Back in 2010 and 2011 when the Big 12 was under siege by the then-Pac-10, Big Ten and SEC and appeared to be on the verge of collapse, basketball blue blood Kansas was looking like it could left out of the power conference structure. Circumstances were so dire at that point that Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and other Big 12 schools without any realistic prospects of moving to another power league actually approached the Big East to join if the worst case scenario came to fruition. It was a scary thought to a lot of fans: if Kansas could be left behind, then football is truly all that matters and basketball must have virtually no value in conference realignment. The 10 points (out of a total of 100) that I assigned to “Basketball Brand Value” in the original Big Ten Expansion Index was looking like a massive overweighting of hoops back then.
To the extent that it was already clear, the maxim was set in stone: “Football is everything in conference realignment.” Discussions about basketball value went by the wayside over the past couple of years as conference realignment discussions focused intensely upon how to maximize football dollars. Now, to be sure, much of this made (and still makes) sense for the power conferences. First tier TV contracts for college football dwarf those for college basketball while the top conferences (via the bowl system) are able to funnel postseason football money directly to their own coffers instead of having to deal with the NCAA for basketball postseason dollars.
However, any hard and fast rule is bound to be broken. As the Big East started suffering from a disintegration over the past 18 months that was originally prescribed for the Big 12, the seven non-football playing Catholic members of that league decided to break off and form a basketball-focused conference. There was quite a bit of skepticism that this could be financially viable considering that the Atlantic 10 signed a new deal worth only $350,000 per school per year (compared to the $1.3 million per year that each of the Big East schools were receiving for basketball under the current ESPN contract that’s about to expire). The perception was that football was propping the “Catholic 7” up and they would be taking a substantial haircut by splitting off from the gridiron portion of the conference.
Then, the TV offers came in. The Catholic 7 received an offer from Fox worth $3 million to $4 million per school per year just for men’s basketball, while the remnants of the Big East will be getting about $2 million per school per year for both football and basketball. Think about it this way: Cincinnati, which has been to 2 BCS bowls and was seconds away from making it to the football national championship game in 2009, is going to end up making 50% to 100% less TV money for football and basketball than crosstown rival Xavier will be making from basketball alone (assuming all of the reports are correct that Xavier will be joining the Catholic 7)… and Xavier is going to end up being in the conference named “The Big East”, too.
If the Big East/Catholic 7 TV contract situation hasn’t changed how you view conference realignment overall, it should. This should be a glaring warning signal any conference that is not named the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, Big 12 or ACC: football in and of itself isn’t going to get leagues paid and they better start paying attention to basketball if they want to maximize revenue. For instance, if I was running UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and/or Temple, I would start questioning what the point is of having massive capital expenditures and operating expenses for football when nearby schools are getting paid more than my athletic department based on perceived basketball prowess. Now, schools like UConn or Cincinnati are still be positioning themselves to get into the ACC or Big 12, so they obviously can’t downshift in football, but maybe they would be better off creating a public university version of the Catholic 7. For instance, take UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and Temple as a base and then add on UMass, Old Dominion and Charlotte as all-sports schools and Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) and Wichita State (and maybe a couple of other public schools like Rhode Island) as basketball members. Navy might actually prefer to be a football-only member in that type of league compared to the Big East as currently configured, as well. That’s just throwing a list of schools against the wall, but what’s clear to me is that very high basketball value of UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and Temple is getting severely diluted by the rest of the “new” Big East that won’t be called the Big East anymore. (For the purposes of this post, I’ll define the Big East football schools left behind as the “Big X”.) UConn getting a fraction of what Providence is receiving in terms of TV money ought to be unacceptable to the people in Storrs (even if the Huskies’ long-term plan is to get into the ACC at all costs), so it’s time to start rethinking the conventional wisdom of the role football plays in conference realignment.
What we have seen over the past 3 years is a lot of moves on paper, but the overall effect being more of the same. The power club when the BCS system was created in 1998 consisted of 6 conferences and 63 schools (including independent Notre Dame). 15 years later, the power club now has 5 conferences and 65 schools, with 3 schools moving up (Louisville, TCU and Utah) and 1 school moving down (Temple, who was kicked out of the power structure due to performance as opposed to anything related to realignment). That is a net change of 2 schools over the course of 15 years. Essentially, every single school that isn’t already in a power conference is praying for a winning lottery ticket with their respective football programs with those odds. As any financial adviser could tell you, though, pinning your dreams on winning the lottery isn’t a viable investment plan. When the Big East became too filled with “riff raff”, the entire league got kicked out of the power club instead of being integrated. It’s clear that the power club doesn’t want to get much larger (if at all), so everyone outside of that top tier needs to start looking at other ways to maximize revenue.
While basketball is much less of a concern to the power conferences at face value, consider which school is the top target for both the Big Ten and SEC (the 2 richest and most powerful conferences): North Carolina. It certainly isn’t due to UNC’s prowess at football or avoiding academic fraud. To the contrary, UNC is a basketball blue blood, and more importantly, Tar Heels basketball games are so critically important in the state of the North Carolina that a conference TV network carrying such games can effectively charge whatever carriage rate that it wants in that market. Think of the Big Ten’s addition of Maryland, as well. Fan enthusiasm for Terps football has been tepid lately, but part of what the conference is banking on is that there is a critical mass of interest in Maryland basketball where it can get the Big Ten Network basic carriage in the Washington, DC and Baltimore markets.
For conferences that don’t have their own TV networks, then the main way to monetize expansion is through first tier football TV contracts. In contrast, the “market” model of conference TV networks means that basketball needs to be taken into account more. (See the BTN garnering its highest-ever rated month in prime time in January based on the strength of the hoops league this year.) At the same time, the number of strong football brand names that are willing to move is pretty low right now. In 2010, everyone in the old Big 12 that had Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M, everyone in the Big East that had Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and Louisville, and the ultimate hammer of Notre Dame was conceivably on the table. Now, the biggest football brand name that seems to be possibly available is Florida State, but there’s a feeling that they’re just rattling sabres about their supposed dissatisfaction with the ACC (where they’d be happy to move to the Big Ten or SEC, but don’t dislike the ACC enough to go to the Big 12). As a result, it simply might not be realistic (or possible) for conferences that are in acquisition mode to add much football prowess even if that’s their top priority. Thus, those leagues have to look to other factors such as monetizing basketball, which is very much possible (if not completely necessary) under the conference network model. Football might bring in the largest audiences for conference networks, but basketball is what keeps the lights on and provides enough content to justify basic carriage.
Make no mistake about it: all things being equal, of course conferences would want top football programs over top basketball programs. There’s nothing that generates more revenue than a power football school. However, what people need to start questioning is the misguided logic that any football program is more valuable than any basketball program. The Catholic 7 has shown that this isn’t the case at all. Athletic departments across the country need to take note in trying to figure out how they want to position themselves in the new college sports landscape.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from AP)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
🙂
LikeLike
Addy addy add add. Go “Shagging Worms!”
LikeLike
The Catholic 7 will eventually invite Butler, Creighton & Xavier will get the first invites and after their first season while Fox will want more inventory then the Big East will invite Saint Louis & the push will get Richmond in thanks to Butler so Butler isn’t the only non-catholic private university in the league while adding a nice market as well with a good b-ball program. Funny thing is, I suspect that UMass will get an “America 12” invite soon then the Atlantic-10 will invite George Mason and keep the league at 10 so they split a much bigger pot for themselves and the CAA will invite Davidson after that. It’s good that basketball is getting their expansion and realignment tightly knit together while the football conferences are royally fucking up every chance they have.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
I wonder why I read this sometimes,seems like a waste of 5 mins reading this
LikeLike
Yeah, I felt the same way after reading your comment.
LikeLike
NFL let’s a chick kick at the combine. Chick then kicks like a chick:
LikeLike
She’d already paid for a tryout spot, but then injured her quad.
LikeLike
She was a club soccer player. She just wanted the spotlight. If it was that 6’2″ LSU all America goalee, that was a serious athlete.
LikeLike
I’m sure Cincinnati and UConn will eventually get a life raft thrown their way to get away from the Big X,, but it has to suck for the next couple of years after seeing the Catholic 7 get this deal on hoops value alone.
LikeLike
These three schools (with USF) get to keep the lion’s share of the exit fees. If they get scooped up soon enough, they will get a windfall PLUS a safe landing spot.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you’d assume those two would eventually get a life raft thrown their way. I’d think further consolidation and elimination (whether it be Baylor, ISU etc. from Big 12 or Wake, BC etc. from ACC) is as or more likely among the “big boys” than additional schools joining the club. I guess I could see UConn and/or Cincy getting an invite to a watered down ACC, but I have a fairly hard time seeing a better fate for those two than that.
LikeLike
I’d think further consolidation and elimination (whether it be Baylor, ISU etc. from Big 12 or Wake, BC etc. from ACC) is as or more likely among the “big boys” than additional schools joining the club.
Only one school in recent history (since the demise of the SWC) has ever been expelled from the club: Temple.(*) But that was not merely because it was terrible at football, but also because it had such poor attendance at its home games. I haven’t seen any indication that the leagues want to expel the likes of Baylor and ISU. They need the inventory, and not every game can be Texas vs. Oklahoma.
I guess I could see UConn and/or Cincy getting an invite to a watered down ACC, but I have a fairly hard time seeing a better fate for those two than that.
I assume the watered-down ACC is the life raft that he meant.
LikeLike
Actually the leagues don’t need the inventory. The networks arguably want inventory, but as it is plenty of high- to medium-profile games end up going head to head against each other every Saturday. Being able to better sift out games that matter from the ones that don’t (or having fewer Texas vs ISU and Oklahoma vs Baylor and more ISU vs Baylor and Texas vs Oklahoma type games) has value in terms of public interest and fandom.
It’s a somewhat fair point about only Temple being directly expelled from the club in recent history. OTOH, a number of schools were essentially expelled from the club when the SWC died. And the Big East is basically a tale of a number of schools getting promoted and then some of them (USF, UConn, Cincy) subsequently getting left behind again.
So I’d agree with you that no league will throw out weaker members. But we have seen before and very possibly will see again leagues fold or drop down to a lower status level, dragging down a number of their members along with them. That’s part of the point of the speculation about the ACC’s demise; not everyone would get a life raft.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing a few points. The kings can’t (and won’t) play only top- and mid-tier teams. They need some easy wins on their schedule. That’s why no one ever so much as suggested kicking Minnesota out of the Big Ten, Washington State out of the Pac-12, or Iowa State out of either of its predecessor leagues (Big 8 or Big XII). The only discussion in the Big XII right now is whether to grow, not whether to kick out Iowa State and upgrade. From the league’s perspective, the Iowa State games are more valuable than losing both the school and the market. I do agree that if a league folds or disintegrates, its less valuable members might wind up in a worse home, as happened with the SWC and is happening now with the old Big East.
LikeLike
Yes and no. In the current environment they need easy wins. But in a future environment there’s much less indication that this need continue. The biggest reason programs “need” a bunch of easy wins is that bowl eligibility requires six wins (which is completely arbitrary) and the national rankings tend to be biased towards W/L records and away from schedule strength (which usually functions more or less as a tie-breaker among AQ teams with the same W/L records). Also, the finances these days (gate + TV value) seem to still favor two bodybag home games compared to a strong home and home.
It’s fairly tough to see the first reason falling away barring an exodus from the NCAA, but the second (which among kings matters more than the first, since they’re competing for titles not the Belk Bowl) could absolutely change given a committee that places a conscious emphasis on schedule strength. And the third is less of a driver every year, as TV revenue becomes more and more important, while home attendance at MANY places, especially for bodybag games, becomes more and more under pressure.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms: I think you’re mistaken in a couple of respects. The new playoff selects four, rather than two, teams to compete for the national championship. That’s not a huge difference. Every other team is still doing as it did before; competing for position in regular bowl games.
As for strength of schedule, I am VERY skeptical that it will matter to anywhere near the extent you’re suggesting. To give but one example of the problem: last year, both of the major human polls ranked Notre Dame second after they got whacked by Alabama, but the Sagarin computer poll had them fifth. Humans were much more impressed with the gaudy 12-1 record, and ignored Notre Dame’s multiple ugly wins against mediocre opposition. I’ll believe humans are going to start properly weighing schedule strength and quality of wins, when I see it.
LikeLike
@Marc: Did I say that the playoff was 2 teams? Not sure where that came from. I agree to a degree with the skepticism that the committee will truly value schedule strength as much as they should, but I also expect they’ll at least value it more than we see today, especially from the human polls. I also really do think that the economics are shifting, and that this trend is likely to continue for a while.
I think that’s a big part of why leagues are discussing 9 game schedules and/or scheduling arrangements; we’re near or past the point where someone like Purdue can probably make more from an extra B1G game per year (even though 50% will be on the road) than they can from an extra bodybag every year, and I’d guess that within the next decade or so (especially if attendance for bodybag games keeps declining)
Also, clearly no one in the Big 12 is discussing tossing Iowa St per se. But that would essentially be the effect of the league splitting up, just as the formation of the Mountain West tossed out everyone left in the WAC, or the split of the Southwest Conference left behind Rice, TCU etc. , just as the breakup of the Big East is leaving behind UConn, Cincy, USF and everyone who had joined in.
It’s a weird aspect of realignment that it’s much easier for a team or group of teams to dump a bunch of schools at a time (by leaving the league themselves, which happens fairly often) than it is to get rid of just one or two (which to date has ONLY happened to Temple among AQ leagues).
LikeLike
A good case study of how the system is biased towards win-loss records is the case of #8 Kansas and #6 Missouri in 2008. #6 Missouri beat #8 Kansas, but lost to #4 OKlahoma for the second time in the Big 12 championship game. However, #6 Missouri got snubbed by the BCS over #8 Kansas because Kansas was 11-1. Forget the fact that Kansas avoided both #4 Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12 and had a horrid out-of-conference schedule, the BCS expressly stated that it took Kansas over Missouri because the Jayhawks only had one-loss (albeit to Missouri).
LikeLike
@boscatar – Although W/L record was a factor, it was down on the list for the reasons to send Kansas to the OB.
LikeLike
I would not lump Baylor with those Schools (Maybe Washington State belongs there). Remember they won the Women’s Basketball Championship, had RG III, and are getting a new on-campus Stadium.
What is great about the B10, is Schools do not have to worry about being thrown out of the Conference (Even if they are not very competitive (Such as Purdue or Minnesota), not a member of the AAU (Nebraska), or have the Sandusky incident and long sanctions hovering over it (Gut feeling is the NCAA will not lessen the penalties (I hope I am wrong)). I think there will be room for Cincinnati, Connecticut and USF somewhere. I actually think because of location, the Bulls may have the most value to a Conference going forward. I
LikeLike
Baylor is a relatively small church school that has a relatively small fanbase, in a relatively small market (Waco), with a below avearge (for an AQ) academic reputation ( see http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/baylor-university-6967 ), they were absolutely atrocious for most of the history of the Big 12 in football, and they lack anything particularly meaningful that would offset those disadvantages (no one cares about winning women’s basketball championships; UConn has won lord knows how many women’s titles and they’ve been voted off the island with little chance of getting back on).
There’s a reason that no one from any other power league wants Baylor, and why the Pac-10 was so clear about having zero interest in bringing them along back in 2010 (yes, not liking church schools is part of it, but it wasn’t all of it).
I’d say Baylor very much lumps in with Wazzu, Iowa St, Wake Forest etc. in the realignment game. They’ve basically been grandfathered into a power league, and if said league ever dies or loses its status as a power league, there’s basically no reason to think they’d have a reasonable shot at staying as a “have.”
LikeLike
While basically true, Wazzu, ISU, WF are feeling a bit demeaned by the association.
LikeLike
Baylor hasn’t done well in the B12 in bb or fb until recently, but they have normally been in the top half of the conference overall. Conferences do want schools that take non-revs seriously. Not a primary factor, but still something that is looked at. Baylor finished 25th in the Director’s cup last year.
LikeLike
I think the New Stadium sets Baylor apart from Washington State, Boston College, Wake Forest, Boston College (Hockey excluded) and the rest. I remember how bad things were for the Bears, but things are changing in Waco (Thank you RG III). Are they better than Texas & Oklahoma? No but better than SMU, Houston, and possibly will be on par with TCU and Texas Tech.
LikeLike
@bullet: Baylor had about a 15-year period where they were a consistent train wreck in football. I’d say that’s a pretty clear establishment of “normal.” Even in the Southwest Conference they were basically mid-tier, and half of those programs got dumped back down to mid-major level when the league folded. I don’t see any meaningful evidence they’re suddenly middle class in an AQ type league.
Now, if you specifically mean non-rev sports, you might be right for all I know, but even then it’s basically irrelevant. Unless they’re a consistent national elite in non-rev sports (and “top half of the conference” and 25th in Directors Cup last year as the arguments says otherwise), that just doesn’t matter. And even if they were elite in most non-rev sports, there’s basically no way for a league to monetize that sort of thing. Even the Pac-12, which basically kills in non-rev sports, hasn’t figured out how to do it (though MAYBE the Pac-12 Networks will end up doing something with it). Succeeding in non-rev is basically worth an attaboy, not really much more than that. Or at least there’s little evidence saying otherwise.
@David Brown: A new football stadium also doesn’t really matter in terms of worth to other league members. Neither does being better than SMU and Houston (and those aren’t necessarily slam-dunk big gaps either). I do agree that the dark ages seem to be over, but IIRC their 6-3 league record in 2011 was the ONLY time they’ve ever been above .500 in Big 12 play. Especially with RG3 gone, they look like a generally lower division team, though at least they’re not Kansas.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms: I am not sure where you’re going with this. Every league has mid- and bottom-tier schools. In the SEC, 80 out of the 83 football championships have been won by just seven schools. Over 70 percent of the championships have been won by just four schools. Three SEC schools (Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State) are all-time sub-.500 teams, and South Carolina is only barely above that. No one has suggested kicking these schools to the curb.
LikeLike
The SEC isn’t, never really has been, and isn’t perceived to ever be in any real danger of folding or getting raided. The Big 12, on the other hand, has been in such danger (and has been raided 3 different times over the last couple years). So the status of its various teams is more relevant than whoever is bringing up the rear in the B1G or SEC. The two power leagues in most apparent danger of getting hurt in the next decade or so are the Big 12 and ACC, so a discussion of those two leagues’ weaker elements seems fairly relevant, as those are the programs most likely to lose power conference status going forward if indeed anyone will (and “no one will” is certainly also possible).
LikeLike
@cfn_ms: I’m still trying to get your drift. The Big XII just signed a 13-year TV deal that is better than the Pac-12’s deal. Anything is theoretically possible, but that league would not seem to be in any danger of crumbling in the next 10 years. It will more likely gain schools than lose them. As for the ACC, practically everyone agrees that in the worst scenario, their leftovers and the better half of the Big X would merge, probably keeping the ACC name, and forming a conference that resembles the late-90s Big East without the basketball-only schools. I don’t think anyone has suggested that both leagues would die, so I don’t see where the danger to Iowa State and Baylor is supposedly coming from. I do get that you apparently don’t like Baylor.
LikeLike
How is the B12 contract better than the P12’s? P12 equal or greater pay, one less year, withheld 1/3 of FB inventory, creates P12N, which through priority selection process is a jr. tier 1 partner, not like a whatever is left over tier 3 system.
Point is B12 seems like a group held together by a GOR and a contract, FtT’s golden handcuffs. Perhaps it’s enough, but it leaves the impression as still unstable, just perhaps not in immediate danger.
LikeLike
I tend to agree w/ ccrider55’s assessment. Also, FWIW, I enjoy debating, so the back and forth is entertaining.
LikeLike
Anyone saying the Big 12 is in any danger in the next 10 years is stuck in a time warp. They have a GOR. Their average payout in 2014 (pending SEC ever getting their deal done) is better than any other conference (playoff money is divided 10 ways, not 12 or 14). The schools, despite FtT’s comments, really do want to be in the Big 12. It makes sense. Maryland didn’t say they wanted to be in the B1G. They said they wanted $100 million extra.
Baylor has been (if I’m remembering correctly) a game away from the final 4 in men’s basketball the last 2 years. They made some mistakes (bad hires, questionable recruits academically and otherwise) in the mid-90s and are just now getting out of them. They had 3 SWC fb championships once they won in 1974. That’s one less than Arkansas (with Frank Broyles, Lou Holtz and Ken Hatfield) or Houston and ahead of everyone else but Texas and Texas A&M. They were mid-pack, but they were competitive.
LikeLike
Baylor is the Milhouse Van Houten of the Big 12.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The Big XII is marginally weaker than the Pac-12, in that it has lost schools, and several others have at least entertained the idea of leaving, even if they never carried it out. But with the contracts in place, it is hard to see the Big XII being in any danger whatsoever, at least for the life of their TV deal. The only Big XII school that might prefer another conference, if it had the chance, is Kansas. But even if they lost Kansas, that’s the only one I could see them losing, because their TV deal is so good, and they only have to split it 10 ways. It’s more likely that the Big XII would grow (by taking ACC schools) than shrink.
LikeLike
“The only Big XII school that might prefer another conference, if it had the chance, is Kansas.”
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were denied entry to the PAC 12 a couple years back.
West Virginia would definitely prefer to be in the SEC, but they don’t want them.
Texas likes being Texas, but they would have an invite to any league it wanted as soon as it made up its mind.
So that totals 4 or 5 out of 10 schools who would jump ship just as soon as a better offer came along. The only schools who “like” being in the Big 12 under Texas’ thumb are those schools who know that the Big 12 is their ceiling. I.e. Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, etc.
Contrast that to the ACC schools who like being in the ACC, but they just hate their contract/TV deal.
LikeLike
@Mike. I read that as Nelson Van Alden from Boardwalk Empire which had me laughing pretty hard.
LikeLike
@Blapples: I think KU is the only school NOW that might covet another conference. Even that, we don’t even know for sure, but at least it’s a plausible hypothesis. I don’t think any of the others NOW are wishing they were somewhere else. In fact, they’re looking at their TV deal, and saying: “Look how great we have it.”
LikeLike
@Marc
Given the choice every Big XII school besides Texas and Oklahoma would accept an invitation to the Big Ten or the SEC and all but WVU would take a PAC invite. Not only would the pay be better for all those schools (none but Kansas can command the sort of Tier 3 contract that would outweigh a share of the BTN, PTN or SECN), but (more importantly) it would be the only way they guarantee themselves a permanent seat at the Big Boys table (which is every schools top priority).
This isn’t to say they are unhappy in the Big XII, it just everyone’s third or fourth choice.
LikeLike
@Frank – this was what I was thinking.
LikeLike
Having a nice stadium won’t save anyone from being left behind in the conference shuffle. It didn’t save Rice who had a 70,000 person stadium on campus that was nice enough to host the 1974 super bowl. Politicians saved Baylor last time, but if I don’t think they’ll be able to if it happens again.
LikeLike
Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, ND, G’town, Marquette, Villanova, etc. were all worth $1.3m each to ESPN so it’s no surprise that UConn, Memphis, Cincy + he rest are worth less. On the other hand, if the post is right that, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, Ville and all the Catholics are worth $1.3m each, let’s just Fox is out of its mind.
LikeLike
This is a different world than 2-3 years ago.
2-3 years ago, there was just ESPN/ESPN2.
Now there’s also NBC Sports Network, and Fox Sports 1/Fox Sports 2 will be launched later this year. All these cable networks need content. College basketball is a great way to fill up time from December to March when there’s no football on (after college football regular season ends).
Timing is always a central issue to conference pay deals. Look at the ACC rushing to get a deal only to get what looks like an undervalued deal just a few years later.
LikeLike
There’s a lesson for the Big 5 as well. In the extension of the BE bb contract, the C7 + Big X is only worth $10 million including football. The C7 + Butler & Xavier w/o the Big X is worth $30-$40 million. Not just addition by subtraction, but multiplication.
Over-expansion sometimes loses money, not just per school. The SEC’s TV ratings dropped this year despite 6 ranked teams in the top dozen because they hardly played each other.
LikeLike
How else can they get 6 teams ranked?They have to play cupcakes in and out of the SEC.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s something that the Big Ten and SEC have to look at very hard if they want to go to 16 or more schools.
If Alabama and Georgia are playing other big names less, that’s not a good thing for the TV contract.
Yes, you get more overall inventory, but you might be reducing its aggregate value.
LikeLike
@bullet – Excellent point. Even with a vehicle like the Big Ten Network, over-expansion eventually dilutes value. Look at the NHL in the Sun Belt or Krispy Kreme going into too many markets.
LikeLike
Disagree, regarding with a BTN type of network. We aren’t trying to sell a limited number og games to ESPN. BTN currently showing indoor track dual meets, a few baseball games (and fewer with a quality team involved), way to many talking head shows, etc. Adding schools would be like adding some ACC baseball, basketball, other, conference and inter conference games to the current shelf space, and getting paid to do so.
LikeLike
Wait – that was a horrible point. The overall ratings for TV went down and that included CFB. However, while the SEC trended down with the industry, the dominated ratings in college football. So ratings were UP compared to their competition and the value of the programming is now worth more. Just a completely incorrect position by bullet and I’m stunned Frank agreed with it.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this for over a year now.
Why else do you all think I am loathe to admit any more ACC schools into the Big Ten?
LikeLike
The SEC CBS ratings dropped partly because the previous years’ ratings were so high with 2 primetime games, and also because of what they gave up to get that 2nd prime time game.
They had to pick behind ESPN two weeks last year because of that deal. The week of October 13 was one of those weeks; they had to bypass the #9 LSU vs. #3 South Carolina game, and instead took the Mizzou/Alabama game. Mizzou played Alabama like a Big Ten team and got blown out before lightning delays damaged the ratings even more.
The fact that CBS had to pick its primetime doubleheader week the year before also hurt. If it had been able to pick its primetime doubleheader during season the correct choice would probably have been October 6, when they could have aired #4 LSU vs. #10 Florida in the afternoon and #5 Georgia vs. #6 South Carolina in the evening (or vice versa). The LSU/Alabama game they did air at night got great ratings, but their afternoon game that week was Georgia/Ole Miss, which didn’t do great itself.
CBS’s decision to get bigger ratings 2 years ago lead them to miss out on some of the biggest SEC games the following year.
LikeLike
To be fair Bama blew out almost everyone, and Mizzou actually did better againt Alabama than Notre Dame did in the title game.
LikeLike
Why the bad mouth about the big. Mizzou is not part of the big 10, if anything they would play like someone from the Big 12 or one of the SEC cupcakes .
LikeLike
The $10M for 2013 was basketball only; still $10M for the C7 + Little East vs. $30M for C7+3 is a huge difference in how ESPN and Fox value the C7.
LikeLike
Yes, because ESPN a surplus of content, and Fox Sports needed content.
Reminds me of when the Japanese anime industry got a windfall earlier in cable channel expansion, because with new titles that had been launching four times a year, dubbing the best of their back catalog made it easy to get big slices of new content. Then those same cable companies started commissioning their own animation, which they owned, and the cable anime bubble burst.
LikeLike
Pingback: Is ESPN’s Greed Causing it to Lose Profit? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
GBR
LikeLike
This one’s for you, Clay.
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Heh!
LikeLike
If you go back 20 years, only Louisville and Utah have been added to the club, while SMU, Rice and UH join Temple in getting left behind.
Its notable that Louisville and Utah were known as basketball schools.
LikeLike
To some extent, with the expanded number of games, the Big 5 have crowded out the rest. The other conference’s games are competing against 3 or 4 of the Big 5 games except on weeknights and except for Hawaii and their midnight eastern games.
LikeLike
And of those four left behind, three get one last crack at AQ status next year. Only Rice misses out the chance to make one last attempt at the brass ring.
The Universe, it seems, has something against Rice.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Could you see the Big 10 and the Catholic Seven Big east forming a scheduling alliance? That could bring big basketball ratings for fox and the big ten network? think Indiana butler Georgetown Maryland Wisconsin Marquette Rutgers St. John’s
LikeLike
@Jeffrey Juergens – Assuming that the Big Ten doesn’t destroy the ACC, I definitely think that ACC-Big Ten Challenge will continue. It’s really the standard bearer for all of these non-conference scheduling events and ESPN does a great job with it.
LikeLike
If the B10 does destroy the ACC, prepare to see a B10-SEC bball challenge. The PAC, B12, ACC, and BE will be paired up against each other somehow. Probably the 2 eastern conferences playing the 2 western conferences.
LikeLike
That assumes that the ACC doesn’t end the challenge out of anger towards the Big Ten. I think there are some very ruffled feathers on Tobacco Road about the whole swiping a charter member without warning thing. I assume that would only get worse if another change occurs. The ACC if it survives would still be able to partner with anyone.
And in any case, why can’t both leagues schedule with the big ten and have two challenges. That would only be two games, guaranteeing most big ten teams at least one challenge game a year. Obviously this is just pure speculation, but it would make sense. The real beneficiary would be fox, who has the rights to both the catholic seven and the big ten network.
LikeLike
That assumes that the ACC doesn’t end the challenge out of anger towards the Big Ten. I think there are some very ruffled feathers on Tobacco Road about the whole swiping a charter member without warning thing. I assume that would only get worse if another change occurs. The ACC if it survives would still be able to partner with anyone.
If the Big XII’s decision to partner with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl has taught us anything it’s that hurt feelings isn’t a problem that can’t be solved with money.
LikeLike
Also, does the ACC wants to go to war with the Big Ten regarding Bowl Game schedules? Especially after Jim Delaney helped the ACC by politicking for Va Tech to get the Sugar Bowl bid against Michigan a few years ago (over Boise State).
LikeLike
Jeffrey,
Also, my suspicion is that The Big Ten will be extending their conference basketball schedules when Maryland and Rutgers join. The Big Ten schools would prefer to drop a few cupcakes instead of dropping another couple of conference opponents. They want to keep Indiana and Ohio State and Michigan State visiting as much as possible. If that happens, it’s going to be that much harder to schedule another Challenge series.
LikeLike
That doesn’t really preclude the idea of a B1G vs C7 (or soon to be C10 or so) alliance, though. For a number of reasons (primarily relating to TV) I think that, especially for sports other than football, formalized league to league scheduling agreements (at least among leagues that see themselves as peers or reasonably close to such) tend to be beneficial.
LikeLike
I am not sure there is room on the B1G schedule for a scheduling alliance with two different leagues. The B1G schools still need to have room for games under the schools’ control, e.g., in-state rivalries, or whatever other games they want to play.
LikeLike
There’s obviously not room in football, but I would think there would be room in most other sports. One of the nice things about a formalized agreement is you can create history between programs and then be able to market those games when they come on TV.
LikeLike
I don’t see any use for a scheduling alliance (especially from the Big Ten’s side).
The point of a scheduling alliance is to help spread your brand into other parts of the country, but all the Big East schools sit in markets the Big Ten already controls.
LikeLike
Go Hawks!
LikeLike
Go Yudichak!
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Frank,
Any thoughts of doing an updated version of the expansion index? A lot has changed since the first one. Maybe your formula is different now. Certainly the targets have changed. I think it might be interesting to see how you weight the factors and how you score the schools now.
Old formula:
Academics – 25
TV value – 25
Football brand value – 30
Basketball brand value – 10
Historic rivalries/Cultural fit – 5
Mutual interest – 5
New targets:
UVA
VT
UNC
Duke
GT
FSU
Miami
KU
UConn
BC
Maybe they should be treated as pairs this time since the B10 isn’t looking for #12 any more.
LikeLike
Great idea.
LikeLike
Maybe they should be treated as pairs this time since the B10 isn’t looking for #12 any more.
Another way of asking the question, is: What schools are so valuable that you’d take them as an “odd-numbered” team, even if the “even-numbered” team hadn’t been identified yet? UNC, I think we can all agree, is an odd-numbered team. UConn, assuming they have any shot at all, is probably an even-numbered team. Others are not clear, but could be part of many different pairwise combinations.
LikeLike
I don’t assume that UConn has a shot at all, but yes, if they did, it would only be as an even team.
ACC odd teams in revenue, without respect to whether they might move: FSU*, UNC, UVA
ACC even teams: GTech, Duke, Pitt
FSU is an unusual case in that they might be an even team in terms of academic status, having to make a group of adds that are so appealing academically that the academics allow grudingly decide to not make a fuss over adding an academic fixer-upper.
Big12 odd teams, without respect to GOR and whether they might move: Texas
Big12 even teams, without respect to GOR and whether they might move: Kansas
LikeLike
@Brian I like that idea. I would also add Missouri and Syracuse since they get thrown around a lot. I know Frank has been busy though and that would be quite a bit of work.
@Marc Odd teams vs even teams is another interesting way to classify the teams.
LikeLike
Also Notre Dame. May be a longshot, but they were included last time and they are just as available as they were 3 years ago…
LikeLike
I’d add Syracuse and Missouri to that list along with Pitt.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
While all of the Big Ten attention has been pointed towards the southeast, I keep thinking that Delany is head-faking us again. I’ve been rattling cages about Missouri…
…but this post definitely points to the possibility of Kansas. How many games of their 32 bball games might make it on to the BTN? 18? The average Kansan might not care about Charlie Tuna’s football team much…but–like Frank stated about UNC basketball in that state–if ESPN only had a handful of Kansas games but all of the rest were carried by the BTN, would that put them on basic carriage in Kansas (and on a higher tier in Missouri?). Just thinking out loud here… I know GOR, GOR, GOR…
LikeLike
I’d still go on the record as saying that you have to have a route to Texas in order to go back West and get more schools in that direction.
After going East for Rutgers/Maryland, it still makes more sense to continue in that direction in order to build a legit Midwest-East Coast Conference hybrid.
LikeLike
The important thing about Kansas, is that because they’re a “king” in basketball, their games are of interest beyond the local market. I’m not saying the Big Ten wants Kansas…only that their value, whatever it may be, is more than just basic carriage in their home state and neighboring states.
I know GOR, GOR, GOR…
The GOR is like any other contract: breakable at some cost. Bear in mind that the GOR doesn’t include Tier 3, doesn’t include road games, and has an exemption for one football and four basketball home games per year. So even before you consider the GOR, you get a lot of inventory.
Now, if Kansas leaves the Big XII, the damages are not the entire value of its home athletics inventory, but that value minus the value of the school that replaces them in the Big XII. Depending on what school that is, it could actually be a negative number, i.e., the Big XII might be better off, since the next school they get would probably not duplicate a market, as Kansas does.
Assuming the Big Ten wants Kansas (that’s a big IF), there are ways around the GOR.
LikeLike
Violate the Grant of Rights in the sense of permitting somebody to cover your games when they haven’t been authorized by the going concern that you have granted the exclusive rights to, and the cost is that broadcaster/distributor cannot broadcast/distribute that performance without infringing on that going concerns rights. Since a television broadcast or cable network is not going to broadcast or narrowcast an infringing work, that means the cost is there’s no media value for the covered works.
As note, however, there is a residual value in away games covered by other conference participants valid home game rights and in however many home games in whatever sports are excluded from the Grant. There’s no enough total aggregate value in Kansas’ media rights for the residual value to weigh very heavily … given the aggregate value of Texas’ media rights, the residual value would be substantially more considerable. But then again, they’d have to give up the Long Horn Network to move to the Pac-12 or Big Ten, which they do not seem to want to do, which renders the GOR a moot point for Texas at this point in time.
LikeLike
Not saying KU is coming to the Big Ten, but you may be thinking about it the wrong way.
The GOR is a two-way street. KU gives up rights to its home games, but gets a share of the Big XII’s TV payout in return. (If it were a one-way street, it wouldn’t be an enforceable contract.) That means the Big XII’s TV partners, rather than the Big Ten’s partners, get to televise Ohio State at Kansas; but KU continues to receive its share of the payout, as if it were still in the conference.
As both sides would no doubt find that arrangement awkward, they’d arrive at a settlement, which would probably resemble an exit fee, and perhaps not even as high as that. So that’s what I mean, when I say there is no magic to the GOR: it’s just like any contract, breakable at some price.
LikeLike
That means the Big XII’s TV partners, rather than the Big Ten’s partners, get to televise Ohio State at Kansas; but KU continues to receive its share of the payout, as if it were still in the conference.
Actually, no. The Big XII’s GOR specifically stated that if a school left early it would forfeit its share of conference distributions in addition to leaving behind its TV rights.
LikeLike
OTOH, the “you have to leave your revenues behind” component is essentially an exit fee, and we’ve pretty consistently seen those not get paid in full…
LikeLike
Except its not *actually* the exiting school *paying* an exit fee. A challenge with exit fees is how do you actually force the prior member to pay, when the biggest clout that a conference has is what it can do to punish its current members. However, when the “essential same as an” exit fee is that the conference does *not* write a check to the former member … that’s pretty easy for the conference to do. Just don’t write the check.
LikeLike
The point isn’t whether there’s a mechanism, the point is how enforceable it is. I’ve seen some arguments about whether a GoR is even enforceable in terms of keeping the TV contract together ( http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2365&t=11330892&p=3 for one example ), but that aside, the idea that a team can suddenly lose the entire value of their TV rights just because they leave a league seems like a VERY sketchy argument.
Effectively, the GoR as structured is the combination of an agreement to mutually organize and negotiate home TV rights (OK unless you think there’s a monopoly argument against it) combined with a punitive clause that takes away 100% of the value of a team’s TV rights if they leave the league.
That second clause is no less punitive than any other type of exit fee, and I would anticipate that, just as exit fees have been consistently reduced (and sometimes by a lot) during negotiations, that “you get no value from your TV rights” clause would have the same thing occur. Or the leaving school would pay some amount of money to the league and/or TV partners to gain the release of their rights and said amount would be materially less than the actual value of said rights.
Of course, that’s only if it’s tried, and while it’s fun to speculate on things, it really doesn’t seem like any of the GoR leagues are especially vulnerable at this point. Five years from now, when there’s less time remaining on the GoR’s (in the event of non-renewal), things could get more interesting. I rather doubt anyone is going to rush to push the envelope on things given the remaining length of contracts at this stage.
LikeLike
Note that a party with full intellectual property that has granted rights for a certain period in return for a specific consideration has a very hard case to make if that party wishes to argue that the grant should be invalidated. And the fact that the conference payout is contingent on participating in athletic contests in the conference is a specific instance of a quite normal situation in intellectual property rights contracts.
As noted before, unlike an exit fee, the Grant of Rights is not a rule about some transaction to be made in the future … it is a transaction that has already been executed. The Grant has already been made. The Big 12 already possesses the specified intellectual property over the the granted period under the grant. So long as the Big12 plays strictly by the rules set down in the Grant, then if some member in full knowledge that conference payouts are contingent on participation elects to not participate, there is no particular reason to believe that the Big12 will be found to have breached the contract.
It is true that the Big12 cannot exploit the full value of the impaired media property either: for instance, the departed member can simply lock out the broadcast crew from the Big12, so while the Big12 can surely prevent the game from being broadcast by the new conference media partner, actually monetizing the media rights in its own turn would be difficult. Therefore, there would be some basis for a negotiated settlement. However, the Grantee has much more leverage in that negotiation than a conference that is owed an exit fee.
LikeLike
cfn_ms: “the idea that a team can suddenly lose the entire value of their TV rights just because they leave a league seems like a VERY sketchy argument”
Yes, if that’s how a grant of rights worked, that would be very sketchy.
However, how it actually works is that they’ve ALREADY handed over their TV rights. Not the value of the rights: the rights themselves. So nothing *changes* when they leave the conference. Its just that, in order to sell themselves out to the new conference, they would *need* something to change: they would need to somehow take back the intellectual property that they previously handed over.
Its just like a novelist signing over their rights to their work to a publisher in return for publishing and promoting it. Just because they are not happy with what the publisher DID with those rights does not mean they can just take those rights back and give them to another publisher. As long as the original publisher met their commitments under the original contract, the original publisher holds the rights until the rights expire.
“I regret signing that contract and I wish that publisher no longer held those rights” is not sufficient grounds for voiding that contract. They’d have to show some obligation of the publisher under the contract that the publisher had failed to fulfill.
Indeed, because of that, many rights contracts include performance clauses on the part of the party acquiring the rights, such as a date that someone buying the movie rights have to make a movie before the rights lapse. We have seen, for example, some comic book franchise sequels that were made not because someone had come up with a great treatment, nor because the previous made so much money that the studio couldn’t help themselves, but because otherwise the rights would lapse and so its time to crank another one out or lose the rights.
LikeLike
I think the sketchy bit is the total forfeiture of conference distributions. If that provision is found to be punitive, rather than merely liquidated damages, then it is skating on thin ice.
LikeLike
Why would it be unusual for a former member who has resigned from a voluntary association to not receive revenues from current activities of association members?
LikeLike
Normally, when you resign from a voluntary organization, you take your future rights with you when you walk out the door. You gave the analogy of a novelist who sells the rights to his book. If the author gets paid, he can’t back out of the deal, just because he doesn’t like what the publisher does with it. But in this case, you’re suggesting that KU would give up its future rights, and NOT get paid. I am not sure how that could hold water.
LikeLike
This language of “future rights” is ambiguous, since it is putting both a future grant of rights and a current grant of rights extending into the future into the same box, when they are quite substantially different.
And we are not talking about a future grant of rights, we are talking about a current grant of rights. It is already in force, and remains in force until the end of the agreed period. Just as Prince signed away the right to use “Prince” to promote his musical performances and recordings, and ended up changing his name to a symbol and describing himself as “the artist formerly known as Prince” ~ a lawyer-written formulation if ever there was one.
While the consequences can sometimes turn to the weird, the ability of the holder of intellectual property to grant rights to a second party in return for such considerations as the original property rights owner sees fit at the time is not itself some weird technicality, its a basic feature of a wide range of types of rights deals underlying our media industries.
LikeLike
So they become a road team on paper. Big deal.
LikeLike
No reason for the B1G to bother. KU isn’t worth much.
LikeLike
Easy – have Kansas football agree to play only 4 conference home games each year, hosting Indiana/Purdue, Minnesota, Maryland, and Rutgers/Northwestern. Play two “neutral-site” conference games in Kansas City against better conference competition. Thus, the Big Ten Network doesn’t really suffer much from the grant of rights consequences.
LikeLike
TBH, you could have paid me $0 and I would’ve said the same thing. One thing that grates me about this whole CR business is the braggadocio on the part of the football-firsters through the entire process. The “football drives the bus” méme is really a thinly-disguised way of expressing their antipathy towards the other sports like basketball. Almost as if there’s a divine reason to disdain the sport of basketball and justify their anti- agenda.
I’m glad the C7 schools are getting some value for their product. We can debate whether Fox is throwing good money after bad. However, I am beginning to realize that it is going to take a Rupert Murdoch to break the ESPN monopoly over college sports. Who deemed ESPN to be the only player that matters in the college sports business? Only ESPN and their lackeys in the sports media and college sports business do. Well boo to that!
Also, it’s sickening to see football-firsters representing B10 schools not challenging the asinine opinions from SEC and B12 types who visit B10 message boards. Some do (including on this board) but others don’t care because they only care about how their football team does. Say what you will about SEC types but they stick together in their belief that a conference is worth defending and bragging about. That thing never happened in the old Big East, which helps to explain its collapse. Even as that conference splits there’s still sniping between fans of those schools over who really mattered in that essentially-defunct conference. No unity, whatsoever. Everyone blaming everyone else but themselves.
I just hope B10 fans don’t fall for the trap set up by SEC/B12 types who want to convince them to doubt their own conference/leadership. Sure, any constructive criticism is healthy but I wouldn’t trust anyone from competing conferences who want to give advice over what they think the B10 should do.
Anyway, this rumor looks crazy on first read but it may not be so crazy if you put some thought into it. The I-4 corridor in Florida will be important for recruiting purposes for years to come. If the B12 can’t get the likes of FSU then perhaps this wouldn’t be bad as a Plan B (of course, the know-it-alls in that part of the country would say otherwise).
LikeLike
IIRC, Texas played a football game at Central Florida (part of a 2-for-1?), so I could see USF and UCF going as a package if the Big 12 can’t do likewise with Florida State/Miami. Still, it would be a longshot, and require plenty of faith from Big 12 members because of the perception of slumming. Iowa State might not be as averse to it as some think, since the Cyclones heavily recruited Florida during Big Eight days.
LikeLike
Iowa State actually got several Florida recruits this year.
LikeLike
I have said this before on here and been laughed away on the basis that it would be Florida State/Miami or bust for the Big XII. Although it was OK for the Big 10 to grow Maryland/Rutgers, it was never OK for the Big XII to do so.
USF, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, UCF
WVU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
Every single OOD game for the non-Texas, non-Florida schools would be against Texas or Florida. With a 9 game conference schedule, 4 OOD games means at least two games in one of Texas or Florida.
Why not? 9 of 10 teams made a bowl last year. They need teams at the bottom, not the top.
Tampa and Orlando are huge markets–for talent and TV.
Heck, they could add USF/UCF for $10M a year with $1M/year increases and be fine financially. Both USF and UCF would be thrilled with that.
LikeLike
One would think that by having those schools located where they are, even if they’re still green in terms of football history, they would give more of the schools located in low population states the opportunity to visit and show off what they’re made of to potential recruits. But, perusing on a couple B12 message boards, they act like they should be setting the terms just because they’re getting Fox/ESPN money right now. Some of those posters, though, actually get UCF/USF’s true potential.
My thoughts on divisions are that they shouldn’t go to divisions, considering how far flung some of those schools are. The B1G and SEC can do divisions because of geographical distributions. The Texahoma schools want to play against each other yearly, anyway. So, games like UT-OU, KSU-KU, BU-TCU, TT-UT, whatever two Florida schools and OSU-OU would be protected. That probably would be impossible to do without the schedule getting out of whack. I’m not a scheduling wiz.
If there has to be divisions I’d do it this way:
TCU, BU, WVU, USF, UCF, ISU
TT, UT, OSU, OU, KU, KSU
LikeLike
Throughout realignment, I have consisitently thought that USF and UCF were the most undervalued schools. While they do have absolutely no tradition, they are in huge markets with massive recruiting areas. But most importantly, they are going to have obscenely huge alumni bases. Between the two schools, there are over 107,000 current students, and both are still growing. Assuming an average graduation time of 4 years, there will be another 25,000 new UCF/USF alumni. Meaning that in 20 years (A small fraction of time if conferences are really making “100 year decisions” there will be more than 500,000 UCF/USF alumni, a number roughly equal to the entire population of Wyoming. In 40 years, that’s more than 1,000,000 alumni, which would be more people than currently live in 7 states and the District of Columbia. Considering that alumni (especially wealthy older ones) are generally a schools most dedicated fans and best donors, those are big numbers for any conference with a huge population problem (the Big 12s total media markets are as small or smaller to those of the Mountain West and New Big East) to seriously think about going into the future.
LikeLike
I could see a scenario where USF and UCF end up in the ACC, not the Big 12. If FSU and Miami leave for the B12, USF/UCF would keep the ACC in Florida. At that point, football may not matter that much, as long as the ACC keeps an 8-game schedule. Clemson might be appeased with UCF, USF and Cincy. UCF/USF could develop their baskeball programs in due time, given the proper resources. With Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, VT, and on occasion, GT, Pitt, Syracuse, NC State and whenever they can play ND, I think that’s enough for Clemson to stay. USF and UCF have enough potential in football, given the growing alumni population, that they can alleviate somewhat the loss of FSU and Mia
Adding UConn and Cincinnati would provide UNC with additional basketball power that they can be comfortable with. Tobacco Road was said to favor UConn over Louisville but the football-first faction won out. I think ND eventually winds up in the ACC and commit to their five games with that conference. ESPN gets access to 16 schools (plus ND Olympic sports and 2.5 football games) exclusively (no need to share with Fox unless they sublease some games).
BC, UConn, Cincy, Clemson, Duke, GT, Louisville, Notre Dame, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, UCF, UNC, USF, UVa, VT, WF
For divisions, I’d split VT from UVA, Louisville and Cincy, UNC/Duke and NCState/WF and UCF/USF. There would be almost equivalent access to Florida, NC, Ohio Valley and Virginia.
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, USF, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Division B: GT, UCF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Cross division games: GT/Clemson; UNC/NCState; UVA/VT; USF/UCF; Louisville/Cincy; WF/Duke; Pitt/UConn; Syracuse/BC
LikeLike
Alternatively, switch out Clemson, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and USF with GT, Cincinnati and UCF. Then this might work with most:
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Division B: Clemson, USF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Cross division games: GT/Clemson; UNC/NCState; UVA/VT; USF/UCF; Louisville/Cincy; WF/Duke; Pitt/UConn; Syracuse/BC
LikeLike
I’d guess divisions would be:
W – UT, TT, TCU, BU, OU, OkSU
E – ISU, KU, KSU, WV, USF, UCF
OU and UT really don’t want to be split. It makes for horrible balance, though.
Better:
A – UT, TT, BU, ISU, KU, KSU
B – OU, OkSU, TCU, WV, UCF, USF
Locked games – UT/OU, TT/OkSU, BU/TCU
LikeLike
I think the Big 12 wants the division requirement thrown out so it can do a championship game without divisions if they expand.
If they get to 12 teams, I’d say they go to 8 conference games with 2 locked games for each team. WVU and the 2 new (presumably Eastern) teams would be locked together. KSU, ISU and Kansas would be locked together.
For the other schools:
UT: TT & OU
OU: UT & OSU
OSU: OU & TCU
TCU: OSU & Baylor
Baylor: TCU & TT
TT: Baylor & UT
That gives every school 2 games against the Kansas/Iowa schools, 2 games against the Eastern schools and 4 games against the Texas/Oklahoma schools, easing recruiting concerns.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“I think the Big 12 wants the division requirement thrown out so it can do a championship game without divisions if they expand.”
Until and unless the rule changes, I don’t care what they want.
LikeLike
One thing that grates me about this whole CR business is the braggadocio on the part of the football-firsters through the entire process. The “football drives the bus” méme is really a thinly-disguised way of expressing their antipathy towards the other sports like basketball.
Sorry, that’s ridiculous. FTT has been a “football-firster” for years, but if you follow his twitter feed, you can tell he’s a basketball fan. “Football drives expansion” is just an empirical statement about how realignment has generally worked. Right now, the C7 TV deal is a notable exception, but not one that invalidates the general rule.. For all we know, Fox may have over-paid.
LikeLike
Mark Shepard: ““Football drives expansion” is just an empirical statement about how realignment has generally worked.”
Indeed, the C7 would not have left the Big East without football conferences taking away Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and Louisville.
Football is still driving expansion. Just as the decisions of the major football conferences are driving decisions all the way down to the Sun Belt and beyond (c’mon, App State), those same decisions are also having an impact on the non-football conferences.
I think that Fox made a smart play for some basketball teams who currently have bigger name recognition as a group than the A-10 because of football-driven expansion.
LikeLike
And “football drives expansion” is not the same thing as “only football matters”. Other things can enter into calculations of how valuable a school in and whether it would be acceptable to existing members, but the foundation of the decision to consider expansion in the first place among the Big Boys is the impact on football media revenues.
Consider the Johns Hopkins rumors. If it were the case that adding Johns Hopkins as a Lacrosse associate and guest member of the CIC would grease the path of inviting FSU to the Big Ten, then making JHU good for their ESPNU contract would be close to a rounding error in the total media value added by FSU.
LikeLike
IMHO – don’t waste your time with Tuxedo Yoda. He’s a page hit chaser like Swaim and the Dude.
LikeLike
“True Premise” … “Insane Conclusion” (spiced up by hot coed pictures)
Hmmm … page hit chaser seems quite plausible.
LikeLike
That guy probably IS Tuxedo Yoda.
LikeLike
One of the big lessons of the WAC-16’s demise is that simply being in a good market doesn’t get you prestige, recognition and value. You have to matter in those markets, and USF/UCF really don’t. Adding those two would be a major gamble on the part of the Big 12, and basically a desperation move when it doesn’t make much sense to do so.
I do, however, buy the argument that the Big 12 and/or Fox floating this idea is a low-risk way to increase pressure on FSU and anyone else in the ACC they might actually be interested in.
LikeLike
Central Florida and South Florida to the BigXII seems about as likely to me as the Western version that we sometime see bandied about; some combination of SDSU and Boise State, Fresno State, or UNLV. The Big XII establishing a presence in Florida or California by elevating a mid-major to the ranks of the Big Five would serve as merely an affront to a competing major conference, and it wouldn’t be in the BigXII’s interest to stick it to the PAC or SEC by breaking into their stranglehold regions.
LikeLike
I honestly wonder if the Pac-12 or SEC would even care. Lower-tier programs are very likely to stay lower-tier programs, no matter what league they’re in. California recruits are still going to want to stay in the Pac-12, and Southeast recruits (including Florida) are still likely to want to stay in the SEC (or ACC in some cases). If anything, the Big 12 blowing spots on lesser programs would seem likely to increase instability and make the league more vulnerable to poaching, with the Pac-12 and SEC then potentially able to benefit.
LikeLike
That was my thought, too. It would probably cause too much discomfort in Austin. Would even the most optimistic of benefits be worth that risk?
LikeLike
It only further degrades the B12’s reputation. FSU has no interest in joining. My guess is the ACC sticks together.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
I don’t see where 7 like minded schools who get to cherry pick the best available schools in their sport, then have interest from a network that has to overpay to steal them from their incumbent partner, who still end up with slightly less annual TV revenue than they were going to get if the 2011 Big East had just stayed together and accepted the ESPN offer, justifies the premise that basketball is important.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a gut feeling about what ND will do? Is it 100 % that they will go to the ACC? Or, if after parking in the new BE for a year, will they stay there?
The B1G was right to state that they have given up on adding the Irish. I hope that they meant it.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a gut feeling about what ND will do? Is it 100 % that they will go to the ACC? Or, if after parking in the new BE for a year, will they stay there?
There’s no such thing as 100%, but I am pretty sure they’ll go to the ACC.
For starters, you have to look at why ND joined the ACC in the first place: bowl tie-ins. The new Big East doesn’t have that. Also, the ACC is a better basketball league, and it is FAR better in the non-revenue sports. The new Big East would be worse for ND than the old Big East, which they already decided to leave.
The B1G was right to state that they have given up on adding the Irish. I hope that they meant it.
I am not sure they ever said that, and I am sure they don’t mean it. They probably don’t think it’s very likely, but Notre Dame would be welcomed with open arms at any time.
LikeLike
ND could have stayed with the C7 before. They chose to go to the ACC. There’s no reason to think they aren’t still going to the ACC.
LikeLike
If ACC is willing and able to accommodate them a year early in their Olympic sports, without starting the football agreement until the following year, I’d guess they go to the ACC a year early, which would leave the ball in the ACC’s court.
I’d say the ACC takes them for the same reason that the New Big East would take them … playing a farewell lap in the New Big East consolidates the New Big East’s brand. Notre Dame saying “hell with this, I’m out of here” is better for the ACC’s brand.
And the New Big East will be scrambling to organize their Olympic sports ~ I didn’t look at the individual timing/distance sports (cross country, track and field, swimming), but (NB. Yes of course one year standings are not long term strength of program, but OTOH we are only talking about next year anyway, so last season is the best proxy). These are numbers of participants and average standings in 2012 (either last or this academic year)
Which leaves actually not so many current Big East team sports left to look at:
Baseball ~ Notre Dame = #7, BEC avg(4)=#6: St. Johns #2; Seton Hall #4; Nova #8, Georgetown #10
Softball ~ Notre Dame = #2, BEC avg(6) = #9.5: DePaul #5; St. John’s #6; Providence #10; Nova #11; Georgetown #12; Seton Hall #13
Field Hockey: ND does not play, BEC avg (3) = #5.67/7: Providence #4; Nova #6; Georgetown #7
Men’s Golf: (2012 Champ 3rd round), ND=#1, BEC avg(6) = #6.17/12: Nova #3; St. Johns #4; Georgetown #5; Seton Hall #7; Marquette #8; Depaul #10
Womens Golf: (2012 Champ 3rd round), ND=#2, BEC avg(3) = #6/8: Seton Hall #4; St. Johns #6; Georgetown #8
Rowing: ND = #1.5 (2012 championships; GF placings, then Petit Final placings, average of +4 and +8): BEC avg (3) = #5.17/8: Louisville #3.5; UConn #6; Rutgers #6
M Tennis: ND #1 (tournament seedings), BEC avg (5) = #5.8/9: St. John’s #3; Depaul #5; Marquette #6; Georgetown #7; Nov #8
W Tennis: ND #1, BEC avg (5) = #7.6/12: Depaul #4; Georgetown #5; Marquette #7; St. Johns #10; Seton Hall #12
Volleyball: ND = #3 (regular season), BEC avg (6)= #8.67/14: Marquette #2; St. John’s #6; Seton Hall #9; Nova #10; Depaul #11; Georgetown #14
Lacrosse: Big American only has one Lacrosse school
Fencing: Current Big East does not sponsor fencing
Hockey: Current Big East does not sponsor hockey
(I looked at Men’s Soccer before)
As far as making up the numbers, the expected two additional New Big East members play:
Butler: Men’s baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, soccer, tennis, track and field
Women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball
Xavier: Mens baseball, basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor & outdoor track and field
Women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor & outdoor track and field, volleyball.
So, not a complete list, but: BEC+Butler+X:
9: BBall, M&W Soccer
8: M Golf, Volleyball
7: M&W Tennis
6: Baseball, Softball
5: W Golf,
3: W Rowing, W Field Hockey
W Golf would need an associate member, unless 10th member plays, W Rowing & W Field Hockey would likely need to find associate spots or a sport-specific conference (though Creighton rows crew and SLU plays Field Hockey).
LikeLike
Either way, ND is going to have to pay up to leave Aresco’s conference. Not sure if we’re talking West Virginia money or what.
LikeLike
Unless there is some rider in the FB scheduling agreement, or they changed the bylaws on that score dramatically since the WV case went to trial, the fee is not as high for Olympic sports members as for FB members.
LikeLike
Bruce, there is no exit fee at all for Notre Dame. There is a 27 month waiting period. WVa paid $20 million or $15 million over the exit fee to get out in time.
Notre Dame would have to negotiate its exit.
LikeLike
Are you talking based on information from someone who’s read the most current bylaws and knows how to interpret them? I know that the bylaws regarding the exit of the BBall-only schools were changed from the publicly available copy that I saw ~ which is what created the majority of each side of the hybrid league to dissolve the league, and which created the option for all seven BBall schools to exit without penalty ~ I don’t know how that spills over to the eighth BBall only school, Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I read the rider someone posted a couple months ago on Georgetown’s board. But this morning McMurphy on ESPN covered ND’s situation and he reiterated what I wrote.
LikeLike
Now that the ACC has said they’d be willing to accommodate Notre Dame in BBall and non-revenue sports next year, this is the only question to be settled for that to happen. It will be interesting to see how quickly they resolve it. Thanks for the pointer, I’ll see if I can find the rider over the weekend.
LikeLike
Philly.com story cites Big East sources that Olympic sports without the numbers on either side may play together for at least a year or two: “According to Big East sources, look for sports such as field hockey and women’s lacrosse to continue in a combined Big East for at least a trial period of a year or two.”
http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-09/sports/37583253_1_big-east-mike-aresco-new-league
LikeLike
Denny ;So do I, their far more problems than they are worth.
LikeLike
The premise is that between football and basketball of the same status, football is substantially more important, but its not true that any football is automatically more important than any basketball. The New Big East getting paid more than the Once Was Big East would seem to be a substantial support for that premise.
LikeLike
The new Big East is being paid more than the Once Was CUSA, which really doesn’t support the premise at all.
LikeLike
But the premise is simple a generalization from the fact that the New Big East is being paid more than the “Big American”, how could the fact NOT support its own generalization?
“Big American” football is a Mid-Major, and not even the clear strongest of the Mid-Majors, and its strongest football brands want to get out at the first invite up.
The New Big East will be in amongst the Majors during basketball season.
And the higher status basketball is getting paid more than the lower status football and basketball.
The New Big East is not going to be making AS MUCH money as the conferences it will be mixing among … except for the MWC when its also mixing amongst the Majors, and that further reinforces the rule, since that’s a Mid-Major football conference with only three top-50 media markets.
LikeLike
It is not a given at all that G’town, Marquette, Butler, Xavier and Villanova will outperform UConn, Memphis, Cincy and Temple. We’ll have to wait to see how this plays out. A team like Butler could drop off rapidly with stiffer competition, or it could ramp up. We’ll see if Temple can draw more Philly area kids with an improved schedule. Memphis already recruits well. UConn will have a very strong team for its first season in the new conference.
So, I’m not buying this distinction that the Catholics are a major in basketball while the football schools are not.
LikeLike
The New Big East are going to have more recognizable brands in basketball, and more of their games per week are going to be matchups between recognizable brands, so its pretty straightforward that the media value of New Big East basketball is going to be greater than the media value of “Big American” conference basketball. The Big American will be a top-heavy league, with the diminished media value that follows from that.
LikeLike
I wasn’t referring to their market value. I was talking about their play, their level of competition.
LikeLike
The premise was about their media value, so evidence for and against the premise would involve their media value. But why would we doubt that after Louisville leaves, and even assuming UC and UConn stays, the BMW (“Big American / Metro / Whatever”) Conference will be top heavy, with a substantial drop in RPI after you get past the top four schools? It is basketball, after all ~ the strength of the middle of the conference does matter for how many tournament bids the conference receives. It seems as if playing in the New Big East will be better for a team on the bubble than playing in the BMW Conference.
LikeLike
And you are also looking away from the basketball implications of the moves since 2011 ~ the Big East BASKETBALL of 2011 was more valuable than the New Big East BBall will be. The fact that the BBall schools could have made $40m on the notional 30% BBall value of the 2011 Big East contract, playing in the same conference with Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, UC, UConn and Temple BBall, is entirely reasonable on basketball grounds alone. It is, indeed, plausible that the $130m contained more than the $40m in BBall value than the pro-forma 30% distribution implies.
The fact that the Once Was Big East can’t sustain that with UC, UConn, Temple, Memphis and then a substantial step down in BBall brand value is just the network economies ~ even playing home and away against each other, that’s only 12 games among those four, and lots of games in the inventory of little but regional cable level interest.
Indeed, which gets to the second part of the post ~ extend that to six teams with some appreciable BBall brand value, and then you could have as many as 30 games among those six.
LikeLike
What is a realistic conference distribution per institution estimate for the Big Ten Conference in 2017 seeing that (1) we can expect Fox Sports to be an aggressive bidder for B1G Tier 1/2 football and (2) per Frank’s post, the attractiveness of men’s basketball as part of a larger television package?
Here are the scenarios to examine:
A. B1G stays at 14 members for the 2017 season
B. B1G has 16 members with additions of Virginia and North Carolina
C. B1G has 16 members with additions of Virginia and Georgia Tech
D. B1G has 18 members with additions of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Duke
E. B1G has 18 members with additions of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State
F. B1G has 20 members with additions of Virgina, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Duke, Florida State and one school TBD
There is one data point for Scenario A that was provided in the stories discussion the addition of Maryland in the Big Ten. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/67782/maryland-to-get-front-loaded-deal-from-b1g According to that story, the projected conference revenue is $43M per school once the television deal is completed.
So what about Scenarios B through F? Conference distributions in the Big Ten include television revenue funds (including from the Big Ten Network, ABC/ESPN, CBS), net bowl revenue, NCAA men’s basketball revenue, football conference championship game revenue, and other miscellaneous sources.
Per http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8736544/sec-big-ten-big-12-pac-12-acc-average-91-million-new-playoff-format-sources-say, the Big Ten should receive an average of $91M from the new post season format. Can that number be adjusted, for example, if the conference expands beyond its current membership?
The BTN has recently contributed $7.8M and $7.2M per school the last two years. Would that be expected to go up with these scenarios?
What would the credits be worth from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament be under these scenarios?
The current ABC/ESPN deal was $1.0B for ten years with an escalator clause that was put in place in 2006. What can we expect a new deal to look like under the scenarios outlined above?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t conflate the $43 million projected revenue projection that Maryland was given with scenario A necessarily.
Loh said that the Big Ten had shown him shocking projected expansion scenarios. That revenue projection may very well have included expansion to 16-18 (and the Big Ten Network hitting all benchmarks).
LikeLike
The Washington Post article that talks about the $43M figure can be found here–http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-to-big-ten-its-money-versus-tradition/2012/12/11/3c5da16c-3fd0-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story_4.html
Here’s an excerpt from the article:
The Big Ten’s desire was to have new members earn a gradually larger piece of the revenue over a six-year period. But Maryland felt its stability in the ACC offered more bargaining leverage than Rutgers had in the crumbling Big East.
“There is no reason for us to leave,” Loh said. “So if we are going to consider, seriously, leaving, it has got to be worth our while.”
Perhaps, if the Big Ten really wanted Maryland, the two sides could figure out a way the Terrapins could receive a larger share of the Big Ten’s pie earlier. The potential solution was to get creative, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. By front-loading the deal — moving some money from years well into the future to the Terrapins’ first six years in the conference — Maryland was able to secure the cash it will need to address some of its immediate financial problems.
Neither Maryland nor the Big Ten would provide specifics of the deal. Sports Illustrated reported the Big Ten projects Maryland would make $32 million in 2014-15, a huge increase from the $20 million the ACC is projected to pay out that year.
The Big Ten’s pitch also includes a huge bump in revenue when the conference renegotiates its television deal in 2017, projecting a $43 million payout for Maryland that year, an enormous gap over the $24 million the ACC projects. A person with knowledge of the deal confirmed those were the figures Delany pitched to Loh.
So the two sides left the Willard with significant progress, but without a deal, and without a timetable. And Loh still had one problem: Pacifying a sure-to-be-upset fan base if, in fact, he took the Terrapins to the Big Ten.
END OF EXCERPT
So you could be correct in that the $43M per year figure for 2017 could be for a scenario other than a 14-team conference. The Sports Illustrated article referenced above is here–http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
The article says that Maryland could look at revenue of $32 million in 2014, $33 million in 2015, $34.5 million in 2016 and then $43 million in 2017.
Those numbers continue to steadily climb, as the Big Ten payout projects to jump to $44 million in 2018 and $45 million in 2019
Regardless of the scenario, the numbers that the B1G gave Maryland projected an $8.5M jump between 2016 and 2017 in conference distributions. Multiply that by 14 programs and the number is $119M. With 16 programs, that’s $136M and with 18 the number is $153M.
If you look at grand totals, if the Big Ten had 14 programs and paid each of them $43M, then the total disbursement would be $602M. In 2010, the conference’s total revenue was $265M with a payout of $22.9M per member–see http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/conference_realignment_follow.html
In 2010, the BTN provided $7.9M with ABC/ESPN/CBS adding in another $8.7M for a total of $16.6M in television revenue per school. The remaining $6.3M came from net bowl revenue ($3.2M), the NCAA tournament ($2.6M) and other miscellaneous sources ($0.5M).
So how does $43M per school in 2017 break down? A guess would be something like this:
NCAA Basketball Tournament – $3.0M
Miscellaneous Sources – $1.0M
Big Ten Conference Championship Game – $1.0M
NCAA Football Post Season and Bowls – $10.0M ($3.6M for bowls, $6.4M for playoffs = $90M/14)
Those four items would account for around $15.0M, leaving $28M per year for television (including the Big Ten Network). The BTN has annually paid out between $7M to $8M in recent years, so let’s bump that up to around $9M with the new additions (or $126M total for 14 schools). That puts the amount of money per school from the networks (ABC/ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc.) at around $20M per school per year or an average of $280M a year (assumes 14 schools).
The Big XII deal from September of last year was $2.6B for 13 years or $200M for the ten schools in the conference (or $20M per year). See http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox The Big Ten number above would be comparable to what the Big XII received six months ago, but of course, the Big XII doesn’t have a conference network comparable to the BTN.
Keep in mind these are back of the napkin calculations based on past numbers brought forward plus figures published for the post-season. But this is probably a rough approximation of what the Big Ten told Maryland give or take a million or two in the different categories.
So the question going forward is this–does one of the 16, 18 or 20 team combinations mentioned above markedly change those numbers? I can’t imagine a big change in revenue per university taking place from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament or from the football post season (CCG, bowl games, playoffs) with additional members, so the main drivers here then becomes what the Big Ten Network would provide, and of course, what sort of bid comes back from the television networks for a larger Big Ten entity.
LikeLike
The article in the Washington Post and the one on CNNSI both talked about $43M in 2017, but didn’t specify if the conference had 14 members in that scenario. Here’s the Pete Thamel article from 19 November of last year on CNNSI–http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
The link has the projected revenues for Maryland as follows:
2014 – $32.0M
2015 – $33.0M
2016 – $34.5M
2017 – $43.0M
2018 – $44.0M
2019 – $45.0M
The $8.5M increase between 2016 and 2017 has conference distributions going up about $120M for a 14-team Big Ten. Total conference distributions (assuming equal shares for 14 teams) would go from $483M per year in 2016 to $603M in 2017.
How would that $43M per year per team come about? A rough guess based on recent numbers plus what’s been published about the playoff would be like this:
Miscellaneous Revenue – $1.0M
B1G Conference Championship Game – $1.0M
NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament – $3.0M
Net Bowl Game Revenue – $3.6M
Playoff Revenue – $6.4M ($90M divided by 14 teams)
Those categories above add up to approximately $15M plus or minus $1M. That means the remaining revenue would come from television.
The BTN has been paying between $7 and $8M per year per school, so assuming it goes up to $9M with the additions of Rutgers and Maryland by 2017, that means around $20M to $21M per year would come from the new television deal. The Big XII just signed its deal last September for an average of $20M per school, so that number isn’t out of the ball park (although the Big XII doesn’t have a conference network like the BTN).
The question going forward is what would happen with the different conference configurations mentioned above. I wouldn’t expect additional teams to move the needle too much in the five categories that add up to the $15M per team mentioned above. Where the big changes would come from would be what’s left, i.e., what the BTN provides per team plus what the networks provide for B1G Tier 1/2 rights and men’s basketball. If a case can be made that a 16- or 18- or 20-team network would net, say $25M in non-BTN revenue per team on an annual basis, then it could be an attractive option.
I’m writing this assuming that the $43M figure was what was given for a 14-team conference. Maryland didn’t know Rutgers was also being approached by the Big Ten at the same time (although there may have been rumors), so it’s a possibility this is a fourteen-team conference revenue projection.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s good analysis.
My hunch is that any addition of UNC and other big states/markets like UVa or Georgia Tech or FSU won’t move the dial that much on the deals that accrue over the next 5-7 years, but will end up affecting the BTN earnings per school significantly in the 2020 and on range.
That’s why I don’t think we’ll see much of a change in those revenue projections that Maryland got regardless of the size of the Big Ten by 2020.
Unless you add a school like Texas or Notre Dame, you’re not going to see a massive change in the contracts immediately.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying for a while (back when the B10 had 12 schools) that the B10 will get $30-$40M in TV money per school on average over the life of the next TV contract & that total payout would top $50M . . .
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — How Much Does Basketball Matter in Conference Realignment? | Atlantic Coast Convos
Here’s a good article from SB Journal discussing the relationship between Fox and ESPN. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/03/04/Media/ESPN-Fox.aspx
LikeLike
That’s also why the Big Ten’s 2016 media package is likely to feature some sort of alliance.
The way they’ve partnered on the Big 12 and Pac-12 to split those games will sort of lead to a similar consideration for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Imagine you’re the president or athletic director of an ACC school and the new deal you just signed with ABC/ESPN for football and men’s basketball is worth $17.1M when Pittsburgh and Syracuse join the conference this year.
Then imagine that the Big Ten is looking at getting conference distributions of $43M per year in 2017 (per the reports filtering out after Maryland joined the conference) with the television portion from the BTN, etc. coming out to around $28M to $30M. Your escalator clause has you at around $20M in television revenue by that time with a total conference distribution of $24M.
What do you do? In dollars and cents, that may be the question being posed at a lot of campuses located south of the Potomac River. It gets doubly interesting when you think about if joining the B1G means that television money in 2017 is actually $33M or $35M per school and the annual conference distribution is in excess of $45M?
Maryland was also told that it’d make more than $100M in conference revenue by 2020 with the switch to the Big Ten from the ACC–see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
Conference realignment has largely been driven by schools and athletic programs looking for additional revenue. Is there any reason to think it will be different for the Big Ten, etc. with these types of revenue numbers being put out there and with a new sports network looking for content in direct competition (or cooperation) with ABC/ESPN?
LikeLike
Frank, wouldn’t the kind of basketball-first conference you proposed be too much like the old Big East? Doesn’t the fact that the new Big East (“catholic-7) is composed of similar, like-minded institutions provide some of it’s strength? Shouldn’t cohesiveness still be a long-term goal for any conference that hopes to survive?
LikeLike
Yeah, I believe that’s why the suggestion is to aim for public universities ~ the idea being it was not JUST football versus basketball, but also big public vs small private.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t cohesiveness still be a long-term goal for any conference that hopes to survive?
Cohesiveness is an ellusive term, but I can definitely see the problem with Frank’s idea. The C7 conference works because none of them play FBS football, nor do they intend to. Unless schools like UConn and Cincy want to leave the FBS (which I think is exceedingly unlikely), they need a football-playing conference. Even Temple, as terrible as they were, didn’t leave the FBS. They just went to the MAC, an all-sports league.
LikeLike
Well, they could always go independent and hope (probably in vain) for an invite to a non-devastated ACC. But to be honest I wonder, especially for UConn, if it wouldn’t just be better to admit defeat for football and focus on everything else. Not drop down to AA or anything (at least not in the near term), but more just focus money and resources on other stuff, primarily basketball (where they still are a national elite program).
About a decade into the 1-A experiment, UConn football is nationally irrelevant, they’re in an even worse competitive position (no AQ anymore) than they started out as, and there really isn’t much of a reason to think it’ll suddenly get better. Obviously waving the white flag is a rough pill to swallow, but I do have to wonder if it would be a wise alternative to pursuing a huge long shot of a return to AQ status.
LikeLike
That day of reckoning could be coming for many FBS programs. But the whole point is that, unless you don’t play football at all, you need to be in a conference. Whether they drop down to mid-major, FCS, I-AA, or Pop Warner, if they play the sport, they need a conference. Outside of Notre Dame and service academies [and possibly not even for them], independence is not a long-term option. By the way, I don’t think AQ status is a longshot for UConn, in the least: they probably have the next ACC invite, and almost everyone thinks there will be more defections from the ACC. They’re as nationally relevant as, say, Texas Tech or Washington State, neither of which is going to be losing I-A status anytime soon.
LikeLike
But TT and WSU are sheltered. UConn’s roof blew off.
LikeLike
I certainly think the Connecticut is more important than Washington State, Wake Forest, Iowa State and a few others. That said, the big questions for the Huskies, are: 1: will there be another expansion or not? 2: If so, who goes first? I think Cincy and USF, are better fits for a Conference. If the ACC & Big XII agree, they may be better dropping football and rejoining the Big East.
LikeLike
Beta>VHS.
Which survived longer?
It’s not always just the value of an item. Often the surroundings and support system are decisive. Huskies need to be valuable enough to warrant inclusion in existing systems. ACC-probably if they do suffer defections. B12-not unless they start falling apart for some reason.
LikeLike
Betamax survived longer ~ pushed out of the consumer market, it transitioned to the professional and in many media markets survived as the standard physical transport for broadcast quality video productions long after VHS had dwindled to net to nothing.
LikeLike
I don’t know whether a return to AQ status for UConn is a long shot or not ~ there’s a balance between the ACC being raided enough to need UConn but not so badly that they lose their AQ status ~ but if not, I expect they have at least as good a chance of ending up in the Best of the Rest conference as they do of staying in the Equal Best of the Rest conference.
And being in either the or one of the two best of the rest conferences is not all that bad for a school with as little football history as UConn. Miami U (the M, not the U) was where Woody Hayes got his start, and now the highest profile competition they can dream of is a good Ice Hockey team with dreams of the Frozen Four.
LikeLike
Here is the problem for the Huskies: They are making less TV $$$$ than Schools like Seton Hall & DePaul, neither of which has the tradition and Championships over the past 25 years as UConn, while having to maintain a football program that is quite expensive for the Athletic Department with no traditional rivals anymore. I also know that Boston College will do whatever is necessary to keep me out of the ACC (A problem not faced by Cincinnati or South Florida). Maybe the solution is to stay with the Catholic Schools, and eliminate the football program (I know it would be painful), but even worse would be a future of seeing other schools (Like SMU, Houston, and of course, Cincinnati & USF) get upgraded Conference memberships, while I am like Temple (Basically in Athletic purgatory).
LikeLike
If the ACC faces further raids, I am not convinced that BC will be able to keep UConn out of an ACC, even should they wish to (and I agree its likely that they wish to).
I think that the opposition in the C7 to adding a football school that would jump at the first call from the ACC is broader than any one team. Even if UConn applied to the MAC to play as a football associate there, that would not eliminate the grounds for that opposition.
So just as New Mexico State and Idaho will try to play as independents for a couple of years to see if a conference bid comes their way, UConn seems like it would be well advised to keep playing in the BMW (“Big American / Metro / Whatever”) Conference in the next few years and see if any more realignment is coming.
If not, it can just downgrade its investment in football in place.
LikeLike
That’s an important point.
One might speculate that part of the lack of cohesiveness in the Old Big East was due to the imbalance ~ eight BBall only members, and the rest all-sports members.
A *balanced* hybrid league would have an all-sports core, a certain number of Non-FB-schools, and an equal number of FB-only schools. Say, ten all-sports members, two Non-FB members, and two FB-only members.
Then if the two Non-FB members are either non-football or FCS football schools with a brand name for their basketball, you go from a BBall inventory of 12 games among four recognizable schools to an inventory of up to 30 games among six recognizable schools.
I think that after Navy, the ideal second FB-only school for the “Big American” conference would be Army, but there may be other candidates who would be useful members of an “equal best among the rest” conference for football, but whom you wouldn’t want dragging down your basketball.
As far as two Non-FB members, who would be the ideal? It should be a reasonably large public university, that has long since decided that its not going to enter the big college football ratrace.
LikeLike
UC/UC/USF at least get a warchest. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_id/9019093/big-east-football-schools-keep-close-110-million-league-split-according-report
LikeLike
correct link: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9019093/big-east-football-schools-keep-close-110-million-league-split-according-report
LikeLike
SNL once did a great spoof biography of Tiger Woods (played by Tim Meadows); My favorite line is Tiger’s recollection of putting on 18 in the 1997 Masters:
“When I was on the 18th green, putting on the last hole of the Masters, it was totally quiet except for my father, who kept saying, “Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching!” Just like a cash register, you know? He was high-fiving everyone.. it was really embarrassing.” (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96rbiography.phtml)
With today’s official announcement of Fox Sports 1, Jim Delany has to be Ca-Ching-ing all around Park Ridge right now like Earl Woods, high-fiving rather confused Chicagoans on the street, at the mere thought that ABC/ESPN, CBS/CBS SPORTS, FOX/FS1, and NBC/NBCS will all engage in a full-throttled bidding war for the B1G tv rights in 2017.
Methinks that after that deal, combined with the BTN, only SEC schools will even approach what each B1G school will get from the various TV deals.
Ca-ching, indeed.
LikeLike
Here’s the official announcement for Fox Sports 1 – http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/FOX-Sports-announces-FOX-Sports-1-network-030513
I still have to laugh at the idea of Regis Philbin being on Fox Sports 1. No offense, but he’s 81 years old and if you’re trying to appeal to a younger demographic, having a host who is as old as their grandfathers may not be the way to go. Perhaps he and Lou Holtz can have a UFC fight (or given the Notre Dame link, a “Bengal Bout”) as representatives of the rival networks with simulcasts on ESPN and FS1
LikeLike
Why? Notre Dame’s fanbase consists entirely of elderly white men and people who want to be elderly white men.
LikeLike
Yes. The Big Ten is the only major sports property up for bids in the near future (I think the NBA comes up a year or two afterwards). I expect ESPN, Fox, and NBC/Comcast to all make strong efforts to get them or at least a piece of the pie.
Like many, I see ESPN and Fox dividing up the rights, would seem to work well for both. I’m curious to see how the OTA football rights are done, as the Big Ten seems to be in a position to get a weekly national game a la the SEC’s CBS deal — that’s probably the one aspect where NBC could be the most flexible and get an in to the conference by offering to put them on the OTA channel every week, which would compliment their Notre Dame coverage. Fox and ABC have less time available for constant national games — though I could see a deal where Fox and ABC alternate/share national Big Ten network broadcasts.
Big Ten football and basketball games would be another big get for Fox Sports 1 and they certainly have an in with the CCG and BTN. And it wouldn’t hurt to have Big Ten ice hockey and other sports as generic filler for FS1/FS2 either.
LikeLike
The ESPN and Turner portion of NASCAR is still out there for someone to bid on. The big story to watch will be local MLB TV rights. Thw Nationals, Phillies & Cubs are coming up. Interestingly enough, the Cubs have been on WGN since 1948 and that relationship may end. The big question is do the Cubs want to remain on a Network (Comcast) where the White Sox have an equity stake? I could see the Cubs and Fox setting up their own Network to compete vs the Sox. I wonder if Frank has some insight into the situation?
LikeLike
@David Brown – The general feeling is that the Cubs absolutely want to start their own separate network (and even speaking as a White Sox fan, I can’t blame them). They see what the Dodgers are getting for their new network and they know that they can get a similar amount (or even a larger one). Chicago is an interesting regional sports network market to watch because there really isn’t any competition (unlike NYC, LA, the Bay Area and Boston, where there are multiple RSNs). Comcast SportsNet Chicago has complete control because all of the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks have equity stakes. That has generally been a good deal for the Sox, Bulls and Hawks, but the Cubs would definitely make a lot more on their own (as in enough to make them the 2nd most valuable team in MLB other than the Yankees), as much as I hate to admit it. The only way that CSN Chicago would retain the Cubs would be with an astronomical amount (e.g. likely in excess of $200 million per year) that may or may not be possible.
LikeLike
Thinking about this more, what’s probably “best” for the Chicago teams (although not best for our pocketbooks in this market) is for the Bulls and White Sox to own one RSN and then the Cubs and Blackhawks own the other RSN. That would maximize the revenue for everyone involved without saturating the market with too many channels (which is what’s happening in NYC and LA right now).
LikeLike
Frank: Thank you for getting back to me with such a timely response. Always good to get some local perspective on this issue (Particularly because you are well versed on the subject).
LikeLike
OK, New Big East sports with the C7, Butler and X:
9: M/W BBall, M/W Soccer
8: M/W Xcountry, W Tennis, Volleyball
7: Softball, M Golf, M Tennis, M/W Track
6: Baseball, W Golf, W Swimming
5: M Lacrosse*, M Swimming
4: W Lacrosse*
3: Football, Field Hockey
2: Rowing
Single sports, none of them Big East sponsored sports: M Crew, W Crew, M/W Sailing, M/W Ice Hockey, W Water Polo, M/W Fencing
*Lacrosse includes Marquette, which started teams this year but did not start out as members of the Old Big East, and Loyala, whose women’s team is an associate member of the Old Big East.
It turns out there are very few sports on the bubble for six members. If it is presumed that FCS Football teams stay where they are, while field hockey and rowing find an associate membership or sport-specific conference, its just Men’s Lacrosse, Men’s Swimming, and Women’s Lacrosse.
which narrows down which (BBall driven) expansion would have knock-on effects on non-revenue sports. SLU would bring a sixth for men’s swimming. It also has MCLA Lacrosse teams, which if it promoted would bring M/W Lacrosse to 6/4. If Big Ten Lacrosse is a will-o-wisp, Rutgers could do the same. If Richmond were invited for 2014/15, it would do the same. Two of those three, and Loyola continuing as an associate W Lacrosse member, and the could sponsor both sports.
So the New Big East sports would like be:
Baseball, M/W Basketball, M/W Cross Country, M/W Golf, M/W Soccer, W Swimming, M/W Tennis, M/W Track, Volleyball; and possible M Swimming, M Lacrosse, and W Lacrosse.
LikeLike
FWIW: Creighton sponsors M/W Basketball, M/W Soccer, M/W XC, M/W Tennis, M/W Golf, Baseball, Softball, W Volleyball, and W Rowing (in the WCC).
LikeLike
Do they row? I have them down in my spreadsheet as sponsoring women’s crew.
LikeLike
I believe Crew and Rowing are interchangeable. If they’re not Wikipedia says they do sponsor rowing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_Bluejays
LikeLike
I didn’t go to Wikipedia, I went to the individual school sites. But, yes, after some looking around, Crew and Rowing are different names for the same thing, I’ll fix my spreadsheet to reflect that. The NCAA only sponsors Women’s championships in three events, which are a subset of the broader range of rowing disciplines raced at various collegiate regattas.
Its not a difference that makes much of a difference ~ I’ve also included Creighton, Dayton, SLU, Richmond and VCU in the spreadsheet, and even if both Creighton and Dayton are invited, it still makes only four women’s rowing teams.
LikeLike
“Big American” sports in 2014, pure status quo (before they formalize ECU as an all sports member, without including widely expected Tulsa):
10: Football
9: M/W BBall, W Tennis, W Cross Country, W Track, Volleyball,
8: Baseball, M Cross Country, M Golf, M Track, W Soccer
7: M Soccer, M Tennis, W Golf
6: Softball
5: W Swimming
4: W Rowing
3: M Swimming, Field Hockey*, W Lacrosse
0: M Lacrosse
Really only Women’s Swimming and Rowing on the bubble, the only change with ECU/Tulsa is that Women’s Rowing moves closer to the bubble, because Tulsa sponsors Women’s rowing.
*Including current associate Old Dominion.
LikeLike
Men’s Swimming and Diving for the Big 12 is at 3 members (A&M and Mizzou both left, but WVU and TCU both have the sport). You qualify for the NCAA nationals by getting some of the best times in the nation, not by winning conference titles.
Only having 3 men’s teams and 5 women’s teams just means that the conference meet will be small.
LikeLike
Yes, I left swimming, track and cross country out when I did it in the previous post.
So the NCAA doesn’t enforce a 4-school minimum in those sports, as in the others?
So that would only put Field Hockey and W Lacrosse on the sport sponsorship bubble, rowing on the AQ championship bubble.
LikeLike
I don’t think the NCAA cares about swimming or track ‘conferences’. Schools don’t qualify for the national championships: individual athletes do. If you get a qualifying time, it doesn’t matter if there’s 1 other school in the race with you or 12, as long as it’s in an NCAA recognized meet.
Maybe some other conferences are different, but in the Big 12 and SEC, there is no ‘regular season’ conference meets for those sports. All schools schedule their teams to compete in meets around the nation, which may include a few meets against a single conference school.
They’re essentially independents except they all attend a conference meet at the end of the season to determine the conference champions.
LikeLike
Pingback: News, Discussion and Rumors 3-5-13 | Conference Expansion
Frank – Good Post.
As an additional illustration just think about what Butler has just accomplished. Imagine that if you had predicted 5 years ago that Butler’s take form their conferences Basketball TV deal would be greater than what the University of Connecticut is getting for Football and Basketball. Their return on investment must be insane. What did they do other then up Stevens’ contract? Maybe up their recruiting budget and improve their locker room? No new indoor $100 million practice facility, no $150 million for stadium improvements, no $10 million a year on 3 new women’s teams for Title 9 compliance, no need for additional $5 million a year for new assistants, etc. You can say that things timed out for perfectly for them but you can say the same thing for Rutgers in that if a lot of things had went differently they would not be on their way to the Big Ten. How much cash has Rutgers laid out there trying to keep their FBS football team viable in the hope for a Big Ten invite. I have always been a Big Ten fan and I think both Rutgers and Maryland were good additions, (I would like not to expand any further though) however both were in deep yogurt if the Big had not come along. Large state funded universities can put a lot of money out there a take greater risk for greater reward and a big time Football program in a major conference will generate considerably more in gross revenue and gross profit than an equivalent Bball program. Bball has much lower barrier to entry, less risk, and higher ROI, that’s why there are so many more DI Basketball teams than FBS football teams. On the flip side the power conferences have a much wider moat around their football programs, they essentially have a giant monopoly in football were in Basketball they just have a nice lucrative business with a high ROI, low risk, but not enough gross profit to support an a bloated athletic department with 20 to 30 non- revenue teams.
LikeLike
@DR – Yes, going from the Horizon League to the Atlantic 10 to the “new” Big East in consecutive seasons has been a dramatic rise for Butler. They are definitely one of the largest winners of conference realignment.
LikeLike
Well, Butler’s kind of like the basketball version of TCU. Granted, TCU had to take a few more trips (to CUSA and the MWC as well as a phantom stay in the BE) and stay longer between hopping from the WAC to the B12, but I think that’s mostly due to Butler being content to stay in the Horizon for many years rather than hop-scotching to marginally better leagues.
Both are small private schools with limited fan bases but both have the advantage of being located in major cities in states that are absolutely mad about the sport they’ve excelled in.
For the record, I have thought for a long time that Butler could move up if they had wanted to.
LikeLike
OK! We need to ensure acaffrey knows this and notes it in his journal of anonymous bloggers having off the record thoughts that accurately predicted future events. 🙂
LikeLike
The Butler model is probably not replicable. Generally, you do have to invest big to win big. Just because Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates became billionaires, does not mean that dropping out of college is a likely path to success.
LikeLike
If you don’t have the money and fanbase, you almost certainly have to be located in an extremely fertile recruiting area for your sport (like Butler and Miami and TCU are) to have a shot.
LikeLike
I dint understand why the MWC doesn’t add Gonzaga as its 12th member for non-football sports. Clearly, they don’t want Hawaii for anything other than football. Gonzaga would do nothing to dilute their football value because they wouldn’t be accounted for in TV contracts.
The Mountain West is already a pretty impressive basketball league. Gonzaga would solidify that.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting idea.
In particular, plenty of the younger MWC programs are starting to mature in basketball as well like SDSU over the past couple of years.
Combine that with already established programs like UNLV and New Mexico and soon to join Utah State and you’re talking about a pretty good group.
Only issue is that I’m not sure Gonzaga wants to join a grouping that may have future instability if there is future conference movement in the West…
LikeLike
UNC to B1G a good idea.
http://www.thehoopsreport.com/article.aspx?id=1107
LikeLike
http://www.redandblack.com/football/athletic-board-cuts-football-student-seats-takes-leap-of-faith/article_1fd63640-850c-11e2-88f3-001a4bcf6878.html
This is one way to get your attendance and revenue up.
Highlights:
UGA currently sells 18,645 students season tickets
They allocate 17,910 seats (oversold by 735)
On average, only 11,802 students show up (6108 empty seats)
UGA will now sell the same number of tickets but reduce the seats to 15,856 (oversold by 2789)
The extra 2054 seats will be sold to young alumni for $40 in addition to the $8 students pay
That’s an extra $500k before annual contributions ($0 the first year, then $125 minimum for years 2-5).
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/03/05/former-metro-commissioner-wouldnt-mind-if-big-east-revives-name/1965393/
The media agrees with me (and a few others here) – Metro Conference is the way to go. The former Metro commish thinks it could be a good idea, too.
LikeLike
Well that’s a terrible idea.
The FB Big East schools are already going to have to deal with constant jokes about their stability so why would they want to name themselves after a conference that failed?
LikeLike
As opposed to calling themselves “Big East” you mean?
LikeLike
They aren’t calling themselves the Big East.
LikeLike
Arguably along the same lines as calling themselves the Big East ~ either way could be seen as the football schools naming their new conference after a previous football conference that failed.
But time is a funny thing ~ maybe the Metro failed long enough ago that the memory of it folding due to its schools moving onto greener football playing pastures has faded a little.
LikeLike
To be honest I like Metro better than any of the other suggestions I’ve heard. Big America and such just sound like C-USA part deux.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with @frug that the name of a conference that folded isn’t going to sound terribly appealing.
LikeLike
There was a story on AP the other day saying the Big Ten may seek to have some nonconference baseball games played in the fall and have them included in a team’s spring record: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-backs-proposal-to-shift-portion-of-baseball-season-to-fall/
LikeLike
I don’t see how it works to play some games the previous August thru October, then take 5 months off and start up again. Maybe they are hoping it they propose something so ridiculous, they can get southern schools to agree to something more reasonable.
Like push the start of the season back a month. Have the CWS in Omaha right around the 4th of July. Not perfect, but much better.
Few students attend college baseball games anyway, so I don’t think it matters that most of the schools will be out for the last month of the season. And there are more and more students taking classes in the summer anyway.
MLB may not like it though, as it would push back when they could get some of their draftees into their system.
LikeLike
MLB already drafts kids out of high school. They don’t care.
LikeLike
What I mean is that the MLB draft occurs in June. Any of the college players that are drafted generally get placed somewhere in the farm season as soon as their college season is over. If you push the college season back a month, then it pushes back the date that the college kids would be able to report that summer. It might be later in the season than MLB would want.
LikeLike
Or, more likely they sign and report, and college baseball post season qualifiers, teams, seeding, etc. is screwed up
LikeLike
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2013/03/05/big-12-football-fan-attendance-concerns-bowlsby/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Interesting comments from Bowlsby on the future of attendance and college football. It coincides with comments by Maryland’s AD and Georgia’s concerns about student attendance.
LikeLike
Note that these comments come from a commissioner of a conference whose attendance is up. Over that 5 year period he mentions, everyone but WVU (most of those years in BE) and Kansas (bad teams) has been on a noticeable upward trend in attendance. And Georgia from the SEC is concerned.
LikeLike
And yet the SEC still has far and away the highest attendance of any conference, with the Big 12 substantially behind them.
LikeLike
@ Andy, “Far and away”? I believe the SEC had company at the top with the Big Ten not far behind. If I remember the numbers right; the SEC only averaged 3,000 more per game.
LikeLike
2012 numbers:
SEC: 75,444
B1G: 70,377 (66,409 counting Rutgers and Maryland)
Big 12: 58,993
LikeLike
@Andy ~ so posting average figures 8% above Big Ten attendance intended to to withdraw your claim that SEC attendance is “far and away” bigger than any other conference?
LikeLike
I was counting Rugers and Maryland.
LikeLike
The rest of us don’t yet known Rutgers and Maryland’s attendance playing in the Big Ten ~ must be nice owning such a specific crystal ball.
LikeLike
Your point is?
Mine is that even schools with growing attendance or very good attendance are concerned about the long term trends. Students aren’t going in the same numbers.
LikeLike
I wonder whether the schools that are emphasizing out-of-country enrollment are experiencing a greater attendance decline than schools with higher in-state enrollment.
LikeLike
Looks like Missouri has a rival in the SEC:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger-college-basketball-blog/mike-anderson-receives-hostile-welcome-return-missouri-022918975–ncaab.html
LikeLike
You’re so desperate. You have become a caricatue
LikeLike
caricature*.
LikeLike
Desperate for what? This forum doesn’t have the ability to directly message people. Arch Stanton and others were telling me the other day that Arkansas/Missouri wouldn’t be much of a rivalry. Well, the two schools have played 39 times, with Missouri winning 19 of them, and the games have always been a hot ticket and fans seem to be pretty into it. I’m not even sure what the basis would be for claiming that people wouldn’t care about this game. Tickets were selling on stubhub for a minimum of over $100 for nosebleed seats for both games, the one in Fayetteville, and the one in Columbia.
I wouldn’t have to post this sort of thing if there weren’t so many oddly delusional people on here.
LikeLike
I’m suddenly very thankful that there is not a direct message ability on this forum!
Andy, please go back and review everything I posted about Missouri-Arkansas. I very clearly stated that Missouri-Arkansas had a decent shot of being a basketball rivalry, especially because of the Mike Anderson angle.
My point was, and remains, that Arkansas is not going to care about playing Missouri in football. That there are at there are four annual football games that Arkansas will look forward to before Missouri. My other point was that it is pathetic of you to insist that Arkansas is your new rival,(seriously, it is Arkansas) and it is funny to me that you feel this new invented Bromance with Arkansas is some sort of revenge that you are getting against Kansas for not scheduling your Tigers. Reminds me of the girl in high school that is dumped and then hangs around some average dude all the time and tries to act like he is her new boyfriend when, in reality, this new dude is just not that into you (her).
LikeLike
You’re basically talking out of your ass, sorry to say, but it’s obviously true. You say you live in Arkansas, so I’m not sure why you’re so off base here. The truth is the last time Missouri played Arkansas the game sold out easily. People were desperate for tickets. That was the 2007 Cotton Bowl. There were a ton of Arkansas fans there. Maybe a couple of your buddies down in little rock say they don’t care about Missouri, but the Arkansas fanbase at large seems to care plenty. Otherwise they wouldn’t talk about us so much on their message boards and they wouldn’t pay so much on the secondary market to go to games against us.
LikeLike
Arkansas has played in the Cotton Bowl 4 times in recent memory. The attendance from Arkansas at the game has not depended on the opponent. They are generally just excited to be playing in what they consider a “good bowl”.
I just asked 6 co-workers in Little Rock, “when did Arkansas last play Missouri in football?”
This may not be a scientific poll, but these are the facts of their answers:
– 3 people replied something to the effect of “I Don’t Know”
– 1 guy thought it was the Independence Bowl “about 12 years ago”
-1 guy remembered they played when he was in school, so over 20 years ago.
-Last guy said, “they played this year, didn’t they? With the lightning? Oh, no, nevermind, that is the Kentucky game I am remembering.” -Word for word, bro.
No one mentioned the Cotton Bowl or seemed in any way interested in Missouri.
These are guys who could probably name half of the recruits in Arkansas’ most recent class and where they went to high school, so they are definitely engaged fans. To my dismay, they spend much of the work day discussing Razorback football, year round. Yet, I have never, ever heard anyone mention Missouri.
can’t speak for the message boards that you read. My advice: if you really want to start a rivalry with Arkansas, you should totally post on these Razorback message boards as much as you do here. Arkansas fans will start hating Missouri in no time!
LikeLike
Arch, the fact that we have played Arkansas twice in the last 30 years in football has more to do with it than anything. We played them every year in basketball for 35 years and the rivalry got pretty heated. The schools are nearby. If they play every year (and they will starting in 2014) the both sides will notice.
As for how much fans care, I think the best way to judge that is not by asking random fans but by checking how much the tickets sell for on the secondary market. If the basketball tickets this year in Columbia and Fayetteville are any indication then there’s a lot of high interest. Cotton Bowl tickets are pricy too.
Maybe you rcoworkers *wanted* o forget that game. Missouri won 35-7.
LikeLike
That wasn’t the 2007 Cotton Bowl, it was the 2008. I remember, because I listened to the game on my way to watch Kansas in the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
@FtT:
You were right three years ago about basketball. A general caution is in order to not confuse “basketball” with “market.”
You said in the OP: “While basketball is much less of a concern to the power conferences at face value, consider which school is the top target for both the Big Ten and SEC (the 2 richest and most powerful conferences): North Carolina. … UNC is a basketball blue blood,”
From this you are suggesting that basketball is really important now for realignment.
But then you go on to say: “… Tar Heels basketball games are so critically important in the state of the North Carolina that a conference TV network carrying such games can effectively charge whatever carriage rate that it wants in that market.”
From this you are identifying the real reason that UNC is a target for the B1G and the SEC: its tv market. This is what you said three years ago; it is still true. “TV value” is 1/4th of your formula.
Kansas ~~~ again ~~~ is the counter example. They too are a basketball blueblood and, even now, the B1G and the SEC do not want them. The Kansas tv/media market is not big enough to justify adding another slice to the revenue “pie.”
You were right three years ago and not much has changed.
As Brian posted above, your formula was/is:
Academics – 25
TV value – 25
Football brand value – 30
Basketball brand value – 10
Historic rivalries/Cultural fit – 5
Mutual interest – 5
You properly said “Football BRAND value.” (emphasis added). No one on this Board has ever suggested that the Mountain West was going to get a lot of $$$ from the networks. All the good Football brands left the (former) Big East and, as you say, the Big East was left with “riff raff.” No one ever suggested that the football “riff raff” was going to get a lot of $$$ from the networks. And I don’t recall anyone suggesting that ANY football brand was better than ANY basketball brand. You certainly did not suggest this.
If there is a “problem” with your formula, it is that your formula is B1G-centric (or maybe B1G-specific). The B1G values academics in a way that other conferences do not. Example: the then-Pac-10 was willing to take academic light-weights like Okie State and TexTech.
My guess is the weight of “academics” varies from conference to conference and my guess is that the weight of “tv value” goes up in proportion as the weight of “academics” goes down.
So, as said, IMO, recent events do not change the analysis.
Plus, recent events are subject to other interpretations.
Alternative interpretation one: Taking the FOX vs. ESPN view of things, FOX is overpaying for the (new) Big East basketball package taking that “inventory” away from ESPN.
Further, FOX (along with the BTN) has figured out how to monetize basketball in a way that ESPN has not.
Further, FOX did not make a serious bid for the ACC media rights. This was purposeful and has done two things. First, has left the ACC with a below-market media deal making the schools in the ACC restless. Second, it leaves FOX with more $$$ to (possibly) over-pay for the (new) Big East and to bid for the B1G media rights.
Assuming FOX is attempting to get UNC, et. al., away from ESPN and into the FOX camp, there is synergy here. “Overpaying” for the (new) Big East signals to UNC & Duke that FOX will really “overpay” from them (if they felt so inclined to join the B1G).
Alternative interpretation two: what FOX is willing to pay for a Bball only league is not relevant to conference realignment. What ESPN agreed to pay the Big X Conference is relevant; but there is no new information there.
The Big X is basically now on the level of C-USA. The Big X got from ESPN C-USA-level $$$. That is exactly what we would have expected three years ago.
Alternative interpretation three: recent events simply confirm the important of “tv value” and “brand value.” The (new) Big East has teams in good and diverse markets with several good-to-great Bball brand names. Why are we surprised that this combination netted $3-4M per school per year? Imagine breaking off the B1G bball teams into a bball-only league. Selling just those media rights, what would it be worth? My guess is $7-8M per school per year. The B1G has a lot of big media markets and several good-to-great Bball brands.
All in all, I don’t think the FOX deal with the (new) Big East represents any sort of “sea-change” with respect to realignment. (That being said, it may represent a sea-change concerning the value of basketball to the networks. There are more channels and thus more demand. But basketball value is still going to be a fraction of the analysis with respect to realignment.)
As for giving advice to Athletic Departments: with due respect Frank, you are thinking like the President of a B1G University. To give proper advice, you must think like the President of a University in the MAC or of a University trying to transition from Div. 1aa up to Div. 1a. I seriously doubt any MAC President thinks the tv networks are going to pay millions for their football product. For those schools, it is about student recruiting. Every time Butler plays basketball on tv or tournament game, that is invaluable “advertising” for the school. Sports matter and it separates schools from the true “no-name” schools.
As for forming Bball-only leagues and getting $3-4M per school from FOX: again, with due respect, you have identified the only four teams that could even try: UConn, Memphis, Temple and Cincy. But, not going to happen. They are good-to-great schools, but they are not in good-to-great markets. The FOX deal with the (new) Big East is unique and will not and cannot be replicated.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau, I think academics are as much of a reason for the difference between the demand for Kansas and the demand for UNC and Duke as anything. If KU were ranked #20 in USNews instead of #111 or whatever they are this year, then they might get some more attention.
LikeLike
Its much more the 9.8 million people in Carolina vs. 2.8 in Kansas as well as the faster growth. N. Carolina is the 10th biggest state & will soon pass Michigan. Another 20 years growth at their pace in the last decade and they will pass Ohio and be almost caught up to Illinois and Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
Sure, there’s that too. But I don’t think anybody’s going to argue that KU is anywhere near UNC academically.
LikeLike
No, people wouldn’t argue that Kansas ranks up with UNC academically, but that isn’t on the basis of the USNWR undergrad rankings, it would be on the basis of research funding and numbers of top flight graduate schools.
LikeLike
KU’s research is the 2nd lowest in the AAU. UNC’s is above average.
LikeLike
Yes, eg, AAU research rankings are far more relevant than than USNWR undergrad rankings, even though USNWR undergrad rankings is easier to find.
LikeLike
If there is a “problem” with your formula, it is that your formula is B1G-centric (or maybe B1G-specific). The B1G values academics in a way that other conferences do not. Example: the then-Pac-10 was willing to take academic light-weights like Okie State and TexTech.
Frank had the formula right. Obviously, the interpretation varies for each conference, so a Texas Tech is acceptable to the Pac-12 (as part of a deal where they also get Texas), but not to the Big Ten.
In the modern history of realignment, hardly any school has switched voluntarily to a worse academic conference than the one they were in. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Schools use conference moves to trade up academically, as well as athletically.
It could be that Frank under-rated academics, where the Big Ten is concerned. After all, he gave it just 25 percent, but AAU membership seems to be practically a litmus test, with Notre Dame being the only known exception they’re willing to make. If that’s true, it would seem the league is ranking academics a lot more than just 25 percent.
LikeLike
If the AAU is so important, why do they allow Nebraska to remain in the Conference? Guess what? It is the same reason that Penn State was not booted post-Sandusky (This from a huge Penn State fan), and they chose Rutgers over say Missouri. It is about Money. Call it “TV footprint” call it ratings, call it whatever you like, it is about who brings in the most money to the Conference and individual Schools. Maybe it is 90% $$$$ while the others are 95% money, but it is still about “Show me the money.”
LikeLike
Agreed. As the BTN network becomes more valueable I can see AAU status and geographic location becoming less important b/c the channel becomes a “runaways train” in good and bad ways. At some point, maybe even more geographic outlander colleges maybe pursued to gain a wider audience (fingers crossed for florida st). If the Big network becomes something similiar to the level of spike or , you telling me they’re going to still be preaching AAU status or geographic location. At some point such talk will become moot. It really depends how big Delany and company wants the channel to get and how safely they want to get there. Once a fluffer college is on the ride (i.e., BTN) they can’t be booted off…looking at you georgia tech, missouri, and maybe even virginia. The phrase ‘100 year decison’ could mean we’re thinking too small and safe, depending on the ambitions of the B10 network.
LikeLike
Missouri’s population is tripple that of Nebraska, and has better academics as well. They are better at football and that’s it. But then Rutgers is bad at football but has decent academics and a good market. Missouri had decent but not great football, academics, and market. Seems there’s no reasly formula for this.
LikeLike
Nebraska has 16 NCAA NC’s. Don’t know about Mizzo, a school I like. Sure you have a better basketball school, but Neb makes bank with women’s volleyball. They are also traditional powers in smaller Olympic sports.
LikeLike
@ Andy, Missouri isn’t much better than Kansas or Nebraska in the realm of academics. That metric is not one to use. Stick with the population arguement as that isn’t such a subjective piece of criteria. It is however subjective how much of that population Missouri can actually draw. The Rutgers/Maryland move makes perfect sense for the members of the B1G. The first move brought in a national football power in Nebraska; the second brought in more of an audience to exploit it.
LikeLike
Also, just the sheer population number (and the sheer number of actual fans) wasn’t the whole story with Maryland and Rutgers. Their location was also important.
I believe the B1G felt they were getting boxed in to the east by the ACC as it added Boston College, V-Tech, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and even Notre Dame over the past decade.
Adding Maryland from the ACC, and Rutgers as well, instantly changes that geography. The B1G now stretches to the east coast by slicing through the middle of the ACC footprint. They have beachheads in the NYC, Baltimore and D.C. areas.
Maryland and Rutgers also secure Penn State into the conference whereas before they were an outlier.
There really is an east coast bias in media coverage and the B1G didn’t want to give that that advantage wholely to the ACC. The eastern seaboard used to be split between the Big East and the ACC (with the SEC owning Atlanta and northern Florida – not what is considered “east coast bias terrain anyway). With the ACC engulfing the Big East, they were poised to dominate the eastern seaboard geographically. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers put a stop to that.
Adding Missouri does none of those things. While I’m sure that Missouri would have been a candidate for number 14 if they hadn’t joined the SEC, I think ultimately Rutgers would have gotten the invite over Missouri even if they were still in a GOR-less Big 12 and very eager to leave.
LikeLike
@gfunk
I’ve talked about this a lot before so forgive me if you’ve seen it, but maybe you’re new here.
Missouri and Nebraska compared
Nebraska 49 bowls in football, 11 claimed and unclaimed national titles, 85,517 attendance average, Missouri 30 bowls 2 claimed and unclaimed national titles, 67,476 attendance average. Nebraska is clearly better at football.
Nebraska 6 NCAA tournaments in basketball, never won a tournament game, 7 conference titles (regular season and tournament), Missouri 25 NCAA tournaments in basketball, 5 Elite Eights, 23 conference titles (regular season and tournament). Missouri is clearly better at basketball.
Nebraska 14 NCAA baseball tournaments, 3 CWSs, 0 national titles, Missouri 22 NCAA baseball tournametns, 6 CWSs, 1 national title. Missouri is better at baseball.
Women’s sports, Missouri is better at softball and maybe soccer. Nebraska is better at the others. Nebraska is pretty strong at women’s sports.
Missouri is a national power at wrestling. They’re pretty weak in tennis and swimming. Used to be strong in track but not lately.
In general on the strenghts of the women’s sports Nebraska will rank higher than Missouri in the overall directors’ cup standings. Nebraska finished 40 last year, Missouri finished 49. 33, 41.
As far as academics, Missouri is still in the AAU, Nebraska is not. Missouri ranks 69th in research dollars, Nebraska ranks 93rd. Missouri is a few spots higher in the USNews ranking as well. Missouri has 35k students, Nebraska has 25k. Nebraska ACT average: 25.4, Missouri 25.7. They are in the same general ballpark, but Missouri is a big stronger than Nebraska academically.
Markets, Missouri clearly leads. State population of Missouri is over 6M. State population of Nebraska is 1.8M.
So basically Nebraska got the nod on the basis of football and not really anything else. They are good at football, I’ll give them that.
LikeLike
@order restored, I gave you some objective academic numbers to look at in the post I just posted. I agree that it’s not a huge margin, but it’s not an insignificant margin either. Missouri is stronger academically. More students. Smarter students. More research. Better reputation. AAU.
LikeLike
As for population, yeah New Jersey has a lot of people, but how many of them are Rutgers fans? Missouri has a ton of Mizzou fans, believe it or not. I’m not so sure about Rutgers with New Jersey. Also, Maryland averaged only 36k fans per game this season. I’m not sure how many fans they even have. They’re right there in DC, I’m not sure how much their state as a whole supports them, at least in football. They’re both good schools though.
LikeLike
@ Andy, I think you are looking at the population of New Jersey with a mid-western thinking cap on. No, Rutgers wasn’t added because of all the Rutgers fans in that area……this is ludacris to even pretend. The east coast is a bit different than the midwest in the aspect of it being more of a melting pot of back grounds (educationally and background speaking). So in essence, Rutgers was added to get carriage for the BTN in New Jersey households who are Big Ten fans; not necessarily Rutgers fans. Think of it that way. Thank you for the objective numbers though on the academic front; I’m not intricately familiar with either institution (Nebraska, Missouri)…..but in the academic circles I am associated with, the two are seen as fairly equal.
LikeLike
@order restored, sounds good in theory. We’ll see it works. Missouri fits the standard Big Ten model: big state school with lots of in state fans, a big (soon to be bigger) stadium that fills up on Saturdays with people cheering for their state school. As far as that goes Rutgers is a fixer upper. But sounds like they’ve got some new fangled ideas they’re trying out with the scarlet knights that may or may not work.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
I hear you. But, 16 NCAA titles is what it is. Also, I started browsing Director’s Cup rankings over the past 25 years. Nebraska has cracked the top 25 often, 7 times since 2000, hardly the case with Mizzo. Nebraska also had a string of top 10 finishes in the mid 90s.
Sadly, I think the BIG let Mizzo get away when they clearly had the opportunity, but the timing wasn’t right. You should know this. I think the BIG simply wanted to get to 12 – hard to refuse Nebraska – esp after 2 consecutive conference title games in football, close losses, a sign that Nebraska football was on the rebound. But the SEC surprising went to 14, thus the Rutgers & Md additions were done and not nearly as popular as PSU and Neb expansion. If 18 is the end game, Mizzo certainly has to be considered, but such a move would be highly unpopular for Mizzo and the BIG. The SEC faithful would have a ball denigrating such a move.
But, Mizzo is more Midwestern than Southern, regardless of Mizzouri-Branson-Ozarks ville.
LikeLike
Yes, gfunk, had the B1G expanded to 14 before the SEC they could have had Missouri, but they waited too long. Missouri can go either way. The southern part of Missouri fits the SEC while St. Louis fits in more with the B1G.
LikeLike
Nebraska doesn’t have much of a basketball program, but overall, Nebraska has one of the best athletic departments in the country. They have been nationally competitive in many sports. Typically, they finished 2nd in the Big 12 in the Director’s Cup, well ahead of typically #3 Texas A&M.
If you look at all time Big 12 titles (including years since Nebraska left) its:
Texas 117
Nebraska 72
A&M 57
Baylor 49
Oklahoma 44
Okie St. 41
Colorado 27
Kansas 24
Texas Tech 12
Iowa St. 11
Missouri 10
KSU 7
WVU 1
Its going to be a long time before Baylor or OU or the Cowboys knock Nebraska out of 2nd place.
LikeLike
So those of you knocking Baylor, yes, Baylor is currently 2nd among active Big 12 schools in conference titles.
LikeLike
OkSU has fewer overall B12 titles than it has NC’s in wrestling?
LikeLike
@cc – Big 8 titles not included?
LikeLike
Mike:
Oops, brain cramp. Thanks.
Although, I’m not sure the number of conference titles over the relative short period of the B12 is as good a measure as including B8/SWC titles.
LikeLike
As I said, Nebraska is very good at most of the women’s sports. No doubt.
LikeLike
If the AAU is so important, why do they allow Nebraska to remain in the Conference?
I didn’t say it’s the only thing they look at. But Nebraska was in the AAU when they joined. Every school they are known to have seriously considered has been in the AAU, except for Notre Dame. I don’t think I’m mistaken to say that it is a VERY large factor for them.
It is the same reason that Penn State was not booted post-Sandusky…..
Whoa there. Talk about mixing your metaphors. The reason Penn State wasn’t booted, was because there wasn’t the slightest reason to even consider doing so. Tragic as it was, the Sandusky scandal was isolated. No sane person has suggested that if Penn State were allowed to remain, they’d continue to be a magnet for child rapist ex-coaches.
If you were ever going to kick a school out of a conference, it would be a school where there is a recurring problem that cannot or has not been fixed, not an absurd scandal confined to a few warped individuals, the likes of which no one has seen before or expects to see again.
LikeLike
“If the AAU is so important, why do they allow Nebraska to remain in the Conference?”
Because not making marriage vows in the first place is easier than getting a divorce. Indeed, moving to get Nebraska before their loss of AAU status became public knowledge is a market of how important academics when trying to overcome the institutional intertia of the Big Ten universities.
LikeLike
I think the academics is over-weighted. The academics is a cliff, not a weighted factor. You either pass or you don’t.
LikeLike
If that were true, Notre Dame wouldn’t be acceptable — and we know they are. It was also widely known before Nebraska joined that they were at risk of losing AAU status, so even for them, it was a factor, but not a cliff. We really have no idea what the B1G thinks about FSU.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is very highly regarded academically. They just aren’t one of the top research universities. So even though they aren’t AAU, they pass the cliff test. Contrast that with say, Cincinnati, who has more research, but isn’t AAU and isn’t as highly regarded as Notre Dame otherwise. Same with UConn.
LikeLike
Research is the driver, because that’s the attribute that the Big Ten derives tangible value from. High GRE and LSAT scores don’t deliver a thing. Notre Dame is an exception they are willing to make, to what would otherwise be their usual standards. The open unresolved question is whether FSU is, as well.
Cincinnati is a red herring, because the B1G wouldn’t duplicate the Ohio market, even if they join the AAU at some point. There are so many issues around UConn that the question of bending the rules for them has probably never even come up.
LikeLike
Totally disagree about academics cliff. Maryland and Rutgers expansion wouldn’t have happened if they had Missouri academics.
Re: attendance decline. The only place we are really seeing it is the crap being added to the bottom of d1.
LikeLike
@bullet and @Marc Shepherd – That was kind of my intent with the academics component. It was an all-or-nothing category – a school either received 25 points or 0 points, with nothing in between. From the Big Ten perspective, either you meet the standard or you don’t at all. The weighting of 25 points effectively ensured that if a school got 0 points on academics, it couldn’t possibly score high enough to be realistically considered even if it was perfect in every other category.
LikeLike
@FtT: Interesting. That may have been your intent (it’s either 0 or 25 points for the “academic” factor), but I’m not sure that’s how the COP/C sees it or even this Board. In this thread, for example, have been discussions of Kansas vs. UNC’s and MO vs. Nebraska’s academic statuses and how such impacted or might impact an invite to the B1G.
Plus, the COP/C is not a unitary black box. It contains 12-14 voting members with hundreds of others offering input into theses decisions. The opinions are bound to be diverse and, thus, the “opinion” of the COP/C is likely to be nuanced. By a combination of thinking and opinions, ND will likely get some “credit” on the “academic” factor, but less than UNC will likely get.
I also want to suggest that the vote on Nebraska was probably NOT unanimous (even if the decision was claimed to be unanimous). Given what is known about Michigan and Wisconsin’s votes on kicking Nebraska out of the AAU, they probably voted “no” on B1G membership. Everyone else out-voted them?
Something like that might be in the offing if FSU were offered.
To be clear, I have no insider information. Just offering theories.
LikeLike
But its a mix of the two, isn’t it? A minimal acceptable level of academic status may be a pre-requisite, but when you get to the level of research funding of the strongest elite research universities, it becomes a driver as well.
LikeLike
If this happens, would the BIG and ACC go further and just get Md, Rutgers & Louisville in by this summer? The article says otherwise. God this is all a headache at this point:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9022342/notre-dame-fighting-irish-join-acc-summer-school-negotiate-big-east-exit-according-sources
LikeLike
Also, if ND does in fact join the ACC this summer, how does that factor into Md’s exit fees? The argument has been pinned already that Md’s loss, but Lville’s arrival diminishes the ACC’s financial loss argument. ND is even more profitable than Lville.
LikeLike
UMD can’t move early with the lawsuit up in the air. I think the B10 strongly prefers to wait for 2014 and will ask RU to suck it up for a year.
LikeLike
@ Brian,
But if ND’s ACC entrance is expedited, as this article suggests, doesn’t such counter ACC claims of financial hardship caused by Md’s departure? Thus, Md would have a stronger case against the ACC and reason to fast track the legal process. Throw Lville in & it seems clear the ACC has limited, if any financial hardship by Md’s departure.
Just my light observations.
LikeLike
I think the legal theory of the exit fee is more than just the damage of losing a particular school. It’s also the instability. In the modern era, I can’t recall a conference losing just ONE school. The first loss almost always leads to more. This perception of instability affects the conference on many fronts, not just TV revenue. I’m not suggesting the whole $54m Maryland exit fee will be upheld, only that the analysis is more complicated than just a revenue spreadsheet.
LikeLike
The lawsuit doesn’t hold them back. Its the B1G not being ready to go to 14. If they went next year, there would be no time to ramp up the BTN.
LikeLike
I think it does hold them back. The settlement/decision may change significantly if they give 3 months notice versus 15 months. Until that suit is settled, they won’t move. IMO and IANAL.
LikeLike
No, because this is not about Notre Dame joining the ACC football championship, its about Basketball, which starts later, and the non-revenue sports, which in the end are just going to shut up and cope with whatever conference realignment throws their way.
LikeLike
Florida State’s AD Spetman speaks.
http://espn.go.com/colleges/fsu/football/story/_/id/9020053/ad-randy-spetman-discusses-state-florida-state-seminoles-program
“While Spetman said he has been a part of high-level discussions regarding Florida State’s conference affiliation, those measures of cost effectiveness are being debated by the conferences as well, and the fit has to be right on both ends.
“Unless you bring in a revenue for them so that they don’t reduce their conference distribution to themselves, they aren’t going to bring you in,” Spetman said. “That’s what I don’t think people evaluate as much. It would be great to be in the SEC with our radius of schools and the way our fans travel and their fans travel, but if they bring Florida State into the SEC, I’m trying to see, how do we sell that we bring them enough additional revenue that we pay for ourselves and they make more money off of us? They have Florida just two hours away that has the TV market here.”
Similarly, a move to the Big Ten or Big 12 isn’t a slam dunk financially for Florida State. Issues surround TV distribution (Maryland won’t immediately get a full share from the Big Ten), travel (West Virginia, for example, has had difficulty adjusting to the demands of travel in the Big 12) and, of course, the not insignificant issue of that buyout to leave the ACC, which would cost the university close to $50 million — a number Maryland is challenging as it works its way out of the league.
In the short term, Spetman said he’s confident that the ACC is moving in the right direction, and the Noles staying remains the most appealing solution. However, he said his priority is to ensure that Florida State is prepared for the next major shift.”
LikeLike
I just don’t buy the travel argument. The ACC in 2013 isn’t the ACC of 2000 or even 2003. Florida State will be playing future conference road games in Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston, Louisville, and South Bend. It could also very likely be playing games in Cincinnati and Storrs, CT if the ACC is raided any further.
Are we all in agreement that FSU is not a candidate for 15 or 16? If so, it stands to reason that FSU would be coming with a block of at least 3 other southern traveling partners. Having yearly games with GT, UVA, and UNC would provide enough “backyard” games.
So I ask… How would FSU’s travel plans be drastically different from their soon-to-be ACC travel plans? Sure, they’ll have to go to Lincoln (996 miles) and Madison (916 miles) every few years, but is that really worse than Boston (1,101 miles) or Syracuse (979 miles)?
LikeLike
You’ve read more into it than what he really said. First, he said the SEC would be great for travel. I think this is hardly disputable. The rest of the article was not talking about a particular conference, and he cited several issues, travel being only one. In a hypothetical case where FSU and Clemson — and no others — joined the Big XII, I think it’s obvious that travel distances for them would go way up. Even in the Big Ten with three partners, they’d go up, though by not as much. (They’d no longer have Clemson; they’d have at most two NC schools in the league, not four; and at most one VA school, not two. If they continued to play Miami every year, it would be OOC.)
LikeLike
Their travel doesn’t go up that much with the Big 12. FSU isn’t really very close to anyone in the ACC so they have to fly everywhere. More miles, but the same number of flights. Not much difference between Big 12 and Big 10 for travel for them. Their travel would go way down if they joined the SEC.
LikeLike
I’ve been an advocate of the “airplane test” (i.e., once you’re on a plane, differences of a few hundred miles don’t really matter very much). But it is obvious from their comments that many fans and athletics administrators don’t see it that way. So the issue is obviously not cut and dried.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind though is that a lot of the Big XII schools are located pretty far from major airports. I don’t know about the ACC, but I know the distance to airports issue is why Nebraska said their total travel time won’t go up in the Big Ten even though their travel costs are increasing by $2 million a year.
LikeLike
@Marc I guess I thought he was insinuating that WVU’s travel difficulties would be similar to FSU’s in a B1G that included 4-5 ACC schools. Agreed that SEC would be great for their travel.
But you’re not including the fact that they don’t play all 4 NC schools, and both VA schools every year. Hell, they don’t even get to play GT at all this year and that’s the closest ACC school to Tallahassee. On average, they’re playing 1.5 games in North Carolina per year, and 0.5 games in Virginia per year.
In the B1G, they’d play somewhere around 0.5 to 1 game per year in NC depending on if Duke is included with UNC, and they’d play the same amount of games in Virginia. Once every other year. (I’m basing these numbers on FSU being put into the pod/division with their ACC friends. I know you prefer your own system where only the vital rivalries arew protected.)
I just think the argument that FSU would struggle with travel in an 18-20 team B1G as opposed to the 2013 ACC travel is completely overblown.
LikeLike
The travel issues are less with football than with the other sports. FSU generally plays all the ACC schools in sports like basketball.
LikeLike
You mean there is more to realignment than football? What is this, a revenge of the basketball thread? Oh, it is. Well then…
LikeLike
The travel argument still holds. Even the farthest ACC schools from Florida state are very easy to get to because they’re in large markets which are well-served by aircraft. It’s definitely faster to fly from Tallahassee to Boston than it is to drive from Tallahassee to Raleigh. Flights are common enough that you can bring all of your sports without too much difficulty. Even Syracuse, which combines actual distance and remoteness more than probably any other school in the ACC for FSU is pretty easy to get to. The Big Ten would be workable in terms of travel for Florida State because most of its schools are relatively close to decent, frequently used airports, with a few notable exceptions. The Big 12 on the other hand, would require a lot of both flying and driving. Since the flights to most of those locations are less common, they are also more expensive. For example, the cheapest plane tickets I saw from Tallahassee to Des Moines (the closest (and I use this term loosely) “major” airport to Ames (where Iowa State is located), are $956 dollars. You then have to pay for buses or taxis the rest of the way. For football, that doesn’t matter, but for your women’s softball team that can get pricey. Although a couple of Big XII Schools are in relatively easy places to get to such as Ft. Worth, most are quite remote. Frankly, it would be easier and cheaper for Florida State to travel if it were in the Pac 12 than if it were in the Big XII. I actually believe it might be cheaper and easier for Florida State to travel in the ACC than the SEC. Although most SEC towns are amazing to visit, it can be a real pain to get there.
LikeLike
Tallahassee is the problem. Austin, Lubbock, DFW, Oklahoma City are all heavily served by SW Airlines. KU is near Kansas City. Manhattan, Waco and Stillwater require a bus trip, but Charlottesville does too. Virginia Tech is a really long way from a major airport. Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and Purdue are bus trips as well.
The Big 12 schools are “out of the way” comment is only true if the ACC and Big 10 and SEC are as well.
LikeLike
Alan, this quote to me somewhat confirms what I’ve heard, that FSU wanted to join the SEC but was turned down in favor of Missouri.
LikeLike
I put more credence in Tuxedo Yoda, 900 year old brain and all, than your Missouri sources.
LikeLike
Highly doubt it.
LikeLike
I prefer to call it the “Big TBA”
LikeLike
Big Ten Not Looking To Expand Now – Mich St AD
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130306/SPORTS0202/303060438/Michigan-State-AD-Mark-Hollis-doesn-t-see-Big-Ten-expanding-again-near-future?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
LikeLike
Of course the conference said exactly the same thing when they were already in active negotiations with Maryland and Rutgers so honestly I wouldn’t read too much into this.
LikeLike
Once negotiations on a new TV contract begin in earnest, there’s no need to do anything. At least overtly.
LikeLike
I meant “until negotiations on a new TV contract begin in earnest”…
LikeLike
Ideally conference alignment will be settled when negotiations on a new TV contract begin in earnest. But if they are going to take the contract to the open market, that is years away yet.
LikeLike
I’m surprised he even acknowledge the B10 as an option publically…thought that dream was just for message boards considering the extreme geography.
LikeLike
above comment regarding FSU AD comments
LikeLike
FWIW…
LikeLike
Awesome news. I hope it’s true. Brian and others should be happy too.
LikeLike
Maybe this means the ACC is too strong to break up for the foreseeable future. Wouldn’t that be great?
I like how things are now. B1G at 14, SEC at 14. I’d like to see the Big 12 get back to 12. Maybe take BYU and Cincinatti?
Then we can just quit all this nonsense until the Big 12 GOR expires in 12 years and then the Pac 12 can finally take UT and OU and then we’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
Hmmm…you think it would be “great” if the ACC is too strong to break up, but you’d love to see UT and OU in the Pac-12? Is this analysis or just homerism? It seems you and the Dude of WV are singing from the same songsheet. The only difference is which particular conferences you’re homering for—or against.
LikeLike
He just wants Kansas to suffer, logic be damned. Never underestimate the strength of one’s bitterness.
As for me, better the ACC sticks around as is until conditions are finally right.
LikeLike
I want KU to stop sulking and play us already. I don’t care what conference they’re in. If anything I hope they end up in the Pac 12 so I can boo them in person. Maybe UT/OU/KU plus one more to the Pac 12 eventually.
LikeLike
Transic,
I’m going to shamelessly us your phrase, “never underestimate the strength of one’s bitterness.”
You need to tweet that at least once a week…
LOL!!!!
LikeLike
I work for a Pac 12 school in California. Would like to see the Pac 12 get those schools and expand to 14. I’d like to see Texas and OU come play on campus where I work. I think the B1G (I went to grad school at Michigan) and SEC (I did my undergrad at Missouri) are big enough. I’m not overly eager to see them expand further. And if they do I’d like to see the neat 16×4 alignment if possible, and this current dynamic doesn’t lend to that, so I’d like to see them stop at 14.
LikeLike
Also, Marc, as far as comparing me to the Dude because I have some personal preferences of who I’d like to see where, that’s a little odd. I thought everyone on here had preferences. Including Frank the Tank, and including, I assume, you.
What makes the Dude such a douche is he makes up fake stories about which team is going where on which date. He’s a huge liar.
I’m just sharing an opinion.
LikeLike
I guess ideally what I’d like to see is:
Current SEC + UNC and Duke
Current B1G + UVA and one of GT/FSU/Pitt/whoever you want
Current Pac 12 + UT, OU, KU, and one more of wheover else they want
Fourth league of the other 16 most worthy schools.
I know it’ll probably never happen, but that’s what I’d like to see.
LikeLike
Exactly what Delaney told AD’s to say, seen similar quotes from other AD’s recently.
LikeLike
That “right now” falls in line with the previous comment about the Big Ten not being “aggressive” about expansion right now. It suggests that the roast has got to stay in the oven a good while longer before it is ready to take out.
The Maryland exit is going to be settled well before crunch time for the Big Ten to conclude expansion agreements in time for its contract negotiations, which gives everyone opposed to moving in the target schools an opportunity to line up behind “we need to know what exist is going to cost Maryland first”.
And “we will be focusing on integrating Maryland and Rutgers into the conference” can easily be read by the cynical as “the schools we want aren’t in such pressing financial straits that they will move on the basis of projections ~ they need to see what kind of cable contracts we are able to negotiate in Maryland and Rutger’s market area”.
And if the mid-period SEC contract renegotiation is yielding tier 1 and tier 2 increases roughly in proportion to the increase in membership numbers, then its quite plausible that barring an opportunity for a big windfall gain, the SEC waits until they get a conference network bedded down so they have a stronger idea what kind of financial impacts they are looking at.
Meanwhile the Big East / “Big American / Metro / Whatever” realignment is actually happening, the West Virginia conference has been dismantled, and the ongoing process of Mid-Major and below realignment that has been going on at faster and slower paces but fairly continuously over the past two or three decades continues on apace.
LikeLike
For discussion…. we are debating the merits of Navy to the ACC in the same role as Notre Dame.
Before dismissing, at least read my rationale for it. There is obviously room for healthy debate. I am not advocating for it, but I see a rationale for it.
What do you think?
LikeLike
Problems:
1) Notre Dame won’t commit to 7 league games (much less 8), with or without Navy.
2) Navy on its own merits isn’t worth an ACC invite. Navy has a national following for precisely ONE day a year (and everyone knows what day that is)… and I strongly suspect that even there the long-term trajectory is negative (since the people who remember when Army-Navy mattered are aging and dying off).
Of course, in the scenario where ACC powers start to abandon ship (some combination of FSU, UNC, UVA, VA Tech, Duke, GT, Clemson), then maybe things change, but I really don’t see the incentive to go this route before hand. The last thing the league should want to do is reinforce the perception that the stronger schools/AD’s are slumming it with a bunch of lesser programs, which the addition of Navy would only seem to reinforce.
That said, if somehow the ACC actually could convince Notre Dame to sign on as a full member, and that somehow the Navy addition was key to it, then sure, it’s worth it… but it’s REALLY hard to see that happening.
LikeLike
I agree with @cfn_ms that the premise fails: Notre Dame is not going to play 7 league games in the ACC. As it is, some ND fans consider it heresy that the Irish agreed to play 5. Once they play 7, then they’re practically full members. And if they’re going to be full members, they might as well join the Big Ten, where the TV payouts are a lot higher and the bowl tie-ins are better. Associate membership is the only thing the ACC can offer, that the Big Ten does not. Without that, Notre Dame has no reason to be in the ACC.
LikeLike
Irish take IMMENSE pride in independence despite in reality they are an associate member of the ACC. They’ll shoot themselves in the foot to save face (staying in the ACC) while leaving a ton of B10 money on the table in the name of pride. Big time donors/boosters threatened to drop like flies when the ND to B10 rumors were swirling a couple years ago.
Without the Irish’s pride in their independence, they have nothing left that makes them special. ND’s great fear is they being just a small, Midwestern, private school in the B10…
Only thing that will force ND to the B10 imo is both: 1. destruction of the ACC (as we currently know it) 2. a playoff scenario that heavily favors the conference champions of the 4 ‘major’ conferences (B10, Pac 12, Big XII and SEC).
LikeLike
I get it. But I also think that the move to 5 is a stepping stone. And right now, that is actually 6 if ND is one of the games. So we are talking 2 more games… 1 more game for ESPN. That much more cash. If it helps save the ACC, it helps KEEP Notre Dame independent. The destruction of the ACC could be the impetus that forces ND to have to join a conference.
LikeLike
But why would Notre Dame go out of their way to save the ACC? Going to 8 league games doesn’t keep Notre Dame independent, it makes them a full-fledged league member. Obviously ND going to 8 league games is a great deal for the ACC, but what do the Irish get out of it? Their objection to joining the B1G is primarily an objection about joining a league period, not about the specific league.
It’s certainly possible that the destruction of the ACC could lead to a series of events that forces ND into a league, but even that possibility (and each step along that way is far from inevitable) doesn’t seem like much of a reason for the Irish to take the proactive step of joining a league.
LikeLike
I am thinking 9 games is inevitable for the ACC too. So I was not really thinking of that as a full slate.
But I also said that it applies even in the current 5 game structure. The issue was adding Navy.
LikeLike
So entering today’s ACC for Olympic sports cost Notre Dame one more game than the ideal four that they need to guarantee their second half of the season scheduling. Why would an ACC that is so damaged that Navy is a good addition be in a position to squeeze two more games out of Notre Dame?
If the ACC is so damaged that Navy is a good addition, then 5 games in today’s ACC would be a stepping stone to 4 games + the Navy Game in that future Mid-Major ACC.
LikeLike
or more likely 1-2 games + Navy in a future mid-major ACC. If key players leave the league, it seems VERY likely the Irish would reduce their game allotment to the group that’s left (or perhaps bail altogether). I somewhat suspect there’s some language to that effect in the joining agreement, though I’m just guessing on that one.
LikeLike
The Big 10 just took Rutgers. I’d stack Navy’s on-field performance against Rutgers historically. Although the battle to see who next makes a Big Dance between Northwestern and Rutgers will be fun to watch.
LikeLike
The scheduling agreement is a two way street ~ Notre Dame WANTS four games late in the season when it is otherwise hard for an independent to get home games. And as far as Eastern Exposure, Notre Dame would surely not mind playing in any of BC, Syracuse, Pitt, or the state of Florida, so there’s likely to be plenty of incentive to keep playing Navy + four ACC teams. OTOH, the stronger their bargaining position, the more control they are likely to want over who they play.
LikeLike
Right. ND wants four games a year, but they want them to be against prestige or peer institutions. Assuming that the current deal largely splits those games more or less equally between current ACC programs (this MAY not be true but I’m guessing it is), then a shift in the makeup of the ACC would lead to a shift in the deal. I suppose an alternative to just cutting the number would be to explicitly exclude potential newcomers like UConn etc., or to simply say that it’s going to be Syracuse, Pitt, BC, (a remaining team ND actually wants to play), and one more that rotates somehow.
LikeLike
Under the scenario of the ACC dropping down to Best of the Rest status, I could easily see Notre Dame having it recast as Navy every year, two games from a rotation of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Cincinnati and Louisville, and two games from a rotation of the rest.
LikeLike
The current ACC has six teams that ND has scheduled with some frequency: BC, Pitt, GT, FSU, Miami, UNC. The Irish have not played Syracuse or Clemson very much, and they’ve never played Virginia Tech, but I’d guess those are teams they don’t mind playing. They just finished a two-year home & home with Wake Forest, scheduled long before they ever expected to be in the ACC.
So overall, these are teams the Irish are reasonably happy to be in bed with. If FSU, Miami, UNC, and GT are no longer in the league, I think they’d have a very different view. I assume their commitment to play five league games has an out if the composition of the conference changes.
LikeLike
Yes, therefore why they might want to step down to four … but if Navy joined the ACC and ND was allowed to count the Navy game as one of the five, that IS already stepping down to four.
Though on second thought, under some form of an ACC dismantled and rebuilt from the American 12 scenarios, ND could well have enough leverage to make it 1 against Navy, 3 from their preferred team list, 1 from the balance of the conference.
LikeLike
Here’s the first problem from the ND perspective, the Irish schedule in perpetuity will practically be:
Purdue
Michigan State/ Texas
Stanford
Miami (FL)
VT
Wake Forrest
U of L
Syracuse
Pitt
BC
Navy
southern cal
Would *anyone* want to play that *every* year?
The first problem from the ACC would be that each school was promised the opportunity to play ND at “home”. I’m sure FSU, Clemson, and GaTech would be quite upset they will NEVER play ND.
Thus the whole plan fails right there, it’s not helping either side.
LikeLike
I like Hollis’ statements as well. Unfortunately, pro BIG expansionists will remain in their imperial star destroyers thinking Darth Delany is at the helm assuaging their economically driven desires, & they will somehow obfuscate the statements of Hollis and the OSU AD as cover and concealment for a Va-UNC membership, much in the same way Rutgers and Md were added. Not true, both Rutgers and Md were openly discussed during the public expansion period that led to Nebraska. Discussion of Rutgers, from what I remember, even pre-dated this expansion period. But, nothing will shock me. The BIG (10) has 14 teams, ND and Lville are not on the Atlantic, aTm is certainly in the Southwest, not Southeast, and the Pac12 has 4 schools in states that do not border Pacific. Yes, I get the branding angle.
As I’ve posted before, I’ve certainly pushed my “Risk Expansion Fantasies”, (<– itself a lighthearted way of putting it, as well as a sign not to be taken too seriously). But there are some really delusional posters on here who are driven to see the BIG expand, esp along money lines: money trumps culture. My fantasy, on the other hand, is in the name of trimming the bloated FBS pool, pushing for an 8 team playoff with rotating venues, regardless of region, and adding schools, if such is necessary, who want to be in the BIG for more reasons than not. Call it the Maryland lesson. But, I certainly accept that Md is no longer southern, minus Mason Dixon line pockets, and they haven't been for years. They will also be blocked with PSU and Rutgers, as well as OSU, a mere 6 hours drive away. Neither Md nor Rutgers are outlying in the WVa sense.
Va-GT-UNC & even FSU just seem so far fetched to me. The ACC's history is not equivalent to the Big12-SWC dysfunctional marriage. I've also learned that many of the Big East schools who left for the ACC wanted to make such moves, esp Va Tech, Miami and BC. Syracuse and Pitt ultimately caved, and both also expressed BIG aspirations as well, though Syracuse seemed more ACC, Pitt more BIG. Regardless, these schools dramatically differ than any present BIG expansion wish list for certain ACC schools – none who want to leave, esp if democracy was a factor in expansion. 7 charter members still remain in the ACC, & GT has longer ACC ties than PSU in the BIG – by at least 12 years. FSU has even been in the ACC longer than PSU in the BIG.
As for long-term stability, I believe the Big 12 is ultimately at risk, mainly from the cultural end (which can't be overstated). The residue of the SWC-Big 8 merger still looms. Tx still has an inflated ego, OU still knows it can't remain a football power without Tx, and WVa is a true outlier – these are just some of the many issues steaming at the Big12's somewhat tenuous surface. But hey now, the Big12 somehwat changes this course if they pull the trigger on Cincy. They sadly blew it overlooking Lville.
LikeLike
A lot of the hypotheticals we play around with here are just that, hypotheticals. Whether they are educated guesses by outsiders trying to shape the B10 as we feel is best for the B10. Or what us outsiders think is likely to happen or they just want to have fun slicing up the ACC (and/or Big XII) among the B10, Pac 12, SEC & Big XII while playing Realignment Fantasy games. It’s a very open discussion with a lot of varying interests (pro B10, pro ACC, pro SEC, pro ND, etc.) with people debating from very different point of views.
LikeLike
Thank you. I do the same & really hope all, not just some, realize my semi-delusion on here. But some take me too seriously. Thus here’s a test to see if some of these types come after me : ). Would still prefer a BIG @ 18 with UConn, Kansas, OU and Tx. I like basketball more than football, this makes the BIG the best basketball – sorry ACC fans, not even Lville, ND and Pitt trump Kansas and UConn alone – throw in Tx and OU with their 7 Final Fours – game over! And one helluva a football conference that not only gives us “the Game” but the “Red River Shootout” or whatever they call it down there. Sure UConn and OU aren’t AAU, but they are still flagships that bring great resources to the lobbying power of the CIC, which I think is more about higher ed lobbying than pooled research anyways. Lastly, I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.
LikeLike
I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, B1G membership.
But it works both ways as well. The Big Ten rightly considers itself an “old money” conference, with a heritage dating back to the 1890s. Maryland didn’t reach big-time status until after World War II (the Jim Tatum era in College Park); Rutgers not until the 1970s (the ’76 Final Four team, the gradual abandonment of ersatz Ivy football schedules). The Big Ten’s powers that be don’t view Connecticut in that light, even if it may be able to buy a home football game vs. Michigan. And the Big Ten presidents’ primary goal is building a conference comprised of the top academic/athletic institutions (and note which word comes first) in the two easternmost time zones. For all their combined titles, Connecticut, Oklahoma and perhaps even Florida State don’t cut it.
If you want an 18-member Big Ten basketball powerhouse, I don’t see what would be so bad about adding UVa, UNC, Georgia Tech and Duke to the conference. You certainly wouldn’t be compromising yourself academically.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Would still prefer a BIG @ 18 with UConn, Kansas, OU and Tx.”
You’re welcome to prefer it. Just admit it’s unlikely when you say it. Even plausible is a stretch for that group. That’s why people critiqued you. Even in their “fantasy” picks most people stay grounded in reality.
“Lastly, I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.”
Sure, but who gets to decide which schools want to join the B10? You? Message board fans? Nobody is forcing ACC schools to join the B10. Maybe they’d accept an offer, maybe they wouldn’t. You talk like it’s carved in stone that all the ACC schools are off limits and I don’t think you have solid basis for that strong of an opinion. You would have said the same thing about UMD and they did join.
LikeLike
“Lastly, I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.”
How do you know what those schools want? What are you basing this on? Whose to say many constituencies within the University don’t want to make a move to the Big 10? None of us know. But one thing is certain, they won’t base any decision to change conferences off message board comments from Walmart fans.
Also NC and Duke would be just as good if not better basketball adds than UCONN and Kansas without a worry regarding AAU status or academic prestige.
LikeLike
vp19,
I wouldn’t be discontent, likely intrigued and receptive to UVa, GT, Duke, UNC – my cultural curiosity would be genuinely open to such an expansion. I did some time and service in NC for 2.5 years via Marine Corps service at Lejeune. Tobacco Road is amazing, though saw more hs hoops than ACC games (just a few, and most Wake Forest games). I was in Chapel Hill bars for both flops by the Fab Five – damn that was long time ago. Getting old I am. Furthermore, I’ve road tripped much of ACC land in part because I played on the base soccer team, as well as the All Marine Team – we played many ACC teams, often their second string in exhibition games. I was fortunate enough to face Bruce Arena’s Va teams when they were winning all those NC’s in the 90s. We often lost, but we were respectable & the college kids loved the idea of playing against the military.
The ACC is pretty tight knit, esp the charter members & the conference loves their hoops. They are certainly a blend of cultures, but those charter members are shall I say, semi-elitist southerners, quite proud. It will be interesting to see Pitt and the Cuse integrated. Lville will be an easy fit. But I think Cuse and Pitt have enough cultural compatibility, esp Cuse because of hoops and lacrosse.
Sure Duke-UNC bring you mighty basketball power, no argument here. But Kansas and UConn aren’t to be overlooked: 6 NC’s, 18 FF’s, 3 less NC’s than UNC-Duke combined. UConn’s success has come at Duke’s expense, 2 of 3 NC’s (once in the semi-finals). Allen Fieldhouse, strictly my opinion, is a better venue than the Dean Dome and Cameron, though the Dome was wonderful for a Dead show, RIP Jerry. Allen is quite frankly the best college basketball experience I’ve ever had: Kansas – Mizzo 98 or 99, can’t remember now, but Missouri actually won – the place was in tears. Kansas and UConn may not match a Duke – UNC combo, but it’s as close as you can get. I think OU and Tx have as much basketball prestige as GT and UVa, in fact they have more FF appearances when compared as pairs.
Your combo is perfectly fine & equally as ridiculous as mine : ). Your combo certainly exceeds mine in the academic sense & by a decent margin. OU and Kansas have ridiculously high admission rates. But as I said, you do get 4 flagship schools in my scenario, 2 AAU schools as well (KU n UT). UConn and Tx are also top 60 national universities, undergrad level, so says good ole US News.
From the gridiron perspective, an unlikely Tx-OU to the BIG scenario brings sweeping football prestige. The ACC combination @ 4 doesn’t match Tx-OU, perhaps not even Tx or OU alone. Each school houses 80 plus thousand fans. That’s rather similar to Neb, PSU, OSU, Wisky, and slightly above MSU & Iowa. Pre Dodds era, Tx certainly flirted with BIG around the same time as PSU and the SWC-Big8 merger. But Dodds seems opposed to the BIG. OU, I think, would jump at the BIG, esp if Tx was aboard. Having Stoops there helps, and OU faithful value their Nebraska rivalry, and they haven’t forgotten Wilkinson’s legacy, a man with strong Minnesota ties. He laid the foundation for OU’s success.
Lastly, I have some hope that BIG Hockey could turn into something special and maybe even turn a profit. There will certainly be more games on BTN next year. Minnesota certainly yields a profit on an annual basis. A UConn addition brings another team, though they’re a young brand. But things seem on the upswing for them as they are headed to Hockey East for 2013-2014.
Brian,
All is perfectly good here. I just needed folks to know I’m quite realistic and aware that my thoughts are strictly my own, they are fantasy driven & I welcome sarcasm-wit. But when I see financial figures and legal jargon linked to these posts, then some of this suggests some are being a bit too serious here – it’s sports, college sports. I had to stir the pot on my terms, bull sh&t or not : ).
LikeLike
gfunk,
“The ACC is pretty tight knit, esp the charter members”
Two of the 7 charter members have left or have agreed to leave.
“the conference loves their hoops.”
Well, they’d certainly be a terrible fit with OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PU, IL, MN and WI then.
“They are certainly a blend of cultures, but those charter members are shall I say, semi-elitist southerners, quite proud.”
The B10 would know nothing about academic elitists (NW, MI, WI, etc).
“Lville will be an easy fit.”
Yeah, those elitists won’t have an issue with their academics and mock them for it.
“Your combo is perfectly fine & equally as ridiculous as mine : ).”
No, his is much more realistic. Your combo is the ridiculous one. UNC is too culturally different but UT fits in well? OU does?
“UConn and Tx are also top 60 national universities, undergrad level, so says good ole US News.”
UT is a very good school. UConn is not nearly as good. USNWR puts them at 63, but the AAU says 81.
“OU, I think, would jump at the BIG, esp if Tx was aboard.”
Doesn’t matter since their academics stink. The B10 wouldn’t even give them a look.
“Having Stoops there helps, and OU faithful value their Nebraska rivalry,”
As their #3 rivalry, maybe. UT is clearly tops to them and Bedlam has moved up to #2. At least that was important enough to keep annual. NE would be a close third now and could retake second if it was played regularly.
“Lastly, I have some hope that BIG Hockey could turn into something special and maybe even turn a profit. There will certainly be more games on BTN next year. Minnesota certainly yields a profit on an annual basis.”
B10 schools reported a net profit from men’s hockey in 2011 ($19.8M in revenue, $16.5M in expenses). Unfortunately, they lost it all on women’s hockey.
“I just needed folks to know I’m quite realistic and aware that my thoughts are strictly my own, they are fantasy driven & I welcome sarcasm-wit.”
Fantasy is one thing. Saying OU and UT are cultural fits while UNC isn’t is something else.
“But when I see financial figures and legal jargon linked to these posts, then some of this suggests some are being a bit too serious here – it’s sports, college sports.”
Fans over-analyze. That’s what we do. We were just as over the top in discussing the divisions when NE was added. If you want a less analytical approach, this is the wrong blog for you.
LikeLike
@gfunk:
1) I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership
2) Would still prefer a BIG @ 18 with UConn, Kansas, OU and Tx
Not sure how these two statements jive. Obviously UConn and Kansas would be interested, but I don’t really see why OU/TX would be. It’s fairly obvious at this stage that neither of them want/are able to leave behind ALL of Texas Tech, OK St, TCU and Baylor (though I think it’s much more the first two than the latter two), and that the logistical issues inherent in inviting either or both are substantial.
West Virginia is a substantial geographical outlier in the Big 12 and doesn’t seem to be enjoying that status at all, which has to be a consideration for any program who’s even thinking about doing the same, much less a pair of football kings who REALLY don’t have to take gambles on a questionable fit.
Also worth noting that in terms of cultural fit the Big Ten and Texas/Oklahoma are quite a bit different. Those differences COULD be overcome, but the difficulties inherent make it difficult/unlikely, which is presumably why the Big Ten shifted gears and went East rather than West. If they wanted Texas, then getting a group like Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and 1-2 more in the region make sense, but instead they’ve clearly gone for an East strategy. I’m sure the doors will always be open for Texas, but there just isn’t much reason to think there’s mutual interest, either now or in the forseeable future.
LikeLike
I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.
Isn’t this kind of an empty statement? No one yet has joined the B1G without wanting to.
LikeLike
Marc,
Disagree. Md brass wanted to join the BIG, & they succeeded, but the vast majority of MD fans: no way, to think otherwise is armchair reality! Md is the opposite of Rutgers, Neb, and PSU. In those 3 cases, the brass and most fans wanted it, though a loud group of PSU fans have become discontent with the BIG over the years- delusional reasons, no doubt, always an OSU-Mi fix in their minds. Alvarez, not saying he’s an expert, was pretty public about Rutgers and Md partly added to calm certain PSU fans & pro-ACC types.
I want to respond to others on here, but I’m not as passionate as some of you & these damn things get longer and longer. No need for email notifications either, get enough crap coming in there.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Disagree. Md brass wanted to join the BIG, & they succeeded, but the vast majority of MD fans: no way, to think otherwise is armchair reality!”
1. Where’s your evidence? Message boards are not representative of the entire fan base.
2. Many of the fans also opposed cutting sports and other issues due to their financial problems. They can’t have it both ways.
3. Many of the fans opposed how the change happened more than the change itself. They wanted a voice and were ticked.
4. Many have changed their tune as the benefits of the move have been explained since the announcement.
5. Their complaints were relative to the old ACC, but it doesn’t exist anymore. They also complained about the ACC taking away their home and homes against teams like Duke and UNC and making them play Pitt. Again, they can’t have it both ways.
“Md is the opposite of Rutgers, Neb, and PSU. In those 3 cases, the brass and most fans wanted it, though a loud group of PSU fans have become discontent with the BIG over the years- delusional reasons, no doubt, always an OSU-Mi fix in their minds.”
Actually, many PSU fans were complaining from day 1. They missed the olden days of playing eastern teams and/or Pitt and nothing would satisfy them. That plus not getting their own way with everything since they were now in a conference and not independent never sat well with them. The B10 also did a bad job of integrating them in some ways. The ADs and coaches were mad they weren’t consulted and said some things they shouldn’t have.
LikeLike
Why unfortunately? What difference does it make to you if there are some “pro BIG expansionists” who “will remain in their imperial star destroyers”?
Indeed, if that is a concern to you, why don’t you go to a blog that they inhabit and argue against them there, rather than coming here and talking behind their backs?
LikeLike
Bruce,
Too serious you’re being. Also, my point is to slow down expansion in the name of mutual interests, not just financial euphoria. I would really like to see Rutgers and Md get through a BIG season. I’m also curious to see PSU, Neb, Mi and OSU finally have simultaneous blue blood seasons, sanction free.
Many SEC fans have complained about the 14 team format, esp my cousins in Fla. They would prefer to go back to 12. And please don’t act like some of the storm troopers haven’t come on here, not just other blogs. Btw, it’s very hard to talk about people behind their backs on the Internet. You dig?
LikeLike
As far as, “Also, my point is to slow down expansion in the name of mutual interests, not just financial euphoria,” that is a position that a number on this board have made in a more serious way, without displaying any urgent need to troll your sketched stereotype of sophomoric pro-Big Ten Expansion fans.
As far as being too serious, its the serious discussion of the issue that I find interesting. If you don’t want to get serious responses to arguments that you just slap down without giving them any thought, you could cut your posts here down to just the things you actually mean to say, and save the nonsense just thrown out there to provoke controversy for some other discussion forum.
LikeLike
@gfunk
“Lastly, I have some hope that BIG Hockey could turn into something special and maybe even turn a profit.”
Not sure why Big 10 Hockey wouldn’t still be something special as well as turn a profit without UCONN Hockey when four of the six members have been to 10 or more Frozen Fours. UCONN has never been to a frozen four. Also, 3 of the 6 teams are in the top 10 in attendance while UCONN is 54th. I still don’t see your case for UCONN to the Big 10. What do they bring to the table other than their basketball?
I also don’t understand your concept of “Risk Expansion Fantasies”. It’s been stated ad nauseam in various media circles that it’s a matter of when, not if, the Big 10 expands. The fantasy discussion on here seems to be centered on the number of teams and which ones backed by media reports as well as factual data. Not sure what you are expecting the discussion to center around on an expansion centered fan blog with a high percentage of educated professionals. Do you not believe the Big 10 is going to expand or or is it you do not want them to expand with ACC schools?
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Also, my point is to slow down expansion in the name of mutual interests, not just financial euphoria.”
I’d rather reverse it, but slowing it down is better than nothing.
“I would really like to see Rutgers and Md get through a BIG season.”
That’s always been the B10’s plan. I doubt they ever wanted to expand again before the new TV deal is around the corner.
“I’m also curious to see PSU, Neb, Mi and OSU finally have simultaneous blue blood seasons, sanction free.”
I fail to see how that is tied to expansion.
The last time all 4 finished in the final AP poll was 1998. It’s only happened 19 times in 77 years, or 25% of the time (1969-1970, 1972-5, 1977, 1979-1981, 1985-6, 1989, 1993-8). 1973 was the golden year (2, 5, 6, 7) with 1986 just behind (1, 5, 7, 8). It can’t always be the 70s and 90s, though. If a blue blood year is top 10, it’s only happened 5 times (1972-5, 1986). Thanks to PSU’s sanctions, you’ll have to wait until at least 2018 to see all 4 ranked I think and that’s only if the other 3 stay good.
“Many SEC fans have complained about the 14 team format, esp my cousins in Fla. They would prefer to go back to 12.”
That’s at least in part due to their refusal to go to 9 games, though. The east having to play MO doesn’t help, but the SEC didn’t really have a lot of great choices.
“Btw, it’s very hard to talk about people behind their backs on the Internet.”
No it’s not. It’s incredibly easy.
LikeLike
Brian,
Yes it’s very easy to talk about people people behind their backs, you’re an alias, cyber-dust. Literally speaking, I get your point, no kidding. But in terms of the real world, the origins of the actual idiom we’re at this point overanalyzing – talking behind someone’s back – would suggest that we actually know each other. Maybe some of you know each other, I don’t. Furthermore, I’ve got nothing to hide here.
You raise some interesting points, you’re deconstruction is worthy, but strong opinion at times. Live and let live. I accept your passionate counterarguments.
Minnesota men’s hockey is doing fine, which is all I said in my original post. The WCHA has been our home for many decades & we have a lot of opponents nearby. I see the “potential of BIG hockey becoming profitable” nothing else. But much depends on the evolution of the BIG conference, which has yet to begin. On the other hand, I go back with Minnesota hockey, the Herb Brooks years. The vast majority of Minnesota fans were pissed about the move to the BIG. Our biggest rival is not Wisconsin – it’s UND. And Wisky fans aren’t exactly happy to give up series with Denver, Colorado College, Minn Duluth & of couse UND. Those are fantastic hockey programs & the WCHA ultimately holds the most impressive hockey history, not Hockey East or the CCHA. In fact the WCHA is one of the most decorated conferences in all of NCAA D1 sports – 37 NC’s, at least one team in the Frozen Four 55 of 59 seasons.
I did forget that South Carolina left the ACC long ago. But that’s kind of like Chicago leaving the BIG – the ACC is younger compared to the BIG and Pac12 – but it’s still nearly 60 years old. That’s a respectable chunk of history. Regardless, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSt, WF & Clemson are pretty close. I’m not buying the Big 12 for Clemson. And frankly, I don’t like the idea of the BIG breaking up that tradition, we have enough of our own, actually far more than the ACC. So why not just leave them alone.
As I said in my previous post, I lived in NC for nearly 3 years. The Triangle does have characteristics similar to some BIG cities, but so does Austin, TX. Either school, regardless, is quite proud & will certainly remain that way in the BIG. Of the four I mentioned, plus your scenario, they’d certainly bring the biggest egos.
As for the current BIG bluebloods being great at the same time, I tie it to expansion because I’m concerned about the “dilution” arguments – quality versus quantity comes to mind. I see Nebraska getting stronger again, as they were towards the end of their Big12 tenure. But boom, they switched conferences & clearly had to adjust – don’t think they’re even done yet. That’s got to be tough for a program to do. I vividly remember PSU’s integration into the BIG and I strongly believe they helped improve the BIG, as well as Wisky’s rise under Alvarez, but it took some years.
Mr. Big,
You’re going on about UConn’s lackluster tradition when I already said as much in my op. The point about UConn hockey is that it brings another market into the equation and an Atlantic rival for PSU. I’m lingering on “potential” arguments here, no more, no less. There are plenty of young D1 young hockey schools in Minnesota that are now often ranked and tourney participants: St. Cloud State & Minnesota Mankato come to mind. A program’s rise does depend on conference affiliation and stability. Conn, the state, is also steadily improving their youth hockey.
Bruce,
I think some of the so-called nonsense you claim on my end is actually more serious on my end, just different than what you desire-discern in terms of economic value – I have a tendency to put hope into potential, which is a big reason why I like Rutgers and Md – these are states with pretty solid hs athletics & they are fine state schools, all levels. But I was frankly shocked by the disappointment many Md fans felt about the the BIG move. Sure these sentiments can change, but there is no denying that many Md fans disliked the the move to the BIG. I can’t blame them. I could never imagine a current BIG team leaving, not even newer members. I’ve had surprisingly heated discussions, not on the Internet, but with actual friends in Pa who prefer the ACC. Sure I remember the BIG before PSU, but for well over 20 years PSU’s athletic accomplishments have resonated & many are great memories, pre-scandal. Minnesota had an intense rivalry with PSU under Mason – we beat them 4 of 5 years. I attend wrestling & women’s volleyball matches regularly & beating PSU means Minny must be at their absolute best when they come to town.
I’m actually quite serious when I seek to safeguard ACC charter members. I may be a BIG fan and Minnesota alum, but I lived in NC long enough to know that people love the ACC there, as well as Va and SC. I could never tell in Atlanta, UGA is king in Ga. I just don’t see the point of pushing a pretty solid conference into mere extinction, not in terms of money being priority number one. Perhaps some people on here could package their arguments better, to always include the, positively speaking, academic and cultural possibilities as well.
Ultimately, I’m excited about the BIG @14 and would be very content if FBS could somehow create an 8 team playoff that generally ensures 1-2 BIG teams get a shot. Not worried about the other BIG sports. I gave up on baseball and track n field long ago.
LikeLike
gfunk,
If I may be allowed to pick your brain for a sec.
Like you, I’m OK with an ACC that has most of its founding members (assuming the B1G can’t expand beyond 14) still in. However, let me present a scenario in which the schools you mentioned are still there but the two most coveted schools (FSU, Miami) by the B12 pack up and leave for that conference. Do you think the ACC would still need to get back into the Florida market? The day before, there was a wild, crazy rumor about USF and UCF to the Big XII. However, I think both schools would be better candidates for the ACC, should FSU and Miami leave. Both UCF and USF are located in the growing markets of the I-4 corridor. It’s also an area with a younger population than the rest of the country. A lot of Big Twelvers turn up their noses at them because of their lack of brand value, citing the current TV deal that requires marquee match-ups. It’s a lot of arrogance on their part. However, their perceived lack of football value may not be that problematic for the ACC, as long as they can continue growing their sports.
I think that the ACC (which really means UNC) would not mind UCF and USF. Actually, I think they’re a better fit for the ACC than FSU or Miami, who are both former independents and football-firsters who need tons of money to compete for recruits. UCF/USF are also close to major airport hubs which would make it easier for travel than Tallahassee. Given the available talent, USF/UCF could become basketball powers provided that the resources be used properly. As part of my idea, UConn and Cincinnati are #15 and #16 as full-time members. Getting into the Hartford and Cincinnati markets, along with Tampa and Orlando, would help mitigate any potential loss of FSU/Miami. ND goes in for Olympic Sports as part of their agreement. I think that collection of programs, plus the core members of the ACC, may persuade ESPN to help patch it back together. Football would be okay, with VT, Clemson, NCSU, Louisville, USF, Cincy and maybe more picking up the slack. Clemson could go in a division with VT, UL, USF, NCSU and Syracuse. GT, Duke, UNC, and UVa would be in the same division, the so-called bluebloods of the conference.
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Division B: Clemson, USF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Cross division games: GT/Clemson; UNC/NCState; UVA/VT; USF/UCF; Louisville/Cincy; WF/Duke; Pitt/UConn; Syracuse/BC
I would appreciate any input you may have about my idea. 🙂
LikeLike
@gfunk: “I think some of the so-called nonsense you claim on my end is actually more serious on my end, just different than what you desire-discern in terms of economic value”
Which? Desire or discern?
If you are presuming to address what I desire in terms of economic value and what I discern in terms of economic value, would you sort out whether you are talking about what economic value I desire and what economic value I discern in any specific proposed expansion, since the two very rarely agree.
Except for Notre Dame, and they don’t want to join a conference. If the Big Ten could have got Notre Dame and Rutgers, rather than Maryland and Rutgers, as far as desired economic value, I would have been stick a fork in conference expansion, we’re done.
LikeLike
Transic,
The current ACC has plenty of potential. Despite my strong BIG leanings, and desire to see expansion for the sake of a college playoff – I hope the ACC remains as is. My wish list, is my wish list, while others on here certainly seem more confident than I ever will about ACC fragmentation. Hell, throw in ND FT to the ACC, they don’t impress me anymore. Watching them lose to Bama was easier to predict than tomorrows traffic jam. Regardless, I’ll root for the BIG.
As I’ve said on here before, I like putting hope into potential & think the future BIG @ 14 has plenty. The ACC has the ingredients in football (fine institutions, recruits), but the Swofford fella doesn’t seem to get media deals, nor how to activate football culture throughout the conference. Inevitably, FSU can’t hover too much longer in the 10-15 range, they’ll break through. GT needs to hire a Harbaugh type, though someone who will stick around for a while, and make that school into the Stanford of the South – no reason it can’t be done, esp since similar excellence was done via the Dodd era & Ross to some degree. But Miami and UNC seem to be sitting on a hornet’s nest of NCAA issues, & that’s gotta be a concern.
Thus I don’t think the ACC will ever be forced to add some of the schools you cite, except maybe USF.
LikeLike
gfunk,
So in the scenario where FSU and Miami leave you don’t think they’d try to keep a presence in the state of Florida?
Yeah, I’ve always thought the ACC had a lot of potential to be a sports powerhouse. Heck, the Big XII manages to be competitive in football with just ten members. I think one problem with the ACC is that it has members like Wake Forest and Boston College. At least Duke has their basketball brand. Even then, that shouldn’t be a major cause of their competitive struggles. Perhaps they were expecting FSU and Miami to carry most of the load and slacked off on the other football programs? I don’t know.
You say only USF would be a candidate. Who would you pair it off with to replace two departing schools?
LikeLike
So in the scenario where FSU and Miami leave you don’t think they’d try to keep a presence in the state of Florida?
They’d have to look at it. The thing is, USF and UCF are way, way down the state pecking order after UF, FSU, and Miami. Sure, the ACC wouldn’t be happy about losing Florida; but it’s a fantasy to think that those two schools are adequate substitutes. Who in the state cares about a UCF vs. Syracuse football game?
I’ve always thought the ACC had a lot of potential to be a sports powerhouse. Heck, the Big XII manages to be competitive in football with just ten members.
You can be competitive with just two members, if they happen to be Oklahoma and Texas.
I think one problem with the ACC is that it has members like Wake Forest and Boston College. At least Duke has their basketball brand. Even then, that shouldn’t be a major cause of their competitive struggles. Perhaps they were expecting FSU and Miami to carry most of the load and slacked off on the other football programs?
The problem is not the bottom of the ACC, but the top of it. They expected FSU and Miami to be the league’s showcase teams. Miami has been in a funk since they joined, and has never yet played in the championship game. FSU went into a slide in the late Bowden years, which it seems they’re only just now snapping out of.
That left them with Virginia Tech as their only year in, year out football power. The Hokies have reached BCS bowl games with some regularity, but they’ve usually lost, reinforcing the perception of the ACC as a weak league.
You say only USF would be a candidate. Who would you pair it off with to replace two departing schools?
UConn or Cincinnati. I can’t see them adding two weak Florida schools.
LikeLike
If they listen to BC, it’d be USF and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
@ gfunk:
If I read you correctly, it boils down to this: we are all taking this too seriously and that culture/history matters a lot more than “we” are crediting.
I disagree with both.
As BruceMcF said above, conference realignment is a serious subject that we ~~ including you ~~ are interested in. From what I can tell, this Board is full of relatively serious non-frivolous people. The posts tend to be long, thought-out and coherent. Despite the lack of an “edit” feature, the posts tend to be pretty error-free which suggests that people are taking their time to compose their thoughts and check for typos and mistakes.
So we are mostly serious people.
And conference realignment is a serious business and a serious subject. There are thousands of people being paid, as part of their work, at various Conference HQs, athletic departments and Universities, to consider the various aspects and implications of realignment. TV networks take all of this very seriously too.
And all of the subjects surrounding conference realignment are serious and interesting. Prior to reading this blog, I knew nothing of the business ~~ the money making part ~~ of CFB and of tv networks. A long time ago, someone linked to an on-line PDF version of a home-and-home contract between Iowa and Iowa State. I personally was fascinated to read it; was shocked it was only two page long; etc. etc. At that time, I did not know the home team kept the gate receipts.
Same for tv networks. In the last three years, I have learned so much about how tv and cable networks make money and operate their businesses. It has been enjoyable and interesting to learn new things. And, for me, since the B1G decided to create the BTN, I am interesting in and pleased to follow the progress of our B1G Project. Personally, I was hoping for more student-produced content. But maybe that will come in the future.
In summary, conference realignment is serious and I appreciate people taking it seriously. (That being said, some levity and wit are always welcome in my view. I like the combination of a long memory plus and Yoda locution. More ~ you must write.)
On your second point, I appreciate the strong argument you have staked out concerning the value cultural fit and history/tradition.
At the risk of being too serious about it, here is FtT’s original formula (posted above a couple of times):
Academics – 25
TV value – 25
Football brand value – 30
Basketball brand value – 10
Historic rivalries/Cultural fit – 5
Mutual interest – 5
You are basically arguing that a “5” vastly undervalues that factor.
I do not agree.
First, I am not entirely certain if your argument is “should” or “is.” That is, are you arguing that history/tradition SHOULD be valued more or that it IS ACTUALLY valued more than Frank proposed in his formula. If you want to say SHOULD, then I will agree with you 100% but then remind you that that world is gone. For a long long time now, “tradition” has been slaved to the grubbing after money.
But, for this discussion, I will assume you mean the latter: culture/tradition IS highly valued with respect to conference realignment.
As noted, I disagree.
There is quite a bit of actual evidence that the University Presidents do not put a high value on “culture/tradition.” Nebraska, A&M, Missouri and Colorado all left behind long traditions and rivalries. As Brian reminded us, two founding members of the ACC have left that conference (S. Carolina and now Maryland). Minnesota and Wisconsin are leaving the WCHA.
One of FtT’s first lessons was to teach that we needed to stop thinking like fans and start thinking like University Presidents. Maryland is the best example since we have so much information. Clearly, the fans would never have moved to the B1G. But the fans did not get to vote. The President and the Board of Trustees saw an institutional need/advantage to moving; thus, Maryland changed conferences.
Let’s discuss Minnesota and the WCHA. You and the other fans have no vote and got no vote. Beyond extreme circumstances, fan desires are nearly irrelevant.
So, why did Minnesota agree to take its hockey program out of the WCHA and put it in the B1G Hockey Conference? Because the President of the University of Minnesota had no choice. The B1G wants to turn hockey into a revenue sport by placing hockey on the BTN. The B1G needed six teams; with Penn State going up to Div. 1a, the B1G had six teams; thus, the BTHC was formed and Minnesota joined. As an institution, Minnesota was not in a position to say “no” and probably did not WANT to say “no.” “Fans” matter only in the same way that “customers” matter.
It was a long way around, but that brings us back to UNC and Duke. You have argued strongly that culture, history and tradition matter.
What I heard/read was: “fans would be upset.”
I respond with: “so what?”
I was upset when they put Michigan and tOSU in separate divisions; Wiscy fans were upset when they were sent out east; you are upset that Minnesota is leaving the WCHA. I have no doubt that UNC and Duke fans would be upset at joining the B1G. Tradition, history and cultural fit matter to fans.
But to University Presidents? What evidence is there that tradition, history and cultural fit matter to University Presidents? or to University Board of Regents/Trustees? I see no evidence.
So, continuing the long way around, that brings us back again to whether we are all taking this too seriously and back to this Fantasy Game of Risk we are all allegedly playing. The people actually making the decisions concerning conference realignment are making BUSINESS decisions. They are not glassy-eyed sentimentalists. They are using cold, hard data about consumer demand for various sports products and inventory. They are using cold hard data about how profits can be maximized from such products and inventory.
Most on this Board are trying to “think like a University President.” We also have some access to some of that “cold hard data” through internet research and media reports. Based on that, we can have serious discussions about various schools. Is there enough “upside” for the President and Board of Trustee for the University of North Carolina @ Chapel Hill to consider joining the B1G? From what I have seen, yes. Does UNC bring enough value for the B1G to invite UNC? From what I have seen, yes. This means that UNC will at least think about it. It is NOT an automatic “no.” Conference realignment can be cold-blooded and ruthless.
Personally, this angers and saddens me. I am really glad that my school sits in a position of strength and that Gordon Gee does not have to consider selling my school’s traditions to the highest bidder. But … eat or be eaten. I am glad the B1G is eating.
Back to the Board: there is quite a divergence of opinion concerning whether the B1G SHOULD go beyond 14. Many think B1G expansion has gone far enough; many want a rollback; many favor 16, 18 or 20. Many have focused on structural factors suggesting there is too much $$$ to be made for the B1G to stand pat. Many have pointed to other actors such as the TV networks pushing for further expansion.
In short, I don’t think anyone is really playing a Fantasy Game of Risk.
But as said, while I disagree with your arguments, I appreciate your style, gfunk. Write more ~~ you should.
LikeLike
Thanks BuckeyeBreau,
Worthy responses. We of course differ on some of these issues, but to each his-her sacred own.
I do apologize to anyone on here if you think I’m being a lunatic – I blame the upheavals of conference expansion the past 5 years – so many changes : ).
Ultimately, the BIG needs to add some hardware via football and basketball to the trophy case. Too many second places the past 25 years. Something tells me if we win more in these sports, then some of this conference expansion talk dies down. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think such signature wins-NC’s can happen with current membership, and the 2014 beyond conference.
It would be nice if all states in the BIG footprint approached hs football like Ohio, the way youth hockey is inculcated in Minnesota, or hs hoops mania in all of Indiana, Chicago, parts of Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Phily & now Baltimore-DC, throw in lacrosse mania in Maryland as well. The resources exist, including population, but the will seems to have diminished. These folks who declare a Rust Belt Apocalypse (mostly southerners) and shifting demographics seem to forget no BIG states are losing population, the growth is just slower. Regardless, Il, Oh, Mi, Pa & now NJ are pretty populated states.
I remain incredibly hopeful the current BIG and BIG @14 will maintain strong traditions, athletic greatness & academic excellence. I think the football will improve as well – too much great history to give up on. But I have no idea what this conference will look like in a few years.
LikeLike
Incoming member Maryland has won the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball title (2002, 2006) more recently than any Big Ten school. (Jeez, I hope I’m not sounding like Andy by saying that.)
LikeLike
No idea what Transic’s post above means. Is he expecting FSU to leave the ACC with little Miami? And go where? Nuts.
LikeLike
As a UConn fan, I could not disagree more with what you wrote. And in what world is UConn getting a fraction of the tv money Providence is? The UConn women (!) are making $1.2 million per from SNY. And they are getting a $25 million lump sum this summer. UConn will be absolutely fine. The end of the world proclamations from people about UConn, and Cincy, are ridiculous.
Basketball still means nothing. If Fox Sports wasnt desperate for programming this fall, the C7 would have gotten A10 money.
LikeLike
“Basketball still means nothing. If Fox Sports wasnt desperate for programming this fall, the C7 would have gotten A10 money.”
So the second half implies that basketball with recognizable teams means something to a cable network that is short of late fall and early winter programming. Which is different from meaning nothing.
LikeLike
One comment about *any* football team not necessarily being of greater value than *any* basketball team. In the event that there is one last football team needed to have a conference at all, that could be the case. And, a few times, that’s where the old Big East was sitting.
Otherwise, agreed on all points.
LikeLike
Hey Arch Stanton, I was jut alerted to the existence of this thead on hogville. Pretty humourous:
http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=533826.0
LikeLike
Andy, you’re really pressing with this idea of a MU-ARKY rivalry. You may be right about the southern part of Missouri fitting in with the $EC, but most of the state’s population is found along I-70, not in the southern/Ozarks part of the state. KC, Columbia, and STL are not $EC towns. Most MU students come from these cities. And, most of the people there could care less about Arkansas. They care about KU, Nebraska, and Illinois.
Although, the idea of a trophy game with Arkansas could get interesting. Maybe they could play for the Golden Possum Trophy…….
LikeLike
Well of course KC, Columbia, and STL care about Kansas, Nebraska, and Illinois. We’ve been playing those teams for 100 years. But give them a good annual game every Thanksgiving against a passionate fanbase like Arkansas’s and it’ll turn into something. St. Louis doesn’t have that much in common with Lincoln, NE either, but they got excited for the Huskers. Missouri and Arkansas share a 300 mile border and the two campuses are less than 300 miles apart. That’s commonality enough. As for the fan end of things, as that hogville thread demonstrates, it’s definitely forming into something.
LikeLike
Hey, if you want to spend your time in Hogville, go for it…. I’ll take a rain check…..
LikeLike
They’ll be an easy target for ridicule, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
“They’ll be an easy target for ridicule, that’s for sure.”
Sounds like the perfect match for you, Andy. I am now pulling for a Missouri-Arkansas rivalry to develop.
Let’s call it the Ozark Onslaught!
LikeLike
The award given to the winner of this game should have something to do with Wal-Mart, as the company is based in Arkansas and I believe its first store was in Missouri.
Is that a good substitute for the Telephone Trophy (ISU-Mizzou), Andy?
LikeLike
It’s too bad that Branson doesn’t have a suitable football stadium, because that would be the perfect neutral site to host the Arkansas-Missouri game every year.
Another few possible names:
War on the White River
Methland Mayhem
Battle for the Boot Heel (Arkansas has been eager to reclaim that fertile region for years)
LikeLike
It’s too bad that Branson doesn’t have a suitable football stadium, because that would be the perfect neutral site to host the Arkansas-Missouri game every year.
@Arch – Branson would be terrible. Traffic from any 11AM kickoff would interfere with traffic exiting the 9AM Yakov Smirnoff* show.
*In Southern Missouri, car drive you!
LikeLike
I have to think that Missouri-Arkansas is going to be the CBS primetime SEC game every year. So, that will work out nicely in Branson as most of the tourists will be in for the night by kickoff time. Or, those that want to attend the game can easily hit the early bird special at the buffet at 4 PM before the game.
Maybe Yakov Smirnoff could even sing the national anthem before the game. Nothing says: Cold War is over and we won like that kind of visual.
LikeLike
@Arch Stanton – In Soviet Russia, football throws you!
LikeLike
McMurphy tweeting that the Big East will announce split with C7 later this Thursday. C7 will keep name and MSG contract.
LikeLike
One issue that seems to be missing in these discussions is the fact that B1G conference football games are presently scheduled on home/away basis. I believe that this practice will continue regardless whether further expansion occurs or not. By agreeing to an away game (that occurs on a regular and periodical basis) a school wants to ensure equal treatment by accruing similar benefits as the other school (also for the local community). This is best achieved by agreeing to schedule the reciprocal home game as soon as possible (i.e. the next year).
If this assumption is correct, then B1G expansion beyond 14 teams becomes clumsy.
Yes, pod scheduling is possible for 16 teams. There could be Leaders/Legends pods and East/West pods that combine as Leaders East & Legends West Divisions for every other 2-year periods, alternating as Leaders West & Legends East Divisions for the remainder. There could then be two cross-over games among each of these pairs of pods, which rotate among the other two schools whenever the divisions recombine. In this way, every school can be scheduled as home/away series at least once during any 4-year period.
But is such pod scheduling really attractive?
As it stands, a 14-team BIG conference is attractive when compared with most other expansion options. The only real drawback concerns the championship game. For 3 cross-over games, the chances of a rematch are high. Low attendance and TV ratings could be the result.
LikeLike
@Ravin: I don’t think the “home/away” schedule rotation is sacred. It has some benefits, and it’s what they’ve historically done, but it’s not a fundamental principle that couldn’t be altered if some other, more useful principle stood in the way.
Presidents, ADs, and coaches all over the Big Ten have said that they expect more expansion, sooner or later. If the right schools were available, they’d expand to 16 before lunchtime. Obviously, they don’t believe the schedule poses an insuperable barrier — and I don’t think it does, either. If the discussion on this board has made anything clear, it’s that there are a lot of ways of going about it.
For what it’s worth, I think pod scheduling is a poor choice for the Big Ten. Every pod proposal I’ve seen is either competitively unbalanced, or creates meaningless annual rivalries while relegating more useful ones to second-tier status. But pods aren’t the only way of going about it.
The only real drawback concerns the championship game. For 3 cross-over games, the chances of a rematch are high. Low attendance and TV ratings could be the result.
Is there any evidence for the proposition that rematches have worse attendance and poorer TV ratings? I think what hurts these games is not a rematch, but just a bad matchup in general. Last year’s B1G championship game featured a third-place team with a 7-5 record, because first and second place were ineligible.
Nebraska vs. Ohio State — the game that should have been played — would have been a lot more popular.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Is there any evidence for the proposition that rematches have worse attendance and poorer TV ratings?”
LSU/AL in the NCG. UCLA/Stanford last year.
LikeLike
Brian – the November 2011 LSU/Bama game drew a 12 overnight rating. The BCS NCG re-match game drew a 13.8 overnight rating.
LikeLike
13.8 is a weak NCG rating. Average from 2002-2011 was a 16.4 with a high of 21.7 and a low of 14.0.
LikeLike
If it was a ccg instead of the bcs ncg it would have drawn worse. Wasn’t it the worst ncg ratings ever? If not, it was close.
LikeLike
@Brian: I think you’re mistaken about LSU/AL, as @Alan noted.
UCLA/Stanford had bad ratings and poor attendance because UCLA was 6-6 and didn’t really belong there: USC was ineligible. With the Trojans in the game, it would have attracted a lot more interest.
LikeLike
You’re mixing up 2011 and 2012. 6-6 UCLA played Oregon in the 2011 Pac-12 title game, 9-3 UCLA played Stanford in the 2012 Pac-12 title game. IIRC the bigger issue was the Friday night timing.
The 2012 Big Ten title game might be a good example of this, though, since Ohio St AND Penn St were ineligible, which is why a 7-5 Badger team snuck into the game.
LSU/Bama probably had lower than normal NCG ratings, but that was both due to it being an ugly blowout as well as the controversy turning off a good chunk of the country. Neither of those events are necessarily normal for a rematch.
LikeLike
And Stanford with its 8,000+ undergrads has a hard time filling up a salad bowl…Friday…replay of a beat down, that occured the week before.
I didn’t really feel the LSU/Ala. replay felt like a NCG. They split, and needed a third game to be a tie breaker. Oops, I shouldn’t suggest that. Someone might think its a good idea…
LikeLike
cc – I think that’s a great idea.
LikeLike
Well since LSU played a far tougher schedule, the pollsters should have just given it to LSU.
LikeLike
“One issue that seems to be missing in these discussions is the fact that B1G conference football games are presently scheduled on home/away basis. ”
Yes, that is something that commonly comes up.
A four pod rotation of equal sized pods could indeed work on a single rotation, because the “H/A” line up … Consider a team in P1 and a team in P2, who play in-division in year one:
Year 1: P1 @ P2
Year 2: pod1 v pod3, pod2 v pod4
Year 3: pod1 v pod4, pod2 v pod3
Year 4: P2 @ P1
… so the games that were home in an even year are away in an odd year, and visa versa.
A four pod alternation with unequal sized pods more likely requires two year Home and Away scheduling:
Anchor1 v Central1, Anchor2 v Central2; repeat reverse home & away
Anchor1 v Central2, Anchor2 v Central1; repeat reverse home & away
The two year Home & Home because under single rotation, if a division make-up starts in an odd year, it continues in odd years, and if a division make-up starts in an even year, it continues in even years, and that makes for awkwardness when fitting in the cross-division games, between teams in Anchor1 and Anchor2, and between Central1 and Central2.
LikeLike
http://www.ydr.com/psu/ci_22561285/frank-bodani-how-big-ten-realignment-should-affect
A PA columnist argues for PSU to close the season with a game against MD every year (or RU). I understand his logic, but it seems PSU-centric. Wouldn’t MD/RU be a better season-ender since it is a more fair matchup? Likewise, wouldn’t PSU/MSU be more likely to be a big game?
My suggestions:
If MSU is in the east:
E – OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, RU/MD, PU/IN
W – NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN
—
If MSU is in the west:
E – OSU/MI, PU/IN, PSU/?*, NW/?*
W – NE/IA, WI/MSU, MN/IL, NW/?*
* – Rotate PSU/RU + MD/NW with PSU/MD + RU/NW
LikeLike
York is close to the Maryland state line, and in fact its lead AM radio station has carried Baltimore Orioles games for years. I am certain that a columnist for any of the papers in the Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton area could make a similar argument in favor of PSU closing out the season with Rutgers.
LikeLike
Why should Penn State end its season vs Michigan State? The “Land Grant Trophy” was a mistake of the worst order. Almost no Nitt or Sparty fan liked it. If you think Maryland/Rutgers is a better ending game then I can live with that. However, if it can’t be Nebraska, Wisconsin or Ohio State (That is obvious), then at least let Penn State end with Pitt (Even Temple generates more interest than MSU as far as I am concerned).
LikeLike
Unfortunately, if you decree that every school have a rivalry game on the final weekend of the regular season, somebody is going to be stuck in a contrived game. Penn State can’t play Pitt on the final weekend unless some other Big Ten team agrees to have a bye, and I don’t think that would go over very well.
LikeLike
I bet Rutgers would prefer Penn State over Maryland. I know we would prefer anyone (This side of Minnesota or Indiana (Purdue incuded)) to Sparty. I would prefer to end my season early against Pitt if necessary. Basically no MSU.
LikeLike
Sure, but if Penn State gets Rutgers, then Maryland would have to play Sparty, a game that has even less history than PSU-MSU.
LikeLike
Have PSU end with Rutgers for two years, then Maryland for two years after that, then with Michigan State for two subsequent years.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I bet Rutgers would prefer Penn State over Maryland.”
So would MD. Rather than screw one over and helping the other, neither gets PSU. I had them rotating against PSU if MSU went west, though.
LikeLike
I’ll be honest: my impression is that nothing could push PSU to apply to the ACC (regardless of money) faster than the Big Ten sticking them with MSU as their end-of-the-year “rival” again after finally inviting 2 East Coast schools. I’m fairly certain that PSU will play the Eastern team of its choice at the end of the year (probably Rutgers to be a part of the NYC Thanksgiving scene).
LikeLike
I’m with Frank on this.
The whole point is to maximize the synergy that Penn State (and the other kings) will have in those East Coast markets.
And you have Penn State’s end of year game be Michigan State?
Michigan State-Rutgers and Penn State-Maryland make a lot more sense to me.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’ll be honest: my impression is that nothing could push PSU to apply to the ACC (regardless of money) faster than the Big Ten sticking them with MSU as their end-of-the-year “rival” again after finally inviting 2 East Coast schools.”
Frankly, I don’t care. They can take RU and UMD with them, too. I’m sick of PSU whining. They get to play every single team they want to play annually. They can suck it up on one weekend and play who they get.
“I’m fairly certain that PSU will play the Eastern team of its choice at the end of the year (probably Rutgers to be a part of the NYC Thanksgiving scene).”
That’s actually a terrible plan. Whichever school isn’t chosen (and PSU fans will be split on this) will feel completely screwed. Besides, PSU will crush whichever one they get so it’ll be a WI/MN type of rivalry but with a lot less feeling behind it. The whole western half of the fan base wouldn’t be inspired at all, either. At most they should rotate between RU and MD as I suggested. That let’s both markets develop and gives PSU some variety in which boring game they get each year. If MSU stays a contender, an annual game against them would have more meaning and people might actually watch them. Nobody outside their fans is watching PSU/RU that weekend.
LikeLike
zeek,
“The whole point is to maximize the synergy that Penn State (and the other kings) will have in those East Coast markets.”
No, but it is a point.
“And you have Penn State’s end of year game be Michigan State?”
Yes.
1. MSU is a batter program so the game is more likely to matter in the division race. That means more eyeballs on the game. MSU was mediocre for most of the LGT era – that’s why fans hated it. 9-2 MSU coming in with a division title potentially on the line is a different story.
2. That weekend is filled with major games nationally. Nobody is going to watch PSU/RU.
3. Thanksgiving weekend is actually one of the worst for a weak FB game because students are gone and fans want to be home with their families.
4. Why should RU or UMD suffer not being chosen and the other getting all the benefits? That’s a great way to drive them out of the B10 in the future.
5. All the kings are still playing those teams, just not on that day.
6. Maybe MSU would like to actually play a meaningful opponent that weekend. Where is the consideration for them in all this?
7. As a second choice, I’d take a rotation of RU and UMD with MSU playing the other.
8. I could also live with an equal rotation among MSU, RU and UMD.
LikeLike
“Penn State can’t play Pitt on the final weekend unless some other Big Ten team agrees to have a bye, and I don’t think that would go over very well.”
You’d have to have another Big Ten playing a non-conference game the last week of the season too, preferably one in the opposite division from PSU.
One hypothetical situation would be for the SEC, ACC, and Big Ten to get together and work this out for Thanksgiving week: Pitt plays PSU, Northwestern plays Vanderbilt, & Wake Forest plays another ACC school.
As an SEC/B1G rivalry, that Vandy/Northwestern rivalry would have more interest than Vandy/Wake Forest currently does.
Note that the SEC and ACC would each have 4 OOC games that weekend (3 against each other and 1 against the Big Ten), while the Big Ten would have 2 (1 against the SEC, 1 against the ACC). So everyone else in these conferences could be playing conference games.
If Northwestern was in the West division, the Big Ten could avoid any cross-divisional games the last week of the season.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Why should Penn State end its season vs Michigan State?”
Because it’s the best division game available (if MSU is in the east) so the game would have meaning as often as possible.
“The “Land Grant Trophy” was a mistake of the worst order. Almost no Nitt or Sparty fan liked it.”
The trophy was horrible but many fans on both sides said they came to like the game. Not love it, but like it. Now it would have the bonus of impacting the division race so it would be a little more important.
“If you think Maryland/Rutgers is a better ending game then I can live with that.”
They are closer to peers than either is with PSU.
“However, if it can’t be Nebraska, Wisconsin or Ohio State (That is obvious),”
No crossovers that matter allowed. that’s what everyone said about OSU/MI, so there’s no way PSU gets one with NE or WI. Besides, NE gets IA.
“then at least let Penn State end with Pitt (Even Temple generates more interest than MSU as far as I am concerned).”
I’d be thrilled with that if PSU will man up and play that game annually. Unfortunately, that would leave MSU without a conference game.
LikeLike
I think PSU can get bent. They got what they’ve been crying about for 20 years. I’d rather play WI anyway.
LikeLike
If MSU goes in the west, MSU/WI is exactly the game I’d pick to wrap up the year. It works better for PSU, too, as they can rotate between RU and MD with NW playing the other as a crossover.
It’s if MSU goes east that it’s harder.
LikeLike
So Fox “overpaid” the C7 to get them to leave their conference. What are the odds they do (almost) the same thing again?
Breaking up the ACC is a chicken-or-egg problem. It’s alive while UNC is there, and UNC is there while it’s alive. Unless, maybe, B1G money were a literal tripling or quadrupling of ACC money. Exactly how much sweetening do they need to leave? Maybe Fox is willing to overpay again, if that’s what it takes. A) They get UNC. B) They crumble ESPN’s multi-billion-dollar investment in the ACC.
LikeLike
Yep, exactly.
Of course, there IS an outer limit to how much FOX can overpay. To triple the ACC, each B1G school would need ~~ say ~~ $63M per year; that’s $882M per year or $8.82 billion over 10 years. That’s some serious money. Assume the BTN and other revenue sources = $13m a year, FOX would need to offer $7B over a 10 year contract. That is a lot of billions of dollars.
LikeLike
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Division B: Clemson, USF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
??????????????
Is playing Cincinnati, UConn and Boston College more attractive than playing Ohio State, Penn State or Michigan in football (or any sport for that matter)????
LikeLike
Let’s say the ACC grew to 16 by losing Florida State and Miami and bringing in Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida and South Florida. The conference almost certainly would retain its Atlantic/Coastal format, which under pre-expansion play would feature
Atlantic
Boston College
Clemson
Louisville*
N.C. State
Syracuse
Wake Forest
*Louisville replaces Maryland as of 2014
Coastal
Duke
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Where do the four newcomers go?
I would argue Cincinnati and one of the new Florida members (we’ll make it South Florida) would go to the Atlantic (so UC could continue its rivalry with Louisville), while Connecticut and the other Florida member (Central Florida) would be shipped to the Coastal. (Putting the Huskies in the opposite division from BC might placate the Eagles, even if they had to play an annual crossover game.)
This new-look ACC would still be decent in football, but a lot less glamorous. Then again as a Maryland fan, come the fall of 2014, it’s really not my problem.
LikeLike
Is playing Cincinnati, UConn and Boston College more attractive than playing Ohio State, Penn State or Michigan in football (or any sport for that matter)????
That’s not the question these schools will be asking. It’s, “How much money am I leaving on the table by remaining in a second-tier league?” If it’s not much, then geography and tradition win out. But if it’s $10 million a year, or $20 million a year, the trade-offs are a lot different.
I don’t see how the ACC can remain an AQ league (or its equivalent) in the long term, if it loses both FSU and Miami. Without them, it begins to resemble the late-90s Big East, and we know how that turned out.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not an ACC guy but I have to think there’s space for a major conference that isn’t necessarily the most powerful in football.
Also, UNC would love it if FSU leaves. UCF and USF would just be happy to be there and would toe UNC’s line. Heck, NC State hasn’t yet left (I know that they have a BoG issue in that state) and those two schools don’t like each other. 😉
LikeLike
Sorry for my B1G arrogance. I need a map to check where is the Mason Dixon Line.
LikeLike
No need to apologize for “arrogance.” Southerns have that too. The problem is B1G Imperialism. 🙂
LikeLike
Southerners, that should be.
LikeLike
Wise ass : ).
LikeLike
Mason-Dixon line separates Maryland from Pennsylvania. After two centuries, the markers placed for transit markings are still within millimeters of laser guided transits. Remarkable surveyor accomplishment!
LikeLike
Courtesy of the USAToday, here’s the AD salary database.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/03/06/athletic-director-salary-database-methodology/1968783/
Top Ten in total pay:
1. Vandy
2. Louisville
3. Florida
4. Wisconsin
5. Nebraska
6. Texas
7. Ohio State
8. Notre Dame
9. Oklahoma
10. Duke
LikeLike
Meanwhile Wisky loses football coaches in part because of lower salaries.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought that was ironic. Barry has been in the top 5 since he’s been AD. It’s like they are paying him now for his past achievements. Wisconsin does have a fairly sizable athletic budget ($130 million this year) but I am not sure he warrants top 5 pay especially when Wisconsin nickel and dimes it’s assistant coaches.
LikeLike
Vandy doesn’t have a separate Athletic Department. David Williams is Vice Chancellor for Athletics and University Affairs and Athletics Director.
LikeLike
“America 12”? Ugh. I kind of liked “Metro” even though it was a failed conference.
People make fun that the Big 12 has 10 teams, and the Big 10 has 14 teams, but at least those conferences started with those numbers, the “America 12” is going to start with 10 teams, Navy at 11 in 2014, and an unknown 12.
LikeLike
How long until they adopt a certain song from Team America: World Police as the Conference theme song?
LikeLike
Mike – or they could call themselves the National Athletic Conference, or “the NAC” for short and the use The Knack’s big late 70s hit “My Sharona” as their conference theme song.
LikeLike
“Ugh.”
That about sums it up. You would think they would have learned from CUSA. Appealing to patriotism is a poor substitute for real brand identity.
LikeLike
Numbers are a pretty bad idea too. How many college conferences need to prove to us that they don’t know math? Things change. BE football doesn’t even have 12 members yet. Even if they add one more, they will not have 12 for basketball. Just stupid to put numbers in it. It makes you a butt of jokes. The Big 10 and Big 12 at least had some history.
Maybe they are just tying down an option.
LikeLike
Ad VCU as a non-football member, and A12 basketball would have 12 basketball teams in it.
LikeLike
Problem is that they have no identity whatsoever. Not regional, not historical, not type of school; nothing really links them at all.
My vote was for The Extraordinary League of Also Rans
LikeLike
Sorry, that should be:
The League of Extraordinary Also Rans.
Much better.
LikeLike
The League of Extraordinary Also Rans
“Get ready to LEAR.”
LikeLike
Apparently “America One” is also under consideration.
Double ugh.
LikeLike
If so, will its official soft drink be Pepsi One? (A fine soda, but impossible to find in anything other than 12-packs these days.)
LikeLike
Sounds like a space ship.
LikeLike
“America One?”
No. This sounds like some silly slogan from a politician. In fact, I remember Bill Clinton having some ad on during Super Bowl XXXII (Denver vs. Green Bay, January 1998) where he was talking about anti-discrimination. “Let’s build ‘One America.'” Is that what this league wants?
Even worse, the abbreviated version of this conference’s name (A1) would match that of a steak sauce, and could never be used officially by the league since it’s already another entity’s trademark.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the problem with Conference of Unfamiliar Schools with Ambitions ~ #CUSA is already taken by another conference.
LikeLike
They’re basically re-associating their brand with Conference USA, which they basically are anyway.
LikeLike
Can anyone suggest a better name? Metro, the name of a failed conference, doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
LikeLike
The “Who Everyone Shat Upon Conference” aka the WESUC?
LikeLike
Placeholder conference: park here till you find a better home… About the only thing American/A12 has going for it is it’ll be at the top of every standings when they are alphabetized.
LikeLike
I was thinking the Purgatory Conference. If you’re in the Sun Belt, MAC, or C-USA, or if you’re an FCS school looking to move up, this is pretty darn good. It’s far, far better than the alternative. Of course, you’re hoping like crazy to gain true salvation via the ACC or another power conference.
LikeLike
Mike Bianchi in a short take in his Orlando Sentinal column quips: “The new name of the football league formerly known as the Big East will reportedly be “The America 12.” I personally like the patriotic moniker and think the league’s mascot should be Lady Liberty herself: ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your displaced Conference USA teams.’ ”
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-08/sports/os-mike-bianchi-saturday-circus-0309-20130308_1_victor-gray-magic-teammates-ucf-star
LikeLike
It looks like the law firm that has represented the Big East registered the domain “america12sports.com” yesterday.
http://www.whois.com/whois/america12sports.com
So are we looking at America 12 for the FBEFS (Former Big East Football Schools) ?
LikeLike
Looks like Schroeder beat me to it. I really need to hit refresh more often. lol
LikeLike
America 12 is “Big American” except without the Big.
But it would be so West Coast if they called it the America 12 and set out with a plan to actually get to 12. Here in Big Ten / Big12 country east of the Rockies, the number in the conference name and in any conference standings lists are not supposed to match up..
LikeLike
yep, the America 12 Conference
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/schools-used-big-east-reportedly-might-patriotic-conference-190411319–ncaaf.html;_ylt=AicsSciaZ.NYAYFOsVaeSQ4cvrYF;_ylu=X3oDMTQwbWs3MTN1BG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBOQ0FBRgRwa2cDNzgzYjVhOWMtNzQ3NS0zNTYwLWIwNGYtNDI5YzM0NzAwMzI2BHBvcwMyBHNlYwNtZWdhdHJvbgR2ZXIDOWJjOGEyMDAtODc2NS0xMWUyLWJjZjMtYzczMzU2MmFhZThk;_ylg=X3oDMTFqdXByMzhlBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuY2FhZgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw–;_ylv=3
LikeLike
Merica
LikeLike
So for short it’s going to be A12? If I’m the Atlantic 10 I would be a bit annoyed.
LikeLike
But fair go ~ aren’t they aiming to be better than the A10 by about two teams?
LikeLike
I think they are just leaking potential names to gauge public reaction. I would expect to hear more names between now and July 1st when all of the new members officially join the league.
LikeLike
I hope so.
After all… why would any “new” conference ever go with a numerical name after watching the past 20 years of conference realignment?
The numerical conference names don’t work in a period of rapid school movement.
What happens when/if UConn/Cincy bolt?
LikeLike
Yeah, using a number doesn’t make much sense at this point in history.
LikeLike
Could be if UConn / Cinci bolt, they add two replacements. American 12 could indeed be a specification of their pre-requisites ~ they want to reach 12 teams, and they’ve got to be American teams, and beyond that everything is subject to improvisation.
LikeLike
America 12 is pretty pedestrian and unimaginative. However, I think the shortened “A-12” could catch on pretty quickly, which is probably why they chose to use a number. It can end up being easily recognizable in the media and on places like Twitter. Pretty much any new name is going to sound cheesy, so it’s almost better if you’re more recognizable by a short abbreviation (which the A-12 would accomplish here).
LikeLike
And after years of Big Least, “Big American” would be just begging to become “Little American” from millions of juvenile internet users being clever.
LikeLike
“America 12” sounds like the bastard offspring of Atlantic 10 and America East. Is that really the impression this new conference wishes to make with the public?
LikeLike
My suggestion, the Continental Conference or the Continental 12.
LikeLike
MWC has essentially equalized the America 12 (or old Big East football) via new ESPN money.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9028744/mountain-west-conference-closing-7-year-rights-deal-espn-according-sources
“The Mountain West Conference and ESPN are finalizing a seven-year media rights deal for the network to televise up to 22 football games and 25 men’s basketball games annually, sources told ESPN.
The deal brings the total value of the Mountain West’s media rights deal, including its existing deal with CBS Sports Network, up to about $116 million, or $18 million annually, sources said.”
—————————————————————-
The deal will include all of Boise State’s games (so their 6 home games will be put on ESPN out of the 22 MWC games on the ESPN networks).
Important part of this is that it makes their total payout equal to the Big East’s new deal for $20 million per year after the Catholic 7 bolt.
LikeLike
Also worth noting that the MWC is matching the Big East year-for-year by going to 2019-2020.
This is a smart thing to do; it allows them to avoid getting themselves into an outdated contract.
Say Fox Sports flush with money from FS1/FS2 tries to play games with realignment of the America 12 and MWC (like they did with the Catholic 7) or something like that in 2019; they won’t be caught flat-footed on a deal that they can’t get out of for years since they’ll be negotiating a contract as well.
LikeLike
Personally, after hearing the name, I thought that the former-BE-ex-CUSA conference should have gone with “Teams America” . . . .
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–death-of-big-east-tournament–not-so-fast-004710289.html
Anybody else notice that almost every vignette in this Wetzel piece about the Big East is about schools that aren’t of the Catholic 7? The two most powerful stories were about Syracuse-UConn and ND-USF.
Other than Georgetown which has played in some big games in the Big East tournament, none of the other Catholic 7 schools have played in those kinds of big games since the turn of the century. Obviously that will change now that they have the conference to themselves and the other teams that typically went deep into the tournament are gone (Syracuse, UConn, Pittsburgh, Louisville, West Virginia).
Still, they’re losing the public schools with huge basketball followings; the Catholic 7 schools will really have to step up their game to where it was in the 80s and 90s in order to compensate.
New York City is a big event town, but the event itself has to be “big time”; the town won’t be abuzz unless there are big time teams that are making or have made names for themselves nationally.
Butler and Georgetown and Villanova have been doing that for years, but the rest have to put their feet to the medal to make sure the tournament keeps its shine.
LikeLike
“Other than Georgetown which has played in some big games in the Big East tournament, none of the other Catholic 7 schools have played in those kinds of big games since the turn of the century.”
Villanova was in the Final Four 3 years ago and was in a couple Regional Finals since 2005.
LikeLike
Manziel says he “wants the presidents to represent me”. Should be interesting to see if he pulls this off. You can only wag the meat infront of the NCAA’s mouth so much before it bites! I guess he needs to push the envelope to cash in on his present fame.
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3042/manziel-autograph-trading-cards-cause-stir#more
LikeLike
I wonder if the family has the scam up & running yet…
1. A&M booster starts business selling items with Johnny Douchebag name.
2. Sue ‘offender’ for ‘infringement’.
3. Profit…err I mean accept out of court settlement.
It absolutely boggles my mind that the NCAA signed off on this nonsense.
LikeLike
1) The NCAA specifically said fraud would be against their regulations
2) Much more importantly, the courts would be most upset. People joke about NCAA investigators, but you really do not want to get a judge to decide you’re using his court to file fraudulent lawsuits.
LikeLike
Here’s a question, Suppose that the ACC loses UNC, Duke, and UVA at least, dramatically decreasing the league’s basketball potential and revenue. Does Notre Dame get cold feet and just join the Big East for bball?
Related question(s), assume that the ACC (I just don’t buy the Carolina school ever leaving) or Big XII (give it ten years) is destroyed. There are four big leagues left which somehow make it so that only their champions can play for a national championship, meaning Notre Dame has to either join a conference or give up any route to a national title. Do you think Notre Dame would be willing to maintain it’s independence at the cost of a shot at a title? I actually think that they might. If not, who would they join? I suspect Notre Dame would prefer the ACC (depending on who was left) to anyone else, then in order of highest to lowest preference, Pac 12, Big XII (again depending on who’s left) with the Big 10 and the SEC at the bottom in some order.
LikeLike
Naw; the ACC seems as if it will always have enough heft to hold ND’s non-revenue teams in exchange for 5 football games.
Catholic 7 don’t have enough strength in non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
If there 2 divisions each with 7 teams, then at least one game at the end of the season must be a cross-over game with the other division (in principle).
LikeLike
And the Indiana / Purdue game is a fine game for that.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/72741/poll-who-should-move-west
ESPN’s B10 blog has a poll on who should move west – IN, PU or MSU
Vote and/or check out the results. Currently, it’s MSU 54% and PU at 31% (IN at 15%).
LikeLike
OSU fan here… I wish they would put Michigan in the western division for competitive balance. Just seems like this split is being done b/c the last couple years OSU and Mich seem to be gaining steam in recruiting and whatnot…short-sightedness. The presidents have numbers already stating the odds of osu and michigan meeting head to head twice is next to nill…especially if one of the two teams will receive a loss in its last game (assumed protected cross-over game). Hence the league’s championship game probably won’t have a repeat matchup that hurts ratings. No quams here about moving the game to earlier in the year if it better for the league. Almost seems idiotic to have penn state, osu, and michigan (murders row) in the same division and leave nebraska (and the rest of the real big ten) out west by itself. I’ve read many times that Nebraska fans want Michigan on a consistant basis (I like what nebraska brings). I Don’t believe in the argument ‘put your best show forward to grab new york’ b/c pro-teams already have that area on lock (everybody knows this!)…anybody ever heard of’ ‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket’?
LikeLike
The Wolverines want to be in the east. If you force them to go west then Sparty will fight to go west as well. Who then do you bring east? Both Northwestern & Wisconsin want to stay east.
TSUN, Nebraska, Wisconsin & Sparty all in the west makes for divisions that are more just as (it not more) unbalanced than Ohio State, TSUN & PSU in the east with Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU & Iowa out west.
LikeLike
You keep wisconsin east (oooh I know nobody like to hear this) and boot indiana or purdue west, keeping the newbies east. You do this all under the pretense that it is better for the league through competitive balance…nothing is then forced. I don’t want to blow everything up but you save rival matches that you can through protect cross over and others disappear to make room for new ones. There has already been a somewhat clearly defined pecking order of matchups according to their relevance b/t teams. Obviously Michigan wanting into the east has nothing to do with the league matchup and everything to do with a grandiose vision of a more eastern exposure but guess what…michigan will remain a top notch college either way.
osu,penn, wisconsin, maryland,rutgers,illinois, indiana,
michigan, nebraska, michigan st, Iowa, Min, Northwestern,purdue
You may say the east is pretty weak but sh*t maryland and rutgers pack a better punch then most believe, just as much as iowa and northwestern (maybe michigan st).
LikeLike
Why would you put UM in the West when they give the B10 more money if they are in the East? With the amount of alumni in NYC and in the DC area, it only makes sense to put them where they will get a better rating.
LikeLike
If money was the only concern, the divisions would be:
Important – OSU, MI, PSU, NE, RU, UMD, NW
Schedule fillers – WI, IA, MN, IL, PU, IN, MSU
LikeLike
I want Michigan in the east, nine conference games and no protected cross-over for the Bucks BECAUSE most of the real big ten is going to be in the west and I want to see a number of them more often than if the Buckeyes have a protected cross-over game with the West.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21826498/sec-big-12-acc-big-ten-discuss-power-bowl-alliance
League officials have discussed a multisite, rotational bowl partnership of the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC to maximize matchups over six years, according to two sources with knowledge of those discussions.
The Music City Bowl in Nashville, Belk Bowl in Charlotte and Alamo Bowl in San Antonio are among the sites being mentioned. Under the plan, one conference would appear annually and at least two other conferences would play in a rotation. The SEC, ACC and Big 12 would be logical annual hosts for those three respective bowls. The Big Ten’s direct involvement is still uncertain, but one source said they’ve been mentioned as a potential fourth tie-in.
That’s an interesting way to get some variety is opponents and bowl locations.
LikeLike
Setting aside for a moment the comparison of which bowl games pay out the most, I would think the Music City Bowl would be a game a lot of conferences would want to play in. Nashville is genuinely a very fun town to visit, whether you are a country music fan or not. When my wife and I lived in Indiana for five years, we used Nashville as a weekend meeting spot with my parents or my in-laws (who live in SC and western NC) several times. There is no shortage of things to do there, and it sure beat the alternatives of other equal-distance meeting spots like West Virginia or Lexington, KY. (No offense to residents of those places.)
Nashville also makes great sense from a geography standpoint for a tie in with the SEC, obviously, but also with the Big Ten, ACC, and even the Big 12. Florida and Texas bowl games require flights for most families who are fans of most teams in those leagues. As such, those games are going to need teams who have had really strong, 8+ win seasons in order to motivate fans to pay for the costs of traveling. But Nashville can be reached by driving for a lot more fans, and since the Music City Bowl is likely to feature teams with just 6 to 8 wins, the reduced distance should help incentivize travel better than, say, the Gator Bowl or a bowl in Texas would. For example, wouldn’t fans of a 6-6 or 7-5 Wisconsin team be more likely to drive to Nashville and fill up seats there than they would in Houston or Dallas?
LikeLike
Its certainly neat and tidy for the Big10 if it is in a three year visitor rotation for the three bowls. It seems tidier for the other three if each one hosts one and alternates as the visitor for the other two.
LikeLike
I would think a 4th bowl would be needed to make it neat and tidy (2 spots per conference). Gator? Houston? Might the Liberty drop the CUSA champ?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9029028/nhlpa-consents-realignment-plan
The NHLPA signs off on the new realignment plan. The owners vote next week. The plan would last for at least 3 years with re-evaluation starting after 2 years.
LikeLike
As follow-up to my previous (superfluous) comment: PSU should end the season either with Rutgers or Maryland. The previous week (pre-Thanksgiving) can be Rutgers and Maryland (if they so desire). Count me as optimistic that Rutgers and Maryland will eventually improve and provide good competition in B1G football.
LikeLike
PSU’s all-time record against each team:
UMD 35-1-1 (0.959)
RU 22-2 (0.917)
MSU 14-13-1 (0.518)
One of those teams is not like the others. Only MSU has ever shown any ability to compete with PSU.
LikeLike
Which is why PSU fans would prefer to play either of the two not named MSU.
LikeLike
Since joining the B1G, PSU is 13-5 vs MSU. That is the fifth best winning percentage against current B1G teams. I don’t know why, or even if it’s true, that most Nitt fans don’t care about MSU, but I have a suspicion. It is tied into this king vs prince vs knight bs. Nitts probably think they deserve a better rival than MSU. Since tsun/tosu are taken, they would prefer Nebraska or Wisconsin as a season ending rival based on a perceived heirarchy. I, personally, loved MSU as an end of season game and if MSU stays east, would prefer them. That allows MD/RU to establish their own rivalry. But since none of us know the likelihood of a B1G 16/18/20 in the immediate future, this all might only apply for 2014/15.,
LikeLike
largeR: Speaking as a Penn State fan, that sounds about right, although I personally feel that the World’s Ugliest Bowling Trophy is an unintentionally awful-looking embarassment.
I think it’s a good idea to have the end of year opponent be in the division. If Sparty comes east, who would they rather end the season playing?
LikeLike
Without sounding too much like Andy, I would mention that Penn State was not on Maryland’s schedule during the Jim Tatum era (1947-55), the Terrapins’ greatest run of national success. And most of the time Penn State played Rutgers, the Scarlet Knights were not playing a big-time schedule but were an Ivy wannabe — I don’t have the numbers before me, but I would bet Rutgers has played Lafayette, Lehigh and Bucknell more often than it has played PSU.
LikeLike
You are 2/3rds correct: http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/all-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2012&team=Rutgers&sort=g&mingames=0
PSU is Rutgers’ 13th most frequent opponent.
LikeLike
Michigan and Ohio State in the same division would be great for the B1G Conference (and other CFB football fans) but not necessarily for UM and OSU. One of those schools will lose twice, neither the Division nor the Conference Champions. If not, then please as protected cross-overs. Schedule the game in October. The rivalry may actually prosper if there would not be so much hype as the last game of the season.
LikeLike
Did you seriously just suggest that it would be in the best interest of all involved if The Game received less attention?
Words fail.
LikeLike
I hereby retract my original (and ludicrous) comment. My crucifixion is next Monday. See yah there!
LikeLike
Ravin, I am glad you feel that having OSU and TSUN in the same division would be good for the Big Ten, since I want them to be in the same division for the selfish reason that it makes The Game as big a deal as possible within a Division / CCG framework, and having The Game be as big a deal as possible is good for the Buckeyes. If its also a good thing for the Big Ten, that explains why it has become a widely expected outcome from the divisional realignment.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Ravin, I am glad you feel that having OSU and TSUN in the same division would be good for the Big Ten, since I want them to be in the same division for the selfish reason that it makes The Game as big a deal as possible within a Division / CCG framework, and having The Game be as big a deal as possible is good for the Buckeyes. If its also a good thing for the Big Ten, that explains why it has become a widely expected outcome from the divisional realignment.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Having The Game in division makes it as small a deal as possible in this setup.
1. They can never play for the B10 title. That takes a huge chunk of meaning away.
2. Only one division title can be at stake. There could be two on the line, so the meaning is greatly reduced.
3. OSU and MI shouldn’t hang Division banners, so The Game no longer has something special on the table.
LikeLike
“1. They can never play for the B10 title. That takes a huge chunk of meaning away.”
They can never play The Game for the B10 title again. Its already become impossible. The meaning that that takes away from The Game has already been taken away. If they should happen to play in the CCG, it means that a counterfeit version of The Game is played in Indianapolis the week after The Game itself, and its the counterfeit version of The Game that actually decides the championship.
“2. Only one division can be at stake.”
Yes, that’s the point. The Bucks taking a spot in the CCG is more satisfying in its own right, independently of the result of the CCG, if it also means that we took it away from that team up north. Of course, that team up north taking a spot in the CCG is more galling if it also means they took it away from us, but that, too, increases the emotional weight invested into The Game.
“3. OSU and MI shouldn’t hang Division banners, so The Game no longer has something special on the table.”
As far as I can make out, this means that the only game that matters is the CCG. But that is a self-defeating argument: if the CCG matters, then access to the CCG matters, and so what decides access to the CCG matter, and so the Division title, which decides the CCG, matters. And while it may be possible to lose our chance at playing for the conference championship early in the season … the later in the season an in-division game is played, the more likely it will feature one or both teams playing to win a trip to the CCG.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“If they should happen to play in the CCG, it means that a counterfeit version of The Game is played in Indianapolis the week after The Game itself, and its the counterfeit version of The Game that actually decides the championship.”
I disagree 100% with your view on that. To me, it’s The Game v2.
“Yes, that’s the point.”
You say that like it’s a good thing. Both division titles could be on the line if they were split. That’s better than only 1 being up for grabs.
“The Bucks taking a spot in the CCG is more satisfying in its own right, independently of the result of the CCG, if it also means that we took it away from that team up north.”
You can still take it from them by causing them to lose the other division.
“As far as I can make out, this means that the only game that matters is the CCG.”
Of course it is. OSU plays for B10 titles. Anything else is failure. By your logic, the IN game matters.
LikeLike
“I disagree 100% with your view on that. To me, it’s The Game v2.”
The Game is played in 266 days from today. “The Game v2” is played … well, maybe this year, but probably not. It more like a bowl game. The Game is an event on the calendar, played in the Horseshoe then the Big House then the Horseshoe then the Big House, and so on as long as the series is maintained.
So rather than try to counter the point that having do-overs for the loser weakens the meaning of The Game, you just redefine The Game, and the “maybe depending on how things break” event a week after The Game is promoted over top of The *ACTUAL* Game that will be played in 266 days from today.
“You say that like it’s a good thing. Both division titles could be on the line if they were split. That’s better than only 1 being up for grabs.”
With that school up north cross division, there are four possible results: both go, we go, they go, neither goes. With that school up north in division, there are three possible results, we go, they go, neither goes. The second set of results is preferable to the first: going to the CCG is sweeter if it takes that spot away from the team up north, and the Buckeyes have too proud a history to be begging for twosies for the wimp.
“Of course it is. OSU plays for B10 titles. Anything else is failure. By your logic, the IN game matters.”
By your logic The Game may as well be played as the season kickoff, because it doesn’t matter any more than any other game ~ the John Cooper philosophy. But in the real world, the right to play in the CCG is most likely to be on the line at the last game of the season. That’s why The Game should be played at the end of the regular season: any other position in the regular season disrespects it.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“you just redefine The Game”
Or you do. It depends what one considers the definition of The Game to be. To me, it’s OSU vs MI in football, period. You make a more elaborate definition and then say this new regime doesn’t fit it.
“With that school up north cross division, there are four possible results: both go, we go, they go, neither goes. With that school up north in division, there are three possible results, we go, they go, neither goes.”
Yes.
“The second set of results is preferable to the first:”
To you. That’s the part you left out of your sentence.
“By your logic The Game may as well be played as the season kickoff, because it doesn’t matter any more than any other game”
Wrong. Tradition still matters. But being in division does mean The Game doesn’t mean more than any other game outside of rivalry purposes.
” ~ the John Cooper philosophy.”
Wrong. He knew it meant more, he just always choked.
“That’s why The Game should be played at the end of the regular season: any other position in the regular season disrespects it.”
I never said it should move. You’re arguing with your own straw man.
This discussion is pointless. We both know the other is wrong and neither of us is going to change our mind.
LikeLike
“It depends what one considers the definition of The Game to be. To me, it’s OSU vs MI in football, period.”
And to me, its the concrete tradition since before I was born ~ last game of the regular season, alternating between the two historic stadiums, under grey flannel Great Lakes skies, bragging rights with our Michigan relatives settled once for the rest of the year until its played again the following year. “Oh Goodie Goodie, Bo Beat Woody”, “Well, hello, I see Woody Beat Bo”. Previous few traditions survive over half a century, no need to monkey around with that one with do-over games, but come back to Ohio from SEC country or the Caribbean or across the Pacific, that’s a constant.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“last game of the regular season,”
Which it would be regardless.
“alternating between the two historic stadiums,”
What if somebody builds a new one instead of renovating? Will The Game disappear?
“under grey flannel Great Lakes skies,”
Except when the sky is blue, or does that ruin it too?
“bragging rights with our Michigan relatives settled once for the rest of the year until its played again the following year.”
A second game was not an option until two years ago. Using the lack of one before that as a reason not to have one now is just an argument against divisions, not an argument against The Game being in division.
LikeLike
“Except when the sky is blue, or does that ruin it too?”
Oh, there’s a risk of that happening, but there’s nothing that the Big Ten can do about that risk except scheduling the game in late November to minimize the risk.
“A second game was not an option until two years ago.”
Yes, its true that there was never before any risk of having a neutral site replay a week later to overturn the result of The Game. The fact that the option now exists to include that risk is not in an of itself a reason to take that risk.
“Using the lack of one before …”
Assuming there was anything lacking due to the absence of that risk is begging the question.
” … that as a reason not to have one now”
You skipped over the “and the strength of the rivalry without one” part of the argument, didn’t you. Surely the burden of proof is on the people who want to tamper with the success of the standing arrangement
“… is just an argument against divisions, not an argument against The Game being in division.”
There surely is an argument against having divisions at all lurking in there, but that battle has already been lost. The present argument is that, as a regular season game, the biggest thing that The Game can be for under a division system is the right to play in the CCG, and having that be either/or but not both is what lends the greatest possible drama TO The Game under a division system.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Yes, its true that there was never before any risk of having a neutral site replay a week later to overturn the result of The Game. The fact that the option now exists to include that risk is not in an of itself a reason to take that risk.”
It’s also not a reason not to.
“Assuming there was anything lacking due to the absence of that risk is begging the question.”
No, it’s a statement of fact. There was no CCG before 2011. It’s prior non-existence is not an argument against splitting OSU and MI.
“You skipped over the “and the strength of the rivalry without one” part of the argument, didn’t you.”
No, I didn’t skip it. There is no evidence to indicate if or how the rivalry would be different if the CCG had always existed and OSU and MI were split.
“Surely the burden of proof is on the people who want to tamper with the success of the standing arrangement”
Surely not. Either arrangement is a change from the 100+ years that built the rivalry. The discussion is which change is a better choice, not change versus the status quo. In fact, OSU and MI are already split so you are the one arguing for change. You should provide proof that it’s an improvement, not me. I didn’t note the rivalry collapsing due to the current arrangement.
“The present argument is that, as a regular season game, the biggest thing that The Game can be for under a division system is the right to play in the CCG, and having that be either/or but not both is what lends the greatest possible drama TO The Game under a division system.”
That’s your argument, not the argument.
LikeLike
Ravin,
“Michigan and Ohio State in the same division would be great for the B1G Conference (and other CFB football fans) but not necessarily for UM and OSU. One of those schools will lose twice, neither the Division nor the Conference Champions. If not, then please as protected cross-overs.”
Even the B10 HQ isn’t dumb enough to not lock The Game.
“Schedule the game in October.”
Are you insane? Do you not remember the reaction of the fans to talk of moving it to early November?
“The rivalry may actually prosper if there would not be so much hype as the last game of the season.”
It does just fine in November, thank you.
LikeLike
The BTN.com survey got it right. There are three priorities for conference structuring and scheduling: rivalries, geography and competitive balance. The best solution maximizes all three. Anything less is unsatisfactory for monetary and stability reasons.
(As disclosure, my personal preference is UM and OSU in the same division and playing the last game of the season.)
Expanding to 16 schools and using pod scheduling may alleviate this situation as follows:
Using examples (also for division names):
Legends Pod: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Rutgers
Leaders Pod: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern
West Pod: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
East Pod: Illinois, Maryland, Army, Navy
Divisions alternate every 2 years and 2 cross-over games alternate every 2 years.
Illustrating the idea by example schedules for selected teams (all as home/away series)
Years 1&2 (Legends West, Leaders East Divisions):
Penn State: Rutgers, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Maryland: Illinois, Army, Navy, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Years 3&4: (Legends East, Leaders West Divisions):
Penn State: Rutgers, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Army, Navy, Ohio State, Northwestern,
Maryland: Illinois, Army, Navy, Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue
BUT STILL CLUMSY
LikeLike
Adding Army and Navy might be fine from an academic perspective, but athletically they simply couldn’t cut it against megasized state flagships. Yes, Navy holds its own in football, but look at its schedule aside from Army and Notre Dame — rarely do the Mids (or Army) schedule anyone else of BCS caliber, aside from smaller private institutions such as Wake Forest.
LikeLike
Even Navy really hasn’t held its own (other than in the 2006-2009 period), with > .500 records typically being the function of really bad schedules as opposed to indicating true quality (their record vs AQ’s, even with most of their games against lower-end AQ’s like Duke or Rutgers, hasn’t been awesome). Don’t forget, this was a program who lost an all-time record (that probably will never fall) 43 games in a row to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
No. Army and Navy are terrible and they’ll never return to their former glory.
You might as well bank on Harvard and Yale becoming perennial powerhouses once again.
LikeLike
Ravin,
“Expanding to 16 schools and using pod scheduling may alleviate this situation as follows:
Using examples (also for division names):
Legends Pod: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Rutgers
Leaders Pod: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern
West Pod: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
East Pod: Illinois, Maryland, Army, Navy”
No.
1. Army and Navy are never being added.
2. What did IL do to deserve that pod?
3. Splitting groups and using multiple locked games stinks.
4. Balance. Your plan has none.
5. Why would you keep L. & L. as names? That’s should be a criminal offense.
LikeLike
“Why would you keep L. & L. as names? That’s should be a criminal offense.”
If not criminal, certainly committable.
LikeLike
Army and Navy were used as “examples” so as not offend certain sensibilities (i.e. B1G imperialism). The main point here is to demonstrate that “pod scheduling” does not require rotating through four pod combinations. For 9-game conference schedules, there is still the need of 2 cross-over games, so only one rotation is needed. As long as every school can play all other schools as home/away series during any 4-year period, then there is no need to “lock-in” cross-overs, only to select how the rotation is scheduled. In essence, a school plays the three schools in its SCHEDULING POD every year, and all other remaining schools at least twice very four years. But yeah, the division names are dumb.
LikeLike
Had you listed Army and Navy as “hypothetical” cases and not actual ones, perhaps the reaction would have been less virulent. (Though using the term “B1G imperialism” doesn’t help your case.)
LikeLike
If the two examples had been Georgia Tech and Virginia, do you think that the SEC and B1G would cooperate and allow Illinois and Georgia Tech to swap their last games of the season with Missouri and Georgia (as out-of-conference games)?
LikeLike
GT/UGA sure. They already play then. IL hasn’t said they want to play MO annually, let alone the last week.
LikeLike
Army and Navy were used as “examples” so as not offend certain sensibilities…
I kind of figured that. But everyone knows that pods work mathematically. The challenge is the competitive balance and preserving rivalries, which cannot be evaluated without knowing the actual teams.
Right now, the Big Ten fits into four natural clusters:
Plains: (Wisconsin, Minnesota), (Iowa, Nebraska)
Midwest: (Purdue, Indiana), (Illinois, Northwestern)
Lakes: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
East: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers
If the next two Big Ten teams are Virginia and Vanderbilt — this is a deliberately unlikely example — they could slot into the East and Lakes respectively, and none of the natural partners would need to be disrupted.
If the next two Big Ten teams are Virginia and Georgia Tech, one of the two (probably GT) draws a short straw, and has to go into the Lakes, losing Virginia and Maryland as logical annual games.
That doesn’t work if the next two teams are Virginia and North Carolina. GT might accept being split off from Virginia, but there’s no way North Carolina would. In that case, your east pod is probably PSU/MD/UVA/UNC;. Rutgers draws the short straw, and gets kicked over to the Lakes.
If one of the next two Big Ten teams is Kansas, then they’re really hosed, because the Plains pod is the only one that makes sense, but you can’t put them there without breaking up a very natural quartet of teams that want to play every year.
In 18- and 20-team B1G scenarios, these types of problems multiply.
LikeLike
Actually, my main point is that 3 divisions of 6 teams each is the most attractive solution. But that argument does not seem persuasive until a person examines all other options.
How about this crazy idea:
YEARS 1&2, YEARS 5&6, ETC
LEADERS EAST: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Purdue
LEGENDS WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
YEARS 3&4, YEARS 7&8, ETC
LEADERS WEST: Ohio State, Rutgers, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
LEGENDS EAST: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, Virginia, North Carolina
In Years 1&2, Penn State and Maryland plays Ohio State and Rutgers as cross-overs, thus each playing two east coast teams for those seasons.
In Years 3&4, Virginia and North Carolina play Illinois and Northwestern as cross-overs, but play Nebraska and Iowa in the division.
Substituting Georgia Tech for North Carolina would also work. I guess Virginia would cooperate and schedule Virginia Tech as last game of the season to allow the Yellow Jackets to play their hated rival as last games of the season also.
Finally, I have already discussed the merits (and key issues) of 3 divisions of 6 teams and will not repeat here. If Duke would be one of those schools, then they can play in the Central Division but for football only (the East Division for all other sports). Then Penn State can play in the East Division. The Spartans need a rival game as last game of the season. The Blue Devils can have their revenge in basketball season.
LikeLike
And in Years 3&4 Penn State and Rutgers play Michigan and Michigan State.
And in Years 1&2 Virginia and North Carolina play Wisconsin and Minnesota.
LikeLike
Correction:
And in Years 3&4 Penn State and Maryland play Michigan and Michigan State
LikeLike
Actually, this scheme works best as follows (Nebraska and Iowa also benefit):
YEARS 1&2, YEARS 5&6, ETC
LEADERS: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Northwestern
LEGENDS: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
YEARS 3&4, YEARS 7&8, ETC
LEADERS: Ohio State, Rutgers, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
LEGENDS: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Illinois, Northwestern, Virginia, North Carolina
LikeLike
Until the NCAA rules otherwise, a three-division plan is off the table.
LikeLike
Until the NCAA rules otherwise, a three-division plan is off the table.
As long as we’re discussing hypotheticals, like an 18-20 team Big Ten, hypothetical rule changes are a legitimate topic of discussion as well.
I am not personally in favor of the three-division plan, but I think it’s more worthwhile to discuss its merits substantively, rather than just to keep pointing out that it is against the rules. Rules can change.
LikeLike
As long as we’re discussing hypotheticals, like an 18-20 team Big Ten, hypothetical rule changes are a legitimate topic of discussion as well.
Fair enough, but as difficult as Delany will find it in expanding the Big Ten to 18 members, based on my years of following the NCAA and its machinations, there’s a far more remote chance it will allow conferences to adopt three-division play for football. I still believe that if the Big Ten does expand to 18, a two-division setup with three floating members from each division is the most expedient approach, both internally (to satisfy all 18 members as best as possible) and externally (to placate the NCAA).
LikeLike
@ Ravin ~ I agree that 3 divisions and a two round playoff, division champs and wild card, is the most attractive structure for a 15 or 18 team schedule. When I lean toward West and South anchor groups and central swing groups, its not because I prefer that to a three division schedule, but as a system explicitly designed to comply with present NCAA rules. The discussions of what to do if we could rewrite the NCAA rules and what to do under the current rules are two distinct discussions. All we can do is make clear which discussion we are having, and look at things within the scope of that particular discussion.
I took it that Marc Shepherd was talking about a 16 team 4-group lineup under the constraint of NCAA rules, but given his later comment, I guess it was more generally.
Independent of the NCAA rules, there is the concern that explains the long standing NCAA resistance against expanding the number of games ~ the student-athlete hypocrisy which is the fundamental platform for the NCAA as a collusive labor monoposonist for minor league football and basketball. That is a fundamental rationalization for why they get away with what they get away with, and so every expansion of the number of football games ~ most recently, going from 11 to 12 in the 80’s and converting the NCG into a semi-final / final format in 2014 ~ is going to face resistance.
And the fact that the quad system doesn’t encounter that resistance is a point in its favor.
When I was young, a Big Ten school played every school, every year, but then Penn State was invited in, and we went to seeing some schools four times in a four year cycle and some schools two times.
And we also get to hold onto that with the quad system, by playing one division line up home and away, and then swapping the two central quads and playing a second division line up home and away. That takes 7 games, with one quad that you never see in division (opposite ends, two central groups), so you play one half of the quad home and away, and then the other half home and away, and that’s the schedule.
I honestly don’t know whether its best to do the flip in the cross-division games at the same time as swapping quads, so its two different schedules, or to do the flip midway, so its four different schedules. I’d like the variety of the midway flip, and it means that if perchance one version of the schedule is particular imbalanced (which could, after all, sometime only require a late blooming pair of dominant inside linebackers at a school nobody expected to be that strong) you only have to wait a year before you get some relief.
LikeLike
The only way the Big 10 pulls UNC away from ACC is if it adds a minimum of 3 other major, truly southern schools (FSU, Duke, GT, UVA, etc). I have zero doubt about this.
LikeLike
Thanks for allowing me to post on this Blog and exchange constructive comments.
My efforts are indeed aimed at keeping The Game an important part of B1G football. And the best way to achieve this aim is to identify simple and viable models for structuring the conference and scheduling the conference games. Such model should attract the interest of as many schools as possible, including new entrants.
For a 14-school model: The BTN survey presented 2 of 3 options that include Michigan and Ohio State in the same division. Thus the odds are favorable that The Game endures.
For an 18-school model: The idea of “3 divisions of 6 teams” originates from -www.mrsec.com- and was adopted as a model to attract Notre Dame into the conference. But then it prevents Penn State from moving into the East Division. Anyway, the collective voice of 18 prominent university presidents would carry much weight concerning any rule changes (or temporary waivers).
For a 20-school model: In my opinion, possible only as the “B1G Alliance”.
For a 16-school model: This seems to be most difficult model to formulate, but also has the highest chance of occuring. (The model presented here is similar to the model used by WAC in 1996.)
Thanks to the brainstorming efforts provided by this Blog, at least I have identified a 16-school model which gives me satisfaction, in that:
(a) New entrants (in this hypothetical example, Virginia and North Carolina) can be attractively paired with two top-notch universities including away games in a world-class city, with moderate traveling for all other away games on annual basis;
(b) Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division (always) and the Spartans have an attractive year-end rival (Rutgers);
(c) Penn State and Maryland can also be year-end rivals, while playing at least Rutgers or Virginia (as hypothetical example) every two years on home/away basis;
(d) Moderate travelling can also be scheduled for Nebraska and Iowa, with either Wisconsin and Minnesota, or Northwestern and Illinois on the schedule every year;
(e) At first, the schools in the rotating pods may be uncomfortable switching divisions every two years, but it’s the same trophy that the other four schools compete, and anyway they get to play their rivals at the end of the season every year (if that is their desire); and
(f) The model is simple enough to understand, home/away series are easy to schedule, and every school plays another school at least two times every four years.
For me, the speculation is now over, and I can rest in peace and sleep better at nights knowing that there is at least ONE 16-school model that allows The Game to keeps its rightful place in the universe.
Division names? Actually, the least important issue in this whole discussion.
(Ted Nugent: The names may suck, but they suck the least.)
LikeLike
“Big imperialism ” is in your head . There are no guns ,no threats they are not needed, all who join the Big do so for their own reasons . Better schools, more money ,more varsity sports and no one ever leaves to name a few.
LikeLike
Hey! Michigander AND Wolverine (Class of 89) here! Do you know who is Dale Carnegie?
LikeLike
Yeah! Third-stringer, after Devin Gardner (red-shirt junior) and Shane Morris (red-shirt freshman). See yah in The Big House!
LikeLike
If UM and OSU are not in the same division (for whatever reason and decided by someone else than me) then consideration should be given to playing the The Game earlier in the season as protected cross-over. If the rivaly means that much, then it should not matter WHEN the game is played.
LikeLike
They DID consider that. The fans absolutely hated it.
LikeLike
The fact that the rivalry means that much is why The Game should be the last regular season game, played under late fall cotton flannel skies.
LikeLike
The fact that UM and OSU are in separate divisions but The Game is still played as the last game of the season suggests that 12 schools was never the final target. If OSU, PSU and UM are in the same division, then 14 schools is not either.
LikeLike
As personal suggestion (not necessarily the best of all possible worlds) for B1G football with 14 schools:
EAST: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland
WEST: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois
Protected cross-overs in the sequence above;
Rotate the remaining cross-overs as home/away series for 6-year periods; and
Maryland and Illinois as last game of the season.
LikeLike
Most of those crossovers are really, really ugly. Monkeys drawing balls out of an urn could have come up with them. Where there isn’t some historical or competitive reason for a crossover, the schedule should just “float,” so that those teams get to play other teams in the league more often.
For instance, if you lock just UM/MSU — the only one there that is actually mandatory — then most schools would see each other home & home in a four-year period, rather than a six-year period.
LikeLike
The problem with moving MSU west and then locking MSU and UM (which you have to do) is that the remaining western teams get to see UM much less often. That’s why, if you have to have static divisions, the “best” option is to move Purdue west and then lock IU and Purdue (but nobody else), which then ends up being the one crossover games at the end of the year.
I still think that the conference should go to pods/groups/whatever you want to call them, now – even with an eight-game schedule, you can play everyone twice every four years, which preserves rivalries, integrates the newbies much faster without assigning them meaningless crossover games with teams from the west that they have no history with, and helps alleviate non-competitiveness, since the divisions will change every year. But it won’t happen.
LikeLike
The problem with moving MSU west and then locking MSU and UM (which you have to do) is that the remaining western teams get to see UM much less often.
It isn’t much less. With MSU in the west, UM would see the other western teams one year out of every three (0.333). With MSU in the east, UM would see the other western teams three years out of every seven (0.428), assuming an equal rotation. The difference of 0.095 percent is one game every 10½ years.
I still think that the conference should go to pods/groups/whatever you want to call them, now – even with an eight-game schedule, you can play everyone twice every four years, which preserves rivalries, integrates the newbies much faster without assigning them meaningless crossover games with teams from the west that they have no history with, and helps alleviate non-competitiveness, since the divisions will change every year. But it won’t happen.
You’re right: won’t happen. For one thing, they have already decided to play nine games, so that ship has sailed. They were burned by leaders/legends, and this time I think they want something straightforward that will instantly make sense to everybody. They’ve already leaked the east/west split as a trial balloon, and no one is up in arms, so I’m almost positive they’ll go with that.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It isn’t much less. With MSU in the west, UM would see the other western teams one year out of every three (0.333). With MSU in the east, UM would see the other western teams three years out of every seven (0.428), assuming an equal rotation. The difference of 0.095 percent is one game every 10½ years.”
In addition, the western teams would play OSU more further reducing the issue.
LikeLike
With MSU in the East, Purdue would now be locked, so TSUN would still see Purdue 1/3 (0.333). For the other six, its 4/9 (0.444 … three games out of a 9 year cycle to Purdue leaves 24 games to spread across six, or four games each). Still only 1 extra game for 9 cycles, which is awfully hard to call “a lot”.
A single rotation with one locked school is messy for H/A cycling. Putting two other Western schools in a single rotation with Purdue, leaves four schools that can play in 2on/2off pairs against TSUN. That changes the question from what SINGLE Western school would TSUN like to see more often, to which FOUR schools would TSUN like to see more often.
One way that slots together neatly with with three locked schools and four unlocked schools:
West: Purdue, Illinois, NW | WI, MN | UNL, IA
East: Indiana, OSU, MSU | TSUN, Rutgers | PSU, MD
For a locked school (arbitrarily call its partner L1, the other two locked schools L2 and L3, the other four unlocked schools U1-U4), every cross division school other than the lock plays every third year:
Year 1: L1, L2, U1
Year 2: L1, L3, U2
Year 3: L1, U3, U4
Year 4: L1, L2, U1
Year 5: L1, L3, U2
Year 6: L1, U3, U4 … and so on
For an unlocked school, only the locked schools in the opposing division are every third year, the unlocked schools are 2on, 2off:
Year 1: L1, U1, U2
Year 2: L2, U1, U2
Year 3: L3, U3, U4
Year 4: L1, U3, U4
Year 5: L2, U1, U2
Year 6: L3, U1, U2 … and so on
LikeLike
@unproductive
You’re making an assumption that the schools in the western division want to see Michigan more, not less. That might not necessarily be true.
The Big Ten is expected to go to a nine-conference game schedule and we’re getting mixed reports about whether or not the conference is going to continue to schedule FCS (Division 1-AA) opponents as part of the non-conference slate.
If a program is seeking to be in a bowl each season and is looking to have at least six wins, then avoiding Michigan might make sense as a strategy. Minnesota, for example, might be happier to play Indiana or Rutgers rather than UM.
We can bepretty certain that the conference is not going to adopt the nine-game conference schedule any earlier than 2016. So for the 2014/5 seasons, we’re looking at eight conference games with six of them between teams in the same division (assumes 14 teams in the B1G during this time frame). If MSU is in the west, then at best for those two seasons, Michigan will play one other western team in a home-and-home series.
In 2016, Michigan would then play MSU plus two of the other six western teams on the conference schedule. That means (if the B1G has a home-and-home for these games), it’ll take six years for UM to get through those six teams.
Of course, the probability that the conference will be at 14 teams in 2016 is probably less than 50 percent. If expansion to 16 or more teams takes place, we may well be looking at a pod system with four pods containing 4 or 5 teams apiece depending on the conference size.
IRT pods, I think most people on this board are agreed that if no more teams comes from the Midwest (ex. Kansas), then one likely four-team pod is Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin due to their geographic proximity and because those programs want to play one another.
The other pod assumption is that Penn State would want to be in the far eastern pod in order to play teams from the mid-Atlantic states. Right now, that’s Maryland and Rutgers. But if two more ACC teams are added to the conference (such as Virginia and North Carolina), then it might be problematic to get PSU into the far eastern pod.
I think the other guidelines we look at regarding pods is making sure that the instate teams are together (Illinois with Northwestern and Indiana with Purdue) and Michigan along with Ohio State are also in the same pod. Obviously, keeping rivalry games in place as much as possible is also key here.
Assuming UVA and UNC were to become the 15th and 16th members of the conference, the pods could go like this:
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Midwest: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Mideast: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
East: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
The West and Mideast pods are permanently in their respective divisions while the other pods (Midwest, East) alternate between divisions every two years. In this way, teams would play one another at least twice in a two year period.
For example, this is what Michigan”s nine conference opponents would look like over a four-year time frame:
Years 1 & 2 (Mideast and East Pod form division)
Mideast Pod (3): Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
East Pod (4): Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
West Pod (2): Nebraska, Minnesota
Years 3 & 4 (Mideast and Midwest Pod form division)
Mideast Pod (3): Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Midwest Pod (4): Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
West Pod (2): Iowa, Wisconsin
To solve the “Penn State problem”, you could swap PSU with Rutgers and place Penn State in the East pod with the former ACC teams (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina) while Rutgers goes to the Mideast pod with UM, MSU and OSU. For those three teams, it would probably ensure they play at least one game physically on the east coast three years out of four with Rutgers in their pod.
LikeLike
We should not be making assumptions about Schools coming here until they actually do. My solution (Although I do not think it will happen), is to keep Michigan & Michigan State out West. West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern & Purdue (Along with The Michigan Schools). East: Penn State, Ohio St, Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin. Protected Crossover games: 1: Ohio State/Michigan. 2: Penn State/Nebraska. 3: Illinois/Northwestern. 4: Indiana/Purdue. 5: Wisconson/Iowa. The other schools (Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota & Michigan State) can alternate games. The only key game they gets lost is Iowa/Minnesota (And the Gophers keep Michigan). Even Ohio State/Illinois gets kept and the “Penn State problem” is solved.
LikeLike
We should not be making assumptions about Schools coming here until they actually do.
Heavens…what would we talk about?
LikeLike
Hahaha. So you leave out Wisconsin/Minnesota rivalry. Each school’s number one priority. Wisconsin wants to play its western rivals (Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska).
LikeLike
Sorry. Last reply was to David Brown. Not cutter.
LikeLike
cutter ~ when looking for an example of a Western school that might not WANT to play Michigan so often, you might consider passing over Minnesota. Even if they don’t win a lot of the Little Brown Jug games, they seem to want to keep playing them.
LikeLike
Wisconsin is going to be in the west, I don’t think that is even open for the debate among the deciders. I see the issue being where to place the ‘middle 5’ (MIchigan, MSU, Indiana, Purdue & Ohio State)…
The six in the West are Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern. They need just one of the ‘middle 5’ with the remaining four joining Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland in the east.
There aren’t any perfect solutions, my solution is splitting Indiana/Purdue and have them play a 10th conference game (or OOC) if they wish. It would likely be the last game of the season, so if they don’t want that game to count in the standings (be OOC) than they are free for it to not count.
LikeLike
What particular problem is that solution of having Indiana/Purdue play a 10th game solving? Putting either Indiana and Purdue in the West and having Indiana/Purdue as the only locked cross division game would work. It can be the final game of the season, and in the west, everything settles down, with UNL/IA Black Friday, MN/WI, IL/NW. In the East, if PSU/MD/Rutgers/MSU doesn’t settle down into two obvious pairs, then no need to make an artificial one … have some kind of rotation.
LikeLike
@wmwolverine: The conference isn’t going to screw two of its members like that. Every other conference member is being given at least one annual rivalry that they really want, and several are being given more. It would be ridiculous to tell Indiana and Purdue that you can’t figure out a way for them to play every year as part of the conference.
(Purdue would be really screwed, because they also have the annual Notre Dame game, which they intend to keep, so in your system they’d be down to just one OOC game that they control.)
LikeLike
You have to split one of Michigan/ Michigan State or Indiana/Purdue unless Ohio State wants in the west, which from what I’ve heard (I have a great deal of family in Ohio) I don’t believe they have any interest in…
Once you split them, you’re forcing at least one out of division game to be played every season, meaning everyone is playing those programs that much less. This is a scenario I don’t like and many others don’t care for either yet it looks like it’s nearly a must in a 14-team B10…
Michigan has a strong preference to be with Ohio State and to be in the east along with Penn State, Rutgers & Maryland and won’t miss many of its western rivals (namely just Minnesota)… That leaves you with the choice of just 1 of the middle three in the ‘west’: Purdue, Indiana or MSU…
MSU has shown interest both in being in the west AND wanting to be in the same division as Michigan, I’m unsure where they stand. Splitting these two cuts off a lot of the Midwest universities for Michigan and the northeast for Michigan State but more importantly, the western schools really want to play Michigan as much as possible for the large crowds when UofM comes to their stadium…
The same is true of Indiana and Purdue about cutting off the northeast for one and the west for the other. I think these two are the most logical split. I’m very supportive having Indiana/Purdue being the only cross division rivalry game in the B10; it’s the scenario I support the most… I’ve also proposed a scenario where these two can switch divisions every four years (or whatever time frame) so they aren’t relegated to one division and both receive access to the east and west for rivalry, media and recruiting purposes…
There is no perfect solution to the B10’s division alignment with 14 universities, I really don’t know what Indiana & Purdue want; they’ve been as quiet as anyone regarding conference/division alignment and would love to hear from there fans on what they’d like to see. My idea of Indiana & Purdue playing an extra conference game (or OOC )is merely an idea I threw out there to appease everyone else so they wouldn’t lose rivalries with these schools and of course, any such proposal would need to have 100% support of both the University of Indiana and Purdue University.
LikeLike
@wmwolverine: I think Purdue and MSU are the only schools under consideration to “go west”. We know they want Michigan and Ohio State in the same division. And they’re not going to send Indiana to the west, because you’d have two perennial weaklings in the same division: them and Minnesota.
So it’s Purdue or Michigan State. I’m neutral as to which one: there are pros and cons either way. It’s true that if you have locked rivals, it means the rest of the opposite division sees the “locked” team less often. But the difference isn’t as big as people seem to think. For any given team, it amounts to two games every 21 years.
I cannot imagine them forcing a team to play its main rival as an OOC game. No solution is perfect, but that’s an imperfection they won’t accept.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF
As a Michigan alum, I’ll be first to acknowledge the long history of play between the Wolverines and the Golden Gophers along, of course, with the Little Brown Jug.
But I use Minnesota as an example because they recently cancelled their home-and-home series with North Carolina for the 2013/4 seasons and have the following teams on their future schedules through 2016: Western Illinois, San Jose State, Eastern Illinois, Middle Tennessee State, South Dakota State, Kent State, Indiana State and New Mexico State. See http://minnesota.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1422994
Also go here for more scheduling information – http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/minnesota-golden-gophers.php
This isn’t exactly a Murderer’s Row for Minnesota in terms of non-conference scheduling, but it gives every indication that they’re looking at getting four wins out of those teams in 2014/5.
If they’re in the Western Division, that means annual games with Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa are pretty certain. Add Northwestern and Illinois as major probabilities with Michigan State as a 50-50 possibility at this point along with Purdue. Finally, of course, there are two eastern teams to round out the list.
Given that overall schedule and the desire to be bowl eligible, I could see why they might not want to play Michigan or Ohio State in addition to that line up above. I rather suspect they’d like to see Indiana and perhaps Maryland instead.
LikeLike
wmwolverine: “Once you split them, you’re forcing at least one out of division game to be played every season, meaning everyone is playing those programs that much less. This is a scenario I don’t like and many others don’t care for either yet it looks like it’s nearly a must in a 14-team B10…”
Work that out. It is a simple single rotation, then over the course of 9 seasons, the locked division plays the unlocked schools 3 times. That means that the unlocked schools have 24 games to fill out of the other six, so they’d see the unlocked schools 4 times.
So there’s “much less” in your terms: 1 fewer time over 9 years. If its home and away rotation, 2 fewer times over 18 years.
It maybe that you are thinking of 8 conference games, and that would indeed have a substantial impact. Over the course of six seasons with single rotation, the locked school plays the unlocked schools once. In that six seasons, an unlocked school would see five cross division schools twice, so while its not precisely 2:1, its close. But they seem to have realized that two cross division games aren’t really enough, so that seems likely to be a moot point.
LikeLike
Purdue/IU have to be in the same division or a protected crossover. 100+ years of playing each other. The beauty of the B1G is that they understand that and will protect it.
LikeLike
@Bruce McF-
The reason why Minnesota stood out for me is that the Golden Gophers have clearly been lightening their non-conference slate. Back in October 2012, UMinn cancelled a home and home with North Carolina and replaced that series with New Mexico State the following month. If you look at their non-conference schedule, you also see a number of FCS/Division 1-AA teams on it–go to http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/minnesota-golden-gophers.php
It’s obvious that these changes were in the works prior to the formal announcements that Rutgers and Maryland were joining the conference. So any thought about being in a different division or even playing in a nine-game conference schedule weren’t part of the equation.
But now that those are reality, what is Minnesota looking at here? The first revolves around the question of B1G teams scheduling FCS teams such as the Golden Gophers are doing. If the conference really does set out a policy to do this, then UMinn is going to have to look elsewhere for some of its non-conference opponents. It’s not an impossible task, and seeing that the Big Ten is looking at going to nine conference games by 2016, it’s perhaps a bit easier bringing in three teams on an annual basis that are, for lack of a better work, relatively beatable (which is why, for example, NMSU is on the schedule and UNC is off of it).
It’s very likely that Minnesota will be in the western division of the expanded Big Ten starting in 2014. Their current division opponents in the Legends are Michigan, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State and Nebraska. The new western division is going to probably lose Michigan and gain Wisconsin and Illinois with the status of MSU still undecided at this point. By and large, though, the teams in their present division (Legends) are going to be roughly the same as a theoretical Western Division in 2014.
I just think that Minnesota has embarked on a scheduling strategy that gets them in a position to get six wins and be bowl eligible. Through 2014/5, four of those wins are going to come from the non-conference slate–after that, it will probably be three. The other victories will have to come from within the division plus the two games they’ll play in 2014/5 with teams from the east. In the short term, with Illinois being the only program in the west that’s kind of on the ropes right now, I just don’t see them hankering to make their B1G schedule more difficult be wanting to keep Michigan on the slate. My guess is they’d rather prefer playing Indiana or Purdue or maybe Maryland over the Wolverines.
LikeLike
@cutter: To be sure Minnesota looks like they are aiming to hit 6-6 and go bowling down in the tail end of the long list of Big10 bowl tie-ins. That means if they can come out of a three game OOC schedule 2-1, they need to be 4-5 in the Big Ten; if they can come out of OOC play 3-0, they only need to be 3-6 in Big Ten play.
The difference between MSU in the West and TSUN/MSU locked, and TSUN unlocked, is an average of 1 extra game per nine season. Balanced against that, with MSU in the East and TSUN unlocked, they play Purdue every year rather than MSU, which I reckon at present they’d prefer, so on that side it looks like a wash on overall challenge of schedule. Given that, I reckon they’d rather the extra game per nine seasons against Michigan.
LikeLike
@Marc – Although technically true, is the monkey comment really necessary?
LikeLike
Sorry if you were offended; it was just meant to be a variation on the Infinite Monkey Theorem.
LikeLike
These are ugly cross-overs???? Buckeyes vs Cornhuskers Wolverines vs Spartans Penn State vs Wisconsin. For the remainder: Minnesota vs Purdue (original 7), Northwestern vs Rutgers (Chicago vs New York) ??????
LikeLike
I have not tried to schedule how such scheme would work, but it seems to me that either all teams have protected cross-over or none have.
LikeLike
No, it is not all or none. In the Pac-12, the California schools have protected crossovers, but the other schools do not.
LikeLike
No, if its home and away cycle scheduling, any mix is workable. You schedule the locked schools first, because they are more constrained, and then the unlocked schools in one division fill in the balance of their games by rotating through the unlocked schools in the other division.
If you set up one division to cycle through the other division set up as a ring, which each school starting at a different spot, it works itself out. It can take several times around the ring for either the unlocked or locked teams to repeat their year one schedule, so it can be hard to visualize some of the results, but they can be sorted out. Main thing, for strength of schedule, you want to avoid putting perennially strong schools next to each other on the ring.
It is also possible to semi-lock schools, with a school having a pair of schools it alternates between in a four year cycle, two-on, two-off; or three schools it plays through in a single rotation. Those can either be closed groups ~ one pair semi-locked with a pair in the other division, one three school group semi-locked with a three school group ~ set up in rings, or ad hoc, though if they are ad hoc they have to be used sparingly to avoid boxing yourself into a corner.
LikeLike
I shouldn’t have said ANY mix ~ if you lock six, the seventh should be locked too. But 1, 2, 3, 4 would all work, and five would work with the remaining two semi-locked against each other.
LikeLike
Radi,
“These are ugly cross-overs????”
[OSU/NE, PSU/WI, MI/MSU, IN/IA, PU/MN, RU/NW, MD/IL]
Yes. Yes they are. Why would those games be locked? You are locking games just to lock games. Just lock MI/MSU and let the rotation take care of the rest.
LikeLike
If one locked cross-over is not possible (and not verified with real and detailed examples) then it looks like we are going to get this:
LEGENDS: Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Maryland, Rutgers
LEADERS: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois
Not my idea!
LikeLike
We’ve got a real and verified example that its not necessary to lock all if you lock some … its called the Pac-12.
LikeLike
EAST: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland
WEST: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois
Supposing these divisions:
Michigan ~ Michigan State has to be a lock
EAST: TSUN,
WEST: MSU,
Cornhuskers: putting them in a division with Iowa and Minnesota maintains their deepest historic rivalries with Big 10 teams ~ in your West, they’ve played 53 games vs Minnesota and 43 vs Iowa. And they’ve played every single other member of your West more often than they’ve played the Buckeyes: 10 vs the Illini, 8 vs WI, 7 vs MSU, 6 vs Northwestern.
In your East, they’ve played 19 games against Indiana, 15 against Penn State, 8 against that school up north, 4 against the Buckeyes, 1 each against Purdue and Rutgers and had never played Maryland.
While they’ve played four more games against Indiana, some of those 15 games against Penn State were real doozies, so its likely that the preference of the Huskers would be to be locked against Penn State or just left unlocked.
And of course, OSU’s deepest series across your division boundaries is with the Illini, and if you don’t recall some of the fireworks between Penn State and the Huskers in the early 80’s, you might also not recall that the Illibuck changed owners every year in the mid-80’s, and the Illini won it for most of the early 90’s. Penn State may have been the Buckeye’s second biggest rivalry over the last decade, but your divisions already put TSUN and Penn State with the Buckeyes. Among your western schools, I’m not sure how you pass over the Illini for my dad’s Cornhuskers.
LikeLike
SIAP (sorry if already posted):
Nothing earth shattering, but found this SI list of “top ten most powerful” people in college sports to be interesting particularly compared to the one they did ten years ago.
Slive is #1 this go-round; #14 last time.
I credit blogs like this one for the #5 choice in this year’s article; the ESPN Sr. VP for college sports programming. That is, blogs like this have highlighted the importance of tv networks in college sports.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130306/most-powerful-people-college-sports/
from ten years ago.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/2003/preview/powerful_people/
either the world of college sports has really changed, or I don’t even begin to understand the top 10 from 10 years ago. ND athletic director at #3? Donna Shalala at #4? (Yes, I know, former dirc. of HHS, but still … #4?)
LikeLike
I’ll try this again:
SIAP (sorry if already posted):
Nothing earth shattering, but found this SI list of “top ten most powerful” people in college sports to be interesting particularly compared to the one they did ten years ago.
Slive is #1 this go-round; #14 last time.
I credit blogs like this one for the #5 choice in this year’s article; the ESPN Sr. VP for college sports programming. That is, blogs like this have highlighted the importance of tv networks in college sports.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130306/most-powerful-people-college-sports/
LikeLike
From ten years ago.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/2003/preview/powerful_people/
either the world of college sports has really changed, or I don’t even begin to understand the top 10 from 10 years ago. ND athletic director at #3? Donna Shalala at #4? (Yes, I know, former dirc. of HHS, but still … #4?)
LikeLike
btw, and fyi: maybe everyone already knew this (and maybe it only applies to me). But if you put more than one link into your post, your post will not appear and will be marked as “your comment is awaiting moderation.”
LikeLike
Its annoying, but the price we pay to be free of spam I guess.
LikeLike
Yeah, but only a bit. It’s easy enough to break a comment into two section with a single link in different comments (as I did above).
What’s more annoying is not knowing in the first place and writing something long and then having it not post.
So, I decided to mention it for anyone else who did not know that particular rule.
LikeLike
The Big East Catholic 7 divorce is official.
LikeLike
C7 league will be 10 team league next year per Brett McMurphy. I assume C7, Butler, Xavier, and Creighton?
LikeLike
Creighton is the most common guess for the tenth. Its just a matter of the league deciding whether they want to travel that far west.
LikeLike
if not Creighton, then who closer can join within the next 4 months?
LikeLike
The other most credible teams are all A10 schools: speculation on the other three (after Butler and X) revolves around Creighton, SLU, Dayton, VCU and Richmond. All of them other than Creighton are A10 schools, with a $2m exit fee for leaving in under a year’s notice, $1m for leaving with over a year’s notice. If they have their picks sorted out, then if they are doing it in two steps to make the logistics easier and to cut down on the total exit fee bill, it would make sense for the two 2014 entries to be A10 teams.
LikeLike
The other issue is that the conference may not have decided which are the other two … the Blaudschun article linked to below suggests SLU, Dayton and Richmond, which is three to fit into two. They have up through June to decide without an increase in the exit fee for the two July 1 2014 entries. If they are now agreed on X, Butler and Creighton and talking over which two of SLU, Dayton and Richmond, that would be what dictates taking Creighton now, with the lower cost just a marginal bonus.
LikeLike
Blauds:
They will move quickly–perhaps as soon as next week in New York– to invite Butler, and Xavier and Creighton, which will make 10 teams for the 2013-2014 season.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5608&utm_source=FrankTheTank&utm_medium=FrankTheTank
LikeLike
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1973937
MVC short list to replace Creighton:
Denver and Belmont supposed front runners with Loyola also a possibility.
Oral Roberts considered a long shot but is receiving some support (I would think from WSU)
Apparently, being a private school is important to keep their current public/private mix stable should Creighton leave.
Belmont? I did not see that coming.
Read some media speculation that UW Milk may be a possible add but I think that was just the personal musings of one reporter.
LikeLike
I admit to not understanding the private-public concern. For a Chicago presence, UIC is a far better option than Loyola.
LikeLike
I don’t get it either. Do the remaining private schools think the public schools will somehow band together and run the show? I see alliances more formed by geography and what sports different schools emphasize
LikeLike
Per BuckeyeBeau’s link, I looked up Ed O’Bannon lawsuit and its kinda scary. Once this case hits trial its could do irreversable damage to the ncaa and the ora of collegiate amateur athletics, regardeless if it successful or not. Proactive measures need to be taken at the NCAA level and president level. If the college braintrust can be pulled together for the bowl system, it can tackle this. Implement national cap on coaching salaries…give guidelines for contracts so coaches can’t skip from school to school ‘dipping out’ on the athelets they recruited. All these restrictions on the kids: pro age limit; transfer laws; financial guidelines; but then the coaches are doing what they want unchecked. The kids have no voice during this money bubble for college athletics. Every year, take the money they noramlly would be paying the coaches and allow a ‘voting student athletic body’ to decide which education dept recieves the funds, like a quasi student govt. This will build a since of unity and responsibilty among the athletes b/c they truly will be giving back to the university. What sayeee!
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/1/31/3934886/ncaa-lawsuit-ed-obannon
LikeLike
Mezzemup,
“Implement national cap on coaching salaries”
It’s been tried and ruled illegal.
“…give guidelines for contracts so coaches can’t skip from school to school ‘dipping out’ on the athelets they recruited.”
Also probably illegal.
“The kids have no voice during this money bubble for college athletics.”
Sure they do. They could unionize. They could boycott. Plenty of them skip college or leave early. The rest choose to accept the terms and play.
LikeLike
[The players] could unionize. They could boycott. Plenty of them skip college or leave early. The rest choose to accept the terms and play.
It’s a bit of a dodge to say that, because the players accept the terms and play, the terms are what they ought to be in a free market. The NCAA has the advantage that eligibility is a wasting asset, and by the time a player could push a case through the legal system, his or her eligibility would be long past expired.
That’s what makes the O’Bannon case such a danger to the NCAA. Since O’Bannon’s days as a student-athlete are far behind him, he can afford to wait it out. The case is already nearly four years and counting, and with appeals it will might stretch out to a decade. No college kid could wait that long.
LikeLike
“It’s a bit of a dodge to say that, because the players accept the terms and play, the terms are what they ought to be in a free market.”
I didn’t say that. I disputed that they don’t have a say. But they do accept the terms just like people accept the terms their employer offers. It doesn’t mean they are good terms, but people accept them. Frankly, grad students get screwed over much worse than athletes.
LikeLike
“free market” is an ideological term ~ a “free” competitive market is expected to have one kind of outcome, a “free” monopolistic or monopsonistic market is expected to have a quite different kind of outcome.
LikeLike
Feel free to keep arguing with yourself, but you haven’t said anything relevant to what I said in several posts in this thread.
LikeLike
People voluntarily “accepting the terms” is surely relevant to whether its a “free” market, which Mark Shepherd raised, as a “free market” typically includes “free to abuse market power”. It is not the deciding factor on whether there is an abuse of market power by an association attempting to act like a monopsonist. Lots of market power abuses involve contracts where both the party abusing their market power and the party harmed by that abuse both voluntarily “accepted the terms”.
LikeLike
Then raise it with him, not me. It wasn’t relevant to my point when he brought it up, either.
LikeLike
Except that the question of market power is quite relevant to the argument that: ” But they do accept the terms just like people accept the terms their employer offers. It doesn’t mean they are good terms, but people accept them.”
Market regulation in this country first started rejecting that as a universal excuse for the abuse of market power under Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, the pendulum swings back and forth on that, and so this might be a good time for the NCAA to have this decided, since the pendulum may well have swung as far back to the first Gilded Age as its likely to do.
LikeLike
It’s still irrelevant. I said they have a say and they do. Trainees for many professions have to suffer through years of crap to get the job they want. It’s their choice and nobody makes them do it. They all have a say, too. The rest is you two putting words in my mouth so you can argue economic theory. I have zero interest in having that discussion, so you two can feel free to have it with each other.
LikeLike
“I said they have a say and they do.”
You disputed a claim, that they have no voice in this money bubble.
The fact that they can either take or decline the offer that is made available to them does not on its own imply that they have voice. If they were to form an effective union, then they would have voice, but they haven’t done and it may not be feasible to do. If they were to stage an effective boycott then they would have voice, but it seems highly unlikely that it could be pulled off.
Most of them, with the general exception of those seeking a minor league football scholarship to pursue a pro football career, can effectively opt out of the system and pursue a different path, but opting out of a system is not having a voice in that system.
LikeLike
@Brian: Perhaps you can clarify your point, as I am not quite getting it. You disputed the claim that the players have no say, but your only evidence of that, was things they haven’t done (unionize, boycott, skip college). The absence of action is not equivalent to “having a voice.”
Before modern labor laws, many workers toiled in unsafe conditions, because they preferred work to starvation. No sensible person would suggest that since they accepted those terms, they had any say in them. I am not saying college athletics are as bad as that, only pointing out the obvious difference between acquiescing in an arrangement (because the alternatives are worse) and actually having a say in it.
One could argue (as university presidents surely do) that the players are getting a great deal, but that’s a quite different proposition from whether the players ever had a say in it.
LikeLike
The only say the athlete has is to accept it or not go. There are no restrictions at the highest levels in almost all Olympic sports, baseball, soccer, and hockey. The NBA had no restrictions until recently and that is a NBA issue. Anyone getting drafted by the NBA after 1 year in college will get drafted if they spent that year playing pro ball in Europe. Football is about the only sport where there is little alternative to playing college ball if the goal is to go pro.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You disputed the claim that the players have no say, but your only evidence of that, was things they haven’t done (unionize, boycott, skip college).”
But they have done some of those things. There is a unionization movement out there but many players choose not to sign on. Many players choose other routes than college (minor league baseball, overseas hoops, minor hockey, semipro football, etc). Other people opt to drop sports and get a job. They have as much say as any employee does in a regulated field, and more importantly NCAA sports are not necessary to their existence.
.
LikeLike
Yep, the O’Bannon case is potentially huge. One reason O’Bannon showed up on SI’s list of “10 most powerful” people in college sports. comes in at #4.
It has been going now for 4 years. And I only recently really looked at what was being alleged and the implications.
In the meantime, I’ve begun to wonder what the NCAA would actually do. The Plaintiffs want a trust fund.
I have a feeling the NCAA will simply ban the use of player likenesses by the schools. Yes, that will mean less money for the schools, but it is the only solution. I just can’t see the NCAA agreeing/allowing money to be put aside for college players which can be accessed when they exhaust/waive their eligibility. Just too fraught with danger to pretend-amateurism.
In fact, if the NCAA is going to ‘band together’ to solve this, they should do that right now. It is bad enough that the schools make so much $$$ off the players. It’s insult to injury to get piles of $$$ from selling their likenesses too.
LikeLike
I suppose “in the meantime” should have been “since then”
LikeLike
There is something rotten in Austin apparently.
This could be big.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
I’m hearing there are at least 5 or 6 different sex scandals that are going to come out. Should be devastating. Sorry Bullet.
LikeLike
I’m hearing at least one Mizzou poster is going to be banned from this board. Should be refreshing. Sorry, Andy.
LikeLike
Bryant, Kearney, McCoy, Hicks, Applewhite. That’s all old news.
LikeLike
So 5 sex scandals. Lawyers. Lawsuits. Sounds bad.
LikeLike
But then I heard that once there was a guy on the back of a Missouri airplane who sold drugs at one point, so there’s that.
LikeLike
Missouri puts a drug dealer on its plane. UT, like any large organization, has individuals who make bad decisions. Bryant got fired because of sexual harrassment complaints. Keaney, whose attorney is dragging up all this stuff, got fired, as soon as it was discovered, for having a consensual relationship with one of her students athletes. McCoy & Hicks got drunk, went up to a room with an adult female, one had sex while the girl’s roommate called the police and convinced the girl to file charges which the police later dropped (her report basically consisted of realizing she was having sex with one of them and didn’t remember what happened before other than being in a bar and inviting them up). Players got sent home immediately from the bowl. Applewhite, then age 29, had a fling with an adult student and was punished immediately. Common theme, UT dealt with them. Also common, no criminal laws broken. Only the sexual harrassment was any law broken, only university policy.
LikeLike
Missouri allowed boosters and their friends to ride on the back of their plane as paid passengers. Unknown to them was that one had sold drugs. After he was caught, he was no longer allowed on the plane. He had basically zero connection to the school. He wasn’t even a booster. Just the friend fo a booster. You’ve got coaches and players raping and sexing people right and left. Not even close to the same thing. But then I wouldn’t expect even a smidgen of humility, honesty, or integrity from you. You reacted exactly the way I thought you would.
LikeLike
Barry Burgdorf, the University of Texas System’s vice chancellor and general counsel, has resigned as of 03/07/13.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/64757/ranking-the-big-12s-non-conference-slates
Duffman, I thought you might want to get a jump on complaining about the B12’s OOC scheduling for next season.
1. Oklahoma: Louisiana-Monroe, Tulsa, at Notre Dame
2. TCU: LSU (at Cowboys Stadium in Dallas), Southeastern Louisiana, SMU
3. Texas: New Mexico, at BYU, Ole Miss
4. Iowa State: Northern Iowa, Iowa, at Tulsa
5. Oklahoma State: Mississippi State (at Reliant Stadium in Houston), at Texas-San Antonio, Lamar
6. Kansas: South Dakota, at Rice, Louisiana Tech
7. Texas Tech: at SMU, Stephen F. Austin, Texas State
8. West Virginia: William & Mary, Georgia State, vs. Maryland (at Ravens Stadium in Baltimore)
9. Kansas State: North Dakota State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Massachusetts
10. Baylor: Wofford, Buffalo, Louisiana-Monroe
LikeLike
Looks like only three schools with any ambition to their OOC schedule, and I wouldn’t be surprised if when Texas scheduled Ole Miss, they weren’t expecting to be catching Ole Miss on the rise, which would make two OOC schedules with any ambition to them, and one case of accidental ambition.
LikeLike
The total wimps are Baylor, Kansas State, Kansas, and Texas Tech.
Oklahoma, TCU, Texas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia, all have at least one OOC opponent from the Big Five leagues.
Granted, you have to look at the bottom of the schedule too. There really is no excuse for West Virginia to be playing William & Mary, or Oklahoma State to be playing Lamar.
LikeLike
After Okie, TCU and Texas, I’d give Iowa State a par with the in-state AQ and FCS they play regularly and the Mid-Major they picked to play winning their division last year and being a regular prospect to go bowling.
And as far as the other side, well, it is a thick tail, isn’t it. I agree that Baylor, Kansas State, Kansas and Texas Tech are altogether underwhelming. But L’il Okie is playing two schools that were not sponsoring NCAA football in 2009, one from just about the bottom of the Southland ladder last year, and playing Two Mississippi doesn’t offsett that. WV gets to play two CAA schools, the virtual two of the bottom three spots of the 2012 CAA, by virtue of Georgia State’s promotion from near the bottom of the CAA ladder to near the bottom of the Sunbelt ladder. Playing Maryland doesn’t offset essentially playing two CAA schools who can’t even win IN the CAA.
LikeLike
Hey, at least WV scheduled Alabama for the following year. Weak OOC has not typically been WVU’s standard operating procedure. Maybe that will change in the future, as the conference slate for next year features 8 teams that went to bowls.
LikeLike
At least WV has the excuse that the change of conference left them scrambling a bit to sort out their schedule … which will gain weight if their relative Big12 position on OOC strength of schedule improves over the next few years.
I can’t see how Okie State is doing anything but taking advantage of an FCS school moving into the Sunbelt to let it essentially play two Southland Conference schools.
LikeLike
Outside of ND that just lost a ton of seniors and a state mandated rivalry with Iowa, those schedules are a ton of crap.
LikeLike
That Baylor schedule would make Wisconsin blush.
LikeLike
But, but, but … UMass is an FBS school!
Mind, at 1-11 overall, 1-7 in the MAC, with their only win against 1-11 Akron (0-8 in the MAC, whose only win was against MEAC member Morgan State), … another case of a Big12 school looking for an FCS caliber school, recently promoted to the cellar of a lower tier FBS conference.
LikeLike
Oh, wait, I jumped a row, that’s Kansas State’s schedule that would make Wisconsin blush.
LikeLike
Doubt that-not much difference and Wisconsin’s is better than usual.
Wofford is better than Tennessee Tech
Buffalo is better than UMass
Louisiana-Monroe was pretty decent last year (ask Arkansas, Auburn and Baylor)-Wisconsin has BYU and Arizona St. for their other two ooc, so no more than small advantage Wisconsin. Baylor has a Big 12 game instead of BYU or ASU.
LikeLike
Sounds like Michigan’s schedule. Notre Dame, Central Michigan, Akron at home and at UConn.
LikeLike
WHICH sounds like TSUN’s schedule ~ Oklahoma, TCU and Texas, or Baylor, the Kansases, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech? The bottom of that list makes it look like a Big12 payday game is a door prize handed out to schools that make the move up from the FCS to the FBS.
LikeLike
If these allegations have any truth to them, I think the last thing on the Big XII’s minds would be trying to expand. Then again, the PSU scandals didn’t necessarily stop the B1G from expanding, so what do I know.
Or maybe this creates an opening from the “Smaller 8” group to pressure UT into giving concessions, including adding to their membership.
LikeLike
How about some links to the Texas allegations?
Here is a link to a “scandal” about recruiting hostesses. From this discussion on an OKLA board, this seems more “normal business” than “scandal.”
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?149666-UT-s-Scandal
LikeLike
Here’s a link to the Applewhite allegations.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2013/02/02/texas-longhorns-assistant-coach-major-applewhite-student-trainer-bev-kearney-scandal/1886861/
LikeLike
At least some UT folks think anything concerning “scandals” is political mechinations by Gov. Perry, a graduate of A&M.
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/125626-Regent-s-next-shot-across-the-bow…
According to these folks, the Board of Regents has a bunch of new Perry-appointed members and they are set to trash UT. First act was firing Burgdorf.
LikeLike
fwiw, here’s yardbarker’s rundown on Texas related rumors. http://www.yardbarker.com/college_football/teams/texas_longhorns/183
nothing much.
LikeLike
here’s the Shaggybevo thread. Jump to last page for drunken late night ramblings.
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/127623-Twitter-blowing-up-re-major-happenings-in-Athletic-Department/page13
LikeLike
Here the rumor about it being something gay from LSU board.
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?p=40453017&pg=4
(yes, I’m bored on a Saturday morning … )
LikeLike
Count me pessimistic that the B1G schools will agree to schedule games except on home/away basis. And having only one protected cross-over game is clumsy and seems ad hoc solution to be imposed on the two schools. Which rivalry to sacrifice? If pod scheduling is unacceptable for a 16-team conference, then why bother using the name “conference” anymore.
LikeLike
“Which rivalry to sacrifice”? Says the person who locked the Buckeyes with the Cornhuskers ~ 4 games played in history ~ rather than the Buckeyes with the Illini ~ 99 games ~ and Penn State with the Cornhuskers ~ 15 games?
If Michigan State stays east and Purdue stays west, the only cross division rivalry that REQUIRES locking is Purdue/Indiana. If Purdue and Michigan State cross over, the only cross division rivalry that REQUIRES locking is Michigan/MSU.
For the rest, better not lock them at all than imposed arbitrary cross division match-ups or, even worse, cross-division match-ups that only serve to REDUCE the frequency that actual rivals play.
LikeLike
If MSU goes east, will UM want them as I locked partner? Somehow…I doubt it.
LikeLike
MSU/Purdue “crossing over” means MSU goes west, despite being east of two “West” teams. Its not a reference to the current division lineup ~ the whole point of divisional realignment is to be able to toss the current divisional lineup in the trash and make a better one.
And, yes, if MSU/Purdue “cross over”, the more eastern school going West and the more western school going East, that school up north would want a locked game with MSU.
LikeLike
If MSU goes east, will UM want them as I locked partner? Somehow…I doubt it.
Yes, without question. That game is one of the best rivalries in the Big Ten, in terms of fan support and general interest. It was Michigan’s best-attended game last year, and that was with premium pricing.
Even in the unlikely event that Michigan wanted to give it up, the Spartans definitely do not, and the Big Ten would never screw one of its members out of their #1 rivalry game.
LikeLike
The question is assuming that the school up north is IN the east, so MSU moving east would be joining them in-division. MSU moving east was, in turn, reading “Purdue and MSU crossing over” in terms of L&L, rather than in terms of positions on a map.
LikeLike
In summary: “I have a Twitter account and, according to sources, the Owners of the Internet are in Big Trouble. A giant scandal is about to hit involving multiple Owners. The Internet will have to be shut down. Details are being released tomorrow. Now: Everyone Panic !!!”
Having said that, FtT: Please delete all of my posts from this morning. This bull**** is not worthy of our Board.
LikeLike
Let me add the “please” and “thank you.” 🙂
LikeLike
As final posting:
——————-
Years 1&2, 5&6, etc (all as home/away series; football only):
LEADERS DIVISION: Michigan, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
LEGENDS DIVISION: Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, Indiana, Purdue
——————-
Years 3&4, 7&8, etc (all as home/away series; football only):
LEADERS DIVISION: Michigan, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Michigan State, Maryland, Virginia, Indiana, Purdue
LEGENDS DIVISION: Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
——————-
All years: The Game played as the last conference game of the season.
——————-
Cheers Y’all!
LikeLike
What makes Xavier, Butler, and Creighton (+2 to be named later) more valuable to FOX than UCONN, Cincinnati, Temple, and Memphis? For the same money FOX could have had the C7 in the Big East. FOX spent more to create a new conference and get less media rights than just signing the Big East as it existed. The C7 Big East exists because FOX’s estimates of Big East football value to ESPN/NBC were way off the mark. Why split off football if it is cheap? Aresco was asking for more than $100M per year and the Big East turned down more than that from ESPN before losing Pitt/Syracuse. Only if FOX assumed Big East football would command big bucks does it makes sense for FOX to work a C7 split to get the basketball rights it wanted. Aresco was demanding so much in media negotiations that FOX found it was easier to break up the Big East than make a deal with it.
LikeLike
But the contract that the Big TBA signed was the value of the Big TBA minus the C7 with only limited bidding for the rights ~ there’s no guarantee what the price would have been if NBC Sports, Fox and ESPN were all vying for a single Big East contract. NBC Sports seems likely to have bid at least a big more for the stronger basketball package than the Big TBA represents, FOX would have had to top that bid, and by enough to ensure that ESPN did not match.
Outbidding ESPN for just the rights that met Fox’s needs meant a guaranteed ceiling on the cost several tens of millions lower than the ceiling on a high bid for the original conference, and left most of the impaired brand value with the Big TBA. And it assured a heads of agreement “yes” for those rights well in advance of the roll-out of the new national cable sports network, when if it guessed wrong about what the correct high bid was for the old Big East, it could have found itself getting gazumped in the month before the roll-out.
LikeLike
Georgetown is showing how to exit a conference in style.
LikeLike
Did anyone think that Miami would win ACC titles in basketball and baseball before football? What a weird decade for them.
LikeLike
Miami hasn’t won the ACC title yet, merely top seed in the tournament. In ACC men’s and women’s basketball, the tourney decides the champion, not regular-season play. That’s going to be a bit of a weird adjustment in College Park come 2014-2015.
LikeLike
Apologies in advance for the on-topic comment. Mark Blaudschun was reporting earlier that the new entries in the Big TBA have been complaining about getting only a 10% share. His last piece starts with a call to the incoming schools to get real: “Some people have short memories. I remember when schools such as SMU, Memphis, Temple and UCF were knocking on everyone’s door, trying to get invited into the adult party in college football.”
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5634
LikeLike
Another small nugget of information in Mark complaining about the incoming schools acting like members of the entitlement generation in demanding a share of the windfall gain from the deal that the three incumbents struck with the C7 is a value of $3m to $5m per school for the new schools rather than the ~$1.5m being widely reported.
That extra money probably includes a reduction of the agreed entry fee by the $2.5m that most incoming schools have not yet paid, which the incoming schools are likely not including in the version of events that they leak to the press.
LikeLike
Here’s one detail to think about, with the NCAA Tournament getting started next week:
There will either be one less at-large bid available for the Big Dance next year, or the tournament will expand to 69 teams. The new Big East and the “Big TBA” will take up two automatic bids going forward, not just one, which, short of further tournament expansion, will cost an at-large bid in the tournament.
I hope they just let the count go from 31 automatic bids/37 at-large to 32 auto/36 at-large. The last time a new conference was formed, in the 1999-2000 season with the Mountain West, the tournament responded by expanding by one team the following year (2000-01) so that the number of at-large bids could be maintained. (Well, the real motivation was to expand television coverage by one more game, but the birth of the MWC gave the NCAA an excuse.) I don’t see the sense in that this time around. 36 at-large bids is still plenty, and since the Big East champions and the Big TBA champions would be likely to make the Big Dance even if they were still in the same league, they probably won’t be taking any at-large bids away from other schools, anyway.
We’ll see…
LikeLike
Not sure they both get autobids. The football east qualifies under the current rules assuming the resurrected Big East schools officially withdraw from the conference. Under the 1998 rules, the MWC didn’t qualify for an autobid. And they’ve made it much more difficult to get an exception to the rules and to create a new conference.
LikeLike
Denying an autobid will be very difficult to sustain. The Big East and the Big TBA will both be better than quite a few conferences that already get autobids. At this point, I doubt they’d expand the tourney again; there’d just be one less at-large bid. The issue is mainly symbolic, as even without an autobid, it’s hard to imagine the champion of either league not qualifying as an at-large team.
LikeLike
Not a case of denying. Its the conference’s role to meet the criteria. They also set pretty firmly a max on the number of conferences, so they would have to change that rule as well.
LikeLike
Of course it would be a case of “denying.” What other word would you use? When you look at all the lackluster conferences that have autobids, it is difficult to imagine that any sane person would find it sensible that these two conferences do not, unless they turn out to be much weaker than they now appear to be.
LikeLike
A conference with UC, UConn, Temple & Memphis is not going to be locked out.
LikeLike
Not meeting the criteria would be the formal basis for the denial.
Obviously something else would be the de facto basis for the denial.
It would seem likely that both the New Big East tournament winner and the New Big East regular season champion, if different, would receive an at-large bid. Given that, if the purpose of the max number of conferences is to prevent the lower ranks of Div1 from gaming the system to maximize their slice of the loot, at the expense of the multi-bid conferences, then the New Big East is not the type of conference the rule is aiming to constrain.
LikeLike
@Scarlett+Lutefisk: The conference that will be applying for an automatic bid, and has to ask the NCAA to increment the number in the maximum number of D1 conferences rule, is the New Big East.
The Big TBA is formally the same conference that’s been called the Big East all this time ~ for instance, when the NCAA sends out payments for NCAA units, its the Big TBA that will be cashing those “Big East through to 2012” checks. They’d have to drop under 7 BBall schools to be in jeopardy.
LikeLike
The Big East meets the criteria for six schools playing together a minimum of five years. The America 12 (or whatever) does not. Right now we don’t know what the NCAA will decide but as of right now the only one that could potentially be denied an auto-bid is the American 12.
LikeLike
Disregard that.
LikeLike
According to this article from Barry Reeves of the Sporting News, which came out right after the Catholic 7 announced they were splitting, the new Big East’s automatic bid is safe.
“By the seven Catholic schools sticking together, they can keep their automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament under NCAA rules. The remaining Big East schools probably will get to retain their automatic bid as well after going through an NCAA appeals process, NCAA vice president Dan Gavitt told ESPN. This would mean the automatic bids for the NCAA Tournament would increase from 31 to 32.”
The way that reads, it seems as though the league which is not completely assured of an automatic bid to NCAA Tournaments is the “Big TBA.”
This seems consistent with what I had read in the past: a newly formed conference can attain automatic bids as long as 6 or more members had been in the same conference together for 5 or more consecutive years. I had never heard about there being a limited number of conferences.
LikeLike
Those are the old rules. Barry Reeves doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The MWC and CUSA commissioners didn’t even seem to understand the rules when they were trying to merge, thinking they could have 2 autobids. Maybe Gavitt doesn’t realize they changed.
Because of the rules designed last year for the WAC and MWC (who both failed the old 6 members together for 5 years rule), the football BE will definitely retain their autobid as long as they have 7 basketball members. The basketball BE (C7) probably have to go through the new conference procedure, although that’s not certain. They also passed a rule that there would be no exceptions to the rules on autobids. A change would require the NCAA to go through the full, long legislative process. Previously, the committees could make an exception without going through the process.
They passed a rule that there would be a limited number of automatic bids in the NCAA basketball tourney-31. This only impacted basketball. Not sure how that is applied. Pick the best 31? Pick the oldest 31? Have the bottom 2 have a play-in like they did with the 64/65 team tourney?
LikeLike
The Mountain West qualified under the 6 members together for 5 years rule. BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and San Diego State had all been in the WAC together since at least 1980.
The WAC in 1999, however, did not meet those rules. They were left as a hodge podge of schools. Three were legacy WAC members: UTEP (member since 1967); Hawaii (member since 1979); and Fresno State (member since 1992, only 7 years). Three had joined in 1996 and were outcasts from the SWC: TCU, SMU, and Rice. Two others who joined in 1996 only to be left behind three years later were from the Big West (San Jose State) and Missouri Valley (Tulsa).
Anyway, bullet, what you’re saying makes sense, but I’m having trouble finding information about those new rules. I had never heard anything about automatic bids being limited to 31 conferences. Can you direct me to a link? I’d be interested in reading about it. Eventually, this will have to become a news story. If the new Big East doesn’t prepare itself properly, that news story will come in the form of some poor team that wins the league’s track and field or women’s soccer or whatever random sport’s championship, expecting an automatic bid their own “Big Dance,” only to find out that their championship doesn’t apply to the NCAA automatic bid process. (In basketball, the automatic bid will be a mere formality. Both leagues’ champions would have survived a conference tough enough to warrant a berth in the Big Dance regardless of whether it was automatic.)
LikeLike
Only takes 2 years for the minor sports.
LikeLike
MWC actually had to get an exception in 1998 as they withdrew and were technically a “new” conference. I believe the WAC was ok in 1998 because of a two year grace period (I think that rule applied in 1998-and they had the 6 for 5 years by the end of the grace period).
There’s a good discussion on the current rule on the WAC fan forum under “Rules that may apply to WAC.” The poster finiteman summarizes it on his 10/8/12 8:52 post.
http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&p=10
LikeLike
@Michael
Couldn’t find a link quickly on the limit on the automatic bid conferences. It was discussed and passed a couple of years ago when the moratorium on new Division I schools was lifted. May be a moot point. Summit or Sun Belt could disappear by the time the musical chairs stop.
LikeLike
Yes, I see those “playing together” rules in the championship section of a Div1 bylaws copy at a source other than the NCAA. The NCAA epub is available for download at:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4284-2012-2013-ncaa-division-i-manual-available-for-order-now-for-delivery-after-aug-1.aspx
The only specific number of conferences I came across was a specification of 8 FBS conferences, though I only skimmed through so it surely could be in there somewhere.
The grace period rule in sports other than Basketball: “31.3.4.4.3 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of the withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below six institutions that sponsor the sport and conduct conference competition together provided the conference maintains at least five Division I members. (Adopted: 8/5/04, Revised: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)”
So in any sports other than Basketball where the Big TBA sponsored the sport with 6+ members, if it has 6+ under the new membership, the grace period will cover the 2 year waiting period. The suggestion of playing Olympic sports together for a year or two, at least, that will separately fall below the 6+ rule would be aimed at giving both sides more time to start the waiver period with 6+ old+new members in place in the sport.
In Basketball: “31.3.4.5 Additional Requirements, Men’s Basketball. To be considered eligible for automatic qualification in men’s basketball, a member conference must be a core conference (see Bylaw 31.02.3) and must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5. (Revised: 8/14/90, 12/3/90, 4/27/00, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
31.3.4.5.1 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below seven institutions that sponsor the sport and conduct conference competition together, provided the conference maintains at least six Division I members (see Bylaw 20.02.5). (Adopted: 4/27/00, Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)”
“Core Conference” is: “31.02.3 Core Conference. A core conference is a multisport conference that has been elected to membership and, as a result of legislation, is identified in the applicable sections of Constitution 4 related to representation in the NCAA governance structure. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) ”
So the Big TBA is OK there, though when it picks a new name “Big East” will be replaced by that new name in the various spots in the Section 4 where it names specific conferences, and the New Big East has to get itself added to that list among the other Div1 non-football divisions.
All of the continuity stuff has been shuffled off to Bylaw 20.02.5.4 & 20.02.5.5, which includes the stuff like how many sports and team sports for both men and women have to be sponsored to be a Division 1 school:
20.02.5.1 ~ at least 7 members that sponsor M/W BBall
20.02.5.2(a) ~ minimum 12 Div1 sports
20.02.5.2(b) ~ conference sponsors minimum 6 men’s sports, incl. BBall & either FBall or 2 other men’s team sports, a minimum of 7 members sponsor BBall, 6 members sponsor other sports
20.02.5.2(c) ~ conference sponsors minimum 6 women’s sports, incl. BBall & at least 2 team sports, min. 7 members sponsor BBall, 6 sponsor other sports (5 if “emerging women’s sport”)
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. … (structure of competition requirements)
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
In 20.02.5.4, I don’t know how that “shall establish” works ~ whether “must meet” means must maintain or lose its status or must HAVE met for eight years.
If the New Big East had to be a group of schools that have continuously satisfied 20.02.5.5 over the past eight years in a single conference, then looking at the sports spreadsheet for the C7, 20.02.5.2(b) Men’s competitions would be problematic:
1. M BBall 7
2. M Cross Country 6
3. M Soccer 7 (first other M team sport)
1. W BBall 7
2. W Cross Country 6
3. W Soccer 7 (first W team sport)
4. W Softball 6 (second W team sport)
5. W Tennis 7
6. W Volleyball 7
If its must have continuously satisfied (even if in distinct conferences previously) and must satisfy going ahead, then its not problematic if Butler and X are invited and accept (its both, since they both are required to bring baseball up to 6):
1. M BBall 9
2. M Baseball 6 (1st other M team sport)
3. M Cross Country 8
4. M Golf 7
5. M Soccer 9 (2nd other M team sport)
6. M Tennis 7
7. M Track 7
1. W BBall 9
2. W Cross Country 8
3. W Golf 6
4. W Soccer 9 (1st other W team sport)
5. W Softball 7 (2nd other W team sport)
6. W Swimming & Diving
7. W Tennis 9
8. W Track 7
9. W Volleyball 9
Since I’d presume that they’ll have had professional advice on the precedents of the current Bylaws, I’d expect that “shall maintain” the ByLaw is indeed interpreted to glide past the issue of in which conference that continuity was maintained. If X and Butler are consensus choices and they also happen to satisfy the continuity requirement for breadth of Div1 sports, that would help explain why the expansion to 9 seems to be so firm, and the expansion to 10 seems to be so up in the air.
LikeLike
Regarding the continuity rule, after sleeping on it, I do think that “shall maintain” means, for a newly established conference, shall maintain going forward.
The point of the continuity rule, after all, is to not to protect established conferences, but to protect established *sports*. Suppose that the New Big East starts with five schools playing in the Big TBA for Rutgers last year while they sort out their applications to LAX only conferences. Then (hypothetically) some member decides to promote Lacrosse, with a team slated to start Div1 in 2016.
The New Big East has to maintain continuity in number of sports sponsored, and the Grace Periods are all only for departure of INSTITUTIONS, not for the dropping of sports by onoing members. So the Conference would be in trouble if SLU promoted Lacrosse at the expense of dropping some other sport in 2014 (the year they start offering Lacrosse scholarships to build their program for entry into Div1 play in 2016), that the conference requires to meet its Bylaw 20.02.5 requirements.
All of which encourages (doesn’t absolutely required, but encourages) the conferences in the lower ranks of Division 1 to maintain the championships they have sponsored and a strong tendency to introduce new sports as additions rather than replacements among the Div1 conferences that are “at the minimum” for one or more of the 20.02.5 rules.
Its a different matter when its an institution leaving that puts the source conference out of compliance, which is the reason for the two year’s grace available when non-compliance is a result of an institution leaving, but not available if its an ongoing member that takes the conference out of compliance.
LikeLike
NCAA Indoor Track and Field Championships were held this past weekend in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Arkansas won the men’s championship and Oregon took the women’s crown.
11 schools finished in the top 25 in both men’s and women’s competitions.
Arkansas – M-1, W-4
Florida – M-2, W-13
Texas A&M – M-4, W-12
Miss State – M-12, W-20
LSU – M-15, W-3
Georgia – M-23, W-10
Michigan State – M-25, W-25
Texas – M-23, W-18
Oregon – M-6, W-1
Arizona – M-6, W-7
Arizona State – M-16, W-7
Clemson – M-25, W-6
Florida State – M-18, W-15
LikeLike
2 northern, 11 southern schools.
LikeLike
Wait, you’re saying that southern schools do better in winter track and field?
Huh, imagine that.
LikeLike
bullet – indoor track in the North is the same as indoor track in the South – 70 degrees and no wind.
LikeLike
Wrestling – same deal. Where are the southern schools?
LikeLike
cc – regrettably as you know, most southern schools don’t field teams. As a former (not very good) wrestler and the father of a very good wrestler, I hate that more schools in the South don’t have wrestling teams. LSU had some pretty good teams in the 70s and early 80s, but wrestling was an early Title IX casualty. One of my son’s coaches is from Iowa and wrestled on LSU’s first teams in the early 70s. Two of his other coaches wrestled for Iowa. High school wrestling in Louisiana is pretty good, but not many choices for college in the Deep South.
LikeLike
The older we get, the better we were 🙂
LikeLike
Missouri is ranked #4 in the country in wrestling right now. Lone representative of the SEC. Need to get 3 or 4 more SEC schools to sponsor the sport.
LikeLike
Allan:
To be fair, you know full well indoor track is the equivalent of spring FB practice, with competition and a championship. Nobody is going to field indoor without outdoor, but if you field outdoor entering indoor competition is a great supplement/enhancement.
LikeLike
My notes from the KC Star article on Big 12 financials:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/09/4111002/a-costly-year-of-change-for-ku.html
– Missouri received $13.1 million less than Oklahoma in Big 12 revenue distribution. According to conference tax returns, the Sooners received the greatest chunk at $14.5 million, the Tigers earned $1.4 million. The withholding served as the Tigers’ penalty for departing the Big 12.
– Kansas State, meanwhile, reported about $6.7 million less in operating revenue than the previous year. But the Wildcats took in $12.3 million more than they spent, making K-State the only one of the three major Division I athletic departments in the area that reported a 2011-12 bottom line — revenue minus expenses — in the black.
– Besides losing on the Big 12 income, Missouri ran at a small operating loss, as it did in 2011 and 2010. Also, the school took some revenue from previous years to improve the gymnastics facility.
– Missouri also believed it would share in some additional Big 12 income, a piece of the $45 million signing bonus the league received from Fox. But the timing worked against the Tigers.
“We left before it kicked in and didn’t get a part of that,” Hickman said.
The university will help the athletic department cover its debt, and athletic director Mike Alden said his department will begin paying back Missouri starting in 2016.
– The Big 12 portion of that income was announced at last year’s annual spring meeting as a record $19 million payout. The money distributed by the Big 12, in almost equal shares, comes from television contracts, bowl games and the NCAA Tournament, most prominently men’s basketball.
But the Big 12’s 2011-12 tax return shows no more than $14.5 million was paid to any school, and Kansas State’s take was a shade less than $14 million.
So, what’s the difference?
It’s the bonus money, the income that Missouri didn’t receive.
Steve Pace, the Big 12’s chief financial officer, said the $45 million up-front money is considered deferred revenue. The Big 12 agreed to a 13-year deal with Fox in 2011, and last year reached agreements with Fox and ESPN to run concurrently through 2025 with a combined value of about $2.5 billion.
But $45 million of that was paid up front. The eight schools that remained in the Big 12 received the money in 2011-12, which pushed their league-distributed income to about $19 million each.
LikeLike
I’m surprised that this article isn’t making the rounds of the pro-ACC faction. If the Big 12’s distribution is only 14 Million a year and escalates up from there the difference between the ACC and Big 12’s TV contract isn’t that much.
LikeLike
Last year was on the old contract. Bonus was a way of increasing the payout on the old contract without officially re-opening it. TV contracts averaged $80 million a year. This year starts the contracts that average $200 million a year. Big 12 is expecting $26 million per school in distributions in 2014.
LikeLike
And this is why Missouri’s revenue was so low this year. $13M witheld.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Hoosiers for getting ranked in one of the many college baseball polls this week. Indiana is number 24 in the Baseball America poll.
Notre Dame is ranked in three of the polls (#22 in USAT, #21 in CB, and #17 in BA).
The NCBWA poll isn’t out yet.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is #23 in the NCBWA poll.
By the way, LSU is #2 (USAT), #3 (CB & NCBWA), and #7 (BA – the least reliable poll).
LikeLike
And Rice keeps losing but hasn’t dropped out yet.
LikeLike
Another university reputation list:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking/range/01-50
Top 10 FBS schools
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
Michigan
Illinois
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Duke
Northwestern
23 FBS schools are in top 100. UMass is only school not in Big 5 in 2014 (Pitt, Rutgers are top 100 but will be in Big 5 in 2014).
LikeLike
CIC:
12. MI
14. Chicago
24. IL
30. WI
37. NW
50. PU
51-60. MN, OSU, PSU
71-80. MSU
81-90. RU
91-100. UMD
Missing – IA, IN, NE
B10/CIC relevant schools:
19. JHU
26. Carnegie Mellon
31. Duke
38. GT
51-60. UNC
71-80. Pitt
Missing – UVA, VT, FSU, KU, ND, UConn, CWRU
LikeLike
Two lists here ranking and rep. Very few SEC schools even after adding AM and Missouri .
LikeLike
A good article on the demise of the old Big East and why it was doomed from the start:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–big-east-s-tumultuous-run-doomed-from-the-beginning-211516936.html
As I thought, too many chiefs, not enough indians, to use a politically incorrect term.
LikeLike
One wonders how eastern sports would have changed in the late ’70s if Syracuse and Boston College had decided to join what was then known as the Eastern Eight, with other big-time football-playing members such as Penn State, West Virginia and Pittsburgh. That group could have evolved into an all-sports conference, while schools such as Seton Hall, St. John’s, Providence and Georgetown could then have created the 1979 equivalent of what the Big East will become in 2013-14. (As for Connecticut, the seventh original member, it might have started in the “Catholic” group, then moved to the all-sports league as it grew into a big-time football player.)
LikeLike
Villanova might not have dropped it’s football program in 1980 if that had happened.
LikeLike
Interesting comment on the revolt when ND was admitted, especially for anyone who thinks the C7 would be interested in them.
LikeLike
Yeah, that changes the story.
LikeLike
Yes, it was, that seems to turn the idea of Notre Dame having a a farewell tour with the C7 into another idea being floated by Fox Sports. Though it became a moot point when the ACC said they’d be willing to take ND’s Olympic Sports a year early, since the Big TBA is less worse off with ND entering the ACC early than it would have been with Notre Dame taking a farewell lap with the New Big East.
LikeLike
Why didn’t the C7 want Notre Dame in their league?
LikeLike
Among the Seven Deadly Sins, I’d expect some combination of Pride and Envy.
LikeLike
Because Notre Dame isn’t the little school they pretend to be? Because they like to throw their weight around? Because they’re in bumfuck Indiana and only bring their mediocre basketball team to help cover the cost of the flights to and from?
LikeLike
Because ND BB is literally worth less than nothing? Because unlike the rest of the then Big East, ND isn’t located in a big city (meaning no major airport)? Because the Big East wasn’t interested in allowing partial membership?
LikeLike
Lots of speculaton, but it seems no one knows the actual answer.
LikeLike
How is that politically incorrect?
LikeLike
Looks like ND to the ACC is going to happen: http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/03/11/notre-dame-set-to-jump-to-acc-next-year/
LikeLike
One of the useful parts of that article is the confirmation in general terms of the agreement for the C7 schools leaving: “The economics of Notre Dame’s exit will be similar to the departing Catholic Seven basketball schools, meaning it will keep its NCAA basketball units and take a small amount of the Big East reserve fund.”
LikeLike
http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202591734021&Major_shakeups_in_the_middle_ranks_of_US_News_law_school_list&slreturn=20130212104224
US News Law School rankings had a big shakeout this year with the new employment methodology (20% of schools’ score with more emphasis on full time employment requiring JD).
As far as the Big Ten goes, Illinois dropped a lot again to 47 (-12) (was solidly top 25 pre-scandal), but Nebraska saw a huge gain up to 61 (+28).
For the SEC, Ole Miss had a huge gain up to 102 (+33); Arkansas also saw a big gain 68 (+21).
Future ACC schools Louisville 68 (+21) and Pitt 91 (-21) went in opposite directions.
————————————————————————————–
Theme is that the schools that feed smaller, “flyover” markets did quite well (Montana was another notable gainer. The schools that feed the coasts did not (almost all of the major decliners were on the Coasts).
LikeLike
I do think that the addition of that employment methodology will give the rankings a lot more worth in the longer run.
The “employed at graduation” percentage now explicitly refers to “Represents the percentage of all graduates who had a full-time job lasting at least a year for which bar passage was required or a J.D. degree was an advantage. These employment rates are part of the data on placement success used to determine a school’s ranking.”
This means a lot more now because before almost every school claimed 90+% employment percentages.
Now, the schools are differentiated everywhere across the spectrum, for example:
UVa at #7 was at 97.3%.
Vanderbilt at #15 was at 65.2%.
Emory at #23 was at 52.4%.
FSU at #48 was at 23.3%.
This is actually useful data for anyone applying to law schools. Future graduates should know what the outcomes (i.e. whether you’ll actually use that law degree) actually look like and this tells a part of the story.
LikeLike
DePaul drops 20 spots. FTT not gonna be happy…
LikeLike
It’s disappointing, to say the least.
LikeLike
Could we all please just cease w/ the Loser-News Rankings. I can certainly understand it on the ACC boards as it’s the only list where, on average, they’re ranked w/ B1G universities, but please people, just stop. I’m not a university Pres., but I think there’s a fairly high-degree of certainty that the academic leaders w/ decision authority won’t be using any given college’s Loser-News Rank as a basis for expansion. From what I can tell, the PR issue, given the feedback loop from discussions like these, is about as relevant and real a connection to academia as this list gets.
The President of Stanford came out early in its existence discrediting their process and I’m not aware of any highly regarded academic leader arguing against his assessment discrediting its validity. Recently, Bill Gates offered his own criticisms of the Loser-News Ranking system as well.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/01/31/bill-gates-says-there-is-something-perverse-in-college-ratings/
LikeLike
My Alma Mater, Tulane, is hanging in there at #48. Seems like the Greenies have been in the mid to high 40s forever.
LikeLike
Given the dramatic movements around the new methodology, it was probably best to just hold in range this year.
LikeLike
Iowa at #26. woot.
LikeLike
Always pleasing to see Pitt’s superiority complex undermined. Pitt and WVU tied at #91.
LikeLike
FSU at #48. Now the FSU Athletic Department needs to establish rotating two year legal positions, help get that “get 1yr+ job requiring JD” number up.
LikeLike
JHU sent out an email to students saying their forming a committee to look into joining a conference. Their report will be posted online on May 15 or soon after:
“Dear Members of the Johns Hopkins University Community:
This university is known for stellar academic achievement. We are known for groundbreaking scholarship, for compassionate patient care and for sharing our knowledge with the world.
We are also known for our storied lacrosse program.
Our history in the sport is a proud one, dating back on the men’s side to 1883, just a few years after the founding of the university itself. We have won 44 national titles, nine of them since lacrosse became an NCAA sport, and we have produced numerous All-Americans, players and coaches of the year, and hall of famers.
In its 130-year history, our men’s lacrosse program has never joined a formal league or conference, though we have built up a number of traditional – indeed, historic – rivalries.
The realities of intercollegiate competition, however, compel us at this time to examine whether we should consider affiliating with a conference. Some traditional foes have recently announced changes in their own affiliations, changes that might limit their flexibility to continue scheduling games with us. At the same time, growth of the sport at the Division I level has resulted in the formation of more leagues with automatic qualification for the NCAA tournament, potentially limiting post-season opportunities for at-large qualifiers.
Though we have received no formal invitations, we have been asked by more than one conference if we might be interested in becoming an associate member for men’s lacrosse.
We have made no commitments. We have made no decisions. We have concluded only that it is time to consider this question in the Johns Hopkins way: with care, deliberation and transparency.
For that reason, I have appointed the following special committee to gather available information, assess the issue and advise me as to whether we should seek conference affiliation for our men’s lacrosse team:
Jerry Schnydman A&S ’67, co-chair
Former Executive Assistant to the President and
Secretary to the Board of Trustees
Chris Watson A&S ’05, co-chair
Trader, SAC Capital Advisors
Executive Committee, Blue Jays Unlimited Board of Advisors
Chuck Clarvit A&S ’78
CEO, Vinci Partners
Member of the Board of Trustees
David Cordish A&S ’60, ’69 (MLA)
Chairman and CEO, Cordish Enterprises LP
Tristan Davies A&S ’87 (MA)
Faculty Athletics Representative
Senior Lecturer, Writing Seminars
The Johns Hopkins University
Mary Ann McGuire Dickson A&S ’97
Director, Global Banking and Markets,
Client Prioritization for the Americas,
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Former President, Blue Jays Unlimited
Alan Fish
Vice President, Real Estate and Campus Services
The Johns Hopkins University
Among the committee’s tasks will be to seek the views of members of the university community, both on campus and among our alumni and friends. The committee will soon announce a means for you to share your thoughts with it.
I want to thank everyone on the committee for agreeing to serve in this important matter for our university. I look forward to receiving the committee’s report by May 15. Both this report and my decision will be posted online soon thereafter.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Daniels”
LikeLike
Johns Hopkins President says they are considering joining a conference.
http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/03/12/mens-lacrosse-conference
“Daniels said that Johns Hopkins had not received any formal invitations to join a conference, but have been approached by more than one seeking to gauge JHU’s interest in becoming an associate member. He announced that he was forming a special committee to look into conference affiliation options. The committee will work closely with JHU Athletic Director Tom Calder and men’s lacrosse coach Dave Pietramala, and will submit its findings and recommendations to Daniels by May 15.”
LikeLike
Very, very interesting that they explicitly keep the topic on men’s lacrosse only.
As I’ve suspected previously on these threads, I don’t think they want to put their women’s team back in a conference (especially a power conference like the Big Ten’s will be with Maryland/Northwestern) after missing out on many NCAA bids due to how tough the ALC was with Northwestern/Florida/Ohio State/Penn State/Vanderbilt.
Does that change the calculus for the Big Ten-JHU? I’m not really sure. The Big Ten already has 6 women’s programs (due to Northwestern having only a women’s program), but will only have 5 in men’s lacrosse.
The Big Ten’s men’s lacrosse conference will be considerably weaker in terms of national power than the Big Ten’s women’s lacrosse conference, so there won’t really be any threat to JHU’s men’s program as far as getting bids to the NCAA. They’d be the strongest program by default.
I doubt it’s a deal breaker for the Big Ten presidents to consider just their men’s program but I’m not sure. And that doesn’t get into the questions of how to pay them and the CIC question.
Of course, they could make it easy and decide to go with another one of the Eastern conferences for men’s lacrosse.
LikeLike
Maryland would certainly be reasonable competition for JHU in a men’s conference of the Big Ten. I mean, JHU is overall stronger, but not in a going-to-completely-dominate-the-conference way.
LikeLike
Er, what I mean is that JHU yanked their women’s team from the ALC because of the Big Ten and SEC squads that have been sort of preventing it from getting enough tournament bids. They may not want a conference of only high powered schools for their women’s team.
For the men’s team, the conference strength won’t be an issue; JHU’s men’s team will thrive either way.
LikeLike
zeek,
I disagree. JHU will be expected to all in or nothing. They only have 2 teams that can join. They won’t be allowed to hold one back.
LikeLike
Probably a deal breaker then. I don’t see how they pull out from the ALC over competitive issues and go to an even tougher Big Ten (Maryland in place of Florida is an upgrade).
LikeLike
I would be surprised if the ACC allowed Hopkins to enter with its men’s lacrosse team and not its women’s, if that’s JHU’s only alternative to the Big Ten…although not long ago, the Ivy League was part of a 10-member baseball conference that included Army and Navy (and Ivy ice hockey teams play under ECAC auspices). Could the Ivies decide to create a separate men’s lacrosse league including Hopkins, or even admit JHU as an associate member in men’s and/or women’s lacrosse?
LikeLike
Is that a deal breaker with the ACC? After Maryland leaves, wouldn’t JHU Men’s only make both Men and Women’s six team leagues, with JHU Men’s filling the sixth Men’s sport and Louisville the sixth Women’s?
(Open question, not rhetorical ~ the ACC is another conference that seems inclined against single-sport associate members, but I don’t know anything about its mindset on that issue.)
Also, how strong would ACC women’s be, after Maryland leaves? I see on the Wikipedia machine that Maryland and UVA dominate ACC women’s national championships and runner-up.
LikeLike
zeek – Hopkins to the B1G may or may not happen, but do you really think that concerns over the strength of the women’s conference would prevent them from coming if their research and men’s lacrosse would significantly benefit?
LikeLike
@Bikemore
Probably not. I’m just bringing up the fact that they left the ALC because it was the toughest conference by far and the Big Ten will be even more difficult with Maryland/Rutgers in place of Florida/Vanderbilt.
I do think that the calculus for their men’s program and an invitation to the CIC could override that issue.
It is an issue worth considering though; their women’s program is a factor of some weight (how considerable, none of us have any idea), but it could probably be outweighed in the right circumstances.
LikeLike
Very, very interesting that they explicitly keep the topic on men’s lacrosse only. . . As I’ve suspected previously on these threads, I don’t think they want to put their women’s team back in a conference.
I read it a bit differently. Men’s Lacrosse is JHU’s blueblood sport. Even the idea of joining a conference has got to be upsetting to some of the alumni. Independence is practically a religion to them, much as it is for Notre Dame and football.
Women’s lacrosse simply isn’t freighted with all of that history, as they didn’t field their first team till 1976, and didn’t make the jump to Division I till 1999. A study to change the affiliation of the women’s program wouldn’t prompt the same kind of press release.
So I didn’t take the release as precluding the possibility that the women’s program would join a conference if the men’s program did — only that the men’s program is driving the bus.
LikeLike
That’s a good viewpoint.
I just think it’s worth noting that the women’s program will be a factor in all of this (whether they choose to leave it out of the men’s realignment or whatever).
LikeLike
Here’s a message from DePaul that I just received a few minutes ago:
March 12, 2013
Dear Alumni,
This morning, DePaul University, along with the six basketball-focused institutions in the BIG EAST conference, voted unanimously to separate from the conference. DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John’s and Villanova are setting a foundation to continue the elite level of success upon which the BIG EAST conference was founded.
The seven presidents and athletics directors are committed to the highest level of success academically and athletically by our student-athletes and coaches. This premier athletics conference will start on July 1 as the BIG EAST and feature institutions with similar commitments that will enable each program to flourish as we all move forward into the future.
DePaul’s tradition of success coincides with the six other institutions, with our men’s basketball program making 22 NCAA tournament appearances. At nearly 1,400 victories and 23 twenty-win seasons, DePaul also has produced 19 All-Americans in men’s basketball. Our women’s basketball program is looking for its 11th straight NCAA tournament appearance this season, while head coach Doug Bruno is coming off a gold medal-winning performance at the 2012 London Olympics.
Academically, among our many accomplishments, DePaul student-athletes are among the best in the country. DePaul led the BIG EAST with five teams earning the Team Academic Award, while 150 student-athletes were named to the BIG EAST All-Academic Team. The men’s golf program claimed the nation’s top team GPA for the third straight year, and the women’s basketball team GPA was ranked third nationally.
This is an exciting time to be a member of the university community. Our future alignment will allow our alumni and friends to gather in some of the nation’s greatest cities to build upon our vibrant community and cheer the Blue Demons to victory.
Details about the expected broadcast media deal, season-ending tournament and additional members of the new conference will be announced in the near future. The upcoming media deal will allow our students, alumni, fans and friends to follow DePaul as they compete against the top programs in the country.
We look forward to this next chapter in DePaul athletics history. Thank you for the many ways that you support DePaul. Wishing you and yours a joyous spring.
Go DePaul!
Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, C.M.
President
Jean Lenti Ponsetto
Director of Athletics
LikeLike
Unfortunate that they’re still using all caps for BIG EAST.
LikeLike
They just split off; I doubt they’ve considered whether to create a new logo and stuff like that (which is where the caps BIG EAST comes from…).
LikeLike
Couldn’t hurt. Aside from re-branding purposes, it seems like a new logo would be worth having to denote different eras in the conference’s history. Like, if years down the line you wanted to show a stat sheet for conference titles per school, it would be advantageous to have a simple way of noting the difference in competition.
LikeLike
Is making it easier to distinguish “Old Big East” and “New Big East” actually in the interest of the New Big East? I reckon exiting football schools are worth 54 NCAA units over the past five years, plus whatever they may earn this year. I’m not sure the New Big East wants to make “asterisk: before the conference got easier” easier to indicate.
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering what’s going to happen with the old Big East’s history. Will both conferences claim it, or one or the other?
LikeLike
OK, now that we know ND is joining the ACC, let’s look at the issue of how they’re going to schedule those 5 ACC football games that they’re contractually obligated to play. A look at the 2014 says they’ve only scheduled two ACC schools: Syracuse and Pitt.
So far, eleven schools are on their 2014 schedule. So maybe they have space for one more ACC member but if they’re obligated to play 5, how are they going to do that? Rice might stay on the schedule, since they’re the warm-up act. To me, I would ditch Temple and Purdue. Heck, if they can cancel Michigan, what’s to say they would care about what Purdue would say about it? Since they want to put less emphasis on the Midwest, and they’ve scheduled to play Northwestern at home, why not start right then.
So, with Syracuse and Pitt I would add Miami, Louisville and Georgia Tech. The Syracuse game is already on a neutral site so, to me, I would play the Miami game at Miami, GT at home and the Louisville game at Louisville. Louisville and ND would start a new rivalry in football, as they’re very close to each other.
2015 has them playing Syracuse and Pitt again, as well as Wake. I would add Virginia Tech home and BC as away.
For 2016, drop Cuse and Pitt and play Louisville at home, Duke at home, FSU away, BC at home and Virginia away.
LikeLike
Temple is a return obligation for a 2013/2014 Home and Home series. That school up north is the last of the string of ongoing contracts with Notre Dame, and Notre Dame has already notified them that 2014 is the last in the series.
The AZ State is the front end of a home and home 2014/2017 series, following up the neutral site 2013 game. Northwestern is the front end of a 2014/2018 series. So it wouldn’t be surprising if its the AZ State and Northwestern games that are scratched ~ they are even balanced in 2014 home and away, the AZ State front end in Arizona, the NW front end in South Bend.
2015 does not show any apparent problem, they already have tentative dates for Wake Forest, Syracuse and @Pitt, and a not yet scheduled game @BC, so it only requires filling in one more ACC date, with two dates still open in late October.
LikeLike
So if they’re already going to play BC in 2015 then it stands to reason that the fifth game would have to be south of the Mason-Dixon. That leaves off Louisville. I would have liked to see that. Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech or even Clemson should be in consideration.
LikeLike
If its the ACC’s pick, Duke and Virginia would also be in consideration. As a newbie who will not have ND requesting them, I expect Louisville will have to wait a while for its turn.
LikeLike
If I’m Michigan Athletic Director David Brandon, I’d contact Notre Dame and offer to drop them from the 2014 schedule so that ND could play five ACC teams per its contract.
In concert with this, I’d go to the Big Ten and suggest they move one of the major Big Ten opponents into that scheduling slot (second game of the season on 6 September) and offer to play it as a night game at Michigan Stadium in prime time. Penn State and Michigan State are both currently scheduled as home games on UM’s schedule in 2014, but we know that’s subject to change with the new divisional lineups, etc. See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/081809aab.html for Michigan’s future football schedules
One item that was noted in the wake of Notre Dame cancelling the series with Michigan is that it will mean ND will have played one more home game since it restarted in 1978. To be honest, that really doesn’t bother me, but it’s been a small burr for a number of fans, etc.
UM’s 2014 schedule would then have four home non-conference games (Appalachian State in the season opener, Miami-Ohio and Utah are the other three on the schedule). With one of the conference games being moved up from the latter two months of the schedule, that fourth non-conference game could then be played in October or November. I have no idea who that opponent would be (probably a MAC level opponent given the timing of the game in the midst of conference play), but what it would do is get a high profile conference game on the schedule early in the season.
LikeLike
Except if the contract specifies that the 5 game commitment starts in 2015, that’s not necessary. When the ACC said they would be willing to work with ND about joining early ~ that is, Bball and non-revenue sports in 2013/2014 rather than 2014/2015 … “willing to work with” would suggest not demanding that Notre Dame move the start of the football scheduling agreement from 2015 to 2014 as well.
LikeLike
Per USA Today, ACC Commissioner John Swofford said on Tuesday that Notre Dame would begin playing five ACC teams starting in 2014. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/03/12/notre-dame-big-east-reach-deal-irish-to-join-acc-in-july/1981427/
So unless there’s been a change of heart over the last day or so, the Irish will have five ACC opponents on the 2014 schedule. The article doesn’t say that Pittsburgh and Syracuse are two of the five, but that might be a reasonable assumption seeing that they’re already on ND’s schedule.
In another article from 12 March (see http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2013-03-12/sports/37659692_1_notre-dame-football-acc-schools-gunner-kiel), ND AD Jack Swarbrick said that the 2014, 2015 and 2016 schedules are close to being finalized.
An excerpt:
“It tends to be more about nailing down dates and locations than it is about opponents,” Swarbrick said. “So what we’ve tried to do with the ACC is focus on three-year periods of time. And we have most of the building blocks — not all — but most of them we need from the ACC for the first three years. Now we have to make it work with the rest of our schedule.”
Swarbrick said there are no Thursday night games, an ACC staple, for ND on the 2014 schedule.
And in the future?
“There won’t be at home,” he said. “but I suppose there is a possibility that will happen down the road.”
******
FBS schedules has a link to ND’s 2014 slate at http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-14/indep/2014-notre-dame-fighting-irish-football-schedule.php
Of the 11 teams listed, two are from the ACC (Pittsburgh, Syracuse), three from the Pac 12 (Stanford, at Arizona State, at USC), three are from the Big Ten (Michigan, Purdue, Northwestern) and the remaining three are Rice (season opener), at Temple and at Navy.
In order to get five ACC teams on the 2014 schedule, two teams (other than Pitt or SU) from that lineup will have to be removed or rescheduled with an ACC team taking that last open slot on the schedule.
Stanford, USC and Navy are very likely staying on the schedule due to the long standing rivalries and in order to make sure ND has a West Coast trip on a consistent basis.
Rice is the season opener immediately prior to the Michigan game. ND probably wants to use this as a prep game, so the Owls could stay on the schedule or one of the lesser ACC teams (Duke, Wake Forest) could take that spot.
Home games with Michigan and Purdue are in Weeks 2 and 3. Purdue will likely stay on the schedule as they’re now the only B1G team that is scheduled to play ND on an annual basis. Hosting Michigan in South Bend (on NBC, no less) is probably a game the network wants to see played (especially if they do it in prime time).
Syracuse, Stanford and at Temple are the next three games. Temple is a home-and-home series with the Owls schedule to play in South Bend in 2017. This could be a game that gets axed and replaced by an ACC opponent.
At Arizona State, at Navy, Pittsburgh and Northwestern are the next four games. The ASU and NU games are both home-and-home series. It’s possible ND would replace one or both of them with an ACC team. The final game on the current schedule is at USC.
We’ll see in due course what happens with ND’s 2014, 2015 and 2016 schedules. In the article posted above, Swarbrick says he feels “great” about the ACC and doesn’t think the superconference model “works”. If Jim Delany and Mike Slive disagree with that assessment, he may have to rework those schedules before long.
LikeLike
Which brings it right back around to my prior comment ~ they have one date to fill, so two dates to replace, Arizona State and Northwestern as starts (one Home, one Away) of two game series with out year returns seem the most likely to be scrubbed.
LikeLike
Transic,
Just to be clear, the ACC will schedule those 5 games for ND, not ND. They don’t get to cherry pick their opponents or choose the sites. My guess is any currently scheduled ACC games will stay as is and the ACC will work around that.
2014 – ND currently has 11 games (2 ACC)
7 locks – MI, PU, Navy, USC, Stanford, Syracuse, Pitt
4 iffy – Temple, ASU, Rice, NW
I’d guess they would keep NW and drop the other 3 if the ACC demands 5 games that year. The ACC may let them ease into the deal to avoid cancelling games.
2015 – ND currently has 9 games (3 ACC)
No problems, but they could easily drop UMass.
LikeLike
You’re right. I read that the ACC provides the opponents and ND provides the dates. However, Pitt and Cuse are on the schedule for consecutive years. I have no idea how the ACC would start rotating the teams around. Maybe 2016 is the year the ACC really gets things going?
What would be the criteria for who would be the opponents for ND? That’s the more interesting question.
LikeLike
One easy way to schedule would be to choose 2 ACC teams to share 1 slot against ND (so each plays ND 2 years, followed by 2 years off). This could be 2 schools like BC and Pitt, who ND traditionally plays, or 2 schools like FSU and Miami, which will get more media attention.
The other 12 ACC schools would be divided into 3 groups of 4. Each group would play ND for 2 years, followed by 4 off years.
This sort of scheduling would mean a given team would only visit ND in even years or odd years, avoiding a scenario where they (for example) travel to South Bend in 2015 and then 2020. This would make it easier for schools to maintain non-conference rivalries; a school like FSU and Clemson will only want to travel to ND in years they’re hosting their in-state rival.
A six year cycle would look like:
Year 1: BC/@WF/Miami/@UNC/GT
Year 2: @BC/WF/@Miami/UNC/@GT
Year 3: Pitt/@Duke/Clemson/@VT/Syr
Year 4: @Pitt/Duke/@Clemson/VT/@Syr
Year 5: BC/@NCSU/FSU/@UVA/Louisville
Year 6: @BC/NCSU/@FSU/UVA/@Louisville
Years 7-12 would look like Years 1-6 except Pitt would replace BC and vice versa.
Of course, the ACC probably wouldn’t like 2 schools playing ND a bit more than the others, so they’ll probably choose something more complicated rotating all 14 schools equally.
LikeLike
For 2015, it’ll be filling in the 5th school and starting in 2016. To reduce the wait, it could be 2 groups of two, and 4 groups of 3, with the groups of 3 doing single rotation, so its 2 off years for everyone.
Two Floridas:
FSU/Miami
Three Northern Schools:
Syr/BC/Pitt
Three more football schools:
Clemson / VTech / UL
Three academic blue bloods:
UNC / UVA / GTech
Tobacco Road:
Duke / NC State / Wake
If it was that, then the entire northern rotation is being played in 2015, the Tobacco Road rotation is starting with Wake in 2015, so the fifth could well be GTech, the other one of ND’s designated BBall Home and away partners.
LikeLike
Transic,
“What would be the criteria for who would be the opponents for ND?”
They should all play ND equally. I’d make 3 groups of 5 (1 only has 4, obviously). The other 10 teams would take turns rotating through that empty slot in the third group.
A – FSU, Pitt, NCSU, WF, UL
B – Miami, GT, Duke, BC, UVA
C – VT, Clemson, UNC, Syracuse, X
Each group has a premier brand, one of ND’s frequent opponents, a deep south team, a NC team, a less southern team (VA or KY) and a northeast team.
LikeLike
I’m sure ND won’t be required to change schedule, nor would three ACC schools need to also, and the schools they’d be dropping, etc merely to enable non FB sport to start a year early. Early being the important distinction.
LikeLike
ND ain’t playing 5 ACC games in 2014.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure the 5-game requirement doesn’t kick in until 2015.
I’m also pretty sure that ND plans to keep the Purdue series. The only one of their traditional Big Ten opponents they cancelled was Michigan.
LikeLike
That’s what the tentative schedule looks like in 2015, with a date scheduled with Wake and an unscheduled game set for BC. They only need to add one more, which could well be the ACC’s choice in any event.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how many are even aware of this video but this was from February of last year. DeLoss Dodds was speaking at a luncheon and he made some remarks about Texas athletics. The most interesting comment was at 22:30, where he talked about how Texas convinced Oklahoma not to go to the PAC. He preferred looking east as opposed to west. Also interesting was that he thought Louisville would be a good fit. Maybe Louisville preferred the ACC over the Big 12, for the same reason DeLoss didn’t want Texas in the PAC. That would be a big irony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbZ_7Y7qiNQ
LikeLike
Louisville preferred the ACC because that is where they got the invite. They had a senator lobbying for the XII invite WVU got. Pittsburgh did prefer the ACC over the XII. The XII interest in Louisville may be part of the logic why the ACC took them over UCONN.
LikeLike
The networks wouldn’t pay for Louisville. There have been some reports that there was a lot of consideration of adding WVU and UL, but TV wouldn’t pay enough. And there was no decent #12 who paid enough combined with UL.
LikeLike
Exactly ~ UL IS a good fit, and rather than just expanding the eastern island that WV is on, extends the island a good distance toward the Big12 mainland. Its just not a big enough revenue draw for an odd add, so its an even add at best.
LikeLike
If UT and OU go east where would they go? The B1G won’t take OU. That just leaves the ACC and SEC.
Dodds will be long gone by the time these schools make a move anyway.
LikeLike
ACC. Dodds stated that Texas spoke with the ACC in 2011 when Oklahoma was thinking about moving to the PAC. He was also really high on a scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame. If the B1G takes 2-4 more ACC teams, why couldn’t the ACC add a western arm (in the next 5-10 years)? Add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State and form a 4-team western pod. The ACC expands into some big, new markets and improves in football, basketball, and academics.
Southern Pod
Miami
FSU
Georgia Tech
Clemson
West Pod
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Iowa State
North Pod
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
Central Pod
Whatever’s left in North Carolina and Virginia
If needed, add West Virginia to North Pod and move Louisville to Central Pod
For bball, have 17 teams, with Notre Dame
LikeLike
Well this is a bit surprising (though not certainly not shocking)
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9044578/college-football-new-playoff-format-title-sponsor
The conference commissioners and college administrators who oversee college football’s new championship format, which will begin in 2014, expect to unveil its name and logo at their meeting in Pasadena, Calif., next month, executive director Bill Hancock said.
That title, Hancock said, will not include a sponsor.
[Emphasis mine]
However,
The decision not to add a sponsor’s name will not affect the bowls that host the semifinal games, Hancock added.
“The semifinals will have something to the effect of ‘The Football Tournament Semifinal at the Discover Orange Bowl,'” he said.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1273766.html
CFN’s top 10 OOC games for 2013:
1. UGA at Clemson, 8/31
2. FSU at UF, 11/30
3. USC at ND, 10/19
4. OU at ND, 9/28
5. AL vs VT, 8/31
6. Clemson at SC, 11/30
7. UF at Miami, 9/7
8. ND at MI, 9/7
9. UCLA at NE, 9/14
10. LSU at TCU, 8/31
Not a super exciting list to me. I wish there were fewer traditional rivalries on there.
8/31 – 3
9/7 – 2
9/14 – 1
9/28 – 1
10/19 – 1
11/30 – 2
September looks a little weak after a strong opening weekend in August.
LikeLike
The top OOC will be ND vs Stanford at the end of November. That is the big one.
LikeLike
rich – you’re right. Based on ESPN’s post-signing-day-way-too-early-2013-top-25, that game would match the #9 Irish against the #2 Trees. CFN whiffed by putting ND/Stanford at #15.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8930092/alabama-crimson-tide-strengthen-top-spot-latest-2013-top-25
Using these rankings, I have revised the top OOC games. Note that only 8 OOC games feature two ranked teams.
1. #9 Notre Dame at #2 Stanford
2. #6 Georgia at #11 Clemson
3. #11 Clemson at #10 South Carolina
4. #9 Notre Dame at #12 Michigan
5. #16 Florida State at #7 Florida
6. #15 Oklahoma at #9 Notre Dame
7. #13 LSU v. #17 TCU at Arlington, TX
8. #21 UCLA at #23 Nebraska
LikeLike
And SEC is in 4 of theml Notre Dame in 3; ACC in 3; PAC 12 in 2; Big 12 in 2; B1G in 2. This is why it is so pathetic that college football’s post-season is like a beauty pageant. How can you select and rank teams if there are only 8 out-of-conference games against the top teams and conferences?
LikeLike
Of course ND is in alot of them as they don’t play any conference games.
LikeLike
Alan,
My issue with using preseason rankings that way is that they are less likely to be accurate for late season games. Personally, I doubt that Stanford will be #2 or ND #9 in November. I’m a little disappointed at how few of these are atypical games versus annual rivalries.
I’m not saying CFN’s list is canon or anything, don’t get me wrong.
LikeLike
Don’t see ND beating Michigan. I suspected Mi would drop a bit last year, but they didn’t drop as far as I thought & damn if they didn’t shoot themselves in the foot against Neb, Gardner should have played, not what’s his name. Something tells me Mi is going to win the BIG this year, they lost too many winnable games last year: ND, Neb & yes, despite the overplayed Clowney hit, SCar. It’s year 3 for Hoke – his system will be close to full swing.
LikeLike
Given USC’s finish last year and their offseason losses, I wouldn’t have them on any top 10 list.
LikeLike
Spoke with an individual familiar with the WVU/Big East legal battle. Said ND’s early entrance to ACC could benefit Maryland’s case.
https://twitter.com/alex_prewitt
LikeLike
Which could mean the ACC bringing Notre Dame in a year ahead of schedule could ultimately backfire. And we thought Texas Christian was a conference-killer!
LikeLike
My reading between the lines, once I heard the “year early” news, is that the ACC is not so confident they’ll get the 52 gazillion. They likely realized their chances when they pegged Lville – its healthy athletic department. The early ND entrance is now an additional argument for Md’s case. My gut says these fees get halved. Conferences should eliminate exit fees altogether – GOR seems a bit more reasonable, but these are mostly state schools who serve, naturally, their states first. Teams should want in & stay in based on trust. I knew there was some blood in the water when the ACC raised the exit fees to begin with.
LikeLike
I don’t think ND’s early entry affects the Maryland lawsuit at all. With or without ND, the ACC already expects to settle for less than half. Besides the usual reasons for settling, a full trial would expose a lot of private documents that they’d rather not put in the public eye.
Conferences should eliminate exit fees altogether – GOR seems a bit more reasonable…
“Reasonable” to whom? There are many leagues with at least one school that either hopes to move, or wants to leave itself that option. A GOR only works if everyone in the league is committed, and in many leagues that just isn’t the case, and won’t ever be.
LikeLike
Transic’s twitterer did add another tweet:
Individual did say that ND’s early entrance won’t make a “significant difference.” But “if it makes any difference, it benefits Maryland.”
“If it makes any difference, it benefits Maryland” is different from “this is a clear benefit to Maryland”.
LikeLike
Since I said “conference exit fees should be eliminated” my comparison of GOR is a pretty light endorsement at best, a “bit more reasonable” considering the alternative of exit fees. But my statement: “conferences should want in and stay in based on trust” does mean I don’t really like GOR either – “trust” and like you suggested “commitment” are tacit requirements. I agree “GOR only works if everyone in the league is committed”, seems fair for the BIG, Pac12 and SEC – since trust and commitment are valued. No one is going anywhere in these 3.
LikeLike
A GOR only works in a conference where most, if not all, of the members are the primary institution in their states. You can say that about UNC, and to a lesser extent about UVa, but who else in the ACC can make that claim?
LikeLike
“A GOR only works in a conference where most, if not all, of the members are the primary institution in their states.”
Only Colorado fits that description in the PAC…
LikeLike
Only Colorado fits that description in the PAC…
The Pac is largely the power of duopoly (or, in the case of California, quadropoly). North Carolina and Virginia fit that description in the ACC (although you can argue that in North Carolina, UNC is to NCSU what South Carolina is to Clemson, Georgia is to Georgia Tech and Florida is to Florida State).
LikeLike
ESPN said that the A GOR only works in a conference where most, if not all, of the members are the primary institution in their states
That doesn’t make any sense.
The only thing that is necessary for a conference to sign is a GOR is for all the members to decide they won’t have any better options before the the expiration of the deal.
I mean only 4 out of the 10 Big XII schools are their states’ “A” school, but they have a 12 year GOR.
LikeLike
Wonder if we will get any 39-38 NCAA tourney games. There’s been some really ugly basketball this year. Was watching a little of Florida-Vanderbilt and it was 24-14 about 4 minutes into the 2nd half. One player had 15 of Vandy’s first 19 points and I think the other 4 points were foul shots. Final was 66-40.
LikeLike
I just ran across a fun toy. Its called the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool on the US Department of Education’s website.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx
You can search all kinds of data by school or by conference.
Here’s 2011 revenue by sport by conference.
Football: (1) SEC $649mm; (2) B1G $548mm; (3) B12 $389mm; (4) P10 $359mm; (5) ACC $329mm
Men’s Basketball: (1) B1G $165mm; (2) ACC $137mm; (3) SEC $132mm; (4) B12 $108mm; (5) P10 $91mm
Baseball: (1) SEC $26.7mm; (2) B12 $17.2mm; (3) ACC $13.6mm; (4) P10 $11.7mm; (5) B1G $6.3mm
Wrestling: (1) B1G $4.5mm; (2) B12 $1.9mm; (3) ACC $1.8mm; (4) P10 $1.1mm; SEC-DNP
Men’s Ice Hockey: (1) B1G $19.8mm; (2) ACC $2.2mm; B12, SEC, P10 – DNP
LikeLike
In talking about what notional allocation of revenue to make by football / bball / others, I suggested 60/30/10. From that site, revenues in 2011 for the Big Ten come out to, of :
Football 68%
BBall 22%
Others 10%
… which suggests more 70/20/10
Ice Hockey is the clear #3, at 3%, no other non-revenue sport clearing 1%, and with both by-sport revenues and expenses close to $23m, a roughly break-even sport.
The ACC is 55/26/20 (not 100% due to rounding), several non-revenue sports above $10m in revenues:
Track: 3.0%
Soccer: 2.9%
Baseball: 2.4%
Cross: 2.0%
… though of those four, only Lacrosse is roughly breakeven.
LikeLike
It is important to always seperate revenue from profit when looking at these types of numbers. So big Fball has 3.3x the revenue of Big Bball but its probably about 7-10x as expensive. The top BCS FBall programs bring in enormous revenue with 100K seating etc. but the brake even point is so high that if your not over 40K a game I doubt your making much but once your over 50K a game most of that is profit which is a lot to those over 90K per game. Hockey is also a much more expensive sport then wrestling.
LikeLike
Well, at least that is a narrow enough to look at (with the qualification that Brian notes below, so these figures will miss both some FB-specific and some BBall-specific revenues):
FB: $548m – $254m = $294m = 78%
BB: $165m – $80m = $85m = 22%
The in terms of net revenue, that’s it.
Though given Brian’s qualifier, that some number of Big Ten schools report BTN income as unallocated income, it might be in the 75:25 to 70:30 range if that were to be fixed up on the BTN 65:35 ratio.
LikeLike
Bruce,
The standard BTN split is 65% FB and 35% MBB. That’s what Kristi Dosh found back when she was first looking at the financials of each conference.
LikeLike
Diving down into which schools split their BTN revenue by sport and which don’t is deeper into it than I’m going to dive unless there’s a hope for a peer reviewed pub at the other side. But if it were 50:50, it would indeed shift it closer to my original suggested 60/30/10 pro forma allocation.
LikeLike
According to her, the average football revenue went from $40.58M to $46.75M when she corrected for BTN allocation. This was pre-NE (2009-2010 data, IIRC).
Ave. Rev. = $46.75M
Ave. Exp. = $17.89M
Ave. Profit = $28.86M
LikeLike
That’s a 15.8% boost, or, if it more or less held for 2011, an extra $83m in unallocated revenues to place in football. At a 35/65 ratio, that is an extra $45m for BBall. There is no change here for direct program expanses, so for net revenues:
FB ~= 294+83 = $377m ~= 74%
BB ~= 85+45 = $130m ~= 26%
So closer to 3:1 (75:25) than than 4:1 (80:20) for sources of net surplus.
Of course, this overstates the financial benefit of a football program, since a large amount of the subsidized costs of womens sports is the required Title IX match for about 85 full FB scholarships.
LikeLike
Alan,
That’s a site I’ve used a lot in doing research on things. It’s quite helpful since the DOE is reasonably strict about how various revenues and expenses should be categorized so the numbers are fairly comparable.
It is important to note that there is still a lot of unallocated revenue depending on the school, though. For example, some B10 schools break up their BTN revenue by sport (65% football and 35% men’s basketball, usually) while others leave it unallocated. Donations can also be unallocated or sport specific. Regardless, it’s the best financial database out there in my opinion.
LikeLike
gross not net
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/3/13/4067334/new-college-football-team-markets
An interesting thought experiment. If you were going to start a new university for the sole purpose of playing football, where would you put it? To expand it, what if you were considering all sports? Would you change anything?
LikeLike
You don’t want too much college competition. You don’t want pro competition, but want to be in a decent population area. You don’t want to be too far from recruits.
My top 3 long-term move-ups would be (there are colleges pretty much everywhere so you don’t have to create one):
Cal-Davis
Missouri State
Georgia Southern (better if it were closer to Savannah)
LA and San Francisco are saturated and are pro markets. All of Texas is saturated. Florida’s large population areas are pretty much saturated. Georgia isn’t. Missouri isn’t.
Honorable mention for long-term potential:
Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Minnesota State Mankato
North Florida (if the Jaguars move)
LikeLike
Forgot Cal Poly for honorable mention.
LikeLike
North Dakota State has the potential to make a Boise type of jump to FBS. Combine the resources ($$) now available from oil production and the on the field legacy at both the Division II and FBS levels has the Bison in a unique position. A major impediment for NDSU, or any other Western program for that matter, of making a jump or getting started is the lack of a viable FBS conference.
LikeLike
The biggest impediment for NDSU is having only 700,000 people in the whole state.
LikeLike
Wyoming would be the most comparable FBS team (insert relevance on the national stage jokes here) with a population of 500,000. Wyoming has a conference (the WAC, now the MWC) to play regional opponents. With only one FBS program in a contiguous state (Minnesota) NDSU has the legitimate potential to draw from a regional fan base outside the borders of North Dakota, into Minnesota, South Dakota, and Canada. As long as the oil keeps pumping out of the Bakken, NDSU’s candidacy will continue to grow.
LikeLike
You made my point. NDSU could move up and aspire to be a Wyoming. That’s not a high standard. Certainly better than being an Idaho, but still not very high.
LikeLike
In South Dakota, it would have to compete against the established Cornhusker fanbase.
LikeLike
ODU notwithstanding, I think the tidewater area of VA is talent rich, relatively high in population, and under-served by both college and pro sports.
LikeLike
They’ll be in the CUSA in 2015.
LikeLike
The Michigan Victors Message Board had a post saying that ESPN B10 blogger Adam Rittenberg saying that he heard it was likely Michigan State was joining Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in the Eastern Division. See http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1363205085.79131&user=mabee
No link or reference was given where the poster heard it–perhaps a radio interview? If that is true, then a scenario with Indiana in the east and Purdue in the west would seem likely based on the informed speculation to date.
I’ve written this before, but having MSU in the east may be a reflection of the conference’s thinking about Penn State’s ability to compete with Michigan and Ohio State while under sanctions. Michigan State could also be seen as having a higher recognition level among college football/basketball fans in the mid-Atlantic/East Coast than Purdue.
Looking into the (near) future, if the B1G were to go to 16 teams (with the next two teams coming from the ACC) and set up pods by 2016, two of them would largely be “set”–Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota in one with Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana in a second one.
The third pod would be Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State with either Rutgers or Penn State as the fourth member. The final pod would have the three former ACC teams and either RU or PSU. Stay tuned. I could see Penn State in a pod with Maryland and two other former ACC teams because PSU wants an “eastern” presence. Putting Rutgers in with Michigan and Ohio State means one of those two teams visits the northern NJ/NYC area every year and games with the former ACC teams (and Penn State) two years out of every four.
LikeLike
I think it could also reflect that:
1) MSU hasn’t been that much better than Purdue in the Big 10 + 1 or 2 era; and
2) It leaves Michigan free to play other western schools more. You really only need to lock Indiana/Purdue. Or if you lock everyone, you can get more attractive TV matchups with Michigan.
LikeLike
#2 is important to the western schools for sure. If Michigan State ends up east, my hunch is that it’s because of the unwillingness to lock Michigan into a rivalry game.
Locking up Indiana-Purdue also helps the other 6 get more Michigan games as well (a small extra but every bit helps).
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think it could also reflect that:
1) MSU hasn’t been that much better than Purdue in the Big 10 + 1 or 2 era; and”
B10 W%:
All time: MSU – 0.552, PU – 0.471
Last 50 years: MSU – 0.554, PU – 0.491
Last 20 years: MSU – 0.500, PU – 0.459 (the PSU era)
Last 10 years: MSU – 0.519, PU – 0.450
Last 5 years: MSU – 0.659, PU – 0.375
MSU averaged an extra B10 win every 3 years compared to PU in the past 20 years (since PSU joined). Also, PU is trending down and MSU up. Considering history on top of that, MSU is a significantly better brand and program.
“2) It leaves Michigan free to play other western schools more. You really only need to lock Indiana/Purdue. Or if you lock everyone, you can get more attractive TV matchups with Michigan.”
With 9 games and MSU in the west: A western team plays MI 0.33, the rest of the east 0.44 (With no locked games, everyone would play 0.43)
That’s a difference of 1 less game every 9 years against MI compared to the others. Of course, that also means they are playing OSU and PSU and the eastern newbies slightly more than they
would have otherwise (1 extra game every 63 years against each of them).
LikeLike
Bullet: “MSU hasn’t been that much better than Purdue in the Big 10 + 1 or 2 era”
Brian: “MSU averaged an extra B10 win every 3 years compared to PU in the past 20 years (since PSU joined)”
Have to agree with Bullet, then.
LikeLike
Wasn’t arguing, just providing data for people to consider. “That much better” is a nebulous term.
LikeLike
cutter,
“The Michigan Victors Message Board had a post saying that ESPN B10 blogger Adam Rittenberg saying that he heard it was likely Michigan State was joining Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in the Eastern Division.”
They’ve made so many stupid decisions already that this one wouldn’t surprise me.
“I’ve written this before, but having MSU in the east may be a reflection of the conference’s thinking about Penn State’s ability to compete with Michigan and Ohio State while under sanctions.”
I just don’t buy that. First, PSU will only be “down” until roughly 2018 or 2019. Only fools would make permanent divisions based on 5 years. Second, how far down PSU will be is really debatable. PSU was near 65 scholarships last season and did pretty well considering they installed a brand new offense. They recruited fairly well, too. I don’t see them dropping down to a PU/IN/MN level. Third, regardless of how PSU does the next few years, the west needs brand power. If OSU and MI are truly on the rise, and they seem to be, they will eat up all the media coverage. You need multiple strong programs in the west to balance them. NE and WI can’t do it by themselves.
I honestly think they are trying to avoid balance if they do this. Leave it to Delany and crew to be that dumb. Heck, they might still keep the old division names, too. Some of the ADs like them.
“Michigan State could also be seen as having a higher recognition level among college football/basketball fans in the mid-Atlantic/East Coast than Purdue.”
Of course they do. They have a higher recognition everywhere but maybe some parts of IN. But they already put three kings in the east for that purpose. If they plan to add MSU, they might as well go all out and also bring NE instead of IN.
“Looking into the (near) future, if the B1G were to go to 16 teams (with the next two teams coming from the ACC) and set up pods by 2016,”
Doubtful for several reasons.
” two of them would largely be “set”–Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota in one with Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana in a second one.”
Not going to happen. That pod is too weak.
“The third pod would be Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State with either Rutgers or Penn State as the fourth member.”
Also not happening. PSU and RU are tied at the hip from now on. Unless you really think they want to use locked games to keep them together.
LikeLike
There is another possibility: For now, there would be no protected games. Would Penn State lose Nebraska? Ohio State lose Illinois? & Michigan lose Minnesota? Yes but that might be it. From a Penn State perspective, It would be straight up 6 Games against the East, and three against the West. I enjoy seeing us playing Nebraska & Wisconsin, but if we played at least one every year (Alternating Home & Home. Say 2014 & 2015 Nebraska and 2016 & 2017 Wisconsin) , we do not get Sparty to end the Season, and with the understanding that if two more teams are added (Say in the East), and the Michigan Schools head back West, we get Nebraska or Wisconsin back as a protected game (The trade off of losing Michigan for say Virginia), I can live with that.
LikeLike
Well, a minimum of one ~ if Indiana is in the East and Purdue is in the West, that will be protected. And three protected games, four unprotected in each division is easier to schedule. But there’s absolutely no need to have all seven protected.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“There is another possibility: For now, there would be no protected games.”
With the proposed divisions? That’s not an option. Either MI/MSU or IN/PU will be split by the alignment, so at least that game will be locked. As for locked games for everyone else, certainly it’s an option to not lock any. They may lock none while still playing 8 games and then add a locked game when they go to 9 also. I’m all for not locking games needlessly.
Or are you talking about his pod proposal? I’d again say at least PSU/RU would be locked, not that his pods are plausible.
“Would Penn State lose Nebraska? Ohio State lose Illinois? & Michigan lose Minnesota? Yes but that might be it.”
That’s 6 of 14 teams (6 of the current 12, too). It’s problematic to make decisions that half the conference doesn’t like.
“From a Penn State perspective, It would be straight up 6 Games against the East, and three against the West. I enjoy seeing us playing Nebraska & Wisconsin, but if we played at least one every year (Alternating Home & Home. Say 2014 & 2015 Nebraska and 2016 & 2017 Wisconsin) , we do not get Sparty to end the Season, and with the understanding that if two more teams are added (Say in the East), and the Michigan Schools head back West, we get Nebraska or Wisconsin back as a protected game (The trade off of losing Michigan for say Virginia), I can live with that.”
Could you put any more conditions on that?
1. PSU always gets to alternate between NE and WI instead of ever getting both or neither
2. PSU never plays MSU to end the season
3. If 2 more schools are added and the MI schools move west, PSU gets NE or WI as a locked rival
PSU already got two eastern foes added to stop their whining. How much more do we have to do to placate you? If eastern schools are added OSU should head west, not MI. Also, PSU should take what they get to end the year and shut up about it. We already ruined the conference to give you RU and UMD. As for locking NE or WI, that’s a pipe dream if the B10 moves to 16. You need to minimize locked games as you expand, not add them.
MSU goes east:
Season enders: OSU/MI, RU/MD, PSU/MSU, IN/PU, NW/WI, IL/MN, NE/IA
MSU goes west:
Season enders: OSU/MI, IN/PU, MSU/WI, IL/MN, NE/IA + (PSU/RU, NW/MD) or (PSU/MD, NW/RU)
Everything will be fine for you if MSU goes west. If they go east, it makes the most sense to pair MSU and PSU to try to have another important game that weekend.
LikeLike
@Brian
Well at least David Brown didn’t add his predilection to playing Pitt the last game of the year. I love the PSU-MSU rivalry(such as it is), so, by DBs standard, I am obviously not a true Nitt. I don’t think we have ruined the conference adding Maryland and Rutgers, I think that will come with more southern additions.
LikeLike
largeR,
“Well at least David Brown didn’t add his predilection to playing Pitt the last game of the year.”
True enough. Even he can’t claim that all PSU fans want to play Pitt to end the year every year.
“I love the PSU-MSU rivalry(such as it is), so, by DBs standard, I am obviously not a true Nitt.”
You aren’t the only one I’ve seen express that sentiment. That’s how I know he’s wrong to say that.
“I don’t think we have ruined the conference adding Maryland and Rutgers,”
No, that just finished the destruction.
LikeLike
Brian-
You’re once again thinking like a member of the French General Staff right before the German offensive through the Ardennes Forest in 1940.
You say that the Western Division needs “brand power”, but disregard the entire reason why Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and possibly Michigan State are going to the east. Those teams collective brand power will be on display in a portion of the country that the conference is very likely looking to expand its geographic presence, i.e., the area from NYC/northern NJ through the mid-Atlantic and possibly the Florida Panhandle Delany has said on more than one occasion that the B1G is planning on opening an eastern office. There’s been analysis on this board on how many Big Ten alums are in that section of the country, including the numbers from Indiana University. The BTN is looking to get on basic cable in NYC, NJ, Maryland, the DC area–another good reason to put a disproportionate share of the “king” and brand names in the east.
We’ll have to disagree on our assessments of the future of Penn State football in the near term. Maybe O’Brien sticks around long enough as HC to manage the scholarship losses and rebuild the program, but is that the view from the Big Ten’s office outside Chicago? I can see why they have their doubts, and if so, why MSU ends up in the east in a 14-team conference.
The discussion about putting Nebraska in the east makes no sense given all we’ve heard about geography being one of the drivers for the two divisions. I realize you were trying to make a point about disregarding the “balance between kings”, but your comment was ridiculous. Once the East-West division scheme became the apparent front runner, the main discussion was about which team was going to the west–Purdue or Michigan State. You make excellent points about MSU’s higher winning percentage in football and better recognition factors–both of which can be used to support having the Spartans play in the east.
I didn’t know Rutgers and Penn State were tied to the hip if the Big Ten went to 16 teams. I can appreciate why PSU likes the idea of having a couple of eastern teams in RU and Maryland joining the conference so that they could be in the same division as part of a 14-team conference. But if the B1G goes to 4 four-team pods and the two additional teams come from the ACC,what options does Penn State have?
One option is to have PSU in a pod with three other eastern teams. Let’s say Virginia and North Carolina are the two programs added to the B1G Based on your comments about Rutgers, then the pod PSU would be in would include UVa, UNC and RU in that scenario. That would put Maryland in with Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State.
Pod A: Penn State, Virginia, North Carolina, Rutgers
Pod B: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Maryland
Another option is to have PSU with Rutgers and perhaps one other eastern team. If you make that program Maryland, then Virginia and North Carolina go into a pod with two teams from further west–perhaps even Michigan and Ohio State in order to keep those two together. That would mean PSU is with Rutgers, Maryland and perhaps Michigan State.
Pod A: Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State, Rutgers
Pod B: Michigan, Ohio State, Virginia, North Carolina
As far as any pod being “too weak”, I would propose using the WAC model for the Big Ten which had two of the pods permanently assigned to divisions with the other two pods rotating between them on a two year basis. The two pods permanently assigned to the divisions would be the strongest, i.e., the one pod with Nebraska and Wisconsin and the other with Michigan and Ohio State. That means the composition of the divisions in any given year would be one “strong” pod and one “weak” pod.
We’ll see what happens in due course when/if the B1G goes to 16 or more members.
LikeLike
@cutter: You always seem to assume that the B1G would organize in pods, without entertaining other options. A pod structure is certainly not the only way to do it, and moreover, the one time it was tried at the FBS level was not a resounding success. The very awkwardness of the pods you propose is perhaps the strongest indication that this isn’t the best idea.
LikeLike
I actually do look at the other options when it comes to conferences of 16 teams or more.
If the B1G were to go to 16 teams and a nine-game conference schedule, then we’d have a 7-2 scheduling setup with two permanent 8-team divisions. If the conference goes to a ten-game conference schedule, then it’s a 7-3 setup for those two divisions.
FWIW, this article (see http://thegazette.com/2013/03/13/cray-cray-recruiting-appears-to-be-squelched/) has quotes from Iowa’s AD and HFB coach saying the conference is trending to an east-west lineup with nine games. The Iowa AD is also excited by the prospect of playing teams close to him–he names Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois in the article (no mention of Purdue or Michigan State though).
Using that same East-West lineup for the permanent division and assuming Virginia and North Carolina would be #15 and #16, then we might well get the following:
East – Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
One advantage of a permanent division lineup over the pods is that fans can easily identify the programs in their division on an annual basis. The membership doesn’t change every two years like it does in a pod system. Because teams play seven of their games against opponents in their division, it also helps when it comes to travel to opposing team’s venues (although it’s just under an eight-hour drive from DC to Ann Arbor for me, it only takes 20 minutes from my home to College Park, MD). The instate rivalries are played annually in this case and these two divisions have a regional identity to them.
The negative comes from the conference schedules as it can take up to eight years to complete home-and-home games with all the teams in the other division in a 7-2 setup. The conference could set aside the practice of doing home and homes in order to ensure that each program plays one another at least once in a four-year time frame.
I’m actually very comfortable with this lineup. Unlike Brian, I don’t have the hangup about “balancing kings” and if the trade off for a 16-team conference is a situation where Michigan only plays two Western Division teams each year, then that’s fine with me. Outside of Nebraska and Wisconsin, there aren’t compelling programs in the West right now that I’d really like to see the Wolverines play. OTOH, having those three annual games with OSU, PSU (even a depleted PSU) and MSU locked in every season would be great.
I write about pods largely because it’s the only way to ensure each team plays the other at least twice over a four-year period. Some people (fans and administrators) see value in that because it binds the conference closer together. To be honest, if we go to 18- or 20-team conferences, then structurally, they’re essentially going to be two small conferences operating under one umbrella organization for television, playoffs, etc.if they’re set up in permanent divisions. Anything that gives CFB a post-season structure that makes sense is good for me.
The WAC had a few problems outside of the pod structure which led to it breaking up in the manner it did So I’d be a little reluctant to say that since it didn’t work for the WAC, it couldn’t work for the B1G. If the pods are designed with geography and rivalries in mind, then it might hold up with 16 or more teams.
So please, no, don’t think I’m welded to a pod system for a 16-team B1G. It’s just an option that I suspect the Big Ten (and the SEC) would consider if/when it does happen.
One final note. With a 20-team conference and nine conference games, there would be no cross division games with two 10-team permanent divisions. The only time teams from the two divisions would play one another is in the conference championship game. OTOH, a four-pod system with five teams apiece would play one another at least twice over a six-year period. Which do you prefer?
LikeLike
@cutter: Static pods and static 8-team divisions aren’t the only options. I agree with you that static 8-team divisions would likely be considered unacceptable. With a 9-game schedule — which seems to be what the ADs want — it would take 8 years for all-play-all home & home.
There are 12,870 ways to arrange 16 teams into two divisions. Static 4-team pods limit you to, at most, three of these. Now, some of the 12,870 will be clearly unacceptable, for a variety of reasons. But I think there are far more than 12,867 that would meet the Big Ten’s criteria. Yet, that’s the number that you categorically ignore by fixating on static 4-team pods.
In order to arrive at the actual number of potential divisions, you have to decide which rivalries must absolutely, positively, be played every year. Some are obvious; others, I think are open to debate. Is it a given that WI, MN, IA, and NE would always be in the same division? I am not so sure. That’s what those schools requested in a 14-team B1G. In a 16-team B1G, other constraints might take precedence.
Some constraints are beyond argument: any of the 12,870 alignments that have the four kings in one division are unacceptable. Others are not so clear. If MD, UVA, and UNC all join, which of Maryland’s rivalries would the league protect annually?
So I think it is prefereable to identify the scheduling principles that matter, rather than starting with the presumption that, whatever you do, there must be four groups of four. There will, of course, be some debate about those principles, because fans do not always agree. But I think it puts the cart before the course, when you presume that static 4-team pods and static 8-team divisions are your only options.
LikeLike
12,780 ways to combine 16 teams into 2 divisions is something that the static pod systems are quite cognizent of ~ given a size of division and a number of conference games where it takes “too long” to see all the cross division foes in static divisions, the three or four static pod systems are means of keeping that the counterproductive chaos of those 12,780 ways to recombine the 16 teams at bay.
LikeLike
Sure, but that “counterproductive chaos” is chaos to us, because it’s not our full-time job to analyze this. Hobbyists on a fan message board have not done the same due diligence as the league would.
As the teams aren’t even known yet, I don’t feel any rush to throw my support behind a particular system. For now, I think it suffices to point out that many more options exist, besides those under discussion: ~70-80 percent of people just assume that the Big Ten would employ the WAC’s pod system, despite the fact that it wasn’t exactly a rip-roaring success there.
@cutter goes so far as to suggest that the ADs have the pods in mind already, i.e., that the system for a 16-team league has been decided, and all that remains is to pencil in the last two teams. I’d be very surprised if that were the case.
LikeLike
cutter,
“East – Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue”
“I’m actually very comfortable with this lineup.”
You would be, because it sucks.
“Unlike Brian, I don’t have the hangup about “balancing kings” and if the trade off for a 16-team conference is a situation where Michigan only plays two Western Division teams each year, then that’s fine with me. Outside of Nebraska and Wisconsin, there aren’t compelling programs in the West right now that I’d really like to see the Wolverines play. OTOH, having those three annual games with OSU, PSU (even a depleted PSU) and MSU locked in every season would be great.”
I’d move OSU west in that lineup every time. Hell, I’d rather not play MI annually than be stuck with those divisions.
LikeLike
Mark Shepherd: “Sure, but that “counterproductive chaos” is chaos to us, because it’s not our full-time job to analyze this.”
But the posters on this forum have a higher tolerance threshold for these intricacies than the average fan, so it would be even more chaotic to the average fan.
A conference does not build brand value because random team A in the conference played X number of games against other random teams in the conference, it builds brand value because the fans of the team A build a memory of playing a group of other teams that the fans associate with the conference, a memory of early season hopes of success and late seasons fight for the crown or fights to go bowling.
Conference realignment always involves some lost or watered down brand equity, and a central part of scheduling the competition post-realignment is to get the best balance of retaining existing brand equity and building new brand equity.
“Hobbyists on a fan message board have not done the same due diligence as the league would.”
Yes, the same due diligence that figured “Leaders” and “Legends” would be a marketing win.
“For now, I think it suffices to point out that many more options exist, besides those under discussion: ~70-80 percent of people just assume that the Big Ten would employ the WAC’s pod system, despite the fact that it wasn’t exactly a rip-roaring success there.”
But unless there’s a *system* to it, the result won’t be systematic, and it will feel to the average fan like the division for the year has been drawn out of a hat. And no “beyond fan message board professional due diligence” is required to know that, everything else equal, a result that feels to the average fan like its being drawn out of a hat is inferior to one that feels like there is some regularity to the schedule.
(1) Regarding things that feel systematic, everything else equal, a static division lineup is superior to an alternation of two division lineups, which is superior to an alternation of three.
(2) Regarding things that feel systematic, everything else equal, seeing everyone every year is superior to seeing most everyone every year and some with a one or two year gap, which is superior to seeing some teams with longer gaps, and of course the losses in not seeing a school are not uniform, but also involve how excited the fans of any given school are to SEE their team play that other team.
The bigger the conference gets, the more it is forced to trade off (1) and (2).
LikeLike
To be honest, the pod idea does not cut it. Particularly the idea with lumping Penn State with Michigan State. Nittany Lion fans do not want it, and I am sure Spartan fans would be outraged, if not in a pod with Michigan. If the B10 goes to a 16 Team (Or more) Conference, the easiest solution is sending the Michigan Schools West, and make sure that U of M plays Ohio State as a protected rivalry game. I am basically sick of scenarios that always want to put Penn State in some kind of rivalry with a school that we care zero about (And vice versa). Maybe in Hockey (We did beat them in hockey this year), but not football or hoops (Nitt Basketball is the worst).
LikeLike
Any pod system would require, by the chain rule, OSU–TSUN–MSU in a single pod, it it would require IN–PU and IL-NW pairs in a single pod, and ought to have UNL–IA–WI–MN in a single pod.
Any pod system OUGHT to have, under the “they were brought in to answer your whinging, you play them, goddamit” rule, PSU–MD–RU. PSU duck out on one of those is stretching it, letting PSU duck out on both would be absurd.
A 16 team conference would be 4 team pods, and the OSU–TSUN–MSU and either PSU–MD or PSU–RU strings can’t fit into one 4 team pod.
LikeLike
Right: basically, the problem is that the most plausible new schools are to the southeast of the current footprint. The PSU-RU-MD grouping makes sense, but whatever school you add to that group leaves the other new school “stranded” in a pod with OSU-UM-MSU.
That’s why I think the better system is to decide which games must absolutely positively be played every year, and just re-make the divisions annually (or bi-annually, if you so prefer) with no static groupings.
LikeLike
@Dave Brown-
If you send the two Michigan schools west and don’t have Ohio State in the same division with UM, then what you’re saying you’d prefer is the following (because it doesn’t lump MSU with Penn State):
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State
East – Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Would UM-OSU be the only protected rivalry game in your set up or would all the conference teams have protected cross-division contests? If the latter, please spell out how you would pair up the teams? Would you also explain how you expect that sort of set up would work with nine-conference games and a 7-1-1 setup? Or would you have ten conference games with your set up with a 7-1-2 game split?
Would you endorse having the Michigan-Ohio State game at season’s end with the possibility of a rematch in the conference championship game? Or would you move The Game up to earlier in the season? By extension, when would you play the protected cross-division contests if you elected to have them across the board?
In terms of the Big Ten Conference attempt to expand its presence into the East Coast/mid-Atlantic (along with the BTN), please explain the rationale behind having Michigan and Michigan State in the west instead of the east. Do you feel that Purdue and Indiana would outdraw UM and MSU in the area spanning NY City to Charlotte, NC? Does it make sense to have Michigan and Michigan State play on the east coast four times in a 14 year period if you’re trying to grow the BTN?
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Particularly the idea with lumping Penn State with Michigan State. Nittany Lion fans do not want it,”
I’m so sick of this argument. PSU fans are all over the map on what they want. Eastern PA wants to play more eastern foes. Western PA fans want Pitt and OSU. Some PSU fans really liked the MSU game (nobody liked the trophy), some couldn’t have cared less about MSU. Nobody can speak for all PSU fans about this.
“I am basically sick of scenarios that always want to put Penn State in some kind of rivalry with a school that we care zero about (And vice versa).”
Then develop an actual rival. It’s not like the B10 is keeping you away from some major rivalry you have. Also, stop dragging OSU into your world as if we care about you if you don’t want the B10 to do the same to you in other games. It’s a two way street. The B10 doesn’t exist solely to placate PSU fans.
LikeLike
cutter,
“You’re once again thinking like a member of the French General Staff right before the German offensive through the Ardennes Forest in 1940.”
Why do you insist on using that stupid metaphor? You do realize it makes you Hitler, right? It also means I win the war.
“You say that the Western Division needs “brand power”,”
Because it does.
“but disregard the entire reason why Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and possibly Michigan State are going to the east.”
No, I’m not. I’m considering that while also considering the welfare of the western half of the conference. If all the media attention goes east, too, that will just exacerbate the recruiting and brand advantages that the eastern teams have. There is such a thing as excess, not that you appear to know that.
“The BTN is looking to get on basic cable in NYC, NJ, Maryland, the DC area–another good reason to put a disproportionate share of the “king” and brand names in the east.”
Then they should commit completely and also send NE east instead of IN according to your logic. Since all that matters is eastern attention, stick all the no-name football schools in the west and bring all your top brands east. That would make even more money, which is all you care about.
“I didn’t know Rutgers and Penn State were tied to the hip if the Big Ten went to 16 teams. I can appreciate why PSU likes the idea of having a couple of eastern teams in RU and Maryland joining the conference so that they could be in the same division as part of a 14-team conference. But if the B1G goes to 4 four-team pods and the two additional teams come from the ACC,what options does Penn State have?”
They are tied at the hip because of RU, not PSU. Nobody else gives a rat’s ass about RU. UMD can leave PSU and play with ACC teams just fine. If 2 ACC teams join, there are a multitude of options:
1. No divisions (requires a rule change)
2. Divisions (PSU stays east with RU and the ACC teams)
3. Pods of 5/3 (PSU, RU, UMD, ACC 1, ACC 2 as a pod)
4. Pods of 4:
4a. PSU, RU, UMD, UVA + OSU, PU, IN, GT + MI, MSU, NW, IL + NE, WI, IA, MN
4b. PSU, RU, PU, IN + OSU, UMD, UVA, UNC + MI, MSU, NW, IL + NE, WI, IA, MN
4c. You get the idea. There are a ridiculous number of choices
“As far as any pod being “too weak”, I would propose using the WAC model for the Big Ten which had two of the pods permanently assigned to divisions with the other two pods rotating between them on a two year basis.”
If you do that, you don’t need pods of 4. You can go to a 5/3 plan that works better for the east.
“The two pods permanently assigned to the divisions would be the strongest, i.e., the one pod with Nebraska and Wisconsin and the other with Michigan and Ohio State.”
You suggested OSU, MI, PSU and MSU as a pod option. NE, WI, IA and MN doesn’t come close to balancing that, either.
LikeLike
cutter: “You say that the Western Division needs “brand power”,”
Brian: “Because it does.”
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for having two central swing groups with brand power in both groups, since it would ensure that whichever central swing group is in the West, the West has brand power.
The MSU-tsun-OSU clump then IMPLIES that PSU is in the other central swing group.
So set the priority on having brand power in both divisions no matter what, and that drives the split in a particular direction, distinct from catering to the maximum number of traditional rivalries and distinct from aiming for competitive balance and distinct from aiming for the most rapid build up of Big Ten brand equity in its new footprint, mostly to the east.
With quads, the MSU-tsun-OSU clump also blocks adding either the Illinois pair or the Indiana pair.
The Illinois pair could be in a Central swing group with PSU and one of the tier14 newbies, and Indiana could be in an Eastern group with the tier16 newbie, which would leave the other tier14 newbie with us. I doubt that the Buckeyes really give much of a damn whether its Maryland or Rutgers, since there are plenty of Buckeye alumni in both NYC and DC, but that school up north have a lot of alumni in DC, so that yields an omelet quad layout:
West: UNL, IA, WI, MN
North: NW, IL, PSU, Rutgers
Center: MSU, tsun, OSU, MD
South: PU, IN, A_16, B_16
LikeLike
Brian as a Penn State supporter, I certainly am not dragging Ohio State into the Penn State Universe (In fact, I acknowledge that Illinois is probably more important than Penn State to the Buckeyes). My objections have been 1: Forcing one School down our throats and that School is Michigan State. We will never be the primary rival of MSU, that is the University of Michigan (Sounds like OSU doesn’t it?). There are only three schools that could be are main rival: Maryland, Rutgers & of course, Pitt. No one knows if we will dislike Maryland or Rutgers that remains to be seen, but it is a fact that Sparty does even less than Iowa on the intensity level at State College. 2: Not playing a team like Nebraska or Wisconsin on an annual basis that generates interest with most Penn State fans.
LikeLike
@Brian-
Actually, it makes Delany (and Slive) Hitler and you’re one of the guys (or maybe its the ACC’s commissioner John Swofford) on the railcar surrendering to him once the Germans take Paris and push the British back to their home islands. If you want to expand the analogy, then if I’m the German High Command, I wouldn’t attack Russia (the SEC) in May 1941 either.
The analogy makes a good one because you make consistently make observations from the past and think the future is going to operate in the same manner.
For instance, you’re worried about western “brand power”, but have you heard any AD from those schools say anything about that? They’re much more enthusiastic about playing the programs in adjoining states and having their fans being able to travel to away games when it comes to divisional alignment. Has any of the coaches from Nebraska or Wisconsin or Iowa said this is going to hurt their recruiting? Or is going to help them out because the conference’s overall reach is greater, the BTN is available to more households, etc.?
And once again, you make the assinine comment about putting Nebraska in the eastern division. What’s up with that? Can’t you come up with anything better? I think you need to get out of your mom’s basement more often.
So you’re saying that Rutgers is the reason why its PSU-RU that are tied together and not the other way around? Where in the world are you getting that? I realize the two teams have played one another 24 times, but why is it necessary for Rutgers to play Penn State on an annual basis in order to be successful in the Big Ten? Why doesn’t it work if they play the former ACC schools on a regular basis? Can Rutgers not make a place for itself in the B1G if it were in a pod with Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State?
Wow? No divisions, huh? That’s just great until you try to figure out the tiebreaker for the conference championship game (assuming you’re still onboard for that one).
And pods of 5/3? I’m sure the fans and the media are absolutely going to wrap their heads around that lineup in a flash. And please tell me how you put together pods of four without Michigan and Ohio State in the same pod? Are you saying that they shouldn’t play one another each year? Or do they have a fixed games with one another when they aren’t in the same pod? Does that 7-1-1 arrangement work for just those two teams or for all of them?
BTW, how dim of a bulb are you? This entire exercise conference expansion and realignment exercise has always primarily been about money. Teams didn’t make the moves they have in the past because it made for a better set of rivalries or because it made geographic sense. They did it because they were driven by the bottom line. Once you wrap yourself around that idea, then maybe you’ll have more than half a notion about what’s taking place here.
In the meantime, mon General, keep an eye out for those Panzers in the woods and for the Stukas overhead. Because when the Big Ten and the SEC are done with their Blitzkrieg on the ACC, they’ll be rewriting the map of major college athletics.
LikeLike
@cutter:
Wow? No divisions, huh? That’s just great until you try to figure out the tiebreaker for the conference championship game (assuming you’re still onboard for that one).
It’s simple. The Big Ten has tie-breakers already, to decide which team wins each division. You could use the same system to select the top two teams in a division-less league, rather than using it twice in a two-division league.
And pods of 5/3? I’m sure the fans and the media are absolutely going to wrap their heads around that lineup in a flash.
The fans don’t necessarily need to know “how the sausage is made.” Before Nebraska joined, each team had two protected rivals, and the remainder of the schedule rotated in mysterious ways that were never advertised. All you knew, as a Michigan fan, was that you’d have MSU/OSU every year, and some league-selected menu of six more games.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“My objections have been 1: Forcing one School down our throats and that School is Michigan State. We will never be the primary rival of MSU, that is the University of Michigan (Sounds like OSU doesn’t it?).”
I don’t consider putting them in the same pod or making it the last game because everyone else is busy as forcing them down your throat. Nobody said you have to be rivals to play the last game. Would you rather play IN that week? At least MSU is more likely to factor into the standings.
“There are only three schools that could be are main rival: Maryland, Rutgers & of course, Pitt. No one knows if we will dislike Maryland or Rutgers that remains to be seen,”
You’ve played UMD 37 times (more than any B10 team) and RU 24 times (more than all but OSU, MSU – 28 and IA – 25). I’d think would know how they feel about them by now since you say they know how they feel about OSU, MSU and IA.
“but it is a fact that Sparty does even less than Iowa on the intensity level at State College.”
OK. That’s not a reason not to play them in the last game, though. There isn’t some great option out there.
” 2: Not playing a team like Nebraska or Wisconsin on an annual basis that generates interest with most Penn State fans.”
Nobody gets everything they want. You got two teams added in the east and pulled OSU into your crappy division. How many more concessions do you expect? There are 13 other teams to consider, you know?
LikeLike
cutter,
“The analogy makes a good one”
No, it doesn’t. It never has and it never will.
“For instance, you’re worried about western “brand power”, but have you heard any AD from those schools say anything about that?”
1. Yes.
2. Now we take ADs at face value? So all their talk about no more expansion in the past must have been true, right?
“They’re much more enthusiastic about playing the programs in adjoining states and having their fans being able to travel to away games when it comes to divisional alignment.”
They are not mutually exclusive things. They can have brand power in the west and still play their neighbors.
“Has any of the coaches from Nebraska or Wisconsin or Iowa said this is going to hurt their recruiting?”
Does any coach say anything negative about recruiting? I’ve seen multiple fans say it, and they might be hearing it from their teams blogs which are more in tune with the recruits than I am.
“Or is going to help them out because the conference’s overall reach is greater, the BTN is available to more households, etc.?”
The BTN won’t so much be available to more households as it will be in more households. I don’t think the conference’s reach will actually change much so far. The B10 already recruits NJ and MD heavily and has been working the south for years, too.
“So you’re saying that Rutgers is the reason why its PSU-RU that are tied together and not the other way around?”
Only a fool would think it’s the other way around.
“Where in the world are you getting that?”
Travel distance from RU:
UMD – 191 miles
PSU – 238
UVA – 312
UNC – 474
OSU – 511
Games played against RU:
PSU – 24
MSU – 5
UNC – 5
UMD – 4
UVA – 4
PSU is the only school that is reasonably close and has any ties to RU, and on top of that they are a king which everyone says w`e need playing at RU a lot to develop the NYC market. Also consider that much of PSU’s fan base is actually much closer to NYC than the school itself is (Philly, Newark, NYC, eastern PA). On top of that, only PSU is a football school.
“Why doesn’t it work if they play the former ACC schools on a regular basis?”
Because they are all hoops schools and none of them care about RU anyway.
“Can Rutgers not make a place for itself in the B1G if it were in a pod with Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State?”
No.
“No divisions, huh?”
It’s not a new concept. Have you missed the past few weeks/months of discussion of the idea. Perhaps Mark will explain it to you.
“That’s just great until you try to figure out the tiebreaker for the conference championship game (assuming you’re still onboard for that one).”
Because that is so difficult? The B10 always managed to figure out a champ before they had a CCG. You could apply the same rules to picking the top 2. Problem solved.
“And pods of 5/3?”
Nice to see you can read.
“I’m sure the fans and the media are absolutely going to wrap their heads around that lineup in a flash.”
Because pods of 4 is so much simpler? Having fewer schools rotate is easier to remember.
“And please tell me how you put together pods of four without Michigan and Ohio State in the same pod?”
Easily.
“Are you saying that they shouldn’t play one another each year?”
Not necessarily, although I’d choose that over your divisions.
“Or do they have a fixed games with one another when they aren’t in the same pod?”
See, you can figure it out yourself like a big boy.
“Does that 7-1-1 arrangement work for just those two teams or for all of them?”
Yes.
“BTW, how dim of a bulb are you? This entire exercise conference expansion and realignment exercise has always primarily been about money.”
So dim I don’t think that “sentence” makes any sense as written, nor do I think it refutes anything I said.
LikeLike
Hopefully, the rumored divisions would only be effective for one season. Then again, maybe the high brass is anticipating that and they’ll just roll with it. I also think that the last two adds will not go below Virginia, meaning the likelihood of a non-AAU being #16 goes way up. They’d prefer that the eastern flank is fully secured before stopping completely or truly setting up a national footprint.
LikeLike
Sorry to dash your hopes, but the Big Ten will take Georgia Tech long before it takes Connecticut (if ever).
LikeLike
“Dash my hopes?” I’m not even a UConn fan. Simply, I’m taking a more realistic view of things. I still think 16 is the more likely stopping point. However, to get to GT, it may have to take a combination of GT/UNC/Duke/UVa to make it work. GT on an island is simply awkward.
If rumors are true, there may be a deal for an alliance between Notre Dame, Texas and Swofford that would schedule neutral site games involving football power and even some basketball games between the B12/ACC. It’s in the discussion stage but it has a chance to become reality because ND would want nothing more than to foil the B1G at every turn.
FSU, Clemson and GT could be convinced to stay put. UNC/Duke definitely would love the arrangement. Even so, there will be further defections. The SEC would likely take the pair of VT/NCSU to complete their expansion drive. UVa is looking good to join Maryland to the B1G, so the question is can ND/ACC convince GT to stay in the ACC. I think GT stays because ESPN will front enough money to erase the difference btwn the ACC and B12 and keep most of the schools that they can. They know that they can’t match the B1G in total dollars but just enough to salvage the ACC without losing their shirts. ND is also rumored to be negotiation for a H/H with Pitt in addition to the 5 game schedule with the ACC, making it 6 games a season.
From my standpoint, the critical component of an alliance would be to stop the B1G from not only going into Carolina but block them from Atlanta as well. If that happens and Virginia still wants to join, do you leave them hanging, go along with an odd number of team or take the best move available?
LikeLike
Of the rumored possible post-Maryland ACC candidates for Big Ten membership, it’s largely believed Georgia Tech is the one most enthusiastic about changing conferences; it simply needs to find a partner, and UVa could be it. And if the Big Ten would take Texas in a heartbeat (and it would, if UT agreed to play by its rules), why would Georgia Tech’s so-called “island” status be that big a deal? Atlanta’s closer to Ohio State and IU than most Big Ten schools west of the Mississippi. And any ACC football deal for Notre Dame and Texas still wouldn’t provide Tech with anywhere close to the money that the Big Ten would offer.
LikeLike
They’d prefer that the eastern flank is fully secured before stopping completely or truly setting up a national footprint.
Pretty sure Georgia Tech is an Eastern school…
LikeLike
Looking into the (near) future, if the B1G were to go to 16 teams (with the next two teams coming from the ACC) and set up pods by 2016, two of them would largely be “set”–Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota in one with Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana in a second one.
This seems doubtful. I don’t think Delany is positive who #15 & #16 will be. Assuming they go with pods (which is not a given), you can’t set them up in the abstract. It really does crucially depend on who the schools are. For instance, UVA & UNC almost certainly have to be in a pod together (if there are pods at all), but UVA and GT don’t need to be. Also, I agree with @Brian that a pod of NW/IL/PU/IN is way too weak.
So I don’t think this is a baby-step towards pods. It’s what they believe is the best alignment for the 14 teams they have now. When #15 & #16 are identified, they’ll tear it up and start again.
LikeLike
Yes, while if GTech was a travel partner for FSU, they’d have to be in a pod together (NB. this is the JHU Cross / GTech / FSU conspiracy theory).
LikeLike
But if GT and UV were #15 & #16…
A: Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin;
B: Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan, MSU;
C: GT, Indiana, Purdue, OSU;
D: PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia.
LikeLike
John O
These are excellent pods if the end game were those 16. It is just so hard to envision the last four in to the B1G being MD/RU/VA/GT. Most on this blog believe an additional combo of DU/NC or NC/FSU would be required to set the B1G footprint.
LikeLike
@JohnO-
How do you guarantee Michigan and Ohio State playing one another on an annual basis with those pods? Are you proposing having UM and OSU playing one another in a protected game the years their pods aren’t in the same division? If yes, do other teams also have protected games?
How do you rotate these pods to form divisions? Do you have them all rotating every two years so that a full rotation takes six years? Years 1 & 2 is A/B and C/D. Years 3 & 4 is A/C and B/D. Years 5 & 6 is A/D and B/C.
Or do you have two pods permanently set in the two divisions so that the other two pods rotate every two years? If that’s the case, which two pods are the permanent ones?
LikeLike
cutter,
I’m not John O, but these are my answers.
“How do you guarantee Michigan and Ohio State playing one another on an annual basis with those pods? Are you proposing having UM and OSU playing one another in a protected game the years their pods aren’t in the same division? If yes, do other teams also have protected games?”
Yes, I would lock The Game. I don’t think other games need to be locked, but I’m happy to let everyone vote. NE/PSU would have value. Maybe WI/MSU and GT/UVA. Beyond that, the pickings are slim. NW/IA? NW/RU? IN/MD?
“How do you rotate these pods to form divisions? Do you have them all rotating every two years so that a full rotation takes six years? Years 1 & 2 is A/B and C/D. Years 3 & 4 is A/C and B/D. Years 5 & 6 is A/D and B/C.
Or do you have two pods permanently set in the two divisions so that the other two pods rotate every two years? If that’s the case, which two pods are the permanent ones?”
Personally, I’d use A and D as anchors and rotate B and C with crossover games rotating through that opposed pod. However, I’d put it to a vote. I don’t know how much the western schools want east coast access versus playing the middle teams more. It would also mean OSU and MI always being split so everyone would get their say on that, too.
LikeLike
If doing a three way rotation, even with nine conference games you can give each team up to one locked game in each of the other three groups, since one of the three will be in-division.
With that arrangement, OSU doesn’t have to be in a group with that school up north ~ that school up north could be one of OSU’s three locked cross group rivals.
At the extreme, where every team has a cross group rival in every other group, you see six schools every year (your three in-group teams and your six cross group rivals), and the balance of the conference one year in three.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shepherd – Please define what a “weak pod” means. Also explain why it’s necessary to only have four “strong” pods in a WAC type set up where two of the pods would be set to permanent divisions.
I assume that for you, there should be no “weak” pods and that it makes sense to make them relatively equal. Assuming Virginia and North Carolina join the B1G, how do you do that? Do you make sure that Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State (Brian’s “kings”) are in separate pods? Let’s try that exercise:
Pod A – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa
Pod B – Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C – Ohio State, Rutgers, Illinois, Northwestern
Pod D – Penn State, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland
But how do you ensure that Michigan and Ohio State play one another in this setup when the pods are rotating every two years? If the Penn State-Rutgers thing is so vital, then what team gets taken out of Pod D and put into Pod C? Does this set up put the conference’s best brands on the East coast consistently enough? What is the impact on the BTN with this setup? What happens to OSU-PSU?
Why doesn’t a setup with two weak pods (NW, IL, IU, PU in one, UVA, RU, UNC, MD in the other) rotating every two years between the two divisions that have permanent pods assigned to them (UN-L, IA, WI, MN in one, UM, PSU, OSU, MSU in the other) not work?
As I wrote in another reply, I’d be just as happy to see two permanent 8-team division based on an East-West axis play nine-conference games a year in a 7-2 setup. If the B1G were to go to 16 teams, then yes, that would certainly be an option that the conference leadership would take.
But now ask yourself this–how do you do it with 18 or 20 teams? Does permanent divisions or pods make sense given the conference’s goals, etc.?
LikeLike
@cutter: Please define what a “weak pod” means. Also explain why it’s necessary to only have four “strong” pods in a WAC type set up where two of the pods would be set to permanent divisions.
I never said that each pod needs to have a strong team. Your version (with two weak pods) works, although it ironically is achievable only by splitting Penn State from its two long-sought Eastern partners. That alignment is fine with me, but I don’t know if the league would do it. What doesn’t work very well is three strong and one weak, and I’ve seen many proposals where that is the case.
My objection is that you start from a presumption that static divisions and static pods are the only options, which I don’t believe is the case.
But now ask yourself this–how do you do it with 18 or 20 teams? Does permanent divisions or pods make sense given the conference’s goals, etc.?
As I said upthread, you can’t do it in the abstract. You need to know the actual teams. With 16, your 2-strong/2-weak alignment only works if UVA and UNC are the next two teams. It would work tolerably well with UVA/GT. But if GT and FSU are the next two teams, it fails. If UVA and KU are the next two teams, it’s a complete disaster.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd I put forward a pod scenario whereby Penn State would be with UVa, UNC and MD because of PSU’s desire to play more eastern teams on a regular basis. That would have moved Rutgers to the pod with UM, MSU, and OSU
Someone on this board (I think Brian) said it was essential for Penn State to be with Rutgers. I never understood that reasoning outside of the fact that it was the closest school in the list to Happy Valley or because it was northeast whereas the others might be considered mid-Atlantic. But if the option was to put Penn State in with Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina and have Rutgers in a different pod, then I really do think the PSU leadership would be okay with that. But if they absolutely have to have RU in their pod, then make it PSU, RU, UVa and UNC with Maryland joining MSU, UM and OSU.
The reason why pods or divisions should probably be static is not only for scheduling purposes, but also so that fans and the media could build an identity with those entities. If you randomly reset the divisions or ods each year based on some sort of relegation method in order to create games that can be considered the most important for the upcoming season, you’re going to create a lot of confusion in all sorts of ways. I’m actually not as enthusiastic about pods as you might thing for that reason, i.e., the membership change in the divisions every two years. As I wrote before, I’d be quite happy if/when the Big Ten gets to 16 teams to see two permanent 8-team divisions playing a 7-2 setup.
But when you get to 18 or 20 teams, it’s certainly worth thinking regardless of the additional members because the conference is going to have to make a basic decision. Would the Big Ten or SEC set up a structure whereby you have two divisions in football operating largely separately from one another during the regular season? Or do they go to a pod system which means teams play one another at least twice during the regular season in a four year period (four 4-team pods) or twice during the regular season in a six year period (four 5-team pods)? The philosophy the conference adopts in that regard is going to be what drives the structure.
We’ll see what happens in due course. I think we can say with perhaps a 70-80% probability that a 16-team Big Ten will include two teams in the present ACC located south of the Potomac River (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech). I’d say the percentage is roughly the same that at least one team in an expansion to 18 would be from the present ACC. (Duke, FSU, Notre Dame). Going from 18 to 20, it’s perhaps a 50-50 proposition that one of the teams is from the ACC.
All of that means we’re likely to see the conference’s geographic center move eastward and that whatever structure is used for football–divisions or pods–is going to reflect that.
The other thing to keep in mind regarding pods and divisions is what’s happening in major collegiate sports. If the number of FBS teams contracts to 80 or less in some sort of post-NCAA reorganization, then the structure of the conferences and divisions may come from the top down and not be an internal matter for the conferences themselves.
LikeLike
cutter,
“@Marc Shepherd I put forward a pod scenario whereby Penn State would be with UVa, UNC and MD because of PSU’s desire to play more eastern teams on a regular basis. That would have moved Rutgers to the pod with UM, MSU, and OSU
Someone on this board (I think Brian) said it was essential for Penn State to be with Rutgers.”
I did say that. I don’t know if someone else also did.
“I never understood that reasoning outside of the fact that it was the closest school in the list to Happy Valley or because it was northeast whereas the others might be considered mid-Atlantic.”
It’s important for RU, not for PSU. Just like PSU insisted on playing OSU as their only neighbor, RU has no ties to anyone but PSU. They need that game, especially since you are also taking UMD away. Nobody else is within driving distance of RU.
“But if the option was to put Penn State in with Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina and have Rutgers in a different pod, then I really do think the PSU leadership would be okay with that.”
They probably would be fine with it, but they do have a ton of alumni in NJ and NYC.
“But if they absolutely have to have RU in their pod, then make it PSU, RU, UVa and UNC with Maryland joining MSU, UM and OSU.”
Why not this?
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
E – PSU, RU, MD, PU
S – OSU, UNC, UVA, IN
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
You could even lock games between the E and S, plus N and W if people are so inclined:
OSU/PSU, RU/UNC, UMD/UVA, PU/IN, NE/MI, WI/MSU, NW/IA, IL/MN
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised that Dayton got the nod over Creighton for that extra (first) year given their respective exit fees. Maybe the BE really cared about travel costs (or they didn’t want Xavier raising roadblocks to Dayton later).
LikeLike
Lessee, if it were paid completely out of gross conference revenue, it would $825,000, or a one-off $82,500 per school? What would the extra travel to Creighton in the first year be?
Of course, if Fox preferred Dayton over Creighton in the first year, padding the contract by a present value of $825,000 would not seem to be too hard.
LikeLike
Was there an announcement of this? I haven’t seen anything official either way.
LikeLike
A story in the NY Post from Lenn Robins ~ the official word will be in a week to a week and a half, since the invitations have to go out and accepted before something can come from the BIG EAST. If the decision was made today, then whether Lenn Robins is right or that was the last shot by whichever faction did not want to travel to Creighton next year, it ought to firm up over the weekend, as the invitations go out and people are talking about the decision that was made rather than the decision they expect.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/basketball/butler_dayton_xavier_to_join_next_HWBR8nzwcf0a0rZSxkf8IM
LikeLike
Bruce, AFAIK, you don’t work for the conference, so you don’t have to spell it in all caps…unless you have a hankering for a job in Providence.
LikeLike
In order to mock that official affectation, I really do have to spell it in all caps. Though as it was only a passing urge, I shan’t have to spell it in all caps all the time.
LikeLike
I get the joke now…should’ve figured it as such.
LikeLike
That story also claims the America 12 (because America East was taken, I assume) will keep their HQ in Providence. How does that make any sense for anyone?
The only northeast schools left are UConn (desperately looking for an ACC invite), RU (B10 in 2014) and Temple.
Travel distances:
UConn – 53 miles
Temple – 273
Navy – 393
ECU – 691
UC – 815
LikeLike
They are the ones who have the lease on the office space. Given their step down in revenues, and uncertain future geography, may not make much sense to move until the lease runs out.
LikeLike
It would make some sense to add the closest teams first, then expand your geography the next year when adding Creighton and St Louis. I don’t think Xavier would be able to keep Dayton out if Xavier is added this year and Dayton next as all the invites should go out at the same time with some invites for this year and others for next, so no added power for Xavier at all when it comes to invites.
Three this year will be quite the blow for the Atlantic 10. At 16 right now they already knew Temple was leaving for the Big (whatever) and NC Charlotte was going back to CUSA. It is interesting that they have known about these for awhile now but have made no announced additions to back fill these two teams, maybe they were satisfied with contracting to 14. If they lose an additional 3 this year they will be down to 11, still I finally functioning conference, so it will be interesting to see what the A10 does, and when. Likely St Louis will leaving in 2104, so potential 5 slots to fill this year and a 6th in 2014. That is a lot of invites!
LikeLike
Or they could play with 10 ~ as the Pac-12 proves, its not actually impossible to have the number of teams matching the number in your name. Dropping down to 10 is likely to still maintain Div1 conference sports requirements, and of course a conference can play a complete home and away round robin and 18 home games.
However, that round robin might hurt their strength of schedule. Since three of those were cherry picked for BBall and one of the two football departures is among their BBall strength, they might add two for strength of schedule if they can find them ~ on that report, in the current Sagarin rankings (which is not a precise measure of ongoing program strength, but over this many schools is still indicative), they are losing one of two top-25 , 4 of 8 schools 100-50, 1 of 4 schools 200-100, and keeping both schools 300-200 (woot!).
LikeLike
The A-10’s next steps will be interesting to watch. Could there be a “Catholic 5” faction that pushes for schools like Detroit, Loyola (IL), Siena, or Manhattan to fill out the league? Whereas a raid of the CAA for George Mason, Delaware, or Hofstra may provide a better fit with the likes of VCU, George Washington and Rhode Island. The A-10 Catholic 5 would not have the leverage to break away (I.e. the Big East) as the NCAA requires six institutions to band together to keep the automatic NCAA bid. How long will UMass stick with this group? With the recent step up to FBS football, they seem to be a better long term fit for the Big TBD.
LikeLike
1. Fordham desperately needs a NYC metro partner in the A-10. Manhattan, Hofstra or both would be good choices.
2. Could Connecticut block Massachusetts from joining the new conference, just as Boston College has blocked UConn from ACC consideration to date?
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that BC has been able to “block” UConn. I mean they can vote against them, but I don’t see any evidence they have had anymore influence than any other school in regards to the Huskies.
Sure, Louisville got taken over UConn, but BC was hardly alone in preferring UL. FSU and Clemson in particular were pushing hard for the Cardinals.
LikeLike
I don’t know who made this but it’s great:
LikeLike
Chuckle. I liked it.
My guess is a KState fan came up with it based on Cletus as KU. Or maybe I don’t know enough about KU to understand why Cletus is the choice. I could see Principal Skinner or Supernitendo Chalmers.
I like Homer as Texas (“D’oh!!).
For fun, whoever did it should have added another foursome: Krusty as Kolorado, Sideshow Bob as Nebraska (holding a stabby stabby knife, of course), Baby Gerald as A&M and Edna Krabappel as Missouri.
For fun, here’s a poster of the choices (as least through 2009).
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/characters/poster#full
LikeLike
Here’s the Big Ten version of the Simpsons poster. I really love everything about it:
LikeLike
That one looks about right.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
I noticed Vegas has its wins over/under figures out for this upcoming year. Missouri is sitting at 6; would you take the over?
LikeLike
Tough to know how to bet on Mizzou right now. Vegas is going to base their numbers mostly on last year. QB play was horrendous last year but that was mostly due to injuries. Mizzou lost 3 very close games where they had almost no offense. With a good, healthy QB Mizzou most likely wins those games, gets to 8 wins, then maybe wins their bowl game to get to 9.
We have the same QB coming back who was injured for much of last year. But we also have a RS Freshman QB who was a first team parade all american who broke the national record for passing yards. Will he make an immediate impact? Having any kind of a QB who can actually complete a pass would be huge as we’re loaded with 4 and 5 star WRs, including one who was the #1 ranked overall recruit in the nation last year.
We also have a RB coming back who was 1st team all Big 12 as a freshman and averaged something insane like 8 or 9 yards per carry. He missed all of last year with a hurt knee. Will he be back in form? He just ran a 4.4 40 yard dash so maybe.
Last year 6 of our top 10 OLs went down with major injuries. All of them are healhty now, but will we have another plague of injuries? Seems unlikely it would happen two years in a row, but who knows?
So, in summary, I’d say “over” is a decent bet. If we avoid the injury bug and players come back from their previous injuries then the offense should go from one of the worst in the country to pretty decent. Mizzou’s offense has typically ranked in the top 20 over the last 8 years or so. Last year was a bit of an anomaly. But as last year showed depth isn’t super good so if we get hit by the injury bug again the season could fall apart again.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
Thats a fair enough assessment. I do think that in order to get the over; Pinkel is going to have to develop a vertical running attack within his version of the spread offense. The horizontal running game he used in the Big 12 will not work in the SEC. If Pinkel does this, you may be right; if not, I see a push at best. Sideline to sideline speed is too great amongst SEC defenses to expect a horizontal running game to be effective. I will agree with you on one thing though; if Missouri doesn’t make it to 6 wins, it won’t be because of a lack of talent.
LikeLike
OC Dave Yost is gone. New OC Josh Henson is a Les Miles disciple. He says he’s changing the offense. Less empty backfield. More use of running backs. It should suit the SEC better I think.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to see Rutgers and Maryland in that poster. I wonder what Simpson’s characters would be in that picture if some combination of Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech or Florida State were in it . . . .
LikeLike
I, for one, welcome Milhouse as our new mascot. He can join Pete, Boilermaker Special, and the Griffin in our full stable of mascots.
LikeLike
oh I get it, because edna krabapple is a slut, and missour is a slut for having left the big 12 for a better league. ha.
It was probably an ISU guy. They got off the easiest and were placed in the middle.
For Mizzou I’d use maybe the anchorman Kent Brockman b/c of Mizzou’s j-school and the fact that half the cast of espn and cnn went to Mizzou, or if you want to be funny maybe the hapless bumblebee man (black and gold, always getting stuck in giant mousetraps, etc) or maybe Frank Grimes.
LikeLike
obviously, I was thinking from the viewpoint of some existing BXII fan in 2013 being still bitter/angry/whatever at the teams that left. So, the character choices were unflattering.
as for “regular” choices for Mizzu, love Frank Grimes. What a great episode that was.
LikeLike
Yeah, it just came to me. And it fits the mood of tiger fans in general so well.
LikeLike
They fixed the Big 12 one to be more accurate. http://i.imgur.com/VNi66kQ.jpg
LikeLike
Did one of your beaker friends get embarrassed and “fix” the cartoon?
LikeLike
Andy, no one takes you seriously when you are such an irrational character on this website. The Simpsons conferences started with an ACC post on reddit, and after the Big12 edition it went viral. The reddit community widely agreed that cletus being KU was the least accurate character the creator had used the whole series and that Otto did a much better job at fitting the stereotype, and the creator revised it.
LikeLike
there must be a lot of beakers on reddit then.
LikeLike
Conference commissioners still believe there is more to come:
“All five major conference commissioners privately acknowledge that realignment isn’t done. And the next logical evolution will inevitably be a poaching of the ACC.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130314/acc-madison-square-garden/?sct=uk_wr_a1
LikeLike
“All five” including the ACC commissioner himself?
That’s interesting.
LikeLike
I assume that the ACC commissioner is agreeing with the first sentence, not the second.
LikeLike
The obsession over Madison Square Garden is rather strange.
LikeLike
@metatron – Pete Thamel is a Syracuse alum, so that’s where the obsession with Madison Square Garden is coming from. Of course, UNC and even Duke (which has a lot of NYC alums) don’t have the nearly the same interest. I would think that the ACC would actually love to rotate the tournament between MSG and Greensboro, but MSG wants a locked-in annual event (which the Big East/Catholic 7 obviously want).
There’s also a sense from the East Coast media that if something happens at Madison Square Garden, then it must be important. It’s doubtful that we’d be still talking about Michael Jordan dropping 55 points on the Sacramento Kings at Arco Arena after his first comeback, but since he did it against the Knicks at MSG, it has become one of his legendary performances.
LikeLike
I certainly agree with Thamel that MSG and the Northeastern media want a marquee event at the Garden, which the ACC tourney would undoubtedly be.
But I don’t see the ACC going for that. North Carolina teams have dominated that tournament. There have been just two finals in the last 50 years that didn’t have at least one team from the state. They’re not going to move it that far away.
On top of that, if the ACC is destined to get poached, I don’t see the location of the basketball tournament forestalling that outcome.
LikeLike
Right, and I don’t have a problem with the Big Ten rotating to NYC (among other cities) either, but permanently moving it there?
No thank you.
LikeLike
There’s your solution…the ACC and Big Ten get together and approach MSG so that the Big Ten goes there once every 3 years, the ACC goes there once every 3 years, and MSG can approach someone else that 3rd year.
Even if MSG had to take a weaker conference for that 3rd year, that would probably still get more national attention over 3 years than they would if they stuck to the Catholic schools every year.
Only question is, would the Big Ten and ACC be willing to go there 1/3 of the time, or is that too often?
LikeLike
@m(Ag) – I don’t think there’s that much of a push from the Big Ten to have the basketball tournament on the East Coast. Maryland has a good basketball tradition, but Rutgers and Penn State will be at the bottom rung for hoops. The Big Ten’s Eastern expansion is really all about football traction (or else Syracuse would have been a higher target, which was something that I had suggested years ago).
Honestly, Chicago really needs to become the locked-in site again for the Big Ten Tournament (and I’m not just saying that as a Chicagoan). Indianapolis got the prior tourney contract by throwing in a lot of financial incentives, but at the end of the day, Chicago has the largest cross-section of alums from all of the Big Ten schools (not just a couple of them like virtually every other market in the conference footprint) and it’s able to sellout the larger United Center with around 22,000 seats for basketball. This is a tournament that ought to be synonymous with Chicago in the same manner that the Big East tourney has been with New York. There’s no reason to move the tournament around for the sake of moving it around when there’s a central location that accommodates large alumni groups from all of the schools.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@m(Ag) – I don’t think there’s that much of a push from the Big Ten to have the basketball tournament on the East Coast. Maryland has a good basketball tradition, but Rutgers and Penn State will be at the bottom rung for hoops. The Big Ten’s Eastern expansion is really all about football traction (or else Syracuse would have been a higher target, which was something that I had suggested years ago).”
RU and UMD suck at football, but they seem obsessed with rotating the kings through NYC and DC as often as possible. Why wouldn’t they want to roll IN, MSU, etc through NYC and DC for hoops? UMD hoops is a big part of the BTN push in DC, right? I’m not saying they want the BTT there annually, but wouldn’t it make business sense to add DC and NYC to the rotation on occasion?
“Honestly, Chicago really needs to become the locked-in site again for the Big Ten Tournament (and I’m not just saying that as a Chicagoan).”
No, it doesn’t. The majority of people I’ve talked with who have attended the BTT in both cities say Indy is the better host. There’s no reason to take the BTT away from a basketball crazy area like Indy just to dump it into Chicago more often. The B10 gets no bonus for the BTT being synonymous with Chicago.
“This is a tournament that ought to be synonymous with Chicago in the same manner that the Big East tourney has been with New York.”
Says the IL grad who lives in Chicago. Especially as the B10 grows east, people need to get over this obsession with Chicago. It’s not the center of B10 existence.
With 14 members, the center point is Syracuse, IN in northeast IN. It’s 129 miles from Indy and 138 miles from Chicago. Detroit is only 209 miles away, too. Before UMD and RU were added, the center of 12 was near Gary, IN so Chicago was more central. Before NE joined, the center was near Rolling Prairie, IN in north central IN. In a nutshell, the center has moved ESE about 40 miles by adding 3 teams. Further expansion will only make Chicago less central.
LikeLike
@Brian – My view is purely about business for the Big Ten tournament site. Even though Indianapolis is pound-for-pound one of the best college basketball markets in the country, the attendance at the Big Ten tournament suffered there the past few years when Indiana was down. That never happened in Chicago – it has always sold out here regardless of whether the Illini were good in any particular season. That’s a big deal because the United Center also holds around 4,000 more seats than the Fieldhouse in Indy, so you’re talking about more sellouts at a materially higher capacity. There are simply a lot more Big Ten alums from a lot more schools with a lot more corporations, financial services firms, consulting firms and law firms that serve as a ticket base in Chicago where the conference barely has to do any work to sell packages (unlike other locales). It’s very much like the infrastructure that the Big East has had with Madison Square Garden, where they haven’t even sold any tickets to the general public for the past two decades because they have always sold out all of their packages via the schools and corporate sponsors.
I don’t doubt that a lot of fans like Indy as a host since the stadiums and downtown are centralized. It’s one of the most convenient cities out there in terms of a place to visit for strictly for a sporting event and then going out to bars/restaurants in the immediate vicinity. I’m not going to argue with anyone on that front. However, the Big Ten itself saw that even a place like Indy is dependent upon its local teams of IU and Purdue to both be competitive to sell tickets. There aren’t enough alums from the other schools that actually live there and don’t have to travel from out-of-town to act as a buoy. The thing is that every other major market in the conference is going to be the even worse than Indy (as they aren’t as basketball rabid as the state of Indiana) in terms of being too dependent upon the strength of the local teams with the exception of Chicago. The mistake is thinking that a location that’s most central to the campuses so that it’s convenient for traveling fans is most critical. Instead, what’s most important is a location that’s most central where the most alums actually live or, even better, actually being in the location where the greatest number of alums live. NYC has been far from being a central location for the Big East ever since they expanded with football schools in the early-1990s, yet its tournament was successful because it could rely much more on its home base of alums living in that market than people traveling from out-of-town. Those are the people that buy tickets to basketball conference tournaments year-in and year-out. It’s a bit different compared to hosting a football championship game, where you need to care much more about accommodating out-of-town travelers (as it’s going to be dominated by the fan bases of the two schools that are actually playing).
LikeLike
@Brian – Also, even if the geographic center of the conference is being pulled eastward, there isn’t any metro area in the Midwest that’s even going to have a material number of Rutgers and Maryland alums other than Chicago. That’s the only Midwestern market that has any real inflow of population from the East Coast, and even then, Chicago still has more outflow going the other direction. All other places in the Midwest are much worse where they’re taking in virtually no people from the East Coast while sending out a lot of people to that region. That’s as much of a part of why the Big Ten is expanding eastward for the long-term as it is about TV markets. In that sense, NYC and DC actually may have the most diverse mix of Big Ten grads outside of Chicago (and more so than places like Indy, Detroit and Cleveland), although still much smaller in number by comparison. There continues to be nothing that compares to the migration of tens of thousands of new Big Ten grads that move into Lakeview and Lincoln Park every year and the demographic trends say that it’s accelerating. Michigan State, for example, has already said that even though it has close to 90% in-state students, each graduating class has more people moving to the Chicago area specifically than staying *anywhere* in the state of Michigan. (I’ll have to search for that article and post it.) There are a handful of cities that are disproportionately grabbing up the talent coming out of college.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“My view is purely about business for the Big Ten tournament site.”
I know that’s the basis for your stance. I just wanted to point out that it’s very easy for an IL grad in Chicago to say that. Many B10 schools aren’t nearly as Chicago focused, though. I’m not saying Chicago shouldn’t host, but I don’t see it ever being to the B10 what MSG was to the old BE. First, they had SHU, RU, SJU, UConn, Providence, Syracuse, Villanova and Georgetown all within 250 miles. The B10 has more hoops powers farther from Chicago than the BE had from NYC. Second, NYC is more of a hoops city than Chicago. Third, MSG is special to hoops like Wrigley to baseball. Chicago has no comparable venue. Fourth, the media make a bigger deal out of anything in NYC than they ever will for something in Chicago. Fifth, the BE was a hoops conference while the B10 will always be a football conference. Sixth, NYC is much bigger than Chicago.
“Even though Indianapolis is pound-for-pound one of the best college basketball markets in the country, the attendance at the Big Ten tournament suffered there the past few years when Indiana was down.”
An unlikely thing to happen again for a prolonged period.
“That never happened in Chicago – it has always sold out here regardless of whether the Illini were good in any particular season. That’s a big deal because the United Center also holds around 4,000 more seats than the Fieldhouse in Indy, so you’re talking about more sellouts at a materially higher capacity.”
Sold out yes, but the actual attendance has varied as I recall. I seem to recall you posted a link here before that showed how the BTT attendance has changed from year to year. Chicago always does better because the venue is bigger, but I forget by exactly how much. Are ticket prices the same at each place?
“There are simply a lot more Big Ten alums from a lot more schools with a lot more corporations, financial services firms, consulting firms and law firms that serve as a ticket base in Chicago where the conference barely has to do any work to sell packages (unlike other locales).”
Yes, Chicago is a bigger city. I can’t argue that.
“It’s very much like the infrastructure that the Big East has had with Madison Square Garden, where they haven’t even sold any tickets to the general public for the past two decades because they have always sold out all of their packages via the schools and corporate sponsors.”
It’s MSG. That’s different.
“The mistake is thinking that a location that’s most central to the campuses so that it’s convenient for traveling fans is most critical.”
I’m not saying it’s critical. I’m using it to explain while Chicago will never be to the B10 what NYC was to the BE. That’s why the BTT can move around some while the BET was always in MSG.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Also, even if the geographic center of the conference is being pulled eastward, there isn’t any metro area in the Midwest that’s even going to have a material number of Rutgers and Maryland alums other than Chicago.”
Chicago probably won’t either, honestly. For example, the RU alumni club claims about 2500 alumni live in and around Chicago. Depending how loosely they define “and around” that’s not a big number.
I’m not saying any other midwestern city is better for them. Instead, it’s a reason to host the BTT in the east occasionally.
“There continues to be nothing that compares to the migration of tens of thousands of new Big Ten grads that move into Lakeview and Lincoln Park every year and the demographic trends say that it’s accelerating. Michigan State, for example, has already said that even though it has close to 90% in-state students, each graduating class has more people moving to the Chicago area specifically than staying *anywhere* in the state of Michigan. (I’ll have to search for that article and post it.) There are a handful of cities that are disproportionately grabbing up the talent coming out of college.”
Yes, many B10 schools have lots of alumni in Chicago, but not all of them do. OSU sends more alumni east than west. Chicago has never been that important to OSU. As the B10 expands to the east, more and more schools will feel the same way (OSU, PSU, RU, UMD, any future ACC schools).
LikeLike
All of what you 3 are saying is why it’s likely that MSG just sticks with the Big East.
They’ll have enough basketball oomph to carry that conference (Georgetown, St. Johns, Butler, Xavier, Marquette, Xavier, etc.) even though they won’t ever have the biggest names like UNC/Duke/Syracuse, and the fact that MSG is likely to be way more comfortable with a guaranteed annual deal with the Big East makes that so…
Barclays on the other hand may be much more willing to consider a rotation including the ACC and Big Ten over time.
LikeLike
Barclays would be a decent substitute for MSG, especially once the NYC media realizes there is another arena in town than the Garden — but would the ACC and Big Ten agree to a rotation, especially if the latter takes a few more members from the former? Perhaps the Big Ten could rotate between Washington, Philadelphia and Newark (for Rutgers) when it goes east.
LikeLike
Well, my hunch is that Verizon will be in the rotation for sure if the Big Ten does end up getting UNC/Duke/UVa/Georgia Tech.
It’d probably end up being a rotation between Chicago, Brooklyn, and D.C.
That way it’d go to the East Coast and Midwest on rotation.
LikeLike
I just don’t see the B10 going to Barclays when the Prudential Center and IZOD Center are both in the NYC metro area, are as easily reachable from Manhattan as the Barclays, but would actually be situated in a B10 state.
LikeLike
Also, I see the basketball tournament rotation being Chicago, Indy, DC, and Newark. Equal split between the Midwest and East Coast.
Football championship likely will be played at a home site.
LikeLike
You conveniently left Indy (and any other midwest city) off your list. There’s a reason Indy has hosted so many BTTs.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Also, I see the basketball tournament rotation being Chicago, Indy, DC, and Newark. Equal split between the Midwest and East Coast.”
Why? There are only 3 eastern schools, and 2 of them stink at hoops. I can see DC and Newark in the rotation, but not that often. Maybe once each per decade or so (Chicago, Indy, Chicago, Indy, DC, Chicago, Indy, Chicago, Indy, Newark).
“Football championship likely will be played at a home site.”
Based on what? Has the B10 shown any inclination to stop having a neutral site? I just don’t see any team wanting to go to Columbus or State College or Ann Arbor or Madison or Lincoln for a CCG. Being a prime time game in December, I think it’s likely to stay indoors and thus in Indy. The grass eliminates Soldier Field as a decent host anyway.
LikeLike
This is in Zeek’s scenario of the B10 adding UNC/Duke/UVa/Georgia Tech, Brian.
LikeLike
Even adding those 4 it doesn’t make sense to play in the east that much. Once every 3 years would be more appropriate (6 of 18 schools are former BE/ACC). Maybe Chicago, Indy, DC, Chicago, Indy, NYC, repeat.
It explains nothing about the CCG, though. It may rotate into the south or east on occasion (Charlotte? DC?), but will mostly stay in the midwest. I still see no evidence the B10 is looking to move to home sites.
LikeLike
Good luck trying to fill Lucas Oil when GTech plays Rutgers in the title game.
Of course, if the B10 expands to 18, they may not split in to divisions and hold a title game, which would be my preference.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Good luck trying to fill Lucas Oil when GTech plays Rutgers in the title game.”
I’m not super concerned about that match up happening to be honest. If it does, the B10 has bigger issues or else owns two new major markets with powerhouse teams in Atlanta and NYC.
LikeLike
To have the Big Ten tourney at eastern sites once every three years would be fine with me, Brian (and presumably most Maryland fans would feel likewise). That would be far more equitable than anything non-Big Four members ever got out of the ACC.
If North Carolina and/or Duke joined the Big Ten, I could see a N.C.site in the eastern rotation. If the ACC remained in business and refused to give up Greensboro, then Charlotte would be a decent substitute.
LikeLike
vp19,
“To have the Big Ten tourney at eastern sites once every three years would be fine with me, Brian (and presumably most Maryland fans would feel likewise). That would be far more equitable than anything non-Big Four members ever got out of the ACC.”
For the current 14, there are only 3 eastern teams and only UMD is a hoops school. That would say 1 in 5 should be in the east. On the other hand, the B10 is obsessed with building the eastern markets up which might indicate the tournament should go east more often. DC would seems the obvious site to me, but Philly and NYC have their pluses, too. I could see 1 in 4 in the east for now. 1 in 3 would indicate the B10 is really focused on the east, but I just don’t think it makes business sense. I would have it in the east in 2017 (first available year).
What doesn’t make sense is anchoring it in Chicago every year.
“If North Carolina and/or Duke joined the Big Ten, I could see a N.C.site in the eastern rotation. If the ACC remained in business and refused to give up Greensboro, then Charlotte would be a decent substitute.”
That might be a tough sell. Duke would be happy with a NYC site I think. UNC would have a ridiculous advantage in Charlotte since no B10 school has many alumni there. It might be hard to sell tickets if UNC is down that year, too. At least DC and NYC are big enough to fill the place. I could see having it there once in a blue moon just to throw them a bone, but not regularly.
LikeLike
brian:
“For the current 14, there are only 3 eastern teams and only UMD is a hoops school. That would say 1 in 5 should be in the east.”
No problem with that from my perspective. I was replying to a hypothetical case where UVa, UNC, Georgia Tech and Duke joined for six members along the east coast (seven if you count PSU).
LikeLike
I thought you were, I just wanted to be clear.
LikeLike
Thamel should stick to reporting and leave the editorializing to others who do it better.
LikeLike
The age of the SECN is upon us…
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–commissioner–sec-to-announce-launch-of-tv-network-in-mid-april-180504054.html
LikeLike
I’m expecting a much more similar approach to the Big Ten’s 49-51 split (maybe a 50-50 split or slightly more to the SEC) than the Pac-12’s full ownership approach.
I’m interested to find out whether they go straight for two channels or just one to start with…
LikeLike
What possible incentive would ESPN have in giving the SEC controlling interest? I’ll believe that when I see it.
LikeLike
So that the SEC would agree to partner with them?
LikeLike
The only reason ESPN is allowing them to have a network is because they’re creating it.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState, Andy
Well the Big Ten started out 51-49 to the Big Ten with Fox having a right to purchase 2% from the Big Ten (to shift it to 49-51) after a couple of years of getting up and running.
I don’t know how ESPN handles these kinds of things; Fox has a lot more experience on partnering up with other brands to create cable channels than ESPN does (although Disney obviously has a ton of experience they can bring to this).
Fox typically makes deals where they take controlling interests down the line after the startup period.
I’m not sure whether the SEC and ESPN will take this approach. They may just start with 51-49 to the SEC and stick with that, or ESPN could ask for an option to buy 2% down the road as Fox did.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works, GreatLake. But maybe you were one of the many on here who said a SECN wouldn’t happen.
LikeLike
Andy:
There are two realistic examples currently. The P12N, wholly owned and BTN. That is exactly how the partnership example worked. Perhaps SECN will create a new model, but its not unreasonable to think it will be similar to the other partnership.
LikeLike
And especially given the circumstances surrounding this deal. The Pac-12 and the Big Ten were able to “shop” their networks so to speak. The SEC is not… The content is ESPN’s not the conference’s through 2024. The Big Ten had to give equity to Fox for the partnership and the uncertainty surrounding the venture. It is fairly conceivable that a similar equity breakdown would happen in an SEC network given who owns the content right now.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t ESPN want to partner with the SEC? When your business is owning the rights to content and distributing it, wouldn’t you want to own the most valuable college commodity available and ensure the relationship is strong?
LikeLike
It would be nice if cable/sat providers would just bundle these networks(BTN,SECN,PACN) as a group in their sports packages for those of us not in the conference footprints.
LikeLike
Nice but makes no business sense to do so. Reality is cable/satellite wants you to pay for 200 channels even though they are very well aware you only watch about a dozen.
LikeLike
That and Fox will be bundling BTN with its other cable channels in the Big Ten’s target markets whereas ESPN will do the same for SECN.
They don’t really have an incentive to help each other as far as cable channel bundling goes.
LikeLike
Its been imminent for about a year now. The Big 12 TV contract was just around the corner for about 6-8 months, even after they reached agreement on the $.
LikeLike
This story about UConn and their future has a couple of interesting passages.
“Why the A.C.C. did not want Connecticut is a matter of conflicting speculation, though most of it lands at the feet of the former men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun.”
and
“Rutgers was accepted into the Big Ten last fall, with the widespread belief that the conference wanted a foothold in the New York metropolitan area. But while intending no disrespect to Rutgers, Tranghese said: “A lot of people don’t understand what makes New York tick. The two schools with the biggest impact in the New York market have been Syracuse and Connecticut.””
What Tranghese fails to understand is that the B10 is thinking football more than hoops, values academics more highly (only RU of the three is AAU), and can bring huge brands to town for football games. RU is a place to host MI, OSU and PSU football games, not a desirable brand in and of itself. For that, RU is much closer to NYC than Syracuse or UConn.
LikeLike
I would combine that with the following: The main thing Tranghese fails to understand is that the entire northern half of New Jersey is in the NYC TV market.
So you’re combining the drawing power of the Eastern kings in NYC proper with the NJ demographics that Rutgers already draws to itself.
Rutgers is already a proven NYC market ratings draw for football; they own like all of the top all time ratings on ESPN and ESPN2 for the NYC market due to their pull in northern New Jersey.
Rutgers will get you enough households in New Jersey; it’s up to Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State to actually get you some NYC households.
LikeLike
New Jersey is a huge market (nearly 9 million residents) and Rutgers has an enrollment of 55,000. Surely there’s value there alone, right? If Rutgers begins recruiting at a higher level and if they knock off a Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St every now and then, I’m certain they’ll draw large crowds and score some serious TV ratings.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130314/football-selection-committee-statistics/
This is a good story about how the playoff committee should work. It’s a roundtable discussion with Ken Pomeroy, Bill Connelly, Brian Fremeau, Jerry Palm and Ed Feng.
Main takeaways:
1. Need accountability and transparency
2. MOV is important
3. SOS can be deceptive
I liked Fremeau’s idea of taking the system and going back and seeding the past 20 or so years and publishing the result. That tells people what to expect and tells schools how they’ll be judged.
LikeLike
These statisticians rely too much on stats. They want to de-emphasize head-to-head. There are some teams that just know how to win. They aren’t always pretty, but they do it. Ohio St. was supposed to get killed by Miami in that BCS title game a dozen years back for one example. Some teams figure out a way to lose.
What they are talking about in schedule strength at the end is probability. The ELO system Sagarin bases his BCS ratings on considers that. In chess, someone has a good chance of winning 12 straight vs. someone rated 500 (99+%) points below them. The odds are much smaller if its 6 rated 100 (65% expected wins) points and 6 rated 900 (99++%) points below.
LikeLike
bullet,
“These statisticians rely too much on stats.”
I agree. I’m not a huge stats guy in CFB due to the lack of data. That said, they do provide a counterbalance to the media types who just look at the W/L record and how big a brand is.
“They want to de-emphasize head-to-head.”
Compared to how many voters use it, I agree with the stats guys. Many voters insist on honoring head to head no matter what the other games say (as much as is possible, anyway). There are such things as upsets, though. You have to value the whole schedule equally. Head to head should be a tiebreaker between close teams, not a reason to rank an 8-4 team above a 10-2 team from a similar conference.
“There are some teams that just know how to win. They aren’t always pretty, but they do it. Ohio St. was supposed to get killed by Miami in that BCS title game a dozen years back for one example. Some teams figure out a way to lose.”
Agreed. That’s one reason I don’t entirely buy into the advanced stats. You don’t have to win pretty all the time. But there is also something to be said for winning decisively against lesser opponents.
“What they are talking about in schedule strength at the end is probability. The ELO system Sagarin bases his BCS ratings on considers that. In chess, someone has a good chance of winning 12 straight vs. someone rated 500 (99+%) points below them. The odds are much smaller if its 6 rated 100 (65% expected wins) points and 6 rated 900 (99++%) points below.”
I think they are mostly agreeing that there are many different ways to evaluate SOS and none of them is TRVTH. All have some validity and some weaknesses. But if you combine multiple methods, that consensus SOS probably becomes reasonably meaningful. I think only major SOS differences will tend to be a factor unless two teams are virtually tied for 4th. At that point, there probably is no right or wrong decision.
LikeLike
I agree. I’m not a huge stats guy in CFB due to the lack of data.
The counter point to that is the extreme lack parity in college FB and extremely low year to year variability of team performance (relative to other sports) means that despite limited data statistics in college football tend to be amongst the most accurate (in terms of predictive validity) of any sport.
LikeLike
frug,
“The counter point to that is … extremely low year to year variability of team performance (relative to other sports)”
As an IL guy, how can you say that with a straight face, especially to an OSU guy who just watched seasons of 12-1, 6-7 and 12-0?
“means that despite limited data statistics in college football tend to be amongst the most accurate (in terms of predictive validity) of any sport.”
Depends on the stats. And it doesn’t show causation rather than correlation. There are plenty of counterexamples, I’m sure (good stats teams that lose, bad stats teams that win).
LikeLike
As an IL guy, how can you say that with a straight face, especially to an OSU guy who just watched seasons of 12-1, 6-7 and 12-0?
Seriously? That is your counter example?
Ohio St record since 2002
14-0
11-2
8-4
10-2
12-1
11-2
10-3
11-2
12-1
6-7
12-0
In 11 years they had a win % between .833 and 1.00 9 times. That is about as low a rate of variability as you will find any sport.
Sure there are fluky seasons like Illinois in 2007 or Ohio St. 2 years ago, but they are simply exceptions that are bound to occur. After all baseball players play 162 games and rack up 600+ plate appearances and you still end up with cases like Brady Anderson in ’96.
LikeLike
Actually, IL was my counterexample.
IL win totals the past 20 seasons: 5, 7, 5, 2, 0, 3, 8, 5, 10, 5, 1, 3, 2, 2, 9, 5, 3, 7, 7, 2
That’s an average of 4.55 with a standard deviation of 2.71. Their win total changed by 2+ games 11 straight years and 16 total times. There is zero consistency there.
Steroids explain Anderson quite easily.
LikeLike
The problem with the steroid explanation is that it was a one year blip. If it was only PED’s that caused Anderson’s power surge you would have expected it to continue.
LikeLike
Also, just because Illinois is inconsistent doesn’t mean that college football as a whole isn’t highly stable. The year to year correlation of winning % (to say nothing of more advanced stats) is still one of the highest in all of sports.
LikeLike
“If it was only PED’s that caused Anderson’s power surge you would have expected it to continue.”
Perhaps he didn’t like the shrinkage, or the suspicion created by such an extraordinary aberration.
LikeLike
Perhaps he didn’t like the shrinkage, or the suspicion created by such an extraordinary aberration.
I guess I can’t disprove the former possibility, but if he was worried about suspicion he actually would have been better off continuing that rate of production since it would have made ’96 look like a break out year instead of an aberration.
LikeLike
“I guess I can’t disprove the former possibility, but if he was worried about suspicion he actually would have been better off continuing…”
True. Perhaps I should have said he may have been concerned about the increased probability of having the suspicions confirmed if he continued.
LikeLike
I liked Fremeau’s idea of taking the system and going back and seeding the past 20 or so years and publishing the result. That tells people what to expect and tells schools how they’ll be judged.
Cosign.
These statisticians rely too much on stats. They want to de-emphasize head-to-head.
No, that is not what they’re saying. They gave a hypothetical example where A beats B, but based on total resume, B is better than A. They aren’t saying that A’s win head-to-head doesn’t matter.
The BCS rankings have been condemned as statistical garbage by every smart person who has studied them. These guys are suggesting some ways it could be improved. If you re-read it, you’ll see that they realize it has to pass the smell test, and can’t be strictly statistical.
The real dilemma is how you weigh “good losses” and “bad wins.” Everyone understands that when weighing teams with the same record, you have to look more deeply at how they won or lost, and against whom. But it’s a lot harder to “sell” to the public, when you take a 10-2 team and leave a 12-0 team on the sidelines, even though we all know, intuitively, that some 12-0 teams are less than they appear to be.
Notre Dame was #1 in every human poll going into last year’s BCS championship game, but the computers and Vegas had them as the underdogs, and they got pounded. It can be difficult for people to understand that Notre Dame was not that much better than Michigan, even though they were 12-0 and 8-4 respectively in the regular season.
The basketball tourney does not have that problem, because no team with any credible chance of winning is left out. Fans may argue about whether Gonzaga really deserves their #1 ranking, but no one disputes that they’ll be in the tourney. It would be a much different story if the tourney only took four teams.
LikeLike
In my opinion, the truly complicating factor is not sample size but non-comparability of the data. For example, imagine the following scenario on Dec. 8th, 2013: OSU is 13-0 (betting anyone to go undefeated has a low probability of success — but have you studied their schedule? — which today has to be viewed as the weakest of any team in the top 10 or even the top 20?), Alabama is 12 -1 and SEC Champion (lost by 3 points at Texas A&M in September) and a 13-0 Stanford (I would normally use ND but then about 5 of the regular posters would be incapable of rational thought).
Which two would you pick? A national vote would be very interesting.
If you object by stating that picking two is a false choice because the committee will pick four in the future — then add a 12 – 1 LSU, that lost at Alabama by 2 points, a 12-1 ND that lost at Stanford, a one-loss Oklahoma team that lost at ND and so on.
This board does not want to hear it but any attempt to model this problem would most likely give the tie-breaker to the SEC whenever there is an equal w-l record. In the above scenario if Stanford is 12-1, then wouldn’t a model pick OSU and three one-loss SEC teams? or, and this will drive some crazy — two one-loss sec teams and a two-loss SEC team whose only two losses are to the two one-loss SEC teams that were selected in the final four. I think there is still a respect for going undefeated. Comparing one – loss non-SEC teams and two-loss SEC teams is where things get even more interesting.
Which is why the idea of the Big 10’s end game being RU, MD, UVA and GT relegates the brand to second — class citizenship for a long time. How long do you believe it will be before a 12-1 SEC team would not automatically be selected over a 12-1 Big Ten? If you say in 2013 then I think you are living in denial.
LikeLike
And it would be ridiculous to do so, using the Ohio St. example I gave above. Also, Ohio St. was the generally accepted best team in 2006(?) until they got destroyed by Florida. If you’ve got an unbeaten from a major conference, it needs to be really extreme to leave them out for a 1 loss team. I didn’t think Notre Dame was one of the top 5 teams in the country, but they won against some good teams, and noone proved they could be beaten. Too many stats are just as bad as popularity polls. They get away from what actually happens on the field.
LikeLike
rich2,
“In my opinion, the truly complicating factor is not sample size but non-comparability of the data. For example, imagine the following scenario on Dec. 8th, 2013: OSU is 13-0 (betting anyone to go undefeated has a low probability of success — but have you studied their schedule? — which today has to be viewed as the weakest of any team in the top 10 or even the top 20?), Alabama is 12 -1 and SEC Champion (lost by 3 points at Texas A&M in September) and a 13-0 Stanford (I would normally use ND but then about 5 of the regular posters would be incapable of rational thought).
Which two would you pick? A national vote would be very interesting.”
OSU does have an easy schedule (on paper, at least). I think being an undefeated power conference champ would get honored over a 12-1 champ, but it would be close. It partially depends on how teams looked in getting to those records. AL has TAMU and LSU in conference, but misses UF, UGA and SC (until the CCG). They also play VT OOC, so I’m not saying their schedule is weak, just pointing out that they don’t play all the SEC powers.
“This board does not want to hear it but any attempt to model this problem would most likely give the tie-breaker to the SEC whenever there is an equal w-l record.”
That’s fair for now. But once someone else wins the title that benefit of the doubt needs to go away and instead be earned each year.
“In the above scenario if Stanford is 12-1, then wouldn’t a model pick OSU and three one-loss SEC teams?”
Actually, I think a third SEC team is unlikely in that scenario. The committee will find reasons to give other conferences a chance. I’d expect 3 champs and an SEC wildcard instead.
“Which is why the idea of the Big 10′s end game being RU, MD, UVA and GT relegates the brand to second — class citizenship for a long time. How long do you believe it will be before a 12-1 SEC team would not automatically be selected over a 12-1 Big Ten? If you say in 2013 then I think you are living in denial.”
I don’t think those 4 teams would be the reason. GT and UVA have a history of being solid AQ teams. The B10’s problem has been at the top. If Urban gets OSU back to where they should be, OSU won’t be punished much for other B10 teams being weaker. FSU of the 90s was a killer team in a weak league. So was Miami of the 80s. Football people understand you can be elite despite an average conference.
LikeLike
Texas A&M beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa, not at home.
LikeLike
Sorry – never mind. Lol.
LikeLike
btw, thought it was fun to see the B1G and BXII as Simpsons characters.
so I googled. Here’s someone doing the SEC (from 2005) along with an old ACC.
http://georgiasports.blogspot.com/2005/12/sec-teams-as-simpson-characters-retort.html
Some of the ACC choices really fit; Mayor Quimby is perfect as Boston College, Cletus fits VirTech and Bumblebee Man is spot on for the Ga. Tech yellow jackets.
Not sure I like any of the SEC suggestions.
LikeLike
yes, there is a current SEC version (two actually).
LOVE this one. The SEC teams each and all as Cletus pointing to each other except Vandy.
http://gamedayr.com/gamedayr/the-simpsons-stereotype-sec-teams-and-school/
LikeLike
Here’s the ‘real’ SEC.
http://gamedayr.com/gamedayr/the-simpsons-stereotype-the-sec/
some good choices.
LikeLike
looks like it was made by an auburn fan or an ole miss fan.
LikeLike
here’s the ACC; similar to the one from 2005.
http://gamedayr.com/gamedayr/simpsons-make-fun-of-acc-teams-based-on-characters/attachment/the-simpsons-2013-acc-stereotypes/
LikeLike
So who will SU and Pitt be? (Perhaps Kent can go Orange and Mr. Burns could wear Carolina blue.)
LikeLike
Apparently, the “America 12 Conference” is out.
ESPin did a poll. Two top choices were “American Metro” and “Big America”
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/77568/your-choice-for-new-big-east-name-is
What I liked about this article was some alternatives that the bloggers received. Not sure how serious the suggestions were, but they were fun. I particularly liked Continental Conference or “Con-Con” for short. LOL
LikeLike
Surely the Continental Congress would be sponsored by Little Caesar’s Pizza, with a dwarf cartoon Caesar saying “Pizza Pizza” joined by a dwarf cartoon George Washington saying “Con Con”.
LikeLike
A few people here have implied that the cloistered Presidents are above worldly considerations such as BTN money. That they are academic elitists who, no doubt, admonish Delany daily for his Network’centric ways. I believe they will be onboard with whatever is necessary to sustain themselves (and the BTN) in a rapidly changing collegiate landscape. This could include adding a school like FSU to bring the state of Florida, or eventually selling naming rights to their stadiums. Sad but certainly possible. This article explains how colleges must turn entrepreneurial if they are to survive in the 21st century.
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/15/cash-strapped_universities_turn_entrepreneurial_449.html
LikeLike
First, the Presidents themselves are a bunch of academic politicians. It is, rather, that the Presidents have to DEAL WITH a bunch of academic elitists in order to get things done. Second, while its one thing to argue that colleges “must do” something in order to survive … its quite another to use that to predict how they WILL behave. And third, in terms of getting entrepreneurial, there’s more money on the academic side than on the sports side. The Big Ten schools can get wildly entrepreneurial and still consider the sports side to be more important as a marketing venture than as a money raising venture. The important thing, on that front, is that they be a self-funding marketing venture.
LikeLike
The article was largely concerning corporations funding research. My argument is that this new entrepreneurial mindset/approach will play a role in expansion.
LikeLike
But the role that it will play will surely not be so simple and direct as “apply the moves over the last thirty years to being substantially more entrepeneurial in research directly to the way they view their athletics department”.
LikeLike
Indeed, the “entrepeneurial” approach to research is on reason why the Big Ten is likely to be a bit finicky about the academic status of the programs that they add. The total revenue flows we are talking about in research aggregated across the Big Ten are much bigger than the kind of revenue flows associated with the Big Ten sports media contracts.
LikeLike
A few people here have implied that the cloistered Presidents are above worldly considerations such as BTN money.
Who exactly suggested that?
LikeLike
I thought the mantra was to follow the money?
LikeLike
Thought for today. No conference can survive with four or more private schools. The big schools will just pull it apart. Examples:
SWC: Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU
WAC: BYU, Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa
CUSA: Rice, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa
ACC*: Boston College, Duke, Miami, Syraceuse, Wake Forest
*pending destruction
LikeLike
I’m thinking that the Big Schools might not succeed in pulling the New Big East apart.
Which suggests a qualifier, “No football conference …”
LikeLike
Well, yeah, I had D1A in mind. For all I know there may be dozens of D1AA, D2, and D3 football conferences with 4+ private schools.
LikeLike
I would amend it to consider the size of the private school. USC with 27k doesn’t really count. And Notre Dame just doesn’t count at all. It creates its own kind of instability.
LikeLike
Any private school that’s in a unique market/setting with a national football program shouldn’t count. USC, Miami, ND aren’t like Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt/Duke/BC/Syracuse/etc.
LikeLike
Amended… no conference with Rice and SMU can survive.
LikeLike
Rice had nothing to do with the death of the SWC. SMU is a different matter. They committed suicide and drug the rest of the conference with them. And there’s no conference Rice has been in that failed that didn’t also have TCU. And TCU has at least 3 that have failed that Rice wasn’t in.
LikeLike
There’s some truth to that in the sense that we’re in an age where the main value added schools to conferences are generally large public schools that bring additional large footprints to conferences.
As far as the ACC goes though, they’re a unique case given that the Big Ten and SEC are already at 14 each. How much can those two conferences really expand (or really want to expand to)?
We’re a lot closer to the “end game” (whatever that looks like) than we were before the past couple of years. There simply aren’t a lot of slots left at the tables of the biggest conferences with which to presumably poach from the ACC.
LikeLike
It just comes down to the fact that large public schools with sizeable footprints can better realize their own value and the synergistic value of their conference affiliation by detaching themselves from less valuable groupings (i.e. those groupings too heavy on smaller private schools) and attaching themselves to groupings that are more heavy on large public schools with larger footprints.
LikeLike
zeek, I agree. I think there’s a good chance all this talk of 20 team conferences will die down. The B1G and SEC can settle into 14 or 16 schools each and the ACC can survive.
LikeLike
No conference can survive with four or more private schools. The big schools will just pull it apart.
Offhand, it strikes me as a factoid, rather than a fact. It’s true that the SWC and WAC both died, but from a sample size of two you can’t draw solid inferences.
The most important fact about C-USA is that it’s a lower mid-major, which means by definition it’s a conference that schools aspire to graduate from, if they get a ticket to the next level. That has nothing to do with whether its members are private or not.
Obviously, it remains to be seen if the ACC is really “pending destruction.” But even if it is, the upward mobility of its members doesn’t turn on whether they’re private or not. If the ACC starts to splinter, Pitt (public) has worse mobility than Miami (private). Duke (private) might get a Big Ten invite; N. C. State (public) assuredly would not.
LikeLike
Frank
I like the idea of Chicago being the permanent host for the BTT for the reasons stated as well there are also more people with Chicago roots throughout the Big Ten footprint that like to go back and Chicago is the best basketball recruiting area in the footprint, it would be nice to see less of these kids in other conferences.
In order of improving our visibility on the east coast I would propose holding some natural site conference games. I would 1st go to a 20 game regular season, each team would have a travel partner in which they would always go home and home, and then play 6 of the other 12 twice and the other 6 once. Each year it would rotate, thus every 4 years you would play 4 home and 4 away with your travel partner and 3 home and 3 away with everyone else. Then host some early conference double headers on the east coast around the holidays. You could host one in Philadelphia, New York and Washington DC with a combination Rutgers, PSU, Maryland and other Big Ten teams. This could turn into a popular tradition like the annual Illinois non-conference holiday game at the United Center. Doing a double header and incorporating into the Big Ten regular season would add to it and get other programs additional greater eastern exposure as well as the conference.
With 20 conference games season ticket holders would still get 9 conference home games even if their team played in 2 neutral site games.
LikeLike
DR,
“Chicago is the best basketball recruiting area in the footprint,”
Would NYC take that crown once RU joins? It’s got to be close, at least. VA, NC and GA produce more top players than IL, too. MD, VA and NC produce a lot more top players per capita than IL. NJ and IN top IL per capita as well.
“it would be nice to see less of these kids in other conferences.”
How many Chicago kids actually play in the B10 right now?
http://statsheet.com/bhsb/recruits_by_state/IL?top=100
This site has a lot of info about hoops recruiting.
Top 100 prospects since 1998 from IL – 75
How many went to B10 teams?
IL – 20
IN – 1
IA – 2
MI – 0
MSU – 1
MN – 0
NE – 0
NW – 0
OSU – 2
PSU – 0
PU – 1
WI – 1
RU – 0
MD – 0
Total – 28 of 75 (37%)
Basically, only IL recruited Chicago much for top players. The next best school was Duke with 5.
On the other hand, IN produced only 52 such players in that period but 25 of them stayed in the B10. MI produced 55 and 33 stayed in the B10.
LikeLike
I would not consider NY City in the conference footprint with just the addition of Rutgers. I would think of it is on the edge, proportionally more like St. Louis, with a Big Ten presence, maybe something like 25% in the footprint. This will be verified by what the BTN gets in the area.
Your statistics confirm what I have generally noticed, in addition, a lot of Illinois’s’ top in state recruits have come out of Peoria, “down state” and other areas within the state. The proportion of top Chicago recruits heading to the BTen is even smaller then Illinois is as a whole.
I am sure that every BTen program would want greater inroads to Chicago. I also understand that there is a fair amount of corruption around the AAU programs. If the Big could get the kind of vibe and tradition in Chicago that the Big East had in New York it would help when combined the BTN, that large alumni basis, etc. to getting a lot of that talent in BTen. As a College Basketball fan am generally sick if all of the ESPN – ACC, SEC, New York bias, listening to Dickey V. do full blown commercials for NC and Duke, and listing to these folks talk about the BTen like every team in the Big is just like WI. Then when you watch NC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisville, etc. they are full of players from the Midwest and Chicago in particular.
LikeLike
Well, hoops players travel to go to school everywhere. It’s not just the midwest. All the big schools recruit nationally. The B10 has plenty of players from the south and east.
LikeLike
See below for an e-mail I received today from Tulane President Scott Cowen regarding Tulane’s move to the soon-to-be-former-BIG-EAST.
“Good Morning:
In November I announced the exciting news that Tulane would be moving to the Big East Conference in 2014. Since that time there has been further realignment among the country’s leading conferences, including this week’s agreement that the basketball schools known as the Catholic 7 will form their own league using the Big East name. This move, which was apparently under discussion before Tulane accepted the invitation to join the Big East, has not diminished our commitment to or excitement for the future of Tulane athletics within the new conference. The new conference is made up of universities that share our academic mission and values. In this new league, our student-athletes will have the opportunity to play on a larger and more competitive national stage, which will better showcase their talent while also ensuring the financial stability of our athletics program through TV rights, increased ticket and merchandise sales and other revenue streams associated with Yulman Stadium.
We will also have the opportunity to select a name for the conference that will reflect the quality and personality of our member schools. Conference realignment in college sports can be a complex, confusing, frustrating and perilous undertaking that requires much forethought, planning and vision. With the guidance of our Athletics Director Rick Dickson, Tulane has been able to position our athletics program on an upward trajectory to be more successful athletically, academically and financially. Joining a new, more competitive conference comprised of well-respected universities from major metropolitan areas, coupled with the significant investments we have made in athletics facilities and academic programming for student-athletes, will ensure increased exposure and stability for all of our sports. It will also make Tulane even more attractive to the nation’s most talented and academically qualified student-athletes.
Have a great weekend,
Scott”
LikeLike
“Joining a new, more competitive conference comprised of well-respected universities from MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS”
OK, one vote for “Major Metro”.
LikeLike
St. Louis put in bids for the SEC Tournament in 2017 & 2018.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/03/meet_the_sec_in_st_louis_sec_n.html
LikeLike
Could be attendance concerns with putting it so far away from the SEC’s broad alumni base. I’d imagine mainly Missouri and Kentucky could draw well in St. Louis but it’d be more difficult on the rest of the schools than Atlanta where most of them have large alumni contingents.
Especially with how difficult attendance has been at these things the past couple of years.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t be bad for Kentucky, Missouri, or Tennessee. The tournament relies heavily on Kentucky’s attendance for filling up right now. Putting it closer to Missouri/Tennessee might help bring in some of the more avid fans of those teams. As you said, though, it wouldn’t be great for other SEC teams. A&M probably doesn’t care either way, but I’d have to think everyone else save for Vandy would prefer Atlanta. Shoot, even Kentucky probably prefers “Catlanta”.
LikeLike
Arkansas and northern Mississippi would also be good to travel to Saint Louis. Google maps claims Oxford, MS to Saint Louis is 5.5 hours, while Oxford to Nashville is just over 4 hours.
Since the biggest SEC basketball fanbases are probably in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, it would probably get decent attendance for a tournament.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-depaul-catholic-7-20130315,0,7897661.story
So now it’s “officially” Xavier, Butler and Creighton. Looks like that NY Post article was full of crap as some people said.
LikeLike
Yeah, those 3 always made the most sense as the first 3 additions to 10 given that they’re the 3 strongest programs that they were considering.
Dayton, SLU or whoever is going to be the 2 additions to 12 could always wait until the following year.
LikeLike
They’re the strongest right now, but its a hard argument to say Butler will be better than Dayton long term. For that matter, Xavier with UC in town and Dayton’s better fan support, will have a hard time continuing to be consistently better than Dayton. Wright St. in Dayton just isn’t the same level of competition for fan interest. And for that matter, Ohio St. doesn’t dominate Ohio in basketball the way IU dominates Indiana.
LikeLike
Huh? I’m pretty certain that Xavier pulls in more revenue than Dayton. Also, Xavier gets 10K average attendance to Dayton’s 12K but metro Cincy is more than double the size of metro Dayton.
Finally, Xavier has consistently been better than Dayton when they were both members of the A10 (and this with UC being in a better basketball league than they will be in the future), so I see no support for your assertion that X will have a hard time being consistently better going forward.
LikeLike
You obviously didn’t read my post.
Dayton is the #1 local school. Xavier is #2 (and maybe #3 or 4 overall-Not just Ohio St., but UK dominates the southern part of the metro area).
Dayton draws better (also has a bigger arena).
Dayton’s been better over history. Xavier’s been consistently better the last 10 years (in a relative down period for Cincinnati).
There’s plenty of support for my opinion. You just ignore it because it doesn’t agree with your opinion.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I obviously read your post and those that your reasoning was weak. How is Xavier behind OSU in Cincy but Dayton isn’t in Dayton? Oh, and Xavier outdraws Cincy, so your assertion that they’re behind the Bearcats isn’t supported by evidence. FInally, even if you don’t count the past 10 years, Xavier made the Dance 13 times from 1983->2002. Dayton went 4 times in that time period. Surely you’re not going to say that Cincy was down all of the past 30 years (especially since the ’90’s were the Bearcats’ second best era ever).
Look, I understand that Dayton was better than Xavier in the ’60’s, but if you’ve noticed, the ’60’s have been gone for a while, and since the Dance expanded to 64 teams in 1985, Dayton has gone farther than Xavier in the Dance 2 times. Xavier has gone farther than Dayton 20 times. I personally think that for predicting how teams will perform going forward, performance over the most recent 3 decades is more relevant than performance back 50 years ago.
LikeLike
Cincinnati has historically outdrawn Xavier. I took 5 random years:
2012
Dayton 12,154
Xavier 10,155
Cincy 8,069
2008
Dayton 12,479
Xavier 10,008
Cincy 8,534
2004
Cincinnati 12,805
Dayton 12,597
Xavier 9,902
2000
Cincinnati 13,176
Dayton 12,644
Xavier 9,072
1995
Cincinnati 13,099
Dayton 10,962
Xavier 8,201
Xavier is having the best of its history and Cincy has been in a downslide as obvious from the decline in their attendance. Dayton had the worst period in its history from roughly 1980 to 1995. Yet they still drew more fans than Xavier in 1995 (and it looks like every year since). So what you’ve got is a few recent year’s attendance data. I don’t know about you, but I actually lived in both Cincinnati and Dayton. I still read the Enquirer periodically. 10 or 15 year results impact TV ratings in the short term (otherwise Butler would still be in the Horizon), but they don’t change fundamentals. Fan support is one of those fundamentals. Competition in the market is another. Dayton is Dayton’s team. Xavier is a small private school who’s been pretty good in basketball the last 20 years in a market where the school named after the city has a really good basketball history. And while there is no pro basketball, there is pro sports competition in Cincinnati, which has less of an impact on Dayton.
LikeLike
Nice and well, but all that attendance has led to Dayton being considerably worse than Xavier over the past 30 (not 20) years. Given that Xavier brings in more revenue than Dayton, there’s little reason to expect the Flyers to start outperforming the X-men any time soon.
LikeLike
A story with just one source, especially from a sports section as rigorous as the NY Post, could easily have been someone not in favor of the front runner for the 10th spot giving it one last shot.
LikeLike
In 2003, during the midst of the ACC-Big East expansion tussle and then-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner’s insistence that Virginia must vote for Virginia Tech to enter the ACC, Robbins reported that instead of settling for 12 members, the conference would swell to 14, bringing in Boston College, Miami, Syracuse, Virginia Tech…and Notre Dame (the story implied that ND would be an all-sports member). Yet one more reason I’ve never taken the Post’s coverage of college athletics seriously.
LikeLike
Looks like that NY Post article was full of crap as some people said.
The fact it was published in the NY Post should have been a tip off in and of itself.
LikeLike
Maryland has had it in for Duke this year. Probably knocked them out of a 1-seed too.
LikeLike
They can revel in that win for a very long time. They’re unlikely to play Duke much in the near future. As a B10 fan, I’m kind of glad to see it happen after the things Coach K has said about the B10. Normally I root for Duke, but he had this coming.
LikeLike
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=330740150
Maryland tops Duke…again….
LikeLike
Yeah, two huge wins for Maryland against them this year; great for a coach that’s building his program.
LikeLike
BTW, #2, 5 and 6 have all lost today already with #8 trailing by 10 with 10:00 left. #1 is done for the year and #3, 7, 9 and 10 have already won. #4 is tied late in the first half. The tourney should be crazy.
LikeLike
Big Ten’s giving Maryland “$20 million to $30 million” in travel subsidies:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-big-ten-travel-0315-20130314,0,1297978.story
“Rutgers has also studied the implications of Big Ten travel and is exploring creative solutions, but apparently not subsidies.”
LikeLike
We already knew Maryland was going to get huge up front payouts in excess of the original 11 schools. This is likely part of that, and Maryland will end up paying it off later. I have a hard time believing Ohio State, Michigan, et. al. and for that matter everyone else in the conference that prides themselves on equality was willing to open the piggy bank to get “mighty” Maryland without assurances they’ll be made whole later.
LikeLike
If the story has the numbers right, it would be about 7-10 years worth of extra travel costs. It’s possible the B10 agreed to pay them that in advance to cover a lifetime of travel.
LikeLike
I think they’re paying ‘exit fees’ and other expenses with a different label.
LikeLike
How UMD chooses to spend the money is up to them, of course. But the B10 could call it a travel subsidy and not be lying.
LikeLike
Interesting (and good) find.
Maryland had alot of the leverage as the first mover out of the ACC in a long time.
This should maybe tap the brakes on speculation about other schools. If Maryland got a sweetheart deal like that, what would UNC/UVa/etc. ask for?…; those schools have even less incentive to leave than Maryland which needed a financial boost.
LikeLike
On the other hand, travel will be less for future ACC additions since they’ll have more neighbors.
But yes, especially the fact that this leaked makes adding the next one harder.
LikeLike
In a sense, that more than anything should show just how close to the end game we are.
If the Big Ten gave that big of a “signing bonus” to Maryland, then they can’t really be expecting to add much more to the conference given how that will affect future additions.
LikeLike
What isn’t clear is if Maryland has to pay it back out of future revenues.
Also shows that they really wanted Maryland.
LikeLike
If this money is the same thing Pete Thamel was reporting about when the Maryland announcement came out, then yeah it is basically a cash advance that they’ll pay off over some period of time. I still think that is the most likely scenario here.
LikeLike
The Omaha World-Herald is reporting that Creighton will accept an invitation to the Big East.
LikeLike
Has any state fared better than Nebraska in this phase of realignment? UNL to the B1G; Creighton from mid-major to Big East; and, throw in UNO’s transition from Division II to Division I.
LikeLike
Imagine being told 5 years ago that in 2013, the state of Nebraska would have teams in the Big Ten and the Big East. Crazy!
LikeLike
Maybe, in the conference realignment universe, we’ve all overvalued football, basketball, and academics, and undervalued corn!
LikeLike
Also, in addition to the UNO transition from Division II to Division I Summit Leage over the past two years, UNO’s hockey team has steadily moved up in the conference realignment game in a short period of time.
1997 – first year as a program. Independent
1999 – joined the CCHA
2010 – joined the WCHA
2013 – will be a founding member of the new National Collegiate Hockey Conference along with Colorado College, University of Denver, Miami University, University of Minnesota Duluth, and University of North Dakota
LikeLike
Another report said Xavier and Butler told the A10 at the conference tourney that they were leaving.
LikeLike
Since we’ve been discussing it, here is the BTT attendance data.
Click to access MBBB1GTourneyRelease.pdf
BTT Attendance:
Chicago
1998 – 104,832 (first ever BTT)
1999 – 98,012 (IL unranked)
2000 – 100,294 (IL top 25)
2001 – 109,769* (IL top 5)
2003 – 90,292 (IL top 15, WI top 25, nobody else ranked)
2005 – 109,250 (IL was #1)
2007 – 94,412 (IL unranked)
Indianapolis
2002 – 94,402 (first BTT in Indy)
2004 – 77,012 (IN and PU unranked, WI #10, IL top 15)
2006 – 90,763 (IN and PU unranked, OSU top 10, IL and IA top 15)
2008 – 80,012 (IN unranked, WI top 10, MSU and PU top 20)
2009 – 68,098 (IN unranked, MSU top 10, PU top 20)
2010 – 81,577 (IN unranked, OSU and PU top 10, MSU and WI top 20)
2011 – 86,767 (IN unranked, OSU #1, PU and WI top 20)
2012 – 107,737 (MSU and OSU top 10, IN top 20)
No matter where it is played, BTT attendance depends on the local team doing well. Indy did great last year as IU finally returned to being decent. Indy suffered from the terrible down spell of the Hoosiers (6-25 in 2008, for example).
Chicago will presumably do pretty well this year with the whole B10 being so strong, but we’ll see the final numbers soon enough.
LikeLike
However, even when UofI was unranked, BTT attendance in Chicago never dropped below 90K while it did multiple times in Indy. Definitely makes the case that there’s more of a buffer against bad attendance when held in Chicago.
LikeLike
DREAMING LAST NIGHT (about B1G Ten football) …
B1G EAST: Notre Dame, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech
B1G CENTRAL: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana
B1G WEST: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois
Years 1&2, Cross-Over Pods (home/away series):
POD A: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
POD B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio State, Purdue, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
POD C: Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Notre Dame, Virginia
Years 3&4, Cross-Over Pods (home/away series):
POD A: Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio State, Purdue, Notre Dame, Virginia
POD B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Penn State, Maryland
POD C: Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
Years 5&6, Cross-Over Pods (home/away series):
POD A: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
POD B: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Virginia
POD C: Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue, Penn State, Maryland
=> B1G Ten football schedules of Michigan Wolverines:
Years 1&2: Virginia, Notre Dame, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, Rutgers, Ohio State
Years 3&4: Maryland, Penn State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, Rutgers, Ohio State
Years 5&6: North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Iowa, Nebraska, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, Rutgers, Ohio State
… THEN I WOKE UP.
Sigh
LikeLike
Radi,
“B1G EAST: Notre Dame, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech
B1G CENTRAL: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana
B1G WEST: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois”
Assuming those 4 additions, I wouldn’t group them that way personally.
1. 3 pods of 6 (not my favorite plan)
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C – MI, MSU, ND, PU, RU, IN
E – OSU, PSU, UMD, UVA, UNC, GT
This keeps ND with their 3 B10 rivals as well as playing in NYC (ND allows RU to be apart from PSU). MI also plays in NYC regularly. OSU gets stuck with newbies, but it plays in DC to help that market. PSU is also with neighbor UMD. The western schools are together and so are the ACC schools. Each pod has some power, but not too much.
Schedule – 5-2-2 (2 from each other pod) except for OSU and MI who play 5-1-1-2 (The Game is locked, so get 2 from one pod and 1 from the other in rotation). If they add the 10th game, then add another rotating game.
2. 4 pods
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
N – MI, MSU, PU
S – OSU, PSU, IN
E – ND, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, GT
Schedule – 8-2 (8-1-1 for OSU and MI). If they stick with 9 games, then the N and S pods have to be scrambled every so often or OSU and MI will never play certain teams.
3. Divisions
W – OSU, PU, IN, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
E – MI, MSU, PSU, ND, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, GT
Schedule – 8-2 (8-1-1 for OSU and MI)
LikeLike
Brian,
Several types of analysis are needed:
(1) If tie-breakers are needed (for whatever reasons) among the divisions, then the cross-over games also serve that purpose,
(2) How the division AND cross-over scheduling schemes appeal to EACH and ALL schools?
I used Michigan as an example (for obvious reasons).
I included Rutgers in the Central Division to be a last-game rival game with the Spartans (the travel distance is similar if Penn State would be in the Central Division instead). I also read somewhere that their mascots look similar??
Note also that Notre Dame has a traditional B1G Ten rival every year, but not ALL the rivals every year.
If the B1G Ten would go with 18 teams and 3 divisions, then I also expect that schools within divisions would have some (limited) autonomy. Otherwise, conference meetings would always need to be organized in airplane hangars.
Cheers
LikeLike
ALSO: Most (if not all) Michigan grads (including myself) consider the Buckeyes (Uncle Woody) as our main rival. For this hypothetical: Not top priority to have Notre Dame in the same division as the Wolverines. Plus, the Irish won’t be interested to join, if they cannot keep and schedule their USC game in LA as last game of the year. Ditto for Georgia Tech (and Georgia) and maybe also for Viriginia (and Virginia Tech). Those games are easier to schedule if these schools are in the same division.
If Notre Dame is STILL not interested to join, then I would personally welcome Duke instead. (Divisions for football can be different than all other sports.) However, I cannot assess if net revenues (per school) is maximized at 16 or 18 teams, but basketball revenue would probably be higher in this hypothetical.
LikeLike
BY THE WAY: For 2 static divisions of 8 schools each playing a 9-game conference schedule, it is mathematically impossible to have a 4 home-game conference schedule and then wait 4 years to schedule the same cross-over games as part of a 5 home-game conference schedule (for competitive balance reasons).
Speaking of expansion: I predict one day that The Big House will an official seating attendance of 123,321.
LikeLike
Unless both cross-over games are away & away (Year 1) or home & home (Year 5)
LikeLike
No, this is wrong: Year 1 would have 4+2 = 6 away games, and Year 5 would have 4 + 0 = 4 away games.
LikeLike
So, it seems that we are stuck with rotating pods “WAC style”.
Anyway, ALL conferences expanding to 16 schools (and greater) will face this same issue.
LikeLike
@Radi: So, it seems that we are stuck with rotating pods “WAC style”.
No, I don’t think we are stuck with that. A wide variety of alternatives have been discussed on this forum. I am also of the view that if the Big Ten wanted to get rule 17.9.5.2(c) repealed, it could do so quite easily — although some regular posters here disagree with me on that. But even without that, static equal-sized rotating pods aren’t the only option, and they may not even be the best option.
Most (if not all) Michigan grads (including myself) consider the Buckeyes (Uncle Woody) as our main rival. For this hypothetical: Not top priority to have Notre Dame in the same division as the Wolverines. Plus, the Irish won’t be interested to join, if they cannot keep and schedule their USC game in LA as last game of the year.
I don’t think anyone knows what Notre Dame’s conditions would be, since they have not entered into a serious discussion of joining any league as a full member. But it would seem logical that if they want to play anybody in the B1G, they’d want to keep playing their historical rivals. Among current and proposed Big Ten teams, they’ve played Purdue and MSU more than anybody. Michigan is also known to value the rivalry (though not as much as OSU, obviously). Notre Dame is Purdue’s most important game: there is no way those two would not be in the same division.
All things considered, I think Brian came up with a more plausible 3-division plan. But I am not sure why the B1G would split into 3 divisions at all, unless it adopts a 2-round conference championship tournament, which seems to me exceedingly unlikely.
LikeLike
Radi: no, even if it goes to scheduling groups into divisions, there are alternatives to the WAC style rotating quads. So “stuck with” doesn’t fit: if WAC style rotating quads were to be picked, it would be over the alternatives, not as the sole available way to do it.
LikeLike
AMEN
LikeLike
What about NCAA rule 17.9.5.2 (c) ? What about the championship game ?!?
Answer: What option provides the greatest net revenues:
16-school athletic conference WITH football championship game, or
18-school athletic conference WITHOUT football championship game;
Including implications of the BCS 4-team playoff championship?
PEACE, DUDES
LikeLike
An 18-member conference without a football championship game is inherently ridiculous.
Next question…
LikeLike
Yes, foolish me.
LikeLike
Thanks again for allowing me to post my ideas (good and bad)!
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
LikeLike
Marc,
Thanks for the comments. Replacing Rutgers with Notre Dame in a Central Division would be the obvious scheme. But if that would be the outcome, then the Irish would had joined a long time ago. Since they didn’t, I assume they would only join under a different scenario.
I also don’t see any chances of NCAA rule 17.9.5.2 (c) getting repealed (although I would begin salivating like a rabid dog at the prospect of Nebraska/Ohio State and Notre Dame/Michigan as a wild-card playoff). But if the rule would get appealed, then it may occur in steps, by first allowing a waiver for at least scheduling one championship game with 2 of 3 division champions. I understand that the MAC once had 13 teams which did not exactly comply with this rule (I may be wrong about this claim) which could be seen as establishing a precedence (at least for a duration which occurred in that case).
The reasons why I advocate a 3-division scheme of 6 schools each is that the cross-over games also have meaning as tie-breakers (either to select 2 division champions for a championship game or as wild-card selection). Such meaning is missing if there are only 2 divisions (either static or using pods). As elaborated in my “dream”: cross-over games would be played in the first half of the season, then followed by the division games. At the same time, such scheme greatly reduces the chances of rematches in any championship game. All of these are more attractive in selling tickets and cable TV subscriptions.
The final issue for this option then concerns the scenario that the NCAA would strictly forbid such Championship Game for any reason. The Big Ten had +100 years of existence without such game. The Big 12 presently does not have such game, and yet they make money hand over fist. However, if they would expand to 18 teams then 2 divisions of 9 schools allows a championship game, and then it would be stupid not to schedule the conference games this way.
So, yes, I agree: If the NCAA would strictly forbid such Championship Game in this last case, then having a 16-school conference is probably the better solution. Net revenues would be higher with 18 schools, but then the money is divided among 2 more schools.
Thanks Again!
LikeLike
@Radi: Replacing Rutgers with Notre Dame in a Central Division would be the obvious scheme. But if that would be the outcome, then the Irish would had joined a long time ago.
No, that’s not why the Irish haven’t joined. There are two other reasons. The first, fundamentally, is that they don’t have to. They’re the only school that commands their own broadcast TV deal and their own bowl tie-ins. Most other schools need to be in a conference to share TV revenues and bowl slots with other like-minded schools; the Irish don’t need that.
The other reason is that they want to play a national schedule. In the Big Ten, they’d be committed to nine conference games. There’s no way they’d be able to play Navy, USC and Stanford every year, plus their other recurring (but not quite annual) opponents, such as BC, BYU, Miami, Texas, Pitt, GT, etc. No other school has a schedule like that. It’s part of what makes them unique.
I understand that the MAC once had 13 teams which did not exactly comply with this rule (I may be wrong about this claim) which could be seen as establishing a precedence (at least for a duration which occurred in that case).
No, the MAC complied. The rule is that a CCG can be staged as the 13th game between two division champions, only if a league has at least 12 teams, divided into two divisions of six or more teams that play a round-robin within each division. The fact that the MAC had unequally-sized divisions did not violate this rule.
The reasons why I advocate a 3-division scheme of 6 schools each is that the cross-over games also have meaning as tie-breakers (either to select 2 division champions for a championship game or as wild-card selection).
Sorry, but I just don’t get it. You’re solving a non-existent problem. Tie-breakers are easy. Every sport has them. But no sport has divisions, unless every division-winner is eligible for a playoff or a championship of some sort. I’ve never heard of a sport where winning one’s division might be meaningless, as it would be in your system for one out of three division winners every year.
I’m all for fresh ideas, but I don’t see the problem, for which your unusual arrangement is the solution.
LikeLike
Yes, Notre Dame will never join the B1G Ten for the reasons you list.
As conclusion, I now have the belief that the B1G will never expand beyond 14 teams.
Yeah, it would be great if Virginia or North Caroline or Georgia Tech would join the B1G Ten, but I cannot imagine any of them leaving the ACC unless Duke would accompany them as a group of four. But anything is possible (especially if money is involved).
Cheers
LikeLike
If further Big Ten expansion from the ACC occurs in groups of two, the most likely #15-16 would be Georgia Tech (which is having hard times with athletic department finances, especially with the lackluster ACC football brand) and Virginia (which is rapidly evolving from a distinctly southern state to a Mid-Atlantic one, and could feel it necessary to change conferences if nearby Maryland profits at UVa’s expense, both academically and athletically, from Big Ten membership). Both would let UNC and Duke twist in the wind.
LikeLike
I agree. Before contract time, those two will be B1G. Maybe more.
LikeLike
Vincent,
For UVa, movement to the Big Ten would have almost nothing to do with academics or athletics. As currently established, the ACC is a far better match for the academic standards and athletic competition that UVa embodies. Even excluding all cultural or geographic fit arguments, there are more true peers/rivals (academically and athletically) in the ACC than the Big Ten.
The suggestion that somehow “Maryland profits at UVa’s expense” by being in the Big Ten, is absurd. If there is a zero sum game amongst universities, then this competition occurs amongst very comparable schools. UVa’s closest academic rivals are UNC and Georgia Tech (on a broader level…Cal, UCLA, Michigan, William & Mary, and a larger number of private schools…provide more academic competition). Athletically, UVa’s serious rivals are UMD, VT, UNC & Duke…3 out of 4 are remaining in the ACC.
If UVa seeks to join the join Big Ten, it will be for the same reason as Maryland….money.
LikeLike
Pablo,
I generally agree with you, but wanted to point out something.
“As currently established, the ACC is a far better match for the academic standards and athletic competition that UVa embodies.”
Yes, but that current ACC will cease to exist in June. Next year Pitt, Syracuse and ND join. The following year UMD leaves and is replaced by UL. Also, UVA wouldn’t be joining the B10 alone meaning another ACC school (GT? UNC?) would also be leaving. In addition, UVA may be offered a spot but told that if they say no another school will fill it.
The fair comparison would be between the new ACC with no other changes, the new ACC with 2 more losses, the new B10 with UVA+1 and the new B10 without UVA but +2 from the ACC.
“Even excluding all cultural or geographic fit arguments,”
Which are two fair arguments for UVA to consider.
“there are more true peers/rivals (academically and athletically) in the ACC than the Big Ten.”
Are there? Write out the lists for the 4 choices above.
LikeLike
…there are more true peers/rivals (academically and athletically) in the ACC than the Big Ten.
I don’t get the “academically” part of this sentence. In the current ACC, there are five AAU schools out of 12 members. In the ACC-to-be, there are five AAU schools out of 15. Compare that to the Big Ten, where there are 11 AAU members out of 12 in the current league; 13 out of 14 in the B1G-to-be. Academically, UVA is a cut above the league average in the ACC, but right in line with the rest of the Big Ten.
Athletically, I can certainly see your point. Their best sports seem to be Men’s & Women’s Lacrosse, Men’s & Women’s Swimming & Diving, Rowing, Men’s Soccer, and Men’s Tennis. The Big Ten doesn’t play most of those sports, or isn’t especially notable in them. In the Big Ten, they’d probably be a perennial weakling in the revenue sports — but then, Maryland and Rutgers might be too.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Athletically, I can certainly see your point. Their best sports seem to be Men’s & Women’s Lacrosse, Men’s & Women’s Swimming & Diving, Rowing, Men’s Soccer, and Men’s Tennis. The Big Ten doesn’t play most of those sports, or isn’t especially notable in them.”
M Lax – UMD is a power and 4 other B10 teams play, but not as well as UNC and Duke. OSU, MSU, RU and PSU have all made the NCAA tourney multiple times, though.
W Lax – UMD and NW are the two powers. PSU also has won multiple titles.
M S&D – OSU, MI and IN all have multiple titles
W S&D – No titles for ACC or B10 teams.
M Soccer – IN is a bigger power than UVA, plus UMD and MSU have multiple titles.
W Soccer – UNC and ND rule, but PSU and WI both have multiple titles and OSU has 1 just like UVA.
M Tennis – IL and MI have won titles, OSU has been top 10 the last few years. OSU, IL and NW are all top 25 for 2013.
“In the Big Ten, they’d probably be a perennial weakling in the revenue sports — but then, Maryland and Rutgers might be too.”
UVA has solid history in football and hoops. The right coach could have them competitive again quickly.
LikeLike
UVA has solid history in football and hoops.
Solid…how? Just two all-time ACC championships in football (1989, 1995), just one in men’s basketball (1976).
LikeLike
Oh, and Brian, congrats to the Buckeyes for beating the Cavs in men’s lacrosse Saturday in C’ville. Makes the Big Ten stickers look a bit better in Terrapin eyes.
(One more thing — UVa won multiple NCAA men’s soccer titles in the 1990s. The program has receded a bit, but is still competitive.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Solid…how? Just two all-time ACC championships in football (1989, 1995),”
There’s more than titles to judge solid teams. All time they win 52.7% of their games, basically average for I-A. They are nothing special, but they aren’t IN either.
“just one in men’s basketball (1976).”
56.2% W%, 17 NCAA appearances, 2 final fours, 6 regular season titles, 1 conference tournament title according to http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/virginia/. Again, that’s a solid history.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Oh, and Brian, congrats to the Buckeyes for beating the Cavs in men’s lacrosse Saturday in C’ville. Makes the Big Ten stickers look a bit better in Terrapin eyes.”
Thanks.
“(One more thing — UVa won multiple NCAA men’s soccer titles in the 1990s. The program has receded a bit, but is still competitive.)”
Yeah, they are a soccer power. IN is just a slightly bigger one, which is what I said.
LikeLike
@Brian: I think what you call “solid” most people call “mediocre.”
LikeLike
Brian,
I completely agree with the point that the ACC is growing and changing rapidly. The newer schools have really expanded the geography, and the latest adds (Notre Dame and Louisville) were completely money moves. But the ACC has always had diversity, it will be interesting to see how they all fit in.
With regards to a potential shift to the Big Ten: Hopefully UVa stays tied to UNC. These schools are very similar and the partnership has been beneficial to both schools.
Marc,
AAU membership is not the only criteria for determining academic peers. Many of the Big Ten schools have massive research focus, much greater than UVa’s commitment. In addition, not all members of the conference have to be true academic peers.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think what you call “solid” most people call “mediocre.””
UVA is tied for #34 all time with 2 final fours. That’s above mediocre to me.
In football, over the last 50 years UVA has performed similarly overall to WI, IA and PU and above MN, IL, IN and NW.* Over the last 20 years, UVA is #40 in W% at 55.5%, just behind IA and ahead of MSU. To me that’s solid, not mediocre.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“I completely agree with the point that the ACC is growing and changing rapidly. The newer schools have really expanded the geography, and the latest adds (Notre Dame and Louisville) were completely money moves. But the ACC has always had diversity, it will be interesting to see how they all fit in.”
Diversity yes, but UL changed things academically. I’m just pointing out that UVA wouldn’t be deciding between the old B10 and the old ACC, but new (barely recognizable sometimes) versions.
“With regards to a potential shift to the Big Ten: Hopefully UVa stays tied to UNC. These schools are very similar and the partnership has been beneficial to both schools.”
Agreed. I don’t like seeing historic conferences broken up.
“AAU membership is not the only criteria for determining academic peers. Many of the Big Ten schools have massive research focus, much greater than UVa’s commitment. In addition, not all members of the conference have to be true academic peers.”
True, but I think one could argue Chicago, NW, MI and maybe WI count as peers (maybe JHU, too), plus whichever other ACC school(s) joined with UVA (GT, UNC, Duke). 5-7 academic peers plus a bunch more just a notch below isn’t bad. How many does UVA really have now? Duke, WF, UNC, GT and BC with ND coming. That’s 6, and there’s a much bigger gap to the bottom of the conference than in the B10.
LikeLike
The question for Virginia is not whether any of us could imagine them moving, but how many of the people at the top of UVA can imagine them moving. Since I have zero information on that, I can easily *imagine* them moving, but have nothing to let me peg how likely they are to move.
However, for GTech, they seem to have set down their marker: they are interested in considering realignment, but as long as UVA, UNC and Duke are all in the same conference, that is the best fit for GTech.
Personally, I would hope that the Big Ten not expand beyond 16 without getting another King.
LikeLike
AMEN
LikeLike
Maryland got significant “travel concession” from B1G for joining the Conference… Takes the sting off the “exit fee”!
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-big-ten-travel-0315-20130314,0,1297978.story
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73267/report-b1g-to-subsidize-marylands-travel
Here’s ESPN’s look at it. What I found interesting was this bit:
“According to league sources, Maryland’s football team will be in a division with Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers, Michigan State and Purdue or Indiana.”
That’s news to me that the decision is down to IN or PU. I’d have to think they send IN east, but since I’ve been told the west doesn’t need brands perhaps PU goes east instead to provide even more better football games in NYC and DC.
Leaders – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, RU, UMD
Legends – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, IN
Yeah, that makes sense. And the west won’t suffer at all because what’s good for the east is good for everyone, right?
LikeLike
Those league sources could be speculating.
LikeLike
@bullet
I’ve heard conversations that GaTech really wants to jump to the B1G and that Purdue would love to have them in their division (two great engineering Universities). Have also heard the UVA is a possible (not an SEC possibility), but suppose a “Western school” is being discussed? In any case, I agree that this seems to be pure speculation and not solidified at all. Also, contrary to opinion, UVA is not a huge rival to Maryland. I’d say that PSU could more so due to the “Mason-Dixon” line dividing MD from PA.
LikeLike
Of course they could be, but that’s not how the blogger made it sound.
LikeLike
If they are going to go with those divisions it seems like the league would almost have to raise the cap on revenue sharing because otherwise the West is really going to be left behind.
Of course the irony is if they go with those divisions then the West will actually have quite a bit more depth than the East which will be extremely top heavy (especially if Indiana goes East).
LikeLike
Left behind in what way? UNL / IA / WI / MN together are best for their ticket revenues, and revenue sharing on TV revenues seems to be uncapped.
LikeLike
Michigan or Ohio State visits are guaranteed sellouts everywhere along with higher ticket prices on any season ticket package.
It has to be a legitimate concern for Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue (or Indiana) that they’re not going to have a guaranteed visit each year from a king.
LikeLike
Yes, its a legitimate concern for NW, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana ~ I would not be surprised if the Buckeyes are the second priority for Indiana, after Purdue ~ but for the four Western schools, playing each other is their first priority for ticket sales.
LikeLike
Bruce, as much as the western schools want to play each other, OSU and UM drive ticket sales and have a higher premium price more than any other school. Even for a school like Iowa that sells out every game, OSU/UM will result in a more profitable season gate than one without.
LikeLike
But that is an “everything else equal” comparison ~ holding every other high demand game on their schedule and swapping a low demand home game for either OSU or that school up north, they are clearly ahead by a substantial chunk of change.
But its not an “everything else equal” comparison. Uniting the four western schools also adds to their ticket demand. If sending the OSU and that school up north into the Northeast Corridor helps the Big Ten is gain improved BTN revenues in the Northeast Corridor, that’s also incremental revenue for everyone.
Given Purdue in the west, Indiana/Purdue locked, and no other locked games, that’s 10 games against the Buckeyes and that school up north in a 9 year cycle, so five home games over nine years, so a normal Western schedule would have either two Western school home games or one Western school home game and one Old Firm home game.
Now, if any Eastern Kings are locked, that cuts down the frequency for those schools that are not locked with an Eastern King.
LikeLike
frug,
“If they are going to go with those divisions it seems like the league would almost have to raise the cap on revenue sharing because otherwise the West is really going to be left behind.”
I have it on good authority that all that matters is maximizing money made in the east. Somehow that is magically better for the west than anything else.
“Of course the irony is if they go with those divisions then the West will actually have quite a bit more depth than the East which will be extremely top heavy (especially if Indiana goes East).”
More depth?
OSU, MI, PSU, MSU vs NE, WI, NW, IA – advantage east
RU, UMD, PU vs MN, IL, IN – advantage east
RU, UMD, IN vs MN, IL, PU – toss up
20 year conference W%
PU – 45.9%
MD – 40.0
IL – 32.2
MN – 31.2
RU – 30.6
IN – 22.5
10 year conference W%
RU – 47.8%
PU – 45.0
MD – 41.2
MN – 33.8
IL – 23.7
IN – 17.5
5 year conference W%
RU – 51.4%
PU – 37.5
MD – 32.5
MN – 30.0
IL – 27.5
IN – 12.5
Sums
RU – 129.8
PU – 127.5
MD – 113.7
MN – 95.0
IL – 88.4
IN – 52.5
LikeLike
Pardon me. I have been living overseas for +20 years and only recently studied these expansion scenarios after Maryland Rutgers joined.
If I understand correctly, the pod scheduling discussed on this blog refers to the following scheduling scheme:
(For these examples, I use the obvious hypotheticals, assume that home/away series are needed to ensure competitive balance for 5/4 home/away scheduling for a 9-game conference schedule, use the division names “B1G” and “TEN” for simplicity sake and assume protected cross-overs but not elaborated here.)
YEARS 1&2
B1G: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Indiana
TEN: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia
YEARS 3&4
B1G: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia
TEN: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Indiana
YEARS 5&6
B1G: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
TEN: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Indiana
PEACE, DUDES.
LikeLike
That’s one possibility. It could also be:
YEAR 1: A&B; C&D
YEAR 2: A&C; B&D
YEAR 3: A&D; B&C
YEAR 4: A&B; C&D, swap home for away
YEAR 5: A&C; B&D, swap home for away
YEAR 6: A&D; B&C, swap home for away
Or it could be:
YEAR 1&2: A&B; C&D
YEAR 3&4: A&C; B&D
repeat, with cross group play between A/D and B/C done with cross division games.
Or it could be:
YEAR 1&2: A&B; C&D
YEAR 3&4: A&C; B&D
… swap teams between B&C and then repeat
the third and fourth possibilities are the only ones that work for an odd-number of teams per division, since A&D have to be the same size, B&C have to be the same size, but the pairs:
16: 4/4/4/4; 5/3/3/5; 3/5/5/3
18: 5/4/4/5; 4/5/5/4; 6/3/3/6; 3/6/6/3
The WAC system is the system they chose to do, but given the history, that fact alone doesn’t make it an ironclad favorite.
LikeLike
Thanks again for the constructive comments.
Yet, another disadvantage of not scheduling home/away series is team turnover, with major differences in team composition before the reciprocal second cross-over game is played.
Anyway, I elaborated a sample cross-over scheme for the hypothetical conference and division structures in my my example above as follows:
Pod A: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois
Pod B: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa
Pod C: Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Georgia Tech
Pod D: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Virginia
Thus, in Years 1&2 when Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division, Michigan would play Minnesota and Maryland as cross-overs. Etc.
This may not be the best of all possible worlds, however I assumed that:
(1) Impossible not to schedule Michigan and Ohio State as protected cross-overs,
(2) For balance, then this implies that Penn State and Nebraska should also be protected cross-overs,
Earlier, I also elaborated hypothetical conference and division structures using the WAC scheme as follows:
Years 1&2
B1G: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Northwestern
TEN: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
Years 3&4
B1G: Ohio State, Rutgers, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota
TEN: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Northwestern
As comparison: It still seems to me that the WAC scheme offers several attractive advantages:
(1) Both schemes have Michigan and Ohio State, and Penn State and Nebraska, playing every year (for balance reasons, and also for ticket sales and cable subscriptions). But in the WAC scheme, these pairs of teams always play in the same divisions, whereas in the POD scheme, these pairs of teams only play 33% of the time in the same divisions.
(2) The WAC scheme allows home/away series to be played with each school for every 4-year periods, whereas the POD scheme every 6 years (regardless when the reciprocal game is scheduled).
Needless to say, the WAC scheme will have higher travel costs for the teams, and fans may not be able to travel to as many away games as they would want, since their schools have less total games played against their geographical neighbours. For students, this impact is mitigated since they would (normally) graduate within 4 years anyway.
SHANTIH
LikeLike
“Yet, another disadvantage of not scheduling home/away series is team turnover, with major differences in team composition before the reciprocal second cross-over game is played.”
That is also an advantage of single rotation over home and home rotation for the three alignment system, since four years off between two years on means you have one entire playing class that never sees certain schools in the conference. That was a major flaw of the WAC system of home and home triple rotation, that you go four years without seeing some of your conference mates. Keeping it down to a maximum of two years off is preferable.
“Needless to say, the WAC scheme will have higher travel costs for the teams, and fans may not be able to travel to as many away games as they would want, since their schools have less total games played against their geographical neighbours.”
Team travel costs are not a major factor for Major conference football, and only the football competition would use the quads. As far as fan travel, that largely depends on how you allocate teams to the quads and, if you use the WAC system of triple rotation, whether you allocate locked games and whether THEY respect geography.
Fan travel is an advantage of a western quad, an eastern quad, each being the anchor of the eastern and western divisions, and two central quads swapping between the eastern and western division every second year.
Also the WAC only had eight conference games: two out of division games makes an alternating division system a lot more workable, in the same four years you play through the two divisions, you can play all four of the schools in the group that you never meet 2on/2off. So for three schools you play every year, and the other 12 schools you play 2on/2off.
LikeLike
AMEN
LikeLike
The other nice thing about not being married to 2-year repeating patterns is that variations in schedule difficulty are shorter term. For instance, Utah got a MASSIVE scheduling break in 2011-2012 when they missed Oregon AND Stanford from the North. They didn’t take advantage of it, of course, but that was a pretty unfair leg up that they got. Had the Pac-12 rotated every year, that advantage would have been lessened since it’d have been just in 2011 and then repeated in either 2013 or 2015, depending how they arranged things (and who knows whether it would have been close to the same benefit by the time 2015 rolls around).
LikeLike
Our failure is complete….again.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130316/bill-carmody-northwestern-fired.ap/?sct=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp
LikeLike
A comment on conference networks. I just watched a great gymnastics meet on P12N. Utah upset #2 Florida in Salt Lake before 15,000+. The SEC and the PAC both currently have four teams ranked in the top ten. Conference networks should take advantage of marketing non revenue sports to the less fanatical fans. You know, the same ones NBC has as they grew the Olympic broadcasts. Football (and basketball) may be primary, but other live sports aren’t just time filler, as shown by what and who is marketed to during the Olympics.
LikeLike
Flipping through the channels last night, I discovered that the Longhorn Network is on my digital sports tier.
LikeLike
Fans of Texas basketball (the state of Texas as a whole) had better be rooting for Stephen F Austin to win this Southland Conference championship game.
Could be the first time in decades that the state of Texas gets completely shut out of the NCAA tournament.
Just a weird transition year for Texas basketball (UT’s 14 year NCAA streak snapped, A&M/TCU adapting to new leagues, Baylor having a weird year, etc.).
With so many programs, it takes a once-in-a-generation set of events to shut that many programs out of the NCAA tournament to prevent a no show from the entire state.
LikeLike
NYT has an article on it.
In 2010, there were 7 Texas based teams in the tournament (tying the record for teams from a state), UT, Baylor, A&M, North Texas, Houston, the UTEP and Sam Houston State.
LikeLike
Stephen F Austin loses 68-66 to NW State.
UT-Arlington seems to be the last Texas school left with a change; in the WAC final against New Mexico State.
LikeLike
A&M’s difficulties doesn’t have to do with changing leagues, but the transition to a new coach hired before last school year; many players have transferred or simply quit. They’ve played occasionally well this year, but have been highly erratic.
The NIT or CBI has an opportunity to have some fun games; send A&M to Baylor and the Longhorns to Houston! Have the winners meet in the next round!
LikeLike
If only Baylor is likely to make the NIT, that breaks up part of that particular scenario, but no reason the CBI wouldn’t look to trying to include the rest of it. Might even include a fourth Texas team to complete the set.
LikeLike
And lo and behold, both Baylor and SFA made the NIT, so the CBI picked Texas and Houston as their headliners, bracketed with Charleston and George Mason as the other half of their quarterfinal draw. Who knows whether A&M would have played if Baylor was available, but A&M elected to stay home rather than play in the CBI.
The CBI did something similar in the Midwest ~ well, neighboring states, but Central and East Texas both have enough people to be their own states ~ pitting Purdue against Western Illinois.
LikeLike
Nothing new but here’s an interview with Slive if anyone is interested. He says the SEC is not looking to expand but says they weren’t looking to expand when A&M and Mizzou approached them about membership. In case it hasn’t already been discussed here, he says that they’ll have something to say about the SEC network after basketball is completely over.
SEC Commissioner: Slive: No more expansion planned soon – David Climer, The Tennessean
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130315/SPORTS/303150134/2072/SPORTS
“Q: Along those lines, is the SEC going to stick with 14 members or is further expansion anywhere on the horizon?
A: In some ways 12 is ideal but at least 14 is sort of a cousin of 12. Sixteen is a distant relative. We’re actually still in the process of absorbing both of these schools into our scheduling, particularly on the football side. It’s hard to absorb one, let alone two.
There’s been some movement throughout the country but that doesn’t really affect us. Even when we were at 12 we weren’t looking. Both Texas A&M and Missouri came to us. If they hadn’t come to us, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t still be at 12.
Q: With the Big Ten and Pac-12 already working with their own dedicated cable channels, there has been speculation about if and when there would be an SEC Network. Where do things stand?
A: We’re trying to focus on basketball for a few weeks but we will make a formal announcement about the SEC Channel in mid-April. Once basketball is completely over, we’ll have something to say.”
LikeLike
Doesn’t Slive know that he pursued Missouri? Insiders have told me so.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, carefully chosen words are often carefully chosen. For instance, the SEC could well find out that a school might be available because the school contacted them, and then pursue that school when it has another school it is committed to adding and needs a 14th. So “they contacted us” and “we pursued them” are not as contradictory as they might appear to be on the surface.
LikeLike
And it’s over, the state of Texas gets shut out of the NCAA tournament for the first time since ’77 as Stephen F Austin and UT-A both fall in the Southland and WAC championship games respectively.
To put it in perspective, Texas has 21 D-1 schools now…
LikeLike
It could be a very different NCAA tourney for me. If Kentucky is on the bad side of the bubble as the experts say, it will be the first time since 1976 neither UK or UT has been in the tournament. This is only the 3rd time since the 80s UT has missed (1993, 1998 also). Other than the Sutton probation years (1989-91), this would be the 4th time since Pat Riley and Louie Dampier had injury plagued years in 1967 that UK has missed it (2009, 1979, 1976).
LikeLike
It’s one of those interesting years in the cyclical nature of the sport.
The Big Ten and Big East have a lot of programs performing at peaks, the ACC the Pac-12 is starting to come back from where it was the past few years, the ACC is off of where it was a couple of years back although FSU and Miami have outperformed of late (going to be interesting to see how much Louisville/Syracuse/Pitt/ND raises the bar there), and the SEC has replaced the Pac-12 at the low point of the cycle.
The Big 12 has it all going on within one conference. On the one hand you have almost everyone outside of the state of Texas going to the tournament (KU, KSU, OU, OSU, ISU), but then the programs in Texas are in transition years.
Kentucky is emblematic of how the one and done philosophy has resulted in such a rapid increase in the frequency. One year champs, the next year NIT.
LikeLike
scratch that first “the ACC”
LikeLike
The B12 has it going on with former Illini coaches (Self, Weber, Kruger).
LikeLike
Sad news about Seton Hill (not to be confused with Seton Hall). Their women’s lacrosse team coach was killed when the bus carrying the team crashed on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51207204/ns/sports-other_sports/
Seton Hill’s athletics compete in Division II.
LikeLike
Apologies if this has been posted already but this article seems to be making the rounds at other message boards. It’s from the Duke perspective of where things may be headed wrt college athletics.
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=206722563&DB_OEM_ID=4200
The relevant quote is as follows:
Most of the speculation has been internet nonsense, but there is no denying that the college sports landscape is reshaping itself. Power conferences are turning into mega-conferences, driven by the desire to maximize football dollars.
Where does that leave the ACC? And if Duke’s home for the last 60 years flounders, where does that leave Duke?
Those are concerns that current Duke Vice President and Director of Athletics Dr. Kevin White has to confront. He’s determined not to be dilatory like the Trinity administration in the ‘20s. Instead, he’s planning to follow the proactive path that Cameron pioneered in the early ‘50s.
“If you are Duke, what you want to do is be a leader in creating tomorrow,” White said recently. “You don’t want to run the risk of having someone else create tomorrow for you and make you see the world through their respective prism … quite frankly, you would find that to be uncomfortable, and/or untenable for a place like Duke.”
Basically, an admission that they may not control events as they would like. Now I won’t get ahead of myself and start making conclusions, as things always change within the high corridors of power. However, it makes me wonder whether or not they’re making contingency plans in case ish really starts breaking out.
LikeLike
If you’re the Duke AD, you’d have to be a complete fool not to have contingency plans. It is tough for me to imagine the scenario where Duke gets kicked to the curb — their basketball program is too valuable for that — but they certainly can’t take their seat at the table for granted.
LikeLike
One would hope that North Carolina’s three other ACC schools — and indeed, the state of North Carolina as a whole — can approach this with a similarly realistic attitude. If it doesn’t, and if it won’t accept that we are now in a world where football controls the show (sorry, basketball) and the ACC’s lackluster brand can’t cut it, the state will be in for a rude awakening — especially the folks in Chapel Hill. Alpha dog UNC (which never really was one in football) may suddenly find itself Chihuahua-sized.
LikeLike
I thought the original gist of FtT’s current post was that the C7/BEast contract shows it’s brands in popular sports that are valued, not singularly FB. Football is most valuable, but brand basketball shouldn’t be taken for granted. What would the C7 be worth if they added fair to middling FB? Now make a couple of them Miami or FSUish? Because schools, or a conference is doing due diligence doesn’t confirm (or deny) the inevitability of a move, just preparedness for theoretical scenarios.
LikeLike
Two themes stand-out from the interview:
1. Even at Duke, football is the athletic priority. The AD was previously at Notre Dame. Duke was proud of getting 20k fans to the Belk Bowl. Comments stressing that 80 percent of media revenues are driven by football. Constant reminders that there will be more investment in football.
2. Duke doesn’t want to go the mid-major route. Hyping the model followed by Stanford, Northwestern and Vanderbilt. While claiming that the ACC revenue stream is currently on par with the SEC, PAC & B12, he clearly believes that the top echelon of schools need to go after the “entertainment” money. This is a clear sign that the SEC would be much preferred, as compared to not being in a top tier football conference.
LikeLike
Wake has much the same problem as Duke — and though it’s been demonstrably better in football over the past decade, Deacons basketball has been on the skids. By now, Wake is in that Stanford/Northwestern/Vanderbilt bracket (OK, maybe not quite as good, but getting there) and it may win AAU membership before more celebrated candidates such as Florida State, Georgia or Connecticut. But even with AAU status, Wake isn’t going to the Big Ten or SEC; its best hope might be for Texas to head to the Pac with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State after a Big Ten and SEC raid of the ACC and then have what’s left of that conference blend with the six remaining members of the Big 12..
LikeLike
Wake’s best hope is for the ACC to stick together. They basically have grandfathered power league status, and it’s VERY hard to see them keeping it in any kind of ACC breakup scenario.
Keep in mind that North Carolina currently has four power league (i.e. top five league) schools, tied with California for second most in the country (only Texas has more). That’s utterly absurd for the 10th largest state in the country given that New York (one), Florida (three), Illinois (two), Pennsylvania (two), Ohio (one), Georgia (two) and Michigan (two) all have fewer. Even if you discount New York because people don’t really care about college football there, NC still has double or more the power school count of a bunch of other larger states.
In a more equilibrium type environment, NC would drop at least one school from the power league list, and Wake is the obvious first choice (and if it really should be two, then it’d be an interesting comparison between Duke and NC St for the other drop).
Honestly, as much as people say that the ACC is NC-centric, I think a substantial part of why the ACC has fallen behind so far is that there’s a major over-crowding of schools in NC. They simply don’t have the population and fanbase to support a full third of a power league (pre-expansion) or a bit over a quarter of one (going forward).
That’s part of why ECU has been a bastard child of expansion rumors and only got a New Big East invite after the league had hit full-on desperation mode.
LikeLike
Hypothetically, what would the B1G do if, alone among NC schools, Duke wanted in?
LikeLike
Is UVA interested in joining with them?
LikeLike
@John O and frug – That’s a very interesting hypothetical. I definitely think that the Big Ten would take a UVA/Duke combo. It would work financially (I think a lot of people underestimate how uniquely valuable Duke basketball is even with a weak football team, and that matters with respect to the BTN) and it’s obviously a huge coup academically. In fact, as I think about it, that may actually be more likely than UNC ever leaving the ACC without a complete collapse of that league having already occurred. In essence, comparing this to the Big 12 situation from 2 years ago, Duke is more likely to be in the Texas A&M position (more motivated to move, although Duke’s motivation might be more long-term CYA whereas there was a lot more ground level animosity toward the Big 12 at A&M) while UNC is Texas-esque (satisfied with its position as top dog in the ACC).
LikeLike
But if UVa, GT and Duke all want in…well, to borrow the title of a late ’60s movie, three into two won’t go. Who does Delany leave out? Probably Duke.
LikeLike
@vp19: It is hard to believe the scenario where UVA,GT, and Duke all want in, but there is no fourth team with mutual interest.
LikeLike
I sort of agree, but you never know with UNC…especially with the NCSU factor. (UVa and Virginia Tech aren’t as joined at the hip academically or athletically, as they have separate governing bodies and for most of their existence have been in separate conferences.)
LikeLike
In the hypothesis only Duke among NC schools willing to move? Use that as the excuse to make an offer to FSU. “We tried to get UVA / GTech / Duke / UNC, but UNC said no. Its take FSU to even things out or miss out on these three fine AAU schools”.
LikeLike
I have a feeling UNC grad Delany would give Chapel Hill the either-or, last-chance option before inviting Florida State.
LikeLike
Ah, but under the frame of our hypothetical here, UNC says no.
LikeLike
Why would Duke move though if UNC isn’t?
There’s a case to be made for Georgia Tech and UVa moving together.
But no one has stated why Duke would abandon the rest of Tobacco Road to go off with those two?
Until UNC has to make a move, it’s hard to see Duke going anywhere.
LikeLike
Per the article that was linked in these comments, Duke will be proactive to make sure they do not get demoted. UNC will always have a place, Duke may not. If Duke believes the ACC will go the way of the Big East it will move alone if UNC is not ready. Duke does not want to be in the position of going against UNC for the last seat at the table.
LikeLike
vp19,
“But if UVa, GT and Duke all want in…well, to borrow the title of a late ’60s movie, three into two won’t go. Who does Delany leave out? Probably Duke.”
I’d take all 3 and find a fourth.
Ask UNC again. If they still say no, I’d ask schools in this order:
0. ND
1. FSU
2. VT
3. NCSU
4. Syracuse
5. Miami
6. Pitt
LikeLike
John O,
If only Duke wanted to come, it would depend on the partner available. You don’t take just Duke and get to 15.
Duke and ND – yes
Duke and UVA – yes
Duke and FSU – if you can sell the COP/C on it academically
Duke and GT – probably
If Duke and UVA both come, UNC seems likely to want to follow (GT would be willing to be #18). I just have a hard time seeing Duke choose to leave unless the ACC is crumbling and UNC is also willing to go.
LikeLike
Duke can stay in the ACC ! The question should be, UVA and who else?
1 Pitts
2 UNC
3 GT
Pick any one ! All the other schools have at least 1 major problem.
LikeLike
The only way Pittsburgh gets in is if the Big Ten goes to 20 and is stuck with no other alternative after 19.
LikeLike
Think about it !
1 AAU
2 A large amount of research money.
3 About 1/2 way between Ohio State and Penn.
4 Penn ST. will be down for 5 ? years.
5 I do not think Pitts area TVs are tied to Penn St.
6 UNC is southern and the boss of the ACC.
7 UNC bb only
8 GT not next to big state
9. GT only fair in sports.
10 If UVA is 15 someone else must be 16.
11 So PItts is really not that bad.
12 Again take UAV and 1 of the 3 I suggested before. Then quit for 15 years !!!!!!!
LikeLike
C. Toda,
“Think about it !”
We already have.
“3 About 1/2 way between Ohio State and Penn.”
And that’s the end of the discussion. There’s no need to add a school between those two. The B10 already owns both states.
“4 Penn ST. will be down for 5 ? years.”
So? Pitt hasn’t been good for a while.
“5 I do not think Pitts area TVs are tied to Penn St.”
You’re wrong.
LikeLike
Duke can stay in the ACC ! The question should be, UVA and who else?
Say what? Duke basketball is one of the best brand names in sports; UVA is not a king in any revenue sport at all. Duke is also better academically than UVA. Of course, in most believable scenarios where Duke is available, UVA and UNC will be available too. I think the Big Ten would take all three, and then the question is who is #4 (or #4, 5, and 6).
1 Pitts
2 UNC
3 GT
Pick any one ! All the other schools have at least 1 major problem.
Pitt has a major problem: it doesn’t deliver a market, beyond what the Big Ten already has. I agree with @vp19 that the only way Pitt gets an offer is as #20, and even that seems doubtful. I think the Big Ten would stay at 18 before it would go to 20 with Pitt.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten would stay at 18 before it would go to 20 with Pitt.
It would depend upon whom #19 was, and how badly the Big Ten wanted it. A Notre Dame #19 (not likely to happen) would make Pitt an easy #20 — a longtime ND rival that doesn’t compromise the Big Ten academically. (And ND would probably be as comfortable with Pitt as it would be with Syracuse or Boston College.) But just about any other candidate for #19 — even possibly Florida State — would need a better partner than Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
However, if Notre Dame is #19, numbers 15–18 are almost surely four of the following five: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU. So in the case where ND is #19, the final slot ought to go to whichever one of those five remains.
LikeLike
Since Thad Matta started in Columbus, you can always count on Ohio State to not disappoint in the conference tournament.
Won it a 4th time and have reached 7 of the past 8 tournament finals.
LikeLike
The Big XII’s boycot of the Aggies may not be rock solid.
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/texas-tech-ad-would-like-to-see-rivalry-renewed-with-texas-am.html/.
“In a wide-ranging media session, Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt said he would like to add Texas A&M to the schedule.
“We would welcome the opportunity to play Texas A&M in every sport,” Hocutt said, adding that no conversations were taking place. “It was a fun rivalry, a good rivalry and one in the future that we can begin again.””
LikeLike
Was there ever a Big 12 boycott? I was under the impression it was just Texas. IIRC Baylor tried to set up something pretty soon after the split and it was A&M who turned them down. Certainly could be wrong though…
LikeLike
Tech has made similar comments in the past.
LikeLike
And it’s tough to find teams who actually want to play a non-conference game in Lubbock.
LikeLike
When we left, Texas Tech’s then coach Tuberville said he’d like to schedule A&M non-conference. Their AD said he wouldn’t want to do it by individual sports; he only wanted to schedule us if we agreed to play in every sport. So this statement is a bit of a change. As far as I know, the only time we’ve played them this year is when they came to one of the indoor track and field meets A&M organized.
Baylor’s women’s basketball coach has repeatedly said she’s refusing to play us; their baseball coach said he’d like to schedule us sometime. I don’t recall any statements about football or men’s basketball. Off the top of my head, I know we’ve played spring (exhibition) soccer games and women’s tennis matches against them; they also came to an A&M track meet.
I don’t think any Big 12 school outside of Texas is boycotting us; OU has played us in men’s basketball and tennis, and perhaps other sports.
LikeLike
Texas A&M-Texas Tech is actually probably a mirror image of Texas-Texas A&M. I imagine Texas Tech would love a yearly game vs. the aggies, but I doubt the interest is mutual (although would be for a home and home). Same thing with Baylor and Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Maybe for football—I could argue the point, but the LHN is what makes that series truly difficult for football.
For minor sports, it doesn’t transfer at all.
There’s little reason for A&M to schedule Texas Tech in minor sports because:
1) it isn’t good in most sports
2) it isn’t in a convenient spot in the state for fans to travel
3) it isn’t convenient for the teams to travel
4) it isn’t close to a major recruiting spot.
In this year or previous years, A&M has had home and homes in minor sports with Baylor (tennis), Rice (baseball), and TCU or SMU (I can’t remember which they played in women’s basketball).
If A&M is scheduling these schools, they clearly wouldn’t be afraid to schedule Texas Tech in these sports if it served a purpose for A&M. But if A&M wants to travel to a close team, a school in Houston, Dallas, or Waco is likely to be just as good in the sport. Those locales are also better for recruiting and giving fans in the big cities a chance to see the Aggies.
Google claims A&M is 1.5 hours closer to OU than it is to Texas Tech, and OU is better in most sports than Texas Tech.
Despite all this, A&M might decide to give Tech home & home in some series because they think that match-up will get a bit of ratings buzz in the state (I’m not sure), but there isn’t much else going for it.
However, I think it’s clear that A&M will schedule Tech if the administrators decide it would help A&M; they wouldn’t care if it helped Texas Tech (of course it would help them, schools don’t schedule games for no purpose).
Contrast that to the Longhorns attitude towards scheduling A&M in the minor sports. If they played A&M, they would get nationally ranked teams that are less than a 2 hour drive away, that would give their athletes a good competition, that would get better ratings for the LHN than any other team they could schedule in a sport like Softball or Soccer, that would get great attendance for these sports, and that would take them slightly closer to Houston. These are all strong reasons why scheduling A&M would be beneficial for the Longhorns.
Before A&M left the Big 12, the schools used to have some non-conference competitions; for example, I believe they played an annual non-conference tennis match in Houston to get attention in a city that the Longhorns make an effort to get to. Obviously they thought this was good for the University of Texas.
Clearly, it would be beneficial for the Longhorns to schedule A&M in these sports even if you accept that they can’t fit them into their football schedule.
The Longhorns won’t schedule A&M even though it would help the Longhorns because they don’t want to ‘help’ A&M; that’s very different from A&M’s attitude towards scheduling the other Texas schools.
LikeLike
Selection committee doesn’t think Pac-12 improved this year.
Oregon got a 12 seed (won the tournament).
LikeLike
Ole Miss did as well (won SEC tournament) but their resume looked like a lot more of a “must win to get in” situation to me than Oregon.
LikeLike
I think Ole Miss may have gotten Kentucky’s slot. They did that to the SWC a number of years back when they held a late Sunday game and Texas got the shaft..
Kentucky can’t complain. Calipari scheduled a bunch of really bad teams in addition to a few good ones ooc. They knew what they had to do and failed. They simply had to win one SEC tournament game.. Still, Boise, LaSalle, Wichita St.? St. Mary’s hardly played anyone. SM top 50 beat Creighton, lost 3 times to Gonzaga. The system is predictable, but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.
Missouri scheduled the way they needed to and got an 8 seed. Everyone knew they were in. Still, they hardly won a road game all year. They were 2-7 in the SEC on the road. They finished 5th in the SEC at 11-7. Alabama, Kentucky and Ole Miss were 2nd at 12-6. Alabama didn’t make it and Ole Miss only made it because they won the tourney.
LikeLike
I wonder if the tourney taking all these unaccomplished mid-majors (think the bottom 5 were all mid-majors) over up and down majors will encourage the Big conferences to think more about splitting.
LikeLike
If the big conferences split, I could see the NCAA prohibiting its remaining members from scheduling them. As a result, you’d have roughly 70 schools in five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac and SEC) limited to playing non-conference basketball against each other, probably resulting in more balanced overall W-L records and a postseason tournament of 32 teams at most. I don’t think those five conferences want to invite the Big East or conferences with schools that don’t play big-time football to their party; they want to freeze them out.
LikeLike
If the big conferences split, I could see the NCAA prohibiting its remaining members from scheduling them.
The question you have to ask yourself is not what the NCAA would want, but what those schools would want. The NCAA can’t mandate anything that its membership doesn’t vote for. My guess is that both groups still want to play those games.
And if the NCAA imposed such a restriction over the objections of its members, they’d run into an anti-trust buzz saw.
I don’t think those five conferences want to invite the Big East or conferences with schools that don’t play big-time football to their party; they want to freeze them out.
I don’t get the sense that the major conferences object to treating the Big America and the C7 as peers in basketball. If they have a gripe, it would be with conferences way down the totem pole.
Bear in mind, though, the tournament pool has grown repeatedly, so that the auto-bids those lower-tier leagues receive wouldn’t take at-large slots away from the big guys. The new BIg East will most likely get an autobid, but that’s basically a technicality. It’s hard to imagine any school winning that league and not getting into the tournament on the merits.
LikeLike
Marc:
Wouldn’t the NCAA, a member created and operated institution, be incapable of mandating anything a majority of it’s members don’t agree to?
LikeLike
@Marc and ccrider
The NCAA used procedural loopholes in order to allow guaranteed 4 year scholarships even though 65% of their members voted against the measure.
Now, that isn’t quite the same thing as a mandate, but it does show the NCAA can (and does) take actions against the wishes of the majority of its members.
LikeLike
I don’t get the sense that the major conferences object to treating the Big America and the C7 as peers in basketball. If they have a gripe, it would be with conferences way down the totem pole
In retrospect, I think the five majors would allow the Big America, C-USA, MAC, MWC and Sun Belt into their new federation, providing about 120 members (enough for non-conference “cupcakes” in all sports) — but I doubt they want conferences that don’t play football in on the action. As the Big East showed, their philosophy is essentially incompatible with big-time football schools.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the NCAA, a member created and operated institution, be incapable of mandating anything a majority of it’s members don’t agree to?
Yes, that is basically what I’m saying. If the NCAA used a “procedural loophole” to tell 65 percent of its members that they could no longer play basketball against certain teams, that sounds like organizational suicide (assuming it stands up legally, which it probably does not).
LikeLike
65% couldn’t vote to change the procedure/loop hole?
LikeLike
Nope.
The NCAA instituted the rule and then required a 2/3 super majority to override its decision.
LikeLike
Hmmm…
1.7% will need an offer they can’t refuse…
LikeLike
Doubt it. They still go to the bank. One and done will create quick up, as well as down (Ky). If you’re suggesting the power conferences try to commandeer NCAA governed basketball as they did D1 FB, it will probably will require a split from the NCAA.
LikeLike
IN – okay
OSU – I’m disappointed they got sent west as a #2, but I can understand and the draw is decent.
MSU – okay at #3
MI – okay at #4
WI – okay at #5
IL – lucky to get a #7
MN – unlucky to be #11
LikeLike
With Iowa given an NIT #3 seed, hosting Indiana State in the first round, and Purdue agreeing to host Western Illinois in the pay-to-play CBI, all Big Ten schools with 8-10 or better conference records are playing sometime in the rest of March. Luckily that the pay-to-play CBI does not require a .500 overall record, cause nothing says “quality basketball tournament” than an under .500 record from a Major Conference.
LikeLike
The Dude is at it again. He’s saying FSU (and UVA) will be playing in the B10 in 2014:
The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
When the 2014 season kicks off the FSU Seminoles will be members of the B1G.
LikeLike
A URL, please, so I can look at this and laugh?
(I can’t envision the next wave of Big Ten expansion from the ACC without Georgia Tech being part of it…but the Dude can’t picture that in his mind, because he wants the Yellow Jackets to head to the Big 12 to give his Mountaineers some eastern company. Fat chance.)
LikeLike
Says UVA, UNC, Duke, FSU to B10, VT and NCST to Sec, and Miami and Clemson to B12.
https://twitter.com/theDudeofWV/status/313456245665304576
LikeLike
He is also saying that FSU submitted a plan detailing how they intend to join the AAU within 5 years.
LikeLike
With Rick Scott as governor? Pardon my skepticism.
LikeLike
With his complete lack of understanding of AAU, that pretty much discredits his source (some comment about AAU criteria being fixed so they know what to do to get in). Of course, he could just be getting played again. He’s admitted that happened before.
LikeLike
I have to think that if there’s truth to the FSU-to-B1G rumor that they’d be paired with GT (so as to set up a Southern flank). UVa might still join later, so it’d be a question of who is #18.
FWIW, some of the FSU Twitteratti believe that there was a presentation that FSU made to several B1G committee members for improving academics.
LikeLike
Yup, says the B10 reps were from OSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
I don’t see them stopping with UVA and FSU if that’s the case. If (and that’s a humongous if) this come to fruition, I think 20 is the end game. Will it be in 2014? Probably not, but I don’t see the B10 putting FSU on an island like that.
LikeLike
I could see two scenarios that would happen if FSU was brought aboard:
1. The B1G “caves” and goes against their wish of not adding two schools in the same state. Their excuse would be that Duke adds value beyond the immediate environs in Durham. Also, it’s they’re the price paid to get UNC to join. UVa connects NC to Md and the rest of the B1G. GT is left hanging but is promised to be invited, when a #20 is found.
2. The B1G decided to accept the risk of Duke well before issuing the invitation. Either one of Duke/UNC is a staple of weekly basketball games on BTN. Even if the B1G allows ESPN a piece of the action for the whole league, losing a few games involving Duke/UNC would still be a big blow for them (not to mention John Skipper having to explain to his higher-ups why ESPN could no longer air as much Duke/UNC as they did before). Then, the B1G plans to raise the possibility of inviting GT as a lure to convince a certain known school that has a leprechaun as a mascot that “it’s for realz” and they need to decide if they want to be #20 or lose the chance of getting regular exposure in those SE areas. I still think that they’ll say “NO” because said school will continue to have options beyond the B1G. One of them being that rumored-about alliance that is being considered with the BigXII (read: Texas). An alliance involving ND, Texas (and the Big XII) and perhaps even the SEC would be enough to assure ND’s semi-independent status. The remnants of the ACC would surely join in or they’ll lose any relevance they have left. The Big XII and the SEC already cooperate through the Sugar Bowl, so bringing ND/ACC on board would be a natural extension of that. Texas doesn’t want to expand. ND/ACC allows them that option. The SEC gets ND big games against Alabama, Florida, Georgia, TAMU, Missouri (St. Louis market) rotated between them. Finally, through the ACC, ND will continue to play Pitt and BC. Therefore, future ND schedules may include the likes of: Texas, OU, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, TAMU, Pitt, BC, Louisville and Miami, along with the staples of USC and Navy. Not a bad gig if you can get it. Similar to ND, Mizzou would also say “NO” because the SEC already gives them states they need to recruit in the South. And if the alliance happens, not only would they have a chance to play ND but even revive some of the old rivalries they had in the Big XII. Both ND and Mizzou would have no incentive to take a B1G offer.
Which leaves the only candidate left that is semi plausible (and one people here seem to loathe) and would give B1G a better chance to securing the NYC/New England markets: Connecticut. They and GT get the last golden tickets.
The ACC refills with Temple, Cincinnati, USF and Memphis
LikeLike
I could see the BIg Ten presidents agreeing to one non-Notre Dame non-AAU in Florida State, but two? No way. I’d sooner take Pitt than Connecticut.
LikeLike
Yup, says the B10 reps were from OSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
That part of it is fairly plausible. Those are the schools most likely to oppose FSU on academic grounds. Also, I believe Michigan and Wisconsin voted Nebraska out of the AAU.
I don’t see them stopping with UVA and FSU if that’s the case. If (and that’s a humongous if) this come to fruition, I think 20 is the end game. Will it be in 2014? Probably not, but I don’t see the B10 putting FSU on an island like that.
Yeah, I can’t see it either. The thing is, the ACC needs to have a couple of perennial football powers to be a credible league. If they lose FSU, it won’t end there. I also think the Big Ten needs another good football school if it wants to expand, and FSU is the only one available that conceivably makes sense.
LikeLike
@Transic:
I could see two scenarios that would happen if FSU was brought aboard:
1. The B1G “caves” and goes against their wish of not adding two schools in the same state.
I don’t think that accurately states the B1G’s position. They’d take Notre Dame in a heartbeat, and it would be their third Indiana school. But Notre Dame isn’t an “Indiana” school; they’re a national school that happens to be based in Indiana. Pitt is a Pennsylvania school without much of a fan base outside their home market.
Duke is to basketball what Notre Dame is to football: every game they play attracts a national audience. On top of that, they’d be one of the top 2-3 schools academically in the conference. I don’t think any “caving” would be required for Duke to get in.
I agree with you that ND is not going to join, because even in the ACC’s worst-case scenario, the Irish can probably still get the same deal from the Big XII.
Which leaves the only candidate left that is semi plausible (and one people here seem to loathe) and would give B1G a better chance to securing the NYC/New England markets: Connecticut. They and GT get the last golden tickets.
No one loathes UConn. Some of us just have trouble imagining that they deliver enough to meet the Big Ten’s criteria. They are not close to AAU membership, they play in a small football stadium, their basketball program is down on its luck, and they don’t deliver a large market.
Jim Delany has said repeatedly that every addition has to be compelling. You could see the compelling case for FSU and Notre Dame; it’s hard to see it for UConn.
LikeLike
@ Transic ~ I agree with Marc regarding a supposed “no two schools in the same state” rule. Its “the adds taken together have to be expected to more than pay their way”. Pitt is not considered a strong likelihood by those who do not think it adds any appreciable incremental income, for that reason.
Obviously a single school that brings in all of a mid-sized or larger state is going to pull a lot of weight as far as more than paying its own way.
If there are three on the table that more than pay the way for four, and no other school is available that would pass muster, then I could surely see Pitt being taken as an 18th that is available and is an AAU school so raises no further hackles on that front. Three on the table that more than pay for four spells “FSU” to me, which would surely raise academic hackles, so the other three would have to be not only unobjectionable on that front, but with enough academic sex appeal spread across a range of academic departments to get potential academic trouble makers to sit on their objections to FSU.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“That part of it is fairly plausible. Those are the schools most likely to oppose FSU on academic grounds.”
WI and MI, sure, but OSU?
LikeLike
vp19,
“A URL, please, so I can look at this and laugh?”
“(I can’t envision the next wave of Big Ten expansion from the ACC without Georgia Tech being part of it…but the Dude can’t picture that in his mind, because he wants the Yellow Jackets to head to the Big 12 to give his Mountaineers some eastern company. Fat chance.)”
Actually, his full theory is this:
“FSU, UVA, UNC & Duke to B1G. Miami & Clemson to B12. NCST & VT to the SEC.”
Apparently GT goes nowhere.
Best I can tell, his basis is that FSU has a plan to become AAU in 5 years and has submitted it to a 3 member subcommittee (OSU, MI and WI) that will report to the full COP/C. Apparently the plan was a way to placate MI and this committee is mostly a sham to pressure MI to accept FSU. Supposedly MI doesn’t want FSU in because of football but is using academics as an excuse.
LikeLike
He’s essentially admitted previously that he confused Virginia making contingency plans with Virginia being sure to leave ~ though he admitted it in terms that were kinder to himself ~ so all I can see in any of the Dude’s writings is “it looks like teams A, B, C and D are making contingency plans”, which we knew anyway.
I agree with vp19, GTech wants to be in the Big Ten, though they want to be in the Big Ten with one or more of UVA, UNC and/or Duke, and within the Big Ten they have a few quite strong spokespeople for their cause, so I can’t see GTech to the Big12 as anything other than Mountaineer wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Now The Dude has locked his Twitter account. Only followers can read what he posts.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/football/2013/03/expansion-rumors
On an Ohio State blog, there was this comment by Buckeyeneer:
“While often times the Dude is full of it, this time he is right, or at least his info is in line with what is coming from the insiders of the B1G Chicago office on the Scout pay board. Apparently, the presidents at OSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan are reviewing FSU’s plan and will make a recommendation to the other president’s at the B1G’s April meeting. Last I heard, it was Wisky and TTUN that were against allowing FSU to join. No word on what way they are leaning but if FSU’s plan swayed them, get ready to party Florida Buckeyes. The B1G will be invading your fine state.”
Here’s a grain of salt to take it with: .
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21885756/orange-bowl-to-host-one-of-2015-2016-semifinals
The Orange Bowl will host one of the semis in 2015-6 (year 2 of the playoff).
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/15/orange-bowl-to-be-one-host-of-2016-playoff-semifinals/
My favorite part is that the BCS, “has invited 31 bowl committees to consider whether they are interested in submitting a proposal to host the national semifinals and other bowl games to be played New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day.”
Come on Belk Bowl!
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/17/uconn-to-add-2000-seats-for-michigan-game/
UConn adding 2000 seats for Michigan game,
LikeLike
There was an article in Sunday’s Washington Post about how sequester cuts will cut university research funding. The column concentrates on the effects such cuts would have on Johns Hopkins and Maryland. Seehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sequester-cuts-university-research-funds/2013/03/16/08e9cc24-877a-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
One thing that stood out for me involved Maryland. The article says Maryland was #33 in Federal research funding at $338M in 2011 (JHU was at $1.9B). Then there’s this excerpt:
Research is deeply intertwined with the finances of the College Park campus. Patrick O’Shea, U-Md. vice president for research, said total research grant and contract revenue for 2013 — about $500 million, counting all sources — will surpass the estimated $470 million the university collects through tuition and fees.
O’Shea said U-Md. aims to position itself to win grants despite federal cuts.
“Even if the overall amount of funding available falls, our faculty can still do well if they submit proposals that are [of] higher quality than their competitors’,” O’Shea said.
*****
I was intrigued to find out that Maryland expects the revenue it will be getting from research grants and contracts are going to be greater than what it’s projected to get in tuition and fees in 2013. This is the kind of information that reinforces the premise of how important research dollars are to these universities and how being a part of the CIC might come into play regarding strategies to compete for additional funding in the future.
LikeLike
Texas for this year has a budget that gets 45% of its revenue from “research grants and other.” 25% is from tuition, 13% from state general revenue, 9% from gifts and endowments and 8% from the Available University Fund (constitutionally mandated oil money).
LikeLike
@cutter
“One thing that stood out for me involved Maryland. The article says Maryland was #33 in Federal research funding at $338M in 2011 (JHU was at $1.9B).”
The figure given for College Park, #338 M, includes only that one campus. Since the UMCP has formed a “special relationship” with the downtown Baltimore Professional campus, the total is more likely to be nearer to $900M” for both. And part of that total will go to UMCP because of an interstate collaboration of researchers from both campuses. Plus,it doesn’t hurt that Mikulski, Head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is a native of Baltimore and was propelled to the Senate using Baltimore as a platform and a priority for her will be federal funding of research dollar and JHU and MD are sure to get their “fair share”.
LikeLike
Any expansion scenario involving a plan that has any university not named Utah or Miami submitting a “we’re going to be in AAU within 5 years plan” is moot. And even Miami is probably not that close (remember they’re #59 by AAU metrics, that’s still around 20 spots away from where they need to be).
It would take a 25 year plan at minimum to get FSU into the AAU. They’d have to get to the top 40 by AAU metrics and they’re like 50 spots away from that.
It’s not like everyone else in front of them is standing still as well (and it’s not as if federal funding is going to be expanding at the same rate as it did the past 20 years, in fact there may be a shrinking pie effect where schools are competing even harder for a very slowly expanding pie).
So let’s not waste time discussing getting people into the AAU. It’s just not happening any time soon. Only Utah is close among non-AAU BCS schools.
LikeLike
If the B1G is considering FSU at all, the question is probably not as limited as, “Do we think they’ll be in the AAU in five years?” It’s probably more like, “Do we think they’re on an AAU trajectory, regardless of time frame?”
The skeptics probably just need to be convinced that they’re headed in that general direction, not that they’ll achieve it by a particular date. (This assumes that Michigan’s objection is not just a pretext for keeping out another good football school that could take away Rose Bowl births from the traditional Big Ten powers.)
LikeLike
Exactly. FSU will not get into the AAU in 5 years nor do they have to. It is about creating cover for the academics to vote yes to FSU, a school that provides everything but the academic prestige. I imagine Michigan and Wisconsin could still put up a fit, but it might not be enough to get a full blown no vote on FSU.
LikeLike
Yes, the lead is “look at these great academic schools we get in this expansion”, this is then “and you can get those if only you are willing to pretend or can convince yourself that FSU is on track to moving into the AAU”
LikeLike
some data for us on the power of brands and the distribution of fans around the country re: Bball. Facebook did some number crunching and came up with four county-by-county maps of “likes” for the four tourney brackets. very interesting. Both NC and Duke are sort of the “default” in their brackets. Says a lot about name recognition and brand “power.”
Obviously, there are limitations to the data since mixed in here are judgments about who is “good” this year and who will advance to the FF.
But I thought as a snapshot, it was interest.
Would love to see the same data after each round. Nice visuals of what the country is thinking.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/facebook-fun-ncaa-tournament-region-breaks-down-number-054303642–ncaab.html;_ylt=Asw9UWgp.8PHdhoODHiOeYw7Ysp_;_ylu=X3oDMTE5bmY2Y2hjBG1pdANCbG9ncyBJbmRleARwb3MDMTgEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0luZGV4;_ylg=X3oDMTFpMm9iMzh1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANibG9nBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
LikeLike
the maps are clickable. the colors are tough to distinguish sometimes, but it’s interesting to see pockets of fans in certain places. In the South bracket for example, what’s with the pockets of minnesota fans in Oklahoma? Likewise, interesting pockets of Michigan fans around the country and notably (for us) in Florida. Same for MSU from the Midwest bracket map (I think that’s MSU green down there and not Oregon green). Ditto tOSU in the West bracket map.
LikeLike
I think you might be confusing a few of those. The colors are very similar and some are hard to distinguish.
Those aren’t Minnesota counties in Oklahoma. Those are Oklahoma counties. The Ohio State counties in California could be New Mexico or Harvard, too small to tell.
LikeLike
Those maps are pretty much why there’s no way that Duke gets left out in the cold.
UNC-Duke is going to end up as a pair if UNC does leave. There’s way too much synergistic value from their combination.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – Great stuff. I might devote my next post on looking at this data. This is actually very powerful data in terms of conference realignment. My understanding is that these are the teams that Facebook users have chosen to “like” on their own in their personal profiles (essentially reflecting who their favorite teams are) as opposed to who they believe will win the NCAA Tournament this year. Facebook published similar data for NFL teams a couple of months ago and I was hoping that they would do the same for colleges. It’s probably about as unbiased of a look as you can get as to which teams can actually “deliver” a particular market since Facebook is drawing from such a broad cross-section of users and the data isn’t reflecting a self-selection bias like the Commons Sports Census maps (where that survey had a lot of responders who were motivated to skew the final numbers one way or another).
I’d love it Facebook could provide an overall look of college “likes”, but even this limited data set with this year’s NCAA Tournament regions provides some really interesting information. For instance, the state of Florida is fascinating (much like I’m sure it is for political scientists when analyzing elections). You would presume that the Gators would own the entire state with the South Region map, yet their support was largely relegated to the northern half of the state that’s “southern” in culture, while Orlando and Miami were actually in favor of UNC. Then, in the areas around Tampa and Palm Beach, Michigan was the top team, and in the Fort Myers/Naples area, Minnesota (of all teams) was #1. Meanwhile, in the East Region, Miami carried the area in its immediate metro area, but most of the rest of Florida had Indiana as #1. That’s very interesting evidence with respect to two power conference teams in that state. In the 2 regions without any Florida teams, another Big Ten team (Ohio State) carried almost the entire state in the West Region while Duke took the Midwest Region with the exception of a pocket of Michigan State counties in Southwest Florida around Fort Meyers and Naples (which is where a lot of Midwestern transplants live). This lends credence to what I’ve long thought: if there’s a Sun Belt state that the Big Ten can actually get real traction in with a critical mass of fans of the conference (as opposed to just adding a school for market expansion that doesn’t have any network effects), it would clearly be Florida. Big Ten teams and the B1G target of UNC are actually beating Florida and Miami head-to-head in that state in terms of fans (and while I’m not that surprised about the Canes level of support, the relative weakness of the Gators was eye-opening).
LikeLike
Don’t think Facebook is unbiased. It skews younger and more female.
As you pointed out a year or so ago, the college basketball audience skews much older than average as well as more male.
Still, this is interesting data.
LikeLike
@bullet – I agree that it’s not completely unbiased, but it’s probably better than any scientific survey that one could put together. It’s information that users are volunteering on their own that’s not in a forum that’s specifically related to sports, as opposed to being a survey where people are either (a) being forced to provide an answer like a typical scientific opinion poll whether or not they really care about sports or (b) motivated as a hardcore sports fan to provide an answer in a forum specifically related to sports (e.g. ESPN polls, the Common Sports Census, etc.). So, the Facebook data is reflecting the teams that people care a lot about without being prompted, which is much more valuable information than answers to prompted questions. It doesn’t overcount the people that don’t actually care that much about a sport (e.g. most people in Chicago would say that the Blackhawks are their favorite hockey team if asked, but saying that you “like” them on Facebook is much more of an indicative of you being an actual fan that watches games) or the fans that care *too* much (e.g. the people who bombard Internet polls with thousands of votes to skew the results). I know that Facebook could get even more granular data by age, sex, race, zip code, etc. (Of course, such specific data mining is a bit scary on a number of levels, but that’s another topic for another day.)
LikeLike
Yeah, the strength of Facebook likes is that they really shows how connected alumni/fans are to their teams.
It’s telling which schools can outdraw the rest of their bracket in regions outside of their home regions versus the ones that can’t.
LikeLike
@zeek – UNC and Duke clearly have widespread national appeal. Indiana is actually very strong, too. They own almost all of the state of California compared to Cal along with most of Florida compared to Miami. That’s pretty impressive considering that’s head-to-head competition with in-state power teams (and believe me, I’m not one to throw out positive thoughts on the Hoosiers very often).
LikeLike
@Frank – What I dislike about those maps is people tend to confuse area with population. It makes states (like Nebraska) look much more important than they are.
LikeLike
@FtT.
Great idea about devoting a post to some raw data like this. Maybe Facebook has more details and more information about their methodology.
From the yahoo article, this is all we really get: “Facebook tabulated the number of likes for each team in the region and then awarded each county in the United States to the school with the most number of likes in that county.”
If I read that correctly, essentially Facebook did the tabulation four times: once for each region.
Thus, we see the State of Florida four different ways.
I would then guess that there are four “choices” for each county.
Take Chicago (Cook County). In the Midwest region, Michigan State is the choice. (The maps are clickable and take you to a new page which you can then zoom zoom zoom to get a better sense of the colors; still somewhat hard to discern, but much better in supper zoom).
Then it’s 7th seed Illinois for the East Regional; Wiscy in the West; and Michigan in the South region.
What I would be curious to know is the ranking of those four choices. But, even without knowing those rankings, still some interesting information.
The State of North Carolina is interesting. In three regions, there is a North Carolina team. And on those maps, that NC team is #1. So, deductively, UNC, Duke and NCState are the top three for fans living in N. Carolina. (That is intuitive, but here we have some actual data.) After that, interestingly enough, Ohio State and Iowa State have strong followings. The West region map is really interesting. If you super-zoom the map, that looks like a lot of tOSU red and Iowa State gray. Correct me if you all think otherwise.
Anyway, that’s strikes me as interesting.
While we are looking at the West region map, everyone look at the green for Pitt. I am a fan of adding Pitt to the B1G, but wow !! They have no following outside of Pennsylvania and don’t even “win” the whole state. (By contrast, look at Illinois…. personally, I was surprised Illinois “won” Chicago.) Back to Pitt: clearly, there is no business reason to add Pitt.
HT to Blapples above. You are correct. In the South regional map, those are not pockets of Minny fans, but pockets of OKLA fans. So, question for Facebook: is this just basketball “likes” or school/team “likes”?
Reason: Look at that South regional map re: Kansas !! Oklahoma doesn’t even come close to “winning” its State. What is that about? Geez, Western Kentucky “wins” its own State.
This is at least SOME data to suggest that Kansas is a big draw (at least regionally) as a Bball brand name.
As an aside, I love the county in Alaska that’s pro-Villinova. LOL
Anyway, some fun maps.
Apparently, Facebook is going to mine the data for other yahoo articles. Here’s another on who fans’ friends are. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/facebook-fun-duke-fans-more-likely-friends-north-230118793–ncaab.html
Again, note the high prominence of Duke, UNC and …. Indiana.
But big caution on this one. Without the actual numbers, this kind of data ranked in this manner can be very misleading. the headline is: “Facebook fun: Duke fans are more likely to be friends with North Carolina fans than other Dukies.” I want to see the raw numbers. If it is statistically close, I am going to loudly “booooo!!!” the headline. After all, Duke and UNC are only 90 miles apart? There is every reason to think Dukies and UNC fans would be friends. But whatever.
LikeLike
Of course Illinois wins Chicago! Especially in basketball. Who else would? Maybe DePaul if they were a Final Four contender. ND in football. (Northwestern in football as well :)) Can’t think of anyone else.
LikeLike
That’s Florida Gulf Coast down there in Ft. Myers/Naples, not Minnesota.
But your point is well-stated about Gators hoops. For some reason, their fanbase hasn’t really translated outside of its home region.
Even when they do their annual game in Tampa, it only draws a few thousand fans. They’ve also had various attendance troubles as well.
Most of the opinion writers in Florida have basically decided that the fanbase is spoiled. They won two NCAA championships with that Joakim Noah squad and then the fans started expecting them to roll over everyone every year. Clearly, that’s not the case.
LikeLike
@zeek – Ah, that makes sense with FGCU. I know that there are a lot of Midwestern transplants in that area along with it being the home of Twins spring training, so that’s why I was thinking that was Minnesota.
LikeLike
It’s interesting how little Notre Dame is followed outside of football.
LikeLike
I’d be careful reading too much into any map that has KU as being more popular in Cleveland County Oklahoma than OU. I mean OU may be a football school, but there is no way KU basketball in more popular in Norman than OU.
LikeLike
I would hesitate to draw to much from this.
If you’re a front-runner who roots for OU in Football and KU in basketball, you’ll probably ‘like’ both OU football and KU basketball.
If you’re an Oklahoma fan in all sports, there’s a good chance you’ll ‘like’ OU football and then never realize that adding a second ‘like’ for OU basketball would serve any purpose. And it probably wouldn’t, except for articles like this.
I’m confident an actual poll of Oklahoma would find OU as the favorite basketball team (though surely there are KU fans there), just like a poll of Southern Florida would get UF as the favorite team. Of course, football schools generally don’t get good basketball attendance, even if they’ll watch the games on TV when they’re doing well.
LikeLike
Obviously this is a limited data set, but some interesting points:
Cal, Missouri and Colorado have limited support in their own states.
Non-majors have limited interest areas, even flagships like New Mexico St. and Colorado St.
Florida and UCLA vs. UNC in their own states is interesting, as is OU vs. Kansas.
There’s a strange county up in Maine that appears to like Liberty, Georgetown, Marquette and Iowa St. Someone’s tourney bracket?
LikeLike
Having lived in Cali, I can say that NoCal & SoCal can essentially be considered different states when it comes to college fandom. Plus, Cal splits NoCal with Stanford while UCLA splits SoCal with USC. Finally, Cal isn’t a giant school; if they were in the B10, they’d be 12th in enrollment after RU and UMD join.
LikeLike
Those maps show the power of the UNC basketball brand. UNC is in the same region as brands like Kansas, UCLA, Florida, Michigan… and UNC crushes all of them outside of their local regions. There are even UNC counties in Kansas.
I also thought it was interesting that, despite OU being in the tournament, most Oklahoma counties are Kansas blue.
LikeLike
Leaving this legwork here if anyone is looking for bracket guidance.
Ken Pomeroy’s rankings are often a good indicator of tournament success. Of the past 20 Final Four teams, 9 of 20 (45%) were ranked in his Top 5 Defensive Efficiency, 16 of 20 (80%) were ranked in his Top 20, and 18 of 20 (90%) were ranked in his Top 30.
Likewise, 7 of 20 (35%) were ranked in his Top 5 for Offensive Efficiency, 14 of 20 (70%) were ranked Top 20, and 17 of 20 (85%) were ranked in his Top 30.
I know. Shocking that Final Four teams are strong on offense and defense.
I’ll break down the top 4 seeds for each region. O is their Offensive rank and D is their Defensive. Only ranks 30th or better will be listed.
Midwest
1 Louisville (O-15)(D-1)
2 Duke (D-25)
3 Michigan State (O-24)(D-8)
4 Saint Louis
West
1 Gonzaga (O-3)(D-14)
2 Ohio State (O-14)(D-6)
3 New Mexico (D-11)
4 Kansas State (O-21)
South
1 Kansas (O-25)(D-5)
2 Georgetown (D-24)
3 Florida (O-5)(D-2) This one shocked me.
4 Michigan (O-2)
East
1 Indiana (O-1)(D-19)
2 Miami (O-20)(D-22)
3 Marquette (O-17)
4 Syracuse (O-16)(D-23)
So what do we take from this? Picking upsets are fun and I have my fair share of them, but Final Four teams are often the usual suspects with very strong resumes. Teams that are ranked in both lists have a strong case for being Final Four favorites. My Final Four is Louisville, Ohio State, Florida, and Indiana.
One final note… If you’re looking for a major upset, Gonzaga could be in a dog fight in the Round of 32 against Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh as an 8 seed is ranked 9th on Offense and 17th on Defense in Pomeroy’s lists. Those are amazing rankings for an 8 seed and are higher than many of the 4 seeds and above that I listed previously.
Links for source material:
http://kenpom.com/
http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/02/26/best-way-to-pick-final-four-teams-look-at-ken-pomeroys-defensive-efficiency-numbers/
LikeLike
Real Dan Beebe helping the Big East.
Although Beebee, who now runs a crisis management/consulting firm based in Dallas, is not regarded as a candidate for a permanent position as a commissioner, he is expected to set up the frame work for the new Big East when it does open its doors for business, most likely in New York City.
1) Blauds, get an editor. You have an extra e.
2) I know Dan is qualified, but I find it funny that they hired a guy running a crisis management firm to help set up their conference.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5911&utm_source=FrankTheTank&utm_medium=FrankTheTank&utm_campaign=former-big-12-comissioner-helping-new-big-east
LikeLike
For those not following it, the Dude of WV and @MHver3 have been going at it on Twitter over the last couple of hours.
@MHver3 says that: “FSU has been told by BiG10 that they will not be expanding in their direction.”
The Dude sticks by his story that FSU has the votes to get into the Big Ten, with OSU leading the charge, and only UM and Wisky voting no.
LikeLike
Fake Dan Beebe having fun with this news on Twitter.
One example:
LikeLike
Interesting article from last year on “rigging” the RPI. MWC is #1 in RPI. Seems like CSU has spread their secrets.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/luke_winn/09/27/schedule-strength/index.html
LikeLike
There was an article earlier this season about Former CSU (now Nebraska) head coach Tim Miles explaining how to do it. I think it was an ESPN or CBS feature. Its not difficult. Nebraska, by the way, finished at #99 in RPI with a losing record.
LikeLike
Why do I think this works with college foot ball also.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/march/board+suspends+two+recruiting+proposals
The Board postponed new rules deregulating who can perform recruiting tasks and what printed materials can be sent to prospects. Board members also considered suspending a third proposal that eliminated restrictions on modes and numerical limitations of recruiting contacts, but they ultimately agreed to let the membership decide that rule’s future through the override process.
Suspending the rules means they will not become effective unless and until appropriate modifications are made.
LikeLike
538 bracket projection.
LikeLike
The schools ranked by famous alumni. I don’t know who made this list, but Gary Busey over Garth Brooks for Oklahoma St alums is crazy. Also #57 should be way higher.
http://extramustard.si.com/2013/03/18/ncaa-tournament-famous-alumni/
LikeLike
Congrats to Indiana and Notre Dame upon being ranked in the new baseball polls.
Indiana is #22 in Baseball America and #29 in NCBWA.
Notre Dame is ranked in all polls from a high of #15 to a low of #22.
North Carolina is #1 in all polls.
LikeLike
Are any of you Wisconsin and Illinois guys familiar with F. King Alexander? He’s the current president of Cal State Long Beach and it looks like he’s going to be the next LSU president. BA from St. Lawrence, MS from Oxford, PhD from Wisconsin, assistant professor and coordinator of the Higher Education Program at Illinois, and president of Murray State before his stint at Long Beach. He’s under 50 and being sold down here as a real up and comer.
Here’s his CV.
Click to access item59160.pdf
LikeLike
Here’s the Baton Rouge Advocate article.
http://theadvocate.com/home/5471838-125/lsu-president-finalist-named
LikeLike
I don’t really know anything about Alexander (he was well before my time) but reading that article, I must say it is about time that LSU consolidated. It always seemed completely inefficient for the law school and Agricultural Center to be treated as a separate stand alone entities even though they are physically located on LSU’s main campus.
LikeLike
Also, if memory serves me right one of the medical schools and the biomedical research lab are both in Baton Rouge as well and are treated as independent campuses. Seems like a lot of extra overhead.
LikeLike
Interesting, the Dude blocked his twitter account this afternoon.
LikeLike
Interesting. I thought it was just me. Today was the first time I’ve ever paid attention to a Twitter conversation. It was pretty gripping dialogue for awhile, then poof! Wonder if someone from on high (i.e. one of his ‘contacts’) told him to cool his jets. It did strike me that he was being mighty specific, fast and loose with the locations of his ‘sources’.
LikeLike
Delany: Big Ten could de-emphasize athletics if O’Bannon plaintiffs win
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/
Maybe just presenting the worst-case scenario for the jurors (or judge, depending on the jurisdiction). Still, something to watch out over.
LikeLike
It’s like Delaney doesn’t even WANT to have any credibility with anyone anymore. I can’t believe there’s a single person on the planet who takes this remotely seriously.
LikeLike
I take it seriously. But he’s only giving his opinion of what would happen. He explicitly says he has never asked the presidents.
Do I think the B10 would go the Ivy League route? No. Most schools have millions (some tens or even hundreds) in debt for sports facilities that need to be paid off. In addition, they have maintenance costs for those buildings, too, plus a bunch of sports teams to support. Could I see the B10 refusing to get in a bidding war for players with the SEC and instead forming a new group with different rules? Yes.
LikeLike
I don’t think Delaney likes the fact that there’s a court case going on that could significantly impact college athletics, and he has no real say in the outcome. This is posturing. As you noted, all of the Big Ten schools have either major building plans, buildings in progress, or massive construction debts to pay off. It’s difficult to see how that works out without DI sports. In addition, what do you do about all the donations, large and small? How does this impact university advertising (hasn’t it been shown that major athletics programs and success tends to lead to a greater number of applications in the future?)? I simply see no way the Big Ten ever leaves DI or forms some new division if the ruling isn’t favorable.
LikeLike
That should read, “even if”.
LikeLike
Delany & credibility. First, it is a court document. The “audience” is a Judge and the purpose is to marshal as many legal arguments as possible against class certification in the O’Bannon case. Defeating class certification will be a huge huge victory for the defendants; conversely, O’Bannon’s chances of really winning go up by magnitudes if class certification is granted.
The gist of Delany’s comments: if O’Bannon wins, it’s a disaster for college sports as we now know it.
That is not a bizarre or strange or an un-credible intellectual position. Overstated? Very likely. But not without credibility.
More to the point, Delany is credible to the people that matter: lawyers and judges involved in the O’Bannon case.
That such is newsworthy and gets put out there by the press is unfortunate because the media does a bad job with legal filings and arguments. For ratings purposes, the juiciest bits are the focus without any explanation of how such fits in the larger structure of legal proceedings.
Legal proceedings are a competitive activity: lawyers on two (or more) sides. Side one makes the most extreme argument that can be supported by the facts and the law. Side two does the same. Judges and juries will end up somewhere between the two.
The lawyers for the B1G can hardly agree that nothing “bad” will happen if O’Bannon wins. They must do quite the opposite and insist that the world will come to an end.
Think about how you negotiate a price on a new house you want. The Seller puts the highest price out there on the Listing; you low-ball; the final price is somewhere in the middle. Something like that is what lawyers are doing but with legal arguments and facts.
Second, Delany doesn’t give a rat’s ass if he’s “credible” to us. He didn’t agree to a playoff to make fans happy and to become “credible.” He did that because the BCS model was becoming a legal/political quagmire and the “have-not” football schools were making headway in taking a piece of the Rose Bowl pie. Likewise, he will say what is necessary to help win the O’Bannon case and is not at all concerned about his “credibility” to fans.
LikeLike
Continuing some of my points about the legal structure:
The O’Bannon plaintiffs are being extreme too.
From that SI article: “The “plaintiff’s hypothetical” is represented in a paper written last year by Stanford economics professor Roger Noll at the behest of the plaintiffs that suggests players should receive 50 percent of television revenue. (The money, according to the plaintiffs’ plan, would be placed into a trust and given to the players upon graduation.)”
Does anybody really think the Plaintiff’s will get 50%? No.
But the Plaintiff’s present an expert with an supportable position (50%) and, when/if it is time, the Defendants will present a counter-expert with a supportable position at the opposite end of the spectrum: players should get 0.5%. The judge/jury picks something in between.
To maximize your legal position, you do NOT lowball. The O’Bannon plaintiffs are now “stuck” with 50% as their high mark. If they had chosen an expert that said 25%, then they would have been “stuck” with that as their high mark.
Conversely, the Defendants will never agree that the players should get 40% because then the judge/jury will pick a number higher than 40 and lower than 50. Defendants will argue “0” and then say: “but if you must pay the student athletes a percentage, it should be 0.5% and should be deducted from their scholarship.”
LikeLike
too many typos this morning. sorry.
LikeLike
It’s clearly posturing since the odds are incredibly low of anything this drastic happening.
Let’s remember just how much money these schools are plowing into new facilities and the like for their athletes; even Northwestern is getting into the big spending game at long last with their mega facility on Lake Michigan.
That pretty much means that it would be voted down 14-0.
All of that being said, this clearly is a MAJOR threat to college athletics, in particular non-revenue sports.
Say, Ohio State or Michigan loses a half their TV revenue; that’s a big haircut. Even bigger as a % of budget for Indiana or Northwestern or Illinois.
The Big Ten in particular is uniquely vulnerable due to how big its athletic departments are; so many schools run extra non-revenue sports compared to other conferences.
LikeLike
And this is a bigger threat to the future considering the words of Wallace Loh who said himself that television revenue will be an ever expanding portion of the revenue pie given that television viewers are beginning to displace butts in seats in terms of importance for many universities (the ones that draw in the sub-70000 range in particular).
LikeLike
I don’t think its necessarily an idle threat. If they are giving away 50% of revenues, they all lose money. Every single school. And all but about 30 are losing money now. You have to remember that college presidents for the most part don’t like college sports. Its a necessity that this case could turn into a luxury.
Whatever the Big 10 does, the Pac 12 and ACC will follow. I don’t think the Big 12 and SEC would go it alone.
LikeLike
If the plantiffs in the O’Bannon case were successful in their argument that fifty percent of the television revenue should go into a trust fund for athletes, what would it mean for Michigan?
For the FY 2012 budget (I can’t find FY 2013), the conference distributions of $23.7M included $17.6M in television revenue from football and basketball. That includes the amounts from the Big Ten Network, CBS and ABC/ESPN.
Cut that number in half of the television revenue would be $8.8M and total conference distributions would be $14.9M.
The revenue in that budget was $121.2M against $109.8M in expenses for a profit of $11.4M. Without that $8.8M, the net surplus would have been $3.6M.
However, there were major transfers to plant and other funds and capital expenditures for that year of $29.9M which led to a decrease in the current fund balance of $18.5M. Without that additional revenue, the current fund balance would have dropped $$27.3M.
What would this mean for Michigan? It might slow down the plan for expanding and renovating the South Campus (11 projects budgeted at $250M), but that has also always depending upon donations as well, so more money might have to be sought out from the alums to keep the projects there on its current trajectory.
If the Big Ten did get around $43M in conference distributions by FY 2017 (which is what they told Maryland and Rutgers), my guesstimate is that around $23M to $25M would come from television revenue. Half of that number would then go into the athlete trust fund which means the conference distribution might be in around $32M.
The bottom line is this–I think Michigan could weather this pretty well without cutting sports. It might mean slowing down the South Campus projects down the line, but it doesn’t mean they won’t be built. I also think UM would not have to cut down in the number of sports it offers, but there will be a wary eye on expenses across the board.
See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf for the FY 2012 figures
While a program like Michigan could weather the storm, it’s the Indianas, Northwesterns, Minnesotas and Illini of the world who might have bigger problems. Any university that currently has a larger part of its revenue from television and/or is having problems financially is going to have to make some changes in terms of its expenses in order to be in the same situation it is now.
By extension, think about the major ACC programs and the prospect of moving into another conference. North Carolina, for example, supports 28 teams and its budget barely broke even ($200K profit) in the most recent report I saw (I think it was FY 2011). If UNC were to lose half of its television revenue in order to pay for an athletic trust fund, where does that leave the Tar Heels in terms of their analysis regarding movement to the B1G or SEC? Florida State is another program that barely broke even–what does FSU do going forward if it loses half that tv money in its budget?
One of the things that may happen in the wake of a settlement in favor of the plaintiffs is that it may accelerate the movement by the major programs to leave the NCAA and set up their own entity–another version of the “survival of the fittest”. While Delany is talking about a Division III model, the actuality might be something completely in the other direction.
The school most likely to “survive” something like this is Texas. Not only does it have the largest athletic department in terms of revenue, but it only supports 16 varsity sports. While UT doesn’t seem to have a problem spending money, it’s probably also in a good position to keep its expense lines down. That said, I doubt DeLoss Dodds would be too happy about putting 50% of his Longhorn Network money into a trust fund to pay athletes . . . . .
LikeLike
Don’t forget the NCAA tournament distributions. Those ultimately come from TV money.
LikeLike
Think about growth though as well.
The fastest growing portion of athletic revenues is probably television revenue, especially with the projections that the Big Ten gave to Maryland.
If you’re Michigan and you’re thinking about budgets in 2018 and beyond; you don’t want to imagine a scenario where you’re projections $45 million in TV revenue, only to see that get chopped in half.
All of a sudden, you have to think about how slowly athletic budgets will be growing in the future, all of this arms race that athletic departments have been caught up in will start to look like a mess.
LikeLike
When, other than divorce court 🙂 , has anyone been required to make payments without regard to how much cost was/is incurred to attract these bids/incomes? If I invest $100 and receive $105 do I have $105, or $5?
I’d bet that even if there is a (unlikely) ruling that compensation is due it will be a portion of “profit”, which will simply mean those schools that actually operate in the black will need to immediately find obligations/projects to absorb that profit.
LikeLike
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20130317/SPORTS02/303170331/Sun-Belt-continues-debate-viability-football-title-game
The article talks about the Sun Belt expanding. On pager three, there’s this gem:
“Moreover, it will soon be announced that conferences must have 12 football-playing members in order to fully realize all potential financial gains from the new playoff and preferred bowl system — money that would seemingly offset concerns about a larger distribution pool.
Having less than 12 for football, in other words, will mean a smaller piece of the money pie.”
The B12 and SB are the only I-A conferences left without a CCG or plans to stage one, FWIW. The top candidates for the SB are Idaho and NM as football-only members, and their commissioner definitely wants to expand.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, The Dude mentioned something about a 12 member minimum with a CCG being necessary under the new playoff system before he locked his Twitter profile.
LikeLike
As always, I think the Dude might be exaggerating. If there were a rule that actually required the Big XII to go to 12 teams, I think we would have heard about it by now. The playoff is starting next year. Any rule requiring 12 teams in a conference would require a much longer lead time to implement.
And of course, every league in the FBS except the Big Three (B1G, SEC, P12) would oppose such a rule, because all of those leagues are at risk if the Big XII is forced to expand. Of course, the Big XII might expand anyway, but most schools wouldn’t want a rule that actually compels them to do it.
LikeLike
What’s been floated around is the idea that a league needs 12+ to get the “full revenue share” from a playoff. HOWEVER, that could easily mean that it’s just prorated for smaller leagues, so Big 12 teams would get an equal share, just that the league itself gets 10/12 of the $$$ that say the Pac-12 gets. Obviously that’s just a guess, but IMO it makes a fair amount of sense.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that put leagues larger than 12 at a financial disadvantage? It isn’t described as a per school amount, with the possible interpretation you’ve suggested for those under 12.
LikeLike
Why should other conferences suffer because Delaney, Slive and Swofford have Napoleonic complexes?
LikeLike
Why should other conferences benefit because they do?
LikeLike
Not what I was saying. If it is a conference payout, larger conferences get less/school. cfn_ms was suggesting that schools in (B12) under 12 conferences get as much as those conferences at 12 (P12) while those above 12 suffer a dilution by higher numbers. Sounds a very unlikely scenario to have been supported by SEC and B1G, or even ACC.
LikeLike
BCS and new playoff $$$ as a whole is still a relatively small portion of the budget for SEC and other power leagues. Not really a hill to die on, especially for 14 vs 12.
Moreover, a big chunk of the $$$ will presumably be given on a per appearance basis. There’s no inherent advantage to being bigger or smaller for this.
However, if x% of the overall budget is split up to distribute between all leagues more or less equally, then for someone like the Sun Belt the distribution rules matter a lot, while for the SEC, having some portion of their overall take essentially reduced by a seventh due to size rules… then it becomes an even bigger “we don’t really care about this” point.
LikeLike
This is not a quote from anyone, only the writer. Says nothing about his source. Also, the money distribution for the Big 5 has already been determined. Only the Gang of 5 is still negotiating. This comment could very well apply only to the Gang and not the contract conferences.
LikeLike
The SunBelt is going to have a hard time getting to 12. Everyone expects the former Big East conference to pick up Tulsa, leaving CUSA at 13, to get even again and there is some expectation that they will take Western Kentucky. Multiple schools are already leaving the Sun Belt this summer for CUSA, with the addition of Western Kentucky, Sun Belt would be left with 7 teams for 2013 season.
Idaho and New Mexico State would likely get a life boat for their football programs with football only invites… that’s 9. Then there is talk of Georgia Southern and Appalachian Station to get to 11. There is a certain university that is interested in moving to division 1 for all their sports but needs a conference….. Liberty University, ol Jerry Falwell. This may be their chance to move up.
LikeLike
To follow up on some of the above posts concerning the O’Bannon case: a link in that SI article above goes to Delany’s affidavit and attached as the last page of the PDF is the B1G’s Release of Rights that each student-athlete must sign.
Here’s the direct link: http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.01.pdf
So, question for the lawyers on the board: even if O’Bannon wins, why is this Release not sufficient? Each and everyone of us sign/click away rights all the time. Do a Facebook page and it’s not yours; it’s Facebook’s page. You signed/clicked away the rights to it.
Likewise, the TOS for this Board (and every internet Board) states that I have no rights to what i type here because I’ve agreed to the TOS.
Youtube !! Please, millions of people upload videos and have no right to sue Youtube.
So why is the B1G’s Release not sufficient to prevent O’Bannon Armageddon? What am I missing?
LikeLike
In regard to Releases, D. DeLoss Dodds’/Christine Plonsky’s affidavit is definitely worth a read.
Click to access 130318.07.pdf
Texas is arguing that the right to broadcast its football games derives from ownership of the facilities. Further, while UT requires players to sign a release, Texas is arguing that the Release is not “for, or necessary for” UT to be able to broadcast its sporting events. According to Dodds/Plonsky, tv rights are based on the events, not the players. “The rights to film, record or broadcast UT athletics events are owned by UT, except as we may license them to others.”
Further: “Similarly, UT does not obtain releases from coaches, referees, athletic trainers,
cheerleaders, marching band members or fans who are in attendance at sporting events and,
therefore, might conceivably appear in a broadcast of those events, nor does Texas believe that
obtaining such releases are necessary to make a broadcast of a sporting event.”
There is then a good discussion of how this all might impact recruiting of fball and bball players.
Dodds/Plonsky opine that this would all bring college sports close to a professional model. But then say: “UT has no interest in operating professional men’s basketball and football teams. That is inconsistent with our educational mission. … UT has no interest in a model that would force us to professionalize two sports to the detriment of the balance of the athletics department’s sports, fitness and educational programs.”
LikeLike
The affidavit of Nathan Hatch, Pres. of Wake Forest, is similar.
Click to access 130318.08.pdf
Several points: note that affidavits are written by lawyers and are often cut&paste. So many of the same verbiage is used. Compare and contrast Hatch with Dodds/Plonsky. Those two affidavits were written by the same lawyer.
LikeLike
The affidavit of John Welty, Pres. of Fresno State, is even more cut&paste of the Dodds/Plonsky affidavit. A lot of phrasing is nearly word-for-word concerning the impact on recruiting.
\\http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.09.pdf
“Fresno State has no interest in operating professional men’s basketball and football teams. That is inconsistent with our educational mission. … Fresno State has no interest in a model that would force us to professionalize two sports to the detriment of the balance of the athletics department’s sports, fitness and educational programs.”
Welty agreed to go a bit further than Dodds/Plonsky (‘tho not as far as Delany). Welty simply stated that if Fresno State dropped down to Div. II, half the scholarships would be eliminated and, if FS dropped to Div. III, all scholarships would be eliminated.
Welty also raised the Title XI problem. The O’Bannon plaintiffs (and their proposed class) are only male players.
LikeLike
I am not sure why the lawyers bothered to get Larry Scott’s affidavit. http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.05.pdf
LikeLike
ditto Bowlsby’s affidavit. http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.04.pdf
LikeLike
Interesting data on revenue figures by sport.
LikeLike
agreed. a lot of interesting tidbits here and there in these affidavits/declarations.
LikeLike
the SEC’s milquetoast position: “If the rules that are necessary to have amateur sports are
invalidated, it is impossible for me to predict the effect on college sports or on amateur sports in
general.”
Slive avoided putting his name to anything. Rather Exec. Assoc. SEC Commissioner, Mark Womack signed the SEC’s affidavit.
LikeLike
Regarding the O’Bannon case, the NFL former players just settled with the NFL in a similar suit. Here’s a clip from an ESPN.com article on the owners’ meetings.
“5. Don’t minimize the settlement the NFL made with retired players: On Monday, Goodell announced the end of a five-year court fight with retired players over their imaging rights. Former NFL great Jim Brown said he couldn’t be happier. “Retired players will have a seat at the table,” he said. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the NFL will contribute $42 million over an eight-year period to a “common good” fund that will be run by a seven-member board of retired players. The fund will be established to assist retired players or families of retired players who are struggling. Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, a former receiver for the Baltimore Colts, admitted he had always been frustrated by not having a system in which retired players ran a fund with the league as their partners. “It’s a new day,” Richardson said. “It’s better late than never.”
Here is why this is important: If the settlement is approved by the court after a five-year fight, the board of retired players can establish an independent licensing agency for the publicity rights for retired players. It would operate separately from the NFLPA. For example, if a company wants to produce ads involving retired players and use footage of the players in uniform, the agency can strike deals that would add more money to the fund. This won’t stop NFL Films from using the footage of game action of the past. It would involve new commercial ventures.”
LikeLike
hmm… interesting. Here’s a different link: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/03/18/3923993/nfl-commissioner-settles-lawsuit.html
LikeLike
Another O’Bannon thought: Assume the Plaintiffs win and current players are awarded some portion of the annual tv revenues and assume the Release somehow is not sufficient to prevent payment, couldn’t the schools claim an offset against the scholarship?
Certainly, the scholarship contract (I assume there is one) could be modified to say that any monies due from tv revenues would be deducted from the scholarship.
LikeLike
I do not think this will happen, but if O’Bannon and Company win their lawsuit and get 40% (Or more) of the revenue, could this be the end of the Big 10 as we know it? You have to figure there are certain schools that can survive this and certain ones that cannot. In alphabetical order the survivors would be: Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State & Wisconsin. Other survivor schools would be Florida State, Louisville, Miami (Fl), North Carolina, and Notre Dame (ACC), the entire SEC (Except Missouri & Vanderbilt), Baylor (New Stadium), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech & West Virginia (Big XII), Arizona State, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC & Washington (Pac).
I remember years ago the owner of the Pirates had the idea of not allowing the Big Teams (Yankees, Braves, Cubs, Cardinals, Red Sox, White Sox, Mets, Angels & Dodgers), to abroadcast from Road Cities (Such as Pittsburgh). The Yankees, Cubs, Braves & Red Sox threatened to leave MLB over that. Needless to say it did not work. Guess what? The weapon of Big Schools breaking away and smaller schools ending Division 1 football just might push Congress into passing legislation that would stop O’Bannon from becoming Law.
LikeLike
I do not think this will happen, but if O’Bannon and Company win their lawsuit and get 40% (Or more) of the revenue, could this be the end of the Big 10 as we know it?
No, of course not. Neither party wants intercollegiate athletics to end. The players only win if the sports continue to be played. The schools, obviously, want to keep playing too. They’d arrive at some sort of equilibrium, which I am sure would be far less than 40–50% of the revenues going to the players.
LikeLike
@Mark Shepperd.
I am not so sure there is an equilibrium at which to arrive.
There are various possible solutions, but all of them have problems.
Idea one: give the athletes more $$ as part of their scholarships along the lines of what Delany proposed.
Main problem: entrenched opponents at every school outside the group of five (+ND). They simply cannot afford it.
Idea two: abolish the NCAA. the O’Bannon case is predicated on anti-trust. to oversimplify: it is because of the NCAA’s “evil monopoly” that the athletes are “coerced” into signing those Releases. And it is the NCAA “rules” that forbid sharing the tv revenue with the players, etc. So, remove the NCAA. Now the anti-trust argument becomes much more difficult.
(As an aside, this is why the BCS is going away. The antitrust argument was gaining traction against the BCS; solution: do away with the BCS. Notice how so many of the new playoff agreements are decentralized. Conf-Conf-Bowl; Conf-Conf-Bowl; all 32 bowls eligible to apply to be one of the hosts, every team in America is eligible if they get selected by the Committee, etc. etc.)
Abolishing the NCAA is a whole pile of problems.
Option Three: forgo revenue streams that require licensing of the players’ likenesses. this does not necessarily mean tv revenue. As DeLoss Dodds and others are arguing, the right to broadcast sports events might NOT require signed Releases from the athletes. As the Declaration noted, UT does not get releases from the marching band or cheerleaders and yet allows the broadcast of the half-time shows.
I think this really goes to merchandise sales. Probably not jerseys, because #10 or #1 is a current player but is also past players. I think this goes to video games which may not be such a large revenue stream.
I don’t have enough information regarding merchandising.
Back to the point: in various scenarios, I don’t see a compromise that gets the players $$. I see the schools and conferences and the NCAA changing the rules to avoid the thrust of what the O’Bannon plaintiffs what.
So, again, I do not see an equilibrium at which they can arrive that will give the players any significant $$.
LikeLike
“what the O’Bannon Plaintiffs want” (not “what”)
LikeLike
Not sure what your criteria you used to determine survivors, but some of the schools you list as survivors have athletic department revenue significantly below those you left off your lists. Specifically, you left Iowa off your list when they bring in more athletic department revenue than both Mississippi and Mississippi State who are not in the top 50 in AD revenue and below Missouri. You also leave off Virginia and Minnesota both in the top 50 with more revenue than USC, North Carolina and Texas A&M. You leave off Indiana and Purdue with more revenue than Baylor, Miami, and UCLA. How did you determine survivors?
LikeLike
You can take numbers and manipulate them any way you want, but when it comes to production (Particularly in hoops), North Carolina is more successful then their ACC running mate Virginia. However, the key to it all is obviously College Football, and the established powers and rising programs are the ones who will be survivors. As Joe Paterno pointed out, “Football pays the bills at Penn State.” The reality is this, even the biggest fan boy in Bloomington or West Lafayette would not put their football program on the same level as Northwestern, let alone A&M, nor should the woeful Gophers ever be mentioned in the same breath as USC. In fact, you can make the argument the Southern Cal is one of the top 5 programs in College Football History (This is from someone who does not care for the Trojans). Does this mean I am correct with all of the survivors? No I overlooked Clemson which was an error on my end, Iowa makes a decent case, so does TCU, and Boise State. But if schools like Boston College (aka Minnesota East: Great Hockey, lame everything else) Iowa State, and Washington State ended up out of Division 1, I don’t think many tears would be shed (But I bet Senators and Congressmen from those areas would have something to say). However, I would shed a tear, because as a huge College Football fan (Not just Penn State), I really would be disgusted to see the football programs end at the likes of Iowa State or even Fresno State because of O’Bannon and some stupid judge. Mark my words: Eventually Congress will take over and prevent these Schools from being forced out of Division 1.
LikeLike
Wow, thanks for considering Iowa and their top 20 revenue a “decent case” as a survivor.
LikeLike
I have a VERY hard time seeing Congress uniting to force the hand of the major programs. I’m sure there will be some upset Congressmen in the 1-A split scenario (especially if some current incumbent AQ’s fall by the wayside) but the truth is that you can almost certainly come up with at least 40 senators whose interests and constituencies are FAR more aligned with power programs / AQ leagues than nons, such as those from:
Alabama;
Arizona;
Arkansas;
California;
Colorado;
Florida (unless somehow you think UCF/USF outweigh UF/FSU/Miami politically);
Georgia;
Illinois;
Indiana;
Maryland;
Michigan;
Minnesota;
Missouri;
Mississippi;
Nebraska;
New Jersey (at least going forward);
North Carolina (true even if, say, Wake drops);
Ohio;
Oklahoma (barring OK St dropping, which seems pretty unlikely);
South Carolina;
Tennessee;
Texas (only if a LOT of Texas schools suffer is it even in doubt);
Virginia;
West Virginia (barring the Mountaineers dropping back into the muck, which seems pretty unlikely);
Wisconsin;
and you can make reasonable cases for Louisiana (despite the non-AQ’s outnumbering LSU by 4 to 1 IIRC), New York (the only interest there is Syracuse), Kentucky (barring Louisville dropping out of the haves club), and Utah (provided at the end of the day there’s room for BYU)
And that’s not even counting the many states that don’t have 1-A football at any level and/or simply don’t care. And I doubt the House splits would be much different. Politically, it’s effective theater for certain congress members to rant about “why aren’t we nice to the little guys” but actual action here seems virtually impossible.
LikeLike
“Take numbers and manipulate” – What are you talking about? I asked you a question which you did a very poor job of answering. You are the one who made a list of survivor schools that would be left out if universities were required to share 40% of TV revenue with athletes. I simply asked what criteria was used because if seems to me Iowa as well as several other Big Ten schools such as Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue would definitely survive if Mississippi and Mississippi State survive. Seems to me you are simply looking at legacy programs and the most recent top 25 coaches poll to determine who survives when in fact some of the Universities that you say won’t survive such as Illinois and NU bring in more revenue than Ole Miss and Miss State.
And what does the football program at USC have to do with it? Regardless if USC is a top 5 program, the Gopher Athletic Department still brought in more revenue than USC. So what NC has a more successful basketball program, UVA still brought in more revenue. Who said Purdue’s football was better than A&M? Purdue still brings in more revenue than schools you say will survive such as Boise State, Miami, and Baylor. If Boise State survives – Iowa makes more than a decent argument for survival. Chances are if this was implemented, all of the schools in the Big Ten would survive as those schools as a collective bring in more TV revenue in most years than any other conference.
LikeLike
How did you pick which schools would survive and which wouldn’t?
How are Texas Tech and Baylor more likely to survive than Illinois or Iowa?
Why Arizona St or Arizona? Why UCLA and UNC? Sure they are names, but they are heavily subsidized as is.
LikeLike
Should read
Arizona St. over Arizona?
LikeLike
The reason why ASU would likely be chosen over U of A is growth potential (Although certainly U of A has been more successful (Such as in U of A’s Baseball Championship, and because of lots of misfires at ASU)). Perhaps a more interesting way (And less controversial) way of looking at this, is what Schools from Top Conferences would be prime to be dropped into a lower Division, and what Schools can join a Power Conference (Sort of like European Soccer). Most vulnerable: Syracuse (I think the entire sports program (Except Lacrosse) in huge trouble when Boeheim retires, because they lost their identity as a Northeast NY based School, and are part of the ACC Island (See Boston College)), Wake Forest, Boston College, Iowa State, Washington State, Utah, Colorado, Pitt & the combo of Oregon State & Kansas State (I know they have been good, but what happens when those two Coaches leave?). Next level: Indiana, Duke & Kansas (Linked together because of hoops and anemic football), Minnesota & Vanderbilt. Schools that could rise: Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and the combo of USF,& UCF. One wild card is Colorado State: If they get their New Stadium built, and the Buffaloes keep floundering, they could rise up and pass Big Brother Buffs.
LikeLike
As with any law suit about college sports, if the players “win” I hope the schools react in pure spite. Cancel all TV deals and the sports that go with them. 50% of nothing is nothing. Besides, with no football you wouldn’t need all the stupid women’s sports started just to provide balancing scholarships. Frankly, I don’t think athletic scholarships were ever a good idea anyway.
In the same way, any school sued over Title IX should immediately drop all varsity sports. You can’t be more fair than that.
LikeLike
Can you imagine huddling around the Radio to catch a football game? I happen to do it all the time, so play the game, just don’t show it. Or how about blurring all player faces to erase the problem. Either way I agree with most, this will drastically change college sports as we know, and love.
LikeLike
Well, there has to be SOME way for TCU to cause the destruction of the Big XII. If it means all of the major conferences go down together, so be it….
Just kidding <– Required caveat
LikeLike
Brian,
“Spiteful” should be your middle name.
LikeLike
Speaking of women’s sports, I see OSU fired women’s basketball coach Jim Foster after the Buckeyes didn’t make the NCAA tourney. That’s a good job, and I wonder who will hold that spot when the Terps join the Big Ten in 2014-2015.
LikeLike
Hopefully the next coach won’t under-achieve every single postseason.
LikeLike
SEC version of the Release signed by student athletes:
“I hereby grant permission for all sports contests, practices, news conferences, and
related sports events in which I participate or for which I am present as a studentathlete
of [University] (collectively referred to as “Events”) to be broadcast,
rebroadcast or otherwise transmitted and distributed, in whole or in part, on
television, by the internet, and by any other means (collectively referred to as
“Broadcasts”). I acknowledge and agree that the copyright to each Broadcast will
initially vest in the broadcaster of each such Event, and that each broadcaster and
its assignees and licensees will have and enjoy the non-exclusive, transferable,
perpetual right to use (and to license and sub-license, without limitation) any such
Broadcasts. I also acknowledge and agree that [University], the Southeastern
Conference, the NCAA, and each broadcaster may use my picture and name to
promote and publicize the [University], the Conference, the NCAA and their
various sports contests, practices, news conferences, and related sports events
(including in programs, media guides, television spots, and other media) and for
other news and informational purposes.”
Click to access 130318.06.pdf
LikeLike
ESPN Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg posted this morning saying that the divisions are largely set with the discussion being about where Indiana and Purdue will reside. Michigan State will be in the east with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland.
He also says Indiana-Purdue would be the only crossover game and that a nine-game conference schedule would likely go into effect by 2016. The goal is for every pair of teams to play at least once every four years.
An excerpt from his posting on the relative strength of the two divisions:
The proposed alignment likely will spark concern about whether the “East” division — featuring Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State — has too much firepower. You can make a good case (Brian Bennett did) that moving Michigan State to the West creates better competitive balance, but the sentiment among the power brokers is that the West still will have enough substance with Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and an improving Northwestern program. Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis recently talked about the advantages of being linked to the East Coast and reiterated his desire to play Michigan every year.
See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73332/divisions-debate-down-to-indiana-purdue
LikeLike
That was my suggestion a while back (once they decided Northwestern had to be in the west). I don’t understand why the IU/PU decision is hard. Purdue in the west makes more sense from a competitive balance standpoint and there’s little to differentiate them otherwise.
LikeLike
One differentiator is that Indiana has a rivalry trophy with Michigan State (the Old Brass Spittoon), while Purdue has one with Illinois (the Purdue Cannon). They’re fairly minor trophies in the larger scheme, but they do exist. Both would be preserved as annual games with Purdue in the West and Indiana in the east.
I agree: this doesn’t seem to be hard. The only explanation I can think of, is that Indiana doesn’t like the schedule they’d face in the East, and so, to placate the Hoosiers, they’re pretending to “study it,” after which they’ll reach the conclusion that was obvious all along.
LikeLike
ding ding ding. I’m going to call you “correct.” I think Indiana may be leery of the schedule in the B1GE.
LikeLike
Also, Indiana has played the Buckeyes over 75 times, and if they keep working on tenaciously, may yet crack 10 wins in the series.
LikeLike
And Indiana seems to have more “pull” on the east coast (at least if you look at Facebook maps). And others have posted the Indiana wants to be east and has a big effort to attract east coast students.
OTOH, maybe both Purdue and Indiana want to go west to avoid having to play MI, MSU, tOSU and PSU every year. LOL
LikeLike
If Michigan State is a lock for the east, then I think Purdue should go west, for competitive reasons. I can’t imagine a rationale for putting Indiana in the West. That would give the West just one king (Nebraska) and two of the league’s perennial doormats (Minnesota, Indiana).
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I appreciate that you didn’t put Illinois into the “perennial doormat” category.
LikeLike
2007 wasn’t that long ago…Illinois has always had potential, in both basketball and football. It’s amazing they haven’t done better given they really have the ability to be like Michigan/OSU/PSU.
LikeLike
The B1G did okay this time around (assuming they don’t screw up the names again). They picked a split that makes intuitive sense to sports fans, floated the ideas several times and ways in advance, got media and public support and are doing it step by step easing everyone in.
By the time they actually announce this, we’ll all be like: “Wha? I thought they did this months ago?”
A no fan bases will be up in arms, no media backlash.
Gawd, please just pick B1GE and B1GW for the names.
Btw, the other reason for narrowing the choice down to IN/Pur is that these teams (and the whole conference) could most “afford” this as the only locked cross-over game. That is, between IN/Pur or MSU/MI as the only locked cross-over game, sending MSU east was much better for the conference and for the teams involved.
LikeLike
I think we’ll see Leader and Legends as part of the Big Ten’s ongoing promotions, but I absolutely agree with you that they’ll call the divisions Big Ten West and Big Ten East.
Trying to differentiate the membership over these past two years with words both beginning in “L” and having no specific tie in to the programs themselves simply doesn’t work.
I also suspect we’ll see Indiana in the east, although they’re looking at games with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and a somewhat depleted Penn State (as well as Rutgers and Maryland) on the schedule for as long as this conference structure lasts (which is probably the 2014/5 seasons at best). I suspect the B1G is going to have IU play Minnesota for the first two years along with their annual game with Purdue.
If/when the conference does go to 16 and if it adopts a two-division setup with eight teams apiece rather than a pod setup, then Indiana is a logical choice to head to the eastern division. If a pod setup is put in place with 16 teams in the conference, then there’s a possibility they’d be grouped with Purdue, Northwestern and Illinois.
LikeLike
It’s funny how attitudes change. In a 12-team Big Ten, the obvious geographic split would have been:
East: PSU, UM, MSU, OSU, IU, PU
West: IL, NU, MN, WI, IA, NE
Everyone cringed at the idea of three kings in one division. They could have done something like:
North: PSU, UM, MSU, NW, MN, WI
South: OSU, PU, IU, IL, IA, NE
But that would have split up PSU and OSU, which they wanted to keep as an annual game. Once you put those two together, something like Legends-Leaders (regardless of what labels they used) was the practically inevitable outcome.
Now, nobody seems to be complaining that the East will have three out of the four kings. The assumption (thus far unproven) that Penn State will be down for a few years may be part of the reason why it’s now seen as acceptable.
LikeLike
Personally, I never had a problem with three kings in the east. So, for me, that is not a change in attitude over time. I see it as everyone else finally agreeing with me. 🙂
and, actually, I think there is some truth to this. Everyone kept focusing on the BXII North, but ignoring the SEC West. The SECW being so stacked has not damaged the SEC or its tv contracts or anything. In the hallways of the B1GHQ, I think there is less fear of a strong B1GE and a relatively weaker B1GW.
plus, the expansion to the east creates a new focus: maximizing the $$ to be made out east. To do that, you put your more-national brands out east and make sure they show up often in DC and NYC. not only can you add $$ from cable providers, but you can take advantage of the “east coast media bias.” The B1G now gets featured articles in the Washington Post. That’s quite something.
LikeLike
The Big Ten clearly felt that having competitive balance outweighed geography when the first divisions were put together once Nebraska was added to the conference. I seem to recall they looked at records going back to 1993, ranked the teams accordingly and split them up with an eye towards rivalries and geography.
After what will be three years following this season, the new division split will change that focus. Geography will come into play with an eye towards moving the Big Ten out of a Midwest-centric model towards one with a broader reach eastward. I also feel that there is real concern in the conference office that Penn State is going to have some competitive problems with its depleted roster over the next handful of years, which is one reason why Michigan State is in the east and not the tandem of Purdue and Indiana.
In a few years time, if/when the Big Ten does add more programs and if they come out of the ACC, then this will all be moot. The conference could utilize fixed divisions of eight, nine or ten teams with either nine or ten conference games and accept the idea that there will be fewer games played between the two divisions. The other option is to work with a pod system that changes the division membership every two years in order to make sure teams within the conference play one another as much as possible.
Stay tuned.
LikeLike
You obviously didn’t read Frank back then. He had his KISS divisions.
LikeLike
If there are no locked games and nine conference games, three kings in one division is nowhere near the same impact, since everyone would play all of their division and 2/3 of the other division every year, so scheduling two of the three eastern Kings for each western schools would be straightforward.
LikeLike
“I also feel that there is real concern in the conference office that Penn State is going to have some competitive problems with its depleted roster over the enxt handful of years, which is one reason why Michigan State is in the east.”
@cutter – You keep saying this but there is absolutely nothing to support it and when you get down to it the logic doesn’t follow. If Sparty is in the east it’s because they didn’t want to go west.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Now, nobody seems to be complaining that the East will have three out of the four kings.”
That’s complete bull. Lots of people have complained and continue to do so.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“and, actually, I think there is some truth to this. Everyone kept focusing on the BXII North, but ignoring the SEC West. The SECW being so stacked has not damaged the SEC or its tv contracts or anything.”
The East has UF, UT, UGA and a rising SC. That’s a lot different than the proposed B10 split.
“plus, the expansion to the east creates a new focus: maximizing the $$ to be made out east.”
Which is great unless your program is suffering while all the focus and attention is given to UMD and RU.
“To do that, you put your more-national brands out east and make sure they show up often in DC and NYC.”
And when that fails to crack NYC and pull high value from DC (see Philly for an example)? How long do you give it before admitting you screwed up?
LikeLike
“Now, nobody seems to be complaining that the East will have three out of the four kings.”
That’s complete bull. Lots of people have complained and continue to do so.
[Sigh.] How tedious. I should have thought it was obvious that I was referring to the people who have the authority to make the decision, not bloggers and fans. Clearly, once you include that broader population, there is no such thing as a statement that “nobody” or disagrees with. This is so evident that I should not have needed to point it out.
LikeLike
And when that fails to crack NYC and pull high value from DC (see Philly for an example)? How long do you give it before admitting you screwed up?
Given the multiple public statements (by ADs, coaches, presidents, etc.) that the Big Ten isn’t done expanding, they’ll probably get a mulligan in a few years, if not sooner.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“[Sigh.] How tedious. I should have thought it was obvious that I was referring to the people who have the authority to make the decision, not bloggers and fans.”
So now everybody and nobody refers to the ADs and COPC only? Suddenly we should know that no media member, blogger or fan counts even when describing reactions to different things? Typical from you.
” Clearly, once you include that broader population, there is no such thing as a statement that “nobody” or disagrees with. This is so evident that I should not have needed to point it out.”
Or perhaps you shouldn’t falsely generalize and then you wouldn’t have to dig yourself out of holes like this.
LikeLike
@Brian: As a general rule, when a statement has multiple interpretations, the one that would make the speaker a complete idiot is the wrong one. Whatever disagreements we may have, surely you don’t think I’m so dumb as to suggest that none of the earth’s 7 billion people has any disagreement with what the Big Ten has done.
LikeLike
@Marc
Do you realize how much you are setting yourself up with that comment?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As a general rule, when a statement has multiple interpretations, the one that would make the speaker a complete idiot is the wrong one.”
And how does one magically know which of the other multiple interpretations is the correct one? Perhaps if one wrote more precisely, it would be more clear. There was nothing to indicate the “everybody” and “nobody” meant roughly 25-30 people.
“Whatever disagreements we may have, surely you don’t think I’m so dumb as to suggest that none of the earth’s 7 billion people has any disagreement with what the Big Ten has done.”
I could easily think you have ignored or missed many media members saying otherwise, let alone bloggers and fans. I’ve seen you write things I’d consider dumber than that. I try to never underestimate the potential stupidity of people. It leads to things like Legends and Leaders.
LikeLike
@Brian: So far, I haven’t seen anyone else who had any trouble understanding what I meant. It really wasn’t that hard.
LikeLike
“As a general rule, when a statement has multiple interpretations, the one that would make the speaker a complete idiot is the wrong one.”
Marc:
You have to remember that this is Brian we’re talking about.
I could make another crack about Aspies, but some of them are good friends of mine.
LikeLike
“Everyone cringed at the idea of three kings in one division.
…
Now, nobody seems to be complaining that the East will have three out of the four kings.”
I think it’s more that people realized that splitting the schools up in some convoluted way to seek out an illusive competitive balance was silly. And now they are going for a sensible and logical division, one that preserves rivalries well, makes sense to everyone and is easy to remember.
Many like myself wanted them to KISS last time around and just split East/West. I’m glad to see the conference has apparently seen the error of their ways.
LikeLike
Actually a lot of people are probably complaining privately, but they are just prepared to live with it.
Personally I wouldn’t take a geographic alignment, but I don’t have a vote.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“So far, I haven’t seen anyone else who had any trouble understanding what I meant. It really wasn’t that hard.”
No one else saying anything doesn’t mean they understood your use of everybody and nobody. It only shows they didn’t say anything.
Second, you have nothing to back up your statement. Where is your evidence that “everybody” cringed at the thought of 3 kings together the first time? Certainly many non-people favored an east/west split back then. What’s your proof that no AD or president did?
LikeLike
spaz,
“I think it’s more that people realized that splitting the schools up in some convoluted way to seek out an illusive competitive balance was silly.”
Balance wasn’t a bad idea then and isn’t now. The key is the convolution factor. They had other viable options last time, but I think they were stymied by PSU demanding to be with OSU.
For example (in order of locked rivals):
A – MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, NW
B – OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL
Once you insist on OSU/PSU and OSU/MI annually and balance, you have 2 basic choices (some tweaks to each are possible):
A – OSU, PSU, WI, IN, PU, IL
B – MI, NE, MN, MSU, IA, NW
or
A – OSU, MI, PU, MSU, IN, IL
B – PSU, NE, IA, WI, MN, NW
“And now they are going for a sensible and logical division, one that preserves rivalries well, makes sense to everyone and is easy to remember.”
It’s actually nonsensical, and many alignments would preserve rivalries well, especially with 1 locked game. I guarantee non-B10 people will struggle to remember where IN and PU are.
“Many like myself wanted them to KISS last time around and just split East/West.”
Haven’t you heard? You don’t count. Only ADs and above are people, apparently.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“The B1G did okay this time around (assuming they don’t screw up the names again).”
No, they didn’t.
“They picked a split that makes intuitive sense to sports fans,”
No, it doesn’t. There is no intuitive way to split IN and PU for most people, for example. Few could tell you which is actually further west, and we don’t know which way they’ll end up split.
“By the time they actually announce this, we’ll all be like: “Wha? I thought they did this months ago?””
I certainly won’t be.
“A no fan bases will be up in arms, no media backlash.”
We don’t know how IN and PU will react. If both want to be in the east (or the west, tough that seems less likely), one might be quite upset.
“Gawd, please just pick B1GE and B1GW for the names.”
Multiple ADs have come out and said they like the current names, FWIW.
“Btw, the other reason for narrowing the choice down to IN/Pur is that these teams (and the whole conference) could most “afford” this as the only locked cross-over game. That is, between IN/Pur or MSU/MI as the only locked cross-over game, sending MSU east was much better for the conference and for the teams involved.”
People keep saying that, but the math just doesn’t support it. The differences just aren’t that big.
LikeLike
@Brian: I am not sure how you believe they could have done better. There is no conceivable alignment that would please everyone, but if there is an idea more popular than east-west, I haven’t seen it.
The general reaction I’ve seen is relief that: A) Legends/Leaders is dead; and B) They didn’t come up with something equally silly to replace it. I never saw a great groundswell of support for “Inner/Outer,” the only other option I recall that is not geographically based.
Obviously, any geographical alignment was going to involve at least one pair of natural rivals being split, and there is no way of doing that that isn’t, to some extent, arguable. The merits of sending Michigan State to the west never struck me as compelling. I wouldn’t have minded if they did; but I don’t mind the other way either.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
I wouldn’t worry too much about Brian’s input on this matter. He does a lot of analysis, but has been consistently wrong in his assessments because he puts more important on factors such as “balancing kings between divisions” then it actually merits.
I’ve used the analogy of him acting like the French Army General Staff in 1940 on a couple of occasions and it still fits the way he thinks about the future of the Big Ten and conference expansion in general. Whatever data he brings to the table is next to worthless when he interprets it based on a model fixed to past thinking and not future possibilities.
If I were you, I’d just let him do his thing where he pulls apart your post and puts in his individual rants without any reply to his comments. He’s not a happy camper with where the Big Ten is headed and no matter what you write, he isn’t going to change his mind.
I pretty much agree with what you’re saying. Leaders and Legends never did find much traction with the media or the fans and I could see the Big Ten backtracking on that and using what my marketing professor said would be the least common denominator, i.e., calling the divisions East and West. The public can easily recognize the members that way and the terms are both known and are familiar in their use when it comes to a number of sports.
“Inner/Outer” made no sense on so many levels that it’s easy to see why it wasn’t a serious possibility. We’ve gone through the myriad of reasons why that’s so, so there’s no need to repeat in this case.
The NCAA men’s basketball tournament is about to start in earnest. Spriing football practice is underway. The College World Series and Softball World Series are going to start in a handful of months. Life is good. Enjoy.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“”I am not sure how you believe they could have done better.”
They could have split the kings equally. That would be better. They could at least split the brands more equally, and that would be better.
“There is no conceivable alignment that would please everyone, but if there is an idea more popular than east-west, I haven’t seen it.”
Better and pleasing more people are not always the same thing. I don’t subscribe to the fly diet argument.
“The general reaction I’ve seen is relief that: A) Legends/Leaders is dead; ”
Except they aren’t (yet). The new divisions haven’t been named yet, and every time the issue is brought up various ADs and Delany have defended those names.
“and B) They didn’t come up with something equally silly to replace it.”
That also remains to be seen.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I wouldn’t worry too much about Brian’s input on this matter.”
I wouldn’t either, since I have no say in the decision making.
“He does a lot of analysis, but has been consistently wrong in his assessments because he puts more important on factors such as “balancing kings between divisions” then it actually merits.”
Incorrect. You confuse analysis and opinion. I rarely say what I think the B10 will do. Instead, I usually say what I think they should do. I also do factually analysis that is neither of those things.
“Whatever data he brings to the table is next to worthless when he interprets it based on a model fixed to past thinking and not future possibilities.”
You couldn’t be more wrong. No interpretation renders the data worthless. You can always go back and re-interpret it. The data’s value remains constant
“He’s not a happy camper with where the Big Ten is headed”
No, I’m not. I’ve never said otherwise. I hope it all comes back to bite them, too.
“and no matter what you write, he isn’t going to change his mind.”
I’ll listen to facts. His opinions, like yours, mean less to me than my own does.
LikeLike
Purdue fans overwhelmingly support moving to the West. There really is absolutely no logical reason to move Purdue to the East; Purdue’s campus is further West, the Northwest portion of the State (PU Territory) is in the Central Time Zone, the trophy games that Purdue has with Illinois and IU has with MSU could be kept in tact and any notion of competitive balance would send Purdue to the West.
I would be irate if Purdue was sent to the East.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Purdue fans overwhelmingly support moving to the West.”
Do the decision makers at PU agree? If so, why wasn’t this all decided weeks or months ago? If 7 teams want the east and 7 want the west and no major issues exist (lost rivalries, concerns over balance, etc), then why wasn’t this a done deal a long time ago?
LikeLike
If 7 teams want the east and 7 want the west and no major issues exist (lost rivalries, concerns over balance, etc), then why wasn’t this a done deal a long time ago?
There is probably at least one school that will be less than pleased. If I had to guess, that school would be Indiana.
LikeLike
Completely agree that PU to the West is a no brainier for rivalries with the IL schools (and our dreaded rival IA). I would be shocked if IU didn’t prefer the East for two major reasons (1) they have a substantial student body population from NY/NJ and (2) getting either OSU or MI at home each year is a major revenue draw for them.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There is probably at least one school that will be less than pleased. If I had to guess, that school would be Indiana.”
Feel free to show any quotes or links that indicate IN wants to be in the west. The previous leaks showed IN in the east and a debate over MSU or PU joining them, and nobody said a word. Frank posted a link a while ago showing IN has a lot of students from the east coast (and presumably also a lot of alumni there).
Who else would object? Not the western 4 or the eastern 3. MI and MSU seem happy, and so do NW and IL. Gee wrongly wants OSU in the east, too, so they won’t complain. If PU and IN are happy, then they are wasting everyone’s time over-deliberating this.
LikeLike
In order to determine the B1G divisions, all the head football coaches ought to gather in a sandlot or vacant field in suburban Chicago and pick the Woody and Bo divisions. Urban Meyer and Brady Hoke then arm wrestle for the first pick. For discussion purposes, let’s assume Hoke wins since he’s bigger. As with most sandlot games, the big brother will probably pick his little brother first (or else he’ll answer to mom when he gets home). Meyer would probably then take Illinois because its a traditional rival that he can beat most every year. Hoke would probably then take Minnesota for the same reason.
Y’all can fill in the rest.
LikeLike
But last time they used that approach to pick divisions, it was such a mess that they couldn’t agree on actual names for the divisions, and we were stuck with the two generic division names intended to be replaced by real names at the end of the process, “Leaders” and “Legends”.
LikeLike
Bruce – You can’t possibly have thought I was serious?
Seriously, from an outsider’s viewpoint, I think the East/West split and splitting the state of Indiana is fine. Although, I would have split the state of Michigan instead.
At least now I’ll know who is in what division..
LikeLike
So I write a reply premised on the Big Ten actually setting up Leaders and Legends by having that school up north and the Buckeyes pick in turns, at a sandlot …
… and therefore you reckon I took your suggestion seriously?
OOOOOO KAAAAAAAAAAAAAY … uhm … see, don’t tell nobody else around here, right? … but I don’t REALLY think that’s how they came up with L&L. It was kind of a joke in turn, this time with L&L the butt of the joke.
LikeLike
No Bo and Woody… Puhlease… Thank you…
LikeLike
For a while, there was quite a bit of speculation that Michigan State wanted the west, so that they’d have a game in Chicago every other year. According to the Detroit Free Press article linked in Rittenberg’s piece, that turned out to be a red herring: MSU prefers the east.
(I do realize that people sometimes express different preferences in private than they admit in public, but this, at least, is what the AD is now saying.)
LikeLike
In mid-February Barry Alvarez said MSU was campaigning for the west, so it wasn’t really speculation. Either Alvarez lied, the president overruled the AD or MSU got told no and now is trying to spin this.
http://www.theonlycolors.com/2013/3/19/4123078/report-msu-football-will-be-in-big-ten-east-michigan-state
Apparently a lot of MSU fans are upset. They really wanted the west. Now they are seeing a slim chance to ever see the Rose Bowl again and are not happy. How representative they are of the total fan base I obviously don’t know.
LikeLike
Since MSU was going to get an annual game with Michigan in any event, I can well imagine that their fans preferred the easier schedule in the West. That makes complete sense. Unlike the decision-makers, fans have no obligation to be reasonable, and they frequently are not.
The thing is, if you’re the MSU AD or president, you can’t walk into the Big Ten meetings, and say, “Put us in the west, because the schedule is easier.” MSU has no more of an inherent right to an easy schedule than Indiana or Purdue.
If MSU wanted the west so that they could play Northwestern every year, that argument was also weak: outside of the two Illinois schools, MSU has no heightened interest in recruiting Chicago, that is not shared equally by a number of others.
Of course, schools lobby for their selfish interests all the time. But to persuade their colleagues, they usually need to have better arguments. I’m sure Alvarez didn’t lie, but a lot of conversations no doubt took place between the Alvarez quote and the later Mark Hollis quote. I’m sure we’ll eventually find out if MSU changed their minds, if the Alvarez quote was out of context, or if MSU is just putting spin around an unpleasant outcome.
We know that a number of schools were unhappy with the leaders/legends split. If that’s the case here, I’m sure it will come out.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Since MSU was going to get an annual game with Michigan in any event,”
Speaking of which, it’s odd that their AD even hinted that that rivalry might not be locked. There’s no way the B10 wasn’t going to lock whichever in-state rivalry they split.
“I can well imagine that their fans preferred the easier schedule in the West.”
I don’t think it was just that. Many of them really want a rivalry with WI. That was one of their major complaints about the current system. They also seem to value that game in Chicago since so many MSU alums live there.
“Unlike the decision-makers, fans have no obligation to be reasonable, and they frequently are not.”
It’s debatable how reasonable many decision makers are (see Congress, the NCAA, Legends and Leaders, etc).
“If MSU wanted the west so that they could play Northwestern every year, that argument was also weak: outside of the two Illinois schools, MSU has no heightened interest in recruiting Chicago, that is not shared equally by a number of others.”
That may or may not be true. MSU has a high percentage of alums in Chicago. I don’t think any of us know how the various schools compare on that. MSU may have a better claim than others (excepting IL who will always get that game anyway).
But you are looking at it like MSU had to convince others to change their minds and send MSU west. How do we know that others were against that? Nobody in the east but MI has expressed any concern over playing MSU annually, and we know that game would be locked.
“Of course, schools lobby for their selfish interests all the time.”
They’re supposed to.
“But to persuade their colleagues, they usually need to have better arguments.”
That assumes that their colleagues are against it in the first place. If they don’t really care, persuasion doesn’t take much.
LikeLike
@Brian: I don’t think we’re disagreeing about anything this time:
It’s debatable how reasonable many decision makers are (see Congress, the NCAA, Legends and Leaders, etc).
Oh, I’m not saying that decision-makers always get it right, only that they’re at least supposed to. Fans have no such obligation.
But you are looking at it like MSU had to convince others to change their minds and send MSU west.
Not really. I’m just pointing out one potential way that all of these news reports could be squared, assuming that MSU wanted the west at some point, but in the end, didn’t get their wish. Obviously, it would all be moot if this particular point was never in dispute.
“But to persuade their colleagues, they usually need to have better arguments.”
That assumes that their colleagues are against it in the first place.
Of course. But the decisions that are so obvious that no one disagrees with them, are not very interesting.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t think we’re disagreeing about anything this time:”
No, I was just expanding on a couple of things you said.
LikeLike
I’m sure many would see it as needlessly complicated, but would the Big Ten consider rotating Indiana & Purdue every 2 years?
LikeLike
I doubt it. They like things simple usually. Plus, both PU and IN seem to prefer the same split, so why bother? Certainly nobody in the west is worried about seeing IN more.
LikeLike
Worth your time:
Infographics: Where Do High School Basketball Stars Come From, And Where Do They Go?
http://deadspin.com/infographics-where-do-high-school-basketball-stars-com-5984694
LikeLike
that IS very interesting. Such high correlation between in-state talent and the success of the in-state teams. It is not surprising to see North Carolina have an 87% “capture” rate since the State has both Duke and UNC (and NCState and others). I am surprised Indiana loses so much given it has three Div I schools (UI, Pur, ND) and Butler and some other pretty good mid-majors (Ball State, Valpo, etc.).
This all presents an interesting realignment issue. Delany has said that the B1G is chasing changing demographics in football. But these graphics concerning the State of Indiana and Bball suggest another solution: change the interest level. That is, figure out how to turn Illinois (as an example) into a football crazy state like Alabama and, voila, no need to chase population growth. (Yes, I know … tall order … but still worth thinking about.)
LikeLike
BB,
I agree with everything you say here. As this article alludes, the BIG does not capitalize on its basketball talent like say the SEC does with homegrown football. Illinois has flat out failed to capture its basketball talent, in part because blue blood southern schools have cherry picked throughout the state. You can now add Rutgers to that list, Jersey has also been picked apart over the years, esp by Tobacco Road. At least Md, Mi-MSU, and OSU have won a NC or two – though Mi and Oh aren’t suffering the “capture issue” like NJ, In and Il.
Also, the BIG footprint has the local & corporate resources to transform youth football interest. But do they want to do it? It’s up to the parents and kids. Ohio youth football should be a model to other states in the BIG region, as far as how to spark and maintain interest. Year round facilities and spring football could be norms throughout the BIG footprint.
The BIG isn’t losing overall population per state, it’s just growing more slowly. Il, Oh, Mi, Pa, NJ are heavily populated states. This growth stabilization will inevitably strike the faster growing sun belt states as well, minus immigration. Developed nations eventually hit a plateau, the US is behind European countries who have hit this plateau, for many reasons that could be discussed here, but the I’m most certain US population growth will even out in my lifetime – minus spurts of periodic intra-migration.
LikeLike
Other thing is, given weather patterns over the winter, most high quality athletes in the North are dual-athletes for football and basketball.
In a sense, the playing field is level for raising great basketball players in a way that it isn’t for football due to weather/climate issue.
LikeLike
McMurphy saying Creighton and Xavier have press conferences tomorrow. He didn’t have any comment on Butler.
LikeLike
Everyone is picking it up. Creighton, Xavier and Butler start Big East next year.
Old Big East trying to trump them by announcing their ESPN deal today.
LikeLike
Old Big East should be more worried about their long-term future than co-opting news cycles…
LikeLike
They can worry about their long term future, but its not automatically the case they can do much of anything about it. If the ACC gets raided and comes calling, the kind of schools remaining in the Big TBA are the kind of schools that will take the invite.
LikeLike
Interesting info on ESPN contract. UH, Temple, UConn and Cincinnati are the key players. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9071683/big-east-media-rights-deal-terminated-two-more-school-exits-according-sources
LikeLike
I think we all expected to see Cinci/UConn in Group A, but I find the presence of Temple and Houston to be really interesting. The article suggests that Cinci/UConn are in Group A because of the likelihood that they will be next to the ACC or some other conference. I can buy that, as well as the fact that they probably have the greatest TV value to the conference.
What I wonder is do they feel the same way about Temple/Houston? Are they in that group because they are the next most likely to be poached? Or are they the next highest in TV value (or is the answer yes the first question because the answer is yes to the second)?
LikeLike
It’s a real puzzler. None of the big leagues has ever coveted Temple or Houston. Temple, in fact, is the only school to get kicked out of the old Big East. If the ACC poaches the Renamed Big East again, I think USF would be a higher priority than either of those schools.
LikeLike
@Marc – My guess is USF and UCF are suffering from the directional school bias.
LikeLike
And who would take them? ACC wouldn’t unless they lost both FSU and Miami. Big 10 definitely wouldn’t. SEC definitely wouldn’t. Don’t think Big 12 would.
LikeLike
@bullet – Honestly, I think the Big 12 should give them a look if they decide to expand and Miami and FSU turn them down. A yearly trip to Florida and Texas would really help the old Big 8 schools.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you guys are all surprised though.
Philly and Houston are the two biggest markets and Temple/Houston were previously associated with the big leagues (before getting re-invited to the Big East) in their past histories.
You combine those two facts and it’s a given to me that they’re among the top 4 players with Cincy/UConn.
LikeLike
Honestly, I think the Big 12 should give them a look if they decide to expand and Miami and FSU turn them down. A yearly trip to Florida and Texas would really help the old Big 8 schools.
Two trips to Texas is more valuable than one trip to Florida and one to Texas for every school except for WVU.
LikeLike
@frug – maybe. If one of those trips is to west Texas, then it isn’t. You can’t do a lot better than a game on I-35 and another on I-4
LikeLike
@Mike
One of their Texas games is going to be in Lubbock either way.
LikeLike
And it is going to be easier to convince a kid from Texas to play in Kansas or Iowa than a kid from Florida.
LikeLike
Many have suspected that the MWC went after Houston. If that would make the MWC clearly ahead of the Big East, Houston might consider it and the Big East would be harmed by it.
LikeLike
Saw a Houston poster claiming Scott told the UH president that if they expanded w/o Big 12 schools, Houston was first on the list. Of course, even if true, Scott may say that to just about everyone.
There are only 6 schools who have been in the “AQ” group who aren’t in the Big 5 and who haven’t faced the death penalty. Its the 4 on that list, Rice and South Florida.
I suspect those are the 4 most valuable TV properties.
LikeLike
I suspect those are the 4 most valuable TV properties.
I suspect that too; I’m just surprised. I mean, Temple certainly wasn’t considered valuable when they got kicked out of the Big East originally. Has that much changed since then?
Historically, Houston was an above-average SWC program. They have all-time winning records vs. Rice, Texas Tech, and SMU, and near-parity with Baylor. In the late 1960s and for most of the 1970s, they were consistently a top-25 team in most years. They won the SWC title in 1976, 78, 79, and 84. They’ve been far less consistent since joining C-USA, although they had a 12-0 regular season in 2011 (before choking in the CCG). You could see why the B12 might, I stress might, consider Houston.
LikeLike
It’s not just that, it’s people/location. When you look at why conferences are expanding, you could argue that it’s all been about TV markets for the past couple of additions…
LikeLike
“if they expanded w/o Big 12 schools, Houston was first on the list.”
Of course the chances of the Pac-12 expanding without any of the current Big 12 schools are probably less than .1% for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Temple would be a basketball add. If they move anywhere it’s to a very-decimated ACC. That would depend on if the ACC loses all of the state flagships along the Mid-Atlantic coast and perhaps most of the football schools. Then you could see an ACC that has the following schools: ND, Cinci, Louisville, Syracuse, Temple, UConn, BC, Pitt, WF (perhaps Duke, unless they’re picked up by SEC or B1G), (Memphis), (Navy), (USF), (UH)
Decent in basketball, not much of a factor in football unless Louisville and Cinci sustain their success. ND might use the opportunity to pare down their football commitment to 3 or 4 games but keep their affiliation for Olympic Sports. At that point, the ACC would ally themselves with the Big 12 to keep each other in the big-boy sports game.
LikeLike
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20130318-texas-ad-deloss-dodds-we-get-to-decide-when-longhorns-aggies-play.ece
DeLoss Dodds says that since TAMU left the B12, UT gets to decide when to renew the rivalry. He does think they’ll play again, though.
LikeLike
There has been debate over whether or not a-la-carte is going to change the model for watching college sports. I think that’s not where the focus should be. Mobile and internet technology seem to be changing things faster than thought.
Check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kGtcNXu-VQU
Pretty eye-opening. Fortunately, BTN has digital capacity and should be ready for when the changeover from legacy media happens.
LikeLike
Random media rights tidbit…IMG’s 10 year, $10.7 Million contract with Ohio State paid out $9.8M this year:
http://www.thelantern.com/campus/ohio-state-banks-9-8m-in-multimedia-rights-deal-1.3011261
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1276161.html
CFN’s annual listing of top football and basketball schools:
1. UL
2. OSU
3. UF
4. ND
5. OR
6. KSU
7. WI
8. MI
11. MSU
And the worst:
9. UMD
11. PU
12. GT
LikeLike
Boiler Up!
LikeLike
But to return to the matter at hand, there’s a definite pattern to the ACC’s reduced stature in the eyes of the selection committee. As we first wrote back in 2008, there’s a close relationship between how well the first-place team does and how much NCAA representation the ACC receives.
Consider that from 1984 through 1999, when the ACC was comprised of either eight or nine teams, the league sent a majority of its members to the NCAAs 14 times in 15 years.
In the 15 most recent seasons since 1999, including this one, the ACC sent a majority of its membership to the NCAAs just four times. That’s a 26.7 percent fulfillment rate versus 93.3 percent in the preceding 15 years.
This while the Big East routinely got twice as many bids as the ACC and often a majority representation of its members in the NCAA field.
Clearly there’s been a shift in regard, if nothing else, for the strength of ACC squads.
The dominance of the league’s top team apparently has an effect. The fewer losses incurred by the ACC’s first-place finisher, the fewer invitations received by its conference confreres. The more defeats suffered by the top finisher or finishers, the broader the ACC’s representation in the NCAA tournament.
Perhaps that extra victory or two at the expense of less formidable league members is the difference between inclusion and exclusion. Since the leader ordinarily is either Duke or UNC, perhaps there’s a perception the ACC is a two-team league populated by anonymous also-rans.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=46860
Hence, they added Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville. But they lose Maryland. What’s an ACC basketball fan to do?
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter. One thing the SEC or ACC have been able to do the past 15 years, despite less bids than the Big East much of this period, their best teams have won NC’s. The ACC has won 5, the SEC 3 & yes the Big East, with greater probability in their favor, has won 3 NCs. I can’t say the same for the BIG, which pisses me off considering the recruits in the region, the ones that often get away (Davis, Battier, Al Horford, Rose, May, to name some) & the fact that the conference has been second best 4x (2002, 2005, 2007, 2009).
As long as bona fide blue bloods like Duke & UNC are in the equation, NC contention looms. The SEC, of course, has Ky and to some degree Fla. The Big 12 has KU, but that’s really it. Lville and Syracuse will provide huge brands to the ACC soon enough. Unfortunately, the BIG has great depth, but lacks a winner takes all power – MSU consistently on the brink, OSU reaching such status & a rising IU.
The big problem coming for the ACC lies over the next 5-10 years, I could be wrong but Boeheim, and K are in the last stage of their incredible careers. Roy and Pitino could last another decade. Regardless, you can’t replace such names without 2-5 year drop offs, minimum. Do you see UConn winning a NC anytime soon, esp without the depth of the traditional Big East? The problem with Ky, I believe, is the cyclical system Cal is running – this year & last year being a prime example – tremendous drop off despite having more talent, still, than much of the tourney field. Also, there is a good chance the NBA will finally expect 2 years, maybe 3, out of college kids if not drafted straight out of high school – which would be better for the game, no question about it & Ky’s racket will likely cease to exist because teams with talented veterans most often beat frosh loaded rosters.
The BIG and KU have great coaches who have, imo, at least a decade or more of sideline strutting left: Izzo, Matta, Crean & Self. I do sense these coaches will finally win NC’s soon(Crean and Matta), or get to #2 (Self and Izzo).
LikeLike
ACC isn’t the only one. In addition to the state of Texas being shut out, Georgia was shut out for the 2nd straight year. And the SEC’s 2nd and 3rd seed didn’t make it.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/college_basketball/2013/03/sec_seeking_answers_after_getting_only_3_ncaa_bids
LikeLike
corrected link: http://bostonherald.com/sports/college/college_basketball/2013/03/sec_seeking_answers_after_getting_only_3_ncaa_bids
LikeLike
Just random thoughts and I guess my summary of how I see the present ‘major’ conference realignment situation:
*B10 really wants NC and GT who provides the Atlanta market; GT imo is an underrated brand & fan base imo. No they aren’t NC or FSU but they are a very valuable brand themselves and more importantly, their home is Atlanta, a huge college city (football and basketball) that the B10 would love to have a foot in the door. After those two, B10 would like Virginia who would solidify the DC market and provides a wealthy, growing state with a lot of cable/satellite households… Of course they’d love ND and Texas but neither appear the least bit interested..
*SEC really wants NC too but I don’t see NC as ‘available’ (for the B10 or SEC) unless a majority of the top half of the ACC (FSU, VT, Clemson, Miami, Virgnia, GT & Duke) leaves. SEC would like to compliment UNC with one of VT or Duke to go with UNC…
*Doesn’t matter what the Big XII wants as no ACC school wants to go there unless the ACC is raided by the B10/SEC first. Big XII would then get the B10’s and SEC’s leftovers, which would be very valuable; Clemson, Miami, FSU, Louisville, etc.
*Pac 12: Nobody really on their radar in the short or long-term barring UNLV suddenly going to BCS bowls…
Far more importantly than what the conferences want is what the actual presidents at these ACC universities want and if they are willing to leave their ACC neighbors. If the rumors are true, GT knows it doesn’t have a home in the SEC and has been flirting with the B10 and the B10 who initially didn’t seriously consider the Yellow Jackets now have them almost at the top their ‘realistic’ wish list…
I don’t think Virginia & GT to the B10 causes the ACC to fall apart alone, the ACC can pickup Cincy & UConn in 10 minutes to replace them. What will be interesting is the SEC’s reaction to the B10 picking up Virginia and GT, does the SEC pounce and take VT and 1 of NC State, FSU, Duke, etc or do they just stand pat at 14 schools?
LikeLike
The SEC stands pat until/unless UNC moves to the B1G. UNC is the SEC’s #1 target. They won’t do anything to jeopordize getting them anymore than the B1G would have jeopordized getting Notre Dame before Notre Dame joined the ACC.
LikeLike
If Slive could persuade other SEC members to forgo the gentlemen’s agreement for Florida State (as it apparently had an opportunity to join more than two decades ago) and take it along with Virginia Tech, how does that affect future expansion for the Big Ten and other conferences? Might the ACC core of UVa, UNC and Duke (along with Georgia Tech) suddenly become more available, as the ACC loses two of its football biggies and a Cincinnati/Connecticut combo won’t compensate financially? Would Clemson and Miami listen to overtures from the Big 12? Could be fascinating.
LikeLike
Even if the Gentleman’s Agreement exists (this is much disputed), I’m not convinced that FSU is high on the SEC’s radar. But given your premise…yeah, losing FSU/VT is a pretty severe blow to the ACC. Between the two of them, they’ve taken 8 out of 16 available slots in the eight ACC championship games played to date. Five of the remaining eight slots have been taken by Clemson and GT, both of which are at risk.
I don’t think they can lose their two best football schools and not suffer further departures. The only question, in that scenario, is how long UNC waits it out. Clearly, the ACC can keep replenishing with the likes of UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, Memphis, etc., and remain a serious basketball league for a long time to come. Maybe that suits UNC.
LikeLike
If the SEC decided to stay at 16, then yes, that would probably open up the core of the ACC to the Big Ten.
But if the SEC was willing to go to 18, I think the SEC would have an even stronger case to draw in UNC and Duke than they do now. The SEC would have schools in every border state (Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, & Georgia), plus 2 schools in Florida which cements its strong recruiting advantage over the Big Ten.
If the SEC goes to 16 members, I think it might abandon divisions (too many missed rivalries with pods), so going to 18 might not be that big a deal.
However, I think the SEC stays at 14, unless UNC calls or the Big Ten does something else.
LikeLike
The keys to America 12 (ex-BE) football going forward are Houston and Temple?
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9071683/big-east-media-rights-deal-terminated-two-more-school-exits-according-sources
“NBC Sports Network’s contract divided the league into Group A (Connecticut, Cincinnati, Houston and Temple) and Group B (the remaining members), sources said.
The media rights deal can be terminated if either two Group A schools leave or one Group A and one Group B school leave. “
LikeLike
Temple got a poison pill written in to keep from being booted again?
LikeLike
Prevents against MWC poaching (they’d go after Houston + 1 for sure given that Houston’s the Big East’s most valuable piece to the West) as well as against poaching in the East.
LikeLike
Well, it protects the media partner from paying for a poached conference. Not sure how that would effect a decision by UH, Cinn, UConn, on leaving, except to possibly encourage it as their future media income is now contractually tied to other schools and conferences decisions…
LikeLike
Wait, so if they only lose one of those, or two of the Group B members, the contract has to be renegotiated, but not scrapped.
So, yeah, they are saying the key games in the conference are somewhere in UConn/UC, UConn/Temple, UConn/Houston, UC/Temple, UC/Houston and Temple/Houston. Keep those and even if they lose Memphis (in BBall), USF or UCF, they could face a loss in value, but ESPN will keep airing their games.
LikeLike
SO…if the BIG goes with the E-W allignment with Indiana in the East…..is that a sign that expansion is definately on the backburner? If, for example, VA and UNC were added (or plug in GT for one of them), the logical move would be for IU to go to the West….and the imbalance would be even greater. You might have to have IU and PUR in the east and send UM and MSU west…..
The alternative explanation would be that the BIG would skip 16 and go directly to 18….in that event the divisions would need revision anyway…….
LikeLike
SO…if the BIG goes with the E-W allignment with Indiana in the East…..is that a sign that expansion is definately on the backburner?
It might be on the backburner, or not, but I don’t think this divisional structure has anything to do with it. All they’re doing is splitting up the 14 teams they have, the best way they know how. With 16 or more teams, they’d probably tear it up and start over again, just as they are doing this time. At 16 teams, two static divisions of eight might not be the best system any more, as teams in opposite divisions would possibly go many years without playing one another.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine that putting Indiana in the east is a sign that expansion is on the back burner for the Big Ten.
For one thing, the next two teams from the conference may not come from the ACC. That’s not a likely possibility, but it does merit small mention.
The other thing we don’t know is what a 16-team Big Ten Conference would look like structurally. Would the conference adopt a model with two permanent 8-team divisions? Or would they go with a pod setup that has division membership rotating every two years? If it’s the latter, than where IU goes in the near term is a moot point.
If you move Michigan and Michigan State to the west, then we’re back to the situation where UM and Ohio State are in different divisions with fixed cross-divisional games, etc. The conference survived for two years with that arrangement, but I don’t think they would necessarily want to go back to it again. Perhaps just Michigan State goes west and a second fixed cross-divisional game is set up (Indiana-Purdue and Michigan-Michigan State). So here’s the options:
Option 1
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
East – Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Option 2
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State
East – Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Option 3
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State
East – Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod Option 1
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Years 1 & 2
Division 1 – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Division 2 – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Years 3 & 4
Division 1 – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Division 2 – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod Option 2
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod D: Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Years 1 & 2
Division 1 – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Division 2 – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Years 3 & 4
Division 1 – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Division 2 – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod Option 3
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C; Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Maryland
Pod D: Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
Years 1 & 2
Division 1 – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Division 2 – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia, Maryland
Years 3 & 4
Division 1 – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
Division 2 – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Maryland, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
With the pod system, Pods A and C would be permanently assigned to divisions while Pods B and D would rotate every two years between the two divisions. Teams would play every team in their pod annually and each team outside of its pods two times in a four-year period.
LikeLike
For Pod Option 1:
I would suggest to schedule the paired cross-over games to include Nebraska & Iowa and Ohio State & Penn State whenever the East Coast schools would be in the same division as Ohio State & Penn State. Otherwise, Nebraska’s schedule may become onerous for traveling reasons.
I would also suggest that Rutgers and Maryland be scheduled as consecutive away games for those Thanksgiving weekends for those two years when those two schools are in the same division as Penn State. As part of this compromise package, the Land Grant Trophy can be incinerated in a blast furnace.
Finally, this Michigander & Wolverine has no objections if the B1G East Division would comprise:
=> Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Using any scheduling format of either WAC, Pod Rotation or Static Division schemes.
(Although my personal preference is the WAC scheme of Pod Option 1.)
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“SO…if the BIG goes with the E-W allignment with Indiana in the East…..is that a sign that expansion is definately on the backburner?”
No. The new divisions are completely unrelated to any future expansion.
LikeLike
Deadspin got a hold of some more Facebook Maps.
http://deadspin.com/facebook-data-give-us-the-best-fandom-map-of-the-ncaa-t-456782281
Be aware that this isn’t as scientific as a Royal’s hat give away, but this part made me laugh (emphasis mine):
Shame on Oklahoma and Missouri:
While both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State made the Big Dance, these two schools only account for 20 of the state’s 77 counties (26 percent). Thirty-three counties went for Kansas (43 percent), while 15 went for Duke or UNC (19 percent). C’mon, the Cowboys are a five-seed!
Missouri is even worse. The Show-Me State is also sending two programs, the University of Missouri and Saint Louis. Saint Louis gets nothing, while the Tigers account for just three of the state’s 114 counties (3 percent). That’s fewer than went for Duke (five), Illinois (seven), UNC (13), or Kansas (78, or 68 percent). Butler, a mid-major two states away, picks up two counties despite not winning any in Indiana.
LikeLike
Obviously more research needs to be done, but if those numbers hold, you can certainly put to bed the notion that Syracuse would help with BTN carriage in NYC. They don’t provide much outside of upstate NY. I’d like to see how UConn would have fared in this poll.
LikeLike
sounds like a flawed system. Kansas apparently won in Boone County, where Mizzou is located. If you can find me half a dozen Kansas fans in Boone Country I’ll give you a dollar. Whatever they’re doing it’s not working.
LikeLike
I wrote something about this in the other article that was linked to the other day…but I think this is significantly more flawed than their pro-team facebook data. The schools that have name brand basketball teams and weak football teams have a real advantage.
If you’re a Missouri fan in Kansas City you might hit ‘like’ for ‘University of Missouri’ or you might hit a ‘like’ for ‘Mizzou Football’. If you have one of those things on your facebook account, there’s a good chance you’ll never add a ‘like’ to ‘Mizzou basketball’…you’ll assume anyone seeing that you like Mizzou will figure you like all of their athletics, and not feel the need to hit ‘like’ for ‘Mizzou baseball’, ‘Mizzou Wrestling’, ‘Mizzou Tennis’, etc.
However, there always are some people who root for the media darlings…they’ll hit ‘like’ for ‘Nebraska Football’ and then hit ‘like’ for ‘Kansas Basketball’ because they need both to communicate to the world that they only associate themselves with teams that are ‘winners’.
The first group of people won’t be counted by this poll, leaving the second group to come up strong in this flawed counting.
LikeLike
agree wholeheartedly. We need more information on exactly what the Facebook “likes” are being tabulated. Is the “like” specific to basketball? or is it a general “like” for the team/school, etc.?
LikeLike
Forbes’ list of most valuable college basketball teams is out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/03/18/louisville-cardinals-lead-the-list-of-college-basketballs-most-valuable-teams/
Louisville is ranked number 1 with a value of $38.5mm. By contrast, in the football rankings Texas is ranked number 1 with a value of $133mm.
The B1G had the most teams with six on the basketball list: #5 Ohio State, #6 Indiana, #7 Wisconsin, #10 Michigan State, #13 Minnesota, and the Fighting Frank-the-Tanks at #17.
Conference movers making the list include #1 Louisville, #9 Syracuse, #16 Maryland, and #18 Xavier.
Potential movers on the list include #3 North Carolina, #11 Duke, and #20 NC State.
LikeLike
For reference, here’s the Forbes football list.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/12/19/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-texas-longhorns-still-on-top/
No movers or potential movers make the list.
SEC leads the list with 8 teams. #4 LSU, #5 Georgia, #6 Alabama, #7 Florida, #8 Auburn, #9 Tennessee, #10 Arkansas, and #17 South Carolina.
Schools making both lists include Texas (#1 FB & #12 MBB), Wisconsin (#14 FB & #7 MBB), Michigan State (#19 FB & #10 MBB), Ohio State (#20 FB & #5 MBB), and Tennessee (#9 FB & #14 MBB).
LikeLike
Ohio State languishing under (a respectable) Sparty and scandal-laden PSU.
HAHAHAHA!
LikeLike
FWIW with Michigan’s recent adjustments to Crisler Arena along with premium seating and required donations for seatints; it’s projecting revenues in excess of $17mil for ’13-’14.
LikeLike
Eric Olson of the AP is reporting that Creighton won’t have an exit fee to leave the MVC. However, they won’t get this years conference distribution of 200K to 250K. IMHO – Big East move is a no brainer.
LikeLike
Now he’s reporting 350K….
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9076312/alabama-crimson-tide-wisconsin-badgers-play-2015-season-opener
It’s official, WI will open the 2015 season getting pasted by AL in Dallas.
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/lists/ncaa-tournament-best-teams-that-failed-to-win-championship-031913#tab=photo-title=Even+the+best+fall+short&photos=31646446
Don’t think anyone this year will make the list. But Illini, Michigan, IU all in list. IU IMO s/b a little higher on the list.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21918301/syracuse-hoops-under-investigation-by-ncaa
Syracuse University basketball has been under NCAA investigation for a period of “years,” a source with knowledge of the case told CBSSports.com.
That source said the school has received a letter of preliminary inquiry from the NCAA.
The specific nature of the alleged violations was not disclosed by the source but the transgressions were described as both major and wide-ranging in nature. The investigation also encompasses football but is believed to primarily involve basketball.
…
A year ago Syracuse admitted to an ongoing NCAA inquiry into possible violations of its drug policy. The potential violations were reported by Yahoo! Sports.
“As we said last year at this time, we are collaborating with the NCAA as part of an ongoing inquiry,” said Kevin Quinn, Syracuse senior vice president for public affairs. “Given this process is ongoing, we are unable to comment further at this time.”
The ongoing investigation has apparently grown larger in scope. When asked to characterize how wide-ranging the probe might be, a source with knowledge of the case told CBSSports.com: “Throw a dart at the [NCAA] Manual [and you would hit a violation by Syracuse].”
LikeLike
Beginning to sound like the last days of the SWC. First Georgia Tech’s major (relatively minor, but they ticked off the NCAA), then Miami, North Carolina and now Syracuse. Can FSU and Clemson be far behind?
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m sure the ACC is thrilled to have this happen right as Syracuse join.
LikeLike
Makes divisional alignment easy. Just make sure you have the same number of schools on probation in each division.
LikeLike
Info graphic on who profits from NCAA tournament
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/who-really-profits-from-the-ncaa-tournament-and-the-final-four/hr-block-march-madness-infographic-3-20-13/
Most interesting part (in my opinion) is that the average “fair market value” (not sure how that is determined) of a UT FB player ($513,922) only about half that of a Duke MBB player ($1,025,656).
LikeLike
I think the “value” for the FB and MBB players is fantasy. NBA-D league has better players and pays less than $30K per year (excludes failed NBA players sent down). First round (30/year) rookies only average about $1.8M. There is no third round in the NBA draft. It is hard enough for players drafted in the second round to stay on a NBA roster. No way the total value of all the FBS MBB players is worth $500M+. The football number is also inflated.
LikeLike
Wow. The Dude is saying FSU turned down SEC last year and applied for Big Ten in early December. They are basically being sponsored by Ohio State. In fact, OSU has offered to pair up with Illinois, FSU and one other ACC school to form a Pod. Yikes! The Dude says OSU is calling in all their chips from Big Ten schools to make sure they have a top notch strength of schedule for the four team playoffs.
LikeLike
Dude should lay off the bottle for a while.
LikeLike
The Dude is also saying that Michigan is the main opponent, claiming academics as the reason, when in fact they simply don’t want to play Florida State. The trouble with this, is that it takes more than one vote to keep FSU out, so it can’t be just Michigan.
@MHver3 is claiming that FSU was told “no,” and that this was supposedly reported on the Big Ten Network last night. Unlike most of what these guys say, that ought to be verifiable.
LikeLike
Yes, he said Michigan and Wisconsin were the primary opponents of FSU joining the B1G. FSU needs $75 million from the state for professor salaries and upgrades to meet AAU requirements that Barron submitted to the B1G.
He also made a comment that Northwestern was the biggest supporter of Rutgers and Maryland joining last November. Interesting.
The Dude was very somber on the podcast because he is resigned to the fact that FSU is going to the B1G, not the Big 12 and that will leave both the ACC and Big 12 in difficult competitive situations because neither has a network. The rumored alliance between the two conferences might turn into a full blown merger.
LikeLike
Michigan and Wisconsin together could not keep FSU out if it came to a vote, unless there’s an unwritten understanding that they don’t want another divisive expansion, like the one that brought PSU into the league.
FSU may need $75 million in professor salaries, but that alone wouldn’t push them across the AAU finish line. They have a lot more work to do than just paying profs more money.
Northwestern has a lot of East Coast alumni, so it is not implausible that they were big champions of UMD and RU. But a lot of other schools had to agree. I think it takes 70% or 75% to approve a new member.
The rumored alliance between the two conferences might turn into a full blown merger.
That I don’t see. The Big XII is in a relatively secure position, because of its sweetheart TV deal, its bowl partnerships, its GoR, and two very solid anchor schools (TX, OK) that want it to survive. If they expand at all, they’d take two or four more, then stop. They don’t need or want the likes of Wake Forest, BC, or Syracuse.
LikeLike
Allegedly, FSU has submitted a detailed and comprehensive 5-year plan for AAU acceptance to three B1G schools for preliminary review (Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State). Those three will make recommendations, provide guidance and assist with voter approval at AAU.
Not saying this stuff will happen, but remember; The Dude has a relative in the administration at West Virginia and Gee used to be at WVA. Apparently, there is an informational pipeline between those two schools, so you never know. Also, Oliver Luck has been known to have loose lips.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 is so secure why are they talking with the ACC about an alliance? The fact of the matter is, FSU is the only school available that could pay it’s way and add value to the Big 12. I don’t think Miami, Clemson or Louisville could do that. In other words, the Big 12 is probably stuck at 10 unless the merge with someone. And, 10 is not good if everyone else goes to 16 or more.
LikeLike
There are 8-10 spots on the ACC lifeboats to the B1G, SEC, and XII. If 8 schools are taken between the B1G/SEC there will only be 2 left for the XII. If both the B1G and SEC stop at 16 it is very likely that XII will add 4.
There is a far fetched possibility of the ACC and XII getting together if both NC and FSU decide to throw in with TX and OK rather than the B1G or SEC. A new conference could be formed with 7 from the ACC and 7 from the XII. However, if the ACC is too weak due to being picked over by the B1G and SEC or lose one of its kings (as most expect) then the XII will just take the best of what is left. In either situation WF, BC, and Syracuse are the “Baylor’s” of the ACC. They will get demoted unless the ACC stays together with its kings.
LikeLike
The Dude tweeted a few days ago that the Big 12 has told it’s schools to clear two of their three out of conference games each year for match ups with the ACC. West Virginia would be playing Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh each year.
LikeLike
The only way the Big 12 and ACC merge is if the Pac successfully woos Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State to form its long-sought Pac-16. Then the six Big 12 remnants merge with what’s left of the ACC after the Big Ten and SEC divide the carcass (and while I don’t see the SEC expanding past 16, the Big Ten very well could).
LikeLike
Is the PAC wooing? Or even looking to grow at all? Seems they would have admitted the Ok schools last year to increase the likelihood if they were.
LikeLike
The LHN could be a sticking point, but if ESPN becomes convinced it can’t be successful, there could be some sort of settlement to allow Texas to merge it into the Pac family of networks. Same thing with what’s planned in Oklahoma. If Scott can persuade Pac presidents that this is their only chance to get the conference noticed on the other side of the Continental Divide, they might agree to it.
LikeLike
Not important, but an interesting example of how much the pace of change has increased (or our perception of what constitutes a lengthy time period). The stunning and unforeseen attempt three years ago is now referred to as “its long-sought Pac-16.”
LikeLike
Just a picture of what a ‘merged’ Big 12/ACC might look like (actually, still 2 separate conferences, but with combined scheduling & TV agreements):
Yankee Division:
Iowa State
Kansas State
Kansas
BC
Pitt
Syracuse
Atlantic division:
UNC
NCSU
Wake
Duke
UVA
VT
Southwest division:
OU
OSU
UT
TT
Baylor
TCU
Southeast division:
FSU
Miami
Clemson
GT
WVU
Louisville
Scheduling: everyone plays their division; then everyone plays 1 rotating game from the other divisions for an 8 game season. For a 9 game season, you can add an extra game between the Southeast and Atlantic divisions, as well as a game between the Yankee & Southwest divisions.
At the end of the season the Southwest & Southeast champions play in a title game for the ‘Southern Conference champion’, while the Yankee & Atlantic division champions play in the ‘Northern Conference championship’
They would sell one tv package for football and the non-football sports would be left untouched (so there would still be a 14 school ACC and 10 school Big 12 in those sports).
This would produce more big games for TV, especially with the formation of that Southeast division. The ‘northern’ schools would be worried the Southern schools would decide to break away after getting used to this arrangement.
LikeLike
If MI is saying no, it would be over academics. They aren’t scared to add FSU in football.
LikeLike
I don’t think the “merger” would include all teams from the ACC, I think the scenario where the Big 12 takes in a larger number of ACC teams is if the ACC losses a couple teams to other conferences. Lets say the Big 10 takes FSU, N. Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech. Sec takes Virginia Tech and Duke. That leaves teams with not a ton of value to the Big 10 or SEC left including North Carolina State, Clemson, Miami, Pitt, Boston College, Louisville, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and possibly UConn and Cincinnati if the ACC back fills. If the Big 10 goes to 18 and the SEC goes to 16, the Big 12 may see these teams as beneficial in a strength-in-numbers way. By taking any 8 of these 10 available teams would create a pretty nice 9 team Plains vs 9 team Coastal divisions by sending W Virginia to a Coastal Division. This is probably best case scenario for W Virginia as they potentially would be lumped into a division with historic rivals Pitt, Louisville and Syracuse
LikeLike
The XII will have no requirement to go past 12 as long as the P12 stays at 12. So if the B1G and SEC take 6 from the ACC the XII would take Clemson and Miami. XII might take another 2 from NCSt, Pitt, and Louisville. The rest will form the newest version of the Big East. The only way Syracuse gets an invite is if both the XII and ACC are being demoted which will require TX & OK to bolt for the PAC.
LikeLike
Pat,
“Wow. The Dude is saying FSU turned down SEC last year and applied for Big Ten in early December.”
It’s possible I suppose. Although I think “turned down” probably would mean said not right this second and “applied” would mean talked to about what they’d have to do to get an invitation. TPTB at FSU may be weighing money, culture and academics to decide where is best for them.
“They are basically being sponsored by Ohio State. In fact, OSU has offered to pair up with Illinois, FSU and one other ACC school to form a Pod. Yikes!”
I’m not in any way supporting him, but you may remember that in many/most 16 team pod plans with 4×4 pods I regularly have OSU ending up with the most southern addition (usually GT). It makes the most sense in terms of balance and travel. I doubt OSU would get IL in their pod, but maybe if the B10 is locking games anyway.
“The Dude says OSU is calling in all their chips from Big Ten schools to make sure they have a top notch strength of schedule for the four team playoffs.”
It’s possible, I suppose. OSU has made the strongest moves in terms of OOC scheduling.
LikeLike
More from the Dude’s podcast tonight;
UVA and one other ACC school have signed a memorandum of understanding to join the Big Ten when the time is right. Pretty much waiting on FSU. Big Ten will go to 8 team divisions rather than pods with Mich State moving west so FSU can be in a division with OSU, PSU and UM.
Don’t know if this stuff is true, but the guy and his guests were entertaining. The hour flew by.
LikeLike
A division consisting of UM, OSU, PSU, and FSU, would be sick, no matter who the other four teams are.
LikeLike
And they can’t count. B1G + RU, Maryland + UVA + mystery school waiting on FSU equals divisions of 8? (Unless FSU is the mystery school)
LikeLike
Not that I think this would happen, but I think their “East” division is:
IU, UM, OSU, PSU, RU, MD, UVA, FSU
LikeLike
Just to be clear:
E – OSU, MI, PSU, FSU, RU, MD, UVA, IN
W – NE, WI, MSU, IA, NW, MN, PU, IL
Since they clearly wouldn’t be concerned about balance at that point, wouldn’t it be:
E – OSU, MI, PSU, FSU, MSU, RU, MD, UVA
W – NE, WI, IA, NW, MN, PU, IL, IN
No locked games needed this way, and they will have completely sold their souls for the east coast.
LikeLike
Yes, the implication was that FSU could be the mystery school. Unless the B1G decides to go beyond 16 members, then the assumption was that Georgia Tech could be the mystery school. Actually, a pod of FSU, GT, OSU and Illinois might be reasonable. The gist of the podcast was that Gee and OSU are really driving hard for this expansion because Texas and ND are off the table and FSU is the only other alpha dog out there. FSU is begging to get in since president Barron turned down the SEC last year due to academics. Also, Urban Meyer’s fingerprints are all over this.
LikeLike
Sounds like a bunch of baloney.
LikeLike
I mean, it’s entertaining and all, but this is the Dudes’ 83rd story in the last year. He keeps changing it and changing it and none of them turn out to be true. So why do we keep talking about him?
LikeLike
On a message board that is primarily about conference expansion, during a lull in actual news, what else do you expect people to talk about?
By now, the Dude has made enough predictions that, no matter what happens, he can claim to have been right. The only way he is wrong is if literally nothing happens. Just about every other believable move (along with some less believable), he has predicted at some point.
His core prediction is that UVA is moving to the Big Ten. He has been pretty consistent about that, and he is hardly alone. Some of his stuff is way out there, but a lot of it is just the basic stuff that anyone who talks about expansion thinks the Big Ten wants to do.
LikeLike
Oh, feel free to talk about him. But it seems a little silly to talk about him as if he were at all credible.
LikeLike
The Dude has gone big time. The podcast is actually a copy of his one hour radio show from earlier today.
LikeLike
FSU refused to sign the GOR agreement for a reason. They’ll be in the Big Ten along with UVA (at least) before contract negotiation time.
LikeLike
He actually had Brett McMurphy on his podcast a few weeks ago. McMurphy basically said nothing is happening right now, but it could happen at any time. When asked how many teams he thought the B1G would have in 2014, he hesitated, and then answered 14.
LikeLike
While most of the Dude’s stuff is BS, it’s at least nice to think that perhaps 1 or 2 people that matter are thinking about the quality of B10 football and not just where they can play. Of course, FSU wouldn’t get a sniff if it wasn’t in FL.
LikeLike
Why leave Georgia Tech out in the cold if it’s the ACC member most enthusiastic about going to the Big Ten? Take UVa and Tech for 16, then if Florida State passes muster for #17, put the clamps on UNC and Duke by saying the conference will take one of you — but not both — for #18. Don’t you think that would cause folks in Chapel Hill to make a quick decision?
LikeLike
vp19,
“Why leave Georgia Tech out in the cold if it’s the ACC member most enthusiastic about going to the Big Ten?”
Their desire to join isn’t a reason to add them. Otherwise, MO would be in the B10 right now. That said, assuming the B10 adds FSU the odds of the B10 not also adding GT are very small. GA is full of FSU fans, especially in the south, and Atlanta is too big a market to skip. Besides, FSU would want a neighbor.
“Take UVa and Tech for 16, then if Florida State passes muster for #17, put the clamps on UNC and Duke by saying the conference will take one of you — but not both — for #18.”
I think you have the order wrong. If FSU is OK, they are #15 by a mile. FSU will pressure the B10 to take GT as a partner, so they’re probably #16. Then, if the B10 is still interested in future expansion, they talk to the rest of the ACC. UNC gets first shot at #17 and probably can pick their partner. The B10 will want #18 to be UVA, but UNC might insist on Duke. Then the B10 has to make a decision – is 18 the limit or is 20 OK?
If 18 is it, they tell UNC that and probably tell them UVA is #18 and make UNC choose. More likely, they also take Duke and look for #20. ND? Miami? VT (unlikely)? Other?
“Don’t you think that would cause folks in Chapel Hill to make a quick decision?”
No, because they know they are much more valuable than Duke. The B10 would accept UNC as #19.
LikeLike
Take UVa and Tech for 16, then if Florida State passes muster for #17, put the clamps on UNC and Duke by saying the conference will take one of you — but not both — for #18. Don’t you think that would cause folks in Chapel Hill to make a quick decision?
No, I don’t think it would force them into a quick decision. UNC knows it can get into the SEC in a heartbeat, so it doesn’t have to bow under threats from Jim Delany. On top of that, I think the Big Ten would be happy to take both UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
@ Brian ~ regarding FSU and GTech, exactly, they are closer to each other than they are to the other ACC schools ~ and that is strongest for FSU, both given the distance to their campuses and the strength of their fan base in southern Georgia. Among the AAU schools in the ACC, GTech is the one most likely to be arguing the case for FSU.
LikeLike
If the B10 expands, #15 has to be FSU (based on the assumed pool of possible entrants: FSU, UVA, GT, Duke and even UNC). B10 cannot add more .500 teams that will participate in bowl games in December. We already have too many of them.
Slightly OT – but not really: On NSD I posted that according to the various HS FB recruiting services, the B10 did very poorly when compared to the SEC — and added that B10 actually has to out-recruit SEC for HS players since B10 does not recruit JCs, Military school guys or employ “aggressive roster mgmt” techniques to the extent that our comrades in the South use them. The push back on the board was, among other items, that the ranking services are biased towards HS recruits from the South and inflate their rankings and also inflate the rankings of the SEC.
Last weekend I mentioned this to my son who pays attention to all sports and he immediately responded — “well, what about the NFL draft”? Last year, there were 9 first-rounders in the NFL draft from the SEC and four from the B10. According to my son, this year’s projections are approximately 13 from the SEC and 1 from the B10. Is the NFL also biased?
FSU now must be #15 to enhance the B10’s entertainment value. GT and UVA will not cut it.
LikeLike
A Big 20 is a rotten, terrible idea and I think plenty will realize it and block it before it ever happens.
Big 14+ FSU and one more is a perfectly sensible plan.
Then the SEC takes UNC + one more or nobody at all.
The Big 12 maybe takes 2 or 4 or maybe nobody.
UConn, Cinci, and maybe Temple and Houston to the ACC to shore that up.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing any kind of radical departure like a Big 20. Too big of a change, and a terrible idea anyway. A 20 team league is not a conference. It’s two merged conferences. It would be more trouble than it could ever be worth. Plus as far as the money goes there would be diminishing returns. You really think they’re going to pay 20 schools $40M each? That’s $800M per year. That’s crazy talk.
LikeLike
rich2,
“If the B10 expands, #15 has to be FSU (based on the assumed pool of possible entrants: FSU, UVA, GT, Duke and even UNC). B10 cannot add more .500 teams that will participate in bowl games in December. We already have too many of them.”
It didn’t stop them from adding RU and UMD and wouldn’t stop them now. The B10 would clearly accept UNC as #15 and possibly UVA/GT.
“The push back on the board was, among other items, that the ranking services are biased towards HS recruits from the South and inflate their rankings and also inflate the rankings of the SEC.”
And that is something most recruiting experts will tell you is true.
“Last weekend I mentioned this to my son who pays attention to all sports and he immediately responded — “well, what about the NFL draft”?”
Bad question. The goal isn’t to produce NFL players but to win college games. The NFL looks for very specific measurables. You can be a great college player but considered too short or small or whatever for the NFL. The question is how well you fit what your college team does and how well you perform in that system.
“Last year, there were 9 first-rounders in the NFL draft from the SEC and four from the B10.”
And according to all the recruiting info, the B10 does better at player development than any other conference. The B10 converts a much higher percentage of 2 and 3 star players into NFL draft picks than others do. It’s like they were underrated by the recruiting people, or else B10 coaches are much better than everyone else.
You also should go back to your roster management. The SEC is going through roughly 15% more recruits and weeding out the weakest ones so they should produce more top players.
“Is the NFL also biased?”
Yes, to numbers over performance.
LikeLike
rich2-
“Last weekend I mentioned this to my son who pays attention to all sports and he immediately responded — “well, what about the NFL draft”? Last year, there were 9 first-rounders in the NFL draft from the SEC and four from the B10. According to my son, this year’s projections are approximately 13 from the SEC and 1 from the B10. Is the NFL also biased? ”
The other day sbnation produced this article that is relevant:
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/3/20/4123210/2013-nfl-draft-datone-jones-dion-jordan-pac-12-pass-rushers
It looks over stats that show the Pac 12 finishes behind the SEC, ACC, and Big Ten in producing NFL pass rushers and tries to figure out why.
Of even greater interest is a link they have towards the bottom of that article to a study by the Nebraska sbnation site showing where all the NFL offensive players came from, and what college conference they attended. Individual maps for each offensive position is included. I’m not sure if they made an equivalent article for defense, but the offensive article shows the south produced 26% of the NFL players on offense at the time of the study.
LikeLike
direct link to the study on offensive NFL players:
http://www.cornnation.com/2011/3/10/2042954/where-do-the-best-college-football-players-come-from
LikeLike
OSU, PSU, UM and FSU. I guess they really don’t give a shit about the West.
LikeLike
If this is true. Which it probably isn’t.
LikeLike
Even based on the current plan for 14 it’s pretty clear they don’t care about the west. Other than Chicago, it’s apparently a wasteland to the B10.
LikeLike
Go U Northwestern, break right through that line.
With our colors flying, we will cheer you all the time,
U Rah! Rah!
LikeLike
Dude said FSU turned down SEC twice due to better academics and prestige of ACC and has been told they won’t get a third chance. Also, said FSU and ACC were very disappointed with the amount of new money the partial add of Notre Dame brought to the conference and this helped FSU decide to purse the B1G. An ACC Network is unlikely because ESPN is heavily invested and tied up with SEC Network that launches in August of 2014. So far, the BTN is the only network making money and Disney won’t allow ESPN to take a big risk on an ACC Network because rate of return may not meet expectations. ACC may be tapped out on new money. Big 12 also tapped out of new money and neither will be able to match B1G or SEC. Therefore, merger or alliance likely.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 is tapped out, might that encourage UT, TT, OU and OSU to pursue the Pac again? Is there a way the four can wiggle out of the GOR (payments to the other six members, for example)? If they could do that, those six that are left could merge with the ACC (or what remains of it if the Big Ten and SEC pick off some of its members), as well as with Cincinnati and Connecticut.
LikeLike
So long as the LHN is around Texas isn’t going anywhere.
The fact is, it doesn’t matter to Texas how much money the SEC and Big 10 make compared to the Big XII, because Texas’ financial dominance is such that even if they didn’t receive one penny of revenue from conference distributions or the LHN they would still have the wealthiest athletic department in the country by a decent margin.
LikeLike
What if ESPN becomes convinced the LHN is throwing good money after bad? It could set up some settlement fee with UT, and Texas could negotiate with Scott about assimilating it into the Pac family of networks.
LikeLike
“Texas’ financial dominance is such that even if they didn’t receive one penny of revenue from conference distributions or the LHN they would still have the wealthiest athletic department in the country by a decent margin”
You can’t really believe that.
LikeLike
You can’t really believe that.
Actually I do, but only because it’s true. You can check yourself. In 2010 (the final year before the LHN was founded) Texas brought in about $150 million in revenue only $10 million which was from conference distributions, meaning even without those distributions Texas would have had the wealthiest AD in the country by about $9 million over tOSU ($131 million).
LikeLike
There are so many things wrong with this latest Dude nonsense. The SEC did not invite FSU. The SEC does not invite schools to join. It only accepts applications. Neither TAMU nor Missouri were invited they both applied. The Dude doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Plus, FSU would never turn down the SEC again, especially for a chance (No guarantee) to join the BIG 10. The SEC is a much better fit for FSU than the Big Ten in every way. For that matter, so is the ACC long term. I suspect the disparity in revenues long term will either not be significant or will favor the ACC (better athletics better demographics). Seriously, if the Big Ten had Ga Tech, UVA, UNC, and or FSU/Miami so easily, why would they have paid so much money for Maryland and taken Rutgers at all? I doubt they would have. And unless that AAU label alone matters more than I think, Michigan and Wisconsin wouldn’t have a problem with FSU if they didn’t with Nebraska, which although still a great school, is not as good of a school academically as FSU.
LikeLike
There are so many things wrong with this latest Dude nonsense. The SEC did not invite FSU. The SEC does not invite schools to join. It only accepts applications. Neither TAMU nor Missouri were invited they both applied.
I am not supporting the Dude. Howeva… Conference expansion is more subtle than that. Leagues normally don’t issue formal invites, and schools don’t file formal applications, without knowing that they ‘d be accepted. By the time it gets to either the formal invitation or application stage, the parties will have been speaking informally for many weeks or months. The actual application is merely the last period on the paragraph.
The SEC is a much better fit for FSU than the Big Ten in every way. For that matter, so is the ACC long term.
I think there’s very little doubt that FSU covets the association with Big Ten academics. You could at least see the argument, where it’s better to be the Big Ten’s best Florida school than the SEC’s second-best Florida school. A very similar argument was what drove Texas A&M out of the Big XII.
I suspect the disparity in revenues long term will either not be significant or will favor the ACC (better athletics better demographics).
I can’t see how that could possibly be true. The Big Ten has the more lucrative TV deal and the more lucrative bowl partnerships. It also has a successful network up and running, for which the ACC has no counterpart. How you think the revenue disparity could favor the ACC is beyond me.
Seriously, if the Big Ten had Ga Tech, UVA, UNC, and or FSU/Miami so easily, why would they have paid so much money for Maryland and taken Rutgers at all?
No one has suggested that the Big Ten could have them “easily.” The fact remains, FSU voted against the ACC buy-out, and the whole league decided against a Grant of Rights. There has to be a reason for that.
LikeLike
The idea that UVA + one more have signed an MOU for “when the time is right” is ludicrous. That pretty much HAS to be on the public record and subject to FOIA requests. I can’t possibly believe they’d be that dumb.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing I have to understand about El Duderino:
He’s a WVU fan and (by natural extension) a fan of the Big 12. What angle is he trying to get by running with rumors that would run counter to what he wishes?
To me, it suggests either him, MHver3 or both are being misinformed or are being used to distract others from knowing the inside details of the negotiation until things are ready. Meanwhile, two Big Ten fans at BGN posted rumors there that agree with what he posited. Maybe because they like the scenario given but those two believe his info.
Distraction. Distraction. Distraction. From what? I have no idea.
LikeLike
He’s all bent out of shape now that he believes FSU will go to the B1G and not Big 12.
LikeLike
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sports-on-facebook/march-madness-fandom-on-facebook/10151473245234487
Okay, so we have some more information on the Facebook maps. The Deadspin article linked above had an internal link to Facebook.com. They give us a bit more information on what these “likes” are.
Quote: “Over 1 million US Facebook users have liked a page for one of the 68 teams attending the tournament. By mapping out where these fans currently live …”
I’m sorry, but why is Facebook too stupid to provide precise information?
If these are likes of “general” team pages, the data is just plain wrong. Looking at first map (Conference affiliation), these “likes” make no sense. The ACC is more popular in SEC country? No f-ing way. The State of Kentucky favors the Big East over the SEC nearly unanimously? Again, no f-ing way.
Fortunately for us, even as stupid as Facebook is on the main page, there are additional links. However, since more than one link in a comment will cause the comment not to post, I will offer more in “replies.”
LikeLike
There is a link right at the top of the previously linked Facebook.com article that says “notes.” Click on that and you get the precise information that Facebook should have just given to start with.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sports-on-facebook/comparing-march-madness-fans/10151478151084487
Quote: “For each team in the NCAA tournamet, we calculated for their set of fans (defined as an active Facebook user who has liked the team’s basketball page) the average age, % male …”
In addition, there is a link to the 68 “team pages.” So, Facebook is measuring the “likes” for linking to those specific 68 Facebook pages.
Then Facebook provides a whole bunch of data including number of fans, most often listed major, book, movie, etc.
(As an aside, the data must be completely f-ed up since tOSU has only 30,613 fans and TSUN has 100,000+ and Indiana as 121,000+. Surely, such a world cannot exist !! Interestingly enough, the whole West Region (all 16 schools) is less “liked” than UNC and Duke. Seemingly, no one loves the West. 😦 )
Anyway, the maps are much more understandable with this type of information.
Now this is some good data mining. I love that Iona’s favorite movie is Harry Potter 3.
LikeLike
Here’s the link to the team FB pages. https://www.facebook.com/notes/sports-on-facebook/march-madness-team-pages/10151471235399487
Now I feel like going to all the Buckeye websites and demanding everyone start “liking” the Buckeye page !! 30,631 fans is disgraceful !!
LOL
LikeLike
My ‘liking’ of the University of Michigan on facebook wouldn’t count towards this study? Because I don’t ‘like “Wolverines basketball” on facebook? If true, this is utterly useless.
LikeLike
You have to remember, Kentucky is missing UK.
LikeLike
And UL is the #1 seed. Of course KY would favor the BE this year.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Found this interesting article on another site with ratings/attendance data:
http://www.footballfoundation.org/News/NewsDetail/tabid/567/Article/53380/passion-for-college-football-remains-robust.aspx
And for Loki in case he doesn’t read that far down:
The 10th edition of the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl between Rice and Air Force drew the largest audience in the game’s history with an average of 2,583,848 households (or a 61 percent increase from last year) and the telecast’s second highest rating with a 2.6 average household coverage rating, or a 59 percent increase from last year.
And:
Rice won only its second bowl game since 1958.
LikeLike
I prefer to say that Rice has won two in a row.
LikeLike
Two more of the NCAA’s deregulation rules have been suspended.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/march/board+to+reconsider+texting+scouting+rules
LikeLike
MSU Wanted To Go West
per Brian Bennett of ESPN today responding to a fan.
Ben, our understanding is that Hollis lobbied for Michigan State to be in the west but lost out on that one. From a competitive standpoint, being in the west absolutely helps the Spartans. From an exposure standpoint, playing against Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State every year and getting access to the East Coast also makes some sense. No question it won’t be easy trying to climb past the Wolverines and Buckeyes every year just to make it to Indianapolis
LikeLike
Yeah, this pretty much confirms the rumors we have been hearing up here in Michigan. Hollis is just being a “good soldier”. Their largest alumni group is in Chicago (Northwestern) and they have rivalries with Wisconsin and Iowa. Not everyone is aware of the close games with Iowa over the last 10 years, but the two teams have played several games that went down to the final minute, even the final seconds.
Also, Ohio State isn’t a big rivalry gave for Sparty and most of the fans i have talked with prefer playing Nebraska each year over Penn State.
LikeLike
Steve,
“Also, Ohio State isn’t a big rivalry gave for Sparty”
That goes both ways. Since MSU joined the B10, OSU has only played PSU and NE fewer times. It’s only 40 times in 60+ years.
LikeLike
“Not everyone is aware of the close games with Iowa over the last 10 years, but the two teams have played several games that went down to the final minute, even the final seconds.”
Steve, I totally agree that the series has been great recently.
They didn’t play in 2005/2006. In 2007, Iowa won at home in 2OT 34-27. In 2008, MSU stopped Doak Walker award winner Shonn Greene on 4th and 1 in field goal range late in the game to win 19-16. In 2009, Ricky Stanzi hit Marvin McNutt for a 2 yd TD on the final play of the game to win 15-13.
In 2010, MSU came into Iowa City ranked 6th in the country only to be whacked 37-6. MSU was forced to visit IC again in 2011 and paid them back in a 37-21 win that was never in doubt. In 2012, Iowa won in OT in East Lansing 19-16.
Not only has it been great on the field, but the teams run similar schemes and they compete, along with Wisconsin, for the same basket of recruits. It was becoming a very good rivalry, and its a shame it won’t be annually any longer.
LikeLike
If they are willing to add UM-MSU and UI-NU to the list of protected rivalries I would be willing to volunteer Illinois to swap with Sparty. (Or at least I would if my opinion mattered…)
LikeLike
Well, if we are going East-West (just gonna assume Purdue in the West and Indiana in the East for now), then the conference is putting its faith in the Western teams from letting this division turn into the Big 12 North all over again.
That’s quite a gamble although it’s mitigated a bit by the fact that Wisconsin and Iowa have been fairly successful over the past 20 years.
As far as the Big Ten CCG goes, this will likely save it. It’ll probably end up having Ohio State or Michigan going up against Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/etc. most of the time.
That’ll be good for the CCG obviously, much better than the attempted gerrymandering of Ohio State-Michigan rematches that no one wanted.
We’ll see how this goes I suppose; it’s going to be interesting since it opens up the competitive turf for Northwestern/Illinois/Minnesota/Purdue to make something of themselves.
They’ll have better opportunities to get to CCGs in the future than the Eastern teams not named Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Well, if we are going East-West (just gonna assume Purdue in the West and Indiana in the East for now), then the conference is putting its faith in the Western teams from letting this division turn into the Big 12 North all over again.”
Yep.
“That’s quite a gamble although it’s mitigated a bit by the fact that Wisconsin and Iowa have been fairly successful over the past 20 years.”
IA had a run from 2002-4 and 2009, but that’s it for 10 win seasons since 1991. They’ve been trending down and have had massive staff turnover. I doubt Ferentz gets them back to the top, so they’ll have to wait for another coach to come in and build them back up. That’s easier said than done, especially with their weak recruiting grounds compared to the east.
WI has been at a peak lately, but they just had a coaching change. Even at their best, they could never quite get over the top. Let’s wait and see how WI responds under Andersen. Again, you’re talking about a program relying on system guys and diamonds in the rough that can be developed into players.
Conference titles since 1993 (20 years):
OSU – 10
MI – 5
PSU – 3
MSU – 1 (2010)
UMD – 1 (2001)
RU – 1 (2012)
IN – 0
Total = 21
WI – 6 (3 recent, 3 a decade ago)
NE – 5 (last in 1999)
NW – 3 (last in 2000)
IA – 2 (2002, 2004)
PU – 1 (2000)
IL – 1 (2001)
MN – 0
Total = 18
Last 10 years:
E – 12
W – 4
Maybe the west will bounce back, but there are greater odds that multiple western powers are down for a while than the eastern ones.
“As far as the Big Ten CCG goes, this will likely save it. It’ll probably end up having Ohio State or Michigan going up against Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/etc. most of the time.”
WI has clearly shown they can’t sell it out (0/2). NE hadn’t won a conference title in 13 years and they couldn’t sell it out either. No team in the west has shown they can sell it out, which is worrisome. The best thing for the CCG would be to have the two biggest draws be separated so they could each have a shot at it with both sometimes there. If the western powers don’t step up, I don’t think having all the power in the east is good for the game at all. It certainly didn’t help the B12 CCG to have the south own it.
“That’ll be good for the CCG obviously,”
I don’t think it is obvious.
“much better than the attempted gerrymandering of Ohio State-Michigan rematches that no one wanted.”
How would it be gerrymandering? You could easily draw a straight line that creates decent divisions with OSU and MI separated:
A – OSU, NE, IA, PU, IL, UMD, IN
B – MI, PSU, WI, MSU, NW, MN, RU
“We’ll see how this goes I suppose; it’s going to be interesting since it opens up the competitive turf for Northwestern/Illinois/Minnesota/Purdue to make something of themselves.”
That’s not interesting to me, that’s charity. Ratings would probably show a similar response from America. The B10 will just be mocked if those 4 teams become contenders.
“They’ll have better opportunities to get to CCGs in the future than the Eastern teams not named Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State.”
Yes, but they won’t have to earn those opportunities fairly. Meanwhile, IN, RU and UMD might as well cancel football.
LikeLike
“How would it be gerrymandering? You could easily draw a straight line that creates decent divisions with OSU and MI separated:
A – OSU, NE, IA, PU, IL, UMD, IN
B – MI, PSU, WI, MSU, NW, MN, RU”
For all the bitching you do about division setups, THAT is your solution?
LikeLike
No. Simply pointing out that you can draw a straight line and split them. Thus, gerrymandering isn’t necessary.
LikeLike
I think it’s better for the CCG in that I think Michigan-Wisconsin or Ohio State-Iowa is a much bigger ticket than either we’ve had the past two years. That’s really all I was referring to in that sense.
We’ll see what ends up happening on that front I suppose.
As far as Indiana/Rutgers/Maryland goes, I’m not sure how they’re supposed to ever emerge in football.
Maryland might sell out games for Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State, but they have to win games in order to actually rebuild their own fanbase. This kind of division setup is going to be a nightmare for them on that front.
LikeLike
But Maryland recruiting will also improve now that it can sell a better football brand and superior competition.
LikeLike
True, my main question is what the fan expectations are.
I expect Maryland to recruit better in the Big Ten considering their location and that they’ll be the only Big Ten team in that zone.
It’s just a question of what fan expectations are. Are fans there going to be okay with a team that will find it extremely difficult to navigate their way to 10 win seasons because of that division.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I think it’s better for the CCG in that I think Michigan-Wisconsin or Ohio State-Iowa is a much bigger ticket than either we’ve had the past two years. That’s really all I was referring to in that sense.”
OK. I just don’t see how that’s alignment specific. Wouldn’t that still be true if we kept the current divisions and split RU and UMD or did inner/outer, etc?
LikeLike
If you look only at the last 10 years, any rational division with Ohio St. is going to be stronger. Most of the rest of the league has been down, particularly UM and PSU.
LikeLike
bullet,
“If you look only at the last 10 years, any rational division with Ohio St. is going to be stronger.”
True. But say you treat OSU, MI, PSU and NE as equals, with WI, MSU and IA as peers on a level just below them. This E/W split is clearly unbalanced. Your argument says MSU should definitely go west, so at least you try to put 4 brands (NE, WI, MSU, IA) to balance OSU, MI and PSU.
LikeLike
Revenge of the Pac?
Arizona winning and then 12 seeds Oregon and Cal winning over 5 seeds Oklahoma State and UNLV.
LikeLike
Revenge of the ridiculously underseeded in the case of Oregon. I would have thought Oregon would be more like a 7 seed.
Thought it odd that 12 seed Cal was given a game in their backyard against UNLV. I think UNLV played a little tight being the 5 seed in that match up. That’s a tough match up for an MWC team. Get a 5th seed and then have to play the team that finished 4th in the Pac-12 in an unfavorable venue. Not to mention that the game was a rematch from earlier in the season in which UNLV won by a single point.
The selection committee seemed to be down on Cal because they lost their last two games. Thing is they has won 7 in a row before that and 9 of 10. That run included two wins over Oregon and one over Arizona. Cal probably should have been a 10 seed.
LikeLike
http://www.voodoofive.com/2013/3/14/4102510/the-worst-big-east-combined-football-and-basketball-seasons-ever
Worst combined FB/MBB seasons in Big East history. The writer admits there is a flaw with the methodology since it doesn’t adjust for the fact teams play twice as many BB games as FB games, but man is that a lot of Rutgers seasons. (3 of the top (bottom?) 5 and 8 of the top 21).
LikeLike
B-1-G! B-1-G! B-1-G!
Ugh.
LikeLike
Also remember that the very worst combined Big East season of all time nonetheless featured an 80-7 win over Rutgers.
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/university-lost-money-stadium-alcohol-sales
Minnesota pulls off the impressive feet of losing money on alcohol sales at FB games.
LikeLike
*feat
LikeLike
Everyone knows football fans don’t like beer.
LikeLike
Methinks there’s something fishy going on regarding the “loss” of money… Revenues were supposedly around $900K—-someone (or someoneS) or somewhere, there’s a “hole”. I do believe that some accounting reviews are to be performed to “investigate”. It is absolutely beyond me that they could lose money selling alcohol at an athletics event.
LikeLike
Aramark got about half as the vendor. Then there were increased costs for more police, etc because of the beer. Then there were start-up costs (installing equipment, etc) that will only apply this year. Next year they would make a little money off the same sales volume. I expect the sales will increase as more fans get used to beer being available at a college game. But he said profiting isn’t really the goal, IIRC.
LikeLike
For some reason I thought only the Big East allowed alcohol sales at games? I guess it’s a school-level decision?
LikeLike
My guess is Schnapps played a factor. Open air in Minnesota– it’s cold!
LikeLike
Just when MHver3 had started to make sense for the first time ever he goes and posts this
LikeLike
LikeLike
MHver3 showing once again he has no idea how the Big Ten works.
LikeLike
That’s exactly how it works. OSU is used as a source of charity for almost everyone else but doesn’t necessarily get their way on much of anything. It’s not like these divisions do us any favors. There are few choices that could be worse, in fact.
Delany cares about Delany, money and the B10 in that order, not about individual schools or the fans.
LikeLike
And who says everyone is happy in the B1G (aka the Wolverine’s conference)?
LikeLike
Delany and Slive have a lot more influence than Scott and Bowlsby. Both of those conferences are much more president driven. The presidents have the say, but the commissioners drive it in the B1G and SEC.
LikeLike
Yea, B1G staying at 11 forever is a definite commish idea. A whisker from being P16 three years ago was a president idea, Scott was hired to just implement…
LikeLike
Scott got shot down on his OU/OSU idea. He didn’t have the votes.
LikeLike
Also got shot down on his B1G/Pac 12 scheduling alliance. He’s realized his power is less than he thought.
LikeLike
Hard to hang that on Scott. I think that showed a lack of foresight on the part of a few PAC presidents. Did anyone else think it wasn’t a genius plan? Including Delaney and B1G presidents? I imagine there may have been a few B1G presidents with misgivings also. It isn’t Delaney, but the influence the rest of the leadership in agreement are able to bring to bear that creates the near solidarity we see in the B1G.
LikeLike
Your first comment is exactly what I’m saying. Just listening to the president’s comments, the SEC and B1G presidents defer much more to their commissioner. Scott had plans, discussed them publically, but the presidents shot him down well afterwards.
LikeLike
Two sides of the same coin. Delaney deferring to his bosses (who seem more consistent about a commitment) until he truly knows the parameters is not wielding power. It’s being patient until orders are clear, and then being confident in the support. That gives the appearance of influence.
LikeLike
Scott made a monumental mistake in not getting Texas fully on-board. I don’t see any way to land Texas unless you give them most everything they want (I would’ve let Texas have a lot of say in who would’ve been in the new Pac 12 ‘east’). Instead Scott tried to land all 6 at once when all he needed was Texas then UT’s minions all would’ve followed.
LikeLike
It was a done deal until UT either changed their mind, or revealed it was a ploy all along. They can be one among equals in the PAC, or king of what’s left of the B12 (and have their LHN). B1G…same deal.
LikeLike
Tha presidents and old commish would have stayed at 10. Scott created PAC expansion, almost to 16, and a conference owned (NOT co-owned) network, a full production and digital media platform, and got the first cooperative primary media contract. Delaney is better at not letting information “leak” unless/until it is for a purpose already approved from above
LikeLike
If that were really the case, he’d have been gone a long time ago, and be making a whole lot more money. The question is, who would you trade the most powerful man in college sports for? Who would have been more beneficial to the Big Ten over the last twenty years? Nobody. Without his risky and revolutionary network, his seven-bowl guarantee etc. the inherently retrograde Big Ten would be an athletic afterthought today. Delany is a brilliant commissioner and I think you’d be hard pressed to find any sports analyst, fellow commissioner or Big Ten president who would disagree.
LikeLike
That’s exactly how it works. OSU is used as a source of charity for almost everyone else but doesn’t necessarily get their way on much of anything. It’s not like these divisions do us any favors. There are few choices that could be worse, in fact.
Delany cares about Delany, money and the B10 in that order, not about individual schools or the fans.
I think Delany cares about the individual schools, he just doesn’t necessarily favor any individual.
And of course if Delany didn’t care about Ohio St. he never wouldn’t have twisted the NCAA arm in order for the Buckeye 5 to play in the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
He didn’t do that for OSU, he did it for the B10. He didn’t want yet another BCS loss and the BCS didn’t want the bad ratings.
LikeLike
Nebraska fans are complaining about the rumoured divisional alignment. The gist of these complaints is that Nebraska will have less “high-profile” games than the other three kings.
As Big Ten guy, I nonetheless sympathize with these concerns. High-profile games bring national attention, which also helps recruiting (among other things). It also benefits both schools (as long as the losing school delivers a heroic fight).
Yes, I am biased for the WAC “quadrant” scheme. Not because it sounds “cool” or represents a scheme that was actually implemented (or half-implemented, because the third season was never scheduled). But for the simple fact that it allows each school to play all other schools at least two times in any four-year period. This then allows compromise which is the key to any negotiation and achieving balance.
The challenge is then to organize the schools in each quadrant since these schools play each other every year (and the remainder with less frequency).
For these reasons, I like the idea of having an anchor quadrant comprising: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State and Virginia. This would be a big carrot for these two schools as these are the biggest seats at the B1G football table.
(As disclosure: I may have a bias for Michigan and North Carolina as a school-pair in any WAC quadrant scheme for B1G football. Because I have personal memories of a guy named Lawrence Taylor who busted QB Johnny Wangler’s knee (of “Wangler to Carter” fame) in the 1979 Gator Bowl.)
I also like the idea of having another anchor quadrant comprising: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska and Iowa. For a WAC scheme with nine conference games, this would provide Nebraska at least eight high-profile games in any four-year period. For the four kings, there are a total of sixteen high-profile games. Thus, Nebraska plays in half of these games (same as the other three kings).
(And The Game retains its rightful place in the universe.)
Using a WAC scheme with nine conference games, pairs of teams in the anchor quadrants can rotate every two years. This set-up would then “link” Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina together (along with Penn State). This also means that Rutgers is then in one of the rotating quadrants, and thus would play at least two eastern teams every year.
About the Michigan & Michigan State rivalry: The fact that George Perles designed the Land Grant Trophy should say EVERYTHING about this in-state rivalry. I personally feel that this rivalry is more important to Spartans than Wolverines. For this reason, I like the idea of organizing a rotating quadrant to comprise: Michigan State, Rutgers, Illinois and Northwestern. Thus, the Spartans are compensated for losing its annual rivalry with the Wolverines, by getting to play Rutgers as a year-end rivalry game while also getting Northwestern as a quadrant rival. This allows annual away games in New York or Chicago every year. Anyway, the Spartans would still play the Wolverines at least two times every four years. Since Minnesota would then be in the other rotating quadrant, this then means that Michigan would always play at least one trophy game every year.
As conclusion, my personal recommendation for a 16-school B1G football conference would be a WAC quadrant scheme (with cross-over games according to the paired schools in the sequence below) as follows:
Years 1&2, 5&6, etc:
B1G: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia, Michigan State, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois
TEN: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
Years 3&4, 7&8, etc:
B1G: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
TEN: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
LikeLike
It’s unfair to ask Nebraskans to travel halfway across the country on a regular basis. Personally, I’d rather we (Michigan) stayed in the west, so I understand their complaints wholeheartedly.
LikeLike
metatron,
“It’s unfair to ask Nebraskans to travel halfway across the country on a regular basis.”
A regular basis? They’ll have 7 homes games (2.5 OOC, 4.5 B10). That leaves 4.5 B10 road games. 2/3 of those games (3) will be in division and 1/3 (1.5) out of division. With E/W, that means 1.5 longish trips. If NE was in the E, that would be 3 trips. Balanced divisions would still mostly feature NE’s neighbors, so more like 2 longish trips. Is one more trip every other year really that unfair, especially since half the east has long trips in division?
LikeLike
Travel especially regarding to football is grossly overrated, unless you’re a 2-hour bus ride away the football teams charter to games. The real issue with travel is all the many others sports, which is where it gets really expensive to fly 20+ sports instead of busing your teams. That is why imo ‘east’/’west’ splits are very likely in the non revenues in these 16+ team super conferences.
LikeLike
By the way: It seems that the MAC East Division did not conduct a round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division (according to the football schedules of Temple in 2008 and 2009, and Bowling Green in 2010 and 2011) when Temple was in the MAC East Division.
GO BLUE
LikeLike
Some people asked the MAC office about that but never got a response. The first year they went to 13 they had to shuffle their schedules at the last moment to do a rr within division because they weren’t aware of that rule when they decided to go to 13. It isn’t clear if they got a waiver, got a don’t ask don’t tell type of deal or are just ignoring it.
LikeLike
@bullet – I had a discussion on here a while back about the MAC waiver and I remember an artice saying they did recieve a waiver.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“Travel especially regarding to football is grossly overrated, unless you’re a 2-hour bus ride away the football teams charter to games.”
Agreed.
“The real issue with travel is all the many others sports, which is where it gets really expensive to fly 20+ sports instead of busing your teams. That is why imo ‘east’/’west’ splits are very likely in the non revenues in these 16+ team super conferences.”
Maybe, but so far the divisions are for football only.
LikeLike
Right now there aren’t any 16+ conferences, if you keep expanding with only ‘state’ schools there won’t be any inexpensive, short bus rides. Just IMO but if and when these conferences go 16+, travel expenses will be a major hurdle for the non revenue sports. They already are a major drain and further expansion will make it much more so…
Once you have a more than about a 4 hour bus ride, they start to fly and the cost rises dramatically when you fly versus busing your team.
LikeLike
“Maybe, but so far the divisions are for football only.”
With the number of games played in soccer and several other team sports, even a full slate does not require divisions for only 12 teams ~ for instance, Big Ten Women’s soccer pays a single round robin of 11 games as part of a 22 game season.
The Old Big East had divisions for soccer, and if the Big Ten went to 16+, it seems like they’d want divisions for women’s soccer. Maybe if women’s volleyball has to reorganize from a double round robin to a mix of double and single, they might organize that by double round robin in division and single round robin across division. But it would be sport by sport question, and it seems likely less than half the sports would be likely to organize by divisions.
LikeLike
As Michigander, I would actually like to keep the Wolverines and Spartans as an annual rivalry.
For this reason, I would relinquish my bias for a WAC quadrant scheme and instead happily accept a Pod rotation scheme as follows (with locked cross-overs in the sequence as follows):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Pod C: Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin/Iowa, Illinois
Pod D: Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa/Wisconsin, Indiana
The pods would then rotate as divisions through a 6-year period. As example names, those divisions having Pod A would always be designated as B1G Division, and the other as TEN Division.
As exception: Wisconsin and Iowa would switch pods whenever Pod A & Pod C and Pod B & Pod C are divisions (this allows each to play Minnesota 4 times every 6 years).
(I expect that a poster at this Blog has already suggested this idea.)
PEACE
LikeLike
As a B1G carrot for North Carolina and Virginia:
Pod A & Pod B / Pod C & Pod D (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod D: Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue
Pod A & Pod C / Pod B & Pod D (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Pod D: Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue
Pod A & Pod D / Pod B & Pod C (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod D: Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
AMEN
LikeLike
@Radi-
Perhaps this has morphed into conventional wisdom on this board, but the general opinion based on the comments of the athletic directors is as follows:
1. Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska want to play one another annually. The first three teams have longstanding rivalries and the Cornhuskers are co-located with those three other programs. UW AD Barry Alvarez has commented publicly (and so has Iowa’s AD) that it helps their fans when it comes to travel for their teams to play as much as possible in the same relative geographic space. That’s why any pod setup usually has these four together in one pod.
2. The conference currently has three in-state rivalries and the B1G and the schools themselves put a value on them. That’s why Northwestern-Illinois, Purdue-Indiana and Michigan-Michigan State usually end up in the same pod in some combination of this type of setup.
3. Penn State wants to play teams from the east. PSU has long felt like an outlier in the conference, so the additions of Rutgers and Maryland means the NIttany Lions gets two annual eastern games per year if RU and MD are in their pod. Seing that PSU has played MD a lot more than RU, Maryland is the default school if the two of them can’t be in the same pod.
4. Michigan, Ohio State and Indiana all have alumni presences on the east coast. In addition to that, any pod system would have to weigh how many times one of the major B1G programs plays in the mid-Atlantic region because of how it promotes the conference and the Big Ten Network.
5. Michigan and Ohio State play annually. During the first few years post-Nebraska, this was done with the teams in two divisions and a fixed rivalry game at season’s end. The B1G looks like it’s going to put both of them in the Big Ten East Division to ensure this still happens, even if the perception is that the eastern division is currently stronger than the west. For a pod structure, it makes sense to have the two of them together (which you do in your system).
If you go by those five guidelines, then you get something like this in terms of a pod structure:
Pod A – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B – Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod D – Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Is this a perfect situation? Probably not, but it does touch on most of those guidelines. The in-state rivalry games are kept intact. The Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin triumvirate is also kept intact with Nebraska as a great addition to it. Michigan and Ohio State are guaranteed to play one another annually and at least has a bi-annual east coast road trip to Rutgers. If the WAC system is used and Pods A (Big) and C (Ten) are permanently assigned to divisions, then Indiana gets at least one annual east coast game while Michigan and OSU get additional east coast trips the two years Pod C and with Pod D. Even the Pod A teams get a handful of east coast trips every two years.
Years 1 & 2
Big Division: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Ten Division: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Years 3 & 4
Big Division: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Ten Division: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
In terms of scheduling, the teams in Pods A and C will have two games against one another each year. The same goes for Pods B and D. That sets up a schedule with nine conference games per season–seven in your division and two with teams in the opposing pod.
So for Michigan, here’s the nine conference teams on their schedules for those two 2-year rotations:
Years 1 & 2
Ten Divisions Games: Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia North Carolina
Big Division Opponents: Wisconsin, Iowa
Years 3 & 4
Ten Division Games: Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Big Division Opponents: Nebraska, Minnesota
For Big Ten newcomer North Carolina, this is what their schedule would look like:
Years 1 & 2
Ten Division Games: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia
Big Division Opponents: Purdue, Illinois
Years 3 & 4
Big Division Opponents: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia
Ten Division Opponents: Northwestern, Indiana
We’ll see what happens. None of the discussion about pods prohibits the possibility that the Big Ten would adopt a structure with two permanent 8-team divisions and a nine-game conference schedule (7-2 split). If that were the case, teams in the opposing divisions would play one another one home and one away twice in an eight-year period. If the conference opted not to have home-and-homes, then each team would play the other between the divisions at least once in a four-year period.
LikeLike
I like it cutter. I like the amount of times conference teams get to play. I like the pod splits. As a PSU fan, I’d like to have the east/south teams on our schedule yearly (UVA, UNC, UMD)…but I’d be bummed to lose Nebraska and OSU as a yearly opponent.
I don’t think I’d like being the ping-pong teams though (i.e. the ones that are never in a division…but bounce between Big and Ten divisions). I think the stigma would be that “this year we’re in OSU’s division or Wisconsin’s division”…rather than “this year we are one of the pods that composes the Big Division or the Ten division.”
Why exactly do certain schools NEED to be cemented…while others get to be ping-ponged? Why not use your very logical system and simply rotate through the teams that you don’t play that year?
LikeLike
The reason why the WAC set up this system when it had 16 teams is to make sure every team played the other at least twice in a four year period.
What you’re proposing is that there no pods be part of the permanent divisions. If you do that, then the division lineup could look like this over one of the two-year periods:
Big – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Ten – Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia
That might be construed as a situation where the two divisions are extremely uneven in their relative strength.
Now at this point, a bunch of people on this message board will start pointing at what the perspective divisions look like with the 14-team Big Ten and say that having Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in the east makes with Nebraska is the west makes it unbalanced as well.
First off, I think you have to look at it as a matter of degree and to take in Penn State’s current situation. With sanctions in place, I suspect PSU is going to be participating at a competitive advantage against Michigan and Ohio State for the near term. There’s an article linked here on how Bill O’Brien has become Penn State’s “capologist”–see http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/penn-state-football-obrien-is-college-footballs-capologist-1273094/. O’ Brien says in the article that it’s going to get “really difficult” in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Secondly, having MSU in the east, IMHO, is a move made to put a brand name into that division that can also compete with UM and OSU. With the conference looking at possible expansion with additional moves to generate more revenue from the BTN, having Michigan State in the east over having both Purdue and Indiana probably makes more sense.
The pods I set up above are, basically speaking, composed of two stronger pods (which are permanently assigned to divisions) and two weaker ones that go back and forth.
One more thing to keep in mind is the time frame for these particular pods and when they would happen. Teams can realistically get an invite to the Big Ten and then formally join the conference in less than a year (this is what happened to Nebraska), If Virginia and North Carolina (or Georgia Tech) were to be in the Big Ten by July 2014, then I could see this pod arrangement going forward (or we could just see two fixed 8-team divisions).
If it were two years later and Penn State’s situation regarding football was coming into focus, then the pods might be changed again. It could also stay the same. But for PSU, as I perceive it, being in a pods with an eastern identity is an important consideration.
We’ll see what happens in due course. If the conference goes to 18 to 20 teams and the majority of those new additions are from the ACC, then maybe we a new set of considerations that come into play. Let’s say that Jim Delany hits paydirt and you see Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Notre Dame rounding out the conference by 2018 or 2020.
At that point, one setup would be for four 5-team pods with a nine-game conference schedule. The pods would take six years to rotate through a schedule of home-and-home games.
Pod A – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois
Pod B – Michigan, Ohio State, Northwestern, Michigan State, Indiana
Pod C – Penn State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland
Pod D – Florida State, Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia
At this point, we’re breaking up a couple of annual instate rivalries (which was a criteria above), but among the tradeoffs is that Penn State and Notre Dame get at least one east coast game per year (against Rutgers or Maryland–does ND still keep playing Navy though?) and there’s a rough competitive balance between the pods so as they rotate through that six year period, they’re relatively equal (rather than having to rely on a weak pod-strong pod setup I wrote about above). But let’s face it–with this lineup, the conference would go from the Midwest through to New England/New York (with ND in the lineup and down the Atlantic Coast to the Floria Panhandle. Indiana and Purdue might be unhappy they can’t play for the Old Oaken Bucket each year (although there’s nothing stopping them from having an IU-PU “non conference” game), but they’d be in one hell of a research/football/basketball conference.
So Penn State would play Notre Dame, Purdue (longstanding B1G partner with ND), Rutgers and Maryland each season. Every two years, the pods would change to form new divisions. So in Years 1 & 2, PSU (and Pod C) would be with Pod D and play FSU, GaTech, Duke, UNC and UVa. Years 3 & 4 might be Pod A with UN-L, UW, UMinn, IA and IL. Years 5 & 6 wrap up with UM, MSU, OSU, NW and IN from Pod B.
LikeLike
FYI one big issue the WAC had was that NOT every team played each other 2x in 4 years. Specifically, the rotating teams from different divisions didn’t play each other as often. For instance, (see http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BrighamYoung.htm ) from 1996-1998 (duration of WAC-16), BYU played Air Force, Colorado St and Wyoming ZERO times in the regular season (aside from CCG’s).
LikeLike
You have two Rutgers and no UNC. Please clarify those “Big” and “Ten” divisions.
LikeLike
For vp19
Big – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Ten – Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
IRT the WAC, the wikipedia entry for the conference has the following – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Athletic_Conference#History
Second wave of expansion and turbulence
Fresno State expanded its athletic program in the early 1990s and was granted membership in 1992 as the nationwide trend against major college programs independent of conferences accelerated. The WAC merged with the High Country Athletic Conference, a parallel organization to the WAC for women’s athletics, in 1990 to unify both men’s and women’s athletics under one administrative structure.
In 1996, the WAC expanded again, adding six schools to its ranks for a total of sixteen. Rice, TCU, and SMU joined the league from the Southwest Conference, which had disbanded. Big West Conference members San Jose State and UNLV were also admitted, as well as Tulsa from the Missouri Valley Conference.[14] Also, two WAC members for men’s sports at the time, Air Force and Hawaiʻi, brought their women’s sports into the WAC. With the expansion, the WAC was divided into two divisions.
To help in organizing schedules and travel for the farflung league, the members were divided into four quadrants of four teams each, as follows:[14]
Quadrant 1 (Pacific Division Permanent) – Hawaii, Fresno State, San Diego State, San Jose State
Quadrant 2 (Pacific Division Years 1 & 2, Mtn Div Year 3) – UNLV, Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming
Quadrant 3 (Mountain Division Years 1 & 2, Pac Div Year 3) – BYU, Utah, New Mexico, UTEP
Quadrant 4 (Mountain Division Permanent) – Tulsa, TCU, SMU, Rice
Quadrant one was always part of the Pacific Division, and quadrant four was always part of the Mountain Division. Quadrant two was part of the Pacific Division for 1996 and 1997 before switching to the Mountain Division in 1998, while the reverse was true for quadrant three. The scheduled fourth year of the alignment was abandoned after eight schools left to form the Mountain West Conference.[citation needed]
The division champions in football met from 1996 to 1998 in a championship game at Sam Boyd Stadium (also known as the Silver Bowl) in Henderson, Nevada.
Increasingly, this arrangement was not satisfactory to most of the older, pre-1990 members. Five members in particular (Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Utah, and Wyoming) felt that WAC expansion had compromised the athletic and academic excellence of the membership.[citation needed] Additional concerns centered around finances, as the new league stretched from Hawaiʻi to Oklahoma and travel costs became a concern. In 1999, those five schools, along with old line WAC schools New Mexico and San Diego State, as well as newcomer UNLV, split off and formed the new Mountain West Conference.
A USA Today article sums up why the league broke up. “With Hawaii and the Texas schools separated by about 3,900 miles and four time zones, travel costs were a tremendous burden for WAC teams. The costs, coupled with lagging revenue and a proposed realignment that would have separated rivals such as Colorado State and Air Force, created unrest among the eight defecting schools.”
END OF WIKIPEDIA EXCERPT
LikeLike
@cutter:
Thanks for your time for providing these constructive comments.
As a final reply (to my final posting above):
(1) A recommendation of having a pod comprising: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State and Virginia; represents a “negotiation proposition”. In other words, Is another conference willing to agree tposition? As example, Would the SEC be willing to organize a pod comprising: Alabama, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia??
(2) A WAC scheme has an advantage over possible 18-school and 20-school scheduling schemes (i.e. scheduling all schools during a 4-year period). This advantage is lost when using a Pod scheme (i.e. scheduling all schools during a 6-year period). In any case, I suspect that expanding beyond 16 schools may result in diminishing returns for each school (i.e. the additional net revenue is offset by greater dilution when sharing with the additional schools).
(3) There could also be a trial period using a Pod scheme to allow the new members (of an expanded 16-school conference) time to acclimate with the existing members. The trial period could last 6 years and thereafter a B1G Pow-Wow could be organized to agree on a final scheme. Again, I like the idea of Michigan and North Carolina sharing a scheduling Pod during this trial period (with corporate bigwigs schmoozing at The Big House every other year).
(4) Anyway, these are all hypotheticals for an expanded 16-school conference, so it would ultimately be a joint decision among the school presidents and athletic directors, so anything is possible. The assumption here is that North Carolina would be attracted to locked cross-overs with Rutgers (the pharmaceutical rivalry) as well as Illinois and Indiana (basketball). While Virginia, Maryland, Purdue and Northwestern allows closer collaboration for Federal research dollars (e.g. aerospace, etc).
(5) As compromise to my previous suggestion, Wisconsin and Minnesota could swap their locked cross-overs whenever od A and Pod D are organized as one division. This would allow Wisconsin & Iowa and Minnesota & Iowa to be scheduled 4 times in 6 years (during this trial period). This would also represent a compromise for Michigan, since they would also play Minnesota 4 times in 6 years (during this trial period):
Pod A & Pod D / Pod B & Pod C (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod D: Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
FINALLY, I personally would be surprised if any further alignment would occur before the O’Bannon case is resolved. For me, the strongest statement is made by Delaney when he says (in The NCAA News ̶ Comment of June 3, 1996):
“We should not object if young athletes prefer to go directly from high school to the NBA, NFL, NHL or some international version of professional sports. If they choose to attend a university for a year or several years, we should not attempt to restrain them from moving into professional leagues. In fact, after making the best possible case for the value of an education, we should eliminate any and all obstacles to such access. In short, the college community should provide educational and athletics opportunities, then get out of the way so those talented individuals interested in pursuing their sport on a professional basis can do so.”
ALL THE BEST
LikeLike
Or you could structure the “pods” so that each had one King/Brand:
Neb,Wisc,IA, MN;
OSU, IL, PU, NW (or OSU, IL, PU, IU)
UM, MSU, RU, IN (or UM, MSU, RU NW)
PSU, NC, VA, MD
with three locked games – OSU/UM; Neb/PSU, and IU/PU (or (IL/NW)
LikeLike
I cannot see Penn State not playing Ohio State. I am the first one to acknowledge that we are not only NOT number one on the Buckeyes hate list (Illinois is more important than Penn State), but it would be a huge loss for us, and to a lesser extent OSU (Unless they get Illinois annually). Why? We are already losing Nebraska and Wisconsin, we do not need to be penalized even further. The only way I could live with not playing Ohio State, is if we went out West (Then we can play Iowa, Nebraska & Wisconsin).
LikeLike
As a Buckeye fan, I would be incredibly pissed if we lost the annual Penn State game. Maintaining that yearly game is the most important part of expansion outside of the Michigan rivalry.
I would like to keep the Illibuck as often as possible, but for me and I would think most Buckeye fans under 40, Penn State is 2nd on our list.
LikeLike
I am glad to know you feel that way towards us. I know exactly what it is like being on the other side of the equation. I am a Steeler fan, who has a team despised above all by Cleveland, Cincinnati and Baltimore. Although neither the Bengals or Browns bring out the hate in Steeler fans of the Ravens, Cowboys, Raiders or Patriots. What we do not like is being lumped with teams like Michigan State (A School that is on the Detroit Lion or Red Wing I don’t care about level for Nitt fans).
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I am glad to know you feel that way towards us. I know exactly what it is like being on the other side of the equation. I am a Steeler fan, who has a team despised above all by Cleveland, Cincinnati and Baltimore. Although neither the Bengals or Browns bring out the hate in Steeler fans of the Ravens, Cowboys, Raiders or Patriots. What we do not like is being lumped with teams like Michigan State (A School that is on the Detroit Lion or Red Wing I don’t care about level for Nitt fans).”
You may feel that way about MSU, but other PSU fans disagree. We’ve seen it here and I’ve seen it elsewhere online. The PSU fan base is split on several issues (Pitt vs eastern foes, MSU, probably others).
LikeLike
Brian wrote:
“You may feel that way about MSU, but other PSU fans disagree. We’ve seen it here and I’ve seen it elsewhere online. The PSU fan base is split on several issues (Pitt vs eastern foes, MSU, probably others).”
With respect to MSU, you’re overstating Penn State fan disagreement tremendously. Nothing against MSU, or even playing them (it’s often a good game). It’s the forced rivalry. Notice that PSU hasn’t even played them the last two years; when Nebraska entered the league, MSU was dumped for Nebraska. The evidence is clear. You are misstating it.
LikeLike
Carl,
“With respect to MSU, you’re overstating Penn State fan disagreement tremendously.”
Based on what? All I’ve claimed is that multiple PSU fans here and elsewhere disagree that MSU is a team all PSU fans don’t care about. I never said they were a rival for PSU. I’ve seen the exact same kind of split on the subject of playing Pitt annually. What part of that is untrue?
“Nothing against MSU, or even playing them (it’s often a good game). It’s the forced rivalry.”
Nobody is forcing a rivalry (which we all know can’t be done). It’s just a game on the schedule. Is putting you in the same division as IN also forcing a rivalry and somehow offensive? Some PSU fans acting like it’s a crime against nature to have you play MSU annually. Too bad. Deal with it. Even if it’s your annual season-ender, as suggested here in answer #2:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73718/big-ten-mailblog-203
LikeLike
Brian wrote:
“Based on what? All I’ve claimed is that multiple PSU fans here and elsewhere disagree that MSU is a team all PSU fans don’t care about. I never said they were a rival for PSU. I’ve seen the exact same kind of split on the subject of playing Pitt annually. What part of that is untrue?”
There is no split – in any meaningful sense – in the Penn State fan base about the importance of playing MSU. And it’s absolutely not the same as the split that does in fact exist about playing Pitt annually. You are wrong. Deal with it.
LikeLike
Carl,
“There is no split – in any meaningful sense – in the Penn State fan base about the importance of playing MSU.”
Call it what you want. One group says one thing and another group says something else. To me, that’s a split. I never said one side claimed MSU to be a major rival.
LikeLike
The average Penn State fan ,might put Sparty 5th or 6th in the dislike list. I might actually rank them 7th. For me, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pitt are above Michigan State. MSU is on the level of Purdue as far as passion is concerned. If you ask me, the highlight in football and hockey was beating Wisconsin, and basketball, Michigan (Never Sparty). Most of us, simply do not want to play them to end the Season (Sort of like ending the Steeler season with the Jacksonville Jaguars or the Penguin season with the Toronto Maple Leafs). If we have to play Sparty, lets play them in October. Where Penn State fans are from, or their age, have little to no bearing on what we think of certain schools. East or West, old or new, we do not care for Ohio State or Michigan, and we have no interest in Minnesota or Indiana. Michigan State falls in the middle (Right there with Purdue). The only Geographic and age issue for Penn State fans such as myself, relates to Pitt vs Temple, and should we play one, the other, or both? In order, to generate local interest, as well as get our men’s hoops program up to where it needs to be, better recruiting in Philadelphia (Especially) and Pittsburgh has to be priority number one, and that means booking Pitt and Temple home and home in basketball as well as football. Based on last year’s, hockey results (19,000 people in Philly to see us play and victories in Madison and East Lansing), if we will work at generating a men’s hoops program like we do at wrestling, hockey. football, and even women’s basketball we stand a chance.
LikeLike
It its in-division end of conference season games for everyone except Purdue/Indiana, and OSU/TSUN is locked, then which do you prefer: MSU, Rutgers or Maryland?
LikeLike
I would prefer either Rutgers (I live closer to there (NYC)), or Maryland (13 PSU players are from Maryland) to Sparty. Not to mention we ended the year many times with MSU, and that did not exactly work out well.
LikeLike
Six gratuitous slams on Michigan State in four comments. Sounds to me like they’re the perfect rival for you.
1) “We certainly do not have any love for paying MSU, and it does zero when it comes to “Strength of Schedule.”
2) “MSU is a loss compared to those schools.”
3) “The average Penn State fan, might put Sparty 5th or 6th in the dislike list. I might actually rank them 7th.”
4) “Not to mention we ended the year many times with MSU, and that did not exactly work out well.”
5) “If I would make a list of Penn State mistakes under Paterno, it would be 3: Giving us years of Sparty to end the season.”
6) “I am sick and tired of those people who want to give us an end of season game vs Sparty that 95% (or more) Penn State fans have no interest in.”
LikeLike
It might not do a ton for casual fans at first, but I think a lot of us that already follow Rutgers football would be okay with ending the season with MSU while Penn State played Maryland.
Michigan State was one of the “big” teams Rutgers played a few times while they were trying to build their program to success, and Rutgers’ season opening win in 2004 (the year BEFORE Rutgers finally achieved bowl success under Schiano) would probably be considered one of the top 5 game experiences at Rutgers Stadium by many RU fans.
I think there is a chance to establish a decent rivalry there.
LikeLike
It is amazing how you take my comments out of context particularly numbers 1 & 2. No one thinks MSU belongs in the same breath with Nebraska or Wisconsin. Losing Wisconsin as our final game is a come down, as it will be for the Badgers, if they end up playing Minnesota, as is likely. That said, my gut feeling is we will be playing Maryland, and Rutgers Sparty.
LikeLike
Sparty. Never been called that before. I’m the opposite of Sparty.
LikeLike
“It its in-division end of conference season games for everyone except Purdue/Indiana, and OSU/TSUN is locked, then which do you prefer: MSU, Rutgers or Maryland?”
Personally, I prefer them in this order:
1. Maryland
2. Rutgers
3. MSU
But I’m fine with either UMD or RU. I don’t really care for MSU as an end of the season game. To be honest, though, I’ve seen a bunch of PSU fans argue for each of them, so there’s no real consensus. The main argument for MSU is that they’d be the strongest opponent of the three, which I tend to agree with (at least for the short term) but I don’t think is necessarily true long term. However, if the goal is to “end of the season with the strongest team” then MSU feels like a step down from Wisconsin as a season ending game — incidentally, I rather like having the Badgers as a final game and would have been quite happy with that continuing if the divisions worked out that way.
As an aside, PSU has played Maryland more than any other Big Ten team (and vice versa) so there would be at least that aspect to having them end the season together. Since Syracuse or Pitt (or West Virginia for that matter) are not coming to the Big Ten, Maryland is the closest thing in the conference to a long time historical opponent that we’ll likely ever get, so they would be my pick for a season ending game since it is not like Ohio State is going to be an option.
LikeLike
The next question is, of course, whether Spartans fans would prefer Penn State, Rutgers or Maryland. Their first choice in-division game is clearly that school up north (though southeast of Lansing), but that is not on the table. I’ve got family in Lansing, but I don’t think they are Spartans fans, so I don’t have any access to any inside clues.
LikeLike
Carl wrote:
“There is no split – in any meaningful sense – in the Penn State fan base about the importance of playing MSU.”
Brian wrote:
“Call it what you want. One group says one thing and another group says something else. To me, that’s a split.”
Gee, “groups” say “things”. That’s kinda vague. But, sure, … whatever you say.
LikeLike
@Carl:
Actually, Brian wrote “Call it what you want. One group says one thing and another group says something else. To me, that’s a split. I never said one side claimed MSU to be a major rival.” That’s very specific.
Many PSU fans will enjoy playing MSU year in and year out because it strengthens our in conference schedule, as opposed to playing Illinois and both of Purdue & Indiana every year. If you want to make a case why some Penn State fans would rather end the season with Rutgers or Maryland every year, then do so.
(I can’t wait to dust off my “Land Grant Trophy should include a grant of land” argument.)
LikeLike
We certainly do not have any love for paying MSU, and it does zero when it comes to “Strength of Schedule.” Why? 1: We are losing Nebraska and Wisconsin from the schedule. While the Michigan addition is a wash from either school, MSU is a loss compared to those schools. 2: Penn State cannot go to a Bowl Game until 2016 at the earliest (The Head of the NCAA said there is no chance we are getting off of probation before then, so “Strength of Schedule” means zero). I am sick and tired of those people who want to give us an end of season game vs Sparty that 95% (or more) Penn State fans have no interest in. I would like the Pitt Panthers, but I would prefer Maryland or Rutgers to end the Season (Heck, I would alternate those games at the Meadowlands or Redskins Stadium), instead of being at home or at Lansing.
LikeLike
It’ll be Maryland if and when the B10 figures out that both programs want it…
Michigan gets Ohio State, Indiana will get Purdue, Northwestern will get Illinois, Iowa gets Nebraska, Wisky gets Minnesota and MSU gets Rutgers.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree, playing MSU in the last game of the conference season versus playing them earlier in the season does not change Penn State’s SOS.
As far as divisional alignment, MSU vs Whisky or MSU vs UNL is neither here nor there, since the divisional alignment choice is MSU vs Purdue.
LikeLike
Jesus, you get put into a division with the two eastern schools that Penn State was whinging about getting, plus the Buckeyes and that school up north on your schedule annually, and typically either Wisconsin or Nebraska (maybe once in a while both), and your complaint is that the Spartans aren’t a big win for your strength of schedule?
Most of the weakness baked into the Penn State strength of schedule is the weakness that Penn State was LOBBYING for, in the guise of the two new schools.
LikeLike
Aaron Morrow wrote:
“Actually, Brian wrote ‘Call it what you want. One group says one thing and another group says something else. To me, that’s a split. I never said one side claimed MSU to be a major rival.’ That’s very specific.”
Huh. Aaron, what are the groups? How many are there? How big are they? What do they say?
LikeLike
Aaron Morrow,
“If you want to make a case why some Penn State fans would rather end the season with Rutgers or Maryland every year, then do so.”
I wouldn’t disagree that many PSU fans would prefer to end the year with UMD or RU over MSU, especially the older fans who remember playing them regularly and the eastern fans that live near them. I don’t think all of them would, though.
MSU is at least a competitor. RU is 2-22 against PSU, last winning in 1988 (1918 was the other win). UMD is 1-35-1 with a tie in 1989 and a win in 1961. Yes, PSU hasn’t played either much since joining the B10 but those are the numbers. Meanwhile, MSU is 5-13 against PSU since PSU joined the B10 (ave score 35-27). With MSU on an upswing, that series should get even more competitive. Does anyone really expect RU or UMD to challenge PSU much?
But with the proposed divisions, many people think the logical pairing for the final week is PSU/MSU. IN/PU will be the lone crossover game. OSU/MI is a given. That leaves PSU, MSU , RU and UMD. Of the 3 choices, many think PSU/MSU and RU/UMD makes the most sense for competitive reasons, fairness and TV value.
PSU and MSU don’t have to be rivals to play the last game every year. Many B10 teams play different teams to end the season every year. This would be a case of choosing the best available game, not the ideal game for PSU.
There’s a bigger point related to scheduling I want to bring up, but I’m waiting for Frank to make a new post. This one is too long and too screwed up.
LikeLike
“Does anyone really expect RU or UMD to challenge PSU much?”
Fear the Turtle! ;-o)
LikeLike
“Call it what you want. One group says one thing and another group says something else. To me, that’s a split. I never said one side claimed MSU to be a major rival.”
What are these “sides” exactly? From my experience, the PSU fanbase opinion on playing MSU essentially ranges from “I’d rather play them every year to certain other Big Ten teams” to “I’m apathetic how often we play them” — not a big difference at all. I don’t see anyone that considers them a great rival that needs to be played every year, nor anyone who doesn’t to play them at all. There’s also a pretty strong consensus that the Land Grant Trophy is a piece of junk.
I really don’t see any notable split at all regarding MSU, so I’m not even sure what you are talking about.
LikeLike
How in the world is the B1G changing scheduling to accommodate a new member ‘evidence’ of anything regarding disagreement within the PSU fan base?!
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk wrote:
“How in the world is the B1G changing scheduling to accommodate a new member ‘evidence’ of anything regarding disagreement within the PSU fan base?!”
Uh, we are assuming different hypotheses. The change in schedule, which included skipping MSU for the first two years, was also about accommodating Penn State, not just Nebraska. Penn State fans were calling for the change, and it was reported that the administration specifically asked for the change. I live in State College and I’ve never met a PSU fan in person who particularly cared about the MSU game, other than the fact that the game itself was the last game of the season.
LikeLike
“The change in schedule, which included skipping MSU for the first two years, was also about accommodating Penn State”
-Please feel free to cite a single reliable source that the scheduling made a point of accommodating Penn State.
” I live in State College”
-May God have mercy upon your soul.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk:
“How in the world is the B1G changing scheduling to accommodate a new member ‘evidence’ of anything regarding disagreement within the PSU fan base?!”
Carl:
“Uh, we are assuming different hypotheses. The change in schedule, which included skipping MSU for the first two years, was also about accommodating Penn State”
Scarlet_Lutefisk:
“Please feel free to cite a single reliable source that the scheduling made a point of accommodating Penn State.”
Nice try. I said, “we are assuming different hypotheses”. If you want to claim that my hypothesis is wrong, then by all means, please feel free to prove your claim.
LikeLike
“If you want to claim that my hypothesis is wrong, then by all means, please feel free to prove your claim.”
-Ad ignorantiam? Seriously? lol
LikeLike
Carl:
“If you want to claim that my hypothesis is wrong, then by all means, please feel free to prove your claim.”
Scarlet_Lutefisk:
“-Ad ignorantiam? Seriously? lol”
Nope. I have a reference to back up what I said, which you could find if you knew where to look. (It was near the top of the first page of Google, in fact.) But I didn’t make bold claims about your hypothesis – I just said mine was different – and I’m not doing your work for you. Can you prove your claim, or are you just going to play word games?
Go ahead, I dare you: prove your claim.
LikeLike
LOL You refuse to cite evidence because you ‘don’t want to do (my) work’? Expecting you to follow the simplest rules of debate is hardly word games. To top things off you close with “I dare you”?! Good lord, stop behaving like you’re twelve, put up or shut up…and don’t forget the actual claim that you trying to prove… that the B1G’s decision to make a marquee matchup between Nebraska & PSU means that all ‘Nit fans are in lockstep in regards to Sparty.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk:
“LOL You refuse to cite evidence because you ‘don’t want to do (my) work’?”
Yep. Do you admit that you have no proof for your claim that the Big Ten didn’t change scheduling partly to accommodate Penn State? Saying “Good lord” is not evidence, it just more word games.
My only claim was that the Penn State fan base is not “split” re: MSU.
You don’t seem to want to stand by your claim. I wonder why …
LikeLike
I think a big problem in the PSU/MSU “rivalry” that never took off…is that MSU was usually inferior to PSU…except for the years where PSU was TERRIBLE (00, 01, 03, 04). The game never “meant” anything…except maybe the difference between a 7-5 season and a 6-6 season.
Once MSU started getting good again (07), the games actually started to get a bit exciting to me. In 08, a share of the Big Ten title was on the line and PSU crushed that pathetic whiner D’Antonio. In 09, MSU and PSU both were having strong seasons…and again PSU demoralized Sparty. As a PSU fan, it was fun to watch the D’Antonio sulking again. In 2010, PSU was mediocre again and we expected to lose…and did.
The “rivalry” simply suffered from two unequal teams (and yes, I admit that PSU was even unequal at times to Sparty). If games like 07-10 could have been the norm, I could see us seriously hating MSU. As it was, they were simply irrelevant to us and the Big Ten for most of the time.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“As a Buckeye fan, I would be incredibly pissed if we lost the annual Penn State game.”
Whereas I would favor dropping it.
“Maintaining that yearly game is the most important part of expansion outside of the Michigan rivalry.”
To you.
“I would like to keep the Illibuck as often as possible, but for me and I would think most Buckeye fans under 40, Penn State is 2nd on our list.”
It’s not just age. Where you’re from and how you viewed PSU pre-B10 also factors in. PSU means more to people from Cleveland and eastern OH (they deal with PSU fans more often) than it does to those from Cincinnati and western OH (ND, SEC, etc), generally.
LikeLike
Yea, let’s lower our strength of schedule and drop PSU yearly in favor of rotating through Minnesota and Iowa more often. That will look great to the playoff selection committee.
“To you.”
Of course! To me! Was I having an out of body experience and someone else was operating my keyboard? It’s pretty clear that I was expressing an opinion and not stating fact.
I don’t fit into your geography/PSU rivalry box. You should also be careful on generalities, as you like to pick them apart in other posts more than anyone.
Ohio State needs more high quality opponents. If we add FSU, I’d want that as a yearly game as well. Cut bait on some of the dreck that these other B1G schools have been fielding the past few years.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“Yea, let’s lower our strength of schedule and drop PSU yearly in favor of rotating through Minnesota and Iowa more often. That will look great to the playoff selection committee.”
1. We’d still play PSU some in any alignment. If they weren’t annual, then we’d see someone else more. You can’t play the SOS card unless the other alignment is specified so they can be compared.
I’d send OSU west for balance, so OSU would play MI, NE, WI, IA, NW, IL and PU annually instead of MI, PSU, MSU, RU, MD, IN. Please explain how that devastates OSU’s SOS.
2. Frankly, we have no idea what will matter to the committee. It’s been all nebulous words from people who won’t be on the committee so far. How much will winning your conference count? W/L record? SOS? How will SOS even be measured?
3. There are always OOC games to schedule. If Smith sticks to his word and plays all AQs, the B10 schedule would matter even less.
“It’s pretty clear that I was expressing an opinion and not stating fact.”
Not really. Your phrasing implied that you were stating a commonly held belief and not just your personal opinion. So I was simply pointing out that not all OSU fans share that opinion. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone but you express that opinion, actually. Not that other OSU fans don’t value PSU, but I don’t recall seeing it claimed as the most important thing in realignment after keeping The Game.
“I don’t fit into your geography/PSU rivalry box. You should also be careful on generalities, as you like to pick them apart in other posts more than anyone.”
I specifically indicated it was a generalization, not a hard and fast rule. That’s the difference.
“Ohio State needs more high quality opponents.”
According to you, or someone else? Are you including the future OOC games in that analysis? What about the move to 9 games? The future growth of other B10 teams? PSU as usual or as you think they’ll be under snactions?
“If we add FSU, I’d want that as a yearly game as well.”
Just to be clear, you’d want to play MI, MSU, PSU and FSU annually plus generally one of NE, WI and IA. That’s on top of 3 AQ OOC games, including at least 1 peer (OU, USC, etc).
And how would you respond to an average of 3 losses per year over a prolonged period? We fired Earle Brice for that. What about 2 losses and missing the playoffs? That’s what you’ll tend to get with that schedule.
LikeLike
@Brian
The term of the day is willful ignorance.
1. If you think playing the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, etc. more often over Penn State would not hurt our SOS in the long term, then we have some serious willful ignorance going on.
2. Again, I don’t see how SOS is not going to be a factor. SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt constantly because their perceived SOS strength. If you don’t think SOS is going to be a factor when comparing the resume of teams, you’re completely ignoring history. More willful ignorance
3. Yea, and I love playing great OOC games. Unfortunately, Ohio State has backed out of future series with Georgia and Tennessee (canceled mostly due to the Pac12 alliance but it fell through). They still have Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and VaTech coming up if I remember correctly.
—-
I never said age was a hard and fast rule. “I would think most fans under 40…” Looks as generalized as your geography argument, but I’ll be sure to put an opinion disclaimer after all my posts from now on.
—
According to my interpretation of the selection committee’s requirements. Again, my opinion.
Just to be clear, yes. You’ve listed 6 games out of 12. Is it really a bad thing that the outcome of HALF of your games might be in doubt when the schedules are released? A tough schedule works for the SEC. You don’t hear Alabama being worried about playing 5 or 6 solid opponents per year. But if you’re content steamrolling the dregs of the B1G and being so proud of your 11-1 seasons where you only realistically had 3 games that were in doubt before kickoff, then I guess we’re again never going to see eye to eye. I know you’ll disagree here and say nobody can know the outcome of sports before kickoff, but when you see Ohio State getting over 90% of the moneyline bets (straight up), then you can see how the public views the strength of Ohio State’s schedule. Most fans (another generalization) look at the schedule and pencil in W’s and then circles the games that are going to decide their season. But I’m sure I’m the only fan you’ve ever met that does that and everyone in your circle is just not that confident about that game against the Gophers. I’m really not trying to pick on Minnesota here. So any fans, please don’t take offense. I think you guys are trending up and hope it continues.
If we lost an average of 3 games out of the proposed 6 “tough” games that you listed, then I would suggest we get better. It would mean we weren’t that great to begin with when you’re losing half of the games with your perceived “equals”. I don’t think someone that goes .500 against their peers is that good. You think Urban is afraid of playing a quality schedule? No. You lost some games against quality opponents? Go harder in the offseason so you win them next time.
“What about 2 losses and missing the playoffs? That’s what you’ll tend to get with that schedule.”
According to you, or someone else? See, I can do it too.
In my opinion, an 11-2 B1G champion Ohio State who played Michigan, Penn State, Florida State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma (or Texas, USC, etc.) is a shoe-in for the playoffs. Maybe not a 1 or 2 seed, but in there as a 3 or 4. Since home field doesn’t get awarded, the seeds don’t matter, Ohio State would be traveling out west or down south regardless of seed.
**Unless otherwise cited, this post is an opinion of the author and is not to be misunderstood as a submission of fact.**
LikeLike
Since we cannot win the Conference until at least 2016, I would actually make a swap of no Ohio State (Let them play Illinois), in exchange for Nebraska or Wisconsin (Either one would give up Illinois in exchange), and getting Pitt to end the Season.
LikeLike
Pitt to end the season is an impossible request. They aren’t going to force another team to either have a bye or play OOC to end the season.
One thing that is absolutely inarguable: PSU fans complain. They’ve gotten their long demanded eastern “rivals” and still aren’t remotely happy.
LikeLike
Rutgers and Maryland are not real Penn State Rivals when compared to say Pitt, but they are better than Sparty (Not that it is saying much). If I would make a list of Penn State mistakes under Paterno, it would be 1: Sandusky. 2: Sticking around too long. 3: Giving us years of Sparty to end the season. Penn State/Pitt and Purdue/Notre Dame could be a way to end the season, that could work for everyone involved.
LikeLike
“Penn State/Pitt and Purdue/Notre Dame could be a way to end the season, that could work for everyone involved.”
Purdue playing Notre Dame at the end of the season obviously makes Indiana one of the involved teams that it “works” for. Sooooo ….
… how exactly does that “work” for Indiana?
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Penn State/Pitt and Purdue/Notre Dame could be a way to end the season, that could work for everyone involved.”
ND always ends the year in CA (@USC or @Stanford). Maybe that changes once they’re in the ACC and they swap @Stanford for @FSU or @Miami, but it sure won’t be in IN playing PU. Besides, PU always ends with IN. They aren’t giving up their biggest rivalry for PSU.
Anyway, PSU will go 15 seasons without playing Pitt before this 4 game series happens. I don’t see any real evidence that PSU wants to end with Pitt annually. Maybe the fans do (western PA fans, anyway), but the school hasn’t shown that. I doubt Pitt would say no, especially with WV gone to the B12.
LikeLike
The reason why Penn State did not play Pitt goes back to Paterno and Spannier (They felt the extra home game against the likes of Eastern Michigan was more important then home and home vs the Panthers, and what fans thought (Sort of like their attitude with Sandusky)). Now, that we cannot even play in a Bowl Game for three more years, have over a decade of history erased (Including wins over Ohio State & Michigan), cannot win a Conference Championship, lose players, forced to play with a 65 man roster, and have to pay out $60m, the University finally realizes that the Panthers and the fans matter. I cannot wait, until Joyner (AD) and Erickson (Cowardly Lion School President), are replaced, and we have a fresh start in 2016. For me, that starts with making sure Pitt is never off the schedule again, and Michigan State and the dreadful “Land Grant Trophy” are never the final game of the Big 10 season (Unless MSU heads west, and we play them in a Conference Championship Game)
LikeLike
David Brown,
“The reason why Penn State did not play Pitt goes back to Paterno and Spannier (They felt the extra home game against the likes of Eastern Michigan was more important then home and home vs the Panthers, and what fans thought (Sort of like their attitude with Sandusky)).”
I’ll take your word for it.
“For me, that starts with making sure Pitt is never off the schedule again,”
I just wonder if the future PTB will agree with you. Certainly Pitt would love to end the season with you guys since they lost the backyard brawl. But I’ve seen a lot of PSU fans say they want nothing to do with an annual Pitt series. They’ll accept playing them now and then like the other eastern teams, but not all the time. Do you think the fans can reach a consensus to accept ending with Pitt annually?
“and Michigan State and the dreadful “Land Grant Trophy” are never the final game of the Big 10 season”
Because RU or UMD is so much more exciting? Not every team plays a rival to end the season.
LikeLike
I really think most (But not all) Penn State fans can accept Pitt to end our season (Like Florida/Florida State & Georgia/Georgia Tech). The reason is simple: We cannot end our Season with Wisconsin (Which has been a success and I would be willing to even move West for), Nebraska, or Ohio State (Those three are which most of us would prefer), MSU has not been a good final game, and neither Maryland or Rutgers give the oomph that we like. This takes me back to the Panthers as an alternative. I know there are Eastern Penn State fans who do not like it, but we will still play Rutgers, Maryland & likely Temple as regional teams.
What do I think will happen? It will be Maryland to end the season, and likely a night game. ”
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com that the conference has no objection if schools want to schedule more night games in general, including ones in November.
Delany said Penn State, Nebraska and Ohio State are among the schools that have been pushing for more games under the lights.” A Friday night game at Byrd Stadium (Maryland) or Redskins Stadium (Along with Beaver Stadium), might be something that both Penn State & Maryland (And their fans) can support.
LikeLike
Most PSU fans being willing to accept Pitt as their final game is neither here nor there, really, given that however you sort it out, it ends up screwing three or more other conference teams.
If there is no in-division school that is attractive enough to fit as the season ending game, why not alternate Rutgers and Maryland, with MSU doing the same? Both of those schools would like to have Penn State out of conference. Then the Land Grant “fight to claim the ugliest trophy in the Big Ten” game could be to launch the in-division part of the conference schedule.
LikeLike
I wonder what the Big 10 wants, and how it relates to the upcoming new TV Contract? I have heard nothing about scheduling (And we may not until the O’Bannon decision comes down). That said, If PSU, MSU, RU & UMD are willing to alternate, it is a possibility, but my gut feeling is that it will be the Terps playing the Nitts, and Sparty playing the Scarlet Knights.
LikeLike
Well, we have a few scheduling things which have been mentioned in various quarters.
The first is that it’s likely the Big Ten will adopt a nine-team conference schedule that will be implemented starting in 2016 (per ESPN B10 blog). This will work if the conference is at 14 teams with two permanent 7-team divisions (6-3 with Indiana-Purdue 6-2-1) or 16 teams in two permanent 8-team divisions (7-2) or some pod arrangement with 16 to 20 teams in the division.
There has also been some discussion about having Big Ten conference games during the first three weeks of the season. The idea there is to make sure there are no major down weeks where there are no very compelling games for television. The conference has done it before (the first game I attended at Michigan as a freshman in 1978 was the season opener against Illinois), so there’s certainly precedent there.
We’ll also see more night games and could even have them being played in November. That may impact how the schedule is set up.
One of the discussion points brought up about having Michigan State in the east is that it means Michigan is freed up to play as many western teams as possible without having to deal with a protected cross-division game. I suspect the conference will make sure Michigan (along with Ohio State and perhaps Penn State) has regular contests with Nebraska and Wisconsin for the near term.
As far as the eastern teams are concerned, I suspect the schedulers will want to make sure Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Indiana (probably) have at least one game each year at Rutgers and Maryland. For RU and MD, that likely means Michigan and Ohio State will be paired up for one home game/one road game each year along with Michigan State and Penn State. For example, if Maryland were hosting Michigan and Penn State in College Park in 2014, then they’d probably have road games with Ohio State and Michigan State that year.
With Michigan and Ohio State likely in the same division, it seems likely that we’ll see a number of divisional rivalry games to end the season (the one exception being Indiana and Purdue as a cross division rivalry game).
West: Nebraska-Iowa, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Illinois-Northwestern
East: Michigan-Ohio State, Penn State-Michigan State or Maryland, Rutgers-Michigan State or Maryland
It will be interesting to see if the conference schedules are set up so that the cross-divisional games (with the exception of Indiana-Purdue) are all played by, perhaps, the end of October or the first week of November. That means the last three or four games of the season are strictly between divisional opponents.
There has also been discussion about there being no FCS teams on the non-conference schedules of Big Ten teams. I have a feeling that issue will be revisited because it sounds like there isn’t universal enthusiasm by some of the programs to take that path.
FWIW, Michigan is apparently going to play Cincinnati in Ann Arbor on 9 September 2017. If B1G schools are scheduling non-conference games after the 2015 season, it might mean that the future conference schedules have been circulated to the athletic departments so they can get started on filling in any open dates they have in the future.
Also, if Michigan’s 2016 non-conference schedule remains unchanged, then UM will probably have four home conference games and could play a Big Ten team on 10 September. The Wolverines open with Hawaii, have an open date, then play Colorado and Ball State. Assuming the Big Ten adopts a nine-game conference schedule, that means it would make sense for Michigan to have four of those games at Michigan Stadium.
Michigan is scheduled to host Arkansas on 1 September 2018 (season opener) and play at Fayetteville on 31 August 2019 (also season opener). See http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/11/6/3610142/arkansas-michigan-football-schedule-series
LikeLike
Unless the Big 10 decides to go to a 10 Game Conference Schedule, I really do not see the scenario where the Big 10 makes sure that Michigan, Ohio State & Penn State get extra games vs Nebraska & Wisconsin. I know most of my fellow Nittany Lion fans would love it (Either school would work), but if given the option, Michigan might select Minnesota & Ohio State might pick Illinois as an alternative to those schools. As for the idea of no more FCS games being scheduled by Big 10 schools, I think it should and will happen (I hope it applies to non major Conferences as well (From a Penn State perspective, we can easily replace the Temple game with say Syracuse (Another traditional Eastern rival)). I can tell you, one thing we are seeing on the Penn State schedule after 2014 is a lot of openings (For example: Only Pitt is listed as an non-conference game for 2017 & 2018), so the opportunity to upgrade the schedule is there (USC comes to mind), which works for TV and recruiting purposes (We will be off probation by then). The key to it all is the upcoming Big 10 TV contract, and getting as many quality games as possible (Meaning more $$$$), which would not only replace the money generated by the loss of an extra home game against say Akron, but also help the non Michigan and Ohio State Big 10 schools that are having trouble drawing at home (Such as Indiana (Football), and yes, Penn State (Basketball)). Under the current 14 team Big 10, the ideal Penn State schedule would be a 10 game Conference schedule: Six against the East and four against the West (Including an annual game versus Nebraska or Wisconsin), Pitt, Syracuse, and a tough non-conference game against say USC . It will be interesting to see what happens with the new TV Contract, and how it affects future scheduling.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Unless the Big 10 decides to go to a 10 Game Conference Schedule, I really do not see the scenario where the Big 10 makes sure that Michigan, Ohio State & Penn State get extra games vs Nebraska & Wisconsin.”
Agreed. They sold their souls for eastern games and can’t have it both ways. OSU, MI and PSU aren’t going to be on board with the idea, either. They already have 3 “big” games in divisions annually. Besides, IA, MN, NW, IL and PU would like to see some of those teams just as much as NE and WI would.
Old locked “big” games:
East (3) – OSU/PSU, OSU/WI, PSU/WI
West (6) – MI/NE, MI/MSU, NE/MSU, MI/IA, NE/IA, MSU/IA
Crossover (2) – OSU/MI, PSU/NE
New locked “big” games:
East (6) – OSU/MI, OSU/PSU, MI/PSU, OSU/MSU, MI/MSU, PSU/MSU
West (3) – NE/WI, NE/IA, WI/IA
Crossover (0)
Old rotational “big” games:
40% odds of OSU/NE, OSU/IA, OSU/MSU, PSU/MI, PSU/IA, PSU/MSU, NE/WI, MI/WI, WI/IA, WI/MSU = 4 games on average
New rotational “big” games:
44% odds of OSU/NE, OSU/WI, OSU/IA, MI/NE, MI/WI, MI/IA, PSU/NE, PSU/WI, PSU/IA, NE/MSU, MSU/WI, MSU/IA = 5.33 games
Totals
Old = 11 + 4 = 15 “big” games
New = 9 + 5.33 = 14.33 “big” games
I don’t think it’s worth the B10 messing with the rotation to gain back that lost 2/3 of a “big” game. The are using the “event” games (kings in NYC and DC) to make up for that instead.
“As for the idea of no more FCS games being scheduled by Big 10 schools, I think it should and will happen (I hope it applies to non major Conferences as well (From a Penn State perspective, we can easily replace the Temple game with say Syracuse (Another traditional Eastern rival)).”
I don’t see it happening. IA wants to play UNI, and that’s reasonable since it’s in-state. The lesser programs like IN and MN will want the easy wins, especially with IN’s new division. I think the better programs should not play them voluntarily, though.
LikeLike
If the other six had pairs of semi-locked games, 2on/2off, I’d rather the Buckeyes be semi-locked against Illinois. I’d guess Penn State might not mind the Nittany Lions semi-locked with Nebraska. But if the notion is to send the Buckeyes and That School Up North, around the Western Division, share and share alike, they wouldn’t do that.
LikeLike
cutter,
“There has also been some discussion about having Big Ten conference games during the first three weeks of the season. The idea there is to make sure there are no major down weeks where there are no very compelling games for television. The conference has done it before (the first game I attended at Michigan as a freshman in 1978 was the season opener against Illinois), so there’s certainly precedent there.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73666/beware-the-b1gs-double-bye-is-coming
Yes, but the BTN poses some potential issues with that, especially in double bye years. With 14 teams and no early B10 games, October and November would max out at 7 games. But except for the last 2 weeks, you need to fit in 1 bye for each team so it’s more like 6 games max. If you move B10 games into the first 3 weeks, that cuts into it further. Call it 5 games. Now add the double bye, and you’re down to 4 games on some weekends.
“ESPN/ABC gets the first picks and have selected up to four Big Ten games on a given Saturday, but the Big Ten Network is entitled to at least one game per week.”
The new TV deal may change things, but it gets pretty tight when BTN is taking a game that ESPN would/might have shown.
Double bye years: 2013-4, 2019, 2024-5
2013 has it the worst with only 12 teams, obviously. But the 9th B10 game in 2016 means fewer games overall, so it will be an issue. Regarding 2013:
“Week 5 features only four games and, sadly, only six Big Ten teams. Weeks 7 and 9 also feature only four contests.”
“We’ll also see more night games and could even have them being played in November. That may impact how the schedule is set up.”
The B10 doesn’t schedule based on what might be night games. It’s always been at the discretion of the schools to move a game to the night anyway.
“I suspect the conference will make sure Michigan (along with Ohio State and perhaps Penn State) has regular contests with Nebraska and Wisconsin for the near term.”
2013: Old divisions still apply
2014: move to 14 and the new divisions but still only 8 games
2015: still 8 games
2016: 9 B10 games
OSU and MI will have 6 division games in 2014+. That leaves 2 or 3 crossovers for 7 teams, with PU normally getting them slightly less often. I think PU will get 1 of OSU, MI, or PSU each year for the first 6, though, to cushion them getting them less in the future.
2014 (based on continuing the 2013 rotation mostly):
OSU – IA, NW
MI – PU, WI
PSU – NE, MN
That gives you many big games (OSU/MI, OSU/PSU, MI/PSU, PSU/NE, MI/WI, NE/WI, MI/MSU, OSU/MSU, PSU/MSU) but also continues some series that have been on breaks.
2015:
OSU – PU, MN
MI – IA, IL
PSU – NE, WI
Starting in 2016, every western team but 1 will play one of the eastern kings. I’d guess they try to maintain a rotation that way.
“As far as the eastern teams are concerned, I suspect the schedulers will want to make sure Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Indiana (probably) have at least one game each year at Rutgers and Maryland. For RU and MD, that likely means Michigan and Ohio State will be paired up for one home game/one road game each year along with Michigan State and Penn State. For example, if Maryland were hosting Michigan and Penn State in College Park in 2014, then they’d probably have road games with Ohio State and Michigan State that year.”
Agreed. Maybe not about IN but about the other 4.
“It will be interesting to see if the conference schedules are set up so that the cross-divisional games (with the exception of Indiana-Purdue) are all played by, perhaps, the end of October or the first week of November. That means the last three or four games of the season are strictly between divisional opponents.”
I believe the plan before was to try to keep it to divisional games where possible for the last 2 weeks. That’s what I would expect now. Maybe 3, but that makes it harder on the schedulers.
“There has also been discussion about there being no FCS teams on the non-conference schedules of Big Ten teams. I have a feeling that issue will be revisited because it sounds like there isn’t universal enthusiasm by some of the programs to take that path.”
It won’t happen because IA wants to play UNI and weaker teams like IN want the easier win.
“FWIW, Michigan is apparently going to play Cincinnati in Ann Arbor on 9 September 2017. If B1G schools are scheduling non-conference games after the 2015 season, it might mean that the future conference schedules have been circulated to the athletic departments so they can get started on filling in any open dates they have in the future.”
No way. They haven’t even decided for sure on the divisions. There are no schedules set. The schedulers work around OOC games.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I really think most (But not all) Penn State fans can accept Pitt to end our season (Like Florida/Florida State & Georgia/Georgia Tech).”
I’d love to see it. I hate losing rivalry games like that. We would need 1 other B10 team to play OOC that week, though. Have any thoughts on how to achieve that without screwing someone over? Maybe UMD against an ACC team or RU versus SU?
“The reason is simple: We cannot end our Season with Wisconsin (Which has been a success and I would be willing to even move West for), Nebraska, or Ohio State (Those three are which most of us would prefer),”
I agree, those are not options.
“MSU has not been a good final game, and neither Maryland or Rutgers give the oomph that we like.”
With MSU better and you guys down a little, that series might gain some juice. The lack of oomph is why I tend to pair you with MSU.
“This takes me back to the Panthers as an alternative. I know there are Eastern Penn State fans who do not like it, but we will still play Rutgers, Maryland & likely Temple as regional teams.”
Yeah, that’s why I’m unsure if they’ll support it. They could get their preference to end the year (RU, UMD or alternating) in stead of a Pitt team they don’t care about.
“What do I think will happen? It will be Maryland to end the season, and likely a night game.”
Do you see a big difference between RU and UMD for PSU fans? I know you’ve played UMD more, and more recently, but don’t you have tons of fans in NJ and NYC, too?
“A Friday night game at Byrd Stadium (Maryland) or Redskins Stadium (Along with Beaver Stadium), might be something that both Penn State & Maryland (And their fans) can support.”
Friday might be tough to get for TV.
And just to be clear, while I personally prefer PSU/MSU and RU/UMD, it won’t bother me if you get UMD annually. I’m just not sure it’s the right business decision. I think alternating between RU and UMD has more value for the B10.
LikeLike
Last year’s Friday night after Thanksgiving had two games on: USF at Cincy at 6pm and AzSU at Arizona at 9pm. I imagine ESPN would like to have PSU/somebody that night.
http://www.lsufootball.net/archives/tvschedule-2012.htm
LikeLike
The way things are going in sports today, the “Right Business Decision” is whatever works with the TV Networks. Beyond that, I am sure the Big 10 Network would be happy to broadcast a game on a Friday Night (If ESPN would not). One of the big reasons why the Big 10 Network will be broadcasting hockey on Friday Nights is the lack of programming on that night ( I can tell you neither the Penguins or Islanders (The two hockey teams I watch) play many games on Friday Nights (After Yankee Season ends, I would watch Nittany Lion Hockey as an alternative)). Beyond that, I wonder if Maryland/Duke could be a possibility to go with Penn State/Pitt? But if we can’t have the Panthers, as a Penn State fan, I would actually like to alternate between Maryland & Rutgers, and play it on the road (Redskins Park & The Meadowlands), because of the transportation issue at State College (I just do not see the Conference going for that). I still think it will be @ Maryland as a night game, and State College as a 3:30PM kickoff.
LikeLike
“I would actually like to alternate between Maryland & Rutgers, and play it on the road (Redskins Park & The Meadowlands), because of the transportation issue at State College (I just do not see the Conference going for that).”
They actually could, though … if Penn State is home Rutgers when they are away against Maryland, they could indeed, alternate their last game of the season for either their road game against Maryland or their road game against Rutgers.
For Penn State, ending on the road every year could well be offset by the fact that, well, its “on the road” against Rutgers and Maryland in stadiums likely half full or more with Penn State fans.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“They actually could, though … if Penn State is home Rutgers when they are away against Maryland, they could indeed, alternate their last game of the season for either their road game against Maryland or their road game against Rutgers.
For Penn State, ending on the road every year could well be offset by the fact that, well, its “on the road” against Rutgers and Maryland in stadiums likely half full or more with Penn State fans.”
Add in that many students are home in DC/Philly/NYC for Thanksgiving and it makes even more sense. That’s why I proposed it. It will certainly draw more media attention when played in NYC or DC than it will in State College.
LikeLike
Does that mean the same thing for the Spartans? After all, they have the alternate years with the two teams, but their Home and Away could either be in sync with Penn State or in alternation with Penn State, so Rutgers, for instance, could either alternate final game at home with Penn State and final game at home with the Spartans, or final game at home with Penn State and then away to Michigan the alternate years. And whichever they are with Rutgers, the same with Maryland.
LikeLike
An interesting Pod scheduling scheme (cross-overs as sequenced):
Pod A & Pod B / Pod C & Pod D (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, Georgia Tech, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod B: Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin, Indiana
Pod C: Michigan State, Virginia, Penn State, Maryland
Pod D: Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois
Pod A & Pod C / Pod D & Pod B (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, Georgia Tech, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod C: Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State, Virginia
Pod D: Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois
Pod B: Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin, Indiana
Pod A & Pod D / Pod B & Pod C (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, Georgia Tech, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod D: Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Northwestern
Pod B: Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin, Indiana
Pod C: Michigan State, Virginia, Penn State, Maryland
Cross-over frequency (during a 6-year period) of 6 times (samples):
Michigan: Michigan State, Nebraska, Minnesota
Ohio State: Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa
Penn State: Ohio State, Nebraska
Nebraska: Michigan, Penn State
Rutgers: Maryland, Indiana, Illinois
Maryland: Rutgers, Northwestern
Georgia Tech: Purdue, Virginia, Northwestern
Virginia: Georgia Tech
Cross-over frequency (during a 6-year period) of 4 times (samples):
Nebraska: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Wisconsin: Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota: Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Virginia: Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Purdue: Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Northwestern
Northwestern: Indiana, Purdue
Illinois: Indiana, Purdue
LikeLike
My assessment is that four teams in the east–MSU, UM, PSU and OSU–would be synched up so that they each have at least one east coast appearance per year because of the desire to expand the BTN onto basic cable, alumni located in those regions and direct media exposure to New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District or Columbia.
So I could see the Spartans coupled up with Ohio State so that both teams host Rutgers and play at Maryland one year, then host Maryland and play at Rutgers the next season. The Wolverines and the Nittany Lions would be on the opposite cycle.
For Maryland and Rutgers, that means alternate seasons of hosting Michigan State and Ohio State in one year, followed by Michigan and Penn State in the following year.
Year 1, for example, would look like this;
Michigan State: at Rutgers, Maryland
Ohio State: at Rutgers, Maryland
Michigan: at Maryland, Rutgers
Penn State: at Maryland, Rutgers
Maryland, at Michigan State, Michigan
Rutgers: at Ohio State, Penn State
In the past, Michigan has always had one of Michigan State or Ohio State at home with the Wolverines playing in Columbus and hosting MSU during even numbered years. So for Michigan, 2014 might look like this (the current 2014 schedule has OSU, MSU, IU and PSU set up this way):
At Ohio State
Michigan State
At Maryland
Rutgers
At Indiana
Penn State
That leaves two games with western teams to round out the 2014/5 schedule (again, assuming the conference doesn’t move to nine conference games any earlier than 2016). For television purposes, I’d expect one of those two western opponents to be Nebraska or Wisconsin coupled with perhaps Minnesota or Illinois.
We’ll see what happens and for how long this is really effective. If further conference expansion takes place and new programs are in the Big Ten by 2016 or the nine game schedule is formally adopted, then the conference will change up the schedule again.
LikeLike
cutter,
“My assessment is that four teams in the east–MSU, UM, PSU and OSU–would be synched up so that they each have at least one east coast appearance per year because of the desire to expand the BTN onto basic cable, alumni located in those regions and direct media exposure to New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District or Columbia.
So I could see the Spartans coupled up with Ohio State so that both teams host Rutgers and play at Maryland one year, then host Maryland and play at Rutgers the next season. The Wolverines and the Nittany Lions would be on the opposite cycle.”
I would think the pairs might be MSU/PSU and OSU/MI. I think PSU means more to them than OSU or MI due to proximity and history. But the B10 may see more value in splitting OSU and MI, in which case your pairs are right (2 trips to MI in 1 year makes no sense.
LikeLike
PSU/TSUN, MSU/OSU may make a more comfortable fit with the Penn State ending the season on the East Coast idea.
Year 1: Mid October: Rutgers hosts TSUN, Maryland visits Columbus
Late October / Early November: Rutgers visits Lansing, Maryland hosts Penn State
Mid November: Rutgers visits Columbus, Maryland hosts MSU
Last weekend: Rutgers hosts PSU in the Meadowlands, Maryland visits Lansing
Year 2: Mid October: Maryland hosts TSUN, Rutgers visits Columbus
Late October / Early November: Maryland visits Lansing, Rutgers hosts Penn State
Mid November: Maryland visits Columbus, Rutgers hosts MSU
Last weekend: Maryland hosts PSU in the JFK, Rutgers visits Lansing
A big part of the point of Penn State away on the east coast for Thanksgiving is to get Penn State student and alums to the game who are on the east coast for Thanksgiving. Alternating it between DC and Newark/NYC makes it more of a special event.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Does that mean the same thing for the Spartans? After all, they have the alternate years with the two teams, but their Home and Away could either be in sync with Penn State or in alternation with Penn State, so Rutgers, for instance, could either alternate final game at home with Penn State and final game at home with the Spartans, or final game at home with Penn State and then away to Michigan the alternate years. And whichever they are with Rutgers, the same with Maryland.”
You could do the same, but my inclination was to do the opposite. MSU always ends at home against RU or UMD while PSU would always end on the road.
LikeLike
Then set the MSU/Penn State game for some arbitrary date, like the third Saturday in October (where I did my Grad Study is why that date is burned in my brain).
LikeLike
David Brown,
Nobody is stopping PSU from playing Pitt to end the year. Go ahead and schedule it. But since it’s taken you this long just to get a short series with them again, maybe PSU doesn’t want to schedule that game to end the season annually. I highly doubt Pitt is saying no.
LikeLike
1. Nice straw man. PSU would still be on the schedule 4/9 of the time while NE would become full time. MSU would be replaced by WI, etc. Feel free to do some actual math and show how this has a great impact on SOS.
2. I didn’t say it wouldn’t be a factor, I said we don’t know how it will be a factor. Is it the #1 thing? #3? Are all games counted equally or do OOC matter more? Several PTB mentioned last year weighing the OOC SOS more since the schools could control that. How do they determine SOS? Do they use a formula like RPI? Do they use computers? There are multiple methods out there. Since you haven’t even shown that it would impact SOS much (if at all) to lose PSU as a n annual game, you certainly can’t show that it would be important to the playoff committee.
3. OSU didn’t back out of the UGA series, there was never a deal for it. All they had was MOU with a window for finishing the negotiations. Neither side pushed to close the deal. UGA’s new AD is from UF and doesn’t believe in those type of games.
You can see upcoming OOC games here: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/ohio-state-buckeyes.php They include VT, UC, OU, UNC, TCU, OR, BC and UT. The last MAC team scheduled is in 2016.
I never said that you said age was a hard and fast rule. I didn’t imply it, either.
“Is it really a bad thing that the outcome of HALF of your games might be in doubt when the schedules are released?”
Yes, if you want to make the playoffs.
“A tough schedule works for the SEC.”
No it doesn’t. Actually look at most of them, and they aren’t really any harder than anyone else’s. Especially with expansion, the powers from each side often miss each other. They get credit for games they don’t play.
“But if you’re content steamrolling the dregs of the B1G and being so proud of your 11-1 seasons where you only realistically had 3 games that were in doubt before kickoff, then I guess we’re again never going to see eye to eye.”
I sure hope not. I don’t like your worldview and have no interest in sharing it.
“If we lost an average of 3 games out of the proposed 6 “tough” games that you listed, then I would suggest we get better. It would mean we weren’t that great to begin with when you’re losing half of the games with your perceived “equals”. I don’t think someone that goes .500 against their peers is that good.”
If they are truly peers and equals, then you should go 3-3. That’s what those words mean.
“According to you, or someone else?”
According to history and our best guesses at how a committee would pick teams. 11-2 teams don’t generally fare well, especially if a conference with more respect (SEC, B12) has an equal team.
“In my opinion, an 11-2 B1G champion Ohio State who played Michigan, Penn State, Florida State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma (or Texas, USC, etc.) is a shoe-in for the playoffs. Maybe not a 1 or 2 seed, but in there as a 3 or 4.”
It totally depends on how everyone else did. What if both teams OSU lost to are already in? What if the CCG foe was a weak team (8-4)? What if the SEC wins yet another title the year before and has 3 or more teams with 0-2 losses? I’ll give you 13-0 as a lock and 12-1 as a very, very high probability. 11-2 will be dependent on everyone else and we dont know enough about the committee to say..
“Since home field doesn’t get awarded, the seeds don’t matter, Ohio State would be traveling out west or down south regardless of seed.”
Actually, seeding is supposed to matter. The top 2 seeds get to use their home bowl if it’s one of the semi-finals hosts that year, so a top 2 SEC team plays in the Sugar Bowl if it has a semifinal for example. Conversely, I believe they said the opposite was also true. A 3 or 4 seed wouldn’t play in their home bowl unless it was unavoidable. OSU playing in New Orleans against AL is very different from playing them in Phoenix.
LikeLike
Getting to play multiple eastern rivals is not being ‘penalized’. It’s what Penn State fans have been whining about not getting for the past twenty years.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I cannot see Penn State not playing Ohio State. I am the first one to acknowledge that we are not only NOT number one on the Buckeyes hate list (Illinois is more important than Penn State), but it would be a huge loss for us, and to a lesser extent OSU (Unless they get Illinois annually). Why? We are already losing Nebraska and Wisconsin, we do not need to be penalized even further. The only way I could live with not playing Ohio State, is if we went out West (Then we can play Iowa, Nebraska & Wisconsin).”
Penalized? The league added RU and UMD for you, plus you get MI in division (unless you’re referring to one of those crazy plans floating around – I can’t tell with the threading screwed up). Somehow I think that more than makes up for not playing NE and WI annually.
PSU isn’t losing OSU anyway even though they should.
LikeLike
unproductive,
“Or you could structure the “pods” so that each had one King/Brand:
Neb,Wisc,IA, MN;
OSU, IL, PU, NW (or OSU, IL, PU, IU)
UM, MSU, RU, IN (or UM, MSU, RU NW)
PSU, NC, VA, MD
with three locked games – OSU/UM; Neb/PSU, and IU/PU (or (IL/NW)”
I’d try this:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, UMD, UVA, UNC
E – PSU, RU, PU, IN
Lock – OSU/MI (needed), PSU/NE (wanted by both and valuable), WI/MSU (wanted and of value) and RU/UMD (needed by RU). That locks 1 game for 8 of 16, and also opposite pairings.
W & N – WI and MSU is in division. So is UMD and RU, leaving 2 actual locked games.
W & S – 4 locked games.
W & E – NE and PSU, and MI and OSU, are in division, leaving 2 locked games.
I’d be tempted to lock more (IA/NW and IL/PU) but some would be forced (UNC vs IN or MN, UVA vs the other).
This plan is actually better if GT comes instead of UNC. Then the pods become:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, GT, PU, IN
E – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
LikeLike
Brian,
“I’d try this:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, UMD, UVA, UNC
E – PSU, RU, PU, IN”
In this scenario, I’d switch OSU and PSU, letting PSU have the east coast teams that it supposedly wants, and putting OSU in a more traditional Midwestern (Big Ten) pod.
This is fun … what do you do if teams 15 and 16 are FSU and GT? You can’t break them up and you now have 5 Brands that don’t divide nicely into 4 pods.
LikeLike
unproductive,
“I’d try this:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, UMD, UVA, UNC
E – PSU, RU, PU, IN”
“In this scenario, I’d switch OSU and PSU, letting PSU have the east coast teams that it supposedly wants, and putting OSU in a more traditional Midwestern (Big Ten) pod.”
The problem with that is RU. They need PSU, and that is one of the eastern teams PSU begged for. I considered leaving UMD with them, too, but I think the ACC schools mean more to UMD than PSU does. It would also make the ACC schools feel more at home to have UMD around. Given that group of 3, OSU is the only king that fits. Plus, OSU is closer to UNC and is easier to get to than State College.
I also considered this, but you have to lock IN/PU:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, IN, UVA, UNC
E – PSU, RU, UMD, PU
“This is fun … what do you do if teams 15 and 16 are FSU and GT? You can’t break them up and you now have 5 Brands that don’t divide nicely into 4 pods.”
Option 1:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, GT, PU, IN
E – PSU, RU, UMD, FSU
Option 2:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, UMD, PU, IN
E – PSU, RU, GT, FSU
Most pods have 2 decent brands. Option 2 is less balanced but keeps FSU and GT together.
LikeLike
Those division are exactly the way I worked it out. Getting Michigan and OSU in the NYC is huge for the BTN. The only drawback is not having PSU as well. Many PSU alumni in the Greater NYC Area.
LikeLike
The MSU game is my favorite game of the year. A fun rivalry with a very festive atmosphere. Very unlike the Ohio State hate-fest. I am aware that Sparty disdains UofM, more than the other way around, but I love the pre-game E. Lansing tail gate scene. I don’t see them ever forfeiting this game.
LikeLike
If the B1G adopts the east-west alignment that has been recently publicized, exactly how much travel would Michigan do when Maryland and Rutgers joins the conference?
In 2014/5 the Big Ten is expected to have an eight team conference schedule, which means Michigan has four non-conference games apiece in those seasons. Six of those eight games will be in Ann Arbor with a road game at Notre Dame in 2014 and a second in 2015 at Utah. In terms of travel, the game out in Salt Lake City would fit under the “halfway across the country” category.
Two games apiece each year will be Michigan State, Ohio State and one of Purdue or Indiana. In terms of travel, that’s fairly close to Ann Arbor. The other three teams in the division are Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. I suppose RU and MD are “halfway across the country”, so we’re looking at one game apiece there. Of course, part of the rationale for having Michigan in the east is because of where the alumni are located. For me, a trip to College Park, Maryland is a 20-minute drive and going up to Rutgers is about three hours. That’s one hell of a lot closer than Ann Arbor.
That leaves two teams from the western division that are TBD. If they turn out to be some combination of maybe Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin or Purdue/Indiana, than that’s pretty close to Ann Arbor. Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota would be longer stretches.
So what do we know? For the 2014/5 seasons, Michigan will have 14 of 24 regular season games in Ann Arbor. Of the remaining ten games, the two non-conference ones will be South Bend (close by) and Salt Lake City (halfway across the country). The eight conference games will include one in East Lansing, one in Columbus, one at W. Lafayette or Bloomington, one in Happy Valley, one in the DC area and one in northern New Jersey. I would say four of those seven are close by. The other two road games against western opponents could be as close as Chicago or as far away as Lincoln.
At worst, 18 of the 24 games will be played in Ann Arbor or in states adjacent to Michigan (Ohio, Indiana). The other six will be in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Utah with two locations TBD. Something tells me that’s not a huge burden on the fans based around southern Michigan and northern Ohio–but it’s a nice bonus for the UM fans who reside from NYC to the DC area.
LikeLike
“It’s unfair to ask Nebraskans to travel halfway across the country on a regular basis. Personally, I’d rather we (Michigan) stayed in the west, so I understand their complaints wholeheartedly.”
Your follow-up seems to contradict your claim. Lincoln, Nebraska is a longer flight from Ann Arbor than either New Jersey or Maryland, so preferring that Ann Arbor school in the west means you want that Ann Arbor school to be in for LONGER trips.
LikeLike
Nebraska needs these East Coast ties as much as anyone these days. Back in the day, they pulled from all over the country. Until they become a national power again, they need a “national” image (which includes a geographically more diverse Big Ten as well). Their fans might not travel as much or as well as they once had (fans usually ARE less rabid about 8-4 teams than 11-1 teams) but at least recruits in the population center (Ohio, PA, NJ) will be able to see Nebraska as a “close” team.
LikeLike
Your MSU compromise is absurd. MSU plays MI annually no matter what. End of story.
LikeLike
You want Ohio State to act like TEXAS? All for one and none for anyone else!
LikeLike
True, but no Big Ten team benefited more than the Buckeyes.
Delany cares about Ohio St, I just don’t think he cares about them any more than he cares about any other team.
LikeLike
Yea, let’s lower our strength of schedule and drop PSU yearly in favor of rotating through Minnesota and Iowa more often. That will look great to the playoff selection committee.
Somehow I doubt PSU is going to be a major SOS booster for the foreseeable future…
LikeLike
@frug
I’m not as convinced of PSU’s demise as most. This is contingent on them retaining Bill O’Brien as coach or hiring someone of equal or greater talent if he leaves to return to the NFL.
If they weather the sanctions with an average 5-3 conference record give or take a game, they’ll be fine and bounce back to their old selves.
These divisions and scheduling proposals aren’t necessarily short term things. I wouldn’t be so short sighted to be in favor of dropping PSU because they might be down for a couple of years.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“These divisions and scheduling proposals aren’t necessarily short term things. I wouldn’t be so short sighted to be in favor of dropping PSU because they might be down for a couple of years.”
The sanctions certainly have no influence on my opinion. I felt the same way before PSU got busted.
LikeLike
Even if Delany has no love of OSU, remember that the presidents still get to decide. He can influence them but not tell them how to vote.
LikeLike
There is more, to it but my comment is awaiting moderation…
LikeLike
I don’t know what else you had, but here’s some other stuff he’s saying.
1. Just thought you’d guys like to know some news on the Md lawsuit is about to hit in the next week or so. ACC lawyers are advising settlement
2. I’ve been fed lines unknowingly before. It happens. But my info is from 3 B10 sources and one at FSU
3. [in response to someone saying OSU was the B10’s UT, and part of the conversation that included your tweet]
not really. Michigan is the big dog in that conference. OSU is more like Oklahoma for comparisons sake. Or Nebraska before.
4. [asked if he thinks the B10 adds anyone]
yes. At least 2. No more than 4.
5. Did FSU want in the Big10? Yes. Did they submit an academic plan? Yes. They were turned down faster than North Korea at the UN.
6. So I’ve checked and rechecked with every source I have. Even spoke to several people in main stream media. FSU to B10 doesn’t have legs.
LikeLike
This guy is a complete liar. He stated the “BTN confirmed that FSU was told “not interested””. Where’s the link? The video? The audio? Something like that makes news yet there is nothing on the Internet about. You think the BTN says something like that and nobody hears it? He basically just admitted to everyone with hat one tweet that he is a complete fraud.
LikeLike
Several people have said it. But no one who actually claims to have heard it. I’m sure they heard someone else on the internet say they said it on BTN. And we know everything on the internet is true.
LikeLike
He’s the same guy who (if you want to scroll back through his twitter feed to Dec/Jan) claimed that a UCONN invite to the B1G was a done deal, and that his source told him Connecticut’s AAU status was what sealed it. Almost immediately someone pointed out to him that UCONN was not AAU and after a few minutes of very uncomfortable Twitter silence, he laughably Tweeted “Yes…….but they will be!” I would peg Dude’s credibility rating at around 35%, the other guy….zero, zilch, nada.
LikeLike
That is way, way too high for the The Dude. I’m not sure of his twitter handle but MH5VR (?), I’ve seen his tweets listed here, is about the only one I take ANY stock in.
LikeLike
Come on neither Mich or tOSU are the big dog . Do they (either one) take more money than anyone else. Notice I said take not earn . Are big play offs in Mich or Ohio? What is the bigger deal AAU or sports? The Big is strong because there is no BIG dog. Everyone gets an equal piece.
LikeLike
just c&p your comments and start over. only one link per comment or you end up in “awaiting moderation” purgatory.
LikeLike
“@oncemore not really. Michigan is the big dog in that conference. OSU is more like Oklahoma for comparisons sake. Or Nebraska before.— MHver3 (@MHver3) March 21, 2013”
Here’s what was suppose to start the thread, but got caught in comment purgatory for some reason…
LikeLike
A bad night for Andy and his Missouri Tigers.
But a great night for schadenfreude for the rest of us!
LikeLike
Some things never change. A Tiger can’t change its stripes. Change the conference logo and Missouri still flames out in the NCAA. But to expand on your comment, Harvard now has more NCAA wins than Nebraska.
Bad start for the SEC. CSU whips Missouri comfortably. UK forgets to show up in the NIT. They were the home team, but it was in Pittsburg, so the frosh left their game in Lexington. Tennessee gets soundly beaten by Mercer (a private school in Macon, GA 90 miles south of Atlanta for the majority of you who probably haven’t heard of them).
Texas schools didn’t get into the NCAA and are losing in the other tournaments. Only Texas school to win was Houston. And that was only because they were playing a 16-17 Texas team in a tournament most people don’t know exists (and probably shouldn’t-Purdue was also in that tourney with a losing record). But at least the CBI had interesting games-4 by 1 point and 1 by 5 and 1 by 10 out of 8 total games.
LikeLike
Yeah, Nebraska’s best shot at an NCAA win is to someday finish at .500 or so in the Big Ten and be one of the last couple of at-large teams in the tourney. That way, they can be in one of those play-in games for the 11th seed or whatever it is that year and maybe get a win there over some other team that barely got in.
I’m the only person in my bracket pool that picked Missouri to lose to Colorado State. I think anytime there is a 8-9 match up with a major vs mid-major, people tend to pick the major. Missouri was pretty dismal away from Columbia this year though. They would have probably done pretty well in the NIT, if they were given home games in the first few rounds. Maybe next year… 🙂
LikeLike
Looking at their record, it was hard to see why they were such a lock to get in. I don’t think they lost at home, but barely won at all on the road. I think the committee over-relies on RPI. Other than Colorado St., the MWC, which has the top conference RPI, doesn’t seem to be doing too well.
LikeLike
Yeah, Nebraska’s best shot at an NCAA win is to someday finish at .500 or so in the Big Ten and be one of the last couple of at-large teams in the tourney. That way, they can be in one of those play-in games for the 11th seed or whatever it is that year and maybe get a win there over some other team that barely got in.
@Arch – Nebraska isn’t going to be a National Championship contender any time soon, but they’ve made a big investment in basketball (new coach, new Arena, new practice facility that NBA teams tour to get ideas) and with competent coaching should rise above mediocrity into a solid Big Ten squad. It wasn’t *that* long ago that Nebraska was a three seed in the NCAA tournament. For how bad of a basketball school Nebraska’s reputation is, they’ve never lost 20 games in a season.
Remember, that the Colorado St team that just beat Missouri was almost all of now Nebraska coach Tim Miles’s players. Before this season, almost everyone picked the Huskers to lose every the Big Ten game this year. Nebraska ended up winning five (six if you count the BTT) and finishing tenth in the conference with the least amount of talent on the roster than anyone else.
LikeLike
Nebraska almost always had teams that were competitive. They weren’t awful. They just didn’t win enough times and haven’t gotten good enough to win championships. And Missouri is the team with the most NCAA appearances never to be in a final 4. Kind of explains why there is so much Kansas blue in those bb fan maps in the states of Nebraska and Missouri.
LikeLike
bullet, your mendacity is staggering.
Mizzou has been to the NCAAs 26 times. Has 5 elite 8s.
Nebraska has never won an NCAA tournament game. Ever. In the history of basketball. Not one.
LikeLike
Two elite 8s in the last 10 years by the way, for Missour. No they’re not Duke but they’ve done better than 90% of D-1 schools at basketball.
LikeLike
If you’re going to bother counting Elite Eights as a marker for your program success, at least count them correctly. Mizzou has been to four elite eights, and one of those was later vacated.
Considering there are 340+ teams in D1 basketball, being in the top 10% isn’t that great.
LikeLike
@Andy
You make yourself look really ridiculous when you call someone a liar and then say exactly the same thing. Or are you claiming Nebraska was never competitive? I sure don’t remember them getting blown out much (CU was a different story).
LikeLike
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/03/hbo-go-streaming/63405/
Would this model work for the BTN? Many people would like it as an option.
LikeLike
“They would probably still have to pay for cable-company operated Internet,”
Yeah, the cable co’s control the shipping lanes. How does this cut them out? My Internet cost has reached the level TV was 25 years ago. Any reason to believe it won’t continue the same trajectory? Internet TV will simply be another premium cable package.
LikeLike
With Dan Beebe now a consultant for the Big East, fake Dan Beebe takes shots at M-I-Z, and Frank’s school and Iowa St. and Kansas and….
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 9h
Direct Message to Mike Slive: Remember, basketball is the sport they are “good” at.
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 9h
M-I-Z……L-O-L
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 20 Mar
Biggest change for me in the Big East will obviously be switching from bourbon to wine. #DontMixGrapeAndGrain
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 20 Mar
Our league is going to have football that will rival the quality that can be found at Iowa State.
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 20 Mar
I think we all know who the right guy for the Big East job is.
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 20 Mar
RT @McMurphyESPN: Former Big 12 commish Dan Beebe is a consultant for the Big East
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 18 Mar
With seven schools that don’t play meaningful football whatsoever, it’s going to be like sixversions of Kansas. And DePaul.
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 18 Mar
DePaul sounds French. They probably can’t lead. RT @fobbywobby: @danbeebe We can pick DePaul up and move ’em to Texas.
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 18 Mar
The first order of business will be to figure out which schools hold all the power. Which Catholic 7 school is in Texas?
Fake Dan Beebe Fake Dan Beebe @DanBeebe 18 Mar
I’ll be great working with the Catholic schools. Hell, I thought Baylor was Catholic til 2009.
LikeLike
SEC Will Eschew 16-team Superconference Unless …….
“Florida’s president, Bernie Machen, told CBSSports.com the league will eschew the 16-team
superconference model unless “some ace jewel called us and said, ‘Can you help us?”
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21932277/florida-prez-one-condition-could-move-sec-to-expand
LikeLike
This begs the question; Is FSU considered an ACE?
And, if FSU is not an ACE, and the B1G takes Virginia and Georgia Tech and stops at 16, do FSU and Clemson flee to the Big 12? Some very interesting scenarios.
LikeLike
FSU is definitely an ACE, but they probably won’t add enough to the value of the SEC Network to warrant an invitation. The more interesting thing to me, reading in between the lines, is that Machen appears to be implying that the Virginia and Carolina schools won’t be getting invitations either because they sure aren’t ACEs. Maybe the B1G takes two and the ACC reloads with Cincy and UConn and realignment is done for a while.
LikeLike
IMHO – A president would think UVa and UNC are “ace jewels.”
LikeLike
UNC definitely. UVA and VT probably, but not necessarily. FSU might be a jewel that they can’t cash in. I can’t see anyone else in the east that would qualify. Miami probably is viewed as having too much baggage and too fickle a fan base.
But what is perceived as a jewel might change if the B1G goes to 16.
LikeLike
Yeah, after all the noise about realignment, it looks like SEC expansion may be non-existent. Machen is very influential in the SEC and I’m sure everyone will take notice of his comments.
The SEC picked up a blockbuster jewel last year with aTm and should be set for a while. And, they will have their hands full launching a new network next year. They can always do a scheduling agreement with the Big 12 if they need more marquee football games.
LikeLike
They said the exact same right before they added the Aggies so I wouldn’t read much into this.
LikeLike
I am opposed to FSU and Georgia Tech joining the B1G. I would rather have Notre Dame, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma or Virginia. Even North Carolina and Duke would be okay. However, I don’t see any of those schools moving in the foreseeable future.
It seems to me that if the B1G is going to 16 by 2017, the two additions will be FSU and Georgia Tech. Of all the decent schools available, they appear to be the most willing and able to move to the B1G in time for the new TV contract. Please note: I do not personally want the B1G to expand, but I think it’s going to happen.
If FSU and Georgia Tech do join the B1G, the divisions set up very nicely. Just send Purdue (or whichever eastern school is in the West Division) back to the East, and put the newcomers in the West Division (renamed South-West). As a result, several good things will happen:
(1) the divisions will be well balanced with three kings (plus MSU) in the East and two kings (plus Wisconsion and Georgia Tech) in the Southwest.
(2) all established rivalries will be in-division so no fixed crossovers will be necessary.
(3) the schools in the west will get better access to recruits in the southeast (to counter-balance the access that the Eastern Division has to eastern recruits).
Moreover, Nebraska will love having FSU in its division. They have had some mighty Bowl battles over the years. Instant rivalry.
LikeLike
Can we please get a new post soon Frank? This one is so big that threading has failed.
LikeLike
So Frank, was that Illinois game as unbelievably ugly as it appears from the play by play? TO, TO, TO, missed shot, TO, foul. CU outscored Illinois from 19:21 by 21-0 over the next 10 minutes. Illinois outscored CU 15-2 over the next 9 minutes.
They’re going to kill college basketball if they stay as ugly as it has been this season. Might as well bring back the 4 corners and no shot clock.
IMO John Thompson and the BE were the worst thing to happen to college basketball. They turned it into rugby and their style of officiating got adopted by the NCAA tournament. Missouri/CSU was actually entertaining (except for all the clanks off the rim on the 3 pointers) because it wasn’t so rough. Players were moving, getting open, taking cuts, not just mauling the ball handler. At one point the two teams combined had made their 1st 23 free throws. CSU clanked a few down the stretch, otherwise both teams would have been at 90% for the game.
LikeLike
Yes, that Illinois-Colorado game was downright bipolar.
LikeLike
After seeing ND’s camoflouged Leprechaun outfits, I’ve become convinced that college athletes should be paid to subject themselves to such humiliation.
LikeLike
This is a post from our boards, where our moderator specifically asked the poster for the latest info from the FSU presidents office. He (the poster) grew up as the son of a prominent Seminole family but graduated from our University. Then married into a family that is connected to President Barron’s office directly. So far, info from him about the ACC and FSU has been good. No matter what, this info is interesting and has a great many shades of truth, corroborating some of the Ohio State utterances. To an outsider like me, it seems too logical for the B1G to accept membership from the adjacent state of Virginia (Maryland) and another National Brand, non AAU school (Nebraska anyone). FSU comes with some pluses that none of the B1G’s other recent additions do not/did not have. National Brand with winning tradition, half million cable TV connections, large fervent alumni base, Flagship University in the same vein as A&M was for the SEC, wants to be in the Big Ten unlike another non AAU university you lust over and hate over, ND. AAU membership could get in the way of giving the B1G a truly terrific athletic conference covering the geography and TV stations of most of the US. Finally, you would have a very manageable sixteen team conference for pod. Type scheduling. As far as your stated wishes to also add UNC, GT and Duke, well Arnold Jewish friend of mine has a great cliche saying that is apropos in the case, “Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered”.
Here is His post…….
Sorry it took so long to see this thread, I’ve been away. Looks like I just signed Auburn today, so happy about that!
Ok, here’s the deal on FSU, and some “recap”… I believe what I’m typing to all be true and accurate…. going off various sources within various programs (not off reading what some west virginia blogging tards say)
1. FLUID : There’s a LOT of info going on, and it’s FLUID. TAMU’s situation with the SEC wasn’t that fluid… what’s going on now is “very” fluid. What’s true today, may be untrue tomorrow, so keep that in mind.
2. BIG12 : Won’t happen. FSU will never play a single down in the Big12. I’m now willing to bet my left nut on that. The ONLY situation that I can see causing this, would be the ACC collapsing or weaking beyond attraction. The only way this happens is if the Big10 takes 4 teams, with one not named FSU. Can’t see that happening. Another way would be the Big10 taking 2, and the SEC taking 2… again, none named FSU… but I don’t see that happening either.
3. Big10 : They want to add FOUR (4) teams. UVA (Virginia) and GT are on the top of the list. They want FSU as a #3, but they need a #4, and they want NC, which will be a really tough pull. NC won’t move, for now, due to politics and until they really see the conference is going to die, and it’s a better move. Keep in mind that NC is the “texas” of the ACC.
UVA is done, they want in, but GA Tech isn’t quite ‘yet’.
A. FSU : FSU wants in real bad since the SEC isn’t talking, and they have Ohio State (Gee) and Delaney (commish) heavily in their favor. They DO have the votes to get in, the ‘no’ votes are Michigan and Wisconsin. The Big10 prefers unanimous, but it won’t be a hinderance.
B. BARRON : Unlike TAMU where the Board was really the facilitator of the big move to the SEC, at FSU, President Barron holds a huge amount of power – and he’s a huge academic type (as I’ve talked about before). He wants NOTHING to do with the Big12 and the University of Texas (where he came from, where he was Dean). Barron is pushing REALLY HARD at getting into the Big10… it’s his main goal.
C. FSU ACADEMICS : There’s a lot of talk about Big10 requirements and the AAU situation. Basically it’s like this – The Big10 cares a whole lot about their pull in the AAU and the number of votes they own via their members. They want to increase their power.. but they also aren’t stupid. They know adding FSU also allows them to gain other AAU schools, so adding one non-AAU to get other AAU’s isn’t exactly a bad thing. They also realize we’re talking about ATHLETIC conferences, media markets, penetration into FL, etc etc. So FSU submitted an academic plan for AAU status and their progress, and that is basically “good enough”. Michigan isn’t happy, but Wisky hates FSU because FSU received a huge grant over them, and they’re still pissed off.
4. ACC Lawsuit : It’s coming to an end… the ACC lawyers are advising settlement with Maryland, which should get the ball rolling on defections “soon”. Many say movement will happen right after the end of the basketball tourney.
5. FSU-SEC Rumor : It’s just a rumor, but there’s talk from VERY well placed sources deep in FSU that the SEC actually did talk to FSU after grabbing TAMU, and before resigning to take Missouri. Supposively President Barron shot it down, due to academics. IF this is true, President Barron is a fool. As for it’s validity, I do think feelers were put out, but that also doesn’t mean that Slive eventually would have gotten the votes required… in other words, I’m betting it was purely feelers and unofficial talks.
I still think the door to FSU-SEC is still closed and will stay closed until FSU realizes the Big10 isn’t going to happen, the ACC is screwed and the SEC decides it’s better to grab FSU as an asset than let them go to ____ conference…. assuming that EVER happen
LikeLike
This is virtually identical to what the Dude is saying, just with an Aggie spin instead of Mountaineer.
LikeLike
Wes; the primary function of a college is education not football . Destroying the standing of any college is not good. Why do you think the SEC wants AAU schools. It’s simple their rep is bad ! The SEC is trying to look better .
LikeLike
The guy who posted this on Aggie Websider has been wrong about just about everything when it comes to conference realignment.
LikeLike
Nebraska fans are complaining about the rumoured divisional alignment. The gist of these complaints is that Nebraska will have less “high-profile” games than the other three kings.
As Big Ten guy, I nonetheless sympathize with these concerns. High-profile games bring national attention, which also helps recruiting (among other things). It also benefits both schools (as long as the losing school delivers a heroic fight).
Yes, I am biased for the WAC “quadrant” scheme. Not because it sounds “cool” or represents a scheme that was actually implemented (or half-implemented, because the third season was never scheduled). But for the simple fact that it allows each school to play all other schools at least two times in any four-year period. This then allows compromise which is the key to any negotiation and achieving balance.
The challenge is then to organize the schools in each quadrant since these schools play each other every year (and the remainder with less frequency).
For these reasons, I like the idea of having an anchor quadrant comprising: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State and Virginia. This would be a big carrot for these two schools as these are the biggest seats at the B1G football table.
(As disclosure: I may have a bias for Michigan and North Carolina as a school-pair in any WAC quadrant scheme for B1G football. Because I have personal memories of a guy named Lawrence Taylor who busted QB Johnny Wangler’s knee (of “Wangler to Carter” fame) in the 1979 Gator Bowl.)
I also like the idea of having another anchor quadrant comprising: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska and Iowa. For a WAC scheme with nine conference games, this would provide Nebraska at least eight high-profile games in any four-year period. For the four kings, there are a total of sixteen high-profile games. Thus, Nebraska plays in half of these games (same as the other three kings).
(And The Game retains its rightful place in the universe.)
Using a WAC scheme with nine conference games, pairs of teams in the anchor quadrants can rotate every two years. This set-up would then “link” Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina together (along with Penn State). This also means that Rutgers is then in one of the rotating quadrants, and thus would play at least two eastern teams every year.
About the Michigan & Michigan State rivalry: The fact that George Perles designed the Land Grant Trophy should say EVERYTHING about this in-state rivalry. I personally feel that this rivalry is more important to Spartans than Wolverines. For this reason, I like the idea of organizing a rotating quadrant to comprise: Michigan State, Rutgers, Illinois and Northwestern. Thus, the Spartans are compensated for losing its annual rivalry with the Wolverines, by getting to play Rutgers as a year-end rivalry game while also getting Northwestern as a quadrant rival. This allows annual away games in New York or Chicago every year. Anyway, the Spartans would still play the Wolverines at least two times every four years. Since Minnesota would then be in the other rotating quadrant, this then means that Michigan would always play at least one trophy game every year.
As conclusion, my personal recommendation for a 16-school B1G football conference would be a WAC quadrant scheme (with cross-over games according to the paired schools in the sequence below) as follows:
Years 1&2, 5&6, etc:
B1G: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia, Michigan State, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois
TEN: Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
Years 3&4, 7&8, etc:
B1G: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
TEN: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
LikeLike
My apologies! I tried to post these comments as a new posting, but they were posted here. Sorry for the double posting!
LikeLike
Big East apparently finally moving ahead.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x2114944955/Hilltoppers-to-blow-out-Hurricane-in-C-USA
Tulsa to BE. WKU to CUSA.
LikeLike
That leaves 7 in the SunBelt. Don’t you need 8 to have a football conference?
Troy
LA-Lafayette
LA-Monroe
Arkansas State
U of S Alabama
then new comers
Gerogia State
Texas State-San Marcos
I read New Mexico State and Idaho would be invited as football only, so they should be good. There hope for a 12 team conference and a championship game will require digging up some Subdivision teams to move up. I know Liberty wants to move up, just waiting for a conference. They are Div 1 in all sports, and dominate their current conference.
LikeLike
Invite Oklahoma. Problem solved.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Invite Oklahoma. Problem solved.”
If academics and OkSU and the GOR and mutual interest weren’t issues, that would certainly help. OU is roughly equivalent to FSU academically, but in a small state and away from major markets. But as a western brand, of course it would help. But you might as well grab UT, too. They bring academics, brand and market.
LikeLike
We get a little preview of Big Ten women’s basketball Monday night in College Park when the Terrapins host Michigan State in an NCAA second-round game. Maryland woke from an early lethargy to beat Quinnipiac by 20, while Sparty topped a Marist team that’s posted prior March upsets, 55-47. The winner will almost certainly face Connecticut in Bridgeport next week, as the Evil Empire of Storrs pasted Idaho today 105-37. (Mismatches like that are no good for women’s hoops, but until more schools emphasize the sport and thus bring more balance to the game, it’s unfortunately going to happen.)
LikeLike
Anyone think Wichita State and VCU would be good fits for Conference TBNL should they decide to go to a hybrid for basketball? With Tulsa possibly joining with Houston, SMU, Tulane and Memphis, I think WSU could be a good geographic fit out in the western part of the conference. VCU would then complement Temple, Cinci, UConn.
East: Navy (football only), UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF
West: Tulsa (?), UH, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, Cinci
Basketball: UConn, ECU, USF, UCF, VCU, Tulsa, UH, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, WSU, Temple, Cinci
I see some pretty interesting match-ups in this group, including but not limited to: WSU-Memphis, Memphis-Cinci, UConn-Temple, VCU-Temple, VCU-WSU, UConn-Cinci
Maybe some of these match-up would be sub-licensed to a Fox Sports 1, the CBS network or even NBC Sports Network.
LikeLike
Conference TBNL looks like it will have 12 football members (UConn, Temple, Navy, ECU, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, and Tulsa), but only 11 for basketball.
In all the other sports, Navy won’t be a part of the league, meaning that it’s really an 11-member league with one associate member for football. 11 seems a little weird for basketball scheduling. Sure the Big Ten did it for 20 years, but that was because it had the luxury and desire to wait for the timing to be right to add a 12th team.
I think that adding one non-football member would make perfect sense. Notice I do not suggest three or more non-football members. UConn, Cincy, and USF probably don’t want to relive the divergent interests that come with a hybrid to this league, especially since those divergent interests were a big part of the league’s instability. But adding one member, if it’s the right member could do a lot of good.
Right now, Conference TBNL is ridiculously top-heavy in basketball. One program, UConn, is what I’ll call a near-king. It’s not quite at the UNC/Duke/Indiana/Kentucky/Kansas/UCLA level, but certainly at the high end of the Michigan State/Syracuse/Louisville/Ohio State/etc. level. Two more programs are very recognizable, top 25-30 programs, Memphis and Cincinnati. And one, Temple, isn’t great, but seems to make the tournament more often than not. After those four, the dropoff is enormous.
Given the choice between VCU and Wichita State (or other options not taken up by the new Big East), I think VCU would be the wisest choice. They’re in a larger market and a larger state. They’re closer to sites where the conference tournament is more likely to be held (Philly, NYC area, or Hartford vs. Cincy or Memphis), meaning they’d be able to help bring more fans to tournament site than Wichita State or a smaller, northeastern school.
LikeLike
Because of the fact that the unnamed conference has a football-only member in Navy, it’s bound to be 12 members only for football, but 11 for anything else. If it was 12 for all sports, it would be different, but this scenario changes things. I see little downside and tons of upside to adding a VCU to this league. The Rams could bolster the basketball credibility of this conference better than any remaining FBS programs could, and arguably better than non-FBS programs who aren’t in the new Big East.
Likewise, as I’ve said before, I don’t see the downside to the Mountain West adding Gonzaga as its twelfth member for all sports other than football. That league is, in many ways, in the same boat. It has 12 members for football, but only 11 for everything else. That league doesn’t want Hawaii as a full member (because of travel costs) any more than the unnamed league wants Navy (because of competitive issues) as a full member. So why don’t they go ahead and add the second-best-performing basketball program west of Kansas since 2000 to their league?
LikeLike
Army may join at some point. Go to 14 for fb and 12 for other sports.
LikeLike
I don’t know. Outside of FB there really isn’t any advantage to having even numbers of teams so I’m not sure how useful adding a non-FB school would be for either the MWC or neo-Big East.
That said, if the MWC did want a non-FB member I think BYU with a FB scheduling agreement would be a better option than Gonzaga.
LikeLike
basketball scheduling gets more complicated with 11. One school every night has to find an ooc game.
LikeLike
I’m not sure taking a day off (rest/recovery) or scheduling an OOC once per RR is terribly complicated.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“In all the other sports, Navy won’t be a part of the league, meaning that it’s really an 11-member league with one associate member for football. 11 seems a little weird for basketball scheduling.”
Why does it seem weird? They can play a 20 game full round robin if they want. 11 is only weird for football because you only play once a week and someone has to have a bye every conference week. It doesn’t impact hoops much at all.
LikeLike
And if they only want to play 18, they form an 11 team ring, and each team plays its two neighbors on the ring once instead of twice. Reshuffling things every season to maintain both major rivalries and conference cohesion is not all that hard.
If the Big TBA were to add an Olympic-sports only school, it wouldn’t be for scheduling reasons, it would be to boost the BBall RPI of the Big TBA and increase the chances of NCAA tournament bids.
LikeLike
“I think that adding one non-football member would make perfect sense. Notice I do not suggest three or more non-football members. UConn, Cincy, and USF probably don’t want to relive the divergent interests that come with a hybrid to this league, especially since those divergent interests were a big part of the league’s instability”
As long as the non-football members were a clear minority, I don’t think there would be any dissensions caused by adding several schools. The question is finding schools who will both add value and be happy to join a conference that could see UConn, Cincinnati, and maybe others move if spots become available elsewhere.
If they can find schools like that, they should add them.
LikeLike
The easy way to avoid the slippery slope is to pair football-only schools and non-football schools … so long as the non-football schools improve the Big TBA’s strength of schedule for NCAA tournament bids.
LikeLike
By the way: It seems that the MAC East Division did not conduct a round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division (according to the football schedules of Temple in 2008 and 2009, and Bowling Green in 2010 and 2011) when Temple was in the MAC East Division.
GO BLUE
LikeLike
With 1500 replies I’m sure this will get lost, but if these East – West divisions are true it’s pretty clear what is going on. Delany is making a Northeastern Seaboard power move. Basic Tier carriage in NY, NJ, Phil, DC, Bltmr and all the west to Chi, covers well over half the country. These “pro sports towns” could very easily become “college towns” within a generation.
With these divisions, this midwest (plus Pennsylvania) conference, will suddenly become hands down the most popular conference on the East Coast. That’s how you solidify the next 100 years… Well done!
LikeLike
What’s up with the comments on here?
LikeLike
I think it’s my fault. I have a comment that has been in “waiting for moderation” limbo for three days and it appears all the threading below it is screwed up.
Sorry.
LikeLike
When the number of comments gets too big, the comment display becomes erratic.
LikeLike
According to BTN.com, the B1G’s 10-1 start is the best start in MBB NCAA tournament history for schools playing more than 8 games; very impressive. Here’s hoping Minnesota and Illinois can keep it going.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The Atlantic 10 invited George Mason to join the league. So it looks like they are going to be proactive and not wait to see if/when the Big East invites Dayton and St. Louis. It’s not mentioned in this article but I’ve also heard the Atlantic 10 is interested in Davidson as well. Like the Big East they are looking to expand with quality programs so they can be a consistent multiple bid league. Northeastern, Hofstra and Siena are also possibilities.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21940151/george-mason-heading-to-the-a-10
LikeLike
Hofstra would be ideal for the A-10, complementing Fordham in the NYC market just as Mason will do for GWU in the metro Washington area. The A-10 isn’t strong enough a conference for one school to carry the load in one metropolitan region.
LikeLike
Lessee, the A-10 is set to lose Butler and X to the New Big East, Temple completing its move to the Big TBA, and Charlotte moving to Conference USA as it starts up a football program.
If it didn’t want to settle at 12, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if they are looking to move to 14, so long as they can find the right fit.
LikeLike
Mountain West was a complete sham.
RPI needs to be reduced in importance to the process. They gamed the system to get those high RPI values, and now all their teams are out of the tournament. What a joke.
LikeLike
The Dude says ACC just offered a $33 Million settlement to Maryland.
LikeLike
MHver3 is saying that Maryland “won’t accept what the ACc is offering. Not yet anyway.” Thinks Maryland is still unwilling to pay more than $25.
LikeLike
UMd should offer $10 million, knowing that ACC will accept a number between 10 and 33. Ideally, that should keep the final number a tad below $25 million.
LikeLike
Yeah, my original guess was that Maryland would end up paying between $20 and $25 million and I’m sticking to that.
LikeLike
Way too high ,offer 13.
LikeLike
As a B1G carrot for North Carolina and Virginia:
Pod A & Pod B / Pod C & Pod D (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod D: Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue
Pod A & Pod C / Pod B & Pod D (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Pod D: Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue
Pod A & Pod D / Pod B & Pod C (as divisions):
Pod A: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Pod D: Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue
Pod C: Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern
Pod B: Michigan State, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
AMEN
LikeLike
Sorry again for the double posting.
(In fact, this is my LAST posting. This obsession now begins to interfere with my normal life.)
THANK YOU, FRANK THE TANK
LikeLike
Tubby Smith fired at Minnesota. Seems odd, unless they have Shaka Smart lined up…
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2013-03-25/tubby-smith-fired-minnesota-gophers-shaka-smart-vcu-ncaa-tournament
LikeLike
Worst job to hold: BB coach at a school that has unreasonably high expectations. Howland fired after winning conference. Large tournaments destroy the value of the season. One disappointing game is justification for firing in spite of a good season. How many offers is FGC’s coach going to receive?
LikeLike
Exactly. What is a realistic expectation for the MN MBB coach? I think he’s had 5 20 game seasons, multiple NCAA tourney appearances (including a win) and is a very good in game coach. Is he a bad recruiter or as MN a tough sell? I thought he was a solid coach for them in the death trap that’s become the B1G. I hope NU grabs him quick.
LikeLike
@Jeff. He didn’t do a good job recruiting at Kentucky. I’ve never seen UK teams with less talent than the opposition except when Tubby’s recruits were the team. If you can’t recruit at UK, you aren’t a good recruiter. He needs a good assistant who can recruit.
LikeLike
If you live in Minnesota (I do), you’d understand things a little better… There’s no doubt that Tubby is a class act, and that he has restored some level of consistency and pride to the program that was decimated by the Clem Haskins academic scandal in the 90’s. However, there have been some issues with some off-the-court behaviour (including his assistant coach, son Saul), with some relatively high-profile transfers, and a general malaise with the program, particularly in the last couple of years, as attendance and fan interest have waned.
The U president is about 2 years into his reign… the athletic director is not even a year into his reign… It is my belief that something is and has been in the works for a while… and that these guys (particularly the AD, Teague) are willing to put their future on the line to take the next step and move the program forward to the next level…
There really is no reason that the U of Minn can’t be a bigger force in basketball,(and football), for that matter… It really is a matter of the powers that be at the U, and behind the scenes. putting more emphasis on the big 2 revenue sports… Across the board Minnesota has very strong athletics—AD Teague and President Kaler both have stated that the revenue sports would get more attention under their watch… This is their first high level athletic move… We will see what comes in later days…
LikeLike
mnfanstc and all other Minny fans: I wish all the best for MN. I’d know Tubby may have hit a glass ceiling, but at least he had a sustained level of respectability and success. I’d hate to see any B1G team take a step back. As I said, I can’t imagine Minny making this move without the next move already secured.
LikeLike
Tubby’s just not a good recruiter. He’s a great in game coach, but doesn’t get the job done recruiting.
LikeLike
Appalachian State and Georgia Southern moving up to FBS in the Sun Belt, 2015.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21948304/reports-appalachian-state-georgia-southern-to-join-sun-belt
LikeLike
Or perhaps “via the Sunbelt” … it will be interesting to see whether both are still in the Sunbelt after they finish their two transition years.
LikeLike
It’s better than if wed stayed in the SoCon & FCS, but it’s hard to get overly excited about this. I mean, how exciting can you get when you join a weakened Sun Belt Conference, a league which was already the weakest of the FBS leagues before closing its best members?
But hey, App State is now with the “big boys.” It’s like moving into the real world. We may be making $20,000 a year while the competition is filled with doctors, high-powered attorneys, and prominent businessmen, but damn it, at least we finally got hired!
LikeLike
Benson is throwing a life preserver to Idaho and NMSU:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21949121/sun-belt-will-grow-by-four-in-2014-
LikeLike
Frank – Please give us an update!
LikeLike
Maryland does not have a copy of the Big Ten contract and they don’t have meeting notes to respond to request made via freedom of information act. I guess this is standard operating procedure for the colleges. Someone told me the ACC schools don’t have copies of their contracts either. Where’s the transparency?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-22/local/37919132_1_u-md-president-wallace-loh-public-universities
LikeLike
Where’s the transparency?
No where near any contracts, which is exactly how the conferences want it.
LikeLike
OMG The Dude of West Virginia says that the B1G WILL expand to 20 schools on April 1st. Virginia, UNC, Florida State, and Notre Dame.
…actually no he didn’t. But if he did I’m sure there would be a dozen posts about it on here real quick. Which is hilarious considering The Dude’s predictions have been wrong about 500 times in the last 2 years.
LikeLike
Damn, I messed my own joke up. I said 20, didn’t i? Well, throw Duke and Kansas in there. Why not?
LikeLike
And of course, there’s that April 1 date to let us know he’s just kidding…
LikeLike
Yeah, well, the amount of credit The Dude of WV gets around here is a major blow to the credibility of everyone who participates in these discussions. A week ago he was talking about how FSU was definitely going to join the B1G. Now he’s saying they’re definitely not. And he has sources! Lots of them! And you guys follow him breathlessly.
LikeLike
Final from Comcast: Terps 74, Sparty 49. Next up, the Evil Empire in Bridgeport.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9097544/appalachian-state-mountaineers-georgia-southern-eagles-join-sun-belt-according-sources
The Sun Belt adds App State and GA Southern. They’ll join in all but football in 2014 while football transitions from I-AA to I-A. They’ll join for football in 2015, bringing the SB to 10 for football and 12 overall.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21949121/sun-belt-will-grow-by-four-in-2014-
Dennis Dodd says the Sun Belt will also add Idaho and UNM as football-only schools to get to 12.
LikeLike
So all conferences have 12 (or more) or have announced plans to get to 12 (or more) and have a conference championship.. other then the Big 12.
LikeLike
Tulsa to C-TBD
http://www.newson6.com/story/21798854/reports-tulsa-to-join-the-big-east
Is it over yet?
LikeLike
Well if the ACC loses 2, maybe Rice gets in the Big to be named later conference.
LikeLike
They’ll take Southern Miss and Marshall first. We’ll be in the defacto Sun Belt 1.0. Our only hope would be for UTEP to take us to the MWC with them.
LikeLike
I’ve lost track; does Conference USA now need to add a team to stay even?
LikeLike
Yep. All rumors point to WKU.
LikeLike
There ya go, WKU to CUSA
http://www.bgdailynews.com/sports/western-kentucky-to-announce-move-to-conference-usa/article_2ccca37c-9946-11e2-a994-0019bb2963f4.html
LikeLike
Interesting. They aren’t even waiting for Tulsa to officially leave.
LikeLike
Tulsa may announce today also. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20130401_11_A1_TheTul637572
LikeLike
Cincinnati and apparently others are less than enthused about the most mentioned proposed name-America 12:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130329/SPT0101/303290155/Metro-could-name-UC-s-new-conference?nclick_check=1
LikeLike
Press release is out: http://www.conferenceusa.com/genrel/040113aac.html
Still lists Tulsa as a member in 2014-15.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9100852/tulsa-golden-hurricane-join-big-east-according-sources
Also ECU to be a full member, not football-only.
LikeLike
Lincoln, Neb., had the highest Well-Being Index score (72.8) in the U.S. across the 189 metropolitan areas that Gallup and Healthways surveyed in 2012.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161483/lincoln-neb-bests-cities-wellbeing-2012.aspx
Other college towns appearing in the top 10; Boulder (2), Provo (4), and Ann Arbor (8)
LikeLike
A couple of items from the most recent ESPN Big Ten Mail Blog that may be of interest. See this link for all the questions and answers: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73718/big-ten-mailblog-203
Mr. Pozzum from Arcadia, Calif., writes: Hi Adam. The new alignment in the B1G puts Michigan and OSU in the same divison? Is this true? It looks like a move to keep OSU and Michigan from playing in “The Game” then again in the B1G title game. Both teams will be back on top again and this looks like a move to keep other teams alive to play in the conference title game to me. Your thoughts?
Adam Rittenberg: While nothing is official and discussions are ongoing, I’d be absolutely stunned if Ohio State and Michigan aren’t in the same division beginning in 2014. Avoiding a rematch in the championship game is one reason, and you can make a case that the Big Ten would like to see more teams in the league title game. But I also don’t buy the argument that Ohio State and Michigan would make it every year if placed in opposite divisions. It hasn’t worked out that way in the ACC with Florida State and Miami, and while the gap could be widening between the Buckeyes/Wolverines and the rest of the league, teams like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State and Northwestern aren’t going to simply fade away. A bigger reason for bunching Ohio State and Michigan is the emphasis on geography with the divisions and the Big Ten’s desire to brand itself more in new markets. By putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division with Rutgers and Maryland, the Big Ten ensures that its biggest brands will be playing in those new markets every other year (most likely alternating).
Mike from Centennial, Colo., writes: Adam, if we split into west and east divisions do see the conference returning to rival games at the end of the season? I would love to see my Gophers playing Wisconsin to close the season. It would be great to see Nebraska vs Iowa, Northwestern vs Illinois, Indiana vs Purdue, etc.
Adam Rittenberg: Good question, Mike. The proposed divisions would make it much easier to have a true rivalry weekend at the end of the season. I think it’s imperative that Big Ten teams play division games on the final regular-season Saturday rather than the division crossovers we see too often in November with the current model. With an East-West split, the schedule for the final Saturday should/could be: Michigan-Ohio State, Iowa-Nebraska, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Northwestern-Illinois, Penn State-Michigan State, Indiana-Purdue and Rutgers-Maryland. This slate would feature six division games and only one cross-division contest in Purdue-Indiana, which absolutely should remain on its traditional date. I also would like to see Wisconsin-Minnesota as the regular-season finale, and a Maryland-Rutgers game makes sense since they’re the two new additions. Best of all, it means the revered Land Grant Trophy would be at stake as Penn State and Michigan State do battle. (Cutter’s Note: I just know how much some of the PSU fans on this board love that comment. :))
Jim from Omaha writes: Adam, Nebraska fans need to chill out and respect the tradition they have just joined. Sorry, but we won’t be viewed as full fledged members of the B1G until: 1) we win the conference championship, at least 3 times, and 2) we win a BCS bowl game or two. We can moan all we want, but we are not top tier until we compete well with top tier. I don’t begrudge OSU-Mich their hubris. They’ve earned it. We joined their conference, they didn’t join us (like Texas). I look forward to the future in the B1G. We can and will compete well, East or West, Leaders or Legends. I just want to play PSU every year. That is our best hope for a rivalry of merit like we had with OU. Any word PSU-NU will be protected?
Adam Rittenberg: Jim, you definitely raise fair points about Nebraska needing to legitimize itself in the Big Ten before complaining about the division alignment and claiming to be the only real threat in the future “West” division. I also think people are selling short programs like Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa. Wisconsin has been a more consistent Big Ten power since 1993 than every squad other than Michigan and Ohio State. Iowa won a BCS bowl game after the 2009 season — not that long ago — and has been a force at times during Kirk Ferentz’s tenure. Northwestern’s recent rise under Pat Fitzgerald largely mirrors that of Michigan State’s under Mark Dantonio.
Although I agree that the proposed divisions appear imbalanced, these things often change over time, and we’ll see another round of alignment if and when the Big Ten expands beyond 14. As for the Nebraska-Penn State series, I don’t expect it to be protected. The athletic directors want as broad a schedule rotation as possible beginning in 2014, and the protected crossover games hurt the rotation. Indiana-Purdue is the only crossover game expected to remain. Although it would be nice to see Nebraska and Penn State play every year, I think there’s great potential in the Nebraska-Wisconsin series.
Matt from Ann Arbor, Mich., writes: Adam, it has been brought up a few times that the SEC only played one game north of Missouri last season and that was Vandy at Northwestern. This is not a new development and needs to change. I understand the SEC not wanting to travel to a bowl game in a northern state during the middle of winter, but an early September game in the Midwest should not be a problem. I love that Michigan and Arkansas have the home and home scheduled but please tell me there will be more of that to come!
Adam Rittenberg: Matt, I wish I could say there are a bunch of Big Ten-SEC matchups around the corner, but it’s simply not the case. We likely will see more neutral-site meetings between the leagues like Michigan-Alabama last year and Wisconsin-Alabama in 2015 at Dallas Cowboys Stadium. Of all the SEC schools, Alabama really deserves credit for being willing to play Big Ten teams (the Tide also had a home-and-home against Penn State in 2010 and 2011). But most SEC teams, like many Big Ten teams, hate giving up home games, and if they have to travel, they don’t want to come North. Nebraska has a home-and-home series set with Tennessee in 2016 and 2017, Indiana plays Missouri this season and next, and you mention the Michigan-Arkansas series in 2018 and 2019, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for many more of these series. It’s much more likely we see one-time neutral-site meetings so teams don’t lose as much money as they would with pure road games.
John from Skippack, Pa., writes: Hello Adam…ok, so I am going to,disagree with your recent disagreement: “I also disagree with you that Penn State can “match” Ohio State. The Ohio State program is at a higher level.” So, Ohio State is not at a higher level. At the moment, they have more talent, and likely will during the sanction period. But when it comes to the two “programs”, Penn State is very much on par with Ohio State’s. from the coaching staff to the facilities, to their fan base and their success in graduating their players, thee is no doubt whatsoever that Penn State is equal, if not ahead of Ohio State. Bill O’Brien can and will recruit an extremely competitive team. And they will get their share of Big10 titles. Just wait and watch.
Adam Rittenberg: John, I don’t deny there are plenty of comparable traits between Penn State and Ohio State, many of which you outline here (great fans, great facilities, great football tradition, strong graduation rates, good coaches). Bill O’Brien is an excellent coach with a strong staff. But Ohio State is in a better recruiting position than Penn State. There’s more talent in the state of Ohio, Ohio State has more national recruiting reach, Ohio State is more easily accessible than Penn State, and Urban Meyer is one of the nation’s truly elite recruiters. That’s not a knock on O’Brien or his coaches, but Meyer is recruiting at a higher level. Also, let’s look at the two programs since Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1993 (for these purposes, no wins/titles are vacated). Ohio State has won or shared 10 Big Ten titles, while Penn State has won or shared three. Ohio State has reached 10 BCS bowls (National Championship, Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar). Penn State has reached four. Could things change in the next 5-10 years? Sure. Again, O’Brien has the Penn State program on the right track. But Penn State hasn’t been the world beater many thought it would be when it entered the Big Ten. Ohio State, meanwhile, has been the league’s dominant program.
LikeLike
Word on the street at NU is that Chris Collins will be the next men’s BB coach. Too bad. I was hoping for Shaka, Brad Stevens (Butler) or even Tubby. Chris has no head coaching experience (but was Asst. at Duke) and has no tie ins with the city (i.e. Public Schools). I guess he’ll try to cash in on his Dad’s (Chris Collins) name and rep within the city.
LikeLike
Collins is a good hire. NWU didn’t have any chance at all at Shaka or Stevens. Both of them would have to take a step down (or two) to coach NWU.
LikeLike
Greg, maybe yes, maybe no. With NU having just invested $250M in a new sports facility, it offered hope that we were hunting big game, so to speak. We’ll see.
LikeLike
$250M that had zero to do with hoops. At a school that has never had a NCAA bid. Why would Smart (who supposedly turned down Illinois amongst others) and Brad Stevens (who has been to the Final Four twice) even begin to consider NWU?
LikeLike
Maybe the same reason schools like FSU would consider the B1G over the SEC. For some folks, a certain level of academics matter. It’s at least worth the conversation. I’m certainly not suggesting it would be a slam dunk. And it’s NU, not NWU.
LikeLike
@B1GJeff re: Collins.
Hope it works out, but I have my doubts. Coach K’s assistants have not done well as head coaches and I chalk that up to begin unprepared for real recruiting. Duke doesn’t really recruit; the top flight talent is there for the picking. I think that makes the Duke assistants unprepared for the grunge recruiting work. So, I will be interested to see how Collins does without the D on his sweatshirt when he goes into a living room.
Hopefully this posts in the correct place.
LikeLike
If Collins can recruit as well as Amaker at Harvard, NU will do just fine.
Regarding Smart and Stevens:
For university presidents, a certain level of academics matter. As a general rule, for basketball coaches, what they get paid and their ability to win tend to matter more.
2 guys who between them have turned down UCLA, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and NC State are not suddenly going to leave to take the Northwestern basketball coaching gig (for likely less money).
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau: I agree with your sentiments, which I why I expressed my doubts. In Chicago, you have to be an egghead to actually want to go to NU. Duke has a different level of attractiveness to inner city kids. It’s basketball for the most part, then they go and discover the educational excellence. I doubt that NU is going to start outrecruiting Duke in Chicago, even as ‘Chicago’s Big Ten Team.’ I’m not expecting much.
On the other hand, Tubby (or some of the other pie in the sky choices) would have had some star power that would’ve made the kids do a double take. The Collins name has no cache in the city, it’s all burbs. Remember, even Collins, Sr. is the guy who got fired before the Bulls got Phil Jackson and made the championship runs. That’s not ‘props’ in the city.
NU has great institutional control/checks and balances that will protect against excesses by the athletics department. What it needed in my opinion was to make a splash.
LikeLike
How does Purdue/Notre Dame at the end of the season work out for Notre Dame? There is a reason why they close their season playing either USC or Standford.
LikeLike
Come on now, get with it. This is all about Penn State and its millions of fans and alumni loving to play Pitt, and loathing to play MSU in a season finale. Any collateral damage to other rivalries is trivial.
LikeLike
Michigan to play Cincinnati in football and basketball.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130327/SPORTS0201/303270420/Michigan-Cincinnati-agree-play-football-basketball?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
LikeLike
I still like swing pods. The western teams don’t need to play the southeastern teams so frequently that it hurts traditional rivalries. Just balance the pods so their is a king in each:
WEST ANCHOR
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
SWING POD A
Michigan (Locked: Ohio St)
Michigan St (Illinois)
Indiana (Purdue)
SWING POD B
Ohio St (Michigan)
Illinois (Michigan St)
Purdue (Indiana)
EAST ANCHOR
Penn St
Rutgers
Maryland
[Virginia]
[North Carolina]
Play your seven division games, then play two against the other anchor pod if you’re in an anchor pod, or two against the other swing pod if you’re in a swing pod. Only need locked rivalries in the swing pods to protect key rivalries.
The only issue with this set up is that one in-state rivalry will need to be broken up. Here, it’s Northwestern v. Illinois. May be an deal breaker.
LikeLike
Update from The Dude’s buddy.
MHver3 @ MHver3 31m
Here’s the game changer: espn has told ACC that they can keep 100% of their current contract with up to 4 defections as long as those isn’t FSU, Clemson, Miami, or UNC. The schools can split the money 11 ways instead of 15. Gives them incentive to not add teams.
If UVA and GT jump to the B1G each ACC school gets a pay increase.
LikeLike
Yeah, and the SEC could take VT & NCST and the remaining 11 teams would probably get $25M per year. Or, $28M per year if you leave Notre Dame out and only count 10 schools. Nice upgrade. But, I wonder if there is more to this story. Would ESPN demand an ACC merger with the B12? Or, at the bare minimum, a football only scheduling alliance?
LikeLike
Is Maryland included, or are they considered already gone?
Incentive for ACC to encourage those considering leaving to get going?
Would be interesting…except for the source.
LikeLike
Maryland is considered gone.
Looks like ESPN doesn’t want the ACC picking up UConn or Cincy which ESPN just picked up the rights for as part of the contract with the Old Big East at a discount rate.
LikeLike
Does ND actually get a full split? Don’t recall ever seeing any info on that.
So this would allow the to-be-named Big East conference to survive (sucks for Cinci and Uconn), allow Big 10 and SEC to go to 16, and then leave two 10 team conferences in the ACC and Big 12 who are already discussing a schedule alliance. Big 12 already plays a full round robbin, the ACC could do the same and have their two champions could potentially play some kind of championship game without further expansion which is very limited for the Big 12, and really down to Uconn and Cinci for the ACC.
If this ESPN news is true, the Big 10 can’t pull two teams (lets say GTech and Virginia) to destabilize the ACC further to flush out UNC, as this would actually stabilize the ACC monetarily a bit. If the ACC was not destabilized I could still see VT leaving for the SEC, but wouldn’t see NC State leaving, I think in that situation SEC stays put as number 16 would be harder to nail down.
LikeLike
Gets 20% of what the full members get.
LikeLike
ND gets…
LikeLike
Yes, if true (big if), looks like ESPN wants to avoid knock-on effects from raids on the ACC, so long as the ACC has the schools to retain its BCS (soon to be “contract bowls) AQ status.
Which makes sense ~ as the incumbent market leader, ESPN faces more downside risk than anyone from ongoing instability that sours fans on the whole business.
LikeLike
UMD has filed for discovery in it’s case against the ACC. They have issued a subpoena for the “custodian of records” of The University of Louisville, FSU, UVA, University of Miami, and Boston College. Interesting choice of schools to subpoena or just a coincidence? Would some of the more lawyerly inclined posters comment on this? Linked from the dudes twitter.
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=CAL1302189&loc=65&detailLoc=PGV
Click company and search atlantic coast conference to get to the activity for the suit. It’s the third one listed and click the case number.
LikeLike
FWIW I think most MSU fans would rather play WI, IA or NW over PSU for the season ender.
And whomever made the comment that beating Michigan in BB has been the top goal or whatever for PSU is hilarious, because they’ve been about the worst team in the B10 other than PSU for about 25 years or so and when they were last good, they were running a goddamn money laundering racket – what a coincidence they got such upstanding recruits. Beilein is the best thing that ever happened to them – and he’s got 1 Elite 8 and now 2 Sweet Sixteens, which is hardly tearing it up as he’s been coaching D1 for over 20 years. At least he’s clean though.
LikeLike
jj,
“FWIW I think most MSU fans would rather play WI, IA or NW over PSU for the season ender.”
But those are all crossover games. After all the stink about The Game, no decent brand is getting a crossover game to end the season.
Given IN/PU as the only crossover and OSU/MI as a set game, that just leaves RU, UMD, MSU and PSU. Wouldn’t PSU be your top choice of those 3?
Of course, you could play any of those 3 if MSU went west.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21953673/old-big-east-has-new-deal-with-cbs
CBS signed a deal to get hoops from the former BE.
7 year deals:
Hoops – $4M (not a typo)
Football – $126M
The hoops deal is for up to 12 games, half conference games. I assume they’ll get another TV deal for the rest of their hoops.
LikeLike
12 games or 12 appearances? In one out of conference game, one Big TBA appearance. In one conference game, two Big TBA appearances, which means a 2:1 ratio of OOC to conference games ~ which would suggest that what CBS really wants is the pick of the Big TBA OOC schedule.
If the $4m is not confusion on somebody’s part, the Big TBA traded money for network appearances.
And the football money is identical to reported ESPN dollar values, so I’m wondering if Dodd was phoning it in from a noisy bar, and then phoning corrections in from the same bar.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21959836/atlanta-dallas-phoenix-san-diego-bidding-for-college-football-playoff
In addition to the expected 3 bowls, the Holiday Bowl has also submitted a bid to be a playoff bowl. I still think the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach win, though.
LikeLike
The Holiday Bowl will just make sure the others are honest. Unless they bid major $$ above Atlanta, Dallas, and Phoenix the old stadium will keep San Diego out of the new bowl rotation. All the others have decent pro facilities.
LikeLike
Sun Belt lives! So does Idaho. They officially announced Appalachian St. (Michigan will have to pay $1 million to lose, not just 500k) and Georgia Southern will join in 2014 and Idaho and New Mexico St. will join as football only members.
If Big East had moved quicker, there was a chance the CUSA would have taken enough teams the Sun Belt would have disintegrated like the WAC. As it is, the Gang of 5 will remain a 5 conference gang. WKU is expected to take Tulsa’s spot in the CUSA which means the Sun Belt will add 1 more FCS school, bringing the number of FBS schools up to 130 in 2015 when they all have transitioned, up from 120 in 2009 and 108 in 1995 before realignment started in earnest with the disintegration of the SWC.
This increases the number of FBS schools that aren’t high mid-majors in basketball. More chance of a split from the NCAA?
LikeLike
bullet – if Western KY moves up to CUSA, look for James Madison to get a call from the Sunbelt.
LikeLike
Here’s the link.
LikeLike
JMU, App State and Georgia Southern have all won I-AA/FCS national titles. They are probably ready for the Sun Belt. As for a split from the NCAA, I don’t think the big conferences want any members in such a federation that don’t play FBS level football — too much of a philosophical headache — so while the old Big East with Cincinnati and Connecticut would be invited to break away, the new Big East wouldn’t.
It’d be interesting to see how (or whether) college basketball could adapt to having two different federations with championships. Perhaps a World Series-type playoff between the champs could be created, a best-of-3 similar to one of the current postseason tournaments (CBI?). Perhaps the opposite might occur — they wouldn’t agree to face each other at all, in any sport (though logistically, that would limit the breakaway federation in a sport such as ice hockey — what non=Big Ten teams with FBS programs play? ND, BC, Miami of Ohio, Bowling Green, Connecticut, Air Force, Army and a handful of others).
LikeLike
vp19,
“As for a split from the NCAA, I don’t think the big conferences want any members in such a federation that don’t play FBS level football — too much of a philosophical headache — so while the old Big East with Cincinnati and Connecticut would be invited to break away, the new Big East wouldn’t.”
I don’t think they’ll split from the NCAA, I just think they’ll re-split I-A. 130 is way too many teams. GA Southern has no business being at the same level as UGA.
New I-A should be:
ACC = 14
B10 = 14
B12 = 10
P12 = 12
SEC = 14
Indie = 3?
Former BE = 11
MWC = 12
That’s 90 teams. It drops the SB, MAC and CUSA. Those leagues plus the top of the current I-AA can form a second tier while the lesser I-AA conferences form a third tier.
LikeLike
A couple of years ago I would have thought the elimination of I-AA was a possibility. It would have made it hard for MAC schools to differentiate themselves from the Colonial and Missouri Valley. But with the playoff and new Contract 6 bowls, I don’t think that will happen. Probably much more likely to do what you are suggesting is likely. But with the money in the playoff, it will be difficult to cut conferences out.
LikeLike
GA Southern has no business being at the same level as UGA.
@Brian – I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what criteria do you use to make that decision? Academics? Tradition? Enrollment? How do you establish a criteria that’s fair?
LikeLike
“How do you establish a criteria that’s fair?”
-Raise the average attendance requirement for FBS and enforce it
-Require an athletic department in FBS to sponsor a large number of men’s sports scholarships in addition to football (title 9 will require a large number of scholarships in women’s sports as well)
LikeLike
How can a school dictate/assure attendance? Are the Marlins or Rays not MLB in spite of mostly HS like attendance?
LikeLike
Mike,
“@Brian – I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what criteria do you use to make that decision? Academics? Tradition? Enrollment? How do you establish a criteria that’s fair?”
Attendance and expenditures. Attendance equals fan interest and revenue. Expenditures show whether a school is trying to compete or just get handouts from the playoff money.
App St led I-AA in attendance in 2011 with 26,211 fans on average. GA Southern was #11 at 17,701. That would have been #105 in I-A. Yes, I know they’d draw better being in I-A, but by how much? They are a I-AA power but will be a bottom feeder in I-A and competing with UGA for attention.
The average attendance in I-A was 43,935 and was topped by 53 schools. 76 schools topped 30,000 while 84 topped 23,000. I’d implement a 25,000 running average over 4 years to stay I-A at least.
Schools need a chance to move up, though, so I’d set a threshold of averaging 15,000 fans in I-AA to be eligible to move up, and then they get 5 years until the 25,000 rule applies. That would be the top 16 I-AA schools in 2011, FYI. A school that moves up and gets bounced back must wait at least 10 years to try again.
As for expenses, I-A schools spent $14.5M on football on average in 2011. MAC teams spent $7M on average and Boise spent $8.5M. That tells me something like $7M should be a requirement. Schools that won’t invest in their program can’t compete.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“How can a school dictate/assure attendance?”
Have a better product or buy their own seats.
LikeLike
bullet,
“WKU is expected to take Tulsa’s spot in the CUSA which means the Sun Belt will add 1 more FCS school, bringing the number of FBS schools up to 130 in 2015 when they all have transitioned, up from 120 in 2009 and 108 in 1995 before realignment started in earnest with the disintegration of the SWC.
This increases the number of FBS schools that aren’t high mid-majors in basketball. More chance of a split from the NCAA?”
130 is just way too many teams for I-A. It’s just begging for another split.
LikeLike
In a sense, its already split in Football, by the Access Bowl rules. The FBS mid-majors are just a legal and political shield against anti-trust and an excuse and set of exhibition opponents to send mid-conference schools from the Majors conference bowling to minor bowls.
A split would seem likely to be a side-effect of a split with the NCAA over either scholarships or BBall tournament revenue distribution or both, with the Mid-Majors forming the second division of a two division FBS school athletic association, because bringing them along still provides the same benefits as tolerating the system that allowed them all to transition into “Football Bowls but mostly not the Big Ones” status.
LikeLike
I don’t see them leaving the NCAA. The NCAA will give the big boys their own division to prevent losing them for hoops. The more teams in I-A, the more likely the big boys will feel hamstrung by rules designed to help the bottom teams. That’s why I see a new division split coming.
LikeLike
The thing is they may have to split them for BB also if the Big Boys want to allow a stipend and 4 year scholarship for MBB also.
LikeLike
frug,
Sure they may have to split them from part of D-I in hoops, but as long as they stay NCAA then the NCAA can reap the financial rewards of the tournament and use it to run everything else like they do now.
I don’t see a hoops split as a bad thing, necessarily. Use the second tier schools to fill the NIT instead of taking 18-18 majors. Then the smaller conferences can truly compete for a national title and there will be enough quality teams to get some viewers, especially for their final four. The NCAA can go back to 48 teams with byes for the top 16. Frankly, I’d treat it like tennis and only seed the top 16 and then let everyone else be slotted by geography and/or random draw.
LikeLike
Belated congratulations to the Hoosiers and the Irish for being ranked in all four college baseball polls this week. Pitt also joins the Northern Caucus of Competitive Baseball by making one poll.
Collegiate Baseball: #17 ND, #25 IU, and #30 Pitt.
USA Today Coaches: #21 ND and #23 IU.
Baseball America: #16 ND and #19 IU.
NCBWA: #19 ND and #24 IU
North Carolina remains #1 in all polls.
LSU is anywhere from #2 to #4, and plays Andy’s Tigers for the first time this weekend.
LikeLike
Up above somewhere is a discussion on the AQ of the New Big East and the Big TBA, and numbers of BBall schools invited to the tournament.
AQ of the Big TBA over the next two years is not in doubt, because there is a two year’s grace period on all of the AQ rules if exits bring the number below thresholds, and by the time the grace period expires, they will have had six schools that have competed together for two years. AQ of the New Big East is not in doubt, because they have six core schools that have competed together for the past two years.
The bylaw on numbers in the BBall tournament is this one:
“31.3.4.7.2
Men’s Basketball.
In men’s basketball, subject to the championships-access guarantee afforded to the subdivisions as set forth in Constitution 4.01.2.3.1 (e.g., all contests that are part of the championship shall be administered and funded by the NCAA and broadcast on television and any team that participates in the championship shall be awarded at least one financial unit), there shall be a minimum of 34 at-large selections and the remainder of the championship field automatic-qualifying positions. All competition in the championship is to be administered by the NCAA championships staff. (Adopted: 4/20/99, Revised: 12/15/06)”
So the number of AQ’s is not specified, its by whomever satisfies AQ, therefore if there is one more AQ conference, unless the rule is revised again there will be one more play-in game in Round1.
Which is modestly good news for the single-bid conferences, since the play in games give them their best shot at a 1-1 record rather than an 0-1 record by their rep, and twice the appearance units.
LikeLike
That created the play-in game expanding the tourney to 65. There were 34 at large and 31 AQ conferences. But now they have set it at 68, have they changed the number of at large?
I don’t think its at all clear that the C7 get an autobid.
LikeLike
Its clear that the C7 get an autobid if you look at the current bylaws.
I was wrong on the change in number of play-in games ~ I forgot to count the current number of play-in games. Since the at-large is a minimum, and they’ll still be above 34 when the New Big East gets its AQ, they don’t have to change format.
Be sure you have the current bylaws, the AQ amendments are recent and there are 2011 and earlier copies floating around various places that mislead on the current rules, which were overhauled in 1/15/2011.
Click to access D113.pdf
18.5
Automatic Qualification by Conference.
18.5.1
Division Championship.
To be eligible for automatic qualification into any Division I championship, a conference shall:
(Revised: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a) Have at least six member institutions classified in Division I in the sport in which automatic qualification is sought; and
(b) Meet all requirements for conference automatic qualification into any division championship as set forth in Bylaw 31.3.4. (Revised: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
18.5.2
national Collegiate Championship. [#]
To be eligible for automatic qualification into any National Collegiate Championship, a conference shall:
(Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a) Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division;
(b) Meet all applicable requirements for conference automatic qualification into any National Collegiate Championship as set forth in Bylaw 31.3.4.
18.5.3
Men’s Basketball eligibility requirements.
For automatic qualification in the sport of men’s
basketball in Division I, a conference shall meet the following additional requirements:
(a) It shall determine a conference champion in at least six men’s sports [at least two of which must be team sports as set forth in Bylaw 31.3.4.1-(a)]; and in each of these six sports, at least six of the conference’s member institutions shall sponsor the sport on the varsity intercollegiate level; and
(b) It shall conduct double round-robin, in-season conference competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games, before declaring its champion in basketball. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/91)
The New Big East meets all of these, so it goes to the Championship Rules in 31.
31.3.4.2
Requirements—National Collegiate Championship. [#]
To be eligible for automatic qualification in a National Collegiate Championship, a member conference must meet the following general requirements: (Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a)Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division (Note: A provisional member in the process of becoming an NCAA member cannot be used to meet the requisite number.);
(b) The six active members must have conducted conference competition together for the preceding two years in the applicable sport;
(c) There shall be no waivers of the two-year waiting period; and
(d) Any new member added to a conference that is eligible for an automatic bid shall be immediately eligible to represent the conference as the automatic qualifier.
The New Big East satisfies this.
31.3.4.5
Additional Requirements, Men’s Basketball.
To be considered eligible for automatic qualification in men’s basketball, a member conference must be a core conference (see Bylaw 31.02.3) and must meet the
requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5. (Revised: 8/14/90, 12/3/90, 4/27/00, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
The first part, being a core conference, that is why they need to get named in NCAA legislation, which means getting their name added to the non-FB subdivision list of conferences.
The Bylaw 20.02.5 is the sports and continuity requirement to be a Division1 conference at all. It specifies:
– At least seven active Division 1 members, at least seven play basketball (20.02.5.1, adopted 1/15/11)
– 12 sports, 6 each M/W, BBall and two other team sports each M/W (for a non-FB conference) (20.02.5.2, adopted 1/15/11)
– BBall double round robin in-conference or a minimum of 14 games (20.02.5.3)
The continuity rule is the most sweeping change adopted 15 January 2011:
“20.02.5.4
Continuity.
A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)”
For a newly established conference, this changes the continuity rules from being backward looking to being forward looking.
– And there is a two year grace period on non-compliance with the minimum sports requirement caused by the exit of a school or school(s) from the conference (20.02.5.5 1/15/11)
LikeLike
The latest round of realignment in one picture.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/03/27/conference-realignment-graphic/
LikeLike
I lost track of the treads and “replies” several days ago, so I apologize if this was already posted.
With the new divisions, the end-of-season games seem easy enough:
tOSU/MI
PSU/MD
MSU/Rut
Indiana/Purdue
Neb/Iowa
Wiscy/Minny
IL/Northwestern
With PSU and MSU, there seems considerable desire to NOT return to the LGTGame as the last of the season. Thus, no PSU/MSU game to end the season.
Plus, if I were running the B1G, I would not want the newbies playing an end-of-season game between themselves. They integrate better by playing longer established B1G teams. So, split them between MSU and PSU.
Rutgers and MSU seem to “fit” better together (at least in my perception). I think each fanbase will find things to appreciate in the other. That leaves PSU and MD.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“With PSU and MSU, there seems considerable desire to NOT return to the LGTGame as the last of the season.”
From PSU fans, yes. I haven’t heard much from MSU fans on a preference between RU, UMD and PSU. The schools may not agree with their fans, and the B10 may have other reasons to ignore the fans.
“Plus, if I were running the B1G, I would not want the newbies playing an end-of-season game between themselves. They integrate better by playing longer established B1G teams.”
They have to play, so why not let them start something new with each other? They’re a long way away from becoming a rival of PSU or MSU. Neither RU nor UMD has a B10 rival right now. Besides, there may be scheduling reasons to do it. When Frank finally posts something new, I’ll discuss it further.
“Rutgers and MSU seem to “fit” better together (at least in my perception).”
How so? What similarities or ties do you see? I don’t see MSU fitting with either one particularly well, but I would have said UMD is the slightly better fit for them. Granted, MSU has played RU in the past decade but hasn’t seen UMD in 60+ years. Regardless, I don’t think this is how the decision will be made. My guess is it will be deciding who PSU plays and then the other 2 get paired.
If I was the B10, I would consider four plans (listed in order of my preference):
1. PSU/MSU because it’s the best game and most likely to draw attention. It also allows the 2 newbies to try to grow a rivalry since they have no real rivalry with any other B10 school.
2. Alternate between PSU/RU and PSU/UMD with it always being a road game for PSU. That puts a major brand in one of the two new media markets the B10 is obsessed with every final week. The other team plays at MSU. This also treats RU and UMD equally.
3. PSU/RU because it puts a king in NYC every other year and could help grow the NYC fan base. Besides, RU has ties to no other B10 school while UMD may get some ACC compatriots.
4. PSU/UMD because PSU has a little more history with UMD and DC is the more crackable market.
I have no idea how TPTB feel about it, and there is a scheduling consideration that deserves discussion on a new post.
LikeLike
I suggest a fifth alternative: Have Penn State play Maryland to close the season for two years, with Rutgers playing Michigan State…then in the next two years, have Penn State end with Rutgers while Michigan State ends with Maryland.
LikeLike
vp19,
The reason I always ended with a road game for PSU is the time of year. With students traveling for Thanksgiving, not many will come back to see RU or UMD. So by playing in NYC or in DC, alumni and students from those areas can attend instead. If it isn’t going to be a great game, add attractiveness by location. It also will garner more coverage from media too lazy to go to PSU on Thanksgiving weekend but willing to be in DC or NYC to cover B10 football.
It also means more home games earlier in the year for PSU, so better odds of having night games. PSU fans seem to love those, and ending with an easy road game means 4-5 home games left and all in better weather than that final week.
Think of it like ND. They always end the year @USC or @Stanford, and play the other earlier in the year.
LikeLike
I don’t have a horse in this race, but thinking back to when Nebraska entered the Big Ten, there seemed to be more national attention to their very first Big Ten game (Wisconsin), and by the time Nebraska-Iowa rolled around, while it was still unique, but it was a bigger focus on winning a bowl game. At least for the first year, I think it’s more important to let both Rutgers and Maryland open their Big Ten season with a home game that truly plants the flag of Big Ten Country. One should get Penn State, the other should get either Michigan or Ohio State, and one of the games should be the opener for the entire league – week 3 or week 4 assuming we are still on an 8 game schedule.
LikeLike
Cliff,
“At least for the first year, I think it’s more important to let both Rutgers and Maryland open their Big Ten season with a home game that truly plants the flag of Big Ten Country. One should get Penn State, the other should get either Michigan or Ohio State, and one of the games should be the opener for the entire league – week 3 or week 4 assuming we are still on an 8 game schedule.”
One can open with OSU, the other with MI, and they can still alternate ending with PSU.
LikeLike
Though Penn State could play them as Philadelphia games when they are “home” with Penn State. They’d want it to be the year that they have five conference home games, and the away at Maryland / Rutgers in the year they have four conference home games.
LikeLike
So how would this rumored ACC/Big 12 football alliance work? Assuming the ACC loses two teams to the B1G and two more to the SEC, both the ACC and Big 12 would have 10 members. Do both conferences petition the NCAA to allow a conference championship game with only ten teams? Then, do the winners meet with a trip to either the 4-team playoff or Sugar Bowl on the line? And, the loser goes to the Orange Bowl? Could that be why ESPN is, allegedly, willing to keep their payment to the ACC intact as long as the ACC does not lose more than four teams and none of the four are named FSU, Clemson, Miami or UNC? Just speculating.
LikeLike
No. Without drastic rule changes, that I can’t see the B1G, SEC, or the PAC supporting, their scheduling alliance will be just that. No bonus pre-playoff playoff. Unless they actually combine into one conference, or enlarge to 12 members no CCG.
LikeLike
If the 2 conferences stay the same size, the most sensible way to have an alliance would probably be for each Big 12 team to play 1 ACC team. That would give the ACC 10 games a year against the Big 12 to go with 5 games a year against Notre Dame.
With 8 conference games, that means 13 ACC teams would have 9 games scheduled by the conference, with 1 ACC team each year at 10 games. That would allow rivalries like Clemson-USC and Florida-FSU to continue while still having 7 home games a year at those schools.
LikeLike
If the ACC loses VA, NC, VT and one more I expect that the B12 will just pick off the best schools left. Any of FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, GT, or Duke not taken by B1G or SEC. If the ACC loses 4 but keeps NC, Duke, FSU, and Clemson (unlikely) they either stay pat or merge into a new conference with the B12 getting rid of 4 weak teams. That would make a strong 16 team conference with East and West divisions. Candidates for elimination are WF, BC, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU, Syracuse, and Louisville.
LikeLike
Elimination is easier said than done, and some of your candidates make relatively little sense, particularly Louisville, one of the best-run athletic departments in the country, as well as Iowa State and Kansas State, large state universities with good fan bases, even if they are #2 in their respective states.
Also, most believe the first two ACC members the Big Ten would grab will be Georgia Tech and Virginia, not North Carolina and Virginia. Who could the SEC realistically get to partner with Virginia Tech? N.C. State’s not leaving the ACC unless it’s in conjunction with UNC.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9108000/old-big-east-new-name-2
The former Big East needs to have a new name by May 2. Our long national nightmare is almost over.
LikeLike
Interesting point from the article:
The other interesting note had to do with officiating and the importance of finding the right lead as well as determining the style of play. This needs to be addressed at a joint AD/men’s basketball coaches meeting.
“Should the physical style of play continue to be allowed in the Big East? That is contrary to the direction of the rest of the country and the tournament, and can hurt teams in nonconference play and the NCAAs,” the email read.
Article also says the NCAA is expected to approve auto bids for both conferences. Now that is the C7’s opinion. Those opinions have been wrong before. It will be interesting to see how they do it. I think it would require a change in the by-laws for the C7.
LikeLike
It would require the new Big East be entered into the list of non-FB subdivision schools. That would then make them a core multi-sport conference, since they satisfy the sports distribution rules. At least seven have played together in the sport in conference competition for at least two years ~ in the 2012 bylaws, that doesn’t have to be the conference receiving the AQ (its six for all other sports). So looks like they are only waiting on getting named in NCAA legislation.
The Big TBA just needs to get their name in NCAA legislation amended, since there is a two year grace period on losing AQ due to exits from the conference, and they strongly hope that by the time two years have elapsed, they will have seven teams that will have played together in conference competition for two years.
LikeLike
I got the numbers tangled ~ six playing together in conference competition in the past two years (doesn’t have to be the current conference) and seven current BBall Div1 members in good standing.
LikeLike
I’m just going to leave this here without comment…
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130329/arsalan-kazemi-rice-racial-allegations/?sct=hp_t2_a2&eref=sihp
LikeLike
http://tuxedoyoda.blogspot.com/2013/03/done-deal.html
Tuxedo Yoga is making some definitive claims:
There are 2 rock-solid, definitive statements I can make. There will be no hedging, no flip-flopping, no back-tracking. There is nothing that can fall through and no last minute shocking developments that will change things. Per my source, these 2 realignment moves have been fully negotiated and they are DONE. They have not only been blessed by the networks, they are the products of the networks, particularly Fox & CBS.
#1 When the 2014 college football season kicks off, UNC will be a member of the SEC.
#2 When the 2014 college football season kicks off, Miami will be a member of the Big 12.
Regarding #1…….I know you want to know who will join with UNC to be team #16 in the SEC. Per my source, this has not been decided.
Regarding #2…….The Big 12’s preferred scenario is to only add 2 teams, FSU and Miami, and to stop at 12. Miami is a done deal. FSU is not. I was not told why. I was not told percentages of FSU joining the Big 12. I was not told if FSU is trying to join another conference or if FSU wants to stay in the ACC. I was told that if FSU refuses to join the Big 12, the next most lucrative option proposed by the networks will be carried out. The Big 12 will go to 14 with a 3-team Florida block of Miami, UCF, USF and a 4th team from the current ACC. I was not told the name of the 4th team.
Why are these things happening? This isn’t about what fans, ADs or board members want. I was told this is what the networks want.
My reactions:
1. I would be surprised if UNC has decided to move this early. Not the location, just the decision to move in general. Also, where does that leave Duke if they aren’t #16 with UNC?
2. I’d be amazed if Miami has agreed to go west already, especially if FSU hasn’t decided to go anywhere yet. As for the B12 taking UCF and USF too, I’d be a little shocked. I could see USF, but UCF is a reach to me. I’m curious which other ACC team would come if not FSU. Clemson?
LikeLike
@Brian – I wouldn’t waste your time with Tuxedo Yoda. IMHO – his track record isn’t good.
LikeLike
Mike,
“@Brian – I wouldn’t waste your time with Tuxedo Yoda. IMHO – his track record isn’t good.”
I give him no credibility, I’m just glad to have a new crazy rumor to play with. It’s been slim pickings lately.
LikeLike
No credibility for #1. The rest of the ACC would have to collapse for North Carolina to move, and going to the SEC would require it to park several Tar Heel programs (men’s soccer, wrestling, field hockey, both lacrosse teams) in weaker, lower-profile non-SEC leagues — easier said than done. It would be a logistical nightmare for Chapel Hill. If the ACC became untenable, UNC goes to the Big Ten if it has no other alternative…but that’s an “if” that doesn’t yet have an answer, much less a “when.”
As for #2, if Florida State isn’t interested in the Big 12 (which may be in need of 12 members if only to preserve its share of BCS revenue), Miami could well be a choice, probably alongside Clemson. Again, though, that’s a substantial “if.”
LikeLike
Is this crazy enough, Brian?
LikeLike
If it wasn’t April 1st, maybe.
LikeLike
None of the bloggers that claim to have insider info have a good record. The Dude, MHver3, the Northwestern guy, this guy, and all of the rest just throw whatever they hear out on their blogs as facts. The people making the conference moves are going to do everything they can to keep the information off of the blogs. Why these guys post this stuff as facts (or at least imply it that way) is beyond me.
LikeLike
Believe it after it happens. Perhaps months after.
The P16 was absolutely a done deal. UT was the driving force. It was signed sealed and delivered…until UT decided not.
(substitute UNC for UT)
LikeLike
Disregard please. I’m disappointed in myself for even remarking on that. It’s just throwing s#!t against a wall, but in this case the wall is missing.
LikeLike
I know. But since we have nothing of merit to discuss at the moment, a new rumor is better than nothing. I like trying to reverse engineer them and figure out how it made sense to someone in the first place.
LikeLike
Agreed. Much more obtuse “leaks” at least have the possibility of being something floated for a specific reason. Much more fun to try to decipher than simple predictions with no reasonable backing.
LikeLike
I see UNC as the last one to move. What was Dodd’s comment? “We didn’t start this, but we will finish it.” That’s UNC’s position with regard to the ACC.
There has been a lot of talk about Miami and the Big 12. It doesn’t make sense to me. Like Colorado went west to be with their alumni base, Miami fits the ACC to a tee. Their students are up and down the east coast and the ACC has more like schools. Now if the Big 12 is Miami’s life raft, that makes sense. But I don’t see Miami going unless others go first.
LikeLike
Dodd’s comment?
LikeLike
Dodds’
Deloss Dodds, UT AD, made that comment at some point during all this realignment stuff.
LikeLike
Perhaps he did, but I thought Swofford said something similar eliciting responses that ACC arguably started this round taking BE schools originally. Plus just how would they “finish” this?
I don’t see what Dodds would be responding to, unless the response dates to UNL and CU leaving time frame. But he was actively exploring possibilities at that time also. Their situation stabilized a while ago.
LikeLike
What I was saying was that is UNC is a key to the ACC. They have influence on how all this goes. For example, if they wanted to take a pack of 4-6 schools to the Big 12, they probably could. They might be able to take a pack of 4 to the B1G or SEC. They almost certainly could take 1 other with them to the B1G or SEC. They could end all the speculation by moving. And if UVA and FSU aren’t interested in being the first to leave, they could hold it together. They might even if one of those two left.
LikeLike
I don’t believe it, but this rumor could make sense if:
1) ACC schools accept that more of their counterparts are going to the Big Ten
2) UNC has decided its best future is the SEC (which is apparently its fans preference)
3) FSU still has a chance to go to the Big Ten and/or SEC
4) Miami has already been told it won’t get into the Big Ten or SEC.
Miami would be ready to commit to the Big 12 now, rather than see an offer rescinded in the future.
Still find the idea of UCF/USF a bit odd, but they’d fit in with TCU & Baylor as relatively minor schools in a big state.
LikeLike
I agree that it could be possible. I don’t know who Tuxedo Yoda is so I don’t know if we should believe him.
LikeLike
Tuxedo Yoda is a Texas fan who claims to know someone inside the Texas Athletic Department. I trust what the Dude says as well as the multiple personality WV blogger MHVer3 before Tuxedo Yoda.
LikeLike
Does his story change dramatically from week to week like The Dude’s?
LikeLike
Tuxedo Yoda only claims one source, so he doesn’t change that quickly.
The Dude seems to have many sources and doesn’t do a good job sorting out the nonsense.
LikeLike
The thing about that particular rumor is that a source inside the Texas Athletic Department would be an inside source on a firm commitment from Miami to move to the Big12 if a suitable traveling companion is found … but they could well be an outside source on UNC working out a deal with the SEC. Plus, they would be an interested party in destabilizing the ACC to shake lose the school/schools they most want to get out of the ACC.
And Miami doesn’t have a lot of other options if they need to bail out of the ACC, so taking the out while it is on offer is a quite plausible decision for them.
LikeLike
“We” don’t actually know anybody’s source. I wouldn’t presume to suggest a (hypothetical) source that was known to me should be “believed” by others, simply because of my familiarity. Being skeptical of all sources, until their forecasts are supported, is what most here do. That doesn’t preclude a bit of fanciful exploration to test a particular outcomes likelihood, in the testers opinion. It’s harmless. I’m not sure why it bothers you so much. Certainly nobody has suggested Dude, or whoever, should be taken at face value. They may have been used to float information, or misinformation, in the past.
LikeLike
The Dude has admitted he discovered he was used to float misinformation.
LikeLike
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=205&f=2664&t=11421547
Saw this link elsewhere. Its the first discussion I’ve seen of the Gang of 5 payout. This is apparently from an e-mail from the Idaho AD to alumni.
LikeLike
Makes sense that most of it is distributed equally per school so conferences aren’t rewarded for being big or small.
Sad about his prediction that we’ll see even more schools bloat the Bowl Subdivision.
LikeLike
I don’t read it that way. There are two sentences that are kind of contradictory in that article. First it says it is divided equally among the 5 conferences and then it says its $1 million per school.
It could be read either way, but I think the AD is referring simply to the Sun Belt when he mentions the $1 million per school (60 million/5 conferences=12 million /12 Sun Belt schools =$1 million/school).
The Sun Belt commissioner made the comment there would be a reduction for being under 12 schools, so that was motivating their expansion.
LikeLike
MgoBlue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
If Penn State really wants to get national attention playing an ACC team Thanksgiving week, they should play Miami.
Miami has no natural partner with FSU playing Florida that weekend, so they’d probably consider it. The question would be if PSU would be willing to make such a long trip every other year the week before the Conference Championship.
LikeLike
If PSU did that then another Big Ten would have to either take a bye week or play an OOC game and I don’t think that will happen.
LikeLike
People are suggesting PSU play Pitt every Thanksgiving…that would have the same effect.
LikeLike
Yeah, and I don’t see that happening either.
LikeLike
MgoBlue!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
For a PSU fan, it might be Pitt or even Temple for the season-ender. For a Rutgers fan, it would be PSU. Now let’s say the B10 adds UVa/Duke/GT/FSU. Well, season-enders would probably be the following: FSU/UF, GT/UGa, VT/UVa. IOW, no change from the current situation. Duke/UNC may become a season-ender, unless UNC wants to play NC State on the last week, in which case Duke/UNC would become a Week 2-type matchup. So if PSU/Pitt becomes a permanent final week game, this is what I’d like to see happen:
UM/OSU
Pitt/PSU
NE/IA
UMd/Duke
RU/WVU
IN/PU
MSU/NW
IL/MO
MN/WI
LikeLike
Transic,
“So if PSU/Pitt becomes a permanent final week game, this is what I’d like to see happen:
UM/OSU
Pitt/PSU
NE/IA
UMd/Duke
RU/WVU
IN/PU
MSU/NW
IL/MO
MN/WI”
Problems:
1. MSU/NW is a crossover – not going to happen
2. Duke, WV and MO would all have to agree and perhaps get approval from their conferences
3. RU, IL, UMD, NW and MSU would all have to agree
RU/SU makes more sense to me. UMD/WV is a rivalry. You are, of course, assuming Pitt would choose PSU over WV since WV would also have to be on board.
LikeLike
Here are my thoughts on this unending dialogue about Penn State’s final season game. Since I now know that I am the only Nitt on earth who prefers MSU, I am willing to compromise and play MSU earlier in the season. My only condition is that the next time we win the game, the trophy gets melted down into a likeness of the Pitt Panther. Something all Nitts, excepting myself, loathe more than the LGT.
On the subject of an annual Pitt hatefest; WHEN the B1G goes to nine conference games, an annual game with Pitt becomes in effect, a tenth conference game. Since I cannot, within my brainless Nitt head, conceive of having less than seven home games, that means, to never, ever, ever, play a home and home with anyone else. No more Bamas, SCs, Cals, CFL, VA, whomever. Just Pitt, and home games with Youngstown State and Temple. We will be in the same position as Iowa, with their game against ISU. Maybe the Hawkeyes don’t mind having six home games, but I doubt PSU, OSU, MI, NE, or WI would.
LikeLike
largeR,
“Since I now know that I am the only Nitt on earth who prefers MSU,”
You really aren’t, although you are in the minority (at least online).
“On the subject of an annual Pitt hatefest; WHEN the B1G goes to nine conference games, an annual game with Pitt becomes in effect, a tenth conference game. Since I cannot, within my brainless Nitt head, conceive of having less than seven home games, that means, to never, ever, ever, play a home and home with anyone else. No more Bamas, SCs, Cals, CFL, VA, whomever. Just Pitt, and home games with Youngstown State and Temple.”
I think many of the people proposing to make it an annual game again forget about this factor. They are so conditioned to 8 games that they forget that 9 games is coming and what it will mean. As an outsider, I’d like to see PSU/Pitt be annual but I doubt it makes sense for either school (maybe for Pitt).
LikeLike
Has there been any recent word on the lawsuit(s) between Maryland and the ACC? The resolution there may be a sticking point for further activity (or it could be that no more schools of Big Ten interest are likewise interested at this time).
LikeLike
mouse,
No, there hasn’t been much news. UMD filed for discovery (some else linked it on here). Supposedly the ACC was advised to offer a settlement and offered $33M, but that’s just rumor AFAIK.
LikeLike
Random information from the Cedar Rapids Gazette OnIowa podcast this week. They mentioned a number of items after talking to Iowa AD Gary Barta. They didn’t exactly quote him on this. The much-rumored East/West divisions with the Indiana/Purdue split seem nearly certain. Nine conference games. The one sticking point is that Indiana and Purdue wouldn’t be guaranteed to play each conference team within four years, so some players could go their entire career without playing a school.
They also speculated that we’ll see 20 conference games in hoops, and once again mentioned that the football non-FCS rule isn’t going to stick.
LikeLike
That would make the Big Ten the first top-tier conference to play a 20-game basketball schedule (the Northeast Conference did it some years ago when it had 11 members). If the Big Ten remains at 14 members, that would mean teams would play seven home-and-homes and the other six teams once. I don’t believe the conference has ever guaranteed home-and-homes in hoops (I think I recall that even Purdue-Indiana wasn’t guaranteed), but I think for geographic purposes it might make sense now to guarantee two or three such games.
LikeLike
greg,
“and once again mentioned that the football non-FCS rule isn’t going to stick.”
Too bad. I’d settle for them limiting it to in-state I-AAs at least. Teams could keep the money in state and let local players get to play on the field they probably grew up dreaming of playing on. There just isn’t much to gain from bringing in an out of state I-AA. That’s just brazenly buying a win.
LikeLike
Who are the in-state schools that benefit from it? I know its important to Northern Iowa’s budget, is there any other FCS program that gets an annual infusion of funds from playing their in-state Big Ten shool? Cause if its just Northern Iowa, the solution might be to help them get themselves into the MAC, which still has unbalanced divisions after Temple did a Marshall on them.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Who are the in-state schools that benefit from it?”
NE, WI, MN, MI – none
IA – UNI
IL – SIU, EIU, WIU, IL State
IN – IN State
OH – YSU
PA – Villanova (private so it doesn’t really count)
NJ – Princeton (private so it doesn’t really count)
MD – Towson
OSU doesn’t want to play YSU much and many schools don’t have an in-state school to play.
LikeLike
Thanks for that. So Illinois spreads the largesse around, while UNI and IN State might be more dependent on those particular games to make their annual budget.
On OSU, not only does OSU not play YSU much, but won’t be playing them again until/unless current plans change.
LikeLike
Re: OSU
Exactly. Hopefully we never play them again.
If IN, PU, IL, and IA want to play those teams, I can understand and accept it. NW shouldn’t need it, but can if they want. I don’t see why any top half team but IA should play a I-AA.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a random comment on a conference realignment board that Illinois State has a standing offer from the MAC ~ which if true would suggest they have a standing disinterest in moving up. Would Indiana State or Northern Iowa consider a move up? That would eliminate the FCS status of either game, from the second year of the transition.
This is more long-term, of course ~ the MAC is in a position to wait and see what happens in realignment in the coming year, since it may be that the Big TBA solves the MAC’s unbalanced division problem that the Big TBA created back when they were the Big East..
LikeLike
wow, the buckeyes are down by 20 to Wichita State. I guess the B1G was hugely overrated in basketball this year. If Florida does their job tomorrow then the B1G will be shut out of the final 4. Which, as a Michigan alum as well as a Mizzou alum, I hope it doesn’t happen, but I think it will. All that bluster by B1G fans about how great they are at basketball with nothing to show for it. They’ll likely end up with less Final 4 teams than the SEC this year. Funny.
(obvious reply, Mizzou lost in the first round haha at me, ok, yeah, you got me. Mizzou has been to the tournament 26 times and has lost in the first round 13 times. That might even be a record for most first round losses, I don’t know. We’ve lost in the first round as a 2 seed, 3 seed, 4 seed, 5 seed, 6 seed, we get upset in the first round a lot, I know. It’s definitely true. But you know what else is true? The B1G wasn’t very good at basketball this year. And OSU is down by 20 to Wichita State. Ha.)
LikeLike
Jesus man, If the Big Ten bothers you so much, why do you haunt this blog? It’s not like there aren’t SEC blogs out there. It’s kind of like an Fresno St. fan fan posting “Bulldogs this” and “Bulldogs that” all the time on a Mizzou site – not relevant and kind of annoying. There is your negative reinforcement for the day – enjoy.
LikeLike
I went to Michigan for grad school thus I am a Big Ten alum, thus I comment on a Big Ten blog. People talk about Missouri all the time when I’m not here. I know this because I check in once every week or so and do a word search of threads. “Missouri” and “Mizzou” come up a bunch of times per thread, even if I don’t bring them up. I bring them up myself b/c so many on here have trolled Missouri, so I troll them back.
LikeLike
Miss-ouri sucks!
LikeLike
Almost all SEC fans are annoying. I have no idea why ,they seem to be happiest saying nasty things about other teams .Do you think that they are insecure ?
LikeLike
The B1G is the top conference in earning payment credits per school. The SEC is not only at the bottom of the big 6 (BE still big in basketball) but also the only one of the 6 below the A10 and MVC. Even if FL wins the championship it will not be enough to change this. The SEC does have better women’s basketball than the B1G.
LikeLike
The SEC has far more national titles in basketball in the modern era.
LikeLike
Shame that Missouri had to dilute that proud basketball tradition.
LikeLike
Back to the original subject: Each B1G school will receive 3.3 times what each SEC school receives for the conference performances in this year’s NCAA basketball tournament. Even the B12 (just above the SEC) managed 1.6 times the SEC payout.
Kentucky has 8 NCAA championships to 4 for Indiana. The rest of the B1G vs. rest of the SEC is 5-3 in favor of B1G, so a total of 2 more for the SEC. Interesting that you consider this “far more”.
LikeLike
IU has 5 NCs.
LikeLike
Wow, Florida a 3 seed losing by 20 to Michigan, a four seed. How did that B1G shutout and SEC final four work out for you Moandy. It’s appropriate today is Easter with the eggs and counting chickens thing.
LikeLike
Also, why do people keep quoting the Dude like he’s somebody? I means seriously.
LikeLike
You quote anonymous Missouri people who no one outside of Columbia think have any credibility. At least the Dude is interesting.
LikeLike
Yeah, but my anonymous people are telling the truth, and their story never changes. The Dude has a new lying story every week.
LikeLike
And that is independently verifiable?
LikeLike
Let’s say that the Big XII could have a total re-do on their recent expansion with the value of total hindsight.
Do you think they still take TCU and West Virginia? Or would they add Louisville instead of one school or the other? Also, there is the option that they could have taken all three plus another school to return to 12 members.
I suppose with total hindsight you would have to say they would have included Louisville either instead of either WV or TCU or with them.
The chances of the ACC taking either WV or TCU after losing Louisville would probably have been near zero. So, again with hindsight, the smart move for the Big XII would probably have been to add Louisville and TCU first and assume that WV would always be an option.
Under that scenario, UConn is probably invited to the ACC and West Virginia is getting very desperate.
LikeLike
I’ll deal with this backwards since I think the second part is easier to address than the first.
The chances of the ACC taking either WV or TCU after losing Louisville would probably have been near zero. So, again with hindsight, the smart move for the Big XII would probably have been to add Louisville and TCU first and assume that WV would always be an option.
Under that scenario, UConn is probably invited to the ACC and West Virginia is getting very desperate.
I think the ACC would have taken WVU over UConn. WVU nearly got invited in place of either ‘Cuse or Pitt but was turned down on academic grounds. However, WVU’s academics aren’t any weaker than Louisville’s who just got an invite over UConn.
Let’s say that the Big XII could have a total re-do on their recent expansion with the value of total hindsight.
Do you think they still take TCU and West Virginia? Or would they add Louisville instead of one school or the other? Also, there is the option that they could have taken all three plus another school to return to 12 members.
I suppose with total hindsight you would have to say they would have included Louisville either instead of either WV or TCU or with them.
To be honest, if everyone had the benefit of hindsight I think the most likely scenario is that BYU would have accepted the Big XII’s invitation to replace Mizzou. Scheduling as an independent has been much more difficult than they imagined (this year they have only two games in the second half of the season, which is actually an improvement from last year) and it is just getting worse (Hawaii just cancelled their 10 game series). Heck, even ND just had to agree to a scheduling agreement with the ACC precisely because they said scheduling as an indy was unsustainable (yes ND has higher standards than the Cougars but they also have more leverage).
Even worse, it is looking increasingly likely that BYU is going to be locked out of the Big Boy club forever since the WVU addition means the Big XII is unlikely to ever look west again for expansion and the PAC shows no signs of softening on their no religious schools policy.
LikeLike
You keep mistaking BYU’s motivations to be concerned with athletics like most schools. As long as they have their ESPN deal, control of media rights, ability to get before a national audience, then the proselytizing mission of the church is being served. It’s a totally different dynamic.
LikeLike
I understand their mission; I just think think that they could better achieve it as a member power conference.
The reason they turned down the Big XII before is that under the then Big XII contract they would likely get only 3 nationally broadcast FB vs. 9 or 10 as an indy; the thing is since then the Big XII signed a new contract that guarantees the team’s more national games than BYU was anticipating (and that number will grow with the launch of the new Fox Sports networks).
Plus, the Big XII offers better matchups than BYU can pull off on its own, meaning more viewers for their games that are broadcast nationally.
—-
More significantly, Big XII membership means a power conference home for their non-FB sports which means WAY WAY more nationally televised MBB games. Right now how many BYU conference games get nationally broadcasted? 2 or 3? That number would skyrocket as a Big XII member.
True, they wouldn’t get quite as much sports content for their TV network, but they would get the same amount as Texas does and ESPN has managed to turn that into a 24 hour TV network so it would still be more than enough.
All this is really just a long way of saying they would probably get more national exposure as a a member of the Big XII than as a independent with non-FB sports in a mid-major.
LikeLike
But right now BYUtv can air any home event, even the ESPN national broadcasts later the same day. Will the B12 grant BYU that (knowing the UT almost killed the conference a much weaker deal?
Will they remain independent indefinitely? I don’t know. But I doubt two years and a bit of anticipated scheduling discomfort is nearly enough to change the church’s mind. The novel wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. Plus, every time anything realignment related happens BYU winds up being discussed. What better advertising than to be constantly sought?
LikeLike
Darn auto correct…
The novel… = The move…
And also my oops.
…conference over a…
Edit function…?
LikeLike
@frug – I think BYU would take a Big 12 invite for the reasons that you’ve stated. The LDS elders might be a fickle bunch, but a power conference slot is still something that they can’t pass over. Now, independence still vastly trumps being part of the “Old” Big East or MWC for them (especially with the pennies that those leagues are receiving TV-wise compared to BYU’s independent deal).
LikeLike
FtT:
You may be right, but BYU has apparently passed on the B12 twice in the last 3 years.
The Elders (or whatever the “twelve” are called) are way beyond fickle. There is a strong group that believe competitive sports are counter to their teaching and mission of their schools. Note that they ended sports at BYU Idaho (formerly Ricks College), and had no hesitation in suspending one of their bestbasketball players at a most critical time (competition wise) last year over what would not even draw a comment at any other power school.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen any BYU or Big 12 boards saying BYU passed on the Big 12. I have seen lots of suggestions they made a lot of demands that the B12 TV partners couldn’t accept.
LikeLike
I believe if you respond to inquiries with your requirements, that qualifies as being asked. Being able to reach agreement and join is usually the only overt acknowledgement that “invitations” were sought or extended. Are fan boards likely to prefer a B12 seat? Yes, but most of BYU’s fans will quietly accept the churches decision (and continue to hope that might change in the future). B12 boards would explode if BYU was granted what they want. UT would quietly applaud the precedent.
LikeLike
@cc – I would be very surprised if there wan’t any contact from the Big 12 before adding West Virginia. At the very least for due diligence or contingency planning.
LikeLike
@cc
Contact doesn’t mean an invite. Louisville and the Big 12 unquestionably had discussions. Missouri wasn’t stupid enough to refuse to commit to the Big 12 in that June 2010 meeting if they thought they had no place to land. Clearly they had some discussions with the Big 10. The WV people (prophets before the Dude and MHVer3) were convinced they had an SEC invitation coming as they were working on documents to get out of the Big East. But obviously, WVU did not have an SEC invitation. WKU didn’t just start talking with CUSA yesterday. Tulsa has obviously been talking to the BE for a while (and still haven’t officially been invited).
Right now its clear all the ACC schools are talking with lots of people. Now it may be absolutely nothing but contingency planning in case school X or Y or Z leaves first, but there are discussions. It doesn’t necessarily mean either side will commit.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I think we are agreeing, but arguing semantics. UT had a place in the PAC contingent upon certain things that UT was not willing to do. Extreme example, I know, as everyone is willing to say there were multiple unrequited advances.
If BYU would have been able/willing to accept the B12 media agreements in 2010 do you think TCU would be included in anything less than a 12 team conference? There was then, and has been several times since, a decent amount of “smoke” around B12+BYU. Mendenhall even addressed it once, in a very noncommittal, prepared way.
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if UT might be in support of admiting BYU, with significant media concessions to them, because of the potential benefit to the LHN. I can’t see ESPN extending their 15M/yr largess for the limited amount of currently allowed inventory.
LikeLike
@cc
I think it was “fluid.” A lot of schools wanted TCU for recruiting reasons. In the 2000s TCU had the 7th best winning % in the country. BYU was 23rd. Maybe if BYU was more flexible they would have been in (my belief they were not flexible is based on reading a couple of BYU boards and several Big 12 boards at the time). But it still might have been TCU because of recruiting and national TV appeal.
Personally, I was amazed when TCU was picked. But there is logic in the recruiting and TV angle.
There definitely was smoke with BYU. But rather than a semantic difference, I would say that a lot can slip twixt the lip and the cup, much like UConn and the ACC.
LikeLike
There is no indication that there ever was an invitation for BYU to join the Big 12.
BYU would be a good addition to the Big 12, but it can’t provide the $25 million in annual value that the Big 12 would need to be tempted to add more teams (can anyone? outside of perhaps a few, select Big Ten and SEC schools and perhaps Notre Dame and Florida State?)
But, BYU will be fine. With ESPN picking up the MWC and Big East…er, America/whatever 12, contracts, BYU will have plenty of filler for its schedule. I also think we will see BYU pigging back off Notre Dame’s relationship with the ACC – it creates holes in the ACC schedule that will allow BYU to get one or two ACC teams each year.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Why would the remaining eight schools want a fourth Texas school over a national name with a built in national fan base and the draw to get an independent ESPN deal? TCU is of value only when they win (and now that is at B12 teams expense, if it continues). BYU is not a king, but is king like as their following won’t fade in the same way during a rough patch. TCU is a high achieving squire. But more important, they were a breathing body willing to say yes in 2010.
As you say, if BYU had been more flexible they might (would, in my opinion) have joined. That is my point. They don’t want/need to be. The benefits that we sports fans see are apparently of little value to the church leadership. There is no doubt BYU and B12 each would have value for the other…if the leaderships shared the same value system. For BYU, take “think like a president” and put it on steroids. Now substitute “missionary”. Until the “mission” is not being well served, or could be assured of being much better served within a conference, I can’t see BYU abandoning the control they now have. And I don’t see a conference becoming a missionary arm of their church to meet the need currently being filled through independence.
LikeLike
@Everbody in this thread
While BYU was never received a formal invitation from the Big XII, that is only because they weren’t going to issue an invitation to any school unless they were sure it would be accepted.
That said.
The Big XII did approach BYU about both the A&M and Mizzou openings and BYU told the conference they weren’t interested both times.
LikeLike
On the subject of scheduling. What BYU has been dealing with isn’t just “a bit of anticipated scheduling discomfort” it is a real issue and even BYU’s AD admitted scheduling has been more difficult than the school anticipated (remember when BYU decided to go indy originally it with the intention of having a scheduling agreement with the WAC similar to what ND has with the ACC).
(I also don’t understand how the ND scheduling agreement helps BYU. If anything it makes it harder since the ACC schools now have 1 less game to play every 3 years. In fact, that is the reason G-Tech cancelled the back half of their 2 and 2 with the Cougars).
Whether the scheduling issues are enough to force them into a conference is debatable, but it has been much more difficult than you imply.
—-
As you say, if BYU had been more flexible they might (would, in my opinion) have joined. That is my point. They don’t want/need to be.
I think the overall point is that if BYU knew 2 years ago what they know now (and that is point of the this exercise), they would have been more flexible. When they passed on the Big XII they did so in the belief they were turning down an offer from a conference that was on the verge of implosion and would give them (relatively) little in the form of national exposure. Since then, the Big XII has signed a 12 year GOR and a TV contract that would (arguably) give the Cougars more visibility than they have in their current situation.
LikeLike
Boscatar:
BYU didn’t need to bring 25M in 2010. Did TCU? Or WVU?
Semantics. As I indicated to bullet usually no “actual” invitation will be extended until the deal is basically assured. If conditions for acceptance are unacceptable then the “exploration” ends with no invitation. B12 had every reason to invite/explore BYU for reasons obvious to sports fans. BYU had reasons sports fans rarely are aware of for making membership conditional on exceptional demands. Therefore the exploration ends without an accepted invitation. B12 did not explore without intent.
LikeLike
Frug:
Catch 22. The stability the GOR gives the conference would deny BYU the control of their media rights that was the reason to go independent originally. Was/is the B12 going to give the Cougars that which they wouldn’t give the Longhorns? Even at the risk of the conference? Open that can of worms and UT becomes a media independent too, but possibly still rules its conference.
LikeLike
Also, no. They might occasionally get a bit more one off national coverage, but the full time ability to show and replay any and all home events themselves, that is the actual value to them. They are marketing to the believers, members, potential converts, etc wherever BYUtv is available, in addition to the general sports audience. The “payoff” is measured in church membership growth, not in neilson numbers.
LikeLike
@ccrider
The control of the media rights is one of the things they would have to be flexible on.
That said, even if all they got to keep are their Tier 3 rights, that is still more than enough content to fill BYUtv. (Remember the LHN makes do with that much despite not having religious content to go along with their sports programming)
.
——
As for national broadcasts vs. replays for BYUtv. The national broadcasts would enable BYU to be viewed by more of the population which would help the Church reach non-members. Keeping the content on BYUtv is basically preaching to the converted. Both approaches have advantages so I guess it just comes down to the LDS leaderships priorities.
LikeLike
I think the Big 12 would do it the same. The out of state schools wanted Texas access and TV liked the recent success of WVU and TCU.
Personally, I would have taken WVU and UL over WVU/TCU. I don’t think the extra game in Texas really adds that much value and spreading exposure over another state helps.
LikeLike
The B12 needed teams to start the next season. TCU was available having already quit the MWC but not having started in the BE. If TCU was subject to the 27 month wait period it is likely that UL would have got the invite over TCU. It was close between UL and WVU. Pittsburgh was also in the mix until it wrangled a bid to the ACC. There is a good chance that the B12 would have invited Pitt and Louisville to get back to 12 if the ACC had not made its move.
LikeLike
If they could re-do, I bet they would take Louisville over West Virginia. UL – back to back Final Fours, and got to be the favorite to win the title this year at this point. Their football team beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl (though they would not have had that opportunity if they had been in the Big XII, but I think we can say that WV and UL are pretty close to a wash in football right now, if you factor out their conference affiliation).
Plus, the travel is much easier to UL.
LikeLike
@Arch – Even if they knew, I still think they would have taken West Virginia. IMHO – West Virginia is a better long term play than Louisville.
LikeLike
WVU has a somewhat larger fan base, but UL has a far better run athletic department. The Big 12’s loss is the ACC’s gain.
LikeLike
WVU has a somewhat larger fan base, but UL has a far better run athletic department. The Big 12′s loss is the ACC’s gain.
I don’t know about that. Yes, Louisville is well run, but Oliver Luck is still one of the best AD’s in the country.
LikeLike
I think the best way forward for the Big XII is through an alliance with the ACC. Here’s the catch: the ACC agrees to allow VT/NCSU to go to the SEC, thus the SEC gets its fill of the Virginia/Carolina markets. Virginia and G-Tech go the B1G. Academics and markets. G-Tech as an outlier would be a problem, though. ESPN pays the ACC the same money as if they’re at their current 14 members + ND partial. So UNC, FSU, Miami, Clemson, Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse all get a good pay day without having to share with 4/5 ex-ACC schools who’ve moved on to better conferences. There might be even enough left over to backfill with UConn and Cincinnati, making the ACC probably the 1st or 2nd best major basketball conference.
As for football, that’s where the alliance with the Big XII comes into play. While losing VT would be a hit, neither GT, UVa or NCSU are heavyweights in that area. Those schools are much more valuable to the SEC/B1G than in the ACC now. There’d still be some minnows like BC and Duke but even BC had a decent history in football before joining the ACC. UConn had been in a BCS bowl. Cincinnati provides another good football program that would help the schedules of FSU, Miami and Clemson. You add to those OOC games against OU, Texas, ND, WVU, Kansas State and TCU and the schedule strength goes way up.
The Big XII, having gained critical access to the Southeast, through the alliance, without having to expand to faraway places, could then turn to re-engage with BYU, this time for a football-only deal to add marquee games for television.
The SEC and B1G get to solve the schedule issues by going to 16. Everyone but delusional B12 posters at the WVU Scout board and pro-ACC Maryland basketball fans would be content.
LikeLike
Does anyone believe that ESPN would pay the ACC the same if it lost VT/VA/NCSU/GT? ESPN may make the same payout per school to the remaining members (28% reduction in total conference payout), but they will not pay for nothing. I do find it more likely that ESPN told the ACC that adding UCONN or Cincinnati would not increase the value.
I think BYU has been dead to the XII ever since the first approach hit the rocks with BYU requesting exemption from a lot of the provisions of the XII conference TV deals. There was already opposition due to the inability to play any sport on Sunday if BYU was in the conference.
LikeLike
They (or was it Fox?) committed to the same when the B12 dropped to 8, and recent articles stated they would barring defections of specific school sets. Why don’t you think they would invest in one of their prime properties, and the one that seems to currently be under duress?
LikeLike
Paying 40% more per ACC conference game will not happen. Keeping the payout the same per game protects whatever interest ESPN has in the ACC since each of the schools that remain in the ACC will still be getting what they get today. If WF and BC quit the ACC (fat chance) the ACC would have a argument that it should be paid more for the remaining games, but not if they lose VT, VA, NCSU, and GT. The ACC contract was just renegotiated for Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame. It is fully valued.
The XII contracts were far below market value and near expiration. The networks required the XII to have 10 members and add another conference game (8 to 9). The net effect was a 9% increase per conference game. It likely would have cost the networks more if it was taken to arbitration.
LikeLike
Maintaining per team payment that potentially may result in the collapse of the ACC, and migration of all the valuable properties to conferences that ESPN shares or has more limited “ownership” of is protecting ESPN’s interest? They’d be better off selling those rights to NBC or Fox now if they aren’t concerned about what the ACC may soon become under current valuations, or where future inventory would come from.
LikeLike
@ Mack ~ why would they cut their ACC game coverage in proportion to ACC membership? That doesn’t make much sense. Seems like they could take the same number of ACC games on ESPN/ESPN2, both FB and BB. They’d have a bit less filler, but they have plenty of filler content available from other conferences.
LikeLike
Every conference game is broadcast or sold to be broadcast on another network. That equals a 29% loss of inventory, so if there is no reduction in pay to the conference a 40% increase in per game cost. If BC or WF leaves the $$ impact to the network will be below average; if FSU or NC leaves the $$ impact above average. The schools in the example I responded to are middle of the pack.
LikeLike
Mack:
ESPN’s willingness to boost the pay to the specific group conference members probably is directed at the B1G and SEC. If expansion plans involve picking off those not included in ESPN’s no go list in order to destabilize and shake loose others on that list, it now will do the opposite. An actual willingness to not reduce the total payout is essential to ESPN’s hope of not actually having to face the situation at all. Bluffing won’t work. And if they do wind up paying more per school, it will be to a much more secure conference.
LikeLike
There is no logic in ESPN overpaying for the ACC. That will just increase what ESPN needs to pay for the SEC. Other than some internet postings there is no indication that ESPN will overpay either.
LikeLike
Mack, FSU and UNC are two of the four for which the rumored offer are rumored not to hold.
As far as, “Every conference game is broadcast or sold to be broadcast on another network”, you’ll note that my question was premised on that, since I did not ask about the total number of games getting onto the air on any network, but about the most valuable games in the inventory. Even if the 80/20 rule does not apply, you surely wouldn’t object to viewing 1/3 of the games as holding 2/3 or more of the total media value. And we would assume that ESPN set out their group of four schools that WOULD see the conference payout dropping with an eye to which contests fall in that 1/3.
LikeLike
Having Joe Theisman flashbacks, but wrong sport…ouch.
LikeLike
Yeah, that was gruesome.
LikeLike
A university commission is learning quite a bit as to what Maryland needs to measure up to its new Big Ten neighbors: http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/campus/article_aa329bde-9a84-11e2-bf9b-001a4bcf6878.html.
Incidentally, I doubt Maryland would play any big conference rivals at Landover (or Baltimore) more than once every other visit. Yes, the Texas game in 2018 will be played at the Redskins’ stadium, and this fall’s game with West Virginia is slated for the Ravens’ home, but both of those are non-conference. Maryland has those suites in Byrd Stadium that it’s paying for, and what better way to fill them than to have PSU, OSU and Michigan come to College Park at least once every four years? (It’s also a way to trigger further expansion of Byrd by decade’s end.)
LikeLike
vp19,
Just to be clear, when I talk about playing in DC and NYC I don’t mean they have to play off campus. I’m just talking about the metropolitan area. I understand both school want to pull some large home crowds. The occasional game in a larger stadium has value, too. Maybe in a year when you also get NE at home you move the MI or OSU game to an NFL stadium instead. That would be once every 6 years or so.
LikeLike
vp19,
Also on the bright side, UMD will benefit from the gate revenue sharing in football with your smallish stadium.
Program Details:
Everyone contributes 35% of all home conference game ticket receipts per year into a pool that is then split equally. Per game, every school must put in at least $300k and at most $1M, capping total contributions at $4M.
2009 Contributions:
Penn State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Michigan $4,000,000.00
Ohio State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Iowa $3,700,000.00
Univ. of Wisconsin $3,600,000.00
Michigan State Univ. $3,600,000.00
Univ. of Illinois $2,400,000.00
Purdue Univ. $2,200,000.00
Univ. of Minnesota $2,100,000.00
Indiana Univ. $1,600,000.00
Northwestern Univ. $1,200,000.00
The distribution in 2009 was $2.95M, so the big 6 helped support the bottom 5. NE will also be in the net donor category, while UMD and RU will probably join the net recipients.
There is no word yet on how going to 9 games would impact this model, or if they plan to change it anyway due to expansion.
LikeLike
This is interesting. How much of your cable bill goes to sports.
http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/
LikeLike
Oh, by the way, I don’t think their numbers are right. It completely ignores advertising revenue and assigns the cost of over the air “free games” (i.e. ESPN on ABC) to the cable network.
LikeLike
Anything CBS broadcasts is charged to CBS Sports Network. That throws the numbers off significantly.
LikeLike
I assume the conference numbers contain averages of their media rights deals, most recent deal is the leader? How else do you explain the order (PAC getting significantly more)?
LikeLike
If you check all networks, its slightly under $100. Which is a helluva deal for a year’s worth of broad sports content.
(if the numbers are correct)
LikeLike
How they come up with their numbers
Of course, the total revenue only matters in terms of how much a network can spend. The equation in the web app only considers the number of homes (i.e., the number of paying subscribers) each network has. We then divide the dollar amount of each contract by the number of subscribers a network has. That’s the share of your cable bill that goes to each pro league and college conference.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21989633/pac-12-head-of-officials-investigated-for-targeting-arizonas-sean-miller
Stunning to see this:
“Pac-12 coordinator of basketball officials and former NBA referee Ed Rush has been investigated by the Pac-12 for comments made about Arizona coach Sean Miller in meetings that included several Pac-12 referees.
Rush, according to a source within the Pac-12 officiating group, told a group of referees on the Thursday of the Pac-12 tournament in Las Vegas that he would give them $5,000 or a trip to Cancun if they either “rang him up” or “ran him,” meaning hit Miller with a technical or toss him out of the game.”
LikeLike
Not stunning at all. He’s an NBA ref. I think, but I’m not sure, he was the one who had a thing for the Rockets in the 90s and was repeatedly giving them technicals for the slightest thing (there was one-just not 100% sure it was him). NBA refs are HORRIBLY BIASED and incredibly egotistical. A bunch of them develop hostilities for particular players and some for particular teams.
LikeLike
I hope this is an April fools joke. Sad part? Whether it is or not, it is a completely believable story.
As you say, even more believable with the NBA association. I frankly have no faith that NBA basketball is a fair competition anymore. I loved MJ, but his reputation (in my eyes) was tarnished things he was allowed that others weren’t. He didn’t need, and is diminished by the star structure favoritism. The lack of investigations, prosecutions, and dismissals of what often looks like blatant game fixing, point controlling, and player favoritism, by either the league or law enforcement leads one to believe that these officials aren’t running afoul of the leagues wishes.
I hope the college ranks don’t follow suit. The worst thing that can happen to anything purporting to be a true sporting event, and more importantly the financial support for it, is the hint that results aren’t necessarily decided through competition.
LikeLike
I remember they would never call fouls on the Celtic starters-Bird, McHale, Parish. But then when Greg Kite subbed in, they tried to make up for it by calling 2 or 3 fouls a minute on him.
Michael and Magic got the star treatment. For some reason they didn’t like Hakeem. Moses Malone got plenty of foul shots when he was the Rocket’s center. But Hakeem almost had to be knocked to the floor to get a foul.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1279645.html
CFN’s guess at the preseason polls.
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Texas A&M
4. Oregon
5. Louisville
6. Clemson
7. Georgia
8. South Carolina
9. Michigan
10. LSU
11. Notre Dame
12. Florida
13. Oklahoma
14. Florida State
15. Stanford
16. Nebraska
17. UCLA
18. Texas
19. USC
20. Wisconsin
21. Oklahoma State
22. Miami
23. Boise State
24. Virginia Tech
25. Kansas State
26. Michigan State
27. BYU
28. Washington
29. Ole Miss
30. Northwestern
31. Oregon State
32. Vanderbilt
33. TCU
34. Arizona State
35. Baylor
36. North Carolina
37. Rutgers
38. Arizona
39. Northern Illinois
40. Mississippi State
41. West Virginia
42. Pitt
43. Arkansas
44. Iowa
45. Cincinnati
46. Texas Tech
47. Virginia
48. Fresno State
49. Missouri
50. NC State
LikeLike
44, baby!
LikeLike
NCAA tournament units distribution and realignment.
http://winthropintelligence.com/2013/04/01/ncaa-mens-basketball-tournament-this-years-unit-payouts-after/
LikeLike
Weekly college baseball update.
North Carolina is #1 in all polls. LSU is #2 in 3 of the 4 polls and #3 in one poll. Vandy is #3 in 3 of the 4 polls and #2 in one poll.
UNC did drop a game to unranked Clemson at home last night after the polls came out, so LSU could be #1 next week with sereis win against consensus top 10 ranked Kentucky at home next weekend. UNC plays an unranked but competitive Maryland team next weekend at home, and Vandy plays at consensus top 20 ranked Ole Miss.
LSU swept Mizzou at Columbia this weekend, but Mizzou was only blown out in the Saturday night game. Andy – your Friday starter put forth great effort, and your Sunday freshman starter will be one of the best pitchers in the SEC, just not this year.
Northern schools Indiana, Notre Dame and Pitt continue to be ranked. Indiana and ND are ranked in all 4 polls. Pitt is ranked only in the Collegiate Baseball poll at #26. Indiana is as high as #16 in two polls, #17 & #18 in the other two polls. ND is ranked as high as #20 and as low as #24.
Indina is riding the nation’s longest winning streak at 15 games.
Regarding attendance, SEC schools occupy all five of the top slots and 6 of the top 8.
#1 LSU 10,713 average attendance
#2 Ark 7,667
#3 Ole Miss 7,264
#4 S. Car 7,181
#5 Miss St. 6,765
#6 Texas 5,763
#7 Clemson 4,711
#8 A&M 4,439
#9 Fla St 4,354
#10 TCU 3,563
LikeLike
Alan – Thanks for keeping us up to date.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC on Big 12 realignment.
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/04/the-big-xii-wvu-marriage-already-providing-some-expansion-lessons/
So keep an eye on WVU and the Big XII. They are the perfect example of a major conference and a major school pairing up for what are purely business reasons. The success of their marriage could provide clues as to how other dowry-based decisions will hold up long-term.
The fact that there’s already talk of what the Big XII should have done and how far WVU has to travel probably isn’t a real good sign.
LikeLike
The crux of his discussion is that Louisville’s men’s basketball team is in the Final Four and it would have been a boost to the conference if UL was currently in the Big XII.
Louisville and West Virginia are in contiguous states, so while WVU has travel issues, UL would probably be in the same boat. if the conference changed the rule so that it let teams stay overnight on the road and scheduled back-to-back games away from home, then that would help alleviate the problem.
The SEC now ranges from the Atlantic Coast to eastern Texas, Arkansas and Missouri. Have there been any major travel problems for SEC programs? I suspect Mr. SEC would know about it and it’d be an interesting article for him to put together. If the SEC were to add schools in Virginia and North Carolina, would there be a major travel burden for the members of the conference?
The same goes for the Big Ten. If the conference were to invite schools like Virginia or UNC or Duke or Georgia Tech, which sports are going to have major difficulties here? Is going from Atlanta to Ann Arbor any more difficult than Chapel Hill to Boston? I don’t hear the ACC programs worried about going to Syracuse or Pittsburgh for an occasional game.
LikeLike
No, his point was that West Virginia is a bad fit in the Big XII once you look past the money and necessity, and that the underlying tensions are a fault line that will shift once broadcasting moves beyond cable networks.
He’s completely right too, and why I’m so down on the idea of adding Florida State or North Carolina to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
WVU may seem a bad fit for the XII, but I think it will work. Its not like WVU is regretting leaving its old beau (BE). WVU is still not getting noticed by other suitors (SEC, ACC, B1G). Unless that happens I think WVU will stick with the XII.
LikeLike
Rutgers’ basketball coach Mike Rice pushing players around, throwing balls at players, using slurs in practices:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9125796/practice-video-shows-rutgers-basketball-coach-mike-rice-berated-pushed-used-slurs-players
Not a good look for Pernetti who says he handled the situation.
Rice needs to go. I’ll be surprised if he ever coaches a Big Ten game.
LikeLike
Furthermore, what parent is going to trust their kid with him after seeing/hearing about this?
LikeLike
Aren’t you glad the B1G took Rutgers?
LikeLike
As long as he’s gone soon enough, it won’t really matter either way. I’d be surprised if he ever coaches a Rutgers Big Ten game, and with the media sharks in the water, I’ll be surprised if he even survives this month.
LikeLike
Considering there was no urgency in adding Rutgers (since it would always be available), it reeked of a reactionary move by Delany/B1G. Very uncharacteristic…unless FOX pressured them. A Maryland, Virginia combo would have been a more logical move.
LikeLike
And you know UVA was/is simply awaiting an invite that hasn’t come?
There was a need to move, set wheels in motion, plant a couple flags in the populous, alumni rich area prior to media contract negotiations. If may pave the way for more, too.
LikeLike
Why would UVa have felt pressured to move?
In the first place, Sullivan was still fresh from that mess of almost being shoved out of power, and so there’s no guarantee that she would have even been in a position to discuss that with the board.
In the second place, UVa wasn’t under the budgetary cloud that Maryland was. The opening with Maryland was a result of their having to cut sports and the Big Ten offering a way out of that.
LikeLike
It’s Tuesday, did I miss the big news? Or did they delay it again. 😉
LikeLike
Right month, wrong year. The BIG ANNOUNCEMENT is actually coming the first Tuesday in April of 2014.
LikeLike
It’s the “first Tuesday” of the ubiquitous NEXT month.
LikeLike
First Tuesday of the April, 2014 is the 1st, but on some conference realignment hit seeking blogs its always April Fool’s Day.
LikeLike
What Tulsa to the Conference Formally Known as the Big East isn’t big enough for you?
LikeLike
Could we call the “Big TBD” by the name “The Great Unknown”?
LikeLike
It seems they really want “America” or “American” in the name, though I don’t know whether Brando ~ the Ugly American Conference ~ or Bowie ~ the Young American Conference ~ are going to get the consideration that they obviously merit.
LikeLike