Ah, I love the smell of napalm and crushed Big Ten expansion dreams in the morning. Judging by the over 1000 comments to last week’s post (a record number for the blog), we’re all exasperated that Jim Delany and the Big Ten have at least publicly stated that they will stick to original timetable of 12-18 months to examine expansion candidates. This is certainly a fascinating topic, but Lord help me if I’m still speculating12 months from now about who the Big Ten will be adding. At that point, I’d rather be speculating about… Big East expansion! Let’s get to my thoughts on last week’s events:
(1) You lie!!! – In all seriousness, I’m not one of those people that subscribe to conspiracy theories and break every conference official comment down like the Zapruder film. However, if there’s one thing that needs to be beaten into people’s heads after this past week, it’s this: TRUST NO ONE. The various of lists of 5 and 15 candidates that the Big Ten leaked and every public comment that has been uttered mean nothing to me at this point. The one reporter that seemed to actually have a decent clue as to what was going on in the Big Ten expansion story, Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune, appeared to get solid information that the conference was fast-tracking adding new schools and then had to make a complete retraction a couple days later. If Greenstein is getting played by the Big Ten, then every other reporter is getting played, as well. I’ve received info from credible people that Texas and Notre Dame are definitely still in legitimate play for the Big Ten and other info that the conference has moved on regarding both of them. Commenters have posted information suggesting that Maryland preemptively nixed any consideration for Big Ten membership and that Northwestern’s president revealed to a sorority that the conference had actually made a decision as to who it was inviting. Tom Shatel, one of the Nebraska beat writers at the Omaha World-Herald, shared his frustration that people he trusted last week that stated that the Cornhuskers weren’t part of the Big Ten expansion talks are now saying that the school is definitely in the mix. It’s impossible to parse through what’s true or false in all of this.
At this point, there is no combination of Notre Dame and/or any Big East and/or Big 12 schools that are AAU members that would surprise me. If the Big Ten announces in June 2011 that it’s adding Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers, I wouldn’t flinch. If the Big Ten announces in 2 weeks that it’s adding Texas, Texas A&M and Notre Dame, it wouldn’t faze me at all. It’s all fair game at this point. The leaks so far have been so contradictory that we’re all better off assuming that they’re red herrings. There’s a plan out there that might be way more aggressive than even the Super Death Star Conference that I’ve brought up or it could very well be a conservative addition of a geographically contiguous school or 3 purely for households. No one except for Jim Delany and the Big Ten university presidents knows WTF is going on.
Of course, we’ll still have fun pouncing on every leak and rumor in the meantime.
(2) Backdoor meetings are where it’s at – Some commenters astutely noted that Jim Delany isn’t going to call a press conference one day and say, “I’ve just informed the Big East and Big XII that they need to bend over and assume the position.” If and when Delany talks to his fellow commissioners, it’s going to be private and it’s likely such commissioners would want to keep it that way so they can start planning for their own raids of leagues like the Mountain West and Conference USA. Delany would certainly not want anything to do with speaking about anything substantive with the feeding frenzy of the media horde gathered at the BCS meetings last week. This seems like such a simple and logical concept, yet in a world where we’re craving information on this subject, we’re dying for any type of official statement of a go-ahead.
(3) Time is on the Big Ten’s side – I really doubt the Big Ten is going to take the full 12-18 months to examine this expansion issue. That’s just my gut feeling as the university presidents likely wouldn’t be able to stomach having this story hanging over their heads in the press for such a long period of time. It could very well be the case that the Big Ten’s university presidents know how they want to proceed and that they simply didn’t want Delany to inform the Big 12 and/or Big East commissioners of the Big Ten’s targets at the media-filled BCS meetings. Honestly, I don’t know what could be taking so long unless the Big Ten is vetting every single possibility with the two schools that matter the most: Notre Dame and Texas. Those are certainly two schools worth waiting for if the Big Ten believes that either of them would be willing to join. Every single other school in the Big East and Big XII would leap toward Big Ten membership, so if the Big Ten was solely targeting non-Notre Dame/Texas schools, this could’ve been wrapped up weeks ago.
(4) Big East being “proactive” by “hiring” Paul Tagliabue and expanding to Jacksonville – As Brian Cook of Sporting News and mgoblog (not the former Illini quasi-great) stated, “Soviet Big East Raids You!” (I’m not going to lie – I could keep myself entertained making up Yakov Smirnoff-isms for hours at a time.) On paper, it sounds like a massive coup that former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has been tapped as a strategist for the Big East. He’s actually providing his services pro bono because he has a very direct interest in how all of this plays out as Chairman of the Board of the Directors at Georgetown. What does this mean? Well, if Tagliabue has anything to do with it, the hybrid format of the conference will continue on into perpetuity. Georgetown would be severely damaged if the Big East split up and one of his tasks will be to ensure that doesn’t happen. If the Big East were to lose multiple schools, he has the gravitas to tell schools that might be ready to split (i.e. Louisville) that the hybrid is still the revenue maximization model for the conference. The Big East football schools might not trust anything that the Big East office says anymore, but if the former commissioner of the NFL says that ESPN will still pay a lot more money for a hybrid league than a split league, then that’s going to carry a lot of weight. As a DePaul law grad, though, I really hope that Tagliabue doesn’t decide that the Big East would be better off skipping the Los Angeles market in favor of the next municipality that whores itself with a taxpayer-financed stadium.
Honestly, there is absolutely nothing “proactive” that the Big East can do at this point to prevent a member from leaving for the Big Ten. Even if the Big East could somehow create a new TV network that could generate large amounts of cash, there’s no way that could be up and running even if the Big Ten takes the maximum amount of time to complete its expansion process.
Of course, Tagliabue unintentionally torpedoed the prospect of the Big East ever creating its own network by dumping on the thought that the Big Ten adding schools in the New York area would deliver homes for the Big Ten Network by saying the following:
“One of the real challenges for the networks is to provide value, but you only provide value in markets where you provide traction,” he said. “Is Minnesota and Rutgers going to get a big rating on Long Island? Give me a break. Every game isn’t Michigan and Michigan State.” He added, “Am I going to rush home from a tennis game on Saturday to watch Minnesota and Rutgers if I live on Long Island?”
Now, I’m not exactly a favorite person with the Rutgers message board crowd, but I’ve got to defend the school here. WTF was Tagliabue doing completely ripping apart a current member of the Big East when his job is to presumably keep the conference intact? Maybe he was suggesting that Midwestern schools like Minnesota wouldn’t exactly attract the Long Island tennis club crowd, which is likely true, yet that’s quite a disingenuous statement coming from someone representing a league that includes Louisville, South Florida and Cincinnati (who don’t conjure up images of summer parties in the Hamptons). In fact, the highly-rated 2006 Rutgers game where the Empire State Building was lit up in scarlet red was against Louisville as opposed to an Eastern school, which goes to show you that New Yorkers simply want to watch good teams play other good teams regardless of geographic location. If I were a Rutgers fan, I don’t know how I could deal with someone in a leadership position in the Big East saying that about my school. At worst, it was a complete cheap shot and at best, it came off extremely wrong with logic that didn’t follow considering that the Big East isn’t a purely Northeastern football league anymore.
(5) ESS – EEE – SEE SPEEEED! – SEC Commissioner Mike Slive articulated the real reason for expansion: it’s a high stakes pissing contest to see who can lay claim to the “Bad Motherfucker” wallet. More than anyone, there’s kind of this lingering assumption that if the Big Ten expands to 16 schools, then the SEC MUST respond because it simply can’t handle not being the biggest (and therefore, the best).
Frankly, this line of thinking doesn’t make sense to me at all. I know a lot of fairly knowledgeable people are convinced that we’re going to end up with 4 16-team superconferences after everything shakes out, yet too many people seem to forget that every single conference other than the Big Ten doesn’t have a financial vehicle like the Big Ten Network that would make it financially viable to perform such a large-scale expansion. The Big Ten isn’t expanding just to expand – it’s looking to maximize the per-school payout for each of its members. All of the other conferences are going to do the same and I fail to see how any of them would be able to make it a profitable venture to expand beyond 12 without its own conference network. Heck, even the Big Ten isn’t guaranteed a windfall by going beyond 12 schools (even though it at least has an argument with the Big Ten Network).
In the case of the SEC, there are very few schools that make sense for it in terms of expansion at all. I see names thrown around like Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson, but all of them would be duplicate teams in markets that the SEC already owns. There’s very little point in the SEC adding more schools within its current footprint. In fact, there are only two markets that would add value to the SEC: Texas and North Carolina. The problem is that in order to obtain those markets, it would need to try to add the University of Texas and UNC, both of whom would likely completely shun the SEC due to academic reasons. Throughout this process, I’ve corresponded with many Texas alums (NOT the T-shirt fans that just care about football) and they’re pretty much unanimous in stating that the UT administration will NEVER entertain any thought of joining the SEC. It cannot be underestimated how much the academically-minded administrators at Texas loathe the thought of the SEC. I think about this every time I see a columnist wrongly assume that “Texas = South” and therefore “Texas = SEC”, when in reality UT likens itself to be more like Berkeley or Michigan as opposed to any of the SEC schools. UNC is even more snobby with respect to academics and the Tar Heels have emotional ties to the ACC that go far beyond what Texas has with the Big XII. So, the chances of the SEC adding either of those schools is between slim and none. Without them, there aren’t any other worthy markets in the South that the SEC hasn’t already covered.
(6) Why is this topic addictive? – A number of commenters have been wondering about why this expansion topic is so fascinating. As someone that had been writing this blog for 5 years about a variety of subjects and didn’t focus on conference realignment until the last few months, I’ve also been thinking about how I got hooked on it. At least for me, I’ve always enjoyed writing about big-picture movements in the sports world and you really can’t get much more big-picture than power schools switching conferences. Could you imagine if the Yankees and Red Sox approached the Cubs and Dodgers to join the AL East in order to form a super-division of all of baseball’s most popular teams? (Please note that as a die-hard White Sox fan, it pains me to admit how popular the Cubs are and will likely always be. I take solace in the fact that they’re paying $19 million to an 8th-inning setup guy.) Well, the equivalent isn’t just possible in college sports, but it’s happened numerous times. Within the past 20 years, Penn State joined the Big Ten, Miami joined the Big East and then later switched to the ACC and Texas helped form the Big XII and could be on the move again.
Let’s face it, though: this is like crack-cocaine to the sports blogging world. As regular commenter allthatyoucanleavebehind noted, it’s a lot more fun to talk about expanding with schools like Syracuse and Rutgers (or really anyone other than the massive players like Texas, Notre Dame and Nebraska) than to actually have to play them when expansion finally occurs. Once the Big Ten actually makes an announcement regarding expansion, we won’t have a quick fix of speculative blogging material anymore… at least until we start talking about Big XII expansion.
At that point, all I’ll want to do is to rush home from my tennis match to catch the Illinois vs. Rutgers game.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Retecool)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Great post, Frank. I couldn’t agree with you more on #1. It seems to me that either every college football writer in America is trying to appear like they have inside information or the Big Ten has the most sophisticated system for leaking fake information just to keep us groveling for more. I don’t know how much longer I can take it, but I’m sure I’ll be following it until I find out what happens to my Huskers.
LikeLike
I think the most likely outcome, if ND is out, is the Big 10 adds the following five schools
Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Nebraska, Missouri
All five of these institutions are AAU schools and would jump to the Big 10 without a second thought.
In fact, these institutions, with the exception of Pitt, have had officials publicly make known their interest in the conference. I think this is also the “safest” expansion model for the Big 10 because by taking 2 from the Big 12 and 3 from the Big East, it cannot be accused of single-handedly destroying one conference. Insted, by taking schools for its Eastern and Western flank, and having each of the schools bring along a “travel partner” it will be easier to integrate these schools and their fanbases into the Big 10.
I think fourteen teams is out. The Big 10 expanded twenty years ago, and nothing has changed yet. I doubt they are going to revist another two team expansion in 5-7 years. They will make their move now, and be done with it. That has to be their pitch to ND, and if ND says no, the Big 10 cannot vacillate, it has to move on.
So how would the pods look?
East:
Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
West:
Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri
North:
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
Midwest:
Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan St, Northwestern
Synopsis: The pods break down nicely. The only school that is an awkward geographic fit is Northwestern, but the Cats, who struggle for attendance, won’t fight too much about being in a different division from Illinois if they et annual dates with UM and OSU.
End of season rivals?
UM – OSU
Pitt – PSU
Syracuse – Rutgers
Iowa – Nebraska
Wisconsin – Minnesota
Indiana – Purdue
Illinois – Missouri
N’wstrn – Michigan State (this is by process of elimination).
Imagine this last weekend of Big 10 play every Thanksgiving weekend
Thanksgiving – Penn State vs. Pitt
Friday – Nebraska vs. Iowa
Saturday – UM vs. OSU
I see the Big 10 pushing to allow it to stage conference semifinals and then a conference title game. The Eastern division of PSU-RU-SU-Pitt should generate interest in NYC, and firm up support on Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The Big 10 footprint would now include solid markets such as Buffalo, Kansas City, St. Louis, Newartk, Philadelphia and eventually, NYC.
This would also bolster the basketball conference as Pitt and Syracuse are top 10 caliber programs, and Missouri has been on the rise under Mike Anderson.
I think the Big 10 cannot go to 14 and leave the impression that the invite is there for ND for perpetuity. At some point, you have to move on. I see the Big 10 going to 16 — but that means they’ll go East and West — NYC is a critical part of the strategy which is why Syracuse and Rutgers are both “locks” IMO.
LikeLike
I would personally substitute KU or U Conn for Syracuse as the 5th team in a 5 team scenerio. That said, Syracuse might be the most likely choice.
In any event, I think a 3 team expansion is most likely.
If you think of schools as academic and athletic packages or products,which is the way Big 10 presidents will think, the 5 you mentioned would all be less “valuable” than UM, OSU, PSU, Wis, Ill., Minnesota, MSU, NW.
I think it terms of overall “value” these 5 would be in the same range as Purdue, IU, and Iowa.
So…..do you REALLY want to add 5 schools whose average overall value is comparable to the least valuable Big 10 schools? Probably not. At most, you add 3, and await developments.
I think the most likely scenerio is RU, Pitt, and either Mo or Nebraska.
LikeLike
I think the most likely outcome, if ND is out, is the Big 10 adds the following five schools
Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Nebraska, Missouri
All five of these institutions are AAU schools and would jump to the Big 10 without a second thought.
Makes sense, although I sense if Maryland expressed interest, it would get the nod over Pitt because it would give the Big Ten two new markets (one of which is particularly affluent), whereas Pitt provides no new markets.
LikeLike
Vincent..
I like your thinking, but I would switch Pitt for Syracuse, and add Maryland.. I do not know why, as I was not originally on the Pitt bandwagon, but they are growing on me.. and they appear closer to PSU and Maryland.
I know Pitt does not add markets, but it just seems like a better fit.. totally a judgement call
LikeLike
Bacon.
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
toast
LikeLike
lettuce
LikeLike
mayo
LikeLike
tomato.
LikeLike
o.j.
LikeLike
Re Frank
Another great summary post.
Seriously I was going to ask if I could change my poster name to “confused”.
Your prior blog post attempted to answer an important FACTUAL question: the “value” of expansion candidates based on Patrick’s estimates of revenues for subscribers versus advertising, which was followed by conclusions you drew from his numbers.
A number of posters (including Shawn Corbett and omnicarrier) questioned the numbers.
I wonder if you and Patrick could provide a follow-up SUMMARY as to your assesment of the status of the estimates, the knowns and unknowns, differences in methodology or sources that might explain or clarify why others came up with significantly different estimates and in short do you stand by the conclusions you initially posted.
Additionally if there is such a summary post, perhaps it could be in its separate blog where follow-up posts would be limited to comments focusing on the numbers or conclusions and not get buried with comments on other aspects of the expansion.
Again my purpose is not to question Patrick’s numbers or your conclusions but clarify where they stand based on the comments of posters.
LikeLike
@c – I believe that’s a good idea. I’ll try to hook up with Patrick to provide a summary on the methodology for calculating the various figures and taking into account the feedback others have provided.
LikeLike
Re Summary of revenue estimates and conclusions based on comments (Frank)
Thanks!
LikeLike
Re Summary of estimates based on comments and value of national brands” (Frank and Patrick)
Note Shaun Corbett and PSUGuy posted additional interesting comments on the prior blog post: “The value of expansion candidates” at the bottom near my original request.
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/#comment-61356
Hopefully you will be able to review these comments as well.
LikeLike
c,
I will try to answer your post, tomorrow, up here at the top. Honestly, there are I few items that Frank, Omni and Shawn brought up that I had not thought of. If I reran the numbers now, I might do some things different. All I was trying to do was estimate, from television perspective, a rough idea of value. I’ll give more context tomorrow. It’s fine to question the numbers…. I do. PS – I’ll post up top here. LOL
LikeLike
Re clarification of revenue estimates and value based on comments (Patrick and Frank)
1) Thanks for your efforts to try to provide a glimpse at what the subscriber and advertising components of the Big 10 channel might look like in order to better understand at least one of the criteria that may influence expansion targets and strategies.
Clearly if ND and Texas are invoved, that will shape the expansion. If they are not involved what then?
2) Beyond the Big 10 channel, I also wonder to what extent an eastern expansion including RU or SU or UConn or Pitt or a package of 2 or more of these schools might benefit the Big 10 TV contract in terms of expanding markets and revenue in contrast to a midwest expansion including Nebrska or Missouri or Kansas or a combination of schools.
3) I am also interested in regional packages of 2 or more schools from the perspective of whether there might be synergy (adding value) that might be significant in contrast to an analysis that focuses exclusively on single schools alone.
4) Beyond the numbers, there are obviously many unknowns about the benefit and synergy of combining Big 10 teams with new regional schools.
However I am also curious what the potential UPSIDE might be when comparing an expansion strategy focusing east vs west vs a combination of east-west, by comparing current estimates vs potential estimates 5 years hence assuming market penetration.
5) And then there are the unknowns of how the various teams might evolve over a 5 year period. By way of example Louisville, Cinn, USF, UConn all had very little visibility when they joined the Big East a few years ago. Yet despite ups and downs, my impression is that all have invested in their programs and with success on the field and greater media coverage (and new coaches at USF and Louisville) have become much more valuable to the Big East conference then anyone could have guessed. (The Big East had uniquely bad timing in negotiating their TV contract after losing Miami and VT).
The ACC in gaining Miami and VT saw a significant increase in their TV deal (good timing) yet during this period both Miami and FSU have been mid-tier teams and the ACC is said to be having a more difficult time in their current negotiations. (I personally believe Miami and FSU are on their way back.)
I guess I start with the concept of markets and the view it’s a lot easier to build a great football team than build a great university within that market.
6) I also consider certain schools like Texas and ND to be national schools that appeal beyond limited regions. They would obviously be the primary targets for the Big 10 if they are interested.
In your prior post you provided estimates for Texas but I would think they need to be analysed not as a single add but as a package with Texas A&M.
On a lesser scale, I would consider Nebraska to be a national program in football and SU and Kansas as major Basketball programs.
The real question applies to the second tier schools often noted as more likely candidates and how these schools alone or as a package might enhance revenue over a period of 5 years and beyond.
7) conclusion:
I absolutely don’t expect numerical “answers” to these questions, but I do think these are perhaps some of the considerations that may be important for candidate schools not named Texas and ND.
LikeLike
This is a good point. What would various packages look like on a table vs others:
Package 1: Neb/Mizz/Kansas
Package 2: Neb/Mizz/Pitt
Package 3: Neb/Mizz/Syr
Package 4: Neb/Mizz/RU
Package 5: Neb/RU/Pitt
Package 6: Neb/RU/Syr
and so on….The same could be done for 16 teams.
Add in packages with ND, Tx, TAM
LikeLike
Re packages and analysis (Rick)
Of course after all the reports and analysis, the Presidents may well decide on the basis of affinity or geography or who they want as partner schools or who knows what or make an unlikely compromise to reach agreement and they may well be correct in so doing.
LikeLike
c, sorry about the delays in my responses. This week has been very busy for me. I’ll get right to some answers.
1) Frank may think differently, but I don’t think you NEED Texas or ND. I think you want Texas and would like to have ND, but begging is not going to happen and they bring nothing on the research side. From what I have seen, even beyond my initial assessment, the BTN will make money hand over fist with quality additions. In short, I think PITT would make money for the BTN (not as much as ND, but not as drastically different as you’d think) and I think the presidents are much more comfortable with PITT anyway.
2) I’m not sure it really makes a huge difference revenue-wise if they take Kansas or Syracuse or Pitt or Missouri. It appears they will make money with MOST of the schools mentioned.
3) I would think that schools with built in rivalries (PITT v. Penn ST. / Missouri v. Ill.) have benifits. Also if Missouri v. Nebraska is a BIG game that has merit.
4) I think that initial study took 5 year and 10 year potentials into consideration. I got the impression that they are looking at the BTN more like ESPN than FOX Sports Midwest. If they can make it national or nearly national, then a regional footprint it becomes more about the amount and quality of the games. IE trying to get someone in Salt Lake City to watch Syracuse v. Purdue on a Wednesday night basketball.
5) Nationally, if you are talking about traditions, winning, and fan bases you need to go with long term players. While it’s nice Louisville has had some great years they have nowhere near the national alumni support or fan base as Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame etc. While you can build a football program, the big boys will have more solid and devoted fan bases… and I believe they are looking NATIONAL not regional.
7)I think that the BT presidents have many choices with the dollars available and they will pick who they feel comfortable with. Nebraska football, PITT / Missouri both, Syracuse Basketball, Rutgers TV market. Solid R&D across, fits the BT profile. All will make money.
LikeLike
Patrick,
I won’t duplicate my post below your second post but thanks again for your update and summary conclusions.
LikeLike
I too would love to see a new analysis include both Texas and A&M. I believe that my school is very interested in the Big Ten. And I am not too sure but if Frank had included a complete analysis of Texas A&M in his original points to consider, the AGS would be second place only to the Longhorns. We are rivals with Texas, no doubt, but there are only two schools to send my child. One Orange and on Maroon.
LikeLike
In short, I think my numbers are a) too low; b) not nearly as accurate as I would like; c) were missing some elements that I frankly didn’t think of when doing the analysis. Some of the posters had brought up exceptional points and if I did the numbers again they would be different. Estimating data like this for tv advertising is fully dependent on buyers actually buying the advertising and paying the full rate. Anyway, let me highlight what I did.
I started with basic facts about the schools in question. What is the current conference payout, what is the total athletic revenue, what is the total $$ spent on research, what is the total football attendence per year, where do they rank in merchandise sales. I looked at the research dollars because I assume with the CIC tht is what the Big Ten will do. Football is the big dog, so how loyal is the fan base…. how do they pack their stadium. How many hats and jerseys do they sell, if fans are loyal and buying related stuff that should translate to watching games and hopefully buying tons of rotell. The big question for me though was how much money does the athletic department make if you were to seperate out the tv contracts. I did all of this for the current Big 10 members also.
I used Neilsen household numbers to estimate the number of new HH for markets that I attributed to any school (this could easily be questioned) Does Syracuse deliver Buffalo? Does Missouri deliver St. Louis or is it already sewn up by Illinois… etc. etc. etc. I did my level best here to be fair to each school.
My estimations of BTN money and contracts and ad revenues were difficult because of the conflicts in reports and general reluctance of the BTN to release data. We know some facts, I had to assume or back calculate other data. I did try to lay this out in the initial post.
I think I underestimated the amount of increased revenue by adding games and programing to the network….. MAJORLY underestimated. I gave each team a FLAT $10,000,000. But thinking about it, the BTN had about 30 FB games and maybe 40 BB games (guessing but say 70 games total), that would be the majority of their advertising revenue. The BTN made about $272 million last year if reports are correct. Say maybe 40% is from games (around 1.5 million per game) with 11 teams. Now add 5 and get to 16 teams, more conference games, more quality games, and naerly doubling the output to the BEAST. As Frank suggested maybe as many as 60 football games and 80 BB games… 140 games and good quality games. I would estimate that without adding households they may up the revenue from $272 million to about $380 million JUST on programing. $21 million per school…. not including footprint. I think omnicarrier brought up a point about FOX not actually taking 49% of the profits, and there were some payoffs that took place first. He is likely right, and that would cause me to rerun numbers.
Not to jabber on too long, but there are many items that could have been tweaked, questioned and run differently but overall I wanted to see if the expansion made sense from a tv perspective.
I did try scanning the other 1,000 posts but I think I am just too tired.
LikeLike
Re numbers and estimates (Patrick)
Thanks for your update. You deserve a great deal of credit for providing a glimpse at the financial realities that may be shaping the expansion strategy.
You deserve even greater credit for taking a second look at your numbers and estimates of value added by various expansion candidates based of some of the posts.
As I understand your 2 recent posts:
1) The Big 10 is likely to make significant additional dollars based on additional programming, adding to their footprint, gaining additional markets even if they don’t land targets such as Texas/Texas A&M and ND.
2) More specifically, “the BTN will
make money hand over fist with quality additions” including schools frequently mentioned such as Nebraska, RU, Pitt, Missouri, SU, Kansas.
Beyond the numbers, issues of affinity will no doubt play an important role: who do the Presidents want as their partners and where do they see their best opportunities.
LikeLike
c,
Yes, that is how I see it. I think that it is a major coup if you get Texas / Texas A&M. That is your maximum money potential, but I just don’t think they will come. I think Notre Dame & Nebraska are a touch below that (tv wise) and would make big money. All of the other schools commonly metioned would earn money I believe…. just not as much as the top 4 choices. At that point I think that is is nearly a wash and they go with the acedemic and philosophical fits.
LikeLike
Re follow-up question (Patrick and Frank)
What then is the status of the “60/40 rule”? “The BTN makes 60% from advertising revenue and 40% from carriage fees”.
LikeLike
Frank, I think we’ll be sitting around talking about this for a lot longer than people realize: 1-2 years.
Any move move in the next 6-8 months is not likely to be a Big Bang move to 16 unless Texas or Notre Dame is on board.
In the most likely scenario, the Big Ten will destabilize the Big 12 by just taking Nebraska or Missouri on as the 12 team, or being as bold as to move to 14 (2 Big 12 (Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas) + 1 Big East (Pitt/Rutgers/Syracuse) or some other scenario), and we’ll still be left debating whether the Big Ten will be able to bring on Texas and/or Notre Dame in a move to 16.
Either way a 5 team move doesn’t seem likely unless Texas decides that it’s done with the Big 12 and wants to forgo the inevitable wait after Nebraska or Missouri leaves and instead be the driver. This is possible if Colorado makes its move over the next 2 months, but may not as obvious a move as we’d want.
Personally, I think the discussion is barely getting started; if Colorado makes a move, your blog will probably start getting even more posts because then we’ll really be expecting a Big Ten move as inevitable.
LikeLike
I do have one question Frank; you mention the 12-18 month time period, but doesn’t the Pac-10 have to make a move much sooner as in by June-July, so that it can have teams in place or to show off to networks by 2012-2013?
Won’t the Big Ten wait for the Pac-10 to destabilize the Big 12 situation and then scoop up the teams it wants (unless the Pac-10 makes a move on Texas/A&M/Nebraska)?
It seems to me that the Big 10 will lobby Texas/Nebraska/Missouri behind the scenes but let the Pac-10 makes its move first. Is that what everyone expects or is there another angle to this?
LikeLike
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_14398662
This article lays out why Colorado would have to give their two-year notice to the Big XII by July 1.
Of course, I am pretty sure I read somewhere else that the penalty for leaving the Big XII is half the tv money for 2 years or all of the tv money for 1 year.
Either way, the deadline is either July 1 this year… or July 1 next year.
LikeLike
@M I’m pretty sure the Big 12 exit is a loss of 50% on conference payouts for 2 year notice and 90% for one year notice
LikeLike
I think 18 months will be the final “closing of the window” on this phase of Big 10 expansion. I think they’ll be looking to add 1, or 3, or 5–all at the same time. That said, I agree that they could announce two teams are invited in June. I’d say Mizzou or Nebraska (to destabilize the Big 12, as you said) and Rutgers (to destabilize the Big East). However, since they are at 13, everyone knows they aren’t done.
(There will be plenty to talk about NEXT if this happens first.)
A few things will happen then…
Texas/aTm will finish exploring their options. Join Pac10? Create merged interest with PAC10? Rebuild Big12? Join Big 10?
Once this happens, they’ll give the Big 10 their answer. Yes or no.
Likewise, Notre Dame will explore their options. By winter 2011, they’ll also have an answer for the Big 10. Yes or no.
The Big 10’s dream–and we all know that Delany is a dreamer–would be complete if all 5 say yes. Rutgers, ND, Texas, aTm, and Neb/or Mizzou.
If ND only says yes and Texas schools say NO, then this phase of expansion rests at 14. A few more years of developments and two new (or maybe old (i.e. Texas schools)) candidates can be explored.
If Texas schools say yes and ND says NO (unlikely methinks), I think a “lesser” school can be taken to finish out the conference at 16 and Notre Dame is given an eternal middle finger by the Big 10. Tattoed on that middle finger? “We’re at 16. We’re done. Hence, you’re done. Enjoy playing Navy and UConn for peanuts.”
LikeLike
“Tattoed [sic] on that middle finger? ‘We’re at 16. We’re done. Hence, you’re done. Enjoy playing Navy and UConn for peanuts.'”.
Promise? Because that wouldn’t be the first time Michigan tried that same stunt. I doubt it’ll go any better for them this time.
You see now why ND doesn’t want in? There’s a century of animosity there. Why should the Domers trust the Big Ten?
LikeLike
@FLP:
ND doesn’t want in because some Big Ten fan made a statement? You’re stretching, when you know the real reason is simply because Notre Dame (and its fans/alumni) enjoys the status that comes with being the last great independent in football.
Besides, saying you wouldn’t join a conference because one of your rivals is a part of it is silly. The Yost stuff is so long ago that I don’t think anyone can seriously care about it aside from providing a convenient excuse. No one on the institutional level is taking an anti-Catholic stance in this day and age.
Besides, the “Michigan sucks/ND sucks” rah-rah attitude it part of having a rivalry. I know you ND boys do it too… I’ve seen plenty ND fans’ comments about USC and Michigan on other boards. 😉
LikeLike
@ Manifesto
It’s more than one fan. It’s a mentality. The speculation in the media about Delaney’s idea to expand to sixteen is for ND to treat it as, “an offer they can’t refuse.”
Independence is quite useful to Notre Dame. It allows freedom to schedule. It is a selling point to recruits. It means we don’t hafta split the money. And that’s just off the top of my head.
Why should ND want in? There’s a history of ‘dirty tricks’ against ND. Yost might have been “a long time ago”, but I doubt you’d forget or trust any organization that tried to kill your school’s football program.
per NDNation: USC is a rival. Michigan is not a rival. Michigan is an enemy. There’s a difference.
LikeLike
@FLP:
Correction: It’s a perceived mentality. As I said in the previous thread, yes, there’s animosity there between ND and the Big Ten. But, in the long run, aside from what occurs on the field I don’t believe any Big Ten fan would seriously have issues with ND in the conference. It’s easy to be upset when you feel you’re being slighted by someone — and in this case I think both sides feel they’re being slighted. It isn’t just the big bad Big Ten kicking sand in ND’s face.
To be honest, if Germany and France can fight two wars and patch up their differences to be BFF, I think ND fans can move on from Fielding Yost’s Michigan antics. At least WWII was more recent. 😛
LikeLike
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they *aren’t* out to get you. =D
LikeLike
I believe I’ll puke if I have to read one more time how Fielding Yost made Knute Rockne cry.
LikeLike
This again?
FLP, Yost quit coaching in 1926. The year before Lindbergh flew the Atlantic. The year before the first full length “talkie” movie. That’s 84 years. Before the depression. Before the dust bowl. Before television.
The US was attacked by Japan 15 years after Yost retired, and went to war against Germany. All has been forgiven for decades, and the US helped rebuild those economies. They’re two of our best allies for decades.
Since then, the US was involved in a long, bitter war in Vietnam. The war has been over for 35 years, and they have resumed trade for a decade.
I grew up in the Cold War, a conflict I didn’t see ending in my lifetime. Yet the Cold War has now ended. The wall has come down and multiple Soviet vassal states have joined the west. The US and Russia have normalized relations. This was unthinkable when I was a child.
So here’s a riddle for you. In the mind of a Notre Dame alum, what’s more unforgivable than Hirohito’s attack on Pearl Harbour? Than the Nazis? Than Ho Chi Minh? Than decades of threat of nuclear war from Soviet empire?
The answer? Fielding Yost.
LikeLike
I don’t know how ancient it is.
ND and UM have played only 28 times in the last century. All but seven in the last quarter century. At best the rift may have started healing since 1985.
The other important lesson here: We alumni take ND very personally.
LikeLike
@ FLP
Really, most of us don’t care if ND joins or not, but all of us would passionately care if ND only wants to join once independance is no longer profitable.
Why should any conference split the pie another way for you, when you weren’t willing to split your revenue when profitable? If independence is fundamental enough then it should be something that ND is willing to maintain even if they have to cut athletics, including football, eventually. If you aren’t willing to do that, then it is just greed. In this case, no one wants to be the one to bail ND.
Independence is great as long as you receive more than you give/spend…but not so great the other way around. If your not so sure about this, ask Temple.
LikeLike
@Nittany Wit
Have you already forgotten your just prior-to-Big Ten history?
Penn State didn’t join the Big Ten merely out of the kindness of it’s heart. It was having scheduling issues. The football program was becoming much less profitable.
Penn State also became the first College team to accept a bowl invite in the pre-season because it was locked out of every bowl better than the Blockbuster Bowl in like 1990 or so.
Penn State running out of options is the reason that Penn State joined the Big Ten.
Everything you are suggesting ND might do is stuff that Penn State has actually already done.
LikeLike
@ FLP
Here’s your medal for maintaining independence longer than PSU. Now you just have to beat Navy to be the oldest independent…
LikeLike
The “tattoo” remark isn’t about “the Big 10 hates you and has always hated you.” That’s simply what a paranoid ND fan would read into it. The “tattoo” remark stems from the fact that the Big 10 has given ND numerous warm welcomes through the years…to be told NO! at every turn. (Judging from 2003 rumors, perhaps it wasn’t an emphatic NO after all) By interpreting all of the data and trends (the Big 10 is trending up, ND is trending down), this might be the last chance for ND to get in. If ND is fine with that and they’re sold on the optimism that the “next” coach will be the guy to turn things around, so be it. The Big 10 has a right to be bitter (after so many turn downs) but they’ll move on and be better for it.
When the Big 10 scoffs at you for joining the ACC in 2020 for half the money you could have had in 2010, you’ll take that acrimony and say “SEE, THEY’VE ALWAYS HATED US” And with that self-righteous sentiment, you’ll still have half the money and none of the old rivalries.
Personally, I’m convinced that ND is a done deal to the Big 10. But if I’m wrong, don’t expect hand shakes and back slaps, Domers. “Hell hath no fury like a [conference] scorned…”
LikeLike
Since when is like two “numerous”? Also, perhaps this is paranoid, but since they have historically been adverse to ND and are still 100% secular and 92% public, perhaps they are only welcoming ND’s money and national following that ND had to build as a result of aggressive actions taken against the program decades ago.
Also, granted the state of midwestern economies, I think the B10’s “uptrend” is an optimistic outlook. ND, as always, remains one good coach away (thanks to the 85 scholarship limit that means even a Boise State can get good with a favorable schedule and good coaching).
According to Scott S, ND is not allowed to be bitter that the Big Ten tried to kill ND football because it was a while ago. I can’t see how or why the B10 should be bitter over a couple or perhaps trio of nos.
I doubt that ND will ever join the ACC, much less in a decade. Remember only the B10 has any financial reason to expand beyond 12. Plus it remains to be seen if a 16team conference is even doable. Even if we do, I bet we still play USC and Navy like we always will. We haven’t played Michigan that much. We’ll see if teams other than the B10 powers don’t want ND on their schedules. As long as we can get 3 November games, independence is viable.
ND doesn’t fear the Big Ten. The only difference in the last decade is that the BTN and a couple of inadequate ND coaches. The BTN’s profits are always going to be at risk from the rise of internet TV and the threat of a la carte pricing. Who’s gonna pay for the right to watch 3rd choice B10 games, B10 college infomercials, and old games?
LikeLike
I agree that the Big 10 fans wouldn’t have reason to continue disliking ND were it to join, EXCEPT that I know ND fans wouldn’t let it go…and therein lies the problem with ND in the Big 10, from my perspective. Your constant whining has reminded me of why I dislike ND in the first place. I don’t think the Big 10 presidents are going to be willing to put up with your crap regardless of $ concerns.
LikeLike
@ ‘shroom
Whining?
And why should we let it go?
Don’t hate ND because they won’t join because you have nothing to offer.
LikeLike
That’s another ignorant statement — as the Big 10 obviously has a lot to offer. Whether ND wants to accept is your business. But to keep obsessing about Fielding Yost 80 years after the fact is rather cult-like, don’t you think?
LikeLike
ND alums want to stay independent for one reason: their self-identity is tied to being independent. All the other reasons are post hoc rationalizations to their desire to stay independent. Fielding Yost, research, religion and all the rest are BS.
Just let it go. I’m glad they don’t want into the B10. They’ll remain where they want to be, and the B10 won’t have to change its identity either.
LikeLike
adding(but deleting this thread) Just say NO to NOtre Dame!
LikeLike
@ ‘shroom
What the B10 had to offer ND wasn’t good enough in 1999. Perhaps I should have said what B10 has to offer ND has already been declared inadequate.
cult-like? *shrug* Then again, unlike B10 schools, we actually have a couple ‘football martyrs’.
@ greg
Yost is only an historical example of why ND has issues trusting the B10’s motives. Research probably an excuse.
The religion thing probably isn’t. I don’t know that the Big Ten as secular universities will be able to tolerate preferential hiring to Catholic scholars, not including sexual orientation in the non-discrimination clause, and if ND ever accepted Ex Corde. The Catholic identity is pretty important to the fanbase and alumni, and ND will want to maintain it.
Just because I don’t want to be roommates doesn’t mean we can’t be neighborly.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox
You’re correct, religion is part of the self-identity of ND, which is the reason ND should remain independent.
LikeLike
Rox–Are there any ND alums who AREN’T giant hemorrhoids on humanity’s arse?
LikeLike
@Mush:
One of the nice things about this blog so far has been the (relative) lack of personal attack. Let’s keep it friendly boys (or at least passive aggressive), even if we disagree on a topic.
LikeLike
I obviously picked the wrong guy to use hyperbole on with the whole middle finger tattoo comment. Yikes.
Find a suicide hotline number for your area now, because when you’re feeling blue later after ND joins the Big 10, you won’t have the self-regard to look it up. I’m trying to save your life here, rox. It’s just football. Relax.
LikeLike
I have wondered at times about whether or not the announcement to the commissioners would be made public. For the Big Ten it would provide more of the CYA aspect, as least in terms of public opinion. For the conferences themselves it is obviously better not to have that information public, especially if in the Big XII it gives Texas political cover to leave if Nebraska or Missouri is invited.
It does bring a whole new angle to the Rutgers comment by Tagliabue if he knows they are already in talks to leave.
I definitely agree with the skepticism about 4 16 team conferences. The only conferences that have it as a remotely feasible option are the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 is a bit of a longshot to go to 12, the ACC is still smarting after its last expansion, and the Big XII and Big East would presumably be severely injured by the first two. There simply isn’t a framework.
Of course, similar comments were probably made about 12 team conferences. There seems to be a fundamental property about conferences having strength greater than the sum of their parts which continues to favor larger and larger arrangements.
I loved that Nebraska article. “I am probably being lied to, but this is what people are telling me”.
If nothing substantial happens by the end of June, we all probably can move on to other obsessions.
LikeLike
Frank, I’m blushing. To be mentioned in an official post is a dream come true. I want to thank my family for allowing me the hundreds of hours to read Frank’s blog. I want to thank my first grade teacher for teaching me how to read. And to all the other commentors out there, keep working hard…keep believing in your dreams. I’m living proof that it can happen to you. You can make the big time too.
😉
LikeLike
My prediction, is that the Big 10 will add Notre Dame…
…as well as the entire Big 12. This will create a massive 24 school conference that will be far more powerful (and sinister) than the Super Deathstar Conference. It shall be named the ‘Big Midwest’. It will also control the airspace above it, and charge schools from other conferences exorbitant fees to pass through. From this, the resulting TV deal, bowl payouts, the branding of its own processed meat line (sausages, ring bologna, shaved ham, etc), Powerball lottery winnings, and other joint capitalistic endeavors, each school will see individual payouts of $350M per year.
Also, Penn State and Texas Tech will collab on an underground high-speed train that connects their campuses. Why? Why not? They’ll have more money than God.
LikeLike
Frank,
thanks for the BMF video.. my comment on on april 21st @ 2:10..
“i was just interpreting what arkstfan said and taking it to the next logical step.. The BIG 3 reform and leave the BCS behind. In this scenario the newly formed BMF (think of Jules wallet in Pulp Fiction) has an 80% demand footprint, and everybody else is along for the ride. I have read in the past where this was desired so the top schools and conferences could dominate the market..”
Somewhere the BMF Conference will come to pass and when they make the movie Samuel L Jackson will be playing Delaney..
the next blog should be nothing but parody and spoof.. just to chill everybody out before we all become expansion zombies..
🙂
LikeLike
@duffman – Ha! With all of the comments, I totally didn’t catch that reference! Great minds think alike!
LikeLike
I had meant to post this in last week’s entry but actually I think it’s more relevant to this entry:
So I was standing over my shredded wheat and grape nuts this morning and trying to digest the latest on Big Ten expansion. And then it hits me: when all else fails, follow the money.
The number that really popped out at me was the amount of money left on the table every year the Big Ten stays at 11 members. The number I remember is $700 million dollars.
Now, for an outfit like Fox, that’s big bucks. Even if that number is cut in half (their half, or $350 million dollars, not sure, maybe the number for Fox is $700 mil just for them) that’s still a lotta money to be leaving on the table every year. Fox is gonna do everything they can to prevent leaving those bucks on the table.
And my guess is that “everything they can” includes leaking data and information to guys like Greenstein and outfits like the Tribune in order to, er, prod the process.
I had wondered why, when this past Winter Texas became a hot topic in this already hot topic, a “Big Ten source” leaked information that the Big Ten and Texas were talking. My guess is that Fox and/or the Big Ten Network might have planted that story to influence that situation.
The BTN has a big stake in this too. They have execs, offices, and so forth. Sure, the channel is growing as it is, but they can see just how much bigger they can be.
Delany and the Big Ten offices have a stake in this too. Delany could conceivably be able to put together the kind of conference with the kind of clout not just to influence bowls or the BCS, but to lead the BCS process or maybe even lead the charge for the BCS schools to dump NCAA. How about forming the NCFL (National Collegiate Football League)?
Everything flows downhill and by the time the money flows down to the individual schools, that $350 million becomes about $22 million for each school if my Penn State math isn’t too bad (OK, let’s say they do get $700 mil, that’s $44 mil per school). That’s certainly not chump change but the question is, is it enough to move the University Presidents? We are talking people who are steeped in tradition, ivy-covered masonry and all that. People seem to be incredulous that Our Lady isn’t banging on the Big Ten’s door begging to get in on the gravy train. The problem is that ND has, as some have noted, tradition, ego, and, er, a sense of self-importance. Not to mention a huge endowment (as it were).
We alums and fans of “our” university or conference like to think of “our” university presidents as being the most wonderful, great, upstanding folks in the world – certainly nothing like those blowhards over at UND. I suspect all these folks are cut from the same cloth. Even with a bazillion Simoleans being waved in their face they might very well vote “no” just to prove a point or assuage some petty grudge.
So on one hand you have a bunch of greedmeisters at Fox who want the Big Ten to expand so they can line their pockets. On the other you have university presidents who have proven time and again they are willing to turn down big bucks for tradition, ego, you name it – power tripping. In the middle is the Big Ten Network, which is aligned with Fox but has to cater to the schools to some extent, which after all provide the programming that is their bread and butter. Also in the middle are guys like Delany. I am going to resist calling him “good” or “bad” for the process but there is no doubt in my mind that, to Delany, being commissioner of a 16-school conference is more appealing than being commish of an 11-school conference.
Frankly, I think that the longer the university presidents delay the process of expansion, the less power they will have. Other universities and conferences will simply work harder to “catch up” and “get better” while the Big Ten dithers. However, the B10 presidents are probably a lot more skeptical of Fox than Delany is, and while “money is power” and all that, I think the B10 presidents prefer their brand of power and influence that doesn’t depend on BTN revenues to sustain. (Can you say “endowments” and “research money?”)
Ultimately, since it’s the University Presidents holding the final votes, my expectation is leaning more toward them “doing nothing.” It’s the path of least resistance, maintains the status quo, and requires absolutely no effort. Not fun for those of us who enjoy these things, but I think much more in tune with the reality of the situation. The Fox guys are gonna gnash their teeth and the BTN guys will shake their heads, but life will go on.
Look, 20 years ago when Penn State went to the Big Ten and requested an invite, it wasn’t a slam dunk. PSU squeaked by with 7 out of 10 votes, and this for a school that at the time met all the criteria to a “T” – AAU membership, adjacent to the existing footprint, big state-related school with big research dollars, no conference affiliation to upset, etc. I think Penn State at the time was (and to my knowledge now is) considered a “public Ivy.” Penn State had just come off a couple remarkable decades of football success which included two national championships in the 1980s. Virtually no blemishes. Now we are talking not one, but as many as five schools to add, all of which arguably have some blemish or other on their record. How the Big Ten is going to get 8 out of 11 votes on all that is beyond me.
LikeLike
84..
valid thinking.. and part of the whole 12 or 16 contrast..
adding say Nebraska and get to 12 is one thing
adding 5 teams and get to 16 is totally different
As I said earlier, once the Big 10 hits 13 the genie is out of the bottle and for better or worse it will show a willingness to expand for the sake of MONEY alone. In doing some basic research for a spreadsheet I sent Frank, I was surprised to see several major football stadiums actually DECREASE seating to accommodate more CORPORATE BOXES.
In a comparison of football and futbol I notice two things..
a) commercials – in futbol commercials do not stop gameplay, which might explain why it will never become popular in america.. but what if college football had such a commercial restriction in place?
b) seating – comparing Wembly and JerryWorld one appears to have reasonable seating and the other seems to have such a difference that might cause envy in former Roman emperors?
If money is the Issue, will we someday see the Big House or the Shoe seating 10 – 20 less so they can put in big blocks of corporate suites that the average fan will not be able to afford?
sorry to hit the soapbox, but it just seems like the “fans” I have known most of my life are getting priced out of venues as wages do not keep pace with ticket “inflation”. Are we approaching a day when a family of four will have to take out a loan just to see a game, much less a whole season of college football?
LikeLike
Excellent points and if they are the overriding ones come expansion time there is only one school that comes anywhere near those criteria.
Texas.
It, and only it, has most of the combinational criteria listed above, the only exception being geographically continguous. Again though, the question becomes will it come alone? If so, say yes and move on. If not, the Big10 seriously needs to determine if the Mid-West is where it sees its future. I’ve gone on record as saying it isn’t, but well see.
LikeLike
Agree!
LikeLike
The ND 2010 schedule..
HOME:
Purdue, Michigan, Stanford, Pitt, Western Michigan, Tulsa, Utah
NEUTRAL:
Navy, Army
AWAY:
Michigan State, Boston College, USC
some observations….
a) If ND has a decent team, could be favorable season with schedule.
b) If ND joined the Big 10, what would future schedules look like?
which is to say would ND with a Big 10 schedule, want to play USC and other top teams OOC every year?
LikeLike
b) Assuming a 12 team B10
division games:
Minn
Wisc
Iowa
NU
Ill.
OOD (play 3 of 6)
UM
MSU
OSU
PSU
Pur
Ind.
Permanent OOC:
USC
Navy
let’s see that’s 10 of 12. Given the ‘fan interest’ in the divisional match-ups. I’d say we’d have to play good teams just to appease the haters. If you think my division are off, ask yourself if you seriously think that Michigan, OSU, and JoePa
LikeLike
oops
…are seriously going to force their teams to play all of the traditional powers annually.
Especially since historically UM and OSU spent decades ducking, er, I mean, not scheduling the Irish.
That and seriously, there are no big national names in the West. Sorry Wisconsin, and the default real opposing team in the movies, Iowa.
LikeLike
FLP..
well that was an early point.. to have balance..
you need 1 per 4 in 16..
pod A PSU + 3
pod B tOSU + 3
pod C UM + 3
pod D Neb + 3
My question was.. if ND is in pod D instead of Neb how would the ND faithful feel about dropping USC as why would ND want OOC ==> BC + USC + OK (2012 & 2013) + ACC + BE + Big 10 in conference = BRUTAL schedule.. and harder path to NC?
LikeLike
@duffman – My understanding that there are 2 games that matter to ND: USC and Navy. Michigan also matters in a sense but that would become a conference game if ND joined the Big Ten. Everyone else appears to be expendable. Any Domers out there can correct me if I’m misguided here.
LikeLike
Frank is correct. The USC game is our “friendly rivalry game”, and most would be unhappy to lose it. The game’s been played since 1926, the only hiatus was WWII. Navy, who we owe big time for saving us during WWII is the only other required OOC game.
I don’t know about the pod scheduling. I figure that UM and tOSU will end up in a pod together. That probably means ND will headline it’s own pod without either.
Another thing is that I don’t see the Big Ten going to twelve soon anymore…for reasons Frank and others outlined.
If it’s B10+ND, I think ND goes west to put a “name” school out there, and to maintain the IU-PUR rivalry (not to mention keeping the division for UM, tOSU, and PSU.
If we’re looking at a B14 situation, ND likely still ends up out west. The only way I can see them with the east is if the other 2 teams are from the Big East (moving IU-PUR out west).
Off-Topic note for all you people who don’t believe ND plays a national schedule: Even this year’s jerry-rigged schedule plays 7 games outside the B10 footprint.
As for the pods, we’ll keep Navy and USC OOC regardless. The remaining games (both of them) will probably rotate around a group of schools similar to the ones we play now.
I see no I-AA in the future, if that’s what you mean. The alumni wouldn’t stand for it. We’re pretty cheesed about playing our first MAC team ever this year (when the stadium expanded in 97, they initally had Miami (OH) set. Pushback forced them to get Ga. Tech instead).
LikeLike
I only count 4 ND games outside the B10 footprint. They have 7 home games and a game in Michigan.
LikeLike
Fine, Greg, seven games *with teams located* outside the footprint. Better?
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox
First of all, if I were an ND fan I would not be defending anything based on this year’s schedule.
Second, by “7 games outside the B10 footprint” you of course mean “7 games against teams from outside the Big Ten footprint”. As far as where the games are actually played, there are 8 in the Big Ten footprint right now (7 home games, @MSU) and two more in what would be the Big Ten footprint in almost any expansion scenario (New Jersey, NYC). That leaves two games that are genuinely “outside the footprint”.
On the other hand, the entire Big Ten has 7 such games total so maybe your point stands.
LikeLike
No ND fan can defend this year’s schedule.
Corrected above. Sorry, long day.
Still, our schedule is almost twice as “national” on a bad year than it would be under a B10 schedule maker (7 games to 4 OOC).
LikeLike
“That and seriously, there are no big national games in the west. Sorry, Wisconsin…”
Ouch! Your snub stings the Badgers!
I admit, we Badgers can only dream of playing Notre Dame, with its gaudy .593 winning percentage and one win (over a 6-7 Hawaii team) in its last 10 bowl games over the past 15 years.
How can we Badgers solace ourselves with our sad .678 winning percentage over the same stretch and a 10-5 bowl record in our last 15 appearances?
LikeLike
Sorry, I didn’t mean to slight the national interest in the program.
What were those big national games Wisconsin had? Sorry, I’m drawing a blank.
LikeLike
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t mind seeing a home and home with Wisconsin on a year we don’t have a UM or MSU. Once. I’ve heard good things about the Camp Randall bar scene.
I just don’t see any kind of rivalry developing, and I don’t see anyone outside of Wisconsin or that isn’t an ND fan watching the game.
LikeLike
@FLP:
If both teams were ranked I’d probably watch. Interesting contrast of styles.
LikeLike
I’m just ribbing you a bit. Believe me, I know Notre Dame has a history challenged by frew teams. Certainly not by Wisconsin.
However, Wisconsin has turned their program around pretty remarkably over the past 20 years. I’d call three Rose Bowl victories fairly “national”, as well as other bowl victories over the likes of Auburn, Arkansas, Miami, Colorado, and UCLA. And in their last few seasons, Wisconsin is 6-4 against Penn State and 5-4 against Ohio State. That’s not too shabby considering where the program was in the 70’s and earlier.
Further, I’m not sure Notre Dame would be heavily favored were we to play today. As evidence, I’d point out that last year Notre Dame and Wisconsin had three common opponents.
ND lost to Michigan 34-38. Wisconsin won 45-24.
ND beat Michigan State 33-30. Wisconsin won 38-30.
ND beat Purdue 24-21. Wisconsin dismantled Purdue 37-0.
Maybe we’ll see soon enough. Supposedly Bielema is trying to set up a series with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
84
I think I disagree with your conclusion, though I agree with a lot of your thinking re B10 presidents, etc.
However, today’s economic times have put a lot of universities in trouble. States are behind on their payments, layoffs, pay freezes,etc. There is too much money at stake here to ignore.
In addition first movers always have the advantage. These are smart people, a lot of them have aggressive business people on their boards, and they typically are not the types to sit back and wait to see what the world hands them.
At the same time they have long term personal and professional relationships mixed up in all this and I doubt that any of them, the presidents or Delany, want to come off anymore predatory or disruptive than they have to.
Thus, back out of the spotlight for a bit, let your colleagues talk in private, mend their fences, prepare their own bosses for what might be happening, but make your plans and move ahead.
My guess is bigger not smaller, sooner not later.
LikeLike
Tom Osborne is a man of few words. A few months ago his stance on the situation was “we’ll stick with our Big 8 friends” now it is “if the Big 10 calls, we would listen” and lately he has been mute on the topic. This coming from Osborne just screams to me that there has been contact of some sort between the Big 10 and Nebraska; but maybe i’m just squinting too hard to read between the lines.
LikeLike
Herbie–no, you’re not squinting too hard. Tom has always been a man of few words, and he was a politician on Capital Hill to boot.
If anything, I think that about-face on the subject was his way of letting those that can read behind the lines know that it was a question of when, and not if. That, or his folks in the AD office ran worst and best case scenarios, and I’m sure neither group involved Nebraska remaining in the Big XII.
And I disagree about discussion on this topic not being fun when including the mega chips (read: Texass, Notre Dame, Nebraska), specifically Nebraska. Considering all the infighting experienced between Nebraska and the SWC, as well as how the Big 8 ‘friends’ left Nebraska in the lurch (to their own detriment), once they jump ship to the Big 10 (assuming Notre Dame doesn’t jump back in), we’ll likely start hearing more about the dirty laundry and the discussions/accusations of SWC-style corruption that has gone on since the Big XII’s inception.
LikeLike
and the discussions/accusations of SWC-style corruption that has gone on since the Big XII’s inception
Care to name names, or do you really have anything to back up that accusation?
LikeLike
I don’t think the SWC schools in the Big XII are crooked, or at least not any more crooked than the Big 8 schools (q.v. OU, Colorado, KSU had some troubles, I think). Hell, Baylor had the worst of it with Dave Bliss.
I do think that the conference, however, is being run by, of, and for the South — specifically UT — and there’s plenty of Nebraskans that would gladly walk east across the Missouri to not have to deal with the Southern Voting Bloc again.
LikeLike
I do think that the conference, however, is being run by, of, and for the South — specifically UT
Nebraska fans say this a lot. What decisions would have been made differently had Texas not supposedly been running the conference?
LikeLike
If Nebraska was on the other end of those heart braking losses to Texas you would probably hear a lot less complaining about Texas.
I have heard a lot of Nebraska fans complain that gravity of the Big 12 is moving south (to paraphrase Tom Osborne). Taking a look at the Big 12 you can easily see why. The Big 12 is a bottom heavy in both schools and population (~70% of Big 12 population are in Texas and Oklahoma). I tend not to believe that Texas runs the conference just from the simple fact that Texas has one vote and needs six other schools to agree to get a majority.
Take the Big 12 Football Championship (same logic works for Big 12 HQ). There has been much complaining that the game is being played two years in a row in Dallas instead of alternating to a northern location (i.e. KC). The six Big 12 south schools are all within driving distance from Dallas. They’re for it. Now Colorado doesn’t care where the championship is because unless it’s in Denver, it’s getting on a plane and the travel time and costs are not that different. Does Iowa St really have a vested interest where the game is played? If they make it, the fans will be so excited they would happily go anywhere. If Dallas offered the most money to host the game versus playing in KC do you think Iowa St and Colorado wouldn’t be for the more money option? I could see both taking more money because for Colorado distance isn’t a factor and for Iowa St, the likely hood of them making the game isn’t high enough to turn down guaranteed money.
However, there is one big decision Texas made that the entire Big 12 can complain about. Texas vetoed the Big 12 Network. Had Texas not done that, I am not so sure the Big 12 schools would be in the Big Ten’s expansion discussion. As a business decision at the time I think Texas did what was best for them. Any Big 12 network would take large amounts of Texas (the state) cash and send it north. Why would UT do that when it can start their own network (and they are, see my link on my comment on 4/20) and keep all that money themselves? UT didn’t become the richest athletic department in the country by not making the maximum amount money they could off of everything. So on the cable network issue, Texas did “run the conference.”
LikeLike
If Texas didn’t run the conference —
Partial Qualifiers might still be accepted (that one really got up Osborne’s nose)
The CCG wouldn’t be bouncing between Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, while the postseason hoops tournament wouldn’t be alternating (as I believe it still is) between KC and OKC.
The conference HQ wouldn’t be in Dallas.
Explain a single decision in the history of the conference that has benefited North schools more than South schools.
The fact that we’ve had at least 3 nut-punch losses to UT (4 years back when Terrence Nunn fumbled after picking up the first down, 3 years back when you guys remembered that Cosgrove had no clue how to defend the zone read and Jamaal Charles had 200 yards or so in the 4th quarter, and I don’t even want to talk about last year’s game), UT snapped NU’s home win streak record back in ’98 and the loss that kept us out of the ’99 title game is simply insult on top of injury.
LikeLike
@Albino:
So the fact that the Big XII CCG has been played seven times in Missouri, and seven times in Texas, is evidence that Texas runs the conference?
The fact that the basketball tournament alternates between being held 40 miles from the KU campus and 40 miles from the campus of the Horns’ biggest conference rival is evidence that Texas runs the conference?
The fact that the conference HQ has relocated to the largest metro area in the Big XII geographic footprint, and largest transportation hub, is evidence that Texas runs the conference?
The fact that allowing partial qualifiers was defeated by an 11-1 vote at the onset of the conference is evidence that Texas runs the conference?
I don’t get it.
LikeLike
@Horns: ‘Dollar signs’ – Mark Mangino
LikeLike
From the Omaha World-Herald interview with Harvey Perlman.
“Another factor in joining the Big Ten is that each school owns part of the league’s TV network. That equity won’t be given away to new members, Perlman said, meaning schools essentially would have to buy their way in along with buying their way out of their current league. ”
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814
That is something I hadn’t seen publicly reported anywhere regarding Big 10 expansion. There are a couple of different ways of reading it, but it appears to imply that Nebraska has discussed the issue with the Big 10.
LikeLike
When that article mentioned that teams would have to buy into the BTN equity I figured that would be a huge piece of ammo for the ND powers that be that want independence.
I go back and forth on it, and right now, I think ND is out.
LikeLike
@FLP:
Maybe I don’t remember the original quote correctly, but I was never under the impression that was a “give me your lunch money to get in the clubhouse” statement.
I’ve just thought of it as, “Any incoming member needs to pull their own weight and add to the pot, because none of us are taking a smaller cut for no reason.” Moreover, wasn’t this a random comment from Alvarez back in January or something?
LikeLike
Edit: Reread the article linked here. Dunno what to make about that.
LikeLike
i am guessing nebraska would get in without having to pay a cover. They would be VIP, not the folks behind the rope.
LikeLike
I hope this ends up in the right place….
I wanted to add, along the lines of Duff’s comments, that I fully understand that we (ie the Big 10) have these other schools by the gonads, and could probably force these buy-in provisions on them. I hope that is not the course taken. That approach would be a dramatic departure from the way the Big 10 has handled things in the past.
As an example, I remember when Bo S. threatened to take Michigan out of the Big 10 because it did not receive favorable financial treatment even though it brought in more $ than Minn., IU et al. That didn’t go anywhere. If unequal financial treatment had become the norm, the Big 10 would be having the same issues as Texas and the Big 12.
If you’re contemplating a 100 year relationship with these schools, squeezing them at the outset might not be a good way to begin.
LikeLike
mushroom..
agreed.
again, it is like when the athletic department hits you up for 2,500 a ticket (after you add the ticket cost + the parking fee + the “donation” + etc) and then adds a 20.00 handling “fee”. Now 20 bucks is not much, but it seems mighty cheesy after hitting you up for 2,500. I am not alone in this thinking, as this “fee” business gets out of hand. I can not go to my boss and say there is an added “fee” for the week just because I can not manage my money better.
This is still america, and we should not play this “us” vs “them” if we hope to show another generation a better way to think about how to deal with others. Your comment of “squeezing” is VERY appropriate as it sends out a negative feeling for the Big 10 as a whole. It sends a big load of bad will overnight that erases decades and decades of good will. If I were the joining school, this 50 Million Dollar “fee” would be enough to turn me off. Especially if the Pac 10 and SEC did not charge such a “fee”.
Just something to think about, as we have discussed ways the Big 10 can shoot itself in the foot! This could be such an item that leaves a black eye for all to see. As I said before, I am not a Domer, but I can see where this is an easy argument (Texas as well) for not wanting to join!!
LikeLike
The equity share of the BTN was first publicly mentioned by Alvarez.
The BTN is currently valued as a $1 Billion entity according to Kagan SNL and within the next three to five years, could be as high as $2 Billion.
The word I got when I started contacting ppl about this, is that any team not named ND would have to “buy in” an equity share.
I was told it would be $5 million a year for 10 years. At the end of the 10 years, the member would then have an equity share in the BTN.
So, if the profits of the BTN were $8.3 million per team, any new team in the league would only receive $3.3 million, since $5 million of that money is going toward their buy-in.
LikeLike
50 MILLION to join, I hope not.. That sends the wrong message.. has any conference ever charged such an entry fee? PSU? Ark? USC? any of the ACC that have been added in the past decade or so??
If you want to ramp a school up, 50M off the top is tough pill.. I could see if they imposed a research upgrade fee but that would help the schools added to integrate. ie.. “as a condition of admittance you need to upgrade your research over the next 5 years and it must come out of your pocket, not ours.” These are “non profits” advocating research, if they ask for 50 M that sounds more like money grubbing or extortion.
LikeLike
It’s not an entry fee. It’s a buy-in to the cable network of the BTN which is an asset of both the Big Ten Conference and News Corp.
The bulk of those dollars the BTN is generated is coming out of the 8-state region of the current Big Ten conference.
If it’s a Billion Dollar asset, why should a Missouri or a Syracuse come in and be an equal partner right off the bat?
Frank talks about thinking like a College President instead of a sports fan. In this case re: an equity share for the BTN, one needs to think like a business man.
LikeLike
When I first heard Alvarez mention a buy-in, I also scoffed at the idea. But the idea of having to buy an equity stake makes a ton of sense. This is an actual corporate entity that the Big Ten has a majority equity stake in. This isn’t just an academic consortium/brand that they are joining, there is corporation that they co-own.
Why should expansion schools be expected to be given an upfront $50M equity stake in a television network? None of the previous conference expansions had such an item, so you can’t use any of them
for precedence.
duffman, you’ve been advocating the corporate angle more than anyone else on this blog. surely you can agree with the concept that an expansion school can’t just expect to be given 1/12th (or 1/24th) of a television network.
LikeLike
Also, it’s not $50 million off the top, if the info I have is correct. It’s $5 million a year out of what would have been that new member’s equal profit share of the BTN.
So, as an example if the national contracts are paying $8 million, the BTN $9 million, and the rest of the conference revenue is paying to each member $5 million, the new member gets $17 million for the year instead of $22 million for the first 10 years.
Considering what Big East teams and most Big 12 teams are getting from their conferences, I don’t see it as a problem. Do you?
LikeLike
well I’m with you here Duff. IMO, these additional schools either add value or they do not. If they add value, they should be treated as equal partners from the get-go. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be added.
It’s not like IU (for example) put %50M into the Big 10 Network at the start. Weren’t atart-ups costs very minimal?
If Nebraska adds value to the Big 10 Network, should the 11 present schools pay Nebraska 1/11 of the value added each year?
I think it would be fair to charge to recoup start-up charges. I also think it reasonable to make demands/requests for improvements (like adding sports, improvement in faciolities etc).
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – “IMO, these additional schools either add value or they do not. If they add value, they should be treated as equal partners from the get-go. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be added.”
Each school will add value to the profits of the BTN. But that doesn’t mean they will add enough “asset” value to it to be worth $50 million+ each.
By the time any are added, again according to Kagan SNL, the BTN could be worth $2 Billion. Fifty-one percent of that is 1.02 Billion, which means each individual share is worth close to $93 million.
The Big Ten could add 3 schools that will generate $70 million plus in BTN revenue, but may only increase the value of the BTN to $2.25 Billion.
If the shares would divided evenly, a new member coming in as added an $82 million asset to their portfolio while each of the current 11 Big Ten members have lost $11 million on that asset.
So yes, each school will add value to the BTN profit (else they wouldn’t be added), but they shouldn’t be given an equity share right away.
I believe Alvarez’ sentiment was that no incoming school should benefit immediately from the decades long sweat and tears the current schools have put into creating the brand that is the Big Ten.
I’m an SU fan, a darkhorse candidate at best to get in, and even I understand this principle.
LikeLike
@omnicarrier – Exactly. The reason why no one has had to “buy into” a conference before is because no other conference has had an asset like the Big Ten Network before. The BTN revenues aren’t just a share of payments from a third party TV rights contract – it’s part of an equity interest in a highly valued asset that’s majority-owned by the conference members. Would Fox just hand over a 5% share of a $1 billion TV network simply in exchange for the hope of future profits? Heck no, so no one should expect the Big Ten to do the same. The whole reason why we’re going through all of these wacky expansion scenarios is the existence of the Big Ten Network – otherwise, this would all be about a 12th team being added and no more. The BTN has truly re-written all of the rules here, including the “entry fee” for joining the conference.
Plus, the BTN looks like easy money now, but it was a MASSIVE risk when the Big Ten members decided to create it. That was not an easy decision at all and the members had to suffer through growing pains and cable carriage disputes to get to the point to where they are now. The current Big Ten members have every right to demand some type of buy-in payments because they took all of the risk in creating the network in the first place.
LikeLike
greg,
as a fan I am most certainly not “advocating” the corporate agenda. In fact I have made quite clear I feel quite the opposite. It means tickets prices go up and corporate folks get the seats where long time fans used to sit. Those that remain have to cough up the cost of a new car just to stay at the top of the bottom. If one has supported an institution for generations it is a slap in the face. In addition I actually go to games and cheer, while the corporate folks socialize and sit on their hands. If you feel I support this new system then you have misread what I am writing.
This said, it is the new reality. I am pointing out what I see, and feel little power to affect change. What I am pointing out is reality, and the fact that greed and money will destroy the game and friendships I have forged over a lifetime of supporting the home team. I said this is an earlier post as the game of my father is not mine nor will my experiences pass to the youth just starting to follow the games. I feel fortunate to have lived in the time that I have for some wonderful memories, but they will not be the same for kids today.
I am old school, and many deals were done on a handshake. If somebody brings value to the table they have been rewarded not penalized and these are in for profit ventures. At times I have stood good for another partners error, bought out their interest, and moved on. In my opinion a business is an extension of the community in which it operates. It is old fashioned but how I was raised. Times change, and so do people. I choose to adhere to what I know.
My point is STATE LAND GRANT institutions were formed for the benefit of their citizens. In the past decade or two they have moved to corporate models that generate revenue from “research” and “entertainment”. With tax subsidies and non profit status they have built in cost advantages that no small company can compete with. Like other corporate CEO’s they have little or no skin in the game, and a few at the top profit greatly for the decade or so they are at the top in cash or perks. What I am pointing out is what I see, not what I feel as a fan. If this was not clear to this point it should be now.
That said, as non profits in a taxpayer funded industry they should be held to a higher level. As a collective they should “desire” to see new additions as incubators for future growth. I would not expect a plant to grow without water, air and light. In all honesty, if I was a president of a university I would expect any additions to bring value to the collective, and so no penalty should be expected to join.
I am not opposed to exit penalties, as this should be necessary to recoup value lost when a part of the unit is removed and decreases value. Even then if you are in long enough this should be waived as well. So if an institution were a member for 25 or 50 years I would feel the union should have produced sufficient revenue that adding an “exit” fee would just be for penalty.
My question was..
Had ANY other member in any other conference had to pay to join (such as PSU when they joined the Big 10 in the first place)?
If they have not, and the Big 10 was the first to do so it would have indicated a JUMP from non profit taxpayer subsidized institution to any other modern firm trying to score added revenue. It is a point I have indicated if the Big 10 goes past 12. In doing so they are indicating that academia is not the lofty goal they espouse. Like churches that own shopping centers and apartment complexes, they have become “half pregnant” which we know is impossible. It indicates that they are no longer one thing but another. My indications is that I see this, it does not in any way, shape, or form mean I approve of it!
It does mean that I am not so much of a “pollyanna” to not incorporate it in my thinking of how things will actually turn out. To hope for a better future does not mean that you do not plan today to protect it. It also does not mean you strangle something with one hand while trying to get it to grow with another.
omnicarrier,
If adding schools adds to existing school revenue streams works why place penalty upon them. It shows lack of respect and confidence in the deal in the first place. If these schools felt this way, then do not offer an invitation in the first place. It is called due diligence and is commonly used in business transactions.
If I was a current Big 10 school generating a profit for my school of 20 Million per year. I would be happy, if by adding 1 more school added 5 Million more to my profit. I am old fashioned that way and try to do business for life, not for a quick fix. If adding the extra school added the 5 million, why would I want to fee them if it does not cost me. Everybody stays happy, and I now have an extra 5 Million that I did not have before..
It is a problem with today.. everybody thinks they are owed something, or that they are not getting enough. If I am the better person and have the ability from past blessing, why not help someone out early that you thought enough of to have join you in the first place. I guess as public institutions they should answer to a higher and more noble calling, but I am just plain silly that way.
LikeLike
mushroomgod..
well spoken!! To bad you are not a college president, as you are blessed with good sense and true long term vision.
🙂
LikeLike
Omni
I think I understand the issues quite well, thank you.
Why do you assume that the schools added would increase profits, but would not work a corresponding increase in the value of the network as a whole? If each school will not be worth $50M plus to the value of the network over time, don’t add them.
Also, I don’t see the BTN being liquidated or sold anytime soon. If the bookkeeping is a concern, the new schools could get equity ownership by a % each year they stay in the league. It’s not like we’re paying dividends here. The profits are what’s being distributed.
As I said, it’s not like each U put in $50M to get the BTN up and running. These new schools are adding something here — their reputations, market etc as well. If Rutgers isn’t as valuable as IU or Purdue or Illinois, don’t add it.
LikeLike
Frank-
Hope this ends up in the right place…
I understand your point that Rutgers, Pitt et al did not share the initial BTN risk. However, that risk is history. The Big 10 rolled the dice, and they now have a valuable asset. If they had failed, Rutgers and Pitt wouldn’t want in. So what. The question now is: do these proposed schools generate sufficient additional profits and value to be a good or a bad risk, given the situation as it now exists.
They either add to profits and value of the Big 10 network, or they don’t. They are adding their reputations and markets–it’s not like the Big 10 is reaching out to them just to be charitable. Adding them and treating them like a bunch of jr partners is a very bad idea, imo
LikeLike
Here’s the simple, logical, problem with not forcing a new team to buy in….
“Miami” joins te Big10, gets the instant share, then after a few years gets decides to move to the SEC. It now OWNS a part of the Big10, had to spend nothing to get it, and is worth countless millions more because it was in a conference for a couple seasons. Given there will probably be buy out clauses in the event of a school leaving, but in that case the school literally gets money for nothing.
Thing is I understand your points regarding treating all like equals, but facts are in today’s collegiate climate even the most well entrenched and respected schools are jumping from conference to conference much more than anyone in the Big10 would like. By making each team buy into the BTN you force that team to make a conscious decision to not just join the Big10, but BE the Big10. Just as every other school already in the conference has done to date.
If the terms of joining are not amenable (and to be fair, $50 million over 10 years to have access to the prestige, research knowledge, & possibily billions the BTN creates to get into a conference is probably not out of the realm of reasonability) then simply don’t join. I think this goes back to JoePa’s statement (I really feel like I’m beating a dead horse with this statement)…joining a conference is more a marriage of goals and ideals. The current Big10 members understand, and believe, this, and want to make sure the new members believe it as well.
@whoever mentioned public land grant universities and the monetization of the same…
I understand your point, but I think you’re slightly off base. State funding is a large part of what makes those schools, but they pale in comparison to what it actually costs to run a top notch university. Fact is that money (typically) only goes towards subsidising in state students’ tuition and “core” infrastructure like housing.
By focusing on research and becoming big time universities with numerous and well regarded programs, these universities draw the attentions of students/governments/businesses around the world and collect dollars that can be used for infrastructure as well (look up how federal research dollars are permitted to be used). In this way they are better able to support their founding goal (of providing undergraduate education to its founding state’s citizens) in a way that would never be possible otherwise.
While I certainly understand, and agree, with the hesitance of “comercializing” the public land grant universities I think blaming them for the path they have chosen is a little short sighted. Fact is if PSU never decided to be a top notch research university, expand its campuses, and work as it does, it’d be just another land grant U with solid, but unremarkable, academics in a state that has undergone huge economic changes over the past 50 years. Instead, it now gets to be one of those institutions that is a stabilzing force in the PA region and attract people/businesses to PA. Something it simply couldn’t due if it had taken any other route (at least that I can see).
PS – I can honestly say the same about every other school currently in the Big10.
LikeLike
Frank,
This is interesting. I would like to know more about the validity of the buy-in, what the specifics are, and if all the details are as presented here.
If I’m buying in and I’m a candidate school, how do I “lock in” my buy in price? Because I wouldn’t want a sliding scale if this thing takes off…
LikeLike
PSUGuy
a) on the miami question..
I agree on conference jumping that is why you have the EXIT penalty not an ENTRANCE one. Simple solution.
The second part is to be an owner of the BTN, you must be a MEMBER in good standing of the Big 10 conference. A second simple solution.
b) on “commercialization”
several things stick out..
RESEARCH vs EDUCATION
A trend I seem to see is soliciting research dollars vs educating students in a classical manner. As a former UC guy I see the value of a strong music and design school. In the equation for acceptance to the Big 10 this has no value as Frank has pointed out. The same with a school like Georgetown that produces diplomats and lawyers.
I get that part I really do, but I will still put values in schools for being good for turning out citizens as well as those schools that turn out research. I see a need for both, and I see that not all schools can do both. it is what it is.
On pure research I get the government sponsoring research that no single corporation would undertake (like cure for aids, or space exploration). I am also aware it brings jobs to an area that can be GREAT for the local economies. It is when they go the next step that I have issue with.
Using eminent domain to acquire property and hiring “part time” researchers for decades just to skip paying benefits is a tool any Fortune 500 company would love to use if they could. When all this is done to literally “build a better mousetrap” I take issue as..
a) has eliminated for profit businesses engaged in the same endeavor which goes against free market theory.
b) has been granted excessive power that is to easy to abuse. So that you wind up with a quasi governmental thing that mr buchanan (MTSU u U Chicago g) gave birth in his public choice theory. Further expounded on by M A Isani (Georgetown) in the following..
“It focuses largely on the assumptions of a generation of development economists who have articulated the role of the state or political action as an efficient alternative to ‘economic’ market failures. Isani has suggested that once we introduce ‘political’ market imperfections as generally found in these countries, we may be confronted with the possibility that far from correcting market failures, political action may actually prove to be a source of further distortions in the economy. He then goes on to develop an essentially economic paradigm of politics appropriate to many developing countries and which is consistent with the axioms of economic theory.”
And while dealing with foreign countries I see similar “fiefdoms” emerging at land grant institutions. the “pure” education seems to be overshadowed by “research” with an economic “rent” controlled by a president that is subject to human frailties that can possess all of us.
I am fascinated by an institution that seems to be the opposite..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea_College
Where tuition is FREE because over time they built up their endowment (Almost 1 BILLION – down from 1.1 BILLION pre crash) so folks could receive a strong liberal arts education @ a Tier 1 school! And if this were not enough, the students must work part time which helps develop independence and a sense of self worth.
My point is not that this college exists, but why has this model not been the blueprint for EVERY State Land Grant Institution in the USA. My theory is nobility and academic integrity gets corrupted as the zeros pile up after the first digit (1.00 enforces a sense of frugality that 1,000,000,000.00 may not) when a president of a university answers to a board filled folks in big companies that make a healthy living selling things to the flagship state university and benefitting from perhaps a patent that the university owns.
I am often reminded of the 1st baron of Acton in his commentary..
“Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.”
Again, I am only one person of no real consequence but to further a great and noble Big 10, should not all demand and reward university presidents that put long term “education” rewards ahead of short term economic ones?
Consider endowments at state land grants that afford free education for all their state citizens similar to the Berea model.
Consider prudent long term sowing of goodwill among state land grants, instead of short term “harvesting” of economic rewards.
As “research” and “entertainment” factories are presidents creating better citizens for the states they serve?
If not, spin off “research” and “sports” as private companies and operate them as such, so at least the lines are not so blurred.
LikeLike
@MIRuss
re: buy-in logistics
Here is an idea I had. Each new school is given 1% equity by the Big Ten schools, 1% equity by Fox, and has a buy-in schedule over their first 10 years of their conference membership. The price is locked in at a BTN valuation determined by an unbiased investment firm (HA!) at the time of joining the conference.
This gives a new school a huge chunk (2%) for “free”, and also buys into their remaining share. Fox gives up 1% equity for each new school, since the entire pie will grow and to show they are willing partners in the expansion. The expansion school(s) buy-in of a final 1 to 1.5% over 10 years limits the bite out of their annual media revenues.
LikeLike
@Duffman regarding research vs education
I would argue strongly that a research university is a substantial benefit to a state. The
LikeLike
number of new companies and jobs founded from ideas developed in academia is huge and many of those jobs stay near the university that develops them. Furthermore a research university lures top talent from all over the world as professors and graduate students who often settle in the area. Private companies are simply unable to take on the risk involved in sponsoring research (with a few exceptions) and even if they are they find it easier to work with a university.
I would also argue that, done correctly, research and education are not antagonistic goals. Students want to be taught by the best thinkers in the field and these individuals are usually interested in research. I know everyone has a story of the professor who ignored them because he was research focused, but these are more the exception than the norm (hopefully).
As far as tuition, it does seem a bit disingenuous that schools with multi-billion dollar endowments still have it. Overall, more schools seem to be headed towards a “higher tuition, but higher financial aid” model, which is obviously better than nothing.
My view is that of all the fiefdoms in this world, one based on increasing research seems the least harmful.
LikeLike
@duff
I had a long and involved response (2 pages single spaces in Word!) I just finished when I realized that the topics are probably diverging from the intent of the blog/post. If Frank doesn’t care I can post, but to summarize:
a)Still disagree about not paying in. When it comes right down to it the new schools weren’t there to do the heavy lifting in the beginning, and will be getting far more, margin wise, by joining than the original Big10 schools will get by adding. Its in their interest to expand, but not give something valuable away.
Understand the concern regarding undergraduate education and turning schools into glorified research/entertainment companies, but to repeat what I considered a mindless ND justification for not joining in the “Research v Education” argument as gospel truly does a disservice to the services the Big10 universities provide to its undergraduate students.
Facts are the Big10 schools are top notch undergraduate institutions, admittedly focusing on engineering, sciences, and other “practical” programs. I for one don’t see a conflict between being a large research institution and having a great undergraduate system. Just because they don’t focus on the “classical” programs doesn’t make them any weaker of an undergraduate school.
LikeLike
M..
“Overall, more schools seem to be headed towards a “higher tuition, but higher financial aid” model”
If you have kids or grandkids this means saddling somebody with MASSIVE debt – If the “scholarship” part of the equation was much higher, I would be in full agreement with you..
On the state benefit thing it is where do you draw the line.. Cure for Cancer, Space Exploration, Alternative Energy, etc Yes..
If you are doing minor research (say better computer ink) or some such .. No! companies can do that sort of research on their own…
Sort of like having State Prison Inmates do 3rd party work (think Brubaker movie) as example, even tho it is not quite appropriate..
PSUGuy..
I started out in aerospace eng. so I value the research side of the equation. If I implied that teaching “research” was beneath “classical” that was NOT my intent. I have many Purdue grads in my family and it is a great place to learn at the undergrad level.
That said if Domers are using it as a crutch then it is their issue, just smile and walk away. Nobody wins so why waste time and energy on something that will never meet a common ground.
If you want to email Frank and have him post it in the forum that is cool with me if it is cool with Frank.
While it was moving off topic, the intent was to point out that the economic “research” decision was part and parcel to the economic “entertainment” decision. So by adding more than 12 teams, the Big 10 was by action confirming the effect of money on future decisions.
LikeLike
@duff
Oh I don’t think there was ever any question about this being a money related decision. I’ve stated that if the Big10 was really interested in pulling “the next PSU” then it should expand by 1 team and that team must be Texas. End of story.
The thing is, just because expansion to 16 is a purely money related decision doesn’t mean I don’t think the right “wrong” teams can’t be rolled into that 16. Take for example:
Pitt-meets every possible standard except its national brand appeal is not quite where it would be preferred. Honestly this is a Big10 school through and through and both the conference and the school would be better of for coming together.
Rutgers-very good academics with loads of research. Probably actually finds itself somewhere in the middle of the pack, maybe even the bottom, athletically, but it still fits in very well overall, even if it doesn’t meet the “PSU/Texas” standards.
UConn-Athletically its hit or miss. It would certainly be toward the bottom members of the league. Still, in the past 20 years it has spent a lot on improving its campus, expanded its research (it now does as much/more as AAU schools KS/Neb/Mizzou/Syr), and done a lot to increase its academic profile among similar minded institutions (its actually ranked by the AWRU higher than Mizzou, Syracuse, Neb, or KS-in that order). Truly I think UConn is trying to become “The University of New England” (I was surprised to hear it has a reduced out of state tuition for students from other New England states) and being admitted to the Big10 would be a huge step toward achieving those goals.
Point being while I understand and agree a move to 16 would be almost entirely profit based, I truly think the right mix of schools will do nothing to harm the Big10, either academically or athletically, and in long term will benefit both the parties greatly.
LikeLike
PSUGuy..
Pitt keeps growing on me..
I have been on board with Rutgers..
I think I suggested Uconn to Frank as I thought it would be a nice Maryland fit..
I keep looking for “future” gems, which is why I liked Uconn… I think you are correct on the “New England” moniker, and they were the seed that ESPN started with Rassmussen.
My problem is that posters keep saying I do not get the academic value.. which is false.. I get it.. just kept trying to get others to see the money overrides it all no matter what we think or say..
and once the Big 10 goes to 16, it would be foolish to think the rest of the college sports community would just stand around.
My way out thought if it was just academics and research, would be for the Big 10 to go after University of Toronto!
just think of the hockey!
🙂
LikeLike
PSUGuy: “I’ve stated that if the Big10 was really interested in pulling “the next PSU” then it should expand by 1 team and that team must be Texas. End of story.”
I still don’t buy this. The analogy to PSU is Nebraska. Similar profile, just hanging off the west edge instead of the east. Texas is a step up at this point.
LikeLike
@duff
Big Ten Hockey Conference here I come!
@loki
No offense to any Nebraska pimpers/alumni, but it in no way what-so-ever is PSU. Geographically, its contiguous, and an outlier, but PA has x4 the population of Nebraska and gave access to the mid-Atlantic region, much more lucrative (due to population densities) than the mid-west.
Athletically it has a top football brand, but one that has gone through nearly a decade of mediocrity (when PSU was added it was at a high point). In nearly 20 years of Big10 football, PSU has had 4 seasons total without a Top 25 ranking (admittedly the 90’s were great for ‘Husker football).
Academically the two schools really don’t compare at all. PSU’s research expenditures are double+ what Nebraska’s are. PSU has been ranked by the AWRU in the 40’s for the past decade. Neb has been ranked 151-200 for that same time period. PSU Engineering (a specific field near and dear to Big10 hearts) has been Top 10 for the same period. Neb not in the Top 100.
Not to overly disparage Nebraska. Its a great school, a top notch football program (just one going through a down period), and I think would be a nice addition to the Big10, but it certainly is no PSU or Texas as far as meeting all the criteria a “perfect” addition would have.
LikeLike
Not sure that they would have to buy their way into the BTN or not…essentially, each school is sharing equally the revenue ($22 mil/school) as well as the equity (~4.6% coming from 51% ownership between 11 schools). So obviously when a new school joins they are not going to just be given equal shares in the BTN. If they went to 16 teams then the equity stake would be 3.2% ownership to each team. The current teams would have no problem to continue equal revenue sharing, as they benefit by the increased revenue the new team brings, but what is the benefit for equally sharing the equity? There is none…
However, once the new team joins they could essentially pay their equity share back to the Big10 as they would buy in gradually. For example, assuming that the BTN is worth $1 billion (just as an easy hypothetical…I’m assuming that this isn’t that much of an underestimate and may be an over estimate) that means a new team would have to shell out 32 million to buy their 3.2% stake in the BTN. The Big 12 teams would make about 10-12 million more in the Big 10 at a minimum, so they could reserve 3 million a year to buy in over 10 years, or they could not buy in now, but would be responsible for kicking in their share if and when the BTN bought out Fox.
Regardless, this isn’t similar to getting an extra $20 parking fee…this is like saying you took a new job and received the same salary as your colleagues, but that you want them to split up their stock options to include you.
LikeLike
Nebraska actually wanted to join the Big10 way back when PSU was taken in.
LikeLike
Only thing I disagree with Frank is #3. Time is on the Big10’s side and I really think they will take all 12-18 months.
First off, another year of ratings boosts to the BTN should increase its payout and thus its per school payout. More fuel for arguments on why team X should leave whatever conference (or lack there-of) its in, no matter the history, favorable deals, etc it maintains.
What’s more, the ABC/ESPN contract currently signed will expire in 2016. Adding school(s) now will be too close to the end of the contract to force a re-work, but will force the per school payout to drop, precipitously if the expansion truly is by 5 schools. Waiting a year saves that many more dollars, still allows the team(s) to get into the league and show worth by the time renogotiations get back in work.
I do however think 84Lion may have hit on something. Fox/BTN may be pushing to go big fast (and thus where some of the “leaks” come from). The universities may have thought to go for one school slowly (the sudden and apparantly contradictory reversal in public announcements by Delany et al have been making recently).
The question is can Delany navigate the treachorous middle ground between the two? If Fox/BTN can lay off, maybe the universities won’t be so pressured and would entertain more than one school. If given time, plenty of data, and can be convinced particular schools actually fit the model of the Big10, the universities may actually be convinced a 16 team conference garuantees the long term success of all teams in the conference. Something the Big10 has always made its primary focus.
LikeLike
Great theory!
LikeLike
I’ve got a couple of things to take care of before I can sit down and actually read this (as well as a few hundred more of the comments from the LAST post you did Frank…) but I’ll throw this to you in the mean time…even if it is an imprecise translation.
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”
– Sun Tzu, the Art of War
LikeLike
This is exactly what I think is happening right now. All of this is just a screen so they can go behind closed doors and negotiate with their candidates, one at a time. I really believe that when it will happen they will announce a complete package of teams (3 or 5).
LikeLike
Sorry, but the SEC is not off the table for Texas. UT’s preference is a B12/P10 hybrid, but they have demands and the P10 does have the setup and capacity to shoot themselves in the foot. Travel is a big deal to TX, not just because of costs, and the current P10 would require more travel than going to the B10+ or SEC. Texas and OU, aTm, and TTech to the SEC west (minus AL and AU) would create an 8-team division with travel no worse than in UT’s current B12 south. If the SEC wants Texas bad enough, they could agree to certain changes in conference rules. Plus this isn’t 15 years ago, some of the differences have lessened.
Again, I think some combo with the P10 is more likely, but the SEC isn’t off the table. Going to the B10+ is off the table, unless it is as part of a 24-team national academic super conference. That would put Texas in a 12-team western division combining the best of the P10 and B12, with the current B10+ and another (ND or Rut) in the east. I just can’t see the B16 be able to fit in UT’s demands, which for going north would surely require bringing a Longhorn 4-pack of aTm, OU, and TT. UT is likely to get that from the P10 if they join, and it is nearly certain the SEC would agree to that, so it is the negotiating floor. Not sure why some think adding NE, KS, and/or MO would in any way lure Texas to the B10+ without also taking their 4-pack.
Why the Longhorn 4-pack? They want it for travel reasons, keeping annual rivalry games in conference to save OOC slots, and to maintain a voting block in conference matters. TX views TT as an emerging research institute that can reach Tier One in five years and becoming AAU eligible within 10. Well those are the goals, anyway. UT wants to emulate the Cal schools setup and success. Doesn’t automatically mean that TTech (or UHou) has to be in the same conference, Cal and UCLA are the only ones out there, but being in the same conference would make it easier for TT to make rapid advances and bring in dollars faster. UT is likely to get that from the P10 if they join, and it is nearly certain the SEC would agree to that, so it is the negotiating floor.
So clearly TX is looking to and negotiating with the P10, perhaps also conspiring with the B10+. But there is another element that could end up moving the Longhorns to the SEC: aTm and OU acting in tandem. UT could move to a conference where one of those two didn’t and became an OOC game. However it is highly unlikely that the Longhorns would accept having both of their must-play annual games out of conference (and jacking up their SOS which surely goes up in any move to the P10+ or B10+.) Sure UT could go it alone without OU and aTm, but ultimately TX doesn’t see that as being in their best interest. So a united OU and aTm insistance on joining to the SEC could pull UT east. (BTW, it is the t-shirt fan faction that has been screaming that the SEC would never be an option for UT.)
Having said that, I expect UT to work out a merger with some or all of the P10.
LikeLike
One HUGE fly in the ointment for all of your arguments regarding Texas schools–the Texas State Legislature.
Remember–the Texas Legislature was able to block the Big XII until they saddled it with Baylor (instead of TCU or Houston) when it was formed. They won’t let Texas act on their own (unless Texas wants to wean itself from taxpayer money, which is highly unlikely) unless they take their brethren with them…and that could mean saddling Texas with anyone from UTEP, to Baylor, to Houston, to the fiesty nightbirds of Rice. Yeah, that’s a definite possibility–just depends who is elected, and who their alma matter is.
Also, what’s interesting is that the other big player (not as big as Nebraska, mind you) being left out of discussion is Oklahoma. Other than the SEC, there’s no real place for them to go if the Big XII crumbles. Mind you, I’m not shedding any tears considering their shenanigans and bedfellows since the Big XII was formed, but it’s still interesting to note they’re, more or less, twisting in the wind here.
LikeLike
Bob,
I offered the following at some point in the past..
HOW THE BIG 12 IMPLODES:
a) Big 10 sweeps – T,A&M,NU,UM, and KU
b) SEC sweeps – T,A&M,OU, and OSU – B10 gets NU,KU,UM,??
c) Pac 10 sweeps – T,A&M,OU,OSU,CU, and KU – B10 get NU & UM
I would not like it, but see c) as most likely as Texas will get the following benefits..
1) academic prestige
2) unequal revenue sharing
3) better weather
4) better minor sports in baseball and women’s basketball
5) with 6/10 split texas feels more at home
6) SEC has Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn.. Big 10 could have tOSU,PSU,UM,NU, and ND.. Pac10 has USC, now you are Mack Brown and wanting a shot at a NC EVERY year.. what conference gives you the best odds?
LikeLike
If I may, I think the uneven revenue sharing bit is vastly overplayed.
Uneven revenue sharing is a necessity in the Big 12 due to much smaller markets relative to Texas, but not so much in the Big 10 or SEC. The uneven revenue sharing would net Texas say $3M extra over the lower teams in the Pac-10.
I think we all can agree that Texas joining the Big Ten would offer it a lot more than just $3M over the lower Pac-10 teams due to the Big Ten’s much larger population footprint.
I would think Texas would be fine with equal revenue sharing as opposed to 50% unequally shared if it didn’t have to carry the whole league’s revenue as it currently does with the Big 12.
I agree that a Big 10 or Pac-10 sweep is most likely; the academics of the SEC still seems to be a deal breaker, but the rest of the terms seem to be equal to me.
I still think the Big Ten has the best odds if it grabs Nebraska/Missouri (and probably Kansas) because those three would offer Texas/A&M a chance to at least re-create their own division. If Texas ends up joining the Pac-10 they’ll probably only go with Colorado from the Big 12 as opposed to Nebraska/Missouri (and maybe even Kansas).
LikeLike
I don’t know if Texas will go for equal revenue sharing even if it means greater absolute dollars in the SEC. I think Texas’s ideal is to keep TAMU, TTech, OU, and OSU all with them in the same conference (in part for travel, in part so they can police them) and with unequal revenue sharing, regardless of the dollar amount. Think of it in recruiting terms:
Right now, they’re the biggest dog in Texas. Sure, a recruit could go to LSU or the Big10, but they would play hardly any games in Texas. If Texas, TAMU, and the Oklahoma schools go to the SEC, suddenly, all those schools (and LSU) have the same resources as Texas, and recruits will still get to play a bunch of games in/around Texas. That’s why I think a merger with the P10 (with unequal revenue sharing) is still most likely, despite the distance. In any case, in a P/W 16/20, Texas would play hardly any games outside of it’s current Big12 footprint, so distance wouldn’t be such a big deal.
LikeLike
But what if only A&M can go with Texas? What would Texas decide to do then?
Personally, I think we’re only going to see 14 team leagues out of this at a maximum.
Thus, if we assume that the Pac-10 takes Utah and Colorado; the Big Ten takes Nebraska or Missouri; where do you think Texas/A&M go?
I can see your point under a 16-20 team conference sweep scenario. But let’s take that off the able for a moment because the Pac-10 requires unanimous voting and the Big Ten hasn’t had an easy deal with expanding either the past 20 years.
LikeLike
The Pac10 veto is fairly easy to get around. All that has to happen is for USC to announce that they’re going to withdraw from the Pac10 and team up with Texas (and it’s buddies) to start a new Western Conference. All current Pac10 schools are welcome. I doubt any would refuse to come.
LikeLike
zeek..
it depends on the value of texas today vs texas + usc in a new contract or network. My guess is such a combination could double or triple current values..
in multiple posts I have said, 12 or 16 as anything not one of the two does not work as well. the day the Big 10 says 13, by default it is saying 16 (wether they admit it or not the signal is LOUD and CLEAR).
richard..
a) I agree with the “policing” thing
b) I agree with the USC action
LikeLike
Playoffs now, why does it have to be a super conference of 24 teams? What about bringing over Texas, A&M, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska to form 16? Look what that leaves for divisions:
(WEST) Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Northwestern
(EAST) Michigan, The Ohio State University, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Penn State.
By the time you set up your OOC games to include some in state schools and Oklahoma, Texas could still play 8 games in the state of Texas. Why is that no doable?
I have written a whole article on this topic that is too big to post here (and I’ve have referenced this before in this space). If you haven’t seen it and are interested in the details, it can be found at:
(WEST) Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Northwestern
(EAST) Michigan, The Ohio State University, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Penn State.
LikeLike
Sorry, bad cut and paste. If you want to see the whole article, it can be read at:
http://thepolesposition.com/2010/02/18/2018-big-16-championship-ohio-state-28-texas-24/
LikeLike
Your divisions would make more sense with Minnesota/Wisconsin swapping with Illinois/Northwestern.
LikeLike
Albino’s observation makes sense, but the other thing to consider here is the impact on the schools that be moved to join the big cluster of new entries if they all land in the west or east. Can you get Iowa, Wisky & Minny to vote yes if their new reality means seeing the newbies at the expense of Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois, etc. Same could apply for tOSU if they wound up needing to allocate slots for Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, etc. That’s why I think ultimately we’ll need to some combination of east and west.
LikeLike
My grouping was meant to be a hybrid of geography and strength of the various sub conferences. So yes, if the only goal was straight geography, you are correct.
LikeLike
The key thing I gather is that Texas does not see itself and does not want to brand itself as a “southern school.” Texans prefer to use “southwestern” or even “western” when asked to describe their home region. So the choice for Texas is to link up with a western conference — the Pac 10 — or a “national” conference — the Death Star incarnation of the Big 10. To join the SEC would set back UT’s self-image and branding. So I don’t think its likely to happen.
LikeLike
Mike R,
as stated before I have been to austin and love it, but the rest of the state might look like this..
http://www.bettybowers.com/nl_redorblue.html
or this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
and no I am not trying to start a political flame war so just say NO to trolls.. just going back to my LIKE follows LIKE concept fostered severals blogs back..
Again, STATE schools can be influenced by politicians, who can be influenced by special interests and voters. Not saying either side is right, just pointing out that it happens. sorta like hot dogs come in 8 packs and buns come in 10 packs – so they can sell you multiple packages at a time.. the sneaky bas$ards! 😉
LikeLike
Duffman, if you’re not looking to start a flame war, then don’t post asinine sh!t like that.
LikeLike
Rutgers first football game as a member of the Big Ten should be against Minnesota in Piscataway. They can play for the “Long Island Guy” trophy. This would be a gold statue depicting a man vaguely resembling Paul Tagliabue waving a right-handed fist while holding a tennis racket in his left hand. The final score of each game of the series will be engraved on the statue’s backside.
LikeLike
brilliant
LikeLike
You forgot about the game being televised on BTNetwork.
LikeLike
Tagliabue did mention the Big Ten Network in his original comments. My mental image of “Long Island Guy” has him wrapping up his Saturday morning tennis game, then jumping in his private helicopter which whisks him directly over to Piscataway to attend the Gophers and Scarlet Knights game in person. Hopefully he remembers to set his DVR to record the telecast off BTNetwork before he heads off for tennis. Life is so hectic!
LikeLike
Not much to add other than thanking Frank for restating the obvious and throwing some much-needed cold water on some insane speculation:
Throughout this process, I’ve corresponded with many Texas alums (NOT the T-shirt fans that just care about football) and they’re pretty much unanimous in stating that the UT administration will NEVER entertain any thought of joining the SEC. It cannot be underestimated how much the academically-minded administrators at Texas loathe the thought of the SEC. I think about this every time I see a columnist wrongly assume that “Texas = South” and therefore “Texas = SEC”, when in reality UT likens itself to be more like Berkeley or Michigan as opposed to any of the SEC schools.
This UT alum/season ticket holder/donor whole-heartedly agrees.
LikeLike
During the draft Saturday, some coach or AD (I think it was Mack Brown) said something to the effect of: When meeting with groups, I always start off with “Thank you, but please don’t tell us how to run our program.” Of course he said it far more diplomatically, but I was still surprised by how blunt he was.
Now, you could be right and I could be wrong (or vice-versa) but a t-shirt with tickets and some dough doesn’t necessarily have much pull in this for such a momentous decision. If ND can defy their alums, UT can do so in a heartbeat.
But I still strongly dispute that there is a clear wall against going to the SEC among the UT base. Is there a preference for the P10? Yes. SOME feeling strongly against considering the SEC? Yes. But the majority opinion I’ve run into is that the P10 is preferred and the SEC wis an option they could live with. Playing LSU every year, the guarantee of playing for the title if you win conference, and UT exposing the often overrated frauds like AL and FL gets many of them (and I) excited and open to the possibility.
LikeLike
@PN:
My stating that I am a donor/alum/STH was meant to assert that I am someone who is more knowledgeable about what Texas may or may not do than the casual t-shirt fans who care about football, but not the university, to which Frank referred and was not meant to assert that I somehow spoke for all UT alums, given my status as such.
We must hang around different groups of alums/fans, as few I’m aware of seem particularly thrilled at the prospect of heading east. That being said, I think you help my argument when you state that the UT administration will ignore the alumni base (other than Tom Hicks and Joe Jamail, of course) to do what is right for the school. And, in my eyes, no matter how many alums/fans who might exist who would get excited about a move to the SEC, the administration will ignore them in a heartbeat if the conference doesn’t meet its academic demands.
LikeLike
HH..
2 questions..
1) how much pull does JerryWorld have??
I ask as he played for Arkansas in the old SWC and Arkansas has now joined the SEC..
2) do hicks and jamail have much pull?
I ask as jamail has business partners in SEC country.. do not know about hicks..
LikeLike
@duff:
(1) Jerry Jones is irrelevant when it comes to all things University of Texas.
(2) Keep in mind that the Longhorns play at Joe Jamail Field at Darryl K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium. I have no idea how much THAT donation costs, but, yeah, I imagine he has some pull. My parenthetical reference to Jamail and Hicks was somewhat in jest, but if there were any alums who might have a slight bit of influence it’d be them. That being said, I can’t imagine that UT’s future conference alignment will be determined by the fact that one of its more prominent alums/donors has business partners in one particular part of the country.
LikeLike
Oh, as for Hicks, I would imagine that his recent financial problems might have some sort of impact on how much pull he has nowadays, but he was supposedly a prominent back of hiring Mack Brown back when Gary Barnett was perceived as the hottest potential hire in the country.
LikeLike
HH,
thanks for the info on jones and hicks..
as I said before, business makes strange bedfellows. add politics to the mix, and it can get even stranger. as average folks we see what we see, but who really know what deals get made at the top levels..
again Big 10 goes to 12, no big deal..
at Big 16, it is a chess game or a game of RISK as pointed out by several previous posters. my guess is that no posters here are holding said dice. When you are talking 16 team conferences, you are admitting the power of money and egos on decision making. Which is why I keep looking at corporate power once it goes past 12.
ps.. wow for hicks if he got brown instead of barnette! as for brown I thought he was a Vandy or FSU grad that came from Tulane and UNC before landing at Texas..
LikeLike
@duff:
Mack Brown is an FSU grad. His older brother, Watson Brown, is a Vandy grad who has bounced around between a bunch of second-tier coaching gigs in his career.
LikeLike
Jones not that irrelevant to Texas.
1. Arkansas backed out of home/home with UT to take part in lucrative neutral Jerrybowl with A&M.
2. The Cotton Bowl will be a BCS bowl VERY soon.
LikeLike
TheBlanton,
Got any source on that Cotton Bowl statement?
LikeLike
@Kyle:
I’m not sure there’s any individual source, but it’s widely assumed in Texas that the Cotton Bowl, financially backed by Jones and now played in the best modern football stadium in the country, will make a serious run at becoming a BCS bowl when the next window of opportunity for doing so opens up. Whether that’s feasible, and whether the BCS club would remain closed to other bowls, is unknown.
@ TheBlanton:
Jerry is relevant via a Butterfly Effect sort of analysis for aspects of UT’s athletic programs, as would be influential alums at many major schools, but he’s not relevant in the least for the primary discussion topic of this blog, the future conference affiliation of UT.
LikeLike
That is one BIG ass butterfly. Without BYU and Arkansas on the schedule, UT finishes behind OU in 3 way tie for big 12 South in 2008. With those two games, UT’s SOS pushes them ahead of OU in BCS standings and into the MNC against Florida.
Oklahoma played BYU, Arky played A&M, TxTech played Baylor, all last year in the regular season, IN Jerrydome’s FIRST year. Jones is already having a HUGE impact on the Big XII and Texas. He might decide to ease up, but that is not really his style. He is actively lobbying for a BCS bowl, what conference affiliation does it appear that he would be looking at first?
LikeLike
@TheBlanton:
I’m not following your argument re the 2008 schedule. Texas played and destroyed Arkansas in Austin, and BYU was never anywhere near Texas’ schedule for the season.
In 2009, Texas was to have payed a return visit to Arkansas, but the Hogs canceled the game. I don’t think Texas fans shed too many tears.
As for BYU, maybe you’re confusing BYU with Utah, as, years ago, 2008 would have seen the third game of a two-and-one between Texas and Utah in Austin, but Utah canceled that series well before it ever began, ostensibly due to scheduling complications which emerged after the MWC added TCU and the corresponding extra conference game.
LikeLike
TheBlanton..
“That is one BIG ass butterfly.”
Thank you for the image….
now when i think of jerry, I have an image of Mothra in my head….
🙂
LikeLike
@Kyle:
Almost on cue, a article about the BCS and Jerry World:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/21205726?tag=headlines;collegefootball
LikeLike
HH
thanks for the link..
2 points in article goes back to what I said here several blogs ago..
a) 2 + 1 for the BIG 2 or BIG 3 (BIG 16 / PAC 16 / SEC 16).
b) that a BIG 3 (when formed) could leave the others and form the BMF’s.
LikeLike
You were watching PSU’s blue-white game and Paterno told Herbie and Brent Musberger what he says to alums when he speaks.
“I want your money, not your opinion.” It got some rousing laughter from everyone and the statements, “Only Joe could get away with that!”
LikeLike
Actually, JoePa said “I want your money, but I don’t want your two cents!”
Hahaha
LikeLike
I knew it was wittier than what I wrote.
That was a great line!
LikeLike
Yeah, that was it, Joe Pa at the spring game. Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
His second best line was when Scuseberger(kudos to someone previously) called Joe a legend, and Joe replied, “only because I made it through four years with Mlllen.”
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
From their point of view, what might the SEC want:
1) Texas market – big payoff, low risk, good fit
2) ND – big payoff, low risk, decent fit
3) Northeast market – potential big payoff, big risk, questionable fit
4) the edges (schools like VT, FSU/Clem, MO, KS, OU, NC, Duke) – relatively low payoff, low risk, good fit
For cable TV/footprint, the only big return targets outside the current B10+ and SEC are the northeast, VA/Carolinas, Texas, and the west coast (the potential for the P10 to shoot themselves in their foot puts that potentially in play.) Everything else is just nibbling at the margins, though one can sometimes get decent returns with the right collection of edge additions.
So the best options I see for the SEC are:
1) UT, aTm, TT, and OU
2) ND, VT, FSU or Clem (using the NE argument of marquee and balance over footprint), OU
3) VT, NC, Duke, MD or FSU or Clem
4) VT, FSU or Clem, OU, TCU or UH or even Baylor
5) VT, 3 of MD, Rut, CT, Syr. And this option might be #2, based on market size and potential though it is riskier
6) some 4 combo of VT, WV, MD, NC, Duke, Clem, FSU, Mia, GT, MO, KS, OU, OK St, TCU, UHou, Baylor, Cin. Obviously several of those are pretty unlikely.
Which is why if B10+ is going beyond 12 to 16, they would be wise to lock up either ND, the northeast, or both.
Or go all out to 24 in an alliance/merger with the cream of the P10/B12. Then the 12-team eastern division basically functions as its own conference, while creating an unsurpassed BCS academic super conference, expanding the BTN nationally, and getting the biggest financial windfall possible. With the east division basically functioning as its own conference, in some ways it becomes in effect only a one school expansion that doesn’t alter the balance or cohesion of the current B10+. Perhaps the separation goes so far as to allow uneven revenue sharing in the west division.
In that case the SEC would probably also go to 24, perhaps staying unchanged but adding a separate SEC2 division of two 6-team subdivisions that might be a gobbling up of ACC and BEast teams. A third, relatively poor, leftover 24 or two or three 12-school conferences might round things out. Or a SEC unchanged plus an SEC2 with east and a west (TCU, UH, +) subdivision if the ACC creates a 24 alliance with a new/retooled western conference.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now..
I keep saying this.. but Duke would be a negative in the football war..
Duke vs SEC in football.. where would the value be??
UNC vs SEC in football.. I can see added value there..
long term I keep wondering about OSU and T Boone Billion dollar push
OSU is one of only 5 Sun Grant Colleges (Cornell, OSU, Oregon St, SDSU, and Tennessee) that are backed by the Depts of Transportation, Energy. and Agriculture via Congress. We have discussed future values not yet represented, and surely this might be one. What I find odd is that the Big 10 footprint is represented by SDSU as UT has the SEC footprint, Oregon St has the Pac 10, OSU has the Big 12, and Cornell has the east. Anybody know how/why the Big 10 did not get a school for its own footprint? Especially in light of the fact that the Big 10’s composition is almost exclusively Land Grant schools?
LikeLike
This is crazy. There simply is no way a union 0d 20 or 24 teams can even work. I have written about 2 models for 16 teams that I think is even questionable. People who suggest these things IMO do not really understand the Big 10’s one for all, all for one mentality. Half of the B12 schools have few if any R&D contracts (membership and sharing of resources with the CIC would be an issue). This would be crazier than the 3 year WAC experiment that should not be forgotten.
I wrote about the WAC’s history and the possibility of the Big 10 expanding to 16 teams just a few days ago which you might find useful in your 20-24 team analysis. I think that’s too unwieldy, would leave too many chefs in the kitchen, and their’s just no way something like that could work. Last article can be found at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/04/22/a-history-lesson-the-case-against-a-16-team-super-conference/
LikeLike
So the best options I see for the SEC are:
1) UT, aTm, TT, and OU
2) ND, VT, FSU or Clem (using the NE argument of marquee and balance over footprint), OU
3) VT, NC, Duke, MD or FSU or Clem
4) VT, FSU or Clem, OU, TCU or UH or even Baylor
5) VT, 3 of MD, Rut, CT, Syr. And this option might be #2, based on market size and potential though it is riskier
6) some 4 combo of VT, WV, MD, NC, Duke, Clem, FSU, Mia, GT, MO, KS, OU, OK St, TCU, UHou, Baylor, Cin. Obviously several of those are pretty unlikely.
Perhaps the SEC wouldn’t be interested in all four of the ACC’s southern tier, but at least two of them — Clemson and Florida State — would jump in a heartbeat. (Georgia Tech may still have issues with the SEC dating back to its departure from the conference, plus there’s the issue of academics. Miami is too northern-oriented for the SEC.)
So who would be the other two, were the SEC to want to grow to 16? West Virginia is contiguous to SEC state Kentucky, travels well, and has a football-oriented culture that would mesh with the SEC. And for #16, Virginia Tech, which could renew its rivalry with WVU and begin new ones with Tennessee and Kentucky. There might be heck to pay from UVa people after what happened in 2003, but football reigns at Tech and they wouldn’t care what folks in Charlottesville thought.
Suddenly, the ACC is down to nine members and drastically weakened, and Maryland (which would have no interest in the SEC) would hope room is still open in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
vincent..
i live in the borderlands.. WVU and Duke out.. WVU 1.8 pop state, and Duke has no football or basketball following (duke does not travel). I could see UNC + NC State as both could be middle tier football with strong basketball and UNC DOES travel.
I agree on your assessment of Miami.. and for your 4 way of WVA and Va Tech to work, Vandy would have to leave the SEC, as their current rivals are UK and UT (assuming a 4 pod system it only leaves 1 slot). Also in women’s basketball it would be hard to break up the 3 schools, men’s too (I know women’s basketball – but last year UL was in NC game, UT + VU + UK + Xavier all within a few hours drive, and all good).
The first thing is what happens to the Big 12 4 (UT, A&M, OU, and TT or OSU? If they go to the Big 10 or Pac 10, then the ACC as we know it will implode.. In an earlier post I suggested UNC + NC State / UVA + Va Tech as the 4, that would leave maryland for the big 10 and should be decent fit for PSU pod in Big 16.
In expansion of SEC.. UL = WVU = 98% impossible, UK already owns Kentucky market, and WVU just does not have a large enough population. It would be like saying the adds for the Big 16 would include Louisville and Iowa State. So the SEC could take 8 ACC members and weaken it further.
LikeLike
BTW, what do these “adding” posts mean? I’m a Twitter Luddite, so I’m guessing it has something to do with that.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – You need to post some type of comment in order to subscribe to the comment threads by email (it’s the only way it can be done under this WordPress platform), so people that just want to subscribe without having to write a brand new substantive comment just post “adding” or something else short.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine WANTING 1000 emails in one week.
LikeLike
actually most of them came in 61 comment chunks for me… -.-*
LikeLike
Easier to get 1000 emails than have to go back through the entire thread whenever you want to find the new stuff since you could end up with a new post as a reply to the very top post.
LikeLike
Frank, I do have a question about SEC expansion and I can’t seem to get information about this on the net. You are right that Texas would be seriously concerned about the academic standing of many of the SEC schools (also very few of the SEC schools command big R&D dollars). I also wonder just how they really make additional money by adding new markets when they are on fixed contracts with ESPN and CBS. Do you know how these contracts in fact work? Expansion is profitable for the Big 10 because they own their own Network (51% of it to be precise), so that expansion means more total households, subscriber fees, etc. But the SEC has already negotiated fixed amounts (or at least that is my understanding), so adding households would appear to be a windfall for ESPN & CBS. What do you know about this?
LikeLike
MZ,
in earlier posts this was discussed, and opinion seemed to hit the following points..
a) SEC / ESPN might have a clause for change
b) if the SEC partnered with ESPN, the way the Big 10 did with FOX it could be mutual agreement to alter / reform SEC/ESPN agreement
c) contracts are made to be broken
d) if 16 team conferences are on the table, things change
LikeLike
Duffman, I thought about that possibility too, there are always opt out clauses in contracts. If those do not exist though, breaking a contract for parties with billions of dollars in assets gets messy and would be tied up in court forever.
LikeLike
MZ,
agreed.. but play devils advocate and the SEC picks up Tx,A&M,OU, and OSU/TT it would be in the best long term interest for the SEC and ESPN to control the content (Fox already has the BTN). ESPN is going to want 2 of the BIG 4 (CA,NYC,TX, and FL) locked up in their footprint, so will be willing to deal.
In fact it might be interesting to see how this plays out in a content and turf war. Fox will want Texas in the big 10, and ESPN will probably not if they feel they can get a better deal with the SEC. The plot thickens tho.. and in the end we are all going to get jacked on cable bills. 😉
LikeLike
Mike – the teams added would have to be enticing enough for CBS & ESPN to agree to negotiate. Footprint really doesn’t matter to the SEC. See my post below. SEC-TV is in 15 states outside the SEC footprint right now.
The SEC explored its own network, like the BTN, but ESPN jumped in with the guaranteed deal. At the time, nobody knew the BTN would be such a cash cow.
The thing that most people miss out on the SEC contracts though, is that each school can market its inventory after CBS, the ESPN family, and the SEC-TV syndication package get their picks. So in the SEC package, there is true revenue sharing, and each school can still sell some inventory and keep that money for themselves.
LikeLike
Sort of off topic, but does anyone have a link to research dollars by school from 1 to infinity?
Returning to topic… try this for a conspiracy theory, Frank. What if the Big 10 is in between a rock and a hard place with Fox on the Big 10 Network. Think about it as a lawyer…. if the Big 10 as majority owner fails to maximize value in the Big 10 Network by NOT expanding… does FOX have a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty (and who knows what contractual obligations are out there)? Perhaps FOX is positioned in a win-win… either the Big 10 expands giving them more money now or the Big 10 fails to expand, resulting in a lawsuit that is ultimately settled with an extension of the Big 10/FOX relationship.
In the meantime, the Big 10 is engaging in all of this research to prove that a major expansion is NOT viable because this will help defend any claims for breach by FOX. If they end up with Notre Dame, so be it. If, in the meantime, the Big 10’s announcement causes the seismic shift in conferences, then the Big 10 will do what it needs to do… adding 0, 1, 3, 5 teams… to position for the future.
Otherwise, I agree with everyone else that delay only hurts the Big 10. If the Big East can sufficiently scare all of its members that the Big 10 is taking 3 of 4 teams and any one of you will be left out… all 4 might have an incentive to do something to prevent being the 4th team left out.
Maybe the Big 12 convinces its schools that the Big 10 is not taking all 3 of Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas and restructures proactively somehow. Maybe the SEC tries to negate all of this by taking Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St. and Clemson. Maybe the ACC gets worried about any or all of this and gobbles up UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Pitt to gain the entire NE market.
I just fail to see any benefit to delay if this is in the Big 10’s best interests. So maybe it is not in their best interests to expand just because FOX is trying to force their hand.
All speculation, of course. Comment away…
LikeLike
ez: this link has many sorted options. You can find lists of schools from $1.00 up. Lots of options.
http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html
LikeLike
“if the Big 10 as majority owner fails to maximize value in the Big 10 Network by NOT expanding… does FOX have a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty (and who knows what contractual obligations are out there)?”
Ohhh, that’s a damn good point. Kudos to you, Sir.
Also, to add one other (plausible) scenario–if the Big XII is raided for Nebraska (only sure bet) and one/two other schools, the Texas schools could just give the middle finger to the northern schools and resurrect the SWC. Hell, you’ve got plenty of Div-1 A schools:
-UTEP
-SMU
-TCU
-Texas Tech
-Texas
-Texas A&M
-Baylor
-Houston
-Rice
-Texas State (gearing up now)
-Oklahoma
-Okie Lite
That keeps travel costs down, a network can be easily arranged, it keeps in-state talent closer to the vest, and it has enough teams to allow for a title game at the Deathstar in Arlington.
LikeLike
Stupid me–forgot about North Texas. They could be subbed in for Texas State.
LikeLike
bob..
a) how can you forget the fightin mean joe greenes!
b) if it goes back to a texas only old SWC, you lose tv footprints. so my guess is things erode for texas (and her pretty friend A&M).. *nudge nudge wink wink* 😉
LikeLike
You are joking about reviving the SWC, right? 🙂
LikeLike
I don’t think resurrecting the SWC is what Texas really wants; I’m not sure, however, that if they continue to play hardball with things like the Longhorn Sports Network, the SWC isn’t they’re going to get.
LikeLike
I’d like to see the Big XII give a look at New Mexico, UNLV, BYU, And Utah.
Realign the new Big 16 in an northeast / southwest fashion, reuniting the Big 8, or use the pod system.
The Big 12 then realistically could threaten to drop Kansas St. and Iowa St. should Kansas/Nebraska/Missouri decide to leave the big 12.
LikeLike
The South (WC) will rise again!!!
LikeLike
ez..
a) you sir have a much more legal mind than mine.. kudos.. as the question of the FOX issue would not occur to me.. because..
b) delay does no good to anybody, as any conference outside the Big 10 and SEC must worry until things start to tumble. what president or AD is gonna want to sweat that out for a year or two.
LikeLike
There’s no breach of fiduciary duty suit by a minority owner in this kind of circumstance.
See Verizon Wireless and how Verizon Communications with its 55% stake only allows it to pay down debt and not pay out dividends to Verizon Comm. as well as Vodafone with 45% stake.
LikeLike
I tend to agree that the lawsuit is probably not successful in the end, but there is more than enough to make a credible lawsuit last for a few years.
After $25M in legal fees, the parties will settle. Too much to lose for both parties to actually have one declared a winner–meaning that the other is declared a loser.
LikeLike
Um yeah. If Fox wants a continuing business relationship with the Big10, suing them is probably not a good way to go about it. Considering that the Big10 is majority owner and also provides 100% of the BTN’s contents, there are a lot more ways for the Big10 to screw over Fox than for Fox to screw over the Big10. Especially when you consider that a lawsuit will likely get Fox nothing positive while it would guarantee a negative relationship.
LikeLike
Who says there needs to be a lawsuit for the attorneys on both sides to be advising a course of conduct?
I suspect that the contractual arrangement between the parties spells it out just fine anyway. Nobody expected that there would be THIS MUCH success.
You are not thinking like a lawyer here. The fundamental flaw in Frank’s analysis is this–everyone needs to think like a University President should be translated to “everyone needs to think like a University President that is getting legal advice.” Once lawyers get involved, things get different.
LikeLike
No, ezdozen; your analysis is way off base.
If you think about it as a lawyer then you’d know intuitively that in running a business, there is no legal rule that requires a corporation to take risks to maximize profit.
The management of a corporation has discretion to run a business and determine what risks are prudent.
Fox or any corporate entity would not jeopardize a relationship over a prima facie invalid case such as “the corporation didn’t take this risk to maximize profit.”
You would get laughed out of town. There would be no settlement. The Big Ten schools have the discretion to carefully consider and determine whether expansion is in the interest of the Big Ten network since they own the majority of the equity.
Fox has NO say in the running of the Big Ten network other than what the Big Ten schools allow it to say. This is how corporate law works.
The only time when “profit maximization” is required is a specific application of M&A doctrine in which a corporation that has already made a decision to sell the business must take steps to ensure it gets the best price. Thus, it has a fiduciary duty to consider the best offer even if it has already agreed to one after the corporation has made a decision to sell.
LikeLike
zeek interesting discussion.
Certainly it’s easy to see potential conflicts between the interests of the Big 10 and Fox. For example, assume the Big 10 presidents wanted to add Rutgers, Pitt, and Missouri. Fox might want to add Syracuse and Nebraska in place of Pitt and Missouri, for market purposes. I’m sure Big 10 membership is a matter left in the presidents’ hands, but I hope that was specifically spelled out in the legal work. And even if Fox has no legal say in the matter, how willing are you to piss off a 49% partner when the decision’s close anyway? Interesting.
LikeLike
Zeek, I am a lawyer. Pretty much ONLY able to think like a lawyer now.
The law is different in every state. Not sure how you can confidently opine regarding “legal rules” in a vacuum.
Regardless, the whole basis of such a lawsuit would be that the exercise of discretion was improper or unduly self-motivated. From there, there are several different legal labels (causes of action) that it could fall under.
The other issue is threat of litigation vs. actual litigation. If Fox asked the Big 10 to look into expansion for the benefit of their joint venture, the Big 10 would be advised by counsel to do so. Fox does not need to file a lawsuit to get this ball rolling. They do not even have to demand or otherwise do anything that would sour the relationship. It is the advice to the Big 10 by their own counsel that would get the ball rolling.
My point is suppose that this is what happened and the purpose of the due diligence here is to show that they are engaged in a proper exercise of discretion by accumulating the data necessary to make a decision–even if that decision is “no expansion.”
Finally, if you think Fox would be content to watch the Big 10 say “no thanks” to an additional few billion in profits because of tradition, I think that is naive. The Big 10 cannot cut Fox out of the deal. The Big 10 would not shoot itself in the foot to punish Fox for disagreeing–even to the point of a lawsuit. Fox has its own interests to protect. And this excludes the people who have say in what either entity does, such as the states under a financial crush.
LikeLike
If you think Fox may sue to force the B10 to expand, why haven’t they already sued to force them to relax their admission standards for student/athletes? The B10 could maximize revenues by letting in any excellent athlete who is literate.
LikeLike
I happen to be a lawyer as well and just looking at the structure of the Big Ten Network, it is a joint venture between the Big Ten Conference and Fox, and the Big Ten Conference schools own the equity among themselves.
The fact that the Big Ten’s 51% equity stake is shared equally among the schools indicates that Fox has no control over who the membership of the Big Ten conference is, since the Big Ten Network operates as a separate entity.
Fox administers the channel on behalf of the joint venture, but the Big Ten schools determine their own conference membership and determine who they will share their equity with; thus, Fox can politely “ask” them to expand, but Fox only owns 49% of the Big Ten Network joint venture which has no impact on the “parent” organization, the Big Ten conference.
The structure of the deal makes it so that the Big Ten schools determine what schools are going to be the content of the channel. A Big Ten school could easily switch out of the Big Ten Conference and Fox would have no recourse in that situation either.
In any case, the Big Ten schools have to vote to admit a member and sell them or give them a part of their equity in order for them to become an equal partner in the Big Ten Network.
Fox cannot force any of these things to happen. The Big Ten Network is built as a joint venture that is entirely separate from the Big Ten Conference; that is all that matters.
LikeLike
ez and zeek,
I am not a lawyer, but watching the back and forth is quite fascinating..
My question is will I be able to still afford my seats when it is all said and done? A dear friend in their early 70’s (lifelong fan now living on a fixed income) was not able to hold on (see also make larger “donation”) and now must watch at home.
Humm .. maybe this is how the BTN will drive future value?
LikeLike
Zeek… you are missing the point. I defend 99% of the lawsuits I get involved in. Would this Fox lawsuit scare me? Not really. But would it perhaps give the Big 10 some pause? Yes. The issue is whether Fox could get leverage here out of the Big 10’s conflict of interest. From there, is is just how you plead it.
While the Big 10 solely controls its membership, the Big 10’s decisions with respect to that membership directly impact the value of the Big 10 Network.
If the Fox ownership is permanent, then that changes the analysis. Now both Fox and the Big 10 are in it for the long term.
But my understanding from other posts is that Fox’s stake expires at some point. So what happens if the Big 10 refuses to expand… refuses to expand… refuses to expand… and then does it a few years after Fox’s ownership expires? In that scenario, you can bet Fox’s attorneys will be all over it.
Conversely, if the Big 10 does due diligence every 5 years and determines that expansion is not prudent, this helps the situation.
And what if Rutgers applies for Big 10 membership tomorrow. If the Big 10 rejects, that negatively impacts the value of the Big 10 Network. While the Big 10 cannot control a school leaving, it can control whether a school is added. It can’t just wait out the Fox ownership before doing so.
LikeLike
I’m pretty certain the rights deal between the Big10 and BTN is for 25 years. I can’t imagine Fox loses ownership of their 49% stake of the BTN after 25 years. That’d be an ownership structure I doubt exists in this country. In any case, at some point, you have to stop thinking like a lawyer, and think like a businessman. No one’s going to sue anyone or force anyone to put on a Kabuki show when no good could come out of it and only a worsening of the relationship.
LikeLike
zeek,
off topic I know but can you go into the Verizon thing a bit more.. and how it affects dividends for Verizon shareholders?
LikeLike
Well, right now most of Verizon Wireless’ earnings go towards debt held by Verizon Comm. (so it is as if Verizon Comm. receives 100% dividend payments); thus it is almost as if Verizon Wireless is wholly owned by Verizon Comm. This will come to an end once most of the debt from Verizon Wireless’ acquisitions is paid down (should occur within next few years).
Right now, Vodafone is essentially not really earning anything off of its 45% stake in Verizon Wireless. Yes it is a very valuable stake probably worth $50-60bn (since all of Verizon Wireless is probably worth $120bn).
In the next few years though, Verizon Comm. will have to make some very tough decisions. Right now all of Verizon Wireless’ cash flows move to Verizon Comm. but it is such a big cash cow that all of the debt from acquisitions could be paid off in the next few years, in which case only 55% of Verizon Wireless cash flow would go to Verizon Comm. as opposed to nearly 100% right now because an actual dividend payout has to be split 55-45 based on share holding.
Vodafone’s been biding its time and knows that the game will be up soon enough. Thus, we are likely to see some sort of Verizon Comm.-Vodafone deal where they merge or Vodafone sells its stake to Verizon Comm. The problem is Verizon Wireless is so big a part of each company, (it’s like 70% of Verizon Comm. and 40-50% of Vodafone) that they may be forced into a merger since neither would want to take on $50-70bn debt to buy the other side out.
Didn’t really mean to go off on an aside, but the majority owner of an enterprise can pretty much do whatever it wants to in this kind of situation. The fact that Verizon Comm. essentially takes all of the cash flow off Verizon Wireless (by paying down debt instead of dividends equally) is perhaps the greatest example out there right now.
LikeLike
So perhaps the Verizon issue is because they can claim that paying down the debt is a long-term benefit to all owners. If the Big 10 had lent the BTN $100M and the Big 10 voted to pay back that debt… how could FOX argue otherwise? Pay now or pay later (plus interest). Or perhaps there is a contractual term that prevents a lawsuit of this ilk.
Otherwise, I have seen far less meritorious breach of fiduciary duty claims filed.
And that is just one legal theory.
The bottom line is that once you partner with someone… your interest as a joint owner of that enterprise cannot be impaired because your private interests are different.
The fact that some minority owner does not prevail in a lawsuit may speak as much to the issues raised by the attorneys, the proof elicited, the judge’s philosophy, the relationship between the parties, the willingness to settle, and numerous other factors.
LikeLike
No university with even a small chance of joining the B10, with the possible exception of Texas, is going to make a move UNTIL the B10 has acted or advises that University it is no longer under consideration for B10 membership,IMHO.
LikeLike
Re waiting for Big 10 to decide (indydoug)
This is all speculation and the Big 10 channel gives the Big 10 a unique first mover financial advantage.
However other conferences are no doubt exploring their options of creating their own channels. This would be a multi-year undertaking that would require a strategy to attract an outside investor (like Fox for the Big 10) and agreements in place to secure optimum markets.
If Texas is evaluating a Pac 10 or Western Alliance option, they may move in that direction bringing along a number of key schools: how many and who is in question.
If the ACC is evaluating a conference channel and was to place a firm offer to 3-4 northeast schools, those schools might jump to the ACC due to affinity of being linked as a package of regional schools and to take advantage of an offer on the table rather than wait for the Big 10 to decide what it wants to do and the uncertainty that would entail.
Most of these schools will not be able to move for at least one-two years and most would receive a reduced payout for at least the first 3 years of any move.
In short, the Big 10 is attractive but affinity and desire to secure a stable future works in more than one way.
LikeLike
@c
Completely agree and I really think (ironically enough) that the truest long term threat to the BTN is not the SEC Network, but rather an ACC network that encompasses several BigEast schools that connects BC to the rest of the conference. If it were to get off the ground, it would have solid football and top notch basketball programs in every (or near every) major market along the eastern seaboard.
Right now though that kind of product (ACC tv channel) is at least 5 years away from being competitive to the BTN as it is now and I think (as Frank and others have said) the cards are all on the Big10’s table. This is why I think right now (the “12-18 months decision making process”) is the most important period in Big10 (and arguably NCAA football) history.
If the Big10 has enough drive and long range vision, they can do something that will make the SEC going to 12 teams and adding a championship game look like small potatoes by comparison.
LikeLike
Re possible ACC expansion (PSUGuy)
Left to themselves, my impression is the ACC is happy as a close-knit southern based conference.
Regardless of the financials, I see BC as currently an isolated island separate from the conference without adding the synergy one or more additional northeast teams might create.
Now the issue of a conference channel comes into the picture. That requires investment but raises the larger issue of increasing program inventory and markets that might make such a channel work.
Considering such a channel almost forces the conferences to consider their long term options.
The ACC really only has one likely direction to expand which is north. There are 4 schools available that would meet their academic standards excluding ND.
Thee Big 10 is aware of this as is the ACC. ND is also aware that if the Big 10 is considering 16 and if the ACC is considering 16, they almost certainly are running out of options.
I see the issue of affinity as an important wildcard. Does the Big 10 want to expand east in a significant way? Does the ACC want to expand north in a significant way? The ACC with its tradition of basketball may find this an additionally interesting option. Does ND prefer the Big 10 or would it consider a move to the ACC if it could shape the choice of the expansion schools?
Once the decision is made and the strategy is clear and the financials have been considered and the “9 game pod system” understood as a way to maximize interconference play, the odds may favor a move to 16.
Or maybe not.
A lot of conversations are no doubt going on behind the scenes. My guess is the Big 10 and Texas and ND and the ACC and the Pac 10 will increasingly have a clear idea of what opportunities are available and what they want to do.
LikeLike
Of the 4 major conference that will be left standing, I think the ACC would have the hardest time starting its own network. Florida and Georgia are definitely SEC country; the ACC wouldn’t be able to convince cable networks that they deliver those 2 states except for certain regions like the panhandle, S. Florida, and metro Atlanta. The Northeast is as fraught with peril as it is for the Big10, but even more so, since they wouldn’t be able to cycle brand names like PSU, OSU, and Michigan through (I think they’d need ND to join to have a shot at the NE). That leaves 3-4 states where they can promise the ACC channel would be everywhere: NC, Virginia, Maryland, and probably SC. That’s not a big footprint, and given their lack of brand names in football (which is what’s preventing them from getting the Big10/SEC-type money they’re seeking from the networks), that’s not too enticing to advertisers. Plus, Big10 partisans are all across the country, since we send alums to the East Coast, engineers to North Cal, and retirees to Arizona and Florida (while ACC fans can rarely be found outside ACC country). An ACC channel would be more successful than the Mtn, but I believe it would be closer to the MWC’s network than the BTN.
LikeLike
richard..
I think we agree on the ACC footprint and the value of football in the big picture. I can not remember if you posted that you grew up in SC.. If so do you still have family down there?
As with the value of USC in the SC market, I have no idea? Have they made inroads with Holtz and Spurrier?
LikeLike
Agree with all those points, but the ACC only needs to take those few schools available and provide the local sports programming. Once they achieve market penetration the ACC becomes the “home town” conference. Even if it isn’t as profitable it will prevent Big10 expansion into the area as there are no other schools available for consideration.
Just another reason why I think an eastward expansion is more likely. Time will be running out on conferences that want to get large market teams (regardless of pedigree) to increase the viewership of the big programs they already have.
LikeLike
Hey Duffman,
Nope, not associated with South Carolina in any way. There was some other poster who’s from there and now is in Indiana, I think.
LikeLike
Frank..
did you read this?
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/french-revolution-in-offing-for-ncaa-monarchy-28257
68 is a ruse.. it will be 128, unless it does break to “supers”
LikeLike
Interesting link!
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
^2
LikeLike
What’s going to be so interesting about all of this is if a conference expansion occurs that is not limited in scope to ND joining the Big 10, it’s going to start a cascade/landgrab that’s going to go much, much faster than the SWC’s diaspora following Arkansas joining the SEC.
Any Big East school leaving, especially a pair, would decimate the conference.
Nebraska leaving the Big 12 would blow it up, as there would be zero presigious football programs left in the North, and revenue distribution changes accelerate Oklahoma’s and Texas’s search choices. Losing Colorado to the Pac-10 or Missouri loss to the Big 10 might be survivable, but another Texas school being added to replace them would cause tough decisions to have to be made about divisional balance and scheduling.
My hope, as a Nebraska fan:
NU/KU/MU to the Big 11
Colorado, Texas, A&M to the Pac-N
OU/Oklahoma State to the SEC
KSU, ISU, Tech, and Baylor to C-USA/Mtn West/MAC, as appropriate.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Depending on how hot the B10 is for eastern markets, a few BE schools could be proactive in this.
3 of Pitt, RU, Cuse and UConn could say to the B10, take all 3 of us or none of us will go. That will be a bluff that requires a steady hand and incredible trust that none of the 3 will be peeled off, but it could work IF the Big10 really wants Eastern markets, as Paterno and Barry Alvarez have implied.
Otherwise the B10 can say, come on down Missouri, Nebraska and BE school left out of the trio-who-make-demands.
LikeLike
And why would the Big 10 fall for this bluff? And it’s a bluff because a school like Rutgers, which has been begging for B10 membership more than any other school than Mizzou, is not going to say “Sorry, we can’t join unless you take Pitt and Syracuse too.” Rutgers isn’t going to turn down the Big Ten Network and games with Penn State and Michigan just out of loyalty to those Syracuse or UConn games.
That’s the problem with all these “Save the Big East” scenarios–it assumes that Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse want to save the Big East. Maybe Syracuse does a little, but Rutgers and Pitt are acting like they can’t wait to bolt.
There is no way to force the Big 10 to take schools they don’t want. Maybe Texas could force A&M, but I’m not sure the Big 10 wouldn’t want A&M anyway. If Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse entered such a pact, either one of the schools would break it or the B10 would just say “Fine. If you don’t want to join, I’m sure Kansas does.”
LikeLike
I can tell you Rutgers will never make such a blood pact of “3 of us or none”. Neither would SU or Pitt. Neither would UConn. They are really ticked off at the BE for being so short sighted on dealing with the football scheduling problems and being so BB centric. There is also no love lost for Tagliabue and his comments. They (BE) admins are idiots and the whole Tags fiasco is the icing on the cake.
LikeLike
I suspect Rutgers is a lock in either the 14/16 Scenario. All the Big Ten needs to do is tell Rutgers they’re very high on the short list and it would be enough for Rutgers to stay out of any Big East pact.
LikeLike
I really don’t think there can or wll be any bluff. Cuse, Rutger, or UConn would join the Big10 in a heartbeat if asked, whether it was with others or not. It just adds so much for these programs/schools and as mentioned, the BigEast has not exactly been kind to them as far as football is concerned.
As for Pitt…I have quite a few friends that graduated from there and to a man (and woman) they all preferred to join the ACC if it came down to leaving the BigEast. It wasn’t until I said “you realize schools like Northwestern or Indiana made almost twice what Texas did last year and almost 4 times what Pitt did” that you could see the realization of the kind decision that was being made in university presidents’ board rooms. It almost seemed as though they preferred to be a bigger fish in a smaller football pond and to join a conference with “stronger bball”.
Point being, while I wouldn’t be surprised if Pitt were given an invite and accepted, I also wouldn’t be surprised if they went elsewhere (for reasons I totally do not agree with).
LikeLike
I think this may be the difference between Basketball-first Pitt fans and Football-first Pitt fans. Most of my friends are football-first fans and would love the opportunity to play ohio state and penn state regularly as long as we maintain the annual WVU game. I have no interest in being a big fish in a small pond (or worse, a southern pond) and I like our chances toe-to-toe with any Big Ten team. Our academic qualifications and athletic balance seem to indicate the ACC would be a reliable back-up plan if we’re left out of the Big Ten expansion for whatever reason.
LikeLike
Frank – I’ve really enjoyed reading your blog these past few months regarding Big Ten expansion and the changing landscape of college athletics. As a sports & political junkie, conference expansion combines both interests like no other topic. As a fellow attorney, I greatly admire your analytical skills, powers of deductive reasoning, commitment to sports, and ability to blow off time for non-billable matters during the day. To top it off, I agree with your takes 95% of the time.
I never felt like I had anything to contribute to the blog since I’m in SEC country, and until last week the SEC wasn’t really in the exapnsion armageddon conversation. Clearly, Mike Slive doesn’t like the idea of getting one-upped by Delaney.
Now let’s discuss potential SEC expansion. I have to take issue with your assertion that SEC has no reason to expand if the Big Ten expands, unless the SEC expands its footprint.
The SEC, like the Big Ten, has its marquee football games shown nationally on CBS, ESPN or ESPN2. The second tier SEC games are shown on the SEC Network, which is produced by ESPN and syndicated all over the country.
See http://www.secsports.com/news/default.aspx?ArticleId=12966
The SEC Network goes well outside of the SEC footprint and has both over-the-air and cable affiliates, almost all of which are on the basic or expanded-basic tiers. The SEC Network already shows football games in in 15 states outside of its footprint in markets like NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, DFW, Houston, Detroit, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Madison, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Sacrament, Toledo, Wichita, and Springfield MO, just to name a few.
While I do agree that money will be the primary factor for SEC expansion, just as it is in the Big Ten, I don’t think “expanding the footprint” is the key way for the SEC to expand the pie. While adding markets for the BTN is the primary motivation for Big Ten expansion, adding markets is not nearly as important for the SEC.
The SEC has long-term agreements with CBS & ESPN, so those TV partners would have to be motivated to renegotiate. The only way they would want to renegotiate would be to allow the SEC to provide more compelling TV match-ups that would get higher ratings and create more ad revenue.
While Florida State and Miami are already within the SEC footprint, they have 7 national championships between them over the last 30 years. When Florida State and Miami are competitive, people all over the country have watched and will watch. Oklahoma would also be a great expansion partner for the SEC since people all over the country will watch Oklahoma.
Also, don’t dismiss possible SEC expansion including Texas. While the SEC’s academics aren’t on par with the Big Ten or Pac 10, the SEC’s academic reputation in better than the Big XII’s overall. Only the Mississippi schools aren’t top tier schools according to USN&WR. Vandy and Georgia actually have a higher ranking than Texas. Academically speaking, the SEC would be a move up from the Big XII.
Furthermore, the SEC television agreements don’t preclude Texas stating their own “Longhorn Network.” Any games not picked up by the SEC Network for syndication are the property of the home team. LSU, for example, has an agreement with Cox Cable to show certain basketball, baseball and Olympic sports events.
If the SEC could bring in Florida State/Miami and Texas/Texas A&M, or Texas/Texas A&M/Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, the SEC wins the competitive pissing match and may close the gap in the money pissing match too.
LikeLike
alan,
thanks for the post.. some things i had brought up earlier but would like your opinion from the sec side of things?
a) having family in arkansas i mentioned the lsu vs ark rivalry – as it was my understanding that this had grown since ark joined the sec – it is football only or does it apply to sports across the board?
b) say some combination of 4 teams move from the big 12 to the sec – how would the schools set up across the league?
c) i had posted that if the big 10 shut the sec out of the west, that the sec would raid the ACC. my argument was to go for new markets (UNC, NC State, UVA, and Va Tech) as opposed to existing markets (FSU/UM) as florida already dominates the state. what do you think?
d) how would lsu feel about getting the big 4 in the west? as ark was already in the swc, but lsu would have to develop all new rivals?
thanks
LikeLike
Duffman –
a) The LSU/r-Kansas football rivalry is a little one-sided even though the Hogs have posted a few wins against my Tigers. We share a border but Arkansas is located in northwest Arkansas and LSU is located in southeast Louisiana. Fayetteville is 550 miles from Baton Rouge. In football, I can only think of one season when the outcome of the LSU/Arkansas game decided a spot in the SEC Championship game. In the past decade, the LSU/Auburn game decided the winner of the SEC West more times than not.
Historically, LSU really doesn’t have a true rivalry game. LSU fans generally hate Alabama, as does the rest of the SEC. We also particularly hate Ole Miss, just on general principle.
Baseball is big in Baton Rouge and in the SEC overall. The baseball rivalry with Arkansas is probably a little more developed. Both LSU and Arkansas have AAA-quality baseball stadiums with 10,000 seat capacities. Both teams also went to the College World Series last year with LSU knocking Arkansas out of the tournament and winning the national championship.
Neither basketball team seems to be competitive at the same time, so a LSU/Arkansas basketball game is really just another game.
b) Let’s say Florida State, Miami, Texas and Texas A&M joined the SEC. That’s easy as Florida State & Miami fit into the East and Texas & Texas A&M fit into the West. If all 4 came from the Big XII, Alabama & Auburn would probably shift from the West to the East. It might get a little complicated if all 4 teams came from the ACC/Big East. I would like Vandy & Kentucky to shift to the West myself, but neither would really want to separate from Tennessee.
c) As I stated in my previous post, I don’t think new markets are as important to the SEC with regard to expansion. The syndicated SEC-TV is currently broadcast in every market in North Carolina. Picking up Virginia/DC area may make some money for ESPN, but for the SEC to force its TV partners to renegotiate, I think they need to propose a compelling slate of new games. I’m not sure that Va Tech and West Virginia fit the bill, but they might. LSU’s victory over Va Tech in 07 probably put LSU in the BCS Championship game against the Buckeyes. My Tigers play West Virginia this season.
I’d have a hard time seeing any combination of the North Carolina schools (UNC/Duke/NC St./Wake Forest breaking up, but I certainly don’t pretend to know any more about ACC politics than I know about Big Ten politics.
4) If all 4 teams in a proposed SEC expansion came from the west, ie Big XII South, I’d be fine with that. The SEC West would then ship Bama/Auburn to the East. LSU’s rivalry with Auburn has really only taken shape over the last 20 years. Losing Bama would be a double-edged sword. We love to hate the Gumps, but the rivalry has taken an unhealthy turn with our former coach now residing in Tuscaloosa.
LSU has probably played more OOC games with Texas A&M than any other school, so there’s a rivalry waiting to be re-kindled. Adding Oklahoma would be fun as LSU defeated the Sooners for the 2003 BCS NC. If Oklahoma State were one of the teams, that would be interesting since Les Miles came to LSU by way of Stillwater. If its Texas Tech, LSU has some real history with Tommy Tuberville from his Auburn days. In baseball, LSU just defeated the Longhorns for the CWS championship.
Bottom line – Following the SEC is currently a lot of fun. If the Big Ten shakes up the college landscape, I really think the SEC will respond, if CBS & ESPN are willing to pay for it. Either way, SEC will continue to be the home of great football, and most rabid and passionate fans in the country.
LikeLike
alan,
thanks for the insight.. FWIW.. I loved watching Dale and his freak defense.. and I thought they had a great team to watch in 86. I felt he got a raw deal from the NCAA about Earl. I love men’s & women’s basketball and watched the runs Sue and Pokey put together. Those lady tigers are a pretty competitive bunch and very fun to watch.
LikeLike
Just my two cents to throw in. I’ve read all about the intangible things like AAU and CIC membership. The need to expand the BTN footprint to add televisions to the bottom line. It seems like everybody has some concoction of teams from this or that conference to help the Big 10 get to a magical number. What has been lost is the tangible thing of who is going to watch some of these teams. I can’t believe the B10 Presidents aren’t also considering the on field quality of some of the schools mentioned. We already have Indiana. Do we need more of that poor level of achievement by adding Rutgers, Pitt(which hasn’t been good since the Morino-Dorsett days,) UConn, Syracuse, Misouri, etc. These schools have had forever to be a player on the national stage and never made it. Why would they now?
LikeLike
Yes! I completely agree with this point, which is being lost underneath all the talk of markets and footprints.
The great percentage of uninspiring teams that a conference has, the less respect the conference will receive, and the less fan interest.
Teams that will enhance excitement about the conference: Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame.
Teams that will water down the product: Every other team under discussion.
As a Michigan fan, I don’t want to have to give up watching my team play west-division Wisconsin and Iowa three out of every four years just so I can see my team play Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, or, heaven forbid, U-Conn every season. That would kill the Big 10 for me.
Just add Nebraska and be done with it for now!
LikeLike
To continue, here is my modest proposal. 12 teams, 2 divisions, 3 “rivalry” pairs per division (for the last regular season game of the year).
EAST
Ohio State
Michigan – THE GAME
Penn State
Michigan State – LAND GRANT TROPHY!!!!
Purdue
Indiana – OLD OAKEN BUCKET
WEST
Northwestern
Illinois – LAND OF LINCOLN TROPHY
Wisconsin
Minnesota – PAUL BUNYAN’S AXE
Iowa
Nebraska – THIS WOULD BE A HUGE GAME
Under an 8 game conference schedule, you would play your division rivals each season and play each team in the opposite division every other year.
This plan would still resemble Big Ten football, and it increase excitement about the conference.
LikeLike
Your 12 team league looks perfect. Switch Iowa/Nebraska for season finale with Iowa/Minny (the current finale game) and then Wiscy (who doesn’t have a finale game currently) plays Nebraska for an AWESOME new finale game.
Oh, and the exlamation marks for the Land Grant Trophy…that was a joke right? We PSU fans certainly aren’t enamored with it.
LikeLike
Is this a serious post?
I think Syracuse had as many Big 10 wins as U of M did last year. And the ‘Cuse is still rebuilding.
And if we are going to start looking into the past… Syracuse and U of M split in the late 1990s when both were on equal footing.
LikeLike
It’s not about wins (which UM has more of than any other team). It’s about fan interest. Nationally, especially in the midwest, there is way more fan interest in Michigan than in Syracuse. It’s not even close.
Bottom line: Michigan gets huge TV ratings. Nobody outside of alumni care much about Syracuse football. Sorry.
LikeLike
It’s not about wins (which UM has more of than any other team).
That was before you hired Greg Robinson… good luck with that.
LikeLike
Personally I agree with the two of you somewhat, but I think the rest of the schools are being used as chips in some sense.
The two schools that the Big Ten really wants are Texas and Notre Dame. Those two schools are clearly the Big 10’s hope for a 12th spot after which no more expansion would be needed.
The one school that has the same impact as Penn State’s addition other than those two is Nebraska. Nebraska is also the key to breaking up the Big 12 and forcing Texas to react.
Thus, it would be prudent for the Big Ten to talk to Nebraska.
Either way, we do have to realize though that Notre Dame won’t come in alone and Texas won’t come in alone. Thus, they’d each be coming in with some kind of partner.
I.E. a Big Ten with Nebraska would try to grab Texas and A&M if it could, but then it would also try to grab Notre Dame and another school like Missouri or Pitt or Rutgers.
To me, the key is to identify what Texas wants since Notre Dame is likely to scramble to be the 16th team. Thus, getting to a Big 14 with Texas is probably a better idea right now since Notre Dame seems as if it’ll stick it out alone till the Big Ten moves to a final 16 scenario. If the Big Ten is ever about to move to 16, then Notre Dame will realize that it’ll always be on its own and will start to realize that in 2-3 decades, it’s going to have way smaller revenue streams than the Big Ten schools, especially if Texas is in already…
The wild card in all of this is what it would take to really get Texas in; if Texas says it would come with A&M/Nebraska then the Big Ten would be fine going to 14 and leaving it at that. We all just have to wait and see.
LikeLike
I disagree with the national perception aspect. Larger conferences inevitably lead to more teams with better records. National media always fails to divide when judging conference strength. Just look at the Big East in basketball. By nearly every statistical/computer conference strength ranking, the Big Ten has been a more difficult conference the past few years. However, the national perception is that the Big East is the best ever.
On the other end of the spectrum is Big East football. The last two years, the Big East average ranking in the BCS was higher than the Big XII, but with 50% more teams the Big XII is considered on a different plane as the Big East.
Having said that, I agree UConn is an unmitigated disaster from a football perspective. I do think Pitt would be in the Wisconsin/Iowa tier, and would definitely have beaten Michigan the past two years :P.
LikeLike
I’m sure Pitt would beat UM every now and then–and definitely over the last few years. I would just rather watch UM play Wiscy or Iowa. A mega conference with a heavy eastern influence will be very unpopular with fans of UM, MSU, and tOSU because old rivalries will be shoved to the side.
LikeLike
Regarding “giving up old rivalries”, OSU has two rivals. Michigan and (to a lesser extent) PSU. Those are the ones I care the most about, and I don’t see either being threatened by an eastern expansion.
Wisconsin games have been great games in the last decade, but I’m not getting worked up if we replace them with Pitt. And, in that scenario, there’s no saying we won’t still meet Wisconsin in a conference championship game.
LikeLike
For Paul: As a Michigan fan/alum, I have to disagree with your contention that Wolverine fans would rather have Iowa or Wisconsin as an opponent rather than Pittsburgh.
That’s not to undercut Wisconsin or Iowa. Over the last 30-plus years that I’ve been following Michigan football, there have been some epic games against the Badgers and the Hawkeyes. That said, there have also been stretches where those programs have been sub-par as well.
I would suspect the same will be said about Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri, Kansas, etc., if they joined the Big Ten. These programs will certainly be better funded if they join the conference.
But the other thing that’s relevant in modern college football is that the 85-scholarship limit has been something of a playing field leveller. If you hire the right coach who is able to build and sustain a program, then that team can be a pretty worthy opponent.
Utah is a perfect example. They seem to have the formula down pat and they’ve done it under two excellent head coaches. TCU and Boise State also come to mind. In sum, I don’t think you can easily dismiss any of the potential Big East schools and say they can’t or won’t be on the level of a Wisconsin or Iowa in the long term. I don’t know about you, but I fully expect the opener against UConn this season to be pretty intense.
A few more things. As its currently set up, the Big Ten rotation schedule has two teams coming on and two going off every two seasons. That means there’s not a lot of variety there with eleven schools in the conference. If the B10 adds Rutgers, Syracuse, etc., to the conference, there at least should be more diverse conference schedules through the years.
That includes some degree of geographic variety as well. Heck, I think the last time Michigan played in the northeast was in 1999 against Syracuse and in the early 90s against Boston College.
I’d also add that the games that peak the highest interest among Michigan fans are Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Notre Dame. I would say most any other opponent is at least a step below. After all, when Minnesota rotates off the schedule, was there regret from any quarter that possession of the Little Brown Jug wasn’t being contested?
I find your comment about a conference with a heavy eastern influence not being appealing to Michigan fans. Lots of UM alums come from the northeast and I think those people would be more than happy to see the Wolverines playing in New England, New York and New Jersey. That doesn’t include the alums who weren’t from there, but have settled in the major cities out east (NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Philly, DC).
If there’s anything to be said that’s really positive about Notre Dame joining the Big Ten, its that they’ll no longer be Michigan’s marquee non-conference opponent.
One of the problems I’ve had with Michigan’s overall schedule this last decade is the lack of games outside the Midwest in the non-confernce portion of the schedule–I think it was seven years ago when UM played at Oregon. With an expanded Big Ten going from Nebraska to the northeast, I hope the UM AD takes advantage of the built-in geography of the conference to schedule major out of conference opponents. Michigan, for example, has never played LSU. The only time UM’s played Texas is in the Rose Bowl a few years back. There’s lots of possibilities to make the entire schedule–conference and non-conference portions–much more interesting with an expanded conference lineup.
The four pod system for a sixteen team conference has been discussed numerous times on this blog as a way to maintain rivalry games while ensuring that there’s enough rotatin on the schedule to ensure that the non-rival opponents on a team’s schedule are played two years out of every four. I won’t go over it again in detail, but I will say that I think its a pretty ideal setup if the B10 were to go that route.
LikeLike
@Cutter – I hear what you are saying about UM alums in the northeast. That is a good point. I am one of the few UM alums actually from Michigan, so my midwestern bias probably influences my lack of enthusiasm for UM to have annual meetings with half of the current Big East.
I’m guessing that maybe a few Spartan fans agree with me about preferring the current schedule to a “Big East” schedule.
I should not have pretended to think I know what Buckeye fans want.
Tail is between legs.
LikeLike
cutter..
well spoken!
LikeLike
Gimme a break.
Georgetown finished 7th in
the Big East, and croaked Duke.
UConn finished 11th, and beat #1 Texas.
Iowa lost to Duquesne.
Penn St lost to UNC-Wilmington.
Indiana lost to Boston University and
Loyola (Md).
LikeLike
DePaul lost to “AMER” and “FGC”. Rutgers lost to “UVM”. Providence lost to Iona.
Rather than continuing list particular games (Georgetown losing to Ohio, Villanova losing to SMC, ND losing to ODU), look at some aggregate rankings. For example, Sagarin has the Big East a hair ahead of the Big Ten and substantially behind both the ACC and Big XII.
LikeLike
<>
No, it’s not the same.
Vermont won 25 games and made the NCAA’s. Iona won 21 games. At least these teams had a pulse.
Penn State lost to freakin 9-22 UNC-Wilmington (whose non-conf wins were Elon, VMI and Campbell).
Iowa lost AT HOME to “Texas-San Antonio”, by 12.
Indiana lost AT HOME to Loyola of Maryland (6-12 in the MAAC)– but thankfully for the Hoosiers, they hosted Bryant at home 6 days later.
Big Ten basketball regularly struggles to break 49 points– and imagine once the Big Ten admits Rutgers and Nebraska for basketball too– it’ll be even worse.
DePaul is the only bad team (that’s why they were 1-17 in conf)– and even they beat Northern Iowa.
LikeLike
NPB: I don’t care much for basketball, but let’s be fair.
You protest when “M” brings up DePaul, the bottom team in the Big East, while you use as examples isolated games of the three weakest teams in the Big Ten, (Penn State, Iowa, and Indiana).
Neither Penn State nor Iowa played a Big East team last year, but Indiana–a 10-21 team overall, 4-14 in the Big Ten, who you deride for losing to Loyola Marymount won their only game against a Big East opponent, Pitt, which sported a 25-9 record, 13-5 in the Big East. So what does that say?
An anomaly?
Perhaps. But for as “bad” as you feel the Big Ten is in basketball, they had a 5-1 record agains the Big East last year.
In addition to the Pitt loss against lowly Indiana, mighty West Virginia fell to Purdue. A very good Marquette team (22-12) lost to Wisconsin. And a pretty good (23-12) Notre Dame team lost to Northwestern.
The Big Ten’s only loss was when a mediocre (15-17) Michigan lost to 22-12 Marquette.
LikeLike
Not to beat a dead horse, but…
These were M’s words:
“National media always fails to divide when judging conference strength. Just look at the Big East in basketball. By nearly every statistical/computer conference strength ranking, the Big Ten has been a more difficult conference the past few years.”
RPI Rankings, April 2010, from ncaa.org:
4 WVa
6 Syracuse
10 PURDUE
14 Georgetown
16 Villanova
18 Pitt
19 MICHIGAN STATE
20 OHIO STATE
21 WISCONSIN
45 Louisville
52 Notre Dame
55 Marquette
63 MINNESOTA
65 Connecticut
67 ILLINOIS
68 Cincinnati
70 Seton Hall
83 South Florida
87 St. John’s
114 NORTHWESTERN
134 MICHIGAN
147 Providence
162 Rutgers
194 PENN STATE
208 IOWA
217 DePaul
222 INDIANA
13 of 16 Big East teams in the Top 100.
3 of 16 Big East teams over 100.
6 of 11 Big Ten teams in the Top 100.
5 of 11 Big Ten teams over 100.
M’s “nearly every statistical/computer conference strength ranking” apparently didn’t include the NCAA’s RPI rankings? He’s talking out of his butt.
LikeLike
I swear I did not intend this to turn into the usual conference pissing contest. My only point was that media tends to focus on raw statistics (e.g. eight teams in the tournament) rather than average statistics (e.g. half the teams in the tournament). A larger conference provides more places to hide bad teams and most coverage only looks at the 4-5 best teams in a given conference. In short, conference strength would be perceived better (i.e. more undefeated and single loss teams) almost regardless of what team or teams were added.
Having said that, picking an arbitrary cutoff point to measure the overall conference strength is a bad practice. If you pick another one (say top 25), the Big Ten has 36% while the Big East has 31%. A better measure might be the median (Big Ten 67, Big East 60).
Again, I not arguing which conference is better/worse. Rather, I am arguing that in the situation where two hypothetical conferences have 4 ranked teams out of 11 and 5 out of 16, a typical sports writer will say “The conference with 5 ranked teams is better than the conference with 4”.
LikeLike
The other point you Big East fans fail to consider is that we in the Big Ten continue to hold that teams like Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame are completely over-rated…(until they join the Big Ten.)
LikeLike
Thanks guys, I enjoy the back-and-forth and learn new things every time I check into this site– that’s why I keep returning even though, like you, I also think the Big Ten is overrated… just joking… lol… take care…
…in closing, just take Rutgers (please) and Pitt (no!), and leave us Syracuse and Uconn… thanks in advance!…
LikeLike
I’m with you, Paul. Give me those three teams…plus aTm and Rutgers and let’s stop at 16. As a UM fan, you still must hate to lose Wiscy and Iowa almost every year, but sprinkling in games with a Texas school or Nebraska each year would compensate I’d think.
Again, the reports may have indicated “expand with whomever and you’ll make money”…but this isn’t just about money. Adding PSU was a trial, so you KNOW presidents will be picky. I think the conference wants a home run line-up and Pitt, Syracuse, Mizzou is not a home run lineup.
LikeLike
Something else to consider…Nebraska hasn’t really been relevant for almost 10 years now. Sure its had some decent seasons and a few Top 25 finishes, but only a few, and the last Top 10 really was about a decade ago.
Point being national appeal wise it is not as strong a brand as it was. Its still the premiere mid-western football brand and would add value as a western expansion, but if the Big10 added Neb/Mizzou/KS/Texas only one is going to be a big enough national brand to really be worth the westward expansion…and that school is Texas.
LikeLike
As bad as Nebraska’s last decade was (2000-20009), it was still 20th nationally from a wins and losses perspective. Oklahoma went through a pretty bad decade with Gibbs/Blake/Schnellenberger in the 90’s, and they came out okay. Nebraska finished 14th last year with three heartbreaking losses (8 freaking turnovers! Eight) and had Texas down to the last second. And even through the last decade, we sold out every game.
LikeLike
Re Nebraska football performance
(PSUGuy)
If Texas is out, it does not appear any of the other frequently mentioned schools is a guaranteed home run from an on the field performance football perspective.
Over the last 8 years, Nebraska
was ranked #14 in 2009, #24 in 2005, #18 in 2003.
It was not in the top 25 in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008.
Looking at Missouri, they were ranked #16 in 2008 in USA Today poll and #4 in the 2007 AP poll.
They were not in the top 25 in 2002-2006 and 2009.
AP and USA Today top 25 final rankings from 2002-2009 at ESPN, which only goes back to 2002.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
Nebraska
AP top 25
2009 #14
2005 #24
2003 #19
2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008: not in top 25
USA Today top 25
2009 #14
2005 24
2003 18
2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008: not in top 25
LikeLike
Re Nebraska football performance
(c)
Your analysis would be more convincing if you hadn’t chosen an odd 8-year time frame that I have to suspect was chosen to leave out Nebraska’s last appearance in the BCS title game after the 2001 season.
LikeLike
Programs have ups and downs, but certain ones always stick around. Nebraska maintained the longest active sell-out streak in the country despite the Solich and Callahan eras. Their athletic department has shown that it is willing to invest in their football program and maintain a high standard for the years to come.
The focus here is based on what an addition will bring to the table 25-50 years down the road. I can think of few properties that are as sure a thing as Nebraska. Comparing them to Missouri is asinine.
LikeLike
Re Nebraska football performance (Drake Tungsten)
Thanks for your correction.
The reason I only went back to 2002 is that the ESPN site that lists USA Today and AP rankings only goes back to 2002.
My other reason for not checking another site with rankings before 2002 is primarily due to laziness.
Please accept my apology for not including prior rankings in 2001 and earlier years. Clearly if 2002 is cited, the great years prior should have been cited as well.
The following site is almost comprehensive:
http://www.huskers.com//pdf1/135184.pdf?SPSID=4513&SPID=22&DB_OEM_ID=100
In the AP poll, Nebraska was ranked #8 in 2001, #8 in 2000, #3 in 1999, #19 in 1998, #2 in 1997, #6 in 1996, #1 in 1995 and so on.
Those were happy days for Nebraska.
Even more rankings can be found at the site above.
LikeLike
Re Nebraska and Missouri football performance (Gopher86)
I have no doubt Nebraska is on the rebound just as Miami and FSU and ND and other teams are as well.
My post was not meant as a criticism of Nebraska. However when I went to the ESPN site which showed rankings for 2002-2009, I was surprised that their best finish in this period was last year at #14 and for most of this period they were not ranked top 25.
I wasn’t “comparing” Nebraska to Missouri, but since I was at the ESPN ranking site, I decided to list their rankings for these years.
Of the other schools commonly mentioned, for the 2002-2009 period, taking the best ranking of either AP or USA Today:
Pitt was ranked #15 in 2009, #24 in 2004, and 18 in 2002.
Kansas was #7 in 2007.
RU was #12 in 2006.
ND was #17 in 2006, #9 in 2005, and #17 in 2002.
LikeLike
AAU membership and CIC benefits are intangible? Clearly you are forgetting the COLLEGE part of “college athletic conferences.” The decision is not made by fans or coaches or even athletic directors. It will be voted upon by university presidents.
And those presidents are smart enough to know that they will still sell out their stadium to see Michigan and Rutgers battle for a .500 season and pizza bowl invitation.
LikeLike
I certainly wasn’t downplaying the importance and significance of the AAU and CIC afiliations. But lets be serious now,this blog is not getting thousands of hits because Michigan or Ohio State have some whiz bang science department. The interest in expansion from the average persons standpoint is football. Period. Secondly, if most of the current B10 schools sellout against MAC schools than they will probably sell out with the chum being fed us with this expansion. That doesn’t change the point that the schools being seriously talked about other than Texas, ND and to lesser extent Nebraksa, do nothing to enhance the on field performance of the B10
LikeLike
Don’t know if you know this but Michigan & Ohio State whizzes were working together on a black hole project to suck Notre Dame into the never world.
But unfortunately, the whizzes at Northwestern & Wisconsin beat them to it.
Now you know why ND has been irrelevant in football for the last 10 plus years.
LikeLike
@aps:
“The never world”?
LikeLike
chris7165..
in order for it to work, they can’t all be winners..
you need maybe 4 top dogs
plus 8 competitive teams
and maybe 4 bottom dogs
the issue is to create competitive games in your own footprint..
some examples might include….
tOSU vs nsew idaho state.. bad BTN market, bad national market
tOSU vs IU.. poor BTN market, terrible national market
tOSU vs PSU.. excellent BTN market, good national market
tOSU vs USC.. excellent BTN market, excellent national market
tOSU vs Mizz.. good BTN market, fair national market
the trick is to add second tier teams that will actually play well enough (and win on occasion) to generate fan interest. it is where the sec has succeeded, by creating secondary demand for secondary games. nobody wants to watch a blowout, but they will watch competitive games if they feel there is a chance for and upset. just my observations if others wish to comment.
LikeLike
“It cannot be underestimated how much the academically-minded administrators at Texas loathe the thought of the SEC.”
Penn Stater living within earshot of the cows’ stadium here.
While it’s true that the non-sports side of UT loathes the low standards of the typical SEC school, it does not hold that their academics in the athletics program are any good – in fact, they aren’t; UT finished dead-last in one of the “re-rank the top 25 by some criteria designed to show how well the athletes are doing at being students” just this last year, with PSU being #1 (endless amusement for me at the office).
In other words, UT the school looks down on LSU and their ilk; UT the football program is no different; they’d be a borderline-outlaw program in the Big Ten unless they raised their standards quickly.
LikeLike
Excellent analysis. Due to some article which shows that Texas would be 25th out of 25 teams via some arbitrarily-chosen criteria, Texas would be an “outlaw program.” Brilliant.
LikeLike
http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/node/25250
“Meanwhile, this year’s top football contenders wouldn’t even come close to competing. In fact, the University of Texas, which is scheduled to face the University of Alabama in the title game, again comes in dead last in the rankings. The Longhorns have occupied the bottom rung now for the past two years, and only an appearance by the University of Hawaii in 2007 has kept them from the three-peat.”
LikeLike
Wow, you’re right. If two bloggers say so, Texas is an outlaw program. Sorry for doubting you.
LikeLike
Because outlaw programs look like this:
LikeLike
From the NCAA (Search any school)
Graduation Success Rate (GSR)
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/academics+and+athletes/education+and+research/academic+reform/gsr/2009/841gfw951_2009_d1_school_gsr_data.html
Academic Progress Rate (APR)
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/academics+and+athletes/education+and+research/academic+reform/apr/2009/2007-08_school_apr_data.html
LikeLike
Of course you omitted the laughable methodology of this pseudo poll:
But when all is said and done, only 55 percent of the players on the roster will receive a diploma. The overall figure does not tell the whole story. White players graduate at a rate of 64 percent, 15 percentage points higher than their black teammates. This gap is only slightly smaller than what is seen in the overall college student population and suggests that all the highly touted support services for student-athletes are doing little to improve the academic outcomes for black players.
The Higher Ed Watch Academic BCS formula attempts to shed light on these graduation rate disparities and the general classroom performance of these teams. A school’s score is partially determined by four federal graduation rate calculations: the football team’s graduation rate relative to the school overall; the difference in black and white graduation rates on the team; the difference in black and white graduation rates at the school overall; and the difference between the black football team graduation rate and the overall school’s black graduation rate. That final metric is a new addition this year in response to an astute commenter, who last year pointed out that teams should get credit for graduating black players at a higher rate than the school overall, even if gaps still remain on the team. (All figures and numbers in this post reflect this tweaked formula, which has also been retroactively applied to the prior two years.)
So the more a school’s black athletes are drafted into the NFL before they finish their degree, the worse the school’s score. Rather odd, penalizing a school that is successful at getting minority athlete literally millions of dollars each. Not many students can make that money after their junior year, nor do many graduate within 4 (or even 5) years.
In addition to the graduation rate figures, the Academic BCS formula also compares a team’s Academic Progress Rate (APR) to the average for all football teams in the same subdivision. This measure, which is calculated by the NCAA, gives schools credit for keeping team members enrolled and academically eligible to compete in each semester. We like to include the APR because it provides a more up-to-date snapshot than federal graduation rates, which are not finalized until six years after enrollment…
…It is important to note that the Academic BCS calculation purposefully excludes the NCAA’s Graduation Success Rate (GSR). This measure is supposed to be an improvement over federal graduation rates because it gives institutions credit for students that transfer elsewhere or leave school to go pro but are still academically eligible. Unfortunately, this measure exists only for student athletes and so does not allow us to make comparisons to the school overall, a crucial part of the calculation.
And it substantially reduces the scoring disparity that makes our headlines, so we gladly dropped it!
There’s a false perception that college athletics, particularly high-profile sports like football and basketball, opens gates for students from lower-income backgrounds. This myth is supposed to end with either a professional sports career, or at least a free college degree. But the reality is that only a very small number of college football and basketball players ever turn pro, and of the rest, nearly half leave school without a degree. That’s not an open gate; that’s a broken contract that leaves many former college athletes with nothing more than past glory that is of little use for workplace success.
Quite nice of the authors to reveal their agenda and that they’re FOS.
LikeLike
Not to belabor the point but, from this Ohio State fans perspective, no way would I give up Wisconsin for Pitt. As for Missouri, Syracuse, UConn and the rest of these bottom feeders, we only play them to fill out our home schedule. If there is a little bit of arrogance in that statement, so be it. These teams simply don’t haver the cache’ to inhance the B10 as a Texas would, not even close
LikeLike
@Chris:
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that somehow Rutgers or UConn would enhance the Big Ten like Texas would. Maybe in terms of markets penetrated (which is debatable), but not on the field. The problem is, perhaps Texas doesn’t feel like enhancing the Big Ten.
With the eastern expansion, the question isn’t “are they awesome now” it’s “can they become good or even really good”? I think Pitt could be really good — around the same level as Wisconsin. They’re decent now. Could the others? That’s another debate.
Even if Missouri, Syracuse, and UConn are bottom feeders, OSU would just be replacing some bottom feeders with new ones. A football matchup against Syracuse is more appealing than Indiana (no offense IU fans).
LikeLike
manifesto,
that is the trick.. no more bottom feeders, but not so top heavy that they kill each other.. say nebraska, texas, nd, oklahoma, and fsu joined the big 10.. while it looks great, you now have at least half your league with a shot at the NC, but they are gonna beat up on each other each year and get knocked out. look at it differently, with said teams plus tOSU, PSU, and UM it would be almost if not totally impossible to go undefeated every year.
8 is probably too many, and 4 may be too few.. so a good number might be 5 – 6 in a 16 team league. enough to create competitive games, but not too many to create a bloodbath. as example..
UT 12 – 0 in 99
FSU 11 – 0 in 00
OU 11 – 0 in 01
UM 11 – 0 in 02
tOSU 13 – 0 in 03
LSU 12 – 1 in 04
USC 12 – 0 in 05
Texas 12 – 0 in 06
UF 11 – 1 in 07
LSU 11 – 2 in 08
UF 12 – 1 in 09
Bama 13 – 0 in 10
LSU is the only 2 loss team (and won the bowl to redeem any doubts) the rest have 0 or 1 loss, so you have to make conferences competitive but keep good odds that a team can go into the NC game with only 1 loss (including their conference championship to make the best argument to play for the NC.
LikeLike
When did the number 16 become chiseled in stone. I always thought that was a ridiculously high number. I have to admit, being an OSU fan, I didn’t get thrilled to play Minnesota or Purdue but at least we had a history. If you have almost a fifty percent increase in teams, not only will you lose connection with the non rivalry Big 10 teams but you simply will not play the new teams often enough to build any kind of chemistry and thus lose some passion for the B10 conference along the way.
LikeLike
chris..
it is the math of 2..
2X2 = 4
2X4 = 8
2X8 = 16
2X16 = 32
next in line are the 1/2’s
4 [6] 8 [12] 16 [24] 32
so the next jump from 12 would be 16, as other combinations make end of the season playoffs easier. Think of your NCAA brackets. 12 means the top 4 get byes, and 16 means everybody starts off equal. 11 (current Big 10) and 13 are prime numbers, which means ugly bracketing.
In a 16 team format, you could have (2) 8 team divisions.. so your schedule could be 7 division games + 2 rotating from other division + 3 OOC (in a 12 game season). In 4 team “pods” you could move things around a bit, but it still creates “round” vs “irregular” that a 13, 14, or 15 team might force.
just my observation.. anybody else offer a different perspective?
LikeLike
If you are looking at from the perspective of getting teams into the NCG you are probably right. However, from the perspective of maximum interest/tv rankings, the more high profile schools the better.
The other thing to keep in mind is that all of these schools will not be playing each other every year. I would be willing to bet it would be impossible to win a division with more than 1 loss, ensuring the eventual champion only has one loss.
LikeLike
manifesto..
ps.. no offense taken IU football is what it is, that is why we have basketball and crean turns it around 🙂
LikeLike
A little insight from former Purdue President Steven Beering who was chair of the Council of Presidents/Chancellors when Penn St. was added.
http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=ec1c801778784d9490d47940d019e3df&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=ec1c801778784d9490d47940d019e3df&plckPostId=Blog%3aec1c801778784d9490d47940d019e3dfPost%3aa22eea44-1220-4e31-96f7-0d9843feab81&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest
LikeLike
Interesting. So no ND. 1-3 schools most likely.
I’m going to say it’s 3, then. Nebraska, Mizzou, and likely Rutgers (though the Big10 presidents like Pitt). Thee talk with Texas and TAMU to see if they’d be willing at that point to be 15 & 16. If not, add Pitt & Syracuse.
LikeLike
Beering was a good president for Purdue — but no where near as good as his successor. It has been a while since he was in the mix, who knows what type of ties he has today. Still, I hope his analysis proves accurate — no ND, 1-3 other schools added.
LikeLike
You know, I’m coming around to duffman’s view when it comes to SEC expansion (about the SEC wanting pairs of schools); though now I don’t think the ACC will be completely destroyed.
So first step, the Big10 takes Nebraska, Mizzou, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse.
The SEC desires Texas, Carolina, and would want Oklahoma as well, but UT and UNC want nothing to do with the SEC (and UNC simply won’t break it’s numerous rivalries like Duke, NCSU, WFU, and Virginia, and can’t take them all along). Thinking long and hard, OU eventually decides to cast it’s fate with Texas, because it sees what happened to Arkansas (who were a national title contender when they regularly played Texas schools and are now firmly in the middle class in the SEC, even though they’re getting more money). If anything, OU is even more dependent on Texas recruiting than Arkansas, getting the bulk of their recruits from that state. If they join the SEC and Texas doesn’t, that pipeline dries up and they won’t contend for national titles again. UT can also use it’s allies in the legislature to keep TAMU (and TTech) in line. However, being tied to the hip with Texas isn’t all bad, as Texas pulls the rest of the Big12 over to form a 20-team Western Alliance with the Pac10 (they could just choose 6, but assuming they pull TTech and TAMU along as well as OU and OSU, that would neccesitate cutting out Kansas and Baylor, and I think UT would like to keep around Kansas basketball and an extra game in Texas. With unequal revenue sharing, it doesn’t have to be much of a burden either.
On the ACC front, the SEC starts its own network and wants to add a bunch of ACC schools but eventually end up with only Clemson, GTech, and FSU. GTech may be ambivalent about joining, and FSU as well, but I think the state legislatures will help them make that decision (plus the money doesn’t hurt). The SEC tries to get Miami as well, but sharing nothing in common with SEC schools, and still wanting to associate themselves academically with Duke & UNC as well as play games in the northeast, Miami stays in the ACC despite the obvious financial benefits of joining the SEC . . . which means WVU lucks out, as the SEC adds them as the 16th school. The SEC doesn’t expand its footprint much, but it does add some brand names and 100% ownership of some fierce rivalries. Despite having a smaller footprint than the BTN and Western Alliance Network, the SEC Network is still plenty profitable as games like LSU-FSU, ‘Bama-Clemson, and Florida-GTech draw sky-high ratings across the south.
To regroup, the ACC adds UConn (and still stays a premier basketball conference). There’s fierce debate about going back to 12, and ultimately they don’t, at least for a few years, until talks get underway between the Big 3 conferences about seceding from the NCAA. ND sees the writing on the wall, and in a marrige of desperation (neither ND or the ACC wants to be left out), they join up. Either 1 school will be lucky, or 5 (if the other conferences demand that the ACC expands to 16 to join the club). If just 1, either USF or UCF get to be lucky 12. If the ACC goes to 16, then both USF and UCF and well as Cincy, Louisville, and Memphis get to join ND in the super-ACC.
BYU, BSU, TCU, and Utah will start to regularly win NCAA DivI-A championships (which by then will be in a 16-team playoff format), but most attention is paid to the plus-one championship played by the winner of the Rose Bowl and the SEC-ACC matchup (rotating between the Sugar & Orange), while the Sugar/Orange, Cotton, and Fiesta either host the championship game or pick from the runners-up of the 4 megaconferences.
Oh, and since the DivI-A teams can play up to 16 games now (12 game regular season, 4 in the playoffs), the megaconferences use that as justification to bump the regular season up to 13 or 14 games (since they have only a 2-game playoff). The benefit of this is that this allows the 16-team conferences to play 11 conference games (7 in their division + half of the other division, so traditional rivalries won’t get disrupted) or even 12 if they want to. Ratings become boffo, there are more intense rivalries, the money flows in even more, fans are happy, and everyone wins (except the small schools) . . . . and the student-athletes, who get their bodies beat up even more for the same amount of education . . . . but when did anyone ever care about those guys, anyway.
LikeLike
Richard – Don’t assume Texas wouldn’t take a hard look at the SEC. Overall, the SEC is a better academic conference than the Big XII. Vandy & Georgia are ranked higher than Texas and Florida is tied with the Longhorns according to USN&WR. Only Ole Miss and Mississippi State aren’t in the Top Tier. Sure, the SEC isn’t the Big Ten or Pac 10, but its certainly respectable from an academic standpoint.
While the SEC TV package is very competitive with the Big Ten TV package, the SEC package allows for something I don’t think the Big Ten would tolerate. Under the SEC package, the Longhorns could still create their own Longhorn TV network. After CBS, the ESPN family of networks, and SEC-TV pick through the conference inventory, the schools can cut their own deal for the scraps. That might allow Texas to make more money in the SEC than in the Big Ten.
Now the SEC doesn’t have anything like the CiC, but if Texas wants to move out of the Big XII, make money, play most of its games in the Central Time zone, and not play in snow, then it will have to take a hard look at what the SEC has to offer.
LikeLike
Alan,
When you’re comparing academics, I think it’s better to look less at the flawed US News ranks and more at the research end. That’s where the money is, and the Pac 10 and Big 10 are far ahead of the SEC. Texas would want to improve its academic position as well as its athletics position, and a move from the Big XII to the SEC is no better than a lateral move. A move to the Big 10 or Pac 10 most definitely is not.
And as for snow, I think the Nebraska fans on here who seem to complain about All Things Texas will fondly remember, as I do, what happened the last time the Horns played in the snow. It doesn’t phase us 🙂
LikeLike
Hopkins – I never said that the SEC was or is an academic equal to the Big Ten or Pac 10, but it is academically better than the Big XII, the conference in which Texas is currently a member. If Texas wants to improve its academic standing by joining an athletic conference, they should look at the Pac 10 or Big Ten. If Texas wants to play in the conference that has won half of the BCS championships and have the ability to start their own Longhorn TV network, they should look at the SEC. Either way, the SEC will be fine.
LikeLike
Not really. The Big12 has 7 AAU schools. The SEC has 2. Even if the Big10 pulls away 2-3 of the AAU schools, the Big12 would still have more. In terms of ARWU rankings and research money as well (which would correspond better with how admin and academic types would rank academic prestige), the Big12 schools are significantly above the SEC schools on average.
LikeLike
richard..
As stated in the a previous blog as it took till this year for ga tech to get in there may be bias to schools already in, so I am willing to accept some bias in the AAU.
Disclaimer: I love the CIC concept
QUOTE FROM CIC..
“The day has long since passed when a college or university can consider itself a
fort of knowledge in a hostile frontierland of ignorance, jealously guarding unto
itself its hoard of facts and ideas. Academic isolation has long been impractical;
in today’s world, it is impossible. At a time when yesterday’s bright new fact
becomes today’s doubt and tomorrow’s myth, no single institution has the
resources in faculty or facilities to go it alone. A university must do more than
just stand guard over the nation’s heritage, it must illuminate the present and
help shape the future. This demands cooperation – not a diversity of
weaknesses, but a union of strengths.”
It is something the Big 10 should be proud of but I find 2 points to note:
a) the CIC has not gone nationwide
b) it can be replicated by ANY conference
Maybe a) is limited because as it gets bigger it gets harder to insure quality. A theory I have on the value of mass. Say Frank starts a sausage and beer place in Chicago. Everybody loves Frank, and being in the joint all the time there is lively discussion that adds atmosphere to the joint and pretty soon everybody wants to hang out at Frank’s.
Then one day Frank says too many folks so he opens a new place cross town. And because Frank pops in, it does well. Pretty soon he has a small chain across Illinois that caters to sports in the area and it goes pretty good. So one day Frank says “I am gonna franchise the concept” and before you know it Frank is nationwide and Frank has made so much dough he retires someplace warm in the winter.
The corporate guys come in and say “Franks food and beverage costs are too high” so they substitute cheaper ingredients to fatten the margins. People start to notice, and since Frank is gone, they lose the warm fuzzy feeling of good sports conversation to go with the food. the numbers slip, and management says we will change the menu to sushi and vodka (because trend analysis says that is where the money is) and change the sports conversation to discussions on reality tv shows…..
Than some guy named Fred opens a little sausage and beer joint in downtown Chicago that encourages sports talk….
You get the picture..
Maybe the CIC has a critical mass that fits just staying in the Big 10. Maybe not, but who knows. The point is for whatever reason it has not, nor has it been replicated. which leads me to point b)
Maybe texas goes to the Pac 16, because they would be on the ground floor of setting up a similar research group in that conference. Maybe they go to the SEC and part of their demand is that they set up a CIC type thing for the SEC. Now since they brought this entity to the SEC Texas can be the sun or jupiter in such an arrangement while they would have to take a backseat in the Pac 16 and would only be an equal in the Big 16.
The point is nothing is etched in stone until it actually happens. Once you go big, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. One thing I can say from a life of experience tho is that once you think you are above everybody else, you are already on the first rung down the ladder.
As a fan of the Big 10, it is troubling when I see much posturing about how great it is and everybody should be knocking down the door to get in. The truly great (over the long term) usually do it by staying humble and attracting others by how you handle your business. So there may be a time to be quiet and “listen” to what Texas, ND, NU, and others have to say. Just my observation.
I think of Robert Duvall’s line in Colors..
[There’s two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: “Hey pop, let’s say we run down there and f$%k one of them cows”. The older one says: “No son. Lets walk down and f$%k ’em all”.]
sometimes walking beats running.
😉
LikeLike
What are you basing your premise that the SEC is academically superior to the Big12 aside from the rankings of Florida, Georgia and Vanderbilt?
LikeLike
It’s almost invariably non-UT folks (mostly people from SEC country, though some Aggies, etc.) who think there’s a chance of Texas joining the SEC. Go to a UT message board, and you’ll find that joining the Pac10, joining the Big10, staying in a depleted Big12/reforming an expanded SWC, and going independent are more favored by the fanbase. Is that what the powers-that-be think? Maybe they think differently, but I doubt it. Even without the academics reasoning, there are some purely football/pride reasons for not joining the SEC. As I’d pointed out before, UT likes to be the center of their conference. They have a chance to pull that off if they orchestrate a merger with the Pac10 (at least the center of their division; in the SEC, they’d have to share with LSU and maybe ‘Bama, not to mention the center-of-gravity in the SEC will never be close to Texas while they have a chance of pulling a Western Alliance HQ to Texas some day), and in any case, would be at worst co-top-dog with USC in a Western Alliance (instead of competing with 4-5 schools that are their equal in brand and tradition in the SEC). Secondly, Texas has little desire to open up Texas recruiting to the rest of the SEC. Joining the Pac10 (or the Big10) in this regard isn’t as bad, since Texas should still be able to get the best recruits in their state as the new schools are all far way. LSU is right next door, however, and I doubt Texas is too keen to see top talent start flowing again to Arkansas. Maybe I’m wrong, but until I see more support from Texas people for a move to the SEC, I’ve got to write a Texas-to-SEC move as dreams by people in SEC country.
LikeLike
richard..
I agree with several of your points (a comment somewhere in the back of my mind from mack brown about recruiting texas enters my thoughts). My big question is who Texas wants to bring along and how they fit. As a move by Texas will not mean Texas is the lone wolf..
I will rephrase an earlier comment but approach it from the downsides….
a) Big 10 sweep – T,A&M,NU,MU, and KU
how it blows up: with 2 former SWC and 3 former Big 8 schools in the mix Texas has 2 votes out of 16.. not a good feeling for Texas, Texas counters with Texas, A&M, TT, OU, and OSU. Big 10 says no because of academics and Texas does not join.
b) pac 16 sweep – T,A&M,NU,MU,KU, and CU
how it blows up: Texas is happy with a 6/10 vote block, and a conference where unequal revenue are OK. Pac 16 shoots self in foot in not voting in 4 of the 6, and everything falls apart as texas viewed it as an all or nothing deal.
c) sec 16 sweep – T,A&M,OU,OSU, and TT
how it blows up: Vandy announces it is pulling a U of Chicago and drops football (keeping MBB and WBB) so it can form a CIC for the SEC. The 5 Big 12 move to the SEC West. Alabama and Auburn refuse to move to the East and Kentucky says it will not Move to the West (especially as Vandy is out of the football business). The good folks in Bama still not happy about the last great war enlists their reenactors and announces annexation of mississippi and declares war on Texas!
Okay the last sentence was a bit involved, but it COULD happen..
😉
LikeLike
@Duffman:
I think that you tend to undervalue the importance of academics where Texas is concerned and to a lesser extent the Big10. In addition I think that you overvalue the need for Texas to bring OU, OSU and TT along with them. I don’t see how the three aforementioned schools exclusion make TX to the Big10 a deal breaker. Why do you insist that TX must be included with those schools or that TX is set to do everything in tandem with OU? I don’t see Texas with desires to improve their academic standing giving the SEC the time of day simply to bring OU and especially OSU and TT along. Why would they do that? I don’t get your rationale.
LikeLike
@Prophetstruth:
Thank you. To my frustration at commenters insisting that the SEC would be a real option for Texas, I would like to add, as you’ve pointed out, frustration that Texas would somehow link its fate with the University of Oklahoma. Texas having to link its fate with A&M and possibly Texas Tech, for Texas state political reasons, makes sense, but there’s not one bit of logic behind the notion that Texas will insist that OU be allowed to tag along for the ride.
LikeLike
Duffman:
UT leads OU, not the other way around. In the end, OU needs Texas recruits and money far more than UT needs anything from Oklahoma. If UT decides to join with the Pac10, everybody they want will follow along. As for the Pac10 rejecting OU, etc. I don’t think people here grasp just how desperate the Pac10 schools are for money these days. Sure, Stanford rejected Texas back in the day, but if you haven’t noticed yet, finances in the golden state (both public and private) are in a terrible state, and with no CIC, Stanford, etc. have no reason to reject OU, TTech, and the like except for ego, and these days, money matters far more than ego. People talk about Stanford’s vast endowment, but that endowment’s taken a hit as well, and Stanford’s had to lay off athletic staff and cut sports. If given the choice of taking in OU & TTech or cutting more people and sports, it’d be ludicrous think that Stanford would choose the latter, especially since they’ll virtually never play the old Big12 teams in a 16 or 20 team conference. Duffman, you do a good job of ascribing rational behavior to the SEC, but won’t do the same for the Pac10; don’t know why.
LikeLike
Everyone seems to expect Arizona and ASU to be on board with a Pac16 that has them playing most of their road games in the great plains. I don’t know if that can be expected. The conventional wisdom here seems to be that Stanford is running the show, but any single school can use their veto power to stop expansion.
Similarly, I don’t see a B10 solely “eastern expansion” being approved, as the Western schools could very well vote together to block it. Why should the Western schools give up their games against UM, PSU and OSU only to see newcomers like Rutgers get those choice games every year? Only if a power team or two was added to the West would the expansion be approved.
LikeLike
Greg, I agree. The Arizona issue is also why I think a merger to form a P/W 20 is more likely.
LikeLike
prophetstruth..
no.. if you read earlier posts.. I just tend to factor in money ahead of research. human nature to act in ones own self interest. I am a firm believer in education, but in the end I will not have the voice.
hh & richard..
my original observation was a 6 team swing to the Pac 10.. which was quickly shot down by allyoucanleavebehind and others as the Pac 10 was a “no blackball” conference – as such 1 vote would eliminate a prospective new member. Thinking from a straight math point of view I began to think this would produce quite long odds of successful outcome.
as greg pointed out two blackballs could easily come from the Arizona schools. On paper a “block” move by 6 to the Pac 10 is actually the most coherent plan. translating paper to a living breathing operation is not the same. I do not get to make the rules, I / we are just observers (unless Frank is really Delaney, and I get Big 10 basketball tickets for life) on this blog.
What I am trying to factor in is the value of pairs x 3 as richard commented he was beginning to see..
I will try to say this in a better way but I was never an effective “written” communicator as my mind works at one speed, my eyes another, and my fingers are several gears behind. Here goes..
Put yourself in Texas shoes..
BIG .. ego, money, worth of knowledge..
see also the the rich kid in school.. with operant word being “kid”
now you are the BMOC at good old Big 12 HS, but your parents want to move to a new neighborhood..
there is Big 10 HS, but they might knock you down on the “worth of knowledge”
there is SEC HS, but they might knock you down in the locker room
there is Pac 10 HS, but they might blackball you from joining the clubs
No matter which HS you pick, you go in alone with no buddies, you are a kid, and you are all alone.. so you change the playing field in your favor..
The more “friends” you bring, the more you can get from whatever HS you wind up attending. I am not saying that Texas would “need” the other 5 from a size / power standpoint. I am saying that texas might “need” them from a comfort standpoint as all 6 share the west / southwest – than neither the Big 10, pac 10, or sec share..
is this any clearer? or have I hade it more confusing?
LikeLike
no.. if you read earlier posts.. I just tend to factor in money ahead of research. human nature to act in ones own self interest. I am a firm believer in education, but in the end I will not have the voice.
@duffman
I did read all of your responses and comments thus the reason why I asked the question. Your reply did not really answer the questions I posed or substantiate your rationale regarding Texas.
Factoring in money and doing what’s in one’s own self interest would mean Texas to the Big10 (more money and better academics). I fail to see how Texas to the SEC is basing your argument on money and doing what’s in one’s self interest. If talking research, it’s Big10 or Pac10. Talking academics, it’s Big10 or Pac10. Talking money it’s Big10. Only when talking close geography and football will the SEC win out. Your argument still doesn’t make a lot of sense based upon your given rationale.
LikeLike
prophettruth..
was confused at first because I thought you were implying I was putting Texas in the SEC, which I have stated early on not to be the case. Back many blogs ago my pick was Texas to the Pac 16! This is still my position…. because money and self interest still puts Texas in the Pac 16..
My SEC 16 involves an ACC raid, and has pretty much from day 1, how else would I get Maryland for the Big 16?
I still see USC and Texas as the sun and jupiter in a PAC 16 universe, this would allow Texas power and an uneven revenue stream they could not attain in the Big 10. They still get the research glow of the Pac 16 while being the Big Dog in the yard. I have constantly viewed the Big 10 and the SEC as collectives with “share and share alike”.
In a BIG 2 Pac 16 where USC and UT are the two, could be a better deal than being in the Big 16 and splitting the pot 16 ways. The base of the argument several blogs ago was that Texas has an ego, and given this fact their home would be the Pac 16 NOT the Big 16….
I am still not sure why you can not understand this rationale?
plus throw in some intangibles like..
better weather
baseball vs hockey
women’s basketball
they could bring the most B12 teams
fewer strong teams in NC run
recruiting california
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Hopkins Horn on this. The best measures are 1) whether the school is an AAU member, and 2) research funding $.
The conferences and Texas will not be lifting their noses at certain schools based on subjective rankings. They all know that it’s not really fair to compare schools in less “favorable” locations or public flagship universities in smaller states when it comes to US News rankings.
For example people keep saying Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas are less desirable because they’re not in the Top 70 like all the Big Ten schools, but that’s almost wholly irrelevant. The Midwest public universities have historically had a much easier time attracting students and professors from all over the country to boost their stats.
Now as for the SEC, it only has 2 AAU members: Vanderbilt and Florida. Those two are probably the most prominent research institutions in the SEC.
As an example, Alabama is in the top 100 schools but it’s athletic department pulls in twice as much $ as its research departments.
Vanderbilt and Florida are the only academic peers to Texas in a research sense, which is what Texas cares about and is looking for…
LikeLike
I just want to add, there’s going to be a faculty vote (not that it’s binding or anything) on whether to join a certain conference.
That faculty vote will be taken for consideration by the board of the universities when they’re making their decisions on the matter.
I can easily see a Texas faculty vote being strongly against joining the SEC. Yes, we all think in $ and which conference has the most “football prestige” at the moment, but you can bet your bottom dollar that all else equal, academics will play a big role in where a school like Texas lands. Probably not as important as athletics per se, but it may well be the deciding factor between the Pac-10/Big Ten or SEC.
LikeLike
Check out the ARWU rankings for the Big Ten, Pac 10, Big 12, and the SEC schools. Texas and the SEC are not a good fit academically and Texas knows it. A big step down in my opinion. I would suspect Texas folks feel the same way.
http://www.arwu.org/Country2009Main.jsp?param=United States
LikeLike
better link:
http://www.arwu.org/Country2009Main.jsp?param=United States
LikeLike
Zeek, best measure of what? Of how academically fit is a research-oriented university that emphasizes graduate education over undergraduate education? Your metrics simply re-state your premise in a different way. And this statement is, in fact “irrelevant” in terms of how USN&WR or BusinessWeek conduct their overall assessments.
“For example people keep saying Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas are less desirable because they’re not in the Top 70 like all the Big Ten schools, but that’s almost wholly irrelevant. The Midwest public universities have historically had a much easier time attracting students and professors from all over the country to boost their stats.”
They are less desirable destinations at the undergraduate level for large number of students with high SAT scores — and I might add that information is not perceptual.
LikeLike
Well, the reason I used those metrics is that those are the most useful metrics for measuring the possible research synergy that a university would get from associating with another university.
The US News rankings are useful in terms of measuring the quality of the student bodies as well as the relative impact of endowments and the sizes of faculties relative to students, etc.
Those are all more of what students look at when they’re measuring institutions. For academics, the value of other institutions tends to be in the level of research that they do.
Being in the AAU and the amount of $ spent on research are what matter to the people making these decisions.
Sure they might dismiss at Tier 3 or unranked university off hand, but other than that the US News rankings are far less useful here than other measures.
LikeLike
zeek, you have a point, but….
perception is reality on a lot of this stuff, and the US News rankings carry a lot of weight. When John Q. Citizen wants to know how good a school the first thing he looks at are the US News ratings.
Look at KU v.Syracuse. Yes, KU has $70-75M in annual fed research $ to $25M for Syracuse. That’s very important. But equally important are the US News ratings. As I recall Syracuse is #56 there, KU #96.
Also, consider U Conn’s situation. It’s not an AAU member although it has 2 or 3 times the research $ as Syracuse. That makes no sense, but it in all liklihood it will eliminate U Conn from consideration.
I think the Big 10 will consider long and hard before it adds more than 1 school from the west. Each school from the Neb/Mo/KU trio that is added is one more school at the bottom of the academic ratings of Big 10 schools.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – I do agree that a lot the academically-focused arguments are passing off the US News rankings way too easily – for better or for worse, those rankings mean a lot in terms of public perception and the fact of the matter is that a large portion of those rankings are based upon what the university presidents think themselves. I believe that the academic reputation score, which is the most heavily weighted factor in the US News rankings, is very relevant to our discussion because it measures what the university presidents actually think of each other. This actually puts a comparative number with respect to Zeke’s point that the qualitative perceptions of academic quality will likely override the quantitative numbers of academic research dollars.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
I don’t want to get into the weeds here, but once you admit one of NU/KU/MU or any school outside of a US News “Top 70 meme,” you’ve blown up that paradigm and would not hold the US News rankings against the others.
It’s a lot easier to explain away Notre Dame not being in the AAU by saying that “11 out of 12 Big Ten members are AAU and the 12th is Notre Dame which is a good school in and of itself” versus saying “13 out of 14 schools are Top 70 and the 14th is ranked 95” or whatever.
The US News rankings are a snapshot of the here and now. Schools will move up and down over many years.
AAU membership is not a snapshot; it is a long term indication of the research prowess of a university. That’s why AAU membership is what would be touted in any kind of “this conference does more research than the others” kind of argument.
The US News argument for why only 1 or 2 of NU/MU/KU would be added is nearly worthless because once you lose the “all schools are US News Top 70” notion, then you might as well damn the torpedoes because you’re not going to invent some kind of other meme around the US News.
The Big Ten is building the conference of the next 50 years. In 2030, I would go as far to posit that the US News ranking of an institution outside of the top 20 in 2010 is a useless indicator. The top 20 are much more stable; no one really expects the top private schools to lose their massive endowments and ability to massively outdo public universities in terms of faculty spending, etc.
However, there will be lots of movement over the next 20 years among the schools ranked 30 to 100 in the US News.
But AAU membership of the schools will not change. That’s why it’s the indicator that would be used, and it’s why all 3 of NU/MU/KU could easily be added to an expanded Big Ten.
LikeLike
What makes anyone think that University Presidents are going to rely on the US News at all? I tend to think that they deem themselves qualified (whether they are or not) to make the subjective quality determination just fine.
I also think that they will be clouded somewhat by history, for better or worse. A University with a general perception of academic prowess over the years will probably trump some decision coming down to School A is 56 and School B is 59.
This is not the RPI, BCS, etc. They are not looking for reasons to exclude schools. They are looking for the best fits.
Similarly, I am not sure research dollars is going to work that way either… with a school with $200M necessarily being deemed better than one with $125M.
I just don’t see this coming down to objective criteria. If the candidate schools are pre-qualified to NOT cause the Big 10 to lose money via expansion, I fully expect the decision to then be resolved via objective criteria.
This could benefit or hurt any of the candidate schools.
LikeLike
Edit: objective criteria should be subjective criteria.
LikeLike
zeek and ex–
The US News ratings are going to continue to be relevant whether we add 1 or 3 schools in the west. If you look at university propaganda, as I’ve done a lot lately (my son is a high school jr), schools WILL mention the US news ratings and AAU membership in their publications. They also go into considerable detail concerning research, including #s. If these matters are deemed important to prodpective students, why would they not be important for prospective schools?
Even IF U presidents themselves dispute the validity of the US News ratings, they know they are important to public perception. In these areas, perception is at least as important as reality.
Therefore,adding Nebraska (for example) is academically detrimental. I don’t think there’s any way around that. And adding Missouri and KU on top of Nebraska probably ends any argument with the ACC as to which conference is #1 in academics.
LikeLike
Except that it’s not academically dilutive once you’ve already added one.
Once you add one, you’ve already blown up the “Top 70 meme” as I discussed above.
Thus, if we’re going to add any of Nebraska, Kansas or Missouri; then it doesn’t matter whether we add 1 or 2 or 3.
And again, the US News rankings are nowhere near as stable as you think they are. Look at the rankings just 15 years ago and compare them to 2010’s rankings. Outside of the top like 20 or 30, the rest of the schools from 30 to 100 will move around a lot over time.
AAU membership is a constant.
And the ACC only has 4 AAU schools.
The ACC is probably already superior to the Big Ten according to the US News.
Honestly, the US News is an indicator of academic strength, but it is probably weaker than whether the institution is part of the AAU or has strong graduate research.
I’m not trying to belittle the importance, but I could easily see the Big Ten taking all three of Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri without considering their US News impact on the Big Ten at all since they are all AAU members.
LikeLike
I agree that you’ve blown the “top 70” argumentby the Big 10 by adding Neb.; that doesn’t mean that adding other below average schools has no effect. In the future, people that were rating conferences on academic criteria would note that the Big 10 had 3 schools that were in the 90-100 range, not 1.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand why some people think the US News rankings are important to this discussion. Everything I’ve ever read on the subject has led me to believe that university presidents hate the US News rankings and think they’re inherently flawed. AAU membership and R&D expenditures are metrics that seem far more likely to measure the academic qualities that Big Ten university presidents actually care about.
LikeLike
I go back to my argument on the AAU bias, as Ga Tech JUST got in, even tho they have been a top school for ages..!!
I made a comparison many blogs ago about the difference in rank in bridge vs chess..
Bridge is cumulative, so rank is based on accumulation not skill. It explains why you get many “bluehairs” who play terrible bridge.
Chess is ability, so rank is adjusted by play. The higher you go the better you should be. if you start sucking wind, your rank falls.
Now go back and look at the AAU, and inherent bias. If you got in in the first 20 years you are set going forward, and you accrue benefits.
My question is this.. If “early bird” schools were up today would they still get in? There is no benefit to remove members, so it does not really happen (only 2 schools went out). Look at the Big 10 in the first 20 years..
1900 – Michigan, Wisconsin, Chicago
1908 – Minnesota, Illinois
1909 – Iowa, Indiana
1916 – Ohio State
1917 – Northwestern
9 of 10 early birds
PU => 58 + MSU => 68
The Big 8 now Big 12
1908 – Missouri
1909 – Kansas, Nebraska
3 of 8 early birds
ISU => 58 + CU => 66
The SEC
0 of 12 early birds
Vandy 1950 / Florida 1985
The SWC now Big 12
0 0f 12 early birds
Texas 1929 / A & M 2001
i personally am happy as hell that IU is in, but is there an element of being in the right place at the right time early on help?
Maybe I am alone here, but MIT => 1934 + Cal Tech => 1934 Ga Tech in 2010!?!?
if somebody can explain this, have at it!
LikeLike
GTech certainly got it’s share of bright students (being the premier engineering school in the south), but before WWII, I think the southern schools simply didn’t have the financial resources to hire faculty talent and build labs that the northern and western schools did. Even now, ARWU (which is an objective ranking based mostly on research published) ranks GTech behind every Big10 school other than Iowa in the 56-70 range (and far behind MIT and Caltech at 4 & 5 respectively).
LikeLike
I don’t think we can dismiss Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas on the basis of how we think the US News rankings should be interpreted. Sure, these schools rank about 25 to 30 positions below the lowest ranked Big Ten schools, but that only a difference of 5 or 6 points. Looking at US News’ methodology, I don’t know if we can easily determine the significance of in this difference in score. For example, even though Ohio State (Go Bucks!) is ranked closer to Illinois/Wisconsin, there is a bigger gap in the score between Ohio State and Illinois/Wisconsin than there is between Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas and Indiana/Michigan State/Purdue. By the way, Nebraska and Missouri have better SATs than Indiana, Michigan State or Purdue (Kansas uses ACTs).
Proud as I am to see the relatively high ranking of the Big Ten, the point is that all the Tier 1 schools would provide a good education to the great majority of students.
I think membership in the AAU and a strong showing in R&D are what will matter to the university presidents in the end, with preference to state flagship schools.
LikeLike
It seems like Georgia Tech may become a player as well, as they have been just granted AAU status as well.
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
Has anyone considered that Texas may be the school that takes Kansas and Missouri off the table?
Remember how Texas shot down the Big 16 possibility and chose the Big 12 since it did not want the pie split 4 more ways?
Well, in the Big 12, the only schools that Texas treats as being in the same stratosphere in terms of earnings are A&M/OU/Nebraska. Texas along with those 3 other schools maintain the unequal revenue sharing by using their combined 4 votes to veto decisions.
What if Texas would only want to join with A&M and Nebraska since it considers them to not be dilutive in terms of splitting the pie.
We all know that Texas will act in its own interest. Thus, Texas must be looking at Pac-10 and Big Ten scenarios that maximize its earnings.
Hence, Texas would not want the Pac-10 to expand beyond 12 (Texas and A&M) if it means smaller portions.
It would by the same token not want the Big Ten to go past 14 (Texas, A&M, and Nebraska) unless Notre Dame was involved in a blockbuster move to 16. The move to 16 could happen years down the road when Notre Dame is forced into it by the massive gap in TV revenue that will only grow larger.
Texas is the one in the driver seat if it knows the Big 12 is going to implode. Thus, it might be worth considering that the Pac-10 and Big Ten would only move to 12 or 14 respectively if Texas determines that it doesn’t want the pie to be diluted by other entrants.
This is just a random thought I had since everyone is so focused on where Texas ends up…
LikeLike
It is also worth noting that all of this gives Texas the incentive to act or early enough that it can change the decision making process.
Once the Pac-10 sends an invite to Colorado or the Big Ten sends an invite to Missouri or Rutgers or Pitt or Syracuse, then Texas loses its optimal Pac-12 or Big Ten (14) scenarios…
The easiest way for the Big Ten to play this would then be to just invite Nebraska and allow the Pac-10 to possibly take itself out of contention by adding Colorado and Utah.
Just some more food for thought.
LikeLike
@Zeek, you´re comparing appples and oranges. The Big 12 expansion to 16 increased the number of slices without increasing the size of the pie. With the Big 10 Network, it´s a different beast. We are assuming all of these candidates add enough value to make them worthwhile.
Also, the holdup in any Texas move would be political – not the financial side. If it were purely about revenue, there would be no discussion. No, the problem is political and joining a division with four other Big 12 teams should help that cause.
LikeLike
My point still applies though because we’re discussing a possible Pac-10 move. And, I’m still not sold on the analysis that all of these candidates would increase TV revenue enough to justify their additions.
The only ones that we know for sure are home runs are Texas and Notre Dame. Nebraska probably comes as close as you can to being a sure money maker out of the remaining schools due to the strength of its national TV audiences.
As for the rest, I think there are still enough legitimate concerns, that Texas may not want larger expansion to a 16 team conference.
In any case, my point still applies for the Pac-10, and thus, in a roundabout way to the Big Ten even if you assume every school increases TV revenue enough.
For the Pac-10, wouldn’t Texas just want it to go to 12 with Texas and A&M? Adding Colorado and Utah just adds two more slices. Yes I know that the Pac-10 has uneven revenue sharing, but even then enough of the money is split that Texas’ share would probably go down.
Thus, once the Pac-10 invites Colorado, I would have to assume that Texas is much more receptive to a Big Ten invite, etc.
LikeLike
Zeek, you seem to be implying that the PAC10 is somewhat in control of what happens for Texas. The only “power” they have right now is to either fashion some sort of a merger with the Big 12 for a TV network OR add Texas/aTm. That’s it. Of course, if they can pull something like that off in the next 2 months, they’ll have plenty of control. But those are longshots, in my book.
They can decide to go the easy route and pick up CU and Utah, but that won’t do anything significant for Texas’s decision making process. Yes, it could provide some “cover” for them politically, but again, if Texas says no to the PAC10 in every shape and form over the next two months, I believe that they’ve already made up their mind–stay in the Big 12 and survive the hits from the Big 10 OR join the Big 10. The PAC10’s actions won’t effect their future in any other way.
LikeLike
I might have to agree with you about it being Texas or Mizzou but not both.
I don’t see the Big 10 wanting four teams from the Big 12. Too much personality dillution for the conference. But 3 of 16, it could handle that.
I think Nebraska is going to be the first announced addition for the Big 10. Like you said, they hold enough value for football and fit “well enough” in the academic arenas. Even if the PAC10 doesn’t touch Colorado, Nebraska would throw off the power equllibrium enough in the Big 12 to give Texas/aTm the permission to politically/socially look at other options.
I see the “announcements” to come one at a time over the next 13 months.
Nebraska and Rutgers first. East-west balance for Big 12. Destabilizes two weakest conferences (affiliated with crown jewels, by the way–Texas and ND for bball)
Then, Texas and aTm. At 15 with a super-conference that stretches from NJ to Texas and five of the top 10 football programs ever in one conference, there’d be one coveted spot left.
Finally, at long last, Notre Dame will finish things off in June 2011.
Finally,
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the more I like the Big Ten expanding by 2 and then 2 again and then 1.
Notre Dame may be only willing to dance if it realizes that there’s only 1 spot left in a 16 team conference. As long as the Big Ten is at 11, Notre Dame knows that there’s not 5 schools better than it to join (heck only Texas can make that argument), so it knows it’s at the front of the line.
But if the Big Ten moves to 13 through Nebraska/Rutgers or Nebraska/Missouri, then Notre Dame knows that it is still 2nd to Texas but there’s only 3 spots left (and most of us assume A&M would get one if Texas joins).
Thus, a move to 13 may actually be enough to force Notre Dame to act or at least seriously consider the possibility of being left out of the Big Ten.
Right now Notre Dame is not considering the possibility of being left out of the Big Ten because it doesn’t have to…; this is the whole problem with trying to bring Notre Dame in. Notre Dame gets the best of both worlds right now, it gets to play whoever it wants to, including Big Ten teams, and it gets to be independent for football. Obviously the economics of it will continue to become more and more disadvantageous, which would eventually force them to act on their own.
But the problem is that right now there’s still a whopping 5 seats to fill and Notre Dame knows that it is 2nd in line or 3rd at worst behind the pair of Texas/A&M.
Going to 15 by taking Nebraska/Rutgers or Nebraska/Missouri and then Texas/A&M may be the best way of telling Notre Dame that they have one last chance to consider the Big Ten before membership is walled off for 20-30 years.
That is probably the most ideal scenario that one can come up with at this point. Also, if Notre Dame says no, then you can just round out the 16 by taking the other one of Missouri or Rutgers…
LikeLike
allyou..
pick off Nebraska first..
pick off Maryland second..
leaves you 3 slots, for UT,A&M,ND
if no from those 3..
you can pick off UVA, Rutgers, Pitt, Mizzou, KU, etc at your leisure..
this strategy accomplishes multiple things..
a) you cherry pick NU & UM
b) you show strong hand to go to 16
c) you have final 3 (and backups) already lined up
as said before, the day you hit 13 – you have served notice that you are serious about being a market leader.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 10 is going to be resorting to back-up plans. They don’t need to. Sixteen is not the ultimate goal, in my mind. Creating a perfect 16 team conference IS the ultimate goal. This is a marriage forever, as far as the Big 10 schools are concerned. They don’t want to get into bed with Pitt or UVA (unless they LOVE Pitt, UVA and the like) if Texas/aTm/Notre Dame are still looming out there. Since the Big 10 is the frontrunner in all this, we can go to 12 now and wait. Or we can go to 13 now and wait. Or 14. Or 15.
Seriously, there is no reason to take a school just to get to some magic number.
Maybe I’m just being cocky b/c of the financial clout the Big 10 currently has, but I think it can wait for who it wants. If the SEC starts after two targets the Big 10 decides it wants in five years, well, then the Big 10 can fight the SEC for them (I’m not saying they’ll definitely win, but they’ve got a shot).
It behooves them to be aggressive now, but not flippant. I think anything less than homerun schools is flippant.
LikeLike
I think Frank makes an excellent point here (which I’ve seen others make). The notion of adding some of the speculated members is a lot more interesting than actually playing them. (For my money, here’s looking at you Rutgers, Syracuse, and Maryland.) Additionally, I stand by my position that you can’t just put all of the top teams in the same basket (what Frank aptly described as a sort of an “all-MJ/LeBron basketball team”). (Here’s looking at scenarios involving adding more than one of Texas, Notre Dame, USC, schools in Florida, Luke Skywalker’s Jedi Academy.)
The combination of these factors means I continue to believe that a 12-team league is the best balance of factors. So long as the team added is a Midwestern school and is not a money loser, I’m fine with it whoever they are, and Patrick’s analysis leads me to believe that it’s entirely possible that the addition of virtually any school would be profitable.
Not that anybody asked, but I guess I wanted to reframe my own thinking on this subject.
LikeLike
That is a tricky balance of strengthening the league but not watering down the league. But remember, in a 16 team conference nobody’s schedule would look like this, even if it would draw great ratings for that team and huge crowds.
at Notre Dame
vs. Texas
at Penn State
vs. Ohio State
vs. Wisconsin
at Michigan
vs. Iowa
at Texas A/M
There will be Northwesterns and Minnesotas and Rutgers (I believe the one Big East shoe-in)…and even legendary programs have down years.
I say this b/c I’m leaning on the “All MJ/LeBron conference” possibility. I just don’t think the Big 10 will add more than a team or two that could possibly wind up in the cellar every year. With so many super-powers, the media will give us the benefit of the doubt that the SEC currently gets, saying 10-2 in the Big 10(16) is far better than 10-2 in any other conference. And our conference champion will be all but guaranteed a spot in the NC game (like the SEC’s currently is (4 years in a row).
LikeLike
Brainstorming here: if Texas makes clear to the Big Ten its intention to do its own thing, then why not pursue Texas A&M as a primary target for Big Ten expansion?
Benefits for the Big Ten…
1) Academic Fit: Texas A&M is a strong academic match for the Big Ten. It is a large, research-focused, state university with well-regarded faculty. It is an AAU school tied with Purdue and Minnesota in the USNWR undergrad rankings. Its ARWU rank falls between Michigan State and Indiana.
2) Large Following: 80,000 seat football stadium.
3) Name Program: while A&M does not have the cache of Texas or Nebraska (at least in football), it does carry more weight than a Rutgers or Missouri.
4) Desirable Recruiting Footprint: Texas A&M would bring the Big Ten and the BTN into the state of Texas. I think recruiting is an underrated consideration of Big Ten expansion. The Big Ten needs to consider not only who will watch the BTN, but who will play for Big Ten teams in the future. Unfortunately, Big Ten teams are at a strong disadvantage recruiting the California, Texas, and Florida hotbeds. Expansion won’t solve this problem, but it should help.
5) Expanded BTN Footprint: I don’t know how much of the state A&M could deliver on basic cable, but I imagine they could at least get the Houston market.
6) BTN Content: A&M has finished in the Top 30 of the Sears/Directors Cup each of the last 6 years.
7) Bait Texas: maybe the best way to get Texas is a Phase 1 strike close to home.
Benefit for Texas A&M…
1) Athletic Competitiveness: in football, the Big 12 has not been particularly kind to A&M. A&M has won the Big 12 only once and has not won the Big 12 South since 1998. While A&M’s coaching has not been stellar, the Big 12 South is simply a brutal division. Since 1996, they are 4-10 v Texas, 4-10 v Oklahoma, and 4-10 v Texas Tech. Meanwhile, the Big 12 is 15-5 against the Big Ten over the past 5 years. Maybe a change of scenery would be attractive?
2) Money/Stability: when your arch rival is the wealthiest athletic program in the country, you need all the money you can get.
3) Academics: CIC, etc.
Other thoughts:
— Texas legislature: the issue with the legislature, at least as I read it, is protection of the smaller schools. If Baylor and Tech are still sheltered by Texas, would anyone care if A&M leaves?
— Texas/A&M rivalry: obviously, this would be a big issue. A&M seems to care more about this than Texas. they could still play OOC, but it has been an n-conference rivalry for the last 100 years. of course, Texas could fix this by joining too.
— Geography / Texas identity, etc: I have a hard time imaging the Texas schools giving up their Texas-centric conference identity without a fight.
LikeLike
Heh. A&M hired Bill Byrne, and suddenly everything but football’s competitve at a football school. Who *ever* could have predicted such a thing?
LikeLike
It’s an interesting, outside-the-box proposal, so let me provide some Texas-influenced perspective.
I’m assuming that you’re proposing chasing A&M if and only if Texas has made it clear that it will not go to the Big 10. In that case, I doubt A&M would have that much of a political hurdle. Even assuming that the fates of Texas and A&M are intertwined by the Texas Legislature (I’m not entirely sold on that, but we’ll assume it for here), I’m not sure how pro-Texas legislators could, with a straight face, prevent A&M from making that move if Texas itself had turned it down. And I seriously doubt that Texas would fight the move too strenuously if A&M was hellbent on moving to a conference Texas rejected.
Again, this is kind of an oddball scenario, as I imagine that Texas has something else up its sleeve that would ultimately be more appealing to the Aggies than a solo move to the north. And, if Texas and Texas A&M were to split, I think an A&M move to the SEC makes more sense for the school than a move to the Big 10.
An aside on Texas politics: it wasn’t so much that Texas “sheltered” Baylor and Texas Tech 15 years ago as it was that the prevailing pro-Tech and pro-Baylor forces within the Legislature were strong enough to force Texas AND A&M to bring the two puppies with them into the Big XII. The specific legislative forces which existed 15 years ago no longer exist. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the present make-up of the Texas Legislature, and where forced aligned with particular schools might be, is pretty limited, and I haven’t seen anyone else prepare this sort of analysis. Perhaps there’s a prominent Tech grad chairing a committee through which Texas and A&M would have to pass at some point. Who knows.
I do know one thing that’s frustrated me over the years as a Texas booster has been the fact that, at the undergraduate level, it’s certainly a very good school, but I cannot call it a great school. With more money in its oil-fueled endowment than God, but not Harvard, there’s really no excuse for Texas not being on par with the Berkeleys of the world. It’s close, but not quite there. (The school is much closer at the graduate level.) The general consensus of those who follow UT is that legislative meddling has prevented Texas from reaching its full potential as the nation’s premier public undergraduate institution. So if the Legislature can screw up Texas on the academic side, it can certainly do so on the athletics side regardless of which alum from which school chairs which committee.
LikeLike
jokewood..
when I asked in an earlier blog, I got flack for their academics and sports.. you got me on this one?
LikeLike
I suspect Texas fans look down on Texas A&M the same way Michigan fans look down on Michigan State. Yet Michigan State is still a strong research school, and most objective measurements indicate Texas A&M is as well.
LikeLike
If UT decided to move to the Pac 10 without A&M, or decided to stay in a Big 12 that was losing several of it’s best northern members, A&M would certainly consider moving to the Big 10 alone.
The faculty members would doubtless push for the move to boost the academic reputation. However, I agree with Hopkins that the administration might prefer an SEC move if an offer was made. I think joining the Big 10 with 1 close school (UT) is more appealing than joining with no close schools. In the SEC, Arkansas and LSU would make up for losing any of the current Big 12 rivals other than UT. Having A&M as the biggest (or only) representative from Texas in the SEC might actually be the best thing for recruiting.
However, the money in the expanded Big 10 might still be better than an expanded SEC. Even if the money is even, the academic argument could lead administrators to choose the Big 10.
Of course, if the SEC threat of expansion is a bluff, Texas A&M should find the choice easy to go to the Big 10.
If A&M does move to the Big 10, the Big Ten Network would make onto just about every cable network in the state (maybe around Texas Tech they’ll lodge some sort of protest). They might have to accept a little less than the full ‘in state’ rate agreed to in a state like Michigan or Ohio, but it will be quite profitable to the Big 10.
LikeLike
Provocative and thoughtful article. I have been reading the subscription link for Texas A&M tonight. Split is about 50-50 between the Big Ten and the SEC. Should Texas follow their heart but not their logic and wind up with a Colorado soul mate in the Pac Ten, it would not harm the Presidents of the Big Ten to give Texas A&M a long look. Certainly, A&M would become a truly contributing member of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@Wes Haggard – Very interesting that it’s a 50/50 split with the Aggie crowd. I always assumed that a clear majority at A&M would prefer the SEC, although A&M is a much better academic school compared to 20 years ago (and in terms of research, would contribute as much to the Big Ten as anyone that we’ve talked about). Maybe it’s the “Big Ten compromise” that creates a superconference – Texas may slightly prefer the Pac-10 and A&M may slightly prefer the SEC, but both of them like the Big Ten well enough that they’d join together.
LikeLike
Frank, you are an experienced blogger and I confess to amatuer status. But I think you can relate to reading a response and you wonder what planet the blogger fell off from and reading an intelligent blogger who did a smidgen of research before that blogger pulled his emotionally trigger. Logically speaking. Academically speaking. Political power to enable research and endowments to increase. Better graduate studies and interchanges, and last but not least, athletically speaking, I cannot imagine any reason that behind closed doors, it is not already a done deal. As a matter of fact, I think your Death Star conference is a done deal with the small exception of the Notre Dame people that have just not got their minds right yet. Need a little more time and that is the reason for the announcement delay. Too clearly, it is a win, win, win for all the new teams in your death star setup. And a win, win, win for the existing Big Ten schools too.
LikeLike
@Wes Haggard – I definitely vacillate back-and-forth about the prospects of Texas and Texas A&M in the Big Ten. Some days, I think that it’s completely dead and other days, I receive tidbits that indicate that getting the Texas schools is really the centerpiece of the Big Ten’s plans. I believe that the Big Ten would like an Eastern presence, but I highly doubt it’s going to perform a wholesale raid of the Big East without Notre Dame joining. In that sense, ND can call the Big Ten’s “bluff” (for lack of a better term as a I don’t think the conference is bluffing about expansion as a general concept). However, I do believe that the Big Ten’s interest in Missouri and Nebraska is very legitimate regardless of who comes along with them and they’d be money-makers for the conference. Losing both of those schools would really hurt the Big XII (especially Nebraska), which in turn hurts the Texas schools. Are the Texas schools really going to let Mizzou and Nebraska walk away to double or triple their revenue while simultaneously devaluing the Big XII’s TV contracts? That’s really the crux of the Big Ten’s potential strategy. The status quo for the Texas schools is much more likely to be upended than for ND even though the perception is that the BE is the conference that’s going to fall apart.
LikeLike
@Wes:
So I’m guessing you’re an Aggie. I guess that’s OK. 🙂
What’s you’re feeling about how the Aggies would feel about a move to the Pac 10 relative to potential moves to the Big 10 and SEC?
And is there a general belief as to whether, from a political standpoint, Texas would be able to move by itself without having to bring A&M along (for example, the Big 10 votes to invite ONLY Texas to join)?
LikeLike
Hopkins, my best friend ever was a Longhorn. What a wonderful human he was and his memory lets me take your usual sip arrogance without need for a long rebuttal. I do not believe the Texas Legislature would do anything but stand up and applaud a Longhorn/Aggie move to the BIG TEN. Ann Richards is history and so is Bob Bullock. Our Governor is an AG. Politically, no rumors are good because no denails or necessary. Just a final announcement. Another reason that I think both our schools will accept membership is that the Texas newspaper have been silent on the subject of expansion even though newspaper and other media nation wide have written and spoken at length. At this time in history, I would not be surprised that the leaders of our schools could ask the media for no comments with out facts. Facts being a public announcement.
LikeLike
Wow. Imagine a UT v A&M Rose Bowl. Wild.
LikeLike
That would be particularly crazy when you consider that it would almost certainly be a rematch of an OOC game played five weeks earlier!
I suppose the same thing could happen if ND did join the Big 10 and kept the same scheduling regimen with USC, with the games in LA generally played the last weekend of the season.
LikeLike
One thing I’ve been thinking about in these discussions: if UT goes to the Pac 10 and A&M goes to the Big 10, there might be some push by the conferences to move the rivalry game earlier in the season. Bowl games tend to avoid rematches when they can, and a rematch that occurred just a few weeks past between 2 schools from the same state would be a bit more undesirable from a national perspective (it would get huge ratings in Texas). This conflict wouldn’t happen if A&M joined the SEC, since they wouldn’t get chosen for the same BCS bowl unless it was the national championship game.
Anyway, pondering the conflicts involved, I came up with a list of things I’d like UT, A&M and the 2 conferences to agree to if one school joined the Pac 10 and the other the Big 10:
1) A&M and UT play every year on either Thanksgiving or the day after. The 2 conferences will agree to the date and time for a particular year in advance.
2) Neither the Big 10 or Pac 10 will schedule another game at the same time as the A&M/UT game. Let the game be the national showcase for both conferences for those 3 hours.
3) The conferences will coordinate the schedule for the 2 schools the week before the game. Since they’re playing on a short week, both schools get a bye or both schools play on the same day. If they play the week before Thanksgiving, the team hosting the game will travel the week before & the visiting team will have a home game the week before.
For example, if UT plays Colorado the week before Thanksgiving and A&M plays Missouri, then one year you get A&M@MO; CO@UT followed by UT@A&M; the next year you get MO@A&M; UT@CO followed by A&M@UT.
4) If UT wins the Pac 10 and A&M wins the Big 10, and neither team is in the national championship game, the Rose Bowl must take the team that won the UT/A&M game. If the other BCS bowls agree, the Rose Bowl can choose to let the losing team go to another BCS bowl.
Going to the Fiesta, Sugar, or Rose Bowl wouldn’t be much of a penalty, but it would be an additional psychological blow that you were kept out of a specific game by your rival. If we’re really going to 16 team conferences, this rule wouldn’t be used often, especially since at least one of the 2 conference champions will likely be playing in the national title game. Nevertheless, I’d agree to it in order to keep the rivalry game at the end of the regular season.
LikeLike
Wow, you expect half the college football world to bend over backwards for your little rivalry game.
LikeLike
“Wow, you expect half the college football world to bend over backwards for your little rivalry game.”
How? It’s not affecting anything the ACC, Big East, or SEC does.
The scheduling is something conferences balance all the time. The SEC & ACC leave space for FSU to play Florida, Georgia Tech to play Georgia, and Clemson to play South Carolina the week before their conference title games. I just want an agreement that one conference doesn’t throw a bye in at the last minute to give it’s team in a nationally televised game an edge.
The bowl agreement is the Rose Bowl’s option, to prevent it from being forced to accept a rematch that was played a few weeks back. It would only be accepted if the other BCS bowls agree, which means at least one of those bowls would prefer to take the loser of the game. Like I said, this part wouldn’t happen often.
How is anyone being asked to ‘bend over’ for the game?
LikeLike
@Greg:
What M(ag) said.
I merely pointed out that, if Texas wound up in the Pac 10 and the Aggies in the Big 10, the two schools could have a Rose Bowl rematch of a game played five weeks earlier. How in the world is that asking anyone to “bend over” for it?!?
LikeLike
There’s this play called “Waiting for Godot” where the entire plot line revolves around a couple of guys waiting for someone who never comes. Maybe that’s a parable for the Big Ten’s current situation (“Waiting for Notre Dame” or “Waiting for Texas”). Am not convinced it is wise for the Big Ten to wait for any school with some pretty attractive candidates already currently available and the conference at a height of financial and academic strength relative to other conferences. Nebraska will serve pretty well as a prestige school for football and is adequate in other respects. Beyond that, there is an huge, densely populated and wealthy region of the country consisting of western Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut whose markets can be sewn up at once by taking Pitt, Syr, Rut and UConn (or at least 3 of the 4). People in the northeast are culturally pretty consistent with the Big Ten, they value education and would (eventually) even follow college football if they have a major conference to follow. Yes, none of the northeast schools are huge football brand names right now, but Syracuse and Pitt have been in the past and all of them (including Rutgers and UConn) could be in the future. Plus the Big Ten is already invested in Penn State, which sits right in the middle of the northeast region where this expansion would occur. The Big Ten sits at a point in its history where it can fulfill its destiny as a national conference by taking a package like Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and UConn and move up to 16 teams. Thinking big picture, the alternative of sewing up the (relatively) sparsely populated great plains with schools like Kansas and Missouri seems pretty weak. Yes, Notre Dame and Texas would be really nice to have, but… Maybe they are not coming for whatever reason. Maybe the Big Ten should not leave spaces for them and it should instead grab the very substantial markets available now in the northeast. The Big Ten going to twelve (by adding Nebraska) or going to sixteen (by adding Nebraska plus at least three out of Pitt, Syr, Rut and UConn) both seem workable. Anything in-between seems a weak compromise lacking long-term vision.
LikeLike
There’s still a question of whether the northeastern schools can deliver those markets.
Does anyone really think that Penn State is not the biggest fish in the Northeast for football (in terms of physical presence)? BC is probably a distant second. Notre Dame has more pull in the NY/NJ markets than any of the schools present in those states as well.
The Big Ten has been around since the early 1900s and will be around for a long time to come. Adding a member is like marriage but without the possibility of divorce; whoever we add, we should want in 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 and beyond.
Being hasty when the biggest chips are still on the table is folly. This is all a courtship dance in some sense. No matter how long it takes, it is in the Big Ten’s best interest to figure out how to run an inside straight and bag Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska.
There’s no reason to go to 16 schools until we know that it’s the configuration we want many years from now. Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse/Conn will always be in play as possible additions, so there’s no reason to grab them unless we’re sure they add to the conference.
LikeLike
Would suggest the value of the Penn State football franchise may decline (or at least not rise as much) if we don’t get some schools around them in the northeast. Also, the Big East is such a weak league in football image that it continually devalues the schools that participate in it no matter how strong their programs. The longer the Big Ten waits, the less these schools will be worth as football draws. Beyond that, we’re currently regarding 16 teams as some kind of long term hard cap on the number of teams a conference can have, which I question. Maybe the Big Ten should go ahead and successfully develop the northeast markets, demonstrating power that makes Notre Dame and/or Texas conclude that it would be sheer folly to reject a Big Ten offer in the future when the conference goes to 18 or 20 members…
LikeLike
I disagree. I think you’re letting the sugar bowl outcome color your whole perception of the conference. Since the ACC raid, the Big East has out performed the ACC. Game attendance and viewership have steadily increased across the conference. The Big east programs may be undervalued, but they are not devalued by their membership.
LikeLike
The problem is that we’re in uncharted territory at 14 and up.
We don’t really know whether $ is enough to make a 16 school conference like the fact that most of them will not play some of the other schools as much. 18-20 team leagues don’t really seem to be in the cards.
A handful of 14-16 team conferences sitting around sharing the spoils of war seems to be more in the cards.
We all know how much some of the schools will get upset when they don’t get the bigger schools coming to visit them as often and giving them an ESPN game, etc.
Just jumping to 14 is a big leap of faith; going to 16 right now is an even larger one. The Big Ten presidents don’t seem to be the type to just go to 16 immediately. They’ll probably invite them in with a strategy in mind. Trying to incorporate all of them at once may devalue the nature of the conference.
LikeLike
I don’t believe some of the lower tier big ten schools would be upset with Texas, A&M and Nebraska being added to their schedule. If they were in the conference with OSU, Mich. and PSU and occasionally played one or more of the three new member schools it would only add to their attendance, and would be an added attraction for their fans.
LikeLike
Also, a school like Rutgers is just starting to rise into a level of national prominence; we’d all like to know whether Rutgers can continue on this track and become an even bigger deal in New Jersey even among people who didn’t go there.
Of course there’s an argument to be made that the Big Ten schools traveling there will stir up the Big Ten alumni in northern New Jersey as well.
LikeLike
@zeek, both you and Kyle raise reasonable points, it has just been my experience in life that people who sit around and wait for just the exact right opportunity tend to get eclipsed by those who aggressively pursue their goals (even though the latter make more mistakes and make themselves more open to criticism). There are some awfully big opportunities for the Big Ten right now in the northeast if they go all in.
LikeLike
Hey, it’s only been a few months. In terms of the impact these moves would make, that’s no time at all.
Now, if they’re sure behind the scenes that the first tier schools won’t come, they should quickly invite the second tier. If there’s some wiggle room there, there’s no problem with waiting a little longer.
LikeLike
Everything I have heard from Texas has made me think this would never be true.
Finebaum: How Texas nearly joined the SEC
http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports/2010/04/finebaum_how_texas_nearly_join.html
LikeLike
That article about Texas to the SEC is interesting, but it certainly doesn’t sound like it “nearly happened”. The Texas AD had interest. Nothing was stated about the university president being on board, or any of the uppity-ups, who really control a university’s fate.
LikeLike
mike,
thanks for the link.. great read.. this part was best part..
“You’re not going to do it,” Byers demanded.
Oh yes we are, Schiller responded.
In 1992, the SEC made history by holding its inaugural championship game.
“de Tocqueville said the revolution only tells you something that already took place,” Schiller said.
*Ponders Delaney and Jim Isch going head to head in a death cage match with winner take all*
😉
LikeLike
I really want to hear from the Texas alums/fans that can tell us if this story is accurate. I have always heard that Texas would never even consider the SEC.
LikeLike
I can’t personally vouch for its accuracy, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it were true.
Keep in mind that, 20+ years ago, Texas would not have been bargaining from nearly the position of strength it has today. Its football teams would have been mired in the middle of their 12-year run of mediocrity. My years at UT were in the middle of this period, and I don’t recall ever seeing more than 62Kish at home games except when A&M visited. The idea of an expansion to 100K+ seats within a couple of decades would have seemed ludicrous.
The basketball team had always been mediocre, and Tom Penders (the coach who, despite his weaknesses, played a key role in helping Texas escape mediocrity) was not yet on the scene.
DeLoss Dodds would have only been the AD for no more than a decade by this point, and though I don’t have the numbers in front of me, I would severely doubt that Texas was anywhere near the money-making machine it is today.
Perhaps most importantly, Texas was in the scandal-marred SWC (thanks, SMU, Houston & A&M) which most observers could tell was already in its death throes. Texas needed out much more desperately then than it does today.
So even if the same levels of academically-driven snobbery existed then which exist today on the 40 Acres, it’s entirely feasible in my mind that Texas would have considered much more seriously an offer from the SEC, given all the other circumstances.
Today, Texas is the prettiest girl at the dance, as has been noted by many other commenters here not named Hopkins Horn. Texas wasn’t in 1989. Texas has the luxury of being much pickier this time around.
LikeLike
Don’t think that story of Texas wanting to join the SEC is true. The story I’ve heard is that Frank Broyles convinced the SEC to take Arkansas and that he could convince Texas to follow. Obviously Texas didn’t follow.
LikeLike
This is a much later edition of facts about Texas A&M to the SEC. Texas was headed to the PAC TEN when the Baylor Governor and the Texas Tech Speaker of the House killed the party and pretty well forced the formation of the Big Twelve. Now the Governor is a Texas A&M graduate. I don’t see a problem with any schools in Texas following their logic to a new conference affliation. The loan exception would be if Texas wants the Big Ten without and invite for Texas A&M.
LikeLike
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html
Senior moment, I left out the link.
LikeLike
I think it always bears mentioning (no pun intended) when this topic comes up that Baylor’s cause certainly wasn’t harmed by the governor at the time being a Baylor grad, but the key player who pushed for Baylor’s inclusion in the Big XII was a state senator named David Sipley, a Baylor grad who represented Waco. He, and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a Tech grad, were the key players. Sipley is long gone from the state senate, and Bullock is long gone from this earth.
Wes is correct that the Texas governor is an Aggie, but you non-Texans might recall one of the criticisms thrown at then-Gov. Bush during the 2000 campaign was that his experience as Texas governor wasn’t that important since the Texas governor is constitutionally weaker than any governor in the country. The Lt. Gov is where the real power is, and the current Lt. Gov. is, believe it or not, an Arizona grad. (And this is one place where I can add personal knowledge, and without getting into details, my recollections of the LG are of a man who wouldn’t care about this issue one bit, so the fact that he’s a UA grad wouldn’t mean that the Pac 10 would have a leg up luring UT & A&M.)
LikeLike
You asked in an earlier statement how I would feel if Texas went to the PAC TEN alone. Most Aggies would help you pack your bags and wish you well and look forward to T-Day. In my mind, and the posters that I have read,we identify with the staunch Midwestern character, and family beliefs of the Big Ten more so than the liberal Pelosi’s and educational attitudes of the UC Berkley’s no matter how high UC is rated on the USNWR. Most AGGIES have similar feelings about LSU as you guys do about “What Time IS IT?” so I can understand the lure of the SEC. But I think the leaders of Texas A&M don’t play football. They play budgets and academia and the BIG TEN is a no brainer. If you guys followed your heart West, and the Aggies were invited to and accepted an invitation to the BIG TEN, each school would have quite a story to tell prospective recruits about the Road to the Rose Bowl. I would rather lace my story with my daughter in laws “Horseshoe” and her hated rivals “Big House, and “On Wisconsin” and my sons father in laws endless stories of his alma maters “Joe Pa” than USC and Cal and Stanford.
LikeLike
Interesting perspective.
So let me ask the question another way: let’s say the Big 10 grabs NU and Mizzou. The Big XII is weakened considerably but remains alive.
Texas works out a deal to move to the Pac 10 and can bring A&M along. Do you think A&M would go, or would the “kindred spirits” argument you make which seems to be prevalent amongst A&M alums would led A&M to go down with the Big XII ship?
LikeLike
Hopkins, Good question. As I said above, I think the Big Ten is a no brainer and I would love to join with Texas. Better the enemy you know and respect than the unknown and it would be good to help each other with the “newness” of the Big Ten while we are making our way with the existing powers and trying to fit in while holding on to our values at the same time. Politically, I think it might get nasty if Texas tried to go by themselves. We are both the State’s most recognized universities so I think a united front would play well in the capital. And I think the Tech’s and Baylor’s no longer have white knight(s). Love M’s emphasis on keeping the T-Day TV nationally to ourselves and I think that might be another of the back room deals that is being worked out. Egos such as our, especially yours (he he) need stroking and this is one time that I am glad you have a big forceful ego I believe it help the state very much.
LikeLike
I will like to explain to everybody, in plain English, what exactly this “buy-in” means for the new teams and way it’s actually necessary and nobody is screw-up here.
First and foremost, B10 owns 51% of B10 Network which is estimated at approximately $1 billion. Because of the equal sharing of B10 each team owns a 4.67% of the B10 Network and at the end of the year they equally share the profit from it.
Secondly, PAC-10, SEC, ACC, BIG XII, BE they own nothing, nada, so if you join one of these conferences you basically are on equal ground with everybody.
When you join B10 all those existing members have approximately $50 million invested in equity already and the new members have to buy shares from the existing ones until everybody owns the same percentage(3.18% in a 16 team scenario). The 3.18% that each new team will buy is an investment not an “entry fee”. It can go up or down like any other investment and more important it is your money. If 20 years from now you decide to leave the conference the remaining teams will buy your shares back at the market value and you’ll probably make a profit.
What most people here think is another way of B10 screwing with the new teams actually is a very good investment offer to join B10. You can’t expect to share the profits without being a partner and without the B10 Network profits the benefits of joining B10 are not that great. Remember nothing is free in America and if you want to make money you have to invest money.
LikeLike
The problem with that analysis is that the BTN’s “equity” isn’t like other investments. The Big 10 took a gamble and won…thus the BTN has worth, measured by presumed profits going forward. No Big 10 team has paid $50M into the BTN fund. If they had, there would be no dispute.
The Big 10 isn’t going to liquidate and sell off its tables and chairs for $1B.
The question going forward is: does the stream of anticipated profits increase enough from the addition of these teams that the Big 10 makes more, not less $, when divided 14 ways v. 11. If so, then these teams are adding value of their own, in terms of name recognition, academic and athletic prestige. The error you make is presuming that these teams are offering no “consideration”, when they in fact are.
I understand that for bookkeeping purposes, these teams might not be equal owners of the BTN. However, they can “buy” their way in, for bookkeeping purposes, over time, by remaining in the league. In that event if Fox wanted to sell to CBS (for example), any actual $s received would fo to the older members, in the early years…., less whatever immediate worth the others have created by their presence.
If the additional members are not adding net value to the league, given consideration of new markets, increased ratings etc when divided by 14 rather than 11, don’t add them.
LikeLike
shroom,
agreed!!
I still have not seen a REAL number!
what it is worth (the Billion number)
vs
actual capital outlay (by each Big 10 school)
when I read this thing awhile back, I got the impression that fox put up the capital and intangibles (labor & equipment) as their “buy in” for their 49% + managing and staffing ongoing operations (which sounds like the Big 10 just put up their “names”). If someone can link hard Big 10 cost, please do so.
I can say my house is worth 1 Billion, but if I can not find a buyer and possess clear title at that point, it is all speculation.
LikeLike
If I am the President of Texas and or Texas A&M and the Big Ten wishes to “Bill our University” so that our state can supply the Big Ten with 25 million new BTN subscribers? Well, I an not to sure that I could see the return on the investment there. Maybe the two Texas institutions should bill the Big Ten for providing the other eleven members the opportunity to make a whole lot more money. But, maybe you are right. Maybe this is really sticking the the Texas craw and the negotiations are at a stale mate. Possibility exists.
LikeLike
There’s significant problem to making new Big Ten members buy-in to the BTN – that substantials reduces the value of joining the Big Ten. As a Husker fan I’ll use Nebraska to illustrate. Let’s say B10 invites NU and requires a $5 million per year for 10 year buy-in. Nebraska then has to decide if the expected $5M per year increase in TV revenue ($22M BTN – $12M current – $5M buy-in) over the next 10 years is worth the buy-out clause for the B12 (loss of 50% conference earnings for 2 years or 90% for one year) which I roughly estimate at $10M-$20M. The Huskers are #4 most valueable athletic program according to Forbes and know they are worth a crapload of money to the BTN. I just don’t see them taking a huge pay cut for 1-2 years and being finanacially disabled compared to the rest of the conference for a decade just to join a conference which might make more money for them 10 years down the line. Keep in mind that NU makes $8M-$12M per home game so they could add an extra home game each year and do better from a revenue perspective.
Teams like Pitt, Mizzou, KU, and others are in similar positions. I doubt the B10 could lure them away while charging them money. In fact, a team like Nebraska could require the B10 to pay their buy-out money to the old conference as a concession to joining. These things make me think the expansion talk is not as clearly favorable to teams joining the B10 as some are claiming.
LikeLike
You hit the nail right on the Head.
LikeLike
KState’s AD John Currie. Sounds like he is being pestered by his fan base. I wonder what he meant by proactvie steps by Dan Beebe.
http://www.kstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=400&ATCLID=204937274
>>
The National Scene: There has been lots of news, or perhaps more correctly “talk” recently circulating regarding conference expansion. While there are all sorts of scenarios and conspiracy theories floating around the national media, primarily in potential reaction to changes the Big Ten may or may not make, K-State is well-positioned in a terrific conference like the Big 12. We have great national brands in our league (including the Powercat!), are rated as one of the top two conferences in most of our sports (number one in men’s and women’s basketball), have 14-percent of the nation’s population in our geographic footprint and almost four million alumni and friends of our 12 institutions spread coast to coast. I like the proactive comments and steps Commissioner Beebe has taken and believe our league can continue to be not just viable, but among the leaders in college athletics.
<<
LikeLike
Well, he’s trying to put as positive a light as he can on it.
KState’s only hope of being a big time college sports team is to hope the Big 12 stays together. They’re the most likely team other than Baylor to end up without a BCS conference if Texas does anything. Texas really does hold the fates of Iowa State/KState/Baylor/Tech in its hands…
LikeLike
Iowa State is in the worst shape. Kansas State could at least use politics to try and force their way into the same conference as Kansas.
ISU has no such card to play. The Hawkeyes are firmly entrenched in the Big 10. Its not as if Iowa and ISU have been conference rivals, and thus go together.
ISU’s only shot at a Big 10 invite is a sixteen (16) team Big 10 where the vote is 8-3, and the Iowa legislature basically forces Iowa to ram Iowa State into the conference.
LikeLike
In that scenario, would Iowa have that much influence over the rest of the conference to force the Michigans of the world to accept an otherwise clearly unacceptable school?
LikeLike
They can try to use politics, but I’m fairly positive it won’t work. The Kansas government isn’t going to allow KU to pass up a golden parachute for KSU’s sake. The state is strapped for funding as it is, so KU’s inclusion in either the Pac-10 or the Big 10 is a windfall.
LikeLike
I don’t know why people think the Big10 is going to play games and try to force ND or any other school into the Big10. If ND doesn’t want in the Big10, I honestly think the Big10 is ok with it. I don’t think the Big10’s intent moving forward is some power play for ND. The Big10 has already issued a press release saying if ND, wants in they need to make the move and contact the Big10. To me that says we still like you and want you but we are not about to play games, we have moved on. The Big10 is not going to force a marriage with ND. The relationship of being in the Big10 may last a lifetime so you want schools who want to be in it with you after-all it is share and share alike in the Big10.
FLP_NDRox: You keep bringing up ancient history regarding Fielding Yost and the alleged blackballing of ND. I didn’t even know who Fielding Yost was. I called my brother, a big Notre Dame fan and he was like who is that – where does he coach?
By your accounts African-Americans should hold the racist and unwelcoming environment that existed for blacks on ND’s campus during it’s early history against ND. I don’t see you advocating for Blacks to avoid going to ND to play football because it is obvious that ND can not be trusted to do right by Blacks – you did fire Ty Willingham after 3 years.
The Big10 does not have it out for ND. Why would the Big10 Presidents waste time and money trying to screw ND. ND may not want to join up with the Big10 and that is ok, but don’t make out like the Big10 has nothing to offer ND. At least be honest and civil if you are going to participate in the discussion.
I personally think ND is going to the Big10. The writing is on the wall. Before long ND will no longer be able to remain independent for whatever that’s worth nowadays. Scheduling will be a problem and when the BCS decides ND will no longer be afforded special status ND will be out.
Seems to me, a conference that wants you in their conference, has held a spot for you for over 20 years, and has fans saying we want ND in with us should be appreciated instead of vilified. The overwhelming majority of Big10 Fans I know want ND in the conference. While I understand the desire to remain independent, I do not understand the Big10 hatred.
LikeLike
I only say that because that’s how I think Delaney and the Big Ten presidents think. They probably believe that at this point the Big Ten is so attractive that Notre Dame can’t possibly hold out as an independent through another NBC TV negotiation after 2015 with the prospect of making $10M a year versus $22M+ at least with the Big Ten.
They don’t want to screw Notre Dame over; in fact we probably have every reason to believe that if Notre Dame ever wants a spot, it’ll get one as long as the Big Ten has less than 16 teams…
LikeLike
prophetstruth..
coach yoast is currently coaching football..
for the sioux city bandits..
😉
LikeLike
@ Prophetstruth
I think the reason it’s an issue is the dearth of obvious homerun candidates and people’s love of conspiracy theories.
As for your comments directed to me:
I only point out history to demonstrate that there are historical reasons for ND’s distrust of the B10’s motives and behaviors and not mere paranoia. OK, perhaps I should have included that the B10 has nothing *more* to offer ND *than it did in 1999, except for an investment opportunity in a cable channel*. If merely pointing out historical incidents that most here are not fully aware of makes me uncivil, then I’m uncivil. But, I think the historical lack of trust between ND, UM, and to a lesser extent to the Big Ten as a conference entity has some bearing in ND’s response to the B10’s overtures. The reason it is met with scorn is because there’s a fundamental distrust of the Big Ten by Domers.
The reality is that if ND is squeezed out of the BCS, it will likely be the Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC doing the squeezing. The Bowls love ND. That’s how ND gets a Fiesta Bowl invite in 1995 with a 6-4-1 record. Actually, I’m sure you all can come up with invites the Irish “didn’t deserve”. Why? Because the BOWLS LOVE ND. I doubt they’ll voluntarily exclude ND. I don’t think ND will be squeezed out.
I don’t think the Big Ten wants to screw ND. I think they want to use ND. I also think that the use of ND by the Big Ten will be to ND’s detriment.
I said it before, I’ll say it again:
I don’t have a problem being the Big Ten’s neighbor. I just think being roommates is a bad idea.
LikeLike
@zeek:
Your premise would assume that ND didn’t join because the Big10 wasn’t attractive enough. By all accounts it’s because ND wants to remain independent in football if at all possible. So, I don’t see JD or the Big10 Presidents wasting time trying to devise ways to force ND into the Big10. There are plenty of schools that want into the Big10.
@FLP_NDRox:
You have pointed out one incident from Fielding Yost a long time ago as historical reasons for ND’s distrust. What are all these other historical incidents? Again using your rationale, African-Americans, most definitely have reason to distrust ND.
I never stated the reason why you were being uncivil and it had nothing to do with your one historical anecdote regarding Fielding Yost from the 20’s and 30’s. Mostly it’s your arrogance and attempt to make snide remarks regarding the Big10.
In all seriousness, if ND distrusts Michigan and the Big10 so much then why even schedule schools from the conference? If you are going to make statements, back them up with evidence and not something from ions ago when most of us weren’t even born. What other examples can you site as why some of the Domers (because I know plenty that would love to join the Big10) have fundamental distrust of the Big10. They must be either really old or hold really long grudges.
Why would the Big10 want to use ND? For what? Money? Each Big10 school already makes more than ND. Football prowess? Academics? Research? Seems to me Notre Dame is doing the using and not the other way around. After-all what is Notre Dame bringing to the table other than their historical name that hasn’t translated into success on the field in nearly 20 years.
Notre Dame may be loved by the bowls, however if ND’s seat keeps diminishing as a result of its independent status, rule changes favoring conferences, consolidation, etc., ND could find itself on the outside looking in. And that is a reality the AD and President can see even if ND’s irrational fanbase can not.
Lastly, I don’t think most Big10 fans would lose any sleep if ND did not join the Big10 no matter how much it hurt you in the end.
LikeLike
Just to clarify—the ND adm. and faculty trusted the Big 10 enough in ’99 to join. It was the psycho Fielding Yost-spouting alums who have kept the parties apart.
LikeLike
But it wasn’t, go back 10 years ago years ago, and the Notre Dame contract was the hottest thing in college sports.
The Big Ten and SEC took it to another level in just the past 3 years with TV revenue due to CBS, ESPN, and the Big Ten Network.
The last time the Big Ten actively considered expansion was in 2003, and Notre Dame’s contract was as good as anything else out there at the time.
The developments of the last two years have proven that even as big as a draw as Notre Dame is, it can’t earn as much now as the teams in the biggest revenue generating leagues. Notre Dame will have to contend with that fact when it renews its contract with NBC in 2015.
Either Notre Dame will decide, we don’t mind taking in 1/2 what a Big Ten team would be since we prefer the national independent schedule.
At that point, I think the nail is in the coffin and the door is shut tight. We still haven’t seen Notre Dame have to make such a decision, but it will happen soon no matter what happens with Big Ten expansion this year.
LikeLike
If anyone is interested in reading about the Michigan-Notre Dame football rivalry, I would strongly recommend John Kryk’s “Natural Enemies: The Notre Dame-Michigan Football Feud”. Even if you might not have a strong interest in either school, you’ll probably enjoy it as a college football fan.
You’ll also probably note that the Michigan-Notre Dame football rivalry is one of the more unique in collegiate sports. Perhaps the most distinguishing aspect about is that for long periods of time, the representatives of the two universities hated one another so much that no games were scheduled between them. Those hatreds were personified by four people–Michigan’s Fielding H. Yost and Fritz Crisler and Notre Dame’s Knute Rockne and Frank Leahy–and their relationships with one another.
Michigan taught Notre Dame how to play football in 1887 and the two schools had a fairly good relationship (not perfect) for over twenty years. What people have to keep in mind is that at that time, Notre Dame was roughly comparable to a modern day junior college in terms of academics while Michigan was the largest university in the country (number of students, etc.). You can imagine that helped shape a lot of opinions from the onset.
I won’t go into a lot of the details, but the breakup started in 1910 and the two schools didn’t play again until a home-and-home series in 1942 and 1943 (Rockne had died in a plane crash in the 30s and Yost was finally persuaded to play Notre Dame at the end of his career as Michigan’s athletic director).
The two schools both went undefeated in 1947 and both claimed the national championship. There was a huge clamor for the two universities to participate in a special championship game to decide it all. Both teams were loaded with talent (including a lot of vets who had returned from World War 2), but in the end, it never came off (even though the newspapers were calling on President Truman to organize the game).
The series took another hiatus until 1978, when it was restarted by mutual agreement by the two schools in 1969. Not coincidentally, Fritz Crisler retired as Michigan’s AD the previous year.
The game has been played almost continuously through the present day. There have been some breaks in the series (1982/3, 1995/6, 2000/1), but its been a relative constant for essentially 33 years now. The current agreement runs through 2031 with another break scheduled in the 2018/19 seasons.
Why did the series get restarted after so many decades of acrimony? For Michigan, it was an opportunity to reignite a moribund football program that was not very good for most of the 1960s. UM’s new AD, Don Canham, wanted to fill the stadium and one of the ways he knew how was to get Notre Dame back on the schedule. The irony of the situation was that he didn’t need ND to do it–Bo Schembechler turned the program around and there have been consistent sell outs since 1975 (three years before the UM-ND series restarted).
So why did Notre Dame want to play Michigan? Didn’t ND’s president and athletic director know how poorly Yost and Crisler had treated the Fighting Irish over the years? I have no doubt the answer to the second question is yes.
I suspect the answer to the first question is that Notre Dame has been operating somewhat in Michigan’s wake. That may be hard to fathom given ND’s popularity, but keep in mind the relationship back in the late 19th century, ND getting snubbed in its attempts to join the Western Conference, Michigan saying “no” to Notre Dame several times when it came to playing a game, the fact that ND’s stadium is a deliberate copy of Michigan’s, etc. Notre Dame has absolutely no “awe” factor for Michigan in terms of the “Irish Mystique”.
But what Notre Dame does offer is a game that’s usually highly anticipated, gets nationwide coverage and great ratings. Its also a unique relationship in terms of revenue–each school keeps its own gate receipts (which is a win for Michigan because UM Stadium is larger). And yes, the hatred does flare up from time-to-time. Schembechler did say “To hell with Notre Dame” when the Irish (under Holtz) started scheduling games prior to what was supposed to be the mutual season opener for both teams in the early 90s. And yes, Carr did say Notre Dame violated a “gentleman’s agreement” in 1999 when ND did the same thing (which is why Michigan will never again open the season with Notre Dame–or at least as long as Lloyd Carr’s alive).
So there you have it–“The Arrogant Asses in Ann Arbor” vs. “The Poet Warriors (to borrow a NDNation term) in South Bend”. A relationship of varying respect and admiration, but one recognized for its commercial benefits to each school in the modern era.
And so its goes. Whenever conference expansion happens, and regardless of the form it takes, the Michigan-Notre Dame football series/relationship will change. If ND becomes part of the B10, then the game goes from non-conference to conference status. If ND doesn’t become part of the B10, then the future of the series is in question.
LikeLike
@Prophetstruth
You’re better than that.
The Big Ten’s problem is that while many teams want in, few are actually qualified to get in, fewer can actually contribute to the Big Ten, and fewer still match the profile.
I assume you want examples of UM and the B10 screwing ND. Two things:
a) The only reason we have proof on the Yost stuff is because everyone’s dead and the archives are open. If you want something recent, you’ll only find rumor and conjecture since all parties have at least some reason to keep any potential recent bad blood quiet.
b) My point is merely that ND alumni distrust has at least some basis in historical facts that are independently verified. I’m not saying the B10 is screwing ND. I’m not even saying ND doesn’t trust the B10. Frankly I don’t know, don’t care, and I’m sure the people in charge do know the situation as it currently stands. I’m just sick of hearing that ND alums are paranoid because they doubt the B10 had ND’s best interest in the forefront of their minds.
Y’know what, if thinking that the Big Ten isn’t better than ND makes me arrogant, I’m arrogant. I’m OK with that. If stating that the programming on BTN is serevely lacking and that ND is better off without the Big Ten makes me uncivil, then I’m uncivil.
The Big Ten with their network is now working for a profit, even if it wasn’t before. Of course the Big Ten would love to have ND for the prestige and the eyeballs they bring to the screen. Obviously its for the Money. I doubt it’s for the Humanities programs.
I would hope B10 fans would lose no sleep if ND doesn’t join. I’d sleep better knowing the Irish stayed independent, and I wish no ill to the Big Ten.
I don’t believe you know a single ND alum that wants ND in the Big Ten. Maybe a person who when to grad school might, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
Finebaum is an SEC blowhard that is always looking for something to toot the SEC horn about. Sure the AD might have wanted to go to the SEC, but the decision-makers clearly didn’t want to join.
“The Longhorns next turned to the Big Ten.
Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT’s profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that 10 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.
Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away — but the appeal of having 10 of 12 schools in the same time zone was seen as a plus.
But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT’s overtures.
That left the SEC as a possible relocation target for the Longhorns — until Berdahl let it be known that UT wasn’t interested because of the league’s undistinguished academic profile. Only two of 12 schools in the SEC were American Association of Universities members and UT officials saw admissions standards to SEC schools as too lenient.
‘We were quite interested in raising academic standards,’ Berdahl says. ‘And the Southeastern Conference had absolutely no interest in that.'”
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/02/19/texas-endowments-and-academic-rankings/
LikeLike
Something else to consider when talking about expanision is recruiting, specifically recruiting practices. Obviously, TV contracts, academic research, and all those other topics are the most important areas to focus on, but it can’t be ignored that whoever joins the Big 10 will be required to recruit in accordance with Big 10 conference rules, which go above and beyond NCAA rules in terms of regulating oversigning, etc.
In this regard Texas is a perfect match for the Big 10, whereas just about any other Big 12 or SEC school is not.
More details here…
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/02/12/texas-big-10-birds-of-a-feather/
LikeLike
Good link. Interesting stuff. This dispels a mistruth I’ve had about Texas. I thought their recruiting success was due to being a football factory…I was wrong.
How about African-American grad rates? Any stats on that. PSU is one of the highest in the country in that category (far higher than OSU :))…and we’re darn proud of Joe’s way of doing things.
LikeLike
Disclaimer: Today my daughter decided that she will not attend tOSU in the fall. She will attend Notre Dame. Please read any comments I make here forward with this in mind.
LikeLike
does she play basketball?
LikeLike
6’1.5″ and I could never interest her in the game. A pity really.
LikeLike
tragic!
muffett is a great coach..
and some indiana girls on the team including diggins. xavier is going to be pretty awesome next season tho with their two girls from Indy. I wish the IU women would get it together.
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – Congrats to your daughter! I know plenty of Domers and while I don’t necessarily agree with them all of the time, I will say that their bond with their school is truly unique. She’ll have a wonderful time there.
LikeLike
Thanks Frank. I was raised a Southern Baptist and never had any attachment to ND. But it feels like the right place for her.
LikeLike
@Loki:
My Aunt lives in Dallas…Is there any other kind of Baptist in Texas besides “Southern?”
LikeLike
I know there are Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists around here. And there are independents. Probably a few odd Northern Baptist congregations around the state also.
LikeLike
FLP writes: “According to Scott S, ND is not allowed to be bitter that the Big Ten tried to kill ND football because it was a while ago. I can’t see how or why the B10 should be bitter over a couple or perhaps trio of nos.”
First of all, “a while” means a short time. Like, “I’m going to the store and I’ll be back in a while.” The supposed boycott of Notre Dame by Big Ten teams began after a game in 1909. That’s now over 100 years. That’s four generations.
Second, a little digging shows this claim about Big Ten teams trying to “kill” Notre Dame football by boycotting them doesn’t bear scrutiny. Looking at records from the 1910’s, when this supposed boycott began, I counted 13 games against Big Ten teams, including Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan State.
From 1921-1930, I count 21 games between Notre Dame and Big Ten teams (Northwestern, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, and Michigan State).
From 1921-1930, Notre Dame played 25 Big Ten games by my count (against Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota).
In the 1940’s, Notre Dame played 37 games against Big Ten opponents (including Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State and Michigan.)
None of these numbers includes Penn State, now a Big Ten member, which would boost all those numbers.
So where is this big conspiracy by Big Ten schools? Who is it, exactly, that’s refusing to schedule you? The truth is, at one time or another, every single Big Ten team played Notre Dame in those years of supposed boycott.
While I know the evidence doesn’t support the Notre Dame narrative of habitual victimization by the Big Ten, the evidence would suggest your issue isn’t with the Big Ten trying to boycott you. Your problem has been with Michigan not scheduling you. You’re just using this slight by Fielding Yost, whether perceived or real, as another in a line of fabricated justifications as to why you don’t want to join the Big Ten.
So, was Fielding Yost prejudiced against Catholics? Is that why he wouldn’t play Notre Dame?
Maybe. Who knows? None of us ever met him. He was born just six years after the Civil War. Can’t say prejudice was unheard of.
However, consider the fact that Yost came on board at Michigan in 1900. He played Notre Dame in 1902. And 1908. And 1909. He also played Marquette in 1909. He doesn’t seem to have been overly prejudiced against Catholics then.
He also played other schools that were ostensibly religious, both before and during his time in Michigan. So it’s not like he was anti-Christian. (Wikipedia even calls him a devout Christian.)
Did he just not like losing? Was he simply a poor sport?
Maybe. His team just lost to Notre Dame in 1909. Maybe that loss alone was why he didn’t schedule them for thirty whatever years.
However, Yost kept playing Syracuse (1909, 1910, 1911, 1912 and beyond) after Michigan lost to them in 1908. And he played other schools to which Michigan lost. So being a poor sport doesn’t seem likely. You can’t simply cancel all games the first time someone beats you. You’d quickly run out of teams.
Maybe it wasn’t Notre Dame’s religiosity or the loss. Maybe there is more to the story as to why he didn’t want to play Notre Dame. Maybe something happened behind the scenes we’ll never know about (because it was a frickin’ CENTURY AGO.) Or maybe he simply didn’t find the Notre Dame fans as charming as we do today.
However, if Yost were, in fact, prejudiced, and you want to hang him in effigy for the next hundred years as you have for the last 100 years, that’s your decision. After all, what place does Christian forgiveness have at a school like Notre Dame?
Just like I’m sure you’d be comfortable with black players remaining angry that Notre Dame and current domers for clear institutionalized prejudice shown them when your school wouldn’t allow them on your team just 50 years ago. That’s half the time since Yost’s alleged transgression against Notre Dame. Certainly you bear responsibility for that just like the Big Ten bears responsibility for Yost.
But why do I think you’d feel that maybe with Notre Dame’s transgressions, it’s all in the past? That you, as Christians, should be forgiven for your transgressions, all the while Michigan and, what the heck, the entire Big Ten, should never be forgiven by Notre Dame, tarnished forever by the black stain on humanity that is Fielding Yost.
LikeLike
It’s quite humorous that members of the Church obsess on Fielding Yost making Knute Rockne cry, instead of pondering less meaningful affairs such as the reasons for the Crusades (that Children’s Crusade was a doozy), the Inquisition, Holocoust-denying Popes, molesting priests et al. History might not want to be a place you want to go……….
LikeLike
I don’t personally have a dog in this ND vs. the Big 10 fight, but I’m not sure it’s the the wisest thing to start throwing in references to “Holocoust-denying Popes” and such in the comments section of a blog by and for those interested in the issue of conference realignment.
LikeLike
@Hopkins: Agreed. Just because it’s a Catholic school doesn’t mean you can toss all this other stuff at their feet.
Calling ND fans crazy for still claiming Yost hurt their feelings a century ago is fine, but the rest is out of bounds. Let’s keep it on topic.
LikeLike
Like Penn State, Michigan State was not in the Big 10 during the years in question. They joined in 1950.
Otherwise, I agree with your point. But asking Notre Dame fans to get over ancient history just isn’t fair. It’s all they have. (Just kidding, domers.)
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification, Paul.
I’ll also add that looking at Michigan’s early football schedule is interesting.
In the 1900’s, Michigan played Wisconsin three times–in 1902, 1903, and 1904. This is the same number of times they played Notre Dame. Then the two teams did not play again until 1921. Was this a snub? Was Fielding Yost anti-dairy? Were Badgers endowed with the same sense of conspiracy as domers, you might think so.
In fact, looking over the period following Michigan’s 1909 loss against Notre Dame shows that in every year through 1920, Michigan played “Michigan Agr,” which I’ll assume is Michigan Agricultural College, later to become Michigan State.
They played no other current Big Ten team nearly as often. They played Ohio State 5 times. Minnesota 3 times. the University of Chicago 3 times. Illinois twice. And Northwestern once.
Even though the Big Ten existed at the time, there was no Wisconsin. No Purdue. No Indiana. No Iowa. Is this evidence of a snub? Certainly it can’t be a simple issue of scheduling what was then a minor diversionary sport.
And how did those schools survive after Michigan tried to “kill” their programs by not scheduling them? The conspiracies abound!
LikeLike
Michigan left the “Big Ten” (actually the “Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives”) from 1907 to 1916, according to Wikipedia. That might explain some of the Badgers absence from the Wolverines schedule in those years.
LikeLike
Josh: An excellent reminder.
However, Michigan still managed to play other Big Ten teams during that stretch. When you look at their schedules during that early eara, it just seems like conference affiliation didn’t mean all that much. Most schools were simply relatively nearby. Playing “Case” in Ohio or Michigan Agricultural College every year was probably just a lot more convenient than a trek out to Madison.
LikeLike
I’ve also read that UM played a vast majority of their games in that era at home. The programs on the schedules then probably got there because many of them didn’t demand a return trip from the Wolverines who were a dominant power in what was then considered the West.
LikeLike
Look at 1915, 16, 17, almost every game is in Ann Arbor.
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/michigan/yearly_results.php?year=1915
I still believe every school should play 6 home, 6 road games.
LikeLike
You are correct. In the 10’s, I count Michigan playing 56 games at home and 26 away.
Maybe not every team had reasonable facilities either. If anyone is familiar with the University of Wisconsin, before they built Camp Randall Stadium, UW supposedly games used to be played on the square between what is now the Historical Society and Memorial Library.
Of course this was an era before even Lindbergh was a student and when Larry King was just 58 years old and on just his third wife.
LikeLike
@ Scott S
1) To summarize the “Big Ten” played ND approximately once a season in the teens, from 1920-40 about twice to 2.5 times a season, and since WWII, it’s been consistent around 3 and a half games a year. As Paul already pointed out, MSU wasn’t in the Big Ten. I don’t have the ND historical schedules in front of me, but IIRC I’d bet the vast majority of those games before the 20s were by what’s now MSU. Also the boycott (led by Yost and UM and Stagg at Chicago) was essentially over before 1924, IIRC.
2. If I were to guess, Michigan not playing other B10 teams was a result of UM leaving the B10 between 1907-1916. That’s right, everyone, Michigan left the Big Ten at one point.
3. Re Yost being a bigot: It’s not just my conclusion. It was Indiana U. Professor and Purdue alum Murray Sperber’s take in _Shake Down the Thunder_, and you can easily come to that conclusion from _Natural Enemies_.
3b. a lot of “Christians” are Anti-Catholic.
4. College football was already in the twenties was one of the big 4 sports. There was nothing minor about it, even if it was focused in the Northeast.
5. ND had its first black monogram winner in 1947. For a predominately Catholic all-Male institution up north I’d say it was ahead of the curve. Fr. Hesburgh was pretty active in the Civil Rights movement.
—–
@ Hopkins Horn and Manifesto
Thanks, but I don’t think it’s gonna work. Clearly ‘shroom’s a bigot. He doesn’t even bother being even close to the facts. What can ya do?
——
I only brought out the Yost crap because I am sick of the general consensus on this board being that ND is paranoid and irrational in regard to joining the Big Ten. Perhaps ND looks at factors other than the immediate bottom line, but that’s to be expected at ND where appearances and public perception matter. Especially since we don’t have legislatures to bail us out.
I just have a hard time believing all these non-UM fans are taking such offense to the Wolverines’ place as ND’s historical villains, and the lore’s treatment of otherwise forgotten Yost as a mustache-twirling Snidley Whiplash. Is this some kind of Big Ten thing?
Here’s some links I found quite interesting:
http://big10mizzou.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-notre-dame-wont-join-big-ten-and.html
Due to its citing of Chicago Tribune and NY Times articles re: the 1999 ND to Big Ten discussion. Lot of good “why Notre Dame does what Notre Dame does” discussion, even if I don’t agree with all of their conclusions.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/332397-10-myths-about-notre-dame-and-the-big-ten
Included mostly for the assertion that ND was trying to get into the Big Ten until the 70s. I can’t find independent verification of that. But, the way I see it, the Western confernence turning ND down all through the tweens and Twenties makes us even for the one public and one private turndown in the last dozen years.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/312365-a-match-made-in-purgatory-notre-dame-the-big-ten
mainly for the discussions of the benefits of national scheduling vs. the disadvantages of Big Ten schedules and this quote: “If it weren’t for the geography of Notre Dame’s campus, being smack dab in the middle of Big Ten country in northern Indiana, the fact is the Irish wouldn’t even be in the discussion for gaining conference membership.”
LikeLike
FWIW,
seems like I saw a history of the Klan and was surprised to find that Indiana was a big deal with the Klan in the early part of the last century. I checked Wikepedia and found this..
“The Ku Klux Klan rose to prominence in Indiana politics and society after World War I. It was made up of native-born, white Protestants of many income and social levels. Nationally, in the 1920s, Indiana was said to have the most powerful Ku Klux Klan.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan
I always though it was a southern thing until I saw the thing on the History Channel. Not getting into a debate about the KKK but looking at it from a historical perspective..
a) ND is in Indiana
b) Youst would have been a product of his time
also from wik..
“the book “Shake Down the Thunder” places principal responsibility for the Big Ten blackballing and boycotting of Notre Dame on Yost, as well as the charge that this was motivated by anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant prejudice common in the early 20th century.”
I am not going back to take a side, but viewed in historical perspective the ND vs Yost thing might have had a bigger issue. I have several family members who served in both theaters in WW II that would not buy a German or Japanese product till the day they died. To me this seems odd, but I did not go through that part of world history.
I bring this up because a poster earlier spoke of distrust between ND and the Big 10. I feel nothing, but that is not to say that those that are older than I may still harbor feelings they can not explain. A child raised in a ND household may have passed this fear / distrust but may not know why. Just an observation that might offer explanation.
LikeLike
Kind of interesting history –
I don´t want to take this off topic too much, but I grew up on the south side of Indianapolis and this topic was always interesting. The KKK was very big in Indiana, although, as far as I´ve read, it was mostly Southern Indiana up to Indianapolis – so I´m not sure if you can relate this to South Bend.
It was obviously a racist group, but it was also somewhat of a political organization at the time. Apparently, it was heavy in conservative, patriotic, protestant talk. So again, I´m not sure where a private Catholic university fits in there. And without any other evidence of this, I think it´s a big reach to think that the KKK played a role in Notre Dame´s feuds or independent status.
That said, it was always kind of interesting, in looking through old high school yearbooks from that time, they actually have pictures of KKK student groups.
LikeLike
http://irelandsown.net/notredame.html
Actually, Michael, it was all over Indiana in the 1920s. The Klan had huge political power in Indiana back then.
Of course, that was partially because it was way less violent than the KKK in the South. Also it ran on a more family-friendly program of patriotic and conservative Protestant values.
The link above is the short version of the story that was expounded upon in Todd Tucker’s _Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan_.
One weekend in the Spring of 1924, the Notre Dame students fought the Klansmen from throughout the Midwest in the streets of South Bend. That fall, the Four Horsemen won the National Title. In the Spring of 1925 the head of the Indiana Klan raped and for all intents and purposes killed a woman. ND goes on to fame and glory, the Klan prez goes to prison, and legions of Hoosiers forget they ever joined the Klan.
LikeLike
1. The point about Michigan not being in the Big Ten from 1907 to 1916 is a good one, also mentioned by Josh. However, the point is that when Michigan stopped playing Notre Dame, (whether because of a sudden bout of anti-Catholicism or not), Michigan wasn’t playing a lot of Big Ten teams either. Whether for different reasons or not, the effect was the same. From 1900-1920, Wisconsin didn’t play Michigan any more than Notre Dame did. The difference is that no one in Wisconsin considered it an attempt to “kill” our football team. No one thought it was because he was anti-Badger.
2. Your conclusions on Yost are a result of a book (Shake Down the Thunder). As I understand it, (I’ve read about half), the author examined a large number of personal letters by Rockne in the archives of Notre Dame. Evidently, Rockne felt Yost wouldn’t schedule games becaus of what Rockne felt was anti-Catholicism. I’m not sure that conclusions of one book based on Rockne’s sentiments is a lot of “proof”, but it could well be true. There was a lot of –isms at that time (racisim, sexism, etc.) Maybe anti-Catholicism was at play here.
On the other hand, Yost did have his teams play Notre Dame and Marquette during the 1900’s. This does not seem to support the conclusion of anti-Catholicism, unless it suddenly developed.
So what else could it be? Why else might he have stopped playing Notre Dame after 1909?
From reading the same “Shake Down the Thunder”, I see that there were a lot of allegations of ND poaching other schools’ players and using ringers. That ND would go into bars, look for people above 200 lbs and if they could sign their name, they’d be enrolled at the school. There was clearly a lot animosity about that, and not just in Michigan. (Again, this isn’t me saying it, it’s from the book you are quoting.)
Whether that played any role in Yost’s anger with Notre Dame, I cannot say. I might be angry if I felt Notre Dame had to cheat to win.
However, it would certainly be in Rockne’s interest (as well as Notre Dame’s) to paint any action by Yost as anti-Catholic as opposed to admitting any sort of questionable behavior on the part of Rockne or Notre Dame. Maybe that’s why you failed to mention it every time you bring up the book.
But who knows the truth? Again—this is a century ago. It’s not germane. Why do domers continually bring it up?
3. As for black players, you feel Notre Dame was “ahead of the curve.” Again, this still another claim that doesn’t hold up. (You can’t just keep making stuff up without actually examining the issue.)
Michigan, that terribly prejudiced institution, had their first black player sixty years before Notre Dame.
Additionally, two black players appear in team photos during the 20’s (during Yost’s time). Blacks were certainly more the exception than the rule, to be sure, but that was true of blacks in universities in general.
The point is, you’re still dwelling on Yost’s supposed anti-Catholicism from 100 years back, yet racisim at Notre Dame just fifty years ago is acceptable because you were “ahead of the curve.”
In fact, Notre Dame’s bias against women is even more recent. The first female was admitted in 1972.
Bringing up Yost as being prejudiced, even if true, is therefore hypocritical.
But for Notre Dame alums, why dwell on your own history of racism and sexism that occurred in our lifetime, when you can dwell on the perceived anti-Catholic action of a single guy at Michigan a hundred years ago? A guy who did, in fact, play Catholic schools and may have had more of an issue with Rockne and his actions than an issue with Catholics.
As for Hesburgh, he served as ND president 1952-1987. That he was involved in civil rights in the 60’s is not germane to the issue of how Notre Dame acted decades earlier.
FLP writes: “I only brought out the Yost crap because I am sick of the general consensus on this board being that ND is paranoid and irrational in regard to joining the Big Ten.”
FLP, bringing up stuff a hundred years ago is precisely what makes domers look paranoid and irrational. You’re using an example of supposed anti-Catholicism of a single guy a century ago. A point that, even if true, is not even slightly germane to the issues before the university in the 21st century.
Bringing this stuff up is, in fact, a demonstration of paranoia, not a defense against the allegation. Can you not see that?
LikeLike
@ Scott S
1. Believe what you want.
2. Well, the rules *were* different back then. Army was considered practically an outlaw program in 1913. Yost tried to recruit Gipp off the ND team. The Carnegie report cited Michigan and Wisconsin with major violations.
Also, Rockne wasn’t Catholic when this all started, and it was a sentiment shared by the priests who ran the school.
Again, believe what you want.
3. Hmmm. OK, looks like the Big Ten was farther ahead of the curve on integration than ND. Then again, the percentage of Black Catholics in the US is low, and I expect that a state school is morally obligated to let in all citizens.
Point of fact: You offer less proof on ND’s racism than I do for Big Ten hostility.
ND’s first black athlete first competed in 1945 and graduated in 1947. The first black football player 1953.
Pitt’s first black football player was in 1945, but the first black basketball player had to wait until 1954. Penn State’s first black gridder was also in 1945. The NFL didn’t fully reintegrate until 1946. The first black IU basketball player was in 1948. Believe it or not, the same guy was the first black player on both the Northwestern and Michigan squads.
The first SEC black football player was in 1967.
Not to mention that Catholicism was never segregated in the US unlike practically all Protestant Denominations.
As far as women go, there’s a strong tradition of single sex education in Catholic schools.
If you want an -ism to attack, try homophobia. Last I checked ND didn’t add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause.
4. The fact that a non-“Michigan Man” makes such a big deal out of this tells me all I need to know about the situation with current Big Ten fans. I think I feel less paranoid and more enlightened.
LikeLike
Frank,
The article at http://bleacherreport.com/articles/357251-david-hill-can-save-the-big-12-and-pac-10 makes a strong and feasible argument for a Western Alliance TV network coalition between a 12 team PAC10 and the current Big XII (Colorado and Utah to PAC10, BYU to Big XII) and Fox College Sports channels. Very feasible.
However Iceman on Orangebloods.com responds with an even better proposal for a new 16 team Western Alliance conference.
“If they want to maximize dollars, they need to start a new conference w/ the following teams:
West Division
* Washington
* Oregon
* Oregon State
* Cal
* Stanford
* USC
* UCLA
* Utah
East Division:
* Texas
* A&M
* Arizona
* Arizona State
* Kansas
* Colorado
* Oklahoma
* Nebraska (if available) or BYU, Tech or OSU”
Is such a realignment even a realistic possibility? I know that the PAC10 has been assumed to be bedrock solid, but so was the ACC until the SEC mentioned that it would develop contingency plans to expand if needed, the likely candidates being FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson. $$$ will become an increasingly dominant motivation behind scheduling and conference affiliation. Even Stanford with all of their endowments has had to cut athletic department staff.
LikeLike
I don’t like Orangeblood’s proposal. Too much change…drops the PAC10’s identity completely.
The bleacher report article is somewhat feasible. There are a lot of huge transitions that need to happen though. A) The PAC10 is able to agree unanimously on CU and Utah. B) The Big 12 is able to maintain all current members (other than swapping out CU for BYU) If they lose 1 to 2 teams up north to Big 10, now their overall value as a league would be diminished. C) They have to agree to terms to a TV deal. THREE HUGE “if’s”!!!
Personally, I think a “non-expansion” route with a TV merger alone might be the easiest. The PAc10 plus the Great 10 (old Big 12 after Big 10 poaching). (Essentially, forgetting about A and B scenario above.) Also, drop individual conference championship games (somewhat less revenue overall) but have a merged “championship game” between the two. Their “champion” would likely have equal clout to that of the SEC.
LikeLike
That’s interesting. Those Fox College Sports channels are definitely underused assets. They look like they were programmed by rhesus monkeys throwing bananas at a wall, what with the WIAC sports coverage and all manner of other randomly-chosen events, some several months after they have been taped. Why wouldn’t Fox want to use them as conference networks like BTN?
LikeLike
I could see a Pac 10-Big XII alliance very easily. There is already a Mountain-Pacific Sports Federation that supports minor sports at those schools. If Nebraska goes to the Big 10 (as I think it will), moving some of the MWC’s stronger schools (BYU, Utah, TCU) and stronger markets (Colorado State) into the Big XII, maybe sliding Colorado and CSU as a matched pair into the Pac 10 could work very well.
LikeLike
Tascosa, with any single PAC TEN team having total veto power over the addition of any new team, I would question the possibility of getting agreement on your proposal so matter how logical it is. Unless. Unless the power members of both conferences abandoned the existing conferences and began an invitation only to the teams you have listed above. That was the way the Big Twelve began. Not an addition to the old Big Eight but a totally new conference by invitation only, which left out the SMU’s and the others who coul not even fill their own stadiums. And I think that is how USC managed to convince the other PAC TEN teams to invite the Arizona schools. By telling the Stanfords thay were leaving and seeing how Stanford felt about that. Might have been a bluff but the Arizona schools are now in the PAC TEN.
LikeLike
Spring Game 2010 attendance for Big Ten and expansion candidates:
Expansion:
Nebraska: 78,000
Texas: 44,000
Notre Dame: 27,000
Rutgers: 20,000
Missouri: 13,000
Kansas: 13,000
Pitt: 6500
Syracuse: 5000
UConn: 2500
BC: 2500
MD: <1000
Big Ten:
OSU: 65,000
PSU: 55,000
Michigan: 35,000
MSU: 30,000
Iowa: 23,000
Wisconsin: 23,000
Illinois: 6,000
Purdue: 5,000
Minnesota: 3,000
NW: NA
Other notables:
Alabama: 91,000
Auburn: 63,000
Florida: 51,000
FSU: 50,000
Georgia: 39,000
Tennessee: 36,000
LikeLike
Hey, what about IU?? We had a spring game!!
LikeLike
1,500, sorry
LikeLike
Sucks to really like college football, and be an IU fan.
LikeLike
My condolences, been there, lived it. Not fun.
LikeLike
shroom,
basketball will return to IU!
LikeLike
rick,
wow.. i think bama’s stadium seats like 91,000 – 92,000 so they were pretty much sold out for their spring practice game!
LikeLike
Bama gave away tickets for free. Even so that is a big number. Ohio State did 95,000+ last year.
LikeLike
A disclaimer about Iowa only having 23k at the spring game. They don’t have a spring game, its an open practice at Kinnick. If they held a real Spring Game, I think they’d draw a much larger crowd, at least bigger than Michigan’s 35k.
LikeLike
Interesting numbers on the spring games. Penn State usually gets more, over 70,000. I wonder if the PSU spring game being televised on ESPN and bad weather had more to do with the dip in attendance this year.
From the look of these numbers, maybe the Big Ten should consider Alabama. Wow, 91,000 for a spring game!!!!
LikeLike
@DavidPSU:
I’m sure the bad weather in Columbus was a big reason for the attendance dip this year. Last year it was sunny and OSU set a record with almost 96k, and that’s with charging for tickets ($5 around town, $10 at gate).
Normally I would be kind of annoyed that they charge for a glorified practice, but OSU donates a portion of the proceeds to local charities so it’s win-win imo.
LikeLike
PSU Spring games 2007-2010
2007: 71,000
2008: 73,000
2009: 76,000
2010: 55,000
LikeLike
@Rick,
Thanks for the spring game attendance history. Why do you think the number dropped so much for the 2010 Blue/white game?
LikeLike
National TV coverage. No other way to explain it, weather was not terrible so I hear although cool and cloudy. From the gopsusports.com website:
“Last Saturday, ESPN2 televised the game live across the nation and the Big Ten Network re-aired the telecast several times. In doing so, Penn State became the first Big Ten school to have its spring game air on the ESPN family of networks. ESPN’s top broadcast team of Brent Musburger, Kirk Herbstreit, former Nittany Lion Matt Millen and Desmond Howard called the game”
LikeLike
In addition to the TV coverage, I think fans might have felt that the team underachieved last year (especially the home losses to Iowa and tOSU) and isn’t a good bet to do much this year. The spring game made it pretty clear that the team is a “work in progress” and I think most fans are resigning themselves to losses to ‘Bama, Iowa, and tOSU. This year isn’t going to be anything special for Nittany Lions fans.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s Spring game was also a big payday. They charged $10.00 per ticket. Add in concessions and parking and it was at least a $1,000,000 gross day. Not bad. BTW: Alabama did not charge (free) for tickets: 91,000 att.
LikeLike
rick,
with 91,000 they would not have to charge as they could make more off concessions / merchandise and still look like the good guys for “free” tickets. Anybody with kids or grandkids knows that “free” is usually expensive.
LikeLike
Random thoughts for this week.
1) I am glad that Rutgers stepped up their attendance for their spring game. I truly think that they are the most anxious to join. After Tagliabue’s comments, I think that they might be “in” already.
2) I still have the love for Nebraska. If Nebraska were to join and Missouri did not, what would the future hold for the Tigers? Would they be coveted by the PAC 10 or SEC? They don’t seem like a great fit for eitehr. Unlike Texas, Missouri seems to be a follower not a leader in this whole process.
3) I still don’t by UConn or Kansas as realistic candidates. It seems like every week, posters throw them back into the mix. I just am not buying it.
4) In my mind, Texas and A&M are out. So are Maryland and BC. So I see the conference adding Rutgers, Nebraska and Pitt. Pitt could be replaced by Syracuse and (obviously) either Rutgers or Pitt could be replaced by Notre Dame. I see Missouri as being behind all of the other teams.
5) I only see the conference going to 16 if they have Nebraska AND Notre Dame. Then throw in Rutgers and 2 of the Missouri-Pitt-Syracuse trio.
6) Is it my imagination or are there an inordinate number of Penn State posters on this board. Does anyone have any hunches why that may be true?
Thanks as always Frank for being thought provoking.
PSD
LikeLike
Seems to me we have 4 strong candidates–RU, Pitt, Mo, and Neb. Problem is with that 5th team, be it U Conn, Syacuse, or Kansas.
U Conn-Smallish (24000), not an AAU member, which is arbitrary but a problem.
Syracuse– Smaller still (19000), private, isolated, the frozen tundra, decrepit Carrier Dome.
Ku-Rated low (#96 US News), smallish (27000?), Does Big 10 want to take 3 teams rated in 90s-102?
That’s why I think the Big 10 goes with 3 right now. Probably RU, Pitt, and Beb/Mo.
LikeLike
shroom,
the dome bothers me, it needs an upgrade or replacement – but syracuse does not have a major corporate HQ in the area..
if anybody knows different, please advise..
thanks
LikeLike
ps..
I forgot PRIVATE as well.. and at least 2.23 % percent of their population is irish or martian..
as they are the green people in the pie chart
LikeLike
It’s probably because PSU fans are the smartest fans on the planet. That’s why their attracted to such an intellectual blog.
Mizzou could be a nice package with Kansas for the Big 10 or PAC10 in the future. St.Louis/KC are decent markets. But if this 16 team mega-conference thing never comes to fruition, then they are somewhat stranded in no man’s land, probably leftovers of the Big 12 after the best assets are taken away to Big 10/PAC10/SEC.
LikeLike
I know I mispeled they’re. Its supposed to be their for humor.
LikeLike
Did you intentionally misspell “misspelled” as well? 🙂
LikeLike
Are you calling me dum?
LikeLike
Penn Stater here, Danny. I think we are well-represented in this discussion because (a) our school is held up as the model for a successful expansion; (b) lots of PSU folks know a lot about the process having been through it 20 years ago, (c) many of us would like a “partner” in the conference, and (d) there are a lot of us (I think there are a lot of tOSU posters on here too).
LikeLike
PSU folks (Mike R, Danny, PSUguy, Allthat, David): how do you folks handicap the expansion candidates?
LikeLike
Rutgers 100%
Notre Dame 90%
Nebraska 50%
Missouri 50%
Texas and Texas A/M 25%
Pitt 25%
Syracuse 10%
Kansas 10%
LikeLike
Just a guess, but here’s my prediction:
Almost-sure things: Nebraska and Rutgers
Sure things if they are willing to come along: Notre Dame, Texas, Texas A&M (as UT’s partner)
Good chance if the league goes to 16: Pitt, Missouri.
Decent chance: Syracuse (Boeheim and most SU folks seem to prefer to stay in an eastern conference).
Longshots: Kansas, UConn, Colorado (clearly in play, anchors a growing market, capable of being an athletic power).
I suspect the Texas/aTm pair stay out in favor of a Western alliance.
My personal preference would to add Nebraska, Kansas and Pitt, and if 16 is needed, go with Rutgers and Missouri.
LikeLike
I see the handicapping same as allthatyoucantleavebehind does. However, my personal preference is to just add one (Nebraska or Pitt) and stop there. I fear that the conference may become diluted academically and loose some of its prestige by a 16 team conference that includes 4 or 5 Big East teams. If the conference has to include more, I would add Rutgers. Fantastic academics, location, and enormous potential. My Rutgers friends are all excited by the potential invite. If it happens, it will electrify the fan base and I can see great things in Rutger’s future.
LikeLike
DavidPSU, I asked Frank this a while back, but got no reply–how did you insert your picture into your post?
LikeLike
@Scott S:
I signed up for a free account at wordpress.com. After I signed up, I uploaded a photo of me from my hard drive. I found that I needed to log out, then log in again for it to take affect.
Since it seems like we have some regulars on here, we should all create accounts and download our photos, or at least the mascot from your favorite college team. Then we can form avater conferences on Frank’s blog!
LikeLike
Test
If this works, I made the posts under “Kyle” with the orange icon.
LikeLike
Being a Penn State alum, I’ll throw in my 2 cents. I like Mike R’s prediction of Nebraska and Rutgers to start, for a third team I’d say either Missouri or Pitt. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. I think Texas is a long shot due to their outlier status (primarily geographically but in other areas too) and I don’t know what to think of Notre Dame. But, as I stated previously, I’m leaning towards the “doing nothing” category, especially for this year.
LikeLike
Well first off let me say I think there are definite “biases” in the movement scenarios…
If there is only one team, its going to be Texas. I don’t care what anyone else says, only Texas provides the triumvirate of athletics/academics/population and I think the Big10 would recognize that. Everyone else fails by some margin and simply doesn’t make it worth while (on a 1 school expansion).
A 3 school expansion I think is possible, but less likely than a 5 school. Reason being you really need 3 schools in the East to make any expansion that way worth while (more on that later) and also to make a relatively clear “East/West” line in the conferences. In this case, I highly expect a Pitt, Rutgers, & UConn/Cuse. UConn/Cuse however COULD be substituted for Neb/Mizzou (in that order) if UConn’s lack of football program or Syracuse’s lack of research drags down its population center weight.
5 schools I think is much more likely than many folks would think, but it is definitely Eastward biased. With that many schools, and the location the Big10 finds itself, you need to hold NYC and make a realistic grab for the New England markets. This is not to say the mid-west is ignored, only its total population makes it a second tiered prize compared to the mentioned NYC/NE markets. I think at least one major football program will be added in the mid-west and 3 schools in Eastern markets. This leaves one “toss up” school.
If Texas/TAMU join up, the Big10 takes 3 of Rutgers/UConn/Cuse without any issues and Pitt/MD possibly replace any of the three above if available. If the Texas schools aren’t involved Neb/Mizzou could easily be swapped, but if the Cuse/UConn/Rutgers are sold as the “required evil to own NYC” I could see one of Neb/Mizzou being swapped out for Pitt on academic/research reasons.
Thing is its really all about what is the goal of expansion. Teams like Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, Neb, Mizzou, Kansas are going to sign themselves up to do just about anything to get in. Teams like MD, Pitt, Rutgers, Texas, TAMU are already Big10 schools in spirit (would that be an interesting 5 school expansion…).
The real problem though is what exactly are the goals of the Big10? Does the Big10 see mid-western or eastward expansion as the future? If eastward, is NYC the be all end all or will a minimum of schools in the area suffice? Will research prove to be a major factor or will less research intensive schools be acceptable? Does a school need to be established NOW or is it acceptable to be working toward being established (or even can it sign itself up to goals it must achieve once it enters the Big10)?
Fact is these are all questions (and more) we will never have the answers to but will be asked forcefully in the Big10 meetings when discussing each of these schools in regards to expansion. To ask to “handicap” any of the stated schools (or any other for that matter) is truly a thankless task because there are simply too many variables the Big10 hasn’t firmed up and that alone means even minor differences between various schools in consideration could mean the difference between 0% & 100%.
Best I can say is, I really think the Big10 will try to expand into the NYC area, grab Texas, and increase its overall research / academic reputation with any/all additions. Other than that…who knows.
LikeLike
@ Penn State Danny
Kansas keeps getting thrown back into the mix because they’re pretty much equivalent to Missouri. The only significant difference between the two schools is that Kansas is a top-5 national power in men’s basketball, while Missouri is the weakest overall athletic program in the Big 12.
Frankly, I’m far more surprised by the fact that Missouri is such a popular choice with Big Ten fans than I am with the fact that Kansas keeps coming up. The Big Ten Network already has St. Louis and Kansas would deliver Kansas City just as effectively as Missouri would, so I don’t really understand why the Big Ten would pass up a marquee basketball program like Kansas in favor of Missouri.
LikeLike
I totally agree Danny. I don’t see why Connecticut and Kansas are getting as much consideration as they are. And BC would be a mistake. They don’t meet the qualifications nearly as well as the other candidates and they have demonstrated that they can not deliver their market. Just look at the interest generated by the Spring football games. Could that be an indicator of market potential? If so, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Rutgers lead the list.
Before reading Frank’s blog, I was one who thought that Notre Dame was a MUST HAVE, simply from a football tradition view. But after reading all the analysis, other posters’ viewpoints, and reading the ND blogs, I now feel that adding them would be a mistake. They simply do not fit culturally. Who wants to listen to ND whiners for the next 100 years?
I have also noticed the amount of Penn State backers on this board. I also agree that the addition of Penn State to the Big Ten was a home run. A great fit culturally, academically, athletically, and location. They deliver more than just the Pennsylvania market, and the stadium is the second largest on campus stadium in the nation. Have you ever witnessed a Penn State white-out? That’s the kind of enthusiasm and dedication the Big Ten needs to look for in expansion candidates. Nebraska definitely fits the bill.
LikeLike
One thing about KU is that they do have a large athletic budget–that’s true of Neb, Mo, Ku less so with RU, Pitt, Syracuse.
LikeLike
Athletic Dept Revenue (fiscal year 08-09)
Nebraska: 75,000
Kansas: 71,000
Missouri: 58,000
Rutgers: 54,000
Syracuse: 52,000
Pitt: 46,000
LikeLike
In millions
LikeLike
The KU and Mo. #s surprise me….bball must be a gold mine for KU.
LikeLike
Unlike most schools, Kansas BB rev equals that of football. Missouri’s BB is 1/3 of football, Nebraska BB is 1/9 of football, Pitt 1/2, Syracuse BB same as football, Rutgers 1/5.
LikeLike
Data by school can be found:
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d31383633383026796561723d32303038267264743d322f32302f323031302031303a34303a303120414d
LikeLike
Interesting numbers Rick. Thanks for posting.
LikeLike
shroom,
it was why i suggested UK to B 10 early on, as their BB numbers excell, and their fan base sells out for crappy football games.
LikeLike
I think part of the reason Pitt is so much lower is that they are still trying to rebuild the fanbase offering discount/undervalued admission prices. it could also be argued that there is a ceiling for Pitt athletic revenue, considering how the market involves competition with the steelers/pirates/penguins. I can’t say what general admission tickets are, but comparing student season ticket prices to Penn State is comical.
Penn State: $218
Pitt: $25
Both had 7 home games. Obviously Pitt is raking in less dough, regardless of stadium capacity.
LikeLike
Penn State AD revenue:
96,000,000. BB is 1/10 of football.
LikeLike
“Who wants to listen to ND whiners for the next 100 years?”
Well said. And I totally agree. ND would be a disaster from a whining standpoint.
LikeLike
Kansas is still in the discussion for the same reason the whole thing is up in the air: Texas.
If Texas says “we’ll only join if 4 other Big 12 teams join,” then that’s going to be the scenario on the table. Otherwise, Kansas wouldn’t be in the discussion as much.
Until Texas is truly off the board, you can’t really foreclose any scenarios.
LikeLike
I’m warming to U Conn somewhat. Their admission standards are high, and U Conn is rated at #66 on US News. Adds a basketball program as good as Syracuse, if not quite at KU’s level. 24000+ enrollment is somewhat biiger than Syracuse. Research $s are about the same as KU (as I recall).
As a midwest guy KU is more mu cup of tea…but U Conn may have more potential. There just aren’t many people out on the Plains.
The AAU business is big to the presidents….but I do think U Conn would be in the AAU within 5 years of joining the Big 10.
LikeLike
I think of UConn as a growth school.
25 years ago they were nothing. But then in the late 1980s UConn found success with their basketball programs, which in turn raised the profile of the school both athletically and academically. 10 years ago UConn was a 1-AA football program averaging <10,000 in attendance. After investing in their football program, the school now averages almost 40,000 per home game and has strung together a series of winning seasons.
The problem with UConn may be that Big Ten expansion is happening too soon for them to be seriously considered. They need more time to make their case and prove that their football and basketball programs are more than one-coach wonders.
LikeLike
As a Kansas fan, I find the UConn vs. KU debate entertaining. Do you know what the common thread is?
Lew Perkins– KU’s current AD and UConn’s former AD.
Perkins is recognized as one of the top AD’s in the country. He built UConn’s b-ball programs up, brought their football program back from the dead, and increased their revenue and attendence numbers dramatically. The reason why UConn is where it is today is because of Perkins.
Let’s take a look at what Perkins has done at Kansas. He made some VERY unpopular decisions regarding seat selection and donations for basketball games. Legacy seat owners had to pay up for market-based prices or get out. People hemmed and hawed, but ultimately his decisions made Kansas one of the most profitable Departments in the country.
The next thing he’s done is show that he’s willing to pay top dollar for coaches. He paid up Mangino after the Orange Bowl, he gave Bill Self the most lucrative contract of all time after the national championship (after T-Boone Pickens pretty much said he’d get him at any price) and he gave Turner Gill a pretty good contract out the gate. The point is, his actions show that he will not be underbid for top talent.
Another thing he’s done is increase donations for facility upgrades. The Fieldhouse has received two multimillion dollar facelifts in the last five years. The athletic dorms are receiving upgrades. The basketball team now has top notch practice facilities. The multimillion dollar football complex and practice fields are the envy of the Big 12– I’d even go as far as to say that their weightroom/ training facility is the best in the nation. They just revealed a new jumbotron for the stadium as well. Recently, they revealed plans for additions to our 54,000 seat stadium (which has been selling out), including luxury boxes, concession upgrades and facade upgrades. The point is, Perkins is VERY good at getting donors to open their wallets and commit to large facility upgrades.
It frustrates me when people think Kansas is small potatoes. The truth is, their athletic department is in better shape than much of the Big 10 in terms of revenue, merchandise sales and profitability. The key to all that has been Perkins and believe me when I say he isn’t going to allow Kansas to be left without a seat after the dust clears.
LikeLike
>>
Another thing he’s done is increase donations for facility upgrades. The Fieldhouse has received two multimillion dollar facelifts in the last five years. The athletic dorms are receiving upgrades. The basketball team now has top notch practice facilities. The multimillion dollar football complex and practice fields are the envy of the Big 12– I’d even go as far as to say that their weightroom/ training facility is the best in the nation. They just revealed a new jumbotron for the stadium as well. Recently, they revealed plans for additions to our 54,000 seat stadium (which has been selling out), including luxury boxes, concession upgrades and facade upgrades. The point is, Perkins is VERY good at getting donors to open their wallets and commit to large facility upgrades.
<<
I don't know if KU's facilities are the envy of the Big 12 nor would I go so far as to say their weight room is best in the nation. They are good, don't get me wrong, but KU is in a conference with Nebraska, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St (and T. Boone's millions). I would wager that KU is completive probably top half of the conference but not leading.
As for Perkins, he has done a nice job with KU. I want to know how his gridiron club idea is going to work out (see link). So far, everything I have heard is that its not working out.
http://www.thewizofodds.com/the_wiz_of_odds/2010/04/equity-seat-rights-take-hold-in-kansas.html
LikeLike
I don’t think many people are docking Kansas for the quality or strength of its athletic department.
Rather, the problem is you have Nebraska to the north which is a much better geographical fit with Iowa/Wisc. and the rest, and it clearly has the football prestige factor.
And then you have Missouri to the Northeast which is similar in terms of the quality of its facilities and academics to Kansas, but it has much larger TV markets.
Those are the two that Kansas is behind on a list of Big Ten scenarios for those reasons. Kansas on its own is a solid candidate but Nebraska and Missouri are ahead in line because they make more sense for the Big Ten right now.
That says nothing about the quality of Kansas though, it’s just hard to see how Kansas would leapfrog either unless some kind of Nebraska/Kansas scenario is worked out…
Kansas makes perfect sense in a Big 16 where the additions are Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas/Texas/A&M.
Other than that though, Kansas is like Boston College. A quality program, but just not on the list because there are others that are closer to the footprint or bring in more targeted markets.
That puts it in a much more desirable place for sure than most of the other Big 12 schools. Kansas has a much better chance of getting the invite than say Iowa State or Oklahoma, but it’s just hard to see Kansas getting in without a big bang 16 move.
LikeLike
When BC is one of the nation’s top 6 programs all time in football or men’s basketball, then BC=KU.
LikeLike
Uh, if we’re going to correctly weight this in terms of football being on a scale of several times more important, then BC’s football program having a better national brand than Kansas’ probably results in a BC = KU kind of match.
I’m not trying to start an argument or anything, but this is not anywhere near as much about basketball as it is about football.
In terms of athletics, expansion is 90% about football and 10% about basketball. Weighing Kansas and BC on that kind of scale, I could probably say they’re even.
In any case, even if Kansas gets the edge they both suffer from the same proximity and market issues since the Big Ten is likely to go after NYC/NJ to the east or Missouri’s markets in the West.
LikeLike
Just for the record, I don’t hate KU. I would love to see a two east three west expansion of Neb, Mizz, KU, Rutgers, and Syracuse/Pitt.
LikeLike
@Mike: I’m fairly confident that the football complex they built a few years back is the top in the Big 12, but I think it’s very fair to say that as a whole, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have better football facilities overall. The reason being is the quality of Memorial stadium and the athlete villages that other schools have. I’d put it like this– KU has one really nice house and a few shabby ones, but other programs have nice houses overall. Our WR, Bradley McDougald (who was committed to Ohio State), said KU’s weight room and training/rehab facilities were better than tOSU’s.
I agree that the Gridiron Club has hit the wall a bit. Some of my marketing friends in the Department said that the donors got cold feet because they pitched it during a recession and a very poor football year (capped off with Mangino geting fired in a coaching scandal). From what I’ve heard, they’re going to go forward with construction once they reach cost, which is a fraction of the amount of revenue they’d get by selling all the 5,10 or 30 year mortgages.
zeek– If I were in the Big 10’s shoes, I’d take Nebraska in a heart beat over Kansas or Missouri.
With KU vs. MU, you’re getting nearly identical products academically. But the TV markets favor Kansas; St. Louis already has the BTN and KC is a KU town (70k+ KU alums to MU’s 21k alums). You’re also getting one of the most valuable basketball brands in the country (KU) vs. a marginally better football brand (MU).
If it really is about money; you have to rank them NU, KU and then MU. Geography takes a back seat to tv markets.
LikeLike
I’ve brought up KU a couple of times and still like them very much. They are one of the six best programs in the history of men’s basketball, and that will provide a lot of great matchups with the Big 10 and not incidentally popular programming for the BTN.
Not sold on UConn. A bit far from the footprint, and not AAU. In some ways, I think it makes sense for the Big 10 to “start” where the Ivy League ends (PSU is just slightly to the west of Ithaca, NY).
I haven’t been a supporter of 16, but I think it may be necessary in order to end the uncertainty surrounding Notre Dame. Since I think it is in the best interests of ND and the Big 10 to be neighbors but not roommates (thank you, NDRox), this is a discussion that we bring to a mutually respectful close.
LikeLike
I’ve posted elsewhere that UConn has done a lot in the past 20 years (surprisingly) to make it very much a Big10 school “in spirit”. Kansas on the other hand hasn’t done much in the past 100 years to do the same. Not to say Kansas is a bad school, but merely UConn seems to be an ambitious public land grant university that could leverage the Big10 status to propel itself to be the “The University of New England”. Kansas seems more than happy playing sports in the Big12.
If UConn’s interviews confirm this is the intended goal of the university (to become “the” public university of New England) I think its a very solid addition to the Big10 (obviously as a growth school).
LikeLike
That has been their intended goal since then Gov. John Rowland pumped massive state funds into infra-structure and the administration heavily incentivized the top 5% of CT HS grads to go there with attractive financial aid grants over the last 10-15 years. In addition, Lew Perkins (now at Kansas) the AD was given a green light to totally upgrade athletics. Their path and message is clear to all of us in CT and New England.
LikeLike
I whole-heartedly disagree.
Kansas is VERY serious about becoming a prestigeous research university. Its nickname is ‘the Harvard on the Kaw’ (the Kaw is a river). They have a top 25 business school, a top 3 pharmacy school, a law school, a medical school and several very good engineering programs (including EECS, ArchE, AeroE and BioMechE).
A good way to see KU’s strategic direction is to look at their most recent hire. KU’s new Chancellor is Bernadette Gray-Little. She was UNC’s former #2 and was widely considered a hot commodity before accepting her position at Kansas. The Board of Regents are very serious about investing in top-dollar research-oriented leadership.
LikeLike
That’s awesome to hear….really cause now it only makes the arguments over which school is better the more interesting!
Nothing against KS in my original post, and I admit to having more of a “numbers” based view of the UConn/KS schools.
For example: ARWU ranking wise UConn is much higher. Research wise the two are even. State population wise both are even, but unlike KS, who has numerous large public universities surrounding it to attract the local talent, UConn is pretty much the only game in town from New York through New England if a student wants to go to a large(er) public university.
Again, I think if UConn is a candidate, Kansas needs to be considered as well. I just see UConn being a better pick as it is stronger in those few categories where the two schools are different.
LikeLike
@ PSUGuy
“I just see UConn being a better pick as it is stronger in those few categories where the two schools are different.”
Except AAU membership, of course. Kansas has been an AAU member since 1909, while UConn still isn’t a member.
LikeLike
@Drake Tungsten – UCONN has pretty good academic credentials despite not being an AAU member. However, the youth of its football program at the FBS level is its likely downfall as a Big Ten candidate. I just can’t see the Big Ten adding a FBS program that began in 2000 and has only been playing in the BCS since 2004. This is a pretty tradition-rich league. One of the commenters was correct about UCONN – it’s just too early to invite them. I think they’ve got a great football future and unquestioned basketball credentials, but its football program needs more time to develop.
LikeLike
@drake/Frank
No argument on any of those points. I’m just taking the “looking to the future” comments to their logical conclusions.
Facts are that while mid-western universities have rich athletic and academic tradition they have quickly been caught on both accounts by numerous other schools in the nation. This is no knock on the mid-westerners, its simply an impressive feat by those new comers to the table.
But if we (or the Big10) admit that currently a new school is pretty much the equal of one of those older schools, and those new schools have pretty much done it all in the past couple decades, its makes one really wonder what those new schools could achieve if given the resources inherent to admittance to the Big10.
Right now, I just see Neb/Mizzou/KS as good schools who place value on athletics and research (in that order), but are relatively comfortable where they are (despite the numerous example of improvement mentioned on Frank’s blog). UConn on the other hand went from almost a poor man’s college in a small New England state to being the equal of the above mentioned states in just over 20 years.
While I understand the Big10 is a tradition based conference (read that as pretty conservative) and UConn probably doesn’t get an invite on that basis alone, I can’t help but wonder if this won’t be a “school that was overlooked” a couple decades down the road.
LikeLike
Big Ten expansion makes the Big Ten the best basketball conference. Interesting read.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/11033/big-ten-expansion-making-college-hoops-weird
LikeLike
To me, the most likely senerios are RU-Pitt-Mo or RU-Pitt-Neb, neither of which does a lot for basketball.
LikeLike
Interesting to see how the basketball conference stacks up after various expansion scenarios. So much attention has been focused on football, academics and location!
LikeLike
Missouri, elite? Buaahahahaha. They don’t even have a Final Four or a Big 12 regular season title.
LikeLike
Only since you asked…
My percentages on what I think will happen (not what should happen).
By June 30 of this year:
Percentage chance of a 1 team expansion: 25
Percentage chance of a 3 team expansion: 45
Percentage chance of a 5 team expansion: 15
Percentage chance of no expansion: 10
Percentage chance of any other # of teams: 5
If a 1 team expansion:
Percentage chance of:
Nebraska 35
Notre Dame 20
Rutgers 15
Pitt 5
Syracuse 5
Missouri 5
UConn 3
Texas 10
A & M 1
Anyone else 1
If a 3 team expansion:
Percentage chance of:
Nebraska 60
Notre Dame 40
Rutgers 80
Pitt 30
Syracuse 20
Missouri 20
UConn 10
Texas 20
A and M 15
Anyone else 5
I don’t feel like doing a 5 team scenario where my percentages have to add up to 500 percent!
LikeLike
Pardon the interruption, I need to do a test post…
============
format
*********
and stuff
###########
LikeLike
Frank,
Is there anyway you can insert polls into this website? I think it would be interesting to find a consensus from the fans of each of the schools currently in the Big 10. For example, Illinois fans would make their choices, Wisconsin fans theirs, etc. Might give us an idea of how likely each expansion candidate is to receive the 8 votes it needs.
Maybe it could even be part of a post where we first summarize all the numbers and stats that we have so far on each candidate.
LikeLike
Great idea, we all have seen polls imbedded in blogs all over the place. Does WordPress have such an app for this blog?
Poll options:
1 team
3 team
5 team
0 team
Candidates;
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Colorado
Texas
TAM
Notre Dame
Pitt
Syracuse
Rutgers
UConn
Maryland
BC
LikeLike
We should probably leave Maryland and Texas out at this point. We´re not sure they´re options, and, if they are, the consensus is probably about unanimous. Just leave a note to the side explaining why they were left out.
I like the two part poll idea. It would require a more complicated app though. We could probably get creative on how it´s set up.
LikeLike
When voting in the poll, remember to “think like a university president, not a fan”!
LikeLike
should i be drinking wine and not beer?
LikeLike
I like the poll idea. We are all very knowledgeable about all the factors involved, such as academic rankings, athletic histories, geography, cable rates and access — I bet we would all make an overall decision close to what may actually happen!
LikeLike
Question for Patrick on his $ analysis–Finally got to looking that over in detail…aren’t you assuming .36 per month for every available family in the new markets? If so, doesn’t that contradict what you said about the present BTN–available to 75M homes, but only 26M homes presently subscribe?
LikeLike
Could a 24-team, coast to coast Great AAU Alliance be in the offing? Maybe even a Triple Alliance (or equivalent) of the top 72 programs that could easily go independent and thus hold great leverage in NCAA matters? Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman’s recent comments keep resonating in my head:
“I don’t think anyone can dismiss anything out of hand,” he said. “If you take the wildest predictions about mega-conferences – 16 is the number you see most, but 24 has been floated though not publicly…”
The P10 has 7 AAU schools and the B12 has 6. Has TX suggested taking these in an alliance with the B11+1? AAU West conference would have divisions of:
WA, OR, Stan, Cal, UCLA, USC
AZ, CO, NE, MO, TX, aTm
(Goes against what I’ve been arguing, but more on that later. Perhaps swap KS for MO.)
B10+ would add either ND or Rut to get to 12, minimizing the in-house disruption of expansion. Maximizes the potential for the BTN, morphing it into a national channel with national rate options. The best of both worlds for the B10+, they get the cohesion and simplicity of a 12-team conference but the financial windfall of expanding the BTN to a 24-school alliance, nearly doubling the BTN’s market size. Keeps scheduling simple and flexible at just 8 conference games if desired, leaving room for OOC rivalries.
This also would create the template for consolidation into 72 total teams in three 24-school alliances (or equivalent) that can break away from the NCAA if desired. Would be a clear majority of BCS schools, controlling those votes. Consolidation could result in as few as 3 alliance TV contracts, which could maximize revenue through efficiencies and reduced competition, though the format could also accommodate up to 6 contracts if a conference felt there was more value in negotiating on its own.
==========
How would the SEC react? Since the Great AAU is really about the BTN and reorganizing the west, and thus a more virtual rather than actual expansion, perhaps the SEC stands pat. Perhaps ESPN isn’t willing to renegotiate sufficiently to make expansion worthwhile, or not enough ACC targets are willing to flip to the SEC.
That might produce Scenario One: The SEC simply invite the ACC (or another 12-team conference) into an alliance while keeping TV contracts separate (and the SEC’s untouched.)
In that case the BEast football schools probably expand to 12 while the west leftovers form their own 12. This could be pushed along if the GAAUA, SEC, and ACC agree that the next BCS agreement will only give AQ status to conferences with 12 or more members. The west (W12) might shake out as:
WSU, OR St, ASU, UNLV, Fresno St, San Diego St
Boise, Utah, BYU, TTech, TCU, and UHou
(San Diego St and (to a lesser extent) Fresno, are primarily to keep a game each year in/near SoCal for the old P10 schools’ recruiting and for as big a fig leaf as possible to claim some CA market penetration.)
BEast east might look like:
Syr, CT, PItt, WV, S. FL, ND (or Rut)
Lou, Cin, KS (or MO), OU, OK St, and Baylor (TX figleaf for TV and recruiting.)
W12 and BE12 might get the best TV deal by becoming an alliance to negotiate a single contract. Wouldn’t be stellar revenue, but that alliance still hits a lot of population across the country with several strong programs, fan bases, and markets. Might be in the GAAUA’s interest to broker such a mirror alliance concurrently, to head off what could be a substantial political firestorm that could derail the merger of the top of the P10 and B12. Get these top 72 programs into 3 super alliances before the P10, ACC, and B12 TV negotiations and they’ve got a chance to wring out more overall money, while providing leverage over the NCAA with the credible threat that such a format can be easily unplugged and ready to go independent. Possibly would also be in the GAAUA’s interest to agree to play one game each year with the mirror conferences/alliance, though set it up to keep rivalries and the most marketable TV matchups than any attempt at a rotation. Perhaps even assist them in starting up their own alliance cable network, if the GAAUA’s deems that in their best interest (a big if, strong arguments for and against such.)
Sticking to the 12-team format maximizes scheduling flexibility. The triple alliance also sets up for a fan pleasing virtual playoff using the bowls when the next BCS negotiations occur. GAAUA’s championship is the Rose, SEC meets ACC in the Sugar, The National Alliance matches the W12 and BE12 in the Orange, while two wildcards meet in the Fiesta. Or if the W12 and BE12 don’t create an alliance, they go to the Fiesta and Orange to play wildcards. Winners play out the semifinals on the campuses of the 2 highest ranked winners, with the title game at either the JerryCotton or a rotation of the BCS bowl sites. Of course the BCS could also include as many other bowls as they like, though those would be separate from the playoffs. Counting conference championship games, that’s a 12-14 team playoff every year, about as good as you can get. Leave a token provision for a non-AQ conference winner like Pissant State if the post-champ games BCS has them ranked in the top 2 of potential wildcards.
==========
Scenario Two: The SEC responds to the GAAUA’s formation by creating a 12-team SEC2 for a Southeastern Alliance (SEA.) For example, an SEC2 of:
KS, OU, OK St, TT, TCU, UH
Mia, FSU, GT, Clem, Lou, WV
Doesn’t mess with the current SEC, New Coke champ game winner meets The Real Thing champ in the Sugar Bowl. If not profitable enough to renegotiate the current contracts as an alliance, that grouping should still probably produce enough $ to beat the current B12 and ACC payouts and can be negotiated as an independent SEC2.
This setup would probably result in a weaker W12 of:
WSU, OR St, Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, ASU
Boise, Utah, BYU, CSU, Baylor, and KSU (or ISU, NM, or similar.)
ACC would end up with:
North – BC, CT, Syr, Pitt, MD, ND (or Rut)
South – VT, VA, Wake, Duke, NC, NC St
If GT and Mia don’t want to leave the SEC, then perhaps Pitt and CT (or even ND) join the SEC2 instead.
The idea being that if they are all looking at expansion that could be an evolving mess for years, how about coordinating now, get it over with and to the end game, and ultimately increase TV money? How hard can cat herding be?
==========
Back to the GAAUA (yes, they’ll surely get a better name and acronym, but it serves the purpose of this post.) As noted earlier, it is in the interest of all proposed members to set up a concurrent mirror alliance or conference for the left-behind schools and their legislative backers. A mirror conference to the GAAUA also serves UT interests to protect TTech and raise the profile of UH, in order to convince the state legislature to allow UT more exclusivity. The more attractive they are, the easier to use them as an overflow and get the Top 10% rule modified.
That reduces UT’s interest in bringing TT (and perhaps UH) along, and keeping an 8-game conference schedule reduces UT’s need to bring along OU. There would still be the risk of OU in an SEC2 gaining a recruiting advantage. OTOH, as someone else noted, it might be wise to sequester the Sooners in the SEC family and let all those cheaters knock themselves out, so only one of them emerges for the Final Four. (Though wildcards weaken that theory a bit.)
There’s still the matter of UT and aTm losing a lot of power by entering into such a large alliance, or even a 12-school conference, as only a duo. That is why I can’t see a B16 or P16 where UT only brings along aTm. However, the lure of a pure AAU alliance and coast to coast monster, plus a possible 72-school end game that says goodbye to the NCAA (no more Muschamp Visit Rule or 85-man roster limits?) may be enough to overcome that. Similarly, that might also override UT’s preference for staying in a local/regional division.
It would also be very difficult for P10 members to betray and dump some of their longstanding members. A national all-AAU conference may be the only thing alluring enough for the top of the P10 to leave.
Finally, Rutgers vs. ND for the B10+’s 12th spot. Creating a 72-school Triple Alliance that can easily be walled off or unplugged is certainly the seismic shift the Irish fear could force them into a conference. Of course ND would bring in more money for the alliance than Rutgers, but would that be enough for the B11 and GAAUA? Rutgers would provide a foothold in the giant and influential NYC market, home base of the media (ask the P10 how eastern interest/disinterest affects the Heisman race and national rankings.) Especially with all the marquee teams and interest a coast to coast GAAUA that would be unsurpassed could bring. In a pro town with no major local football school inside the city and a diverse population from nationwide, the synergy of a 24-team alliance with a third or more of the top 25 teams might be as big a draw as ND itself. Even more if the east and west had every team play a game against the other conference, focusing on attractive matchups instead of a rotational basis. Every year the Meadowlands and/or Yankee Stadium should be hosting Rutgers vs. USC, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. Plus “From NY to LA” is catchier than “From State College to LA.”
Additionally, UT and the western schools (besides USC) may be more interested in having every school as AAU, rather than a GAAU* Allaince. Truth in advertising and all that, they come from the P10 and B12, not the P9 and B11. Further, is the extra money worth the chance that ND in the best alliance could revive their cherrypicking of recruits in TX, CA, and elsewhere?
Lots of the above could be tweaked or quibbled with, substitute a few schools here an there, but the 24-team alliance is a feasible format for the end game. Here’s to the Great AAU Alliance!
LikeLike
Our host, Frank, interviewed on a Penn St. blog.
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2010/04/28/were-talking-expansion-with-frank-the-tank/
LikeLike
I do apologize for the inconvenience but the url has been moved to
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2010/04/29/were-talking-expansion-with-frank-the-tank
LikeLike
Sorry, Charlie, the link still doesn’t work.
LikeLike
Frank,
If you were on the Penn State blog, did you get a backup copy you can post here?
LikeLike
Weird. The preview comes up in the snapshot, but when I go to the link it says 404-not found.
LikeLike
i got the same thing, went to the home page.. could not find a link to click on..
LikeLike
+3
LikeLike
Part 2 of our host’s interview. I hope the URL doesn’t move.
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2010/04/30/talking-expansion-with-frank-the-tank-pt-2/
>>
What’s really been incredible is how there’s now a large group regular commenters on the blog. If there’s one thing that I’m proud of, it’s that the blog has stimulated a lot of great insightful discussions from people all across the country and representing virtually every expansion candidate school. I get a bigger kick out of reading all of those comments than actually writing the blog posts themselves.
<<
LikeLike
Nice article Frank!
LikeLike
I recently tried explaining college conference expansion to a friend who does not follow such things. After I finished explaining how universities are aligned into like-minded entities, and what the potential expansion scenarios could be, I found my friend’s view interesting. He compared the Big Ten and SEC, conferences with equal revenue sharing, to being socialist. Then he compared the Big Twelve to being capitalist. In the current fragile economy, I found that to be an interesting analogy, especially since it looks like the “capitalistic” conference is the one most likely to fall apart. The Big Ten (socialistic, and sharing wealth equally) is the strongest and not very likely to loose a member.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that I’d go too deep into a capitalist vs. socialist analogy on this, as I would argue that the Big XII, in an area with much fewer “natural resources” (i.e. population) than the Big 10, has only been able to survive, and even thrive disproportionately relative to its population base, as long as it has due to its capitalistic structure. If it had adopted a socialist model, the Big XII might have already failed, as its most important member would quite likely have departed for greener pastures.
LikeLike
This is the sort of thinking that lead to baseball being supplanted by the NFL. OSU is not really competing with Purdue; they are competing against people playing tennis or going to the movies (or watching another conference). A stronger Purdue (or Indiana or Iowa) helps everyone.
I wonder what would have happened if the Big Eight insisted on equal revenue sharing. Would Texas have stuck with the Big XII? Go independent? SEC? Personally, I think they would have joined and the conference would have been much stronger.
LikeLike
@DavidPSU – About twenty years ago had the opportunity to hear Herb Kelleher address Southwest Airlines employees about corporate philosophy on socialism versus capitalism. He generalized that we should look at ourselves as capitalist in our dealings with other airlines (i.e. treat them as competitors). However, in our dealings with other employees or departments inside the company, we should be socialist or even communist (i.e. we should all work together for the common good). Do have to say that that Southwest Airlines (like the Big Ten conference) has risen pretty substantially in power and influence in the last twenty years. Now do have to point out that corporate philosophy can be overvalued (every company gives “working together” at least some lip service). However, equal revenue sharing is really a way of putting this sort of philosophy into action for the Big Ten, a way of demonstrating that all member schools are in this together. Further, if you look at schools like Notre Dame and Texas, they are not accustomed to operating in this sort of a cooperative conference structure but are instead used to calling the shots. Not to preclude anything, but that’s part of the reason I would be surprised if either actually joins at the end of the Big Ten’s current mating dance/ expansion round.
LikeLike
I agree that it would be a “surprise” if Notre Dame or Texas join, but Delaney always aims to shock people.
People keep saying “yeah yeah, we want to build the conference of the next 20-30 years” and then they say “let’s take Rutgers/Conn/Syracuse.” Surely the two are not really compatible.
None of those schools is going to propel the Big Ten forward over the next 20-30 years.
There are only 3 schools with the power to do that and they are Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska.
Delaney is always thinking out of the box, think the Penn State expansion as well as the Big Ten Network.
Surely, he has bigger plans than to “settle” for an Eastern expansion with no guarantee of the NYC markets.
Making the Big Ten a truly national conference by bringing in Nebraska and Texas would secure the Big Ten’s future as the nation’s pre-eminent conference.
That’s Delaney’s dream. Maybe it won’t happen, but if there’s anyone you’d want leading the Big Ten into expansion, it’s him.
If the Big Ten adds Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt or Rutgers/Syracuse/Conn, people will talk about it for one day, and then they’ll go back to talking about the SEC.
If you really want to settle the discussion once and for all about which is the strongest conference in the land, you go for an inside straight and land Texas and Nebraska in a move to 14 and then go for Notre Dame for 16.
That has to be Delaney’s scenario for expansion. He’s not going to expand for the sake of expanding as some people are suggesting. He’s going for the prize, to make the Big Ten the true national conference.
Penn State already covers the northeast better than any of the suggested northeast teams other than Boston College’s hold on Boston and Maryland’s hold on the D.C. markets.
Maryland, Rutgers, and maybe Pitt make some sense in the east, but there’s no real reason to take more than 1 in a move to 14 or a maximum of 2 in a move to 16.
Delaney will not expand the Big Ten unless it is to become a national conference. Thus, we may end up waiting a while longer for this to play out…
LikeLike
@zeek
Speaking as a PSU fan I really have to disagree. While PSU does have a large alumni base and it does spread across the mid-atlantic/NE, the fact is other universities & colleges outnumber us in their home markets. When PSU schedules Rutgers in an OOC game it is essentially a PSU home game, but the only way to guarantee PSU plays Rutgers(et al) every year (as OOC games are never static) is to have them in the same conference. Point being, while I understand and agree that none of the eastern schools mentioned for expansion are national, they do allow current “national” Big10 schools access to markets otherwise limited to them.
See above for my other opinions on national brand appeal and expansion.
LikeLike
There’s more than a decent number of PSU graduates in California.
LikeLike
@zeek, to carry the Southwest Airlines analogy a little further, their growth twenty years ago was predicated on serving short point-to-point routes in markets that the major airlines didn’t really want. Southwest grew into the huge company it is today by gradually and patiently developing routes like Dallas-Amarillo, Houston-El Paso etc. that the major airlines (of the time) disdained to serve. That’s great for the Big Ten if Texas and Notre Dame want to jump on board, but I’m telling you that schools like UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pittsburgh with major population centers can be a perfect launching pad to achieve major Big Ten goals twenty or thirty years in the future. That applies no matter how “BLAH” their football programs appear to the average fan now.
LikeLike
Are we sure that the analogy really applies here? Yes, every school in the discussion has a monopoly on its local market, but the Big Ten only has a fixed number of slots if you think more than 16 teams is unwieldy. Thus, there are possibly only 5 remaining slots for the Big Ten to fill.
Once you put a team in each of the 5 slots, you’ve maxed out the conference unless you start debating superconferences, but those seem to be way off the table and may never make sense.
Thus, every one of the final 5 slots represents an opportunity. The right mix of 5 ensures that the Big Ten becomes a national conference for the next 20-30 years. The wrong mix of 5 ensures that the Big Ten stays a Northeast-Midwest regional conference for the next 20-30 years.
Also, these invites are nearly irrevocable. We’re going to be inviting 1, 3, or 5 teams to join and then if the teams never pan out, we’ll have bottom feeders that aren’t doing anything, and even if they bring their home markets; the purpose of this expansion is not to add that kind of team.
We’re looking for synergy that would create games that would compel people in the home markets and outside of the home markets to watch the Big Ten.
Even if you have a team with a big following in its local market for football (as all of these seem to have), we want the teams that will increase viewership across the Big Ten footprint and outside of it with every game they play.
Your point would be perfectly applicable if we didn’t think 16 was the ceiling. But if you do think 16 is the ceiling, then we want to run as far away from the Southwest analogy as possible. Cultivating 5 “smaller routes” would work if we knew we could add some more smaller and even larger routes later.
But the fact is that we should think in a more limited sense.
If I tell you the Big Ten will only have a maximum of 16 teams in 30 years. What 5 additions would maximize the Big Ten’s image/$/prestige/national following, over those 30 years?
Rutgers is the one school in the East that is getting some national attention for its football program and may end up creating enough synergy to become a valuable member of the Big Ten. The fact that it is in an area with a lot of Big Ten alumni would also help the bigger and smaller schools with their draws in those markets.
I agree with what M is saying but both MLB and the NFL are national monopolies.
Here we have the Big Ten and the SEC going for national domination in terms of being the premier sports conferences.
Both of them are using the same “all for one, and one for all approach” and so it will be the one that brings the biggest markets and the most national teams that ends up as the most prestigious conference.
LikeLike
@zeek, If there is a magic number in the Big Ten conference size debate, that number is 12 (not 16). Once you get past 12, the number 16 would represent a convenient stopping point on the way to 24 (think 2 times 12). If your conference size falls somewhere between 12 and 16, THAT is an unwieldy number. Although am not really sure why a currently successful Big Ten Conference with 11 members should get hung up on specific numbers anyway…
LikeLike
@zeek
You allude to a very important point regarding what exactly makes a national brand a national brand?
For almost any school, its football program alone does not make it a national brand. I don’t care how successful PSU has been over the past 50 years, I just don’t see folks in California, Nevada, etc tuning in and caring about them. Maybe they’ll watch because they want to see a good product, given, but it won’t be the “rabid fanbase” that the term national program tends to speak to.
To me one thing, and one thing only, speaks to national brand appeal and that is graduates. How many folks has a school pumped out and where do those folks live? Indiana hasn’t had a football team of worth for as far as I can remember, yet they still draw ratings and have worth to the Big10 because they have a larg university system that produces large amounts of graduates who, no matter the level of play, are going to root for their school. I don’t care about basketball in general, and PSU stinks at it, but I still root for them and would watch them (maybe) if put on tv. Notice the other big time programs. Most of them are large universities as well and even when they have down periods they still get press. As I’ve mentioned before, Nebraska really has been mediocre for the past decade, yet still folks consider them a national brand. Mostly due to the fact many mid-westerners go to that school, then get jobs else-where in the country.
Coming back though, what forces large numbers of people to attend school X over school Y? I can assure you the PSU football program had nothing to do with my decision to attend. PSU’s rankings in Engineering did. High academics not only makes the conference look good, its also very good for their balance sheets because it creates a never-ending pipeline of new recruits to move across the nation and make it “Big10 Country”. Rooting for a school’s athletic programs is one thing, but I still need a job come Monday and going to a bad school isn’t going to get me one.
Long story short (too late), I really think focusing on national brand appeal via football might be short sighted, at least as far as ranking potential Big10 members, when it comes to projecting how far “Big10 Country” extends. Sure Nebraska may beat out Rutgers in athletics, but I have to believe 20 years from now Rutgers will still be one of the top universities in the nation and will be pumping out graduates to reflect that staus, while Nebraska is watching as more schools get better academically in the mid-west (and they have been already) and fewer and fewer kids come into their system for education because the difference between it, and school X down the street is not nearly so different…if only because that is what those schools “just seem to do” (mind you I think that attitude changes if they are invited to the Big10 and it “suggests” they upgrade their academic standing).
I know some here have been discounting academics (and I know zeek you’re not one of them), but I think I just hit on a very simple truth that might make possible schools unacceptable in very quantifiable terms (aka $$$).
If you don’t have academics, you don’t attract incoming students. Don’t have students you have no graduates and without graduates you have no markets to sell to ABC/ESPN/BTN.
LikeLike
@Ron
IMHO 14 isn’t actually that unwieldy a number.
2 Divisions of 7
6 Games for divisional play. 1 Cross division “rivalry game”, 4 OOC games.
The only problem is you immediately lose the ability to play anyone other than your division and your rival and I think that will be a sticking point with the western schools if they can’t schedule OSU, UoM, PSU on a regular basis.
LikeLike
Actually, I see the limit as 20 (maaaybe 22), not 24, at least while we still have only 12 regular season games. A 24-team conference means at least 11 conference games and a championship game. A 20 team conference (with pods, I would say) means a 9-game conference slate.
LikeLike
Zeek, I think you have to add Maryland and A&M to the UT, ND and Nebraska group. And I´m still more skeptical than you about ND´s value.
LikeLike
I’ve actually been coming around to Maryland a lot more of late. The only reason I don’t mention it in the discussion is that there’s no positive indication that they want to leave the ACC and there’s been some negative hints.
When you look at what Nebraska’s chancellor/president has been saying, you notice immediately that he’s dotting all his i’s and crossing all his t’s, etc.
But yea, objectively, Maryland does the best job of any of the Northeast contenders of bringing along its home state markets, and it’s ties to D.C. are strong.
Combine that with strong academics and stellar research capability due to its huge grants from federal departments which work very closely with it, and it’s a no brainer for expansion.
Heck, Maryland probably provides the single biggest boost to the CIC of any school in the debate at all.
If the Big Ten needs to take two in the east, the strongest two are probably Maryland and Rutgers. We know Rutgers is interested, is Maryland at all?
LikeLike
@zeek:
“I don’t mention it in the discussion is that there’s no positive indication that they want to leave the ACC and there’s been some negative hints.”
Have you seen any positive indications from ND or Texas let alone aTm? For that matter, other than Missouri and Nebraska (albeit softly), nobody has said anything positive.
LikeLike
Everyone seems to think Rutgers is a lock to join the B10. I went to the history portion of their athletic website and was surprised to learn they played the first intercollegiate football game in the country when they defeated Princeton in 1869. That apparently
is also the high water mark of Rutgers football. Talk about adding a team that will be accepted with a great big thud.
LikeLike
Comments of the U Memphis AD today would lead me to think that Rutgers, Pitt, amd Missouri may be invited and also, that if I were JD, I wouldn’t talk to the U Memphis AD.
LikeLike
That would really water down the brand.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – That completely academically-focused people might like that move, but I don’t think the athletic side would be very happy. Switching out one of those schools for Nebraska would make it look a whole lot different.
LikeLike
I agree, but I think that’s the way it’s going. The Memhpis AD appeared to be well-connected, if not discrete. He said the Big 10 was targeting the KC market, and that the league was otherwise looking to the east, with academics playing a big role. That seems to say RU, Pitt, and Mo. I too find it hard to believe they’d leave Nebraska on the table, but I’ve yet to see any AD/journalist types with contacts mention that those contacts were targeting Neb.
I would serious consider taking 4 and stopping…hey 11 wasn’t so bad, was it?
Hey Frank, did you see my question above about Patrick’s #s?
Specifically, the $ from new cable subscriptions? It looks to me that he is including .36/month for every new tv set in the target markets, but not every set would get the BTN>>>>>>
LikeLike
God: do you have a link to those comments? I would be interested to read them.
LikeLike
Not good at links, but is discussed on Pitt’s football rivals forum yesterday.
LikeLike
email the link to the page to your email. Then copy and paste link to your post comment.
LikeLike
Here is a summary
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=433045
LikeLike
Isn’t this interesting….from God’s reference and Mike’s link:
He said Delany told him directly that the B10’s expansion plans, while not including Memphis, of course, “will benefit Memphis.”
Memphis hired Mike Trangese (BE fame) and is actively pursuing a Big East invite.
LikeLike
Other tidbits:
Main points:
1. He thinks the B10 is going to 14 or 16, with or without ND.
2. He said expansion is about TV money, but the presidents are very involved in ensuring that academics are a factor, too.
3. He said Delany told him directly that the B10’s expansion plans, while not including Memphis, of course, “will benefit Memphis.”
4. He directly asked the ADs at UCLA and Stanford their views on expansion. One was for, and one was against (he would not say which was which).
5. He affirmatively says the B10 is “going east,” and also hints that they will take Missouri, saying that KC is the main target city in the Midwest for the B10 (acknowledging the B10 already has half of St. Louis).
6. He said everybody’s plans are on hold until the B10 announces, sometime in the next 12 months. He said that did not apply to the P10, which is a separate situation.
7. He talked to one P10 AD who told him the P10’s main expansion targets are Texas and Texas A&M. The AD said A&M has interest, but Texas does not.
8. He said the B12 will likely be impacted by expansion, and their #1 replacement candidate is TCU. (He did not mention any qualifiers about Texas still being there, or not.)
LikeLike
Criticism of a couple of these points:
3) At this point, any expansion short of super conferences is going to benefit Memphis, so I don´t think this tips the Big 10´s hand one way or the other. Conference USA is what it is, but I have to imagine Memphis would be appealing to both the Big East and Big 12. Even if Big 10 expansion completely destroyed one of those conferences, the leftovers would need some place to go and Memphis might be all that´s out there.
5) If the Big 10 is serious about Kansas City, I think this says more about Kansas than it does about Missouri. The assumption all along has been Mizzou, but Kansas seems like the stronger candidate. The knock on KU has been the lack of noise regarding them – well, maybe we have some now.
LikeLike
@Mike and Rick, Interesting indeed. One could infer that Memphis is one potential choice for the Big East to get back up to eight football schools after a Big Ten expansion (along with East Carolina, Central Florida and Southern Miss).
LikeLike
The Big East needs to get to at least 9 football schools to solve the 4 conference home games each year problem they now have. So if they lose 1 they need 2, 2 they need 3 and so on. If nothing happens with the Big Ten they still need 1 at least.
LikeLike
@Rick
#7 is the most interesting…TAMU would be amenable to going to the Pac-10, Texas would not. I’ve always felt the Big10 might be reluctant, no matter how good both schools are, to double dip the Texas market without having another connector school like Mizzou/Neb to pull the Big10 slightly further west.
If TAMU shows a willingness to go to the Pac-10, and heads there with Colorado, they’ll have to move this summer. That would make the Big10 all the more enticing for any of the other Big12 schools, even (especially) Texas. They could then pick a school like Mizzou (better academics and markets than Neb, IMO) to be the bridge and focus eastward for the other three school.
Heck, the Texas/TAMU rivalry could even be continued as the first game of the season as a BigXX/PacXX OOC “Kick-off Rivalry” game and maybe even the other Big10/Pac10 schools get into the action (OSU/USC anyone?). Be a great way to start some national rivalries and get coast to coast coverage for both conferences.
LikeLike
Hell, Nebraska probably has almost as much influence in KC as Mizzou.
I’d be rather disappointed if expansion didn’t include Nebraska (assuming Texas is out). Still think the 5 will be Nebraska, Mizzou, Pitt, Rutgers, and ‘Cuse/UConn.
LikeLike
@Richard – I agree – I’d be extremely disappointed if we didn’t end up with at least one marquee football name. Nebraska and Missouri are academic equivalents in my eyes, so I’d be flummoxed if the Big Ten took Mizzou and not Nebraska and then tried to play it off as an academic move. The 5 that you listed are looking like a pretty good bet for where we end up (even though I’d optimally want to see 2 out Texas/ND/Nebraska if we were to go to 16).
LikeLike
Also, it’s interesting that he said TAMU is interested in the Pac10 but Texas isn’t. Seems to me that UT may be betting it’s fate on the success of the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
If his comments are what Delaney and the presidents are thinking then it seems that Missouri and at least 1 Eastern school is a lock (Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse).
This doesn’t tell us though whether the 3rd will also be Eastern or whether it might be Nebraska, although if it’s 5 then you could have a Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse situation as Richard put out there.
His comments don’t really change anything though. We just know they’re going to bring in at least Missouri and 1 Eastern school.
That at least tells us that we’re going to 14 or 16, but other than foreclosing the 12 scenario, it doesn’t really close out too many possibilities.
And it could all change. Besides mushroomgod, Delaney probably knows that these guys talk about the conversations he has with them.
If putting this out there makes it easier to bring Notre Dame or Nebraska to the table, then there’s no real harm done, and it might be helpful since they’ll have to decide whether they want to be on board or not for real this time.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind here. ADs talk to other ADs. Presidents talk to presidents. The latter make this decision. I treat anything from an AD as no more definitive than any well thought out post here.
LikeLike
@Chris: Sorry, but with all due respect, that is idiotic.
LikeLike
Just calling em like I see em
LikeLike
Frank,
Two questions….
1. Why is Maryland not getting more consideration in all the chatter surrounding B10 expansion? If I were Delany, I would add NU and MD and wait a little longer for ND.
2. Will Jack be the “candidate” that takes Jacob’s place on the island? Locke and Jack have been at odds since the first season… It’s only fitting that LOST will end with a dramatic battle between the two… with Jack emerging as the victor.
MH
LikeLike
Maryland is allegedly not interested in joining the Big Money conference.
They would be a lock if they showed any interest.
I think the school which should get more consideration is Miami (FL) — big TV draw, South Florida is an area populated with many Big 10 transplants and it opens up fertile recruiting territory. Their allegiances to the ACC are in their infancy, so they probably would be more willing to listen.
Miami would probably prefer more of an Eastern expansion.
How about Miami (FL), Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Missouri?
LikeLike
Further is Miami any further then Texas? If the Longhorns and Aggies are under consideration, why not Miami?
How about Miami (FL), Texas, Texas A&M, Rutgers and Missouri? You would have just added the markets of Miami / Ft. Lauderdale, Dallas, Houston, New Jersey, St. Louis and KC, and created a very viable baseball conference with two top 10 powerhouses.
Check Miami’s TV ratings — they’re real good. The school really needs TV money, I attended law school there, so if the Big 10 were to offer the Canes something like a 200% increase in TV money, they may do it.
This would also create the most national confernece possible — exposure in the Midwest, East Coast, Southwest and Southeast.
LikeLike
If they want a small private school that can’t fill their own stadium they might as well look at Rice, too.
LikeLike
Because Texas fits more into the mode of the Big Ten being full of large public research universities (with the lone exception of Northwestern of course).
Also, Texas has a hold on Texas’ markets, which Miami does not with respect to Florida where 3 schools battle for supremacy.
Yes, Miami is a national school in any year that it is in the discussion, but Miami is more like Nebraska in terms of its quality as an addition.
It’s hard to add a school that far away unless it’s an absolute home run like Texas is. If Nebraska was where Miami was, it wouldn’t really be in the discussion, etc.
Geographically, Texas being in the southwest, just logically makes more sense in a west-motivated expansion.
Once you go for Nebraska and/or Missouri, Texas really enters the discussion. It is obviously hard to see Texas being #12 alone but once you shift the center of power west by creating a Big Ten West with the addition of Nebraska or Missouri, you naturally open a spot for Texas…
LikeLike
@Milton Hershey – If Maryland wanted to join the Big Ten, then I’d think they’d be almost automatically added since they combine a great new TV market and fantastic academics. Sadly, it appears that they took themselves out of the running.
As for LOST, I’m thinking that Jack’s “purpose” is to take the body of Real Locke back to the Temple and resurrect him in that fountain of life. Then, it will actually be Real Locke that assumes the position of Jacob. Note that it’s being set up in the parallel world for Jack to save Locke’s life on the operating table.
LikeLike
I’m not sure … I think either Jack or Hurley will be taking over the corkmaster duties. Real Locke has to be getting a bit ripe at this point, and the powers of the muddy pool seem limited. Although I do like the direction they’re taking Jack in. After five years of him destroying everything he came into contact with, he’s finally chilling the fark out a bit.
And to stick with the Big Ten expansion theme … ummm … they should add Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina, Florida and USC. There.
LikeLike
Sayid was only dead for like an hour. Locke has been dead for days AND professionally embalmed and buried.
Not at I have any better theory, of course.
LikeLike
Frank, if Maryland officials believe the SEC will pick off some ACC schools (e.g. Clemson, Florida State), Maryland will definitely be in the Big Ten mix, if only to protect itself. It’s a move most administrators in College Park would probably like to make, and an SEC raid would give them an explanation to justify a move to the Big Ten to a fanbase overly obsessed with playing Duke in basketball.
LikeLike
FRANK: For a break from Big Ten expansion, you HAVE GOT to check out today’s ESPN board!
http://espn.go.com/blog/CollegeBasketballNation/post/_/id/11033/big-ten-expansion-making-college-hoops-weird
Chief Tomahawk makes a “compelling” case for the Big XII pursuit of UIC (NOT U of C). ROFLMFAO!
Excerpt –
Murph, coaches constantly pine for state-of-the-art facilities. UIC has one – Soldier’s Field {sic} – on it’s doorstep (well two, if you count The United Center for hoops.) Finding, adding players can happen as quickly as a junior college class can be put together. Players are lured by playing time. UIC would have plenty to offer.
In the long run, your fear-mongering is a non-factor. The move will be made because:
1) Missouri leaves The Big 12, creating an opening.
2) The Big 12 feels it’s been treated as second class and looks to extract revenge.
3) The Big 12 weighs potential replacements with a heavy emphasis on which would add the most value to it’s TV contracts.
4) Delightfully The Big 12 discovers UIC doesn’t have a dance partner, knowing full well it’s in The Big Ten’s biggest TV market.
5) The Big 12 approaches UIC. Parent school Illinois is ALARMED. Northwestern FREAKS.
6) The Big 12 doesn’t take the initial “No.” They pitch Mayor Daley and The City Council of Chicago. The employee unions and business ownership in Chicago gets on board. Needing to fill a budget gap, so does the Mayor and the city.
7) U of IL and Northwestern attempt to lobby the state legislature to block UIC. The state legislature ultimately says it’s not their call.
8) With a backdrop of blue bloods and trade unions, Mayor Daley holds a press conference to roll out the red carpet for The Big 12. A Big 12 conference hoops tourney is announced for The United Center as UIC joins!
LikeLike
Heh. The President of UIC is the same guy who heads UofI. They’re the same university.
LikeLike
Wow. Now, I have a very warm spot for UIC since I literally wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the school – my parents went to college and met there. My Dad also worked there for close to 3 decades. With that in mind, one would think that the lack of any type of football program would turn the Big XII’s interest away from UIC, but maybe they think the future is in hybrid models because the Big East is so stable right now.
LikeLike
I have been obsessing about Big Ten expansion for the last week thanks to my discovery of this great blog. After sorting through all of the information here is
where I see it all going. (Thank you for indulging my non-original thoughts here.)
(1) It will definitely go to 16 because that it the best way to generate money the BTN.
(2) Expansion will start with Rutgers and Nebraska because these teams each bring a lot to the table and will help open up the next step.
(3) The Big Ten can go one of two ways in moving from 13 up to 16. The direction will depend on what Texas wants.
(4) First choice will be to focus on Texas and end up with a conference like this:
EAST – Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern.
WEST – Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M
(If teams 14 and 15 are Texas and aTm, then it’s possible that the prize will be too much for ND to pass up. That would leave Mizzou out in the cold.)
(5) Backup plan will be to focus on the big markets in the east and maybe cram ND into the last opening. Under this version, 14 and 15 would be Pitt and Syracuse. (The backup for ND, if they are still reluctant under the east plan, would be U-Conn or Mizzou.)
With this group of teams, I think a rotating pod system would work best:
POD 1 (east) – Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
POD 2 (mid-east) – Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana (UM and tOSU are OK staying together, to keep “the game”)
POD 3 (mid-west) – Notre Dame, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern (ND will demand the easiest pod as a condition to joining)
POD 4 (west) – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
That’s all for now.
LikeLike
I think Frank’s original statement still holds water. If you don’t get Notre Dame or the Texas schools, don’t expand. Nebraska may we the one exception, and they may be eager, if the BIG TEN adds just one school.
LikeLike
I think right now they are trying to figure out the best way to end up with 12. Nebraska (a 12th team if nothing more, and a catalyst for the process), 13. Rutgers (NYC market), 14. Texas (the big prize), 15. Texas A&M (the big prize’s little brother), and 16. Notre Dame (icing on the cake).
If the chips fall in the right order, this kind of home run expansion is possible. It’s all about timing and momentum–just like one recruit can be the key to a stellar class.
LikeLike
Finally, a dose of fresh air. If the B10 adds teams like Missouri, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, etc, it would be like marrying the ugliest girl in town because her daddy is a millionaire.
LikeLike
LOL! Good one Chris!
LikeLike
Now that the Commish has failed to speak it is time for us to dream again since there are no facts to constrain us. I am for a 24 team big Ten;
East:
Ohio State
Michigan
Maryland
Virginia
Connecticut
BC
Penn State
Michigan State
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Northwestern
Illinois
West:
Indiana
Purdue
Rutgers
Missouri
Kansas
ND
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Texas
Texas A&M
There would be a divisional playoff followed by a conference championship game. The NCAA would be told that the games will be held and we hope they will endorse them. After all when you have 24 votes, you are a power bloc to be sure.
Meanwhile, the other conferences stay the same zize though some will have to fill some gaps. The reason is simple. They have no money machine like the BTN that generates more money with more games thanks to more teams so unless they can get ESPN and CBS to broadcast more SEC games, the SEC will have to say put at 12.
The Pac-10 has an out. It should merge with the MWC because it has a network up and running. Adding USC and the others to the mix should increase its attractiveness all around and the Pac-10 will have a money making machine too. Still that leaves them two short. I say they add Kansas/Texas Tech and Colorado.
So, two 24 team conferences of good guys, the Big Ten and Pac-10, long time friends, would give the good guys 48 votes and an ability to rule Division 1A, or, at least, get whatever they want.
LikeLike
pass
LikeLike
Why not just stop caring altogether?
Add in Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., and all the Big East schools… 13 schools.
Big 10 has 11 schools. That gives you 24.
Divide into Tier 1 and Tier 2… 12 schools each.
Football Tier 1: Ohio St., Penn St., Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan St., Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, Cincy, and Minnesota
Football Tier 2: NW, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, South Florida, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St.
Basketball Tier 1: Ohio St, Michigan St., Pitt, WVU, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, Kansas, and Kansas St.
Basketball Tier 2: the other 12.
All other sports, divided if necessary. Not sure it works with hockey and lacrosse.
Indiana BBall and Michigan FBall get their status based on history only.
All games are aired on Big 10 Network, as well as whatever other deals can be worked out with ESPN, ABC, etc.
Only Nebraska is added to the Big 10. The Big East and remaining Big 12 schools added get to have some sort of financial incentive to make the move but DO NOT get to call themselves Big 10 schools. The Big 10 name is reserved for schools that pass the muster of current 11 (+ Chicago), which will be decided down the road. In the interim, all added schools may refer to themselves as provisional Big 10 schools. Thus, unless and until Kansas St., Iowa St, S. Florida, WVU, and L-ville qualify academically, they are not BIG 10 schools under any stretch of the imagination and may not refer to themselves as such.
Simply an athletic/financial association. Instead, the impetus to the move is strictly athletics and finances, using both to drive the success of the Big 10 Network to the benefit of all. Nebraska gets a full Big 10 FINANCIAL share, of course. But the other 12 schools get a 1/2 share each (unless the Big 10 schools’ revenue increases to a point, say $30M, after which these other schools get additional incremental increases in their share until eventually everyone gets up to a full share someday well into the future). That means 18 total shares. For the Big East schools, this is a clear financial reason to shift. Maybe less so for the Big 12 schools, but at least a draw PLUS separation from Texas dominance.
Big 10 stretches across the entire Eastern Half of the Country, both Midwest and Northeast. Even has a Florida landing spot. Unless Notre Dame wants in, in which case they get S. Florida’s spot under regular Big East school rules. I suppose an argument can be made that Maryland or BC could take the S. Florida spot too… allowing for a swap. Not sure either school would want or need in.
The CIC can add whatever schools qualify as Big 10 schools. Or whatever else it wants to do. Not bound to do anything with any non Big 10 school though.
And here is the kicker… from an athletic standpoint… relegation every five years. The 2 teams with the worst record in Tier 1 drop to Tier 2… the 2 teams with the best record in Tier 2 move up to Tier 1.
Indiana/Michigan could lose their protected spots in 5 years.
If anyone doesn’t like Tier 2 status, they can prove it on the field.
For scheduling purpose, in football… a Tier 1 school plays the 5 teams in its division, plus 3 Tier 2 schools. A Tier 2 school plays the 5 teams in its division, plus 3 Tier 1 schools. This helps legitimize the records of the Tier 2 schools… helps prevent the Tier 1 schools from beating up on each other too badly. Provides limited exposure to all teams and all geographic areas over a period. The divisions become important because you would not play a team from the other division within your tier until the Championship game. Makes that game interesting…. no rematches.
In basketball. a Tier 1 school plays each team in its division twice (10 games), each other Tier 1 team once (5 games), and 3 games against Tier 2 schools.
LikeLike
Also… within each tier, you need divisions. This is where you ensure protected rivalries and geographic sanity.
Tier 1, Division A: Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St. Penn St., Pitt, WVU
Tier 2, Division B: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Cincy, and Rutgers
For a school like Ohio St., this could be their schedule:
Michigan
Michigan St.
Penn St.
Pitt
WVU
Indiana (tier 2)
Syracuse (tier 2)
Kansas (tier 2)
If they win their division, only then would they play a Nebraska or Iowa or Wisconsin? And it would not be a rematch.
Conversely, for a team like Northwestern, their schedule might be:
Indiana
Illinois
Purdue,
Missouri
Kansas
Minnesota (tier 1)
Wisconsin (tier 1)
Nebraska (tier 1)
And so on.
LikeLike
Also, Notre Dame… they get S. Florida’s spot just because the Big 10 doesn’t care about them enough to put them ahead of Nebraska. If Notre Dame does not like it, they can be happy with their non-football schools playing in the Mac.
Should have accepted in 1999.
Also, maybe every 4 or 8 years makes the most sense for relegation in football. You would have each of the 24 schools playing each other once every 4 years.
You could also convert it so that there is some football play between Tier 1 divisions. But, to me, that defeats the purpose of having a Championship game. If Ohio St. plays Wisconsin, and then they play again in the championship game… yawn.
LikeLike
Two bad years and you are relegating Michigan football to the “based on history only” category? That’s a little short-sighted. Every “tier 1” program has had longer down times in the last forty years. And why does Michigan State get “tier 1” without a caveat? Would it be their 6-7 record last year?
LikeLike
It’s my stupid, hypothetical, never-shall-happen scenario.
8 wins in 2 seasons.
You have to go back to 1958-9 to find an Ohio St. pair of seasons with less than 10 wins. And, in 1959, Syracuse won the national championship. Does that make them Tier 1? For Nebraska it is 1960-1961. Looks like Ohio St. and Nebraska are the cream of the crop.
I think Michigan and Michigan St. will be the rivalry moving forward. For both teams!
LikeLike
In regard to UConn, kind of interesting development: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/04/report-ncaa-to-hit-uconn-mens-basketball-with-violations/1
Not a whole lot of detail, but UConn´s men´s basketball programs is facing sanctions. Depending how bad it is, this could really hurt one of their most attractive assets.
LikeLike
CU Chancellor is doing “research” on the PAC10.
>>
“The academics factor is absolute important to us,” said Di-Stefano, who added he has not talked to anyone from the Pac-10 but has done some research. “There are very good schools in the Big 12. There’s no doubt about it. But when the faculty looks at the Pac-10, they see places where our faculty and their faculty do interact and where we compete for students, both undergraduate and graduate.”
<<
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_14979982
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21870/coaches-want-notre-dame-ultimatum
Connecticut coach Randy Edsall…”said the football coaches have been asking the conference to deliver an ultimatum to Notre Dame to come into the conference for football or get out entirely for the last two years. He added that, if as speculated, two teams leave for the Big Ten, ‘the Big East is all done.'”
When speaking to reporters and asked about the Notre Dame ultimatum, all Edsall said was: “I think that’s something the powers that be are discussing in terms of the strategies that they’re looking at to be proactive rather than reactive”…
…Issuing such an ultimatum to Notre Dame could help save the Big East, because it might — emphasis on might — push the Irish in the direction of joining the Big Ten to save their other sports. (Because, let’s be honest, any ultimatum to Notre Dame would basically end the Irish’s Big East involvement, because they are not joining the Big East for football.)
If the Golden Domers join the Big Ten, then perhaps that league is satisfied and doesn’t raid the Big East for more teams…
LikeLike
That kind of ultimatum is risky in that it just might drive ND to the Big Ten and thereby justify a bigger Big Ten move to 14 or 16 with the bird in hand of ND. If that move includes a move for Nebraska, Rutgers, SU/Pitt, and Kansas/Missouri then the Big Ten hits a home run for academics, athletics, research, BTN footprint, TV markets, and long term security.
LikeLike
It had been talked about a while back, and mostly dismissed by people on this blog. None of us really think the Big East would actually tell ND to, basically, GTFO. Doubt any of the Catholic Big East schools would agree to that.
But there are so many quotes in articles, both from normal speculators and school officials, that all seem to feel if ND gives in and joins then the Big Ten will go to 12 and be done. I doubt that’s the intention of Delany, but I imagine BigTen presidents would be very likely to go down this path.
LikeLike
I definitely don’t think the BE gives this ultimatum although most BE Football folks have been saying this for years. They are not happy with the ND bowl tie ins and how they negatively effect the BE bowl selections, or the ND demands on any home and home scheduling negotiations. There is no love lost for ND in BE football circles. The BB schools and other sports are a different story. There will be no ultimatum. They may be ignorant but they are not stupid. I may eat those words but so be it.
LikeLike
I think there’s an irrepairable divide between the Big East fball and fball schools. If ND came to the Big 10, RU and Pitt would also want to – and 1 probably would.
LikeLike
Big East schools understand that its football arrangement with ND improves the quality of its bowl tie-ins. If the BE continues, the arrangement should grow to lock in four BE-ND games a year. It would benefit ND, by guaranteeing they will have November foes, and benefit the BE schools by giving two of them a home game against Notre Dame every year.
LikeLike
The bowl tie ins with ND also bump down BE schools to lower bowls if ND is selected. Not popular with BE schools, that they understand as well. It is a tough spot to be in. Locking in ND to 4 BE games a year in Novemeber sounds good but ND would never go for it. 2 for 1’s, games at The New Meadowlands or Foxboro with unequal ticket/concession/parking etc distribution is a problem negotiating with ND. ND tries to create a home game environment for themselves in the negotiations.
LikeLike
And the Big East bowl tie-ins are pretty subpar for a BCS conference:
Champs Sports Bowl
Meineke Car Care Bowl
New Era Pinstripe Bowl
Papajohns.com Bowl/AutoZone Liberty Bowl
Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl
LikeLike
Does it really? Take a look at that bowl line-up and tell me the value added Notre Dame gives to that line-up. Is there any bowl game on that list that the Big East couldn’t get if it wasn’t affiliated with Notre Dame?
Keep in mind that the Big East and the ACC were given the boot from the Gator Bowl and replaced by the Big Ten and SEC. This was the Big East’s (and Notre Dame’s) only New Year’s Day non-BCS bowl. It was also where the Big East’s #2 team (or Notre Dame) played the ACC #3. If ND was such a big attraction, why did the BE get the boot from the Gator.
Now they did move this matchup to the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando ($2.25M per team) and Notre Dame is allowed to replace a Big East team once every four years. But again, if ND was so valuable, why only once in four years? Also ask yourself this–would the Champs Sports Bowl have said to the Big East #2 if Notre Dame wasn’t included in the package?
As FLP_NDRox writes, the new overall Big East bowl lineup is somewhat subpar. I just don’t see where Notre Dame is offering the Big East that much help when it comes to post-season bowls.
LikeLike
If the Big East teams are uninspiring enough (with the Notre Dame tie-in) to produce that weak bowl lineup, tell me why we are supposed to be excited about adding them to the Big Ten (maybe without Notre Dame)?
In my opinion, the success of expansion will depend on how many of Texas/Nebraska/Notre Dame end up in the final product.
LikeLike
The previous 4 years with the Sun/Gator Bowls and the Big East, each bowl could take Notre Dame in place of a Big East Team once or a maximum of 2/4 years, but the Irish underperformed and never got those spots. With the Champs Sports Bowl agreement, they can only select Notre Dame in place of a Big East team 1/4 years. The fact that they’ve arraigned this deal with less ND involvement indicates the Big East is stronger/more respected than 5 years ago as well as high-level bowls no longer expect the Irish to be consistently available.
LikeLike
The assumption that the Big Ten will be satisfied to stand pat at 12 is both dangerous and naive given the BTN. ND won’t come to the Big East for football since the Big East offers the Irish infinitely less prestige and money than the B10. The Big East will also similarly limit the Irish’s scheduling capabilities. The only thing the Big East has that the B10 doesn’t is that the Catholic core of the Big East is one the CSC has no issues with. That’s nowhere near enough. Sadly, ND can’t/won’t save the Big East. Come to think of it, this may all be Syracuse’s fault. If the Orange could have been better they might have been enough interest by the football schools to fight off the ACC raid in 2003. Bygones.
Expansion prospects for the Big East are awful. Of the non-BCS schools east of the Mississippi and outside the MAC, Alabama, and Mississippi, maybe three are legit bowl-quality teams (er, UCF, ECU, and Navy) and another three are NCAA tourney level hoop programs (Memphis, WKU, and Temple). No available program can push the BE above the MWC in the BCS line.
First priority is to figure out where Georgetown and Villanova want to go. Besides ND, they are the only basketball schools to have non-BE football. Of course, they are both FCS squads. If (and this is a big IF) they are willing to go FBS and can do so in an accelerated time-table, they provide two more Football schools without need for expansion. For every team lost, the BE is obliged to take a football school for scheduling purposes. The Big East *must* limit the number of teams they need to expand by to have any hope of survival as a football conference. The dearth of viable expansion candidates makes that abundantly clear. If Gtown and Villanova are content with dropping the remaining Big East Football (BEF) schools, they can form an excellent Eastern Catholic conference with the remaining BE schools, ND, and any number of Catholic schools from the A-10 or elsewhere. It may not be a Big East level conference, but it may be the best any non-ND school can hope for in a brave new world when they lack a built-in state-wide fanbases and football programs.
Priority two is to determine the expansion intentions of the SEC and ACC. If sufficient landing places can be found for schools that aren’t Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers, you may as well let the remaining teams begin negotiations and make plans to dissolve the league. Given the expansion options, I would suspect the Catholic schools would prefer to go their own way unless only ND leaves, since I bet they tire of making compromises for the football schools when really only Syracuse, and lately Pitt, WVU, and U of L were the only good basketball schools.
If the B10 takes 4 (BEF) schools and Nova and Gtown are content in IAA, the Big East is probably done since it will likely be easier to lobby for spots in the soon-to-be expanded ACC, SEC, and/or fall to the CUSA than to try to turn whatever 5 programs that could be picked up into BCS-level programs in both FB and basketball. If Nova and Gtown can come up, then BE may survive as a non-AQ conference by taking the basketball-centered football programs and hoping for the best. Not that WVU or U of L will be happy with playing the likes of Western Kentucky, but unless the SEC or ACC come calling, that may be the best their geography and tier will allow. The fewer BE teams lost means the less BE nose-holding. If only one or two BEFs leave, they can take better football schools and perhaps make a go of it. But looking at the options I think that the BE at most can replace 2 of the 16 schools and be able to maintain a semblance of BCS quality.
Long story short, I’m not sure forcing ND out significantly helps UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, U of L or WVU.
LikeLike
My Big East expansion guess list
Football:
UCF
Memphis
Army
Navy
Temple
Buffalo
East Carolina
Marshall
MTSU
WKU
FIU
FAU
A-10 Catholic schools:
Dayton
Duquesne
Forham
LaSalle
St. Bonaventure
St. Joseph’s
St. Louis
Xavier (Cincy)
LikeLike
My impression is that Villanova is very happy as an FCS school (national champions, no less) and would very much like to remain in a conference with Notre Dame and Georgetown (the schools Villanova most aspires to be competitive with for students … ND is taken almost an explicit model for Villanova). I don’t think they would cross the floor to join in a BE football conference separate from the basketball schools.
LikeLike
no way in hell villlanova and georgetown move up in football.
LikeLike
Edsall is full of it. The football coaches at WVU, USF, Cincy Louisville and himself might be pushing for a ND ultimatum, but why in the world would Greg Schiano at Rutgers, be arguing for an ultimatum to Notre Dame to force ND to take the spot in the Big 10 that might otherwise go to Rutgers? I can’t imagine Pitt and Syracuse are on board with this. Of course. the BB schools don’t care if the football side collapses.
So at best, you’ve got five of the other 15 schools in the Big East wanting to kick ND out. Not gonna happen.
LikeLike
What is Schiano going to do with a real schedule?
LikeLike
Very well thank you.
LikeLike
And what year will we find out?
LikeLike
There is no way Wanny, Marone, and Schiano are with Edsell on this.
LikeLike
Big East ‘Worry-O-Meter’
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21839/big-east-expansion-worry-o-meter
I can’t quibble with this order.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why everyone is so certain about West Virginia going to the SEC if the Big East dissolves. Seems like wishful thinking. I figure ACC if they’re lucky, but C-USA more likely.
LikeLike
To be fair, the list does say SEC or ACC. And I can’t see WVU falling all the way down to CUSA.
LikeLike
I actually think that WVU would be a good candidate for the Big 12, if it survives, after a collapse of the Big East. WVU doesn’t bring enough to the table for the SEC or ACC, but the Big 12 will be desperate, and WVU is really a perfect fit for the rest of that conference.
LikeLike
I would say Cincy’s better positioned than Louisville, since they’re in a bigger media market and their better academics makes them more attractive to the ACC. But what do I know.
LikeLike
I thought this might add to the discussion…
10-year Average Rank, Sears/Directors Cup
6 – Michigan
7 – Texas
10 – Ohio State
14 – Penn State
16 – Notre Dame
18 – Minnesota
23 – Texas A&M
23 – Nebraska
24 – Wisconsin
32 – Michigan State
33 – Illinois
35 – Maryland
38 – Purdue
39 – Indiana
44 – Northwestern
45 – Missouri
50 – Iowa
54 – UConn
70 – Kansas
77 – Rutgers
84 – Syracuse
86 – Pitt
LikeLike
Lots to chew on in this chart:
Surprised by Pitt’s relatively low standing. If the Big 10 invites Pitt, the school will have more money to invest in non-revenue sports.
Given that Texas and ND are at best ambivalent about the Big 10, I think this chart underscores the value of Nebraska as an overall athletic program.
Maybe the poster who said the Big 10 should approach aTm on its own was on to something.
Surprised by Missouri’s relatively high standing. Also KU should use some of that basketball money to shore up its overall program.
LikeLike
I would like to see the 5 year at the end of this school year so it includes all of 09/10 academic/athletic seasons. Thanks
LikeLike
I would, too. I used data from the complete ’00 through ’09 athletic seasons.
One additional note: some years the Cup only listed schools in the Top 100, though other years the Cup listed schools up to 200. To keep things consistent, I gave every school outside of the Top 100 a ranking of 100.
Kansas and Rutgers each found itself outside the Top 100 once. Pitt – twice. Syracuse – three times.
LikeLike
By the end of June they should have the Spring 2010 season results and final academic year tally. Thanks for doing this.
LikeLike
Jokewood, the more you poast the more I am impressed with Texas A&M as a candidate for the Big Ten even if Texas goes to the Pac Ten. Nice research.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this information. Could you post the top twenty over this time? I wonder if any private schools other than Stanford and ND are in the top twenty during this time period.
LikeLike
Directors/Sears Cup Top 25 (10-yr avg rank)
1. Stanford (1.0)
2. UCLA (4.2)
3. Florida (5.6)
4. Michigan (5.9)
5. Texas (6.6)
6. North Carolina (7.1)
7. Georgia (9.9)
8. Ohio State (10.0)
9. Cal (11.0)
10. Arizona State (11.2)
11. USC (11.5)
12. Penn State (14.0)
13. LSU (15.3)
14. Arizona (15.4)
15. Tennessee (16.2)
16. Notre Dame (16.3)
17. Duke (16.9)
18. Minnesota (18.0)
19. Washington (18.8)
20. Virginia (19.6)
21. Auburn (21.2)
22t. Texas A&M (22.6)
22t. Nebraska (22.6)
24. Oklahoma (23.3)
25. Wisconsin (23.7)
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/budwithers/2011718007_withers28.html
Excerpts from a Seattle writer’s take on new NCAA President Mark Emmert, former President of the P10’s UWash:
…”I happen to be one that thinks it’s inevitable we’ll have a playoff,” he told me in a conversation about 18 months ago.
That could be something modest, like the plus-one format that wouldn’t materially affect the bowls, or it could be more dramatic, something like an eight- or 16-team fiesta.
If and when that happens, it will be because it’s a big revenue-producer. That won’t solve the myriad financial problems of college programs, but it will come partly in response to them.
Here’s the world Emmert inherits: The Big Ten may expand to 16 teams, shaking down more money from TV networks and thereby putting lesser leagues on notice. NCAA officials recently floated the idea of revolutionizing their coolest thing, the men’s basketball tournament, by proposing a 50 percent increase in teams to 96, just for money.
Emmert’s presidential colleagues bemoan the rising costs in college athletics, on their way to introducing Nick Saban (funny, he was Emmert’s football coach at Louisiana State) as head coach at Alabama and John Calipari as Kentucky basketball coach, each at $4 million a year.
Meanwhile, keeping up with the Joneses means a facilities race that dictates you not only need skyboxes but marble inlays on the toilet-paper dispensers in the football-stadium restrooms.
Talking football playoff back then, Emmert referred to “illusory arguments” like missed class time.
“I’d like to be one having shaped that,” he said of a playoff, the words now sounding almost haunting, “rather than having it shaped by others.”
LikeLike
Lake the Posts has an interview with Teddy Greenstein about expansion:
http://www.laketheposts.com/2010/04/big-ten-expansion-with-teddy-greenstein.html
Some quotes-
“If I talk to 10 people about expansion, nine will tell me that the timetable either IS accelerated or should be. That 10th person is Delany.”
“If if you say something requires 6-8 months and it takes nine, people will wonder what took so long and might judge it to be a failure. If you say it will take 12-18 months and do it in nine, it looks like you’re being efficient.”
Apparently the Big Ten operates on Scotty Time.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScottyTime
“Well, two months ago I got word of a William Blair & Company report. My source told me it analyzed five schools: Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers. The source cautioned that these five were “the obvious suspects.”I think Mizzou and Rutgers are terrific candidates.”
-He still really likes Rutgers.
LikeLike
Sounds like Greenstein´s been reading this blog, or at least, going through a similar process as everything here. He started out, like most journalists now, with the ¨obvious candidates¨ but has, finally, moved past that and come more in line with this blog. From that Greenstein interview:
Well, two months ago I got word of a William Blair & Company report. My source told me it analyzed five schools: Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers. The source cautioned that these five were “the obvious suspects.”I think Mizzou and Rutgers are terrific candidates. There’s huge potential at Rutgers: Envision a top-25 Scarlet Knights team hosting Penn State at the new Jets/Giants stadium in the Meadowlands. They’d sell 82,500 seats and might get huge ratings along the East Coast. And even if only five percent of the New York market cared, you’re still talking about tons of people in New Jersey.
Pittsburgh is a nice fit but doesn’t give you much in terms of TV. Syracuse — and UConn, for that matter — don’t make much sense to me, but others see the value of adding two big-time basketball schools from the New York/ESPN area. You also can’t sleep on Nebraska, Maryland and maybe Kansas.Notre Dame? I give it a five percent shot. It makes sense financially, but not emotionally, for ND.
Keep in mind that these invitations probably won’t be cut-and-dried. Let’s say the Big Ten wants Missouri but doesn’t think Missouri should get a 1/12th (or 1/14th) split of the revenue pie in its first few years. Then a negotiation ensues.
LikeLike
http://www.thestate.com/2010/04/28/1264080/saban-sec-ready-to-tackle-decisions.html
…Several ACC coaches refused to predict which schools could end up going where, but everyone agreed change was afoot.
“There’s gonna be realignment, there’s no question about that,” Georgia Tech coach Paul Johnson said. “It’s just a question of where everybody falls.”
Georgia Tech is a school that has been mentioned as candidate to change leagues, given its proximity to the SEC and its football history. Johnson said he was happy in the ACC, calling it “a great league,” b acknowledged that wouldn’t stop people from talking.
Maryland coach Ralph Friedgen said he hasn’t been paying much attention to expansion talk. His school is a charter member of the ACC but also has been talked about as a candidate to move.
“Somebody called (and asked me) me about us joining the Big Ten. Nobody’s talked to me about it,” Friedgen said. “But I’d probably be the last to know anyway.”
Virginia Tech coach Frank Beamer has been through this before, when the school moved from the Big East to the ACC in 2004 along with Miami and Boston College. He said this round of expansion could be much more widespread.
“If anything happens, dominoes start falling. I think if the Pac-10 gets involved the same way, there’s a lot of dominoes falling,” Beamer said. “I think it could be a real different time in college football in the next couple years.”
LikeLike
Big Ten expansion buzz has league adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse and splitting into four, four-team divisions.
The Big Ten divisions:
Syra, Pitt, Rut., Penn St.
–Mich., Wisc., Mich. St., Mnn.
–Ohio St., Pur., IU, Ill./North.
–MU, Iowa, Neb., Ill./NU.
—————–
Name Tom Dienhart
Location St. Louis, MO
Bio national college football writer for Rivals/Yahoo
=================
Who is Tom Dienhart and how reliable is his ‘info’? As in, is ‘Big Ten expansion buzz’ likely inside sources or simply FTT’s blog?
LikeLike
Cool! I assume this is the same Tom Dienhart I see on the Yahoo site:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1078344&PT=4&PR=2
But I cannot see Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions if they are to maintain their season-ending rivalry game.
LikeLike
It would be alleviated if you get a guaranteed rival from the other division, but I can’t see OSU being thrilled about that setup. Moreover if there’s a prospect of OSU and Michigan meeting in a championship, I’ve read most OSU officials weren’t thrilled about that either.
LikeLike
Tons of rivalries split up:
OSU-Michigan
Northwestern-Illinois
Iowa vs. both it’s main rivals
LikeLike
Story on how KOMO-TV in Columbia, MO posted a story that “MO to the B10+ is a done deal” but then pulled the article. FWIW.
http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/870
Bright and early this morning I was made aware of an example of the New Journalism 101.
KOMU-TV in Columbia Missouri – on its web site – posted that:
“ESPN is reporting that long-swirling rumors about Missouri joining the Big Ten Conference are coming true, although these reports are still unconfirmed.
“ESPN senior college sports writer Bruce Feldman says he spoke with the athletic director at a PAC-10 university saying that Missouri to the Big Ten was “a done deal.”
The KOMU post went on to admit that:
“There isn’t any other official confirmation of this report, on ESPN’s website or elsewhere.”
KOMU has since taken the story off its site.
All it took to determine if “a done deal” had really been done, or if it was not done, or undone, or well done, or whatever. . . was a telephone call to Missouri athletic director Mike Alden.
I made it. Actually, I had made it the previous day, but Alden and I didn’t connect until Thursday morning.
“We have not been contacted,” Alden told me…
LikeLike
KOMO is Missuri’s student run TV. This was a student making a mistake.
LikeLike
Here’s Part 1 of my interview with Nittany White Out:
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2010/04/29/were-talking-expansion-with-frank-the-tank/
Part 2 will be posted tomorrow.
LikeLike
Good stuff, Frank. Looking forward to part 2.
LikeLike
Finally! Great interview, Frank. I’m also looking forward to Part 2.
LikeLike
Frank:
If I recall, you previously believed the Big 10 wanted and would likely get Notre Dame to join the conference. Have you changed your mind on this based on recent media reports or are you simply concluding that the Irish will continue to say no to the Big 10?
LikeLike
@Oneforthemoney – At some point, ND will figure out that it will need to join a conference. The administration probably understands it, but the vast majority of alumni don’t (or at don’t care). IF the Big Ten pulls the trigger on a 16-school league that includes multiple BE schools, then I think that ND will be persuaded to come at the end of the day. I doubt it would happen in a 14-school league.
LikeLike
The SEC would not expand in order to spite the Big Ten. Instead, the SEC would expand for the purpose of securing its television interests. Virtually every Big Ten expansion scenario includes taking a high-quality football team, such as Nebraska or Notre Dame. This is important because it means that there will be more high-quality Big Ten games on ESPN, which gets to take the top Big Ten games every week. This threatens SEC interests as they are tied to being the top conference insofar as producing games for national networks. Should the Big Ten produce more high quality games on national TV, the value of SEC games would inherently go down (after all, the national television market for football is basically a mercantilist system). To compensate for this, the SEC also would need to increase the number of high-quality games it produces and that requires expansion.
Also, it should be noted that I am assuming that the SEC would prefer to make the same amount of money as the Big Ten by using ESPN and CBS as opposed to taking the risks associated with starting up their own television network.
LikeLike
Seth – I agree & have been saying the same thing in earlier posts. For the SEC, the purpose of expansion is not so much about expanding a conference footprint, but to expand an inventory of compelling games. The SEC’s three best games are already on CBS or ESPN/ESPN2. The 4th SEC game is syndicated on the ESPN-produced SEC Network, with network or basic cable affiliate in at least 15 states outside the SEC footprint. For that reason, Florida State and Miami, and just about any combination of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, or Oklahoma State, would at least equal any combination of the new Big Ten Deathstar.
Additionally, the SEC allows its member schools to cut their own deal on games not picked up by CBS/ESPN/SEC Network, So the Big Six (Auburn, Bama, Florida, Georgia, LSU & Tennessee) in the SEC make about the same (or more)as Big Ten schools do with the BTN.
LikeLike
Out of curiosity, who out of the teams you mentioned do you see going to the SEC? I’m betting on the SEC only adding Oklahoma and Florida State, as I doubt that Texas and Miami would be willing to go for academic reasons and I think that Texas A&M will stick with Texas wherever they go.
LikeLike
If the SEC were to go 16, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (and T. Boone Pickens’ billions) would be obvious additions to the West (assuming of course Texas and aTm go Pac 10 or Big 10). In the East, Florida State is obvious also. The league would love nothing more then UNC for the East, but the Tar Heels are not leaving the ACC where they are top dog. So I suspect they’d choose from among Clemson (the best cultural fit), Georgia Tech and West Virginia.
LikeLike
I don’t see the SEC expanding to 16 teams unless they think it would be profitable. Considering the relative weakness of the athletic program at Oklahoma State, I doubt they would take them. Furthermore, I don’t think Clemson would add much and I also see West Virginia as something of a risk, because they have a rather short tradition. Also, I doubt that Georgia Tech would leave the ACC for academic reasons. That said, if I had to pick four teams, they would probably be Oklahoma, FSU, West Virginia, and Texas Tech, because none of those teams are likely to decline an offer from the SEC, they are a strong set of athletic programs, and they expand the SEC’s footprint so that they can increase the number of places where they get regional coverage by ABC and ESPN.
LikeLike
Seth – I see the SEC simultaneously making plays for Miami/Florida State and Texas/Texas A&M, with CBS & ESPN’s blessing. Florida State and Miami say yes. Texas A&M says yes, but Texas says no, even though they could still have their Longhorn network in the SEC. Then the Aggies have a decision to make. Do they stay with big brother or strike out on their own? If A&M stills wants to go to the SEC, does the Texas Lege make them take baby brother Texas Tech along? Does the SEC even like that scenario? Does the SEC them move on the Oklahoma and/or Oklahoma State?
Since CBS & ESPN would have to be willing to pay for expansion, they may have a big say in who the SEC takes. The current membership is not going to take a haircut to bring in more teams. Also, the SEC network agreements are not regional in nature. For that reason, as I’ve said many times, footprint is not nearly as important as teams that will bring ratings. Ideally, the SEC would want Florida State, Miami, Texas & Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Don’t think Miami would say yes to the SEC. Donna Shalala specifically wanted out of the BE and in to the ACC to be in a better academic neighborhood. As long as UNC, UVa and Duke are in the ACC, Miami will be, too.
LikeLike
Tom Dienhart is the senior college football writer for Rivals/Yahoo and was previously on the staff of The Sporting News.
If he’s correct, then the pods are set up in order to ensure that each of the four major programs (Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State and Penn State) are in differnt pods.
It also means there will be “protected interpod rivalries” built into the schedule. That would be the only way to ensure games like Michigan-Ohio State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, etc. continue to take place.
Here’s Dienhart’s pods with the assumption that Illinois is in Ohio State’s pod and Northwestern is in Nebraska’s pod:
Pod A: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Pod B: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod C: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue
Pod D: Iowa, Missori, Nebraska, Northwestern
Since I’m a Michigan alum, here’s how I would project an eight game conference schedule with Ohio State as a protected rival, three games against the other Pod B programs and four games against teams in the other three pods (A, C & D).
Years 1 & 2
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Illinois (Pod C)
Penn State (Pod A)
Rutgers (Pod A)
Iowa (Pod D)
Years 3 & 4
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Purdue (Pod C)
Syracuse (Pod A)
Missouri (Pod D)
Nebraska (Pod D)
Years 5 & 6
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Indiana (Pod C)
Pittsburgh (Pod A)
Northwestern (Pod D)
Iowa (Pod D)
With an eight game schedule, Michigan would play each team outside its pod at least twice in a six-year period.
A 9-game schedule works a bit better, but that means an uneven number of home and away conference games. It also effectively caps the number of home games a team could schedule to seven per year. Here’s another look at Michigan’s conference schedule with nine B10 games:
Years 1 & 2
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Illinois (Pod C)
Penn State (Pod A)
Rutgers (Pod A)
Iowa (Pod D)
Missouri (Pod D)
Years 3 & 4
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Purdue (Pod C)
Syracuse (Pod A)
Pittsburgh (Pod A)
Missouri (Pod D)
Nebraska (Pod D)
Years 5 & 6
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Indiana (Pod C)
Penn State (Pod A)
Rutgers (Pod A)
Iowa (Pod D)
Missouri (Pod D)
Years 7 & 8
Michigan State (Pod B)
Minnesota (Pod B)
Wisconsin (Pod B)
Ohio State (Pod C – Protected Rival)
Illinois (Pod C)
Syracuse (Pod A)
Pittsburgh (Pod A)
Missouri (Pod D)
Nebraska (Pod D)
LikeLike
Re Tom Dienhart article (Cutter)
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/04/29/ever-wonder-what-a-16-team-big-ten-might-look-like/
“Rivals.com’s Tom Dienhart tweeted this morning about the latest buzz: That the Big Ten is serious about a 16-team superconference, plucking Nebraska and Missouri from the Big 12 and Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers from the Big East.”
LikeLike
OK guys, here’s some additional info that may affect this $ analysis!!
The #s don’t seem to add up, so I did some checking.
What we’ve all forgot about is that 6.3M of the 12.6M the Big 10 teams are getting from the BTN are RIGHTS FEES paid by News Corp., not shared profits. That’s some 69M per year.
Therefore, the 22M each Big 10 team is taking home consists of 9.27 from abc/espn/cbs, plus 6.3 from News Corp, plus 6.3 of shared profits. Therefore, TOTAL BTN profits must have been app. 136M rather than 272M….last year.
BUT, if the BTN is in 26000000 homes, making a TOTAL of .72 per month per home, that would project to 225M in cable fees alone to be split between the BTN and News Corp….how much of that goes to cable companies as fees???…I’m confused…
LikeLike
Here’s some other info from the articles I saw:
1. “If News corp hits its projections…it would translate into an average of …10.18 million to each school” (over 25 years….so it seems like profits have exceeded expectations)
2. “This year (2008), the network is paying the conference 66M…The rights fee escalates over the course of the deal”
3. “The rights fee begins at $50M …and increases each year”
4. “ESPN will pay an average of $100M per year over 10 years, starting at $83m in the first year and escalating over the life of the contract”
5. Each Big 10 school will reap an average of 9.27M from those deals (ie abc/espn/cbs), but those …numbers will be …less on the front end….” Note-Doesn’t say when those deals were made.
4. BTN president “estimated that the network will grow to more than 60M subscribers by 2013 and will generate $112M in cash flow by that time”….”Once Fox recoups its investments in a few years, there will be additional profits the schools will get”. “The BTN currently has 35M subs” Also said 2009 rights fees were 70M or 6.3M per team.
Note —Paragraphs 1-4 were from a 3/3/08 article, #4 from a 3/3/09 article.
]
All of this leads me to believe that the “buy in” people have been discussing may in fact be a withholding of rights fees in the early years……
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – Yes, I believe that the “buy in” is really a reduction in the rights fees for a period of time compared to the rest of the conference. This is actually standard operating procedure when conferences expand – the ACC did the exact same thing when it invited Miami, VT and BC.
LikeLike
Frank, and Duff–
I’ll have to get my mind around this, but I think the so-called “buy-in” makes more sense now.
Fox Corp is financially obligated to the present 11 to pay them 6.3M on up for the remainder of 25 years. This $ is due regardless of present or future profitability. To me, this is different than refusing to pay the new 3 (or 5) an equal % of profits going forward. I had been assuming that the worth of the BTN to the BT was solely ongoing profits going forward, as I did not see the BTN as having “equity” in the traditional sense. I didn’t see a pratical way of dividing profits due to the 11 v. profits attributable to the new 3 or 5.
Duff, do you agree that this changes things?
Frank, I think this blows up Patrick’s financial analysis….I had a question about it anyway, as Patrick is including .36 per month per set to the Big 10–not everyone in the new markets will get the BTN, will they?? I think the adv. projections are way overboard….
LikeLike
It aslo seems probable to me that FOX is pushing the expansion, and might be willing to increase their rights fee up somewhat to offset the dilution to each school. Also, might they be willing to modify the 51-49 profit share?
LikeLike
That would actually be the most interesting solution to the issue of a buy-in on the equity.
If the Big Ten just has the schools that are entering buy the same size stake in the network from News Corp. That would make things a lot easier probably as to that issue.
That way it wouldn’t come off as if the school was paying the other schools per se.
LikeLike
Re Fox payout and Big 10 channel income (mushroom and Frank and Patrick)
Mushroom: can you provide sources of articles?
Frank and Patrick: can you also consider mushroom’s points in your updated summary of estimated revenues and value of candidates?
LikeLike
I got info above from the internet—“Big Ten could reap $2.8B from network deal” 3/3/08 by John Ourand and Michael Smith …from sports business journel…also “Big Ten network president says channel is making a profit” from Street & Smith Sports Business Daily 3/3/09…again, I got both off the internet
LikeLike
Those pods would really annoy Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota who all currently have protected and longstanding rivalries with each other. Therefore, it seems more logical to set up the pods so that they are all in the same pod. Also, it should be noted that protected rivalries can only exist if all protected rivalries are restricted to a set of two pods (meaning that all protected rivalries for Pod B teams are against Pod C teams and all protected rivalries for Pod A teams are against Pod D teams) or the scheduling doesn’t work.
As such, I have devised these alternative pods to the ones presented above (directed at cutter’s Dienhart-based pods, incase wordpress screws up the comments again):
Pod A: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers
Pod B: Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana
Pod C: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
Pod D: Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Northwestern
Protected Rivalries:
Michigan-Ohio State
Penn State-Nebraska
Wisconsin-Michigan State
Pitt-Missouri
Iowa-Purdue
Syracuse-Illinois
Minnesota-Indiana
Rutgers-Northwestern
The protected rivalries are designed to be competitive so that scheduling is relatively even. Meanwhile, the pods manage to maintain pretty much every current rivalry, although some, such as Michigan-Minnesota and Penn State-Michigan State had to lapse. However, as these were incredibly one-sided rivalries anyway that the lead school doesn’t care about tremendously, it still works out OK.
LikeLike
The only way to truly protect as many rivalries as possible is by going to nine conference games. You would then cycle the pods every two years for a total of six years. Then there would be two protected rivalries for each team. I took a look at the protected games and rivalries list on the Big Ten Wikipedia page and created pods and protected match-ups for each team. I managed to protect every game except one. I doubt most people will even realize which one was lost.
Pods
North
–Ohio State
–Michigan
–Michigan State
–Northwestern
South
–Illinois
–Missouri
–Purdue
–Indiana
East
–Penn State
–Pittsburgh
–Rutgers
–Syracuse
West
–Iowa
–Nebraska
–Minnesota
–Wisconsin
Pods would be grouped in the following rotation
Alpha – North/South & East/West
Beta – North/East & South/West
Gamma – North/West & South/East
Each team has two guaranteed match-ups. In the event that one of those teams is in the pod the extra spot will be replaced by a backup team. As backup teams would be played 4/6 years, I just tried to fill in the spots with available teams. Granted, not all of these are wow games, but honestly, not everyone can play Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State every year.
(P) = Protected
(B) = Backup
Alpha Year
Ohio State – Penn State (P) & Nebraska (B)
Michigan – Minnesota (P) & Wisconsin (P)
Michigan State – Iowa (B) & Penn State (P)
Northwestern – Wisconsin (B) & Pittsburgh (B)
Illinois – Pittsburgh (B) & Syracuse (B)
Missouri – Nebraska (P) & Iowa (P)
Purdue – Rutgers (P) & Minnesota (B)
Indiana – Syracuse (B) & Rutgers (P)
Penn State – Ohio State (P) & Michigan State (P)
Pittsburgh – Illinois (B) & Northwestern (B)
Rutgers – Purdue (P) & Indian (P)
Syracuse – Indiana (B) & Illinois (B)
Iowa – Michigan State (B) & Missouri (P)
Nebraska – Missouri (P) & Ohio State (B)
Minnesota – Michigan (P) & Purdue (B)
Wisconsin – Northwestern (B) & Michigan (P)
Beta Year
Ohio State – Illinois (P) & Missouri (B)
Michigan – Minnesota (P) & Wisconsin (P)
Michigan State – Nebraska (B) & Indiana (P)
Northwestern – Purdue (P) & Illinois (P)
Penn State – Missouri (B) & Iowa (B)
Pittsburgh – Iowa (P) & Nebraska (P)
Rutgers – Indiana (P) & Purdue (P)
Syracuse – Wisconsin (P) & Minnesota (P)
Illinois – Ohio State (P) & Northwestern (P)
Missouri – Penn State (B) & Ohio State (B)
Purdue – Northwestern (P) & Rutgers (P)
Indiana – Rutgers (P) & Michigan State (P)
Iowa – Pittsburgh (P) & Penn State (B)
Nebraska – Michigan State (B) & Pittsburgh (P)
Minnesota – Michigan (P) & Syracuse (P)
Wisconsin – Syracuse (P) & Michigan (P)
Gamma Year
Ohio State – Penn State (P) & Illinois (P)
Michigan – Purdue (B) & Rutgers (B)
Michigan State – Indiana (P) & Penn State (P)
Northwestern – Illinois (P) & Purdue (P)
Iowa – Pittsburgh (P) & Missouri (P)
Nebraska – Missouri (P) & Pittsburgh (P)
Minnesota – Syracuse (P) & Indian (B)
Wisconsin – Rutgers (B) & Syracuse (P)
Illinois – Northwestern (P) & Ohio State (P)
Missouri – Nebraska (P) & Iowa (P)
Purdue – Michigan (B) & Northwestern (P)
Indiana – Michigan State (P) & Minnesota (B)
Penn State – Ohio State (P) & Michigan State (P)
Pittsburgh – Iowa (P) & Nebraska (P)
Rutgers – Wisconsin (B) & Michigan (B)
Syracuse – Minnesota (P) & Syracuse (P)
So, using this system, your team will…
Play 5 teams every year.
Play 2 teams 4 out of 6 years
Play the remaining 8 teams 2 out of 6 years
I was going to make full schedules, but that’s very time consuming…
LikeLike
“North
–Ohio State
–Michigan
–Michigan State
–Northwestern
South
–Illinois
–Missouri
–Purdue
–Indiana
East
–Penn State
–Pittsburgh
–Rutgers
–Syracuse
West
–Iowa
–Nebraska
–Minnesota
–Wisconsin”
That’s the arrangement I keep coming up with as well, but that would be a tough road for Northwestern. Hopefully Michigan stays down. (The game that is lost is of course the prestigious and hotly contest LoL trophy.)
I do think that after the pods all other games should go into equal rotation. This would allow every team to play the others twice every 4 years (i.e a home and home). The backup rivalries aren’t really worth preserving above the 50% clip.
LikeLike
If you play 9 conference games and only protect the games within the same pod (3), the rest of the teams could be played every other year (6/12), which have the advantage of creating more variety and not leaving conference teams so long between games.
LikeLike
That would only work if you scrap the pod rotation idea. As the NCAA requires a round robin in a division, I don’t really see that happening. I know people are talking about a 4 team conference playoff, but I just don’t see that happening.
Variety is nice, but killing off rivalry games isn’t. Nebraska losing its rivalry with Oklahoma had a long term negative effect on the conference that is finally showing itself today.
LikeLike
I think Syracuse-Northwestern is the perfect protected rivalry for football.
LikeLike
As much as I would LOVE to see Penn State-Nebraska as a “protected rivalry” (suspect Mr. Spanier would love it too), I think the more likely PR for Nebraska is Iowa. Penn State’s PR would likely continue to be MSU.
Your pods make more sense than Dienhart’s though. In the end it’ll probably take the 12-18 months just to figure out the pods/divisions and scheduling – not to mention how to arrive at a championship.
BTW, I don’t think Minnesota-Michigan is a yearly rivalry although when they play they do play for the Little Brown Jug.
LikeLike
The point I was making was that the system does not protect all rivalries. Michigan and Minnesota both have two bigger rivals in-conference who take up the two protected spots. However, the rivalries that are not protected are rivalries without very strong feelings from both fanbases, which means that there would not be major fallout from making them infrequent games. For instance, I doubt Penn State fans would be up in arms if they couldn’t play Michigan State every year.
LikeLike
There has been a lot of discussion of pod systems on this board when we discuss a 16 team conference. Does that mean there will be “Pod Champions” as opposed to division champions? Since the pods are rotated we lose the divisional champions and historic relevance it creates, like in the SEC with East Champion versus West Champion. With pods, it looks like, over time, it is possible for a team to claim several Eastern division championships and well as several Western division championships. I thought it was a nice touch having a Bo Division and a Woody division, even with 8 teams in each. You create a better sense of divisional community, and meaningful divisional championships. Plus with a geographic division, less travel time and cost for teams, especially all the minor sports. With a pod system of 4 teams each, doesn’t it mean that the divisions that compete for the two spots in the championship game will have different teams each year?
LikeLike
My rules for Pods
1. Ohio St and Michigan must be in the same pod. You cannot have a situation where they play last game of the year and then play the next week. Even if this scenario only came into play once in a dozen years it is still too much.
2. The pods will be for both FB and BBall so the teams need to be evened out in both sports. Having Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue in the same pod will be too easy in FB and too hard in BBall.
3. The pods should be as close to a geographic fit as possible.
4. As many as (if not all) of the yearly FB rivalries should remain. Which means the following:
Illinois has to be able to play Mizzou, Indiana, and Northwestern. Which means the three have to be in different pods.
Indiana has to be able to play Illinois and has to be in the same pod as Purdue because of BBall.
Mizzou has to be able to play Illinois and Nebraska.
Northwestern has to be able to play Illinois and Purdue.
Purdue has to play Northwestern and be in the same pod as Indiana.
Nebraska has to be with Mizzou.
Iowa, Minn, and Wisc have to either all be together or all be apart in 3 different pods.
Pitt, RU, and SU have to either be in one pod or 3 seperate pods.
Penn St has to play Mich St and Ohio St. Which means Ohio St can’t be in the same pod as Mich St.
Mich St has to play Penn St and Mich.
Ohio St has to play Penn St and Mich.
Mich has to play Ohio St and Mich St.
When you take 1-4 in account the best fit IMO is
Pod A
Penn St
Pitt
SU
RU
Pod B
Mich
Ohio St
Purdue
Indiana
Pod C
Iowa
Mich St
Wisc
Minn
Pod D
Nebraska
Mizzou
Illinois
Northwestern
The schedules for BBall would be 1 game each non pod and 2 games each pod. For FB it would be 3 games total pod, 3 game total cross pod rivals, and 3 games rotating non pod.
For example lets use Mich St. They would play Iowa, Wisc, and Minn pod games every year. They would also play cross pod rivals Penn St, Michigan, and Illinois every year. Then they would rotate games yearly with the rest of the teams. Year 1 (SU, RU, Pitt), year 2 (Ohio St, Purdue, Indiana), year 3 (Nebraska, Mizzou, and Northwestern).
LikeLike
There’s no real reason to have divisions or pods for any sport other than football. In fact, I’m not sure that any conference uses divisions for sports other than football.
LikeLike
Big XII does for scheduling in Basketball. Teams play the other teams in their division twice and the teams in the opposing division once for a total of 16 conference games.
LikeLike
Pods certainly can be used in other sports.
For instance, if you end up with a 16 team basketball conference and you play an 18 game schedule, have each team play home-and-away with teams in your pod (6 games) and one game each against the other 12 teams.
LikeLike
You could use the same pods in other sports, but I think it would be a bad idea, since the rivalries worthy protecting in basketball (for instance) aren’t the same ones as those in football.
LikeLike
TV station in South Bend saying Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Nebraska are in.
http://www.wndu.com/sports/headlines/92447574.html
LikeLike
[I’ve tried to post this twice, let’s see if it show up this time]
A TV station in South Bend saying Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Nebraska are in.
http://www.wndu.com/sports/headlines/92447574.html
LikeLike
Tom Dienhart was on a local Omaha sports talk show today talking about the expansion (segment link below). Apparently, his sources for this 16 team conference are some Missouri officials. Link to the interview is as follows:
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4612838
LikeLike
Sorry. Just realized I linked the segment after the interview. The interview link is as follows:
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4612820
LikeLike
Actually, I did originally link the right one. Sorry, my browser is jacked up.
LikeLike
Wow, shocking how bad a radio program that station has. They have no clue how to use drops.
LikeLike
Can’t argue with you there. We had a great local afternoon show hosted by Matt Perrault who covered our local teams, but would never put on the red tinted glasses, so we always got a straight analysis. Unfortunately the rival station was never as popular as the ESPN one, so Matt ended up getting the axe.
LikeLike
I am a Michigan alum, and even a booster. I live in NYC and pay for cable TV. I am a HUGE college football and college sports fan — by far the biggest I know. I went to the national championship game this year in LA (the missus is a Tide fan).
All this talk is nice, but one critical point I have to emphasize: adding Rutgers or Syracuse will never, in a million years, add value to the Big Ten network in NYC. Never. I cannot imagine the cable companies trying to charge me for carrying it. Or me paying a supplement for it. We missed Food Network and almost ABC for gosh sakes! The fantasy that because Rutgers or SU is on Big 10 network will result in more NYC eyeballs is crazy.
Just saying. The fantasy of the “NYC market” is nice, but take it from a consumer here, that is not going to happen. Tagliabue might have been crude, but he is correct: it aint gonna happen. Go Blue!
LikeLike
Cablevision and Time Warner play hardball and engage in brinksmanship with everyone, so even an RU/SU/ND play wouldn’t bring them to the table without a struggle. Of course that’s a struggle the BTN fought and basically won with Comcast. But I think the Dolans (Cablevision) make the Robertses (Comcast) look like pushovers. So NYC will be a tough nut to crack under the best of circumstances.
LikeLike
New Jersey has 9 million residents itself, which is 50% more than Missouri. Maybe the Big Ten would be content just to add all of those New Jersey eyeballs?
LikeLike
@Paul – That is the #1 financial argument for Rutgers. If it can deliver the state of New Jersey, then it’s definitely a financial winner.
LikeLike
Bingo. Let’s keep in mind NYC is the 5 boros. NJ alone is 9 million people. LI is separate as well as Westchester and Fairfield County. Yes I do understand the NY Metro DMA includes No Jersey, LI, Fairfield, and Westchester, but it does not include about 5 million or so of the rest of NJ. The Big Ten National package along with the local teams of RU/SU is what will be pitched to the cable companies not just whether RU/SU will “deliver” the NY market. With the Big boys of the Big Ten coming to town 4-5 times a year for football as well will also drive demand for the BT Network. Don’t underestimate the appeal of Big Time College Sports to the NY market. It’s the Package that will drive the demand.
LikeLike
Re NY-NJ market (Rick)
Adding both RU and SU not only adds large contiguous affluent markets.
Aside from an interesting regional game between the 2 schools, adding both schools DOUBLES the regional exposure from 4-5 to 8-10 football games each year and doubles the prospect of a possible yearly event game at the Meadowlands.
Compare that to the ACC: an isolated BC or a Big East with perhaps UConn as potentially the only northeast team left in the conference.
LikeLike
@NYWolve,
I have other friends that live in Manhattan and in upstate New York (Rochester – is that considered upstate?) that have said the exact same thing: No way does anyone living there follow Rutgers, Syracuse, or college football so closely that they would be willing to “pay” more for it as a result. However, they are now following Frank’s Blog, FWIW.
LikeLike
OK, we are talking about $8.40 a year for the Big Ten Network here folks. “Pay more”? Oh the outrage. (assuming .70 a month). Probably less once Cablevision finishes negotiating. Maybe ends up being .50/month. $6.00 a year. A YEAR!!!
It’s the Big Ten Network!! It’s not just watching Rutgers and Syracuse for God’s sake (sorry shroom).
LikeLike
I have a question for Penn State fans. If Rutgers becomes a member, do you think you will develop a rivalry with them?
When I look at the possibility of Pitt, Syracuse and Penn State belonging in the same conference, I see a great regional rivalry. Is that right? (I grew up in the Southern Tier region in New York during the ’70s, and there was a good deal of interest in all three of these teams.) But if Rutgers is substituted for either Pitt or Syracuse, I have to wonder if there would be as much interest.
This concerns me, because I think one of the Big Tens strengths is the many intense regional rivalries within the conference. If we chase markets without regard to rivalries, we may get the market, but not really have much to offer there.
LikeLike
It depends on how good Rutgers is probably.
I mean Rutgers has started to come on line the past 5 years. It was talked about as one of the potential beasts (like Florida was a couple decades ago) due to the fact that it is in New Jersey and that a large, public university in a good location should be able to field a competitive team.
If Penn State is beating Rutgers 8 or 9 times out of 10, there isn’t going to be any rivalry regardless of what the Rutgers fans may want.
Penn State is much more likely to develop a home state rivalry with Pitt since Pitt is a more proven quantity on the football field and would probably be able to knock Penn State off more often than Rutgers.
Rutgers and Syracuse could be an intriguing rivalry though considering the NY v NJ aspect as well as the fact that football games between the two are likely to be more even.
Pitt/Penn State and Rutgers/Syracuse would probably end up being the rivalries that would develop. At least that’s the guess looking out the next 5-10 years. If Rutgers really becomes the contender people always talk about year in and year out, then Rutgers/Penn State would be more interesting.
For Penn State it’d probably be a vast upgrade over the current situation where they’re sort of just hanging out alone in the east since they were added alone and it really hasn’t been that long (2 decades is plenty of time, but not that much)…
LikeLike
I just want to point out, I realize that Rutgers and Syracuse are both in the Big East and play each other every year, but it would be different in the Big Ten where they’re the two most east schools matched up in a rivalry. It would lend a different atmosphere than is there during current Big East games between the two.
LikeLike
Really? How? Because the league office in Chicago says so? I think the PSU and MSU fans want to talk to you about how that Land Grant Trophy rivalry is going.
LikeLike
Well it’s all nice in theory I suppose…
LikeLike
At this point, from a Rutgers perspective, I would say that RU/SU are building a pretty heated rivalry now and would bring it with them, More so than RU/Pitt. There is some bad blood boiling between these two programs. Neither like each other very much, the fans don’t like each other very much (although I have come to enjoy and respect the Orange bloggers on this site ie: Omni) but elsewhere on other blogs it is pretty ugly, they recruit the same areas and battle it out for similar players, and each have bloodied each others noses pretty bad in their games over the years. Pitt/PSU is a natural with similar bad blood history. RU/Pitt is less fully formed as of yet. RU/PSU I don’t see a rivalry yet, it depends (as stated by Zeke above) on how the games go over time and whether RU bloodies their nose a few times or there are close games and controversy. The fan bases need to build a lot more history of conflict as well. They do recruit some of the same areas and do compete for similar players so that will help. It is just not there yet as a rivalry and you can’t have one just by saying it should be one. SU/PSU is still early as well, I just don’t see it being heated enough yet and there has not been consistent conflict enough over time.
LikeLike
Re RU and SU (Rick)
I would agree that RU and SU are in the midst of interesting games and I believe the Big 10 should consider both.
For many years, SU routinely beat RU. However the past several years (5?), RU has beaten SU. Last year’s game was won by SU 31-13.
This years game will without doubt be intense.
Rick, keep it confidential, but many SU fans like RU and I have no doubt RU fans like SU as well.
LikeLike
@c: You are right, there is more mutual respect and admiration than folks think, but flamers on both sides keep stoking. On the QT of course. Peace.
LikeLike
Putting the “Rivalries” in perspective for PSU/Pitt/RU/SU:
In order to flesh out rivalry questions with these 4 teams I looked at the records of each against the others over the last 5,10, and 40 years. Also the records of each against each other in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s. Also 2005-2009.
PSU vs. Pitt:
5 yr: 0-0
Since 2000: 0-1
90’s: 6-0
80’s: 5-4-1
70’s: 8-2
40 yr total: 19-17-1 (27 games in 40 years)
PSU vs. Syracuse:
5 yr: 2-0
Since 2000: 2-0
90’s: 1-0
80’s: 8-2
70’s: 9-1
40 yr total: 20-3 (23 games in 40 years)
PSU vs. Rutgers:
5 yr: 0-0
Since 2000: 0-0
90’s: 6-0
80’s: 7-1
70’s: 3-0
40 yr total: 10-1 (11 games in 40 years)
Rutgers vs. Pitt:
5 yr.: 4-1
Since 2000: 4-6
90’s: 3-7
80’s: 0-7
70’s: 0-0
40 yr. total: 7-20 (27 games in 40 years)
Rutgers vs. Syracuse:
5 year: 4-1
Since 2000: 5-5
90’s: 1-9
80’s: 3-7
70’s: 1-0
40 yr. total: 10-21 (31 games in 40 years)
Pitt vs. Syracuse:
5 yr: 5-0
Since 2000: 7-3
90’s: 0-9-1
80’s 5-5
70’s: 8-2
40 yr total: 20-19-1 (40 games in 40 years)
LikeLike
Sorry: PSU vs Pitt 19-7-1 over 40 years.
LikeLike
Interesting. Syracuse-Penn St. did not play much in the 1990s, when Syracuse was a much more viable national player in football. Pitt-Penn St. did not play much in the 2000s, when Pitt was moving away from the dismal 1990s.
Not saying it was anything intentional… but if Penn St. had played Syracuse 10 times in the 1990s and Pitt 10 times in the 2000s…those numbers would be much more even.
Same with Rutgers… no games in the last five years, where Rutgers has been relevant.
I don’t believe in formal pods, but informal pods of this nature is certainly interesting as a way of ensuring and nurturing rivalries–rather than just plunking Rutgers into the Big 10 and wishing them good luck.
LikeLike
Re PSU, RU, SU, Pitt rivalry (Zeek)
During the last few years, the regional
competition between RU, UConn and SU has been interesting.
RU has greatly improved over the last few years; however SU under new coach Marrone
is on its way back, beating RU 31-13 last year.
I believe RU and SU if invited would definitely be an interesting regional matchup.
If Pitt is part of the mix along with PSU, it would add to interesting northeast football competition along
with other major Big 10 teams providing competition for PSU and interesting games as well as RU and SU.
LikeLike
I saw somebody in a different post suggest that, as far as Rutgers is concerned, it is not so much what Rutgers brings to the Big Ten, it’s what the Big Ten brings to Rutgers. If Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan, as well as more distant teams like Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa start showing up at Rutgers Stadium, then Rutgers will respond with better and better teams, and develop stronger local interest. Then Rutgers’ membership will start bringing dividends to the Big Ten.
Maybe.
I personally lean toward inviting Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas, because they have current strong rivalries, and a long tradition. That would leave two Big East teams to add, and of the choices, Pitt and Syracuse seem to have more history with the Big Ten, and would perhaps develop more immediate, interesting rivalries.
However, in my bones, I think the Big Ten presidents like Rutgers, and that they will probably get an invitation (and in turn, unfortunately, Kansas is out). Just wondering how that would sit with Penn State and any other likely Big East team(s) that might join.
LikeLike
@grant
Its not so much Rutgers will get better, its that addings schools like Rutgers (or Cuse, UConn, etc) will allow the combination of solid, though unspectacular numbers of alumni with the solid amount of PSU/OSU/UoM etc alumni living in the area for purposes of revenue generation.
ABC/ESPN still won’t be able to market a Rutgers game nationally any more than before, but it will have a marked increase in demand regionally when Big10 schools with alumni in its (Rutgers’) footprint come to town to play the local team (PSU/OSU/UoM v Rutgers). This is the way in which “second tier” programs can provide value, though admittedly only for a conference with its own tv channel that can exploit said games even if ABC/ESPN isn’t willing to pay for them.
LikeLike
I totally agree with your comments concerning Rutgers. The Big East just doesn’t have the resources to elevate the Rutgers program (or any of the schools in the Big East). If Rutgers is invited to join the Big Ten, The Big Ten will be able to elevate the Scarlet Knight program. It may take about 5 years, but I am confident it will happen. Rutgers is a sleeping giant.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct, it will happen. They are close.
LikeLike
Rivalries are only partly about proximity. They take time and they blossom over memorable games and incidents. Aside from our dormant rivalry with Pitt, PSU fans get most intense over our games with Michigan and Ohio State, traditional rulers of the Big 10. We’d like to think Penn State makes it a “Big 3” atop the league, and those games are our chance to prove it. Iowa and Wisconsin I think carry a charge with our fanbase, since they have been tough opponents and the games have generally been very close. If Syracuse, RU or MSU play meaningful/memorable/controversial games against Penn State, a rivalry will flare up. It can’t be forced or engineered.
LikeLike
As one of the few Nittanys who prefer a one and done with Nebraska, this is the perfect place to add my thoughts. I think we, PSU, have the best possible conference alignment RIGHT NOW. Our rivalries with Michigan and Ohio State, although not fulfilling from a winning percentage, have been huge successes! I am not enthralled with the thought of Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers joining us in our pod. I’m sure most of the Penn Staters living in PA, NY, and NJ would probably welcome these new rivalries. I, living far away, do not. I have doubts that the Big 10 will play 9 conference games and lose those extra home games versus the MAC. Thus, we, PSU, will be playing Ohio State and Michigan 5 out of 12 years. In a 24 year span, Michigan and Ohio State,(and Wisconsin and Iowa, and …) will be in Happy Valley 5 times.
@Mike R, thankyou for questioning PSU among the ‘big 3’. Because this blog has so many Penn Staters on it, I think Iowa and Wisconsin have been shortchanged in the discussion of the top football programs in the Big 10. My best research shows the following since PSU joined in 93. In games between only the five schools mentioned, here are the winning percentages: Ohio State 68%, Michigan 59%, Wisconsin 42%, Iowa 40%, Penn State 38%! Hmmmmmm. I think I know why JoePa wants that large eastern expansion!
LikeLike
@Q
With the right 4 pod set-up (assuming 5 team expansion) PSU would play two of OSU/UoM/Neb (if invited) every year and all every 3. Even if broken up into a likely East/West division, you’re still seeing OSU/UoM/PSU play every year (they’ll all be in the East). I know folks on here like to worry about the rivalries (and admittedly unless done right PSU would be giving up some good games against the likes of Iowa/Wisconsin), but I think its really not an issue.
And as for why JoePa wants eastward expansion…I think you hit directly on something I’ve actually been complaining about for years.
While the Big10 has been great for PSU in many many ways, the fact is football wise it has been a draw. The reason being with the addition of PSU, the Big10 got access to the good recruiting grounds of PA and started to dilute the pipeline of recruits that used to be relied upon to fill the PSU football program. Meanwhile PSU doesn’t, and has never, recruited in the mid-western areas creating basically a one way street of football talent that tends to lead out of PA (and most usually into OSU/UoM). What’s more, during its independant years, PSU used to pick up quite a few recruits from up-state NY, NJ, and New England…when it played teams like Syracuse, Rutgers, and BC regularly. Joining the Big10 put a halt to playing those schools on a regular basis and cut off the exposure PSU had to posssible recruits coming out of that area.
You say JoePa wants to add eastern schools becasue they’ll be easy to beat up on, fair enough. But you can’t deny its also PSU wanting to re-engage in its old recruiting grounds that inclusion into the Big10 has made much more difficult to do.
Personally, if PSU hasn’t been a Top 3 team since entering the Big10 (I’d argue otherwise despite winning percentages) I really think it would be by re-engaging in those eastern recruiting grounds it hasn’t been effectively able to tap since the early 90’s.
LikeLike
When looking at Penn State’s roster, they have players from Ohio, Michigan, New York, New Jersey while the overwhelming majority are from PA.
Ohio had twice as many division 1 recruits as PA. I don’t see how a few PA prospects making it to MI and OH has made things a one way street especially if Penn State chooses not to recruit in other areas of the conference.
In addition, the North East area of the country aside from NJ, doesn’t produce very many Div 1 football athletes.
Div 1 Football recruits 2010
Ohio – 172
PA – 75
IL – 72
MI – 62
IN – 26
WI – 25
MN – 15
IA – 12
NJ – 59
MD – 54
NY – 28
MA – 9
CT – 12
NE – 6
MO – 24
LikeLike
@prophetstruth – I’ve seen those numbers before and it’s absolutely shocking how horrible the state of New York is in terms of producing Division 1 football players. My understanding is that the state of Hawaii produces as many players despite having only about 6% of the population. Basketball recruiting is likely a different story, though – NYC is to basketball recruiting as Texas is to football recruiting.
LikeLike
@Frankthetank
I was floored when I say that NY only had 28 Div 1 recruits. Hawaii had 32 by the way. That’s why I think from a recruiting standpoint it would be best for the Big10 to get Texas (408). That would leave Florida for the SEC (355) and Cali (355) for the Pac10 if we end up with 3 Super Conferences.
LikeLike
@prophet
First off, understood that players from all states manage to make it to all schools. The term “one way” was an exageration based on the fact that OSU/UoM have winning records against PSU and if you’re a top notch highschool athlete that sees this record who are you more apt to go to? The Terrel Pryor sittuation of a couple years ago is a perfect example. Its this “drain” of the most highly touted recruits that I was trying to focus on.
Also, just because a state (or region) has a low number of Div-1 recruits doesn’t mean it doesn’t produce football players. I mean am I really to believe there are 28 Div-1 players in the nation who came from NY?
PSU’s starting MLB this year, Josh Hull, was a walk on, Academic All Big10 who majored in environmental systems engineering from State College, PA, and turned himself into a 7th round draft pick. These types of players are only attracted to a school by being in their markets from youth and enticing them to come for academics.
Fact is there’s a lot of talented, smart football players in the North East. They aren’t all (or apparantly most of them literally aren’t) Div-1 recruitable material, but they can still turn into players/stars.
Coming back to my original point, playing in the Mid-Atlantic / North East was not just about recruiting the highest touted, but exposure to the “walk-ons” that figured even if they couldn’t play football PSU would still give them a great education. Once PSU stopped coming to town, they might as well have been USC or Florida…good teams, but ones the students have no connections to and thus aren’t usually considered when it comes time for college applications.
LikeLike
Here is the recruiting breakdown by school and the States of PA, NJ, NY, and side bars on OH, MI, and Fla. for the recruiting years 2002-2010:
Pennsylvania:
Pitt: 91
PSU: 64
SU: 32
Rutgers: 14
OSU: 13
Mich: 11
New York:
SU: 53
Rutgers: 15
PSU: 15
Pitt: 10
Mich: 4
OSU: 1
New Jersey:
Rutgers: 87
PSU: 20
SU: 16
Pitt: 15
Mich: 4
OSU: 2
*Ohio:
PSU: 9
*Michigan:
PSU: 8
*Florida:
Rutgers: 49
For the most part schools stay in state and poach a little to border states. Syracuse has to do more than most poaching than others reaching into PA and NJ.
Rutgers in the Schiano era (he came from the “U” as their DC) has recruited Florida hard to rebuild the program on top of the NJ talent.
PSU does a nice job in NJ, as does ND, Pitt, SU, and recently Florida.
The main competition for PSU in Pennsylvania is Pitt. Wanny has really made big strides over the last 9 years getting more 4/5 star talent. Next is SU. It is not OSU or Michigan.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy
I agree that there are walk-ons who go on to become contributors and/or great professional athletes. Iowa has a recent one in Dallas Clark.
I also agree some of the top talent will leave all states for a variety of reasons. However, those are exceptions. It still stands that there are fewer Division 1 signees from the Northeast.
And really, most of the top talent and top walk-ons would probably look at Penn State anyway. Who else is a dominant player in the Northeast? It’s Penn State and then all the rest are far behind. Penn State has been highly ranked academically and athletically in football. Penn State is on TV all of the time. They know who and what Penn State is about. I think if an athlete in PA or the Northeast that is recruited by Penn State doesn’t end up attending Penn State it has more to do with personal choice.
And yes, there were only 28 Div 1 football players signed from the state of NY. Sure some may have walked on at various schools and became special athletes but I wouldn’t say that it was a significant number.
LikeLike
Here is who is actually getting the most D1 players out of the Northeast (Mass, CT, NY, NJ) as opposed who we think is. (2002-2010 recruiting classes)
Penn State:
Mass: 0
CT: 6
NY: 15
NJ: 20
Total: 41
Notre Dame:
Mass: 2
CT: 5
NY: 1
NJ: 12
Total: 20
Pitt:
Mass: 0
CT: 0
NY: 10
NJ: 15
Total: 25
Syracuse:
Mass: 11
CT: 5
NY: 53
NJ: 16
Total: 85
Boston College:
Mass: 31
CT: 10
NY: 10
NJ: 24
Total: 75
Rutgers:
Mass: 1
CT: 8
NY: 15
NJ: 87
Total: 111
Summary:
Rutgers: 111
Syracuse: 85
Boston College: 75
Penn State: 41
Notre Dame: 20
Of course this is not all the D1 signees but these schools got the most
LikeLike
Totaling up recruits this way doesn’t tell the whole story. If PSU signs 10 recruits from Pennsylvania one year and Pitt signs 25, it’s possible PSU signed the best 10 players from the state and then grabbed good players from elsewhere in the country, while Pitt signed players who were slightly inferior to the players going to PSU. In this case, PSU truly dominated Pennsylvania recruiting, but improved its team by going elsewhere for some recruits.
LikeLike
First off, PSU runs with about 40 walk ons and 90 scholarship players. This means 30% of the team is a walk on. If this average holds true nationally that’s a lot of players being ignored. What’s more, those numbers would probably be skewed based on population. Thus KS may have a certain number of Div1 recruits, but odds are there will only be a couple (as you said) that would be walk-ons. 30% of a much larger population base however means that many more that might end up being Div1 football players, even if they aren’t recruited as such. To be honest, now that we’re on this topic, I’d really like to see some numbers that go deeper than just Div1 recruits. Maybe % of Div1 players by state….stupid ADD.
Anyway, I’d argue that PSU’s “dominance” of NE has been waning for quite some time. While we get play time there, its really BigEast (and now some ACC) country. While PSU didn’t move anywhere, its seen by those NE athletes as being more mid-western by virtue of its conference.
LikeLike
Or that the “only 10” OSU/UoM poached weren’t the best in PA.
LikeLike
@m(ag): That is a good point but as a broad brush overview of recruiting in the Northeast as well as Pa it gives us a good picture of what is happening. I don’t want to quibble too much on this but when someone makes statements about a school being far and way the leader in recruiting a certain area it needs to be backed up with some context and facts. For instance, Ohio State and Michigan are not walking into Pa since PSU joined the Big Ten and making big inroads and taking tons of talent. PSU is not walking into the NE and dominating the recruiting wars, neither is Notre Dame. Like I said in an earlier post, the facts show that most teams poach a little on their borders but for the most part mine the gold in their home state. PSU and Pitt are in a bloody recruiting battle in their home state every year. It ebbs and flows. So I do think these numbers put things in perspective because they are the gross numbers. Peeling the onion back on the quality of the recruits for each school I will leave for someone else.
LikeLike
I will add this, of the 77 players that PSU, Pitt, ND, Michigan, and OSU got from NJ over the last 9 years (2002-2010) recruiting classes, a very high % were no less than 4 Star talent and a high % were 5 Star. That’s 8.5 4/5 Star kids a year going to these schools. That is a good number.
LikeLike
Boston College is in that 77 number as well.
LikeLike
@Rick:
It’s difficult to gauge quality of recruits as a fan. Generally speaking, looking at the individual offer sheets gives a good picture of what’s considered a “big time recruit” at the time of recruitment (not to be confused with how they actually perform in college). Sometimes it’s useful to take a composite ranking of the three big recruiting sites out there — Rivals, Scout, and ESPN.
That said, in the last five years or so OSU hasn’t taken mass quantities of Pennsylvania recruits, but has certainly taken many of the “big time” recruits from the state (not all, but many).
Similarly, when Michigan’s last two Heisman winners came from Ohio, and Oklahoma makes a living from poaching recruits out of Texas. As you said, the general rule of thumb is to fill your roster with local boys and then try to get some out of state stars to set you over the top. The closer the state the better, and it’s important to note that you’re generally better the closer you are to fertile grounds.
California, Texas, and Florida are generally considered the top tier in this case, with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia often considered the next tier, etc.
With that said, aside from *maybe* PSU, I imagine if you asked any coach what team they’d want it’d be Texas/A&M. True that the competition would be tougher than Rutgers/Syracuse/others, but frequently playing in Texas would potentially open the state to more recruiting, and Texas produces a ton of top-flight football talent every year.
LikeLike
Iowa ruined our national title chance in 08 and our shot at the Rose Bowl in 09. For sure I want to even the score with them. That’s how a rivalry is built. UW’s Bielema using that asinine rule starting the clock upon kickoff rather than reception to run out the first half clock against PSU a couple of years ago — infuriating! bush league! Heck yes that’s kindling for a rivalry.
LikeLike
@Mike R
Don’t forget to mention that Iowa has won something like 8 of 10 against PSU. 🙂
LikeLike
Bush league? I thought it was brilliant!
LikeLike
I would LOVE it if JoePa’s replacement were Kirk Ferentz.
Intersting note…his alma matter is UConn…
LikeLike
IMO Penn State’s recruiting problems are summarized in two words: Joe Paterno. Joe’s last honest flirtation with a MNC was in 1994 with that remarkable team. Since then, the team has had problems and it’s not just because of Big Ten competition, recruiting or otherwise. I have read comments about the nepotism and dead wood in the PSU athletic department. PSU lost recruits like Chad Henne to Michigan because, frankly, Michigan had better coaching at the time, especially on offense in general and QBs in particular. Terrelle Pryor went to tOSU while Darryl Clark went to PSU. PSU did recruit a good Michigan QB for the 2010 class, but that is probably due to the state of Michigan’s FB program as much as PSU’s program. Joe’s son is the QB coach and in general PSU QBs have been underdeveloped and have a tendency to “regress” during their careers. PSU’s O-line is coached by Dick Anderson (ex-Rutgers) and generally the O-line has been cited as a factor in PSU choking in big games. Tom Bradley has to be given props for keeping the D solid, but you cannot win with D alone. Add to that the fact that kids who come to PSU because of Paterno don’t really know how long he’ll be staying. PSU has been fortunate to attract good kids from Maryland, Virginia, and the Southeast primarily due to Larry Johnson, who coaches the D-line and was pursued by Ron Zook at Illinois.
PSU has a good record against mid-to-lower level competition. They have a lousy record against top 25 competition and are generally a good bet to lose tough games on the road. Much of that is due to offensive (no pun intended) playcalling that emphasizes playing “not to lose” as opposed to playing to win. PSU is quite predictable, which is probably why guys like Lloyd Carr and Kirk Ferentz have had their way with Joe.
Frankly I do not think that what JoePa wants means a thing to the Big Ten. The Big Ten wants eastward expansion to gain the NY metro area for the BTN, greater Eastern exposure, and better academics. PSU is a natural fit with those schools and, football-wise, probably would have their way with Syracuse as they currently are, but Rutgers would be a tough customer and Pitt would probably give PSU all they could handle. PSU would probably prevail most years in a 4-team pod of PSU, Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers, but would likely not qualify for a championship game most years and would lose if they did go.
I suspect when Joe retires things will get worse for PSU and I could see them falling to the level Tennessee has fallen in the SEC, or even worse. PSU admin has made it clear that they don’t want to pay a lot for their next coach and prefers keeping their coaching in the PSU family. See the PSU basketball team to determine how well that strategy works.
LikeLike
@84
You speak a lot of truth there 84. Fact is JoePa has always been a conservative coach who believes in “fundamental football”. This does lend itself toward getting predictable and I think that’s exactly what happens against Iowa/OSU every year (and Michigan before RichRod).
The thing is, there seems to be quite a contradiction between what you’re hearing and what I’m hearing. You mention nepotism with Galen Hall/Jay Paterno (and mind you, I’m sure there’s more than a little going on there) and lack of coaching ability, but its supposedly those two that pushed for the “Spread HD” offense PSU currently runs and has run successfully.
To be honest, on the O side of the ball, while it can be maddening and sometimes very predictable, I remember more losses stemming from players not executing than just getting blown out (the drifting pass over the middle that got INT by Clark against Iowa a couple years ago springs to mind). Offensive line has never been great, but for past several years I have noticed most all of the PSU Olinemen being picked up by NFL teams, if only for camps, and this speaks more to me of getting the most out of minimal talent than it does poor coaching (PSU’s last high round offensive linemen was Levi Brown and I can’t remember the next before him which speaks to a lack of great recruits).
Personally, while I like Bradley and think he’s a great coach as far as teaching the game, his play calls totally mystify me. Third and long and Pryor hasn’t made hardly anything and you call a CB blitz with deep zone on that side of the field allowing Pryor to walk for the first? USC is ripping our Cover-3 apart by stopping our 4 man rush and hitting the third WR down the seam and it takes 3 quarters for him to dial in a MLB blitz? Heck that didn’t even work, but it got Sanchez to scare himself into dump off passes for the rest of the game (with that look anyway).
As for Johnson…you’re 100% on that and I think that’s one of the main reasons for the turn around after the downturn. JoePa hasn’t recruited much lately I’ve heard and I think the crew doing it before Johnson was a large part of the lackluster group we had on the field.
The only thing I don’t know about is JoePa’s replacement. I agree they’re going to look in house first, but if how they got their new wrestling coach is any indication they may not be afraid to shell out if someone of interest comes knocking.
However, bringing back to topic, I’m reminded of a NCAA head coach who, when asked if he’d rather be a better coach or a better recruiter, said “Recruiter. No question because if you have better athletes you don’t need to coach them.”…I of course paraphrase.
Still, I think when you combine a re-surging Pitt program, losing records to OSU/UoM, and the lack of exposure in historic recruiting areas in the east combined with, admittedly, conservative play calling you can see why PSU tends to guarantee 1-2 losses a season.
LikeLike
Yes, I do think that a rivalry would develop between Penn State and Rutgers over time. Even though Penn State leads the all time series at 22-2, a lot has happened at Rutgers in the last decade. With Big Ten membership, their recruiting and facilities will improve. Penn State takes recruits out of NJ on a regular basis. Over time, I don’t think the games that Penn State plays in NJ would be considered “PSU home games” anymore. As a Penn State alum, I have an enormous amount of friends who went to Rutgers and are Rutgers fans. The two schools have many coaching and faculty ties.
I also believe that Syracuse will rebound with Big Ten membership for the same reasons I cited with Rutgers. Penn State leads that all-time series at 42-23.
I believe the bad blood between Pitt and Penn State and facts concerning the rivalry have been well documented. Penn State has offered on many occasions to resume the rivalry on the condition that for every 2 games in State College, there will be 1 played in Pittsburgh. Pitt will not accept that condition. Penn State leads the series 50-42-4. If you look at the series history, 96 games have been played, BUT 72 OF THOSE GAMES HAVE BEEN IN PITTSBURGH! Only 24 in State College/Bellefonte!
Penn State has the larger stadium. They have also argued that they need the extra home game for the revenue to support their non-revenue sports. Since Pitt has trouble selling out their stadium, and they have hosted 72 out of 96 games in the series, I find it hard to believe Pitt would not accept the 2 games to 1 offer.
Can any Pitt fans out there please offer the reasoning behind Pitt declining to continue the series.
LikeLike
I’ll try to answer as dispassionately as I can.
Pitt fans resent the “larger stadium” rational. I don’t know if the same argument was used to schedule all the games in Pitt stadium when it was the premier arena in the 30s and whatnot, but the idea that having a bigger stadium entitles you more is ridiculous. It’s not like Heinz field is the same as old Nippert stadium; we have a new, professional facility. Saying what’s good enough for primetime Steelers vs Cowboys isn’t good enough for Penn State seems to reinforce perceptions of arrogance.
Pitt fans see the “we need the money from extra home games” argument as greed masquerading as economic fact. Sure, 7 home games is nice, but you don’t get there by asking for 2-for-1s or 3-for-1s with other BCS schools. For example Penn State has had a 3-for-1 with Temple since 2006, but an even 1-and-1 with Syracuse. Asking for more than our conference member Syracuse is insulting and deliberate move by either Paterno or the AD.
Now, there are some Pitt fans that think we should have taken the 2-for-1, insulting or not, saying that it wouldn’t be so bad; we’d benefit from the recruiting advantages from the inevitable media coverage and close games, win or lose (though winning in happy valley would of course be preferred). Ultimately Pitt’s AD decided setting the precedent of unequal games would not be worth those benefits.
LikeLike
How about forgetting about all the other arguments and just focusing on this logic: Pitt has hosted 72 games. Penn state has hosted 24. How about letting Penn State host more now and even it up?
LikeLike
Again, I’m a guy with no dog in this fight, but using the fact that games 60 or so more years ago were more likely to be played in Pittsburgh rather than State College strikes this neutral observer as an awfully weak talking point to justify a 2-and-1 demand on an in-state, BCS-level rival.
LikeLike
Personally I’ve always felt it was JoePa being smart.
Pitt won the last match-up at home. JoePa knew Pitt had a good program and would continue to, but PSU could not afford losses to a BigEast opponent in the same state as that would hurt PSU recruiting and its competitiveness in the Big10/overall (and thus be bad for Big10 business).
IMO, Pitts home field advantage would be large enough where a loss possibility was real. So if you figure “the home team in the match-up will probably win” and you have a 2-1 advantage that means you can still take some losses but not hurt yourself too much as you’ll be winning twice as much as losing.
Either that or he’s still ticked off Pitt voted against PSU joining the BigEast back in 1986…
LikeLike
When I was at Penn State from 1967-71, Syracuse was out big rival, not Pitt. The Panthers were awful. The Penn State-Pitt “rivalry” lasted less 20 years from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s.
LikeLike
and yet there are many who want it back:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=9846169822
LikeLike
Lets say that Notre Dame does join the big ten as the 12th team and we forgo adding further big east teams. Since Notre Dame is the #1 rated College football team in NYC and they have already lined up a game in Yankee Stadium, couldn’t they attract the market in NYC if they just made that an annual big ten game. There is enough support in the town with Penn State and with Michigan as well where if it were either of those teams playing, they would have a NY following as well.
It seems like a solid way to bypass the get rutgers/syracuse logic, and I would much rather destroy the big 12 and pick up the other solid markets there with the leftover 4. We could pick up Missouri, and Nebraska. Our west coast buddy conference could pick up Colorado and Utah. The big 12 would be crumbling, and than an all out bid war from the 3 major conferences would start on getting Texas/A&M. I see us winning that war to make our fearsome 16 team conference that will look formidable to any.
LikeLike
I don’t see any Big Ten teams giving up a Home date with Notre Dame to play a 1000mi away. The only neutral site Big Ten game involving the Irish would likely be against Northwestern @ Soldier Field
LikeLike
I was at PSU in the 80s, so I was there for the best of that rivalry. But look at this Pittsburgh sports blogpost and the vitriol in the comments section if you don’t think Pitt-Penn State sparks passion:
http://mondesishouse.blogspot.com/2006/11/relevance-of-pitt-vs-penn-state.html
LikeLike
Hell hath no fury like a Pitt scorned! It was everything I hoped it wouldn’t be. Go Mounties!
LikeLike
Testing…
LikeLike
I´m interested in the internal dynamics of any COC/P vote. And maybe someone here can help me out, because I think we´re overlooking an important idea.
From reading this blog and from everything I know about the Big 10, I think the current members may be more biased toward Western expansion. And in order to be accepted, a nominee would need 8/11 votes, and the only university I see that is gung ho about looking east is PSU. The question then is, can any of these Eastern schools get the 8 votes it needs? I´m looking at Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin and it would seem like they would all prefer a Big 12 expansion. If that´s the case – and they know that expansion has to occur and from a financial standpoint is more or less a toss up between RU,SU,PU,KU and MU – why not blacklist the East Coast schools and force a Western expansion?
The question then is does West side of the Big 10 have any affinity to the Big East candidates? Apart from the Big 10 network concerns, maybe Rutgers gives the Big 10 more exposure in NYC – and that would justify a vote? Maybe Pitt for the research facilities alone?
I´m not sure of the answers to these questions, but I imagine they depend on the internal dynamics of a vote at each of these schools. Do we know how an individual chancellor/president decides his vote? Is there a poll of the athletic dept, faculty, etc or is it pretty magnanimous at the COC/P level? If it´s made purely at the highest level, I think this becomes very political, and relationships and strategic voting decides this thing.
If we´re thinking like a university president – and our school´s on the west side of the Big 10 – I just don´t know if I can justify voting for a Big East school. Why not hold out for Mizzou-Neb-Kan if I know that that´s plan b – especially if I already have relationships with president or chancellors at those schools?
LikeLike
As a western (Wisconsin) alum, I’d say that once academic concerns are met, I’d vote what’s best for the bottom line. That means adding teams with very good sports (you have to enhance the product, and that means giving the BTN subscribers something worth watching) followed by schools with good markets and large numbers of alums.
With this said, even if the expansion is mostly eastward, the west needs an addition of at least one strong football team. That means Nebraska or Texas.
My only real objection to an eastward expansion is the dearth of football schools there. There’s just not that much excitement with the idea of adding weak teams, regardless of where they’re from.
LikeLike
@djinn
You hit the nail in the head. with just about everything. The only thing I simply can’t understand is why would the Big10 want to become even more mid-western when every mid-western conference I’ve seen has stagnated (Big8, SWC, Big12 seems to be on its way).
Adding Neb, Mizzou, Kansas might be nice to expand, but none of them are close to Pitt/Rutgers in academics and most of the North East is a completely un-tapped (but eminently tappable) market where-as the Big10 already has a sizeable footprint in the mid-western area. I do think adding 1-2 mid-western teams is a must in a 5 school expansion, but adding anymore makes the Big10 too regional and subject to the issues that have plagued previous mid-western conferences to date.
As for football…maybe its just my East coast bias but neither Mizzou nor Kansas excite me greatly in football either. Truly when it comes down to these “filler” schools (at least as far as football is concerned) secondary factors like home markets become huge.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy,
You separate this into two discussions:
First, why would the B10N/athletic directors want to look west ¨when every every mid-western conference I´ve seen as stagnated?¨
I´m tempted to quote Bull Durham here (¨well, he hasn´t seen my heat¨), but the bigger point is that western expansion is 1) profitable 2) brings in more established football programs and rivalries 3) a better cultural fit with everyone except PSU and 4) if you open the door for UT/A&M, REALLY profitable
Second, and most importantly from the vote standpoint, why a Big 10 president (particularly from one of the western schools) might prefer western expansion: 1) closer connections with faculty, alumni, students, etc from Big 12, 2) the Big 12 schools better fit the mold of large state research universities – with the exception of Rutgers), 3) prior relationships or history in the Midwest with Big 12 schools e.g. Iowa´s President served as a full-time professor for 21 years at KU.
LikeLike
And even beyond personal affinities, the presidents and chancellors of these western Big 10 schools have to consider what´s best for their school´s own bottom line and the preference of their alumni, coaches, students, etc.
As an Illinois fan, I can tell you that having Missouri and Kansas in the conference would do much more for Illinois than any of the Eastern schools would. On the athletic side, the rivalries with MU and KU would enhance Illinois´ own profile much more so than playing Rutgers or Pitt would. As for the intangibles, the majority of the students or alumni I know have much greater ties to Mizzou/KU/Nebraska than they do to Rutgers, Syracuse or Pitt.
I think it´s probably very similar to how PSU fans feel about Pitt or some of the other East Coast schools. The difference though, as far as I can see, is that the Western voting bloc in the Big 10 is stronger than the Eastern (greater numbers).
And at the end of the day, that may be the difference between, say KU and UConn or KU and Syracuse.
LikeLike
The cultural/institutional fit between PSU and, say, Nebraska is great. I think PSU has a lot in common with the Land Grant and flagship state universities in the middle of the country, that’s why we have settled in as well as we have in the Big 10.
LikeLike
@Michael
1)Profitable sure, but is it MORE profitable. The fact is if you believe some of the estimates and such that Frank and Co have passed around by adding Rutgers/Syracuse you could potentially make $20-30 million more, per year, than adding the combo of Kansas/Mizou. Maybe its more, maybe its less, but I totally believe it as 1) the combined NY/NJ markets are probably triple what Mizzou/KS are (just based on population) and 2) there are a LOT of PA/Ohio/Mich graduates that live in the mid-atlantic/NE. Which means built in demand to newly expanded markets.
To say its profitable is understandable, but if it is about the $$$ you need to look at what maximizes the $$$ and every way I count it up, the mid-western schools just don’t meet the levels the eastern schools can achieve (with the obvious exclusion of Texas).
2) Personal affinities and preferences I can totally see, but if you’re going that route I make the argument aren’t 7 out of 11 teams enough for the mid-western schools? Heck I could even count Ohio/Michigan schools in there and say what’s that make PSU? Good enough to join, enjoy the benefits of its large, popular football program, but second fiddle when it comes time to make decisions that effect all? Joking of course, but you get the point.
Personally I think this kind of thinking is exactly the kind that won’t be found in the conference chambers come Big10 expansion discussion time. Just because Illinois might like Kansas for basketball rivalries does not mean its going to get it if the best interest of the entire Big10 aren’t met.
The facts as I see them are right now any of the Neb, Mizzou, KS, Cuse, Rutger, UConn, Pitt grouping meet the academic quotient of the Big10 (though some admittedly would be politely asked to step it up). At that point it comes down to secondary considerations. Does KS top flight bball program in KC over-ride Cuse’s bball program in NYC? Does Rutger’s football recruiting grounds and 9 million state pop trump Mizzou’s 6 million?
But even more than just debating them, these questions have to (and will, be believe me) boiled down into hard numbers. I have to believe each of these schools will be put on a list with a $$$ figure next to each that would show how much $$$ it would bring to the conference. While Illinois fans might very well believe (and rightly so) adding KS/Mizzou would be better for them, even the Illinois AD might start pushing for eastern expansion if the numbers that way are so much greater.
As a related aside…all of my previous pushes and preferences for eastward expansion are null and void if Texas is up for grabs. If you can seriously get Texas, it might be worth it to just eat the best of the Big12 and call it a day. Even then I’d worry the Big10 would be just another in a long line of diminished mid-western conferences, but its a worry I’d live with.
Of course that being said if Texas comes along alone…eastward we go!!! 😛
LikeLike
Remember the Big 10 is already a mid-western conference that hasn’t failed. Alternatively, there hasn’t been a Northeastern football conference that has succeeded.
That said, I think the Big 10 should (and likely will) expand to the East Coast and/or Texas to become a national conference. (I don’t consider Texas to be mid-western, but others might disagree).
LikeLike
@m(Ag)
Two great points and ones I tend to agree with. However, I direct your attention to an image that has been on this blog a couple times before:
Notice that for the most part, the Big10 was the sole mid-western conference that had appreciable population centers in its “non-urban” zones (lone possible exception being Mizzou). This “concentrated population” equated to built in markets for the conference and provided it with revenue in ways that the rest of the mid-west, with its sparsely populated landscape with folks mainly living in a few scattered cities, simply could not, and cannot, replicate. By further expanding into the Great Plains, the Big10 is boldly going where the Big8, SWC, & Big12 have already gone before. IMO, when PSU was offered an invite in the early 90’s it was the Big10 conference recognizing the limitations of its current regional zones and trying to (cautiously) expand toward newer fertile grounds. The success of that “experiment” is one of the reasons why I think the Big10 will continue to push further eastward.
As for the no big NE conferences…in simple fact, those schools are idiots. In the 70’s, PSU, with JoePa as AD, recognized 3 simple facts.
1)Conferences were the future and football was the basis for those conferences (sports wise).
2)Big programs were needed in said conferences to provide national draw.
3)High population centers were required of the “non national draws” to provide big markets for when the big programs came to town. Thus, a “small program” could add value in excess of the pedigree of its program.
However, the BigEast had just started as a bball conference and several of the eastern teams had already joined it and were loathe to join another. After starting a new conference fell through, PSU tried to join the BigEast, most likely to “work from within” and push the BigEast towards being a football conference. The BigEast IMO, saw this gambit and voted against PSU’s inclusion and has since gone on to focus on bball, just as it always has.
My point is, a NE conference including PSU, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, BC, WVU, Temple could have formed a core of a football based conference that would have encompassed (most of the) the largest markets in the US and simultaneously sealed off every other conference from poaching its players. While I in no way think it’d be as successful as the SEC during the same span, it would easily have been the equal to the ACC/BigEast, probably the Big12 (excluding the past couple seasons where Texas has just been god awful good), Pac10, and maybe even the Big10 as it would have been forced to poach more from the mid-west as opposed to the mid-atlantic.
I guess I’m just saying, dont judge the NE markets by the fact a glorified bball conference has tried to run it for the past couple decades and allowed its football brands to mire in nothingness.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that many Big10 schools both send a lot of alums to the East Coast and get students from there. Not just PSU.
I would say that the following schools would be more interested in the greater NYC market than the Big12 North because they have a a bunch of alums there:
PSU, OSU, Michigan, Northwestern (& MSU to a smaller degree).
Iowa, Minny, Wisconsin, and Illinois would favor western expansion (the Indiana schools are probably indifferent and may actually be anti-expansion).
Most likely is that we add 2 from each side as a compromise (Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Syracuse) + one already in the footprint (Pitt).
LikeLike
If Dienhart is right about the Big Ten’s final configuration, what happens next? Its an interesting question, and I think the ball lies in Texas’ court.
Texas can do three things–(1) join the Pac 10 with Texas A&M, (2) join the SEC with Texas A&M or (3) try to reconstitute the Big XII conference after the loss of Missouri and Nebraska–and with the potential departure of Colorado.
I could see Texas and Texas A&M going for Option (3). While we don’t know everything going behind the scenes, I get the sense that UT and ATM have a very “Texas-centric” view on the matter. Whether its the creation of the Longhorn Sports Network or the chance to elevate other schools in the state or its just a question of travel distances–they all give the impression that Texas and Texas A&M would work to maintain the status quo.
Let’s say, somehow, that the Big XII is able to persuade Arkansas to rejoin some of its former buddies from the old Southwest Conference. That means the Big XII would need to get two more members to get back to twelve.
If you’re being “Texas-centric”, then the logical choices are Houston and Texas Christian. Yes, I know they don’t add markets to the confernce, but if you’re promoting a statewide network to go along with any other television deals in place, that might be the direction to go. How does this look for a new Big XII?
North – Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
South – Baylor, Houston, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
Arkansas might want to be in the Southern Division, in which case, perhaps Texas Christian gets put in the North. Still, it could be a workable setup for Texas, even if it isn’t a super conference.
Now that the Big XII is back to twelve and the Pac 10 is now the Pac 12 with the additions of Colorado and Utah, what happens next?
If Mike Slive is to be believed, then the SEC will look to expand as well. Does the SEC go for brand names in order to get higher ad rates? Do they try to expand their geographic fingerprint? Do they attempt to expand the rivalries within the confernce? Or is it all of the above?
There are two obvious choices for the SEC: Florida State and Miami-Florida. That gets the confernce to 13, so there’s room for three more.
Clemson is an SEC team in the ACC–plus they’re a natural rival to South Carolina. Two other rivalries can be put within the conference with the additions of Louisville (rival to Kentucky) and Georgia Tech (rival to Georgia).
The SEC keeps its East and West Divisions, but they get beefed up as follows:
East – Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami-Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee
West – Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
The East looks particularly top-heavy, but its a logical geographic split for the conference.
That leaves the remnants of the ACC and the Big East–not to mention Notre Dame. Imagine a twelve-team conference spanning from north to south as follows: Boston College, Connecticut, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, South Florida. Is this a doable do? Would Notre Dame be tempted to join in full or in some limited membership that keeps its football team independent while allowing its non-football teams to compete with this group? Or does Notre Dame just put its non-football teams in a conference with its old Big East partners like Georgetown, Villanova, etc.?
There’s lots of possibilities out there and I hear the occasional sports commentator say he foresees four 16-team super conferences coming together.
The problem with that is history–college football has traditionally been somewhat messy. When this all shakes out, I could see the following:
1. The Big Ten and SEC become 16-team super confernces.
2. The Texas-centric Big XII and the ACC/Big East combination conferences both have 12 teams.
3. The Pac 10 also expands to 12 teams, but without Texas/Texas A&M, there are no other good fits for the conference once Colorado and Utah are in place.
4. Notre Dame opts to join the ACC/Big East conference as either a full or partial member. This includes access to the non-BCS bowl arrangements made by this new conference and a scheduling agreement to plays X amount of teams from it in October and November.
5. The Mountain West and Conference USA are forced to reconfigure themselves. The MWC has lost Utah and TCU–it might be time to make room for Boise State and Fresno State. Look for that to effect the WAC and perhaps the MAC. The Sun Belt Conference remains unchanged.
In the end, the five major conference contain 68 teams with Notre Dame in its traditional position as a wild card.
LikeLike
Please explain why you think Arkansas would behave this way. I just don’t see it and the rest of you speculation is really based on that move.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Kyle. I’ve entertained lots of off-the-wall ideas, but the two golden rules I have, even in a wacky Conference Realignment Armageddon, are:
(1) no team will leave the Big 10 for another conference; and
(2) no team will leave the SEC for another conference.
Everything else is on the table, though some possibilities (like Texas to the SEC in my eyes) come pretty close to approaching zero.
LikeLike
It might be nice if we could identify all of the golden rules in one spot. In addition to yours I would say:
(3) BYU will not be a member of the PAC 10.
Does anyone have any others?
LikeLike
(4) Anyone that thinks that the Big Ten will invite Iowa State under any circumstances will be thrown out of a window. (Yes, I still see it suggested for “geographic fit”.)
LikeLike
I’d put the BYU to the Pac 10 rule in the same category I put my belief about Texas going to the SEC. I personally think neither could happen, but the difference between the two of these and the two I originally cited are that the ideas that no one leaves the Big 10 or SEC are the building blocks upon which everything else will happen.
LikeLike
Rule #7 – Rice will never be invited to the party.
LikeLike
#8: No 1AA team will upgrade to 1A and join the BE (no Vill, Georgetown, UMass, Delaware, JMU, UNH)
#9: The BE will not expand west of the Mississippi.
LikeLike
I remember someone making the suggestion that TCU could be a candidate for Big East membership if the Big East went scrambling and still had a shot at retaining BCS eligibility. It sounded at least plausible to me.
LikeLike
@Rick – Totally agree with #8. Point #9 might be true, but if TCU is just sitting there without a BCS home in a soon-to-be-depleted MWC, I think that whoever is left in the BE (assuming that they split from the Catholic schools) would be nuts to not go after them hard compared to the other options out there east of the Mississippi. The league already stretches from Connecticut to Kentucky to Florida, so if there’s any conference that would ignore geography (especially when it means survival as a FB league), it would be the BE. If there isn’t a BE split, though, then I agree that going west of the Mississippit is unlikely.
LikeLike
I just don’t think they (TCU) are going to be left with no BCS home by the time the BE decides to do something. If the BE loses at most 3 to expansion, then they have to add at least 4 to get to 9 where they need to be. Those 4 will probably be ECU, UCF, Memphis, Temple/Buffalo. The BE powers that be are not strategic enough to see the value of adding TCU vs 1 of these other 4. I don’t think they have the football vision. They do have BB vision. If they lose more to expansion (BT, ACC, SEC)than 3 then the football BE is dead and adding TCU is moot.
If need be I will just keep #9 on my personal list.
LikeLike
Love these iron rules. But loki, I think this is in the area of a 1 percent probability, but given Stanford’s history of being persnickety and the veto they hold over Pac-10 expansion, its not completely impossible to see Rice brought in to the Pac-10 as Texas’ partner, since A&M is the state military institute of Texas, and that may offend Stanford’s sensibilities. Tech isn’t getting into the Pac 10 and neither are sectarian schools like Baylor, SMU or TCU.
LikeLike
Not that they’re realistic possibilities for the Pac 10 by any stretch of the imagination, but SMU and TCU can really only be considered “sectarian” schools if one focues on the M and the C, respectively, in their names. Both schools, for all practical purposes, are non-religious.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn I’ll concedde you know better. But don’t you thing the powers that be at Stanford wouldn’t focus on the “C” or the “M”?
LikeLike
@Mike R:
If there’s one thing I’m unexpectedly learning from the ongoing discussions here, it’s that Stanford is disproportionately sanctimonious. Thank goodness they can veto on their own all these other wacky things (Texas to the Pac 10!!!) that other member schools might unwisely attempt. So, yes, you might be right about that.
LikeLike
My take on the rules idea:
(1) no team will leave the Big 10 for another conference; and
(2) no team will leave the SEC for another conference.
(3) BYU/Boise State/any California school will not be a member of the PAC 10.
(4) Anyone that thinks that the Big Ten will invite Iowa State/Cincinnati/West Virginia/Louisville under any circumstances will be thrown out of a window.
(5) Rice will never be invited to the party
(6) No 1AA team will upgrade to 1A and join the BE (no Vill, Georgetown, UMass, Delaware, JMU, UNH)
(7) No team will leave the Pac-10
I would add the “almost certainly but crazy things could happen” rules:
(1) Texas Tech will probably not be invited to the Pac-10 or Big Ten
(2) Texas will probably not go to the SEC
(3) The “core” ACC (VA, NC, and MD schools) will probably not be broken up.
(4) The ACC will probably not expand unless raided.
(5) The Big Ten will probably expand
(6) The Pac-10 will not go beyond 12
LikeLike
Can I make a compelling argument for Arkansas joining a reconsitituted Big XII outside of rejoining a lot of members from the old Southwest Conference?
Frankly, no. On the basis of revenue alone, it makes sense for Arkansas to remain in the SEC West and I readily admit it’d be a stretch for me to say otherwise. That wouldn’t stop Texas or the Big XII from testing the waters though.
But that still doesn’t change the basic read to date on what I think may happen. While Arkansas may not make a move to the Big XII, I could still see Texas and Texas A&M trying to maintain the relative status quo and rebuilding at least a 12-team conference with the projected departures of Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado. If not Arkansas, then maybe Southern Methodist or Rice or Colorado State or Brigham Young or Air Force.
But assuming Arkansas doesn’t bolt from the SEC, the conference now only has to add four teams instead of five to become a sixteen-super conference. The goals and strategies the SEC has in doing this still remains unchanged. Do they seek to strengthen the brand and drive up advertising revenues? Do they want to add geographic diversity? Do they want to add natural rivals? Let’s assume the SEC adds Florida State, Miami-Florida, Georgia Tech and Clemson and reforms its conference. You’d have the following lineup:
West – Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
East – Florida, Florida State, Miami-FL, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, Tennessee
The combined ACC/Big East conference I mentioned above now has Louisville as another candidate and decisions would have to be made on how big it would be (12? 14? 16?) and what sort of relationship, if any, it would have with Notre Dame.
Obviously, there’s no change with the Pac 10 setup going to the Pac 12.
Again, these are all hypotheticals and speculation. If there’s anything I’ve learned in reading the discussions on this board and the articles on the blog is that teams that look like slam dunks for expansion may not be what they seem. Revenue dollars and the aspirations/goals of the members are both important factors in the decison making process.
The history of conference expansion also says a lot about how personalities get involved–especially when group decisions are being made. You scratch your head wondering why for instance, Penn State wasn’t made part of the Big East in the late 80s or why the SEC said no to Texas in the early 90s because they would have had to take Texas A&M as well.
The bottomline remains the same (even if Arkansas stays in the SEC):
1. SEC and Big Ten form 16-team super conferences.
2. New 12-team conferences will be the Pac 12 with Utah and Colorao, the reconfigured “Texas-centric” Big XII and a combined conference with members from the Big East and ACC. Future reconfigurations may get them to 16-team superconferences at some future date, but not in the near term.
3. Notre Dame opts either to join the new BE/ACC combo conference as a full-member (including football) or partial members (all sports but football). If the parties can’t come to an agreement, ND remains independent in football and houses the rest of its teams in a conference with the non-football schools from the former Big East (Georgetown, Villanova, etc.)
4. The WAC, Mountain West and Conference USA do what they’ve done in the past–reorganize to survive.
LikeLike
Vandy & Kentucky would NEVER agree to be separate from Tennessee. Under your scenario that the SEC raids the ACC for four more schools, Florida State & Georgia Tech would have to slotted in the West.
I really don’t think the SEC takes all four from the ACC. Florida State & Miami are no-brainers, but Georgia Tech used to be in the SEC and quit, back in the 60s. Clemson, while its a good fit, is stuck in the same situation Pitt is with regard to Big Ten expansion – they add nothing.
After FSU & Miami, the SEC looks west to the Big XII. If Texas and Texas A&M don’t bite, they look at Oklahoma and either OK State or Texas Tech.
LikeLike
I’m with Kyle on this point, Arkansas would be insane to leave the SEC.
LikeLike
I looked into my crystal ball and saw the future:
BIG TEN – 16:
NOTRE DAME (from independence) A seismic shift!
RUTGERS (from Big East)
PITT (from Big East)
PENN STATE
OHIO STATE
INDIANA
PURDUE
NORTHWESTERN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN STATE
ILLINOIS
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
IOWA
MISSOURI (from Big XII)
NEBRASKA (from Big XII)
ACC – 16:
U-CONN (from Big East)
SYRACUSE (from Big East)
LOUISVILLE (from Big East) – basketball!
WEST VA (from Big East)
BOSTON COLLEGE
MARYLAND
VA-TECH
VIRGINIA
UNC
DUKE
WAKE
GA TECH
NC STATE
CLEMSON
MIAMI
USF (from Big East) – replaces FSU
S.E.C. – 16:
FLORIDA STATE (from ACC)
FLORIDA
SOUTH CAROLINA
GEORGIA
TENN
VANDY
ALA
AUB
KENTUCKY
MISS
MISS STATE
LSU
ARK
OKLAHOMA (from Big XII)
OKLAHOMA STATE (from Big XII)
TEXAS TECH (from Big XII)
PAC TEN – 16:
TEXAS (from Big XII)
TEXAS A&M (from Big XII)
KANSAS (from Big XII)
KANSAS STATE (from Big XII)
COLORADO (from Big XII)
UTAH (from MWC)
ARIZONA
ARIZONA STATE
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE
OREGON
OREGON STATE
CAL
STANFORD
USC
UCLA
Leftovers to Conference USA:
IOWA STATE
BAYLOR
CINCINNATI
Everything fits perfectly…
LikeLike
I hear you on Syracuse. It should be in the ACC. But, ND’s AD today restated Nd’s intention to remain independent, even with the Syr-RU-Pitt-Neb-Mo rumors.
Assuming ND is a hold-out, I can only hope the Big 10 goes for U Conn or KU as the 5th team. U Conn will be an AAU member in 5 years and is clearly the better long-run choice.
LikeLike
This is very interesting. I think your scenario is very plausible. I would suggest, however, that if your dynamics began to be unfold, ND would prefer to join the merged BE/ACC conference. I don’t think that either USF or Louisville would be allowed to join. If one did, then it would be Louisville instead of USF.
LikeLike
Funny you should say that about ND Rich…I was just thinking that if the SEC comes in and steals FSU and Clemson from the ACC, thereby reducing it’s southern flavor, U Conn and ND would make some sense there….in about 3 or 4 years ND may be changing its mind about no conference…..as it looks like there will be 4 16 team conferences….UL, Cincy, and WV don’t have the academics to interest the ACC, unless the ACC is desperate……
LikeLike
Cutter, I think you are right in your conference predictions. This makes the most sense and I can also see the Big Twelve going the route you suggest– they will become more Texas centric. But I can see the Big East still fighting for its life in all this. And the ACC might be a bit more particular about the schools it invites. They are very academic minded.
LikeLike
This prediction seems quite plausible. What strikes me most is how well the SEC would benefit from a Big Ten expansion. Maybe there’s nothing to be done for it, but I doubt that’s what Delaney would want.
So, I’m wondering. All that talk about an accelerated expansion a few weeks ago might have been because the Big Ten has in fact picked the teams they want, and have gotten favorable feedback from those schools, and could move right away if they wanted.
But Delaney is delaying the move to give the other conferences, the ACC and Big 12 in particular, time to shore up their programs. Then the SEC’s only choices for expansion might be from the Sun Belt. I’d like that!
LikeLike
Naw, unless your name is Texas, if the Big Ten or SEC comes calling, it’s in your interest to pick up the phone. No matter who you are.
They’re the only school with the ability to even think of a “Longhorn TV Network” for the long run.
Everyone else will be on the outside looking in at the money flowing to the Big Ten and SEC for the foreseeable future.
Personally, I don’t think the Big Ten should kill the Big East.
I think Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers makes the most sense at this juncture. After integrating Rutgers and looking at the New Jersey numbers in a few years, we could revisit the Syracuse/Conn/Pitt question with the data on how Missouri/New Jersey impacted their markets and how Nebraska played outside of the Big Ten footprint…
That would give us the best indication of where to go after and whether Syracuse/Conn/Pitt or even Kansas would pay off.
LikeLike
grantlandR – the SEC won’t expand just for the sake of expansion. It will only expand if CBS & ESPN pay for it. Thus, any new SEC teams will come from either the ACC or the Big XII. The Sunbelt is to the SEC as the MAC is to the Big Ten – September whipping boys. If the SEC expands, nobody from the Sunbelt or CUSA need apply.
LikeLike
The Sunbelt is to the SEC as the MAC is to the Big Ten – September whipping boys.
Or for FL and AL, November whipping boys…
LikeLike
Yeah, the SEC has conference games earlier than others, so they can spread their ‘weak’ games throughout the schedule.
This makes for much better choice of TV games…rather than a couple of weeks with nothing but uninteresting games, there are interesting games almost every week.
LikeLike
Texas has more clout than pretty well any school. They have the power to do what it wishes. If they want to try a Lone Star network, the can. If it fails, they can pretty well choose whichever conference they wish to join.
Even if the Big Ten is at 16 teams, I’d bet the BT would still want Texas if they were interested down the road.
LikeLike
Wierd article from the NY Daily News.
>>
The American Association of Universities seems focused on using the Big Ten as a vehicle to dominate and increase its revenues from college sports. Notre Dame could be the cherry on top of its expansion sundae.
<>
Let the Big Ten invite Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri and Nebraska – all schools whose presidents are members of the American Association of Universities. Life will go on. Notre Dame has a long memory. The school can still remember when it defeated Michigan, 11-3, in 1909 after nine straight losses and the Wolverines refused to play the Irish for the next 33 years and reportedly threatened to blackball any other members of the Western Conference if they played Notre Dame. The AAU, which was founded in 1900, never invited Notre Dame to join its club, anyway.
<<
LikeLike
Rox must have written that one….
LikeLike
The AAU gets money from athletics? Notre Dame feels left out of a club for major research universities when its focus is on undergrad? So much in that article doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Fun discussion of various schedule scenarios in a 16-team-conference…
http://fringebowlteam.blogspot.com/2010/04/big-ten-expansion-4×4-divisions.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
LikeLike
@Ron – I like the thought of conference playoffs if we go up to 16 schools, but that would certainly require a radical change in NCAA rules.
LikeLike
Or (cough cough) leaving the NCAA altogether.
LikeLike
My suspicion is under a 16-team Big Ten there will be two 8-team divisions with each team playing a 9-game conference schedule . Although @Hopkins Horn and the NCAA, one thing re Texas I keep wondering about is if they’re ultimately aiming at a national alliance of academic schools that also play strong football. Geographically, this forms roughly a 44-school National Tortilla Wrap (ACC, UConn, Rut, Syr, Pitt, Notre Dame, Big 10, Neb, Kan, Missouri, Col, Pac 10, Texas A&M and Texas). Don’t think Texas would ever actually call it a “tortilla wrap” due to the Texas Tech tradition of throwing tortillas on the field. General idea might be for these schools to play mostly each other during the year, then have their champ play the “SEC and everyone else” champ in the final national championship game.
LikeLike
I think a lot of us believe that there is going to be a rush of dominoes falling, but what if it’s the other way around where the conferences look and realize that it doesn’t make sense for them to expand past 12 because they don’t have their own TV network? Specifically, I have an extremely hard time seeing the SEC expanding without Texas (who most likely isn’t going there) despite the sabre-rattling from its commissioner. What happens if the other BCS leagues DON’T make all of those radical moves other than the Big Ten? How are the schools left in the BE going to protect themselves?
Let’s say that the Big Ten poaches Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt as rumored. The Pac-10 then takes Colorado and Utah. The Big XII decides to simply replenish to get back up to 12 schools with a raid of the MWC with pure new markets: San Diego State, UNLV and New Mexico. (Yes, I know that these schools aren’t as attractive as BYU from a football perspective, but I’ve heard from a few people that the Big XII is more skittish about its religious rules than previously thought.)
This leaves a bunch of BE and MWC schools as orphans. What’s the solution? A 16-team conference with geographically-friendly pods to minimize travel issues. Look at this proposed setup:
NORTH
UCONN
WVU/Temple
Army
Navy
EAST
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
WVU/ECU
SOUTH
TCU
Houston
USF
UCF
WEST
Boise State
BYU
Air Force
Colorado State
Note that I think the last spot would be between Temple and ECU (and WVU’s placement would depend on who is determined to be a better fit). If BYU does end up in the Big XII, then switch that school out with either San Diego State or UNLV (as I think New Mexico is a great fit for the Big XII). Army and Navy are enticed to leave independence in order to be in the same conference as Air Force, so now all of the service academy rivalry games are now under the control of this conference.
Radical? Absolutely. However, no one should assume that the SEC and ACC are going to expand just to expand or help out the schools not invited to the Big Ten just to be nice, so whoever is left behind in the BE really needs to think of some creative alternatives in the event that the dominoes don’t fall their way.
LikeLike
Frank:
We emailed last week about BYU’s chances to land a spot in the Big 12. I was feeling pretty good about this scenario, assuming TX and TAMU don’t join the Big 10 or Big 12. It looks as if you’ve changed your view on the subject a little, am I correct? I have no connections to anyone who might be in the know on this matter, but there were grumblings that BYU was initially courted by the Big 12 when it was formed until the TX legislature/governor got involved and secured a spot for Baylor. If this is true, it seems to me that BYU would still be in prime position for a place in the Big 12 North–its rules aren’t any different than they were back then. Penny for your thoughts?
LikeLike
Frank,
The radical 4×16 model I’ve come up with when trying to get all the puzzle pieces to fit has Texas going to a Pac 16 but A&M and OU heading to the SEC. Do you think an A&M, or an A&M plus OU, wouldn’t be good enough for the SEC if that conference were inclined to at least consider expansion?
I’m also curious to know what your basis is for thinking the Big XII, a conference with Baylor (you know, where dancing was forbidden until the 1990s), would have a problem accepting another religious school. That’s the first I’ve heard of that.
And what would you name a fusion of the Big East and the Mountain West? I’m sure some branding specialist would make hundreds of thousands of dollars on THAT contract!
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn and oneforthemoney – I’ve heard from a couple of people with contacts at schools that might be on the move that the Big XII may not want BYU. To me, it would be insane for the Big XII to not take BYU (especially considering Baylor’s history), but I’m just passing along what I’ve heard. If I were a betting man, I still think BYU will end up in the Big XII (since their fan base is too large to ignore) – I’m just throwing out some other scenarios.
LikeLike
Frank-
Thanks for the info. Tell your Big 12 people that the folks at BYU aren’t as backwards as they think. I promise!
Another thought-although its not a research institution and despite its very conservative leanings, BYU is 71st in UNWR for undergrand and it has top 50 business and law schools. If TX is skittish about the SEC’d academics, I can’t imagine what it would think about the academics at SDSU and UNLV.
If the Big 12 is determined to stay together, I’d just about die if UNLV got in over my Cougars. I live in Las Vegas right now, and I would never hear the end of it.
LikeLike
Thinking about it a bit, I wonder if any expressed reluctance over BYU isn’t so much a reluctance to add a ‘religious” school as it is the logistical hurdles which would have to be overcome by adding a school which does not compete in athletic contests on Sundays. Unless the MWC has come up with another solution, I would assume that all Big XII conference tournaments would have to be scheduled pretty much Sunday-free. Not an insurmountable problem, of course, but everything else being equal, I don’t think you’d like to take on that sort of scheduling restriction.
LikeLike
The BYU no Sunday play could be a problem, and its an issue BYU will not budge on, even if it means membership in a lesser conference. Does the Big XII play a lot of games on Sunday?
Some of this could be resolved through minor scheduling changes–that’s what the MWC does right now. And if something would require the Big XII to make a major concession, I think BYU would be happy to forfeit a game here and there.
No doubt though, this could be a problem. Does the Big XII basketball tournament extend to Sunday?
LikeLike
The Big XII basketball tournament now ends on Saturday, so that’s not a problem. I think the baseball title game is on a Sunday.
It could be an issue for non-revenue sports, but, again, I assume it would be nothing that’s insurmountable.
I asked my UT-to-BYU friend what BYU would do if its womens hoops team made the Final Four, with its semis on a Sunday. He was very confident BYU would forfeit. Could you imagine that scenario if it were to unfold?!?
LikeLike
I have seen BYU play in other NCAA tournament games where if the game falls on a Sunday it is moved to the next day.
LikeLike
The BYU women’s rugby team almost found itself in this situation, and it stated that it would forfeit in the national semis (to be held on Sunday) if it made it past the quarters. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/sports/16rugby.html
Unfortunately, the girls lost, but they certainly would have forfeited.
I’m not sure what Mike is referring to about changing the date of tournament games. As far as I know that has never happened.
BYU will never make it to the Big 12 championship game in baseball, I can assure you of that. If that’s the only hurdle, I think it wouldn’t be too big of a problem. BYU will have to carefully explain how it would proceed in this situation because the conference cannot afford to lose money because of the Cougars.
LikeLike
I saw BYU play in a NCAA baseball regional. The schedule stated that if BYU qualified for the championship game (winner qualified for super regionals) it would be played on Monday. They didn’t so it wasn’t.
LikeLike
Is women’s rugby a sanctioned NCAA sport with a championship and everything, or is it a club sport?
It would be one thing to forfeit a playoff game in a sport no one cares about (sorry, all you women rugby fans out there), but it would be another thing altogether to forfeit a national semifinal when there are major players (hello, ESPN; hello, host city) involved who would lose out on a game.
LikeLike
Women’s Rugby is not a school sanctioned sport. You make a good point about the difference between high profile sports and non-revenue sports. But BYU won’t budge on this–if they get an invite, it will accepted with the understanding that BYU won’t be required to play on Sunday in any sport.
LikeLike
To echo what some others have said:
–If the Big 12 invites SD State and UNLV, they don’t have much of an academic argument over the SEC (if I’m wrong about their reputation, someone will correct me). If this is the case, I would hope A&M would try and get the SEC to open it’s doors.
–I’d be surprised if the Big 12 had a problem with BYU in the conference on religious grounds. However, the no-playing on Sundays, which I had forgotten about, might lead them to favor someone else.
Other comments:
–Louisville might be a candidate for a Big 12 that tries to stick around.
–If you’re putting Army, Navy, and Air Force in the same conference, it might make sense to put them all in the same pod (perhaps with a school in the middle of the country). Army and Navy probably would schedule Air Force as non-conference games in the years they don’t play (in all sports), but it might be better to have them organized in-conference.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how many Big XII sporting events are held on Sunday, but I don’t think its too hard to schedule around them. For exmaple, the ACC and PAC-10 play a Sunday basketball game here and there. If the Big XII wants to do the same, it just wouldn’t include BYU in these games. Most likely BYU wouldn’t be a candidate for the game-of-the-week slot anyway. I would assume this would go to the KU, UT, OU’s of the conference.
Also, BYU has forfeited games in the past when they have won a tournament game that set up a Sunday scenario. If it becomes too much of a burden, I could see the Big XII looking elsewhere, but if the Big XII is otherwise interested in BYU, I think it could be overcome.
LikeLike
I don’t think SDSU and UNLV would be realistically on the board as Big XII reloading options, but Louisville is an intriguing option I hadn’t focused on too much if the Big East implodes. How are they academically? I’m under no illusion that the Big XII would have quite the rigorous academic standard the Big 10 presumably would have, but would they fit in with the Big XII?
LikeLike
I confess that I have no idea what Louisville’s academic rating is. I was trying to come up with alternatives to SD State.
LikeLike
There’s also the risk that the B10+ going to 16 could in a way backfire on them in. Going into brainstorming mode, let’s lay out a scenario where Texas and ND end up in the ACC.
Say ND is still trying to hang onto independence and turns down the B10+. They’re getting mixed signals on how many or if any other conferences will expand to 16, and feel they can safely stay indy if most stay at 12 or go only to 14. B16 is formed by adding NE, MO, Pitt, Rut, and Syr, establishing a nice foothold in the NYC DMA.
P10 and SEC then start to react. Both reach out to Texas but problems arise. TX doesn’t want the travel and time zone issues of the NW schools, wants to bring Tech along with aTm, maybe also OU and/or UH (President Powers has a vision of UH and TT becoming strong Tier One schools and eventual AAU members as part of an in-state system) and wants KS instead of Utah, etc. P10 refuses to drop any current schools, doesn’t want some of the schools TX insists on, and says no to TX having its own cable channel option.
In contrast SEC initially puts on an unabashed full court press to lure Texas and aTm. However some schools vehemently oppose TX’s demands of also bringing two of TT, OU, and UH while shifting AL and AU to the east. They feel that makes the east too difficult while giving TX too easy a road to the west title. The SEC position shifts to insisting on adding just 2 schools to the west and 2 to the east, especially when FSU, Clemson, OU, TCU, and KS express strong interest in joining.
Meanwhile, the ACC is indicating it feels going to 16 is necessary for competitive survival if the SEC reaches 16, and is willing to make the hard compromises required for such. As a result, the B10+, SEC, ACC, and P10 start serious discussions and drop hints that now may be the time to finally band together and break away from the NCAA.
Were events to play out this way in the months following the B16 announcement, ND would likely begin talks with the ACC and probably also the SEC and P10. Texas might then look to the ACC as a “Third Way” to get more of their preferences, upgrade academically their conference affiliation, and still see a revenue boost. An A16 could have a footprint in TX, FL, the populous northeast, the southeast, and the national draw of ND.
In that setting a new contract and possible cable channel could finally make financial sense for the ACC. ND and CT are going to have as much pull in the greater NYC DMA as Rut and Syr, so the biggest TV market is now split. BC gets a partner and gives the ACC the 2 major schools in the New England market. ND gets an academically superb conference that has comfortable integrated religious private schools, plus annual games in the northeast, access to FL, and plenty of games in Texas. Depending on setup, the A16 might be able to stick with just 8 conference games, giving ND more of the OOC flexibility it highly values.
Could set up as divisions, with the National being BC, CT, MD, ND, TX, aTm, TT, and UH (or Baylor, a good academic school) and the American composed of VT, VA, Wake, Duke, NC, NC St, GT, and Mia. Or go with pods (bleh) of:
4 Texas schools
ND, MD, CT, BC
4 NC schools
VT, VA, GT, Mia
Travel is worse than the SEC West, similar to the B16, and somewhat better than the P16. The New England schools are about as far from Austin as the Pac NW, but games would be 3 hours earlier, so the women’s vball or men’s bball teams would be returning home at 1am instead of 4am. That’s a big difference.
Competitively the A16 would be weaker in football than the B16 and SEC, but about the same as the P10/12/16. Of all of TX’s options, this would be the easiest path to the BCS bowl and playoff. As long as there is a Plus One and the A16 plays the SEC in the Sugar, or a Plus Three, TX doesn’t have to worry much about a weak strength of schedule. Since their massive revenue is in no small part tied to their now consistent Top 10 ranking, gutlessly protecting that this way is something to consider. Also might be a way to get aTm on board, with the lure of a better shot at winning conference, and gasp, the unthinkable nat’l title. “1939. 71 years and counting. Gonna ever roll through the SEC?” Plus it could give college football better balance.
While this combo might end up third in per school revenue behind the SEC and B16, dominance in Texas and the Atlantic states, a solid Northeast presence, and decent footholds in Atlanta and S. Florida should provide a substantial boost to anything the ACC could get right now. Might not be enough to replicate the BTN, but they could still probably pull off a juiced up regional sports channel, such as in partnership with Fox of NBC/Versus, on the sports tier. Since the ACC isn’t in a position of strength, they might be more willing than the other suitors to allow TX to have its own channel. Texas has been able to get by in a financially relatively weak B12, so I could see them making compromises to go to an A16 that meets more of their full spectrum of wants compared to the trade offs in the SEC or P16. Again, this would be academically equivalent to going to forming the P16.
Lots of ‘Ifs’ required for it to play out this way, but a Texas-ACC-ND combo isn’t out of the question the way I used to think it was.
LikeLike
BTW, you could also pod it as:
4 TX schools
ND, MD, CT, BC
VT, VA, Duke, NC
Wake, NC St, GT, Mia
What’s interesting in a TX-ND-ACC could make for a natural cable channel evolution. BTN/Fox becomes the cable partner of the B16, ABC’s ESPN for the SEC, NBC’s Versus for ND-ACC-TX, and MTV for the P16.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I think you’re trying waaaay too hard here. Yes, conference realignment might make for some interesting bedfellows, but it’s not that complicated. Texas to the ACC is out of the question. Retooling the Big XII is the baseline for Texas if moves to the Big 10 or the Pac 10 are out of the question.
And I still have no idea why you seem to believe that Texas will insist that UH and/or OU come along for the ride. Helping UH obtain AAU status years down the road does not equal bringing UH along as an athletic peer.
LikeLike
I like this, Frank. Taking a national view, instead of a regional view, might be the way to go for teams left out of a major conference.
LikeLike
New article set to run in the 5/3/10 issue of SI. Basically just long speculative article, but an interesting read none the less.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1168948/index.htm
LikeLike
After reading this article you will think ND fans should thank F. Yost for making them who they are now.
Read this:
“But Notre Dame has a deeply held attachment to its football independence that, according to Jack Swarbrick, the school’s AD, began with Jesse Harper, the Irish coach from 1913 through ’17. In those days Michigan coach Fielding Yost despised Notre Dame. Not only did he refuse to schedule the Irish, but he also vowed retribution against any conference school that did. (That early incarnation of the Big Ten was called the Western Conference.) Rather than plead for games, Harper decided to play a barnstorming national schedule. The Irish boarded trains for Nebraska, Syracuse and Texas. They took on Army and Penn State. Notre Dame won many of those games and caught the nation’s fancy. Thus did a run-of-the-mill Catholic college become a national icon. That helps explain, as Swarbrick says, why football independence is “central to the roots of the university.””
LikeLike
Stever Spurrier says that Arkansas to the Big 12 “has been talked about”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2010/04/sec-coaches-notre-dame-featured-today-in-as-the-expansion-talk-turns.html
What does this mean for the SEC?
LikeLike
More specifically, Spurrier is quoted as saying “I’ve heard maybe Arkansas back to the Big 12 or something like that,” which to me means he’s reading the same sort of internet-based speculation not based very much on reality. Nothing in what he says seems to indicate any sort of inside knowledge.
If I were in charge of the Big XII, and I was looking to reload after the departure of a Nebraska and Mizzou, I’m not so sure looking to strip a school from the SEC would be the wisest move, even if that school were interested. Let the sleeping giant lie and look to Utah and BYU. I think Utah would be a better candidate than Arkansas, regardless. And if the rumors Frank hears about Big XII schools being skittish about BYU are correct, just suck it up and add TCU, even if that does give a fifth team from Texas in a redundant media market.
LikeLike
This was meant to be in response to herbiehusker below.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn:
You seem to have your finger on the Longhorn’s pulse. Obviously, TX holds most of the cards in the Big 12. Frank seems to know people with some idea of what the conference might be thinking. What do you think UT’s administration thinks of the idea of inviting BYU to the Big 12?
LikeLike
It’s not so much that I have a finger on the pulse so much as I’ve been a lifetime fan/follower of the school. I’m not DeLoss Dodd’s long-lost son or anything like that.
What would the UT admin think of BYU?
Well, Frank’s report that there might be some skittishness within the conference is the first I’ve heard. Beyond that, I wouldn’t know for sure one way or another.
There is one clue out there, though, that might point towards the school not viewing BYU in a negative light. During this postseason, Texas has announced future home-and-homes against Cal and Minnesota. Now, which of those games will actually be conference games by the time they’re played in a few years is anyone’s guess, but they are logical series to have been scheduled, given what seems to be a developing preference for scheduling games against like-minded institutions. For example, Texas starts a home-and-home with UCLA this fall. (This doesn’t explain an upcoming home-and-home with Ole Miss, but that’s been on the books for a while.)
In addition to the home-and-homes against Cal and Minnesota, Texas also scheduled a home game against BYU in 2011.
Now that’s just the slightest of evidence, but one can’t imagine, say, Cal scheduling the same game for next year. And I’m not sure Texas would have scheduled the game against BYU if UT held BYU in some sort of contempt.
LikeLike
Also, and this goes in the category of completely anecdotal and almost certainly worthless evidence, when the game against BYU was announced, the reaction on the Horns message board I frequent, burntorangenation.com, was almost uniformly very positive, as most Horns fans see BYU as a historically strong school with a strong, competitive program. So given that, I think UT fans would look favorably upon adding BYU as a replacement school. But that doesn’t speak to what the administrators would think.
LikeLike
I should have mentioned the BYU game in 2011-I’m really exicted about that one and I’m moving to Dallas in a year. You make a good point that UT wouldn’t schedule a school they hold in contempt and they may indicate a willingness to consider BYU as a conference member.
An opposing view would be as follows. First, TX scheduled a home and home with Cal and Minnesota, but only a home game against BYU. This seems to indicate that TX views BYU in a lesser light than Cal and MN. If UT isn’t willing to travel to Provo for a non-conference game, would it really endorse them as a candidate for the conference? I don’t blame UT for this (it doesn’t stand much to gain by going to Provo), but it still bugs me in some ways because I think BYU would have handled Cal and Minn easily the last few years. Having said that, I’m thrilled to be playing the Longhorns in a year.
Second, the Pac-10 schools really like BYU on their schedule, but not in their conference. BYU has played UCLA, Washington, and Arizona in regular season games the last few years. A game with ASU was also scheduled for last year but the schools mutually decided the scrap the game (ASU wanted an easier schedule to become bowl eligible and BYU needed to get out of the game in order to schedule the OU game in Dallas). Going back 6 or 7 years and BYU has played the above mentioned schools including as well as USC and Stanford (both home and homes).
The Pac-10 schools like playing BYU because BYU fans attend those game in high numbers given Provo’s proxmity, and more important, the large number of LDS church members living in the Pac-10 footprint. But at least in the Pac-10’s view, there is a huge difference between playing BYU in a non-conference games and inviting the school to be a conference member.
I don’t know where UT falls on this. But my gut feeling is that if UT stays in the Big 12, it will have almost total control over which teams are added. I sure hope the school doesn’t balk at the idea of inviting BYU but only time will tell.
LikeLike
“You make a good point that UT wouldn’t schedule a school they hold in contempt”
Why not? Never stopped ND.
LikeLike
About UT fans reaction to the BYU game. I’m glad to hear the reaction was positive. I also heard that the OU fans were very positive towards the BYU travelers at the Dallas game last year. Of course, I’ve found both sets of fans to be quite positive and classy anyway, so it might not just be related to BYU-even though I hope it is.
As a BYU alum and former and future resident of Texas, I’d be beyond ecstatic if BYU somehow made it into the conference. It would be a combination of my two favorite things.
LikeLike
@Oneforthemoney – Sorry – I hope I didn’t freak you out! I’ve seen a lot of conflicting information from a lot of places, so please don’t take the rumors that I’ve heard as canon at all. From a financial perspective, BYU makes more sense to the Big XII than anyone, and I personally think that’s going to rule the day in that conference if Nebraska/Missouri/Colorado end up leaving.
LikeLike
I think the fact that Texas isn’t making a return trip to Provo is more indicative of the fact that we were looking to fill just one slot on next year’s schedule, particularly in a year in which a quality OOC foe wasn’t otherwise coming to Austin. We traveled to Laramie last year, for goodness sake, so I think going to Provo, if that’s what was needed scheduling-wise, would have been OK.
Ironically, my only UT friend who doesn’t like the game is a lifelong Horns fan who transferred to BYU from UT, for religious reasons, after his freshman year, yet retained his love of the Horns (while simultaneously disliking the teams of the school he transferred to).
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – I just shake my head at anyone that thinks Arkansas is going anywhere. We’re not talking about Florida here – Arky would go from being a middle tier school in the SEC that gets paid a lot to a middle tier school in the Big XII that gets paid a lot less. It makes no sense at all except for the handful of fans that still long for the SWC days.
LikeLike
And, trust me, there are very few us pining for those days!
LikeLike
No worries Frank. I am prone to freak outs anyway, plus I work for the government so I have nothing better to do than obsess over expansion all day.
My anxiety is also heightened because our rival is in a great spot regarding expansion. You wouldn’t believe the chatter coming out of the Utah camp. Obviously, message boards aren’t too be trusted, but the Utes are 100% they are moving to the Pac-10. A few interviews with potential recruits has revealed that the coaches are using their soon-to-be-extended invite to the Pac-10 as recruiting leverage. The rivalry between the schools, though it doesn’t recieve much national coverage, is nasty, nasty, nasty.
LikeLike
Steve Spurrier says taht Arkansas to the Big 12 “has been talked about”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2010/04/sec-coaches-notre-dame-featured-today-in-as-the-expansion-talk-turns.html
What does this mean for the SEC?
LikeLike
Just the ol’ ball coach talkin’ for the sake of talkin’. No one is leaving either of the two cornerstone conferences — the Big 10 and SEC. And no one is leaving the Pac-10 under any foreseeable circumstance.
LikeLike
This is one place where the Pac 10’s distance from the rest of the country is actually advantageous. If the Pac 10 were much more geographically proximate to the Big 10 (and the SEC?) as the Big XII is, it would be facing the very same issues the Big XII is confronting.
LikeLike
Frank
The Big Ten has flirted occasionally in the past with the idea of playing all in-conference games. With a move to more conference schools, this might come up again. Do you see any likelihood of something along that line — say a 10 and 2 split?
LikeLike
I was wondering about that, too. Especially with a 16 team conference. I don’t know how many programs would be OK with playng approximately half the conference annually. I know it might hurt bowl chances of the bottom teams, but wouldn’t the extra conference games help the gate over playing FCS and MAC games?
With 10 conference games, it might help eastern expansion knowing they’ll see UM, OSU, and PSU that much more often than at 8 games.
LikeLike
If there’s a 16-team conference, I’m all for 10 conference games. It will build cohesion and rivalries. Two OOC games — one as an intersectional TV special or to continue an in-state rivalry; and one cupcake — should be enough. I do think that FBS-FCS matchups should be phased out or labeled as scrimmages not counting in records.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that there is a school of thought that the Pac 10 has fared worse than anticipated in BCS rankings due to the extra conference game added a few years ago. One extra conference game equals ten additional conference losses which must be distributed amongst the schools.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be 8 additional conference losses in a 16 team conference? Or are you expecting to go 6-10? 😉
LikeLike
One extra conference game actually only means 5 extra conference losses. The whole effect is an overstated excuse. If the Big Ten doesn’t go to 9 conference games after expansion, it is because of the potential of having fewer home games, not because of any fear of losing an extra game.
LikeLike
Yeah, my bad on the math.
Even if it is an overstated excuse, it is an excuse that’s out there.
LikeLike
@mouse – I’d love to see 10 conference games, but I think a 9-game conference schedule is the likely result of either a 14 or 16-school league. That allows 1 home-and-home OOC game, 1 FBS guarantee game and 1 FCS guarantee game for everyone (allowing all schools to have 7 home games per year if they want to pursue that course of action, which most do). Assuming ND doesn’t join the Big Ten, Michigan, MSU and Purdue are all going to want to maintain their rivalries with the Irish and the new schools would want to keep other OOC rivals, as well (i.e. Pitt-WVU, Missouri-Kansas, Nebraska-Oklahoma, etc.). There’s going to be some consternation from some schools about “eating your own” like the Pac-10 under a 9-game conference schedule, but I think that it will be overridden by (1) the desire to keep playing everyone in the conference regularly with a large-scale expansion and (2) the prices of guarantee games have been skyrocketing so much that you might as well keep that money within the conference with more desirable games. It’s been interesting that Michigan, who can afford to pay anyone to come in with 110,000 seats, is actually one of the main proponents of increasing the number of conference games.
LikeLike
For Frank: Some of the word I’m hearing out of the Michigan Athletic Department is that new AD David Brandon is looking at changing the scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame.
Michigan is currently scheduled to play ND every season through 2017 with a two-year break to follow in 2018/19. The current scheduling agreement has the two teams continuing to play one another through 2031.
After 2019, Brandon is proposing Michigan and Notre Dame play one another twice every four years–two years on, two years off. That opens up a scheduling slot for Michigan to play other major BCS programs in September.
LikeLike
Um, are ya’ll sure you want ND?
LikeLike
Hmm, link didn’t go through the first time. Let’s try again:
Hopefully that worked.
LikeLike
As Col. Kurtz was saying
It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror… Horror has a face… and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces…
LikeLike
A couple of those girls may be OLB prospects……
LikeLike
That’s totally not cool man. Respect the athleticism…obviously they’re safeties.
LikeLike
If this expansion goes through as discuseed, it is hardly a ‘home run’ for the BT, in academics or athletics.
In academics, the new schools would be rated in the BT as follows:
US News -7;8;11;15;16
Fed Res $s– 9;11;12;14;16
endowmwent–5;12;14;15;16
enrollment– 10;12;13;14;15
In athletics:
DC 10 yr avg–5;12;14;15;16
FB stadium capacity– 4;8;9;13;15
Not real exciting……..
LikeLike
The US News rankings are not worth much. Fully 50% of the ranking is subjective opinions, either of employers or other schools. In other words, the USNews couldn’t be bothered to investigate anything or use objective criteria. They just go around asking others “what do you think?” And as 2/3 of the schools asked are private, there will be a strong private bias. (Hence every single school in the top 20 is private.)
10% of the grade is how many international students or faculty a school has, neither of which has anything to do with quality of teaching.
20% is student to faculty ratio, which may or may not be important, depending upon the student. (Is it better to have a top expert in the field teaching to 100 or more access to a prof who is not involved in the cutting edge of the field? That’s debatable.) Further, one common criticism of the USNews rankings is that schools manipulate this figure by hiring part-time faculty to skew the numbers in their favor. In a small, private school, it doesn’t take many hires to raise your rank 20 or 30 notches.
20% of the score is citations in research. Yes, important for a Big Ten school, (in fact, it could be worth more for the importance to the Big Ten), but it’s not really an indicator of teaching. (It is an indicator of who’s on the cutting edge, however.)
If you want to judge teaching, why not include award-winning professors (Nobel prizes, Fields medals, NAS membership, teaching awards, etc.?) Why not include the number of majors offered? The strength of departments? The numbers of patents produced per school? Grad rates? Employment rates (who’s getting hired)? Or, if you’re going to do polling of schools, why not ask the grad schools where they’d prefer to get their students from?
Also, endowment for public schools isn’t so important as it is for privates. Publics always have cash coming in from the state, so they don’t have to hold gargantuan balances. Also, if you have an additional $400 or $800 million coming in through research, endowment is again less important. Privates have to have cash in the bank.
If you want something “exciting”, a reason to turn on the BTN, what you need are good sports teams.
I don’t know who’d get excited by enrollment rank or the size of endowment. (Well, that’s not always true…)
LikeLike
… I really wish that your assessment of the significance of “subjective” rankings was widely held in the marketplace. Life would be much easier. Instead, my experience and the experience of my colleagues across the US is that students, their parents, alums, politicians, and business leaders are very aware of rankings, are very much influenced by changes in rankings, and will make very important decisions such as where someone will enroll, how much of a donation he or she will give and whether a capital funding request receives a higher or lower priority based on these “subjective” rankings.
Also, don’t get too carried away with the dollars received in research — it would require a very in-depth analysis to determine how much profit would be generated by a change in current research funding levels at a school.
A school might receive 600m in research funding but: how much of the 600m is used to reduce overhead expenses that the university would incur anyway (an indirect profit), how much is “profit,” and how much is used dollar-for-dollar for pay for expenses generated by the research itself. Thus for the purposes of the thread, “profit” % generated from research funding is more important than the dollar value of the grants received.
Finally, what makes you think that the public schools are not fighting every bit as hard as the private schools for gifts and donations? They are.
LikeLike
Let’s face it–there aren’t 5 good expansion candidates….even 3 is stretching it….Big 10 should go with Rutgers (for TV), Pitt (academic/research), and Nebraska (FB), and call it a day. At MOST, add Missouri and stay with 15…….
LikeLike
I like your idea…however I prefer ARWU rankings as they’re objective and world-wide based.
Rankings (past decade)
Rutgers, Pitt, Neb, Mizzou, Syracuse
30-60, 45-55, 151-200, 201-300, 201-400
As an aside, every Big10 school is currently in the Top 150 in ARWU rankings. For added fun, Texas/TAMU are both ~50, UConn is 151-200, Kansas is 201-300.
Research (millions)
~$500, ~$500, ~$200, ~$200, ummm nothing?
Population (of state, in millions)
~9, *12 (shared with PSU), ~3, ~6, ~20
Undergrad Pop (in thousands)
~40, ~20, ~20, ~25, ~15
Football Pedigree (Subjective)
Adequate, Good, Great, Adequate, Poor
Overall…mixed emotions on just about all accounts. Still, you add one national brand (Neb), solid to great academics (Neb/Mizzou w/ Pitt Rutger), one super large population base state to the Big10 footprint (Cuse) while adding some solid bball talent as well. All teams could live with this expansion for a long time and while it may be a bit boring, it probably maximizes gains while minimizes risks…the Big10 way.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy
Where did you get your numbers on research expenditures? The most recent 2008 rankings from the National Science Foundation list the total R&D expenditures at potential expansion schools as follows…
17. Pittsburgh ~$596 million (~$478 million average from 2001-2008)
52. Nebraska ~$349 million (~$300 million average)
58. Rutgers ~$323 million (~$290 million average)
77. Missouri ~$245 million (~$210 million average)
80. UConn ~$226 million (~$203 million average)
82. Kansas ~$215 million (~$186 million average)
188. Syracuse ~$38 million (~$46 million average)
LikeLike
Here’s the link to the 2008 data tables.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/content.cfm?pub_id=3944&id=2
LikeLike
FWIW.
>>
A source in St. Louis familiar with the situation told NewsCenter 16 Thursday afternoon that Missouri will leave the Big XII and soon join the Big 10. Other schools expected to follow the Tigers are Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Nebraska.
<<
http://www.wndu.com/sports/headlines/92447574.html
LikeLike
Some here claim that hardly any Texas fans want to go to the SEC. One even said that basically the only ones suggesting Texas might consider the SEC are non-Longhorns. Well here’s a poll (albeit online and unscientific) of Texas fans on a Longhorns message board that suggests plenty indeed either favor a move to the SEC or expect the administration to go that way:
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/4/27/1447199/sec-or-big-10-texas-on-the-move
“Where do the Horns go?”
Right now it has 260 votes, spread as:
123 – Stay in the Big 12
56 – Join the P10
47 – Join the SEC
34 – Join the B10+
For the moving options, 21%-18%-13% is a pretty even spread.
LikeLike
And if you click on the link, you can see I’ve been actively posting there as well.
Some methodology issues to consider when citing this poll as evidence that Texas fans might be supportive of a move to the SEC.
The original post was by someone who would like a move to the SEC for athletic reasons, and the lead-in intro to the poll question reveals the poster’s pro-SEC bias.
He explicitly discounts any concern about academics in the poll, stating “All I’m saying is that the SEC would be much better for athletics….I’m not including thoughts on research or education in this poll ..strictly athletics.”
And given this, with the question, wording and grounds for consideration framed as pro-SEC as it possibly could be, 83% of respondents vote against the SEC.
As I say in the post:
“those who care about Texas football, Texas football, and Texas football alone are much, much likelier to support a move to the SEC than those who care about Texas football and the University of Texas as a whole.”
LikeLike
There are two pro-SEC posters in the comments section. For those who don’t care to click through, these are the reasons they cite for supporting a move to the SEC:
– in-laws live in SEC country
– more “fun”
– beer
– better looking girls
– rabid fans
– tailgating
These, I believe, are the exact factors President Powers will be considering.
LikeLike
So are you suggesting that the 21 different posters on that thread represent all the different views of the 268 who voted? Especially since you made 20% of all the posts? Or that one of the least active Longhorns message boards is representative? All I’m suggesting is that counter to your claims, some Longhorn fans are open to moving to the SEC, and understand that each move option involves compromises.
BTW, there were actually two on there who in disagreeing with some of your assertions indicated that they understood the education aspects but (unfathomably) still had a different opinion.
LikeLike
Or that one of the least active Longhorns message boards is representative?
I’d disagree with the assertion that a message board that had a 1000+ comment string last fall for a volleyball game is one of the least active Horns boards, but whatever.
Regardless, you’re the one that brought up the poll as partial proof of your argument, and when I dispute it, you imply that it is in fact unrepresentative?
LikeLike
The rumors from “sources familiar with the situation” seem to be gelling around a five-team expansion including NEB, MO, PITT, RUT, & SYR.
Could the Big Ten be floating these leaks trying to make Notre Dame worry about its future?
I don’t think they go to five more teams unless the teams are NEB, MO, RUT, ND and PITT/SYR.
If this isn’t going to happen, then the logical move is to go to 14 by adding NEB and two of RUT/PITT/MO. That would have a less drastic watering-down effect and still leave the door open to ND and TEX.
LikeLike
agreed
LikeLike
I still think the original listing of Neb/MO/Pitt/Cuse/Rutgers makes just too much sense.
It adds a national brand in Neb where its needed on the western edge of the conference, the only other majorly populated state in the midwest north of Texas, and three quality teams (whether that quality is in football of bball is another matter) in the mid-atlantic in high population density states. While it doesn’t totally seal up NYC/NE (I think you’d need UConn to do that) it practically does and that may be all a conference of that size/base would need.
LikeLike
Marketing is an important aspect of this expansion. The conference is going to have to do a little work to get the BTN into more homes. So a grand splash with Nebraska and Notre Dame (added to Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Wiscy, etc.) will get the juices flowing.
By comparison, adding Nebraska plus a handful of Meineke-Car-Care-Bowl teams is going to seem like a letdown–especially considering all of the buildup.
LikeLike
Agreed in principle, but here’s the thing…the Big10 already has the eastern brands. UoM, OSU, and PSU sends literally thousands of graduates throughout the east every single year. If it adds “secondary” programs in the areas where it knows it has a strong alumni base then it is able to “double dip” when asking for payment from ABC/ESPN or marketers for the BTN.
“Not only are you getting the local team, but you are ALSO getting XXXXXXXXX alumni from the school playing there watching as well.”
IMO, in any other conference those schools are dead weights. In the Big10, because of the BTN, they becomes vehicles by which the BTN makes $$$.
LikeLike
@PSUguy: I totally agree with your line of reasoning throughout this series of posts. Well done.
LikeLike
Substitute Maryland for Pittsburgh (giving the Big Ten the Washington and Baltimore markets, and football and men’s and women’s basketball programs comparable to Pitt) and you have the optimum five newcomers.
LikeLike
Would think the Big Ten is serious about expanding to 16 teams. This is not just propaganda to get Notre Dame on board for the current expansion round. Strategically, sitting around and waiting for the Irish to join is right up there with not going to work because you’re convinced all those lottery tickets you bought just have to include a big winner.
LikeLike
Going to 14 would not be “sitting around.” It would make the Big Ten larger than all of the other major conferences (and it would keep options open for further expansion).
It just seems to me that going to 16 instead of 14 for the sole purpose of getting Pitt and Syracuse wouldn’t be worth it. No pizazz there.
The among the downsides of a massive meh expansion would be (1) bad publicity, (2) watered-down product, and (3) scheduling hassles to accommodate all of the new teams.
Each additional team is a bolder step into the unknown. The ACC experience makes me worry that a big expansion could backfire and mess up the great thing they’ve already got going on.
LikeLike
@Paul A lot of people on this blog share your opinion (probably most). My opinion is that a 3 team Big Ten expansion is probably about the 4th most likely scenario (behind a five-team, one-team and no-team expansion). A 14-team, two-division conference is problematic to schedule well, leaves you with 7-team divisions that necessitate cross-division games (or out of conference games) right when your division races should be coming to a thrilling conclusion. That’s a big deal when you play few regular season games like in college football. Am convinced the bad publicity you cite is going to be a lot worse if you drag out Big Ten mass expansion over a number of years with extended and multiple rounds of negotiation. My philosophy is get the best teams you can find now and expand immediately to a number you can live with. The ACC would have been a much worse football conference had they not expanded.
LikeLike
Hello, I apologize for contacting you in this fashion, but I think you might be interested in submitting your site to my new sports directory…at thesportszone.org
I’m assuming comments are moderated so when I click submit this post won’t automatically appear on site, if it does, I again apologize.
LikeLike
As I say in the post:
“those who care about Texas football, Texas football, and Texas football alone are much, much likelier to support a move to the SEC than those who care about Texas football and the University of Texas as a whole.”
That’s a rather arrogant and condescending generalization.
If you want to go down that road, then let’s note that you live in California and I live in Texas. You may here one thing in your circle of friends and alumni, but I hear something quite different in mine (including my multi-gen family of alumni.) I hear the strongest preferences for staying put or heading to the P10 if we must leave. However plenty are open to the SEC, and many of those note that the B12 isn’t exactly the Ivy League from top to bottom.
So you can spin and parse the above poll all you want, but it roughly matches what I’m hearing actually inside the state.
Not sure why some insist on painting things black and white. One can be for moving to the P10 while being open to, or even excited about, joining the SEC if the admin moves that way. And there isn’t a massive consensus on any single move option.
LikeLike
Even living in California, I know that Texas will not insist upon bringing wither Houston or Oklahoma along.
But if you think I’m wrong, by all means, please lay out an argument for why a move to the SEC would be the best move for the school, when all factors, including academics, are included. I haven’t seen such an argument yet.
LikeLike
But of course. And you probably find it impossible to believe that Nixon won, because you don’t know anyone who voted for him…
While I’ve never argued that the SEC is my preference for UT’s move, I have made a lengthy post on this blog (within the last week or so, feel free to search if so inclined) on how the SEC might end up being a compromise choice, or at least be given consideration. In fact I seem to recall you responding to it. Others have made similar, albeit shorter, suggestions of the SEC on Barking Carnival, ShaggyBevo, etc. BTW, the short one posted at BC this morning under the name Pesto was me. I’ll repeat here what may be the trigger if we end up in the SEC:
A P16 is going to have a tougher conference schedule than the current B12’s. (Something to ponder considering 2 years ago UT became the first team to every play 4 Top 25 schools in 4 consecutive weeks.) It will also almost surely mean schools will have only 3 non-conference games. If OU and aTm insist on going to the SEC, is UT willing to lose their scheduling flexibility and play both non-conference? Together that results in UT playing as tough or tougher a schedule than they’d face in an SEC West with OU and aTm in conference.
Then you’ve got the recruiting advantage aTm and OU would have. The worse travel and start time disadvantage with bball, vball, and other sports having teams return near dawn instead of 3-5 hours earlier. Academic reputation is an important factor, but it isn’t the only one in a matrix of tough trade offs.
So again, if OU and aTm go to the SEC, will UT certainly still head west?
(BTW, I posted that question on another message board, and no one has answered it. Should I thus use the technique of assuming that lack of response on a lightly trafficked message board means no one can refute my assertions, and thus I’ve figured it all out?)
LikeLike
Remember, think like a president, so I have just a one-word response to what you (didn’t) address above:
Academics.
LikeLike
If academics is so overriding a factor that it eliminates the SEC from any consideration, why is Texas still in the B12, which mirrors the SEC from top to bottom? The B10+ has looked at expansion a couple of times since the B12 formed, including after the major political players in Texas had moved on. The ACC expanded, and the P10 has considered it before. Why did UT consider the SEC prior to the B12 forming, when the differences and problems in the SEC were much larger? Sorry, I don’t believe the former SEC commissioner would lie about that, he has no reason to at this point. UT considered the SEC then, their academics have improved in the intervening years and some of the problem issues have disappeared or been reduced.
Presidents tend not to think with blinders on, but rather brainstorm and consider a broad array of options before narrowing them down. Reputation is important, but so are budgetary factors, fiduciary duties, and practicing due diligence.
LikeLike
Because Texas was pretty much forced to by political wrangling after its first two choices of Pac10/Big10 fell through…
I’ve said before, and I think it might be a pretty good “known” darkhorse, but I’d laugh my @#$ off if the Big10 invited Texas, Mizzou, and 3 eastern schools.
LikeLike
From an SEC blog, throwing cold water on such speculation.
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/4/23/1437237/a-few-notes-on-texas-and
LikeLike
LOL, half of your blogger’s ‘proof’ that Texas won’t even consider the SEC is a link to the burntorangenation message board thread we’ve been discussing, where you and a couple of guys simply speculate that theory (and in fact 20% of the 74 messages are your posts.) Nice circular sourcing.
The other half is a San Antonio’s sports writer’s account. Good source, and in it the former UT president is quoted as saying the SEC wasn’t willing to raise academic standards, so UT ruled out the SEC. But that doesn’t necessarily conflict with the former SEC commish’s statements that UT was interested. It wouldn’t be crazy to take those statements (and many others) and deduce that UT had initial discussions with the SEC (thus indicating consideration) but they refused UT’s request to raise standards, at which point UT was no longer interested.
BTW, you do realize there are also similar conflicting statements and stories regarding the degree of UT’s interest in the B10 and P10 back then, too? And that the SEC has made changes with some of these disputed issues in the intervening 15 years? Sometimes we are too eager to force complex matters into simple black and white answers and story lines.
PSUguy, yes, politics forced UT into the B12 initially. My question and point is regarding why Texas hasn’t left in the years since, when several rounds of expansion or attempts have been made or considered by the 3 supposedly ‘academically more desirable’ conferences?
Back to HopkinsHorn, the local political landscape strongly shifted years ago, yet I don’t recall any talk during those expansion efforts involving UT. The B12’s academic bell curve basically mirrors the SEC, in both rankings and research funding, so if the SEC is so academically inferior that UT wouldn’t even consider them, surely the Horns would have been agitating all these years to look for a quick exit.
But even now they haven’t given off many signals that they’re hungry to move. Certainly nothing like what NE, MO, CO, and Rutgers have hinted at. Maybe that’s just UT wisely playing it coy and close to the vest. Or maybe President Powers has more considerations to juggle and weighs factors differently than some here wish.
For example, academically Pitt is a near perfect fit for the B10+, but of course as we’ve been discussing for months, other factors could ultimately keep them out of the conference. Yet the B10+ is by far the best academic BCS conference, so if “Thinking like a President” the way you imply, where academics is so overriding a factor, wouldn’t their inclusion be a certainty? But it isn’t. So why would UT be any different when they weigh the pro’s and con’s of various options? Compromise and trade-offs are often necessitated, that’s just the way it is, so I’m not willing to completely write off one of only 2 to 5 realistic options UT has if the B10+ goes to 16 without them.
If for no other reason, UT won’t publicly shut the door on the SEC because they provide hefty leverage in any negotiation with the P10. Rule them out early (assuming the B10+ has already gone to 16) and their only other options are the ACC, staying put, independence, or a new UT, aTm, and the 10-14 dwarfs conference. The Horns to the SEC would completely throw off conference balance and make the P10 even more isolated with no hope to ever catch up. Hence that threat is a powerful tool to get concessions from the P10.
LikeLike
Hopkins – if academics are so important to UT, then why is Texas still in the Big XII?
Reasons why Texas should to go to the SEC:
1. More money.
2. Flexibility under the existing SEC contracts to start their own Longhorn TV Network.
Reasons why Texas should not to go to the SEC:
1. Tougher schedules.
2. Opening up Texas recruiting to the rest of the SEC. Right now, only LSU & Arkansas regularly recruit Texas
LikeLike
@Alan:
I’m not sure this is worth the discussion if you’re presupposing that the only reasons Texas wouldn’t consider a move to the SEC is that the school, more or less, would be “chicken” if it didn’t.
LikeLike
Hopkins – I’ve essentially said in several posts that if Texas’ main motivation to switch conferences is based on academics, they should go to the Big Ten or the Pac 10. I don’t dispute that those two conferences have better academic reputations than the SEC.
Again I will restate, if the academic reputation of a conference is so important to Texas, why are they still in the Big XII? The SEC is at least a lateral move from an academic standpoint.
The SEC currently makes a lot more money than the Big XII and is 3-0 against the Big XII in BCS National Championship games. The existing SEC TV contracts also would not prevent Texas from starting a Longhorn TV network. Texas would get the best of both worlds in the SEC – a guaranteed increase in conference revenue sharing and the opportunity to make even more money with their own network.
The SEC also has national broadcasts on CBS rather than mostly regional coverage that the Big Ten, Pac 10, Big XII, ACC and Big East have with ABC.
From an athletics/money/exposure standpoint and from an athletics/geographic proximity standpoint, the SEC would be a good fit.
I’m not calling Texas chicken if they don’t join the SEC. Those are your words, not mine. There are plenty of good reasons for Texas to jump to the Big Ten or the Pac 10. But if they stay in the Big XII, there must some other reasons for them to stay that are harder to quantify, such as rivalries and tradition.
Protection of their border for recruiting purposes would be another reason. LSU recruits Texas with a lot of success. Texas native Matt Flynn, LSU’s last BCS national championship, is an example. Arkansas also recruits Texas, but with not quite as much success. Texas’ entry into the SEC West would make it easier for Alabama and Auburn to recruit the state of Texas with success.
I also think that Texas’ relative ease in getting to a BCS game most seasons has a lot to do with being in the Big XII. Most seasons, Texas only has to beat Oklahoma to make it to the Big XII championship. Its been a long time since another team other than UT or OU has represented the Big XII South in that game. By contrast to the OU/UT stranglehold on the Big XII South, the SEC West has been represented by 5 of its 6 teams in the SEC Championship game.
Playing Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, and even Ole Miss every year, with Florida, Tennessee and Georgia thrown in from time to time would be a more difficult path for Texas than they currently have in the Big XII.
LikeLike
Well said, AfBR.
LikeLike
@Alan,
You yourself said above that the only two possible reasons why Texas would not consider an invite from the SEC are that Texas would be afraid of tougher schedules and that we would be afraid of the recruiting advantages other schools ostensibly would receive. So, yes, you were saying that Texas would be chicken if they didn’t join their academic peers to the east.
LikeLike
Can anyone comment on the feasibility of saving the Big 12 if they were drastically proactive quickly?
For arguments sake, let’s say the Big 12 can convince Arizona and Arizona State to jump ship (yes, I realize this is unlikely — just play along), adds BYU and Utah, kicks out Iowa State and adds New Mexico while hanging onto all of its current members.
That would give the Big 12 the Arizona, Utah and New Mexico markets on top of what it already has. If the Big 12 then adds its own network, would that in anyway approach the footprint and number of TV sets of the Big 10 and SEC?
LikeLike
@Robert
I like this map as a “visual” test of what a school brings population wise (found it on this blog somewhere):
Adding those three states adds ~10 million, with the largest being Arizona at ~6 million. Total population coverages for the entire Big12 at that point would probably be ~60 million. Mind you tv prices would be based on a percentage of this number as many of those teams would have to split population centers as well as none of the new teams are national brands.
The Big10 had ~65 million people in its footprint already, and with just taking into account the addition of Syracuse & Rutgers (likely eastern expansion candidates), would already be ~100 million.
They would then still need 1 or 3 more teams to fill out a likely conference total…
LikeLike
I think we need to start from the assumption that a conference that’s looking to save itself won’t start by kicking out existing members, so I think ISU would be safe.
I asked earlier about the (instinctively remote) possibility of luring UA and ASU, but it doesn’t seem possible.
If you assume that the Big 10 and SEC cannot lose any members (specifically referring to Arkansas here), the Big XII starts running into the same problem the Pac 10 faces — there aren’t really that many good expansion targets out there in the western half of the country other than Utah and BYU. I wouldn’t consider UNM and TCU to be “good” targets.
And if you’re Utah, wouldn’t you want to at least wait to see what the Pac 10 might do first? Why go and join a conference like the Big XII now that might look a lot different 24 months from now than it does today.
So that being said, I think the Big XII might have little choice but to be in a reactive posture right now.
LikeLike
I know the logic seems to be that the super conferences will go to 16 teams, and that’s understandable. But is it possible they go beyond that?
For example, if Missouri and Nebraska leave the Big 12, maybe the simplest answer is for the remaining Big 12 members to merge with the Pac 10 and form a 20-team conference?
You have four divisions of five teams each that I’d guess would look something like this:
Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, Iowa State
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Colorado
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma
Arizona, Arizona State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State
You play your four division teams every year, one team from each of the other three divisions every year, four non-conferences games and have a two-round conference championship tournament pitting the four winners of each division.
I know that’s a lot of ways to split up the revenue. But I would think any league that includes both the Texas and California markets is going to bring in a lot of money. And this way, teams like Texas wouldn’t have to worry about alienating the legislature over losing Tech or Baylor and OU wouldn’t have to worry about whether it needs to bring OSU along, etc…
LikeLike
There has been talk of some sort of a “Western Alliance” which would take much of the form of what you lay out here — but whether it would be a full-blown conference or some sort of a lesser affiliation is unknown.
Instinctively, it’s hard for me to imagine the Pac 10 throwing the entire ten-team Big XII (do the Big XII and Big 10 get to swap names at this point?!?) a lifeline of a complete merger. Things like shared TV and an increase in cross-conference scheduling which would come with an alliance seems more feasible if you’re talking about all 10 Big XII teams.
LikeLike
Right now I only see one 20 school conference that makes any sense whatsoever…
Big10 Adds:
Mizzou, Neb, Kansas, Texas, TAMU
Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn
They are all AAU save one (UConn), all have at least $200 million in research save one (Syracuse), and excluding a few exceptions tend to be the flagship school in their state. You’d have 4 divisions of 5 teams (or 5 divisions of 4) and look to cycle through the entire conference once every 3-4 years. And the only reason why this type of conference is even remotely feasible is due to the BTN (along with the fact the Big10 would be in every major population center from Texas to New England) which would allow all the sports events that the ABC/ESPN contracts wouldn’t be interested in a home where $$$ could be made off of them.
Fact is, even if every conference had its own network I don’t see conferences that large forming.
The Pac10 tends to be academically minded so it narrows the field it has access to and even if it loosened its requirements it’d be adding teams with limited marketing potential via their home population base (too few people).
ACC also tends to be more academically minded so similar issues exist, but also with the Big10 basically creating a corridor from Texas north through the Great Plains then east into the Mid-Atlantic and into New England the ACC would be hard pressed to find new schools it could even attract, let alone ones that conform to its academic principles. I really don’t think a SEC/ACC pairing would happen.
The SEC MIGHT be able if it cannibalized the rest of the BigEast/Big12 football schools and fill in with what was left. The problem is any school of worth (Oklahoma,WVU) comes with limited appeal (population/national draw) and any other schools would be much smaller programs in areas dominated by already established ones.
I almost wish the Big10 did have a pair of pants that big and went straight for 20. Make everyone sign a “Big10 constitution” detailing the goals and ideals of the organization, what is expected of each members, and that no school is permitted to leave the conference except under X,Y,Z criteria.
That’d certainly be something to see sports wise and lets be honest, it’d be great for academics.
LikeLike
I do think you’re on to something conference, PSUGuy. But I just don’t know if I’m buying the Big 10 expanding beyond 16 at this point.
Although, with the Big 10 Network, it seems like the Big 10 would want to add as many TV sets as it can, up unto the point that it doesn’t bring any additional value.
And I also find it hard to believe the Big 10 would ever say no to Texas. Even if the Big 10 gets to 16 without them, if Texas decides at that point it wants in, is the Big 10 really going to say no and turn down enormous value the Texas market brings?
LikeLike
@PSUGuy, that type of 20 team conference would be something to see. My old critique here involves the ACC. Under that type of scenario, I think it changes the rules completely.
If the Big 10 goes to 20, it would be a clear message to everybody else that the old model is broken and would signal massive realignment. If that´s the case, I don´t see how anyone in the ACC could feel safe. If you land the five from the Big 12 – and are still looking to expand – why limit yourself to the Big East when the ACC is next door and more valuable?
Under that scenario, I´d aim for Maryland, UNC, Virginia, Duke? and Pitt? (maybe Rutgers?).
Imagine this scenario for a second: You´ve just created conference that runs from Tobacco Row up to the Rust Belt, through the Great Lakes and Midwest and down to Texas. And more to the point, guaranteed dominance by geographically isolating the remaining areas of the country.
What would the SEC do? What could they do? They could look to New England but that involves a big geographical jump across Big 10 territory. They could also look to the Pac 10, but again, that involves a jump across Big 10 country.
IMO, this would be the game, set, match scenario for the Big 10.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy, like your vision (a lot), but personally see 16 teams for the Big Ten as a reasonable rest stop on the road to 20.
LikeLike
Like I’ve said elsewhere…I really don’t see it happening. Its interesting to speculate about and it might even makes sense on a couple levels, but in the end I just can’t see the Big10 presidents accepting that much risk so fast.
As for adding “up till it doesn’t add any value”…I disagree the Big10 will take that stance. Facts are, the reason why the Big10 hasn’t expanded in so long is because it wants to ensure the schools are best placed to succeed in the future. They know their “mission in life” is education and research and the conference is the vehicle which they can partner with other like minded universities and ensure that future.
I don’t care what happens, Cinci, WVU, etc are never going to be in the Big10 (assuming their present courses stay the same) and that’s going to inherently limit the schools the Big10 will entertain.
LikeLike
@Michael
I also thought about that mildly. Thing is the ACC tends to be more undergraduate focused. While it does have some schools that would fit the Big10 profile (AAU/research…NC, MD, GT) I’m not sure how many would be considered “having the same goals”, at least as far as Big10 presidents are concerned.
That being said…maybe the Big10 encompasses every major research university from the Great Plains east, Florida to Maine. THAT’d be something insane.
LikeLike
Assuming the Big XII loses Nebraska and Missouri to the Big Ten and then loses Colorado to the PAC10, would think their first logical move might be to invite Colorado State (to get back up to 10 and immediately re-establish a Colorado presence). As long as Texas stays with the Big XII, there will probably stay a strong center of teams in OK and TX to anchor the conference. Know the “SEC not losing anybody” is an ironclad rule and all, but Arkansas might be tempted in the long run by a clear assurances from Texas that it is staying put and by an offer of unlimited invitations to the Cowboys stadium in Arlington (Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is an Ark alum). At that point BYU would be a possible 12th for the Big XII. Schools like TCU (Dallas/FW metro), Houston and New Mexico (Albuquerque) might be possible fallback positions with decent markets in case any of the above doesn’t unfold as hoped. Think the Big XII will definitely be in reactive mode, but there are solid options as long as Texas stays put.
LikeLike
Why would Arkansas leave the SEC to take less money in the Big XII? What do they gain. From a monetary and stability perspective, they got it good in the SEC.
LikeLike
Fayetteville, Ark. is a physically a lot closer to Big XII campuses (particulary the Oklahoma and Kansas schools) than it is to any college campus in the SEC. Arkansas does most of its recruiting in Texas (where it currently doesn’t get much exposure. There have been reports of Arkansas alumni and donor base wanting to resume rivalries with Texas schools from the old Southwest Conference (Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and Texas Tech). Plus a lot of Arkansas alumni and donors live in Texas. Would suspect Arkansas will wind up staying in the SEC, but it would not surprise me to see them join the Big XII either.
LikeLike
One scenario that could equal the “salvation” of the Big 12 despite poaching would be if Texas wants to remain the power school, despite making less money than other conferences, lesser schools IN those conferences.
Imagine this. Nebraska and Mizzou to the Big 10. Colorado to the PAC10.
Texas could simply add BYU, TCU, and New Mexico, and proceed with business as usual. Adding another Texas school would make the Longhorn network have an even stronger stranglehold on Texas…they could probably charge as much as ESPN in that case. They’d easily hold their BCS AQ bid forever…they’d still have enough strong teams to be a good football conference when it comes to respect.
It could just be that Texas would rather have the power than the money. Not saying I think they’ll stay put, but it’s a desirable situation for them.
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind Precisely. Plus once Texas decides to move to another conference, that opens up their decision for possible review by the state legislature and governor. That is precisely how UT wound up in the Big XII in the first place after the breakup of the Southwest Conference. The current governor, Republican Rick Perry, went to Texas A&M. His opponent in the current race Democrat Bill White, is a graduate of UT Law School. Imagine UT mught feel a little more secure about trying to make a conference change next year if White wins (which would be a huge upset despite close polling so far).
LikeLike
Ron, I’ve mentioned it before, but please keep in mind that the governor of Texas is weaker than the governor of any other state. I don’t think it would make too much of a difference one way or another whether the governor was an Aggie or a Longhorn in terms of how the fates of either school will be determined.
LikeLike
That’s like saying a policeman has less power than an FBI agent. True, but he can still arrest both our butts!
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn, When the Southwest Conference broke up, the governor at the time (Ann Richards) was a Baylor alumni. Sure enough, Baylor wound up joining UT, A&M and Tech in the Big XII. Granted, that may have had more to do with Ann Richards being the immensely charismatic person who she was rather than solely because she was governor. Still, you look at Baylor’s history in men’s football and basketball since joining the Big XII, and the retrospective consensus in the Texas media tends to credit Richards with shoehorning a program into the conference that doesn’t belong. (Am not sure I buy into that consensus, to be honest. Baylor was reasonably strong in athletics at the time and some of the criticism it draws as a private religious school on the academic side is way overblown.) So yes, you have a good point there…
LikeLike
@Ron:
I am very aware that Ann Richards was the governor at the time of the creation of the Big XII.
I am also very aware that the myth of Richards being the primary guiding force behind Baylor’s being included in the Big XII is very much alive.
I don’t have the link to the mysanantonio.com article which is the definitive history of the Texas politics behind the creation of the Big XII (does someone else have it?), but the leading advocate for Baylor was not Gov. Richards but was in fact former state Sen. David Sibley, a Baylor grad who represented Waco.
Given his advocacy of Baylor, Baylor would gave gotten into the Big XII regardless of whether Richards was or was not the governor.
LikeLike
I’ve seen others do this as well: why does UNM keep popping up as a plausible replacement school which the Big XII would consider? I see that as an extraordinary stretch with very little upside, particularly from a football-oriented athletics perspective. What am I missing about UNM’s upside?
LikeLike
If the Big 12 expands and wants to add to it’s population, there aren’t many states it can go to. Especially if schools like Colorado and Missouri leave, they will have to look at adding more people to the conference footprint. New Mexico looks like the best of a poor set of options (my impression is that their academics are respectable) after BYU or Utah. Hopefully it’s athletics would grow over time.
In contrast, adding a school like TCU would be more noteworthy nationally, but wouldn’t add any new population to the Big 12 footprint.
LikeLike
When looking at possible replacement schools, there’s the unscientific balancing of geographic concerns (both in terms of being a rationale fit plus expanding a geographic footprint if possible) as well as academics and athletics success/reputation.
While UNM would allow for a slight expansion of the Big XII’s geographic footprint over a TCU, I think TCU’s athletic reputation would trump.
Of course, the fact that we’re talking about the relative merits of TCU vs. UNM illustrates perfectly the dilemma the Big XII will be facing. Outside Utah, BYU and perhaps Louisville if the Big East implodes, there ain’t a whole lot out there to choose from. In fact, if my golden rule of “no one leaves the SEC” is in fact correct, Louisville is the only current BCS school which could remotely be considered a candidate for a reloading Big XII. All other potential candidates, even using a huge net, are in the MWC or C-USA.
LikeLike
Comments from Barry Alvarez
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/92556109.html
>>
Meanwhile, Alvarez said he hoped Big Ten Conference commissioner James E. Delany would provide an update on league expansion talks during a meeting later this month in Chicago.
“That’s what I would anticipate,” Alvarez said. “Whether there is anything concrete that he will give us, I don’t know that.
Alvarez was asked if he has monitored the latest speculation on which schools the Big Ten might target.
“No,” he said, “because it is anybody’s imagination. I keep seeing comments . . . things from three months ago being re-circulated. There is just nothing there right now.
“It is the silent period, and the league isn’t making any comments. Anything said right now is anyone’s imagination
<<
LikeLike
He makes “the silent period” sound like part of a grand master plan.
LikeLike
Respectfully requesting that commenters posting about LOST please use LOST as the beginning of the post. I’m a couple weeks behind, and once you’re a half sentence in before you realize somebody’s talking about Smoke Monsters and Temples, it’s kinda hard not to read on.
LikeLike
Is there any difference between the fiction of LOST and the fiction of expansion? Let it engulf you, HoosierMike!
LikeLike
New column by Tom Shatel of the Omaha World-Herald.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100501/SPORTS/705019719
~~~Some Highlights~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. Will Chancellor Harvey Perlman and Athletic Director Tom Osborne be proactive on this or sit on the porch?
Last week, I asked Perlman if NU had contacted the Big Ten or any conference about joining. His response: “I’m not going to comment on that.” You can take that two ways: Perlman has contacted the Big Ten or he’s trying to throw up a smoke screen. My take: He’s let the Big Ten know that the Big Red can be had.
Perlman added, “When you look at the possibility of Missouri or Colorado or the Texas schools leaving one day, Nebraska would be vulnerable. We have to be proactive in this and take care of our position. And we are.”
5. Would Osborne be too loyal to the old Big Eight schools to abandon them?
Don’t assume that Osborne is sleeping on this and don’t assume that he’s Big 12 loyal. The former coach never liked the idea of the Big Eight/Southwest Conference shotgun marriage and all of his predictions about the power shift to Texas have come to fruition. While he’s in the A.D. chair, it’s Osborne’s job to set up Husker football for the future. A move to the Big Ten does that. If he could send a seismic shift through Austin, Texas, on his way out the door, that’s called a bonus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7. Is Texas going to leave?
The tea-sips already run the league. Why leave? Well, if NU bolted, the Big 12 takes a big hit. You don’t replace NU. It’s hard to see the Texas ego hanging with KU, Kansas State, Baylor, TCU and Co. Texas might listen then if the SEC called. Who knows? Texas is the ultimate independent contractor. They’re talking about starting a Longhorn sports channel (why there won’t be a Big 12 network). If Texas can go make more than $20 million in an expanded SEC and still pull in its revenue by being Texas, well, that’s greed. What’s your point?
If you’re Nebraska, you could stay in the Big 12 and assume that Texas would stay, too. But nobody knows what Texas will do and nobody trusts them. Don’t make plans based on Texas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11. What’s going to happen and when?
Perlman expects expansion, in some form, later this summer. How much? Who knows? The world right now is speculation. But if you’re Nebraska, and you’re sitting out here in the plains in a league that could be blown away by a Big Ten tornado, you have two choices: go hide in the cellar and hope that nothing happens or move to a stronger house.
LikeLike
Well, that’s certainly an unbiased slant on Texas and its objectives.
LikeLike
It’s Shatel. In order to read his articles you read the direct quotes and ignore his “analysis.” He helps perpetuate the myth that Texas runs the conference. You wondered why Nebraska fans say “Texas runs the conference,” well it starts with Shatel.
LikeLike
Please. Shatel is widely known in this state as a writer whose opinions are the functional equivalent of a weathervane. He will argue both sides of an issue in columns printed a few days apart, depending on public reaction. No one bases their opinions on him, and nothing begins with him.
As a mirror of the public mood at the moment, though, he’s quite accurate. NU would divorce Texas in a heartbeat to a chorus of huzzahs. Maybe someone could show us where he is outrageously wrong regarding Texas and their objectives instead of pulling out a victim card. The whole Big 12 awaits with interest.
LikeLike
I respectfully disagree. Shatel isn’t a weathervane and when he “argues” both sides of a point it’s because he was flat wrong or uninformed the first time. See the articles he wrote on Omaha.com last week. At first he said Nebraska wasn’t the mix for Big Ten expansion. The next day he comes out with an article that says he talked to his “sources” (after commentators told him he was wrong) and they say Nebraska is in the mix. Why would he write the first article without talking to sources? Journalism at its finest right there. He’s done that more often than most people realize.
LikeLike
@eapg – To be fair to Texas, Nebraska is a clear beneficiary of the unequal revenue distribution model of the Big XII and NU has blocked changes to that model. If Nebraska had come out against that model, then you might have at least seen some revenue power shifted away from Texas, but that would’ve required a sacrifice by Nebraska. The forces in place in the Big XII hurt schools like Missouri (which isn’t a popular national TV entity) much more than Nebraska.
LikeLike
@ Mike
Even if that’s what you believe about Shatel, none of it addresses the primary point that Shatel’s characterization of Texas accurately reflects the opinion that the average Husker fan holds of Texas. That he’s a lousy, careless, and on at least one occasion in reference to a visit to the Athletic Department under the previous administration, flat-out lying opinion columnist isn’t germane to this discussion and not really worth bandying about.
@ Frank the Tank
The revenue model isn’t really the issue for said average Husker fan. As you correctly point out, Nebraska has come out ahead in that area by cooperating with the other big draws in the conference to maintain that advantage. The constant political pressure to slate championship events into the Longhorns backyard instead of a strict North/South rotation is one bone of contention, one that probably has something to do with historical resentment of always having to play Florida teams in big bowl games on their home turf. The latest source of friction for Husker fans was the decision at the end of the Big 12 Championship to put one second back on the clock. While I personally believe that was the correct decision, and went hammer and tongs with some Husker fans defending that position, it doesn’t mean I believe for one damn second that if the teams and situation were reversed that the game officials would have made the same decision to review. Chalk it up to paranoia, or 10+ years of watching Big 12/Texas officiating, whichever you prefer. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if it wears stripes in this conference, Texas is going to get the most tender consideration. Where that comes from, who knows. Let’s just say we’re tired of walking, quacking ducks and are more than ready to move on.
LikeLike
Methinks that if the Huskers had continued to enjoy even half the the athletic success they did during the days of partial qualifiers and Lawrence Phillips, they wouldn’t be such GD whiners about all this “tender consideration” Texas supposedly receives. You know, like that vote to change the tiebreaker procedures last year.
A&M has been down the last decade relative to decade, and as much as I dislike, A&M, I’ve never heard any Aggie whine about the Longhorns’ relative success being the result of any such tender consideration.
And as much as I dislike OU, I don’t see the Sooners getting all whiny in the years they don’t beat us in the Red River Shootout. They get mad and redouble their efforts to beat us on the field the next year.
But, man, you Huskers are so sensitive. Good luck getting your way in a conference with Michigan and Ohio State. “But mommy, they played their conference championship game in Indianpolis, and that’s waaaay closer to Columbus than it is to Lincoln!”
LikeLike
Nebraska’s lack of success the past decade has more to do with the Perderson/Callahan era than Texas. But, Hopkins, if you believe that Texas doesn’t, more often than not, get it’s way in the Big XII, then you’re just delusional. I’m not saying all the decisions were wrong (I’m actually glad they got rid of partial qualifiers), but the power has shifted into Texas’ favor. I don’t really see one school with that much power in the Big Ten. Sure, Ohio State and Michigan are big, but no one school has the power Texas has in the Big XII.
LikeLike
@Scott C:
Please elaborate.
Here is what I have seen as evidence presented that Texas gets what it wants:
(1) the conference HQ is located in the largest metro area within the Big XII geographic footprint;
(2) the football championship game is “always” played in Texas, even though half the conference championship games have been played in the state of Missouri;
(3) the hoops tourney has been played a few times in Dallas, even though it now seems to be rotating between an arena 40 miles away from KU’s campus and an arena 40 miles away from the campus of UT’s biggest rival; and
(4) yes, distribution of TV revenue proportionate to appearances on TV, a system NU has defended.
If Texas truly dominated the conference, the tiebreaker rule would have been changed in a heartbeat.
So if I’m missing something, please let me know.
LikeLike
The HQ location does matter. So what if the population is larger? That didn’t stop the Big 8’s HQ from being in KC as opposed to St. Louis or Denver.
Actually, in regards to the football championship, Cowboys Stadium is already a lock for the championship in 2010, so the South is up by one and has had two in a row now. This has happened before with location being in Texas in 01 and 02 then jumping to KC twice for 03 and 04. In my opinion the game should cycle between 3 locations in the North and 3 in the South. It only makes sense and God knows it’d be nice to build some Big XII interest in St. Louis and Denver, but that’s just me.
Never heard anyone argue about the tournament, but it shouldn’t stay in KC. It should cycle as well. Quite frankly, the only tournament that should have a static location right now is baseball. Oklahoma City does a damn fine job of hosting it.
Yes, Nebraska votes for unequal distribution, but Texas did block the Big XII network so they could play around with their own station.
Also, there’s Partial qualifiers. I don’t agree with Nebraska’s position, but it was still a victory for Texas.
And I do agree with eapg with the last second. It was the right call, but I just don’t see them stopping the game if it were Nebraska. Maybe we are just bitter after ’96 and ’99 and the fact we couldn’t play spoiler in ’09, but those opinions are deeply engrained in many fans. That just doesn’t come from nowhere.
LikeLike
@Scott:
(1) The headquarters has to be somewhere. Is there a better location than Dallas? How is the mere presence of the league HQ in Dallas influenced any decision of the conference?
(2) Someone else on one of these threads has made the argument that the rotation of the basketball tournament the way it does indicates some sort of pro-Texas bias. It’s an illogical argument, and I’ll assume you don’t necessarily disagree with me here.
(3) I agree re Denver — I’ve always thought that CU was the odd duck of the conference, and throwing some sort of championship to Denver sometime would have made sense.
(4) It seems like you and eapg are arguing that the referees would not have made the same (admittedly correct) call had the jerseys been reversed. Is there any evidence to support this, or is it fair to chalk this up, as you suggest, to mere bitterness? 🙂
LikeLike
(1) I think OKC would’ve been the best choice. It’s centrally located in the conference, but also in the south division.
(2) It’s a horrible argument because it’s more often than not in KC. The only way I could see it staying in KC would be if the football championship stayed in Arlington. I don’t want to see either happen.
(3) Glad I’m not the only one. Plus it would be a good excuse to go skiing. It would make for one hell of a weekend. Especially if your team one.
(4) Oh, I’m very bitter. 🙂
LikeLike
DFW was chosen in no small part for the same reason so many corporate offices, pro golfers, and biz owners relocate there:
1) The airport is a huge hub that makes travel to and from anywhere in the country very easy. Irving is right next to DFW airport.
2) DFW is a larger media hub, including the sports media.
3) No income taxes for the execs and staff
4) Mild winters
5) Quality of life issues. Chicago, Dallas, New York, LA, SF, Seattle, etc. are always at an advantage in this regard compared to KC, Cleveland, Omaha, Memphis, etc. That’s just how it is these days.
LikeLike
Do I have evidence to support that the head of Big 12 football officials (who is also a graduate of the University of Texas Dental School), and the Texas-heavy crew who officiated the game wouldn’t have made the correct call if Nebraska would have been the beneficiary? No, I don’t. Just call it a hunch that the ruling would have gone the other way and been defended to the death as correct by Texas fans. You can ask around the conference if you think that’s out of line, despite any self-characterizations of poor misunderstood Texas. This conference understands Texas quite well, which is probably one big reason why there is very little talk of holding it together. The vast majority of the conversation is which exit strategy is best for the conference members with options, despite all the supposed wonderful things that Texas brings to the table. If you’re a conference poohbah looking at Texas as a potential partner I’m sure you’re privy to a lot more information than Joe Blow fan can plainly see, and on the odd chance that Texas ends up somewhat left out of a party they started, and scrambling to patch together the Longhorn Conference, scratch your head and wonder if 2+2=4.
LikeLike
Thought you’d like that, Hopkins. I do agree with your view on Texas joining the SEC. I honestly think it’ll be the Pac 10 or they’ll stick with the Big XII. The last line though rings true with me as a Husker fan/alum. Texas probably has more options than any other school out there at the moment. There is literally no way to tell exactly what path they’ll choose.
What really struck me about the column, though, was Perlman’s quote to Tom on whether he’s contacted the Big Ten or any other conference. That wasn’t in the last article Perlman was quoted in. His denial to answer could indicate that Nebraska is being more proactive than we thought.
LikeLike
Aside from the Texas fear mongering, the “no comment” response from NU president Harvey Perlman is the REAL news for me when reading between the lines. Look at what he said last week to the same newspaper:
“So far, Perlman said, Nebraska hasn’t been approached by another league.”
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814
So, it’s not as if though Perlman has dodged the question of, “Have you spoken with the Big Ten?” in prior interviews.
We’ve gone from a flat denial one week ago (which every single other official from every other target school has provided up to this point) to a “No comment.” Interesting, no?
LikeLike
Also interesting is Perlman indicating that the timetable is short, not long. Back and forth we go.
LikeLike
Looking at the 16 team set-up, it plays out well with a 9 game cof. schedule.
If, within each division, you group 1 weak and 1 strong team, and alternate the 2 groups each year, you play every other school in the BT at least every other year–
PSU
Syracuse
Pitt
Rutgers
___________
OSU
NW
IU
Pur
_________
Michigan
Minnesota
Wis
MSU
___________
Iowa
Ill
Nebraska
Mo
So, PSU’s schedule in year 1 might be:
Syra
Rutgers
Pitt
OSU
NW
Minn
Mich
Iowa
Ill
Year 2 might be:
Syra
Rutgers
Pitt
IU
Pur
MSU
Wis
Missouri
Neb
You’d have to make an exception, and have OSU and UM play every year…otherwise, I don’t see a need for protected games with this set-up……
LikeLike
To have a championship game, I believe the NCAA requires two divisions with at least six teams playing a round robin schedule within each division. Unless the B10 petitions the NCAA for a rule change, I don’t think the 3+2+2+2 scheduling will work.
Two 8-team divisions with 3 crossover games (one permanent crossover rival) will work. Total of 10 conference games.
LikeLike
“I believe the NCAA requires two divisions with at least six teams playing a round robin schedule within each division”
This is true. The idea is to have variable division alignments to both allow a championship game and still have some degree of regularly playing all opponents. In your terms, it would be 3+4+1+1, then 3+1+4+1, then 3+1+1+4 in a 3 year cycle.
LikeLike
How would scheduling work for a 16 team conference in basketball? I assume the four team pods would only be for football, however if we start talking about a 20 or 24 team conference, I imagine basketball would divide into two divisions. Any ideas on this?
LikeLike
One in eight to cut cable and satellite TV in 2010.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/30/technology/dropping_cable_tv/
LikeLike
This is interesting. Right now, the BTN is making a lot of money off of people who never watch sports on TV. In other words, the BTN (like other cable channels) is profiting from inefficiencies in distribution. These profitable inefficiencies are not going to last forever.
As programing moves off cable/satellite and onto the internet, two things will happen: (1) the barriers to distribution will go way down, and (2) consumers will be able to more precisely pick and choose–and pay for–only what they want to watch and nothing more. (This is not unlike what has been happening in the music industry for the last ten years.)
In the future, every team or conference will be able to sell programming over the internet without taking the risks that the Big Ten did to establish the BTN. Consumers likely will have the ability to buy individual games or to subscribe to whatever package we find most interesting out of myriad choices.
In this near-future world, the ability to provide exciting programming will be more important than distribution footprints. If the Big Ten is thinking 20-30 years down the road, then its first priority should be to expand in a way that will create the most exciting games, with less emphasis on geography.
It won’t matter how many homes in New Jersey get stuck with the BTN on their basic cable because of the addition of Rutgers. What will matter is how many people around the entire country want to pay to see Rutgers play. Nebraska may have less TV sets than New Jersey, but it may prove to be a more profitable addition to the conference if more people are interested in paying to see Ohio State vs. Nebraska than would be willing to pay for Rutgers vs. Ohio State.
Bottom line: Beyond anything else, the Big Ten should be trying to figure out what sort of expansion will result in the most exciting games.
LikeLike
Well, it does say “eliminate or scale back” so this means to me that some people might drop having, say, HBO. What I think is more telling is that 7 out of 8 plan to either keep the same or perhaps upgrade, even in difficult economic times.
I would think that BTN aims at successful grads of Big Ten universities that generally have a fair amount of disposable income. Meaning that those folks can afford to pay extra for BTN if they have to, and advertising on the channel is seen by folks with reasonably full wallets. People who are dropping cable are not the people BTN (or any other network) wants to advertise to anyway.
The other thing is that sports is one of the few things on TV you “need” to see live. OK, you can DVR a game and watch it at your leisure, but what fun is that when you know the outcome? People can drop HBO or other “premium” channels and still stream movies, or rent Netflix, or whatever. It’s a lot tougher to stream live sports.
As far as pay per view, things might go that way. I will say that it’s a lot easier to fork over $60 per year for the Comcast sports pack that includes BTN than it would be to shell out, say, $9.95 per game that’s on BTN. Let’s say that Penn State makes 5 appearances on BTN this upcoming season, that’s $50 at $10 a pop, but for $10 more I get the entire season and other channels like NFL Network to boot. And I don’t feel like I “lost” $10 when PSU gets beat by Ohio State (OK, that game probably wouldn’t be on BTN, but do I really want to spend $10 on Youngstown State at PSU? I’ll listen to an audio feed while doing yard work…).
LikeLike
84Lion,
You´re a bit behind on the technology. It is already very easy to watch live streaming sports online, and this trend will only increase. I believe the BTN even offers some of their programming live on their website. Almost every game, however, can be found in multiple places with good quality, if you know where to look.
I do think Paul is onto something. I, myself, don´t have cable. If I did, I would never use it. I only watch sports games and the occasional tv series. Both of those can be done with ease online.
Furthermore, the trend in technology with Apple, among other companies, has been to integrate technological devices. Large screen internet TVs are now available and the technology to tape an event, as you questioned, is not ubiquitous to satellite or cable television.
Most of the people I know who don´t have cable are fairly young – in college or in their 20s. However, like facebook, blogs, music, etc, I imagine that will change in fairly short order.
Appealing to the online demand is an interesting variable in this debate – and it helps the case of adding established rivalries, say Mizzou-Kansas or, to a much lesser extent, Syracuse-Rutgers.
LikeLike
@Michael
I’m one of those 20’s somethings without cable because I know where to look on the internet to find just about anything I want to watch.
I find they boil down to two (relatively) legal methods of viewing…through partnershiped programs or peer streamed services.
I got to watch the entire first season of “Spartacus: Blood & Sand” on Starz despite only having basic cable because of my Netflix subsciption, and the online streaming deal they have with Starz (could even watch it on tv via my PS3). That & iTunes show download are examples of the former.
Example of the latter are sites like Justin.tv which allow me to watch many different programs, but tend to be very hit or miss in quality/availability. Sometimes Dexter was on, sometimes it wasn’t. Interestingly enough for these sites, streaming of live sports events still puts the commercials on the internet as well. I don’t think you can sell that kind of viewship, but its something.
Here’s the thing…the latter method takes a degree of skill and mostly luck to see what you want to see and even then the quality is probably not as good as it could be (certain exceptions apply). For the average entertainment consumer this is unacceptable. This means there will be markets online for content tailored specifically to the consumer despite what its historical draw has been (if PSU women’s soccer is on I’ll probably watch it over programming, if its PSU women’s volleyball I’ll definitely watch it). as Frank mentioned ESPN3 is already based on this model.
Overall point being…the “established rivalries” argument tends to be null and void (at least in my mind) when it comes to the BTN because, with a few exceptions, those types of games are what the Big10 is going to want to sell to ABC/ESPN for the big payouts.
I really think having Indiana v Syracuse is the perfect game for the BTN because ABC/ESPN isn’t going to want to play that and both those schools have large population centers to market to.
LikeLike
The Big Ten Network charges #2.99 per event for online streaming. They will show over 200 games this year, but none that are televised on cable or broadcast TV. I guess that means no football via streaming.
http://video.bigtennetwork.com/about
LikeLike
Good way IMO to continue to push up demand for the BTN. Wait for the internet based methods to become firmly entrenched before trying to branch out there.
LikeLike
I think all sides understand that Internet will more and more be part of the line of distribution, but cable and satellite will continue to be important.
1) No online-first distribution entity is likely to have the infrastructure of the current media companies distributed through cable and satellite. In other words, it is the ESPNs, FOXes and BTNs that are best-positioned to distribute programming through the Web.
2) No matter how it is distributed, content remains king. HBO thrives because it produces original content people want NOW, most prominently its miniseries, like The Pacific, Band of Brothers, Sopranos etc. etc. College sports conferences thrive likewise because they control content that folks can get live from no one else and that folks have a specific preference for.
The bottom line for me is that the cable-subscription bonanza is likely to be relatively short-term, although it will still be considerable, but the Big 10 and CIC are mainly focused, as they should be, on building out from their core strengths – must-have sports content and research strength.
LikeLike
@Mike R – I think that you’re correct. The reason why the BTN was able to get itself onto all of those cable carriers is because there IS a critical mass of people in the footprint who NEED their product (not just “kinda want” it). Sports are really what drives cable subscriptions more than anything and they are going to receive disproportionate ad dollars in the future because, as others have said, they are DVR-proof compared to standard TV fare. The distribution channel might change over time from cable to the Internet, but note that cable providers are also the largest broadband Internet providers, so there are going to be forces to ensure that cable is protected. Even then, you will
likely see the same type of subscription fees via the Internet, such as ESPN3 (the former ESPN360.com) that charges Internet providers a per subscriber fee for access to that site. The Big Ten Network is also already streaming a lot of PPV non-revenue sports, so they’re clearly already anticipating these changes down the road.
LikeLike
@Paul
You bring up some great points about future of sporting event distribution and what that means for expansion. I however disagree slightly about that that eventual conclusion becomes.
You are correct in that the future will probably place less emphasis on legacy television set-ups with the “airwave” based television model using the internet to lower distribution costs and likewise consumers SHOULD (I’ll get into this stipulation in a second) be able to be much more discriminate in programming as they can select only that which they consume. I also agree, that this should nominally favor those conferences with the best product (ie, best games).
Where I disagree…
The decrease in the subscription fees. As I see it, channels will still be able to maintain a subscription based business model even online as the same basic principles apply. IE if I want to watch science fiction, or Big10 sports, or racing I subscribe to Syfy, the BTN, and Speed. While there may be “conglomerate” sites that pool dissimilar content (like abc, cbs, nbc, fox today) I still see the internet acting like cable, where people will pay for specific “channels” that specialize in that content. While I might get “internetESPN” for the big time games (and even then only really for football/bball) I’m not going to get the SEC, ACC or any other conference’s channel because I’m interested in all sports Big10 related.
What’s more even if those specific sites allow piecemeal viewing (ie one sporting event) it would be in their best interest to provide “savings incentives” for people to subscribe. I can watch one PSU game on the internet for $10 (x11 games a season figure $110 per season) or sign up for the entire package of college sports programming for $80. I use this example specifically because it was the set-up ESPN used a couple years ago.
Even more so, the internet is not tied to geographical location. Thus all those graduates who went across the nation can have easy access to the programming, and would likely pick it up, to see their team (as its not likely to be on tv in the local area). This means that smaller program schools like Indiana, who pump out a lot of graduates a year, and who most likely don’t all stay in Indiana, will actually be increasing subscription revenue over and above legacy based systems. And again, while it is about football, its not about football for the BTN. Its about plenty of live sports events with teams of interest. I don’t care if PSU’s bball is any good, if its on the BTN I’m more liable to put that on than two much better teams I care nothing about (true for the average consumer IMO). And those are the realities the BTN will be able to capitalize on, on the internet or via old tv’s.
But even with the apparant de-emphasis in local population density, the importance still resides with those home markets. I go back to a post I made somewhere that basically rounded up the reasons why academic standing and performance would probably be the first determining factor in any expansion candidate because it is the vehicle by which these large universities entice students to come to the schools and becomes followers of their athletics. The thing is most college students tend to go to college within a “short” distance from home. Every single one of the folks I knew who graduated from my highschool (in PA) and went to college did so in mid-atlantic region. If a school doesn’t have a large population base, it becomes difficult for said school to maintain the pipeline of students needed to maintain its football draw (via graduates). I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I think schools like Nebraska, ND, etc are diminishing brands for those exact reasons. If the entire Great Plains only has 10-20 million people, and, academically, Neb is the same as KS, Mizzou, Arkansas, or Utah then those schools will start to more evenly split that population base’s prospective students more and more evenly. Long term that means diminished brand appeal for the Huskers as the current national alumni grow older and die and aren’t replaced.
To be honest, the internet based models are the reason why I think the Big10, via the BTN, is going to make the amounts of money it sees now look like peanuts in comparison. If a cable company is going to pay $.36 per viewer to the BTN it has to be charging $1+ to cover its own expenses and profits. Internet based distribution would allow the BTN (via direct subscriptions without having to deal with distribution “middle-men” in the cable companies) to directly charge those amounts if the internet becomes as prevalent as tv today, or slightly less to incentivize watching on a higher profit margin medium for the BTN.
LikeLike
@ PSUGuy
You really don’t know much about Nebraska if you think only graduates of the university follow the football program.
LikeLike
I agree with this. As a Texas supporter, I was stunned to see 10,000 NU fans show up for a volleyball regional finals game last year.
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, I do not in any way believe Husker fanaticism lends itself only to football.
My comments about the program, overall, are about the long term draw a school with comparative academics (to its immediate competition) in an area of low population/slow growth could bring to the Big10.
If Nebraska gets into the Big10 and starts pushing hard to become like the rest of the Big10 schools academically (aim for Top100 in ARWU rankings within a decade or so) I think all my concerns are null and void. If it continues to be a good, but not exceptional, school in the middle of the Great Plains surrounded by schools who are like-minded I think my concerns apply and the “Big10 West” simply becomes what the Big12 North is now (at best).
LikeLike
@PSUGuy – Great comment overall. The only thing that I quibble with is the long-term appeal of Nebraska and Notre Dame. There’s something about a great fan base that can’t simply be replicated. It’s kind of like arguing the long-term TV appeal of the Green Bay Packers compared to the Houston Texans – in a vacuum, you might argue that the mega-growth of the Houston market would make it a more attractive property for TV purposes, but Packer fans are a special kind of crazy and I’d put Nebraska and ND fans in that category, too. Nebraska and ND are 2 schools that are able to attract legions of fans that aren’t associated with the school at all. If you can get your hands on a school like that, you’ve got to grab them regardless of long-term market growth.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that Husker (or Domer) fans are rabid and the school (for now) has a draw far outside its internal markets/graduates. I’m a student of history and thus facts like that make me ask the question “Why”. As far as I can tell, for quite some time Nebraska was the only game in town. Nothing north or west qualified, Mizzou, Kansas, Iowa, up through to the great lakes don’t have long or storied football programs. In an era of most people not going to college, and the nearest pro teams being hundreds of miles away and located in urban centers (which I imagine most mid-westerners wouldn’t associate well with) its not surprising to see the entire Great Plains be “Nebraska” territory.
Fast forward 50 years though (heck even 20) and you see Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Mizzou all starting to put together solid football franchises (and their own rabid fan bases), academic measures of other schools in the area equal Nebraska’s (or exceed), and the overall populations of the Great Plains being relatively stable. The question now becomes how likely is Nebraska to continue pulling in folks not associated with the school outside of its home state when those other states have home grown products they can root for?
The thing I see is, choosing a college was one of the most important decisions I’ve ever made in my life, and I think that holds true for any young adult. They’re going to put a lot of time and thought into it and by the time things are all said and done they are going to identify with the school they pick more than any school they grew up watching.
If I grow up in Florida watching Husker football with mom and dad, but I go to UofF/FSU/Miami because of academics/proximity to home odds are I’m going to root for those schools because that’s where I went. That’s “who I am”. Its one of the reasons why PSU has (for the past 20 years) placed a premium on attracting out of state students. Those graduates go back home and “take their school with them”.
This is what Nebraska used to be able to do without even having a person attend the school. Its what I worry Nebraska will not be able to do (as effectively) in the mid-to-long term.
Again, its not a bad school and one that I think, if available, needs to be in on the Big10 expansion and I don’t think will ever disappear because it’ll always have that great history to fall back on. I just question whether in a couple decades its going to supply the national appeal it does now (I think it will always “deliver” the Great Plains).
LikeLike
@PSU fan and Frank,
I absolutely disagree with you about people growing up a fan of a specific school but later attending a different one. At NU, since it´s private, you see lots of people like this – myself included. I grew up an Illinois fan and, after graduating from NU, still am. I follow NU´s teams from a somewhat emotionless standpoint but am very passionate about all things Illinois. Many of my best friends from NU were the same way. One grew up in Arkansas and after graduating from NU went to work for Arkansas´ athletic program. Honestly, the only people I knew at NU who ¨became fans¨ were people who 1) played sports there 2) grew up loving NU or 3) grew up not following college sports.
Frank, I think this goes along with your observation about Packers and Texans fans. Packers fans, by and large, grew up being spoon-fed by Cheeseheads. Any Texans fans are obviously transplanted and therefore less loyal and passionate. I think this same point translates almost perfectly to the public vs. private divide. All things being equal, the Big 10 should expect a public university with an already passionate fan base to remain that way. While a private university or a public school without a strong sports tradition will be much more strained in this regard. I would imagine it would take at least a generation or two of success and slow evolution for a school like Rutgers to generate interest anywhere close to what you see with Nebraska.
LikeLike
@Michael
I actually had the opposite experience at Northwestern. I came in as a fan of a different school, but came out as a pretty big Northwestern fan. My group of friends there had a similar experience; we all were “cradle” fans of other schools.
Seriously, rooting for Illinois? They suck at football.
LikeLike
@M,
When Illinois is down, one of the most painful parts of the whole thing is hearing about it from my NU friends. Whatever happens though, remember, Huffman sucks.
I actually do cheer for NU — when they´re not playing Illinois — and even went to the bowl game this past year with some of my friends. The difference, for me at least, is the passion.
I think everyone who goes to NU is a ¨fan,¨ but the perennial criticism is that they´re not ¨true fans.¨ I´m not sure if that´s quite fair, since there are people there who like sports and NU is their college team. What I never saw, however, was a strong group of the ¨cradle¨ fans that you see at other universities–like Illinois.
And it´s been my experience that, by and large, these are the fans who tend to be most passionate. I´m not saying you´re not passionate about NU sports — I don´t know you — but I´ve been around much more passionate fans at other schools.
Does NU even have an active sports message board? The one´s I´ve seen are minimal compared to other Big 10 schools. You can bring up the size of the school, but I think that´s a bit disingenuous. The bigger reason has to do with where our alumni originate and then move to after college. There are some in Chicago, but let´s be honest. Chicago is a U of I town. This then brings us back to the passionate fan base idea – and I just don´t see it with NU.
But, hey, maybe we´ll fit in with Rutgers!
LikeLike
@Michael
The sad thing about the Huffman comment is that NU kicker jokes just keep on coming. I don’t know if any kicker ever has had a worse day than Demos in the Outback Bowl. By my tally he had 3 missed field goals, a missed extra point, a shanked punt, a failed onside kick, and a broken leg.
The dispersed alumni certainly doesn’t help. The stat that always gets brought up is that Northwestern has the fewest alumni in Chicago of anyone in the Big Ten. A lot of them also come from the northeast (or the Far East) and have no concept of football. I would contend that the school travels relatively well and almost certainly has had more fans at bowl games than Illinois the past few years. (Whatever you do during the Illinois-Northwestern games, as a Wildcat fan I hope you just keep on doing it).
As far as message boards, the Rivals boards are your best bet, though they have substantially less activity in the offseason. Northwestern fans also have a disproportionate influence in the comments of well-written blogs such as this and in almost any sports journalism setting.
Of course, all Northwestern fans are like this:
http://www.rivalryesq.com/2010/4/30/1449715/big-ten-2010-keeping-the-enemy
so none of it hardly seems to count.
LikeLike
@PSUguy
A lot of interesting ideas, and I think this opens up this debate to a lot of new angles.
As for your comment about students staying close to home to go to college, this really varies from school to school, and especially so with the private universities. I went to Northwestern and had more friends who came from New York or LA than I did from the Chicago area.
Interestingly enough, I think this contributes to NU´s pretty lackluster interest in sports. The rabid fan bases tend to perpetuate themselves because kids grow up living and dying with a university, then attend that university and keep close connections with it for the rest of their lives. The overwhelming reason that a student would pay more for a private school and travel a greater distance is for a specific academic program offered. Now these students may eventually become fans, but I don´t see most of them being as passionate as those who grew up loving that team.
And don´t overlook the effect that a passionate fan has on the overall commitment from alumni and students. This is really where the Big 12 North diverges from some of these Big East schools, like Rutgers and UConn. Individual athletic programs fluctuate over the years, but I´d argue that the passion from the fan base stays fairly constant.
In this same direction, one worry I have with Pitt is that it is a private school and I wonder how this contributes to fan loyalty or passion to their athletic teams. Does Pitt draw its students from a more national pool – like other private schools? I´d imagine so, and, if that´s the case, I wonder how valuable that fan base would be to the BTN – especially in the context of internet-based subscriptions.
LikeLike
Pitt and Penn State are “state-related” institutions. They aren’t owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but they do enjoy a state subsidy, cost less to attend if you’re a Pennsylvania resident and have some trustees who are appointed by public officials. The universities also provide free services to Pennsylvanians, such as PSU’s agricultural service. Pitt hasn’t been a private school in the strictest sense since the early 20th century.
LikeLike
Evidently there are two Michaels on this page.
LikeLike
I stand corrected about Pitt. I don´t know why I thought they were private. I guess it was just that in relation to Penn St, they are much smaller – at an undergraduate level, at least.
LikeLike
$29.95 for Pay-Per-View last year to see Nebraska play Louisiana-Lafayette? YIKES!
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=204782156
LikeLike
It was $39.95 for Horns fans to watch the season opener against Louisiana-Monroe.
LikeLike
Kentucky might want into the BigTen, because the football there is so bad…
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/02/1248469/big-blue-to-big-ten.html
LikeLike
It could be another fun exercise to find the most ludicrous rumors being floated out there by “real” journalists, as opposed to mere uneducated pajama-wearing bloggers like Frank.
I poked around last week and learned that the SEC might kick out Vandy and South Carolina as part of its expansion efforts. Was anyone else on this board smart enough to see that coming? Didn’t think so.
Also, I learned that the Pac 10 wouldn’t take Texas but would, in fact, take TCU. Blows my theories out of the water.
LikeLike
The 74-26 “no” vote does not surprise me in the least.
There are two things you must always remember aboutUK’
1. It was, is, and always will be Southern in culture.
2. The official university motto is : “If you aint cheatin, you aint tryin”
UK very much belongs in the SEC.
LikeLike
I liked it so much I said it twice.
I’d add a #3–
UK fans are just like Domer fans, except with fewer teeth. Both fan bases are cult-like in their outlook.
LikeLike
Aren’t you the same guy who started throwing in references to Holocaust-deniers when discussing Notre Dame above?
Now you’re making the no-teeth references to Kentucky fans?
Way to keep it classy.
LikeLike
There are two things you should always remember about UK:
1. The culture was, is, and always will be Southern; and
2. The official university motto is “If you aint cheatin, you aint tryin”.
UK is a perfect match for the SEC.
LikeLike
Wow…I mean just wow.
I mean we’re all having intelligent thought provoking discussions on whether Nebraska is a long term national brand, East or West expansion is better, how much is getting Texas worth, the possibilities of an “All Eastern” research based athletic conference, and any number of realistic scenarios/trade-offs while these guys get paid to write that drivel?
Frank, you got this set-up all wrong. You should be distributing these posts as AP articles…maybe some of those writers would learn a thing or two (as I know I have!).
LikeLike
Actually, Frank, I was thinking that you should start approaching this, if you haven’t already done so, from the mindset that there should be enough material when this is all said and done to have an interesting book written about the subject, and if there is going to be such a book, why not you be the author?!?
LikeLike
I’ve been convinced that Nebraska would be “the one” if the league decides to expand by just one. As a national power, they’d become the league’s fourth ratings superstar, joining OSU, UM, & PSU. While they wouldn’t add many new subscribers due to the state’s small population, they’d add substantial new ad revenue, as has been mentioned previously. Nebraska also comes without any baggage; i.e., they won’t be demanding the Big Ten tag on an old-time rival, in spite of their VERY long-term rivalries with Mizzou, KU, ISU, OU, & CU. I really do think NU would jump at the chance to secure its long-term future while leaving behind a sometimes tense relationship with the Texas schools. All in all, NU would make the other 11 programs richer than all but two other candidates could (ND & UT), and NU would obviously benefit greatly as well.
Although an argument can be made for Pitt since it has good football AND b-ball programs, college b-ball doesn’t come anywhere close to the ratings of football, especially Nebraska football. Rutgers & Syracuse are no guarantee for the New York/New Jersey markets; Nebraska IS a guarantee for ratings boosts and advertising monies.
Notre Dame, by contrast, carries more baggage. They essentially require the BT to expand to at least 14, with any two among Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers coming with the Irish. 14 teams means a football schedule where once-annual rivalries are spaced out by long layoffs, creating thousands of unhappy alumni at the 11 Big Ten universities. Notre Dame would also be a disgruntled new member.
In other words, adding 2 Big East schools plus Notre Dame had better yield drastically greater revenue than adding Nebraska alone in order for such a move to be worthwhile.
LikeLike
@Michael
I think if you’re talking a 1 team expansion you hit the nail on the head. I admit to thinking it Mizzou in that scenario before finding this place, but the more I’ve learned the more I think Nebraska is the highest probability.
The thing is, the more I hear of what the Big10 has been looking into, the less I think a 1 team expansion is in the works. I mean why research 15 schools when only ~5 likely meet the 1 team expansion minimums? Take that into account with the BTN information on carry rates, revenues, and profits, the fact that the last round expansion (PSU) went east (where no big time programs exist at the moment), and right now the Big10 is truly in a position of complete and absolute power as far as being able to go out and do what it wants to do.
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they took Nebraska and called it done (though I think that’s lower likelihood) and I wouldn’t be surprised if they went straight to 20 (though I also think that’d a lower likelihood), but everything I can juggle together at once just points me to somewhere in the middle.
LikeLike
If you are right about a larger expansion, which I think you are, then it will most likely include at least two Big 12 (NEB/MO) and two Big East schools (RUT/PITT). These moves will create instability in the Big East (perhaps leading to its demise) and may trigger substantial expansion by other conferences. Given all of these seismic changes, which we think are likely, then isn’t it also likely that the 16th team will be Notre Dame (instead of Syracuse or U-Conn)?
I think the most likely outcome is a 16 team Big Ten with the addition of NEB, MO, RUT, PITT, and ND.
Notre Dame’s schedule would look something like this: UM, MSU, Purdue, Pitt, Penn St., Rutgers, Northwestern, Indiana, Nebraska, Navy (OOC), USC (OOC), and some random cream puff (OOC). I would think that Notre Dame fans could get behind a schedule like that–especially considering all of the money that would be generated.
LikeLike
Possible divisions:
South
OHIO STATE
PENN STATE
NOTRE DAME
PITTSBURGH
PURDUE
RUTGERS
INDIANA
NORTHWESTERN
North
NEBRASKA
MICHIGAN
IOWA
WISCONSIN
MICHIGAN STATE
MISSOURI
ILLINOIS
MINNESOTA
Some inter-divisional rivalries (like UM-OSU, ND-MSU, and Iowa-PSU) could be protected for TV ratings purposes.
Notre Dame would get a lot of exposure on the east coast with this set up. Nebraska would be comfortable with mostly nearby teams.
LikeLike
I think if you’re looking totally at $$$ then you’re right on. ND adds more value via its football program than either Cuse or UConn probably ever could and more than most of the other programs mentioned.
Problem is something Joe Paterno mentioned in regards to expansion. First, “ND had its chance” and two (paraphrasing) “joining a conference is a marriage of goals”.
Fact is, while ND is a great school academically it seems to not be interested in graduate research at all. Something every Big10 schools engages in heavily (even a school of similar size, Northwestern).
A school like PSU was, like ND is now, one of the great independents, but saw that by itself it could achieve the academic and athletic levels it could by remaining alone. People sometimes forget PSU tried for 20 years to start, and then join, a conference before the Big10 came calling.
ND on the other hand wears its independence as a badge of honor (something my personality type can greatly appreciate). Can ND ever “conform” itself toward the ideas of “what’s best for the conference is best for the individual”? Personally I don’t think so simply because as a religious based school it will inevitably be placed in decisions that will put its morality (based on its world view) against possible Big10 goals. Logical example is what if the Big10 wanted to use the CIC to push stem cell research heavily? ND, being a Catholic organization, should be opposed to the idea on moral (religious) grounds. How is that kind of group dynamic going to be workable?
I think previously the Big10 folks would have over-looked these issues, and they still might, but I think the time of “asking” ND to come along is long gone. The Big10 will move forward expecting ND will still try to maintain its independence and/or strike a deal like the one it has with the BigEast with whoever’s left should the BigEast fall (I could really see ND starting a Catholic bball conference if the BigEast falls apart) and focus on those schools that actually want to be a part of being what the Big10 prides itself on being.
IMO, ND is the chick you “were in love with” in high school, but would never go out with you. 10 years later she’s still the same person, but you’ve found someone that meshes so much better that you don’t care how (or even if) the other girl is better in some insignificant way(s).
If ND comes along, fine. If not, no big deal as I think the replacement schools, while not as “sexy” from a football perspective, will still provide lasting appeal to the Big10 overall.
LikeLike
@ PSUguy
couple different things here:
1. The school *really* wants to build up the Grad programs. Problem is that not only have they just started trying to build them in the last 40yrs or so, the vast majority of the Alums aren’t really interested in how the Grad programs are doing.
2. From what I’ve been reading, the main reason that the Media has been pushing “ND to the Big Ten” is because there are a dearth of options for the Big Ten considering what they are looking for.
3. As near as I can tell, they are looking for:
a) A large (25K+)
b) Public
c) AAU member
d) with a non-dead-last-for-B10 USNWR ranking
e) Decent Div I programs, especially football
f) High fan support
g) Large Football Stadium
h) All in a highly populated state
i) Near where the current schools are
j) That wants to join in
k) And is willing to buy into the BTN
The fact that no schools meet all of the above is the reason this is going to take as long as it has and will.
LikeLike
Rox, I don’t think the media types are trying to push ND to the Big 10 for the reason you state. Rather, it’s for the same reason as for the “Old Ball Coach” — it’s where the teams are. It just makes sense for ND to play Mich, MSU, Pur, OSU, Penn St…and even teams like NW, IU, Ill., Iowa, Wis…Really the only school with no logical connection to ND is Minnesota.
The ‘scheduling flexibility’ and ‘different mission’ arguments are, imo, legit, if not short-sighted.
If the Big 10 goes to 16, it will be interesting to see if ND eventually ends up in the ACC, or staying independent and playing in the CYO baketball league…..
LikeLike
As a Alum, I can say for certain that the schedule you propose will not please ND fans. Nowhere near enough flexibility (one lousy game) to rotate enough non-Midwestern teams.
Judging from the smoke signals coming from the ADs office, I think once again ND will only go to a conference if forced.
LikeLike
That proposed ND schedule looks like it would be rated as the toughest schedule in the country with lots of games that would create national interest.
LikeLike
Pitt, Penn State, and Rutgers are non-Midwestern teams.
UM, MSU, and Purdue are already on the schedule every year.
But whatever. I’m personally rooting for ND to be left out of the Big Ten because I don’t want to endure all of the whining that will come with their reluctant decision to join.
My guess is the expanded Big Ten schedule plus USC and Navy will look a lot better than what ND ends up with when the other conferences expand.
LikeLike
Paul is correct. The expanded Big Ten schedule plus USC and Navy will look a lot better than what ND ends up with when the other conferences expand.
LikeLike
Maybe.
*If* the conferences expand.
There’s still no economic reason for any Conference to go above 12 other than the B10. I guess fear and the ability to claim the BMF wallet count as reasons. Then again, there aren’t enough big-time teams to justify more than 4 superconferences, and until we arrive at that future, I think ND will be OK.
P.S. I was always told Pittsburgh is a midwestern “rust belt” city, PSU since joining the B10 is considered by ND to be practically Midwestern, and nobody cares about Rutgers that much.
LikeLike
Just wondering – I know Colorado has been mentioned as a possibility for Pac 10 expansion, but might they also be a candidate for the Big Ten? The obvious negative for them is distance, but they’re about the same distance from Columbus as Austin, and we all know Texas is under consideration. And if the Big Ten would bring them in with say, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri and Pitt, the Big 10 would stretch from PA to CO contiguously.
Colorado is an AAU member, they have a large national alumni base and they’re a much better TV draw than any of the eastern teams under consideration. Plus, Boulder is a great town. I know as a fan, I’d be a hell of a lot more interested in taking in a road game in Boulder than I would in Syracuse, New Brunswick or Storrs, CT.
LikeLike
Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt and Rutgers would be an interesting mix of teams to add. It would be nice if the Colorado football program could return to the quality it had during the McCartney years.
LikeLike
I do like Colorado as a prospective Big 10 member (they bring a great and growing market in Denver, they have the ability to support an excellent all-around sports program and they are an AAU school), but they seem more interested in the Pac-10.
LikeLike
Colorado makes a lot of sense for the Big 10, especially if Nebraska is added as a geographic ‘bridge’ to the state.
However, the state of Colorado has many people who have moved from California, and many alumni of the school live in California. This is why everyone thinks they’d jump at the chance to go to the Pac 10 even if the Big 12 stays together.
Now, if the Big 10 shows them the dollar amounts they’ll make in the move east and takes their rivals with them maybe they’ll choose the Big 10 first. Also, there is a chance the Pac 10 decides to do nothing if the Texas schools don’t come*, which would leave Colorado available.
I’ve mentioned on other threads that I think the best chance the Big 10 would have to get Texas would be to offer Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Missouri a chance to join together.
*Somewhere I read the Pac 10 would break even with Colorado and lose money with Utah, unless they change their economic model by doing something like adding a cable network.
LikeLike
Why would CO, NE, or MO be any type of lure for Texas? UT only cares about aTm and OU (keeping annual rivals in conference, out of the SEC recruiting advantage, and less travel) maybe TT or UH(less travel, perhaps Powers’ Prop 4 visions) and perhaps Baylor, TCU, or OK St (less travel.) Certainly can’t count on CO, NE, or MO to vote with UT on conference matters the way closer schools might.
If the B10+ wants UT, then taking aTm is a must and probably OU or perhaps TT. If UT is willing to join with only aTm, then no other B12 school is going to make any difference in that decision.
LikeLike
(Banging head against wall.)
Texas doesn’t care a bit about Houston from an athletics standpoint. Texas will not insist for a moment that UH will come along. (Big 10 analogy: Yes, we at Ohio State would love to join your conference! But only if Bowling Green gets to come too.)
Texas will never insist that a school from another state would have to be brought along for a ride. (Big 10 analogy: Yes, we at Ohio State would love to join your conference! But only if our great friends from the University of Michigan get to come too. If not, we’ll gladly forego the invitation and not do what would otherwise be in our best interest!)
LikeLike
I don’t know. I think tOSU rather enjoys pounding UM into submission every November. The Buckeyes would miss the poor Wolverines if they left the conference alone.
In all seriousness, wouldn’t having a collection of four Big 12 teams come along for the ride help to alleviate (somewhat) the geographic strangeness of being an isolated southern team competing in the Big 10. I realize the other teams mentioned (other than aTm) aren’t southern, but at least they’re familiar faces (and a bit closer to home than Northwestern and Penn State).
LikeLike
Perhaps it would be wise to read up on Bill Powers comments the last few years regarding Texas Proposition 4 and his vision for a Tier One and AAU network in the Texas.
LikeLike
Sorry, I should have been clear that I was replying to HopkinsHorn, not Paul (whose comments I agree with.)
LikeLike
“Why would CO, NE, or MO be any type of lure for Texas?”
Not because they care about the athletic department of those schools.
If No Big 12 school is added, the closest school to Texas is Iowa or Illinois. Each school added from the Big 12 is one more school ‘closer’ to the state. Now, none are really close, but all are much better travel partners than Rutgers and Notre Dame.
If they go to a pod system, one pod would likely be Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska. Those would be as close as most schools they would play if they joined the Pac 10, unless the Pac 10 reduces it’s academic reputation by squeezing in Texas Tech or Oklahoma.
There’s also a psychological plus in that it looks like Texas geographically fits into a Big 10 conference with these 3 other schools. If we imagine Oklahoma to be nothing but a dry Great Lake (and what UT fan doesn’t), Texas touches Missouri and Colorado.
These schools are academically acceptable, bring the name of Nebraska and the populations of Missouri (6 million) and Colorado (5 million). It will be highly profitable. Unless Texas is sure it’s going to make a bonanza off it’s ‘Longhorn Network’, this will be better financially than a move to the Pac 10.
LikeLike
Right, I agree with your line of thinking, but NE, MO, and especially CO and its high altitude are so far away already that it really washes out. Not much difference in flying to Columbia vs Champaign, Lincoln vs. Iowa City, and probably closer to fly to Minn, Madison, or Chicago than Boulder.
LikeLike
Well said, both of you (Hopkins and m-Ag). Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Tech and OU will have absolutely no bearing on anything Texas decides to do. And as has been said repeatedly, one of the only negatives for Texas joining the Big 10 is distance. Going west with the majority of the expansion and including several of Texas’ Big 12 brothers can only help with that.
Personally, I find the thought of eastward expansion extremely unappealing. I wouldn’t mind Pitt, but Rutgers/Syracuse/UConn just don’t seem worth it to me. I’d be absolutely thrilled if the Big 10 ended up with Texas, Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri/Kansas. Not sure they’d raid one conference like that though.
LikeLike
Yeah, none of them are that close. That said, any team you add from the Big East will be much further away. While those combinations might make a bit more money, I think Texas will feel less a part of such a conference.
Part of selling any move will be selling the new schedule. If you don’t take other Big 12 schools with you, who would be the annual rivals? Illinois and Northwestern?–not many people would be excited. Iowa and Wisconsin?–decent rivals, actually, though it would require breaking up some current Big 10 rivalries and not too many Texans are aware of them right now. Syracuse and Rutgers? It’d be fun to have the team playing on the East Coast sometime, but every year?
I think if you tell UT fans they’ll play A&M, Nebraska, and Colorado every year plus either (Ohio State and Michigan State) or (Michigan and Penn State), they’d be pretty happy with the games they would see. In addition, there would be 4 other games against the rest of the conference (Missouri would be one of those schools), but the schedule would be appealing even before you look at those. (Colorado hasn’t been good for awhile, but I think people still respect the program.)
LikeLike
Hard to say. With the tougher schedule that would come from going to the B16, especially if OU become OOC, I could see UT wanting IU for the schedule breather. Or perhaps a school where the trip would be a good fundraiser destination, such as Madison, Chicago, New York, or even Happy Valley (beautiful mountains in the fall, run charter buses to the Hershey or Seven Springs Resorts.) Remember that the trip would not be annual but every other year (home and home.)
LikeLike
My preference would be a one school addition, with Nebraska being the school. I realize that Missouri has long been a favorite of a number of the western BT schools, but I don’t see the market appeal for them that I see for Nebraska. I’ve stayed up late watching Nebraska play and can’t get moved for Missouri, although I’m sure its a fine school.
If, as seems to be the case, a more ambitious expansion is determined to be appropriate, then the BT has to decide what they want to accomplish. If the New York market is the target, then I would suggest somehow adding Kansas and Syracuse. New York will watch good match-ups in football but it is a basketball city at heart. They watch the Nicks, for heaven’s sake. Pitt has some attraction there now but only because they play Syracuse and because the Big East has connections to the city. They are not going to give you the city. Kansas is to basketball what Michigan and Ohio State are to football. They would maximize the chances of getting NY TV sets tuned to the BTN. So, in a big expansion, I think I would go with NE, MO, and Kansas on the west end and Rutgers and Syracuse on the East.
Finally, I would leave ND alone. They have been pretty clear they don’t want in. They should have the choice to do what they want. We let Maryland out of it when they said no thanks, we should do the same with ND.
LikeLike
What happens if UT does start its own Longhorns channel? Say NE and MO do go to the B16, CO to the P12. In the followup UT shows disinterest towards the SEC and P12. As the B12-3 meet to consider replacements (while many weigh exit strategies) they insist on forming a B12 channel if they are going to stay together. UT reveals that they are going ahead with a Longhorns channel and thus will not participate in nor help finance a B12 channel.
In that case a pissed off aTm probably bolts for the SEC, and I don’t blame them one bit. OU likely follows, while the SEC nabs FSU and either Clemson, Miami,Lou, or WV, so as to not disrupt their current east-west division balance. To get back to 12 the ACC nabs CT and either Pitt, ND, Syr, Cin, or WV (depending on which schools the B16 and SEC take.) After grabbing Utah and CO, the P12 also can’t justify going beyond 12. The loss of Utah has set back by at least 5 years the MWC’s attempt to be a BCS AQ conference.
With that backdrop I could see UT staying in the B12 and still able to reload it with good teams. Probably a South division of UT, UH, TCU, Baylor, TT, and OK St, and a North of KS, KSU, ISU, BYU, Boise, and either Fresno, CSU, or Lou (Fresno would be a nice foothold in CA for recruiting purposes.) Compact division, low-cost travel (think of all the minor and women’s sports, not just football, Bkball, and Bsball) and an uneven revenue split, perhaps with even lower payouts to the other 11 schools than currently. Where else are they going to go? At least in the B12 they’re still in one of only now 5 BCS conferences with access to those bowls and good TV coverage. Schools like Boise, UH, TCU, and Fresno are certainly going to jump on that, you basically only have to pay them the cost differential and $1 more than the conferences they’re in now, if that. KS might have options, but a foolish state legislature may kill those by forcing KSU on them as a duo. If the dwarfs decide to band together for equal revenue sharing, UT has the leverage of always walking away to the P12, ACC, or even temporary independence (could always bring in CUSA, WAC, and MWC leftovers for a low-paid scab conference.)
If UT (thinks it) can get enough money from the Longhorns channel, then this may be a good enough setup for them to stay put. Would still have a BCS bowl tie in, doesn’t have too grueling road to the conference champ game, and keeps up the strength of schedule. In fact SOS actually gets tougher for UT and, even more so for the conference. Trading OU, NE, MO, and aTm, and CO for Boise, TCU, BYU, UH, and Fresno is a solid net gain in the rankings. OU may be the best of those, but the departed 5 have a worse bell curve and average.
If the 11 dwarves can work out a cable startup, so much the better. Since OK St sends most of their graduates to Texas, (as do the KS schools to a lesser extent) you’d have enough critical mass for the Bl2-1 channel to have a good shot in TX. Not quite the same population footprint and states as the existing B12, but close. Plus cable footprint can be offset by the larger number of high-profile games, which would be the selling point for the conference (especially with UT insisting that schools upgrade their non-conference schedules.)
These 11 have a much lower threshold and a different analysis grid than the current B10+ because it is a completely different scenario. The B10+, P10, and SEC don’t have to expand and have options for which schools to add, if any. The Leftover 11 are just trying to survive and stay in a BCS conference.
When it comes to Top 25 or Bowl eligible teams, the UT and the 11 dwarfs would still often finish second to only the SEC. UT, Boise, TCU, BYU, UH, OK St, TT, and Fresno are all teams that would at minimum bubble in and out of the Top 25. Beats the new ACC and P12, and compares favorably to OSU, PSU, WI, NE, IA, MI, NW, MSU, and Pitt or ND.
I still bet that UT works out a deal to join some or all of the P10. But I can also see how UT might envision and want to go ‘sorta independent’ by staying in the B12 if they do believe they can start up a Longhorns channel, even with the likely negative tradeoffs.
LikeLike
I think you really dismiss the importance of academics to Texas in this equation. Why would the President of the University who has a stated goal of becoming the number 1 public tier 1 university in the country pass on an opportunity to join the PAC10 or Big10 to form a conference with Boise State & Fresno State? Doesn’t make much sense if I am the president to invest money into a network solo and form a new conference with he schools you mention just to hoard an incremental increase in income. Too risky. How do I get enough content to make it worthwhile? If the Big10 is expanding to get enough live content for the Big10 newwork how would Texas be able to generate enough content and sufficient demand for the games that they would have the rights to on their network. Seems like with would simplier, easier and risk averse to join up with the Pac10 or Big10 and be amongst academic peers for the same amount or more revenue.
I don’t see the alumni or faculty being too happy about this trade-off. No way those schools compare favorably to Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan, ND or even Iowa and Wisconsin. If they were so great and such a draw they would be candidates for going to one of the major conferences sans Big10 expansion.
The same arguments goes for Texas dragging Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Houston wherever they go. They won’t. Why would the President of the University base his decision on whether or not he had to play Oklahoma OOC or in conference. He wouldn’t and he will do what’s best for the University of Texas not the University of Oklahoma. And Houston is not in the equation. Texas will leave Oklahoma and play them out OOC as they did for years. They already let Houston behind before.
LikeLike
Or maybe you and others are really dismissing the trade offs and costs (monetary and otherwise) of some of UT’s options. Perhaps the Prez believes increasing revenue does more to reach his academic goals than conference reputation or the CIC. Perhaps he views those other schools more as competitors than useful partners. Who knows?
If the UT Prez is thinking like you and some others then he would be joining the B10+, the best academic BCS conference. Or better yet would pursue what I earlier proposed, a Great AAU Alliance uniting the B10+ and Rutgers in the east with 12 of the 13 P10 and B12 AAU schools in the west. (These are my 2 favorite choices, BTW.) But so far virtually all the signals point away from UT joining the B10+, regardless of what we may think. The P10 should be next in line, followed by the ACC (both of which I’ve made similar posts on, speculating how they could come about.) But both of those options have negative aspects and risks, too.
Over the last few weeks I’ve laid out reasons why taking any, some, or all of OU, aTm, TT, and maybe even UH might be in UT’s best interest. Obviously UT is going to move based on its best interest, nothing proposed is altruistic unless there is a synergistic aspect.
For example, some reasons why UT might want to bring OU along. The single biggest fundraising element of UT athletics involves the Texas-OU game in Dallas, and the fact that it is in Dallas. They use the limited seating for that game (compared to in Austin) to reel in tons of dough, by allocating tickets based on donations to their program. OU has previously threatened to make it a home and home game, so if UT goes to the P10, the SEC doesn’t take OU, and OU is stuck in a lesser conference, that mega-fundraiser may be over. There are similar issues involving recruiting, standards, and ethics compliance where it benefits UT for them to be in the same conference under the same rules and stricter oversight. UT’s revenues are significantly impacted by whether or not they are a top 5 program, so staying competitive is important to their academic bottom line.
Similar, though different cases can be made for aTm, TT, and maybe even UH based on the President’s vision for and statements regarding higher education in Texas. He’s been very active lobbying the legislature on behalf of all 4 schools (and up to 3 others) and their attainment of Tier One and eventually AAU status. He wants Texas to mirror the success of the Cal system, and thus views it in his interest for TT and UH to elevate their academics and reputations. I don’t know if he considers conference affiliation a relevant factor in this, but based on his past statements it would be foolish to completely dismiss that possibility.
Hey, we’re all just guessing, er, analyzing, so only time will tell. But what we’ve seen so far doesn’t really match what would be expected if UT was heading to the Big 10+. If they indeed are not, then clearly UT’s decision is affected by more than just academic reputation. So if we are to predict the actual results, it is wise to look at all the possibilities.
BTW, I doubt the faculty of B10+ schools would prefer adding ND as opposed to Pitt. Were the Cal and Stanford faculty thrilled to add ASU? Did UT’s faculty want to join the B8? The ACC has a good academic rep, so why didn’t UT try to join them in their expansion a few years ago? Not a peep from UT, so apparently academic reputation is just one of multiple factors considered.
LikeLike
Looking to keep this civil, for though you and I are attacking each other’s ideas, I believe we are doing so without too much personal negativity. (If I’m wrong on that, please let me know.)
Here’s where I think the problem between us is when we’re looking at what the University of Texas might do.
KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
(And no, I don’t mean to call you stupid. Someone else made the acronym, not me!)
As you accurately say in the post above, “we’re all just guessing, er, analyzing, so only time will tell.” Exactly. We’re all on this thread because we have this nerdlike fascination with college conference realignment. And it’s certainly fun to try and forecast, as accurately as possible, how this will all play out.
But I would argue that you are getting too caught up in the weeds of playing out this particular scenario versus that particular scenario, and that you need to take a step back and take a good look at what you start proposing when you get knee-deep in the weeds.
From my perspective, if retooling/reloading the Big XII is an option, and I believe it is, I think that UT will be content to do just that if the school determines that it is not in its best interest to pursue invitations to either the Big 10 or the Pac 10.
Even with all of the various possibilities out there, I think that’s the simplest, and most realistic, way of looking at UT’s options. There’s no real need to get any more complicated than that.
By contrast, at various times in this and other threads, you have suggested, as realistic possibilities, that:
(1) Texas, an academically ambitious school, would seriously entertain the possibility of joining the academically-inferior SEC;
(2) Texas, a football powerhouse, would consider joining a much weaker (by football standards, certainly) ACC rather than join either the Big 10 or Pac 10; and
(3) Texas, a university with what I consider to be very competent administrators, both in the athletic department and for the university as a whole, would somehow screw this whole realignment business up so badly that UT would screw up the opportunity to join either the Big 10 or Pac 10, screw up relations with A&M and OU so badly that they split, and would have to scramble to piece together a conference with Houston, TCU, Iowa State, Boise State and Fresno State. Hell, those last two schools aren’t even good enough for the MWC!
Again, it’s fun to try and predict what will happen, but take a couple of steps back, think about what could realistically happen, and KISS.
LikeLike
Why yes, and a decade ago KISS and you would be telling us how the NFL expanding to LA was a no brainer. Houston? Please, LA has 4 times the population, massive growth that will eventually make them the largest metro in the US, all that local corporate and celebrity presence to mine, plus a sky high median income.
But it didn’t happen, because many undervalued or overlooked how the NFL actually was weighing factors and what it perceived to be in its best interests.
LikeLike
My recollection was that the NFL was prepared to hand over an expansion franchise to LA on a silver platter, but the LA area’s inability to come up with a comprehensive financing/stadium pack like Houston did led to the birth of the Texans.
LikeLike
I think the fact that NU got the ultimatum and that the B12 South wouldn’t commit to staying if both CU and Mizzou left tells it all. UT didn’t think the B12 viable w/o those 3 and maybe w/o any 2.
LikeLike
I am with those who like just one team. As a Nebraska alumnus, I think that would be an excellent choice for all of the reasons discussed.
On a different matter, if the goal is access to the Texas market, it would seem the path of least resistance could be through A&M. UT does not seem interested in moving now. However, A&M would be a valuable property on its own and may lead to UT rethinking its position. Based on some of the previous comments it seems clear that UT and A&M are not attached at the hip.
LikeLike
And that’s the thing…I don’t think there is any “goal” in the Big10 expansion other than to maximize the benefits discovered by the BTN and ensure those maximized benefits help each member of the conference for the long term.
Sure Texas is by far the “best” addition that could be had, but if it has stipulations to joining, requires special dispensation while a member, and always considers its options outside the conference the Big10 may very well deem adding that school is not in the long term interests of the conference (as insane as that actually sounds).
I mean look at the Big12. Texas got into a conference it didn’t want and obviously felt it was superior to. Was able to push for favorable treatment and eventually put its own good ahead of the conference (shooting down the B12 network in favor of its own Longhorn Network). Now a case could be made about relative contributions to the pot and it not fitting in with the conference it would prefer, but at the end of the day what’s keeping Texas in a conference if it really doesn’t want to be a member?
I think there’s a reason why Nebraska and Mizzou are begging to get out of the B12 North (and Colorado seems to be the same way also) and any rational member of the Big10 needs to wonder if Texas wouldn’t start to push for that “Texas lean” as looks to be seen in the B12.
LikeLike
I agree about Texas, PSUGuy. Seeing what has transpired in the Big 12 doesn’t lead me to believe that Texas would embrace that “all for one, and one for all” spirit of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy and grantlandR:
I would argue that Texas is a bigger team player than you are envisioning, and that your perception is being unduly shaped by a disproportionate amount of whining coming from a school which doesn’t rule the roost to the same extent as it did in its former conference. And if Texas did join the Big Ten, it would do so with its eyes open as to what would be required in terms of revenue distribution if it did join.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if anyone else has suggested this, but under the same methodology of KISS which I suggested in my response to PlayoffsNow above, there’s actually a very easy solution for what the Big XII should do if Nebraska and Mizzou were to leave:
Nothing.
This is somewhat predicated upon the Pac 10 ultimately not expanding in this round of realignment, but instead of trying to make the Louisvilles and TCUs and UNMs of the world fit, why not follow the Pac 10 model of being a ten-team, single division conference, and jointly lobby with the Pac 10 to allow conferences with less than 12 teams to stage championship games?
I tend to believe that, unless the Big XII could lure both Utah and BYU, the “nothing” option would lead to a stronger and more cohesive conference top to bottom than any other available option.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Perhaps the best option if the other schools stay put. More trips to Kansas and Iowa State for everyone!
I doubt the other NCAA schools would agree to a change the championship game requirement, but who knows?
LikeLike
But Nebraska and Colorado have already left (as per Omaha World-Herald, their board of regents has voted to accept the Big Ten offer to apply for admission.) You mentioned Mizzou–if they go, that leaves you with 9. You OK with that?
LikeLike
not sure how I hopped into a month old thread…never mind.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
Finally found a good bleacher report article. Talks about who really is winning the expansion wars:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/404839-ranking_the_women_of_the_probable_pac16#page/1
LikeLike