Despite being a Big Ten guy that would personally love to have Jim Delany add Florida State, I’ve repeated the following statement many times on this blog: the ACC is much stronger than what people give it credit for. It’s not that I’m a fan of the ACC at all, but simply a reflection that it has never been as open for poaching as so many conference realignment observers thought or wanted it to be. Despite perceived TV contract problem, it’s a conference with strong brand names and good-to-great academics in arguably the most demographically desirable geographic footprint of any league in the country. So, it wasn’t a surprise to me that the ACC finally solidified its position to the outside world with its members unanimously agreeing to a grant of media rights to the conference through 2026-27. For the uninitiated, the “Grant of Rights” is a key tool in protecting a conference’s membership since each school individually grants its media rights to its league for a set period of time, which applies even if such school ends up defecting. For example, if an ACC school now attempted to leave for the Big Ten, SEC or Big 12, the ACC would still own that school’s media rights until 2026-27. That effectively makes ACC schools worthless from a raiding conference’s standpoint since they either can’t get access to those media rights or would have to pay a large buyout to the ACC to obtain them. The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 schools have already agreed to a grant of rights to their respective conferences.
With 4 of the 5 power conferences having a vested legal interest in seeing grant of rights agreements being upheld in court (and the 5th power conference that doesn’t have a grant of rights, the SEC, being so strong financially off-the-field and competitively on-the-field), it’s likely that we have seen an end to power conference realignment for the next decade or so. There’s a chance that the Big 12 may be compelled to expand back up to 12 or more members from its current 10 or that the Pac-12 could eventually find a current Mountain West Conference member attractive, but the shifting between the power conferences themselves is probably over. From the Big Ten’s perspective, it’s probably all well and good. As much as I personally wanted the Big Ten to look at a school like Florida State, it likely only had eyes for the AAU likes of Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech, all of whom would have been extremely difficult to poach (particularly UNC). The SEC also was set on looking at UNC and maybe rival Duke as a pair, which also would have been a monumental task to pull off. Much like the Big Ten was better off seeing Texas stay in a weakened Big 12 as opposed to heading off to a stronger Pac-16, if Jim Delany can’t nab his alma mater of UNC for himself, maintaining the status quo is much more preferable than seeing UNC head off to the SEC (as unlikely that would have been). From both the conference financial and fan perspectives, there isn’t any Big Ten expansion scenario that makes any sense without 2 or more schools from one of the ACC or Big 12. I’m sure that Mike Slive and SEC fans would feel the same way about SEC expansion.
The conference realignment game has been particularly cruel to American Athletic Conference* orphans UConn and Cincinnati. Their most realistic paths back to power conference status were all via further raids of the ACC opening up more slots. Neither school fits the profile of what the Big Ten and SEC would be looking for, the Pac-12 is out of geographic reach, and the ACC isn’t likely going up to 16 with either of them and would only be interested in them as backfill candidates in the event they ever do lose other members. The best hope for UConn and Cincinnati at this point (and it’s a bit better for the latter) is that the Big 12 ends up having an urgent need to expand again. Using 20/20 hindsight, the Big 12 might rue the day that they passed over taking Louisville and a 12th school (either BYU or Cincinnati) as the ACC surprised a lot of people in grabbing what has ended up being a fairly valuable football and basketball chip off of the table. A Louisville/BYU combo was likely financially viable to the Big 12 in a way that any BYU/Cincinnati/UConn combo probably can’t be, so the Big 12 seems stalled at 10. That might be perfectly fine for the conference’s university presidents and athletic directors at this time, but having a lack of viable expansion options is a much more acute long-term problem for a 10-school conference than ones at 12 or 14 members. I’ve never been a proponent of any conference expanding simply for the sake of expanding, yet it feels like the Big 12 didn’t take advantage of a momentary position of strength after they signed their new TV deal with ESPN and Fox last year. Now, to be sure, I never bought for one second that the Big 12 had any legitimate chance at Florida State and Clemson (the former was really only interested in shaking the money trees of the Big Ten and SEC). However, adding Louisville and BYU would have been a solid expansion both athletically and geographically for the Big 12 and that’s an opportunity that has slipped away. The ACC’s choice of Louisville over UConn and Cincinnati effectively blocked Big 12 expansion, whether John Swofford intended for that to happen or not (and I tend to agree with Andy Staples that Swofford is a ninja that has been underestimated by a lot of college sports fans).
(* My vote for the new AAC logo is here.)
As for the ACC itself, there’s little point in entertaining expansion for the foreseeable future. Contrary to the belief of a surprisingly large number of sports fans, the fact that the ACC has an odd number of basketball teams as a result of Notre Dame’s non-football membership has absolutely zero bearing on conference realignment. The only time that an odd number of schools matters is for a football alignment, which wouldn’t apply in the case of the ACC. Therefore, the conference certainly wouldn’t add a single all-sports member to create an odd number of football schools, and it’s doubtful that going up to 16 is appealing with the ongoing hope (however misguided that it might be) that Notre Dame might join the league as a football member within the next 40 years.
Speaking of Notre Dame, the Irish have managed to solidify their independence for the foreseeable future with an extension of their contract with NBC through 2025. If one thing has been made clear through conference realignment over the past 3 years (to the extent that it wasn’t already clear), it’s that Notre Dame’s ironclad principle is to maintain independence above making the most TV money (which, to be sure, is still quite good for them), scheduling concerns or any other factor besides being structurally foreclosed from winning a national championship (which will be far from the case in the new 4-team playoff format). The ACC is honestly a perfect setup for Notre Dame – the Irish get access to a power conference for non-football sports and a full slate of bowls with a partial conference scheduling commitment that consists largely of schools that they would generally be willing to play, anyway. They’re not going anywhere for a loooong time.
Now, conference realignment for the world outside of the five power football conferences is far from over. The formation of the “new” Big East is spurring a large scale realignment of non-FBS Division I conferences (starting with the Atlantic 10 adding George Mason and Davidson and the Missouri Valley Conference taking Loyola). Many FCS football programs are finding themselves in financial purgatory where they are looking to move up to FBS homes. There might even be a full scale realignment of the college sports world with a possible breakaway of the top football leagues from the NCAA. Still, it feels like the big conference realignment moves (outside of that possible NCAA break-up) have been completed… except, of course, for Johns Hopkins going to the Big Ten.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from ImageEvent)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Go B1G stability.
LikeLike
Go ACC stability!
Not that there aren’t more important things in life, but I think it’s cool to know that one day I can have kids who can grow up on the ACC just like I did and just as people for 3 generations have around here. Sorry to those who salivated over 16-, 18-, or 20-team Big Ten scenarios made up of 3-7 former ACC schools, but the ACC is something that is just as special to this part of the country as the Big Ten is to Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois.
LikeLike
Sorry, why? I’m overjoyed.
LikeLike
Yeah, me too. The only scenario I would have liked was UNC to the SEC, and that was iffy at best so this is the best possible outcome. I’m glad all of this is over. And I’m glad Missouri got out of the Big 12.
LikeLike
Michael,
I completely agree. I attended Purdue for college and Duke for grad school. I really enjoyed my time RTP, especially after I became immersed in ACC basketball games. I believe there is something to be said for regionally based schools and conferences. College athletics would have taken a step back without an intact and healthy ACC. I think Maryland will regret their decision over the long run….
LikeLike
Md, will not regret their decision in the long run – complete nonsense. If there was one school with a compatible culture to the BIG, Md was it. Md has long shed it’s so-called southern culture & much of NoVa is doing the same. Bmore is eerily similar to Philly-Camden, Newark-NYC, and many Rust Belt cities. I think of the eastern BIG like the AFC Central. The Ravens share a football division with Pitt, Cincy, & Clev – thus cultural crossover and relations already exists in the biggest sport of all.
Md will get plenty of competition in sports they value via BIG membership.
I honestly believe Md has the makings of a strong athletic department, top to bottom, within the next decade. They won’t get there with an ACC membership. They have all the ingredients to become an Oregon in football: big time affiliation with an athletic brand (Under Armor), great hs basketball, strong hs football, PSU probation, Rutger’s not being in big-time athletics long, right between Bmore & DC, both being on part of one of the fastest growing super metros in the nation & some of the best public high schools, academically, in the country.
Fear the Turtle!
On the other hand, the ACC will need to work really hard at maintaing its northern members – Lville, ND, Syracuse, Pitt and BC combined aren’t going to put up with perceptions of Carolina control. I laughed when reading that Boeheim and Pitino slighted the prospect of permanently keeping the ACC basketball tourney in Greensboro. Look it up, good stuff, their reactions. Cuse and Lville have some weight with Tobacco Road hoops at this point, though not as mighty. ND, as we already know, call shots on the football end.
LikeLike
“Md has long shed it’s so-called southern culture & much of NoVa is doing the same. Bmore is eerily similar to Philly-Camden, Newark-NYC, and many Rust Belt cities.”
Yes and this is very unfortunate. If there’s a place you don’t want to replicate, it’s Philly-Camden. Or Newark. How sad.
LikeLike
PS. UMd and RU were lame adds and were not the intended end game by Delany.
LikeLike
If you assume that the Big Ten can pick and choose any school it wants, then Rutgers / Maryland were lame adds.
If, however, conference realignment were to settle down for a decade or more, that suddenly puts them in a much stronger light. Looking ahead twenty and fifty years, the twelve school Big Ten before adding Rutgers and Maryland is in a much weaker position than the fourteen school Big Ten including Rutgers and Maryland.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“If you assume that the Big Ten can pick and choose any school it wants, then Rutgers / Maryland were lame adds.”
Or if you think CFB quality is the measure. Or if you think cultural fit is vital. Or if you don’t believe they will lead to the tremendous riches other project.
“If, however, conference realignment were to settle down for a decade or more, that suddenly puts them in a much stronger light. Looking ahead twenty and fifty years, the twelve school Big Ten before adding Rutgers and Maryland is in a much weaker position than the fourteen school Big Ten including Rutgers and Maryland.”
You can think that, but you can’t possibly know that. After a decade of quiet, the B10 might regret adding them. Perhaps as the B12 GOR expires UT, KU, and 2 more B12 schools seriously consider joining. Then going east for 2 athletic lightweights may look like a bad decision as the plains schools question whether they want to play on the east coast and dilute the conference earnings to support RU and UMD. I’m not saying it’s likely, just that crystal balls rarely work.
LikeLike
There is no move you can set forward that you can know for sure will turn right: any realignment move can possibly go sour. Pointing that out for one move when comparing it to some other hypothetical moves smacks of cherrypicking the argument. Nobody could have known when Penn State was invited in that some decades down the track it would turn out to be harboring vile secrets, either, but while Penn State may never again recapture its halo, over the coming decade it is highly likely to be vying for the conference championship and harboring national championship hopes.
New Jersey is good ground, and the network economies on Philadelphia make it even better. Nor is solidly entrenched in the northern suburbs of Greater Washington a bad position to be.
I am, of course, repeatedly and noisily skeptical of projecting of the current growth in college football revenues ahead, since much of the growth over the past decade has been an increase in the share of cable revenues ~ both live sports programming gaining an increasing share of all cable revenues, and college football gaining an increasing share of live sports revenues. Since the increases in revenue share for live sport programming has a hard ceiling that is somewhere short of it capturing 100% of cable revenue, I think those projections are likely on fairly shaky ground over the longer term.
But that’s like the false dichotomy between Rutgers capturing all of the NYC media market and adding Rutgers being a miserable failure … there is plenty of benefit to the Big Ten in adding New Jersey, in the New York and Philadelphia media markets as well as the exits in between. Whether or not those media revenue projections turn out to be a will-o-wisp, including more rapidly growing population areas in the Big Ten footprint is the short odds side of the bet.
The perfect 20/20 foresight is on the side of the argument that clearly sees what a bad move the Rutgers and Maryland adds will surely prove to be. In the here and now, they are good recruiting grounds to add to the Big Ten, as well as giving the Big Ten an opportunity to strengthen its grip on Eastern PA.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“There is no move you can set forward that you can know for sure will turn right: any realignment move can possibly go sour.”
Exactly true. That’s what makes statements like
If, however, conference realignment were to settle down for a decade or more, that suddenly puts them in a much stronger light.
and
Looking ahead twenty and fifty years, the twelve school Big Ten before adding Rutgers and Maryland is in a much weaker position than the fourteen school Big Ten including Rutgers and Maryland.
seem out of place.
How does a decade of peace automatically make UMD and RU look better? How do you know they won’t look the exact same or worse then?
“Pointing that out for one move when comparing it to some other hypothetical moves smacks of cherrypicking the argument.”
I pointed out a potential counter solely to show that you have no basis to make those statements.
“Nobody could have known when Penn State was invited in that some decades down the track it would turn out to be harboring vile secrets, either, but while Penn State may never again recapture its halo, over the coming decade it is highly likely to be vying for the conference championship and harboring national championship hopes.”
So you’re less sure PSU will be good again than that UMD and RU will suddenly be put in a much stronger light? I have a lot more faith in PSU.
“New Jersey is good ground, and the network economies on Philadelphia make it even better. Nor is solidly entrenched in the northern suburbs of Greater Washington a bad position to be.
“I am, of course, repeatedly and noisily skeptical of projecting of the current growth in college football revenues ahead,”
But you are confident about how valuable UMD and RU will be in 50 years. How?
“But that’s like the false dichotomy between Rutgers capturing all of the NYC media market and adding Rutgers being a miserable failure … there is plenty of benefit to the Big Ten in adding New Jersey, in the New York and Philadelphia media markets as well as the exits in between.”
Is there, or do you just want there to be? Has the BTN signed new deals that I’m not aware of? Has the B10 leaked the actual increased value of the BTN in 2014?
“Whether or not those media revenue projections turn out to be a will-o-wisp, including more rapidly growing population areas in the Big Ten footprint is the short odds side of the bet.”
A lot can happen in 50 years.
“The perfect 20/20 foresight is on the side of the argument that clearly sees what a bad move the Rutgers and Maryland adds will surely prove to be.”
I believe he said “lame,” not “bad.”
“In the here and now, they are good recruiting grounds to add to the Big Ten,”
The B10 has been recruiting there for years.
” as well as giving the Big Ten an opportunity to strengthen its grip on Eastern PA.”
I’m not really sure it can get much stronger.
LikeLike
“How does a decade of peace automatically make UMD and RU look better? How do you know they won’t look the exact same or worse then?”
Who said a decade of peace automatically makes UMD and RU look better? Shouldn’t this part of your reply be directed to them?
I said a decade of peace makes the addition of UMD and Maryland look better. That follows since how good a choice looks depends on what the alternatives are. A decade of realignment peace without the UMD and Rutgers adds means another decade of the Big Ten in the demographic box that it was in before.
If UMD and/or Rutgers become more compelling as opponents in football or sports in which they are already more interesting opponents become more important in the overall calculus, that is a bonus on top of that. That’s part of the headroom for the value of the expansion, its not its foundation.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“I said a decade of peace makes the addition of UMD and Maryland look better.”
Do you really want to argue semantics?
“That follows since how good a choice looks depends on what the alternatives are. A decade of realignment peace without the UMD and Rutgers adds means another decade of the Big Ten in the demographic box that it was in before.”
Assuming nothing changes in 10 years, maybe. That’s a huge assumption, though. Few people thought there was a problem before all of this, and even TPTB say expansion was all about money.
The Rust Belt could be on an upswing. A natural disaster could crush one of the newbies. A huge scandal could devastate one of the schools. The O’Bannon case could completely change the way people view college athletics.
“If UMD and/or Rutgers become more compelling as opponents in football or sports in which they are already more interesting opponents become more important in the overall calculus, that is a bonus on top of that. That’s part of the headroom for the value of the expansion, its not its foundation.”
They could also lose value, and that is its foundation.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
RTR
LikeLike
Boiler up! (I can’t believe it’s over, seems weird)
LikeLike
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
LikeLike
The Dude speaks via Twitter!
The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
Once again, hats off to John Swofford. He deserves a statue.
LikeLike
Yeah, interesting that he would pick today to make his Twitter profile public again…
LikeLike
He apparently did it a few days ago.
LikeLike
One thing WV bloggers were consistent on was that Swofford could pull rabbits out of a hat and they didn’t want him to have time.
LikeLike
I’m certain there is plenty of gnashing of teeth in Storrs tonight, and a celebration of sorts in Chestnut Hill. Connecticut now finds itself boxed out of a big-time conference (as does Cincinnati, but the Bearcats are less ambitious). Meanwhile, WVU is still stranded on the Big 12 island, with its nearest neighbor in Ames. You can hear the loud laughter from Austin, as Bevo acquired another sucker
So if Connecticut, Cincinnati and West Virginia are the big losers in the 2010-2014 era of expansion, who are the winners? Certainly Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers for joining the Big Ten; Missouri and Texas A&M for joining the SEC; Texas Christian for joining the Big 12 (unlike WVU, it’s a comfortable move); and, lest we forget, Utah and Colorado for joining the Pac. Swofford and the ACC are winners for preserving a conference with a relatively weak football brand; Delany a winner for getting the Big Ten solid footing on the Eastern Seaboard; and Slive for extending the SEC footprint with two AAU institutions. Less secure winners are Scott (he wanted to achieve much more) and Bowlsby (a good Longhorn lackey).
LikeLike
I think Slive and the SEC presidents are pretty happy with their additions. They got a foothold in several really good tv markets in Texas & Missouri, plus added 2 AAU school like you said.
As a SEC fan, I am really happy with aTm. I think they have a chance to take their football program up a notch if they can keep up their current momentum. They fit really well both football wise and culturally. Plus I actually think they can foster decent to good rivalries with LSU and Arky, and have some interesting series with Bama, Ole Miss, and Miss St.
Mizzou is a little more blah (for a lack of a better word). I’m still not sold that they’ll be able to recruit well enough to be consistently competitive in the SEC. Also I think they are a little more of a stretch as a cultural fit. And outside of Arkansas, I’m not sure how well they will be able to foster rivalries in the SEC (maybe UK or Vandy?). But I understand that they were our best available choice to come in with aTm, and they do offer the things that I listed above (which are really big from the overall president and SEC office standpoint).
I think once the SECN is up and running, people will look back and say that they were really good additions for the SEC.
LikeLike
Missouri was added to class up your league. We increased your number of AAU schools by 33% and added some more urban markets in St. Louis and Kansas City. Cultural fit isn’t an issue. Don’t forget Missouri had a star on the confederate flag, and borders 3 SEC states. We also added more strength to what is a middling basketball league. Missouri football might not be great but we’ve been to 30 bowl games and have had some good seasons over the years, including a top 4 finish in the final BCS standings just 6 years ago. Alabama still doesn’t have the lead against Missouri in the all-time football series. You’re lucky to have us. You couldn’t have done any better other than going inside your footprint by taking FSU.
LikeLike
And, as an added bonus, you get Andy. All sales final.
LikeLike
Andy, is there a mouse in you Mizzou pocket?
Men’s Basketball
Kentucky has 8 NCAA banners
Florida has 2 NCAA banners
Arkansas has 1 NCAA banner
LSU has been to the Final Four 4 times
Georgia has 1 Final Four
Mississippi State has 1 Final Four
Mizzou has 0 National Championships and 0 Final Fours
Women’s Basketball
Tennessee has 8 NCAA banners
Texas A&M has 1 NCAA banner
Louisiana State has 5 Final Fours
Georgia has 5 Final Fours
Auburn has 3 Final Fours
Alabama has 1 Final Four
Arkansas has 1 Final Four
Vanderbilt has 1 Final Four
Mizzou has 0 National Championships and 0 Final Fours
LikeLike
duffman, Missouri has the 3rd most NCAA appearances and conference titles among SEC schools, after only Kentucky and Arkansas. Yes, it’s a well known fact that Missouri pretty much always underperforms in the tournament. That in no way removes all of th success they’ve had in the regular season over th eyears.
LikeLike
Andy,
They had wins in the Big 8 and Big 12 against lower basketball conferences and teams played. The Mizzou teams could be #2 behind KU all time in the Big 8 but that does not negate the HUGE success differential between the schools in the NCAA. Historically I would say Oklahoma State is higher up the basketball food chain than Missouri and nobody is saying Oklahoma State is a top team. They stopped the SEC tournament for decades because of UK winning it all the time but that did not stop UK from winning the NCAA. I like Xavier and A10 basketball but I am not saying Xavier is better than Duke because they win their conference more, yet this is the argument you seem to propose about Missouri. I know you are proud of your team but that does not change the fact they have not won at the highest level in the country no matter how well they do in a region.
LikeLike
Take away UK, and the SEC is what it is—a mediocre “power” BB conference. Fla. won its 2 titles in last decade & Ark. didn’t win theirs as an SEC team.
LikeLike
Ark. didn’t win theirs as an SEC team.
Yes they did.
LikeLike
First off, I clearly acknowledged the fact that Mizzou added an AAU school and good tv markets (I thought I was pretty clear on that). I realize that Mizzou was probably the best option to be #14 at the time, especially from the presidents’ & Slive’s standpoint.
As far as the cultural fit goes, just because you had a star on a flag over 100 years ago, doesn’t mean you are a cultural fit. I think most people view Missouri as far more of a mid-western and/or plains state than a southern state. And while you do share a border with 3 SEC states, you barely share one with 2 of those states.
I kept hearing how your basketball program was going to be a great addition to our conference, yet when I researched it, I wasn’t all that impressed. Mizzou is basically a upper-middle tier SEC basketball program, which is below UK, UF, and Arky. They are basically on the same level as Vandy and Tenn (& maybe Bama historically). That isn’t really all that impressive considering are against SEC basketball schools. It’s not like they are some sort of basketball power or something.
You still didn’t address my concerns about being able to recruit well enough in football to be competitive in the SEC. Sure you had some fairly recent success in the Big 12 North, but the Big 12 North has never been seen as a particularly strong division (especially in comparasion with it’s southern brother). Big 12 North schools were also never know as great recruiting schools. And the surround areas are definitely not known as recruiting hot beds. Football success in the old Big 8 and Big 12 North doesn’t translate into success in the SEC, especially if your can’t recruit at a pretty high level.
Now I agree (and said) that once the SECN is up and running, Mizzou will be looked upon as a successful addition. I never said that they were a bad addition. I just said from a SEC fan’s standpoint, it was kind of a blah (or ho hum) addition.
LikeLike
bamatab,
I am guessing alan will remind you that LSU has a good basketball history. They may only be behind Kentucky in Final Four trips even if they did not make championship games like Florida and Arkansas. On a related note why does Alabama never seem to get over the basketball hump? They have had good coaches, players, and seasons but never seem to dance.
LikeLike
duff – thanks. LSU is only behind Kentucky in the number of SEC basketball regular season championships with 11. Four Final Four appearances, and three of the top 50 NBA players of all time (Shaq, the Pistol, and Bob Pettit). While my Tigers have only been sporadically relevant over the last 20 years, LSU has won 3 SEC championships since 2000 – more than any other school not named Kentucky or Florida. While LSU has only been a consistent winner during the Dale Brown era, LSU has had some great players and teams. I expect LSU to be a consistent top 5 SEC program under Johnny Jones. He’s Dale’s protege, but looks to be a better bench coach than Dale. A top 10 recruiting class is coming in next year. Look for LSU to make the NCAAs next season.
You heard it here first.
LikeLike
bamatab, if you go by march alone then Missouri isn’t all that impressive. That’s because Missouri has a long and inglorious history of being upset early in the tournament time and time again, including in recent years, but going back for decades. It sucks, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that Missouri has had a lot of historical success in the regular season. Compare Missouri to the teams you mentioned:
Missouri: 26 NCAAs, 23 conference titles (regular season and tournament), and these came in a tougher basketball league than the SEC
compare to:
Kentucky: tons of titles and appearances, best program in the country
Arkansas: 29 NCAAs, 31 conference titles (regular season and tournament) but the vast majority were from the weaker Southwest Conference
Florida: 18 NCAAs, 9 conference titles (regular season and tournament)
Alabama: 20 NCAAs, 13 conference titles (regular season and tournament)
Tennessee: 19 NCAAs, 13 conference titles (regular season and tournament)
LSU: 20 NCAAs, 11 conference titles (regular season and tournament)
Vanderbilt: 13 NCAAs, 6 conference titles (regular season and tournament)
Now, I understand you’re definitely not a basketball guy and you probably don’t know much about any of this, and comparing Missouri to Vanderbilt pretty much proves this, but I think it should be clear that Missouri, historically, as far as regular season success, is pretty far behind Kentucky, not that far behind Arkansas (considering a lot of their success came in the very weak SWC), and ahead of everyone else. If you bring March into the equasion, Missouri looks worse, just because they’ve done so badly there. Here are those rankings:
NCAA tournament wins:
Kentucky 111
Arkansas 40
Florida 34
LSU 24
Misouri 22
Alabama 18
Tennessee 16
Auburn 12
Mississippi State 11
Vanderbilt 10
Now, if Missouri played to seed and didn’t get upset all the time they’d have over 30 wins. But they find a way to lose games in March, almost always have, which is why Missouri is the most successful program to have never made a final 4. Sure you can flame me and say that that fact invalidates everything else we’ve done over the years, but we have walls of Big 8 and Big 12 trophies that say otherwise.
As for football recruiting, it will take some adjusting. Missouri has averaged about 9 wins per season over the last 8 seasons, and they didn’t do this by having bad players. Missouri has had as many first round draft picks as almost any other SEC school over the past few years, and should have another this year. Missouri has as many players in the NFL as most SEC schools. But budget and facilities are a limiting factor right now. Missouri is currently in construction on $200M in facilities upgrades as part of our move to the SEC. Donations are at an all time high right now. The new SEC tv deal should increase Missouri’s revenue by around $20M/yr over their previous Big 12 contract. That alone would move Missouri from 32nd to 14th in the country in athletic budget. If ticket sales and donations continue to climb then Missouri could get into the top 12. That would go a long way to improving recruiting.
LikeLike
And as far as cultural fit, I can see how Missouri is confusing to people. It is truly the crossroads of America. St. Louis seems like Big Ten kind of city. Kansas City seems very Big 12. Rural and southern Missouri is very much SEC. Southern accents, southern culture. Up until the early 70s they played Dixie at Missouri football games and everybody knew the words. “Southern cooking” is probably the most popular style in rural Missouri. The big cities in Missouri are definitely not very SEC, I agree, but then maybe the SEC could use a little of that.
LikeLike
Andy, see my post above about the difference between conference wins and national ones
Where I do take issue with your post is telling bamatab he is wrong about Vanderbilt. While I would say historically the SEC has been tougher that the Big 8 + SWC you forget the history of college basketball in the past. Prior to the age of the big arenas like Rupp and the Dean Dome the gym at Vanderbilt was consistently in the top in attendance in the entire country. Like Michigan State being next to Michigan in football and Purdue being next to Indiana in basketball the folks in Nashville had the dubious location issue to be close to UK (8 titles) / IU (5 titles) / UL (3 titles) / UC (2 titles) and some solid second tier basketball schools in OH, IN, KY, and TN. Missouri has never had the same dynamic so it appears to be you that does not understand the background.
You may not believe me but I have been to games in that venue before and I am willing to guess that Mizzou will not win there next year. They may have the best home court advantage in the entire country based on that gym.
LikeLike
ok, duff, let’s test your theory that the SEC is so much stronger than the Big 8/12 in basketball historically.
Both have powerhouses, Kentucky and Kansas. Past that, let’s compare the two based on an objective measure, and on that Missouri hasn’t been all that strong in, NCAA wins:
SEC:
Kentucky 111
Arkansas 40
Florida 34
LSU 24
Alabama 18
Tennessee 16
Auburn 12
Mississippi State 11
Vanderbilt 10
Georgia 5
South Carolina 4
Ole Miss 4
Total 265
Big 12:
Kansas 97
Oklahoma State 38
Oklahoma 35
Texas 34
Kansas State 33
Missouri 22
Iowa State 14
Colorado 10
Texas A&M 9
Baylor 9
Texas Tech 6
Nebraska 0
Total 298
So you’re going to tell me that the SEC has been a much stronger basketball league than the Big 12? The numbers would seem to disprove that statement.
And as I said, Missouri has underachieved in March. IF they hadn’t, then the Big 12 would have an even bigger lead historically. Missouri has more conference titles than anyone in the Big 12 other than Kansas and Texas, and more conference titles than anyone in the SEC other than Kentukcy and Arkansas. Where they’ve come up short is in March, and yes that’s a legit knock on the tigers, but it in no way invalidates their regular season success, as much as you would like to say that it has. Missouri did that in the 3rd or 4th best basketball conference in the country. You can’t take that away from them.
And as for comparing Missouri to Vanderbilt, that’s just garbage.
Direct comparison: Missouri 26 NCAAs, 22 NCAA wins, 23 conference titles. Vanderbilt 13 NCAAs, 10 NCAA wins, 6 conference titles.
You can’t be serious. And even if you want to just go by recent years and not include all of Missouri’s success back in the Norm Stewart era, Missouri has been to 2 elite 8s in the last 10 years, 4 straight NCAA tournaments, finished the regular season before last ranked #2 in the AP poll. Vandy no elite 8’s since 1965, no sweet 16s in 6 years, no NCAA this year. I mean really. You really want to say Vandy is on par with Missouri? No. They’re not. Not in football. Not in basketball. They’ve got us in academics, that’s true.
LikeLike
Andy,
So based on your logic, I guess you think that Mizzou is a better basketball program than Florida at this point in time in history, and will be for the foreseeable future? I personally think that the UF basketball program today is a far better basketball program than Mizzou, and is setup to continue to be one in the foreseeable future. Until the early 90’s, UF’s football program was not good at all. Yet, I think most would say it is one of the top 5 jobs for potential coaches in college football.
I think when all is said and done, Mizzou’s SEC basketball future will be in the tier with Arky, UT, Bama, Vandy (Unlike you apparently, I think Vandy is setup for this tier due primarily to location), and maybe UGA and LSU as the next tier below UK & UF (although Arky could jump up to this top SEC tier, but I doubt it).
duffman,
I don’t know why Bama can’t get over the hump in basketball. We recruit ok. But we just can’t seem to get past the Sweet 16 in our good years (we’ve only made one Elite 8 in our history), and we haven’t been able to get that far on a regular basis. There is no reason why Bama can’t make it to the Sweet 16 consistantly.
LikeLike
Bama, you can certainly hope for that to be the case, but you’re basically admitting that your opinion has nothing to do with facts.
Vanderbilt is nothing special in basketball. They’ve done less, historically, than Iowa State and not much more than Colorado. Yeah they won the SEC tournament last year, and maybe you’re one of those guys with a very short memory so maybe that really impressed you for some reason. But Missouri won their conference tournament last year too. And they’ve done it a lot more times than Vandy ever has. Look at all those numbers I posted above and you’ll see that.
Look, I get that Florida has had a good run, and probably has a solid future. At this point, with almost 20 years of solid success, even though it’s almost all been under the one coach, I think it’s safe to say that Florida has joined Kentucky in that top tier. But if we’re going to count things that way then the exact opposite is true of Arkansas. They were great in the 80s and 90s, but they’ve flat out sucked for a decade now. If I were to rank the SEC based on how good they’ve been (tournament AND regular season) and where it looks like they’re headed, I’d rank it this way:
1. Kentucky
2. Florida
3. Missouri
4. LSU
5. Tennessee
6. Arkansas
7. Vanderbilt
8. Alabama
9. South Carolina
10. Texas A&M
11. Georgia
12. Mississippi State
13. Auburn
14. Ole Miss
LikeLike
Andy, lets use your data and go head to head. At first glance the SEC = 265 Vols but the Vols have a bigger arena and the Lady Vols
Translation = MU’s men’s team is below UT’s women’s team in success / exposure
SEC #7 = Auburn 12 vs Big 12 #7 = Iowa State 14
AU has 1 Elite Eight and ISU has 2 Elite Eights on a 2 game differential
I will say ISU because Auburn is a football state and 1 ISU Elite Eight was in 1944
SEC #8 = Mississippi State 11 vs Big 12 #8 = Colorado 10
MSU has 1 Final Four in 1990 and CU has 2 Final Fours on a 1 game differential
Win for MSU as their Final Four was in 1990 and CU’s were in 1942 and 1955
SEC #9 = Vanderbilt 10 vs Big 12 #9 = Texas A&M 9
VU has 1 Elite Eight in 1965 and TAMU has 0 Elite Eights on a 1 game differential
Win for VU as TAMU has historically been a football school
SEC #10 = Georgia 5 vs Big 12 #10 = Baylor 9
UGA has 1 Final Four in 1983 and BU has 2 Final Fours on a 4 game differential
Win for Baylor but their Final Fours were in 1948 and 1950
SEC #11 = South Carolina 4 vs Big 12 #11 = Texas Tech 6
USC has 3 Sweet Sixteens and TT has 5 Sweet Sixteens on a 2 game differential
Win for Texas Tech but neither is lighting up college basketball
SEC #12 = Mississippi 4 vs Big 12 #12 = Nebraska 0
USC has 1 Sweet Sixteen and UNL has 0 Sweet Sixteens on a 4 game differential
Win for Ole Miss especially since their was in 2001
In case this is not sinking in yet look at NCAA wins pre Wooden and post Wooden
SEC vs Big 12 / SWC / Big 8 pre Wooden / UCLA run
(4) SEC = 1948, 1949, 1951, and 1958 by 1 school
(3) B12 = 1945, 1946, and 1952 by 2 schools
SEC vs Big 12 / SWC / Big 8 post Wooden / UCLA run
(7) SEC = 1978, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2007, and 2012 = by 3 schools
(2) B12 = 1988 and 2008 = 1 school
LikeLike
WTF did I just read?
duffman, did you seriously just use women’s basketball as one of your main arguments. Ugh. And then you brought football into the conversation??
Yeah I know the SEC has won more titles. KU chokes in the tournament all the time and barely wins titles, kind of like Missouri except they typically win a few games first.
You just went through a whole bunch of messy, silly mental gymnastics to try to disprove me. It was ugly. I’m done. You lose.
LikeLike
Andy, for some reason it cut off the top of the post and started in the middle which is where Missouri and Tennessee were. The general point was the SEC > Big 12 + SWC + Big 8 even though early on the the SEC was not winning as much. The other bigger point is how lopsided the UK vs KU games are compared to UK vs IU. I think UK has beaten KU 21 – 6 but UK vs IU is closer (especially if you remove the UK wins after Bobby) so the SEC elite > than the B12 elite and your precious Mizzou has never beaten UK in their entire history.
LikeLike
In case you didn’t get what I’m saying: Yeah Kentucky and Florida are more consistent tournament teams, but on the whole the Big 8/12 has won 20% more NCAA tournament games than the SEC. It is the tougher league from top to bottom. Missouri winning 23 conference titles in the Big 12 is worth at least as much as if it had won 23 titles in the SEC, and is probably worth more on the order of 25 or 26 SEC titles. Either way, Missouri is solidly in 3rd historically behind Kentucky and Arkansas, and if we’re talking mementum, they’re in 3rd behind Kentucky and Florida and ahead of Arkansas.
LikeLike
OK, Andy that’s just crazy talk. I know you are new to the SEC and don’t know the history of the league in any sport, but to say that if Mizzou had always been in the SEC, they’d have 25 or 26 championships is insane. The SEC has played 81 basketball seasons and Kentucky has won 45 of those regular season championships. LSU is next with 11, followed by Bama & Tennessee with 8. Florida & Miss State have 6. Vandy has 3. Auburn, Arkansas & South Carolina have two each. Georgia has one championship.
Without going into the rankings by each year along with tournament results, I serioulsy doubt Mizzou would have won roughly one third of the SEC’s basketball championships, especially when you take into consideration that Kentucky has 14 final four appearances, Arkansas has six (two as a member of the SEC), Florida and LSU have 4, Miss State and Georgia have one each. For Mizzou to pick up 25 or 26 SEC championships, Mizzou would have to run the table on just about every year Kentucky didn’t, leaving nine championships for the rest of the conference, which has had some pretty good basketball teams over the years.
LikeLike
@Alan – From 1948 Missouri has:
Won 0 Big 7 RS Championships
Won 8 Big 8 RS Championships
Won 6 Big 8 Tournaments
Won 0 Big 12 RS Championships
Won 2 Big 12 Tournaments.
LikeLike
Sorry Alan, but it’s not crazy talk. I was basing it on extrapolated direct comparisons between leagues. The Big 12 has roughly 300 NCAA tournament wins, the SEC has roughly 250. So the Big 12 is around 18% better. And I wasn’t saying 25 regular season only, btw, I was saying regular season and conference tournament. Missouri had 22 of those in the Big 12. But no SEC school has more than 18 of those other than UK and Arkansas (and 90% of Arkansas’s came in the SWC). If you’re in love with Final 4s, and I think that’s a pretty limited measure, then the Big 12 still wins.
Kansas: 14 final 4s
Oklahoma State: 6
Oklahoma: 4
Texas: 3
KSu: 3 f
Baylor: 2
Colorado: 2
Total 34
vs
Kentucky 14
Arkansas 6
Florida 4
LSU 4
MSU 1
Georgia 1
Total 30
The Big 12 has just been a tougher basketball league. I don’t fault you for not knowing that before, but now you do, so you have no excuse.
Yes, Missouri has been upset in the tournament over and over and over and over again. Lost early as a 2, 2, 4, 6, 3, 5, and 2 seeds. As a fan, it’s been maddening. That’s probably 10 or 15 NCAA wins that Missouri *should* have had, but didn’t get. Win those and they’re up above Florida in terms of NCAA wins. But what that means is if you evaluate Missouri by their NCAA tournament success then they’re going to look much, much worse than if you evaluate them by their regular season success. And they’ve had a lot of regular season success in a league that according to the facts is a tougher league than the SEC. To try to diminish that is ignorance. An ignorance that I just cured you of.
LikeLike
Mike if you want to take away stuff from pre-1948 then a lot of schools are going to lose a lot of wins and titles. Kentucky, for example, loses 22 out of their 85 regular season and conference tournament titles.
And before anyone complains about how the SEC didn’t have a conference tournament from 1953-78, I’ll remind you that the Big 8 didn’t even have a tournament until 1977, so there were actually more opportunities for SEC schools to win conference tournaments, not less, when I showed those totals above.
LikeLike
Mike, Kansas loses 25 out of their 56 conference and tournament titles if you take away everything from before 1948. It would be more but the Big 8 didn’t have a tournament back in the old days like Kentucky did, so Kentucky won an extra 14 tournament tiles that way.
So you could re-run all of those numbers post 1948, but then everybody’s numbers goes down, and Missourii’s 16 post-1948 titles will still be just as high on the list.
LikeLike
And btw, the fact that schools like Colorado, Baylor, Georgia, and MSU have final 4s and Missouri doesn’t just proves beyond a reasonable doubt how limited it is to use final 4s as the main measure of how good a program is. For example, Missouri leads the all time series with Colorado 99-53, but Colorado leads in Final 4s 2 to 0. Haw haw, right? But everybody knows Missouri has the better program.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That’s funny right there.
LikeLike
cc, you’ve posted endless ridiculous nonsense on here for years. You have no room to talk. Everything I just posted is 100% accurate.
LikeLike
Andy says:
If you’re in love with Final 4s, and I think that’s a pretty limited measure, then the Big 12 still wins. I added the years so it is a more complete picture. and segregated by UCLA’s last win under Wooden in 1975.
Kansas = 14
(6) Old :: Big 6 = 40 : Big 7 = 52, 53, 57 : Big 8 = 71 and 74
(8) New :: Big 8 = 86, 88, 91, and 93 : Big 12 = 02, 03, 08, and 12
Oklahoma State = 6 – 4 wins in Missouri Valley Conference = 2
(4) Old :: Missouri Valley Conference 45, 46, 49, and 51
(2) New :: Big 8 = 95 and Big 12 = 04
Oklahoma = 4
(2) Old :: Big 6 = 39 and 47
(2) New :: Big 8 = 88 : Big 12 = 02
Kansas State = 4
(4) Old :: Big 7 = 48, 51, and 58 : Big 8 = 64
(0) New :: NONE
Texas = 3
(2) Old :: SWC = 43 and 47
(1) New :: Big 12 = 03
Baylor = 2
(2) Old :: SWC = 48 and 50
(0) New :: NONE
Colorado = 2 – 1 wins in Mountain States Conference = 1
(2) Old :: Mountain States Conference = 42 : Big 7 = 50
(0) New = NONE
Iowa State = 1
(1) Old :: Big 6 = 44
(0) New = NONE
Total 31 (not 34)
18 old = 58.1%
13 new = 41.9%
vs
Kentucky = 15 (all in SEC) – you had them incorrectly at 14
(7) Old :: 1942, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1966, and 1975
(8) New :: 1978, 1984, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2011, and 2012
Arkansas = 6 – 4 wins in SWC = 2
(0) Old :: SWC = 1941 and 1945
(2) New :: SWC = 1978 and 1990 : SEC = 1994 and 1995
Florida = 4 (all in SEC)
(0) Old :: NONE
(4) New :: 1994, 2000, 2006, and 2007
Louisiana State = 4 (all in SEC)
(1) Old :: 1953
(3) New :: 1981, 1986, and 2006
Georgia = 1 (all in SEC)
(0) Old :: NONE
(1) New :: 1983
Mississippi State = 1 (all in SEC)
(0) Old :: NONE
(1) New :: 1996
Total 27 (you had them at 30)
8 old = 29.6%
19 new = 70.4%
The Big 12 has just been a tougher basketball league. I don’t fault you for not knowing that before, but now you do, so you have no excuse.
I can not tell if you are trolling or just dense. Look at the modern era!
Big 12 has 2 National Championships with Kansas
SEC has 7 National Championships with Kentucky, Florida, and Arkansas
7 > 2
Final Fours since the SEC went to 12
(13) 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 x 2, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2006 x 2, 2007, 2011, and 2012
Final Fours since the Big 12 went to 12
(7) 2002 x 2, 2003 x 2, 2004, 2008, and 2012
13 > 7
Please tell me again how the Big 12 is tougher than the SEC?
.
…
.
Andy says:
April 23, 2013 at 5:14 pm
cc, you’ve posted endless ridiculous nonsense on here for years. You have no room to talk. Everything I just posted is 100% accurate.
It was not and you see the corrected numbers above. Several things stand out
a) you gave the B12 (5) extra Final Fours that should have been credited to the Missouri Valley and Mountain States Conferences.
b) adding SWC and Big 6 / Big 7 / Big 8 wins doubles up when the SEC only had 10 members and the combined SWC + Big 8 was closer to 16 total members.
c) you imply the Big 12 was making all those Final Fours when in fact it was mostly the predecessor conferences
d) Since the Big 12 formed the SEC has has roughly double the Final Fours of the Big 12
e) For all your bluster about Mizzou they still have yet to make a single Final Four
LikeLike
bamatab, asking whether “Missouri” is southern or midwestern is mis-stating the question, since it implies its either one or the other, when the correct answer is that its both. Clearly, the majority of Missouri is midwestern. Just as clearly, the southeastern corner of the state is southern, and that is somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of the state population.
LikeLike
Missouri’s football will be OK in the SEC. In spite of all the injuries they had this year to go along with a challenging non-conference schedule, they still would have made a bowl game if they hadn’t suspended their best player before the Syracuse game for failing to attend classes. They were 5-5 going into that game, knowing they had little chance to win the last game of the year at A&M, and they suspended him anyway. I applaud them for that, even though they ended up losing 31-27 to keep them from a bowl.
Missouri has been a solid team…the only Big 12 team to win a Cotton Bowl in the last 10 years. They’ll be fine.
LikeLike
Thanks, M (ag). Yeah, I think Missouri will probably win at least 7 games this year. We’ll see.
Duff, I don’t see your point. I was talking about Big 12 schools. What does it matter if they were in other conferences before the Big 12?
As far as old vs new, I don’t see how that’s relevant. Everything I’ve been talking about in all my posts was about all time numbers. For some reason you think that nothing counts before the 70s or something. I disagree. I think they played the sport back then and those titles count too.
LikeLike
So if Connecticut, Cincinnati and West Virginia are the big losers in the 2010-2014 era of expansion, who are the winners?
In what world is WVU a loser? Sure they are on an island, but is still projected to make $6 million more than they would in the ACC (a number that will expand when the play starts and they get Sugar Bowl money) and keep their third tier rights.
(Meanwhile you didn’t even mention USF…)
As for winners? At least compared to where they were in 2009 the biggest winners are (in order)
1. Utah
2. TCU
(Moderate Drop)
3. Rutgers
4. BYU
(Massive drop)
5. Colorado
6. Missouri
(Drop)
7. Nebraska
8. aTm (could move into a tie pending how much the SEC Network ends up being worth)
(Drop)
9. Big Ten
10. PAC
11. SEC
12. Notre Dame
13-16. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and WVU
17. ACC and Big XII
You can put Texas in the UNL and aTm level if you count schools that didn’t move.
LikeLike
I’ll have to disagree with you on the PAC making out better than the SEC. If anything, I think the PAC weakened their athletic product with the additions of Colorado and Utah.
LikeLike
I’m comparing to where they were in 2009. Remember, the PAC not only added 2 schools, they also added a CCG (that is why I have the Big Ten over the SEC even though I’m not sure UNL, Maryland and Rutgers are anymore valuable than aTm and Mizzou).
LikeLike
Also, the PAC already has their network up and running, while the SEC network is still a year away.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was going at it from a purely athletic product viewpoint.
I think the B1G filled some needs. They expanded into some really good, east coast markets and recruiting grounds. Plus they added a king in Nebraska (although they probably could’ve used another football prince). Plus they got their CCG.
The SEC also filled some needs with much needed markets and AAU schools. Plus I consider aTm to be a football prince (they have the potential to be on at least).
Looking at the PAC, I think the only good they really got out of it was their CCG. Yeah they theoretically added the Denver & SLC markets, but I still have my reservations about how much interest those markets have in college athletics. I do think that they hurt their overall athletic product though.
LikeLike
In terms of TV $, the Pac and Big 12 were the big winners. They gained a lot of ground on the rest. Most anyone leaving the BE was a big winner.
I would disagree about BYU being a winner. They are in bowl and mid-season scheduling purgatory. They have a lot more exposure and a little more money, but they have issues, especially with the WAC’s disintegration.
LikeLike
Colorado was solid academic addition and culturally seems to fit the PAC so I can see that as a positive even if the sports teams were not at the top. Big state flagship in a section of the country with limited options probably helps more than it appears.
LikeLike
The B1G was a significant winner. It’s now the predominant football conference of 14 states plus D.C. and lower NY state, a footprint with just over 100 million people. It’s essentially captured a new area–the Mid-Atlantic, minus Virginia–without overextending its boundaries either geographically or culturally.
And although some would disagree with this, I think the ACC GOR is another win for the B1G, as it kept it from adding some bad fits that ultimately might have led to the conference’s undoing.
LikeLike
Yeah, as a Pac fan and alum, the general fan view was the programs added are weak, but a fair trade off for the massive increase in money we got. And hope that Colorado can get back to where they were, which should happen, it’s the main state school in a decent size but growing and economically strong state with a good media market. And Utah got us to 12…
LikeLike
@frug – I think that list generally looks pretty good. The only change that I would make is to have BYU move to the Pitt/Syracuse/Louisville/WVU tier. Their TV contract situation has turned out to be a positive, but they’ve also seen rival Utah move to *much* greener pastures in the Pac-12 and the tradeoff of going independent for football was to downgrade from the MWC to the WCC (outside of Gonzaga) for basketball and other sports. BYU is better off overall today compared to 2010 and I think independence can work for them in a way that it can’t for 99% of other schools, but it would have taken an invite to the Big 12 or Pac-12 (the latter of which will never happen for cultural reasons) to really have given them a massive jump.
LikeLike
*Much* greener lol I like that I am a Utah fan.
LikeLike
The main reason I put BYU as high as I did is because the MWC had a terrible TV deal even for a mid-major and FB independence gives them national exposure that they prioritize. Had they taken the Big XII offer they would have competed with Utah for the top spot, but as is, if you want to slide them down to the Colorado/Missouri level I wouldn’t argue too much.
LikeLike
Was Maryland an oversight, or intentional?
LikeLike
Oversight. I would have put them in between the SEC and ND (11 and 12).
LikeLike
Honestly, they are really hard to rank because it was the only move that was made purely for money. The Big Ten will give them a lot of it, but they weren’t bad off when this all started.
LikeLike
I don’t know where I’d put Maryland. Somewhere low. Kind of a meh move for them.
LikeLike
Baltimore & DC markets are awfully valuable as is those recruiting grounds.
LikeLike
Baltimore and DC are big markets, but U Md doesn’t own them. I grew up in Md suburbs of DC – everyone there were Georgetown fans, not Md fans. And those are pro markets, not college markets. They’re Redskins, Ravens, Orioles and Nationals fans, then Hoyas, Wizards and Capitals, then another drop to Maryland. College football not really on the radar except for alumni.
LikeLike
@ES – My perception and what I have seen in ratings data for DC is that while it’s a pro sports market, it also isn’t like Boston or arguably NYC where college sports are completely ignored. DC seems very similar to Chicago, where the sheer concentration of power conference alumni makes it into at least a market that can be delivered in theory. It’s not a college sports town like Birmingham or Atlanta, but there’s still a legit college sports presence there. Besides, any market worth owning is a pro sports market at some level, so I’ve always found that to be a too quick retort for expansion skeptics.
LikeLike
frug,
I might move RU up. The MWC and BE were seen as roughly equal on the field by 2009 (AQ vs non-AQ, I know), and RU was a charity case while Utah and TCU earned their moves.
LikeLike
The MWC and BE were seen as roughly equal on the field by 2009 (AQ vs non-AQ, I know), and RU was a charity case while Utah and TCU earned their moves.
Even if they were equal on the field, they weren’t off as the Big East schools were making about 5 times as much money in conference distributions. The BEast was also more prestigious is hoops.
And while I completely agree with your second point, I don’t see why it matters.
LikeLike
It doesn’t really matter except for the perception. TCU and Utah put in the work to become viable candidates. RU won the geography lottery.
LikeLike
Utah lucked out considerable in the geography lottery as well. They weren’t getting an invite if they were located in, say, Wyoming.
LikeLike
frug, it’s too early to rank the SEC until the SECN announcement. Only then will we know how much they gained by this move. It may end up being a lot more than the B1G or PAC.
LikeLike
Even the announcement won’t tell us anything financially. This is based on what we know now.
LikeLike
Hm, maybe so. Well, we’ll find out eventually. And the SEC may come out the biggest winners in all of this. Or maybe not. We’ll see. Point is it’s too early to rank these.
LikeLike
That’s incredibly difficult to say. The SEC likely would have formed its own network eventually, with or without Missouri and A&M. It is not solely a reflection on the value of expansion targets.
LikeLike
By that measure the same could be said of Rutgers and Maryland.
I’m really struggling to see how a Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland combo is stronger than a Missouri/A&M combo. I guess just by virtue of it bieng 3 schools vs 2, and allowing a championship game vs not doing that, is an argument.
But then the SEC doubled their number of AAU schools, while the B1G went from being 100% AAU to only 93% AAU.
LikeLike
There is more data to compare those arguments for the Big Ten, however. There are at least a few pre-Nebraska and pre-Maryland/Rutgers years to see what kind of effect they actually have. Whereas whatever guaranteed payout the SEC is offered from a split ownership deal will reflect all 14 programs. We won’t know exactly how they came up with whatever they offered.
LikeLike
Winners and losers. From eight hours ago.
LikeLike
Nice link and work. I was only slightly in the category of FranktheTank commentariat, liked the idea of FSU and maybe Va despite the geographical nightmare FSU would encounter in such a BIG. But I often got sickened by many BIG fans with dollar signs in their foolish heads vs respect for cultural-historical togetherness. Shame on many of these fellow BIG fans, esp those fantasizing over 18-20 team leagues at the big-time expense of the ACC. Jesus, these fans have never been in ACC country long enough to understand the ties that bind that conference. They never bothered to do some self-examination and perhaps hypothesize OSU, Michigan, leaving the BIG for the ACC – a ridiculous prospect when applied inwards. I say those two because UNC’s prestige & influence is similar to OSU and Michigan in the BIG.
In the end, if (big “if”) super conferences are the end game – I stand firm that the Big12 is the conference at greatest risk, in large part because of geography, which is not to be understated – ever – in present or future expansion talk. The Big12 is at the crossroads of the BIG, SEC and Pac12. If the BIG has to go to 18, set aside the AAU angle and grab UConn, KU, OU and Tx – basketball and football money will never be an issue again. UConn and OU, especially the former, will be AAU in due time. Word is UConn could be AAU within the next few years. Tx, OU, and KU will reunite with Neb and make a BIG West football division quite formidable & certainly competitive against the future BIG East, adding two of football’s 10 great rivalries: OU-Neb, OU-Tx. KU and UConn will give the BIG a basketball boost that puts us on par or above the future ACC, above if strictly counting NCs and FFs. There will only be slight breakup in geography – the 60 mile break between Conn and NJ – hardly noticeable unless you break out a magnifying glass. And most importantly, two of those schools: UConn and KU would not have the Md issue – they would embrace BIG membership at a super majority level. OU and Tx, not so much, but together they would go for the BIG if they knew the Big12 was ion shaky ground.
Nonetheless, I’m fine with the future 14 – a lot of upside, long term, with Rutgers and Md. I like the idea of a BIG eastern bloc that reminds me of the AFC North & I like the academic history both these schools offer.
LikeLike
hate to break it to you but UConn isn’t anywhere near getting into the AAU.
And the B1G will not take OU.
LikeLike
Andy,
Do some research on UConn getting AAU membership. They are close. Conn is one of best k-12 education states. UConn has already soared into the top 63 of US News Undergraduate schools – which places higher than a handful of BIG schools, same metric. They’re investing mucho bucks into graduate programs, which are the more important measurement for AAU status. They are the sole flagship of Conn – their chances are quite good.
LikeLike
They rank 118th in research. Need to get into the top 40 range to be a candidate. Maybe in 20-30 years.
LikeLike
When the GOR expires, ACC is still the one most at risk. Their schools can be more valuable elsewhere, at least the VA/NC/SC/FL core. But the landscape will look a lot different in a dozen years. I’m not going to try to predict what will happen.
LikeLike
Skepticism towards the ACC largely has to do with its relatively poor football brand — and that its “alpha dog,” UNC, doesn’t play alpha dog football.
Regarding Connecticut, I think there’s considerable resentment from much of the old guard, especially those who deem its uccess a by-product of ESPN.
LikeLike
Indisputably big winners in their own right: Xavier, Creighton, and especially Butler (for going from a now crumbling Horizon League to an A-10 at height of its power to being in the same league with Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s. There’s no better conference for a school without an FBS football program than the new Big East. They’re now officially power conference programs and were considered mid-majors by most observers just a few years ago.
App State and other schools who moved up to the FBS level are winners; remains to be seen whether they’re actually moving to the highest Division or whether they’re going to one that ultimately results as one in between the FCS and a new, broken-away Division reserved only for the power conferences.
Losers: the former Big East/AAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, and WAC , especially. NMSU got a life raft for football in the SB, but was way better off when WAC had Hawaii, Boise, Nevada, Fresno, and La. Tech instead of Grand Canyon University & co.
Could be winner or loser depending on whether glass is half full or half empty: schools joint AAC who expected higher payout; Catholic 7 who will miss Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, ND, and UConn but now control own destiny; ACC, which lost a founding member and has an under-market TV contract but staved off large scale raids; Big 12, which lost 4 schools but still has UT and OU.
LikeLike
Moving up to FBS is not necessarily being a winner. App. St. and Georgia Southern are going from a big fish in a little pond to a tiny fish in the ocean. Some of the others like Georgia State may be terrible in FBS and drop in attendance. All remains to be seen on those schools even if FBS doesn’t split.
LikeLike
If you see WV as a sucker in the move to the Big12, you must be a glass is half empty kind of guy. On the glass is half full side, they stayed in the Major Conference landscape when the conference they escaped from dropped down.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF – Very true. West Virginia HAD to make that move to the Big 12 at the time. They would still make that move today if they were stuck in the AAC (as would any other school in the Gang of Five).
LikeLike
If the PAC passed on OU and OkSU what MWC school is likely to get a sniff?
LikeLike
None.
Next (if any) likely expansion/school shifts in the power conferences will come when UTen GOR comes up in what, 9 more years?
LikeLike
IMHO – New Mexico and UNLV. It all depends on how profitable the PTN is.
LikeLike
@Mike – Yes, I think those two (who may also be on the Big 12’s long-term radar) along with Hawaii are the ones with a semi-plausible chance at the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Possibly Houston long-term.
LikeLike
UCLA has been playing them home and away.
LikeLike
Actually it was a 2:1 (2010-2012). Then again, Chianti Dan just signed Memphis and UNLV to a home and home, so who the hell knows what’s going on there.
LikeLike
I have a REALLY hard time seeing anyone getting a PAC invite in almost any scenario. Everyone outside of LA demands as much LA access as possible and any invite inevitably dilutes this for some to all of the current schools. For a major program (like Texas) it’s less of a problem, but this was (along with academics) the primary reason the league was lukewarm at the OK/OK St pair when it came up a while back.
And if the league was lukewarm at that pair, there’s no reason whatsoever to think that it’s even semi-plausible they’d be interested in mid-majors like UNM and UNLV. And Hawaii is basically those two programs plus a logistical train wreck, being multiple time zones away.
LikeLike
But a great destination during the winter 🙂 .
LikeLike
I’m not saying it’s likely or imminent. If there’s a compelling economic reason where they had to expand those two would be the best choices that aren’t in the Big 12 right now.
LikeLike
That’s the biggest issue making Pac expansion difficult-Los Angeles access.
That’s why I think San Diego St. actually has a decent chance IF the Pac does expand-Southern California access. If they go to 16, Stanford and Cal don’t have to be in the same division.
LikeLike
I think it’s a newby issue. A P16 would have the old P8 as one division.
Two things about SDSU.
1: why buy the cow…
2: the UC powers will never let a Cal St system school in.
LikeLike
+1 on ccrider re: SD St. The CA schools, especially the LA ones, would revolt (and I’m pretty sure 4 “no” votes would kill any expansion). Moreover, USC publicly floated the idea of independence during the last round of logistical negotiations; the current Pac-12 agreement ( http://compliance.pac-12.org/tools/handbook.html ) only lasts until 2024 (“No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and
ending onAugust 1, 2024”), which isn’t all that long in the larger scheme of things. The idea that the non-CA members would risk someone like USC (much less all the CA’s) walking just to bring in someone like SD St is non-sensical.
LikeLike
Well if they get the old Pac 8 back, how big a deal is SDSU? UW/WSU, OU/OSU, Cal/Stanford, UCLA/USC are in one division while SDSU is in the other.
Now they’ve still got to find 3 other schools that pay for themselves which is a giant hurdle.
LikeLike
UCB Na UCLA admins about had a seizure over the conference allowing Cal St’s Fullerton and Bakersield as associate members in wrestling. Don’t recall the same angst over UC Davis’ inclusion.
Think Hatfields and McCoys.
What market does SDSU bring that USC and UCLA don’t already?
Enjoy being at 12.
If the B1G can/is actually considering JHU, could/should the PAC explore Rice for non athletic performance (baseball excepted) reasons? A SW Stanford.
LikeLike
I want to see the pac expand any of the Texas schools are great I wouldn’t mind seeing Houston be invited.
LikeLike
Any Pac-12 expansion has to include Central Texas in some form or other, since the only way to resolve the LA access issue is to have another big cluster of media markets and recruiting grounds in the conference.
Which leaves Pac-12 expansion until the expiration date of the Big12 GOR comes closer. The basic demographics are not going to change enough to change the underlying pull of Central Texas, but that does allow time for things to change in the market as well as allow time for some program building.
LikeLike
What about the Big 12 grabbing BYU and Boise State?…even if just for football only?
LikeLike
Twice they’ve not come to agreement with BYU.
Delivering the Boise market, and potato lovers, probably doesn’t cut it.
BYU controls their future with reasoning sports fans can’t grasp.
Boise is doing a junior version of UT. Have their own TV deal and exert undue influence in the MWC merely by their presence or absence.
LikeLike
Very frustrated that Delany failed to get Virginia and UNC into the Big 10.
LikeLike
@only1halen – I don’t think getting UNC into the Big Ten was any more of a failure than getting Notre Dame or Texas into the league – they were always going to be extremely difficult to pry away, if not impossible. UVA also would have likely stayed tied to UNC no matter what. The only question that I have in my mind is whether the Big Ten had a chance to poach schools like Florida State and/or Miami yet passed them over (whether it was for geographic reasons, lack of AAU status, etc.). That had the biggest potential of being a game changer if it was settled that UNC and ND were never going to move.
LikeLike
Agree! B1G needs 16 schools. Next two will be difficult to poach….
LikeLike
There are a number of free agents still left on the board, the SEC, and they can always try to force the issue to pry free a Kansas if they want.
Besides, nobody’s joined the ACC yet.
LikeLike
I say the SEC, but before anyone guffaws and chortles, I don’t think we’ll be seeing Kentucky or Missouri anytime soon.
LikeLike
Kansas wouldn’t be profitable. Plus they’re as likely to lose AAU status as anyone, being the lowest ranked AAU school in the USNews ranking, and doing the least amount of research.
Missouri and Kentucky would be good additions but I don’t think either would leave the SEC within the next couple of decades, if ever.
LikeLike
Andy, you have been corrected multiple times on here and I’ll freaking do it again: Kansas is nowhere close to losing its AAU status. Quit lying about it, and if you want to talk about profitablity, KU has consistently been in the top 3 of the Big12’s unbalanced revenue distribution.
Imagining KU in the B1G, they could do very well with B1G Network basketball programming. If the game isn’t big enough to be on ESPN it’ll be on the BTN, and that is what the B1G wants. KU is consistently in the top 25 of college merchandise sales.
LikeLike
Cookie Monster, yes, you have “corrected me” multiple times, never with a smidgen of evidence.
Fact: basketball has not been a driver in conference realignment thus far.
Fact: KU is awful at football and would have one of the lowest attendances in the B1G.
Fact: KU is in the bottom 2 or 3 in the AAU in USNews academic rankings and would be the lowest ranked school in the B1G.
Fact: AAU is largely based on research dollars and ku does the least research of any AAU school.
Fact: Nebraska has already been kicked out of the AAU and Kansas’s numbers and rankings are basically the same as Nebraska’s.
Kansas will not be joining the Big Ten. It will not happen. And that’s as it should be considering Kansas made such a huge obnoxious stink about Missouri “betraying” and “abandoning” the Big 12. If that’s the case then Kansas should be eternally loyal to the Big 12. And if not then they should get over this butthurt against MU and go ahead and start playing us already. It was the most played series west of the Mississippi and 2nd most played overall. The fact that we’re not playing right now is all on Kansas and is easily remedied. Mizzou would probably cancel any non-conference game on our schedule and play you in 2013 the minute you agreed to it.
As a jayhawker, you’d just better hope that Texas sees fit to keep you around one way or another because your fate is completely tied to them. Thank God Missouri is not in your boat.
LikeLike
anticipating some reply knocking Missouri’s academics. Yes, Missouri’s USNews ranking wasn’t so great this year at 97. It was 86 a year or two ago, it goes up and down. KU was at 106 this year, so a bit behind MU. But Missouri doesn’t have much to crow about when it comes to USNews rankings.
But in research Missouri’s not nearly as bad off. Missouri has a fairly good medical school, ranked top 20 in some categories. On the strength of that their competitively won federal research dollars ranked #69 in the latest rankings. Not great, but still better than 7 or 8 other AAU schools, including Kansas, who ranked pretty much at the bottom of the AAU and outside of the top 100 nationally. If KU doesn’t clean that up then it’s absolutely possible for them to get kicked out of the AAU. It happened to Nebraska. But don’t take my word for it…
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/22/ku-should-be-concerned-about-aau-membership/
LikeLike
Sources for my research claim:
Click to access research2011.pdf
Total research: Kansas rank: 117, Missouri rank: 77 (and that’s just Columbia, not counting the other med school at UMKC, the Engineering school at UMR, or any research done at UMSL)
(see page 32 of the report)
Ranking competitively won federal research dollars: Kansas rank: 100, Missouri rank: 69 (see page 14 of the report).
So I’m “lying” eh? I showed my sources. You show yours. I’m from Missouri. Show-Me how I’m lying.
LikeLike
Fact is the Missouri President is the only one who has made any comment about worrying about keeping its AAU status. He says they’re safe for now. Its likely that Missouri and Kansas are both in that bottom 5 or 6 in the rankings the AAU used when they kicked out Nebraska.
LikeLike
Missouri has between 6 and 8 schools below them. Kansas has between 0 and 3.
LikeLike
but leave it to bullet to completely ignore my well documented facts and come up with his own imaginary ones.
LikeLike
AAU doesn’t look just at research $. They have a whole host of things like faculty award winners, if you had ever looked at those Nebraska links.
LikeLike
Yeah, and Kansas ranks near the bottom by nearly every measure..
LikeLike
B1G needs 16 schools. Next two will be difficult to poach….
Ummm…why, exactly? In what way is 16 better?
The answer is: in NO way, unless the two new schools are extremely compelling. Just adding two, for the sake of adding two, is undoubtedly worse.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Ummm…why, exactly? In what way is 16 better?
The answer is: in NO way, unless the two new schools are extremely compelling. Just adding two, for the sake of adding two, is undoubtedly worse.”
I agree. The only way 16 is better IMO is a chance to fix these terrible divisions. I’d almost rather see OSU leave the B10 than be stuck playing RU and UMD annually.
LikeLike
I take that back. Get rid of the almost. I’d rather see OSU in the SEC than play RU and UMD annually for the next century.
LikeLike
According to many on here Rutgers was a great addition. Ha!
LikeLike
Many on here root for teams in the western division, or just care about the NYC money RU might bring.
LikeLike
It’s unfortunate, Brian, but I am just going to envision Rutgers as Indiana whenever they play Michigan. Their colors and quality are close enough.
LikeLike
Ross,
“It’s unfortunate, Brian, but I am just going to envision Rutgers as Indiana whenever they play Michigan. Their colors and quality are close enough.”
I expect RU to be more of a mid-pack (7-10) team. They will never be a real B10 team to me, though. It would be better if all the old 10 had the newbies inflicted on them equally.
I really wonder how fans would’ve reacted to RU and UMD if they knew that was it for expansion? It wasn’t very popular even with all sorts of rumors of 16+.
LikeLike
Well, the other division does have Nebraska, who has only been in the Big Ten for 2 years longer than Maryland/Rutgers. That being said, Nebraska feels like more of a fit to me, especially when put with teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Plus, they are obviously way more interesting to play in general than either the terps or the scarlet knights.
LikeLike
Ross,
“Well, the other division does have Nebraska, who has only been in the Big Ten for 2 years longer than Maryland/Rutgers. That being said, Nebraska feels like more of a fit to me, especially when put with teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Plus, they are obviously way more interesting to play in general than either the terps or the scarlet knights.”
I consider NE and PSU a wash. PSU has been around longer but NE is a better fit. Both are kings so they bring a decent level of interest.
LikeLike
If the new division structure (as rumoured by ESPN) would be based on the premise of expanding to 16 teams, what happens next? Proceed as rumoured??
LikeLike
@Big Ten Fan – Absolutely. The call for geographically aligned divisions was strong even in a 12-team setup and it becomes increasingly more desirable as you go up to 14. I enjoy thinking of different ways to shift pods as a mental exercise, but I don’t think the Big Ten has any desire to do that. Personally, I’m definitely in favor of the new divisional alignment.
LikeLike
The rumoured divisional alignment is definitely appealing. It make take a few years, and a few divisional (and conference) championships, before Nebraska fans realize the same.
LikeLike
I don’t think the new division structure was based on the premise of expanding to 16 teams. I think it’s what they believed was the best possible alignment of the 14 they have.
You can’t do divisions without knowing the names of the schools, and they never actually had #15-16 locked down. If that ever happened, they’d have to get everyone in a room and start over again.
LikeLike
If you believe what they said, they didn’t consider 16 in setting this up. Since they openly talked about 16 instead of hiding the possibility, it seems likely they were telling the truth.
LikeLike
Realignment and consolidate have been going on for decades. There is no reason to think that realignment/consolidation has come to an end. In my view, this is at most a few-year-pause.
As we’ve said many times on this blog, the Chancellors and Presidents are thinking in 20-year and 50-year increments. The ACC schools were not ready to move yet; we’ll see where things are in 5-7 years.
LikeLike
One way to look at both the Big12 and ACC grant of rights is to punt to see what the 2020’s media market is going to look like. since at this point in time its mostly speculation ~ too much money is locked into institutions and technologies that are going to be under pressure, and too little money is flowing through the institutions and technologies that are going to be 1/4 or more of the market in a decade’s time, to be even be able to tell with any confidence WHERE the biggest changes are going to be.
LikeLike
Now that the madness is finally over, we can clearly identify the biggest winners and losers. In descending order of magnitude, then…
Winners:
1. Schools that moved from non-power conference to power football conference (Utah, TCU) – began the game without a football chair and wound up with one
2. Notre Dame – stepped up in class in their non-football sports, solidified independent football status for 10-15 years, wound up making about as much money as anyone
3. Schools that moved from a BCS conference to a better power conference (Colorado, Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Rutgers, Missouri, Texas A&M, Louisville) – had somewhere between a mediocre and teetering chair, wound up somewhere between a solid and golden chair
4. West Virginia – technically they are part of group 3, but winding up as a huge geographic outlier in their new league puts them slightly behind the rest of them
5. Lesser lights outside of SEC/B1G who remained as part of power conferences (Washington St, Oregon St, Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Wake Forest, Boston College) – could have easily lost their chair and had no control over it, but got lucky in the end
6. New members of new Big East (Butler, Creighton, Xavier) – moved up in class, but basketball only so impact is smaller
7. Smaller old members of new Big East (St John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul, Marquette) – remained in a relatively relevant basketball conference when they could have been totally cast aside into a definitive mid-major category
Losers:
1. Old Big East Teams stuck in the AAC aka the old Big East (UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida) – had a football chair at the beginning of the game, but lost it. Definitely the major losers of this whole thing. Honestly UConn is the probably the biggest individual loser considering where they were a few years ago in football/basketball, and that they made a big investment to move up into major college football not too long ago.
2. Bigger old members of new Big East (Georgetown, Villanova) – got bumped down a bit from a true power conference to something in between a power conference and a mid-major, putting their ongoing status as a basketball power in doubt
3. Traditional football superpowers in weakest power conferences (Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St) – despite being big boys in the football game, wound up outside the biggest money. Still in pretty good shape, but ceded some ground to SEC and B1G schools.
LikeLike
1: Utah yes, TCU sorta, returned to SWC level (recovered what was lost)
5: By your logic, the lower “value” schools in every conference are permenantly at risk.
There has only been one D1 school ever kicked from a conference, and not a power conference. The PAC schools were not at risk. OkST and TT had big brother cover, that would have only been necessary if B12 collapsed. ACC only lost one member to a king conference, same one that claimed UNL. I always felt their obituary was being writ way early. None were actually at risk, even if a few other schools had defected.
LikeLike
I think you’re right about the PAC schools. The basic thought was that outside of the two big kahunas (B1G and SEC), any of the lesser lights are – if not permanently at risk – just simply not in control of their own destiny in any kind of meaningful way. I still think that’s true vis-a-vis Washington St and Oregon St, but the geographic constraints probably save them from the seas really turning against them.
That said, I’m not sure the fact that there isn’t a history of schools getting kicked out of the club is particularly instructive. The economics of all of this have become fundamentally different, and every single player is beholden to a much more volatile business cycle than ever before. Volatility creates collateral damage, and if this round turned out to weaken the ACC further, it doesn’t take much to see the eventual loss of a football chair for any who remained there without any better options (and I say this as a self-aware Syracuse fan). Once you accept that premise, the rest are just logical extensions from there.
LikeLike
pslade42:
A century of history, and it consistently, through world wars, recessions, depressions, the rise and fall of particular sports popularity and their national governing bodies, shows the power conferences don’t boot schools. I’m supposed to disregard that and go all “chicken little” because of a potential future change in a particular dynamic involving athletes, but not the university overall?
Weaken the ACC further? I’d suggest that the reality losing Maryland bringing home the desirability of schools in the ACC has caused them to firm up, to take the missing step allows them to become as stable as the big three. Losing Maryland by itself was the best thing for the ACC as it stimulated concrete action. Five years ago who would have pictured ND signing even a limited GOR in the ACC?
LikeLike
Well, yes. The lower value schools in a league are ALWAYS at risk. It’s hard to drop a school but much easier to blow up a league (see the effective demotions of the WAC-16, Mountain West and AAC when power programs walked away).
LikeLike
I was referring to the top conferences. It’s just hard to kill one of them. See: all the ACC obituaries of the last few months, but they lost only one and have more joiners. BEast was the most dysfunctional and killed itself, and took its time doing it. Rasputin of the plains still lives. Only it’s creation reveals the method to exclude current membership. A conference must die, or two join to avoid that possibility for either/both. Now that the ACC is on solid ground that scenario is removed.
LikeLike
I think its really the lower tier schools in the Big12 and ACC in particular who can be classed as winners for not getting the drop, since so far as we’ve seen, a lower tier school in a power conference gets the drop by virtue of its whole conference being downgraded.
LikeLike
I actually think a school that was a bigger winner than given credit for is Baylor (They are ahead of Utah, because despite the increased revenue, the Utes basically are uncompetitive in the PAC). When the process started, the Bears were the bottom of the Big XII. Then they came close to losing everything (If Texas etc would have moved to the PAC), now they are on the rise, starting with RGIII, and with a new on-campus Stadium coming in next year, things are good in Waco. Boston College is actually not a winner. They are playing Notre Dame less than before in football, their sports programs (Except Hockey) are awful, and the facilities are worse. If they don’t upgrade they will eventually be in the same position as Iowa St.
LikeLike
Texas and OU ARE making the biggest money. They make more TV money than anyone else in the country. Texas got a $15 million contract for Tier 3. OU got $7 million for their additional Tier 3. And the Tier I/II contract averages are within $1 million/school of the Pac 12 and also, for the time being, within $1 million of the B1G Tier I/II/III and ahead of the SEC. Bowlsby said the Big 12 would probably be making more in 2014 than the SEC and one of the SEC officials said he might well be right.
As for FSU, like Texas and OU, they made their choice. Not clear if FSU could have gotten in B1G. There’s little doubt they could have gotten in Big 12 if they wanted. Hard to call someone a loser who has alternatives.
LikeLike
OU is receiving something pushing $7M, but its not only tier 3 television content. It includes other marketing and advertising rights that Learfield also runs for other schools. Iowa is receiving $7M from Learfield without any tier 3 TV content. OSU receives $11M from IMG for non-tv content.
Comparing tier 3 stuff is murky, at best.
LikeLike
So, the comparison should be B12 tier 3 contract (OU 7M) vs B1G learfield, IMG, etc contract with no TV (Iowa 7M) PLUS the BTN payout?
We really need a better way to compare non tier 1 and 2 income than using nebulous terms that don’t mean the same thing from school to school. It’s hard to believe OU makes half what Iowa, or a third OSU do.
LikeLike
I think it will always be hard to compare tier 3 because of the different baskets of goods in each deal. The best thing to do is understand that they are different.
LikeLike
I think the difficulty in comparing the #’s is part of the point. No one really wants to open the books any more than is absolutely necessary.
LikeLike
OU was already making $7.5 million. Their new deal ADDED another $7 million, $5.8 million from Fox and an addition $1-$2 million to their Learfield deal because the Fox deal gave greater exposure.
LikeLike
That still leaves OU behind OSU (11M + BTN) and a bit above Iowa. Isn’t UT’s IMG deal included in the LHN? Is OU equaled them now?
LikeLike
No, Texas had a roughly $10 million IMG deal. IMG gets 15% of the $15 million LHN deal because of the overlap, leaving Texas with around $22 million, net.
LikeLike
That’s the average, of course. LHN was $10.81 million the first year escalating up so that it averaged $15 million over the 20 years.
LikeLike
One loser is hybrid conferences. Old Big East died and all the other hybrids lost schools.
LikeLike
For example, if an ACC school now attempted to leave for the Big Ten, SEC or Big 12, the ACC would still own that school’s media rights until 2026-27
Minor correction. The GOR doesn’t actually start until July 1, meaning schools could still leave with no penalty until then.
(Not that I expect that to happen, but weirder stuff has happened in realignment)
LikeLike
@frug – Yes, this is true. So, we have a little over 2 more months to wring some more usage out of our tinfoil hats!
LikeLike
I am a Utah and Pac 12 fan and I am glad that the pac 12 is in a good position (Utah has a good deal) but I can’t help but think that they really missed the boat and that they will now always be 2 teams smaller than the big and the sec (I don’t care the ACC will have two more). I think that these decisions are 100 year decisions and the school presidents weren’t looking at the opportunity cost of not expanding and having less money than it’s competitors and now it seems too late to do anything. I like this article http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/21/did-the-pac-12-risk-its-future-by-not-expanding/
It is older but it is interesting looking at writers predictions that the big would make a lot more money than the pac 12 because they would expand into new TV markets. In the comments because people were disagreeing with the author that the big would not expand from 12 and they did. I wonder what you have to say about this.
LikeLike
Tell me if I am wrong.
LikeLike
If the PAC did pass on the Oklahoma schools (and I believe they did) then they really screwed the pooch. Not only would they have strengthened themselves, they would have mortally wounded a competitor. Plus, within 2 years they would have had at least a 50/50 shot at Texas and been left with no worse than a KU/KSU pair, which kicks the crap out of any combination of New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada and Boise St. It also would have given them the Central Time Zone exposure they need.
And then they managed to make things even worse by killing the PAC/B1G alliance…
LikeLike
I think they really screwed the pooch it is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Bailing on the B1G alliance seems like the real “rue the day” moment. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it comes back in the next few years. The more that TV money moves to the forefront, the more that good home and homes become better (or at least less bad) financially than bodybags, and the more that it makes sense to revive that arrangement. If/when there’s another 1-A split, it becomes a true no-brainer move.
LikeLike
I believe the GOR takes effect immediately. The July 1 date refers to the increase in revenue for each ACC school.
LikeLike
CFTX, do you ever go to sleep? Once again, he beat me to it. ^^^—————– This.
LikeLike
The GOR may start immediately, but in the ACC bylaws anything voted on does not start until the Jan 1 the next year. Maryland is using this clause to get out of paying 50 mil exit fee and only pay 20 because they left in November. So no matter what THe B1G can poach anyone until next year.
LikeLike
Except the deadline to give notice to leave by July 1 this year is mid-August least year. Given that all schools presently in the ACC agreed to the GOR, I’d expect that the ACC would stick to that.
LikeLike
Next move will be a split from the NCAA.
Once that happens, the B10 could try to bring on board most of the non-Ivy, non-big5 AAU research universities that are still independent (biggest gets being JHU, BU, and NYU, but possibly Rice, Stony Brook and many of the egghead eight: CMU, CWRU, WashU, Emory; maybe Tulane; Rice, Emory, and Tulane would give the B10 southern exposure/outreach with their alums as well) as single-sport members.
LikeLike
Interestingly, if you look at the additions to the current big 5 conferences since the 60’s, the B10 is the only one to have added no more than 1 school from any other conference (which I believe Delany had said was a goal of expansion; they did not want to kill of any conferences).
The B10, SEC, and Pac have added 4 schools each (and have lost none). In 2025, these will still be the most impregnable conferences.
The ACC has lost 2 and added 8/9. They are not as stable. 6 schools together since the ’60’s.
The B12/B8/SWC has added/lost/left behind a bunch (5 schools together since the 60’s).
They will be the most vulerable conference a decade from now.
LikeLike
Interestingly, if you look at the additions to the current big 5 conferences since the 60′s, the B10 is the only one to have added no more than 1 school from any other conference (which I believe Delany had said was a goal of expansion; they did not want to kill of any conferences).
That’s just a coincidence, not a grand plan. Is there any real doubt that Delany wanted UVA and UNC? They would have broken your rule, for sure. He just didn’t manage to get them.
And I certainly think he considered others, and if he didn’t take them, it was only because the Big Ten’s parochial needs took them in another direction.
LikeLike
What we’ve learned:
– ND was so determined to avoid the B1G (which they view as the plague) that they’ve actually signed a Grant of Right with…the ACC. Yes, Virginia (no pun intended), they’ve actually joined a conference! 😀
– The ACC is stuck with Boston College, Wake Forest and an uncertain football program at Miami from here on.
LikeLike
Yeah, no kidding. Well, they’re getting Louisville.
That’ll improve their standing in basketball and football.
LikeLike
ND was so determined to avoid the B1G (which they view as the plague) that they’ve actually signed a Grant of Right with…the ACC.
I don’t think ND has any such feelings toward the B1G. They simply want to remain independent in football, and they took the best deal on the table that would allow them to do so.
LikeLike
ND sort of signed a GOR. I don’t think anyone believes it includes ND football.
LikeLike
Somebody might believe it, but more to the point there’s no reason to believe it. The only reason to believe it are those who believe that signing a Grant of Rights means that they “joined” a conference.
But Notre Dame WERE members of the Big East (other than FB) and WILL BE members of the ACC (other than FB) so of course as members of the conference (other than FB) they had to sign the grant of rights … for almost all of their sports (other than FB).
For basketball and whatever else (other than FB) may be of some minor interest to some network … Lacrosse, maybe? … of COURSE they were happy to sign the GOR.
LikeLike
Was it the Dude, Tuxedo Yoda or MHver3 that said the Big12 would take Central Florida and South Florida if they can’t get Miami and/or Florida state? Whoever it was, that may be the only option for the Big 12 now!
LikeLike
Ah, it was Tuxedo Yoda!
LikeLike
He also said UNC to the SEC was a done deal. He knows nothing.
LikeLike
Are there any chances now that the Big Ten would consider other options than 2 static divisions strictly according to geography for a 14-team conference?
LikeLike
Are there any chances now that the Big Ten would consider other options than 2 static divisions strictly according to geography for a 14-team conference?
I can’t imagine why. After Legends/Leaders flopped with the public, I the Big Ten wants to do something simple that everyone understands. The ACC and the SEC are doing the same. There is no need to do something more elaborate and complicated.
LikeLike
True. There should be enough flexibility when increasing to 9 conference games, that appealing cross-over games can be scheduled to satisfy most schools.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’m curious about the Big 12 though. IIRC, They’re the only conf. that doesn’t tie up *all* their games into their GOR; their 3rd tier rights are still controlled by the individual schools. This makes for an interesting play for Texas… It’d be far-fetched but here’s the scenario:
1) LHN continues its carriage struggles. ESPN realizes it’s facing a 20 year slow bleed on this project and approaches Texas to either re-negotiate payouts or kill/merge the network.
2) Texas decides to kill its network as it could probably get more money from selling the 3rd tier rights to existing channels (including potentially back to ESPN).
3) The sole reason for Texas being in the Big 12 (the ability to start its own network) is now gone, which means Texas could start looking for a better conf
4) the BTN, SEC, and Pac-12 networks are successful with nationwide coverage.
5) All of a sudden, those 3 crappy Texas games become much more valuable to BTN/SEC/PAC as they attempt to crack the Texas TV market (SEC already has a&m but could massively increase carriage fees if they carry UT too)
If you consider that the GOR essentially means you lose 3-4 UT home games while you gain 4-5 UT ‘away’ games that are now played in your conference (if UT joins your conference), plus 2-3 3rd tier UT home games, someone like the BTN or PAC might actually come out ahead if they could package those games (2-3 3rd tier + 4-5 ‘away’ games within your conf) into a carriage deal for the state of Texas.
So you have 2 potential scenarios:
1) UT actually leaves the Big 12 and joins the BIG (for example). Their new conference gets 4-5 away games played with BIG opponents in addition to the 3rd tier games that UT already controls. The downside is UT forfeits their share of the Big 12 media contract.
2) UT nominally stays within the Big 12, but sells its 3rd tier rights to BTN plus agrees to play its non-conference games with BIG opponents. Thus UT keeps its Big 12 media revenue, and gets a reduced share of BTN revenue.
Either scenario, if it allows the BTN (or the PAC or SEC) to get carriage rights in Texas, would probably be a net win-win for both the conference and for Texas. And in 13 years when the GOR expires, UT becomes a full conference member.
UT is probably the only school from the Big 12 that this scenario would work for (even if OK could bring along the state for your cable network, it wouldn’t be a big enough boost to be worth losing TV rights to most of the home games), and the only marquee name big enough that a conference like the BTN or PAC could potentially make an oddball deal like this for. But it could work…
Anyway, I think I’m just keeping the hope alive as frank seems determined to make all us re-alignment junkies go cold turkey and actually watch sports for the pleasure of the game itself or some nonsense like that 🙂
LikeLike
UT is in the Big 12 because it makes sense geographically, historically and for the student athletes, not just because of the LHN.
You’re going to need to wait a dozen years or so for those scenarios to even be realistic. And media is likely to change a lot in those years, so there are a lot of possibilities.
LikeLike
The B12 exists because as UT went to shake on the P16 deal they said “…and we get to have our own network. Disregard all that equality crap you were talking about. It doesn’t apply to us.”
LikeLike
No, it was because Fox and ESPN told them they could make the same money in the Big 12. So it was, “why do this?”
LikeLike
I understand how it worked out. It was a posted comment I read at the time that bowtie himself told Scott (while telling Scott thanks, but no thanks for the invite) he had been informed UT still planed to do their own channel, bully it through after they were too far in to cancel the move to 16. Perhaps just aggie talk? Not necessarily beyond belief.
LikeLike
thanks for the hope I don’t like how it has ended, I just don’t understand how florida state would sign a gor. I mean from a business standpoint it just doesn’t make sense. Anyway just keep giving me hope lol.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten told them no, and the SEC told them no, signing a Grant of Rights to keep the ACC together as a Big 5 power conference would make quite a lot of sense.
And surely there is at least a faction inside FSU that would prefer the ACC as it is either to the Big Ten or to the SEC or in some cases to both.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Go Cael!
LikeLike
The biggest winner in conference realignment was ESPN
Frank and I agreed the ACC would be harder to crack but most of my logic was based on ESPN than any genius move by Swofford. Look at the winners and losers by TV affiliation.
B1G
#1 Nebraska is a BTN goldmine and went from FOX to FOX
#2 Maryland has more value to the BTN and cuts away “cancer” from ESPN
#3 Rutgers will have most value to BTN and least to FOX or ESPN
ACC
#1 Notre Dame – sure they are IND in football but the ACC got what the Big East could not from the Irish and over time that 5 game contract can easily go to full membership. If the Irish go another generation in football obscurity they will fit right in with the other ACC football schools. The added plus for ESPN was getting an ACC team deep in the heart of the B1G footprint. This alone may make ESPN the biggest winner. The wild card is Notre Dame basketball. If the men win, it is just gravy to ESPN and the women have been beating Uconn on a regular basis so look for a shift from the Huskies to the Irish and ESPN’s influence as their “safe” hedge.
#1a Louisville – The Cardinals were the hidden gem in all of this and they may indeed be the key to ACC basketball survival. The ACC / ESPN now has a solid wedge in both Men’s and Women’s basketball right between a resurgent Indiana and Kentucky but where they really get the boost is YUM Center. As one of the biggest and newest venues the ACC stays in the mix if basketball moves back to the real heart of basketball and away from the Tobacco Road we have been fed for the last 20 years. With an athletic budget of around 90 million dollars the Cardinals will be #1 in the ACC when they join. For comparison UNC will be #2 and they are at least 10 – 20 million below that number and that is with the ACC media deal while the Cards have been only receiving the Big East one. The bonus here will be Cardinal Football which gives the ACC a winning team sandwiched right between IU and UK football. If 10 – 20 years from now Louisville has one of the most valuable football programs in the ACC – behind say Florida State and Notre Dame – just remember you read it here first. 2 generations ago Cardinal football was a crappy job. This past generation they have been a stepping stone job. Could the next generation see them become a solid coaching job [say Top 20 – Top 30 job]?
#2 Syracuse – similar to Louisville but with a much older infrastructure and a more removed population in their home footprint. Adding Louisville and Syracuse gives the ACC 3 of the 5 top attendance numbers (60%) and 3 of 4 schools averaging over 20,000 fans per game (75%) with Kentucky being the only non ACC school to average over 20,000 per game. In football the Orange have a dusty old MNC from 1959 but even that lone title exceeds the majority of the ACC schools since WW II. Adding Syracuse helps the northern flank of the ACC better than Boston College and that in the end was probably what ESPN wanted.
#3 Pittsburgh – If Maryland and Rutgers are build outs for the BTN them Pitt may be the same for ESPN and the ACC. They have a strong heritage in football that dwindled when Penn State had JoPa and B1G membership. Not saying they will surpass Happy Valley anytime soon but it is a cheap hedge by ESPN to get a chunk of the PA market which is still one of the biggest states in the USA.
Big 12
#1 Texas – granted they did not move but ESPN now owns them while the rest of the conference is FOX. While the LNH has been a short term financial failure my thought has always been that it really was an ESPN subsidy to keep the longhorns from FOX control
#2 West Virginia – move from ESPN to FOX probably was not a big deal either way
#3 TCU – even less of a deal for ESPN
PAC
#1 Colorado – ESPN gets a part of any upside at less cost in the new PAC deal
#1a Utah – same as above but like WUV and TCU probably not big money
SEC – ESPN strikes gold
#1 Texas A&M – ESPN now owns #1 and #2 in Texas which makes them the biggest winner in the realignment sweepstakes. CA was already PAC, NY did not have a dominate team, and FL was already owned by ESPN via the ACC and SEC. This left on TX in the Big 4 sweepstakes and ESPN dominated FOX on this one. In one fell swoop they got #1 and hedged the bet by getting #2 as well so years from now when the realignment saga is studied in school this will be the key metric.
#2 Missouri – Subtle win by ESPN as the Tigers were a single state school [like Maryland and Rutgers] in a border war state. While it may take time to mine the Saint Louis and Kansas City markets it has shut FOX out of them on the football front. If ESPN was hedging their bets in basketball for a contender in those markets against the Jayhawks then they may have gotten them cheap. If not they have at least stopped FOX from owning a key border state
Big East – the Ace Rothstein play
At the end of the movie “Casino” the DeNiro character survives and continues to make money money for the mob. When I see the new Big East this is my best description for the Big East and ESPN.
LikeLike
One quibble – I’ve always thought that the Big Ten/Fox alignment was overstated. While ESPN’s relationships with the ACC and SEC are deeper down the lower tiers, remember that the top-rated ABC/ESPN college football (and increasingly basketball) games are generally from the Big Ten. They get the first pick of Big Ten games in the way they don’t with the SEC. I’d be shocked if that setup didn’t largely continue in the next TV contract. We might see a package of games on Fox, but neither ESPN nor the Big Ten can really afford to sever ties. I think the Big Ten and SEC have moved to a status that’s at least on par with the NBA and MLB in terms of bargaining power – they can make or break a network, which means that ESPN will likely pay the Big Ten enough to ensure that they don’t prop up another competitor.
LikeLike
Frank,
Nebraska was a home run at the national level but Rutgers and Maryland will be good on the lower levels. At the upper levels it is ESPN / FOX / CBS but the real value of the Terps and Rutgers will be realized at the BTN level which is all FOX. I agree with you on the top level but was looking more at the conference network level. At that point….
B1G = FOX [added #37 NE, #19 MD, and #11 NJ]
SEC = ESPN [added #2 TX and #18 MO]
Going back to our earliest discussions on here about carriage rates affecting conference income the B1G and SEC were the real winners which is probably as it should be considering they top attendance numbers in most sports.
Football = B1G + SEC [only 2 conferences to average over 70,000 in 2012]
Basketball = B1G + SEC [only 2 conferences to draw over 2,000,000 in 2012]
Hockey = B1G [40% of the Top 10 in attendance]
Baseball = SEC [60% of the Top 10 in attendance]
Basketball (women) – schools in Top 25 in attendance
B1G = #7 Purdue, #8 Michigan State, #17 Penn State, #18 Wisconsin, #19 Iowa, #20 Nebraska
SEC = #1 Tennessee, #12 TAMU, #13 Kentucky, #21 LSU, #23 Vanderbilt
(Maryland was #16 and Rutgers was not in the Top 50)
Softball
B1G = #3 Michigan and #18 Nebraska
SEC = 8 of the Top 25 (about 1/3 of the top attendance schools)
While hockey, baseball, basketball (women) , and softball may not sell at the top level it will provide content and growth for for the BTN and whatever the SEC has in the future.
LikeLike
I don’t think B1G wants to sever ESPN ties totally. And Delany will probably be retired in the next couple of years, before the TV contract, so the ego thing related to BTN won’t be there.
I also think the ESPN/ACC ties were overrated. ESPN gets the best of the B1G, gets most of the SEC and half the Big 12. They have more inventory than they can use. If the ACC really is getting $20 million, they had to have given ESPN something. ESPN is anything but altruistic and they don’t need the ACC. And they would get plenty of all of those schools if they were in the B1G/SEC/Big 12.
From Bowlsby’s comments and SEC comments, both wanted the ACC to survive. The Big 12 wouldn’t have said no to FSU and the SEC wouldn’t have said no to UNC, but neither were real excited about expansion and both loathed the idea of the ACC being carved up. Somehow Swofford got UVA and FSU to stay. The rest were already on board or had no options.
LikeLike
Notre Dame – sure they are IND in football but the ACC got what the Big East could not from the Irish and over time that 5 game contract can easily go to full membership.
The only reason ND is in the ACC is because the ACC offered associate membership; the B1G did not. As Frank has noted repeatedly, ND was even willing to make less money, if it meant they could remain independent.
If ND decides to join a conference full-time, the ACC’s advantage dissipates, and the Irish might as well chase the money.
LikeLike
Notre Dame in the Big East was beholden to no one
Notre Dame in the ACC is beholden to 5 games
Notre Dame in a conference would be beholden to 8 or 9 games
The point I was making is Notre Dame is no longer a true independent and 5 games a year is closer to 8 (62.5%) and 9 (55.6%) than 0. Both numbers cross the 50% threshold and was more than the Big East got from the Irish.
From the intangible aspect being in a school with many private schools probably fits the Irish better than a conference where Northwestern is the lone private school. My guess is long term the Irish are hooked even if the wedding does not take place for another decade or 2. When all these contacts are up in the 2020’s my guess is there will be no place for an IND school and I can not see the Irish in the SEC or the Big 12. The PAC is on the other coast and the B1G is a collection of big state schools. The ACC becomes the most comfortable landing spot.
LikeLike
My guess is long term the Irish are hooked even if the wedding does not take place for another decade or 2. When all these contacts are up in the 2020′s my guess is there will be no place for an IND school…
People have been making that same “guess” for a long time, and they’ve always been wrong.
Four of the five power conferences (all but the SEC), plus Navy, play ND regularly. If ND joins a conference full-time, many of those games can’t happen any more: there won’t be room for them on the schedule.
Since those schools clearly want to keep playing ND, none of them have any interest in changing the rules, such that ND is forced into a conference. Simply put: if ND joins a conference, ther’s one winner and many losers. That is why there will never be enough support to change the rules, so that ND can no longer be independent. If ND wants to remain independent, they will.
That makes it somewhat academic where they would choose to go, if for some odd reason they had a change of heart about independence. But I’d say if they’re forced to play 9 games in a league, they’re going to join the league that pays the most. None of this B.S. about where they’re more “comfortable.”
Obviously, they did make the concession to give the ACC five games a year, but many of those games are against traditional Irish opponents. The actual difference is only about 2 games a year, over and above what they would have scheduled anyway. They still get to play a national schedule, with most of their usual rivalries intact (all except Michigan). They’d lose that as full members of a conference.
LikeLike
I know they have been making that comment for ages but the move is to consolidation not IND expansion. Think of how many schools were IND at the dawn of the age of ESPN and how many are still IND today. I think Texas made a play to assert IND status in the future via the LHN and that has been a dismal failure. While guys in there 60’s and 70’s grew up in an era of Independent schools the guys that will be in their 60’s and 70’s twenty years from now will not have the same memories to draw from. The more time passes with only 1 major IND school the more opinions will sway in a direction that makes the Irish a team player and not a lone wolf.
At that point the only decision the Irish might have is if they want to be in a collective of public schools or a collective private ones. 20 years from now an IND core of Florida State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Miami, Virginia Tech, and assorted other will be lost to data nobody reads. The Ivy League has the most MNC’s but what kid today under 20 knows or cares about it. Someday they will be TV executives or conference leaders making the big decisions and the Irish status won’t mean squat to them.
Hopefully by then the BTN will have added Toronto and B1G Ice Hockey will have grown. 😉
LikeLike
@Marc
Seeing that the Big Ten appears to be the latest conference to adopt a nine-game conference schedule starting in 2016, there’s even less opportunity for a B1G school to play Notre Dame. Not only is there one fewer scheduling slot, but if a program looks to have seven home games per year, they’ll need to coordinate their conference schedule with the timing of the home-and-home with ND. Notre Dame dropped its series with Michigan and won’t be playing MSU on a regular basis (due in part to MSU wanting to play other major programs). Northwestern has a home-and-home with them (for now). The only B1G team with a long-term annual agreement with Notre Dame seems to be Purdue. There’s even an article in today’s newspaper with UM AD David Brandon talking about a ten-game B1G conference schedule.
The Pac 12 also has a nine-game conference schedule as well as the Big XII. Both conferences are in roughly the same boat vis-a-vis ND, but the big exception is there is a long-term agreement for USC and Stanford to play Notre Dame. Oklahoma has one more game on their home-and-home with ND and Texas has four games on the docket starting in 2015. That’s not to say it’s not a doable do, but realistically, how many P12 and Big XII teams are going to play ND outside of those four? Arizona State was supposed to play them, but had their game cancelled because of the five-game ACC requirement.
Given the five game agreement with the ACC, I think it’s fair to to classify Notre Dame as a semi-independent given their new situation. Add in the annual games with Navy and the desire to play on the west coast once per year (USC and Stanford) and ND is essentially locked into eight opponents per year. That means they only have four “open” scheduling slots going forward that they can work with at this time. The teams occupying those slots starting in 2014 are:
2014 – Purdue, Michigan, at Temple, Northwestern
2015 – Texas, at Purdue, Temple, Massachusetts
2016 – at Texas, at Michigan State, Purdue, at Army
In essence, ND is a de facto conference member for football scheduling due to its arrangement with the ACC coupled with the annual games with USC, Stanford and Navy.
A couple other thoughts. You say that ND will play a lot of traditional Irish opponents in the ACC, but is that really true? You could point to Boston College, Pittsburgh and Syracuse, but do any of the 11 other schools really fit that mold? They’ve had some memorable games with Miami and Florida State in the past, but that doesn’t make them traditional football opponents. You could put Georgia Tech in there, but does anyone else really qualify as a traditional opponent in the new ACC?
Also let me know what a “national schedule” means? If ND has seven home games per year plus one with Purdue, then 2/3 of the scheduled games will be played in the state of Indiana. Add that occasional game with Michigan State or Northwestern and you have another matchup physically located square in the Midwest.
If you want to go by the opponent’s regions, you could break it down like this:
2014
West Coast – 2 (Stanford, USC)
East Coast – 7 (5 ACC plus Navy and Temple)
Midwest – 3 (Purdue, Michigan, Northwestern)
2015
West Coast – 2 (Stanford, USC)
East Coast – 8 (5 ACC plus Navy, Temple, UMass)
Midwest – 1 (Purdue)
Southwest – 1 (Texas)
2016
West Coast – 2 (Stanford, USC)
East Coast – 7 (5 ACC plus Navy, Army)
Midwest – 2 (MSU, Purdue)
Southwest – 1 (Texas)
22 of the 36 games are with teams located on the East Coast. 6 apiece are in the Midwest (either Indiana, Illinois or Michigan) and 6 are in California. The two games with Texas are the only real outliers in their schedule.
So is this really a national schedule or one that’s heavily skewed to teams on the East Coast?
LikeLike
Not to look in the past but Notre Dame as the 12th team in the Big ten would have been perfect instead of Nebraska. They play eight big ten games. There teams they usually play are are listed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_rivalries. In a division of Penn State, Michigan, OSU, MSU, Purdue, and ND. They would play 3 big rivals and other teams they have played a lot. There cross division games are other teams they have played a lot: Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, they would have played one or two every year. There schedule would be stronger. Then they would be able to play non conference games USC, Navy, Stanford. Then they still have one game for either Gerogia Tech, BC, Miami, Army, or air force.
LikeLike
@cutter: Notre Dame’s schedule is “national” in the sense it always was: not tied to any one conference, but far more eastern than western. Of ND’s top 20 most frequent opponents, only two are west of the Mississippi (USC and Stanford).
Their top 20 break out as: Big Ten (9); ACC (5); Service Academies (3); Pac-12 (2), plus one school (Carnegie Tech) that no longer plays in FBS. The five ACC teams in their top 20 doesn’t include FSU, whom they nevertheless are quite happy (and NBC is quite happy) to have on their schedule. The exact terms of the scheduling deal aren’t clear, but let’s just say I’d be really surprised if N. C. State gets them as often as Miami does.
There is no such thing as “quasi-independent.” They’re independent with a scheduling deal. They don’t count in the ACC standings and don’t qualify for their conference championship. Just as you can’t be half-pregnant, you can’t be half-independent. The Irish are independent. If you look at their past schedules, agreeing to play five ACC games isn’t as much of a concession as it appears, given that 2-3 of them would have been on the schedule most years in any case.
Now, if you look at all the schools around the country that have scheduled the Irish, and are happy to do so, you’ve gotta ask the simple question: who would vote to change the rules, so that the Irish can no longer be independent? It’s equivalent to asking who wants to give up those games, and the answer is nobody.
The fact is, athletic directors have nowhere near the animosity towards the Irish that opposing fans do. Even David Brandon, whom you quoted, seemed quite disappointed to be losing that game off of his schedule. Other schools want to play Notre Dame, because fans want to see them on TV. Even the fans that hate ND, tune in to root for them to lose. Until that changes, ND will be independent as long as it wants.
LikeLike
Of ND’s top 20 most frequent opponents, only two are west of the Mississippi (USC and Stanford).
@Marc – it doesn’t change your point a whole lot, but Air Force is west of the Mississippi.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd-
In terms of definitions, I look to the not so distant past when schools were independent from any conference for all sports, not just football. Notre Dame used to be that way until they joined the Big East, and now that they have a five-game football schedule deal with the ACC, the definition of them being a semi-independent is even more firm than ever.
The same goes for BYU, which by your definition, also enjoys a national schedule because their football team isn’t part of a conference. In fact, if you look at the geographic distribution of the teams on their schedule, I’d say the Cougars are a markedly more national team than the Fighting Irish.
Judging by the first three years of scheduling, it actually does appear that NC State will be on ND’s docket as much as Florida State. I have to tell you, I can’t imagine how much NBC is salivating over the idea of showing football games with Duke and Wake Forest. Of course, they do need content for their cable sports network, so that’ll be a happy ending right there (and let’s face it, those game are just a bit more compelling than Western Michigan and Tulsa). Then there’s those traditional ND rivals like Louisville, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech and Virginia. Has ND played those teams any more than a dozen times in their history? And, of course, if ND actually gets back to being good again, we can look forward to another forty-plus year win streak against Navy manifesting itself again.
I’m sure Temple, Massachusetts and Army are thrilled at the idea of playing Notre Dame. Goodness knows I just can’t wait to see those games. Arizona State, OTOH, is a little less thrilled at the moment seeing that ND broke the contract when the joined the ACC. At least ND holds Michigan in slightly higher regard than ASU. After all, Swarbrick handed Brandon that letter in person right before the game, whereas he didn’t have the cajones to call Arizona State’s AD in person. Let me tell you this–Savvy Jack is one classy guy. It’s just too bad he can’t get an SEC team on the docket.
By the way, did you actually take a look at Notre Dame’s ratings when they were bad during the Willingham-Davie-Weis years? I mean, it was like a downward pointing ski slope. Given the combination of inept football and some less than exciting opponents, it’s no wonder that NBC was giving away free air time during some of the ND broadcasts. At least Brandon knew one thing–make sure to play ND early in the season when the hype is in full force, because when the shine comes off Notre Dame, the ratings drop like a stone.
But to get back to point, nothing you’ve written forms an argument. ND’s schedule will be eastern-centric, not national. They’re not an independent as they were prior to joining the Big East–they’re a quasi-independent just like Brigham Young. Hell, the reason why they agreed to the five games with the ACC is that ND was having problems getting quality opponents in the latter part of the season. The Big Ten games were always in September. Navy and USC were later in the year. After that, it was mostly teams from the then Big East and ACC with a sprinkling of Mountain West teams. i think it’s been eight years since ND had a regular season game with a SEC team. Until they played Oklahoma last season, it’d also been a long time since they’d played a Big XII team (Nebraska in 2000/1 when Michigan rotated off the schedule for a two year period).
This is not a put down of Notre Dame, just an honest recounting of their circumstances regarding their schedules and their bowl game opportunities (essentially BCS or bust). Given the situation, Notre Dame did the best it could by joining the ACC. But let’s not sugar coat this–having to play five ACC teams per year is a concession ND had to make in contrast to their “verbal agreement” to play three Big East teams than never actually transpired.
LikeLike
I guess it all depends on how you want to classify U.S. Regions. Next year the Irish play teams from the Great Lakes/Midwest (Michigan, Purdue, Michigan State, Pitt), the Mid-Atlantic (Temple, Navy), Great Plains (Oklahoma), Southwest (ASU), the Rockies (Air Force, BYU), and the West Coast (Southern Cal and Stanford). With the exception of the South (where the SEC hates playing north of the Mason-Dixon after Oct. 1, and the ACC schedule not yet kicking in), and the Northeast, where else do they play major college football? The ACC agreement will get games in the South and the Northeast. It seems like the schedule is getting more national.
Historically, the schedule wasn’t ‘national’ so much as ‘more national than anyone else”. In the Rockne era, the tradition of playing games out east (Army, etc.) and ‘west’ (Nebraska, then USC) began. For comparison, Notre Dame is the only OOC opponent that Michigan has played more than 20 times that still plays big time football…and Michigan has played c. 134 seasons.
There are only 12 teams ND has played more than 25 times (approximately once every five years) and played in the last 20 years. This could theoretically be considered ND’s “traditional schedule”. Of those teams, 4 (Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Northwestern) are B1G, 3 are now ACC (Pitt, Georgia Tech, Miami FL), the three academies, and 2 are in the PAC 12 (USC, Stanford). Dividing them by region gives 5 in the Great Lakes/Midwest, 2 in the South, Army in the Northeast, Navy in the Mid-Atlantic, Air Force in the Rockies, and the California schools. Again, that seems pretty “national” to me.
LikeLike
Miami, Georgia Tech and Air Force kicked in once conference teams all started playing more conference games in the 70s. Those 3 were indies like Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd: “The exact terms of the scheduling deal aren’t clear, but let’s just say I’d be really surprised if N. C. State gets them as often as Miami does.”
Given that the opponents are set by the “share and share alike” ACC and the dates by the Irish, it would be surprising if they did not see every school every three years or so.
LikeLike
@cutter ~ but Notre Dame football independence benefits from a scheduling agreement with a conference where they get to set home dates in the second half of the season. A four game scheduling agreement would be better for them than a five game scheduling agreement, so its basically one additional game with the ACC that they conceded in order to get the eastern exposure for their non-football sports.
LikeLike
Why would it be surprising? ND FB isn’t a conference member, or is a pseudo conference member with special considerations (only 5 games). ACC will need to rebuild the whole equality thing over time before it can be considered a standard again. Can’t see it until ND fully joins, or leaves.
LikeLike
Yes, Notre Dame is not a football member. So as long as the ACC distributes the Notre Dame games to ACC members on a share and share alike basis, there is no departure from share and share alike, and so no need to “rebuild” it.
LikeLike
@ Duffman: kudos on your post. as i’ve said many times, the competition among tv networks is a key driver to realignment.
I’d like to offer the BTN as the “winner” here rather than ESPN. In the three years since realignment/consolidation started up again, the BTN has solidified itself as a true national network that could actually complete with ESPN if it needed to. This happened while B1G football was down and SEC football was dominant.
Numbers are hard to find, but the BTN supposedly reaches 90 million households. That is very impressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network ESPN is supposedly in 100 million subscriber homes.
(link below).
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/11/09/why-espn-is-the-worlds-most-valuable-media-property-and-worth-40-billion/
LikeLike
i know that the BTN is 51% owned by FOX and I have often mashed the BTN and FOX together. however, I’m making an argument that, as a stand-alone entity, the BTN has been the big winner among the tv networks in this round of realignment. This assumes success in getting the BTN on basic cable in the DC/Baltimore markets, but not necessarily in the NYC market.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
That was part of the problem as you are dealing on 2 levels
Level I = FOX / NBC / CBS / ESPN
ESPN was the winner
Level II = BTN / PTN / Big 12 / Big East (new) / ACCraycom / Big East (former)
BTN was the winner
At level II only the SEC has a chance and as of today we just do not know what that will be. If TAMU and Missouri deliver market share that could be huge as there is not much population in the rest of the SEC but it could take a decade or more to develop. In the meantime the B1G will be earlier in signing the new agreement when the current one expires. I think we are on the same page but was hoping this clarified my intent better.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree. I’d add that I guess I am positing the idea that the BTN has positioned itself to be a Level I player (even aside from its part-ownership by FOX) if it wanted to be/needed to be.
As of today, I agree that the BTN is Level II. But there is easy potential for the BTN to become a Level I player and it revolves around realignment.
Think of it this way. If the B1G and ACC merged, or the B1G incorporated as few as 4-5 ACC/AAU teams, the BTN would be in a position to control the subscriber televising rights of nearly 1/3 to 3/5th of the available CFB top-tier inventory (defined as the top 64 programs now in the top five conferences). That’s an argument to the ACC schools that will garner attention.
Add an alliance with the Pac-12 and now BTN/PTN has more inventory than ESPN.
Just some things to think about.
I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out during the negotiations for the new B1G tv deal in 2016-17.
LikeLike
duffman, either I’m misreading you are you’re nuts. “Not much population in the rest of the SEC besides Missouri and A&M”? Population of Texas: 26M Population of Florida: 19.3M, Population of Georgia: 10M, Population of Tennessee: 6.5M, Population fo Missouri: 6M, Population of Alabama: 4.8M, Population of South Carolina: 4.7M, Polulation of Louisiana: 4.6M, Population of Kentucky: 4.4M, Population of Mississippi: 3M. Total 89.3M. That’s a lot of people.
And as for it taking a decade or more, tha’ts the biggest pile of wishful thinking I’ve ever heard. I’d bet my life savings that it doesn’t take a decade or more to get the SEC network going. It’ll either work iwthin the next few years or the whole makret for conference networks will collapse in a way that also takes out the BTN.
LikeLike
Andy, your reading comprehension is poor.
Yes TX is big but TAMU does not get 100%, my guess is they get between 10% and 20%.
Arkansas = 100% SEC but small state
Alabama = 100% SEC but small state and 2 SEC schools
Mississippi = 100% SEC but small state and 2 SEC schools
Louisiana = favors LSU but some Tulane folks
Tennessee = Tennessee + Vanderbilt – Memphis and 2 SEC schools
Georgia = Georgia – Georgia Tech
Kentucky = Kentucky – Louisville
South Carolina = South Carolina – Clemson
Florida = Florida – Florida State – Miami – many next level schools
Texas = TAMU – Texas – Texas Tech – TCU – Baylor – many next level schools
Missouri = Missouri – ???? and it is a big population state compared to the SEC midpoint
I am not saying it will take the SEC Network a decade to penetrate the conference I am saying it will take a decade or more for the SEC Network to penetrate MO and TX. Both schools will have to win and build a strong following of casual fans because neither is known for being elite and they have to compete with other entertainment experiences. My guess is even if Missouri wins they will never have the media demand of the Cardinals have in the east and the Jayhawks have in the western part of MO.
LikeLike
I don’t think my comprehension is poor. I think you’re an odd dude and your ideas don’t make any sense. A&M gets 10% of Texas? It’ll take a decade for the SEC to penetrate Missouri? Wha? You crazy.
LikeLike
duffman: ” If TAMU and Missouri deliver market share that could be huge as there is not much population in the rest of the SEC …”
Uhhmmm … Florida? To me, Florida counts as “much population”. Far more than Missouri, obviously. If A&M captures East Texas for the SEC and 10% of the rest of the state, more than either the SEC or Big12 parts of Texas.
LikeLike
Uhhmmm … Florida? To me, Florida counts as “much population”. Far more than Missouri, obviously. If A&M captures East Texas for the SEC and 10% of the rest of the state, more than either the SEC or Big12 parts of Texas.
Not saying Florida (the state) does not have a large population but like TX it is a fractured state. If the Gators had 100% of FL the same way Alabama + Auburn have 100% of AL it would be different but they do not. The Gators must share their state with FSU to the west and Miami to the south. In addition they must share the state with pro teams and and other D I FBS schools like UCF and USF. While I agree TX and FL are one of the Big 4 (with NY and CA) they will never own the states. CA is a huge state but it also has 4 PAC schools in it and no schools in the ACC / B1G / B12 / SEC to share with.
Look at it another way in how long the programs have been in the spotlight. Schools like Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, and Notre Dame have been in MNC games going back to World War II. The Florida schools (Florida, Florida State, and Miami) have only been in the limelight in the last 20 or so years so they are all younger in terms of long term fan support. It is not accidental that Alabama and Tennessee have stadiums over 100,000. Georgia and LSU have stadiums over 90,000. Florida’s stadium is about the size of Auburn and Auburn is #2 in the much smaller population state of Alabama.
LikeLike
But “its a fractured state” does not mean its split EVENLY three or five ways … Florida is the leading school IN Florida. Even if you just count northern Florida through to the I-4 corridor, its still a “populous state” … and still a rapidly growing populous state.
LikeLike
Andy says:
April 23, 2013 at 12:47 am
Cookie Monster, yes, you have “corrected me” multiple times, never with a smidgen of evidence.
Fact: basketball has not been a driver in conference realignment thus far.
Wanted to point out the incorrect nature of your post
#1 If the bigger conferences break away from the NCAA then all that money [fast approaching 1 Billion per year] will flow to the top conferences instead of the NCAA HQ
#2 If you were correct the new Big East and their new media deal would like to say hello
#3 If you were correct then why did the ACC add Louisville and Syracuse – schools with valuable basketball programs – in this last round of realignment?
#4 Texas A&M to the SEC was football based but Mizzou to the SEC looks more basketball based
#5 Utah football had a single major bowl game in their entire history but they have been to to the Final Four in 1944, 1961, 1968, and 1988. Of those 4 trips 1 resulted in a National Championship and 1 resulted in the Championship game. In addition they have been to 15 or 16 Sweet Sixteen games which makes them more of a basketball school than a football one.
#6 Maryland went to the B1G based more on basketball success than football success.
#7 Creighton, Butler, and Xavier are not football schools. My gut tells me Dayton and SLU are also basketball schools that will be upgrading their value in the near future.
#8 ESPN carved out a niche early on broadcasting Big East and ACC basketball. ESPN is now a major sports player and well aware of their roots.
#9 While overall the SEC had the best football conference this past season the B1G had the best basketball conference
#10 Spot reserved for something forgotten to get the list to 10
LikeLike
I find almost all fo these points to be less than compelling. And anyway I will be shocked if the Big Ten takes Kansas even if Kansas is good at basketball. Wouldn’t you be? Wouldn’t everyone be shocked? I would think even Kansas fans would be shocked.
LikeLike
Nope, I actually picked these 6 in the PAC raid of the B12
Texas
Texas Tech – never believed TAMU would go west
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado
Kansas
When Larry Scott deal came down it was this
Texas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado
If you are Larry Scott and TAMU was not a possibility then you have to think Kansas would be ahead of Missouri and Kansas would be the “pair” that prevails in the PAC 16
UCLA pairs Southern Cal
Cal pairs Stanford
WA schools pair
OR schools pair
AZ schools pair
TX schools pair
OK schools pair
Kansas pairs Colorado
LikeLike
Looks like you were wrong.
LikeLike
No, he is right on the preferences. If UT hadn’t been smitten with the idea of LHN do you doubt the PAC 16 wouldn’t exist today? If Kansas wouldn’t/couldn’t leave KSU then Utah or someone else (not Baylor) would have been the 16th.
LikeLike
If we’re talking preferences then the PAC almost certainly wanted Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri plus one more. But they never went for Kansas or Missouri because it wasn’t politically feasible.
LikeLike
So Scott’s plan to fly to Lawrence was to sight see?
LikeLike
I don’t know what silly little rumor you’re talking about. I do know that I’ve read more than I’d ever care to admit about this topic and have never seen a shred of evidence anywhere that the Pac 12 was going to take Kansas. I have seen a hell of a lot of actual information suggesting that the B1G was fairly close to adding Missouri. But nothing about Kansas to the Pac 12. Ever.
LikeLike
It was flight plan filed when aTm said no, Baylor was floated by Texans and sunk by the PAC. Flight never occurred because aTm informed Scott that UT planed to still do their own channel for themselves. I have no idea what Kansas would have said, but I do know flight aware had that flight plan up.
LikeLike
@CC – “Pac-10 expansion: Scott in Austin, headed to KU” from 6/13/10
If the Aggies jump to the SEC or pursue other options, the Pac-10 will look at Utah and Kansas.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/strong-461316-pac-texas.html
LikeLike
And they went with Utah.
LikeLike
Because Kansas stayed in the Big 12. Had the Pac 16 happened, Missouri would have been up a creek. Probably would still get #14 in SEC, but they would have been sweating bullets, just like KSU, ISU and Baylor.
LikeLike
Yup. Had UT gotten with the program you think Utah would have been the choice (Nothing against Utah)? Was Kansas going to come while Texas saved the B12?
LikeLike
bullet, Missouri wouldn’t have been up a creek at all. That’s one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever said, and that’s saying something. The Missouri to B1G move fell apart mostly because the Pac 16 didn’t happen. If it did happen, then the B1G would have expanded past 12 right away and Missouri was to be one of the schools added. Failing that, the SEC had been after Missouri for awhile at that point and would have happily taken them.
LikeLike
ccrider, if Texas had initially joined the Pac 16 then Missouri would be in the B1G, WVU would be in the SEC, and ku might very well have been in the Pac 12. But Utah has that spot now and KU isn’t getting it.
LikeLike
I side a bit with bullet. Had the P16 happened Missouri would have been at sea. They did have a sturdy boat and good oars so they would have found a good port. But I don’t know it would have been the B1G. I doubt the addressing of demographics and moving on the mid Atlantic/east coast is a two year old plan. It’s been coming for a decade (outside ND joining) or more and I’m not sure saving Missouri from a conference implosion served that plan.
LikeLike
Amazing how you ignore history. Missouri was offering Texas, OU and A&M their share of the NU and CU exit fees to stay. That doesn’t happen if they have alternatives at the time. Missouri was talking to the Big East. Nebraska was #12 in the B1G. And the B1G was not going to add two schools in slow growth states in the Midwest. That wasn’t in the plan. Once Nebraska was in, further Midwest expansion was not on the agenda. 6 Big 12 schools would have gone to the Pac, 1 to the B1G, 1 to the SEC and the other 4 would be furiously working the phones. Most likely Baylor, KSU and ISU join the Big East and Missouri ends up in the same place. B1G still looks east for #13 and #14.
LikeLike
Mike,
Thanks for the link to the article on the trip to Kansas. Andy has shut down all reason and logic but KU was in the PAC sights. Look at the 2 schools :
Missouri = AAU school farther away from Colorado
Kansas = AAU school closer to Colorado + ELITE basketball program
LikeLike
Forgotten Five.
LikeLike
@Duff – You’re welcome.
If you are Larry Scott and TAMU was not a possibility then you have to think Kansas would be ahead of Missouri and Kansas would be the “pair” that prevails in the PAC 16
Honestly, this claim is so non-controversial I’m surprised that it even spawned this thread.
In the context of your scenario (PAC16 with Kansas), IMHO, Missouri would have had the option to join the SEC with A&M. They probably would have to sweat it out a few days, but I don’t think the SEC would have found a better option to pair with the Aggies. I don’t know if a Big Ten invite would have come, but there was a chance that the Tigers could have had the option to join either conference.
LikeLike
Mike is right. Missouri to the SEC with A&M was always there if Mizzou wanted it. The Big Ten may or may not have chosen to take Missouri if the Pac 12 expanded to 16. From what I’ve heard it was a very strong possibility. But worst case was always the SEC.
LikeLike
Missouri to the SEC with A&M was always there if Mizzou wanted it.
If I remember correctly the original buzz was to add TAMU in the west and VPI in the east which may explain how Mizzou wound up in the east. I also remember the OU president saying the invite was there for the Sooners. Either of those would have been bigger additions than Mizzou.
LikeLike
And I’ve heard from multiple sources that the SEC wanted Missouri instead of VT because they wanted an AAU school and VT is not AAU.
LikeLike
Andy,
The SEC would have been happy to have the 2 big CoC schools as they could be natural rivals in cross divisions. Since many of the SEC schools have strong military history having the 2 CoC schools was a greatly desired option by older alumni and political folks alike in both schools. While AAU was good, having CoC was an excellent replacement. Some folks at VPI and TAMU had cold feet but TAMU started a grass roots campaign that pushed them to the SEC. VPI was slower and their grass roots campaign did not gain as much traction so the SEC turned to Oklahoma first and then Mizzou later.
VPI already had a history with most of the SEC teams and Jerry Claiborne had coached at both VPI and UK so it was not like VPI would play teams they had no exposure to.
LikeLike
duffman, once again you’re taking your own oddball opinion and stating it as fact.
LikeLike
Andy,
Ask the TAMU folks on here who they wanted as their 14th team back in 2010 at it was almost all VPI. This is not my opinion and was discussed widely on the TAMU and VPI blog sites so it is fact and not my lone oddball opinion as you imply. Yet agin it is you who is wrong and blinded by your Mizzou colored glasses. If the VPI folks had the same grass roots groundswell that TAMU did Mizzou would not be #14. VPI and OU were at least ahead of your Tigers wether you like it or not.
LikeLike
If the SEC wanted VPI they could have gotten them. They wanted an AAU school. Mizzou beat out VT because of academics.
LikeLike
Doesn’t all of this make it much more likely that the Big Ten goes harder after JHU for a 6th men’s lacrosse program (and to add it to the CIC)?
Seems as if JHU-Big Ten is the only remaining possibility left on the board as far as Big 5 schools go.
LikeLike
zeek, I agree that this likely means the B1G more hotly pursues JHU. No real other option for a 6th lax team other than a current B1G school promoting one to varsity, which is unlikely.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was thinking this as well. Making a play for JHU for the CIC and Big Ten lacrosse seems like a more important move now.
Plus, adding JHU strengthens the Big Ten’s presence within the Northeast.
LikeLike
it’s from last summer, but I thought this was interesting concerning tv markets and who’s watching college football. interesting to see so many Ohio cities/markets on the top 25 list for 2011.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/08/college-footballs-top-25-highest-rated-markets-birmingham-oklahoma-city-columbus-top-three-in-2011/
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – The one that jumps out at me is Las Vegas at number 9. Even taking into account gamblers, that’s still very high considering that it’s the one market on that list that doesn’t have a direct connection to any power conference teams. If UNLV could ever become halfway decent at football and their new stadium actually gets built, they might be one of the few schools that could draw the Pac-12 or Big 12 out of their expansion slumbers. UNLV’s academics aren’t quite in line with what the Pac-12 is looking for, but Las Vegas might be a case where the market ends up being too important to just leave on the table.
LikeLike
Interesting. As stated in other posts, I think we might be in for a 10 year pause in realignment, but I don’t think we’re done by any stretch.
Give UNLV another decade and see where they are. As you say, if they build that stadium and continue to have success and continue to grow their academics, they might be a viable candidate for the P-14.
LikeLike
@Frank – The PAC12 held their basketball tournament in Vegas this year. It may help get the PAC presidents used to the idea of Vegas. It was a great weekend for basketball fans with the MW, WCC, PAC12 all having their tournaments there over St. Patrick’s day weekend.
LikeLike
@Frank: I wonder if UNLV would have a Nevada-Reno handcuff problem, like Oklahoma and Ok State. Nevada-Reno adds little but a geographic match. I also agree with you that New Mexico is a plausible long term PAC12 target, but I wonder if they have a similar issue with New Mexico State.
I would be very surprised if they took Boise State or any of the CSU schools (like San Diego State)–the UC system looks down on the CSU schools.
LikeLike
OTOH, it’s a market well within the footprint that, if it’s already #9, is probably already getting a lot of PAC exposure, given that Nevada is nearly surrounded by Pac-12 states To the extent that the market is at all valuable, the league is probably already getting major exposure there in terms of viewer ratings. And in terms of population (i.e. carriage), Nevada is tiny.
Overall, I’d say that the Vegas market is at best “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free”; hosting some events in Vegas helps tap the market for ratings ,(though if gambling becomes legal everywhere I bet that goes away before long) and there isn’t anything else there that’s worthwhile from a league membership standpoint.
LikeLike
Concerning UMD’s financial disaster; a mole hill made to look like a mountain for the purposes of realignment.
According the Sports Business Journal, when UMD’s President Loh presented his financial analysis to the BoT, he neglected to inform them that he used B1G’s future revenue and compared it to ACC’s current revenue and completely ignored the increase in the ACC’s media deal due to the inclusion of Syracuse and Pitt, not to mention Notre Dame two months before. Also the money that the new College Football Playoff”s were going to bring to the ACC conference were completely ignored by Loh. Here is a link to the article in question:
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/03/In-Depth/Maryland.aspx
Here is the money quote:
“When the athletic department cut those seven sports this year, its projections showed total deficits climbing as high as $17 million in 2017 if the department didn’t act. What was missing from those projections, however, was the new revenue that would come from the ACC’s 15-year, $3.6 billion TV deal with ESPN, which was renegotiated after Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added. Nor did the department have the information on new revenue that would come from the college football playoff.”
Also, how bankrupt can the athletic department be if they can afford to buy all the student athletes brand new iPads?
LikeLike
UMD’s financial issues were a bit overstated to make an easy case for the conference switch – it is true that Maryland won’t have to rely on student subsidies as much once they are in the Big Ten though, which is increasingly becoming a goal for all ADs
LikeLike
The non-athletic benefits of Big Ten/CIC membership to College Park far outweigh the considerable athletic gains. Maryland has rebranded itself with a group of universities more its peer — top-flight comprehensive state flagships. Were it not for geography, one senses Berkeley and UCLA would be in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The Cuse/Pitt renegotiation increased the payout roughly $1M per school a year. If the deficits were projected to climb as high as $17M, $1M a year isn’t going to make the difference. I think you’re out of line to state they made a mole hill look like a mountain. If anything, the renegotiation made a mountain into a 7% shorter mountain.
Also: ” Nor did the department have the information on new revenue that would come from the college football playoff.”
The ACC is falling further behind in the bowl deals. I wonder if “the information on new revenue that would come from the college football playoff” also failed to include the new bowl deals, which puts ACC squarely in 5th place and way behind the B1G, and would widen the gap.
LikeLike
Actually with the Pitt & Syracuse addition, the payout went from $13 million to $17 million. Also, you’re forgetting to factor in the increased revenue from the new College Football playoffs.
LikeLike
Bah, I was confusing the Pitt/Cuse bump with ND bump. My bad.
The B1G advantage is still B1G.
LikeLike
Also, let us not be confused here, I am in no way stipulating that the ACC revenue would have equalled the B1G revenue projections. I am merely stating that Loh wanted to make the best case possible to the BoT and manipulated numbers accordingly.
Another tidbit, the partial addition of ND added another $1 million per team to the ACC.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Some numbers I thought were interesting:
“At this point the National Cable Television Association claims that they can reach 127.5 million homes in the Unites States, but are actually providing service to 48.5% of them. The US Census has stated that there are a total of 128.2 million housing units (homes) in the country. That would mean that cable companies are providing service to 61.8 million homes.
The only two remaining full-service satellite companies in the US that I can find are Dish Network and Direct TV. Combined they have 32.3 million subscribers – not all of whom would necessarily be home subscribers from what I can tell. However, if we conservatively accepted that all of them were home subscribers, that would mean that 94.1 million American homes have either satellite or cable (73%). If we then take Verizon FiOS and AT&T’s U-verse into account and count them as something like cable providers, we’d have 98 million homes in the US receiving video content from a subscription service of some kind, or 76.44%.
This would mean that roughly 24% of American homes receive video content off-the-air, via personal satellite, or don’t receive any regular video content at all. Confusing the matter *might* be that 13.6% of American homes are either unoccupied or are vacation/part time properties. I found no data on how many of these part time homes subscribe to cable, satellite or something like FiOS.
If you assume that only the 110.6 million homes that are occupied full-time are counted by Nielsen, then you arrive at 88.6% of American homes have cable, satellite or FioS/U-verse.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_American_households_have_cable_or_satellite_tv_I_ask_because_it_strikes_me_as_odd_that_all_the_debates_are_only_on_cable.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — ACC Grant of Media Rights Appears to Halt Power Conference Realignment | Atlantic Coast Convos
The Gor really isn’t going to keep teams from leaving if they choose.
Kansas has also in the mix in the BIG plans and the B12 has GOR.
I’m sure these teams like NC, Virginia, GT, and FSU which have interest in the BIG
were going forward with the others and not cause a storm.
But, the BIG may have to make moves before July if they want the expansion south
with less hassle.
Also from an article referencing Texas to the BIG from 11 warriors
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2012/05/11451/b1gs-master-plan
Should the BIG go to a Comcast or another new network, a team can bolt a conference
without any problem.
Also another recent article which touches on the 4 ACC teams rumored in the last year to come
to the BIG. http://www.sportsmancave.com/why-the-wait/
I doubt Delany would not have seen this coming
Remember, HUGE money awaits the BIG in 2017
LikeLike
so, what happens to the GoR if four or five ACC teams leave at the same time? any thoughts?
LikeLike
I think we can assume that nobody will in the top 5 conferences will swap conferences in the next dozen years. Should any of the top 5 conferences choose to expand in the next dozen years, BYU, MWC and AAC schools are the only targets.
B1G – no potential targets
SEC – no potential tagets
P12 – UNLV, New Mexico & Hawaii
ACC – Cincy & UConn
B12 – BYU & Boise (football only), USF, UCF & Cincy (all sports)
LikeLike
I don’t think any of the Big Five leagues has a plausible target. None of those you suggested look especially compelling. And none of these leagues needs to expand as a defensive measure, because they’re all safe now.
LikeLike
Marc – I don’t think any of those schools are compelling either. I was just listing potential targets, should those three conferences choose to expand.
Pac-12: Nevada (the state) and New Mexico are growing states that are contiguous to the Pac 12. While neither has the competitive record or academic chops of Utah, I think both have potential. New States, new markets for the PTN. I don’t think either, or Hawaii for that matter, are close to being Pac-12 ready. They are all fixer uppers.
ACC : Cincy and UConn are only appealing to to the ACC if ESPN thinks they are appealing for basketball purposes.
Big XII: The Big XII will be the only top 5 conference without a CCG. Maybe their champ gets hosed in the playoff selection a couple of years in a row. The conference rep on the committee says that the selection committee held the lack of a CCG against them. Quick fix is to go get Boise and BYU for football only. Long game is to get USF & UCF to get into two of the three best volume recruiting states.
I’m not saying any of these scenarios is likely. I’m just filling in the lineup cards for the next (though unlikely) round.
LikeLike
Alan,
not so fast my friend….
I think what you will see is possible adjustments or swaps based on GoR. Suppose the PAC added Texas and Kansas while Oklahoma went to the SEC. SEC sends Mizzou to the B1G and gets Maryland. B1G swaps Notre Dame for Rutgers and team to be named later type of moves.
The big issue is swapping top 64 teams vs adding teams below 64 teams. I said it on here earlier that I think you will see 2 FBS levels.
FBS I or FBS A = B1G + SEC + PAC + ??
FBS II or FBS B = CUSA + MAC + Sun Belt + ??
LikeLike
duff – that’s really interesting, but I don’t see conferences working in concert with each other to pull off multi-school NBA-styled trades.
While we’re at it though, how about the SEC trades Mizzou and cash to the B1G, who trades Maryland back to the ACC, who trades Florida State to the SEC? Then everything is perfect and fixes past mistakes over the last 20+ years.
LikeLike
@AfBR
LOL on the cash!
LikeLike
The Big Ten should have added Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Maryland, and Notre Dame.
The SEC should have added Texas A&M, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Florida State.
The Pac 12 should have added Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.
The ACC should be pods of Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor, TCU/North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest/UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt/Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami
That would have been a nice, clean way to do it. Now there is some messiness. Th ewhole Big 12 is really a mess right now. Missouri in the SEC is a decent fit but not perfect. UConn and Cinci are in a league that’s beneath them. But it could have been a lot wose. Thank God there’s no Big 20.
LikeLike
@Alan
Problem with that is FSU is way, way more valuable to the ACC than Maryland ever was.
LikeLike
frug – the SEC may have to give the ACC cash as well, in order to close the deal.
LikeLike
Apologies to Andy, bamatab and the guy from Baton Rouge, but for Maryland to be sent to the SEC would be the athletic equivalent of going blonde (and the stereotype of how that diminishes one’s IQ).
LikeLike
@Alan
I think they would need more than cash. Probably at least Georgia would be necessary for a straight swap (though Tennessee, Kentucky, Nick Saban and the Sugar Bowl might cut it) FSU is the ACC’s premier football program and most valuable TV asset. Without them they are a glorified mid-major.
LikeLike
I don’t think that conference reallignment is over until the Big XII is at 12 teams, and possibly 14 or 16. The truth is that long term, the Big XII is in an extraordinarily weak position. Not only is that conference going to be the ONLY FBS conference without a CCG once the Sunbelt finishes expanding, but it will also have by far the smallest markets of any FBS conference. Even the MAC and MWC have much larger population bases. The markets of the AAC blow those of the BIG XII out of the water. More worrisome is the fact that if the ACC does get its own network, the Big XII will be the only member of the “Big 5” without a conference network. I understand that the Big XII wants to stay at 10 teams because of their higher individual payouts, but if they want to make the league last longer than the GOR, they really need to expand to grow their brand. I think that the Big XII will expand as soon as Dodds is out as President at UT, which will be in a few years.
In reality, the Big XII has two options, either go east or west.
I think the most likely Big XII expansion scenario is to the East, for demographic, scheduling, and West Virginia reasons.
In my opinion, the best options to the east are UCF, USF, Cincinati, and Memphis. I suspect that all four will eventually find their way into the Big XII to get the conference up to the 14 members which is the new standard for major conferences. The Big XII would get major markets, rich recruiting grounds, schools with large student and alumni bases, and decent academic reputations. I also would not be surprised to see the league be the first to 16 with Temple and UConn, but that is a real long shot. I also think that Tulane would be a surprisingly viable candidate for the league based on location, proximity, and academic reputation.
Although I think a western expansion is less likely, the league would have a number of options. Some combination of New Mexico, UNLV, Boise State, Colorado State, San Diego State, Fresno State, or all six could potentially be very attractive to the Big XII. New markets, some of which are huge, especially if you could claim two schools in California and therefore the entire state, and a good mix of quality basketball and football. I actually believe that this expansion makes more sense geographically for the conference, as Colorado and New Mexico are both contiguous states to current members. I also think that the Big XII would have an easier time competing for attention in the west where it’s only competition would be the PAC, than it would competing against the B1G, SEC, and ACC in the East. Notice how I did not include BYU, because I believe that the school is too committed to independence to join a conference in the near future, and I think their refusal to play on Sundays may make them a non-starter anyway.
LikeLike
Jeff – good catch. I could see San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, and Memphis as B12 possibilities as well. I’d still keep them below the schools I previously mentioned. New Mexico and UNLV could work for the B12 too.
I think the most likely scenario is Boise and BYU for football only. If any conference can work around existing contracts and tolerate special deals for some of its members, its the B12.
LikeLike
took a spin around Maryland message boards. seemingly only a middling amount of interest in the ACC GoR.
http://maryland.247sports.com/Board/59410/Conference-Realignment-Thread-ACC-Signs-GORLOL-at-NOLA-4950211/225
i can’t seem to figure out Maryland fans. do they hate the ACC; love it: do they hate UNC/Duke or love them; are they happy about the move to the B1G?
I did find it funny when someone noted that that one half of the B1G is now called the B1G East.
LikeLike
I get the impression they liked the ACC just not the dominance of the Carolina schools controlling it.
LikeLike
yeah, that is for sure. that sentiment reminds me of the various BXII North complaints about Texas.
LikeLike
They liked playing Duke and UNC in hoops. They have some hatred for UVa. Beyond that, I think most Maryland fans were apathetic about the rest of the ACC and felt it was an increasingly poor cultural fit as Maryland isn’t southern at all at this point (though that would have improved with Pitt/Syracuse coming in). In terms of football, Maryland fans don’t see to care much about the ACC, even teams like FSU, Miami (FL) or Clemson.
I think that now that they have have gotten over the initial shock of the conference move, that most Maryland fans are looking forward to playing in a better football league. And the Big Ten’s great performance in basketball this past season probably made the future hoops games seem more intriguing (especially with the ACC being relatively down).
LikeLike
You are looking at the freebie board, BuckeyeBeau. The real heavy hitters who give the money and keep the entire program afloat are on the Rivals Board (much as Texas fans are on Orange Blood). None of those use 247. The move to the B1G is largely very positive, although there were many who hoped that UNC, GaTech, UVA or FSU (pick ANY two) would decide to join in an Eastern division of the B1G. We have a long history with UNC and Duke in hoops and that is going away, but we’ve had no real rivals in football (except Clemson in the 70s and 80s). I remember our most detested rivals as PSU even though the record doesn’t show it. It won’t take long to reestablish that. It is the old Mason-Dixon series we always loved.
Nemo
LikeLike
Nemo:
thanks for the input. I am actually glad about that. it would be bad (for both sides) to have a school join with a significant fan-based resistance.
LikeLike
Buckeye,
I’ve got several close friends who are in Columbus (both MD’s) and while both are UCLA undergrads, both have embraced B1G football. Definitely going to make a trip out to see OSU. If you read the Maryland board at this moment about how the ACC “jobbed us” with next year’s basketball schedule, and if you read that outrage that that has produced, you’d have no fear of just how much we want out of the ACC even though we were a Founding/Charter Member. And, the CIC arrangement is something no other Conference can hope to match, and as a researcher, I can tell you that is the part of the B1G the normal sports fans don’t even appreciate.
Nemo
LikeLike
My uncles take (he’s lived in DC) paraphrased…
Maryland felt like an outlier in the ACC with them no longer have any real rivals in the ACC. After Virginia Tech joined, the rivalry with Virginia became a relative significant one to just another game, in both revenue sports. Maryland wanted WV in the ACC when the NC schools preferred Pitt & Syracuse…
They see PSU as a bigger rival than anything they had in the ACC.
LikeLike
For Maryland fans, the ACC is starting to appear in the rear-view mirror. It’d be fun to keep the rivalry with UVa (especially since I live in Charlottesville) and to visit the Research Triangle, but that’s clearly not happening anytime soon. College Park has crossed the Rubicon.
LikeLike
Does anyone think the pause in realignment is to focus on fixing the issues surrounding the NCAA?
LikeLike
no, if only because that would imply some sort of joint decision to hold off on realignment while Emmert The Clown King is deposed and other NCAA problems are addressed.
in this case, the ACC acted unilaterally and in its own interests. This solitary action, done without any sort of joint-among-the-conferences contribution, puts an end ~~~ at least in theory ~~~ to this phase of realignment (at the top).
moreover, i don’t think realignment has been a bar to the conferences acting jointly and I the conferences have been able to focus on other matters while realignment has been taking place. The end of the BCS and the new playoff structure is a prime example.
LikeLike
From the Terp message board: “LOL WVU
@MHver3 Fwiw I’m hearing ACC GOR will not be legally binding until next fiscal year. Delaney will poach before then.”
HT: jsh
http://maryland.247sports.com/Board/59410/Conference-Realignment-Thread-ACC-Signs-GORLOL-at-NOLA-4950211/226
LikeLike
fwiw, Omaha writer suggesting realignment still possible.
http://sports.omaha.com/2013/04/22/realignment-expansion-not-out-of-the-question/#.UXaqNEorZH1
LikeLike
and Chatelain from the World Herald offers these grades:
ACC = A-
SEC = B+
B1G = C
BXII = C-
PAC = D+
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130422/HUSKERS/704229874/1002#chatelain-after-shuffling-it-s-hard-to-tell-the-winning-hands
Personally, I have an issue with the BXII’s grade. They lose four teams including a king (Neb) and a prince (A&M) and gets a C-? No way. BXII gets a D- or an F.
LikeLike
I know he is judging this round by the schools added, but I find it hard to give the ACC an A- when they have solidified themselves as #5 of 5. Thats not really something to brag about.
LikeLike
Big 10 got Nebraska. Noone else really got much. ACC weakened itself, not any outside force.
If you look at average attendance, every single conference is lower now than before except for the Big 10.
LikeLike
I think the population gains/new states and academic improvement for the SEC were actually pretty significant for them. And A&M is no slouch on the football field historically.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
I would go a step further and give the B12 the 0.0 GPA for the last semester
#1 Had 7 AAU schools now they have 3
#2 Lost NE, CO, MO, and a chunk of TX for a smaller part of TX and WV
#3 Lost 4 of their 6 all time football schools
#4 Lost the revenue and exposure of a CCG
#5 Created an outlier in WVU and no close travel partner
#6 Let the ACC get stronger when they could have killed them
#7 Went individual with the LHN in an age of shared networks like the BTN and PTN
#9 Failed to expand the footprint with rising schools in BYU and Louisville
#10 Lost congressmen in NE, CO, and MO to the B1G, PAC, and SEC
LikeLike
i am 100% with you, Duffman. Love the list; nutshelled exactly why the B12 failed so miserably in this round of realignment.
LikeLike
They survived.
Survive and advance. Survive and advance.
Granted, the B12 is in the weakest position going in to the next round (in 2025), but not much they can do about that.
LikeLike
Not sure how the Big 12 gets a C- and the BIG gets a C. I guess people will doubt the additions of Rutgers and Maryland until they see the new contract in 2017.
LikeLike
PAC 12 gets a D+? They should have added Utah State and Colorado State? What a moron. PAC had the biggest money upgrade of any conference, added schools that actually fit their existing culture and launched the 2nd TV network. Putting them behind the Big 12 and ACC especially shows what an idiot that guy is.
LikeLike
He also said the Big Ten did their homework on OU, KU, and Vandy.
LikeLike
It makes sense to be looking at OU now with the current divisional lineup. Having another western power would help. Add OU and Kansas, in 2025, and ship Purdue to the east.
LikeLike
Hockey is really growing in this Country. You have the 18,000 people that came to Philadelphia to see Penn State/Ohio State in hockey, Penn State Pegula Ice Arena coming in October (Nittany Lion Hockey became a game changer (The Big 10 Hockey Conference and lots of Conference switching)), a new arena in Allentown, Pa, and assuming it gets finished, the agreement that will bring the largest Ice Skating facility in the Country is coming to The Bronx, New York in 2018 (9 regulation NHL rinks and 5,000 seats), are examples of this.
http://www.nypost.com/p/…/bx_ice_palace_ue8jYHZDXAQAgzOSVu71EM
I know there are issues such as Title IX, but with the current low interest rate environment (Lowering construction costs), and the Big 10 Network and their dollars, it makes sense for schools like Nebraska and Illinois to jump on board. To be honest, with the success of the Black Hawks, I am shocked there is has not happened already. Since Frank is an Illini Guy, I wonder if he has the answer to that question, and does he think that the Illini will start up a Division 1 Program.
LikeLike
@David Brown – If I had the means to write a $100 million check, I’d fund an Illinois hockey program itself. Unfortunately, that seems to be about the amount that it would take to get it going based on Penn State’s experience. Illinois is pretty much in the exact same position that Penn State was: very strong club hockey team with a good fan base (the Illini club team already sells tickets on par with a lot of lower level Division I programs) with a student population predisposed to supporting the sport (most students are from either the Chicago or St. Louis metro areas). Virtually everyone in the know believes that an Illini Division I program would do gangbusters. The problem is that this has been said ever since I was in college there (and I graduated in 2000) and nothing has changed. It just seems like a benefactor has to step in to front the capital costs in the same manner as Penn State. There were some rumors that the founder of Jimmy John’s (the company has its headquarters in Champaign) was considering to give a donation for a new ice arena, but that hasn’t come to fruition yet. Believe me – hockey would work as a startup sport at Illinois probably better than anywhere else in the country at this point. The upfront costs are simply massive, though, which is why it hasn’t happened yet. I really hope it does since it would be pretty awesome from my perspective.
LikeLike
Frank thank you for answering my question: When it comes to Penn State, they have wanted to upgrade to Division 1 for decades until Pegula decided to pony up for it. (So as a Penn State (And hockey) fan, I understand what Illinois hockey fans are going through) I guess it is fair to say that the next Big 10 team to add hockey (Assuming it happens) will be Nebraska (Since they are adding ice to their new facility). If the Huskers do add hockey, it will be interesting to see what happens next to keep it even? Will it be another Big 10 School, or perhaps a Boston University (Just for Hockey & of course, academics, sort of like Hopkins for Lacrosse and academics))
LikeLike
David,
The Big Ten apparently had exploratory talks a few years ago with the MAC hockey teams – Bowling Green, Western Michigan, and Miami – about being associate members in a Big Ten Hockey Conference. I don’t think they went very far, and I don’t know specifically why they decided to stop pursuing the idea. But it has been considered.
In Lacrosse, there’s a perfect storm of reasons to add Johns Hopkins. The Big Ten needs one more team to officially form a conference, and it’s been suggested for TV inventory, too. The suggested CIC membership offer to the #1 Research University in the country (world?) is certainly logical. Hopkins location in Baltimore is right in the middle of our new footprint. They have an existing rivalry with Maryland, and a Big Ten Lacrosse league could use a power to help prop up Michigan (as well as Rutgers and OSU to a lesser degree). It appears that no existing Big Ten school is ready to promote Lacrosse to Varsity – although I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen after 2016 when the new Tier 1 TV contract money kicks in.
It’s just the opposite in hockey. I just don’t see a school out there that makes sense for The Big Ten Hockey Conference. Unlike Lacrosse, the numbers work great already. Six teams gets you an autobid, and allows for four games against every conference opponent, and allows for 14 non-conference games, which is plenty to allow for playing some other top teams and maintain games against former conference rivals. They have plenty of TV inventory for the BTN; so this isn’t TV driven either. Furthermore, the Big Ten Hockey Conference will be a national power from day one, so we don’t need a Hopkins Lacrosse to help prop us up. And with Hockey East being a powerhouse conference, I don’t see why BC, BU, or anyone else would want to mess up their rivalries and travel to join the Big Ten. It just doesn’t make sense.
Until the next football realignment shakes up the world, I would put the odds of an associate membership offer in hockey at below 1%.
Just spitballing here, but if there were an offer, I’d look west, not east. Minnesota gained the least (or lost the most) by the formation of the BTHC. If the next team was Nebraska, Iowa, or Illinois, and an eighth team was needed, then adding a fourth Central Time Zone team isn’t the worst idea in the world. North Dakota offers a national, traditional power, and they are the biggest rival of Minnesota Hockey.
LikeLike
@Cliff – I would be absolutely shocked to see Bowling Green, Western Michigan, Miami (OH), or North Dakota ever become a Big Ten associate member.
LikeLike
@Mike – Yeah, the entire reason why the Big Ten even explored associate hockey members previously was simply that they didn’t have enough full members to form its own hockey league. Now that Penn State has added hockey, it’s a moot point. If the Big Ten wasn’t going to let Notre Dame in for hockey, it’s not going to entertain MAC schools or North Dakota. Any growth for Big Ten hockey will likely need to come from within (e.g. Illinois or Nebraska upgrading).
Lacrosse is in a bit different situation with a very unique potential addition in Johns Hopkins with respect to academics and how that school’s athletic department is set up. Plus, there isn’t a new potential Big Ten men’s lacrosse startup on the horizon (beyond the new Michigan program), so JHU fills an immediate need. I’ve always seen this as very distinguishable compared to adding, say, Boston University for hockey.
LikeLike
Cliff, my guess as to how they stopped …
“Well, we’re only interested in continuing these talks if you are really serious about considering us as a possible associate.”
“Ah, OK. Well, thanks for your time.”
LikeLike
Agree with the above that no school other than Hopkins would likely be considered for non-football membership.
For one thing, I highly doubt the B1G wants to allow a situation where a school could compete in the conference for some sports and against it in others. That would not be a problem with Hopkins, because, like every current member, they would be keeping all of their scholarship sports in the conference. D1 schools like Boston University could not do that.
Plus, Hopkins is without a doubt a major power in the two areas the B1G/CIC would be getting—research and lacrosse. It has the highest research expenditures of any school in the country, and it’s so successful in lacrosse as to have its own deal with ESPN.
If the B1G were to consider another similar situation, it presumably would want an AAU school. Of the AAU schools that are primarily in D3 (NYU, Case Western, Rochester, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, Brandeis), it appears that only Rochester’s squash team is D1. And no B1G schools have scholarship squash teams.
LikeLike
We’re all in agreement here; the growth of Big Ten hockey will come from within, but it will take a Pegula-like Godfathering of a program to get it to start. I think it’s a long shot for anyone else to start up any time soon, as the cost is prohibitive.
It is interesting that they looked at the MAC schools as associate members; they may have learned some lessons that helped the conference consider Johns Hopkins.
I will predict that Lacrosse will see some quick growth internally. I believe that when the 2016 Tier 1 contracts hit (if not sooner), and there’s extra revenue, both Northwestern and Michigan State will add lacrosse. Northwestern already has the best women’s program in the nation, so they’ve got a facility and perhaps a level of comfort with the sport. MSU once had men’s lacrosse, so it won’t be new to them, either. Lacrosse is quickly growing in the midwest, but especially in Michigan and Chicago. Finally, MSU and Indiana are the only two schools in the East in football that do not have lacrosse. It makes sense for MSU to add lacrosse to add another link to the East Coast.
LikeLike
For NW there’s the TitleIX implications … they may have the facilities and the set-up largely in place to launch a Men’s LAX team, but then they need to add a women’s sport or two for TitleIX balance ~ I don’t know which sport that would be. Rowing, perhaps, as they are on a river not far from the lake?
For MSU, the Women’s LAX would be the TitleIX offset for the Men’s LAX.
LikeLike
Bruce – you’re right about Northwestern needing to add a women’s sport. That was a point I overlooked. Women’s crew makes sense, water polo might as well.
But still, with Big Ten revenues supposedly doubling from $22 to $44M over the next few years, the point remains that funds should be available to add a few teams, and Lacrosse makes a lot of sense for a few schools, as it is consistent with the high school growth of the sport in the region, it offers a link to the East and adds TV inventory in the spring.
LikeLike
I have 2 minor but serious questions:
1) Are Houston and SMU winners or losers from the last few years of expansion?
2) Are they winners or losers now that more expansion will apparently not happen?
LikeLike
Houston and SMU aren’t winners or losers, they treaded water. They left CUSA for CUSA 2.0.
LikeLike
They’re ever so slight winners. They are no longer with UTEP, Rice (sorry, Loki), Southern Miss, UAB, or Marshall. They’re reunited with Cincinnati, USF, and, temporarily, Louisville. They’re with Rutgers, short-term, with Temple and UConn, and will soon be with Navy.
It’s an upgrade. It’s not Utah-to-the-Pac-12 or TCU-to-the-Big 12. But it’s their best setup since the SWC days.
LikeLike
Tulane is also a winner here. Pre-Katrina, there was a university committee that studied dropping football to D-3, or dropping it altogether. Post-Katrina, they started off by playing all away games and having the campus shut down. Now, with a new conference, the AAC, along with a new on-campus stadium in 2014, and a coach that is recruiting New Orleans and the local area very hard, Tulane should be in the best shape they’ve been in since before WWII.
LikeLike
Additionally, it’s worth noting that this conference will get far more exposure than C-USA ever did/will. The paychecks are a boost from what they’ve been getting, albeit not the major spike they’d anticipated. But these schools will at least be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ESPN8THEOCHO far more often than the MAC, Sun Belt, or other Group of Five leagues. It’s a mid-major, but it’ll prove to be a very glorified mid-major.
LikeLike
But the qualifier is “the last few years”. Over the longer term, leaving CUSA 1.0 for The American is treading water. Over the last few years, leaving CUSA 2.0 and avoid CUSA 3.0 fr the American is a win.
While not the the level of conference they were hoping to join, its still a net win compared to where they were a few years ago.
LikeLike
I think the BIG should make a play for Kentucky. I think the BIG has a compelling case to get them to leave the SEC.
Kentucky doesn’t have any real rivals in the SEC. Maybe Tennessee. In basketball, there is no traditional rivals. The University is about 3 hours away from the two nearest schools in Tennessee which would be about the same distance it is from the two nearest BIG schools, Indiana and OSU. The school does sit only 1 1/2 from the Ohio border. OSU could become a big rival and the Buckeye fans would sell out Kentucky’s football Stadium, which the team struggles to do, every other year if they were paired together. Also playing OSU and Indiana every year in basketball would far outweigh anybody they would face in the SEC. Lastly, the school has since 1997 instituted the Top 20 Compact with the state with the desire goal of making UK a top 20 public research institution. They are currently in the Top 50 overall. Not only the school but state officials would salivate at the prospect of increasing research to the state as that would mean more jobs. Kentucky could increase its prestige and likelyhood of getting into the AAU in the future by joining the BIG and the BIG would up the profile of its winter sports programming on the BTN while essentially killing the SEC’s before their network gets off the ground.
Completely improbable but what else is there to consider now.
LikeLike
ridiculous. UK is not AAU and they wouldn’t want to go anyway.
LikeLike
I raised this back in 2010 on here when we debated UC and UK
IU + UK = great rivalry in football (made a competitive game) which sells BTN
IU + UK = great rivalry in basketball (made a competitive game) which sells CBS
CJ in Louisville already covers both teams as the buffer media
Uk’s endowment is fast approaching the billion dollar level and their last president was an MIT grad that focused the university on education and research. The upside is it would kill off Louisville and Cincinnati as buffers and make the entire territory fly under 1 flag. Not sure if I agree about the Ohio State vs Kentucky in basketball as much as you can sell Michigan State vs Kentucky based on past history. The issue is where they will be 20 years from now based on the jump the past 20 years.
Kentucky was historically at the bottom along with Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia. However, they have climbed greatly in the past generation and continue to rise. Instead of always being in the bottom 5 they have moved into the 30’s which is a pretty rapid rise. While not at the top they have at least made major financial investments to head up instead of down. The issue is seeing the Golden Triangle – where most of the population lives bounded by Louisville, Cincinnati, and Lexington – is the true majority and not the minority of folks that live in Eastern Kentucky but give the state its stereotype perception to the national audience and media.
LikeLike
You’re living in la la land.
LikeLike
The University of Kentucky and its Medical Center are definitely trying to up its profile. I said it was improbable but far from ridiculous. Universities are more than just sports. In some cases they are the biggest employers in an area and the driver of the economy. In Lexington that is the case. If Delaney went to the heads of the University and state politicians and said we can offer the same, if not more, money athletically but a chance for $100 millions more in research grants by partnering with some of the most prestigious public universities in the country, do you think they wouldn’t listen. Especially in a state with a natioal image of being backwards and slack-jawed? I think the BIG could definitely get their attention.
LikeLike
Why would they want Kentucky when they didn’t want Misssouri? Kentucky has 30% fewer people, is way worse at football, isn’t AAU, I’m sorry but this entire concept makes no sense. But I guess you have to talk about something on here and it’s actually quite a bit less stupid than the Big 20 crap that was thrown around on here for the past few months.
LikeLike
Kentucky has a top 3 basketball program with rabid local support and a national following. Missouri has more people than the state of Kentucky. But just like it had more people than Nebraska, it is completely irrelevant with respect to national brands.
I don’t think the BIG would pursue Kentucky but that is a mistake. I don’t believe the BIG realizes that it is in direct competition now with the SEC for dollars thru their respective networks. Effectively killing, or seriously wounding if you prefer, the SEC’s winter sports programming by taking their only national basketball brand is just as important as improving the BTN’s own basketball content. There are only so many advertising dollars to go around.
LikeLike
Andy, Psuhockey has a very good grasp on the obvious!
I don’t think the BIG would pursue Kentucky but that is a mistake. I don’t believe the BIG realizes that it is in direct competition now with the SEC for dollars thru their respective networks. Effectively killing, or seriously wounding if you prefer, the SEC’s winter sports programming by taking their only national basketball brand is just as important as improving the BTN’s own basketball content. There are only so many advertising dollars to go around.
Keep in mind UK also has one of the top drawing women’s basketball teams and would probably be a top baseball and softball team in the B1G so you have not only winter but spring programming for the BTN. They also have a good hockey club that could easily become NCAA sanctioned in a conference of hockey teams. While UK may be a small state they have a rabid national fan base and their basketball team on the road fills opponents venues. When they played at TAMU this season Reed was full of blue and they have a history of selling out opponents venues with their fans. I am guessing you have never been to Lexington or experienced BBN or the “blue mist”.
LikeLike
okay, so the same delusional nut jobs who swore that the Big Ten would expand to 20 are now saying that the Big Ten would love to have Kentucky. Do you guys hear little voices in your heads? Is this where you’re getting this? Because I guarantee you that no serious person thinks this is credible.
LikeLike
Andy,
a) I have never been a proponent of 20 and have always felt 16 was the stopping point
b) If you were on FtT in the beginning you would have remembered the Kentucky and Tennessee posts that came from somebody who was not me about the big Vol booster who had already gotten the back channel talks going.
While I have always felt UK to the B1G was improbable I have never said it was impossible. Nebraska and Kentucky are similar in many ways if you swap football for basketball in terms of demographics and demand. If UNL had not gotten AAU status in the beginning I think they would be very close in even more ways.
LikeLike
Yeah, I remember that talk. Didn’t find it credible then. Don’t find it credible now. And if anything has been proven over the last 2-3 years, it’s that rumors are usually false. As for the rumors I’ve heard about Missouri having an offer from the B1G that was somehow broken/botched, even though I heard it from multiple seemingly credible sources, I have my doubts about that one too. I don’t doubt that Missouri was a candidate and could have been taken instead of Rutgers if not Nebraska, I don’t think very people know what really happened. And I suspect anyone talking about Kentucky back then was blowing smoke, especially since it hasn’t been spoken of since.
LikeLike
Tennessee is a huge traditional rival in basketball. Florida has become one.
Tennessee is a football rival, although its much more on UK’s side.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“I think the BIG should make a play for Kentucky. I think the BIG has a compelling case to get them to leave the SEC.”
No they shouldn’t and no they don’t. UK will never leave the SEC and the B10 doesn’t want them.
“OSU could become a big rival”
No, it couldn’t. OSU couldn’t care less about UK in football and UK has a bigger rivalry with IU in hoops already.
“Completely improbable but what else is there to consider now.”
Sanity?
LikeLike
UK is a long ways from being B10 caliber academically plus UK doesn’t have any interest in the B10 regardless.
LikeLike
If you talking about research dollars, UK is in the top 50. They are not so great in the US News rankings but funding is over 300 million. Never said the BIG would go after Kentucky, or that Kentucky would join, only that the BIG should go after UK and that they have a compelling case to offer. Whether the BIG knows it or not, but they are now in direct competition with the SEC thru their networks just like Fox versus Espn or ABC versus CBS, but to a much smaller extent. There are only so many eyeballs and so much advertising dollars to go around. UK basketball is primetime gold.
The BIG should have two overriding goals for the future of the conference: one is how to monopolize a greater share of the shrinking research dollars available to universities and two is how to maximize revenue thru television properties for the athletics departments. The BTN is a huge part of two and upgrading its content, especially at the expense of its competitors, is just good business. Delaney should start thinking like a network CEO as well as a college administrator.
LikeLike
“Completely improbable but what else is there to consider now.”
Stability?
The Big Ten has been stable for decade-plus long stretches before, I think the Big Ten would find another decade-plus long stretch of stability quite attractive, right now.
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
College baseball update.
Indiana is ranked #17 or #18 in three of the four polls. The Hoosiers are unranked in Collegiate Baseball. Pitt is #23 in Collegiate Baseball and Notre Dame is #28 in NCBWA. That’s it for the northern contingent.
North Carolina remains #1 in all polls, while LSU is #2 in all polls. Fullerton, Vandy, and Virginia round out the top 5.
Nebraska and Indiana continue to move up the average attendance rankings. Nebraska is #22 and averaging 2,528 fans per game. Indiana is now #43 and averaging 1,506 fans per game. Wichitia State and Creighton are both in the top 30. The SEC continues to hold all five of the top attendance slots, and 13 SEC schools are in the top 34. Andy – your Tiger fans need to step it up.
Bamatab – your elephants fought valiantly this past weekend in losing two of three to my Tigers. Friday night was no contest with a complete game shutout pitching gem by Aaron Nola. LSU took the Saturday night game in 16 innings, and the Tide avoided the sweep and benefited from two uncharacteristic Tiger errors to take the Sunday game in 10 innings. Dog piling on the field after the 4-3 victory was a little much, though.
LikeLike
Yeah, the dog piling was definitely a little much. I just wish Bama would get serious with their baseball program. We need to a new baseball facility/park bad IMO. We have the land and money to build one. I wish they would just do it. We’ve got good football, gymnastics, men’s & women’s golf, and softball programs. There is no reason why we can’t invest in our baseball program. Our lack of baseball success irrates me more than our lack of basketball success.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Indiana continue to move up the average attendance rankings. Nebraska is #22 and averaging 2,528 fans per game.
If it ever gets warm in Lincoln (it where it snowed yesterday), look for that number to go up. It has been absolutely miserable spring for baseball.
LikeLike
#1 North Carolina lost 9-8 to a mostly ranked UNC-Wilmington team last night. Its hard to read too much into a mid-week loss and the Seahawks appear to be a pretty good team, but anytime a #1 loses its newsworthy.
LikeLike
Expansion Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans’ bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain’t over now:)
LikeLike
Never really thought about Kentucky & Missouri combo, its actually kind of interesting……. probably about a .5% chance, but Delaney has gotten aggressive after other conferences/schools have made moves.
They would drop perfectly into the football divisions and the basketball would jump up to the top conference ahead of the ACC. An incredible BiG tournament….. maybe in some years rivaling the NCAA tournament.
LikeLike
Kentucky is a 0% chance, so “X and Kentucky” is automatically a 0% chance.
Kentucky plus Missouri don’t move the needle enough on any front to justify the downside of going up to 16, plus Kentucky doesn’t move the needle enough in sports to justify getting into a fight over a non-AAU school.
Why would the Buckeyes or that school up north or Penn State want the East to trade off a game against the likes of Wisconsin, Nebraska or Iowa in a given year to add a game against fracking Kentucky?
LikeLike
@Frankthetank: Do you have any details as to what rights are covered in the ACC’s GoR? Is it just TV revenue from home games? This could be a situation where the devils does indeed reside deep within the details.
LikeLike
@Frankthetank: Do you have any details as to what rights are covered in the ACC’s GoR? Is it just TV revenue from home games? This could be a situation where the devils does indeed reside deep within the details.
LikeLike
Thats the only rights a school has…
LikeLike
Referring to the home part.
LikeLike
Since I did biggest winners above I guess I’ll post the biggest losers here
1. WAC
(Massive Drop)*
2-3. New Mexico St. and Idaho
(Drop)
4. UConn
5. Cincy
6. USF
(Drop)
7. MWC (Could be higher if you use the brief one week period when they had Utah, TCU, BYU, Boise and a shot at KU, KSU and Mizzou as your starting point)
8. CUSA
(Drop)
9. NCAA
10. Sun Belt
11. NBC
12. Catholic 7
*If you are counting individual people Dan Beebe would be second only to the WAC
LikeLike
you guys are such tools. my god. Missouri was never, ever going to the Mountain West. That is a ridiculous statement. Missouri had three options: B1G, SEC, or Big 12. If the Big 12 fell apart, they were going to either the B1G or SEC. This should even be remotely debatable considering how things turned out.
LikeLike
Really? Then why was Missouri ready to forfeit their share of UNL and CU’s exit penalty in order to keep OU, UT and TAMU around?
LikeLike
Because all the arrangments weren’t made yet so Missouri couldn’t break from the group until they were. That’s what the gorup decided to do so that’s what Missouri had to do. Missouri kept going along with whatever the group was doing up until the final weeks. But Missouri to the SEC was in the works for quite a while. Missouri to the B1G was also something that was worked on but obviously never happened. If the Pac 12 expanded to 16 and the B1G expanded to 16 then Missouri no doubt would have gotten a serious look. Only the most stubborn of Anti-Andy-ites would disagree.
LikeLike
Missouri to the B1G was also something that was worked on but obviously never happened. If the Pac 12 expanded to 16 and the B1G expanded to 16 then Missouri no doubt would have gotten a serious look
Serious look does not equal a guarantee, meaning there is no way for you to say that MU “never” would have ended up in the MWC.
And only the most stubborn of Andy-ites would disagree.
LikeLike
What I’ve heard from very reliable sources is that if Missouri needed to wait on the SEC or B1G for a year or two the waiting spot was going to be in the Big East. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Missouri were all ready to park there, with Missouri and maybe Kansas able to move out within a year or two at most.
The Big East would have been:
Missour/Kansas/KSU/ISU/Syracuse/Pitt/West Virginia/Louisville/Cincinatti/UConn/USF/TCU
So yeah, I can say with confidence, no MWC for Missouri ever.
LikeLike
Ah, left out Rutgers and maybe Baylor. Anyway, who knows what that Big East would have looked like, but Missouri wouldn’t have been there for long. As we saw in real life rather than imagionationlad, the SEC wanted Missouri
LikeLike
I will admit that the Big East would have been a more likely destination than the MWC, but MWC was at least plausible.
LikeLike
Nope.
LikeLike
Where do you put OSU, MI, MSU and IN for having to play RU and UMD annually? That’s a significant loss to me.
LikeLike
But they get to play PSU too…
As a M fan, I love playing our two biggest rivals (Ohio & Sparty), a king that’s likely to be M’s 3rd biggest rival (PSU) along with the media coverage of playing games on the East Coast (RU & UMD).
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“But they get to play PSU too…”
OSU has been playing them since they joined. OSU was going to continue playing them if RU and UMD weren’t added. Now OSU also gets MSU, our least common old B10 opponent since they joined (see below) in addition to two newbies with zero appeal, plus IN, the worst team in the B10.
B10 opponents since 1953 (MSU’s 1st year):
13. UMD – 0 games
13. RU – 0
11. PSU – 27
10. MSU – 39
4. IN – 52
1. MI – 60
Yeah, what an exciting group for us.
IN was already in a division with them, too. MSU would be stuck playing for the LGT against a team that resented having to play for it. All four schools get 2 horrible games in exchange for 1 good one, which is a bad trade in my book.
LikeLike
@Brian: fwiw, I do not share your distaste for the new B1G East Division. I think Rutgers could be interesting. Maybe like Purdue. (Wonder if the Scarlet Knights have anything fun like the world’s largest drum?)
I admit that Maryland still seems a strange fixture on the schedule, but hopefully it will be better than the likes of Toledo, Ohio and various other MACrifice teams. They certainly have colorful unis. We now have an “Oregon” in the conference and we will all have a good time making fun of them.
With three cross-division games along with MSU, MI, IN and PSU, that’s seven of the traditional Big Ten teams each year (I count PSU as a traditional Big Ten team).
Add in the likely annual trip to Indy (grin) and that might be 8 of 11 every year.
That will be fine. It’s not like we play all the B1G teams now. Even before Nebraska joined, teams cycled off the schedule.
Besides, there are trade-offs here and I think they are good trade-offs for tOSU. The “east coast media bias” has some validity. tOSU, PSU and TSUN are going to be the biggest CFB brands playing consistently on in the DC and NYC areas. Being written up in the Washington Post on a regular basis is really really good long term for the University, not just for the football program.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“@Brian: fwiw, I do not share your distaste for the new B1G East Division.”
A lot of people don’t. I’ve never claimed to be speaking for the OSU fan base about this.
“I think Rutgers could be interesting. Maybe like Purdue.”
As far as competition, they could be on par. The difference is the 100 years of history together.
“I admit that Maryland still seems a strange fixture on the schedule, but hopefully it will be better than the likes of Toledo, Ohio and various other MACrifice teams.”
I greatly prefer MAC teams. It keeps the money in state and I like easy wins if I’m at the game.
“With three cross-division games along with MSU, MI, IN and PSU, that’s seven of the traditional Big Ten teams each year (I count PSU as a traditional Big Ten team).”
And I don’t, so that’s 5-6 to me (sometimes we’ll play NE and they certainly aren’t one either).
“That will be fine. It’s not like we play all the B1G teams now. Even before Nebraska joined, teams cycled off the schedule.”
Yes, we played 8 of 8 games against old-B10 foes pre-PSU and 7 of 8 pre-NE (out of 9 possible teams). Then we played 6 of 8 post-NE. In 2013 it’ll go back to 7 of 8, then likely drop to 5 of 8 for 2014-5. In 2016 it should rise to 6-7 of 9 (depends on when NE is on the schedule).
Add in the 3-4 OOC games, and we’re talking a significant loss in true B10 games.
“Besides, there are trade-offs here and I think they are good trade-offs for tOSU.”
I don’t think there is a net gain except possibly financially (remains to be seen).
If east coast appearances were so important to OSU and MI, wouldn’t they have played an OOC game there in the past 50 years? OSU hasn’t played UMD or RU in that time period. OSU’s 2014 game in Baltimore against Navy is our first trip to the coast since a Kickoff Classic in the 90s. We also played @BC in 1990. That’s it in 50 years. Meanwhile, OSU has played lots of west coast and southern teams in that same time period. MI is in a similar position.
LikeLike
Brian – I look at Maryland and Rutgers as platforms to showcase Michigan to alums and fans and hopefully help us acquire new students and fans in a massive footprint stretching from Northern Virginia through DC, Baltimore, Philly, Jersey, NYC, and Long Island. I agree that adding these two schools to our football schedule annually is not a “win” for my enjoyment of watching my team play football.
But I do accept that these moves combined are *projected* to be very good for the conference as a whole, and will make the schools stronger nationally. And I have a certain amount of faith that the “investment” in Rutgers and Maryland will pay off. With this exposure, I expect Michigan (and all Big Ten schools, really) to have better access to top basketball players in NYC and Baltimore and DC. I expect Michigan to have better access to top football recruits in Jersey, Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia. I expect that revenue from not only BTN but the new Tier 1 contract will increase our athletic budgets – and hopefully it is invested wisely to further help our coaching staffs and facilities to recruit players. And the exposure will bring in more students – who will pay out-of-state tuition.
As of now, it appears better than the alternative, which perhaps would have been no expansion to Nebraska, and leaving Penn State isolated and surrounded by Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and BC in the ACC in the East.
LikeLike
Cliff,
“I look at Maryland and Rutgers as platforms to showcase Michigan to alums and fans and hopefully help us acquire new students and fans in a massive footprint stretching from Northern Virginia through DC, Baltimore, Philly, Jersey, NYC, and Long Island.”
And that’s fine. I’m not trying to convince people I’m right, I’m just stating my opinion. I just think that aspect is overrated. This is all a projected money grab. B10 schools already recruit that area in football, and hoops players travel all over the country anyway. As for students, that’s been growing without any games there. If these games are so valuable, why haven’t OSU and MI been playing even once a decade out there? For OSU, maybe 5% of our alumni are in that area. It’s higher for MI (10-15% maybe?), but MI still hasn’t played OOC games there. Suddenly annual games there are worthwhile.
“I agree that adding these two schools to our football schedule annually is not a “win” for my enjoyment of watching my team play football.”
Obviously.
“But I do accept that these moves combined are *projected* to be very good for the conference as a whole, and will make the schools stronger nationally.”
I think they’re projected to make money. The link to that being very good for the conference is tenuous. The B10 has been a financial leader for years and IN, IL, PU and MN all still stunk. I don’t see more games against mediocre teams as helping the B10’s reputation any either.
“And I have a certain amount of faith that the “investment” in Rutgers and Maryland will pay off.”
They should be solidly midpack.
“I expect that revenue from not only BTN but the new Tier 1 contract will increase our athletic budgets – and hopefully it is invested wisely to further help our coaching staffs and facilities to recruit players.”
The Tier 1 deal was going to jump no matter what. I’m not sure UMD and RU will help much with that since the experts have said the deals are based largely on the big games. Maybe they add enough viewers to have a significant impact, but B10 games usually already got shown there didn’t they?
“As of now, it appears better than the alternative, which perhaps would have been no expansion to Nebraska, and leaving Penn State isolated and surrounded by Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and BC in the ACC in the East.”
NE is a different issue, since they fit and brought the CCG. The B10 could easily have stuck at 12, right? PSU did just fine surrounded by those schools before.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is our third (or higher, depending on who you talk to) biggest rival.
LikeLike
So by virtue of ending up in a better situation than they started, the MWC was a loser because they didn’t win as big as they might have done?
LikeLike
The MWC is not in a better position than they started. Before all this began they had BYU, TCU and Utah. Now they have none.
LikeLike
They have Utah St and San Jose St to strengthen the conference when they were making fun of them 12 months ago.
LikeLike
And Boise St.
LikeLike
Sure, as a result of realignment they traded Utah for Boise State and a collection of schools to be named later, and got the chance to wave at TCU as it passed through, but on the other hand they are making more money and have a path to the Access Bowls without any rankings test to pass in order to bust the bracket.
Did they really lose BYU to conference realignment? Remind me, again, which conference they lost BYU to?
LikeLike
on the other hand they are making more money and have a path to the Access Bowls without any rankings test to pass in order to bust the bracket.
How exactly are they making more money as a result of realignment? The fact is, they lost their three biggest assets (UU, BYU and TCU) and are weaker competitively. And the end of the BCS wasn’t the result of realignment (and keep in mind, if they had held Utah, BYU and TCU they would have an even better path to the Access Bowls).
And yes they lost BYU to realignment. BYU chose to go to another conference (the WCC) for most of its sports and independent in football.
LikeLike
I’d like to add that another one of the biggest potenial winners from conference reallignment is Jerry Falwell and his family. The total chaos which has ensued may wind up ending up in a Sunbelt invite for Liberty University. Liberty University’s leadership has long seen D1 Athletics as a means to help legitimize their University in the academic community, something which has proven almost impossible given many of their, let’s call it unacademic beliefs, ie. a museum depicting human beings and dinosaurs living together on campus and an attempt to ban the Democratic Party from campus. Now, nobody is ever going to compare Liberty to Duke or Notre Dame or BYU, but Liberty can at least claim to be competing on the same athletic level and therefore legitimize itself by association. Given the regard which most academics regard Liberty, I find it doubtful that such a chance would have come along for many years, if ever,without this set of massive shifts. For similar reasons, I think that all the FCS Schools that got to move up their programs like App State, Georgia State, Old Dominion, Charlotte, and especially Georgia Southern (who I think has the potential to be the next Boise State) will all end up as some of the biggest winners. On a definitional level, at least, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers would still have had big time football/athletic programs even if they had remained in their old leagues. The FCS schools might not have.
And for the record, I am most definitely not a fan of Liberty University or many of its past actions. I have nothing in particular against the school either.
LikeLike
It looks like they have settling on calling the playoffs simply, the college football playoff: http://college-football.si.com/2013/04/23/college-football-playoff/?xid=si_ncaaf
You can also go to this site and vote for the logo: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/
Personally I don’t like any of the logos. I debated between 1 & 2, and ended up going with the red, white & blue of #1. And I don’t know how #4 is leading.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22122872/no-im-not-kidding-college-football-playoff-replaces-bcs
yep, they went simple.
damn, how are we going to fill up 900 posts lampooning College Football Playoff? As odious as they were, at least Leaders and Legends provided hours and hours of entertainment and used buckets upon buckets of imaginary internet ink.
LikeLike
i voted for logo #2; not a great logo, but at least it’s nice and clean.
I think #4 (currently polling the highest at 34%) is too busy, too nautical, spiky or something. I think that is supposed to be a directional symbol from maps (North, East, etc.). But they did a bad job with it, imo.
#1 is block-ie (not in a good way) and hard on the eyes with some white lines extending to make the lines on the football, but the other white lines receding behind the football.
the third looks like stylized antelope antlers, which might be nice. but the rest of that proposed logo is a mess. better to have had the letters/words follow the form of the “antlers” and maybe gone with a blue instead of grey? “College” curving along the left antler, curved “Football” at the top and then “Playoff” on the other side. eh, whatever. as is, i hate #3.
LikeLike
“compass” was the word I was looking for.
LikeLike
New info on the logo for the CFP. Somebody in Texas, I believe, had voted 50,000 times for number four. I believe he formerly worked for NATO. 🙂 With the new corrected votes, the flag football has 26%, the eyeball football has 38%, the antelope horn football has 27%, and the NATO football has 9%. Did the legends and leaders crew do these too? WTF? Can’t we outsource these designs somewhere?
LikeLike
They were outsourced, as was the name.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“Personally I don’t like any of the logos.”
I’m with you. There were no inspired choices there. At least none were completely hideous.
LikeLike
I kind of wanted something classic-looking. The closest was #1, but that one could have been better. The others almost looked to modern/sleek to me.
LikeLike
too*
LikeLike
#4 is an 8 pointed compass. Most fans seem to want an 8 team playoff. My hunch is that is why #4 is I’m the lead.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see what the relative payouts per school will be for the ACC, SEC and Big Ten post-2016. By then, the SEC and ACC will have their conference networks running while the B1G will be looking at a large increase in its conference distributions due to the new television contracts.
According to a June 2012 article, Florida State received conference distributions from the ACC of $13.1M for the 2010/11 season and $16.9M for 2011/12. This wasn’t just television money–it included distributions from the bowl game, NCAA men’s basketball tournament,etc.
See http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2012/06/side-by-side-comparison-fsus-last-two-acc-distribution-payouts.html for details
The expectation outlined in a number of articles about the ACC Grant of Rights agreement is that the conference can now look at distributions that surpass $20M per school. See http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22116192/acc-approving-grant-of-rights-deal Assuming this figure does not incude playoff money, then by 2014, I imagine the annual conference distribution will be around $27M per school give or take $1M.
Right now, that figure is roughly where the Big Ten is now. Per Michigan’s annual budget report, UM received $22.8M in FY 2011, $23.9M in FY 2012 and is budgeted for $25.2M in FY 2013. If that growth continues plus the playoff money is added, then the FY 2014 figure could be approximately $32M. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf for budget figures.
The college football playoff revenue is outlined here–http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-bcs-playoff-revenue-money-distribution-payouts/1762709/ It’s probably fair to say that schools from the major conferences will get an additional $6M or so, although it may vary. For example, the ACC gets $27.5M from the Orange Bowl while the Big Ten will split $80M with the Pac 12 (thus the Big Ten gets an extra $12.5M over the ACC).
So let’s fast forward to 2017. If the ACC revenue goes up about $1.3M per year from the $27M baseline for 2014, then the conference is looking at payouts of perhaps $30M to $31M for each school. Seeing that it was $13.1M in 2011, that’s a nice change for those schools.
If we do the same for the Big Ten, the number in 2016 (immediately prior to the new contract negotiations) would be around $35M (one article about Maryland’s entrace into the B1G has payments for 2014/5 being around $32M with the 2016 figure being $34.5M.). WIth the new contracts in place, the B1G told Maryland to look for payouts of around $43M in 2017 and going up to $44M in 2018 and $45M in 2019.
See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
If all this holds true, then in 2017, the Big Ten schools will be looking at payouts of around $43M and the ACC schools will be at around $31M–a difference of $12M. Since the Grant of Rights runs through 2026-7, that means if this revenue difference holds, then B1G schools will receive $130M more in that ten year time period.
I realize that’s a back of the envelope calculation and there are factors over the next 14 years or so that could change these numbers and the assumptions around them. While the ACC schools will certainly be in better shape financially than they were a few years ago going forward, there’s still a big difference between what they will be getting and what their Big Ten (and SEC) counterparts are potentially looking at in the future.
I have to wonder what the ACC presidents and athletic directors were thinking with the Grant of Rights decision. Did they feel that keeping the conference together was worth more than the extra money individual schools could have gotten if they’d joined the Big Ten or the SEC? Did they feel that the extra revenue they were projected to get by staying in the ACC would be enough to run their athletic departments at a profit and in the desired fashion?
I keep wondering about North Carolina. I realize UNC would be tough to get out of the ACC, but here’s a school with 28 sports, a $70M budget and is barely breaking even. UNC’s athletic director recently talked about having a $100M budget and the extra money the ACC will be distributing should help get them roughly halfway there in the near term. Was staying in the ACC that important to them that they’d give up $100M plus from now until the end of the GoR?
LikeLike
Frank tweeted this. It’s good. A nostalgiac, entertaining look back on realignment: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/4/23/4253490/college-conference-realignment-acc-media-deal
25 memories from conference realignment, many of which I had forgotten about or never knew. My favorite is #10.
“10. The realignment expert Blogspot: bumper crop!
Source very close to the situation at West Virginia says the Big Ten has its hand on UConn’s fanny and is engaging Project: Squeeze. It’s a done deal.
Done. Deal. Ink is in the inkplace.
Over on my Twitter feed, which you can follow, I’ve been engaging with some folks from the ACC camp, who feel Oklahoma State is set to pop. Too soon. If you follow me, you know it’s the wrong OSU being discussed, based on my knowledge of the inner workings at West Virginia. Follow me to learn what O stands for. I’ll show you if you follow me.
D. O. N. E. Get married yesterday.
This is the big one. Plugged-in West Virginia booster says the SEC is joining the Big 12.
Fait accompli. I swear upon the souls of my descendants through the year 3131.
Hang on. Situation changing. Emerging intel from West Virginia. RSS me for more on Louisville.
It got even weirder on message boards. You can only imagine.”
A little swipe at the Dude, eh?
I’m grateful for FTT though this realignment ride for keeping it real. Never pretending to be a reporter or insider; just used intellect, common sense, and honest opinion to create interesting debate and insight. Probably could have made a lot of extra cash had he sold advertising, considering the hits this blog has gotten, but didn’t design the blog for money-making purposes…
LikeLike
great fun article. among the many gems: “The MAC merrily chugged along all by itself, whistling a zippy little tune.”
btw, what about the MAC? How did it remain completely immune to the realignment fever?
LikeLike
Noone was interested in any of their teams.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – Lest we forget, the MAC actually didn’t come out unscathed.
[Rodney Dangerfield voice]: “What does Temple have to do to get any respect around here?”
LikeLike
LOL. Temple doesn’t count !! Ba dum bump. “I’ll be here all week, folks.” (Oh, and someone reminded me about UMass. They supposedly joined the MAC?)
LikeLike
Yes, the MAC added UMass to even up its football divisions, and instead UMass is now “odding up” the divisions.
But if power conference realignment is settling down for a bit, the MAC might elect to wait a while. After all, once the Sunbelt gets back to 12, the MAC may be the last ticket that gets offered into FBS for a while, so the MAC might decide not to rush things.
Indeed, the MAC might exercise its option to insist that UMass go all-sport or else leave, which AFAIU is ripening on the second anniversary of Temple leaving.
LikeLike
With the ACC off the table, the Maryland (and particularly) Rutgers adds constitute a bridge to nowhere for the Big Ten. Lets hope BTN starts piggybacking on that Pinstripe network soon or this could go down as the biggest gamble/mistake of the expansion era. I can’t imagine Delany saw this coming, and if he did the B1G should have taken FSU when they had the chance.
According to Warchant, FSU was making headway with the B1G but feared getting shutout and being relegated to the B12, so they agreed to the GOR for security sake.
600 comments, most unhappy about Tobacco Row status quo for the next dozen years.
LikeLike
That’s ‘Tobacco Road’.
Also not surprised that the Big Ten was taking a serious look at Oklahoma, Vanderbilt (according to Dodds article). Neither likely, but it shows the weren’t as rigid in their thinking as some assumed.
LikeLike
Lets hope BTN starts piggybacking on that Pinstripe network soon or this could go down as the biggest gamble/mistake of the expansion era.
Nah. Big East turning down ESPN’s $130 million is the worst. The Big XII refusing to sign a GOR in 2009* (when Tom Osbourne inquired about the possibility) and the PAC killing the PAC-B1G alliance and (depending on who you ask) passing on the Oklahoma schools are also much worse.
*Though some of the conference’s then members are better off because of the conference’s decision
I can’t imagine Delany saw this coming, and if he did the B1G should have taken FSU when they had the chance.
According to Warchant, FSU was making headway with the B1G but feared getting shutout and being relegated to the B12, so they agreed to the GOR for security sake.
Well, the GOR may not kick in until July 1, so maybe FSU is just playing a really high stakes game of chicken with the Big Ten.
I mean I seriously doubt it, but it’s fun to imagine they are.
600 comments, most unhappy about Tobacco Row status quo for the next dozen years.
Same at their SB Nation site. Even those fans who didn’t favor bolting are pretty perplexed as to why FSU would agree to do this unless the conference agreed to make major concessions.
LikeLike
Here’s how I interpret FSU’s acceptance of the ACC grant of rights: despite being the most valuable school in the conference, it actually didn’t have the most (or maybe any) viable alternative conference options compared to several other ACC schools.
As I’ve said repeatedly to the chagrin of West Virginia bloggers: the Big 12 has been a paper tiger. FSU wanted nothing to do with joining the Big 12 and preferred the current ACC compared to being forced to move there. What FSU wanted was either the Big Ten or SEC to come calling, yet for various reasons (and believe me, I personally don’t agree with many of those reasons), they preferred a number of other ACC schools over the Noles.
So, FSU was hardly in a position to dictate terms here. What they likely saw was that they were more likely to end up in an ACC without potentially UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and/or NC State or get forced to join a Big 12 that was less desirable to them compared to staying in the current ACC than getting an invite from the Big Ten or SEC.
Once people internalize that the Big 12 was never a viable choice in the eyes of FSU, then it’s much easier to see why they might have actually *led* the charge to get a grant of rights into place as opposed to being “forced” to sign it. There were several schools ahead of FSU in the pecking order for the Big Ten and SEC, which were the only places that the Noles wanted to go to. As crazy as it sounds considering how incredibly valuable that school is, they were actually in very real danger of being left behind in or forced into a league that they didn’t want at all.
LikeLike
So, FSU was hardly in a position to dictate terms here. What they likely saw was that they were more likely to end up in an ACC without potentially UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and/or NC State or get forced to join a Big 12 that was less desirable to them compared to staying in the current ACC than getting an invite from the Big Ten or SEC.
Once people internalize that the Big 12 was never a viable choice in the eyes of FSU, then it’s much easier to see why they might have actually *led* the charge to get a grant of rights into place as opposed to being “forced” to sign it. There were several schools ahead of FSU in the pecking order for the Big Ten and SEC, which were the only places that the Noles wanted to go to. As crazy as it sounds considering how incredibly valuable that school is, they were actually in very real danger of being left behind in or forced into a league that they didn’t want at all.
The only problem I have with that logic is if FSU was concerned all those other schools were looking to bail, then why did the other schools sign the GOR? I mean if UVA and UNC were willing to sign a GOR then it seems like the only way they would leave the ACC is if FSU already had.
I mean what you say certainly makes some sense and I don’t necessarily disagree with out, but that line of thinking opens a whole other can of worms.
LikeLike
The B12 was never a viable choice for FSU president Barron, and academics is the reason. No matter what the difference in conference payout, or how bad the ACC is in football, the GOR will keep FSU alumni from leading a push to go to the SEC or B12 (if no SEC interest) until after he retires. So with no interest from the B1G, the GOR is just what Barron needed to keep the football fans from running over his academic goals.
LikeLike
frug,
“the PAC killing the PAC-B1G alliance and (depending on who you ask) passing on the Oklahoma schools are also much worse.”
When did the B10/P12 deal become such a big deal? They already play 9 P12 games and schedule tougher OOC games than any other power conference. All they did was stop themselves from being stuck with having to all play a B10 team every year. Considering that several of them have an OOC rivalry that makes for 10 locked games, why was this not an easy decision? Where was the huge benefit to them in 2500 mile road trips every other year, many of which would be to play mediocre midwestern teams.
By saying no, they can all schedule who they want OOC, including B10 teams. Frankly, I think the B10 really scuttled the deal anyway by insisting on 100% participation. Now that the B10 is going to 9 games, the deal would have been cancelled anyway. This alliance was a bad idea in football from the start.
LikeLike
Where was the huge benefit to them in 2500 mile road trips every other year, many of which would be to play mediocre midwestern teams.
Because after the Big XII became unraidable a quasi-merger with the Big Ten (which is what this was suppose to be a precursor to) was the PAC’s only viable expansion scenario. The fact is, the PAC is desperate to break into the Central Time Zone because 80% of the country is served by the Eastern TV feed (Eastern and Central Time Zones) and needs schools that have actual passionate college sports followings (the two reasons why the PAC was so desperate to grab UT and OU).
Frankly, I think the B10 really scuttled the deal anyway by insisting on 100% participation. Now that the B10 is going to 9 games, the deal would have been cancelled anyway. This alliance was a bad idea in football from the start.
The Big Ten didn’t scuttle anything. The PAC conceived of the alliance and without 100% participation it would have been a glorified ACC-Big 10 Challenge, not the sort of thing that helps the conferences get increased exposure in other regions.
And the Big Ten already had a 9 game schedule in place when the alliance was announced but they dropped it because of the alliance.
LikeLike
frug,
Where was the huge benefit to them in 2500 mile road trips every other year, many of which would be to play mediocre midwestern teams.
“Because after the Big XII became unraidable a quasi-merger with the Big Ten (which is what this was suppose to be a precursor to) was the PAC’s only viable expansion scenario.”
And the benefit is what? All they would do is stop playing ACC, B12 and SEC teams in order to play B10 teams. Is there really a lot of money in that change? Their own fans hated the early kickoffs that often came with playing eastern teams.
Frankly, I think the B10 really scuttled the deal anyway by insisting on 100% participation. Now that the B10 is going to 9 games, the deal would have been cancelled anyway. This alliance was a bad idea in football from the start.
“The Big Ten didn’t scuttle anything. The PAC conceived of the alliance and without 100% participation it would have been a glorified ACC-Big 10 Challenge, not the sort of thing that helps the conferences get increased exposure in other regions.”
Feel free to explain the difference between those things. The P12 said they’d do it but not with all 12 teams (at least not at first). The B10 said it’s all or nothing. I see that as the B10 ending it while you choose to blame the P12.
“And the Big Ten already had a 9 game schedule in place when the alliance was announced but they dropped it because of the alliance.”
Having decided to go to 9 games with the 2 new additions, I don’t think they could backtrack to 8. Therefore, the alliance would have to go. It was different with 12 teams, when you could stick to 8 games.
LikeLike
Let’s work this backwards
“And the Big Ten already had a 9 game schedule in place when the alliance was announced but they dropped it because of the alliance.”
Having decided to go to 9 games with the 2 new additions, I don’t think they could backtrack to 8. Therefore, the alliance would have to go. It was different with 12 teams, when you could stick to 8 games.
Your timeline is off. The PAC alliance was killed before the additions of Maryland and Rutgers. Delany said that the PAC-B1G Alliance was a substitute for expansion and had the PAC not backed out they would not have added Maryland and Rutgers.
(FWIW the timeline was
1. Nebraska added
2. Big Ten adopts 9 game schedule
3. PAC Alliance announced
4. Big Ten drops 9 game schedule
5. PAC backs out
6. Big Ten adds 2
7. Big Ten readopts 9 game schedule)
The P12 said they’d do it but not with all 12 teams (at least not at first). The B10 said it’s all or nothing. I see that as the B10 ending it while you choose to blame the P12.
No that is not what happened. The PAC agreed that all their teams would participate. That was always the plan since the deal was originally announced.
However, about a year later 3 PAC schools (believed to be USC, Stanford and Oregon) reversed course and informed Scott they would not participate in the football portion of the alliance (at least initially). The PAC did offer to delay the start of the alliance or exclude some teams from participation, but the Big Ten (correctly) noted that neither of those conditions were the deal they agreed to and that the Big Ten had already made scheduling sacrifices by dropping the 9 game schedule and cancelling future OOC series. The PAC tried to pressure the holdouts but failed and announced that they were pulling out.
The fact is the Big Ten held up their end of the bargain and the alliance would still be around had the PAC not tried to change the deal after all the agreements had already been made.
“Because after the Big XII became unraidable a quasi-merger with the Big Ten (which is what this was suppose to be a precursor to) was the PAC’s only viable expansion scenario.”
And the benefit is what? All they would do is stop playing ACC, B12 and SEC teams in order to play B10 teams. Is there really a lot of money in that change? Their own fans hated the early kickoffs that often came with playing eastern teams.
The benefit is that by playing a high concentration of games in one region they could start to build a following in said region and charge a higher rate for their network in that area. And as the ties between the conference’s grew they could begin packaging their networks together to help get even higher rates. And (most importantly) they could time their contracts to expire at the same time allowing the two conference to hold mutual negotiations thereby increasing their leverage with the TV networks (which is what Larry Scott said was his ultimate goal).
(And that is to say nothing of the massive benefit schools like WSU and Colorado (who are so desperate for cash that they are selling home games) would get from a guaranteed home and home with a Big Ten team every year. The fact is even the worst Big Ten teams are better than what they have been attracting on their own)
LikeLike
I don’t think the PAC/B1G was in effect more than a few months. I thought it was surprise announcement around the end of FB season and died that following spring.
LikeLike
frug,
“Let’s work this backwards”
Isn’t forwards hard enough?
“Your timeline is off.”
I’ve been unclear. I wasn’t saying it like a timeline.
“The PAC alliance was killed before the additions of Maryland and Rutgers. Delany said that the PAC-B1G Alliance was a substitute for expansion and had the PAC not backed out they would not have added Maryland and Rutgers.”
And we’re to take him at his word on that? The alliance solved our demographic issues somehow?
I was talking from the POV of the B10 expansion still happening. Thus the B10 now had 14 teams. That necessitated 9 games. Thus, the alliance would have been sacrificed or at least downgraded (maybe 7 games each year in FB instead of a full slate).
“No that is not what happened. The PAC agreed that all their teams would participate. That was always the plan since the deal was originally announced.
However, about a year later 3 PAC schools (believed to be USC, Stanford and Oregon) reversed course and informed Scott they would not participate in the football portion of the alliance (at least initially).”
How is that different from what I said? The P12 wanted a partial deal and the B10 said all or nothing. A deal could have been done, but the B10 walked away. If you want to blame the P12, help yourself.
“The benefit is that by playing a high concentration of games in one region they could start to build a following in said region and charge a higher rate for their network in that area.”
The P12N was never going to get a significantly higher rate in the midwest from this. That’s wishful thinking. There are nowhere near enough P12 fans in the midwest to do that, and there aren’t enough hardcore B10 fans willing to pay another conference big money either.
“(And that is to say nothing of the massive benefit schools like WSU and Colorado (who are so desperate for cash that they are selling home games) would get from a guaranteed home and home with a Big Ten team every year. The fact is even the worst Big Ten teams are better than what they have been attracting on their own)”
Yeah, IN would really pack the house for them. MN, PU and IL too. Where was the big benefit to USC, who can play anyone they want and already has ND annually? Stanford (ND)? Utah (BYU)?
I’ve always thought this plan was way overblown and I’ve yet to hear anything that changes my mind.
LikeLike
Briar:
I would assume the PAC wouldn’t be looking to find Midwest alumni subscribers but rather B1G fans interested in B1G/PAC games on the P12N. The reverse would be true in reverse for the BTN showing those games.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought this plan was way overblown
Well you’re the only one. So enjoy your isolation I suppose.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I would assume the PAC wouldn’t be looking to find Midwest alumni subscribers but rather B1G fans interested in B1G/PAC games on the P12N. The reverse would be true in reverse for the BTN showing those games.”
Well, I assume they want both, but yes I agree in general. But how many diehard B10 fans will willingly pay another conference significant money every month to see 1 road football game every other year? I can’t see that being a large enough number to drive a significant rate hike in most places. It’s bad enough to raise your TV bill, but knowing you are directly subsidizing your competition is another affront.
Maybe they would have proved me wrong, but I don’t see it. I just think sports bars and honey-do lists would have done well that weekend.
LikeLike
frug,
I’ve always thought this plan was way overblown
“Well you’re the only one. So enjoy your isolation I suppose.”
Umm, no. Lots of people doubted that plan from the start. Just because you supported it doesn’t magically make me the only one that didn’t.
LikeLike
Brian:
Unlike you, I have an interest in a number of schools. It wouldn’t be just one FB game. The PAC was able to hold back from the primary contract more than a third of the games. I’d hope the B1G would look to do something similar in the upcoming contract to increase BTN value. Plus I have interest in other non revenue sports. I get BTN and P12N now, and look forward to the possibility of getting the SECN. Not for FB (get too much of that on ESPN/CBS), but baseball, W Gym, M/W T&F, etc.
Isn’t the nature of a cooperative venture to assist the other party as they assist you? Seems strange to label the partner as competitor. Kinda B12ish.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“It wouldn’t be just one FB game.”
I’m well aware of all the other sports also participating. I was just mentioning the football aspect since that is what drives the most fans.
“The PAC was able to hold back from the primary contract more than a third of the games.”
Yes. 1/2 of the games would be under B10 control anyway. Of the rest, several would likely go to their national deals. So let’s say the P12N gets 2 of the 12 games each year. That’s pretty low odds any given fan’s team will be on the P12N. How much pressure will they put on their provider over that?
“I’d hope the B1G would look to do something similar in the upcoming contract to increase BTN value.”
I don’t. I’d rather they get true national coverage for all the good games. The only way the B10 can overcome the negative stereotype is for people to see good B10 teams play well. Why hide that on the BTN? Save the BTN for lesser games like now.
“Plus I have interest in other non revenue sports. I get BTN and P12N now, and look forward to the possibility of getting the SECN. Not for FB (get too much of that on ESPN/CBS), but baseball, W Gym, M/W T&F, etc.”
Lot’s of people do. I talked about how much people would be willing to pay, not whether people would watch.
“Isn’t the nature of a cooperative venture to assist the other party as they assist you? Seems strange to label the partner as competitor. Kinda B12ish.”
Best I can tell the B10 would be helping the P12 a lot more than the other way around. And as long as college sports are set up as they are, we directly compete with the P12 for spots so they are the competition. I view that as more important than Delany trying to squeeze some more pennies out of TV deals.
LikeLike
So Ohio State should never go on the road, except begrudgingly for conference mandated games?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So Ohio State should never go on the road, except begrudgingly for conference mandated games?”
I didn’t say that, but yes from a financial perspective. Road games cost OSU money.
There’s no reason OSU should be constrained to playing west coast teams instead of teams from all over, though. They also shouldn’t be stuck playing a mediocre P12 team when they could’ve played a power from somewhere else. The alliance wasn’t going to provide OSU/USC every time.
LikeLike
It would have been one out of four OOC games. I think they could have managed to replace a macrafice game if faced with a mid level PAC.
There was talk about scheduling power against power more frequently. Although that brought the complaints of too strong of a schedule….need the gimme games…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“It would have been one out of four OOC games. I think they could have managed to replace a macrafice game if faced with a mid level PAC.”
Except OSU is already getting rid of those games. The problem is that if you don’t know whether you’ll play USC or WSU or at home or on the road, you can’t afford to also schedule OU OOC. Therefore all the elite OOC games have to go away and you only occasionally get USC.
“There was talk about scheduling power against power more frequently.”
There was talk of lots of things. Talk is meaningless. The lesser programs weren’t going to sign on just to play each other, they wanted some access to the big names. If the alliance talks had progressed further and they actually ironed out some of the important details, then you might have a better case (depends on the details). But as it stood, there was no set rotation or promise of big vs big or even assured years each team would play at home. Thus, it wasn’t better than just scheduling your own OOC games like normal.
LikeLike
As a Michigan alum who lives in the Washington DC area, the additions of Maryland (20 minute drive from my home) and Rutgers (3.5 hour drive) is hardly a bridge to nowhere. Having the Wolverines regularly play football, basketball, etc. on the east coast within easy distance from a lot of fans hardly constitutes a bridge to nowhere.
In three years’ time, if we have solid revenue projections after the new television deals are negotiated that annual conference distributions are in the low $40M range, I suspect no one will be complaining about the additions of MD and RU to the Big Ten. In fact, there may be some ACC schools who will be scratching their heads about agreeing to the GOR.
Athletic departments could always use the extra resources, so it’s a curious thing the ACC programs took a pass on the chance of getting into the Big Ten or SEC. Then again, maybe the safer, more conservative move was to sign the GOR, get a nice bump in annual conference distributions from television (perhaps $3M per school) and the playoff (around $5 to $6M per school), and to manage their departments accordingly.
In a USA Today article, Delany essentially admitted that the Big Ten will be staying at 14 given the ACC’s GOR. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/23/bcs-college-football-playoff-realignment-era/2108411/
So what do we have in the wake of all this maneuvering these last three years? College athletics went from six major conferences to five as the Big East dissolved and mainly moved into the ACC. Those conferences have 64 programs with Notre Dame and Brigham Young being the only major semi-independents left. Football goes from the BCS to a four-team playoff, which is marginally better, but will still be controversial because of the number of teams and because a committee is making the selections. Everybody will be getting more money as new media deals have been put in place or are yet to be negotiated. In the meantime, there’s concern that the NCAA is unable to manage college sports on all levels.and the O’Bannon case may change the entire business model of major college athletics.
LikeLike
Penn State is also happier. And new conference rivalries can develop and grow.
LikeLike
cutter,
“As a Michigan alum who lives in the Washington DC area, the additions of Maryland (20 minute drive from my home) and Rutgers (3.5 hour drive) is hardly a bridge to nowhere. Having the Wolverines regularly play football, basketball, etc. on the east coast within easy distance from a lot of fans hardly constitutes a bridge to nowhere.”
That area is so important to MI and OSU that they’ve scheduled roughly 0 football games there in the past 50 years. Both played at BC a time or two and OSU was in a Kickoff Classic in NJ, but neither ever felt the need to play games there against local teams. Suddenly games there are now a priority and of high value?
LikeLike
Migration (and student body intake) patterns do change. Michigan probably has more alums on the East Coast now than at any time before in their history.
LikeLike
Of course they do, but games don’t instantly acquire high value. Based on past scheduling, it seems fair to assume the schools felt games there had a low value before. That value is increasing, but it didn’t suddenly make a large step-change in value.
LikeLike
Michigan does play at Connecticut this year. While Dave Brandon tried to get out of it, Bill Martin saw value a few years ago in scheduling an East Coast game.
LikeLike
The part of the Northeast Corridor from the southern part of the NYC media market through to DC ~ including solidifying the Big Ten’s position in Philadelphia ~ counts as “somewhere”, so that makes Rutgers and Maryland bridges to somewhere, entirely independent of what happens in the balance of the NYC media market.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see if the B1G and ACC can do anymore with the northeast than the Big East could. Or if it continues to mostly ignore college football. ACC now has 6 core 50s era ACC schools, 2 more recent adds (GT 78, FSU 92) and 7 former Big East schools, all but Louisville together in Big East prior to the 2004 raid.
LikeLike
@bullet – I think a major chip that the Big Ten obviously has that the Big East never had is Penn State. Plus, Michigan and Ohio State have very large East Coast alumni bases. No one may ever be able to “own” the Northeast in the way that the SEC owns the South or the Big Ten owns the Midwest, but the Big Ten is definitely putting up a much better lineup to plausibly get a good share of it. The ACC will be interesting since its Northern flank really is just the old Big East. I tend to think it will perform better in the Northeast compared to the old Big East from a pure football standpoint, as well, but it doesn’t have quite the same concentration of alums as the Big Ten in the NYC to Philly corridor (DC seems to be a 50/50 battleground) and they don’t have the urban Big East Catholic schools to lean on for basketball.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I have to comment. The “bridge to nowhere” destroyed what would have been a league stretching completely from Florida to upstate New York/Massachusetts by “blowing a hole in the middle!” The market from DC/Baltimore/Philadelphia (and most of Eastern Pa) running through Delaware, NJ and hopefully parts of NYC has NO ACC presence—None. That means that the ACC is a league with a southern presence (with count it, FOUR schools in NC) and then picks up again in upper Western PA, NY and MA. The whole mid-Atlantic which houses a greater part of the government is solidly in the Big Ten camp with its number 5 population density. Considering how many Big Ten grads are in that region, and the fact that NJ, DC, Philly and Balimore are decent recruiting grounds for football and basketball, I think one wouldn’t necessarily call that the “bridge to nowhere.” I happen to think it was brilliant but time will tell.
Nemo
LikeLike
If FSU (or VA, GT, etc.) was really interested in the B1G they would have called Delany when the ACC GOR was proposed. Since they all signed the GOR either the B1G was not interested or the ACC schools decided against joining the B1G.
LikeLike
My idea for a BigXII alignment:
West
TT
UT
OU
OSU
BU
TCU
East
USF
UCF
KU
ISU
KSU
WVU
With a 9-game schedule, northern XII schools in some years would visit the state of Texas twice and the state of Florida once each year. For some years, where they travel to the state of Texas just once, they could jigger the schedule to have the opponent be UT or TCU. For all the jokes about directional U’s, the reality is that conference still needs new recruiting grounds to relieve the stress off Texas recruiting, especially now that the SEC has a more direct presence there.
LikeLike
Some cogent points there — and if the Big 12 bought into it, South Florida could come out of this smelling like a rose compared to Cincinnati and Connecticut — but there still is a “directional stigma,” as any East Carolina fan would attest.
LikeLike
Is there a multi-directional stigma attached to Northwestern?
LikeLike
Hah!
No, it’s simply a direction, not a location modifier.
LikeLike
Yes, a true directional school must be a public non-flagship university with a direction in its name that indicates a location. As a result, private schools such as Northwestern or the University of Southern California should never be included in that category.
LikeLike
cc & Frank – I hope you both know I was not serious.
LikeLike
Good one.
LikeLike
Definitely ~ look at the trouble that the West Virginia University Mountaineers had getting into the ACC, while if they’d been the Virginia University Mountaineers, they’d probably have got in thirty or forty years ago.
LikeLike
For all the talk about UT blocking expansion, this is why I think the non-Texas schools are going to actually be leading the charge against expansion if it gets serious. If you are any of the old teams in the east (in this particular case), you probably don’t want to give up games against Texas/Oklahoma and at 2 games in Texas every year to add annual home and home games against South and Central Florida.
Granted, a similar argument could be made in the Big Ten against Maryland/Rutgers (and I definitely don’t want to give up games against traditional Big Ten teams for annual home/home with 2 of them given the lack of history), but in that case, you are adding state flagships with wide/potentially wide appeal to a large population which I guess justified it. Most the Big 12 possible expansion targets can’t say the same.
If the Big 12 does expand in the future though, I wouldn’t be shocked at all if its a western based expansion instead of eastern. BYU is obvious if they could get them onboard. UNLV makes a lot of sense long term given Nevada doesn’t have a power conference school (or pro team) and there would be a lot of potential there.
LikeLike
Iowa State would probably be OK with 2 teams from Florida in their division:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/02/07/iowa-state-hits-florida-recruits-like-few-others/article
Of course, since that article came out, they’ve announced that they’re guilty of too many phone calls…
LikeLike
@Transic – IMHO, it will be very hard to keep payouts the same for a UCF-USF expansion. I just don’t see 40 Million in tier one and two TV value and as we know, there isn’t a Big 12 Network to help with payouts on tier three.
LikeLike
Since the whole AACK! is getting $20.6 million a year, its hard to see how just two schools can add $40 million to the Big 12 contract. They might even decrease the contract since it would result in fewer matches of the existing teams.
LikeLike
Slive suggests the crystal football, as the NC trophy, will go too.
That is bad. I like the crystal football. I see no reason to change that.
Pat Forde agrees:
“Slive acknowledged that the crystal football, token of titles won during the BCS Era, is likely gone as well. Whoever wins it next January will almost certainly have the last of its kind, before a new trophy takes its place.
(Which is too bad. The crystal football is perhaps the one non-objectionable element of the BCS. It’s actually a much more aesthetically pleasing trophy than the slabs of wood the NCAA hands out.) ”
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–no-joke–new-college-football-playoff-will-be-named–college-football-playoff–024020425.html;_ylt=AqRzlnXs3YNlZ0dopkOcYHUcvrYF;_ylu=X3oDMTQwaTZwZzhnBG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBOQ0FBRgRwa2cDNTVmZWRmM2MtOTAzMy0zYTM0LWExNTctYWZjMTYxMGY4Y2RiBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNtZWdhdHJvbgR2ZXIDNDgzOGU0ZTMtYWM5Yy0xMWUyLThjZmUtN2ZkMDU2MGM4ZDk0;_ylg=X3oDMTI3bzRkM2xjBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuY2FhZgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0A2J1Y2tldF9yZW1vdmVk;_ylv=3
LikeLike
Well it will be a solid gold football now. There’s more money.
I did like the crystal football.
LikeLike
Football trophies should not be pretty or easily breakable.
If you want a trophy shaped like a football, make it cast iron or something else you can drop.
LikeLike
Why not be honest and make it a bronzed stack of $100 bills?
LikeLike
If we were being honest they would make it a gold brick
LikeLike
BTW, the Elvis impersonator has been determined to be nothing more than a terrorist impersonator. He’s been cleared of the ricin thing.
LikeLike
I never heard. What was he supposedly putting rice in?
LikeLike
@bullet – As I said a few days ago on Twitter, you know that it was a bad week when an Elvis impersonator can be accused of attempting to assassinate the President and a Senator and it barely registered as news.
LikeLike
Yes, I saw that. It was hard to even find news about the Texas fertilizer plant disaster.
LikeLike
SEC ESPN presser now set for May 2 in Atlanta.
Also, I can’t believe we missed this article from last week, but its full of speculation from media consultants about the SEC Network.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/the_much-anticipated_sec_chann.html
LikeLike
When you read this article and look at the projected future television payouts for the SEC ($28.6M on the higher end) and then look at the projected conference distributions for the Big Ten in 2017 (approx. $43M), the decision by the 15 ACC schools to go forward with the Grant of Rights deal is intriguing.
The stakes for individual schools within the conference were pretty high. If your program was one that likely drew high interest from the Big Ten or the SEC, you were likely looking at a substantially higher pay day than what you’d get in the ACC. That’d be especially true if your program left the conference because there weren’t any really good replacements (UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, USF).
But if you approached the decision as being one member of an existing (and unanimous) bloc of schools within the ACC, then the outlook is different. As Frank pointed out, if FSU had no guarantees of being in the Big Ten or SEC, then backing the GOR in the ACC made sense because there’d still be additional money in it (just not as much as it would be in the other two conferences).
I hope someday Dan Wetzel or another author writes the comprehensive book on the events of the last three years (and perhaps beyond that) regarding conference expansion. I’m sure there are a lot of facinating stories in it. One of them will be how the ACC schools opted to act collectively with the GOR rather than individually for what might well have been their greater self interest.
LikeLike
yeah I just don’t understand why fsu would sign a gor you must be right the big 10 must not have really offered them.
LikeLike
First I’ve seen Indiana mentioned.
http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/1256-new-facilities-in-lincoln-neb-to-elevate-hockey-programs.html
With college hockey in need of expansion, Nebraska, along with Illinois and Indiana, could be the next logical steps in growing the game.
LikeLike
Go Buckeyes.
LikeLike
There may be one last catalyst for major conference expansion before we settle into what we expect will be a quiet period. The ACC network. Now that the SECN negotiations are done and the ACC is “stable” I imagine ESPN will begin to work with the ACC on the ACCN. I imagine the ACC will want no less than what the SEC gets for the SECN, but as we all know the ACC has less to bring to the table than the SEC did. Therefore, will the ACC expand to bring more content to the table to get a better deal for the ACCN?
LikeLike
Do UConn and Cincinnati add enough? And who gets the value? ESPN? Raycom?
LikeLike
With the added value from conference network, I think UConn has a decent shot at breaking even for the ACC. We know from Louisville’s comments that the ACC presidents are open to UConn membership. I don’t know about Cincinnati. Is there another candidate?
LikeLike
But what added value will there be from an ACCN? ESPN already owns pretty much all ACC rights. If the ACC expanded to add UConn and Cincinnati, then the ACC would be contributing about 14 football games a year. ESPN owns all other rights. So the conference itself would contribute one football game a week. Even if an ACCN comes to be, I don’t see how the conference itself would get much of a payout increase due to it.
I don’t see such a UConn/Cincy addition to be even revenue neutral.
LikeLike
@greg – that’s exactly my point. The ACC doesn’t have much of anything to contribute to get money out of the ACCN. Will they go out and acquire content to gain access to that revenue stream? If they’re going to subject their fans to carriage wars they better be getting something out of it.
LikeLike
No, I don’t think the ACC will go out to acquire content via expansion. They’d still contribute a very small portion of the ACCN content and wouldn’t likely see a large return on it, making expansion detrimental.
LikeLike
@greg – then why does the ACC want a channel at all? Why subject their fans to carriage wars and limiting distribution of their content (i.e. syndicated games and nation wide ESPN3 exclusives would likely go to the ACCN) for a minor payout increase?
LikeLike
To keep up with the joneses?
LikeLike
@Mike
Because the ACC is so desperate for revenue they will try anything. (See adding ND as a partial member after pledging for 60 years that they wouldn’t)
LikeLike
Exposure, assuming they get coverage.
Texas was willing to do the LHN even if they had to pay to put it on.
LikeLike
@frug – if the ACC is so desperate for revenue that they would try anything, isn’t expansion for a significantly better stake in the ACCN something that can be done with a favorable risk/reward ratio?
LikeLike
I’m interested to see how ESPN handles the Raycom problem. Its even more interesting if the rumors are true that Swofford’s son works there.
LikeLike
Chad Swofford doesn’t just work there; he is the executive in charge of ACC programming at Raycom.
http://www.raycomsports.com/about-us/company-history/executive-staff/
That’s one of (several) reasons why I can’t figure out why Swofford is getting so much praise for engineering this GOR; the ACC’s revenue mess is mostly due to him giving his son a sweetheart TV deal.
LikeLike
@frug – Thanks for looking that up for me.
LikeLike
I think its pretty likely we are set for the Big 5 for the next dozen years or more.
The Gang of 5 will be continuously maneuvering, so there could be changes there. Army or BYU could stir up things on that front as well.
And its only just begun for the basketball conferences.
LikeLike
Since basketball will be their most important product going forward I think the ACC would, sometime in the next five years, be looking at additional basketball-friendly powers to enhance their network. In fact, I would not be surprise to read rumors of certain schools from the AAC being talked about as full member #15 and #16 (ND will NEVER join in full; they have the best deal of all).
IMO, there are 4 attractive candidates that could positively affect their new network. Cincinnati is the most obviously attractive candidate. So I’ll list them first:
University of Cincinnati – Since the ACC took Louisville and Notre Dame, they’ve established a foothold in the Midwestern and border areas, some distance from the traditional East Coast grounds. Taking Cincinnati would further enhance their presence in the Midwest. They know that they won’t get the flagships of the Midwest and border states anytime soon. That may not matter, as the ACC has made it clear that basketball is their calling card. Cincinnati also has a decent football program, which would be acceptable to the likes of FSU, Virginia Tech and Clemson. They are the best candidate for #15.
I see 3 candidates to be the #16 school:
Temple University – We are well aware that Temple was once kicked out of the old Big East but they were an associate member back then. Since, they’ve made strides to advance their football program and was even invited back to the Big East before that conference amazingly collapsed. However, they still have trouble drawing people to Lincoln Financial Field and there’s question as to whether they can compete in the AAC. Still, they have two things that make them a compelling add: 1) Their basketball program; and 2) their market. Temple would give the ACC a way back into the mid-Atlantic states that the Big Ten has just seized with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers to Penn State. While the ACC can’t overcome the flagship advantage the B1G has in those three states: PA, NJ and MD, going into Philly would blunt that advantage somewhat, maybe enough to make it worthwhile.
University of Connecticut – Here’s a school that has had success in not only basketball but also its football program even went to a BCS bowl through the old Big East. However, their involvement in the lawsuit back ten years ago to stop Boston College from going to the ACC left a bitter taste in the mouth of ACC officials and they haven’t forgotten since. Seeing the likes of Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame, Miami, Virginia Tech, Rutgers and Louisville leave the Big East, while being left behind in a conference of distant (except for Temple) rivals, has left that schools wondering how they’re going to be competitive going forward. To add insult to injury, the old Big East Catholic schools, called the C7, withdraw from the conference and even negotiated for the Big East name and formed their own conference with that name. UConn seems to be the biggest loser in conference realignment. However, they still are located in the NY Tri-State area and is a flagship institution that is making big strides to improve its academic credentials. They are said to be a candidate to be invited into the AAU within the next ten years. This time, the Big Ten passed on inviting UConn but may give them a closer look in the future.
University of Memphis – A dark horse candidate. Memphis is another basketball power, despite having to compete in Conference USA and, before that, Metro Conference. While not as rumored as UConn or Cinci, they are another Southern basketball power that would complement Louisville in the emerging western area of the ACC and give the ACC a counter to adding a Midwestern school in Cinci. Memphis and Cincinnati may well be the final two schools to join the ACC, if going by ACC logic. Connecticut wouldn’t be surprising, either, but they’ve shown that they’d pick anyone before them. In addition, Memphis gives them the ability to extend their influence into the Central Time Zone.
Now I know some people would bring up Texas but I just don’t see them in that conference. They like the situation they’re in. Even if the alliance turns out to be true and they get an annual with Notre Dame out of it, who says that they wouldn’t keep that game should they move to the PAC 12. The PAC would be able to say that they play 3 games against ND, probably at the expanse of Purdue or Michigan State, reducing the B1G slate to 1 a year (perhaps rotated among several schools).
Therefore, if the ACC were to expand, the likeliest candidates would be Cincinnati and either Memphis or Temple.
LikeLike
The ACC issued men’s basketball pairings for 2013-14, and to the surprise of few, College Park drew the short straw (http://www.testudotimes.com/2013/4/23/4258774/marylands-last-acc-basketball-schedule-revealed-and-they)
Home: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Away: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Pitt, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Home-and-home with FSU, Pitt, UVa and the Gobblers, but no visits to Comcast from any of the Triangle schools (UNC and Duke were expected, but I thought NCSU might make a visit just to conjure up memories of the David Thompson era — and he, not the guy at the top of this thread, was the greatest player in ACC history — but alas, Debbie Yow probably nixed it). At least SU and ND will come to College Park.
Terrapin fans hope for more equitable treatment from the Big Ten the following winter.
LikeLike
vp19,
You fail to mention that every home game on Tobacco Road will be an 8 against 5 deal knowing how ACC officials operate. Can’t get out of Dodge soon enough…
LikeLike
Very true! Scheduling (who, where, when) is super-critical for conference cohesion, stability and success.
LikeLike
I was expecting worse — All ACC games away except for home game versus lost time blood rival Pitt.
LikeLike
How iron-clad are these GOR deals? I’ve heard mixed reports from both extremes…
Does it go into effect immediately? Again, I’ve heard conflicting reports on when this goes into effect.
LikeLike
People have made compelling argument for their strength. They cite areas other than sports broadcast that it has stood.
Yet others believe UT wouldn’t get into a position they couldn’t get out of, even if it is a partial grant. Or a threshold number of schools could disolve the conference, and the GOR with it.
We won’t know until an attempt is made.
LikeLike
The way it works if the B1G were to take Texas, all of the Texas home games, like Michigan at Texas, would belong to the Big 12. Its like a poison pill. Even if the school is willing to take the risk, no acquiring conference will take the risk. Its a lot more solid legally than exit fees, but its the poison pill portion that makes it impenetrable.
Conferences would just wait for the expiration rather than taking the risk.
LikeLike
I agree it seems so, as long as the poison pill is strong enough. I don’t believe any power school would do it, but if a school were to only schedule 3 MACrafice like home games, and only hosted the bottom dweller or two of the new conference, the value increase in their conf road games (plus the value of all tier 3 B12 rights) could be significant enough. Plus the non media rights value of said school. Plus the destabilizing effect on the jilted conference. Sure, they are getting money for the length of the GOR, but then what? Schools prefer stability and assurances even at significant cost.
I don’t see it happening, but I can see how it could. And the fact it could might be where negotiation begins.
LikeLike
It seems like no one really knows what conditions are built in to either GOR. There could be all kinds of things in there. Either or both GORs could provide for the rights to revert back to any school that wants to leave if, let’s say, revenue dips under a certain number, or the school gets an SEC invite, or whatever else. Of course, it also could be that there are no significant conditions, but we just don’t know.
Sportswriters, almost as a rule, know nothing about business or law, and are just terrible on reporting on these things. They’re used to the absolute nature of sports (a win is a win and a loss is a loss). But in law and business, there are a ton of subtleties, and we’re not hearing about them.
LikeLike
B10 with its BTN would have an advantage in this in that they’d get carriage fees from the incoming school, not relying just on their TV inventory. While BTN $ is only supplemental, it would pay a portion of the damages. I think it’s important to look at precedent in this scenario and in CFB there isn’t any yet how about other types of media rights like music, movie, IP, etc?
LikeLike
I’ve seen lawyers say its pretty common and pretty solid in other areas of business.
The people who I’ve seen say GORs aren’t strong were ACC homers (“The Big 12 will be raided, not the ACC”) or lawyers with no experience in the area.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before. The only team for whom the GOR could be broken for is Texas. The upside of Texas might be worth the short-term downside of floating Texas for several years. Fox and the Big 10 could decide to split the costs of Texas.
Nobody is going to incur the obligation for Kansas St or Pitt. Or even Oklahoma or Florida State. So the GOR keeps them from going anywhere.
But Texas. I could see a bean counter explaining that the upside of having Texas from 2025 to 2040 is worth the downside of paying Texas for 2020 to 2025, despite not receiving the TV rights during that span.
Maybe the Pac-12 would be willing to do it as part of a grand plan to make a real splash and attempt to keep up with the Big 10 and SEC.
Not saying it is LIKELY. Just saying that it is plausible in a financial sense.
And I don’t see how anyone could legitimately break the GOR. Anything can happen in court. But possibilities cannot be converted to probabilities. We are talking about an assignment of rights in exchange for the assignment of rights by others in exchange for television revenue increase by ESPN. All kinds of consideration floating around. This is vastly different from a 12-2 vote to increase an exit fee, as Maryland is currently battling.
LikeLike
Agree with this, I could see the B10 (Fox/ESPN/ABC really) adding a great deal to Texas LHN deal to make up for their lost revenue that goes to the Big XII.
I’m sure ND has some type of ‘out’ for their new NBC deal, which Domers say is over $30mil a year.
LikeLike
To me Texas is the one school for which a GOR on its own isn’t a poison pill. If the B1G (or Pac12) could get one home UT football game, several home game BB games and the ability to show a lot of UT conference away games (which is the big reason the conference cable network would get cable pickup in Texas when the LHN hasn’t, because the LHN doesn’t control rights for away games), AND (I assume) the B1G or Pac12 annual payment to UT would be reduced by the $20mm the B12 would still have to pay UT for the rights they control under the GOR, it would be a no brainer to add them.
It is the combination of the GOR and the Longhorn network that keeps Texas from moving (which is why ESPN won’t pull the plug on that network, since they have no part of the BTN or Pac12 network).
LikeLike
Very, but it will never come down to it – both sides will negotiate an exit unless it means the death of a conference (say, Texas to the Big XII).
LikeLike
Were Texas to try something like this, say with the Big Ten, it would need a partner. Whom might it be? (We’re being hypothetical here.) I think the conference would prefer an AAU member, so it might be Kansas, if it could solve the KSU situation. Iowa State would dearly love to go, and some political pressure could be placed on the U of I, but it would be a longshot. It’d be hard to pry a non-Big 12 member such as Pitt, and since the SEC has no GOR, Vanderbilt would be a darkhorse contender, with Nashville a quasi-bridge to Austin.
LikeLike
Oklahoma
LikeLike
What if AAU membership was a requirement from the Big Ten presidents? It’s easy to say “Oklahoma” or some other football king, but if they don’t have the academic chops, the discussion becomes far more complicated.
LikeLike
Oklahoma as a condition for Texas (even if just Oklahoma and not OSU) will be vetoed by Michigan & Wisconsin. You think it gave the PAC academics heartburn…
And while you could theoretically outvote Michigan & Wisconsin under the bylaws, it will never happen. No one wants to be seen as being less academic than those two.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130424/breaking-down-the-new-college-football-playoff-system/?sct=uk_t2_a3
Speaking of economics, the BCS’s much groused about ticket guarantees — in which participating schools/conferences eat the cost of their unsold allotment — are not going away in the new system, just getting a little bit smaller. Those guarantees will drop from 17,500 to 12,500 per school.
That’s progress, I guess. It matters more what the smaller bowls do.
LikeLike
That’ll (ticket guarantees) be a part of negotiating new bowl deals with the conferences.
LikeLike
With the playoff structure, it shouldn’t be an issue for the playoff bowls. Either you’re getting a Top 4 national title contender or a traditional big fan base team.
The biggest problem with the allotments was with the Big East and the ACC. The ACC now has all the worthwhile teams from the Big East and Notre Dame to contribute to the rotation bowls.
LikeLike
I think Texas would bring considerable value to the B1G even with the limitations of the GoR. What’s worth more, 12 football games of Indiana per year or about seven games of Texas? If Texas averages 2 1/2 non-conference games at home per year (which the B1G would own because Texas would keep it’s third tier games) and 4 1/2 road games against B1G teams per year, that makes seven Texas games per year the B1G would own the rights to. And that’s if ESPN bails on the Longhorn Network, using its out clause. If ESPN doesn’t bail out, then Texas would be making about $15M for its third third games, which the B1G would undoubtedly deduct from Texas’ share of the money paid to each school for TV rights. Considering that the BTN only made $8M per school last year, Texas’ $15M would look pretty good. And my guess is that one Texas game at Ohio State, Michigan or Nebraska per year would be worth more in (first tier) TV value than twelve Indiana or Minnesota games. I think both Texas and the B1G would make more money than they would otherwise, even during the GoR years.
LikeLike
And remember that, if the Big 12 retains Texas’s first and second tier rights, ESPN and Fox will be choosing Texas’ BIG games most of the time, giving the B1G an extra game on TV most weeks and the Big 12 one fewer for their teams, thereby promoting the B1G instead of promoting the Big 12. You’d have to assume the Big 12 would find that deplorable, having one of their prime TV spots serving as a weekly reminder to a national TV audience that Texas left the Big 12 for the B1G in spite of the GoR. My bet is that the Big 12 would sell Texas’ first and second tier rights to the B1G for pennies on the dollar to avoid that embarrassment and that decrease in TV exposure for their league. Why would the Big 12 want to use their TV spots to promote the B1G?
LikeLike
@DugHol: I don’t think the math works. Most of the media reports suggest that the Big XII schools are receiving comparable payouts to the Big Ten and the SEC. Their media deal isn’t quite as good, but they split it among 10 schools, not 14. It is difficult for me to believe that UT could surrender its home rights, and stil make more money in the Big Ten. As I understand it, Texas does not retain the rights to its entire non-conference schedule. I think they retain one football game per year. The rest are granted to the league, much like the Big Ten’s home OOC games.
That’s without considering the cultural or political issues, which could perhaps be overcome if the financials were compelling, but they aren’t.
LikeLike
Before the additions of Maryland and Rutgers, the B1G was projected to make $43M per team starting in 2017. With those additions plus the addition of Texas, I think those numbers would rise, due to an incredible increase in population base and the addition of a king. Comcast/NBC and Fox,are desperate for content, and CBS definitely wants more, and those three additions would send the bidding war through the roof.
LikeLike
Texas will be over $40 million in the Big 12. Big 12 is projecting over $30 million (based on solid numbers-no assumptions about increased profitability or re-negotiated rights fees) and that doesn’t count LHN.
LikeLike
I agree it won’t happen, but not because of what UT makes from media now. If B1G estimates of 43M before getting into the east coast corridor (already more than UT’s projection). Add that area plus Texas, even if only for away games, each school would only be having to sacrifice a portion of the increase that would generate to make UT more than whole. And only for what time remained on the GOR.
UT isn’t in Maryland shape. They are the richest AD in the nation. Whether I agree with how they spend it is immaterial. They do like money as much as anybody but as long as they are in that position, they can/will make decisions influenced by other factors. Chief among them is control. Unless their fiefdom is no longer viable, which doesn’t happen as long as they and OU stay, they will continue in the Longhorn conference.
LikeLike
I agree it won’t happen, but not because of what UT makes from media now. If B1G estimates of 43M before getting into the east coast corridor (already more than UT’s projection). Add that area plus Texas, even if only for away games, each school would only be having to sacrifice a portion of the increase that would generate to make UT more than whole.
The thing is, UT would need to be a whole lot more than just “whole,” before they’d begin to entertain such a move. The financials in the Big Ten would need to be a quantum leap better, not merely a little, and certainly not break-even.
In the early 2020s, when the various conferences only have a few years remaining in their TV deals, you could start to see some jockeying. But not in 2013. UT knows that they’ll always be in demand. They don’t need to make a hasty decision.
LikeLike
Marc:
That’s precisely my point. UT isn’t looking for an increase in money, unless it is such that they can say wow, see how much more we are valued. It is the status and/or control the money represenrs they crave, not the money.
LikeLike
Correct. Making the most money possible isn’t necessarily the goal of Texas or other schools that consider themselves to be alpha dogs (such as Notre Dame and UNC). Control (whether real or perceived) has a lot of currency for those types of schools since they have a lot of other revenue sources beyond conference TV money to rely upon.
LikeLike
Texas wants to be associated with East Coast and AAU schools to increase their status. They also would love the CIC for the status and a potentially huge increase in research money. The BIg 12 is fast approaching the SEC in academic standing, if not worse.
LikeLike
You remember how Texas held their noses at the academic reputation of the SEC, refusing to join that “cesspool,” as I think they called it. After losing Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado and A&M, how does the Big 12 smell now?
LikeLike
Does Texas want to be king of the new cesspool?
LikeLike
@dughol
It wasn’t Texas officials that used that term. May have been FSU.
The ways of recruiting are probably a bigger issue than the academics of the schools.
LikeLike
Dughol:
“Texas wants to be associated with East Coast and AAU schools to increase their status.”
No, Texas wants other elite schools to associate with them. To many that may seem esoteric, but to them the distinction is critical. They could join/associate with most any group if they chose to make the modest concessions necessary.
It isn’t any particular direction (east), only the perception/adulation a move would bring them. It’s not like Stanford, USC, UW, the UC system etc would be slumming. Same with ACC. SEC is improving and yet even with the choice UT has remained in what now looks like #4 or#5 academic conference. Other reasons are determinant for them.
LikeLike
Not to mention the CIC.
LikeLike
Rising ticket prices scaring away Gator fans:
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/the-hater/2013/apr/11/tired-rising-prices-florida-gators-football-fans-g/
No net drop-there are fans to replace them, but there are concerns.
LikeLike
ACC contract
Couldn’t find article in on-line version of Atlanta Journal Constitution, but on April 23rd, there was an article talking about the GOR solidifying the ACC and putting an end to the GT to B1G rumors. Mentioned TV $.
“As an ACC member, Tech will receive $12.8 million in television money for the 2014 fiscal year, fees that escalate to $22.7 million by the end of the contract.”
LikeLike
Interesting. There is an article from last year which states that Florida State received $13.1M in FY 2010/1 and $16.9M for FY 2011/2. These figures include not only television revenue, but all sources of funds, such as the NCAA basketball tournament, bowl games, etc. For FY 2012, it specifically lists television distributions of $2.7M (December 2011), another $2.7M (February 2012) and $5.4M (June 2012) for a total of around $10.8M in television revenue out of the $16.9M (the difference is $6.1M).
See http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2012/06/side-by-side-comparison-fsus-last-two-acc-distribution-payouts.html
Per your information, Georgia Tech is looking at $12.8M in television revenue for the 2013/4 year. If you add that $6.1M from the FSU data above, then the ball park figure for Ga Tech’s FY 2014 revenue would be around $19M to $20M.
The new post season setup will probably add another $5M or so to each program from the five major conferences participating in it. So it might be fair to say that Ga Tech’s total revenue in FY 2015 would be in the $25M range.
The GOR goes to 2027, which means GaTech might be looking at the $22.7M in television plus additional revenue from playoffs, etc. in what might be around $15M to $17M range. That would put the ACC schools in the upper $30M to $40M range in about 14 years from now.
In the meantime, the Big Ten is looking at getting to that figure (if not a bit more) in four years’ time and I suspect the SEC will be right there with them with the new network coming on line. I realize these are back of the envelope computations that can be altered with different assumptions, but this all still speaks to a major income disparity between the ACC and the B1G/SEC starting NLT 2017.
LikeLike
I just realized that the ACC now includes 5 of the 8 Big East schools that were playing football in 2000 (Miami, VT, BC, Pitt and Syr). If the ACC had just picked up the entire Big East football members in 2000 (less Temple), it could have formed the following 16-team conference: South (Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson); Carolina (NC, Duke, NC State, Wake); Mid-Atlantic (Va, VT, MD, WV); North (RU, Pitt, Syr, BC). Not a bad conference, at least on paper.
LikeLike
Michigan is #1 in the most recent DIrector’s Cup Standings. That will probably last a couple of weeks until Stanford overtakes them again (next standings release is May 12). Programs 3 through 10 in the standings are Penn State, Florida, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Minnesota, UCLA, Georgia and Florida State. FWIW, the only school other than Stanford to win the Director’s Cup was UNC.
Go to http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2012-13/misc_non_event/apr25DIrelease.pdf
CBS Sports has a somewhat amusing timeline that lays out all the realignment moves from the summer of 2005 (Boston College moves from Big East to ACC; Louisville, Cincinnati and USF go to Big East from C-USA) to the ACC Grant of Rights agreement. It’s interesting to read about all the decisions that were made, both good and bad, these last eight years and to imagine what would have happened if events had turned out differently.
See http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22131949/the-conference-realignment-era-a-timeline
LikeLike
Good CBSSports article. I was amazed to be reminded that Louisville was C-USA as of 2006. How far they moved up in only 7 years !
LikeLike
Though Louisville has not moved as far as it now sounds to say “moved from CUSA to the ACC” ~ Conference USA version 1.0 was far superior to the current Conference USA version 3.0.
LikeLike
Great piece my man.
Here is my two cents on the ACC’s Grant of Rights deal: http://theklowntimes.net/2013/04/22/grant-of-rights-deal-great-for-acc-cincinnati-and-uconn-biggest-losers/
LikeLike
Excellent article on FSU signing the GOR and the potential of the ACC.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20130425/NEWS01/304250053/Swofford-s-Tallahassee-trips-helped-sell-FSU-ACC-deal?nclick_check=1
LikeLike
Excerpt:
Since that time, Barron and FSU officials apparently have done just that, including exploring the possibility of joining the likes of Florida, Alabama and LSU in the SEC.
While it’s difficult to confirm how far those talks advanced, FSU officials came away with the understanding that the SEC saw little financial incentive to adding the Seminoles. Bringing on FSU would neither expand television markets nor open recruiting territories.
LikeLike
Interesting to see Virginia mentioned in the article. Maybe they really were thinking of departing.
“The trips were unique but not unprecedented. Within the past year, the ACC confirmed, Swofford made similar visits to Clemson and Virginia – two of many schools rumored to be flirting with other conferences.”
LikeLike
It is very interesting to me that we have confirmation the SEC essentially told FSU no. This supports Frank’s analysis of the GOR here: https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/acc-grant-of-rights-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-conference-realignment/#comment-165019
LikeLike
I think it half supports Frank argument.
It confirms that FSU was basically stuck in the ACC (though notably that the article never once mentioned the Big 10), but it doesn’t really back his idea that FSU was worried that other ACC schools were going to leave. Instead it says that signing the GOR allowed FSU to maximize its revenue.
LikeLike
They knew Swofford had a meeting with Virginia to clam their fears. I don’t think they could know with any certainty how the meeting turned out. I’m sure Swofford told them it went well and I doubt any UVA official would say anything to anyone outside of the UVA PTB other than “we’re committed members of the ACC.”
At any rate, they had to hear the rumors or at least know the Big Ten was sniffing around the core of the ACC.
LikeLike
If that article is based on sources inside FSU, would it be more likely to “uncover” the “fact” that FSU was scared, or the “fact” that FSU was aggressively seeking to work for the success of the Seminoles football team?
LikeLike
Excerpt:
The trips were unique but not unprecedented. Within the past year, the ACC confirmed, Swofford made similar visits [like his trip to FSU] to Clemson and Virginia – two of many schools rumored to be flirting with other conferences
LikeLike
The Clemson meeting was very public.
LikeLike
Off topic, but a really unique cover on Boston Magazine paying tribute to those injured at the marathon. It’s definitely worth a quick look. Article is under second link.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/boston-magazine-cover-effective-tribute-victims-runners-city-172005375.html
LikeLike
@Pat – Thanks for posting. It’s still unbelievable what happened last week.
LikeLike
Its a really special event for the runners. And it attracts people from around the world, not just Americans. Pretty bizarre choice of target. Just a couple of sick stupid people.
Its impossible to protect an event like that. They attacked the highest profile spot, the end. But there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the course. It is point to point, traveling about a 1/4 of the way across the state from Hopkinton to downtown. And its a holiday in Boston.
LikeLike
I was totally mesmerized when I first saw this Boston photo on Yahoo! I think I stared at it for about 30 seconds just thinking about what happened. Really grabbed my attention. Good thing we aren’t able to smell those running shoes:-) Can’t believe they took them to NY for the photo shoot.
By the way, does anyone realize Yahoo has been the number one sports site for the past 4-5 years, surpassing ESPN and CBS by a pretty significant margin? Never would have thunk it. Just assumed ESPN was the runaway leader until I read it in a business journal a couple months ago.
LikeLike
@Pat – thank you for posting.
Excerpt:
With Jordan leading the ACC’s efforts to establish its own lucrative cable channel, similar to what the Big Ten enjoys, Barron is convinced the revenue coming from the conference could grow by leaps and bounds. But he added that ESPN would not even pursue that as long as the ACC was viewed as unstable.
“The huge differentiator is a network,” Barron said. “The Big Ten Network is the biggest differentiator in finances going into a conference budget. I believe the SEC is busily working at it, and so is the ACC.”
[snip]
Before last week’s deal, FSU and other ACC schools each received about $17 million annually in TV revenue. That number is expected to increase by at least $3 million with the new deal; the pending ACC Network would add untold additional millions.
Lots of talk about the ACCN, but as we discussed yesterday, ESPN isn’t going to be starting a channel and pay the ACC millions for it just to be nice. I really want to know how the ACC plans to make additional money off of content they’ve already sold ESPN. Or will they find a way to sell more content to ESPN by extending their existing contract or expanding.
LikeLike
ESPN does NOT give anything away.
I don’t see an ACC network as being anything much more than exposure. Maybe restructuring how what they have already sold gives them some new sources of revenue, but ESPN and/or Raycom will get the lion’s share.
Their argument could be that a GOR allows ESPN time to build a profitable network which they wouldn’t invest in without. So they commit to the GOR and ESPN gives them a little for that so ESPN can make a bunch more.
LikeLike
OU is getting another million or so out of their IMG deal from the additional exposure provided by the selling of their Tier 3 TV rights to Fox. That type of thing could be a “new” source of revenue that ESPN doesn’t already own.
LikeLike
If ESPN does want to start the ACCN, they need the ACC’s approval and cooperation to get it done. Then the ESPN borg uses that approval and cooperation to create another channel which uses their television industry clout to force carriage, leveraging their current ACC rights into larger profits than they can get just by airing those rights on current ESPN channels. Out of those greater profits, ESPN throws $1M or $2M per year to each ACC school. Which means in 5 years, ACC schools could see $1M or $2M.
That is my fairly uninformed guess.
LikeLike
If ESPN does want to start the ACCN, they need the ACC’s approval and cooperation to get it done.
Do they? The ACC already sold everything to ESPN. I imagine ESPN can then do with it as they please.
LikeLike
ESPN would probably still need non-revenue stuff to serve as filler content and the ACC still controls all that.
The ACC might also own their replay rights. The Big Ten and SEC do.
LikeLike
ESPN has rights to all the non-rev stuff. That’s been discussed. They don’t use much of it, but they own it.
LikeLike
Espn can’t just start a network named the ACC network without ACC approval. So they call it the ESPN Eastern Seaboard Postsecondary Network (ESPN-ESPN). Out of that adversarial beginning, now ESPN^2 has to fight for coverage with a populace that thinks the channel is screwing over their dear old alma mater. The network would like to interview coaches and players to fill dead time, are they willing to pay for that? Football spring practice isn’t part of the third tier rights, are they going to cover them? Would the schools allow?
I think it’s obviously in ESPN’s best interest to have the ACC’s cooperation.
LikeLike
The article says that they spoke to the SEC, but it doesn’t mention other conferences. However, it’s difficult to imagine that if FSU spoke to the SEC, they didn’t speak to the Big XII and the Big Ten.
The FSU president already issued a public memo explaining all the drawbacks of the Big XII. I think it’s likely that the Big Ten told them either “no” or “not right now.”
So FSU didn’t want the Big XII; the SEC and the Big Ten didn’t want FSU. That left the ACC as their best home. Having decided that, the question became: how do we make sure the ACC stays intact.
If they did nothing, they risked seeing the ACC raided again, which would only leave them stuck in a weaker league, or forced to go on bended knee to the Big XII, where they would really rather not go. Hence, the seemingly surprising decision (but in reality compelled) to sign a GOR.
The important thing to note, is that university presidents are academics; and academics tend to be long-term thinkers. All they’re really doing is making a decision for now, not forever. In ten years or so, you’ll start to hear rumblings again, as the various conferences’ TV deals start to get close to their expiration dates.
LikeLike
FWIW, Chip Brown (in a reaction piece to the ACC GOR news) stated specifically that Barron (from FSU) spoke with the Big Ten and that’s where he wanted to go, but didn’t mention him speaking with either the Big 12 or SEC (outside of a somewhat angry rant at both the Big 12 and FSU for not pursuing each other).
LikeLike
I listened to a Chip Brown interview earlier this week with Gene Williams of Warchant.com and he told Chip the Big Ten “did not want” FSU. This jives with what I heard last November, up here in Michigan. I attended an alumni event in Ann Arbor and heard from some big donors and fans (I’m not a big donor by any means) that FSU had been voted down and denied membership in the B1G. Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois were rumored to be the primary opponents. This was just anecdotal evidence, but the rumors were pretty strong. Also, heard the B1G had offered four ACC schools and only Maryland accepted. UVA, GT and UNC declined. I suspect that’s why the B1G decided to take Rutgers and Maryland. As the AD at Michigan State said, we didn’t want to get outflanked, or shutout of the east, so we decided to act.
Kudos to Frank for calling the ACC outcome correctly many months ago. The ACC really is a pretty tight group and Rutgers was the fallback position when the other ACC schools balked.
LikeLike
That jives with some of the things I had heard. I knew that Virginia and Georgia Tech had been vetted, but to be frank, I guess I didn’t have a good gauge for where their decision making was going to take them. I suppose they felt more comfortable in an ACC with UNC and the other schools than in the Big Ten without UNC in their midst.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Big Ten’s decision not to bring Florida State into the fold proves to be a mistake. I realize they weren’t an AAU school, but with the B1G looking at adding a total of four more programs, would a combination of Florida State, Maryland and two of Rutgers, Virginia or Georgia Tech have been so bad (this assume UVA and GaTech would have made the move along with FSU)?
Oh, well, College athletics lumbers on and while everyone is excited by the playoff on the horizon, there’s still the Ed O’Bannon suit and the continuing mismanagement by the NCAA to consider. All the major conferences will see big increases in their revenues, but it looks like the Big Ten and the SEC will be outpacing the others given current trends.
LikeLike
“It’ll be interesting to see if the Big Ten’s decision not to bring Florida State into the fold proves to be a mistake. I realize they weren’t an AAU school, but…”
Kinda like the PAC supposedly passing on OU?
LikeLike
Well, this comment in SBD is rather interesting. More evidence that the B1G took a pass on FSU and the Big 12 was the Seminoles only option besides the ACC.
“The interesting thing to me is that a couple of the schools thought to be most likely to leave — Florida State and Georgia Tech — were the leaders in getting this approved and signed by their conference peers.”
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/On-The-Ground/2013/04/ACC-rights.aspx?app_data=%7B%22pi%22%3A%2235763_1366744551_438136191%22%2C%22pt%22%3A%22twitter%22%7D
LikeLike
Rumors of Miami/FSU to SEC? That comment tells me these people shouldn’t be taken seriously. There has never been anyone saying that combo was even a remote possibility to the SEC.
LikeLike
Aside from the fact FSU (as an island) would have been pretty ridiculous. It still would have been an exciting and valuable add. Without FSU in the mix, I’m glad they didn’t dilute the sports brand with more MensaBall, research dollars be damned.
I also don’t believe the B1G will rest until they get to 16. Who want’s to join me in the time Machine. I’m going back to 2011 and taking that TX,TT,aTm, OK deal. Tech problem? What Tech problem?
LikeLike
Pfffttt
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“I also don’t believe the B1G will rest until they get to 16.”
What, exactly, are they going to do about it in the next few years? And why is 16 so special?
“Who want’s to join me in the time Machine. I’m going back to 2011 and taking that TX,TT,aTm, OK deal. Tech problem? What Tech problem?”
I still say no thanks to that deal.
LikeLike
aTm was never coming to the B1G. They fit better in the SEC, preferred the SEC, and the SEC wanted them. Dare I say, Missouri would have been number 15.
LikeLike
If that’s true, the B1G really blew it. For the long haul.
LikeLike
Nah. Think Stalingrad (and how that ended).
LikeLike
Not well. I’m watching Enemy at the Gates as we speak.
LikeLike
“It’s only when the tide goes out that you discover who’s been swimming naked.”
LikeLike
http://php.jconline.com/blogs/mike/big-ten-division-vote-sunday/
The B10 will vote on Sunday to officially approve the new divisions, names and 9 game schedule in 2016.
Purdue’s Mitch Daniels will be on hand and doesn’t see any issues standing in the way of a yes vote.
“We’ll be voting aye unless something changes,’ Daniels told the Journal and Courier’s Hayleigh Colombo. “I’ve talked to Morgan (Burke) about it; we’re supportive. It sounds as though that the geographic proposal alignment they suggested, pretty much everybody (was supportive).
“There’s one school that’s thinking about trying to ask for a change but it didn’t sound like that was likely. As it stands, we’ll vote for it.”
I’m guessing MSU is that 1 school, but it should be OSU, too.
LikeLike
I’m guessing the one school is IU.
LikeLike
It could be, but MSU went into the discussions asking to be in the West and got overruled. I think IN wanted the East.
LikeLike
FtT,
Nice piece. As an ACC fan, it’s great to read about the GOR. The ACC has good brands, good demographics, an eclectic group of schools with a fairly cohesive core…strong academics and athletics (although football has struggled during this period of SEC dominance).
FSU and MD were clearly in serious need of money. MD stealthily fled to a better paying conference (were it is now in the geographic outskirts; but will reside with more homogeneous, culturally similar schools). Regardless of whether MD made the right decision, the justification for MD’s move takes a hit every time that the ACC announces increased payouts.
It appears that FSU took the exact opposite road to resolve the money woes…rather than flee, FSU fought to transform the ACC in a very public way. From a historical standpoint it’s impressive how un-ACC-like the conference’s decisions over the past year have had to be in order to increase payouts:
1. Admitting Notre Dame as a partial member (helps finances, hurts cohesiveness)
2. Reducing conference games to 8 (helps the big stadium schools)
3. Admitting Louisville over CT (helps finances and athletic brand at the expense of geography and academics)
4. Getting ESPN to up the payout and start a channel in exchange for a GOR
Granted that FSU likely didn’t have an easy-out option provided to MD. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that FSU PTB were merely listening to Swofford’s sweet-talking.
LikeLike
. . .and after all that, the ACC will take in a little more than half the TV revenue that the B10 will take in when they get their new TV deal.
LikeLike
Pablo,
Do you think that, with the ACC Network coming, that they’d be looking to new markets for adding to their now-pretty good basketball strength?
LikeLike
If something were to swing the balance between FB and BB revenue toward more balance, perhaps. Its hard to see any pressing need for the ACC to boost its BBall strength at the moment.
LikeLike
I sure hope that the ACC stops expanding. They already have good markets…what they need is to learn how to better monetize their assets. Take lessons from all the other major conferences. This past year has taught Swofford just how bad the 2008 ESPN TV deal was.
Given the ACC Network, the only desired expansion should be an increased commitment from Notre Dame for football games…and I don’t think that is in any way likely.
LikeLike
Perhaps you may have a point, if the ACC is comfortable with Western Pennsylvania (Pitt), upstate NY (Syr) and Boston (Boston College). Could they not see the value of a major market like Philadelphia (Temple) or even a medium-sized market like Cincinnati for their network?
LikeLike
Temple is a very good basketball school in a great market. Chaney and Dunphy have really done well. Since I live in Philly and wanted to get my kids to enjoy college sports, I often went to their games at the Palestra…and now at the Liacouras Center. With Golden as the coach, Temple football took a step up. Attendence at football games has improved and does well when Penn State visits. There is no doubt that Temple would desire to be in the ACC.
That all being said, Temple to the ACC would be a disaster. The ACC will already dominate in basketball…the ACC needs to strengthen its football product. Temple football would challenge Wake Forest and Duke…except that the private schools can at least afford their own football stadiums.
When Notre Dame first jumped to the ACC, I thought that the Philly market would be a long-term possibility. If the ACC could strengthen in football and get more of an ND commitment, then Penn State (unlikely) or Rutgers would have made sense as the 16th school. Obviously, the B1G expansion killed my dream of seeing more live ACC sports in this area.
LikeLike
The ACC would never kick out Wake or Duke even for a chance to improve their football strength. So that tells me that they are comfortable with the membership they have. Obviously, they’re going to take a deep breath and then look at the landscape sometime in the future. However, I can’t rule out the network (ESPN) pushing for either of the those schools I’ve mentioned. If ESPN wants anything the most it is the best type of match-up. Duke-Temple or UNC-Cincy sells more than Temple-USF or Cincy-SMU. Of course, that has to mean they dig into their pockets even deeper or the ACC would not agree. The economics may be that far off, all things considered.
LikeLike
Agree, for the most part I ‘like’ the universities in the ACC unlike the Big XII who have more than their fair share of universities I wouldn’t allow my children to attend for free.
LikeLike
Quite ~ many of the schools in the ACC that are not top flight research institutions are still quite solid schools as far as undergraduate education goes. Indeed, a top flight research institution is not necessarily the best place to get a good undergraduate education.
LikeLike
Did you read
http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/acc-deal-glues-members-together/nXTHf/
earlier?
“As an ACC member, Tech will receive $12.8 million in television money for the 2014 fiscal year, fees
that escalate to $22.7 million by the end of the contract.”
The Big Ten network alone distributed $7.2 million last year. Maryland will be making significantly more money in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This gives me doubts that the ACC is really getting an average of $20 million a year. Either this is the info from the $17.1 million post SU/Pitt expansion pre ND deal, or the $20 million the ACC is telling everyone is nothing but spin. I was already skeptical of them getting to $20 million because I don’t believe in these ESPN giving away money conspiracies. These numbers from GT are consistent with an $18 million contract.
LikeLike
Yes ~ that reporting could well be from some publicly reported information that does not reflect the new contractual agreements. It seems unlikely that information reflecting the GoR and contract extension would be reflected on any publicly available information as of yet. Whether its pre or post ND is less clear, as $12.8m TV could be part of either a $17.1m or a $18.1m total conference payout, depending on what other revenue sources that the conference has (including NCAA Units).
LikeLike
I actually don’t think Maryland’s decision to move to the Big Ten “loses justification everytime the ACC announces increased payouts”.
First off, the ACC doesn’t have an academic research consortium like the Big Ten does with the Committee on Institutional Cooperation at this juncture. That’s not the say the ACC might be able to put something together like it, but the CIC’s 15 members (it includes the University of Chicago) has 14 AAU schools. If Johns Hopkins becomes an associate member of the Big Ten for lacrosse only, then they provide another member for the CIC (and the #1 research university in the country in terms of dollars and cents.
Maryland recently announced it expects to have more revenue coming to the university from research than tuition. If UMd (and Rutgers) goes on the same path that PSU did when it joined the Big Ten, then there’s strong potential for those numbers to go up significantly–and far outstrip anything the ACC GOR is going to produce.
Secondly, given the nature and timing of the decision, Maryland may not have even been aware a GOR was planned when they left. The conference had just had a vote on an exit fee, and seeing that UMd and Florida State both voted no, it’s a pretty clear signal that the Terrapins wanted to keep the option open of leaving the conference. The idea that Maryland stealthily fled from the ACC isn’t entirely accurate–the ACC certainly had indications they were thinking of leaving (and If you don’t think the ACC would have been proactive on this, reread the article about Swofford’s meeting with Virginia, Florida State, etc.).
I live in the DC area and have been here for awhile. Maryland has long felt like an outsider in the ACC that was dominated by Tobacco Road. Basketball games with Duke and UNC were the highlight of the athletic year, but when it came to making decisions about where tournaments would be held, etc, everything revolved around the state of North Carolina. The Big Ten has a reputation of being a fairly congenial conference with a culture that leaves the egos at the door when it comes to making decisions. I don’t get the same sense from the ACC. Now that’s not to say it won’t change, but if it didn’t with the additions of BC, Va Tech and Miami ten years ago, I don’t know if adding Pitt, SU, Louisville and Notre Dame as an associate member is going to help. Speaking of which, you need to tread carefully when dealing with ND.
Finally, of course, is the money argument. It will be very interesting to revisit this issue in 2016 or 2017 when the Big Ten renegotiates its television deals, but if the projection holds that B1G schools will be getting around $43M per year in about four years’ time, then that will be about $10M to $12M more than ACC schools will be getting at the same time. That’s not to say the ACC schools will be paupers, but it does mean Maryland will have more cash resources on hand to build their athletic department.
We’ll see what happens. If Maryland and Rutgers revitalize their athletic programs, play in front of crowded venues and raise their respective profiles both academically and athletically, then they’ll have had justification enough for the move to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@cutter
Thanks! As a MD alum, I couldn’t have summarized the overall situation of MD better. The focus of the ACC is the “nexus” in North Carolina, and all late-comers will find that out PDQ. Can’t get to the B1G fast enough.
LikeLike
@ Nemo
You’re welcome. I live 20 minutes from Maryland’s campus, so the prospect of having Michigan play football, basketball, etc. that close to my home on a regular basis is pretty exciting.
I have largely lived in this area since 1991, so I’m pretty familiar with the frustrations of Maryland fans with the Carolina centric nature of the conference. It will be very interesting to see, for example, a future Big Ten basketball tournament at the Verizon Center in Washington, DC or the Barclay Center in Brooklyn. Delany has said he wants to set up an eastern office for the conference, and even though the larger plan to move the conference south of the Potomac River, I suspect he’s still going to do it because there’s such a large Big Ten presence in the mid-Atlantic. (FWIW, Michigan is playing Stanford in basketball at the Barclay Center next year after having a couple of games in the NYC area last year. This is not a coincedence.)
As far as Maryland coming into the Big Ten, it’ll be interesting to see what the athletic department does with its increased revenue. They certainly need to pay down the debt on the football stadium expansion and I suspect they’ll do their best to get those seven teams they had to drop back on line. But that’s the short term–what will be interesting to see is what happens Maryland is planning in the longer term.
In the meantime, I only have three words: “Fear the Turtle!”
LikeLike
I hope they restore the lost sports, too. But don’t hold your breath. I don’t know of many sports dropped during financial hard times that have returned, and those I’m aware of was done with independent donations and fundraising outside the AD resources.
LikeLike
I thought they said they were reviewing them again post-joining the B10 and thought they would save several of them but not all, IIRC.
LikeLike
I have no idea what the decision makers will actually do, but I think Maryland is actually better off not restoring the cut sports (at least not in the next 10 years). After they pay down the debt I would pump all the extra revenue into the FB and MBB programs until they start to generate enough revenue to sustain an expansion of the athletic department.
LikeLike
And so it goes…
Stay tuned for the extortion like statements that we’d love to restore X sports, but without Y amount of additional money…
Doubling (or more) media income enables us to maintain bla, bla, bla…
LikeLike
Given the costs they gave for 8yr budgets for the three sets of sports ~ $11.6m for swimming, $9.5m for men’s track and acrobatics and tumbling, $8m for men’s tennis and women’s water polo … and the fact that the $800,000 raised for men’s outdoors track was decided to be close enough to keep the men’s outdoors track going, but on reduced scholarships … men’s indoor track and cross country and acrobatics and tumbling would be the most likely to be restored.
LikeLike
Perhaps I’m not doing the math correctly. 3.625M/year (plus cost of restoring the reduced scholorships) would float all those sports?
Frug:
It’s not really an expansion. It’s returning to what they had managed to support before the recession. Surely they will have the resources to do that soon. But will they choose to?
LikeLike
Yes, according to the figures they gave before the supporters of the sports started trying fundraising to save them. And since they did not cut men’s outdoor’s track, the incremental cost of restoring indoor track and cross country along with its TitleIX match would be the lowest. Which is why that is what I expect them to announce the restoration of, once the exit fee question is settled, to be able to point to as a concrete benefit of joining the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
Even before the recession they relying on fairly large subsidy to support all those sports because the FB and MBB just weren’t producing enough revenue. Had I been advising the 5 years ago I would have recommend they cut the sports even before the budget crisis.
By cutting the sports they have already done the hard part; their best bet would be to get the AD to the point that it can sustain itself before they go and reexpand.
LikeLike
And just to be clear, I am not just picking on Maryland.
For reasons that boggle the imagination Rutgers sponsors 27 freaking sports, despite living and Big East paycheck and having FB and BB programs best known for the fact they exist.
Obviously slashing sports right when they are in line for a big raise would be a PR nightmare, dropping down (at most) 20 sports and putting the savings back into the revenue sports would be by far the best thing the AD could do for its longterm budget outlook.
LikeLike
Frug:
I am not saying throw money away needlessly. However, I also have little problem seeing benefits to subsidizing many endeavors, sports included, that the return isn’t necessarily an immediate deposit in the cash box. School subsidizing is a nod to the educational value of athletics in college. No college sports would exist if those benefits weren’t valued during the early/mid nineties. If that’s no longer the case then lets close shop on everything but FB and BB, conceded to O’Bannon, hire the players and just become farm systems.
LikeLike
I’m not saying they shut down everything but the revenue sports; I’m saying Rutgers and (if they were to restore all the cut sports) Maryland could make significantly better investments than sponsoring a bunch of sports they can’t support. I honestly can not see any benefit for Rutgers to continue to support 27 sports when even the best run and most profitable AD’s rarely sponsor more than 22.
I mean does anyone on Earth believe that Rutgers is getting more benefit from sponsoring 27 sports than Texas is by sponsoring 20? Or previous Big Ten newbie Nebraska (who sponsors 21)? Or any SEC team (none of whom sponsor more than 22)?
Hell, even in the Big Ten only two schools (Penn St. and tOSU) sponsor more sports than Rutgers and every single Big Ten school is getting far more benefit (financially and otherwise) from their athletic departments than Rutgers does.
LikeLike
I guess what I am really saying is that schools are better off succeeding in a smaller number of sports than floundering in a whole bunch of them.
LikeLike
It’s a never ending cycle. If 22 was the high number some would appear to have more success with 18. Schools lose future potential alums with higher donation rates (not just to athletics) motivated by pride of having represented their school. About ten years ago I heard an ad at a western school speaking to the shortsighted move fifteen years or more earlier to drop track/XC, a sport that has nearly FB size rosters with maybe 1/4 the scholarships. And those have a much higher alumni giving rate, which he noted was a significant loss, and created resistance to donating, even from those who been HS participants with no college aspirations. What is the future cost of alienating multiple fans of multiple sports, not just the participants that must look elsewhere to compete, and current alumni who will feel divorced?
LikeLike
I guess I admire those who offer opportunities rather than those who limit, in spite of extraordinary budgets. If the revenue sports were actually able to generate that revenue in excess of their increased cost we’d long ago have allayed T9 concerns, and scores of schools would be offering 30+ sports. Instead, most simply give in to the “belief” that spending more on the big two sports will eventually result, someday, hopefully, in increased offerings. “Please donate so we can pour even more into the big two. Do not earmark donations, please, so your contribution can be put to best use, as we see it.”
LikeLike
It’s a never ending cycle. If 22 was the high number some would appear to have more success with 18.
Not really. 22 just happens to be the maximum that most successful athletic departments can handle. Plenty of athletic big time athletic departments already sponsor fewer than than that (Alabama and Georgia are at 19 for example).
Hell the most profitable AD in the country is K-State who only sponsors 14 (NCAA minimum), and they just made the Fiesta Bowl and finished in the top 25 in BB each of which will bring far far more free advertising and alumni excitement to K-State than the Rutgers entire athletic department combined.
Schools lose future potential alums with higher donation rates (not just to athletics) motivated by pride of having represented their school
Yes but the cost of the donations is to either tax current students or cut school services. In other words you are forcing all current students to make a donation now in the hopes that a tiny fraction (probably less than 1%) will make a voluntary donation in the future. Rutgers’ and Maryland’s non-revenue sports are costing the school millions of dollars a year.
About ten years ago I heard an ad at a western school speaking to the shortsighted move fifteen years or more earlier to drop track/XC, a sport that has nearly FB size rosters with maybe 1/4 the scholarships. And those have a much higher alumni giving rate, which he noted was a significant loss, and created resistance to donating, even from those who been HS participants with no college aspirations.
That would be great if scholarships were the only cost of maintaining the sport. Problem is, they’re not.
What is the future cost of alienating multiple fans of multiple sports, not just the participants that must look elsewhere to compete, and current alumni who will feel divorced?
Very low if the money is reinvested correctly. The added money from booster donations, ticket sales, merchandise sales, tier 3 media rights that come from elevating FB and MBB programs would radically exceed any losses from non-revs. The simple fact is the fanbase of non-revenue sports is limited almost entirely to participants and their families so there just isn’t much upside.
Look at it another way; 25 years ago K-State was in even worse shape than Rutgers is now. It was a perennially bottom dweller in basketball, its FB program was the worst in all of D1 and it (like Rutgers) had to deal with small conference payout.
Like Rutgers they decided to elevate themselves. However, unlike the Scarlet Knights who seem content to be mediocre in a whole bunch of sports, K-State focused their investments and now they have top 25 programs in both revenue sports (at least as long as Snyder is around) and the most profitable athletic department in the country.
(And I think it is worth adding that after Oregon and Oklahoma St. got their sugar daddies they didn’t expand their athletic departments much (Oregon sponsors 18 sports, OSU 16) but instead built up their core and that has worked out perfectly for them)
LikeLike
I guess I admire those who offer opportunities rather than those who limit, in spite of extraordinary budgets.
Not to sound too snarky, but that is really easy to say when you aren’t the one who is being asked to pay thousands of dollars in mandatory “activity fees” in spite of record setting increases in tuition rates.
LikeLike
And I’ll add that it is not just student fees; right now state support for public schools is at an all time low and Rutgers (to name one) had to cut a bunch of courses and faculty a few years back, yet the school continued to subsidize the athletic department.
LikeLike
I don’t find your definition of “successful” departments compelling. Much like Andy choosing which sports are or are not important. Rather B12ish, too. Every loss of a program shows me a failure in that athletic department. Those with fewer sports, in spite of large budgets, have simply decided they can’t compete on a wider level. They have accepted that position and try to redefine failure as success.
The AD I referred to disagrees with you. We are talking about 25 years of every HS track athlete in the state (and their family) having a reason not to support that school, and to support another. Football may drive the bus, but the if they are the only passengers is a bus the best description?
K State refused a (I believe) 5M donation to start/restore wrestling over twenty years ago. Success in competition is not the soul measure of the success of an athletic dept. I’m not looking to them for an example.
And OU and others who have failed to take advantage of new and extraordinary income streams are following the same pattern of failing to honor and support the mission of athletics in college. (U of Nike is a for profit venture anyway 🙂 ) How do Stanford, Mich, tOSU, etc possibly survive with budgets that by current reasoning should need to be double what they are?
LikeLike
Be snarkey if you like. I paid those fees when in school. Paid my own tuition to walk on, donate to the school and the athletic dept. too. I did so gladly, as did most others. There also wasn’t this driving desire to make the AD a separate, self sustaining branch of the university when I attended. Will (theoretically) cutting my particular sport and causing reduction, if not completely ending my continued support be a benefit? If I want to support pro teams I’ll look to the NFL, MLB, etc.
LikeLike
How do Stanford, Mich, tOSU, etc possibly survive with budgets that by current reasoning should need to be double what they are?
Because Michigan and tOSU bring enough revenue from FB, MBB, merchandise sales and booster donations that they can support large athletic departments and still cut a check to the university every year. The truth is, Rutgers is attempting to run the same size AD as Michigan on half the total revenue and 1/3 the earned revenue.
Stanford (on the other hand) is a private school and doesn’t have the same obligations to taxpayers that a state school does (plus what is a thousand bucks in fees when you are already paying $40,000+ in tuition?).
(Of course this also ignores the fact that unlike Rutgers Stanford, tOSU and Michigan are actually good sports…)
I don’t find your definition of “successful” departments compelling. Much like Andy choosing which sports are or are not important. Rather B12ish, too. Every loss of a program shows me a failure in that athletic department. Those with fewer sports, in spite of large budgets, have simply decided they can’t compete on a wider level. They have accepted that position and try to redefine failure as success.
Find me any metric that has Rutgers as a running a more successful AD than any of the schools I have mentioned.
Hell, even in the Director’s Cup, which rewards schools for succeeding in a variety of sports, the worst Big XII school (TCU) has a score 80% higher than Rutgers despite sponsoring 33% fewer sports
Success in competition is not the soul measure of the success of an athletic dept. I’m not looking to them for an example.
Well then what is your measure?
Financial? Because because Rutgers and Maryland are both failing in that.
Donations? Because if Rutgers and Maryland were successful there they wouldn’t need massive subsidies.
Publicity for the university? Because a successful season in either of the Big Two will bring more free advertising to the school than winning the national championship in every single non-rev.
LikeLike
frug,
I think he is arguing that he believes intercollegiate athletics to be a fundamental part of the college experience and that the more athletes exposed to that, the better. That’s his metric for success.
Students pay lots of fees to support lots of things they never use. Welcome to adulthood.
LikeLike
Cutter,
UMCP joining the B1G to improve its academic research is a stretch. MD is already a research powerhouse and was in no way being held back by its association with the ACC. Its researchers will thrive (relative to other schools) in the future because of its proximity to Federal funding sources. The CIC is unique, but folks overvalue its importance in conference realignment…it is probably more urban myth than true benefit.
in total, you provide a more impassioned case than Loh did in his first communications about switching conferences. I lived in DC during the 70s and 80s, and still go there frequently…but have a completely different view on your suggested ‘Carolina bias’ and MD feeling like ‘outsiders’ to the ACC.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“The CIC is unique, but folks overvalue its importance in conference realignment…it is probably more urban myth than true benefit.”
TPTB at PSU and NE disagree with you, based on their comments when they were added and since then, and they are far better positioned to know that you are.
LikeLike
The CIC itself will not add one more dollar of federal research money to any university coffer. However, it will facilitate and strengthen collaboration among faculty and reseach associates, also for publication in reputable journals. It will also encourage universities to share existing laboratory and library resources, while also investing in new facilities and technologies. Most importantly, top-talent students will give more attention to fellow conference schools for pursuing post-graduate studies, especially when scholastic scholarships are on the table. All of this provides a virtuous circle, now and for the future.
LikeLike
The combination of universities that through cooperation and shared resources win bids for research, that none would have won by themselves, certainly will have added money.
LikeLike
The point here is that you need strong universities first before an organization like CIC will succeed (not the other way round). Which is why the SEC expanding with AAU schools to strengthen its research coffers is a joke.
LikeLike
“UMCP joining the B1G to improve its academic research is a stretch. MD is already a research powerhouse”
MD may already be a research powerhouse, but they rank 11th in the CIC (Top American Research Universities (1-25)). Their association with the consortium may help them rise even higher.
Click to access research2011.pdf
LikeLike
A map of the US showing the states that produce the most NFL players per capita:
Not much different from similar articles that have been linked here in the past.
LikeLike
And the B10 avoids an embarrassing shut out in the first round of the draft with Dallas reaching to take WI’s center at #31.
LikeLike
Other surprises to me:
1. No RB for the first time in about 50 years.
2. Only 1 QB.
3. Buffalo took EJ Manuel in the mid-1st round? Was there some danger of anyone else taking him before the late 2nd round?
4. No Manti Teo or Geno Smith.
LikeLike
How much money did Teo leave on the table by not coming out last year? Another cautionary tale for solid NFL prospects considering returning to college. I laud him for his character. He probably knew he wasn’t ready emotionally for the NFL, considering what else was going on in his life. I hope he does well and all the recent crap goes away with a great pro career.
LikeLike
Probably less money than Barkley.
LikeLike
“1. No RB for the first time in about 50 years.”
That doesn’t surprise me.
The running game is increasingly not valued at all in the NFL, and with the heavy beating that premier running backs take, even the best rarely are good for long these days. Compare with a standout left tackle, who can be expected to have a 10-12 year career and be vitally good for most of that timeframe.
LikeLike
Really, unless you are team in win now mode and believe you are an RB away from the Super Bowl you should only use a first round pick on an RB if you believe you are getting a potential HoF.
Their production is just too fungible.
LikeLike
Actually, I will add one more exception; teams picking late in the round that are going best player available. If an RB is far and away the best player left on the board (even if you don’t Hall of Fame level of production) and no one is willing to trade up, it would probably be OK value wise to go ahead and pull the trigger.
LikeLike
And yet every previous year someone took one. It’s not like the NFL completely changed over night. It helps that there was no elite back, too.
LikeLike
I don’t really see how that invalidates my point.
LikeLike
Or even contradicts it.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it invalidates or contradicts your point. But your point has been valid for at least 10 years and yet still someone always took a RB. That’s all I’m saying.
LikeLike
It’s a matter of probabilities. As the running game is seen as less and less valuable, the odds that at least 1 RB will be taken in the first round decreases. Eventually, you have a year when no RB is taken in the first round.
I’m not sure why that’s surprising.
LikeLike
Richard,
“As the running game is seen as less and less valuable,”
Which it really isn’t. What’s changed more is who they use to run the ball (committee versus workhorse).
2002 NFL Stats:
14,102 carries for 59,459 yards (4.2 YPC)
17,292 attempts for 108,661 yards (6.3 YPA)
2012 NFL Stats:
13,925 carries for 59,349 yards (4.3 YPC)
17,788 attempts for 118,418 yards (6.7 YPA)
1st Round RBs:
2002 – 16, 18
2003 – 23, 27
2004 – 24, 26, 30
2005 – 2, 4, 5
2006 – 2, 21, 27, 30
2007 – 7, 12
2008 – 4, 13, 22, 23, 24
2009 – 12, 27, 31
2010 – 9, 12, 30
2011 – 28
2012 – 3, 31, 32
2013 – none
Yeah, based on that I can’t possibly understand how it would be surprising. They’ve averaged 3 RBs per year over the past 5 years, so of course it should drop to 0 this year.
Like I said before, the lack of a stud RB is a much better explanation, but it’s still a little surprising someone didn’t take a RB just based on history. 5 went in the 2nd round, but none really deserved to go higher. Similarly, it would’ve been surprising if no B10 player went in the 1st round even though nobody really seemed to deserve it.
LikeLike
Based on that history, how surprising is it? In the last four years, there’s not been more than three and a year with only one picked. If the explanations for picking a RB first round in the current era are (1) last hole to fill and (2) best player left on the board, the lack of quality running backs can easily take both of those off the table.
And add the effect of the salary cap coming into effect for first round draft picks ~ average of top 10 salaries on the top picks, going down further into the first round ~ encouraging teams to take linemen in the first round. With 9 offensive linemen taken, 9 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers, 7 in the secondary, and one quarterback, you have four spots looking to add offensive skill players.
The Rams needed a wideout or safety help, they trade up to get WR Tavon Austin ~ they’ve got up the gut running, and Tavon can play as a receiver / run to the edge threat out of the backfield if needed, or in the slot, as well as a wideout.
The Bungals need defensive help or another target for their QB, and don’t have a hole at RB, and pick a Tight End who can also play in the slot.
The Texans have a 32 year old WR, and don’t have a hole at RB, so they take a WR.
The Vikings have RB Peterson and take a WR to go with free agent WR Jennings.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Based on that history, how surprising is it?”
A little. I never claimed it was some great shock.
LikeLike
B10 overall was really young, across the board especially the programs that produce top talent: Ohio, M, Sparty, PSU, Nebraska.
LikeLike
3 schools that played the most true freshmen last year-#1 Texas, TCU, #2 Ohio St.
LikeLike
That’s true, plus Lewan decided to stay in school. But still, the B10 should do better than only pick #31.
LikeLike
Some B10 draft history:
Most Big Ten draft picks from 2003-2012:
1. Ohio State 59
2. Iowa 45
T-3. Nebraska 41
T-3. Wisconsin 41
5. Penn State 40
6. Michigan 39
7. Purdue 27
8. Illinois 26
9. Michigan State 26
10. Northwestern 12
T-11. Minnesota 11
T-11. Indiana 11
Most first-round picks from 2003-2012:
1. Ohio State 14
2. Penn State 8
T-3. Iowa 6
T-3. Wisconsin 6
T-3. Michigan 6
6. Illinois 5
7. Nebraska 4
8. Purdue 3
T-9. Northwestern 1
T-9. Michigan State 1
T-9. Minnesota 1
12. Indiana 0
Most picks by position from 2003-2012?
Most offensive linemen: Iowa, 13
Most quarterbacks: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin 3
Most receivers: Ohio State, 9
Most running backs: Ohio State, Penn State, 4
Most tight ends: Iowa, Wisconsin 5
Most defensive linemen: Penn State, 9
Most linebackers: Ohio State, 14
Most defensive backs: Ohio State, 14
Most kickers/punters: Nebraska 3
The article also includes a breakdown for each team, like this:
OHIO STATE
Number of picks: 59
First-rounders: 14 – WR Michael Jenkins 2004; CB Chris Gamble 2004; DE Will Smith 2004; C Nick Mangold 2006; WR Santonio Holmes 2006; LB Bobby Carpenter 2006; SS Donte Whitner 2006; LB A.J. Hawk 2006; WR Anthony Gonzalez 2007; WR Ted Ginn, Jr., 2007; LB Vernon Gholston 2008; RB Beanie Wells 2009; DB Malcolm Jenkins 2009; DE Cameron Heyward 2011
Highest pick: LB A.J. Hawk No. 5 Packers 2006
Positions: DB: 14; LB: 14; WR: 9; OL: 8: DL: 8; RB: 4; QB: 2; K: 2; TE: 1
Best year: 2004, 14 picks
What bugs me is how few OL OSU turned out with Bollman coaching them. 14 DB and LB, but only 8 OL? For a power running team that recruited better than the rest of the conference? How is IA getting 14 drafted but only 8 for OSU?
Based on scheme and recruiting, the DL, QB and TE position aren’t a shock. Hopefully Meyer will turn things around as we get more NFL-caliber DL recruits and better OL coaching. Meyer actually uses the TE, unlike Tressel. How sad is it the one of the top OT on the board wasted 3 years at TE for OSU before getting moved to OT? He’ll probably get more QBs drafted, too, even if some have to switch positions in the NFL.
LikeLike
@Brian – Interesting to see (1) how high Iowa is up on the list, (2) how low Michigan State is considered how they’ve been pretty consistently competitive every year (even if they haven’t necessarily been playing at an elite level), (3) that Ohio State is on its own top tier (no surprise), the next 5 are on tier 2 (with Michigan somewhat surprisingly on the back end of that group), the next 3 are on tier 3 (a strange mix of Purdue, Illinois and MSU), and there’s a big dropoff to the bottom 3 (which don’t surprise me) and (4) how my Illini have woefully underachieved over this past decade relative to the talent that has come through the program (with Purdue right alongside with them).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Interesting to see (1) how high Iowa is up on the list,”
People tend to forget how strong IA was in the early 2000s. They’ve won 10+ 4 times in the past decade. Also, they crank out OL and TE.
“(2) how low Michigan State is considered how they’ve been pretty consistently competitive every year (even if they haven’t necessarily been playing at an elite level),”
Over that same decade, MSU only won 10+ twice. They won 8, 5, 5, 4, and 7 in the first 5 years, and also had years with 6 and 7 wins in the past 5..
IA is only slightly ahead on total B10 wins, though, 44 – 42.
“(3) that Ohio State is on its own top tier (no surprise), the next 5 are on tier 2 (with Michigan somewhat surprisingly on the back end of that group),”
The RichRod years hurt MI a lot.
“(4) how my Illini have woefully underachieved over this past decade relative to the talent that has come through the program (with Purdue right alongside with them).”
Classic problem of a few stars not making a team. Look at FSU.
LikeLike
The NFL judgement is in: SEC =12, ACC = 6 (3 from FSU); P12 =5; B12 = 3; With a pick each are MAC (#1), CUSA (#12), BE (#19), B1G (#31 from WI). BYU and ND also had picks.
LikeLike
The good news is the number one pick was from Michigan! The Central Michigan Chippewas! Any of you gurus know how that happened; a number one pick passed over by B1G schools?
LikeLike
After a quick search:
He was a 2 star player, only 230 lbs, from a smaller school and only had 2 offers (CMU and EMU). He talked with MSU and PU about walking on but they weren’t interested.
He was also only 3rd team All-MAC in 2011 so he rose to stardom in just a year, really.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2013/04/2013_nfl_draft_big_ten_facing.html
Using a simple formula that gives three points to picks one through 10, two points to picks 11 through 20, and one point to the rest of the picks in the first round, here have have been the scores for the SEC and Big Ten since the 2006 draft, through Brugler’s mock draft this year. The formula allows us to pretend the draft is a single game. And the Big Ten is headed for a blowout.
2006: Big Ten 15, SEC 6
2007: SEC 20, Big Ten 13
2008: SEC 15, Big Ten 8
2009: SEC 16, Big Ten 6
2010: SEC 15, Big Ten 4
2011: SEC 22, Big Ten 12
2012: SEC 21, Big Ten 4
2013: SEC 23, Big Ten 0
After the Big Ten had eight first-rounders in 2006 and the SEC had four, on the overall numbers of first-round picks between 2007 and 2012, the score is SEC 51, Big Ten 28.
Granted, the goal isn’t to produce the most NFL players, but it is one way to judge the talent in the conferences.
LikeLike
@Brian – Yeesh. That’s ugly.
LikeLike
Yep. That’s why the depth of the SEC conference is so much better. Even their weak teams pump out some NFL talent. The B10 has been too dependent on OSU for a while.
But getting to an equal number of teams to the SEC and having Meyer and Hoke ramp up the recruiting will help. Those results are skewed but which positions the NFL values the most (QB, LT, DE) and which types of players they prefer. Few B10 teams run pro-style offenses with strong passing attacks, so we don’t produce many stud QBs. Now that the spread is more acceptable, though, maybe we can get a few more picked but they tend to be too short to go in the top 10. LT is usually pretty good for the B10. As for DE, the B10 rarely has that prototype body the NFL wants. I think Meyer and Hoke will bring in more of them, though.
The bigger problem is getting more teams to contribute. 7 SEC teams had a 1st round pick last night. I’m not sure how many years you have to go back to get that for the B10.
OK, after a quick count, you need 2010-2013 to get 8 B10 teams with a 1st round pick (2011-3 gets you 6).
Last 1st Round Pick Since 2003:
IN – none
MSU – 2003
NW – 2005
MN – 2006
MI, PSU – 2010
NE, OSU, PU – 2011
IL, IA – 2012
WI – 2013
MSU and NW have won too much to not produce any elite players. MI would have if Lewan came out, and PSU will have some excuses for a while. OSU should start producing again next year.
Does NE have any 1st round talent in the pipeline? PU, IL, IA?
LikeLike
Eh? Northwestern consistently overacheives its recruiting rankings in the W/L column. We meld smart upstanding young men in to a winning team and don’t rely on elite individual athletic talent.
NFL teams don’t generally look at character and book smarts first when deciding who to draft in the first round, however.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Eh? Northwestern consistently overacheives its recruiting rankings in the W/L column. We meld smart upstanding young men in to a winning team and don’t rely on elite individual athletic talent.”
And as they win more, they should recruit better. That should produce the occasional elite player. Not all great players are dumb. Stanford produces 1st round talent, so NW can too.
LikeLike
And NU has. However, it takes 4-5 years for recruits to turn pro (especially since NU redshirts a ton). The first 3-4 years at a school like NU, a coach simply isn’t going to get elite recruits (Stanford has the big advantages of being located closer to very fertile recruiting grounds and much better nice weather).
Fitz got 1 Rivals 4-star recruit in 2009 (first since 2002), then 2 4-stars in 2012, a 4-star dual-threat QB (11th best in the country) in 2013, and another 4-star QB (8th best in the country) for 2014 already. The QB’s may not make great NFL prospects, but I’m sure that they produce a bunch of wins for NU and make the school proud (which is really all that we care about).
Another thing is that Stanford runs a pro-style offense, so they can sell to top-level TE’s and FB’s, linemen, and pro-style QB’s. I’m confident that NU will do about as well as Stanford at the collegiate level, however.
LikeLike
…and an average ranking across the different recruiting services of incoming hs. football recruiting classes for 2010 – 2012 will yield similarly ugly results for the Big 10. In addition, if you watched the first round draft on tv — did you also notice how many of the first rounders were JUCOs — which the Big 10 will pursue much less vigorously than the SEC. Adding MD and Rutgers (vs. SEC’s selection of A&M and Missouri) will not alter this trend.
The widely shared-belief on this board appears to be that we are observing a cyclical issue, that the SEC is “up” now and the Big 10 is “down” (really down) and the cycle will change over time. It is a big assumption. Again, if OSU finishes 13-0 in 2013 it does not change the “conference comparison.” In the past three years, take the top 6 teams in the SEC and BIg 10, who would win the most head-to-head matchups? Who would win the “Big 10 – SEC Challenge” in 2013? in 2014? How long before the results are interpreted as the emergence of a new performance curve and not movement along an existing curve?
LikeLike
The widely shared-belief on this board appears to be that we are observing a cyclical issue, that the SEC is “up” now and the Big 10 is “down” (really down) and the cycle will change over time. It is a big assumption.
@Rich2 – I think its an even bigger assumption that it’s not. At the top of CFB, fortunes will ebb and flow. Take a look at the last 30 years of Texas and Notre Dame. There’s just too many resources in the Big Ten for it fall permanently behind the SEC. When the Big Ten starts falling behind in money, facilities, and support then we can start talking about new performance curves.
LikeLike
@Rich2 – Personally, I don’t think it’s cyclical with respect to the SEC. They have a demographic advantage (not just with their leniency with JUCOs, but being based in virtually all of the states that are the top producers of football talent outside of California and Ohio) combined with top-of-the-line financial resources and neither of those factors are going to go away at any point in the near future. The SEC has the entrenched assets to consistently be the top conference year-to-year.
Now, I do think it’s a bit more cyclical with the other 4 power conferences. The Big Ten and ACC seem to be down while the Big 12 is in an upcycle (the Pac-12 is sort of in the middle), which I don’t believe are permanent conditions. There will likely be more variances year-to-year with those 4 leagues (which has really been the case ever since 2006, when the SEC started its current run of national championships).
LikeLike
I don’t see what’s significantly different now in the SEC than 1995 or 2000. The SEC will likely be the best football conference most years, but they will have down cycles. Auburn and Tennessee are in a serious down cycle right now. Arkansas crashed last year. Ole Miss and UK have been down even by their standards. It took several historically up programs to keep them on top. A&M had its best year in decades. Alabama won their 3rd mnc in 4 years.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what an ACC upcycle would look like though. It’s a basketball conference first, and even at its very best it was rarely up to the level of the Big 4. As putrid as the ACC has been the last two years, it really isn’t that far out of synch with its established level of play.
Conversely, while I doubt the Big XII will continue to send 90% of its teams to bowls every year, its recent performance is well within its historical norms. There is no reason it can’t be a top 3 (and maybe even top 2 if Bill Snyder sticks around) conference 3 years out of 4.
LikeLike
Rich2,
“…and an average ranking across the different recruiting services of incoming hs. football recruiting classes for 2010 – 2012 will yield similarly ugly results for the Big 10.”
True. A more similar comparison would be to look at the number of 5 star recruits, though, not that it would look much better for the B10. At least then you’d see OSU and MI and PSU getting a few.
“In addition, if you watched the first round draft on tv — did you also notice how many of the first rounders were JUCOs — which the Big 10 will pursue much less vigorously than the SEC.”
Nothing we can do about that.
“The widely shared-belief on this board appears to be that we are observing a cyclical issue, that the SEC is “up” now and the Big 10 is “down” (really down) and the cycle will change over time. It is a big assumption.”
Yes and no. We aren’t assuming that the two will swap places in the future, just that they’ll have periods of being more similar. You already see Meyer and Hoke improving the recruiting for the Big 2. Hopefully others follow suit. If OSU and MI can win some big national games and earn some respect for the B10 again, I think that would really help the other B10 schools in recruiting.
“Again, if OSU finishes 13-0 in 2013 it does not change the “conference comparison.””
It would help, though. You have to walk before you can run.
LikeLike
You can beat yourself up if you want, but the truth is that no other conference has the combination of fertile recruiting grounds (having FL and now TX in the footprint is a massive advantage–take those 2 states out and SEC territory isn’t more fertile than the B10 footprint; the Pac has CA, but virtually nothing else) & rabid fan/monetary support that the SEC has.
I’m more interested in how the B10 compares to the ACC, B12, and Pac.
LikeLike
Richard,
“You can beat yourself up if you want,”
I don’t consider examining the facts to be beating yourself up. If you never evaluate where you stand, you don’t know how to improve.
“but the truth is that no other conference has the combination of fertile recruiting grounds (having FL and now TX in the footprint is a massive advantage–take those 2 states out and SEC territory isn’t more fertile than the B10 footprint; the Pac has CA, but virtually nothing else) & rabid fan/monetary support that the SEC has.”
True. That doesn’t mean they have to completely dominate, though.
“I’m more interested in how the B10 compares to the ACC, B12, and Pac.”
2013:
SEC – 24
Other – 11
ACC, P12 – 9
B12 – 8
B10 – 1
It doesn’t look much better.
LikeLike
Also:
2012:
SEC – 21
B12 – 12
Other – 11
P12 – 8
ACC – 6
B10 – 4
2011:
SEC – 22
B12 – 16
B10 – 10
P12 – 7
ACC – 5
Other – 2
3 Year Totals:
SEC – 67
B12 – 36
P12, Other – 24
ACC – 20
B10 – 15
LikeLike
“I don’t consider examining the facts to be beating yourself up. If you never evaluate where you stand, you don’t know how to improve”
This is the most important issue. Brian, continue to show the data. It is ugly for those who wish to uphold the Big 10’s football prowess.
First, does the comparative decline of the Big 10 (as a conference) represent a cycle or trend? It is a simple question with significant implications. I thought it was cyclical. I now lean towards a trend (not an irreversible trend — but this leads to point #2 and #3).
Second, how will more money from the BTN affect either condition (cyclical low or negative trend)? Third, if money does affect the conference’s competition on the field, how large must the money advantage for the Big 10 for the Big 10 to reach competitive parity with the SEC? What is your estimate of the number? 5 million a year per team? 20 million? 50 million? I don’t believe that the Big 10 will spend so much more money than its competitors on football that a negative trend (assuming it is a trend) can be reversed.
I posted this idea a few months ago and admit I did not get to read any responses (if there were any). The Big 10 is dangerously close to entering “ACC territory” — as a conference. A generic Big 10 team must be 13-0 in order to make it to the BCS championship — same as the ACC. A one loss SEC, PAC – 12 and maybe even Big 12 generic team will be voted as more worthy of a BCS slot than a generic Big 10 team. Do you really disagree? Why? In particular – if OSU finishes the 2013 season 12-1, I have no doubt that OSU will be voted behind a 12-1 Stanford or a 12-1 Oregon and any 12-1 SEC team (Alabama, Florida, Georgia). I don’t believe that we would have this conversation in 1993 and therefore it underscores the overall decline of the reputation of the conference.
LikeLike
Heck, a person could argue that the Big Ten has been in “comparative decline” since Woody Hayes retired. Yet the Big Ten has made a yacht full of money since then. The Big Ten’s competitive advantages include affluent alumni with a passion for sports. That won’t change in the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
And for recruitniks (from Rivals):
2013 1st rounders:
5 – 5* (15.6%)
13 – 4* (40.6%)
10 – 3* (31.3%)
2 – 2* (6.3%)
2 – unranked (6.3%)
Star distribution:
5* – 1.1%
4* – 12.1%
3* – 37.2%
<3* – 49.7%
15.6/1.1 = 14.2
40.6/12.1 = 3.36
31.3/37.2 = 0.84
12.6/49.7 = 0.25
Recruiting services seem to do OK.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/78530/college-football-playoff-scenarios
Brett McMurphy shows how the new playoff system would work based on last year. He goes through the three scenarios based on which 2 bowls host the semis. The only thing he doesn’t explain is which of the 2 semis would be in each bowl.
My guesses:
1. Rose = #2 AL vs #3 UF
Sugar = #1 ND vs #4 OR
If you switch it, then #4 gets home field advantage. On the other hand, that means all 4 teams have to travel a long way versus 2 SEC teams staying in the south and a P12 team staying in the west.
2. Orange = #1 ND vs #4 OR
Cotton = #2 AL vs #3 UF
You can’t let #3 have the home field.
3. Peach = #2 AL vs #3 UF
Fiesta = #1 ND vs #4 OR
Is Phoenix far enough away from OR to let them stay in the west? I think so.
LikeLike
I agree. Notre Dame vs. Oregon in the Rose Bowl with Alabama vs. Florida in the Sugar makes too much sense to reverse.
LikeLike
With Notre Dame halfway in the ACC and Alabama not playing in the Rose Bowl since before World War II I am guessing it would be :
#1 ND vs #3 UF in Sugar
#2 AL vs #4 OR in the Rose
a) All 4 teams must travel out of state – good for bowl organizers and more $$$$
b) Get SEC vs ACC and SEC vs PAC instead of SEC vs SEC for advertisers
c) Alabama in Rose for first time since World War II (think UT vs USC in 06)
d) Oregon has never played Alabama and (0-1) vs UF and (0-1-1) vs ND
e) Irish are (1-0) vs Gators in Sugar Bowl (1992)
f) NOLA is the most catholic state in the SEC footprint
g) If ND did not join the B1G why reward them with a B1G bowl site?
h) Imaginary girlfriend exposed earlier (she was Stanford student)
i) SEC vs SEC in 1st round = SEC in the championship other way does not
LikeLike
I think that is a better way to do it, but they’ve said they will do 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. I’m OK if they change those around a little to get better match-ups (there should be no conference rematches if possible and bowls should be as traditional as realistically possible in this set-up), but we’ll see if they won’t list someone as #3 and have them play the #1 team.
LikeLike
Sure, but since its not a computer generated ranking, if they want that match-up, they just list UF #4.
LikeLike
duffman,
Just to be clear, I was sticking with his 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 listings and just trying to put them in bowls. I agree the committee may likely split the two SEC teams. If they do, though, I predict this:
1. Rose = #1 ND vs #3 UF
Sugar = #2 AL vs #4 OR
2. Orange = #2 AL vs #4 OR
Cotton = #1 ND vs #3 UF
3. Fiesta = #1 ND vs #3 UF
Peach = #2 AL vs #4 OR
LikeLike
Brian,
I understand the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 thought but was just going with Frank’s “think like a college president” and expanding it to Slive and Delany. Both will want their conference bowl tie in to be part of the show if possible making me think the only bowls getting those 4 teams would be the Rose (B1G) and Sugar (SEC) so they keep their respective franchises at the top of the heap. If that happens making Alabama travel west is not like letting them play in NOLA and have a big driving fan base.
That would mean the Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach would all be out as being beneath the primary bowls in the Rose and Sugar from the viewpoint of Delany and Slive.
LikeLike
duffman,
“I understand the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 thought but was just going with Frank’s “think like a college president” and expanding it to Slive and Delany.”
I was just explaining why I kept the two SEC teams together.
“Both will want their conference bowl tie in to be part of the show if possible making me think the only bowls getting those 4 teams would be the Rose (B1G) and Sugar (SEC) so they keep their respective franchises at the top of the heap. If that happens making Alabama travel west is not like letting them play in NOLA and have a big driving fan base.”
They have no say in this. Those are the three pairs of bowl that will host the semis in the new system (at least the first time around, but I doubt they change). I was showing how it might of worked depending where we were in the cycle.
LikeLike
New college apparel rankings are out. Where does your school rank?
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Q4-2012.aspx
And yes I know that there are a handful of schools who aren’t in this one for some reason. Looks like almost all of the major ones are there though.
LikeLike
1. Texas
2. Bandwagon U
3. Glorious Michigan
LikeLike
I think Michigan got the bump because Kate Upton said she wanted to wear flourescent yellow shoes. 🙂
But yes, it does help when the men’s basketball team gets into the national championship game in tandem with a football teams who”s prospects are considered to be on the rise.
LikeLike
top 20
SEC 11
B1G 4
Big 12 3
ACC 1
Notre Dame 1
LikeLike
That comparison is pretty weak considering at least four Big Ten schools (OSU, Iowa, Indiana, MSU) aren’t licensed by that group.
LikeLike
Back to the previous blog on the value of basketball schools :
(3.) The University of Michigan – having a good basketball season partial
(6.) University of Kentucky
(8.) University of Florida – both
(9.) University of Arkansas – both
(10.) University of North Carolina
(13.) University of Wisconsin – both
(14.) University of Tennessee – both
(19.) University of Missouri
(22.) The University of Kansas
(27.) University of Illinois
(28.) University of Utah
(32.) The University of Arizona
(33.) Purdue University – both
(34.) UCLA
(35.) University of Louisville
(38.) University of Minnesota
(39.) Syracuse University
(40.) Duke University
(44.) University of Maryland
(46.) Stanford University
(47.) The University of Virginia
(49.) University of Cincinnati
(52.) University of Pittsburgh
(55.) University of Connecticut
(61.) Vanderbilt University
(64.) The University of Memphis
(67.) Georgetown University
(68.) Colorado State University
(69.) The University of New Mexico
(75.) Villanova University
LikeLike
How are UConn, Vanderbilt, Virginia, and Colorado State not included in the basketball school category?
LikeLike
All the ones I listed were intended to be basketball schools or schools like Michigan who were probably getting a basketball bump because of their success this season. I thought I did BOLD Uconn but it did not come out that way. As for Vanderbilt, UVA, and CSU they were all on the list just not in BOLD.
LikeLike
The only reason University of Tennessee is in the top 20 is the fans keep tearing their gear up in frustration on game day.
LikeLike
Actually in looking at attendance for Tennessee they are pretty solid every year. Maybe with the downturn of success by the folks in Knoxville they hand out basketball tickets as a bonus for purchasing football tickets.
LikeLike
The drop in attendance is enough to have UT concerned. I remember the tickets being fairly cheap and easy to get, but then I only ever went a couple of times early in the season to watch them pummel some cupcake ~ I’m sure the student section sold out early for the big games.
LikeLike
It got the coach fired. They’ve been on a steady downward trend the last 4 years, from a consistent 105-107k down to 89k last year.
LikeLike
Just to be clear I agree on the drop in Tennessee football attendance numbers (I think they averaged around 90,000 per game last season for a venue that seats over 100,000) but in basketball they are packing them in.
Tennessee men drew over 300,000 and were #7 in NCAA for attendance
Tennessee women drew over 200,000 and were #1 in NCAA for attendance
No matter how you slice it, getting over 1/2 million fans for a single school in college basketball is impressive especially for a SEC basketball team not named Kentucky. Here are the comparison numbers for Kentucky.
Kentucky men drew over 400,000 and were #1 in NCAA for attendance
Kentucky women drew over 100,000 and were #11 in NCAA for attendance
Just ballpark looks like the Tennessee missed the top spot combined by 25K – 35K fans
LikeLike
Tennessee has always drawn well in basketball and very tough to beat at home. It got to be a myth at UK that UK would win a national title only in the years they beat Tennessee in Knoxville.
LikeLike
LOL. CFP logo “contest” gets a cyber-ballot-stuffer. 52,000+ “votes” for logo #4.
several issues: who would care enough to bother? if you are the people running the “contest,” why would you announce this? does this guy/group do this for everyone online “contest?”
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ballot-stuffer-tampers-playoff-logo-213039606–ncaaf.html;_ylt=AstSUd3cI2T2kg35yuIs4EkcvrYF;_ylu=X3oDMTRva3ZvN3VkBG1pdANMSVNUUyBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5DQUFGIEhlYWRsaW5lcwRwa2cDOGMwMzg2MTQtMWIzZS0zYjYwLWIyNTQtZDcxYjYxYzE4NTFmBHBvcwM3BHNlYwNNZWRpYUJMaXN0TWl4ZWRMUENBVGVtcAR2ZXIDM2Q2ZTNkNTAtYWQyYi0xMWUyLWJiOWYtYTM0Y2YyYzczN2I1;_ylg=X3oDMTI3bzRkM2xjBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuY2FhZgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0A2J1Y2tldF9yZW1vdmVk;_ylv=3
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2013/04/24/report-college-football-playoff-logo-contest-hacked/
better story
LikeLike
Says the hacker is in Austin Texas so what are the odds it is a Longhorn fan? When was the last time HopHorn was on? Maybe he has be busy. 🙂
LikeLike
LOL. We’ll blame Hophorn (for this and everything else). I may not be his fault, but we’re going to blame him !!
LikeLike
I will post the most recent article on the 4 ACC schools targeted by the BIG.
Ohio ST. is a backer of FSU coming in.
The GOR means nothing if a teams wants to leave..
ESPN doesn’t want n ACC network. The TV deal of last year only gave teams 17 mil.
That’s why FSU, Maryland and Clemson weren’t happy to begin with.
The GOR isn’t going to change that.
The ACC, like the B!2, is landlocked to a specific region. Trying to add subscribers outside that area
will be more than difficult. That’s what TEXAS found out with LHN. No one wants to see or pay for it
outside the interested region.
If anything, the schools of interest to the BIG now have leverage to accelerate the process rather than wait until 2016 with the new TV deal coming up.
http://www.sportsmancave.com/why-the-wait/
LikeLike
wow, there has been so much misinformation on realignment. it’s amazing. it’s almost like the truther movement. there are just a million different theories out there and all but one of them is a lie.
LikeLike
With conference realignment changing things so quickly, I thought it would be good to look beyond the division discussions and just look at how they effect/would have effected/will effect schedules. This is for Ohio State, but you can see similar things with other schools just taking out names.
11-Team-Era
1. 100% of the time, 2 teams: Michigan and Penn State
2. 75% of the time, 8 teams: Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
3. 4 non-conference games by NCAA rules at the end of this period (previously 3, but was actually 5 in 2002 thanks to kick-off classic)
12-Team-Era (note: we did not actually play this long enough to experience, but would have if it continued and if we stayed at 8 games (the numbers change a lot if we went to 9 conference games as we might very well still have))
1. 100% of the time, 6 teams: Michigan, Penn State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin
2. 40% of the time, 5 teams: Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State, Nebraska
3. 4 non-conference games
Note: If we went to a 9 game conference schedule still, we’d play the other division teams 60% of the time instead of 40%.
14-Team-Era (note: this is for once we get to 9 conference games in 2016)
1. 100% of the time, 6 teams: Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland
2. 45% of the time, 6 teams: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois
3. 28% of the time: 1 team: Purdue
4. 3 non-conference games
Changes era to era
11 team to 12 team era:
1. Made Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin annual games.
2. Dropped the number of games against the other 4 teams by almost half.
3. Added a game against Nebraska 40% of the time.
12 team to 14 team era:
1. Michigan State, Rutgers, and Maryland become games played annually (effectively replacing games vs. Wisconsin, Purdue, and Illinois)
2. Replaced one non-conference game with one crossover game.
3. Games against Purdue go to 28% instead of 100%.
4. Games against Wisconsin and Illinois go from 100% to 45%
5. Games against Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Northwestern go to 45% from 40%.
Note: The improvement against the other division is entirely do to 9 conference games and no locked crossovers. Without both, the numbers look terrible.
LikeLike
Eric,
“14-Team-Era (note: this is for once we get to 9 conference games in 2016)
1. 100% of the time, 6 teams: Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland
2. 45% of the time, 6 teams: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois”
Actually that’s 44%, not that it changes much of anything.
“3. 28% of the time: 1 team: Purdue”
Actually 33%.
“11 team to 12 team era:
1. Made Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin annual games.
2. Dropped the number of games against the other 4 teams by almost half.”
Which was a shame. No divisions always tops having divisions in that sense.
“12 team to 14 team era:
1. Michigan State, Rutgers, and Maryland become games played annually (effectively replacing games vs. Wisconsin, Purdue, and Illinois)”
Which is a crappy trade for OSU.
OSU’s most common opponents since 1953 (when MSU joined):
2. IL – gone
3. WI – gone
8. PU – gone
9. MSU – added
79t. UMD, RU (never played) – added
“2. Replaced one non-conference game with one crossover game.”
Good.
“3. Games against Purdue go to 28% instead of 100%.”
33%, but your point remains.
“4. Games against Wisconsin and Illinois go from 100% to 45%”
Also stinks.
“5. Games against Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Northwestern go to 45% from 40%.”
Well, 44% but who’s counting? No big change here.
LikeLike
Why not just play Meat-chicken every week? Solves everything regarding scheduling… then that super-duper-superior to all universities doesn’t have to demean themselves by playing such woeful schools as Rutgers and Minnesota… Screw Ohio State!
LikeLike
Interesting reaction to me complaining about OSU playing MN (and others) less often. It also means the LBJ is being played a lot less often, which I think is a shame. And today we find out that parity-based scheduling is going to reduce these games even more.
LikeLike
ACC in Europe? Maybe BC and ND? Interesting.
Also, this;
“The ACC is feeling its strength with Swofford and his peers having wrapped up the annual (and last) BCS meetings here. The commissioner said a settlement in the current Maryland lawsuit “hasn’t even been discussed.”
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22144167/acc-thinking-across-the-pond-may-play-games-in-europe
LikeLike
I thought the population numbers were interesting, and of course, they’re probably the same that the Big Ten was looking at as well.
I’ll be hard pressed to think the ACC is going to be predominant in the southeast in the near term given the behemoth of the SEC. The Big Ten also takes a part of that geographic footprint in the mid-Atlantic with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland combined with the number of B1G alums in the area.
In the end, though, unless the ACC upgrades its overall football product, they’re going to still be stuck in the proverbial mud. Having Notre Dame as a partial member “helps”, but with only five games, not being listed in the standings and no chance to be in the ACC championship football game, that help is limited to some degree. In the near term, Miami is going to be hamstrung, Florida State will be solid (but underfunded in comparison to the SEC programs) and the same can be said for Virginia Tech (certainly as long as Beamer is there). I don’t think there are any national championship caliber teams in the near term either. Perhaps Clemson could be on that list. North Carolina has its own internal problems with academic fraud. Duke, Wake Forest, NC State, Georgia Tech and Virginia are okay, as well as Boston College (although they’ve been on a bit of a slide).
We’ll see what happens. Just like if Maryland or Rutgers takes offf with access to greater resources, the same can be said for these programs as well. Louisville is one of the best run athletic departments in the country with Tom Jurich as AD, so you know they’re going to be in even better shape going forward. It’l be interesting to see how that football program develops with Charlie Strong as HC.
As far as the ACC playing in Europe, I suppose it’d be interesting. While you can say that last year’s ND-Navy game was a “success”, it was also a major mismatch and kind of a snore game if you weren’t an Irish fan. If the ACC can be really competitive and put their hat in the ring for the playoff on a consistent basis, then yeah, I can see it working out.
LikeLike
The ACC is going to leverage as much as they can what is their calling card and that is basketball. How they’re going to do it remains to be seen. ESPN would probably have to give up some games in order for it to work. This is why I think the ACC would be wise to up the membership to 17 (with ND remaining a partial for the foreseeable future). Cincinnati and Temple have very decent basketball programs. They’re also located in cities that would help the ACC pare down the advantage the B1G has in the Midwest and DC-Philadelphia-NY corridor.
All this talk about how the ACC Network won’t mean much because of lack of football strength smacks of elitism and snobbery (something that, ironically, is said about the attitude from the core ACC schools). The B1G and SEC model depends on flagships. That is good because of alumni strength required to fund football sales. The ACC is not so much as long as the basketball product is among the highest in the country.
LikeLike
As far as a possible network partnership with ESPN, the ACC’s research shows that by 2030, a combined 55 percent of the U.S. population will be in the South and Northeast.
Which is nice, but it is by no means assured the ACCN would get on in NYC or Philly or DC at any decent rate (B10 territory now). Similarly, much of the northeast hasn’t shown a desire to watch a bunch of college sports, either. Depending on how you define South, you start counting a bunch of SEC territory as well.
LikeLike
If BC and ND play in Europe, are they allowed to play an extra (13th) game back in the states. ie: The Hawaii rule.
LikeLike
Once every 4 years you can play overseas. You don’t get an extra game for it.
LikeLike
If the ACC wants to attract attention in Europe, then the Tar Heels should hire Luis Suarez to coach the women’s soccer team.
LikeLike
If the ACC plays american football in europe will anybody see it? Might be more interesting if the ACC sends soccer teams overseas for a game.
LikeLike
Funny but Mr Suarez provides one blueprint for exiting an existing contract:
http://www.vice.com/en_za/read/the-suarez-biting-incident-wasnt-all-that-bad
PRICELESS
LikeLike
Student athletes, concern, yadda yadda yadda.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75615/midwest-venues-will-consider-title-game-bid
Midwest domes do plan on bidding on future NCGs.
This summer, the College Football Playoff will start accepting bids for the Jan. 11, 2016, and Jan. 9, 2017, championship games, sources said. Hancock said it would be a long shot for a cold-weather, non-domed stadium to get a future title game.
Suck it, Chicago. That’s what you get for such a boneheaded decision as to redo Soldier Field and not provide a roof. I think Indy and the new dome in MSP will have decent chances. STL may be getting too old to have appeal, but Ford Field should still be OK.
LikeLike
The future of realignment : Part I
The debate over security I will always go back to predator and prey
Predators
SEC = basically free to join and free to leave
That alone tells me they may be the least likely to lose members
Solid attendance numbers across multiple sports with multiple teams
.
…
.
B1G = buy in and GoR
Basically stable even with the buy in and GoR
Lots and lots of eyeballs and solid attendance numbers
.
…
.
PAC = GoR
Stable mainly due to geography but GoR means a fear of loss exists
Below the big 2 in attendance numbers but lives in territory with no rivals
XXXXXXXXXX Line of Demarcation XXXXXXXXXXXX
Prey
ACC = 50+ million exit and GoR
Unstable due to product and demand
Lots of teams but not lots of attendance and product
No matter how you slice it the ACC football product is weak it sits in easy range of the 2 biggest predators. They may be stable for now but they do not command the top tier dollars and will struggle in a world of richer neighbors to the north and south. While Frank and I agreed the ACC would survive we differ in duration. Long term I still believe the ACC is fragile and they do not have enough at the top to remain competitive. If Duke does become another UCLA that does not survive a legendary coach then the real anchors in basketball will be North Carolina and Louisville. The issue will be are they another Maryland in 20 years angry that the ACC control begins and ends in NC.
On the football side the ACC is invested with Florida State and Notre Dame and neither has shown they can win at the highest level. Compare that to the B1G with 4 – 6 schools and the SEC with 6 solid schools and they are already behind. If the gap between ACC schools and B1G / SEC schools winds up between 10 – 20 million a year it will only take the B1G’s contract deal in the next few years to sow the seeds of discontent especially if the BTN can make inroads in MD and NJ. The same can be said if the SEC can successfully turn MO and TX into profit centers. Long term UNC football is probably not going to be elite nor is VPI basketball going to dominate the ACC and therein lies the root problem. The ACC will always remain inherently unstable with parts being valuable to the B1G and SEC.
.
…
.
B 12 = buy in and GoR
Like it or not the conference is just too full of “blah” teams that no real upside or very limited value to the predators. After Texas and Oklahoma in football and Kansas in basketball what does the Big 12 really have left to bargain with? Sooner or later the PAC will make another run at 14 or 16 and the B1g 12 is really all that is attractive enough to add without going across the Mississippi for B1G and SEC schools which are already out of reach. Nebraska based on history and TAMU based on size were schools that could make the conference more stable but they have moved on. Who will want a Baylor, West Virginia, TCU, or Iowa State among the B1G / PAC / SEC?
LikeLike
The future of realignment : Part I:
What happens next?
I believe the focus will shift from how does the B1G or SEC get a UNC or Oklahoma to how do the prey conferences get stronger? What nobody is talking about is if the ACC and Big 12 will start kicking out the lesser children? Viewed another way if you were creating a real 4th conference (12 – 16 teams total) would Wake Forest and Iowa State be in the discussion? College sports is getting more corporate by the day and following the trend of business the next step would be merger followed by spinning off the dead weight. If top teams in the ACC and Big 12 are to survive being gobbled up someday then a preemptive merger really is the best option.
Here is a rough picture of such a merger followed by a spinoff :
School / Size / AAU / Stadium / Arena / Rank / Public or private / Endowment / Bonus
Super conference #4 : core schools – safe to survive
a) Texas / 51K / AAU / 100K / 17K / #1 in TX / Public / 17.0 Billion / football
a) Oklahoma 30K / NO / 82K / 12K / #1 in OK / Public / 1.2 Billion / football
b) Kansas / 30K / AAU / 50K / 16K / #1 in KS / Public / 1.3 Billion / basketball
b) Texas Tech 33K / NO / 60K / 15K / #3 in TX / Public / 0.9 Billion / politics
c) Notre Dame / 12K / NO / 81K / 9K / #? in US / private / 6.3 Billion / football
c) Florida State / 41K / NO / 82K / 14K / #2 in FL / Public / 0.5 Billion / football
d) North Carolina / 29K / AAU / 63K / 22K / #1 in NC / Public / 2.2 Billion / basketball
d) Virginia / 21K / AAU / 62K /15K / #1 in VA / Public / 4.8 Billion / academics
Note : UVA in over Duke as #1 school in VA / Public / best pairs UNC
Super conference #4 : secondary schools – unique markets or product
e) Georgia Tech / 22K / AAU / 55K / 9K / #2 in GA / Public / 1.6 Billion / GA
e) Clemson / 21K / NO / 82K / 10K / #2 in SC / Public / 0.5 Billion / football
f) Pittsburgh / 29K / AAU / 65K / 13K / #2 in PA / Public / 2.6 Billion / PA
f) Louisville / 22K / NO / 55K / 22K / #2 in KY / Public / 0.7 Billion / basketball
Note : all 4 are state schools and #2 in their home state
Super conference #4 : bubble schools – political clout gets them in
Oklahoma State / 23K / NO / 60K / 14K / #2 in OK / Public / 0.7 Billion
North Carolina State / 35K / NO / 58K / 20K / #2 in NC / Public / 0.6 Billion
Virginia Tech / 31K / NO / 66K / 10K / #2 in VA / Public / 0.6 Billion
Super conference #4 : bubble schools – private schools with issues
Syracuse University / 21K / NO / 49K / 35K / #? in NY / private / 1.0 Billion
Duke / 14K / AAU / 34K / 9K / #3 in NC / private / 5.6 Billion
Miami / 16K / NO / 77K / 8K / #3 in FL / private / 0.7 Billion
.
…
.
The schools that get spun off after the merger + 2 from above = 9 total
Kansas State / 24K / 50K / 12K / #2 in KS / Public / 0.3 Billion
Iowa State / 31K / AAU / 55K / 14K / #2 in IA / Public / 0.6 Billion
Baylor / 15K / NO / 45K / 15K / #? in TX / private / 1.1 Billion
TCU / 9K / NO / 45K / 7K / #? in TX / private / 1.2 Billion
West Virginia / 29K / NO / 60K / 14K / #1 in WV / Public / 0.4 Billion
Boston College / 15K / NO / 45K / 9K / #? in MA / private / 1.9 Billion
Wake Forest / 7K / NO / 32K / 14K / #4 in NC / private / 1.5 Billion
LikeLike
Don’t be too sure on Kansas. If they were on the East or West coast they’d be a shoe in to make a major conference. As it is they’re in the middle of nowhere. A long way from the Pac 12 and ACC, and not a good fit for the B1G or SEC. They have reason to worry. But they’re in a lot better shape than ISU, KSU, or Baylor.
LikeLike
I would say Duke, for example, is in much, much better shape than Kansas, but you put Kansas near the top of the list and Duke near the bottom for some reason that you don’t explain.
LikeLike
a) state schools vs private ones means more living alumni
b) football stadium – while neither Duke or Kansas are likely to excel at football Kansas can hold about twice the number of people
c) Kansas is #1 in Kansas but Duke is probably #3 in UC behind UNC and NC State
d) Kansas has history over time while Duke (like UCLA) has been primarily under 1 coach
If you can have only UNC or Duke you take UNC every time. I have been to multiple Final Fours and 4 teams travel (UK, IU, UNC, and KU) where Duke is more like UCLA when they are on the road. Louisville, Michigan State, and other schools all travel better. Ohio State is not a good traveling team for basketball and they still travel better than Duke.
LikeLike
They are next door to the PAC. Contiguous state.
LikeLike
Agreed, they would fit well in either the B1G or PAC
In the B1G they can be the inverse for Nebraska and both were Big 8 schools
In the PAC they can cross with UCLA and pair with Colorado
I originally thought Mizzou and Kansas would both be good additions for the B1G as a pair.
LikeLike
^^^^^^^^^^^^ This comment was supposed to go with Pablo’s comment below vvvvvvvv
LikeLike
The predator vs prey classification of conferences makes sense, but the manner by which the two prey conferences can collaborate to create a stable/competitive super conference could be different.
Geographic coalitions can form to create value beyond their individual parts. For example,
1. SW group (TX, TT, OK, OSU, KS)
2. Southern group (FSU, MIA, CLEM, GT, LOU)
3. Mid-Atlantic group (UNC, UVA, VT, NCSt, Duke)
4. Northeast/Big East group (ND, PITT, WV, SYR, BC?)
Academic or cultural groups can band for greater strength. For example,
1. AAU group (TX, GT, UNC, UVA, Duke, Pitt)
2. Private with national brand (ND, MIA, Duke)
3. Public with football brand (TX, OK, FSU, CLEM)
No doubt that combining the two weaker conferences can create something more valuable than any existing conference. Nevertheless, it is still hard to fathom leaving some long-term relationships behind (WF, ISU, ETC). UT was able to it with the formation of the Big XII, but there was with extreme chaos occurring.
LikeLike
Part of the reason I never know where to put Duke
They could easily fit in a basketball only conference like the new Big East or they could easily be part of a new conference of private academic schools similar to the “southern ivy” conference that was discussed in the 1950’s. Modernizing it to encompass schools outside just the south you could get 12 – 16 members from this pool :
North Division (8 – 12 teams)
Army / Navy / Boston College / Syracuse / Duke / Wake Forest / Uconn / Cincinnati
South Division (8 – 12 teams)
Air Force / Rice / Baylor / SMU / TCU / Tulane / Miami / Tulsa
LikeLike
If the ACC were to disintegrate, you could get an all private league similar to the above.
LikeLike
And now the run on B10 players has begun.
1/31 – WI Frederick
2/12 – PU Short
2/16 – MSU Bell (over Ball and Lacy – interesting)
2/17 – OSU Hankins
LikeLike
And:
2/26 – WI Ball
That wraps up the 2nd round for the B10 with 4 picks.
LikeLike
And for those that dislike math, the B10 should be aiming for 5-6 picks per round to stay on par with the ACC, B12 and P12.
LikeLike
And the B10 promptly goes 0 for 20 to start the 3rd round.
LikeLike
IL cracks the seal:
3/24 – IL Thornton
Not many B10 prospects rated to possibly also go this round.
LikeLike
So the B10 finishes with 3/25 – PSU Still
That’s 7 picks in 3 rounds when you’d hope for 15-18.
LikeLike
A Michigan guy posted this:
UM and MSU ads were at a talk and answered a question about expansion saying they believed there would be more in the future. According to the poster, this is a Detroit News UM beat writer.
LikeLike
OK, but
1. B10 or other conferences expanding
2. The future’s a very long time. I’m certain that there will be a lot of movement before GOR’s expire in 2025, for instance.
LikeLike
I’m personally not in favor of further expansion at this time, as exciting as speculating on such an expansion might be. I think Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers all fit in, in their own ways, with the rest of the Big Ten. But it’s going to take some time for the conference to gel together, and that is what’s most important right now.
But I have to say, I guess I don’t get the hoopla about the ACC acquiring a grant of rights from its members. Isn’t a GOR nothing more than a contract? And all contracts can be broken, right? Then the aggrieved party is due compensation to cover actual damages. Have actual damages actually changed because a GOR has been signed? For instance, I don’t think the ACC could suddenly claim to be actually losing more revenue due to Maryland’s exit, if Maryland had previously signed a GOR. Regardless of whether or not a GOR was signed, the ACC would be missing out on same revenue from broadcasting Maryland’s games. When you get to the bottom of it, the question is, what are the actual damages?
So I’d be glad to see all this realignment stalled for a while. I just don’t think anything has really changed.
LikeLike
Sure you could breach the GoR ~ for instance, when the TV crew and announcers from the ACC contracted network shows up to broadcast the game, you could deny them entry to the stadium.
And you could invite the network from the contracted network of your new conference to bring their TV crew and announcers to producer coverage of the game instead.
But so what? What does breaching the contract GET you? What broadcast network is going to BROADCAST that coverage without unencumbered RIGHTS to the broadcast? And so, what broadcast network is going to PAY FOR the “lack of rights” to show home games for that schools that has encumbered rights?
LikeLike
You raise the point the has been bouncing around in my head as well. Unless you are an elite school in football or basketball what damages really exist? Any school below the average would actually be an improvement to the revenues for the conference overall if they left. If say the ACC booted Wake Forest for Kentucky could they claim damages at all? In a 14 team full conference membership the midpoint should be between teams 7 and 8 but the reality of the elite schools might skew that even higher. From a math standpoint:
UNC > Wake not UNC = Wake
More importantly the values are not linear but more exponential in that….
UNC is not Wake Forest x (2) but Wake cubed or Wake to the 4th power
In fact just UNC and FSU may account for 75% of the total value of the ACC (excluding Notre Dame as they are not a full member in football) which brings up the other elephant in the room. If the ACC deal was 17 million per school and the Notre Dame addition (with just 5 games) bumped it to 20 million (roughly 18% increase) then how bad is the dead weight at the bottom of the ACC conference?
I brought this up awhile back on here in that even the bottom feeders of the B1G and SEC are still more valuable than the middle to top schools in other conferences. Indiana and Kentucky may not have good football teams but they still have big football stadiums when compared to schools not in the B1G or SEC. As both have big basketball value it really is just a bonus for their respective conferences. Drop down a level and Minnesota or Mississippi still have more sports value than other bottom schools. The Gopher Hole opened in 2009 and seats 51K and the Dawg Pound in Mississippi will expand to 61K in 2014. Even these stadiums would exceed many in the ACC / B12 / PAC.
If the GoR is really a penalty maybe only 30% of the ACC or Big 12 is really affected by it and those schools could probably get better long term value in the B1G / PAC / SEC.
LikeLike
But the GoR is not about damages. Its about selling the same rights twice. If courts upheld the right of a school to grant its rights to one party for an extended period, and to start receiving the promised compensation contingent on performance, and then to say, “nah, I’ve changed my mind”, and to grant the SAME rights AGAIN to another party … how many Hollywood deals have now fallen apart? Marvel decides it doesn’t like the studio with the movie rights to its characters, and so it shops “The Avengers” sequel around to the highest bidder.
LikeLike
GOR may not be about damages. But breaking a contract is. And courts definitely allow a party to breach a contract, for which they must pay for damages. If leaving a conference is in the best interest of a school, does having a GOR in place make the damages any greater than any other contract?
Now I don’t know the details, but wasn’t the Big 12 in the middle of a broadcasting deal, in which Nebraska participated, when Nebraska broke their contract and joined the Big Ten? As far as I know, Nebraska then paid actual damages to the Big 12, which must have covered in part the loss of broadcast revenue, and now their games continue to be broadcasted on both BTN and, on occasion, national networks. Not really an issue.
LikeLike
But once they have signed over the rights, there’s nothing to breach as far as the rights to broadcast their home games go … somebody else owns the rights. There’s no damages to pay if they sell those rights to somebody else, because the sale of rights that they no longer have the right to sell is not valid.
All they can breach is complementary performances that they have agreed to in conjunction with that transfer of rights.
LikeLike
Thanks, Bruce. I’ll have to let that bounce around in the brain for a while! (This is a response to your 1:14 pm message.)
LikeLike
The top ACC programs didn’t want to get split up like orphaned siblings sent off to different foster homes. Delany apparently didn’t understand this. I said it over and over…the only way to do it is (was) to adopt a block of at least 4 of the top southern ACC teams as a package deal (UNC, UVA, FSU, GT, etc).
LikeLike
Tom,
“The top ACC programs didn’t want to get split up like orphaned siblings sent off to different foster homes. Delany apparently didn’t understand this. I said it over and over…the only way to do it is (was) to adopt a block of at least 4 of the top southern ACC teams as a package deal (UNC, UVA, FSU, GT, etc).”
And what inside knowledge do you have to indicate he didn’t try to take a block of 4?
LikeLike
ESPN reports that Big Ten presidents and chancellors will have a conference call Sunday to vote on proposed football divisions for the 2014 season, new division names (East and West) and a move to a nine-game conference schedule beginning in 2016.
RIP Leaders & Legends
LikeLike
The Game, The Game, The Game.
LikeLike
Here’s a link to an article quoting Brandon on further expansion along with MSU AD Mark Hollis. See this link for the entire article:
http://www.annarbor.com/mi/wolverines/2013/04/michigans_dave_brandon_confere/
For the moment, the wave of conference expansion seems to have slowed — but is it over?
Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon doesn’t think so.
“It’s slowed down a little bit now,” Brandon said earlier this week at a speaking engagement in Livonia. “Whether that continues or there’s another wave … I would bet there will be more expansion and more consolidation that will take place (in the future).
“I don’t know when, I don’t know who. But I’d bet it’ll happen.”
Brandon didn’t specify where he believed more expansion would take place, but there’s been plenty of speculation that the Big Ten isn’t done adding more ammo to its already incredibly wealthy arsenal — in terms of dollars and cents.
A 14-team league creates two 7-team divisions. By adding two more teams and going to a 16-team model, scheduling with a pair of two 8-team divisions would theoretically become much easier.
In addition, the league would be able to venture into more television markets and give its television company, the Big Ten Network, more games to air and more money to make.
Is expansion over? Maybe not.
But if it continues, Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis says the league must remain aware of the entire picture — not just financial gain.
“There are things that don’t make sense in some people’s minds, but as you look at where our alumni are, where our donors are — creating new opportunities for our programs to be with our people … we’re excited about that,” Hollis said at the same event. “At the same time, as wacky as I am as a marketing guy, I’m very focused on tradition. As we go through this process, we want to play a core of what you grew up with.
“I think we’re getting to a better place, but anytime you get to a better place, there are bumps in the road of that process. But that’s kind of what we’re going through right now.”
LikeLike
This is from the article:
“A 14-team league creates two 7-team divisions. By adding two more teams and going to a 16-team model, scheduling with a pair of two 8-team divisions would theoretically become much easier.”
Where do they get this? Scheduling with 14 isn’t difficult. The only change going to 16 would allow is having 8 games in division the last couple of weeks. The last week isn’t hard to schedule at all since PU/IN will be locked in as the one crossover game. That means all the scheduling “difficulty” comes down to the next to last week and picking 1 crossover game that is unlikely to be a rematch in the CCG. Pencil in IN or MN versus somebody and you’re done.
LikeLike
If Purdue and Indiana would be the only locked cross-over game, then one possible scheduling metric is a 12-year period. This is equivalent to cycling through the other 6 cross-divisional schools 4 times for a grand total of 36 cross-over games for a 9-game conference schedule:
1 school x 12 times + 6 schools x 4 times = 36 games
For the same 12-year period, other schools could cycle through 4 cross-over schools every other year, while cycling through the other 3 cross-over schools once every 3 years:
4 schools x 6 times + 3 schools x 4 times = 36 games
In principle, this alternative would allow a school like Nebraska to play pairs of either Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State and Ohio State every other year as cross-over games, while playing Indiana, Rutgers and Maryland once every 3 years.
The point here is not to suggest that such cross-over scheduling scheme is best or desirable. Only that rationally simple schemes are mathematically possible.
LikeLike
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/4/28/4277790/big-ten-schedule-analysis
cfn_ms did an analysis post on the B10 schedule. The period is 18 years in his plan.
LikeLike
Sounds like he made a lot of good choices. I’m betting the conference doesn’t make all those same choices (i.e. no UM/OSU same year, no UM/MSU same year).
LikeLike
@Big Ten Fans: Brian is right, you are neglecting to include the games WITH the locked cross over school. With static 7/7 divisions, one locked game, 9 conference games, the minimum single rotation period is 9, so the minimum home and away rotation period is 18.
That is, 9 conference games is 3 cross division games. The locked school in the other division plays two cross division games against the unlocked opponents, so takes three years to cycle through. There’s the three year clock.
Now look at the unlocked schools and assume single rotation:
3 years (1 tick): 9 cross division games total, 1 game against the 1 locked school, so 8 against the six unlocked schools, or 1.33 games per school.
6 years (2 ticks): 18 cross division games total, 2 game against the 1 locked school, so 16 against the six unlocked schools, or 2.67 games per school.
9 years (3 ticks): 27 cross division games total, 3 game against the 1 locked school, so 24 against the six unlocked schools, or 4 games per school.
A single rotation gives 4 games per unlocked school in 9 years, 3 games per locked school in 9 years.
A home and away two-year rotation doubles all the numbers, but the ratios stay the same.
LikeLike
Any period of multiple of three would be a possible scheduling metric. Brian’s original comment concerning “calendar space” is more salient.
LikeLike
9 and 18 comes from an even distribution. If the conference adopts unbalanced scheduling, then a twelve year cycle is one possibility ~ one team home and away 2/3 of time, two teams home and away 1/2 the time, four teams including locked tream home and away 1/3 of the time.
LikeLike
If realignment is over for a cooling off period (which I tend to doubt) at the top level (ACC / B1G / B12 / PAC / SEC) and since I am a basketball guy at heart – who would you add to the Big East aka the Catholic 7 to get them to 12 or 16?
Core 5 = Georgetown, Providence, Saint Johns, Seaton Hall, and Villanova
New 5 = DePaul, Marquette, Butler, Creighton, and Xavier
LikeLike
SLU and …
They don’t want publics, so that takes out VCU and Wichita State.
Richmond or Dayton, mebbe?
Sagarin ranking 2009-2013:
Dayton: 57, 24, 85, 70, 80 ~ avg=50.4, median=70
Richmond: 112, 41, 31, 106, 88 ~ avg=61.52, median=88
LikeLike
@duffman – SLU is effectively a lock for the new Big East. The issue seems to be with choosing #12, which looks like Dayton as a slight front runner but Richmond getting support from Georgetown.
I haven’t seen anything indicating 16 is realistically possible at all – this league wants to keep it fairly tight and, unless it starts reaching out geographically to the likes of Gonzaga or maybe BYU, they’re already having a hard enough time locking down a consensus #12 that would bring value.
FWIW, Seton Hall’s AD stated a couple of days ago that the Big East is headed to 12 and it’s just a matter of which additional 2 it will be. I’ll try finding the link again (I put it up on my Twitter feed when I initially saw it).
LikeLike
As far as non revenue sports, Richmond also insures New Big East LAX against Rutgers having some place else to play Lacrosse in Spring 2015, but that doesn’t seem like it would hold a lot of weight on its own. If Georgetown is supporting Richmond, that helps clear up the mystery why its still up in the air.
LikeLike
I have been to the SLU facilities and they are pretty sweet. Have some UD cousins and felt they would be a shoo in as well because of X and SLU. As a basketball guy I now have B1G, ACC, Big East, A10, and SEC all an easy drive away. Only the Big 12 and PAC are not close and the Big 12 did not seem geared to adding basketball before football with WVU and TCU. Surprised Richmond getting the nod over Dayton as UD is catholic and Richmond has Baptist roots.
LikeLike
I don’t know Richmond is getting the nod over Dayton … Frank understands them to be a slight front runner, I’ve surely heard no word either way.
I personally think that Dayton is a good play, since given the difference in the economies of the cities of Dayton and Columbus the local migration tends to go from southwestern to central Ohio … so having Dayton in the New Big East will attract some few viewers in Columbus as well as Dayton. And of course the troika of Dayton, X and Butler makes for quite a bit of interest in a some good BBall territory.
But Fox might see Georgetown and Richmond as doing something similar in northern and central Virginia, so I surely wouldn’t know which has the inside running from the media market side.
LikeLike
I’m surprised other big metro area Catholic schools – Duquesne, Detroit, Holy Cross don’t come up as possibilities
LikeLike
Stew:
Being a big city Catholic school isn’t the requirement. Being a big city private school with at least decent support and good basketball success is.
Duff:
That’s also why I don’t think the new BE cares whether Dayton or Richmond are Catholic or not (they took Butler, after all). Richmond’s trump cards are being in the east (making it 6 East coast and 6 Midwest schools) and having a big endowment for a school their size (meaning they get financial support from alums).
LikeLike
Sorry for the chage in topic, but does anybody know how to follow the B1G golf championship online?
LikeLike
http://www.golfstatresults.com/public/index.cfm?tournament_id=4240
LikeLike
LSU v. Wisconsin at Lambeau? While I’d prefer a home and home, this is the next best thing. I really hope this happens.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/lambeau-field-could-host-badgers-em9nnns-204943461.html
LikeLike
@Alan – I have a hard time imagining that LSU would be OK with playing what would effectively be a Wisconsin home without something similar in return (e.g. a game at the Superdome).
LikeLike
Frank – being a neutral site game, if LSU could get a ticket allotment of 25,000 and a big guarantee like $4million from the network, I could see Les Miles and the athletic department signing off on this game. In 2008, LSU brought over 20,000 fans to Seattle to play a Washington team that was winless the previous year. We Tiger fans love a road trip and Lambeau should be on every football fan’s bucket list. If the Packers and Badgers get the tickets right and ESPN/ABC get the money right, I can see it happening.
LikeLike
Frank – I may stand corrected. It looks like LSU is posturing for Houston as the site with Wisconson.
LikeLike
I doubt Alvarez will agree to that. He’ll want either a truly neutral site or an advantage for WI.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s Lambeau first and Houston second. Would be awesome. A Lambeau night game in September would be fun. The Packers are finishing an expansion of the stadium that will be done this summer. Will hold about 80k.
LikeLike
Notre Dame to play Arizona State in Cowboys Stadium on October 5, in primetime on NBC.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22145337/irish-to-play-oct-5-at-cowboys-stadium-sample-cfp-site
LikeLike
Cedar Rapids Gazette has this about tomorrow’s B1G division vote:
BTN will air a report about the divisions beginning at 6:30 p.m. The show will include an interview with Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany.
LikeLike
6:30 Central or Eastern?
LikeLike
Pretty sure its Central.
LikeLike
Finally the terrible 2013 draft for the B10 ended.
SEC – 62 (4.43 per team)
P12 – 28 (2.33 per team)
ACC – 30 (2.14 per team)
B12 – 21 (2.10 per team)
B10 – 23 (1.92 per team)
Other – 91
The good news for the B10 is that this draft was anomalous compared to recent history.
Average picks from 2002-2012:
SEC – 40.4 (3.36 per team)
B10 – 34.5 (3.13 per team)
P10 – 30.6 (3.06 per team)
ACC – 31 (2.58 per team)*
B12 – 28.5 (2.37 per team)
*The ACC grew during this period so their number should be higher. 2002-2004 are quite low for them
On the other hand, the B10 has been trending down the past few years. 2012 started to pull them out of it, but 2013 was worse. Hopefully the improved recruiting and maturing of some of the better teams will lead to improved numbers in the future.
B10 by team:
4 – IL
3 – MSU, OSU, PSU, WI
2 – MI, NE
1 – IA, PU
0 – IN, MN, NW
7 – RU
1 – UMD
Meanwhile, 6 SEC teams had 5+ players drafted and only Ole Miss failed to have anyone drafted.
Top schools in the draft this year:
11 – FSU
9 – AL, LSU
8 – UF, UGA
7 – RU, SC
6 – ND, OU
LikeLike
For perspective… the Big 10 had 23 players drafted.
The Big East had 19: Cincinnati (1), UConn (5), Rutgers (7), Syracuse (3), and USF (3). In a draft where nobody was taken from Pitt or Louisville (or Temple), 5 Big East teams almost outdid the Big 10. And if you swap West Virginia for Temple (i.e. if it had taken an extra year to get the Mountaineers moved to the Big XII)… that would be 3 more for the Big East. Pretty amazing really.
Also, no excuses for Florida State. Regardless of the $$$…. they had the most NFL players drafted. And if Rutgers can have 7 players drafted, can any school make an excuse? Rutgers’ revenue was a mere fraction of that of many schools… plus, they have financial woes internally.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70395/the-big-tens-returning-starters-in-2013
And a reminder of one reason why this was such a bad draft year. 10 of 12 B10 teams are in the top half of the country in terms of returning starters (5 in the top 24). It’s hard to get drafted if you’re still in school. That should bode well for the B10 this year.
1. Indiana (19 total returning starters)
Offense: 10 (QB included)
Defense: 9
National rank: T-1st
2. Minnesota (16)
Offense: 10 (QB included)
Defense: 6
National rank: T-17th
T-3. Michigan State (15)
Offense: 8 (QB included)
Defense: 7
National rank: T-24th
T-3. Northwestern (15)
Offense: 8 (QB included)
Defense: 7
National rank: T-24th
T-3. Wisconsin (15)
Offense: 8 (QB included)
Defense: 7
National rank: T-24th
6. Iowa (14)
Offense: 7
Defense: 7
National rank: T-41st
T-7. Nebraska (13)
Offense: 9 (QB included)
Defense: 4
National rank: T-58th
T-7. Ohio State (13)
Offense: 9 (QB included)
Defense: 4
National rank: T-58th
T-7. Penn State (13)
Offense: 8
Defense: 5
National rank: T-58th
T-7. Purdue (13)
Offense: 5
Defense: 8
National rank: T-58th
11. Illinois (12)
Offense: 9 (QB included)
Defense: 3
National rank: T-88th
12. Michigan (12)
Offense: 6 (QB included)
Defense: 6
National rank: T-88th
And MI being last and still having only 2 draftees speaks to what RichRod did to the roster (plus Lewan returning to school).
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130426/college-football-playoff-selection-committee/?sct=uk_t11_a4
A good piece about the difficulties in establishing the CFP committee. They really haven’t ironed out any of the issues that led to compromising on a committee in the first place. All the same battles about 8 vs 9 conference games, CCG vs no CCG, conference champs versus highly “ranked,” etc still to be fought. They haven’t even narrowed down what type of people should be on the committee or how large it should be.
LikeLike
A recommendation I’d make to the NCAA is that if they want to task a committee to pick the four best teams in college football based on the metrics they’re using along with the individual perceptions of the members, I’d go with a body of former NFL coaches.
Any group that includes recent former college coaches or administrators is going to be accused of bias pretty much out of the gate, regardless of the result. It’s no surprise that this entire process is going to come under close (and negative scrutiny).
The one group that can bring unique expertise, yet be at least some arm’s length from college football and its entanglements (coaching trees, old boy network, conference loyalties) would be former pro coaches. They certainly know the game and they probably don’t have any real stake in the outcomes.
Goodness knows they’re out there. We see guys on television like Tony Dungy, Jon Gruden, Bill Cowher and Brian Billick. I imagine there are ones who have retired, have time on their hands, can watch film and come up with an assessment at season’s end of the top four teams in college football with at least the perception that the process is a bit more fair.
Of course, we know the NCAA isn’t going to do this. Instead, we’re going to have the same problems as, say, Olympic ice skating or any other event where results are judged (like gymnastics) by onlookers, rather then actually decided on the field.
If the major conferences are going to stick at five for the interim, it’d just be nice that they go to eight teams, pick the conference champs and have the committee pick the three at large teams and do the seeding. It’s not perfect (I’d also vote for having the quarter- and semi-final games at the home stadium of the higher ranked team, weather and seating capacities be damned), but it’s might be optimal given the current structure of college athletics.
When I was a freshman at Michigan back in 1978 (the first year of Division 1-A), there were six major conferences (ACC, Big 8, Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, Southwest) with 54 teams along with a number of independents that would later join conferences (Penn State, Rutgers, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College) and 15 bowl games.
Since then the number of bowl games has basically doubled (15 back in 1978), the conferences have shrunk and there are two major semi-independents who have all their non-football programs playing in conferences. Conferences that were Division 1-A (Southern, Southland, Missouri Valley, Pacific Coast Athletic) met the same fate as the WAC recently did.
The ACC had seven teams back then–it’s now doubled it size (plus one more with ND). The Big Ten has added four, the Big 8 has added two (net), the SEC has added four and the Pac 10 has added four. The Big East didn’t exist back then. By and large, the major independents have joined conferences and been sorted out and some teams have been promoted into the larger conferences from smaller ones (Utah, Texas Christian).
I suspect we’ll be seeing further consolidation in the future by some way, shape or form. It may be the result of external factors (Ed O’Bannon suit), mismanagement by NCAA or pursuit of more revenue. With that, we might see a more coherent structure that translates into the post-season. Right now, the five major conferences include three with 14 teams, one with 12 and the fifth with 10 programs. If you were organizing 64 teams from scratch, no one would come up with this sort of structure.
College Football 1978: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season
LikeLike
This may be selfish, but I had wished that the Rose Bowl would had been separate from the College Football Playoff. If warm weather schools are too pussy to play in Big Ten country in December, then at least give us our traditional sojurn in Pasadena on New Year’s Day.
LikeLike
They should have just kept the playoff out of the bowl system entirely.
On campus semis would have been best, but if that wasn’t doable then non-bowl neutral sites still would have been better.
LikeLike
frug,
“They should have just kept the playoff out of the bowl system entirely.
On campus semis would have been best, but if that wasn’t doable then non-bowl neutral sites still would have been better.”
I don’t think it was an option. The B10 wouldn’t get on board if the Rose Bowl wasn’t involved. They also were hoping to convince traditionalists to buy in by using the bowls (it didn’t work).
LikeLike
I agree it was unlikely, but for a different reason (specifically the fact that many teams (*cough*Florida*cough*) from other conferences were vehemently opposed). Remember, the Big Ten’s original proposal (which was backed by the PAC) called for on campus semifinals.
LikeLike
It did, but Delany also said all along that the Rose would have to be protected or involved.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl could have been protected by just going back to the old system for everything but the four teams in the playoffs. The Rose Bowl would have either gotten the Big Ten team champ (or highest ranked Big Ten team if the champ was a top 4) every year.
Could have kept the time slot also.
LikeLike
There’s too much media revenues tied in with existing bowl games to break the FMM (Football Media Money) Subdivision championships away from the big money bowls.
And since running the semi-finals through a rotation of six bowls which are all scheduled on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day entrenches the status of those six bowls, there is no prospect on the horizon of that changing.
Hypothetically, an eight game playoff with campus home game quarterfinals, with the winners going on to the semi-final championship bowls and the losers going into a pool with four other picks for the four big bowls out of the semi-final rotation would be the next elaboration of the current system, to address the coming controversies about the selection of the top four, but that requires either pushing the quarterfinals into mid-December or pushing the FBS schedules all back a week, having the CCG’s Thanksgiving weekend and the quarterfinals the following weekend … either being fairly wrenching changes that would face substantial opposition.
LikeLike
There’s too much media revenues tied in with existing bowl games to break the FMM (Football Media Money) Subdivision championships away from the big money bowls.
And since running the semi-finals through a rotation of six bowls which are all scheduled on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day entrenches the status of those six bowls, there is no prospect on the horizon of that changing.
I was talking about before all those arrangements were made.
Stick with a 4 game playoff. Play the semifinals on New Year’s Eve and the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl on New Year’s Day.
No breaking away from the bowls anymore than bidding out the National Championship Game.
LikeLike
frug,
To be clear:
I also preferred the clean slate approach to ruining CFB. I just think too many entrenched powers existed to bypass the major bowls. They all knew that if the playoff was separate then the bowls would die a swift death.
This way they will slowly kill them off and then can move past them in the future when they expand to 8 in 12 years. They’ll say it doesn’t make sense to use bowls for 2 rounds, so the first round will be on campuses or at neutral sites (regional play to ease travel) with the semis in bowls. That will further diminish the bowls as they spends 2/3 of the time without top 8 teams.
Then 8-12 years later when they move to 12-16 teams, they’ll completely drop the bowls except as a subset of the neutral sites available to host games. It’ll look more and more like the NFL every time. Ironically, the only bowl that will survive in the long run is the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
Do you anticipate the B1G and PAC reducing support for the Rose Bowl? I can’t see it going away. In fact, I think the attractiveness of the top bowls is the hope to stave off playoff creep. Perhaps I’m getting old but I would value a Rose Bowl at least as much as a semi appearance. Certainly more than getting an expanded playoff participant ribbon.
LikeLike
Rather than kill the bowls, they are trying to take them over, like the Big 12 and SEC did with the Sugar. The Cotton, Peach and Fiesta have basically been taken over. Rose and Orange have had to accept the conference’s terms.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Do you anticipate the B1G and PAC reducing support for the Rose Bowl?”
They already have, and as Delany retires and someone less attached to that game comes in like Scott out west, it will accelerate. 4 of 14 schools aren’t infatuated with the game already, and neither is the younger generation of fans. It won’t be long before the majority wants to de-emphasize the Rose Bowl.
“I can’t see it going away. In fact, I think the attractiveness of the top bowls is the hope to stave off playoff creep.”
There is no hope. It’s a lost cause. When this deal ends, they’ll expand to 8 teams. The next deal will be shorter so they can expand again to 12 even sooner. With every expansion, the bowls lose their value. More and more fans couldn’t care less about bowls anyway, especially when there’s a playoff.
LikeLike
@frug ~ before those arrangements were made, the same incentives and competing interests were in place that led to them settling on the system they did … changing the BCS system required something that could be sold to those who don’t give a damn about anything but the money.
So it could be argued they “should have” just kept the playoff out of the bowl system entirely, but the money involved in the bowl system was not going to sit still while their media value was undermined. They were always going to push back against having what happened to the NIT in BBall happen to them.
@Brian ~ except the natural push back against progressively losing all the highest profile schools to the playoff is to have the quarterfinal being play-in qualifiers for the semi-final bowls with the losers advancing to one of the other access bowls. That system could well be enough to drain the momentum for any move beyond a three round championship ~ on-campus play-in, bowl semi-finals and NCG. For example, the bribe to the G5 bloc would be a guaranteed best of G5 spot among the eight quarterfinalists.
LikeLike
They are still absolutely protecting the Rose Bowl. It’s the only reason we are having semi-finals on New Years Eve, which makes no sense from a viewership standpoint. The number of casual viewers that are being lost will be a lot.
The semi-finals should be on the fourth Saturday in December, giving it it’s own spotlight day; and then you can still have the normal bowl matchups on January 1st, and then the national championship the next Monday. That would also allow for more buffer time between the semi-finals and championship game.
LikeLike
It’s worth noting that the NCAA will have nothing to do with this (and never will). It’s the 1-A commissioners who are running the show.
LikeLike
The NCAA had to give permission for the 2nd post-season game for the NCG. But its not like they were actually going to deny that permission when the FBS has the threat to take their BBall out of the NCAA’s big money maker in their back pocket.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/04/21763/gene-smith-on-changes-in-the-big-ten-night-games-in-ohio-stadium-and-twitter
An interview with Gene Smith about recent events. Here are some excerpts.
10 game B10 schedule
“Eleven Warriors: (Michigan athletic director) Dave Brandon is in favor of a 10-game conference schedule. I know you two agree on most things. Were you not in favor of the nine-game schedule? It certainly seems like there are more pros to going to 10 games?
Gene Smith: Most of us preferred the 10-game schedule, but it just won’t work because of the seven home game model you need for local funding. We all landed on the nine-game schedule as the best option. We studied the 10-game schedule hard to see if we could figure it out, but it just won’t work.”
Don’t hold your breath on this happening without a move to 13 games. The TV deal would have to explode to allow it.
—
6 home games
“11W: If there are years where you only have six home games, obviously the money has to be made up somewhere.
GS: That’s not going to happen to us during my tenure. We’re going to be able to schedule seven home games. That seventh game a lot of people may not like sometimes, but it’s just too big a (financial) hit. One of the things Dave Brandon and I have talked about is it’s not just (the athletic department), it’s the economic impact in the community. We’re sensitive to that. The gas stations, hotel rooms, restaurants, convenience stores, all of that. It’s huge. We see it as a bigger responsibility than just our individual local budget.”
I like to see him mention the impact on the community. Many businesses in Columbus treat OSU football games like Christmas for most retail stores.
—
Tougher scheduling
“11W: Last year you made a change in scheduling philosophy by aggressively scheduling BCS schools. Will the nine-game conference schedule change that at all?
GS: No, actually that’s what we talked about as ADs – for everyone to try and do that. There are a number of schools that have games against FCS schools, including us. When you move to 2016 and out, if there are schools with FCS agreements and they can’t get out of them, we don’t want them to schedule anymore. So we’ll be playing BCS schools, now what level?
For lack of a better definition, we’ve talked about everyone playing one marquee game. Everyone should do that. Then you try and do some upper-tier BCS teams and go from there. Everyone is trying to upgrade a little bit.
11W: Was this philosophy all related to the playoff?
GS: Yes, and TV partners. When we started, it was playoff driven, but as a result of conversations in the league some of it is TV, too.”
Yet another factor in the next TV negotiation.
—
CFP SOS value
“11W: Do you anticipate the selection process being similar to the basketball tournament where strength of schedule is a big component?
GS: That’s interesting. There are different opinions now. I went into this week thinking, yes, something would weigh your non-conference versus your conference schedule and home versus away games. I’m starting to hear that might not be the case. It’s all speculation right now, so I don’t know. I would think you’d have to have some weight on the non-conference schedule. You could just go with the old Kansas State model. I would hope there would be something there with the non-conference.”
Just like that article I posted last night said, look for the old B10/SEC battle to resume over what should matter.
—
Divisions
“11W: Are you satisfied with the new Big Ten divisional alignment?
GS: The ADs all came to an agreement that that’s the best model. Obviously for us, if you go back 15-20 years and look at a historically analysis of the competitiveness, our division is tougher. But I like it. It’s East-West. It’s easier for our fans and it eliminates one of my biggest concerns of a student-athlete not playing a school during their four-year career. This allows you to solve that problem. The only protected crossover will be Purdue and Indiana. I think this is the best way to go. Putting Ohio State and Michigan in the same division helps the conference office from a scheduling point of view. It’s a tougher division, but it’s better for the conference.
Wrestling is meeting in April to decide whether they want to go divisions or not. Basketball is the same way. We’ll meet about that. You can make an argument to go to divisions like the Big 12 did, or just stay at 18 conference games. Right now, there is no sport other than football going to divisions. But it will be talked about.”
Other sports are considering divisions? That seems unnecessary at 14.
—
LAX
“11W: Is there still a discussion to have a Big Ten Lacrosse Conference?
GS: There is a discussion. There’s talk about bringing in an affiliate member. The bylaw says you have to have six. Because of the nature of that sport and its growth and Maryland’s success, we’ve discussed identifying an affiliate member and possibly creating a Big Ten Lacrosse Conference.”
JHU or someone else?
—
Money
“11W: Was money the driving force behind expansion?
GS: No question. If anyone tells you expansion was about anything else, they’re being disingenuous. The reality is expansion was about a couple things, but at the top of that pyramid is finances. Second is stability and trying to find a place where you philosophically agree with your membership.
Texas A&M didn’t have to leave the Big 12 for money. They left the Big 12 because they wanted stability and philosophy alignment because they struggled with the philosophy of the other members of the Big 12. That’s the same reason why Nebraska left.
Those are the big issues when you look at the top of the pyramid. Our industry is challenged financially. We have to constantly find ways to strengthen revenue streams, and expansion was one of them.”
So Delany and his demographics were full of crap?
—
Night Games
“11W: Earlier this year, Urban Meyer mentioned wanting to play more night games. Do you think that will be a reality?
GS: Yes, if you remember I mentioned that a couple years ago. I was very pleased that we progressed as an institution where we could do night games. If you remember back to the Texas game (in 2005), there was a lot of trepidation and concern. But we’ve progressed where I’m very comfortable that we can manage night games.
My concern now is we’re always playing two on the road and one at home, which means our guys get home at 3 in the morning twice a year. That’s not just a competitive disadvantage but also a student-athlete welfare issue. So we need to have two at home and one on the road as opposed to suffering the other side of that.
That was my impetus, Urban’s was recruiting. I agree with that. Our effort is to have a couple night games at home and one on the road, unless we change our television contract. We might look at November night games. But right now I’m very comfortable with having two at home and one on the road.”
So not really more night games, but more at home and fewer on the road. It’s nice to see him at least pay lip service to the toll it takes on the players.
LikeLike
The demographic argument is ultimately about money. And if you listen to what the Nebraska and A&M presidents said, Nebraska was about money and stability. A&M was about money and differentiation.
LikeLike
Demographics are about students and long term potential revenue. I think Smith was indicating they were looking at the money now. That also fits with adding NE (zero help with the “big problem” of demographics).
LikeLike
Nebraska leaving was about making more money and culture change. Big 12 teams were making 6 million a year in media revenue when Nebraska decided to leave. They stood to make 3x that in the Big 10. They also saw it as an opportunity to change culture and momentum of their football program. When the Big 12 was formed, Nebraska was very clearly the best program in the country. They weren’t anymore.
A&M left over stability of the Big 12 as a result of Nebraska leaving and an opportunity to compete with Texas from a brand and exposure standpoint. The Longhorn Network was still an unknown at the time with a lot of potential and A&M wanted to counter that.
LikeLike
I agree with bullet on that issue.
Yes, at its core, everything can be reduced to money.
But the demographics issues were about long-term supply of students and the like (and all of those issues do come down to money as well at the end of the day). Shrinking schools are bad for business (I’m talking about 30-40 years from now), so you want to get onto the East Coast more and get more of that region to identify with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The COP/C has no better idea than you and me what the demographics will look like in 40 years. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. For all we know, the Rust Belt will be a boom area in the 50’s. And I think it’ll be much harder than you make it sound to covert a region focused on private schools to identify with the B10. They’ll always be safety schools in the farm belt to them.
LikeLike
Demographics have a lot of inertia ten and twenty years into the future. They don’t have nearly the same inertia thirty to fifty years into the future. We could imagine a thousand different possible shocks that turn current trends, none of them likely on their own, but all of them in sum more likely than “things just keep on going as they have been going” ~ which has rarely been the case for a fifty year stretch in the country’s history.
LikeLike
Here’s a piece that basically says all these planners are fos. Its favorable for Big 10 country in that it says economics drives it all. High cost, high density cities like NY, LA and Chicago are growing slower than average. Metro areas like Houston, DFW, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, and, wait for it….Detroit are growing faster than average. Low cost of living is driving a lot of growth.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/08/houston-rising-why-the-next-great-american-cities-aren-t-what-you-think.html
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that the add of Nebraska did indeed make the demographics issue more critical.
“Why did the Big Ten do what they did?”, and “What are the advantages and disadvantages of what the Big Ten did?” are two distinct questions. I’d be inclined to believe that the Big Ten added Nebraska because when they asked people in media, people in media said it was a brand name that was worth money. I’d be inclined to believe that the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland because when they asked people in media, people in media said that was foorprint that was worth money.
In that case, the improved demographics and improved recruiting grounds offered by the Rutgers and Maryland add are fortuitous rather than the reason that the Big Ten added them. But it doesn’t eliminate them as benefits of the add.
LikeLike
I listened to Dr. Loftin. It was about exposure on a more national level.
LikeLike
i.e. differentiation from Texas Tech, Houston, Texas State…
LikeLike
I think the community aspect has frequently been overlooked in the discussion of 8, 9, and 10-game slates. While I personally prefer 10 games, as it increases the regular games against conference foes, the economic impact on the college towns is certainly important, and it’s nice to see presidents/ADs taking more than their own school’s finances into account.
LikeLike
I really found that interview very revealing and interesting. It looks more and more likely that Johns Hopkins will be coming aboard as an “affiliate” so that a Big 10 Lacrosse Conference can be created. I also think that the odds are increasing that one day you will see a 10 Game Conference schedule . There are three possibilities for it. 1: A television contract that is so lucrative that it makes sense (even if you lose a home game). As an example of this, I think of a team like the Houston Astros that are basically pathetic on the field, and at the gate, but they are making so much TV money, they are in good shape. 2: College Football (major Conferences of course), basically leave the NCAA behind. 3: Both. From the Penn State perspective we want to have a schedule where we play 6 games against the East (Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State & Rutgers), 3 games against the West, 1 annual game against either Nebraska or Wisconsin, and 3 Non-Conference games (Pitt and 2 others). If we can get that, we can payoff the Sandusky debts we owe to the University, upgrade the Swimming and Tennis facilities that were put on hold, and perhaps even improve the men’s basketball program. I really hope we get the future 10 game schedule (gut feeling because of the economics involved it will happen).
LikeLike
David Brown,
“It looks more and more likely that Johns Hopkins will be coming aboard as an “affiliate” so that a Big 10 Lacrosse Conference can be created.”
I’ll believe that when I hear something from JHU.
“I also think that the odds are increasing that one day you will see a 10 Game Conference schedule .”
I don’t think they’ve changed. Until a 13th game is added, it isn’t happening. With the new TV deal starting in 2017, the B10 is going to get a sizable jump in money. Expecting a 10th game to provide another big bump is unrealistic.
1. A 10th game reduces total inventory. Of course, not all OOC games are in the B10’s control. Call it 75% as a ballpark guess.
8 x 12: 48 OOC * 0.75 + 48 B10 = 84
8 x 14: 56 * 0.75 + 56 = 98
9 x 14: 42 * 0.75 + 63 = 94.5
10 x 14: 28 * 0.75 + 70 = 91
2. A home game will be worth $7M+ for the big boys by the time a 10th game could happen. The TV deal won’t jump by enough to compensate for that even if you go to an unequal payout with that increase.
3. The ADs are aware of the value of a home game to their local communities. No TV deal makes up for that.
To me, the odds that the top schools leave the NCAA haven’t changed recently. Another division split is more likely, but I highly doubt that would lead to a 13th game. Frankly, I don’t think leaving the NCAA would either. The presidents don’t want to stretch the season.
LikeLike
There is little doubt that a 10th Game would bring in extra money to the Conference from TV, provided of course, it is a game that would generate considerable interest to whoever gets it (ESPN or Fox). Again look at what pathetic teams like the Astros are getting in TV $$$$, why can’t the Big 10 get an extra $5m per season for that game. There is little doubt that Ohio State versus Illinois would work, so would Penn State versus either Nebraska or Wisconsin (the other gets Michigan). Northwestern/Michigan State would make for a compelling game as well, even Iowa/Purdue. I admit not all games are great (anything involving Indiana is certainly not, but the Big 10 Network can handle those games), but if there could be one week where you get nothing but crossover games, it just might work (perhaps week one when National schedules are not so hot). That plus being creative with the scheduling (I really like Penn State on the road after Thanksgiving on a Friday Night to end the season alternating between Redskins Park (Maryland) and The Meadowlands (Rutgers)), could really lead to a financial windfall for the Conference.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“There is little doubt that a 10th Game would bring in extra money to the Conference from TV, provided of course, it is a game that would generate considerable interest to whoever gets it (ESPN or Fox).”
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but it would have to be enough to justify the losses that come with it. As for the extra game, how much is it really worth? Less inventory carries a penalty, but fewer MAC games would help. So you’re really adding 7 average B10 games (i.e. ESPN @ noon or BTN type games) in exchange for 14 OOC games. Unfortunately, everyone needs 7 home games (so says the PU AD). That means the OOC games being lost may be some of the better ones. In other words, you lose 14 games that are as good or better than the 7 conference games you add.
“Again look at what pathetic teams like the Astros are getting in TV $$$$, why can’t the Big 10 get an extra $5m per season for that game.”
CFB isn’t MLB. CFB doesn’t play 162 games per year. $5M spread over 14 teams is $357k per team. OSU would lose several million per year that way. If you meant $5M per team, why would any network pay another $70M for that?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75668/east-west-divisions-9-game-slate-approved
It’s officially official.
The Big Ten presidents and chancellors on Sunday approved the new East-West division alignment in football for the 2014 season, as well as a nine-game conference schedule beginning in 2016.
Legends and Leaders are gone, as the league made geography it’s top priority in aligning the new divisions. Here’s how they’ll look when new Big Ten members Maryland and Rutgers join the conference …
Big Ten East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Big Ten West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
The Purdue-Indiana game will be the only annual protected crossover in the new alignment.
But wait, it gets worse:
“In the first 18 years, you’re going to see a lot of competition between teams at the top of either division,” Delany said. “We call that a bit of parity-based scheduling, so you’ll see Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa playing a lot of competition against Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. But it will rotate. Early on, we feel this gives the fans what they want.”
So not only are the divisions not balanced, they are going to make the eastern kings also play the top western teams a lot to start. Yeah, that seems fair.
PSU – OSU, MI, MSU, IN, RU, UMD, NE, WI, IA
NW – NE, WI, IA, MN, PU, IL, MSU, IN, RU
Differences:
PSU – OSU, MI, UMD
NW – MN, PU, IL
Good luck, BOB.
LikeLike
Gotta get those TV ratings as high as possible in the lead up to the new TV contract…
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Networks aren’t stupid. They know the rotation just as well as the conference does. They aren’t fooled by scheduling. Besides, how will it look to the networks when the B10 shuts themselves out of the CFP by everyone losing 2+ games? That should really help ratings, right?
LikeLike
See below. They are talking an unequal rotation for the first 18 years. Say bye-bye to the LBJ and Illibuck as they’ll drop to 1/4.
LikeLike
Well if the TV contract is for 12 years (which is what the PAC, Big XII and original ACC were) then an unequal rotation for 18 years would last the entirety of the contract.
LikeLike
So you’re saying you meant not the upcoming deal but the one after that (2029 or so)?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9220734/big-ten-schools-ok-realignment-9-game-schedule
More details from Delany:
Delany also said there have been no discussions about divisions in other sports but that basketball scheduling is next on their agenda.
The Big Ten will have a 31 percent increase in league games (from 48 to 63) despite adding just two new members.
While the TV deal doesn’t just scale by inventory, that in itself will lead to a sizable jump in the TV deal and the BTN value.
—
The Big Ten will join the Pac-12 and Big 12 with a nine-game league schedule for 2016. The East division teams will have five conference home games in even-numbered years, and West division teams will have five conference home games in odd-numbered years. Big Ten team will play all of the other conference squads at least once every four years.
Well, that’s 1 commonsense decision.
—
The league’s athletic directors and presidents also approved a scheduling model that includes at least one team from a major FBS conference per year and no FCS teams. Delany hopes the model will be in place league-wide by 2016.
I guess IA’s AD and coach got overruled by their president. I think this is the way to go. Look for the B10 to really push for OOC SOS to be important for the CFP.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75684/jim-delany-talks-divisions-league-schedules
And more from Delany:
On crossover schedules and rotations …
Delany: The strong majority view was that we not have assigned crossovers, so we could play each other as much as we could over a long period of time. Obviously, Indiana and Purdue have the Bucket game, it’s historic and we wanted to preserve that. It made Purdue comfortable going West, Indiana comfortable going East and it preserved that tradition. An awful lot of our rivalries could be taken care of through divisional play. If you look at the schedules, what you’ll see is over time, the crossovers rotate. In the first 18 years, you’re going to see a lot of competition between teams at the top of either division. We call that a bit of parity-based scheduling. You’ll see Wisconsin and Nebraska and Iowa playing a lot of competition against Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. But it will eventually rotate.
Emphasis mine.
It sounds like it won’t be an equal rotation of crossover opponents. That’s not cool, especially with unbalanced divisions but also because it means even fewer LBJ and Illibuck games. They do promise 1 game every 4 years (4/9 would be equal).
LikeLike
I wonder if that means we’ll see an initial rotation with some combination of Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State playing Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa one or two times per season.
For example, in Michigan’s case, the Wolverines would play Nebraska in Years 1 (2016) and 2 (2017), then rotate to Wisconsin/Iowa in Years 3 (2018) and 4 (2019). That would leave the four other western teams (Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern) in the six scheduling slots over that four year period. Perhaps something like this:
2016 (5 Home Conference Games for East Division) – at Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois
2017 – Nebraska, at Minnesota, at Illinois
2018 – at Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern
2019 – Wisconsin, at Iowa, at Purdue
That way, Michigan will have played each West Division teams at least once (Northwestern and Purdue) during the four year time period. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. We’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I wonder if that means we’ll see an initial rotation with some combination of Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State playing Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa one or two times per season.”
I’d expect something like NE and WI 3/4 of the time, PU, IA and NW 1/3 of the time and MN and IL 1/4 of the time.
NE, WI, PU
NE, WI, PU
NE, MN, IA
IL, WI, IA
NE, WI, NW
NE, WI, NW
NE, MN, PU
IL, WI, PU
NE, WI, IA
NE, WI, IA
NE, MN, NW
IL, WI, NW
“That way, Michigan will have played each West Division teams at least once (Northwestern and Purdue) during the four year time period. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. We’ll see what happens.”
He said for the first 18 years, FWIW.
LikeLike
To be clear, those are worst case numbers but they make the math easy.
2/3 – NE, WI
1/3 – the rest
would also work, but he made a point of mentioning playing at least once every 4 years.
LikeLike
Another possibility would be:
2016: Nebraska, @ Minnesota, @Illinois
2017: @Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern
2018: Wisconsin, @Iowa, @Purdue
2019: @Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois
In this period, the student-athlete misses an away game to Northwestern. If he red-shirts the first year, then he has an away game at all other schools.
Whatever.
LikeLike
My mistake:
2016: Nebraska, @ Minnesota, Illinois
2017: @Nebraska, Minnesota, @Northwestern
2018: Wisconsin, @Iowa, Purdue
2019: @Wisconsin, Iowa, @Illinois
LikeLike
And not possible for a red-shirt to have an away game at all other schools, unless he red-shirts in an odd season (for an East Division school).
But he still plays all schools in a 4-year period.
LikeLike
Or the principle (for an 18-year period) could be:
2 schools 9 times + 3 schools 8 times + 2 schools 6 times = 54 games
Anyway, whatever the Chicago guys decide will be OK with me.
LikeLike
The analysis of this site is very detailed and thus highly appreciated:
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/4/28/4277790/big-ten-schedule-analysis
Here is another possible scheme (maybe using the same principles as the site above).
In this example for the Wolverines, Michigan and Michigan State play the first 2 schools as home and away series as mirror opposites, but not the last school. Thus, in Year 2016, Nebraska plays away at Michigan but home at Michigan State, but Purdue plays away at both Michigan and Michigan State.
I have not checked the calendar space of the other schools, so maybe this scheme does not work. But every school plays 6 cross-over schools 8 times in 18 years while the locked cross-over 6 times for a total of 6×8+1×6 = 54 games.
Michigan, Michigan State: Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois; Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana
Ohio State, Rutgers: Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota: Nebraska, Northwestern, Indiana
Penn State, Maryland: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern; Iowa, Illinois, Indiana
2016: Nebraska, @Northwestern, Purdue
2017: @Nebraska, Northwestern, @Minnesota
2018: Iowa, @Illinois, Wisconsin
2019: @Iowa, Illinois, @Purdue
2020: Nebraska, @Northwestern, Minnesota
2021: @Nebraska, Northwestern, @Wisconsin
2022: Iowa, @Illinois, Purdue
2023: @Iowa, Illinois, @Northwestern
2024: Wisconsin, @Minnesota, Nebraska
2025: @Wisconsin, Minnesota, @Purdue
2026: Iowa, @Illinois, Northwestern
2027: @Iowa, Illinois, @Nebraska
2028: Wisconsin, @Minnesota, Purdue
2029: @Wisconsin, Minnesota, @Illinois
2030: Nebraska, @Northwestern, Iowa
2031: @Nebraska, Northwestern, @Purdue
2032: Wisconsin, @Minnesota, Illinois
2033: @Wisconsin, Minnesota, @Iowa
LikeLike
The above scheme does not exactly satisfy the criteria of playing every school during every 4-year period. In the above example, Purdue would play both Michigan and Michigan State in Year 2016 (and Indiana would play both Minnesota and Wisconsin), but then Purdue would play Ohio State and Rutgers in Year 2017. For this example, Michigan State would play Wisconsin in Year 2017 and Minnesota in Year 2018.
Instead, if Purdue had been scheduled in Year 2017, then the team scheduled for Year 2016 will have a 4-year gap from for the period Year 2026-29.
There may be other criteria not satisfied. Whatever abides …
LikeLike
That’s true. Basically, I’d posted it before the B1G came out w/ their scheduling principles of “play all opponents every 4 years” and “unbalanced scheduling.” I may do a followup post taking those into account; the resultant schedules are likely to look VERY different than these samples.
LikeLike
One unbalanced rotation that works for an unlocked school is (“Team7” is the locked school, Purdue or Indiana):
Cross-division one: @Team1, Team1, @Team2, Team2, @Team1, Team1 …
Cross-division two: Team3, @Team4, Team5, @Team3, Team4, @Team5 …
Cross-division three: Team7, @Team6, Team6, @Team7, Team6, @Team6 …
Slice it any three year period, Team1 through Team7 is in it.
If you were going to rejigger it to match strength of school, you can do it between years four and five. The available reshuffles are constrained if you abide by the four year rule, but there are reshuffles available, and so you could just take the one that best matches strength of schools.
LikeLike
If I had to guess, the fact that Delany & other B10 people mentioned 18 years makes me think that there will be 3 6-year cycles set, where each school plays a locked cross-over rival every year of the 6 year cycle & the other 6 schools cycle through (so twice over 6 years). Except for PU & IU, the locked cross-over rival will change every cycle.
So who gets who over the next 18 years?
I think UNL will be the lucky ducky who gets Michigan, OSU, and PSU as locks.
I think they will try to make the LBJ and Illibuck special because of tradition, so Minny-Michigan & Illinois-OSU will be locked once.
Wisconsin & Iowa will both get PSU and lock with OSU & Michigan once each.
That leaves Wisconsin & Iowa with 1 lock left each, Illinois & Minny with 2 locks each, & Northwestern with 3 locks to fill. They will be filled with MSU, RU, and UMD.
Northwestern will have to get all 3 of those schools.
MSU may fill out with both Wisconsin & Iowa.
That would mean Illinois & Minny both get RU and UMD along with their rivalry game as locks.
Over 18 years, every school (besides PU & IU) will play their locked schools 10/18 times and their unlocked schools 6/18 times.
LikeLike
@Richard: It seems you nailed the scheduling scheme. But it could easily happen that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State all cycle through Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa instead. That does not bode well for the LBJ.
LikeLike
Thanks.
I doubt that they would match top 3 with top 3 when the 9 game schedule comes since the gap in the west just isn’t that big, so Iowa would be very disadvantaged vis-a-vis Northwestern.
Their may match tiers in 2013/2014, however:
UNL+Wisconsin vs. OSU + Michigan
Iowa+Northwestern vs. MSU+PSU
Illinois/Minny/PU vs. RU/UMD/IU
LikeLike
I believe that a tough schedule is more than fair. If you look at say the University of Florida, they play a tough SEC East schedule (Georgia, South Carolina, and although down, usually Tennessee is good), plus Florida State and LSU. I would rather see the Wisconsin’s and a tough Non-Conference game (I have heard maybe Miami (Fl), than Minnesota and Temple. Helps with recruiting and fan interest,
LikeLike
Florida is a lousy example. They haven’t played ooc out of Florida in a very long time. They typically schedule the weakest possible opponents in games 11 and 12. They generally play a bad FCS school and a bad FBS school. AAD at Florida moved to Georgia and took their scheduling philosophy so UGA started dropping schools like Oklahoma St. and Arizona St. and replacing them with Coastal Carolina and Idaho St.
Schools at that level have no business playing an FCS school. Its one thing if Vanderbilt does it. Florida and Georgia have no business doing so. UGA is starting to pay with empty seats, so they are re-thinking that.
LikeLike
Only other excuse is if someone drops a scheduled game with no chance at getting an adequate replacement. If the choice is FCS or hold an in season Saturday scrimmage, I don’t have a problem.
LikeLike
Yes, but that’s pretty rare. Usually its just greed. They don’t want to pay $1 million for a Kent St. when they can pay 500k for a Coastal Carolina.
LikeLike
I put together some sample B1G schedule rotations:
http://compu-picks.com/General_Interest/B1G_Schedule.html
Not sure what specific kind of structure the B1G will actually go with, but these are a couple ways they could put it together if they were so inclined
LikeLike
ND-Purdue Series in jeopardy
http://www.jconline.com/article/20130428/SPORTS020101/304280027/Purdue-football-Boilermakers-Notre-Dame-series?nclick_check=1
Given the choice of keeping the Irish on future schedules or playing seven home games to balance the budget, it’s an easy decision.
“I cannot balance the budget on six home games. Can’t do it. It doesn’t work,” Burke said. “That’s the cold-hearted realities of the business we run. Our business model is built on seven home games. Everybody’s. Notre Dame’s too.”
…
“I don’t think either one of us is eager to lose the rivalry,” Burke said. “He has issues. I have issues. We’ll see if we can work them out. If we can, I know we will. I know there’s an interest on his part and my part to see if we can make it work.
“If it turns out we have to have a short break, we’ll have a short break in order to get on the right rotation. I don’t think we’re in a situation where Notre Dame and Purdue will never play. The issue is whether we can come up with a rotation that works for both sides.”
LikeLike
Note the West gets the odd-game advantage in odd-numbered years — when Notre Dame plays at Purdue (and Iowa visits Iowa State). I could see Purdue dropping the game for one season to make the rotation more beneficial.
LikeLike
Unfortunate, but what can you do? The schedule did work for IA, so just swapping between the east and west wouldn’t fix it. It seems like ND should be okay with swapping years with PU in the future. PU isn’t make or break to their schedule in terms of selling season tickets in any particular year.
LikeLike
Should end both of the other two series with ND (Michigan State/Purdue). Just make them one offs every now and then. That’s what ND needs as well given that they’re going to be locked into 5 ACC games.
LikeLike
Should end both of the other two series with ND (Michigan State/Purdue). Just make them one offs every now and then. That’s what ND needs as well given that they’re going to be locked into 5 ACC games.
The ND series is enormously beneficial to Purdue. It’s the only game they play that is absolutely, positively, always carried on a national network. And Notre Dame is the only national brand name football program outside the Big Ten that will travel regularly to West Lafayette. It also is a low-cost game, with no travel costs.
Without a doubt, the annual game with ND is part of what Purdue sells to recruits. And frankly, if you’re Purdue, what else, exactly, do you have to sell, that other schools who are better at football do not have?
It is overwhelmingly likely that if Purdue dropped the ND series, a far lesser game would replace it, most of the time. They won’t regularly find comparable opponents willing to schedule a home & home. Sure, maybe they’ll luck into a good matchup sometimes. But mostly, they’ll get opponents WAAAAAY down the totem pole, compared to ND.
The series benefits ND too, as it’s a BCS-level opponent that they practically always beat (a situation not true of Michigan or Michigan State). Even ND needs some auto-wins on their schedule. Yeah, ND is locked into five ACC games starting in 2014, but that still leaves seven openings, only three of which (besides Purdue) are annual (Navy, USC, Stanford).
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure ND’s schedule / business model hasn’t been predicated on seven home games since Dr. White left as AD.
LikeLike
Yeah, looking at ND’s schedule in the 12 game season era they seem to play 7 home games only about 2/3 of the time.
LikeLike
Some ND fans (including our favorite curmudgeon, TerryD) are already thrilled with no longer playing Purdue on a regular basis. Well, one positive about the nine-game schedule, along with the directive of no longer scheduling FCS teams, is telling programs like Purdue, Maryland and Rutgers to not only work harder to improve their football product but integrate better into the B1G culture. Purdue, by keeping their long association with ND, indirectly made scheduling elsewhere in the B1G more complicated. For the purpose of conference cohesion, this had to happen.
The only thing is it shouldn’t have to take ND canceling the Michigan series to drive that point home.
LikeLike
The Notre Dame Michigan series is much newer than ND/PU and ND/MSU. They really only started playing regularly in the 70s when ND dropped playing Pitt and NW every year.
LikeLike
The older wine isn’t always the sweetest.
LikeLike
I recently viewed the excellent “Rites of Autumn”. Overall the program is balanced and enjoyable. However I felt a suble “anti-Michigan” sentiment relative to Notre Dame. Although the openings include a newsreel of Tom Harmon, after that there is not one word of this Michigan legend. Yet there is a feature on Paul Hornung. Anyway this same program is “cursed” by a Jerry Sandusky interview near the end. (God works in strange ways.)
LikeLike
Michigan taught Notre Dame to play football 125 years ago. The two schools played regularly from 1887 up to 1910, when there was a, shall we say, series of mutual disagreements and recriminations which ended their relationship.
UM and ND played twice during World War II (1942, 1943), but didn’t renew the series again until 1978. Since 1978, the game has been a pretty regular fixture, with a couple of breaks in it so that Notre Dame could play some other major schools (both in the current Big Ten–Ohio State in 1995/6 and Nebraska in 2000/1).
John Kryk wrote a book called, “Natural Enemies: Major College Football’s Oldest, Fiercest Rivalry — Michigan vs. Notre Dame” in 1994 that has been updated since then. He outlines all the controversies, finger-pointing, accusations, etc. that took place between the two schools over all these decades.
For a story on the 1902 game in Toledo, see https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/12/30/Notre-Dame-made-its-mark-in-game-on-downtown-field-that-ended-in-23-0-loss-to-mighty-Michigan.html
As far as Notre Dame is concerned, they’re a semi-independent in football with eight opponents (5 ACC, USC, Stanford, Navy) pretty much set on an annual basis for the near term. The current contract with Purdue runs through 2021 and the one with Michigan State ends in 2032 (MSU plays ND four games straight, then takes two year break, then four more games, etc.) means the ninth and tenth opponents are pretty much set 2/3 of the time. That leaves ND the task of finding two to three teams each year to round out their schedule for the next eight years or so (when the Purdue agreement runs out).
Of course, if ND can’t work with Purdue and Michigan State to change up the schedules, then that’ll give them a bit more latitude in that they’ll have four games a year to schedule each season. I suspect Notre Dame will hold onto the MSU game, but I can see them saying adios to Purdue sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
I’ve read the forums at Rocks House (on the ND Nation website) for quite a while. The one team they truly hate is Michigan. They herald the USC, Navy rivalries (which they love and respect for historical reasons), but they practically hold a Schadenfreude Festival whenever Michigan loses a game, recruit etc. The Ghost of Yost (and his anti-Catholic ways) haunts them still. It’s a great rivalry, but I don’t think it’s a fun rivalry (live MSU). I’m glad to see it become semi-annual.
LikeLike
Heck, it’s not even semi-annual. There are two more games left (2013, 2014) and that wraps up the Michigan-Notre Dame football series for the near term.
With the Big Ten going to a nine-game conference schedule with alternating years of four and five home games, the prospect of Michigan and Notre Dame playing one another again is probably on hold for awhile. Both programs will have even fewer open scheduling slots than they did just a little while ago, and of course, UM and ND would have to mesh their home-and-homes such that the Wolverines get that seven game per year annual set up (unless there’s some super-lucrative neutral site out there).
I was a freshman at Michigan when the series renewed in 1978. There have been a lot of great, epic games mixed in with a few stinkers as well (Michigan beat Notre Dame 38-0 twice the previous decade). When the BCS came on line and the non-conference scheduling became “lighter”, Michigan was kind of stuck with ND ad infinitum because it didn’t make tactical sense to “schedule up” given the way the post-season was set up.
Now that the playoff has gone to four games and there seems to be a premium consideration for schedule, I expect Michigan to play at least one major non-conference game per year once things get sorted out. Arkansas is currently scheduled for 2018/9, but the game sites don’t synch up with the four/five home game B1G schedule rotation (UM and Ark will have to flip flop home dates to get it right).
I hope Michigan diversifies its non-conference opponents enough so that there’s enough regional representation to balance out the east coast presence (Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State). UM has games with Oregon State, Brigham Young, Colorado, UNLV, Hawaii and Utah coming up through 2016, although all but one of them is in Ann Arbor. I don’t expect to see that change. If an SEC team like LSU (Michigan and LSU have never played one another in football) were to be part of a home-and-home or one of the two major Big XII powers (Texas, Oklahoma) did the same thing, then that’d be great. It’s all up to David Brandon, and to some extent, the Big Ten at this point.
As far as the ND hatred for Michigan goes, it comes down to rekindling old grievances and long ago events and putting it into a modern day context. The two schools are very different and to many extents, remain the natural enemies that Kryk described (despite the veneer of civility by the two programs administrations). When the decision was made to renew the series back in 1969, Michigan did it in large part to sell tickets after a very blah two decades since the late 40s. As it turns out, UM didn’t need ND because the Wolverines also hired Bo Schembechler and he resurrected the program. The same goes for ND–much of their success came when they weren’t on UM’s schedule and while the recent version of the series seems a “natural”, it certainly hasn’t been an annual fixture.
LikeLike
While I will be the first to admit the PU/ND series means far more the Boilers than to the Irish, I will be extremely disappointed if ND chooses to end the series. For a school that take pride in it’s independence and it’s history so overtly, I would think Purdue would get more credit from ND than they do for sticking with the series throughout the Yost years. Purdue went against the unwritten rule about ND and we should get some of the credit opposite the blame they like to heap on UM. Purdue is ND’s second longest series. It would be a shame for it to go away.
LikeLike
Boiler Tex,
I couldn’t agree more. Purdue seems to be the low man on the ND Totem of loyalty. Has to be because they are in the Big Ten, which is anathema to Irish fans. Sorta sad actually.
LikeLike
Purdue is “low man on the ND Totem of loyalty” because despite playing 84 games, few have been of note (a few in the 60s, IIRC). Purdue did not follow the UM/Chicago boycott, but I don’t think they were the first to schedule us, either. USC is a national glamour game, and Navy literally saved the school. That’s hard to compete against.
Since only around 1 in 6 (or less, it’s been a while since I looked) ND students are native Hoosiers, they don’t really have a reason to care about Purdue. Since Purdue has been no higher than second tier in the B1G since their ill-fated dalliance with the wishbone in the 70s, of course non-local fans don’t care. I enjoyed the game because I could get food from tailgates of both teams, but that was about it.
It probably wouldn’t bother me if we never played Purdue again. It’ll give me one more day a year I can speak to my father the Purdue alum.
LikeLike
Transic: ” is telling programs like Purdue, Maryland and Rutgers to not only work harder to improve their football product but integrate better into the B1G culture. Purdue, by keeping their long association with ND, indirectly made scheduling elsewhere in the B1G more complicated. For the purpose of conference cohesion, this had to happen.”
Say what? WTF do you mean ‘integrate better into B1G culture’? They play a national opponent, and FCS opponent, and a couple of MACrifice games OOC like most B1G schools. Or are you talking about them being a basketball school like Indiana and Illinois? Well, I don’t think that’s going to change. And how is their standard September OOC game against the Irish hurting any other B1G school? Serious question. Also, Purdue was a consistent Bowl team (with a trip to Pasadena) during the Tiller era, so lumping them in with Maryland and Rutgers seems a bit much.
Seriously, WTF are you talking about?
LikeLike
Also, Purdue was a consistent Bowl team (with a trip to Pasadena) during the Tiller era, so lumping them in with Maryland and Rutgers seems a bit much.
You could argue that Maryland in the Friedgen era was comparable to Purdue under Tiller — one major bowl game (Orange) and several lower-tier bowls…one of them a victory over Purdue.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
What I was trying to say is that ND playing 3 B1G teams a year helped to fuel the illusion on the part of many B1G fans that they could be …somehow… persuaded into a full membership, which we all know was NEVER going to happen. This was the biggest argument of the regionalists, who thought that it would have made going outside their comfort zone unnecessary. Not to mention it gave the B1G administrators the excuse to slowplay expansion to areas where they could have more efficiently helped address their long-term recruiting issues to better compete against the SEC/Big12/Pac12 teams. In the meantime, it has divided the B1G fanbase (many of whom were already clamoring about moving on to other schools who wanted to be in the conference; however, their voices were constantly being silenced by the regionalists). By the time the ND/ACC deal was made, the B1G was forced to react, which is how the door was opened to Rutgers/Maryland (it also helped that Md. began reaching out to them around that time). But it was already too late as the B12 and ACC (and I suspect the SEC will follow) solidified through their respective Grant of Rights.
Going to new divisions and alignments is a good start. Now the B1G has to get more creative in attracting better recruits without compromising their standards. More prominent OOC games is one way, but it has to be a much wider mix of teams, not just one major opponent for certain teams, the same who is never going to give one thought to the rest of the B1G teams, including the newbies. This is where not dropping ND like a bad date on the part of Purdue, Michigan State and Michigan (until ND cancelled them) really hurt the B1G. I think the B1G should be looking into centralizing the scheduling process so that the likes of Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers, etc. can play quality opponents OOC at home. Being allowed to schedule OOC independently has forced Purdue to depend on ND as an annual opponent because good programs outside the B1G view Purdue football as not worth their time. Complicating the issue further is that certain programs in the B1G have a habit of padding their schedules to make themselves look better than they actually are. Right now, it’s the big dogs and everyone else. Then again, hierarchies have always existed in other conferences. But it’s the big dogs that teams in other conferences want to play. The B1G should have been smart to realize the leverage they had to open the door for “the others” to have a shot at playing those other teams. I’m afraid because of the SOS criterion for the playoffs that that idea would not fly.
They play a national opponent, and FCS opponent, and a couple of MACrifice games OOC like most B1G schools.
Just like what I wrote about in my last paragraph. At least now the whole conference, not just the big dogs, can start fixing some of their scheduling problems.
LikeLike
Transic,
“Going to new divisions and alignments is a good start.”
Not really.
“Now the B1G has to get more creative in attracting better recruits without compromising their standards.”
OSU, MI, MSU, MN, NW and IN were already doing this. So was PSU within the constraints of their sanctions. It has nothing to do with expansion/realignment.
“More prominent OOC games is one way,”
It’s not who you play, it’s who you beat. Prominent losses don’t help at all (see AL/MI).
“This is where not dropping ND like a bad date on the part of Purdue, Michigan State and Michigan (until ND cancelled them) really hurt the B1G.”
Those schools don’t owe the B10 anything. They schedule how they see fit. PU needs the ND game for ticket sales. It’s big for MSU, too. Why should they hurt themselves to further your agenda?
“I think the B1G should be looking into centralizing the scheduling process”
Are you insane? What rational AD would delegate that most important duty to the B10 office? The B10 wouldn’t have each school’s best interest at heart. More importantly, I doubt the B10 would want the responsibility. They will help try to arrange a game here and there, but they don’t want to deal with 48 OOC games every year.
“so that the likes of Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers, etc. can play quality opponents OOC at home.”
The B10 doesn’t have magic powers to force good schools to play a home and home with the bottom of the B10. Teams schedule games that bring value to them. That said, MN hosted USC in 2010 and PU hosted OR in 2008. Besides, who says these schools want a bunch of tough OOC games rather than some easy wins so they can hope to make a bowl?
“Being allowed to schedule OOC independently has forced Purdue to depend on ND as an annual opponent because good programs outside the B1G view Purdue football as not worth their time.”
No, being Purdue has forced that. Delany couldn’t change it.
“Complicating the issue further is that certain programs in the B1G have a habit of padding their schedules to make themselves look better than they actually are.”
Certain programs meaning almost everyone? Other than NW, who has played a tough OOC slate lately?
“Right now, it’s the big dogs and everyone else. Then again, hierarchies have always existed in other conferences. But it’s the big dogs that teams in other conferences want to play. The B1G should have been smart to realize the leverage they had to open the door for “the others” to have a shot at playing those other teams.”
1. The B10 can’t force AL to play IN. It takes two to tango. What leverage do you think the B10 has to control the schedules of everybody else?
2. You do realize the inverse would also have to happen, right? OSU and MI would have to play the dregs of other conferences instead of peers. Sorry, but I’d rather see AL/MI and IN/UK than AL/IN and MI/UK.
LikeLike
ND playing 3 B1G teams a year helped to fuel the illusion on the part of many B1G fans that they could be …somehow… persuaded into a full membership, which we all know was NEVER going to happen.
Nonsense. These are old rivalries: ancient, by football standards. The B1G schools kept playing ND because the game was worth their while.
Besides, I haven’t encountered many B1G fans who actually expected ND to join the league. It was simply a football game that was useful to both sides.
LikeLike
What really made B1G fans delusional about their chances of getting Notre Dame:
1. Until the addition of Nebraska, the geographic center of the B1G was South Bend, Indiana. With the addition of Maryland and Rutgers, it may be again.
2. Not knowing that ND was a school approximately half the size of “tiny” Northwestern.
3. B1G’s fanboys’ belief that their conference was the greatest, and ‘who wouldn’t be dying to get in?’
4. Not knowing exactly how tied ND is to the California trip and how obliged we feel to the USN…and thus not knowing how tightly our schedules would be controlled in a conference.
The fact is that traditionally the B1G is an extremely regional conference and has only began discussing “demographic concerns” in the last 5 years. I wouldn’t personally go so far as to say they’ve addressed them.
Michigan has went out and scheduled some big time OOC games…but that’s what they *should* be playing as a historical power. Ohio State has went out and scheduled some big time OOC games…but they that’s what they can do being a traditional power sitting on top of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the Midwest. How can the rest of the B1G go get big time opponents without a name brand (outside Nebraska) or fertile recruiting ground (PSU)? There’s no way a mid-tier team in another conference could get a practically permanent home-and-home (note: home-and-home, not a 2-for-1 or a 1-1-1) with a King like Purdue and MSU got with ND. You cannot blame them for trying to hang onto that.
As for the rest of the Scheduling discussion, I think Brian is correct above.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox
There’s no way a mid-tier team in another conference could get a practically permanent home-and-home (note: home-and-home, not a 2-for-1 or a 1-1-1) with a King like Purdue and MSU got with ND. You cannot blame them for trying to hang onto that.
I agree with you on Purdue, but I think you are underestimating MSU’s drawing power. They have Alabama, Miami and Oregon on the future schedule and annually finish in the top 20 in attendance so I think they would be fine without ND.
I’m not saying they are better off without ND (I don’t think they are) but losing ND as a permanent game wouldn’t be devastating blow like it would for Purdue.
LikeLike
@Transic
Wow. There is so much wrong with what you wrote I don’t even know where to start
What I was trying to say is that ND playing 3 B1G teams a year helped to fuel the illusion on the part of many B1G fans that they could be …somehow… persuaded into a full membership, which we all know was NEVER going to happen
A. Of all the reasons people believed ND might join the Big Ten the fact they played 3 Big Ten teams a year ranked towards the bottom
B. No one (including Notre Dame) knew, or still knows, that ND will “NEVER” join the Big Ten as evidenced by the fact that Notre Dame nearly joined the Big Ten twice in the past 12 years. There are still plenty of significant shifts that can take place that could force ND into in the Big Ten eventually. Remember, never is a long time.
Not to mention it gave the B1G administrators the excuse to slowplay expansion to areas where they could have more efficiently helped address their long-term recruiting issues to better compete against the SEC/Big12/Pac12 teams.
And who would you have had them add between Penn St. and Nebraska? The fact is after Penn St. there just weren’t any schools worth adding and met the Big Ten’s academic requirements until Nebraska decided to start looking around in 2009.
In the meantime, it has divided the B1G fanbase (many of whom were already clamoring about moving on to other schools who wanted to be in the conference; however, their voices were constantly being silenced by the regionalists).
Really and what schools were those that wanted to join, hmm? Seriously, name one school that
A. Wanted to join the Big Ten
B. Met the Big Ten’s academic requirements
C. Added value to the conference
Pitt doesn’t add value, Syracuse is non-AAU, Kansas has a K-State problem and Rutgers didn’t become realistic possibility until the BTN became an established cash cow (before then they would have been a leach). The closest thing I can think of to a school that meets all three criteria is Mizzou and they are very much in the Big Ten region.
By the time the ND/ACC deal was made, the B1G was forced to react, which is how the door was opened to Rutgers/Maryland (it also helped that Md. began reaching out to them around that time). But it was already too late as the B12 and ACC (and I suspect the SEC will follow) solidified through their respective Grant of Rights.
Let’s start with the fact that this statement is flat out factually inaccurate. The ACC did not sign a GOR until months after the ND deal. It’s ridiculous to imply that the Big Ten was ever going to be able to raid the SEC.
Anyways, you are also forgetting important things. Remember, the reason the Big Ten decided to make additions when they did is because the PAC backed out of the B1G/PAC alliance which the conference was planning to use as a substitute for expansion (the idea was to form a quasi-merger and make the West a Big Ten region).
Moreover, you also admit in your own statement that this was the earliest the Big Ten probably could have engaged in Eastern expansion since none of the ACC schools were ready to jump until Maryland got into budget problems.
Going to new divisions and alignments is a good start. Now the B1G has to get more creative in attracting better recruits without compromising their standards.
How exactly is going to new divisions going to help the Big Ten (especially the Western schools attract new recruits)?
I think the B1G should be looking into centralizing the scheduling process so that the likes of Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers, etc. can play quality opponents OOC at home.
The Big Ten already tried centralizing the scheduling process with the B1G/PAC alliance and the PAC backed out. Remember it takes two to tango and it is unlikely that other conferences would agree to let the Big Ten bully their top dogs into playing mediocre Big Ten teams. Really, if the Big Ten attempted something like what you are suggesting what would probably happen is that other conferences would just refuse to play any Big Ten teams.
Plus, Purdue already plays a quality OOC opponent at home; ND. And Minnesota just played a home and home with USC so those aren’t really the best teams to use an example. But then again, who am I to let facts get in the way of a good rant?
LikeLike
@Brian
Sorry, I hadn’t read your post when I responded, so I didn’t mean to steal a bunch of your points.
LikeLike
There are still plenty of significant shifts that can take place that could force ND into in the Big Ten eventually.
Just a little side question. Why would the Big Ten ever want to “force” Notre Dame to join? I see that term used quite a bit and I just don’t see why the Big Ten would want to that. I’m sure they would love to have ND as member, but I don’t know why the Big Ten would ever “force” them to do something they don’t ever want to do. The Big Ten is said to be an “all for one, one for all” kind of conference. I doubt they would want to be “all for one, one for all except for Notre Dame’s football team who we chained to the radiator.”
LikeLike
frug,
“Sorry, I hadn’t read your post when I responded, so I didn’t mean to steal a bunch of your points.”
No problem. It just shows that multiple people agree with those objections.
LikeLike
I agree Purdue and ND have rarely been a marquee matchup, that blame does not rest solely on Purdue. Purdue has been nationally relevant for probably three distinct periods…60s-early 70s, mid 80s, and late 90s-late 00s. ND wasn’t terribly competitive for two of those periods and that has tempered the passions. I just feel if ND plays any B1G team it should be Purdue. ND should respect 84 previous games. If they drop all B1G teams, so be it. Go play NC State and Clemson instead. I just don’t get it. Fwiw.
LikeLike
frug,
B. No one (including Notre Dame) knew, or still knows, that ND will “NEVER” join the Big Ten as evidenced by the fact that Notre Dame nearly joined the Big Ten twice in the past 12 years. There are still plenty of significant shifts that can take place that could force ND into in the Big Ten eventually. Remember, never is a long time.
You see, this guy gets it: https://www.facebook.com/SamMcKewon
This fall, the Irish – which ABC/ESPN treats like a de facto member of the Big Ten in September, even though ND cheerfully rebuffs the league – plays in two of the Big Ten primetime games. ABC/ESPN has an option to select any Notre Dame road game (with the exception of Army and Navy), and it always does, and it always puts that game in primetime. If I were ABC/ESPN, I would, too. ND draws good ratings, and ND tends to play good teams away from home.
But a Notre Dame at Purdue game – which will be an embarrassing blowout for the Big Ten – should not get primetime billing, if you’re the Big Ten, over Nebraska-UCLA, a game between two top 25 teams that was highly entertaining last year. It will, though. That should bug the Big Ten. It should bug the Big Ten, too, that Notre Dame will appear as many times in the Big Ten primetime schedule as any other team in the Big Ten. That may have been fine before ND hitched its wagon to a expanded football scheduling contract with the ACC. It’s not anymore.
When Big Ten poobahs talk of improving the league’s non-conference slate, part of that involves severing the relationship with the Irish. Notre Dame, to its credit – the girl is only being the girl she is, after all – will end the series with Michigan after 2014. ND claims, somewhat laughably, that Stanford and Navy are more important modern rivals than Michigan and Purdue. ND claims that for now, anyway. But the girl is the girl, and she’ll want more walks by the lake. Especially when the Big Ten signs a massive TV contract in 2016. Especially if Ohio State zooms to the top. The girl figures she can always work her way back into the relationship.
Not this time. The Big Ten needs to say no and walk away. Michigan State – slated to play ND in 2016 and 2017 along with Alabama – needs to walk away. Purdue needs to walk away. Penn State needs to say no thanks. Wisconsin needs to stop pursuing the rivalry. Nebraska has real rivals, old rivals surrounding them who’d love a two-game set.
To think that this issue is not a source of friction within the conference is naive. I don’t know how much influence McKewon has but I bet he’s not alone in thinking this way. The one thing I would say to disagree with him is ND would rather have rabies than join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I don’t know how much influence McKewon has but I bet he’s not alone in thinking this way.
Actually, I know how exactly how much influence McKewon has; none whatsoever. He’s a sportswriter, and the powers that be in the Big Ten couldn’t possibly care less about what he has to say.
LikeLike
No, he doesn’t get it. His issue is that ABC would prefer and make more money off ND vs. second or worse tier B1G team than they would off of Nebraska vs. a second tier PAC12 team. Since the Disney beancounters over at ABC/ESPN are pretty good about that sort of thing I have no reason to think they are wrong. He wants to work his article off this bad dating analogy…which is pretty indicative he doesn’t get it.
The hard truth is that in September there are few B1G games of national interest. The B1G isn’t sending a lot of top draft picks to the NFL lately. They do not have the support, read: hype, coming from their corporate partners at Disney that the SEC has. Their most popular teams are rebuilding to national contention (Nebraska, Michigan) or in the NCAA doghouse (Penn State, Ohio State).
For the B1G to get more spotlight, they don’t need to stop playing the Irish. They need to get their own houses in order, recruit more future NFL stars, and win some national championships. I’ve no idea why he wants Purdue to cut its nose off to spite its face.
And if he doesn’t want to do the research (i.e. spend 5min on google) and see why Navy and the California trip are more important, that’s on him.
LikeLike
Transic,
This fall, the Irish – which ABC/ESPN treats like a de facto member of the Big Ten in September, even though ND cheerfully rebuffs the league – plays in two of the Big Ten primetime games. ABC/ESPN has an option to select any Notre Dame road game (with the exception of Army and Navy), and it always does, and it always puts that game in primetime. If I were ABC/ESPN, I would, too. ND draws good ratings, and ND tends to play good teams away from home.
But a Notre Dame at Purdue game – which will be an embarrassing blowout for the Big Ten – should not get primetime billing, if you’re the Big Ten, over Nebraska-UCLA, a game between two top 25 teams that was highly entertaining last year. It will, though. That should bug the Big Ten.
Why? You just explained why ABC will always put ND in primetime.
1. 2012 – ND 20, PU 17 at ND. How is that not also an exciting game?
2. They aren’t the B10’s primetime games, they’re ABC’s. They have to include 1 B10 school, but ABC often chooses OOC games (OSU/USC, MI/AL, etc). ABC is in this to make money, and ND makes money for them.
3. It’s a compliment to PU the ND/PU tops NE/UCLA. ABC knows more people will watch that game because UCLA has a small fan base and ND is coming off a NCG appearance while NE got crushed in the CCG. The NE game might be on if NE was a top #5 team.
4. Why should the B10 deny PU a chance at the spotlight?
It should bug the Big Ten, too, that Notre Dame will appear as many times in the Big Ten primetime schedule as any other team in the Big Ten.
Not true. OSU has 3 games scheduled.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ll be honest – that’s a really strange argument from Transic. If Notre Dame and Big Ten schools want to schedule each other, more power to them and, if anything, it should be encouraged as opposed to being discouraged. The last thing that we should be doing is actively blacklisting top brand name schools when the overall Big Ten goal is to improve non-conference scheduling. It makes no sense (and would be a possible antitrust violation if it was coordinated by the Big Ten office, anyway). Frankly, I don’t think the conference should really be getting involved in non-conference scheduling at all (including the ban on FCS opponents). Ohio State is going to have a different scheduling mindset when their tangible goal is to make it to the College Football Playoff compared to schools like Illinois and Minnesota that are simply trying to get bowl eligible on a consistent basis.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Frankly, I don’t think the conference should really be getting involved in non-conference scheduling at all (including the ban on FCS opponents). Ohio State is going to have a different scheduling mindset when their tangible goal is to make it to the College Football Playoff compared to schools like Illinois and Minnesota that are simply trying to get bowl eligible on a consistent basis.”
I agree that each school may have a different agenda, but I disagree about the conference’s role in this. It seems perfectly legitimate to me for the league to set a minimum standard, especially since everyone’s schedule impacts the TV money for everyone else. The lesser football schools are already riding the financial coattails of the big boys. Why let them exploit that even more? I don’t think asking IN to play 2 I-A bottom feeders and a peer (UK, KU, Duke, WSU, etc) is unreasonable. Nobody is asking them to play the same schedule as OSU.
LikeLike
Some quick numbers to look at parity-based scheduling.
Assumptions:
1. IN and PU keep their schedules of playing the other 6 teams 1/3 of the time.
2. The top 3 on each side (OSU, MI, PSU and NE, WI, IA) play each other 5/9 instead of 4/9 and play the other 3 schools 1/3 instead of 4/9.
3. Similarly, the other 3 on each side (MSU, RU, UMD and NW, MN, IL) play each other 5/9 and the top 3 1/3.
I used the average conference W% over the past 10 seasons for each team and present the average opponent’s W% based on the schedule.
Average Opponent’s W% (Truly Balanced Schedule / Balanced with Divisions / Parity)
East:
OSU – 0.471 / 0.470 / 0.479
MI – 0.485 / 0.490 / 0.499
PSU – 0.487 / 0.493 / 0.501
MSU – 0.493 / 0.502 / 0.493
RU – 0.496 / 0.506 / 0.497
UMD – 0.501 / 0.513 / 0.505
IN – 0.519 / 0.538 / 0.538
West:
WI – 0.482 / 0.471 / 0.479
NE – 0.488 / 0.480 / 0.487
IA – 0.490 / 0.484 / 0.491
NW – 0.494 / 0.489 / 0.481
PU – 0.498 / 0.465 / 0.465
MN – 0.507 / 0.507 / 0.499
IL – 0.515 / 0.518 / 0.511
As you can see, with a truly balanced schedule the difficulty tracks with a team’s success. That’s also mostly true within each division, but not when comparing East and West. PU is an obvious exception as locking in IN makes for a much easier schedule. Also, the East’s schedule averages out to be about 0.014 more difficult. As expected, the difficulty is shifted from the worse teams to the better teams with the parity schedule. The change is 0.009 in the East and 0.008 in the West.
The disparities between a truly balanced schedule and the parity schedule are small for the top western teams and the bottom eastern teams. On the other hand, MI and PSU see a 0.014 increase while NW sees a 0.013 decrease. Within the divisions, MI goes from a 0.008 advantage over MSU to a 0.006 disadvantage (another 0.014 change). Likewise, IA goes from a 0.004 advantage over NW to a 0.010 disadvantage (0.014).
Let’s examine those numbers a bit, since 0.014 seems like such a small number. That’s the same difference between OSU and MI in a truly balanced schedule, and the only difference between them is whether they play OSU or MI. Well, OSU was 0.800 over that decade while MI was 0.625. That’s a pretty big difference. Of course, that was averaging 13 teams, not 9. The scaled version would be a difference of 0.121, not 0.175. Let’s look at all-time W% for a reference. 0.121 is the gap between OSU and GT. So a difference of 0.014 is the equivalent of playing OSU instead of GT or vice versa. In other words, it’s a significant chance of losing another game.
LikeLike
The all-time record includes good GT teams (they’ve had some really good ones) and bad OSU teams.
The difference works out to 1 extra loss every 8 years. I doubt anyone besides you is losing sleep over that, Brian.
LikeLike
Another way to look at it is that the difference is the difference in all-time W-L between UNL and UCLA.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The all-time record includes good GT teams (they’ve had some really good ones) and bad OSU teams.”
Really? The all-time record includes all of their teams? What a shocking revelation. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
“The difference works out to 1 extra loss every 8 years.”
Not quite. It means those 9 teams win 1 more game every 8 years on average. It’s a measure of how difficult your opponents are, which is not quite the same as saying it’s a measure of how you’ll perform against them.
Also, remember that’s just for 1 team. 6 teams will all face that same difficulty. So with your simplistic math, that’s the B10 intentionally locking in 0.75 more losses for those 6 teams than they already have in 1 year. In other words, 3 out of 4 years they’ll force a team farther down the postseason ladder due to scheduling. The net result is to harm the reputations of those teams as they lose more often. Since when is it advantageous to harm the reputations of your top brands?
Parity-based scheduling has 3 main problems:
1. It’s intentionally not fair. That should never be the aim of a college conference.
2. It intentionally hurts multiple rivalries. That is something to prevent, not promote.
3. It harms the postseason opportunities of some teams in the hopes that it makes more money than it loses.
Extra CFP spots are worth a large amount of money, as are extra Orange Bowl slots. More games amongst the top teams are also worth more money. But only the extra games amongst those top teams count in this equation.
Going from a 4/9 frequency to 5/9 is 1 extra game every 9 years, but there are 9 match-ups (top 3 on each side). On the other hand, not all of those 9 match-ups are equally big (OSU, MI and PSU are roughly on par, but NE is more valuable than WI which is more valuable than IA). Let’s call that the equivalent of 7.5 big match-ups, then, or 0.833 extra big games per year. How much is that worth from ABC per year? How many extra Orange Bowl slots (2 are up for grabs in 9 years IIRC) or CFP slots does it take to equal that annual value?
Now let’s look at the costs. Say OSU plays NE, WI and IA (worst case scenario) in addition to MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD and IN. If OSU goes 9-0, does OSU get a bump in recognition or does the B10 get slammed for being weak? If OSU goes 8-1, does OSU get the benefit of the doubt due to their SOS or do they get hammered for losing to a team in a weak conference? What sort of teams can an 8-1 OSU get in over? What if OSU goes 7-2? Is it automatically out of the discussion?
To get positive value out of this, people have to give B10 teams fair value as difficult opponents. I don’t see that happening lately in the CFB world, so it becomes a risk with minimal reward. Perhaps once the CFP committee is ironed out and we know what their instructions will be, that will change my view of this. But right now, the cost of an extra loss is too high.
LikeLike
“Not quite. It means those 9 teams win 1 more game every 8 years on average. It’s a measure of how difficult your opponents are, which is not quite the same as saying it’s a measure of how you’ll perform against them.”
Not quite but close enough.
“Also, remember that’s just for 1 team. 6 teams will all face that same difficulty. So with your simplistic math, that’s the B10 intentionally locking in 0.75 more losses for those 6 teams than they already have in 1 year.”
In other words, Those 6 teams will suffer less than 1 extra loss between them each year. Hard as it is for you to believe, I daresay that no one cares all that much about 1 extra loss per school over an 8-year span besides you, Brian.
“Now let’s look at the costs. Say OSU plays NE, WI and IA (worst case scenario) in addition to MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD and IN. If OSU goes 9-0, does OSU get a bump in recognition or does the B10 get slammed for being weak? If OSU goes 8-1, does OSU get the benefit of the doubt due to their SOS or do they get hammered for losing to a team in a weak conference? What sort of teams can an 8-1 OSU get in over? What if OSU goes 7-2? Is it automatically out of the discussion?”
If you think that way, you should tell your AD to only schedule MAC schools OOC, then. No reason to ever schedule another high-profile opponent OOC ever again. You’d burnish your W/L record right quick.
LikeLike
I never claimed my issue with this was the magnitude of the change. If it was, I wouldn’t have posted any numbers that didn’t show a huge issue. Instead, I crunched the numbers and reported the facts so every one can look at them.
My issue with this is about the principle of the thing. I don’t see a compelling case to support parity-based scheduling and it clearly has drawbacks. Losing LBJ games to get more MN/MSU and MI/IA is not a good trade to me. Likewise losing Illibuck games for OSU/IA and IL/RU is a bad deal. It all depends what tradition is worth to someone, I suppose. I don’t see how this can earn enough money to be worth it to me.
And, as always, your fly diet argument is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Well, I expect a full rotation to occur if there’s no expansion (and we stay at 9 conference games), so over 36 years, every non-IN school will play each non-IN school in the opposite division 16 times.
For what it’s worth, I’m also predicting that the LBJ and Illibuck games will be among those series that are scheduled more often (10/18 instead of 6/18) over the first 18 years.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Well, I expect a full rotation to occur if there’s no expansion (and we stay at 9 conference games), so over 36 years, every non-IN school will play each non-IN school in the opposite division 16 times.”
It’s nice that you expect that. That carries no weight, though. Maybe they stay with the skewed plan. Maybe they go to an equal split. The 2030s are a long ways off.
“For what it’s worth, I’m also predicting that the LBJ and Illibuck games will be among those series that are scheduled more often (10/18 instead of 6/18) over the first 18 years.”
While nice, it seems to directly contradict what Delany said. He explicitly mentioned increased games between OSU, MI and PSU and NE, WI and IA. Mark Hollis has come out and said he was told MSU would get more games against NW and MN (2 markets MSU values, apparently), perhaps in an attempt to soothe MSU’s anger at being forced into the east.
LikeLike
Also, if an OSU team is such a paper tiger that a slight increase in strength of schedule is enough to knock them from 8-0 to 7-1, I rather that they lost rather than enter the playoffs to again get slaughtered by an SEC team and again bring shame on to the B10.
LikeLike
ESPN’s Mark Schlabach released his 2013 Post-Spring Way-Too-Early Top 25. Ohio State is #1.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9214725/ohio-state-buckeyes-take-top-spot-latest-2013-top-25
SEC (6): #2 Alabama, #6 A&M, #7 Georgia, #8 South Carolina, #11 Florida & #16 LSU
B1G (5): #1 Ohio State, #9 Michigan, #22 Nebraska, #24 Northwestern & #25 Wisconsin
B12 (5): #13 Texas, #15 OK State, #17 Oklahoma, #18 TCU & #20 K-State
P12 (4): #3 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #19 UCLA & #23 USC
ACC (2): #12 Clemson & #14 Florida State
AAC: #4 Louisville
Ind: #10 Notre Dame
MWC: #21 Boise State
LikeLike
Surprisingly makes no mention of Michigan at all in talking about OSU running the table. He even mentions them not playing Nebraska or MSU, neither of which he rates as highly as Michigan. OSU’s schedule is certainly favorable, but @UM would appear to be the most likely obstacle (or a rematch in the CCG).
LikeLike
Seems like in the “taken for granted” category in hitting the word count ~ it goes without saying that OSU running the table involves first coming into The Game 11-0, and second going on to win it.
LikeLike
That doesn’t bode well, usually.
LikeLike
@Frank
See McMurphy’s tweet about Slive’s comments?
Line in sand? RT @jonsol: Slive: If issues/cost of attendance don’t occur “may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division”
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, I saw that. My guess is that we’ll likely see a movement toward a super football division that allows for coverage of the cost of attendance as opposed to a full split, but it’s interesting to see Slive state that not-so-veiled threat.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That’s cool. That will shift those teams out of the red that weren’t already profitable.
LikeLike
Just the current hockey schools? Or is it also a carrot to encourage those considering?
LikeLike
That’s a pretty impressive amount. I’d be curious to see exactly how they came up with that number. How much of that number comes from certain schools, and how much is coming from the BTN’s need for live programming that people will actually watch.
LikeLike
Is that $2 million divided 6 ways or $2 million apiece? That tweet could be interpreted either way.
LikeLike
One time, or yearly?
LikeLike
$2M each.
LikeLike
I don’t see why any new hockey schools wouldn’t get an equal share. They’ll have years to make it worthwhile to add #7.
http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2013/4/29/4283628/big-ten-hockey-payout-tv-contract
That’s the most I’ve seen written about this.
“Regardless, a $2 million per season windfall per hockey school is a staggering number. The conference has already stated that it plans to show at least 40 games on the Big Ten Network this season. That would be up from the 15 they showed during the 2012-13 campaign.”
LikeLike
Or potentially entice schools that are on the fence about starting a program.
LikeLike
Wonder if the LAX schools will get separate money as well. Also, do the Badgers get less Baseball money since they don’t have a team? Maybe baseball just doesn’t do much for the BTN.
LikeLike
@Kevin – We’ll have to see what the lacrosse ratings are. Hockey is particularly valuable for TV purposes in the Big Ten region, so there’s a legitimate case for the participants in that sport to receive a premium compared to baseball. As we have already seen with the local TV deals that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan State have put together in the past for hockey, those games have extra value in the open market in a way that other non-football/basketball Big Ten sports don’t.
LikeLike
More importantly, if hockey (a comparative niche sport) is worth $2 million per team on the BTN, that means that the valuations for football and basketball must be off the charts.
LikeLike
I’m not saying its not a good idea, but doesn’t this kinda go against equal sharing? I guess not if you say it’s “available” to everyone (that is able to bring on hockey). But it’s a bit harder to join that club than it would be to start LAX on existing fields, or M Gym.
LikeLike
I agree 100% that it is harder to bring on hockey than other sports, but the idea of equal sharing is essentially a poor one, because it rewards bad or in many cases, non-competition, so the Hockey Schools geting $2m per team extra, is a good thing. Lets be honest, certain Schools bring more value to the table than others, and should be rewarded for it. As a Penn State fan, I can tell you that our men’s hoops program basically lives off the massive interest, and quality play of the other members of the Big 10, and seeing blacked out seats at the Jordan Center is disgusting (they make the Pittsburgh Pirates look like the Yankees (at least the Bucs have a great ballpark)). I do not expect for Nitt Basketball to be on the level of Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky or even Ohio State, but is it too much to expect being on par with Purdue, Minnesota, or Iowa, or Pitt? If the extra TV money (and financial incentives to compete), can bring a better Penn State Hoops team, a more competitive Indiana Football team, a Big 10 Lacrosse Conference, and yes, a Division 1 Hockey Program to Illinois and Nebraska, I say bring it on.
LikeLike
Its a different take on equal sharing, since after all the old guard Hockey Powers among the Big Ten with multiple Frozen Fours and NCAA championships under their belts get the same cut as Penn State gets.
LikeLike
Waaay too much to expect Penn State Hoops to achieve Purdue levels.
LikeLike
If hockey draws close to bball ratings, bball is probably worth 3-5 times more. Football is probably worth about the same as basketball to the BTN.
At the start of their new TV contract, the B10 schools will likely get $30-40M/school from that contract and $15-30M/school from the BTN.
LikeLike
I think the conference may be using extra BTN funds for the additions of Rutgers and Maryland. Perhaps Delany doesn’t want to show all the BTN cards before other conferences finish their respective network launch.
LikeLike
Just doing some quick math, $12M / 40 games is $300,000 per game (or $150,000 per team per game, if you will) that the BTN is paying to the six Big Ten schools.
As a comparison, FSD pays $25M per year to the Red Wings for rights to their games. To keep the math simple*, $25M / 82 games is about $305,000 (per team per game, if you will).
So if my numbers are moderately correct, the BTN is suggesting that the rights for EACH team in a nationally televised BTN hockey game is about half the value of the Detroit Red Wings in the Detroit Market.
I could see Minnesota TV rights being half as valuable as the Wings, but not anywhere else. I’m a former season ticket holder for Michigan hockey, so I pay some attention to these things, but I just don’t see that value for Michigan hockey. Unless that number of 40 games goes up dramatically, I’m shocked at $2M per team. I’m thrilled with it, but I don’t see how the math adds up.
(*There’s a handful of Red Wings games televised nationally, and there are a handful of 10:30 pm starts with much less value, but there are also a handful of first/second round playoff games with high value, too. So I just stuck with 82 games).
( For the Red Wings TV contract info: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20120914/FREE/120919931/analysts-red-wings-will-fly-high-despite-nhl-lockout# )
LikeLike
I still haven’t seen anything linked that clearly states whether it is $2 million per school or $2 million total.
LikeLike
@bullet – I haven’t either, but I’m inclined to think its a per school payout. I’m cautious because I’m finding it hard to believe the rights for the BTHC have a per school value similar to the entire rights of an AAC school.
LikeLike
Cliff:
Actually, I can see Minnesota games being as valuable in MN as Red Wings games are in Detroit (especially in the rural areas in MN), and MN has more people than Detroit metro.
Granted, not all BTN games will feature the Gophers, but then the other schools really don’t have to contribute too much to get to half the Red Wing’s value.
That brings me to another point: The geographic area that is interested in B10 hockey is much bigger than the geographic area that is interested in Red Wings hockey. For instance, Michiganders have to be only 1/4th as interested in UM or MSU hockey as Detroiters are in the Red Wings for UM or MSU to draw half the viewers the Red Wings do as MI has roughly twice the population of metro Detroit.
LikeLike
Richard,
To be fair, FSD is carried throughout the state of Michigan, into the U.P… so the Red Wings coverage in Michigan hits a population of 9.8M people vs the 5.3M people in the state of Minnesota. And yes, the Wings have plenty of fans in western Michigan and in the U.P.
I suppose the other thing is we’ll probably start to see Friday and Saturday night hockey pre- and post- game shows, and Hockey-based documentaries (Big Ten Icons). So there’s some residual value as well.
And frankly, 40 games seems low to me. Each of the six schools should have 19 or 20 home games. So with the BTHC Tourney, there’s the potential for about 120 games to be televised, counting overflow channels.
LikeLike
Cliff:
I think the high-value games will be mostly conference games. Specifically, the conference games that feature Minny, UM, MSU, & Wisconsin.
UM-MSU draws interest in only 1 state.
Minny-Wisconsin + Minny-UM + Minny-MSU + UM-OSU + UM-Wisconsin + MSU-Wisconsin = 24 games.
LikeLike
that’s a lot of pucks.
LikeLike
Cliif,
“To be fair, FSD is carried throughout the state of Michigan, into the U.P… so the Red Wings coverage in Michigan hits a population of 9.8M people vs the 5.3M people in the state of Minnesota. And yes, the Wings have plenty of fans in western Michigan and in the U.P.”
FSD id also in Toledo which is another 750,000 people. Hockey is poular inToledo and evryone is a Wings fan. They probably have several hundred thousand more fans spread throughout Ohio and Indiana.
LikeLike
More expansion talk among the smaller BCS leagues. CUSA is looking to possibly add 2 more teams to get to 16. Old Dominion is pushing for James Madison. http://hamptonroads.com/2013/04/odu-eyes-jmu-potential-future-conference-usa-invite
I think we may end up with more than 130 teams (126 currently) that fall under the BCS classification. Schools like Liberty University and Stephen F. Austin are seeking to get invites from one these conferences that get raided like the Sun Belt. The FCS is losing just about all of it’s quality programs and that is creating a much larger pool of “have nots” within the BCS. This may actually be the driving factor for why the Big 5 could seek to break away. The Big 5 is constantly being asked to share more money but the smaller conferences keep adding more schools to share in those profits.
LikeLike
I imagine that the schools that do move up have to be seriously thinking about potential financial windfalls/percipitous drops down the road. Imagine if other conferences started following the B1G’s lead and stopped scheduling FCS teams. That would just about gut FCS teams’ entire athletics budgets. If the FBS schools do ever split to from the NCAA, or at least in football, I suspect that such games would disappear also. If you’re stranded in FCS, you could be looking at a budget that is potentially between 500,000 and 1,000,000 less annually.
On the flip side, those schools that want to have at least seven home games would be forced to pay at least two Gang of Five Schools to come to their places every season. Without competition from the FCS schools, the Gang of Five could charge significantly higher rates for pay day games(or even force more 2 for 1 deals or even rarer home and homes). It’s hard for ULM (as an example) to demand 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 for a game when an FCS program will only charge 750,000. If that FCS school is no longer an option, paying will be forced to pony up to ULM. While that extra 2 or 3 Million a year is a undesirable but affordable cost of doing business to the former BCS schools, it would be a dramatic increase for the schools taking the money.
If you are school like James Madison, Liberty or Missouri State, you could be looking at facing a decrease in revenue of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 a year, or a gain of between 2,000,000 and 6,000,000 a year in pay day games alone, before bowl and television money. That’s a huge chunk of cash for any FCS school.
LikeLike
To clarify, that 2,000,000 to 6,000,000 would be based on the assumption that those schools would be taking two pay day games, which considering there are roughly equal numbers of Gang of Five vs Power Conference Five schools, would make sense. Half the schools get paid for two games and half the schools pay for two games. I know it would never work out exactly like that, but I feel it would as a general premise.
LikeLike
The problem with that argument is that it wouldn’t be “FBS schools leave the NCAA”, it’d be “the upper half of FBS leaves the NCAA”. So long-term, it doesn’t really matter much if you’re in the Sun Belt or a AA (FCS) division, you’re still on the outs if/when change happens.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75801/espnabc-announce-b1g-primetime-slate
The 2013 primetime schedule from ABC is out.
“Sept. 7: Notre Dame at Michigan, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Sept. 14: Notre Dame at Purdue, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Sept. 28: Wisconsin at Ohio State, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Oct. 5: Ohio State at Northwestern, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Oct. 12: Michigan at Penn State, 5 p.m. ET, ESPN or ESPN2
Oct. 26: Penn State at Ohio State, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2”
Well, Gene Smith got what he wanted (2 at home and 1 on the road instead of the other way around). OSU will probably have a BTN night game, too.
OSU – 3
MI, ND, PSU – 2
NW, PU, WI – 1
It’s about all you could ask for. There are no great home games on 8/31, 9/21 or 10/19. The best game missing is NW @ WI on 10/12. All of NE’s big games are in November in case you wondered.
LikeLike
Oh, and there’s this:
“Although the Big Ten is now open to night games in November, none appear on this list. ESPN/ABC was able to fill its six-game allotment before the end of October, featuring two games involving Notre Dame and four Big Ten matchups. An ESPN platform will televise a Big Ten matchup in prime time five of six straight Saturdays from Sept. 7 to Oct. 12. There are certainly some appealing games in November that could be played at night, but the networks chose to pass this time around. So if you’re upset, blame TV.”
ESPN choosing to showcase the competition in November rather than the B10? These are some of the games they passed on:
November 2
1. Michigan at Michigan State
2. Northwestern at Nebraska
November 9
1. Nebraska at Michigan
2. BYU at Wisconsin
November 16
1. Michigan State at Nebraska
2. Michigan at Northwestern
November 23
1. Michigan State at Northwestern
2. Nebraska at Penn State
November 30
1. Ohio State at Michigan*
2. Penn State at Wisconsin
3. Iowa at Nebraska**
* – never a night game so far and unlikely to become one
** – Friday
LikeLike
Seeing your post-October games listed there, I am surprised ND @ Purdue and OSU @ Northwestern made the cut over some of those games.
Michigan @ MSU, Nebraska @ Michigan, Nebraska @ PSU, and PSU @ Wisconsin are all games I would choose for primetime over the others. I am guessing it has as much to do with other conferences’ teams playing those days as it does with the Big Ten match-ups.
LikeLike
I think ESPN would prefer the flexibility of showcasing games of schools that might be in the national title race in primetime in November. Unlike the B10 (and SEC, I believe), the other conferences do not require night games to be set before the season begins.
Also, I doubt that games featuring a school that has no chance of the postseason would be a top game in November & Michigan-MSU isn’t a ratings-buster because interest in that game is heavily concentrated in one state, so really, only UNL-Michigan was a realistic possibility.
LikeLike
Ross,
“Seeing your post-October games listed there, I am surprised ND @ Purdue and OSU @ Northwestern made the cut over some of those games.”
There are some good November games, certainly. Getting ND the year after a NCG run may be too valuable to pass up, though. OSU @ NW was the surprise to me, but I assume it was because they have high expectations for OSU.
MI/MSU have both said they prefer to be an afternoon game to help with crowd control. As for NE @ MI, all I can think is that either MI suggested they don’t want a night game in November or there weren’t any other good options on 10/5. They may have backed off of PSU since they used up that story last year.
“I am guessing it has as much to do with other conferences’ teams playing those days as it does with the Big Ten match-ups.”
Perhaps. B10 schools may also have not been receptive to offers of playing November night games. The policy used to be that both teams had to agree to move to a night game.
LikeLike
I think November night games is a negotiation point for the conference in the upcoming TV deals. Not sure why the conference would want to give that away to Disney for free in the interim. I think we’ll see November night games after 2016-2017. We may see some on the BTN sooner. Not sure a November night game in Minnesota is extremely appealing but certainly in Maryland, Rutgers or some other milder November climates it would work out fine.
If the conference expands again south they could work it out that the the warmer climates get the night games later in the season.
LikeLike
Kevin,
The problem is ABC could already pick November night games. There is no rule barring it. I’m not sure how that would lead to more money in the next deal since they can already do it and choose not to.
I don’t know whether the B10 would actually override the ADs and take away their power to say no to a night game if they had concerns. I somehow doubt it.
LikeLike
Iowa still likely to play UNI in 2014, 2018
http://thegazette.com/2013/04/29/iowa-still-likely-to-play-uni-in-2014-2018/
“At this point in time I don’t think there’s an absolute prohibition,” Dannen said. “I’ve already spoke with Gary (Barta, Iowa’s athletics director) and I’m operating under the assumption that we have a ‘14 game and an ‘18 game with Iowa. I’m under the assumption that nothing is going to change until I’m given some absolute direction otherwise. Right now I don’t have any reason to believe that will happen and will be given that direction.”
Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta said. “Currently we are scheduled to play Northern Iowa in 2014 and 2018. The new parameters would not allow us to play additional games in the future, but we’ll work with the conference to see about keeping the two games already scheduled.”
“I’d be hard-pressed to believe that playing North Dakota State or Northern Iowa says less about your team than playing Eastern Michigan or a school at the bottom of the Sun Belt,” Dannen said.
LikeLike
@greg – I know a lot of people knock FCS opponents, but if what’s going to happen is simply swapping that game out for a MAC/Sun Belt-type guarantee game (which is almost a certainty with the focus on having 7 home games per year), then I think Dannen has a point. At the same time, some intra-state FCS matchups at least have a bit more local interest than other guarantee games (as may or may not be the case with Iowa vs. Northern Iowa). I know that as an Illinois fan, playing Illinois State or Eastern Illinois has some more intrigue than playing Bowling Green. So, I understand the desire for the Big Ten to upgrade their non-conference schedules, but I’m lukewarm on the FCS ban (or near ban). To me, the focus shouldn’t be so much on the bottom end regarding the worst non-conference cupcake on your schedule, but rather making sure that everyone plays at least one other power conference team on the top end every year.
LikeLike
Iowa and UNI fans generally root for the other school to do well. There is a such a thing as a pantherhawk, loosely defined as a UNI alum who roots for UNI hoops first and hawkeye football second. The basketball and football games are fun, and people are generally happy to see the football payout go to UNI. I’d be happy with Iowa limited to playing only UNI every four years.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I know a lot of people knock FCS opponents, but if what’s going to happen is simply swapping that game out for a MAC/Sun Belt-type guarantee game (which is almost a certainty with the focus on having 7 home games per year), then I think Dannen has a point.”
The big difference is that I-AAs are capped at 63 scholarships, not 85. It’s not a level playing field. And yes, I do realize some I-AAs are better than some I-As. But if the goal is to get the 3rd and 4th string some PT, I’d rather they at least play a team with an equal number of scholarship players.
“So, I understand the desire for the Big Ten to upgrade their non-conference schedules, but I’m lukewarm on the FCS ban (or near ban).”
They want the moral high ground when they go to the CFP committee discussions and press for OOC SOS to be highly valued.
“To me, the focus shouldn’t be so much on the bottom end regarding the worst non-conference cupcake on your schedule, but rather making sure that everyone plays at least one other power conference team on the top end every year.”
And that’s also part of their new guidelines. Everyone is supposed to play an AQ peer, whether that’s OSU/OU or IN/KU.
LikeLike
On top of the lower scholarships, it usually isn’t the Appalachian St.’s that get scheduled. Alabama offered Georgia State a chance to play them in their first year of football and told them they wouldn’t call again if they said no. Georgia played Idaho St a couple years back and Idaho St. was winless against FCS schools (they beat a division II school).
LikeLike
That last remark reminds me of the multiple Big12 schools playing both an FCS school and also a school that was an FCS school sometimes in the few years.
LikeLike
That remark reminds me of the Big 10 schools playing both an FCS school and also a school that was an FCS school sometime in the last few years. And the SEC schools doing the same thing.
LikeLike
How many of those are there this coming year in the Big Ten? It really stuck out as a tendency in the 2013 Big12 schedule.
LikeLike
Big 12 had a weaker than usual 2012 and 2013, but not that much different than Big 10 and SEC. No fan of any of those conferences can legitimately complain about any other conferences ooc schedules.
LikeLike
Courtesy of Mr. SEC, here are the bottom 26 of the 42 ooc played by the SEC in 2013 (note that this leaves 16 games for 14 schools-in-state rivals UK/UL, USC/Clemson, UF/FSU, UGA/GT are 4 of those):
“But most SEC teams currently play only nine quality games per season (eight league games, one good non-conference foe, and three creampuffs). The league’s 2013 schedule shows SEC teams squaring off against Georgia State, Chattanooga, Louisiana-Lafayette, Samford, Arkansas State, Western Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Toledo, Georgia Southern, North Texas, Appalachian State, Miami (Ohio), Alabama State, Kent State, Furman, Alcorn State, Troy, Bowling Green, Murray State, Southeast Missouri State, Idaho, Coastal Carolina, Austin Peay, South Alabama, Sam Houston State and UMass.
If you are interested in paying money to see any of those teams play an SEC school then you should look up a famous quote often attributed to PT Barnum. Keyword: Sucker.”
LikeLike
Math correction-SEC has 4 ooc, so that’s 56 total ooc.
LikeLike
I never said it was different from the SEC or Big Ten … I had not noticed the trick of playing an FCS schools and a “one or two years away from FCS” school in the same year until someone posted the 2013 Big12 OOC schedule, and it struck me as an interesting way to stick to the letter of the rule … but I haven’t seen the SEC or Big Ten OOC schedules of each school in 2013 laid out in strength of schedule order to see how many other schools are playing the same trick.
LikeLike
greg,
From everything I’ve seen, Barta is exactly correct. The B10 won’t force anyone to break a contract, but nobody is supposed to agree to any more I-AA games.
LikeLike
Now I’m pissed
http://www.fightingillini.com/sports/m-baskbl/042913aaa.html
UI, State Farm Unveil Naming of State Farm Center
Longtime Corporate Sponsor to Name Building Formerly Known as Assembly Hall
LikeLike
@frug – I understand the reaction to the change from tradition, but believe me, it could have been a LOT worse. State Farm is a national blue chip company that has one of the largest ad budgets in the U.S. Also, Illinois ended up on the high end in terms of college naming rights deals. Someone was going to have to buy the naming rights to the arena in order to start funding the new renovations, so State Farm was actually about as good of a partner as we could have hoped for. I was worried that it would end up getting sponsored by one of those commercial farm seeding companies that always buys BTN and Illini radio ads (which are a source of bemusement for the Chicago-based Illinois alums).
LikeLike
Also, State Farm uses basketball heavily in its branding efforts compared to, say, Allstate (and as full disclosure, I once spent a summer working as an intern at Allstate headquarters in Northbrook). It’s an NBA sponsor with both LeBron James and Chris Paul as spokesmen. So, I think it’s a really good fit and a definite positive for Illinois. The Illini are going to get more value out of this than the vast majority of naming rights deals.
LikeLike
I’m with frug.
in general, selling naming rights to corporations is one of the more disgusting aspects of sports and money. every time I hear some announcer mention Louisville’s KFC Yum! Center, i want to gag. (And, yes, the official name has the exclamation point.) Just horrendous, imo. honestly, I still can’t imagine why the PTB @ Louisville allowed the “Yum!” The KFC Center would have been bad enough, but to add the “Yum!” just embarrassing. and on the building itself, the “yum!” is in a cartoon word balloon. (google it). just embarrassing.
and, I am sorry, but it is Comiskey Park and US Cellular can shove it.
i have been really happy that most B1G arenas and stadiums have remained relatively free of corporate naming. Minnesota’s TFC Stadium is an exception and Nebraska has Pinnacle Bank Arena. There might be more. tOSU has “Value City Arena at the Jerome Schottenstein Center” often confusingly shorted to the Schottenstein Center, the “Schott” or Value City Arena. It saddens me that tOSU agreed to the Value City moniker (but I suppose you agree to what your billionaire booster wants).
as an aside, too bad Illinois couldnt have gone that direction. something like “State Farm Arena @ the Assembly Hall Center” or the reverse or some such.
as a further aside, it seems less offensive when it is a new building going up. so TCF Stadium bothers me less.
as a further aside, I have no problem with naming buildings after people. at least in the past, that was a permanent honor.
in my view, corporate naming is another thing that separates the haves from the have-nots. there is a chicken-egg issue, of course. if you have had sustained success, your school has consequently built tradition and hopefully has sufficient money. these allow a school to avoid the allure of the $$$ offered by the corporate sponsor. conversely, if you have had no long-term, sustained success, you need $$$ to achieve success and, so you allow a corporation to use your arena/stadium for advertising/marketing purposes. this is one reason I find “Value City Arena” distasteful. Mr. Schottenstein should have just let it be named after him without needing to adding in his company.
in my view, this is sad for Illinois.
and with the supposed boat-loads of money coming into the Conference, you would have thought Illinois could have avoided this. it’s a 30 year deal for $60M. so, $2M a year. how desperate is Illinois for $$$?
in any event, it will always be Assembly Hall to me and to Illinois fans.
having said all that, FtT is right. It could have been a lot worse. It could have been the “Papa Johns Delivers! Arena.” Unlike Louisville, Illinois did not allow itself to be embarrassed.
Plus, Illinois is not completely alone in the B1G re: arenas and stadiums named for corporations.
LikeLike
Selling naming rights was a huge tool in Louisville’s 10 year rise from CUSA to ACC. I bet they have a much different opinion on them.
LikeLike
Its sponsors that pay for it. I guess you aren’t a NASCAR or golf fan. Thought it was interesting to see a golfer doing a drug commercial while wearing his cap and shirt with their corporate logos (forgotten which golfer, which drug, which cap logo and which shirt logo, but the combining of sponsors was memorable).
You’re really going to love the corporate logos on the NBA uniforms which they have decided to do. And I’m not talking about shoes.
LikeLike
Going to be like soccer? If you’re channel surfing you need to know the sponsor to ID the team?
Thank god it’s happening. NBA is so close to insolvency anything is ok. (Sarcasm)
LikeLike
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/
The gold football is the official logo of the CFP.
24% Logo 1 (Shield)
38% Logo 2 (Gold FB)
25% Logo 3 (Medal)
13% Logo 4 (Compass)
LikeLike
http://thankyouterry.blogspot.com/
a good article about the possible $2M from the BTN for the B1G’s hockey schools. some interesting stats on the costs of running a college hockey program. worth a quick read; the article is down a bit from the top.
However, at this point, I’m thinking the $2M a year per school it’s a baseless rumor. Frankly, $2M for the whole league seems a baseless rumor. The BTN has not confirmed or mentioned or addressed or anything and today is Monday and Monday has basically expired at this point.
LikeLike
I doubt BTN decides where, or how, the conference distributes the revenue the BTN delivers to them.
LikeLike
I doubt it’s a distribution, I think the $2M per school ($12M total) is a rights fee for the TV rights; hence why it would only go to the hockey schools supplying the programming.
LikeLike
Rights are already owned, just as they were last year. If true, it reflect the value those games represent to the BTN.
LikeLike
…it reflects considerably less than the value…
😦 Edit function…
LikeLike
Although unconfirmed, $2M sounds like a fairly plausible number. It’s a total of $12M for the league (given six teams). Let’s say there are 50 games. That would be just $240,000 of income per game. I think the marginal ad revenue(*) would be way more than that. Of course, expenses need to be covered, but even so, $240k per game really isn’t a huge amount.
(When I refer to marginal ad revenue, I mean the revenue over and above the baseline of non-live sports programming, which is what the BTN would be showing when it has no live football or basketball available.)
LikeLike
Since half the BTN profits are going to Fox, it wouldn’t be $240k profit a game, it’d be $480k. I find the $2M rumor to be difficult to believe. It may be a number that was thrown around as a future projection.
LikeLike
What’s the rights angle, since Ice Hockey is an expansion of BTN rights? Any portion that comes out of the rights payment would not be doubled, since its a before profit cost of operation.
LikeLike
That’s a good point. IIRC, the BTN was set up with flat rights payments, plus profit sharing. Since the BTHC is new there could be a component of the two million that is flat rights payment.
LikeLike
Yeah, this $2 million per team would be a rights payment, which counts as an expense to the BTN, not a profit payout.
LikeLike
@M (ag) The more I’m thinking about it, the more that sounds right. I thought the BTN said they were going to run 40 games next year. That would put the rights fee at 300K a game. Did we ever get the details of the ND Hockey only contract ND signed with NBC? I wonder if the 300K value is in line with that contract.
LikeLike
Exactly. I don’t know why people are so wow’d by this number.
LikeLike
$2 million per school is impressive. $2 million total not so much.
LikeLike
Any more per school participating is new territory. I’ve wondered in the past if a small portion of new (read: conference network) revenue being earmarked to subsidize and encourage continuation, or starting up, of “non revenue” sports. This does not seem to be the case here.
LikeLike
While I don’t have a handle on whether $300K per game is a realistic rights payment, I’m pretty sure that $50K per game is too low.
If the rights payment IS $12m ($300K/game), then distributing the rights payments in equal shares to the hockey schools and including any profits in the general BTN distribution sounds an awful lot like the type of revenue distribution that the Big Ten would come up.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9233122/texas-aggies-approve-plans-seat-more-100000-sec-largest-stadium
The Aggies are expanding Kyle Field from 82,589 to 102,500 (#3 after MI and PSU, just ahead of TN at 102,455).
“The project will be funded by donations, seat licenses, student fees and ticket revenue, as well as a preferred facilities agreement between the Bryan-College Station convention and visitors bureau that will use hotel and tax revenue for the next 30 years.”
Any concerns in Aggie land that they should do this in 2 steps instead of 1 (go to ~92k for a while first, then expand again)? Is there a big waiting list for season tickets at TAMU? Any concerns about adding PSLs and increasing ticket prices while also adding 24% more seats?
It certainly seems like you guys should be in the 90k+ crowd to me. 102k will probably work out well, too.
LikeLike
Note the cost. $450 million for 20,000 seats.
Atlanta’s brand new pro stadium is estimated at $1 billion.
LikeLike
It’s always more expensive to retrofit and expand than to build new. Besides, we all know the quoted price for Atlanta’s stadium is way too low.
LikeLike
It’s ok to not comment at every mention of A&M, bullet.. One might think you’re obsessed.
BTW, classy post on the shag regarding the tragic death of the 12 Aggie students who died building bonfire and suggesting a stadium expansion could cause more desths. What a doosh.
LikeLike
Ridiculous comments bullet. You’re a sad little old man
“Isn’t building this massive stadium (make it the biggest) the same type of thinking that killed those 12 students? And doing it all in 2 years while keeping the stadium open? Sounds like another accident waiting to happen.”
Bullet regarding Kyle Field expansion on shaggybevo.com
LikeLike
I hope noone else gets killed because of stupid Aggie obsessions. There have been lots of renovations done with stadiums open, but this is pretty massive to get done in two years with an operating stadium. You’ll have 80k people going through a construction zone. And there will be substantial financial pressures to get it done on time. But you’re too obsessed to see any risk, just like Aggies ignored warnings that the bonfire was an accident waiting to happen.
But this isn’t the forum for those discussions. Keep it on the Shag or your board. Financial and attendance discussions fit this board.
LikeLike
Obsession. Let’s see. Going on another team’s board and copying someone’s post on a different board to challenge them? I think you should look up the definition. Kind of creepy.
LikeLike
Bullet, whenever the subject of A&M comes up here, you respond with a worthwhile comment about 1/2 the time, and you troll about 1/2 the time.
And if you spend much time on the internet, you’ll find that when an article is even tangentially is related to A&M, there will frequently be Longhorn fans that will attack the university in the comment section. It was at its worst last year, but happened before and since. There is a large section of your fanbase that is indeed obsessed with A&M.
LikeLike
Your ridiculous comments kind of stood out. Seeing somebody equate stadium expansion to more death kind of jumps out at you. I thought some might be interested in your ridiculousness.
LikeLike
@mAG
There is a segment on ShaggyBevo that does seem to talk about Aggies a lot. And on a Texas site, particularly Shaggy, you shouldn’t expect a lot of pro-Aggie sentiment. But if A&M is spending huge amounts of Texan $, it is relevant for anyone with state of Texas ties to comment on, whether its buying a 3rd rate law school in Ft. Worth when the coordinating board has repeatedly refused to allow them to start a law school or spending nearly pro level $ on a stadium renovation.
In any event, dedicating seats in a massive expansion “stood out” to me as missing the reason those kids died. There was an obsession with building a massive pile of logs in a short period of time. Now there is going to be a massive pile of concrete built in a short period of time with 80,000 people there a dozen Saturdays during the construction period. An appropriate memorial is one that understands that, not one that celebrates the same unhealthy obsession with being bigger.
LikeLike
No dog in the fight, but I don’t think a student organized and operated rally event should be equated to architects, engineers, construction specialists being hired to build a structure. Many stadiums have been used during construction projects. Is there ever zero risk? No, but it’s not like the student body is suddenly being allowed to quickly rebuild the stadium on their own.
LikeLike
Seriously, what are you talking about, bullet? Your attempt to twist bonfire deaths to Kyle Field expansion are laughable and smack of the typical nonsense you bring to any conversation of A&M. Aggie Bonfire isn’t relevant but you weakly attempt to connect some imaginary dots that only exist in your head.
Expansion of Kyle isn’t “unhealthy obsession”. There is a demand for tickets so the A&M AD is meeting that demand. Like I said…sad.
LikeLike
Speaking of Atlanta’s new stadium, check out this video.
http://nesn.com/2013/04/new-atlanta-falcons-stadium-concepts-feature-imax-screens-vibrating-seats-fantasy-football-lounge-video/
LikeLike
$450 Million for an expansion… Wow!! That is absolutely ridiculous. While not the Big House, or the Shoe, TCF Bank Stadium on the U of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis was built for around $350 million. It is state of the art… AND… there’s not a bad seat in the house. Try watching football without binoculars if you’re in the nosebleeds at one of the big stadiums. I’ll pay my $50 bucks gameday for mid/upper part of lower level at the Bank and it is absolutely awesome…
IMHO… sooner or later, some of these schools are going to price themselves out of the game… Already, only a few more than a handful of schools athletics are actually profitable… When the average fan is forced to pay more on gameday—more and more may start looking at other entertainment options… I know that here in Minnesota, particularly in the fall… there is a lot of competition for the average dollar. Pro football, part of the pro baseball, basketball, and hockey seasons—not to mention outdoor activities, particularly hunting and fishing, which are huge in Minnesota… You can also add in your the always competing other metropolitan activities offered in the Twin Cities.
Obviously, everywhere a person goes, interests and priorities are different—but, the bottom line is that the average fan’s bottom line will ultimately drive what/where that person’s dollar will be spent…
LikeLike
I posted an article from Florida a couple weeks ago about some Gator fans not renewing because of price. Florida wasn’t dropping, but they were concerned enough the AD called a fan who wrote a letter saying price was the reason he wasn’t renewing.
LikeLike
I just got my alumni lottery notice in the mail. I knew the prices were changing, but it’s still a little shocking to see it’s $84, $115 for WI, for one ticket with the $5 service fee included.
Suites: $20k-75k
1500 Platinum club seat: $3600/season + $2500+ donation = $5.4M + $3.75M+ in donations
1000 Gold club seat: $2500/season + $2500+ donation = $2.5M + $2.5M+ in donations
Season tickets: $584 + $1500+ donation
Alumni tickets: face value ($84 or 115)
Single game tickets: face value (rare)
Staff/faulty seats: 10% off
Student tickets: basically half price
LikeLike
The entire West side and the first deck of the East side will be replaced; that’s over 1/2 of the stadium being replaced even before you add an entire South side and do the upgrades to the rest of the stadium.
I think A&M might have been better served going to about 97000 for about 5 years before adding another 5000, but I don’t think there will be many empty seats when the stadium opens at full capacity.
LikeLike
Will there be other facility construction/improvements? Some projects have included things like new FB/AD offices, expanded wt facilities and sports medicine for all sports, etc.
LikeLike
The new structure in the South End Zone will include some offices in addition to the seating. According to the press release, they’re also building “a new strength and conditioning laboratory training area,” elsewhere on campus. Most of the other football facilities have either recently been replaced, or are already scheduled to be replaced.
Part of this project is the demolition of 3 nearby buildings, all of which have seen their primary functions replaced by other buildings on campus (the university was delaying their removal until now). There will be a lot of landscaping and sculptures around the stadium, as well.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76016/delany-talks-committee-ed-obannon-case
Some tidbits from Delany:
“Delany said the Big Ten’s new bowl lineup, beginning in the 2014 season, could have “a lot” of new games. The Big Ten could share tie-ins with other leagues and should have more say in which teams go where. Delany hopes to have a full lineup in place for approval by the league’s presidents in early June. I’ll have more on the bowls Thursday.”
I’m not sure it’s good to give the conference office more say in terms of which team goes where. Those sorts of politics can get nasty. Look at how MSU fans have reacted to perceived slights from the B10 office.
“The Big Ten is in the early stages of finding a location for its East Coast office. The office could be included in the existing office of one of the league’s television partners. New York is the most likely destination for the office, Delany said.”
An office inside the office of Fox or ABC? No thanks. No shock on NYC as the city, though.
LikeLike
Well, they made the official announcements today: Texas A&M is expanding the stadium to 102,500 (It’s effectively a bit over 87,000 now). I haven’t seen how many new suites will be added, but there will surely be lots of those, as well. It’s a massive project; large sections of the stadium will be completely rebuilt and a new exterior will be added to the entire structure.
The price tag will be $450 million and they claim all the actual construction will take place over 2 off-seasons, with the construction done in time for the 2015 season.
http://kylefield.com/
LikeLike
Repost from above:
”
If I had to guess, the fact that Delany & other B10 people mentioned 18 years makes me think that there will be 3 6-year cycles set, where each school plays a locked cross-over rival every year of the 6 year cycle & the other 6 schools cycle through (so twice over 6 years). Except for PU & IU, the locked cross-over rival will change every cycle.
So who gets who over the next 18 years?
I think UNL will be the lucky ducky who gets Michigan, OSU, and PSU as locks.
I think they will try to make the LBJ and Illibuck special because of tradition, so Minny-Michigan & Illinois-OSU will be locked once.
Wisconsin & Iowa will both get PSU and lock with OSU & Michigan once each.
That leaves Wisconsin & Iowa with 1 lock left each, Illinois & Minny with 2 locks each, & Northwestern with 3 locks to fill. They will be filled with MSU, RU, and UMD.
Northwestern will have to get all 3 of those schools.
MSU may fill out with both Wisconsin & Iowa.
That would mean Illinois & Minny both get RU and UMD along with their rivalry game as locks.
Over 18 years, every school (besides PU & IU) will play their locked schools 10/18 times and their unlocked schools 6/18 times.
”
I’ll even lay out when I think the crossovers will be. The key considerations are
1. As UNL is the only western school to face all 3 eastern kings, they will face a weakened PSU the first cycle to be more fair to them.
2. The OSU-Wisconsin series has recently garnered more interest than Iowa-UM (or Wisconsin-UM or Iowa-OSU), so I think that will be in the first cycle as well.
First 6 years:
OSU-Wisconsin
PSU-UNL
Michigan-Minnesota
MSU-Iowa
Rutgers-Northwestern
UMD-Illinois
5 of the 6 promise to be either exciting or rivalry series.
Next 6 years:
OSU-UNL
Michigan-Iowa
PSU-Wisconsin
MSU-Northwestern
Rutgers-Illinois
UMD-Minnesota
Next 6 years (if the B10 doesn’t expand):
Michigan-UNL
PSU-Iowa
MSU-Wisconsin
OSU-Illinois
UMD-Northwestern
Rutgers-Minnesota
Guaranteed to have 4-5 king-king games each year.
If you count Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU as princes & you schedule right, you’ll have 8-9 king-prince games played each year.
By comparison, in 2013, the B10 will have 5 king-king matchups and 9 king-prince matchups, so even though 2 non-king/princes were added, the B10 will have virtually the same number of marquee games to sell to TV networks thanks to the uneven scheduling.
BTW, Brian, I remember you bellyaching about the additions of RU and UMD because they watered down OSU’s schedule. Well, the uneven scheduling & 9 conference games will give the Buckeyes pretty much the same number of games vs. the top B10 brands as they had in the 12-school B10, yet you complain about that as well. The only conclusion I can draw is that you’re a curmudgeon who complains about everything.
LikeLike
Richard,
“If I had to guess, the fact that Delany & other B10 people mentioned 18 years makes me think that there will be 3 6-year cycles set, where each school plays a locked cross-over rival every year of the 6 year cycle & the other 6 schools cycle through (so twice over 6 years). Except for PU & IU, the locked cross-over rival will change every cycle.”
Or you could be completely wrong. There are other plans that could cycle over 6 years. Many plans are based on multiples of 9. Also 18 is the standard length needed for a balanced schedule to completely rotate so they may have used that as a basis.
“I think they will try to make the LBJ and Illibuck special because of tradition, so Minny-Michigan & Illinois-OSU will be locked once.”
Despite Delany saying something contradictory.
“Over 18 years, every school (besides PU & IU) will play their locked schools 10/18 times and their unlocked schools 6/18 times.”
Other plans achieve the 5/9 * 3 schools and 1/3 * 4 schools in other ways. And they could also use other frequencies.
“Guaranteed to have 4-5 king-king games each year.”
OSU/MI, OSU/PSU and MI/PSU are already set annually. An even rotation would provide 1.33 NE/eastern king games while your plan provides for 1.67. That’s 1 extra king/king game every 3 years.
“If you count Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU as princes & you schedule right, you’ll have 8-9 king-prince games played each year.”
Again, 5 are locked in. An equal rotation gets you 8.11. Your plan gets you 8.56 if I counted correctly. That’s 4 whole extra king/prince games over 9 years.
“By comparison, in 2013, the B10 will have 5 king-king matchups and 9 king-prince matchups,”
2013:
Built in:
4 King/King – OSU/PSU, NE/MI, OSU/MI, NE/PSU
6 King/Prince – OSU/WI, PSU/WI, MI/IA, MI/MSU, NE/IA, NE/MSU
Rotates on:
1 King/King – PSU/MI
1 King/Prince – OSU/IA
Which are the other 2 K/P games? MSU doesn’t have OSU or PSU, WI doesn’t have NE or MI, and IA doesn’t have PSU.
“so even though 2 non-king/princes were added, the B10 will have virtually the same number of marquee games to sell to TV networks thanks to the uneven scheduling.”
Umm, no. The unbalanced schedule gains them 0.33 king/king games and 0.44 king/prince games. A balanced schedule still produces more marquee games than 2013 without all the negatives. It’s the 9th game that deserves the thanks.
2013:
K/K – 5
K/P – 7
2011-2013 pattern averaged:
K/K – 5.6
K/P – 8.4
2014-2015 pattern averaged:
8 games (balanced)
K/K – 3.92
K/P – 6.22
2016+ pattern averaged:
9 games (balanced)
K/K – 4.33
K/P – 8.11
9 games (unbalanced)
K/K – 4.67
K/P – 8.56
“BTW, Brian, I remember you bellyaching about the additions of RU and UMD because they watered down OSU’s schedule.”
No, you only think you remember that. You are failing to remember me complaining about OSU losing 2 conference games and ending up with 6+ OOC games (devaluing PSU and NE for newness, too), 5+ OOC games once they announced a 9th conference game. I didn’t complain about their level of play, since I don’t really consider them significantly different from IA, IL, MN, NW and PU. I also pointed out Gene Smith’s concerns about their lack of interest for the OSU fan base, especially when coupled with IN and IL/PU. As far as interest level, I may well have compared them to MAC teams.
“Well, the uneven scheduling & 9 conference games will give the Buckeyes pretty much the same number of games vs. the top B10 brands as they had in the 12-school B10,”
No, the 9th game does that but does nothing to address the waste of conference games. The unbalanced schedule makes a much smaller change in OSU’s schedule as I showed above already.
“yet you complain about that as well.”
I most certainly have NOT complained about the 9th game. I’ve always supported that. It gets OSU more games against all the true B10 teams which is exactly what I want.
I dislike the unbalanced schedule on principle. Intentionally creating an unfair schedule goes against everything college sports is supposed to be about. Sacrificing rivalries to chase a meager increase in money is against everything the B10 used to stand for. On top of that, I don’t believe it will achieve what I presume is the B10’s goal (making a lot of extra money).
LikeLike
You can actually do a cycle over a 6-year period if you tweak the assumptions a bit, see http://compu-picks.com/General_Interest/B1G_Schedule_v2.html
(basically if you go 2v2 from each division instead of 3v3 for teams who play each other more)
LikeLike
“Which are the other 2 K/P games? MSU doesn’t have OSU or PSU, WI doesn’t have NE or MI, and IA doesn’t have PSU.”
MSU plays PSU & OSU every year as they’re all in the same division.
LikeLike
Not in 2013. The new divisions start in 2014.
LikeLike
To be clear, that setup was with the 9-game schedule.
In 2013, as I noted above, the B10 will have 5 king-king matchups and 9 king-prince matchups.
For the 2-year stretch with an 8-game schedule, if I had to guess, the TPTB will match up by tiers:
UNL & Wisconsin vs. UM & OSU
Iowa & Northwestern vs. PSU & MSU
Illinois/Minnesota/PU vs.RU/UMD/IU
5 king-king matchups & 8 king-prince matchups.
Get use to seeing a lot of Wisconsin over the next few years, Brian.
LikeLike
Richard,
“In 2013, as I noted above, the B10 will have 5 king-king matchups and 9 king-prince matchups.”
And I counted 5 and 7 respectively and listed them.
2013:
Built in:
4 King/King – OSU/PSU, NE/MI, OSU/MI, NE/PSU
6 King/Prince – OSU/WI, PSU/WI, MI/IA, MI/MSU, NE/IA, NE/MSU
Rotates on:
1 King/King – PSU/MI
1 King/Prince – OSU/IA
So, to repeat: Which are the other two K/P games in 2013?
LikeLike
OK, I was looking at the 2012 B10 schedule.
LikeLike
I guessed it was something like that. I was just checking. I included the average numbers for the 2011-2013 pattern anyway.
LikeLike
Obviously coaches are pretty far down the food chain when it comes to realignment, but still worth noting.
LikeLike
UCF, here we come!
(I keed, I keeed!)
LikeLike
Michigan AD said the same thing. The BIG will expand again, it will just be a matter of when. I think it will be along the lines of the Rutgers and Maryland additions. One day there will be a rumor and the next day there will be two new members. I would guess it would be closer to the GOR’s being up, but 2016 will be an interesting year. If they don’t expand by then, then the length of the tv contract could give a clue as to when the BIG is looking to add.
LikeLike
I’m not so convinced that 2016 really matters any more. In this day and age, no one thinks conferences are static. The contract will undoubtedly contain automatic escalators and provisions that allow for re-negotiation if the league’s composition changes. If it’s written the right way, the timing of the expansion doesn’t really matter.
If the ACC’s GOR is as airtight as it is in the other leagues, then I just don’t see any opportunity for movement until their TV deals get close to expiration—at which point the cost of walking away will be comparable to an exit fee, which we know plenty of schools have paid.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22172969/coachs-poll-will-go-into-playoff-era
Unfortunately, the Coaches’ Poll will continue in the CFP era.
“The poll has a lot of roles than just a part of the selection process,” Teaff said. “That’s just been since 1998 [it’s been] part of the selection process. Part of the role of the poll that’s been good for college football is the early rankings — even though, interestingly enough, the BCS has asked us not to release it until later in the year.
“[A preseason poll] creates buzz, what the coaches think. The board’s strong opinion was that the poll will go on.”
Teaff added that he believes the Coaches’ Poll poll will have an influence on the playoff selection committee.
“No question about it,” Teaff said. “This is what our coaches feel, that the poll, even though it may not be a part of the selection process, it will let not only the world know but individuals on the selection committee know how the coaches feel, what their thinking is.”
He actually thinks pre-season and early season polls have been good for CFB? Even worse, he expects the poll to influence the committee. As if anyone should trust that poll as an unbiased ranking.
LikeLike
The poll has gotten worse as coaches start to have more bonuses that tie in to postseason. Or at least it seems that way. Coaches vote for friends or conference mates higher than they deserve.
LikeLike
If you are going to give weight to either the major polls now, please do the AP. It’s a lot better than the coaches with all the sitting coaches who aren’t following most teams not on their schedule (no time).
LikeLike
The AP poll used to be part of the BCS calculation. The AP asked not to be included, as they were uncomfortable with how it was being used. I doubt that their position on that has changed.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22173078/delany-big-ten-talked-seriously-with-several-schools-about-expansion
Commissioner Jim Delany told CBSSports.com that his league entered confidentiality agreements with possibly six or more schools to protect conversations about conference membership.
Recent additions Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland took up three of those spots.Those schools signed documents preventing them from publicly discussing their relationship with the Big Ten.
When asked about an exact number of schools involved, Delany said it was more or less than six. Whatever the number, the point was made: the Big Ten was aggressive about expansion.
The discussions were more serious than exploratory, said Delany, who declined to disclose the names of the other schools.
LikeLike
Time for everyone to make a list of slutty schools talking to the B1G
UNC
UVA
KU/OU/UT
JHU
maybe FSU
LikeLike
It’s impossible. Everything from 0 to infinity fits his description (except 6 if you take Delany literally). Is he including the first round when we got NE or just round 2?
LikeLike
I’d say his statement precludes zero. Otherwise, he’d have said, quite simply: “We didn’t speak to anyone else.” There’s no reason to make a complex statement where an easy one will do.
Well…there’s one possible reason: he’s just puffing his chest, much like people who try to pretend they’ve slept with more partners than they really did. But does anyone think that the Big Ten spoke to nobody else, besides the three that joined? Everyone raise their hands who believes that.
Obviously, from what he said, you can’t infer anything more. All you can do is draw up the same old list of the usual suspects.
LikeLike
Duh, Missouri. Like I’ve always been saying. It happened, folks. No doubt.
LikeLike
Hello SECN: SEC extends ESPN deal through 2034
LikeLike
Original deal expired in 2024.
LikeLike
SECN: 45 Football games a year. Three a weekend. 1000 live events. 450 broad cast on the network 550 digitally.
LikeLike
Press release: http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/05/the-southeastern-conference-and-espn-announce-new-tv-network-and-digital-platform/
LikeLike
Excerpt:
As part of the agreement, ESPN will now oversee the SEC’s official Corporate Sponsor Program. In addition, ESPN and the SEC also agreed to extend their existing media rights agreement through 2034. ESPN has televised the SEC since 1982. ESPN’s existing networks present more than 1,600 hours of SEC action each year. The new network will focus exclusively on the SEC and add another outlet to deliver sports fans more SEC content than ever.
LikeLike
Wonder if the conference is getting rights to 3rd tier content now or if that remains with the schools (up till now, their arrangement is actually no different than the approach the Big 12 has moved to).
LikeLike
@Eric – those third tier rights were bought back from non-ESPN rights holders and then packaged into the SECN
LikeLike
Thanks. I figured those rights wouldn’t have all expired anywhere close to the same time. Don’t know how I missed that.
LikeLike
Imagine that….
LikeLike
CBS gives up exclusive window.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see what they get in return.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – some more CBS info
LikeLike
I saw that on twitter as well. With the Big Ten, ESPN got access to televise some basketball games on ESPNU and potential compensation considerations for the elimination of the exclusive ABC window.
LikeLike
It was pretty obvious that CBS would see more value in the SEC contact with Mizzou and A&M added.
LikeLike
Maybe more prime time games. I think they are only allowed one per year currently.
LikeLike
Does not look like financial details (despite shouts to the contrary) will be disclosed at this time.
LikeLike
The financials are never publicly disclosed. One side will leak it to someone like SBJ fairly soon though. And if not, we’ll start seeing data from the SEC next summer.
LikeLike
I guess I have the answer to the question “What will the SEC give ESPN for the SECN?” The answer: The original 12’s third tier game a year, ~14 games from MU/TAMU a year (not 100% sure but I believe it’s factored in), plus 10 years of future SEC games. Now what will they get for it?
LikeLike
Mike – don’t forget about the digital rights, which the SEC retained in the previous agreement. As the years go by, digital rights should be a much bigger revenue source.
LikeLike
Rats! Thank you Alan.
LikeLike
Not the entire inventory for Mizzou / A&M. CBS will take 1 or 2 of those each year. See the A&M vs. Bama game in 2013 for an example.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Hello SECN: SEC extends ESPN deal through 2034”
Is it just coincidence that it ends 2 years after the BTN deal, so they can be last to renegotiate? Does the B10 make their new tier 1 deal be 10 years so it can’t get too out of date, 15 years to match the end of the BTN deal, or 20 years to be last to market?
LikeLike
@Brian – I think its just a coincidence. Twenty years commitment seems like the least anyone should make for an investment like this.
Since the last one was only ten, my guess is the next Big Ten contract will be in the ten to fifteen year range with ten the most likely. With the SEC out of the way, the Big Ten has the best product to offer and I think the Big Ten should go to market as often as possible. The Big Ten has to think the more open bidding the better.
LikeLike
Their new deal is now the longest rights deal in all of sports. The BTN deal was longer when it started, but that was purely tier 2. I understand why they did it, but that’s a really long time in a ever-changing market.
LikeLike
$34 MILLION. SUCK IT, DOUBTERS. I TOLD YOU SO.
LikeLike
$34 million a year per team? Impressive if so. Granted, it required extending the contracts another 10 years, but I think that will look good long before then,
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
I’ll believe it when I see it. But it should be a big increase. Has to be to commit out 20 years. The question is how it compares year-to-year.
The 20 year extension definitely throws a kink into the 2020s realignment theories. Maybe ESPN didn’t want to face 2010-2013 all over again in the mid-20s with all the deals coming up or renegotiating at the same time.
LikeLike
To me the big question is how much ownership of the SECN does the SEC have? Could we see this number go up into the 40s later in the decade if the SECN does well?
LikeLike
It was a 10 year extension. The SEC and ESPN already had an agreement until 2024.
LikeLike
No Andy you were telling us things like the SEC could start a network on their own right away if they wanted to. They’d have an ownership stake in the network. The ESPN deal wouldn’t be extended, etc.
ESPN got their extension. ESPN and the conference will both make more money. Good deal for all.
LikeLike
Nobody said anything about the ESPN deal not being extended. If that’s your out it’s a fake one and a very weak one. You. Were. Very. Very. Wrong. Period..
LikeLike
Even if it is $34 million, it doesn’t mean as much if the big increases come in 2025-2034. Noone has been proved right or wrong about the $.
LikeLike
Honestly I’m at work and pretty busy today and haven’t seen the details, just the heard from some people. Maybe it’s a misleading headline, don’t know.
But what I’ve heard it’s $34M starting in 2014. One would think it would go up from there if/when SECN profits go up, but I haven’t seen yet. The details might be better or worse than I think they are.
LikeLike
Doubt that. But the extension to 2034 does mean they will be getting some pretty good $ at some point, and probably a good bit more now than they would have if they kept it ending in 2024.
LikeLike
Looks like Slive is refusing to answer detailed questions about the details righ tnow. Money numbers seem to be estimates.
LikeLike
To be fair to everyone, I think there was guesses wrong on a lot of sides. I didn’t think they could do it because the previous contract was basically to avoid an SEC Network. That was true and it probably could not have been done independently of ESPN for that reason. What I didn’t see was the conference was willing to partner with them, extend their contract another 10 years, and buy back 3rd tier rights (some schools were making a lot from these). All those together made it possible when it probably wouldn’t have been otherwise. Obviously both sides think they gain a lot on the deal so it worked out well.
LikeLike
I doubted it because I thought it would be hard to get schools like Florida, Georgia and Kentucky to pool. But UGA and UF were on board quickly, so they like the value of pooling over doing it individually.
LikeLike
Where are you getting that number from? Slive is refusing to answer any questions about financials or ownership and I can’t find anything anywhere else.
I’m not saying your wrong, but I just can’t find anything to back it up.
LikeLike
Now if the BIG was smart they would only sign a 10 year contract in 2016. That means they will be a free agent again before the SEC even hits the market. Plus the GORs in the Big 12 and ACC will just be ending by then if they want to expand. Once that 10 year contract is over, sign another one in 2026 so that will be up again a few years after the SEC’s new contract in 2034. The BIG can stay one step ahead of the SEC in the money game,
LikeLike
Disagree. It only works out if you assume these deal will continue to get bigger and bigger. That means there’s a lot of risk either direction. I think the SEC was very smart to lock all of this in right now and think the Big Ten would be smart to start negotiating a new contract with ESPN right now (I do however also think the economy is going to collapse sometime in the not so distant future which I’ll admit is a big part of this suggestion).
LikeLike
As long as you believe the television market place isn’t going to tank within the next 5 years, The Big Ten has no business signing an extension with ESPN right now. The Big Ten has one key piece of leverage that the SEC did not have here. They can walk away and let their rights hit the open market.
LikeLike
Another thing to consider is exposure. With ESPN going all in with the SEC and ACC Networks, they’re not going to have time for anyone else. Would should the B1G play second fiddle to those other two conferences? BTN is already a Fox deal. There’s also Comcast, Turner, Fox Group or non-traditional companies like Netflix, Google, etc., as possible suitors.
The hell I would agree to one company monopolizing all college sports. I only wish the president can see that, although I doubt they would.
LikeLike
The economy collapsed in ’08 worse than anything since ’29, and is in recovery now.
Please point to a time that media contracts for live events have ever regressed. Apples to apples please. Continually morphing, self districting BE not acceptable evidence 🙂 .
LikeLike
Well everyone is trying to track you. Signed up for a on-line forum on AJC and had a link to opt-out. They sell your info to outside parties who want to track you. Interesting link:
http://www.aboutads.info/choices
I had 55!companies with cookies tracking my computer. Only about a half dozen did I recognize (google, yahoo, etc.).
LikeLike
Recovery all depends on what industry sector you are in. I am very fortunate as I am in the energy sector–as long as folks need/want electricity, I am okay… many other sectors are not in the same shape… Until our elected representatives in Washington pull their heads-out of somewhere nether, cutting our spending/reducing our debt—any talk of recovery is strictly bunk.
LikeLike
reducing debt and economic recovery have very little if anything to do with each other unless debts are pushing interest rates up, and they absolutely are not.
LikeLike
Chicken Little, is that you? 😉
You sound like an economist. One who has predicted twenty five of the last three recessions. I didn’t say we had recovered. I said we are in recovery (Dow crossed 15,000 today).
LikeLike
Please point to a time that media contracts for live events have ever regressed.
You could have asked the same thing about home prices in 2007…
LikeLike
And yet during the toughest economy since the Great Depression live sports rights continued up unabated.
Housing/land has sputtered in the past, but always came back. The false value being packaged in various tradable packages was what burst on ’07.
LikeLike
Dangerous fallacy that some outside force caused the recession. Home prices went up too fast and got too high relative to income. Eventually they collapsed. All those packaged deals just facilititated what was happening anyway and as you point out has happened before. And until the foreclosures get absorbed, things will still be difficult. I’m sure ad budgets have been squeezed. Sports properties could be getting in the same type of bubble. Priced too high relative to the income generated by ads.
LikeLike
SEC Bowl update.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22183231/sec-eyeing-belk-meneike-car-care-bowls-own-selection-process
It looks like Charlotte (home of the SECN) and Houston replace Atlanta and DFW, which are lost to the CFP. Even though they don’t plan to “slot” teams, I’m guessing the slotting process will still look something like this:
#1 (maybe #2) College Football Playoff
#2 Citrus Bowl
#3 a & b Outback & Houston
#5 Gator
#6 Charlotte
#7 a & b Memphis & Nashville
#9 Birmingham
#10 Shreveport
LikeLike
Just in case you want your own SECN, here’s the link.
http://getsecnetwork.com/
LikeLike
Congrats to the SEC. Looks like their long-term payouts will be able to almost keep up with the B1G.
LikeLike
The SEC will make more because the SECN will be more popular than the BTN.
LikeLike
We’ll see about that.
LikeLike
Do you really disagree? The SEC fanbase is significantly more passionate than the Big Ten’s. I would think even the biggest Big Ten homer would admit that.
LikeLike
Do you really disagree?
I can answer for Ross, but I disagree.
The SEC fanbase is significantly more passionate than the Big Ten’s. I would think even the biggest Big Ten homer would admit that.
And only the biggest SEC homer would make I a statement like that.
LikeLike
*I can’t answer for Ross…
LikeLike
Yes indeed we will.
LikeLike
oh, but I forgot, Rutgers is worth like a trillion dollars, right? so the B1G will make more fo sho
LikeLike
They will probably be about the same in the end. The SECN might be able to get a higher rate compared to the BTN in its gulf states but will probably be about the same everywhere else. Florida is a wild card as far as getting the entire footprint at a high rate and all of Texas is a pipe dream on par with the BTN’s desire to get New York City (if the LHN is having trouble in Texas for pennies on the dollar, the SECN will have serious trouble at anything close to a buck). The BTN network will make up the difference in rates though thru content. SEC football draws a lot of t-shirt fans but the university’s have smaller enrollments compared to the BIG. Alumni are more prone to tune into nonrevenue sports as oppose to your typical Alabama football fan. SEC basketball as a whole lags behind the BIG in interest plus the BIG will be adding ice hockey next year. The SEC has a greater baseball following but the BIG will also be adding lacrosse in the future to compliment its subpar baseball. In the end, it will probably be a wash.
LikeLike
If you’re banking on non-revenue sports to carry the BTN vs the SECN then you’re seriously fooling yourself. Non-revenue is called non-revenue for a reason. And anyway SEC attendance at non-revenue sports is way higher than B1G attendance. I would think TV ratings would go the same way.
LikeLike
I am not banking on non-revenue sports. I am stating the BIG will have more live content that will have greater viewership than the SEC overall. They sponsor more sports and have a way larger enrollment, thus a built in viewership. You are assuming SEC football popularity will carry a network for the entire year. That is a poor assumption. Look at the LHN. It is not turning a profit, so don’t go assuming that the SECN will automatically be a giant cash cow crushing the only conference network to make money. I said in the end they will be a wash. Also, please provide a link to the attendance figures you speak of.
LikeLike
Did you not see? The SECN will have 450 games per year, including 45 football games, 100 basketball games, every SEC championship other than football, that’s plenty of content. And SEC teams are more popular and get better ratings.
LikeLike
That could depend on which football games. If 40 of the 45 are AA or Sun Belt bodybags, the fanbase (much less casual customers) may not go crazy at their absence (maybe in Alabama, but not too many other states).
LikeLike
Since ESPN owns all football picks after CBS’ pick #1, they could put the second best game on the SECN on any given Saturday. That’s why any LHN comparisons don’t work.
From what I understand, the LHN gets what is typically the single worst UTx game, and may be able to move an away game if the home team agrees.
LikeLike
The fact that ESPN owns all of the content makes it extremely possible to do. I don’t think it will be quite as bad as cfn_ms. At the same time though advertisers are paying ESPN for ads on Saturday night based on ratings data for the 2nd best SEC game of the week. There is a tradeoff there that ESPN will have to balance.
LikeLike
Would ESPN really be willing to take the brand hit that would come from losing a bunch of their best SEC games to the SEC Network? That seems like a really risky move; messing with their core brand (the main ESPN network) doesn’t strike me as a great idea, especially since the whole ESPN system trades on the brand name and the amount of content.
Hurting both could have longer term consequences (and if it’s made obvious that moving SEC games to SECN is a short term move, then there’s not all that much incentive for carriers to fold just to watch those game go away shortly thereafter)
LikeLike
Andy,
You were wrong about attendence for non-revenue sports according to the NCAA. Here is a link for you.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Stats/
Just click on the individual sport under statistics and there will be an attendance link. Only in baseball and football does the SEC have a higher attendance in the sports for which it was tracked. So Field Hockey, Women’s Volleyball, Men’s Soccer, and Men’s Basketball (womens is too close to call without crunching the numbers with Tennessee being way ahead of everyone else but more BIG teams ranked) are have higher attendance with BIG schools. There is no need to view Lacrosse, wrestling, and Ice Hockey. Please post your information so we can compare.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Ten sponsors more sports, but the SEC does well in the non-revenue sports they sponsor: women’s basketball, softball, baseball, gymnastics, etc.
Yes the B1G has sports like bowling and wrestling, but those sports don’t draw anybody anyway. Hockey can be a decent draw, but only a few B1G schools even sponsor it.
LikeLike
@Andy
The Big Ten doesn’t sponsor bowling, but some schools do. Just like the SEC doesn’t sponsor wrestling but Missouri does.
Anyways, I haven’t seen anything that would suggest that SEC non-revs get high attendance than Big Ten.
LikeLike
Because there isn’t anything that states that. The SEC draws more for baseball. This years football attendance as well. Woman’s basketball is about a wash with the strength of Tennessee carrying the conference.
The SEC is on an unprecedented run of success in football, drawing in a lot of casual fans. The problem is that casual fans don’t watch conference networks; the hardcore and alumni do. I know that the national media is fawning over this project as some great achievement, which itself is laughable since the BTN has been running for years now, but they also fawned over the PACs wholely owned regional channels and the LHN. Both have yet to turn a profit so we will have to see. I never thought saying the SECN would be as successful as the BTN would be considered blasphemy.
LikeLike
Official name; SEC ESPN Network.
That doesn’t bode well for the potential for the SEC getting an ownership stake.
LikeLike
Also, the logo includes ESPN
LikeLike
http://twitpic.com/cnmyvg
LikeLike
It’s more of a branding thing. ESPN is a well liked brand. It will help get carriage.
LikeLike
The SEC needs branding help? Purely a good distribution move.
The mothership is well liked? I’m sure the SEC agrees…
LikeLike
They’re trying to maximize subscriptions. ESPN is a well liked brand for television. More people will opt to get it if they know it’s produced by ESPN.
LikeLike
Well, we disagree in respect to why people choose to watch ESPN. They are the 500 lb gorilla of sports broadcasting. And they do a great job of production. Trying to watch sports without ESPN is very limiting. Given a choice I’d rather skip the entertainment part of ESPN. They are insinuated into the structure of sports and leagues. A place a supposedly independent broadcaster of sports news shouldn’t be. I’m not blaming them. I am those who allow themselves to be bought.
LikeLike
Andy,
“ESPN is a well liked brand.”
Not really. It’s a well known brand, though.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you’re talking about. ESPN is pretty damn popular.
LikeLike
Seems pretty obvious to me. A lot of people dislike ESPN and watch solely because ESPN carries the team/game they are interested in. I personally don’t like ESPN much, but there is also worse out there. ESPN typically has good production value, at least.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I like ESPN. Most people I know like ESPN. It’s a pretty good company. I don’t see your point.
LikeLike
Or ESPN owns the network and just figured they would do whatever they wanted…
LikeLike
Is this surprising? It isn’t to me.
LikeLike
ridiculous. The word “SEC” comes before “ESPN”, if anything that would seem to indicate that the SEC has majority share.
LikeLike
Well Texas didn’t have to accept having ESPN in the name of their network at all and they didn’t get any ownership…
LikeLike
So you’re agreeing that it’s irrelevant either way.
Or maybe they looked at the LHN an decided it would be better to include “ESPN” in the name to get better coverage (like ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, etc)
LikeLike
So you’re agreeing that it’s irrelevant either way.
No.
LikeLike
I don’t think it will be too long before we start to call the “power” conferences, “Network Conferences.”
LikeLike
Here’s an SECN FAQ sheet.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/244763/sec-network-faq.aspx
LikeLike
Based on Slive’s comments, I’m guessing the ownership split is ESPN 100% SEC 0%. Just like the Texas deal. Not that they’re going to be hurting for money. Most are putting the pay out between 30-35 million a year.
LikeLike
He said nothing of the sort. You made that up.
LikeLike
GLS didn’t say Slive said that. GLS said HE GUESSED, based on comments of others (Slive). So, yes. Whenever someone forms an opinion they are “making that up.”
LikeLike
Slive specifically refused to speak on the matter. How could someone form an opinion about what Slive meant if he refused to talk about it? Bizarre statement. But GreatLakes is full of them.
LikeLike
Many times what isn’t said is as instructive as what is. BTN was announced as an ownership partnership, 51/49% that has since changed to 49/51%. P12N was announced as 100% conference owned. The failed Mtn I believe was 30% conference owned. The lack of information from the SEC about what the ownership structure is leaves a vacuum in knowledge, and questions as to why they wouldn’t explain. Does that mean it isn’t at least partially conference owned? No. Frankly, I believe it is. Perhaps because I don’t want colleges governing body, the current or possible future one, to be known by four different initials.
LikeLike
The only thing made up here is that you graduated from Michigan you troll.
LikeLike
Oh I definitely did. But whatever.
LikeLike
$30-35M/year starting in 2014 is pretty good, beyond my expectations.
$30-35M/year average over 20 years is just….. bad.
LikeLike
They haven’t said at all which of those two it is, and also refuse to speak on ownership. But that won’t stop many on here from making huge leaps based on nothing.
Just like they did when they said I was a fool for thinking the Big 20 would never happen.
LikeLike
Has time ended? Didn’t realize “never” had a time limit.
LikeLike
Oh, I didn’t realize you were talking about how this could maybe happen decades from now. Pretty sure you were saying soon.
LikeLike
mrsec.com also thinks 0%:
So we’ll have to wait a bit longer to learn if this is a 51/49-type split between the league and the network or if the SEC is simply being paid a healthy per-year sum by ESPN. (We’ve come to believe that the latter is the model that’s been adopted, just as ESPN pays Texas an annual sum for their Longhorn Network partnership.)
LikeLike
Could be, but Mr. SEC’s no insider. It’s actually two guys, one of them in Missouri, one in Tennessee. They post a lot of opinions. He commented on realignment quite a bit, and was wrong about pretty much everything.
He may turn out to be right about this but Slive specifically said that he would not answer any questions about it. It could be that they don’t even know for sure yet.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC definitely knows quite a bit about the inside of the SEC. Plenty of legit Big Ten insiders were wrong about the B1G’s realignment actions, too, so I wouldn’t hold that against him.
Regardless, if the SEC owns any percentage of network, it will end up leaking from their side in fairly short order. “Good news” gets leaked by conferences pretty quickly. The fact that Slive was coy about the ownership question is an indicator that the SEC doesn’t own any percentage (or is at least smaller compared to the Big Ten’s share of the BTN), although I’ll grant that it’s not confirmation.
LikeLike
SEC may prefer a bird in the hand. If it looks like the Texas deal, they would have rights payments with an equity kicker if it meets certain performance standards.
LikeLike
They may not necessarily need equity in conference to receive the bulk of the profits though. If I remember correctly from the details of the contract, Texas can earn X % of total profits above and beyond their fixed cut once costs have been paid back and ESPN has earned a certain amount of profit. Of course the kicker with structuring a deal like that is there are ways to make “profits” disappear. Hollywood is full of stories where creative types not seeing the royalties they expected because they agreed to a cut of the net rather than gross profits, and because of the ways the studios structure the books and cost allocations.
LikeLike
@Frank – I’ll have to admit, that I’m with you on the fact that Slive wouldn’t discuss ownership leads me to think that the SEC won’t have ownership in the network. I just can’t figure another reason for them not to discuss ownership of the network, unless they didn’t want it made public due to a potential negotiation with the ACC on a network for them.
LikeLike
I don’t think it confirms anything, but I agree that it is possible.
LikeLike
Yes, SuperD, it may be something like that. If the SEC is contractually entitled to a percentage of the profits it may effectively be the same as ownership, at least in terms of money.
LikeLike
Why is owning a percentage viewed as a positive? Revenue generation is the game being payed here. I would suspect this is structured like ESPN structured the LHN. 100% owned by ESPN until their initial investment is returned, then the ownership structure can be altered.
LikeLike
FranktheAg,
“Why is owning a percentage viewed as a positive?”
Ownerships gives you options and makes sure you share in the profit. You can get much of the same result with a carefully worded contract, but we’ll never see the contract and you can’t get all of the same result. The upside of no ownership is the lack of upfront costs, obviously. Just sit back and collect checks.
LikeLike
If you own you answer to yourself. If you own you have more control, someone else’s priorities don’t become primary.
LikeLike
I also kinda have a problem calling a corporate channel dedicated to a school or conference, “theirs”. They don’t own it, ESPN does. Just like they own eight other channels. It’s simply a different, more encompassing structure of assigning media rights to a bidder.
Ownership would also avoid ESecPNetwork, or other references alluding to the impression they are owned.
LikeLike
Why is owning a percentage viewed as a positive?
Setting aside the intangible advantages that come from ownership (i.e. making your own rules like the Big Ten refusing to sells ad space to alcohol companies) I guess it depends on how sustainable you view the current cable model. If you believe it will continue to grow (and do so at rates comparable to what it has in the past 15 years or so) then you are much better off having an ownership stake in order to maximize the amount of revenue you bring in. Remember, back in 2008 the SEC argued that the deals they struck with ESPN and CBS were so valuable they wouldn’t need to start a network and almost immediately regretted the decision as the value of college sports broadcasts grew much faster than they anticipated.
On the other hand, if you are skeptical of the current model then taking a guaranteed payment is a much better idea.
LikeLike
Like I said, revenue generation (and resulting OM) is the name of the game. I don’t read anything convincing above that owning a percentage of the network maximizes the conference’s revenue stream. Different, yes. A negative? Not seeing it.
LikeLike
The P12N will be able to deliver nearly everything after production costs to the schools. Decisions about content won’t necessarily need to be based on maximizing an outside investor’s return. The BTN will deliver aprox half of after production costs. LHN and ESecPNet apparently will receive payments that the mothership feels will allow for feeding the Disney beast and it’s shareholders. People cite their broadcast and investment savey, yet question those who make similar investment for themselves, with a greater ROI potential. Is ESPN making a questionable investment?
LikeLike
IMO the Scott did the Pac 12 a disservice by taking 100%. ESPN is spreading their risk across multiple networks and multiple inventories. Pac 12 is sinking it all into a Pac 12 cable basket. Its just basic diversification strategy. You don’t invest it all in one place at one time.
Now if everything turns out exactly as expected, the Pac 12 will make more than if they had a 50% or 0% ownership. They get compensated for risk as ESPN is with LHN and SECN. But if things turn out worse, they get less and may even lose money.
It makes sense for ESPN to take 100%. Its doesn’t for the Pac 12. With Texas, the SEC and B1G, it depends on how much risk you are willing to take. There is a general belief on here that taking more equity is good because it will turn out better than expected. There’s no guarantee of that. But the BIG is limiting their risk by partnering with Fox and having had Fox pay the upfront investment. Texas is allowing for upside with the equity if ESPN meets certain goals. I imagine the SEC’s deal is similar to the Texas deal. The Texas contract is in the public domain, so the SEC knows what that deal is.
The Texas, SEC and B1G approaches are all reasonable. The Pac 12’s is not.
LikeLike
Everything doesn’t need to go just right. In fact a 50% drop in profit would return the same amount a 50% partnership would with no drop. As long as there is profit (which, inspite of startup costs, the P12N is in the initial year) 100% beats 50%.
Texas and the SEC just did a different version of current media deals. X amount for rights to Y, with a new possibility that if certain targets are met, X may grow. The B1G is a partner in a network. The PAC owns a network, all it’s rights, digital distribution, etc. You know, the rights UT and the SEC just sold to a media giant for 20 years. And if you were to be correct in your worst forecast, getting out of a contract with yourself in order to go to the open market would be easier for them for the next 20 years.
LikeLike
B1G gets a rights fee on top of their profit %. So no, 100% of any profit with no rights fee doesn’t beat 50% of any profit with a rights fee.
LikeLike
1: If the rights fee is supplying the payout then the endeavor has failed. The rights fee was to cover the startup period before it became profitable that had been (incorrectly) anticipated to be a number of years. So yes, if the conference network model fails (the opposite seems to be happening) then the rights fee beats 100%. But who would more easily be able to scrap their network and take that inventory to the current market, and who would be stuck with the remainder of the partnership deal earning the minimum rights fee?
2: The ability of the P12N to have first or second pick in nearly half of the FB season, along with a third of the inventory, means it’s a jr. first tier partner with Fox and ESPN. Leverage. Something ESPN won’t use against itself.
Why do people continue to think ESPN run networks will be successful but the similar inventory, broadly offered by another entity won’t? I think we can dismiss startup costs. That is a short term way to get a pay boost in the first couple years (at the cost of larger, longer term payouts). Is it not wanting to be responsible for operation and production (at the cost of final control)?
LikeLike
If they scrap the deal, that already means they made the wrong choice and are far behind.
As far as leverage, the Pac 12 has sacrificed Tier I and II revenues to try to improve Tier III. So it has already given up revenues that have to be evaluated in how well they do.
LikeLike
I don’t recall anyone on this board saying ESPN networks would be successful while others wouldn’t.
But ESPN does have some advantages. It can try to link with their indespensible networks. And it is in the business. One of the most common business failings is doing something outside your area of expertise. Companies repeatedly lose their shirt moving outside their core. And, as I pointed out before, it has a diverse group of platforms and properties. The conference network has 1 platform and 1 property so it is taking a higher risk with 100% ownership.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, but only the LHN is a single property enterprise. BTN and SECN are 14 properties each, and the PAC is 12. Everyone has branched into digital distribution, telco, satellite, as well as cable.
Again you confuse P12N with a tier three entity. Christy Dosh recognizes the importance of withholding 36 FB games and the inclusion in weekly selection order (and she did not note that the selection order is set prior to the conference setting the schedule). I don’t think she saw it as a sacrifice of tier one, but rather another tier one partner.
It is plausible that sports broadcast is outside a universities comfort zone. But I’d suggest that participating in pseudo professional athletics, that college revenue producing sports have morphed into, is also not a university’s mission and strong suit. I bet UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, etc. have the ability to identify and access to those who are familiar with all forms of broadcast and production, including cutting edge technology.
LikeLike
“If they scrap the deal, that already means they made the wrong choice and are far behind.”
You have the order reversed. If conference network models fail THEN all conferences involved with said entities would need to retrench. I may be wrong, but getting out of a deal with yourself would seem to put you at an advantage over those who need to work with an external owner/partner.
LikeLike
Definitely speculation, but my guess is they are right. ESPN being in the name suggests it to me.
Beyond that, I bet the Big Ten would do it that way if it was doing it now. As this blog has said, college leaders are generally risk averse. They’ll take guaranteed money over shooting for the moon. The potential high side of owning it is bigger, but so is the downside. Right now both ESPN and the SEC expect it to do well so ESPN will pay a lot for it. If I was the president of one of the colleges, I’d be sure I was getting x dollars than know I’ll get x +/- something.
LikeLike
Beyond that, I bet the Big Ten would do it that way if it was doing it now. As this blog has said, college leaders are generally risk averse. They’ll take guaranteed money over shooting for the moon
If that was true they never would have started the BTN to begin with.
To be honest, if the Big Ten had there chance to go back in time they would probably have gone for an even greater equity stake.
LikeLike
Yeah I was going to say I don’t think the Big Ten regrets having a 49 to 51% stake in the network instead of a straight rights fee plus bonuses deal. They’re already profiting off of their ownership stake. If anything, they are wishing they owned more of the network.
LikeLike
Frug:
That’s what Weiberg said when helping start the wholly owned P12N, saying a do over would have not been a partnership, but they were breaking new ground. I think of LHN as just another ESPN channel but with very restricted programming. I hope the SEC isn’t simply enlarging ESPN’s empire with another channel.
LikeLike
The Irish look at adding 3000 club seats.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/notre-dame-looks-adding-football-182151216–ncaaf.html
LikeLike
College Baseball Report.
LSU and UNC both went 2-2 last week, so there’s a little movement in the polls. UNC is #1 in two (USAT & BA) of the four polls. Vandy is #1 in the other two (NCBWA & CB). LSU is #3 in three of the four polls. The poll average for the top five is as follows:
1 – UNC & Vandy
3 – LSU
4- Fullerton
5 – Oregon State.
Indiana is ranked in all polls from #16 to #21. Indiana’s RPI is #12, so Bloomington may be a regional host site. Notre Dame is ranked #29 in the NCBWA poll, but unranked in the others. Pitt is ranked #17 in the Collegiate Baseball, but unranked in the others.
Big series this weekend include Vandy at South Carolina, and Florida at LSU.
Regarding the latest attendance average report, LSU (10,824), Arkansas (8,254), Ole Miss (7,894), Miss State (7,385) & South Carolina (7,332) remain as the top five. South Carolina is averaging 2,500 more fans per game than #6 Texas, which is having a down year. Creighton is #16, Nebraska is #24, Wichita State is #25, and Indiana is #43.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9235629/new-era-pinstripe-bowl-gator-bowl-likely-acc-source-says
ACC bowl info with a B10 nugget:
The ACC’s future bowl lineup is likely to include the New Era Pinstripe Bowl and a return to the Gator Bowl, a source told ESPN.com.
…
While nothing has been solidified, there is also a good possibility that when the Big Ten plays in the Discover Orange Bowl, the ACC will slide into the Big Ten’s slot in the Capital One Bowl.
LikeLike
Like your tailgate beverage cold? Keep the can/bottle dry.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/hottopics/2013/05/01/science-fact-how-to-keep-a-bottle-of-beer-cold-keep-it-dry/
LikeLike
I think that the B10 will sign a 15Y deal next time. This will make the tier 1 & 2 deal end at the same time as the BTN deal in 2032.
LikeLike
LikeLike
ESPN must be paying the SEC big bucks to get them to agree to that, plus probably a share of the profits.
LikeLike
Probably similar to the LHN where UT gets a share after payout.
But with the 10 year extension and no ownership, the SEC is going for $ now and less risk. So it will be a lot more $ than otherwise. Be interesting what leaks out over the next few weeks.
LikeLike
Other comment has the dreaded awaiting moderation comment, but WSJ is reporting the SEC network will be 100% ESPN owned.
LikeLike
LHN 2.0
😦
LikeLike
Just speculating, but one of the reasons for a lack of specifics could be that they made this deal more complicated than LHN. Could be some contingencies on both sides regarding penetration of the network.
LikeLike
Simone Scott interviewed Jim Delany in the past few days. They talked about Michigan’s run in the Final Four, the future of the ACC/B1G Challenge, Maryland/Rutgers, the Mike Rice scandal, the divisional structure for non-football sports and the issue of B1G football teams competing in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygSZOqivHp0
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/02/sec-network-south-eastern-conference-nine-game-schedule-expansion/2131081/
A column about the SECN.
“It’s a win/win for the conference and its fans. Some believe the combination of the current contract with CBS and the arrival of the SEC Network will produce in the neighborhood of $400 million in revenue annually — about $28.5 million per conference school. And that doesn’t count other cash cows like the SEC Championship Game, conference tournaments, bowl payouts and the like.”
Yet another number thrown out there.
“The TV deal figures to promote change, including:
• A nine-game SEC football schedule is right around the corner. …
With the need for more and better inventory, it’s just a matter of time before a ninth SEC game is birthed …
• Look for some scheduling adjustments in football. With the need for four quality games for TV (one on CBS and three on ESPN), the SEC can’t afford to have a weak Saturday like Nov. 17 last year, when the top games were LSU-Ole Miss, Arkansas-Mississippi State and Vanderbilt-Tennessee.
• Non-conference basketball schedules will be upgraded. This already was being encouraged by the conference office but it now becomes a necessity in order to please business partner ESPN.
• Slive downplays it but there is sure to be speculation about further SEC expansion. Some influential SEC figures already have their eyes on the states of Virginia and North Carolina, where sizable TV markets like Washington, D.C., Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham have great appeal.”
LikeLike
All sounds like speculation. And how is the SEC supposed to raid the ACC at this point?
LikeLike
Conference expansion for the SEC (and Big Ten) is pretty much on hold until the next ACC TV deal is discussed and that GOR lapses.
Neither conference wants to be involved in something like trying to extract schools from a situation like that which could turn into a big legal mess.
LikeLike
‘Whew!’ Having been proven wrong yet again, I figured you would have slithered back to your SECellar. Thankfully, your B1G hating neurosis knows no bounds, which guarantees more humiliating refutations to come. ….Yahooo!
LikeLike
proven wrong on what? 99% of the people on this board have been wrong about something. Most who post the most were wrong about a ton.
LikeLike
Andy,
“All sounds like speculation.”
Do you understand what a “column” is? It is an opinion piece by definition, not straight reporting. It says “Column” in the headline and I mentioned that it was a column in my comment. Nobody claimed that piece was anything but opinion.
“And how is the SEC supposed to raid the ACC at this point?”
He didn’t say they would. He said speculation wouldn’t stop and that those 2 states were tempting. He didn’t include a time frame.
LikeLike
What’s the point of bringing it up if it’s not going to happen for decades?
Seems like a lazy stupid column full of lazy stupid opinions.
LikeLike
All sounds like speculation. And how is the SEC supposed to raid the ACC at this point?
You seem to toss out the word “speculation” for any report that doesn’t come from your Missouri buddies. USA Today isn’t the Dude of WV. It’s a real newspaper. Most of what’s in that article sounds fairly plausible.
The article itself said that SEC expansion is “speculation,” so you have quoted that part of it accurately. Well done.
LikeLike
Exactly, it’s worded as speculation, no definitive statements in that article. I could have written that article and it would have been just as useful. It’s categorized as a “column” and seems to be mostly opinion.
The trouble with the Dude is he clams to be reporting facts, when he’s been proven wrong a million times.
My Missouri sources had one story, it’s never been proven wrong, not even close. I tend to think it’s mostly true, although I suspect it’s not the whole story.
LikeLike
As far as the ownership question goes, my guess is that ESPN held the cards in their hand (due to the fact that they had the SEC already signed to a long-term deal already that had to be expanded in terms of payouts). They effectively (through their ongoing ESPN-SEC deal) were able to tell the SEC that the only possible network until the 2020s was an ESPN run network.
In a sense, the fact that the SEC wasn’t a “free agent” because they were signing an extension and expansion of a current ongoing contract was a part of why ESPN had a lot more bargaining power in the equation.
That’s probably why the SEC may not have a stake in the network itself. In a sense, ESPN may itself have put forward the LHN model as an idea for how the ownership would work as opposed to the Big Ten’s 51/49 split or the Pac-12’s complete ownership.
I do think the network structure would have looked different if the SEC was a free agent; it probably would have been a 50-50 split.
LikeLike
It gives them a stronger hand in 20 years. The SEC could take their content elsewhere, but wouldn’t have anyplace to go.
LikeLike
Yeah, all the infrastructure and distribution and the like will be in place, and the deal will end around the same time as the BTN’s deal.
My question to you bullet (and HH if he’s still around) is what does this mean for the LHN?
Could ESPN theoretically bundle the LHN and SECN in Texas’ markets (Dallas, Houston)?
LikeLike
There’s been speculation on that for months. It did get bundled with other Disney properties in the Charter deal. LHN has pretty much got distribution on the smaller and medium size networks. It lacks the Big 4 (Time Warner, Comcast, DISH, DirectTV).
Pricing will be tricky in Texas. Rumors are they are asking $.35 for LHN in Texas and struggling to get carriage. Houston and DFW are such pro sports markets.
LikeLike
Cable companies are starting to feel the pain from the down economy. They are losing customers so they cannot keep raising prices indefinitely. So any addition payout to espn will be coming from the providers profits not the consumers. That is why there is such a fight to get these new channels on all the platforms. The BTN came at the right time before the economy hit the crapper. I imagine the BTN will have a fight on their hands in Maryland and New Jersey.
LikeLike
Thinking about the ACC Network….
To get it’s network, the SEC included: The original 12′s third tier game a year, ~14 games from MU/TAMU a year (not 100% sure but I believe it’s factored in), 10 years of future SEC games, sponsorship, and digital rights.
We’ve seen rumors about the value Notre Dame would offer the ACC but I haven’t seen confirmation on anything signed. In addition, I believe that the ACC does have its sponsorship and digital rights. I just don’t believe that the ACC will get a similar deal from ESPN* for the ACCN just by adding a ten year extension (to 2036), Notre Dame, sponsorship and digital rights. To get a similar deal from ESPN they’ll have to get as close as they can to the value the SEC brought. I think they’ll have to expand.
A high paying network should allow them to pass the Big 12 in annual contract value and put the wolves squarely at the Big 12’s door once the Big 12 GOR ends.
*I feel they’ll get a deal, but they’ll want a similar deal to prevent negative comparisons like what happened with their TV contract. If the SEC gets a flat rate of X million a year, the ACC can’t sign a deal that pays 1/4 of X million.
LikeLike
To get a similar deal from ESPN they’ll have to get as close as they can to the value the SEC brought. I think they’ll have to expand.
There’s no conceivable ACC expansion that makes them worth the same as the SEC. There just aren’t enough good football schools in the ACC, and there aren’t enough basketball schools they can add to make up for it. Anyhow, I doubt that the ACC presidents signed a GOR because they believed they’d get SEC money. No one could have been that naive.
A high paying network should allow them to pass the Big 12 in annual contract value and put the wolves squarely at the Big 12′s door once the Big 12 GOR ends.
The issue isn’t contract value, but contract value divided by the number of mouths to feed. Since the ACC has 15 schools (and in your scenario, even more than that), their contract would need to be a lot better than the Big 12’s, just to break even. That isn’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
There’s no conceivable ACC expansion that makes them worth the same as the SEC.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that the ACC needs to get a conference network deal similar to the SEC. To do that they need to bring to the negotiating table with ESPN items of similar value that the SEC did. I just don’t think they have that now.
I think an ACC Network will be very successful. It will probably be a big money maker. The ACC just needs to convince ESPN to give them the biggest share of the profits possible. Without additional inventory now, I think that’s going to be very tough.
LikeLike
The ACC can’t possibly bring similar value to the table. The SEC brought the first 12’s 3rd tier stuff, the additional A&M/Mizzou content, digital rights, and extended their existing agreement for the highest rated football conference for another 10 years.
Even if the ACC somehow expands two more teams, here is what they bring: additional inventory for two new teams (UConn? Cincy? please.) and extending the existing agreement for the 5th-highest rated football conference.
There really isn’t anything the ACC can offer to make ESPN give them a big share of profits.
LikeLike
Right now they can bring Notre Dame (2-3 FB + everything else), an extension, digital, etc. I don’t think that’s enough to get much from ESPN*. Expansion is a cheap option to get bring something else*. If they Expand it won’t put them too far off of what the SEC brought (remember the SEC 3rd tier was only worth 15 million)
*Just like with the Big Ten the value of a school increases when a conference network is involved. With out those cable households Rutgers is not in the Big Ten. Is Rutgers that different form UConn?
LikeLike
I’m arguing that the ACC needs to get a conference network deal similar to the SEC. To do that they need to bring to the negotiating table with ESPN items of similar value that the SEC did. I just don’t think they have that now.
You’re right that they don’t have that, but where do you think they can get it from? You think that adding any combination of ex-Big East schools would bring the ACC up to SEC value? You cannot be serious.
Obviously, an ACC network would be worth something, even with their current inventory. But there is no point in adding inventory unless it increases the per-school payout, which is hard to imagine. Any school they’d add would be less worthwhile than the ones they’ve already got.
LikeLike
You’re right that they don’t have that, but where do you think they can get it from? You think that adding any combination of ex-Big East schools would bring the ACC up to SEC value?
I don’t necessarily think the ACC will get the same amount out of their network as the SEC will. If the SEC gets X for a flat rate and profit sharing after Y, I don’t think the ACC can afford to sign a contract that says their flat rate is 1/2X and profit sharing kicks in after 2Y. Look at how people reacted (the FSU trustee) after the TV contract was signed. In the end, the SECN will probably be more profitable than the ACCN, but the ACC needs a competitive deal framework.
LikeLike
In addition, I believe that the ACC does have its sponsorship and digital rights.
As part of the renegotiation after the Pitt and Syracuse additions the ACC surrender the sponsorship rights to the MBB tournament and CCG to ESPN. I don’t about their other sponsorship rights.
LikeLike
I didn’t see anything definitive on what the ACC had or didn’t have. It appeared that ESPN didn’t control (most) of the content, but I don’t know for sure.
LikeLike
When there were the rumors that UNC was getting a better deal because 3rd tier bb was school owned while football was ESPN owned, ESPN, very unusually, came out with a statement on behalf of the ACC that ESPN owned the rights to broadcast everything. Now anything they choose not to broadcast fell through to the schools, but they had already paid for it all for all sports.
LikeLike
Sounds like we won’t know much about the SEC Network payout for a while. The ADs don’t know:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/mike_slive_SEC_probably_would.html
LikeLike
bad link-see below
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/mike_slive_sec_probably_would.html
Try this.
LikeLike
John Skipper’s quote is interesting.
“We agreed then (in 2008) that the world was going to change, and that what looked like a very rich deal at the time has now been caught up by other conferences and other networks,” ESPN President John Skipper said. “We committed that we would always keep the SEC in a primary position of leadership and we did.”
Wonder if they made some kind of commitment to the ACC as well when that deal was signed.
LikeLike
That doesn’t give the look-ins “teeth,” but does give them some more value than ESPN previously described them.
I was pleased the SEC isn’t doing any more Thursday games. They are sticking with two, which I believe are Thanksgiving and the first week of the season. As a TV viewer Thursday games are nice, but they aren’t good for game day.
LikeLike
“…always keep the SEC in a primary position of leadership …”
“A” position of leadership, as opposed to “the” position of leadership.
A small but significant distinction? (Am I really sticking up for the mothership?)
LikeLike
As opposed to the fact that they’ve never passed the B1G for the leadership position when it came to payouts, even though the media wants to believe so.
LikeLike
It will happen very very soon greg, whether you like it or not.
LikeLike
Tweet from the school North of Arkansas.
LikeLike
Why do they (Missouri) care so much what the B10 does?
LikeLike
What did that tweet have to do with the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Another article. Says BTN lost money in 2009 and 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/sports/ncaafootball/sec-will-have-own-tv-network-tarting-in-2014.html?_r=0
LikeLike
Sorry-typo
LikeLike
The BTN “lost money” according to IRS filings. For IRS purposes, I assume that is true every year and will be true every year until the BTN ceases to exist. I assume, for IRS purposes, that the SEC will lose money every year too.
quote from the NYT article linked by bullet:
“According to the research firm SNL Kagan, the Big Ten Network has just over 50 million subscribers, subscriber revenue of $234.3 million and net advertising revenue of $41.5 million. But Kagan said that the network lost money in the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years, according to the conference’s Internal Revenue Service filings.”
LikeLike
Yes, losing money due to the formula payouts to your two owners putting you a small amount into the red after depreciation is not something that will upset the two owners receiving those payouts.
LikeLike
Looks like the PAC is echoing Slive’s position regarding what bullet called perhaps a line in the sand.
“… there is at least one area where Scott and Slive agree: increasing the value of scholarships to cover cost of attendance.”
And
” just like Slive, Scott was willing to say for the record this week that if the NCAA isn’t going to facilitate a solution, maybe then it’s part of the problem.”
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=pac12&id=56326&src=desktop
LikeLike
Good article on SEC scheduling.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/secs_9-game_football_talk_hard.html#incart_river
LikeLike
From the article, it sounds like Slive keeps bringing it up and all but the Alabama and Auburn ADs keep saying no. Article mentioned Florida, Ole Miss, Miss. St., South Carolina and Arkansas being against it. UGA is against it. UK and Vandy probably are. That’s 8 no votes and 2 yes, with LSU, Mizzou, A&M and Tennessee not accounted for.
LikeLike
Mizzou has said they’re against it. As a fan I’d like to see it, but I can see both sides of the argument.
LikeLike
LSU Wisconsin update.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/5874033-123/lsus-joe-alleva-football-game
LikeLike
It appears to me that the B1G kings will be playing each other a lot in the future. From 2014 Michigan, OSU and PSU will play each other every year and I expect Nebraska will crossover to play one (or two) of them in 2014 and 2015. Then from 2016, with the 9th conference game, Nebraska will probably have two king crossovers (as will Wisconsin and Iowa), making a total of five king-vs-king games and a bunch of king-vs-prince games.
By using two of the three crossovers to match the top teams, the B1G will maximize the number of high-profile games, which will please the fans and the BTN. Meanwhile, the lower four teams in each division will play two crossovers with each other.
The remaining one crossover will be used to match top teams with lower teams. This is sufficient to fulfill the promise of every team playing in a four year period.
Nebraska — two crossovers with Michigan, OSU and/or PSU
Wisconsin — ditto
Iowa — ditto
Nebraska — one crossover with Rutgers, Maryland, MSU or Indiana
Wisconsin — ditto
Iowa — ditto
Minnesota — two crossovers with Rutgers, Maryland, MSU and/or Indiana
Illinois — ditto
Northwestern — ditto
Purdue — ditto
Minnesota — one crossover with Michigan, OSU or PSU
Illinois — ditto
Northwestern — ditto
Purdue — ditto
LikeLike
FYI, the math doesn’t work (unless IU & PU play each other 3 times a year).
I think my plan of rotating a fixed crossover opponent every 6 years (except for IU-PU) is more likely to happen. See above.
In practice, your plan would have UNL/UW/Iowa playing OSU-UM-PSU 108 times over 18 years. My plan would have would have UNL/UW/Iowa playing OSU-UM-PSU 82 times over 18 years. A difference of 1.44 games a year However, I would have UNL play OSU-UM-PSU only 6 less time over 18 years, or .333 games a year, so I would barely sacrifice king-king games while playing the LBJ and Illibuck games more often as well as making the schedule difference between Iowa & Northwestern (as well as MSU & Michigan) less acute.
LikeLike
Will Sparty play as weak as teams as possible in the west as they hope?
LikeLike
Theoretically, yes. NE, WI and IA will play the top teams (OSU, MI, PSU) more often while MSU, RU and UMD will play the bottom teams (NW, MN, IL) more. IN and PU will probably play everyone else equally (1/3 on average).
One reasonable question is what they do when the brands and the teams don’t match up. Right now the top 3 teams are also the top 3 brands. If MSU is 2 W’s better than PSU every year for 5 years, does the scheduling plan change? If NW is consistently better than IA, do they swap places? Or once the cycle starts are they committed for a long time to make everything balance out correctly?
Obviously how much they plan to skew the schedule balance is another key issue. Maybe when they release the first 2016+ schedules they’ll explain the whole system.
LikeLike
It sounded like they made out a ‘very’ tentative schedule for 18-years.
LikeLike
Probably. But we won’t know anything until they release it.
LikeLike
One reasonable question is what they do when the brands and the teams don’t match up. Right now the top 3 teams are also the top 3 brands. If MSU is 2 W’s better than PSU every year for 5 years, does the scheduling plan change?
My guess is: brands trump results. What the Big Ten cares about is television ratings, not who wins or loses. Brands in college sports are exceedingly durable. Notre Dame has remained one of the best draws in all sports, despite generally mediocre results for over a decade and a half (after Lou Holtz left, until last year).
Notre Dame might be an exceptional case, as they are in so many things, but I think you’ll find that most “kings” hold onto their brand equity, even after a number of years of unimpressive results on the field. Fan loyalty is often passed down from generation to generation, and doesn’t quickly evaporate just because the team is no longer winning.
Of course, it’s worth noting that the Big Ten doesn’t care much about the playoff, either. It’s deliberately constructing schedules that will more often produce a conference champion with multiple losses, one less likely to be in the top four. Reliable ratings, week after week, are more important to them than qualifying for a particular post-season game (other than the Rose Bowl, of course).
If the Big Ten champ gets a playoff berth, they’ll take it, but the schedule they’re constructing is not designed to maximize that possibility.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“My guess is: brands trump results. What the Big Ten cares about is television ratings, not who wins or loses. Brands in college sports are exceedingly durable. Notre Dame has remained one of the best draws in all sports, despite generally mediocre results for over a decade and a half (after Lou Holtz left, until last year).
Notre Dame might be an exceptional case, as they are in so many things, but I think you’ll find that most “kings” hold onto their brand equity, even after a number of years of unimpressive results on the field. Fan loyalty is often passed down from generation to generation, and doesn’t quickly evaporate just because the team is no longer winning.”
I generally agree, but the west will really be the test case. If IA stays down for a while, do they stay in that group of 3? Are they enough of a brand to survive losing? Or would the B10 secretly prefer NW to pass them so they could also get more king games in Chicago to go with NYC and DC? Or even MN to get MSP?
“Of course, it’s worth noting that the Big Ten doesn’t care much about the playoff, either. It’s deliberately constructing schedules that will more often produce a conference champion with multiple losses, one less likely to be in the top four. Reliable ratings, week after week, are more important to them than qualifying for a particular post-season game (other than the Rose Bowl, of course).”
I agree with this, too, but lots of people don’t. They think the new scheduling will actually help get CFP slots. Of course many of them also don’t seem to entertain the notion that the top teams might actually lose these extra games against tougher teams.
LikeLike
Iowa is not a King in any event, though … as far as what the Big Ten would like, the Western being a scramble, with Nebraska as the national brand name and Whiskey, Iowa and Northwestern in the mix seems like it would be a perfectly fine script.
LikeLike
“Iowa is not a King in any event, though”
wrasslin’.
LikeLike
I’ve got some info. I don’t know if it’s being reported yet, maybe it is. If it’s not, feel free to not believe me, but it’s true.
Mike Alden, Missouri’s AD, said that SEC Network payouts will be tied to how negotiations go with the various cable providers. The more coverage the network gets, the more SEC schools will get paid. This seems to indicate that the deal is for the SEC to get a certain percentage of the revenue from the SEC Network, not just a flat fee. He said that “very, very, very, very conservatively” it would be a few million per year per school. I would guess that’s if things go terribly and they can only get one or two providers to pick it up. A high level success, with the SECN getting on DirecTV, DishNet, ATT Uverse, Comcast, MediaCom, etc etc would be worth “considerably more than that”.
Apparently Disney Corp (who owns ESPN and thus the SEC ESPN Network) is planning on working hard to leverage their influence to get it on basic cable throughout the SEC footprint for all providers, and then on the tier that includes ESPNU for those outside the footprint.
Also, I heard thirdhand from someone that the projected budget for the Mizzou athletic department in 2016 is $85M, and that’s considered “conservative”. This year apparently it was $69M. So they’re conservatively projecting a $16M increase, but it could be “significantly more”.
Again, feel free to not believe me. Most here like to think I’m just a liar who makes things up, or a fool who believes liars, or who knows what. Yesterday someone even said I’m lying about having gone to grad school at Michigan. What strange folks you are. So anyway, feel free to dismiss what I’m saying, but it’s the truth as far as I’ve been told. And it seems to be more info than I’ve seen on here, so I thought you might be interested.
LikeLike
You do understand there are other revenue sources that are supposed to change in value between now and 2016 for MO, right? The annual escalation of TV deals, the CFP, standard budget inflation, etc.
LikeLike
Yeah, obviously. Missouri is expanding their stadium from 71k to 83k and adding $60M worth of luxury boxes. Donations are up. Ticket sales are up. Bowl revenue will be up. CBS money might go up, I don’t know. Tier 1 and 2 money should go up a bit. So all of that is factored in as well. This “conservative estimate” would seem to budget for “a few million” from the SECN. I thought that’s what I was communicating, but I guess I wasn’t clear. I guess what I was trying to imply is that if things go well for the SECN then maybe it’s worth $10M or $12M per schoo, who knows? And then Missouri’s budget could be as high as $90M or $95M, which would put Missouri on par with Oklahoma and Wisconsin.
LikeLike
And this is just my opinion, I have no idea, but I would guess the SECN will pay out about what the BTN pays out, but probably a little more, maybe 10-15% more, just because it will be more popular and more people will buy it. Also, ESPN will probably get better carriage than FOX does. But then they’ll take a larger % of the profits, so in the end the SECN won’t make huge amounts more than the BTN. I don’t tend to subscribe to Clay Travis’s ideas about huge amounts of money raining on SEC schools.
LikeLike
The demographics in the SEC footprint don’t suggest high per capita incomes and high ad revenue. The SEC has 2 really good markets in Houston and Atlanta. Would also be interested to know what % of homes in the SEC footprint have cable or an equivalent versus the BTN footprint.
LikeLike
Looks like the Big Ten footprint is maybe a little higher but not a lot.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvb.org%2Fmedia%2Ffile%2FCable_UEs_by_State.pdf&ei=9H2EUbLIKuSKjALQ54HgBA&usg=AFQjCNGFI4rW00qsQYFTsDQyCQGaOG1GXw&sig2=Yi7SBj8stsYj6sRRj6xSZg&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE
% of homes with cable
Alabama 51.8
Arkansas 46.3
Florida 70.0
Georgia 55.5
Kentucky 56.1
Louisiana 58.8
Mississippi 42.5
Missouri 46.7
South Carolina 54.8
Tennessee 57.5
Texas 51.2
Illinois 58.6
Indiana 52.6
Maryland 72.9
Michigan 62.4
Minnesota 55.2
Nebraska 60.5
New Jersey 84.4
Ohio 65.1
Pennsylvania 70.2
Wisconsin 53.8
LikeLike
Andy,
“Looks like the Big Ten footprint is maybe a little higher but not a lot.”
3 SEC states are below 50%
7 SEC states are in the 50s (4 B10)
0 SEC state are in the 60s (3 B10)
1 SEC state is at 70
2 B10 states are in the 70s
1 B10 state is in the 80s
Crunching the numbers:
Total HH: SEC = 34.6M, B10 = 31.2M (assumes whole states)
Cable HH: SEC = 19.5M, B10 = 20.1M
Cable HH %: SEC = 56.3%, B10 = 64.5%
LikeLike
Note that these figures are purely for wired cable (includes traditional cable companies like Comcast and telcos such as AT&T U-Verse) and don’t include satellite (such as DirecTV and DISH). The NYC, Philly and DC areas have very low satellite penetration (hence the high cable figures in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland), while states with more rural areas will have higher numbers of satellite users. Once you add cable and satellite households together, the differences between states are fairly immaterial – it’s pretty close to 90% nationwide across-the-board.
Now, one relevant item with those wired cable figures is that New Jersey and Maryland have the highest percentages on that list. This actually indicates a lot of potential revenue upside for the BTN in those states because relatively few homes in those states have DirecTV (which already has a nationwide basic carriage deal for the BTN, so a current DirecTV subscriber in a “new” Big Ten market won’t add revenue) compared to the rest of the Big Ten footprint.
LikeLike
Good points, Frank.
LikeLike
Frank,
That’s all true. I just used the numbers he provided to evaluate the conclusion he drew from them. I leave it up to the reader to decide how well what he said fits the actual numbers.
LikeLike
Brian, I used the word “maybe” to indicate that I wasn’t sure. Maybe you missed it.
LikeLike
@Brian – Here’s an article with quotes from Alden.
“All boats in the SEC will be raised,” Alden said. “If we’re trying to gain on North Carolina State, trying to gain on Illinois and Texas Tech and Kansas State, absolutely, we are” gaining “nationally. This will make a pretty big effort for us with what we’re trying to do nationally with peer institutions. But in our league, it does not change you at all. If you’re 11th, 12th or 13th in the SEC relative to revenues, just by this, you’re still going to be 11th, 12th or 13th.”
In 2011-12, Missouri had an athletic budget of $61.2 million, which, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s figures, would have ranked 11th in the 14-team SEC — ahead of Mississippi, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt. The financial gains from the SEC Network will clearly boost Missouri’s national ranking for revenue, but the school’s peers in the SEC will experience similar growth.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/sports/mu/tv-cash-could-raise-mu-s-national-standing/article_088bdf04-b418-11e2-a737-10604b9f1ff4.html
LikeLike
Hadn’t seen that article, thanks.
LikeLike
What Dave Matter neglected to mention was that those 2011-12 Missouri numbers were hurt by the Big 12 witholding revenue. I’ve heard the budget was closer to $69M this year. That was third hand info though, so I don’t know for sure exactly what it is.
LikeLike
That is consistent with the article with the Florida AD not knowing how much the SECN would pay. I doubt it is a %, but it is probably some kind of sliding scale or payments based on goals as I speculated earlier. With their LHN getting in slower than anticipated, they probably built some contingencies into the SECN payments.
LikeLike
Yeah probably.
LikeLike
Participation Ribbons lead inexorably to Participation Rings.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/mack-brown-hands-rings-players-winning-alamo-bowl-133638030.html;_ylt=As.b4Hh5YG_rlPTBEs.Z54FUYsp_;_ylu=X3oDMTE5NjRidW4yBG1pdANCbG9ncyBJbmRleARwb3MDMzgEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0luZGV4;_ylg=X3oDMTFpMm9iMzh1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANibG9nBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
LikeLike
Shocking enthusiasm for Nebraska basketball:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130503/HUSKERS/705039862/1685#barfknecht-it-s-a-red-letter-date-as-nu-basketball-sells-out
LikeLike
That arena is being built to be as close to a pro-arena as a school can get in this day and age. When you build something like that, you should expect a full house the first year or two, especially with such a strong following as Nebraska has for its other sports.
Of course, even an arena like that won’t keep people coming if they keep running off double digit placement in the Big Ten standings.
LikeLike
You are right, the new arena will give the attendance a bump. The support here is real enough, though, and there is a feeling that we finally have a coach that can take us to the tournament and win a round or two.
LikeLike
From the Ann Arbor News – “Dave Brandon: The Big Ten could stay at 14 teams ‘forever,’ but it could run with as many as 20”.
See http://www.annarbor.com/mi/wolverines/2013/05/dave_brandon_the_big_ten_could/
An excerpt:
“There are some advantages to 16 (teams) compared to 14,” (MSU AD Mark) Hollis told ESPN in December. “Fourteen is clumsy. We’re not out looking for two teams, but basically we will continue to survey the landscape.”
Brandon doesn’t see it that way.
“I’ve never been sure where 16 came from,” Brandon added. “I don’t know if anyone in a position of power ever came out and said 16 was necessarily the stopping point, or the ideal point.
“You could run this conference with 18, you could run it with 20 — divisions of 10 teams each. I don’t know if there’s any perfected notion of how much is enough and how many is too many. That’ll be a subjected decision that’s made through time.”
Could be the Big Ten stay at 14 teams for the foreseeable future? Sure.
Could it grow to as many as 20? Who knows. Expansion, Brandon believes, is far from dead.
“I personally believe there’s probably more consolidation that will take place,” he added. “I believe there will be more realignment and expansion. I don’t know if that will necessarily be in the Big Ten, but I doubt if it’s all going to stop here.
“Some of the same motivations that have created the consolidation already will still be out there.”
LikeLike
Yeah except there are high barriers to any movement in the next 15 years or so. And in 15 years who knows what the world will look like.
LikeLike
Though its lack of schools that would bring in enough media value that keeps the Big12 at 10, so if two appropriate G5 schools raise their value before the GOR’s expire, there could be some realignment earlier.
LikeLike
cutter,
Note him talking about 2 divisions of 10 if the B10 went to 20. I don’t think the pod concept has even entered the discussion at their level, or if it has it was rejected.
LikeLike
Honestly, I never understood what Mark Hollis thought was “clumsy” about 14, that gets better with larger numbers. It seems to me (and the ongoing discussion here certainly bears out) that the more you add, the harder the scheduling gets — not only in football but in other sports too.
LikeLike
The only things I can think of:
1. Pods (we’ve amply shown that they work with 14, too)
2. No crossovers needed the last two weeks (but IN/PU requires one, making 14 better)
3. 16 is just seductively symmetric to the mind and it makes you think there is a problem with other numbers.
4. Hoops maybe? (it is MSU)
LikeLike
Buckeyes going to NCAA Lacrosse tournament as ECAC champions, after being pre-season expected top two, first Loyola, then Denver.
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/5/4/4301042/ncaa-lacrosse-tournament-college-ohio-state-ecac-conference-denver-buckeyes-pioneers
LikeLike
Buckeyes seeded 3rd in NCAA tournament, three of the hypothetical six team Big Ten Lacrosse competition are seeded in this year’s tournament … NOT including JHU: OSU (3), MD (6), Penn State (8):
(1) Syracuse (Big East) // Bryant (Northeast) (Sunday @7:30)
(8) Penn State // Yale (Ivy) (Saturday @2:30)
(5) North Carolina // Lehigh (Patriot) (Saturday @Noon)
(4) Denver // Albany (America East) (Saturday @7:30)
(3) Ohio State (ECAC) // Towson (CAA) (Sunday @3:00)
(6) Maryland // Cornell (Sunday @1:00)
(7) Duke // Loyola (Sunday @5:15)
(2) Notre Dame // Detroit (MAAC) (Saturday @5:00)
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/5/5/4299916/ncaa-lacrosse-tournament-college-selection-show-bracket-syracuse-orange-committee
LikeLike
Apparently neither LSU or Fla. can kick extra points. 18-6 today.
LikeLike
cc – I was at the game. The Gators needed a whipping like that. They scored two runs in the first, and my Tigers went on to score 18 unanswered runs, including a grand slam by Tiger 2nd baseman JaCoby Jones that bounced off the scoreboard in left center field. That’s about 440 feet!
After a very slow start, the Gators have been red hot for the last month. They gambled (and lost 3-2) on the Thursday night game by running out their ace against LSU’s #3 starter. Sophomore Aaron Nola pitched his 4th consecutive complete game in a 5-0 Friday night LSU win. By Saturday, the Gators bullpen was decimated. Adding insult to injury, yesterday was a hitters day, temperature and wind-wise.
LikeLike
Clearly a dour defensive struggle … punt, punt, punt, field goal, ending 6 field goals to 2. 😉
LikeLike
I guess this would be a good rest-of-the-weekend reading: How Swofford convinced the ACC to stick together.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/05/04/4022792/inside-the-deal-how-john-swofford.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
Jordan, meanwhile, spoke about potential. His presentation showed that the ACC has more top-30 television markets than any other conference, more households with televisions than any other conference and a greater population base than any other conference.
“If you were an entrepreneur and you were starting a business and you looked at the ACC’s markets as a street corner, it’s a street corner you’d want to be on,” Jordan said. “It’s the best location.”
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/05/04/4022792/inside-the-deal-how-john-swofford.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
If the markets were so great, why were they paid the least of the big 5 conferences? That article is sad. With ESPN flat out saying the success of the SEC is their priority what hope does a ACC network have especially in competing markets with the SEC. As far as bundling, which I have seen mentioned with ESPN main for the conferences networks: cable companies aren’t stupid. They know that ESPN wouldn’t risk pissing off the NFL, NBA, and MLB by risking those league’s exposure to promote the SEC network, especially with FOX waiting with open arms.
LikeLike
I believe ESPN said they’d keep the SEC in A leadership position, not THE leadership… They could believably say that about the ACC too. ESPN cares that they hold the top rights, not whose rights they happen to be. If fortunes on the field turned, they’d be more than happy to pump up whoever is ascendent.
LikeLike
Good point. ESPN has at this time more money invested in the SEC however. It would behoove them to keep the SEC tops to get a better return on their investment.
LikeLike
They own the ACC, lock, stock and barrel, too. They don’t care whether the left pocket is collecting more than the right, as long as its their pants.
LikeLike
The markets may be great, but they don’t care about college football…particularly ACC football..
LikeLike
The markets are great and the potential to monetize them for a successful conference network are as good as any other conference. It’s not so much that the potential fans don’t care about college football, but that ACC football has been mediocre-to-bad for far too long. ACC schools have excellent brand reputations…but they need to deliver better athletic teams. For example, Miami football does fine on TV…but their teams have underachieved every year in the ACC.
The B1G can financially withstand a down cycle in their football product because their alumni base is much larger than than in any other conference. ACC schools are more exposed to the quality of their football product.
The ACC is also trying to unwind from a bad contract with ESPN in 2008.
LikeLike
$5M a year? We’ll see.
—
“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”
LikeLike
$5mil a year down the road when the B10 is making $10mil plus.
LikeLike
Since the network is largely a repackaging of rights ESPN already owns, $5m through the network doesn’t necessarily imply an incremental increase of media income by $5m.
LikeLike
It does involve getting another carriage fee for the additional channel.
LikeLike
Yes, and getting carriage for the channel inside the footprint would be why its not a zero sum game, but “$5m from an ACC Network”, and “$1.5m increase in revenue from an ACC Network” are perfectly compatible statements.
LikeLike
Informative how surprised Swofford was by the Maryland decision and the tenaciousness in getting a GoR.
The article reads as if UNC/FSU/UVa really pressed ESPN for more money in exchange for the GoR. Hopefully, information will start trickling out on how close these schools were to leaving. FSU & partner to the B12 and UVA & GT to the BIG…all had significant time as “done deals”.
LikeLike
The important numbers:
Old deal – average $17.1M, ends in 2026-7
New deal – average $20M+, ends in 2026-7
ACCN – worth $5M+ per year per school supposedly
“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/05/04/4022792/inside-the-deal-how-john-swofford.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
There’s some contradictory information on the new deal. Its been reported for a while that Notre Dame was likely to push it to $18 million. There was an AJC article with info apparently from the Georgia Tech asst. AD saying GT would get $12.8 million in TV money for the 2014 fiscal year with an escalation to “$22.7 million by the end of the contract.” That is not consistent with a $20 million average.
The ACC trumpeted their $17.1 million deal without telling you that well over $1 million of their increase was due to extending the term and dropping the first year from the calculation (as it was already past) and part was also due to selling the naming rights for the ACC tourney (wouldn’t be surprised if that was worth more than $1 million per school). So I’m not convinced that the ACC has “caught up” to the rest yet at $20 million. Maybe they have, but you have to accept that 2.5 guaranteed Notre Dame games (when they were already getting 1-2) and a GOR was worth $42 million a year or that ESPN is ditching profitability to keep the ACC together when they would still own most of the rights of the valuable ACC schools if they went elsewhere.
LikeLike
That last part is the key.
ND had already signed enough deals with the ACC that ESPN knew they were getting 1.5 games a year at least.
The ND deal was just a boost of 1 game to that number. It’s not the same as going from 0 to 2.5.
LikeLike
Gotta love statements like these;
The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that.
and
So I guess what you could tell us as a league is if you’re bound together, then we [ESPN] might pay you more for that – or do more things with you or for you.”
[Emphasis mine]
LikeLike
What’s wrong with that? What is he supposed to say?
Oh wait, only B1G numbers are allowed to be projected into the future…
LikeLike
Because the Big Ten is making decisions based on a network that actually exists and is making money; he is talking about the earnings potential of a network that may never come into being.
LikeLike
Its a propaganda campaign by the ACC.
I mean, really, calling out the Dude like the FSU president did?
LikeLike
Seems to me that your emphasized language gave anyone everything they need to know about the speculative nature of his comments. Not like he said “is” or “will.” Stop assuming that, just because Florida State fans did not attend a Big 10 school, they are too dumb to interpret what he is saying.
Moreover, it seems reasonable to suggest that if an ACC network is created in the future, its then-revenue potential might be 2/3 of what the BTN currently gets. That is hardly dreaming.
LikeLike
Just FYI, bullet isn’t a B10 guy. He’s a UT guy with a side of UGA.
LikeLike
@Transic
This is the story that everyone is missing. Look at how UNC et al. screwed themselves by not taking the CIC into account within the B1G…
http://is.gd/Ztc7cd
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/b1g-expansion-dollars-research-edition
Just imagine if our ACC AAU brethern took this funding into account! The Michigan article is pretty amazing!
Nemo
LikeLike
There is more to education than maximizing research dollars.
If that is all it is going to be, the tax code needs to be changed ASAP.
“The Big 10… first in money. And that’s about it.”
Enjoy your CA$H.
LikeLike
Anyway, since scheduling is on the minds of many here, I thought I’d let you know that Rittenberg/Bennett tweeted out that the conference may release the 2014 and 2015 schedules within 30 days.
LikeLike
They pretty much have to hurry up. Schools need to lock in their OOC schedules soon.
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh’s take on the SECN, along with a little historical perspective on the The Mtn., BTN, and the PTN.
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3451/sec-latest-to-launch-conference-network#comment
LikeLike
If you feel the need to waste some time, you can play with the data on CFB revenue and expenses for schools here. They have 2010-1 up in their database.
Tops in Ticket Sales:
1. OSU – $41.9M (8 home games)
2. MI – 35.7
3. UT – 35.6
4. OU – 31.9
5. LSU – 29.6
11. TAMU – 27.2
12. IA – 20.3 – Noted just to show the big jump. #12 is less than half of #1, too.
UGA was the only one in the top 25 to also receive student fees.
LikeLike
PSU evidently declined to give out their info, or else they would be top 10 as well.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/03/actionreaction-sec-network-zaninovich-and-the-big-east-alford-spats-with-unm-and-jason-collins/
Another take on the SECN:
Action: SEC announces new television network to launch in Aug. ’14.
Reaction I: What took you so long?!?
Reaction II: Actually, it was 1) Not being as creative as the B1G and the Pac-12, perhaps due to fat-and-happy syndrome, and 2) Buying back the third-tier TV rights. That move allows ESPN to control every SEC football game, save CBS’s national game of the week. That’s some immensely valuable inventory for the WWL.
Reaction III: Tough to compare the SEC Network to the Pac-12 Networks, which are wholly-owned by the conference. The SEC is partnering with ESPN the way Texas partnered with ESPN on The Longhorn Network and the way the Big Ten partnered with Fox. Another difference: The SEC Network won’t be broken into and national and regional feeds.
Reaction IV: I would expect the SEC to have more distribution at launch than the Pac12Nets did when they went live last August. (Yes, including DirecTV. It’s all about the eyeballs, folks.) I’d also expect that the SEC Network will eventually generate at least as much for its schools as the Big Ten Network does for its members (approx $8 million per year, and climbing). The Pac12Nets are years away from that kind of cash but arguably have the highest revenue ceiling because the conference owns 100% of the content.
Also, this tidbit:
Action: West Coast Conference commissioner Jamie Zaninovich reportedly a candidate to become commish of the new Big East (i.e., the Catholic 7).
…
Reaction III: The short list of candidates includes one semi-insider: Dan Gavitt, whose father, Dave, founded the Big East 30+ years ago. Dan Gavitt was an associate commissioner of the BE before becoming the chief administrator of the NCAA tournament last year. So at the very least, the conference has two strong candidates as it transitions to a new era.
LikeLike
Some data from the NYT:
ESPN is looking to get 25 million to 30 million subscribers in the conference’s 11-state territory and millions more outside those states, a strategy like the Big Ten Network’s.
According to the research firm SNL Kagan, the Big Ten Network has just over 50 million subscribers, subscriber revenue of $234.3 million and net advertising revenue of $41.5 million. But Kagan said that the network lost money in the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years, according to the conference’s Internal Revenue Service filings.
LikeLike
Just to tick off a few of my BIG brethren, here is the view from Alabama about the new SEC networks impact.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/post_481.html
Favorite line in references to the other conferences:
“You had to know any vision you might’ve had of unseating the SEC as the most dominant collection of institutions of higher learning in the country just faded to black.”
LikeLike
Should mention article was linked at Mr. SEC. They also link out to a great article called “ESPN is losing are trust” from their SEC Headlines 5/5/2013 at the bottom.
LikeLike
It figures that a sportswriter from Alabama would confuse the terms ‘most dominant collection of institutions of higher learning’ with ‘most dominant college football schools’.
LikeLike
SBJ article:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/06/Media/ACC-network.aspx
Says ACC’s latest is $260 million or $18.5 per school. As I’ve said, I thought those $20 million figures were exaggerations. Article has some detail on SEC deals, but not $.
LikeLike
“There are other contractual elements, sources said, that could push the value higher, especially if the conference starts its own network.”
There’s your extra $1.5m in the numbers that have been floating around.
LikeLike
There are some tweets going around that supposedly while ESPN owns 100% of the network, SEC will still get 50% of the profit. Who knows how accurate that is. The SEC & ESPN need to just come out with it already.
Bryan Fischer @BryanDFischer
MT @mattsarz: …ESPN owns SEC Network, but will split profits 50-50 w/SEC… per @SBJSBD
@ Frank – I think it’s about time to do another blog entry. This one is slowing down.
LikeLike
SEC deal could be similar to LHN where ESPN owns it, but Texas gets an additional royalty of 70% of income if ESPN hits certain cumulative targets. So maybe ESPN owns SECN, but when they hit certain targets, the SEC gets 50% of income.
LikeLike
Where is future Big 10 associate member Johns Hopkins in the lacrosse bracket?
LikeLike
Didn’t make it this year, which is actually good for the sport. You can’t have too many of the same teams winning year after year and hope to grow it.
LikeLike
Also the experience of not making it through an increasingly crowded at-large bid field is something to chew on as JHU turns its attention from the season to its longer term planning.
LikeLike
Where was Kentucky during March madness this year? Where was Notre Dames’s football team before last year or USC’s this year? It was amazing that Hopkins made the playoffs for 41 years straight, but a lot of people are acting like not making it one year means they are no longer a blue blood. This may mean they are more likely to join conference, but it doesn’t devalue them.
LikeLike
Just FYI, he is a Syracuse guy, not a B10 guy.
LikeLike
What happened to JHU? Why, OSU, Penn State and future Big Ten member Maryland were all too good, taking three of eight seeded spots, and not leaving enough at large spots available for JHU to make it in (as I noted further up the comments).
That actually puts a potential Big Ten Lacrosse conference in a fairly flattering light.
LikeLike
Accidentally posted this on an older post earlier…
Big Ten schools will be getting $25.7 million from the conference this year. $19 million of that is television revenue with the breakdown there being $500,000 from CBS, $10.9 million from ABC/CBS, and $7.6 million from BTN. The BTN distribution is slightly lower, but that may be due to Nebraska’s growing conference distribution.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-payouts-to-hit-million/article_4eef1c1a-5a79-5b79-899b-3dbf2a99c871.html
LikeLike
CBS calls it 25.7 million from TV, using the same numbers. What is the other 6.7M? Bowls and basketball tourney credits?
LikeLike
The bulk of it is the bowls and NCAA tournament credits. You also have assorted things like the conference championship game for football and conference basketball tournament that round things out.
LikeLike
Well there’s ticket revenue from the championship game, but Fox is paying for the game, so the TV revenue is closer to $21M/school.
LikeLike
Clay Travis’ take on the SECN.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-network-opens-new-era-in-college-athletics.php
LikeLike
There’s a little too much cool aid in that article for my taste. And number 13 takes his credibility and flushes it down the toilet. Florida State, or any decent nonconference foe for that matter, won’t agree any time soon to have their game on the SECN. SEC country is in for a rude awakening if they believe 70 mil a year is in their future.
LikeLike
He forgot about how the outhouses will now smell like roses.
LikeLike
I don’t know. While I personally doubt that ESPN will be putting a major game like UF-FSU on the SEC ESPN Network (it is worth too much to the flagship) I doubt FSU would actually be willing to cancel the series just because the game would be broadcast on the SEN.
FWIW, last year, Oklahoma St.’s game at Arizona was on the PAC Network (which didn’t even exist when the game was scheduled) which meant no one in the state of Oklahoma was able to watch the game even though OSU was ranked in the top 25.
LikeLike
That was the local providers decision. They had the rights to it, but being outside the footprint they weren’t required to carry it.
LikeLike
Actually, a lot of it was the PAC’s fault. Their “will you be able to get the PAC 12 Network” site had said for months that the PAC Network would be available in Oklahoma and then suddenly a week before the game the conference released a statement that the network would not be available in Oklahoma after all, which meant no one in Oklahoma who wanted to see the game had time to make other arrangements/pressure their cable operators.
LikeLike
Yes, they shouldn’t have said that until being certain. In their defense I recall they it had sounded like it was going to be available. The PAC had provided it to a carrier who indicated interest.outside of purchasing the provider and mandating its inclusion I’m not sure what else they could have done.
LikeLike
Missouri agreed to play Indiana on the BTN in 2013, and Indiana will likely play on the SECN in 2014. I doubt FSU/UF would go on the SECN because it will likely go on ESPN instead, but UGA/GT and Louisville/UK are likely targets.
LikeLike
One question I have reading this is whether LSU is still the dominant team in Louisiana. It seems (an outsider) that since Brees and Payton arrived the balance of power shifted to the Saints.
I mean New Orleans cancelled all classes for the day after Super Sunday because they wanted everyone to be able to watch the whole game and announced they would have a parade in the team’s honor regardless of whether they won or lost.
They never made any concessions like that when LSU made the NCG…
LikeLike
Or is it just that the Saints are dominant in New Orleans and LSU is favored everywhere else?
LikeLike
frug – the Saints are dominant in the city of New Orleans, especially post-Katrina. In the New Orleans suburbs, its a wash. In Northwest Louisiana, the Cowboys may still have a slight plurality of NFL fans. One thing almost all Louisianans have in common (with the exception of a few bitter ULL, LA Tech, and Tulane fans) is that during Saturday Nights in the fall, everybody is a Tiger fan.
LikeLike
Phantom networks are the most AWESOME’est ever, but in the hapless real world of the Big Ten, another record setting year.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76205/big-tens-tv-revenue-keeps-climbing
LikeLike
I have carefully considered everything that Delany and other insiders have said about the new B1G timetable (14 teams, 9 conference games) and I think it will look like this:
6 divisional matches
3 crossovers with parity bias
– parity group A
— EAST: Michigan, OSU, PSU
— WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin
– parity group B
— EAST: Rutgers, Maryland, MSU
— WEST: Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
1st crossover
– the A teams play A teams
– the B teams play B teams
– Indiana plays Purdue
2nd crossover
– an East A team plays Purdue
– a West A team plays Indiana
– the remaining A teams play B teams
– the remaining B teams play each other (*)
3rd crossover
– two East A teams play West A teams
– the remaining A teams play B teams (*)
– the remaining teams play each other
(*) The B teams that do not play an A team in the 2nd crossover, play an A team in the 3rd crossover.
THREE-YEAR SUMMARY
———————-
A teams
– 5 crossovers with A teams
– 3 crossovers with B teams
– 1 crossover with Indiana/Purdue
B teams
– 5 crossovers with B teams
– 3 crossovers with A teams
– 1 crossover with Indiana/Purdue
Indiana/Purdue
– 3 crossovers with Indiana/Purdue
– 3 crossovers with A teams
– 3 crossovers with B teams
In a three-year period every teams plays every other team at least once.
LikeLike
Nebraska, Wisconsin & Iowa will regularly see Michigan, PSU & Ohio…
Illini, NW & Minnesota will regularly see Rutgers, Maryland, MSU…
What’s funny is that Iowa is an A team in the west but is generously the #5 program in the east.
LikeLike
Easier said than done, though.
LikeLike
http://tracking.si.com/2013/05/06/big-ten-conference-25-7-million-per-school/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
This is before the B10’s tier 1 and tier 2 rights go on the open market soon.
LikeLike
With the talk that the SEC will make around 50% of the profits from the SECN, just like the B1G makes around 50% of the profits from the BTN, and with the new B1G footprint basically the exact same size as the new SEC footprint, it all comes down to this: which network will be able to charge more per customer?
If the SEC can charger around $2 per customer then the SEC will make roughly double what the B1G makes. If they charge closer to $1 per cusomer then the money will be about the same.
We’ll have to see what happens.
I would think that SEC fan enthusiasm would allow for higher monthly fees, but we won’t know until they try it.
LikeLike
The SEC states where the highest percentages of people care about the SEC are the least populous. If they can get FL to pay the average B10 rate, I would consider that a win. I would be shocked if they got TX to pay anywhere close to the average B10 rate.
LikeLike
How much penetration they get into Texas will be interesting and good point about the SEC sharing their most populous states (Texas, Florida, Georgia) with other conferences. B10 has a lot of very populous stated with no competition; Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersery, Indiana & Maryland…
LikeLike
Richard – I think the SECN could get the going rate for Florida north of I-4, including Tampa/St. Pete and Orlando. Same for East Texas (Houston north to Tyler, and on to Texarkana). South Florida will probably get extended basic coverage at a reduced fee, but higher than out-of-market. Also, ESPN may try to bundle SECN and LHN in the rest of Texas, where there be SECN demand, but not as high as along the Louisiana border.
LikeLike
It took years for the BTN to get on basic cable in Philly and Pittsburgh (far after the rest of the footprint). In fact, I’m not sure if all carriers in Pittsburgh have the BTN on basic yet.
I don’t expect the SECN to ever get on in SFla or TX outside of Houston and the LA border at anywhere close to the average SECN rate. Even Houston & Tampa will be battles, and I doubt they will get the SECN average rates in those places.
Note that in big cities, the compeittion isn’t just other college programs but also pro teams.
LikeLike
There is a general perception that SEC football is way more popular than BIG football. SEC fans will site overall attendance and television numbers. The attendance numbers are cut and dry. The SEC drew over a million vs 842 thousand. Even divided by 14, the SEC drew about 5000 more fans than if you divided the BIGs number by 12. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/college_football_regular-seaso.html
Now total television numbers also favor the SEC, but that is not so cut and dry. Here is a review by week of the televiosn numbers for college football last year. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/
If you look at head to head during the 3 major time slots on Saturdays, you will find something very interesting.
The three major time slots for television college football are noon, 3:30, and prime time (7-8 pm start). The regular season is 13 weeks. So if you look at who had the higher ratings, a BIG team or an SEC team, during each time slot each Saturday, the BIG wins the majority of the time. Out of 39 (3×13), there was no information for week 4 noon slot, a tie in wk 11 noon slot, and Alabama vs Michigan prime time, so only 36 slots could be evaluated. Out of the 36, a BIG team won the slot 20 times versus the SEC. The SEC had higher than the BIG 16 times. Not much difference until you look a little deeper.
Up to Week 8, the BIG dominates the SEC. The BIG had a higher watched team 16 times over those 3 time slots versus the SECs 6. From week 9 to 13, the SEC takes over with 10 wins versus 4. So why the jump in viewership for the top SEC game versus the BIG? The BCS. Not only does SEC viewership jumps, but so does the total viewership for Notre Dame and Oregon, so much so that both schools end up in the top 3 most watched games of the week (ND was 1st, 2nd, 2nd, and 1st in weeks 9,10,11, and 13 while Oregon was 3rd,3rd, and 1st overall in weeks 10,11, and 12). So it’s not so much the greater popularity of SEC teams that drive ratings, but games with BCS implications. The SEC has been on an unparalleled streak the last 7 years but that won’t last forever. The BIG had two of its marquee teams bowl inelegible to start the year, so they saw no BCS boost especially with Michigan losing twice early. Yet they dominated early before any casual BCS fans jump on board.
Now this is a rather rudimentary comparison. The BIG is a top heavy league with PSU, OSU, Michigan, and Nebraska being the winners of those time slots 99% of the time. The SEC has way more depth so if you looked at every game, the SEC may come out ahead. There is however no doubt that the current BCS system has boosted the SEC’s popularity. The question is will the next system benefit them as much. The irony of it all is that the very thing the SEC is beaming about today, the SECN, might end up hurting their popularity. If they go to a 9 game schedule, there will be more conference loses and more teams won’t be getting that BCS boost in ratings.
LikeLike
“If they go to a 9 game schedule, there will be more conference loses and more teams won’t be getting that BCS boost in ratings.”
Yes they will, when ESPN begins talking about how a one, or even two loss SEC team deserving a slot by week three (if not in preseason forecasts). If they were willing to stand by Craig James they’ll certainly not be concerned about flagrantly promoting their inventory.
LikeLike
That is why I see more conferences in the future partnering with Fox. If it is apparent to fans the potential for bias with ESPN pushing its own agenda in college football, it has to be apparent to league commissioners.
LikeLike
Frank posted the Neilson ratings a while back. SEC averaged around 4.5M viewers per game. B1G averaged about 3.2M viewers per game. SEC is more popular, no doubt about it.
LikeLike
Yes that is true for the overall season but take a closer look at the link above. The huge ratings for the SEC came later in the year. They almost run parallel to when ND was getting huge ratings and Oregon started to get a bump in ratings. The BIG didn’t get any bumps because OSU and PSU were BCS inelegible and Michigan and Nebraska were out of it early. Look at before week 9. The top rated BIG game does better than the top rated SEC game in an individual time slot 16 to 6 in ones that can be viewed in that link.
So the question that needs to be answered is what percentage of those overall SEC ratings are casual fans watching the lead up to the championship as opposed to people who are just interested in SEC football. The 3.2 million average viewers for BIG games are strictly BIG fans because none of their teams had any hope for the national championship.
LikeLike
I would expect that the SEC and B1G have roughly the same number of fans, but the SEC gets more viewers overall because non-SEC fans watch their games.
LikeLike
Maybe in football. But the most valuable content for conference networks is actually MBB because of the larger volume of inventory and the fact it is played every day (not just Saturdays). And the SEC can’t come close to competing with the Big Ten in that aspect.
LikeLike
So true, other than my home team. I watch games that have national title interest, teams that are in the top 4-5 and the SEC lately has had 3 teams in the top 5.
LikeLike
College Baseball weekly update.
Indiana’s is 12. The Hoosiers are in line to host a regional, but they won’t be a top 8 national seed. In the polls, Indiana is as high as #14 and as low as #21. They appear in all the polls. Pitt is ranked in three of the four polls as high as #17 and as low as #29. K-State appears in one poll at #29. That’s it for Northern Baseball.
Vandy is ranked #1 in two of the polls, and North Carolina is ranked #1 in the other two polls. Vandy, UNC, LSU & Fullerton are in the top four in all polls.
Regarding attendance, two B1G teams continue to make the rankings with #26 Nebraska averaging 2,469 fans per game, and #42 Indiana averaging 1,460. Two Missouri Valley teams are also ranked: #16 Creighton and #25 Wichita State.
Its all SEC for the top 5 with LSU on pace to top 400,000 fans before the end of the regular season.
1. LSU (10,811 average)
2. Arkansas (8,251)
3. Ole Miss (7,840)
4. South Carolina (7,385)
5. Miss State (7,346)
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/5907393/espn-vp-on-hockey-fandom-it-doesnt-translate-to-television
it’s from a year ago (and maybe someone linked it last year), but worth linking again in light of the new ESecPN Network.
the gist: ESpin hypes what is on it’s networks; ESpin barely talks about sports that are not shown on its networks. Deadspin summarizes: “if ESPN doesn’t discuss hockey, the nation doesn’t either.”
ESpin VP: “Listen, I guess if we were rights holder [to the NHL], there probably would be a little more attention paid to it. It’s typical that would happen. We might throw it to commentators who were inside the building. Now we’re not inside the building.”
The most significant thing about the new ESecPN Network is not that it is the SEC, but that it is being run/hyped by ESpin.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/5929361/how-espn-ditched-journalism-and-followed-skip-bayless-to-the-bottom-a-tim-tebow-story
“”Producers were looking to duplicate the success of First Take,” said our Bristol insider. “Given what the ratings were, you would have been an idiot not to talk Tebow. Decisions to talk Tebow were conscious and deliberate.”
A small, prideful ratings battle had metastasized around the network. ESPN had become the source for Tebow news, whether it bled into SportsCenter or into its various NFL shows or its Monday night pre-game show or its NFL reporters’ Twitter feeds or its dot-com stories or its SportsNation polls.”
~~~~~~~~~
Insert “SEC” for “Tebow” and you have some idea of how things might go @ ESpin and the ESecPN Network over the next 20 years.
Interesting how linked everything is at ESpin. What ESpin wants to hype ends up in its Sportsnation polls !
From Poynter Review’s final column: “Repetition is method as well as madness: If you watch large blocks of ESPN, you sometimes feel like you’re being cudgeled, subjected to the same stories and narratives over and over again with only the name of the show and the identities of the hosts changing.
…
That’s important to keep in mind when criticizing ESPN for putting a story in heavy rotation; the network’s strategy is designed to catch viewers who tune in for a single show or game, or drop in and out even within individual shows. Churn is ESPN’s challenge; its producers must figure out how to hold the attention of ever-shifting amalgamations of viewers, so they think of this fickle, ephemeral audience almost as if it’s made up of on-demand viewers, viewers who don’t want to wait long to hear about the big story in sports.”
LikeLike
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/november/espn-s-journalistic-integrity-coming-under-close-examination.html
it’s from last November, but linked by MrSEC a couple of days back.
LikeLike
Season before last on their BCS show they talked at length why Alabama deserved the BCS slot vs. LSU over Stanford and Oregon. They never even MENTIONED Oklahoma St. They were clearly trying to push an Alabama/LSU rematch. They must have liked the ratings on the first one. Served them right what they got on the 2nd. But it wasn’t fair to Oklahoma St. or LSU.
LikeLike
I say leave it up to the computers. Leave the politics out of it.
LikeLike
A few of things I’m interested in getting some feedback on.
* How much benefit in out of market states does the BTN get from ESPN’s SEC Network? More ‘sports tier’ packages sold in LA, Dallas, Miami, and Kansas City means more moola for BTN, no?
* Should the B1G sell its stake in the BTN?
* Would the B1G be unwise to partner with Fox and NBC/Comcast (forgoing its long relationship with ESPN/ABC) for its “Tier 1 and Tier 2” rights for the 2016-2017 years and beyond?
LikeLike
I think the BIG should and will sign with Fox. ESPN has too much power in college athletics. There is an inherent danger with one network playing an interigal part in setting the national discourse on a particular sport while profiting from the success of specific teams in that sport. I imagine Delaney knows this as well as other commissioners. The BIG has the power to switch to a fledgling network and bring viewers with it just like the NFL did when they shocked everyone and went to Fox Network a long time ago.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – To be sure, *everyone* is wary of ESPN’s power. The NFL and NBA completely hate working with ESPN (as documented in “Some Guys Have All the Fun”), yet they still know well enough that they ultimately need to deal with them. I truly don’t think that the Big Ten has an innate desire to leave ESPN at all (provided, of course, that they pay market value). Jim Delany might want an over-the-air package on Fox, but unless ESPN completely low balls the B1G (which I doubt will happen this time around because the people in Bristol have a heavy incentive to keep the Big Ten), they’re not going to leave entirely. Besides, there really isn’t a financial reason to leave ESPN (much less the exposure angle) – the new standard for high-paying deals is with ESPN and Fox teaming together as opposed to going with either one of them (or NBC/Comcast) alone.
LikeLike
ESPN is great at what they do: making money and attracting viewers. All this anti-ESPN talk sounds like sour grapes.
LikeLike
To bad for you it applies to other sports, too, negating your thesis.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with ESPN and neither do most of the people I know. I honestly don’t understand it. They do a fairly good job and I like watching their channels.
LikeLike
And besides, what are you guys butthurt about anyway? The fact that ESPN says the SEC is the best football conference? Maybe the NFL is in on that conspiracy too?
NFL 2013 draft class by conference
SEC- 63
ACC- 30
Pac 12- 28
Big XII- 22
Big East- 21
B1G- 20
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac – I’m going to finally have a new post later tonight, but here are some thoughts:
* How much benefit in out of market states does the BTN get from ESPN’s SEC Network? More ‘sports tier’ packages sold in LA, Dallas, Miami, and Kansas City means more moola for BTN, no?
There’s potentially some benefit, although the sports tier carriage fees are pennies on the dollar compared to what networks receive for basic carriage. It likely won’t materially impact the BTN one way or the other.
* Should the B1G sell its stake in the BTN?
It’s kind of a tail wagging the dog type of question. If Fox offers so much money that it’s impossible to pass up (like what Fox paid to the Yankees for its YES stake), then the answer could be yes. If it’s less than that, then the answer could be no. All things being equal, you’d rather retain equity than give it up, so there needs to be an outsized gain to make it worth it to sell your stake.
* Would the B1G be unwise to partner with Fox and NBC/Comcast (forgoing its long relationship with ESPN/ABC) for its “Tier 1 and Tier 2″ rights for the 2016-2017 years and beyond?
Once again, the answer depends upon what they’re offering. All things being equal, I actually think that it would be very unwise for the Big Ten to move away from ESPN and, just like with the BTN equity question, there would need to be an outsized financial gain to move away from the Worldwide Leader no matter how intertwined that they might be with the SEC. As a practical matter, no one wants to work with NBC/Comcast. As shown by the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals, ESPN and Fox are the ones that want to partner with each other on major contracts to shut out NBC/Comcast (and there are lot of direct reasons why that’s the case as I’ve pointed out before). My semi-educated guess is that the Big Ten will end up with a similar setup as the Pac-12 and Big 12 with games on ESPN and Fox. Much like the NFL, exposure is still pretty important for the Big Ten for their very best games even if a lesser outlet might offer more dollars outright.
LikeLike
But why in your opinion Frank would exposure be less at Fox? The same reasons I have seen listed are pretty much verbatim of the reasons the NFL was going to fail by going to the Fox network many years ago. ESPN has a practical monopoly in sports now, but CNN also had one in cable news. Fox News now crushes CNN. There is a risk going with a start up but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Fox Network could still broadcast the big games while the loyal fans who currently check out the Tier 2 games on espn will easily find Fox Sorts 1 on the dial, just like they found the BTN. I think the long term gains of switching to Fox from espn outweigh the current risks.
LikeLike
CNN and ESPN aren’t part of the same company. ESPN is owned by Disney Corp, which has been very successful. ESPN gets very high viewership, much higher than Fox. They are the most profitable and successful group of networks on television. Feel free to root against them for whatever emotional reasons you may habe but there’s basically no reason to think they will fail.
LikeLike
Not exactly sure where I said espn would fail. I am saying that Fox Sports 1 could compete with them and break up their monopoly on sports. News Corp has plenty of money to compete with Disney
LikeLike
Yes, but ESPN has exclusive rights to some of the best contents in sports and a huge built in audience. CNN doesn’t have exclusive rights to anything. They just report/talk about the news that everbody else reports/talks about, except not as interestingly.
LikeLike
Nowhere did he say they are part of the same company, he used CNN as an example of a new entrant not playing by the already established rules taking over the top spot from the former incumbent … which at least in its America version has declined so much that I’ve seen it called CN, given that the Cable and Network parts of the name are still independently verified.
LikeLike
That’s “news”? I thought CNN had moved to entertainment in a news like format until I saw Fox “News”. (I can’t bring myself to not include the derisive quotation marks.)
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – Fox Sports 1 has much better potential to be a legit ESPN competitor with its MLB, NASCAR Pac-12, Big 12 and Big East rights compared to NBC Sports Network. However, it’s still not ESPN and, unlike the cable news channels, the sports networks are dependent upon live exclusive content (as opposed to hiring someone to parrot a particularly political viewpoint). As long as ESPN still has the NFL, NBA, MLB and *all* of the power college conferences (which will be the case for a very long time), then it’s a big-time risk to step away from literally every other major sports entity no matter how good of carriage Fox Sports 1 might have.
Regardless, I think it’s all moot. Evidence points to ESPN and Fox actually working together, which is to the benefit to the Big Ten and any other major sports property out there (as their combined financial heft is stronger than either one of them apart). I guess that I also believe that perceived ESPN “bias” is irrelevant (so that doesn’t factor into my analysis in the way that it does for a lot of fans) – if ABC and ESPN are still giving top time slots to Big Ten while paying them top market value, then that’s what matters exponentially more than what’s hyped on SportsCenter or GameDay. There’s simply nothing compared to getting a top time slot on ABC or ESPN for college football in terms of exposure (and coaches and recruits follow that *heavily*, which eventually impacts talent).
LikeLike
ESPN is biased to whoever they own. They ignore those they don’t. Pac 12 and Big 12 got little attention on their prior contracts when Fox got most of their content. ESPN still gets most of the SEC AND Big 10 content. I agree with Frank that it would be a big risk to not have a strong ESPN tie.
LikeLike
I know this thread has now been superseded, but I have to comment anyway.
FtT says: “…if ABC and ESPN are still giving top time slots to Big Ten while paying them top market value, then that’s what matters exponentially more than what’s hyped on SportsCenter or GameDay.”
With respect, I think that is naive. Ideas and hype matter; advertising works. Another 20 years of ESpin disrespecting the B1G will have a huge long-term impact.
FWIW, i think THAT is the reason the B1G will sign with ESpin. As long as the B1G stays uner the ESpin umbrella, ESpin won’t completely trash the B1G.
LikeLike
It’s kind of a tail wagging the dog type of question. If Fox offers so much money that it’s impossible to pass up (like what Fox paid to the Yankees for its YES stake), then the answer could be yes.
Well, first do we know if Fox has some kind of first right of refusal on the B1G’s equity stake or is the B1G able to sell it to Time Warner, or Comcast, or Disney, or CBS or some other partner free and clear?
I agree there is a value component but there is also a strategic element at play here given the upcoming negotiations on the Tier 1 rights packages.
As a practical matter, no one wants to work with NBC/Comcast. As shown by the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals, ESPN and Fox are the ones that want to partner with each other on major contracts to shut out NBC/Comcast
I think it is a bit of a leap to say nobody wants to partner with NBC/Comcast. I think its more accurate to say that ESPN and Fox have embraced each other as partners on several negotiations in an effort to offer better packages, financially and from an exposure standpoint, to outbid NBC.
I think there is a very real question as to whether or not ESPN/ABC has the shelf space to be the right partner as part of a B1G/Fox/Disney threesome like the Big12 and Pac12 have done.
If Disney isn’t the right partner then the B1G might be wise to work with Fox and one or two other major media partners to make sure it gets the kind of exposure it wants for its own brand and the brands of its member institutions and it might very well make sense to give those media partners an ownership stake in the BTN to deepen the connection.
LikeLike
Some of ESPN’s shelf space concerns (not all) have been addressed by adding a new shelf (ESecPN).
LikeLike
“I think there is a very real question as to whether or not ESPN/ABC has the shelf space to be the right partner as part of a B1G/Fox/Disney threesome like the Big12 and Pac12 have done. ”
ESPN has shelf-space for the B10 now, so I fail to see why they wouldn’t have shelf-space for the B10 in the future.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac – Here’s the thing: I don’t understand the lack of shelf space notion with respect to the Big Ten and ESPN. The Big Ten HAS the shelf space! 12 pm ET on ESPN on Saturday? Big Ten game. Also at 12 pm ET on ESPN2 or ESPNU? Big Ten game. 3:30 pm ET on ABC? Big Ten game with a guaranteed reverse mirror. 8:00 pm ET on ABC? Big Ten game more often than not during September and October. Thanksgiving weekend? Iowa-Nebraska on Black Friday on ABC, Ohio State-Michigan at 12 pm ET on Saturday and another Big Ten game at 3:30 pm ET on ABC.
Please don’t mistake the ESPN echo chamber culture of hammering the same points over and over and over again on their screaming pundit shows (e.g. SEC football is the best, everyone cares about Tim Tebow, etc.) for any lack of “shelf space” for conference content. The Big Ten has better shelf space for actual games on ABC/ESPN than any other conference (including the SEC) and has leverage to get even better shelf space (e.g. national OTA ABC games every week even beyond the reverse mirror) than it to go in the opposite direction in the next TV contract negotiations. Let’s not downplay what the Big Ten would be giving up by leaving ESPN – it’s oceanfront property in terms of college football time slots. That’s why I’d argue against it unless ESPN completely lowball the Big Ten (which I doubt will happen).
LikeLike
@Frank,
I get all of that but…
It isn’t just the time slots, its the corresponding promotion. In the future the Noon Wisconsin vs. Illinois tilt will get a lead in promoting an ACC game on ESPN2 and SEC game on ESPNU, two more games on the SEC and ACC Networks respectively. Coming back from commercial breaks will see more promotion for games later on that day for the ACC and SEC networks and they’ll get squat for promotion for the 3:30 and/or Primetime BTN games.
There is a cost there that needs to be carefully considered.
The issue is even greater when it comes to Basketball season.
Further, we don’t know what was promised to the ACC and the SEC on this stuff going forward.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac – The time slots are an inherent part of the promotion machine, though. ESPN charges its highest ad rates for its best time slots, which means that it has a direct financial incentive to promote the crap out of whatever is in those time slots regardless of who is in them. Sure, ESPN will promote the SEC Network as opposed to the BTN (which is their right), but what I’m more concerned about is the fact that the 3:30 pm ET Big Ten game on ABC (which is what draws the biggest audience out of any Big Ten game on any network most weeks) is being promoted on Monday Night Football and SportsCenter that are drawing people other than college sports fans. ESPN absolutely has an incentive to do that even if they personally loathe Jim Delany because even they aren’t vindictive enough to tank a valuable time slot for the Disney mothership.
I’m not saying that the Big Ten should be exclusive with ESPN for first tier rights – in fact, I’m all for an ESPN/Fox arrangement in line with what the Pac-12 and Big 12 has. The way to grow the Big Ten with the masses (and not just squeeze more blood from the proverbial stone of preexisting Big Ten fans) is to ensure that the NFL and MLB fans on *both* the ESPN and Fox networks are fully aware of Big Ten games that are going to be on Saturday. The NFL does it perfectly – they give just enough content to multiple networks where literally everyone (ESPN/Disney, Fox, CBS *and* NBC/Comcast) has financial incentive to talk about the league all of the time. That’s exactly what the Big Ten ought to aim for (as opposed to giving exclusivity to anyone).
LikeLike
@Frank…
The NFL does it perfectly – they give just enough content to multiple networks where literally everyone (ESPN/Disney, Fox, CBS *and* NBC/Comcast) has financial incentive to talk about the league all of the time. That’s exactly what the Big Ten ought to aim for (as opposed to giving exclusivity to anyone).
We agree completely. I raised these questions not to suggest that the B1G ought to sell its stake to Fox and then do what amounts to an exclusive deal with News Corp similar to what the SEC and ACC have done with ESPN.
Quite the contrary. My questions are really driven at whether or not the B1G should be looking to sell its stake to one or more media partners not named News Corporation as part of their upcoming Media rights deal(s) in an effort to generate as as much exposure as possible in addition to the obvious Revenue objective.
And pursuant to the above, just how attractive is the B1G’s stake in the BTN as a potential deal sweetener?
I haven’t seen it discussed but it is at least interesting that that the B1G’s new footprint additions overlap exceedingly well with Comcast’s cable footprint in the NYC to DC corridor. When you consider that the Chicago market is another one of Comcast’s major footholds, throw in the fact that Comcast/NBC is very interested in making its sports network a real player and you could make a very good case that Comcast/NBC is actually the player that is most likely to offer the most value to Fox, BTN and the B1G.
LikeLike
Quite the contrary. My questions are really driven at whether or not the B1G should be looking to sell its stake to one or more media partners not named News Corporation as part of their upcoming Media rights deal(s) in an effort to generate as as much exposure as possible in addition to the obvious Revenue objective.
I honestly doubt it is possible for the Big Ten to sell their ownership stake in the BTN. If it is, more likely than not, FOX has a right of first refusal and or the right to match any offer.
LikeLike
And pursuant to the above, just how attractive is the B1G’s stake in the BTN as a potential deal sweetener?
Not much, due to the fact it isn’t on the table to begin with. The Big Ten a pretty darn good idea of what their stake in the equity of BTN is worth, and they aren’t going to part with that for anything less. The idea that somehow giving up a stake in the network gets them a better 1st and 2nd tier rights contract (and makes them more money) is almost ludicrous.
No one is going to come in and overpay for the conference’s ownership stake in BTN and overpay for the tier 1 and 2 rights contract as well in 2017. The goal of the networks is to make a profit as well…..
LikeLike
@Nostradamus
nobody said anything about overpaying.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus
I honestly doubt it is possible for the Big Ten to sell their ownership stake in the BTN. If it is, more likely than not, FOX has a right of first refusal and or the right to match any offer.
I appreciate your willingness to admit you don’t actually know anything.
LikeLike
If they don’t overpay what benefit is it to the Big Ten to sell their stake?
LikeLike
With all due respect, based on that logic the BTN would never have been conceived. The Big Ten would have acquiesced to the all-powerful ESPN’s strong arm tactics back in 2006, accepted their lowball figure and gone home. It’s certainly plausible that FS1 could go the cooperation route with ESPN, but I don’t think so. Just as ESPN can now claim the SEC as their own, I think FS1 is going to want to make a similar statement. If this happens, Fox will likely want to own the BTN outright, but long term, that may be the way to go. Big Ten coverage on ESPN will always play second (or fourth) fiddle to the SEC etc. Much better to go with all in with FOX (if the money’s right) and be treated like a king.
LikeLike
This is in response to Frank’s original comment.
LikeLike
Money would have to be much better (as the BTN turned out to be). A few million more wouldn’t be worth it.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – I think the logic is completely consistent. The reason why the BTN exists is that ESPN lowballed Delany. If ESPN had paid market price, Delany would have never bothered with creating the BTN (and he has said as much). They took that risk because there was an outsized potential gain compared to ESPN’s lowball offer (while that outsized gain wouldn’t have been there if ESPN had paid up).
What I see are a lot of comments that indicate a personal dislike of ESPN, which is fine. However, that should not color the fact that if ESPN, Fox and NBC have similar offers, you go with ESPN. People are acting like the Big Ten is getting stuck with Tuesday night MACtion time slots here. Even with all of ESPN’s latest deals, the Big Ten still has the best daytime Saturday time slots of any conference within the ESPN family (including the SEC). That’s what a conference needs to care about (as opposed to what Skip Bayless might say on whatever show he’s on).
LikeLike
* How much benefit in out of market states does the BTN get from ESPN’s SEC Network? More ‘sports tier’ packages sold in LA, Dallas, Miami, and Kansas City means more moola for BTN, no?[/i]
Not much. At roughly $0.10 a household per month, you could add 500,000 households and the Big Ten’s 50% would be $300,000 in additional revenue or $25,000 a year for each of the current 12 schools.
The places where the network is most likely to be added will have it added on lower tiers than sports. For SEC fans out of market, you have to figure a decent chunk of them already subscribe to a sports tier either as general sports fans or to follow a specific sport that has existing channels on a sports tier.
What you are left with isn’t much.
[i]
* Should the B1G sell its stake in the BTN?[/i]
Why would they? And who to? Second question first. As someone pointed out below, I’d doubt they can sell it to anyone other than Fox. Back to the first question though, why would they want to? They own 50% of the network and are entitled to 50% of the profits from said network. The only reason to sell it would be if you think the cable market is going to tank or for some reason you won’t have equal or better distribution going forward.
And who would buy it? Ignoring the fact they likely can’t sell their stake to anyone other than News Corp, who would be stupid enough to pay a price the Big Ten is welling to sell it at? If you own 50% of the network you aren’t going to give it up for anything less than what you expect your 50% ownership stake would earn during the remainder of the deal. No buyer can pay that though.
If you are a buyer, you aren’t willing to pay that as you are assuming the risk and you’d want to leave room to profit on the deal. So basically the Big Ten would be losing money on selling their stake in a network and it would be incredibly stupid. If you think the value of the network is going to go up, guess what? The Big Ten realizes that through their 50% ownership stake.
If anything, I’d look for a deal going in the other direction particularly if they partner with Fox that would give the Big Ten a path for expanded equity in the network if Fox wants to keep the partnership going in the future.
[i]
* Would the B1G be unwise to partner with Fox and NBC/Comcast (forgoing its long relationship with ESPN/ABC) for its “Tier 1 and Tier 2″ rights for the 2016-2017 years and beyond?[/i]
If said partnership paid more and offered equivalent exposure, no it would not be unwise.
LikeLike
Well, sorry for being emotional but Suck FecSPN! A double middle finger to the sports channel monopoly!
With that out of the way, an article about FSU coming to terms with the ACC Grant of Rights:
http://www.accsports.com/teams/florida-state/2013050815360/fsu-acc-in-it-for-the-long-haul-.php
LikeLike
Syracuse Fades Away From New York
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183772708098070
LikeLike