It might be legitimate smoke or just the hot summer air of the peanut gallery, but conference realignment talk is still percolating in the wake of University of Oklahoma President David Boren’s comments last month about wanting Big 12 expansion. Lee Barfknecht of the Omaha World-Herald reported that five Big 12 schools approached the Big Ten back in 2010 (intimating that they were Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and Texas A&M) about joining forces with Jim Delany. Today, Berry Tramel of The Oklahoman (essentially OU’s home newspaper) explained why Nebraska would never leave the Big Ten and noted that OU was “thrilled at the prospect of joining a conference that included the likes of Stanford and Cal-Berkeley” when it was considering the Pac-12. Finally, Dick Weiss (a Naismith Hall of Fame inductee for sportswriting as opposed to a plebeian blogger like myself) “casually” Tweeted the following on Monday:

Weiss has been on the conference realignment beat before as he was one of the first to report about the “Catholic 7” breaking away from the Big East and then forming… the Big East.

Edit: Weiss has clarified his Tweet:

I don’t position this blog as a newsbreaking site, but I have heard from a knowledgeable person with extensive contacts with current and former Big 12 members (i.e. knew specific details about Nebraska heading to the Big Ten and Texas A&M to the SEC beforehand that couldn’t have been simply guessed from the news) that basically had this to say: Oklahoma isn’t happy with the Big 12 and wants to get out.

Putting aside all of the valid issues of whether the Big 12’s grant of rights agreement can be broken or whether Oklahoma could politically leave Oklahoma State behind (both of which need to be cleared before any moves are even possible), it doesn’t seem as though OU wants to stand pat. David Boren’s comments about wanting Big 12 expansion with the “right schools” was more of a warning shot to the rest of the league because, frankly, the “right schools” wouldn’t ever take a Big 12 invite. As a result, everyone in Sooners land seems to agree on the overarching desire to leave the Big 12, but there are two mindsets within the school: the academic wishes of Boren and the athletic interests of OU Athletic Director Joe Catiglione. (Emphasis that these are currently mindsets that could take years to play out – please don’t interpret anything here as “Oklahoma is leaving for Conference X by the end of the year.”) Boren, not surprisingly, wants a more academic league, but it seems as though his focus is more on the Pac-12 as opposed to the Big Ten as of now. That’s not to say that OU wouldn’t consider the Big Ten (as it did in 2010), but there are still apparently concerns that the B1G would find OU to be academically acceptable. In contrast, the Pac-12 would like Oklahoma if they came with, say, Kansas. The West Coast league just doesn’t want an OU/Oklahoma State expansion (which is what OU had offered back in 2011 in the wake of Texas A&M bolting the Big 12 for the SEC). Meanwhile, the athletic side of the school would relish going to the SEC. Once again, the SEC would take Oklahoma in a heartbeat without Oklahoma State coming along. The SEC would likely prefer Kansas, as well, provided that the biggest dog of them all of Texas rejects their overtures.

Ah yes – Texas. The Longhorns aren’t oblivious to their rivals to the north. In a perfect world for Texas (as described to me by my Big 12 guy), they would want to join the ACC as full members with… wait for it… Notre Dame. Apparently, the UT people are convinced that the new College Football Playoff system will eventually drive the Irish to join a conference and Texas wants to be right alongside them. In turn, UT would also have Oklahoma and Kansas follow along to create an 18-school ACC behemoth. Texas would be fine with the same type of move to the Big Ten (although Notre Dame is contractually obligated to join the ACC if it chooses to drop independence until 2027, which would seemingly make that prospect impossible). The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

Personally, I reflexively reject the viability of any realignment move predicated on Notre Dame joining a conference as a football member, where we might as well say that Texas would be willing to join the MAC if Notre Dame comes along with them. Also, the Irish would have 100% made a 4-team playoff in a year like 2012, so I consider any supposed South Bend-based worries about the CFP system to be false hopes for Texas partisans. Until I see actual consternation from Notre Dame itself about today’s college football world, they are going to be an immovable object. In that sense, it seems as though the smoke from Texas is more of a “If we get the PITCH PERFECT deal to move, then sure, we’ll move.”

Contrast this with Oklahoma, where they appear to be making public comments and private moves to put themselves in position to bolt from the Big 12 with merely a passable offer (as opposed to the perfect one that Texas would require). It then becomes a matter of whether it’s worth the risk of breaking the Big 12’s grant of rights of agreement with unpredictable damages claims (which I wrote about a couple of years ago) and/or any political fallout if Oklahoma proactively leaves the Big 12 without Oklahoma State.

If I were running the Big Ten, it’s time to take advantage of one of those rare moments where a national football brand name is essentially begging for offers. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if we assume that Texas, Notre Dame and ACC schools are off the table, then the single most valuable expansion that the Big Ten can have at this point is adding Oklahoma and Kansas. These are two of the most elite blue blood brand names in college football and college basketball, respectively, and their small markets on-paper compared to Eastern options are irrelevant when they can effectively turn the Big Ten Network into a legit national network instead of a mostly regional one (which may become more important as cable cord cutting continues and the TV industry starts moving toward an a la carte or at least less-than-basic cable model). Also note that Kansas actually had the highest third tier TV rights revenue of any Big 12 school prior to the formation of the Longhorn Network, so it has been shown that the BTN can basically charge any price within KU’s market (and presumably OU’s market) and garner a ton of more revenue even with fewer households on paper.

Finally, I’m as much of a Big Ten academic snob as anyone, but Oklahoma’s academic reputation rankings have long been right in line with Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa State despite OU never having had membership in the Association of American Universities. If the Big Ten is fine with Nebraska no longer being an AAU member from an academic standpoint, then that should make any concerns about OU’s academics much less of a roadblock. The prospect of Oklahoma and Kansas moving within the next few years is simply much more likely than schools like Virginia and North Carolina leaving the ACC within the next generation, so an OU/KU combo is the best viable expansion option for the Big Ten by far as of today.

(Image from KOTV)

Comments
  1. greg says:

    Iowa over OU in the B1G West brought to you by Roundup.

    Like

  2. Gei says:

    Rock chalk and go bucks

    Like

  3. Pony says:

    Oklahoma’s boosters are hollering for the SEC. They have a grass roots movement pushing to go southeast. The B1G idea was popular 4 years ago down there. Times have definitely changed at OU.

    Like

    • @Pony – That wouldn’t surprise me, but boosters are inherently athletics-focused (and at a place like OU, specifically football-focused) people. The university president is really who would make the ultimate decision (and Boren seems to be independent-minded enough to not be simply a lackey for boosters).

      Like

      • Pony says:

        Boren is nobody’s lackey. But he is a politician with serious money issues coming from a very large group of his donors and valued season ticket holders who are shouting for the home schedule the SEC would bring to Norman. He has projects he needs to see funded. For the fans the travel is far better going southeast as opposed to the behemoth distances that would be encountered in the B1G. The home schedule the B1G brings to Norman is also widely thought to be underwhelming to OU fans who consider SEC football more exciting. Boren has a ton of money and funding waiting for him as soon as OU to the SEC happens.

        Like

        • Tyler Smith says:

          Boren will do the smart thing and go with the academic route.

          Like

          • urbanleftbehind says:

            He’s probably feeling the pinch from alumni that didn’t like the way he handled the SAE incident (as compared to some football players). Maybe OU to the SEC is a way to get more $ from some to make up for any losses from others (maybe even the same donors).

            Like

          • Janson says:

            Any conference OU leaves for will be better academically and athletically. When the Big12 lost the schools it lost, it dropped down to last out of the power5 conferences.

            Like

        • Clay says:

          Have to agree with Pony on this one. The overwhelming sentiment by fans and boosters is the Sooners need to go to the SEC West. PAC12South is the next most desired by fans followed by a few academicians who pine for the B1G. Also. The SEC has several institutions ranked ahead of the Sooners academically. Shouldn’t be a problem joining the SEC West for the few professors wanting the B1G academic cred. Also, OU has great regional affinity and relationship with A&M and Arkansas. Missouri should be in the SEC West too and you have a lot of Oklahoma’s old partners.

          Like

          • Kyle says:

            Certainly a plurality of fans want the SEC. But I believe that is followed by the B10 (my preference) and then the P10. Also, se don’t have an affinity for A&M or Missouri that even approaches that of NU and we’ve only played Arkansas like twice over the last 50 years – no affinity there. Most of the fans I discuss this with want the SEC because they want to play Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia. Ask them about Missouri and they say “wtf”? Nobody here cares about Missouri.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Of course, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida would be in the other division and you would never see them.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “Of course, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida would be in the other division and you would never see them.”

            The way SEC geography works, it seems obvious that Oklahoma would be in the East.

            Like

        • FLP_ndrox says:

          I wonder if this will be a move similar to the TAMU move. If Oklahoma is willing to move without Texas…or Nebraska…we are in a brave new world.

          Like

      • kinnick24 says:

        FrankTheTank-
        Any chance Mizzou would come to the B1G or has that ship sailed? Would love to see Mizzou, Boomer Sooner, and KU Jayhawks in Big Ten

        Go Hawkeyes!
        Kinnick24

        Like

  4. largeR says:

    Git-er-done!

    Like

  5. A couple Texas insiders on Orangebloods also point out that Texas’ second choice after the Big 12 would be the ACC, but I’m still having trouble buying that. The closest team would be Georgia Tech in Atlanta, I think. The distance just wouldn’t make sense and would be horrible for the non-football sports.

    I like the idea of Texas and OU to the B1G to strengthen the West and even out the divisions, but my first choice would be SEC. Considering the SEC now has more top academic institutions than the Big 12, that excuse can be thrown out. Rampant SEC cheating is also cited as a reason Texas won’t consider the SEC, but I haven’t seen any proof of that outside of the occasional Cam Newton story.

    Like

    • @Christian in Wylie – Under UT’s optimal scenario, OU and KU would also head to the ACC with them, which would mitigate the distance issue. Granted, if anything is predicated on Notre Dame joining the ACC as a full member, then I’m not buying it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • bullet says:

      I don’t buy it either. I know Dodds talked to that group in Longview about the ACC, but I don’t think anyone-fans, academics or administration has any interest in the ACC. I think that was merely a bluff for OU’s benefit.

      OU, Notre Dame, Kansas, Texas and what other 5 in a division? BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, VT? Even with a ND type deal, you are going a long distance nearly all the time.

      Its a good match for Notre Dame, not for Texas. There are no schools like Texas in the ACC.

      The Big 10 has a different problem. The schools are very much like Texas. But the sports match is awful. The Big 10 is excellent at winter sports and not good in most spring sports. Texas doesn’t do wrestling or hockey or lacrosse.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “The Big 10 has a different problem. The schools are very much like Texas. But the sports match is awful. The Big 10 is excellent at winter sports and not good in most spring sports. Texas doesn’t do wrestling or hockey or lacrosse.”

        UT has a rodeo team, doesn’t it? If they can wrestle steers, they can wrestle people. Most of the B10 doesn’t do hockey or lacrosse, so that’s no issue.

        Like

  6. vp19 says:

    If KU and OU go B1G, where does it leave K-State and Okie State, or the other six left behind? I don’t see them keen on remaining in a Big 12 – 4, although they could replenish (in numbers at least) with Cincinnati, Houston, Central Florida and South Florida. Might Texas go Pac, provided it agrees to accept Texas Tech as a partner?

    Like

    • @vp19 – My guess is that, like the Big East after Miami, VT and BC left, the left behind schools would replenish their ranks and be a “best of the rest” conference. I can’t see Texas staying in a Big 12 that doesn’t have Oklahoma, so what they do is interesting. Like I’ve said before, it wouldn’t surprise me if Texas sought a Notre Dame-style independence deal with the ACC in that scenario.

      Like

      • David Stroud says:

        Would the left behind schools start issuing a lawsuit against the schools trying to leave? As I see it, they should have expanded adding schools like Cincinnati, memphis, UCF, USF and so forth. The schools listed in the previous expansion discussions do have strong academics that are close or better than OU’s academics. UCF from what I have seen is ahead of OU in the rankings. Cincinnati, U. Conn., U. Mass. and others including Colorado State and North Dakota State, even New Mexico’s academics is nothing to sneeze at. I do not think OU wants to put Oklahoma State in the best of the rest conference. Like I said if the schools leave? Have the Big 12 without West Virginia to merge with the MWC to make MWC a lot stronger. MWC at times are much better than some of the P5 conference in football in some years, plus any of the MWC schools can pull off upsets on any P5 conference schools. Some of the G5 schools do make more money than some P5 schools in the ACC with ticket sales and all that.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Would the left behind schools start issuing a lawsuit against the schools trying to leave?

          The left-behind schools (assuming this happens) don’t need to sue. They have a grant of media rights. It’s the departing schools that would need to sue, unless they are willing to earn zero for their home games, for the duration of the grant, which still has many years left to run.

          Like

      • I bought this line of reasoning a few weeks ago too, Frank. But then I came back to the “Texas-centric” world in which Texas lives. Having 40% of Olympic games happening outside of Texas (which is inevitable if UT went to the ACC in Olympic sports like ND) would really be distasteful to the UT folks.

        I think they’ll keep a weak-but-heavy-in-Texas conference afloat as long as possible. For example, if OU and KU go B1G…then they’ll backload with Houston and Cincy/BYU to get to 10. If OkSt and Baylor/WVU go to the SEC, they might just stay at 8. Yes, their 7 game conference schedule will be weak…but then they can have a stronger OOC schedule to boost their brand (how about UCLA, Ohio State, and OU-type foes each year?).

        I think they’d be happy with an 8-team Big 12 before they sent their women’s soccer team to Boston College every season in the ACC.

        Like

        • swesleyh says:

          All that youcanleave behind. There is a greater chance that Baylor and WVU gain admission to the B1G than to the SEC.

          Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          “Having 40% of Olympic games happening outside of Texas (which is inevitable if UT went to the ACC in Olympic sports like ND) would really be distasteful to the UT folks.”

          The ACC is very strong in Basketball & pretty strong in Baseball, the 2 non-football sports they care about the most. If they could pull off an independent football schedule, I think they’d be fine with the travel for those sports. The quality of the home games would increase.

          Like

          • Everybody is quick to talk about the SOUTHERN ACC’s baseball when these talks come up…but the ACC also has Pitt/Syracuse/BC/VaTech…which seem a lot less desirable. I know WVU is already on a huge island in the Big 12…but that was their only choice. I just can’t see Texas CHOOSING to be on that big of an island.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Insignificant difference.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      If KU and OU go B1G, where does it leave K-State and Okie State, or the other six left behind? I don’t see them keen on remaining in a Big 12….

      They wouldn’t be keen, but what choice would they have? I agree with Frank: they’d do what the Big East did, and replenish with the best of the available mid-majors.

      Might Texas go Pac, provided it agrees to accept Texas Tech as a partner?

      I don’t really see what Texas gets out of Pac membership. I would see Texas going Independent, placing their Olympic sports in what’s left of the Big XII, and having a scheduling agreement much like what ND has now with the ACC. The remaining Big XII teams would obviously not be happy with that, but again, what choice do they have?

      As Darth Vader once said: “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

      Like

    • KUand UofAfan says:

      I would say the remaining members would come together (because it still would be a better destination than the AAC and the Mountain West) to reform the conference, The remaining members:

      1.) K-State
      2.) TCU
      3,) Baylor
      4.) West Virginia
      5.) Oklahoma St.
      6.) Iowa State
      7.) Texas Tech

      would add enough schools, not only enough schools to get back to 10, but they would go to at least 12 depending on the circumstances. The conference would add:

      8.) BYU
      9.) Cincinnati
      10.) Houston (to replace Texas)
      11.) UConn
      12.) UCF

      These additions would give the conference major tv markets, expand the conference footprint (for a conference network perhaps?), and new recruiting grounds in Ohio and Florida.

      Now, of course, if Okie State and WVU jumped to the SEC, then Memphis and Boise St. could replace them to maintain 12 members. Or they could add them:

      13.) Memphis
      14.) Boise St.

      If those teams decided to expand even farther, I would suggest

      15.) Colorado St.
      16.) San Diego State

      Like

  7. Kevin says:

    I like both Oklahoma and Kansas but I think the geography is bit of a stretch. If you look at a US Map it would seem like Oklahoma is so far from the rest of the B1G footprint. Kansas and Missouri would fit nicely but not sure that combo works from a revenue and athletic standpoint.

    I think Kansas fits the B1G from a culture standpoint but not sure about Oklahoma. Would they feel like outsiders or an outlier? The Geography is the biggest issue.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I like both Oklahoma and Kansas but I think the geography is bit of a stretch. If you look at a US Map it would seem like Oklahoma is so far from the rest of the B1G footprint.

      In that part of the country, the distances are so vast that all of the varsity teams fly anyway, other than maybe when they face Oklahoma State. Once you have to get in the airplane, travel time is dominated by factors other than the flight itself (travel to/from the airport, security, loading and unloading baggage, etc.).

      Cultural differences are a very different story. You also wonder how it would affect them from a recruiting standpoint, when they’re no longer playing four games a year vs. Texas teams.

      Like

    • Clay says:

      Kevin, you’re right. The B1G would be a horrible cultural and geographical for for the Sooners. Keep the Big XII together or just go the SEC West already. Those are the best options for OU and it’s fans, and most importantly, the student athletes.

      Like

  8. Mark Ferguson says:

    Let’s address the something that remains a mystery.

    OU had the opportunity to leave with UT to P12 but that melted down. So why now? LHN you may say. But LHN was in place when TAMU departed and there was a five week period where SEC #14 was yet to be resolved. I have difficulty believing that if OU had desired that option that it would not be OU in the SEC today rather than Mizzou.

    Either OU has reached the conclusion they got the LHN thing wrong or they are looking around see three old-time rivals are gone along with one of the two school the inspired the Big 8 to become 12 and don’t care for that, or something else is at play.

    Maybe it is purely academics. Maybe they have good reason to think UT is looking to bail. Maybe like UT, the SEC didn’t fit their vision of who they want as peers.

    I wonder if the change is not so much that OU has had an awakening of interest in Big 10 but rather Big 10 (or at least some members) have concluded that OU is a close enough fit academically that they are interested in OU, something easier to do once non-AAU Nebraska became settled in.

    With the GOR, I feel confident ESPN and Fox are going to hold OU’s rights via the Big XII contract until the contract expires. I doubt however that Big XII will successfully hold said rights for that period without giving some portion of the distribution to OU. Just too likely that complete forfeiture is deemed a penalty.

    The other great unspoken is this. Why is KU silent? Kansas is a natural. Already AAU. Massive brand in basketball and for all the drive the best touting, basketball is very valuable to conference networks. Is OU’s vocal response an indication that Kansas is on the path and OU wants to join?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The other great unspoken is this. Why is KU silent?

      Maybe because Kansas knows it cannot be a first mover. They have to tag along with someone else.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      OU had the opportunity to leave with UT to P12 but that melted down. So why now? LHN you may say. But LHN was in place when TAMU departed and there was a five week period where SEC #14 was yet to be resolved. I have difficulty believing that if OU had desired that option that it would not be OU in the SEC today rather than Mizzou.

      It could very will be that if OU could have those five weeks back, they’d be in the SEC today. At the time, I don’t think they wanted to be separated from Texas and Oklahoma State. If they moved by themselves, it would almost certainly not be possible to keep both rivalries as annual games.

      The Pac didn’t want OU/OSU unless it was also getting UT/TT, and that fell apart because of the LHN. At that point, Boren suggested that the Big XII cement their relationship with a grant of rights, which all of the remaining members agreed to. And ESPN told the Big XII that the wouldn’t lose any TV money, as long as they had at least 10 members.

      Boren may regret signing onto that deal, but back then he was satisfied, or claimed to be.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bullet says:

        They’re losing. And to Oklahoma St., TCU and Baylor.

        That seems to be what’s going on. He’s getting some pressure from boosters.

        The OU fans deny it, but if they were where they were from 1999-2010, there wouldn’t be any complaints.

        Frankly, I think OU to the SEC is a bad deal for both sides. There is such a thing as being too strong a conference. See DePaul (and others) in the Big East.

        Like

  9. hawkfan says:

    Frank, if you read Dick Weiss’ twitter, he retracted his realignment tweet:

    Here’s his exact tweet:
    Info on big 12 comes fr fox sports column not fox sports guys just throwing it out there sorry for confusion

    Like

  10. Marc Shepherd says:

    As I recall, Boren was one of the first Big XII presidents to agitate publicly for a grant of rights, which obviously limits his options now.

    Did he screw the pooch, or has something dramatically changed, such that only a few short years later he is already looking for the exits?

    Like

    • Pony says:

      Internal money problems and lack of faith from donors about a bright future ahead generated the change in opinion rather quickly. This in light of the massive funding needed for his 3 giant projects he has to get paid for asap.

      Like

  11. Pat says:

    Let’s Do It !! OU and KU.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Jake says:

    Big 12 is about to fall apart, eh? That’s what they get for adding TCU. Don’t they pay attention to anything?

    @Frank – fwiw, David Boren (D-Bo to his fans) has a massive hard-on for China. He’s instituted all sorts of programs for building ties there – lots of Chinese students come to OU, lots of OU students spend a semester in China, OU Press publishes a series on Chinese lit., etc. He might see the Pac as a way to build on that.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Stats says:

    Frank, if the COPC decides to pursue OU and KU, you think they’re going to go full throttle to try to get it done before renegotiating the Tier 1 deal? I mean, that’s the point of adding programs, right? Seems like a ridiculously tight timeframe unless talks are already farther along than any of us know.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      A lot of dominoes would need to fall perfectly, in order for the B1G to have #15 and #16 sewn up before they have to sign a new media deal.

      No school has ever left a conference with a grant of rights. Although any contract is breakable at some price, that price is unknown right now, since it has never happened before. Unless all of the remaining Big XII members surprisingly allowed OU and KU to leave “for free” (and why would they?), it could take years for that to be resolved.

      Like

      • anthony london says:

        Marc,
        Do you think OU and KU are worth the risk? By that I mean would their addition to the BIG be worth the wait and financial penalties to bring them on before the Tier 1 deal gets worked on?

        Having said that, I suppose there is a risk with the new Tier ! rights deal too, given what is going on in the industry right now.

        Although I would hate to decimate another conference, OU and KU are true prizes that may necessitate a move sooner than later… Wow, KU hoops in the BIG! That would be something…

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Do you think OU and KU are worth the risk?

          I truly have no idea…and I’ve never seen an estimate from someone with sufficient expertise to know, or even to give a highly informed guess — as opposed to a fan just speculating.

          But I can’t emphasize enough, this is untrodden ground. No school has ever left a league with a grant of rights in place.

          Like

          • anthony london says:

            Fair enough…

            I guess there is no real way to monetize all the potential revenue that would result from a move like that.

            Like

      • Tyler Smith says:

        Networks pay the conferences though and if a network wants to “move assets” to benefit them, they will sign off on the moves (aka waivers) to get out of the GOR and the conferences can settle a payment for the contract.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Networks pay the conferences though and if a network wants to “move assets” to benefit them, they will sign off on the moves (aka waivers) to get out of the GOR and the conferences can settle a payment for the contract.

          In theory, yes. But with ESPN losing subscribers due to cord-cutting, would they be willing to continue to pay the Big XII the same as they pay today—without Oklahoma and Kansas—and then on top of that give the Big Ten the bump they need to justify adding two more members?

          I’d love to see the math on that. It seems awfully unlikely.

          Like

        • Eric says:

          I don’t think it would be that simple. While the Big 12 and Big Ten might both have contracts with Fox and ESPN, the rights are actually still owned by the conference. Neither ESPN nor Fox could move Oklahoma or Kansas’s rights from the Big 12 contract to a Big Ten one without the Big 12 signing off on that. In theory, it could continue to broadcast Kansas/Oklahoma games under the Big 12 contract even after they went to the Big Ten, but that brings us to a bigger issue.

          I think it’s also very unlikely that ESPN or Fox will play along with this. If Kansas and Oklahoma leave, then so does Texas and possibly one or two more. Since no conference expands without accepting more money (at least to break even), ESPN/Fox would have to agree to pay the Big Ten more. However, it would also have to continue Big 12 payments where they are. A Big 12 without it’s major players though is only worth a fraction of what it is getting now. It’s a lot cheaper for the networks if the Big 12 just sticks together.

          Like

          • Some Other Guy says:

            On the other hand, if the recent moves by ESPN (belt tightening) really do point to them knowing that the cable subscription apocalypse is on its way, they may be quite willing to let the BigXII implode to get them out of their contract.

            Like

      • Maryland signed but then broke the ACC’s GOR. Right?

        Like

        • Eric says:

          No Maryland was never part of the ACC grant of rights. There was an exit penalty that was voted to be increased about a year before they left, but the grant of rights did not come about till after Maryland announced it was leaving.

          Like

          • bob sykes says:

            Also, they ended up not paying the exit penalty and forfeited their conference revenue sharing instead. That was substantially less than the exit penalty, something over $30M rather than $50M.

            Like

  14. Mike R says:

    President Boren is 74, so I suspect he wants to settle this issue in the next year or two before he retires. Clear that he wants to park OU in the Pac-12 or B1G.

    Like

    • Tyler Smith says:

      Oklahoma will end up in the Big 12 or Pac-12 with a most likely landing spot in the B1G. Academics will win over athletics.

      Like

      • Clay says:

        Hope you’re wrong. B1G would be a bad cultural and geographical fit for the Sooners and its fans and student athletes. Plus, I don’t think you guys (who are not Okies) realize the political fallout of OU trying to separate from Oklahoma State. Unlike Texas and A&M, Oklahomans actually like one another. Very difficult to separate.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Unless the PAC truly has said the ’10 four pack offer is off the table, that is the most logical destination and/or reason to not stay in the B12.

          All the talk has been about membership changes and not the reasons. Boren said competitive disadvantage implying need of ccg which currently requires expansion. Seems a straight forward speak/warning in support of ccg deregulation. Follow that with multiple coaches (several ACC, the conference co sponsoring deregulation) crying about uneven playing field (ND) because of lack of 13th opponent.

          Actual P5 realignment won’t be approaching until the mid ’20s.
          Unless the LHN goes away early, it might not happen then.

          Like

  15. djbuck says:

    In order for the B12 Gor to kick in, 6 schools would have to leave.
    So. 5 Universities can head where they choose if, Fox/ESPN go along..
    Fox knows OU & Kansas would add mega bucks to next BIG TV deal in 2017.

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      The Big12 GOR has already “kicked in” … the rights have been granted to the conference for the set period of time. The school can leave the contract and stop providing content for the conference contract (and for that reason stop being paid by the conference), but the media rights for the home games of the school continue to reside with the conference.

      Like

  16. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

    Like

  17. Rick says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  18. Tyler Smith says:

    Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma to the B1G. Get it done!

    Like

  19. loki_the_bubba says:

    My source says Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Rice are moving together to the B1G. But my dog has been wrong before.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. GreatLakeState says:

    Too much smoke. Clearly the gears are in motion. As to the question of ‘Why now?’ the B1G’s media deal is the only semi-plausible answer. It just feels like Boren setting the table for something.

    Like

  21. Kevin says:

    I know many Oklahoma fans are concerned about recruiting. I am not sure it will be a big deal. They are 3 hours away from Dallas. The parents of the kids from Texas can drive to see their son play 6 or 7 games per year at home plus the RRR in Texas as I don’t think that goes away in any scenario.

    Like

  22. CARedman says:

    If the B1G goes to 16 watch for the other two of the two super power conferences to swoop in and start picking the bones of the Big XII. I can see the SEC grabbing WVU and TCU (Dallas TV market), the Pac-12 with few legitimate options left expand with Texas Tech, OSU and KSU. Texas then is given the option to join and if they don’t add Baylor. The Pac-12 doesn’t have many options to choose from and taking Big XII teams beats their other option, taking MWC teams.

    Also once you lose 80% of your conference the GoR and Big XII ceases to be. Unfortunately for Iowa St in this circumstance would have to choose between the AAC and MWC.

    Like

    • So you basically think that the collapse of the Big 12 would lead to the SEC and Pac-12 both taking teams that they very obviously don’t want? Good luck with that one.

      PS to clarify, the other option for the Pac-12 and SEC would be to take zero current Big 12 teams and stand pat (the SEC always has the long term “raid the ACC” option as well)

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        In the scenario where OU/KU go to the Big Ten, there are some decent arguments for the Pac-12 to consider TT, OSU, and KSU, with or without Texas. The Pac-12 could use inventory outside of their main time zone, and if they don’t take those schools, they are out of options. On the other hand, those schools have nowhere else to go, so the Pac-12 can take its time to figure that out. It wouldn’t happen all at once.

        I can see no reason at all why the SEC would want WVU or TCU. The SEC is in a position of strength. If they ever expand, they will be very choosy. They aren’t going to take the leftovers, just to help out schools that wish the Big XII GOR would go away.

        Like

        • Jake says:

          Yeah, as much as I love my Frogs, I don’t see the SEC biting. If they want another Texas school, and they can’t get UT, there’s Tech. The SEC can schedule more neutral-site match-ups at Jerry World if they want a DFW presence. Assuming the Big 12 goes tits up, my hope for the Frogs is the ACC. They seem cool with private, marginally religiously affiliated universities. They added BC not too long ago, and that’s about as close to an analog of TCU as you can find. It’s a longshot, but so was the Big 12 three years ago. Maybe if the ACC loses a couple more schools.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Yes, Texas Tech seems like a more live option for the SEC than TCU.

            Like

          • CARedman says:

            Lubbock or Dallas, which one would be better for the SECN?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            You mean, cameras located in Lubbock or cameras located in Dallas? SECN likely doesn’t care where their cameras are located … they care where their viewers are located. And TCU is not going to be generating a lot of viewers in Dallas unless they are having a really good year.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            A&M would throw a fit about Tech. They might not mind the Frogs as much. They wanted to separate themselves from the Techs and Houstons. TCU being private could be an advantage while still getting a stronger piece of DFW.

            On the other hand, WVU and TCU don’t seem worth it to the SEC who would want 15 & 16 reserved for better options.

            Like

          • FrankTheAg says:

            A&M provides a DFW presence already. No need to add another Texas school to the SEC. OU would be a smart addition but it might make more sense to stand pat.

            Like

      • CARedman says:

        Who says the SEC would take teams it doesn’t want? Having a team in Houston and Dallas means you own a big chunk of the state of Texas. Also WVU is a perfect fit for the SEC and by killing off the Big XII you don’t have to deal with a GoR like you would with ACC teams.

        Also, no matter what the Pac-12 is going to have to expand further east and if OU and KU are off the table taking Big XII teams is the best option left. They aren’t going to add Boise or Nevada so OSU and KSU are better options to them.

        As you saw last time once one of the Big 3 expands the other two play catch up. No one wants to be left behind. We’ve seen all three take from the Big XII and we will see them do that again, this time finally putting this conference out of it’s misery.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          WVU is a perfect fit for the SEC and by killing off the Big XII you don’t have to deal with a GoR like you would with ACC teams.

          That’s a non-sequitur. The SEC can’t kill off the Big XII by taking WV.

          I’m not seeing them as such a great fit, either. WV coveted an ACC invite for years, and couldn’t get in. The SEC is not in the habit of taking schools the ACC rejected.

          The state of West Virginia has the lowest population of any Big XII state. They would also be the least-populous SEC state, by a wide margin.

          The SEC is not especially known for its academics, but WV would be well below the academic level of most SEC institutions.

          If you lived anywhere near me, I’d buy you a steak dinner if WV ever found its way into the SEC.

          Like

    • vp19 says:

      Iowa State kicked out of the P5 while Wake stays in? Don’t see that happening without a fight.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Iowa State kicked out of the P5 while Wake stays in? Don’t see that happening without a fight.

        What happens to ISU and what happens to Wake are totally independent of one another. There are a number of P5 teams that probably wouldn’t get into their conferences if they were being built from scratch. That doesn’t mean they get kicked out.

        If ISU gets left holding the bag, it doesn’t mean the ACC suddenly realizes that they don’t need Wake anymore.

        Like

      • CARedman says:

        Cincy got kicked out and they are better than half the ACC and better than at least 2 me,bers from each P5 conference. Shit happens sometimes.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Cincy got kicked out. . . .

          No one actually “kicked them out” of anything. Like numerous other members of the old Big East, they did not get an invitation. There was nothing they were ever IN that they got kicked out of.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            They got kicked out in the sense of vp19’s comment … Iowa State would not be kicked out of the Big12 in “Iowa State kicked out of the P5” … they’d just be a member of a conference at risk of being kicked out of the Power conferences in the next negotiation of the CFP.

            Like

  23. wscsuperfan says:

    If the B1G could add OU football and KU hoops before the new TV deal is signed……imagine how many more dollars the Big Ten could ask for/demand with those two properties.

    Like

  24. Mike says:

    UConn still is a great option for the BIG

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      UConn still is a great option for the BIG.

      UConn satisfies practically none of the B1G’s known criteria. They don’t deliver a major sports market. They do not reside in an important recruiting territory. They don’t have a great football program. They don’t have a great stadium (by B1G standards). They aren’t contiguous to the current B1G footprint. They aren’t in the AAU. Even the ACC rejected them.

      UConn does have a great basketball program…but Kansas has a better one. On top of that, Kansas is in the AAU and provides a geographic bridge to Oklahoma. If the B1G wants what UConn has to offer, they might as well add Kansas, which is equal or better in practically every dimension.

      Like

      • Mike R says:

        Agree with all of this. As far as the ACC goes, my understanding is that BC has been the roadblock for UConn. UConn’s all-around sports program lines up more neatly with the ACC (strong basketball and soccer programs for both genders) than almost any other school you could think of. Football is not great, though.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          As far as the ACC goes, my understanding is that BC has been the roadblock for UConn.

          That could be, but if the ACC really wanted UConn, do you think BC all by itself could stand in the way?

          Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Which would get FSU and Clemson leaning toward any available add that has better prospects in football … as when the ACC last was looking and ended up with Louisville.

          Like

      • Yeah but you forgot that they have great seafood. So there.

        Like

      • vp19 says:

        You can see why my ACC buddies want nothing to do with Connecticut, its nouveau riche fan base or its former ambulance-chasing attorney general turned U.S. senator. Let the evil empire of women’s basketball wither on the vine in the AAC.

        Liked by 1 person

      • David Stroud says:

        U.Conn is ahead on the academic ratings than OU. So, that arguement is out the window. They are even higher than Nebraska. Now, we need to remember that basketball is not the real money maker in making moves. I see no reason for any conferences to add Kansas since they bring no value to football. North Dakota State has a much better football product than Kansas. Kansas is just as bad as U.Conn in football.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Your argument is jumbled … U Conn may be ahead of OkU in academics … but its not academics that is OkU’s calling card, its FB. And then when you looked at Kansas, suddenly academics was forgotten, but when Kansas and UConn are compared, the most striking difference is that Kansas has a higher academic status.

          Like

        • Stuart says:

          Actually Oklahoma (#82 $258m R&D expenditures) is ahead of Connecticut (#86,.$242m) in research rankings – source NFS.

          For comparison Nebraska comes in #81, $266m, and Kansas #74, $298m.

          Its raw numbers, but it says Oklahoma is acceptable and in fact a little ahead of Connecticut. In general Southern schools are moving up the list, so you see “meh” non-AAU schools like South Florida (#43), Cincy (#46), UAB (#44), NC State (#51), Georgia (#64), Miami (#67), Kentucky (#69), LSU (#76). Florida State (#83).

          https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd

          Oklahoma looks far from being a basket case as far as CIC membership goes.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            In ARWU rankings in the US (among world top 500 rankings), American Athletic and Big12 schools are:

            28: UTx
            65-77: Iowa State,
            78-104: Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas

            105-125: OkSU, OkU, Temple, Tulane, UCF, UConn,

            126-146: Kansas State

            Below 146: Baylor*, ECU, Memphis, SMU, TCU, TTech, Tulsa, USF, WVU

            Source: http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings-2014/USA.html
            Supplemented by Wikipedia to remember who all is in the AAC.

            *Baylor School of Medicine ranked 53-64, so if Baylor & Baylor School of Medicine merged, Baylor would likely be ranked (but not likely at the 53-64 tier).

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Mistake: Missed USF, #78-104

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Baylor College of Medicine is unrelated to Baylor University and has been unrelated since 1969.

            When Rice began discussions about merging with BCM about 5 years ago, Baylor also talked to them, but both deals got dropped. BCM is in Houston in the Texas Medical Center a quarter of a mile away from (and within site of) the Rice campus.

            Like

    • Cowman says:

      Alright, so I did a little research and think that UConn’s profile actually fits the B1G better than most people think:

      Profile – large, public flagship university.

      Football – sports are cyclical; if Kansas is an option based on the notion that KU football will turn it around, UConn football was actually competitive as a BCS member too. Yes, the Big East was not very good. But they do put players in the NFL and made 5 bowl games in the Big East (3-2).

      Stadium – 40K is small but the stadium was built with footings already in place to expand by 10-15K. UTC just donated 25 additional acres for parking in return for naming the stadium “Pratt & Whitney Stadium”. 25 acres = 10-15K fans.

      Basketball – Definitely their strength. Top 5 hoops program without question. Hard to argue with 4 national titles since 1999. That’s on par with Kentucky and Duke. Would bring New York into play for hoops (maybe MSG??). NYC is a NCAAB town, not NCAAF. There are 2 teams that matter in NYC: UConn + Syracuse. That’s it.

      Hockey – just upgraded to Hockey East and were competitive (finished 9th I think). Led conference in attendance. Would be a nice addition to B1G Hockey.

      Academics – no, not AAU and that is a real detriment. But good rankings (ahead of OU and most B1G schools) and the state of CT just gave them $1.5 BILLION to expand research. That’s serious financial backing and commitment.

      Market – Hartford/New Haven is #30 (Kansas City is #31). Part of CT is actually located inside the NYC DMA, which probably shifts the entire state of CT up to around 20-25th. As mentioned before, NYC is a NCAAB town and UConn is heavily followed there. I think Tom Izzo called Madison Square Garden “UConn South” before their game last year.

      UConn by itself is not overly attractive for the B1G. But pair them with someone like OU (or better yet, OU + Texas + Kansas!), and we could do MUCH worse. Actually, it would be hard to do much better if we got all 4.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        “Academics – no, not AAU and that is a real detriment. But good rankings (ahead of OU and most B1G schools) and the state of CT just gave them $1.5 BILLION to expand research. That’s serious financial backing and commitment.”

        Only if by “ahead of most” you mean behind all (AWRU):
        #17: TSUN
        #18: Wisconsin
        #20: Northwestern
        #22: Minnesota
        #30: Maryland
        #34: Rutgers
        #37: Penn State
        #38: Purdue
        #40: OSU
        #53-64 (in alphabetical order): Indiana, MSU, Illinois, Iowa,
        #78-104: Nebraska
        #105-125: UConn

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Alright, so I did a little research and think that UConn’s profile actually fits the B1G better than most people think:

        Profile – large, public flagship university.

        Check. You got that one right.

        Football – sports are cyclical; if Kansas is an option based on the notion that KU football will turn it around, UConn football was actually competitive as a BCS member too. Yes, the Big East was not very good. But they do put players in the NFL and made 5 bowl games in the Big East (3-2).

        College sports aren’t cyclical: that’s why the same relatively small set of teams keeps winning the vast majority of the championships. If you are making the decision, you need to assume that Kansas football will continue to be terrible. UConn doesn’t have the history to suggest that their brief period of excellence in the Big East can be maintained, so they get very little credit for that, either.

        Stadium – 40K is small but the stadium was built with footings already in place to expand by 10-15K.

        The Big Ten generally doesn’t expand on spec. The fact it could be expanded does not mean it will be.

        Basketball – Definitely their strength. Top 5 hoops program without question. Hard to argue with 4 national titles since 1999. That’s on par with Kentucky and Duke. Would bring New York into play for hoops (maybe MSG??). NYC is a NCAAB town, not NCAAF. There are 2 teams that matter in NYC: UConn + Syracuse. That’s it.

        Yes, there are UConn basketball fans in NYC, but expansion decisons are mostly football driven. If you’re going to take a school mainly for basketball, you take the one that has better academics (Kansas) and that has been a basketball blueblood longer (Kansas).

        Hockey – just upgraded to Hockey East and were competitive (finished 9th I think). Led conference in attendance. Would be a nice addition to B1G Hockey.

        They do have hockey, but hockey doesn’t drive the expansion decision.

        Market – Hartford/New Haven is #30 (Kansas City is #31).

        The trouble is, there isn’t a lot of passion for UConn football. As pathetic as Kansas football has been recently, they have more accumulated goodwill, in terms of fans who’ll stick with them in the lean times. Yes, there’s a ton of passion for UConn basketball, but if you’re going to make a basketball expansion, you choose Kansas.

        Like

  25. BigRedAvenger says:

    I would love to see OU join us in the B1G. As a Nebraska fan, I can honestly say that is the only series I miss. As for the rest, if they have to bring someone, I suppose KU is better than ISU, KSU, or Okie-Lite.

    Like

  26. Mike R says:

    Boren’s emphasis is on the academic “club” OU is part of, with an eye toward positioning it as a possible AAU school in the future. Politically, and he is a master politician, he has two big tasks:
    Make sure “little brother” OSU is unharmed, i.e., in a bolstered Big 12 that is still part of the P5.
    Sell the Pac-12 or B1G to the athletic boosters who see the SEC as the gold standard conference.
    Tough job to do in the two or three years or less that he probably has.

    Like

    • Stuart says:

      I think that is another reason OU wants to move now. If they cut the cord now with OSU, it will be while OSU is still in a power conference and still with Texas, most likely for another half dozen years. Its an opportunity that may not present itself again.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        But do we have anything other than inference to establish that OU wants to move now? Saber rattling on realignment could well be putting pressure on schools to support the expansion that Boren wants. And unlike moving to the PAC-12 or Big Ten, which likely must wait until long after he has left office, if he can swing enough schools in the Big12 to his view of the correct expansion, that is something that can be executed before he leaves.

        (Which is part of the reason to use the AWRU/US rankings as a proxy for OU’s assessment of academic status, since OU is pretty much all-in on China.)

        Like

  27. GreatLakeState says:

    The obvious move is TX/OU/KS & ND to the B1G, then stop. See how easy that was?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      That’s great, but I’m not sure the Irish got the memo.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Who couldn’t see this coming. Over at ND Nation the ‘community’ are pissed that the ACC coaches are pressuring ND to join the conference in football. They’re mad that Swarbrick hasn’t shot back. They’re mad that their recruiting in in the toilet. They’re mad that BK (the Three Star General as they call him) isn’t going to the pros and is content with eight wins. All after one year. By the time 2020 rolls around, much less 2027, they will rue the day they hitched their wagon to the ACC. Not that they’ll wish they joined the Big Ten, mind you.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          ND’s fanbase is delusional, but so are the fans at most major programs. Hang out on an Alabama football or Kentucky basketball message board for a while. I don’t give a damn what most of them say, and you shouldn’t either.

          If University presidents start saying that ND has to join a conference full-time, then I will start to believe it might happen.

          Liked by 1 person

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          NDNation was mad about the conference deal from day 1…but they still hate the B1G more. The ACC deal is not one that any Domer I know is enthused about, I’ll check with my on campus source about the current students. It’s just the least bad option. Hopefully the situation will improve by 202x…but it won’t if the BXII explodes.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            If I were a Notre Dame fan, I wouldn’t be pleased with it either. I think there’s a good argument that the ACC got the better end of the deal. The fact that ND felt compelled to do this is a good indication of the weakness of their position, once the Big East was no longer a viable home for their non-football sports.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            I don’t actually see that argument that the ACC got the better end of the deal. What Notre Dame needed at the time was a four game home and away FB scheduling agreement where they set the dates, and a place to place their Olympic sports. On top of that, they desired Eastern Exposure. They got the place to part their Olympic sports and a conference with BC, Syracuse with something of a BBall following in NYC, and VTech and UVA in Greater DC, all for only the cost of one more football game in the scheduling agreement than optimal for their needs.

            Like

      • metatron says:

        CC to Mizzou then.

        Like

  28. Redwood86 says:

    I think that Larry Scott could sell OU and Kansas to the Pac-12 presidents. And that would be a coup for the conference. . . I think what has changed for Boren is that the Big-12 botched expansion, and perhaps he has figured out how to break away from Oklahoma State.

    Pac-12 will never take any other conference’s dregs. And one thing it has going for it is demographics. With ongoing population and economic growth, eventually Nevada, and possibly UNLV, will be feasible candidates for the Pac. And BYU will always be there if a #14 or #16 is ultimately needed.

    Like

  29. Carl says:

    Isn’t discovery fun?

    Like

  30. SlartyBartFast says:

    Add

    Like

  31. Geoff says:

    I think it is a done deal. TBA after 2016
    Football season. Big 12 will just fold. As it should. Big Ten and Pac 12 will expand to 16’and create a partnership of 32 team.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      OK, if the B1G and Pac each go to 16 (adding two and four, respectively), who goes where, and what happens to the four who are left over?

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        The four that are left over did what the three that were left over in the American did: raid the next conference(s) below them to reload.

        Like

  32. GreatLakeState says:

    The only relevant question now is, what does the Dude of WV have to say about all this?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It is worth noting that when a conference switch is voluntary, it is almost always to a stronger conference academically than the school was in before.

      And conferences, when acting voluntarily, generally do not accept a school that is markedly below their own academic average.

      Obviously, this turns somewhat on the definition of “voluntary”. For instance, I would classify the ACC’s additions of Syracuse and Pitt as “voluntary” (there was no pressing existential threat that forced them to act), but their addition of Louisville as “involuntary” (Maryland was gone, and needed to be replaced immediately).

      But as a general rule, conference switches tend to be an academic step up for the moving school, and tend to raise (or at least, not to greatly diminish) the academic profile of the receiving conference.

      All of this is more relevant to the Big Ten than any other conference, as the league is 13/14ths AAU (and the 14th used to be). A couple of leagues have individual schools that are arguably better than any Big Ten member (Stanford, Duke), but those leagues also have the likes of Washington State and Clemson.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        A&M and Missouri left for a conference that was weaker than the one they were in before they left. So “almost always” is a little strong.

        Like

        • largeR says:

          Huh? Please explain.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            If you look at rankings now, you can find some with the Big 12 slightly ahead and probably a few more with the SEC slightly ahead. But basically, not much difference. And the Big 12 was stronger with A&M and Missouri instead of TCU and WVU. And the SEC went up academically with A&M and Missouri.

            Big 12 was 5/10 AAU prior to A&M and Missouri leaving and the SEC was 2/12. They still have a higher % of AAU schools (30% vs. 28%).

            Like

          • largeR says:

            Thanks. I read your post above as a stand alone. I needed to re-read Marc Shepherd.

            Like

  33. Tim Speer says:

    This OU noise reminds me of 2010 when Mizzou was telling anyone who would listen that they were headed to the B1G. Unfortunately for the Sooners their media numbers don’t match their football pedigree. OU going nowhere.

    Like

    • Clay says:

      That’s right. All the Midwesterners excited about OU need to pump their breaks a bit. I think a packaged deal with OK State and the Texas state schools is much more likely. If the PAC falls through the SEC West is waiting, which the Sooner fanbase wants very much. OU would be a bad cultural fit. We don’t want to travel to Whiskey IN OUR OWN DIVISION. Too far. Hope DBo listens to alumni and fanbase and figures out how to keep us together. At least the SEC West is close and makes geographic sense.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        AL is basically as far as WI and MS isn’t close either. I agree OU is a better cultural fit in the SEC, but don’t act like the whole SEC West is in the neighborhood.

        Like

  34. Nostradamus says:

    ” Also note that Kansas actually had the highest third tier TV rights revenue of any Big 12 school prior to the formation of the Longhorn Network”
    A large part of this had to due with a credit structure that rewarded national appearances on ABC for football and CBS for basketball higher dollar amounts. KU naturally would clean up on the CBS appearances for BB. I have a feeling this over states KU’s earning power quite a bit though.

    Football still drives the revenue. The NCAA tournament is $10.8 billion 14 year deal ($771 million per year, or $11.5 million per game). The college football playoff deal is $7.3 billion for 10 years $730 million per year or $243 million per game). Football drives the bus.

    CBS pays the Big Ten $72 million over 6 years for a minimum of 24 games including the conference semis and final ($12 million a year, $500,000 per game). Fox is paying the conference $145 million over 6 years for the football championship game ($24.17 million per year and per game).

    Like

    • Mike says:

      A large part of this had to due with a credit structure that rewarded national appearances on ABC for football and CBS for basketball higher dollar amounts. KU naturally would clean up on the CBS appearances for BB. I have a feeling this over states KU’s earning power quite a bit though.

      @Nostradamus – Wouldn’t that be first tier money, not third tier?

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        Good call. I read that wrong and I’m still not convinced KU’s 3rd tier rights were the highest in the Big XII. I assume Frank’s source with this Kristi Dosh article. http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/06/school-specific-broadcasting-revenue/

        And I’m still not sure she did it right. KU’s numbers on her list are right about where you’d expect them to be for their IMG contract. Nebraska’s are way off. Georgia is half of what it should’ve been based on their deal at the time, etc. I’m fairly confident KU was at least 3rd in the Big XII before Nebraska left.

        KU had/has an $82 million 12 year/ $6.8 million per year deal with Host (bought out by IMG)
        Nebraska had a $112.5 million for 13 years with IMG for $8.65 million a year
        Texas pre LHN $94 million for 10 years with IMG for $9.4 million a year
        Oklahoma $75 million 10 years with Learfield Sports for $6.33 a year
        ———
        What it tells us is KU has drawing power in basketball which we already knew. The one thing the Big XII contract always had excess of was basketball inventory not covered by the tier 1 and 2 contracts. KU was in a position to monetize those 3rd tier games with a separate ESPN deal and a regional Time Warner deal. Obviously pre-LHN football games didn’t have the same benefit. If a game wasn’t picked you had to go through the FSN PPV process which even for the power schools only yielded a couple hundred thousand dollars.

        The fact that KU basketball games had some value in Kansas and Missouri on a 3rd tier basis still doesn’t tell us anything about their value in the context of the Big Ten.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “Oklahoma $75 million 10 years with Learfield Sports for $6.33 a year”

          75/10=?

          Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            Don’t know what happened there. It was $75 million over 10 years so obviously $7.5 million per year.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The fact that KU basketball games had some value in Kansas and Missouri on a 3rd tier basis still doesn’t tell us anything about their value in the context of the Big Ten.

          I’m not really persuaded either. BTN would certainly get carriage in the state of Kansas, which is not a large market. Kansas would increase the value of the Big Ten’s basketball package, to an extent, but football is a far larger package, and for football the value of Kansas is near zero.

          I know there are some sky-is-falling types who think football will someday lose its popularity, but even if you believe this, it’s certainly not true now. The Big Ten’s 2016 deal is still going to be mainly driven by football, just as the last one was, and the one before that, and the one before that.

          People have been saying football is too dangerous since Teddy Roosevelt was president, and they keep playing it.

          Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      But they still have the third best Tier3 earnings in the Big12, after Texas and OkU.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        Which tells us absolutely nothing about what they could potentially contribute to the Big Ten.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Absolutely nothing? The value of the 3rd tier rights for any expansion gets added to the value of the BTN. Some of that is fairly firm in in-market fees with existing precedent, but much is driven by ad-revenue.

          Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            “The value of the 3rd tier rights for any expansion gets added to the value of the BTN.”

            No, no it doesn’t. The bulk of KU’s 3rd tier rights i.e. radio, stadium advertising, etc. stay with them if they move to the Big Ten. The only thing that would change is their Jayhawk TV/ESPN3 deal gets bought out and folded into BTN. Is there value in that deal? Sure. How much? I don’t know. I’m doubt it is significant.

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            And just to clarify you can probably get a fairly good idea of what the Jayhawk TV deal is worth by comparing their 3rd tier rights deals to other schools. It isn’t more than a couple of million dollars.

            Like

  35. Logan says:

    If an informal vote was held by B1G schools on expansion, how would that vote go? What percentage would be needed to move forward (I assume the “official” vote would be unanimous)? Would the new east coast additions have full votes and would they be opposed to expansion half a continent away? Would the academic elite of the conference oppose OU?

    Like

    • Jake says:

      Good questions. To the last one, does the B1G have an academic elite? NW is an outlier at the top, Nebraska a bit on the bottom, but otherwise it’s a pretty level group, as conferences go. Sure, there’s some separation, but its much tighter than, say, the Pac or the SEC.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Logan,

      I’d expect at least 10 votes are needed to proceed (2/3).

      Yes, the newbies would have full votes.

      Who knows what the elites would do? That’s primarily NW, MI and WI for this sort of vote, from what I’ve heard.

      Like

      • The three schools that care most about academic reputation are Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. Northwestern seems to be more what Delany says which kind of makes sense as the TV cash matters more to them.

        Like

        • Logan says:

          Thanks. Assumed it was either 3/4 or 2/3, which would be 10 or 11 schools. I think the biggest obstacle here is if the B1G decides not to offer OU and KU, and it would be interesting if Delaney could get everyone on board (assuming he favors it) or if the opposition would be strong from a handful of schools.

          Like

  36. Geoff says:

    Football drives the bus… True? But there are a couple of realities to this. The Big Ten is bigger with adding two average at best teams. Adding an Oklahoma or Texas may seem great, but adding the likes of a Mizzu or KU advances there agenda forward too. The money won’t be all that much better with the big boys. Better,yes. But only by 10 or 15 percent from a football standpoint. Any other sports will be equal. And the harsh reality to this my dear friends is A. Inventory equals cash and eyeballs – this drives the bus B. Academics is the engine C. And football is now just a passenger on this bus… And with all the head injuries and lack of participation already being evident in junior programs, this will be about solid universities. Football in 25 years will be a shell of itself. Basketball will have grown, is a TV sport, esp in the winter of these colder states. Other sports will grow and be more in demand. TV will shift a bit to these sports. But what won’t shift is academic power. KU and OK? Great. Or it could be almost any com or of Mizzu and ISU and Colorado and UVA or what every solid university and you will get the same result – a bigger, richer conference. Basically the play is to eliminate the Big 12 and almost guarantee a Big Ten team in the football playoff every year.

    Like

    • Jake says:

      If football isn’t going to be as popular in the future, why would the B1G’s “play” revolve around the college football playoff? And isn’t that playoff likely to expand anyway?

      Like

  37. Buckeye DJ says:

    As a traditionalist, I would love to see Okla in the B1G so that Neb could play its arch rival on the last weekend of the season like they used to.

    I would also love to see the new P4 conferences use their championship games as the first round of the playoffs. That would give you 8 teams.

    Then the conference champs would play. Of course I would always want to see the B1G vs the P16 in the Rose Bowl on New Years’ Day in Pasadena. Let the other games rotate to different locations, but I want the my Rose Bowl back (as much as possible)

    Like

    • Geaux Bucks says:

      “I would also love to see the new P4 conferences use their championship games as the first round of the playoffs. That would give you 8 teams.”

      Buckeye DJ great points. I heard Rick Neuhiesell (sp?) say that exact thing a few weeks ago on Sirius XM. Paraphrasing but basically, “If Playoff committee wants to expand to 8, that will be the fastest way to four 16 team conferences with the four champions in the playoffs.” Ruhh-Row Big XII!!! Obviously Rick was speculating but it caught my attention as a conference expansion junkie.

      Obviously Dan Beebee dropped his pants and bent over for DeLoss Dodds and Texas. He probably had to to save the conference a few years ago. That got Beebee a faux raise but also got him fired. Texas was the reason the Big XII had defectors then and its still the reason why the Big XII is on thin ice due to the LHN. Anyone who listens to Sirius/XM channel 91 is hearing the bad news for the Big XII within 5 years they all estimate.

      That’s why I think Boren is making waves and trying for the B1G. Sounds likely that Kansas would be the next in line as they attract portions of St. Louis and Denver tv markets as well as their brands in football & basketball.

      Texas is too arrogant to leave the LHN and B1G won’t allow that crap. Notre Dump’s arrogance will get them right out of the playoff committee and what recruit wants that. Great job Swarbrick.

      I’ll bet in 5 years or less Big XII will implode.

      Another reason, that Boren wants out is academics. Guys – the academic money that comes into the B1G via Committee on Institutional Consortium (CIC) isn’t worth tens of millions, its worth hundreds of millions. That means billions over 10 years split between all of the schools academically..

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        What happens in 5 years that would precipitate/allow the B12 to implode?

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          A new administration in Texas decides that they want to leave the Big12, and refuse to sign up for a renewal of the GOR.

          That’s pretty much it … if the front man decides it wants to keep the band together, the band gets to stay together.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Agree about process. Time frame…?
            GOR is not close to up in 5 yrs, and LHN contract runs past the next decade.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Agree about process. Time frame…?
            GOR is not close to up in 5 yrs, and LHN contract runs past the next decade.

            The Big XII’s GoR expires in 2025. I think that a school could contemplate leaving when the GoR has roughly 2–3 years left to run. Anything earlier than that, and I think the costs are just too onerous to accept.

            But schools and conferences are often talking long before they actually make a move. So I think 2020 is roughly the time when Oklahoma and Kansas could start talking seriously with suitors, as opposed to merely rattling their sabre, as Boren is doing now.

            It is harder to see how Texas could do that, unless they move to a conference where ESPN already holds the Tier 3 rights for all the other schools. Or unless Texas and ESPN agree mutually to pull the plug on LHN, if it fails miserably enough.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            By 2025 ESPN will be willing to cancel the LHN deal. Not clear how much Texas will be paid by ESPN for agreeing to cancel, but that is the way the payment will go since the deal is so favorable to Texas. Texas just needs to do this before announcing they are leaving the XII.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Buckeye DJ,

      “As a traditionalist, I would love to see Okla in the B1G so that Neb could play its arch rival on the last weekend of the season like they used to.”

      As a hard core traditionalist, I’d rather see them do it in the Big 8.

      “I would also love to see the new P4 conferences use their championship games as the first round of the playoffs. That would give you 8 teams.”

      1. The powers that be are not going to force independents to join conferences. As long as there are independents, they will have some means to make the playoff. Thus, they won’t just make the CCGs the quarterfinals.

      2. The G5 schools are still I-A members. They have to have the possibility of making the playoff or they’ll block the playoff expansion. There’s no better way to assure that the courts and/or congress get involved than to set up a systems that bars more than half the schools from making the playoff.

      3. CFB has never set up rules requiring teams to be conference champions to make the playoff (BCS or CFP). Why would they start now? There has to be room for a wildcard team that doesn’t win its conference but clearly deserves to be in the top 4 (or 8).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13347802/college-football-playoff-force-notre-dame-fighting-irish-join-conference

        Here’s the CFP head saying exactly that.

        In spite of recent comments from coaches that Notre Dame should join a conference, there is no discussion of forcing independent teams to become a member of a league in order to participate in the College Football Playoff, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said Thursday.

        “The three independents are perfectly happy being independent,” Hancock said of the Irish, BYU and Army. “They have the ability to craft their schedules to fit their needs. If their need and goal is to be in the playoff, then they’re in the same boat as everybody else. You better play a good schedule if you want to be in the playoff.”

        Hancock had a different take, saying the freedom of scheduling is part of what makes college football special.

        “The fact is it’s not going to change,” Hancock said. “The conferences all have reasons for scheduling and deciding their champions the way they do. It’s important to each one of them.

        “Frankly, in the committee room, it wasn’t a factor. The committee has the luxury of looking at the full body of work from an entire season — 12 or 13 games — for each team, irrespective of what conference they’re in. Having been in the committee room, I can tell you, it’s just not a factor.”

        Like

  38. Geoff says:

    They are really separate things.

    They want to expand for money and power. The play is to eliminate The Big 12 (or ACC.) if it were just about football then Rutgers and Maryland would not be in the Big 10. It’s about growing, both athletically and academically, and the result would be money and power. If they can butcher a conference at the same time then BOOM its a bonus – four conferences rather than 5. Plus a move with the likes of OK and KU leaves the college world with one last play, and the Big 10 will have the most chips then. The last plays are ND and TX. From a TV/football stand point it’s important, money now and more of it, but five, ten, twenty years down the road when football is declining and other sports are enhancing then you have solid universities tin your league now, and a lot of them. If the play was football and football only and as that relates to TV, then you only have like five schools that are worth a shit to go after. Maryland and Rutgers added value. And money. And power.

    Think of it this way – what universities would you add if football just went away and no one sport dominated? Most any large state school outside of your footprint that still had athletic chops and AAU status would be the way to go. OK may not be AAU —- but in the future who knows?

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      “If they can butcher a conference at the same time then BOOM its a bonus – four conferences rather than 5.”

      This is likely a major difference between people who play fantasy Conference Realignment Risk and University Presidents … University Presidents are highly unlikely to be focusing on the destruction of another conference as a big win. Conferences are not corporations, they are clubs, and the interests that drive them are not the interest of the group as perceived by the CEO and Board, but the interests of the individual schools as perceived by those schools.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. Geoff says:

    I guess my best analogy would be the following:

    Think if there were only five decent restaurants in the USA. They all had nice wine lists, some boasting nice red wines (athletics) and white wines (academics.) if you own one of these restaurants, one of your goals is to grow. You decide that the only real way to grow is by adding wines that only the other restaurants carry, bc now you have your list which is completely separate from the other four restaurants. You take a Brand with a solid red portfolio but is a little lacking in white, and you take Brand with a great white portfolio while lacking in red. By taking these wines away from one of your four competitors, they are forced to close or add wines that are really not all that good In any sense. By adding some good reds and good whites, you know you have some power and influence on your new wines to enhance their weaker points. If you eliminate some competition, so be it. Now that restaurant is forced to close but their remaining wine list is up for grabs. You may land Opus One (Texas) and BOOM job well done. If one of the remaining three restaurants get Opus One, well fine. You had 20 percent of the market, by eliminating competion you now have 25. Your goal is to grow and add solid brands. But by being first and aggressive you go after the wine brands you want, and which make sense for your restaurant. Certainly the big 10 could court Far Niente (florida) but the owner (big 10, Jim Delaney, etc.) just do not believe Far Niente works for their current clients. By adding KU and OK you getting two solid wine brands (Robert Mondavi and Beringer) to enhance your list and then have a chance at Opus One (Texas) and/or Caymus(ND) certainly there are other small restaurants around the USA (MAC,SWAC,MWC) but none of these restaurants really compete with you bc their wine lists have Two Buck Chuck and Mad Dog 20/20. So you never pay attention to any of these smaller restaurants. Your goal is to enhance your wine list with good to great reds and whites. If you happened to eliminate one of your four competitors then you have enhance your overall brand. This is about making the Big Ten a bigger and better brand with more red and white wines that make sense for their current customer base and potential new customers.

    Like

  40. SlartyBartFast says:

    Since we’re in speculation mode anyway I’ll toss this out here:

    Theorizing multiple conferences bulking up to 16 members (potentially B1G, ACC, SEC and Pac12 all doing it by eating the BigXII) which will be the first conference to have the top 8(it) teams split to form their own conference in order to increase their per-school payout / influence / etc? And which teams would run?

    I’ll go first: I’d see the ACC busting up first, with Tobacco Road pilfering whoever the other top dogs are (Texas, ND if they were to join for instance) and leaving most of the old Big East rump in the dust. They may even try to pull a Big East and somehow finagle (i.e. throw cash) the name to come along with them.

    Like

    • Tigertails says:

      BIG 16 = Oklahoma + Kansas

      Oklahoma is making the most noise so this looks like the first domino to fall.

      ACC 16 = Texas + Notes Dame

      Texas seems reluctant to be the scapegoat for breaking up the Big 12. Texas follows Oklahoma out the open door. Joins ACC to increase exposure along the east coast and affiliate with the best undergrad conference in the country.

      SEC 16 = West Virginia + Texas Tech

      SEC wouldn’t have to expand but if they do they can take the teams with lesser academics. East needs another team for numbers & Tech gives A&M a travel partner.

      PAC 16 = Texas Christian + Baylor + Oklahoma State + Kansas State

      PAC wouldn’t have to act either and could add BYU instead of TCU but this would be nice for symmetry.

      That just leaves Iowa State out of the Power 4. They’d either join MWC with BYU or UTEP or AAC with Rice.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Tigertails,

        I have to disagree with a couple of your points.

        “SEC wouldn’t have to expand but if they do they can take the teams with lesser academics. East needs another team for numbers & Tech gives A&M a travel partner.”

        TT is 485 miles from TAMU. LSU is over 100 miles closer to TAMU. AR is only 30 miles farther away. MS State is less than 100 more miles away. I don’t really see TT as a travel partner for TAMU.

        “PAC 16 = Texas Christian + Baylor + Oklahoma State + Kansas State

        PAC wouldn’t have to act either and could add BYU instead of TCU but this would be nice for symmetry.”

        No, no, no and no. Without their big brothers, the P12 has zero interest in schools like OkSU and KSU due to their poor academics compared to most P12 members (Cal, Stanford, etc would block them). The religious aspects of TCU and Baylor would be very problematic for their entrance as well. Besides, they are small schools with limited brands a long way from P12 territory. They might take one of them with UT, but not by themselves. BYU faces the same problem as the P12 wants no part of a religious school like that.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Redwood86 says:

          This is largely correct. So if you want to reduce the P5 to P4, then BiG would be better off letting the Pac have OU and Kansas. Otherwise, the conference will hold tight at 12 teams unless Texas comes calling.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            This is largely correct. So if you want to reduce the P5 to P4, then BiG would be better off letting the Pac have OU and Kansas. Otherwise, the conference will hold tight at 12 teams unless Texas comes calling.

            I don’t think there’s anyone in the P5 that is trying actively to reduce the number of major conferences from five to four. They are just looking to make moves individually, when and if they can, to improve their own lot in life.

            In other words, if the B1G takes OK and KU, it won’t be because they’re trying to kill off the Big XII. It’ll be because they think OK and KU are good schools to have, and that’s that.

            Anyhow, why would the PAC cooperate in your plan, by taking two schools it doesn’t want, while the great whale remains a free agent? Kansas is at least geographically contiguous with the B1G, and has a long-standing rivalry with Nebraska. Kansas in the PAC makes very little sense.

            Like

        • Jake says:

          I get that TCU is more than a longshot for the Pac, but please, PLEASE don’t lump us in with Baylor and BYU; those are three very different degrees of religious affiliation. Sure TCU has Christian in the name and a divinity school on campus (affiliated with, but not technically part of the university), but TCU’s ties to the Disciples of Christ are tenuous; we’re no more religious than Syracuse. Baylor is partially governed by the Baptist Church, and they still require all members of their Board of Regents to be Christians – it was all Baptists until like five years ago. BYU, meanwhile, is owned and operated by the LDS Church and exists to further its mission.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Brian says:

            Jake,

            I’m aware that the level of religious affiliation is very different between the 3 schools. However, I believe it is still strong enough at TCU to cause problems for schools like Cal and Stanford.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            However, there’s still a difference between “cause problems with” and “generate overwhelming opposition”. TCU is not a good institutional fit with the PAC-12 institutions, but there would there be far more strident opposition at Cal and Stanford to a BYU or Baylor, but it also seems like there would likely be a larger number of PAC-12 schools in the “its no and there’s nothing more to talk about” camp with Baylor and BYU.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            I agree with Jake. Despite its name, TCU is a very secular school. Most majors require one religion elective, such as a survey of world religion. Its a Disciples of Christ school in name only, and the Disciples of Christ denomination is about as mainline and liberal a denomination as you could find. On the other hand, Baylor is very religious and run by Baptists.

            While I don’t think TCU is a candidate for admission to any other P5 conference, it has close to 10,000 very smart undergraduates due to extremely selective admissions, a healthy endowment, generous alums, and is about to open up a medical school.

            Fort Worth is a great town and TCU is a great school that is committed to its athletic program. The football stadium is essentially a $100mm re-build that paid for in cash during the silent phase of its capital campaign. TCU is about to start another campaign that will add $1B to its endowment. If the SEC ever had to pick between Tx Tech and TCU, I’d pick TCU in a heart beat.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            If a couple of schools are dead set against it, I doubt the others would force the expansion on them. I think Cal and Standford would be dead set against TCU. I think the others wouldn’t see much value in TCU so it wouldn’t be worth aggravating Cal and Stanford to add them.

            Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        @Tigertails: I agree with all of Brian’s points, but would add another.

        Your analysis assumes that all of the power conferences would decide conveniently, and at the same time, that they all want 16 teams, practically regardless of who those teams are!!

        This is just ludicrous. At no point in history have all the “power conferences” had the same number of members. They are independent bodies, who act in their own good time, according to their own best interests as they perceive them. You’re proposing a number of weak moves, which stable conferences like the SEC and PAC have no incentive to make.

        SEC wouldn’t have to expand but if they do they can take the teams with lesser academics. East needs another team for numbers & Tech gives A&M a travel partner.

        Brian already debunked this, but the notion of a “travel partner” is a fallacy anyway, even if the geography made sense. It’s a difference of, at most, one game (or meet) per year per sport, not significant enough to drive a decision.

        Even for West Virginia, the one P5 school that’s really out of line geographically, adding one Eastern school like Cincinnati to the Big XII would not change their travel burden very much.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          But is that what travel partners ARE?

          AFAIU, travel partners are not about the travel of the “partner” school, its for Olympic sports that have both midweek and weekend games, where you fly to travel partner A and play, bus to travel partner B and play, and fly home.

          They are more of an issue at the Go5 level and below. I expect that the “WVU island” issue is more about the fact that schools in neighboring territories complement each other as far as gaining profile, with spillover support from one or more conference schools in the coverage area of regional media increasing the attention paid to each of the schools in the conference.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            AFAIU, travel partners are not about the travel of the “partner” school, its for Olympic sports that have both midweek and weekend games, where you fly to travel partner A and play, bus to travel partner B and play, and fly home.

            That is precisely what I understand it to be. My point is that adding just one “travel partner” to a conference of 10 or more schools, doesn’t really move the travel needle all that much.

            And I agree that it’s much more of a concern for the Go5 conferences. One of the reasons I think the MAC has been so stable, is that 11 out of 12 full-time members are in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, or Indiana. Nine out of 12 are in Michigan or Ohio. Almost all their teams are within reasonable bus distance to the others.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Though adding a travel partner as opposed to adding a second school on an island is definitely better for non-revenue sports. At the Big12 level, that may well be an “Athletic Director management headache” issue rather than a money issue.

            Like

      • Tim Speer says:

        There is no financial incentive for the SEC to add another team from Texas. That divides the revenue pie without increasing the overall pay-out. Not gonna happen.

        Like

        • @Tim Speer – There would still be a financial incentive for the SEC to add Texas (the school). It would be no different than the Big Ten adding Notre Dame, where even though their market is technically already covered by Indiana and Purdue, the national value is massive. I’d agree with you with respect to the other Texas-based Big 12 schools.

          Like

      • KUand UofAfan says:

        If the SEC was going to take someone along with West Virginia, then I just don’t see why it would be Tech. If I was the SEC commish in this scenario, I would take Oklahoma St, if I couldn’t get UT, KU, or OU first. IMO the best thing the Red Raiders can hope for is that Texas decides to drop the LHN, go to the PAC, and convince Larry Scott and crew to take them along for the ride.

        Like

      • Kyle Peter says:

        I continue to read a lot of talk about going to 4 power conferences of 16 each. Why does it have to be 16 each? Couldn’t some remain at 12 and some go to 18 or 20?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          It doesn’t have to be 16, but many people like the symmetry of it. Also, it’s more like the NFL. Finally, it allows breaking into pods of 4 for scheduling purposes while still keeping divisions.

          The major conferences have never all been the same size before and it’s unlikely they will be for any prolonged period. The P12 has limited choices while the eastern US is full of schools.

          Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          In other words, the people who build fantasy realignments are often building them top down like an architect, when in reality they will be built from the bottom up based on the needs of the balance of power coalitions of schools in the individual conferences. A collapse of either the Big12 or ACC into a P4 could just as easily result in two 14 school conferences, a 16 school conference and an 18 school conference.

          Like

  41. It is actually difficult to be as wrong as you have been in the past about realignment. Remember those great articles you wrote about how the Aggies couldn’t go to the SEC and it wasn’t ever going to happen. And that the PAC-16 was the logical conclusion for realignment…..ummmm. yeah.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Frank’s prediction record is pretty good, which doesn’t mean perfect. Find me someone who’s better, and we’ll talk.

      Like

      • FrankTheAg says:

        His reliance on Longhorn sources led him astray on the A&M / SEC realignment story. Plenty of A&M sources or posters tried getting him less orange filtered input but it was ignored and led to some now pretty humorous blog posts by Frank.

        Like

        • @FrankTheAg – I made some wrong predictions on A&M back in the day. What can I say? To be sure, I sincerely find your brethren at TexAgs hilarious. I’m pretty sure someone posts one of my wrong predictions from several years ago to mock at least once a month over there.

          Like

          • @FrankTheAg- Also, FWIW, the person I spoke to in this blog post was completely correct on A&M moving to the SEC with specific details beforehand. Should I have listened to him then? Yes.

            Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Yes, Frank the Tank has been repeatedly wrong … in the sense that each and every time he posts, somebody repeats that he was wrong about A&M. So he was wrong on one realignment that some people see fit to raise repeatedly.

      Like

    • Chet says:

      Take a breath, Dude. Inhale.

      Like

  42. Brian says:

    I see several problems when talking OU and KU to the B10:

    1. Why make a move that may pressure UT to go somewhere but leaves you lacking room for them? Wouldn’t it be better to try to get UT as part of the package? The last thing you want to do is push UT into another conference (unless the B10 is happy to help the P12 this way). Or is the B10 happy to go to 18+?

    2. The GoR is an obvious concern. Perhaps they’re looking to sign the schools now but not have them officially move until closer to the end of the GoR? That would put the B12 in the awkward position of promoting school you know are leaving soon or punishing everyone by not showing your top brands as much in prime TV spots. They could decide it’s better to let them go sooner rather than later for a decent settlement. If something isn’t worked out, wouldn’t it make more sense to do this in the early 2020s?

    3. Little brothers. By most/all accounts, they aren’t legally tied to each other at the hip. However, we know politicians love to stick their noses into things. I don’t think they’d normally interfere with one of their schools moving up, but when they know it’ll likely harm the other school they have to at least think about blocking the move.

    4. Does it make sense for the B10? KU is a decent fit culturally with decent academics, terrible football and poor demographics but terrific basketball. OU is a poor cultural fit with lesser academic standing and poor demographics but terrific football. Does this pair raise the per school payout significantly? Do they help the long term demographics? Are the additions of major brands in the two revenue sports worth all the negatives of this expansion? If it’s just a pro rata increase, is it worth it to expand and play everyone else less often?

    5. Can it get done before the B10 starts negotiating their new TV deal in earnest? If not, can they get an early look-in based on expansion?

    6. Is the B10 done with their eastward expansion and looking to go southwest instead? Adding OU and KU would basically have to end any pursuit of eastern teams, I’d think. Are UNC and UVA (or other schools) more valuable to the B10 for non-athletic reasons? Are they potential options in 10-30 years? Does the B10 want to give up on them?

    7. This really only makes sense to me if it’s all about also adding UT in the long run. Is there a solution to the LHN problem? What about the Tech problem?

    Like

    • Chet says:

      Did ‘Tech’ problem really mean ‘A&M’ problem?

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        No, it really was a Tech problem. As we saw in the end, A&M had other options. Tech did not, and does not.

        Like

      • Chet says:

        Yes, difficult to separate Cheech from Chong.

        Like

      • Chet says:

        Speak of the Devil:

        http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/04/hash-bash-feature-tommy-chong-lansing-mayor/25288923/

        The annual event, which organizers call a “speak out and smoke down” protest, has a long history in Ann Arbor now in its 44th year.

        The two-hour rally featured speakers ranging from comedian Tommy Chong to Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, as well as activist John Sinclair, for whom the original rally was held in 1972.

        Chong, 76, is known to film-lovers as one-half of the comedy stoner duo Cheech and Chong.

        The event kicked-off with speakers asking the crowd to take off their hats and turn the U.S. flag that waved high about the Diag as a skilled guitarist performed a rousing Jimi Hendrix-inspired version of the “Star Spangled Banner.”

        Like

    • Mack says:

      KU and OU will not significantly increase the B1G payout, and might even reduce it with the 12.5% cut per school in playoff and CCG $$$. With current B1G renewal estimates of $40M+ per school, even if KU and OK added $1B to a 10 year contract that would net no increase for the current 14 B1G members. The risk of a lower payout with this expansion is real. So there is no incentive for MI, WI, and IL to go academic slumming, or (#6) for PSU, MD, and Rutgers to cede further eastern expansions. When you add on all the legal issues with the GoR, the political issues with oSu (T. Boone Pickens is 87 but he is not dead yet, and the current OK politicians know where the money comes from). Why try to force something now that could be a disaster when most of these issues will resolve themselves in 10 years with the GoR expiration.

      To point #1,7: With 14 years of the LHN, Texas will know its success, renewal potential and have received most of the contract payout. So if the B1G wants TX it should just wait for the GoR expiration since the LHN problem will have resolved itself by that time.

      Boren is a politician and that profession specializes in speeches. Too much is being made of these comments. He may be getting leverage on Texas, or setting up for a future move 7+ years out. He is not about to buck the GoR, and oSu now for an invite that is very unlikely.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am with you. I don’t see what this does for the B1G. OU and KU are names no question but they are not the biggest names especially when you have names as big or bigger sitting in much bigger states that are in play. They are small states that don’t produce talent in really any major sport.

        Academically not seeing this at all. KU is going to lose their membership sooner then later and OU is behind at least a dozen other schools. Both are in states that are a bit hostile to either funding and/or science.

        Like

      • jamesinsocal says:

        If you consider the upcoming TV negotiations, having Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma on the docket. (Add in Kansas for Basketball) Wouldn’t that alone add value. I don’t know what the pay out for the Big XII GOR is but is it safe to assume that it is less than Oklahoma would make from the COC and the potential revenue from the new TV deal the B1G is estimated to make?

        Wouldn’t Oklahoma be able to make the case that the new TV deal is so large partly because of their movement into the B1G and that could help with the buy in process into the BTN?

        If Oklahoma and Kansas do join the B1G, the 4 team PODS idea would actually work better with the upcoming 9 game conference schedule as each team would play the other 3 teams in its POD and 2 teams from the other 3 PODS making sure that every team has played a Home and Home every 4 years. It would also allow the conference to balance the power across the PODS more easily and renew the Nebraska and Oklahoma rivalry, which I do believe Nebraska has missed since the creation of the Big XII. (Not sure how Oklahoma feels about the Rivalry) and it would allow for the power schools, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma to meet on a more regular basis creating more big games televised.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          jamesinsocal,

          “If you consider the upcoming TV negotiations, having Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma on the docket. (Add in Kansas for Basketball) Wouldn’t that alone add value.”

          Do OU football and KU hoops add value? Of course. How much is the question.

          http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf

          Comparison of total TV households:
          PA – 4.82M
          IL – 4.69M
          OH – 4.39M
          MI – 3.71M
          NJ – 3.13M
          IN – 2.39M
          WI – 2.21M
          MD – 2.12M
          MN – 2.04M
          OK – 1.44M
          IA – 1.18M
          KS – 1.07M
          NE – 0.703M
          DC – 0.280M

          http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/

          The B10 projected payouts when adding UMD and RU:
          2015 – $30.9M
          2016 – 34.1
          2017 – 35.5
          2018 – 44.5 (start of new deal)

          The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.

          OK has only 1.44M total TV households. OU would also add national fans, plus plenty of fans in neighboring states (TX, especially). In other words, OU would help ratings but not boost BTN very much. Is that worth $33M?

          KS is smaller at 1.07M. In addition, KU football has zero value. On the bright side, KU hoops would drive ratings and maybe even BTN subscriptions. Does that add up to $33M or more? The hoops deal is much smaller than the football deal, but the winter inventory would be helpful for BTN. In addition, KU will boost the NCAA hoops payout. Still, I don’t see how KU pays for itself. That’s the problem.

          “I don’t know what the pay out for the Big XII GOR is but is it safe to assume that it is less than Oklahoma would make from the COC and the potential revenue from the new TV deal the B1G is estimated to make?”

          In theory, the GOR means the B12 would own OU’s home football games through 2024-5 and OU wouldn’t get paid a cent by them. I don’t think that’s what would actually happen, though.

          http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights-010313

          That’s a lawyer arguing that there would be no damages in breaking a GOR so it wouldn’t be expensive at all. IANAL, so I’ll let you make your own decision.

          Regardless, OU would still need to buy into the BTN. That’s a 6 year process, so OU couldn’t get much of a bump before then. If breaking the GOR gets expensive, that also has to get paid somehow. The CIC wouldn’t add much money directly to OU at the outset, but it would lead to a rapid growth in research dollars and increase in academic rankings. Certainly OU wants that.

          “Wouldn’t Oklahoma be able to make the case that the new TV deal is so large partly because of their movement into the B1G and that could help with the buy in process into the BTN?”

          Only if it greatly exceeds the projections already in hand. Frankly, the networks could tell the B10 exactly how much more OU and KU are worth to them beyond the current 14.

          “If Oklahoma and Kansas do join the B1G, the 4 team PODS idea would actually work better with the upcoming 9 game conference schedule as each team would play the other 3 teams in its POD and 2 teams from the other 3 PODS making sure that every team has played a Home and Home every 4 years. It would also allow the conference to balance the power across the PODS more easily and renew the Nebraska and Oklahoma rivalry, which I do believe Nebraska has missed since the creation of the Big XII. (Not sure how Oklahoma feels about the Rivalry) and it would allow for the power schools, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma to meet on a more regular basis creating more big games televised.”

          It gets messy when trying to make pods of 4 in the B10. You need to preserve rivalries and the B10 doesn’t neatly split into 4 equal groups that way.

          W – OU, NE, KU, ?
          N – WI, MN, IA, ?
          S – OSU, MI, MSU, ?
          E – PSU, RU, UMD, ?

          That leaves NW, IL, PU and IN all split up. Or you have to split the triangle of hate (WI, IA, MN). Or split up MI from a huge rival. Or get into sets of locked rivals.

          Better is a 6, 2, 2, 6 system:

          W – OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, KU
          C1 – NW, IL
          C2 – PU, IN
          E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD

          Swap C1 and C2 between divisions every 2 years. It keeps the regional teams together in each division and lets the central 4 play each other annually.

          Or just drop pods:
          W – OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, KU, NW, IL
          E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, PU, IN

          But better than that is dropping divisions and locking multiple opponents:
          9 games = 5 teams x 100% + 10 teams x 40%
          9 games = 4 teams x 100% + 11 teams x 45%
          9 games = 3 teams x 100% + 12 teams x 50%

          Everybody gets to keep their important rivals while seeing everyone else frequently and equally.

          Now, I noted you stuck with 4 pods but no divisions. That really the same as dropping divisions, but it forces groups of 4 to be locked together. Scheduling as one big conference with multiple locked games gives you more freedom and locks fewer games that neither side cares much about.

          Like

        • swesleyh says:

          POD’s could be the way for the future for all conferences.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            If CCGs get deregulated, I think pods lose their value. You can get a slightly better result by scheduling as one big conference and locking several rivals per school.

            Examples:
            16 teams
            9 games = 3 in pod + 4 in division + 2 crossover = 3 * 100% + 12 * 50%
            or
            9 games = 3 in pod + 2 each from other pods (or 4/1/1) = 3 * 100% + 12 * 50%
            or
            9 games = 3 locked rivals + 6 rotating games = 3 * 100% + 12 * 50%

            20 teams
            9 games = 4 in pod + 5 in division = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%
            or
            9 games = 4 in pod + 1/2/2 each from other pods (or all of one other pod) = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%
            or
            9 games = 4 locked rivals + 5 rotating games = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%

            The reason 1 conference is better is that you don’t need separate pods.

            Example:
            A – B, C, D, E
            B – A, C, D, F
            C – A, B, E, F
            D – A, B, E, F
            E – A, C, D, F
            F – B, C, D, E

            This allows groups to overlap and maintain more rivalries (or suit other purposes) than separate pods can.

            B10 (16) example with OU and KU:
            OU – NE, KU, WI
            NE – OU, KU, IA
            KU – OU, NE, MN
            IA – WI, MN, NE
            WI – IA, MN, OU
            MN – WI, IA, KU
            NW – IL, MSU, PU
            IL – NW, PU, IN
            PU – IN, IL, NW
            IN – PU, MSU, IL
            MI – OSU, MSU, RU
            MSU – MI, NW, IN
            OSU – MI, PSU, UMD
            PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
            RU – PSU, UMD, MI
            UMD – PSU, RU, OSU

            9 games = 3 locked “rivals” + 6 rotating games (12 * 50%)

            Personally, I’d prefer to lock more games but then you get into a debate about how many unnecessary game are locked.

            9 games = 4 locked “rivals” + 5 rotating games (11 * 45%)
            9 games = 5 locked “rivals” + 4 rotating games (10 * 40%)

            Like

  43. […] Go (Or Not). Everyone’s favorite conference realignment writer Frank The Tank’s Slant catches up on the recent expansion talk, focusing on Oklahoma and stating that Oklahoma isn’t […]

    Like

  44. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  45. If OU really wants out before the GOR ends, they should convince KU to announce their intent to depart the conference at the conclusion of the GOR … sit back and watch the walls crumble all on it’s own long before the GOR does conclude …

    Like

  46. Logan says:

    The more I see attempts to make 4×16 work, the more I think it won’t happen. There is no commissioner of college football, no guiding force to make sure this nice, neat outcome happens. Sure, you have the TV networks, but even they have opposing priorities, and as conferences create their own networks, even those partially or fully owned by Fox/ESPN, that still puts more power in the hands of the conferences.

    I think we are looking at Big 12 teams jumping ship, but I see the future as a big 2 (B1G and SEC), a weaker, but geographically protected Pac, and a lower tier eastern conference (what is left of the ACC) and a western conference (what is left of the Big 12+MWC). Notre Dame stays independent, maybe Texas does it as well. The question then becomes how big the B1G and SEC get. I don’t think 16 is the stopping point once we concede that 4×16 won’t happen. 20, even 24, seems possible, as long as their are viable candidates.

    I don’t really know what this means now. I suppose the B1G would be more likely to take OU and KU if they know if won’t preclude them from eastern expansion in the future. If 4×16 was going to happen, I think they would be more reluctant.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NCAA_FB_Fan says:

      I think if you look at the massive market, academic excellence and insane recruiting – not to mention that you would have match-ups that would be powerful and captivating – ND and UT to the ACC makes sense.

      The ACC has Southern recruiting, Northeastern media exposure and is arguably the best academic conference. If ND and UT are forward-thinking, this group of 16 will have crazy success in the future. Adding those schools makes a ton of money, and from there, the facility upgrades and quality of the program’s enters a virtuous cycle.

      Othe similar option is for those 2 to buddy up and go to the Pac-12. Other 2 plays don’t make sense: the B1G has population and recruiting issues (tOSU last year was heavily Augmented with Southern talent) and the SEC is a big academic black-eye for UT (ND wouldn’t join – and likely would never be invited in the first place). SEC will also never expand to Northeast like ACC did – and so they won’t have as much long-term value.

      I’m not saying this is a slam dunk, but clearly UT and ND see themselves as kindred spirits (notice their scheduling each other), and the ACC/ESPN would be fools not to make this happen if they could. Perhaps that’s why ACC isn’t in a hurry to roll-out ACC network? Even if they gave ND and UT 5 game deals as a trial period to lock them both up – genius.

      If that happens, it will rival B1G money.

      Like

  47. greg says:

    I just don’t see an OU/KU addition by the B1G. These are 50 to 100 year decisions. Rutgers and Maryland may be middling athletic departments, but in 50 years they will still be B1G-average in academics and research, contiguously located in large population centers.

    In 50 years, OU and KU will still be the two worst institutions in the B1G, in relatively remote states with the lowest and 3rd lowest populations. Football could fade away, or OU and KU athletic departments may decline, or any number of unforeseen changes in athletics.

    I fail to see the COP/C making such short-term move.

    Like

    • Here’s my issue with the argument against an OU/KU expansion by the Big Ten: we need to take into account what happens to the Big Ten’s relative power in the college sports landscape if OU and KU go to a competitor like the SEC or Pac-12. It’s easy to say that the Big Ten should just wait for the chance to get, say, UVA or UNC 20 or 30 years down the road if we are guaranteed that today’s status quo will hold for that time. However, if OU is rattling sabres NOW, that changes things dramatically. How much more powerful does the SEC become if it adds yet another top level football brand name like Oklahoma? Heck, even if you’re of the belief that football is going to become less popular over the next generation, how much more valuable is the SEC if it has both Kentucky and Kansas basketball? The way I see it, the SEC adding those brand names can be the difference between the SEC and Big Ten having equal stature financially for the next 10 to 15 years into one where the SEC is clearly #1. Likewise, the Pac-12 adding OU and KU can vault them into equal financial stature with the SEC and Big Ten when they were clearly behind them up until now.

      I think it would be a massive mistake for the Big Ten to pass on the opportunity to add two of the most elite brand names in college football and college basketball simply because they hope that ACC schools such as UVA and UNC *might* come within the next couple of decades (and IMHO, UVA is the only one that would truly consider moving to the Big Ten and we ought to put UNC more in the category of hoping that Notre Dame would join or that Florida would leave the SEC). OU and KU aren’t some dreg schools – they’re flagship top tier national brand names that would provide a significant boost to the national value of the inventories of both Big Ten football and basketball. For as much as we talk about the Big Ten Network and markets, the biggest money is still in the national tier 1 rights (and that may increasingly be the case if/when we move to an a la carte cable industry). If the Big Ten doesn’t take OU and KU if they are truly on the open market, then the SEC or Pac-12 will instead… and that is NOT a positive for the Big Ten.

      Like

      • Further to the last point, what if the *ACC* is able to get OU and KU (with or without UT)? Then all of the Big Ten waiting for UVA and UNC will have been completely all for naught because the ACC would have shored up its financial and branding position. We can’t look at the Big Ten adding Oklahoma and Kansas in a vacuum. When schools like Oklahoma and Kansas are on the free agent market, you can’t expect them to stay on that free agent market for long. I completely dismiss the idea that adding OU and KU would foreclose further Eastern expansion by the Big Ten. If anything, the only way that the Big Ten can hope to pry away schools like UVA and UNC in the future is to be so overwhelmingly powerful and lucrative that those schools effectively have no other choice. If the SEC gets OU and KU, then *they* become the conference that’s in that position (as they’d love UVA and UNC just as much as the B1G). By the same token, if the ACC gets OU and KU and improves their financial standing (as it now has two other brands that would be great for an ACC Network), then UVA and UNC wouldn’t have any reason to consider the B1G in the future. Letting OU and KU go to another conference is not something that the Big Ten can take lightly – whatever master plan the B1G might be hoping for in the future can completely backfire (and then just leaves the Big Ten with much poorer future expansion options compared to Oklahoma and Kansas today).

        Like

        • Jake says:

          Frank – Since you brought up the ACC, how’s this for a scenario: ACC gives Texas a Notre Dame-type deal, then adds OU, KU, and two of the Big 12 Texas schools (Baylor, TCU, Tech). ACC gets all over the Texas market, and UT has some local schools to play in the non-football sports. Is 18 all-sport members plus two more for non-football sports too unwieldy?

          Like

        • greg says:

          Frank, I think you have expansion fever. Jumping to the conclusion that passing on OU/KU reflects a desire of UVA/UNC points to expansion fever in my book. I know that fans are obsessed with 4×16 and discussing lots of 18 or 24 team scenarios, but Gordon Gee was the only COP/C representative who has even touched on anything as crazy as that. You mention the risk of an OU/KU addition raising the SEC or ACC profile, but there is a larger risk of their academics reducing the profile of a conference, which is the true long term game.

          IMO, the leading conferences are using a short term athletic financial advantage to expand in a way that solidifies the long term institutional dominance. B1G went Johns Hopkins/Maryland/Rutgers(/Nebraska). Given the supposed academic backlash to Nebraska, I cannot see the COP/C doubling down with OU/KU. SEC raised their academics with A&M and Missouri, while spinning up their own consortium that may mean something a few decades down the road.

          The PAC would have gone for a game-changing Texas contingent which landed two very good to great institutions in Texas and A&M, but supposedly passed on OU/OkSU and the hit to their academic profile. The ACC and B12 have made some questionable expansion moves driven by the need to survive.

          The B1G adding OU/KU, or going to 18 or 24, leads to its eventual breakup. I don’t see it happening. I could be wrong, but we shall see. Though it will take a while.

          Like

          • @greg – There’s a large difference between adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (which the Pac-12 rejected and the Big Ten also ought to reject for both financial and academic reasons) and adding Oklahoma and Kansas. These aren’t run-of-the-mill athletic brands – OU is one of the top dozen college football brands and KU is one of only a half-dozen schools where their basketball prowess can move the needle for realignment. There are very few plausible expansion scenarios where the athletic and financial benefits are so incredibly clear. I don’t believe that I’m someone that wants the Big Ten to expand for the sake of expanding. However, I simply believe that OU and KU are two schools that are absolutely worth expanding for. The Eastern options are foreclosed for the foreseeable future and the Big Ten is going to have to increase its power to even have a chance at those Eastern options later on. Also, like I’ve said, OU going to the SEC should really worry any Big Ten fan – that’s an awful scenario for the Big Ten.

            On the academic side, it really all comes to whether Oklahoma passes the pass/fail line for the Big Ten. The Big Ten hasn’t really given extra points for being higher-rated academically when it comes to expansion. Instead, it has a baseline academic standard and either a school meets it or it doesn’t. If a school doesn’t meet that standard, then that school simply isn’t considered. If a school does meet that standard (even if it is right at the cut-off line, such as arguably Nebraska), then it’s judged purely on its athletic and financial contributions at that point. Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money. Kansas is likely academically acceptable to the Big Ten as an AAU member. The question is really about Oklahoma – do they meet that academic cut-off line? If they do, then the fact that they’d be last place in the Big Ten academically is irrelevant. Passing the line is all that matters. If they don’t, then they won’t even be considered.

            Let’s put it this way: the Big Ten isn’t actively trying to get the best academic schools possible. Instead, they’re looking for academically acceptable schools that will add to their athletic and financial prowess. There’s a significant difference there. The question isn’t about whether Kansas and Oklahoma would raise the academic standards of the Big Ten compared to Rutgers and Maryland (or even partial member Johns Hopkins). Instead, the critical first question is about whether KU and OU meet that academic cut-off line. If they do, then I don’t really see a better plausible athletic and financial expansion for the Big Ten outside of the currently unattainables (i.e. Texas, Notre Dame, UNC).

            Liked by 1 person

          • greg says:

            “Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money.”

            I don’t see any evidence that this was the case. Statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn tend to disagree with it, and I see no way that the Maryland/Rutgers expansion happens if they each had Nebraska academics.

            I’m not even sure the SEC wants Oklahoma/Kansas. They supposedly turned down one king in FSU, but will snag a different king in a much smaller state? (though FLA is already SEC territory where OK is not)

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money.”>

            I don’t see any evidence that this was the case. Statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn tend to disagree with it,….

            The evidence is that the league, in fact, added Nebraska. In other words: among those schools that met the academic hurdle, the B1G chose the best football program. That’s all Frank is saying. Whatever the “academic heartburn” may be, Nebraska had the votes to be admitted.

            They certainly could have had Pitt, Rutgers, or Missouri at that time, all of which are academically better than Nebraska. But no. They took Nebraska.

            I am pretty sure it was well known to at least some of the B1G presidents (if not all), that Nebraska’s AAU status was under review, and therefore, that it was possible they wouldn’t be in the organization much longer. If that was a deal-breaker, there were people in the room who could’ve brought it up.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “The evidence is that the league, in fact, added Nebraska.”

            ????

            That is evidence that they liked the entire Nebraska package, particularly its King-ish football. It is NOT evidence that the COP/C ignored the academic difference between Nebraska and Rutgers.

            You have to be smoking something if you don’t think the COP/C gives extra points to Rutgers academics compared to Nebraska.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            That is evidence that they liked the entire Nebraska package, particularly its King-ish football. It is NOT evidence that the COP/C ignored the academic difference between Nebraska and Rutgers.

            You have to be smoking something if you don’t think the COP/C gives extra points to Rutgers academics compared to Nebraska.

            Yes, of course they do, but that wasn’t the point.

            The point was that, the Big Ten doesn’t take the best academic program. Had that been their strategy, they probably would’ve taken Rutgers as #12.

            Their actual behavior is that they make the best sports decision, provided a particular academic hurdle is cleared. That is why Nebraska got in, despite academics at the lower end of the schools that we all assume received serious consideration.

            Whether Oklahoma would also clear that hurdle is unknown. Nebraska was at least AAU at the time. Oklahoma has never been, and is a long way from it.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “Yes, of course they do, but that wasn’t the point.

            The point was that, the Big Ten doesn’t take the best academic program. ”

            No one has claimed that the Big Ten takes the best academic program.

            “Their actual behavior is that they make the best sports decision, provided a particular academic hurdle is cleared.”

            So you’re saying Rutgers was the best sports decision? Snort.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “Their actual behavior is that they make the best sports decision, provided a particular academic hurdle is cleared.”

            So you’re saying Rutgers was the best sports decision? Snort.

            At the time they took them…yes. What better option was there, among realistically availab

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Sorry…that got cut off.

            What better option was there, besides Rutgers, among reasonably available schools?

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            ““Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money.”

            I don’t see any evidence that this was the case. Statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn tend to disagree with it, and I see no way that the Maryland/Rutgers expansion happens if they each had Nebraska academics.”

            I can’t work our here WHY “statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn” tend to disagree with it … it rather confirms it to me. I expect that the Big Ten Presidents knew perfectly well that they were pulling a fast one on the Big Ten Faculty in inviting Nebraska while it still was a member of the AAU, even though its membership was on the chopping block.

            But the drop in formal status took place after they were already admitted, when it was too late to reverse the decision … just as heartburn is caused by the meal you already ate.

            The sense in which a school in a similar “AAU for now but tenuous” position would have had a problem is rather in the nature of “once bitten, twice shy” … pulling that con job off once is easier than repeating it.

            We may well find out in another decade or so, when the Big12 GOR expires, but I believe that unless OkU has made headway in the Red Queen’s academic snobbery race, its not going to make the cut.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Frank the Tank: “The Eastern options are foreclosed for the foreseeable future and the Big Ten is going to have to increase its power to even have a chance at those Eastern options later on.”

            To me, this sounds suspiciously like a game of Conference Realignment Risk.

            First, I believe that the Big Ten is likely to increase its power over the coming decade with its current alignment. And if the expansion into the northern ends of “college football country” on the Eastern Seaboard does not help the Big Ten increase its power, its not automatically the case that expanding south in the Great Plains into small and relatively slowly growing markets will further increase the power of the Big Ten on a per school basis.

            And second, I am not convinced that the premise is valid that the Big Ten HAS TO increase its power relative to either the ACC or the SEC to even have a chance at those Eastern options later on, nor the tacit premise that the mooted expansion does not interfere with possible later Eastern options.

            (1) Relative to the ACC, the Big Ten already has stronger academics, more media money and, via the BTN, more resilience in the face of dramatic changes in the media market. (2) If the ACC starts to come apart at the seams, the Big Ten being larger may be a DISadvantage … the disadvantages of size increase at an increasing rate as a conference grows above 12, and it is quite possible that a workable expansion by four to 18 becomes an unworkable expansion by four to 20. (3) Relative to the SEC, the SEC is not going to reverse the existing Big Ten advantages and the Big Ten is not going to reverse the existing SEC advantages, whether or not Kansas and OkU is added.

            And (4) expanding to footprint south from the western edge of the Big Ten makes expansion south along the eastern edge more problematic.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “When schools like Oklahoma and Kansas are on the free agent market, you can’t expect them to stay on that free agent market for long.”

          We’ve seen this before, in ’11. OU/OkSU board of regents even approved exploring conference affiliation options (the precursor to taking steps to realign) and instead of proceeding OU went to bargain with UT about staying. And then the PAC released a middle of the night statement that twelve was a fine number to stay with (just as B12 meetings were to start). I don’t think either is currently “on the market”, IMHO these are leverage plays over what by comparison seem like lesser issues, that in a decade may contribute to whether anyone is actually available.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Frank the Tank,

          “Further to the last point, what if the *ACC* is able to get OU and KU (with or without UT)?”

          Then OU and KU will quickly get tired of their new conference being dominated by UNC et al and having such ridiculous travel for their non-revenue sports. If OU thinks their fans hate their current home slate, wait until BC, WF, etc come to Norman for football.

          “I completely dismiss the idea that adding OU and KU would foreclose further Eastern expansion by the Big Ten.”

          Well, you may well have inside info that we don’t. But there has to be some reservation about non-stop expansion. OU and KU would make 16, with only 10 old members. Do they go to 18 or 20 (or more) and risk divisiveness as the new members don’t understand the B10 culture as fully?

          “If anything, the only way that the Big Ten can hope to pry away schools like UVA and UNC in the future is to be so overwhelmingly powerful and lucrative that those schools effectively have no other choice.”

          They’re projecting B10 payouts of over $40M in a couple of years while the ACC will be in the low- to mid-20s. If roughly $20M a year isn’t enough incentive, then more money won’t matter.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            “I completely dismiss the idea that adding OU and KU would foreclose further Eastern expansion by the Big Ten.”

            Well, you may well have inside info that we don’t. But there has to be some reservation about non-stop expansion.

            I do agree with this. Even at 16 members, you’re going to have schools that seldom play each other. That certainly becomes a problem at 20.

            Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Exactly right. Even more daunting is the thought of TX/OU/KS joining the ACC and trumping the B1G is sports AND athletics AND geography. Either way, the B1G is relegated to second tier status. They should take OU/KS today if they have the opportunity. I personally don’t believe the ACC schools are going anywhere. I do believe, however, if we could land TX/OU/KS, ND would be more likely to join the B1G as a full member in 10-15 years.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Frank the Tank,

        “Here’s my issue with the argument against an OU/KU expansion by the Big Ten: we need to take into account what happens to the Big Ten’s relative power in the college sports landscape if OU and KU go to a competitor like the SEC or Pac-12.”

        That doesn’t sound like thinking like a president. What good is relative sports power if your academics suffer? The academic side is much, much more important to a school, especially in the B10.

        “It’s easy to say that the Big Ten should just wait for the chance to get, say, UVA or UNC 20 or 30 years down the road if we are guaranteed that today’s status quo will hold for that time. However, if OU is rattling sabres NOW, that changes things dramatically.”

        1. Are they really rattling sabres or are they just stirring the pot?

        2. What are the fundamental goals of B10 expansion? Do OU and KU satisfy those goals? Obviously athletic power wasn’t a major concern last time as they chose RU and UMD. Have their goals shifted to athletic power?

        3. Is the B10 committed to the mid-Atlantic now that they’ve added UMD? They may deem it a problem to try to grow in both directions and prefer to focus on just two regions of the country.

        4. Why can’t they think 14 is big enough? Bigger isn’t always better.

        “How much more powerful does the SEC become if it adds yet another top level football brand name like Oklahoma? Heck, even if you’re of the belief that football is going to become less popular over the next generation, how much more valuable is the SEC if it has both Kentucky and Kansas basketball? The way I see it, the SEC adding those brand names can be the difference between the SEC and Big Ten having equal stature financially for the next 10 to 15 years into one where the SEC is clearly #1.”

        Do the COPC really care if the SEC make more TV money? The B10 will still be swimming in money compared to others.

        Besides, if you are going to use the game theory approach then where is UT in this discussion? If OU and KU stay put, so will UT (at least for a while). Adding OU and KU runs the risk of driving perhaps the most valuable school in all of college sports into another conference. It’s the same argument you always made about pressuring ND. I think adding OU and KU but driving UT elsewhere is a worse outcome than the status quo. Clearly there’s some chance that adding OU can pave the way for UT later, but it seems slim as long as the LHN is out there.

        “Likewise, the Pac-12 adding OU and KU can vault them into equal financial stature with the SEC and Big Ten when they were clearly behind them up until now.”

        And the COPC would feel bad about their good friends in the P12 being successful?

        “(and IMHO, UVA is the only one that would truly consider moving to the Big Ten and we ought to put UNC more in the category of hoping that Notre Dame would join or that Florida would leave the SEC).”

        UVA and VT would be a nice pair that solidifies the boundary between the B10 and SEC. Or maybe GT shows interest with UVA (doubtful, IMHO). Or maybe someone else rises up out east.

        “If the Big Ten doesn’t take OU and KU if they are truly on the open market, then the SEC or Pac-12 will instead… and that is NOT a positive for the Big Ten.”

        That’s a big if. I think most of us are assuming OU and KU staying put is an option. If you told us they had to go somewhere, then you’d hear different responses.

        Like

        • Adam says:

          I think you are really limited in looking at the Big 10 and expansion.

          “1. Are they really rattling sabres or are they just stirring the pot?

          Yes both those institutions would be a benefit to any larger conference, so yes both would like to add them. Would they like to come you ask? That is where making your conference more attractive through larger per school money for both athletics and academics come into play,.

          2. What are the fundamental goals of B10 expansion? Do OU and KU satisfy those goals? Obviously athletic power wasn’t a major concern last time as they chose RU and UMD. Have their goals shifted to athletic power?

          You can not look at one round or one school and make limited judgments based off that for expansion. You totally ignore Nebraska in your limited view here. It is not a matter of goals shifting but getting the best fit available for the goals (academics and athletics) at the time.

          3. Is the B10 committed to the mid-Atlantic now that they’ve added UMD? They may deem it a problem to try to grow in both directions and prefer to focus on just two regions of the country.

          Again you are focusing on one small aspect of expansion. B1G ( and every conference) will always look to expand their influence when it benefits it’s members no matter where they are at geographically.

          4. Why can’t they think 14 is big enough? Bigger isn’t always better.”

          anytime you can increase your conference power for the betterment of all conference schools you do that. If that means adding or not adding schools you do that. Bigger can be better if the right schools are in play.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Adam,

            “I think you are really limited in looking at the Big 10 and expansion.”

            Fair enough.

            “Yes both those institutions would be a benefit to any larger conference,”

            Would they? Where’s the proof of that? The B10’s ahead of the B12 without them and is about to take a giant step up in pay with the new TV deal.

            “Would they like to come you ask? That is where making your conference more attractive through larger per school money for both athletics and academics come into play,.”

            The B10 is already making big money and about to get a big increase. We can’t add schools to make the payout bigger in order to attract those same schools. Our academics certainly aren’t going to get richer for adding OU and KU.

            “You can not look at one round or one school and make limited judgments based off that for expansion.”

            Of course I can. I asked what the current goals are and pointed out that the evidence clearly shows that athletic prowess didn’t drive the last round (UMD and RU).

            “You totally ignore Nebraska in your limited view here.”

            No, I just consider them a previous addition to RU and UMD because they were. Even if you lump all three together, the B10 didn’t improve in athletics through those additions.

            “It is not a matter of goals shifting but getting the best fit available for the goals (academics and athletics) at the time.”

            Goals shift all the time. As you achieve one, you can move on to lower priorities.

            “Again you are focusing on one small aspect of expansion.”

            All I did was ask a question.

            “B1G ( and every conference) will always look to expand their influence when it benefits it’s members no matter where they are at geographically.”

            No they don’t. The b10 specifically talks about geography as a factor. Certainly the SEC does too, or they would have added FSU.

            “anytime you can increase your conference power for the betterment of all conference schools you do that.”

            There’s no proof that getting bigger expands your power. Either it’s 1 vote per school, and schools don’t all toe the conference line, or it’s 1 vote per conference in which case you lose power through expansion.

            “Bigger can be better if the right schools are in play.”

            Of course it can be better, but it isn’t always better.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “anytime you can increase your conference power for the betterment of all conference schools you do that. If that means adding or not adding schools you do that. Bigger can be better if the right schools are in play.”

            But the bigger you get, the more value has to be available to justify the expansion … after all, a growing percentage of the incumbent schools will play the incoming school a smaller number of times in any four year cycle, so each expansion waters down many of the benefits accruing to each individual incumbent in the next round of potential expansion.

            Like

  48. George West says:

    Every school in the Big 12 not named “Texas” or “Oklahoma” would be wise to push for expanding to 14 asap. Adding 3 or 4 schools from the East plus perhaps BYU

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The Big XII could add 3 or 4 or 10 schools, and it wouldn’t solve their main problem, which is that so many of their members (aside from UT, OK, and KU) are in small markets and aren’t national brand names. Adding more schools with those same problems isn’t the cure.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        There is one school available to the Big12 that is a western regional brand name and has, in aggregate, a quite substantial market. In financial and broadening school exposure terms, BYU is the only #11 add out there … all of the other possible additions are #12 adds.

        Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      We know that the media contract expands pro-rate for 11 or 12, because President Boren told us so … we don’t know that it expands pro-rata for 13 or 14, which makes an expansion past 12 unlikely.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Besides that, the pro-rata expansion is guaranteed only for this deal. Next deal, the league’s media partners won’t pay arbitrarily for any 11th/12th schools, regardless of actual value.

        That is why expansion needs to be considered as a 50-year decision. You’re thinking multiple deals into the future, not just, “What can I make in 2016?”

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Of course, if we knew which two schools Boren is pushing when he talks about the benefits of adding “the right two schools”, it would be much clearer what agenda he is pushing.

          Like

  49. BruceMcF says:

    Alternate hypothesis: when Boren says “with the right schools”, he knows exactly what pair of available schools he wants.

    And he’s generating conference realignment smoke to try to get Texas to support his picks.

    This is an alternative hypothesis that branches from the OP at: “because, frankly, the “right schools” wouldn’t ever take a Big 12 invite.” If David Boren had looked over the field of ACTUAL available schools and said, “right, we need to take these two, and there’s absolutely no reason that is going to change over the next five years, so might as well do it now”, then “the right two schools” takes on a different color.

    One thing we can do on this alternate hypothesis is to rule out schools that COULD possibly change in value over the next five years. So to me, this hypothesis does not fit Memphis or the U_F’s.

    That basically leaves as compatible with the hypothesis schools who’s reasons for being included in Big12 expansion speculation is more structural than “they might grow into their market”: BYU, UC, Boise State, and Houston.

    Like

  50. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13346950/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-delighted-12-schools-foresee-expansion

    Larry Scott does not foresee further P12 expansion.

    Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott is happy with the size of his conference. “I do not see us expanding for the foreseeable future,” he said Thursday. “We are delighted with 12 schools.”

    “When you go beyond 12, you’re going to dilute,” Scott said.

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/

    The preseason Coaches Poll is out.

    1. OSU (62)
    2. TCU (1)
    3. AL (1)
    4. Baylor
    5. OR
    6. MSU
    7. AU
    8. FSU
    9. UGA
    10. USC

    18. WI

    By conference:
    SEC – 8
    P12 – 6
    ACC, B10, B12 – 3
    Other – ND , Boise

    Like

  52. metatron says:

    For the record, an eighteen school Big Ten isn’t unthinkable if the right schools are added and appropriate rule changes are enacted. Three divisions of six for football isn’t unworkable.

    I think as long as Notre Dame is out there then we have to entertain the thought, no matter how unrealistic (for a variety of reasons).

    Like

    • Yeah, I think 18 is still workable on paper and still maintain a modicum of cohesiveness. Having a 20-school conference is really where you get into a situation where you’re effectively two separate conferences under one name.

      Like

      • metatron says:

        Agreed. Five in division and four out of division games isn’t terrible, and if you could get a small playoff for a conference champ (3 + 1), it’d be fairly straightforward.

        Though I caution that without Notre Dame or possibly Texas, this will never happen.

        Maryland
        Rutgers
        Penn State
        Notre Dame
        Indiana
        Purdue

        Michigan
        Michigan State
        Ohio State
        Wisconsin
        Minnesota
        Northwestern/Iowa

        Illinois
        Iowa/Northwestern
        Kansas
        Oklahoma
        Nebraska
        Texas/Missouri

        I’m not terribly fond of those divisions, but they’re not horrid. Depending on how you view Penn State and Nebraska, two divisions might are mostly staffed with expansion schools (though personally I think they’re one of us now, and Notre Dame might as well be).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          metatron,

          “Agreed. Five in division and four out of division games isn’t terrible, and if you could get a small playoff for a conference champ (3 + 1), it’d be fairly straightforward.”

          You won’t get that as an extra game. You could schedule it as part of the regular season, though. In the last week, pair 2 division champs plus another versus the top runner up. Everyone else would also need to play a conference game with minimal notice (they could mostly be pre-arranged).

          “Though I caution that without Notre Dame or possibly Texas, this will never happen.”

          It wouldn’t make sense without them, I agree.

          “Maryland
          Rutgers
          Penn State
          Notre Dame
          Indiana
          Purdue

          Michigan
          Michigan State
          Ohio State
          Wisconsin
          Minnesota
          Northwestern/Iowa

          Illinois
          Iowa/Northwestern
          Kansas
          Oklahoma
          Nebraska
          Texas/Missouri”

          IA has to be with MN and WI and NW with IL. As is, I think IL and NW will miss playing B10 foes to join the B12 division much like IN and PU will miss the B10.

          “I’m not terribly fond of those divisions, but they’re not horrid.”

          You add ND but don’t make ND/MI and ND/MSU regular games? I know ND wants eastern exposure, but that seems like a waste. I admit there are no great choices with 18. I’d be tempted to lock 4 or 5 schools and rotate the rest.

          “Depending on how you view Penn State and Nebraska, two divisions might are mostly staffed with expansion schools (though personally I think they’re one of us now, and Notre Dame might as well be).”

          PSU may feel like a member, but NE still a bit new to me. They’ll fit in pretty quickly though.

          Like

          • metatron says:

            I’m not going to defend it, it was just an example to get the conversation going.

            But frankly, Michigan has to play Ohio State and Michigan State, and that’s a really overloaded division with Notre Dame. Don’t misunderstand me, I’d prefer it (being a Michigan fan), I just think it’s impractical. Then again, we’re talking about an unwieldy super Big Ten.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            metatron,

            “I’m not going to defend it, it was just an example to get the conversation going.”

            I know, I was just commenting on them. You clearly said you didn’t love them.

            “But frankly, Michigan has to play Ohio State and Michigan State, and that’s a really overloaded division with Notre Dame.”

            If you insist on sticking with 3 groups of 6 that are separate divisions. If you make them pods and split one of them, it works out to two strong divisions.

            Anchor 1 = UT, OU, NE, KU, IL, NW

            Rotating 1 = WI, IA, MN
            Rotating 2 = PSU, RU, UMD

            Anchor 2 = OSU, MI, ND, MSU, PU, IN

            The kings balance out in the two anchor groups and the two triplets are close enough in strength.

            Even better in my opinion is locking 5 teams and playing the others 33% of the time. Top two teams play in the CCG.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Yeah, non-divisional scheduling and top two in the CCG makes the best of the awkwardness of 18. Five locked schools and four rings of three schools lets you play every school once in a three year cycle.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Five in division and four out of division games isn’t terrible…yet…I’m not terribly fond of those divisions, but they’re not horrid.

          They’re pretty bad. Illinois and Northwestern are basically banished to the old Big 8, while Indiana and Purdue are eating a steady diet of Eastern schools.

          On top of that, as Brian noted, if the Big Ten somehow got Notre Dame, they wouldn’t set it up where the Irish are only rarely playing Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska; but are playing Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana every year. Not happening.

          Besides, it’s hard to see the benefit of a three-division setup, unless the NCAA approves a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, and I don’t think that’s likely.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Besides, it’s hard to see the benefit of a three-division setup, unless the NCAA approves a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, and I don’t think that’s likely.”

            The only benefit I can see is that you are much less likely to have a weak division winner make the CCG. Teams like 6-6 UCLA and 7-5 WI wouldn’t make the CCG because the third division winner would be better. The trade off is that you would often have two equivalent teams fighting for the second CCG spot.

            Like

          • bob sykes says:

            Notre Dame is off the table. The only conference they can join before 2027 is the ACC (because of contracts), and the ACC is the best fit for them by far. Notre Dame is a very bad fit for the B1G, and the bad after taste after the last go around makes it impossible.

            Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are the only viable candidates for B1G expansion. Take two and call me in the morning.

            Nothing can happen until 2026.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Mizzou is building up equity in the SECN … its be silly to abandon that to start from scratch with the BTN. There’s also the fact that they are now in the SEC, and schools don’t have any reason to leave the SEC.

            Like

          • Chet says:

            If the NCAA would approve a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, then why not approve a 13-game season instead, and then play ten conference games. The total money from the nine additional conference games would be greater than the total money from the two play-off games.

            Like

          • Chet says:

            (actually three six-school divisions was the subject of my first FtF post)

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            If the NCAA would approve a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, then why not approve a 13-game season instead, and then play ten conference games. The total money from the nine additional conference games would be greater than the total money from the two play-off games.

            I don’t think the NCAA will approve a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title. There is a real issue as to when the extra games could be played — even assuming you want them — without impinging on final exams, the holidays, and bowl preparation.

            Besides, there are hardly ever four teams in the same conference, with a legitimate argument that they deserve to be the champ. There is therefore no logical competitive reason for those extra games to exist. This is in contrast to the CFB playoff, where there definitely are sometimes more than two teams with a serious argument that they deserve to be playing in a national championship game. (Last year, the BCS probably would’ve pitted Alabama vs. FSU in the national title game, and it turned out neither of them was the best.)

            There is always a lot of whingeing about “de-valuing the regular season,” much of it ignorant or disingenuous. The four-team playoff does not de-value the regular season, because it is still extremely difficult to be one of those teams. You can never afford a week off, since, as Baylor and TCU learned last year, even one loss can knock you out. That will always be true, as long as there are more power conferences than playoff spots. But a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, really would de-value the regular season, as the fourth-best team in a given conference can be a quite ordinary team. Sometimes, a conference’s fourth-place team isn’t even in the top 25. And yet, that fourth-best team would be given a theoretical shot at the national championship, if only they could get hot for a few weeks at the end of the year.

            Of course, conferences can do the 3+1 playoff now, if they want, by making the last weekend of the 12-game regular season a flex week, with match-ups not decided until after the preceding weekend. However, there are some serious disadvantages to that system, since schools would have only a week to sell tickets. That would probably not pose an issue for the host teams of the two games that matter, but it would suck for everyone else.

            Not that it’ll ever happen, but a 13-game regular season makes more sense than a 3+1 mini-playoff, because then every team would get the benefit of playing one more game. However, for most teams in most years, it would basically mean no bye weeks, and there are serious concerns about the wear and tear on the players’ bodies.

            Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          That 18 is exactly where I think we’ll end up, perhaps way down the line.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        Frank the Tank,

        “Yeah, I think 18 is still workable on paper and still maintain a modicum of cohesiveness. Having a 20-school conference is really where you get into a situation where you’re effectively two separate conferences under one name.”

        You really think 2 schools makes that much of a difference?

        18 = 1 x 18 (1 conference), 2 x 9 (2 divisions), 3 x 6 (3 divisions), 2 x 6 + 2 x 3 (4 pods) or 2 x 4 + 2 x 5 (4 pods)

        1 x 18 = 4 x 100% + 13 x 38% (5 times every 13 years)

        2 x 9 = 8 x 100% + 9 x 11% (once every 9 years)
        3 x 6 = 5 x 100% + 12 x 33% (once every 3 years) – note that 1 division champ misses CCG

        2 x 6 + 2 x 3 =
        5 x 100% + 6 x 50% + 6 x 17% (once every 6 years) OR
        2 x 100% + 12 x 50% + 3 x 33% (once every 3 years)

        2 x 4 + 2 x 5 =
        3 x 100% + 10 x 50% + 4 x 25% (once every 4 years) OR
        4 x 100% + 8 x 50% + 5 x 20% (once every 5 years)

        20 = 1 x 20 (1 conference), 2 x 10 (2 divisions), 2 x 6 + 2 x 4 (4 pods) or 4 x 5 (4 pods)

        1 x 20 = 4 x 100% + 15 x 33% (once every 3 years)

        2 x 9 = 8 x 100% + 9 x 11% (once every 9 years)
        3 x 6 = 5 x 100% + 12 x 33% (once every 3 years)

        2 x 6 + 2 x 3 =
        5 x 100% + 6 x 50% + 6 x 17% (once every 6 years) OR
        2 x 100% + 12 x 50% + 3 x 33% (once every 3 years)

        2 x 4 + 2 x 5 =
        3 x 100% + 10 x 50% + 4 x 25% (once every 4 years) OR
        4 x 100% + 8 x 50% + 5 x 20% (once every 5 years)

        Like

    • Brian says:

      metatron,

      “For the record, an eighteen school Big Ten isn’t unthinkable if the right schools are added and appropriate rule changes are enacted.”

      It’s not unthinkable, it just has a lot of downsides. The right 4 might provide sufficient benefits to make it worthwhile.

      “Three divisions of six for football isn’t unworkable.”

      No, but it’s a pain. One division winner is always left out of the CCG. I’m sure that’ll be popular. The divisions will also be unpopular no matter how you make them.

      “I think as long as Notre Dame is out there then we have to entertain the thought, no matter how unrealistic (for a variety of reasons).”

      Agreed. Until they are fully in a conference, ND always has to be a factor in the planning.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      If CCG is deregulated enough to allow for three divisions of six, its also deregulated enough to allow for non-divisional scheduling.

      Like

  53. Charles Roach says:

    “Lubbock or Dallas, which one would be better for the SECN?”
    Neither. Learn your geography. TCU is not in Dallas, it is in Fort Worth. It is a small church school. There is not a big TCU following in Dallas. SMU is in Dallas.. Lubbock is a dust bowl 8 hours from College Station. Baton Rouge is just as close. Neither Tech nor TCU offers the SEC anything. Weak academics aside, follow the tv dollars. Not enough $ets$. Interstate 35 basically divides the state of Texas east from west. The great majority of sets are in the eastern half. Tech brings nothing.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      I still say Baylor would be the best of the Texas schools for the SEC. It brings you to the I-35 corridor (Dallas -Ft. Worth – Austin – San Antonio) without being in desert. Im sure there’s more than smattering of Baptists across SEC land that would be for it. The athletic programs are on the upswing. Texas Tech if anything would be hoping for a Pac12 invite.

      Like

  54. Gene says:

    Delaney knows the end game. Wait on TX, like they did with ND, and you are left with Iowa State and TCU. Court OK and KU – then the big balls have to choose. So be it they go elsewhere. OK to SEC … Big Ten settles with Iowa state and such after the dust settles. Take the brands available.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The B10 would stay at 14 before they’d add TCU or ISU. You don’t have to expand. Nobody will force every conference to have 16 schools.

      Like

      • Gene says:

        OK is looking and that’s the point. No one has to expand, but if you have OK looking you better get them now bc once they are gone then you are left with zero expansion while the SEC, ACC, AND PAC 12 get some of the better teams. So it OK, or nada, or stuck with ISU.

        Btw i would like to see ISU with KU and OK and a team TBD.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Gene,

          “OK is looking and that’s the point.”

          Are they, or is Boren running his mouth for his own reasons? Until I hear they have a plan to break the GoR, I don’t buy it. You don’t have to jump now to get schools that will likely be in the same place 7 or 8 years from now. I doubt the B10 wants to set the precedent of destroying a GoR, either.

          “No one has to expand, but if you have OK looking you better get them now bc once they are gone then you are left with zero expansion while the SEC, ACC, AND PAC 12 get some of the better teams. So it OK, or nada, or stuck with ISU.”

          If OU really wanted to go to the SEC, they could already be there. The P12 won’t take them without a solid partner (not OkSU). They aren’t joining the ACC. OU doesn’t have to leave the B12 unless it crumbles, and it won’t crumble unless OU and/or UT leave. Since UT can’t keep the LHN without the B12, I doubt they want to leave any time soon.

          As for better teams, the only plausible schools the B10 might want as far as we can tell are ND, UT, UVA, UNC, GT and maybe OU, KU and MO. It would take something major to get the ACC schools out of the ACC, I think. MO isn’t leaving the SEC. ND and UT are happy as is.

          Nada is a perfectly fine result. The world won’t end for the B10 if OU and KU go elsewhere.

          “Btw i would like to see ISU with KU and OK and a team TBD.”

          There is zero chance the B10 adds a second team in IA. It makes no financial sense. ISU’s academics aren’t so great that the B10 schools want to lose money just to add them.

          Like

          • Gene says:

            I think OK is looking. When was the last time you heard someone say “we need to expand our conference, and if we don’t then we are fine with the status quo.” Certainly he did not say they were jumping ship, but he did say they need to expand. I am just connecting the dots. If they don’t expand then….? Then what? Two options. No expansion and OK says we are fine with status quo OR we are looking. Those are the only two options, and IMO you don’t end it with or the status quo is fine.” No one in any sense, in in walk of life, talks or thinks like that. He was making a statement that the Big 12 needs to expand. He isn’t happy. So I am making an assumption that means they might leave. He is putting it out there for a reason.

            Its a long process and he is getting the ball rolling now – either to expand or leave. Basically if they don’t expand then he can fall back on “I told you so” and “OK is being hurt by only having 10 teams, and we MUST LEAVE to ensure the success and brand of OK football and the Univeristy of OK.” These are warning shots done on purpose. He said these things for a reason.

            Why Big 10 takes OK? BC they might not be perfect but or close enough that if the SEC gets them then basically the Big 12 is doomed and you end up with Iowa State. You are right the big 10 doesn’t have to expand nor do they need to expand. But do they want to be the conference that is second rate to the SEC (add OK and whomever) and the ACC or pac 12 (TX anyone.)

            Think of the movie a beautiful mind. Same situation.. All the conference lust over TX and ND but getting an OK that’s pretty close to perfect is better than holding the bag. And by getting OK you then have a better shot to land TX and/or ND. BC once one big 12 team leaves, even if it were the likes of an Iowa State, every other school will be looking. They have been through this and all the teams see the writing on the wall. Expand or die (in the case of the Big 12.)

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “I think OK is looking. When was the last time you heard someone say “we need to expand our conference, and if we don’t then we are fine with the status quo.” Certainly he did not say they were jumping ship, but he did say they need to expand. I am just connecting the dots.”

            That’s the point … if he was trying to swing the conference to an actually available expansion that he prefers, then saying “we need to expand” while leaving others to fill in the unstated “or else …” is one obvious strategy for trying to do that.

            The clout that Texas has is that if Texas decides to leave, the Big12 likely collapses as a Power Conference. So if Texas is pushing for wait and see and give time for different alternatives to mature into more appealing expansions … Boren may feel the need to remind others in the Big12 that Oklahoma in the Big12 is one of the arguments within Texas staying.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Gene,

            “I think OK is looking.”

            Okay.

            “He was making a statement that the Big 12 needs to expand. He isn’t happy. So I am making an assumption that means they might leave.”

            1. He’s in his 70s and won’t be president much longer. His wishes aren’t really important.
            2. I think the boosters are more unhappy than he is.
            3. He may be saying that, but CCG deregulation is likely to pass so that they could have a CCG by 2016. That’s the main benefit of getting to 12 right now.
            4. As soon as he names 2 or more solid candidates for the B12, then I’ll listen. The other schools aren’t going to expand to lose money. Will OU really be any happier with BYU and Memphis in the conference?
            5. The threat is pretty empty until the GoR is ending or OU announces a plan for how to break a GoR and another conference agrees to take that risk. Not only that, it would put all future GoRs at risk including their own.

            “He is putting it out there for a reason.”

            He could have many reasons. OU wanting to leave the B12 doesn’t have to be it.

            “Why Big 10 takes OK? BC they might not be perfect but or close enough that if the SEC gets them then basically the Big 12 is doomed and you end up with Iowa State.”

            There is no reasonable circumstance under which the B10 ends up adding ISU. The B10 adds OU or it doesn’t, ISU is never a factor. The worst possible outcome is adding schools that hurt the B10. The best outcome is having expansion help the B10. There is no real evidence that adding OU and KU would help the B10 overall. It would help in some ways and hurt in others. It’s not even assured that the per school payout would increase. A perfectly viable outcome is doing nothing.

            “But do they want to be the conference that is second rate to the SEC (add OK and whomever) and the ACC or pac 12 (TX anyone.)”

            The B10’s number one concern is academics since they are universities, not sports franchises. #2 is money, because that can impact academics. #3 at best is whether the SEC is better at football or not. The SEC is already better at football and worse at basketball. No addition of OU and KU by either side will change that.

            “Think of the movie a beautiful mind.”

            Never saw the whole thing.

            “Same situation.”

            I really doubt it. Universities are not mentally unbalanced mathematicians.

            “… but getting an OK that’s pretty close to perfect is better than holding the bag.”

            Is it? By how much?

            “And by getting OK you then have a better shot to land TX and/or ND.”

            ND is never joining the B10. They’d physically move their entire campus to the east coast before they’d join the B10. UT is almost as unattainable for the B10 with distance, culture, rivals and the LHN all as major obstacles.

            “BC once one big 12 team leaves, even if it were the likes of an Iowa State, every other school will be looking.”

            The only schools that matter are UT, OU and KU. Nobody has any interest in adding any of the others, but 1 or 2 two of them might get lumped into a deal. Besides, the remaining schools will collect a ton of exit fees/damages if those schools leave. I don’t see any of them getting antsy until after 2020 as the GoR gets closer to its end.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            Totally agree. I’ve become increasingly content with the BIG@14. There’s plenty of long-term potential with Md and Rutgers.

            I’ve grown tired of certain BIG fans gushing on other team boards about expansion.

            I entertain expansion threads but in the context, especially now, that an 8 team playoff may manifest, FBS contracts to 80 teams at most, thus 4 mega conferences field 8 playoff sports. Will any of the above happen? Not sure. An 8 team playoff will come before some legislative body goes down a controversial road of telling a number of current FBS programs to convert to FCS.

            The BIG was a great conference with significant history even before 11, 12, 13 and 14 were added.

            The BIG simply needs to work with what they have & continue to field at least 3 genuine NC threats in fb in a given year (PSU, Neb, Mi and OSU are certainly tradition rich programs & MSU and Wisky have been rising & more consistent). And damn it, the BIG needs to win a men’s bb title for a change – I’ve ranted before & I’ll do it again: the BIG has way too many runners up the past 20 plus years. The conference needs to keep the talent in the footprint. There are so many examples of BIG footprint kids who have migrated south and won a NC. Okafor and Jones are the latest examples – Illinois and Minnesota products.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Chet says:

            @gfunk

            Like you I am perfectly content with B1G@14.

            But like Frank I believe that the Big Ten has ambitions to become a national conference rather than a regional conference.The less schools to achieve this aim, the more money per school.

            How about this “stoner idea”?

            The CIC to collectively establish Global Off-Campus Degree Programs for international students:

            The B1GU

            Like

          • Chet says:

            (now if I can only get this damn “Low Rider” song out of my head)

            Liked by 1 person

    • Big 12 teams that the Big Ten would take, in order of desirability.

      1. UT
      2. OU
      3. KU

      Teams that the Big Ten would never take, even if their conference were to expand to 18 or 20 teams.

      The other seven…including Iowa State.

      Glad you’ve joined us in this realignment discussion…just a friendly primer for you since you are new.

      Like

      • Gene says:

        I think OK sees the fact that NE and A&M and Mizzu all flourishing without TX. Plus they feel without a CGame they may be left out of the playoffs. Not certain it will go to 8 anytime soon. At the end of the day I do think the Big 12 does expand, but if they don’t OK will be looking and regardless of agreements will get their way. But the Big 12 will just add two mediocre teams and call it a day.

        Like

  55. Gene says:

    It’s like the movie A Beautiful Mind.

    OK and KU aren’t TX or ND, but they are as close as you can get right now.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      That doesn’t mean they are good enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the better decision.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      OK and KU aren’t TX or ND, but they are as close as you can get right now.

      I totally agree with Brian that any expansion proposal needs to be compared with the option of doing nothing. No league has to expand (unless, like the Big 12 a few years ago, you’ve been so heavily poached that you’re in danger of extinction). And expansions sometimes fail, which means the advantages need to be extremely compelling, not just ‘good enough’.

      These are 50-year decisions, which means they have to be quite a bit better than merely “as close as you can get right now.” Sometimes, you have to wait awhile for the right opportunity.
      The Big Ten stood pat at 11 schools for 21 years before they added Nebraska.

      If they’d wanted 14, merely for the sake of being at 14, they could’ve kept adding schools: plenty of other decent programs were available for the asking. But no, they waited till they saw something they considered truly compelling, which was Maryland, and then added the best available 14th school to go with it, which was Rutgers.

      (As erstwhile FTT contributor Andy has often pointed out, before Missouri joined the SEC, they would’ve accepted a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, at that time there was no 14th school available that made sense to them; and by the time Maryland was available, Missouri no longer was. That’s how it goes sometimes.)

      It must be reiterated that expansion doesn’t just create opportunities; it takes also certain options away, since there is surely a maximum size, beyond which a conference cannot expand. At the very least, expansion always means that some long-standing rivalries are played less often.

      Now, I do think that the Nebraska decision amounted to a recognition that Notre Dame was never going to join. But we really don’t know what Texas would do if Oklahoma and Kansas were no longer in the Big XII. It’s hard to imagine the Longhorns remaining in a “Big One, Little Nine” kind of league, which means they’d have to do something. If I’m Jim Delany, I want to know what that is, before I make a move.

      Like

  56. If we are talking about UT/KU/OU…I think we might as well mention that Missouri is not bound by a GOR in the SEC.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      Which is equally as valid as talking about Nebraska going back to the Big XII.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Indeed, neither is Kentucky. Contiguous flagship school, good BBall, in the #78-104 tier in the AWRU/US rankings. And they make Vanderbilt contiguous, and they are #35 AWRU/US and an AAU member to boot. And then Georgia is contiguous, (AWRU/US #65-77), which opens up Florida (#44 & AAU member).

      A basic difference between the UKY/Vandy/UGA/Florida and the UT/KU/OkU/somebody expansion is that the first is implausible all through the 2020’s and the latter gains some small measure of plausibility as the Big12 GOR comes closer to its expiration date.

      Like

  57. […] we mentioned the fact that the conference realignment rumor mill has fired up again.  Here’s one of the articles we were talking […]

    Like

  58. Mack says:

    When did Kansas become a hot prospect? A few years back (P16 proposal) Kansas was hoping to catch a bid for the Big East with ISU and Baylor. With the rumors of A&M splitting for the SEC KS was offered a contingent seat, officially ranking them the 9th most valuable school in the old XII, ahead of only KSU, ISU, and Baylor. The B1G could have taken KS (and/or MO) when they took NE. The B1G took a pass at that time and nothing has changed to make KS more valuable. Frank used to say that Football drives the bus. There just is not the TV value in a basketball school. The B1G already has many top basketball schools, with most also have decent football, something that cannot be said for Kansas. The B1G already has Illinois holding down the slot KS holds in the XII.

    Kansas football is not even close to Kentucky’s. Kentucky at least puts some effort in football; it had average attendance of 57K in 2014 compared to 34K for Kansas.

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      “The B1G could have taken KS (and/or MO) when they took NE. The B1G took a pass at that time and nothing has changed to make KS more valuable.”

      At the time there wasn’t a 13th to make the Big Ten look for a 14th, so that is not a test of whether Kansas is good enough to be the #16 add to go along with a #15.

      When Maryland became available, Mizzou was already in the SEC while Kansas had already signed a GOR while Rutgers was in the crumbling old Big East, so that isn’t really an empirical test either of whether or not Kansas stacks up as a workable #16 to go along with a desired #15.

      Now, personally, I’m skeptical that OkU is really that strong of an add for the Big Ten … to me, “OkU and Kansas are the strongest pair likely to be available until the waning days of the ACC GOR” sounds an awful lot like, “there is not likely to be any Big Ten expansion until the waning days of the ACC GOR”.

      But if the Big Ten would want to go for OkU, I don’t think we have a firm read on whether Kansas is a “good enough” second school as part of that expansion.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        “The B1G could have taken KS (and/or MO) when they took NE. The B1G took a pass at that time and nothing has changed to make KS more valuable.”

        At the time there wasn’t a 13th to make the Big Ten look for a 14th, so that is not a test of whether Kansas is good enough to be the #16 add to go along with a #15.

        This is absolutely right. Bear in mind that conferences generally expand to even numbers. (I know the Big Ten stood at 11 teams for 21 years, but that is not the norm.)

        Expansion that gives you an odd number is usually a strong expansion: odd numbers are awkward, so it really has to be compelling. The expansion that gives you an even number is often weaker: taking the best school available, even if not the greatest, simply to get up to (or back up to) equal-sized divisions.

        Examples are: Maryland (stronger), Rutgers (weaker); Colorado (stronger), Utah (weaker); Texas A&M (stronger), Missouri (weaker). In each case, the “odd-numbered school” was the stronger addition, the “even-numbered school” the weaker.

        This is not to say they were bad additions. Missouri football is fitting into the SEC pretty well, winning its division each of the last two years. But A&M was clearly the plum that the SEC wanted. Missouri would never have been the SEC’s 13th school, nor the Big Ten’s.

        Likewise, Maryland (odd) was the impetus behind the Big Ten’s last expansion, with Rutgers (even) tagging along; and Colorado (odd) was the impetus behind the Pac-12’s last expansion, with Utah (even) coming afterward.

        Kansas is a typical “even-numbered school”. It will ride with a more compelling “odd-numbered” partner.

        Bear in mind, the current CCG rules provide an additional reason to have even numbers, beyond avoiding mere awkwardness. I suspect that Penn State wouldn’t have come to the Big Ten alone, if it had joined in the CCG era. It could be that if the CCG is de-regulated, conferences will no longer mind odd numbers as much. That could be bad news for Kansas.

        But odd numbers still have significant disadvantages: it means one school in the conference finishes its season earlier than all the others. The team with the bye on the final weekend could be one of the CCG participants: it would get an extra week to prepare for that game, and rest its starters.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Yeah, the BigTen at 11 was like the empty seat at Passover … that was Notre Dame’s spot, until the BigTen finally got used to the idea that Notre Dame just wasn’t going to take it.

          Like

    • hawkfan says:

      Actually, Missouri was looking at the Big East with Kansas at the time too and they landed in the SEC. That’s all that is, a snapshot in time where others were higher up the priority list.

      Like

  59. dob says:

    DIVISION IV

    4 Divisions comprised of 2 conferences each. Each conference is comprised of 9 teams that share historic, cultural, and/or geographic ties.

    FOOTBALL

    Season
    8 Conference Games*
    2 Divisional Games*
    2 Inter-division Games

    *count toward conference record

    Post Season
    8 conference champs are seeded to play in tournament for championship

    16 bowl committees choose opponents from remaining teams on live broadcast. All bowl games are completed prior to start of championship tournament.

    BASKETBALL

    Season
    16 Conference games*
    4 Divisional games*
    6 Inter-divisional games
    4 NCAA games (non-Division IV)

    *count toward conference record

    Conference Tournaments
    The bottom 2 seeds have a play-in game. Winner of each tournament gets automatic bid to Division IV tourney.

    Division IV Tournament
    16 automatic bids and top remaining 32 Division IV teams and top 16 NCAA teams are selected and seeded.

    Like

    • dob says:

      Big 18

      Great Lakes Conference
      1. Ohio St
      2. Michigan
      3. Michigan State
      4. Wisconsin
      5. Penn St
      6. Indiana
      7. Purdue
      8. Illinois
      9. Northwestern

      Great Plains Conference
      10. Texas
      11. Oklahoma
      12. Nebraska
      13. Kansas
      14. K State
      15. Oklahoma St
      16. Iowa State
      17. Iowa
      18. Minnesota

      Like

      • dob says:

        Eastern Division

        Atlantic Coast Conference
        1. North Carolina
        2. Duke
        3. NC State
        4. Wake Forest
        5. Virginia
        6. Clemson
        7. Georgia Tech
        8. Miami
        9. Florida St.

        Metroplis Conference
        10. Notre Dame
        11. Louisville
        12. Syracuse
        13. Connecticut
        14. Boston College
        15. Rutgers
        16. Pittsburgh
        17. Cincinnati
        18. Maryland

        Like

        • dob says:

          Southern Division

          Southeastern Conference
          1. Alabama
          2. Georgia
          3. Florida
          4. LSU
          5. Auburn
          6. South Carolina
          7. Ole Miss
          8. Miss State
          9. Texas A&M

          Appalachian Conference
          10. Kentucky
          11. Tennesee
          12. Memphis
          13. Vanderbilt
          14. Virginia Tech
          15. West Vigrinia
          16. Arkansas
          17. Missouri
          18. TCU

          Like

          • dob says:

            Western Division

            Pacific Coast Conference
            1. USC
            2. UCLA
            3. Stanford
            4. California
            5. Oregon
            6. Oregon State
            7. Washington
            8. Washington State
            9. Arizona

            Southwestern Conference
            10. BYU
            11. Utah
            12. Baylor
            13. Texas Tech
            14. Colorado
            15. Boise St.
            16. UNLV
            17. Arizona State
            18. New Mexico

            Like

      • gfunk says:

        Interesting, but wow on my alma mater, a charter member of the original BIG, as well Iowa heading to the Great Plains Conference – surrounded by the BIG8-12. Minny is more corn belt than rust belt, but it’s certainly a Great Lakes state.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      dob,

      “4 Divisions comprised of 2 conferences each. Each conference is comprised of 9 teams that share historic, cultural, and/or geographic ties.”

      1. Why would the P5 schools agree to this? It adds several more mouths to feed at the top level.
      2. It seems like a lot of lost historic ties (WI and MN are split, IA to the old Big 8, etc).

      “Season
      8 Conference Games*
      2 Divisional Games*
      2 Inter-division Games

      *count toward conference record”

      Why should divisional games count towards the conference record when conferences are subsets of divisions in your plan? They play a full round robin, that should be sufficient. I could see using divisional games as tiebreakers, perhaps, but not part of the conference record.

      “8 conference champs are seeded to play in tournament for championship”

      They’ve never used winning your conference as a mandatory criteria to make the playoff (BCS or CFP). Why would they start now? There’ll always bee a weak champion that doesn’t deserve it and a runner up that does.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      The B10 announced their plan to drop I-AA teams going forward quite a while ago.

      http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25255626/new-big-ten-schedule-commitment-at-least-one-power-five-game-no-fcs

      What’s new is the B10 is also adding a mandatory P5 OOC game.

      They call the plan 1910:
      1 P5 OOC game
      9 B10 games
      1 CCG
      0 I-AA games

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2015/07/31/big-ten-schedule-nine-league-games-no-fcs-teams-2016/30938987/

        The B10 is selling this as a boon for fans and players, and a push to increase SOS for the CFP.

        But the Big Ten’s new criteria is influenced most heavily by the impact of the College Football Playoff, and specifically in how the 13-member selection committee culls through relevant data and metrics to select its four participants.

        In 2014, the Playoff’s first season of existence, the committee valued a team’s overall résumé — the strength of schedule, conference championships, quality of victories — over a mere won-loss record.

        Baylor, for example, which was left out of the final four teams despite sharing the Big 12 title, was dented by its weak nonconference schedule; the Big 12 as a whole was slighted for its lack of a conference title game, and Ohio State leaped into the top four thanks in large part to its convincing victory against Wisconsin to claim the Big Ten championship.

        “With the new Playoff and with the direction of the (selection) committee, they’re not focused just on won-loss records,” Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott told USA TODAY Sports. “I mean, you can’t ignore won-loss records. But we know, at the end of the day there’s going to be teams with comparable records.

        “And the signal’s been sent from commissioners to the committee, and (committee chairman) Jeff Long’s made this painfully clear: we’re going to be looking at who did you play and who did you beat.”

        Said Delany, “I’m not sure people have paid as much attention to the guidelines for the selection of teams. There are about eight paragraphs that deal with the issue of when resumes look similar. Similar record, similar rèsumès. Conference champions are going to get the first tiebreaker consideration and strength of schedule is going to get the second.”

        What isn’t mentioned is that this starts just before the new TV deal, so Delany can use it as leverage in negotiations. Networks now know there will be the following every season:

        63 B10 games
        14 or more B10 vs P5 OOC games (roughly half at home)
        28 or fewer B10 vs G5 OOC games (mostly at home)
        0 B10 vs I-AA games (eventually – already scheduled games will be played)
        105 total games

        Compare that to this year:
        56 B10 games
        17 B10 vs P5 OOC games
        32 B10 vs G5 OOC games
        7 B10 vs I-AA games
        112 total games

        The new package will be a lot more valuable to the networks. The B10 games are mostly a known quantity at this point, and adding 7 more increases the chances of a king/king crossover game. In addition, 73% of games will feature 2 P5 teams instead of 65%. That means better OOC choices to put on air (fewer MACrifices), and thus more value. Likewise, the end of I-AA games drives value. In addition, the B10 is moving B10 games into September so there won’t be any more MACrifice weekends when nobody plays a decent team. Don’t forget the increase in night games, especially in November. That all adds up to a lot of extra value over the old package.

        All these things help explain the huge jump in TV money expected in the next TV deal.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I think this is FAR more about TV revenue than playoff strength-of-schedule.

          If you replace Kent State with an FCS team on Ohio State’s 2014 schedule, do they miss the playoff? I don’t think so. Baylor missed the playoff, not so much because they had Northwestern State on their schedule, but because they didn’t play a CCG, and their entire non-conference slate was fairly weak: Buffalo (a mediocre MAC squad) and SMU (horrific), plus the aforementioned Northwestern State.

          Replacing the occasional FCS opponent with a mid-major will only rarely, and maybe never, be the differentiating factor in whether the Big Ten champion makes the playoff. But by banishing those games and insisting on at least one P5 opponent, you upgrade the whole schedule for all 14 members, creating quite a bit more watchable inventory.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            It also helps attendance. Some ADs may have quietly been happy to have the B10 “force” them to drop I-AAs to save them battling the coach on this issue.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            A lot of times its the AD. They prefer paying 500k to Indiana St. instead of a million to Ball St.

            Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      They’ll still get buy games, they just won’t be against the BigTen.

      Like

  60. Stuart says:

    Much has been made of AAU membership, and there is some value in that identification.

    of the 63 American AAU members (McGill and Toronoto in Canada are the other members), 33 are P5 schools and 3 (Buffalo, Rice, Tulane) are G5 schools. This accounts for half the P5 schools.

    But there is a 2nd research group, the URA (Universities Research Association) with 83 members, 77 in the US, including 29 of the 33 P5 AAU schools (Georgia Tech, Kansas, Missouri, USC are not in URA). Of the URA schools not in the AAU there are 13 P5 members:

    Alabama, Arizona State, Florida State, Notre Dame, LSU, Mississippi, Nebraska, Syracuse, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech.

    (Surprised Utah, Georgia, and Kentucky are not members, given R&D spending levels)

    Only OU is a realignment possibility.

    The G5 schools:

    Houston, North Texas, SMU, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Colorado State, Northern Illinois

    (surprised Hawaii, Cincy and UAB are not members, although UAB is all the med school)

    Like the AAU, the URA is primarily a lobbying group. Your federal tax money accounts for something like 68% of the R&D budgets, private barely 10%. The URA member schools gives you an idea of some non-AAU members are potential candidates for future AAU membership.

    http://www.ura-hq.org/about/index.html

    Like

  61. Brian says:

    http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2015/07/where_will_ohio_state_play_if.html

    A look at an interesting, but totally hypothetical, question.

    If OSU makes the CFP as the #1 seed, where should they play? The semifinals will be in the Orange Bowl and the Cotton Bowl this year, both a little over 1000 miles from Columbus.

    This same question applies to any northern or western team and even southern teams nearly halfway between the two.

    If the Buckeyes are No. 1, and they are an overwhelming No. 1 right now, they get the preference on the site. Look at the protocol for the College Football Playoff Committee.

    “When assigning teams to sites, the committee will place the top two seeds at the most advantageous sites, weighing criteria such as convenience of travel for its fans, home-crowd advantage or disadvantage and general familiarity with the host city and its stadium. Preference will go to the No. 1 seed.”

    Which site is that for Ohio State?

    Sun Life Stadium, home of the Orange Bowl, is 1,142 miles from Ohio Stadium.

    AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, is 1,060 miles from Ohio Stadium.

    What’s more convenient? What’s more familiar?

    “It’s a good question,” Reid Sigmon, the CFO of the College Football Playoff, told Northeast Ohio Media Group on Friday at the Big Ten Media Days. “It will be determined by the committee on that day.”

    Sigmon said the committee probably wouldn’t ask the Buckeyes what they preferred. The committee didn’t do that last year. It determined the top four seeds and assigned the games. And the site selection was incredibly easy.

    … The Big Ten does have a limited arrangement with the Orange Bowl, but would that be enough to swing things? So what always matters, but may matter most if the Buckeyes are a No. 1 seed, is their opponent and home crowd disadvantage.

    As Sigmon explained, if Ohio State is No. 1 and a team like Miami (or say Florida State or Florida) is No. 4, the committee wouldn’t want to send the Buckeyes to the Orange Bowl. That scenario would send them to the Cotton Bowl.

    Or consider this more likely scenario – Ohio State is No. 1 and either TCU or Baylor, two legit playoff contenders, is No. 4. That would send that matchup to the Orange Bowl.

    “You don’t want to disadvantage the higher seed. But there are other factors,” Sigmon said. “You could have other quirks. We try to avoid hypotheticals just because you could drive yourself crazy.”

    So Sigmon said simply that the first criteria, really, for the determining the 1-4 game is “where would it make the most sense.”

    Without knowing the opponent, I’d give the Orange a slight edge with all the B10 transplants in FL.

    Based on the teams in the Coaches Poll:
    Orange – TCU, Baylor, LSU, OU, AR, MO
    Cotton – FSU, UGA, Clemson, GT
    No difference – AL, OR, MSU, AU, USC, ND, UCLA, MS, ASU, WI, Stanford, AZ, Boise, TN

    I think the other 2 teams would decide the issue most of the time (can’t give #3 home field advantage if #1 doesn’t care where they play).

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Trick question. They SHOULD play in the Rose Bowl…

      Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      I know the proposed ND v. BIG12 pre-playoff is far upthread, but how would home field play out: 1. always a Home campus game for the B12 champ. 2. Permanent texas site (e.g. Alamodome) 3. Or alternates between b12 and ND (or Soldier/Luke/Ford dp on availability and where other CCGs situate in a given year), whether by even/odd year or by ranking.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        urbanleftbehind,

        “I know the proposed ND v. BIG12 pre-playoff is far upthread, but how would home field play out: 1. always a Home campus game for the B12 champ.”

        No way.

        “2. Permanent texas site (e.g. Alamodome)”

        Maybe Houston? Or Jerryworld?

        “3. Or alternates between b12 and ND (or Soldier/Luke/Ford dp on availability and where other CCGs situate in a given year), whether by even/odd year or by ranking.”

        This would be my guess. I’d expect ND to use it for regional exposure, though so maybe they choose Phoenix and New Orleans (or KC just to annoy NE fans).

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I know the proposed ND v. BIG12 pre-playoff is far upthread, but how would home field play out?

        Hard to say, as I think it was meant as a Swiftean modest proposalL: not intended as a serious suggestion that might be adopted, but meant to show what happens if seemingly attractive ideas are taken to the outer limits of their logic.

        Like

  62. bullet says:

    http://big12fanatics.com/why-custom-fios-matters/

    Excellent, well researched article on cable un-bundling and or re-bundling and how that impacts ESPN and college sports. Verizon FIOS structure which ESPN is suing them over is discussed.

    Like

    • anthony london says:

      Bullet,
      Great article, thanks for sharing…

      Like

      • Redwood86 says:

        And the article didn’t even discuss the ramifications of fiber broadband (Google Fiber, etc.) companies competing with the existing cable and telecom companies. This, too, will begin to have impact within 5 years.

        Like

  63. bullet says:

    Disney head expects separate ESPN packages sometime after the next 5years.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2015/07/27/disneys-bob-iger-inevitable-that-espn-goes-direct-to-consumer/?mod-mktw

    Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger said on CNBC Monday morning that “there’s an inevitability” to ESPN peeling itself away from the traditional pay TV bundle.

    “I think eventually ESPN becomes a business that is sold directly to the consumers,” Mr. Iger said.

    ESPN, which is majority-owned by Disney, could use information from that direct consumer relationship to customize its product and enable more personalization, which will engage fans in a “much more effective way,” he said.

    Mr. Iger cautioned that such an offering is not “right around the corner”; even five years down the line, he believes there won’t have been “significant change” in the pay TV business.

    Like

    • metatron says:

      The thing is that ESPN is crap.

      I’d have kept SlingTV if they had the BigTen network or Fox Sports Detroit. I don’t want or need TMZ: Sports Edition.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It is, but they have more major live sports than anyone. That’s what makes them valuable. Many people only watch games on ESPN because their programming is so obnoxious.

        Like

  64. Brian says:

    http://cfn.scout.com/2/1566130.html

    The 10 best games of Week 1:
    1. Sept. 5, 8:00 PM Wisconsin vs. Alabama (in Arlington) ABC
    2. Sept. 5, 7:30 PM Texas at Notre Dame NBC
    3. Sept. 5, 7:00 PM Arizona State vs. Texas A&M (in Houston) ESPN
    4. Sept. 5, 3:30 PM Louisville vs. Auburn (in Atlanta) CBS
    5. Sept. 3, 8:30 PM Michigan at Utah FOX Sports 1
    6. Sept, 3, 6:00 PM North Carolina vs. South Carolina (in Charlotte) ESPN
    7. Sept. 3, 9:00 PM TCU at Minnesota ESPN
    8. Sept. 7, 8:00 PM Ohio State at Virginia Tech ESPN
    9. Sept. 4, 10:15 PM Washington at Boise State ESPN
    10. Sept. 5, 3:30 PM Virginia at UCLA FOX

    ESPN – 5
    ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, FS1 – 1 each

    ACC, B10, P12, SEC – 4
    B12, Other – 2

    Good diversity.

    Like

  65. […] Big 12 Expansion or Contraction? Watch Out for Oklahoma […]

    Like

  66. Brian says:

    In one of the articles, there was a letter from a B10 professor. He mentioned that the B10 cared about the NRC rankings of graduate programs.

    Those rankings only come out about once per decade. The most recent report was in 2010. Before that it was 1995. The 2010 report looked at 5004 graduate programs, with each field (like ME, EE, etc) ranked separately. They also switched to providing ranges (5th and 95th percentile) rather than individual scores, and using 2 types of rankings (regression based and survey based).

    You can read about the new version (and download an Excel file of all the data) here:
    http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/Resdoc/

    You can also get the program rankings for individual fields at at http://www.phds.org/

    For a look at the 1995 rankings, here’s a good summary:
    http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html

    He only looks at the 136 biggest schools (those with at least 10 rated PhD programs) of 247, but it’s still useful. He provides a table of the top 60 schools by 3 different measures – Number of Rated Programs, Average of Nonzero Scores and Average of all 41 Scores. He also provides rankings based on the 5 major areas (Arts & Humanities, Engineering, Biological Sciences, Math & Physical Science, Social & Behavioral Sciences).

    I haven’t seen anybody do a similar breakdown of the 2010 report.

    Like

  67. Chet says:

    Here’s a post for fellow fans of sporting legends:

    http://www.badassoftheweek.com/karelin.html

    What’s my point here (as 12-year card-carrying Juventino)?

    “Vincere Non e Importante, E’ L’unica Cosa Che Conta”

    It’s all about the W’s.

    Like

    • Blues Clues says:

      The Big Ten should look at adding Kansas & Missouri while the SEC can add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Texas. If Notre Dame & Texas join the ACC as full members then the Longhorn Network can be rebranded as the ACC Network.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        There is practically no chance Missouri would leave the SEC, and there is practically no chance that the SEC wants Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. Why would they?

        Notre Dame is going to remain independent, as long as they have the same access to the post-season that they do now. None of the folks in power have given any hint that that’ll change. It’s only coaches who’ve said that, and coaches don’t make the decisions.

        Like

        • cutter says:

          I think the better way to classify Notre Dame in terms of football is as a semi-independent or a quasi-independent. Having the contract with the ACC to play five games per year would be enough in itself to remove the title of “independent”. Add in the rivalry games with USC and Navy along with one other West Coast team, i.e., Stanford, and ND essentially has a de facto conference schedule in place each season. Jack Swarbrick is then tasked with scheduling four games per season–much like any other AD in a conference.

          Brigham Young, OTOH, can probably truly called an independent in terms of how its football schedule is put together each year.

          Like

  68. John Wilson says:

    Oklahoma’s not going anywhere without Oklahoma State, which pretty much means they’re going nowhere. It’s not worth it to any of the other power conferences to take two teams from Oklahoma because it’s a money losing proposition. The last time I checked, T. Boone Pickens still has the ability to prevent Oklahoma from leaving Oklahoma State behind. Oklahoma lost this battle in the last round of expansion, why would this be any different? So this is all fantasy talk.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It’s not worth it to any of the other power conferences to take two teams from Oklahoma because it’s a money losing proposition.

      I think you’ve misstated what happened. The Pac-10 (as it then was) absolutely thought OK+OkSt was a winner, as long as Texas and TT came along. Texas scuttled the transaction when they insisted on keeping the Longhorn Network separate from any other Pac media deal.

      I agree that no other conference would take the two Oklahoma schools, but the Pac would probably make the same offer again, if at some point the LHN issue can be solved. That’s probably not happening anytime soon, but I wouldn’t say “never”. If the Pac ever wants to expand again, there aren’t many other realistic options, so I wouldn’t be surprise to see the idea resurrected at some point.

      Even assuming that T. Boone Pickens is calling the shots in the state of Oklahoma, he’s not a young man, and he won’t be around forever.

      Like

      • Right – I don’t think the Pac-12 would have any issue at all if the price to get both Texas and Oklahoma is to take along Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Their main issue was with taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State *alone* as a 2-school expansion. That is what has been rejected by the Pac-12 (and would certainly be rejected by the Big Ten and SEC).

        Like

    • Chet says:

      I don’t understand why some people on this board sneer at the University of Oklahoma. Where I come from kids are fortunate if they get a degree from the local community college. My father quit school when he was 14 to work the family farm, and the only organized sports that I played was 4H bowling. The Sooners are A-OK in my book!

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Chet,

        “I don’t understand why some people on this board sneer at the University of Oklahoma.”

        We don’t sneer at them so much as note that the B10 presidents might sneer at adding them. OU is in the top 100 to 150 schools in the US (all rankings are different). That’s not bad at all. But the B10 consists of mostly top 60ish schools with NE bringing up the rear by a sizable margin. In addition, AAU membership is an important distinction to B10 presidents and OU is far from getting it.

        “Where I come from kids are fortunate if they get a degree from the local community college. My father quit school when he was 14 to work the family farm, and the only organized sports that I played was 4H bowling. The Sooners are A-OK in my book!”

        You aren’t the president of a B10 school. Even they wouldn’t say OU is a bad school, they’d just say it isn’t a great fit for the B10 academically.

        Like

        • Chet says:

          Agree. When it comes to any further Big Ten expansion, there will be only 16 opinions that count.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Who are 15 and 16?

            Like

          • largeR says:

            Well Franks gotta be 15. :)

            Like

          • greg says:

            Chicago and Johns Hopkins.

            Like

          • Chet says:

            @ccrider

            If I was to answer that question with a joke, then you know what the answer would be.

            But I’ll be frank with you (no pun intended). I personally think that Big Ten expansion is over.

            But that is not the answer you are seeking. To answer that question, I must first give these opinions: (a) “politics” is over-stated; while (b) “shared-board” is under-stated.

            (a) If one school would leave behind its brother school, and they don’t share the same board, then what’s the worst thing that politicians can do? Cut-off state funding?? In that case, the politicians would be saying that athletics is more important than academics. Not going to happen.

            (b) However, politics is much more important, if two schools share the same board. What happens if one school wants to prevent the other school from leaving? Does the board sue itself??

            For the above reasons, if I was a poor gambling man, my bet for School No. 1 and School No. 2 would be Virginia and Duke.

            However, if I was a rich gambling man, then I would also consider the odds of the bet, because if a long-shot bet would win, then I would have the chance to become richer.

            Like

          • Aaron Morrow says:

            ” If one school would leave behind its brother school, and they don’t share the same board, then what’s the worst thing that politicians can do?”

            Force Texas A&M to abandon plans to join the SEC, because Big Eight schools would only accept Texas Tech and Baylor if Texas and A&M joined as well.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Chet:

            I simply wondered who were the 15th, and 16th opinions that matter.

            “But that is not the answer you are seeking.”

            The answer is there are 14 opinions that count.

            As to my opinion about prospective invites, if they actually happen, I agree that it will be in the populous central Atlantic region. UVA is one attractive school but I don’t see a small private being its partner unless and until UNC shows in some way it will never join (i.e. joins the SEC). And even then I’d bet on another large public school, although Duke’s research is very attractive and it wouldn’t be an enormous surprise if I was wrong (again).

            Like

          • Chet says:

            That would be the answer if School No. 1 and School No. 2 would be Maryland and Rutgers.

            Like

  69. briantium says:

    First of all, I think the Grant of Rights is more than enough to keep everybody locked in at least until the final years that it’s in effect (2021-22 at the earliest before real noise begins to be made); I just don’t see anybody wanting to go “nuclear” and deal with the legal challenges just to get away from Texas. A lot of people here just seem to assume that it’s a fig leaf, but if one GoR gets successfully challenged, then everybody’s GoRs are suddenly compromised. Granted, the Big 12 seems to be the only conference anybody wants to bail on, but what happens if their GoR is broken and then perhaps the Big 10 starts eyeballing an ACC school or vice-versa once the cat’s out of the bag? I think the status quo is a lot more set than people are giving it credit for.

    And everybody assumes that the OUs and KUs of the world would have free reign to ditch their respective State schools to go elsewhere, but I think the political pressure to keep them together would be a lot greater than you might expect. Even Texas would have to take at least Tech along if they left. Not necessarily enough pressure to make it impossible, but it would be just as messy in its own right as breaking the GoR, especially if you have prominent KSU and OSU grads in their respective state legislatures at the time a move is made (and Kansas’ governor, as despised as he may be, is a KSU grad). True, if it came down to it, and it was clear taking their State school along was not an option and the only way to keep your University Of in a Power conference was to let them go, yeah, sure, it would happen (probably with a caveat to require them to continue playing their State schools regardless), but not before a fight to keep them together. Remember, Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri had no in-conference in-state rivals to disengage from when they left, and Texas A&M was not the University Of in their state. But Oklahoma and Kansas would be the first ones with in-conference in-state rivals to try to leave. Again, it’s possible, but it wouldn’t be easy.

    Finally, I agree with Frank’s previous posts on Texas’ preferences: they like controlling a conference, and they’ll never get a better deal than the Big 12. Sure, they’d like to jump to another conference with Notre Dame, or better yet bring ND to the Big 12, but it’s not happening. And really, if I’m the Big 10 or the SEC, do I really NEED Texas? I mean, those conferences are obviously thriving without them, so why would you want to put up with Texas? We in the Big 12 do because we don’t have a choice (heh), but there’s no way you could expect Texas to be content with going from being the top dog in the Big 12 to “merely” one of four or five premiere schools in the SEC. I just don’t think the SEC would want to deal with Texas when they don’t have to. Texas is like the hottest chick in school who’s also the bitchiest and most entitled, expecting five star restaurants every night; there are plenty of other pretty girls around who are nicer and may even cook you dinner instead. Even the Pac-12 seems to be happy with not having Texas in their conference, and that was the best option that Texas was going to get.

    Like

    • The main distinction is whether “putting up with Texas” (or, for that matter, Notre Dame”) means that they are structurally treated differently than the other members. If a school like Texas or Notre Dame is willing to be a full and equal revenue sharing member of the Big Ten or SEC, then those conferences won’t care if they’re the whiniest entitled brats in all of college sports. *Every* conference will take Texas or Notre Dame as full and equal members. No questions asked. The issue is where they don’t want to be full and equal members, whether it’s in the form of a separate TV deal or different revenue treatment. That’s where leagues like the Big Ten and SEC completely draw the line.

      To be sure, I thought that the original Pac-16 deal was *fantastic* for Texas (and I say that as someone that badly wanted Texas to join the Big Ten). There are still days where I can’t believe that Texas didn’t follow through with it. Texas A&M would have still been under their wing and they would have had a full division of regional opponents combined with the great demographics and TV markets of the West Coast plus a significant academic prestige upgrade. Every other proposal from another conference is going to look weaker by comparison (if only because A&M is now off in the SEC forever).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        1. A&M wasn’t going. It would have been Kansas instead. A&M would have gone to the SEC a year earlier.
        2. Texas ended up with the basically the same money for Tier I and Tier II. Pac 10 averages $21 million vs. $20 million for Big 12, but is more backloaded. Big 12 is earning more in the early years. And with the LHN, Texas is making more overall.
        3. Texas has a similar schedule without all the trouble of switching conferences. They were going to minimize cross-division scheduling to reduce travel, so they wouldn’t be playing the Pac 8 schools much. Instead, they have USC, Cal and UCLA out of conference without having Oregon St. and Washington St. on the schedule.
        4. Noone watches the Pac 12. They trail the P5. The time differential is an issue. Plus, they just aren’t into sports like the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC.
        5. When they did travel, it would be pretty long. All the original Big 10 schools are closer than any of the Pac 10 schools to Austin and Penn St. is closer than any but the Arizona schools.

        The Big 12 is just a much better fit as long as it stays economically viable. Which it definitely is for the next 10 years. Texas will never join the SEC as long as there is a viable option, but that is the one that fits the best “regionally” with Arkansas, A&M and LSU.

        I do think because of the “Tech” problem, if the Big 12 ceases to be viable, Texas, Tech, OU and Okie St. head to the Pac. Despite all the talk now, I think OU sees a lot of benefit in being in the same conference with Texas. They were separate for decades in the Big 8 and did very well, but they did better together.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          #2
          Not the same money they would have made if a P16 deal had been what Larry Scott had been taking to the market.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            That’s your assumption. That isn’t the belief that Texas President Powers had. He thought it would be similar. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of difference between the valuations of the major conferences.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “That’s your assumption.”

            Well, yes. But it is informed by Belevaqua, who just after the 3B deal was signed indicated the P16 deal might have been 5B.
            3B/12/12=20.83M
            5B/16/12=26.04M
            That’s aproximately a 25% increase (in a 2011 deal). Plus the added value to the P12N.
            UT alone might not have seen a big difference, but the other three certainly would have. Perhaps they don’t care. Now Memphis, Tulane, UConn, etc are possibllities as conference mates? But you’re right, it’s still an assumption.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “I do think because of the “Tech” problem, if the Big 12 ceases to be viable, Texas, Tech, OU and Okie St. head to the Pac.”

          This has been my assumption, too.

          “Despite all the talk now, I think OU sees a lot of benefit in being in the same conference with Texas.”

          Because that is the current circumstance.”

          They were separate for decades in the Big 8 and did very well, but they did better together.”

          But the conference didn’t survive at the same level.

          Like

        • Stuart says:

          We don’t actually know if the concept of a Pac-16 was real in the Pac-10 officials minds. There were reports that the Pac officials were appalled by the attitude of Boren and Dobbs in particular who behaved as if it was Texas and Oklahoma inviting the Pac to join them and that they’d bring their friend Tech and OK State with them.

          The impression I get is the Pac-12 was looking at Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas only. Utah was going to be brought in as the round out for an even number if they only got Colorado or they got all three. The Pac-12 was not willing to take the academic hit of Tech and Oklahoma State.

          This may explain Texas’ hesitation, since they were looking at a Pac-12 where they were in instead of Utah and had to make long treks to the West coast. The Pac-16 may have been Texas’ counter plan to make it palpable to them. And as you say, limit travel by playing in essentially the same conference, just with the Arizona schools instead of the Kansas schools.

          This would also explain why Texas A&M would work with Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma (again) and Iowa State to try and group join the B1G. This would indicate A&M, like Missouri in its open courting of the B1G, had already broken ranks with Austin. They simply held their cards closer and then approached the SEC, after sending hints through back channels. Missouri had already ticked off everyone and knew they needed to go, so were ripe for the plucking, although it took considerable internal politicking to get backers and faculty who had their hearts set on the B1G for decades to switch focus to the South.

          Oklahoma’s latest maneuvering is simply a continuation of what was set in motion five years ago. Kansas gets to play the Missouri role this time. Bottom line, its about getting out of the Big XII.

          Texas is sitting pretty with the LHN bringing them $15m a year for 2nd/3rd tier programming. Add that to the almost $20m the conference TV deal brings each school, and its pretty clear Texas is not disadvantaged in terms of revenue compared with the B1G or the SEC. They don’t need to go anywhere anytime soon. The LHN deal pays them regardless, and it runs through 2030-31. We should probably recognize that Texas is not likely going anywhere until the middle of the next decade.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            We do know the Pac 16 was real. They had gone as far as to figure out how scheduling would work in the various sports. Scott was flying around to the various cities and the boards of Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Colorado and Texas were all scheduled to meet within 24 hours of each other to approve the Presidents authority to negotiate the deal. Scott was flying to Lawrence after A&M indicated they didn’t want to go.

            Once the boards meet, the deal is done and the rest is just the attorneys dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            As for the little brothers, that was no surprise to the Pac. The “Tech” problem had been discussed with the Pac as far back as 1993. They fully understood that, politically, Texas had to take care of Tech.

            Like

  70. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25259226/report-nhl-partners-with-mlb-on-digital-media-deal-valued-at-12b

    The NHL is partnering with MLB for digital media.

    The NHL and Major League Baseball are expected to deliver a joint announcement Tuesday of a “groundbreaking new partnership” between the two leagues. According to Sports Business Journal, the partnership involves MLB Advanced Media taking over the NHL’s digital operations, including the league’s and member clubs’ websites, live streaming, mobile applications and NHL Network. The NHL signed a six-year partnership with MLBAM on this new endeavor.

    So what does this mean for NHL fans?

    The general consensus is that MLBAM’s involvement is only a good thing, so here’s three ways this new partnership could benefit NHL fans.

    1. $$$$$$ – According to SBJ, the NHL is getting $100 million per year in rights fees, plus 7-10 percent equity in MLBAM. The entire deal is valued at $1.2 billion.

    2. GameCenter Live – With MLBAM taking over the NHL’s live streaming rights, this could be very good news for those growing frustrated with the current GameCenter Live. Though improvements have been made over the years, long delays and other general clunkiness has frustrated users.

    This is unlikely to change anything in regards to regional blackouts, however, which is probably what you really want to know if you’re a paying customer for live streaming.

    3. NHL Network – If you’re an avid consumer of the NHL and your cable or dish provider has NHL Network, you’re probably a subscriber. You’re also probably not all that thrilled with being one. With a dearth of original programming, besides a daily afternoon talk show and a nightly highlights program, there’s just not a whole lot to actually consume.

    According to SBJ, MLBAM will be moving NHL Network’s U.S. operations from Toronto to the Secaucus, N.J., studio that houses MLB Network. That alone should provide a boost in quality to the product and help better engage fans. A more robust offering of original content would have to follow to make it worth it, but NHL fans should be excited about the change coming.

    Like

  71. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13377734/college-football-playoff-increases-travel-stipend-families-participating-players

    The CFP expands the family travel stipend to include the semifinals, too. It’s $2500 per player for up to 100 players per team.

    Like

  72. I still think the Longhorns could thrive on their own. Article below makes a compelling case. OU & KU would probably be gone also, but so would any resistance to B12 expansion with Cinci, BYU, CFU, Houston, etc. The B12 could retain the Longhorn’s other sports along with a partial football schedule.

    https://www.stakingtheplains.com/2015/08/03/texas-longhorns-leave-the-big-12/

    Sure, Texas is every conference’s number one fantasy expansion candidate, but if I’m running things in Austin, I have to think that ND, BYU and Army aren’t the only programs that can pull off independence. They’ve already got the LHN, what are they waiting for?

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “Sure, Texas is every conference’s number one fantasy expansion candidate…”

      Number two…

      Like

      • ND would be two. Many would put ND at one, but being the flagship university of the state of Texas has to give it the edge. The Longhorns check off a lot of boxes for every conference — AAU, recruiting exposure in TX, visits to Austin, etc. If all the P5 conferences disbanded tomorrow and each commissioner was allowed to pick new universities for their conference, the Texas Longhorns would be everyone’s first choice.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      chickenbox,

      “I still think the Longhorns could thrive on their own.”

      Maybe with a ND-type deal. As a pure independent scheduling in all sports gets too difficult.

      “Article below makes a compelling case.”

      Compelling for UT, maybe. His case for the B12 is much weaker:

      I’ll leave the particulars to those smarter than me, but it should be safe to assume that there are more than a handful of universities whose entrance would make the Big XII intriguing, national, and most importantly, viable.

      If those schools existed, the B12 would be back to 12 already.

      “OU & KU would probably be gone also, but so would any resistance to B12 expansion with Cinci, BYU, CFU, Houston, etc.”

      Of course there’d be no resistance. The remaining B12 schools would be on par with the best MWC and AAC schools.

      “The B12 could retain the Longhorn’s other sports along with a partial football schedule.”

      How generous of UT. Maybe the B12 decides to protest UT leaving by not giving them that deal for a few years. Let UT look elsewhere for games for a while until they appreciate the B12 schools a little.

      Like

      • “How generous of UT. Maybe the B12 decides to protest UT leaving by not giving them that deal for a few years. Let UT look elsewhere for games for a while until they appreciate the B12 schools a little.”

        In reality, it’s just a perception issue that can easily be overcome by performance on the field. The Longhorns would be dropping 3 (or at most 4) B12 games from the schedule they have now. If it’s only 3 games, they’ll be rotating through the B12 more frequently than ND rotates through the ACC. It may feel like the B12 is going the way of the old Big East (or current AAC), but it in reality the new B12 would be a far superior conference than the old Big East ever hoped to be. Also, if OU left and continued the RRR with UT, that’s now a non-conf game and thus not part of the 6 game B12 rotation.

        If the B12 let UT go indy now, they can dictate terms (6 games) and allow UT to be part of a more regional conference which it would prefer over the ACC — which is the conference that is at least going to offer them an ND-equivalent deal.

        Like

      • swesleyh says:

        Brian, Texas thought their school could carry a TV network by themselves too. But the red ink on the LHN for ESPN speaks volumes about the Longhorns ability to sustain all by their lonesome. And their overall TV ratings are declining yearly.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          swesleyh,

          I’m not sure where I said something relevant to that in the comment you’re replying to, but okay.

          “Brian, Texas thought their school could carry a TV network by themselves too.”

          And they can. It may not be the most exciting network, but they can do it.

          “But the red ink on the LHN for ESPN speaks volumes about the Longhorns ability to sustain all by their lonesome.”

          No, it just shows how much ESPN overpaid for LHN. There’s a huge difference. A slightly profitable single school channel is probably less valuable than an equal share of a conference channel even for UT. Few schools could turn down the offer UT got from ESPN, though. I believe UT would’ve accepted a lot less guaranteed money just for the exposure in state.

          “And their overall TV ratings are declining yearly.”

          They haven’t won 10 games since 2009 (did it every year from 2001-2009). When they start winning again, the ratings will skyrocket.

          Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I think this is as likely a scenario as any. Texas goes independent, OU and Kansas go to B1G. I don’t believe OU would go west without Texas and the academic association with/benefits of the B1G are too powerful to turn down.

      Like

  73. wscsuperfan says:

    NHL signs six-year, $600 million deal with MLB to have MLB take over the NHL’s tv broadcasting and Internet streaming options. In return, the NHL will receive a 7 to 10% stake in MLB Advanced Media. MLBAM also handles HBO Now, WWE Network, Sony’s PlayStation Vue Internet TV service, PGA, CBS’s on-demand March Madness coverage and WatchESPN besides all the stuff they do with MLB baseball games.

    MLB has created quite the media company here.

    http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/nhl-mlb-advanced-media-deal-1201556128/

    Like

  74. wscsuperfan says:

    Nebraska is going the “moneyball” route to try to help win games by hiring a full time statistical analyst

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25260417/can-nebraska-reverse-fortunes-by-hiring-an-advanced-stats-whiz

    Like

  75. GreatLakeState says:

    The Wall Street Journal (pay wall) article on the slow motion collapse of ESPN (and bundling in general) has to have Delaney thinking creatively about now. Disney is now concerned that a cord cutting ‘Black Tuesday’ situation could outpace their contingency plans (streaming etc.). Be interesting to see this play out.

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      A key point in that article is in the last paragraph. Basically media companies that create the best content will remain “providers of a scarce resource” and will always be able to maintain their value. Content is king and we are just going through a transition of distribution methods.

      I don’t see myself ever cutting the cord. It’s much simpler for me to go through cable instead of buying all these other systems to work through internet and digital antennas.

      Since most high speed internet providers also distribute TV/Video packages I can see a day where the cost of stand alone internet is so expensive that adding the video package makes more economic sense versus a standalone internet package and direct purchase of content.

      Essentially I think there is limit on the growth rate of cord cutters. How many man caves don’t have cable or satellite? Personally I don’t think it’s the cost of video packages that are driving the cord cutting but rather all the new costs such as high speed internet, smart phones etc… where these costs were non-existent for many people 7 to 10 years ago.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        True.

        Like

      • Redwood86 says:

        When competition comes to high-speed internet (e.g. – Google Fiber, municipal broadband), you will be stupid to mindlessly stay with cable. The cable guys will no longer be able to gouge you if you don’t bundle. . . and yes, the video packages are driving the costs increases because the content owners keep raising the prices they charge to the cable guys. The cord-cutters pay more for internet without video, as you say, so unless they are stupid, the cord cutters’ do better without the video package.

        I stay with cable for now because I can get their “triple play” (including HBO and Showtime and 100 Mbps download speed) with 2 HD rooms (one with DVR) and one non-HD for $164/mo. – including all the BS fees and taxes. But to get that rate, I have to credibly threaten to leave every 2 years.

        In San Francisco, one can get DirecTV (3BRs – all HD), DSL up to 40 Mbps download speed, and full phone service for $125/mo – including all the BS fees and taxes. But, you have to do research and shop around. The cord-cutter in SF who can live w/ 40 Mbps can get by paying just $60/mo. before shopping for TV content.

        Like

  76. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13383524/baylor-bears-ad-ian-mccaw-predicts-college-football-playoff-expansion

    Baylor’s AD predicts that the CFP will expand to 8 in the next 5 years. Nice to see the grapes are still sour in Waco.

    Like

  77. frug says:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/media/media-stock-selloff-netflix-high/

    Media stocks got hammered yesterday over fears of cord cutting.

    Discovery -12.1%
    Disney -9.2%
    Time Warner -8.5%
    Viacom -7.5%

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      This is no joke. My ex-wife has gone from DISH to U-verse to Xfinity to a HD terrestrial antenna in the span of about 14 months, early termination fees for the 2nd and 3rd in that sequence be damned. I’ll probably ride out my U-verse service until mid-2016 when the 2 year term is up and then probably get the scissors and rely on high-speed internet with a few streaming options.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        How much are you paying for high speed internet? What did it cost five years ago? Projection into the future?

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          That’s the point I was trying to make. Those that want to stream TV will end up paying through the nose for that connection. Net neutrality laws are being litigated so there is long term economic risk for those that want or will need super high speed connection.

          In addition, the current technology (ie Sling TV) doesn’t allow for you to stream more than one program at a time. Very limiting with multiple TV’s per household.

          I could see a scenario where this cord cutting risk will place an even bigger premium on sports properties as its the programming that is preventing more rapid growth in cord cutting. As long as ESPN etc.. has content people want to watch their long-term viability will remain strong.

          Conference sports networks will always struggle with annual content so you could see that moving to a pay per view type model unless they are bundled with a national network like ESPN or Fox Sports etc..

          Like

          • Kyle says:

            Interesting thought about the pipe being the great expense. This may occur, although it could be avoided if municipalities begin to regulate the pipe providers as monopolies (or duopolies). The other option would be for the municipalities to take over the service altogether or roll out wi-max infrastructure or some future variant. The point being that the physical and philosophical internet pipe of today is unlikely to be the same tomorrow and I find it unlikely that municipalities who are in competition with other municipalities will allow a key portion of their infrastructure to price consumers out of the market. The internet pipe will be as significant as roads and bridges and any municipality that allows extreme pricing will be placing themselves at a significant development disadvantage relative to other communities.

            I agree about the cost of content to consumers. Most consumers will likely pay as much or potentially more for content when they go directly to the providers, each charging $9.99 – $29.99 per month. Although, I suspect that paradigm will shift back into a bundling paradigm sans the cable companies as it is more cost efficient for consumers. Either way, this is likely to spell bad news for conference networks whose revenues are based upon forcing subscribers to pay for the content whether they watch it or not.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I agree. What has been missing is a form of a la carte to juxtapose with the potential saving particular bundles would provide.

            “Conference sports networks will always struggle with annual content…”

            Only if they continue to sell all their premium content in a tier 1&2 package.

            “…so you could see that moving to a pay per view type model…”

            Highly doubtful. PPV usually requires a truly attractive event to generate significant viewership. Otherwise it only attract the hardcore follower and fans.

            “…unless they are bundled with a national network like ESPN or Fox Sports etc..”

            SECN and LHN are already ESPN owned. If an ACCN happens it will likely be also. BTN and P12N are the ones that will be advantaged, or constrained, by having options and flexibility was the mode of delivering live sports programming evolves.

            Like

      • bob sykes says:

        The effective transmission range for HD TV seems to be about 35 miles. I live 40 miles from a major city and cannot receive any HD transmissions. Before the transition, we could receive the Std Def transmissions.

        We are also in a rural setting, so there is no cable, and none coming. Our only connections are via telephone DSL and satellite (DirectV). That restricts the range of options open to us.

        Like

        • Redwood86 says:

          You should lobby your town to build out a municipally-owned fiber broadband network.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The town I use to live in (had a D1 university) started to install city wide wifi. They stopped because they wern’t “supposed” to be in competition with private enterprises that they tax. Competing with government might cause large providers to abandon whole markets if it won’t be profitable enough.

            Like

  78. Patrick says:

    Let’s say OU and KU jump to the B1G. This seemingly puts pressure on two big players – the Pac-12 and the University of Texas.

    Texas effectively loses its biggest rival in football and top competitor in basketball. Maybe they don’t care, as it seems Texas likes to act as the big man on the block with the rest of the conference being the minions. But this would be a crippling blow to the Big XII and maybe makes Texas look long and hard at the future of college athletics and where it will fit in.

    The Pac-12 will see its expansion options dwindling. It can really only move east, and with very few desirable options along the Rockies (BYU being maybe the only 1 desirable option), picking up Big XII schools are the most logical additions. And with the B1G getting bigger, the SEC in the Big XII neighborhood, and a further destabilized Big XII, I would think the Pac-12 would feel a lot of pressure to add schools quickly.

    Admittedly, I see conferences moving beyond 16 to 20 and forming more of a league type set up. As football would feel the biggest pinch sports-wise, I have a hard time seeing some conferences, especially the B1G wanting to go bigger than that, but it could happen. At 20 teams, the conference could go to 10 games, use a pod system of 5 teams in 4 pods, have 1 or 2 dedicated cross over games, and still be able to rotate through the rest of the league playing each school at least once every 4 years – so let’s assume conferences are shooting for either 16 (which is a nice even number for divisions) or 20 in order to keep up with the Joneses.

    The Pac-12 would be looking for 4 or 8 schools. Texas is the most desirable school, by far in the Big XII. Do you think the Pac-12 then bends over backward to add them? I would think Texas would be willing to go, if the price was right. Part of that price could be adding schools close to Texas (TTU, Baylor, TCE, Okie St., etc.) or giving Texas some autonomy (ie keeping the LHN, a conference office in Austin, etc.). Or maybe something else…

    If going to 16, I would see the Pac-12 looking at the 4 Texas schools. This would lock down most of the state of Texas for the Pac-12 network/TV viewership plus add a huge recruiting state. Pac-12 football with both California and Texas heavily in its footprint? That’s a ridiculous amount of talent. The Pac-12 could move to an east and west division set up (CU, Utah, and the Arizona schools with the Texas schools) and own pretty much all of the western US.This probably blows up most of the Big XII (and the SEC might look at adding 2 schools to keep up at 16 as well – WVU and Okie St? An ACC school or two?).

    But what about a push to 20? This would be a nuclear option. the Pac-12 could look at adding the remaining 8 teams from the Big XII (or maybe add BYU and not WVU) and sit at the east (8 + CU and Utah) and west (Pac-10 schools). This would throw conferences into mayhem probably resulting in 3 large (20+) conferences as the SEC and B1G most likely do not sit around and start hammering away at the ACC. Litigation and politics galore, but ultimately a Pac-12 (or 20) in the west, a B1G in the north and east and the SEC in the south and east.

    I see this as the ultimate end game. Forget rivalries and geography. If we’ve learned anything from the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA – there is tons of money to be made with your own network and a huge fan base even if the number of spectators showing up to the live games dwindles. And what is the US if not full of greedy capitalists?

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      If the SEC feels the pressure to go to 16, they go for either of UNC-Duke or FSU-Miami (why not lock up Florida the same way a Pac-16 locks up Texas and Cali)? That would consign OkSt to the G5 (unless it fills one of the 3 vacancies in the ACC-12+ND).

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Patrick,

      “Let’s say OU and KU jump to the B1G. This seemingly puts pressure on two big players – the Pac-12 and the University of Texas.”

      Okay.

      “Texas effectively loses its biggest rival in football and top competitor in basketball.”

      The RRR was played OOC for almost it’s entire history. Why couldn’t that be true again? And hoops OOC is even easier.

      “But this would be a crippling blow to the Big XII and maybe makes Texas look long and hard at the future of college athletics and where it will fit in.”

      Yep.

      “The Pac-12 will see its expansion options dwindling. It can really only move east, and with very few desirable options along the Rockies (BYU being maybe the only 1 desirable option), picking up Big XII schools are the most logical additions.”

      But are they logical? It only makes sense if the value added ($$$) is greater than the costs (diluted rivalries, longer travel, etc). Obviously UT makes sense, and TT is a reasonable price to pay to get them. But the others? What value does ISU or KSU bring? Even OkSU doesn’t bring much but a shorter trip for UT. And with UT on board, Baylor and TCU also add nothing but local games for UT. How many dead weight schools can you add and still have UT be worth it?

      “And with the B1G getting bigger, the SEC in the Big XII neighborhood, and a further destabilized Big XII, I would think the Pac-12 would feel a lot of pressure to add schools quickly.”

      Why? They are a P5 conference as is and are virtually unassailable based on geography. If they stick at 12, they’ll never lose their status.

      “Admittedly, I see conferences moving beyond 16 to 20 and forming more of a league type set up.”

      Anything’s possible.

      “At 20 teams, the conference could go to 10 games, use a pod system of 5 teams in 4 pods, have 1 or 2 dedicated cross over games, and still be able to rotate through the rest of the league playing each school at least once every 4 years”

      1. They could go to 10 games now, but several are resisting going to even 9. 10 games means either dropping major OOC games or only having 6 home games. Neither is palatable to many/most P5 schools.
      2. Not all conferences break into neat groups of 5. Conferences may find divisions a better solution, or even acting as 1 big group with multiple locked rivals.

      20 schools:
      1 conference
      9 games = 4 locked + 15 * 33%
      10 games = 4 locked + 15 * 40%

      2 divisions
      9 games = 8 locked + 10 * 10%
      10 games = 8 locked + 10 * 20%

      4 pods
      9 games = 4 locked + 15 * 33%
      10 games = 4 locked + 15 * 40%

      Pods are the same as being one conference, but more restrictive in terms of locked games.

      “so let’s assume conferences are shooting for either 16 (which is a nice even number for divisions) or 20 in order to keep up with the Joneses.”

      Why aim for a number? 15, 17, 18 and 19 can all work, too. Conferences will add schools as long as the benefits for both sides justify it.

      “Texas is the most desirable school, by far in the Big XII. Do you think the Pac-12 then bends over backward to add them?”

      No.

      “I would think Texas would be willing to go, if the price was right. Part of that price could be adding schools close to Texas (TTU, Baylor, TCE, Okie St., etc.) or giving Texas some autonomy (ie keeping the LHN, a conference office in Austin, etc.). Or maybe something else…”

      The P12 would say no to those prices.

      “If going to 16, I would see the Pac-12 looking at the 4 Texas schools.”

      Not going to happen. Baylor and TCU don’t add anything. TT is a reasonable (and perhaps necessary) price to pay.

      Like

      • Redwood86 says:

        Pac-12 doesn’t ever HAVE to expand. It will always be a power conference with a bid to the playoff. Moreover, not only is BYU in its neighborhood, but so is the fast-growing state of Nevada. It is conceivable that University of Nevada (UNLV less likely) will be an attractive candidate within the next 10-20 years. New Mexico is also in the “hood”, but it may never be viable for the Pac. I agree that UT/TTech/OU/Ok St. would be good for the Pac, but it is not critical.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          A few years ago I’d have disputed any Nevada add possibility (the gambling specter), but the Pac moved the conference basketball tournament to LV, and I’ve heard it’s been a big success so far. Now I’d say still unlikely, but not impossible long term. UNLV is building a new FB stadium so maybe they have hopes.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13383321/las-vegas-quebec-city-nhl-expansion-bids-advance-phase-2

            The NHL is about to expand to LV, which would help remove the taint, I think.

            Foley said Phase 2 will feature bidders’ providing the NHL additional information regarding their respective markets and arena plans. The bidders will also gain access to certain league-related information.

            The Las Vegas group has already secured more than 13,200 season-ticket deposits for a potential team. And there’s a multipurpose arena under construction near the Las Vegas Strip set to open next spring.

            The NHL isn’t expected to expand until 2017 at the earliest. Commissioner Gary Bettman has proposed an expansion fee of $500 million. That’s a significant jump from the $80 million fee paid by the Columbus Blue Jackets and Minnesota Wild, when the NHL last expanded to 30 teams in 2000.

            Out of 16 expansion applications, Las Vegas’ and Quebec City’s were the only ones accepted by the NHL last month.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “The NHL is about to expand to LV, which would help remove the taint, I think.”

            I don’t think it removes it. It merely means the first major professional league is willing to have a franchise in very close proximity to the iconic capital of U.S. gambling. It may indicate an acceptance of the ubiquity of gambling nationwide provided by spreading casinos, state lotterys, and Internet sights. Perhaps the NBA, and others are coming to the same level of acceptance (of the taint).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Accepted taint is removed taint to me.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Redwood86,

          “Pac-12 doesn’t ever HAVE to expand. It will always be a power conference with a bid to the playoff.”

          Exactly. It’s very hard to imagine the P12 ever being raided just based on geography. Only the B12 is in a location to do it, but they don’t have the strength as a conference (CO just went the other way).

          “Moreover, not only is BYU in its neighborhood, but so is the fast-growing state of Nevada. It is conceivable that University of Nevada (UNLV less likely) will be an attractive candidate within the next 10-20 years. New Mexico is also in the “hood”, but it may never be viable for the Pac.”

          Yes, there are several potential partial or full member candidates for the future – Boise, CSU, AF, BYU, USU, UNLV, UN-Reno, UNM, NMSU, UTEP, SDSU, Fresno. I don’t see how Idaho or SJSU could ever get there, and many of the ones I listed have a very long way to go, but they are options depending on how the future goes..

          “I agree that UT/TTech/OU/Ok St. would be good for the Pac, but it is not critical.”

          No, it isn’t.

          Like

          • Redwood86 says:

            Pac-12 will never take low-tier academic schools like Boise St., USU,NMSU,SDSU. or Fresno St. It won’t take Air Force either. I don’t know enough about the New Mexico schools’ academics or CSU’s to comment on them.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Pac-12 will never take low-tier academic schools like Boise St., USU,NMSU,SDSU. or Fresno St.

            I don’t think most of those schools are realistic choices either, but I think you are overestimating how important academics are to the PAC.

            Wazzu isn’t exactly an academic powerhouse and the PAC was prepared to accept Texas Tech and Okie St. a few years back.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            WSU is not Wisconsin, UC Berkley, or UVA. They are ARWU in 201-300 world and 78-104 groups nationally. It’s not a restaurant and hotel management, or a truck driving school.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Redwood86,

            “Pac-12 will never take low-tier academic schools like Boise St., USU,NMSU,SDSU. or Fresno St. It won’t take Air Force either. I don’t know enough about the New Mexico schools’ academics or CSU’s to comment on them.”

            Not if they stay where they are academically, no. But any school can improve academically. CA could decide they need to elevate some schools like SDSU and Fresno. Similarly Utah could decide to make USU a strong school and NM could improve NMSU. If there are enough students and enough money, things can change. That’s why I said many of the schools I listed are far away now but could be options in the future (especially as partial members should the P12 go that route).

            Like

          • Wazzu isn’t really a useful comparison point. They are basically grandfathered into P5 status at this point, so “school x is comparable to Wazzu” just doesn’t mean much of anything.

            Though I’d note that most of the schools you reference are not, in fact, comparable to Wazzu. US News has Wazzu at #138 nationally. That’s way higher than:

            Fresno (#46 regional)
            Boise (#63 regional)
            NM St (unranked national)
            Nevada-Reno (#194 national)
            UNLV (unranked national)
            etc.

            Heck, even Texas Tech and OK St ranked below Wazzu, though at least in those cases it was a pretty close comparison.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            OkSU just re entered the top 500 ARWU world ranking (out since 2005).
            TT just dropped out this year.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Interestingly, CSU has just slipped out of the top 200 world rank, first time in over a decade. And UNM is steady in the mid 200s.

            Like

  79. […] been one of the most level-headed and best people to read on the subject — even found himself engaging in the speculation. He starts with the discontented rumblings from Oklahoma and has to pretend certain realities can […]

    Like

  80. loki_the_bubba says:

    Rice football is using state of the art 3D immersive technology in practice.

    http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072815aaa.html

    Like

  81. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13369076/houston-texans-arian-foster-goes-public-not-believing-god

    ESPN has an article on Arian Foster and what it’s like to be a nonbeliever and play football, especially in the south. I don’t suggest we discuss it here, but it’s worth a read.

    Like

  82. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25261728/sec-football-player-survey-favorites-concerns-fans-playoff

    A survey of some SEC players show they are really split about expanding the CFP.

    Correct number of teams:
    4 – 36%
    6 – 12%
    8 – 45%
    >8 – 6%

    There are 9 other questions, including one about their level of concern about concussions.

    Like

  83. loki_the_bubba says:

    Drone footage of the Rice soccer and track stadium rebuild.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I recall a short brick wall on the opposite side that I always assumed was part of the original stadium. Looks like they took that down. Didn’t see it in the video.

      Can’t say I’m real fond of their blue track, but last time I was there, they were definitely in need of a replacement of their typically colored tartan track.

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        I remember the brick wall in front of these stands. That was part of the old stadium. I don’t recall any being on the south side.

        Like

  84. greg says:

    Iowa and Oklahoma State to open the wrestling season in Kinnick Stadium. To be held the same day as the November 14th Iowa/Minnesota 7pm night game, wrestling meet at 11am.

    http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/hlas-wrestling-in-kinnick-stadium-fan-tastic-20150806

    Like

  85. bullet says:

    OU beat journalist pumps BYU and Boise for the Big 12:
    http://newsok.com/tramel-the-big-12-should-look-west-for-two-new-additions/article/5438621/?page=2

    There are a couple of videos-one where they talk about Boren’s first comment and a 2nd where Tramel talks about his reasoning for BYU and Boise.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It’s a good article. I appreciate the opening.

      The conference is not in danger of expiring. This is not summer 2010, when after a memorable June weekend the Big 12 was in red alert. Its immediate survival was not assured.

      But the Big 12 clearly is hurting in summer 2015. Its long-term survival is questionable. The grant-of-rights, which has secured schools’ television money to the conference, has stabilized conference realignment. Since the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC signed grant-of-rights, no major school has jumped ship. The Big 12 will be here in 2020.

      Yet for the Big 12 to be here in 2025, it has to get stronger. Competitively. Cohesively. Marketability.

      Does that mean expansion to 12 teams? OU president David Boren thinks so, telling us in June that the Big 12 should be “choosy” and “selective” but should strive to get back to 12 schools.

      Boren is right. The Big 12 needs to be 12 schools. But it has to be the right 12. Adding schools just to count to a dozen, or adding schools for convenience, will not save the conference.

      The Big 12 has to add two schools that bring value to the Big 12 brand. And in the 21st century, most certainly in the Big 12’s case, that means football brand.

      The answer is clear. The Big 12 should add Brigham Young and Boise State. Here’s the case for the Cougars and the Broncos.

      Tramel then touches on all the major issues, including academics.

      If academics really mattered to the Big 12, it could have solved its problems four years ago. A Big 12 administrator offered up to me the idea of Pitt joining the conference. “The University of Pittsburgh is a terrific academic institution,” he said.

      The Big 12 could have added Pitt and Louisville to join West Virginia as an eastern axis, the ACC would have had fewer options when Maryland high-tailed it to the Big Ten and the Big 12 would be much more stable and higher in status than it is now.

      But the Big 12 drug its feet — the Big 12 always drags its feet — and Pitt is off the table. So no jabber about academics.

      BYU is a prestigious university, …

      Boise State, on the other hand, makes Louisville look like Oxford. Some (Texas, Texas, Texas) didn’t want the ‘Ville in the Big 12, and part of that was academic snobbery. But Boise State’s academic reputation is minimal, in part because its lifespan is so short. Boise State has been a four-year school only since the mid-1960s. The University of Pittsburgh was founded in 1787.

      The Big 12’s academic standing has taken a hit with the loss of Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado. There are many schools that would enhance the Big 12’s academic reputation; alas, their football also would hasten the league’s demise.

      The Big 12 needs Boise State football and can live with Boise State’s academic status.

      And then the finish:

      Desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe these aren’t desperate times for the Big 12. But you can see them from here. Brigham Young and Boise State would put a great deal of distance between the Big 12 and its demise.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://newsok.com/article/5438718

        Here is his explanation of why adding them for football only wouldn’t work.

        Football-only members to me brands your conference as mickey mouse. Second rate. The whole reason for expansion is to get the Big 12 on the same plane as the other power conferences. Bringing in football-only members would make the Big 12 less like the Big Ten and SEC, not more.

        Football-only membership screams temporary. Screams unstable.

        Schools that are football-only are not vested in the conference. Schools that are football-only would — and should — have an eye toward greener pastures. A football-only model would be a stopgap. It would be seen, correctly, as trying to stop the bleeding.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “Brigham Young and Boise State would put a great deal of distance between the Big 12 and its demise.”

        Or is it creating a better (more tolerable) life raft if some more attrition occurs?

        Like

      • Mack says:

        Pitt was only going to the B12 if it was the last life boat off the Big East. Pitt landed where they wanted to, and given the timing of the ACC expansion, I expect Pitt told the ACC it would be off the table if the ACC did not act, like Nebraska did with the B1G. Now Louisville was there for the taking, and if the B12 had taken Louisville rather than TCU, it would be BYU and TCU being discussed rather than Boise State.

        Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Bullet, what’s your opinion?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://newsok.com/article/5438498?slideout=1

      Here he explains why NE, CO, TAMU and MO won’t ever return to the B12.

      I sense the Big 12 might be waiting on a pie-in-the-sky development. Manna from Heaven. I think Big 12 decision-makers could be waiting to see if all the former members stay content in their new digs.

      Nebraska went to the Big Ten. Missouri and Texas A&M bolted to the SEC. Colorado scooted to the Pac-12. And you hear rumblings that all might not be rosy for the expatriates.

      Having to play at Rutgers is nothing to be excited about. Having to navigate in a 14-team conference is a mess. But that doesn’t mean you want to go back to sharing a boardroom with Texas. That doesn’t mean you trade stability for instability. That doesn’t mean you’ll trade increased status for decreased status.

      That’s the fundamental Big 12 problem. In almost every way, the Big 12 has an inferior status from its salad days of a few years ago.

      Competitively, …

      Academically. The Big 12 lost some of its more distinguished academic members in NU, MU, A&M and CU. That isn’t lost amid the ivory towers, though we never think about that when debating TCU or Baylor for the national semifinals. And that isn’t at all an easy fix.

      Collegially. Maybe the most important. These are not the 10 musketeers. In the Big 12, it’s not all for one and one for all. It’s everybody out for himself. Go back to the government landscape. The other power conferences are united states. The Big 12 is a loose collection of colonies.

      Does anyone really think Nebraska or Missouri or A&M is coming back to the land of The Longhorn Network? The land where Baylor’s scheduling philosophy is dragging down the league’s reputation. The conference that has gone from leader to follower?

      Those pale in comparison to the Big 12, which in five years stunningly has fallen in status. The lack of quality leadership — or better yet, the lack of listening to quality leadership — on everything from a conference network to the admission of Louisville to the embracement of those goofy slogans has dropped Big 12 prestige below even that of the Big Eight in its last days.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://newsok.com/article/5437806

      Here Tramel says the B10’s new 1910 scheduling plan further undermines the B12. Playing 9 conference games isn’t as impressive when 2 other P5 conferences also do it plus have CCGs. In addition, the B12 plays more I-AAs than the B10 or P12.

      And while the SEC, the Big Ten and the ACC each played eight conference games, the Big 12 played nine. So when the Big 12 became the only Power 5 league without a conference championship game, the Big 12 at least had a counter. But that counter has lost its fastball. The Pac-12 for nine years has been playing a nine-game conference schedule and for the last four seasons also has staged a league title game. Now the Big Ten is doing the same.

      And the Big Ten has upped the ante by shirking games against I-AA opponents. …

      The Big Ten’s 14 teams in 2015 play seven I-AA opponents total. In 2016, six I-AA games are scheduled, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said the league will honor those contracts. The Big 12’s 10 teams in 2015 play eight games against I-AA foes. The conference that most needs to ban I-AA opponents is the Big 12. The only league with a bigger reliance on I-AA opponents is the SEC, which has no credibility issues.

      And the Big Ten also is mandating at least one non-conference against fellow major conference opponents, with Notre Dame and Brigham Young being granted “major” status.

      As is, the Big Ten has only one school not playing a major-conference opponent — Penn State has an absurdly weak schedule. But no weaker than Big 12 contenders OSU and Baylor, along with Kansas State. Three marquee Big 12 schools have a schedule void of a legitimate non-conference opponent, yet it’s the Big Ten announcing scheduling mandates.

      Let’s review. The Big 12 does not have a conference championship game; every other Power 5 league does. A heavy reliance on I-AA opponents for the Big 12, at a rate far greater than every other Power 5 conference except the SEC, which has no image problems. And now the Big Ten has joined the Big 12 in playing a nine-game conference schedule, with the added prestige of scheduling mandates and a league title game.

      The Big Ten’s scheduling decree came via athletic director’s agreement, according to Delany, so it’s not some kind of binding vote. It’s merely a sign that the Big Ten respects its leadership. Delany has pushed for an upgrade in scheduling, and the Big Ten has followed suit.

      Contrast that with the Big 12, where scheduling suggestions by commissioner Bob Bowlsby have been met largely with yawns. In the Big 12, few decisions are made with the idea that it would be good for the conference. The Big 12 is more a confederation of colonies than a united republic.

      The Big Ten’s 1910 scheduling initiative is a sign of a conference with vision. The nine-game format, with mandated quality of opponents, and the Big Ten’s championship game, will give the Big Ten all kinds of ammunition in the committee room of the College Football Playoff. Most football decisions these days are made with an eye to barging into the four-team field. The Big 12’s decisions often seem to be made with an eye toward finding a back door into the committee room at the Gaylord Texan.

      The Big Ten acts like a conference that plans to be around for the next century. With the Big 12, you wonder about the next decade.

      Like

      • D.J. Shelton says:

        Penn State’s “absurdly weak schedule” is a consequence of the NCAA’s overreach with the Sandusky Scandal. Due to the draconian penalties that were applied in 2012 in which Penn State appeared to be crippled for the next 5-10 years, penalties which have since been rescinded when the NCAA crapped their pants at the prospect of having their dirty laundry exposed in a courtroom, Penn State was forced to water down their schedule dramatically in order to try to remain competitive. When you make such a dismissive diss, you might want to include a little context!

        Like

    • frug says:

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-illinois-chancellor-resigns-20150806-story.html

      Just to be clear, the athletic issues were only a small factor in in the resignation of Chancellor
      Wise.

      Her decision to withdraw a job offer to professor over his statements about Israel got the university censured by the American Association of University Professors, led to vote of no confidence in her leadership by more than a dozen of the university’s academic departments and led to boycott by the faculty of other universities.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I based what I said on the article. It mentioned “external issues” and the athletic issues specifically with no mention of the issue you are describing.

        Like

      • bob sykes says:

        The professor denied a position had made virulently anti-semitic statements. Other professors were offended by the refusal to hire because anti-semitism is rampant on our college campuses among both faculty and students.

        Like

        • frug says:

          His statements were unquestionably anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, and in some cases quite offensive, but they didn’t quite cross into antisemitism (at least in my view).

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

          Like

          • frug says:

            I will say that I think U of I made a mistake offering him the job in the first place and I’m not a fan of his.

            However, his clumsy, hyperbolic and overly cute rhetorical flourishes don’t appear to cross the the line between opposing Israel and actually demeaning/defaming Jewish people.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I think several of those tweets started painting large groups of people with a very broad brush.

            You’re an “awful person” if you disagree with him. You have to be a “sociopath” to support Israel. No “person of conscience” can support Israel. You’re at best “‘hopelessly brainwashed'” if you support Israel.

            I think this one causes the most trouble:

            Zionists: transforming “antisemitism” from something horrible into something honorable since 1948.

            I think I know what he means, but it can also be read as advocating antisemitism and/or denying antisemitism exists.

            The personal attack on Netanyahu did him no favors, either. You can disagree with him vehemently and still be surprised “if Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children.”

            I won’t argue about whether his tweets cross the line enough to be labelled antisemitic, but I think they started to cross a line. His supporters say people need to be more open-minded and talk about academic freedom, but how can a pro-Israel student read those tweets and not wonder if he’ll get fair treatment in Salaita’s class? Where is Salaita’s tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

            I understand it’s an emotional issue, but it’s the area he teaches in. If he can’t be more levelheaded about it, he doesn’t deserve a tenured position.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I agree with Brian. Those ones he quoted sound pretty anti-Semitic to me.

            His comments on being anti-Israeli and talking about Hamas being indigenous vs. colonials don’t cross any lines. But those others do. Anti-Semitism is “honorable?” You have to be a socio-path to not agree with him?

            Like

      • frug says:

        More info on Illinois Chancellor’s resignation

        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-university-of-illinois-private-emails-20150807-story.html#page=1

        University administrators have been using their personal email accounts to conduct university business in order to avoid FOIA.

        Over 1100 of those emails were released yesterday.

        Like

      • frug says:

        Even more on Illinois’ Chancellor

        https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/13/u-illinois-board-rejects-400000-deal-outgoing-chancellor

        The Board of Trustees has rejected Chancellor Wise’s resignation (over the advice of the system President) and will instead attempt to dismiss her for cause (i.e. fire her). Doing so is legally risky, but would deny Wise a $400,000 buyout and one year paid sabbatical.

        Like

  86. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13393382/minnesota-golden-gophers-ad-norwood-teague-resigns-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations

    MN’s AD steps down after some drunken texts to co-workers. He says he’ll seek alcohol abuse treatment.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I wonder where MN goes from here. Maturi invested money across the board but allowed MN to fall behind in the facilities arms race. Teague focused on the revenue sports and hoped for trickle down to the non-revenue sports. Does the new AD follow Teague’s lead or Maturi’s? How will the scheduling philosophy change? How much impact does this have on the leeway Kill and Pitino have to have a bad season sometimes?

      Like

  87. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/121616/cfbrank-by-the-numbers-ohio-state-leads-the-way

    ESPN ranked the top 100 CFB players for this season. This post has links to the list but also a breakdown of the rankings. 39 teams had at least 1 player on the list.

    Most players by team:
    OSU – 9
    Baylor – 7
    AL, MS, USC – 5

    Conference:
    SEC – 33
    B10 – 19
    P12 – 16
    ACC, B12 – 14

    By position:
    QB, WR, RB – 14
    OT, DE, LB – 11
    CB – 8
    DT – 7
    S – 6
    C – 3
    TE – 2
    OG – 1

    Like

  88. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/08/07/michigan-stadium-reduces-capacity–107-601/31312493/

    The Big House is down to 107,601 (-2300 from before) after changes made for ADA compliance (wider aisles, handrails). It’s still the largest stadium in CFB, but not by much. It’ll be harder for MI to win the attendance crown every year now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity
    CFB stadiums over 100k now:
    MI – 107,601
    PSU – 106,572
    OSU – 104,944
    TAMU – 102,512
    TN – 102,455
    LSU – 102,321
    AL – 101,821
    UT – 100,119

    Like

  89. Brian says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/sports/ncaafootball/days-of-selling-popular-college-players-jerseys-seem-numbered.html?_r=0

    Schools are moving away from selling jerseys with player numbers. The trend seems to be to use the last two digits of the year as the only number available or one of the few numbers (OSU will sell #1 and #yy, for example, while MI will also sell #4 for Harbaugh).

    Like

  90. Brian says:

    http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/espn-names-announcing-teams-for-2015-college-football-season.html

    ESPN has announced their CFB coverage teams for this year, with a decent amount of change as Rece Davis moves from Thursday nights to GameDay.

    Like

  91. Brian says:

    http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/4-reasons-the-cfb-playoff-is-the-death-knell-for-the-sec.html

    Four reasons the playoff is the death knell for SEC dominance. They aren’t all playoff related, though, or at least not directly.

    1. Elite coaching is more widespread now
    2. 4 teams get in, so the SEC doesn’t get as much benefit from their reputation
    3. ESPN’s power is starting to slip
    4. The committee really values conference champs, so the SEC getting 2 teams will be very hard

    That last point ties into my thinking about G5 access to the playoff. Things vary form year to year, but I think a rough pecking order for CFP access is this:

    13-0 P5 champ
    12-0 B12 champ
    12-0 ND
    12-1 P5 champ
    11-1 B12 champ
    11-1 ND
    13-0 AAC/MWC champ
    12-0 BYU
    13-0 CUSA champ
    13-0 MAC champ
    12-0 Army
    12-0 SB champ
    11-2 P5 champ
    10-2 B12 champ
    10-2 ND
    12-1 AAC/MWC champ
    11-1 BYU
    12-1 CUSA champ
    12-1 MAC champ
    11-1 Army
    11-1 SB champ
    10-3 P5 champ
    9-3 B12 champ
    9-3 ND

    Within the P5, right now reputation would be SEC > P12 > B10 > ACC but it really comes down to the individual teams and how they look.

    Like

    • Redwood86 says:

      I wouldn’t say that, over time, SEC coaching has generally been better than that of the other conferences. . . .

      The politics of NCAA committees will always militate against two playoff teams form one conference. And with the relative weakness of SEC scheduling, it just seems highly unlikely to happen. IMO, this is good. If you aren’t good enough to be conference champ, how can you be good enough to be national champ?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Playoff committee isn’t an NCAA function.

        We already managed to have an all sec bcs final (two out of two).

        I agree with what you are wanting, but you are assuming that because we call it a playoff it is one. It is still a four team invitational created to drive TV ratings, not to necessarily discover the best team.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Redwood86,

        “I wouldn’t say that, over time, SEC coaching has generally been better than that of the other conferences. . . .”

        Over their recent run, they did have Saban and Meyer (consensus top 2 CFB coaches) plus Spurrier and Miles (NCG winners) and then guys like Richt, Petrino, Franklin and Tuberville. Nobody else could match that during that span.

        “The politics of NCAA committees will always militate against two playoff teams form one conference.”

        Yes, except reality says that in most years not all P5 conferences will have playoff-caliber champions. If only 3 of them do, then it’s either an independent, a G5 champ or a P5 runner up. Take a year like 2011 when the SEC W champ and runner up were #1 and #2.

        2011 final BCS rankings:
        1. LSU 13-0*
        2. AL 11-1
        3. OkSU 11-1*
        4. Stanford 11-1
        5. USC 11-1
        6. OR 11-2*
        7. AR 10-2
        8. Boise 11-1
        9. WI 11-2*
        14. Clemson 10-3*
        16. TCU 10-2*
        23. WV 9-3*

        * – conference champion

        LSU and OkSU are givens. I’ll assume OR gets in as the P12 champ. Would they really take #9 WI over #2 AL? Even a B10 homer has to admit AL was a much better team that year.

        “And with the relative weakness of SEC scheduling, it just seems highly unlikely to happen.”

        It it’s close, it won’t happen. Weak OOC scheduling could hurt an SEC team, but they have a mandatory P5 OOC game now plus a tough conference schedule.

        “IMO, this is good. If you aren’t good enough to be conference champ, how can you be good enough to be national champ?”

        I agree, but they refused to make winning your conference a requirement. Based on that, I have to conclude it’s possible for a great runner up to get in over some weak champions.

        Like

        • Redwood86 says:

          Good analysis. I agree that in 2011 it would have been LSU, Okie State, Oregon, and Alabama. But this type of situation will be rare. First, the BiG has improved. Second, it is not often that the ACC + ND will not have a strong champ.

          Interestingly, LSU beat both Oregon and Bama that year in regular season.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I agree it will be the exception, not the rule. Expansion means most P5 conferences should generate an elite team. But all it takes is a CCG upset to screw that up. The other possible issue is having too many good teams, so attrition leaves everyone with 2 losses.

            If I had to guess, I think it’ll happen 2 or 3 times in this first 12 year contract for the playoff.

            Like

  92. Brian says:

    http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/enemy-of-the-state-classic/2015/08/57137/the-enemy-of-the-state-classic-championship

    It’s been scientifically proven that OSU fans hate Mark may more than anyone/anything else (U of M was not 1 of the options). The 4 brackets were Media, Michigan Men and 2 groups of At Large.

    In the 32 enemy tournament, May beat SN’s Matt Hayes, Fox’s Clay Travis, Yahoo’s Pat Forde, PSU Cultists and the SEC (only the 5 seed, surprisingly) head to head.

    Total vote tally for all 5 rounds: 9306-1075 (8.65:1)
    Hayes: 1836-52 (35:1)
    Travis: 1639-103 (16:1)
    Forde: 2185-96 (23:1)
    PSU fans: 2145-271 (7.9:1)
    SEC: 1501-553 (2.7:1)

    I know many non-OSU fans never understood it, but it’s solid evidence of how despised May is by OSU fans.

    Some surprises (to me) along the way:
    1st round
    Dennis Dodd beat Paul Finebaum
    Pat Forde beat George Dohrmann

    Sweet 16
    PSU cultists beat Nick Saban (it was very close, though)

    Elite 8
    Desmond Howard beta Bo Schembechler (recency bias)
    PSU cultists beat Ed Rife (the giver of tats for memorabilia)

    Like

  93. Brian says:

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/08/03/pac-12-football-commissioner-larry-scott-on-the-future-of-the-pac12nets-a-directv-deal-the-college-football-playoffs-and-more/

    Larry Scott on some big picture issues.

    AT&T and DirecTV:
    On the prospects for the Pac-12 Networks airing on DTV by the start of the football season: “I don’t know that it’s realistic to think that before the start of the season (there will be a) resolution.”

    P12N:
    The Pac-12 is facing a significant revenue gap in coming years relative to the Big Ten and SEC, largely because its wholly-owned Pac12Nets have just 12 millions (approx) subscribers.

    The Big Ten and SEC networks, which have 60+ million subscribers and mint money, are co-owned by FOX and ESPN, respectively.

    Multiple sources told the Hotline the conference has hired an investment advisory firm (Lazard, a boutique NYC-based outfit) to explore long-term strategic alternatives for the Pac12Nets.

    The most-likely alternative, of course, is an equity sale of 49% – 51% of the networks.

    I asked Scott directly.

    “We work with a lot of advisers. That’s not unusual,” he said. “We’re looking at the landscape. We like our position, but we’re always evaluating.”

    Scott also seemed to leave himself room to maneuver when asked about the Pac12Nets during a Q&A with reporters: “What’s important is to create long-term value for the conference and not chase short-term goals. Once we get full distribution, there will be a looking-in point.”

    More on the Pac12Nets future: “We’ve got a lot of options in a world that’s changing. No one has an answer. You’re kind of hedging bets. I value having flexibility. That might change.”

    (The question, which the Hotline has addressed in the past is this: What’s best for the conference long-term — retaining 100% ownership of the networks — is not necessarily best for the campuses in the short- and intermediate-term because of the revenue gap with the SEC and B1G.

    (But IDing the optimal window for an equity sale is not easy: Rights fees for live sports could continue to soar over the next decade, or reach a point of stagnation.

    Playoff:
    On standardizing the schedules across the Power 5 leagues: “I’d like to see it … It may happen naturally. If a few more years go by and the benefit of the doubt is given to the tough schedules, it will happen.”

    On the current selection process: “I see it as an advantage because of the way the playoff has been structured and the way the committee has been instructed … Short-term, I don’t mind that other conferences aren’t scheduling as tough as we are because I think it will help us competitively.”

    On respect: “Until we win the national championship, I don’t think we will get the recognition nationally that we’re looking for, and that’s fair to an extent. That’s just the way our culture is. To the winner go the spoils.”

    Other:

    On ESPN cutbacks potentially affecting rights fees: “I’m glad we’ve got our deal done. I’d be more worried if I were the Big Ten coming up.”

    On his greatest long-term worry: “If there’s an adverse ruling in the legal cases. I’d hate to see professionalism of college athletics.”

    On the Big 12 limiting contact to two days (including gameday): “We haven’t had a chance to talk about that. If there’s an openness … we’ll look at it.”

    Am I the only one who wonders if a small part of ESPN cutting back is as a negotiating tactic with the B10 (as well as freeing up cash to pay the B10)?

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “Am I the only one who wonders if a small part of ESPN cutting back is as a negotiating tactic with the B10 (as well as freeing up cash to pay the B10)?”

      I doubt short term moves (letting a few employees go) is done to enable continuing the same general plan. If they are truly tightening their belt it gives Fox, NBC, etc a legit reason to increase their efforts to gain some a very valuable share of the live sports market, that ESPN has admittedly dominated for some time.

      Is it just me, or does it seem (ever since missing badly on the OU/OkSU to the PAC) Wilner has become a bit of a Larry Scott/PAC hater? Did his ’10 sources use/manipulate him, or don’t currently give anything up?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I don’t think he’s a hater as much as he realized Scott talked a bigger game than he could deliver. I think people’s expectation were so high when he came in that reality is starting to set in and it’s not what they hoped it would be. The P12 isn’t the SEC or B10 even with a true professional as commissioner, but I think many hoped it was Hansen holding them back.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Perhaps, but I don’t recall Scott promising anything publicly. I do recall media members leading the fanboy talk (Wilner among them). Wilner seems to be blaming Scott for not reaching Wilner’s short term expectations. Or perhaps he’s just trying to drive interest by writing provocative pieces about immediate income while ignoring longer term benefits of ownership.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            To be fair, he does mention that tradeoff between the short term benefits and the long term benefits of different network models. He talks about how 100% ownership gives you more flexibility but is riskier because there’s no safety net of guaranteed money. On the up side, the P12 can sell a stake in their network to get a capital infusion. The questions are when is the best time to sell and how much are you willing to part with?

            I think his analysis has shown that no reasonable equity offer for part of P12N will allow the P12 to catch up with the B10 and SEC in payouts because their fans just aren’t as fervent and aren’t spread as widely. There is no simple solution to that problem. The question is how much does that money gap matter, since the B10 spends it on broad athletic programs. The SEC dumps it all into football but there have to be diminishing returns at some point for football spending.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I think you got it right. Wilner is trying to compare three three different entities as if they are nearly the same. They are not. And the same with their T3 setup, making immediate income seem the measure of “success”. There is far greater a difference in athletic department income within each conference, even from the top to the middle let alone the bottom, than the difference in conf distributions from their respective networks.

            “…but is riskier because there’s no safety net of guaranteed money.”

            Funny how “guaranteed money” is now the safety net. Earlier it was a safety net for cost of startup and operation.

            If, as was said when the P12N was being formed, money was not the primary concern, the presidents and chancellors are probably fairly satisfied after three years…as long as the other objectives are being worked on/satisfied. And changes in Disney/ESPN’s (or even Fox with 51% BTN ownership) corporate fortunes and strategies will only have a tangential, not direct effect.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Well based on the $ guarantees made to USC and UCLA not being needed, it seems like he delivered more than they expected.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            ” The question is how much does that money gap matter, since the B10 spends it on broad athletic programs. The SEC dumps it all into football but there have to be diminishing returns at some point for football spending.”

            The SEC doesn’t have as many sports as the Big Ten, but the SEC has a spending race in most of the sports it sponsors. The most notable is in men’s basketball, where most of the coaching staffs have been overhauled in the past several years, with a big increase of hiring. Perhaps the most emblematic hire has been South Carolina, far from a men’s basketball school, hiring away Kansas State’s head coach.

            But it exists in other sports as well. 2 years ago, Auburn hired the softball coach away from Arizona State who had won 2 NCAA championships and then hired away the baseball coach from Oklahoma. This isn’t a school focusing all it’s wealth on football. (As an aside, it’s worked in softball so far; they made it to the world series last year).

            The SEC continues to be the baseball powerhouse and has recently become the best softball league. Women’s basketball is as deep as any league in the country, and, if you look at the “too early” projections for next year, experts think men’s basketball has made a strong rebound. And there are also strong tennis, track and field, and other sports programs.

            Programs within the SEC are feeling a need to keep up, and spending has surged in many of these sports. I’m sure a big reason why Auburn spent the money on their softball program was because Alabama had recently become a national power in the sport.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            The point made is in reference to the number of sponsored sports. The SEC schools significantly lag in that area

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Funny how “guaranteed money” is now the safety net. Earlier it was a safety net for cost of startup and operation.”

            Just to be clear, that’s me saying that and not Wilner.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            But it does reflect his current emphasis on money now, as opposed to value longer term.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            m (Ag),

            ” The question is how much does that money gap matter, since the B10 spends it on broad athletic programs. The SEC dumps it all into football but there have to be diminishing returns at some point for football spending.”

            “The SEC doesn’t have as many sports as the Big Ten, but the SEC has a spending race in most of the sports it sponsors.”

            I thought it was obvious that my statement was exaggerating for effect. Obviously the SEC doesn’t only spend money on football, but they aren’t going to threaten the P12 or B10 in terms of breadth of their ADs anytime soon. That makes it harder to compare the financial impact of things since the P12 and SEC would spend the same money differently anyway.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “But it does reflect his current emphasis on money now, as opposed to value longer term.”

            One is measurable and the other isn’t. A bird in the hand …

            Nobody knows what value their network will have in the future. You can measure what the network is paying out right now, though. I don’t think it’s wrong for him to point out that the P12 will be trailing significantly in money near term. He’s tried to estimate what the P12N could be worth in the future before, IIRC, but it’s a WAG.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      “Am I the only one who wonders if a small part of ESPN cutting back is as a negotiating tactic with the B10 (as well as freeing up cash to pay the B10)?”

      Yes, you are the only one. B10 is small potatoes in the ESPN scheme.

      Disney profits and stock are falling. ESPN, which was a huge part of that, is responding to something far more important and more immediate than 1 conference’s TV contract which doesn’t expire for a couple of years.

      ESPN wants the Big 10, but will do fine with or without them.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        I don’t think it’s small potatoes. It’s a ton of inventory on Fall Saturdays and throughout college basketball season. ESPN has limited pro sports properties. 1 NFL game and 1 or 2 MLB games per week. They have 50% of the NBA but not much else. They rely significantly on college sports properties and they don’t have the NCAA tourney.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          The Big 10 has a basketball contract with CBS. Not sure what if any B1G basketball ESPN has. They have tons of basketball. Good basketball isn’t limited to the P5.

          As for football, they will still have all the ACC, most of the SEC and half of the Pac 12 and Big 12, regardless of what happens with the Big 10. That adds up to close to 200 games. And they also have some G5 rights for filling in slots.

          Like

          • Kevin says:

            The B1G CBS contract is somewhat limited. Most games are on BTN or ESPN. Recall that the B1G has the highest BB ratings of any conference. Certainly there is plenty of other basketball but except for the ACC and Kentucky ratings are are minimal.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “B10 is small potatoes in the ESPN scheme.”

        Well, I did say a small part of the decision, but never mind that. Let’s look at the numbers.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/04/29/the-value-of-espn-surpasses-50-billion/

        The result is a company worth $50.8 billion, according to Wunderlich Securities research analyst Matthew Harrigan, who did a valuation analysis last month of ESPN’s parent Walt Disney DIS +1.51% based on discounted cash flows (the Mouse House bought ESPN as part of its purchase of Capital Cities/ABC in 1996; Disney’s current market value is $137 billion).

        The result is an expected $6.3 billion from domestic affiliate fees this year that acts as a consistent, guaranteed revenue stream for Disney.

        The story is even better on the advertising side. The U.S. economy has been sluggish the past five years as it recovers from the Great Recession, but ESPN ad revenues are up 63% to a projected $3.9 billion this year, according to Wunderlich. Total ESPN revenue, including ads, affiliate fees as well as ESPN.com, ESPN The Magazine and the international business, is expected to hit $11.2 billion this year.

        ..

        Despite the jump in programming costs, ESPN’s profit margins stayed high by keeping the lid on production and other costs. Operating margins hovered around 40% in recent years and Wunderlich expects them to stay there for the next five years at least.

        ESPN was valued at roughly $50B last year and making over $11B in revenue, with a 40% operating margin.

        ESPN is spending a lot on sports rights fees, though.

        http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

        ESPN has been on a buying spree of late pledging $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC, the ACC, the Big 12 and the Pac 12. At an absolute minimum it would appear that ESPN presently pays out nearly $6 billion a year to sports leagues just in rights fees.

        Clay Travis makes a rough estimate of $6B per year, so let’s use that number.

        ESPN is currently working on a $1B over 10 years deal with the B10 that has since grown with the addition of new teams. Assuming a pro rata increase, that would’ve been a $1.27B deal over 10 years for 14 teams instead of 11, or $127M per year on average. Obviously that contract has annual escalators, though, so the B10 is currently getting more than that.

        http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/

        The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.

        $23M just from TV in the last year of the old deals becomes $33M at the start of the new deal. Granted, some of that will be a bump from the new CCG deal but that game is only worth about $2M per school per year so a bump is really mostly rounding error in the bigger picture. The hoops deal pays about $1M per school, so let’s ignore it too. Let’s assign the $10M bump all to the new tier 1 deal. That’s a $140M per year increase overall.

        We know the BTN pays around $8M per year, so that’s $11M from other TV sources. That leaves $12M from ESPN in the old deal (average was $9M per school per year). In other words, ESPN will pay the B10 roughly $168M that last year and then the deal is expected to grow by $140M. That means a new deal would be worth about $300M per year at the start and then grow.

        $300M is 5% of $6B. That’s not huge, but small potatoes might be a bit of an exaggeration.

        “ESPN, which was a huge part of that, is responding to something far more important and more immediate than 1 conference’s TV contract which doesn’t expire for a couple of years.”

        Are they even losing subscribers faster than they increase their fees yet? Obviously their profit margin is dropping, but they’ve been running at an obscene profit margin so far. No mature business could expect that to continue. The various sports rights had to get more expensive until ESPN settled into a more modest profit margin.

        “ESPN wants the Big 10, but will do fine with or without them.”

        Of course they will, and nobody has every said otherwise. I just wondered if a bit of the timing and size of the cuts were aligned with the only major negotiation for rights they’ll face in the near future starting very soon.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          Brian – Your analysis is good but I would add that it misses the fact that if ESPN did not carry B1G sports there could be a sizable amount of subscribers that would have little use for ESPN programming. ESPN can’t afford to make their programming less compelling to the national sports consumer if they want to preserve the bundling model and sports aggregation model.

          Like

  94. phil says:

    NBC and the Premier League just announced a 6 year extension of their deal. No $$ terms were released except to say it will be an increase from the existing contract.

    Interesting that several sources say they were competing against another joint Fox/ESPN bid. That makes sense considering with the CFB they have, ESPN couldn’t take on the EPL by themselves.

    It makes one wonder if instead of this ESPN versus Fox battle people are expecting over the B1G contract, that they will instead cooperate to 1) make sure they keep the B1G away from anyone else wanting a cfb presence, and 2) divide up the B1G content to fit best amongst the other contracts they each have.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It makes sense for them to bid jointly. ESPN knows FOX is the only real competitor for the B10, and be joining forces they prevent a bidding war. Both networks win by keeping the costs down and the B10 loses.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        “Both networks win by keeping the costs down and the B10 loses.”

        You don’t think it would work like it did with the PAC?
        When combined, both were willing to bid more than half their individual bids resulting in a significant increase. Neither, by themselves had the “shelf space” to adequately handle the whole offered inventory.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “You don’t think it would work like it did with the PAC?
          When combined, both were willing to bid more than half their individual bids resulting in a significant increase. Neither, by themselves had the “shelf space” to adequately handle the whole offered inventory.”

          Personally, no. I think they are more likely to bid each other up if they stay separate. Together they can both agree on a suitable price. The B10 is more valuable to them than the P12, so they’ll find the shelf space. Especially ESPN since they already have all those B10 games. They don’t need to make room. FOX might have a harder time taking on everything.

          Like

  95. Chet says:

    Based on this link (September 27, 2014):

    http://www.startribune.com/scoggins-kill-has-theories-on-unfavorable-gophers-football-schedule/277289381/

    The Big Ten has already spent much time working on football scheduling deep into the next decade.

    But still no clues about cross-division scheduling after Year 2019 which remains a brain-teaser.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Chet,

      “The Big Ten has already spent much time working on football scheduling deep into the next decade.

      But still no clues about cross-division scheduling after Year 2019 which remains a brain-teaser.”

      Not officially, but thanks to a formerly frequent visitor here (Richard) and comments from Delany, we basically do know what the B10 schedules will be for next 36 years if there is no change in plan.

      With the move to 9 games in 2016, the B10 also begins “parity-based scheduling.”

      Knowns:
      1. Everyone will play 6 games in their division, plus In and PU will play every year.

      2. The B10 split teams into 3 tiers for crossover scheduling:
      a. NE, WI, IA vs OSU, MI, PSU
      b. MN, NW, IL vs MSU, MD, RU
      c. PU vs IN

      3. Scheduling plan for the first 18 years:
      a. Each team will have a locked game against a team from the same tier in the other division. That opponent will be rotated every 6 years.
      b. An 8th game will be played against a crossover team from the other main tier (or a main tier for IN and PU). That team will rotate annually so you get a home and home with each over 6 years.
      c. The final game will rotate through the remaining 2 crossover teams in your same tier and PU/IN. This will also rotate annually for 6 years.

      Example:
      I’ll use OSU.

      Division – MI, PSU, MSU, MD, RU, IN
      Crossovers by year (published):
      2016 – NE, @WI, NW
      2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
      2018 – NE, @PU, MN
      2019 – @NE, WI, @NW

      Continuing the pattern:
      2020 – NE, IA, @IL
      2021 – @NE, PU, @MN
      2022 – 2027 – either WI or IA locked
      2028 – 2033 – the other one of WI or IA is locked

      d. End results
      Teams play 6 division mates 100%, 3 tier mates 56% (10 in 18 yrs), 4 others 33% (6 in 18 yrs)
      IN and PU play 7 teams 100% and the other 6 33% (6 in 18 yrs)

      4. After 18 years, the B10 is supposed to flip the plan to balance things out. That would mean pairing OSU, MI and PSU with MN, NW and IL while NE, WI and IA get MSU, MD and RU. Few people believe they’ll ever actually do that, though, as it reduces the number of valuable games for TV.

      Like

      • Chet says:

        Brian,

        Please allow me to use your example, to illustrate the mathematical nature of this scheduling riddle:

        2016 – NE, @WI, NW
        2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
        2018 – NE, @PU, MN
        2019 – @NE, WI, @NW
        2020 – NE, IA, @IL
        2021 – @NE, PU, @MN

        If the intention would be to swap NE with NW, then this allows a simple swap as follows:

        2021 – @NE, PU, @MN
        2022 – NW, @WI, NE
        2023 – @NW, @IA, IL
        2024 – NW, @PU, MN
        2025 – @NW, WI, @NE
        Etc

        If the intention would be to swap NE with WI, then such simple swap could happen one year earlier:

        2021 – @WI, PU, @MN
        2022 – WI, @NE, NW
        2023 – @WI, @IA, IL
        Etc

        But consider the second example for PSU’s schedule:

        2021 – @IA, @WI, IL
        2022 – IA, @PU, MN
        2023 – @IA, @NW, NE
        Etc

        Here PSU would swap PU for IA. But here PU is locked with IN.

        These examples then suggest that parity-scheduling would expect swapping locked schools at different swapping frequencies, among which are numerous possibilities.

        (thus maddening ‒ for geeks like myself ‒ to muse over)

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Chet,

          “Please allow me to use your example, to illustrate the mathematical nature of this scheduling riddle:”

          Sure.

          “2016 – NE, @WI, NW
          2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
          2018 – NE, @PU, MN
          2019 – @NE, WI, @NW
          2020 – NE, IA, @IL
          2021 – @NE, PU, @MN”

          “If the intention would be to swap NE with NW, then this allows a simple swap as follows:”

          But it isn’t. It would be swapping NE with WI or IA. OSU will only be locked with of those 3.

          “If the intention would be to swap NE with WI, then such simple swap could happen one year earlier:”

          2021 – @WI, PU, @MN
          2022 – WI, @NE, NW
          2023 – @WI, @IA, IL
          Etc”

          But it can’t if you want to keep the pattern. You need to lock NE for 6 years, then swap.

          2022 – WI, @NE, NW
          2023 – @WI, @IA, IL
          2024 – WI, @PU, MN
          2025 – @WI, NE, @NW
          2026 – WI, IA, @IL
          2027 – @WI, PU, @MN

          This is just one option, I don’t know how exactly they plan to deal with home and away.

          “But consider the second example for PSU’s schedule:

          2021 – @IA, @WI, IL
          2022 – IA, @PU, MN
          2023 – @IA, @NW, NE
          Etc

          Here PSU would swap PU for IA. But here PU is locked with IN.”

          PSU has IA locked for the first 6 years, then they get WI or NE. PU is only ever locked with IN and plays everyone else once every 3 years.

          “These examples then suggest that parity-scheduling would expect swapping locked schools at different swapping frequencies, among which are numerous possibilities.”

          A new cycle starts every 6 years. There will be some shake ups at that point (team plays at team B twice in a row, the gap between games grows to 4 years sometimes, etc).

          Like

    • Chet says:

      Yet based on this link (May 24, 2015), parity-based scheduling is less simple than first reckoned:

      http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/b1g-ads-seek-more-balance-in-future-football-schedules-20150524

      Big Ten football schedules are set through Year 2019, and officials had plans to extend them into the next decade … But league athletics directors had concerns about scheduling balance going forward, and future schedules were scuttled this week at the Big Ten’s spring meetings.

      “We saw a mock-up, and we sent it back to the drawing board,” Purdue Athletics Director Morgan Burke said. “We gave them three or four principles we thought we probably ought to get incorporated in the thought process … I think what they did helped spark us to realize, take a look at home and away, how quickly can you cycle through, so that you try to create some balance.”

      But cycling non-divisional match-ups are challenging with an unbalanced league schedule. Among the issues one athletics director cited was a team playing on the road at an opposite division foe twice in a three- or four-year period but not playing host to that team until several years later.

      “Just make sure we’re applying a common set of standards and maintain things like home-and-away balance and east-west balance and marquee matchups and that sort of thing,” Indiana Athletics Director Fred Glass said. “I think the scheduling guys do a great job. We have to help give them principles to follow and make a schedule that’s a competitively balanced in a system that’s inherently non-competitively balanced because you don’t play everybody.”

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Chet,

        “Yet based on this link (May 24, 2015), parity-based scheduling is less simple than first reckoned:”

        I bolded “if there is no change in plan” for a reason. It’a rare for such a long term plan to survive untouched.

        “We saw a mock-up, and we sent it back to the drawing board,” Purdue Athletics Director Morgan Burke said. “We gave them three or four principles we thought we probably ought to get incorporated in the thought process … I think what they did helped spark us to realize, take a look at home and away, how quickly can you cycle through, so that you try to create some balance.”

        I’ll just point out that coaches and ADs are notorious whiners about schedules. No schedule has ever satisfied every school. The B10 already has strict H/A rules for their schedules (no more than 2 away games in a row, an even split in the last 4 weeks) and the plan would rotate H/A for every team. It sounds like people are complaining about the actual schedules but not the underlying plan, though.

        But cycling non-divisional match-ups are challenging with an unbalanced league schedule. Among the issues one athletics director cited was a team playing on the road at an opposite division foe twice in a three- or four-year period but not playing host to that team until several years later.

        In order to keep every school in the division with the same number of home games, maybe they’ve had to flip some of the plan’s H/A locations in future years. It’s hard to know exactly what they’re complaining about when we haven’t seen the proposed schedules.

        “It’s too long of a period, 13, 14 years and, yes, it all evens out, but it doesn’t even out for a decade,” Burke said. “They’re going to take the work that we gave them. It’s important because we need to be able to schedule our non-conference games.”

        These may be issues the scheduling company can readily fix when devising a new set of schedules.

        The athletics directors’ discussion highlighted the Big Ten’s challenges of scheduling with a larger conference and an odd number of games.

        “Just make sure we’re applying a common set of standards and maintain things like home-and-away balance and east-west balance and marquee matchups and that sort of thing,” Indiana Athletics Director Fred Glass said. “I think the scheduling guys do a great job. We have to help give them principles to follow and make a schedule that’s a competitively balanced in a system that’s inherently non-competitively balanced because you don’t play everybody.”

        It sounds like they want to over-constrain the system and then complain when no schedule meets all of their concerns.

        The league has no plans to expand to a 10-game conference schedule in the future, Burke said.

        “I think we’re kind of dead on that,” he said.

        For those who wondered.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          Jerry Kill believes in some mass conspiracy to keep Minnesota down with their schedule and to prop up Wisconsin. While Wisconsin’s schedule is light on paper for 2015, 2016 looks to be brutal. It’s all part of the deal.

          Like

        • Chet says:

          Yellow Submarine says:

          Pablo Esta Muerto

          Like

  96. Tyson says:

    First off, I am a Texas graduate and definitely a lifelong fan of UT. I really think it’s a shame that the Big 12 fragmented as it did because that was certainly our best option. If I could have had my way I would have rather the LHN been started as a B12N and maybe the conference turns into a true partnership. That said, as it is currently constituted the Big 12 is not viable long-term, IMO. I think independence would be the best scenario for Texas. They are somewhat isolated geographically speaking, and moving to any of the other P5 conferences would have issues. Being able to schedule nationally in each of the sports would be a benefit and would allow for even greater leveraging of the tremendous asset that is the LHN.
    However, if a move to a new conference became forced say, by the CFP ramifications, etc then the ACC would be the best option. In my perfect world, there would be a true “merger” of Big 12 and ACC, with some schools being left out. (In reality I believe Texas is moving towards just joining the ACC as is.)
    That said, if a merger between Big 12 and ACC were to happen, I would like this:

    West:
    Texas
    Texas Tech
    OU
    OSU
    Kansas
    Kansas State
    Notre Dame
    Georgia Tech

    East:
    UNC
    NC State
    Duke
    Clemson
    FSU
    Miami
    Virginia
    Va. Tech
    This plan has the advantage of keeping “little brothers” in the power 5 that would give political cover for moving the more valuable schools; the only true “legacy” school being dropped from the ACC would be Wake–easily accomplished.

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      Interesting but what are going to do with Pitt, Syracuse, BC etc…

      Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      Written like a true Texan. The ACC does not need the Big 12. Certainly the ACC would love to have Texas and OU. Then what? Would the ACC really rip itself apart to save the Big 12 schools?

      “Dropping Wake Forest which has been in the ACC forever is easily accomplished”. You clearly feel that the school presidents in the ACC have no honor or morals. I think that you are projecting from how Big 12 schools might act to the potential behavior of other conference presidents.

      Do you also believe the ACC will hand the entire Northeast over to the B1G by dumping BC, Cuse, and Pitt?

      In addition to ethic issues and strategic considerations, I believe that Wake and the others must have some sort of contractual protection. These schools would each suffer damages in the many tens of millions of dollars by being “kicked out” of a P5 conference. The total for all schools involved would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Income per school could decrease by at least $20,000,000 per school per year.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Funny to hear someone talking about ACC ethics after what they did to the Big East. Every conference poached, but the ACC ripped the BE apart and left the rest to die.

        Every school and conference are out for themselves. Anyone claiming higher moral ground is a delusional hypocrite.