Summertime Conference Realignment Walking Dead: A Look at the Big 12 Grant of Rights Agreement

Posted: August 8, 2013 in Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , ,

I’ve been trying to write about topics other than conference realignment lately, but our favorite blogging crack habit has been buzzing in my ear like a hit summer song that you can’t avoid (see “Blurred Lines” now and “Call Me Maybe” last year)*.

(* For your perusing pleasure, Billboard put together a list of the top 10 songs for each summer since 1985. I can’t help but smile at some of the memories of these songs, particularly from my junior high years of 1991 and 1992. Sir-Mix-A-Lot!)

First, Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com casually drops the following in a column last week about the latest power conference meetings:

Big Ten expansion: It isn’t done. That’s about all I can say. Hint: The conference will begin negotiating on a new TV deal next year. The current contract expires in 2016. Definitely stay tuned.

This of course got the blog and message board world humming again with apocalyptic tales of the Big 12 and/or ACC imploding along with the Big Ten adding anywhere from 2 to 10 schools. To be sure, the chatter actually did produce something of value in the form of a West Virginia(!) an Ohio State fan procuring a copy of the Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement, which we’ll take a look at in a moment.

Joe Schad of ESPN then Tweeted this quote from Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione yesterday:

This is plausibly relevant since OU is one of those schools that could be in the mix if all of this starts swirling again. Of course, the quote ignores the context of the conversation, as it appears that Castiglione also said that such realignment would be over the next “10 to 15 years” as opposed to immediately.

What does this all mean? Like Castiglione, I’m still thinking nothing at least in the short-term. Further consolidation among the power conferences is possible, but it continues to seem more likely to occur in the 2020s at the earliest. If the Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement is substantially similar to what the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC have in place (and there isn’t much reason to believe that there would be much deviation), it makes little sense to believe that more realignment is imminent.

The Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) states that each school will grant to the conference its applicable media rights (in this case, first and second tier tights for football and men’s basketball) for the duration of the term of the agreement, regardless of whether such school is a member of the conference or not. As we’ve noted here previously, this means that even if, say, Texas were to leave for the Big Ten or Pac-12, the GOR mandates that the Texas first and second tier rights would still be owned by the Big 12 until the GOR period ends in 2025.

What’s most instructive about the GOR contract is what it doesn’t say. There isn’t a termination provision. There isn’t a liquidated damages clause. There isn’t any mechanism to calculate potential damages for a member leaving early. In fact, there isn’t any procedure at all about what would occur in the event that a member leaves the conference other than a couple of flat statements that the GOR is in effect for such member until 2025 no matter what. The Grant of Rights agreement is intentionally ambiguous.

As someone that served some hard time in the slammer of a large corporate law firm, fighting over ambiguous contracts can rack up mountains of billable hours more than virtually any other type of litigation. When you have a 200-page contract that covers every single scenario possible, that document might have been complex to draft but it’s usually a fairly straight-forward process in terms of applying it. However, when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, as there are in the GOR agreement, and it’s covered by a 4-page contract that is a simple grant without any termination or dispute resolution procedures, that in and of itself is a massive deterrent to anyone challenging the agreement. It’s almost impossible to determine the legal and financial exposure that a school that is contemplating leaving a GOR arrangement would have. There could be no exposure at all or it could be a large enough amount to literally bankrupt a school, and there’s very low confidence in assessing what’s more likely. In contrast, a school dealing with an exit fee understands its exposure immediately and can balance whether the worst case scenario (i.e. Maryland having to pay the full amount of its $50 million exit fee to the ACC) is still worth risking a defection over.

To be sure, there are plenty of theoretical arguments to challenge the GOR. As Jason Hutzler argued at Outkick the Coverage earlier this year, if a TV network decides to keep paying a conference with one or more defections as much or more than what it was paying prior to such defections (as was the case with the Big 12 over the past 3 years), then a school trying to break the GOR could argue that the conference didn’t suffer any damages at all and, as a result, shouldn’t have to pay a dime upon leaving. I don’t quite buy this argument as fully working, as virtually every school that has challenged any exit fee in this latest round of conference realignment has attempted to argue this in some form and has had little-to-no success, but it’s certainly a starting point when there isn’t any type of liquidated damages clause. A school could also attempt to argue that the GOR taken together with the Big 12 Bylaws that states that a withdrawing school will not receive any revenue arising out of the GOR (see Section 3.1 of the Bylaws) constitutes an unconscionable agreement (as the member would not be receiving any media revenue despite it still being subject to the GOR). That’s a tough argument, though, as that defense is typically used by parties that don’t have much bargaining power or were victims of fraud (which wouldn’t be applicable here).

Regardless, most lawyers could probably think of numerous ways to break a GOR arrangement on paper, but the practical problem is that none of them are high confidence lines of attack. As a result, a school that attempts to break a GOR would be heading into a situation where there is unknown and unlimited legal and financial exposure, which is a horrible position to be in. For every argument out there that there aren’t any damages to conference that suffers a defection, there’s a counterargument that such conference is entitled to the fair market value of all of the TV rights for the school that’s leaving. That FMV for a marquee program like Texas could easily run into the hundreds of millions of dollars (remember that ESPN is paying Texas an average of $15 million per year for its leftover third tier rights for the Longhorn Network, much less its top football and basketball games), which eliminates any financial incentive to leave no matter how much a new conference might be promising in terms of more revenue. You don’t want to jump into a lawsuit in those types of circumstances, especially with the amount of dollars that are involved in connection with power conference media deals. The proof is in the pudding with the amount of weight that the conference commissioners have assigned to these GOR agreements and the fact that similar arrangements are enforced in entertainment industry all of the time. Believe me – when Disney bought Marvel Entertainment in 2009, the Mickey Mouse conglomerate (which also happens to be the primary beneficiary of these GOR contracts via ESPN) employed armies of lawyers to try to figure out how to get out of all the long-term or even perpetual licenses that the comic book company granted to other competing movie studios when it was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 1980s and 1990s and they came up empty. Thus, Sony (via Columbia Pictures) continues to have the movie rights to Spider-Man* and Fox has the full suite of X-Men characters at its disposal despite Disney having paid $4 billion for Marvel.

(* Prior to the string of hit movies over the past decade, the Spider-Man movie rights had been passed around Hollywood like a doobie. James Cameron was actually in line to write and produce a Spider-Man movie in the early-1990s. Later, in the midst of litigation between Columbia Pictures and MGM over who actually could produce Spider-Man movies, the film companies ended up with a novel settlement: Columbia would drop all of its own claims that it could produce James Bond movies (which MGM had lorded over since the 1960s). Essentially, Spider-Man was traded in Hollywood for James Bond, which has ended up working out incredibly well for both of the studios involved. Sports fans have distinct memories of lopsided trades, such as Brock-for-Broglio, but I can’t think of a trade involving two legit superstars (the equivalent of Spider-Man and James Bond) that worked out for all parties.)

So, the GOR’s strength isn’t that it’s an ironclad complex agreement that doesn’t include any loopholes. Instead, it’s an arrangement that is a triple-dog-dare to schools that want to attempt to challenge it since there isn’t any reliable precedent about how to calculate damages. This is proverbial Russian roulette in a practical legal context – the damages could be more than you could imagine… or they could be less than what a normal exit fee would have been. That makes it a great moot court exercise for people like me and other writers in the peanut gallery, but a dangerous contract to challenge in real life. Lawsuits that are brought on principles other than money, such as constitutional challenges filed by the liberal ACLU or conservative American Center for Law and Justice, can afford to tackle these types of ambiguous arrangements. However, conference realignment is almost entirely about money, which means that the great risk of trying to challenge the GOR (even if there are viable legal arguments against it in theory) is likely going to be enough to dissuade any school from leaving a conference that has that type of contract in place. As much as I’d love to sit here and say that the Big Ten ought to add, say, Kansas and Oklahoma to its western division, without a prescribed course to challenge GOR agreements or a university president with the cajones to risk everything (who I’ll grant might be out there), power conference realignment is stopped dead in its tracks.

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

(Image from NewsOK)

Comments
  1. greg says:

    Go Hawks!!!

    Like

  2. Clemson Tigers! says:

    B1G expands to 25 by adding 7 Big XII schools, the 3 northern ACC schools & Cincinnati from AAC.

    1 – Boston College. Syracuse. Rutgers. Penn State. Maryland.

    2 – Pittsburgh. West Virginia. Ohio State. Michigan. Michigan State.

    3 – Cincinnati. Indiana. Purdue. Illinois. Northwestern.

    4 – Wisconsin. Minnesota. Iowa. Iowa State. Nebraska.

    5 – Kansas. Kansas State. Oklahoma. Oklahoma State. Texas.

    SEC expands to 25 by adding all 10 southern ACC schools (not named Wake Forest) & Baylor from Big XII.

    1 – Miami. Florida. Florida State. Georgia Tech. Georgia.

    2 – Clemson. South Carolina. North Carolina. NC State. Duke.

    3 – Virginia Tech. Virginia. Kentucky. Louisville. Tennessee.

    4 – Vanderbilt. Auburn. Alabama. Mississippi. Mississippi State.

    5 – Louisiana State. Arkansas. Missouri. Texas A&M. Baylor.

    When this happens, conference expansion will finally be done! AAC will want to replace Cincinnati with Wake Forest. PAC may want to expand with some combination of Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Brigham Young & Boise State. Or continue being smart & stay at 12. Choice is theirs.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      25 members? I don’t think the Southern Conference was that big before the SEC (and later ACC) split.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Here’s a way that conferences get to 25+. NCAA DivIA breaks into two divisions: those schools willing to go with some sort of “Olympic model” and those schools unwilling to do so. Call them the Semi-Pro division and the Amateur Division.

      Plausible scenarios can be imagined given the confluence of O’Bannon case, increased public support for allowing players to make money via autographs and endorsements and given the expected structural changes in the NCAA.

      Now the interesting question is which conferences and schools opt for the Semi-Pro division vs. the Amateur Division? Assume the B1G votes to stay in the Amateur Division and SEC goes for the Semi-Pro. Are there any schools that break off? Does tOSU change conferences? or Vandy?

      (Btw, this assumes the O’Bannon players lose that part of the case where they are claiming some right to the TV royalties. If that happens, all bets are off.)

      Like

  3. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

    Like

  4. Dennis Dodd is speculating. Conference realignment will probably never be over and, at some point, we may even see conferences kicking out lagging members. It would seem to me, though, that if the B1G is expecting the top TV contract here in a couple years, that it would behoove them to wait until after their TV negotiations to add another school (or six). If they can show the rest of the college landscape that they will make 5-10 million more per school/year, then schools may start to look for ways to get out of their GOR. Besides, it’s easy for the B1G to throw in a clause in their TV contracts to open it up for renegotiation if they add more members.

    All this being said, I read grumblings about the Big XII and how UT and OU fans don’t care much for the schedules in their conference anymore. I think that most of the power conference schools want to see how the new four-team playoff works for a couple of years before they make any decisions on expansion or jumping ship, though. As always, we wait, see and speculate.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “…at some point, we may even see conferences kicking out lagging members.”

      Why? It has happened only once, in a questionable power conference, and that school got back in.
      Do you not think the strength/value of a group is greater than the sum of the parts?

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Kicking out a member leaves you vulnerable to being kicked out. For decades, Kansas State was the nation’s worst major college football program, perennially finishing in the Big Six/Seven/Eight cellar. (If that conference had been the National League before franchises began moving, K-State usually would have been the Phillies, with Iowa State in the next-to-last role of the Boston Braves.) But K-State was never booted from the league and now, with the right coaching, it’s shown it can compete with anybody; so has Oklahoma State, and so could Iowa State as well if it struck gold. And unlike Temple in its first Big East football go-round, all three of the aforementioned schools have shown healthy fan support. There’s no justifiable reason to boot them from a conference.

        Like

  5. Dennis Kelly says:

    Absolutely tremendous article Frank. Might be one of your best.

    regards,

    Dennis Kelly

    Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:36:18 +0000 To: lions113@hotmail.com

    Like

  6. Steve says:

    Hail to Pitt

    Like

  7. wmwolverine says:

    Hail to the Victors!

    Like

  8. ChicagoMac says:

    Most likely scenario is that realignment is done until the 2020s.

    However, there is more stability now and it opens the door for a more managed process.

    It is still hard to escape the reality that there are 10 Big12 schools and exactly 10 open spots in an “optimized” 4×16 scenario.

    It would only take about 8 entities to agree on a scenario that fits all their needs which would allow them to then sell/cajole/force the rest of the schools/conferences to work with them on the legal stuff.

    The 8 entities:
    ESPN
    Fox
    B1G
    SEC
    Pac12
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    Kansas

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      It is still hard to escape the reality that there are 10 Big 12 schools and exactly 10 open spots in an “optimized” 4×16 scenario.

      Unless there were some non-Big 12 shifts (e.g., ACC to Big Ten) as part of the process, conferences such as the B1G or Pac relent on some of their academic standards or Texas A&M allows a second Texas school to join the SEC, here’s how it could go:

      To Pac: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
      To Big Ten: Iowa State, Kansas
      To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
      To SEC: Kansas State, West Virginia

      Yes, I would be shocked if ISU would up in the B1G, but the only alternative I could see happening would be

      To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State,Oklahoma, Texas Tech
      To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
      To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
      To SEC: Oklahoma State, West Virginia

      Don’t see that, either.

      Like

      • ChicagoMac says:

        Yeah, exactly. It isn’t easy which is why 2020s is most likely.

        To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
        To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
        To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
        To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor

        Pac gets to expand into 3 new states
        B1G gets two prizes that fit in every way.
        ACC gets much improved Football AND two schools that also have good basketball brands.
        SEC gets to solve their geographic oddities, enters new markets

        ESPN rids itself of the LHN albatross and gains complete control of Oklahoma and WV.
        Fox gets to turn BTN into a “national” network.

        Some plusses but probably lots of reasons folks say no too.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Here’s why there will be no “managed dissolution” of the Big 12.
          1) Texas and Oklahoma are not going to the SEC.
          2) Texas and Oklahoma are likely to go together since Texas isn’t going to want to be split from both OU and A&M.
          3) There’s no benefit in working together for the conferences that don’t get Texas and Oklahoma.

          Even if they split, there’s no benefit for the conference that doesn’t get them. Kansas isn’t enough for any of the 3. Tech doesn’t carry enough of Texas to justify the Pac 12 taking them and causing the divisional difficulties that would ensue.

          Like

          • ChicagoMac says:

            Could be. The more I think about the scenario I posted above the more I think a slight tweak might make it much more palatable.

            To Pac: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
            To Big Ten: Texas, Iowa State
            To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
            To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor

            Pac:
            Two new states and everything about their current model still works. Kansas basketball is a big addition, partners with UCLA to give the conference two of the sports marquee names. A presence in Texas helps offset a big issue in that only California had a big talent pool.

            SEC:
            The big advantage for the SEC is you get off the #14 number and you solve your geography problem. You are diluting the football a little but you also add Baylor to the aTm package to help you get more value out of the SECN in the state of Texas. WV isn’t a bad add for SECN purposes either. B1G taking Iowa State makes it more palatable since the Cyclones is a net negative to revenue generation to conference.

            ACC:
            Seems like they would jump for joy here. Replace the Big12 as SEC champ partner for Bowl lineup, add a King without too much dilution to basketball. Geography and dilution of academic side is only real issue here but I would have to think the guys in Tallahassee would think this is the best idea they’ve seen in a long time.

            B1G:
            Nets the big prize and take Iowa State to make the deal work. Purdue slides back over to East so geography works well. Get off #14 number.

            Kansas:
            Talent pool expansion to include West Coast. You get to take Kansas State with you and you make more money…I would think they would take this particular since the alternative is really only a decade or so of safety.

            Oklahoma:
            As long as ACC and Texas agree to let me keep my traditional game with Texas I don’t see why this wouldn’t work. Takes long term risk off the table, solves OKieState problem and gets you access to Florida. I think the Sooners would be up for this.

            Texas:
            If I get to keep my annual tilt with Oklahoma in Dallas this might work. I get align myself with academic peers who have similar approach to all-sport programs. Research bonanza with access to East Coast and Chicago. BTN isn’t a perfect replacement for LHN but its the best alternative. Great alternative for my women’s sports programs. Baseball is a concern but the B1G is investing heavily here and Indiana just went to CWS. B1G bowl lineup is very attractive; Pasadena, San Diego, Orlando, Tampa, New York. I free myself of all my many appendages and I shackle aTm with Baylor to boot.

            ESPN:
            Gets rid of LHN issue and helps every so slightly with SECN distribution in Texas. Gets 100% control of a King brand it currently shares. Gets 100% control of two very good college sports states; Oklahoma an WV and probably helps drive more value for its already sizable investment in ACC rights. Could help block NBC from getting in on bidding for B1G rights.

            Fox:
            Gets BTN in Texas but loses regional rights to OKlahoma and Kansas. Could help block NBC from getting in on bidding for B1G rights.

            All Entities above:
            Everyone of them probably benefits by some stability in the landscape and getting to 4×16 would probably go a long way to achieving that for a much longer period than the current 8-10 year window they’ve all bought.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “To Pac: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
            To Big Ten: Texas, Iowa State”

            Kansas appearently wasn’t willing to be, or an acceptable replacement for aTm in the P16 with CU, UT, OU, TT, and OkSU.

            The B1G doubling up in Iowa?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            I go back to outthinking your opponent and expecting the following pairs in the SEC is the epic of foolishness.

            vp19 says:
            To Pac: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
            To Big Ten: Iowa State, Kansas
            To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
            To SEC: Kansas State, West Virginia

            Agree with your PAC 4
            Agree with your B1G 2 (KSU is brand and ISU is AAU)
            Agree with ACC 2 (most reasonable place for privates to land)
            Disagree with KSU and WVU as neither adds SEC market, neither are AAU, neither are cultural fits, and neither have secondary sports support (SEC is baseball, T&F, M&W CBB, gymnastics, and softball) and ESPN wants turn key programming. With MU the SEC got a big market on their border, and TAMU got the SEC a solid foothold inTX.

            To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State,Oklahoma, Texas Tech
            To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
            To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
            To SEC: Oklahoma State, West Virginia

            Disagree with PAC 4 as too much chaff to work
            Agree with B1G 2 but can not see it happening as too lopsided
            Agree with ACC 2 as home for private schools
            Disagree with SEC 2 as Slive & Co want markets and AAU not these 2

            .

            .

            ChicagoMac says:
            To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
            To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
            To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
            To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor

            Disagree on PAC 4 as too much chaff and a TX religious school
            Agree on B1G 2 but it will not happen
            Disagree on ACC 2 as being too far away with no cultural fit
            Disagree on SEC 2 as neither offer what SEC wants

            .

            .

            bullet says:
            Here’s why there will be no “managed dissolution” of the Big 12.
            1) Texas and Oklahoma are not going to the SEC.
            2) Texas and Oklahoma are likely to go together since Texas isn’t going to want to be split from both OU and A&M.
            3) There’s no benefit in working together for the conferences that don’t get Texas and Oklahoma.

            While I agree on 1 and 2 my thought is there can be a truce between the B1G and SEC if neither gets them. That means the PAC lands them and the other 2 have to settle for “lesser” schools that still fit. B1G gets Kansas as their “brand” deal and add Iowa State because it fits the AAU requirement. The bigger issue is FOX adds KU to the BTN which is what these deals are really about.

            .

            .

            ChicagoMac says:

            To Pac: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
            To Big Ten: Texas, Iowa State
            To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
            To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor

            Interesting PAC 4 except for TCU and long term cultural fit
            Interesting B1G 2 in getting a jewel with anchor as balance
            Disagree ACC 2 for reasons stated above
            Disagree SEC 2 for reasons stated above

            .

            .

            Now I propose a different view based on moves in relation to FOX and ESPN. First off tho here are some non starters :

            #1 B1G or SEC adding UT and OU is a non starter because move is too powerful
            #2 WVU is not in the SEC consideration pool. All those rumors of WVU to the SEC were started by “the dude” and his cohorts trying to make WVU look attractive to anybody that would take them. Small state, bad academics, no strong secondary sports, and a host of other issues meant the B12 was the only landing spot. I can not see any options for WVU besides the ACC.
            #3 BU and TCU will not have a home in the B1G, PAC, or SEC. As small private religious schools I can not see such a move no matter what folks say, just like I can never see BYU in the PAC even tho on paper they look like a perfect fit. ACC is the only hope for these 2 schools based on size, fit, and footprint.
            #4 Just because you want your enemy to get the worst schools of the lot does not mean it will actually happen. The BIG and SEC are the apex predators and asking either to take 2 “meh” schools is not only dreaming but not smart. If the B1G prides itself on smart people why allow dumb thinking?

            Now here are moves based on FOX and ESPN not losing major value to their biggest competitor.

            PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State
            #1 Neither UT or OU wind up in the B1G or SEC
            #2 Because of geography the PAC is “pair” friendly
            #3 FOX is already lead dog in PAC and B12 so no major asset shifts

            B1G + Kansas and Missouri (if trade works) or Iowa State if not
            #1 All are AAU and Kansas is an ELITE brand and #1 in Kansas
            #2 If MU deal can not be worked at least ISU is AAU
            #3 FOX maintains KU control and gets some value from one of the other

            SEC + Virginia Tech and NC State
            #1 ACC gets deal from B1G and SEC for no more raids
            #2 UNC, Duke, and UVA all stay together with SEC as “protector”
            #3 Both schools are already ESPN and this opens up the ACC for B12 “stragglers”
            #4 ESPN keeps both even after conference move while creating to more ACC vs SEC OOC rival series to strengthen both ACC and SEC brands:

            Since ESPN has both side of the equation they get :
            Florida State vs Florida
            Georgia Tech vs Georgia
            Miami vs Florida
            Louisville vs Kentucky
            North Carolina vs NC State
            Virginia vs Virginia Tech

            While not perfect for anybody but the PAC, it really does reallocate without the B1G or SEC feeling threatened enough to pass 16 member schools. The ACC can then build to 16 and you have your 4th (and final) super conference and major realignment is done for quite some time to come. The beauty of the ACC is letting go the lesser children allows them to expand to new markets and they have no problem accepting private schools. This could put all private schools in the south and southwest in play with those rising to the top having a new ACC home.

            Rice, Tulane, Baylor, TCU, BYU can all have a shot for the 2 slots vacated by Virginia Tech and NC State and the final slot (total of 3) to take the ACC to 16.

            here is a possible pool for 3 ACC adds to debate
            Rice = AAU and another ACC / SEC “pair” with TAMU
            BYU = Notre Dame Lite and solid numbers
            Tulane = AAU and another ACC / SEC “pair” with LSU
            TCU = Texas and another ACC / SEC “pair” with TAMU
            Baylor = Texas and another ACC / SEC “pair” with TAMU
            Kansas State = #2 in KS and Louisville “partner”
            West Virginia = #1 in West Virginia and Louisville “partner”
            Cincinnati = #2 in Ohio and Louisville “partner”
            Connecticut = #1 in CT and basketball

            Loki, the upside is the ACC would covet the AAU and might put Rice ahead of both Baylor and TCU for the TAMU “pair” because of it.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            Here’s why there will be no “managed dissolution” of the Big 12.
            1) Texas and Oklahoma are not going to the SEC.
            2) Texas and Oklahoma are likely to go together since Texas isn’t going to want to be split from both OU and A&M.
            3) There’s no benefit in working together for the conferences that don’t get Texas and Oklahoma.

            “While I agree on 1 and 2 my thought is there can be a truce between the B1G and SEC if neither gets them. That means the PAC lands them and the other 2 have to settle for “lesser” schools that still fit. B1G gets Kansas as their “brand” deal and add Iowa State because it fits the AAU requirement. The bigger issue is FOX adds KU to the BTN which is what these deals are really about.”

            What is the B10’s incentive to do this? They are better off with UT and OU in the B12 than in the P16. Besides, there is no reason to take ISU. The B10 already owns the state and ISU is an anti-brand. KU adds a little something, but not nearly enough to cover for ISU. If the block of 4 do go west, the B10 is better off at 14 than adding KU and ISU.

            “Now here are moves based on FOX and ESPN not losing major value to their biggest competitor.

            B1G + Kansas and Missouri (if trade works) or Iowa State if not
            #1 All are AAU and Kansas is an ELITE brand and #1 in Kansas
            #2 If MU deal can not be worked at least ISU is AAU
            #3 FOX maintains KU control and gets some value from one of the other”

            1. KU is an elite hoops brand, but an anti-brand in football. That reduces their value significantly.

            2. MO is not leaving the SEC after just joining them and the B10 is not doubling up in Iowa.

            “SEC + Virginia Tech and NC State
            #1 ACC gets deal from B1G and SEC for no more raids
            #2 UNC, Duke, and UVA all stay together with SEC as “protector””

            Why on earth would the B10 agree to let the SEC into VA and NC and keep themselves out?

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Besides, there is no reason to take ISU. The B10 already owns the state and ISU is an anti-brand.

            Ames, Iowa: In the eyes of the world, an athletic leper colony.

            Like

          • @vp19 – Now, now. Iowa State actually has a pretty good fan base that will travel and buy tickets to bowls. They just bring zero TV value to the Big Ten.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Iowa State actually has a pretty good fan base that will travel and buy tickets to bowls. They just bring zero TV value to the Big Ten.

            I see so many realignment scenarios where ISU winds up in the Mountain West, Mid-American or somehow outside the “big five” conferences. It’s in a very vulnerable position, not because of lack of fan support or poor academics (it is an AAU institution), but because its most logical destination if the Big 12 collapsed– the Big Ten — has no need for it, ISU has no in-state conference “big brother” to latch onto, and it’s been relatively weak in football (with slightly more success in men’s basketball). Perhaps the only BCS conference that might take it in if the Big 12 went under would be the ACC (Ames isn’t all that far away from Louisville and South Bend), and that only if the B1G and/or SEC raided several current ACC members and it needed to replenish. Iowa State’s played big-time competition for more than a century, and to see it unable to find a seat in intercollegiate musical chairs would be unfortunate (and could lead to some political furor).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “I see so many realignment scenarios where ISU winds up in the Mountain West, Mid-American or somehow outside the “big five” conferences. It’s in a very vulnerable position, not because of lack of fan support or poor academics (it is an AAU institution), but because its most logical destination if the Big 12 collapsed– the Big Ten — has no need for it, ISU has no in-state conference “big brother” to latch onto, and it’s been relatively weak in football (with slightly more success in men’s basketball).”

            Location, location, location. ISU is #2 in a small state and has no brand power. If IA wasn’t in the B10, ISU still wouldn’t be attractive. The only good things about it for the B10 would be AAU membership and proximity to NE, MN and WI.

            “Perhaps the only BCS conference that might take it in if the Big 12 went under would be the ACC (Ames isn’t all that far away from Louisville and South Bend), and that only if the B1G and/or SEC raided several current ACC members and it needed to replenish.”

            There’s no way the ACC would take ISU. There are better options for them in the Go5.

            “Iowa State’s played big-time competition for more than a century, and to see it unable to find a seat in intercollegiate musical chairs would be unfortunate (and could lead to some political furor).”

            I agree it would be a shame, but it’s the reality of the situation. Proximity used to be the key thing. Now markets and brands are the top criteria.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “There’s no way the ACC would take ISU. There are better options for them in the Go5.”

            That’s debatable.

            UConn is a smallish school with even less football support than ISU in a small state.

            Cincy is 2nd in their own city with even less football support than ISU.

            I’m not saying that ISU would be favored over those 2, but they’re not a definite cut below.

            Anyone else?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “That’s debatable.

            UConn is a smallish school with even less football support than ISU in a small state.

            Cincy is 2nd in their own city with even less football support than ISU.

            I’m not saying that ISU would be favored over those 2, but they’re not a definite cut below.

            Anyone else?”

            His premise was the ACC losing a bunch of teams to the B10 and/or SEC. Presumably that might include GT, FSU and/or Miami. That gives value to USF and UCF. If they lose hoops brands, then UConn gains importance. Potentially they could need ECU to stay visible in NC.

            ISU distance to nearest ACC schools:
            ND – 420 miles
            UL – 610 miles

            Nobody wants to go that far to the middle of nowhere with no recruiting and no markets.

            Like

          • ChicagoMac says:

            If you believe any of this is plausible – and I’m not sure that it is for a host of reasons mentioned below – it is plausible due to everyone focusing on managing their risk.

            So, look at it from the perspective of the biggest risks each of these entities face in 2022:
            Texas – A&M continues to take advantage of the SEC recruiting pitch and lands more and more of the elite talent in Texas. More SEC schools tap into the state, using the pitch. Texas starts losing to the 3rd place SEC team annually in their “new” Sugar Bowl. The LHN network loses more and more money and ESPN opts out. The only saving grace is that Stoops keeps losing to SEC schools as well.

            Oklahoma – Same issues as above but Oklahoma has neither the markets nor the Academic reputation for security as they face the unknowns in the 2020s.

            SEC – Comcast, Disney and Fox enter into a bidding war for B1G rights in 2016, driving up the rates, which along with the continued success of the BTN, means the B1G gets separation from even the mighty SEC when it comes to revenue. Ohio State wins the inarguable College Football Playoff National Championship beating Florida and Alabama in consecutive weeks. Texas and Florida State announce they will join the B1G in 2026 and Fox and NBC join together to pay even more money to the B1G.

            B1G – SEC wins 20 straight National Championships. Texas and UNC surrender and join which causes ESPN to triple the SECs TV Revenue. The new SEC Commissioner makes Slive look like Dan Beebe and he’s ruthless to boot.

            ACC and Pac – See above. Neither has any cards to play to remain competitive.

            Realignment has very much been an optimization exercise to date. Conferences and Schools looking to optimize based on all the factors Frank has written about over the years. Its been ruthless in a lot of ways, old partnerships and old rivalries died as there was a strong sense of every ‘man’ for himself.

            Maybe the next round is less about optimization and more about stabilization. Maybe this time cooler heads prevail the powers that be act before the ACC/Big12 GORs expire in the 2020s?

            Like

        • Redwood86 says:

          Get a grip! The Pac-12 is only interested in Texas and OU. It will take Texas Tech and OSU, but only as the price to be paid to get Texas and OU.

          Like

      • Andy says:

        They SEC isn’t taking Baylor and they already turned down WVU once. I’d say the SEC’s wish list is:

        1. North Carolina
        2. Virginia
        3. Duke
        4. Oklahoma
        5. Virginia Tech
        6. Florida State
        7. NC State
        8. Kansas
        9. Pitt
        10. Oklahoma State
        11. West Virginia
        12. Kansas State
        13. Iowa State
        14. Louisville
        15. Cincinatti
        16. Baylor

        And looking at that list, I doubt they’d agree to anyone below 4 as a 15th school and probably 8 or 12 as a 16th school. Baylor is out of luck, and they’ve always known this. That’s why they sued to keep the BIg 12 together.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Heck, I’d put a UCF or USF ahead of some of those. Not that those schools are amazing, and I know this gets said a lot with not much yet to back it up, but those schools have lots of potential. Those schools are just so darn big that the alumni, as they get older and into prime earning years, will eventually have the financial ability to support a major program. Their location only serves to help them, at least for recruiting.

          But that’s all moot, anyway. The SEC isn’t adding anyone for the next 12+ years.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      64 isn’t a magic number. Conferences aren’t going to add schools that make no sense to them just to fit some fanboys’ intellectually masturbatory ideal of 16X4.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        16 is as big as a conference can get before it becomes ridiculous. But 10, 12, or 14 work just fine. I suspect we won’t see any 16 team conferences for a long time.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Richard, While it may not be the magic number it does mean 4 conferences and not 5. Simple economics here from the side of the networks.

          Say end deals are this :
          ACC = 20 million per school
          B12 = 20 million per school
          PAC = 25 million per school
          SEC = 30 million per school
          B1G = 30 million per school

          #1 4 contracts are easier to negotiate than 5
          #2 cutting the bottom feeders drawing 20 million each saves money
          #3 law of diminishing returns after 16 / 64 model
          #4 ESPN and FOX want maximum exposure for minimum cost
          #5 realignment is about contraction not expansion (sorry Boise State and others)

          Like

          • Richard says:

            However, countering that is a concentration of market power when you go from 5 conferences to 4. That more than outweighs the costs of negotiating an extra contract every 12 years or so. Or even cutting out the bottom feeders, since they add little value now anyway, cutting them out does not save the networks $20M each, but only a few million.
            .

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            I agree for the most part. Concentrating power is the conferences goal. It doesn’t benefit the media at all. It weakens their bargaining position, reduces the number of potential options. My disagreement is that the less visible schools in the big conferences are beneficial. It requires lower floors to have a penthouse, inverted pyramids are very unstable, and other silly sayings. NW and Wash St. Have made the Rose and other bowls. Their occasional up years arguably have more impact on the conference brand in those years (media attention, showing top to bottom strength) than the usual suspects doing what is expected.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Richard,

            At issue is cost reduction especially when it is cutting out the marginal bottom feeders. By leaving 5 conferences and all 5 trying to get to 16 you have a final pool of 80 teams. If you can limit it to 4 conferences at 16 then you are cutting the pool to 64 which means 16 fewer mouths to feed. If the minimum is 20 million and you multiply it by 16 that saves 320 million a year which can go to making the remaining 64 richer and the networks richer.

            The issue with equal revenue sharing is the bottom feeders are getting more and the top are getting less. Say instead of Iowa State being worth 20 million and Texas being with worth 20 million the actual numbers are 5 million for Iowa State and 35 million for Texas. Going back to Franks early premise of 11 + 1 = 13 it is in the best interest of the top 64 to keep fewer slices which mean bigger checks for the big money. The more you cut the least desirable the more you raise the averages. Look at Jack Welch cutting the bottom every year to get rid of the weakest.

            Viewed another way, in a 4 conference world the last spaces will be the top
            B1G 14 + 2 spots
            PAC 12 + 4 spots
            SEC 14 + 2 spots
            ACC 15 + 1 spot (already counting ND as ACC at this point)

            Viewed another way, in a 5 conference world the last spaces will be the top
            B1G 14 + 2 spots
            PAC 12 + 4 spots
            SEC 14 + 2 spots
            ACC 15 + 1 spot (already counting ND as ACC at this point)
            Big12/6 + 6 spots

            To make all 5 work you have to dillute the pool by adding teams after the low hanging fruit is already gone.

            Like

          • Steve says:

            If you get rid of all of the weak, who do the top teams play? When do you stop cutting teams? GE cut the bottom, but also rehired new employees, are you suggesting some sort of relegation?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Duff:

            The conclusion of your logic is that it is in the interests of the top schools to cut the bottom-feeders. It still is not in the interests of the networks to cut the bottom feeders. Say Texas is really worth $35M and ISU is really worth $5M.

            What happens when ISU is separated from Texas? The networks would not save $20M by not paying ISU. They would save, at most, $5M. Meanwhile, power would be concentrated. That means it would cost more than $35M to get Texas now (because they would then essentially be colluding with Michigan OSU, PSU, UNL, etc.). The networks would not save money. Ergo, the networks have no interest in eliminating a major conference.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Might I suggest rather than cutting “bottom feeders” (no one is getting booted from a standing conf) it is simply a matter of the least desired not being able to find a new power conference place being offered when/if their current conference collapsed.

            Playing (and beating) lesser conference members is a contributor to the kings value. I don’t think the conference members value, or payment goes up if the bottom goes away. It may free money to be offered to another conference, perhaps to Go5, creating some competition that use to be in house.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            My conclusion still holds: despite what Duff asserts, it’s still not in the interests of the networks for top brands to consolidate together and eliminate a power conference.

            The B12 is living proof of that.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            I agree. I was meaning to that existing conferences cutting bottom members would be damaging in the long run. The absorption of the valuable members, or even of all the members, of a disolving conference by the others would strengthen their position. That concentration would cause the net cost to the media to broadcast the exact same total number of games to rise, a net increase. Concentrating control of the broadest number of potentially valuable games (including the occasional big year for bottom dwellers) is power.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Steve says:
            If you get rid of all of the weak, who do the top teams play? When do you stop cutting teams? GE cut the bottom, but also rehired new employees, are you suggesting some sort of relegation?

            I said all along you will see FBS I and FBS II type of setup. I think the end of FBS I playing FCS schools and those games get replaced by FBS II games is coming. Now here we are on FtT and the topic of the split is openly being discussed by the mainstream. FCS already has a playoff and I think you will see FBS II do the same. You could even see an FBS II playoff champion (where playoff games are played in december) get a slot in a BCS type bowl game to leave a brass ring out there to shoot for.

            The issue is the huge sums of money required to play college football at the top level. It takes huge fans from big schools who can travel. If you have 4 team playoff that means 2 big trips for schools that wind up in the championship. If the FBS I goes to 8 or 16 (which I really hope it does not) there was already a discussion on FtT about the cost of fans making multiple playoff game trips. Only the schools with really big fans will fill the seats. Bronco Stadium holds 37,000 which is like Duke and Vandy in the power conferences. Nobody is saying Vandy is winning the SEC CCG and nobody is saying Duke is winning the ACC CCG and those are just stepping stones at a shot at the MNC.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Richard says:
            My conclusion still holds: despite what Duff asserts, it’s still not in the interests of the networks for top brands to consolidate together and eliminate a power conference.

            The B12 is living proof of that.

            Proof of what?

            Nebraska is in the B1G, Colorado is in the PAC, and TAMU + Missouri are in the SEC. We were a hairs breath away from (6) B12 schools heading to the PAC. The only thing that saved the B12 at the time was UT’s unwillingness to ditch the LHN to jump to the PAC. 3 schools are probably 80% of the value of the remaining B12 and the other 70% may account for 20%. The day UT and OU decide they are falling behind in the B12 is the day the B12 goes the way of the Big East. The problem is the B12 schools believing schools like Baylor and Kansas State can carry the market load that UT and OU can.

            Baylor with RG III had their best team in what 50 years and they still could not sell out a 50K stadium. Of Baylor’s Top 10 attended games of all time 7 were TAMU and 3 were UT. In the Top 20 (3) of the games were Arkansas from back in the SWC days. 13 of the Top 20 games are teams now playing in the SEC and only 5 of those 20 broke the 50K mark. #20 was 45,565 in 1989 against TAMU and 45K will be the reduced seating of the new stadium being built.

            If UT and OU stay in the B12 then you will see a B12 + ACC merger and the smaller schools in each getting dropped. The old Big 8 was really just Oklahoma and Nebraska while the old SWC was UT and a rotation team like Arkansas or TAMU.

            The base problem of you argument is that you imply the B1G = SEC = PAC = ACC = B12 when the reality is more like B1G = SEC > PAC > ACC or B12.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “The only thing that saved the B12 at the time was UT’s unwillingness to ditch the LHN to jump to the PAC.”

            Indeed. And who overpaid to make the LHN possible? ESPN. In order to keep the B12 alive. Thus supporting my point that the networks do not want to see the conferences consolidate. Really, Duff, I expect you to be able to deduce at least a little bit.

            “The base problem of you argument is that you imply the B1G = SEC = PAC = ACC = B12 when the reality is more like B1G = SEC > PAC > ACC or B12”

            Actually, I imply no such thing. In fact, I agree with you. Amazingly, you don’t see that in such a power structure, there is even less incentive for the networks to want the 2 top dogs to grow stronger and consolidate more while the weakest disappears.

            Like

          • I tend to agree with Richard on this point. The idea that the TV networks would somehow save money by having consolidation doesn’t make sense – the amounts that they would save from cutting out what would end up being 3 or 4 current power conference schools that couldn’t get into a 64-team super division would pale in comparison to how much the newly strengthened Big Ten/SEC/etc. could demand in the marketplace.

            Think about if the Big 12 implodes. Iowa State, Baylor and Kansas State wouldn’t get paid $20 million per year anymore, but adding Texas and OU to the Big Ten or Pac-12 would raise the per school revenue to waaaay higher amounts that make those savings irrelevant. We’re already looking at the Big Ten pushing $30 million or even $40 million per school per year in the new TV contract with just the Maryland and Rutgers additions. So, the networks certainly aren’t going to be financially better off with consolidation.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Ok, I see. I agree, ESPN was/is able to prevent a super conference. It depends on for how long and the cost they are willing to pay, and the willingness of a few schools willing to continue the overpayment of a couple conferences to delay consolidation.

            When/if the consolidation comes you’re saying it’ll be like the formation if B12 2.1. ISU, Wake, etc become Rice, Houston, SMU? The Atlantic Coastal Cornfield Conference.

            I just don’t see Tobacco Road and Austin co-existing. UNL had OU as a reason to try the B12.

            Like

    • TheBlanton says:

      To The B1G: Kansas and Missouri
      To the ACC: Iowa State, Oklahoma State
      To the SEC: Oklahoma, WVU, Kansas State
      To The Pac12: TxTech,OkSt,Baylor,TCU

      Seceding from the system: Texas

      Like

      • TheBlanton says:

        To The B1G: Kansas and Missouri
        To the ACC: Iowa State, Oklahoma State
        To the SEC: Oklahoma, WVU, Kansas State
        To The Pac12: TxTech,BoiseSt,Baylor,TCU

        Seceding from the system: Texas

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          None of this could be mandated, but let’s look at each on its merits:

          To the B1G: While it might be nice to have Kansas and Missouri together again (and their collective synergy would turn Kansas City into a Big Ten town), that ship has probably sailed.

          To the ACC: Iowa State has more value here than is often given credit for (considering its relative lack of success, its fan base is impressive), and its basketball teams more often than not would at least be in the middle of the pack of the ACC. However, if this happened (not very likely), I don’t see Okie State as ISU’s partner. How about K-State or WVU?

          To the SEC: Why would the SEC expand to an unwieldy 17? And from the non-Texas choices above, the only possibility would be the OU-Okie State combo (and Norman probably wouldn’t make the SEC an option unless no other one was available).

          To the Pac: The conference may be desperate for a Texas foothold…but in Austin, not Lubbock (at least not Lubbock by itself). The other three are non-starters for academic or sectarian reasons.

          Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Many realignment proposals suffer from the same flaw: the belief that the four power leagues would — neatly and conveniently — agree to settle on 16 teams as the ideal number, and that they’d make highly sub-optimal moves in order to do so.

        This is wrong, because the conferences and schools are in competition with one another. They all move independently, and in their own best interests.

        Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Big Ten takes Kansas and Missouri, unlikely as that is. The SEC would probably take Oklahoma, and be done with it. In fact, Oklahoma is probably better than Missouri, so they’d consider that a more than fair trade. Why go farther? They’ve already passed on WV, and they certainly don’t want Kansas State.

        The ACC doesn’t want the second-best school in Iowa and the second-best school in Oklahoma. Why take them, when they could just stand pat? What do they gain?

        The Pac-12 doesn’t want the third, fourth, and fifth-best football schools in Texas, two of which are small religious institutions. If the Pac wants a religious school at all (doubtful), it wants BYU before either of the two you’ve suggested.

        If the Big XII breaks up, the only schools the power leagues will want are Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas (AAU + basketball). If Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and K-State get golden tickets, it’ll be only if their more-desirable in-state partners come along. And some leagues, like the Big Ten, won’t take the in-state partner schools at all.

        Iowa State, Baylor, and TCU are stone-cold losers if the Big XII breaks up. But they’ll probably have company. It’s unlikely that all three of the TT/OkSt/KSt combo get Big Four bids. West Virginia will probably take care of itself, but even that is not a sure thing. Hello, AAC!

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          The second-best schools in Iowa, Kansas and/or Oklahoma would have more value to the ACC than the fourth-best school in North Carolina.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            And I agree that the AAC — which looks to have more of national scope than the Mountain West or Mid-American and probably would become the #5 conference — almost certainly would take in the unwanted from any Big 12 implosion. Some of the comments that TCU might find itself back in the MWC, this time with Baylor, or that Iowa State will be relegated to the MAC are absurd; none of the Big 12 “losers” would wind up in a conference lower than fifth on the totem pole.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            …but 5th might be the MWC or AAC.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The second-best schools in Iowa, Kansas and/or Oklahoma would have more value to the ACC than the fourth-best school in North Carolina.

            There are a number of schools in the “Big Four” leagues that probably wouldn’t have been taken, if they were building a brand new league today: Washington State, Mississippi State, Northwestern, and your example, Wake Forest. But leagues generally don’t kick out schools once they’re in. Temple in the former Big East, is the only modern exception, and their expulsion proved to be temporary.

            Expansion is a different ball game. When the ACC expands, they’re not asking, “Is this member more valuable than Wake Forest?” New members need to be a net improvement to the whole league, not merely better than the worst team you already have.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            …but 5th might be the MWC or AAC.

            The only way the Mountain West gains #5 status in a world where the Big 12 implodes would be if Brigham Young rejoined, which looks like a longshot. Unless it makes some crucial mistakes a la the old Big East or some of its members are absorbed into other conferences (the only realistic possibilities are Cincinnati and/or Connecticut to the ACC), the American has more established members in a greater, more populous area of the country than does the MWC.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            In order for the schools we are discussing to be at risk of being left out sort of demands that one of the B5 conferences fail, or the ACC/B12 pull a B8/SWC repeat. That leaves the MWC or AACK as #5.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying the AACK is clearly above the MWC, the obvious #5? My more western view is that isn’t the case, but I may be suffering reverse ESPN regional bias.🙂

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The AAC has several built-in advantages over the MWC. It plays mostly in the Eastern and Central time zones, so its games are on when people want to watch. It has two Florida schools and two Texas schools. UConn and Cincinnati have been to three BCS bowls between them. The AAC schools also have larger enrollments, and therefore presumably more alumni. Five AAC schools have enrollments above 37,000. The MWC has none.

            The MWC has one national brand (Boise), but it really drops off precipitously after that. Mind you, the AAC is not exactly a murderer’s row lineup either, but they’re in a stronger position than the MWC. The sweetheart deal the MWC gave Boise to come back is indicative of that.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Unless the XII is just left with Baylor and TCU, it will remain the #5 conference by reloading from the AAC and MWC. Even those two schools would be in the top third the AAC or MWC. If IA St, WV, and KS St are still around it will be fairly easy for the XII to add Houston, Cincinnati, and S. Florida. I expect that they will actually get back to 12 schools if the XII lost TX and OK. Even after reductions for composition changes, the XII will still have better TV and bowl contracts than the MWC or AAC (might not be enough to offset the Boise deal, but will be better than any other school is getting). Just like the AAC looks a lot like the old CUSA, if a lot of teams leave the XII some may start calling it AAC2, but the XII will retain its place as the 5th conference. The BE had no shortage of CUSA schools wanting to move up when it imploded, and the XII will not have a problem adding members when it will accept schools of a lower stature than FSU or Clemson.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You may be right.

            But my western sensibilities(bias) suggests that USU 11-2 (L Wisconsin/BYU by combined 5 pts), SJSU 11-2 (L Stanford by 3, USU) and SDSU 9-4 (beat Boise on the smurf turf. L UWash, SJSU, Fresno, BYU) seem forgotten in the east, cause they’re out there in the “Bronco” conference. Nevada and the ossasionally mentioned as a move up candidate UNLV, too.

            I’m not sure the TX schools are a fit, and won’t move the needle as much in the AACK as they would in the MWC. But either way, we are not discussing a new B5 member (assuming a current one disappears) but the next in line behind the new B4.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Marc
            I don’t share your perception. The MWC schools have advantages as well. #1 many of them are flagships. #2 they have more interest in their communities and aren’t the 3rd or 4th or 5th favorite team. #3 They have fewer commuter schools which often have a lot of part time or older than average students who really don’t care about sports. #4 They own the G5 “territory” in their region instead of sharing it with CUSA, Sun Belt and to a lesser extent, the MAC. #5 They have more schools with success in the BCS era. 8/12 MWC schools have been ranked while only 5 of the AAC. The MWC schools have been ranked 16 times, the AAC 8.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            @Mack, you’ve nailed it.

            And given that conference realignment does NOT work like a group of kids trading baseball player cards, even a near total demolition of the Big12 would move in stages, and after each stage the Big12 would look like a better destination than either the MWC or the AAC for incumbent MWC and AAC schools.

            Like

          • CookieMonster says:

            @Mack, what could a new look XII look like

            Baylor
            KSU
            Iowa State
            TCU
            Cincy
            Houston or SMU or Rice
            Boise State
            South Florida
            Colorado State
            Memphis
            Tulsa
            Tulane

            Okie State and Texas Tech could still stay, so knock off the teams towards the bottom to make room for the bigger boys.

            Who would be the master of this new conference, and would they be willing to maybe move up to 14 to deter problems with dropping below 12 needed.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            If the XII keeps WV they go east, and WV is joined by old BE members Cincinnati, UCONN, and South Florida. If more slots are open, UCF and Navy are probably next. If this is 5-10 years out and Temple or Memphis have improved their football programs they could be in the mix.

            If the XII just loses TX/OK, the west is set without additions. Air Force makes sense if Navy is in the east; Houston if TT is gone; BYU already has its other sports placed so it could be invited as a football only member, especially if Air Force is in.

            Navy, AF, and BYU may believe their current football status will meet institutional goals better, but the other schools mentioned will accept.

            The XII already has 2 small private Texas schools, so SMU and Rice add nothing. If the XII loses both OK/OK St. it would be best to exit the state vs. adding small private Tulsa. The Tulane invite broke up the BE. A 4 time zone conference is hard to manage, and there is more in the east than the west, so SDSU and other CA/NV schools are out. Air Force better than Colorado State. Boise State might work as football only, but the XII may not have a west slot if others accept. BYUtv is a potential problem, but for football only no Sunday play is not an issue.

            The SEC will take FSU before WV, so WV only hope of getting out of an imploding XII is to snag an invite from the ACC. That will really be academic slumming for the snooty ACC. Not likely unless the ACC was imploding also, very unlikely at the same time as the XII, and if it occurred than there is likely to be a merger of the XII / ACC remnants.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            @Mack, what could a new look XII look like

            Baylor
            KSU
            Iowa State
            TCU
            Cincy
            Houston or SMU or Rice
            Boise State
            South Florida
            Colorado State
            Memphis
            Tulsa
            Tulane

            Okie State and Texas Tech could still stay, so knock off the teams towards the bottom to make room for the bigger boys.

            An all-sports conference in three time zones would be chancy (the late ’90s WAC, proposals to enlarge the Pac by taking in Texas and other southwestern members),such a conference in four time zones (I believe Boise is in the Pacific time zone) is a recipe for disaster. Even if Boise is in the Mountain time zone, it would be logistical folly to have it in a conference with Cincinnati, much less South Florida, for sports other than football. So let’s change the rebooted Big 12’s all-sports lineup to

            West
            Baylor
            Iowa State
            Kansas State
            Okie State
            Texas Tech
            Texas Christian
            Houston

            East
            West Virginia
            Cincinnati
            Connecticut
            South Florida
            Central Florida
            Southern Methodist
            Memphis

            The Metroplex would become the Big 12 focal point, with all members playing TCU or SMU once a year.

            Want to add Boise State and Colorado State? Make them football-only members and shift Houston east.

            Like

  9. GreatLakeState says:

    I agree. This is one of FtT’s best posts. I still think they will be sitting at 16 come contract time.

    On a cultural note,
    Despite the implausible ‘cheat’ of having Hank conveniently find Walt’s (spoiler redact) on the crapper (unless he purposely did it to get caught) can’t wait for the final eight! In honor of this final stretch, here’s a just released ‘blooper reel’ of the show. Awesome.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/breaking-bad-gag-reel-season-5_n_3723306.html

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “I agree. This is one of FtT’s best posts. I still think they will be sitting at 16 come contract time.”

      How/who?

      Like

    • @GreatLakeState – Great stuff. I can’t wait for the final episodes of Breaking Bad, either. I’d put it right next to The Wire as the most TV show that has most consistently delivered from episode-to-episode – there are truly no wasted scenes (whereas even some of the greatest shows in history, such as The Sopranos and Mad Men, have had entire episodes that have turned out to be filler material). Tying into my last post about the future of TV, Breaking Bad is the perfect show to binge watch on Netflix if you haven’t done so already.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        The only other show (currently on) that I think is as consistently great as ‘Breaking Bad’ is the Elmore Leonard show ‘Justified’. ‘Homeland’ is another good show (as is its doppelganger ‘The Americans’). Couple these with GoT, Mad Men, Dexter and Downton Abbey and that pretty much sums up my disparate tastes.

        Like

  10. 12-Team Playoffs Now says:

    The GOR won’t block realignment regarding B12 schools if:

    1. the conference votes to dissolve itself. Meaning at least 8 of the current 10 have to have new satisfactory homes in the other power conferences.

    or

    2. all the current schools agree to allow a school (or multiple) to leave in some kind of swap or a suitable replacement (cough, BYU, cough) can be brought in and the TV partners also agree to sign off on it.

    So if the P12 wants to allow Texas to bring 5 or 7 friends (there is zero incentive for Texas to only join as a 4-pac to 16, ain’t happening), or OU and the B1G somehow pull off a Yalta conference (unlikely), or the B1G settles for KU+UConn (slightly more likely, if B1G can convince ESPN to not reevaluate the B12 basketball contract) or if the ACC isn’t as solid as it looks right now (unlikely) than change could happen in the B12.

    But I wouldn’t count on any of that happening.

    I do expect the A$M MoneyBadger story to continue to entertain. Love seeing another SEC cheating scam exposed (autograph laundering, though also found at a lot of the usual suspects of dirty schools, among others.)

    Like

    • 12-Team Playoffs Now says:

      than=then

      Blog needs an edit function

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      So if the P12 wants to allow Texas to bring 5 or 7 friends (there is zero incentive for Texas to only join as a 4-pac to 16, ain’t happening)

      OK, let’s examine those scenarios. Who goes along for the ride in a Pac-18? Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State, Kansas and K-State? Makes sense. But what about a Pac-20? Iowa State would be #19, but West Virginia is too far away and I don’t see Baylor or Texas Christiian passing the Pac test. Could all four wind up in the ACC and/or SEC? Doubtful; the ACC would become too big to play an 8-game football schedule and satisfy its Notre Dame requirements, and unless Missouri really wants to revive the Telephone Trophy game, ISU isn’t SEC-bound. (WVU could find a home in either conference.) Through no fault of its own, Ames gets screwed again.

      Like

      • 12-Team Playoffs Now says:

        OK, let’s examine those scenarios. Who goes along for the ride in a Pac-18? Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State, Kansas and K-State? Makes sense.

        Um, no. You’re not thinking of it from UT’s perspective, and they are who would be pursued, not the other way around.

        I don’t see Baylor or Texas Christiian passing the Pac test.

        Then I guess the Pac doesn’t want UT enough to make the compromises necessary to provide the Horns with a situation better than they have now. UT likes, prefers, and created the current B12, and they aren’t going to backstab schools like WV and TCU that helped them save the conference. Well, not unless OU does first by defecting, but most likely we’d work to find a safe harbor for all or as many B12 schools as possible.

        OBTW, anyone wanting a bellyache of laughs should check out:

        http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/133799-Money-Badger-photoshop-thread

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “UT likes, prefers, and created the current B12…”

          Umm, no. The SWC was disintegrating and the Big 8 collaborated in rescuing some (TCU not included).

          “they aren’t going to backstab schools like WV and TCU that helped them save the conference.”

          Was WV essential? no others available (say, a Kentucky school soon to be in the ACC)?
          TCU – See above.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Deloss Dodds of Texas and Donnie Duncan of Oklahoma basically created the Big 12. That’s the reality.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yes, but not without the acquiescence of rest of the Big 8.

            Like

          • 12-Team Playoffs Now says:

            Grasshopper, stop and ask yourself why I put the word ‘current’ in front of ‘B12’….

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            12-T P:

            Ok, point taken. However, what was the alternative having already passed on the P16? It was shore up as best you can, or collapse.

            Like

    • ZSchroeder says:

      So you need 8 to dissolve? Dang. I was trying to sort out a scenario where a majority split to go to other conferences. I don’t see 8 having good homes. I see 5 as max finding better homes.

      I was thinking, if Big10 took Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma, and somehow extracted Missouri from the SEC. The SEC would back fill with West Virginia, even maybe take Oklahoma State, though who #16 would be is way beyond me. No one but teams from the ACC would be acceptable.

      I don’t see the Pac or ACC picking up any of the leftovers, all would have to go to a lesser conference, or build a new one with a combination of MWC and AAC members.

      Like

  11. Wainscott says:

    @Frank- Great article, but you don’t mention the disincentive for most conferences to poach schools in that all the majors (except the SEC) have their own GoR, and wouldn’t want to indirectly create litigation that could result in the successful challenge to a GoR.

    Example: B1G entices Texas to join, much like the conference did with UMD. The Big XII sues Texas to enforce the GoR. Neither party settles and at trial, Texas wins and joins the B1G. On the surface, this is a win for the B1G (BTN in Dallas! and Houston!). But a triumphant Texas creates legal precedent (persuasive, not binding) on the legality or limits of GoR’s, as well as a legal strategy to successfully challenge them. Since the B1G, and BTN, are based entirely on such GoR’s, the conference has no incentive to indirectly attack and defeat those agreements.

    Like

  12. kingottoiii says:

    The way I read that GOR agreement is that it is contingent on the TV contract existing. The schools agreed to grant their rights to the B12 to fulfill the TV requirement. They do not grant rights to the conference should the TV contract be terminated. Doesn’t the TV contract become void should the B12 lose a certain amount of members?

    If several teams left for the SEC, P12, or B1G wouldn’t that allow the rights to go back to the schools and not the B12? Can’t the P12 take OU, Okie St, KU, K St and kill the GOR? That allows Texas to go to the B1G. The B1G needs a cupcake and ISU is in the AAU so they can add them to get to 16. That would make the B1G/P12 continuous and reach all but the Southeast.

    Which leaves TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and WV all alone. The SEC would need two more to get to 16 with their choices being TCU, Baylor, WV, ECU (assuming they cannot raid the ACC).

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Yes, that is the key ~ the entire specification of which games the conference owns live copyright to is leveraged off the specification of the current broadcast agreement, with a term that unanimous consent of current members is required to agree to more restrictive terms.

      The copyright grant over the live games subject to the GOR just exists ~ the school cannot retrieve those rights ex post except by consent. So the crux of the argument would be whether the games of an ex-member are in the scope of the telecast agreement.

      And there’s a question that four out of five members don’t want to be answered in the negative, since the promise of stability on the basis of the GOR is the basis for extracting additional money from media companies. And extracting extra money from media companies while sharing as little as possible with the athletes actually performing is the whole point of the venture as a commercial going concern.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “And extracting extra money from media companies while sharing as little as possible with the athletes actually performing is the whole point of the venture as a commercial going concern.”

        Commercial venture with a 0% profit?
        All of it is spent (we may disagree whether wisely or not) directly and indirectly for the student and athletes benefit. It is reinvested in the scholarships, stadiums, coaches, trainers, facilities, tutors, etc., and in some cases the school at large that is the foundation providing the athletic department it’s existence.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          That is the paradox of the not for profit status, that it ensures that the programs have to generate high costs in order to claim the lion’s share of the revenue. As far as whether hundreds of thousands and million dollar salaries for senior administrators and coaches are for the benefit of the student-athletes … its a lot more direct that they are for the benefit of the senior administrators and coaches.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Not necessarily. Some programs hold the line although they could raise ticket prices, or make other moves that would maximize income, when budget needs are being met (for a while).

            The direct benefit to Sabin (or whatever big name/salary coach) isn’t spent to be a benefit to the players and the school? The increases for coordinators isn’t directly aimed at improving the programs by attracting/retaining an exceptional staff? Now, I’m not saying I argree with the amounts. I think other whole programs could live on one high paid OC’s salary. But I realize it is being spent intending to improve the team and players, and thus the schools standing.

            Like

  13. gfunk says:

    I argued in the past that OU, Tx, KU and likely UConn would end up in the BIG. I was ridiculed : ). I just recovered from the trauma. The fantasy is slightly less at this point.

    I do think it’s quite possible that a OU, Tx, KU block may push for one more Tx school – TCU is not as incompatible as many would think. Poor Tx would only have one road trip for fans under 10 hours (Austin as the starting point).

    If we go with statement one – football and basketball is addressed for good & we have the flagship in all states within the BIG footprint. We’d have 3 of football’s 5 biggest rivalries: OU-Tx ,OU-Neb & Mi-OSU. The thoughts and excitement of mixing and matching the icons of the BIG West and East = endless. Basketball would be equally exciting for me – KU and UConn have won 4 NC’s in the past 15 years.

    I think some of understated reasons the above block (Big 12 schools) are being considered: (1) time zone compatibility & (2) Interstate 35. Of course tv dollars, AAU & flagship status are considred on a greater scale. But cultural compatibility & infrastructure linkages are necessary at this point – the BIG’s last two expansions have ensured such realities – enough PSU fans cried that they were left hanging to the east. It’s pretty expensive for many Big12 schools to think Pac12 – that’s a stretched geography, though KSU, TCU, TTech & OkS could create a nice block with Colorado. You could say the same for a block of OU, Tx, KU to the Big12 – but I want them in the BIG if the Big12 is in fact on the verge of collapse & we go to 4 super conferences : o ).

    Like

    • Brian says:

      gfunk,

      “I argued in the past that OU, Tx, KU and likely UConn would end up in the BIG. I was ridiculed : ).”

      For good reason. UConn has almost no chance of getting in (there’s always a chance). Bad football in a tiny stadium, not quite contiguous, smallish state and non-AAU. That’s a lot of negatives to overcome. OU also has huge academic hurdles to clear in addition to the GOR issue. In addition, there are potential little brother issues for all 3 B12 schools.

      “I do think it’s quite possible that a OU, Tx, KU block may push for one more Tx school – TCU is not as incompatible as many would think.”

      Yes, it is. TAMU was the only other acceptable TX school. Besides, KU would probably rather have MO than any TX school.

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        UConn has long term potential & for many, many reasons, esp the fact that their k-12 system produces high quality students. UConn has climbed considerably in academic metrics the past decade. I don’t think AAU would outweigh a guaranteed OU-Tx block, no way. The BIG would never turn down annual matchups of Neb-OU, OU-Tx, Tx-Neb, now throw in PSU, OSU, Mi and Wisky.

        UConn is attractive if OU-Tx-KU are quite willing to join the BIG. It absolutely makes the BIG a force in basketball – easily on par with the ACC – easily.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          gfunk,

          “UConn has long term potential & for many, many reasons, esp the fact that their k-12 system produces high quality students.”

          CT is the #29 state in population at 3.6M, just ahead of IA but IA is growing faster lately. They’re obligated to play in a small (40k capacity) stadium 20 miles off campus that’s owned by the state and can’t move home games to neutral sites. They only became I-A in 2002. They have a weak fan base (only drew 34.6k fans on average). They’re in a part of the country that doesn’t much about college football. They’re only football value is being somewhat near NYC, but we already have one of those and RU has 4 times as many fans in NYC according to Nate Silver. How many programs can the B10 expect to build at once in the same area?

          In hoops, clearly UConn is a strong brand. That’s a bonus, but not a reason to add a school. The same with them having hockey. Besides, we have yet to see how they do after Calhoun. Their brand may fade without their HoF coach.

          “UConn has climbed considerably in academic metrics the past decade.”

          That’s easy to do when you start out well down the ranks. ARWU puts UConn at 86-109 in the US, a tier below NE. CMUP puts them outside the top 60 research schools and barely ahead of NE, but with barely half of the research funding. The AAU list had them at #81, ahead of 4 AAU members (not counting NE or Syracuse) and far from the mid-30s where the most recent invitees are ranked. USN&WR ranks them higher, perhaps indicating a stronger focus on undergrads than the B10 wants. Remember that the COP/C supposedly told Delany not to come back with another school as weak as NE. UConn is at best on par with NE.

          “I don’t think AAU would outweigh a guaranteed OU-Tx block, no way.”

          1. Like me, you aren’t a B10 president so your opinion on that is meaningless.
          2. The B10 has refused to add a lot of non-AAU members over the years. That starts looking like a pattern after a while. We have no way to know who would’ve been willing to join, but none of OU, FSU, VT and UConn got an invite last time.
          3. The B10 refused to expand just to add a CCG, which would have been a huge game every year, so money isn’t everything to them.
          4. You talked about 4 schools, not just 2. UT and OU as a pair have higher odds than the group of four you named.
          5. Culture is important to the COP/C, and I’m not convinced they feel OU fits the B10 academic culture.

          “The BIG would never turn down annual matchups of Neb-OU, OU-Tx, Tx-Neb, now throw in PSU, OSU, Mi and Wisky.”

          You mean the league that dropped PSU/NE and MI/NE to get PSU/MI? The league that doesn’t have NE playing OSU, PSU or MI in 2014-2015? The league that made unbalanced divisions so that the CCG is much less likely to be king vs king? No, they’d never miss a chance to play a big game.

          “UConn is attractive if OU-Tx-KU are quite willing to join the BIG.”

          They are? At best they are the least bad choice to be #18. I can think of a lot of non-AAU’s I’d rather have. I’d much rather stay at 16 and not add KU than also have to add UConn.

          “It absolutely makes the BIG a force in basketball”

          It already is.

          ” – easily on par with the ACC – easily.”

          So what? That’s hardly an important goal. Football is much more important, and KU and UConn both stink at it. The B10 would be just fine as the 2nd best hoops conference.

          Like

    • Andy says:

      gfunk, you should still be ridiculed for that idea. Not happenin’. Sorry for your huskies or jayhawks or whatever.

      Like

  14. […] interesting stuff about the Big 12 GOR. Summertime Conference Realignment Walking Dead: A Look at the Big 12 Grant of Rights Agreement | FRA… Reply With […]

    Like

  15. Transic says:

    Now this brings me to a question: Why go there?

    As in: Why would anyone connected to the B1G (like the AD of Michigan State) even float the possibility of further realignment?

    I would think that, with assumably very smart lawyers on their end, that the conference would know better than to give the impression that they’re promising something that can’t happen under current conditions. Imagine if, some day, the B1G is forced to play defense, and the yahoos at SEC-land are yapping about taking some football-first schools in the northern footprint. Then we would be talking about the wonders of the GOR all day long. Now, I understand the principle of the aggressor setting the rules but, at some point, some real analysis has to be undertaken.

    One can argue that all these B1G expansion could be spun as a symptom of weakness in the B1G itself, not the other conferences, and he wouldn’t be that far off the mark. Look at it this way: we’re supposedly the richest, most tradition-laden conference with the largest number of alumni and, yet, we hear talk about needing to improve the product through optimal additions. What does that say about us if we’re talking like this? What could be done internally so that the conference no longer wish to seek solutions for their competitive issues externally?

    Why aren’t the brightest and best universities in the northern states trying to come up with solutions to foster sports participation among the young at the grade and high school level? Maybe I missed it but it doesn’t seem to me that there is any serious effort on that side. We always hear about needing to recruit in areas where the SEC has a natural advantage just by the fact of being there (and going around the rules, with the help of SECSPN). Also, thanks to SECSPN, that conference has much better PR than the B1G does. Young kids are impressionable. This kind of PR for the SEC is much more valuable than all the gold in the world.

    It’s like a Catch-22 situation for the B1G. If the conference thinks that it would rather not focus too much on football, in favor of a more well-rounded sports approach, then the football-first donors and alumni start bellyaching about not doing enough for football. If they start focusing more on football, then they run into the possible backlash from academics who feel that sports is taking too much of the resources, not to mention the backers of non-revenue and women’s sports would be heard from. The PAC is much closer to their ideal for a conference. However, the B1G is forced to compete with the SEC for resources in the same time zones. That’s the main difference.

    Maybe Frank could give his thoughts on what I’ve just brought up.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “…yet, we hear talk about needing to improve the product through optimal additions. What does that say about us if we’re talking like this?”

      It says we aren’t talking about marginal, necessitated by circumstances additions.

      Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      I do not think it is a sign of weakest but rather of strength. Forces are pushing for more consolidation at the highest level of college athletics and perhaps in research as well. It don’t think it is a matter of if but when. So why should the BIG be reactionary instead of being proactive and landing a school like Texas, OU, or UNC before another conference does? It is smart business.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Because over the 10-15 year period of the discussion, there’s nothing surprising or controversial about pointing out that its a live possibility? Because after all, over that period, it is indeed a live possibility.

      Like

  16. ChicagoMac says:

    Big12 GOR is only in effect through June, 2018? Is that right? It was signed September, 2012 is there a version that replaced the one linked above?

    If this is the current version, any ideas as to why the terms ends in 2018 vs. something like 2024 or 2025 when there TV deal concludes?

    Is the story here the terms of the GOR agreements or the term?

    Like

  17. Mack says:

    The next round of realignment will be among the gang of 5 and will be triggered after the D4 requirements are decided. I expect that some combination of revenue, attendance, stadium size, et. al. will be required for a school to qualify for D4 and the entire conference will qualify if 70%-80% of the schools in the conference qualify. Several Go5 schools, but no Go5 conferences are likely to qualify. That will set off a best of the rest realignment as the AAC, MWC or some new entity tries to hang on to D4.

    Even if D4 membership rules are loose enough to allow the AAC and MWC in, there will still be a scramble because at that level some schools in CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt will qualify, so realignment and consolidation will just be on a lower level. However, having membership requirements that loose sort of defeats the purpose of D4. The FBS (CFA + B1G + PAC) had 81 to 84 schools in the first few years. D4 will function well at this number. Back then the WAC was the bottom of the FBS with the MAC and Ivy out.

    Like

  18. bullet says:

    Frank-Don’t know if you saw this, but its fodder for Division IV. UMass and South Alabama didn’t meet the qualifications for FBS, but they are letting them in anyway.
    http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/august/division+1+schools+reclassify+conferences+added

    Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “Frank-Don’t know if you saw this, but its fodder for Division IV. UMass and South Alabama didn’t meet the qualifications for FBS, but they are letting them in anyway.”

      Well, letting them in conditionally. Form your article:

      Massachusetts and South Alabama were approved but must meet minimum football attendance requirements this season, while Texas State moves into the FBS with no restrictions.

      Both UMass and South Alabama failed to satisfy the actual or paid 15,000 attendance requirement over a rolling two-year period for FBS schools. Their move to the FBS will be contingent upon having 15,000 in actual average attendance in the 2013 football season. If the requirement is not met, the schools will receive a notice of noncompliance and enter a 10-year probationary period.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Does that mean 10 years in, but on probation?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          That’s what it sounds like. That’s a pretty sweet deal for failing to meet the requirements. On probation, they may not be able to compete in championships or to vote, but I’m not sure. There must be some down side to being on probation. Maybe they don’t get a full share of the NCAA money?

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Why not? They’d still be full members of DivI for NCAA basketball tournament purposes.

            Anyway, this is the reason why the big programs want to form a Div4; because the rules for being allowed in to FBS are so lax and the penalties for violating them so nonexistent that any riff-raff which wants in gets in.

            There doesn’t _have_ to be any significant downside to being on probation. To the big programs, that’s a bug; to the small programs, that’s a feature.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Not all NCAA money is from tournament shares.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Oops, I hit the button accidentally.

            I meant to add, it’s also entirely possible there is a punishment for being on probation as a way to encourage schools to meet the rules.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Didn’t see anything about what “probation” means. Probably worst case is no bowl eligibility. Best case is they have to stick a probation sticker on their “I’m FBS” certificate.

            Like

  19. boscatar says:

    The grant of rights seems awfully dependent on the provisions, terms, and definitions of the “Telecast Rights Agreements” between the Big 12 and ESPN and FOX, respectively. Do ESPN and FOX control the realignment cards? If ESPN and FOX (and the participating school(s)) approve of a realignment move, it seems any move is possible.

    Also, even despite an iron-clad GOR, Texas and Oklahoma would hold substantial value to a new conference, even if their home games are unavailable. Texas-USC in LA or Oklahoma-Wisconsin in Madison would not be controlled by the Big 12. The new conference and Texas could give the Big 12 the finger by scheduling Minnesota or Washington State in Austin and playing the marquee matchups away – or may be even some neutral-site conference games in Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      “If ESPN and FOX (and the participating school(s)) approve of a realignment move, it seems any move is possible.”

      And it’s doubtful that they would. There aren’t too many realistic scenarios where a concentration of power by the content providers is in the cable companies’ best interest.

      “Also, even despite an iron-clad GOR, Texas and Oklahoma would hold substantial value to a new conference, even if their home games are unavailable”

      That’s not the problem. The problem is what’s in it for Texas/OU? So the new conference gets only half of Texas/OU’s games. Will you still give Texas/OU a full share of conference payouts? If so, how would that sit with the fans of OSU or Michigan, giving 100% to the B10 and seeing the new guys get the same despite contributing less. If you give Texas/OU less, how would that sit with their fanbase (and would it be worth moving)?

      “The new conference and Texas could give the Big 12 the finger by scheduling Minnesota or Washington State in Austin and playing the marquee matchups away”

      Every year? I’m sure Texas/OU fans would be ecstatic to know that they get to host Minny & IU every year while they have to play away at UNL/OSU/Michigan/PSU every year.

      “or may be even some neutral-site conference games in Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston.”

      B12 would likely still own those TV rights.

      Like

  20. frug says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9551518/ncaa-shuts-site-jersey-sales-says-hypocritical

    NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday said college sports’ governing body would stop selling individual jerseys and other team-related memorabilia on its website, calling the practice a “mistake” and admitting others might view it as hypocritical.

    Like

  21. Richard says:

    So it seems to me that the GORs won’t be violated. Thus, the only way that anyone will leave the B12 in the near future is if enough schools having landing spots elsewhere to vote to dissolve the conference. How could that happen?

    A joint raid of the B12 by 2/3 of the B10/SEC/Pac.

    Realistically, it would be the 8 B12 schools in TX, OK, and KS (because Texas, OU, and KU have to take care of their little brothers if they go anywhere, and they have the desirability to make their little brothers palatable). granted, one of the TX privates might be sacrificed for WVU if the SEC is in that game.

    I’ll leave the dreaming-up of who lands where to others.

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I agree. This is the most likely scenario.

      Like

    • drwillini says:

      Problem with that is either B1G or PACX would be all for it if they got UT, but not so much if they didn’t, and I think you need both conferences involved to pick up the numbers. Would the B1G take Kansas/OU and let PAC have UT/TTech/KState/OkState? Hard to believe the SEC would want to help out the process by taking anybody other than UT and/or OU and they don’t seem to be interested in the SEC (I guess WVa is a possibility).

      The SEC has what they want out of expansion, and I’m not sure the would take anything other than national brands like UT or OU, but the SEC already has national brand value so they are not desparate even there. The B1G is probably is a bit more motivated to extend coverage of BTN, but only if it makes sense culturally, academically, geographically, etc. The PACX is the wild card here. They are more limited in their expansion, and might be more willing to absorb some less desirable schools.

      If the PACX was willing to take OU, TTech, Kstate and Iowa St this might go. B1G would take UT and Kansas. SEC would still have to pick up OkSU and WVa. Just don’t think there is enough in it for the SEC. Those schools seem culturally to fit the SEC, and they are new contiguous states, but the population just doesn’t seem to support it.

      Maybe for some reason the SEC is motivated to get to the four super conference model and would therefore help the process out, but even then I don’t see it. The SEC is the best football conference in the current scenario, why would they want to facilitiate change?

      The only thing I can think of is if 20 is really the magic number. In a previous post I talked about 4 pods of five, playing the other 4 in your pod and all of another pod for 9 conference games, and round robin rotating divisions. If that is the end game, the PACx would be exceedingly hard pressed to get to 20 w/o Kstate, Iowa St., TTech, Ok State, etc., and Larry Scott has shown he would be proactive in getting there.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      As long as the Big 10 waited for Notre Dame, you have to ask yourself the question, “Why wouldn’t they wait 10-12 years?”

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Pac could use more brands but will not take sectarian schools.
      Gets OU, OKSt, KU, & KSU: 1 football brand + 1 bball brand.

      SEC would like more of TX for its network but cares about diluting its southern identity.
      Gets TTech for more TX exposure and WVU, a football prince.

      Texas still want its coterie of TX schools (at least 3 others).

      B10 wants to expand in to demographically big/growing areas and brands to help in TV contract negotiations but cares about academics.
      B10 adds Texas, Baylor, TCU, Rice, ISU, and some eastern AAU school. Baylor & TCU are not AAU but good enough academically (at least on the undergrad level).

      Fantasy? Eh. Who knows.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        WVU adds nothing to the SEC. They’ve already got plenty of football princes in small markets with poor academics. If they expand it’ll be for something they lack. Markets. AAU schools. Preferably both.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Revised (just for Andy):

        Pac takes OU, OKSt, KU, & KSU.

        B10 adds Texas, Baylor, TCU, Rice, ISU, & MIZZOU.

        SEC retaliates by adding CINCY, TTech, and WVU.

        Like

  22. montysdsu says:

    Just let SDSU in somewhere.

    Like

  23. Brian says:

    Frank,

    I’d think there are four obvious windows for B10 expansion in the next 20 years:

    1. 2013-2015

    This is the last chance to grow before signing the three new TV deals (tier 1, hoops and CCG). If you can add a major brand or really grow the fan base, doing it before negotiations is better than going back to renegotiate an existing deal. The obvious problems are the GORs of the ACC and B12 and ND’s recent addition to the ACC. The other issue is that the B10 only has projections for their revenue from 2017 onward. People may not trust those numbers.

    I don’t give this window much chance unless the UT lawyers really know something we don’t about an escape clause in a deal somewhere.

    2. 2016-2018

    This is just after the B10 signs those new deals, so everyone would know exactly how much the B10 will get paid rather than having to trust projections. If the gap is large enough, breaking a GOR may make financial sense.

    The GORs still present the biggest obstacle, but they shrink every year. The B12’s goes until 2025 and the ACC’s until 2027.

    I doubt this window produces any new additions unless something else happens to change the CFB world. Another 8-10 years of GOR seems like a lot to buy out.

    3. 2023-2027

    The GORs will be running out, so schools will need to know their options before being asked/forced to renew them. Leaving a couple of years early might work financially. In addition, the TV deals would be ending if they are for 10 years. The B10 could be looking at another jump in money.

    This seems like the most likely time to add schools if it’s going to happen.

    4. 2029-2031

    The BTN deal ends in 2032, so this would be the last chance to add to the footprint before signing a new deal. The other TV deals may also end at this same time.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      so, basically, we can all discuss realignment from now until 2018, take a five year break, start up again for three, take a two year break and then start up again. Yay.

      Like

  24. Brian says:

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9538380/how-fix-nhl/

    A “realistic” plan to fix the NHL. I disagree with some/much of it, but there are some good ideas, too.

    Like

    • psuhockey says:

      The NHL doesn’t need that much fixing. The NHL over-expanded and the talent wasn’t there but it is beginning to catch up. That being said take out the instigator, meaningfully reduce the goalie pads, retroactively punish divers since it is hard to recognize at real speed, and outlaw the trap by having an illegal defense penalty: the coaches clogging up the game are really the enemy of the NHL

      Like

    • @Brian – I saw that article yesterday and the proposal that stuck out to me was the mechanism to stop bad teams from tanking games to get better draft positions. I LOVE that proposal and it could be applicable to all sports. Essentially, the draft order would be determined by how many wins/points a team has AFTER it’s eliminated from playoff contention. Thus, bad teams are still given an advantage (as they get more chances to rack up applicable wins since they’ll get eliminated from postseason qualification earlier), but they have a direct incentive to try to win games at the end of the year. All of the sudden, the games between bad teams at the end of the year start mattering quite a bit (similar to the bottom Premier League teams trying to avoid relegation on the last week of the season). For anyone that says that it’s too complex, it’s at least an open way to determine draft position that provides a disincentive to tank games compared to the clouded NBA lottery system.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I’d like to see the numbers crunched. A really bad team may get eliminated early and still not be able to win much, meaning they don’t even get a top 10 pick. Also, schedules could play a big part in deciding the outcome.

        I might try this:

        Give the top pick to the best team that missed the playoffs and go down from there. The playoff teams go last, but the top picks go to decent teams so they can get over the hump. The only caveat is that teams move up one place for every consecutive year they miss the playoffs. That means really bad teams can eventually get a top pick, but the team would have to stink for so long that no owner would support throwing games to do it. The downside is that some teams are just always going to stink, but you see that in every sport anyway.

        I think the draft is generally overrated anyway. The same pro teams stay on top most of the time regardless of draft changes. The Red Wings, Pats, Lakers, etc never seem to suffer too much from low draft choices.

        What I’d really like to see is a rule that forces an owner to sell if the team is too bad for too long. That’ll make sure the decision makers have their eyes on the ball.

        Like

        • @Brian – That’s an interesting idea, too.

          I’d say that the draft is generally overrated *except* in the NBA. Having one or more of the top 15 or so superstars means much more than having depth in basketball, so there’s definitely a huge difference between having the #1 pick versus even the #5 pick. A disproportionate number of NBA superstars were top 3 picks. (A superstar like Kobe that was drafted at #13, which is still the lottery, is extremely rare.) Not surprisingly, that’s the sport where tanking is most prominent since it’s considered to be “NBA hell” if you’re a good-but-not-great team that can’t win championships but also isn’t bad enough to be in position to get a top superstar in the draft. Look at how the Sixers and Celtics basically just traded away everyone of any value in an effort to position themselves for a loaded draft class next year.

          For the other sports, though, particularly baseball, depth is much more critical (where you’d generally choose several high level non-superstars over one superstar if push came to shove).

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Agreed, the top few picks in the NBA draft are really important. But after the top 2-5 picks, most of them are just role players or foreigners designated for years of development overseas.

            Imagine if the Jazz got the top pick with Dallas second instead of wasting the first few years of a new star’s career in Orlando, Charlotte or Cleveland. That would make sure everyone plays hard all year, plus the NBA wouldn’t waste star power on poorly run teams.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            I don’t think tanking games is really that much of a problem. Is it any worse than NFL teams resting superstars in Week 17?

            Maybe just do a staggered lottery. Bottom 5 of non-playoff teams–equally weighted, rather than by record–get first five picks. Remainder in reverse order.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Tanking in the NBA is a big problem. It’s a widespread approach to finishing the year.

            Resting starters is an earned privilege, but something the leagues shouldn’t condone.

            Like

  25. psuhockey says:

    Frank,
    Does a possible move to Division 4 have any affect on the GORs since they were signed under a different set of circumstances? i.e. if you sign a contract for rights of Division 1 football but then play Division 4 football?

    Like

  26. Stephen says:

    As a B1G fan, here are my fantasy additions somewhere down the road: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas. You could probably finance the Federal Government with those schools added to the existing conference line-up and you could forget about Notre Dame for good (I was never crazy about adding them in the first place, but acknowledge that they would bring in a lot of revenue).

    Like

  27. Pablo says:

    When only 2 teams in the B12 have all the market value, finding viable alternate conferences for 8 of the 10 B12 teams is nearly impossible, Texas and Oklahoma would have to agree to split up and each lead their own posse into an alternate conference.

    Since both the SEC and B1G are in positions of relative power, they are very unlikely to compromise and take-on baggage. The ACC and PAC are more likely to accept compromises if they can get a King program.

    For example, if UT + ACC + ESPN work out a deal to move UT, TT, TCU & WV to the ACC. ESPN can then guarantee a conference channel, TX would get some special consideration (a la ND); ND can kick-in an extra game per year (all 18 teams play ND 1x per 3 years): blah, blah, $$$$$. The ACC gets the nation’s top football brand and a lot of football first schools while sacrificing its academic bent. The conference can structure football schedules into groups of 3:

    UT/TT/TCU
    Pitt/WV/UL
    Mia/SU/BC
    FSU/Clem/WF
    VT/GT/UVA
    UNC/NCS/Duke

    Once UT is separated from OK and off the market, the PAC could better entertain OK, OSU, KS & KS St. The PAC is tailor made for football scheduling in quads; they would get the best overall football team; and their basketball would be dramatically upgraded.

    This would work to give 8 out of 10 B12 schools more revenue. The only flaw…UT has a nicer home in the B12 than in a bigger conference…it’s not all about the current TV revenue stream.

    Like

    • Pablo says:

      BTW – UNC/UVA/Duke would be absolutely against expanding the ACC in this manner and start looking to find a better home.

      UVA partners with GT and escapes to the B1G.
      UNC partners with Duke and accepts the collegiality of the SEC
      ND and BYU see the handwriting on the wall and formally join the ACC

      Four perfect 16 team conferences with basically equal revenue streams.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        And ISU gets screwed, despite having substantially better football and basketball attendance and more of a fan base than Wake Forest.

        Like

        • Pablo says:

          vp19,
          If the ACC dissolves, then Wake Forest is the most at-risk to not find a better landing.

          In the B12, ISU is most at-risk. The small TX private schools are in better markets. Kansas State, Okie State and Texas Tech have some protection from big brother. All six schools could be worse-off with B12 instability, but ISU is the most likely odd school out.

          Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Iowa State v. Wake Forest. That’s like Roseanne Barr v Melissa McCarthy.

          Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “Four perfect 16 team conferences with basically equal revenue streams.”

        16 is perfect…why?
        And is equal revenue streams for other conferences the goal of the SEC/B1G?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          As I said above, why would the Big and SEC cooperate on sending kings to other conferences?

          Like

          • greg says:

            They wouldn’t. Any of these ridiculous scenarios where conferences team up to split up schools like flipping baseball cards has ZERO chance of happening.

            Like

        • Pablo says:

          16 teams is merely symmetrical…there is absolutely no magical number that represents an ideal conference size.

          The above scenario is clearly not in the best interest of the B1G or SEC. As I stated, they are both in power positions (especially in terms of revenue) and don’t need to compromise. The B1G should only focus on the duo of UT and Kansas; the SEC could do very well with any two of UT, OK or Kansas. But what is in the best interest of the B1G and/or SEC would not allow for breaking the B12 GOR…because too many B12 would not find a better home. The B1G and SEC are clearly better off waiting until the B12 and ACC GOR expire. They will each have more leverage to entice the right schools.

          On the other hand, the other major conferences (and individual schools not in the B1G or SEC) actually have more options if consolidation can drive more revenue. My example is merely indicating how the ACC & PAC can work with UT & OK to close the revenue gap (obviously ISU and Baylor would be individual losers; BYU would be the biggest winner; all other ACC, PAC & ex-B12 would also gain in revenue).

          It’s just revenue maximization based on the theory that consolidation of conferences is still inevitable.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            BYU has about the same chance of getting into the ACC as they do the PAC. And I think their desire to is even less. Their future in a conference (if independence fails the purpose that the church is looking for) might be the MWC, if it is D4 and becomes the top Go5.

            Like

  28. Wainscott says:

    Interview with Jim Delany: http://www.freep.com/article/20130809/SPORTS07/308090128/jim-delany-big-ten-football

    Probably the clearest recitation of the B1G’s philosophy regarding past and future expansion. Note the emphasis on flagship, AAU schools in geographically contiguous states.

    Like

    • CookieMonster says:

      *cough* Kansas *cough*

      Like

    • Andy says:

      if that’s the criteria then the only available options are:

      Virginia then North Carolina
      Missouri
      Kansas
      Colorado

      and then if you get rid of the “flagship” aspect, you can add

      Iowa State
      Pitt
      SUNY Buffalo
      Vanderbilt

      Like

      • Andy says:

        And also, I would take Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Colorado, Pitt, and Vanderbilt off of those lists because they’re not looking to change conferences.

        Also, if you listen to Kansas fans, who were so outraged at Missouri leaving the Big 12 (but curiously much less outraged at Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving before Missouri), they would never leave the Big 12. Not in a million years. Much too loyal.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          Also, if you listen to Kansas fans, who were so outraged at Missouri leaving the Big 12 (but curiously much less outraged at Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving before Missouri), they would never leave the Big 12. Not in a million years. Much too loyal.

          The same could be said of Maryland as recently as a few years ago. No one at that time seriously considered College Park as a Big Ten candidate; given the seismic shift of the college conference landscape, the Lawrence community could now feel differently.

          In other words, Andy, the rules of the game have changed.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            vp, I was being sarcastic. Of course Kansas would kill to be in the Big Ten. They’re hypocrites for criticizing Missouri for doing what they themselves would love to do.

            Like

          • wmwolverine says:

            I’m not that surprised, Maryland felt like they were more-and-more of an outlier in the ACC. VT addition made the Virginia rivalry feel like much less of one… In the B10 they’ll immediately have PSU as a rival who they see as a bigger rival than anyone they had in the ACC.

            The money difference after the Big Ten signs it’s new TV deal between the ACC and the B10 could be the difference between the Major Leagues and the minors…

            While a little surprised at Maryland leaving the ACC, seeing their athletic departments financial issues (which the B10 fixes), I’m not near as surprised as a lot of others.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t think anyone criticized Missouri for the act of leaving. It was the way they did it and their denigration (especially the Governor) of Big 12 schools. Kansas just isn’t going to give them the benefit of playing Kansas in basketball. Also, when CU and Nebraska left, EVERYONE else had been thinking about it as well. And CU’s intentions were well known. CU didn’t bad mouth anyone. Nebraska criticized Texas, but that was legal talk to try to reduce the exit fees and wasn’t an “I’m superior” type criticism.

            You’re right Missouri generates more negatives than the others, but its not about the leaving itself.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Many Big 12 fans criticize Missouri for publically courting the Big 10 (through their governor) and destabilizing the Big 12, but since these talks go on all the time, IMO the destabilizing factor was really the Big 10’s announcement that it was open season, not the Missouri governor’s comments. When the Big 10 had last considered expansion, they publically said they were looking at Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers and either staying at 11 or going to 12 or 14. That didn’t have the same impact as looking at 10-15 different schools and expanding to an undetermined number of schools.

            Like

        • For all the talk about Kansas to the Big 10, I really don’t see that as a major possibility. From everything that the Big 10 has done (other than take a Top 10 if not Top 5 all-time football power in Nebraska) it seems they want to go East, where the money, population, desired pool of future students, and political power is. I actually think that by far the most likely landing spot for Kansas (If the Big 12 goes kaput after the GOR expires and it can shed K-State) is the SEC. Kansas is actually probably far more valuable to the SEC than the Big 10. For one thing, basketball is extremely important to the value of a conference television network, and Kansas would immediately provide a highly desirable matchup for every team in the SEC. The Big 10 is so stocked with basketball powers at this point that while Kansas would certainly add something, it would be the difference between having 11 good teams vs 10 in the Big 10 (a 10% bonus) and 4 good teams vs. 3 in the SEC (a 25% bonus). Frankly, the SEC has so many football powers at this point that it really doesn’t need any more, and might see more value from basketball schools (which is partly why UNC/Duke are so coveted). While Kansas’ AAU status makes them tolerable to the Big 10, it makes them desirable to the SEC. Given the SEC’s stronger need for basketball programs and AAU schools, I think they would be more likely to overlook Kansas comparatively low population base and less than desirable location than the Big 10 would. I also think that any talk of the SEC only taking Southern schools is way overblown, provided the addition makes at least some geographic and cultural sense, which Kansas would. Although I’m sure Kansas would probably prefer to join the Big 10, if the Delaney isn’t knocking, I think they’d jump at the SEC (again provided they were able to do so).

          Like

          • Richard says:

            I think any scneario where KU manages to shed KSU is unrealistic.

            Like

          • I think that depends on what happens to the Big 12. If the Big 12 is viable, I would say that Kansas is probably tied to K-State, because both have a home and Kansas leaving could directly harm K-State. If the Big 12 is no longer viable and both would be left out in the cold, I think it’s a different story. There’s a big difference between preventing one school from damaging the other directly and forcing both schools to suffer.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            jeff, you might be right. I don’t think the B1G has much to gain by adding Kansas. The SEC might if they can stomach adding a non-southern school. At least Missouri was partially southern.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I think the Pac adding KU is more likely than either the SEC or B10.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            I don’t think the B1G has much to gain by adding Kansas. The SEC might if they can stomach adding a non-southern school. At least Missouri was partially southern.

            Remember “bloody Kansas” — after 160 years, that state finally could end up in the southern column. And without slavery!

            Like

          • Andy, I honestly don’t think that the SEC cares about a school strictly being in a Southern state, because the people in charge are smart enough to know that really doesn’t mean anything (IE parts of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois are much more “Southern” than parts of Florida and Georgia). I think the SEC cares about what will add the most value to their network and their conference, with geography playing some role. For example (and this will never happen I’m just using it as an example) if Ohio State and Michigan said they wanted to join the SEC, the SEC would immediately say yes, because those two schools would bring so much to the SEC regardless of them being Northern. If you exclude the North Carolina and Virginia schools (who probably will never join the SEC) I don’t see another school that would add as much to the SEC academically and academically as Kansas that adds a new (however small) market for the SEC network other than Oklahoma (who has allegedly already turned down an SEC invitation and probably is not interested) and possibly Oklahoma State (who is probably tied to Oklahoma). Although SEC academics are much better than some schools seem to believe (I don’t understand how Texas thinks it’s too elite for the SEC but not the Big 12), the academic side of a hypothetical university looking to change BCS/G5 conferences will always prefer the Big 10, PAC 12, or ACC and pull schools in those directions when given the option. If the Big 12 were to collapse, I’m not really sure that Kansas would have another BCS/G5 option other than maybe the PAC and my hunch is that Kansas would prefer the time zone/travel friendly SEC, especially an SEC with hated border rival Missouri, top 3 all-time program Kentucky, and a presence in major alumni state of residence Texas to the PAC.

            Which brings another question, Andy, would you rather have Kansas as an SEC rival and get to play them every year (probably twice in basketball) or not get/have to play them at all?

            Like

          • GreatLakeState says:

            Without Texas or Oklahoma as a Kansas partner I don’t see them going West either.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jeffrey Juergens,

            “Although SEC academics are much better than some schools seem to believe (I don’t understand how Texas thinks it’s too elite for the SEC but not the Big 12)”

            Two things:

            1. UT is already in the B12. Why move if you aren’t getting a better neighborhood and you know those better neighborhoods are out there?

            2. The AD at UT is really worried about how “dirty” SEC recruiting is perceived to be. They don’t want any part of that.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Andy, I honestly don’t think that the SEC cares about a school strictly being in a Southern state, because the people in charge are smart enough to know that really doesn’t mean anything (IE parts of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois are much more “Southern” than parts of Florida and Georgia).

            Actually, it means a whole lot. The fact is the SEC’s most valuable marketing has always been (and continues to be) its Southern identity (yes, even more than football success). The SEC takes it very seriously. It’s what allows them to maintain strong support from non-alumni and it is why fans chant “ESS EEE SEE” (and not the name of the school) after big OOC victories.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Jeffery, me personally, I would be happy to take Kansas in the SEC. I liked playing them every year. It was fun. I don’t know why they think it’s a bad thing to play the game.

            If I were picking, my wish list would be:

            North Carolina
            Virginia
            Duke
            Kansas
            Oklahoma
            Rice
            Tulane

            Yeah I know the last two are kind of crazy but I’d like to raise the academic profile of the SEC.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I doubt the Big 10 moves west if it ever expands to 16. I think they are interested in the mid-Atlantic. Missouri and Kansas are more of what they already have, mid-west states growing slower than the national average. Kansas might be a filler at #16 or #18 with their basketball an attraction for the BTN. Things have changed since they were seriously looking at them 15 years ago or so. Basketball is less important and the population trends are stronger than they were.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            B10 moves west only if they can somehow land Texas.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “I doubt the Big 10 moves west if it ever expands to 16. I think they are interested in the mid-Atlantic. Missouri and Kansas are more of what they already have, mid-west states growing slower than the national average. Kansas might be a filler at #16 or #18 with their basketball an attraction for the BTN. Things have changed since they were seriously looking at them 15 years ago or so. Basketball is less important and the population trends are stronger than they were.”

            I agree. I’d add that the B10 is also now committed to the east coast with RU and UMD. It makes more sense for them to pursue UVA, UNC, etc than KU unless UT expresses serious interest.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Obviously the B1G would rather have Virginia and North Carolina than Missouri and Kansas. That’s a no brainer. Trouble is they’re in all likelihood never going to get Virginia and North Carolina so it’s moot. And now they’re in all likelihood never going to get Missouri either.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Note that Delany said that PSU, UNL, RU, and UMD were good fits because they were “proximately located”, not “geographically contiguous”.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        not sure what you’re getting at. Georgia Tech and Florida State are not proximately located. Neither is Oklahoma.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Depends on your definition of “proximately located”.

          The Pac was willing to add Utah & CU despite the closest of those 2 being farther from the closest Pac school at that time (ASU) than Omaha (or Columbia) is from Fort Worth.

          Like

        • Mack says:

          Proximately located is vague enough to still consider Texas, which due to no AAU schools in MS, AK, OK, and NM cannot be contiguous. It can also be used to exclude a contiguous chain of AAU public flagships such as CO, AZ, CA, OR, WA (none of those schools has any interest in the B1G anyway). It allows VA-GT if NC is not interested, or a TX pairing with KS or MO. So 6 potential targets comprise the public AAU flagship schools proximately located to the B1G. Delany’s statement sounds like further expansion is 10+ years away.

          The AAU universe is limited; only 36 play FBS football, and 13 of those are already committed to the B1G, 6 more are private (no Duke, Vanderbilt, USC, Stanford, Rice, or Tulane), and 3 more are definitely not flagships (IaSt, Pitt, Buffalo). I mentioned every AAU FBS school except TX A&M, UCLA, and FL (3 more schools less likely to join the B1G than Notre Dame).

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Of course, while all of the B10 additions in the recent past have fit the description of proximately located public AAU flagships, the last B10 addition before that (MSU) did not.

            I think that certain private AAU members may get in: Duke (definitely if it gets UNC, but possibly even if they don’t), Rice (if that’s what it takes to land Texas), and maybe Vandy (assuming they’re interested; big if; I would be against the idea, though).

            Also, GTech a flagship? Dawgs may disagree, but eh, OK.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            There is also University at Buffalo.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            Sorry. Should have read that last paragraph carefully before responding.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “Of course, while all of the B10 additions in the recent past have fit the description of proximately located public AAU flagships, the last B10 addition before that (MSU) did not.”

            I don’t think 1950 is a useful precedent. The world of college athletics has completely changed since then.

            “I think that certain private AAU members may get in: Duke (definitely if it gets UNC, but possibly even if they don’t), Rice (if that’s what it takes to land Texas), and maybe Vandy (assuming they’re interested; big if; I would be against the idea, though).”

            Being private isn’t an issue, it’s what often goes with it (small size). USC and Stanford would be a shoo ins if CA was near the midwest. Duke is a strong target with UNC (less likely without UNC). I also don’t see Vandy ever wanting to join, but the B10 would consider them. Clearly ND has an open invitation, and they aren’t AAU. I just don’t see UT demanding Rice.

            “Also, GTech a flagship? Dawgs may disagree, but eh, OK.”

            If you think of it as a split like IN/PU, you can sort of call GT a flagship. UGA is the big dog, but GT is the better school and the school for engineering.

            Like

    • Transic says:

      All he’s really saying is that they’re staying at 14 for the near future.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I think people over-read the things Jim Delany says. In general, the Big Ten seeks “flagship, public AAU institutions that are proximately located to existing members.”

      But no one doubts that the Big Ten would have taken Texas, if the Longhorns were interested and didn’t bring along undesired baggage. Texas isn’t proximate to any existing member. No one doubts that the Big Ten would have taken Notre Dame, and still would. The Irish are neither public nor AAU.

      The Big Ten is known to have evaluated Oklahoma. The league knew that Oklahoma wasn’t AAU, nor likely to attain that status anytime soon. We don’t know the outcome of that evaluation, but it’s not something they’re likely to have done if AAU membership was a categorical deal-breaker.

      The Big Ten took Nebraska, knowing that its AAU status was under review, and that there was at least a strong chance that it wouldn’t be a member for much longer.

      It is hard to believe the Big Ten would decline Duke if it were a condition of UNC joining. Duke is not public.

      I think the best way of interpreting Delany, is that “flagship, public AAU,” and “proximately located” are objectives open to reasonable exceptions in compelling cases.

      @Transic: All he’s really saying is that they’re staying at 14 for the near future.

      I don’t think Delany will ever again announce that the Big Ten is on the market for new teams. If you’d asked him right before Maryland and Rutgers joined, he’d have said that they’re staying at 12 for the near future.

      Like

      • @Marc Shepherd – I agree with what you’re saying. If the Big Ten could check every box, sure, they’d want a school that adds of ton of athletic revenue that’s also a contiguous public AAU member. However, those schools are few and far between – at this point, only Kansas, Missouri and Virginia are contiguous AAU members and any combo of them might not even necessarily add the requisite athletic revenue in a football-driven marketplace. The commenters are vastly more educated about the academic standings of various schools than the general public (and thankfully so, as I truly believe this is the best commenter group anywhere), but let’s always remember that the “ton of athletic revenue” factor comes first. Jim Delany job is to expand the coffers of the Big Ten for athletic purposes with the CIC as an important side benefit as opposed to the CIC being the driving force for expansion. As a result, I think it’s irrelevant whether Texas is contiguous and that non-AAU member Oklahoma may get more slack than we’re giving the conference credit for (in the same way that non-AAU member Notre Dame would still be invited by the Big Ten IF they’re willing to be an equal member, which is obviously a big IF). We’re not talking about adding West Virginia here – OU and Florida State, for example, aren’t far at all academically from Nebraska or current AAU members Kansas and Missouri, so they’re within the “spectrum of plausibility” in my mind.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          And yet even when FSU was clearly looking around, the B10 didn’t show interest. It wasn’t due to lack of value, or weak athletics, or a small population, or too few B10 alumni nearby. It was academics and/or distance that kept them from getting serious consideration.

          OU is a slightly bigger brand, but in a much smaller state. OU’s academics are a little below FSU’s. The only way I see OU having a shot is as a partner for UT, and even then I’m not sure the COP/C wouldn’t favor KU for their AAU status.

          Like

  29. frug says:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/10/why-time-warner-cable-can-t-cave-to-cbs-s-demands.html

    Somewhat interesting article about the standoff between TW and CBS. The thing that stuck out to me most though was the fact that in March for the first time in history their was a net decrease in the total number of cable/satellite subscribers in the US over a 12 month period.

    Like

    • @frug – What’s interesting is that TWC and CBS aren’t really fighting over the traditional cable subscriber fees at this point. The main point of contention is really how digital rights (i.e. access to on-demand shows) are going to be paid for. The 2008 CBS/TWC deal had the digital rights as essentially a throw-in. TWC wants the same type of low price for digital rights, but CBS wants to raise those fees considerably in line with the increased amounts that Netflix and Amazon are paying for streamed content.

      It’s another complexity that’s added on here. I’ve been arguing for awhile that this is more “form over substance” in the long-term – technology will almost certainly have us watching TV via the Internet as opposed to cable in the long-term, but content providers will simply transfer the fee structure from basic cable to the Internet in the way that CBS is trying to do now and ESPN3 has already done.

      On a side note, CBS does have the ultimate killer app with NFL games starting next month as leverage against TWC. There will be little-to-no tolerance in the NYC market to losing access to Jets games and TWC will have to cave quickly. (The Mark Sanchez train wreck is just too compelling.)

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Cowboys @ Broncos on CBS is week one. Dallas will riot if that game isn’t shown. TWC needs to get this figured out sooner rather than later.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        I think the competition will drive down fees (or at least stop the massive increases), certainly in the short run. And everyone has had trouble monetizing the internet. Look at the newspaper deals. The Times sold the Boston Globe for $70 million that they bought for $1.1 billion. Washington Post was $250 million. Simply flipping over to the internet isn’t easy.

        Like

  30. djbuck says:

    The Gor is meaningless. It has been meaningless.
    The word is Delany has been in meetings with Texas the last few weeks.
    They’ve met several times since the BIGs expansion efforts started in 2010.
    The LHN is failing. ESPN is trying to trim the fat. I doubt whether you will see an ACC network.
    Especially, that the mother-ship is tied to the SEC and will be bidding to keep the BIG
    when bidding begins in less than 2 years.
    The old Big 8 mirrored the Big 10. So, its stands to reason that Oklahoma and Kansas would have also talked with Delany in the last year.
    I see the Sooners going into the BIG with Texas.
    It’s been reported by a BIG inside source, that Texas wants the Sooners with them.
    So you add brands like this to the BIG. Rekindle one of the greatest rivalries
    in CFB with Neb-Oklahoma. Huge money awaits the BIG.
    So, forget about GOR, AAU status, penalties. etc. If a school wants to leave, it will find a way.
    Especially, if a school can make 50 mil. per in the BIG.
    I agree, that the ACC and B12 may combine but, only after the Big 3 conferences
    take what they want.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      It’s been reported by a BIG inside source, that Texas wants the Sooners with them.

      And what if the Big Ten presidents say “no,” for AAU reasons? Will Texas settle for Kansas as a partner? Will Austin pick up its toys and head back to the Pac for another try at membership?

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        If Texas told the B10 that we will join the Conference in 2014, but only if Oklahoma is allowed to come along, they will be told “Welcome to the club.” I know Academics and the AAU is important, but getting increased revenue for the Conference is a bigger priority than that (particularly if O’Bannon is ultimately decided for the Plaintiff, and the Individual Schools end up having to pay BILLIONS to former players). Another aspect to O’Bannon could be this: Maybe smaller Schools (such as those found in the MAC Conference) decide the added expenses are not worth it, so maybe it makes sense to shut down the Football Program, and then that extra home game the bigger B10 Schools (Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State & Wisconsin) want, may not be as profitable as before. Why? Simple Law Of Supply And Demand: Supply goes DOWN, then Demand (and of course price) goes UP). But if OU & UT can be added to the Conference, the value of the TV Contract increases tremendously. Although I do not think this will ever happen, because I cannot see ‘Bevo The Bull(y)’ accepting being an equal of Michigan (let alone Michigan State). That would require a “Sea Change” of attitude in Austin, and I don’t see it.

        Like

    • @djbuck – Putting aside whether the Big Ten and Texas have actually met, it just makes no sense that ESPN would worry about “trimming the fat” in the amount of $15 million per year on the one hand and then push Texas to the “worst” possible conference for Disney from a financial point of view… the Big Ten that’s about to be in an open bidding war with loose purse string Fox involved at the very least. That line of thinking has always been suspect to me – $15 million per year is a rounding error compared to how much ESPN would have to cough up to retain the Big Ten that adds Texas. Consolidation absolutely, positively, does NOT save ESPN (or Fox) money at all (especially if Texas is the one moving and causing chaos).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Frank the Tank,

        “Putting aside whether the Big Ten and Texas have actually met, it just makes no sense that ESPN would worry about “trimming the fat” in the amount of $15 million per year on the one hand and then push Texas to the “worst” possible conference for Disney from a financial point of view… the Big Ten that’s about to be in an open bidding war with loose purse string Fox involved at the very least. That line of thinking has always been suspect to me – $15 million per year is a rounding error compared to how much ESPN would have to cough up to retain the Big Ten that adds Texas. Consolidation absolutely, positively, does NOT save ESPN (or Fox) money at all (especially if Texas is the one moving and causing chaos).”

        ESPN’s current deal averages $100M per year for the B10.

        Average:
        $104M = $16M * 4 kings + $8M * 2 princes + $4M * 6 others = $8.7M per team

        Final year:
        $130M = $20M * 4 kings + $10M * 2 princes + $5M * 6 others = $10.8M per team

        I can’t guarantee those are correct ratios, obviously, but I used factors of 2 for simplicity. UT gets $15M, but just for 1 tier 3 games and some hoops and other things. It seems like ESPN would get much better value from paying for UT’s tier 1 and not for the LHN. Isn’t value more important than actual cost?

        Like

        • Richard says:

          1. Comparing a TV deal that is far from market and will be revalued considerably upward soon to a recent TV deal is fallacious. Especially when that recent TV deal could be considered an overpayment by ESPN to prevent a concentration of market power by the content providers.

          2. The correct comparison is between a Tier 1&2 deal with B10+Texas(& others) at current market rates to B10 & B12 Tier 1(&2) at current market rates.

          I have already said that I expect B10 TV distributions to be $30-40M/school (total conference distributions of 40M-50M/school by some point) with the new TV deal.

          If somehow the B10, Pac, and SEC manage to split up the B12 before then (no likely feat) & the B10 somehow lands Texas, we could see some really insane numbers. $50M/school just in TV money alone would not be out of the question.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            1. They’re the only factual numbers out there. Everything else is guesses. Besides, I don’t need the numbers to be accurate to support my point. I didn’t ask whether they’d need to pay more than $15M per year extra, I asked about value.

            2. Not quite. You need to calculate the total value in both scenarios, but that includes many things we don’t know. How much different is UT’s value in the B12 than it is in the B10? How much would ratings change for both leagues with that move? What does that mean for ESPN in terms of ad sales? What would happen to the B12 TV deal if UT left? We can try to estimate costs to ESPN, but we’ll never know what value they get for it.

            3. The B10’s projections have a basis in knowing the details of the contracts and talking with experts and network people, but are probably optimistic. Your guesses are as irrelevant as any other fan’s. The B10 is projecting the ESPN deal to jump about $7M (50%) with the start of the new deal to $22M (all rough numbers). Only that deal is relevant here. Other increases don’t impact the value equation for ESPN.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Besides, I don’t need the numbers to be accurate to support my point. I didn’t ask whether they’d need to pay more than $15M per year extra, I asked about value.”

            Uh, yeah, you do, since the value that matters to ESPN is surplus value, which is total_value – cost. Even if a Texas move to the B10, say, increases total_value by 10%, en toto, they would not be for it if it increases their total costs by 40%.

            “We can try to estimate costs to ESPN, but we’ll never know what value they get for it.”

            Uh, there are people who’s jobs are to estimate that. In any case, if you truly believe that “we’ll never know” anything about value, then why did you bring up value as a point? I could say that overall value for ESPN drops significantly if Texas joins the B10, you’d say otherwise, and neither of us would get anywhere since “we’ll never know”.

            What we do know is that costs should go up as market power concentrates.

            “The B10′s projections have a basis in knowing the details of the contracts and talking with experts and network people, but are probably optimistic.”

            “Your guesses are as irrelevant as any other fan’s.”

            I love these 2 lines right after another. You essentially dismissed what I had to say about projections, but right before then, you yourself expressed an opinion on projections. If I had to wager, I would wager that they were conservative, but in any case, you yourself actually have no basis for thinking that they are optimistic.

            What we do know, however, is that those projections do not include having Texas in the fold. We also know having Texas in the fold should increase those projections (or at least not make them go down, since otherwise, it wouldn’t much sense for the B10 to add Texas).

            We also know that when the SEC, B12, and Pac started new deals, their tier1 & 2 payouts jumped by far more than 50% (ACC’s as well, I believe, but would need to check).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “Uh, yeah, you do”

            No, I don’t. I can never have all the numbers 100% accurate, so I’m not even trying to make an accountants calculation here. I’m only looking at whether it’s obviously a good deal for ESPN, obviously a bad deal for them or might be a toss up. ESPN hides way too many numbers from the public for us to do a true calculation.

            “Uh, there are people who’s jobs are to estimate that.”

            Which is nice, but they don’t comment here and they have access to numbers we don’t. Thus we will never know.

            “I could say that overall value for ESPN drops significantly if Texas joins the B10, you’d say otherwise, and neither of us would get anywhere since “we’ll never know”.”

            You mean like almost every discussion on here ever?

            “I love these 2 lines right after another. You essentially dismissed what I had to say about projections, but right before then, you yourself expressed an opinion on projections.”

            I don’t base my evaluation of the B10’s projections on supposed better knowledge of the numbers but on the fact they were being used to try to sell UMD on joining. Nobody uses their worst case numbers in a sales pitch, and nobody leaks the worst case numbers if there are better numbers to leak.

            “We also know that when the SEC, B12, and Pac started new deals, their tier1 & 2 payouts jumped by far more than 50% (ACC’s as well, I believe, but would need to check).”

            The SEC added TX and MO, and TAMU is a decent brand. The B12 got bribed to stay together. The P12 had been comically low in their old deals.

            Tracking known TV numbers for the B10, you can project where the deals should be by 2017. Assuming modest growth in all the other deals, you thus have a ceiling for the new tier 1 deal. It’s important to remember that the B10 knows exactly what they plan to sell next time. They may be changing the amount of inventory up for grabs or the order of the selections or other rights. They have informed estimates of the value of UMD and RU for tier 1 purposes and we don’t.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Nobody uses their worst case numbers in a sales pitch”

            Being in the business world, I know that is simply not true. It is always better to under-promise and over-deliver than the other way around.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Also, the SEC signed their new deal before adding TAMU and Mizzou. They still got a bump of well over 50%.

            Like

      • texmex says:

        @Frank – So how would the Longhorn Network issue get resolved if Texas wanted to join the B1G?

        1) Does the B1G have to buy Texas’ third tier rights from ESPN?
        2) Does ESPN turn back over third tier rights back to Texas? And then Texas forks it over to the B1G?
        3) As part of #2, is there some sort of settlement between ESPN and Texas for the remainder of the 20 year deal?

        If FOX outbids ESPN for B1G Tier I and Tier II rights, does that all but kill the chance for Texas to the B1G? As ESPN’s incentive to keep the Big 12 together would never be greater?

        Like

      • ChicagoMac says:

        @djbuck – Putting aside whether the Big Ten and Texas have actually met, it just makes no sense that ESPN would worry about “trimming the fat” in the amount of $15 million per year on the one hand and then push Texas to the “worst” possible conference for Disney from a financial point of view… the Big Ten that’s about to be in an open bidding war with loose purse string Fox involved at the very least. That line of thinking has always been suspect to me – $15 million per year is a rounding error compared to how much ESPN would have to cough up to retain the Big Ten that adds Texas. Consolidation absolutely, positively, does NOT save ESPN (or Fox) money at all (especially if Texas is the one moving and causing chaos).

        @FtT – ESPN’s biggest risk is that NBC comes into the bidding for Tier 1 B1G inventory. Consolidation does not save ESPN money but continuing the Duopoly with Fox does.

        Like

  31. Mike says:

    A purely academic exercise:

    How would CFB change if TV rights were owned by the visiting team? The NFL used to (still?) do it this way. Conference TV contracts wouldn’t change much (since they are valued for conference games only). Would the BTN start contracting with the MAC to show the annual MACrifce games? Would ESPN start driving teams to Texas for the LHN? Could conferences (say the AAC) make additional revenue by selling away game packages to ESPN? How would this change the guarantee game?

    Like

    • Richard says:

      The NFL’s TV contracts are all league-wide, and have been that way since forever. When did NFL teams own TV rights?

      Like

      • The NFL controls all TV rights for all regular season games. What I think Mike is referring to is that inter-conference games are part of the visiting team’s conference’s TV package (i.e. a game with an NFC team playing at an AFC team will be part of Fox’s NFC package, while a game with an AFC team playing at an NFC team will be part of the CBS AFC package) unless it’s picked as a Sunday Night Football (NBC), Monday Night Football (ESPN) or Thursday Night Football (NFL Network) game. All of the money from all of those contracts are shared equally by all NFL teams, though.

        NFL teams do have the ability to sell the local TV rights to their preseason games and keep that revenue for themselves, although it’s like MLB/NBA/NHL where it includes both home games and road games.

        The only comparable situation that I’ve seen to the college sports model of the home team solely controlling the TV rights is with CONCACAF soccer, where the home team controls the TV rights for World Cup qualifiers in *every* country within the federation. So, when the US played at Jamaica this year, the Jamaican National Team had the right to sell that game within the United States (which it did to beIN Sport). Note that this is a drag on promoting soccer in the US (as the US Men’s National Team can’t control where half of its World Cup qualifiers will be on TV in its home country).

        Like

        • Richard says:

          UEFA now has centralized the TV rights to their WC qualifiers. CONCACAF doesn’t because for the longest time (and maybe even now), they’re run by kleptocrats more interested in fattening their pocket books rather than something so idealistic as growing the game.

          Like

  32. Richard says:

    Another ranking of the most valuable college football programs in the country:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/whats-the-most-valuable-college-football-team-it-aint-alabama/266954/

    The 10-school B10 had 4 of the top 18 and the the 10-school SEC had 6 of the top 18, more than any other conference. With the expansion of the early ’90s, the B10 and SEC went to 5 & 8, respectively, of the top 18. After the recent round of expansion, the B10 and SEC now account for 6 & 9, respectively, of the top 18. The only schools in the top 18 who are not in the B10 or SWC are now Texas, OU, & ND (while Oregon and UDub are 19th and 20th, so no other major conference is adding them).

    ND will remain “independent” forever. The fight over who gets Texas and OU is higher stakes than the fight over who gets UNC/Duke/UVa. The Pac didn’t take Texas & OU (and then only OU), but the Pac presidents have a history of being short-sighted (only their desperation for money, after years of ill-management, made them hire Larry Scott and form a network; they’re really lucky that they are so geographically isolated that neither the B10 or SEC can eat them up).

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      ND will remain “independent” forever. The fight over who gets Texas and OU is higher stakes than the fight over who gets UNC/Duke/UVa.

      The emphasis Delany placed on AAU status as part of his recent discussion regarding expansion likely means the Big Ten will cede Texas to the Pac if it insists on having non-AAU Oklahoma as part of any expansion package. Many football-first fans here won’t like hearing that, but from a combined academic/athletic perspective, the B1G/CIC can both be more profitable and wield more clout with Duke/Georgia Tech/North Carolina/Virginia than it can from Oklahoma and Texas (although Texas with Kansas would probably be palatable to conference presidents presuming KU retains its AAU membership)..

      Like

      • CookieMonster says:

        Geography is a big issue with UT and the B1G, whereas the PAC12 already deals with it naturally, so it isnt an issue with them. I have a hard time believing that the B1G can peal any of these ACC teams off. GT makes little sense to me, Atlanta is simply never going to be B1G territory. I cant believe that UNC and Duke could ever be separated. The ACC is in a very strong position, and I only can barely see UVA thinking that a move to the B1G would help their brand. That said the last statements out from officials at UVA were very strong about the ACC, although that was during a little crisis the ACC had.

        I really see the B1G learning from the early mistakes in announcing realignment and the chaos that ensued. The B1G doesn’t want to totally break the system around itself, and it is going for a managed damage approach. The move to 16 will probably involve schools coming from two different conferences.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          The ACC, bringing in less TV money than any other conference, is _not_ in a very strong position. It exists mostly because UNC wants it to exist and a bunch of ACC schools want to be together with UNC.

          However, it could offer a ND-style deal to Texas, which would help in the short-run (whether it’s sustainable in the long-run is debatable).

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            The ACC, bringing in less TV money than any other conference, is _not_ in a very strong position. It exists mostly because UNC wants it to exist and a bunch of ACC schools want to be together with UNC.

            However, it could offer a ND-style deal to Texas, which would help in the short-run (whether it’s sustainable in the long-run is debatable).

            So each year, five ACC members would play Notre Dame, while five others would play Texas. (Presumably, ND and UT would face each other annually in a non-conference game as part of the deal.) Texas would become the ACC’s 16th member, a nice round number for its men’s and women’s basketball tournaments.

            And what of the rest of the Big 12, notably Oklahoma? Without Texas, the league loses a lot of its luster for Norman; it can plead all it wants to the Big Ten, but without AAU status its chances are iffy at best. Unless OU holds its nose and joins the SEC (something it apparently doesn’t want to do), it would have to hope the Pac would change its mind this time around. The rest of the conference (or those that don’t accompany Oklahoma to the Pac) would have to invite the best non-“big five” members available (e.g., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina).

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And UT wants to find six or seven OOC games? Does ND want to play UT yearly? Longhorns lose aTm, and now OU (doubt the Sooner’s would schedule them)? Now that the ACC has ND they feel a need to soften their stance toward UT from a couple years ago?

            Unless somehow the conference dissolves around them (how?) OU/UT stay or leave together, with siblings.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “And UT wants to find six or seven OOC games?”

            That’s not exactly difficult for Texas. Especially if ND wants to play them annually.

            I’m quite certain that schools like Houston, Rice, and SMU would be more than willing to play Texas at least half the time. Possibly even as 2-for-1’s. They’d be willing to play the ‘Horn’s late in the year too. Say that 2 games come from there. That’s 5+1+2=8 games already. The Longhorns would only need 4 more early in the year, and I really doubt that they’d have trouble lining up opponents.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Does ND want to play UT yearly?

            Probably. ND is making a very hard push to get exposure in the Southwest with its exploding Catholic population. They already have an upcoming six game series with Texas scheduled, are playing Oklahoma in the second half on an H-H this year and are playing Arizona St. this year in Temple and next year in Dallas. Heck, they even played Tulsa 2 years ago.

            Longhorns lose aTm, and now OU (doubt the Sooner’s would schedule them)?

            I suspect that game stays on the schedule. Unlike the A&M game, the RRS/R was an OOC series for its first 96 years of its existence, so if the OU and UT split it wouldn’t be the same dynamic shift.

            More importantly, the RRR is the single most valuable regular season game in all of college football and I doubt either school would be willing to give up that paycheck.

            And UT wants to find six or seven OOC games?

            Not that hard, especially since ND and OU would likely be annual opponents.

            Now that the ACC has ND they feel a need to soften their stance toward UT from a couple years ago?

            Makes sense. After all, after the ACC passed on Texas, Swofford also publicly dismissed the possibility of ever adding ND as a partial member.

            There is also the possibility, that UT would join the ACC as a full member, but be allowed to keep their Tier III rights. Texas doesn’t really mind being in a conference; what they care about is the LHN.

            (Of course this is purely academic because I don’t see any chance of it actually occurring)

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You may be right, but if OU then lands in the PAC or SEC without OkSU there would be serious bitterness.

            I don’t see the ACC doing another special deal. They might as well just put a red light on the porch. FSU and Miami be asking why not them? Another “deal” might deliver to Delany what he covets.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “I don’t see the ACC doing another special deal. They might as well just put a red light on the porch. FSU and Miami be asking why not them? Another “deal” might deliver to Delany what he covets.”

            Doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do it.

            You bring up a good point: from the B10’s perspective, Texas and/or OU to the SEC or ACC isn’t all that bad, as that leaves the ACC for the B10 down the road. worst-case scenario for the B10 is Texas and/or OU to the Pac.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Not sure about the PAC. Strengthening the SEC doesn’t directly fracture the ACC. Another special deal involving another super ego might make the B1G look desirable enough in comparison to UVA/UNC. The confluence of COP/C and Delany’s desire (not necessarily Joe FB fan’s). Oddly, what looks like the strongest ACC strengthening move could create the necessary resentment and instability.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ccrider:

            My assumption is that the SEC doesn’t want to expand to, say, over 18 schools. If the SEC takes in Texas, OU, and underlings, then, if the core ACC schools ever want to leave, chances are better that they would look north rather than south as the SEC wouldn’t have the capacity.

            If the Pac gets Texas, OU, & friends, then the B10 would still have to battle the SEC for UNC and company.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            The SEC would have taken UT/OU two decades ago, and anytime since. There is no mutual interest. And they aren’t taking the underlings.

            The battle always will be over a few specific ACC programs. Where UT lands (if it jumps at all) is almost irrelevant (other than potentially sewing inter conference dissent if its in the ACC with a special deal). And that assumes those ACC schools don’t decide on staying in the ACC regardless.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            One thing to keep in mind is that money is relative. Even the ACC schools, with the playoff and Orange Bowl deals, will be bringing in around $20 million more in 2014 than they were just a couple of years ago. If everything was static with the same relative difference, they might have been more willing to move. They are in a lot better financial position now. Yes, they could be even better in the Big 10, but the pressure to generate more is lessened.

            Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        If Oklahoma was willing to come alone (without TX or OSU), they would be in yesterday.
        Again. They took Nebraska, knowing its AAU status was kaput. There is no evidence AAU status is a deal breaker for a ‘King’. The CBS article listen OK as one of the five they were seriously considering.

        Like

        • frug says:

          They took Nebraska, knowing its AAU status was kaput.

          No they didn’t. The Big Ten had every reason to believe that UNL would survive the expulsion vote. Michigan and Wisconsin had just flipped their votes the Huskers would have (and knowing what they know now I suspect they would change their votes if they had it to do over again).

          There is no evidence AAU status is a deal breaker for a ‘King’.

          Prior to Nebraska’s admission Jim Delany stated that the Big Ten considered AAU membership part of the Big Ten’s “identity” and Nebraska’s own president has stated that if they weren’t in the AAU at the time of the admission vote they probably would not have been admitted to the Big Ten.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          There’s a difference between borderline-AAU and far-from-AAU.

          In any case, I’m fairly certain that the chances of OU being able to jettison its little brother are about nil, so it’s a moot point anyway.

          Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        You can’t seriously believe the Big Ten would cede TX to the Pac if they insisted on bring Oklahoma along. Please tell me you’re not serious. Still waiting to hear how Nebraska skirted this iron curtain.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Still waiting to hear how Nebraska skirted this iron curtain.

          Because Nebraska was in the AAU when they were admitted and that is all that mattered.

          Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          There would definitely be opposition from some Big Ten schools … whether enough to derail the deal is another question. I think TX/OU would get in, but not without some squawking.

          Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Its a bit odd to read of “the top 18” in a top 20 list, just because #19 and #20 are in neither the SEC nor the Big Ten. The benefit of arbitrary cut-offs like top five, top ten, top twenty is that they ARE arbitrary, rather than tailored to the argument being made.

      But, yes, of the Top 10: SEC 5, Big12 2, Big10 2, Notre Dame 1
      Of the Top 20: SEC 9, Big12 2, Big10 6, Pac-12 2, Notre Dame 1

      As a program value proposition, the TX/OU pair is not just the foundation of the Big12, they are a big chunk of the first floor as well.

      On the other hand, though, the value of a program to itself and the value of a program to a conference are two quite different things. With the A&M expansion, the SEC footprint went from a position in one large, rapidly growing demographic region in Florida to two in Florida & Texas. Expanding its footprint into the North Carolina / Virginia area on its northeastern border would be a strategic value that is distinct from the financial value of those programs to their own schools.

      Like

      • Mack says:

        TV markets are now a big factor in expansion. The first 5 schools added to the B10 and SEC are in the top 18, the last 3 are all #55+. TxT, OKst, and KSst come in #22-24. Conference revenues depend on the ability to get TV ratings, not local ticket sales or even good football. A bad team like Rutgers with a good market will bring more to other conference members than a prince in a small market.

        Like

        • frug says:

          A bad team like Rutgers with a good market will bring more to other conference members than a prince in a small market.

          That’s not always true. The Big XII took WVU over Louisville and Cincinnati even though they had better markets and offered easier travel.

          Like

  33. vp19 says:

    Frank, former Illini pitcher Tanner Roark is in the win column for the first time — two scoreless innings as the Nationals beat the Phillies 8-5.

    Like

  34. psuhockey says:

    Hypothetically speaking, what is to stop UT and say Kansas from announcing they will be joining the BIG in 2025 and start airing their tier 3 content on the BTN now. I know ESPN have separate deals for those schools tier 3, but lets say the BIG agrees to sell their Tier 1 on Espn/ABC instead of Fox in exchange for those tier 3 rights. Would UT and Kansas still be satisfying the GOR since they are still in the conference til 2025 and giving up their Tier 1 and 2 content?

    Why would UT and Kansas do this? If it done is say 2017, it allows for a gradual integration into the BIG, secures their spots in the conference and could potentially detonate the conference earlier as schools would be scrambling to fine a future home. The BIG wins as it can air local content in Texas and Kansas on the BTN and has two more national brands to sell on the BTN. Also they can sign a longer term contract in 2017 for added stability with a massive bump in 2025 when the BIG can air tier 1, 2 content of those two schools.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Maybe in the realm of possibility. Chances of Texas & KU proactively abandoning their little brothers are almost nil, however.

      Like

      • Psuhockey says:

        In the past and current present, I would agree. However, the SEC with Espn as its publicist is a huge threat to UT that is just beginning to realize. Texas A&M has dominated the headlines since it beat Alabama. Johnny Manziel is the new Tebow, for which Espn is going to talk non stop about. That impacts recruiting. UT’s partnership with Espn has been a failure. This is a pivotal year for UT in that they have to be great or risk falling further behind the SEC hype machine. If that happens and UT becomes an after thought to A&M, I serious doubt the powers that be will render them 2nd class to keep TCU, Tech, and Baylor a float. UT is Texas; for how long is the question.

        Like

        • Mack says:

          That is a lot of hype over one good A&M year. Texas has law and medical colleges (and the donations that come from these alums) that A&M does not. I doubt these alums will start supporting A&M. If A&M starts losing the hype will die down.

          Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            I am not talking about Alums. I am talking about T-shirt fans and recruits. UT used to have their pick of the litter for Texas football recruits. How long will that last if A&M proves to be more than a 1 year wonder. The longer the SEC retains in dominance the further the other power schools lose a little bit of their prestige. 17-18 year olds are highly impressionable and only care about the now. An espn backed SEC is a threat to all other football schools, even Texas now.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            It takes a lot longer than one year. A&M beat Texas 10 out of 11 years in the 80s/early 90s and it didn’t change the long run balance. 17 and 18 year olds are impressionable, but that’s not enough. A&M will narrow the gap on Texas, but not because of the SEC. Simply because of demographics. A&M has a different mix of students now (its not all male as it was in the early 60s and not just ag students and kids who want to play soldier-or actually become one) and they have more than they used to. Around 1980 Texas hit 50,000 students and chose to stay around that number. At that time A&M had just passed 20,000. They grew to 45,000 in the mid-90s and chose to stay at that figure until increasing the last 3 or 4 years.

            Some people don’t think FSU and Miami are kings yet and they had two of the greatest runs in history.

            Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            I think we can agree that the sports landscape has changed since to 80’s 90’s with the Internet, social media, and sports journalism. There was no news agency with as much power as ESPN then as there is now. Espn from 80’s and 90’s didnt have the influence, and the outright advocacy in its programing, that is does now. I do agree it takes more than a year, though.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            As a Rutgers fan who follows their recruiting closely I think I have a little perspective on this. RU was not an option for the better NJ players before Schiano because they had no tradition and no history of winning. In the last 2-3 years many of the better players have been considering and visiting RU (even before the B1G news). Even if they don’t end up going there, RU is talked about like it is a viable option. These 17-18 yo kids have only known RU as a team with moderate success that goes to bowl games, because RU has been doing that since they were 10 or 11.

            So, I would agree with the person above that said A+M’s 2012 would not change minds by itself. What Texas needs to worry about is that if this trend continues for another 4-5 years, they will start running into recruits that have no conception that for decades Texas was considered the much bigger program.

            Like

  35. BuckeyeBeau says:

    SIAP. article on FSU and the CFB arms race. no mention of realignment, but it’s in the backdrop.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9543925/florida-state-seminoles-look-level-playing-field-sec-gridiron-their-checkbook

    Like

  36. loki_the_bubba says:

    OK, several posts here and elsewhere make this explanation necessary.

    ANY discussion that mentions Texas not playing Oklahoma should be immediately labeled as not serious. Texas let Arkansas go without a care. OU sacrificed the yearly Nebraska game to be in the division with Texas. Oklahoma let NU run off to the B1G. Texas let aTm run off to the SEC. Yet the Red River Shootout remains. As much as I dislike both programs, this game is sacrosanct.

    Like

  37. cutter says:

    A few days ago, Tony Barnhart wrote a column asking if the Big 5 conferences would pull the plug on guarantee games? See http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/tony-barnhart/23082463/big-five-schools-could-pull-plug-on-guarantee-games-but-will-they

    There’s some discussion in the article about how Division 4 teams may opt to play only programs within that division and not play programs outside of it. Obviously, that would only be the 64 programs in the five major conferences plus Notre Dame and perhaps Brigham Young.

    An excerpt from the article:

    The real leverage the Big Five has moving forward is to quit paying these large guarantees to the bottom half of the FBS and simply limit their nonconference games to other members of those five conferences. It would save several millions per year and, in the new world of the four-team playoff (starting in 2014) where the teams would be picked by a selection committee, it would address the strength of schedule question.

    The Big Ten already has announced that it plans to phase out nonconference games against FCS opponents.

    At the Pac-12 media days commissioner Larry Scott said that it was time for football to evolve from the concept of the big guys paying the little guys for an easy win.

    “I’m not very sympathetic,” Scott said. “I just don’t think that the concept of the buy games is a healthy thing for college football or for fans. I think it’s been a quirk in the system that they’ve benefitted from, and good for them. I certainly don’t feel any sense of entitlement or right they have.”

    Now Scott and others have stopped short of saying that the Big Five would only play other Big Five schools if some accommodation is not made. Right now they don’t have to say it, an athletics director told me.

    “Everybody knows it [the threat] is out there,” he said.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The real leverage the Big Five has moving forward is to quit paying these large guarantees to the bottom half of the FBS and simply limit their nonconference games to other members of those five conferences. It would save several millions per year…

      Well, this implies that the schools with huge stadiums they routinely sell out, such as Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State, would be content to play just six home games a year. Michigan doesn’t “lose several millions per year” on guarantee games: the income from those games vastly outweighs the costs.

      …and, in the new world of the four-team playoff (starting in 2014) where the teams would be picked by a selection committee, it would address the strength of schedule question.

      I’ll believe this when I see it, e.g,, when a good 9-3 team (with two tough close road losses to strong opponents) makes the playoff over a middling Big Five 11-1 team who didn’t play anybody.

      Like

      • cutter says:

        Michigan’s per game ticket revenue has spectator admissions at a little under $43M for seven football games or approx. $6M per game. Deduct a $1M fee for a pay for play opponent (which in the next few years will include BYU, Oregon State, Colorado, Hawaii, UNLV, Ball State, Miami (Ohio) and Appalachian State. Add team travel costs because of one more road game (let’s say around $100K) and the net loss is perhaps $5.1M.

        See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-13/2013-06-X-13.pdf

        Could Michigan make up that revenue shortfall? It’d have to come through increased television revenues, higher ticket prices, greater donation levels and more seating. On the latter, there has been an ongoing discussion about expanding the south end of the stadium with more seating, but that also has an expense tied to it. The most likely source for the increased money would be from the television rights as a number of the teams listed above (Hawaii, UNLV, ASU, the two MAC teams) would not be on any future schedule.

        The spectator admissions figure also doesn’t include the rental costs of the luxury boxes, so you have to wonder if UM will be able to charge as much for one fewer home game, but with a better overall schedule. In 2016, for example, Michigan’s three non-conference opponents are Colorado, Hawaii and Ball State (all at home). Replace HI and BSU with one road game and one quality home opponent (both against Division 4 opponents) and work from there.

        As far as SOS is concerned, if everyone is prohibited from playing current FCS teams and non Division 4 FBS teams, then everyone’s schedules will get relatively better to some degree. Relatively speaking, I don’t know if it’s going to help strength of schedule that much for individual programs.

        Will this happen? That’s tough to say. Some sort of reorganization is in the wind and when we asked questions about Division 4 before, the opinion on this board was largely that Division 4 and non-Division 4 teams would continue to play one another both during the regular season and in the bowls because of the revenue question and the desire to get a post-season berth.

        Would I like it to happen? Sure. It’d be a lot more interesting to play Arizona State and Tennessee or Virginia and LSU, for example, in 2016 than Hawaii and Ball State.

        Like

  38. bob sykes says:

    I do not think that GORs will have much impact on conference transfers. Suppose Kansas jumps to the Big 10, pays the Big 12 exit fee and leaves the Big 12 GOR unchallenged and intact.

    Then, from the Big 12 perspective, all of Kansas’ games are nonconference (except KSU, if they continue to play) and half of those are away games. Since a GOR cannot affect the rights of nonsignatory third parties, Kansas can shop around at least some and maybe all of the away games. The most likely buyer would be the Big 10.

    Since the Big 12 GOR is in force, at the end of the year, the Big 12 must pay some TV revenue to Kansas, although it might not be a full share. Similarly, the Big 10 must share some of its revenue with Kansas. The net result is that Kansas continues to receive TV revenue, although perhaps somewhat less than before the jump.

    The real fun starts when the Big 12’s TV network televises Kansas games. I have no doubt they will love to televise Kansas/Ohio St, Kansas/Michigan, Kansas/Penn St, Kansas/Wisconsin et al. No doubt these games would replace some regular Big 12 games like Baylor/anybody, TCU/anybody. How long the Big 12 would put up with this is anybody’s guess.

    By the way, the obvious partner for Kansas is Missouri, past history not withstanding. UT/OU is a nonstarter.

    Like

    • @bob Sykes – The key, though, is that the Big 12 does NOT pay Kansas anything under the GOR in that scenario. It’s specifically stated in the Big 12 bylaws that a withdrawing member receives nothing, including mentioning the GOR specifically (to remove any doubt). That’s why the GOR is considered to be such a powerful retention tool. Unless Kansas is OK with leaving for only a 50% share of Big Ten revenue and/or the Big Ten is willing to pay Kansas a full share for only 50% of its games, the argument for allowing shared rights of a school drops precipitously.

      Putting all of this aside, why is the Big Ten going to be willing to do all of this for Kansas when it would never let Notre Dame keep its own TV contract with NBC as a hypothetical conference member? It’s really the same ultimate effect – the Big Ten doesn’t control any home games of the team that it’s adding.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I do not think that GORs will have much impact on conference transfers. Suppose Kansas jumps to the Big 10, pays the Big 12 exit fee and leaves the Big 12 GOR unchallenged and intact.

      Well, they have already. Name one school that has left a conference while a GOR was in effect. You can’t. The two leagues that implemented GORs the most recently (the Big XII and the ACC) both said that it would stop realignment in its tracks. So far they’re right.

      In theory, a GOR is just like any other contract: breakable at some price. But so far it’s a price no one has been willing to pay. Kansas isn’t so valuable to the Big Ten that the league would be willing to do without KU’s home games. And the Big Ten isn’t so much more valuable than the Big XII, that KU would be willing to accept only a revenue share from its road games.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I agree with you that the benefits of adding most Schools do not justify breaking the GOR over (Kansas included). But, if the B10 could add Texas, the Long-Term Economics involved, might create a special case, where you throw the rules out the window. For example: The B10, is willing to allow John’s Hopkins to join under very favorable terms to JHU (such as keeping their ESPNU TV Contract (so a premier Conference Game such as Maryland @ JHU will be on ESPNU instead of the B10 Network)). Why are they doing it? It is NOT about Lacrosse… It is money. They are willing to take the chance they can lock their Research $$$$$ into the CIC. A B10 Lacrosse Conference is simply gravy to the B10 . Simply put, I do not see UT wanting to join, but if they did, stuff like GOR’s and travel issues would be thrown out real quick.

        Like

    • drwillini says:

      I don’t think expanding with a GOR school will necessarily cost as much as seems to be assumed. Let’s just consider conference football games to make it easy (and understanding that if it doesn’t work there it doesn’t work). The “current” B1G slate would include 14×8/2 or 56 conference games. If the B1G adds UT and OU we would have 16×8/2 or 64 conference games a year, but 8 of those would be UT and OU home games owned by the big12. But the B1G does not lose any games, its just that there are 8 conference games a year that a historical B1G team plays in Norman or Austin that are owned by the big12, and 8 games where UT and OU plays at a historical B1G venue that the B1G owns.

      So the first question is, are the 8 games gained of more value than the 8 games lost. The 8 games lost are not the 8 games at Norman and Austin, but the conference games that would have been played by the teams that visit those places on given weekend. Assuming the B1G doesn’t try to game the schedule, these would be typical B1G matchups. Something like OSU/Illinois (best and worst) or Penn St./MSU (two midling teams). From the novelty factor alone, I think UT/Penn St or OU/MSU is more compelling, a UT/Illinois is slightly less compelling nationally, and a OU/OSU is a hugely compelling matchup.

      So despite not owning the 8 UT and OU home games a year, value is created. Some people will have a hard time with this, and get hung up on the value “left on the table” with the UT and OU home games. What is the big12 going to do with these games? Are they going to let the networks show B1G matchups instead of giving loyal conference teams exposure? This to me would seem a recipe for the remaining big12 teams to bail out as soon as possible. The B1G would control scheduling, and at least for a few years you could see some less than compelling matchups, and they could be scheduled on top of each other to reduce value. It would seem the b12 would be willing to negotiate these rights back to the B1G at some discount.

      An interesting scenario would be if the same network held rights to both big12 and B1G games. My guess is they would be in favor of such a move, as it would create on average more marketable matchups.

      Because of BTN, B1G has an additional degree of freedom to realize value created. If the Tier One/Two networks don’t realize the value created with the addition, the new games could just go on BTN. There would undoubtedly be an immediate increase in BTN carriage in Texas and Oklahoma, and somewhat nationally with these brands, with their fans following the new conference. So the BTN stands to have an immediate favorable impact.

      The bottom line is that this deal would create net value. Anybody that has negotiated business deals knows that net value creation deals are the easiest to do, easier than lose-lose or zero sum deals. Furthermore, the B1G has a few levers it can use to reduce the value that the big12 would get if no deal is done. The question to me is not if UT/OU is doable with the GOR, but if UT/Kansas is.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        If the B1G adds UT and OU we would have 16×8/2 or 64 conference games a year, but 8 of those would be UT and OU home games owned by the big12.

        I understand your point, but the math is wrong. Starting next year, the Big Ten plays nine conference games per team per year, not eight. You’ve also ignored the OOC: most years, UT and OU have two at home, one on the road.

        In total, then, the Big Ten (and therefore the schools) would lose the revenue of the combined 13 (on average) home games that OU and UT play every year, not the eight that you assumed.

        The B1G would control scheduling, and at least for a few years you could see some less than compelling matchups, and they could be scheduled on top of each other to reduce value.

        You assume the schools would agree to this. If you’re Oklahoma, do you want a steady diet of home games against the likes of Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, and Rutgers, with all of your desirable games played away, until the GOR issue is litigated?

        Like

        • drwillini says:

          You are right on the math. I was trying to use round numbers to illustrate the point you got, the B1G is not giving up the games in Austin and Norman, rather it is giving up the random historical B1G matchups that did not occur, that on average would be less compelling nationally. Thus value is created if the national brand is strong enough.

          If Oklahoma and Texas are making the jump I think they have to be prepared to go on the “steady diet.” It the big12 perceives unity, they are are more likely to negotiate.

          I can imagine should this event occur the immediate emotional reaction in the big12 would be to stick it to UT and OU. Eventually cooler heads will prevail, and they will realize that the goal should be to put together a viable conference in the end. Their position is not that strong, and I guess that is the point I am trying to make. If the B1G takes UT and OU, they are not left wtih a national football brand, but they do have some good programs that create interesting matchups for the casual college football fan. They would probably be able to swing a decent network contract, but at this point the prisoner dilemma starts to kick in. If somebody gets a better offer (maybe TTech, Kansas and/or Iowa St to PacX, Baylor and/or OkSt to SEC, and any to the ACC).

          One strategy could be is that UT/OU announce in a contractually binding way that they are leaving the conference in 5 years and put this scenario in play. That allows their inclusion to be valued in the new network contracts, shortens the exposure to the GOR, and lets the other teams have a chance to sweat a bit and be tempted to bolt themselves if given a good offer. If enough teams bolt there is no GOR, and nobody wants to be the last team hanging onto it.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Does anybody other than maybe The Dude and other fringe internet looney toons actually believe that UT and OU are going to join the B1G?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            I would be skeptical that the Dude himself thinks it … but he moved his blog to its new home just before Power5 conference realignment hit the pause button, and he could well need some hits, which idle speculation on the future home for Air Force Lacrosse just isn’t going to deliver (I’m guessing they work out something with Atlantic Sun).

            Given the likely period of the coming Big Ten agreement, and the known period of the Big12 GOR, which will threaten Power5 conference realignment hitting “play” again in the early Twenties, it could well be prudent to talk to Texas to get an idea whether there are some terms for a potential Big10 broadcast deal which Texas would look on with pleasure or displeasure.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            yeah, I guess 2026 will be here before you know it, right?

            Like

    • jamesinsocal says:

      The problem I see in this is the PAC 12 doesn’t have the fan base as the B1G or the SEC. Most people out here in CA are fans of which team is winning and most have no problem waiting for the Sunday paper to see the final scores. Hard to get any kind of leverage with that.

      Like

  39. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    SEC adds Birmingham and Shreveport bowls to its 2014 lineup.

    http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/246353/sec-announces-agreements-with-nine-bowl-games.aspx

    #1 CFP Semi (sometimes 2)
    #2 Sugar
    #2a Orange (share spot with B1G & ND)
    #3 Cap One
    #4 – #9 Pool – Outback, Music City, Gator, Charlotte, Houston & Liberty
    #10 Birmingham
    #11 Shreveport

    Like

  40. Andy says:

    Why would Kansas and Texas sign away GOR for 12 years or whatever if they wanted to turn around and leave? Mizzou knew they wanted to move on to bigger and better things so they made sure to get out before signing away GOR.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      i’m not believing that TX and OU are moving, but just to answer the question:

      things change quickly.

      What was desirable, necessary, seemed good, etc., in 2011 maybe isn’t anymore in 2013. Factors: A&M not merely succeeding, but rocketing while UTAustin flounders and sinks, O’Bannon case and all the potentials, CFP, the $$ gap between B1G/SEC and all others finally sinking in, SEC Network dawning (further nurturing A&M), Div IV dawning, B1G adding two more AAU universities, ND to the ACC partially, etc.

      Summary: UT Austin being left behind.

      Unknown=Behind-The-Scenes-Factors: Dodds probably has many envious detractors within the UT structure; for all we know, long knives have been drawn. Factors: apparent failure of LHN, Mack’s horrible last 3 years; serious hit to UT’s general good reputation with Mizzu, CO, NE and A&M all trashing UT on their way out; A&M AND Baylor (Baylor !!) winning Heisman’s while Mack didn’t even recruit the two QBs; OU spanking UT in last three games, Dodds’ bed-buddy BXII Commissioner getting replaced with a less compliant version, etc.

      All told: many in Austin may be rethinking options.

      As for Kansas: please! they would have signed away all their grandmothers to keep a spot in a P5 conference. IIRC, they gave TX all their exit fees from NE and CO just to make sure TX and OU wouldn’t go to the PAC-10/12/16. You can hardly criticize a drowning man for grabbing whatever rope is at hand.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Agreed on KU, but I was truly surprised when Texas signed GOR. I just don’t get why they’d do that unless they want to stay in the Big 12.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Because they do want to stay in the Big 12. Nothing he has mentioned would have any effect on the thinking. Dodds is as connected as they come. He would know about Division IV and O’Bannon. As for the $ gap, Texas will be making more on media than anyone else for a long time to come. His explanation of why UT might change their mind demonstrates why they wouldn’t.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I was truly surprised when Texas signed GOR. I just don’t get why they’d do that unless they want to stay in the Big 12.

          All schools are, to an extent, conflicted. If there’s a better league, they want to be part of it. But if there’s no better league, they want to ensure the stability of the one they’re in.

          I wish I had a dollar every time a school said, “We’re totally committed to ____,” while other options on the side. I’d also take a dollar every time a league commissioner said, “We’re very happy with ___ members,” while negotiating to add more.

          No school yet has left a conference that had a GOR. But a number of schools have voted for increased exit fees, and only shortly thereafter left the conference, or pursued the possibility of leaving.

          Personally, I don’t think Texas will be on the block before the 2020s, if at all. But it is not necessarily inconsistent to sign a GOR, and then have second thoughts.

          Like

  41. StevenD says:

    Texas will be joining the Pac12, not the B1G. There are several reasons for this:

    1. The Pac12 needs Texas more than the B1G does. The Pac12 is short of football kings, compared to the B1G and the SEC; and its only hope for expansion is to take B12 teams. On the other hand, the B1G already has four kings; and it has more expansion options than the Pac12. As a result, the Pac12 is more motivated than the B1G to accommodate to Texas.

    2. The AAU requirement will make it very difficult for Texas to bring any friends to the B1G. This would make Texas an isolated island in the B1G. Texas would be happier taking three friends to the Pac12.

    3. The addition of Texas to the west division of the B1G (with a balancing addition in the east) would have a negative impact on the timetable. In contrast, the addition of Texas (plus three friends) to the Pac12 would produce a very nice Pac16 timetable.

    4. It is theoretically possible that the B1G might let Texas bring Kansas (AAU) or Oklahoma (king), but both these schools would find it difficult (impossible?) to go without their instate partners. There would be no such difficulty if Texas goes to the Pac12.

    5. The all-for-one comradery of the B1G might not be a comfortable home for the Texas ego. It will probably prefer being in the Pac16 will three friends.

    The biggest impediment to adding Texas+3 to the Pac12 is the reluctance of the inland schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU) to be stuck in a division with Texas+3 and to lose their regular games in California. However, this could be mitigated by giving the four inland schools a disproportionate number of crossover games in California (with Texas+3 getting fewer crossovers in California). This would be similar to the (parity) scheduling in the B1G, where kings have a disproportionate number of crossovers with kings.

    Disproportionate scheduling in the Pac16 would be very popular with the inland four and the California four (who would rather play Arizona and ASU than Texas Tech and OSU). The Texas four have no history of regular games in California, so it’s not a big problem for them. And PNW four are in the same division with California, so they should be happy (even though they get more crossovers with the Texas 4 and fewer with the inland 4).

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I don’t like to make definitive statements about events that are probably 10+ years in the future, but most of these arguments make some sense.

      In addition, the Pac-12 is stronger in baseball than the Big Ten, and UT really cares about that sport. Baseball wouldn’t drive the decision on its own, but it’s another plus in the Pac’s corner.

      Also, the comparative lack of kings in the west doesn’t just motivate the Pac; it motivates UT and Oklahoma too. All other things being equal, they’d rather be in a league they can win more often.

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        and, given the historical friendly relationship between the B1G and the PAC, I think the B1G would not mind TX +3 going to the PAC. At minimum, that would certainly be better than TX going to the SEC.

        and think what ratings the Rose Bowl would get with TX-Mich or OK-Neb or PSU-TX. the two tOSU-TX reg. season games a few years back were ratings gold. imagine the Rose Bowl ratings.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Do we know the PAC offer for the group would be repeated? They are the ones that we see could, but would they? They did (supposedly) deny OU/OkSU that could have compelled a decision by UT, and rumor has it the ACC “deal” wasn’t really there.

        I’m not sure it ever happens. If it was going to there was no better opportunity than 2010. I have a hard time thinking UT really believed a single school channel could either generate the needed inventory, or even if it did that carriage would be anything but modest and predominantly in state. I think it’s possible they took ESPN’s money to not do something they didn’t want to do anyway.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          UT is disappointed in carriage so far, but they couldn’t pass up $15 million. At that price, ESPN is charging more than many cable companies are willing to pay ($.35 is number that gets thrown around as what they are asking). I think both were counting on high school games to fill the gaps and create more general interest in the channel around the state. They could have filled every Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I doubt Dodd’s/UT didn’t understand the unlikelihood of HS games on a university specific and branded channel passing muster. I’m surprised at ESPN’s lack of understanding.

            .35 for tier three (plus) of only one school? BTN should be $5, or more with the power of consolidation. This is why LHN isn’t market valued. Do I blame them for taking it? They would probably have realized nearly increased amount from a P16 primary contract, with the P16N still to come and with vastly greater marketing leverage. So, no. I don’t blame them. Because, as I said, I think they had decided not to go anyway.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Do we know the PAC offer for the group would be repeated?

          We clearly don’t know it would be repeated. But something the parties have already shown an inclination to do is a safer guess than something they have never entertained. And the fundamentals are obvious: if the Pac wants to expand, there is only one direction to go.

          I’m not sure it ever happens. If it was going to there was no better opportunity than 2010. I have a hard time thinking UT really believed a single school channel could either generate the needed inventory, or even if it did that carriage would be anything but modest and predominantly in state.

          Bear in mind, some people thought the Big Ten Network was a fool’s errand. For that matter, some people thought that no one would buy books over the Internet, and look at Amazon now.

          So it’s not crazy that Texas thought that LHN revenues, plus the Big XII’s sweetheart deal with ESPN, plus being the king of a smaller castle, was a better bet than the uncertainty of a Pac-16 and regular games on the west coast.

          If the LHN is a flop (it certainly seems like one now), the calculus changes.

          Like

      • Andy says:

        It’s so far off that it’s useless to try to guess. We’re talking 2026 here folks.

        That said looking at the landscape as it is in 2013 I’d say Pac 12 makes the most sense, but it could go a lot of different ways.

        Like

    • David Brown says:

      I have said it before, and I will say it again, if UT and OU would want to join the B10, they would be welcomed with open arms.
      What I think will happen, is everyone will wait to see how things like O’Bannon turn out, as well as what will the economic climate be, and will certain teams move up (for example UNLV if they get their New Stadium), while other teams fall deeper into the gutter ( Washington State comes to mind), and still others decide to drop football due to economics?
      I do not see the Big 10 dropping a school (Penn State (Sandusky) & Nebraska (no AAU), could have been tossed but they were not. In fact, Maryland & Rutgers were added, because they were afraid the Nitts might leave). But I could see a Wazzu, Wake Forest, or a Boston College being thrown out if they do not start to invest in the program (BC in particular). Why BC? They have no Conference Tradition (Unlike Wake), so I can imagine the ACC is not exactly happy with BC investing all their resources in Hockey, while living like pikers off the North Carolina’s, Florida State’s, and the Clemson’s of the Conference.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Power conference history of expelling schools:
        Once. And that school got back in. [assumes BE qualifies as a power conference]

        UNLV moves up to where? And because of a stadium? While the creation D4 is intended to curb just that?

        The ACC doesn’t like having exposure in New England? How about ESPN?

        Like

        • frug says:

          Does what the PAC did to Idaho qualify as expulsion?

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            No. The PCC disbanded over a pay for play scandles at Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW. They weren’t invited into the new AAWU that grew from five into the PAC 8 (PCC had ten from ’29 until ’50). Idaho suffered the fate that worries ISU, Wake, etc. when the demise of their conference is forecast.

            Like

          • frug says:

            True. Though it should be noted that the PAC does claim the PCC’s history as its own and all other PCC schools at the time of dissolution were invited back within 3 years so the effect was the same as expulsion…

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Unless you’re arguing a new conference forming with a new set of rules can’t include groups of former conference mates, its irrelevant. I’d suggest the SWC/Big8 merger is a better example of what you’re talking about. Several got left behind, but I wouldn’t say expelled, when many SWC members were rejoined in a new conference.

            Like

          • frug says:

            My issue (and why it could be considered borderline expulsion) is that the “new” conference claimed the PCC’s history as its own.

            The best analog I can think of would be if the C7 had voted to dissolve the Big East, then formed a conference without UConn, Cincy and USF but still claimed the Big East history.

            I agree it wouldn’t be expulsion, but it would be very close.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:

            Had to look up a bit of history to confirm what I’d heard and read.

            The PCC breakup was not a move to improve athletic conditions for some (as the SWC did intentionally, and the Big 8 was an enabler). Quite the contrary. It was presidential, academic, inter and intra school fighting at the top.
            “The first major reaction came from the University of California system. Robert Sproul, president of the University of California, along with the chancellors of Berkeley and UCLA, drafted a “Five Point Plan”, emphasizing academic eligibility standards, setting the two UC campuses apart from the PCC and laying the groundwork for their departure. For Sproul the PCC dispute was not just about athletics; at stake was the ideal of a unified University of California that enjoyed statewide support. This ideal collided with aspirations of UCLA alumni who believed that Sproul’s vision would always favor the Berkeley campus at the expense of the younger UCLA campus.”

            Note that UCLA’s mascot originally was a bear cub.

            “Oregon State College president August Leroy Strand wrote, “The reasons for California and UCLA dropping out are as different as night and day… the significance of the whole affair was the union of Berkeley and UCLA… admissions and scholarship had nothing to do with the withdrawals . . . the marriage of this desire on the part of Berkeley with the known ambitions and necessities of its sister institution has produced a bastard that has the bard of a purebred but the innards and hair of a mongrel.”

            They may have been barred, as the other three initially were, “but unlike Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State, Idaho did not pursue AAWU admission, and competed as an independent before becoming a charter member of the Big Sky Conference in 1963.”

            PCC had fallen apart by 1957 but didn’t dissolve until ’59. Independent was far more viable then. Arguably OSC’s (since people tend to think of OSU/WSU as charity cases) best years were during that turbulent period. ’57 Rose Bowl, ’62 Liberty Bowl, Rose Bowl again ’65 upon entering AAWU (which when formed had contracted with the RB), Mel Counts led BB success, Terry Baker (the only Heisman winner to also play in the final four). Regaining the last three was to strengthen and improve the AAWU.

            As there were now eight schools, and all were former members together in the PCC it seems not unreasonable to “claim” that history – it actually was their’s. Idaho wasn’t expelled, although there were expulsion votes involving others. Within the AAWU “Tensions were high between UCLA and Stanford, as Stanford had voted for UCLA’s expulsion from the PCC.”

            Like

      • frug says:

        In fact, Maryland & Rutgers were added, because they were afraid the Nitts might leave

        Holy, over statement Batman!

        All that Barry Alvarez (the source of that supposed fact) said was that Delaney told the conference presidents that without Eastern expansion “someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league.” At no point has anyone ever suggested the Big Ten was actually afraid Penn St. would leave the conference.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          All that Barry Alvarez (the source of that supposed fact) said was that Delaney told the conference presidents that without Eastern expansion “someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league.” At no point has anyone ever suggested the Big Ten was actually afraid Penn St. would leave the conference.

          You may consider Barry Alvarez a weak source, though I don’t know why you would disbelieve him. Taking him at his word, it sounds like the conference did indeed fear, that at some point Penn State might be tempted to leave. It was not a fear in imminent danger of coming true, but it was a fear nevertheless.

          Some fans on message boards did seriously suggest that the Big Ten ought to kick out Penn State after the Sandusky scandal. I thought that was complete nonsense, and apparently the league thought so too. Far from kicking them out, Delany went out and got two more teams to solidify their membership.

          Clearly the Big Ten believes (as I do) that Penn State, long-term, is one of its most valuable assets.

          Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            Kicking PSU out would have hurt the Big Ten more than Penn State and you are right some message board fans called for it. But Penn State is the bridge out of the Midwest to the east coast for the BIG. The program has been down since the mid-90’s and will continue to muddle along with the sanctions, but its value is unquestioned. The ACC would be waiting with open arms.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            And Penn State isn’t a one-note athletic department. While its men’s basketball team is more often than not a lost cause, PSU has a solid women’s basketball program, is a blue-blood in wrestling and both men’s and women’s volleyball (with NCAA titles in all three of these sports), and is perennially in the top 10 of the Directors’ Cup. It’s a genuine athletic powerhouse.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I didn’t say Alvarez was a weak source or that I didn’t believe him; I just pointed out that nothing he said indicates the Big Ten was actually afraid that Penn St. would leave.

            Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      Interesting points but disagree on a few of them.

      1. Agreed that the PAC maybe more motivated to bring in UT since there are no other big Tim expansion options for that conference.

      2. AAU requirement would still allow Kansas and if Oklahoma was the price to get UT, I wouldn’t doubt that the BIG would think very hard and probably accept. Also, you are assuming that UT wants to brings friends along. If they are leaving the Big 12, that means they are trying to leave their friends.

      3. No idea what timetable you are talking about.

      4. The PAC would not necessarily be taking OSU or Kansas State either unless they had to. If it was UT, Tech, OU, and OSU maybe, but I am sure the PAC would love to drop OSU for Kansas. Also if you think that Berkley and Stanford are any less academically snooty as the BIG schools, think again.

      5. Agreed that the equal partnership might not be to UT’s liking but don’t think for one second that UT is coming into the PAC and bullying USC and the California blue bloods in their own conference.

      Now the counter argument:

      1. Texas won’t be going to the PAC because of the time zone difference. The PAC receives less media attention because it is on the West Coast and two times zones behind Texas and 3 behind the East, where the big time media outlets are located. Yes they could play local schools like those they bring and Colorado and Utah but then why leave the Big 12. Also the two time zone difference would be huge for nonrevenue sports.

      2. The main hub of political power, media coverage, finance, and advertising are located on the East Coast. It is why the Dallas Cowboys refused to be put into the west division of the NFC. Jerry Jones knows that by playing in NY, Washington, and to a lesser extent Philadelphia his team gets maximum exposure. The south is growing but it will take over 100 years for the power and infrastructure of this country to migrate out of the East Coast megalopolis if it ever does at all. Why would Texas chance getting less access to that power by going West?

      I think Texas ends up in the BIG or ACC.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        “Also if you think that Berkley and Stanford are any less academically snooty as the BIG schools, think again.”

        That’s not the issue. The Pac doesn’t have an academic consortium, so Stanford and Berkeley aren’t sharing their academic resources or reputation with Oregon St. or WSU (and why they were willing to take OKSt. and TTech last time).

        Like

    • vp19 says:

      The biggest impediment to adding Texas+3 to the Pac12 is the reluctance of the inland schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU) to be stuck in a division with Texas+3 and to lose their regular games in California. However, this could be mitigated by giving the four inland schools a disproportionate number of crossover games in California (with Texas+3 getting fewer crossovers in California). This would be similar to the (parity) scheduling in the B1G, where kings have a disproportionate number of crossovers with kings.

      The rotating quads concept also could work.
      Southwest: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
      Four Corners: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
      Golden State: California, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA
      Northwest: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

      Year A paired quads: Southwest-Four Corners, Golden State-Northwest
      Year B paired quads: Southwest-Golden State, Four Corners-Northwest
      Year C paired quads: Southwest-Northwest, Four Corners-Golden State

      With a 9-game schedule, teams would play one opponent from each of the other two quads they aren’t paired with.

      So the non-California teams would be assured of two games in California once every three years, in addition to one every other year.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        They already play nine, and access to CA is already limited for some. I’m not sure games in TX would be an acceptable trade, and I’m sure UT doesn’t want many games in the NW.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      StevenD,

      “3. The addition of Texas to the west division of the B1G (with a balancing addition in the east) would have a negative impact on the timetable. In contrast, the addition of Texas (plus three friends) to the Pac12 would produce a very nice Pac16 timetable.”

      What timetable? What negative effect?

      “4. It is theoretically possible that the B1G might let Texas bring Kansas (AAU) or Oklahoma (king), but both these schools would find it difficult (impossible?) to go without their instate partners. There would be no such difficulty if Texas goes to the Pac12.”

      Unless, of course, the P12 refuses to admit one of them.

      “5. The all-for-one comradery of the B1G might not be a comfortable home for the Texas ego. It will probably prefer being in the Pac16 will three friends.”

      I think UT would see the other kings as a comfortable fit. They understand how kings think.

      “The biggest impediment to adding Texas+3 to the Pac12 is the reluctance of the inland schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU) to be stuck in a division with Texas+3 and to lose their regular games in California. However, this could be mitigated by giving the four inland schools a disproportionate number of crossover games in California (with Texas+3 getting fewer crossovers in California). This would be similar to the (parity) scheduling in the B1G, where kings have a disproportionate number of crossovers with kings.”

      16 teams with 9 games means 7 division games and 2 crossovers to split over 8 schools (25%). An equal share would be 50% vs CA and 50% vs the pacific NW. How are they going to split them instead? 75% CA and 25% PNW for the inland schools?

      Right now they get a 5/4 schedule.
      2 LA schools – 100%
      2 SF schools – 33%
      4 PNW schools – 83%

      They’d be fine playing the PNW schools less, but not the LA schools. No disproportionate scheduling plan will let them play the LA schools annually.

      “Disproportionate scheduling in the Pac16 would be very popular with the inland four and the California four (who would rather play Arizona and ASU than Texas Tech and OSU). The Texas four have no history of regular games in California, so it’s not a big problem for them. And PNW four are in the same division with California, so they should be happy (even though they get more crossovers with the Texas 4 and fewer with the inland 4).”

      A big part of UT and OU joining would be to play the CA schools. They have no desire to play the PNW schools.

      Like

      • StevenD says:

        Brian wrote: ” No disproportionate scheduling plan will let them play the LA schools annually.”

        It is quite possible for the inland four (Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado) to play an LA school every year. Just assign one of their crossovers to LA (UCLA one year and USC the next) and use the other crossover to cover the other six teams in the coastal division.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Yes, schools plural. I said playing both LA schools since that guarantees a game in LA each season. That’s very important for them in recruiting.

          Like

    • lovedtheusfl says:

      Nice post, Steven.

      I have some disagreements, though that come out of a difference in opinion on what the B!G and PAC can do now.

      I think the B1G appears to effectively checkmated on a large expansion to 18-20 for the next 10+ years due to the GOR deals. I don’t think they (or the Pac-12 or ACC) want to challenge those.

      I do think the B1G could expand to 16 (UConn+Vandy? Missou+ Vandy? There are a few options) to get a bigger TV deal in the last days of Cable.

      I do agree that the Pac-12 can take OSU and Tech where the B1G won’t…. and that could make both OU and UT’s lives easier… but there is still the GOR issue. So unless you are talking 10+ years down the road — to a time where all the power conferences have equal shots at the Big 12 elite — I cannot see this Pac-12 plan you are describing having any shot.

      Now I do agree that the PAC-12 is in the driver’s seat as far as UT goes. (I believe if the Pac-12 had invited OU and OSU, UT would have followed with Tech on Pac-12 terms. IMO, The PAC leadership simply blinked first.)

      To me, the only path that can break a one of the two lower tier power conferences before the GOR deals run their course would be for the PAC-12 to eat the Big 12.

      To do this, the PAC either on it’s own (or with assistance from the Big 12, ACC, and/or the SEC) will need to offer 8/10 Big 12 schools homes — if those 8 vote to dissolve Big 12. I see that as UT’s “get out of the GOR” escape plan and the reason there is no 11th or 12th school in the Big 12.

      I think that would be the only “safe” way to kill a GOR deal (specifically the Big 12′s) and even then some special concessions/payouts/scheduling deals would have to be made to Baylor and the other school left behind.

      The Pac-12 could add 8 Big 12 members and have the old Pac10 as the Pacific division and the newbies as the SW division. Everyone gets their money and can live with that price.

      The PAC could work a deal with another conference to assist. (I am sure if such a plan happened the PAC would want to look at Rice if they could free up one of their 8 slots. Rice would never be a Big 10 candidate, but they kinda fit this kind of Pac-20.)

      The ACC could consider taking West Virginia.
      The SEC could consider taking West Virginia, OSU, and maybe even KSU to give Missou and Arkansas schools to play.
      The Big 10 could consider a Kansas+ Missouri package for 16. My take is that they may just not be good enough academically or valueable enough, but who knows.

      But even if they don’t, the PAC-12 could add UT, Tech, TCU, OU, OSU, Kansas, KSU, and ISU as a package and that could be that.

      I think they are the only conference that could do that.

      —tobi

      Like

  42. kombayn says:

    Kansas & Missouri to Big Ten

    Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas & Texas Tech to Pac-12

    Cincinnati, Tulsa & West Virginia to SEC

    UConn (Full-Member) & Navy (Football Only) to ACC

    That’s how I think it’s going to go down. I believe that the Big 12 is going to dissolve. The ACC move would be lateral as Navy would hold onto Notre Dame’s spot if they ever decide to join a conference in football. Navy wouldn’t count towards the 5-game schedule either. UConn would solidify the college hoops side as well. The SEC move would get them into Ohio, Oklahoma & Pennsylvania recruiting grounds, plus Tulsa (#89) & Cincinnati (#139) are good academic schools though West Virginia (#165) would be the lowest ranked school in the SEC, it brings an extremely strong college athletic brand with a strong fan-base.

    Like

    • StevenD says:

      I think Kansas & Missouri would be a great fit for the B1G. Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri have a storied history together and Missouri also has a history with Illinois. It would be nice to see them all playing together in the B1G. However, I don’t think it will happen.

      First there is the problem of Kansas leaving KSU. Unless KSU has a reasonable landing spot, Kansas may be unable to break free. However, that is a minor problem compared to the difficulty of getting Missouri.

      Intially, Missouri might have preferred the B1G to the SEC, but having been rejected by the B1G, Missouri has now embraced the SEC.

      Even if Missouri has a rough time in the SEC and never has a winning season in conference, I don’t think they will go running to the B1G.

      Missourians pride themselves in being stalwart, conservative and noncredulous. I expect them to cling stubbornly to the SEC, no matter what is offered by the B1G.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        KU and MO would be 2/3 lowest ranked academic schools if added.

        KU and MO would be 2/4 smallest enrollments if added.

        KU and MO are both #16 schools. The BIG would not add both in a 2 team expansion.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          not true, MU wouldn’t be bottom 4 in enrollment. Higher enrollment than Northwestern, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa, and not too far from Michigan and Purdue. Also middle of the pack as far as state population among B1G states. Slightly above average if you include Kansas.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            ok, 2/5 smallest enrollments.

            Wikipedia has as follows:

            NW———8000 undergrads, 19000 total
            NEB——–19000/25000
            Kansas—-20000/29000
            Missouri—27000/35000
            Purdue—-30000/39000

            Last I saw, Maryland and Rutgers would be similiar to Purdue.

            Point is, MD, Rytgers, and Purdue are much better schools than MO.

            That said, I still think the BIG should have added MO over Neb.

            But I don’t think Kansas and MO together is realistic, even apart from the SEC and GOR issues.
            Michigan–28000/43000

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Northwestern total enrollment 19k
            Nebraska total enrollment 25k
            Kansas total enrollment 29k
            Iowa total enrollment 31k
            Missouri total enrollment 35k
            Maryland total enrollment 37k
            Purdue total enrollment 39k

            Point is Missouri’s not really out side the range of the B1G as far as enrollment.

            Also state population Missouri ranks ahead of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maryland, and nearly tied with Indiana.

            Academics Missouri is AAU, and, at #69 in the country ranks ahead of #93 Nebraska, #100 Kansas, and #96 Indiana in total reasearch and isn’t terribly far off from #57 Rutgers, #55 Michigan State, and #52 Purdue.

            Missouri is much closer to fitting in with the B1G as an academic institution than Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma. Obviously some of the ACC gems like Virginia and North Carolina are better schools. But if you take those off the table then Missouri is about as good as the B1G could have done. Too late now though.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            oops, left out Oklahoma’s research ranking: #130.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The SEC move would get them into Ohio, Oklahoma & Pennsylvania recruiting grounds, plus Tulsa (#89) & Cincinnati (#139) are good academic schools though West Virginia (#165) would be the lowest ranked school in the SEC, it brings an extremely strong college athletic brand with a strong fan-base.

      The SEC doesn’t have trouble recruiting anywhere it wants. It’s not going to take the second-best school in Ohio and the third-best school in Oklahoma. We already know the SEC has no interest in WV. Cincinnati was already rejected by the Big XII and the ACC.

      The SEC is sitting pretty at 14. They never need to expand again. If they do, they won’t settle for anything less than the crown jewels. Taking Tulsa is an AAC type of move.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I don’t see the SEC expanding just for the sake of expanding. They did consider WVU when they decided on Missouri, but that was for #14. If WVU was available, they might take them as a #16. But the SEC will need someone they really want as a #15 before they expand and that list is probably pretty short-Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and Virginia Tech. All of those schools are locked up by GORs for a decade or more.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I agree: WV isn’t a totally crazy move for the SEC, the way Tulsa or Cincinnati would be. With the right 15th team, conceivably WV could be the 16th.

          It would have to be a situation where a 15th team they really want is available, and WV is the best 16th team around.

          Like

  43. BigGameDave says:

    Here’s how I could see it playing out

    PAC 16
    Texas
    Texas Tech
    Oklahoma
    Oklahoma State

    SEC
    Kansas State
    West Virginia

    B1G
    Kansas
    UConn

    ACC
    Houston
    Tulane

    Like

    • Andy says:

      The SEC would sooner stay at 14 than take WVU and KSU. WVU and KSU add nothing of value to the SEC. The SEC would expand for UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Oklahoma, not much else. Why divide up the pie for weak additions and pay everyone less? Not going to happen.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        The SEC would sooner stay at 14 than take WVU and KSU.

        I agree with Andy. The flaw of all these expansion proposals posted since yesterday, is that they all assume that the power conferences would agree to take schools they don’t want, just to ensure that the whole Big XII lands safely somewhere.

        It also assumes that all the conferences would arrive at an even 16 members. The power conferences have never had the same number of members. They reach independent decisions according to their own self-interest. No one will force them to take teams they don’t want, just to get up to the same number as everybody else.

        The SEC doesn’t want KSU or WV. The ACC doesn’t want Houston or Tulane. The Big Ten doesn’t want UConn, and if it wants Kansas, they would have to be paired with a solid #15.

        The one solid idea here is TX/TT/OU/OSU to the Pac-16, because that was a move most of the parties were willing to make, before Texas torpedoed it. But if that happens, it will be the orphaned schools’ problem to find leagues to play in. The SEC is not going to bail out K-State, out of the goodness of its heart.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          The one solid idea here is TX/TT/OU/OSU to the Pac-16, because that was a move most of the parties were willing to make, before Texas torpedoed it. But if that happens, it will be the orphaned schools’ problem to find leagues to play in. The SEC is not going to bail out K-State, out of the goodness of its heart.

          For the likes of Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Christian and West Virginia, this is probably where the American comes in. Its goal is seemingly to replace the Big 12 as the #5 conference in the event of its implosion. As of fall 2015 (assuming none of its members are taken elsewhere), the AAC will have Connecticut, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, Central Florida, South Florida, Houston, Southern Methodist, Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina and Navy (football-only). Four of the five Big 12 emigres would create a 16-team football conference, and the fifth could partner with Kansas in another conference.

          Or things could go in the opposite direction if the “other six” of the Big 12 stayed together. They could pick and choose the most attractive members from the AAC (e.g., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida, South Florida, Tulane and East Carolina) and both keep the Big 12 name and revive the CCG.

          Either way would result in a somewhat solid #5 conference, likely securing status in any prospective Division 4, and put the kibosh on some of the more outlandish scenarios floated out there (e.g., Iowa State to the Mid-American).

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The second of your scenarios sounds more likely to me. The six bottom-feeders of the Big XII are still more valuable programs than most of the AAC schools; and the Big XII is clearly a more valuable name than the AAC, unless the AAC really distinguishes itself over the next 10 years.

            So what makes sense to me is that if at least four or five of the Big XII leftovers stay together, they’d keep the name and invite the five best AAC schools to join them, rather than the other way around.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Is the AAC clearly ahead of the MWC, or are we just seeing a directional bias?

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Is the AAC clearly ahead of the MWC, or are we just seeing a directional bias?

            It’s difficult to gauge competitively for a conference that hasn’t staged a single athletic event yet, but on the whole, AAC members have more of a national identity — and play in larger markets — than do those of the Mountain West. (Boise State football, for all intents and purposes, is this era’s equivalent of Tarkanian-era UNLV basketball.)

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            And just to clarify things, I’m referring to the AAC post-Louisville and Rutgers.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            The Big 12 could one day end up as

            Kansas
            Kansas State
            TCU
            Baylor
            Houston
            Boise State
            San Diego State
            Iowa State
            West Virginia
            UConn
            Cincinatti
            South Florida

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Andy:

            IF something like that happened don’t you think Rice and maybe SMU would get a seat at that table?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And perhaps Fresno and SJSU (Central Valley and Bay Area markets and recruiting, in the most populous state)?

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Nah, they suck at sports. They’d want it to be as strong at sports as possible to get a seat at the big boys table in the national title hunt.

            Like

          • Cliff says:

            I’ve got to think that if there were 4-8 Big XII orphans, then they would look to ONLY Cincinnati, UConn, Boise St, and BYU (in some order). Each brings a football or basketball program that moves the needle much moreso than San Diego St, USF, Houston or anyone else.

            Let’s say the Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-OSU to Pac 12 happens. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia remain. You could argue that adding only Boise St and Connecticut to get to 8 teams is sufficient, but Cincinnati and BYU to get to 10 teams is ok, too. Each school carries its own weight, one way or another, and there’s no threat to them as the clear #6 conference. There’s some decent tv for football and basketball, and some decent mid-level bowl bids available for this group. Does USF or San Diego State add anything other than another market, or do they become another mouth to share? And I just don’t see the value in a Conference Championship game for this group, especially if they have to add four mouths to hold a CCG.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            “Is the AAC clearly ahead of the MWC, or are we just seeing a directional bias?”

            Directional bias.

            W/O Louisville, MWC is probably ahead. MWC will be getting a better TV deal if Boise gets picked up on ESPN any decent amount of times, although CUSA/MWC and AAC are essentially equal in their deals.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Andy:

            You may be right. But it wasn’t athletic achievement that got Rutgers (NJ/NY) or Utah (Salt Lake area surprisingly large, and rapidly growing) in a power conference. Markets (and academics) matter. Granted it was entry to a conference, not the conferences status, but markets help there, too. If Boise St. Was in a million population city in even a modest size state wouldn’t they be in the B12?

            Like

    • boscatar says:

      Texas will look to move eastwards to the B1G or ACC before they land in the PAC. The PAC 12 really doesn’t have many expansion options at this point (and is content with this) – unless UNLV somehow manages to become relevant in football or the Boise and Albuquerque areas amazingly grow into hot markets.

      Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together spread a small market way too thin. They would not be able stay together in an expansion scenario. But that’s okay, because I could see Texas, TTech, Oklahoma, and Kansas St. to the ACC if Oklahoma goes to the SEC and Kansas to the Big Ten.

      WVU, TCU, Baylor, and Iowa St. would be left to scramble. May be the ACC would take WVU and Iowa St. as well. TCU and Baylor would be headed for the AAC or MWC.

      Like

  44. ShockFX says:

    I’ll believe it 5 years after it happens, and not a moment before Michigan and Texas have played multiple in conference games that Texas+someone is in the conference.

    Why would schools like Wisconsin (which, along with Michigan, are the 2 most powerful in the B1G), Minnesota, and Illinois want to add Texas and Oklahoma and decimate their chances of winning the West division? For $10M more a year? They don’t need it. They already run substantially larger athletic departments than the BigXII and SEC with the money they have, which is only going to increase in 3 years anyway.

    I’m sure it’s a CFB conference fantasy commissioner’s wet dream to see 3 kings per side, but unless anyone here can tell me why Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois would benefit from importing the three strongest BigXII programs of the last 15 years to come beat them on a regular basis, while not playing Michigan/OSU/PSU/MSU who get to beat up on Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Maryland, then I will not believe in any further expansion westward at this time.

    Like

  45. gfunk says:

    I never thought I’d slightly advocate a 20 team BIG. But 4 pods of 5 teams and 9 conference games pretty much ensures every team plays each other within 3 years & a conference championship game can be determined with such a format. I’m not going to propose the teams at this point, but instead use a Michigan fan’s wish list on a OU board. He interestingly put Rice & Tulane in the equation. I dropped Tulane for UConn.

    Pod A: Rice, Tx, OU, KU and Neb

    Pod B: Iowa, Minny, Wisky, North, & Ill

    Pod C: MSU, Mi, Purdue, ND & IU

    Pod D: OSU, PSU, Rut, UConn and Md

    Clearly Pod B lacks one thing the other pods have: two or more national brands.

    Rice is interesting since they’re aren’t even the 5th best program in Tx, but they would make AAU purists happy, bring in top shelf academics, and give Tx an in-state rivalry, albeit a weak one. But hey now, Rice is a pretty damn good baseball team.

    Pod A would have no original BIG teams, thus I would consider swapping Neb and Iowa, and clearly Pod A has 3 national brands. Neb would be content with such a swap since they’re already in the BIG without OU, Tx and KU. I think they’d be happy knowing they get Tx and OU every 3 years and a possible matchup in a CCG, where it matters most. Plus, a Neb and Iowa swap would give Pod B nearly two national brands – Wisky is getting closer to national brand caliber – would possibly be there had they won the past 3 Rose Bowls.

    The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.

    In the above, could you imagine Pod A against Pod C or Pod D in a given year – damn that’s a lot of big time games for networks to salivate over.

    One big issue: no annual Mi-OSU game unless they meet in CCG’s . But what the heck, it was a Michigan fan’s proposal – I actually kind of like it.

    Like

    • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

      There’s no reason that the Big 20 couldn’t have a semi-final game for the conference in a home stadium of a higher ranked team. In that format, I don’t even think you’d need to pair up pods. Have each pod play itself…and then rotate through the other 15 teams somewhat randomly. Maximize the best TV games…maximize the rivalries. Minimize the duds…minimize the teams with no connections/history.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      One big issue: no annual Mi-OSU game unless they meet in CCG’s . But what the heck, it was a Michigan fan’s proposal – I actually kind of like it.

      Michigan and OSU both have millions of fans, so just about every dumb idea is going to be proposed by somebody. Once you start organizing pods that make sense, it becomes a lot more difficult.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      I’m not sure which of your ideas is more nuts — Connecticut in the Big Ten (get over it, it’s not happening) or not having Ohio State-Michigan as the season finale. Regardless, your plan has no way in hell of happening.

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        It’s a light endorsement of a Michigan fan’s idea on an OU board. I like UConn – get over it. They’re a great basketball school & absolutely the best men’s and women’s punch in the nation. And like your school, they sit in a state filled with talented k-12 students (I believe you’re a Md fan). UConn is certainly trending as a destination public school for the Northeast. But, at the end of the day, I’m actually quite optimistic with the BIG @ 14 for the long term. PS No one needs to waste their time citing UConn’s football product, I get it. But if they’re lumped with OU and Tx, I’m fine. They’ll pull their weight in other sports, esp basketball.

        Like

      • ZSchroeder says:

        Rice in the Big10 isn’t the nuttiest part?

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Pretty funny post about Rice in the Big 10………oh wait, you’re serious?

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        For you to even pose the question is borderline, well I can’t say. Much of this expansion talk has been what it is: perfect for an alias world of semi-delusion. Just enjoy what you can, I do. I generally back off when people star posting non-facts disguised in pseudo-intellectualism.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      gfunk,

      “Pod A: Rice, Tx, OU, KU and Neb

      Pod B: Iowa, Minny, Wisky, North, & Ill

      Pod C: MSU, Mi, Purdue, ND & IU

      Pod D: OSU, PSU, Rut, UConn and Md

      Clearly Pod B lacks one thing the other pods have: two or more national brands.

      Rice is interesting since they’re aren’t even the 5th best program in Tx, but they would make AAU purists happy, bring in top shelf academics, and give Tx an in-state rivalry, albeit a weak one. But hey now, Rice is a pretty damn good baseball team.”

      Rice is not joining the B10, and I doubt ND is either.

      “Pod A would have no original BIG teams, thus I would consider swapping Neb and Iowa, and clearly Pod A has 3 national brands. Neb would be content with such a swap since they’re already in the BIG without OU, Tx and KU. I think they’d be happy knowing they get Tx and OU every 3 years and a possible matchup in a CCG, where it matters most. Plus, a Neb and Iowa swap would give Pod B nearly two national brands – Wisky is getting closer to national brand caliber – would possibly be there had they won the past 3 Rose Bowls.”

      No, NE would be very upset to be in a conference with OU and not play them annually again.

      “The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.”

      OSU/MI? NE/OU?

      Pods of 5 can be tough unless schools in the right places are added. 4 in the west and 2 in the east works fine. 3 and 3 stinks.

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        Brian

        You are beyond entertaining because you’re incapable of detecting the less serious and often satirical angles of my some of my posts, esp this one, which was somewhat clear from the onset. You do realize I was merely posting much of what a claimed Michigan fan wrote on an OU board. As usual, I love the quotes then merely pure opinions on your part, though you sometimes speak as if factual and all knowing – I’ll just call it inexplicable confidence on your part. For example, and I could do this with every single one of your past rebuttals.

        “The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.” (my observation of a Mi fan’s post on an OU board).

        OSU/MI? NE/OU? (your response, as if I’m some fool who doesn’t pay attention to details.)

        What do you not understand about the following words from my post: “nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved” – clearly I didn’t say all and I definitely made a point of the Mi-OSU game, as well as the OU-Neb game within the same post. Did you ever take college logic? “Nearly” and “every” being the clues. Now chew on this, Neb is already in the BIG, thus they have already given up on the OU rivalry for the time being & when they were in the Big12 they were not in the same division as OU – Big 8, different story. They in fact did not play OU annually on at least 4 occasions during their Big12 membership (I could be off a game here). And yet again, I must remind you my post was primarily based off of another person’s post.

        Also consider the following, as if the above expansion of a 20-team BIG were to actually happen (slim chance). If say the era of super-conferences were upon us and God forbid a fair-minded 8 team playoff, then this BIG @ 20 will be brutal for even the kings – so be it I guess. So it’s fair to ask why a Pod would have Tx, OU, and Neb together – those 3 have 4.5 NCs between them since the early 90s – twice as many as the BIG, actual membership, and that’s going back 40 plus years for the BIG. Do you really want to compare AP NC’s between the BIG @ 10 vs Tx, OU, and Neb since 1970? Thus, I’d be pretty pissed as an AD of OU, Tx or Neb if the BIG were to lump us in the same pod while other kings were at two or less per pod. It’s fair to consider that these teams would like a shot at the playoffs and prefer to go for such a bid against another king in a potential CCG, as opposed to being knocked out during the regular season.

        As for the Mi-OSU game, again, I made it pretty clear I was surprised by the Mi fan’s proposal – last statement – so why even nitpick – really. But in all honesty, this game means less and less to me, esp after the hype in 2006 – both were embarrassed in their following BCS games & badly.

        As for your statement: “Rice is not joining the B10, and I doubt ND is either.” Waste of breath on your part. Had I posted a BIG@20 on my strict behalf, neither Rice nor ND would be on my wish list, esp ND. As far as I’m concerned, ND can go eat a box of d_ _ ks. I grew tired of their shenanigans long ago, their BCS performances have been God awful, which suggests hype rather than reality scored their bids. Moreover, I do think their indie status has partially prevented a playoff until now & their impact on the Big East’s demise is duly noted. Throw in the fact that they pretend to be an island within Indiana, when everyone in the Rust Belt and Midwest knows South Bend is a bona fide Rust Belt city – a shit hole in many places.

        I enjoy some of your posts, but as I’ve said in the past, at times you are way too serious for me & you have a truly stubborn, almost condescending tone in your responses – almost as if “how dare you think such . . . so let me (Brian the wizard) enlighten you”. You’re a bit opinionated and you teeter on arrogance, which is quite ridiculous when it comes to discussions related to expansion. None of us on here really knows what’s going on in the back offices of these conferences, and neither does much of the national media unless they are reporting an actual forthcoming expansion. It’s entertainment for me, a bit like a buying a lottery ticket or going to the casino. I’ve said in the past I’m fine with a BIG @ 14 and even the current BIG @ 12. I was certainly a critic of the BIG @11 because of the lack of a CCG. Now please deconstruct via your more than annoying methodology of quotes then subsequent so-called expert opinion (not all the time) – you have plenty of statements here : ). I’ve warned you in the past that reification hardly works with me, esp this topic, and your obvious lack of actual, substantiating facts from true sources don’t work either. I don’t expect much on a sports board – truly towards the back of daily priorities – so lighten up! This post was overdue.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          As far as I’m concerned, ND can go eat a box of d_ _ ks. I grew tired of their shenanigans long ago, their BCS performances have been God awful, which suggests hype rather than reality scored their bids.

          BCS bowls care about selling tickets…and ND sells tickets. That is why a major bowl will always select ND over almost anyone, if the rules in effect allow them to be selected.

          Moreover, I do think their indie status has partially prevented a playoff until now & their impact on the Big East’s demise is duly noted.

          ND didn’t prevent a playoff. The staunchest opponents were a bunch of university presidents, especially in the Big Ten and Pac-12, because they were trying to protect the Rose Bowl. If ND opposed it, they were merely one of many.

          Notre Dame had very little to do with the Big East’s demise. Obviously, their departure was one of many body blows to that conference. But if you’re going to “blame” any school, you need to “blame” all of those that left: BC, VT, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Rutgers, to say nothing of those who would have left, if only a better offer had come along (Cincy, UConn). And unlike ND, the rest of those who left were full members.

          Personally, I wouldn’t blame any of them, as they were simply looking out for themselves, as any athletic department should. Really, what killed the Big East was the lack of football kings in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states. They thought of themselves as a basketball-first league, and hence turned down the one bona fide football king, Penn State, that they could have had. VT and Miami were members for a while, but geographically those schools are a better fit in the ACC, so when they had the chance to jump, they did.

          Throw in the fact that they pretend to be an island within Indiana, when everyone in the Rust Belt and Midwest knows South Bend is a bona fide Rust Belt city – a shit hole in many places.

          All Notre Dame does is make the best of the hand they’ve been dealt. I don’t resent them for being good at it. The attractiveness of South Bend is not the school’s best asset, so they don’t emphasize it. If you were running the place, you wouldn’t either.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            Marc, no offense but let’s agree to disagree. I’m sure my Pops and deceased Grandpas aren’t happy w/my negative ND statements (all three attended, but only my father didn’t graduate – he opted for a transfer to little St. Mary’s in Winona, MN then the Vietnam War), nor my humungous Catholic family, here, Vietnam and Malaysia of all places (wife’s family).

            Like

        • BuckeyeBeau says:

          @gfunk (and Brian):

          Hmm… dangerous to comment here, but … wth (and interestingly, MS avoided the main thrust and reacted to the ND component of your post).

          gFunk, I agree with much that you say re: Brian’s postings, particularly concerning methodology. A textual analysis of message board comments seems overdone and unnecessary. Seriously, we are not dealing with the Bible or the Constitution here. I admit to being surprised that so many have followed Brian and have adopted that methodology. I further admit to wanting, on occasion, to post a multi-worded post directed at Brian for various at-this-time-to-be-left-unnamed failings.

          But, having said that, Brian’s posts add a lot to this Board. His methodology adds a lot of content that can be/has been interesting and entertaining. And I have occasionally indulged in a Brian-esque textual decomposition of someone else’s post. It can be fun. Further, IMO, he has a good eye for articles and links and topics. Yes, he can sound as though he knows it all, but that is hardly unique to Brian (or others on this Board or any other including myself).

          Bottom line: Brian is not trolling us. Consequently, “sandbox rules” apply. Get along; and if not, move to the opposite corner. Don’t respond to him; hopefully he won’t respond to you. Simple.

          All that being said, IMO, you add a lot of value to the Board too. So (not that you need my permission), I hope you will keep adding your input even if you find a few other commentators to be aggravating.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            BuckeyeBeau,

            “gFunk, I agree with much that you say re: Brian’s postings, particularly concerning methodology. A textual analysis of message board comments seems overdone and unnecessary. Seriously, we are not dealing with the Bible or the Constitution here. I admit to being surprised that so many have followed Brian and have adopted that methodology.”

            There’s a method to the madness. The reasons I’ll break out a post chunk by chunk (off the top of my head):

            1. I want to be clear about which part of their comment I’m directing a certain statement towards. That’s can be especially helpful when responding to long comments. Before I did that, I would occasionally get someone asking which part of what they said I was replying to, or they would deny what i was saying applied to anything they wrote. I found it to be more clear if I broke it down. I don’t do it to annoy.

            2. It’s long and/or it switches from point to point or topic to topic. The shorter chunks provide better context for my replies, IMO.

            3. In the middle of a larger point, the person makes statement I want to comment on specifically. For example, if someone is factually wrong in the middle of an argument and i just want to correct the statement and not engage in the bigger discussion. Or in the middle of an argument I might otherwise agree with, there is one particular part that I feel needs addressing.

            4. I rarely waste my time just agreeing with things. If you’ve already said it and I agree, why copy it and then say “Me, too” or something similar? That just wastes space. Thus, I edit out the parts I’m not going to add anything to.

            5. I’ll snip out large chunks that I don’t want to respond to in general. Maybe I agree, maybe I don’t, or maybe I just don’t care. That leaves just the parts I want to discuss further.

            6. I just quote the things for context. I want to respond to something they said but I don’t see the need to copy everything, just enough so everyone knows what was being discussed.

            In general, I think people that use this method largely do it for clarity. Especially since some/many of us have been known to make long comments, it can be helpful to trim the fat so to speak when replying. It may also be a vestige of my early days on the internet and not something other people are used to. Oh well.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            Thanks BuckeyeBeau. On the other hand, Brian often makes points I can appreciate and I’m sure the three of us, in person, would have a blast. Brian, you are a “textual analysis” fiend – good for you, but I’ve withdrawn from my anthropology days : ).

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            BuckeyeBeau,

            Clarification to my response post: yes, Brian does make good points and his passion is commendable. Maybe he’s a BIG insider throwing necessary curveballs here and there to keep the data honest : ).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “Maybe he’s a BIG insider throwing necessary curveballs here and there to keep the data honest : ).”

            Only if one can become an insider by being so far outside that you wrap around to being inside. Heck, I haven’t even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            (I think this mini-thread is long done and in the past, but in case you and gFunk come back to it…)

            @Brian:

            re: your six (off the top of your head) reasons for the textual methodology: Fair enough. Clarity is an excellent goal.

            However, I just remember quite some time back we had an exchange and, at one point, you mentioned/accused/whatever me of not responding to half the points you made. (That is a paraphrase, of course.)

            I did not like the suggestion that somehow my response was less valid because I did not use a textual methodology.

            In my view, not every sentence in every post needs a response. And, as you say, many posts have many points and may or may not be well organized with topic sentences and neat paragraphs (which is a function of, among other things, busy schedules, no Professor grading us here and no edit function, etc.)

            I often only want to respond to a piece or a sentence.

            Moreover, let’s also admit that using a textual methodology requires a high level of writing skill. I have noticed that some use the method, but don’t use it very well.

            Anyway, as noted, the methodology can be useful and entertaining, but I wanted to offer the counter-thought that the methodology may not be suited for every writer and/or for every comment and/or for every sentence in every comment.

            Also, love the idea of being an insider by being so outside as to wrap around and, thus, be an insider. LOL

            @gFunk. yeah, we three would probably get along famously in person.

            a lot of facial and body language is lost on the internet and a lot of that helps reduce antagonisms. In person, it is easy enough to tell if someone is getting agitated and then easy enough to switch gears or turn off to another topic.

            and, unless we’re taking a deposition or interrogating someone or in a press conference, none of us use a textual methodology when talking face-to-face. and very few of us (tho’ I have been known to do it) give 400 word soliloquies. LOL

            ciao and peace.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BuckeyeBeau,

            “(I think this mini-thread is long done and in the past, but in case you and gFunk come back to it…)”

            I think it’s over, too. But you never know.

            “However, I just remember quite some time back we had an exchange and, at one point, you mentioned/accused/whatever me of not responding to half the points you made. (That is a paraphrase, of course.)

            I did not like the suggestion that somehow my response was less valid because I did not use a textual methodology.”

            I have no recollection of this whatsoever. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t recall it. It wouldn’t have been a complaint about methodology though. I don’t really care if someone quotes me or not, or whether they respond piece by piece or all at once below. It would’ve been that I felt you skipped several of my points but claimed to have fully rebutted my argument or somesuch thing. But like I say, I don’t remember the discussion in question so I can’t be specific.

            “In my view, not every sentence in every post needs a response. And, as you say, many posts have many points and may or may not be well organized with topic sentences and neat paragraphs (which is a function of, among other things, busy schedules, no Professor grading us here and no edit function, etc.)

            I often only want to respond to a piece or a sentence.”

            I fully agree.

            “Anyway, as noted, the methodology can be useful and entertaining, but I wanted to offer the counter-thought that the methodology may not be suited for every writer and/or for every comment and/or for every sentence in every comment.”

            Very true. Everyone should use their own style, and the chosen style may vary for good reasons.

            “Also, love the idea of being an insider by being so outside as to wrap around and, thus, be an insider. LOL”

            It’s my best shot at insider status.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          gfunk,

          “you’re incapable of detecting the less serious and often satirical angles of my some of my posts, esp this one, which was somewhat clear from the onset.”

          Have you ever noticed that you often have to point out to multiple people that reply to your comments and explain that you were kidding/satirical/etc? Plenty of people seriously propose ridiculous ideas on the internet. How should we know when you’re kidding? From the responses, it’s obvious that you aren’t making it clear when you aren’t serious versus when you are even if you think you are being clear about it.

          “You do realize I was merely posting much of what a claimed Michigan fan wrote on an OU board.”

          Yes, I can read. No part of that indicates a lack of being serious.

          “For example, and I could do this with every single one of your past rebuttals.”

          Help yourself.

          “The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.” (my observation of a Mi fan’s post on an OU board).

          OSU/MI? NE/OU? (your response, as if I’m some fool who doesn’t pay attention to details.)

          What do you not understand about the following words from my post: “nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved” – clearly I didn’t say all and I definitely made a point of the Mi-OSU game, as well as the OU-Neb game within the same post.

          Those are two of the three biggest rivalries in that entire conference. It makes no sense to compliment the preservation of rivalries when they whiffed on the biggest of them unless you qualified it first by pointing out the gaping flaws in the plan.

          “Also consider the following, as if the above expansion of a 20-team BIG were to actually happen (slim chance). If say the era of super-conferences were upon us and God forbid a fair-minded 8 team playoff, then this BIG @ 20 will be brutal for even the kings – so be it I guess.”

          I don’t think it’s be that much harder. There are still a lot of average teams in that B20. 6 kings in 20 teams isn’t much different from 3 in 11 (B10 with PSU), 3 in 12 or 2 in 10 with 9 games (B12 with and without NE).

          “So it’s fair to ask why a Pod would have Tx, OU, and Neb together”

          Sure it is, and the answer is fairly obvious.

          “Thus, I’d be pretty pissed as an AD of OU, Tx or Neb if the BIG were to lump us in the same pod while other kings were at two or less per pod.”

          You play in a division, not just a pod. I’d lean towards 2 harder pods as anchors to make sure each division has enough brand power and just rotate the other 2 pods.

          “It’s fair to consider that these teams would like a shot at the playoffs and prefer to go for such a bid against another king in a potential CCG, as opposed to being knocked out during the regular season.”

          So the B10 would never put 3 kings together to make that more difficult? Have you seen the East division plan?

          “As for the Mi-OSU game, again, I made it pretty clear I was surprised by the Mi fan’s proposal – last statement – so why even nitpick – really. But in all honesty, this game means less and less to me, esp after the hype in 2006 – both were embarrassed in their following BCS games & badly.”

          What it means to you (or any other individual fan) is inconsequential. You’re a hoops fan first and foremost anyway. OSU/MI is the most valuable game in the B10’s inventory and one of the most valuable in the country.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            You are absolutely right in ever single point you’ve made. In other words, I’m done w/the back n forth with you, but in a respectful way mind you. I’ve generally let it go & now I’m making it official. And to make myself more clear: I can’t ever stop your right to speak freely, nor am I even remotely interested in it – those are your sacred rights, among others.

            One more reality to digest & this applies to all college football fans – super conferences and a playoff will continue to alter traditions – it’s simply part of the process. I suppose I can adapt as a fan.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “In other words, I’m done w/the back n forth with you, but in a respectful way mind you. I’ve generally let it go & now I’m making it official.”

            You don’t have to agree with me in order to stop discussing it. You can just stop, or say you still disagree but not otherwise respond. No matter which course you take, it isn’t disrespectful unless you start calling me names.

            “And to make myself more clear: I can’t ever stop your right to speak freely, nor am I even remotely interested in it – those are your sacred rights, among others.”

            I never thought you were trying to stifle me, and would be even less inclined to think you were trying that since you’re a vet. People can reasonably disagree on almost any non-factual issue and it isn’t offensive (at least it isn’t to me).

            Like

  46. Transic says:

    Texas and Oklahoma separate. Both separate from Kansas. That’s how the break-up of the Big XII starts.

    Texas gets to bring its Texas-based rivals to another conference. Where? The ACC. That’s right! Swofford’s conference pulls another rabbit out of the hat and brings in the flagship of a fast-growing state plus a few of its old Big 12 rivals. Oklahoma will use the opportunity to suck up to A&M and get a coveted spot in the SEC. Now the SEC finally gets a coveted football king and doesn’t have to deal with Texas the second time. 2 for 2. Oklahoma State, having been shut out of the SEC, reacts by separating themselves from OU and goes with Texas to the ACC. Thus we have a Texahoma pod, but without OU.

    Kansas and UConn bring in their basketball acumen to the B1G ten. Penn State gets its own Eastern pod to play with, and they’d be in the playoffs more often than not. Nebraska and Iowa would battle it out in their own pod, with Minny and KU occasionally pretending to compete in football. Wisconsin, NW, Michigan State and Indiana is the third pod. Finally, Illinois, OSU, UM and Purdue is the fourth pod.

    B1G West: UNL,KU,IA,MN
    B1G North: UW,MSU,NW,IU
    B1G Central: OSU,UM,PU,IL
    B1G East: PSU,RU,UMD,UCONN

    SEC

    Pod A: OU,A&M,LSU,Ark
    Pod B: MO,KY,VU,WVU
    Pod C: UT,Bama,Miss St,Ole Miss
    Pod D: UGA,UF,Aub,S.Carolina

    ACC

    Pod A: Texas,TT,BU,TCU,OSU
    Pod B: FSU,Miami,GT,Clem,Wake
    Pod C: UNC,Duke,NCSU,VT,UVa
    Pod D: Ville,Cincy,Pitt,Cuse,BC

    ND remains partial

    PAC stays the same

    AAC

    ISU
    KSU
    Tulsa
    Tulane
    Houston
    SMU
    Memphis

    Temple
    ECU
    USF
    UCF
    Navy
    Buffalo
    UMass

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I could see TX in the ACC with a ND-like special deal….not otherwise.

      As for OK St to the ACC….I can’t imagine more schools ACC purists would be LESS interested in………….now Kansas……possibly.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Transic,

      I disagree with much of this, but I’ll focus on the pods.

      “B1G West: UNL,KU,IA,MN
      B1G North: UW,MSU,NW,IU
      B1G Central: OSU,UM,PU,IL
      B1G East: PSU,RU,UMD,UCONN”

      The B10 wouldn’t split rivalries like that. It leaves too many games to lock.

      A – WI, IA, MN, NW
      B – NE, KU, PU, IN
      C – OSU, MI, MSU, IL
      D – PSU, UConn, RU, UMD

      Only NW/IL needs to be locked here, but the balance is weak. Divisions are much simpler.

      Like

  47. The ACC can hold back money from us because THEY get the money first from ESPN/RAYCOM/FOX etc. So when we left and are IN the conference they can hold it back.

    However, how in the hell would enforce a GOR if say Oklahoma and Virginia joined the Big Ten next year? Their money would be paid out through the Big 10. The ACC and Big12 could sue, but it’s not like they would be holding back the money, they would only state the GOR entitles them to the money.

    And as we all know possession is nine tenths of the law. At that point, from the information above would the ACC and Big12 want to get into a long term lawsuit with the Big Ten?

    Like

  48. David Brown says:

    Why would the B10 want Connecticut? This is an example of subtraction by addition (I would even take Kansas State, Cincinnati or Iowa State over the Huskies). Why? They bring nothing as far as added income, the TV Market, Geography, Football or Rivalries are concerned. If the B10 wanted such a program, they could have grabbed Pitt (before the GOR was signed). At least the Panthers bring Geography and rivalries (Ohio State and especially Penn State) to the table, and I am sure they would have jumped to the B10 in a nanosecond. Why? Anyone familiar with Pitt knows they would be happier in the B10 over the ACC. Basically, there is no doubt that the Pitt fans will be miserable not seeing West Virginia or Penn State for the next several years, and the only people more upset, will be the Athletic Department who know that except for the Notre Dame game (November 9th), and perhaps Week 1 versus Florida State, they are not drawing flies to Heinz Field.
    The logical solution (and based on Historical Precedent, the one I expect from the Conference), is to wait until the right School becomes available. That is what they did when it came to Football (and to a lesser extent Basketball) expansion (accepting an uneven amount of teams until Nebraska became available) and Hockey (waiting for Penn State to move up to Division 1 before creating a Big 10 Conference) . I admit they acted differently when it came to Johns Hopkins, Maryland & Rutgers, but they felt the financial opportunity was so great, perhaps in the hundreds of millions to each School (CIC Research $$$$ (Hopkins), and TV Market $$$$ (Maryland & Rutgers)), they decided to take the risk and add them. Basically, if a University cannot bring something exceptional to the table (such as what Texas, Oklahoma or North Carolina could offer ), they are not being invited to the B10.

    Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      I think some forget that expansion has primarily been about money for the Big Ten. Any further expansion will be about money too.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Yet the B10 turned down a school because their academics was not up to par. Money matters, but for the B10, it’s not money at all costs.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Hint: there is more money in academics than in athletics.

          Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          They did reportedly turn down a school for academics but has there been any confirmation who it was? It could have been Uconn. It could have been FSU. It could have been West Virginia or Louisville. They said they turned down a school for acedemics but it also could have been a school that didn’t bring enough money to the table for the conference either.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            We will never know who they turned down, nor truly validate if such was the case. Let’s leave it alone – Brian has cited this rumor in the past as if he’s speaking fact.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Uh, Barry Alvarez cited this in the past as if he was speaking fact.

            It’s crazy how easily some people rationalize away evidence that doesn’t support their pet cause.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            I call BS Richard, Alvarez or not. Give me official BIG documentation or call it a day. I have no “pet cause” here other than routine entertainment and poker style odds.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            You provided evidence for my assertion:
            “It’s crazy how easily some people rationalize away evidence that doesn’t support their pet cause.”

            But hey, if you want to call Alvarez a liar, go right ahead (at least one journalist has documented that he said that). I have no dog in this fight.

            Oh, and there would be no official documentation for something that didn’t lead to an invite. Think about it. What type of official documentation would exist? Don’t be stupid.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Why would the B10 want Connecticut? This is an example of subtraction by addition (I would even take Kansas State, Cincinnati or Iowa State over the Huskies). Why? They bring nothing as far as added income, the TV Market, Geography, Football or Rivalries are concerned.

      Connecticut isn’t a great market, but at least it’s a market the Big Ten doesn’t have. Gun to head (which of course is not the case), they’d prefer UConn over Cincinnati, which totally duplicates a market they already own. And although neither is anywhere near AAU status, UConn is at least a state flagship school; UC is not. But of course, they’re not taking any of the above.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        We do not disagree as far as Connecticut is concerned (They have no chance of joining the Big 10 (nor does Iowa State, Kansas State or Cincinnati for that matter)). We also do not disagree that Academics matter in the B10 far more than say the SEC, so this is just semantics. The B10 will simply wait and see if a University like Texas becomes available.

        Like

        • gfunk says:

          I find it arrogant that people overlook a school that has combined for 11 basketball nc’s (m & w) the past 20 years. UConn’s men’s program has as many NC’s as the entire BIG in the modern era. Some assume they’ll hit the gutter now that Calhoun is gone – I say BS. 3 NC’s not only solidifies a rock solid foundation – it forever stays in the history books. Basketball’s value should never be overlooked. Football, on the other hand, could hit certain walls – I’m noticing increasing dislike for this sport & if the SEC continues to dominate and no true playoff system beyond 4 teams manifests – I’m done with it.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            The AAC will have nowhere the visibility of the old Big East, and Connecticut’s basketball programs (both Calhoun’s sullied legacy and Geno’s evil empire) slowly will wither on the vine, especially after Louisville and Rutgers bid adieu. And I haven’t even brought up AAC football, essentially an upscale version of C-USA.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            VP you’re cracking me up. I’d embrace a UConn-Md hoops rivalry & it would be quite heated on both ends, both sexes. The soccer rivarly would be intense as well. I get your lacrosse angle. I think, no quantitative proof, that UConn is better suited to capture NYC than Syracuse.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I find it arrogant that people overlook a school that has combined for 11 basketball nc’s (m & w) the past 20 years.

            It’s nothing personal. Football drives realignment. Of all the moves the Big Five leagues have made, how many were for basketball?

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            @ Marc, not enough!

            Like

    • cutter says:

      There seems to be an odd battle for the hearts and minds of New Yorkers between the Big Ten and the ACC right now. Both conferences are playing in the Pinstripe Bowl. The B1G is looking at placing an office in the east–probably in NYC. The ACC just had their most recent media event there, including an appearance at the exchange. Each conference is looking at playing basketball games in the NYC metropolitan area as well.

      My assessment on this is that they’re looking at the demographic numbers and seeing if they can get the city and the state into their camp. The ACC made it plain ten years ago when they planned on adding Syracuse along with Boston College to the conference that they wanted a strong presence along the East Coast. While that plan was only partially borne out when Virginia Tech squeezed out SU, it’s now come back to fruition again with the additions of Pittsburgh and having Notre Dame in the ACC as a football semi-independent.

      In the meantime, the Big Ten has added Maryland and Rutgers and planted their flag in the DC-Baltimore-Philadelphia-NJ-NYC corridor. Adding UConn to that mix would point to a strategy of trying to appeal to the NYC/NE demographic.

      Now if you agree with that strategy or not is another matter. We’ve delved into the numbers regarding the relative popularity of college sports in those areas and it’s certainly not the same as Tuscaloosa, AL. So if the Big Ten were to add UConn, then it’d be an investment into a strategy of becoming popular in more metropolitan areas along the eastern seabooard.

      We’ll see what happens. The Big Ten has made it clear that they’re interested in demographics, population growth, etc. I don’t know if the case study for UConn is good or not, but unless the ACC or B12 GOR is successfully challenged, there may not be too many options for another 15 years or so.

      Could the Big Ten wait that long? Perhaps. After all, the conference was at 11 members for over two decades before going to 12 and now 14 in short order. There are the new television contracts that will be up for negotiation in a couple of years, so that may be a catalyst for further change (something Dennis Dodd is suggesting). Coupled with that is the emerging prospect of a new NCAA Division 4 being created. Is there a reason or opportunity for the Big Ten to go to 16 or more members if such a division were to emerge?

      The Big Ten has been vetting schools for years now, so it does have the ability to move quickly on any sort of future agreement (provided the existing members of the conference agree). I have to imagine they have a larger strategy guided by television revenue, academic credentials, etc. that they want to pursue going forward. The environment that collegiate athletics has changed since Delany first talked about expanding the conference. Between the possibility of Division 4 and the O’Bannon lawsuit, the prospect for some major restructuring is out there.

      Like

      • Psuhockey says:

        The battle for New York will be an interesting one to watch. The BIG has the advantage with football as they have one of the top 2 brands in that area in PSU plus bringing UM, OSU into Rutgers every year is a pretty good stragedy. Notre Dame would help the ACC considerably if it was a full member. The ACC has an advantage with basketball with Syracuse, Duke, and UNC but I would be curious as to how much of a push the ACC will make into New York is it is at the expense of time spent in North Carolina, which has traditionally been the epicenter of the conference.

        Like

        • cutter says:

          Michigan played a couple of basketball games at the NIT Tip Off Classic at Madison Square Garden (Kansas State and Pittsburgh) with one more game in Brooklyn against West Virginia last year.

          The Wolverines are schedule to play in Brooklyn next season against Stanford, although the date hasn’t been confirmed. I don’t know how many other B1G teams are looking to play in the NYC metropolitan area, but it certainly looks like that’s part of Michigan’s scheduling strategy (which I can easily assume also has the endorsement of the Big Ten).

          As Psuhockey mentioned, it’s no surprise to anyone that Michigan and Ohio State joined Penn State in the Big Ten East Division for football either. It’s a clear decision made to bring as many brand names into the mid-Atlantic region as possible. And FWIW, UM is playing at UConn’s stadium this year on 9/21 as part of a home-and-home series agreement (the Huskies agreed to play in Ann Arbor for the stadium re-dedication game a few years back. UM AD David Brandon wanted to get it moved to the new stadium in the Meadowlands region, but Connecticut said no in large part because Rentschler Field was paid for by the state’s taxpayers and is actually owned by the state government.

          I’m really hard pressed to make a case for adding Connecticut into the Big Ten though. It’s not a member of the AAU and while it has name brand basketball (although I wonder about the future of the men’s program), it’s not a major force in football (despite the one BCS bowl appearance). I don’t know if they add many eyes for television and as was noted above, New England isn’t exactly a hotbed for college sports.

          I suppose much the same could be said for Rutgers (except for the AAU status). A “good” football program, but no real basketball presence, but in a coveted location. Does UConn do the same for the Big Ten? If yes, would they be one of two (or four) programs the conference would likely add? I really don’t think so, but again, what else is available?

          I suppose I could be surprised–goodness know I was surprised about Maryland and Rutgers although we were all aware that they had been vetted and were potential additions to the conference. Would UConn make sense if it was coupled with a school (or three schools out west)? Would Connectict Plus One be an interim step to a larger conference with 18 or 20 members (possibly in a Division 4 setup)?

          Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            Without AAU membership, Uconn isn’t coming to the BIG because it does add enough. If some around doubt Oklahoma would get in without AAU membership, I don’t see how a case for Uconn can be made,

            Like

      • vp19 says:

        The Big Ten would sooner wait for Syracuse to regain its AAU status (not likely unless SU began to seriously emphasize graduate studies and research, which it might have difficulty doing in SUNY country) than invite Connecticut. SU remains more of a brand name and better fits the Big Ten “old money” identity than does nouveau riche UConn.

        Like

        • gfunk says:

          I disagree. UConn’s potential is higher & damn if they haven’t been a better basketball program, both sexes, & they have a hockey team in a state that is increasingly improving its prep hockey culture. I’d much rather pass through NYC then on to Storrs than Syracuse.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            SU still has far more of a football pedigree than Connecticut does, and Orange lacrosse> Husky hockey.

            Like

          • David Brown says:

            I think UConn has more potential then Syracuse (SU is in a declining market, NOT a flagship University, an aging facility (The Carrier Dome), and being trapped in the ACC GOR)), but both of them are potentially inferior to Boston College. If over the next two decades, BC would decide to invest the necessary $$$$$$$$ in the athletic facilities and bringing the Academics up to an AAU level) the way they could (the Boston Market and Ice Hockey are major things in their favor). The point is I see NONE of those Schools as making sense for the B10.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Agree. Why the Big 10 wouldn’t push for the biggest of possible adds is beyond me. Why take UConn when Texas is in play? At least until Texas is 100% not in play.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            U Conn’s a better fit than Syracuse, but neither is a great choice for the Big 10.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            Let me be clear, I see UConn but only in a package w/Tx-OU-KU if BIG @ 18 or 20 – to me it’s a no brainer. It makes the BIG the most powerful football-basketball conference – not even close in my opinion, though once you separate the two sports and compare then start comparing difference you could argue the ACC for hoops, SEC for football – but only slight margins.. Outside of this package, UConn is a tough sell from the practical end. On a personal note, I’m a much bigger hoops fan than football – so UConn and KU would be enough for me. But I’ll side with practicality.

            Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Could the Big Ten wait that long? Perhaps. After all, the conference was at 11 members for over two decades before going to 12 and now 14 in short order. There are the new television contracts that will be up for negotiation in a couple of years, so that may be a catalyst for further change (something Dennis Dodd is suggesting).

        I don’t see the Big Ten making sub-optimal additions, just to get more schools before the TV contract is up for bid. They’re probably better off going in with the schools they have, and inserting a clause in the contract that allows for either side to re-open the deal if the composition of the conference changes. (Some leagues’ TV deals may already have such a clause.)

        Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          “I don’t see the Big Ten making sub-optimal additions”
          It is funny that there are those who said the BIG struck out here or settled for that or the GORs ended their plans, but I think the Big 10 has done everything it wanted to from the very beginning. They just did it in pieces on their timetable. If they are to expand again, I am sure they already have the additions in mind and will strike when the time is right whether that be next year or in 10 years.

          Like

        • cutter says:

          I largely agree with your premise that any new contract would have a condition in it calling for a renegotiation to take place if additional members are brought into the conference.

          I just think there are too many moving parts right now with Division 4 and the O’Bannon lawsuit in the background for the Big Ten to make a move prior to the next television contract. If their revenue projections are accurate, (around $42M in conference distributions in 2017), then some one would have to make one hell of a compelling case to add more schools to the conference that aren’t well branded and/or have the desired academic credentials.

          So yeah, if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and UConn all wanted in the Big Ten, I wouldn’t say no to any of them. Is that a likely scenario though? No, not really.

          Like

          • Tom says:

            I could see the B1G adding UConn, but not right now. As others have said, New England is probably the only part of the country that could literally care less about college sports. Connecticut is also a small, slow growing state that doesn’t produce much football talent. On the other hand, the league would then be home to 4 of New York’s top 5 college football fan bases, with Notre Dame being the lone exception.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            It Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and UConn were each available individually to the Big Ten, and no schools from the ACC that the Big Ten would want were available, then the Big Ten would take Texas and Kansas and call it a job well done despite the fact that there would indeed be those advocating for Oklahoma.

            How Oklahoma would get past the academically snobbiest would be if they were a package deal with Texas, where many an academic snob would hold their nose for Oklahoma to pluck a rose as sweet as Texas.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        cutter,

        I don’t think it’s a battle for NYC, but a battle for a chunk of NYC. NYC is more than big enough to split several ways, and the pros will always have the biggest chunk. The first priority is to make college sports in general more relevant in NYC, then to sway as many as possible to your particular flavor of college sports. It could easily split differently for FB and hoops, too.

        Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          NY is big enough for both being a distant 2nd to the pros, but will it support two conference networks? There will be fights to get one network on in that area let alone two. Without subscription fees (or a bump in tier 1/2 for audience in a that area) and thus financial benefit, being popular in NY means nothing.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Psuhockey,

            “NY is big enough for both being a distant 2nd to the pros, but will it support two conference networks?”

            That’s a good question. Based on how hard the RSN had to fight to get carriage, I’d guess the answer is no for now. That may change as more people cut the cord and the percentage of sports fans paying for cable/satellite goes up.

            “There will be fights to get one network on in that area let alone two. Without subscription fees (or a bump in tier 1/2 for audience in a that area) and thus financial benefit, being popular in NY means nothing.”

            If you turn NYC into even lukewarm college fans, that means a huge ratings bump. A ratings bump will lead to better future TV deals, more media coverage, more merchandise sales, more NYC students interested in your school, etc. That means more money even without lots of BTN revenue.

            Like

        • cutter says:

          Brian-

          I absolutely agree that given the current sports environment in NYC, college sports are largely going to play second fiddle in what is a very large metropolitan market.

          My hypothesis about the two conferences looking to increasing their exposure in this geographic area is based largely on past and current actions they’ve both taken and that I outlined above. If demographics and population are the drivers here and the Big Ten doesn’t have an opportunity to move into the southeast, then perhaps the new theatre of battle is now in the mid-Atlantic and northeast when it comes to B1G v. ACC (including NYC).

          We’ll see what happens. I’m particularly interested in the dynamic that is taking place on the television side. The Fox Entertainment Group has a 49% share of the Big Ten Network and News Corporation has an equally large share in the Yes! Network based in NYC. Fox Sports 1 (and FS2) are coming on line as a direct competitor to ESPN with coverage of B12, P12 and Conference USA football games on Saturdays, so they’re looking for content as well. Obviously, all these things touch on how CFB will be watched not only in the NYC area, but nationwide. That said, the intriguing part of this will be distribution in the NYC area, but also content, i.e., will we be seeing some college football related material on Yes! (outside of ND game rebroadcasts and ND/PSU coaches shows)?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            cutter,

            “I absolutely agree that given the current sports environment in NYC, college sports are largely going to play second fiddle in what is a very large metropolitan market.

            My hypothesis about the two conferences looking to increasing their exposure in this geographic area is based largely on past and current actions they’ve both taken and that I outlined above.”

            And I agree with you. I was just pointing out that I don’t think the two are fighting each other as much as fighting against NYC’s lack of interest in college sports. If the ACC makes college hoops bigger in NYC, that helps the B10 as well. Maybe the B10/ACC challenge will start to include some games in NYC in the future to help both sides. If B10 football makes CFB bigger in NYC, that trickles down to the ACC as well. Once it’s a solid college market, then they’ll start fighting each other more for dominance (largely in hoops – the B10 already has a sizable lead in CFB based on Silver’s numbers).

            “We’ll see what happens. I’m particularly interested in the dynamic that is taking place on the television side. The Fox Entertainment Group has a 49% share of the Big Ten Network and News Corporation has an equally large share in the Yes! Network based in NYC. Fox Sports 1 (and FS2) are coming on line as a direct competitor to ESPN with coverage of B12, P12 and Conference USA football games on Saturdays, so they’re looking for content as well. Obviously, all these things touch on how CFB will be watched not only in the NYC area, but nationwide. That said, the intriguing part of this will be distribution in the NYC area, but also content, i.e., will we be seeing some college football related material on Yes! (outside of ND game rebroadcasts and ND/PSU coaches shows)?”

            A lot of things are in flux. One clue will be the coverage maps for various games in the future. Will there still be regional coverage in any sport? If so, which games does NYC get?

            Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I think you’re wrong about Pitt and the ACC. I was on the Pitt board often prior to Pitt to the ACC, and many posters felt ACC was a better fit than the Big 10….Pitt’s a somewhat smaller school than most of the Big 10 teams…with a relatively small fan base and very solid academics…Pitt fits in very well with Syracuse, UNC, BC….very similiar in a lot of respects to U Conn, which is also probably a better fit for the ACC than the BIG.

      Like

      • Steve says:

        As a Pitt fan, I am excited that Pitt is in the ACC. I think the only real draw for us the BIG was the opportunity to relight the rivalry with PSU in a meaningful way. I think we all, on some level, miss the PSU and WVU rivalry. They were fun games. That being said Pitt has had some fun games with VT and Miami in the old BE days.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          @Steve,

          Based on Pitt’s history, it seems the ACC offers the biggest number of programs it has played historically. The glaring exceptions are West Virginia and Penn State. Otherwise, Pitt has played Syracuse going back many decades. Boston College was a common opponent when both were independent and was an annual opponent when both were in the Big East. Ditto for Miami. Even Louisville offers relative proximity and a short history as members of the Big East together for eight years. Notre Dame games actually will be reduced with Pitt as a member of the ACC, but not as much as they would if Pitt were in the Big Ten.

          As for the ACC schools further south, there’s less of a consistent history. On the other hand, there at least have been a handful of bowl games and regular season games in recent years between Pitt and ACC teams.

          Yes, the Big Ten would be a great landing spot for just about anyone because the Big Ten is just a juggernaut financially. But the ACC makes a lot of sense for Pitt.

          Like

          • Steve says:

            I thought about throwing Syracuse into the list, but I just don’t hate them. Not like WVU or PSU. Don’t know why, just don’t, and we have a long history with them. As I said earlier, I am extremely excited about Pitt starting play in the ACC this year.

            Like

        • David Brown says:

          Steve, the reason why Syracuse does not bother you, is they do not care about Football there (maybe Penn State, maybe), which is why a Pitt/SU Basketball Game in the Carrier Dome drew more people than Pitt/SU in Football that same season. Lets be honest, if you are a Panther fan, you want to open with West Virginia, end with Penn State, and have Ohio State and Michigan come to Heinz Field, and the ACC is a poor substitute for that (I understand this very well, because as a Nitt fan, I would love to end the Season versus Pitt). The biggest problems with Pitt is the failure to invest in the program (such as not having an On Campus Stadium), and not playing Penn State & West Virginia every year. Until they do both of those things, you will continue to see more Penguin fans than Panthers (even in Downtown Oakland).

          Like

          • Steve says:

            David – Totaly agree (never thought I would say that to a Nitt) with your comments especially that Pitt should play PSU and WVU every year and for the life of me can’t figure out why Pitt, PSU and WVU can’t get it done. These games are good for all programs. I loved PSU over Thanksgiving Weekend and the Brawl during rivalry week. There are now marquee northeast games anymore.

            Like

  49. largeR says:

    This is a good read on conference perception.
    http://espn.go.com/college-football/preview13/story/_/id/9560908/perceptions-bcs-conferences-real-imagined-college-football

    As far as B1G expansion; if it doesn’t include NC or TX, does it make sense? Certainly either one of them as a 15 with whomever, OU/KU or DU/UVa would be a no brainer IMO. And certainly either one of them in a four pack with OU/KU/?, and DU/UV/GT would be, again, a no brainer.

    Without either of those universities, UT or UNC, conceivably being available, KU and UVa would be a good add, but it’s extremely doubtful UVa is going anywhere without UNC. IMO, with the GORs, we have stopped for approximately 8 years, until the monetary differences amonst conferences is more defined.

    And, as far as UConn to the B1G; whoa!

    Like

    • Brian says:

      largeR,

      ESPN has a whole series of those articles today.

      http://espn.go.com/college-football/preview13/story/_/id/9563308/word-clouds-show-current-players-perceptions-different-college-football-conferences

      I like this word cloud article to quickly summarize what players think.

      Dominant phrases:
      ACC – FSU
      B10 – physical
      B12 – none (lots of phrases, all equal in size)
      P12 – OR, followed by speed and fast
      SEC – speed, followed by power and overrated

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9561203/college-football-transfers-share-their-impressions-playing-different-major-conferences

        This one interviews players who transferred between AQ leagues for their impressions. In general, they conclude that the differences are smaller than the media and fans make them out to be.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        There’s a different article from earlier that had a different tone than the words they put up in this article:

        “During conference media days a few weeks ago, ESPN polled anonymous players about what word or phrase comes to mind when they think of other conferences. They mostly played along with general fan perceptions.
        • ACC: Duke-North Carolina basketball … a step down from the SEC … underachieving.

        • Big Ten: Cold weather … a power conference … the running game … slow.

        • Big 12: Spread offenses … very fast, athletic guys … competitive.

        • Pac-12: Spread offenses … quick, smaller linemen … a 7-on-7 conference.

        • SEC: Defense … smashmouth … dominance … overrated.”

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I read that article, but I thought it ended with a few quotes from players who had transferred between conferences saying the differences were in external perception. Something fans and media want…a brief way to simplistically differentiate complex systems.

          Like

      • largeR says:

        @Brian
        Todays SVP and Rusillo is covering this to start the show. Unfortunately Reese ‘SEC’ Davis is sitting in for SVP.

        Like

        • largeR says:

          Reese calls the B1G “Isolationist by nature. They want their traditions, their way of life.”
          Rusillo defines the B1G as “Mad at the truth.”

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Reese calls the B1G “Isolationist by nature. They want their traditions, their way of life.”

            For lack of a better phrase, “Paul Harvey traditionalism,” as opposed to the “the Civil War never ended” mentality of the SEC or the “yeah, the Civil War ended, but frankly we don’t care — pass me the basketball” mentality of the ACC.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            largeR,

            “Reese calls the B1G “Isolationist by nature. They want their traditions, their way of life.””

            It’s true to say that the B10 wants it traditions. I just wouldn’t consider that isolationist. Considering our deep ties with the P12, including the attempted scheduling deal, isolationist is not accurate.

            “Rusillo defines the B1G as “Mad at the truth.””

            Which I also think is incorrect. I think the B10 is more disappointed with the present state of CFB than mad about it (wants more stress on student welfare, academics, etc and less of the obsession with NCs and playoffs), and certainly the B10 is OK with their financial place in CFB.

            Thanks for the update.

            Like

    • gfunk says:

      UNC, no thank you, really. What a pipe dream and the declarations of “sleeping football giant” are genuinely overstated. Do you realize how against the BIG most of their fans are? It’s supremely greater than the backlash Md alum and fans had & they don’t seem forgiving like Md fans. They’ve been king of the ACC for so long, though not in the football sense. And damn right I’m making generalizations.

      Like

      • Psuhockey says:

        Having lived in the triangle area and loved it, I would selfishly want them in the BIG for the sake of visiting. However, their football program will always be 2nd class because the fans don’t care. It all basketball all the time.

        There isn’t many valuable brands outside of the SEC or BIG west of the Rockies left for future expansion. UNC, UT, OU, and FSU are the top. UNC brings in the entire state of North Carolina while the others add much more. Without one of those four, I don’t think BIG expansion makes any sense financially to the conference. Not only would any addition have to pay for itself, but also add to the profit margins of 14 other schools. That is a heavy burden.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          The most common obvious statement. “Not only would any addition have to pay for itself, but also add to the profit margins of 14 other schools.” But does it have to pay for itself directly and immediately? Couldn’t value include projections, or the cost of allowing another conference to maintain/gain a property that does improve that conferences attractiveness or viability. Assume UNC doesn’t directly pay its way, but contributes to the ACC collapses some while later. What is the B1G leverage worth in a four power conference world rather than five? I’d bet it more than covers the difference in what UNCs simplistic estimated value lacks.

          (UNC chosen strictly as an example, not as a projection or favored scenario)

          Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            I was referring to schools like Duke, Kansas, and UVA. There is possible value in turning 5 power conferences into 4, but do these schools actually accomplish that? I don’t see any other schools besides that four that could one provide enough financial gain immediately or destroy their current conference by leaving. Now does adding Duke or UVA make UNC join? Does Kansas for Texas? I don’t know but there is a big risk they do not.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Psuhockey:

            I don’t think the B1G, or it’s members are in a position to absolutely require immediate increased return. That is one feature that differentiates the top conferences from the rest. Plus it’s not like your suggested schools are pure chopped liver. They would increase the footprint, and in the area the B1G has openly targeted.

            Like

          • Psuhockey says:

            Those schools are good schools and would increase the footprint, but there are limits to membership that needs to be considered. Does adding say Kansas now prevent adding Texas later? Does adding UVA push UNC to the SEC? Is the BIG willing to go above 16 schools? 20 schools? At what number does the conference stop being close knit?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Exactly. That is the calculus to be worked, not the simple “will the school immediately pay for itself plus some”.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Its as with the previous expansion ~ Rutgers got picked because Maryland was made available. If UNC became available, UNC/UVA makes sense, if Texas became available, Texas/Kansas or indeed Texas / UVA or Texas / Pitt makes sense. But no sense adding a 16th in advance of a 15th becoming available, because then you end up adding two 16th schools.

            Like

  50. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    CFN ranks all 125 FBS teams.

    http://cfn.scout.com/2/1315002.html

    Their rankings always go against conventional wisdom and this one is no exception. Here’s their top 25 by conference.

    SEC (9) – #1 Bama, #4 LSU, #6 A&M, #7 Georgia, #10 Florida, #15 South Carolina, #22 Ole Miss, #24 Mizzou, and #25 Miss State

    B1G (5) – #11 Ohio State, #13 Mich State, #18 Wisconsin, #21 Michigan, and #23 Nebraska

    B-XII (4) – #5 Texas, #9 Oklahoma, #16 OK State, and #20 TCU

    ACC (3) – #2 Florida State, #14 Clemson, and #17 VA Tech

    P-12 (3) – #3 Oregon, #8 Stanford, and #12 USC

    Like

    • bullet says:

      What goes against conventional wisdom in your opinion? Texas is a little higher than in most, but they are top 10 in some others and ranked everywhere. Mizzou is a little odd, but its only #24. Nothing else particularly stands out.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I question USC. They are just reaching the height of their scholarship penalties…and still have Kiffin.

        Like

      • Andy says:

        They correctly noticed that Mizzou was dealing with A LOT of injuries last year, so it’s very possible they’ll bounce back to their normal win level with players healthy again.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “What goes against conventional wisdom in your opinion?”

        OSU at #11. MS, MS St. and MO all top 25. FSU #2. USC #12.

        Like

        • Ross says:

          MSU sniffing the top 25 with that offense still amazes me. Sure, they may end there this year with a beneficial schedule, but I don’t buy them as the #13 team going into the season. Would you really take MSU over Clemson on a neutral site?

          Like

  51. vp19 says:

    The University of Maryland’s report on integrating the university into the Big Ten and CIC is out, and to the surprise of few aware of the situation, it probably will take College Park close to a decade before it can financially compete with the rest of the conference:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-athletics-continues-to-struggle-financially-despite-planned-move-to-big-ten/2013/08/13/1a7c5ecc-0419-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html

    The report can be read at http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/sports/commission-on-u-md-big-ten-cic-integration-final-report/548/

    New athletic facilities, such as indoor practice for football, are far on the horizon: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/08/13/maryland-big-ten-commission-report-football-practice-facility-seemingly-still-years-away/

    Much-maligned AD Kevin Anderson is confident money will be raised:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/08/13/maryland-ad-kevin-anderson-wasnt-surprised-by-anything-in-big-ten-commission-report/

    Like

    • frug says:

      To facilitate UMD’s transition to the Big Ten, the conference distribution is front
      loaded and pegged to approximate UMD’s projected ACC revenue stream. In year seven and
      beyond, revenue is set to start to build.

      Interesting quote page 16 of the report.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Other notes:

        On July 1, 2020, UMD will become an equity partner in the Big Ten Network.

        That’s a 6 year buy-in.

        6. Once ICA is financially stable, fifty percent (50%) of excess revenues
        should be used to repay the debt it owes to the University for the loan
        from Non-State Auxiliary Funds. The other fifty percent (50%) should be
        set aside to build ICA reserves and to make additional investments in ICA.
        Annual reviews should be conducted of ICA financial results comparing
        them with the plan for Big Ten integration.

        7. Starting in FY 15, some ICA revenues should be provided to support the
        academic enterprise. These funds to meet the University’s academic
        priorities will be phased in over the next nine years and are expected to
        reach at least $1M per year.

        First, start turning a profit. Then use half of it to repay the school the $21M loaned to it so far (may be another $20M before they join due to the ACC withholding money) while the other half goes into reserves and reinvestment in athletics. That seems like a reasonable plan.

        Slowly starting to give money to the school every year also fits with what most B10 schools do. That will certainly help soothe the ruffled feathers of some academics.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          Sure is nice that the SEC didn’t require a buy in for Missouri and Texas A&M. Too bad for the turtles and corn shuckers.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            What was Mizzu going to buy into joining the SEC? They (1) don’t have a network to buy into and (2) won’t own the SECN when it arrives. It’s a contractually dedicated, ESPN owned network. Md and UNL aren’t bitching.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Conferences almost always have buy-ins. BTN requires a little more buy-in, but most have buy-ins for the NCAA tourney credits and for their conference “brand” equity (primarily they charge them because they will be making more). Of course, the AQ schools moving already had the “brand” equity and so Nebraska got a floor (guaranteed not to make less than they were) and A&M and Missouri got no buy-in. But not even buying in on NCAA credits showed the SEC really wanted A&M.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Nebraska and Colorado receive less money during the buy-in period than they would have received in the XII. All other schools that moved are still making more than they would have in their old conferences. The XII buy-in is 3 years with average distribution of 67%. So shorter and less of a cut than the B1G, but no BTN either.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Colorado was invited as a full sharing partner, Utah on a 3 year plan to reach full share.
            http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=pac12&id=10590&src=desktop
            Not sure if that takes into account Colorado managing to come a year early. That may be the origin of the thought they weren’t full shares. First year (IIRC) was matching what they would have made in the B12, where the invite anticipated they would still be.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Nebraska is making less than they would have been in the Big 12, but more than they were. They didn’t know how much the Big 12 would be making when they left. At the time there was a very big gap.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:
            Is UNL making less if you credit them with the income redirected to buying BTN equity? And even if so, are they concerned? B12 contract just complerted v B1G operating on soon to expire old contract. Which position would you choose?

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @bullet – that might be a chicken and egg scenario. Had Nebraska never left you couldn’t guarantee that ABC/Fox would have extended their contracts at the same per school value (i.e. they bid $X for 12 schools w/ 8 conf games (48 total) or 10 schools w/ 9 conf games (45 total)) as they ended up doing.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            ccrider, WVU and TCU are having to buy into the big 12, Utah had to buy into the Pac 12 but Colorado didn’t, etc. Some conference movers had to buy in, some didn’t, regardless of conference network status. Mizzou and A&M worked hard to negotiate no buy in to the SEC and got it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I understand. However, Utah was moving up. And while not receiving a full share immediately still saw a considerable increase from what they were getting from their former, non BCS conference. IIRC Colorado was straight up invited as a full member. Didn’t have to “work hard”. The only negotiating was over the desire to move a year earlier than invited, and how to ease that transition. There was not yet a conference network that would have necessitated the purchase of equity (like the SEC).

            I just don’t understand your fixation with buy ins (as if they are a always stain), or the apparent conviction that Mizzu should have been given what the B1G conference schools had invested in to create, that UNL readily agreed to.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            (Or the belief that that was what got UNL in, instead of Mizzu.)

            Like

    • Pablo says:

      For UMD, the first few years of B1G membership will be financially challenging. Even CIC membership will be a financial drain initially: they have committed to spending $1.7M per year on CIC, but are unable to recognize any CIC based savings in the early years.

      Like

  52. utbrian99 says:

    In regards to a GOR, is it enforceable if all parties decided to leave the conference? What about if all parties except one or two found acceptable homes? If the Big 12 was ever to dissolve, I can’t imagine Iowa State being appealing to any power conference. Of the remaining schools, I think Cincci and Iowa State would have the most to worry about.

    Like

  53. rich2 says:

    Reading a very good monograph today, “Paying for the Party.” It is a study of class and inequality and the role of flagship public universities in increasing not reducing class differences — as we tend to pretend. It made me think about the “living community” arms race that the top 30 or so colleges and universities have been involved in for two decades. The result — class stratification has increased.

    On my other desktop, I am viewing a slide show I received from Chicago (an e-letter) proudly announcing the new Residential Hall and Dining Commons to be built on 55th and University (by Jeanne Gang, of course) for 800 undergraduates (at a rumored cost that seems to range all over the place — $200,000,00? $300,000,000? $400,000,000? ) — it might sound pricey to some but it is a “welcoming space” for undergraduates to build a “community of learning” — and it a key part of the top tier arms race. Clearly total cost will surpass the $138,000,000 in 2005? for 222 students at the Whitman Buildings at Princeton. At 300,000,000 it represents more than then the total building (non-research- related) budget for the entire IU system in the last biennial award. Some will argue that it is an obscene amount of many and that universities should not engage in an amenities race for undergraduates –but it is justified by administrators since attracting the most talented undergrads is the goal of a group of universities (maybe 30 colleges and universities in the US are in this game) — and on the margin beautiful dorms built by renowned architects is a selling point to 18 yr old kids and their parents.

    The public flagships have largely ceded the top tier space for undergraduates to the privates — and I have decidedly mixed feelings about this situation. Should IU pay 180,000,000 for a “honor college dorm” to maybe compete for 180 top tier students when IUB and the State has so many educational shortfalls? We can float bonds to pay for it — so it does not “cost” much!! People tend to rush to make definitive judgments on this board — professionals in higher ed have developed many pros and cons on this one for a decade — it is not simple and easy — but the drift is to not really compete but to “somewhat” compete.

    Now we turn to the “Duckstar” — the new training facility at Oregon or the 30-person recruiting and evaluation unit at Alabama — and when you combine what has already occurred with the prospect of new revenues that an expanded football playoff will generate or more cable revenues — I am really troubled. I have no doubt that if I was an administrator at OU or Alabama or lots of public universities it would be much easier to build better and better athletic facilities to compete at elite levels athletically rather than divert those funds to compete academically. For example, at Oregon — you can point to an elite football program — a top 10 program — today. Realistically, it will take a half-century for Oregon to enroll a freshman class with a 32 – 35 ACT split — if ever — and that is what you must have to be considered “elite.” The idea of “university” might disappear before this occurs. So, if you compete where you can and invest where you reap the greatest return, how do you believe that they will re-distribute their profits? — and what would you predict that this scenario would mean if a division of 64 football schools was established? The issue is that while attracting top tier students might justify this competition, can a similar argument be made for attracting football players? and if not, what is the end game?

    Like

    • Big Ten Fan says: