hockey_ccha_vs_michigan

In a move that came out of nowhere, the Big Ten will be adding Notre Dame as a hockey member starting in 2017-18. A few quick thoughts on an otherwise sad day with all that has happened in Belgium:

  • This is by far the most surprising move that I’ve seen from the Big Ten (and possibly any conference) ever since I started following conference realignment. The timing of the Maryland/Rutgers expansion was stealthy, but anyone that has followed this blog since 2010 had been tracking those schools as high on the Big Ten candidacy list. Johns Hopkins coming to the Big Ten as an affiliate member was a natural fit academically and in terms of the need to get a 6th lacrosse member to obtain NCAA auto-qualifier status. In contrast, Notre Dame joining the ACC as a non-football member and then placing its hockey program in the extremely strong Hockey East, seemed to be give the Irish everything that it wanted in preserving football independence, membership in strong conferences for its other sports and kowtowing to the segment of its alumni base that wanted to cut off all possible relationships with the Big Ten. Meanwhile, the Big Ten seemed to move on from any possibility of Notre Dame joining the league in any capacity. To see this new arrangement come up is quite remarkable even if it’s just for hockey. Ice hockey could be thawing Big Ten – Notre Dame relations in the way that baseball helped that U.S. – Cuba relations.
  • Notre Dame coming into the Big Ten creates a 7-team hockey league, which is unwieldy for scheduling purposes. The discussion naturally is going to turn to which school comes in as #8 and it continues to look like Arizona State. The Big Ten and Sun Devils have been contemplating possible membership for over a year and I discussed it in depth during last season’s NCAA Tournament. Pretty much everything that I stated a year ago still applies today (minus the part where I didn’t believe that Hockey East members like Notre Dame would join the league as associate members), where Arizona State hits a lot of metrics that the Big Ten is looking for at an individual school level with its key Phoenix market location and the league overall seems to open to adding more affiliate schools. Think about MIT joining the Big Ten for rowing or Rice bringing its top level baseball program to the conference. There are a lot more possibilities for academically-aligned schools in the non-revenue sports.
  • Hockey fans that might be pushing for a powerhouse hockey program like North Dakota to join the Big Ten are engaging in the classic behavior of thinking like a fan instead of a university president. The academic, market and demographic needs of the conference are completely different than on-the-ice considerations. I’m sure the Big Ten would be very open to the top hockey schools in New England, such as Boston University and/or Boston College, but that is more driven by the league’s interest in the Boston market than competitiveness.
  • Speaking of markets, an underrated aspect of this move for the Big Ten is that it finally has a hockey presence in its most important market and alumni home of Chicago. Unfortunately, I don’t have an extra $100 million laying around for me to start-up a new Division I hockey program at Illinois despite it having had one of the most competitive hockey club teams and strongest fan bases for the past two decades. Meanwhile, Northwestern has many other athletic funding priorities in building new facilities, so hockey doesn’t seem to be on the radar. The Big Ten would love to rotate its hockey tournament into the United Center in Chicago to go along with Detroit and Minneapolis/St. Paul, especially with the basketball tournament needing to be outside of Chicago more often with the league’s push into the New York and Washington, DC markets. Note that the 2017 NCAA Frozen Four will be played at the United Center and sponsored by Notre Dame.
  • I’m someone that takes Notre Dame at its word that the school will stay independent in football. There is no “forcing” the Irish to join any league and its independence is as much of an institutional identity issue for the school’s alumni as it is a football issue. I don’t see this hockey membership having any correlation with Notre Dame possibly joining the Big Ten as a full-time football member down the road.
  • That being said, the bigger picture issue is whether the Big Ten would consider offering Notre Dame a full non-football membership in the manner of the ACC (and the old Big East before them). Notre Dame’s agreement with the ACC ends in 2025, so this is more long-range thinking for the conference. Would the Big Ten offer Notre Dame a deal where it would be a basketball and non-revenue sports member in exchange for, say, 6 football games against B1G opponents each season (compared to the Irish commitment to play 5 ACC opponents per year now)? Previously, I never thought that would even be an option on the table since the Big Ten is as much an “all for one and one for all” league as Notre Dame is an independent school, yet this hockey arrangement legitimately puts that into play. The Big Ten really didn’t care about Notre Dame’s relationship with the old Big East, but the ACC deal with the Irish might have been perceived by Jim Delany and others in Rosemont as much more of a potential threat down the road. This is a huge shift in the Big Ten’s thinking, where there is now a large crack in the league’s decades-long insistence for Notre Dame to be “all in” or “all out”.

The upshot is that this is great for Notre Dame in terms of leverage against both the ACC and Big Ten in the future. The ACC might have gotten a bit cocky with how close it thought it was with Notre Dame over the past couple of years and (at least in some quarters) deluding themselves in thinking that they’ll eventually join as a football member. However, the Irish are now openly stating that they have plenty of options. If Notre Dame could get the Big Ten to budge on hockey membership, it’s no longer a stretch at all that the B1G could eventually make a play for Irish basketball and other non-football sports along with a more robust football scheduling arrangement.

(Image from The Daily Domer)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Pat says:

    Go Blue!

    Like

  2. greg says:

    Hawkeyes.

    Like

  3. ccrider55 says:

    The Irish cut their wrestling program and stole its multi million endowment, set up by an alum, by misleading his widow into shifting the control of the endowment to the AD instead of its intended purpose – continual ND wrestling support.

    I can do without them.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Rick says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  5. Eric says:

    I would be very surprised to see the Irish leave the ACC, but I always thought the Big Ten was somewhat stupid for letting things play out as they did. Notre Dame is not joining a conference for football. With that in mind, is it better to have them tag up with the ACC or the Big Ten? You could have preserved every Notre Dame-Big Ten rivalry game, gotten more games for other teams, further improved the bowl structure/bowl payouts, and added a school valuable in many sports if the Big Ten had made a similar offer to the ACC.

    At the end of the day, I’m glad that didn’t happen as 14 still seems too big, but I always thought from an administrative point of view, it was short-sighted.

    Regardless, I think this move is for hockey and hockey alone. The leaders probably didn’t care for the situation in Hockey East and there was mutual interest for this one sport.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sportsman says:

      I disagree… It seems to me that ND as part of the ACC is what’s best for all involved.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        More importantly, I don’t think ND had any interest in having an ACC-like deal with the B10. They wanted more eastern exposure and the ACC provides that.

        Like

  6. Mack says:

    Looks like more BTN led expansion. Hockey is a good conference network offering since it is usually not broadcast on ESPN or FS1. The B1G needs more inventory than 6 teams can provide, and Notre Dame should bring a lot viewers. Either love them or hate them, a lot of sports fans watch Notre Dame.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Carl says:

    Part of the political backdrop against which Corbett decided to pin it on Paterno. There’s more (I don’t post most of it), and there’s more coming.

    State College is in the Altoona-Johnstown diocese.

    Cambria County judge among senior officials who ignored reports of sex abuse in Altoona diocese
    http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/03/altoona_diocese_catholic_tulow.html

    Like

  8. Daniel Mountcastle says:

    I personally don’t see this going beyond hockey and I hoped that it doesn’t. I don’t want to see the day when one or more members its treated differently than the others. That’s the problem with both the ACC and the Big Twelve.

    Like

  9. FLP_NDRox says:

    Did not see this coming at all either.

    I was never a big fan of Hockey East, but it’s a great League, and my beloved CCHA is never coming back either. This is the first season in 20 years I didn’t make it back for a game, and the TV deal was the Big reason.

    I like how the travel is easier again, and hope to see the Irish on TV more, but this feels wrong to me tonight with what little we know. I don’t like that the B1Gs restructuring of college hockey now has the Irish as a member. I don’t like not knowing who 8 is. And the idea of buying a Jersey with B1G on it makes me I’ll.

    I’m curious to see how it will play out.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      “And the idea of buying a Jersey with B1G on it makes me I’ll.”

      It’s the “hate” that makes sports fun.

      If the B1G gave ND the same deal that the ACC is currently giving, that would be a big PLUS for ND. There is NO WAY ND fans are excited to play Wake Forest and Pitt and Syracuse and NC and NCST and GaTech in football. The only two teams that move the needle are FSU and Miami (FL).

      And despite what everyone says, travel time/expense matters.

      And money matters. B1G is going to make way more money than the ACC. That matters to every school, even ND.

      I think ND joins the B1G if the B1G offered the same deal that the ACC is giving.

      Like

      • Tyson says:

        You’re being a bit selective there, Buckeye
        …some of the lesser teams in the Big 10 don’t sound anymore appealing: Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois? These are exciting matchups? And actually, in terms of playing games in areas where they can expand their visibility I think the ACC offers great exposure and value.

        Like

        • BuckeyeBeau says:

          True enough. We can add Rutgers and Maryland and Northwestern too as not-so-exciting teams. But ND has played MI, MSU and Purdue for many many many years. Those three alone move the needle more than ACC teams if only for the nostalgia (Purdue). Then add in the other brand names: OSU, Neb and PSU.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        BuckeyeBeau,

        “There is NO WAY ND fans are excited to play Wake Forest and Pitt and Syracuse and NC and NCST and GaTech in football. The only two teams that move the needle are FSU and Miami (FL).”

        Actually in football ND has a long history of playing Pitt (5th most frequent opponent) and has played GT only 1 game less than MI, so plenty of their alumni care about those games.

        “And despite what everyone says, travel time/expense matters.”

        They do, but ND also likes traveling to eastern areas where they have lots of alumni. They will always have at least half a season of midwestern games no matter what.

        Like

  10. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  11. BuckeyeBeau says:

    An article from the USCHO. The comments are worth a quick read. Many need to come here for a few pointers. 🙂 As FtT says, “think like a University President.”

    http://www.uscho.com/2016/03/22/sources-notre-dame-leaving-hockey-east-for-big-ten-in-2017/

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Just for fun, I thought I’d look around at the Hockey Conferences and see which schools would fit the B1G’s standard academic requirements.

      Atlantic Hockey:

      Robert Morris
      Air Force
      Holy Cross
      Army West Point
      Mercyhurst
      Rhode Island Tech
      Canisius
      Bently
      Sacred Heart
      Niagra
      American International.

      Off the top of my head, I’d say none of these qualify academically or as TV markets. I think only the military academies would get a look.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      The the Eastern College Athletic Conference (basically the Ivy League Hockey Conference):

      Quinnipiac
      Yale
      Harvard
      St. Lawrence
      Clarkson
      Rensselaer
      Dartmouth
      Cornell
      Union
      Colgate
      Brown
      Princeton

      Yeah, the B1G would take Harvard and Yale !!

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Hockey East:

      Boston College
      Providence
      ND
      Massachusetts-Lowell
      Boston University
      Northeastern
      Merrimack
      UConn
      Vermont
      New Hampshire
      Maine
      Massachusetts

      Already mentioned above, iirc, the Boston University Terriers are an interesting idea. An untapped market for the B1G, they are AAU; among their “major” sports, they play men’s and women’s bball, hockey, softball and lacross; and no D1 football team to deal with.

      Liked by 1 person

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      NCHC teams:

      North Dakota
      St. Cloud State (Minn.)
      Denver
      Minnesota-Duluth
      Miami (OH)
      Nebraska-Omaha
      Western Michigan
      Colorado College

      None of these are AAU.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Western Collegiate Hockey Assoc.

      Michigan Tech
      Minnesota State
      Bowling Green
      Ferris State
      Northern Michigan
      Bemidji State
      Lake Superior
      Alaska
      Alaska-Anchorage
      Alabama-Huntsville

      No AAUs here either.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      A pretty short list for Team #8: the various Ivy League schools and various Boston/Connecticut schools.

      Note: ASU is NOT a member of the AAU. Yes, neither is ND. But we have being saying on this site since the get-go that ND was an exception to the AAU rule. Will ASU be an exception? Hmm…

      One “out there” idea is Toronto. AAU school and Canadian Hockey !!!

      Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      For these minor sports/assoc. Member decisions, I think we should instead think like an AD.

      For the B1G it’s a quality team addition, bus trip for at least half the league, another set of TV dates, and a lot of positive interest in the league. For the Irish, it means fewer trips to New England, more games in the recruiting footprint, more TV dates, and an easier league.

      Without the politics in re football and without the history, it’s a no brainer.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        And for the “more TV dates”, that in particular includes NBC Sports Network dates, which while it is not up there in the OTA / ESPN range of accessibility, is there in amongst the ESPN2 / FS1 range of accessibility. Plus ND away conference games on BTN.

        Like

  12. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux Tigers!

    Like

  13. BuckeyeBeau says:

    Aw, the dreaded two-links-cause-a-problem-with-posting-problem.

    Okay, third time: apologies if this ends up posting thrice.

    Mike McMahon’s twitter feed has some interesting info.

    Among the notables: ND will keep its NBCSN contract and have to pay exit fees.

    https://twitter.com/MikeMcMahonCHN?ref_src=twsrctfw

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      hmm… maybe fourth time is a charm. According to a forum post on USCHO (I will not link this time), NBCSN broadcasts 12 ND hockey games a year.

      Seems NBCSN will keep those games (according to Mike McMahon? Sort of like ABC takes first pick over BTN for football?

      Like

      • greg says:

        “Seems NBCSN will keep those games (according to Mike McMahon? Sort of like ABC takes first pick over BTN for football?”

        ND probably retains rights to home games. Didn’t Johns Hopkins lacrosse keep their ESPNU contract when joining the B1G as an affiliate? Apparently affiliate members can retain some independence.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          That makes some sense. If affiliates keep their own home games, then you do not need to worry about much BTN money going to them either which probably simplifies things (only tournaments being added consideration).

          Like

  14. Scoops McCracken says:

    Frank – Like always, you have the most reasoned takes when it comes to this and look at the big picture as well as anyone.

    My thoughts: Hockey aside, I think the Big Ten looked at the arrangement that ND has with the ACC and came to the conclusion that it really wouldn’t be that bad if they had the same thing in the Big Ten, as long as they were able to come to some agreement on the TV stuff. If the B10 had 6 games guaranteed with Notre Dame per year, what’s to say that for some of them, when they’d be at home for like Minnesota/Iowa/Illinois, that those games would be broadcast on BTN….it’s a B10 home game & they control the rights, correct? That’s pretty much getting ND on the BTN multiple times per year without having to give them a slice of anything.

    I’m sure something would have to be worked out with the basketball & non-revenue sports aspect with BTN & money, but it seems like the Big Ten could definitely get something beneficial out of it, even if conceding to Notre Dame their football independence (I’m convinced that there’s nothing that would make ND lose their independence; even if they were told “join a conference or you can’t make the playoff,” I think they would say “OK, we won’t participate in the playoff ever.”)

    Hockey wise, I think it makes total sense. Michigan State & Michigan are instantly fans of this, Minnesota & ND have played quite a bit recently & ND has slowly built a MN pipeline, particularly through Edina, and as for Wisconsin, Notre Dame is exactly the type of team Alvarez had in mind coming to Kohl Center, rather than the St. Cloud State’s & Minnesota-Duluth’s. I’d like to see other schools take up hockey in the conference, but ND is a step in the right direction, and I think ASU, if that pans out, would be too.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      Illinois, Purdue, Maryland and Rutgers are either cheap or financially challenged and these would make the most sense due to relative proximity to large Hockey-interest markets (Iowa might be iffy, but they are symbiotic with the western suburbs).

      Like

    • gfunk says:

      I’m getting little tired of non-hockey people making decisions or casting opinions in the name of the might dollar & high brow, academic branding. Am I being impractical here, not as much as you think I am. Minnesota would make more money with an NCHC membership – the attendance would simply outshine the current BIG slate. The traditional rivalries of the NCHC mean more despite WCHA ties with MSU, MI, Wisky and ND. Our in-state rivalries mean more, and North Dakota has been our arch rival for a long, long time – not Wisconsin.

      Duluth, btw, went through Michigan and ND to win a NC in 2011 & they certainly handed my beloved Gophers plenty of losses over the years.

      Moreover, I know plenty of Wisconsin fans who miss their former WCHA mates & the compact, road trip logistics. Badger fans are just as disappointed, the actual attending fans mind you, as Minnesota fans with the nightmare logistics of BIG hockey thus far. BIG hockey seems to be revolving around Mi-OSU & now I”m actually being reminded of PSU conspiracies of being an outsider over the years. OSU is a junk hockey school & they are going nowhere – they remain the 3rd best program hockey program in Ohio. The difference between OSU-Minnesota hockey is greater than the football difference – same schools. It’s OSU fans who choose to be football centric – so not much pity here. But they get the last laugh in terms of a seat at the BIG table.

      College hockey depends on home and home series & intimate geography – even clusters like Denver-CC or the Alaska schools have this benefit as outliers in their respective conference. It’s tough sledding for Minnesota with the eastern BIG, esp for the fans who want to attend in person.

      I don’t think we’ll have a P5 structure for college hockey anytime soon – if ever.

      Thus I’ll remain skeptical with BIG hockey, but I understand the economics.

      I think RIT or Miami will be the 8th member – the latter won’t require fielding its other d1 sports in the BIG, esp with a ND precedence.

      Here, in Minnesota, we still have WCHA and NCHC ties, the latter being the marquee college hockey conference in terms of play and talent. The BIG just doesn’t do it for most Minnesotans despite the Gophers being the “golden” hockey brand.

      Like

      • @gfunk – I understand what you’re saying from a pure hockey perspective. I saw an opinion somewhere (I can’t remember the source) that there’s a very large disconnect between the fans of long-time traditional hockey programs (such as Minnesota) and those of newer programs (such as Penn State). For Minnesota, playing in-state rivals or North Dakota is ingrained in their athletic culture and traditions, so they feel as if they lost something significant when the Big Ten hockey conference was formed. If you’re a school like Penn State, though, it’s crazy to think why anyone would want to play these smaller “no-name” (from their perception) programs instead of the “big-time” Big Ten schools. I’m sure the thinking is going to be the same way at Arizona State – the fact that North Dakota is a hockey power on-the-ice is completely meaningless to that market compared to bringing in a big brand name like Ohio State even though they might be much worse on-the-ice.

        By the same token, though, I also think you’re seeing some Minnesota fans mixing their disappointment in the Gophers’ subpar performance this season with some scapegoating of the Big Ten hockey conference itself. If Minnesota was coming off 3 straight national championships, I think the fans would be singing a different tune.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          @Frank – I think it comes down to what you want the future of College Hockey to be. Should it say the regional niche sport that the sports current fans have nurtured and loved or should it go bigger and try become a national sport and attract casual fans? To be a national sport, the brands need to be playing each other to engage their fans. With all due respect to the teams in the NCHC, most of those teams scream guarantee game to a casual fan like me.

          It’s a similar problem to what the NHL has been dealing with, how to expand their product without alienating their core fans.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            Not so much Frank – in terms of our current performance – I mean we were in the NCG as a BIG member just two years ago. We, many of the fans & alum, have had a rocky relationship with the Lucia era due in part to his promising start (back to back NCs) & continued successful recruiting. But since the back to backs, he’s produced a lot of subsequent underachievement, college hockey’s greatest upset ever (I’ll let you look that one up), as well as breeding a culture of top shelf recruits showcasing their NHL talent for 1 year then saying goodbye – many of these recruits have become very good NHL players, but during their college tenure they admittedly held back on their development to protect their NHL stock & pending contracts & performed horribly in the classroom. Next. the state of Minnesota absolutely cares about the development of hockey, all levels & the Gopher brand remains a significant springboard for such development, as well as WCHA clout. Gopher alum and administrators were huge power brokers for other Minnesota schools to achieve d1 status and WCHA membership: St. Cloud State, Mankato State, & Bemidji State. Heck, Minnesota alum, Dean Blais, helped broker in the Nebraska Omaha WCHA membership – despite having an out clause to return to Minnesota as a head coach – which may never be the case at this point. Lastly, as stated, Minnesota hockey fans love their road trips. The current BIG, outside Wisky, well that’s too much driving & hockey purists love the live experience, a position I firmly hold.

            In terms of discontent, tt’s more about Minnesota’s ego and once central leadership & location in the WCHA, which historically speaking, achieved beyond SEC success (football wise) as the greatest college hockey conference – no one even comes close, all-time, when it comes to NCs & Frozen Four appearances. The WCHA is now a shell of its former self. Interestingly, I think the WCHA is still headquartered in Minnesota & it remains the premier conference for women’s hockey.

            What could help Minnesota is your damn school getting a program – that’s a worthy road trip in the future. I noticed your reasons why their is no program yet – but let’s keep our fingers crossed. I can’t imagine UNO shifting to Lincoln for the sake of BIG Hockey, but hey – it’s an idea worth exploring. I’m sure the people of Omaha, university as well, would be disappointed – you think.

            PS As stated, keep your eyes on RIT and Miami, OH – each fit your academic arguments. I think ASU is a major risk in terms of cost savings and most importantly, quality competition. They can’t move as fast as say PSU. RIT proved worthy of moving to D1, but they were an extremely successful d2/3 program before making the jump.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Neither RIT or Miami (OH) would fit the academic argument.

            If the B10 was intent on adding a school where hockey is their only DI sport, Colorado College makes more sense.

            Like

        • hagenr says:

          In thinking about an 8th member for the B1G as an administrator, rather than a fan. The current state of the Big Ten Hockey conference will alert even the most disconnected president from hockey.

          1. The B1G Hockey Conference does not have on-ice credibility. Not enough depth to compensate for down cycles by MN, MSU, and a complete cratering by Wisconsin.
          2. Hockey revenue is driven by the box office. The elimination of regional rivalries and inconsistent BTN broadcast windows have negatively impacted attendance.
          3. Decline in fan and booster interest impacts the bottom line.

          In the first few years of the conference, the presidents and administrators left things along. Leaving their coaches hanging to defend a conference that was underachieving on and off the ice. In year three Don Lucia and Red Berenson were largely left to answer for the league’s deficiencies. (http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/16/for-gophers-hockey-gap-widens-between-big-ten-nchc/) A legitimate argument can be made that in year three the B1G hockey conference could be considered on par with the WCHA as the 4th or 5th best conference in college hockey. (Hockey East, NCHC, ECAC, WCHA/B1G) The poor attendance and with only one NCAA berth for the conference to show at the end of the 2015-16 season, the league could be described as a dumpster fire.

          Over the past year, the Big Ten’s actions over this season show a remarkable self-awareness that these are not growing pains but fundamental issues that stand in the way of success. First, the B1G has introduced legislation to regulate age eligibility outside of the the traditional channels of the college hockey coaches association. Like a litigator taking a case to a more friendly jurisdiction, the B1G is taking its proposal to a more friendly jurisdiction that may not understand the history and dynamics that make college hockey unique. The impact of the legislation would largely be felt by the Quinnipiac’s, Union’s and Ferris State’s of college hockey whose players may play juniors for 2 to 3 years prior to enrolling in college.

          Second, the man thought to be the driving force behind the finally making Minnesota succumb to the Big Ten Hockey Conference, Barry Alvarez, fired Mike Eaves, the man who took WI to a national championship only a few years ago. The move was not shocking considering how far Wisconsin had fallen, but it put Alvarez in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly state that hockey was important to the university.

          Next came the decision to attempt to restore regional rivalries and add a marquee name to the B1G roster in Notre Dame. The move makes a lot of sense. Notre Dame was not happy in Hockey East and had choices between the NCHC and the Big Ten. The move will put a few more rear ends in the seats at the conference tournament and provide a few more marquee games between MI/MN/MSU and the golden domers. If ASU were added as the 8th team, the sentiment would be congratulations B1G, you might be the 3rd best conference, that is if one of your teams could actually beat Quinnipiac or Union in the NCAA.

          Putting my president/administrators hat on again, The ADs told me that this conference was a sure thing. How could it be this bad? How can we fix this? I’ve made attempts to change the rules that I can to favor bigger name schools that land bigger recruits. I’m shaking up the athletic department to let them know that this hockey business can’t become a non-revenue sport. I’ve added a brand name and restored a few rivalries. What’s next? Regardless of the vision of a national conference, the B1G is a Western hockey conference. (Anything East of Boston is the West in college hockey.) What can I do to consolidate power to at the very least be the best conference in the west? What can I do to help ensure the big boosters and donors continue to support hockey? One move would turn the entire hockey world on it’s head one more time and solidify the Big Ten as the top hockey conference in the west. Invite North Dakota for hockey.

          I snickered at this notion for the first few days after the Notre Dame announcement, but looking at it in the context of college hockey as a business, it becomes a sobering thought. Consider these points: The B1G’s biggest rival for recruits and prestige in the West is the NCHC. The conferences share the same geographic footprint. The NCHC has proven to be the better conference and it isn’t even close. North Dakota is the marquee program in the conference and not to mention the driving force behind the league. North Dakota’s fans travel like non-other in college hockey, providing an attendance boost to whatever conference tourney site the B1G chooses. A very important rivalry for Minnesota (and their whiny fan base) would be restored. (That would make the job of Minnesota’s president a lot easier.) Power in the West would be consolidated, as the NCHC would be relegated to the background after losing their heart and soul. All mergers and acquisitions would have their warts. North Dakota would always have the academics issue hanging over their head. (ASU’s academics may be better, but how much is debatable.) But looking at the cold business of college sports, it makes too much sense. It would harm a competitor as much as it would elevate Big Ten hockey.

          My team plays in the NCHC and it sickens me to think of this scenario, but it would be a master stroke by the Big Ten that would provide the on- and off-ice credibility that university presidents were promised when the conference was launched.

          Like

          • Tom says:

            North Dakota is not getting an invite to the B1G if that’s what you are implying.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            hagenr,

            “1. The B1G Hockey Conference does not have on-ice credibility. Not enough depth to compensate for down cycles by MN, MSU, and a complete cratering by Wisconsin.”

            No conference looks good when half the teams are down. That’s not the fault of the BTHC.

            “2. Hockey revenue is driven by the box office. The elimination of regional rivalries and inconsistent BTN broadcast windows have negatively impacted attendance.”

            I’m sure the BTN could do better for hockey. As for attendance, the B10 already has the #2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11 teams in average attendance with 3 teams playing below par. Notre Dame is #16 and seen as a quality addition. If MN, MSU and WI all got back to their historical norms attendance would be way up.

            “3. Decline in fan and booster interest impacts the bottom line.”

            This again comes back to quality of play as much as anything.

            “In the first few years of the conference, the presidents and administrators left things along.”

            They had to. You can’t assess something until you’ve got some actual data.

            “A legitimate argument can be made that in year three the B1G hockey conference could be considered on par with the WCHA as the 4th or 5th best conference in college hockey. (Hockey East, NCHC, ECAC, WCHA/B1G)”

            So? Not everyone can be the #1 conference. Everyone knew the B10 was down this year.

            “The poor attendance and with only one NCAA berth for the conference to show at the end of the 2015-16 season, the league could be described as a dumpster fire.”

            The B10 was close to having 2 berths last year and this year. The results of the CCGs made it be only 1 each time.

            “First, the B1G has introduced legislation to regulate age eligibility outside of the the traditional channels of the college hockey coaches association. Like a litigator taking a case to a more friendly jurisdiction, the B1G is taking its proposal to a more friendly jurisdiction that may not understand the history and dynamics that make college hockey unique. The impact of the legislation would largely be felt by the Quinnipiac’s, Union’s and Ferris State’s of college hockey whose players may play juniors for 2 to 3 years prior to enrolling in college.”

            And lots of hockey fans have been throwing fits about the suggested rule change as well as pointing out that it would really impact very few players.

            “Second, the man thought to be the driving force behind the finally making Minnesota succumb to the Big Ten Hockey Conference, Barry Alvarez,”

            Being a B10 member forced MN to join the BTHC. No one man was responsible. Alvarez not fighting it left MN on an island with their argument, but WI and MN couldn’t have stopped it anyway. Pegula didn’t donate $85M so PSU could join the CCHA or an eastern league.

            “Putting my president/administrators hat on again, The ADs told me that this conference was a sure thing. How could it be this bad?”

            Sports are cyclical and presidents know that.

            “Regardless of the vision of a national conference, the B1G is a Western hockey conference. (Anything East of Boston is the West in college hockey.) What can I do to consolidate power to at the very least be the best conference in the west?”

            Presidents really don’t care about that. They want good academics and no athletic scandals. Not being #1 in hockey is well off their radar.

            “One move would turn the entire hockey world on it’s head one more time and solidify the Big Ten as the top hockey conference in the west. Invite North Dakota for hockey.”

            Anything’s possible, but why would NoDak want to leave the NCHC?

            Like

      • Brian says:

        gfunk,

        “I’m getting little tired of non-hockey people making decisions or casting opinions in the name of the might dollar & high brow, academic branding.”

        That might make sense if hockey was a standalone thing, but it isn’t. University presidents make these decisions, and they’re advised by ADs.

        “Am I being impractical here, not as much as you think I am. Minnesota would make more money with an NCHC membership – the attendance would simply outshine the current BIG slate.”

        No, they’d lose a crapload of money because they’d have to leave the B10 completely to join the NCHC. Maybe the B12 would pick them up, but maybe not.

        “BIG hockey seems to be revolving around Mi-OSU”

        That’s laughable. OSU doesn’t care about hockey and isn’t driving any such decisions for the good of OSU hockey. It’s most likely BTN that drives these decisions.

        I think the problem is that MN fans have finally been asked to sacrifice for the good of the conference much like all the CFB and MBB powers have been for years to support MN and others through gate revenue sharing and equal TV splits and they don’t like it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • gfunk says:

          Brian,

          I can’t even tell you how off you are in he last paragraph, my opinions aside (some intentionally bloated) & technically speaking of course.

          You are also out of your mind if you think the BIG would kick Minnesota out completely if they chose the NCHC for hockey. I’d bet the farm that Minnesota or Wisconsin, in the best interests of saving on travel costs, would remain ingrained BIG members – all other sports.

          My opinion of the OSU-Mi conspiracy was meant to be “laughable.” It’s hard to convey such on this medium, I’ll do better next time. But in all honestly, it does make economic sense to add teams closer to the bulk of BIG hockey members, that, damn the bad luck, happens to be Mi, MSU, OSU and even PSU – so ND’s addition makes sense here.

          Brian, you should do much, much more research on the history of the WCHA and CCHA and how college hockey works. The BIG is playing a risky game with BIG hockey & ultimately the game, in terms of amateur development, will take precedence over a money making scheme disguised as collective socialism. The empty seats cannot be justified by a network. Hockey is religion in Minnesota, we follow the game in ways similar to typical OSU football fans – but in some ways even deeper because we know hockey is not as popular as football, basketball, or baseball – so the passion and loyalties skew madness.

          But the fate of BIG hockey all changes if, collectively speaking, each team carries their load – I think Minnesota, despite a bad season, has done it’s share so far, Michigan as well.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            I can sympathize gfunk. Honestly, this similar to how I feel about the Big Ten divisions. I couldn’t care less about playing Rutgers and Maryland (no offense to either fan base, just no history). Meanwhile, Penn State is a good game, but it’s still only a 25 year or so rivalry. The vast majority of schools that Ohio State has competed with for a century are in the other division (and of the ones in division, Indiana has had far fewer competitive games than anyone to look back at (not none, but fewer)). Add to that when we finally go to 9 conference games next year, we get Nebraska locked for the first 6 years. Again I like the Huskers, but our schedule doesn’t scream Big Ten anymore and I hate how the focus seems to be shifting east.

            With hockey, at the end of the day though, Minnesota doesn’t have a lot of choice. They can’t say no to the other schools in hockey (where the other schools benefit) while maintaining the conference should maintain it’s revenue model in football/basketball. It sucks for Gopher fans and is probably not great for hockey in general, but it is good for the conference as a whole which makes it near impossible to get out of. I am not even sure Minnesota can compete in another conference if the Big Ten offers the sport (I think rules state you can only compete in another conference if your conference doesn’t sponsor a sport).

            Like

          • @Eric – Not only does Minnesota not have a lot of choice… it doesn’t have ANY choice. If the Big Ten sponsors a sport and you’re a full member, then you need to participate. That is an ironclad rule of the league. When a school like Penn State receives a $100 million donation for hockey that’s effectively contingent upon the Big Ten starting a conference, then the decision is made for you. Penn State brings in a LOT more money for Minnesota via football than the other way around. As a result, the rest of the conference doesn’t (and shouldn’t) give a wits end about associating with schools like North Dakota compared to the other institutions that are actually full members of the league. I understand the emotional aspect of the hockey rivalries, but there is no other choice here for a school like Minnesota. Minnesota has less than zero leverage here.

            Like

          • Tom says:

            Minnesota would be booted out of the B1G so fast if it insisted on playing hockey in the NCHC. The B1G may be a league based on equality but in terms of influence, Minnesota is much closer to Purdue than it is to Ohio State. Minnesota is mediocre in football, mediocre in basketball, is below average academic wise (within the B1G), and while Minneapolis-St. Paul is an important market for the B1G, it isn’t a recruiting hotbed for football or basketball. In other words, Minnesota doesn’t really bring a lot to the table and it should be thankful it has a spot in the B1G.

            I’m a Michigan fan, and I have no desire to see Michigan play little known colleges and universities that happen to have a Division 1 hockey program. I’m glad they left the CCHA. I want to see Michigan in a conference with peer institutions with large athletic departments. That means Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Notre Dame (although I am not a fan of the addition, but this is more from a football rivalry viewpoint), maybe Arizona State in the near future. Minnesota fans may feel differently, but my perspective is most representative of the rest of the league. I’m also not so sure Wisconsin feels so adamantly about it. Didn’t Alvarez say something along the lines of Wisconsin hockey not mattering in the grand scheme of things?

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            Alvarez’ comments were more akin to the overall department budget. Plenty of fans are not happy about the losing but I don’t think there is as much complaining about conference affiliation unlike Minnesota. Badger Hockey was the big sport on campus for years before they decided to invest in Football and Basketball in the 90s. Attendance has declined to around 8-9k this year from closer to 13-14k.

            Part of the draw for Hockey was the obvious success of the team plus the beer garden at the old Coliseum which was off campus. No beer sales since moving to the Kohl Center some 15 year ago.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            @ Tom:

            With respect, you are way way overstating this. You said: “Minnesota is mediocre in football, mediocre in basketball, is below average academic wise (within the B1G), and while Minneapolis-St. Paul is an important market for the B1G, it isn’t a recruiting hotbed for football or basketball. In other words, Minnesota doesn’t really bring a lot to the table and it should be thankful it has a spot in the B1G.”

            Pretty much the same can be said for Maryland and Rutgers, and yet the B1G invited them to join. If Minny were part of the BXII back when Nebraska joined, we would have ALL thought Minny was a good candidate to join at that time. Remember the various posts about Missouri, and Kansas and markets, etc.

            So, in my view, it’s a bit strong to suggest that Minnesota should be “thankful.”

            If the Minnesota PTB suddenly went insane and insisted that Minnesota hockey would join the NCHC, the worst case scenario for Minnesota would be an instant massive lawsuit by the B1G which the B1G would win quickly.

            I have to remind everyone, again, who is running this show: academics. Academics don’t really care about sports. Remember it was the academic in charge of Maryland that said, in effect, “who cares about sports tradition, the B1G has a lot of money.” The academics running Minnesota feel same. The academics running Minnesota are not going to go insane. And, academically, Minnesota carries its weight just fine.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            One more thought to really drive the point home: if the B1G voted to ban hockey completely and require all the Universities to disband their club and varsity programs, the academics in charge of the University of Minnesota would agree to ban hockey before they would leave the B1G and the CIC.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Tom:

            This isn’t Minn. vs OSU or UM. The move is (intended) for the long term benefit of the conference as a whole. Power consolidation at the conference level. That’s the chess game being played, and various sports are the pieces on the board.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “You are also out of your mind if you think the BIG would kick Minnesota out completely if they chose the NCHC for hockey.”

            I said nothing about kicking out MN. I said MN would have to quit the B10 in total in order to join
            the NCHC. Being a member of the BTHC is not a choice for a B10 member with a varsity hockey team. The B10 members, including MN, decided that. You notice you don’t hear anything from the MN administration about leaving the BTHC?

            “Brian, you should do much, much more research on the history of the WCHA and CCHA and how college hockey works.”

            No, I shouldn’t. You have no idea how much of that history I know intimately. Being a MN fan doesn’t give you special knowledge nobody else has. Everyone knows MN fans above all others in the B10 are obsessed with their local hockey rivalries. I’m fine with that. MN fans are right to miss the good old days of the WCHA. They’re just crazy to think the B10 will or should bend to their wishes for MN hockey as opposed to what the rest want.

            “The BIG is playing a risky game with BIG hockey”

            Where’s the risk for the B10?

            “& ultimately the game, in terms of amateur development, will take precedence over a money making scheme disguised as collective socialism.”

            It will take precedence to whom? Not TPTB in the B10 (for good or ill).

            “The empty seats cannot be justified by a network.”

            The B10 has 6 of the top 11 spots for average hockey attendance this year with the worst (OSU) still averaging over 5000. If WI didn’t suck lately their numbers would be a lot better but they’re still #3. The same is true for MSU.

            “But the fate of BIG hockey all changes if, collectively speaking, each team carries their load – I think Minnesota, despite a bad season, has done it’s share so far, Michigan as well.”

            The problem has been WI and MSU stinking lately. OSU has always been mediocre at best and PSU has done surprisingly well for a start up. Things would look much better to hockey fans if WI and MSU return to their historical norms and the B10 starts having 2 or 3 NCAA bids every year.

            Almost every fan agrees the B10 could benefit from a hockey person in the B10 offices advising decisions, almost like a commissioner. Some of the decisions have been head-scratchers. But a fact of life is that hockey fans are going to have to accept that the good of the B10 trumps the good of their local hockey team in decision making at B10 HQ.

            Like

          • Duffman says:

            For those suggesting the Gophers get the boot for not playing hockey….

            Where does this come from?

            If the B1G is all about academics, pretty sure Minnesota is on the top end of the B1G academic spectrum, not the bottom.

            Try to keep the eye on the prize and the stick on the ice.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Duffman,

            “For those suggesting the Gophers get the boot for not playing hockey….”

            We’re not suggesting any such thing. We’re saying that MN would have to quit the B10 to play hockey elsewhere.

            “Where does this come from?”

            It comes from the rule that full conference members must compete in that conference and no other if it offers the sport in question. MN would have to quit the B10 to play in the NCHC.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Duffman, in academics/research, Minny would be more in the middle. Top would be NU, UMich, Wisconsin (, UIUC).

            Though the states of WI and IL seem to be trying a lot to make their flagships more like directional commuter colleges these days . . .

            Like

          • Duffman says:

            Brian says:
            March 27, 2016 at 11:45 am

            We’re not suggesting any such thing. We’re saying that MN would have to quit the B10 to play hockey elsewhere.

            It comes from the rule that full conference members must compete in that conference and no other if it offers the sport in question. MN would have to quit the B10 to play in the NCHC.

            I guess what I am asking is if you have a program already in another conference, are they not grandfathered in if the other conference has the better reputation in a specific sport. Unlike most of the major sports, it remains to be seen if B1G will dominate positions in former hockey conferences. I know much of this push has been based on Penn State getting all that money for hockey but will a single school rate future success?

            It is things like this that bother me about modern realignment as football drives maybe 65% of the discussion basketball (both sexes) another 30% with all the other sports combined driving maybe 5%. We hope B1G hockey is a success, but what if it lessens some current B1G schools that play hockey? Gophers have been marginalized in football so letting some big donor at Penn State marginalize Gopher hockey is alright?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “I guess what I am asking is if you have a program already in another conference, are they not grandfathered in if the other conference has the better reputation in a specific sport.”

            Are there any examples, even in non power or BCS conferences? It would seem to defeat the reason for conference sponsored sports.
            Fresno was an affiliate member of the Pac in wrestling for five years. Realigned into WAC (or MWC, I forget…) and had to wrestle there. A decade or so later conference dropped sponsorship and shortly after sport was cut (citing, in part, lack of that sponsorship), so I sympathize with the idea of grandfathering. However, I don’t believe it happens much if at all.

            P.S. Good news is new president suggested wrestling should return. AD that cut wrestling said it just wouldn’t work. A short time passes….The new AD had a plan in place and I believe Fresno wrestling starts competing next year.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Duffman,

            “I guess what I am asking is if you have a program already in another conference, are they not grandfathered in if the other conference has the better reputation in a specific sport.”

            No, I’m not aware of any exceptions. Once your main conference sponsors the sport you have to play in that conference or be an independent.

            “Unlike most of the major sports, it remains to be seen if B1G will dominate positions in former hockey conferences. I know much of this push has been based on Penn State getting all that money for hockey but will a single school rate future success?”

            It’s only been a few years. We have no idea how good BTHC will be long term. WI made a great coaching hire so they should get back to being a power. MSU seems to be ignoring hockey at the moment so they may suffer for a while.

            “We hope B1G hockey is a success, but what if it lessens some current B1G schools that play hockey?”

            What if it does? How much net value does the B10 still bring to a school like MN even if their hockey team suffers a little? Every school is asked to make sacrifices for the good of the B10.

            “Gophers have been marginalized in football so letting some big donor at Penn State marginalize Gopher hockey is alright?”

            Let’s not put all the blame on PSU. It’s up to MN to recruit and coach their team. Switching conferences didn’t cause all their problems. And it’s not like MN is terrible now. They made the NCAA tourney last year (16 teams go) and just missed it this year.

            Liked by 1 person

      • BruceMcF says:

        “The difference between OSU-Minnesota hockey is greater than the football difference – same schools. It’s OSU fans who choose to be football centric – so not much pity here.”

        It’s not just football that casts a deep shadow over Buckeye hockey … it’s also Basketball. Indeed, it could well be primarily Basketball. My alma mater in Oxford, Ohio doesn’t really have either issue at present, and hasn’t for a while.

        Like

  15. Jon says:

    Frank – don’t underestimate Delaney’s concern/worry about ACC growth. I believe that the ACC moves to bring in Syracuse & Pitt + ND (partially) was the main REASON Delaney moved to get MD and Rutgers. Leaving Penn St out there alone (plus sanctions) leaved them vulnerable and jeopardized the integrity of the B1G as we know it.

    While ND joining the B1G in football used to be a goal, now the best case scenario is for ND to remain independent. As you have stated, the worst nightmare for Delaney is that ND would join the ACC as a full member. This hockey move is defensive and I think there is a good chance ND will join the B1G in other sports because, now, it is in the interests of both the B1G and ND.

    Like

  16. loki_the_bubba says:

    “…or Rice bringing its top level baseball program to the conference”

    If I understand the rules properly this is not an option since CUSA sponsors baseball.

    Like

  17. I get what you’re saying about markets and academics, but considering how poorly Big 10 hockey has done of late (one bid in the NCAA tourney, Wisconsin’s coach getting fired, Minnesota dropping below several of its lower-level in-state schools) might it be in the Big 10’s best interests to add some quality programs like North Dakota?

    Let’s face it, college hockey ratings are not driving the BTN. Adding Arizona State hockey isn’t going to get the BTN on basic cable in Phoenix. And there are probably more hockey fans in Grand Forks (let alone all of ND) than there are in Phoenix.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of adding ASU hockey. But I think Big 10 hockey has woefully underperformed since its formation. How about expanding to 10 teams (what a novel idea, 10 teams in the Big 10!). Add Notre Dame, Arizona State, North Dakota and another strong program from a good-sized market. Maybe Denver so ASU isn’t such an outlier? If not, try to poach one of the northeast schools.

    Like

    • @singlewhitealcoholicseekssame – I just don’t believe the Big Ten is going to make a decision based on on-the-ice results from 3 years of play. It would be short-sighted to think that Minnesota and Wisconsin playing well below their historic norms is going to be a permanent situation – it would be no different than pundits thinking that Michigan football was supposedly relegated from elite status during the Brady Hoke era. North Dakota simply doesn’t fit the institutional profile of the Big Ten at all. Boston University or Boston College, on the other hand, are certainly schools that the Big Ten would be interested in (but BU and BC are much more invested in the Hockey East than Notre Dame ever could have been).

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        What about UConn? Might they deliver a bit of that NE market for BTN hockey? They might jump at the chance to have ANY relationship with a P5 conference (on the hopes of someday parlaying that into something bigger).

        Information request: how far from PSU to UConn? Would it be considered “close” giving PSU another local “rival?”

        Like

      • Frank-

        I agree, it’s unlikely Minny and Wisky will continue to falter so badly. Eventually, money and resources will raise the Big 10. I sort of correlate this to La Tech women’s bball back in the day; back before most schools cared, Tech was one of the premiere programs in the country. But once the rest of the SEC started putting their resources into the sport Tech simply couldn’t keep up. That should eventually be the case with hockey.

        But, that being said, would it really be so bad to add a program among the top 5 in terms of Frozen Four appearances? Not to mention an historic rival of Minnesota and Wisconsin. All the other conferences besides the NCHC have at least 10 teams so that seems to be a better model than 7 or 8 teams. Since it’s unlikely BC or BU could be poached, why not look westward to UND and Denver or CC?

        BTW, arguing about this is about as relevant as arguing about Johns Hopkins in lacrosse. Such a tiny percentage of Big 10 fans even care.

        Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          Regarding money changing the dynamics, you can also see it happening in baseball. The SEC is pouring hundreds of millions into baseball (collectively). Schools like Rice are being left behind in the arms race. Every game on TV during the season, in Houston, is either SEC or B12.

          Like

          • Duffman says:

            I think it is a push by ESPN for the SEC in the spring sports.

            This past weekend it is programming for men’s and women’s basketball 24 / 7 and yet right there on ESPN or ESPN2 was a softball game between Alan’s Tigers and Florida Gators. This was not on SECN but a primary ESPN channel.

            Like

    • gfunk says:

      You can’t separate Colorado College (actually a very prestigious liberal arts college) from Denver. They’re more joined at the hip (hockey only) than say USC-UCLA or OU-Ok St, especially as outliers, whether in the current NCHC or the former WCHA.

      Interesting you bring this up though, Denver and CC are great academic schools & their WCHA history was very long – that is, they were conference mates with Minnesota, Wisconsin for most of the WCHA, pre-BIG/NCHC split, as well as Michigan, MSU & Notre Dame before the CCHA formed.

      So it would be interesting if Denver and CC were considered, especially if ASU was number 8 and a 10 team hockey league is the goall. But the NCHC’s formation had a lot of Denver-CC input & the offices are based there.

      PS I don’t think Denver would require BIG membership beyond hockey, again the pending ND membership can be cited here. But Denver could, if BIG hockey is going for 10 and wants ASU to have nearby rivals (still kind of far, 12 hours drive from Tempe to Denver) park it’s lacrosse in the BIG – fine by me. They beat Md for a NC just last year or the year before.

      Like

  18. Mark says:

    Does this have to be a sign of anything more than:

    1. ND wanting a better geographic fit for hockey (just look at the Hockey East map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_East#/media/File:Map_-_College_Hockey_-_Hockey_East_states.svg)

    2. The Big 10 trying to upgrade their (so far) underwhelming hockey conference.

    Yes, expect one more move (to 8) forthcoming. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s 100 dominoes lined up to fall behind it.

    Like

  19. Kevin says:

    Go Badgers

    Like

  20. FLP_NDRox says:

    http://www.und.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/032316aaa.html

    ND’s release, with comments from Jack Swarbrick.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      no mention of CIC membership. i assume that is not included in this affiliate membership? IIRC, it WAS part of the Johns Hopkins deal.

      if CIC membership WERE included, I would count that as a large indicator that something more was in the offing between ND and the B1G. Otherwise, I’m inclined to think this is sport specific.

      Like

        • greg says:

          Hopkins did not join the CIC upon joining the lacrosse league. The CIC was mentioned as a “maybe in a few years” when Hopkins joined.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            IIRC, JHU is still in the trial period of their 5 year deal with the B10. After 3 seasons, they have to decide whether to extend their membership or leave after the five years are up. The JHU women’s team starts B10 play in 2017 which seems like a hint of what JHU will decide.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            My point being, until JHU fully commits to the B10 there’s been no reason to offer CIC membership. Once JHU does commit for the long haul, then I think a CIC invitation will come (why wouldn’t you want JHU on board?). I don’t know if ND would be as interested in the CIC since they are less of a research university.

            Like

  21. bob sykes says:

    If travel is a problem for ND hockey, as it evidently is, it is a bigger problem for its other sports now in the ACC. Once ND’s agreement with the ACC is up in 10 years or so, I expect a similar agreement with the B1G will be negotiated. Frankly, that’s fine with me.

    As to the traditional college hockey leagues, if college hockey does become a big deal (likely), then the major college conferences will sponsors their own leagues, as the B1G is doing, and the traditional independent leagues will disappear. I hope gfunk doesn’t hurt himself.

    Geezers like me will remember when B1G womens’ sports were actually independent of the regular B1G administrative structure and had a parallel structure.. Many womens’ sports fans, players and coaches went b-s- crazy when the womens’ sports were folded into the B1G conference. Does anyone care now?

    Like

    • greg says:

      “if college hockey does become a big deal (likely), then the major college conferences will sponsors their own leagues, as the B1G is doing, and the traditional independent leagues will disappear. ”

      If college hockey becomes popular, I still don’t see how a league like the SEC, P12 or B12 could suddenly spin up successful teams. If it happens, the B1G becomes long term king and the same Northern schools playing now continue to play, with some possible conference restructuring.

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        Good point. But I was thinking the big conferences would absorb scools like North Dakota as affiliates.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Denver is already a “championship affiliate” with the three Big 12 gymnastics teams. The Big 12 would seem like a natural home for 6 of the 8 NCHC schools, if a couple of Big12 schools were to start hockey and then a couple more were looking to start under the Big12 banner (and of course assuming the Big12 survives that long).

          But I’m not so sure that the SEC ever looks toward hockey, nor the ACC, for opposite reasons … the deep shadow cast by basketball in the ACC and the Football Uber Alles in the SEC casting a shadow so deep it crowds out even basketball at so many SEC schools. That plus the likely unwillingness of the Big Ten to pursue programs like the MAC hockey schools of MiamiU, Western Michigan or Bowling Green would seem to leave space for one or two leading hockey-only conferences.

          Like

  22. Tark says:

    “Think about MIT joining the Big Ten for rowing or Rice bringing its top level baseball program to the conference. There are a lot more possibilities for academically-aligned schools in the non-revenue sports.”

    It’s an intriguing idea. Seems like it would work if the following three conditions are met:

    (1) Potential affiliate plays a sport that is sponsored by the B1G, but not by its primary conference.

    (2) Potential affiliate is academically prestigious (preferably AAU).

    (3) Potential affiliate is actually good at the sport in question.

    *****

    Johns Hopkins lacrosse ticks all three boxes easily.

    Notre Dame hockey ticks all three boxes. ND is not AAU, but has prestigious undergraduate program with high US News ranking..

    Rice baseball fails on #1. CUSA sponsors baseball, why would they allow Rice to play in B1G instead?

    MIT women’s rowing fails on #3. They currently aren’t competitive in the Patriot League, would be even less so in B1G.

    ASU hockey is a stretch on #2 and #3. They aren’t AAU, and have a lower US News ranking than any current B1G school. On the other hand, they get points for being Pac-12, and it looks like they will seriously try to be good at hockey in the future.

    Like

    • Tom says:

      I think ASU will actually be pretty good in the future. It may take some time, but Tempe is just a 6 hour drive from Southern California which is a growing hotbed for high school hockey. They would literally be the only local school capable of taking advantage of it for the foreseeable future until UCLA or USC decides to go Division 1. ASU would also become an intriguing destination for recruits from Canada and the Northern US looking to play college hockey in a warm weather climate. ASU in the B1G would be even more of a draw for recruits since they would get the chance to play some of the most storied hockey programs in the country on a regular basis.

      Like

  23. talk says:

    Suppose the B1G started adding affiliates for wrestling.

    Final 2016 rankings had five B1G schools in top ten — #1 Penn State 1, #4 Iowa, #7 Ohio State, #8 Michigan, #10 Rutgers.

    Now add #6 Missouri and #9 Lehigh as affiliate members. It could be done — their home conferences (SEC and Patriot League respectively) don’t sponsor wrestling, so they are free agents.

    Mizzou is AAU, and is an obvious geographic fit to a conference that includes Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. Their wrestling program would probably be happy to ditch the MAC for the B1G.

    Lehigh is primarily an undergraduate institution and not AAU, but it has a high US News ranking and a long history in wrestling, including rivalries with Penn State and Rutgers. They might prefer to stay in the EIWA, which has Army, Navy, several Ivies, and several other Patriot League schools.

    Like

    • greg says:

      “Suppose the B1G started adding affiliates for wrestling.”

      Why would the B1G do that? The B1G already dominates college wrestling. Adding Missouri only helps raise Missouri’s profile, it won’t raise the B1G profile in any way.

      Like

      • Tark says:

        Yeah, you’re probably right. Maybe we need four criteria for affiliates, instead of only three:

        (1) Potential affiliate plays a sport that is sponsored by the B1G, but not by its primary conference.

        (2) Potential affiliate is academically prestigious (preferably AAU).

        (3) Potential affiliate is actually good at the sport in question.

        (4) The B1G could use some outside help at the sport in question.

        JHU lacrosse or ND hockey still tick off all the boxes. Missouri or Lehigh wrestling tick off the first three boxes — but not the fourth. On the other hand, maybe ASU hockey can tick off box 4, since the B1G now has an odd number of hockey teams, which is awkward.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Not only that, but we already have too many teams to have dual meets against everyone. Nobody wants to miss out on wrestling Iowa or PSU to get MO instead.

        Like

  24. Tark says:

    “There are a lot more possibilities for academically-aligned schools in the non-revenue sports.”

    In terms of the four criteria above, I don’t see very many.

    The B1G has six teams in women’s lacrosse, but that number will go to seven next year when Johns Hopkins joins. if they would rather have eight, then Vanderbilt would seem to meet all four criteria.

    The B1G has four teams in women’s ice hockey. They need six to sponsor the sport. Maybe Syracuse could be an option; they currently play in the CHA with Penn State. Syracuse (like Nebraska) is an ex-AAU member.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Tark,

      “In terms of the four criteria above, I don’t see very many.”

      Agreed.

      “The B1G has six teams in women’s lacrosse, but that number will go to seven next year when Johns Hopkins joins. if they would rather have eight, then Vanderbilt would seem to meet all four criteria.”

      “The B1G has four teams in women’s ice hockey. They need six to sponsor the sport. Maybe Syracuse could be an option; they currently play in the CHA with Penn State. Syracuse (like Nebraska) is an ex-AAU member.”

      Not many women’s hockey teams fit the footprint. We could bring in all the CHA schools (Lindenwood, Mercyhurst and Robert Morris + Syracuse) I suppose. Or all the WCHA schools (North Dakota, Bemidji, MN-Duluth, MN State, St. Cloud St). Breaking up women’s hockey conferences otherwise might really get the B10 negative PR. What we really need is for more B10 schools to add women’s hockey (MI and MSU).

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I am a big hockey fan. The kind who despite being a Nittany Lion fan, understands where the Gopher fan and for that matter Canadian fan is coming from. Basically afraid of losing my sport ( and not without good reason). But adding Big 10 women’s hockey does not interest me. I prefer my New York Islanders and Penn State Men’s Hockey and seeing Penn State versus Michigan in women’s hockey is like a Ottawa Calgary Stanley Cup Final but worse.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Brian says:

          I’m just saying that adding affiliate members probably isn’t the way to get B10 women’s hockey. Either more B10 schools add it or leave the status quo.

          Like

  25. David Brown says:

    I mentioned this on another site but the perfect school to be Number 8 is Nebraska. Why? ASU is not in the Big 10 footprint ( unlike Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins). They also have the facility for it. One other thing to mention will be the new Big 10 TV Contract there will be more money to spend on facilities. I can tell you that they are doing that at Penn State. That is why they hired the Cal AD and are doing a Master Plan with Populus. Fixing Beaver Stadium and the McCoy Swimming facility come to mind. We also know how successful hockey has been there. Something to watch for.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      There is talk of a gentleman’s agreement between the Cornhuskers & the University of Nebraska -Omaha to allow the latter to remain the primary hockey program in the U of N system.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Screw them, cutting their most successful program and informing them (the wrestling team) as they were celebrating winning another national championship that evening. Then locking them out of their gym/lockers.

        Build a team, and target UNO recruits.

        Like

      • Mike says:

        There is talk of a gentleman’s agreement between the Cornhuskers & the University of Nebraska -Omaha to allow the latter to remain the primary hockey program in the U of N system.

        I don’t know why people say that, and I highly doubt it true. There is a ton of reasons Nebraska-Lincoln doesn’t have hockey (start with there is exactly two sheets of ice within an hour of Lincoln) that have nothing to do with UNO. A Nebraska-Lincoln hockey team isn’t any threat to UNO. Lincoln and Omaha have both have USHL teams that would be in the top 30 of the NCAA in attendance and that’s with UNO drawing 7000 a night. Its not like UNO pulls a significant (if any) amount of fans from Lincoln or the UNO fanbase will abandon their team for Husker hockey.

        Like

    • Tom says:

      They have the arena but they don’t have the team. If you are looking for a current B1G school to make the jump, Illinois, Indiana or Rutgers would be the best bets. They are the only B1G schools with teams that compete in club hockey’s Division 1.

      It would be a huge jump for those schools. It would be an even bigger jump for Nebraska, which currently plays in club hockey’s Division 2. Before making the jump to NCAA, both Penn State and Arizona State played at the D1 level and both were very successful. Penn State won 6 national titles (most all time). Arizona State won 1 NC. It took PSU 3-4 seasons to become competitive. It will probably take ASU longer than that. Not saying Nebraska couldn’t make the jump but it would take a lot of patience since the road to competitiveness would be a long one.

      I would love to see it though.

      Like

  26. SlartyBartFast says:

    Could the ACC dick over Notre Dame / B1G by making Hockey an ACC sport? They have 5 teams in the club level ACCHL (Duke, UNC, NCState, UVA and Wake). If they promoted those 5 would that force ND to have to join? I’m not sure what ND’s non football commitment to the conference is. If the ACC offers the sport do they, by the bylaws, have to join?

    Sure, there’s probably a less than 1% chance of the ACC making hockey a Div 1 scholarship sport, but stranger things have happened.

    Like

    • Talk says:

      This is a risk with any affiliate member, not just Notre Dame. For example, suppose the B1G takes ASU as a hockey affiliate. Most of the Pac-12 schools have club hockey teams that could (in theory) evolve into NCAA D1 teams (in the same way that ASU’s team did). If this happened, then eventually there would be Pac-12 hockey, and ASU would have to leave the B1G.

      Is there a significant risk of either ACC or Pac-12 hockey in the foreseeable future? Probably not.

      The risk is particularly minimal with Johns Hopkins lacrosse, since JHU’s “home” league, the Centennial Conference, is NCAA D3 and incapable of sponsoring D1 sports.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        There is a huge difference between the Big 10 versus Pac-12 and ACC. Look at the ACC Football Facilities: BC, Syracuse, Wake Forest, and Duke all have on campus facilities that suck and Miami and Pitt do not even have one. Ryan Field @ Northwestern is better then any of them. Look at the Debt Load At Washington State and the utter failure of the Pac-12 Network (compare that to the Big 10 Network). Notre Dame will likely join the Big 10 in all sports after 2025, and the Big 10 will bide their time and wait for them. Will the fans and alumni like it? Probably NOT. But the economics may require it. Why? Lots of reasons (Cord Cutting, travel expenses, CIC Membership are just a few). Even in the Big 10, most people did not (and still don’t) want Rutgers, but Delaney knew that the economics of getting Cablevision to carry BTN made it worthwhile, as does the coverage in the NUMBER ONE Media Market in America (something you were not getting with Missouri). Hockey is just the first step in the Notre Dame joining process.
        I do believe that eventually most schools in the Conference will add hockey, and again I say it starts with Nebraska. Rutgers will be next once they get the basketball program out of the RAC (which can be converted to Hockey),Down the line I suspect Illinois and Iowa as join as well.

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Wait, what?

          B1G with its 49% stake in a cable network has the most to lose from cordcutting. Getting a dollar in the footprint only helps if thete ate subscribers. If a high percentage would drop ESPN in an a la carte world, what hope has the BTN? Keeping the games on broadcast will help the Irish. The future dang well could be streaming. Notre Dame will have fans who’ll steam, as will OSU, UM, PSU and other successful schools. Heck Nebraska actually was making ppv work years ago. Will all the B1G schools be making an inflation adjust $50/yr in 2030? I doubt it.

          Also, don’t forget PSU has a team because a donor wrote a 9figure check for it. If your school can’t get people to come up w $100mil, it’s not happening.

          Like

        • Illinois isn’t adding hockey any time soon. (And by that I mean at least 20 years.)

          The State Farm Center renovations that just finished this year did not include ANY plans for hockey. Like none. As in I don’t think Champaign could even host a preseason NHL game (even with both the Hawks and Blues being ~3 hours away). So now you not only need a 100 million dollar donor like PSU, but you probably need to fundraise a couple hundred million more for a new arena.

          I’m an avid hockey fan (go Sabres!), an Illinois alum and a Champaign native. I can tell you that until the Blackhawks recent success (2010), you couldn’t find a hockey fan in this town. In high school I literally knew one kid I could talk to about NHL. In college there were some Hawks and a couple Blues fans, and the club team drew decently, but there still wasn’t a bar in town that ever had hockey on. Sure, now that the Hawks are winning all the bandwagoners wear Hawks jerseys and hats like they used to wear Bulls stuff back in the Jordan days, but it’s an empty fandom.

          I would bet if Illinois started hockey tomorrow you’d have barely more season ticket holders than women’s basketball, and probably less than women’s volleyball. It’s simply not a big enough or an avid enough market to support hockey right now. Maybe if the Hawks win a few more Cups, and if the Blues could win just one, MAYBE you’d start to see some real interest around these parts.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      Starting a DivI hockey program doesn’t just happen with a snap of the fingers. A massive financial investment is required. I mean, heck, just look at all the B10 schools located in cold-weather states who don’t have hockey programs.

      Right now, BC has a DivI hockey program. Who else in the ACC?

      A Pac hockey conference is even more far-fetched.

      Like

      • greg says:

        “If they promoted those 5 would that force ND to have to join?”

        Title 9 more or less means that 5 women’s teams would be created at the same time. So, 10 new scholarship varsity teams created in order to force the ND hockey team to play in a terrible conference?

        Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Could the ACC dick over Notre Dame / B1G by making Hockey an ACC sport? They have 5 teams in the club level ACCHL (Duke, UNC, NCState, UVA and Wake).

      Fans are always inventing fantasies that involve other schools screwing Notre Dame. University presidents don’t think that way.

      For even one school to make the jump up to varsity requires a very substantial investment. Bear in mind that Title IX would require them to elevate a women’s sport at the same time (or discontinue a men’s sport).

      Remember, most athletic departments are money-losers. They’re not looking to add an expensive sport.

      If they promoted those 5 would that force ND to have to join? I’m not sure what ND’s non football commitment to the conference is. If the ACC offers the sport do they, by the bylaws, have to join?

      I am pretty sure it’s an NCAA rule that you must play all your sports in your home conference (or be independent). The only exception allowed is if your home conference doesn’t sponsor the sport.

      So yeah, in that fantasy scenario, Notre Dame would have to leave the Big Ten and play hockey in the ACC.

      Like

    • bob sykes says:

      Would the ACC really want to anger Notre Dame? Their agreement comes up for renewal in 10 years or so.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        How would they anger ND?

        Enough ACC schools sponsoring hockey to start a hockey conference is somewhere in fantasyland.

        Like

  27. Stuart says:

    One thing overlooked is the media agreement with Notre Dame. Notre Dame home games will remain part of their own media deal, while the other B1G home games remain on the B1G network, as also will be the B1G tournament. Apparently this is similar to the arraignment JHU has with Lacrosse per Brad Traviolia. Revenue is “neutral”

    Traviolia says, “the conversation with Notre Dame was Hockey specific from the get go.”

    Frank the Tank may be projecting a bit on the objectives of both parties. But then again he does say its commentary, so he’s allowed.

    Obviously if Arizona State joined the same deal on media would apply, with the P12N getting ASU home games. The revenue neutrality of associate members might eliminate a number of schools from smaller conferences who have competitive programs. ASU would give some programming that has appeal on the West Coast which has a significant number of B1G alumni. But they would not likely add anything on the competitive side. Then again relations with the P12 is a key part of Delaney and the B1G strategy to keep ahead of the SEC

    Like

  28. BePcr07 says:

    Let’s see…the Big Ten added an affiliate (2014, Johns Hopkins, lacrosse) a whole 128 years after the conference began. Now they add another (2017, Notre Dame, ice hockey) only 3 years later. I believe lacrosse required a 6th member and who can argue with the addition of the Blue Jays (high profile lacrosse, AAU, within footprint)? Notre Dame is different. I believe six is also the requirement for ice hockey which they already had. There is a standing feud between the Big Ten and Notre Dame. Was is just for competition and geographical purposes? I personally would’ve rather seen Boston University or maybe Denver. There just might be more at play because I wouldn’t think the Big Ten would appease Notre Dame if this was all that was occurring.

    For what it’s worth, the XII has 10 affiliates (3 added in 2014, 7 added in 2015), the PAC12 has 4 (3 joined in the 1980s and 1 joined mid 2000s), and both the SEC/ACC have none.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      I do think there is more at play, it takes time to overcome The Big 10 hostility of Notre Dame fans and alumni.This is Step One hockey: Eventually even football will happen. Most people know the Big 10 is superior to the ACC ( see Penn State versus Pitt). Even the biggest critic of Maryland joining the ACC Tom McMillian admitted he was wrong.dda

      Like

      • Brian says:

        David Brown,

        “I do think there is more at play, it takes time to overcome The Big 10 hostility of Notre Dame fans and alumni.”

        I’m not sure there is enough time left before the heat death of the universe for ND alumni and fans to get past their hatred of the B10. They pass it down from generation to generation despite it all being based on events more than 50 years ago (some close to 100 years ago), and mostly based on two men (Yost & Crisler) at one school (Michigan). Nowadays you can see a large portion of their fans believe they are above consorting with the B10 (see FLP_NDRox’s comments for example).

        “This is Step One hockey: Eventually even football will happen.”

        I don’t think ND will ever join a conference in football. Independence is too much a part of their identity now, especially as all the other major independents went away 25 years ago or more.

        “Most people know the Big 10 is superior to the ACC ( see Penn State versus Pitt).”

        Superior in what sense? ND wants more east coast and southern exposure. They also like to affiliate with elite undergraduate universities. Is the B10 better at providing that than the ACC?

        “Even the biggest critic of Maryland joining the ACC Tom McMillian admitted he was wrong.”

        His biggest complaint was that the deal was done secretly and he hasn’t changed his mind about that. He does admit the move has worked out well so far for UMD.

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          There’s a difference between ‘above consorting’ and discomfort at wearing a symbol of those that have blackballed your school and have consciously brought chaos to the business of college sports.

          That said, I am very interested to see how the Irish are treated BTHC. I love the series with Minnesota. I miss Michigan State and Michigan from our CCHA days. The superfans I cheered with in undergrad got a deal with the Sports Info guys after heckling Tom Askey of OSU in ’95. Getting these games as league games for me is an upgrade over even Hockey East.

          If we are treated like family, i.e. better than PSU when they joined, we might enter détente. Which is frankly more than TPTB in Rosemont deserve after eighty years of blackballing and about 20 years of sour grapes about ’99.

          Rich2, welcome back.

          Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            OK, my bad. That was over the line even for me. Just bitter about the OT loss. At least the basketball team beat Wisconsin

            Like

    • Brian says:

      BePcr07,

      “Let’s see…the Big Ten added an affiliate (2014, Johns Hopkins, lacrosse) a whole 128 years after the conference began. Now they add another (2017, Notre Dame, ice hockey) only 3 years later. I believe lacrosse required a 6th member and who can argue with the addition of the Blue Jays (high profile lacrosse, AAU, within footprint)?”

      With you so far.

      “Notre Dame is different.”

      In some ways, yes. But if their name wasn’t “Notre Dame” would anyone be as upset?

      “I believe six is also the requirement for ice hockey which they already had.”

      It is and they did, but everyone has been unhappy with the BTHC and its results since it formed. All of the teams and fans said they needed more members.

      “There is a standing feud between the Big Ten and Notre Dame.”

      There is? I think that would be news to both of them. NW has a game with them soon. OSU has scheduled a home and home with them, and MSU and PU also have future series with them. MI’s new AD just said he’s open to renewing the rivalry in the future. Only fans are really pissed at ND and constantly looking for ways to screw them over.

      “Was is just for competition and geographical purposes?”

      Yes. The B10 wanted the boost of their quality program and ND wanted to travel less.

      “I personally would’ve rather seen Boston University or maybe Denver.”

      You aren’t the 20 year-old student-athlete flying to the east coast to play games while missing classes and the chance to study at home.

      “There just might be more at play because I wouldn’t think the Big Ten would appease Notre Dame if this was all that was occurring.”

      ND is helping the B10 at least as much (if not more) as the B10 is helping ND. There is no appeasement going on.

      “For what it’s worth, the XII has 10 affiliates (3 added in 2014, 7 added in 2015), the PAC12 has 4 (3 joined in the 1980s and 1 joined mid 2000s), and both the SEC/ACC have none.”

      The SEC has 7 teams who are affiliates in other conferences (plus bowling, rifle and beach volleyball in sport-specific conferences). The ACC has many teams affiliated with sport-specific conferences but none with regular conferences.

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        Hello, have not posted here in a year. I knew there would be comments on ND’s move to Big10+ for its hockey program.

        Again:

        1. ND receives about $140,000,000 in annual donations from its alums.
        2. Currently ND is 3rd in the US in the size of its per-capita endowment (after Princeton and Harvard).
        3. Please stop posting that ND will be forced to do anything — such as joining the Big10 — over a few million dollars a year.
        4. ND is playing a long game aimed at being viewed as a top 5 undergraduate program — it might take 30 or 40 years.
        5. The “Crossroads” improvement to the Football stadium costs $400,000,000 and will add “net” 2000 seats to the stadium. The purpose of the stadium renovation is to “enhance the undergraduate experience at ND.” Student center, more faculty offices, more academic space and so on. I can tell you that at IU (where I have been a member of the faculty for 28 years), we cannot afford to invest even half this amount in “luxury.”

        ND follows a different model than does the Public Research University. Since 97% of ND alums donate (at IU, 25%), and since the annual giving is a large proportion of the operational budget, and since the next twenty years will have the wealthiest cohort in ND history enter the “giving” phase of their lives, ND’s administration will pay great attention to the wishes and attitudes of its alums. If you were the President of ND, you would too. At IU (and most Big10 universities), since alums contribute a much smaller amount of the annual operating budget, give at a much smaller rate and the amount donated is small, alums are only one part of the mix – not the most important.

        As long as the alums do not want ND to fully join the Big 10, ND will not join as a full member. The 5000 people who attend hockey games might actually be the only people who care about hockey or ND hockey in northern Indiana.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Honest question: what makes up the “per capita” in that ranking?

          Like

        • Tom says:

          Top 5 undergrad? Keep dreaming.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          The fortunes of elite privates (and a handful of rich publics like UMich/Texas/UVa) have really differed from most flagship publics in recent years.

          Agree that ND won’t ever stop calling itself independent in football, but that doesn’t mean that an arrangement akin to the ND-ACC arrangement but with the B10 won’t happen.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Agree that ND won’t ever stop calling itself independent in football, but that doesn’t mean that an arrangement akin to the ND-ACC arrangement but with the B10 won’t happen.

            I’m not sure how that arrangement benefits the Big Ten. The league has added affiliates only in sports where its own product was relatively weak. (In the case of men’s lacrosse, the Big Ten wouldn’t have been able to sponsor the sport at all without Hopkins.)

            Across the wider range of sports, what’s the value of adding Notre Dame if you don’t get them in football? The ACC needed ND to stabilize their brand, but the Big Ten doesn’t have that same problem.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Games with ND.

            So it depends how much B10 schools desire that.

            The key concern is if a special arrangement for ND weakens the B10.

            Another way to accomplish this would be not for ND to join but establish a scheduling arrangement with them in all sports.

            Like

          • Tom says:

            I would hope such an arrangement never happens. Fortunately, neither party needs it.

            As Marc Shepherd points out, the B1G is in a very strong position and it will soon be in its own tier with the SEC. Every other league will be in a tier below, including Notre Dame. Within the B1G, the following teams can each schedule a marquee home and home with an ND equivalent if they so desire:

            SCHOOL (recently played or upcoming series)
            Michigan (Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA)
            Penn State (Pitt, West Virginia, Virginia Tech)
            Ohio State (Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas)
            Michigan State (Oregon, Arizona State, Miami)
            Nebraska (Oregon, Oklahoma, Tennessee)

            MSU and OSU also have upcoming games with ND as do Purdue and Northwestern. The ball is in Michigan’s court right now if it wants to resume the ND series. PSU has also played ND recently and they too could schedule ND if they wanted.

            That’s half of the league that is either able to schedule an ND equivalent or ND. The other half of the league would probably love to have ND on the schedule occasionally but ND has no interest in playing Illinois, Minnesota or Iowa. If ND wanted to play Wisconsin, they can do so as an ACC member. No need for a special arrangement that would require them to play the dregs of the B1G. Further, there is no benefit for ND to play the weaker teams from the West. Those areas (aside from Illinois) are not recruiting hot beds. So even though ND may have to play similarly weak schools such as Wake Forest or Virginia under its ACC arrangement, at least it gets the benefit of exposure in fertile recruiting territory.

            Like

      • BePcr07 says:

        I appreciate your comment!

        “There is? I think that would be news to both of them.”

        My initial comment on a B1G/ND feud was based more on hearsay from unofficial sources. Thank you for pointing that out.

        “You aren’t the 20 year-old student-athlete flying to the east coast to play games while missing classes and the chance to study at home.”

        Ha I would have loved to fly! I played soccer back in college for a smaller school so our trips were all by bus. We had some games well over 1,000 miles away from our school.

        “The SEC has 7 teams who are affiliates in other conferences (plus bowling, rifle and beach volleyball in sport-specific conferences). The ACC has many teams affiliated with sport-specific conferences but none with regular conferences.”

        I should have clarified. The SEC and ACC don’t have affiliate schools for any sport. For example, the ACC does not have any non-ACC schools (like Johns Hopkins) playing in its lacrosse league.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          BePcr07,

          “I should have clarified. The SEC and ACC don’t have affiliate schools for any sport. For example, the ACC does not have any non-ACC schools (like Johns Hopkins) playing in its lacrosse league.”

          No, I understood what you meant. I was just pointing out that the ACC and SEC do take advantage of affiliate membership in other conferences, they just don’t host any. The ACC does have a partial member, obviously, in ND but they aren’t an affiliate member.

          For the SEC this is because they sponsor so few sports (21 vs 28 for the B10) that they only have 2 sports with single-digit members (equestrian, where conferences are meaningless, and women’s gymnastics with 8 members and conferences don’t mean much).

          The ACC could use a 6th lacrosse team to regain their automatic NCAA bid. They are relying on their greatness to get several teams in every year for now, though. It’s not like many ACC schools are looking to add another men’s sport plus the balancing women’s sport.

          Like

  29. Jersey Bernie says:

    Comments made yesterday by new Rutgers AD regarding adding hockey. Bottom line, not now. First make sure that all current programs are properly funded (which they certainly are not), then worry about hockey in the future. That probably means at least 5 years before the conversation about hockey is even on the table. http://www.nj.com/rutgers/index.ssf/2016/03/rutgers_ice_hockey_pat_hobbs.html#incart_river_index

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Unless a mega-donor steps up like at PSU, hockey will stay on the table for most B10 schools. It’s incredibly expensive if you don’t already have a facility and RU has bigger financial fish to fry (ending the huge subsidies, improving facilities for existing sports, etc) right now.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The key for Rutgers is getting basketball out of the RAC, then they can think about converting it into a Hockey Facility. This is the likely ASU scenario. Move basketball out of Wells Fargo Arena into a new facility either on Campus or in the Sports and Entertainment District in Phoenix). ( Note: I live near Tempe in Mesa). It will be awhile before more Pac-12 Schools add Hockey. My pick would be Washington if the NHL gets a team in Seattle with a new arena

        Like

  30. Ross says:

    I recommend checking out Brian’s post on MGoBlog on this subject. He contends 8 teams actually causes a lot of issues, and ASU is a bad addition for a number of reasons: distance, poor overall fanbase/viewership, little to no hockey history. I actually see no reason for the B1G to add ASU at all.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Ross,

      “I recommend checking out Brian’s post on MGoBlog on this subject.”

      Link?

      http://mgoblog.com/content/notre-dame-hockey-big-ten

      “He contends 8 teams actually causes a lot of issues,”

      And yet every other hockey conference has at least 8 members and all but 1 having 10-12. The much beloved WCHA of MN fans had at least 8 members for almost it’s entire history. In other words, having 8 doesn’t really cause significant problems if there are 8 good choices for members.

      “and ASU is a bad addition for a number of reasons:”

      A totally reasonable point. The trade-off is that fans want hockey to grow, and realistically that means providing space in conferences for new members. It too years for UAH to find a home and that almost cost them their team. The closest conference to ASU is the NCHC, but they are all smaller schools that may struggle to pay for trips to AZ plus they are all quality programs that don’t want to play a beginner. The B10 is full of schools that can find room in the budget for that trip and we already have 1 brand new program. In addition, there is that B10/P12 tie that the B10 values.

      “distance,”

      An issue for ASU in any conference. But the B10 can afford it better than any other hockey conference.

      “poor overall fanbase/viewership, little to no hockey history.”

      These 2 go together. There are a lot of B10 alumni in AZ though, so that might help draw some fans. PSU just jumped up to D-I, so lack of history isn’t a real issue. It’ll take a few years for ASU to improve their quality, but being the only western school with a team should make recruiting easier.

      “I actually see no reason for the B1G to add ASU at all.”

      The only reasons I see:
      1. Someone shuold add ASU for the good of hockey and the B10 can afford it.
      2. The B10/P12 tie means something.
      3. Having 8 seems to be a good thing based on the rest of hockey.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        I am one of these Big 10 fans in Arizona( Mesa). If I could go see Penn State play I would. The problems With ASU are many including the Pac’12 Network and not only not being on Direct TV ( which I take for the Steelers), but the fact that that Network becoming more and more rationalized so ASU is not on in say LA ( the Pac-12 Tournament was exhibit A of this). It goes to the mindset of Jim Delaney versus Larry Scott ( Pac-12 Comissioner) which means BTN in 62,2 million homes and Pac-12 in 50 million less. Are there compromises to be made? Yes Schools added like Rutgers to increase carrage and co ownership of BTN with Fox, but it is better then Pac-12. Basically if ASU was added and the Games were on Pac-12 not only Direct TV subscribers not watching them but most in the East and Midwest. At least with Notre Dame I can put on NBC Sports Network and watch Big 10 Hockey on the road.Just another reason for a no to ASU.

        Like

    • Tom says:

      Brian is pretty much clueless when it comes to expansion. Doing opposite of what he says with regard to expansion is almost always the correct move.

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        I have to disagree. ASU is a better choice than UConn for the reasons given. The relationship with the Pac12 is very important to the B1G and needs cultivation, even if the rest of the Pac12 is oblivious. They certainly were when they reneged on cross scheduling deal.

        That said, ASU should not be the stopping point. A few more affiliates, like North Dakota, are needed. UConn or BC/BU can be part of the package.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          Sorry, I was referring to Brian of MgoBlog. The above Brian is usually spot on when it comes to expansion and I agree with most of his points.

          Like

        • David Brown says:

          If the Boston University Terriers would come to the Big 10 great. They have a great tradition and are AAU. But would they give up the Beanpot and Boston College? Not to mention the travel expense? We already know that is s big issue at wealthy Notre Dame. I do believe one thing to be true there will be a team number 8. However who it is and when it happens remains to be seen? I just think it will be a Current Big 10 School. I have said Nebraska but Illinois is possible if the Confetence gets a great TV package, and donors can be found. One dark horse could be Maryland because of Under Armour. Rutgers and Iowa later on.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Why would BU have to give up the Beanpot?

            Harvard is already in a different conference from the other Boston schools and the Beanpot exists.

            Liked by 1 person

  31. Tark says:

    “The B1G has six teams in women’s lacrosse, but that number will go to seven next year when Johns Hopkins joins. if they would rather have eight, then Vanderbilt would seem to meet all four criteria.”

    Vanderbilt women’s lax currently plays as a Big East affiliate. They joined the Big East for the 2015 season, after the collapse of the American Lacrosse Conference (ALC), which was a women’s lacrosse-only league.

    Who else was in the old ALC? For their final season, in 2014, the ALC had:

    Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Florida.

    So five of the seven ALC teams are now B1G (including Hopkins, which joins next year). The only exceptions are Vanderbilt and Florida. Florida may not make sense for the B1G, but Vandy is a fit.

    The Big East currently has 8 women’s lax teams, but will go to 9 next year when Butler joins. The B1G currently has 6 teams, but will go to 7 next year when Hopkins joins. If Vandy moves from the Big East to the B1G, then both leagues will have 8.

    Like

    • Tom says:

      Gator fans would start lighting torches. I don’t think most folks here truly appreciate how the SEC is just part of UF’s DNA. It would be like one of you reading somewhere that the SEC should acquire Michigan State. Not going to happen for many, many, many reasons.

      If your’e going to talk about just “taking” any team that the B1G might want….just go ahead and dream about adding USC, Texas, Alabama, FSU, UNC and Virginia. Good grief. It’s nuts.

      Vandy…sure. That might be an option.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Tom,

        He was only talking about adding the women’s lacrosse teams as affiliate members (they are affiliate members of the Big East since 2014).

        Other than Vandy and UF:

        BE WLax = Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, UC, UConn and Temple
        B10 WLax = OSU, MI, PSU, UMD, NW, RU and soon JHU

        The B10 members have 21 of 34 total national titles in women’s lacrosse and 5 teams in the current top 20 poll. None of the BE teams are ranked and they only own 2 titles by Temple in the 80s.

        It’s not unreasonable to think UF and Vandy might be interested in joining the B10 for WLax.

        Neither Vandy nor UF are ever leaving the SEC.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          Gotcha. The notion had come up here in the past (different posters) in regards to UF and it’s truly absurd. I can only assume that those who proposed the idea have never been to Gainesville and have zero understanding of its fans/supporters. While they’re a relative Johnny-come-lately as far as SEC traditional powers (Bama)…Gator fans are diehard fans of their conference. There would probably be literal bloodshed over any departure plans.

          Like

      • Tark says:

        This thread is about ND joining the B1G as an affiliate member for hockey only. Similarly, Johns Hopkins previously joined the B1G as an affiliate member for men’s and women’s lacrosse only. So this raises the question — what other schools might work as B1G affiliates in specific sports?

        So far, the only possibility that makes me say “Yeah, that could definitely make sense” is Vanderbilt as a B1G affiliate in women’s lacrosse (only). There is no such thing as SEC women’s lacrosse, so Vandy has to play outside the conference. They currently play as affiliates in the Big East, but they previously played with several current B1G schools in the old ALC. The B1G will have seven teams in women’s lacrosse, so Vandy could help them by providing an eighth. And Vandy offers academic prestige and AAU membership, which the B1G values.

        Most of these points would also apply to UF women’s lacrosse, but Vandy is clearly the better fit for the B1G in terms of geography and academic prestige. I don’t think the B1G has any reason to consider both schools. The B1G might like to have an eighth team for women’s lacrosse, and in that case Vandy seems like a realistic option. But they probably don’t need a ninth.

        I don’t see any potential affiliate relationships going beyond women’s lacrosse. Vandy doesn’t have an NCAA men’s lacrosse or ice hockey team, for example,

        Like

        • Tark says:

          If (hypothetically) the B1G did add Vandy as a women’s lax affiliate, then the B1G women’s lacrosse would include Johns Hopkins and Northwestern and Vanderbilt. And that would be a constellation of top-ranked private schools that no conference this side of the Ivy League could match.

          Obviously the B1G is about flagship state universities. But some concentrated elitist luster in one of the minor non-revenue sports couldn’t hurt.

          Like

  32. Doug says:

    IMO I’ve always thought Delany was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers.

    I know the idea has been out there. But the University Of Toronto Varsity Blues would be an excellent addition. Meets the academic requirements and would help open up Big 10 recruiting in Ontario. Plus (don’t laugh) there could be some opportunity for the BTN or they could get TSN to pick up the BTN feed. I lived in Toronto for 5 years and believe me hockey is a religion. Canadians will watch it anytime of the day or night. It’s no surprise that Hockey Night In Canada was North America’s longest running program and that there is serious talk of a second NHL team in Toronto.

    Not sure they would leave Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) but it would be worth exploring.

    Like

  33. Richard says:

    The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that BU would be the ideal 8th hockey addition from the B10’s perspective.

    The key question is whether BU could be enticed away (possibly with a BTN payout; which, even for hockey, may be more than the total TV revenue that BU gets now). But their travel costs would increase.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      We both agree that the Terriers would be the best affiliate. But the economics of travel and giving up Hockey East make it highly unlikely ( although CIC would be nice). Hockey is a trial for the Big 10 to see if they can do it right in the eyes of Notre Dame ( like Johns Hopkins and lacrosse). It starts with controlling Michigan. We know how Michigan operates: They made life miserable for Penn State for many years ( it is believed they were one of the Schools that voted against them joining the Big Ten), and voted to kick Nebraska out of the AAU. These incidents are things that Notre Dame is well aware of and makes the incident of 100 years ago remain fresh. If Notre Dame can be treated well in Hockey then other sports, they will eventually join in Football. It starts with getting the Big 10 Hockey Conference to work right. I would like to see BU along with BC ( think they enjoy the ACC?) and one current Big 10 School. If they can do that ( although I doubt it) they can create a great Hockey Conference ( might even satisfy Gopher fans).

      Like

      • Richard says:

        ND won’t ever not call themselves “independent” in football, so they won’t ever “join” in football.

        How could UMich make life miserable for PSU? Beat them on the field? What is that about?

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          Read the comments by Delaney about how Penn State was treated and the leader of that was Michigan

          Like

          • Scally says:

            Can you reveal what Delaney said??

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Where? Without a source, I’m not sure what to read.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Here’s one source:

            http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/6/22/1523717/penn-state-history-joining-the-big

            The article quotes a newspaper article:

            Delany acknowledged there was “a lot of turmoil” last December over the lack of communication between the Council of Ten and their athletic and faculty representatives.

            “I don’t think anyone can dispute that. There’s been differences of opinion,” he said. “Perhaps if we had it to do all over again, we’d use a different process, a process with more consultation. But that’s water over the bridge.”

            Like

          • cutter says:

            As part of their agreement to join the Big Ten, will Notre Dame demand a bye week prior to the Michigan football game in the first four years of conference membership? 🙂 The only reason I ask is because Penn State managed to get that scheduling concession for the 1993 through 1996 seasons (and went 3-1 against U-M during those four years).

            Seriously though, Schembechler was pretty clear he thought the ADs should have been consulted on the Penn State addition and Delany thought they handled the decision process pretty poorly. Michigan (along with Michigan State and Indiana) did vote against adding PSU. Not surprisingly, the Wolverine football players didn’t take too kindly to having the Nittany Lions think they were going to dominate the conference.

            Perhaps a more interesting conversation to have regarding the Big Ten and Notre Dame is what happened in 1999. The conference approached ND and was very publicly rejected by the Irish. Had Michigan changed its mind about having ND in the Big Ten? I don’t know the answer to that. There was another flirtation in 2003 when the Big East began imploding and ND initiated discussions with the Big Ten about future conference membership. Obviously, that didn’t work out and ND eventually joined the ACC for the majority of its sports and became a football semi-independent after agreeing to play five games against ACC teams. So what exactly happened in 2003?

            The other conversation that might come up is this–will there be any room in the Big Ten for Notre Dame? With the Big XII in a degree of turmoil and the Big Ten looking at its new television deal, could there be a merging of interests? According to an article in the Omaha newspapers from July 2015, five Big XII teams approached the Big Ten about membership in 2010. Those five teams were Iowa State, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska, and according to the article, the discussion stalled about television revenue distribution. As we all know, two those schools did leave in due course–Texas A&M to the SEC and Nebraska to the Big Ten West.

            Would Kansas and Oklahoma want to join the Big Ten and become the 15th and 16th members of the conference? Would the conference agree to this? How does this affect the ongoing negotiations over the Big XII’s television rights? What happens to the grant of rights? And finally, if the Big Ten were to get to sixteen members, would there be any room for Notre Dame as a full conference member and not just for men’s ice hockey?

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Must we again rehash ’99? Monk wanted in, along with the bean counters and half the faculty. The Shadowy Board of Trustees, speaking for the students and alumni, but the kibosh on it. Monk had to issue a statement affirming our independence. There was great rejoicing.

            I still don’t believe in 2003 was that close, since it never made it to a BoT vote. There was only one leak to indicate it was close, and it wasn’t a true insider.

            The better question is the B1G would want KU or OK State. The Pac-12 didn’t, and they were more in the lurch.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            To FLP_NDRox: My comments weren’t meant to be a criticism of Notre Dame or its decision not to join the Big Ten in 1999. It’s just that what happened then and may have happened in 2003 might cast more light on what B1G conference members–including Michigan–may think about ND joining in the future than what happened regarding Penn State in 1991.

            I’m sure you’re aware of the January 8, 2010 article in the Chicago Tribune quoting ND men’s basketball coach Mike Brey saying he was told by then AD Kevin White in November 2003 to be prepared for a move to the Big Ten. If not, go to http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-01-08/sports/1001070969_1_big-ten-mike-brey-preparing

            There were some other articles about it happening, including one in USA Today about ND holding talks with the Big Ten back in 2003. Go to: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-11-19-notre-dame-big-ten_x.htm

            Would it have made sense for Notre Dame to sound out the Big Ten back in 2003? The departures of Boston College, Virginia Tech and Miami (Florida) left a big hole in the membership. Also, if I recall correctly, Syracuse was a possibility until the Virginia state legislature got involved and strong armed Virginia into getting VaTech into the ACC. Adding South Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette and Depaul kept the conference’s head above water and gave them a minimum of eight football teams necessary to keep the BCS bid.

            As events turned out, that wasn’t enough. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville and West Virginia left for other conferences and Notre Dame followed suit by jumping to the ACC starting in 2013 for most of its sports and a semi-independent football status with the conference. That certainly appears to have been a more palatable option to the stakeholders who were against Big Ten membership back in 1999.

            Would Kansas and Oklahoma be viable candidates for the Big Ten in 2016? According to an article in the Omaha World Herald in July 2015, five Big XII members approached the Big Ten as possible members in 2010. Those five programs were Texas A&M, Nebraska, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Kansas and their additions would have put the Big Ten at 16 members. According to the article, there were serious discussions that broke down because of the revenue sharing plan the conference proposed would have meant some schools would three or four years to hit their revenue targets for moving. See http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-during-realignment-four-others-from-big-took-a-look/article_2d507fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html?TNNoMobile

            I think it’s fair to say that the same instability that has hurt the Big XII over the past half dozen years is still in place. Oklahoma President David Boren has been pretty open about what needs to be done, i.e., expansion to 12 members, conference championship game, conference network. All the assessments I’ve seen to date indicate that there are no two members the Big XII could add that would increase the revenue per school. Secondly, with the Longhorn Network in place, getting a conference wide network would be difficult at this point (despite the fact that the LHN has been a financial failure).

            So just like Notre Dame was looking for a lifeboat in 2013 (and perhaps in 2003), Oklahoma and Kansas might be doing the same thing now. If I recall correctly, the last time there was talk about a possible Pac 16, etc., Kansas would have been on the outside looking in regarding major conference membership (sort of like UConn right now with a strong basketball/weak football combination). So would KU welcome a chance to jump into the Big Ten with Oklahoma if given the opportunity? I’d say yes.

            Now we have to look at the Big Ten. Does the conference want to go to 16 members? Does it make sense to do it now in the midst of its television negotiations? Do KU and OU work in terms of television households and do they provide the individual conference members more money than the current 14-team configuration? Do KU and OU fit academically or would the university presidents waive, for example, Oklahoma’s lack of AAU membership? Also, do those schools fit with the Big Ten’s culture or does the B1G look more at schools like Virginia or Georgia Tech, for example? What happens to the Grant of Rights agreement KU/OU have with the Big XII?

            We’ll see. The Big Ten has added three members since it first talked about expansion half a dozen years ago. I’m sure all the candidate schools have been thoroughly vetted and discussed, so if a decision has to be made, it can be done quickly (which evidently was the case for Maryland and Rutgers). Also, of course, if the conference does go to sixteen members, is there room for additional members, including Notre Dame? Or is the more likely path for ND an eventual full time membership for football with the ACC along with another school to make that a 16-team conference?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            cutter,

            “As part of their agreement to join the Big Ten, will Notre Dame demand a bye week prior to the Michigan football game in the first four years of conference membership? 🙂 The only reason I ask is because Penn State managed to get that scheduling concession for the 1993 through 1996 seasons (and went 3-1 against U-M during those four years).”

            PSU also demanded to play MI for the first 10 years despite PSU/MI not officially being one of the locked rivalries (everyone had 2 and PSU’s were OSU and MSU).

            “Seriously though, Schembechler was pretty clear he thought the ADs should have been consulted on the Penn State addition and Delany thought they handled the decision process pretty poorly.”

            Bo was also a bit of an ass about things like this. He thought he should be consulted about everything. Time has shown that you just can’t discuss things like this with many people or leaks happen and chaos ensues. Presidents outrank ADs and ADs have had to learn to live with it. In the old days, the AD ran athletics with little to no oversight from the president and that’s what Bo remembers from his days of coaching. But NCAA reform in the 80s and 90s changed that.

            Like

      • bob sykes says:

        The CIC has nothing to do with sports. It is a lobbying agency, not a funding agency. Research dollars are acquired by individual faculty, or groups of them, who write proposals to various funding agencies. Individual universities manage the monies for the faculty, and skim overhead off the research grants for other purposes. I was on a B1G faculty for a quarter century before I ever heard of it. It was irrelevant to me and my day-to-day job.

        Candidate schools will see the value of an established, well-connected lobbying agency, and they will factor that into any decision about whether to join the B1G. However, each university’s research success and reputation relies on the efforts of their own faculty.

        Of course, the faculty are under intense pressure to get external funding. They don’t get hired without having a track record in that regard, and they don’t get promoted or tenured if they fail to continue to produce.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bob sykes,

          “The CIC has nothing to do with sports.”

          Not directly, no.

          “It is a lobbying agency, not a funding agency.”

          It does a lot more than lobby.

          “I was on a B1G faculty for a quarter century before I ever heard of it. It was irrelevant to me and my day-to-day job.”

          On the other hand we’ve heard from presidents and faculty of non-B10 schools that are well aware of the CIC and it’s benefits. I’m sure it’s utility is partially dependent on your department, but the CIC offers a lot of non-research benefits that all B10 faculty should be aware of now (I don’t know when those programs started).

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            The CIC has research expenditures of $10.2 BILLION. Read Penn State News dated March 24, 2016. “Although the CIC isn’t as well known as the Big 10, the positive impact it has on Penn State the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and beyond is immeasurable, ” said Penn State President. Eric Barron.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Well, the CIC members have those expenditures. It’s not like the CIC is spending that in addition to what the schools do separately.

            Like

          • bob sykes says:

            What the CIC does not offer is money. Any money they have comes from the research overhead charged to individual faculty’s research grants.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            The CIC does offer cost savings (coordination of IT department and library expenditures).

            Like

  34. David Brown says:

    Iowa might be team # 8. Note this: The City of Coralville has begun planning for a new 7,000-seat arena, coupled with a top-tier athlete training center, with the hopes of drawing sporting events and concerts to the Iowa River Landing.

    The city’s vision for the growing district has long included the idea of an arena, and this week Coralville leaders are formalizing early plans in an attempt to land state economic development dollars for the $40-million project.

    Coralville Mayor John Lundell said the arena would be a multi-use venue, hosting large concert acts, as well as amateur and club sports like basketball, volleyball, indoor soccer and wrestling. The facility could also be converted into an ice arena for hockey, he said.” I saw this on Along the Boards-Mar 24, 2016

    Like

  35. David Brown says:

    I was reading the comments about various Schools such as Kansas and Oklahoma and if they joined would it effect Notre Dame? The thing to keep in mind is even if they wanted to, ND cannot join until the ACC Contract is over. IF OU wanted to join, I am sure that despite being non AAU the Big 10 would find a way to have them included as well as ND (Kansas is NOT OU despite how good they are in hoops). The Big 10 looks things at things from a long-term perspective (including stuff like Academics, Market Size, Location (to other B10) Schools) and sports (especially Football)), and even when it comes to Academic Rankings KU does not measure up. According to US News: KU is 115, OU is 108, Missouri, is 103 (as is Nebraska). Interestingly enough, Rutgers is 72 and Maryland is 57, For affiliates: Notre Dame is 18, and Johns Hopkins is 10. Basically OU would be Nebraska because of football (IN), and Kansas would be Missouri (LEFT OUT), By the way: For Schools mentioned as possible hockey affiliates: Boston College is 30, Boston University is 41, Connecticut is 57, and ASU is 129. If the Big 10 could add the Boston Schools plus ND and one more School( Iowa or Nebraska?). That would be the ideal Hockey Scenario.I doubt they get BU alone, but i would certainly prefer the Terriers to Connecticut and especially ASU. If not, wait for Nebraska, Iowa or Illinois to go Division 1..

    Like

    • cutter says:

      As you point out, Notre Dame is committed to the ACC by contract through the middle of the next decade. If the Big Ten were to add two members and get to sixteen total, the question then becomes whether or not there is room for ND and likely another school as full time members or to have ND as some sort of associate in football (this assumes that the rest of the Irish sports teams go into the Big Ten).

      The Big Ten does look at things in the long-term, but I think it’s fair to acknowledge that the decision time frame for expansion has been shortened. There was about a seven to eight year span between the time PSU joined the conference to the 1999 overture to ND. After that, it appears there were discussions between the Big Ten and Notre Dame five years later. Then in 2010, the Big Ten again looked at expansion and Nebraska joined the conference. It was only a few years later that a relatively quick decision was made to invite Rutgers and Maryland to the conference (presumably with the catalyst for that decision being the ACC’s expansion into the northeast, i.e, Pittsburgh and Syracuse along with Louisville and the associate membership decision for Notre Dame).

      This blog has always emphasized how important it is to think as a university president, or in the case of the Big Ten, like fourteen university presidents. The additions of Maryland and Rutgers certainly worked out in terms of the academic side along with the television side, i.,e., households in the NJ and MD/NoVA/DC areas, plus the assessments at the time about how lucrative the revenue per existing school was projected.. Those adds also illustrated how outside factors could accelerate an expansion decision by the Big Ten (the same thing happened with Nebraska, i.e, the B1G accelerated its timetable because of what was then happening in the Big XII).

      So what’s in the long-term interest of the Big Ten? Is the formation of sixteen-team super conferences inevitable (especially now that we have three conferences with 14 members)? With the television contract negotiations ongoing, is the conference testing the waters to see what sort of money the it could get under various expansion scenarios over the length of the next perspective contract (the most recent one ran for ten years)? Does an OU/KU combination make sense given all the factors that the conferences weighs in these decisions? If that article in the Omaha newspaper was correct, there were serious discussion about having five Big XII schools join the conference half a dozen years ago and academics didn’t seem to be an issue then (that list of schools also included Texas A&M, Iowa State and current B1G member Nebraska, which as you point out is #103 in the USN&WR ratings and lost its AAU status).

      I’d also ask if there’s a better expansion option that’s realistically available to the Big Ten than a KU/OU combination (provided, of course, the Grant of Rights issue could be overcome). Notre Dame has a commitment with the ACC until 2025. Texas is a huge prize, but would UT step away from the Longhorn Network? I imagine there might be a real “fit” problem with the Longhorns in the B1G given recent history (and yes, I realize they’re under new management), uneven revenue sharing practices, etc. A combination of Virginia and Georgia Tech, for example, might fit the academic side (and the potential television household side), but does it make sense to add more eastern schools that are mid-tier athletically when there might be a possibility of adding two western schools with higher athletic profiles.

      The Big Ten, of course, could opt to do nothing as one scenario and be reactive to what happens outside their conference. If the SEC, for example, were to opt to go to 16 programs, what does the B1G do in response? If the Big XII opts not to expand/not have a conference game after next month’s meetings and you have an unhappy Oklahoma still in that conference, is that then an opportunity for the B1G? We’ll see what happens.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        cutter,

        “I’d also ask if there’s a better expansion option that’s realistically available to the Big Ten than a KU/OU combination (provided, of course, the Grant of Rights issue could be overcome).”

        It depends on the motivations for expansion. Last time, the B10 wanted a CCG in football and east coast access for future students (and athletic recruiting) and TV money. NE provided a football brand and the magic number of 12 members while RU and UMD provided quality academics on the east coast in largish, growing states with lots of students needing to go out-of-state for college. All the boxes got checked.

        So why go to 16 or beyond? Are the demographics of the B10 still a problem? Do they need more access to a certain part of the country? Are they looking for an athletic boost in a sport or two? Is there a benefit of getting so large that you can almost form 2 sub-conferences? Is there a significant financial gain to be made by further growth (any boost has to be split 16+ ways)?

        “Notre Dame has a commitment with the ACC until 2025.”

        True, but all contracts are negotiable.

        “Texas is a huge prize, but would UT step away from the Longhorn Network?”

        Would they have to? The BTN is doing fine with 14 schools already and it would get #15 plus some road games from UT. At most perhaps LHN and BTN get bundled in TX so households have to get both.

        “I imagine there might be a real “fit” problem with the Longhorns in the B1G given recent history (and yes, I realize they’re under new management), uneven revenue sharing practices, etc.”

        An independent like PSU faced a bigger culture change and did okay.

        “A combination of Virginia and Georgia Tech, for example, might fit the academic side (and the potential television household side), but does it make sense to add more eastern schools that are mid-tier athletically when there might be a possibility of adding two western schools with higher athletic profiles.”

        This goes back to the question of why the B10 is expanding.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “An independent like PSU faced a bigger culture change and did okay.”

          Are we talking about the same UT? The one that is the center of the universe?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            crider55,

            “Are we talking about the same UT? The one that is the center of the universe?”

            They’re still more used to being a conference member and making group decisions than PSU was (or ND would be).

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “They’re still more used to being a conference member and making group decisions…”

            They’re still more used to being a conference overlord and making decisions for the group.

            There is a reason what would seemed to have been a solid academic and athletic conference has lost most of its top end, and a couple remainders have tried to exit, too.

            Like

        • David Brown says:

          I hope it does not happen but if Oklahoma joins and the B10 cannot get Texas (which I believe to be true because of Bevo’s arrogance), would they take ASU instead of say Kansas or Baylor? That is the kind of move that not only Delaney would make but the Sun Devils who may believe they have outgrown the Pac-12 like they outgrew Tempe ) they are expanding into Phoenix and Mesa).

          Like

        • cutter says:

          @ Brian – I agree with you that we have to gauge the motivations of the fourteen university presidents in the Big Ten along with the likely advice they’re going to receive from Jim Delany now that the television rights negotiations have started earlier this month and that it appears the B1G is looking at multiple outlets to compete (although I do concur with the conversation below about ESPN and Fox being the primary contestants).

          Besides the questions you bring up about going to sixteen members, the one factor I would also add was highlighted in the SI article, i.e, that media is changing with more on-line streaming video becoming not only a cost-effective option, but one that is preferred by younger audiences. With that in mind, does it necessarily make sense for the B1G to expand in areas with greater population bases, i.e., the Virginia/Georgia Tech scenario? Or should they look more at the actual content being provided and perhaps look at schools with better athletic programs, i.e., Oklahoma football, Kansas men’s basketball, instead of population/households (or academic standing/research funding/AAU status). If Big Ten expansion is on the near horizon, then it will be an interesting call for the conference to make.

          I don’t know the contents of the Notre Dame contract, so yes, I suppose it could be broken at some cost to ND (is ND part of the ACC GOR?). That said (and I didn’t mention earlier), I go with Frank’s assessment IRT Notre Dame about its culture and how its alums, students and fans want to be considered football independents (or in the current reality, football semi-independents). The Big Ten has changed since the last two times Notre Dame has been mentioned as a possible candidate (1998 & 2003) with a greater geographic reach (from East Coast to the Midwest) and revenues going through the roof, but I’m hard pressed to think ND would move into the Big Ten as a full time member unless it was the last possible option.

          Texas is facing something of a litmus test and it’ll be interesting to see how events unfold. It’s pretty clear that members of the Big XII Conference are not happy with the Longhorn Network and they see it as a block to the formation of a conference wide network. As the SI article suggests, the easiest way to set up a Big XII Network would be to repackage the LHN and work through all the other side deals (like Oklahoma) have for distributing some of their content. If UT refuses to consider going this route, what does it say about how it perceives itself? Does Texas still have the same sort of attitude about itself that it did when DeLoss Dodds was running things in Austin? What sort of signal does that give other conference that might be interested in having Texas as a future member? Would UT, for example, fit the Big Ten’s corporate culture (I suspect Nebraska would say no).

          FWIW, there’s a lot of chatter on a couple of the Michigan message boards about Big Ten expansion and the ACC. The ACC GOR is three years old next month, and there’s questions about how effective that agreement would be absent the creation of an ACC Network (which was discussed back in April 2013 when the GOR was signed). As always, people who follow this blog take these things with a grain of salt. But when the Big Ten is negotiating its new media deal, there appears to be unrest in the Big XII and there’s expectation that someday in the future, we’ll see further expansion/consolidation in college athletics, then people’s antennae go up.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            cutter,

            “Besides the questions you bring up about going to sixteen members, the one factor I would also add was highlighted in the SI article, i.e, that media is changing with more on-line streaming video becoming not only a cost-effective option, but one that is preferred by younger audiences.”

            Nobody knows where this trend will lead. As milliennials get older, get more money and have kids, will their approach to media change? As millennials graduate from college and start to have a rooting interest, will they be more likely to do what it takes to watch games?

            “With that in mind, does it necessarily make sense for the B1G to expand in areas with greater population bases, i.e., the Virginia/Georgia Tech scenario? Or should they look more at the actual content being provided and perhaps look at schools with better athletic programs, i.e., Oklahoma football, Kansas men’s basketball, instead of population/households (or academic standing/research funding/AAU status). If Big Ten expansion is on the near horizon, then it will be an interesting call for the conference to make.”

            Don’t forget that the eastern expansion was multi-purpose. Yes the B10 wanted the DC and NYC media markets for TV money, but they also were looking for future students for B10 schools. Even if the UVA and GT don’t bring huge TV money bumps they’d still provide access to a lot of potential students and that carries weight with university presidents. Also, plenty of older people live in these places and they will pay for TV to watch their team.

            “I don’t know the contents of the Notre Dame contract, so yes, I suppose it could be broken at some cost to ND (is ND part of the ACC GOR?). That said (and I didn’t mention earlier), I go with Frank’s assessment IRT Notre Dame about its culture and how its alums, students and fans want to be considered football independents (or in the current reality, football semi-independents).”

            I don’t foresee ND ever joining the B10 either. But I’ve learned to never count on a contract to prevent something from happening. For the right price, any contract can be escaped. I think we both agree ND has no desire to do so at this point, though.

            “If UT refuses to consider going this route, what does it say about how it perceives itself?”

            As better/more valuable that the other members. And they are in many ways.

            “What sort of signal does that give other conference that might be interested in having Texas as a future member? Would UT, for example, fit the Big Ten’s corporate culture (I suspect Nebraska would say no).”

            I think the difference is that the B10 would offer more peers for UT. I don’t think UT considers anyone but OU as an athletic peer in the B12 and they are academically above OU. The B10 has counterbalances like MI and OSU.

            Like

      • David Briwn says:

        I do not see Iowa State as a good choice for the B10 ( even Missouri would have been better ( which is why I doubt that Omaha report). That said if you can get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State you take it and run. I am sure the Big 10 would love Texas, but I do not see Texas as a real option ( Bevo will never allow another School ( see Ohio State and Michigan) to be its equal ( and maybe gets a Notre Dame deal in the ACC and keeps the Longhorn Network)). The question I have is this: Would the Big 10 take Oklahoma by itself? With Kansas? With Baylor? Or is this where ASU comes into play? Leaving the Pac 12 for the Big 10? I have written about ASU before about how ambitious they are ( moving into Phoenix and now Mesa because they outgrew Tempe ( their home town). If OU is added and Delaney cannot get UT to join, does he settle for KU or BU or does he do the Rutgers move and go for the Phoenix Market ( and would ASU actually go for it? ). I actually think both UT and ASU are unlikely, but the Sun Devils would be the more likely of the two. A 16 Team Big 10 would allow them to wait for Notre Dame in a decade.

        Like

    • Matt Oh says:

      Lot of ifs in this, but IF this indicates a B1G willingness/aim to profit from getting Notre Dame into an ACC-like arrangement in a decade’s time—with all sports except football in the B1G—and IF they are also aiming for an eventual 16-team conference, and IF the lure of the B1G is enough politically to separate Kansas from KSU and Oklahoma from OSU, why not go to 16 with KU and OU, with UT coming along in the same way as ND?

      16 conference members playing each other in whatever way works best (pods, 4-5 annual games + rotations of the rest, two divisions, etc.), plus ND and Texas committed to six B1G games a year (OU + 5 others for UT, and PU (?) + 5 others for ND).

      UT could probably put together something like the following schedule every year: 5 B1G + OU +ATM (a boy can dream of getting the game back on) + ND + a BYU/P5 opponent + 3 out of Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU/SMU/UH/UTEP/UNT/UTSA.

      ND could likewise do something like 5 B1G + Purdue + Navy + Stanford + USC + Texas + 2 out of GT/Pitt/Army/Michigan out of conference/BYU/etc.

      I’m a Texas fan and am in favor of neither the B1G nor independence, frankly, but this plan might actually be the best way to do both (and keep LHN if desired).

      (Apologies if someone already laid this idea out, but I haven’t had time to read through the whole thread.)

      Like

  36. Tom says:

    Funny, I think this move actually improves the chances that the ACC-ND alliance holds. And time is not on the B1G’s side (shrinking rust belt). Hockey isn’t exactly a “game changer”.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Tom,

      “Funny, I think this move actually improves the chances that the ACC-ND alliance holds.”

      I don’t think it’s a difference maker in any way.

      “And time is not on the B1G’s side (shrinking rust belt).”

      The B10 footprint contains approximately 86M people right now, over 28% of the US population. It’s still growing, too, just not as quickly as some parts of the US. It’s been growing by about 250k people per year since the last census.

      “Hockey isn’t exactly a “game changer”.”

      Very true.

      Like

      • Tom says:

        Fair point on population…shrinking was the wrong word. But the point remains the same in that the B1G will likely lose significant ground to other conference geographies from a population (and eyes on TV sets) standpoint. ND very much enjoys the ACC footprint and always likes differentiating itself. It’s a great spot for them to be in. If they ever bite the bullet and join the B1G…they know full well that it may eventually diminish their national exposure and just be johnny-come-lately trying to win its first conference trophy (the red carpet will quickly get pulled). I just don’t see it happening.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I don’t really disagree with you, but there is one other point I’ll make.

          In addition to the B10’s footprint, our alumni are spread out nationally more than for any other conference. There are huge numbers of B10 alumni in CA, AZ, TX, FL, GA, etc. It’s why B10 games pull good national numbers. ND works the same way and it mitigates in lack of growth in the footprint.

          Like

          • TOM says:

            I agree with that…but I just don’t see it playing a factor with ND joining the B1G or not. If I was an Irish fan…I’d probably fear the idea of becoming “just another Midwestern school”. ND has always cherished and benefited from its unique brand and situation. In this case…being different is good.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Again, I don’t disagree. I think it’s highly unlikely ND joins the B10 in my lifetime. I give the ACC a tiny chance, but not much of one.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      There’s some good stuff in both of those articles.

      From SBJ:
      The bidding for the Big Ten’s television rights, which run through 2016-17 in its current contract, has begun in earnest.

      The Chicago-based conference had one formal meeting with its primary rights holder, ESPN, earlier this month when Big Ten officials told ESPN that the league will open up the bidding process to other networks.

      As part of its contract that ends next year, ESPN had first negotiation rights to renew, which essentially means that it was guaranteed the first meeting. That led to this relatively brief meeting, where conference officials made it clear that it wanted to gauge market interest in its television rights. ESPN sensed the conference wanted to explore the open market and did not discuss concrete deal terms either, industry sources said.

      Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany is handling negotiations for the Big Ten — a move that differs from other major college conferences that have hired media consultants to negotiate on their behalf. …

      In the weeks since the initial meeting, the conference already has reached out to CBS, Fox, NBC and Turner.

      ESPN executives have said that they want to renew their Big Ten rights, though they also have run numbers on smaller packages, sources said.

      CBS and Turner are said to be interested in picking up Big Ten rights, but sources said they are looking for smaller packages rather than one all-encompassing deal. For CBS, that includes a desire to renew its package of basketball games, a deal in which it currently is paying about $12 million a year. Turner would like some college basketball inventory as a programming lead-in for the NCAA tournament.

      NBC is a wild card. Its executives plan to kick the tires on the Big Ten rights.

      Move some hoops to Turner, freeing space on BTN for lesser games or other sports (WBB, hockey, other). Get a Game of the Week (prime time or 3:30) deal from someone. Then get a big boost for the current games, maybe split between ESPN and Fox.

      My personal preference would be to keep as many games as possible with ABC/ESPN because they just do a better job presenting games and promoting them during their other games. Maybe ABC and Fox combine to provide the prime time game of the week (so ACC, B12 and P12 can also get games shown). I want nothing to do with FS1 for games.

      Like

      • @Brian – I agree that (as much as many Big Ten fans might complain about the “SEC bias”), it would be best if the bulk of the Big Ten package remains with ABC/ESPN. This isn’t just about the games with ESPN – it’s the multi-platform dominance they have in all forms of sports media even beyond TV, including the web, mobile apps and radio. Out of the major pro sports leagues and the 5 power conferences, the only entity without a deal with ESPN is the NHL. Everyone knows that only ESPN can provide a true 24/7 promotional machine that reaches the average sports fan. I think the Big Ten certainly wants to get paid, but the exposure that only ESPN can really provide is still extremely important. We might not see the same number of games on ABC/ESPN as before, but it’s critical that the Big Ten retains its best TV real estate with them (e.g. the 3:30 pm ET Saturday football time slot on ABC, the Super Tuesday basketball time slot on ESPN, etc.).

        My educated guess is that the Big Ten is going to put together a prime time football package that could plausibly be bid on by everyone (including CBS and NBC, who wouldn’t have SEC or Notre Dame conflicts outside of a game or two per year). Getting Turner involved in basketball would be fantastic, although I doubt that it would move games off of BTN (as those basketball games are critical for network carriage). Maybe a game or two per week that would have ended up on ESPN2 or ESPNU would instead go to Turner. Note that BTN actually doesn’t have room for all of the Big Ten’s non-conference basketball games and they’ve been largely kicked to ESPN3 or BTN Plus online-only platforms. It would be great to see more or all of those games end up on TV. That’s actually where I think Fox/FS1/FS2 would have a leg up since they have lot of space to sell.

        I don’t have the complete aversion to FS1 that Brian does, but I agree with him in the sense that it would be terrible for the Big Ten to make Fox/FS1 into its only or even primary partner. If FS1 is taking over games that used to be on ESPN2 or ESPNU, then I think that’s an overall positive. FS1 taking over games that were on ABC or ESPN, though, is definitely a downgrade.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Brian says:

          I have 3 problems with FS1:

          1. It draws a much smaller audience than ESPN
          2. It’s a bastion of hot takery and home to the Cowherds of the world
          3. Fox’s coverage of games is vastly inferior to ESPN’s coverage

          Like

          • TOM says:

            Brian,

            True, but folks used to say those very same things about ESPN vs the “Big 3” (NBC/CBS/ABC) prior to the mid-90’s or so. Things change.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            TOM,

            1. The smaller audience argument is true for ESPN, but only by about 10%. FS1 can’t pull half of the numbers ESPN can. Yes, things could change but ESPN didn’t have to beat out a cable-based competitor to grow. They could use ABC’s pockets to grow early on, and then switched to using their cable fees to outspend the networks. FS1 can’t match that strategy and people are already angry at cable bills. FS1 isn’t going to ever pull $6/month like ESPN.

            2. ESPN was and is more that way than the networks, but FS1 has taken it to an extreme. Some fans like it, but the ratings show that most don’t. I’d listen to sports talk radio if I just want hot takes.

            3. ESPN has had high quality game coverage for decades. They certainly haven’t been worse than the networks technically in a long time (announcers are more personal taste). Fox lags ABC on the technical/visual side of game broadcasts as well as having amateur announcers since they cover so little CFB. The announcers may improve but Fox lagging ABC hasn’t changed despite years of having the NFL and now some CFB, so I see no hope for FS1 to match ESPN.

            Like

  37. Redwood86 says:

    WSJ front page of the Business & Tech section also had a big article about the battle between Fox’s YES Network and Comcast in NY. Note that the link is behind a paywall: http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-sports-tv-raises-stakes-in-yankees-comcast-fight-1459102726

    Also of note, Sony’s new Playstation Vue service offers almost the equivalent of a DirecTV “Entertainment” package, complete with ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, FS2, as well as local channels (except for PBS) for $40/mo. (at least in SF where I am). For an extra $5/mo., one can get the regional sports package, BTN, SEC, and ESPN U too – which is equivalent to the “Choice” Package. Supposedly, one subscription can be streamed to multiple rooms, as long as you buy your own AMZN Fire TV devices (which only cost $100 each). http://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-vue-vs-sling-tv-streaming-live-tv-compared/

    This sounds like both a real threat to the cable & satellite guys to me, and a clear indication that sports programming pricing has reached its peak. SingTV could not get any Fox content, but Fox is on board with PlayStation. I just spent a lot of time haggling DirecTV down to about $70-$75/mo. for 1 year for an Entertainment Package (i.e. – no regional sports, BTN, SEC, or ESPN U) for 3 rooms.

    Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      But more importantly they offer a tier with the popular cable channels, but NOT the BTN. Too bad it doesn’t really work on my old PS3. I’m really looking forward to the day Delany doesn’t get my $12/yr.

      Like

  38. ccrider55 says:

    Suprise, suprise, suprise. (In my best Gomer voice)

    See what’s happening on Twitter
    Sign up
    Log in
    Chuck Carlton
    Chuck Carlton – Verified account ‏@ChuckCarltonDMN

    Big 12’s Bob Bowlsby says early research from league data study shows football conf title game and 13th data point improves playoff chances.
    5:35 PM – 28 Mar 2016
    33 RETWEETS20 LIKES

    Like

  39. ccrider55 says:

    Hmmm…

    See what’s happening on Twitter
    Sign up
    Log in
    Chuck Carlton
    Chuck Carlton – Verified account ‏@ChuckCarltonDMN

    With Schulz leaving as chair of Big 12 board of directors, he could be replaced by K-State interim pres or next pres in line: David Boren.

    Schulz is leaving to become pres at Wazzu. Is that a step up? or getting out of a mess?

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      Great piece Corider55. I was reading Schultz was not happy with the New Law
      allowing guns on Campus or cuts in State funding. But Washington State University ihas a lot of sports related debt ( $13.5 million per year in the RED), and is NOT exactly the University of Washington or his Alma Mater the University of Virginia, ( especially for the most powerful President in the Big XII) It makes you wonder if indeed he is getting out of Manhattan ( Kansas) because he knows ( or suspects) that KU is going to actually leave with. Oklahoma for the Big 10, and does not want to be left holding the bag.
      I am not a big KU fan comparing them tAcademically to Missouri ( I can throw in a Purdue level (at best) Football Program). But maybe Delaney knows that getting that Mega TV Contract is NOT happening without the Sooners, and the need to get them requires that they get another School. If that School cannot be Texas, Will NEVER be Iowa State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Texas Tech or Kansas State, and we are talking Big XII it has to be KU or Baylor. It will be very interesting to see what happens between now and the Day that Contract for TV Rights is signed.

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        Baylor is categorically unacceptable because of its poor academics. Iowa State would be a better choice than Baylor. KU would be the best choice to pair with Oklahoma.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          Baylor is 71 according to US News and Iowa State is 108. The best thing the Cyclones can offer the Big Ten they already did…. Cael Sanderson ( look at what he has meant to the Penn State Wrestling Program). No one believes ISU is going to the Big 10 ( Not even in their hearts the President of ISU or the Mayor of Ames). If the Big XII breaks up, ISU would be lucky to get the AAC or Mountain West ( the Mountain West would grab BU in a second ( if the SEC does not first).

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            US news is for bottom of bird cage, not for reliable academic evaluation.

            Baylor is not finding a power conference home, except B12.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Maybe not, but it would not be due to “poor academics.” Baylor isn’t a Stanford or Duke, but its a good school.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Depends on what criteria. In research, B10 schools (and ISU) blow away Baylor.

            Like

  40. David Brown says:

    One other question: If OU and KU leave what does Texas do? I suspect the ACC ( with West Virginia), or maybe the Pac-12 ( with some combination of Texas Tech, TCU and less likely Oklahoma State). Think UT would get Pac-12 Network on Direct TV? Baylor with their Academics and improving sports program goes to the SEC. My guess is Oklahoma State to the SEC with them. As far as Schultz is concerned, if UT would go ( along with OU and KU), Pullman, Washington might as well be Seattle when compared to Manhattan, Kansas.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      I understand some of the ongoing realignment speculation, but most of it is virtually impossible.

      The B1G will never take Iowa State, which adds nothing to the conference. No additional TV viewers or extra recruits. It is the number 2 school in a smallish state, where number 1 is in the B1G. It is AAU, but would not exactly be a marque academic addition. Basically, the addition of Iowa State would simply cut the B1G revenue stream into more pieces without adding to the pot.

      It is sort of the opposite of Rutgers, which had no sports to add, but lots of TV viewers in NJ and NY and lots of recruits. Rutgers’ women’s soccer did reach the final four and the men’s soccer team and wrestling team wound up ranked, but that probably does not exactly impress many B1G sports fans. The income already generated by Rutgers’ lousy sports has worked out well for the B1G and certainly impresses university presidents, if not fans.

      With the extra B1G money in a few years, RU does have huge potential to be a sports power, but that may never happen.

      West Virginia has already been rejected by the ACC. Will the ACC ever reconsider? Maybe if the league loses members. If not, no.

      Maybe W.Va has an outside shot at the SEC. They have had good football, but W.Va. is small state that does not add much to a conference. It does not add that many eyeballs to any TV deal and there are no recruits in the state. The Big 12 needed a team, so it worked out for both sides.

      Would the SEC consider another Texas school, or is A & M enough? I would think that the State of TX is more than big enough for two SEC schools, as long as UT is not one of the two. Is Baylor the school if the SEC took another school? Maybe.

      With the LHN, the ACC is probably the most likely home for Texas, if the powers that be in North Carolina will put up with the egos in Austin.

      UConn, which keeps coming up, really offers nothing, except basketball. UConn does nothing in the New York or Boston markets. Connecticut itself is not enough eyeballs. There are not more than three or four football recruits per year from Connecticut, and that includes both three and four star players. When was it last a big deal that a football player from Connecticut was signed?

      In two of the past three years, the most highly rated player signed by any B1G team went to Michigan and came from NJ. (Jabril Peppers #3 nationally in 2014 and Rashan Gary – #1 in 2016). Plenty of football talent in Rutgers’ back yard.

      Like NJ, Maryland has loads of football talent every year.

      When was the last time that a top 25 (or maybe a top 50) player came out of Connecticut?

      No recruits, no football history, and few TV viewers. For the B1G, no AAU. For the ACC, with BC, Cuse and Pitt, what does UConn add? (And is UConn being blackballed by BC?) Is UConn really a fit in the Big 12? If not the Big 12, then where for UConn? Essentially, UConn really got screwed with realignment and there does not appear to be any solution.

      Will men’s basketball start going downhill soon, post Calhoun? Yes the woman’s basketball is insane, but how many people care?

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Yes…I have always thought Baylor was a plausible 2nd TX SEC school due to being a major Baptist university and also the fact it is a flag-plant along the dustier I-35 corridor (ATM covers the more SE focused “forest” part of the state). As for ISU they would make a good west-most market for the MAC (and also have a nice rivalry with NIU), but given their more-than-OK MBB, perhaps the MWC or AAC would be a better fit.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          The value of ISU’s men’s basketball program, plus a football stadium that fills a 61,500-seat stadium despite poor product, make it a definite possibility to survive a Big 12-ACC merger. Can you say likewise about, say, Wake Forest?

          Like

          • @vp19 – In the strange world of conference realignment, yes, I would still give the edge to Wake Forest over Iowa State. We obviously have a lot of Big Ten fans that were graduates of large public schools here, so I think that colors a lot of us in believing that the bigger school is automatically better. While state public flagships (or flagship-like schools such as Texas A&M or UCLA) are generally given a large amount of value in conference realignment, it’s a much different calculation once you get past that level. In conference realignment terms, an academically strong private institution (such as Wake Forest) is going to be given much more of a benefit of the doubt compared to a larger non-flagship public institution. If we’re grading conference realignment value on a scale, a good private school is going to get a benefit of a multiplier applied to its value and size, whereas a non-flagship public school is going to get penalized with a discount. At the same time, Wake Forest is located in a key and critical area of growth (the state of North Carolina). I think a lot of us mistakenly underrate the realignment value of private schools quite a bit simply based on student body size. The reality is that once you get past the obvious state flagships (e.g. it’s pretty obvious that everyone wants Texas), those private schools are often considered to be quite valuable in filling out a conference and could have an edge over non-flagship competitors.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “@vp19 – In the strange world of conference realignment, yes, I would still give the edge to Wake Forest over Iowa State.”

            I wouldn’t, but it’s very close. NC is more populous and rapidly growing while IA is much less desirable. However, WF is roughly #4 or #5 on the totem pole in NC while ISU is #2 in IA. ISU also has the advantages of a much larger alumni base and a larger fan base. WF is an elite private school, but ISU is AAU.

            “While state public flagships (or flagship-like schools such as Texas A&M or UCLA)”

            Which you could argue ISU is since it’s an AAU member, just of a small state.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I agree with Frank that ISU could be in real trouble if the Big 12 collapses. It is not fair, but where does ISU go? Not the B1G, which just splits the pot more ways, with minimal additional income. Everyone gets a smaller share and the B1G does not change its footprint. The P12 is not coming to Iowa. The SEC is certainly not picking up ISU. If the ACC survives, they will not kick out members to make room.

            I am assuming that the Big 12 is much more likely to break apart than the ACC. UT and the LHN are inherently a source of instability.

            The best shot for ISU would be a new league with other “big time schools”. Cincinnati. Perhaps UConn finds a new home. South Florida and Central Florida. Other former Big 12 refugees. A decent league could be created even if Texas and OU went elsewhere. The trick for such a new league will be getting TV contracts and money and becoming the 5th conference in the P5.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Jersey Bernie,

            “I agree with Frank that ISU could be in real trouble if the Big 12 collapses.”

            So do I. I just think WF is in an even worse position possibly.

            “It is not fair, but where does ISU go?”

            To the top G5 conference available, probably the AAC.

            Where does WF go if the ACC disintegrates? The B10 and SEC both would like to get into NC but WF doesn’t have enough fans to be useful. UNC, NCSU and Duke would find homes and then NC would be spoken for and WF left dangling.

            Again, they’d probably end up in the AAC.

            “I am assuming that the Big 12 is much more likely to break apart than the ACC. UT and the LHN are inherently a source of instability.”

            My answer was based solely on vp19’s proposed B12/ACC merger. I think both ISU and WF would be out, but I’d give a very small edge to ISU since they at least bring a state to the table. What does WF bring if UNC, NCSU and Duke are there (or if even 1 of them is left out)?

            Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Poking around the MI twitter guy’s feed, UConn isnt keeping one of its in-state prep stars (lost to MI after prepping an extra year at some academy).

        Like

  41. GreatLakeState says:

    Ask anyone in the ND athletic dept. about their affiliation with the ACC and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t believe the travel is an unsustainable grind (on the non-football) athletes. I think this is headed in the direction of a special exemption for ND football (with 5/6 B1G games) and I don’t think it’ll be a big problem. I’ve heard it’s been so taxing, I don’t believe they’ll even make it to the end of their ACC agreement.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      I understand ND just left Hockey East because of Travel and Travel Expenses. But ND is not getting 5-6 B10 Games a year. They are already playing USC, Stanford and Navy each year and has 4 Games scheduled with Texas. Not to mention the ACC Schrdule and the fact they can afford to spend $400m on a Stadium Upgrade. No one is shedding tears for the ND sports program ( especially if you are like Wake Forest or Boston College who need ND to sell out at home). They will finish out the contract with the ACC.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Money/markets have nothing to do with my comment. I believe they would love to stay in the ACC. It’s clearly their preference.

        Like

    • Tom says:

      t’s not really much different from the Big East set up ND used to have.

      Distance from opponents in the Big East (circa 1995):
      Miami (1,337 miles)
      Boston College (889 miles)
      Providence (880 miles)
      UConn (830 miles)
      St. John’s (719 miles)
      Rutgers (694 miles)
      Seton Hall (687 miles)
      Temple (670 miles)
      Villanova (660 miles)
      Georgetown (608 miles)
      Syracuse (589 miles)
      VA Tech (548 miles)
      West Virginia (441 miles)
      Pitt (373 miles)

      Average 709 miles

      Distance from opponents in the Big East (circa 2005):
      South Florida (1,131 miles)
      Providence (880 miles)
      UConn (830 miles)
      St. John’s (719 miles)
      Rutgers (694 miles)
      Seton Hall (687 miles)
      Villanova (660 miles)
      Georgetown (608 miles)
      Syracuse (589 miles)
      West Virginia (441 miles)
      Pitt (373 miles)
      Lousiville (256 miles)
      Cincinnati (246 miles)
      Marquette (196 miles)
      DePaul (95 miles)

      Average 560 miles

      Opponents in the ACC (current):
      Miami (1,337 miles)
      FSU (921 miles)
      Boston College (889 miles)
      NC State (728 miles)
      Duke (705 miles)
      North Carolina (702 miles)
      Clemson (686 miles)
      Virginia (684 miles)
      Georgia Tech (676 miles)
      Wake Forest (627 miles)
      Syracuse (589 miles)
      Virginia Tech (548 miles)
      Pitt (373 miles)
      Louisville (256 miles)

      Average 694 miles

      The average distance in the ACC is longer than the average distance in the Big East circa 2005. However, the average distance in the ACC is virtually identical (15 miles shorter in fact) to the average distance in the Big East circa 1995.

      Opponents in the B1G (current):
      Rutgers (694 miles)
      Maryland (609 miles)
      Nebraska (600 miles)
      Minnesota (503 miles)
      Penn State (479 miles)
      Iowa (301 miles)
      Ohio State (253 miles)
      Wisconsin (248 miles)
      Indiana (199 miles)
      Illinois (199 miles)
      Michigan (177 miles)
      Michigan State (158 miles)
      Northwestern (113 miles)
      Purdue (108 miles)

      Average 332 miles

      Yes, ND’s travel would be reduced significantly in the B1G. This has always been the case every since Notre Dame first attempted to join the B1G 100+ years ago. It will always be the case. Everyone knows this. I see absolutely no reason why ND would all of a sudden realize this and want to join the B1G.

      In reality, ND wants exposure in primarily two areas: the Northeast and the South. The B1G can only only offer exposure in the Northeast. The ACC can offer both. The price is increased travel, but ND is willing and has been willing to pay that price for virtually its entire history.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Call it ‘Precious Snowflake syndrome’, call it an example of the ‘academic outrage brigade’ gone wild, but the faculty at ND, of which my brother is a very un-PC member, believe it’s unsustainable. I, for one, couldn’t care less if they join the B1G. That’s just what he tells me.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          Fair enough, your source is more connected to ND than I am. My only thought is that the Big East/ACC partial membership has been very sustainable for 20+ years.

          Like

          • GreatLakeState says:

            He would be the first to admit he lives in a bubble of academia, hyper sensitive to the perception/fact sports might take precedence over educational considerations. This has long been thorn in their side. Way back in 1999, as soon as word spread that the Big Ten had invited ND, their Faculty Senate quickly voted 25-4 in favor of joining the CIC. This was a de facto vote in support of joining the B1G. I’m not sure they have any more sway now than they did, but ‘student considerations’ does seem to carry more weight.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      GreatLakeState,

      “I think this is headed in the direction of a special exemption for ND football (with 5/6 B1G games) and I don’t think it’ll be a big problem.”

      With the current 12 game limitation, I don’t see any way ND would commit 6 games. They want to protect USC, Stanford and Navy every year and that would lock in 9 games already. On the other hand, the B10 would be hard-pressed to accept fewer than 5 since the ACC got that.

      I could see several options with the 5 including 1-3 locked rivals (PU, MSU, MI). Maybe playing a neutral site game sometimes (or even annually).

      Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Serious question, who is this guy? Name is not familiar. Is he a The Dude or a Purple Book Cat?

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Tis the season for crazy realignment predictions.

      Ohio State, TSUN, PSU, ND & FSU ….all in the same division.

      But hey Sparty to the west balances it out.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      His latest on the subject:

      3/28
      This is the latest my 2 sources in the know FLA state,GA Tech, UVA, UNC to the big10 and now ND is in serious play. Texas is split

      3/29
      Clarify no deal is done anything can still happen but was reported are serious talks with lawyers involved and 2 networks Texas ND unclear

      3/29
      Close Family friend is former Prez at FSU says there are legs to this at least involving his school.
      5 retweets 7 likes

      Like

      • wscsuperfan says:

        Interesting grouping of schools to pair with the B1G that’s for sure. Also his claim that the ACC GoR is not enforceable because the ACC never launched a network? Can that really be true?

        Like

        • BuckeyeBeau says:

          re: enforceability of ACC GoR. I think the argument (from the MI boards) is that the GoR is sort of useless without an ACC Network. Yes, the “big” games would still be locked into the current tv contract (with ESPiN/ABC), but all the 3rd tier rights would — I guess — not be locked into the ACC.

          Further, as others (Brian I think) has pointed out, the GoR is a contract which can be renegotiated.

          Further — and biggest point —- the GoR is, practically speaking, a multi-party contract running between the schools and “for the benefit of” (or maybe “concerning” or maybe “linked to”) the deals with the tv network (ESpin). If the TV network revokes the deal or if the TV deal reworks it, the GoR essentially goes away.

          Think of it this way: if UNC, Vir, GTech and FLState jump ship, ESPN/ABC might very well be able to cancel the ACC TV deal entirely. As such, the GoR might still be in place and might be legally enforceable, but there is nothing to enforce anymore.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Think of it this way: if UNC, Vir, GTech and FLState jump ship, ESPN/ABC might very well be able to cancel the ACC TV deal entirely.”

            ESPN isn’t canceling. Nothing concerning ESPN/abc would have changed precisely because of the GOR. They wouldn’t/couldn’t cancel over changing mascots, or color schemes would they? ESPN would still hold home game rights, and arguably they might be worth more (possible games vs OSU, PSU, UM. etc. replacing Wake, Duke, etc.) while paying considerably less than they would in/through a new B1G media contract (or SEC).

            Like

      • TOM says:

        “Close Family friend is former Prez at FSU says there are legs to this at least involving his school.”

        The only remote possibility here is Eric Barron – current PSU President and former FSU President. He is also a FSU alumnus. Other former FSU presidents are either no longer with the living or are completely retired. So that would certainly be a ACC-B1G connection. But I’ve never heard him ever seriously discuss FSU (or other ACC schools) joining the B1G. There…I just added fuel to this stupid fire! Until I hear specifics from the shot-callers…I’m not betting on any of it.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          Given his experience with the WV bloggers, I think Eric Barron would be the last person to leak realignment info to twitter “insiders.”

          Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Tbh, this feels more like a due diligence check than anything else.

        Like

    • Tom says:

      My guess is this guy is completely making this up. Or is repeating something something that someone else made up. It’s a big challenge to separate all of the conference realignment garbage from reality. My dollar says the ACC holds together for the foreseeable future. Conference pride is probably at an all-time high right about now too.

      Like

      • Tom says:

        My guess is that 2 of the following 3 will be in the B1G in the near future (within a decade):

        Virginia
        Duke
        Georgia Tech

        Like

        • Change Duke to North Carolina, and I think you’re right.

          Like

        • Tom says:

          Wishful thinking. The B1G will have to “go big or go home” if it ever wants to land southern ACC schools. No way will you ever get UNC to join an overwhelmingly Midwestern conference along with just 1 or 2 other southern schools. I don’t think you are looking at it from their point of view.

          Like

          • Tom says:

            First of all, there are now three Toms on this board. Since I was the first Tom, everyone else needs to change.

            Secondly, I agree that UNC is a long shot.That’s why I left them out. As you said, it is a southern school at heart with a large, passionate fanbase. The B1G wold likely get rejected by UNC (too much pressure from fans and donors) which is why I don’t see the B1G making a push for UNC.

            On the other hand, UVA, Duke and GT are all increasingly less southern. Duke is southern in location only. All three have smaller, less passionate fanbases, more similar to Maryland. If the B1G offers, all three would jump.

            Like

        • Tom says:

          There’s a reason it didn’t happen already. Quite a few actually. And the motivation to leave is no better today. And probably less in the coming years.

          Like

          • Tom says:

            Motivation will only grow in the coming years as the B1G and SEC separate themselves from everyone else.

            Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Yeah, that feed definitely has an expansion stream of consciousness vibe. I still think the most likely scenario is OK and another B12 school. I don’t think the ACC is every going to get their big ESPN network, but perhaps an online/streaming network. I’d be surprised if any of those schools jumped now.

      Like

  42. David Brown says:

    I find it hard to believe that UNC would leave Duke and ( to a lesser extent) NCST behind. Obviously B10 would grab UT and ND if possible. If by some chance it did, how fast would Clemson head to the SEC or Big XII?
    One thing is for sure: The longer this drags out and rumors fly, the odds increase the B10 grabs a big prize: I stlll Think OU is the most likely.

    Like

    • Nemo says:

      @David Brown

      I believe this guy began posting in January with much the same story. Maybe “the Dude” has morphed into a Big Blue guy? ;-o)

      Like

    • Tom says:

      Clemson doesn’t have an SEC invite nor will it get one. USCe already covers the map for them there. Why would they want to go to the B12?

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        No one knows what the landscape will be in a Decade. But if the B10 and SEC are far ahead of the other Conferences maybe the ACC and Big XII merge and divorce themselves from the Iowa States and Wake Forests of the World, and the Longhorn Network will no longer exist. But for now, it is not happening. Why? UT did not care if Nebraska left or if they are no longer playing “Little Brother” A&M. If Oklahoma want to the Big Ten tomorrow, they can always find replacements, not to mention Schools like Texas Tech that if UT says jump they say “How High?” Boren @OU with the Longhorn Network and Expansion is learning exactly what Nebraska went through with the constant anti-Husker votes. Which is why OU may end up in the B10 ( Not that UT cares anyway)

        Like

        • TOM says:

          Regardless of how the landscape looks in a decade…the SEC won’t add a redundant school in a relatively small market (SC) that’s already in their footprint. The only way they’d break this rule would be if it was a huge fish in a huge pond (UT Austin). Clemson won’t be in the SEC in our lifetimes.

          Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            I obviously do not know, but I would assume that Texas A & M has an agreement with the other SEC schools to never take UT Austin. It is a “well established” rumor that all of the SEC teams in states with other P5 schools have agreed to jointly veto the admission of another team from any of their states. The biggest fish for the SEC (other than maybe, just maybe, UT) would be FSU. Florida is certainly big enough to have two SEC teams, but UF has stopped any addition of FSU.

            From looking at FSU forums prior to and during the last round of conference realignment, FSU would have jumped at the chance to get into the SEC. When MD was in litigation with the ACC, there was a major sentiment at FSU for the Seminoles to also sue the ACC to get out of any grant of rights. One of the FSU issues was that they had never agreed to the GOR, even though most of the conference schools did so.

            There was no point in FSU suing since the Big 12 was not an upgrade and the FSU people did not want to deal with the egos in Austin in any event. No point is leaving the North Carolina frying pan for the Austin fire. There was nowhere for FSU to go. FSU and Clemson did get some additional leverage which resulted in picking up “football school” Louisville rather than a basketball school.

            If either the SEC or B1G had invited FSU, the Noles would have bolted the ACC in a moment.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Bernie – the SEC gentlemen’s agreement is a myth. Florida State was invited in the early 90s and chose to join the ACC. FSU annually applied for SEC membership in the 70s & 80s, with Florida as their sponsor. I know a lot has changed in 25 years and that the last round of SEC expansion centered around formation of the SEC Network. The SEC was looking for new territory and new TV sets, so a second school in the same state was not a good idea. Who’s to say what the dominant dynamic will be in the mid 2020s? If “must see” TV and high ratings is the dominant dynamic, FSU and Texas make a whole lot of sense. If accepting FSU or Texas, or both, means a lot more money to Florida and Texas A&M, the Gators and the Aggies won’t stand in the way.

            I can’t see a scenario where this line of reasoning would ever apply to GA Tech or Louisville. Clemson would have to have a Miami-like run to be mentioned.

            Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      It bears remembering that after the recent experience with conference realignment, nothing happening generates rumors all by itself, since the rumor mongers generate rumors out of whole cloth if there is nothing to base them on …

      … and it is always possible that the reason that nothing is happening is because nothing is underway.

      Like

  43. Dtwphx says:

    I wish the B1G would work with Norte dame and have the following home away schedule recur every 4 years:
    HOME away
    Year 1: UM northwestern
    Year 2: MSU purdue
    Year 3: NORTHWESTERN um
    Year 4: PURDUE msu
    Be open to scheduling within the first 6 weeks of the season.
    A team isn’t a rival if u don’t play.
    Playing every other year is enough, and will probably make the games even more special than a yearly contest.

    Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Except for Michigan. With only about 35 games since TDs started counting for six points (about 110years ago, and almost all of those since ’78) the rivalry derived from NOT playing.

      Years ago this might not have been a bad idea, but the issue for Irish scheduling now are late season games. Unless the B1G is willing to play these games in November they don’t help ND that much. Getting teams early isn’t that hard. Two games/yr really isn’t hard. We can get Purdue any year we want. We can probably get MSU any year either. Michigan’s scheduling issues don’t magically disappear; that’s how we could get tOSU.

      Like

    • cutter says:

      As a Michigan fan and alum, I wouldn’t want to play Notre Dame that often, i.e., two times every four years. Now that the conference has a nine game schedule and typically only room for one major home-and-home non-conference series (in order to have at least seven home games per year), the Wolverines have an opportunity to play major programs from other conferences now that the UM-ND series has ended.

      Florida and Arkansas come up in 2017 through 2019. For now, Virginia Tech and Washington are both on the schedule for 2020/1 (the previous AD put two Power 5 teams on the non-conference schedule for those years, which is outside the usual practice). UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma are on the schedule slate from 2022 through 2027. All these games are either the season opener or being played in the second week of the season with two exceptions–Washington and Virginia Tech.

      Are all those teams the same caliber as ND when it comes to the eyeball test? Obviously, the answer is no. Notre Dame is pretty unique and I think that early UM-ND game these past decades was one that the common college football fans really looked forward to seeing early in the season.

      As far as the Big Ten working with ND to have games with teams in the conference in the latter part of the season, I have to say I don’t see that happening unless a school is willing to give up a bye week during conference play. Northwestern appears to be doing something like this in 2018 as it’s opening the season with Purdue and is playing ND in early November between games against Wisconsin and Iowa. While Michigan State is playing ND in September in 2017, the Spartans don’t have a game the opening weekend of the season and will have no mid-season bye–that’s not a great set up for them. The two games Notre Dame has with Ohio State are also both being played in September (including the 2022 season opener).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        cutter,

        “As far as the Big Ten working with ND to have games with teams in the conference in the latter part of the season, I have to say I don’t see that happening unless a school is willing to give up a bye week during conference play.”

        You’re forgetting that as part of the 9 game schedule, the B10 is moving games into September. That means some OOC games have to move to October and November. For example, look at 2019. MSU has 11/2 off while MI has 11/9 free. In 2018 MI, OSU and NE have 10/27 free. In 2017 both OSU and NE have 10/21 open.

        Like

        • Mack says:

          It is not a question of available dates, but the desire to give up a bye week to play a tough OOC opponent in the middle of the B1G conference schedule. Most football coaches will be opposed. Even if a game is required a MAC home game (like SEC mid-season OOC scheduling) is more likely than a P5 opponent.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Mack,

            “It is not a question of available dates, but the desire to give up a bye week to play a tough OOC opponent in the middle of the B1G conference schedule. Most football coaches will be opposed. Even if a game is required a MAC home game (like SEC mid-season OOC scheduling) is more likely than a P5 opponent.”

            It depends who else they have on their schedule and how things line up. If they want to play ND badly enough, they can fit it in late is my point. I’m not saying they will do it, but if you have to play an OOC then anyway you might seriously consider it if the schedule works.

            Like

      • Tom says:

        I think Texas and Oklahoma are very much the same caliber as Notre Dame. The ratings of these games will be through the roof. UCLA isn’t the draw that ND is, but Michigan would still get the same benefit from beating UCLA as they would from beating ND. It would be treated as a victory over an upper level Power 5 team. Plus, they get exposure in Southern California where they are recruiting more. Virginia Tech and Washington are well below ND in terms of draw, and currently Michigan wouldn’t get much credit for wins over either but by the time these games roll around both programs may be better than ND.

        This Michigan fan does not miss ND one bit and I would be pissed if the B1G somehow forced ND upon Michigan.

        Like

  44. SpaceTetra says:

    The move to form the B1G Hockey Conference with large market teams and moving away from these tiny micro-market teams reminds me of a similar move by the NFL recently highlighted in an incredible TV series titled (I think) “Before the League”. This series documented how professional football came about and was filled with interesting stories such as one season 17 players were killed playing professional football. Soon after the NFL was formed, the league intentionally made an effort to get rid of the small regional teams and become a national brand with large market teams. The only team that survived was Green Bay. Look how the move to large markets helped the NFL. I believe the B1G is taking the long view, just like the NFL, and college hockey will reap the long term benefits.

    Like

  45. dtwphx says:

    If B1G Hockey stays at 7 teams, and ASU joins either the WCHA or NCHC,
    one of those conferences will have an odd number as well.
    Seems like some sort of cross conference scheduling arrangement could happen
    that would benefit both sides, and be especially beneficial to teams in the Minnesota
    and Michigan area.

    Like

  46. Brian says:

    A look at the future for the BTHC:

    http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/big-ten/2016/3/23/11295628/notre-dame-joins-big-ten-college-hockey-future-who-is-next

    And a blast from the past, when the BTHC was heavily in 2009 (pre-PSU hockey) with ND as the #6 team. MN managed to stop it from forming then.

    http://host.madison.com/sports/college/hockey/article_79517d2e-b953-52ee-b0e4-9d11b3606084.html

    Like

  47. Brian says:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-your-college-basketball-team-worth-1459459516

    The WSJ valuates MBB programs.

    1. UL $301.3M
    2. KU $258.2M
    3. UK $244.3M
    4. IN $243.8M
    5. OSU $240.4M

    6. AZ $235.4M
    7. UNC $221.6M
    8. WI $206.9M
    9. Syracuse $203.9M
    10. Duke $203.9M

    big gap

    11. UConn $137.9M
    12. MSU
    13. UMD
    14. PU
    15. IL $109.1M
    16. MN $99.7M
    21. MI
    23. NW
    30. PSU
    32. IA $62.9M

    RU and NE don’t make the top 50, so they’re below $43M.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      Right now the Rutgers men’s BB program is worth closer to $43 than to $43 million. They have a new coach, Pikiell who played for Jim Calhoun at UConn. Calhoun is reportedly Pikiell’s advisor. RU also just hired Karl Hobbs away from UConn as an assistant. Hobbs is another former Calhoun player. Maybe in two or three years they can turn around that program. There have been all kinds of comments – from NJ high school coaches and others – that Eddie Jordan really did not recruit much while he was head coach at RU. That makes sense considering how bad the team has been.

      Like

    • bob sykes says:

      You beat me to it. So, I’ll complete list.

      Note the Final Four:

      North Carolina ($221.6 M), Syracuse ($203.9 M), Oklahoma ($51.2 M) and Villanova ($40.4 M) are in the final four.

      The value of the B1G teams is striking.

      Thad Matta had better be working on his resume

      This clarifies, somewhat, who the next expansion candidates for the B1G: Kansas, Kentucky?

      From today’s WSJ, Sports, p. D8:

      Based on revenues less expenses with corrections for cash flow, risk and growth potential, the top 50 college programs in terms of sale value are:

      in millions if on market for sale

      33. Iowa St. $ 62.7
      34. California $ 59.7
      35. Marquette $ 59.6

      36. Missouri $ 58.3
      37. St. John’s $ 55.0
      38. Oklahoma St. $ 54.0
      39. Oklahoma $ 51.2
      40. VCU $ 50.1

      41. Florida $ 49.6
      42. Gonzage $ 48.6
      43. Auburn $ 46.7
      44. Washington $ 46.5
      45. Virginia Tech $ 46.4

      46. UNLV $ 46.0
      47. South Carolina $ 45.6
      48. Miami $ 44.2
      49. Florida St. $ 43.8
      50. Arizona St. $ 43.1

      54. Villanova $ 40.4

      Like

    • Mack says:

      NE is 53, Rutgers is 83 at $26.9M. That is right above OR St, Wazzu, and USC (84, 85, 90) of the P12. Other worst of conference: ACC=ND at 102; B12=TCU at 80; SEC=GA at 70.

      Like

  48. bob sykes says:

    If basketball is supposed to be UConn’s ticket into a P5 conference, the WSJ numbers might put the kibosh on that. UConn doesn’t have a big enough football program to offset what seem to be surprisingly low basketball numbers, especially considering their location in basketball Nirvana.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      Actually, the UConn situation is a little bit worse than suggested by Bob Sykes. That value came after a men’s national championship. If the UConn men drop a bit, then I presume that the team value also drops.

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        It’s also pretty obvious why the ACC chose Louisville. There was not fight between the football and basketball schools–they both got premium content.

        You also have to wonder how the geniuses at B12 let Louisville go.

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          U of L’s recruiting base is East Coast. They are looking to improve their academic profile. If the ACC offered, there was nothing BXII could do.

          Like

          • Mack says:

            If the XII invited Louisville, it would have been locked up by the time Maryland announced it was leaving. The choice was between WV, Louisville, Pittsburg, and TCU to go from 8 to 10. Louisville very much wanted that bid as the BE was being demoted. The ACC eliminated Pittsburg when they expanded from 12-14 with Syracuse as the second school. Oklahoma favored Louisville over both TCU and WV.

            Like

  49. Brian says:

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/03/30/pac-12-football-radical-suggestion-scheduling-dilemma/

    Jon Wilner has a plan to reduce the glut of night games in the P12 – play a doubleheader on Labor Day Sunday of conference games.

    That’s right: The first Sunday of the football season is an untapped exposure bonanza.

    There are no NFL games; the regular season hasn’t started and the exhibitions conclude the previous Thursday.

    And there have been a sprinkle of college games on Labor Day Sunday over the years, but nothing regular and nothing substantive (Louisville vs. Ohio, for example).

    The Hotline is proposing something immensely substantive for the Pac-12: An annual Labor Day Sunday doubleheader of conference games.

    Yes, conference games — two of them — on the first Sunday of the season.

    Play one at 1 p.m. and the other at 4:30 or 5 p.m., depending on the network (ESPN/ABC or FOX) and its broadcast windows.

    That would give the Pac-12 seven consecutive hours of only-game-in-town national exposure during prime viewing hours on the east coast, when football fans are desperate for games and there’s nothing available – not even NFL exhibitions.

    Both would be inter-division games.

    *** Now that we’ve addressed the basics, let’s anticipate the backlash:

    The coaches won’t want any part of opening the season with a conference game.

    To that I say: Too bad.

    Neither game would be intra-division, and because of the home-and-home natural, there is no competitive disadvantage over the sweep of the doubleheader rotation.

    This is about the greater good of the conference: Seven consecutive hours, broadcast nationally, with zero football competition.

    Of equal significance is the relief it would provide to the stressed schedule in the back half of the season.

    The goal, once again, is to maximize exposure for the Pac-12’s premium product:

    Oregon vs. Tennessee Tech is not premium product. Play that game at 7 p.m. on the Pac12Nets on Oct. 30, when Washington-UCLA is on ESPN2, and it’s not a big deal — it’s okay for Oregon-Tennessee Tech to get lost in the clutter.

    But Oregon vs. Arizona is premium product. You want as many eyeballs on that one as possible. If the participants happen to have a Heisman candidate, or are consider playoff contenders, all the better — everyone in the country, fans, voters and committee members, will see it.

    (I’m using the Ducks and Wildcats as the example, but pick any two.)

    Yes, yes, yes: The Labor Day Sunday doubleheader of conference games would mean more non-conference dates later in the season — many of them of the low-level FBS/FBC variety — and the Pac-12 takes immense pride in not being the SEC (i.e., no November noncon creampuffs).

    But we’re only talking about four non-conference games sprinkled in over a two-month span in the second half of the season. It’s not close to the SEC’s everyone-take-Saturday-off approach in the middle of November.

    Like

  50. John S says:

    Both Johns Hopkins and ND 1) gave the B1G something it wanted (a lax conference and a Chicago hockey presence, respectively); 2) have their own tv contracts for their affiliated teams (such that BTN/money aren’t issues); 3) avoided in-state political issues for any member schools. ASU perhaps meets these criteria; nobody else does.

    How could it possibly make financial sense for the B1G to add a school like Boston or North Dakota for hockey, either for the B1G or the school (unless BTN paid them)? Wouldn’t adding a MI/WI/MN school create political pressure for member schools to add others like it? Wouldn’t it be better to take the long view and wait for Nebraska, Maryland, Iowa, Rutgers ect to add hockey? And how about lacrosse? Wouldn’t it make sense to consider adding Vanderbilt and/or Florida for women’s lacrosse?

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      I am of the opinion that nothing is done in a vacuum. The Conference has a plan for team # 8 already. I have mentioned Iowa and Nebraska before as In Conference options ( Iowa perhaps first because there are plans to build an Arena by the Campus). Once we see what the Conference gets in TV dollars, then we will get an idea who ( if anyone) will add hockey.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      John S,

      A bunch of good points/questions.

      “Both Johns Hopkins and ND 1) gave the B1G something it wanted (a lax conference and a Chicago hockey presence, respectively); 2) have their own tv contracts for their affiliated teams (such that BTN/money aren’t issues); 3) avoided in-state political issues for any member schools. ASU perhaps meets these criteria; nobody else does.”

      1. This is very important.

      2. They had their own TV deals in large part because they are independent schools and/or big fish in small ponds. Hockey is very regional so local TV deals are much more common than national ones.

      3. I don’t know that many hockey or other possible affiliates really introduce in-state political issues. I just don’t think the teams matter that much at the state level.

      “How could it possibly make financial sense for the B1G to add a school like Boston or North Dakota for hockey, either for the B1G or the school (unless BTN paid them)?”

      But ASU makes sense for the B10? At some point the good of the BTHC may trump the bottom line. ASU as #8 could tide the BTHC over until another B10 school adds varsity hockey in the future. By then perhaps P12 Hockey will have formed as most of the schools have serious club hockey already (AZ and CO in ACHA D-I, the rest in D-2).

      “Wouldn’t adding a MI/WI/MN school create political pressure for member schools to add others like it?”

      Political pressure? No, I don’t think so. Fan pressure? Yes. The biggest risk would be completely alienating hockey fans by destroying another conference just to pad the size of the BTHC. MN has 4 other D-I teams, MI has 5, OH has 2, PA has 2 and NJ 1. Outside of that you have NoDak, UNO and ND that are in/near the footprint. Those 17 teams include 6 of the 8 NCHC teams (not going anywhere) and 7 of the 10 WCHA teams (also unlikely to leave). The other 4 are in eastern leagues. ND has already left. Princeton, Mercyhurst and William Morris all seem unlikely to join the BTHC.

      The least objectionable move geographically would be taking an NCHC team and letting them add ASU since they have 2 CO teams already, but they don’t want a startup program. Air Force is in the Atlantic East but I doubt they want to join the BTHC. Maybe the nicest thing the BTHC could do is take the 2 Alaska schools and save the smaller WCHA schools the travel costs.

      “Wouldn’t it be better to take the long view and wait for Nebraska, Maryland, Iowa, Rutgers ect to add hockey?”

      That could easily be 20+ years thanks to the costs of a rink plus a Title IX balancing sport. STaying at 7 for that long could be an issue for the BTHC.

      “And how about lacrosse? Wouldn’t it make sense to consider adding Vanderbilt and/or Florida for women’s lacrosse?”

      On the surface, yes. I’d consider inviting both, but I have no idea what their interest levels are.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The B10 is not going to destroy College Hockey ( anymore then Tennessee and Connecticut did not kill Women”s College Basketball when the focus shifted from Louisiana Tech to Power Five Conferences). That said, the easiest solution will be to wait until a current B10 School ( probably Iowa or Nebraska) is ready to join the Hockey Conference. I suspect that within that 20 year period the Conference will be at 12 Teams ( one of the Illinois Schools ( Illinois or Northwestern), Maryland, and Rutgers are the others). The reality is Hockey fans are the most intense and passionate in the four Major North American Sports (You always see Canadian Fans saying “It’s Our Game.” something you never see in the other sports ( you see the same attitude in Minnesota)). I understand where they are coming from, it took the addition of Nittany Lion Hockey and reading how Penn State had no more future in the Big East playing Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia ( because of poor hoops), for me to admit my Decade plus opposition was wrong and we are lucky to be in the Big 10, and the change has been beneficial for Penn State ( particularly when compared financially to say the Pitt Panthers).

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “The reality is Hockey fans are the most intense and passionate in the four Major North American Sports”

          –Based on what exactly?

          Like

  51. Brian says:

    A bad year for the college postseason tournaments. The Final Four was down about the same amount as the CFP semifinals were.

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/04/final-four-ratings-tbs-tnt-trutv-villanova-blowout-oklahoma-viewership/

    Villanova/Oklahoma in the NCAA Tournament Final Four combined for 10.5 million viewers on TBS, TNT and TruTV Saturday night, down 31% from Duke/Michigan State last year (15.3M) and down 10% from Connecticut/Florida in 2014 (11.7M). Ratings were not immediately available.

    The Wildcats’ 44-point win, the largest blowout in the history of the Final Four, ranks as the least-watched national semifinal since Kansas/Marquette in 2003 (9.9M). As has been previously noted, the 2003 numbers were anomalously low due to coverage of the Iraq War.

    Paired with the 43% decline for North Carolina/Syracuse later in the night, Saturday’s Final Four viewership had declines comparable to the College Football Playoff semifinals — which fell by 45% (Clemson/Oklahoma) and 34% (Alabama/Michigan State). Those games had the excuse of poor scheduling on New Year’s Eve.

    The downturn in Final Four viewership follows across-the-board declines for the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight. Averages for the full NCAA Tournament entering the title game were not immediately available, but viewership is likely to hit a multi-year low.

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/04/final-four-ratings-tbs-tnt-trutv-unc-syracuse-viewership-lowest-2003/

    The Tar Heels’ win earned the smallest audience for the late national semifinal in 13 years, since Syracuse/Texas in the 2003 Final Four (12.5M). Keep in mind 2003 numbers were anomalously low due to coverage of the Iraq War.

    And it wasn’t just Saturday night.

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/04/ncaa-tournament-ratings-down-cbs-oklahoma-oregon-viewership-elite-eight/

    It was a clean sweep of declines for the Elite Eight.

    Oklahoma/Oregon in the NCAA Tournament Elite Eight earned a 4.6 final rating and 7.7 million viewers on CBS last Saturday, down 12% in ratings and 13% in viewership from Wisconsin/Arizona last year (5.2, 8.8M) but up 7% in both measures from Florida/Dayton in 2014 (4.3, 7.2M), both of which aired on TBS.

    Compared to the last time CBS aired Saturday Elite Eight games, ratings were flat and viewership increased 7% from Syracuse/Marquette in 2013 (4.6, 7.2M).

    All four games in this year’s Elite Eight had double-digit declines in ratings and viewership. Unlike Sunday’s Elite Eight games, which were the lowest rated in their respective windows since at least 1998, both of Saturday’s matchups avoided multi-year lows.

    Through the Elite Eight, the NCAA Tournament has averaged a combined 8.9 million viewers per window on CBS, TBS, TNT and TruTV — down 12% from 10.1 million last year, down 9% from 9.8 million in 2014, and the smallest average at this point of the tournament since 2012 (8.7M).

    The article includes a nice plot of the declining ratings for the early Saturday Elite Eight game over the years.

    Obviously the move to TNT hurt the Final Four numbers somewhat, and so did the blowouts, but this last article shows a more troubling trend of waning interest.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Also, there appears to now be a small group of schools (UNC, Duke, Connecticut, Kentucky) that are winning titles. When was our last first-time national men’s hoops champion? Was it Florida in 2006 (which repeated in ’07)? It’s not quite the problem of Connecticut dominating the women’s game (which should begin to change next year, as being outside the power 5 conferences finally bites the Huskies), but it’s somewhat close.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Yes, this will be 10 straight years without a first-time champ. Part of that is because most of the top MBB programs already have a title and they win the recruiting battles.

        77 titles:
        19 by 2 teams (UCLA 11, UK 8)
        15 by the 3 with 5 each (Duke, UNC, IN)
        10 by the next 3 (3 or 4 each)
        12 by the next 6 (2 each)

        That’s 56 titles by 14 multiple champs and 21 single champs, for 35 total winners.

        Titles:
        ACC – Duke, UNC, NCSU, SU*, UL*
        B10 – IN, UMD, MI, MSU, OSU, WI
        B12 – KU, OkSU
        P12 – UCLA, Cal, Stanford, OR, UAZ, Utah*
        SEC – KU, UF, AR

        * Not as a member of that conference

        Other (14) – CCNY, UC, UConn, Georgetown, Holy Cross, La Salle, Loyola Chicago, Marquette, San Francisco, UTEP, UNLV, Villanova, Wyoming

        No longer a realistic chance based on conference and program status (obviously the P5 teams could get good again, but …):
        P5 – NCSU, OkSU, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Utah, AR
        Other – CCNY, Holy Cross, La Salle, Loyola Chicago, San Francisco, UTEP, UNLV, Wyoming

        That’s 15 programs, leaving just 20 previous champs with a decent chance at winning another one.

        Programs with Final Fours but no title:
        IL, OU, Houston – 5
        KSU, LSU – 4
        IA, UT – 3
        17 others – 2
        A bunch – 1

        Of those listed, only OU was great this year with IA falling apart late.

        Then there a bunch of mid-majors and a few P5s with 15+ (max is 29) tourney appearances without a Final Four even:
        MM – BYU, Xavier, WKU, St. Joes, USU, Creighton, Gonzaga, Miami (Oh), Tulsa, Weber St, Murray St, UNM, UAB
        P5 – AL, BC

        A few of these have a shot, too.

        Like

  52. anthony london says:

    What a game last night!!!!! This is sweet revenge for the Big East, although I think it would have been better coming against Syracuse but I’m sure ‘Nova will take it.
    Congrats to the Villanova Wildcats!!!!

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Will UNC losing enable the NCAA to throw the book at Chapel Hill? I sense it is very reluctant to vacate a men’s basketball champion, though several Final Four participants have been vacated (including Villanova in 1971, an event also held in Houston).

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        They’ve vacated a FB championship before, which would seem a bigger deal, as well as several final fours. I doubt it has much effect. The only question is whether any of the miscreants will still be alive by the time judgment is passed.

        Like

      • anthony london says:

        That’s a good question vp19.
        I suspect the NCAA not only has enough information, but some pretty damning information, which is the reason for the delay imo. NC has a very good academic reputation and a scandal like this could do real damage to the school. While it would be awkward to vacate a basketball champion, I think the NCAA would do it if it had to. That would be something though…

        Like

  53. vp19 says:

    Is this the end of the Evil Empire? Connecticut loses much of its top talent, had a decent but not strong receuiting class, and is now paying the price for not being in a P5 conference. Next year, we should have a semblance of competititveness in women’s basketball, though the sport still needs more upsets and more big-time schools to go beyond paying lip service to their programs.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      vp19,

      “Is this the end of the Evil Empire?”

      Not until Geno leaves.

      “Connecticut loses much of its top talent, had a decent but not strong receuiting class,”

      I’ll take your word for it. There isn’t much info out there about WBB recruiting so I have no idea which sources, if any, are trustworthy.

      “and is now paying the price for not being in a P5 conference.”

      Based on what? One “bad” recruiting class? Do they lack exposure? Do they have lesser facilities than others? Are staff members deserting Geno?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Totally second hand but I heard a student broadcaster for UConn WBB saying that they don’t generally get more than one or sometimes two elite recruits along with a group of good ones. He felt it was the coaching that develops them into an elite team. He didn’t seem concerned about the future, while noting losing arguably the best women’s player ever can’t be replaced “one for one”.

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          I think that HoopGurlz.com, which is now an ESPN related site, is a reputable spot to find rankings of women HS players. For the class of 2015, UConn got the number 1, number 6 and number 23 players in the country. Hardly a situation of one or two elite recruits.

          The site does not presently show classes prior to 2015, but from my recollection, for at least the last four or five years, UConn has recruited the female HS player of the year or the number two ranked player. Certainly they have at least one of the top three players from every class for at least the past five years.

          I bet that the UConn women’s bb roster has at least seven or eight players ranked in the top ten in the country in their HS classes. Kentucky men’s bb on steroids.

          Development through coaching? Perhaps they are getting great coaching and that really helps, but once Geno recruits them, he has done about 80% of his job. There are no one and done players, so if you get the number one or two player year after year, your number 6 and 7 players were probably first team All Americans.

          According to that web site, this year UConn has the number 3 player in the country and no one else is the top 100. For them that is a really bad off year, but she is added to a team full of top ten ranked players.

          Like

  54. ccrider55 says:

    You’re more informed than I. My info was a single student interview. I still think Geno is the primary driver of their success – which leads to good kids wanting to go there. In this case I think he’s the chicken that produced the string of golden eggs (teams). I don’t think being P5 or not has any effect on his abilities.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      No doubt, Geno gets all of the credit. Whether UConn’s conference starts to become an issue remains to be seen.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        Maybe not in terms of competition (all AACs are located in metros disproportionately in the Sun Belt) and talent level, but whether UConn brass will continue to support a non-Geno program in a far-flung conference terms of funding and other expenditures. WBB might go the “inverse” of Big Ten Hockey – sub level conferences that are single-region ie ECAC Hockey.

        Like

  55. FLP_NDRox says:

    http://m.duluthreader.com/articles/2016/03/24/6957_big_ten_to_disband_hockey_conference_and_more

    More wishful thinking from Minnesota? I didn’t realize they were still the mad. I thought they realized and accepted their place in the peck order.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      MN fans will never let go of this. They’re like ND fans angry still with the B10 because 2 men were mean to them 50-100 years ago.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Aw, I thought we could be buddies who realized that the difference between Ann Arbor and Austin was an increased ability to share.

        Like

      • David Brown says:

        The truth is Gopher Fans are 100% Right ( this from a Hard Core Penn State guy). Why do I believe this? Look at hockey. This is Canada’s sport and there are no Canadian based teams in the Stanley Cup Playoffs ( it’s been over 20 years since a Canadian Team won the Stanley Cup), the majority of the League is no longer Canadian, more kids are playing soccer then hockey, and economically they cannot compete ( the Loonie ( Canadian Dollar) is worth less then .80 Cents to the US Dollar), so they feel they are losing a game they love to the US ( the one thing they feel ( rightly so) they could beat us at), The Gopher fan is in the same boat. They are already have to deal with superior programs in Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State in football and basketball, but the one thing they could win is at Hockey, but thanks to Penn State ( and their money), that no longer applies. Does the School have to follow Big 10 Rules? No, but they might as well apply for the Mountain West in football and basketball,( because they would get thrown get get kicked out of the B10 ( and CIC) ASAP) and NCHC or WCHC Hockey Membership is not worth that. That is how the School President and AD must think. But it does not mean fans have to like it.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          David Brown,

          “The truth is Gopher Fans are 100% Right ( this from a Hard Core Penn State guy).”

          Right about what?

          That the WCHA was better? Nobody disputes that.

          That the BTHC shouldn’t have formed? That’s debatable.

          That MN shouldn’t have to make any sacrifices for the good of the B10 despite everyone else having to make sacrifices from which MN has often been the beneficiary? They’re 100% wrong.

          That the BTHC is the cause of all the problems with MN hockey right now? They’re 100% wrong.

          “Why do I believe this? Look at hockey.”

          Why is the sport itself relevant? Do all B10 schools get to cherrypick which sports to play in the B10, or just MN? If MN wants special treatment for hockey, perhaps OSU and MI and PSU and … should choose not to do gate revenue sharing with MN from football anymore.

          “This is Canada’s sport”

          Canada likes to think so, but it’s origins are in Europe and it’s big in Nordic countries and Russia. Canada developed the modern game 140 years ago but it was based on field hockey rules and within 25 years it was being played across the world. It means more to Canada than anyone else probably, but they don’t own it.

          “and there are no Canadian based teams in the Stanley Cup Playoffs ( it’s been over 20 years since a Canadian Team won the Stanley Cup), the majority of the League is no longer Canadian, more kids are playing soccer then hockey, and economically they cannot compete ( the Loonie ( Canadian Dollar) is worth less then .80 Cents to the US Dollar), so they feel they are losing a game they love to the US ( the one thing they feel ( rightly so) they could beat us at),”

          They aren’t just losing it to us. Russia and others are beating them in the Olympics, too. It’s what happens when you are a smallish country trying to compete with much bigger countries. Is the US obliged to leave the NHL and form their own pro league so Canadians can feel better about themselves?

          “The Gopher fan is in the same boat. They are already have to deal with superior programs in Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State in football and basketball,”

          MN used to be dominant in football, and they receive millions every year in revenue sharing from those better programs despite not seeming to try very hard to compete some years.

          “but the one thing they could win is at Hockey,”

          And they still can if they have good players and are well coached. The state of MN didn’t suddenly stop having great youth hockey. MN has about the best recruiting grounds one could want. Any failure to succeed is the fault of the coaches and administrators, not which conference they’re in.

          “but thanks to Penn State ( and their money), that no longer applies.”

          Why isn’t MN dominating B10 hockey 3 years in? The current players were recruited while MN was in the WCHA so it can’t be all the BTHC’s fault.

          “Does the School have to follow Big 10 Rules?”

          Only if they want to continue as B10 members.

          “No, but they might as well apply for the Mountain West in football and basketball,( because they would get thrown get get kicked out of the B10 ( and CIC) ASAP) and NCHC or WCHC Hockey Membership is not worth that.”

          No, it isn’t worth it. It’s what some might call a sacrifice.

          “That is how the School President and AD must think. But it does not mean fans have to like it.”

          I don’t care if they like it. I wish they’d stop blaming the BTHC for their team’s failures, though. And them not liking it doesn’t mean they’re right to say it shouldn’t have formed.

          Like

          • bob sykes says:

            Thank you. These guys are tiresome.

            Like

          • David Brown says:

            For many years, the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League turned out incredible players ( Mario Lemieux, Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy and Mike Bossy to name a few), now Player Development has completely shifted to the OHL ( especially) and other Leagues. That is where the Gopher. Hockey Program is heading, they know that the Game is shifting to the East, other Big 10 Schools (especially the one in Ann Arbor), and upstart Programs like those found @ State College and Tempe ( ASU). Lets look at a different sport Wrestling. Minnesota had the Number One Recruit in the Country ( Mark Hall), and they lost him to Cael Sanderson and Penn State. They simply could not compete with the Nittany Lions. Athletes will go where the Factors Of Production ( Land, Labor and Capital), are greatest. The Gopher Fans are not stupid, they know that within a Decade Penn State will be challenging for National Championships ( something I love), and ASU will likely be not far behind. It is simply the way it is. But like the Canadian Hockey Fan or Penn State Football Fan ( and going from ruling Eastern Football to being cannon fodder for Ohio State) it does not mean they ( and we) have to like it.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            David Brown,

            “That is where the Gopher. Hockey Program is heading, they know that the Game is shifting to the East, other Big 10 Schools (especially the one in Ann Arbor), and upstart Programs like those found @ State College and Tempe ( ASU).”

            MN was in the NCG 2 years ago. Things have shifted that much in 2 years?

            Besides, eastern schools have been winning the Frozen Four since 1949. BC and BU both have 5 titles just like MN.

            “Lets look at a different sport Wrestling. Minnesota had the Number One Recruit in the Country ( Mark Hall), and they lost him to Cael Sanderson and Penn State. They simply could not compete with the Nittany Lions. Athletes will go where the Factors Of Production ( Land, Labor and Capital), are greatest.”

            Some athletes want to stay home. Some want to leave home. Some don’t like the head coach at the state school. Some don’t fit the available slots in the team. You can’t use 1 data point to prove a thesis.

            “The Gopher Fans are not stupid, they know that within a Decade Penn State will be challenging for National Championships ( something I love), and ASU will likely be not far behind.”

            There is zero evidence to support these assertions. Lots of schools never compete for titles. The key is often finding the right coach at the right time.

            “But like the Canadian Hockey Fan or Penn State Football Fan ( and going from ruling Eastern Football to being cannon fodder for Ohio State) it does not mean they ( and we) have to like it.”

            Where has anyone asked them to like it?

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Lets look at a different sport Wrestling. Minnesota had the Number One Recruit in the Country ( Mark Hall), and they lost him to Cael Sanderson and Penn State. They simply could not compete with the Nittany Lions. Athletes will go where the Factors Of Production ( Land, Labor and Capital), are greatest.”

            The Gopher Fans are not stupid, they know that within a Decade Penn State will be challenging for National Championships ( something I love), and ASU will likely be not far behind.”

            —Meh, nothing more than Nit puffery disguised as a defense of Minnesota.

            Like

  56. TOM says:

    Well it’s been over a week since the Michigan dude started tweeting about arguably the biggest (remotely plausible) conference expansion rumor ever. Not surprisingly…no one else seems to be confirming any of it. But he does seem to have a growing number of blind followers. I must admit…I do find it entertaining. But it doesn’t mean I believe any of it.

    Like

    • Nemo says:

      Here is his latest….

      Bluevod ‏@Bluevodreal Apr 6

      Hearing expansion moved along very fast while it was quiet. Sounds like 6 teams could be coming taking BIG10 to 20. Need to verify.

      Bluevod ‏@Bluevodreal 22 hours ago

      Second source confirmed almost word for word of Expansion.

      Like

      • TOM says:

        I think his source is himself when he hears his echo. It’s absurd that a single, random, unknown twitter-user would be the only individual apparently breaking a story of this magnitude. His done-deal assertion is that 4-6 of the following schools are joining the B1G any time now: FSU/GT/UNC/UVA/UTX/ND. If this turns out to be the case…I’ll gladly eat crow and call him an absolute college football insider. It would mean that he wasn’t just hours or days ahead of everyone else on the story..but weeks ahead. Ain’t happening…

        Like

        • TOM says:

          Check that…now it appears to be DUKE and not UTx as team #6. TWENTY team B1G. I don’t even know if you could call that a conference. Seems more like an association. If it were true.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Some troll with a bit of bait – hoping to get a bit of attention and string things along. This is chumming with the whole bucket.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            TOM,

            ” His done-deal assertion is that 4-6 of the following schools are joining the B1G any time now: FSU/GT/UNC/UVA/UTX/ND.”

            “Check that…now it appears to be DUKE and not UTx as team #6.”

            It’s the off season, so let’s play his game.

            6 candidates = FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, Duke and ND

            Obviously this assumes that the ACC GoR is worthless, which follows rumors that the ACCN was required for the GoR to be meaningful and that ESPN has said no to it. That said, which schools make the most sense? If “only” getting 4, I’d say UVA, UNC, Duke and GT would top the B10’s list of plausible options (they’d prefer UT and ND but those are the least likely options). With those 4, ND would probably seek a scheduling deal like they have with the ACC now. That just leaves FSU in the breeze, but they are the least like a B10 school based on their academics.

            Divisions:
            West = OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN
            East = MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            That would require 8 games in division with only 1 crossover game. However, some of the crossover games would need to be locked (OSU/MI and maybe PSU/NE for TV reasons). Would MI and MSU accept being isolated from the original B10 in return for access to the mid-Atlantic recruiting grounds? Would TPTB accept some conference members never playing each other (OSU vs East, MI vs West, etc) or only playing once every decade?

            I think 18 is too many teams to make divisions work well.

            Pods:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN
            Central = OSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
            East = MI, MSU, PSU, RU, UMD
            South = UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            For two years West and Central are paired (and East and South), then East and Central swap for the next 2 years. That minimizes travel while keeping team playing each other more frequently. You again play 8 division games plus 1 crossover game. OSU/MI is locked but the other games rotate. It’s not ideal, but it could work. Other pod options exist, obviously, including rearranging the team above or doing pods of 6 and 3 or even 7 and 2.

            West = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
            Central = OSU, PU, IN
            East = MI, MSU, RU
            South = PSU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            West = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU
            North = MI, MSU
            East = OSU, PSU
            South = IN, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            Lock any games needed (OSU/MI, PU/IN in case 2, etc).

            Still, I think pods are a little clunky and confusing.

            1 big conference:

            Put everyone together, lock 5 games and rotate the other 4 equally (or lock 4 or even 3 instead).

            9 = 5 * 100% + 12 * 33%
            9 = 4 * 100% + 13 * 38%
            9 = 3 * 100% + 14 * 43%

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I find the game of pod-making amusing in the off-season for some reason.

            Perfect geography is nice, by I think competitive balance is desirable as well.

            Groupings that need to stay together:
            NE, WI, IA, MN
            NW, IL
            PU, IN
            MI, MSU
            PSU, RU
            UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            OSU and UMD have a little flexibility.

            That gives me two basic groups of 4 to start with:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN
            South = UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            That means I can now do 3 things:
            1. Lock these pods and make 2 other pods of 5
            2. Expand one of these pods and make 2 other pods
            3. Expand both of these pods and make 2 other pods

            1. Split the remainder into groups of 5, preferably without needing any locked crossovers:
            North = OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL
            East = PSU, RU, UMD, PU, IN

            Poor balance when North and West are paired, though.

            2. Expand one pod and make 2 more
            A. Add UMD to the South:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN
            South = UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
            North = OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL
            East = PSU, RU, PU, IN

            Poor balance When W and N are paired.

            B. Add OSU to the South:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN
            South = OSU, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
            North = MI, MSU, NW, IL
            East = PSU, UMD, RU, PU, IN

            Decent balance but a locked game is needed.

            3. Expand both pods:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
            South = PSU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            North = OSU, PU, IN
            East = MI, MSU, RU

            Again the balance is off and a locked game is needed.

            Let’s try again, focusing on balance. First create tiers of programs based on brand and performance:
            4 – OSU, MI, PSU, NE
            3 – MSU, WI, IA
            2 – NW, MN, UMD, GT, UNC, UVA
            1 – PU, IN, IL, RU, Duke

            Now try to make balanced groups:
            Pods of 4/5:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN = 1/2/1/0 = 12
            South = UVA, UNC, Duke, GT = 0/0/3/1 = 7

            This is the problem. The solution is to break up the ACC members into 2 pods:

            East = PSU, RU, UMD, UVA = 1/0/2/1 = 9
            South = OSU, GT, Duke, UNC = 1/0/2/1 = 9
            North = MI, MSU, NW, IL, IN = 1/1/1/2 = 11
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN, PU = 1/2/1/1 = 13

            9 = 8 divisional games + 1 locked rival
            When N & S are paired, E & S play each other in respective order and N & W do the same (OSU/PSU, … UNC/UVA, MI/NE, .. IN/PU). Or you can lock the kings and the split state rivalry (OSU/PSU, MI/NE, PU/IN) and rotate the rest if people prefer that.

            When S & W are paired, lock the kings plus the split state rivalry (OSU/MI, PSU/NE, PU/IN) and rotate the other games.

            To me, the clear winner is eliminating divisions if the rules allow it. But if not, this last set of pods may be the best of a bad set of choices.

            Like

          • Pablo says:

            Since it’s wild speculation, it’s easier to go all in with the 6 proposed schools: FSU, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT and ND. The pods could be somewhat balanced:

            West: NE, MN, IA, WI, IL
            North: MI, MSU, OSU, IN, PU
            East: ND, NW, PSU, RU, UMD
            South: FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, Duke

            A nine game schedule, means a straight-forward 3 year rotation amongst the pods. NW-IL would have to play a non-conference game 2 out of 3 years.

            As a sweetener to ND, could also try to have an 8 game conference schedule. Specifically, by excusing ND from playing one of their East Pod members each year. Just rotate which team (between NW, PSU, RU, UMD) they don’t play through a 4 year cycle. This gives ND some flexibility in their pursuit of a national schedule. The other teams still have to play 9 games, but one game would not count towards their conference standing.

            The SEC would probably scoop up VT & NCSU (possibly VT & Clemson).

            The Big 12 would also have the opportunity to expand by 2, 4 or 6 teams.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Pablo,

            “Since it’s wild speculation, it’s easier to go all in with the 6 proposed schools: FSU, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT and ND.”

            I don’t know that it’s easier. I have a really hard time seeing the COP/C accepting FSU as a B10 member. I also have a really hard time seeing ND accepting being a B10 member. Thus I worked with 18.

            I agree that there’s nothing wrong with using all 20 since it’s pure speculation, though.

            “The pods could be somewhat balanced:

            West: NE, MN, IA, WI, IL
            North: MI, MSU, OSU, IN, PU
            East: ND, NW, PSU, RU, UMD
            South: FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, Duke

            A nine game schedule, means a straight-forward 3 year rotation amongst the pods. NW-IL would have to play a non-conference game 2 out of 3 years.”

            That’s the upside of equal sized pods, but also the downside. The B10 would do its best to avoid splitting a rivalry like that, though. The B10 doesn’t neatly fit into groups of 5, though. Don’t fall into the trap of assuming the pods must be 4 groups of 5. It can be 2 x 4 + 2 x 6 if that works better (or 2 x 7 + 2 x 3). It’s not like the easternmost and westernmost schools are itching to play each other regularly.

            Personally, I don’t think there are good pods to be made from this group of 20. They all require major sacrifices (locked 10th games, bad geography, etc). Divisions don’t work well either unless NE is willing to be in the East.

            The only decent solution for 20 is one big conference. Lock 4 opponents per team and rotate the rest.

            9 games = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%

            “As a sweetener to ND, could also try to have an 8 game conference schedule. Specifically, by excusing ND from playing one of their East Pod members each year. Just rotate which team (between NW, PSU, RU, UMD) they don’t play through a 4 year cycle. This gives ND some flexibility in their pursuit of a national schedule. The other teams still have to play 9 games, but one game would not count towards their conference standing.”

            I don’t think that would work. If ND is getting special treatment, they’ll want only 5 or maybe 6 B10 games. Several of the other schools have a locked rivalry in addition to their 9 games so they wouldn’t feel too sorry for ND. If ND isn’t playing a full 9 games, then they aren’t really a member and we’d only have 19 teams.

            “The SEC would probably scoop up VT & NCSU (possibly VT & Clemson).”

            Presumably VT and NCSU for SECN reasons. Or some B12 schools. But maybe they also take Clemson and Miami to completely own the southeast.

            “The Big 12 would also have the opportunity to expand by 2, 4 or 6 teams.”

            The ACC would be down to BC, SU, Pitt, UL, VT, NCSU, WF, Clemson and Miami. I think they’d raid the AAC for UC, UConn, UCF, USF and ECU (or someone else) to hit 14. That should be sufficient to stay a P5 league. Would Clemson and Miami rather be big fish in that smaller pond or jump to the Texas league and travel incessantly? It depends on the money gap I suppose.

            Like

          • Pablo says:

            Brian

            FSU is of comparable academic standing as NE, IN and IA. It has an advantage in that it is in a state that is rapidly growing…therefore, with the right leadership it could more realistically improve its academic programs. Granted that it’s never had the AAU stamp of approval, but this standard is now very political…and becoming a zero-sum game. Finally, FSU admission would be lumped in with other universities that more than compensate for any academic reputation all

            What FSU brings via athletic programs and markets is truly a home-run. Football king, television draw, geographic power, recruiting hotbed, Olympic sports leader…it has the best attributes of the last four BIG expansions rolled into one university. FSU is an anchor program for the conference.

            Completely agree with you that having ND join a football conference is the biggest stretch. The ACC deal moved the needle with ND. At five games, ND has not lost its mystique nor ability to schedule a national slate. Football independence is still closely tied to the university’s identity. Without some compromise, it’s hard to see ND joining.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Pablo,

            “FSU is of comparable academic standing as NE, IN and IA.”

            I’ll give you NE, but not the others.

            AAU – IN and IA yes, FSU no

            Based on 10 year old rankings, FSU was #94 on the AAU list ahead of only 1 AAU member (presumably Syracuse, which has since voluntarily left). It’s comparable to OU, UL and UK.

            IA has over double the research of FSU while IN has 75% of it without all the engineering at PU.

            By MUP rankings, IA has 1 top 25 ranking and 3 top 50 (#43 overall). IN has 3 top 50 (#55 overall). FSU has none (below #77).

            “It has an advantage in that it is in a state that is rapidly growing”

            Agreed.

            “therefore, with the right leadership it could more realistically improve its academic programs.”

            It also has worse programs, meaning it has more room for improvement. Like many schools, FSU has a plan to get to AAU status. It remains to be seen if FSU actually moves up at all, though, since everyone else is also trying to improve continuously.

            “Granted that it’s never had the AAU stamp of approval, but this standard is now very political…and becoming a zero-sum game.”

            Does that mean the B10 presidents have stopped caring about it? I don’t think so.

            “Finally, FSU admission would be lumped in with other universities that more than compensate for any academic reputation all”

            Also true, but the B10 has to draw a line at some point. Do they want 20 members? Do they believe the B10 can stay a cohesive group when spread from NE to NJ to FL?

            “What FSU brings via athletic programs and markets is truly a home-run. Football king, television draw, geographic power, recruiting hotbed, Olympic sports leader”

            They bring football and mediocre basketball. No other FSU sports really matter. Nobody disputes their athletic value or the advantages of FL for recruiting. However, cultural fit and academics do matter. Overall conference size also matters to some extent.

            “Completely agree with you that having ND join a football conference is the biggest stretch.”

            And without ND, FSU makes 19 schools. That’s the other reason I didn’t use them.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Pablo “FSU is of comparable academic standing as NE, IN and IA.”

            Only by fudging “comparable”. Consider the AWRU 2015: IN 101-150 (52-65 US), IA 150-200 (66-78 US), FSU, NE 200-301 (79-102). If we take the average of the AWRU and CWUR US rankings, to smooth out peculiarities of the two rankings, we get:

            #16 TSUN
            #18 Wisconsin
            #18 Northwestern
            #22.5 Illinois
            #26.5 Minnesota

            #32 Purdue
            #33 Penn State
            #36 Rutgers
            #36 OSU
            #37.5 Maryland

            #55 MSU
            #59 Indiana
            #69.5 Iowa

            #93 FSU
            #104 Nebraska

            Like

          • dtwphx says:

            If the NCAA deregulated championship games and how conference champions are determined, could you have 3 divisions?
            West: NE, MN, IA, WI, IL, NW
            Central: MI, MSU, OSU, IN, PU, <>
            East: PSU, RU, UMD, <>, <>, <>

            You could have division champions and wildcards in sports like basketball and baseball.
            Why not borrow what works from pro sports.
            I’m not sure how you’d pick the two teams for the fb championship, maybe the two highest ranked division winners, ala Big12 tie breaker from years past.

            The divisions keep original B1G schools together.
            The core of each division is fairly compact, geographically, retaining rivalries.
            The core of each division has little competition from other conferences.

            Like

          • dtwphx says:

            …wordpress didn’t like the carrots…

            If the NCAA deregulated championship games and how conference champions are determined, could you have 3 divisions?
            West: NE, MN, IA, WI, IL, NW
            Central: MI, MSU, OSU, IN, PU, GT
            East: PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, VT, FSU

            You could have division champions and wildcards in sports like basketball and baseball.
            Why not borrow what works from pro sports.
            I’m not sure how you’d pick the two teams for the fb championship, maybe the two highest ranked division winners, ala Big12 tie breaker from years past.

            The divisions keep original B1G schools together.
            The core of each division is fairly compact, geographically, retaining rivalries.
            The core of each division has little competition from other conferences.
            Let ND do what they want.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            dtwphx,

            “If the NCAA deregulated championship games and how conference champions are determined, could you have 3 divisions?”

            Certainly. That’s why I included a set of 2×6 + 2×3 pods. That’s 3 pods of 6 with one of them split in half to satisfy the current rules.

            “West: NE, MN, IA, WI, IL, NW
            Central: MI, MSU, OSU, IN, PU, GT
            East: PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, VT, FSU”

            Mine was similar:
            West = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
            Central = OSU, PU, IN
            East = MI, MSU, RU
            South = PSU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

            I chose to keep GT with all their ACC brethren and let RU get B10 exposure instead. I note you also chose to swap VT for Duke which doesn’t change much.

            “You could have division champions and wildcards in sports like basketball and baseball.”

            All the teams make the conference tourney so what would be the point?

            “Why not borrow what works from pro sports.”

            Because this is college athletics? Some of the differences are significant.

            “I’m not sure how you’d pick the two teams for the fb championship, maybe the two highest ranked division winners, ala Big12 tie breaker from years past.”

            I assume they’d use similar tiebreakers to now:

            0. Conference record (must be tied to go into the actual tiebreakers)
            1. Head to head
            2. Division record
            3. Record against next-highest ranked teams in their divisions in order (vs #2, #3, …)
            4. Record against all common B10 opponents
            5. CFP rank
            6. Overall record
            7. Random draw

            Like

  57. TOM says:

    Brian,

    Thanks for the hypothetical pod pairings. I agree that doing it geographically would be ideal but there’s just no way it can happen (I like your last grouping). Mich/MSU/OSU/PSU absolutely need to be split up. To do otherwise would make that pod/division a bloodbath and the other a comparative pushover (more often than not).

    I don’t agree – hypothetically – that FSU would be left out. The Sunshine State is just way too big of a fish. And the Noles are a big school with a ton of modern era tradition that put eyes on TV sets. To halt the southward campaign at GT in Atlanta would just seem odd. Way too many B1G fans/alumni in FLA to let the other big boy conferences have it all to themselves. Just a guess.

    Like

    • TOM says:

      PS The Penn State (Baron) and FSU (Thrasher) sitting presidents are both FSU grads to boot. Emotions play in a role in the expansion game too. I need to get back on track…I’m starting to treat this like reality.

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      The reality is the ACC is not breaking up, and It may make an interesting exercise is Division making, but that is all it is. The reality is that the ACC is run out of Chapel Hill, NC, and that is exactly the way the Tar Heels want it. There is no way UNC would be willing to share power with Ohio State and Michigan ( UNC is sort of like Texas in the Big XII). Are there Schools that would prefer to make more money? Of course there are. There is no question Florida State would ( they like Maryland )was not exactly for the GOR, but they are locked in for the next Decade. The reality is FSU left, there are always Schools that UNC can find to replace them. UCF and USF come to mind. It is the same thing with the Big XII. If Oklahoma and Kansas left, there are the BYU’s and Colorado State’s that in exchange for bigger $$$$$, would gladly take their orders from Bevo in Austin. UT could have left for the Pac and made it the best Conference in America ( think Direct TV and Charter would say NO to UT and OU on the Pac Network?), but instead, they chose to remain in the Big XII and keep the Longhorn Network money ( and NOT having to share Power with Oregon, USC and UCLA), and just like they did not care one iota that ” Little Brother” TA&M went to the SEC, they do not care what David Boren at OU and ( especially) Mike Gundy at OSU think about it. They know there are the Schools like Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and TCU that will vote 100% of the time for UT wishes, just like Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia Tech and Duke will do for UNC. Basically you are not seeing UNC or UT in the Big 10 or for that matter SEC, and it is not worth thinking about it.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        David Brown,

        “The reality is the ACC is not breaking up,”

        It’s highly unlikely right now, sure. It’s unlikely in the 2020s when their GoR expires, but plausible.

        “and It may make an interesting exercise is Division making, but that is all it is.”

        Sure, but how much real expansion news do we have to discuss.

        “The reality is that the ACC is run out of Chapel Hill, NC, and that is exactly the way the Tar Heels want it. There is no way UNC would be willing to share power with Ohio State and Michigan ( UNC is sort of like Texas in the Big XII).”

        I don’t think UNC is nearly as dominant in the ACC as UT is in the B12. The 4 NC schools collectively have a lot of sway in the ACC, but UNC is partially counterbalanced by NCSU and Duke. UVA also is pretty powerful.

        I agree with your basic point unless the money gets too big and then I could see UNC caving to pressure to be financially competitive (especially from the academic side demanding athletics contribute).

        “There is no question Florida State would ( they like Maryland )was not exactly for the GOR, but they are locked in for the next Decade.”

        The strength of a GoR remains to be tested. Certainly FSU could begin negotiations with other conferences 2-3 years early and signal to the ACC that the GoR won’t be renewed, freeing everyone to look elsewhere. The continued lack of an ACCN makes it more likely.

        “The reality is FSU left, there are always Schools that UNC can find to replace them. UCF and USF come to mind.”

        UCF and USF combined don’t begin to replace FSU. It’s like saying ECU and App State would replace UNC.

        “If Oklahoma and Kansas left, there are the BYU’s and Colorado State’s that in exchange for bigger $$$$$, would gladly take their orders from Bevo in Austin.”

        And yet the B12 can’t find a way to add BYU so far. CSU doesn’t provide them value either. Losing OU and KU could undermine the TV deals to the point that the B12 falls well behind. Backfilling with G5 schools only helps so much.

        “Basically you are not seeing UNC or UT in the Big 10 or for that matter SEC,”

        I highly doubt it, too.

        “and it is not worth thinking about it.”

        Lots of highly unlikely things are still worth thinking about. It’s our free time to spend how we wish.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I actually think the ACC is in great shape. Are they the B10 or SEC, but they are better then the Pac or Big XII. If you see any Conference collapse it would be the XII. If and this is a BIG IF. Oklahoma and Kansas left and UT decided to go Independent, then maybe. But I see UT remaining right where they are running the Big XII.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      TOM,

      “Thanks for the hypothetical pod pairings.”

      No problem.

      “I don’t agree – hypothetically – that FSU would be left out.”

      I understand that point of view. I based my guess on a few points:

      1. ND isn’t coming even in a fantasy world, so FSU would need another partner to make 20. FSU and Miami? Maybe.

      2. Academics. FSU isn’t quite up to snuff and that matters to B10 presidents more than people want to believe. You can counter that UVA, UNC, Duke and GT provide a counterbalance there, and that’s true. It’s just my opinion that FSU would be a bridge too far.

      3. Culture. FSU is so southern that it would be hard to have them fit in. UNC is also very southern, but in a blue blood way. FSU is very different from any B10 school.

      4. Size. 20 schools? Does the B10 really want to be that big? At some point you’re asking for the group to splinter into 2 separate groups. The old members would see each other a lot less than before, loosening the ties that bind the B10 together.

      Like

      • Matt says:

        I think you’re wrong about FSU on many levels, Brian. For one thing, FSU has made big strides academically in the last 10-20 years. Academic reputations take a long time to change, though, so while USN&WR (for all its flaws) might rank FSU at #96 (higher than NE), FSU’s acceptance rate is lower than half of the B1G schools. It has several Top 25 programs, according to various national rankings.

        Interestingly, it recently received a $100 million donation – the largest to date for FSU, but keep in mind its relative youth. The Buckman Act of 1905 made FSU the state’s woman’s college, and between then and 1947 FSU’s alumni were secretaries, nurses, and teachers. Most donations went to the husband’s alma mater. Now, FSU is seeing an upswing in donations, as it finally has older alumni who were lawyers, engineers, and businessmen (doctors will be forthcoming; the medical school is less than 20 years old). It is the university in the state’s capital… and, in some ways, it’s just starting to get its legs under it.

        For another thing, its sports, which you suggested above are irrelevant except for football, routinely place in the Top 15 in the Director’s Cup standings (three Top 10 finishes in the last six years, two more at #11; the other one at #15). Baseball, softball, M/W track, women’s soccer, M/W golf, and more recently volleyball, are all nationally competitive programs, for example.

        FSU is getting stronger academically, and has a huge upside; it is already strong athletically. It brings the Florida market, and a foothold in a talent-rich, populous state. It also brings a national market in football, as FSU consistently draws high ratings. It is a “home run” school, on almost every front (distance might be a valid concern, although that’s why the rumors include several southern companions).

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          The most recent AAU metrics we have available:
          31 Georgia Tech (Now AAU)
          31 Yeshiva
          37 Dartmouth
          37 Boston U (Now AAU)
          40 Alabama-Birmingham
          43 Tufts
          43 Maryland-Baltimore County
          49 Utah
          52 Cal-Santa Cruz
          55 Rensselaer Poly
          57 Wake Forest
          59 University of Miami
          61 Illinois Chicago
          62 Cincinnati
          64 Colorado State
          67 Oregon State
          68 George Washington
          69 New Mexico
          72 Wayne State
          72 Cal-Riverside
          76 Alaska-Fairbanks
          78 Virginia COmmonwealth
          70 University of Vermont & State Agricultural College
          79 Hawaii
          81 UConn
          81 AAU
          83 AAU
          87 AAU
          94 AAU
          94 Florida State
          105 AAU (Syracuse?)
          109 Nebraska (No longer AAU)

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Matt,

          “I think you’re wrong about FSU on many levels, Brian.”

          But you only discuss 2 of my points. Did you agree with the others? Is FSU a cultural fit for the B10? Does going to 20 make sense? Since ND isn’t coming, who would be FSU’s partner?

          “For one thing, FSU has made big strides academically in the last 10-20 years.”

          Yes, it has. But it had such a long way to go to meet B10 standards that it still isn’t there yet in my estimation of how the B10 presidents think. And all the schools above FSU are also working to improve all the time. Don’t forget that part of the equation

          “FSU’s acceptance rate is lower than half of the B1G schools.”

          This is a nearly worthless measure for comparing state schools. There are so many factors beyond quality of the school that go into acceptance rates that you can’t account for them all. Besides, the B10 presidents are more concerned with research and graduate instruction than this sort of measure.

          “For another thing, its sports, which you suggested above are irrelevant except for football,”

          I meant irrelevant to the decision of whether to offer them a spot. There are a handful of MBB teams nationally that matter to the decision (FSU isn’t one of them), and maybe a niche sport or two that’s of interest (FSU doesn’t play them), otherwise football is all that matters for any candidate.

          Like

      • TOM says:

        I hear where you’re coming from. I think some of it is perception but with decisions like this it can become reality.

        Like

    • Kevin says:

      Does this impact guest coaching? Maybe that parlays into recruiting contact rules etc…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Kevin,

        “Does this impact guest coaching?”

        Yes. Nobody with football-specific duties can work at an outside camp.

        “The Council approved a proposal applicable to the Football Bowl Subdivision that would require those schools to conduct camps and clinics at their school’s facilities or at facilities regularly used for practice or competition,” stated the NCAA. “Additionally, FBS coaches and non-coaching staff members with responsibilities specific to football may be employed only at their school’s camps or clinics. This rule change is effective immediately.”

        Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Only B1G in favor of satellite camps? Is it a concern of increased costs? We get force fed SEC games and promotion nationwide. Should that be limited? Seems an odd thing to take immediate action on.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        “Only B1G in favor of satellite camps?”

        The B12, P12, SEC and ACC all have recruiting hotbeds to protect from the B10.

        “Is it a concern of increased costs?”

        Partially. I think this helps the schools save money at the expense of limiting exposure for players, though.

        “Seems an odd thing to take immediate action on.”

        The SEC’s rule was set to expire by May. If the NCAA didn’t act now, the SEC was going to authorize satellite camps. I think the NCAA wanted to nip this in the bud rather than let it become commonplace and then eliminate it.

        Like

      • Mike says:

        What I think happened:

        Like

  58. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25547103/college-football-on-sunday-texas-notre-dame-moved-to-sept-4

    ND/UT is moving to Sunday night this fall. It’s about time CFB started using that time slot.

    Like

  59. Brian says:

    http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/04/08/ncaa-student-athlete-endorsement-deals-big-east-commissioner

    According to the Big East’s commissioner, the NCAA is considering allowing athletes to get endorsements.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      With this, the local car dealer in Alabama can just tell the star recruit that the kid will start with a $25,000 endorsement deal, with incentives. After all, if the kid is all SEC, his endorsement is worth more. An Alabama All-American should be able to get at least $100,000 in endorsement deals from all over the state. So much cleaner than slipping the kid a bag of cash.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      “That’s one that’s actually under consideration I believe by the NCAA,” Ackerman said.

      I sincerely hope he is mistaken, or that it will be considered and soundly rejected.

      “It’s actually a time right now where student athlete interests are being closely examined.”

      Wouldn’t this be professional athlete interest are being closely examined?
      What a terrible idea…

      Like

  60. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25547495/unc-scandal-forces-ncaa-to-redefine-its-academic-misconduct-policy

    Thanks to UNC, the NCAA has redefined its academic misconduct policy.

    There was confusion around college sports last summer when the NCAA hit North Carolina with a lack of institutional control charge for its academic fraud scandal. By charging North Carolina with “impermissible benefits,” the NCAA used a phrase more commonly applied for gaining something of monetary value, not free academic grades.

    Various NCAA committees worked for two years on changing the academic misconduct definition. The goal is to draw clearer lines for Division I members in academic fraud cases. The new rules require schools to have their own academic integrity policies that apply to all students. Each school determines its own policies and the NCAA says a university must follow them when there’s an academic integrity issue involving an athlete.

    There’s a new term to learn. Instead of “academic extra benefits,” the NCAA now will say “impermissible academic assistance.” The definition both broadens and narrows the scope of whether the NCAA can allege academic misconduct.

    A player’s eligibility doesn’t have to be affected for the NCAA to charge impermissible academic assistance involving a university staff member. That broadens the scope.

    On the other hand, Kathy Sulentic, chair of the NCAA enforcement staff’s academic integrity group, explained last September that there would be a “very high bar” to bring a violation under impermissible academic assistance. Universities still want to control what’s academic fraud on their own campus, but they want the NCAA to make an obvious violation charge if the school’s investigation “came out with an absurd result,” Sulentic said.

    In the new NCAA bylaws, impermissible academic assistance is defined in two ways:

    1) “Substantial assistance” that is not generally available to the university’s study body and it helps an athlete become eligible to play, receive financial aid or earn an Academic Progress Rate point.

    Or 2) An academic exception that results in a grade change, academic credit or fulfillment of a graduation requirement when that exception doesn’t exist for other university students and it helps an athlete become eligible to play, receive financial aid or earn an Academic Progress Rate point.

    When there’s a question of academic misconduct involving an athlete, the new NCAA bylaws state the school should investigate and adjudicate the allegations based on its policies. Because campuses are different, universities have varying approaches on whether to withhold an athlete from playing while they determine if academic misconduct occurred. Some campuses process a case within a week; others take several months.

    In other issues the NCAA Council tackled this week:

    The NCAA tabled a proposal that would have extended by four years the process for picking 5-7 bowl teams if there aren’t enough bowl-eligible teams. There’s an ongoing debate over how to fill bowls when there aren’t enough 6-6 or better teams. Currently, the bylaws state that 5-7 teams with a top-five Academic Progress Rate score are selected first by a bowl, which is allowed to pick a 5-7 team only once in a four-year period. The tabled NCAA proposal called for 5-7 teams to be picked based only on the highest APR score and for the bowl-game exception to get extended through 2020. The “deserving team” exception expires on Aug. 2.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Sounds like they just basically laid out a plan for academic fraud to keep athletes in place. Let a few non-athletes in.

      Common sense tells you the UNC fraud was about athletes. The non-athletes who participated were incidental.

      The NCAA is just choosing not to punish schools like UNC who cheat.

      Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        Yes, it does seem to be a “no selfish cheating” rule: “if you cheat, you MUST be sure to spread the sugar around a bit so it’s not ONLY athletes benefiting.”

        Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        The NCAA has already charged UNC with a LOIC and an updated NOA is due soon after UNC found a few more violations. Saying the NCAA has chosen not to punish UNC is untrue and unfair at this point.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Emmert has made it abundantly clear he doesn’t want to punish UNC. I think UGA’s former president Adams is on the group evaluating penalties. Maybe he will have the backbone to do something. But it has been years and Emmert has made repeated comments over those years he doesn’t think the NCAA should get involved in UNC type issues. It took the Raleigh paper to bring any of this to light and the repeated comments of the “whistleblower” (Mary Willingham?) to get attention on this.

          I don’t think there has been academic fraud this big for this long anywhere else. And its been since Jan Kemp that a university has persecuted a whistleblower like UNC has been persecuting theirs. They’ve gone after her from the provost on down.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Emmert has made it abundantly clear he doesn’t want to punish UNC. I think UGA’s former president Adams is on the group evaluating penalties. Maybe he will have the backbone to do something. But it has been years and Emmert has made repeated comments over those years he doesn’t think the NCAA should get involved in UNC type issues. It took the Raleigh paper to bring any of this to light and the repeated comments of the “whistleblower” (Mary Willingham?) to get attention on this.”

            Luckily Emmert has zero say over the infractions committee. They’ll do what they think the rules call for regardless of anything he says. 30% of these people are completely independent of any school or the NCAA and are instead judges or lawyers volunteering their time.

            “And its been since Jan Kemp that a university has persecuted a whistleblower like UNC has been persecuting theirs. They’ve gone after her from the provost on down.”

            That is something the accreditation people should have been harsher about in my opinion. That group disappointed me much more than the NCAA has so far (I may change my mind once the NCAA says they’re done).

            Like

  61. greg says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25550361/ncaa-bans-creation-of-new-bowl-games-for-next-three-years

    The NCAA has approved a three-year moratorium on the creation of new bowl games, meaning no additional postseason games will be added until 2019 at the earliest, one applicant for a new bowl confirmed to CBS Sports.

    Three cities had been eyeing future bowls: Austin, Texas, and Charleston, South Carolina, for 2016; and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for a future date. Those plans now are on hold.

    There’s a reason 2019 got picked for the moratorium. By that point, virtually every bowl contract will be up for renewal. The latest round of bowl deals in 2013 resulted mostly in six-year agreements between conferences and a host city or television network, such as ESPN.

    The NCAA last established a three-year bowl moratorium in 2011. That ban had less to do with the number of bowls and more to do with the wake of the Fiesta Bowl financial improprieties.

    Last season, 63 percent of the Football Bowl Subdivision played in bowl games. In 1997, just 35 percent of the FBS (then known as Division I-A) played in bowls.

    Every conference wanted to make sure all of its 6-6 teams got placed so more bowls continued to be added. It’s not clear if the NCAA can practically or legally regain more restrictive control over how many bowl games there are in college football. One way to do that would be to set 7-5 as a minimum standard for bowl eligibility, but that’s a divided debate among NCAA members.

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      How about a one-bowl per stadia limit in the interim, so that . I know that Orlando and New Orleans used to have multiple bowls using Tinker and the Superdome respectively (will the lesser of the bowls now be in Bright House-UCF and Tulane’s newer campus stadium)? A South Carolina site could step in for the lesser of the Orlando bowls, for example.

      I know the Chargers situation has another 7 months to resolve itself (last chance referendum), but if Qualcomm loses its primary tenant, I have heard rumors it would be demolished sooner rather than later, impacting the Holiday and Poinsettia bowls, not to mention SDSU football.

      Like

    • bob sykes says:

      Why does the NCAA care? So what if all 100+ schools go a bowl? It hurts no one if Rutgers plays Purdue in the Eastern Bowl in Allentown.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        ..then dammit, Gately Stadium (Chicago, shared by several CPS teams and Mount Carmel H.S.) deserves a postseason bowl as well!

        Like

        • anthony london says:

          Mt. Carmel, huh? I’m a Rice grad, I remember when we shared Gately stadium too… There were many good times there…

          Like

  62. urbanleftbehind says:

    Though my midwestern/rust belt Big10-Pac10 NotCFA self wants to give him a fistbump, this might become billboard-not bulletin board-material. Interesting that while the NCAA ban was aimed primarily at northern/NE schools setting up camps in the South, upper Pac-10 teams (e.g. WSU) would also be banned from setting up camps in South Central LA/Inland Empire.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/stanford-football-coach-destroys-sec-countrys-academics/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      He might have to worry about that if the SEC ever played the P12. Over the last 20 years, the current P12 members have only played the SEC a combined 34 times and Stanford has 0 of those.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        And the only SEC member Stanford would deign to schedule would be Vanderbilt (a la Duke, Wake, Northwestern…).

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I don’t believe Shaw named any particular state or conference. Others are projecting their own assumptions/judgments, and making a story line. Perhaps he was thinking North Dakota? 😏

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Correct, he didn’t name any state or region. Jon Wilner clarified that point in his column since he asked the question that led to the comment. But he was either referencing sparsely populated states and/or states with relatively poor HS education systems. The only state we know for sure he didn’t mean was CA since he has 28 CA players on his roster (next most is GA with 7). And coaches in the southeast used to defend oversigning based on how poor the education system was in the region and that many signees would never actually make it to the team. Also, data shows the southeast generally has the lowest graduation rates in the country although OR, NM, AK and NV tend to be slightly worse.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      Some key points:

      David Levy, president of Turner Broadcasting, said the agreement gives the networks flexibility to adapt to how people watch TV, letting Turner offer March Madness games directly to consumers.

      “It allows us to think about digital and social and platforms we’re not even thinking about today,” Levy said on a conference call. “This is the kind of content you want to have in your portfolio. Having those rights gives us comfort that no matter how the ecosystem changes we’ll be able to monetize it across different platforms.”

      CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus added that “it was important for us that however people are consuming media in the future — whether it be on a laptop or TV set or whatever ecosystem is — all of those rights flow to both CBS and Turner.”

      Meanwhile, the deal “guarantees” that CBS will make a profit from the event “each and every year,” McManus said. As part of the deal, CBS’s potential losses are capped at an amount lower than what it makes on local station sales, ensuring the network turns a profit, according to a person familiar with the matter.

      Television coverage across TBS, CBS, TNT and truTV has averaged more than 10.2 million total viewers over the last six years, according to the statement. However, Villanova’s last-second victory over North Carolina in this year’s title game on Turner’s channels drew 37 percent fewer viewers than last year. This year’s final game aired for the first time on a cable network. While the ratings were down sharply from a year ago, it was the second-biggest cable audience ever for a college basketball game, according to Turner.

      Like

  63. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15189809/illinois-fighting-illini-finalize-settlement-former-football-coach-tim-beckman

    IL spent $625,000 to get a couple of issues off of their plate. They settled Beckman’s wrongful termination suit for $250,000 (he could’ve won up to $3.1M) and settled a suit against the WBB coaches for creating a racially hostile environment for $375,000 ($75k per player suing).

    That seems like money well spent as the AD tries to dig out from under all the negative PR from the last few years.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      With no budget in Illinois did they give IOU’s?

      Like

      • @ccrider – The University of Illinois is able to deal with the state budget situation since it has been relying on so little state funding over the past decade, anyway. It’s essentially a public university in name only at this point (much like Michigan and UVA). Unfortunately, the public universities that largely serve lower income and/or students that can’t afford to go to school full-time (e.g. Chicago State) are the ones that are getting hammered by the state budget crisis since they don’t have any endowment of substance or large affluent alumni bases and can’t attract out-of-state and international students that can pay high out-of-state tuition prices.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Yeah, I forgot to include the smiley face…

          🙄

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Not a terrible list but I disagree with the writer’s conviction that the SEC ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ is real.

            Also the ‘nole fan in the comments section is good for some comic relief.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Entertaining.

            ESPN is not losing money. SECN is not losing money. LHN has been, but that’s a rounding error in their budget. And it prevented/delayed having to bargain for sooner and longhorn as a piece of the 2010 P16 move that almost happened, which would have cost significantly more.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Obviously, I have no clue of whether or not there is a gentlemen’s agreement in the SEC to
            keep out FSU, Clemson, etc. I do know that from the FSU boards, those fans think that they are being kept out by UF. Of course, the FSU board posters do not know any more than we do.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            The University of Florida sponsored Florida State as a potential member of the SEC on multiple occasions. The Gators pushed for the Seminoles to become part of the SEC. Those are not the actions of a school trying to keep them out.

            Like

          • Jersey Bernie says:

            Scarlet, when was the last time that UF sponsored FSU for the SEC?

            I could be very wrong, but I think that it was long ago. The relationship between those schools is not very good at the moment. UF has been trying to emulate UT, Austin. For example, within the past year or so UF has attempted to get legislation in Florida effectively naming UF as the flagship state school and giving it special status. Needless to say, legislators supporting FSU, Central Florida and South Florida fought back.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            I believe they did in 92 when the SEC was going to 12. FSU ended up choosing the ACC over the SEC.

            Like

          • TOM says:

            “Also the ‘nole fan in the comments section is good for some comic relief.

            He actually raised some valid points, though it’s certainly guesswork as to how things will pan out.

            Like

  64. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15191102/baylor-investigate-sex-assault-claim-football-players-more-two-years-lines

    According to OTL, Baylor waited more than 2 years before investigating a sexual assault allegation against 2 football players. That’s not a good look, Baylor.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15198151/report-police-chief-called-tennessee-volunteers-coach-butch-jones-rape-investigation

      Meanwhile, the Knoxville police chief gave the head coach a courtesy call to tell him 2 of his players were being investigated for sexual assault several hours before the police talked to the players and many hours before they went to the scene of the incident.

      Knoxville detective Sam Brown, a liaison with the football team, is reported to have first called Jones at 8:20 a.m. to alert him about the investigation. Jones then called Johnson two minutes later while an assistant coach called Williams, according to The Tennessean, which reported that the two used the time to talk with each other and potential witnesses and to hire attorneys.

      Rausch then made the first of four calls to Jones at 8:38 a.m., according to the report, and over the next 72 hours, the chief and the coach spoke 15 more times totaling 22 minutes.

      Those same cellphone records obtained by the newspaper showed Jones then made the first of three calls to Knoxville attorney Wilson Ritchie, whose firm is representing Johnson in the criminal trial this summer.

      The Tennessean reported Knoxville Police officers did not show up to Johnson’s apartment, where the crime is alleged to have taken place, until about noon that same day, and then returned at 6 p.m. with a warrant to search the apartment.

      Rausch told the paper that making courtesy calls to UT officials when athletes are suspected in crimes is a common occurrence.

      But Assistant District Attorney Sean McDermott told The Tennessean that “a pre-arrest disclosure of sensitive information that is not made for the purpose of advancing the criminal investigation potentially could violate state law regarding the misuse of official information.”

      Like

  65. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15196679/lynn-swann-named-athletic-director-southern-california-trojans

    USC hires Lynn Swann to be the new AD. He has no sports administration experience, which is a huge risk, but his star power might be more important to USC for fundraising in SoCal.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Phil Knight being allowed to install the “AD with no degree” was dumb, but understandable given Knights clout. This…I’m not sure what to think. There had to be any number of extremely qualified, exceptional administrators with lots of experience.

      Then again, perhaps he will be a quick study and knows when to accept advice (and from whom).

      Like

      • bob sykes says:

        Archie Griffin had a similar job at Ohio State for many years, and he was an effective fund raiser and ambassador. He’s been moved on to another job at tOSU.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          Archie worked his way up through the administration before being named as Assistant AD. Pretty big difference.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          bob sykes,

          “Archie Griffin had a similar job at Ohio State for many years, and he was an effective fund raiser and ambassador. He’s been moved on to another job at tOSU.”

          He was named an Associate AD in 1994 after starting as a Special Assistant to the AD in 1985, and then moved to President and CEO of the Alumni Association. He never became the AD. Now he’s a senior advisor in the Office of Advancement, attending events and doing fundraising.

          Like

    • vp19 says:

      Football uber alles at Exposition Park.

      Like

  66. loki_the_bubba says:

    New Mexico State is looking at options.

    NMSU prez:

    “The challenges of Athletic Conference alignment for both our Olympic sports as well as football has inspired the Chair of the Regents Deborah Hicks to form an “Athletic Review Committee” to advise myself and the Regents on options. As you know, we have two more seasons in the FBS Sun Belt Conference and then we are without a home. The Western Athletic Conference is struggling to maintain viability and is having some difficulty adding membership to ensure stability. Some of us have been in conversation with the Big Sky Conference regarding membership, and we have been approached by at least one other conference to consider membership for our Olympic sports. If you have views you wish to express on the subject, send them to me at president@nmsu.edu. You need to be part of the conversation.”

    Like

    • urbanleftbehind says:

      They better get on something or else they’ll be playing in the same futbol americano conference with UANL and Tec de Monterey.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      To me, as someone mentioned at csnbbs, Hawaii, Long Beach State, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine (IOW, Big West) sounds a bit more appealing than North Dakota State, South Dakota State, IPFW and Western Illinois (IOW, Big Sky). I haven’t asked my step-dad, who had a couple of year’s temporary ministry in Las Cruces, but I would be surprised if people in Las Cruces would prefer the latter over the former.

      That is, IF the “other conference” is the Big West.

      Like

      • urbanleftbehind says:

        They are somewhat of a basketball school, having hasd some NCAA appearances and being a retirement spot of sorts for the Lou-Do and Reggie Theus. I would think that getting exposure to CA talent rather than being in a farther flung lower tier NCAA DI midwestern conference for MBB and other olympic sports make sense. Their football might be a better fit for one of the lower Texas FCS or even DII conferences (Southland, or even wherever schools like Tarleton and WTAMU are situated). Both Idaho (Vandals) and NMSU have the coincidence and misfortune to be located relatively close to more prominent programs in more populated neighboring states -WSU and UTEP respectively.

        Like

  67. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15203937/titans-rams-trade-means-nfl-draft

    The Titans wisely traded the 1st pick in the NFL draft to the Rams for a ton of picks. There should be a lot of ripple effects in the draft from this.

    Like

  68. Brian says:

    Qatar may lose the World Cup over human rights issues. A FIFA commissioned report said FIFA needed to back their words with actions and Qatar could face a UN investigation if things don’t change in 12 months.

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/14/fifa-qatar-world-cup-report-human-rights

    Fifa will have to consider the future of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar if its record on the treatment of migrant workers does not improve within 12 months, according to the Harvard professor who has authored an independent report commissioned by world football’s governing body into its human rights responsibilities.

    Fifa has come under fire over its failure to consider human rights issues in host countries including Brazil, Russia and Qatar and its reluctance to exert its influence to improve the situation.

    In particular, the treatment of migrant workers in Qatar building the infrastructure to host the 2022 tournament has come under the spotlight following a series of investigations by NGOs and the Guardian.

    The report read: “Fifa should include human rights within its criteria for evaluating bids to host tournaments and should make them a substantive factor in host selection.”

    Another of the recommendations states: “Fifa should set explicit human rights requirements of Local Organising Committees in bidding documents for tournaments and provide guidance on them.”

    On Qatar, Ruggie noted that the International Labour Organisation had recently given Qatar 12 months to end migrant worker exploitation or face a formal inquiry by the United Nations.

    “Fifa can’t impose human rights on countries but in return for hosting a tournament there are certain human rights to which you should have to adhere,” Ruggie told the Guardian. “If you can’t, you have to make tough decisions. That may include having to terminate an existing relationship.”

    Asked specifically about Qatar, he said: “The ILO has recently put out an assessment in which they put off a decision for a year. They didn’t want to shut the door. The next ILO report will be absolutely critical. If it says six to seven years later that no progress has been made then that’s pretty clear.”

    He added: “I think the ILO was being quite strategic in what they did. My sense is that the Supreme Committee will do everything humanly possible to meet the tests. If it doesn’t, Fifa has a tough decision.”

    Like

  69. greg says:

    Good data in this article, with a great chart at the top of four years of recruiting expenses. I’m a little surprised to see PSU’s data included.

    B1G blue bloods help football recruiting costs soar
    Teams spend 39.2 more in 2015 than 2012

    http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/b1g-blue-bloods-help-football-recruiting-costs-soar-20160415

    IOWA CITY — Coaching changes at some of the Big Ten Conference’s blue blood football programs have led to significant growth in recruiting expenses over the last four years.

    Financial data obtained by The Gazette through state open-records requests show that the Big Ten’s 13 public-school football programs report a combined 39.2 percent growth in recruiting expenditures over a four-year period. Northwestern, the league’s only private university, is exempt from providing those documents.

    In the 2012 fiscal year, the Big Ten’s 13 public football programs (counting newcomers Maryland and Rutgers) combined to spend $5.71 million in football recruiting. By 2015, that number swelled to $7.95 million. Some of the league’s powerhouse East Division programs were most responsible for that growth.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The only thing I thought was a touch off was blaming the blue bloods when OSU is in the middle of the pack for recruiting expenses (#7 for 4 year total and in 2015). IL is #3 on the list while MSU and MN are close to MI’s total (#4-6).

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      A big reason for this is how much Penn State spent which is far and above anyone else (without the record to justify it (this from a Penn State fan)).

      Like

      • theo framan says:

        Oh, yeah, and those sanctions that were designed to crush the PSU program never happened right??? Stop pretending that they didn’t hollow out Penn State’s roster over the past few years… even now, 80% of their roster is freshmen, r.s. freshmen and sophomores!

        Like

      • drake shelton says:

        Oh, and those sanctions (and their aftermath) that were designed to crush the PSU football program never happened during this time period???

        Like

  70. Brian says:

    http://thedailycougar.com/2016/04/13/national-conference-realignment/

    A naive national realignment plan to form a P4 to make the playoff process easier.

    But while installing a playoff system was the right choice, a four-team playoff simply isn’t sufficient for the new world of college football.

    There is debate about which teams should and should not make it into the college football playoff, and with five power conferences and four spots, it creates the chance for some major problems.

    In part one of a three-week series, we’ll take a look at a hypothetical resolution to a real problem: realigning the Power 5 conferences into four super conferences while adding a few more teams to the mix.

    This week will focus on the basics of the realignment and the criteria used to select the teams.

    For the new “Power 4” conferences, I took all of the teams from the current Power 5, which came out to 64 teams in total.

    While that’s a nice, round number, it was omitting big teams in college football like Notre Dame and BYU, two teams who currently are independents.

    Including those two, the total is 66 teams, and it shouldn’t stop there. Round numbers are easier to deal with, so making it 72 picking from the best of the “Group of Five” teams resolves the issue.

    The first team that came to mind among teams from the “Group of Five” conferences was Boise State.

    After deliberation, Navy, Cincinnati, Temple, UCF and Houston were picked as the five best teams to join the new highest division of play.

    The one team left behind was the University of Memphis.

    Those teams are organized by geographical location, as much as possible.

    Attempts were also made to ensure rivals were kept in the same conference to maintain some intrigue and tradition.

    We have four major conferences: The West, Central, East and South. Those conferences are further broken down into two 9-team divisions, with scheduling rotating through three phases: inter-division games, intra-division games and intra-conference games.

    Next week, we’ll look at how those conferences are organized and a new scheduling format for the regular season.

    Obviously this plan has no chance of actually happening based on several obvious fatal flaws.

    But let’s ignore those and look at the team selection:

    West = P12 + Boise, BYU, NE, KU, KSU, MO
    South = schools from TX over to TN (only Vandy) and down to FL (no GA or SC)
    East = schools from GA up the coast to NJ and through Appalachia (WV, KY, the other 2 from TN)
    Central = B10 – NE – RU – UMD + ISU + ND + UC + Syracuse + BC + Pitt + Temple

    ND, BYU, Boise and UC are obvious choices. Navy has been pretty good and is a national program, so fine. Where are programs like NIU? They have a much higher W% over the past 15 seasons than UH, Temple and UCF. The writer is from UH so it’s no shock they are listed.

    My 8 would be ND, BYU, Boise, Navy, NIU, UC, UConn and AF but not all of them clearly belong in the top group over other candidates.

    As for the splits into conferences, he did reasonably well. With his set of schools I would swap Memphis to the South for Vandy to the East. I’d also rename the Central the North.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      They can call that 4 conferences, but for all intents and purposes I think we might as well call them 8 conferences given the divisions are big enough and will take up enough of the schedule to be the real conference by traditional standards.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I generally agree, especially since he split several conference up, but I reserve judgement until he finishes his plan. He could force as many as 12 conference games which would be decent (play crossovers 44% of the time). Or maybe he lengthens the season to allow for more conference games.

        Ignoring all the underlying issues, I think his first major mistake was insisting on 4 equally sized conferences. The West should be smaller in number.

        My version would be (P5 + ND, BYU, Boise, UC = 68):
        West (14) = P12 + Boise, BYU

        Central (18) = NE, KU, KSU, OU, OkSU, AR, UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, TAMU, LSU, MS, MsSU, AL, AU, TN, VU

        Southeast (18) = Miami, UF, FSU, UGA, GT, SC, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF, UVA, VT, UK, UL, WV, UMD, RU

        North (18) = MN, WI, IA, ISU, MO, IL, NW, IN, PU, ND, MI, MSU, OSU, UC, PSU, Pitt, SU, BC

        This assumes you have to use state borders to make the splits. A better split would move MO to the Central, RU to the North and TN to the Southeast (splits TN from Vandy).

        Even better would be to use old conferences to maintain more rivalries.

        West (14) = P12 + Boise, BYU

        Central (18) = Big 8 + SWC + SEC = ISU, NE, KU, KSU, OU, OkSU, MO, AR, UT, TT, TCU, Baylor, TAMU, LSU, MS, MsSU, AL, AU

        Southeast (18) = Miami, UF, FSU, UGA, GT, SC, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF, UVA, VT, TN, Vandy, UK, UL, WV

        North (18) = MN, WI, IA, IL, NW, IN, PU, ND, MI, MSU, OSU, UC, PSU, Pitt, SU, BC, UMD, RU

        Like

      • David Brown says:

        Here is the thing to keep in mind about Conference Realignment no one can predict how they work in the long run. Everyone was talking about how Missouri was a Home Run for the SEC, and Rutgers was an “F”for the Big Ten, no one is saying that now. I think with a 12 Game Season the optimal number of teams for a Conference is 16 (although going to a 13 Game Schedule would be better). Using the Big 10 as an example: You could have 7 Divisional Games , 3 Non-Divisional Games, and 2 out of Conference Games. You want to have games like Penn State/Pitt, Purdue/Notre Dame, Iowa/Iowa State, and more Non-divisional games like Illinois/Ohio State & Michigan/Minnesota. I think a lot will be determined when we know what the amount of $$$$$$$$$$$ the Big 10 makes in their next contract, and what is the length of the term? I am going to predict that the B10 will do very well financially, Fox will share the football package with ESPN, and pick up the CBS hoops package, and Oklahoma and Kansas will be the next pair heading for the B10.

        Like

        • bob sykes says:

          Gordon Gee just opined that conference realignment is on hold for a while and that the Big 12 is in no rush to add teams:

          https://westvirginia.n.rivals.com/news/realignment-and-expansion-on-hold-for-now

          He thinks the conference is stable, so maybe or probably Oklahoma and Kansas aren’t leaving for the B1G

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            There is a phrase “Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets.” Substitute Bevo for Lola and you get it. Let’s be honest, without UT some of the Big XII will be lucky to find a home in the AAC or Mountain West. Where are Iowa State, Kansas State, West Virginia, Texas Tech and TCU going ( especially the first two)? I do believe that Oklahoma State and Baylor could have an option in the SEC. But the other five? No way Jose. These Schools know that they need to be tied to Texas in order to survive, in Power Five Conference form, so if Bevo says jump they say ” How high?” That includes UT keeping the Longhorn Network ( no matter what OU or OSU think about it). Do I think OU and KU leaving would hurt the Big XII? Of course, but there will be Schools that can ( and will take their place ( UCF, USF, BYU, Houston, Cincinnati you know the suspects)). The problem is once the Longhorn Network Contract is over (or the Land Grant Rights end), UT will look for the best landing spot (it could be ACC ( if Notre Dame moves its sports to the Big 10), or Independence for football ( Big XII or ACC for Olympic Sports)). Then unless these Schools upgrade (Like TCU did after the Old Southwest Conference ended and they did not join the Big XII. Iowa State and Kansas State might wish they were Houston or SMU ( in the AAC) they might be Rice without the Academics ( left without even a decent Conference). Maybe that is why the Kansas State President bailed and went to Washington
            State? Think about it. Washington State with a train load of debt, hard to find on TV ( see Pac-12 Network carriage when compared to BTN and SEC Network), out in the middle of no where in Pullman, Washington, and with no School ties to WSU. Something to think about.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            When George Raveling coached at WSU he said it wasn’t the end of the earth…but you could see it from there.

            Always wondered if he was bemoaning the location, or taking a shot at U of Idaho (Moscow only 10miles away).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            David Brown,

            “There is a phrase “Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets.” Substitute Bevo for Lola and you get it.”

            UT isn’t all powerful, even in the B12. Close, perhaps, but not quite.

            “Let’s be honest, without UT some of the Big XII will be lucky to find a home in the AAC or Mountain West.”

            True, but you can say the same for the bottom schools in any conference. It’s just that most conferences have 3+ power brokers, not 2 like the B12, but the B12 is smaller than the others and no power schools are leaving other conferences to join the B12.

            “That includes UT keeping the Longhorn Network ( no matter what OU or OSU think about it).”

            I don’t agree with that as a blanket statement. If the gap to other conferences grows large enough, I fully believe there is a tipping point at which the other schools force some change on the network front.

            “Do I think OU and KU leaving would hurt the Big XII? Of course, but there will be Schools that can ( and will take their place ( UCF, USF, BYU, Houston, Cincinnati you know the suspects)).”

            I think you underestimate the value of OU to the B12. Without them, they lose by far their most valuable game half the time to another TV deal. They also lose all 10 of those other games involving a king. Their TV deal would have to be reduced for that sort of loss.

            http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/17/5216550/college-football-tv-ratings-2013-regular-season-final-sec

            2013 average TV ratings (national rank, viewers and closest B10 team)
            All teams with at least 4 rated games:

            16. OU – 3.0M (NE – #4 among B10 schools)
            19. OkSU – 2.7M (NW)
            26. UT – 2.4M (PSU/PU)
            36. TT – 1.9M (IA/IL)
            37. Baylor – 1.9M (IA/IL)
            48. TCU – 1.4M (MN/IN)
            52. WV – 1.3M (IN)
            59. KSU – 1.1M (IN – would be IN/UMD but UMD was still ACC)
            74. ISU – 0.6M (IN – would be RU but they were still AAC)
            79. KU – 0.6M (IN – would be RU but they were still AAC)

            In 2013, the top B12 game was OU/OkSU on CCG weekend at noon with 7.3M. The previous week, Baylor/OkSU at 8pm pulled 6.6M. The RRR pulled 4.7M at noon in early October.

            http://texags.com/s/15550/infographic-2014-college-football-tv-ratings

            2014 average TV ratings (national rank, viewers and closest B10 team)
            P5 + ND and BYU only:

            26. OU – 2.4M (PSU – #5 among B10 schools)
            27. WV – 2.3M (PSU)
            32. TCU – 2.2M (PSU/IA)
            33. Baylor – 2.2M (PSU/IA)
            34. KSU – 2.1M (PSU/IA)
            34. UT – 2.1M (PSU/IA)
            39. OkSU – 2.0M (IA)
            49. TT – 1.5M (UMD)
            56. ISU – 1.2M (RU)
            65. KU – 0.5M (IN)

            In 2014 the top 15 games all topped 6.0M viewers and the B12 only played in one of them (FSU vs OkSU). The RRR at noon pulled 4.2M, just behind the Baylor/TCU game at 3:30 the same day and TCU/WV at 3:30 another weekend both at 4.4M.

            http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

            In 2015 the RR pulled 5.0M at noon. OU/Baylor at 8pm drew 5.9M in mid-November. Baylor/TCU drew 5.1M at 8pm in late November.

            The B12 has no other game with that kind of pull regardless of the records, and OU is consistently a top draw for the B12. There is no replacing that kind of value with the teams available. KU is more than replaceable as better FB ratings would balance out KU’s better MBB ratings.

            “Maybe that is why the Kansas State President bailed and went to Washington
            State? Think about it. Washington State with a train load of debt, hard to find on TV ( see Pac-12 Network carriage when compared to BTN and SEC Network), out in the middle of no where in Pullman, Washington, and with no School ties to WSU. Something to think about.”

            Sports is way down the list of things that draws a president to a new school. I’d guess he was excited to get into the P12 with schools like Cal and Stanford.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            That ranking is kind of bad bull (not your comments which were about specific games and numbers. It is a flat average. It is comparing the top 6 or so games/team for B1G, ACC and Pac vs. the top 7 or so for the SEC (in the first year) to the top 9 or so for the Big 12 as more of the Big 12’s games are on rated networks.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            This link has some good data (especially the charts on page 2) with the distribution of games by conference and the ratings of various networks.

            http://big12fanatics.com/media-matters-tier-three-analysis/

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “That ranking is kind of bad bull (not your comments which were about specific games and numbers. It is a flat average. It is comparing the top 6 or so games/team for B1G, ACC and Pac vs. the top 7 or so for the SEC (in the first year) to the top 9 or so for the Big 12 as more of the Big 12’s games are on rated networks.”

            I know it has major issues, but I was using it to compare OU to the rest of the B12 which should be more fair. It’s the only thing I could find with multiple years treated the same way. I gave B10 references to give people an idea of what that size viewership means. Most people have no idea whether 3M is big, medium or large for a CFB audience.

            Like

  71. Brian says:

    Thanks to beautiful weather and unprecedented turnover of the roster, OSU will likely re-set the national spring game attendance record today. OSU has a sellout with 92,500 tickets sold ($5 each) plus OSU students and children under 6 get in free to probably become the first spring crowd over 100,000 (OSU hit 99,391 last year).

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Official attendance, 100,189.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        UGA was free. Last year was a record with an estimated 46k. This year it was probably over 95k (capacity 92,746). They had to turn people away at the gates. People were standing in the walkways and stairwells.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “UGA was free. Last year was a record with an estimated 46k. This year it was probably over 95k (capacity 92,746). They had to turn people away at the gates. People were standing in the walkways and stairwells.”

          UGA claimed 93,000.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            That was an estimate. They didn’t have a turnstile count. In the 2nd quarter the stands looked full and they kept asking the crowd to squeeze closer together. And they had all those people standing, lining all the open areas. It may have been less than 93k, but may well have been more.

            Like

  72. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/04/17/ncaa-football-basketball-power-five-revenue-expenses/83035862/

    A look at the future of college athletics and whether there is a bubble in spending. Then it looks at TV revenues:

    Still, A.J. Maestas thinks an elite portion of the Power Five schools will continue to do quite well because their revenues have room to rise even more. He is president and founder of Navigate, a firm that measures marketing investments in sports and entertainment.

    “If you take a look at affinity, passion, ratings and licensing — all the metrics that would be highly correlated with revenue — and you picture a bar chart that compares the NBA to college basketball and the NFL to college football, the college versions would be below the pro versions, but not by nearly as much as people might think,” Maestas says. “But if you look at revenue, it is radically below.”

    Matt Balvanz, Navigate’s vice president of analytics, says the firm is projecting the NCAA’s top 25 athletics programs can expect revenue to grow by 116% in the next 10 years. By contrast, the firm predicts revenue growth of 63% in the NFL and NBA, 55% in the NHL and 48% in Major League Baseball.

    But how will TV revenue keep going up in a world where cord-cutters are leaving cable TV and cord-shavers are opting out of high-priced sports channels where they can?

    “No matter how tough things are at ESPN right now, nobody ever cuts their way to greatness,” Maestas says. “We see signs that consumers are willing to pay … for premium content, and college football is premium content.”

    Neal Pilson is a former president of CBS Sports and founder and president of a consulting company specializing in sports television, media and marketing. He says skeptics “have been predicting a bubble in TV rights” since the mid-1980s — and he should know. He was one of them.

    “The (then) president of CBS Sports, to whom you are speaking, predicted rights fees would go down because there just wasn’t enough business to support the rights fees we were paying,” Pilson says. “He was wrong, obviously. Shortly after, he and his network paid $1 billion for the NCAA tournament. And everything has progressed in one direction since then.”

    The progression took another leap forward last week, when CBS Sports and Turner paid $8.8 billion for an additional eight years of the tournament, through 2032. “It tells us,” Pilson says, “that the appetite and interest in major sports properties is a fixed part of our TV sports culture.”

    Pilson points out many of the conference TV rights packages are wrapped up for years, with a significant exception. The Big Ten Conference’s deals, expiring in 2017 and under negotiation now, are “going to be a bellwether, a gut check,” he says. “If there’s a bubble, we’re going to see it in the negotiations coming up.”

    Then it does a short case study of UC and how the G5 schools struggle.

    It ends by talking to a president and gives some data on WSU:

    Schulz is leaving Kansas State this year for Washington State, where athletics director Bill Moos sent a letter to donors last month acknowledging a departmental budget deficit of more than $13 million for fiscal 2015. That was its second consecutive shortfall of more than $13 million, and came even with the department receiving $6.1 million in subsidies. Moos’ letter said, “we continue to work extremely hard to maximize our existing revenue stream as well as identifying and securing innovative new ones.”

    Schulz says he can’t say much about all that until he gets there and begins working on it. But he believes that college presidents are going to show more restraint on coaches’ salaries in coming years.

    “I think many of us have reached the limit on what we can do on football salaries, for example,” he says. “Can a Kansas State pay a football coach $5 million a year? Probably could, but I’m not sure we’re willing to go that far. … Those are the types of constraint that are going to be there. But I see those as more of a gradual set of changes than this overnight, everybody is deciding to do something. I just don’t think that’s realistic.”

    It’s worth reading the whole thing.

    Like

  73. Brian says:

    http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/3/24/11283338/ncaa-football-teams-costs-spending-expenses

    How efficient schools are at turning money into football success for 2006-2015.
    Best = Boise, Worst = Syracuse

    There is a table as well as a nice chart. The disappointing thing for the B10 is that nobody outperformed their spending (all the other P5 had at least 1) although UMD was close. OSU probably would have without the Fickell year.

    Difference between rank for spending and rank for success:
    Maryland -0.4
    Ohio State -3.4
    Nebraska -4
    Michigan State -6.1
    Wisconsin -9.3
    Illinois -15.3
    Penn State -18.1
    Michigan -18.9
    Minnesota -20.5
    Northwestern -21
    Iowa -24.9
    Purdue -25.5
    Rutgers -25.1
    Indiana -32.9

    Like

  74. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Women’s Gymnastics Super Six (Nat’l Championship) results.

    1. Oklahoma
    2. LSU
    3. Alabama
    4. Florida
    5. UCLA
    6. Georgia

    http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=210895092

    Like

  75. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    USA Today has released their annual list of AD revenue & spending.

    http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

    Texas A&M with a huge jump, similar to Oregon in 2013-14.

    Like

  76. David Brown says:

    It is so funny that certain people want the Sports funding bubble to burst, while at the same time are demanding certain sports get funded to the max, such as those that 99% ( or more) do not care about. For example: @ Penn State The only profitable sports are Football and Men’s Basketball and Hockey. Even wrestling is not profitable ( let alone ladies softball). The reality is that the Bernie Sanders mentality that someone else will pay for stuff instead of you ( Wall Street paying for free Education ( and everything else)), is economically not viable, and there will be a day of reckoning ( we are seeing That in Illinois and Puerto Rico). In College Sports, That day will come when the much malligned sport of football cannot pay for everyone and everything in the Athletic Department. That is when the major players ( the UT ‘s and USC types), will get tired of paying for the Washington State Cougar, and a reallignment based on economics happens, and you can say bye bye to certain schools in Power Five Conferences ( not just Washington State). For those who want Penn State women’ s softball AND for us to continue to play Temple and maybe even Purdue you should be happy for football, BTN, ESPN and Fox because without them those things are not happening.

    Like

    • TOM says:

      At a glance, A&M appears to have gotten some really big donations. I was surprised to see them at #1. Their fundraisers deserve major recognition.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        A&M is at the top due to their Stadium renovation. Similar to Oregon a year or 2 ago when they built their new facility. That is the issue with all the accounting for these non-profit AD’s. If donors make pledges for future gifts they are often recorded at the time of the pledge or to match the construction expense.

        Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      The question that I have is how long some of the schools can continue to subsidize their athletic programs to the extent of $25 million or more per year. In the B1G, RU is at a $24 million deficit, but the B1G money increases over a six year period, so once they get a full share, that will be much less, or almost gone. Maryland should also eliminate its $15 million deficit in a few years.

      At least in the RU case, that current deficit is a partial reason why they cannot yet compete in the B1G. Wisconsin at $8 million and Minnesota at $7 million are the only other B1G schools with meaningful deficits.

      UConn has a $28 million deficit, in a state with financial issues. In the AAC, how do they close that gap and/or how long will the state support them? I guess that as long as the bball teams at UConn keep winning, there is a chance that the state will continue paying.

      Cincinnati is at a $23 million deficit. USF and UCF are running comparable deficits.

      It looks that the Big East football teams who were left out of the P5 are in serious financial trouble. (Not much surprise there). In fact, all of the AAC schools are close to $20 million or over that amount.

      Will the time come when state legislators refuse to continue the subsidies?

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        Wisconsin doesn’t actually receive subsidies. It’s how they account for in-state vs. out of state tuition. Wisconsin is actually sending nearly $13 million in cash annually back to the academic side. Often the revenue numbers are very misleading for an athletic department. In many cases it does not reflect actual cash based revenue. A better understanding of the size of a department is on the cost side.

        Like

      • David Brown says:

        The day that State’s cannot pay is already here ( see Chicago State and the Illinois Legislature) even the university of Illinois has put a spending freeze in place)). Penn State is coming under fire because unlike Illinois, they are continuing to build complexes like the $157 million chemical and engineering building despite the budget impasse in Harrisburg. But even at Penn State they are stressing rebuilding instead of NEW Construction( in most cases). Penn State is actually thinking ahead, with these kind of projects as well as an upcoming Sports Master Plan, so that when the day comes that the Legislature quit bailing them out, Interest Rates go up, people complain too loudly and Students cannot afford tuition and ( or) debt they will be okay. But smaller schools? They will be in trouble.

        Like

        • Jersey Bernie says:

          Rutgers is undertaking a major upgrade in sports facilities, which are needed to be in the B1G.
          These are pretty much related to basketball, baseball, softball, and Olympic sports, since the football stadium had been upgraded prior to B1G admission.

          The State of NJ passed legislation allowing $25 million in tax credits to fund the projects. RU is also in the midst of a $100 million fundraiser for sporting facilities only.

          Like

        • bob sykes says:

          Most big state schools are largely self-sustaining nowadays, and budgetary problems at the state level do not necessarily impact school budgets.

          Also, funding sources for academic programs like new buildings are different than those of athletic programs, and the competition between them is less than might appear. Donors who give money for academics generally don’t give money for athletics and v. v.

          Schools generally regard athletics as part of the cost of doing business. They believe it binds impressionable, malleable young people to the institution, and assures their future support. A few years ago, Northeastern University shut down football (to the consternation of its alumni), but it kept everything else, including their relatively expensive (per athlete) ice hockey and crew teams. That said, some of the “subsidies” listed above are quite striking. Considering that the only real source of revenue is football, one wonders what the future of college athletics is in general. One also wonders what has happened to Northeastern’s athletic budget since the change.

          PS:

          I am not sure what the condition of the old PSU chemical engineering building was in, but there has been a huge increase in the sheer amount of utilities needed in a laboratory-centric discipline like chemIcal engineering. Total electricity supply (often 440 V, three phase), heating/cooling and total air supply (fume hoods, environment rooms, etc.) are major problems, and older buildings might require so much renovation that a new building might be preferred. At tOSU, new buildings often are deferred until donors can be found to fund most of their cost.

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            You are correct about the need for new buildings when it comes to items like Chemical Engineering. Penn State was being threatened with losing its accrediationin that area because the facilities are outmoded. Still $157 million is a whole lot of money (especially after they spent $207 million on the Millenium Science Facility).
            When it comes to sports, there is a reason why Sandy Barbour was hired as AD ( hint: Its not just because she is a woman). She got the Master Plan for sports completed @ Cal Berkeley. A project that was opposed by most people, and she was very
            unpopular.The same thing happened at NYU with Johnn Sexton ( a Master Plan called NYU 2032), that the local community opposed as well as students and faculty. It cost Sexton his job, and it took a lot of legal battles but he won out. Jack Graham @ Colorado State University was able to get a New Stadium agreed to and will be opening up, but guess what? It cost him his job. Penn State will be spending a train load of $$$$ starting with Beaver Stadium and the McCoy Natatorium. Like the other examples it will be very expensive and unpopular. But that is why she is AD to take the hair but get it done.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          PSU gets, what? 2% or so of it’s budget from PA?

          Don’t think they’re very beholden to their state.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        Jersey Bernie,

        “The question that I have is how long some of the schools can continue to subsidize their athletic programs to the extent of $25 million or more per year.”

        As long as the students are willing to pay large athletic fees.

        “UConn has a $28 million deficit, in a state with financial issues. In the AAC, how do they close that gap and/or how long will the state support them? I guess that as long as the bball teams at UConn keep winning, there is a chance that the state will continue paying.”

        State funding in a low percentage of the funding for state schools anymore (5-20% is common). Tuition is a large part of their funding.

        http://oire.uconn.edu/UConn_Facts_2015_Final.pdf

        For UConn, they spent $1.2B in 2015 with state appropriations of $230M (19%). Tuition and fees was $600M (51%). Spending $25M on athletics just isn’t that big of a deal in the big picture (2%).

        “It looks that the Big East football teams who were left out of the P5 are in serious financial trouble. (Not much surprise there). In fact, all of the AAC schools are close to $20 million or over that amount.”

        They are hoping to catch the last invitations to P5 conferences. The expenditure is well worth it if they do get to step up. If it becomes clear after a few more years that they won’t get to move up, you may see the spending get reduced. Or not, since sports are the best way to relate to the alumni and get their donations.

        “Will the time come when state legislators refuse to continue the subsidies?”

        They barely subsidize the academics side as it is.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      I’ll just suggest that it’s probably best to leave national politics out of the discussion if we don’t want to attract crazy responses that will overwhelm this blog.

      Like

  77. Mike says:

    Matt Sarz tweeted out this link on sports rights fee bubbles. I don’t know who John Gasaway is, but its an interesting read.

    https://johngasaway.com/2016/04/19/the-political-economy-of-college-sports-is-infuriating-profitable-and-remarkably-resistant-to-asteroids/

    But at this historical moment, there’s nothing irrational or even particularly exuberant about what CBS and its Turner partners are paying the NCAA.

    In 2015, advertisers spent an estimated $1.19 billion for spots during the tournament. Under the contract that was then in place, the NCAA was receiving an average of $774 million per year for the media rights to the tournament, meaning last year the broadcast partners achieved a fairly incredible (estimated) 54 percent return on their investment. To put it very mildly, the math works for CBS.

    Like

  78. Mike says:

    It begins.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      250/14 = ~17.85MM per school.

      http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2016/04/19/Big-Ten.aspx

      Deal terms still are flexible – both in terms of money and rights. However, the two sides have agreed on basic terms that will give Fox the rights to around 25 football games and 50 basketball games that it will carry on both the broadcast channel and FS1 starting in the fall of ’17. The deal runs six years and could cost Fox as much as $250M per year, depending on the amount of rights the Big Ten conference puts in its second package.

      The Fox deal essentially is half of the package of games that had been with ESPN (as part of a 10-year, $1B deal that expires next spring) and CBS (as part of a 6-year, $72M basketball-only deal that also expires next spring). The Big Ten will return to the market to solicit bids on the second half of the package.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        more:

        Fox’ deal is a blow to ESPN, which had held most of the conference’s rights previously. Sources said that ESPN presented a non-competitive bid several weeks ago, as the company continues to look for areas to save costs.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          I think this deal will drive up the price for the remaining rights. Economic law of scarcity. Can’t imagine ESPN will want to be excluded from nearly 1/3 of the U.S. and a significant share of large media markets.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Doubt it. Who is going to bid against them? Fox has probably got all they have room for.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            NBC, CBS, Turner and Fox. I just don’t see ESPN excluded. If I am a B1G fan in Wisconsin why do I even have ESPN or be willing to pay $6/mo when there isn’t much that I am interested in watching except for some NBA and 1 NFL game.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Fox has roughly 30 Big 12 games, 25 of which must be full national broadcasts. They have 22 Pac 12 games which are restricted on where they can be shown. They also have 22 CUSA games, but those probably get pushed to open FS1 slots and FS2. With 25 B1G games, that gives them 77 P5 games to fit into 14 Saturdays (plus some Thursdays if the conferences agree) + the 22 CUSA games. And while they have FX, they mostly show sports on Fox, FS1 and FS2. I don’t remember any Pac 12 or Big 12 games on FX last year and very few on FS2.

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            They almost have to get it from a pure content standpoint for them on Saturdays. That should drive up the price on the other half a bit.

            Like

          • I believe ESPN will still end up with all or most of the other half of the Big Ten rights. That being said, I actually do believe the price will be driven up on that second portion – ESPN appeared to have bet that the “sports rights bubble” was going to pop at this moment and lost, so they may end up paying dearly for it. Where some people aren’t thinking creatively in terms of the value of the second half of the rights is how that could be split further between different networks. For instance, the Big Ten can create a prime time package and sell it to *any* of the other networks out there and all of them – CBS, NBC, ESPN/ABC and Turner – have the space to show them. The rest of the rights could be provided in another package, and when you add all of that together, it could certainly be more than what Fox is paying for its half. I’ve written this several times before: the Big Ten is approaching its TV contracts like the NFL approaches its TV contracts. It wants to leverage multiple partners and multiple packages in an environment where they’re considered to be “must have” programming PLUS retaining rights for itself and its own league-owned network. I know that there have been skeptics out there that the Big Ten could pull this off, but I think they’re going to be proven wrong (just as Jim Delany proved ESPN and much of the general public wrong 10 years ago with the creation of the BTN).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I was kind of surprised that the B1G didn’t start out with a deal much like the SEC has with CBS.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Fox only has to show 6 B12 games on FOX and 6 B12 games on FS1 as a minimum. Rest could be pushed to FS2.

            Like

      • greg says:

        What are the ramifications of the deal being six years? I believe that would put one-half of the B1G rights back on the market before the other conferences get another at-bat.

        Does ESPN take the other half for six years, or will their half be for 12 years?

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          I think you want the contracts synced. You loose negotiating leverage by only having half of the inventory available at a given time. On the other hand you may minimize some risk.

          Like

          • Kevin says:

            @Greg – They essentially have only half the inventory now for this second bid and I (and Frank seems to agree) that this will give them even more leverage. I do find the 6 year term interesting. Could open a window if they want to expand again.

            Like

          • @Kevin – The 6-year term does put it right in line with the expiration of the Big 12 grant of rights agreement. I can’t say that would be the driving factor, but it’s certainly *a* factor. It also allows the Big Ten to go back to the negotiating table for TV contracts *before* the rest of the power conferences.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Expires same time as Pac 12.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW and Colorado in 2023?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            If other half goes for 12 years then it B1G would (co)lead off the next round of negotiations, and have last ups.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Big 12 had split Tier I & II expiration dates and found it hampered their flexibility.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Mike,

        “250/14 = ~17.85MM per school.”

        And double that is $35.7M per year, just to ballpark the total. That’s a touch above the B10’s projection of $33M per year just from TV in 2017.

        Like

    • Mike says:

      Like

  79. bullet says:

    That Purdue projection put TV revenue at $33 million in 2017. This deal is potentially $17-$18/school and with today’s $8 BTN, that gets it to $25-26 million before the last half is sold.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      So, the B1G’s estimate that they’d get $44-45 million per school per year was — seemingly —- an accurate projection. $18 M on this half, $8M from the BTN. If the B1G gets another $18M for the other half, that is $44M per school per year.

      Like

  80. wscsuperfan says:

    Like

  81. Jersey Bernie says:

    Speaking of budgets, it appears that a couple of the profs at Rutgers who have been trying to eliminate sports have gotten the attention of HBO. Killingsworth has been against every penny ever spent on sports at RU.

    http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2016/04/hbo_real_sports_to_scrutinize_rutgers_athletics_sp.html#incart_river_index

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      One observation, I firmly believe that the student body and alumni at RU were thrilled to get into the B1G, so the HBO hit job will not mean anything to anyone, other than to give Killingsworth his 15 minutes of fame.

      Like

  82. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    The short length of the new contract suggests that realignment is probably on hold until 2022 or so but will then heat up in a major way. I doubt it’s a coincidence the contract ends just before the relevant GORs expire.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      On the other hand, last time the B10 heated up expansion just before the end of the old TV deal. Wouldn’t a 10 year deal be more conducive to capitalizing on expansion?

      I wonder if the term is this short so the B10 can evaluate having its rights split over 2 or more major networks (or if Fox needs to wait until then to consider doing more).

      Like

  83. Kevin says:

    Why the Big Ten's reported short new TV deal with Fox makes sense https://t.co/1zV7NDO3nj via @CBSSports— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) April 20, 2016

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Dennis Dodd seems to think Fox didn’t have the appetite to go beyond 6 years partly due to NFL rights timing. Not sure I believe that rationale.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Dodd’s job is to get clicks, ratings and comments. The best way to do that is to say something negative about a conference/team and/or to take contrarian positions which generate heated reactions from people who take Dodd seriously. But no one should take Dodd seriously.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Signing only a six-year deal, “probably means [the Big Ten] didn’t get the money they wanted,” one source said.

      One industry insider told CBS Sports that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany sought a long-term deal through 2032. There may not have been the money in the market for such a deal, or Delany may have strategically tried to line up the next deal close to when NFL deals expire with CBS, Fox and NBC after the 2022 season when, theoretically, more money could be available in the market.

      He could be right. It seems like decent money to me, though. Maybe Delany just anticipates rights growing in value even more so he wants to get yet another bump in 6 years rather than wait out a longer deal. It could be like a look-in clause with the bonus of being able to seek competitive bids.

      Like

  84. BuckeyeBeau says:

    More on the Fox deal. this from NBC dot com.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/04/19/mo-money-no-problem-big-ten-closing-in-on-media-rights-bonanza/

    of note:

    “To put that into perspective, the Big Ten’s current deal with ESPN that expires in the spring of next year was worth $1 billion over the course of 10 years; that $100 million annual average would be blown away by FOX Sports‘ $250 million a year average — and that’s just for half of the deal.”

    “For further perspective…

    Reported $250m/year for HALF of Big Ten’s first-tier rights is close to what other confs get for 1st AND 2nd tier! https://t.co/ngvZHVgQtd

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      There are only two decent National Packages out for bids over the next five years. Big 10 Part 2 and the PGA Tournament ( this is assuming The Masters refuses to open itself up for bidding). I wonder if NBC/Comcast might actually end up with the BIg 10 Package? I am a Big Sports fan ( have the NFL Sunday Ticket, MLB Extra Innings and NHL Center Ice with Direct TV) and NBC Sports Network never gets turned on except for hockey. This might be a rare opportunity to actually get viewership on the NBC Sports Network?
      One group that must really be upset are Pac-12 Member Schools. The so called “Conference Of Champions” hired Larry Scott ( supposed to be some TV and marketing genius), and it is bad enough he could not ever get Pac-12 on Direct TV and Charter, and because of the TV Contract with ESPN and Fox has made it difficult to find ASU ( and especially U of A Games) even in Mesa, Arizona ( let alone back home in New York), and the debacle which was Pac-12 Tournament Games being unavailable to most fans ( even if they have Pac -12 Network ( which I do not)). Did I forget to mention the 8PM starts in Tucson ( U of A), and Pullman ( Washington State ) Which hurts home attendance? Now he has been taken to ( I said it) SCHOOL by Delaney and the Big 10 to such an extent ( they financially look like Mountain West Schools when compared to the Big 10). These guys basically bet the house on the Sports TV Market collapsing and by owning 100% of content being able to make a financial killing, and lost. Now unless they can make the deal which lands them Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, they better take a step back and find a way to get those games available, otherwise they Will lose more fans and maybe even recruits.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        David Brown,

        Some good points.

        “Did I forget to mention the 8PM starts in Tucson ( U of A), and Pullman ( Washington State ) Which hurts home attendance?”

        I agree night games are a problem in the P12, but UA demands 8pm starts for the first half of the season due to the heat. Why not just do it all season long and get the fans used to it? It works for LSU.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          I understand there are Schools that want more Night Games like EARLY in the Season U of A ( and believe it or not Penn State). That said, the reasons why it works better in Baton Rouge then Tucson and ( especially Pullman). Are: 1: LSU are playing better teams in the SEC. 2: The 8:00 starts on the West Coast are either on the East Coast @ 10:00 or 11:00 ( Tucson depending on the time of year), or 11:00 in Pullman. 3: Also the weather can get nasty in Pullman ( or at Oregon State) late in the year, which affects attendance. I do believe you will see more B10 Night Games ( especially Penn State, Rutgers, Minnesota, Nebraska and Maryland who either like or have no adversion to them), when the New Contract kicks in

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I get all that. I’m just pointing out that it’s a little hypocritical for UA to complain when they insist on those 8pm games in September and October.

            Like

    • David Brown says:

      The Big 10 is in such a strong position it is not funny. I wonder how Gordon Gee of Texas oops West Virginia is feeling today ( think he might be missing Ohio State?). There are a lot of real unhappy people @ Ames, Iowa and Manhattan, Kansas as well. I wonder what Bevo and especially Notre Dame are thinking ( imagine ND making LESS then Purdue and Indiana in TV rights?). If I am ND I am sick today. I am already unhappy about the cost of my Olympic Sports in the ACC, now this. As for the Big 10 Schools this is huge. It stars with Nebraska having a full share. Then Penn State with their sports Master Plan ( especially with the rebuild needed to Beaver Stadium). Next Rutgers.
      although they will not be able to take full advantage of this ( Rutgers with their $100 million expansion plan is looking pretty good). I suspect even Gopher Hockey fans might be happy. Finally, I wonder how much longer Oklahoma and Kansas will be remaining in the Big XII?

      Like

      • cutter says:

        I suspect there are a lot of ACC and Big XII presidents and athletic directors who are wondering where their conferences stand revenue and media wise relative to the Big Ten and the SEC.

        If you’re a school that might be on the B1G’s candidate list and you agreed to a Grant of Rights, you have to be kicking yourself right now. Admittedly, both the ACC and Big XII put together those GORs because those two conferences were worried about losing members to other conferences in another expansion run a few years ago. OTOH, it means program like Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Oklahoma and Kansas are tied into their current conferences with little chance of putting together conference wide networks (unless the Longhorn Network becomes the Big XII Network) or getting the same sort of money that the Big Ten and SEC are slated to get in the near term.

        Hawkeye Nation has a long article about the contracts, markets and expansion–see http://hawkeyenation.com/2016/b1g-money-big-ten. The article explores a number of expansion scenarios and identifies the large media markets (Atlanta at #9, Charlotte and Raleigh in the mid-20s). The article repeats a point made above, i.e. the six year contract means the B1G will have an “open door” to expansion because of when the Big XII GOR ends (I believe it’s 2023-4).

        It will be interesting to see what does happen to the Pac 12. When all the smoke clears, will Larry Scott finally get his sixteen-team (or more) conference and who will the four (or more) other members be to round it out? What would a Pac 16 or 18 look like with the additions of Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU plus a couple of other schools?

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          If I was Larry Scott, I would be on the phone to Austin right now. It would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State heading west. That would also get Pac-12 on Direct TV and Charter. But that is not what UT wants. They would love some kind of Notre Dame type deal where they play 5 or 6 Games in the Mountain West oops Big XII, play Oklahoma once a year ( If OU would go with Kansas to the B10), have some quality home and home games ( like their series against Notre Dame) and find other teams to come to Austin for the Longhorn Network ( think UTEP, SMU and Rice mind?). The worst case scenario for the B10 would be those teams heading West, which is why I think that if Delaney believes OU would head West, he will bring them in. I know the Academics in Norman are not up to B10 Standards, but with AAU Partner Kansas and the amount of goodwill generated ( $50,000,000 a year for 6 years is a lot of goodwill), he can do it.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Why in the world do you believe the TX/OK quad heading to the Pac is the worse case scenario for the B1G? That’s arguably the best case next to the main two moving into the western division of the B1G.

            Like

  85. BuckeyeBeau says:

    http://www.testudotimes.com/maryland-terps-football/2016/4/19/11463304/big-ten-tv-rights-agreement-fox-espn

    Maryland bloggers like the news.

    Interesting: a twitter post from Kevin Traham (??): ”

    Add in NCAA payouts ($4.4 million and rising), bowl games ($4.7 million), ticket sales, etc., and you’re looking at well over $50 million.”

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The article has this nice revenue breakdown from OSU:

      According to documents obtained from Ohio State, full Big Ten members — all but Maryland, Nebraska and Rutgers — were each given a total of $21.5 million from all of their media rights deals in 2015. All fully-integrated Big Ten members receive the same payout.

      Here’s the information from Ohio State via a Freedom of Information Request in trying to learn more about the Big Ten’s revenue distributions to the conference.

      TV + BTN profit shares: $21,499,346

      NCAA: $4,443,096

      Bowl: $4,723,939.44

      Big Ten MBB Tourney: $405,580

      Big Ten FB Championship Game: $335,402

      Total: $32,407,363

      Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      Some of the numbers are off. NCAA and playoff revenue is going to be too low, and television revenue is overstated all due to contract escalations.

      Like

  86. bob sykes says:

    Today, the University of Connecticut is running a full-page ad (p. A5) in the New York Times:

    UCONN

    The 6th Borough.

    From Storrs to New York and beyond, UConn Nation spans borders, united by a commitment to excellence.

    Like

    • Jersey Bernie says:

      Storrs, CT is 140 miles from NYC. Storrs is only 85 miles from Boston.

      Even in the AAC, Temple, located in Philadelphia, is much closer to NYC than UConn is.

      As a comparison, New Brunswick (RU) is 36 miles from NYC and RU is in the NYC media market. Storrs is in the Hartford, CT, media market, not NYC and not Boston.

      When the Big East was alive, UConn played bball against St. John’s, Rutgers, Seton Hall (20 miles to NYC), etc. UConn had some presence in NYC. The Big East basketball tourney was in Madison Square Garden. Now, there is no connection at all between UConn and NYC. Even when UConn was in the Big East, they were not a big deal in NYC.

      I don’t blame UConn for taking the advert in the Times and trying something. The news about B1G teams possibly getting $50 million plus in a few years must have been very painful to UConn. Even an ACC payout of $20 or $30 million is ten times what UConn will get in the AAC.

      Perhaps the advert was aimed at the Big 12. For the short term, that is the only game available.

      I cannot believe that the addition of UConn would do much for the Big 12 in the NYC media market, but they can try.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        Since I am from New York, I can tell you that Fairfield County and part of New Haven County ( both in Connecticut), are in the New York TV Market. NEITHER are near Storrs ( or East Hartford where the football team plays). Rutgers and Seton Hall ( hoops) get far more coverage on sports talk radio WFAN then Husky sports ( ladies hoops included). There are other places starting with Nassau and Westchester County ( New York), and Passaic County New Jersey that deserve that 6th borough title more then Storrs. Even Army at West Point New York or Monmouth College ( Monmouth County NJ ( in the NY TV Market are more deserving)). Connecticut ‘s chance of entering the B10 for anything either then hockey alone, fall somewhere between Kansas State and Iowa State.

        Like

        • bob sykes says:

          Other than the University of Florida, I don’t think there are any schools in the east and south that meet the B1G profile: huge enrollment, big graduate and research programs, land grant, state flagship, hundreds of thousands of living alumni, big markets, comprehensive athletic programs and (please forgive the noise) HISTORY. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, come close, especially Texas, and Kentucky and maybe Tennessee deserve a look.

          But, the Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins affiliate status provide and option for new additions; expect more along those lines. UConn as an affiliate in hockey and basketball might work. I don’t know how you work around the AAC for that, however.

          Like

  87. ccrider55 says:

    Big oops…

    Sign up
    Log in
    Stewart Mandel
    Stewart Mandel – Verified account ‏@slmandel

    New twist in satellite camp ban. Pac-12 commish Larry Scott says their rep, Dan Guerrero, “did not vote the way he was supposed to vote.”
    4:31 PM – 20 Apr 2016
    161 RETWEETS123 LIKES

    Like

    • Brian says:

      On the bright side, his vote didn’t change the outcome. It makes a lot more sense as Leach claimed the schools were 11-0-1 in favor of the camps. He was probably wrong on the exact numbers, but it makes more sense that the P12 might support it (except USC and UCLA).

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:<