, especially since they don’t have the weather factor that the B1G has to deal with. Heck, the B1G schools have even had more success recently in warm-weather sports like tennis and golf — they’ve just built better indoor facilities, instead of cutting the sports.
You can’t make the argument that some sports are more important than others, with the exception of the revenue sports of football, basketball, and maybe baseball — and the PAC has done very well in those sports anyway. Why is one sport “more important” than another — especially when many of those sports you denigrate are Olympic events? I think having athletes from your school able to compete internationally at the highest level and representing their countries brings a lot of prestige and publicity to your university.
And then you go ahead and post wrestling smack directed to an Ohio State fan? Wrestling is one of the least-participated sports in the PAC 12. smh
You have become a parody poster in my mind. Your extreme homerism of Missouri and the SEC is so over-the-top, even among lots of school and conference partisanship on this board, that you have become a running joke.
LikeLike
Hey CC – If you only count only the sports that the SEC sponsors, the PAC12 has by my (quick) count 289*.
*(Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Equestrian (W), Golf, Gymnastics (W), Soccer (W), Softball (W), Swimming & Diving, Tennis, Indoor Track and Field, Outdoor Track and Field, and Volleyball(W) via wikipedia)
LikeLike
Mike, thanks.
LikeLike
OK, I took a look at UNC. What we’re talking about here are the following sports that UNC would have to find a home for:
Men’s fencing
Women’s fencing
Men’s Lacrosse
Women’s Lacrosse
Men’s Soccer
Men’s Wrestling
Women’s Field Hockey
Women’s rowing
Yes, most SEC schools don’t sponsor most of those sports, but by the look of it most ACC schools don’t sponsor a lot of them either. Mizzou is working out just fine in the MAC. Doesn’t really make much difference. Just got third place in the national duals with wins over Maryland, Purdue, Ohio State, and Iowa. North Carolina could join Missouri there. Maybe a few SEC schools can start sponsoring a few of these sports with all the new money they’ll be making.
Maybe fencing and wrestling are high on their priority list, but I doubt it. They can find suitable homes for all of their sports if needed.
LikeLike
damn, there’s 1200+ posts in this thread and I can’t even get my post to go below the one I’m responding to. I’ll try one more time.
LikeLike
If the SEC has so much money ,why so few sports ?
LikeLike
tradition? money is relatively new. I suspect sports will increase gradually.
LikeLike
The SEC schools don’t all have that much money. They are hoping to. But of course, they spend a lot of it on coaches and facilities.
B1G schools really have a different philosophy in wanting to offer a lot of intercollegiate sports. Also there are regional sports. Field hockey in the east, water polo in the west.
Texas has a different philosophy. They want to be nationally competitive in what they do. They have 9 men’s and 11 women’s sports. They have lots of club teams-hockey, men’s & women’s gymnastics, men’s soccer. But their NCAA offerings are limited.
LikeLike
bullet – the SEC has 10 of the top 20 highest revenue producing athletic departments in the country.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
SEC (10): #3 Alabama, #4 Florida, #7 LSU, #8 Tennessee, #10 Auburn, #13 Georgia, #14 Arkansas, #16 Texas A&M, #18 Kentucky and #20 South Carolina.
B1G (6): #2 Ohio State, #5 Michigan, #6 Penn State, #11 Wisconsin, #12 Iowa and #19 Michigan State.
B12 (2): #1 Texas and #9 Oklahoma.
Big East: #15 Louisville
P-12: #17 Oregon
LikeLike
Hm, 4 of the top 10, 6 of the top 15:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1#mainstory
LikeLike
bullet – Texas and the SEC have the same philosophy regarding the number of sports, that is to compete at a high level.
LikeLike
And yet the PAC easily is the leader in team championships, and I believe the directors cup inspite of only one in the top 20, and that due to a one time big donation being counted to Nike U.
LikeLike
ccrider, you know as well as everyone that the Pac 12 leads in championships and directors cups because they sponsor a whole bunch of sports that most schools dont’ sponsor. I work for a Pac 12 school in California, I see it all the time. They sponsor twice as many sports as SEC schools. A lot of those sports have relatively little competition. If you take those out of consideration and only count, say, the 10 most commonly played sports, the Pac 12 wouldn’t be nearly as dominant.
LikeLike
I give up.
The PAC needs to consider requiring conference wide logic tests as a condition of employment. 😦
LikeLike
Something to note about the revenue numbers is that Nebraska is not receiving a full share of the BTN at this time. With the new contract coming up in a couple of years as well as Nebraska’s full buy-in, into the BTN they will be right around top 10.
Also they have an expansion of 6k+ for the football stadium that will be ready for the upcoming season which will boost revenues too. There are a number of high dollar sky boxes that are included with this expansion. An estimate on the yearly revenue increase just for ticket sales for the expansion is $3 million…and Nebraska has been and will continue to be sold out until the end of time.
LikeLike
ccrider, what I’m saying is the Pac 12 is leading in championships not by spending more money but by sponsoring sports that are not widely played in the NCAA and then winning championships in those sports. get it yet? it’s perfectly logical. I’ve seen it first hand at the school I work for.
LikeLike
Andy:
Give it a rest. The SEC and PAC both officially sponsor 21 sports. Both have a few schools that particulate in NCAA sports not sponsored by the conference, qualifying for post season through NCAA prescribed events. One has had great recent FB success. The other has had longterm consistent success in a broader variety of sports. Why you gotta be a hater?
LikeLike
Baseball PAC 12 – SEC 9 inthe last 50 years
Basketball PAC 15 – SEC 12 all time (SEC led 4-3 fifty years ago)
Football (claimed by school) SEC 29 – PAC 21
Doesn’t look to me as if the PAC is just taking advantage of sports you don’t care for…just doing something with them.
Apologies to the general SEC fan. Great conference, that I wish would do more to broaden the opportunities for student athletes. Is winning FB the soul mission of college athletics, and doesn’t it appear that broader participation isn’t at the exclusion of success?
LikeLike
ccrider, talk about spin.
okay, let’s look at this. Sports sponsored by the richer schools from these conferences:
Pac 12
Stanford 35
UCLA 22
Cal 27
USC 21
Washington 19
Oregon 17
SEC
Georgia 19
Tennessee 18
Florida 17
Arkansas 17
Alabama 14
LSU 14
So there you go. Facts, not spin. Pac 12 sponsors more sports. I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue with this. It’s pretty obvious.
LikeLike
Sports sponsored by the richer schools from these conferences:
Pac 12
Stanford 35
UCLA 22
Cal 27
USC 21
Washington 19
Oregon 17
SEC
Georgia 19
Tennessee 18
Florida 17
Arkansas 17
Alabama 14
LSU 14
In other words, even after several programs were cut, the cash-strapped University of Maryland fielded more sports than the wealthiest members of the SEC.
Andy, your statistics probably explain why administrators at North Carolina and Duke (which field more sports than Maryland; the same applies for Virginia) would head to the Big Ten over the SEC if push came to shove…and why UVa (where Slive got a degree, IIRC) has absolutely no interest in that conference.
LikeLike
Andy:
how many sports have the SEC schools discontinued even though five of the top ten revenue producing AD’s? I notice you didn’t correct me on the baseball numbers. PAC leads 21-9. Point is, they lead in the major sports as well as many others.
You don’t get to choose which count and which don’t. There is no spin to their claim to far and away being the conference of champions. Pure unadulterated trophies in the case facts.
Congrats to the conference that just accepted your school. The last, impressive 7 year FB run is the difference between the PAC and SEC in that sport.
LikeLike
vp19, if UNC and Duke are weighing field hockey, rowing, men’s soccer, and wrestling as top factors in conference realignment then you’re in luck.
ccrider, you can’t be this dumb. you’ve gotta be faking. Sure you can narrow sports down systematically by how many schools participate. It’s an irrefutable fact that the Pac 12 (specifically the California schools) are wracking up all kinds of titles in sports that few schools compete in. Take those out and they’re not any better than the SEC at winning titles. Even if they are good at baseball.
LikeLike
Winning sponsored sports counts. Period. We even are counting FB even though there isn’t an actual NCAA D1 championship. If the ACC, BE, and WAC 🙂 quit playing football does that diminish the SEC’s success? Track and field has suffered tremendous attrition in the last three decades. I think those strong SEC teams are still great. Only about 60 W gymnastics teams left. Want to discount them? I don’t. Even M gymnastics at 16? They count. Don’t like it? Compete, or shut up.
Setting aside your distain for the success of the school who employees you, I hope you find it in yourself to root for all the Olympians they produce and the honor they should be bringing all of us.
LikeLike
You can have your tally that basically allows you to buy championships by devoting resources to obscure non-revenue sports. You can compete in your small groups of a couple dozen schools and throw a parade for your fencing “national champions” or syncronized swimming “national champions” even though all you did was beat out 20 other schools for those titles. You can have that tally. But it doesn’t reflect what you are claiming it reflects.
Show me a second tally where only the top 15 most played sports are counted (and I do believe football would make the list) and we’ll see where the Pac 12 ranks.
LikeLike
Cool…a title of “conferences of champions, as long as I get to decide which sports count”
…how precious…fewer opportunities equals greater honor?
PAC claims 443 (not counting FB) so 464.
SEC claims 225 (including FB)
Which “unpopular” sports you want to exclude? Golf? SEC won 14 titles. Tennis? SEC has 15 titles. Swimming and diving? SEC drops 22 more. W gym? Woops, that cost the SEC 17. Boxing, bowling, rifle, and equestrian? That’s 12 more SEC titles gone.
I guess we need to go to the obscure sports the PAC has championships in that the SEC doesn’t file…
Frankly, I find your premis that fewer sports equates to superiority offensive.
LikeLike
Almost all of your extra titles are coming from Stanford, UCLA, and USC. Between the three of them they have over 300 titles. I work for one of those three schools, I watch how they do it up close on a regular basis. They are winning titles in:
Men’s fencing
Men’s gymnastics
Men’s rowing
Men’s sailing
Men’s soccer
Men’s tennis
Men’s water polo
Women’s fencing
Women’s field hockey
Women’s Lacrosse
Women’s Rowing
Women’s Rowing Ltw
Women’s Sailing
Women’s squash
Women’s Syncronized Swimming
Women’s water polo
Now those are all perfectly good sports, but the fact is those are 16 sports right there where you can win a “national championship” every single year by beating out just a few ohter schools for it. And chances are if you’re Stanford, UCLA, or USC you’ve put a whole lot more scholarship money and facilities money into those sports than anyone else in the country. SO it’s really no wonder each of those schools racks up about a 100 “national champions” each over the years.
LikeLike
Mike calculated the PAC at 289 in the sports the SEC officially sponsors. You want to subtract the SEC NC’s in sports they don’t officially sponsor from the 225 they currently claim?
Look, no one is saying the SEC isn’t very good at many sports. Just that over history the PAC has collected more NC’s, and in more sports, than any other conference. Hence the “conference of champions” label.
LikeLike
vp19, if UNC and Duke are weighing field hockey, rowing, men’s soccer, and wrestling as top factors in conference realignment then you’re in luck.
Perhaps they aren’t “top” factors, but they’re factors just the same. You aren’t dealing with having to park one sport elsewhere, as is the case with Missouri and West Virginia, but several –– and finding a new conference (or conferences) for your teams is time-consuming and expensive. North Carolina has been a national contender in both field hockey and men’s soccer, and placing them in a conference separate from your primary home diminishes them somewhat.
LikeLike
OK, I took a look at UNC. What we’re talking about here are the following sports that UNC would have to find a home for:
Men’s fencing
Women’s fencing
Men’s Lacrosse
Women’s Lacrosse
Men’s Soccer
Men’s Wrestling
Women’s Field Hockey
Women’s rowing
Yes, most SEC schools don’t sponsor most of those sports, but by the look of it most ACC schools don’t sponsor a lot of them either. Mizzou is working out just fine in the MAC. Doesn’t really make much difference. Just got third place in the national duals with wins over Maryland, Purdue, Ohio State, and Iowa. North Carolina could join Missouri there. Maybe a few SEC schools can start sponsoring a few of these sports with all the new money they’ll be making.
Maybe fencing and wrestling are high on their priority list, but I doubt it. They can find suitable homes for all of their sports if needed.
LikeLike
ccrider, like I said, take the top 15 sports and count those. It looks like the Pac 12 would still be ahead, but not by that much. And in all likelihood a lot of that lead will have been earned many year ago. The SEC is a newer and new-money league compared to the Pac-12. Before the 90s the SEC was less successful in all sports.
LikeLike
The ACC doesn’t appear to sponsor fencing, so that wouldn’t change.
Florida & Vanderbilt have women’s Lacrosse, currently in a conference with Johns Hopkins & 3 Big Ten schools. So Duke & UNC would be at worst in a grouping of 4 schools. South Carolina apparently was going to start a program in the last few years, but it currently has a webpage saying it has been ‘delayed’.
South Carolina & Kentucky have men’s soccer programs affiliated with Conference USA. Duke & UNC could join that or the SEC could, perhaps, form a small conference of 4.
Alabama & Tennessee have rowing programs with Conference USA. Again, they’d have a minimum grouping of 4.
In each of these sports, the SEC schools would be good geographic rivals for the 2 North Carolina schools.
In Wrestling they’d be with Missouri, and would have 1 less program than the entire Big 12.
That leaves Field hockey as the one sport that the ACC sponsors that no current SEC school has.
LikeLike
And men’s lacrosse–that’s the important one.
LikeLike
m(Ag) – you are right on point on both posts. But even though men’s lacrosse is important, the ACC is currently only a four team league. If Johns Hopkins can thrive as an independent in men’s LAX, UNC could do the same.
On the other hand, UNC’s baseball program would be adversely affected by a move to the B1G. Trading weekend series with Clemson and Florida State, to Penn State and Iowa is a problem. Being in the B1G would be devastating to UNC’s baseball recruiting.
Again, I doubt that baseball, LAX, or even women’s rowing figure into UNC’s decision making process for conference affiliation, but if they did, the non-SEC sports that UNC sponsors would have a better chance of success parked in various conferences, than their baseball team would have as a member of the B1G.
LikeLike
For automatic team qualification, they need 6 schools, so the SEC wouldn’t help in those 4 team lacrosse and soccer groupings.
LikeLike
Until about the early ’80’s Ala, Aub, Fla, Ga, UTn, Ky, and LSU fielded wrestling. aTm at a much earlier time. Perhaps (hopefully) Missouri can influence a return? There is quite a bit of talent that is untapped in the region.
LikeLike
LSU dropped wrestling in the mid 80s. In part due to budget cuts and in order to comply with Title IX. Women’s soccer and softball were added in the early 90s.
LikeLike
bullet – the ACC only has 4 men’s LAX teams.
LikeLike
“For automatic team qualification, they need 6 schools, so the SEC wouldn’t help in those 4 team lacrosse and soccer groupings.”
The schools would have the option of affiliating with another conference if they wanted, but they’d at least consider forming their own conference without an AQ bid. They’d have the flexibility to schedule strong non-conference games, so their best team (if not the 2nd or 3rd) should be getting into playoffs. They would have TV exposure to aid recruiting either way (the SEC Network picking up games that a national contract wouldn’t take).
LikeLike
“Until about the early ’80′s Ala, Aub, Fla, Ga, UTn, Ky, and LSU fielded wrestling. aTm at a much earlier time. Perhaps (hopefully) Missouri can influence a return? There is quite a bit of talent that is untapped in the region.”
I’m not sure where Wrestling would rank if schools started adding men’s programs. Men’s Soccer and Men’s Lacrosse are sports I would guess might rank higher in the South.
LikeLike
@M (ag) – Nice work.
LikeLike
Thanks. Took a bit of time, but was fun to go through the info.
LikeLike
“With many people on this board saying there’s no way they would join because of Lacrosse …”
Who was it who was saying that, again? I hadn’t noticed anybody making that particular case.
I certainly wouldn’t ~ if the decision was so closely balanced that Lacrosse would enter into the balance, then clearly it is so closely balanced that it could go either way. Unless there is something like a billionaire alum Lacrosse fan that I’m unaware of, its only one of the secondary factors aimed at either reassuring them if they are inclined toward the Big Ten based on the primary factors, or discouraging a quick decision if they are inclined toward the SEC based on the primary factor.
I’ve seen arguments, both here and at MrSEC, that UNC definitely wouldn’t join the SEC, but the only ones I’ve seen claiming a single factor was decisive were claiming that it was academics that ruled the SEC out.
Certainly there is some dispute regarding its weight among secondary factors ~ whether its more proportional to its minimal weight on the overall national scene, or more proportional to its substantially greater weight in some more academically prestigious schools on the East Coast (the kind of thing that led ESPNU to put a focus on Lacrosse).
LikeLike
Andy,
If you took out every single sport except 1984 Men’s Hockey then my alma mater, Bowling Green, would have the most NCAA titles of any school in the country. Throw in our winning streak against Missouri in football and I went to a real sports powerhouse. It’s easy to rationalize anythin we want to make ourselves feel better.
But it doesn’t work that way. The NCAA recognizes several sports. No one in the PAC-12 is forcing any other school to not participate. Just like the SEC, B1G, etc is forcing the PAC-12 to filed basketball teams.
LikeLike
Frank tweeted this earlier. Worth your time.
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/2/22/4019522/realignment-rumor-mill-guest-star-edition
LikeLike
A lot of agreement amongst them, all things considered. I’m still surprised how often Pitt and Kansas come up. I get that they are AAU and in the north, but that’s where the logic ends. Pitt doesn’t add value. Kansas is trapped by the GOR and KSU as well as being in a smallish state that isn’t growing quickly. Academically they are very similar to NE, too. Being a hoops king doesn’t make up for all of that.
LikeLike
@Brian – is it just me or is The Dude the only one that has any real differences?
LikeLike
It’s just you. There were lots of differences there.
LikeLike
Mike,
He is definitely the biggest outlier. I think part of that is that he is the most “source” based of the group and he tries to break news. Nobody else is talking BC to the B10 but him, for example. I also think he is the most agenda driven of the group. He’s not just pro WV and also pro-B12, he’s anti-ACC.
LikeLike
The Dude had a podcast with Brett McMurphy the other night. McMurphy said B1G would be the next to move and talk wouldn’t go away until the B1G expanded or said they were staying at 14. Question was never asked, but seemed to be assuming that if the B1G asked, the answer would be yes. He seemed to think the issue was whether the B1G would really decide to expand or not with all the consequences of that, both within the B1G and in college football in general. McMurphy didn’t think B1G was in any hurry and might wait for the playoffs to see how that worked out. When asked how many teams he thought the B1G would have in 2014, he hesitated and then answered 14.
He believed the SEC and Big 12 would not move before the B1G and that the SEC really didn’t want to expand.
LikeLike
McMurphy’s analysis sounds spot on.
The Dude’s analysis is driven largely by his animosity for Pitt. Look at the end game for all of his scenarios. They all put Pitt in a terrible position. He’s bitter because Pitt got the call for the ACC and WVU is stuck in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Well that’s hopefully. But how much time would be left between playoffs starting and beginning contract negotiation? I think the importance of knowing effects of a four team invitational, err…playoff are dwarfed by the potential the new contract presents.
LikeLike
McMurphy said B1G would be the next to move and talk wouldn’t go away until the B1G expanded or said they were staying at 14.
The Big Ten said they were happy at 12, so no one is going to believe them when they say they’re happy at 14. The only way the rumors go away is if Delany and every president & AD says consistently, over a long period of time, that they are staying at 14, without saying/hinting that they think super-conferences are on the way.
Sooner or later, the reports would die down because, quite simply, there would be nothing more to say.
LikeLike
bullet,
“McMurphy said B1G would be the next to move and talk wouldn’t go away until the B1G expanded or said they were staying at 14.”
I think anyone could move first. Clearly the MD lawsuits need to be dealt with before anything happens. I also think people are waiting on the SEC’s new deals to be finalized. Sometime this spring, all that uncertainty should be resolved. Then several schools and conferences will have to make decisions now that hard numbers are available.
A. B10 moving first
After seeing the MD settlement, 2-6 ACC schools agree to join the B10.
B. B12 moving first
The B10 tells FSU they aren’t interested and so does the SEC. FSU and 1-3 others head west.
C. SEC moving first
The B10 tells FSU they aren’t interested and the SEC takes them to keep the B12 out of FL.
I think any of those is plausible.
What is unlikely to happen first is UNC leaving the ACC. FSU leaving might be enough to cause the ACC to crumble unless ND joins it. The other FB schools would see the loss of FSU (and others) as a danger sign. ESPN might lower the contract value, too, and that would be a killer. I don’t think UNC wants to leave, and neither does UVA, VT, Duke, NCSU or GT. The money might persuade some of them, though. If 2 of them go, then the ACC will probably crumble.
“He seemed to think the issue was whether the B1G would really decide to expand or not with all the consequences of that, both within the B1G and in college football in general. McMurphy didn’t think B1G was in any hurry and might wait for the playoffs to see how that worked out.”
I don’t think it’s the playoffs as much as nearing the new TV deal. Besides, I think the B10 would prefer to expand in stages so they can assimilate the new additions. If they want to expand, I think their ideal scenario would be adding UNC and UVA (and/or others) for the 2016 season. They would be in the B10 for 1 year before the new TV deal, but they’d be known to be coming in time for the negotiations.
LikeLike
I think B is possible (FSU moving 1st to B12), but I see more and more people believing only A is possible first.
I just don’t think the SEC really wants to expand and so I don’t see C as a reasonable possibility. I think they only move as a defensive measure and only if they can get UNC or NCSU. They would couple one of them with a VA school, Duke or FSU.
I agree with you about UNC. Them moving first is only slightly less remote than the B1G inviting Wake Forest.
LikeLike
@Brian ~ one question for B is what is the INCENTIVE for the SEC and Big Ten to both tell FSU they are definitely not interested, IF in fact neither is moving first? They can each both say they are not expanding right at this time, but they’ll keep FSU in mind if they do.
The SEC in particular there: if they are going to be responding, they have an incentive to keep their options open, and if they end up with one very good add and looking for a 16th, FSU could well be the best 16th, even with the market overlap issue. It surely is a good institutional fit.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think B is possible (FSU moving 1st to B12), but I see more and more people believing only A is possible first.”
Are they saying that based on any evidence, or are they just talking themselves into believing it? That’s the question.
“I just don’t think the SEC really wants to expand and so I don’t see C as a reasonable possibility.”
I think they want to expand with the right schools, but it’s not urgent for them. Otherwise Slive wouldn’t have been talking with UNC and Duke.
“I think they only move as a defensive measure and only if they can get UNC or NCSU. They would couple one of them with a VA school, Duke or FSU.”
That’s possible. Many have suggested they might take FSU if the B12 was about to get a block of 4 from the ACC. I’m not sure how defensive they’ll be, frankly.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“@Brian ~ one question for B is what is the INCENTIVE for the SEC and Big Ten to both tell FSU they are definitely not interested, IF in fact neither is moving first?”
It depends. FSU could give them an ultimatum (it’s now or never). Or the B10 may want to discourage FSU from getting their hopes up like they supposedly did with OU. What was the incentive there?
LikeLike
I just don’t think the SEC really wants to expand. . . .
People keep saying that, but it doesn’t ring true. You think Mike Slive wouldn’t want UNC plus one of UVA/VT?
What is the INCENTIVE for the SEC and Big Ten to both tell FSU they are definitely not interested, IF in fact neither is moving first? They can each both say they are not expanding right at this time, but they’ll keep FSU in mind if they do.
It is difficult to keep someone dangling on a string for very long, when in fact you have no intention of doing business with them. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it is difficult, especially when the parties are reasonably sophisticated, as they are here.
For the Big Ten, the case for adding Florida State isn’t going to change materially in the foreseeable future. FSU is at least a decade away from AAU membership, and it’s no sure thing even then. So either FSU has the votes…or they don’t. If they don’t, and the nos can’t be turned into yeses, it’s hard to come up with a believable story that would keep FSU waiting indefinitely.
Beyond that, at the risk of saying something shocking: I think Jim Delany is a brutally ruthless, but honest man. If he knows FSU has no chance, he’ll tell them so.
LikeLike
Even the WV people are starting to say the B1G needs to move first. Its not just this board, but mainstream media, WVU bloggers, and ACC people (the few without their heads in the sand). The idea is that the ACC schools aren’t really enthused about moving but the B1G offers such big potential revenues and prestige that they are the one that can pry the first schools off. Then it is every man for himself.
I think FSU, if they know the B1G and SEC aren’t reasonable possibilities, will have already run the numbers and determined whether there was enough extra money in the Big 12 to justify the move. And if its enough, they won’t wait for someone else to leave first. But they might wait for more resolution on the Maryland case.
LikeLike
I’ve seen lots of MSM reports saying SEC people are telling them or telling Big 12 colleagues, they want to digest the current additions and see how it works. Mr. SEC has said the same thing and they have lots of SEC contacts.
Now if UNC went to Slive tomorrow and asked to be signed up, would the SEC say yes? I think so. But that’s not going to happen. And I doubt anyone else in the ACC could get Slive to move first. North Carolina is where they logically want a foothold. They aren’t going to 16 without UNC or NCSU and they aren’t going to take NCSU when they might have a shot at UNC.
LikeLike
Brian, option B is basically impossible. The Big 12 doesn’t have the pull.
Option C is extremely unlikely. The SEC wouldn’t dare do anything that could drive UNC to the B1G.
LikeLike
@ Brian ~ I was taking A, B and C as the Conference instigating the moves, and hadn’t considered it in terms of an ultimatum from FSU. My first reaction to that is I don’t see FSU saying “its now or never” unless their preference for staying in the ACC and moving to the Big12 flips.
@ bullet ~ though if FSU did not have the votes at the Big Ten it would not be BECAUSE of the sports media value side, it would be because of the academic status issue. FSU supposedly has a long range plan to raise their status as a research institution. If they made substantial progress on that, it could indeed flip no votes to yes ~ but that wouldn’t be a change in the Big Ten, it would be a change in FSU’s status.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“@ Brian ~ I was taking A, B and C as the Conference instigating the moves, and hadn’t considered it in terms of an ultimatum from FSU. My first reaction to that is I don’t see FSU saying “its now or never” unless their preference for staying in the ACC and moving to the Big12 flips.”
It depends how untenable they find staying in the ACC and how affordable the exit fee becomes. If they feel they have to go ASAP, they have to try everything they can to get into their conference of choice.
LikeLike
“People keep saying that, but it doesn’t ring true. You think Mike Slive wouldn’t want UNC plus one of UVA/VT?”
Slive’s opinion may match mine…the SEC is better off as the premier football conference with 4 other competitors, including 2 Southern conferences that are each weaker than the SEC. The prestige from being the premier conference impacts the tier 1 revenue and the national exposure the conference gets.
Getting UNC would definitely give the SEC several benefits, but that would improve the Big Ten (sending schools their way) and likely the Big 12 (sending more their way), risking the SEC’s overall prestige.
If I was Slive I would be talking to UNC constantly, but my message would be: “If you leave the ACC, the SEC should be your destination, and here’s why”. And I’d have conversations with their preferred partner, whether that’s Duke, UVA, NC State, or whoever. I’d be happiest if they stayed put, I’d be happy if they joined the SEC, and disappointed if they joined the Big Ten.
LikeLike
All but one of the Kansas references were in the “wishlist” question, i.e., what would the Big Ten want if it could call all the shots? Gordon Gee’s “couple of Midwestern schools” comment looms large, as after ND, there aren’t many plausible schools he could have meant.
I agree with @Brian that Pitt makes no sense. Kansas does, though it’s hard to see how it could happen. It would be interesting to have solid analysis on what it takes to get out of a GOR. A GOR is just like any other contract: it is breakable at some price. The only question is how much.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is calling all the shots in regards to Kansas. The conference has enough money on hand to buy Kansas’ rights back from the Big XII, if they so desired to do so.
LikeLike
If you have to buy someone out of an earlier deal, then you don’t call the shots. Is Kansas worth it after paying what the Big XII would demand? Probably not.
LikeLike
It depends on how much you think they can do for you over what they can do for the Big XII. If you think it’s a revenue plus decision, the risks demand serious consideration.
LikeLike
Metatron: it almost certainly doesn’t make financial sense to buy KU out of its GOR. I’d much prefer all of the ACC schools talked about or even Pitt or SU over KU anyway.
LikeLike
Without knowing the particulars of the situation, we’re all just speculating based on our biases and preferences.
The scenario I described was a “last resort”, only to indicate that the Big Ten absorb whatever cost that could fly their way, if they wanted to.
LikeLike
@metatron: We can make long lists — infinite lists — of things the Big Ten could do “if they wanted to.” The real question is: is do they want to? You can’t divorce cost from the analysis, because Jim Delany doesn’t do deals that lose money.
LikeLike
I don’t know, because I don’t have all the relevant data.
All I have are the words of the people in the Big Ten, and Kansas has been consistently mentioned in their dispatches.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“All but one of the Kansas references were in the “wishlist” question,”
I wasn’t clear. Seeing them mention KU in those answers reminded me how often I see others throw them out as a viable candidate. That’s what surprises me. I’m not convinced KU is on the B10’s wishlist, but clearly you can make the argument either way.
“Kansas does [make sense],”
Does it? KS isn’t a big state (< 3M) nor is it growing quickly. KU is weak in FB and weak academically (basically NE before they lost AAU status). Does being a hoops king make up for all of that?
"though it’s hard to see how it could happen. It would be interesting to have solid analysis on what it takes to get out of a GOR. A GOR is just like any other contract: it is breakable at some price. The only question is how much."
Is KU so valuable to the B10 that they would buy them out of the B12 and still make money on them? If they do get out, can they leave KSU behind?
LikeLike
Is KU so valuable to the B10 that they would buy them out of the B12 and still make money on them? If they do get out, can they leave KSU behind?
I do not think they’re that valuable. They are probably less valuable than Maryland and Rutgers, and the Big Ten did not pay those schools’ exit fees. They did front-load some of Maryland’s media payout, but that’s nothing compared to what they’d have to pay the Big XII for Kansas.
If we assume (for argument’s sake) that KU and the Big Ten want each other, there are probably ways around the KSU problem. It is quite possible that the next school the Big XII adds will be worth more to the Big XII than Kansas. After all, KU and KSU duplicate a small market, and KSU is the better football school. The two could continue to meet in football OOC, much as Iowa and Iowa State do. Not that it’s happening, but you could imagine ways it might work.
It’s a lot different from the Texas situation, because without Texas there is no Big XII, at least as we have known it. Losing Kansas wouldn’t, even remotely, kill the Big XII.
LikeLike
KU is not very valuable. They will lose AAU membership soon. Do very little research. Low USNews ranking. Terrible at football. Terrible football attendance. Crappy stadium. Very low population state. No recruiting grounds to speak of. They are very good at basketball, so there’s that. I would think ku would be pretty low on the B1G’s list. They would be filler if they were looking to fill a spot and couldn’t find anyone else.
LikeLike
Good article, most striking thing to me was the consensus among the panelists. It struck me that one of the FSU guys mentioned UF to B1G. Having lived in South/Central Florida for a while, knowing many fans and graduates from the three schools, if you had to pick one that is more B1G like it would definitely be UF. Land grant school with medical and and law schools, AAU, great research, etc. The FSU folks are more SEC like. I have shared on this board before that a few years ago the Tallahassee CoC slogan was “Florida with Southern Accent.” Florida is turned upside down, it is most southern at the north (“the redneck riviera” – I can say that, my folks go there), and more northern at the south – with all the Northerastern influence in the Miama to West Palm Beach dorrdor.
LikeLike
drwillini, that’s exactly what I was getting at with a post below. Too bad there’s not much/any chance it could happen.
LikeLike
That was me. The question was about who I believe would be on the B1G wishlist not who the B1G has a chance to get. UF would be a school that Delany and Presidents would accept in a heartbeat but there is as close to zero chance of this happening as you could get. I mostly put it there to show what kind of schools I believe the B1G would love to have.
You are right about the state the further south you go the more culturally north the state is. The actual make up of the student body is kids from I4 and south where either they where born or their parents where born in the North. When it comes to out of state students the B1G footprint sends more students to FSU then does the SEC footprint (minus GA). Illinois alone sends more then Alabama and Mississippi combined (one of which is a boarder state and very close to Tallahassee).
I will be the first to admit that much of the fan base if given the choice would pick the SEC first second and probably third but there would not be a fan revolt with a B1G invite that is for sure.
LikeLike
Also, the schools I mention for both the SEC and B1G wishlist where schools I felt would at least get a hearing from the respective conferences. There is no need to mention WF for example because by the time they would come up in conversation the slots would be filled by more attractive candidates.
LikeLike
Interestingly enough, if Florida State were taken into the Big Ten, wouldn’t that rule out the rumors that Florida was the mystery school from a few years back?
LikeLike
I don’t see why anyone would believe that UF was the mystery school as they would have been accepted by the B10 in a heartbeat if they had been interested. Tennessee as the mystery school makes much more sense.
LikeLike
or Kentucky or Georgia.
LikeLike
I think the B10 would take UGa without much protest as well.
UK conceivably could have been the mystery school, though the first rumor I heard was Tennessee.
LikeLike
I feel vindicated.
LikeLike
That article with the various bloggers was really interesting. The sense I have is that the outcome of the ACC/Maryland lawsuit might be a significant factor in what happens. From the ACC standpoint, I can see a benefit to this lawsuit going of for years. They don’t really have an interest in seeing it resolved that would exceed their interest in staying together as a conference. How long can a good trial attorney drag out a matter? A few years (until after the new BIG contract matters are decided) should be child’s play.
LikeLike
Richard’s been talking about this for a long time, so I figured I’d post this. It’s a heat map showing differences in temperatures across the US over a 32 year period of time (1970-2012).
It’s intuitive but just interesting to see it and think about what it means for the next 50 or 100 years.
Big Ten region temperatures up at least 0.5 across the whole region with Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all experiencing increases of at least 1 degree.
The Big 12’s entire region experienced gains of at least 0.5 degrees in temperature.
For the SEC region, Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee all experienced around 0.6-0.8 degree increases, whereas the rest of the region’s increase was relatively muted (0.5 degrees or less).
On the other hand, the Pac-12 entire region experienced the smallest change in temperature with no state showing an increase over 0.4 degrees.
I just found it interesting how neatly the changes mostly broke down around the current construction of the conferences. 2 of the 3 North-South conferences experienced uniform gains (Big 12 and Pac-12), whereas the ACC ran the whole spectrum. The Big Ten was also mostly uniform, whereas the SEC had a few outliers in its states near the Midwest.
LikeLike
Whoops, I meant 43* year period of time.
Keep in mind that the numbers I’ve posted are per decade.
So Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin have actually experienced 5+ degree increases over the winter.
Multiply all those numbers by 4.3 to get the actual increases by region since 1970.
LikeLike
This is also why the numbers are important, these are big increases in winter temperatures and big differences by region.
LikeLike
I think the map tends to reflect that conferences are (or used to be) tied together regionally and economically.
But if this is a point to point comparison, it can be misleading.
As I recall there were some pretty cold winters in 1968-1973. I remember a 20 below day in Indiana (that’s Farenheit-chill factor was -45). In 1973 our house in the southern part of Houston had some snow on the ground the entire month of March. There were two snowfalls that winter heavier than anything in the last 40 years. In fact, I think snow only fell in the southern part of Houston (closer to the Gulf than the northern suburbs and therefore a little warmer) twice up until there was a small Christmas snow about 6 or 7 years ago.
LikeLike
Although the pacific hasn’t had as great a change, it has warmed. Here is something that has almost no chance of happening again.
http://www.columbian.com/history/riverfrozen/
Granted, the likelihood is greatly decreased by river flow management that wasn’t possible back then. However, there is no question that even with the pacific right next door to stabilize temps the weather patterns are changing. Invest in southern British Columbia citrus orchards now!!! 🙂
LikeLike
Short term information,needs to be 10,000 years at least for any trend to show up .
LikeLike
What’s your one school fantasy wish list, regardless of the possibility of it happening? We know Delany’s is (was?) ND. Mine is U of Florida.
LikeLike
Yep, UF here as well.
LikeLike
You have a better shot at ND and UT than UF.
LikeLike
It’s a fantasy.
LikeLike
most everything on here is.
LikeLike
Andy:
I disagree. Most on here are making arguments, sharing information and often opinion. Occasionally there is the obvious flight of fancy, and when asked what your fantasy add would be, by definition the answer is fantasy.
LikeLike
I disagree. I see lots of talk of a Big 20. Of Florida and Vandy in the Big Ten. Of the B1G paying for KU’s GOR. Of Oklahoma in the B1G. There are all kinds of ridiculous ideas on here on a regular basis.
LikeLike
Actually, I think Texas is Delany’s fantasy. As much as he would like to be the guy landed ND, he knows Texas is the most valuable school in college sports by a huge margin.
That’s why it would be the top of my wishlist (though I admit that adding UF would have the side benefit of damaging the Big Ten’s primary rival, the SEC could just add FSU and soldier on just fine)
LikeLike
I agree that Texas is a fantasy from a financial standpoint, but from an overall consideration (football, basketball, AAU, cultural fit), UF is an easier lift and better fits the map geographically.
One thing that’s very interesting (I live in Fort Worth half the year) is there’s a very real palpable momentum swing occurring in many parts of Texas. TAMU is coming for UT’s position in the state. I was in College Station last week on business (go there monthly) and it reminds me so much of Madison; it’s as if the universe starts and ends with TAMU. Aside from the fact that UT is so obviously valuable (i.e. large), what exactly is going on there these days that’s worth talking about? It’s experiencing down cycles in sports, has a unhappy conference and a poorly performing Longhorn Network. TAMU has Johnny Football, a stadium expansion and the eyes of a nation upon it. The city is exploding as a result of SEC newness (2 new hospitals and a ton of other commerce coming in).
UF is an oasis of stability compared to UT, even given the cyclical nature of these things.
LikeLike
@Jeff
Couple points
1. Texas’ FB, BB and academics are all more valuable than Florida’s, and I don’t see how UF would be a better cultural fit than UT, both are pretty different from the Big Ten. As for geography? UF might look slightly better on a map than UT, but that is offset by the fact that air travel is easier to Austin than it is to Gainesville.
2. While what you say about UT-TAMU is true now, it actually isn’t all that uncommon. Every couple of decades UT goes into a funk and A&M goes on a run and everyone talks about how the power in state is finally shifting, but it never lasts. Inevitably Texas gets it back together and A&M falls apart (and this is coming from someone born and raised in Tulsa who hates UT and everything it stands for).
As for the unhappy conference and LHN? Well, this is a fantasy where UT joins the Big Ten so those things don’t matter 🙂
LikeLike
I should add that UT’s FB, BB and academics aren’t just more valuable, I would say they fit the Big Ten model just as well as Florida’s.
LikeLike
@frug, How about I yield most everything in point #1. That leaves me with two issues.
2. I think the sea change occurring here with TAMU is different this go around. Big Brother is at real risk of being surpassed, certainly on the field of play (football, that is). What Little Brother couldn’t do alone might be accomplished with it’s new gang (SEC). I could be wrong and only have 8 years in this state to drawn on, but believe me, it’s all any of the sports types I see are talking about, and the changes in College Station are situated as a play for long term success. Even the context of UT refusing to play TAMU in the Cotton Bowl are being spun in TAMU’s favor. http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2012/11/6/3610272/why-texas-wont-play-texas-a-m-in-the-cotton-bowl-football-rivalry-manziel
Furthermore, from what I’ve learned about this place, TAMU is a more natural reflection of most of Texas (rural, military, religious). UT is a place where ‘tea-sippers’ reside (the disparaging nickname given to them by those outside of Longhorn Nation). Austin is referred to as an ‘oasis of blue in a sea of red’ and jokingly filed a petition to secede from the rest of the state if Texas seceded from the US. I don’t think it would take as much for TAMU to take the front seat at the table as you suggest (at least the football table and the hearts/minds of t-shirt Texas fans).
Back to #1. I’m not suggesting that UF is a perfect cultural fit for The B1G as much as I’m suggesting UT is not. I’ve been here awhile now and am still in culture shock. Many Texans still believes it’s its own country (literally) and everything about this place screams counter to the ‘eat what you kill in the context of all for one’ mentality of The B1G. It’s not that UT wouldn’t work in The B1G as much as it doesn’t seem to be a fit anywhere outside of its own fiefdom. It’s a very weird thing to experience.
LikeLike
“. Every couple of decades UT goes into a funk and A&M goes on a run and everyone talks about how the power in state is finally shifting, but it never lasts. ”
I was born in 1975, and I believe A&M still has a 1 game lead in the head to head series against the Longhorns in my lifetime. The Longhorns have a large overall lead in the series because A&M got only 2 wins and 1 tie in total between 1940-1974. That era corresponds to a decline and then slow rise in the university as a whole relative to other universities in the state (not just the school in Austin).
A&M’s runs in the state since 1975 have lasted just as long as the runs by the University of Texas. The difference is that A&M’s high points haven’t gotten as high nationally as the Longhorn’s high points have. Hopefully that’s changing.
LikeLike
@BigJeff
The run m(ag) is talking about followed Texas A&M’s only national title. They won a national title, had Bear Bryant and Gene Stallings as head coaches and still went 3-31-1 vs. Texas over the next 35 years.
They had a good run under Jackie Sherrill winning 10 of 11 vs. UT when UT was in a down period, but then he got them on probation as he did every other school he worked. RC Slocum did well, but not good enough for them and they fired him. They haven’t recovered from that mistake (maybe they will with Sumlin). They have a habit of running off good coaches.
LikeLike
Ok, @Micheal in Raleigh. Your points are fair, but you’re really either overlooking or not understanding some basic facts about healthcare planning that have nothing to do with the logic you’re expressing. For some reason, you refuse to accept facts as presented by an industry executive contracting with a competing hospital in the town we’re discussing (for five years) with supporting evidence based on direct conversations with a hospital CEO and published statements by city officials in the local newspaper.
You also misstate the process by which hospitals are built. You can’t decide to build a hospital just because you have financing and demand, and one’s never built because of ‘competition between existing hospitals’; such competition is more likely to produce contraction of one of the hospitals, expansion of services at the existing hospitals or an expansion of a healthcare network throughout town (e.g. additional outpatient clinics, surgicenters, etc.) in an effort to feed services back to the Hospital. In order to build a new hospital, a Certificate of Need (CON) must be secured. The process by which hospital CONs are granted is entirely consistent with everything that’s occurred in College Station; obviously so, as new facilities are being built. CONs are based on projections of changing demographics, needs to improve access to care and increasing utilization patterns. Once CONs are offered, then financing can be obtained and planning occurs. Even when CONs are awarded, decades can pass before facilities are built if it’s deemed that the environment isn’t ripe enough for the investment. The city planners and University officials in College Station have projected (obviously inclusive of some ‘spinning’) sufficient increases in population and utilization needs to secure green lights for new healthcare projects.
It shouldn’t be hard to conceive that the area’s largest insurance carrier and University have the cloud to get separate projects off the ground and are willing to make these investments. It should be expected based on all of our conversations about the AAU that TAMU would consider adding a medical facility in an effort to secure more research dollars, if nothing else.
At this point, we can agree to disagree on the impact the SEC coming to town has on this. That said, your comments are still based on speculation. Even if mine were, which they’re not, the perceptions have become reality. Hasn’t the entire point of conference expansion been the benefits conference affiliation bring to prospective Universities and their community, whether on the playing field or in the coffers? Isn’t this the entirety of what The B1Gs been selling? This episode in fact is a very good exhibit for why expansion can be a good thing if the match is right.
LikeLike
@Bullet. Kevin Sumlin just got a raise and contract extention from TAMU. It was announced last month.
LikeLike
I think the sea change occurring here with TAMU is different this go around. Big Brother is at real risk of being surpassed, certainly on the field of play (football, that is). What Little Brother couldn’t do alone might be accomplished with it’s new gang (SEC). I could be wrong and only have 8 years in this state to drawn on, but believe me, it’s all any of the sports types I see are talking about, and the changes in College Station are situated as a play for long term success.
The thing is, I recall similar stuff being said after the Big XII was formed and A&M one 2 of the first 3 Big XII South titles, and Texas (and Oklahoma) was in something of down cycle. But then Texas hired Mack Brown and OU hired Stoops and then one of them won every Big XII title until they ended division play (and UT finished second in the division 7 of 8 times they didn’t finish first).
Is it possible that things are different this time? Sure it is. But if I have to form a prediction I’d much rather trust 108 years of history than the “buzz” that has been generated based on one season’s worth of results.
Furthermore, from what I’ve learned about this place, TAMU is a more natural reflection of most of Texas… I don’t think it would take as much for TAMU to take the front seat at the table
Again, it’s certainly possible, but that is all stuff that has been said for decades.
In other words, while TAMU could surpass UT, I’ll believe when I see it.
——
Having watched Texas bully around the Big XII since literally the founding of the conference, I can say that the school is certainly high maintenance, but it’s worth remembering that Texas has cooled a bit in recent years. They agreed to equal revenue sharing and a GOR so it’s not like they are incapable of playing nicely with others.
Plus A&M was even more committed to the unequal revenue distribution system than Texas was (remember after Oklahoma and Texas said they didn’t want to take the “forgotten 5’s” share of UNL and CU’s exit penalties even if it meant they would get less than the $20 million they were promised as part of the Big XII bailout package, A&M went ballistic and stated they would sue the conference and/or leave if they didn’t get the money they were promised) and the SEC had no problem adding them.
LikeLike
“The thing is, I recall similar stuff being said after the Big XII was formed and A&M one 2 of the first 3 Big XII South titles, and Texas (and Oklahoma) was in something of down cycle. But then Texas hired Mack Brown and OU hired Stoops and then one of them won every Big XII title until they ended division play (and UT finished second in the division 7 of 8 times they didn’t finish first).”
That’s the thing. College sports are cyclical. The beginning of the Big 12 coincided with the end of about a decade with A&M being generally the best team in Texas. The Longhorns were generally the better team for most of the next decade.
If you think 10 years is long enough to say ‘the Longhorns have been better now, so they’ll always be better’ then you’re exactly the person who, in 2000, would have said ‘A&M is better now so they’ll always be better’. You’d be just as wrong then as you are now.
Cycles don’t just happen in Texas. From 2000-2007 Alabama only had more than 7 wins in a season twice, while Tennessee won at least 8 every year but one. That didn’t ensure Tennessee would be great for eternity, while Alabama was forever lost in its shadow.
Since you bring up Oklahoma:
In the 1990’s OU had 3 losing seasons, 2 .500 seasons, and 3 quality seasons (9-3 or 8-3)
in the 2000’s A&M had 4 losing seasons, 1 .500 seasons, and 2 quality seasons (8-4)
One of A&M’s losing season was a 6-7 year; if they had skipped the bowl, their 2000s would almost exactly match OU’s1990s. Bob Stoops brought OU in an up cycle, and one day they’ll go through a down cycle.
LikeLike
Frug:
“Texas has cooled a bit in recent years. They agreed to equal revenue sharing and a GOR so it’s not like they are incapable of playing nicely with others.”
1) UT agreed to equal sharing of tier 1 and 2 only on condition tier 3 (and their 15mil/year LHN) remained theirs, eliminating the possibility of a conference network (and retaining a significant media revenue advantage)..
2) Even if they had truly agreed to playing nice and equal sharing, wouldn’t you be giving credence to something without the historical evidence you require for other changes?
LikeLike
Wait a second… aren’t you going a little far in suggesting that TAMU joining the SEC led to two new hospitals in College Station?
I wouldn’t argue that the SEC is leading to many benefits for TAMU, but there’s so, so much involved in getting a project as huge as a hospital up and going, let alone two of them, that suggesting it might not have happened without SEC membership is beyond exaggerating. The SEC may help build momentum for A&M and College Station, but it’s not magic. Those who started the fundraising for those projects would have been successful whether A&M had remained in the Big 12 or not.
Texas A&M was already an attractive, respected university in the first place. That’s what made the SEC eager to take them. The SEC didn’t turn A&M from mediocrity into research and athletic powerhouse. At best, it has merely shined more of a spotlight on the school.
LikeLike
@Michael, I’m not suggesting it, I’m saying it. That’s my business, and the folks (i.e hospital CEOs) in College Station are attributing all types of population growth and industry flow into town directly and indirectly to SEC membership. Why is that so hard to imagine when Delany and Co. can promise schools like UMCP $40 million/year in direct benefits by joining The B1G?
LikeLike
Attributing new hospitals to the SEC move is just silly. Andy is downright pessimistic about Missouri compared to many Aggies feelings about A&M. I’d bet those CEOs are Aggies. Fact is that Bryan/College Station has been growing well for decades because A&M is growing. A&M had around 10k in 1970, around 20-25k in 1980 and hit around 45k in the mid-90s. B/CS may finally be getting big enough to have some business that isn’t university related.
The mix of the student bodies of the schools aren’t that much different now. The UT student body isn’t nearly as liberal as Aggies will tell you. And there are liberals at A&M now. They do allow them on campus. Both schools have a heavy mix of kids from the San Antonio, Austin, Houston and D/FW suburbs. The schools will get even more alike when the flaky Corps members from the 60s and 70s quit running A&M.
Austin is pretty liberal for Texas, but everyone loves Austin regardless. B/CS is kind of an armpit.
LikeLike
Florida had less SEC titles than Kentucky, Tulane and Georgia Tech until Steve Spurrier became coach. They had zero. From 1987-2000 FSU had probably the greatest run in college football history. They were ranked in the top 5 every year.
The U of Florida has nevertheless remained the premier program in the state, not State U. There’s an inherent advantage in being the U of. Same applies to Texas. And UT has a vastly better history than UF.
LikeLike
“And there are liberals at A&M now. They do allow them on campus.”
:0
Where are they displayed? Left side of the trophy room?
LikeLike
@Bulllett: Of course it’s silly. That’s the beauty (figuratively) of this place. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. Read this article, and tell me that again.
http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_0241b54e-74f4-5587-b022-8d9fed0a0f90.html
Mass hysteria is translating into something real. We’re a few years out from any real data, but the fact of the matter is professional folks (I can speak specifically to healthcare) who otherwise would’ve ignored this ‘armpit’ (your words) are now finding a reason to have pride in this place.
Selected excerpts:
“…TAMU generated an estimated $4.3B for the B/CS community in 2012 – a $540M increase over 2011…”
“University and city officials agree that much of the increase in the contribution to the local economy is linked to TAMU’s move to the SEC…”
“…attendance at athletic events increased by about 98,000, and visitors stayed longer and spent more money in 2012 than in past years…”
LikeLike
@B1GJeff,
I read that article, and I’m still not buying the notion that hospitals are being built because Texas A&M joined the SEC.
“University and city officials agree that much of the increase in the contribution to the local economy is linked to Texas A&M’s move to the Southeastern Conference.
“According to a statement released by the university, attendance at athletic events increased by about 98,000, and visitors to the Bryan-College Station area stayed longer and spent more money in 2012 than in past years.”
98,000 is a significant increase. Longer stays and increases in spending per visitor is a difference-maker. A lot of that has to do with the move to the SEC, no question.
But there are other factors:
– An 11-2 season, which in either league would lead to longer stays and improved attendance from the previous year’s 7-6 season.
– A Heisman Trophy season, which put the spotlight on A&M and could have driven visitors as easily in the Big 12. Had Manziel led a comeback victory over Oklahoma or Texas, I dare say Manziel would have had his requisite “Heisman moment” to earn him the Trophy in the Big 12 just as in the SEC. Besides, if RGIII could do it at Baylor, Manziel could have done it at A&M regardless of affiliation.
– An overall banner year for A&M sports
– Commerce has been coming to B/CS for years because companies are drawn to places with (1) young, well-educated employees (i.e., recent college and grad school graduates) and (2) well-established researchers and industry experts (i.e., the professors and researchers at an AAU university like Texas A&M)
People on city council and the chamber of commerce are attributing new commerce and hospitals to the SEC because that’s what the audience wants to hear. The more they send the overwhelmingly popular message that “joining the SEC was the best thing EVER,” the better off they are with their constituents.
But hospitals are huge projects which simply do not get built because of something like joining a new athletics conference, no matter what kind of spin is put out local officials. They get built because the demand and financing is there for it. I used to live in Lafayette, Indiana, right down the road from Purdue University. While there, two brand new hospitals were built in town. They were not the result of Purdue’s dramatic increase in revenue from the then brand new BTN or from the then new ESPN TV contract. They were the result of financing, demand, and competition between Clarion Arnett and St Elizabeth’s.
LikeLike
-One of CNN’s resident liberals (forget his name) is an Aggie
-the source of the student bodies are mostly the same at A&M and UT-Austin. A&M has a higher percentage of in-state students (I was an exception). A&M will get the students going into Agriculture and Veterinary science, and has a more populated Engineering school.
-A big difference is that A&M is a true college town and Austin has long been a fairly large city (even if they pretend it isn’t). That, combined with the various traditions of the University, leaves A&M students feeling more of a connection with each other, the University, and the community (Longhorns lovingly describe us as a ‘cult’ to cover up their own discomfort with this).
-Since A&M started rapidly growing in the 1970’s, there has always been a lot of expansion and growth in the area. It started out well behind UT-Austin, has caught up in the size of the student body, and is close in academics. Like any other university, they are always looking to attract more research and improve facilities. With much more room than Austin, there still may be more room for growth in the student body, and I saw a few message board postings that suggest that is a goal (though I can’t vouch for that).
-The Texas governor’s policies on higher ed may hurt some of this.
LikeLike
I agree with what M(Ag) said, except that A&M in certain ways goes beyond the good part of community and sometimes is a cult. Its the extremism, not the good part that makes people uncomfortable. UT is much more a place for independent individuals. One result of that is that A&M gets a higher % of grads to contribute than UT does.
Governor Perry has already pushed A&M to expand. They had deliberately kept their attendance to the mid 40s since around 1995, just as Texas had kept their attendance around 50k since 1980. I believe they are up over 50k now. He’s got regents talking about 70k for Texas. A&M got a warning letter from the AAU for implementing some of Perry’s recommendations. UT so far has managed to rally the alumni to fight off the damaging things. Perry just doesn’t get the concept of a research university and its economic impact or the value of a liberal arts education. He’s trying to turn everything into either a profit center or a 4 year community college & trade school.
LikeLike
B1G Jeff,
“What’s your one school fantasy wish list, regardless of the possibility of it happening? We know Delany’s is (was?) ND. Mine is U of Florida.”
In order of preference:
1. Dropping RU and MD
If I have to add one:
1. Toronto
2. JHU
3. USC
4. Stanford
5. UT
6. UF
LikeLike
@Brian, you surprise me given your usual pragmatism. Is that based on the value of all of Canada for hockey, or is it more than that? Having read you all this time, I would’ve guessed that you would’ve said “Drop back to 12, but add USC if you must”.
LikeLike
B1G Jeff,
“@Brian, you surprise me given your usual pragmatism. Is that based on the value of all of Canada for hockey, or is it more than that?
1. It said fantasy. It’s hard to go with pragmatism in response to that.
2. I was thinking of tapping a second national research budget for grants.
3. It would be a nice bonus for B10 hockey.
4. Hoops and FB are popular in Canada too, and Toronto is a big city to get for the BTN.
Similarly, JHU lets me add without adding.
“Having read you all this time, I would’ve guessed that you would’ve said “Drop back to 12, but add USC if you must”.”
The first thing I said was I’d rather go to 12 than 15, but that wasn’t what was asked. The top school on my list that plays I-A football was?
LikeLike
Lol. Thanks.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see what kind of deal Notre Dame reaches with NBC. This is the perfect time for an extension (for the Irish), and both parties should been keen to continue their relationship.
Comcast is notoriously tightfisted however, and they may want to save money to purchase the Big Ten’s rights (or a share of them, given the size of the conference).
LikeLike
I want to point out that even though the ratings for college football were down, the success of Big Ten basketball has been tremendous. People want to see these schools and networks are going to take note of that.
LikeLike
Texas would clearly trump Kansas on Delany’s wish list, and
Duke would clearly trump Kansas on the President’s wish list.
I actually think the the B1G will stick at 18 if ND isn’t interested.
(ND/TX being the ultimate looooong term goal)
The only way Kansas gets invited is if the B1G has to take DUKE
to get UNC, bringing it to 19 and ND isn’t interested at twenty.
That would open the door to Kansas although I would make a
major push for Vandy or even TN (non-AAU) first.
LikeLike
20 is probably the closest thing to a true “upper limit” in that it’s hard to see how you get to 22 or 24 in a system with at most 10 conference games and 12 total games.
That and the fact that even 20 starts to stretch the notion of a conference to about as far as you can go.
I could see 18 as a long-term stable outcome until ND changes its mind someday way into the future.
LikeLike
16 should be the upper limit and I still think it will be in the end.
LikeLike
All too often the “Conference Realignment Fantasy League” players take the expansion as a process that snowballs, in which case it would be nearly inevitable that it will rush up to the hard limit and stop there. But it seems more likely to be an uphill climb rather than a downward roll with a cliff at the end: the bang per team required to move to 18 is substantially steeper than the bank per team required to move to 16, and 20 substantially steeper than 18.
So saying, “suppose the Big Ten expands to 20, who might those extra six schools be” is putting the cart before the horse. Its rather, “what schools are available with some combination of expansion by six teams that are not available with some combination of expansion by two or four teams, and are they worth the cost ~ and the risk?”
The reason to include a move to 18 as one quite plausible possibility for the Big Ten is that there is at least one and possibly several “big bang” schools in the ACC that seem unlikely to be available for a pairwise move to 16. IOW, if the Big Ten could freely mix and match to get to 16, just take UVA and UNC and call it a job well done. But UNC seems like it would prefer to remain in the ACC if it can retain its standing as a Major conference, and so there are scenarios where UNC is not available for a two team expansion, where it is available in a four team expansion.
LikeLike
I think for the B1G UVA justifies 16, UNC could maybe justify 18, ND or Texas could maybe justify 20. Without UNC then no 18, without ND or Texas no 20.
For the SEC I think they’d take UNC + just about anyone necessary to get to 16. But without UNC I think they’d prefer to stay at 14. If UNC ends up in the B1G then the SEC might feel pressure to expand. I don’t think NCSU would cut it in that scenario. I think they’d take Duke if available, and VT and/or maybe FSU.
I think the only way we see 18 in the SEC is if they’re desperate to get UNC and the only way to beat out the B1G for them is to take the entire research triangle of UNC/NCSU/Duke. For 18 they probably go with VT in that scenario.
My strong suspicion is that UNC will make it work in the ACC. If UVA and GT go to the BIg Ten, the ACC will replace them with UConn and Cinci. The SEC will not expand. They’ll wait out UNC as long as it takes, offering them whatever it takes. The SEC will stay at 14 until UNC makes a move.
I don’t think the Big 12 has the power to draw anyone away from the ACC in this scenario. They’d all just stay put waiting on UNC.
I could see this going on for years and years.
LikeLike
Six years living in Knoxville makes it easy to read that incorrectly (the Vols in the Big Ten?? The Big Ten would never invite them and the Vols would never go!!!) …
… but, yes, without at least one of UNC / ND / UTX, no 18, without either ND or UTX, no 20 … that sounds quite likely.
LikeLike
Also, as I’ve noted before, SEC waiting on UNC could depend on whether the answer is, “well, not now at least” or “not even if you were the last Major conference on the face of the earth!” … which ironically gives UNC ample incentive to say the former if they actually mean the latter, to keep the SEC from destabilizing the ACC after having given up hope on UNC.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone (that I can recall) has suggestion going over twenty. I do think it will go to twenty, however.
LikeLike
Under current NCAA rules, schools [as a practical matter] have to be added in pairs, else you would have unequal divisions, which is really ugly. If the rule were changed, where you could schedule without divisions, and just pit the top two in a CCG, then conferences could consider odd numbers. Right now, they (realistically) can’t.
We also know that every addition needs to be revenue positive to the schools. You can do a deal where the future revenue is somewhat speculative (Maryland + Rutgers), but the business case has to be there, and it has to be believable.
With that understood, it’s hard to see a 20-school Big Ten without Notre Dame. You can easily come up with five schools that the league might want. The sixth is tough, bearing in mind that Kansas would pay a huge price to buy its way out of the Big XII.
I don’t think Texas is on the B1G’s radar at all. Delany is 65 this year. In his time frame, Texas isn’t going to be available. And when they ARE available, there is no reason to doubt that the same issues as last time will get in the way (the “Tech problem”, etc.).
I also agree with @Zeek that I can’t see a reasonable schedule past 20 teams.
LikeLike
You can schedule without divisions, you just can’t play a thirteenth game for a championship.
LikeLike
“Practical” and “realistically” were the words used in my post. If it’s an option that you can’t imagine them adopting, then it’s not an option. I cannot imagine them doing that.
There are only two possibilities. Either they have a blockbuster 19th team (such as Notre Dame), and then there would be plenty of candidates for #20, to get back to even numbers. Or they have a marginal 19th team, whom they don’t invite because they lack a really good #20.
As @Andy perpetually reminds us, Missouri failed to get a Big Ten invite for precisely that reason: they were the marginal 13th team, and at the time Delany didn’t have a #14 he was comfortable with.
LikeLike
Exactly right. Very reasonable post.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
““Practical” and “realistically” were the words used in my post. If it’s an option that you can’t imagine them adopting, then it’s not an option. I cannot imagine them doing that.”
But we all can. That makes it reasonable.
LikeLike
But we all can. That makes it reasonable.
I must have missed the memo when you became the spokesperson for what “all” are thinking.
Exactly how many proposed scenarios have you seen involving major conferences with an odd number of members? Every move suggested or actually made by BCS conferences in recent years has been in pairs. Surely you don’t think that’s a coincidence, do you? No one wants an odd number of members.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I must have missed the memo when you became the spokesperson for what “all” are thinking.”
We all, as in the multiple people disagreeing with you. It’s be “you all” from your POV (y’all if you lived in the south).
LikeLike
Oh goody! Even upsetting OU or UT probably doesn’t get one of the lesser 8 the inside track to a B12 CCG. It’s a BCS like beauty contest, let’s all vote rather than have division winners advance!
Sorry. No need to respond. We both know where we stand on the 13th game exception.
LikeLike
By the way, does the word “exception” actually occur in the NCAA rule? Or is that just your gloss on it?
LikeLike
Use what ever words you want to describe “C”.
Limit = “A”
Limit 2 = “B”
Limit 2 only available to those satisfying these criteria: “C”
LikeLike
That’s true. Words matter, though. Your use of the word “exception” and your position on the substantive question are related to each other. So it would be interesting to know if the NCAA described it that way, too.
LikeLike
Marc,
The word is exemption.
“17.9.5.2 Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS] The maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following: (Revised: 10/28/10)
…
(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;”
LikeLike
Brian:
Thanks.
LikeLike
I would agree that “exception” and “exemption” mean, for practical purposes, the same thing in this context. As you know, for reasons I’ve already given, that the rule is bad policy, should change, and will change. We’ve chewed that bone enough.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Under current NCAA rules, schools [as a practical matter] have to be added in pairs, else you would have unequal divisions, which is really ugly.”
Not really true. It’s only ugly if you insist on each division playing the same number of games and/or having crossover games.
EX. 17 teams
Division A has 8 teams and plays 7 conference games all in division
Division B has 9 teams and plays 8 conference games all in division
You could add 1 crossover game per team in A if you want. Or you could add a second game against your main divisional rival to get to 8. Or the final week could pair A1 vs A2, etc in a flex scheduled week almost like having a divisional championship.
“If the rule were changed, where you could schedule without divisions, and just pit the top two in a CCG, then conferences could consider odd numbers. Right now, they (realistically) can’t.”
Completely untrue.
“I also agree with @Zeek that I can’t see a reasonable schedule past 20 teams.”
It requires the divisions not playing each other except in the CCG.
LikeLike
I’m going by what most leagues have actually done, which I think has some predictive power as to what they might consider doing in the future.
LikeLike
KU will not be AAU in ten years. Bank on it. They are the weakest school in the AAU by most measures. Weaker than Nebraska in several.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten has to take Duke to get UNC, then why would it commit to three others in advance of that? Surely if that’s likely to be a sticking point, it would come up in conversations early on, and the Big Ten would know NOT to commit to three others before UNC makes up its mind.
If it is thought that FSU can get through if added alongside enough academic strength, UVA/UNC/Duke is a tremendous amount of academic strength ~ that’d make four with FSU. So no need to BE at 19 looking for 20.
And if the Presidents decide that FSU is not worth the headache, UVA/GTech/UNC/Duke makes four, and again no need to BE at 19 looking for 20.
LikeLike
If the endgame were UNC/Duke/NCSU/VT to the SEC and UVA/GT/FSU/one more spot (Miami? KU? Pitt? Syracuse? Boston College?) for the B1G would B1G fans be happy with that?
LikeLike
I’m ambivalent about any expansion whatsoever, and I’m still not entirely sold on Maryland and Rutgers.
Let me rephrase your question: given 18 teams, one way or another, how would I feel if the next four were UVA/GT/FSU/+1?
My feeling is that if you add four teams, at least one has to be a football blockbuster, and FSU meets that test. I also feel that one academic fixer-upper is the maximum they’ll do, so the 18th would need to be an AAU school, which leaves Pitt as the only realistic choice, given your premise.
Given the premise of 18 schools, I would be happy with UVA/GT/FSU/Pitt. I am not sure there is another 18th school that makes sense, with UNC and Duke off the table.
LikeLike
Yeah, I figured. It’s really hard for the B1G to get to 18 without UNC. So if the SEC can secure UNC then we probably won’t have to go the ridiculous route of 18 or more schools. That, if anything, should make fans of all conferences root for UNC to either stay in the ACC or join the SEC.
LikeLike
As noted before, fans will have little to no say. We aren’t trying to discover the most popular alignments. We are trying to decipher, analyze, understand, the actually driving forces and perhaps do a bit of prognostication (with or without commentary 🙂 ).
LikeLike
The fans at large may not, but individual people will, and some of those people are fans. I would say that none of those people are posting here though.
LikeLike
True. But I certainly hope the “fan” in the presidents and chancellors that make these decisions will give way to the “administrator”, for the good of the school, and the collective good of the conference. That’s what they are hired to do.
LikeLike
There are a lot of ways to determine what is good.
LikeLike
@ ccrider55 ~ but if the “fans” in question are important academic contributors, that’s a factor that the fund raiser in the President and Chancellor have to take into account.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
True. But there aren’t that many alum/fans rich enough AND willing to make enough “contingent upon” donations to actually influence the direction of a university, unless it was supporting a direction the university had was already seriously considering.
LikeLike
ccrider, I think you’re greatly underestimating how important conference affiliation is to some people.
LikeLike
Andy
No, I don’t think I am. I’m not trying to be flippant, but what exactly would be the donation level, and for how many decades, would be required for presidents, chancellors, BOR’s, etc to take a university in a direction that they felt wasn’t in its best interest? Especially a large, respected, desired (or a small but rich/influential) university? Are we talking Bill Gates money, or Mark Cuban, or T. Boone? Phil Knight could buy an athletic dept. but his contributions to the university, while welcome, are influential only in shaping directions taken, not dictating them.
LikeLike
well sure it couldn’t just be one guy. It would have to be a large number of them.
LikeLike
“but what exactly would be the donation level, and for how many decades, would be required for presidents, chancellors, BOR’s, etc to take a university in a direction that they felt wasn’t in its best interest?”
If the President, Chancellor and BOR are of one mind that a particular move is the best one, then unless the alumni has the clout to sack a President, that’s going to drive the decision. If opinions are divided, that’s when secondary considerations come into play.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree. It’s just that I don’t think of a person, or a group rich enough and forcing these kind of fundamental decisions, as “fans”. They could very well decide to go against both the majority of fans wishes, and administrations as well. That kind of monied influence being wielded is usually referred to as an owner, or ownership group.
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
NCSU is an interesting debate topic that we haven’t broached much.
I’m just unsure that either the SEC or Big Ten is willing to consider them.
The rumor was that the SEC also didn’t care for Texas Tech when it was courting Texas alongside Texas A&M. Taking a 3rd North Carolina based school may be too difficult a pill to swallow for either conference.
My hunch is that the SEC’s backup plan if they can’t get UNC is to take FSU alongside Va Tech. I’m not sure the SEC is as gung-ho about going to 18 as the Big Ten may be. The SEC seems to just want UNC/Duke as its end game and then they won’t care so much for letting the Big Ten have D.C.
The Big Ten’s backup plan is to just go to 16 with UVa/Georgia Tech if it can’t get UNC/Duke.
LikeLike
What I mean is, NC State seems to be the Tobacco Road version of the Tech problem.
I’m not sure the SEC wants to deal with that, and I’m pretty sure the Big Ten doesn’t either.
LikeLike
Thought the “Tech problem” was for UT to the B1G? Never heard them mentioned in association with SEC, as it was clear UT had no interest in the SEC at all.
LikeLike
The Tech problem was explicitly mentioned as a UT to the B1G problem, but Slive (like Delany and Scott) did attempt to court Texas that first expansion summer as well.
Nobody really mentioned what might have happened to Texas Tech if Texas had been interested in going East.
I think the whole thing was made moot by the fact that the Pac-16 offer emerged.
LikeLike
Zeek:
That sounds pretty close. The difference I’d suggest is that the SEC “exploration” was a defensive move. The pac16 offer didn’t just emerge…it was in the final stage of happening. aTm balking at going west (without being involved in the arrangements and basically at UT’s command) was why we didn’t enter the super conference era in 2010.
LikeLike
That and Baylor’s lawsuit gummed up the works until everybody got cold feet.
LikeLike
Baylor lawsuit gummed up the works the next year when aTm and Missouri were leaving, and the concern was B12 might be vulnerable to the now P12 without assurances from UT, some Fox money, the LHG, and the promise of a GOR.
LikeLike
The threat of the lawsuit gummed it up the first round.
LikeLike
No, Baylor got mentioned as a possible replacement for Colorado when the move was becoming exposed and political forces were waking up in Texas. Colorado immediately was given an invite on its own, aTm balked and Baylor suggested as their replacement, Larry Scott flies to Lawrence but immediately returns as its clear UT has changed it’s mind, Utah gets invited. All this in a few days over a weekend. When was there even time to put a lawsuit together, let alone have a court open to file it with? You are remembering Ken Starr delaying aTm’s actual move. Nothing delayed Colorado, UT’s decision to decline and the invite to Utah.
LikeLike
Baylor didn’t try a lawsuit in the first expansion, they got legislative hearings called, which sped up the decision making.
Supposedly Ken Starr sent flowers (or was it something else?) to one of A&M’s leaders when the SEC discussions helped change the Longhorns mind on the Pac 16 deal.
LikeLike
NCSU is an interesting debate topic that we haven’t broached much.
I’m just unsure that either the SEC or Big Ten is willing to consider them.
I don’t see any way that the Big Ten takes NCSU. A non-AAU school would need to be a blockbuster, like FSU — and as far as we know, FSU still doesn’t have an invite. NCSU doesn’t move the needle enough. The SEC’s priorities are harder to discern. They don’t have as many presidents and ADs openly discussing their expansion plans.
LikeLike
I think the SEC really, really doesn’t want UNC in the B1G. If it’s between UNC joining the B1G and the SEC taking UNC/NCSU/Duke/VT, they’d go ahead and take the research triangle and go to 18.
I think if UNC goes to the B1G anyway then NCSU is shit out of luck and will have to go to the Big 12.
LikeLike
OK, so State isn’t a UNC, but it has some value. The Wolfpack has been a comparable football program to Chapel Hill and draws about the same and is usually a pretty good basketball program (and remember, it was State and Everett Case after World War II that made college basketball a big deal on Tobacco Road, one of the factors eventually leading to the formation of the SEC). NCSU probably won’t sniff AAU membership for some time, but like UNC and Duke, its Research Triangle location is a boost to academics. And its base of supporters better fits the SEC mode than UNC’s wine-and-cheese crowd or Duke’s northeastern preppies. To my mind, Slive would have to be pretty petulant to let NCSU head to the Big 12 if he can’t corral UNC and/or Duke.
LikeLike
Oopsie: “…one of the factors eventually leading to the formation of the ACC).”
LikeLike
Why should the SEC be content to take the 3rd most popular/successful program/4th most academically prestigious school in a state? When have they ever done this? What good does it do? The SEC doesn’t want to play 2nd fiddle in the state of North Carolina. If the B1G takes FSU then the SEC takes Duke. If the B1G takes Duke then the SEC takses FSU. NCSU is behind those two in either scenario. The only way NCSU gets into the SEC is in some sort of 18 school scenario, which is unlikely but slightly possible.
LikeLike
And if the B1G takes UNC, Duke, and FSU then we’re talking about some sort of crazy 20 school scenario, and then all bets are off. Who knows what the SEC would do. Maybe they just sweep up Miami, Clemson, NCSU, VT, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, who knows who else. It would be crazy time. Not going to happen anyway, but I know people on this board love to talk about fantastical stuff that will never happen.
LikeLike
I too am having trouble imagining the scenario where the SEC invites NCSU, but:
If the B1G takes FSU then the SEC takes Duke. If the B1G takes Duke then the SEC takses FSU.
You lost me there. Duke won’t be the first Tobacco Road school to leave the ACC. The only way Duke is moving is if UNC moves first.
If FSU goes to the B1G, then UNC will need to decide if the ACC is still viable (however they define that). If UNC decides to stay, then Duke will stay. If UNC goes, then Duke will go with them (assuming the destination conference wants them, as I believe they would).
Duke going to the B1G by itself, without UNC having moved first to the SEC, is not a scenario I can imagine.
LikeLike
Respectfully, I disagree. Most of the time this site seems to be very good at dismissing bizarre and totally imaginary possibilities. 20 anything does sound crazy, until you realize the source is the decision makers themselves. (tinfoil hat wearers are patting themselves on the back).
LikeLike
Why should the SEC be content to take the 3rd most popular/successful program/4th most academically prestigious school in a state?
NCSU is actually the state’s second most successful athletic program (Duke is popular, but like Wake Forest has relatively little statewide support outside its home area). And didn’t the SEC “settle” for A&M (#2 in Texas athletically, possibly #3 in the state academically — that sound you hear in the background is Loki the Bubba applauding) once it realized it couldn’t get the alpha dog? That’s essentially what you have here. Again, I’m not putting State in the same category as UNC, just saying it’s being undervalued because of the two blue shadows at the other end of the Triangle.
LikeLike
“Why should the SEC be content to take the 3rd most popular/successful program/4th most academically prestigious school in a state?”
First, NCSU is the 2nd most popular school in NC. So were SC and TAMU. NCSU is a strong third to 2 kings in hoops and an easy 2nd in FB. As for academic prestige, I’ll make 3 points:
1. It’s the SEC, it’s not that big of a deal.
2. NCSU is still a good school. It’s not MS State.
3. Who cares about where some private schools fit in academically? By that measure, UGA is at best 3rd in academics in GA (GT, Emory, etc). The point is the quality of the school itself, not it’s rank.
LikeLike
Guys, the problem is that Andy is making the right point, why wouldn’t the SEC go after FSU if it can’t get UNC?
No one is saying that NC State is chopped liver, but the SEC may not have interest in grabbing NC State just for the sake of being in North Carolina.
LikeLike
Marc, looks like I did lose you. Assumed in my “B1G takes FSU, SEC takes Duke” is a first step where the B1G takes UNC. If the B1G hasn’t taken UNC yet then the SEC just keeps waiting on UNC. That’s who they want.
LikeLike
vp19, the SEC likely ranks their prospects like this:
1. UNC
2. UVA
3. Duke
4. Virginia Tech
5. Florida State
6. NC State
For the SEC to take NC State they would either need to expand to 18 or expand to 16 and lose out on 4 of the schools above them on that list. If the B1G does not take Georgia Tech and instead takes 4 out of the top 5 on that wish list, then and only then might NCSU be team #16 in the SEC.
LikeLike
zeek,
“why wouldn’t the SEC go after FSU if it can’t get UNC?”
Possible reasons off the top of my head:
Because they don’t want FSU.
Because FSU doesn’t add enough value for them.
Because the gentleman’s agreement is real and FSU can’t get accepted.
Because they have a higher-priority target.
Because ESPN said so.
Because they don’t really want to expand.
LikeLike
Brian, I’d say all of those are possible except for the Gentleman’s Agreement. I’m pretty sure that’s a myth.
LikeLike
I agree that NC State has value. Currently, NC State has a higher enrollment than UNC. I’m assuming it has a higher concentration of North Carolina residents attending and probably has more alums living in the state. NC State also has higher football attendance than UNC.
I’d still take UNC over NC State, but NC State isn’t quite the fixer-upper it appears to be on the surface. NC State is a #16 or #18, and not a #15 or #17.
That said, I’d like to see the SEC stand pat for a while.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“I agree that NC State has value. Currently, NC State has a higher enrollment than UNC. I’m assuming it has a higher concentration of North Carolina residents attending and probably has more alums living in the state. NC State also has higher football attendance than UNC.
I’d still take UNC over NC State, but NC State isn’t quite the fixer-upper it appears to be on the surface. NC State is a #16 or #18, and not a #15 or #17.”
Yeah, that’s all I’m saying. People are talking like it’s Slippery Rock or something. Of course UNC is a better choice for any league. But with the SECN, a decent case can be made for NCSU to the SEC if UNC is unavailable.
“That said, I’d like to see the SEC stand pat for a while.”
I’d like everyone to stand pat for a long time. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s likely.
LikeLike
@ Alan from Baton Rouge ~ yes, in the VTech / NC State scenario, VTech is the 15th and NC State is the 16th.
LikeLike
If SEC loses out on or gives up on UNC, then NC State makes a fine pair for VTech ~ second most backed football school in the state, an ability to land cable carriage across North Carolina and not just inside parts of the Research Triangle itself, and would add a credible BBall school into the middle of SEC basketball ranks ~ which is where performance has recently gone missing. It’s not a national brand in football but the SEC has no shortage of national brands, and it adds diversity to the two rapidly growing population areas already in the SEC footprint ~ East Texas and Florida.
Its not a big enough win that SEC would necessarily look to a partner that convinces NC State to move, but then if NC State thinks the ACC is destabilized enough to want to move, they wouldn’t seem to require any specific partner, so VTech/NCState looks like a straightforward Plan B is Plan A=UNC falls through.
LikeLike
They SEC will not give up on UNC. Never, ever. They are absolutely fine at 14. No rush whatsoever. If UNC goes to the B1G along with UVA, the first school the SEC will go after will be Duke. If Duke is gone, then next on the list is Virginia Tech. Then Florida State. Then and only then if they get all the way past Florida State and still need teams does NCSU get the call. That’s nothing against NCSU, they’re just not as valuable as those other 5 schools.
LikeLike
Any ranking of FSU and NC State for the SEC is premised on how inclined they are to making a defensive move versus an opportunistic move. NC State gives the SEC more new market territory, FSU protects against a potential threat of incursions into existing market territory.
Duke adds a bigger national name in BBall but a weaker football school in the SEC footprint and if there is an SEC Network, Duke brings less carriage in the state of North Carolina than NC State.
LikeLike
Duke has a whole bunch of positives that NCSU doesn’t have.
LikeLike
“Duke has a whole bunch of positives that NC State doesn’t have”.
And NC State offers better access to the NC media markets statewide, which is something that becomes a higher priority if UNC turns the SEC down.
LikeLike
If NCSU is so great then how come the Big Ten doesn’t want them?
LikeLike
zeek,
“NCSU is an interesting debate topic that we haven’t broached much.”
AAU – #91, tied with VT and just ahead of #94 FSU
ARWU – #68-85, tied with VT and NE and above FSU (UVA is just one tier up at 54-67)
CMUP (federal funding) – #62 (55. MSU, 57. RU, 58. VT, 71. FSU, 93. NE, 96. IN)
CMUP (total research) – #44 (41. VT, 57. IA, 59. RU, 93. FSU, 104. IN)
USNWR – #106 (68. RU, MN, 72. VT, IA, MSU, 83. IN, 97. FSU, 101. NE)
Basically, NCSU and VT are about the same and a bit above FSU.
NCSU is a solid #2 in NC for FB and hoops. It’s solid academically but not elite. I actually think it would be a solid addition for the SEC if they can’t get UNC. I can make a better argument for VT to the B10 than NCSU.
LikeLike
it’s decent, not great. Not as good as Duke or Florida State or Virginia Tech. SEC would pursue those first.
LikeLike
Composite rank for the triangle + FSU:
4 Duke 1391.0755
10 North Carolina 1272.3637
36 NC St. 820.1705
38 Virginia Tech 781.5183
40 Wake Forest 756.6680
45 Florida St. 714.1528
LikeLike
The SEC isn’t going to land that group of schools, as much as it might want to.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8977673/big-east-conference-espn-agree-tv-rights-deal
ESPN will keep rights to Big East football conference.
LikeLike
How amazing is it that just 2 years later, the Big East is getting $130 million for an entire 7 year contract instead of an average of $130 million each year over 9 years (the spurned $1.17 billion offer)?
LikeLike
“…when its new SEC Network deal is completed with ESPN in the coming weeks, sources said.”
This caught my eye. Wonder when details will leak out?
LikeLike
Yeah, that source is likely to be an internal ESPN source as well, so that part of the statement was a carefully targeted leak.
LikeLike
They’ve been saying it’s almost done for months. Slive first said it would be done before the end of the year. Now we’re looking at spring.
LikeLike
They also said it would be a little bit more than the $20 the Pac and Big 12 are making.
LikeLike
Actually what they said was the others were earning at least $20 million and the SEC was expected to exceed those figures. I interpreted that as exceeding the other 3, but it could also mean exceeding $20 million just like the other 3.
LikeLike
Has an ESPN source/writer quoted sources that the network was in fact a ESPN/SEC endeavor? Are you thinking this is spin from the four letter gang?
LikeLike
Last summer Slive said the it would be a joint endeavor. Don’t remember exactly the words, but he made it clear it would be a partnership of some type.
LikeLike
I’m interested in how the exposure for Big East football will change between the current ESPN deal and the new one.
At best, the Big East will have a few ESPN or ESPN2 appearances on Saturday afternoons, mostly in the 12:00 slot. Their conference championship game should make the cut for a national broadcast on ABC, but only in the noon slot. But I expect most games to fit into one of these spots:
– ESPN Regional (i.e., syndication). Maybe they’ll be branded as the “Big East Network.”
– ESPNU. Big East games will fill many of the vacancies left by SEC games that will be shifted to the SEC Network.
– ESPN/ESPN2 on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
– ESPN3.
Gone are the ABC games on the day after Thanksgiving between Pitt and WVU. Gone are games in good time slots on ESPN like the one in ’09 where Cincinnati had a potential berth in the NC game on the line against top 15 ranked Pitt. Even most of the strong non-conference games that were capable of drawing College Game Day and a Saturday night ABC/ESPN2 appearance, like LSU @ WVU in ’11, are gone.
These remaining schools will be hard-pressed to get strong opponents worthy of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 to visit them. SMU and Houston might be able to draw UT and/or Texas A&M… as long as those games are played in Cowboys or Reliant Stadiums. Cincy may still be able to draw in ACC & SEC opponents (Tennessee comes to mind). But short of a visit by Notre Dame, it will be hard for ANY Big East school to get on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 on a Saturday afternoon or evening.
LikeLike
Houston has played UCLA lately in their decrepit on campus stadium (now being replaced). UCF hosted Texas. Some of those schools can get good opponents.
LikeLike
But it is a good question. What time slots will they get? Which channel will they be on? Will they be forced to T/W games?
LikeLike
I suppose that signing with ESPN was still a better move that NBC Sports would have been. NBCSN likely would have been able to offer more Saturday games and would talk more nicely about the Big East than ESPN will (whether ESPN signs them or not), but with the money being equal, there’s little more that NBCSN could offer that’s better than ESPN.
With ESPN, the majority of games will appear on weeknights on ESPN or ESPN2; on ESPNU on Saturdays; or on ESPN3 on Saturdays.
Any weeknight games on ESPN or ESPN2 are better in terms of exposure than weeknight games on NBCSN.
Any Saturday games on ESPNU are roughly equivalent to games on NBCSN.
Any games on ESPN3 are better than games on NBC’s online network because of the greater availability of ESPN3 and greater national awareness of it.
Any Saturday games ESPN or ESPN2 games, few as they may be, are better than NBCSN.
Any Saturday games on ABC, few as they may be, are better than NBC, which was unlikely to air any Big East home games at all.
LikeLike
So if they keep the Big East name, somebody will be copyrighting the hashtag #BECtion?
LikeLike
-There is a ‘Big East Network’ run by ESPN that I’ve seen on regional sports networks as filler.
-A&M played at SMU last year and is scheduled to again after this year. I hope it gets cancelled and we get a major conference opponent instead. With the Arkansas game moving back to Jerryworld, we don’t need another game in the Metroplex.
SMU also gets/has gotten home games against TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech.
LikeLike
In light of a rumor I saw on another board regarding Oklahoma to the Big 10, I pose this question to fans of the Big 10 as well as fans of affected schools. If a move to 18 is inevitable, which expansion scenario would you prefer and why?
:
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and FSU
OR
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas
What would be the benefits, drawbacks to each group? Which is a “bigger” home-run? I am not saying this will happen or that schools are available and want to move. I am just curious on what the personal preference would be and what group do you think the presidents would choose?
LikeLike
I’d say they’re about the same.
LikeLike
Ms. B1G,
“If a move to 18 is inevitable, which expansion scenario would you prefer and why?
:
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and FSU
OR
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas”
Not even close. The ACC 4 by a mile.
“What would be the benefits, drawbacks to each group?”
Pro-ACC:
Academics, research, access to alumni, demographics, markets, no MO, no OU, no KU
Pro-B12:
UT, bigger brands in FB and hoops, no FSU
“Which is a “bigger” home-run?”
Adding MO is more like getting hit in the nuts by a fastball, so the ACC 4 by default.
LikeLike
Nice to see that I’m so far inside your head that I’ve become your main motivation when giving opinions on realignment.
LikeLike
No FSU is a negative for the B12. If the B1G is set on a big end-game expansion…and the State of Fla isn’t on its map…it’s a BIG miss.
LikeLike
Before the Rutgers and Maryland additions KU, UM, OU and UT would have been the clear choice and it wouldn’t have been especially close.
However, the fact the league has already started to move East makes evens things out quite a bit.
Gun to my head I think I would go with the Big XII schools, but it would be close.
LikeLike
@Ms. B1G
frug’s point is correct.
Now that the Big Ten is “committed” to moving East, it’s hard to even consider a strategy that goes back to the West.
The combination of Texas staying in the Big 12 for the next decade and the Big Ten not making a play on Missouri which opened the path for them to go to the SEC pretty much forecloses any possible Western strategy at this point.
You want to maximize your strategy. We’ve already committed 2 important slots to the East Coast.
At this point, the Big Ten’s goal is to maximize that strategy by combining more ACC schools with Maryland/Rutgers for a full East Coast wing of the conference.
LikeLike
frug,
“Before the Rutgers and Maryland additions KU, UM, OU and UT would have been the clear choice and it wouldn’t have been especially close.”
For you, but not for the B10.
Athletically, I agree with you. UT + OU + KU hoops >> FSU + UNC hoops
However, OU was always a no go academically. KU would barely clear that bar. KU wouldn’t help with the demographic problems, either.
UT is a great prize, but there was never a good path for adding them (not that they ever really wanted to join).
FSU is a little different. It’s a lesser prize (more like OU being in TX), but the path is better.
I think the B10 is better off without either of these groups, though. Less rich, but better off.
LikeLike
However, OU was always a no go academically.
OU is no different than FSU academically
KU wouldn’t help with the demographic problems, either.
True… but KU would still bring more attention in Kansas than G-Tech would in Georgia.
UT is a great prize, but there was never a good path for adding them (not that they ever really wanted to join).
Viability of the proposals wasn’t part of the question.
I’ll grant you that the ACC schools would be better academically than the Big XII schools, but that is really only advantage they have (unless you believe G-Tech delivers the entire state of Georgia in which case the ACC schools do have a population edge). The Big XII schools (on the other hand) are stronger athletically, financially and probably a better “cultural” fit (Mizzou and KU are Midwestern schools and OU is used to working with Midwestern schools like Nebraska, Kansas, K-State and ISU)
LikeLike
OU is pretty far behind FSU academically, actually.
LikeLike
frug,
“OU is no different than FSU academically”
Not quite true. OU is a little worse.
ARWU:
FSU – 86-109
OU – 110-137
CMUP:
FSU – #93 overall ($195M), #87 federal ($117M)
OU – #157 overall ($78.2M), #160 federal ($41.9M)
AAU:
FSU – 94
OU – 91
More importantly, we have leaks that tell us OU was an academic no go. Plus FSU has the demographics of FL to try to get past their deficiency.
“True… but KU would still bring more attention in Kansas than G-Tech would in Georgia.”
True. GT does still get decent coverage in GA, though.
“Viability of the proposals wasn’t part of the question.”
I know. I was just pointing out the biggest flaw in the adding UT concept in general.
“I’ll grant you that the ACC schools would be better academically than the Big XII schools, but that is really only advantage they have (unless you believe G-Tech delivers the entire state of Georgia in which case the ACC schools do have a population edge).”
Just like I granted the B12 schools are better athletically. Those are both obvious. How you weight them is a personal choice.
Population:
VA > KS
NC > MO
Atlanta > OK
TX > FL, obviously, but both are huge
Call it roughly a wash. There are more B10 alumni in FL than TX, though. Couple that with the start on eastward expansion and it favors the ACC schools.
“The Big XII schools (on the other hand) are stronger athletically, financially and probably a better “cultural” fit (Mizzou and KU are Midwestern schools and OU is used to working with Midwestern schools like Nebraska, Kansas, K-State and ISU)”
TX is a foreign country and the great plains aren’t the midwest. Most of the B10 population is in the east which is more similar to the ACC schools, or in the cities in the western B10 so quite unlike the plains states.
Like I said, neither are great fits. If the B10 wants schools that fit, they’d take ISU and Pitt. If they want academics, they’d take the ACC 4. If they want athletics they’d take the B12 4. If they just want to make more money, I think they go B12 (TX would make so much for the BTN, plus RRR and KU hoops).
LikeLike
@Brian
I can agree with all but 2 things
we have leaks that tell us OU was an academic no go.
The only leaks I recall in this case were that a 4 team package including OU and three unnamed schools was an academic no go. It’s possible that OU was tolerable but the unnamed schools were the ones that sunk the deal (and since its possible that the unnamed schools were OSU and KSU it wouldn’t be that surprising)
Plus, there are also leaks that FSU is unacceptable, so who knows.
the great plains aren’t the midwest
That is just flat out factually inaccurate. According the US Census Bureau the “Midwestern United States” includes Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa in addition to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and the Dakotas.
LikeLike
frug,
“Plus, there are also leaks that FSU is unacceptable, so who knows.”
Yep. FSU has the edge of demographics, though, so that might override that issue. That’s the only way FSU gets in.
the great plains aren’t the midwest
“That is just flat out factually inaccurate. According the US Census Bureau the “Midwestern United States” includes Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa in addition to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and the Dakotas.”
The great plains are parts of MT and ND south to TX. The only “midwest” states are KS, ND and SD, and that’s only if you use the census bureau’s definition which many/most people don’t (it seems to be regional). There is overlap, but they aren’t the same. In addition, the B10 isn’t just in the midwest anymore. OU dealing with ISU doesn’t mean they are comfortable with RU.
LikeLike
The great plains are parts of MT and ND south to TX. The only “midwest” states are KS, ND and SD,
Nebraska?
LikeLike
“The only leaks I recall in this case were that a 4 team package including OU and three unnamed schools was an academic no go. It’s possible that OU was tolerable but the unnamed schools were the ones that sunk the deal (and since its possible that the unnamed schools were OSU and KSU it wouldn’t be that surprising)”
—There was word that Oklahoma tested the waters for coming alone to the B1G & was told no.
LikeLike
If the BIG added those four, KU, MU, and OK would be 3 of the bottom 4 rated schools in the 18 team league.
I would guess that if 18 were the plan, there would only be room for 1 school rated as low as KU, MU, and FSU.
LikeLike
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas
They fit in perfectly, with built-in rivalries. Texas would be a bit disconcerting though.
LikeLike
The B1G will not get the schools it covets unless FSU leaves the ACC. The school in Tally is the linchpin that holds its conference together.
LikeLike
And FSU won’t leave unless the B1G either takes them or otherwise wrecks the ACC beyond repair. They don’t want to join the Big 12, and the SEC won’t take them as a first move, only maybe as a backup plan. So this all hinges on the Big Ten taking a wrecking ball to the ACC. Will they do it? My guess is no.
LikeLike
Not sure why you think the ACC would be wrecked beyond repair. The Big 10 could offer membership to Florida State and Georgia Tech as their 15th and 16th members. The ACC could back fill with USF and Cincinnati to get back to 14 and stay intact. Even if the Big 10 were to add NC and VA as members 17 and 18, the ACC could back fill with UCONN and Navy, still staying at 14 and intact. Even if the SEC adds VA Tech and NCST, the conference would stay intact with 12 members and 13 with ND. They could even forgo adding Navy and Cincinnati and stay at 10 members like the Big 12 – smaller but certainly not wrecked beyond repair.
LikeLike
Whatever you want to call it, the ACC would be a shell of its former self if FSU, UNC, UVA and GT left. The replacement programs would be a major downgrade.
LikeLike
Exactly.
Even Louisville, in spite of greater success in football and, at least lately, in basketball, not to mention for more financial security, is not an adequate replacement for Maryland. Losing the Terps signifies tremendous vulnerability for this 60-year-old league. But at the very least, Louisville provides a fairly even tradeoff, at least in terms of what can be brought to a television package.
In essence, Louisville = Maryland. The league will be all right, with the huge caveat that the ACC suffers no further defections.
If the ACC had lost Florida State in the early 2000’s, the league would have suffered a similar stain of vulnerability, but at least an adequate replacement in Miami would have been available. In terms of TV value, Miami = Florida State. Or at least close enough.
But there are no more programs out there like Miami, Louisville, or any other programs who have left or announced they’re leaving the Big East.
I would venture to say that every ACC member except Boston College and Wake Forest is more valuable than every remaining/future Big East member. BC and Wake aren’t targets of the Big 12, SEC, or Big Ten, anyway.
Cincinnati and UConn < Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Duke, UVA, VT, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and even ND's non-football sports
Losing any schools would be significantly damaging to the ACC because they cannot even begin to be replaced. Losing schools like Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Virginia Tech would put the ACC dangerously close to Gang of Five status; once the Orange Bowl contract expires, it would not be renewed. Losing UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke, UVA, or others would destroy the foundation of the league.
Yes, there would continue to be an ACC, meaning that the conference will not dissolve. It would plug and replace as the Big East has done. But the Big East of 2014 will not be the Big East of old. It may be the same house, but the household is entirely different. Same goes for an ACC that replaces bedrock members like UNC and UVA with Cincinnati and ECU.
LikeLike
If they lose two out of Miami, FSU, VT, they become part of the Gang of 5. I’m sure the Orange Bowl has a composition clause. If they can stop at losing only one of those 3, they can hang on.
LikeLike
If the ACC had lost Florida State in the early 2000′s, the league would have suffered a similar stain of vulnerability, but at least an adequate replacement in Miami would have been available. In terms of TV value, Miami = Florida State. Or at least close enough.
You’re assuming Florida State would have departed for the Big 12 (or even SEC) in 2003. But what if FSU, Georgia Tech and Clemson had left for the Big East? In other words, what if Tranghese had gotten the jump on Swofford in the “eat or be eaten” conference race?
The ACC at the time would have shrunk to six members (its mid-’70s lineup minus Clemson), and might have replenished with Louisville, Cincinnati and some others from Conference USA, just as the Big East did in real life. But the conference would have been drained of its football potency and would have been locked into sixth-wheel status for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Yes, lucky for the ACC that the Big East hybrid league setup and the impact on BBall scheduling of poaching a number of ACC schools at once made that move impractical.
LikeLike
You’re assuming Florida State would have departed for the Big 12 (or even SEC) in 2003. But what if FSU, Georgia Tech and Clemson had left for the Big East? In other words, what if Tranghese had gotten the jump on Swofford in the “eat or be eaten” conference race?
Yeah, that never would have happened.
The ACC was the stronger conference in everything except for maybe BB, and was making more money even before the ’03 raid. And in the messy internal politics of the Big East and the fact the ACC was a better geographic, cultural and academic fit for the those schools and no there was just no reason for them to go to the Big East.
LikeLike
That’s the main reason why the odds are strong that nothing happens.
If the Big Ten and SEC are primarily targeting the later movers (UNC and it’s group), then the odds are pretty high that the ACC can hold together.
It’s going to be more difficult for the Big 12 to grab schools given that they aren’t as close and probably don’t want to grab more than 2 schools if it’s possible.
LikeLike
I have a problem with “grab schools ” the tone compleatly changes from ask to join .
LikeLike
Agreed. It promotes an appearance of arrogance, superiority, and entitlement as if the individual schools being recruited have no say.
LikeLike
“Grab” is a pretty accurate way of putting it.
LikeLike
So…grab the white whale then? 😉
LikeLike
As Delany himself said, there are different types of transactions when you talk about realignment.
Some transactions are mergers, some are acquisitions, some are even collaborative efforts.
The tone isn’t really as important as the result. Three conferences want UNC; only one conference will have them at the end of the day.
LikeLike
Seek:
Probably true. What terms Internet posters use is irrelevant. How the schools actually feel is.
However, collaboratively merging implies mutual desire. Simple merging suggests simply choosing a best alternative. Acquisition leaves the “against our wishes” discription as a viable impression. Which gives you the greatest confidence the longterm best interest of the conference is being enhanced?
LikeLike
That’s a fair point. It all comes down to integration once a school ends up in another conference (I hate turning this into a corporate lingo discussion).
By the end of their stays in the Big 12 and ACC, Nebraska and Maryland felt like their interests weren’t being as well protected by their conferences as they believed they should have been (whether that’s reality is irrelevant, it was the perception of the two schools vis-a-vis the conferences that mattered).
LikeLike
The one thing that can definitively spare the ACC from raids by the B1G, SEC, and/or B12 is a GOR. The one way to get a GOR is to get Notre Dame to join as a full member, which is darn near impossible.
But there may be a way…
What if Notre Dame got to keep its NBC contract, in the same way Boise State is going to get its own television contract apart from the MWC’s? All members would share in both the NBC contract and in the ACC’s ESPN contract. Presumably, the league would work out a compromise allowing Notre Dame to receive a “bonus” for the NBC deal, but not such a large bonus as to aggravate Florida State and other members who may want to demand special treatment.
What’s in it for the ACC?
The ESPN package would then include four games featuring Notre Dame, not just 2 or 3, which should increase that deal’s value. League members would also benefit from the upcoming very valuable NBC contract, which would provide more than enough financial incentive to squelch members’ interests in leaving for other leagues. The league would be solidified as a true power conference and, with the addition of a sixteenth, may allow for enough inventory to establish an ACC Network, with help from ESPN.
What’s in it for Notre Dame?
ND knows that the only way to prevent the experience of losing its league’s best members all over again is to join the ACC full-time. It joined the ACC because it wanted to be in a league with eastern and mid-Atlantic schools like Syracuse, Pitt, BC, UVA, Maryland, Duke, and UNC. It also knew that, since part of the requirement of joining this league was to play 5 games/year, it needed to include games against good football programs like VT, Clemson, FSU, and Miami. If the ACC is raided, Notre Dame will still be required to play five ACC games a year, but the Miamis and FSU’s would be replaced with USF’s and UConn’s, which is exactly what Notre Dame was trying to get away from in the first place. Certainly, ND did not sacrifice the Michigan series for the sake of playing ex-CUSA teams.
The ACC would also offer something that the Big Ten could not: full membership in the league while keeping its home games on its own national broadcasting network. The Big Ten would require completely even payments and could not guarantee home games on ABC or NBC.
LikeLike
Can’t see ND being that magnanimous. Football independence is something so adamant amongst its alumni (and contributors) that it would void or buy its way out of the ACC deal (there likely is some clause in its conference contract giving it that option) and instituting a quasi-member deal with the Big 12 — even if the price to pay for that would be sending its men’s and women’s basketball teams to Lubbock, Stillwater and Ames.
LikeLike
The ACC would not be in danger of losing Notre Dame to the Big 12. The ACC would merely be asking ND to do this. If they say no, then it doesn’t happen. The league can’t and won’t attempt to force full membership.
ND couldn’t void its agreement because the current agreement would be replaced with a new one, and only by a willing Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I’m not sure ND would be the hardest to get on board with a GOR.
FSU might end up being the hardest. They’re the ones that actually voted the same way as Maryland on the exit fee hike.
If FSU believes that they have an out with the SEC or Big Ten, they may be completely unwilling to sign a GOR. On the other hand, if they explore their options with those two conferences and find the door not as open as they believed, that might start to change their thinking. As far as FSU to the Big 12, I’m not sure whether they’d sign onto a GOR to foreclose that option either; it’s just hard to know.
If you’re a school with options like FSU, you control the situation; thus, it all depends on what FSU believes its list of realistic options is.
LikeLike
As far as “what’s in it for Notre Dame” … it doesn’t seem to be enough in it. Frank argues that Notre Dame has been making moves to retain independence, and he’s much better positioned to understand the mentality of ND alums than I am. From the outside in, that surely explains ND moves that on a pure financial calculus do not make the most sense. The only higher priority would be access to the National Championship system.
If that is priority two, then “Advantages” that do not include “retains football independence” rank behind any arrangement where the “Advantages” does include “retains football independence”, as long as both include a potential path to the NCG.
Part of the ADVANTAGES of the current agreement is helping to retain football independence. It guarantees late season home games and Eastern Exposure in return for committing to one more game per year with the ACC than it would offer in a pure scheduling agreement aimed at coping with the late game problem for a modern independent, but even more than Eastern Exposure, the primary advantage is coping with the lack of quality independent schools to schedule Home and Home in November.
Independence is shored up by either the ACC or the Big12 on the ACC terms. The present ACC is clearly preferable because playing on the East Coast against a selection of the current ACC teams was more appealing than playing in Texas and the Great Plains, and the ACC was a more appealing shift for its Olympic sports from the Big East than the Big 12 would be (including possibly, I’m guessing from recent conversations, hosting more of them).
Under the “ACC is wounded but reloads” scenario, it seems likely Notre Dame stands pat. They still get to keep independence, which is priority one. They still get Eastern Exposure. If anything, they renegotiate the five games down to four, which the NuACC seems likely that it would accept in order to retain the Notre Dame association. That way if they can get USC, Stanford and Purdue to agree to play in October, with one second half of the season bye they cover the last eight weeks of the regular college football season, and have more flexibility with their September game scheduling.
Under the “catastrophic collapse of the ACC”, the new ACC is the mostly the old Big East, except for losing the BBall only schools and gaining Wake Forest. Its an even better Olympic Sports fit than the current Big East, but not the same caliber of football as the Big12. And the new “Big16” would offer many of the schools in the current ACC that made the ACC more appealing in the first place. So it might be a jump ball, but I’d give the inside edge to the new “Big16”.
The only sub-scenario where Notre Dame HAS TO give up independence would seem to be the Major conferences break away, and do not make an exemption for Notre Dame to join them. But since that would be the SEC and two other the conferences forcing Notre Dame to move to the benefit of the fourth, and those other two not getting Notre Dame losing valuable football games for some of their schools, I don’t see them doing that. I think a Notre Dame exception would be more likely, allowing Notre Dame in by virtue of partial membership in one of the Majors.
LikeLike
ND knows that the only way to prevent the experience of losing its league’s best members all over again is to join the ACC full-time. It joined the ACC because it wanted to be in a league with eastern and mid-Atlantic schools like Syracuse, Pitt, BC, UVA, Maryland, Duke, and UNC.
I think this misstates ND’s motivation. They joined the ACC because, of the two major conferences willing to offer Associate Membership (B12, ACC), the ACC was the better choice for rivalries, geography, recruiting, basketball quality, and synergies with the non-revenue sports. Once ND is forced to join a conference full-time, the ACC’s advantages dissipate, because the Big Ten offers all that plus more money.
The only sub-scenario where Notre Dame HAS TO give up independence would seem to be the Major conferences break away, and do not make an exemption for Notre Dame to join them. But since that would be the SEC and two other the conferences forcing Notre Dame to move to the benefit of the fourth, and those other two not getting Notre Dame losing valuable football games for some of their schools, I don’t see them doing that.
I don’t seem them doing it either. Except for the SEC, every major conference has schools that schedule Notre Dame, and want to keep doing so. If ND joins a conference full-time, many of those games will have to be cancelled. Obviously, one conference would be a winner, but all the others would be losers in that transaction. That’s why they’re never going to make a collective move that makes it impossible for ND to be independent. (Such a move would also have serious anti-trust problems, and there’s no good reason to do it when you don’t have to.)
LikeLike
[i] every major conference has schools that schedule Notre Dame, and want to keep doing so. If ND joins a conference full-time, many of those games will have to be cancelled.[/i]
With a nine game schedule, ND’s OOC schedule will be Navy, USC, and Stanford in perpetuity. That’s why ND will fight for independence. The NDPTB really want to have no less than 5 openings so we can play that conference variety.
LikeLike
Red Wings and BlueJackets moving East.
Saw this mentioned while watching Hockey Night in Canada on the Canadian Channel last night.
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/21755704/proposed-realignment-would-move-detroit-columbus-to-east
LikeLike
Well, Columbus finally got their wish; Eastern Division with Pittsburgh so they can start a rivalry and improve attendance. Their planned rivalry with Detroit never took off, probably because Columbus has been so crappy. Don’t think they will fare much better in the new division.
LikeLike
More or less love it. Wings fans will miss playing Western side as much, will enjoy sleeping again.
Chicago’s division makes total sense.
LikeLike
Yeah, alignment doesn’t fix a bad team. Almost nothing has gone right for the CBJ. They need new ownership and management. The move will help them grow their fan base, though. Red Wings fans may watch games past midnight, but CBJ fans won’t.
LikeLike
I’ll defer to Frank on this, but that looks like the worst possible outcome for the Chicago Blackhawks.
The Eastern conferences have all the big name teams and big rivalries other than them; Chicago gets stuck in a Central timezone division without other big name teams.
LikeLike
Colorado, Dallas and St Louis are quality programs. Minny and Winny should be too.
That division will be fine.
LikeLike
@zeek – You’re on the mark there. Absolutely HORRIBLE outcome for the Blackhawks. It was bad enough that Detroit was the only Original Six team out West previously. I was extremely excited to see the 4 conference concept as originally proposed, but now I’d honestly rather keep the East/West split as now with how they’ve proposed this alignment. It may not matter since Detroit has been moaning about going east forever, but this is bad enough where the Blackhawks would legitimately work to kill this if it’s what Gary Bettman’s minions truly want to do.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Absolutely HORRIBLE outcome for the Blackhawks. It was bad enough that Detroit was the only Original Six team out West previously. I was extremely excited to see the 4 conference concept as originally proposed, but now I’d honestly rather keep the East/West split as now with how they’ve proposed this alignment.”
Short term, this is bad for the Hawks. Long term, though, this might be better for them. Now the central and western teams can develop their rivalries. If the NHL was smart (big if, I know), they’d start showing more games without eastern teams to build the fan base in the central and west. Chicago would be one of the main draws, so they’d get more TV time than now.
“It may not matter since Detroit has been moaning about going east forever,”
Why wouldn’t they? They lost rivalries and suffered huge travel penalties (distance and time zones) while expansion franchises got to be in the east despite being a financial drain for the NHL. No other hockey power in the east got treated like that. Chicago has the benefit of being 1 time zone over, so it’s not as bad to be in the west.
“but this is bad enough where the Blackhawks would legitimately work to kill this if it’s what Gary Bettman’s minions truly want to do.”
The Wings and CBJ will work just as hard to keep it alive. The NHL was happy to screw over the Wings for a long time, so I’m not sure they’ll worry too much about the Hawks. Your best hope is that the NHLPA says no, although I’m not sure why they would.
LikeLike
chicago’s always been the “original 6” outlier as the only central time zone based team.
LikeLike
Well, I called it last post with moving both Detroit and Columbus east. The 4 conferences aren’t quite what I proposed, though. The biggest surprise to me is that they didn’t put Winnipeg with the western Canadian teams. The east is such a jumble of rivalries and desires that anything was possible.
LikeLike
Detroit management must be ecstatic, eastern time zone and same division as arch rival Toronto and Montreal. Short trips to Buffalo. Fans will love it. Only bummer is losing the Blackhawk rivalry.
LikeLike
Both Eastern Divisions have 8 teams. If the NHL actually does expand to Quebec City and a second team in Toronto (Markham), one or two teams will have to move west to form equal divisions of 8 teams. Wonder who would move west? Can’t believe it would be Detroit and Columbus again!
LikeLike
Phoenix may be moving to Seattle but they could stay in the same division. I wonder if Kansas City could be getting an expansion team? They have the arena already built and have hosted exhibition games with Pittsburgh. KC would fit nicely into the Central Division.
LikeLike
These would not be “divisions,” but four autonomous conferences. How would the All-Star game work? Might it be a two-day, three-game tournament involving stars from all four conferences?
LikeLike
@vp19 – You are correct, four “autonomous conferences”. After the first two rounds of playoffs are completed within each division, the division winners will be seeded by point totals to determine the semifinal match ups; One vs four and two vs three. So, we could see something like Anaheim vs Boston in the semifinals.
One interesting topic of discussion last night on the HNIC broadcast was that the two conferences with eight teams might have a play-in game between the fourth and fifth place teams. This would placate the players association which is concerned that it will be easier to make the playoffs in the two seven team conferences. Not sure if this has been finalized yet.
The two ideas behind the conference setups were to try and keep each conference confined to one time zone, and to give the western conference teams a break by only having seven teams to compensate them for the extra travel distances and lack of games versus the eastern and original six teams that draw well on the road. Sounds like that might not have been enough to satisfy the players union, hence the talk of a play-in game. The schedules need to be completed by mid-March so that the teams can reserve their arenas and make travel plans. Even with the new conferences, each team will play every other team in the league (29 teams) both home and away each year.
As a Red Wing fan, I love this setup. But, I will miss the Blackhawk rivalry. On the other hand, we could meet them in the semi’s or finals. How sweet would that be:-)
LikeLike
Great day for the Winged Wheel. Now if we can lure Stevie Y back, all will be right in Hockeytown.
LikeLike
At least he’s in the same division.
LikeLike
The BC response to the Expansion Roundtable (with FTT/MRSEC/Dude/FSUguy)
Interesting comments section too.
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2013/2/23/4020680/conference-realignment-big-ten-expansion-north-carolina-virginia-georgia-tech-duke-florida-state
LikeLike
At the end of the day, this seemingly will boil down to whether or not the cake’s already baked on UVa + GT or FSU to The B1G after the Maryland suit is concluded. If not (maybe even if still), It’s perfectly reasonable to presume that ESPN will pony up money to stabilize the ACC.
LikeLike
It’s easy to talk about ESPN throwing money at the problem, but it’s not quite that simple. They need a justification to avoid potential lawsuits, I think. Maybe if 2 teams leave they’ll leave the contract whole to protect the rest, but the deal is so new that’s an iffy thing. How do they explain paying more for rights they just negotiated a price for?
LikeLike
Great question. My only response would be it’s the necessary response to market pressure. They’ve already blown a deal with The B1G, leading to BTN.
The flip side of the question is how do they justify to shareholders losing so much content to Fox and CBS if the ACC breaks up because of disparities in revenue because they were busy playing hardball?
LikeLike
I don’t understand how ESPN could “lose” any content to CBS. CBS is only going to show one game a week regardless of how many teams are in the SEC.
LikeLike
@frug: Well, there’s still quality to consider even if quantity doesn’t go away. Just to use one example, the loss of Duke/UNC certainly wouldn’t be viewed favorably, even if the ‘one game a week’ content could be replaced with something else.
LikeLike
Well UNC/Duke is always a prime time game and CBS doesn’t show primetime college basketball so that’s not a big risk.
As for your overall point. I don’t know. They would lose a couple UNC and Duke games a year I suppose but that isn’t massive.
LikeLike
They open themselves up to anti-trust lawsuits if they aren’t careful. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been so skeptical of the ESPN will save the ACC arguments. The other is that it isn’t clear saving the ACC is in their interest. They have plenty of inventory. Much of that inventory gets better ratings. And some of the ACC schools might be more valuable in a different conference. ESPN has most of the SEC, half the Big 12 and the best of the B1G. The talk at the time of the threat to the Big 12 was that ESPN wasn’t ready for superconferences AT THAT TIME. They were not opposed to them. They just weren’t ready.
LikeLike
I agree, but your point also speaks to the logic of ESPN keeping the ACC in tow to play defense. Given the cyclical nature of things, ESPN could dump lower performing ACC content anywhere but the so-called mothership and bring it back out when the conference performs well. That would seem to be a better fate for them than allowing it to be shown on a competitor, who would better publicize them, which over time could lead to a better on field product and more competition vs. ESPN.
That’s analogous to the arguments around here that the SEC would take multiple N. Carolina teams or FSU to keep The B1G out of those states (even at the expense of potentially diluting the SEC’s brand/product/profits)…
Not to say I believe it will happen – I just think that logic is in someone’s brain if there’s any truth to FTT’s proclamations about the ACC being stronger than everyone thinks. I think UVa and GT or FSU aren’t long for the ACC universe.
LikeLike
“The talk at the time of the threat to the Big 12 was that ESPN wasn’t ready for superconferences AT THAT TIME. They were not opposed to them. They just weren’t ready.”
Translation: schools missed out on tremendous leverage.
LikeLike
WHAT risk of diluting SEC’s product? They already have enough football product for a sixteen school league.
The SEC has a slow growth core with a high concentration on developing prospective football talent from an early age, and adding the faster growth areas to its northeast complements the legacy high growth area in Florida and the newly added high growth area in East Texas.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF: Theoretically, if the SEC took a combo platter of UNC, Duke and NCST (just to get the Carolina market), that’s a dilution of its product. Dilution is not the same as saying it diminishes it’s brand its brand or product, which clearly is defined by Bama, LSU and others at the top of its food chain. I think we’d agree the SEC is in a better position than The B1G to do such, given our collectively expressed concerns about UMD/Rutgers in the face of Nebraska/PSU being down from their historic positions as Kings.
If you were referring to ‘dilution of product’ as in spreading recruits throughout the conference, that’s not what I meant. Clearly the SEC hold sufficient spots in the most fertile, talent rich recruiting areas to expand as needed without suffering.
LikeLike
Risk of dilution implies sufficient dilution to do damage. For that, they’d need more than adding a pair of NC schools to reach 16, since they already have enough marquee schools for 16.
A far as the SEC taking UNC and NC State AND Duke, I DID qualify it as sufficient football brand for 16, so “multiple NC schools” there is more with respect to the current UNC/Duke speculation from some quarters. I don’t find three NC schools to be a plausible move, since if they have any two of UNC, NC State and Duke to reach 16, I don’t see the third in any combination that justifies 18.
LikeLike
The SEC had a big drop in TV ratings this year. With expansion, the premier schools didn’t play each other as much. With UNC and Duke, they would have more dilution. UNC and Duke are 2 of only 4 teams in the Big 5 conferences never to have been ranked in the final AP Poll in the BCS era. With them, the SEC would have 3 of the 4.
LikeLike
@bullet
I’ve been commenting on that idea since the SEC expanded, there was a hefty loss in big crossover games over the past couple of years when you had huge Alabama-Florida tilts among others.
This is something that the Big Ten needs to be careful of as well. If it really is focused on UNC/Duke/UVa/Georgia Tech, we could see a loss in Nebraska-Ohio State tilts and others like that.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I’ve been commenting on that idea since the SEC expanded, there was a hefty loss in big crossover games over the past couple of years when you had huge Alabama-Florida tilts among others.”
I think TV let them know that by not offering a ton of money for adding TAMU and MO but staying at 8 games. Especially with the SECN coming, I think this helps push the SEC to 9 games. That will restore some big games. It’s a shame UGA has missed LSU and AL the past 2 years, for example.
Rough math
Assume 3 big names in each division, 1 locked rival (no big/big games locked)
12 teams, 8 games (5-1-2)
Big/big games – 3 in each division + 3.6 crossover = 9.6
14 teams, 8 games (6-1-1)
Big/big games – 3 in each division + 1.5 crossover = 7.5
14 teams, 9 games (6-1-2)
Big/big games – 3 in each division + 3 crossover = 9.0
If we say 1 division has 4 big names (I assume someone was wondering)
14 teams, 8 games (6-1-1)
Big/big games – 9 in division + 2 crossover = 11.0
14 teams, 9 games (6-1-2)
Big/big games – 9 in division + 4 crossover = 13.0
“This is something that the Big Ten needs to be careful of as well. If it really is focused on UNC/Duke/UVa/Georgia Tech, we could see a loss in Nebraska-Ohio State tilts and others like that.”
Agreed, that’s an issue. Let’s count OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI and MSU as big names.
Current B10
12 teams, 8 games (5-1-2)
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2 locked + 2.8 crossover = 10.8
MSU goes west, MI/MSU only locked game
14 teams, 8 games (6-2)
Big/big games – 6 in division + 1 locked + 1.9 crossover = 8.9
MSU goes west, 1 locked game
14 teams, 9 games (6-1-2)
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2 locked (MI/MSU, PSU/NE) + 2.3 crossover = 10.3
PU goes west, IN/PU only locked game
14 teams, 8 games (6-2)
Big/big games – 6 in division + 0 locked + 2.8 crossover = 8.8
PU goes west, 1 locked game
14 teams, 9 games (6-1-2)
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2 locked (WI/MSU, PSU/NE) + 2.3 crossover = 10.3
For further expansion
16 teams, 9 games (7-2), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2.3 crossover = 8.3
16 teams, 10 games (7-3), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 3.4 crossover = 9.4
18 teams, 9 games (8-1), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 1.1 crossover = 7.1
18 teams, 10 games (8-2), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2.3 crossover = 8.3
If they want to keep the number up where it used to be, they’ll need to lock some big games and probably need to go to 10 games. Adding a big name would help, too. Of course the numbers will differ for varying alignments and scheduling methods (pods, no divisions, etc).
LikeLike
Following up on Brian’s post, here is some math showing the giant value of adding FSU.
***********
First:
@Brian:
I don’t understand your math for the crossover games. (I was able to do simple addition/multiplication when I was 11 years old; LOL. I seem to have lost that ability.)
You said: “16 teams, 9 games (7-2), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2.3 crossover = 8.3”
How did you come to 2.3 crossover games?
This was my thought: 3 “bigs” in 8 = 3/8th chance per division. so, 3/8 * 3/8 = 9/64th chance that one of the cross-over games is a big vs. big. There are two x-over games, so 18/64 = 0.28. Multiply by 10 to make it a whole number = 2.8.
**********
Second:
Anyway, as said to start, there is some giant giant value to adding FSU. We all know this, but here are some numbers.
Brian calculated: “18 teams, 10 games (8-2), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2.3 crossover = 8.3”
Assume FSU is one of 18 and assume 10 games. FSU is a “big” and goes East.
Then: 18 teams, 10 games (8-2), big 4/3, no locks.
Big/big games – 9 in division + 2.96 = 11.96 big/big games per year (or basically one a week).
That is a big jump.
(tOSU vs. MI, PSU & FSU = 3
MI vs. PSU & FSU = 2
PSU vs. FSU = 1
Neb vs. MSU & Wiscy = 2
MSU vs. Wiscy = 1
my math: 4/9 * 3/9 = 12/81 * 2 = 24/81 = 0.296 x 10 = 2.96.)
*************
Interestingly enough, going to 20 teams diminishes the number of big/big games. Some tangible “proof” of dilution?
Assume B1G goes to 20 and adds FSU + 1 (not ND).
20 teams, 10 games (9-1), big names split 4(east)/3(west, no locked games.
Big/big games: 6 big-big in east; 3 in west + 1.2 crossover = 10.2.
If I am doing the math correctly for the cross-over: 4/10 * 3/10 = 12/100 x 10 = 1.
**************
So, aside from my ability or inability to do math, adding FSU adds a lot of “big” games.
LikeLike
@Brian, BuckeyeBeau
That pretty much shows how careful the Big Ten has to be about who it adds in the next 2 or 4. Going for the AAU quad of 4 could potentially water down the matchups too heavily.
LikeLike
@ bullet ~ from your lips to the SEC’s ears. Though the SEC could readily address its problem. which derives from locked cross-division games, by going to 9 conference games, I would be happy if the SEC BELIEVED there is a serious risk of dilution in adding UNC and Duke. After all, if they did so, they’d achieve rough BBall parity with the Big Ten, and so in the nature of things they’d have seasons where they were better than the Big Ten in BBall about as often as the reverse.
LikeLike
The math involving “big games” also shows the importance of NOT locking games with “kings” unnecessarily. Someone posted a scheduling scenario where FSU joins the Big Ten, and has an annual locked game with Indiana. Of all the Big Ten games that FSU could play, it’s tough to imagine a match-up less valuable to television.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
I don’t understand your math for the crossover games. (I was able to do simple addition/multiplication when I was 11 years old; LOL. I seem to have lost that ability.)
You said: “16 teams, 9 games (7-2), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2.3 crossover = 8.3″
How did you come to 2.3 crossover games?
There are 3 bigs in Division A (A1, A2, A3) and 3 in B (B1, B2, B3). All teams in A have 2/8 chance of playing each team in B (2 crossover games for 8 total teams).
A1 – 1/4 B1 + 1/4 B2 + 1/4 B3 = 3/4 big/big
There are 3 bigs in A, so the total is 3 * 3/4 = 9/4 = 2.25 = 2.3
**********
Anyway, as said to start, there is some giant giant value to adding FSU. We all know this, but here are some numbers.
Brian calculated: “18 teams, 10 games (8-2), big names split 3/3, no locked games
Big/big games – 6 in division + 2.3 crossover = 8.3″
Assume FSU is one of 18 and assume 10 games. FSU is a “big” and goes East.
Then: 18 teams, 10 games (8-2), big 4/3, no locks.
Big/big games – 9 in division + 2.96 = 11.96 big/big games per year (or basically one a week).
Close. I get this:
Big/big games – 9 in division + 2.7 crossover = 11.7
Adding a name adds 3.4 big/big games in this scenario, mostly in division.
LikeLike
@Brian:
thanks for helping with the math.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/11/18/conference.survey/index.html
A trip back in history. This is a fan survey SI.com did back in 2009. The got over 33,000 responses (most was 2004 from OSU fans, fewest was 4 from FAU fans). The big picture question are OK, but what I really like are the results within each conference. You can even see the results for each school for a few questions. I wish they included the number of responses from each school, though. Some of the questions would be interesting if you could give each school an equal vote. Besides, it would give a quick and dirty measure of the relative sizes of the fan bases.
LikeLike
Like any internet survey, this is hardly scientific. It self-selects for younger fans, for one thing. On the other hand more than 25% of the people were season ticket holders. Combine that with SI being pretty mainstream, and I think a decent number of middle aged fans also responded.
Anyway, here are some B10 results.
Top rivals:
IL – MI 27.3%, NW 24.1, IA 23.7, IN 13.1, OSU 4.9
IN – PU 95.8, IL 1.5
IA – MN 41.3, WI 31.5, MI 8.0, IL 8.0, PSU 5.4
MI – OSU 96.0, MSU 2.1
MSU – MI 96.9, PSU 1.0
MN – WI 79.2, IA 17.7, OSU 1.3, MI 0.9
NW – IL 74.7, IA 9.3, MI 5.3, OSU 4.0
OSU – MI 98.2, PSU 0.9
PSU – OSU 83.1, MI 11.3, MSU 2.5, IA 2.0
PU – IN 94.8, OSU 1.5, MI 1.1, IL 0.4, IA 0.4
WI – MN 77.0, MI 9.3, IA 7.5, OSU 4.8
You have to remember they asked who your top rival was, so we can’t infer that this same order applies to their other rivalries. Still, it gives you some idea which rivalries fans consider major.
I’d love to see a thorough rivalry survey sometime. Let fans rate their rivalries from 0-10 for all conference members plus a few OOC teams.
LikeLike
Maybe this tells you why Illinois has been so bad at football. They can’t even identify their rival. All the rest are predictable and overwhelming, except for IA which predictably has 2 dominating.
LikeLike
I’m surprised to see Ohio State so low on Illinois’ list.
From what I thought, the Illibuck was a top 2-3 game for sure.
LikeLike
I thought so also.
LikeLike
It wasn’t a top 3 question, though, it was a top rival. No telling if 5% or 95% of respondents would have put the Buckeyes down as their #2 or #3 rival.
LikeLike
Top rivals:
IL – MI 27.3%, NW 24.1, IA 23.7, IN 13.1, OSU 4.9 – I knew they cared
IA – MN 41.3, WI 31.5, MI 8.0, IL 8.0, PSU 5.4 – sounds about right
MN – WI 79.2, IA 17.7, OSU 1.3, MI 0.9 – sounds about right
NW – IL 74.7, IA 9.3, MI 5.3, OSU 4.0 – they like beating us
PSU – OSU 83.1, MI 11.3, MSU 2.5, IA 2.0 – they don’t like losing to us
WI – MN 77.0, MI 9.3, IA 7.5, OSU 4.8 – ouch
LikeLike
greg,
“IL – MI 27.3%, NW 24.1, IA 23.7, IN 13.1, OSU 4.9 – I knew they cared
IA – MN 41.3, WI 31.5, MI 8.0, IL 8.0, PSU 5.4 – sounds about right”
Some of IL may care, but IA doesn’t reciprocate. I think the age bias shows with OSU being so low.
“MN – WI 79.2, IA 17.7, OSU 1.3, MI 0.9 – sounds about right”
Weird that OSU is above MI, though.
“NW – IL 74.7, IA 9.3, MI 5.3, OSU 4.0 – they like beating us”
I’m surprised OSU was that close to MI.
“PSU – OSU 83.1, MI 11.3, MSU 2.5, IA 2.0 – they don’t like losing to us”
MI was pretty high for all the talk from PSU fans now about how vital OSU is.
“WI – MN 77.0, MI 9.3, IA 7.5, OSU 4.8 – ouch”
Yeah, that surprised me, too.
LikeLike
In Minnesota… we have 2 “HATE” weeks during football—the Badgers, and the Hawkeyes… No one else comes close.
These “HATE” weeks apply to several other sports as well… men’s hockey (too bad Iowa doesn’t have hockey–give us another team to kick around :), men’s wrestling… and to a lesser degree men’s basketball.
Brian… I too am surprised that tOSU is above MeatChicken… ‘course neither of these are “real” rivalries of late with the Gopher’s poor exploits on the football field.
BTW… Gopher’s grapplers NWCA National Duals Champs 2– in a row!! Wish Cael and PSU wouldn’t shy away from this event…
and… Tubby’s Team gets big (needed) win over #1 IU…
Hockey, wrestling, and BB tourneys just around the corner… woohoo!!
Everyone have a good one!!
LikeLike
Reciprocal rivalries:
Ohio State – TSUN
Purdue – Indiana
Wisconsin – Minnesota
Illinois – Northwestern is close (NU just out of #1 for IL by a few % pts)
Iowa is pretty split on MN & WI but doesn’t get the hate in return. I’d bet the Cornhuskers have moved somewhere near the top of that list.
Completely unrequited:
Sparty & PSU
LikeLike
This shows some of the results I would expect:
1) Everyone wants to play OSU and Michigan: at least one of those two, and usually both, showed up on every school’s list except Indiana.
2) Reciprocity, and the lack thereof: UM and OSU are equally important to one another. So are PU/IN and WI/MN. But in some cases, one school values a rivalry WAY more than the other one does: OSU/PSU; IA with either of WI/MN. The assymetry of UM/MSU is understandable. But I’m surprised Illini fans don’t value NW more highly: it seems they just want to play everybody.
It would seem that the Illibuck rivalry is not very highly valued by fans of either school as I had imagined, and neither is the MSU/Northwestern “rivalry” that has been so much talked about.
It’s also interesting that Iowa and Illinois are the only schools without a dominant rivalry. In every other case, one rival outscores all the others by an overwhelming margin. Obviously, further research would be needed before one could say this conclusively. But if it were true, it would certainly have scheduling implications if the Big Ten grows beyond 14 teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It would seem that the Illibuck rivalry is not very highly valued by fans of either school as I had imagined, and neither is the MSU/Northwestern “rivalry” that has been so much talked about.”
This is where the results are deceptive. The question asked for the top rivalry. Every OSU fan could agree IL was #2 (I’m not saying they do, just being hypothetical) and IL would still get a tiny percentage because MI is so clearly our #1 rival.
That’s why I said I’d like to see a more complete survey that let’s you rate every rivalry from 0-10 for all conference foes plus 2-3 OOC teams. The you could see how close a second rival is to the first one (MSU would be higher than 2% for MI).
“It’s also interesting that Iowa and Illinois are the only schools without a dominant rivalry. In every other case, one rival outscores all the others by an overwhelming margin.”
I’d guess those results are heavily influenced by location and age. I wonder where NE fits in for IA now.
LikeLike
Reasonable results would come from 1, 2, 3 and adding up points +5, +3, +1.
LikeLike
Ha! That’s great! 93.5% of Kansas fans care most about Missouri compared to 90.3% of Missouri fans caring most about Kansas. They actually care more about us than we do about them! Considering their rhetoric of late this is hilarious.
LikeLike
@Andy: um, that’s a difference of 3.2 percentage points. That is well well well within the margin of error for an internet survey. I’d call that pretty much even. Plus the survey is from 2009. Things have changed in the last three years.
As others mentioned, wonder how the addition of Nebraska has changed the rivalry perceptions of Wiscy, Iowa and Minny?
@ Brian:
thanks for posting the link. always interesting to see things like this.
LikeLike
As others mentioned, wonder how the addition of Nebraska has changed the rivalry perceptions of Wiscy, Iowa and Minny?
As @Brian mentioned, this survey asked only for the top rivalry. Iowa is the only school that might put Nebraska on top if the survey were re-done. Maybe Penn State, but they’re not even in the same division right now. I have no idea what Nebraska fans would say.
I agree with @Brian that it would be interesting to do a more nuanced survey that doesn’t just ask for the top rivalry, but tried to gauge how strongly fans feel about particular rivalries.
LikeLike
@Beau, yeah I know it’s small, but it’s still higher. They always claim we care MUCH more about them than they care about us.
And it’s only been 3 years. We were rivals since the 1800s.
LikeLike
“They always claim we care MUCH more about them than they care about us.”
And that is something you (1) care to form an opinion about and (2) care about whether or not they are right because you DON’T REALLY care all that much about them?
LikeLike
No, obviously I do care about them. It’s been a rivalry for around 123 years. It’s stupid for them to not play us.
LikeLike
To the best of my knowledge, Minnesota has played Nebraska more than any other B1G school… and has a pretty big lead in overall series wins… However, as with tOSU and Michigan, the Gopher’s have been on the losing end of the series since their last mNC in ’60.
I don’t particularly have any “hate” for the Husker’s (in a rivalry sense)… Respect for their program (like tOSU, Mich, and PSU)… Yes… Wanna kick everyone’s ass… Yes… Likelihood… Notsomuch… at least in football…
Iowa technically probably has the most in common with Nebraska (as a state)—can’t speak as to whether or not this would drive a rivalry…
IMHO Nebraska/PSU is total made-up silliness… No different than Minnesota/PSU. A media made-up rivalry.
LikeLike
“Iowa technically probably has the most in common with Nebraska (as a state)—can’t speak as to whether or not this would drive a rivalry…”
Nebraska has something like 75% of their population living within an hour of the Iowa border. Western Iowa has a ton of Nebraska fans. Even before Nebraska was in the B1G, there were more Nebraska fans posting to Iowa message boards than all the other fanbases combined, including ISU and Minnesota.
Its got all the makings of a good rivalry. Iowa needs to start winning.
LikeLike
p.s. yesterday, the B1G formally confirmed extending the Iowa/Nebraska Black Friday game.
LikeLike
Wow, Andy, only 9 out of 10 Missouri fans in that survey named Kansas as your top rival. How embarrassing for the Jayhawks.
I would guess that if redone, Kansas State would edge out Missouri as the top rival among Kansas fans. Or will soon if the two border rivals don’t restarting playing each other.
Missouri, on the other hand, I can’t imagine who they would choose as their top rival. Kansas is replaced with no one.
LikeLike
The thing is we already knew 9 out of 10 Missouri fans considered Kansas to be their main rival. What was in quesiton was whether KU cared about MU. They claim that they don’t. This survey says otherwise.
As for now, I’d guess most Mizzou fans would still say Kansas, but the likely candidates to replace are Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All are border states and we’ve had some pretty good games with all of them already. It’ll take time.
LikeLike
But will Tennessee, Arkansas or Kentucky consider Missouri a rival… this is likely to be a one way street as each already have one or multiple rivals that will be listed before Missouri.
LikeLike
Yes ~ while its not The Third Saturday In October in Knoxville, or Florida or Georgia, or South Carolina, or the absolute imperative of beating Vandy … and while Ole Miss hates UTK more than UTK hates Ole Miss (though with a couple more recruiting classes like this that may come) … no doubt about people in Knoxville caring more about beating Ole Miss than Mizzou.
And as far as “border states”, I’m a bit skeptical how much actual connection you have with Knoxville … Eastern Tennessee borders on: Kentucky, Southwestern Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Western Tennessee. Good luck finding the non-southern territory anywhere on the border of UTK’s domain. Hell, even Western Tennessee borders on the parts of Arkansas and Missouri that are Southern: “bordering on states that are border states” does not a border state make.
LikeLike
Arkansas should be easy. 1) We have a bit of a history with them, and 2) they consider LSU to be their rival even though LSU doesn’t consider them to be a rival. So they don’t have a real rival. So it shouldn’t take long for them to start considering Missouri a rival.
Tennessee will be tougher because they already have so many rivals. But if we keep having games as good as the 3OT victory Mizzou had in Knoxville this year then they’re going to start paying attention.
Kentucky may or may not work. We’ll see. They don’t have a strong rival right now either ouside of Tennessee.
LikeLike
Kentucky is a winter rivalry in Knoxville ~ its not a fall rivalry.
If you are aiming to be winter rivals with UTK, at least the queue’s shorter, though you are still starting at the back of the queue.
LikeLike
They only conference rivalry Missouri has that can happen quickly is Arkansas. All the others will take time. Probalby several years.
Non-conference we have Kansas and Illinois. Except Kansas refuses to play us, even though 93% of their fans consider us their main rival.
LikeLike
Schools Arkansas considers a rival:
LSU
Texas (Arkansas is still obsessed with the Longhorns)
Alabama
Texas A&M (re-growing)
Auburn
Tennessee (fading)
Missouri will easily be behind all those schools. I can see Missouri eventually passing only Tennessee on that list for football.
Basketball, they have a better shot at something meaningful to both schools. Not sure how the SEC plans to schedule basketball. I know they recently got rid of the divisions in BB, but not sure if there are locked home-and-home rivals. It would help Mizzou create something if they could have a home-and-home with the Razorbacks every year.
LikeLike
It’s easy to say that when we don’t have a football game scheduled with each other until at least 2014. At that point Missouri and Arkansas become “cross divisional rivals” and will play every year. That should help.
I do know that the Arkansas message boards talk about Missouri as much or more than any other school. (I don’t post there or go there, but I’ve been told this is true). Also, I know that for the Arkansas/Missouri basketball game in Fayetteville, the tickets sold for more on stubhub than for any other game this year by a long shot, and the crowd went “hog wild” during that game. So I’m pretty sure we have their attention.
But yeah it’s hard right now when we don’t play them in foootball.
I know that when we played htem in the Cotton Bowl a few years ago it was a hot ticket and sold out.
LikeLike
Oh, and yes, to answer your question, Arkansas and Missouri are locked home and home rivals in basketball. In the SEC you only get one locked in rival and Missouri got Arkansas.
LikeLike
Also helps that Fayetteville is physically closer to Columbia than any other SEC school.
297 miles to columbia.
379 to oxford
472 to college station
499 to nashville
537 to baton rouge
LikeLike
Also, apparently Texas will be to Arkansas what Kansas and Nebraska are to Missouri. Historic rivals that we’ve played a hundred times or more that we rarely if ever play. We still pay attention but unless we play those games there’s only so much you can do with it.
LikeLike
“I do know that the Arkansas message boards talk about Missouri as much or more than any other school. (I don’t post there or go there, but I’ve been told this is true).”
Believe me, it is not true. I live in Arkansas.
“It’s easy to say that when we don’t have a football game scheduled with each other until at least 2014. At that point Missouri and Arkansas become “cross divisional rivals” and will play every year. That should help.”
That will help, but Arkansas has had South Carolina as a cross division rival since joining the SEC and that has never been a big game.
Proximity + Cross-Division rival should make Missouri a bigger game than South Carolina but, again, that isn’t saying much. Fayetteville is close to Missouri, but there aren’t a lot of Tiger fans in that part of Missouri. Plus, most Hog fans are spread across the state and don’t live near the Missouri border and Columbia is quite a ways up there. I think it is about a 7 hour drive from central Arkansas (where the highest concentration of Arkansas fans are) to the Missouri campus. That makes it a lot farther than the Mississippi schools, a little further than Alabama, about the same as Texas A&M and LSU and then just a bit closer than Auburn.
And the eyes of Arkansas gaze southward anyway. Missouri is not cracking the top 5 rival list of Arkansas that I mentioned earlier. The Auburn game could have lot a little luster for Arkansas fans in the future but not now that Malzahn is coaching there. Arkansas fans would much much rather beat Malzahn than Missouri.
Basketball, there is a chance of a decent rivalry. But not football.
LikeLike
Also, I gotta say that it speaks volumes about the state of your program when you are desperate to claim Arkansas as a budding football rival.
LikeLike
Sorry, but no school will ever “replace” Kansas as a Missouri rival.
The bottom line is that MU sold its soul and its identity in order to find a safe landing spot in the $EC after the BIG didn’t pan out and MU was afraid of ending up in CUSA or the MWC.
Missouri also had trophy games in football with Oklahoma and Iowa St. Those are history. The rivalry with Illinois in football is also toast.
A school can’t just make up new rivalries…..
LikeLike
Arch, maybe it does speak volumes. Over the last 10 years Arkansas has 74 wins. Misssouri has 81. But Arkansas has played against tougher schedules so I’ll call it even.
The SEC is going to hype Missouri/Arkansas as a rivalry. It will be played on Thanksgiving day every year starting in 2014. This will hype the fans up some. I’m not surprised in the least that Arkansas fans aren’t into it yet. Why would they be? We didn’t play this year and we don’t play next year either. It was kind of dumb of the SEC not to schedule us right off the bat. It won’t be a rivalry until we play some games.
But acting like the past is a permanent predictor of the future is silly. Up until 1992 Arkansas wasn’t rivals with Alabama or Tennessee or any of them. They became rivals once they started playing regularly. That’s how it works.
LikeLike
Norm, no, nobody will replace Kansas for Missouri, and nobody will ever replace Missouri for Kansas. KU doesn’t care near as much about K-State or Texas or West Virginia or whoever. The poll shows that who they care about is Mizzou. Mizzou is more than willing to play KU in every sport every year. It’s very profitable because fan interest is so high on both sides. KU is throwing away money by not agreeing.
But Missouri can sell plenty of tickets to games against Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, and other schools like Florida, Georgia, Alabama, LSU. We’re fine. But MU and KU would both make even more money (and have more fun) by playing each other.
LikeLike
But none of them are rivals with Arkansas. Some of them don’t even realize Arkansas is in their conference!
LikeLike
“But none of them are rivals with Arkansas. Some of them don’t even realize Arkansas is in their conference!”
You couldn’t be more right! LSU and Arkansas were usually matched up on Thanksgiving weekend only because the rest of the SEC west was already paired up (Alabama-Auburn, Mississippi-Miss State).
LSU was only too happy to replace Arkansas with Texas A&M as their season-ending game.
Arkansas-Missouri are getting matched up basically by default. There really isn’t anyone else for either to play on that weekend now.
It’s too bad that Kansas and Missouri can’t play a non-conference game annually on the last weekend of the season. Plenty of SEC east teams have non-con games that weekend. Not sure who Arkansas would play then though. They would love to play Texas every year, I’m sure, but I don’t see that happening unless the Hogs would agree to play in Austin every year on Thanksgiving!
LikeLike
it’s not just by default. It’s because 1) the two campuses are less than 300 miles apart (closer to each other than any other school), 2) they’re both relatively new additions to the league, 3) neither has a real conference rival, and 4) as programs they’re fairly evenly matched. If Arkansas wants a mutually intereted rival then Missouri is as good as they’re going to do. If they want to play like they’re not interested it’s their loss. Missouri will just drift their attention elsewhere. Maybe Kentucky.
LikeLike
“it’s not just by default.”
It is. Texas A&M and LSU both chose playing each other at the end of the year than having a match up with either Arkansas or Missouri. There really isn’t anyone else for Missouri or Arkansas to play that week. That is the definition of “by default”.
“they’re both relatively new additions to the league”
If that was important than Arkansas and South Carolina would continue to be cross over rivals and Missouri would be matched up with Texas A&M. A&M was not interested in that. I don’t think South Carolina or Arkansas were either. Missouri will rate above South Carolina, but behind at least 5 other schools on Arkansas’ radar. Great.
“If Arkansas wants a mutually interested rival then Missouri is as good as they’re going to do. If they want to play like they’re not interested it’s their loss.”
That’s what I’m telling you, man. People in Arkansas look southward. The most positive response I heard about Missouri joining the SEC in Arkansas was “meh”. Arkansas still pines for their rivalry with Texas. They completely lack objectivity and have consistently unrealistic delusions about their place in the pecking order. They all completely believed that Jon Gruden was going to be their next coach. You would fit in pretty well with Hog fans, actually, given your Delusions of Mizzou Grandeur.
Missouri is never going to mean anything to Arkansas on the football field. I don’t know why attention from Arkansas is so important to you anyway. The teams aren’t even in the same division. The only way that there will be any excitement for a season ending game with Missouri is if the outcome is the difference between the Liberty Bowl or a losing record. The fact that the team is Missouri does not matter in that case. Congrats on this great rivalry to look forward to.
“Missouri will just drift their attention elsewhere. Maybe Kentucky.”
LOL
LikeLike
“It is. Texas A&M and LSU both chose playing each other at the end of the year than having a match up with either Arkansas or Missouri. There really isn’t anyone else for Missouri or Arkansas to play that week. That is the definition of “by default”.”
Arkansas may lament their loss of a prime spot for their LSU game, but they lost it because they didn’t earn it. LSU is a class above Arkansas or Missouri. It wasn’t a logical rivalry to showcase. It was a bit like the Missouri/Nebraska rivalry. If you look at the numbers about 6% of Missouri fans and 12% of Husker fans considered that their main rivalry. Trouble was Missouri couldn’t hold their own for the most part. Sure Missouri won 4 of their last 8 against Nebraska, but they lost a whole bunch before that. Arkansas loses to LSU too much and isn’t on their level. So the league is matching them up with someone more on their level. But it wasn’t just the league. Arkansas specifically requested this. Gary Pinkel has gone on record multiple times saying that he and Missouri waited to keep A&M as Missouri’s rival to help with Texas recruiting. This was Arkansas’s idea, not Missouri’s. Also, Arkansas was one of the bigger proponents (along with Vanderbilt and Florida) of Missouri’s invitation to the SEC. They see that Missouri is nearby and would make a good rival. Also they want to recruit more in Missouri. Also Missouri had a 36 year basketball series that ended in the late 90s. There’s a lot of history between the two schools and the fans are familiar with each other.
“If that was important than Arkansas and South Carolina would continue to be cross over rivals and Missouri would be matched up with Texas A&M. A&M was not interested in that. I don’t think South Carolina or Arkansas were either. Missouri will rate above South Carolina, but behind at least 5 other schools on Arkansas’ radar. Great.”
Of course Arkansas and South Carolina don’t care about each other. They’re 1000 miles apart and have nothing in common. How do you build a rivalry on that?
“That’s what I’m telling you, man. People in Arkansas look southward. The most positive response I heard about Missouri joining the SEC in Arkansas was “meh”. Arkansas still pines for their rivalry with Texas. They completely lack objectivity and have consistently unrealistic delusions about their place in the pecking order. They all completely believed that Jon Gruden was going to be their next coach. You would fit in pretty well with Hog fans, actually, given your Delusions of Mizzou Grandeur.
Missouri is never going to mean anything to Arkansas on the football field. I don’t know why attention from Arkansas is so important to you anyway. The teams aren’t even in the same division. The only way that there will be any excitement for a season ending game with Missouri is if the outcome is the difference between the Liberty Bowl or a losing record. The fact that the team is Missouri does not matter in that case. Congrats on this great rivalry to look forward to.”
Your entire basis of evidence seems to be on the way things have gone in the past. Well, in the past Missouri was not in the SEC, was not Arkansas’s designated rival in football and basketball, did not play them every Thanksgiving on national tv, the fans did not interact very much, did not travel in hordes the 290 mile distance between campuses for games, etc etc. The future will be different from the past. Things change. The world is not static. You seem unable to conceptualize this for some reason.
“LOL”
And I think I’ve just found the reason. You have a bad attitude about this whole thing. Maybe based on a grudge or something else. No idea, not my problem, I doubt I can fix it. You’ll see it when it happens. Your arguments fall far short of compelling.
LikeLike
The points you seem to be missing:
1. Arkansas is not seeking out Missouri as a rival. No one is happy to see Missouri replacing LSU as a season-ending game and there are 4 annual games that Arkansas will look forward more than Missouri.
2. Your desperate attempt to build up Arkansas as a rival for Missouri is sad in-and-of-itself.
Oh, and…
“Of course Arkansas and South Carolina don’t care about each other. They’re 1000 miles apart and have nothing in common. How do you build a rivalry on that?”
…what does that say then about the fact that Texas A&M would prefer to play South Carolina on a yearly basis than Missouri?
LikeLike
So…when MO and ARKY fans get together… are the winners the one’s who have the bigger family stump or trunk? or who has more teeth?
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2010/04/20100419/SBJ-In-Depth/What-Makes-Fans-Crazy-About-Sports.aspx
What makes fans like various sports? There are some interesting results.
LikeLike
Woo Hoo! University of Illinois alum Ang Lee wins Best Director!
LikeLike
That pick earned me a tie for 1st in my Oscar pool. Thought I’d blown it after picking Emmanuelle Riva to upset (one of my favs) J-Law for best Actress. People just aren’t
willing to believe that Hollywood doesn’t like Spielberg. With that said, Lee deserved it.
LikeLike
Lincoln wasn’t that good – the cast shines, but the script sags.
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
Nikki Finke agrees with you about Spielberg
Everything in Hollywood is agenda driven. That’s why I always say, when it comes to its biggest awards, what’s important are the scars, not the Oscars. Here’s how to handicap them: just look for whomever is envied most by members of the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and bet those names probably won’t get called onstage tonight. That’s why few think Steven Spielberg has any real shot at Best Director or his Lincoln at Best Picture. Of course he thinks he deserves both. But when you’ve been moviedom’s legend for seemingly forever, the Academy voters can’t wait to knock you off your pedestal. OK, I’ll say it; Hollywood actually hates Spielberg. And denying him an Oscar is their unsubtle way of showing it.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/oscars-2013-live-coverage-commentary-nikki-finke-live-snarking/
LikeLike
Yeah, I was so surprised that Affleck didn’t even get nominated for that one that I figured it would end up going to Lee. Just seemed too obvious to pencil in Spielberg
I ended up outsmarting myself on actress and animation (should have just stuck with Pixar) though.
LikeLike
He won almost every other directing award leading up to it, but didn’t even get nominated. Ouch. Now that’s a snub. Argo was great. Sadly, I think Jessica Chastain deserved best actress, but fell prey to controversy, as did Zero Dark Thirty in general.
I too got animation wrong (choosing Wreck it Ralph over Brave).
LikeLike
Steve’s best movie was Jaws, that was what 30 years ago. He doesn’t have enough style or interesting things going on to win one. He makes a lot of good movies, but I wouldn’t say I ever seen one outside of Jaws that blew me away in any particular way.
LikeLike
First time I saw Jurassic Park I was pretty floored. Granted I was pretty young but seeing those dinosaurs blew me away. (Though now I would rank Jurassic Park as my fourth or fifth favorite Spielberg film behind Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and possibly Close Encounters.)
LikeLike
@frug – Yes, at the time that Jurassic Park came out, it was a quantum leap in terms of what could be put on a movie screen. It helped that I was pretty obsessive about dinosaurs growing up. (My favorite dinosaur was Triceratops, by the way, just like the Sam Neil character.)
I do think Saving Private Ryan was quite an accomplishment by Steven Spielberg (and that was a situation where he won Best Director but the film, very wrongly IMHO, lost to Shakespeare in Love for Best Picture due to the Weinstein campaign machine). It might be largely carried by the opening D-Day scene, but man, those first 20 minutes are about as stunning as you can get. He also deserved all of the accolades that he received for Schindler’s List.
Prior to 2009, I was pretty good about seeing all of the Best Picture nominees by the time the Oscars aired, but the arrival of twins has pretty much cramped my ability to watch anything that isn’t on Netflix these days. I did get to see Silver Linings Playbook, which I thought was great.
LikeLike
Frank – speaking of Saving Pvt Ryan, Tom Hanks played a large part in establishing the National D-Day Museum, now known as the national WWII Museum in New Orleans, along with former LSU professor and Wisconsin native Stephen Ambrose (Band of Brothers). New Orleans native Andrew Higgins invented the landing craft, also know as the Higgins boats, used for the Normandy invasion. If you are ever in New Orleans, I highly recommend it.
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/
Also, speaking of Netflix, I just spent the weekend watching House of Cards. GREAT SHOW!
LikeLike
Allen – Andrew Jackson Higgins was a Nebraska native. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Higgins
LikeLike
Mike – sorry for the oversight. Higgins did spend most of his life in and around New Orleans. His business was there and he’s buried there. He may have been born and reared in Nebraska, but New Orleans was his home.
LikeLike
Allen – I know, I was just teasing you.
LikeLike
@Frank
Get used to being familiar with the best animated category. I was looking at a list of best pictures and I had seen nearly all from the mid-70s up until the time the kids arrived. Since then, I’ve seen less than half.
Shakespeare In Love was entertaining and creative, but how that can compare to Saving Private Ryan, I don’t know. The most memorable moments IMO were in the battle at the end with the hand to hand combat while the interpreter freezes.
LikeLike
Yeah, I essentially had to plan weeks in advance to get out to see The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises this past summer. I do want to see all of the Best Picture nominees from this year, but it looks like I’ll be waiting for the Blu-Rays or streaming. The kids are already within the holds of Disney (especially my daughter, who is captivated by the Disney Princesses). Fortunately, the Pixar movies are generally very good (although I’ll agree with the commenter that said that Brave and Cars 2 were the weakest Pixar films to date). They also enjoy The Muppets and the Star Wars characters, so that brings me a lot of joy as a big fan of both. Netflix streaming is honestly strongest in the kids/animation category – pretty much every kids TV show is on there along with a wide movie selection.
LikeLike
The only category I have business commenting on was Best Animated Feature. And I’m disappointed with the result: Wreck It Ralph was IMHO clearly superior to Brave. I think the voters are just too conditioned to automatically vote for Pixar at this point, but Brave was not up to snuff with their typical fare (on top of Cars 2, which is clearly the worse Pixar film to date). Wreck it Ralph was actually a great film, easily the best Disney film since the 90’s Renaissance.
LikeLike
Interesting article on academic performance and competition. Certainly the part about equal matchups is relevant to athletics as well. If there is a big gap, the weaker does poorer than they do in an equal match (the probability of decades long winning streaks is pretty low).
IMO there are people who thrive on stress and competition (academic or athletic) and there are people who do worse. There are probably more who do worse. Those who thrive on it are the big stars in athletics.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578326012943490422.html
ESPN withdrawing from UK/Ireland after losing auctions on Premier League matches. They’re also thinking about winding down ESPN Classic in Europe, Middle East, and Asia.
Also worth noting that this follows a wind-down of most of ESPN’s operations in Asia. They sold out of a 50-50 joint venture with News Corp that ran ESPN Star Sports which managed 28 Asian networks (focusing on cricket as well as other sports popular in that region).
What does this mean?
Well, it means that ESPN has largely withdrawn to the US and Latin America.
LikeLike
Hmmm…. it’s always good to be reminded how large Murdock’s media empire is. Planet spanning. Murdock has set his eyes on ESPiN. He is succeeding.
To touch on other topics: now that ESpin has lost Asia and now Europe, how can it allow the ACC to be lost?
LikeLike
Yeah, Fox Sports is bigger outside the US than ESPN, especially after taking over ESPN Star Sports. I’d imagine all of those channels will be branded Fox Sports eventually like their US and Latin American channels already are.
Of course, this all just heightens the stakes in the US battle that’s about to unfold later this year with FS1 and FS2 debuting…
LikeLike
Why not expand to 18 teams and structure 3 divisions each with 6 teams? Controversy may arise when determining which division champions to play in the conference championship. But clever tie breakers can be arranged. Such tie breakers can be arranged by having pairs of teams play the same pairs of teams of other divisions with 2 cross-over games among the other 2 divisions. This effectively creates 3 temporary 6-team “out-of-division” pods that rotate every 2 years during a 6-year period. Thus, one tie breaker could be to win both the pod and the division. There may be special cases; these need to be identified and handled using special tie-breaker rules. One special case would be 3 division teams each with 9-0 conference records. This would be statistically possible but rare. The irony in this case is that the team not selected for the championship game would instead probably have a high chance to be one of the 4 teams selected for the BCS Championship playoff.
LikeLike
First…get the NCAA rules changed that allow the 13th game for 12+ team conferences, divided into two full RR playing divisions. Then talk of alternative methods.
LikeLike
Radi,
“Why not expand to 18 teams and structure 3 divisions each with 6 teams?”
Because current NCAA rules do not allow you to get a 13th game exemption for the CCG if you do that.
“Controversy may arise when determining which division champions to play in the conference championship.”
You think? Does the B10 really want large blocks of fans disparaging the strength of another division? The media and SEC fans already do that for us.
“But clever tie breakers can be arranged. Such tie breakers can be arranged by having pairs of teams play the same pairs of teams of other divisions with 2 cross-over games among the other 2 divisions.”
So you want to flex schedule 2 games to end the season? There are logistical issues, but it’s doable.
“This effectively creates 3 temporary 6-team “out-of-division” pods that rotate every 2 years during a 6-year period. Thus, one tie breaker could be to win both the pod and the division.”
You may want write out an example schedule in more detail because your description is a little confusing.
“There may be special cases; these need to be identified and handled using special tie-breaker rules. One special case would be 3 division teams each with 9-0 conference records. This would be statistically possible but rare. The irony in this case is that the team not selected for the championship game would instead probably have a high chance to be one of the 4 teams selected for the BCS Championship playoff.”
But not as good a chance as the winner of the CCG. What if the team left out was the best of the three and deserved the higher seed in the playoff?
LikeLike
Can be done effectively in one week. Division rankings:
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6
Schedule and tie-breakers ranks across each position ~ the firsts are ranked, the seconds are ranked, the thirds are ranked, etc.
Highest ranking 2nd is the tie breaker. If the highest second place team is not in the same division as the highest first place team, then its:
Top Ranking Division winner hosts Wildcard
Second Ranking Division winner hosts Third Ranking Division winner
If the highest second place team is IN the same division as the highest first place team, then its:
Top Ranking Division winner hosts Third Ranking Division winner
Second Ranking Division winner hosts Wildcard
Second ranking second place hosts third ranking second place.
Repeat the same for the 3/4 and the 5/6, who are obviously playing more for bowl positioning, qualifying to go bowling, and consolation games, but at least half of the bottom third across the three divisions end the year with a win.
Benefits over a two week round robin tie breaker is only one week of flex game scheduling.
Ideally this Would be a 10 game conference schedule with no locked cross-division games, so in-division, each of the opposing divisions and the flex schedule at the end is 5-2-2-1.
West: UNL, IA, WI, MN, NW, IL
Central: IN, PU, MSU, TSUN, OSU, Rutgers
South: FSU, PSU, UNC, UVA, MD
LikeLike
I think the ADs would have very serious reservations about final-week flex scheduling. There’s a very real possibility that you’d have a bunch of very poorly-attended games, aside from the two games that have playoff implications. That’s before you consider the logistical issues, such as travel.
LikeLike
And quite justifiably so ~ its just a gimmick to get around the NCAA forbidding two round championship series. In sports leagues that have bottom layer playoffs, its normally to avoid relegation, so what you are “winning” is staying at that level the next year rather than dropping down. Most of the middle games would be for qualifying to go bowling and fighting for bowl positioning, which is pretty hard to get all that excited about if its not a rivalry game, and all that would be on the line in the second 6th hosting third 6th would be who actually is the worst team in the conference, which seems like it would be a hard sell for tickets.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 is correct that this proposal is not permitted under current NCAA rules. If the rule were altered, the best system is to have no divisions at all, and pair the top two teams at the end of the season in a CCG.
Under your system, you could have Division A with two 11-1 squads, and Divisions B/C each with mediocre champions. Your CCG could feature an 11-1 team vs. an 8-4 team, when a re-match of the two 11-1 teams would clearly be far more satisfactory. As long as they’re revising the rule, they might as well revise it to allow the two 11-1’s to play. (Note that the pro leagues don’t have this problem, because they all have some sort of provision for wild-cards to qualify.)
LikeLike
Further, allowing a two round knockout allows three division champions and a wildcard. Three six-team divisions and playing through the other two divisions across three years is same cohesiveness as the various rotating groups to form championship division systems. But a two round conference knockout would face substantially more NCAA resistance than allowing a one-off conference championship that is not between division champs.
LikeLike
Bear in mind, there’s a lot of concern among coaches, ADs, and presidents about expanding the length of the season. Changing the qualification rules for a game that is going to be played no matter what, is a lot different than adding an extra week and two brand new games.
LikeLike
Strong disagreent. See: multiple previous discussions relating size and creating a way to adequately discover best of a half and creat a 13th game as a deciding playoff. Never was intended to be the top two in the conference. It is a happy coincidence when that happens though.
LikeLike
Who cares what it was originally intended to be? Every rule that’s changed — and they change all the time — was originally intended to be something else.
LikeLike
Get it changed, or altered, to reflect a new intent. Until then it is the governing reason for the rule as it stands.
LikeLike
I think we all understand that it’s a mere proposal at the moment. About ninety-eight percent of the topics discussed on this forum are things that haven’t happened yet, and may never happen. If you can discuss Johns Hopkins joining the Big Ten, you can discuss scheduling possibilities if a particular rule is changed. Unlike the former, the rule change is something that two conference commissioners have already suggested.
LikeLike
This is true. It’s true also that the B12 has said they might not even take advantage of it, so the juice behind the idea has perhaps backed off, UT doesn’t want it, the trial balloon snagged a branch on the way up, didn’t receive hoped for support from B1G/PAC/SEC/etc, or seems at the very least to not have any power urgently promoting it.
I find JHU, or whoever, potentiallyl moves enticing to ponder because we don’t know and are trying to decipher the parameters and influences. Until someone actually begins the process of changing a NCAA rule it is more like complaining about some particular state (city/whatever) law with your neighbors. Your neighbors can decide where to move (or not) deciding the makeup of neighborhoods (conferences).
Perhaps I missed it. Have steps been taken to change this particular rule? I don’t know if this would be readily public information.
LikeLike
Interesting thread on KU Scout board from Kevin Harlan, who apparently does some play-by-play of KU basketball…..is considered a legit source by those on the board……anyway, according to 2 “reliable BT sources” KU. MO, and TX are all being looked at by the BIG….along with UNC, VA…..again, according to these sources, BIG would go to 16 sooner rather than later, then consider going to 20 within 2-3 time frame……these guys said BIG was not looking futher east…ie no BC, U Conn…..I listened to the interview with the guy and he certainly is accurately reporting what he heard…..now, whether what he heard is accurate….can’t say.
LikeLike
Main thing I got out of this interview is that there is a lot of internal discussion in the BIG about which direction(s) to go and how many to go to….I wonder if the western teams are uneasy about adding 4 eastern/soutern teams?? Overall, I was left with the impression that going to 16 ifrom ACC area is probable…then who knows
LikeLike
Other thing of interest was that the guy picked up this info at OSU-OSU bball game….so at least one of the sources is probably from OSU…….
LikeLike
OSU-MSU that is……
LikeLike
He did say that he talked with someone who was with the conference, so I’m assuming there was a B1G official there he may have spoken to about this issue.
It’s interesting, to say the least. I seem to recall OSU President Gordon Gee said the B1G was looking at a school in the Midwest. Kansas is an AAU program and there is the Kansas City metropolitan area to consider, but does this fit with the B1G’s demographics talking point?
If the conference is looking at going to 16 as an interim step to 20, perhaps Kansas is part of that conversation IRT the interim step. It would mean dealing with the Grant of Rights issue though and I wonder how much of a deterrent that would be to the B1G. He did talk about Kansas State having to be a package deal, but they weren’t sure if that was reality or not for the state legislature.
But if Delany and the B1G braintrust feel they can’t move North Carolina into the conference and Georgia Tech doesn’t make sense at this time, could teams #15 and #16 be Virginia and Kansas? Does that scenario make sense?
If KU left the Big XII, the conference would immediately have to get a replacement and might also consider going beyond 10 members to 12 (or maybe more). I don’t know if they’d promote another Texas-based school to the conference (SMU, Houston) or they’d approach some ACC programs (FSU, Clemson) or even ask BYU or a Mountain West program to join. If nothing else, it would definitely stir the pot there.
Now if the B1G was looking to go to 20, then the pool of teams could be Texas or Missouri (per this interview), Notre Dame (and yes I realize that’d be a long shot), and the ACC schools we’ve talked about before–UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech and Florida State.
I’m having a hard time thinking Texas is a possibility. Harlan did mention that the LHN wasn’t working out (and my own personal note is that DeLoss Dodds isn’t getting any younger). It would also mean splitting from the other schools in the state plus Oklahoma (which would put the Pac 12 in an interesting situation, not to mention the SEC). It’s interesting to note they still have eyes on UT though.
Would Missouri really leave the SEC? Harlan said it wasn’t something they’d do right away (it’d be four or more years down the line), but I suppose it’s an outside possibility if it doesn’t work out for Mizzou in the SEC (and that’s hard to imagine as well). If KU were in the B1G, it’d certainly put that rivalry back on line (along with Illinois).
We’ll see what happens. If it were to work out such that Kansas and Virginia were #15 and #16, then a fixed east-west 8-team division split could go like this:
West – Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State
East – Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia
Pods, anyone?
A: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
B: Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State
C: Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
D: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia
I don’t think Wisconsin would be happy with that particular setup, but if the B1G went to 20 teams and they all were from the east, then they’d slip back to the far western pod.
LikeLike
It certainly is a crazy scenario. Mizzou and KU to the B1G always made sense along with Nebraska. I will be absolutely shocked if it happens though.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Pods, anyone?
A: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
B: Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State
C: Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
D: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia
I don’t think Wisconsin would be happy with that particular setup, but if the B1G went to 20 teams and they all were from the east, then they’d slip back to the far western pod.”
There’s no way WI gives up those rivalries. They were upset about losing just IA. MSU would complain, too. I assume you are locking games there.
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, KS
N – MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, PU, IN
E – MI, PSU, RU, MD, UVA
Locked game – MI/MSU or MI/OSU, whichever isn’t in division
9 games (7-2)
LikeLike
If the BIG is looking at Mizzou, they should move fast. Once the SEC network is in place, a GOR will part of the contract with ESPN. Prying Mizzou out of the SEC at that point will be impossible.
LikeLike
It would seem that adding KU and/or Missouri would only make sense with a massive home run or two added on. Does anyone have an idea of what type of uptick in revenues those schools would bring on their own?
LikeLike
It would seem that adding KU and/or Missouri would only make sense with a massive home run or two added on. Does anyone have an idea of what type of uptick in revenues those schools would bring on their own?
I would have agreed with 8 months ago, but the Big Ten thinks they can get value out of a Maryland and Rutgers pairing, I don’t see why Mizzou and KU would be a problem.
LikeLike
Exactly. All talk of Missouri not adding enough revenue went out the window when 1) the SEC decided Missouri was “worthy” and 2) the B1G resorted to adding Rutgers.
LikeLike
Frug:
Do MU and KU provide inroads into NY, NJ, VA, MD and create further opportunity on the eastern seaboard? They would be good strictly in a one to one school comparison that didn’t include UVA or UNC or massive eastern markets. But what comes after them? Are they 15 and 16 and we’re done? How does this aid in attracting UVA, UNC and/or FSU?
LikeLike
@ccrider55
I was talking about just Mizzou and Kansas in isolation. Obviously if the Big Ten plans on continuing moving down the East Coast MU and KU wouldn’t make much sense.
LikeLike
Thought so.
Perhaps Frank is right and the ACC is much stronger than the current blogosphere prognosticators think. I thought so too until getting too immersed in the minutiae getting to 18 or 20 involved. Would a rumor like this possibly cause a bit of concern in those schools maybe possibly considering leaving the ACC that the ship WILL sail in time for media negotiations?
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Main thing I got out of this interview is that there is a lot of internal discussion in the BIG about which direction(s) to go and how many to go to….I wonder if the western teams are uneasy about adding 4 eastern/soutern teams??”
Of course they are. Delany is talking about adding an east coast HQ, the whole realignment process was seemingly focused on getting OSU and MI in NYC and DC as often as possible and all the talk has been about demographics and the growing regions of the country. Also, there are pragmatic concerns for them like travel and adding areas where they can recruit students and players. Nobody likes to be the outlier, and the western schools have to be feeling that way a bit.
“Overall, I was left with the impression that going to 16 ifrom ACC area is probable…then who knows”
Until proven otherwise, the B12 teams aren’t available.
LikeLike
This seems plausible to me.
BruceMcF made a great analogy above about the process being more similar to an uphill climb vs. a snowball. I think he’s right. I think it is probably misleading to think about this as “Conference Expansion” in the first place.
It looks a lot more like contraction and optimization.
LikeLike
So far, with all of the moves that have been made, I think there are only two teams that were in an AQ conference eight years ago that will not be in a “Guaranteed Access” conference in 2014, and one team that was not in an AQ conference that has moved up (-UC, -Uconn, +TCU). Other than that its been more like switching partners during a square dance.
LikeLike
Kansas makes a ton of sense: new state, AAU membership, national basketball brand. Now if only they could get out of that GOR and get rid of Kansas State. Kansas, UVA, GT, and UNC are the only four adds that are in a new continuos state and AAU. You could throw Missouri in there but I doubt they would leave the SEC.
LikeLike
Except KU does have GOR, they probably do have a KSU problem, their state has barely 2M people total, the are pretty much the last ranked school in the entire AAU and will probably lose AAU status, they do very little research, their USNews ranking sucks, they’re terrible at football, they have a crappy stadium, pathetic football attendance, and they’ve sworn to Missouri fans that they are morally superior because they are eternallly loyal to the Big 12.
LikeLike
Okay, Miserable Andy here has been spouting some grade A bullshit for awhile and we all know it. Kansas is in no way in danger of losing its AAU status. The medical school just received a National Cancer Institute designation along with the millions of research dollars associated with it. The idea that KU is about to lose AAU status is as probable as IU losing its AAU status. The AAU is also not out to further thin out its membership. KU’s fanbase reaches well into the Missouri side of the KC metro area (2million) as well as reaching down through Oklahoma and barely into Texas, and also having a sizable outpost of fans in the Denver area (not that would matter to the Big Ten). The market for KU basketball on TV throughout the KU footprint is exactly what the Big Ten Network desires.
There isn’t a KSU problem because at the end of the day, the BOR isnt going to prevent one of their universities from being apart of an academic consortium with the likes of Michigan, Northwestern, Penn State, and Maryland.
LikeLike
oh look, a ku fan. but why is he talking to me? I thought they don’t care at all about Missouri now?
In the entire AAU, KU ranks next to last in USNews ranking, next to last in research budget. Maybe the AAU won’t thin it’s ranks anymore, but if it does KU and Oregon will be the first ones to go.
As for fans, yeah, you have a lot of basketball fans all over the country, no doubt. I granted you that one. There’s no denying it. But you hardly have any football fans. That’s a fact.
And was that last sentence of yours a direct quote from Governor Jay Nixon? Don’t let the other beaker fans here you say stuff like that. They’ll call you a traiter and refuse to talk to you for the next 100 years.
LikeLike
He’s talking to you because you’ve consistently bad-mouthed the University of Kansas. If you’re going to attack someone’s alma mater, don’t be surprised if it generates a response.
With respect to the AAU, it took ten years of probation before Nebraska got the boot. Kansas is built differently from NU, as well. KU’s Medical Center is included in their research profile. In addition, the University has less of an agricultural research track, which the AAU discounts.
As the original poster mentioned, the Medical Center just received the NCI designation. The Engineering School has broken ground on three new buildings in the last ten years and is well on their way to doubling enrollment within the next five years. The School of Business has acquired over half their private donations for a new $60mm building within seven months of starting a campaign. KU Endowment has broken its annual giving records 5 years running, as well. The new chancellor (UNC’s former #2) seems to have the ship righted. UNL was a warning shot across the bow, but we’re not on probation and we’re moving in the right direction.
LikeLike
@Andy
How do you know its not Missouri that’s at the bottom of that AAU listing? Your president said Missouri’s AAU standing wasn’t at risk, …for now. The clear implication was that Missouri was one of the half dozen or so near the bottom (as you have acknowledged). But Missouri could be any one of those half dozen. There are no names of the AAU members on that list. All of the bottom half dozen are below a significant number of non-members on the metrics and could be at risk if the AAU decides to go through this procedure again (IMO while possible, its probably unlikely).
LikeLike
Missouri is clearly one of the bottom teams in the AAU metrics.
LikeLike
“Except …”
… and also, get more people in their state, making new residents for their state at a faster clip. Kansas is 2.9m people. Florida is 19.3m, North Carolina is 9.7m, Virginia is 8.2m, the Atlanta Urbanized Area is 4.5m (the MSA is 5.3m, but I think the Urbanized area is a better proxy for the GTech market area), and all growing at a faster clip than Kansas.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Interesting thread on KU Scout board from Kevin Harlan, who apparently does some play-by-play of KU basketball”
Link, or is it premium?
“anyway, according to 2 “reliable BT sources” KU. MO, and TX are all being looked at by the BIG….along with UNC, VA”
Depending on what “looked at” means, I’m not surprised. Those are the only AAU schools to the west that might be options (TAMU always wanted the SEC). It doesn’t mean the GOR or Tech problem (or KSU problem) have gone away, nor that MO would be willing to move again.
“again, according to these sources, BIG would go to 16 sooner rather than later, then consider going to 20 within 2-3 time frame”
Taking time to absorb new additions, see what happens and get closer to the new TV deal makes sense. I can’t see going to 18 or 20 before 2016.
“these guys said BIG was not looking futher east…ie no BC, U Conn”
No shock there, either. They were never good candidates for the B10.
LikeLike
There’a link to the interview on the KU basketball scout thread…..note…the realignment discussion is about 20 minutes into the interview…
LikeLike
Harlan was surprised at how seriously MO and KU were being looked at/considered….you can tell he’s not a “realignment guy” and was just surprised at that…..there is some discussion about whether/not KU has a ‘KSU problem” but no discussion about GOR issues….there is a little discussion of LHN….
LikeLike
This all sounds like old news. MU/KU/UT to the Big Ten was talked about a couple years ago. Seems to me like there’s no way for it to happen now.
LikeLike
I’ll put it this way: I’m giving Harlan zero credibility on this even though he’s in a position to hear something if only because his story doesn’t sound very plausible at all, but if some seperate source comes out and says they also hear that this is what’s happening then I’ll start to pay attention. As it is I’m going to assume it was a misunderstanding.
LikeLike
I agree with Andy here.
That threesome was discussed a lot before the Pac-16 offer arrived, and then later before Missouri went to the SEC and the Big 12 instituted a GOR.
But too many things have changed now to make that scenario more or less a moot point.
The Big Ten is eyeing the Southeast now, especially after Maryland/Rutgers.
LikeLike
I haven’t listened to it, but I saw two other people give a different interpretation of the KU bit. They didn’t interpret what he said as them being seriously considered, just as “considered.” One thought it was more wishful thinking.
LikeLike
This goes in line with the offhand reference earlier to a couple of Midwestern schools.
The main strategic reason for considering them now is to take seriously the analysis of risk of foreclosed future expansion opportunities by moving eastward now. There would be those raising those possibilities, and a serious evaluation cannot simply ignore suggestions that have been raised by member institutions.
It can, however, conclude that the combination of limited apparent benefit and limited apparent prospect of the institutions being available factor together to establish that the risk of foreclosed expansion opportunities in moving in that direction is modest, and need not interfere with an eastern expansion.
LikeLike
I would stay with my original guess UVA and Pitt. The western schools can not be happy with all the talk of NC schools. UVA finishes off Washington and northern VA,Pitts only – is, the state is in the bag with Penn State . Yet Penn State has been gutted ,so Pitt has big value for 8 years.The ACC will not break up losing Pitt and UVA.Stop and wait. Maybe we add 1 school from the west and 1 from the east. Let the pot simmer maybe ND or Texas who knows ? At 16 we might want to stay at 16 for 10 years .
LikeLike
I could see someone in the Big Ten floating a few rumors about Kansas, etc, in order to give North Caroline, Virginia, whoever, the impression that maybe the B1G will not always be there to fall back on if the ACC implodes. And if they want to come now and with the greatest number of their neighbors, it would be best not to wait too long…
LikeLike
So the western schools would balk at North Carolina? Pray tell, on what grounds? It seems like any expansion east of Columbus would have pretty much the same impact on their schedule, and it seems as if for most of them a primary point of distinction is how the various adds affect conference media revenue.
UVA/Pitt seems more to me like a Plan C, if no combination involving UNC/FSU is available and/or acceptable to a sufficient number of Presidents. Though like SEC fans and VTech / NC State as a possible PlanB to “UNC+somebody”, its not a fallback plan I would be particularly unhappy with if the conference settles at 16.
LikeLike
Let me put a totally different spin on this.
In the M&A business, it’s standard procedure to benchmark a target with its “comparables.” You’re considering an acquisition of X, and you compare it to everyone else who is “like X”, regardless of whether they’re available. Your enthusiasm for acquiring X might be different if X is “the best there is,” vs. “the third best, but the best we can get.” Of course, in M&A there is also a price involved. A really cheap price for the third-best company in its sector might still be a bargain. But you’d like to know that before making a bid.
How does that apply to the Big Ten? Let’s say you’re considering five schools: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, and FSU. To make the analysis even more thorough, you throw Texas, Mizzou, and KU into the mix, even though you know you can’t get them. Heck, include Vanderbilt for the fun of it.
Now, if it turns out that Missouri is objectively the third-best school — according to whatever criteria you’re using — it would really give you pause to add four ACC schools, because you’d be adding two that are worse than Missouri. You might say, “Let’s wait a while, and see how the SEC works out for Missouri, because maybe we can get them later on.”
On the other hand, if it turned out that Missouri was sixth-best, then you’d feel a lot more confident about adding four ACC schools. Texas, of course, is probably the ultimate no-go; still, in a traditional M&A analysis, it’s not unusual to include every comparable, even the ones you know you can’t get.
(I made those rankings up. I am not suggesting that Missouri is third or sixth best among that list of schools. I’m also not suggesting that UNC is “available” in the same way FSU is. It’s just an illustration.)
LikeLike
I think you’re overthinking this. I think Harlan either misunderstood someone or he talked to someone who is full of shit. The rumor is that the Big Ten is “surprisingly serious” about getting MU and KU. This does not fit in with your theory.
LikeLike
@Andy: Actually, unless someone is really incompetent at the Big Ten, they would almost certainly be doing an analysis such as the one I suggested. More likely, freshening up an analysis they already did before Nebraska joined. It’s basic due diligence.
Harlan is probably talking to someone a step or two removed from the inner circle, so I don’t read much into the words “surprisingly serious.” Mind you, I am not discounting the possibility of actual interest. I am just pointing out a very plausible way that those schools could be on the radar, without any chance of them actually moving.
LikeLike
Well if that’s the case then Harlan got the message completely wrong. Theoretical analysis does not in any way resemble “surprisngly serious”. That would be a major miscommunication.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten is doing the kind of analysis that Marc is talking about, in a professionally competent way, and somebody was not familiar with that kind of approach, it WOULD seem surprisingly serious, because done professionally the unavailable options are done every bit as seriously as the live options. Doing it as anything other than a serious analysis would defeat the purpose of doing it: it doesn’t give the best informed analysis of where the value of UNC or Duke or FSU stands relative to Kansas or Texas or Oklahoma unless you do the analysis of the presently moot options every bit as seriously as you do the analysis of the live options.
LikeLike
An interesting theory. Certainly not impossible.
LikeLike
There have been historic expansion tidbits going back to the early 90s talking about Big10 looking at Kansas and Missouri, and I don’t see why they would not still “look” at them.
By my count there are 36 AAU schools that play at the highest level in College Football. Counting Maryland and Rutgers, 13 of them reside in the Big 10. Another 8 are located in the Pac 12 and no one is leaving that conference.
That leaves 15 schools.
5 ACC
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Pitt
Duke
Virginia
3 Big 12
Iowa State
Kansas
Texas
4 SEC
Florida
Missouri
Texas A&M
Vanderbilt
1 Each from Big East, CUSA and MAC
Tulane
Rice
Buffalo
Lets ignore for a moment GOR and what not. If first you eliminate duplication of states (markets) already covered by Big 10 network the number of options drops to 13 with the elimination of Iowa State and Pitt. If North Carolina says yes, then Duke potentially is a duplicate as well, but that has yet to be sorted. I agree with many that though Duke is terrible at Football, they do provide value on top of North Carolina. Duke has a nationwide following, when I lived in Omaha i had to deal with a bunch of a Duke fans, now that I live in Amsterdam, I still see countless Duke hats walking around the city, though I have no idea if they are expats, locals, or tourists.
I think it is safe to say the Big 10 would not look at Tulane, Rice or Buffalo, so the Big 10 really only has 10 options if AAU is in fact a key component, and of course 11 if you add the always present wild card that is Notre Dame.
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Duke
Virginia
Kansas
Texas
Florida
Missouri
Texas A&M
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
Contiguity is also an important factor based on comments from the Big 10, 5 are contiguous.
Virginia
Kansas
Missouri
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
With Virginia North Carolina and Duke would then be contiguous, then Georgia Tech, then Florida.
The only schools that couldn’t be made contiguous with adding other AAU schools would be Texas A&M and Texas.
Some of this talk is pointless; I agree for the most part that no one is going to leave the SEC. It’s a great conference, it has lots of history, it is made up of like-minded schools, and it makes money. I could see a very limited chance Vanderbilt would leave, but I also see a very limited chance Big 10 offers Vanderbilt anyways. Florida would be a slam-dunk for the Big 10, but its not going to happen. Texas A&M makes too much sense in the conference and they went through too much grief to make it happen. Now, I know Andy would disagree with me, but I don’t think Missouri is untouchable.
Missouri to me always made sense to the Big 10. Good population base, with two nice metro areas, good academics, rivalry with Illinois, potential rivalry with Iowa, they are AAU. I think they tick all the Big 10’s boxes. I think for Missouri it was just a bad place at a bad time. Missouri wanted a full share going into the Big 10, Nebraska agreed to not have an equal share, and offered a King in football. I think Nebraska made sense as number 12. I’m sure the Big 10 said to Missouri “not now, but maybe in the future” and then with the Big 12 looking at the possibility of collapsing Missouri likely made the right decision to move on and join the SEC. Now they may be in the SEC and they may be happy, but unquestionably Missouri and the Big 10 are a good match for each other. With no penalty for leaving the SEC Missouri could exit, but I think full share would be a minimum requirement with the Big 10. I just don’t see it as an impossible hurdle to pull Missouri into the Big 10.
So eliminating the rest of the SEC, the potential AAU members (and ND) stands at 8.
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Duke
Virginia
Kansas
Texas
Missouri
Notre Dame
With potentially 6 seats and only 8 options, of course the Big 10 has at minimum considered Missouri, Kansas and Texas in their analysis.
Texas is not contiguous, but I believe an exception would be made for a school like Texas big school, big academics, and great athletics. I find them more plausible as part of the Big 10 in conjunction with Missouri and Kansas.
Texas, Missouri and Kansas joining the Big 10 would be best-case scenario for me as a Husker fan, but pulling a team from the SEC, navigating a GOR in the Big 12, and taking 2-3 key members from the ACC would be a herculean task beyond anything discussed on this board before.
LikeLike
Schroeder, you’re right that Missouri is a very good match for the B1G, better than Nebraska or Rutgers even, and in some ways but not all, better than Maryland. It would have made sense for the B1G to take them. But yes they did want a full share, like you said. And they are not a football king, like you said. And they were told “maybe later” like you said. So it is what it is. Missouri is now in the SEC. Would Missouri leave the SEC? I will never say never, but it sure as heck isn’t going to happen any time soon. Maybe in 10-20 years when we have new people running the school. Right now they’re all in with the SEC, for better or worse. And the SEC is a good league. Best at football. Rising in everything else. Money is growing at a faster rate down there. I think over the long therm they’ll catch up to the B1G where they’re weaker, but it’ll take a long time. I don’t think the B1G will catch up in football.
LikeLike
“Better than Nebraska” ~ a bona fide King with national brand name recognition due to two separate dynasties decades apart. In Oz they call that being a one-eyed fan.
LikeLike
Notice I didn’t say Missouri was better at football, I said Missouri was a better fit in the Big Ten. Why?
1. AAU
2. 35k students vs 20k at Nebraska
3. higher academic ranking and more research
4. closer to the core of the Big Ten than Nebraska
5. Good at basketball (Nebraska has never won an NCAA tournament game)
6. State population is 3 times larger.
The only area where Nebraska was the better choice was football. That’s it.
LikeLike
Hope this ends up where I wanted it….
Andy, Neb’s enrollment is approx. 25000, not 20000
And Neb is better than MO not only in football, but also as an overall athletic dept. Neb’s won lots of NCs in various sports, MO 1 or 2.
Also, Neb is better than MO in terms of fan/alum/state-wide loyalty. People in Neb care a lot more about UNL than people in MO care about MO, on average.
I’ll give you your other points.
LikeLike
fair enough. I haven’t looked at Nebraska’s enrollment lately. It must have gone up.
And yes, husker fans are intense. no doubt.
And they do well in a lot of the olympic sports. Mizzou is better in men’s basketball, baseball, softball, and wrestling. Probably also women’s soccer. Nebraska’s better at most of the rest.
They’re not a bad pick. Really depends on what you value. If you value fanatical fan support, and football plus some of the olympic sports, then Nebraska is your choice. Apparently that’s what the B1G wanted.
If you want better academics, bigger markets, better basketball, etc, then Missouri would have been a better fit.
LikeLike
Ah, so you meant “better fit” like my ratty old black slacks, not “better fit” like a better solution to a problem you are trying to solve. Another phrase to express that is “mostly redundant”.
LikeLike
I see, so you are contending that B1G expansion is only about football. Sounds about right. I hear Rutgers and Maryland have killer football programs.
LikeLike
For those of you saying that Missouri was wanting a full share to join the Big Ten, you are crazy! Any team joining the Big Ten was going to have to buy in. The Big Ten wasn’t going to just give away a share of the Big Ten Network. That is mostly what Nebraska is buying into. The other 11 teams took a risk to invest into the BTN many years ago. All other conferences were not willing to take that risk at that time. It turned out to be a great investment. You don’t just give a percentage of that away… not to Nebraska, Missouri, or even to Notre Dame.
Missouri would have taken the exact same terms that Nebraska took but they weren’t offered. They didn’t have to buy into the SEC because the SEC doesn’t have an independent network. They are going to use the Texas A&M & Missouri games to help create a ‘network’. It will take decades (after their ESPN contract runs out) before their conference network will be as profitable as BTN.
LikeLike
hi husker fb fan, a whole lost of baseless guesses in that post. You don’t know what Missouri was or was not offered. You don’t know how long it will be before the SEC is profitable. That is all.
LikeLike
“I see, so you are contending that B1G expansion is only about football. Sounds about right. I hear Rutgers and Maryland have killer football programs.”
Funny that you mention two teams that support the statement rather than sarcastically undermine it as you intended.
Rutgers and Maryland were about expanding the market for the Big Ten Network, which is primarily about football, and getting recruiting grounds in more rapidly growing area, which is primarily about football, so, yes, the Rutgers and Maryland adds had football among the primary factors. As did Nebraska, as did Penn State, though for Nebraska the focus was on a different football factor, since in addition to having places to sell your brands, you need brands to sell.
And consider the game they played to get UNL in before it lost its AAU standing.
So of course football is the biggest of the primary factors.
LikeLike
That’s really a stretch. Truly. Rutgers and Maryland are weak as hell at football and dilute the B1G’s football product. Their fan support is weak as well so its questionable as to how much territory they actually deliver. I suppose the B1G should have added Rice to deliver Texas and Tulane to deliver “the south”.
LikeLike
BruceMcF I’m sorry That I was not clear . NC schools are the schools in NC that are in the ACC. The uneasyness I was talking about is, the schools in the east becoming a seperate division of the Big and not really becoming intregrated(just too many at one time) . I do not see UVA and Pitt as plan C, but as the correct step. There is nothing wrong with waiting ,no one is going to run to the SEC too many reasons for them not to.
LikeLike
I surely don’t believe that it is the correct step ~ I believe the correct step is to stop where they are. Under the criteria where UVA/Pitt is the best available next expansion, not expanding at all is better still.
That is, the rationale for expanding is to generate an increase in athletic revenues. There are expansions, that may or may not be available, that seem like they would do that. But if its not in pursuit of an increase in athletic revenues ~ and putting UVA/Pitt first makes it clear that its not in pursuit of an increase in athletic revenues ~ why expand just for its own sake?
LikeLike
Andy… The SEC Network will be very profitable rather quickly it just won’t be as profitable or as valuable as the BTN until after the current SEC contract with CBS & ESPN expires.
LikeLike
Or maybe the SECN can charge more per subscriber than the BTN because of higher fan enthusiasm.
LikeLike
Virginia announcing a home-and-home with Boise State — the Cavs will host in 2015, the Broncos in 2017.
LikeLike
I didn’t see this posted on here earlier. FWIW Gene Smith said B1G is not aggressively pursuing expansion targets: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/2/25/4028996/big-ten-expansion-conference-realignment
LikeLike
Nice. I hope it’s true.
LikeLike
For now, all eyes are on Maryland and the ACC exit fee.
Even after that, I’m not sure there’ll be a rush to try to breakup the ACC. Nobody’s pushed past 14 yet, so there’s still a sense of stability at that number.
LikeLike
AD Smith says, “We are focused on getting Maryland and Rutgers transitioned to the Big Ten smoothly.” Translation = “We’re waiting to see if Maryland can get out of the $50 million exit fee.”
Expect the Big Ten to expand, but just don’t expect anything until this fall or early 2014…not until the Maryland lawsuit has been resolved.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure he said nothing even close to that. But whatever. You’re going to hear what you want to hear.
LikeLike
It wasn’t much of a denial, especially when coupled with Gee’s comments in December. It didn’t do anything but deny the outstanding offer rumors.
LikeLike
“We’re not doing anything right now” is pretty strong if by “not doing anything” he means “not working on expansion” and/or by “right now” he means this year. But if to him “not doing anything” means “we are working behind the scenes to make a move later but we won’t make it until later” then I guess it’s pretty weak. And if “right now” means to him “at this very instant in time but a few instants later this statement will be completely false” then of course it’s weak.
It really just depends on if he’s being honest and straightforward or if he’s BSing us.
LikeLike
I don’t think he’s BSing at all.
My guess is that the Big Ten actively discussed expansion scenarios up to 16 or 18 or 20 and may have gone as far as contacting schools such a UVa or Georgia Tech (or even UNC) to touch base.
But all of that could have been completed by the end of December or January and things are now in a holding pattern with the Big Ten not really doing anything and not contacting any schools or trying to get anyone right now.
LikeLike
If its a pretty strong statement conditional on what we elect to read into it …
… then its not all that strong a statement. And if we elect to read additional information in and then it turns out that was unwarranted, that would not be Gene Smith BSing us, it would be us BSing ourselves … a la “The Dude of WbgV”.
What it does say is that the rumors of Big Ten invitations and conditional invitations and acceptances and conditional acceptances being spread by certain hit seeking rumor mongers on the basis of highly speculative projections based on quite limited information are, SHOCKINGLY, off target. All of that WOULD BE “aggressively pursuing”, and all of that WOULD BE “right now”, so we can set all of that aside.
Which is useful.
But even according to “The Dude”, FSU is only in very preliminary examination of its prospective realignment options. Given that, that it is widely considered that UNC is not going to be a first mover, and given the August deadline to give notice to the ACC of departure for the middle of 2014 ~ it makes quite a lot of sense not to BE “aggressively pursuing expansion targets” at this point in time.
LikeLike
Well, the Dude has basically become the Drudge Report of realignment. He’s like the guy with the blaring siren and 20 false positives for every actual realignment event.
LikeLike
re: zeek “But all of that could have been completed by the end of December or January and things are now in a holding pattern with the Big Ten not really doing anything and not contacting any schools or trying to get anyone right now.”
I hope you’re right. And I suspect that you are.
LikeLike
Maybe if nothing happens for 2014 then there will be a cooling off period, and this crazy idea of 18 or 20 school conferences will die down and go away. Maybe we’ll still see 16 at some point, but hopefully cooler heads wil prevail against super-huge conferences.
LikeLike
@ zeek ~ exactly. If they talked to A, B, C, D and E, and if A and B have said, “well, we’ll have to wait and see what happens with MD’s exit fee”, C says “we’ve just started looking at that, we won’t be able to say anything firm yes or no until summer, and D and E says, “we certainly are not considering moving at this time, but thanks for the interest” …
… then back burner until summer it is.
LikeLike
Bruce, if that’s what he meant then he’s being very disingenuous, because in that case they actually are looking at expanding, and are only pausing with full intention to expand and candidates in the queue. It would be complete double talk. Not saying he wasn’t doing it. Don’t know one way or the other.
LikeLike
But he didn’t SAY “the Big Ten has not been considering expansion at all since Rutgers and Maryland joined and won’t be for the immediate future” ~ he didn’t even SAY “the Big Ten will not be aggressively pursuing expansion for the rest of this year”. He SAID the Big Ten is not (present tense simple) aggressively pursuing expansion (no comment regarding doing preliminary analysis or engaging in preliminary discussions) at this point in time (no comment about what the Big Ten will be doing this coming summer or fall or next winter).
You can INVENT a rule that the when the executive of a large organization (and his Athletic Department is clearly a large organization, with its own public relations staff) makes a deliberately worded comment for public consumption, it should be not only literally true, but also true under a wide range of other meanings projected onto the statement by the audience …
… but out here in reality, we are fortunate when it is literally true. Reading more into it than what it actually says is the job of hit-chasers like The Dude of WV.
LikeLike
your interpretation would be literally true but false in spirit. To say they are doing nothing when they are in fact doing something monumentally huge but just happen to be waiting on some things to happen at the moment would be very misleading doublespeak. There’s no way around that.
LikeLike
“To say they are doing nothing when they are in fact doing something monumentally huge but just happen to be waiting on some things to happen at the moment would be very misleading doublespeak.”
Isn’t that in the job description for these folk? 🙂
LikeLike
I’m actually saying that the fact that it only says what it actually says is nothing to complain about. Its an absurdly unrealistic demand to insist that the statement be what you are calling “true in spirit”. The person making the statement cannot be held accountable for what you decide to read into it. They can only be held accountable for what the statement in fact said.
LikeLike
If he said they are doing nothing then it shouldn’t at all mean “we just did a whole bunch and we’re about to do a lot more, but at this very moment all I’m doing is talking to you reporters”. That’s a lie. Plain and simple.
LikeLike
(1) He said “aggressively pursue”. He didn’t address whether any activity regarding expansion other than “aggressive pursuit” is taking place.
(2) He said “right now”. He didn’t address whether discussions took place and the result was that things were put on the back burner, nor whether the Big Ten actually has background work to get done before they are in a position to aggressively pursue any more options.
You are free to dislike having to read a statement carefully when it was quite possibly carefully put together, but if you mislead yourself based on that dislike, don’t blame the person who said it.
LikeLike
I suppose “aggressively pursue” is one of those terms that could mean a lot of different things. Makes the whole statement pretty meaningless.
LikeLike
I think it’s more along the lines of “14 for ’14” (let Maryland and Rutgers settle in), then “16 for ’16” (by that time, the Maryland-ACC suit should be settled, and the numbers floating about for the Big Ten’s upcoming contract will likely catch the eye of several possible candidates). If Delany uses the same timetable he used with Rutgers and Maryland, he doesn’t have to extend invitations for another 21 months or so. There’s no reason for him to hurry.
LikeLike
Oh — and I maintain that those becoming “16 for ’16” will be Georgia Tech (the most eager of the ACC AAUs to want Big Ten membership) and Virginia (which will see some of the athletic and academic advantages Maryland is getting from Big Ten membership and will try to do likewise on its side of the Potomac).
LikeLike
Of course the Big Ten said the exact stuff about not actively pursuing expansion at the same time they were in negotiations with Maryland and Rutgers so I wouldn’t read too much into this either way.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/8989200/alabama-crimson-tide-offer-scholarship-eighth-grader-dylan-moses
2017 prospect got an offer from Alabama. Of course, LSU already offered him last summer.
LikeLike
That’s what Tuberville was saying. Its just crazy in the SEC. Of course Les’ offers don’t mean anything until the 1st game starts.
LikeLike
First thing that ran through my mind when I saw the article “Just another day in the SEC”, then I saw that LSU had already offered him.
It’s another world down there; especially in the SEC West.
LikeLike
It’s also why the SEC will always outperform the B1G in the sport that matters most. When you combine a win-at-almost-all-cost mentality with the most fertile recruiting grounds in the nation…you dominate.
LikeLike
with the current 12 team lineup, we have 4 traditional kings, (PSU, OSU, Mich, Neb), and two other very strong brands, (MSU, Wisc).
every expansion scenario, means less marquee games between the bigger name schools.
the more we expand, the less marquee games there will be in the league.
there also will be more and more conference games being played and televised on a competing network (BTN) every saturday, so whoever gets the tier 1 and 2 rights, will have less and less marquee games to pick from, and will face more and more cannibalization of their audience from the competing games going on at the same time on BTN.
the B10 could also keep the requirement that everybody gets some tier 1 and 2 exposure every yr.
were i bidding on the first two picks of games in the future, (tier 1 and 2), not sure i’d see expansion as a plus to what i’m bidding on.
tier 3, (BTN), is about the home team, home market, and the number of pay tv households in that market.
tier 1 and 2, (what Disney now holds), are about viewership ratings on a national scale, and marquee matchups.
since tier 1 and 2 traditionally bring more money than tier 3, everyone assumes expansion would benefit tier 1 and 2 more than tier 3 (BTN).
added schools and inventory, while beneficial from a tier 3 pov since they bring more home schools and home markets, (even though not more beneficial enough to cover the extra shares), may not impact tier 1 and 2 in the same way as tier 3.
added schools and inventory could theoretically be seen as a negative to the tier 1 and 2 holder.
the league could theoretically move tier 1 and 2 to BTN, and hope to up both in and out of footprint fees enough to offset a seperate revenue stream for tier 1 and 2 than 3,
that would put everything on a sub fee model.
but that would also bring a whole new set of potential risks and downsides, and i still don’t think BTN could shake the “in footprint/out of footprint” fee descrepancy.
LikeLike
E.E. CUMMINGS,
I’M GOING TO USE ALL THE CAPITAL LETTERS THAT YOU DON’T.
“every expansion scenario, means less marquee games between the bigger name schools.”
NOT TRUE. I’VE SHOWN THE MATH ELSEWHERE. IT DEPENDS WHO THE B10 ADDS, HOW MANY GAMES THEY PLAY AND HOW THE TEAMS ARE ALIGNED.
“there also will be more and more conference games being played and televised on a competing network (BTN) every saturday, so whoever gets the tier 1 and 2 rights, will have less and less marquee games to pick from,”
THE TIER 1 NETWORK GETS FIRST DIBS (USUALLY). THEY DON’T CARE WHAT GOES ON THE LOWER TIERS.
LikeLike
“every expansion scenario, means less marquee games between the bigger name schools.”
As the other two who have already responded to you pointed out, this is not necessarily true.
“the more we expand, the less marquee games there will be in the league.”
Again not necessarily true.
“there also will be more and more conference games being played and televised on a competing network (BTN) every saturday, so whoever gets the tier 1 and 2 rights, will have less and less marquee games to pick from, and will face more and more cannibalization of their audience from the competing games going on at the same time on BTN.”
This makes absolutely no sense at all. Just from a conference game stand point right now with 8 games you have 12 teams and 48 conference games plus a conference championship game. If you go to say 16 teams and 9 conference games all of the sudden you have 72 conference games plus a conference championship game. You just increased the number of 50% or 1.5 times. If anything the tier 1 and 2 rights holder will have the potential for more marquee games to choose from and the additional inventory will drive up the value of Tier 1 and 2 rights.
“the B10 could also keep the requirement that everybody gets some tier 1 and 2 exposure every yr.”
How does the Big Ten keep a requirement it doesn’t have? The only requirement in the Big Ten as far as media rights goes is that everyone must appear at least twice on BTN during football season with at least one of those appearances being a conference game.
“were i bidding on the first two picks of games in the future, (tier 1 and 2), not sure i’d see expansion as a plus to what i’m bidding on.”
As illustrated above a 16 team conference with 9 conference games gives you 50% more conference games to choose from. You’ve expanded the probabilities that you are going to get at least 1 or 2 good games on a given week due to the increase in inventory. More inventory=good.
“tier 3, (BTN), is about the home team, home market, and the number of pay tv households in that market.”
That would be an oversimplification. BTN still depends on viewership numbers to command subscriber rates and determine ad rates much like an ESPN or Fox Sports would. The difference is that the conference through their ownership stake in the network gets revenue from subscribers as well.
“tier 1 and 2, (what Disney now holds), are about viewership ratings on a national scale, and marquee matchups.”
By-and-large yes. But expansion doesn’t necessarily do anything to weaken either of those. If you have 8 conference games on a given weekend versus 6, odds are more likely from the networks perspective that you’ll end up with at least 1 attractive game.
“since tier 1 and 2 traditionally bring more money than tier 3, everyone assumes expansion would benefit tier 1 and 2 more than tier 3 (BTN).”
No they don’t. If you’ve followed this blog for any period of time it is fairly clear that after adding Nebraska, there are really only a handful of schools (most are unlikely) that would bring significant value to the primary rights contracts. Hence the focus on markets and schools that could potentially add value to the Big Ten through BTN.
“added schools and inventory could theoretically be seen as a negative to the tier 1 and 2 holder.”
I honestly fail to see how unless you are so caught up on diluting the brand. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 holders are where they are because they pay more. By paying more they typically get to select ahead. For this reason they could care less about anything other than the top 2-4 games on a given weekend.
“the league could theoretically move tier 1 and 2 to BTN, and hope to up both in and out of footprint fees enough to offset a seperate revenue stream for tier 1 and 2 than 3,”
No. They’ll continue to keep a separate contract because someone like ABC, Fox, or Comcast is willing to pay more for the top tier games than the conference can currently monetize themselves on BTN.
LikeLike
“since tier 1 and 2 traditionally bring more money than tier 3, everyone assumes expansion would benefit tier 1 and 2 more than tier 3 (BTN).”
Note that this is shifting the goal posts. The argument started out that the increase in value of the BTN rights ALONE would not be enough to cover the FULL conference payout, including conference media rights, conference sponsorship and other auxilliary incomes, and NCAA unit revenues, and that the BTN rights ALONE would HAVE TO cover the FULL conference payout, which assumes that there is ZERO incremental benefit for any of the other revenue streams.
The response was that (1) the increase in value of the BTN right ALONE do not have to carry the FULL weight of the conference payout, because there will be SOME increase in the other revenue flows as well and (2) that for several of the frequently mentioned targets, the incremental revenue from BTN earnings seem quite likely to be substantially above the current average BTN payout.
Now, (1) and (2) together implies that the an add can increase the average conference payout EVEN IF it does not increase the average value of both broadcast and cable rights.
I’ve argued, and maintain, that the only ACC add that increases the average value of all three main sources of media rights revenue ~ broadcast, primary cable rights and subsidiary cable rights ~ is FSU (Texas and Notre Dame would be others but … well, Texas acts like Texas. And Notre Dame acts like Notre Dame. So they can be set to one side).
UNC surely increases the average value of both primary cable rights and subsidiary cable rights, but surely would not increase the average value of broadcast rights. Duke would plausibly increase the average primary cable rights value but would offer basically no incremental value for broadcast rights.
So my conclusion ~ not assumption ~ is that FSU would increase the average value of all three, and so its a moot point which it increases more; that UNC would increase the average value of two of the three, and since primary and subsidiary cable rights are worth much more than broadcast rights over the course of a season would surely increase the average media rights; and I am not sure whether Duke would increase the average value for primary cable rights, but would not increase the average value of either broadcast or subsidiary cable rights.
Neither FSU nor UNC fits the description “everyone assumes expansion would benefit tier 1 and 2 more than tier 3 (BTN)”[*] … no claim about relative benefit is required for FSU, and the specific claim is that UNC brings an increment to BTN revenue of between 50% and 100% above the current average, and hits somewhere in the neighborhood of par for broadcast and primary cable rights combined (probably above par, since primary cable rights are worth more than broadcast rights ~ cf the various split rights deals).
[* setting aside that tier2 is only primary cable rights when primary cable rights and broadcast
rights are split into separate contracts, so in the Big Ten at present, the BTN is the Tier2 rights. These are different contract terms to the Minimum Guarantee and Residual Royalties media deals I’m more used to studying, and I was making the same mistake myself for quite a while.]
LikeLike
“tier 1 and 2, (what Disney now holds), are about viewership ratings on a national scale, and marquee matchups.”
Yes, but you don’t exhibit any understanding of how national ratings work, and Brian how shown the arithmetic that what happens to marquee matchups depends on who is added, how schedules are organized and how many conference games that the conference plays, and is not a simple result of just how many teams are in the conference.
Certainly the Big Ten could organize things so that the total number of marquee matchups is reduced: but given that they are taking their contract on the market in a couple of years, WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO?
Assuming they will shoot themselves in the foot on media value when its possible to avoid it is one form of confirmation bias. Assuming that they will shoot themselves in the foot because you can’t be bothered to follow Brian’s reasoning on how the different factors affect the total number of marquee matchups is a different form of confirmation bias.
Neither assumption would be accepted by a genuine skeptic, since a genuine skeptic would question their own assumptions as well, and wouldn’t accept such flimsy argument as the basis for a solid conclusion of any sort.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21766955/potential-big-east-name-change-part-of-tv-negotiations
“A new television deal with ESPN, despite the low payout, allows the Big East to transition from a tumultuous 15 months.
Will a name change complete the makeover?
The Big East namesake was part of the television negotiations with NBC, according to a source — a potential provision of roughly $2 million for the network to market a new name should the league sell the Big East handle to the departing Catholic 7.”
Looks like the FB schools are willing to sell the name. Will the C7 pony up for it?
LikeLike
Interesting from BTN:
In the future, could you see the Big Ten men’s basketball tournament played in New York at Madison Square Garden or the Barclays Center, since the Big Ten wants to establish that market? – J.C.
I am sure the Big Ten will consider it. The conference will open an office in New York City in the near future to establish a presence in the East, where it has a burgeoning foothold with Rutgers and Maryland joining for 2014. And having some events in the metro area is almost a must to further establish the Big Ten in the area. The men’s hoop tourney is a natural for either of the venues you mentioned. And there could be an early-season football game in MetLife Stadium, too. I also have heard talk about maybe playing football games in Baltimore (M&T Stadium) and Washington (FedEx Field). Anything to enhance the Big Ten brand in the heavily populated Eastern corridor.
I always thought the East coast office would be in DC for some reason. Not sure how I feel about the tournament being in NY.
LikeLike
MSG prefers an annual event to a one time gig. As spread out as the B10 now is, I think it makes sense to offer NYC and DC an occasional chance to host a major event.
LikeLike
Yeah, MSG will likely lock itself up with the Catholic 7 if possible.
But I’m not sure what the situation is with Barclays Center.
LikeLike
Right now everything is on hold until the Maryland deal gets done. If the exit fee is substantially reduced (it seems likely) then I would look for the Big Ten to really get into the expansion game. Virginia and Georgia Tech would be waiting on baited breath for their Big Ten invites. That would bring them to 16 teams and really devastate the ACC.
At the same time I wonder if there will be a push by a couple candidate schools(NC State comes to mind and maybe Florida State) to really ramp up their research in order to achieve AAU status. If they could then they might become slam dunks to join the big Ten.
I think after the dust settles the Maryland deal, then you could see the Big Ten expand to 18 very quickly taking UVA, UNC, Duke and Georgia Tech.
The Big Ten would probably split into 2 divisions
West: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State
East: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers, Maryland, UNC, Duke, UVA and GT
only rivalry you would have to preserve would be Michigan/MSU.
With the ACC almost dead, I think you could see Notre Dame being forced into the Big Ten (if they wanted any type of a ‘national’ schedule) but not sure who the #20 team would be perhaps Kansas? Florida State/NC State (if they got AAU membership)
While the Big Ten football would be very good (and potentially better getting down into those football rich states) there would be no question that it would become THE premier conference as far as basketball goes.
Marquee matchups? The B10 would have UNC, Duke, IU, Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State as consistent National Title contenders plus they would have teams like Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota (and yes the Illini and Purdue) that are not pushovers more often than not.
LikeLike
Ohio State and Michigan would be adamant against being permanently placed in a division with Rutgers and ACC expatriates, and I frankly wouldn’t blame them.
In an 18-member Big Ten you cite, I still believe football will have six permanent members of an East division (the five ACC alums + Rutgers), six permanent in the West (those members in the Central time zone), and the middle six floating from East to West and vice versa over two-year period, with those six being regrouped every four years (and OSU-Mich, Purdue-IU and PSU-MSU as guaranteed annual games).
LikeLike
And this is one of the many reasons why 18 team conferences are ridiculous. If the way divisions are set up takes an entire paragraph to explain then you know it’s a bad idea.
LikeLike
Two divisions with four pods, where the central pods rotate.
LikeLike
Again with Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Moriarty. Two anchor groups east and west, with two central groups going east and west in turns.
LikeLike
At first, I was thinking you were mixing references. In one Donald Sutherland kills the lady, in another he gets the money. When instead of an American in a German uniform, he’s a German spy, the lady kills him.
LikeLike
At least one time the lady kills him. The other time as a German spy, the lady helps Sutherland escape.
LikeLike
I should hope that you thought I was mixing references in second thought as well. After typing “Again with Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, I couldn’t help thinking of “Always with the negative waves, Moriarty!”
LikeLike
It took me a few moments to come up with the Donald Sutherland connection. Kelly’s Heroes was a great movie. I like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Eye of the Needle and the Eagle has landed as well.
LikeLike
Two five-team pods. Two four-team pods. The four team pods rotate between divisions every two years.
There’s an 18-word explanation for you, Andy.
I could add that there would be ten conference games or we could go into the hypothetical membership of the pods themselves. Let’s say Kansas along with Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech just magically end up in the B1G:
Pod A: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B: Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Pods A&C and Pods B&D form separate divisions in Year 1 & 2. In Years 3 & 4, it’s A&D with B&C in the two divisions.
For Michigan, the conference schedule for Years 1 & 2 would be the teams in its own pod (Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State), the teams in Pod A (Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin) and two from Pod D (let’s say Northwestern and Indiana).
In Years 3, & 4, the same three teams in its pod (MSU, OSU, PSU), the teams in Pod B (Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers) and the other two from Pod D (Illinois and Purdue).
LikeLike
I will be sad for college sports if they degrade into a bunch of huge, geographically nonsensical conglomorate conferences with unevenly numberd rotating pods. Yuck. What a mess.
Simple solution:
B1G takes UVA and GT
SEC takes UNC and Duke
Those will be the Big 2
The Big 12 takes a couple, say, FSU and Miami. Goes back to 12.
The ACC adds USF, UCF, Cinci, and UConn to get to 12.
The Pac 12 stays at 12.
The MWC stays at 12.
The CUSA stays at 12.
So we get 2 16 school super conferences and 5 smaller 12 school conferences.
Then we stop all this nonsense and be done with it.
Everybody’s relatively happy. They all did pretty well. Nobody wants to start anymore trouble. The end.
Sound good?
LikeLike
@Andy-
No chance from the B1G perspective. Every conference for themselves IMO. There’s no reason for any conference to limit their pursuit of attractive schools for membership all in the name of making things nice and neat for Joe Fan. If that is an uncomfortable thought then I’d advise averting your gaze from all things realignment. Because there’s no way Delaney is gonna let extremely attractive schools like UNC, Duke and FSU walk somewhere else. If in fact those schools are interested in leaving the ACC. Nor should he.
LikeLike
Lobills, I wasn’t suggesting that Delany should not pursue UNC, I’m saying wouldn’t it be nice if sensible presidents both at UNC and in the Big Ten did what was better for the sport as a whole, if UNC didn’t participate in a ginormous monstrosity B18 or 20. It’s all within their power to stop this. UNC can either stay in the ACC or join the SEC and all of this ends at a B16 at the largest. I highly doubt the B1G will ever go past 16 without UNC, Notre Dame, or Texas. Notre Dame and Texas have already said no. Now it’s UNC’s turn. Or a few of the presidents could just veto the whole thing like they did in the Pac 12.
LikeLike
If a President at a publicly supported institution does what is best for the sport of college football as a whole, and as a result does what is NOT better for their institution, they should be sacked.
Arguments as to how it it not, in fact, better for the Big Ten member universities would carry more weight, so long as they are persuasive.
LikeLike
@cutter: Those pods are brutal. Just brutal. You’ve got the four kings in the same division two years out of every four. You could knock me over with a feather if they ever did that. No way. No. Way.
LikeLike
Bruce, and yet that’s exactly what the Pac 12 presidents did in rejecting Texas/Oklahoma/OSU/TT. The B1G presidents could do the same.
LikeLike
@Andy: The schools aren’t going to get together, and just coincidentally agree to organize into neat groups of two 16-team conferences and three 12-team conferences. They’re competitors, with vastly different agendas.
The obvious flaw in your hypothesis is that the ACC would wind up looking like the old Big East. And just like the old Big East, every school would be looking for the next ticket out of Dodge. It would be the same old story, all over again.
LikeLike
@Andy: The B12 presidents rejected Texas/Oklahoma/OSU/TT because Texas wanted to keep the Longhorn Network separate from the league revenue sharing model. Aside from that, they were willing and ready to go ahead.
LikeLike
Except Texas and others want only 12 schools in the Big 12.
And the B1G is very choosy about who they can take. If they can’t get UNC then that messes up pretty much any move past 16 that doesn’t include Notre Dame and Texas.
And the SEC has shown no desire to move past 16.
And those are the most likely replacements that the ACC could find for the schools they would lose in this scenario.
So this wouldn’t be some kind of articial agreement. I would argue that if UVA and GT bolt for the B1G and UNC and Duek choose the SEC, this would be the natural outcome. Logically that’s just where all the pieces would fall.
LikeLike
From what I’ve seen CU, Utah, UA and ASU were against the expansion because they didn’t want to be in a Pac 16 West with few games on the pacific coast.
LikeLike
Also Stanford and Cal were dubious of TT and OSU for academic reasons.
LikeLike
Also Stanford and Cal were dubious of TT and OSU for academic reasons.
And you don’t think UNC and Duke would be dubious of Auburn and Miss State? Even the weakest Big Ten members tower over those two academically.
LikeLike
I’m sure they would. But Ole Miss and MSU are both ranked ahead of Louisville academically, who was just voted into the ACC by UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
A joint venture between two blogs:
Part I: http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2013/02/26/football-competition-and-revenue-part-i/
Part II: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/02/football-competition-and-revenue-part-ii_26.html
Check it out.
I, for one, was shocked that North Carolina State only spent $12M on football. That is $8M less than Syracuse and Duke. Georgia Tech was at $17M. Maybe Florida State should be angered with NC State and Georgia Tech for not investing enough in football to take advantage of their so-called football school status.
LikeLike
Yet another reason to think NCSU to the SEC is unlikely in most scenarios. If it came down to it I can’t see the SEC turning down FSU for NCSU if UNC and Duke weren’t available and the SEC felt the need to expand.
LikeLike
NC State adds a market, FSU does not. Given that all that matters (today) is adding markets, the argument could be made that NC State adds more value than FSU. I also think that the SEC really does not need more football powers. All that does is make it that much harder for a school to rise up.
LikeLike
That’s not really the right analysis.
Even for the Big Ten, the BTN revenue stream is now becoming more dependent on advertising than on cable subscriptions alone. That means actual viewership does matter at the end of the day, and if the SEC has an extra king in FSU that will be a much better driver for actual viewership to an SEC Network than NC State would be (more compelling matchups, more matchups featuring kings on SEC Network as FSU takes CBS/ESPN slots).
Also, FSU would have a direct and positive impact on the CBS/ESPN Tier 1 deal unlike NCSU which wouldn’t move the dial on those.
And going back to cable subcriptions (which is the premise for chasing NCSU), there’s an issue in Florida as well. The SEC Network would get higher cable subscription money from having both UF and FSU. It might be as low as $0.10 per customer higher with both than just UF, but it would make a difference.
So there’s a tradeoff; there’s a legitimate debate to be had as to whether FSU or NCSU is more valuable to the SEC TV deals as a whole. NCSU brings valuable North Carolina cable subcriptions, but FSU brings Tier 1 money along with cable advertising and higher cable subscription money in Florida probably.
Personally, I think FSU/Va Tech is more valuable than NCSU/Va Tech.
LikeLike
“with respect to the SEC” should be at the end of that last line.
LikeLike
I still think the Big 10 puts itself in a position where it should demand Texas and Florida. If those schools say “no,” so be it. Why take anyone else? Those are two schools with unquestionably great academics, athletics, and reputation.
As the numbers go up, who else adds more than the $40M per year (as projected)? If you add schools that keep the revenue the same… does that really help anyone? Ohio State/Florida State is interesting. But if both schools are 6-2, that game will draw fewer national viewers than 8-0 Alabama v 8-0 LSU.
LikeLike
Zeek, I agree with what you’re saying here.
acaffrey, I’d put the odds of the B1G getting Texas at 0.01%. The odds of them getting Florida are even lower.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
You said: “The SEC Network would get higher cable subscription money from having both UF and FSU. It might be as low as $0.10 per customer higher with both than just UF, but it would make a difference.”
At least for me, this is the first time I’ve seen anyone say that a tv network could get a boost in cable subscription fees from by adding an overlapping team. I agree with you that even a small increment increase (e.g., 10 cents) is significant if added over a large enough viewer base.
Do you have any links or other thoughts on how/why/under what conditions an overlapping team might generate an incremental boost in subscriber fees?
Very interesting thought.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau, the main reason is that Florida’s a very unique state in term of the way its population is spread out over its major metropolitan areas.
Florida is likely to be the weakest of the SEC states (I’m ignoring Texas for this discussion because that state will have weird dynamics for the SEC Network) in terms of what the SEC gets per subscriber as compared to Alabama which will clearly be the highest. There are a few reasons for this but the major ones are that 1) the state’s population is divided among several schools and FSU/Miami/USF/UCF all have their fanbases, and 2) the Tampa/South Florida area has probably the lowest concentration of SEC alumni (ignoring cities in Texas/Missouri for the moment) as opposed to places like Atlanta or Nashville or New Orleans which probably have significantly higher numbers as far as metropolitan areas go.
UF itself will deliver the state’s cable systems, but my hunch is that an SEC Network would be able to demand an extra $0.10 or so per sub from having FSU as well in the state.
The reason is that UF is the dominant school in the Orlando/Gainesville/Jacksonville area, but in the panhandle and in Tampa and South Florida, the schools share those markets. FSU’s fanbase in those areas would probably increase the SEC’s numbers by at least 50% (especially in Tampa/South Florida where there’s a much smaller concentration of SEC alumni as compared to the rest of the SEC footprint – again ignoring cities in Texas/Missouri).
LikeLike
Uf isn’t going to the B1G. Ever. And B1G fans should be thankful.
LikeLike
I agree that FSU is a better add for the SEC than some give them credit for, not just as a ‘defensive’ addition.
FSU-
-boosts the tier 1 & tier 2 contracts & probably some boost to tier 3
-with the conference expanding, allows other schools more games in Florida for recruiting purposes (they’d get less otherwise)
-strong in most sports
-fans of SEC schools will get excited when they come to town and buy tickets; they’ll also probably be more likely to go see their team play an away game there. Likewise, FSU fans will probably travel more to the SEC schools that are closer than many ACC foes. While we think about TV contracts, the conference is made up of schools; playing a team that excites the fanbase helps their individual bottom lines.
I don’t think Florida was blocking FSU from joining. A story I gave more credence was that Alabama and 1-2 other schools wanted to block FSU because they didn’t want to give FSU a recruiting boost, and that Slive decided not to press the issue. Would that opposition continue if we’re going to 16 and less games in Florida for many schools?
I think the more interesting decision would be comparing NC State and Virginia Tech for the SEC if UNC/Duke/Virginia/GT went to the Big Ten.
NC State is better at basketball, which the SEC lacks more than football (especially if FSU would come along), while VT is better at football. Virginia Tech has more of a national reputation and is more dominant in its state, but NC State is in a bigger State. North Carolina geographically fits the SEC better, and travel for their fans around the state to conference away games would be easier. I might pick VT, but I could see NC State being the pick.
LikeLike
@ m (Ag)
Main reason why I think Va Tech would win out over NC State is that Va Tech is the strongest school in a prime top 10 market (D.C.).
That combined with their football strength over the past 20 years probably wins out over NC State.
You’re right though that it’s a good debate between those schools.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau,
The Big Ten Network $0.90 a month in market is believed to be an average not an actual hard figure. Here in Nebraska, there were reports that the cable companies would be paying above a $1 a month per household for BTN. That makes sense. Where there is increased demand, there is increased leverage.
Theoretically if you add an overlapping team like UF and FSU, you’ve increased demand for the channel in Florida. That increase in demand means more people want the channel, and it means cable companies have less leverage in pricing negotiations. Now as a conference, you still have to weigh (we’ll use Zeek’s $0.10 extra) the extra dime a month in revenue versus the fact you are essentially allocating the Florida revenue among two teams. I.e. if Florida and FSU give you a $1.00 while Florida on their own only commands $0.90 cents does it economically make sense for us to add FSU? That is a separate issue though.
LikeLike
@Zeek & Nostradamus:
Thanks for the additional thoughts. It would be interesting to see the different ##s for the various markets in terms of what the BTN actually gets per subscriber. I wonder what the BTN gets in the Chicago market?
Anyway, the thought about overlapping schools brought Pitt to mind. One has to doubt whether Pennsylvania is as large and diverse as Florida so that extra subscriber fees could be demanded by the BTN.
But, just for kicks, I thought I’d see what the numbers would be.
Click to access Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
Pennsylvania has 4,946,000 total tv households. As discussed above, take 90% of that as the number of cable/satellite households and you get: 4,451,400. Times a dime and then divided by 2 (FOX and BTN) times 12 months = $2,670,840. We calculated that a new addition would need to bring in about $8m in additional BTN fees. So, clearly a “back of the napkin” calculations show an overlapping addition does not pay for itself.
Florida is better since it has a lot more people. Florida has approx. 7,410,000 tv households. @ 90% (6,669,000) and assume a dime ($666,900) times 12 = $8,002,800 per year.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
The reason it wouldn’t is because the market where the Big Ten would need “help” for subscriber fees is Philly and Pitt doesn’t provide anything there.
LikeLike
Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia would all surely think twice about whether they want FSU in the conference.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point; I mean FSU is located smack dab in the one of the best recruiting zones in the SEC talent area with South Alabama and South Georgia closer to FSU than any SEC school.
LikeLike
I think you’re right. UNC and UVA (or Duke) is the dream combo. They elevate the SEC is ways that money can’t buy. As for FSU, it’s all moot. Florida will never allow FSU in, no matter how the other members vote or how much Slive begs. Forida always has the B1G card to play and will if Slive tries to force the issue.
LikeLike
Florida won’t leave the SEC over FSU, and the SEC knows it.
That said, I’m believer in the “Gentleman’s Agreement” and think FSU is a longshot.
LikeLike
How convenient.
‘They would never, ever leave, but we’ll never know because of the Gentlemans agreement.’
Sorry, I’m not buying it.
If the SEC has nothing to worry about, what possible reason could they have for inviting Missouri over a King like FSU?
Florida has no doubt told them don’t, and they won’t. Florida holds the cards.
LikeLike
Because FSU wouldn’t go. FSU’s president made it clear at that point in time he wasn’t interested. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t changed his mind.
LikeLike
Fla doesn’t wield that much power. The SEC simply doesn’t need a sunshine state school.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState
If the SEC has nothing to worry about, what possible reason could they have for inviting Missouri over a King like FSU?
Because Florida and Vandy were pushing for another AAU school?
Because they wanted new markets?
Because they asked and FSU said no?
Because it only takes four votes to block and UK’s, UGA, and USCe all stood with UF? (And if you don’t believe their is a Gentleman’s Agreement remember that UK’s AD said that Kentucky could consider “vetoing” a Louisville admission.)
LikeLike
And if you don’t believe me
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/9/27/2452830/sec-expansion-louisville-kentucky-conference-realignment/in/1280828
Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart told Kentucky Sports Radio that the Wildcats “would not rule out a veto” of Louisville.
In the meantime there has never been any (any) reports, speculation, or rumors (let alone evidence) that Florida would consider leaving the SEC. None at all.
LikeLike
I think plan A for the SEC is to class up the league with some AAU schools in new markets. Candidates would include Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, with longshots like Georgia Tech, Kansas, and Pitt.
Failing that I think their backup plan it to grab up more of what they have: non-AAU football schools: Oklahoma, Florida State, Virginia Tech, NC State, and longshots like Miami, Clemson, West Virginia, and Louisville.
I think they’re still on Plan A. That’s why Missouri got a spot. Certainly there are schools in the Plan B group that are better at football than Missouri. But the SEC is trying to close the gap with the Big Ten and set up the SEC Academic Consortium, build a CIC of the south, bring in some prestige like UNC.
Failing that I wouldn’t be surprised to see them go after schools in this order:
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida State
3. Virginia Tech
4. NC State
5. Miami
6. Clemson
Maybe all 6 if they’re trying to match the B20. Go all in on sports. If they can’t close the gap on brains, at least go all in on brawn.
LikeLike
I listen to a podcast by the Cedar Rapids Gazette Hawkeye beat writers, who generally seem to really know their stuff. After they spoke with Iowa AD Gary Barta, they think Alvarez overstated things by saying the B1G agreed to not play FCS teams. They think the B1G will continue to play FCS, though maybe to a lesser degree.
LikeLike
Is this because of political tensions within Iowa? I would think UNI needs an annual payday to keep afloat.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily think its due to political tensions, but UNI playing at Iowa and ISU is viewed favorably within the state. Those games help the UNI athletic department balance their budget. It is also seen as a way for UNI players, who are mostly Iowa kids, a chance to play in the state’s BCS stadiums. They also mentioned that an FCS game is half the payout of a random Sunbelt matchup, so the Iowa athletic department prefers such a game.
LikeLike
Interesting Lawsuit filed by Cablevision in New York. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cablevision-files-federal-antitrust-lawsuit-163500951.html
LikeLike
Hmm…. I don’t have much antitrust background, but, on its face, that seems like a good antitrust lawsuit. The main allegation is that Viacom insisted that Cablevision buy 14 loser channels that no one watches as a condition for being able to carry necessary channels like MTV, Comedy Central, etc.
This, of course, has some potential implications for FOX, the YES netwok and the BTN.
Thoughts from the lawyers on the board?
LikeLike
A car dealership can’t require you to pay for the tires on a car because you have your own/don’t like their brand? An iPhone can be separated from the packaging (and that cost) because you find it unnecessary? Don’t like the package? Don’t buy it.
LikeLike
speaking of antitrust lawsuits, here is a summary of where the O’Bannon lawsuit stands and an attempt at extrapolating the impact if the players/former players win. The idea is a that a Player Trust Fund is established and the current players get their $$$ when they finish their college careers.
http://winthropintelligence.com/2013/02/04/obannon-v-ncaa-potential-financial-consequences-of-a-student-athlete-trust-fund/
It’s a very long article, but worth a skim at the minimum.
This proposed Trust Fund is potentially a disaster for every school that is not a King. Talk about a recruiting advantage. ‘Bama to recruit: “we can’t pay you, but a pot of $$ will be waiting. ‘Bama gets on tv more than anyone else/gets on the highlight reels more than anyone else.” We’ll start tracking which players/teams have been getting the most $$$ from the Trust Fund, etc.
It would be interesting to know what Slive and Delany REALLY think of the O’Bannon lawsuit. Yes, it would potentially take a big chunk of $$$ from the athletic departments, but boy would it separate the haves from the have-nots.
LikeLike
If I was Slive & Delany (Although he will retire before this is settled one way or another, because this case will get eventually get appealed to the Supreme Court), I would be petrified. There are all kinds of traps in there (Such as Title IX), that could cost Schools big time. The world case scenario would be bankruptcy for schools and the shutting down of “Olympic” Sports (Mostly mens because of Title IX Compliance issues). This could happen if the Plaintiffs win, and they get treble damages, and college athletes who appeared on TV or other media since the 1940s (When TV came out), or their heirs collect as well. An absolute disaster
LikeLike
Query… if the SEC had the option last year, would it have taken North Carolina State over Missouri? What do you think and why?
LikeLike
I would say they would still choose Missouri primarily because of AAU status. Everything else seems to be about even aside from the population of NC vs MO.
LikeLike
I doubt it. I think they would want to hold out hope of North Carolina rather than NCSU. I don’t think they would want them both. And the state of Missouri may not be fanatics about the Tigers, but at least they aren’t 2nd or 3rd on the pecking order the way the Wolf Pack is in North Carolina.
I think they would have definitely taken Virginia Tech over Missouri though.
LikeLike
Missouri easily in my opinion. The main reason is that the SEC wasn’t (and isn’t) out of the running on the grand prize of UNC, and that course of action might even have freed UNC/Duke to bolt to the Big Ten if they had offered NC State first. Even if NC State ends up in the SEC at some point, it would never happen until after the SEC gets rejected by UNC or gets told that they have to accept both schools; there’ll be clarity on those two points at the very least before the SEC makes a decision on NC State.
As far as the money and the like goes, Missouri delivers its markets for sure (STL/KC and cable systems in between) for an SEC Network. We’re still not really sure what NC State delivers.
LikeLike
zeek nailed it.
LikeLike
NCST I think. Mainly due to the increased probability of getting UNC, since they have the same board of directors and all.
LikeLike
What zeek said. The SEC doesn’t invite NC State until either UNC gives the SEC a definite No, or says to the SEC its both or neither.
LikeLike
SEC should dump Mizzou, add the more valuable Cincinatti (better basketball, better football, more populous state, better academics)
LikeLike
Cinci isn’t AAU, and averages about 30k less football fans per game.
LikeLike
Allow me to demonstrate the idea behind 3 Divisions of 6 schools each.
Expanding to 18 teams will only work if scheduling is easy to understand and arrange.
For this idea, there would be B1G West, B1G Central and B1G East Divisions with 9-game conference schedules. This allows rivals to play annually with geographical scheduling to minimize travel costs. There would then be 5 divisional games and 2 cross-over games with the other 2 divisions. This scheduling can be achieved using paired schools from each division, thus creating temporary 6-school pods that rotate on home/away basis every 2 years during a 6-year period for these cross-over games. The 6 schools in this pod would play a round-robin schedule. These games can be scheduled during the first 5 weeks of the season, although there is a need to substitute the games between paired schools of the same division in this period using other schools from the same division. This allows the remaining games among schools within the same divisions to be scheduled during the last 4 weeks of the season.
It is important to recognize how critical the paired teams are in scheduling pod games.
Let us assume that the B1G Conference accepts applications from Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Missouri (or Notre Dame or Duke) to expand to 18 schools.
Why not organize a B1G East Division comprising Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech? These schools have competitive balance and would create and preserve rivalries.
Let us further assume that all pod games must be scheduled in a 5-week period at the beginning of the season.
In this calendar, the paired teams must play different weeks during this 5-week period. For example, assume that a pod has Nebraska & Iowa, Michigan & Purdue and Penn State & Rutgers as paired teams. As examples, Nebraska & Iowa would be scheduled for Week 2, Penn State & Rutgers for Week 4 and Michigan & Purdue for Week 5. For this calendar to work in this assumed situation, the paired teams of the other 2 pods of the same divisions must have their games scheduled for the same week. Thus, the two other paired B1G West teams would also play on Week 2, B1G East on Week 4 and B1G Central on Week 5. Then the paired teams must substitute into a second group of discreet pairs. For B1G Central teams, the games for Week 5 could instead be scheduled as Michigan/Indiana, Ohio State/Northwestern and Michigan State/Purdue. In this way, the remaining 4 weeks allow a round robin of all remaining division match-ups for B1G Central teams.
In the above example, I guess Michigan would prefer to schedule Purdue as the game before the last game with Ohio State. I also guess that Penn State would prefer to schedule Rutgers as the last game of the season. In any case, this situation becomes less complicated when combining with out-of-conference games and bye weeks.
Something needs to be said about NCAA Rule 17.9.1.2 (c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game, which states: “A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division”.
I am not a lawyer, but the rule has an intention to limit schools from playing more than 13 games in the regular season. It is an exemption, same as the “Hawaii Exemption” where a school can schedule 13 games in the regular reason, if one of those games is Hawaii.
Thus, the idea of 2 of 3 division champions playing in the championship game does not violate the intention of this rule; the result is the same as the present situation, the 2 schools in the championship game play a total of 13 regular season games.
The issue then concerns the literal interpretation of “divided into two divisions”.
In this case, if the rule also had an intention to limit this exemption to conferences having only 2 divisions, then the rule should be stated more explicitly, i.e.:
“A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into ONLY two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division.”
Why not recognize this as the most attractive solution? No need to speculate anymore about expanding more than 18 schools. 3 divisions of 6 schools provide stability with enough cross-over games to maintain conference intimacy. Cross-over games are scheduled in the first half of the season, and have meaning for tie-breaking purpose. Division games are scheduled in the second half of the season, mainly among rivals, and have meaning to win the division. There is less chance of rematches in the conference championship game. And the intention of existing NCAA rules is maintained!
LikeLike
…the intention of existing NCAA rules is maintained!
Seeing as the rule was never intended to be used by 1-A programs to begin with and applies to FBS only because of a technicality (i.e. a literal interpretation of the rules), I doubt the NCAA will go for your proposal.
LikeLike
Agree, but would describe it differently. D1 was not excluded from using this rule because no one imagined they would ever want/need to avail themselves of. It was created to help oversized lower division conferences who had a real need to identify auto qualifiers for post season. D1’s bowl season was being handled by the schools and conferences. With the arrival of a “playoff”, although not NCAA administered, you could reasonably say the intent of the rule now does apply to D1 in some regard.
LikeLike
This is your ‘easy to understand’ alternative?
LikeLike
Radi,
Something needs to be said about NCAA Rule 17.9.1.2 (c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game, which states: “A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division”.
…
The issue then concerns the literal interpretation of “divided into two divisions”.
There is nothing to interpret. It says two divisions. Three is not two. Adding only doesn’t change it at all.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is disgruntled with ACC scheduling:
“While the games do offer national exposure, given the frustrations with the schedule for 2013 and years past, “I don’t know how much we’re going to continue to take in that regard” Bamford said.”
http://m.ajc.com/news/sports/college/tech-johnson-peeved-schedule/nWbJs/
LikeLike
Paul Johnson is not happy. The article runs down a long list of perceived injustices and, just when you think the list is done, nope. Right at the end Johnson adds that Pitt is playing Navy the week before Pitt plays GT. Johnson coached at Navy & Navy still runs a similar offense to the one Johnson imported to GT. So, in effect, Pitt gets to scheme and practice against Johnson’s offense for two weeks and gets a “practice” game against Navy the week before.
Johnson is not a happy coach.
LikeLike
This probably confirms my thought for some time — that of the prospective Big Ten candidates from the post-Maryland ACC, Georgia Tech is the most enthused about jumping. The question for GT is, what candidate can it persuade to move as well? For a variety of reasons, I believe it’s Virginia; though UVa won’t be the easiest nut to crack, the growth of northern Virginia and the university’s transition from a classic liberal arts institution to a big player in health care and research makes the Big Ten a good landing site.
LikeLike
I’m just surprised to see him go so public with the criticism. When was the last time a coach made remarks like this about a conference schedule?
I’ve heard grumbles about opposing teams getting too many bye weeks or the like, but this?
‘Further, Pittsburgh’s opponent prior to playing Tech Nov. 2 is Navy, which runs an offense similar to the Jackets’.
“Just randomly by computer, I imagine,” Johnson said with sarcasm.’
LikeLike
Even before today I’ve always thought Paul Johnson was more outspoken than most coaches. I wouldn’t read into his comments too much.
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson routinely complain about the ACC schedule. There is a general belief south of Carolina that the schedule is made for the benefit of those in the Research Triangle.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech spent $17M on football, less than Pitt at $19M. Less than Clemson and Florida State and Duke and Syracuse and Virginia Tech. It is a .500 team, despite the advantage of being in fertile recruiting territory.
They get a bye before Clemson. And Alabama A&M before Georgia.
LikeLike
Virginia Tech fans are upset the Gobblers have no home Thursday night game this year, as it’s become a tradition of sorts, particularly for the younger crowd.
LikeLike
I liked these comments about Thursday night games:
“While noting that “none of us are in love with playing Thursday night games,” Bamford pointed out that the school has repeatedly been willing to host them despite their unpopularity among some Tech fans and the logistical challenges involved in staging them.”
TV fans love these games, the schools not so much.
“A variety of factors, including Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech’s nonconference schedules, ESPN’s desire for Tech to play both Virginia Tech and Clemson on Thursday night and appropriate spacing for the open dates, may have made a Thursday night game where both teams had a bye week prior to the game difficult, if not impossible.”
Apparently ESPN sees value in GT/Atlanta if they keep putting them on Thursday nights.
LikeLike
Where’s the scorn? GT is whoring itself out way more aggressively than Mizzou ever did.
LikeLike
But GTech would be the best engineering school in the Big Ten. When an individual of a certain degree of class is offering their time and companionship in return for money, then irrespective of what occurs between consenting adults, the polite term is “escort”.
LikeLike
Yeah but they suck at sports and barely have any fans.
LikeLike
So I guess to run this analogy into the ground, comparing the two, Mizzou was a somewhat busty hooker who showed a little cleavage and caused the faint hearted to froth at the mouth with scorn. GT is a flat chested “escort” who’s gone topless and is shaking what little she’s got hoping for the best, and the response is “awe, isn’t that cute”.
LikeLike
I was googling information about FSU.
Some interesting things to keep in mind. FSU is up in or near the Florida panhandle. That is the least populated part of Florida. And it is many many miles away from the big population centers down towards the tip of Florida. Also, keep in mind the biggest city is Jacksonville, Florida Gator country through and through.
So, just some things to consider if we think FSU will be a big cash cow for the BTN.
Here are some numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Panhandle
Click to access Intercensal.pdf
Per Wikipedia (for what it’s worth), the Florida panhandle consists of these Counties and, per some census data, the counties had the following populations as of 2010:
Bay ~168,852
Calhoun ~14,625
Escambia ~297.619
Franklin ~11,549
Gadsden ~46,389
Gulf ~15,863
Holmes ~19,927
Jackson ~49,746
Jefferson ~14,761
Leon ~275,486
Liberty ~8,365
Madison ~ 19,224
Okaloosa ~180,822
Santa Rosa ~151,372
Taylor ~22,570
Wakulla ~30,776
Walton ~55,042
Washington ~24,896
I’ll run numbers in a ‘reply.’
LikeLike
to address several topics covered recently,
A), advertising,
no expansion prospect will make a big dent in ad revenues for the B10 or SEC.
it’s the very nature of RSNs, that sub money is what it’s about.
there just aren’t enough hours of compelling programming a yr on RSNs for ad sales to make up a big percentage of revenue.
you have maybe 14 days a yr to showcase your football product. which is your number one product.
additional schools only significantly increase ad sales in the home school’s mkt.
they just cannibalize the leagues audience outside the home mkt.
BTN ad revenues have gone up since inception, but mostly because they were building from scratch.
once the ad sales side becomes a more mature industry, increases will be tough.
the entire TV industry struggles with this, as there is more and more competition for the ad dollar from non tv entities.
RSNs are about the sub money. (deal with it, this isn’t an opinion, and i’m not wrong on this).
B), even though FSU has a very good, (though not elite imo), football brand, the SEC doesn’t need them for the whole state.
and they can’t deliver the whole state for the B10.
both the B10 and SEC already have enough main acts to fill the needs of tier 1 and 2 prospects every wk.
they are worth more to the ACC or B12 from a tier 1,2 pov, and their tier 3 impact would be more for the big 10 than the SEC.
but again. it’s questionable how much of the state they could deliver for the B10.
the SEC can carry the state without FSU. (and to the best of my knowledge, BTN doesn’t get any more per sub in Ind, Mich, or Ill, just because they have multiple in state schools)
i would think the SEC would want FSU only if it thought the B10 would take them, wanted to keep the B10 out of Fla, and felt that was enough to justify the move.
C) NC State by itself, doesn’t deliver anybody at any tier.
not they’re fault, but that’s what it is.
they need loyal siblings and a smart state government covering their back.
they are kind of like Purdue, a good institution with decent athletics, who share a state with 2 other BCS schools, both of whom over shadow them in fan power and bling.
D) because both the SEC and B10 already have national revenue models and enough major brands to fill tier 1,2 needs, both are foolish to be looking to expand.
expansion schools can only help the SEC and B10 significantly in tier 3, and thaexpansioncover the added shares.
we can already figure epansion schools’ tier 3 impact on the B10, because the formula is already there, and they don’t come close to covering a share.
you could hope to make up the shortfall on tier 1, but since the B10 already has enough major brands to fill tier 1,2 needs, it’s questionable how much tier 1,2 gain prospects can bring. (even an FSU).
thinking expansion has big tier 1,2 impact on thwishful B10 would be vefundamentalsve.
too speculative and wishfull to blow up the fundementals that make them as successful as they now are, hoping for questionable gains.
i realize both are exploring expansion, i just think it’s very misguided thinking on both their parts.
i know, how dare i question whether expansion benefits legacy schools.
that should just be accepted as a given, despite any contrary facts, because Delany and News Corp are pushing for it, and it should not be questioned by anyone.
debate should be limited to what schools should we take or pass on.
E), RISK/REWARD FACTOR.
launching BTN had zero risk. the alternative was syndication.
there wasn’t that much to lose in the first place,
News Corp was guaranteeing about 6 mil per school till it got going,
News Corp had Directv to leverage everyone else with,
but most of all, if it didn’t take, the worst case scenario was going back to syndication or coming up with a plan C.
expansion is a whole nother matter.
expansion requires first blowing up the conferences, (except in name only), and the rivalries, and the very revenue fundementals that made said conferences as profitable as they were. (and spare me the BS that this isn’t the case).
all in search of very speculative gains.
but most importantly, with absolutely zero way to put Humpty back together if the hail Mary does not go as hoped for.
for obvious reasons, huge conferences don’t have a great track record of success.
strange bedfellows too numerous to even play each other on a regular basis, held together only by the promise of a hoped for golden goose laying wished for golden eggs.
best case scenario, legacy schools gain at least something on the monetary side, (or at least break even), for giving up their conference, their rivalries, and their sovereignty. (but still lose their rivalries and their sovereignty none the less)
other scenarios, the eggs aren’t as gold as hoped for, (are they ever?), and keeping the mega conference together becomes not so enticing for schools used to having it ridiculously great on everything. (like they do now).
you can’t just kick out the expansion schools if every domino doesn’t fall just right, and go back to the previous status quo, so the only alternative is for schools to stay in a less enviable situation than they previously had, or leave voluntarily at whatever financial penalty that carries, and start over in hopes of recreating something as good as the old B10 they gave up.
seems like a huge amount of risk for something very speculative at best.
and with the loss of traditional rivalries and sovereingty 100% guaranteed no matter what. no matter how anything else goes.
LikeLike
sorry bout the wierd typos,
apparantly this site and my spell check don’t get along, and the spell check does wierd things to the post which don’t show up till after the fact, with no way to undo.
LikeLike
@Skeptic:
Concerning FSU, you say: “…they [FSU] can’t deliver the whole state [of Florida] for the B10.”
I think you may be right. But on what do you base your view? Any links or data or is that just your gut feeling?
Also, what is your feeling about various PARTS of Florida? I tend to think it is unlikely that FSU can deliver the whole State, but are there parts of the State that FSU can deliver beyond the Panhandle?
LikeLike
fwiw, here is a link to a map of Florida showing the big population centers. (I am not too familiar with Florida geography.). Jacksonville is up along the Georgia boarder too, sort of parallel to Tallahassee. Miami is at the tip with Orlando and Tampa/St. Pete in the middle.
Obviously, FSU won’t “deliver” Jacksonville for the BTN; probably not the Maimi/Dade County areas. How about Tampa and Orlando?
LikeLike
There are a lot of snowbirds in Florida that the Big Ten already draws high ratings on the local markets.
LikeLike
Skeptic,
Look, I’m not sold on Florida State for the Big Ten, or even ANY further expansion short of the unreasonable (ND) but I think you underestimate a few things.
First, whether or not Florida State is a true king, you’re basically arguing that TV won’t pay up for annual Florida State-Michigan, Florida State-Ohio State, and even Florida State-Penn State games? Each of those three annual games would easily be a national game of the week for the Big Ten. Throw in (over the life of a tv contract) a couple of Nebraska-Florida State games and a few home Florida State games against Miami and/or Florida? You really think ESPN will look at that and say “it doesn’t add anything”?
If CBS owns the SEC Prime Time Game, and ESPN loses the The Big Ten Tier 1 to Fox, and NBC has Notre Dame home games, how many king vs king games does ESPN have left? USC-Notre Dame every other year. Texas-Oklahoma. And then presumably a USC-Oregon or Va Tech-Miami? What else is there? But if Florida State isn’t a king, is Va Tech-Miami better than any of the FSU v Big Ten Kings? Maybe ESPN’s package is still arguably better than Fox or CBS (although maybe not). But now ESPN is in true competition and no longer has a dominant hand.
Second, even if Florida State doesn’t cover the entire state, even if they don’t cover 1/4 of the state, that is still an obscene amount of football recruits that are opened up to The Big Ten.
As for the other arguments like location, or non-AAU or how many BTN subscribers or what can they get in Tampa or Miami…. based on the prior two items, I don’t think it’s a yes/no statement regarding crossing a threshold. It’s close enough where the school isn’t dragging down the rest of The Big Ten, like Boise State academics, or has absolutely nothing to offer, like Pittsburgh with BTN markets.
LikeLike
*so it could be that the Big Ten already
LikeLike
The future television deal that the Big Ten will be negotiating with the networks could include a scenario where more than one major network picks up the conference. Just as the SEC has CBS along with ABC/ESPN, the B1G could have a combination of networks broadcasting Tier 1/2 games.
Every increase of two teams to the conference means up to two more non-conference games per week and one more conference game. If the B1G were to have 16 members, then there could be seven or eight conference games each weekend (or on Thursdays) depending on the bye weeks scheduled.
Does that mean there’s room for a major game to go on a second network (like the SEC does with CBS)? I have to imagine the Big Ten schedulers would try to accommodate a set up like that whenever possible. Having Florida State in the regular mix would certainly help matters in that case (as would the white whale, Notre Dame).
It’ll be interesting to see what the Big Ten does with the 2014/5 schedules and divisions it will need to release in a few months. Besides getting the major brand names to play on the East Coast, you’re also going to want to have them playing one another as much as possible. I wouldn’t be shocked, for example to see Ohio State and Michigan not only playing Rutgers and Maryland in 2014, but also Nebraska and/or Wisconsin (the same may go for Penn State as well).
Of course, it does appear the B1G will only have eight conference games those two seasons, so that means a 6-2 setup with the possibility of one or more fixed cross-divisional games (such as Michigan-Michigan State). Not having nine conference games may make for a slightly underwhelming conference schedule when all is said and done.
LikeLike
Cutter,
Yeah, I’m envisioning a definite possibility of Tier 1 / Tier 2 split up similar to the SEC. And I think the Big Ten would want to keep a relationship with the WWL at least with some Tier 2 games.
But the point remains that if Fox (or NBC) won a package of the top 12 or 13 B1G games that included every head to head game involving Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, and Florida State as well as their big home non-conference games, then ESPN is now on the sidelines for all but a few king vs king games each year. And I can’t see them letting that happen without a fight. And removing FSU from the ACC is a big deal to the value of their football package. Bottom line is that Florida State to the Big Ten absolutely adds plenty of value to the Big Ten Tier 1 TV rights.
LikeLike
“Does that mean there’s room for a major game to go on a second network (like the SEC does with CBS)? I have to imagine the Big Ten schedulers would try to accommodate a set up like that whenever possible.”
One point raised in the past month or so was November prime time games, which due to geography and climate have been previously ruled out. Now, climate may not be changing so fast as all that, but the geography of the conference has started to shift toward more southerly latitudes.
LikeLike
FSU gets superb national TV ratings. Do google “research” on how they perform. At an elite level.
LikeLike
Not needing teams for Tier 1 and Tier is consistent with taking Rutgers and Maryland.
LikeLike
Running numbers on the Florida Panhandle.
Per 2010 census data (above), the population of the Panhandle counties is 1,407,884. That is not a lot of tv households.
Total Florida population was 18,801,310 which was 7,848,500 total households which was 7,409,990 tv households. Again, rough calculation: tv households = 39.4% of the population. http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
Using these numbers, the Panhandle will have 554,706 tv households.
Assuming 90% of those have cable/satellite, we end up with 499,235 cable households.
Assuming BTN gets $1 per cable household per month = $5,990,824 divided between the BTN & FOX. Not enough to justify adding FSU based on subscriber fees and based on just the population of the Panhandle.
So, seems to me the question is how much “pull” does FSU have in the remainder of the State?
LikeLike
That last question needs to be modified.
“So, seems to me the question is how much “pull” does FSU have in the remainder of the State relative to what the SEC already has?”
The reason for that is because there are a number of factors here. Consider the SEC’s 12 team footprint (ignoring Texas and Missouri); their conference “alumni+t-shirt fanbase” is weakest in the Tampa/South Florida area in terms of density; the various other population centers in the SEC footprint have far more SEC alumni/fans in terms of density as a proportion of the population.
Combine that fact with the fact that FSU probably has at least 50% of the alumni+t-shirt fans numbers in that area (Tampa/South Florida) of UF, and that’s a substantial boost to the SEC’s alumni+t-shirt fanbase numbers in an area where the SEC may need it.
That’s a big reason why FSU might provide a boost to the SEC Network in that region (along with Tallahassee where it’s the local team).
———————————————————————————–
Compare this to the Big Ten and a school like Pitt. The Big Ten already owns the city of Pittsburgh through Penn State and Ohio State and the rest of the Big Ten schools’ alumni/fans in that city.
Philadelphia is the Big Ten’s equivalent of the Tampa/South Florida area for the SEC. The Big Ten’s weakest market in terms of 12-team footprint delivery is Philadelphia. Just as Tampa/South Florida is the SEC’s weakest market in terms of 12-team footprint delivery.
It took a longer time for the Big Ten to get carriage in Philadelphia than it did elsewhere in the Big Ten’s footprint.
So if you ask your question here for the Big Ten and Pitt; the question is whether Pitt could deliver any portion of Philadelphia relative to what the Big Ten currently has in that city and the answer is not much. 1) I’d be surprised if Pitt has many (if any) t-shirt fans in Philadelphia and 2) I’d be surprised if the Pitt alumni numbers in Philadelphia could make a strong enough impact on the overall numbers that Penn State alumni/t-shirt fans and the Big Ten already have in that market.
FSU on the other hand has large numbers of t-shirt fans in Tampa/South Florida and like UF it does draw the largest share of its students from that area.
LikeLike
My rough “back of the napkin” numbers would look like this.
FSU provides at least 50% of what UF provides in the Tampa/South Florida area in terms of additional potential SEC fans.
Since Tampa/South Florida is the weakest area for the other 11 schools of the 12 team SEC (again ignoring A&M/Missouri for now) in terms of alumni and t-shirt fans as compared to other 12-team SEC metropolitan areas, my guess is that UF itself delivers at least 75% of the SEC’s fanbase in Tampa/South Florida.
Combine those two and you’re looking at something like at least a 37.5% boost to the SEC’s fanbase in Tampa/South Florida from the addition of FSU.
LikeLike
Just taking the Tampa and Miami MSA’s gives 8.5m, with 37.5% of that being ~3m. Even if the calculation is a bit high and its more like +25% delivered, its ~2m.
LikeLike
50% is an extreme lowball estimate. I’d say more like 90% in S Fla. less than that in Tampa though.
LikeLike
Rutgers (and, to a lesser extent, Maryland) may help the Big Ten more in Philadelphia than the University of Pittsburgh ever could.
LikeLike
That’s also a good point; they mentioned when the two schools were added that the Big Ten has around 600k alumni between D.C. and NYC. although I don’t think that those numbers included Rutgers or Maryland.
Rutgers for sure should help out in Philly given that the Philly market includes the southern half of New Jersey.
As far as Maryland goes, having more games in that corridor helps. The @Maryland games will be as accessible to Philadelphia alumni as the @Penn State games.
LikeLike
FSU has a ton of pull. Especially when they’re firing on all cylinders. Keep in mind that UF, while having the biggest following in Fla, isn’t exactly an “old guard” program and really didn’t become a national program until the 1990s. There’s a lot of long-term upside with FSU in the B1G.
LikeLike
Actually, the idea is easier to understand if explained this way (using examples):
DIVISIONS
B1G West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin
B1G Central: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
B1G East: Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
YEARS 1&2
Cross-Over Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers
Cross-Over Pod B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Purdue, Maryland, Virginia
Cross-Over Pod C: Missouri, Illinois, Ohio State, Indiana, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
YEARS 3&4
Cross-Over Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Purdue, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
Cross-Over Pod B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio State, Indiana, Maryland, Virginia
Cross-Over Pod C: Missouri, Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers
YEARS 5&6
Cross-Over Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio State, Indiana, Maryland, Virginia
Cross-Over Pod B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, Northwestern, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
Cross-Over Pod C: Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers
LAST GAME OF SEASON (EVERY YEAR)
B1G West: Nebraska & Iowa, Wisconsin & Minnesota, Illinois & Missouri
B1G Central: Michigan & Ohio State, Michigan State & Northwestern, Indiana & Purdue
B1G East: Georgia Tech & North Carolina, Penn State & Rutgers, Maryland & Virginia
LikeLike
YEARS 1&2
Cross-Over Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers
Cross-Over Pod B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Purdue, Maryland, Virginia
Cross-Over Pod C: Missouri, Illinois, Ohio State, Indiana, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
YEARS 3&4
Cross-Over Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Purdue, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
Cross-Over Pod B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio State, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers
Cross-Over Pod C: Missouri, Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern, Maryland, Virginia
YEARS 5&6
Cross-Over Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio State, Indiana, Maryland, Virginia
Cross-Over Pod B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, Northwestern, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
Cross-Over Pod C: Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers
LikeLike
The B1G has about a 0.01% chance of landing only UVA/UNC/GT from the South. They won’t leave the ACC without more southern teams. It’s just the way it is. Write it down.
LikeLike
I’ll put that in my diary of things that anonymous Internet posters have demanded that I write down to compare the future against. 🙂
LikeLike
@ acaffrey
Love it!
LikeLike
Excellent. I look forward to the recognition when everyone realizes the UNC/UVA/GT trio isn’t going to happen. The B1G will need to invite a minimum of 4 southern ACC schools if it wants either UNC or UVA. Otherwise it would already have happened.
LikeLike
Why would the Big Ten invite only UNC, UVa and Georgia Tech? That would leave the conference at an unwieldy 17 members. There would be an 18th member, and unless Notre Dame makes a 180-degree turn on football conference membership (not likely), #18 will either be Florida State (athletic directors’ choice) or Duke (presidents’ preference).
LikeLike
The last posting corrects the previous posting.
LikeLike
@Radi: What is the problem, for which your alignment is the solution? It is bizarre and certainly not simple. You’ve got 3 divisions, but winning the division championship will be relevant for only 2 of the 3. What sport has ever implemented such a thing? I’m all for new ideas, but you really do need to demonstrate that you’re solving some great unmet need, and I am not seeing it.
LikeLike
Yes, three divisions and three division champions points to a two round knockout with a wild card added. After all, the qualifier for the championship playoff is the hook for selling interest in standing in the division and the division race, and after years of exposure to the NFL and MLB baseball systems, we all know how the wild card hunt keeps hope alive for multiple teams deeper into a mediocre or OK but not great season.
As noted above, fitting a two stage knockout into the current NCAA rules requires gimmickry, and it not obvious that the game is worth the candle.
But if we are assuming changes to the NCAA rules to allow the conference to pick two out of three division champions based on a set of ranking rules, then we can just assume a change to the NCAA rules to allow the conference to send the top two in a combined conference standings to the CCG without any divisions at all. That allows a floating schedule of nine conference games where three annual series (spread around as a ring rather than clustered in groups) and the other twelve rotated 2on/2off cover 16, and nine conference games with three annual series, eight teams rotated 2off/2off and six teams rotated 1on/2off covers an 18 team conference.
Now, behind the scenes the scheduling of 18 may be done by forming six three team groups to set up the 1on/2off cycles, but that’s nothing a fan needs to worry about, and those groups wouldn’t be given any marketing identity, since they might be shuffled around when a six year cycle is over.
LikeLike
Bowlsby:
“It’s been our considered opinion that the 10 we have is where we want to be,” Bowlsby said. “Does that mean we’re oblivious to what’s going on around us or that we aren’t going to be constantly vigilant? No. We definitely are.
“But we’re distributing, on a per-institution basis, the largest amount of money in college athletics right now, and that’s going to ramp up significantly over the next 12 years.
“So we’re not 10 by lack of action. We’re 10 by a considered decision. Is that going to stay that way forever? We’re going to keep our eyes open. But right now, we’re feeling pretty good.”
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2013/02/27/big-12-football-bob-bowlsby-talks-expansion/
LikeLike
Translation: FSU and Miami said no.
Implication: the ACC is stable unless/until the B1G pries some schools away.
LikeLike
Or Texas, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State said no.
There are a number of schools that can take an explicitly anti-expansion point of view in the Big 12.
I’m not sure they’re going to be able to generate a consensus to move beyond 10.
LikeLike
Talking about those latter 3 (Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State), my guess is they explicitly don’t want to be in any division comprised of them and WVU and FSU+1.
That kind of division offers them nothing in the way of recruiting (they won’t be outrecruiting anyone in Florida by going to FSU every other year) and they’ll lose the guarantee of having two games in Texas every year (and another in Oklahoma). Just can’t justify giving that up.
LikeLike
That is part of the case that whenever the Big12 do end up expanding, they’ll end up at 14, allowing the Kansases to stay in the Western division.
Its easy to see between Texas’s inclination against expansion and the Kansases desire to be in the West there is no sufficient supermajority for any expansion to 12.
And of course, while FSU/Miami might draw Miami, the ACC would have to be very destabilized and FSU would have had to have been turned down by both the SEC and Big Ten for that to be on the cards … if FSU is just starting the process of looking at realignment options, they are not yet at the point of posing the question to the SEC and Big Ten. And it would be unsurprising if any conclusion they reach is about what to do in the event of the ACC being destabilized.
LikeLike
Blauds pretends he posts here.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5339
LikeLike
He’s way off in his predictions. How does the B10 end up with ND if PSU joins the BE? If that was possible, the B10 would be at 14 including ND already. The B10 being at 11 is what led to NE joining. If the B10 could have had ND before NE, then wouldn’t we be at 12 now with PSU and ND? Other things horribly wrong – UMass and MD in the BE, ECU and UC in the ACC and SMU in the B12.
His current predictions aren’t much better. GT and UNC to the B10? That seems highly unlikely to me. ND joins the ACC for FB? I’ll believe it when I see it.
LikeLike
He also had East Carolina in his “what might have been” ACC — alongside the “big four” — and Tulsa in his predicted Big 12 of 2020 (yeah, I could see OU and Okie State agreeing to that).
LikeLike
Blauds with a C7 update.
Fox officials, who are ready to begin a new sports outlet, want the Catholic 7 and “Big East” basketball to start next season.
Logistically, starting such a venture, which includes details far exceeding just basketball games is an ambitious prospect, with numerous details such as hiring a Conference commissioner and setting up an office needing to be worked out.
But in the past few days, the consensus towards leaving early start to build
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5347
LikeLike
I think the only way the C7 stay is for a deal that includes the rights to the name and even then, they might choose to leave early.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to see how accepted timelines get thrown out the window when money is involved in the larger equation.
LikeLike
Of course, this could be an ambit claim looking for concessions in order to be talked into not leaving until 2014.
LikeLike
I am going to repost this.
FWIW, here are population numbers for the Florida Panhandle.
Per Wikipedia, Florida panhandle consists of these Counties and, per some census data, the counties had the following populations as of 2010:
Bay ~168,852
Calhoun ~14,625
Escambia ~297.619
Franklin ~11,549
Gadsden ~46,389
Gulf ~15,863
Holmes ~19,927
Jackson ~49,746
Jefferson ~14,761
Leon ~275,486
Liberty ~8,365
Madison ~ 19,224
Okaloosa ~180,822
Santa Rosa ~151,372
Taylor ~22,570
Wakulla ~30,776
Walton ~55,042
Washington ~24,896
That adds up to 1,407,884.
LikeLike
Not sure what your point is. FSU is a huge statewide and national program. Miami-Dade County is loaded with Seminole fans and alumni…several hours south of Tallahassee, for instance.
LikeLike
my point was to address that question. how big is FSU’s “pull” in the whole state of Florida. I was googling yesterday morning, and I came up with these numbers. My post did not go through and so I reposted. This repost applies to comments/posts made above.
LikeLike
Dude starts backtracking… a little.
http://www.sportsmancave.com/acc-schools-have-deep-roots/
My position on expansion is evolving. As recently as last week I was certain the demise of the ACC was just around the corner. I was certain that Jim Delany was hovering over the phone waiting for the right moment to strike down the ACC, but now I have a different perspective.
Why? Because the most valuable ACC schools have deep roots in the conference.
…but…
Eventually Virginia, Georgia Tech and even North Carolina will sever the ties and make the move. They can do nothing else as the progress of the Big 10 and the Big Ten Network demands they uproot and move or die.
LikeLike
I thought he said JHU already joined two weeks ago?
LikeLike
Hell, that’s not the most fantastical part of the story.
Rumors
The big rumor is that UNC has an offer from the Big 10 and is working towards completing the paperwork the Big 10 requires. I’ve been skeptical of this one since it would seem that UNC would have the deepest roots of anyone in the ACC, but multiple sources confirm that the Big 10 has extended an invitation to North Carolina.
UNC’s offer is the type the conference doesn’t make unless it knows it will be accepted.
The same sources insist that both UVA and Georgia Tech are on board with the Big 10 too. So who’s #18?
No one is saying FSU is #18. The name mentioned most often is Notre Dame.
I hope Jim Delaney has access to an earthmover powerful enough to uproot Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s too fantastical. North Carolina is facing a major decision regarding a move from the ACC to another conference–either B1G or SEC. It makes sense that there are a lot of stakeholders, etc., who are going to be difficult to convince that such a move is either necessary or in the best interests of the university or that it helps out UNC athletics in a way that supports the school’s larger mission.
UNC just finished a strategic plan for its athletic department that you can read here–see http://www.goheels.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=3350&ATCLID=205865095 Not surprisingly, it sets out goals within the ACC, but it identified objectives need resources (such as “hiring the best coaches”) and that’s something which has been problematic for North Carolina. Their most recent budget had an operating profit of $200K (and had student fees of $7M supporting it–see http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/story/9944045/
Virgina and Georgia Tech have long been considered strong possibilities for the Big Ten. Obviously, it’s been repeated so many times that we may now be in an echo chamber, but the basic reasoning behind their possible candidacy remains pretty much the same.
LikeLike
Not buying it.
LikeLike
Of course not. That’s why it’s fantastical. Nothing intuitive about this suggests that UNC would be this close to jumping, would jump first or would jump this soon.
LikeLike
Missed your first sentence, sorry.
LikeLike
what a clown.
LikeLike
I guess even if you suspend believe on one front (UNC is considering jumping on the sword inside of being the last to leave), how does it benefit The B1G to do anything within the next 12 months? It’s not like any contracts would be reopened for negotiation based on their (logistically impossible early) entry. It would detract from integration of Rutgers/UMD. It would likely cost the B1G given the exit fee issue hasn’t been resolved, leading to greater concessions than were offered to say, Nebraska.
The timing of this seemingly needs to be immediately after the lawsuit is settled, as part of some mass dissolution action by the ACC, or in a timeframe close to the next round of TV rights negotiations.
LikeLike
The advantages are this:
1) You get the new members in before the playoff starts;
2) You get things rolling in time to get out before June 30 when one argument says the new exit fee takes effect;
3) You get things rolling before July 1 when 2 new members join the ACC and impact the voting. There may be enough leaving to make the exit fee lawsuit moot;
4) There is the potential that the Big 5 become the Big 4, splitting playoff and bowl $ into fewer pieces.
The lawsuit is going to go whichever way it goes whether more teams leave or not. There might be measurable damages if a bunch of teams leave, but that issue is there regardless.
So there are very strong incentives, if there is an intent to expand, to do so in the next 3 months. The ACC, has no incentive to settle the Maryland lawsuit in that time frame. They want to stretch out the start of discovery as long as possible.
LikeLike
@bullett, I respect your points, but I’ll alluding to the difference between starting joining and competition now (e.g. 2014) vs. announcing now and starting, say right after the TV contract kicks in.
I was specifically rejecting the implication that there’s only logic in an immediate start, not logic in an imminent announcement.
LikeLike
“I’ll alluding to the difference between starting joining and competition now (e.g. 2014) vs. announcing now and starting, say right after the TV contract kicks in.”
Because we’ve seen that announcing you are leaving a conference, and having to stick around and play games for two years is a very uncomfortable situation.
LikeLike
I hate the lack of spellcheck…
LikeLike
This is precisely where my BS meter goes off: “UNC’s offer is the type the conference doesn’t make unless it knows it will be accepted.”
I have never seen any reason to believe The Dude would know the difference between an offer that is made to entice a school and one made when one is convinced it will be accepted …
… I am not all that convinced whether The Dude’s purported Big Ten sources are at the level and experience that they would know the difference …
… and EVEN IF IT WAS, the Big Ten could be 100% convinced that UNC was going to move and end up being wrong about that.
So I see three points where The Dude’s conclusion may be unsupported by what he has as actual information.
One reason to be skeptical is that The Dude doesn’t even seem to understand the difference between the Mid-Majors and the FCS schools: “Very soon the Big 12, Pac 12 and SEC will follow the Big 10’s lead and the practice of scheduling FCS schools will end. What will replace it is scheduling agreements between the big 4 that effectively relegates the ACC to FCS status.”
The notion that some speculative sheduling arrangements among the Big 4 will relegate the ACC down PAST the Mid-Majors to FCS status is absurd ~ especially given that the proposed Big Ten / Pac-12 scheduling arrangement never actually happened.
LikeLike
Huge hoops win for Penn State tonight. First conference win of the season and against Michigan of all teams.
LikeLike
Ow, my rankings.
LikeLike
And a huge loss for The B1G. Michigan was being slotted as the fourth #1 seed. Not anymore.
LikeLike
I’d love to trade that win for one on the football field against MI in the next four (6?, 8?)years!
LikeLike
Getting close to 1500 comments. Could we get a new post soon, Frank, just to make it easier to navigate?
LikeLike
@m(Ag) – It’s been crazy at work this week. A new one will be coming soon!
LikeLike
Is there any news at this point though? Maybe the idea of the Catholic 7 jumping early? Or Maryland lawsuit updates? Feels like realignment news, or even semi-serious speculation, has dried up a bit.
LikeLike
speculation BE is about to invite Tulsa which means CUSA dipping into SB more.
But for the most part, it seems like noone is in a hurry right now.
LikeLike
For gawd sakes Frank, at least change the pic! Did you use photoshop? 🙂
LikeLike
All of these expansion discussions on the Internet are only focused on one main objective: How to schedule a conference championship game?
What happens if that is not the main objective of university presidents? What happens if the main objective is to establish “communities of cooperation”: Schools that want to compete in athletics but not at the expense of unsustainable athletic budgets.
If NCAA Rule 17.9.1.2 (c) prohibits the scheduling of a championship game for a conference comprising 3 divisions of 6 schools each, then simply not schedule it. There would then be only division champions and conference co-champions.
LikeLike
@Radi: I think you’re right that when University presidents vote to expand, how to schedule a conference championship game is not the main objective.
But having expanded, for whatever the reason, they’re going to try to come up with the most sensible scheduling format that they can. Every FBS conference with at least 12 teams has a CCG, so apparently the leagues think that is the best way. If they thought so at 12 or 14 teams, they’ll probably do so at 18 as well.
You’re welcome to argue that your way is even better, but so far I don’t think you’ve persuaded anyone.
LikeLike
Anyone else get the feeling Maryland tanked their athletic department on purpose just to make this move easier to swallow? There really wouldn’t be a trail to follow. Just simply admit that you over-spent at times and made bad decisions elsewhere. Then in a few years point to the recovery funds/surplus of B1G cash and none the wiser.
Spending 10 to make 30 is not a bad move. (assuming you can survive your time in the red and “down the road” is a constant whether you stay or go)
Maryland possible tank job aside, nobody else in the ACC has a pressing need to put money over fit. The reverse isn’t true though. Pitt, BC, ND and Cuse would fit better in the Big Ten and make more. Ditto UConn. I add UConn, because if you can only pull one, just grab UConn (ala Rutgers grab).
Rather than wait for tank jobs (nobody is going to lose money with the Playoffs and new NCAA structure without trying to…. dumb humans like us have an insatiable appetite for minor league sports under a guise of “I went there = their success is me”) why not admit the Dirty is impossible and just grab 2 of: Pitt/BC/Cuse/ND/UConn?
The answer to that is ND is impossible and any other combo pack doesn’t increase pie slices. Ergo, I know Frank isn’t selling ads, but everyone here is wasting there time on future B1G expansion as isn’t happening in the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight.
Debbie Yow tanked Maryland’s athletic department by spending a ton of money on bells and whistles for their stadium and several of the non-revenue programs, and then they tanked the football program to create a dramatic loss of revenue as the debt piled up.
Then she runs off to NC State to take over as AD there and Maryland moves to the Big Ten?
It’s too crazy to believe that she’d do all of that on purpose (especially since NC State could end up left out in the cold at the end of all of this movement).
LikeLike
So clearly NCST will be the the 15th member of the B1G.
LikeLike
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Maryland’s problems were not a “tank job,” but simply wrong decisions at the wrong time. AD Debbie Yow’s decision to expand Byrd Stadium with suites was made in the wake of three straight 10-win seasons by Ralph Friedgen (2001-03) and expansion of the ACC with Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College — a decision which at the time looked good for the conference, and Maryland.
What happened? Miami stumbled (having Urban Meyer up in Gainesville didn’t help any), Florida State slowly declined and ACC football couldn’t shake off its second-tier status. Moreover, Friedgen had lackluster recruiting, and Maryland slowly fizzled into mediocrity. And the financial havoc of 2008 came precisely at the wrong time for this athletic department. (Ironically, those suites may finally be put to good use come 2014, when Big Ten foes such as Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin visit College Park.)
Rather than wait for tank jobs (nobody is going to lose money with the Playoffs and new NCAA structure without trying to…. dumb humans like us have an insatiable appetite for minor league sports under a guise of “I went there = their success is me”) why not admit the Dirty is impossible and just grab 2 of: Pitt/BC/Cuse/ND/UConn?
Pittsburgh is the only one of those five with AAU membership (though Notre Dame would certainly qualify academically were it interested), but Pitt adds no new markets and ND has no interest in joining any conference for all sports. SU might have been considered a decade ago, but that ship has long sailed. I still don’t understand why people are pushing BC for the Big Ten (for college sports, the Boston media market is severely overrated) and conference officials simply want no part of Connecticut, something those nouveau riche fans in Storrs don’t understand.
LikeLike
Oh, and the “you” is for “Chip Brown Lives,” not “zeek.” Just want to clarify that.
LikeLike
I’m still now sure how BC and Pitt (especially BC) continue to come up in discussions about expansion.
Pitt is an extreme longshot given that the Big Ten has now clearly made its priorities obvious after bypassing Pitt for Maryland and Rutgers in the East.
And taking Maryland should show the direction of where this is going as opposed to BC which is in the opposite direction.
LikeLike
The groupthink on this blog has long ago discounted BC as a viable candidate for the B1G. When someone new shows up with a ‘fresh’ idea that somehow BC would be great in the B1G, my eyes immediately glaze over like a star trooper being told, ‘move on, nothing to see here’. Sort of the same way I feel about anything Andy and MO. 🙂
LikeLike
Andy and MO got picked for a major conference, and there are still rumors floated by television reporters within the last few days that the B1G wants Missouri. BC on the other hand…
LikeLike
@ Chip Brown ~ except ex ante, the losses are certain and the gains are speculative.
Pitt is an AAU school, of the non-AAU schools in your list, ND has some fairly strong grad schools in non-revenue fields (top25 – top30 in both Law and MBA), neither Syracuse, BC or UConn are really good institutional fits. Syracuse might once have been, but I guess either Syracuse private fundraising or New York State funding have taken them in a different direction.
HOPEFULLY the Big Ten will hold out for UNC for a number of years as they did for Notre Dame for a decade or two, UNC will remain first preference ACC while people argue over whether the second preference is Big Ten or SEC, and all Major conferences will survive until the end of the decade when the cable fund revenue fever might start to abate.
But as long as there is substantially more money on the table, its not really possible to rule out some damn academic “entrepreneur” jumping and starting a cascade. And as long as that is true, everyone else has to sort out what their options are, which will keep generating conference realignment smoke out of the ACC.
LikeLike
The B1G can’t afford to wait. A helluva lot can change in a few years (e.g. the way in which TV generates revenue for conferences and programs).
LikeLike
Catholic 7 leaving this summer??
I think I have read this guy before, but Chicago Tribune and USA Today are talking about this article he posted stating that the Catholic 7 want to leave this summer. He states that they may play as a 7 team league until they can get other teams on board, which seems highly impractical.
He also states that this may cause Notre Dame and Louisville to leave early (no mention of Rutgers). Notre Dame I believe wanted out by this summer but just a couple weeks ago said they would stick it out until July 2014. For Louisville the ACC would have to scrap their whole football schedule and race to pull Louisville in, Georgia Techs schedule would get rewritten (which they should be happy about), but seems completely implausible. ACC with Maryland and Louisville in 2013, and then no Maryland in 2014. Big 10 will not speed things up to get Maryland in, this would cause a giant mess.
If I were the Catholic 7, I would want a clean break too, but they needed to extend invites a long time ago to get this going in 2013. I know the Big East TV deal is out, anyone know what the Catholic 7 will make per school in 2013 in the ACC compared to their own conference? Do they get $1.5 million now? With football members only making $1.8 going forward, I’m guessing the Catholic 7 is taking a pay cut this year, when getting out would mean a nice increase (aside fro penalties for leaving early).
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5347#more-5347
LikeLike
Chicago Tribune
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-27/sports/chi-depaul-marquette-big-east-20130227_1_basketball-schools-football-schools-depaul-and-marquette
LikeLike
Louisville doesn’t have anywhere to go until Maryland leaves. The ACC has said already that Louisville would be taking Maryland’s place in the scheduling for football, so there’s that.
LikeLike
Whether or not Louisville has anywhere to go won’t be the deciding factor, especially since the football schools are still hanging around.
LikeLike
Athlon link to top coaching jobs. I’m suprised to see notre dame not listed higher. Kinda cool FSU is also listed high…making them seem like an even better get.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-college-footballs-coaching-jobs-2013
LikeLike
I don’t think Missouri belongs in the top 50, otherwise, pretty good list.
LikeLike
Haw haw troll. Missouri: 13th in the country in total wins over the last 6 seasons. Top 25 in the country in attendance over the last few years (I think 23rd this year). $200M in facility improvments underway. Stadium capacity increasing to 83k, which would make it top 15. Only Division 1 school in a state of 6M people. SEC money should push operating budget into the top 20. If anything Missouri is ranked a little too low on that list. If they hadn’t had their starting QB, RB, and 6 out of 10 O-Linemen go down with injuries this year then they would have made their 9th bowl in 10 years. As it was they lost by 7 at top 10 Florida, and by 3 or 4 to 9 win Vanderbilt and 8 win Syracuse. They were pretty close to getthing their usual 8 wins and a mid-tier bowl. But you have one losing season and all the boo birds come out and act like the program is terrible.
LikeLike
I would argue that at the moment Missouri is probably around 30 at best, 35 at worst. I think increaed revenue from the SEC, the $200M in facility upgrades, the larger stadium, the increasing attendance, all of those will push the Missouri job close to top 25 status. I expect operating budget to increase from mid to high $60Ms to mid to high $80Ms over the next few years. That should make a big difference. If you look at that list, it corresponds to a large degree to money and attendance as much as it does to anything.
The only thing that could trip Missouri up from climbing is a string of bad seasons. They’re still at 8 bowls in 10 seasons even with this year’s stumble. But they can’t keep stumbling.
LikeLike
@ Christian: If you look at the company its keeping there in the 30’s ~ the Hawkeyes, Cal, BYU, Boise State ~ it doesn’t seem all that unreasonable. It fits Andy’s argument that Mizzou would make a mediocre addition to the Big Ten ~ below 7 of the current Big Ten, above 5.
LikeLike
Where are Rutgers and Maryland on that list?
LikeLike
Don’t know if they are in the top 50, stopped when I saw what Christian was talking about. But after Rutgers and Maryland join, that would make for perfect mediocrity for Mizzou to the Big Ten ~ Seven above, Seven below.
LikeLike
B10:
5. OSU
7. MI
14. PSU
15. NE
26. WI
30. MSU
34. IA
43. RU
46. MD
49. IL
53. PU
56. MN
63. NW
70. IN
Others of interest:
10. ND
11. FSU
21. VT
22. Miami
27. UNC
31. Pitt
36. MO
42. NCSU
44. UVA
45. GT
59 Syracuse
61. KU
68. BC
73. UConn
LikeLike
This whole list is just some guy’s opinion, an opinion I disagree with. And anyway, like I said, Missouri should move up several spots with the new SEC revenue and the $200M in facility and stadium upgrades that are now underway. But it’s nice to see that Bruce’s logic/arguments are so hollow that he’ll taunt Missouri for being #36 on this made up list while continually praising #43 Rutgers, #44 UVA, #45 GT, and #46 Maryland.
Like so many on here, most of your Missouri bashing has zero to do with facts and everything to do with trolling me personally.
LikeLike
I think it is interesting that Wisconsin is ranked above Arkansas even though Wiscy’s coach just left for the Razorbacks.
LikeLike
To KU, KSU, and Nebraska fans claiming that KC isn’t a Mizzou town, check this out:
http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/kc/ticketing/group_offer.jsp?loc=mizzou&partnerId=29J197WU1-6G7
For Mizzou Day the Royals are giving out 2,000 Mizzou hats. For KSU day they’re giving out 1,000 KSU hats. For KU day they’re giving out 750 KU hats. I’m pretty sure they had a market researcher figure out the proper number of hats to give out to each group based on market share. So there’s your general idea of what % of the KC market Mizzou delivers.
LikeLike
That’s pretty scientific.
Probably has more to do with the fact that there are a lot of leftover Missouri hats laying around that no one will pay money for. 🙂
Also, even if it were accurate, that says Mizzou is only capturing about 53% of the market just among college teams in one of the state’s two major cities. And the other college teams in question are located in a different state. Not impressed.
LikeLike
@Arch – he left out the 750 Nebraska hats the Royals are giving away. Kansas, obviously, is more popular than Nebraska in KC.
LikeLike
No, I don’t think it’s all that scientific. And a lot of people who go to Royals games travel in from west of the border. I’m merely pointing out the obvious: that Missouri gets majority support in KC. There’s so much lying garbage floating around in this forum about Missouri that it takes a lot of fact-based posts like these to refute them all.
LikeLike
“No, I don’t think it’s all that scientific.”
“There’s so much lying garbage floating around in this forum about Missouri that it takes a lot of fact-based posts like these to refute them all.”
That’s pretty good, even for you, Andy. You start by admitting your post about the hat nights is not credible and two sentences later you finish by noting what a fact based analysis hat night is.
LikeLike
“not all that scientific” is a far cry from “lying garbage” but then maybe you don’t know the difference.
LikeLike
And that makes it “fact based”?
Never mind, don’t bother…
LikeLike
” “not all that scientific” is a far cry from “lying garbage” but then maybe you don’t know the difference.”
You agreed that the Hat Night Promo was “not all that scientific”. “Lying garbage” is what you called posts by other people about the University of Missouri. I was not saying you were being a hypocrite for posting the Hat Night information. I was not comparing it to anything anyone has ever posted about Missouri. I merely pointed out that you agreed the Hat Night data was not scientific and two sentences later you called the Hat Night data a fact based post.
Basically, your Hat Night post is pointless information that you have attempted to spin into yet another one of your many “Missouri is great” diatribes. Also, the actual information, while anecdotal and of dubious relevance, suggests the opposite of what you claim. You want to act like Kansas City is a pro Missouri Tiger town, while any rational person will tell you that it is very much split between Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and even Nebraska. The fact that a baseball team in Kansas City is even having promotions involving schools other than Missouri only serves to reenforce the notion of a divided town.
I think the only reason K.C. and its collegiate allegiance is ever mentioned is because you constantly try to argue that the Big Ten made a mistake in not taking Missouri over Nebraska, or something like that. You point out how many more people live in Missouri and how Kansas City and St Louis are top-whatever number markets (while ignoring more relevant information like actual number of people who would watch a football game involving Nebraska compared to Missouri).
Among the many counterargument that more rational and objective posters point out to you is that Kansas City might be a top-whatever market, but its loyalty is very much divided between several teams. A point you nicely demonstrated by posting your Kansas City Royals Hat Night info.
LikeLike
Since when do facts have to be scientific?
They were unscientific facts.
LikeLike
Arch, do you realize that the Royal’s stadium is a few minutes drive from the Kansas border? And that a lot of people who live in Kansas drive to Missouri to go to Royals games? You do realize that, don’t you?
KC, MIssouri is a majority Missouri town. The hat promo isn’t scientific, no, but it isn’t meaningless either. It shows that the KC Royals believe that they have more Missouri fans coming to their games than any other kind.
This is just one of many different data points to come out to support this. TV ratings are another. Mizzou football beats out all others in KC when it comes to TV ratings. None of these are “scientific” proof of anything, but that doesn’t mean they’re meaningless either. Plenty of factual statements are neither scientific nor meaningless. A smart guy like yourself should know this.
LikeLike
Missouri can deliver about half of the college football fans from the Kansas City metro area. Which is more than any team from a neighboring state can claim. That’s quite impressive. :0
Though to put it another way: about half of the college football fans in the K.C. metro area root primarily for a team other than Missouri. So, maybe you shouldn’t be tooting the K.C. horn when trying to inflate the resume of Missouri as being Big Ten conference worthy.
You try to spin a 51% share of one of Missouri’s two biggest cities as a good thing. Everyone sees past your spin and the vast, vast majority of anti-Missouri comments I see on here are purposely aimed at you because you are such a homer and always take the bait. Your posts do the opposite of what you hope to accomplish. Everyone now has a lower opinion of the University of Missouri thanks to your BS. May god have mercy on your soul.
LikeLike
Well considering 550k out of the 1842k population (30%) of the KC metro area is actually in the state of Kansas, it’s no surprise that the Kansas schools get a chunk of the fans. The trouble is the Kansas schools only have one major metro area to draw from, and they have to share it with each other and Missouri and Nebraska, and Missouri still gets more than the other 3 combined. And then Missouri also draws from the St. Louis metro area (population 2.8M) where they have a 70% market share (Illinois gets around 20%, but then they have Chicago).
LikeLike
As for unsold hats, Missouri ranked #20 in apparel sales in 2012, Kansas ranked #22.
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Annual2012.aspx
LikeLike
It’s clearly because Missouri fans are able to empathize with a fellow downtrodden team like the Royals.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/72310/b1g-first-round-draft-forecast-looks-bleak
Pretty clear why the B1G hasn’t had elite teams lately. No top 10 draft picks since 2008.
LikeLike
Only because Taylor Lewan returned for his senior year.
LikeLike
C7 moving on in 2013 per ESPN.
If you haven’t already written an NHL realignment post, Frank, you’ve got a topic.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9000502/catholic-7-schools-keep-big-east-name-new-league-next-season-according-sources
The Big East’s departing Catholic 7 schools are expected to start their own league next season and will keep the Big East Conference name, sources told ESPN’s Brett McMurphy, Andy Katz and Dana O’Neil.
Joining the Catholic 7 schools — DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. John’s, Seton Hall, and Villanova — in the new “Big East” this fall will be Xavier and Butler, sources said.
LikeLike
Now we know just how hard Fox is pushing this whole thing.
“Fox Sports Network is expected to announce the addition of the Catholic 7/Big East basketball league Tuesday in New York as part of the network’s press conference announcing the addition of Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 channels.”
A part of why they wanted this deal done quickly and to be executed without waiting until 2015.
LikeLike
This also shows that Fox has had its eye on NBC’s launch of NBC Sports Network as much as anything.
They saw that having a network debut without some kind of splashy content was a bad idea (the NHL lockout didn’t help).
Having the Catholic 7 ready to feed them content by next hoops season right after they launch FS1 and FS2 is an answer to the content issue.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised. The C7 were pushing it too. They will get $30-$40 million in a 9 to 12 team league. ESPN was paying $10 million for a 16 team (?can’t keep track of exactly whose in or out each year of the BE anymore) league. So each of them will be making at least $2.5 million more next year.
LikeLike
I think ESPN helped push the C7 to move now with its $625K per team basketball payout for 2013. The FOX cash will be 4x ESPN’s. That’s enough to keep Xavier and Butler whole with the A10 buyouts for <1 year notice. I saw ESPN report that said C7 was also keeping MSG.
LikeLike
Xavier, Butler, and who else?
LikeLike
According to the article, it rhymes, Creighton, Dayton and St. Louis (but that’s only likely, not certain).
LikeLike
I suspect they’ll leave it open for ND if they need the spot. If the ACC can’t absorb them soon enough then ND needs the sport to park their non FB sports. #10 won’t be picked until the ND situation is resolved.
LikeLike
Notre Dame left the Big East because they weren’t viable for their non-football sports.
LikeLike
@metatron, is the ACC can’t take ND until 2014 where would you rather park non football sports for one year? NewBE or CUSA2.0? That’s a no brainer. They’ll hang with the Catholics. Bigger payout and better BB competition. The NewBE won’t care because they’ll get to borrow a marque school for a year, which will help them in their inaugural season, gives them one year at 10 teams to see how well it works (or doesn’t) and allows them a year to decide how and with whom to expand.
LikeLike
While competing with as few as nine members in 2013-14, the Catholic 7 schools are expected to add Creighton, Dayton and St. Louis in 2014 for a 12-team league.
…
If unable to join the ACC in 2013-14, the Fighting Irish would consider spending one season in the Catholic 7 league before moving to the ACC in 2014, a source said.
LikeLike
If anyone is interested here is a convenient overview of potential Big East additions by the numbers
http://www.casualhoya.com/2013/2/27/4037010/your-guide-to-the-catholic-7-expansion
LikeLike
@frug – No mention of hat give away data?
LikeLike
Do the Cardinals have a St. Louis U. hat day? The burning question, will SLU and Creighton leave MU and NU basketball in the dust. Stay tuned.
LikeLike
SLU has very few fans in St. Louis compared to Missouri. They really haven’t had that much success over the years. Only 7 NCAA tournament appearnces compared to 25 at Missouri. But if SLU joins the Big East and wins there I imagine they’ll get more fans.
LikeLike
Well the other thing is recruiting.
I’d imagine joining a high profile group with roots in terrific recruiting grounds will help them out to (although Creighton’s already a top-flight program without that).
LikeLike
@bullet – It doesn’t look like the Cardinals have a college hat giveaway. Therefore, there are no college fans in St. Louis. However, something called Fredbird is very popular.
LikeLike
Fredbird is a native Missourian. I like Mizzou’s chances.
LikeLike
@Andy
Chip Brown’s catch phrase “stay tuned” was the giveaway. It wasn’t a serious question. Although obviously BE helps SLU. It probably helps Creighton (although leaving the MVC after all these years would be a big step).
LikeLike
If the Catholic7 stays at 9 or 10, that would still leave some midwest members of the A-10.
Not having the midwest portion of the A-10 totally decimated would help teams like Detroit, Valpo, or Loyola Chicago slot into the A-10 much better.
The advantage of only having 9 teams is that you’d only have 16 conference games.
For every C7 conference game, one C7 team has to lose.
Is there a higher probability of a 9-team league getting 7 teams into the tournament
than a 10-team league? Due to having a 16 game conference schedule vs an 18 game conference schedule, I’d have to think “yes”.
LikeLike
It would almost be impossible for any league to get 70% of its teams in the NCAA tournament. I guess you could play only 8 conference games & beat up on a lot of teams non-conference. 50% would be a terrific year for any league.
LikeLike
@Mark
The Big East nearly pulled off 70% in ’10-’11 (68.75%), and the Big Ten DID reach 70% in ’89-’90. So not impossible, but indeed very very difficult.
As for the 50%? I think 50-60% per year should be the Big East 2.0’s goal for the short and medium term. That is generally what the Big East and Big Ten (and until very recently ACC) do.
LikeLike
Getting 50% of teams in the tournament seems pretty standard for the top conferences.
Is that the ceiling?
CBS bracketology for this year has
the 9-team MWC getting 5 teams in, and
the 12-team B1G getting 7 teams in.
I could see 6/9 of a 9-team Catholic7 getting in
more often than 8/12 in a 12-team big ten.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21787349/catholic-7-looking-at-nine-schools-might-stop-there
According to multiple sources, the seven teams leaving the Big East — Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, Seton Hall, St. John’s, DePaul and Providence — might only add Xavier and Butler in the immediate future. There has been speculation the league would expand to 12 teams, but it now appears that it will be a nine- or 10-team league. Sources revealed there is a lack of consensus among the above schools on who the 10th member should be.
Creighton, Saint Louis, Dayton, Richmond and VCU were all under consideration if the league opted to expand to 10 or 12 teams.
“Nine teams would be ideal in the sense that each team would be able to play every team twice in the league,” one source said.
LikeLike
WGN just reported Creighton is in as the tenth school
LikeLike
…ADD, at comment ~1500, I held out as long as I could.
Giving up the BigEast name just seems galactically stupid for
UConn, Cinci, USF, and Temple.
Yes, in an ideal world if one were to associate the BigEast to a group of schools,
that group would be the Catholic7. But who needs the BigEast brand more, and who actually has the rights to the name?
The FB schools need the Brand to allow individual schools to grow beneath the brand in order to become bigger names themselves.
The Catholic7 already have schools with basketball brands. Those individual C7 schools would be able to grow a conference brand, whereas the cusa-2 schools would have a very hard time doing so.
In selling the BigEast brand, cusa-2 schools have just put themselves behind the MWC and possibly the A-10 as well.
UConn, Cinci, USF and Temple are about to sell out their future for a short term payday.
LikeLike
Unless UConn and UC know that they are not going to be in the new conference and they want to get as much cash as they can. I don’t think Temple gets to make any decision until July – right now its just UConn, UC and USF.
LikeLike
I would think UConn, UC, and USF selling off the BigEast name without conferring with their future conference mates wouldn’t do a lot to help future “the conference formerly known as the BigEast” cohesion.
LikeLike
I would think UConn, UC, and USF selling off the BigEast name without conferring with their future conference mates wouldn’t do a lot to help future “the conference formerly known as the BigEast” cohesion.
Nothing is going to make TCFKATBE cohesive.
LikeLike
The problem is the Big East football brand has been so severely damaged (probably irreparably), that the FB schools will get more value by selling it than using it.
LikeLike
One other thing to remember, is that Temple doesn’t have voting rights yet and UConn and Cincy both think/hope they have a shot at the ACC or Big XII within the next couple years.
LikeLike
Sorry Frank, no Classic East.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9000502/catholic-7-schools-keep-big-east-name-new-league-next-season-according-sources
The Big East’s departing Catholic 7 schools are expected to start their own league next season and will keep the Big East Conference name, sources told ESPN’s Brett McMurphy, Andy Katz and Dana O’Neil.
LikeLike
I see you beat me to it frug. My bad.
LikeLike
I have been reading through the various suggestions for arranging the 14 teams in the B1G, and it appears that the most wanted features are:
# divisions are roughly geographical
# divisions are reasonably balanced
# significant rivals meet yearly
# all teams meet at least twice in five years
# all teams play Michigan/OSU often
# Michigan/OSU often play in NYC and DC
# minimum of 4 king vs king games yearly
# Maryland and Rutgers play PSU yearly
# the divisional structure is not too complicated
What would you say if I told you that all of the above can be accomplished in eight conference games? Not 9, not 10, but just 8 conference games?
Would you like to know more?
We start with the following divisions:
EAST: Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, Indiana, Purdue, OSU, Michigan
WEST: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, NW, Nebraska, MSU
Eight conference games gives us 6 divisional games and 2 crossovers. Every year Nebraska’s crossovers are OSU and Michigan. The same goes for MSU: it plays Michigan and OSU every year. This gives us two king vs king games and maintains the Michigan-MSU rivalry.
Meanwhile, the other five teams in each division do their crossovers sequentially, playing games with all five teams in the opposite division. There are no fixed crossovers so it will take just five years to play two games (home/away) with all five teams in the opposite division.
At this point the WEST teams (except for Nebraska and MSU) have had no games with OSU and Michigan. So we send OSU and Michigan west for two years to play in that division (home/away). To balance this move, Nebraska and MSU go east.
It is open to negotiation how often OSU and Michigan are sent west. If it is more important for west teams to have those games, then OSU and Michigan can spend equal time in the east and west. If it is more important for OSU and Michigan to play on the east coast, then they can play in the EAST division more often.
So there it is: all objectives met with just eight conference games.
LikeLike
Hopefully B1G takes Mizzou, gets them off the SEC payroll
LikeLike
Sorry, the University Presidents wanted to class up your league with some decent academic schools. You’re stuck with us.
LikeLike
Welcome to hades, JakeBAMA!
LikeLike
you mean the place where people come to make lame trolling attacks on Missouri every day, only to have them easily batted down continuously?
Here, I’ll help him get started:
Missouri is AAU, but ranks in the bottom quartile of AAU schools. Oops, Bama isn’t AAU at all.
Alabama has been to 59 bowls, Missouri has only been to 30. Alabama has 19 claimed and unclaimed national titles in football, Missouri only has 2. Clearly Alabama is better at football. The all time series between the two schools is tied 2-2, but you’ll probably take the series lead at some point.
Missouri has never been to a Final 4. Oh, but neither has Alabama. And Missouri has 5 more NCAA appearances, 4 more Elite 8s, 10 more conference titles (regular season and tournament).
Oh, here’s one I hear a lot on here, try this: Missouri has several pro sports teams, therefore their state doesn’t count. Alabama doesn’t have any pro sports, so at least youve got that going for you!
LikeLike
Just for the record, I have NEVER bad mouthed Missouri! They were a good 12 until Nebraska became available, and, IMO would have been just as good a 13/14 as Maryland/Rutgers. That said, there are a lot of people on this blog who enjoy pulling your chain. If I have, it was light hearted, and you have my apology.
Now back to my single malt scotch and music. Joe South anyone?
[audio src="http://www.timegoesby.net/files/joe-south---games-people-play.mp3" /]
LikeLike
“Eight conference games gives us 6 divisional games and 2 crossovers. Every year Nebraska’s crossovers are OSU and Michigan. The same goes for MSU: it plays Michigan and OSU every year. This gives us two king vs king games and maintains the Michigan-MSU rivalry”.
StevenD,
under that plan,
A), MSU and Neb would never play anyone other than OSU and Mich outside their division.
B) OSU and Mich would never play anyone outside their division other than MSU and NEB.
C) west teams other than MSU & Neb would never play OSU or Mich.
D) east teams other than Mich & OSU would never play Neb or MSU.
E) OSU, Neb, MSU, Mich, automatically have a built in more difficult sched each yr than anyone else.
LikeLike
@skeptic
Without re-reading it myself, I believe the MSU/Neb combo swap divisions with the OSU/Mi combo every two years.
LikeLike
@skeptic
Your points A, B, C and D are invalid. Every team (including OSU, Mich, Neb and MSU) play every team in the conference at least twice in five years.
Your point E is correct. OSU, Neb, MSU, Mich will have more difficult schedules than other teams. That’s what happens when you maximize the number of king vs king matches. Over all, this is a good thing for the conference. Tough schedules certainly don’t do the SEC any harm.
LikeLike
Pingback: Oh, the Places You’ll Go! Where Big Ten Graduates Live and Conference Realignment | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT