The latest Big Ten expansion rumor du jour: a 5 -team expansion with Missouri, Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers. South Bend NBC affiliate WNDU (which was owned by the University of Notre Dame until 2006) has a report from “a source in St. Louis”, while Tom Dienhart of Rivals and Yahoo! tweeted about this scenario and then explained to a Nebraska radio station (h/t to Scott C) that he had received his info from Mizzou officials. The Show-Me State apparently has so many loose lips that we should expect to have the next big expansion news to break out of Branson. Hooray for more rampant speculation (and beer)!
As far as news stories about Big Ten expansion go, this is at least within the realm of reasonably coming to fruition. This particular 5-team combination is no surprise to the followers of this blog as we discussed this in detail in the comments a couple of weeks ago with hypothetical pod alignments and the potential financial and prestige merits of this option. As a far as collective requirements for the Big Ten, this group consists of great academic schools (all are members of the AAU), provides one marquee football brand name (Nebraska), grabs a set of guaranteed households (Missouri) and makes a legit play for the New York City market (Syracuse and Rutgers). As sports fans, this expansion would look like a mega-blockbuster if one of those schools were to be replaced by Notre Dame, but I’d still characterize this as a game-changing move that improves both Big Ten football and basketball while expanding the conference footprint. If true, Notre Dame fans will also feel that they’ve dodged a bullet by maintaining independence while simultaneously giving up millions of dollars per year (both in added revenue and reduced travel costs) and watching their league for basketball and non-revenue sports completely collapse. This is seriously what passes for wonderful news in South Bend these days.
In addition, I found the comments from University of Nebraska president Harvey Perlman to be slightly titillating. One week ago, he told the Omaha World-Herald the following:
So far, Perlman said, Nebraska hasn’t been approached by another league.
In an article yesterday in the same paper, Perlman was a lot more evasive:
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.”
Anyway, Dienhart suggested that there would be four 4-team divisions if the Big Ten were to go with the proposed 5-school expansion. Here’s how it could shake out in my eyes:
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois
NORTH: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota
SOUTH: Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern
These “divisions” would really be pods, where the pods would rotate every 2 years. I’d make the East and West divisions always be opposite each other with the North and South divisions rotating. At the same time, every team would have a permanent non-division rival as follows:
Michigan – Ohio State
Illinois – Northwestern
Penn State – Nebraska
Iowa – Minnesota
Pitt – Michigan State
Rutgers – Indiana
Syracuse – Purdue
Wisconsin – Missouri
This way, every team has 4 annual rivals while playing everyone else in the conference 2 out of 4 years (with a few exceptions) if there’s a 9-game conference schedule. The rotating pod mechanism allows everyone in the conference to continue to play each other on a regular basis even in a 16-team conference and still comply with NCAA rules requiring divisions of at least 6-teams each to play an exempt conference championship game.
As for the permanent non-division rivals, despite Pitt’s non-land grant status, I’m fairly certain that Penn State fans will gladly hand over the keys to the Land Grant Trophy (AKA “The Trophy Designed by Rasputin: It Just Won’t Die” or “The Big Ten Bowling League Trophy with a Lion Mold-A-Rama Glued on the Side”) in exchange for an annual game with Nebraska. Now, if you want a REAL rivalry trophy, check out this bad-ass politically incorrect killing machine that Illini like myself and Northwestern fans get to enjoy… wait a second… WTF?!
I was firmly in the camp of believing that Michigan and Ohio State HAD to be in the same division for a very long time no matter how the conference was expanded and that seriously mucked up logical pod setups if you stuck that principle. However, I like the aforementioned pods enough that I’ve been convinced that we may be better off splitting the 2 big dogs. The pods are geographically contiguous and has one marquee football name each. If Michigan and Ohio State really do have to play each other 2 weeks in a row, maybe that’s not the most horrible thing in the world. The Worldwide Leader certainly can’t get enough Yankees-Red Sox and Duke-UNC games to slam down our throats, so having a rematch of college football’s best rivalry for the Big Ten championship would be a completely different kind of Armageddon.
All in all, I’d be fairly happy if this 16-school conference came to fruition. I still think a lot of the value that the Big Ten would be looking for could be achieved in a 3-team expansion with just Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers (assuming that Notre Dame and Texas aren’t in the mix), but this 5-school proposal would definitely lock up the Northeastern quadrant of the United States for the conference with similarly situated top tier research schools that have big-time athletic departments. It’s a risk to expand in this manner without either Notre Dame or Texas, yet I do feel as though all of these 5 schools could “feel” like Big Ten schools and fit in well with the current members. Of course, the only way that this works out financially is if the Big Ten Network takes Manhattan. That continues to be the gazillion dollar issue to be resolved in this conference realignment.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from FanHuddle)
Pingback: The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
I agree with Cutter. You can’t split up WI/MN/IA. I don’t think you can split OSU from UM and MSU, so those 3 would have to be together.
I thought pods were a great solution for the WAC, but it didn’t work. Ultimately since the pods didn’t work, the WAC failed. They couldn’t figure out an 8/8 split. I think the ACC’s idiotic divisions are part of their championship game problem. Its hard to remember whose in your group. That was the problem for the rotating pods in the WAC.
Some Big 10 source was quoted as saying the division (if 8/8 or 7/7) had to be E/W for travel issues, but really you only need divisions in football and travel isn’t that big an issue for 4 conference games a year. N/S with OSU/UM/MSU/IA/MN/WI and one or two others (out of NE,MO,IL,NW) makes too much sense.
LikeLike
I think that an ideal scenario for the Big Ten would be to add Nebraska and Missouri (or 2nd Big12 North team). Then to let things sink in with the rest of the nation realizing that the Big Ten has three scenarios left since staying at 13 isn’t an option.
1) Add one team to round out at 14 (in essence, ND)
2) Add three eastern teams to balance with NU and MU (aka the Big East combo of Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn/Syracuse)
3) Add Texas/A&M and one other team (ND, Rutgers, Kansas etc).
At this point, the writing is on the wall for ND since if they don’t join, then options 2 and 3 will result in the demise of the Big East. Option 2 directly takes the three best teams leaving only five football teams left that will be seeking out new homes in ACC, Big 12, etc. Option 3 means that the Big Ten has NU, MU, Texas, A&M and probably Rutgers. The SEC and ACC will have to expand to keep pace and so Pitt, WVU, will be gone in a flash.
The advantage of this to the Big 10 is that if you get NU and ND then it becomes a no-brainer to take Pitt over Syracuse or UConn. In the end, this may yield Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, ND, and Rutgers. However, if you take the Big East teams first then it becomes a trickier issue to decide which 3 you want because you know that ND will be looking to
LikeLike
I think that an ideal scenario for the Big Ten would be to add Nebraska and Missouri (or 2nd Big12 North team). Then to let things sink in with the rest of the nation realizing that the Big Ten has three scenarios left since staying at 13 isn’t an option.
1) Add one team to round out at 14 (in essence, ND)
2) Add three eastern teams to balance with NU and MU (aka the Big East combo of Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn/Syracuse)
3) Add Texas/A&M and one other team (ND, Rutgers, Kansas etc).
At this point, the writing is on the wall for ND since if they don’t join, then options 2 and 3 will result in the demise of the Big East. Option 2 directly compromises the Big East and Option 3 does it indirectly as the ACC and SEC will definitely be forced to expand.
The advantage of this to the Big 10 is that if you get NU and ND then it becomes a no-brainer to take Pitt over Syracuse or UConn. In the end, this may yield Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, ND, and Rutgers. In my mind, this is better than Nebraska, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Rutgers on all fronts (academic, athletic, and TV/financially).
Taking the Big East teams first means that you must decide which three you want prior to ND looking around. I’d rather take the best teams first and hope that ND joins than to take the teams that I hope would force ND to join. Besides, everyone expects that the Big East will be tapped, so it is better to let that a the status quo until the final moment changes than to put the wheels in motion and have to move more quickly if the ACC wants to snap up Pitt/Syracuse/UConn.
LikeLike
@Nittany Wit,
I agree with Nebraska and Mizzou in the first stage. Like you say, it´s the most effective way to destabilize the biggest fish.
I disagree slightly though on what comes next.
1) You hope to finish off with a sweep of the Big 12 (Texas, A&M, KU or OU)
2) The status quo is not an option for Texas (the Big 12 is dead in this scenario) but if Texas still spurns the Big 10 even with the package deal on the table, you approach Notre Dame one last time. If they´re in, then you take Notre Dame, Rutgers and Pitt/Syracuse.
3) Notre Dame balks once again, and with Notre Dame off the table, you give up any dream of locking down NYC. In that case, you add Kansas and call it a day.
A couple explanations:
First, you don´t take Rutgers without Notre Dame and one other Big East school. It spreads you too thin and accomplishes nothing.
Second, I don´t buy into the three school Big East conglomerate without Notre Dame. By starting with NU and MU, you don´t end up with lameduck East Coast schools, if Notre Dame doesn´t want in. You also hold out the option for a package deal to entice Texas.
LikeLike
@ Michael
Even though I wouldn’t mind seeing it, I seriously doubt whether all the pieces that have to fall for Texas to join the Big10 would actually do so.
From a posturing standpoint, I think that Nebraska and Missouri puts more pressure on ND than on Texas.
In fact, I’d prefer to just take Nebraska at this point.
LikeLike
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune had a rather extensive article on the Big Ten Network in today’s edition of the newspaper. Go to http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/92558764.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr
I live in Arizona and would have never realized that there are more Big Ten alumni living in the state than Pac Ten alumni. Maybe that’s why the Big Ten Network is available on the sports tier with my local cable company.
LikeLike
Geez, Frank, can’t you give us faithful readers of your blog news we don’t already know? 🙂
LikeLike
OK, let’s suppose this five-team expansion is what in fact happens.
(1) Would this be a big enough move to trigger the threatened SEC nuclear option? (I think, “not quite large enough”.)
(2) Would the Big XII respond by doing, well, nothing? (As I argued in the dying embers of the previous frame, perhaps doing nothing, and becoming a 10-team, single division conference, and lobbying with a conservative, non-expansionist 10-team Pac 10 to allow conferences with less than 12 teams to stage championship games, is better than trying to fit some awkward pieces into a 12-school framework.)
(3) If my thoughts on (1) and (2) are correct, could we realignment junkies be left with a mere repeat of 2003 (a conference raids the Big East, the Big East raids C-USA, C-USa raids the Sun Belt, etc.)?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn, Agree with you the Missouri and Nebraska losses should not trigger an SEC raid on the Big XII by themselves. Would expect the Big XII to look at Colorado State and BYU to get back up to 12 rather than sitting at 10 (especially since there is still danger that Colorado goes to the PAC10). If there is one thing the Big East experience re the ACC should teach us, having more football schools than you need is better than having too few. As to your last point, my expectation is the Big East probably folds as a football conference if it really loses Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers. If that happens, the dominoes fall west to east with the Big XII (and maybe PAC10 with Utah) taking MWC schools, MWC raids the WAC and/or C-USA, while C-USA (paradoxically) may be strengthened by picking up former Big East schools.
Then again, Big East special advisor Paul Tagliabue has experience as an NFL commissioner and may be able to counsel member schools on how to pick up in the middle of the night and relocate to more favorable markets (like the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts, the Oakland-LA-Oakland Raiders and the Houston/Memphis/Nashville Oilers/Titans. Don’t mess with the Big East!)
LikeLike
One last brainstorm re the Big East. The five remaining teams of the Big East (UConn, WV, Louisville, Cin and USF) could keep the Big East name and offer a football merger to the entire C-USA conference (maybe even adding Troy from the Sunbelt). That way they could keep the Big East’s AQ and form the nation’s 2nd “superconference”. Am sure the Big East would not hesitate to sue if anyone tried to stop this, even though this is sort of a nuclear option that turns the eastern college football conference map into a parody of itself…
LikeLike
The Big East already raided the good C-USA schools. C-USA + UConn, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincy, and USF do not a conference that will keep AQ status for long make. C-USA has some interesting schools, like Houston, Memphis… um… SMU… um… does Rice count?
LikeLike
@Morgan Wick, do get your drift, although C-USA schools like East Carolina, Central Florida, Tulsa and Texas-El Paso have also had moments in recent history. Still, in general, does not sound like a long term solution to the Big East’s problem, just delays an inevitable collapse. If C-USA schools like Tulsa, Houston, SMU or Texas-El Paso also get Mountain West invites, they might consider them above any Big East offer, even with upcoming problems the Mountain West might encounter.
LikeLike
Ron:
I agree with you on the Big East/ C-USA football
merger. 5 Big East + 12 C-USA, with maybe 1 or
2 C-USA schools moving to the Big XII or whatever.
Either way, the Big East AQ would entice any mid-
range conference with a merger. Big East
basketball schools (and their other sports) would
retain 13 members. The conference certainly
would be no worse off football-wise than their
current membership. A clean transition. Hoops
would suffer with the loss of Syracuse; hoops
would celebrate the loss of Rutgers; hoops would
be rather keep Pitt, but it’s not that big a deal.
Regarding the AQ for the Big East… if more than
half its football members are retained, including
2 ranked teams from 2009, I don’t see how their
AQ status could be lost… actually, how does AQ
status get lost?
LikeLike
Sorry for the spacing problems.
LikeLike
N.P.B. Sounds logical to me. Re AQ status, my understanding is the BCS has now written up a set up standards that govern how a conference can gain AQ status. However, as far as I know, there is no objective written standard governing how AQ status is lost. My personal (mythical) take on AQ’s in the first place is that a bunch of BCS power brokers originally were eating out and scribbled the conferences receiving AQ’s with a cross pen on a napkin. A guy from New York agreed to split the check with a guy from North Carolina, so everyone agreed the Big East and the ACC should both get guaranteed conference slots in addition to the Big Ten, Big XII, PAC10 and SEC. Since then, they’ve referred the whole matter back to a series of committees which are feverishly writing it up in the form of legally defensible objective standards. Imagine future committees will be assigned the task of writing up objective standards of how a conference loses AQ status. Odds are this occurs several years after it becomes ridiculously obvious to everyone that some conference that has that status really needs to lose it.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how to read the Pac 10 right now. Would the conference consider expanding without Texas? That might be the biggest question right now as to whether the theorized Big 10 expansion leads to wholesale realignment or remains contained in the midwest.
LikeLike
Given your supposition that the Big Ten goes to 16 as rumored, think the PAC10 will feel pressure to go to 12 and have a conference championship. Utah and Colorado would both be strong additions. Suspect legislators in Utah might be okay with the state school going to the PAC10, especially if they think the Big XII ultimately takes BYU (a delicate balance in practice to carry out, but a reasonable compromise solution for both the Big XII and the PAC10).
LikeLike
But . . . what if the Big XII stays at 10 and approaches the Pac 10 to jointly lobby for changing the rule which requires 12 teams to stage a championship game? That might be the best for all parties involved: no raiding each other, no having to stoop to invite MWC teams to join your conference, no opening the door to BCS dollars to additional players.
LikeLike
On the flip side, peeling off Utah and BYU would kill the possibility of a new BCS conference being formed between the Pac 10 and the Big XII.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn, having the MWC get an AQ is not in the interest of either the PAC10 or the Big XII. Best solution for both is a sort of functional MWC/WAC “remerger” in the long run as the PAC10 and Big XII slowly add teams as needed to keep up with the SEC and Big 10 supersizing.
LikeLike
@ Hopkins Horn
Taking BYU and Utah would destroy any chances of the MWC gaining AQ status (though I think the MWC’s chances are bad even if its not affected by expansion).
My question is, which conference takes them? We know the Pac-10 won’t take BYU. If the Pac-10 decides to expand without taking TX, it would take Utah and CO. That gives the Pac-10 12 teams and leaves the Big 12 with 9 (assuming no NE or MO). The Big 12 could take BYU and stay at 10, but that seems to flip the conferences’ preferences.
The best would be: the Pac-10 stays at 10 (it is resistant to expansion anyway). The Big 12 takes BYU and Utah to get to 12 and then the conferences form a joint network. Adding the Utah schools would destroy the MWC, strengthen the Big 12 North, and make the Big12/Pac 10 network more geographically contiguous.
LikeLike
@Oneforthemoney, good logical points, but you’ve got to keep in mind that the Big XII and Pac10 may be liable for antitrust or other legal action if they cooperate too closely in actions that damage the MWC. A joint PAC10/Big XII network and an explicit agreement for the Big XII to annex BYU and Utah would really look bad legally.
LikeLike
@Ron
I’m a young attorney with no real knowledge of antitrust matters. I do see your point regarding collusion between conferences. Then again, if six conferences can get together, form the BCS, and somehow avoid an anti-trust lawsuit, I would think the Big 12/Pac 10 could carry on with their plan, although they would certainly target one conference in particular. Again, I have no real legal knowledge from which to speak, so I could be wrong.
Perhaps, the Big 12/Pac 10, as two ten team leagues, might just consider a TV network and be done with it. Don’t they have to consent to another conference being given AQ status anyway? This would make it harder for the MWC to threaten them.
LikeLike
@Oneforthemoney, no particular antitrust expertise here either, other than just following the news and reading a lot. My understanding is the current BCS structure came very close to a lawsuit, which is why a deal was recently implemented to guarantee a non-BCS slot in the BCS (that even sounds stupid, but it is true). The BCS actually has objective standards about how AQ status is determined, my suspicion is the BCS drew these standards up, at least in part, to avoid legal action. As far as a network, think the PAC10 would be well-advised to team with the ACC rather than the Big XII to avoid collusion charges.
LikeLike
There were rumors a while back that the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-10 would all come together for one big network, though I haven’t kept up with sports media news since August or so.
LikeLike
Here’s a link on network speculation for ACC, Big XII and Pac10, about a year old…
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63036
If you read between the lines, there is skepticism even two conferences can share a network, let alone three. Would think the three hour difference between eastern and pacific time zones would make a PAC10/ACC network a little easier to schedule than a PAC10/Big XII network (only 2 hour difference in central and pacific times).
LikeLike
Hopkins, I have a question for you. Do you suppose that Texas would spurn the guaranteed money and academics of the BIG TEN for the unknown but almost surely less money for perhaps the slightly higher academics of Stanford and the PAC TEN? It is your thoughts that the travel would be a wash or do you consider the West closer.
LikeLike
I’ve thought for years that Texas would wind up in the Big 10, but I can sense that the likelihood of that is less than it was a few months ago.
I would assume that if Texas doesn’t go to the Big 10, it would be because Texas has indicated it wouldn’t move to the Midwest. (Not being egotistical here; I think that’s what a majority of the posters here seem to believe.)
Disregarding the role any cultural or political factors which might have played into what seems to be Texas not wanting to go to the Big 10, one would have to think that the financial calculation, from an athletics standpoint, is that the potential profit from a successful launch of a Longhorns Sports Network, which would be possible in a retooled Big 10 and would at least be on the table in a move to the Pac 10, outweighs what the school would earn as a 1/12 to 1/16 shareholder in the BTN.
As far as travel goes, I’m not sure if the aggregate travel to the Big 10 schools would be greater or less than the aggregate travel to the Pac 10 schools, but I would think that it would be close enough that it wouldn’t be the tipping point in making a decision between those two conferences alone. Increased travel, not so much from a cost standpoint but more from a standpoint of increased demands upon UT student-athletes, could be a factor leading the school towards staying in the Big XII.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horns,
It sounds like the most important variable here is this proposed Longhorn sports network. All of these ¨packages¨ that we are talking about to entice Texas to the Big 10 are packages that the SEC and Pac 10 could offer, as well.
If, however, the Big 10 is actually willing to go to bat on this Big 12 expansion scenario, Texas will only have two choice and they both involve moving: follow four of your Big 12 rivals to the sure bet in the Big 10 or choose to forego tens of million a year, go someplace else and try to forge your own way with this network.
If the Big 10 is serious about this, they don´t give Texas the option of remaining in the Big 12. The Big 10 holds all the cards here and can destroy the Big 12, if it so wishes. If Texas decides to drag its feet, you add Nebraska and Missouri (leaving room for three more Big 12 teams) and, in the process, send an unequivocal message to Texas: you´re welcome to join us but the status quo won´t be an option.
LikeLike
And let me just add, if there´s a man in college sports shrewd enough to pull this off, it´s Delany.
LikeLike
With the Big Ten essentially killing off the Big East, I think the next move is the ACC’s. Do they scoop up UConn, West Virginia, Louisville & Cincy? All have good-to-great basketball programs with football teams looking for a home. The ACC may also want to have some teams in reserve, just in case to SEC takes 2 or 4 teams from the ACC. On the other hand, such a play for more basketball schools, may push Florida State, Miami and/or Clemson to seek out the SEC.
Once again, no matter what happens, the SEC will only expand if CBS and ESPN pay for it.
LikeLike
Alan, I have a question for you too. Suppose that A&M and Oklahoma somehow, someway convinced Texas to join them in the SEC. Do you see that CBS and or ESPN would up the money?
LikeLike
If the SEC had Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Texas A&M, CBS would never finish second to ABC’s regional afternoon coverage.
ESPN’s SEC prime time slot would get similar if not better rankings to the ABC prime time game.
CBS would definitely be in. The question would be ESPN, since ABC’s inventory would be devastated in the process. Think of it – the Red River Rivalry goes from ABC to CBS; CBS or ESPN gets Florida/Florida State and Texas/A&M every year; plus they get Oklahoma/Alabama, LSU/Texas, Florida/Texas, I could go on and on.
The Big Ten probably only picks up one highly compelling team in Nebraska. Nebraska v. Penn St./Ohio St./Michigan would be must-see TV and I’d certainly watch Nebraska v. Iowa or Wisconsin, but Rutgers v. anyone just isn’t that compelling unless Rutgers becomes competitive.
LikeLike
“(1) Would this be a big enough move to trigger the threatened SEC nuclear option? (I think, “not quite large enough”.)”
It depends on how much money the Big 10 starts making on a per-school basis. If SEC conference payouts start to fall significantly behind, the SEC will look to respond.
Since much of the value of a 16 team expansion apparently comes from the additional programming on the BTN, these schools may well be enough to trigger an SEC expansion a few years down the line.
LikeLike
@Frank:
I’ll say again that I think it’s going to be a tough sell trying to get Michigan and Ohio State to agree to be in different pods. To be honest, I think everyone would be for it except those two schools.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but everything I’ve heard from the last decade or so has said neither school wants the chance to meet up in a conference championship a week after facing one another. And there’s a very good chance it could happen, quite frequently, when you look at the history of the conference. As much as it pains me to say it, Michigan won’t be down forever. Even with new big dogs in the conference it’s just too likely they’ll meet again imo.
LikeLike
I agree, I don’t want Michigan and Ohio State split up in opposite divisions even if they are still guaranteed to play each year. I prefer a consistent East-West split. Iowa and Wisconsin don’t have the “name” value, but I think the actual on field performance for the last twenty years or so balances the two regions. Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin is about equal to Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State.
The only problem with an East West split is splitting up Indiana and Purdue or Northwestern and Illinois. If they go to 16 I would like to see Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas(AAU and brand name b-ball) and 2 Big East schools or Nebraska and Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn.
I have to admit the five rumored schools might be the top five individual choices, but I don’t like how that combination messes up the rivalries I want to see remain intact.
LikeLike
One problem with the East – West split, not the only. I’m sure the West schools want to maintain their games with U-M, OSU, and PSU, hopefully that could be alleviated with annual games against Nebraska. There would be two rotating cross-over games in my mind, allowing one game against an East division power 75% of the seasons.
LikeLike
Michigan and Ohio State may prefer to be in separate pods actually.
The pods are each anchored by one traditional power in college football. If you throw Michigan and OSU into one pod, you are creating the opportunity for another Big 10 program to emerge as a consistent power by winning their pod regularly while UM and OSU battle it out every year in their pod.
As long as UM and OSU play every year, I don’t think its an issue. What UM and OSU fans will care most is being in that 4 team tournament to determine the Big 10 champ (yes I expect 4 teams fairly shortly) — if they are in the same pod, it is going to make it harder to win the Big 10 title.
Besides, a UM/OSU Big 10 title game would be the ideal scenario however when you split up UM, Nebraska, PSU and OSU into different pods, you get A LOT of enticing title game matchups.
LikeLike
I doubt the tournament will happen. That would require a rules change in the NCAA and I may even take a game away from the regular season schedule. Rotating pods is more likely scenario. That would give 3 possible pod groupings that could rotate every two years. So 1/3rd of the time, Michigan and Ohio State would be in the same division.
LikeLike
Also, if the West and East are always kept in separate divisions, as Frank suggested, then they will be in the same division 1/2 of the time.
My question about scheduling is whether we need to have a protected outside-of-pod game for every team. Why not just guarantee the ones that really matter and then allow for more variety with the other team’s schedules? Do we really need to guarantee Purdue-Syracuse or Rutgers-Indiana?
LikeLike
I could see a change to the rules allowing a CCG if multiple conferences don’t like the current rules. If the Big XII goes to 10 teams, they would want a new rule to allow a CCG. If Pac-10 doesn’t expand (or does expand to 12 but doesn’t want to split into two divisions), they would want a new rule. And then a voting bloc with the Big Ten (and perhaps a new revised Big East) wanting new rules, it could easily happen.
LikeLike
The NCAA would likely grant the waiver. The NCAA would have to be concerned that if they reject the proposals that the superconference could leave the NCAA and form their own entity.
I don’t see the NCAA doing anything to antagonize the power schools. If anything, they will be trying cater to their interest even more to ensure they remain within the organization.
LikeLike
As a Michigan fan and alum, I wouldn’t mind having UM and Ohio State in different pods as long as the scheduling allows for a protected rivalry so that the two schools play one another each year.
If that also means moving the Michigan-Ohio State game up in the year or having the two meet again in a conference championship final or semi-final game, then that’s fine as well. The hype leading into such a contest would be off the charts and if the conference semi-final game was played in the stadium of the higher ranked team, it would be pretty incredible. The Big Ten would be taking a backseat to no one in that kind of scenario (the same goes if it was Michigan-Nebraska or Penn State-Ohio State in a conference semi-final game–the sort of ideal postseason matchup that the B10 and the networks would love to have with this sort of pod setup).
I’m going to throw out another pod setup with the teams mentioned above that assumes a nine-game confernce season.
Pod A: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Pod B: Illinois, Missouri, Northwestern, Ohio State
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Pod D: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers
This arrangement has an eye to maintain the rivalries largely within the existing pods (with the obvious exception of Michigan-Ohio State) with a secondary emphasis on goegraphy.
1. Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin stays together an adds Nebraska for geographic consistency and to put a “major program” within the pod.
2. Illinois-Missouri and Illinois-Northwestern are kept intact. Ohio State is the “major program” within the pod”.
3. Michigan-Michigan State and Purdue-Indiana are also kept intact.
4. Penn State-Pittsburgh are kept intact and having Rutgers and Syracuse in the pod makes them geographically consistent. This also gives Joe Paterno the eastern presence that he’d like to see in the Big Ten.
The obvious protected game in this setup is Michigan-Ohio State. I also like the Penn State-Nebraska idea that Frank discussed in the blog. I won’t go into detail about the other possible protected games, but if this has to happen conference-wide to make it work, so be it. I will say that, in a sense of fun, Minnesota and Rutgers should be paired together and play for the annual Paul Tagliabue “Golden Tennis Racket” Award.
Other than that, we know the mechanics behind the pod system, the semi-final conference championship game and the conference championship game. For Michigan, the conference schedules might look something like this:
Year 1 (5 Home Conference Games)
Michigan State
At Indiana
Purdue
At Ohio State
Iowa
At Minnesota
Illinois
Penn State
At Pittsburgh
Year 2 (4 Conference Home Games)
At Michigan State
Indiana
At Purdue
Ohio State
At Iowa
Minnesota
At Illinois
At Penn State
Pittsburgh
Year 3 (5 Home Games)
Michigan State
At Indiana
Purdue
At Ohio State
Nebraska
At Wisconsin
Missouri
Syracuse
At Rutgers
Year 4 (4 Home Games)
At Michigan State
Indiana
At Purdue
Ohio State
At Nebraska
Wisconsin
At Missouri
At Syracuse
Rutgers
Years 5 & 6 would be just like the first two years, but substitute Illinois with Northwestern. What that shows in this type of system that the other teams in Ohio State’s Pod C (Missouri, Illinois, Northwestern) only play Michigan twice in six years while the other teams in Pods A & D play the Wolverines twice in four years. Obviously, this can be mixed up somewhat–instead of playing Penn State and Pittsburgh in one season, it could be Penn State and Syracuse or Penn State and Rutgers. The schedule laid out above was just one example of what could be done.
LikeLike
@Cutter:
We’ll have to agree to disagree here I think. As an Ohio State fan/alum, I suppose that was destiny. 🙂
In all seriousness, I just remember both OSU/Michigan being wary about inviting Penn State back in the day because of fears that it would somehow diminish the impact of The Game. Ultimately Michigan voted against it and OSU for it. It was a fist fight just to get the game pushed back a week, because it was traditionally the week before Thanksgiving.
Now we’re talking about moving the date of The Game up, and having the chance of Ohio State/Michigan meeting up again in a conference championship 2/3 of the time? I don’t see it. I think Ohio State fans are for expansion by and large, but that’s predicated on the notion that The Game is left alone as much as possible.
LikeLike
Manifesto: As history shows, the addition of Penn State was a boost to the conference and it didn’t have any major effect upon the annual Michigan-Ohio State game.
In fact, if anything, the bigger effect on the game was the 85-scholarship limit that kicked in the same time PSU joined the conference. It clearly meant that the Big Ten was no longer the “Big 2, Little 8” that it was in the 70s and 80s. Think about it–in that time we’ve seen Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, etc. go to the Rose Bowl, become Big Ten champions or co-champions, etc.
I don’t think having Michigan and Ohio State in different pods is going to diminish the rivalry–that will always be there. But I would say that the meaning of The Game in terms of deciding the Big Ten championship has already changed, irregardless of the winning streak Ohio State is currently enjoying right now.
I would rather hazard a rematch in a conference championship final or semi-final game than having the annual winner of the UM-OSU game being crowned pod champion–that would be kind of a letdown in the bigger scheme of things and I think that’s why you have the four major programs in diffent pods–it gives greater potential for higher stakes in the post-regular season conference tournament.
One more note. Would you really want to schedule a game against your all-time major rival just before the conference semi-final games take place? Would it make sense for Ohio State to play Michigan one week and then have to go on and play Penn State or Nebraska in a conference semi-final as the first step to a BCS bowl game or the national championship? To me, that would not be scheduling smart.
LikeLike
They could name the pods after storied coaches—Bo, Paterno, Hayes, and Osborne.
Also… why not have Northwestern and Syracuse as the protected rivalry somehow? The two private schools.
LikeLike
I think you lose too much else by putting Mich and OSU in different pods — (1) a 9-game schedule witha 4-pod setup makes for a smooth schedule UNLESS you add in non-pod protected rivalries; and (2) there aren’t enough good rivalry games to be “protected” unless you really mess with the pods, which kind of destroys the idea of having geographically tight pods in the first place.
LikeLike
Just imagine Pitt and Syracuse having to play Penn St. in the Paterno Division.
LikeLike
I just don’t know if I can trust these Missouri sources, but if it’s true, I’ll be happy. Personally, I’d like to see two protected games, but as long as the pods are rotating regular, I can live with this setup.
On a side-note, Frank, when I finally finish working on my department’s resource site for our intranet, I might have to design you a WordPress theme or something that could really make the site’s look match the greatness of the content and analysis. 🙂
LikeLike
I don’t really trust these sources either. I think the Big 10 is still several months away from making a decision. They’ve still got to build a consensus among 11 college presidents, and that’s going to take some time.
I also agree with Frank–I don’t see what adding Syracuse and Pitt does in this scenario other than making Joe Paterno happy and PO’ing Jim Boeheim. Even if you wanted to go to 16, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t go to 14 first and then see who you could add later. It’s not like Pitt and Syracuse are going anywhere anytime soon. You could always add them later.
LikeLike
I love how this blog remains fresh and unpredictable.
Last week, you warn readers to believe nothing, that every journalist was being lied to and nothing they said could be remotely believed.
This week, you go into an in-depth discussion of random journalists’ “buzz”.
Last week, you said that you are not “one of those people that subscribe to conspiracy theories and break every conference official comment down like the Zapruder film.”
This week, you break down the Nebraska president’s comments like the (obviously fake) moon landing photos.
If you forced the conference to pick a group of five that it was pretty sure would say yes, this would be it. We knew this 5 months ago. (I for one would be very amused if they added the 3rd through 7th schools on your original list) For anyone who is of the “Make a threat at ND (or Texas)” persuasion, this is the setup: a viable, massive addition that eliminates the Big East, severely injures the Big XII, and removes all possibility of joining in the future. I suppose what they can do is go to the other schools and say “If you want in this, we’ll take you instead of (?Syracuse?). If not, we’re done.”
The NU-Illinois reward is of course the LoL Trophy. I just made a joke about how feebly Illinois has performed against Northwestern in my previous comment so I will refrain from doing so here.
The pod setup for this arrangement has Northwestern’s protected games being Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, and … OSU. One of those just doesn’t belong.
LikeLike
maybe they could use a panther/nittany lion pelt stuck on a spear? Actually it’s good thing that the block of wood is so large because it’s an excuse for not bringing it to the sidelines. Otherwise you get memorable moments like when ND forgot to bring the Megaphone Trophy which caused Irish eyes to turn red with anger when Spartans planted a flag on their turf.
of course, the Illini did it to State in imitation but it wasn’t like they were in the midst of winning 6 straight at an opponents stadium…
Maybe with expansion we can get rid of the number 11 in the logo. The Big Ten brand will still be used, so instead of thinking the ‘Ten’ refers to the number of universities, a change in definition is in order. Think water. More specifically, the USGS has six watersheds in what could be described as Big Ten Country. You split the Great Lakes watershed into its component parts of five. You then take the other five watersheds, the Missouri River, the Red River of the North, the Upper Mississippi River, the Ohio River and pick a river to represent the Mid-Atlantic. You can pick from the Susquehanna, the Delaware or the Hudson.
Big Lakes, Big Rivers, Big Ten Country…
LikeLike
Actually 10 in hexadecimal is equal to 16 in decimal notation. Thus there is no need to change it…unless you want to call the conference ‘The Big Hex’.
LikeLike
I as a nerd fully enorse this idea.
Big10, make it so!
LikeLike
Ah, yeah, I remember that game. Can’t believe the megaphone was left behind, that was embarassing. As for the flag planting,
Stay classy, Sparty.
…come to think of it, I also remember ND winning the next year in Lansing. Wish I could find the picture of those three MSU players, guarding the S at midfield against a ND flagplanting that wasn’t going to even be attempted. Classic.
LikeLike
yeah that game was the 40 year anniversary of the 10-10 tie and the ‘phantom slap’ of Weis. The 4th quarter collapse spelled the end of the John L. era, thankfully.
LikeLike
kerplunk.
LikeLike
Let’s assume this report is true. I fully understand that any expansion will be approved only by the presidents on their terms which are mostly academic and financial related. But 95% of people look at on field results and not the classroom and you can’t help but shake your head when you consider that initially, the B10 was talking about adding Texas and now we’ve been reduced to adding a bunch of third rate Big East teams and a never was school like Missouri. I was led to believe that Jim Delaney was all powerful and that the B10 with it’s “public Ivy League” reputation along with the BTN, we could pick any one we wanted and we get this?
LikeLike
Agreed. But if Notre Dame is not an option because of its “independent” DNA and Texas would prefer a southern or western league, then Nebraska is the best option that exists.
The question if ND and Texas are off the table is which of these three options to pursue:
1. Add only Nebraska. Solid, conservative move that will excite fans without watering down the league. Leaves the door open for future expansion. Maybe Texas re-evaluates in a post-Nebraska Big 12.
2. Add Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers. Solid additions, though with a bit of a “filler” feel. Opens new markets in Missouri and New Jersey (15 million new residents in “Big Ten” country), gives Penn State an eastern partner, still leaves the door open to Texas/aTm or Notre Dame/Pitt down the road.
3. The option discussed in the post above.
My guess is that the Big Ten is not excited about the five-team expansion described in the post and that the “buzz” is the result of leaks made with the hope to shake the tree a bit.
I think option 2 is the best way to combine the Big Ten’s apparent desire for a larger, splashier expansion that would provide more programming for the BTN, with its hopes of someday truly being the premier football super conference. Going to 16 with Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse closes the door to the big dream of a conference that includes the likes of OSU, PSU, UM, ND, NEB, and TEXAS.
LikeLike
Nebraska I could live with. Any of the others would be a major let down. Keep in mind that once these teams are in, they’re in forever pretty much.
LikeLike
But 95% of people look at on field results and not the classroom and you can’t help but shake your head when you consider that initially, the B10 was talking about adding Texas and now we’ve been reduced to adding a bunch of third rate Big East teams and a never was school like Missouri.
The B10+ has never talked about adding Texas, only outsiders have. Barry Alvarez was asked specifically if Texas was on the list of 15 teams studied and he said he didn’t see them on it.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
Bacon.
LikeLike
Oops. Ham.
LikeLike
sausage.
LikeLike
A couple thoughts:
1. Pitt, Rutgers, Nebraska and Missouri all make sense. I am not sold on Syracuse as their profile is too different than existing Big Ten members. Syracuse is a smaller, private school with a limited research budget. Syracuse’s research budget is $36M, compared to the average Big Ten university of $505M. By comparison, other candidates are large public, flagship universities with large research budgets: Rutgers ($280M), Pitt ($530M), Nebraska ($215M) and Missouri ($215M). Using this profile, both Colorado ($250M) and Kansas ($131M) would be better fits for the Big Ten.
2. I believe the Big Ten would go to a pod system that would try to maintain existing rivalries as much as possible. In addition, IMO the Big Ten will go to a 9-game conference schedule without protected rivals to allow each team to face each other team at least twice every four years. The best example of how this would work would be as follows:
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
South: Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern
East: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
There are three main issues with this setup:
1. Northwestern and Illinois would be in different pods.
2. Northwestern is stuck in an odd grouping.
3. There will be some years where one pod is disproportionally strong (e.g. this year the West would have 3 teams in the pre-season Top 12).
IMO, these drawbacks are far outweighed by the advantages of maintaining existing key rivalries (OSU/UM, IU/PU, IA/MN/WI, UM/MSU) and allowing all teams to play each other two of every four years.
LikeLike
To be honest, this is more like a “Feeble Five” than a “Fab Five”.
Syracuse has roughly 1/10th the research $ and 1/10th the endowment of NW….app. 11000 fewer students and $173M less in research $ than Missouri. If we must go with 5, pick KU or U Conn for that 5th team.
LikeLike
You do realize that if they don’t take 5, Pitt almost surely gets left out in the cold? Meaning if ND turns them down, Pitt doesn’t get in without Syracuse.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now!. IMO, both Pitt and Syracuse are at > 50% chance of not getting invites. However, I believe Pitt would get in before Syracuse. Pitt simply fits in better with the Big Ten universities and Pitt wants it more. The only way I could see Syracuse getting the invite ahead of Pitt is if Syracuse could delivery the NYC market, which I do not believe would happen.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but if the B10+ only takes three, it is probably Rut, MO, NE. Being ranked 4th rather than 5th then becomes a worthless consolation prize. And if the conference goes to 5 they’re almost surely going to want more of a presence in the greater NYC market. (KS or MD would be nice but their odds are low, for various reasons.) CT isn’t AAU, so Pitt’s chances rest with ND and Syr, and ND seems to not be interested.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t Pitt get in with U Conn or KU as the 5th team?
LikeLike
Keep in mind, I’m basing this purely on athletics, not academics. This proposed expansion, while not as sexy as some may like, looks like the sum of the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. None are knockouts, but it accomplishes what we all believed were the Big Ten’s goals to increase revenue through BTN subscribers.
Back in the 90s, the SEC picked up Arkansas and South Carolina. They definitely weren’t the sexiest girls on the street from a football perspective. But what expansion did for the SEC, was to allow the existing conference super powers to grow stronger.
LikeLike
@Alan
I think you are 100% right on this. If these five schools are brought in, the talking heads are going to talk themselves senseless about not truly getting NYC, the lack of top brands (my own arguments about Nebraska I’m sure will come up), how they missed the real opportunity to get ND and a host of other truly non-important aspects because the expansion isn’t “sexy” enough from the purely football perspective.
Ignore the Big10 will now encompass every state above the Mason-Dixon line, north of the Ohio River, and into Great Plains (assuming Nebraska delivers the states above it)…probably close to a quarter of the square footage in the contiguous US.
Ignore the ridiculous percentage of the overall population the Big10 will have the biggest, and most affluent schools in and the $$$ the BTN will leverage off those populations to further expand the athletic programs of each schools’ already considerable stature.
Ignore the billions of research added to the CIC. The understanding that the Big10 continues to be the primary conference of big universities who pride themselves on academics.
Ignore the instant rivalries that can be ignited between Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Mizzou, Illinois in both football and bball as well as the re-starting of the Pitt-PSU rivalry.
True nothing “screams” home run at me with the addition of these teams, but the more I think about the 5, the more I think this grouping can be the group that will enable the Big10 to thrive for the next 50-100 years.
I can live with that.
LikeLike
Five successive stand-up doubles is better than a solo home run in this case.
LikeLike
Exactly.
What can anyone do to damage the Big 10 footprint?
With 3 Big East schools… the Northeast is locked up.
Nebraska and Missouri lock up the Midwest region.
Take Kansas instead of Syracuse… and now the ACC can grab UConn and Syracuse and divide the NY/NE Market with B.C. Perhaps they will “affiliate” with Notre Dame somehow.
LikeLike
Here’s another possible pod system:
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers
ROTATING POD 1: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Northwestern
ROTATING POD 2: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois
LikeLike
“Anyway, Dienhart suggested that there would be four 4-team divisions if the Big Ten were to go with the proposed 5-school expansion. Here’s how it could shake out in my eyes:
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois
NORTH: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota
SOUTH: Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern”
Frank,
I do not like those pods at all, as a Ohio State Fan I do not want “The Game” to become a best of two series period. I also do not think Iowa, Wisconsin & Minnesota would be split up. It was my understanding that the whole reason the conference has the current two protected rivals format is because when Penn State joined the league those three schools made a stink about not playing each other every year. I think those schools would make a similar demand this time around.
If those are indeed the schools i would rather see the pods like so:
NORTHEAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
MIDWEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
HARTLAND: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Missouri
CENTRAL: Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois
Granted Mizzou is completely out of place, but that is a concession I think need to be made in order to keep the 2 tirades in place. With this setup no permanent cross pod rivals are needed if 1 pod is always in division 1 and other is always in division 2 with the other two rotating divisions every two years. The permit pods would then play two teams from each other on a rotating two year basis, and the rotating pods would do the same. The result would be a 9 game conference schedule and no school will go more than 2 years without playing in any other school’s stadium.
Just to muddle things further if Missouri is a lock I would rather see Kansas get the nod, then the pods could look like this:
EAST: Rutgers, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue
MIDWEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
GREAT LAKES: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
CENTRAL: Northwestern, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas
Again I make geographical concession for the sake of rivals which I feel are more important.
And finally if Pitt is a absolute must, then I feel the best possible setup would be to make a hard press for Notre Dame. Then the league could breakdown as such:
NORTHEAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse,
MIDWEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
GREAT LAKES: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Notre Dame
CENTRAL: Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
At any rate any combo above I feel I could live with as long as Michigan & Ohio State stay together and Iowa plays Nebraska every year [that should develop into a pretty good rivalry in time].
All that being said I am sure the 5 suspects will once again change in say about 7 days or so 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Pingback: FRANK THE TANK - The Big Ten's Fab Five?
East 1: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers
East 2: Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Northwestern
West 1: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
West 2: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
LikeLike
I think those pods have a better balance and feel for preserving some of the existing rivalries, like the iron triangle of Iowa/Minnesota/Wisconsin. However, they’re not geographically contiguous (which may or may not be relevant), and add in some challenges with figuring out cross-pod rivalries — other than Ohio State-Michigan and I pray, Nebraska-Penn State — what’s worth establishing/preserving?
LikeLike
I like your pods a lot more than Dienhart’s, but if I were you, I’d switch Ohio State out for Nebraska, as that allows for Nebraska and Missouri to play each other every year and for the creation of a permanent Penn State-Nebraska rivalry.
LikeLike
That permanent rivalry already exists, it just doesn’t get played out very often. From one Nebraskan’s POV, give us Penn State, Iowa and Wisconsin and we’ll be happy as pigs in you-know-what.
LikeLike
Great Blog, and outstanding discussions in the comments.
I’ve got a question for those with their finger on the pulse of Texas:
If I understand this correctly, UT has athletic dept revenues of ~$100M per year. And Research revenues of ~$500M per year. And then the three big UT Hospitals have research revenues of ~$1.5 Billion per year. What kind of power do the hospitals have?
I don’t know what the real dollar value of synergies is worth, but if you suppose that synergies with the CIC increases research funding by 10%, that would be an additional $150M per year. Adding the increased funds of $10M to $20M from the BTN trumps any gains from a Longhorn TV Channel (I haven’t seen numbers, but lets go nuts and assume the Longhorn TV is worth $50M).
Now, I understand that this is a University, not a business, but if a CEO and Board of Directors chose $50M instead of $160M, the consequences from shareholders could be enormous – not only losing their jobs, but criminal charges.
LikeLike
I asked more or less this very question on the Horn-centric blog I play on. Unfortunately, it’s looking like the thread has died off before the person I was hoping would answer had a chance to do so.
I’m not exactly sure how all of the institutions interrelate for the purposes of making a political decision like this.
But looking at the players (and correct me if I’m wrong on this Playoffs Now):
— when we talk about President William Powers, he is President of the University of Texas at Austin. There is no medical school at UT-Austin.
— UT-Austin is one of 15 institutions — 9 universities and six health institutions — which make up the University of Texas system. I would assume that the bulk of those research dollars are going to those health institutions elsewhere in the UT system.
— It should be noted that the UT system includes one other school (UTEP) playing football at the D1-A level, another school (UT-San Antonio) which has announced its intentions of doing so in the near future, and at least two other schools (UT-Arlington and UT-Pan American) which compete at the D1 level in all other sports. So the chancellor and the board of regents of the UT system has to keep the interests of all schools in mind — and the Legislature makes sure it does.
— I have no idea if the UT system board would merely rubber-stamp a move by UT-Austin to another conference. My recollection of the conference moves in the 1990s is that the president of UT-Austin was the key figure publicly, but who knows what was going on in the background.
— I’ve noticed in that list of research funding by university that pops up from time to time that most Big 10 schools report by an “all campuses” methodology, while UT-Austin reports independently of its other branches. Whether this is a semantic difference or truly indicative of how an increase in research dollars Texas would supposedly receive from the Big 10, I don’t know.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that, even assuming an arbitrary, straight-line 10% increase in research dollars available if joining the Big 10 and the CiC, it’s unknown, at least to me, which specific dollar amount would be increasing by that 10%. Nevertheless, even if it’s an increase in research dollars going to UT-Austin alone, it strikes me that that is a bigger pot of gold available to the university than would be the funds from a Longhorn Sports Network which launches and is successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
Here is a link:
http://mup.asu.edu/Rankings-I/2008_Top25_Natl.xls
Please note that Baylor’s medical is separate from the University and from the numbers shown, Texas’s medical branch is separate also.
There is more information available. But in a nutshell, the Univeristy of Texas research is at $431,000,000 and Texas A&M is at $493,000,000.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the list I’ve seen, thanks for posting.
LikeLike
just FYI, Baylor University has no medical school. Baylor College of Medicine separated from the university back in the 1960s.
LikeLike
Longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ take:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
LikeLike
I don’t see conference semi-finals making sense. You don’t want to guarantee another loss for 3 of your top 4 teams. If they have any hopes of a 3rd BCS at-large, semis are not the way to do it.
LikeLike
Conference Semi’s make a ton of sense…if there is no BCS. The current BCS contract ends after the 2014 season. If you have 4 conferences, with 16 teams each making a Super-64…the semi’s actually become a defacto first round of a 16 team playoff. The 2nd round would be the championship games…then each conference sends a champion on for 4 game playoff which I would assume be held in the bowls then the winners get a Championship Game, or a “Plus One game”.
And there’s your playoff which will rake huge money for the teams that are in it…and it won’t be the NCAA or the small programs like Utah State, or Tulane, etc. It will ONLY be for 64 teams. Not in one of the 4 conferences? tough
LikeLike
“Conference Semi’s make a ton of sense…if there is no BCS.”
ehh…the value of expansion comes from college football being the most important regular season in all of sports. This makes every regular season game important.
Reducing the importance of regular season games, especially regular season conference games, is not in the Big 10’s financial interest.
LikeLike
@M(Ag)
I agree that college football’s regular season is one of it’s draws. How does that diminish with a playoff system around the pods? Getting to the top of a pod is still going to be tough. Also there will be no “wild card” in this scenario.
In many ways it makes the regular season even more important. First a team only has to be the best out of it’s four team pod (assuming that’s how it’s done). This gives hope, and a season isn’t done with the first loss. It still would be only 16 teams out of 64..which would be the lowest % of any playoff system out there (that I know of pros and college)
LikeLike
When you only have to finish ahead of 3 teams to get in a playoff—you’ve diminished your regular season substantially.
LikeLike
Longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ take:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
(Sorry if this ends up duplicating, but it never showed up so I’m trying again.)
LikeLike
“If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.”
Nice to know which sportswriters’ opinions should never be taken seriously.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty long list we’re developing.
By contrast, I found this article in today’s Washington Post about the Big East’s options to be quite well-written:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203478.html?hpid=moreheadlines
LikeLike
Just for fun, let’s count up the gaffes:
1) No one will leave a supersolid conference like the SEC for one that is bleeding members. Not even Arkansas.
2) Texas and aTm are not joined at the hip unless the powers that be in Texas politics force the issue.
3) Texas to the SEC. Over Powers’ dead body. And probably not even then.
4) Texas Tech to the Pac-10. Only if Stanford sees virtue in the “guns up” salute.
LikeLike
MSU fan here.
I’m ok with Frank’s Pod’s & would be fine (thrilled even) moving our protected rivalry to Pitt (or even Rutgers) – maybe we could be favored in a few more late season games.
Sure hope Notre Dame doesn’t get an invite. As a 30 something football fan I’ve never understood the media obsession with them. Sure they’ve got boatloads of history, but in my lifetime they’ve just been a blah (imo) team.
LikeLike
Yeah, Notre Dame would be an awful choice athletically when compared to such powerhouses as Missouri and Rutgers.
LikeLike
Where do UC, UL, SFU, WVU & UConn land if this happens? I can’t see Big East surviving–adding Memphis UCF ECU is unlikely going to be enough to keep auto bid.
LikeLike
The Big East under Frank’s scenario:
The Big East could align with Conference-USA for
football only. C-USA’s 12 schools could merge
with the 5 remaining Big East footballers. This
totals 17 schools.
Dominoes will fall and conferences will adjust, but
as long as the C-USA/ Big East combination keeps at
least 12 teams, they’ll have their conference
playoff, and C-USA will gain an auto-bid.
This would be a marriage of convenience, but
the schools each conference would be fine.
In all other sports, the two conferences
LikeLike
That would be a pretty weak BCS league IMO. The standard-bearers of such a league are WVU & UC? Yikes! I wonder how the BIg East withdrawal guidelines are written, i.e. if B10 takes 3 BE FB schools & the remaining 13 can’t agree on adding 3 new FB schools, is there a basis for the 5 remaining FB schools to seek a dissoluton of the conference on the basis that FB is no longer a real option thereby avoiding the $5 Mil buyout & 27 month wait??
LikeLike
As it stands, West Va and Cincy ARE the
standard-bearers. It’s not like the
three best teams (record-wise) will be
leaving the conference (under the
proposed scenario from Frank).
Weak, yes, but 57% of the Big East will
be retained.
LikeLike
Sorry for the sentence fragments at the
end of this post…
They should have read:
“This would be a marriage of convenience, but
the schools in each conference would be fine.”
“In all other sports, the conferences
remain separate.”
LikeLike
The scheduling as noted could conceivably create 3 Indiana-Rutgers games every third year.
Following Frank’s pod system and schedule:
In the years where the East plays the South, Rutgers would face Indiana in the “rotating pod” scheduling matchup (along with Rutgers vs OSU, Purdue and NW).
Additionally, as part of the annual “rivalry” matchup, Rutgers would again face off against Indiana.
Conceivably, if Rutgers and Indiana then advance to the Big Ten title game, they’d face off for a third time.
This would hold true for Syracuse vs Purdue, Iowa vs Minn, and Missouri vs Wisconsin, in that same rotation year,
LikeLike
I doubt redundant games would be scheduled – the teams would have an extra non-conference game or something.
LikeLike
Testing. Prior posts have not gone through.
LikeLike
Longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ take:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
LikeLike
UT appears out. (U. of Toledo, that is.)
http://toledoblade.com/article/20100503/COLUMNIST08/5030363/-1/SPORTS02
LikeLike
From longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ column today:
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
LikeLike
Link:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
LikeLike
Link to the Kirk Bohls column:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
LikeLike
I’ve tried 4 times to post the link for Kirk Bohls column, but it never posts. However the rest of the post did go through once I removed the link.
Does the Austin American Statesman have some sort of ban on WordPress linking to it?
Anyway, if you really want to read it, a Google search will lead to it.
LikeLike
Does this work?
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html?srcTrk=RTR_661354
LikeLike
That’s weird. I just tried linking it for you a couple of different ways and couldn’t do it either.
LikeLike
OK, what wound up happening (delayed multiple posts for both of us) was even weirder than what we thought was initially happening.
LikeLike
What do you think about his analysis? I’m not really buying it. I know Bohls has been around for a long time, but his logic seems completely flawed to me. We’ve all expressed skepticism about Arkansas leaving the SEC so I won’t revisit that. But the vacancy in the Big 12 contemplated in this article is created by Missouri leaving, which creates an opening in the North, not the South. Which Big 12 South team are you going to kick to the North if Arkansas joins? Oklahome St.? I doubt it.
It is interesting to note Bohls’ reaction to a mega-conference with the SEC or Pac-10. Again, I don’t feel like that issue needs to be revisited, but I find it interesting that he concludes–or appears to conclude–that it would not be worth Texas’ time to rebuild to Big 12 by inviting other schools (BYU, Utah, etc.).
LikeLike
Without taking his analysis in today’s article into consideration, it should be known that many Longhorn fans take Bohls’ columns with as many grains of salt as NU fans seem to take with that Omaha columnist linked to in the comments of the prior post. A million monkeys with a million typewriters sort of thing.
I’m with you re Arkansas. Though I’m on the record that Arkansas won’t leave the SEC, it makes the least amount of sense when Arkansas would be the only school replacing only one departing school. Arkansas is going to leave the SEC so that it can start playing Iowa State and Colorado annually?
LikeLike
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/24xphxg
LikeLike
Let’s see if it works if I link it like this.
LikeLike
Click on my username on this post.
LikeLike
The more I’ve read, and heard on the conference expansion the MORE I think we are headed for the 4 conferences with 16 teams which will break off from the NCAA to have their own playoff championship.
Last week I broke out schools into conferences, and amazingly it worked. The amount of big time program/schools left out really wasn’t all that long of a list. The Big East as a football conference was dead, and the Big 12 was divided up.
Here’s out I had it. (who goes where of course is just speculation) It could go something like this:
Big 10 adds 5 teams: Rutgers, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Nebraska, Missouri
SEC: Adds Kansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, & Oklahoma St
ACC: West Virginia, PITT, South Florida, Louisville
Pac-10: Adds Utah, BYU, Colorado, Texas Tech, Texas, & Boise State/or New Mexico/or UNLV
That leaves the Big 12 down to: Kansas St, Baylor, and Iowa State…and the name “Big 12”. I assume it dissolves. I think the Pac-10 and SEC make a deal to split up Texas and A&M
Their are a few left over schools like Cincinnati, Houston, UTEP, TCU, New Mexico (or Boise St/or UNLV), Hawaii, Fresno St., Nevada-Reno, San Diego St., Wyoming, Colorado St. (and others) on the outside looking in to the SUPER 64. But most of these schools are small, and don’t have the TV market or alumni national followings that the big boys want. These ARE the guys the big boys want to kick aside.
This goes back years, when the the NCAA set up D-1, and D-1A…and the big boys thought the NCAA stuck WAY too many schools into D-1.
My real question is if all this happens would the Big 10 kick out Northwestern, or the SEC kick out Vanderbilt? Both are small private schools that really don’t compete well in sports. They are located in major metro areas, but those metro areas, get more TV from other schools already in the conference.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
I think if we were going to continue to add to Frank’s Expansion Rules from the last blog post, the next rule on that list should be: “No conference is going to kick out another member.” That sums up my feelings on Northwestern ever being kicked out. You don’t kick out family, and I think that’s how the Big Ten sees itself.
LikeLike
Yeah, I would make this one a golden rule as well. Just look what it took for the Big East to finally kick out Temple. No school in any of the BCS conferences is in anywhere near the condition Temple was in 2003.
LikeLike
@Manifesto
I could see that. Especially in the “first Northwestern/Vanderbilt….is your school next?”. It would set a bad precedent. Still monetarily, I don’t think either school brings anything to the table, where another school might. Kansas would be worth more to the Big-10 then Northwestern for example. Greed can break family ties.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
Perhaps. But in a conference that prides itself on its academic reputation (in addition to its athletic reputation) Northwestern is a good school to have. They’re also occasionally (within the last 20 years) competitive on the football field, even if they’re never expected to reach the upper echelon.
To be honest, if the Big Ten kicked out Northwestern (or any other team) in favor of a prettier name I’d lose a lot of respect for the conference. You can’t expect any loyalty from teams in your conference if you don’t show any as well.
LikeLike
If Texas agreed to join, but only if
Northwestern were booted out, what would
the Big Ten do?
This blog has introduced a zillion
scenarios, many of which have been
implausible. Many scenarios, after being
challenged, were defended by wondering
how a school could ignore the Big Ten’s
megadollars (e.g., the Maryland bolting the
ACC scenario, among others).
So a future Northwestern boot is very much in
the scheme of things. What if the Big Ten
went to 16 schools this year, but then in
a couple of years, Texas wanted to join?
No room for a 17th, but hey, Northwestern
is expendable right?
LikeLike
@NPB:
Very doubtful at best. When Texas was supposedly interested in joining the Big Ten in the early 90s, the Big Ten presidents wouldn’t even lift the moratorium placed on expansion discussion. But they’re going to kick out a founding member if Texas comes calling?
The decisions aren’t being made by Delany or fans or the media. The presidents aren’t going to kick out a highly respected institution like Northwestern.
LikeLike
@Manifesto
I think the possibility varies from conference to conference. Would the Big 10 kick out Northwestern? doubtful. Would the Pac-10 kick out Stanford? Well, that’s two totally different circumstances and pressures.
I think the Super-64 is going to be TV driven. Like so much of sports now days, all the posturing and power isn’t much with in reality the power is in the hands of the TV executives and their cash. If they set up the plan/outline to get to the Super-64 and a playoff system (and I think they have) they might also start dictating whose in an whose out.
I wouldn’t be surprised by kicking out certain teams. Actually I’d be more surprised if Vanderbilt or Northwestern was part of the Super-64 and Kansas St, or Texas Tech wasn’t.
LikeLike
Got to keep Northwestern. Husker fans will sell out Soldier Field for you for that game, if you have the good sense to put it there. Easy drive from the east end of the state.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
I agree that the probability varies conference to conference. That’s why I haven’t really talked about the SEC and Vanderbilt, although I would say I consider it almost as unlikely.
But, then again I don’t really think these teams would split from the NCAA anyway. All of it feels like the schools would be taking on too much political heat. That and the situation largely ignores the bureaucratic systems in place that these teams both chafe and benefit under.
LikeLike
No way in hell the Big10 kicks out NW. If the only way for Texas to join is to kick out NW, Texas will have to look elsewhere for a conference. The Big10 is like a family, once a member, always a member. The Big10 will not drop NW for TV money. Won’t happen. I can not think of one instance that would cause the other members of the Big10 to kick NW out. Not even up for discussion. Consider that The University of Chicago is still an academic member of the Big10.
LikeLike
The Big 10 is an integrated athletics and academics conference.
No one “truly leaves,” look at Chicago. Chicago is still a part of the CIC after all.
The only way any member of the Big 10 leaves is if they do so of their own accord. The Big 10 is a bunch of schools that are “all for one and one for all.”
Any school that puts forward an ultimatum like “we’ll join if someone gets kicked out” will be laughed out of town. The Big 10 schools work as a team, everything is shared, etc.
They would just laugh at such an offer, it just won’t happen.
Likewise, the same is true of this new expansion. Once the Big 10 invites new teams, those teams will become members for the long haul. Even if the schools don’t necessarily bring their markets, their membership won’t be conditional.
LikeLike
The Big Ten would leave
all that Texas money
on the table?
And let the SEC gobble
it up? All for the sake
of Northwestern?
I agree that it would
be a shame, but the Big
Ten is currently in the
process of destroying
longtime rivalries for
the almighty dollar…
if a Gordon Gekko type
replaces Delany in the
future, then North-
western might be in
trouble…
LikeLike
Yes! The Big10 would leave the money on the table. If Texas comes with that attitude, the Big10 will tell them good luck in the SEC. Texas will not be able to dictate to the Big10 Presidents to kick out NW. Not going to happen. Period! End of story. Doesn’t matter when Delany retires, because he would not be making that decision anyway. NW will not be in trouble or danger of being kicked out of the Big10.
LikeLike
@NPB:
As Prophet said, in the end it doesn’t matter if Delany is replaced with someone even more shrewd, because ultimately the decision comes down to the university presidents. I don’t see the presidents tossing a fellow school under the bus.
LikeLike
One final thing on Texas (or any school) and the Big Ten. If Texas enters the Big Ten in 2010, they will have just as many rights and privileges as any other Big Ten school. It doesn’t matter that they’d be a new member. If Texas has different priorities, the original Big Ten schools will have to deal with them. At some point, Texas would want a Texas alum in the commissionership. What then? They’ll set up a voting bloc with Missouri and Nebraska, etc, and twist arms. Nothing is certain as to what could happen to Northwestern in the future. Especially dealing with possible egomaniacs at Texas and Rutgers.
The Big East is an interesting example. The conference was set up as a basketball conference, and for ten years functioned as one, first and foremost, with incredible success. Now, for the past 20 years, it’s been caving in to the whims of football schools… so that original members St. John’s and Georgetown have to listen to the demands of West Virginia? People on other blogs loosely throwing out the idea of booting out original members Seton Hall and Providence, so that Louisville and South Florida can be retained via invites to Memphis and East Carolina?
We can believe that Northwestern is safe because of the long Big Ten tradition, but keep in mind that when you invite in TEXAS, you’re inviting in the school, their alums, their traditions, their egos, their whims, their entire history and culture, all of which have little connection to Big Ten traditions. You may not recognize the Big Ten in ten years.
LikeLike
N.P.B.-
The idea that Texas will join the Big 10 to orchestrate a campaign to throw out Northwestern is so bizarre that I can only guess you intended it as comedy.
Otherwise, I’d say you’ve taken the idea of secret conspiracies behind conference expansion way too far.
LikeLike
m (Ag):
Sorry I didn’t explain my thoughts well enough. My point is not some “Texas conspiracy”… it’s that realities change… priorities change. Texas wouldn’t enter the Big Ten with underlying motives, but in 5, 8, 10 years, a different set of realities may exist. This is true if you’re talking about a 1,500 pound tiger (Texas) being invited into the conference, which has absolutely nothing in common with Northwestern.
The Big Ten should invite schools that are enthusiastic about joining, and have solid academic and athletic backgrounds. Go with Pitt, Missouri, and Nebraska. Pitt is a no-brainer. Mizzou is stable and solid and enthusiastic. Nebraska would be a great balance. Go to 14.
Syracuse is only as good as Boeheim, and after he leaves, they may turn into a St.John’s basketball-wise. Rutgers has too big an annoyingly enormous ego, similar to Boston College. Texas– forget about them– the Big Ten would lose its soul– too many cultural differences.
LikeLike
“Texas– forget about them– the Big Ten would lose its soul– too many cultural differences.”
Could you list some of these ‘cultural differences’ that will come up in conference votes?
LikeLike
@N.P.B.: where are you coming up with all this ego referenced trashing of Rutgers? “Enormously annoying ego”? “Egomaniacs”? What is that all about? Is it possible for you to make your points without such vitriol and trashing of Universities such as Texas, Rutgers, Boston College etc.
LikeLike
Rick, m (Ag):
Ok, I re-read my post and should
have avoided the insults.
Peace, NPB.
LikeLike
Northwestern isn’t all that bad. Certainly not as bad as you suggest. They went 8-5 last year and took Auburn to overtime in a very good bowl game. They were 9-4 the year before.
They’re also in the single largest market in the Big Ten footprint, a market arguably more important to college football viewers than LA or NY. A market that is home to the CIC and the Big Ten itself.
They’re also a very good academic school with good research numbers.
Other than their purple uniforms, why would anyone kick them out?
LikeLike
In fairness to those wondering about Texas’ motives in this expansion scenario…
Texas was the only major power in the old SWC conference for about 80 years.
When that conference died it tried desperately to get into the Pac and Big 10 rather than get “lumped” in with the Big8. After failing (and being forced by the Texas State Legislature) it joined in the Big12, but happily left behind (rightly or wrongly) most of its old SWC teams. During its stint in the Big12, it has taken a distinctively “Texas (school) Centric” view on things…ie unequal profit sharing and shot down a Big12 Network in favor of a purely “Texas” network (where no profits would be shared). Now it remains absolutely silent as its conference potentially falls apart around it (even the BigEast is trying to save things).
Part of me wonders if Texas is that chick who knows she just won’t find happiness with the ones she’s with so she buys time and protects herself for now. The other wonders if Texas is that cold hearted self-centered b#$%^ who’s always looking out for number one while looking to throw anyone under the bus to make the best situation possible.
Fact is, I think the Big10 is that stubborn independent SOB who will tell Texas to screw off if it thinks Texas can tell them to boot NW. Conference membership to the Big10 is damned near family (as someone mentioned, Chicago is still in the CIC) and family is listened to, respected, protected, and yes fought with sometimes…but never thrown away for something “better”.
If Texas can buy into this mindset, no problems. I just can understand why folks on the outside looking in could see some blemishes on Texas’ appearance.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you’re saying PSUGuy, and I also think that 100% the Big Ten would say “absolutely no” to any school that offered to conditionally.
I would also go so far as to say that if the Big Ten did invite Rutgers or Syracuse or UConn that the invite would not be conditional.
Even if Syracuse can’t bring the NYC market, it’s not like their membership will come up to a vote in 2020 or something; we’re inviting them for the long haul. The invited schools will presumably get invited to the CIC, etc.
The Big Ten will not be expelling schools. Delaney has the power to run the conference affairs and that includes the Big Ten, but there’s no way a commissioner could ever suggest or think about kicking out a school. The conference would fire him the day he floated the idea.
LikeLike
The B10 will kick out Ohio State and Michigan before it kicks out Northwestern
LikeLike
True, that.
The Big 10 may be chary of inviting new private schools, given the nature of the vast majority of conference members, but Northwestern has a legacy in the league and it will stay as long as it chooses to.
LikeLike
I agree that we’re headed to super conferences, but the problem with the school alignments you have are that:
The Pac-10 isn’t extremely motivated to add schools AND there is that little unanimous consent requirement to add schools. Adding BYU, Tech, Boise, New Mexico and UNLV are going to be REAL stretches for a league with Stanford, Cal and Washington in it.
I could see a Kansas St. being in the same position as A&M is with Texas — political forces mandating those two schools stick it out together.
I think Cincy makes it into a top 64 league simply because of TV sets…its a top 25 MSA and the BTN is the only league where there is currently overlap…maybe UK a little for the SEC, but not really. Plus once Cincy grows into Dayton and they become a combined MSA (a la Dallas Ft worth) — it will be even larger.
While it hasn’t been mentioned, I think eventually ND could use Independence to its advantage — if you’re a national brand that is the only one without its own network and the other conferences have their own networks — ND provides live college football programming that the other networks aren’t getting because of the limited supply thanks to BTN like product. I could see the same with Texas as a potential independent?
LikeLike
@indysportsfan
Well, the Pac-10 and their 100% vote rule is a HUGE issue to over come. But they have to figure out how. I agree that some of the teams I listed for them don’t fit with their current model. But if the Super-64 is going to happen, and if the Pac-10 is one of them, they will have to figure it out.
And…while we are discussing it above, if expansion is blocked 9-1 and that one is Stanford, well, some schools in the Pac-10 are really hungry and desperate. I’m not saying they get kicked out, but I’m sure there would be arm twisting, and unlike the Big-10…the Pac-10 I think will change the rules out of desperation, and necessity.
As for Kansas St. political connections to Kansas, I could see that. I could see your arguement with Ciny. The issue coming up with 64 teams, is some one with a good arguement DOES get left out. Like I posted who goes where is really pure speculation. I mean I could see T. Tech left out pretty easily.
As for ND or Texas independence goes, I personally don’t see either. The way I see it is the if your not one of the 64…you are D-1A. There is no place for you to get into the playoffs as an independent team as the spots are locked up with the 4 conference winners in the way I think it plays out. This is about keeping the playoff TV money tied up, in the fewest hands as possible. Opening it up to a 5th conference or to independent teams opens it up to too many.
LikeLike
@ Redhawk. been discussed here before but in the event of a 9-1 vote on expansion from the Pac 10 or in other terms: one team impeding 9 other schools attempt at generating much needed additional revenue – whats to stop the 9 from seceding from the Pac 10 and just joining the additional members in the creation of a new conference?
LikeLike
@Stopping By – It depends upon who that 1 dissenting vote is. If it’s Washington State, I think that the other Pac-10 schools will bolt. If it’s Stanford, though, who every university president wants its own school to aspire to in terms of a top notch academic school with a great sports program, that’s a different story. Stanford is going to carry disproportionate influence in the conference – I don’t think that the university presidents are going to pull the trigger on disassociating themselves from that school.
LikeLike
Stanford has disproportionate influence, but everything I’ve read indicates Pac 10 athletic programs have been hit hard by the recession. Stanford itself has had to make cuts.
If the other 11 schools walk away and join with the schools they want to add, they’ll leave a spot open for Stanford. At that point, would Stanford really refuse to join?
It’s better for Stanford to avoid this, because the new constitution would probably eliminate the unanimous vote requirement, which Stanford would like to keep for other votes. So if 11 schools line up for expansion, I think Stanford would have to go along with it. Of course, if there are other schools who don’t feel strongly about expansion, Stanford will get it’s way.
LikeLike
@m(Ag):
For all of our concern about Stanford, does anyone know about USC? USC’s been the big dog in that conference for so long. Would they even want an 800lb gorilla like Texas challenging them? From a recruiting standpoint it’s a slam dunk, with 2/3 of the largest football states under one conference.
LikeLike
I don’t really know what anyone in particular wants in the Pac 10. Well, they’d all like money and academic prestige.
Perhaps USC would be happier with only second tier programs added to their conference. They are probably more financially sound than the other programs, so they may feel less urgency.
Then again, they may want the extra money + football prestige that would come with adding some top programs to the Pac 10.
LikeLike
You asked about UDC. I know for a fact that Mike Garrett, who is the USC AD would joyfully welcome A&M and Texas into the conference. Mike has made that statement to my son.
LikeLike
USC not UDC.
LikeLike
@Wes: Well, that’s good enough for me. I retract my question regarding USC. 🙂
LikeLike
@indysportsfan:
I think a clear majority in the Pac-10 favor expansion, and are keen to do so. That’s the main reason for hiring a pro like Larry Scott, who didn’t come cheap.
@Frank the Tank:
The Pac-10, as I understand it, also saw USC threaten to take a walk 3 years ago when Stanford balked at taking ASU along with Arizona. So while I don’t think the “9” would at the end of the day walk away from the “1,” they could use that threat to force Stanford’s hand if it were to balk at, say, Texas A&M. Having said that, your point stands that Stanford — because it is in many ways the academic flagship of the conference — has disproportionate sway. But there are limits.
LikeLike
testing
LikeLike
I still like the 2 phase expansion idea. Add Nebraska, Syracuse and Rutgers in phase #1. Give ND the ultimatum that’s it’s them or Pitt. If ND still doesn’t bite then add Pitt and Missouri. If ND caves in and comes on board then add ND and Missouri with Pitt the odd man out.
LikeLike
I forgot that Syracuse once had a proud football program. It has a long way to go if they want to get it back to these days:
Syracuse @ Wisconsin brawl
http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2010/05/former_su_player_joe_ehrmann_g.html
LikeLike
Here’s my pod set.
-I think divisions with 2 rotating pods every other year is the best way to maintain balance and keep every team connected. With a 9 game conference schedule, you’d be 2 years on 2 years off for every team in the conference. Pods A & B always opposite, Pods C & D always opposite.
-I think it is best to divide the newcomers up in their pods for the most part to help create new rivalries and meld them into the new conference.
-I wanted to keep the most significant rivalries connected (UM-OSU, IA-MN-WI triangle, UM-MSU, IU-PU, UI-NW).
-Fortunately some of the newcomers have some real easy rivalries that geographically make great sense (UI-MO, PSU-Pitt, NB-IA-WI)
-The sticking point in every mix I tried was UI-NW and IU-PU, those 4 geographically fit and have numerous trophies and current protected games.
-The second sticking point was PSU. Either they were going to anchor their own pod or they were going to go in with UM-OSU. As much as they want to play UM-OSU every year, I sacrificed that to give them Pitt every year. They would rotate between a home-away with UM & OSU to a home-away with NB & IA (who seems to have their number). So their annual schedule would see one home visit from UM, OSU, NB or IA every single year.
-I put Rutgers with UM-OSU-MSU because I think it would benefit the conference to have either UM or OSU playing in New Jersey every year.
-Syracuse is really out of position and if Syracuse was replaced by Kansas, this set up would really fit better.
Pod A
Nebraska
Minn
Iowa
Wisc
Pod B
MI
OSU
MSU
Rutgers
Pod C
Illinois
NW
Syracuse
Missouri
Pod D
Pitt
PSU
IN
Purdue
LikeLike
Do the teams from Pod A and Pod B ever meet?
LikeLike
Yes. A & B (as well as C & D) would play 2 teams from their opposing pod every year, plus 3 games in their own pod and 4 games in their matched up division pod.
So for Pod A.
3 games with Pod A teams
4 games with Pod C teams
2 games with Pod B teams
That stays the same for 2 years (home/away for each matchup). Then C & D swap.
Pod A then gets
3 games with Pod A teams
4 games with Pod D teams
2 games with Pod B teams (the 2 teams they didn’t play the cycle before).
It sounds difficult at first to get your head around but it’s really simple. You have 3 preserved rivalries and everyone else you’re playing 2 on 2 off.
LikeLike
Frank and others….
Concerning expansion $ #s….they don’t seem to add up…
Big 10 teams got a reported $22M from tv rev last year.
The ABC/CBS deals average 9.27/year over 10 years, but are lower in the early years—83M in year 1…so network $ may have been 8.5 or so per team lasy year…
BTN rights fees, independent of profit sharing, were 6.3M lasy year.
So that’s 14.8M or so in rights fees. One would assume the remainder (7.2M or so) would be profit sharing..
But BTN has a repoted 35M subscribers, 26M in it’s “footprint”
If BTN cleared .36/month on 26M sub, that would be 10.21M per team. Adding in the others at .05 a pop would add another 1/2M or so, taking it to roughly 10.7M, prior to consideration of adv revenues.
The Big 10 would have to pay the cable companies a share…..not sure what %, but throwing in a reasonable # there, things still don’t add up………
LikeLike
The difference is advertising revenue. Your other numbers are consistent with my understanding. In one of Frank’s earlier posts, a media executive ran through the numbers. The variables in your analysis are ad revenue and other BTN expenses. I used a WAG method of estimating them based upon ad revenues making up 40% of total revenues and $150M of operating expenses (all expenses other than rights fees) and that comes up with approximately $7M / school, which is your difference.
Sub Revenue $235M
Advertising Revenue $156M
Rights Fees $(70M)
Other Expenses $(150M)
$172M
Big Ten percentage 51%
$88M
12
$7.3M per school
LikeLike
The rights fees are seperate from the profit calculations.
Assuming 235M sub rev plus 156adv rev minus 150M expenses, you’d have 241M profit, or 12.29M to each team.
12.29M plus BTN rights fees of 6.3M plus ABC/CBS network fees of 8.5M (guess) would be over 27M per team.
LikeLike
I backed the rights fees of ~$70M out in the calculations above. The three components I have are:
ABC/ESPN rights fees ($8.0M)
BTN rights fees ($6.5M)
BTN revenue sharing ($7.2M)
LikeLike
Using your #s, 235M + 156 -150 equals 241M. 51% of that is app. 123M. Divided by 11 is 11.18M
That would be each teams share of profits.
11.18 + 8.0 + 6.5 equals 25.68M per team.
Not sure where you came up with $150M expenses. That sounds like a lot….but reduce adv rev by 41M and the #s may be close….
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
I know you had mentioned the rights fees before, but do you have any documentaion on that? The BTN seems to be very restrictive with their numbers. I am thinking that the added programing is what is really going to drive expansion.
LikeLike
Sorry if someone already said this but I didn’t get to read through every comment, but why would we kill both the Big East and the Big 12 and not get either of the big dogs?
I feel like taking the good half of the Big 12 is a better proposition if we were to go to 16 teams.
With Texas and Texas A&M we would lock down the state of Texas and gain two very good research institutions. With Missouri we would get higher carriage rates for St. Louis and get part of the KC market. With Kansas we would lock down the other half of the KC market and gain a premier basketball program. Then Nebraska brings a premier football program with a great fan base that will travel anywhere. And all a large state flagship research institutions which fit the Big Ten profile.
With the Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Mizzou, and Nebraska combination you are hoping that the combination of Big East schools will get the NY and NJ markets but with Texas and Texas A&M you know you’ll get the entire state of Texas. Plus Missouri is more valuable with Kansas since the combination gets the whole KC market and higher carriage rates.
And then the Big 12 schools are just more competitive in football and basketball than the Big East schools.
Maybe if ND is swapped with Pitt it makes sense but we just killed the Big 12 why not go after Texas? I guess they could go independent but I don’t think they would have enough quality programming to get their own network off the ground. And they would still need a deal to get their football games nationally televised unless they are ok with having every home game on the Longhorn Network. They could also find shelter in the PAC 10 but they wouldn’t get nearly as much money as they would in the Big Ten and then there is the two time zone difference and the unanimous voting of the PAC 10.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
@UofMinMaryland,
I agree, and I imagine you go directly to 16 in this scenario because you´ve been told by Notre Dame and the Texas schools that they will never join the conference.
I really can´t see that happening though – until things shake out why would you shut the door on any scenario? And because of that, like you say and Frank has said in the past, I don´t see 16 making sense. Nebraska + one or both of the others and it could happen – short of that though, I think we take three and wait out the storm.
I think we all need to be careful finding truth in any of these rumors. As for this one in particular, I call BS.
LikeLike
I’m with Michael. I think that since the most appealing candidates are off the table, take 3 and call it a day. A 14 team Big Ten that includes Nebraska is the TOP Conference in the country. After the other top candidates see how much $ is being made, they may reconsider in a few years.
LikeLike
Agreed. If taking 3 can start monumental shifts in CFB, you don’t need to take 16 and then not have room for Tex or ND. Start the ball rolling and then mae another move once the landscape has been softened up.
LikeLike
YEP, this whole post is just too logical. Back to Frank’s original index, if expansion does not have Texas or Notre Dame, no expansion makes sense. Larry in Baton Rouge says don’t expand unless you expand with schools that have a following and will be watched. So Right! If Rutgers, Missouri, Syracuse and UConn are not pulling big TV ratings now, what makes the Big Ten think that all of a sudden the leopard would change its spots? Your expansion idea mirrors another post on a totally different blog by a Michigan man. Football is King in the Big Ten and in Texas and in Nebraska and your post brings the KINGS to the King of conferences.
LikeLike
That doesn’t make sense.
Create a conference with Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa St., Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Northwestern and see what kind of ratings it gets in Chicago.
It is the mega-schools that drive the revenue stream–Ohio St., Michigan, Nebraska, Penn St. If Ohio St. plays Northwestern… people will watch. If Ohio St. plays Rutgers… people will watch. If Penn St. plays Syracuse…people will watch. And so on.
I originally hated the pods, but now I see the brilliance. You put one traditionally dominant school in each pod. Any of those schools coming to town will create interest.
And none face a daunting task to success, despite being challenged.
LikeLike
Wes – I’m Alan from Baton Rouge, but that’s OK. Larry in Baton Rouge may have said something else, but I’ve always said that the reason for Big Ten expansion is different from the reason for SEC expansion.
The BTN is pushing Big Ten expansion, as we all know. More subscribers = more money for the Big Ten.
The SEC has a different deal. The SEC’s equivalent to the BTN is the ESPN-produced SEC Network. It is syndicated throughout the SEC footprint and in at least 15 states outside the footprint. Generally speaking, the SEC Network game competes with the early Big Ten ESPN game. The SEC’s partner, ESPN, has a greater interest in the reach of syndication than the SEC. The SEC gets a flat fee per year.
The SEC would only expand if CBS & ESPN pay for it. If CBS & ESPN thought the SEC could get two of the following teams – Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Florida State, the networks would probably jump. If all four aren’t available, stick in A&M, OK State, Texas Tech, Clemson or Georgia Tech in one or two of the other spots, and it still works. A bigger footprint is not a big deal for the SEC.
Big name teams that all have had recent success, ie BCS championships, means compelling match-ups, means big ratings, means higher ad rates, means more money. That’s the SEC’s formula for expansion.
LikeLike
Completely agree, though I think you can see the conundrum in that there aren’t that many big time programs left in “weak” conferences so the expansion of this model is quickly coming to a head.
Realistically I could see the SEC adding Oklahoma…maybe a Texas team. Other than that what big time programs are out there?
Maybe that’s enough, and fair enough on that, but is the SEC really going to be content with the likes of Indiana making more than Florida or Alabama?
LikeLike
PSUGuy – I’m not sure if the likes of Indiana is really making more than Florida or Alabama. One point that a lot of people are missing in the SEC/CBS/ESPN contracts is that the individual schools can sell their own inventory of games after CBS & ESPN takes their picks.
For example, LSU sells its surplus inventory to Cox – the biggest cable provider in Louisiana.
That’s why I’ve been saying all along that Texas would have to take a hard look at SEC membership, since the SEC contracts wouldn’t prevent Texas from starting a Longhorn TV network.
LikeLike
Perhaps thats true, but my statement was coming from the realm of conference money.
Even with its new big deal the SEC payout will be ~$17 million. Indiana got ~$22 million last year from the Big10.
LikeLike
Thanks for everyone’s posts. Not to duplicate, but two points:
(1) Hard to see Cincinnati in the 64-team super division without booting teams that, many seem to agree, will not be evicted (Northwestern will always be in the Big Ten).
(2) As a Texan who went to Michigan and lives in Ohio, I think the key to the
Big 10 becoming THE top conference is UT (Texas). I don’t think Nebraska going will force Texas’ hand, rather UT joining would then give the Big Ten the ability to pick whomever else they want–and the list of schools wanting to join would be long, perhaps even ND.
This is perhaps reflective of a built-in bias, but I think UT makes any conference it joins No. 1.
LikeLike
Depends, I suppose, on what you mean by “top conference”. As far as money payout to schools, the Big Ten is in that perch. If you’re talking a combination of payouts and football dominance, then it’s the SEC. And I agree with the idea presented here that it’s very doubtful Texas will go the SEC route, but not for the academic reasons proffered. Texas won’t go to the SEC because they will get pwned on the football field in that conference, and there won’t be one heckuva lot they can do about it. And if there is anything Texas can’t abide, it’s not being in control and top dog. Good luck with that in the SEC. Or the Big Ten. Maybe they could share power with USC in the Pac 10, even that’s an iffy proposition. The more one thinks about it, the more one leans toward the Texas and the Tomato Cans Conference model after this all shakes out, if they can find enough schools who wish to be wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
I love to read such unbiased and insightful analysis like this. I feel all the better informed for it.
LikeLike
You yourself have stated that losing Nebraska and Missouri would be of no great loss to the Big 12, that Texas, er, the Big 12 to 10 can do fine without them. It’s your opinion, just not put in a way that you can appreciate.
It’s all conjecture anyway, someone will guess right and most will guess wrong. If we could predict the future we’d be living in a really nice mansion in Vegas, no?
LikeLike
Yes, I have stated that the Big XII could survive without Nebraska and Mizzou. I have also consistently stated that the conference would be weakened if those two schools left, no matter which two schools out there realistically being floated as replacement schools were plugged in their place.
There is nothing inconsistent in noting both of those.
(I also believe that the conference would be weakened, but would survive, if it chose not to replace NU and Mizzou at all, if that makes you feel better.)
That’s a far cry from writing the equivaent of what you wrote, that the real reason that NU wants to leave the Big XII is that the Huskers are tired of being “pwned” on the field by the Horns.
There’s many reasons to speculate why schools might go in different directions, but to say that the reason Texas wouldn’t go to the SEC is that Texas would be “pwned on the football field” and that Texas desires to be in a conference of tomato cans (we did leave the tomato cans behind when we joined the Big XII, remember?) when this is all said and done is laughable and far below the level of analysis most of contributors here demonstrate.
LikeLike
If you had actually owned us, it’d be a valid statement. In actuality, we’ve been quite competitive, even through our down cycle, although somewhat snakebit lately. If it makes you feel any better, we’d get pwned in the SEC also, at least for a while until we could get up to speed. It’s a bitch of a football conference on the field. We certainly wouldn’t go in thinking we had to run things to our advantage and to everyone else’s disadvantage.
As far as the quality of my contributions, well lahdeedah. Have Frank give me the boot if they’re so beneath you.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
I think that we would do well to remember the failed WAC experiment. While the Big 10 does have obviously better revenue stream in place, part of the WAC problem was dissention amongst it’s members (the good academic schools resented the bad ones). I only see a 16 team model really working if it is: 1) a big 10-big 12 merger; or 2) the NY model with ND as the ceterpiece. Otherwise, you end up with a collection of schools from different regions of the country with little in common. If interested, check out my analysis on this topic at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/04/22/a-history-lesson-the-case-against-a-16-team-super-conference/. Once again Frank, good job staying on top of things.
LikeLike
@Michael Ziemba
Which is another reason why I think the Big10, and only the Big10, can expand to 16 anytime soon. Not only does it have the BTN which allows it to pass the point of diminishing marginal returns, but all its schools are very like minded in their goals.
AAU, Top 100-150 ARWU, hundreds of millions in research, large student populations, major athletics programs (not just in football, all collegiate athletics).
If the right mix of schools is added, no more than one or two of those characteristics would be broken for any of the members. Schools that have proven “they are Big10” without even being in the conference would likely share world-views with the already existing members…like-wise the current Big10 members wouldn’t have to worry that their view of what the Big10 is now would be changing radically with the addition of new members.
Folks talk about the likes of WVU joining the ACC or Texas joining the SEC in 16 team superconferences though and then, yes you’re point is very valid.
LikeLike
I do have “culture concerns” when it comes to Rutgers, Syracuse, U Conn…none with Mo, Neb, KU, Pitt….
Rutgers looks so much like a BT school that I think they’ll be a good fit….Rutgers has been beaten down so much image wise that I’m curious to see what it can do….Syracuse, on the other hand, is a small, private, liberal arts-focused university….The best thing Syracuse has going for it is basketball…..however, the SU basketball program has nowhere to go but down in the BT…..if that happens, the BT gets the blame with SU fans…Syracuse is also probably the school that has been most devoted to the Big East….basketball coach Jim B. keeps talking about how it will be a mistake to leave…finally, Syr doesn’t look like any Big 10 school, even NW. NW has 8000-9000 grad students to 5000 for Syr., does 10X the research, and has 10X the endowment…
LikeLike
mushroom good, for your reasons, I just don’t see Syracuse as a good fit culturally. All the other factors seem to make sense. For the same reason, I have recently cooled on ND. While there are obvious benefits, the small school Catholic no real R&D grants makes them a bad fit in my opinion.
PSU guy, I agree. The Big 10 has the best chance of all to pull off 16 for the very reasons you stated. Stating the obvious, they still need to be careful. The morst different interests you bring in, the more likelihood there is for problems.
LikeLike
IMO, Rutgers is a Big10 school through and through. Its Pitt without the athletic pedigree. Also, UConn = Kansas (actually its better than Kansas for some categories), it only lacks the AAU status.
Kinda agree on the Syracuse thing though. Its seems they try to walk a fine line between being the only Div1 school in NY and being a smaller “New England” college that seems to more prevelant thereabouts.
I do think however, if the Big10 offers it an invite ‘Cuse starts putting more effort into research/academics and expanding its student body to more closely resemble Northwestern (could we start calling it “Northeastern”?).
LikeLike
Syracuse would be a dramatic departure from the Big 10 norm.
Total 2008 R&D totals:
Wis 882M
UM 876
OSU 703
PSU 701
Minn 683
Pitt 596
Ill 501
NW 484
Pur 430
IU 412
MSU 357
Neb 349
Rut 323
Iowa 294
Mo 245
UConn 226
Kan 215
ND 97
Syr 38
I believe I also read that Syracuse has a $545M endowment, which compares to $6B + for ND, $5B+ for NW.
I hope people open their eyes and realize Syracuse is not an elite university. It is nothing like Northwestern.It is nothing like ND. And it has less research $ than U of Wisc. at Milwaukee, Jackson St., Wright State, UTEP, UNLV, or Toledo.
LikeLike
Understood and agreed.
Only questions then are:
1) Do you think Syracuse would be amenable to pushing hard to change that if a Big10 invite were forthcoming?
2) Do you think UConn could be a Syracuse replacement?
LikeLike
No on Syracuse “changing” to the extent necessary to fit in with the other BT teams.
Syracuse is a darn good private school, but not “elite” in the same sense as NW or ND. However, for Syracuse to try to change to be more like the Big 10 model would be the tail wagging the dog. It’s one thing to ask schools to add a sport or two or to improve their facilities to be more competitive–it’s another to ask them to change the very nature of the university. If I was an SU alum, I’d be offended at the suggestion….
And no Rox, that’s not what the Big 10 would ask of ND either. Association with Big 10 Us might make a school lean in one direction or another, but that choice is left to the adm., faculty, and alums of the school, not the remaining BT schools.
As to U Conn., I’d absolutely take it over Syracuse…bigger school, public, 7X the research, and nearly as selective in admissions. Plus, everything I’ve read indicates that U Conn has athletic and academic momentum on it’s side — Syracuse, not so much — SU’s total research budget is less than 2001, the CD is an aging facility, the football program is down….
However, the lack of AAU status seems like a killer for U Conn., even though they’ll be there in 5 -10 years.
I’ve been very surprised and disappointed in the lack of imagination the Big 10 appears to be showing to date….seems like the “study” that was done was geared toward confirming the original 5 of ND, RU, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri…I can’t imagine why U Conn., KU, and Neb. weren’t included to be studied in depth….makes you wonder….
LikeLike
Mushroomgod…. 90% of posts are anti-Syracuse. Seems to be one of the biggest concerns in your life is keeping Syracuse out of the Big 10.
LikeLike
@ Michael Z,
I agree. I think the conference needs to focus on one goal and then do everything in it´s power to carry it out.
Is the purpose of this expansion to capture the NY market? If it is, fine, but let´s do it right. It needs to be ND, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and UConn.
If we´re looking to expand the conference West and really lock down the heart of the country, go with five from the Big 12.
I think the problem we run into, however, is appeasing both sides of the Big 10. How do you sell an all-East expansion to Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Or, on the other hand, would PSU, Michigan, OSU and NU buy into an all-West expansion?
For my part, I´ve made it clear that I prefer the latter of the two, as it better fits the Big 10 culture, as I see it.
It should go without saying, but a job well done is better than two done half-ass.
LikeLike
@Michael – If the Big Ten adds these 5 schools, I think it’s really a “Northern” strategy. It would have all of the AAU members of the BCS north of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Rockies except for Iowa State, Kansas and Maryland. So, I think that this combo actually makes sense in that regard as a collective as opposed to jumping to various markets. Now, I frankly don’t care at all about making geographic jumps to get schools like Texas and Texas A&M, but maybe the Big Ten university presidents think differently. This combo also has a lot more firepower if one of those Eastern schools is replaced with Notre Dame, yet we’ve discussed whether that will happen ad nauseum.
LikeLike
Random fact: Maryland is actually south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
LikeLike
Which is why I think the 5 spoken to work so well.
You add a national brand on the west, where one was lacking, and another solid market there as well. In the east you add lots of markets and make a legitimate play for NYC. If you really want to be serious, ditch Pitt and add UConn (don’t necessarily argue for that or think it will happen, but you get the point).
Plus, the additions, and their locations, make creating 4 divisions relatively easy.
As I said elsewhere, it just seems to well balanced plan that maximizes $$$ while minimizing risk.
LikeLike
I don’t think any Michigan fans would have any problem with going west. I think JoPa has always wanted a more natural rival in the east but besides PSU why would anyone (Michigan, MSU, OSU, or NU included) care if we added quality schools in the west?
I think we seem to be on the same page though as far as our personal thoughts on expansion strategies are conserned.
On a side note, I wonder why so many in the MSM seem to think the Big Ten will only go after the low hanging fruit though? How many schools when asked if they would like a $10M+ increase in their annual budget and an equity stake in a growing and profitable TV network would say no? I can think of only one. The Big Ten can afford to be picky in my opinion.
LikeLike
There are two that can say no. After that, it’s pretty much ALL low hanging fruit.
LikeLike
The reason why UoM and OSU want to go east is because that’s where many of their alumni go. It’d turn in to “home” away games. Not so much the further into the mid-west you go. The same can be said for PSU. There’s a reason JoePa wanted to start a conference there…big time populations mean lots of jobs, where large schools (like most of the Big10) will send a disproportionate amount of graduates.
NY/NJ/MD are Big10 states without having Big10 schools. Add the right schools and they become purely Big10 states.
Loki has the right idea about the low hanging fruit though.
LikeLike
OSU doesn’t have as large an East Coast presence as Michigan.
Michigan has far more out-of-state students then OSU.
LikeLike
If academic standing had been a problem in the old WAC, the MWC schools probably wouldn’t have left Rice, SMU and TCU behind when they split. The MWC schools left because a. their long-standing rivalries were being diluted in the mega-WAC, and b. they realized they could get just as good of a TV contract and split it half as many ways.
LikeLike
We’re all discussing pods, but I agree with Alvarez that anything in this area is just imagination. So here are some what-if scenarios, just throwing it out there.
What if instead of adding the schools you mentioned, you instead added an entire league? What I’m thinking happens a couple ways, but what if the BTN went ESPN and added another league such as the Big East to its programming content, but they remained separate conferences?
Why? You add schools and markets without the equal payment and equity that a new conference member would need and you could add 8 football schools and a premier basketball conference to really expand your programming content. On the Big East’s end — adding even 2 million per school to their existing 7 mill payout is a huge addition and I think puts them on par with the Big 12 and ACC.
If this discussion really is about beefing up content and adding viewership — wouldn’t this have a safer and larger effect for the Big Ten and BTN then just adding straight up conference members? Heck — get rid of the guarantee games and spice up the schedule with non-conf games against the leagues or specific opponents where you have strong alumni/recruiting/tv interests a la OSU, MICH, Mich ST at Rutgers — and do so without the so-so Minn Vs. Rutgers games.
If a league were truly thinking like a President AND a for profit network it seems like this would be the best.
Rather than find 22million per school, now you can just find 50 million for an 8 team league or 100 million for football and all the basketball that a 16 team basketball league adds..plus hockey, etc.
Also for the Big Ten, a move like this strengthens the Big East and allows them to go back after BC and some of the more tenuous ACC brethren to strengthen things even further..
Outlandish? possibly.
The other scenario I see is the July 2010 scenario — whereby the BE football schools can break away without penalty by then.
What if Marrinatto already knows 3 schools are leaving and those schools are working with the league office to find appropriate homes for the other 5. Its 5 million per school and 27 months of awkwardness that can be avoided if it happens. Bring on Tagliabue to convince the SEC, ACC and BIG 12 that its in their interest to provide a home for 1-3 of the available BE schools and within a shorter time frame the new landscape occurs and the BE saves face by making a ‘strategic shift’ to be the nation’s premier catholic basketball conference by adding Xavier, Dayton and Temple.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Don’t know if you guys have already discussed this, but I just found it: some pressure may be put on Notre Dame by the Big East to either join them for football or leave for basketball. I have always wondered why the Big East put up with that since ND isn’t much of a player in basketball (or maybe I’m wrong on this, maybe the name still makes them a draw). Here is the link I found:
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/04/30/big-east-coaches-want-notre-dame-to-get-in-or-get-out/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002
LikeLike
@Michael Z:
It’s interesting from a drama standpoint. The cracks in the Big East have been showing since this whole thing started, and it’s been looking recently like they’re beginning to eat their own (Tags’ comments, now this).
But it’s telling that, according to Edsall at least, this has been going on for the last two years. Moreover, it’s important to note here that he points out that it’s the coaches, not the presidents or even the ADs. Therefore I doubt it has much traction.
I will say, however, that as this builds obviously the Big Ten’s public image takes a hit. But does Notre Dame’s as well? A lot of officials from various schools and conferences have been quoted saying, “if only ND would just join this would probably be over with”. If the Big Ten kneecaps two conferences, some people are going to be raw over it. If Notre Dame stays independent, do they suffer any kind of blowback? Doubtful, but it’s something to think about I guess.
LikeLike
Perhaps ND does, but only from those so naive to think that B10 will stop at 12. Thanks to the BTN, who seriously desperately needs something to run (I can almost see a weekend of OSU and UM spring games, but when you’re rerunning NU-UVA women’s lax, you are running dangerously low on content) they won’t stop before fourteen at least.
I’m just glad ND didn’t hire Edsall. Anyone who fails to realize that ND would leave before joining in football and that the Big Ten raid will continue regardless is not going to make it as the ND head coach. He also needs waaay more tact.
LikeLike
@Michael Z – I think that it’s too little too late to do that to ND. Putting aside the fact that it would take a unanimous vote to kick ND out and the Catholic schools and those angling for Big Ten invites wouldn’t do it, ND actually emboldens the Big Ten for adding multiple Eastern schools. The main value of ND besides the national brand name is its NYC/East Coast fan base,
LikeLike
I think this is simple. No “divisions”, no real “pods” and you keep the 8 week schedule if 14 teams and go to 9 if 16.
Each team has 3 “designated” rivals, much like they do now. They play these teams every year. For example, Michigan’s would be OSU, MSU and Minn.
Then, you play exactly one-half of the others 5 (if 14 teams) or 6 (if 16 teams) every year. Each school would have its own 2 “pods” of teams, if you will. This way you play everyone at least every 2 years.
Then, the top 2 finishers play for the championship. No unbalanced “divisions” to worry about.
LikeLike
no division = no conference championship game
NCAA rules
LikeLike
I think the BT should go to 20 schools. If you whore yourself out for money, why not really go for it.
For football, 4 divisions of 5 teams. You play your division rivals each year. You play all five teams from another division for a total of nine games. You’d have a semi final round played at two campus sites and a BT championship game played at rotating neutral sites. Sites could include Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Indy, St Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philly, New York. You rotate the divisions so that each school plays every school at least once per three years.
For basketball, no divisions. You would play each team once per season so you would get a full round-robin and you would play every team every year. The schedule would be equatable this way. Top 12 make the BT tournament with the top four seeded into the quarterfinals.
Can you imagine a Big Ten football championship played at Yankee Stadium? That would be pretty cool.
Added schools:
Syracuse
UConn
Rutgers
Pitt
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Iowa State
Colorado
Divisions:
Syr, UConn, Pitt, Rutgers, PSU
OSU, UM, MSU, IU, PU
WI, MIN, NW, ILL, IA
ISU, NU, MO, KU, CU
The Big XII collapses. Oklahoma, Okla St join the SEC.
Texas and A&M join the Pac 10.
Texas Tech, Baylor and Kansas State join the MWC giving the MWC a championship game.
WVU, Louisville, Cincy, USF join the ACC.
LikeLike
I know this doesn’t actually matter at all, both because the Big Ten hasn’t expanded and because preseason rankings are mostly worthless, but:
Was looking at ESPN’s Mark Schlabach’s newest “way to early top 25”, posted today. If the Big Ten added the “fab five” today, the conference by conference comparison of the Top 25 would be:
Big Ten (6): #3 OSU, #7 Nebraska, #9 Wisconsin, #11 Iowa, #13 Pitt, #23 Penn State
SEC (5): #1 Alabama, #8 Florida, #14 Arkansas, #17 LSU, #20 Georgia
ACC (5): #5 VTech, #15 FSU,#19 Miami, #21 UNC, #22 Georgia Tech
Big 12 (3): #4 Texas, #12 Oklahoma, #25 Texas A&M
Pac 10 (3): #10 Oregon, #15 USC, #24 Stanford
WAC (1): #2 Boise State
MWC (1): #6 TCU
Big East (1): #18 Cincy
Just food for thought.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before. If the Big 10 wants to make a truly compelling case for Texas, they should secretly solicit Texas’ interest in the following proposal.
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10.
Texas keeps its two primary rivals. You would have 6 of the 7 winningest programs in the past fifty years — Neb #1, OSU #2, PSU #3, OU #5, Michigan #6 and Texas #7. You could probably add the Cotton and Holiday Bowls to your bowl game stable which includes the Citrus, Outback and Gator.
We agree that the other four schools are academically acceptable. So does OU single-handedly kill the whole deal?
The SEC would be hard pressed to match this move.
LikeLike
Justin, I totally agree but I would replace Missouri with Kansas just because of the strength of their basketball program and the money BB amkes for them and consequesntly, would make for the new league.
LikeLike
Let the SEC try to top that!
LikeLike
We´ve talked about how Texas´ preference may be the status quo. The biggest problem, however, is that the Big 12 isn´t profitable enough for anyone.
We´ve also talked about how Texas may not have a particular affinity or tie to anyone else in Texas apart from A&M.
If you then combine the strengths of the Big 12 with the revenue, exposure and academics of the Big 10, I don´t see where Texas would object.
We could argue that they´d prefer the Pac 10, but 1) the Big 10 is more profitable and 2) an expansion of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M would essentially keep the status quo while correcting its faults. Under that scenario, Texas would either be placed in a four school pod with A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas or placed in an 8 team Western division with the four other Big 12 teams plus Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin.
This scenario makes too much sense, for all parties. Now, the only question is if OU would be a deal breaker for either side, and I´m not sure who feels more strongly about this issue: the Big 10 or Texas.
LikeLike
If OU were a deal-breaker for the Big 10, could KU be substituted? Or would that make this overall theoretically package not attractive enough?
(And Justin, I can’t remember if I said so when you originally posted this idea, but I really like it.)
LikeLike
If Missouri meets Big 10 academic standards then so does Kansas. From the Big 10´s standpoint, I don´t think they´d lose much athletically moving from OU to KU. You lose the Red River Rivalry but gain the Border War. I´d be interested to see Patrick´s revenue estimates for OU. You lose an elite football program but gain an elite basketball program.
I don´t see why the Big 10 wouldn´t be fine with KU and MU but I don´t know how Texas would feel about it. Hopkins Horn, how do you and the rest of the Texas fans on here feel about making a move without OU? Would a 5 team package with A&M, KU, MU and Nebraska work?
LikeLike
I cannot imagine Texas would turn down this proposal.
I cannot imagine the Big 10 wouldn’t accept A&M, Missouri or Nebraska, so its all about OU.
OU is still the flagship state school, so we’re not talking about adding Nevada-Reno here.
I don’t think Texas has any interest in Kansas. They would still have to play OU in the non-conference — I don’t think Texas fans care whether Kansas ever appears on the schedule again.
To me, the 5 school expansion of OU, NU, Mizzou and the Texas two-step is feasible — I guess the only caveat is that it would require Texas to make the first move, albeit collectively.
LikeLike
Oklahoma is not in the AAU. ARWU ranking in 300’s (worst ranking of any other school mentioned is Kansas/Nebraska in the 200’s…all current members are under 150). I could not find its research amounts.
Suffice it to say Oklahoma is not a “Big10 calibre” school and I would be very surprised to see it entertained as an expansion candidate.
As for Texas/TAMU, as discussed ad nauseum they’d be great fits in the Big10 and Texas truly is the only “perfect” candidate as far as the trifecta of athletics/academics/population.The thing is I’ve seen nothing to indicate even tangentially that Texas is considering a move to the Big10. Nebraska says things like “no comment”, Mizzou gleefully says “We’re in!”, but Texas is as quiet as a grave.
Now maybe this is Texas keeping a lid on things till the last second so the legislature can’t get involved, but I can’t help but think Texas has some desire other than to join another conference and its just letting everyone scatter as they may till they get around to doing it.
LikeLike
@PSU guy,
Missouri and Nebraska have nothing between them and the Big 10. They would probably be willing to move whether they were by themselves, with two others, four others, etc. Long story short, there is little reason for them not to openly acknowledge this.
Texas is a whole other beast. The only way they´d even consider a move seems to be if A&M were brought along for the ride. The scenario being talked about here would involve four other Big 12 schools and is a much more complicated and highly contingent discussion.
If they were interested in this type of move – and why would they not be? – we wouldn´t hear anything about it unless we also heard about this specific scenario.
LikeLike
Oklahoma´s R&D numbers from 2008 were $192 million. That compares to Iowa´s $293 million, Missouri´s $244 million, Kansas´ $215 million, Notre Dame´s $97 million and Syracuse´s $38 million.
From an academic standpoint, the Big 12 would certainly have more difficult sales jobs than OU. They are clearly at least a tier above OSU, Texas Tech, KState and Baylor.
LikeLike
@…well, in general
For the record I have my first degree from Oklahoma. My 2nd from Colorado State.
OU’s academics have increased tremendously over the last 15 years or so. I don’t think they will ever be members of the AAU. But OU’s academics aren’t anything to be embarrassed about. OU has built a University that the college football team can be proud of.
However, if all MONEY WERE EQUAL, OU would join the SEC over the Big-10. There are more cultural connections. If there were a 4 team pod of OU, A&M, Arkansas, and LSU, OU fans would be very happy.
But using that standard, Uo f Texas would join the Pac-10 as they see them selves in the same group as Cal-Berkley over the Big-10
And my personal guess is when the Super 64 gets going, I think the SEC and the Pac-10 make a deal to split Ok. State and OU and Texas and TA&M to give both conferences present in both markets.
LikeLike
That would be great! Also, it would be a lot easier to divide up the divisions
WEST: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
EAST: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern.
I don’t see why this isn’t a realistic possibility and it is infinitely more attractive than what is now being discussed with all of those Big East teams.
LikeLike
This league would be a financial juggernaut — with 6 of the top 7 programs over the past fifty years, you’d probably have a chance to get on basic cable everywhere.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine OK in the Big 10. They are the biggest cheats this side of UK basketball….they definately belong in the SEC.
LikeLike
Yes and no. As you can surmise from my name, as a Husker I know about the Sooners. 50’s-80’s, yes I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. But now they have stability with Stoops as HC and IIRC there has been only one cheating situation and that appeared to be all about a booster with no connection to the athletic department.
Let me be very open and say that I really hate cheating and I see (IMO) a general decline in US morality but at the same time, as a long-time Husker fan, I largely to not see recent evidence of the Sooners being a cancer whether that be bad fan behavior or cheating. I’m no insider and I could be wrong, but I do pay some attention as do many Husker fans. I hear mostly positive vibes re the Sooner from Husker fans.
LikeLike
At Syracuse, they taught us how to spell definitely correctly. HEY-O! Yeah, I’m going there. 😀
LikeLike
To me, Big 12 teams are much more desirable than any Big East team. For one thing, people in the Big 12 states actually give a shit about sports. For example, while NY/NJ is obviously a way bigger market than Nebraska, you can bet when Nebraska plays every TV in the state is set to the game. Do people that go to Rutgers/Syracuse/UConn really care to much about the athletics, let alone random people in NYC?
However, there are some concerns with your idea.
First, I think (but don’t really know) that OU’s academics would be a deal-breaker.
Second, adding that many teams from a single other conference creates a “us-and-them” mentality. It would always be “the old Big Ten” and the “old Big 12” teams.
Also, I think that a two-division 16-team league is a terrible idea. It would divide the league, especially considering in these proposals the entire Big12 contingent would be in one division. Furthermore, why would current B10 schools want to add all these teams if there never going to play them.
LikeLike
Are OU’s academics a deal breaker?
Let’s think about a similar hypothetical.
What if ND said they would join the Big 10 only if West Virginia were included? Would the Big 10 reject ND under those circumstances or take WVU and just hope for substantial academic advancement?
I would guess the latter. Its the same scenario here. In fact, there is even more incentive to do the deal because OU is an athletic monster on their own.
LikeLike
I disagree, for two reasons.
1. WVU’s academics would be a dealbreaker
AND
2. There is no way the Big Ten would let ND start these sort of BS negotiations. In no way would the B10 allow ND to be “special” or get a different deal than anyone else.
LikeLike
While I in no way would ever want to defend a BigEast team…but you might want to read between the lines a little bit when trying to understand the NY/NJ/NYC DMA’s.
The power of the BigEast brands comes in the form of providing local markets for already established programs to come to town. NYC ranked its favorite collegiate programs and the highest percentages were (in no particular order) Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn, PSU, OSU, Mich (which by the way does show that apparently those markets do care about their local teams). This means that when PSU comes to play Rutgers or OSU Syracuse you are going to have large local ratings because the home team fans will tune in and PSU/OSU graduates living in the area will tune also.
Now of course ABC/ESPN will say so what, I can’t market that nationally, but the Big10 will say great, I can put it on the BTN and make a boatload doing so. Having the same team play Kansas will net much less.
Point being we both agree on taking the whole Big12 would probably be a mistake, but I think a lot of people who are marking the Rutgers/Syracuse/UConn’s of the world as useless are going to be in for a surprise when the BTN starts releasing its profits numbers after accessing the NJ/NY/NE markets.
LikeLike
Oh I understand the TV revenue thinking, it makes sense. Its simply unfortunate that we’re talking about adding generally poor programs that don’t really culturally fit, just as a vehicle to get BTN on basic cable in NYC and as an excuse for OSU/Mich/PSU to play games out east.
I’m saying if I had to choose, without TV revenue or other money concerns, I would clearly take B12 teams hands down to Big East teams.
LikeLike
How are Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse any historically worse than Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota?
LikeLike
Here’s how the SEC beats that using ESPN’s All-Time Prestige Rankings.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468
Under your scenario, the Big Ten picks up #5 Nebraska, #7 Texas, and #20 Texas A&M, to go along with existing members #3 Ohio State, #8 Michigan, and #11 Penn State.
Since the Big Ten doesn’t want Oklahoma, the SEC gladly picks up #1 Oklahoma, to go along with #9 Florida State, #10 Miami, and #18 Georgia Tech. The SEC currently has #6 Alabama, #12 Tennessee, #13 LSU, #14 Georgia, #15 Florida, and #19 Arkansas.
So the SEC picks up 4 in the all-time top 20, while the Big Ten picks up 3. The Big Ten currently has 3 members of the all-time top 20, while the SEC has 6. The Big Ten has more teams in the top 10, but the SEC has much more depth.
I’d say the SEC wins with half of the top 20 residing in the proposed conference, while the Big Ten has only 6, but it looks like the Big Ten/SEC cartel would have just about cornered the market on historically-great football teams.
LikeLike
I guess they picked 1936 as the year to start with because of the AP poll, but it seems fairly random and definitely favors Oklahoma.
Other teams show up in the top spot depending on what year you choose to start with, and when dealing with the AP Poll you are basing everything on humans picking teams…. and for a long time (I think through 1970 or so) the FINAL AP poll came out before the bowls were played.
Try this fun list builder. Choose any year you want and judge by winning percentage or wins.
http://football.stassen.com/records/compute-request.html
LikeLike
Awesome tool. Fun and interesting. Thanks Patrick
LikeLike
Alan—I don’t think the Big 10’s intent is to try to top the SEC in football. SEC will do anything, by hook or crook, to win football games. Your SEC would have 5 of the top 10 “Dirtiest NCAA Football Programs” of the last 10 years, according to Fanhouse (7/27/07)—
#2 Oklahoma
#4 Alabama
#5 UK
#8 Auburn
#10 Miami
What’s impressive about that is that UK saves most of it’s cheating for basketball…..
LikeLike
that should have read “last 20 years”….
LikeLike
Mushroomgod – I wasn’t flaming, I was just responding to Justin & Wes Haggard’s earlier posts along the line of “Let’s see the SEC top that.” Personally, I wouldn’t want the SEC to take Georgia Tech. They left the SEC in the 60s.
Regarding cheating, the SEC has certainly cleaned it act up relative to the 70s & 80s. No, the SEC isn’t as virtuous as the Big Ten, but it has improved.
LikeLike
Alan, I was just messing with you anyway….I would consider it a compliment to SEC fans that they wouldn’t give up their poition without a fight….shows the passion the Southern fans have for their football…
LikeLike
shroomgod – I am a Southerner, but have Midwestern roots and have much respect for the Big Ten’s institutions and their brand of football. I certainly enjoyed my Tigers whipping Ohio State for the BCS Championship a few years ago. While I didn’t like the outcome of the Tigers’ recent trips to Orlando, I had fun getting to know Iowa and Penn State fans.
Having been to all the SEC stadiums and most parks in MLB, my next adventure in sports road trips is the Big Ten. I went to see LSU play Ohio State at the ‘Shoe back in the 80s. After Hurricane Gustav shut down Baton Rouge for a week, I took my son on a sports trip to Wisconsin back in 08. Camp Randal is a lot of fun. This, during LSU’s open date, I’m seriously considering Michigan v. Penn State at Happy Valley.
Regarding your earlier flame about cheating, there’s an old saying: “If ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” I can’t defend my SEC brothers, since in the last 20 years 10 SEC schools pop up in the NCAA major infraction database. The two that didn’t: Vandy & LSU. By the way, the Big Ten had five (Ohio St., Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State & Minnesota) Of your most prominent candidates, Rutgers, Pitt & Syracuse also show up.
None of us know for sure how all this expansion stuff will play out, but at the end of the day, the two remaining superpowers will only get stronger.
LikeLike
Two points.
1–Don’t forget that ESPN is in bed with the SEC. Bias towards their “product” is to be expected. I’m not saying SEC football sucks==just saying that it’s not unusual to see them get a bump when discussed by ESPN.
2–If we add ND too (#4 on this little list) and I think the Big 10 is going for the home run lineup (Texas schools, Nebraska, ND, and Rutgers), then we have 7 of the top 20. The SEC might not even expand at all, and if they do, it’s no LOCK that they’d simply pick off anybody they wanted. They might take OU (but only with OkSt too…#65 in this poll) And simply getting the “best” football schools isn’t what expansion is completely about. The competition on the football field might be stiff, but the Big 10 would win in population centers if they can snag the dream team (Nebraska, Texas, aTm, ND, and Rutgers (NJ)).
LikeLike
Like I said in an earlier post, I was responding to the “take that SEC” posts. I’m not sure who the SEC would take and I don’t think Mike Slive will ask me for my advice. But don’t think that whatever the Big Ten does, that they will somehow pull away from the SEC. The SEC and Big Ten are the undisputed Super Powers of college sports. Conference expansion won’t change that fact; it will just further separate the SEC and the Big Ten from the rest of the conferences.
LikeLike
This proposal would greatly improve the quality of programming on the BTN. I would wager more people in large markets like NYC or Boston or Philadelphia would rather watch any random combination from the pool of Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State than games with Syracuse or Rutgers. Hence, to me, this combination makes more sense than simply finding a school with an attractice population base nearby.
It’s an interesting thought, too, to think that with an eastward expansion, the Big Ten might have to worry about how to spread the football talent out in the west to match that of the eastern powers. In this scenario, you could argue that the west (Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa and Wisconsin) would have the stronger teams (Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan).
LikeLike
Don’t underestimate the power of the local team man. The Pittsburgh Pirates are the crappiest baseball team in the MLB yet if you poll a number of people in downtown Pittsburgh to see who’s a fan of the Yankees or Dodgers I bet you’d be laughed at (if not threatened!).
Point being in NJ, watching Rutgers play PSU, Pitt, or even Syracuse probably trumps a pure mid-western matchup, even if the teams are better, simply because the home team is the home team.
Now if the home team isn’t playing, agreed the better over-all match-up will draw the most viewers.
LikeLike
Rather than pods, why not just divide up the teams into two divisions that will balance the historical powers and keep most of the rivalries intact. Here’s my attempt:
DIVISION A
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Missouri
Rutgers
DIVISION B
Penn State
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Northwestern
Two traditional powers at the top of each side. Iowa-Wisc-Minn kept together and placed with Nebraska. Pitt and Syracuse placed with Pitt.
Michigan State placed with Michigan. Indiana-Purdue and Missouri-Illinois kept together.
Rutgers put with Michigan and Ohio State to appeal to New York fans.
Northwestern represents the another “big” city to put in the division opposite of the “NYC” team. Downside would be splitting NW from ILL. Another downside would be that Division B seems a little bit stronger.
LikeLike
I love your division idea Paul. I also am more in favor of this type of traditional set up. It creates more continuity and tradition.
LikeLike
First off, I doubt the second division buys off as they’ll be spending significantly more on travel costs.
Second, I really don’t think half the conference will buy off on never playing the other side. Even if you have some sort of protected rival system odds are most teams won’t play most other teams. Believe me, I’ve tried to make 2 8 team divisions work in my mind, but none really matches the flexibility of 4 divisions.
Now if the NCAA says it won’t allow another playoff game to filter from 4 division champs to the Championship game (and would thus need a glorified paper-rock-scissors tournament to see who goes to the championship game) then having two divisions of 8 may be required…
LikeLike
To expand on what DCphx says below, you use pods to create 2 divisions that change every 2 years. Rather than type up a whole new example, I’m going to copy and paste an example I gave on another post of Frank’s.
This is an example where the Big 10 adds 5 from the Big 12 and makes the following 4 pods:
OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU
CO, NE, Tex, A&M
Iowa, Wis, Min, MO
IU, Pur, Il, NW
“We’ve discussed this on other threads, but using the pod system that rotates divisions can allow everyone to play against everyone else in the conference every 4 years.
For example, with 5 teams from the West:
Year 1 & 2:
Division A: OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU, IU, Pur, Il, NW
Division B: Iowa, Wis, Min, MO, CO, NE, Tex, A&M
Year 3 & 4:
Division A: OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU, Iowa, Wis, Min, MO
Division B: IU, Pur, Il, NW, CO, NE, Tex, A&M
Every year teams from the (OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU) group will play 2 teams from the (CO, NE, Tex, A&M) group for non-divisional games. Teams from the (IU, Pur, Il, NW) group will play 2 teams from the (Iowa, Wis, Min, MO) group.
With this lineup, the 3 Western schools would have a home and away series with every other current Big 10 member every 4 years. Of course, it wouldn’t take long to develop rivalries with the new members.
Obviously, this sort of setup will work with any 16 schools.”
Now, Frank in this post is suggesting a slightly modified version, where you have one additional permanent foe who you’ll play as a non-divisional game if they’re not in your division. This means there will be at least 1 team you wouldn’t see in 4 years.
LikeLike
While I realize you’re not really stumping for Colorado here and just using them as an example, I’ll take the opportunity to point out some weaknesses to a case for them, since I’ve seen them brought up as a possibility on less current threads.
First, CU has always pined for the Pac 10 and will jump there without a doubt if invited. Demographically and culturally they’re an excellent fit with a lot of cross-pollination of graduates and residents between the Front Range and California. The glaring liability they would bring is they don’t really draw interest from their home market, even though they’re smack dab in a big metro. Denver is a pro town. Broncos, Avs, Nuggets, Rockies, with CU and CSU as afterthoughts, in good years. The Front Range also has some of the best skiing in the world a short jaunt away, and lift tickets will pull a lot of the fall and winter entertainment money that might go to season tickets elsewhere.
You need only look to the fact that CU didn’t have the booster backing and therefore couldn’t afford to buy out their current football coach last year, once the State politicians foreclosed any help in that regard due to budgetary concerns. They sell out rarely, usually just when the Huskers visit Boulder, and it’s Husker fans filling their stadium. So while you might potentially get the Big Ten Network on Front Range cable systems, there’s no real draw there for massive advertising support, unless CU improves dramatically on the field.
LikeLike
@eapg
I currently live in the Denver metro area, and my 2nd degree was from Col. St., and everything you said is correct.
Most folks in Denver & Colorado are not FROM here originally. The connection to CU and CSU is weak. I’d argue that if some one wanted the Denver TV market in college football, they should take Nebraska over CU.
LikeLike
Yes Denver is a pro-sports town but the Buffs draw just fine in the local market, at least they did before the Hawkins hiring debacle. I will concede that support is not as rabid as at a place like Nebraska, and the “other things to do” factor does come into play, particularly when compared to some of the other…umm…garden spots where most of the other Big 12 campuses are located. Not every game is a sellout like at Nebraska but we’re usually near capacity and season ticket sales have been trending up despite 4 years of crappy football. Honestly we haven’t been down for THAT much longer then Michigan. Plus when you’re talking markets for a conference you’re really concerned with the potential households in that market for the broader set of content, i.e. ALL the games not just when CU plays. I’m guessing both of these responses were from Husker and CSU fans which I’m sure are completely unbiased :). We’re also a heck of a better fit academics / research wise then any of the other Big 12 schools besides TX and potentially TAMU (#34 ARWU ranking).
In regards to the booster issues for Hawkins, you’re oversimplifying the issue. It’s not that the money wasn’t there, but that the school made the political decision that it didn’t want to deal with the bad press of paying out a coach while fighting tooth and nail against budget cuts, even if the payout came from private funds. Due to a lovely piece of legislation called TABOR that was passed around 10 -15 years ago, higher ed funding has been taking it in the teeth and you’d be hard pressed to keep calling CU a “public” school based on the amount of state funding we’re receiving. For an AD that everyone is claiming is broke and has no support we’re somehow funding a brand new B-Ball facility this year. I also think its possible that the retention of Hawkins may have been tied to the knowledge that we may be taking a revenue hit from a conference switch. Most of the “insider” stuff we heard was that Hawk was gone 2 weeks before the NU game, then our AD went out to Hawaii for the B-Ball tournament and spent a lot of time talking to the AZ AD out there and suddenly Hawk wasn’t fired anymore.
All that being said, I still think the PAC 10 is probably a better fit primarily due to the “Californication” that has occurred in CO over the past 20 years. Tons of Cali folks out here who would like to watch PAC teams, and our alumni presence on the west coast in CA/WA dwarfs anything in the other Big 12 states and likely the Big 10 states as well, though I haven’t seen any numbers for the Big 10. We did have fairly strong contingents from IL and NJ when I was going to school. If the recent UCLA and ASU games are any indication we’d have a much better traveling rep in the PAC 10, but I seriously doubt that would be the case in the Big 10, particularly for the schools further East.
LikeLike
<<Rather than pods, why not just divide up the teams into two divisions that will balance the historical powers and keep most of the rivalries intact.<<
The benefit to the pods is that you can arrange it so that in a 4 year period, you play every team home and away. With the division alignment, it takes 8 years to cycle through all of the other schools in the division, home & away. I don't think that is an insignificant difference.
LikeLike
Thanks. I see the logic. (It’s just really hard to make pods that will keep everyone happy.)
LikeLike
I’d go East/West
OSU UM IU Pur Rut PSU Pitt Syra
Mo Neb Iowa Wis Minn NW Ill MSU
MSU is the only one out of place. They could still play UM and PSU/OSU every year. With Miss, Neb, Iowa, Wis, and MSU you’d have enough strength in the West. Play 6 in your division and 3 in the other.
LikeLike
I like your thinking here mushroom god, but instead of splitting Michigan / Michigan State, I split Indiana and Purdue. Put Purdue in with the western teams. They are closer to Chicago, Indiana is downstate and closer to Indianapolis. I would say that the east is a little stronger but these things change and flex constantly. Your line-up would keep the big rilvalries in place and keep travel costs down.
LikeLike
I am really starting to buy this 5 team expansion of Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers. All five have been discussion on this board for a long time, and each of those institutions would join in a heartbeat. Although each school was its flaws; as a collective group they all add different value to the BTN and Big 10. Nebraska with the marquee name, Missouri gives guaranteed households, Pitt provides solid academics, athletics and research powers despite not adding new markets, and finally Syracuse and Rutgers provide Update New York, New Jersey, and some of NYC.
It is a balanced expansion eastward and westward, and provides another marquee name along with valuable markets and secondary sports (basketball, lacrosse, hockey etc.)
Despite all of Notre Dame’s whining, protesting and demand for special treatment they were continuously mentioned until now. I think I finally found out what was the final straw for Delany and co. that completely removed Notre Dame from the expansion discussion.
Atrocious.
I can see Delany’s press release now; “After seeing that atrocious music video and failed attempt for a pep rally we have come to the conclusion that Notre Dame’s institutional mission and values do not align with the members of the Big 10.”
Have fun staying independent with your indie music artists who managed to shame one of the best fight songs and athletic programs in the nation.
LikeLike
Pretty silly, particularly when you consider that for one Saturday, Nebraska was Notre Dame:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/
All your eBay tickets belong to us!
LikeLike
If the Big Ten Network takes Manhattan, wouldn’t they need the Bronx and Staten Island, too?
LikeLike
@Jake – Naw, the only other borough worth anything is Brooklyn.
LikeLike
@Frank – Not a music fan?
LikeLike
I haven’t read every comment, but read several and here are a couple of my thoughts.
1. I like the idea of OSU and Michigan in separate pods. In a 16 team conference, with the parity that exists, and with the number of high profile teams, I don’t think an OSU-Michigan rematch would happen that often and if it’s just on occasion, that could actually add to the rivalry. With that said, moving the game up in the schedule is not an option. Both schools benefit as it is and both love where it is. You aren’t going to see support for moving it and you shouldn’t.
2. I don’t see 9 game schedules. I understand how it could help (and would be in favor of it even in the current set-up where one team would be stuck at 8 games), but remember you are already talking about the Big Ten taking a big risk with 5 new members. Given the size of that risk, the larger existing members aren’t going to want to give up any home games at the same time, which is what you would be asking them to do with 9 conference games.
3. I could see the Big 12 sticking at 10. I think they’ll move, but they’ll at least study the thought.
4. In some ways, this is a better expansion idea than with Notre Dame and/or Texas too. There is only so many marquee programs a conference can have before some start to decline. This would keep the balance much better.
5. I don’t like the thought of a multi-game playoff in conference at all. One of the things that separates college football from most other sports is the importance on the regular season and this would definitely devalue that. That said, I could see them trying to get approval for it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
Seeing the many failed attempts to post the AAS writer’s column should be one more confirmation that Frank the Tank should dump WordPress.com for Blogger or WordPress.org (unless blog traffic dies down when realignment talk does).
LikeLike
Here is an alternative pod system that is (1) fairly balanced, (2) maintains some geographic logic, and (3) keeps almost all important rivalries intact (assuming a decision is made to split up the big four teams.
EAST – Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
NORTH – Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana
SOUTH – Ohio State, Northwestern, Illinois, Missouri
WEST – Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
LikeLike
I still maintain that if Maryland is interested, it will bump off Pittsburgh for member $16. Much more of an upside in terms of viewers (two new markets as opposed to none), and comparable academically and athletically.
If the Big Ten did go to 20, how about taking in Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Missouri, Nebraska and the ACC’s four AAU members (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke)? Notre Dame would be the only school for which the Big Ten would not require AAU membership, so forget Connecticut and Kansas.
LikeLike
Oopsie — that should have been “member #16.” (Though the dollar sign is a bit subconscious, isn’t it?)
LikeLike
@Vincent – I really wish everyone else at Maryland had your passion on this matter. If Maryland was willing to move, they’d clearly be a top candidate.
LikeLike
@ Frank – I also agree with Maryland being a top candidate, as a blogger, what do you think can be done to assist those “Powers That Be” (Maryland and The Big Ten Expansion Council) to court one another?
LikeLike
Frank, I wish the folks in College Park had my vision on the matter. This is about the University of Maryland in 2030 or 2040, not today. As I’ve often said before, the university’s academic and athletic destiny can’t be held hostage by two basketball games with Duke — it’s not a natural rivalry, and won’t last any more than the Maryland-N.C. State rivalry did past the ’70s.
(Heck, when the ACC was formed in 1953, the big wintertime sport at Maryland wasn’t basketball, but boxing; basketball games at Ritchie Coliseum were prelims to intercollegiate boxing, which at the time was a big deal but soon faded after a few fatalities in the ring.)
Some thoughts on divisional or “quad” setups in a Big Ten that added Maryland, Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska:
East: Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Central: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
West: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska
For football — nine conference games, three against the teams in your quad, four against another quad, rotating every three years, and two against teams from the other eight-team division. Trophy rivalries such as Michigan-Minnesota, Ohio State-Illinois and Penn State-Michigan State would continue to be played annually, regardless of divisional setups that year. (Substitutions would be made on the schedule to avoid teams playing each other twice.)
For men’s and women’s basketball — 18-game schedule, home-and-home with the teams in your quad and one against the conference’s other 12 opponents. No divisions.
LikeLike
As a PA and PSU guy…I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion Pitt would turn a cold shoulder to the Big10 simply because of PSU. Starting with the BigEast and PSU’s attempt to start a football based NorthEast athletics conference Pitt just never seemed interesting in seeing PSU on the same side-line as it. I even have friends who are pumped about joining the ACC and going to 16 teams there instead of the Big10 (imagine the looks in their eyes when I mentioned Indiana made almost twice as much as Texas or 5 times Pitt last year).
If Pitt for some ridiculous reason doesn’t want in, could MD ever be considered a good “trade” with the thought the ACC scoops up Pitt?
LikeLike
If Maryland gets in and Pitt doesn’t, it won’t be because the latter didn’t want the Big Ten (I can’t imagine either would spurn an invitation), but because Maryland has more to offer the conference.
LikeLike
Yah, for some strange reason the ACC seems to be calm and impervious to expansion talks. Admittedly they tend to be much more “Big10” in their outlook as far as the “conference is more than just about athletics” so that’s bound to create loyalty amongst the members, but its pretty astounding to see.
LikeLike
I will disagree with the flavor of the week-Nebraska.
They seem to be the only willing national power to join, but I think they will be unpalatable from an academic standpoint (which also means 14 is more likely than adding 5 mediocre fb progams).
Many Nebraska fans will agree. Nebraska despite being AAU has a different mission. It was open admissions until recently. Rather than being elite like UM, UW, etc., it is THE school in Nebraska. There are only 4 state schools, 2 in remote west and central Nebraska, a commuter school in Omaha and then Nebraska. I’m not being negative about Nebraska, it just has a different purpose, by necessity.
And the current AD, Tom Osborne, almost scuttled the Big 12 before it started. As the Big 10 said, you want someone you can be with for 30 years. As part of the deal to create the Big 12, the SWC rules limiting partial qualifiers was adopted. Then just before the league started, Nebraska backed by KSU tried to eliminate those rules. They failed. Had they succeeded the Big 12 would not exist today. Osborne, a legend in Nebraska, bellyached about it and that contributed to a lot of the N/S anomosity in the league. Why did he complain? Well he had 23 partial qualifiers on one of his great mid-90s teams (new limit was 2). That was more than any other CONFERENCE in the country. So will the Big 10 want a school with an AD who abused the ability to use partial qualfiers?
LikeLike
You’re overcounting University of Nebraska campuses by one. UN-Kearney, UN-Omaha, UNL. Three State (teacher’s) colleges, Wayne, Peru, Chadron. Kearney was Kearney State until fairly recently.
As far as partial qualifiers, Osborne resoundingly lost that argument. Nebraska adjusted, it’s history. Maybe not for Osborne, but at his age he’s a transitional AD at any rate. Perlman is much more the face of Nebraska in this negotiation. Nebraska, if admitted to the Big Ten, will adjust again to even tighter recruiting rules and will have to embark upon some academic improvements to keep up with the new conference, a project I’m sure Perlman welcomes.
LikeLike
AAU members have a dedication to graduate research, much like the CIC. I would argue that Nebraska would be easier to accept to the CIC than Notre Dame. While Notre Dame has a better undergraduate reputation, Nebraska spends more than 4 times as much on graduate research.
I believe the Big Ten and the CIC is much more concerned with the graduate programs and the strength of research by any potential university than the mission of the undergraduate programs. That’s where the money is.
LikeLike
Everything I’ve read indicates Neb. has dramatically improved it’s academics and research in the last 20 years….I’m impressed with the 1B research park. Also Neb has the most academic AAs of any school.
I think Nebraskans are good people and good fans. Let’s add Neb and let OK go to the SEC. The SEC would then have the 3 “cheatinest” programs of all-time in ‘Bama, OK, and UK>
LikeLike
Hey, there are actually more than that:
Chadron State College(extreme NW Nebraska)
University of Nebraska-Kearney (mid state)
Wayne State College (Northeast Nebraska)
Peru State College (Southeast Nebraska)
University of Nebraska-Omaha
University of Nebraska Medical Center (2 miles east of Nebraska-Omaha’s campus)
And you can say Dr. Tom almost scuttled the Big 12 on formation; you can also say he was a Cassandra — what he feared came to pass, and no one believed him. The Big 12 has not served the interests of the Northern schools, and Nebraska fans (and administrators, I suspect) are more than willing to leave the former Big 8 schools behind.
And how is having a great many partial qualifiers abusing it? Was it not legal? Was not one of Nebraska’s great selling points their academic support for athletes? (e.g. Jared Tomich and Neil Smith had undiagnosed learning disabilities in high school.) What school has the NCAA records for academic All-Americans in both all sports and in football again? Oh, and that number of partial qualifiers on that one team? According to this (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19960726&id=O3cKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7145,4385844), that’s about the number for a decade. Ironically enough, back when the Big 12 was formed, the Big Ten had no limits regarding the recruiting of partial or non-qualifiers.
LikeLike
You beat me to it, Albino.
I’ll add this, too. Say what you will about Osbourne, but Perlman is the man in charge and I think the driving force in this will be the CIC. Perlman wants to make Nebraska a top research university. They are moving forward with plans to build an large innovation campus north of the current campus on the old state fair grounds by the Devaney Center. It’s a larger project that will in bring millions of dollars in research.
http://innovate.unl.edu/
LikeLike
That does it for me. I’ve always felt certain schools (like Nebraska) would be asked to “step it up” in the research department if invited to the Big10. If this project is already in the works (as it seems to be) I think the addition of Nebraska is a done deal.
LikeLike
Fan of: Iowa
My preferences seem to change almost daily. Initially, I hoped for ND. After reading Frank’s BTEI, I thought we were going to 14 w/ UT, TAMU & ND. After reading the 18 follow-ups & comments, I’d prefer NU, Pitt, SU, RU & UConn/MD.
* NU-marquis CFB brand
* Pitt-excellent despite their market/geographic issues
* SU-just b/c they don’t have A LOT of research doesn’t mean that tBT doesn’t value the DIVERSITY of their research vs. current BT members (thanks Omni), excellent MBB
* RU-for markets & recruiting
* UConn-they have A LOT of potential, they’ve come a long way in a short period of time; their MBB & WBB are top-notch; What if they become the “U of New England?”
(* MD)-they fit very well; good-great MBB & WBB
MU isn’t a bad fit, I just think adding CT instead gives us the tri-state around NYC, thus helping the BTN’s chances there. If it’s MD… well it’s not a bad thing to have a member institution so close to where many government contracts are handed out, right?
LikeLike
Maryland makes much better sense than Connecticut. AAU member, stronger academics, better all-around athletic program. Syracuse and Rutgers will give you metro NYC; Maryland will give you both Washington and Baltimore.
LikeLike
Frank–
Up until now you have remained admirably dispassionate about ND, recognizing the benefits to the Big Ten (and fairly pointing out potential economic upside to ND) while recognizing long-standing resistence to it among alumni. In this post, however, you lost that careful balance and, unfortunately, resorted to petulant insults.
Face it, joining the Big Ten is not, and never will be, the Holy Grail for ND. Moreover, your attempt to demean a hypothetical new landing place for ND’s non-football sports is simply dishonest. A “Catholic Big East,” while not quite to the current Big East standard, would still be a very respectable conference for the other sports. Indeed, the biggest threat, as I see it, would be if the Big Ten added hockey, thus gutting the CCHA. But there doesn’t even seem to be much threat of that at this point.
Finally, in the worst, worst case, if we got entirely squeezed out of any respectable conferences in non-football conferences AND couldn’t schedule any longer as an independent, one of these hypothetical forthcoming mega-conferences would inevitably have a spot for ND. I mean, if you get to 16+ in a conference, really, what’s one more? It’s not as if such a conference is really in any meaningful sense a conference anymore anyway.
LikeLike
Get thee to the ACC…..
LikeLike
Frank — petulant and dishonest? He must be a regular Fielding Yost.
You will have to explain “petulant” to him, however—remember, he’s an Illinois grad.
LikeLike
The ND mindset of “we can always join a conference later” is why the BT should only go to 14 if they truly want ND. Once the landscape starts shifting, and ND decides that it must join a conference, the BT would be the best option.
I would also point out though, that a “Catholic” Big East, without Syr, LVille, Pitt, etc, would be a notch below the majors in basketball (although clearly better than a mid-major.) Will ND fans stomach being in that conference?
LikeLike
The CYO league MIGHT be acceptable for basketball….no way it works for the program in other minor sports.
LikeLike
@ JC
ND fans would be happy to be in about any conference so long as the football team doesn’t have to join. The AD’s office may not be. I’m not seeing a problem with a Catholic BE/A10 league, outside of LAX.
@ ‘shroom’
why the heck not, especially when they finish poaching the A-10?
LikeLike
You are talking about an all-sports league with schools like Marquette, St. John’s, Xavier, Dayton et al?? If you have no problem with that, good for you.
LikeLike
Yeah. Sure it isn’t as sexy as the Big East, but it’s probably the best possible non-football conference in the NCAA for the foreseeable. Then again, I still don’t really follow the current Big East’s olympic sports.
CCHA 4 Life…or until there’s a BTHC and the CCHA ends up looking like the MAC….
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that any conference would want ND if approach by ND, but not sure that ND would get there first choice.
Notre Dames appeal from a financial perspective is based on the NY market and the overall national appeal. However, if the Big Ten takes Rutgers and/or Syracuse to get the BTN into NY, then this diminishes ND’s value to some extent regardless of what conference they would go to. For conferences with standard TV contracts, they may not be able to re-negiotate these contracts as effectively if the TV execs do not think that ND can bring NY in as it once could. As Swarbrick said, ND’s biggest bargaining chip, if they wanted to join a conference, is their NBC contract. But the longer that ND waits, the less value that they contract (currently till 2015) carries. And likely this contract will not be renewed if ND joins a conference, and certainly not at the amount that it currently is.
My point being that ND will find a home if they want to join a conference, but they might have to settle for less that what they could have. There is an opportunity cost that ND is passing by if they choose to remain independent at this juncture. Additionally, if ND waits until it can’t remain independent, they have lost a lot of negotiability as they will be dependent on joining rather than being proactive.
LikeLike
There’s an opportunity cost for everything. You are assuming that the BTN will be carried on basic cable in NYC. That’s a big assumption considering we’re talking about a network that is running FOUR HOURS of Northwestern Women’s Lax today (none of it live and the UVA game I’ve flipped thru twice and it wasn’t live either of those times), TWO HOURS of tape delayed IU rowing, and NINE HOURS of Ohio State Baseball (one live game against U of L, and the replay of the UM-OSU match-up *twice*) JUST TODAY.
The more I check out BTN the angrier I get thinking I’m paying money for this on basic.
You further assume that people will keep paying for BTN which is what allows the Big Ten to pay out to the individual schools as much as it does. BTW, today has more actual sports content on BTN than it does any other day for the rest of the week. ND apparently plans to be one of the last teams to join a conference in Football. For ND to join, you practically need four 16team superconfs. To make the Superconfs viable you need either the networks to pay significantly higher rights fees (unlikely given the economic climate) or for the conferences to get their own networks. You are assuming they will do this sooner rather than later, and that the cable situation will be similar to how it is now.
I still can’t believe I’m paying for BTN. There’s no way B10 will make any money on this if we ever go to an a la carte pricing unless they actually pay the money to get the HD cameras to all these olympic sports and/or get a every non-national B10 game live on the one channel. Not seeing that happening.
You are also assuming that the Big Ten Network will cause non-transplant New Yorkers to transfer their allegiance to either the Big Ten generally or Rutgers specifically. Considering that NYC is a known pro-sports town, this is another huge assumption.
Also included in that supposition is that ND will then be ignored by NYC, particularly it’s Catholic community. ND doesn’t need superfans to get eyeballs. It has relied for years on bandwagon and “they’re my second favorite team” fans. I don’t see how BTN hurts ND with either.
The next assumption is that one of these Superconfs either wouldn’t want ND or would force them in at worse terms than ND would get by joining now. I doubt that would be the case (I mean, what’s really to stop conferences with cable channels from going >16?). As for the NBC contract, it will rise and fall based on ND performance, the economy, and what the market will bear.
I see no downside to ND for waiting and seeing, especially given more realistic assumptions.
LikeLike
FLP,
You need to use a little progressive thinking. When tBT expands, they will have much more content to offer. This includes (but is not limited to); add’l CFB games, MBB, WBB, wrestling, rowing, field hockey (and hopefully a BT Hockey Conference & BT LAX conference)…
I/we understand that you don’t want ND to join tBT and that’s fine. I think some BT fans (myself included) have come to the conclusion that it may not be in our (tBT’s) best long-term interest to extend an invitation to ND.
So instead of attempting to degrade tBT &/ the BTN, please just say… “While we (ND) appreciate your interest in our institution (and our FB team), we will have to respectfully decline.”
LikeLike
@ Sportsman24
Progressive thinkning? Shoot, they’ve been on the air for almost three years now. They’re not reinventing the wheel here. We’ve got ESPN’s six or eight channels, Fox Sports, Fox Sports regional channels, various local sports channels, etc., so they’ve already got the blueprint. How hard can it be to get programming when you have student labor and paid-for equipment at what are supposed to be eleven of the finest Universities in the country with approximately 400,000 undergrads total? There’s a lot of filler on the channel. I don’t know if a mere 45% increase in schools is gonna help when it appears that there’s only enough live programming on a random May Tuesday to cover 3 of 24hrs.
I will continue to badmouth the Big Ten Network for two reasons.
1. I am merely a proud alum of ND. I am not in their pay, so I feel no obligation to be diplomatic for the Big Ten’s fan’s sake. You want diplomacy, look at ND’s turn-down from 1999. What was true then’s still true now.
2. The BTN stinks as TV. I’m a cable subscriber in Indiana and I resent having to pay for it at an increased rate when it should be on the Sports Premium tier at best. I will complain as long as I remain an unsatisfied customer. The BTN folks will either hafta drop the price I gotta pay, let me not have to pay it, or improve the product to ESPN2 levels.
LikeLike
FLP,
As you probably know, the premier BT games go to ABC/ESPN. The BTN gets the games that are not selected. When tBT expands, there will be more (and better) games available to the BTN. This will allow the BTN to increase the quality & quantity of their programming. This is especially true if tBT adds a Hockey &/ Lacrosse Conference.
I believe it is admiral that you are a fervent “fanatic” for your alma mater, as you should be. But, what does it say about your character? You seem to have to degrade other universities in order to build up your own? Is this indicative of all ND fans/alums?
LikeLike
It’s less than $10.00 a year for God’s sake. The content from August through March more than makes up for the dearth of programming April through July. This is a tempest in a teapot.
When JoePa mentioned the expansion should be looked at like a marriage and you better be ready to live with it for a long time for some reason I don’t think he was talking about Neb, Mizz, Kansas, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, BC, Texas, TAM.
LikeLike
@ Rick
If $10/yr is no biggie, can you send me a check?
😀
Kidding
The only part of a game I ever watched on BTN live was the 4th quarter of last year’s IU-EKU game when the Hoosiers needed luck to squeak one out against an FCS team. I had an uncle that went to Eastern for a little while in my defense.
If you want to watch it, great. I would rather have the ten bucks. I mean, that’s a sixer…y’know something I can actually use. 🙂
@ Sportsman24
Point of Fact: I have yet to degrade any Big Ten schools. I go out of my way not to, actually. You may miss that since I don’t bother expressing awe at the majesty that is the Big Ten. *shrug*
The Big Ten sponsors 25 total sports. Ohio State sponsors like 36. I’m sure other schools sponsor fewer sports, but there’s adequate games to cover. The problem is that the BTN is making no discernible effort to cover these games. This week, the BTN is showing maybe a half-dozen live events. I think. They listed the Iowa-PSU baseball game as live at least twice, and I don’t think it’s the only one. There may be only 4 games going all week on Big Ten campuses…but I sincerely doubt it.
I would be shocked if any B10 school lacked a TV journalism class. I know Fox can run a studio show. I don’t care if it’s just undergrads calling Varsity games. Come to think of it, that actually sounds pretty cool.
But if the BTN want to be a sports channel, they should ACTUALLY SHOW LIVE SPORTS. Now it’s like a cross between PBS and ESPN classic. The former I shouldn’t hafta pay for, the latter I choose not to.
I have no moral issue with taking the professionals of the BTN to task for providing bad product. I’d rather have my ten bucks than a year of BTN. Then again, I’m no B10 fan anymore.
LikeLike
@NDRox
You are 100% correct. The BTN needs to show live events and in different sports to truly be successful.
Thing is…its only been three years…I don’t even consider an investment in stocks a profit in that timeframe let alone some cashflow coming in from a fledgling tv network. Getting those sports (hockey, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, etc) is a necessity, but a necessity that’s going to have substantial up front costs that are totally dependent on on who the final members of the Big10 are.
Does it make much sense for PSU to upgrade its club hockey team to official NCAA team and outfit it with HD tv cameras if no other hockey schools join and the Big10 hockey schools remain in their other conferences? Should PSU outfit its lacrosse fields likewise if Syracuse or other mid-atlantic states with good programs don’t join?
Point being, I understand why some feet dragging on this front is happening. The Big10 is stockpiling $$$ and waiting for the new schools to commit with the argument that the BTN can put those schools programs (in second tier sports) on near national tv. Once they do commit, then they can spend the couple years worth of BTN profits on the infrastructure necessary to happen.
THEN you’ll see a truly “collegiate sport network” just as you describe (at least I damned well hope so!)
LikeLike
PSUGuy: Think you can send Rox $10 in the meantime or at least a case of Ponies?
LikeLike
Or 2 cases of Stoners for the suffering for that matter.
LikeLike
@PSUguy
That’s the thing, tho’, they apparently aren’t sitting on the money. They are giving it to the member institutions at a $22mil/school/year clip. If I’m an investor looking long-term with stock in a company putting out an inferior/shoddy product that could be rectified by investing in the production angle, I’d be angry if they the board was just handing out huge dividends instead of reinvesting. If you only have enough cameras and talent to cover three games a day, get some people and some equipment rather than showing re-ran games from a couple weeks ago.
If I was in the AD’s office at a B10 school, knowing that our olympic sports teams could be highlighted on basic cable every night throughout the Midwest half the year (fall and spring), I’d be livid with BTN showing re-re-re-runs. The BTN should be the hugest non-revenue recruiting tool ever and it is being completely wasted. Heck, as a college sports fan not even a Big Ten fan, I find that offensive.
If the money will eventually have to be invested anyway (which I would assume it will) doesn’t that mean the $22mil/school/yr we’re all assuming is totally malarkey?
I’m not anti-BTN, so much as I’m anti-BTN-stinking.
LikeLike
The BTN has to pay out the $$$ to its member schools, the member schools don’t have to spend the money…yet.
Its like this…me and my friends want to buy an island so we invest money in IBM to make enough money to buy it. After a couple years we make some nice profits on dividends, but we still haven’t made enough to buy our island. No biggey, we’re still saving.
PS-as an alumni of one of the Big10 universities I of course can spare $10 for NDRox to get the channel. I’m just smart enough not to waste $10 on those who wouldn’t appreciate the greatness of the channel!
LikeLike
“SU-just b/c they don’t have A LOT of research doesn’t mean that tBT doesn’t value the DIVERSITY of their research vs. current BT members (thanks Omni), excellent MBB”
Exactly. I think you take a bullet on SU’s research. In time, with Big Ten support, they will catch up to Northwestern’s numbers and they’ll be sister schools. And two of the best journalism schools in the country. I’ve worked for many consumer magazines in NYC, and there are a TON of SU alums in that industry. Keep that in mind when talking about “taking NYC.” An example: http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2009/12/should_syracuse_join_the_big_t.html
I think the SU admins really want to be in the Big Ten and will improve on anything needed to be a member.
The AD, Daryl Gross, is a USC guy (credited for bringing Pete Carrol in) and is hellbent on improving their athletics. He’s done an amazing job (besides the previous football couch) so far.
The chancellor, Nancy Cantor, has Big Ten ties as provost of Michigan and chancellor at Illinois. Don’t think she wants to compete with Northwestern?
If offered membership, I see an immediate announcement to expand or completely replace the Carrier Dome. With a complete rebuild, I see them playing a lot of games near NYC.
Now, if you want my mostly unbiased view, the Big Ten should not attempt a Northeast expansion strategy that doesn’t include at least 3 Big East teams. Just won’t work. Rutgers will not work alone. Picture Rutgers being a single BE expansion team. Looks a lot like BC in the ACC, doesn’t it? Then picture taking Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn. I really like UConn’s upside, but come on, can you really skip the entire state on NY to take them? Just doesn’t make sense. If you’re not going to take the state of NY, then don’t attempt a Northeast strategy. It’s that simple. Just go for the Big 12.
I think one problem most people are making when considering the NYC market is that it’s not so much the home team, but who is coming to town. A school like Rutgers would be an arm of the Big Ten. When Ohio State, or Michigan, or Penn Stage come to town, those school’s alums are going to take that roadtrip. I think this is a big reason why the BE basketball tournament works so well. All those alums are here in NYC. You just need an event to bring them out.
Notre Dame: I told my college roommate in the mid 90s that one day ND would be in the Big Ten. But seeing how opposed to joining the alums are, no way in hell should they be invited. *Especially* if they are manhandled into joining. They will complain for years and YEARS! Decades!
LikeLike
Fuzzy headed thinking Jeepers.
HTH is Syracuse ever going to catch up with NW in research funding? Syracuse is a liberal arts university, focusing on undergraduate studies. Does it have an engineering school? It has app. 5000 grad students. Pitt has 10000, NW 8000 or 9000. It has 1/10th NW’s endowment, and 400M less in research dollars.
As far as the CD goes, maybe, maybe not. I assume you’re talking about a new 60000 seat domed stadium. How much do those cost? Where is this private school with a small athletic budget going to get the $???
LikeLike
Mushroom, apparently you’re the fuzzy headed thinker here considering how often Syracuse is mentioned as an expansion candidate. Even being on the “magic” list of 5. Maybe you should stop being so closed-minded? Research isn’t the be-all end-all. There are no Penn State level candidates this time around. Try again. You’re just going to have to realize some sacrifices need to be made.
Now, the people who are against expansion completely (unless it’s ND or Texas), they have a valid argument.
LikeLike
And aren’t you an Indiana guy, mushroom? Why don’t you just admit you’re anti-Syracuse because you’re not looking forward to Syracuse giving Indiana yearly ass-whoopings as revenge for 1987. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not saying Syracuse has nothing going for it.
I was responding specifically to your response on the research issue, which was fuzzy-headed.
Syracuse would be by far the biggest departure from the BT norm if it’s included in the expansion. 10 years from now the BT would be wondering why they didn’t take U Conn, and Syracuse would wonder why it’s not in the ACC. It’s a bad fit.
LikeLike
Re “10 years from now the Big 10 would be wondering” why they took Syracuse.
Of course, 10 years from now the Big 10 could well be wondering why they didn’t connect the conference to major northeast universities instead of expanding to schools like Missouri and Kansas.
LikeLike
And Syracuse does, in fact, have an engineering program.
A non-scientific, lazy (it’s 2am) first link in google reveals:
Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs
Syracuse #78
(higher than UConn, Nebraska, and Missouri)
Engineering Specialties: Computer Engineering
Syracuse tied at #56
(higher than UConn, Missouri, and tied with Iowa)
Engineering Specialties: Mechanical
Syracuse tied at #73
(higher than Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska)
LikeLike
Just ignore Mushroomgod. He hates Syracuse in a way that can only be personal.
LikeLike
Actually, when expansion first came up, Syracuse seemed like a good candidate, and I was not an advocate of Pitt. However, study the matter for 10 minutes and you change your mind.
Amoung the “Feeble 5” expansion candidates, there are two areas of obvious excellence that can’t be duplicated by the other candidates. Nebraska has football prowess, a brand name, and an incredible fan base. Pitt is the 17th ranked research college in the country, behind only Wis, Mi, OSU,PSU, and Minn in the BT. These schools are an exspansion must if at least 2 schools are selected.
LikeLike
Re points of view (ezdozen)
Varying points of view are to be expected and desirable given relative interests, values and goals of posters.
However, when a poster on this board uses words like “crap”, “feeble”, “tundra” and other offensive terms to describe a highly ranked and respected university, it raises the questions about the “mind” and judgment of the poster.
Of course, when someone posts the same message a hundred or more times, that’s another clue as to the judgment of the poster.
LikeLike
Jeepers, I think that we all (for the most part) agree Syracuse is a great undergraduate school, the problem lies in the graduate programs / research & development. It appears that Syracuse may be in despite these issues. The CIC is very important to the Big Ten University presidents.
LikeLike
I think the Presidents know what is important to them, and the rest of us are sitting here trying to think about what grabs their attention.
The CIC is important to the Big 10. Well, what aspect of the Big 10 is NOT important to them?
Everything is just one factor.
LikeLike
I don’t think ND should be or will be “manhandled” into the Big 10. That’s bad PR for everybody.
I’ve said this proposal before, and despite about three weeks of “leaks”, nothing has changed my opinion.
The Big 10 Home Run.
Nebraska and Rutgers this summer.
Destabilized Big 12 gives Texas and aTm cover to flee. They are added next January.
ND begins to “leak” how much the Big 10 has “changed” now and is more “national” and isn’t so “regional” and that they’re considering joining the richest and “best” (arguably of course) conference in the nation. Five months later, Notre Dame joyfully joins (despite some groans by backwards thinking traditionalists), and the Big 10 joyfully welcomes them in. Good PR for everybody.
LikeLike
About a month ago, that theory was potentially viable. Since Swarbrick made that “force into a conference” comment at the BE tourney, he’s been backing off of it as hard as humanly possible. As fast as it happened I don’t even think it was alumni backlash. I think it was internal backlash among Swarbrick’s bosses.
Plus it assumes things about ND that just aren’t true. First, that there are non-traditionalist alums. Well, maybe among the grad students, but they often aren’t fans. Second, no one at ND can argue that merely adding Jersey and Great Plains state schools makes the B10 ‘national’ with a straight face. If ND goes to a conference at this point (after generations of pro-independence propaganda) it will be only if forced by circumstances and without any pleasure.
LikeLike
Oh, and since I forgot to mention it, I haven’t seen *anything* that leads me to believe that Texas wants any part of the Big Ten. They want their own network, something the Big Ten would never let them have.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts, FLP.
Adding the state of Texas (and in a sense, the corridor between Indiana and Texas also) certainly adds a ton of territory to our conference (almost doubled actually). While New Jersey isn’t a ton of land, it’s a ton of people, and a ton of those people are Catholic. So, spanning from Texas to the Atlantic Ocean (with some fingers into America’s largest city, New York) is more “national” than any conference is currently.
You state “without any pleasure” but it’s ridiculous to imagine that ND would put a positive spin on any move they made. Why would they become the Eeyore of college football? That’s a sure recipe to kill any momentum and popularity…”We’re Notre Dame! We used to be good and independent but now we’re forced to be in the richest conference in the nation and it sucks!” That’ll be a sweet PR campaign.
LikeLike
This is Scot S, here as DjinnDjinn. I tried to add a photo to my profile, but it didn’t work, so now I’m just left with a different name.
In any event, let’s look at this “national schedule” business a little more deeply, as the term is continually used without any examination of what it means.
From 2009 – 2016, Notre Dame played, or will play a total of 96 games. So that gives a reasonable sample.
Every year during this stretch they play Michigan and Purdue. So that means 16 total games between those schools in those eight years. Six out of eight years they play Michigan State. Wisconsin is tentatively scheduled twice. We’re now up to 24 games out of 96 are against teams currently in the Big Ten. That’s fully 25% of their schedule over those eight years.
In addition, every year they play Pitt (8 games). UConn is close behind (6 games). They play Syracuse, too (3 games). These are all Big East teams. Plus Missouri (1 game) is scheduled.
So, for those of you scoring at home, this means 42 out of 96 games are against Big Ten or Big Ten candidate schools. That’s 43.75% of their games. (I’m not counting Boston College in this group, though they have been discussed here as being a Big Ten candidate, because I don’t see them as a viable Big Ten candidate.)
Notre Dame has long-standing rivalry games with USC, Army, and Navy. Army didn’t appear on the schedule in 2009, but they’re there every other year. So let’s say Notre Dame plays each of these teams every year. (In joining the BT, Notre Dame could keep playing these teams if it wished. In fact, they could schedule another independent game.)
We’re now up to 65 games. This means 2/3 of Notre Dame’s schedule is made up of Big Ten schools, Big Ten candidates or long-standing rivalries.
So that leaves 31 games over eight years, or 3.875 games per year that are needed to be scheduled out of the Big Ten or future Big Ten footprint. These games, along with the rivalry games, are the “national schedule” continually talked about. So who has Notre Dame scheduled with those games?
There are several Pac Ten teams on Notre Dame’s schedule: Arizona State (2), Washington State (2), Stanford (4), Washington (1). It varies by year, but only Stanford had a winning record in 2009. And I’m not sure if any of these teams would be considered football powerhouses on a yearly basis.
There’s several games against the likes of Baylor, Tulsa, Western Michigan, Wake Forest, and Maryland. All had losing records in 2009, even in weak divisions, but again, this might vary by year. Again, though, there are no real football powers here. No Alabamas. No Ohio States. No Floridas.
And there are several games against Nevada, South Florida, Utah, and Boston College (2). Each of these schools had a winning record in 2009, though in other years they might be down. But looking at these teams objectively, it’s once again, it’s not like any are really top-rung football programs on a yearly basis. There’s no Auburns. No Penn States. No Georgia.
Correct me if you have a different opinion, but I’d go so far as saying that the only school scheduled that would be a game of high national interest would be against Oklahoma, which is scheduled twice during that stretch.
I can understand the appeal of wanting a “national schedule”, if that meant picking top-notch teams you wouldn’t get to play if you were in a conference. And Oklahoma fits that bill. But look through Notre Dame’s schedule over these eight years and look at it objectively. Baylor? Tulsa? Wake Forest? Nevada? South Florida? Washington State? Is going “national” for games like these really the preference of Notre Dame?
Is the domer really saying that geographic diversity (especially when most games are played in South Bend anyway) is more important that quality of opponent?
If Pitt were to join the Big Ten and Notre Dame lost them as a regular opponent, Notre Dame’s schedule would be even weaker.
Would domers really rather play these schools–plus Maryland, Arizona State and Western Michigan–instead of Iowa? Ohio State? Penn State? Wisconsin? Nebraska, if they join the BT? Missouri, if they join? Every one of these teams has a winning record 8 or 9 seasons out of ten. Every one of them has a legitimate chance at ending the season to be ranked. Is this true of Tulsa and Maryland? Of Wake Forest or Nevada? Of Washington State or Boston College?
Even Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois would give better competition than most of these “national schedule” teams Notre Dame prefers to schedule.
I think this whole “national schedule” idea that’s continually tossed out really needs to be kept in perspective. Because it doesn’t really equate to a top-quality schedule as implied by the Notre Dame grad. And it’s not as good a schedule as what they’d encounter in the Big Ten. It’s just an excuse to justify not wanting to join the Big Ten. Which is fine, but let’s call it what it is. Let’s not hold it out there like going “national” equates to a superior line up.
LikeLike
@ ATYCLB
Getting Texas, you might be able to make the argument. But you actually hafta get UT to do it. So far, Texas has expressed no interest in the B10. It seems to still be behind the BXII, Pac12, and maybe ahead of the SEC.
That is the spin they’d try to put on it, but I don’t see *anyone* buying it…especially not the alumni.
@ Scott S’s new handle
First, let’s acknowledge a truth: That 66.67% and 75% are greater than 43.75%
Depending on the # of conference games, if ND joined the Big Ten ND would have to play 8 or 9 games against other Big Ten teams. It’s an approx. 50% increase in games against the Big Ten footprint (read Midwest) at least.
Considering that Navy will be kept on the schedule regardless, and USC likely will as well, ND joining the Big Ten would lock either all but one or two games a year in perpetuity. For you percentage folks, that’s 91.67% and 83.33% respectively. Which really stinks when you are used to only having about 33.33% locked annually.
For comparison, let’s go with Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fortunate insofar as all of its rivalry games are in the B10. Currently they play 8 B10 games or 66.67% and they get four OOC games. Next year they go out to Vegas and bring SJSU (CA), ASU (AZ), and FCS Austin Peay (TN?) to Camp Randall. Not horrible exciting Nationally, I’m afraid. Future schedules I could find (2011, 2012) include Oregon State, UNLV, South Dakota (FCS), and NIU (MAC). Still not supersexy from a National football standpoint.
Scheduling suffered greatly under Kevin White. Still there’s no FCS schools on the schedule, unlike practically every B10 team. In a perfect world we’d all get dream match-ups every week. But here in reality, that’s not the case. Show me a team that plays top competition every week, and I’ll show you an NFL team.
Geography isn’t more important than team quality. But geography is still important. National doesn’t necessarily equate to a superior schedule every year, but it does equate to a more flexible one. Besides, superior schedules in college are rather a crapshoot. Who woulda thunk a decade ago that Michigan would miss bowl games?
Then again, just from the schools mentioned in your post, I notice that ND is playing teams from *every BCS conference* except for the SEC. Who does the SEC play outside of Dixie? Is their any one in the Big Ten who can say that they play 5 different BCS conference schools?
No.
Even on a bad schedule like 2010, ND plays 4 of the 6 (no SEC or BXII) and a MWC school.
Would Domers prefer to play a differing group of teams from power conferences around the country as opposed to playing Wisconsin, Minnesota, IU, and Illinois practically annually forever?
God, yes.
LikeLike
The national schedule thing mattered in the days before ESPN and national broadcast networks.
Nowadays, not so much.
If big name schools are playing, then people all around the country will watch.
Maybe it’s nostalgia or something, but actually having a geographically diverse schedule essentially doesn’t matter that much anymore. Sure, it’s a nice thing to have, but Notre Dame would grab the viewers regardless of where the games are. National schedules mattered when the brand was being built. Whether Notre Dame joins a league now is more of a pride factor.
LikeLike
FLP, I looked at eight years of Notre Dame’s opponents and reviewed them all in an attempt to be objective as to who you’re really playing.
In response, you attempt to dismiss the Big Ten by mentioning its weakest teams.
The point is that if you look objectively at Notre Dame’s so-called national schedule these days, at the end of the day, there are typically two challenging games–Michigan (most years) and USC. Maybe you add Pitt or Michigan State as a rung below.
Wisconsin plays its share of bottom-feeders, too, (as a cash grab), but we’re still playing high-quality teams like Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa–and likely soon, Nebraska. Not to mention, Michigan State and Missouri and Pitt if they join.
Even now, what you call the Big Ten’s “regional” schedule is certainly no weaker, and arguably stronger than the “national” schedule about which domers seem so proud. That’s my point.
If playing teams in 4 of 6 divisions is the ideal, regardless of their relative strength, then I agree, you’re doing great. I can see the appeal of playing a larger variety of teams. It’s just that objectively, I’m not sure it equates to being superior in actual quality.
LikeLike
@ zeek
It matters to ND alums nationwide that the Irish play a variety of teams also Nationwide. That it doesn’t matter to B10 fans who play 2/3 of their schedule in Conference, and most of the remaining games at home and about half of them against FCS and/or MAC teams neither surprises nor concerns me.
@ Djinn^2
And you continue to miss my point. I am not arguing that ND has the toughest schedule. I am arguing I’d much prefer ND’s nationalized schedule to the Big Ten schedule.
On the other hand, maybe I should argue that ND’s schedule is tougher. On the Indiana High School football board I check on during the season, they treat the Sagarin’s as practically gospel. What it predicts so often comes true apparently, it’s uncanny. Many there argue that the IHSAA should forgo to nation’s only all-in HS football playoff since no school outside the top half of the Sectional’s Sagarin ratings have won a sectional in the twenty-odd years of the all-in tourney. He does NCAA football, too, and they do rank SOS. I think I’ll check it out.
I don’t mean to dismiss the Big Ten merely by stating my preference. I’d rather play a large variety of schools than a small one. If I’m obliged to play approximately 4 games a year against the bottom half of a conference, I’d just as soon play those four games against teams from different conference than a single one. If I’m supposed to play 3 OOC bottom-feeders, I’d rather play teams in BCS conferences or at least the MWC or WAC than the MAC.
Just because the B10 is used to doing it one way doesn’t mean ND should prefer doing it like the Big Ten does.
LikeLike
Yeah I’m just saying that in terms of maintaining a national brand, it doesn’t matter whether you’re in conference or not. That much should be obvious considering that every other national brand is in a conference.
I don’t see Notre Dame joining a conference, but it doesn’t have much to do with its national ratings, which would be there regardless of where it is.
LikeLike
Personally, I’m not so sure about Sagarin. I thought Wisconsin handled Miami pretty well in their bowl game, yet Miami ended up ranked higher in the final rankings–just after the game. How does that work? I also question any ranking that gets down to the 100th decimal place.
In any event, using Sagarin’s numbers, by my calculations, the average BT team gets 79.6 points. That means the average BT team is slightly better than Auburn. (Which isn’t bad.)
As a comparison, Sagarin has Notre Dame at 75.31.
Notre Dame’s 2010 schedule clocks in with 72.99 points.
I’m only looking at one year, mind you, but it would appear that Big Ten opponents are, on average, stronger than the opponents Notre Dame chose to schedule at least next year.
How a BT school ranks in strength of schedule would depends upon what you put in as your OOC games. Wisconsin booking Austin Peay or Wofford, (I had to look up both to see where they even were) or Notre Dame booking Army or Western Michigan doesn’t help the average much.)
LikeLike
per USAToday.com, specifically the Sagarin pages at:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt01.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt02.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt03.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt05.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm
Here’s your Sagarin average Strength of Schedule Ranking for the Big Ten and ND.
1. ND 18.56
2. Michigan 28.78
3. Ohio State 34
4. PSU 40.33
5. Iowa 40.89
6. Illinois 41.67
7. MSU 43.11
8. Purdue 43.78
9. Northwestern 44.11
10. Wisconsin 45.67
11. Minnesota 50
12. Indiana 50.56
Considering how the SOS rankings shifted year to year, I think a lot of SOS depends on the how the teams are playing that year as opposed to the scheduling philosophy. I doubt there was a major scheduling philosophy change at Purdue between 2005 (the 15th toughest sched. in all Div. I) and 2006 (the 67th toughest).
That said, ND had the toughest schedules on average between 2001 and 2009 in “the current Big Ten footprint”. The lowest ranked schedule of the current decade was IU’s 2007 slate of FCS Indiana State, WMU, Akron, Illinois, Iowa, Minn., MSU, PSU, Wisc., BSU, Northwestern, Purdue, and Oklahoma State that the Hoosiers went 7-5 against. The only Nat’l ranked #1 SOS was ND’s 2003 slate of Wash. St., Mich., MSU, Purdue, Pitt, USC, BC, FSU, Navy, BYU, Stanford, ‘Cuse. The Irish unfortunately went 5-7.
Lemme guess, you see Navy, BYU, Stanford, and Syracuse, and see a weak schedule. The computer says you’re wrong.
More importantly, ND schedules are at the very least no worse than an average Big Ten schedule.
LikeLike
Arguing with FLP is a little bit like arguing with a rock, but yet I keep doing it. 🙂
I get it, all of the “national schedule” drum ND fans are beating. I do. Two points of clarification…
If Texas were to come to the Big 10, I would 100% expect silence between the parties. It would be a cataclysmic change to the NCAA landscape. The silence could mean there is no interest on either side. Or, the silence could mean everything. A merger of this size would require the utmost care and caution.
An expanded Big 10 schedule won’t look much like the current Big 10 schedule. “Playing Wisconsin and Indiana and Minnesota every year” (an Irish version of purgatory, I assume?) wouldn’t be the future of ND football. While pods vs. divisions vs. some-other-format isn’t clear yet, what IS clear is that you will have a dynamic schedule every year. ND would (ideally) have UM, MSU, and Purdue every year as part of Big 10 play. Then (if you allow my “home run” conference to be an outlandish possibility for the Big 10), the Irish would play 2 or 3 CFB giants each year (OSU, Texas, Texas A/M, Nebraska, or PSU) and 2 or 3 other average CFB programs each year as well (Iowa, Wiscy and others). Pencil in Navy and USC each year. Schedule Stanford or Arizona or Washington or BC or UNC or another “National” program every few years…grab a “national” cream puff (like Nevada or SDSU or UCF) for a home only game…and not only do you have a diverse schedule each season, still keeping many traditional rivalries. It’s not quite as bad as purgatory, if you ask me.
(Oh, and you’ll make tens of millions of dollars extra each year too. FWIW.)
LikeLike
You make an *excellent* point about UT-Austin. It would be in everyone’s best interest to keep that under wraps. However, it seems to be the blogs conventional wisdom that politically speaking Texas can’t leave without the BXII being on death’s door, and they gotta bring TAMU with them (since I guess TAMU won’t leave without Texas). I suppose to do that, you need some combination of Neb., KU, CU, Mizzou, and Oklahoma to leave. The Pac-10-12 is probably only interested in Colorado, Texas, and TAMU now. To get the SEC to expand, the B10 has to first go to 16. OU is not gonna fly as a B16 member. Nor is CU. The only way to flush/give cover to the UT/TAMU move is for the P12 to take Colorado and for the Big Ten to take two Neb., Kansas, and Mizzou.
Unless we’re wrong about Texas’ comfort in being the first domino…which is quite possible.
Anyway, back to your hypothetical. We’re adding ND, TX, TAMU, Neb., and Rutgers, right?
Hmmm.
There are 12 games. Two are set aside for Navy and Southern Cal, leaving 10. Of those ten, 8 will be conference games (possibly nine, but let’s not go there yet). Those eight will be divided among 15 teams unequally depending on who ends up in our pod/division. I doubt we’ll get a protected rivalry with Michigan, since they are already at two (OSU, MSU), correct? We may with Purdue, but I’d be among the rare alumni excited about that. We’d most likely end up with MSU and Purdue as protected rivalries if we aren’t placed with either of them in the pod. I haven’t been following the pods, but wouldn’t protected rivalries mess them all up?
For our remaining two OOC games, you’re proposing we’d rotate home and homes with Air Force, Army, Pitt and/or Syracuse, Washington, Stanford, Georgia Tech, Miami, BYU, Maryland, Baylor, Wake Forest, Oklahoma, ASU, UNC, Tennessee, FSU, BC, etc.?
Um, yeah. I’m still not psyched. Is it better than being stuck in a Western division in a Big Ten Plus Two? I guess. But I also guess it’s better being shot in the groin than in the face. Point is none of these sound like good options for the Irish.
I’m also still very suspicious of the claims of continued growth to the BTN and network contracts for the Big Ten. Will the economy improve more in the Rust Belt than the Sun Belt? Will the demographics of shift once more northward?
After noting BTN more since I started coming here, I don’t think it’s a super investment opportunity anymore. I don’t know if the money in 20-50yrs will be substantially better for ND than if we had just stayed Independent.
Then we can get to other problems like the cultural dissimilarities, the fact Ara warned us about how when he was at Northwestern they’d get outvoted 9-1, how they’d get about our having to be Catholic, but mostly how we’ve been doing it our way since 1842 and we’re OK with that.
LikeLike
re-posted without the links if it isn’t approved for posting.
per USAToday.com, specifically the Sagarin pages
Here’s your Sagarin average Strength of Schedule Ranking for the Big Ten and ND.
1. ND 18.56
2. Michigan 28.78
3. Ohio State 34
4. PSU 40.33
5. Iowa 40.89
6. Illinois 41.67
7. MSU 43.11
8. Purdue 43.78
9. Northwestern 44.11
10. Wisconsin 45.67
11. Minnesota 50
12. Indiana 50.56
Considering how the SOS rankings shifted year to year, I think a lot of SOS depends on the how the teams are playing that year as opposed to the scheduling philosophy. I doubt there was a major scheduling philosophy change at Purdue between 2005 (the 15th toughest sched. in all Div. I) and 2006 (the 67th toughest).
That said, ND had the toughest schedules on average between 2001 and 2009 in “the current Big Ten footprint”. The lowest ranked schedule of the current decade was IU’s 2007 slate of FCS Indiana State, WMU, Akron, Illinois, Iowa, Minn., MSU, PSU, Wisc., BSU, Northwestern, Purdue, and Oklahoma State that the Hoosiers went 7-5 against. The only Nat’l ranked #1 SOS was ND’s 2003 slate of Wash. St., Mich., MSU, Purdue, Pitt, USC, BC, FSU, Navy, BYU, Stanford, ‘Cuse. The Irish unfortunately went 5-7.
Lemme guess, you see Navy, BYU, Stanford, and Syracuse, and see a weak schedule. The computer says you’re wrong.
More importantly, ND schedules are at the very least no worse than an average Big Ten schedule.
LikeLike
FLP, we’re both right, but it doesn’t seem like it because we’re not exactly talking about the same thing. Here’s the deal…
The Big Ten teams, themselves, (Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, etc.) have an average strength that works out higher than Notre Dame’s schedule. (Look it up, yourself.) So if any team played nothing but Big Ten teams, you’d have a pretty tough schedule.
So if that’s true, why don’t the BT teams have a stronger strength of schedule. After all, we’re both using Sagarin’s numbers?
What lowers BT numbers is that, for the most part, the Big Ten teams schedule cream puffs for the OOC schedule. That’s what lowers the BT average SOS. (We’re talking the “mean”.) Like Wisconsin scheduling Austin Peay or Wofford. Their Sagarin numbers are exceedingly low. That’s the sort of thing that lowers the mean average.
That’s a point a lot of Wisconsin fans gripe about, actually, and I understand the complaint. However, there are several reasons BT teams do this.
First, the season that matters most in the Big Ten–to get to the Rose Bowl–is the Big Ten season. Cream puffs are scheduled as warm up games, to get the offense and defense in sync and ready for Big Ten play.
Second, the cream puffs are scheduled as home games. That means less wear and tear on the team for the BT season.
And third, the home game schedule means cash in the pocket.
So does Notre Dame have the strongest schedule? I’ll believe you if you say so. But if you toss out the cream puffs the BT plays as warm ups, the answer would be no. The Big Ten conference schedule is tougher than Notre Dame’s. (Again, this is what Sagarin’s numbers say.)
The point I was making, however, (feel free to read my original post) is that complaining that a BT schedule is “weak” is disingenuous. If Notre Dame were in the Big Ten, their conference games would be, on average, better than Notre Dame’s current schedule. And all they’d have to do is keep a reasonable out-of-conference schedule and you’d have a stronger schedule than you have at present. For example, maintain your current rivalries with USC, Navy and another reasonable school like, say Pitt or Boston College. Then you’d have a SOS stronger than you’re generating at present.
What would lower Notre Dame’s average SOS would be if Notre Dame took the same approach as the current Big Ten teams and scheduled cream puffs before conference play.
In other words, joining the BT conference wouldn’t make your schedule weaker than your “national” schedule–it would make it stronger–depending upon what is scheduled for the OOC games.
LikeLike
@ zeek
It’s cute how you Big Ten fans believe that your teams are “national brands”. AFAIK, there is only one “national brand” and that is ND. Show me non alumni family fans outside the footprint that aren’t full-fledged bandwagon jumpers, and we’ll talk. P.S. Merchandizing #s don’t count, too many gang-based purchases to screw-up the #s.
Djinn^2
The issue you and I are having basically derives from the fact neither of us are actually arguing against the other one. I’m arguing against people who say ND plays a weak schedule. You’re arguing against people who say ND’s schedule is stronger than all Big Ten teams. I’d agree we’re both right.
Far be it from me to criticize anyone’s scheduling practices…except K-State when they first got good. I won’t even question that rancid IU schedule I mentioned previously. If I was IU’s AD and I had a good coach and a Big Ten schedule without UM and OSU, I’d have done the same thing. The Big Ten has been putting their OOC schedules together for a century. I’d hope they’d have it down to a science.
Taking a closer look at the Sagarins listed above, I noticed a half-dozen B10 national top 10 ranked schedules in that nine years. Looking at their OOC games, I question your assertion that the cream-puff portion of the schedule was what was holding down the SOS.
2001 PSU OOC – Miami, So. Miss., Virginia (Miami ended up #1, Virginia was rebuilding, and So. Miss was a decent non-BCS squad).
2002 Mich OOC- Wash., Utah, WMU, ND.
2004
UM OOC – Miami (OH), SDSU, ND
OSU OOC – Cincy, Marshall, NCSU
UI OOC – FAMU, UCLA, WMU
NU OOC – TCU, Az St, Kansas.
Or, as I see it, typical OOC type games for the respective teams. What made those schedules so much tougher those years? Better Big Ten teams.
You are the first to mention weak re this while taking me to task for pointing out Big Ten teams that I as an ND far weren’t enthused about playing.
Better question is why ND would necessarily want an even stronger SOS than currently. Since our schedule is currently tougher top to bottom than the typical B10 team, as you already mentioned.
By the grace of God, ND has no conference championship to play for. We play our games for the purpose of winning a NC. Failing that, of playing in a BCS game. Anything else is considered failure. That’s why ND schedules the way it does. Or at least that’s the goal.
LikeLike
If tBT selected the five schools that I prefer (right now), I’d set up the sub-divisions something like…
West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
South: IL, IU, NW & OSU
North: UM, MSU, PU & SU*
East: CT*, PSU, Pitt* & RU*
* = New Member
The Protected Games would look something like (N vs.S & W vs. E)…
IA vs. PSU
MN vs. CT
NU vs. RU
WI vs. Pitt
UM vs. OSU
MSU vs. IL
PU vs. IU
SU vs. NW
What can I say, I’d like to see Iowa play PSU annually. Besides, by having NU/RU as a Protected Game (instead of NU/PSU), is another marquis name visiting NJ/NY every other year and thus, another marketing opportunity for tBT.
LikeLike
Except the protected games are totally contrived for almost everyone, for the whole sake of putting Mich and OSU in separate pods. I think the best option is Mich and OSU in the same pod. Much smoother schedule for everyone (if you go to 9 games).
LikeLike
To me, NU sounds like Northwestern University.
For clarity sake, I think we should refer to Nebraska as UN (the University of Nebraska) or UNL (the University of Nebraska Lincoln).
LikeLike
As far as I know, Nebraska is not known as UN. Its either NU or UNL.
LikeLike
Northwestern was NWU till like 5-7 years ago when they launched the whole rebranding effort to NU (and people jokingly wanted the university named John Evans University).
LikeLike
Uh, no, Northwestern was NU back when I was there (mid-’90’s), and I believe it’s been NU since forever. We wouldn’t have this problem if the old Big8 schools knew the initials to their schools.
LikeLike
@Richard – Ha! Seriously, can someone explain why the old Big 8 schools juxtapose their initials?
LikeLike
@Frank – I’ve tried to ask some OU grads about that, and they just look at me funny. They really don’t like it when you call them Oklahoma University. At least Missouri keeps it simple with just the M. The “State” schools all get it right, but no one cares.
LikeLike
This still sounds like a bluff to get Notre Dame to cave in and join the Big Ten.
Nebraska ought to be the first choice if ND still says no.
No to Rutgers, no to Syracuse. Either one or both would be a mistake for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
re: mushroomgod (on May 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm)
I think they question about SU is, do they want to stay relatively the same or become more like NW? If the answer is to be NW-like, then I think they should get an invite, as I believe they can achieve that goal (especially with the add’l resources that come w/ BT membership).
As far as UConn not being an AAU member… Don’t you think that 15 of 63 members lobbying for them to receive an invite would help?
LikeLike
Yes on U Conn being in the AAU within 5 years….
As far as Syracuse becoming more like NW, see my response above. Not going to happen. Silly to think that it will.
As to your teams, no way Missouri gets left out if there’s a 5 team exspansion.
LikeLike
you need 3/4ths of the current members to vote for an invite after a lengthy 2 phase evaluation process of meeting membership principles and indicators.
LikeLike
70%, not 3/4ths, is what we’ve been told.
LikeLike
here’s the link from the AAU site
http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=4020
maybe you were thinking about the Big Ten Conference vote which appears to be 70%
LikeLike
You are correct. I’m sleep deprived.
LikeLike
New quotes from Tom Osborne on expansion:
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/04/football/doc4bdf926c39995040840910.txt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Really, until these conferences make up their minds what they want to do, and start making offers one way or another, it’s hard to assess the landscape,” Osborne said. “You just don’t know for sure what they’re thinking. And, obviously, they have not called us, and they have not informed us what they’re thinking.
“It’s not that we’re just sitting here not doing anything,” he added. “But you can’t all of a sudden begin to make a lot of phone calls to people when you don’t even know what the parameters are.”
And if the Big Ten made an overture to Nebraska?
“We have to listen to anything,” he said, reiterating his past comments. “Because, if it looks like the Big 12 is going to take a real big hit, and lose two or three or four teams, then you’d have to take a look. If, on the other hand, it looks like the Big 12 is staying intact, then that’s another issue.
“There’s no way anybody at this point can know.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perlman stated that the Big Ten hasn’t contacted them, as well, but he did refuse to answer whether or not Nebraska has contacted them. So it sounds like Nebraska is being proactive behind the scenes, but the Big Ten is sticking with their time table and Delany’s promise to inform the conferences before they open talks with a school.
LikeLike
I found this part telling:
In exactly a month, the Big 12 Conference board of directors will vote whether to keep the league’s football title game at Cowboys Stadium through 2013, or continue to rotate the site.
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, in a radio interview last week on the Husker Sports Network, sounded inclined toward keeping the game in suburban Dallas.
“Look, the fact of the matter is, we have the facility in this region of the country that is the best in the world right now, that is also in a recruiting hotbed for all of our programs,” he said. “So, I think our members so far feel like, why would we move away from such a tremendous facility?”
Um, not quite all members feel that way.
Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told me Monday that Big 12 athletic directors voted on the issue in March at the request of Beebe, perhaps as a way for the commissioner to test the waters.
“The vote, as I recall, was 11-1 to return to Texas and to give them a three-year contract,” Osborne said.
Hmmm, I keep hearing from Shatel and NE fans how the North feels enslaved to UT’s interests and how they can’t wait to bolt from such oppression, how UT gets its way regardless of the North teams preferences. They often point to the championship game being in Dallas twice in a row (Oh, the humanity!) as exhibit A in how unfair life is and how the North is ignored. But an 11-1 vote for a 3-year extension doesn’t exactly support that portrayal, seems more like a NE issue than a North one. The conference didn’t have any trouble voting against Texas on the tiebreaker, so it is hard to believe that they were strong-armed into voting for multi-years at JerryWorld. Maybe it was simply the best money-maker. 11-1 ain’t close to 7-5.
While NE has plenty of good points, I think the more they squawk and the more the B10+ reads and hears them, the more the latter starts to see a a bit of pouty, high-maintenance attitude. Some may start to wonder if the statement about the conference looking for good partners for 30-years, not just the moment, might be referencing NE’s complaining nature.
Recall that iconic internet picture of the gorgeous chick and the caption, “No matter how hot she is, someone, somewhere is sick of her sh!t.”
LikeLike
Well said. And something on which we can agree. 🙂
LikeLike
Re Osborne interview (Scott C)
Interesting article since Osborne has a reputation of being honest in what he chooses to say.
So while many schools are a possibility, appears no one really knows what the package might be perhaps because the Big 10 may not have decided on one.
LikeLike
subscribing
LikeLike
My weekly “gut feeling” update. I still think that Texas, A &M, and Marlyand are all off the table.
Four of these 5 get in. Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri and either Pitt or Syracuse.
The break up of the BE is still the ultimate play for ND. My gut is that they will join. I don’t know if it is wishful thinking or not.
I still have a preference for all 3 Eastern teams. I understand those who have a preference for the midwestern teams. We all speak from our own biases.
I hope that we know something by June 30.
LikeLike
With all due respect to ND, I don’t think they would be a good long-term fit in tBT. They don’t seem like they’ll ever fit in culturally or grad/research-wise. At this point, I think ND would be a better fit in the ACC (if Independence is no longer an option).
As far as UT &/ TAMU… I think they’d be great long-term additions, but IDK how well they’ll fit in, in the short-term. The SWC & B12 were set up fundamentally different than the “all for one & one for all” mentallity of tBT. I believe they can do it, I just question how long it may take. What do you think, Hopkins, Playoffs, et al?
LikeLike
Sportsman, I’ve seen a few posters around here express a concern that Texas wouldn’t be a good fit because of its not having this same sort of ‘all for one and one for all” attitude which schools in the Big 10 have.
Aside from the self-admittedly feelings of bitterness many Husker fans have about not being the power they once were and complaining about such minor things as the location of the conference HQ, I think the main area of concern for Big 10 fans as to whether Texas would be a “team player” would be the unequal revenue distribution of the Big XII.
My response to that is this: if Texas were to join the Big XII, I would believe that a meeting of the minds would have to have occurred on the issues of revenue sharing and television rights before such a merger were agreed to. All parties involved will reach an agreement which everyone can live with. And if Texas did join the Big 10, I would assume that such an agreement would be very close, if not identical to, what the Big 10 has in place already.
If Texas doesn’t express a willingness to play by Big 10 rules, I don’t think there’s any chance they’d get an invite.
Remember a key difference here and what happened with the Big XII: in today’s situation, Texas would be joining an existing conference. In the 1990s, all eight schools of the Big 8 and four schools of the SWC left their respective conferences to form a completely new conference (i.e. it was not Texas joining the Big 8 and then demanding all of its rules be changed to fit its needs). Being a new conference, all conference rules, including revenue distribution, needed to be determined.
So it won’t be a case of having Texas join the Big 10 and then working out after the fact that Texas doesn’t want to play by the rules.
Now it very well could be the case that Texas in fact doesn’t want to play by Big 10 rules, and that’s what’s caused the mating dance so many of us foresaw not to happen.
In sum: if Texas joined the Big 10, I wouldn’t worry about Texas not being a “team player.”
LikeLike
The problem I personally have with Texas is that of all the possible Big Ten expansion schools, they seem the most likely to leave the Big Ten when a better offer comes years down the road. I could easily see this happening.
LikeLike
In theory, I can see where you’re coming from, but in practice, it’s hard for me to imagine what that better offer could ever possibly be unless collegiate sports evolves to the point at which independence is a much more viable option than it is today. Or 50 to 100 years down the road at a point at which transportation has evolved to the point at which one could travel coast to coast in an hour and geographic proximity means less than it even means today.
LikeLike
And even then you’d need the “better offer” to not only offer better $$$ but also better academics. A tough combo to pull off.
LikeLike
A better reason to be wary of Texas leaving the B10 than unequal revenue sharing is their decision to block the B12 TV network plan. Texas is now looking at starting their own TV network, which they would not need to share revenue with any other teams. Not a very “one for all” decision. I think that’s the straw that ultimately is going to break the B12.
LikeLike
RedDenver, I would put that in the very same category of issues which would be worked out in advance if Texas were to join the Big 10, so I wouldn’t have that as a reason not to invite Texas.
LikeLike
Agreed. But it’s still riskier than Mizzou or Pitt who are extremely unlikely to ever leave the B10.
LikeLike
RedDenver, but all you’re saying is that a bigger brand name school is more likely to be able to leave than a smaller school.
In terms of actual risk to leave, sure it’s higher for Texas than it would be for anyone in the league, but there won’t be a reason to leave until/unless population densities change massively, which isn’t going to be on the horizon for many decades.
It really is not worth considering as a part of the decision making process.
The people making these decisions won’t be making it based on some kind of black swan event in which the Pac-10 or SEC somehow becomes so attractive that it’d be able to grab Texas away from the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Can one of the Big 10 commenters on this board answer me this:
I understand why some might question whether Texas would be a good member of the Big 10, given what they’ve read of the turmoil of the Big XII. Questions like that should be raised of any perspective member school.
So why aren’t people raising similar questions abut whether Nebraska would be a good fit? It seems pretty clear to me that Nebraska’s administrators and fanbase are just a wee bit sensitive when things don’t go their way. It seems to me that it would be very helpful to raise similar questions about Nebraska as to whether they’d be a good fit for the “all for one, one for all attitude” of the Big 10, or rather there would be continued public bitchiness when they lose a vote or a close game.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
Idk if this fair or not, but UT gets a lot of grief for many of the problems w/i the B12. If the CCG is in TX, then it’s UT’s fault. If there’s unequal revenue-sharing, it’s UT’s fault. If the B12 HQ is in TX, it’s UT’s fault. And so on… While I don’t think this is fair (or accurate), UT doesn’t seem to say very much. Because of this, perception becomes reality to the general public and UT then becomes the scapegoat for the inner-conference turmoil (when really their problems start w/ population density disadvantages).
However, UT blocking a B12 Network seems like a strong intimation that it views itself as above it’s own conference.
As far as NU is concerned, they’ve been knocked down a few rungs (from their power in tB8 to their power in tB12), so it’s assumed they could/would assimilate more fluidly into tBT.
LikeLike
The Big 12 wasn’t founded on “all for one, one for all,” so taking Nebraska to task for looking out for its own interests — as UT certainly has over the life of the conference — seems hypocritical. I’ll gladly admit that Nebraska hasn’t been rowing in the same direction as the rest of the schools, which appears from Nebraska’s perspective to be “whichever way Austin tells us to.”
Your perspective appears to be that the Big 12 was a new conference.
Nebraska’s perspective is more like “we invited them when they needed a new home as they blew their conference up, and they’ve been running it ever since.” Recall that all the Big 8 schools joined, whereas there were only 4 of the formerly 9 SWC schools, and two of them were tagalongs forced by Texas politics.
You can contend that’s not reality, but it is the perpective that I suspect many Nebraskans — and fans of other former Big 8 schools — share. If Nebraska is joining a conference like the Big 10, I’m sure there’s going to be a pretty non-negotiable set of terms and conditions that Nebraska will have to agree too, just like Texas would. And I suspect Nebraska’s administration would have less of a problem with them than would Texas’.
Here’s a different way of looking at it — what did Texas give up when it joined the Big 12? Anything of value or history? (Both conference’s history was washed out, so both lost there.) Nebraska ended up losing the NU/OU game. Nebraska also lost its edge on recruiting and educating partial qualifiers. Please, explain to me when Texas hasn’t gotten what they’ve wanted since the birth of the conference.
LikeLike
@Albino:
If Nebraska is joining a conference like the Big 10, I’m sure there’s going to be a pretty non-negotiable set of terms and conditions that Nebraska will have to agree too, just like Texas would. And I suspect Nebraska’s administration would have less of a problem with them than would Texas’.
I think that concern goes more towards the likelihood of joining the conference than how the schools would behave once admitted.
LikeLike
I don’t know why people are questioning whether Texas would be a team player but not Nebraska. Personally, I question neither for one reason…
The fact of the matter is that they’re in a conference built on convenience, not a conference built on an “all for one and one for all” mentality.
I would expect Nebraska and Texas to act in their own interests in the Big 12 but be willing to become team players if they’re asked to join the Big Ten and decide to accept.
Anyone who’s not acting in their own interest in a league like the Big 12 is foolish.
Nebraska is one of the 4 teams that votes along with Texas to keep unequal revenue sharing in the Big 12. That’s just proof that people will act in their own interests if they’re in that kind of situation.
Notre Dame does a similar thing with respect to the Big East.
BUT, I would fully expect Michigan or Ohio State or Penn State to do the same thing if they were in the Big East or Big 12.
The Big Ten schools treat the Big Ten differently than Big East or Big 12 schools treat their conferences. Once Nebraska or Texas or whomever becomes a Big Ten school, I would expect them to act just as Penn State did and act in the best interests of the conference, etc.
LikeLike
I don’t believe Texas A&M has much interest in B10 membership and it is highly unlikely, under any scenario, A&M will end up in the conference. This certainly is not a knock on the B10 schools or the quality of the conference but the cultural differences and travel are obstacles are too severe to overcome.
Texas A&M has had serious conversations with the SEC in the past and once the next phase of conference realignment begins, look for Texas A&M to land in the SEC. A number of schools in the SEC West are in favor of the move and are working hard to get approval for the conference invitation. Texas may or may not come along but that decision is unlikely to impact A&M’s move to the SEC.
LikeLike
@AggieFrank
I agree. Personally I think when the next phase begins, A&M will be in the SEC, and Texas in the Pac-10. I think a deal will be made to split between the conferences. I think OU will also join the SEC.
LikeLike
Redhawk,
I doubt very seriously that the SEC strikes a deal with the Pac 10 to split TX & OK. First off, that is a pretty one sided deal with TX being the more desired team. Now I think that it could end up with TX going to the Pac 10 and OK (and maybe TX A&M) going to the SEC. But it won’t be because the two conference struck up a deal to split them. JMHO
LikeLike
AggieFrank,
From everything I’ve read or heard, it seems that both TX A&M and Oklahoma would prefer to go the SEC if the Big 12 suffers huge loses. If those two schools do decide to jump to the SEC, then the question for TX comes down to whether or not they want to continue to keep their rivalries with those schools and allow their fan base to continue to travel with ease to away games; or whether they would prefer to join the preceived better academic schools in the Pac 10 where their fan base will have a harder time traveling to away games and where it will be a lot harder to form decent rivalries and would probably make less money and have less tv exposure since most of their away games will be played in the Pacific time zone. As most people have said, this decision will be made by the university presidents and not the athletic directors, so the academic standards may weigh more heavily than the normal fans would think. It should be interesting to see what TX does if this situation arises.
LikeLike
AggieFrank, I appreciate your thoughts and I can see where you may wish to personally become a member of the the SEC. I too believe that we would have an immediate and wonderful rivalry with LSU and we already have a series with Arkansas at Jerry World for a number of years. Myself and a number of my acquaintances think that membership in the Big Ten is the best for Texas A&M’s future. Athletics being the least of the reasons to join. Combined political power for obtaining research grants, the CIC sharing of education, emphasis on graduation studies and the sharing opportunities therein, not to mention just the thought of membership in a conference of higher educational standards and morality toward recruiting. I think the leaders of our wonderful University recognize that the Big Ten would and should be A&M’s first choice. From a purely athletic point, well, you can’t beat the money in the Big Ten. I would hope that Texas and A&M both accept membership if and when an invitation may be tendered.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn (on May 4, 2010 at 9:51 am)
Thank you for your insight. While I was/am aware that the B12 was a merger of the SWC & B8, I’m not sure of the mindset of UT. If what you say is true, then it helps alleviate one of my concerns.
Jeepers (on May 4, 2010 at 10:00 am) & RedDenver (on May 4, 2010 at 10:09 am)
These are a couple more of my concerns regarding UT & TAMU.
(I’m using my phone & cannot put these comments where they should be.)
LikeLike
Thanks. I guess my main point is that, if Texas really is as selfish an SOB as some fear it could be, it won’t ever come anywhere close to UT receiving an invitation to the Big 10, so the “team player” issue won’t be an issue.
I think Zeek sums it up best above: Texas and Nebraska are behaving in the same way virtually any other school in their present situation would behave.
LikeLike
Yeah I don’t really know where these comments are coming from as to the risk of Texas up and leaving soon after joining.
Texas joining the Big Ten would put it way ahead of any of the other conferences in terms of size and scope, and there probably wouldn’t be a reason to leave until the population densities moved more southwest… but that’s talking 50-75 years away from now.
For the next 30 years (and presumably as far as one can see), Texas would be as loyal a trooper as any other school if it were to join. I don’t see any tangible issue that would make me think otherwise.
The worry about risk of leaving or rocking the boat seems entirely misplaced. Once a school joins the Big Ten at this point, there’s not going to be a reason to leave anywhere on the horizon.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting view on why the Huskers have such good traveling fans (hopefully this links):
http://bigrednetwork.com/archives/2010/05/nebraska_might_go_to_the_big_1.html
As a Husker fan living outside Nebraska, I can attest that there are many Husker fans all over the US.
LikeLike
That’s probably the most exciting thing that Nebraska brings to the table.
Nebraska has the potential to make as big a splash in the Big Ten for football as Penn State did just based on the fact that it has one of the most intense fanbases in the country. It still amazes that they got 80,000 at a spring game that they charged $10…; that in itself is mindboggling.
LikeLike
@Zeek: That’s what bigtime programs do, and Nebraska is a bigtime program. Ohio State drew 95k last year and 65k this year (rain killed attendance) charging $5-10 as well.
As a Big Ten fan it’s an exciting proposition to bring a school like Nebraska, with their passionate fanbase, into the conference. It enhances the conference to add another big program like this.
LikeLike
Ok, let’s say it is a 5 team expansion by the BigTen to go to 16 teams (Which I think is the most likely scenario at this point).
The SEC will follow suit by adding 4 teams to get to 16 as well. The big question is which 4 teams. They could go after 4 Texas Schools, or 4 other Southern teams from the ACC. I don’t think the Texas Administration is thrilled with SEC academics, so I kind of doubt the SEC goes West. I think they kill the “little brother” in their own backyard and take 3 or 4 from the ACC. Perhaps Duke and North Carolina to sure up the SEC in Basketball. Perhaps Florida State or Miami. Perhaps Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Or some combination.
That leaves the the ACC reeling … and sitting at 8 schools. I think the ACC can rebuild back to 12 by grabbing 3 or 4 from the remnants of the BigEast (USF in particular to keep a strong Florida presence). BUT, I really DON’T see the ACC being able to rebuild up to 16 teams to match the SEC and BigTen.
Which leads to a very interesting battle to the death between the BigXII and the PAC. In the end, I think this looks somewhat like a merger of the BigXII and the PAC to form the third and final 16 team supermegaconference. You get the core 6 or 7 PAC teams (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, ASU, AU) and the Core 6 or 7 BigXII remnants (Texas, TA&M, TTech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado) to for the core of the new “Everything west of the Mississippi” Conference. Those core 12 or so teams add in 4 more schools from the PAC / BigXII / MWC / WAC (Probably Washington and Oregon, maybe BYU, Utah, Baylor, OkState). That will be a very very political decisions (perhaps the Texas Legislature forces Baylor, or Oklahoma forces OkState or whatever).
So, in the end, you end up (in Football) with a “consolidation of power and money through expansion”. In the end, the Elite BCS football money is divided up between 48 schools (down from the current ~65ish), which means everyone gets a slightly larger slice overall.
AND, the remnants of all this end up forming 3 POWER Basketball conferences, that have varying numbers of football schools as well. The BigEast focuses on Basketball, and basically drops out of the football club … maybe two or three BE teams also play football as independents. The ACC reforms itself focusing primarily on their Basketball History. They rebuild with teams like Memphis and Syracuse and UConn that have great Basketball tradition. And the leftovers from the BigXII/PAC merger come together with the top of the MWC and the WAC to form a power basketball conference for west of the Mississippi. This has Kansas State, Iowa State, Washington State, Oregon State, BYU, Utah, New Mexico (good basketball program), Baylor, TCU, and perhaps schools like Gonzaga and St. Mary’s that don’t even play football.
End Result ….
48 ELITE Football programs in 3 SuperMegaConferences of 16 teams that get most or all of the BCS slots (each Conference gets 2 AQ teams into the BCS for each Division Champ, and can have one more at large bid as well)
96 POWER basketball programs in the 3 SuperMegaConferences and 3 or 4 Power conferences in Basketball of 12 to 16 teams. These conferences completely dominate the new NCAA tourney selection process, and have a BCS football arrangement similar to the MWC/WAC now … a champ with a ranking above 12 gets into the BCS, but not automatically if less than 12.
LikeLike
Most people have focused on Oklahoma and Florida State as being the targets of the SEC along with possibly Clemson and Texas Tech or Oklahoma State.
I don’t see the ACC getting raided for 4, that would be too redundant for the SEC’s footprint. Granted they don’t have a TV network yet, but they’d probably aim for Oklahoma and Texas or if Texas refuses, then Texas Tech.
LikeLike
I would prefer a TBD game instead of the 1 stable rival game. Have each pod play its own every year, and then rotate one of the other pods each year. Use the last game to match up teams based on records in the following way:
1 vs. 4 – mini semi 1
2 vs. 3 – mini semi 2
5 vs. 6
7 vs. 8
9 vs. 10
11 vs. 12
13 vs. 14
15 vs. 16
Then have the winners of mini semi games play each other in the conference championship game.
LikeLike
Reading about the possibility of adding Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse. I read that this expansion is fueled by academic and athletic goals, as well as “feeding the beast” of the BTN.
I am interested in the academic side. Currently there are 11 members and then the Big Ten +1 expands to the Big Ten +6. How does this improve the Big Ten + 1? I have no doubt that the expansion will aid the “recently added five” in their marketing efforts to attract students. But for the original eleven, what specific academic benefits do you forecast in terms of:
1. Undegraduate education: will the quality or number of undergraduates improve for the B10 + 1 by expanding to a B10 + 6? How?
2. Graduate education: How does a current graduate program leverage this expansion to improve the quality of their current programs? More opportunities for collaboration? Are the current grad programs in the Big 10+1 hurting for potential collaborators?
Will research dollars be pooled and leveraged in a way that the current group cannot pool? How much?
3. Faculty: will more qualified faculty be attracted to a department that is part of a Big 10+6 who were not attracted to the Big 10+1? Really?
What are the specific academic benefits that the posters expect to accrue to the Big Ten’s original 11 members as a result of an expansion to 16. Or to be crass — five years after the expansion occurs, how will the perceived value of a degree received from one of the original 11 in the new Big 16 be enhanced?
LikeLike
To be entirely honest, I see most of the positive impact going towards the schools joining rather than the original 11. That’s probably my view unless Maryland is somehow brought in because Maryland has a closer relationship to the federal agencies than any Big 10 school and that’s very important for the research money.
For undergraduate education, there probably won’t be much of a quality impact. I don’t think number really matters, anyone looking at a student coming out of a school looks at the school individually.
For graduate education, I would imagine that Nebraska, Rutgers, and Pitt will probably be able to pull their weight in terms of adding their research facilities to what’s already in the Big 10.
As for faculty, most of the benefit would go to the new schools being in the CIC and being able to offer when recruiting potential faculty.
All of these schools compete for the prestigious researchers in any case, the ones that may develop something that will pay off for the school; like the Lyrica drug that paid off handsomely for Northwestern, etc.
To be brutally honest, most of the benefits will go to the joining members unless we somehow bring along Maryland.
(I say this having done ug (as has 90% of the board ofc, and grad school at Big Ten schools).
LikeLike
@zeek – There could also be more of an intangible benefit for the current schools to the extent there really is an “East Coast bias” in higher education and the Big Ten establishes itself in that region. While schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State and Northwestern typically receive notice from people on the East Coast (and to a lesser extent, Indiana much more lately specifically for the Kelly business school), the rest of the schools lack exposure in that area. The average high schooler in the NYC area likely thinks that Illinois is closer to Kansas State than UVA in terms of academics (as wrong as that may be). For better or worse, perception in higher education is driven by the East Coast (and in the New York area specifically), much like the media in general. I’m not sure if adding schools like Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt really can change it that much, but it’s likely a factor on the academic side and why the university presidents probably favor adding at least a couple of Eastern schools instead of a pure Western expansion (which some have suggested here as that would be more attractive from the sports perspective). Right now, the Big Ten academic “brand” is “big-time research schools with big-time sports programs in the Midwest” (notwithstanding the presence of Penn State). Adding Eastern schools would alter that brand into “big-time research schools with big-time sports programs in the North”.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s probably the strongest argument for Syracuse right there. Just getting the Big Ten into the NY consciousness would be quite the victory for its academics as a whole.
That also is probably why they don’t care that Notre Dame isn’t an AAU member (ignoring the athletics aspect of ND).
The only issue is whether it would really work. If we were talking about NYU, I could see that working out, but it’s just hard for me to imagine.
Just what I’ve heard from the people who attended undergrad with me from the NYC and northern New Jersey area, those areas are so east coast focused with the exceptions of the schools that you’ve named, that it might be impossible to pull it off without it being NYU on the table or a school like that.
But that’s the calculation the presidents will make when everything is on the table.
That’s probably why I wouldn’t be surprised whatever the mix is. At this point it seems as if a convincing argument can be made for any mix of 3 or 5 schools.
LikeLike
I think it’s also useful to have a sense of academic/research momemtum….
Looking at the #s form 2001-2008, the % increases in res. funding are:
ND 111%
NW 88%
OSU 80%
Pitt 71%
Pur 69%
IU 58%
Neb 56%
PSU 53%
Minn 48%
Wis 46%
Mich 46%
Mo 40%
U Con 38%
KU 38%
Rut 36%
MSU 34%
Ill 28%
Iowa 15%
Syr (09)%
The Iowa # may be a typo, as it’s #s increaed steadily from ’01 to ’07, then declined dramatically in ’08. Iowa’s correct # may be 40%
Couple points here–ND is doing very well in increasing res $s w/o the BT; also, Pitt and Neb seem to have some academic momentum, while Mo., Rutgers, and Syr do not. That kind of corresponds to the sense of things I’ve gotten from their boards…the Pitt and Neb boards seem to have more confidence in their adms that the others….
In 2001, ND had 46M in research, Syr. 42. By 2008, ND had 97M, Syr 38. Something dramatic happened to SU’s totals from 2004 to 2005. They declined from 62M to 36M…..
LikeLike
Re “research momentum”.
As I’ve said before, if there is one school that could ramp up their research totals it is probably ND. They have the endowment (and seemingly the administrative desire) to do it.
LikeLike
I agree with your analysis Zeek. I believe that most observers will interpret expansion similarly. If the Presidents believe that expansion will be portrayed similarly in the media “Big Ten sells academic reputation for additional BTN cable fees” they will get cold feet and everyone on this blog (including myself) will ask — where do I reclaim the hours of my life I lost writing and reading about something that did not happen.
LikeLike
That’s probably why I think we will see some sort of attempt to grab Maryland; it would probably be a mistake not to at least float the possibility of an invitation. But as has been pointed out, Maryland may be too hard to get. The ACC has a lot of strong undergrad programs and some strong research programs as well.
Sure we can offer a lot of money, but I’m not sure if money is enough to grab Maryland away from the other east coast schools that it really associates itself with…
A 3 or 5 team expansion that includes both Maryland and Nebraska would probably be the best way to satisfy the academics and the sports fans. That would be the easiest way to convince the faculties of the schools joining that this is a home run expansion other than grabbing Texas.
I mean, I just think it’s a statement of how good the current Big Ten is academically that the pickings are relatively slim. We’ve already got the strongest hybrid of athletics and academics out there among the big conferences, so it’s hard to improve on that.
I think Syracuse, Rutgers, and Pitt would be fine additions, it’d just be the equivalent of growing the academic pie from 11 slices to 14, per se.
Naturally, the Big Ten Network is easier to improve because we just need market access to create the 11 + 1 = 13 effect that Frank has talked about.
It’s really tough to get the same bang for the buck of expansion for academics/CIC.
LikeLike
If it appears the SEC will pick off a few ACC schools in its expansion, Maryland will become part of the Big Ten equation. Its president, C.D. Mote, is retiring at the end of August, and I think he’d like to give College Park Big Ten membership as a going-away present.
LikeLike
Currently, virtually all (there are a very few exceptions like supposedly Texas) Universities subsidize Athletic Departments in a substantial way. With the increased revenue generated from the Athletic Department due to expansion those subsidies would be able to be invested instead into the Academic and infrastructure side of the University thereby improving the University as a whole. The current Big Ten member Universities would benefit greatly from expansion revenue, aside from the Athletic Department, as a result of this reallocation of University funding. I think the Big Ten COP/C clearly understand this and is a very important issue for them.
LikeLike
In the link below there is an interesting discussion and analysis of this issue of University subsidies for Athletics.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-funding-analysis_N.htm
LikeLike
Note the last sentence of the linked story:
“Nebraska and Louisiana State were the only schools whose athletics programs reported receiving no subsidies in each of the four years studied.” Nebraska’s athletic department is required to receive no state subsidies, and in most years, contributes to the university’s general fund.
LikeLike
@Albino:
Saw that too, which confused me because Ohio State’s athletic department is believed to be self-sustaining. By going through the database I found out why they didn’t add OSU to that list of not receiving state/institutional subsidies:
2004/05: Direct institutional support – $5,429.00 – 0.01% (Ended ~$120k in the black)
2005/06: Direct state or other government support – $9,911.43 – 0.01% (Ended ~$2.9mil in the black)
Not sure how/why they received those tiny subsidies for those two years. Weird.
To tie this to Rich2’s original post, the athletics department at OSU returns a lot of money back to the university, despite funding 36 sports. This includes funding things like libraries, scholarships, and other areas that enhances the university as a whole (http://oncampus.osu.edu/2009/03/putting-the-pieces-together/).
When we’re talking things like libraries, campus police, campus radio stations, etc. yes I think both undergraduate and graduate students’ experiences are enhanced by the athletic department making more money. Making the assumption that the Big Ten->16 would generate more money, I also assume these fund infusions to the university to increase.
But, like Texas, Ohio State is probably the exception and not the rule. To counter, however, I would argue that schools like ND and Nebraska also fall under this exception, and I believe that the increased cash flow to their schools would have a positive impact on the average student. (Only looking at this from a financial standpoint, of course.)
LikeLike
In fact, LSU’s athletic department has makes yearly contributions to the University. In these difficult economic times when LSU has sustained numerous budget cuts, the athletic department has stepped up its academic contributions.
LikeLike
It’s not only fund infusions back to the University from flush ADs, but for most schools ( Big Ten schools included) the expansion revenue increases would lessen or negate the need for University subsidies therefore allowing the University to reinvest in Academics, Faculty, Infrastructure, Student life etc. This whole topic relates back to the OP by Rich2 questioning how the current Big Ten members will benefit from expansion other than growing the Athletic Department budgets. This is a huge concern among University President’s and BOG as well as State Govts. which are cutting back University funding all over the country. That coupled with a backlash from students on increases in Tuition and Student fees and Faculty pay freezes and department cuts makes enhanced Athletic Department revenue generation a big opportunity area that will benefit the Universities in general.
LikeLike
This example from The University of Iowa is typical of Universities across the country. It is not surprising that expansion by the Big Ten is currently on the agenda for COP/C. Budgets and revenue generation is on the agenda for every University administration everywhere. Conference realignment, instability in revenue generation for AD’s (non-Big Ten), University and State subsidy cutbacks, all make for a very anxious group of schools that will be effected by Big Ten expansion. I think the Big Ten is acutely aware of this and will not want to drag this thing along. The financial implications are too big for both the current Big Ten members and all Universities directly or indirectly effected by this for this topic to be extended too far past this summer or fall at the latest.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/10/28/Opinions/13935.html
LikeLike
For further reading on the topic of the urgency of the financial concerns of University Presidents here are 2 links to “The Knight Commission” group. 1 is there home page, the other is their report from their findings gathered at a Conference they hosted this past fall for University Presidents. Big Ten expansion is in the middle of a bee hive and resolution soon is a high priority to settle the landscape.
Knight Home page:
http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
Conference Findings:
http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=418:october-26-2009-university-presidents-united-in-call-to-curb-athleics-spending-says-major-knight-commission-survey&catid=22&Itemid=12
LikeLike
Great insight zeek. I concur the the original 11 schools will not receive much academic benefit unless the expansion includes Maryland. Arguments could be made for the other contenders (like Pitt’s top notch Medical Research may further medical research) but the only clear cut winner on assisting the Original 11 is Maryland.
LikeLike
Count Fr. Jenkins, President of ND, as another one who does not understand the collective wisdom expressed on this blog. Frank, sign him up.
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/To-Join-or-Not-to-Join-/23710/
LikeLike
Father Jenkins (the ND equivalent of university president) had a few words today:
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/To-Join-or-Not-to-Join-/23710/
LikeLike
Fr. Jenkins is the President of the University of Notre Dame du Lac.
The post? article? what ever it is seems too short. I would have preferred to have seen a full interview. Fr. Jenkins was only quoted hitting obvious bulletpoints.
LikeLike
Unless I’m completely missing it, I think all the discussion we’re having on this thread is ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that a number of sources seem to be coalescing around the idea that these five specific schools have been targeted by the Big 10.
How seriously do we take this? It seems as though most of us, including me, have been accepting these rumors as very much based in reality without stopping to reflect upon their validity.
Is this what’s really going on, or is this merely one rumor bouncing around and being amplified inside an echo chamber by other reporters with no original reporting of their own?
And if this rumor is in fact based in reality, is this what the Big 10 really wants, or are we still either at a trial balloon stage or a stage at which the Big 10 is still trying to lure bigger game?
(And an aside from my Texas-centric viewpoint: my original theory of Texas moving to the Big 10 included a moment very much like this: a moment at which the Big 10 would attempt to call Texas’ bluff by appearing intent upon inviting at least one other member of the Big XII to join the Big 10.)
LikeLike
My take on the rumors:
While the specific distribution of teams coming to the Big Ten is possible, I give only a 15% chance of the reports that the schools have been decided upon being false. They may be true if the negotiations are taking place, the schools have been agreed upon, and the entire conference is doing their best to keep a lid on them, which means that only one school (Mizzou) slipped up and the rest of the conference is refusing to confirm the rumors until the details are sorted out. More likely, however, is someone at Missouri said something to the local station that is either a) not true, or more likely b) somewhat uninformed, which is why no major news outlet with sources at multiple schools in the Big Ten has said anything. Because nothing has come out of the Big Ten or a Big Ten school, I doubt the rumors are based in reality or were even instigated by the Big Ten, as it is certainly not in Missouri’s interest to leak any information to try to force a move by other schools, as that could easily lead to Mizzou being left on the outside.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
I’m not taking this latest rumor very seriously. An awful lot of articles starting with “a source in St. Louis” or something similar, as Frank mentioned at the start of his post. Until I start seeing it from sources from other places I’m calling shenanigans. It’s too convenient that all of these sources appear to be coming from Missouri and not Pitt, Rutgers, or anyone else involved. Apparently Missouri is the only place where journalists can find someone willing to spill the beans anonymously. Maybe this is the final alignment, but I need more than shadowy figures making proclamations in sports gossip columns.
Fact of the matter is, despite all the “leaks” that have popped up since December, the only thing we know for sure is that the Big Ten is playing it very close to the vest and 99% of the leaks have yet to be verified by anyone reputable. Arguably the most trusted journalist covering this so far, Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune, even ended up with egg on his face not too long ago. For someone to magically appear like Expansion Moses to lead us to the promised land is suspicious at best. Especially since it popped up only a week after the Big Ten came out with “nothing to see here, move along” as their official response.
Hell, for all we know this “source” could be a journalist reading this blog and just misinterpreting Frank’s hometown. 😛
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I think the only thing we can say for sure is that schools are being talked to. There are too many quotes from people attached to too many universities and conferences. The biggest one to me was the SEC president’s comment.
Now WHO is going where…I seriously doubt anyone knows for sure, right NOW..not even the Big 10 people.
LikeLike
I wonder if anybody from the Big Ten office is reading this blog?
LikeLike
It’s just idle speculation. This is just the current focus because it’s the current media rumor.
I don’t think the Big Ten presidents have decided on any schools at this point.
Delaney has decided that he wants the Big Ten to go east and west and is telling ADs this in his conversations. The difference between now and 2003 or the late 90s is that he has the Big Ten Network on his side of the argument for expansion.
Personally, I see Delaney waving his wand and trying to net the big catch of Texas.
While the media is settled on Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt, they don’t realize that Nebraska/Missouri and presumably Colorado within two months leaving the Big 12 essentially destroys the conference. All of the remaining major markets will be in Texas and the Big 12 contract will be worth next to nothing when it comes up to re-negotiations.
There is no way Texas can sit by and let this happen. Thus, a move to 5 immediately seems like total folly unless you actually favor the current speculation group of 5.
Taking just Nebraska or Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers still seems like the most obvious move this year. That gives everyone (including Texas and Notre Dame) time to evaluate their options.
The Big East is already unstable; teams will bolt anytime for the Big Ten if given the opportunity. The Big 12 is potentially unstable if Colorado and Nebraska or Missouri leave.
All of this is all rehash, but it leaves us where we were when this process started. We don’t really know what will happen. The most obvious path is Nebraska (plus 2) -> Texas (plus 1) or Notre Dame (plus 1); or Nebraska -> Texas (plus 1 or 3).
Other than Nebraska, there isn’t a single school that seems to be moving this year that is guaranteed to significantly upgrade the football/television side of the equation while passing the academic smell test.
I still think Texas is the biggest chip on the board. Everyone’s just gotten bored of Texas-speculation (off of this site) so they’re just accepting Texas staying in the Big 12.
I would submit that Texas will not sit still if Nebraska/Colorado/Missouri move out of the Big 12.
You’re probably more qualified as to speak to what Texas will actually do after that though…
LikeLike
Oh, I would just add that the one rumor I believe is that the Pac-10 actually has spoken to Texas and Texas A&M and that only A&M was interested.
The Pac-10 is much further along (a fact that the media has not picked up for some reason) because of the way it needs schools to show off to networks in 2012.
The Big Ten will not do anything until it knows whether Colorado’s moving to the Pac-10 this summer.
LikeLike
Excellent point and one which got me to put my “mad genius” hat on…
Pac-10 comes out this summer and says TAMU/Colorado will be the additions.
Big10 then invites Neb, Mizzou, Kansas, Texas, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, ND
4×5 Team divisions
1)PSU, Pitt, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse
2)OSU, UoM, MSU, Purdue, ND
3)Nebraska, NW, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesotta
4)Texas, Kansas, Mizzou, Illinois, Indiana
Play everyone in your division plus one other division on a rotating basis (play all once every three years) for a total of 9 conference games with 2 OOC. ND’s historic rivalries with UoM, MSU, Purdue are kept and the “no more than two consecutive seasons” between ND / Pitt games are kept in tact as well. Pitt/PSU reignited, OSU/UoM kept. Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesotta good plus Nebraska added to the fun. Mizzou/Illinois can have the border war. Texas will just have to live with winning its division every year.
Only two schools not AAU (ND, UConn) only two schools not heavily invested in research (ND, Syracuse). Academically, the worst of the bunch is Syracuse, which has been in talks since the beginning.
The remaining Big12 schools invite (are forced by Texas State Legislature) other Texas schools to backfill in Texas, add NM, Utah, BYU and become a less academic version of the ACC.
Am I really going insane or does this actually seem like a plausible idea?
LikeLike
@PSUGuy:
To be honest, I’m already squeamish about 16. 20 feels like coo-coo crazytalk. You don’t have a conference then; you have two conferences with the same name.
I mean, who knows. Anything’s possible when nothing is really known. But when you’re talking about conference sizes bigger than either the NFC/AFC I think we’ve entered crazytown.
LikeLike
why stop there? Just go to 65 teams….we can all be the Big-10.
Sorry, I just think 20 is going the step in crazy land….but I never thought I’d be thinking that the real final out come of all this would be 4 16 super-conferences and a big finger to the NCAA. So …I guess 20 is possible.
LikeLike
As I said…crazy talk, but here’s the thing…name one school in that list that doesn’t nominally fit the Big10 profile.
Either AAU or research. Tend to be bigger schools. Even the least academically rated of the schools (Syracuse and ND) take academics very seriously.
You say “why not go to 65″…well when Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc start pushing the academics side of the field and stop violating so many NCAA rules for athletics I’ll say maybe thats when those schools are entertained.
Point being, there actually is a reasonable and noticeable reason to stop exactly at that point. No more schools of merit to include (ACC excluded).
Though again, complete crazy talk.
LikeLike
Actually, PSU guy, imo Texas is the ONLY school you mention that fits squarely into the present Big 10 norm. All of the others are either a “stretch” or are of a different nature than current BT schools.
LikeLike
To expound on that comment a little–
I think it’s useful to remember that none of the obvious expansion candidates really “fit” the existing Big 10 profile.
Take Mo. Yes, it’s a large, public, research university. However, it’s smaller, by over 10000 students, than any of the existing schools other than Iowa or NW. It’s also 31 spots below the lowest rated Big 10 U on UN News ratings.
Or consider Pitt. It’s 13000 smaller than the typical Big 10 U, and in the 90s in the Director’s Cup standings, some 40 spots below the lowest BT school.
U Conn and Nebraska are 16000 less than the BT norm. That’s a lot.
I’m not saying don’t take Mo or Pitt. Taking 1 or 2 of these schools is not a huge deal. However, when you take 5 at once, it becomes a big deal.
I think most of us on here are at least somewhat pro-expansion. However, when you go on the BT forumsand mention the schools we’re talking about, there’s tremendous skepticism. I think that’s justified.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
Don’t disagree at all. My simple point is if Mizzou/UConn/Syracuse etc are in the discussions for likely expansion candidate there are literally many schools who fall inside the “minimums” required.
At that point it boils down to just how far does the conference want to push and how quickly?
Again, its crazy talk, but facts are there are some “solid” schools left on the table in even a 16 team conference. Maybe the Big10 doesn’t care about them and fair enough, but to me adding one more team per division while solidifying the conference’s landscape even further might just be worth it…if only in “crazy land”.
LikeLike
While I hope A&M is open to everyone who calls, I would be surprised if they quickly joined the Pac 10 without UT if there is a chance they could join the Big 10 with UT. Given the distances involved to the 2 conferences, having 1 close neighbor and rival in conference is good for travel and fans. It also gives more freedom to non-conference scheduling.
I don’t think UT and A&M are joined at the hip, but I do think UT would prefer to have A&M in the same conference if it moves to a large (13+ schools) conference. The only way I really see them splitting up if Texas moves to a large conference is if A&M prefers to go to the SEC and the SEC wants A&M.
Of course, if UT was to join the Big 10 as the 12th and last member, A&M would probably check if the SEC or Pac 10 would take them. Similarly, if UT went independent or declared it was staying in the Big 12 as other schools bolted the conference, A&M would be open to moving.
LikeLike
I think that’s a pretty spot-on analysis.
What I don’t think any of us know is the extent to which there might be a Legislative roadblock if Texas were to try to split on its own to either the Big 10 or Pac 10 without bringing A&M along. I instinctively believe that A&M and the SEC could easily come to mutually beneficial terms in such a situation, so I don’t know if the pro A&M forces would attempt to stop Texas.
LikeLike
Yeah, I see where you guys are going with this.
But what about this thought; what if A&M is signaling to Texas that it is willing to consider a move as a way of nudging Texas into considering it?
Right now we haven’t heard anything about Texas’ intentions from anyone (whether rumor or not). No one really knows what’s going through the minds of the Texas president and the Texas AD. We know they’re considering a Texas sports network to pick up the Big 12 contract’s slack. But we don’t really know what Texas has planned if the conference gets gutted because they lose all of the big markets outside Texas as well as the North’s national draw.
We do know that A&M has spoken to the Pac-10. They are probably more interested in the SEC as many have mentioned before (and you state).
I think this is A&M’s way of possibly sending smoke in the air.
I mean, Texas should know that A&M is considering different leagues because Texas was also contacted by the Pac-10 according to that source (the Memphis AD, whatever that’s worth).
I do think that Texas is considering its future in private at this point, but is not willing to make any moves until the first domino falls.
Right now Texas probably realizes that as the anchor of the Big 12 it should just act like business is normal so other schools don’t start scrambling to consider their options. It also doesn’t want to set off rumors.
Just imagine, if Texas were to talk to the Pac-10, just talk, that would set off alarms in 11 other schools in the Big 12. You’d have Oklahoma and Texas Tech open channels to the SEC. Kansas would try the Big Ten or the SEC, etc.
That’s probably why Texas told the Pac-10 they weren’t interested. The last thing they want is a scramble to the exit that would also force their hand.
Thus, I would probably just say that it is in Texas’ best interest to not respond to inquiries until Colorado does something.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
I would submit that Texas will not sit still if Nebraska/Colorado/Missouri move out of the Big 12.
That’s the key. The word I’ve used for a couple of years is “grudgingly” Texas is grudgingly content with the status quo — after all, the Big XII, in its current configuration, has been great for Texas athletics across the board. And all things being equal, Texas would prefer nothing to change. But if things do look like they’re about to change, I don’t think Texas will stand idly by and remain stuck in a weakened conference.
The key word in that last sentence is “stuck”. It is foreseeable to me that Texas remains in a weakened Big XII (assuming a Mizzou/NU departure here) if, and only if, the Pac 10 remains a safety net for down the road. In this sense, I’m arguing that Texas may view the Pac 10 in the same way many on this board feel that ND has viewed the Big 10 over the years, as a safety net in which it can fall if independence no longer suit sits needs.
Texas wouldn’t necessarily be “stuck” in a weakened Big XII if the Pac 10 doesn’t expand right away. And if the Pac 10 is unable to agree upon two expansion candidates outside of Texas — and the only plausible pair to me would be Utah and Colorado, and of course neither of those two schools provide the “wow” factor a Texas would bring — perhaps the Pac 10 doesn’t expand, and Texas can experiment with its LSN model, and if that fails, a Pac 10-Texas merger can remain.
But if the Big 10 shows it’s willing to expand without Texas, and if the Pac 10 shows it’s willing to raid the Big XII as well to get to a 12th team, then I think Texas chooses its preferred course, A&M and OU head east and the Big XII as we know it is dead.
LikeLike
All of this means that the timing of this is central.
Right now, the only thing that seems even remotely certain (I would say a solid 50% chance, which is better than anything else we know), is that Colorado is likely to announce a move to the Pac-10 by June/July.
The Pac-10 can’t wait is Texas’ biggest problem. The Pac-10 needs to start inviting teams this summer probably. Thus, where we are in July is probably all that really matters.
The whole 12 to 18 month timeline for the Big Ten is likely a way of letting the Pac-10 lead the way by grabbing Denver away.
Then, the ball starts rolling. Does Texas sit around and wait for Nebraska/Missouri to go to the Big Ten, or does Texas jump in front with a phone call to Delaney.
I’m sure you’ve seen the Continental/US Airways/United merger dance that went on.
Continental jumped in as soon as it heard US Airways was considering merging with United.
I have a hard time not seeing Texas start getting into gear if Colorado leaves.
A Big 12 contract without Colorado/Nebraska/Missouri is probably worth no more than $5-6M a year.
Texas is probably crunching the numbers right now on a Longhorn Network. If the network can pull down $10M+ a year, then it might be willing to do its own thing as the only big market in the Big 12.
Otherwise, there is no doubt in my mind that Texas will put phone calls in to Delaney and Slive the day after Colorado announces.
LikeLike
We’re pretty much in agreement here.
There are plenty of Longhorn observers who believe that the Horns do want to make a move, but can’t go first for political reasons.
If that’s the case, and the Big 10 really wants Texas, then let the Pac 10 pull the trigger first this summer.
LikeLike
Don’t think there really is a “final” list yet, but the size of the expansion (5 teams) and the specific school names leaked of Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers are all highly credible, desireable by objective criteria, located in states contiguous to current Big Ten states and probably available. It is a decent working list even if it is still open to question.
As far as the size of an expansion, the numbers 12 and 16 for league size both sound desireable and workable. Anything in between seems an attempt to hang out indefinitely while Notre Dame and/or Texas (with Texas A&M in tow) change their mind. Just what are these schools going to know in the coming years about the Big Ten that they don’t know now? Plus, if Notre Dame or Texas do have an epiphany and change their minds, couldn’t the Big Ten just expand to an odd number like 17 or 18 or 19 and live with that temporarily? Sixteen is a great number for league size, but it is not an absolute cap.
So to answer your question, the elephant fits quite nicely into the room for now, so let’s just allow it to hang out for awhile and see what happens (and keep our shovels handy).
LikeLike
Not only that… but if Texas sees that these 5 additions added to the pie AND the slices of the pie… they will then realize how much they could add!
The one thing we will not see for a long time is stability.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with you on this one, Hopkins. But again, you’re probably not going to like why. It’s very possible that this “leak” is an effort to exert some leverage on Texas. You mention a Texas bluff. What would they be bluffing about at this point? The leading contender for that answer would be their terms for accepting an invitation, which might not jibe (at the moment, not saying they might not come around) with the team player idea.
And really, why wouldn’t they shoot the moon as their opening price? You never know, you might get it. Texas is one big whopping football brand, made even bigger if ND is off the table, as it seems from all indications.
Anyway, if I had to bet, the five teams are the Plan B position and reservations are still good for Texas if terms can be negotiated, the big if, in my opinion. Prudence would dictate giving some time to see if a meeting of the minds can be reached.
LikeLike
A bluff could be for the reasons you state — negotiations with the Big 10. And it’s quite plausible that the Big 10 and Texas already know that the two parties could never come to mutually-agreeable terms. And if Texas believed that it would be more beneficial (financially-speaking, of course) to strike out on a path other than join the Big 10, I would term that less “not being a team player” and more “looking out for #1,” which pretty much each school is doing. It’s just that Texas happens to hold more cards than the other schools at the table and has more options available to it. I would tend to believe that Nebraska would do the same if it determined that launching a Huskers Sports Network within the framework of the Big XII would be more profitable than its 1/16 share from the BTN.
But if there is a “bluff” — or mutally agreed-to secrecy — going on right now, I would think that the primary reason would be for internal Texas state political reasons. Given all the theoretical roadblocks Texas might have to maneuver if it were to move to the Big 10, it would serve the school’s best interests to keep all speculation as quiet as possible, work out all the backroom deals it needs to in advance, and strike like lightning when the time is right.
I don’t think any of the five schools being speculated about right now face anywhere near the political hurdles Texas would face, so mindless speculation about their chances of winding up in the Big 10 doesn’t result in stirring up a hornet’s nest of internal state political opposition.
LikeLike
I’d be surprised if we hear who the new members are before the deal is done. This is especially true if UT &/ ND are part of the expansion.
LikeLike
No way the ND AD would spring that on his alums…no way, no how
LikeLike
Hopkins,I like your elephant in the room analogy. The only story that I have read about any University being contacted was the Kansas City Star article back around the first of the year and the subject of that article was Texas. Just maybe that is the only University that has been contacted by the Big Ten. Maybe Texas knows that it is the prettiest girl in the room and decides to leverage their looks and asks that A&M and OU be invited to the party too. Why should the administration leave Mack Brown with a ridicoulously difficult out of conference schedule with A&M and OU games that the Longhorns own traditionalists would not do without. I doubt not that there have been back room discussions. There always are in changes this big.
It just might be that the names floated are not the real targets. What if the real targets are Texas, A&M, Notre Dame, Maryland and Pitt? Guess we may never know. Or maybe we will after all the back room agreements are made.
LikeLike
Yeah, for what its worth, the Penn State addition was pretty much unexpected until the announcement from what people have said about it.
We probably will be in for a surprise when the actual schools are announced.
LikeLike
Wes,
I like your five teams, but it might be better if ND were exchanged for NU. It’s nothing against ND, I just think that NU along with UT, TAMU, Pitt & MD would be better institutional fits in the long run.
LikeLike
Two divisions! No, four pods! Enough with the fixation on even numbers, people.
Why is no one proposing a three-pod set-up with an at-large bid to a two week, 4-team conference tournament? If the four-team tourney is going to happen anyways with the pod system, as some have insinuated, why not structure the conference like the National League in baseball?
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Michigan State
CENTRAL: Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois
WEST: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri
This keeps Ohio State and Michigan in the same conference and only creates a rematch situation if the two are clearly the best teams in the conference.
(yeah yeah, enough with your NCAA bylaws about conference tournaments and whatnot)
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn (on May 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm),
I now believe that if UT joins tBT, then they will be in it for the long haul w/ an “all for one” attitude. I wasn’t meaning to be down on UT. I got caught up in the perception, instead of the reality.
I don’t mean to patronize you or Playoffs, et al… but if UT fans are generally like you guys, then I’d welcome UT w/ open arms.
How about sub-divisions like…
* West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
* South: IL, IN, UT* & TAMU*
* North: UM, MSU, NW & PU
* East: MD*, OSU, PSU & Pitt*
Would this be appealing?