While the realignment action at the BCS conference level has come to a standstill, BYU is aiming to be a next-tier combination of Notre Dame and Texas and possibly causing a massive upheaval at the non-AQ level with its reported proposal to become a football independent and become a member of the WAC for all other sports. (The Salt Lake Tribune is calling this a “done deal”.) If BYU pulls the trigger on going independent, I believe that it would be a brilliant move for the school and, interestingly enough, a great opportunity for the BCS conferences.
BYU has long been one of the most interesting potential players in the college conference realignment story. From a pure financial and fan base perspective, BYU should’ve been invited to a BCS conference many years ago. The Cougars sell out every home game, travel en masse to bowl games, and garner a national TV audience with LDS members. Political factors, though, have killed BYU’s chances of getting into the Pac-10 (as the California-based schools have a myriad of issues where it has clashed with LDS positions) and its no-playing-on-Sunday rule has been a nagging problem for other conferences. With its in-state rival of Utah heading down the yellow brick road to BCS AQ status in 2011 and the Big IIX unlikely to expand for several years, BYU has been at risk of getting left behind.
Count me in as someone that believes that BCS AQ status is far from a sure thing for the Mountain West Conference. If there is a way for the other BCS conferences to avoid inviting in the MWC, it will absolutely exploit it – they have ZERO desire to give up $18 million per year and an at-large BCS bowl slot. If BYU’s leadership has been evaluating everything realistically, they have realized that this is the case and came to the conclusion that if it wants any reasonable chance of becoming one of the insiders to the BCS, it would need to become independent.
Is BYU on the level of Notre Dame in terms of casual fan popularity? Of course not. However, BYU has an asset that no other school in the entire country has (and what Texas has banked its entire future upon creating): its own television network. This isn’t some type of fly-by-night operation. BYU-TV has a state-of-art studio, the most advanced HD live event production truck in the entire Western half of the United States, 60 million U.S. subscribers (including every single DirecTV household) and 40 million subscribers outside of the U.S. While I have never actually watched BYU-TV and presume that its programming lineup currently consists of telecasts of church services, stories of mission trips, a reality TV show featuring Jim McMahon visiting and reviewing every single bar in Chicago, and the Steve Young edition of “The Bachelor”, the key point is that BYU already has a ready-made and widely distributed cable TV platform to take its sports properties in-house. My understanding is that BYU makes approximately $1.5 million per year from the current MWC TV deals. That is a fairly low threshold to cross if the school turns BYU-TV into a revenue generator for sports events (currently, the network relies on donations and subscriptions similar to PBS) since it has 100 million international households already in the fold. This isn’t even counting the fact that ESPN or another network would likely be willing to pay a premium for BYU’s top games. If Army and Navy can strike deals on their own with national networks, there’s no reason that BYU wouldn’t be able to do it even better.
That’s all fluff compared to the big picture, though. Maybe it’s because I have spent my entire life (other than my college years in Champaign) living and/or working in Cook County, but when Slant reader loki_the_bubba posted the initial rumors about this BYU story last night, my immediate thought was this: “Political payoff.” As we all know, this is perfectly legal under Federal law.
There seems to be this growing assumption that an independent BYU won’t be able to receive the same type of preferential treatment from the BCS system as Notre Dame does today. However, I vehemently disagree with this notion, and it has little to do with college football games themselves and everything to do with Capitol Hill. Which politician has spent more time bashing the BCS system, calling for hearings on the issue and demanding regulation more than any other? Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). What school did Sen. Hatch attend? Brigham Young University. Let’s list out the potential scenarios:
SCENARIO A: BYU stays in the MWC. In 2 years, the MWC meets the BCS AQ numerical criteria and the BCS conferences decide to let the conference into the party. This means that the BCS conferences have to give up at least $18 million per year and an at-large bowl slot.
SCENARIO B: BYU stays in the MWC. In 2 years, the MWC meets the BCS AQ numerical criteria, but the BCS conferences decide to keep the MWC on the outside because it makes zero financial sense to invite them in. Sen. Hatch raises a political and legal shitstorm unlike anything seen before and puts the entire BCS system in jeopardy.
SCENARIO C: BYU becomes a football independent, but the BCS conferences don’t give the school a Notre Dame-type deal. Sen. Hatch raises a political and legal shitstorm unlike anything seen before and puts the entire BCS system in jeopardy.
SCENARIO D: BYU becomes a football independent and the BCS conferences extend the school a Notre Dame-type deal. With both Utah and BYU now within the BCS system, Sen. Hatch suddenly has a new-found love for the BCS bowls and Washington leaves college football alone entirely. Meanwhile, it cuts the legs out from under the MWC and any other viable non-AQ upgrade possibility.
I don’t know about you, but it looks like paying BYU a couple of million bucks per year as an independent under Scenario D in order to preserve a cartel of hundreds of millions of dollars, extinguish its most prominent opponent in Washington AND destroy the MWC’s chances of ever moving up to AQ status makes a whole lot of business and political sense if you’re running the BCS. Plus, it’s going to be fairly rare that BYU will garner a top 8 final BCS ranking (which is where Notre Dame needs to rank in order to receive an automatic BCS bid), so it virtually preserves an at-large BCS slot for the current AQ conferences. It’s a win-win-win for BYU, Sen. Hatch and the BCS system overall. Unfortunately, the MWC will find a new definition of pain and suffering, as it is slowly digested over a thousand years in the Sarlacc pit of the non-AQ world.
In summary, BYU has an international TV network, a widespread built-in following with the LDS, and political clout of the highest order that can be leveraged into BCS access on par with Notre Dame. From where I’m standing, it almost makes too much sense for BYU to declare its independence.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Deseret News)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
As always, Hawkeyes #1!!!
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
WOW
LikeLike
As a die-hard Cougar fan, I’m glued to this news and can’t get anything done at work. Assuming this is true, I have a few thoughts:
(1) As a BYU basketball fan, I don’t like the move. Although Utah left, we still had some good hoops rivalries with UNLV, SDSU, and New Mexico and those are all good teams. I know basketball doesn’t drive the bus, but this should still be said.
(2) As a football fan, I think this could be a huge breakthrough, as long as BYU can fill the schedule toward the end of the season. USC and Stanford are willing to play Notre Dame in October or November, but will anyone want to play BYU during those months? I sure hope so. Still after suffering through games on the obscure and poorly-run Mtn. channel, I would love to see some ESPN games, even against weaker teams (of which the MWC has plenty).
(3) How does this relate to a Big 12 invite? I think more than anything, BYU wants to be in that conference. Does this move help its chances of getting in? BYU no longer needs to give one year’s notice in order to join the Big 12. Could this have been a factor in the decision? Could BYU somehow lend its broadcasting facilities to Texas for a while in exchange for membership in the Big 12?
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
For part 2:
Scheduling-wise, I think the plan is to play a mini-conference schedule against WAC teams in October or November. Given that base, BYU shouldn’t have too much trouble filling out the rest.
For part 3:
I don’t think a Big 12 invite is coming. I could see a “games for gear” trade where Texas agrees to a series of games in exchange for broadcasting equipment and expertise, but I think they only get into the Big 12 if something drastic happens and I’m not sure BYU would want to join whatever remnants remain after that scenario.
BYU’s decision makes me more certain that independence is Texas’ eventual goal.
LikeLike
One4themoney, I’m predicting the Cougs rethink their decision and stay in the MWC. Makes no sense to go independent when conferences are still gobbling teams up. For me, the Cougars might be the eye of a much bigger storm, that being just how much Congress gets involved in the BCS business. Using some of Frank’s material, I’ve written about it at my blog at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/08/22/bcs-monopoly-and-why-byus-new-holy-war-may-reshape-college-football/.
Too long to post here, but if interested, check it out.
LikeLike
On the BYU-ND comparison:
I know that BYU hasn’t played the same level of competition, but over the last 30 years they have the same number of national titles (1) and a substantially higher winning percentage (.709 to .644).
I totally agree with the idea that BYU can get similar type access as Notre Dame, at least money-wise. Frankly, if I were BYU I wouldn’t want the Top 8 rule. I think BYU would be taken anyway if they were ranked that highly and that rule has caused nothing but spleen towards ND. (ND would probably be better off without it anyway).
I wonder if they could work it into the current “highest non-BCS team gets in if they are in the top 12”. That would probably cover most situations.
Does anyone know what sort of deal Navy and Army have with the BCS?
LikeLike
When I read the BCS qualifications last year there was no mention of any deal with Army or Navy. In fact, neither one could qualify for a BCS game unless they were ranked #1 or #2. The qualifications explicitly stated that anyone outside the 6 AQ conferences or Notre Dame must be a conference champion to get an at-large bid.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m missing something, but wouldn’t this be an opportunity to remove Notre Dame’s special provisions in the BSC agreement? If it looks like more teams might become independant, why not have all teams regardless of conference affiliation on the same playing field? Otherwise, aren’t you opening the door for every top team to go independent?
Just asking.
LikeLike
After reading this post, I thought if 2 words: poor Boise.
I also thought that BYU (and BSU) would go to the Big XII. We shall see…,,
LikeLike
I don’t buy politics in this case. It’s possible, but the Mountain West wasn’t going to meet all requirements even before everyone decided to leave. Utah leaving cemented that they could be left out and as much as politicians like to talk and take power they have no constitutional right to, they haven’t yet and would have even less reason to after Utah joined a BCS AQ conference.
Again not dismissing the idea competely, but I think the more likely case is that BYU decided it couldn’t accept being in a lesser conference than Utah. In the long run, it would lose value because of it. They didn’t have the choice of going into a AQ conference and thus left for independence.
LikeLike
Go Bucks!
LikeLike
Air Force going indy also?
LikeLike
Ham sammich.
LikeLike
I think it’s easy to give BYU the same deal as Notre Dame because ND gave up a lot in the last renegotiation.
I mean ND takes less on avg than a BCS school when it doesn’t make it ($1.3M) and it gets the 2nd level payout when it does make Top 8 ($4.5M).
I really don’t see it as being difficult to give BYU some kind of deal similar to that, or if they’re stingy maybe $500-750k per year and $2-3M when it does reach and make it Top 6.
But ND’s deal isn’t really that expensive since they took what looks like a substantial discount to help put money back into the system.
Giving BYU $1.3M each year and potentially $4.5M if it makes the BCS is peanuts compared to having to giving the MWC the same $18M per year and a guaranteed slot that the Big 6 conferences get…
And there’s no way the MWC ever gets an AQ slot if it can’t raid the WAC due to the $5M penalty in place now: just Boise State and TCU aren’t going to cut it.
The question of course is what Boise State and TCU do about this?
Does Boise State turn its back on the MWC and go back to the WAC?
Would it do that if TCU somehow gets out of the MWC? The MWC could collapse because of this…
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
adding part 2
LikeLike
expanding
LikeLike
Good and interesting post, but Hatch doesn’t and won’t have THAT much power.
I wouldn’t count on the B12-2 expanding back to 12 and inviting BYU, and especially not BYU and ND being #11 & 12. While ND, TX, OU, and BYU could make a nice foundation for a possible Independence Alliance (conference in all but name,) any such combo is only a backup plan in case the B10+? decides to go to 16 and the SEC follows. Even then, it might be more a ploy for negotiating leverage than a preferred endgame (and such an alliance may never have even been discussed by TX and ND.)
My take is BYU:
1. Wants more money. You can basically stop there.
2. Had a strong suspicion that the BCS was going to screw over the MWC no matter what.
3. Had a high chance of being frozen out of any 4×16 arrangement. P16 is 98% out, even if TX doesn’t head west, and BYU is a lone outpost too far west if the other surviving 3 super conferences end up being the B10+?, SEC, and ACC. So why not go ahead and become independent and work out any kinks before the big realignment hits? Might give them a better understanding of how best to protect their interests when super realignment talks and politics go into overdrive.
As to future realignment, only the B10+? and SEC are safe. Everybody else has an Achilles’ heel.
LikeLike
BTW, does UHou have a shot of talking their way into being a travel partner for TCU with the Big Least?
LikeLike
Again, I agree with you. I think TCU will now be exploring better options, and since the Big 12 door will continue to be closed to the Frogs, looking east, including the possibility of being paired with UH (whose basketball pedigree makes them a better Big East school than one might imagine), is a very realistic option.
LikeLike
A caveat:
One reason the B12-2 is in a holding pattern is to see if 12 does indeed remain the conference standard. If the B10+? stops at 12 and the conferences stabilize, then BYU might join one more to get the B12-2 back to 12.
However I’d say it is more likely that Delany continues acquisitions.
Meanwhile, in Aggieland, Bill Byrne compares aTm’s prospects in the SEC to Arkansas and S. Carolina’s:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/texasam/stories/081110dnospobyrne.2958444.html
E-mails obtained by The Dallas Morning News through open records requests revealed how Byrne handled some of the fallout from the decision to bypass the SEC.
“We had the chance to gain the upper hand and you guys couldn’t pull the trigger,” one fan wrote Byrne.
Byrne responded in part: “Take a look how Arkansas and South Carolina did before they entered the SEC and how they have done since. Unless you’re the lead dog, the scenery is always the same.”
LikeLike
Aggies:
LikeLike
Playoffs,
I’m going to agree with you on this one. I was going to post that this better positions BYU for being one of the 64 if we move to a 4×16 world in four-five years, but you beat me to it.
That’s the Gordian Knot explanation, which is easier to digest than a behind-the-scenes political power play having caused this.
LikeLike
Oh yeah,
This may suggest that BYU is confident that no matter if 4×16 happens or other realignment, ND will be able to remain independent and won’t be frozen out by the BCS or whatever replaces it.
I’d say ND ever to the B10+? is 90% dead.
LikeLike
I agree with you and Hopkins Horn on all points.
And I think ND to the Big Ten is totally dead for the next 10 years unless there’s something unfathomable like multiple 4 win seasons happens.
Delany is looking East, and it seems as if Rutgers + 1 is likely to be an outcome if it brings enough $ to justify it.
I think the Big Ten will go to 14 and then see what happens; it is possible that it stays at 12, but I think Delany really wants to be sure that he has the Big Ten as well positioned as he can leave it before he retires.
LikeLike
Scenario E: God & Country or The Well Endowed Conference (WEC) 🙂
East = ND, BC, Army, Navy, VT(CoC), Syracuse
West = BYU, TCU, AF, A&M (CoC), Baylor, SMU
other possible choices
Duke = Methodist / Quakers
Miami = NS
Wake Forrest = Baptist
Tulane = NS
Rice = NS
if endowment matters!
Vandy
Nortwestern
Stanford
USC
LikeLike
More realistic
Army
Navy
Air Force
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulane
Tulsa
Nice, neat eight team conference of similar sized schools.
LikeLike
loki,
I was looking at 12, that could go to 16
the east adds duke and miami
the west adds tulane and rice
too lazy to do it right now, but think of how the endowments stack up with those 16 in the same conference (you should know me well enough to know I am not gonna forget rice) 🙂
LikeLike
BTW, I’d say conference-burned but fan favorite Boise may actually be closer to the ND storyline.
LikeLike
As in somewhat outcast that many of the big boys refuse to play but willing to play anyone anywhere and getting the story victories to win a national following.
LikeLike
15 days
LikeLike
Also, there was a bit of joking on the previous thread about this being too coincidental with recent events at Texas and ND, but what I think you can take to the bank is that Austin will be watching Provo very closely over the next three to four years to see if modern-day independence works, especially with one’s own network in place.
The situations aren’t entirely analogous — most glaringly, I highly doubt that Texas would have a WAC-style resting place for its non-revenues and would have to instead opt for total independence — but it’s great to have a trial run in place elsewhere.
LikeLike
Any chance we could get your school to hurry it up? Apparently politics means my school can’t do anything until you make a move.
LikeLike
Hey, I tried my best! Didn’t want to listen to me.
LikeLike
I would consider total independence a non-option for at least basketball. It strikes me as a really difficult slog to make the NCAA Tournament as an independent.
LikeLike
Since the realignment news seems to have sadly taken a break (it’s been what, 3 days without good gossip?), I want to ask you Hopkins Horn:
If UT was to go independent, what would you like their schedule to look like?
LikeLike
Did anyone else get a hearty laugh out of Colorado State’s backtracking on its tweets?
http://www.csurams.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/081810aaa.html
“FORT COLLINS, Colo. — At approximately 11 p.m. MDT last night, and again this morning around 5 a.m. MDT, the Colorado State football Twitter feed was deliberately compromised by an anonymous individual wishing to spread multiple rumors and attribute them to CSU.
The tweets did not originate with anyone employed by the university. The tweets have been removed and the athletic department has changed passwords on all official athletics Twitter accounts.
The Colorado State athletic department apologizes for any inconvenience this may have caused members of the media or fans following the football Twitter account.”
LikeLike
Aug. 18, 2010
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – The Mountain West Conference has extended an offer of membership to California State University, Fresno and the University of Nevada, Reno.
http://www.themwc.com/genrel/081810aab.html
LikeLike
The Mountain West is trying to nuke the WAC to prevent the BYU independence bid, but that $5M buyout looks like it could prevent those schools from moving…
LikeLike
MWC nukes the WAC. Great. Remaining schools go to the Big West, which gladly takes in BYU’s other teams.
Don’t think BYU’s move can be torpedoed this way.
LikeLike
Sorry, had a brain fart and thought Big West was 1-A.
Still, there’d be enough schools out there for some non-MWC conference unless the MWC brings them all in.
LikeLike
Argh. It’s not 1-A, but who cares about its football classification? It’s D-1 everywhere else.
LikeLike
Yeah I agree.
I think the Utah v. BYU thing is the most important thing.
This is the only way for BYU to be able to rise in stature after Utah’s move to the Pac-10.
BYU will probably just stick with the independence plan regardless of what happens.
Football is driving this bus, and independence is the only way for BYU to get an adult seat at the table if they can make the scheduling work in terms of getting enough BCS programs to do home-home games.
LikeLike
At this point, is it any more than a lateral move?
Are there any numbers-crunchers out there who can look at the criteria laid out for BCS AQ and whether the MWC minus Utah and BYU but with BSU still has a chance in a couple of years?
If so, then I’d consider the move. If not, I’d stay in place and let the remaining members of the MWC (after what would seem to be a likely TCU move east) coming crawling back to the WAC in a fit of poetic justice in a couple of years.
LikeLike
I don’t even think we have to crunch the numbers; it was right on the edge to get a BCS bid with all 4 of Utah/BYU/Boise State/TCU.
And that $5M is probably insurmountable unless the MWC somehow offers to pay it off over a period of years or something.
How can you explain a $5M buyout to join a conference where you’re going to make $1.5M per year; the numbers just don’t work in the short term…
LikeLike
I think it is pretty clear with BYU’s departure that they felt the MWC wasn’t going to get the auto-bid.
LikeLike
at Mountain West Connection they’ve been crunching these numbers right down to how many games New Mexico has to win this year…seriously.
BYU, Utah, TCU and Boise St were a lock for BCS AQ under the numbers that the BCS released.
Boise St, and Utah were/are washes. So, adding Boise St but losing Utah, left the MWC in about the same spot. Which was slightly good and in over the AQ line, but just barely.
HOWEVER…there are many that suspect that the BCS won’t allow another conference at all.
LikeLike
What I was reading was that they really needed to drop New Mexico and SDSU before they made all the qualifications. Otherwise they would have to get an exception (NO CHANCE) on the computer strength calculation.–All assuming, of course, the next 2 years are just like the last two.
Fresno and Nevada didn’t make a significant difference either way on computer strength.
LikeLike
yeah, that was what they had too. SDSU and UNM was killing the average total. BUT, they had it as MWC would just squeak over but as I recall it could come down to a win by SDSU or UNM out of conference.
FSU and UNR I would think would be a small help..but they would be close.
LikeLike
Wow! Full scale war.
Fun scenario. SDSU, UNLV and Boise return to WAC. UNM and TCU join CUSA. The 3 original destroyers of the WAC-WY,CSU and AF end up stranded.
LikeLike
I wonder if these invitations were to keep SDSU and UNLV from bolting. Each gets a key rival.
LikeLike
Fresno Bee reporting Fresno will accept tonight.
LikeLike
Wow, this is stunning. I’d like to see how they play off the $5M buyout clause…
LikeLike
who are they going to pay it to? the WAC only has 6 football schools left with FSU and UNR leaving..7 if you count BYU. It’s no longer a conference
LikeLike
Saw on MWC board. Couldn’t connect with their link but found:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/18/2045731/fresno-state-to-join-MWC.html#ixzz0x09eTwaX
LikeLike
Taking Fresno St and UN-Reno leaves the WAC with only 6 schools playing football. (Idaho, NMstate, Utah St, Hawaii, San Jose St, and La. Tech)
It would bring the MWC back up to 10 schools even with BYU leaving.
Adding Houston and UTEP or SMU (the only schools from CUSA that matter in football) the MWC would be at the 12 team mark, and the increase in the Texas and Cali markets MWC survive.
LikeLike
Retirement Question?
anybody want to guess what happens in the short term for conference folks like delany, slive, etc Say contracts are not renewed, or as someone mentioned delany retires, any what ifs out there?
LikeLike
BTW, just me or is anyone else annoyed that they keep not showing CFL to do Brett Favre coverage, as NFL follows CFL can they just show the college stuff for the college fans?
LikeLike
Wow.
Relevant to nothing else above, how the might have fallen.
Tennessee is scared to play North Carolina next season.
“Going into the season having two BCS non-conference opponents is problematic when you’re trying to rebuild a team,” [Tennessee AD] Hamilton said. “This is not a change in our scheduling philosophy, however.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/08/17/tennessee.schedule.ap/index.html
LikeLike
Another thing that makes you go hmmm…
That Tennessee article referenced above mentions a new stadium at North Texas. I hadn’t heard of it before.
Looking into it, it’s pretty impressive-looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_North_Texas_Mean_Green_Stadium
And it will also seat 30K-35K, which would make UNT more attractive to future conference suitors like C-USA.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
hey, i’m the only jj round here!
LikeLike
How ’bout this?
LikeLike
I think the national political angle has always been way overplayed and the BCS and its member conference are not really worried about it. For every Orin Hatch there is 2 Senators from Texas, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, NC, SC, the list goes on and on where the current system is a net positive to the schools in that state throw in states like NY, VT, ND, and SD where there is no school that gets looked over so no need for the Senator to waste political capital.
There is also really nothing the Senate can do about it except strip the tax exempt from the schools. Good luck with that when the biggest boosters and alumni donors also tend to be the biggest political donors so again I can’t see where they would get enough votes to do anything.
Moving to BYU this is a huge risk for them. For their alleged brand no one really wants them from any other conference to the bowls. They might travel but that is all they do, they don’t spend money when they arrive. Maybe they can work out a deal with the BCS but I can’t imagine they get what even ND gets they would be lucky to get a deal where they finish in the top 8 they get a half share other wise nothing and if I am the BCS I don’t offer them much more than that and I would put on minimum SOS requirements on that also. While they have a fairly huge TV footprint its in a block of channels that has viewership measured in the thousands if not hundreds.
LikeLike
Do you have anything to back up the claim that BYU fans “don’t spend money when they arrive,” or are you extrapolating a lack of overall spending from the mere fact that LDS members don’t drink?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Yeah, that doesn’t sound right. LDS members or not, people will spend money on hotels, restaurants and merchandise outside the scope of alcohol. Depending upon the bowl venue, there might not even be booze sold at the game. I was surprised that the Rose Bowl didn’t sell alcohol despite being an off-campus stadium. So, it was a good thing that I had the foresight to get loaded before the Illinois-USC game a couple of years ago. 🙂
LikeLike
Still better than what they used to say about Houston coming to the Cotton Bowl…
LikeLike
Got that right, loki…
LikeLike
I don’t have anything solid except from what I recall either hearing or reading from members of some bowl committee a few years ago in a story dealing with why some teams are bowl favorites and some are bowl pariahs. The general jist that I recall was they don’t spend money around town as much.
LikeLike
You know what they say – when BYU fans go to Vegas, they keep a $20 bill in one pocket and the Ten Commandments in the other, and they don’t break either one while they’re in town.
@Frank – I think the legend/stereotype is that so many Utah (the state, not the school) folks know people in Vegas (a common bowl destination for BYU) that they just stay with friends and family instead of getting a hotel room. And on top of the alcohol, there’s the gambling and some of the more lewd shows that they don’t partake of (supposedly). In other bowl destinations it might not be such an issue.
LikeLike
They came for their livers, but the MWC is not yet dead:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/18/2045731/fresno-state-to-join-mwc.html#Comments_Container%23ixzz0x0A8kDWJ
Fresno St accepts MWC invite
LikeLike
In response to:
http://www.themwc.com/genrel/081810aab.html
Mountain West Conference Invites Fresno State and Nevada
Aug. 18, 2010
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – The Mountain West Conference has extended an offer of membership to California State University, Fresno and the University of Nevada, Reno.
MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson is currently traveling and unavailable for comment.
LikeLike
And this out of Nevada (doesn’t mean anything but I wanted to put it here):
“As for Nevada, president Milt Glick said this: “We are honored to have received the invitation to join the Mountain West Conference. We are seriously considering the invitation, and do so with the best interests of our athletics program, University, community and Wolf Pack fans as our priority.””
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogs/byusports/50133915-65/wac-mwc-fresno-byu.html.csp
I think they’re going to go; now BYU has to see if it really wants to go through this independence bid.
LikeLike
now BYU has to see if it really wants to go through this independence bid.
IOW, (non-fb) to WAC off?
LikeLike
IOW, (non-fb) BYU to WAC off?
(Blew the joke on a damn lack of a preview)
LikeLike
As long as the WAC is a workable place for the non-revenue sports, I can’t see BYU turning back. They seem to have been preparing for this possibility for several years.
Now the MWC needs to take enough schools from the WAC to destabilize it. BYU wouldn’t abandon the rest of its athletic program to a third-tier conference. Adding Fresno State and Nevada might not be stand alone benefits, but if it forces BYU into the fold it might be worth it.
It’s basically the ND-Big Ten-Big East conspiracy theory playing out.
LikeLike
@M – If BYU has convinced itself that it should be a football independent but the WAC is going to die, maybe it should take its non-football sports to the WCC. That’s actually a better basketball conference than the current WAC. Gonzaga vs. BYU sounds pretty good to me.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
If both Fresno St and Nevada accept offer – that puts the WAC at 7 teams right? Doesn’t it take 8 to keep a conference alive?
If so, that would kill BYU’s landing spot for its non football sports.
LikeLike
6 in football..and 7 with BYU in the others.
It would also mean no conference for Fresno St and UN-R to pay the $5mil exit fee to.
LikeLike
Thanks – I had already forgot about Boise St….
LikeLike
True – that would be a BYU worst nightmare too I would think. The MWC adds two mediocore schools (all but killing BCS dreams) and kills the soft landing for their non football sports in the process…..forcing them to withhold independence.
Though I guess they can just go find a Sunbelt-like Conference maybe to take their non football maybe.
LikeLike
Wait – I already forgot about Boise St moving as well. That would only leave 6 in the WAC – requiring them to get 2 more teams from somewhere to stay viable – right (someone correct me if wrong)?
That would all but kill BYU basketball fans in a weakened WAC conference like that.
LikeLike
The WAC has options. This article lays some out:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/06/17/wac-football-options-for-replacing-boise-state/
Now my posting the link to UNT’s new stadium makes more sense, even to myself.
This might resemble the last realignment scramble, in which half a confernce would move up, and the remaining half would poach the better half of the conference below in the pecking order.
BYU’s plans for football independence won’t be curtailed by their basketball team having to play in a conference with UNT and Fullerton instead of Fresno State and Nevada.
LikeLike
Hop – since the WAC already has a foot-hold in Louisiana with LA Tech, they could steal the U-LA-Loser twins (Lafayette & Monroe) from the Sunbelt.
LikeLike
That would certainly be an option as well.
Also: UT-San Antonio is starting up a new program, with Larry Coker as coach. First season is next year, and the plan is to be 1-A by 2014.
Might be too late for the present realignment madness, but they’ll probably be an attractive programs for the likes of the Sun Belt and WAC pretty quickly.
LikeLike
UTSA and Texas State have been discussed endlessly on the CUSA boards. The consensus is always that they would end up in Sun Belt as a first choice with the WAC as a backup.
LikeLike
After looking at what’s left of the WAC – Hawaii, Idaho, NM St., San Jose St., Utah St., and LA Tech, I don’t think anyone’s leaving the Sunbelt to go to the WACk’ed.
I’m thinking SMU and Houston or Hawaii go to the MWC to get to 12 teams and a CCG.
LA Tech leaves the WACk’ed to go to CUSA, and either Troy or UNT from the Sunbelt bolt to CUSA.
Sunbelt then picks up Hawaii (sunny), San Jose State (sunny), NM State (sunny), and Idaho (Sun Valley) to form a 12 team national conference that stretches from Miami to Honolulu.
Utah St. can drop back down to 1-AA.
LikeLike
I’m surprised the WAC didn’t become the safety raft considering the 5 million buy-out. I would have thought BSU, SJS, and TCU would see the WAC as a good landing place. Nevada, Fresno State are as good as buddies and CSU.
Perhaps Fresno State thinks there is some way around the buyout.
LikeLike
Ah, UNR didn’t sign the buy-out.
The Reno Gazette Journal just reported that Nevada did not sign the $5 million buyout clause that WAC commissioner Karl Benson asked it to sign last week.
LikeLike
Nevada accepts the MWC offer.
http://www.silverandbluesports.com/2010/08/18/to-the-mountain-west-for-nevada/
LikeLike
Fresno State putting together their news conference for tonight to also accept
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/18/2045731/fresno-state-to-join-mwc.html#Comments_Container%23ixzz0x0A8kDWJ#ixzz0x0PyFHN3
LikeLike
Goodbye WAC.
The writing’s on the wall for BYU and I get this move, but Fresno, Nevada and Boise make the MW a pretty decent conference. I think BYU might reconsider. They need a move to one of the big boy leagues.
I think someone made the point that TCU and BYU would make a nice outpost for the BEast. I can see that. But how does this duo not make sense for the B12?
LikeLike
Agree – the re-made MWC looks decent.
LikeLike
TCU brings no market for the Big 12. UT, A&M, and TTech each bring bigger ratings in the Dallas area.
No Texas school will get added to the conference unless one of those schools leave.
If there was a good school to pair it with, BYU would probably get into the Big 12. There just isn’t a school that will add a big enough market to justify the addition.
LikeLike
It all depends on the B10+? and if they stop at 12. If 12 becomes the conference standard than BYU makes a lot of sense and Louisville could round it out. Lou, granted isn’t exciting, but decent and a good BBall addition.
Plus that would give the conference map a solid core with an extension to the west and one to the east. Shaped like a Longhorn…
LikeLike
In the short-term, Louisville would be the best option.
In the long term, a Nevada school might be best. When we were looking over population projections for the next few decades, Nevada always stood out as a state that will be able support a big conference school in the future, especially if professional leagues stay away.
The problem would be getting the population to rally around just one of the schools, as it loses its population advantage if you have to divide the fans between 2 schools.
LikeLike
Nevada is such a transient state – none of the teams garner much respect for long. Even in Reno, most people are USC or Cal fans. Tark had a good run at UNLV and that was as close as any team came to capturing the hearts of NV fans.
LikeLike
Not sure Louisville would jump to the Big12-ish. Memphis would, however. Don’t think Provo is much more of an outlier than Boulder.
LikeLike
TCU is a redundant market with a small fanbase, and BYU is too much of a geographic outlier now that CU is out of the conference.
If you held a gun to my head and asked me to pick the best available pair for a mandatory move to 12, I think those are the two I’d pick, but staying at 10 keeps the conference stronger, on the aggregate, than adding those two schools, or any two schools.
I think we’ve all gotten too hung up on 12 being the magic number for conferences because of the CCG when a number less than 12 might be optimal because of very real geographic considerations.
LikeLike
I agree.
After all, the Big Ten stayed at 11 for almost 20 years, even though that is a completely nonsensical number from the point of view of an 8 game conference schedule and virtually every other consideration whether it’s basketball or football scheduling (rivalry week, etc.).
Unless BYU and TCU accept being junior members in the Big 12, there’s no reason to invite them.
The Big 12 has to worry much more about whether it can afford to pay Texas/A&M/OU the $20M+ that they want to make (especially A&M)…
LikeLike
Considerable discussion in the MWC news conference about how they couldn’t get coverage on the cable channels in DFW.
LikeLike
Maybe goodbye Sun Belt.
Interesting that they are moving so quickly with BYU possibly leaving. MWC-BYU vs. WAC + Boise looks pretty equal in football and WAC looks stronger otherwise. Can’t believe they wouldn’t talk to Boise first. Maybe all 3 want to leave SJSU and Idaho behind.
LikeLike
WAC is too far and not a step up to attract many Sun Belt teams. I think they’re safe from the mayhem on the west coast. If anything I can see Louisiana Tech going the other way.
LikeLike
Don’t you think the WAC would be attractive for UNT, especially with the new stadium coming online next fall?
LikeLike
The new MW, with BYU, blows the crap out of all the other mid-majors, that’s faux real!
LikeLike
Are we certain BYU is gone? BYU wanted more money and more quality schools in the MWC. With Fresno (good) and Nevada (nothing) if they added a potential top 25 school like UHou and Fox redid the MWC channel agreement could BYU stay put?
I don’t expect it, but…
LikeLike
Guys, I just do not understand your fascination with UH and TCU. Had these schools been able to put any fannies in the seats of their stadiums or draw any TV ratings on their own, there would be no Big Twelve. But unless TCU, SMU, Rice, or UH played Texas or Texas A&M, there was no money funneled to the other schools. Leopards have still not changed their spot. UH biggest crowd last year was for Texas Tech for goodness sakes and then less than 30,000, which is about the capacity of their stadium. They are a good fit in the USA.
LikeLike
Try telling that to Cougar fans. Man there is a lot delusion there.
LikeLike
One of the factors in leaving was to try to improve season ticket sales. It was a motivator to alumni in DFW and Houston who otherwise could get good seats to see their team play TCU/SMU/Rice or UH and not drive all the way to Austin or College Station.
MWC is pretty delusional too. UH is a good match for them. But I think they understand their budget limitations and its not worth the travel costs.
LikeLike
But who would the BEast or MWC get that is better? Beast is considering their own TV network, Texas is the 2nd largest state with 2 top 10 markets and TCU and UHou are in each. Could (not certain) make a big difference on such a network’s viability.
That said, I don’t expect the BEast to do anything until after the B10+? takes their bite out of ’em. Too many cats to herd for the Big Least to make a proactive decision. Trouble is, the B10+? may lead to a deep raid by the ACC and SEC.
Glad I’m not a BEast chancellor or commish.
LikeLike
hmm… yes and no. Honestly, I think the BigEast really sees itself as a BBall conference. As a BBall conference, the Big East is safe.
I agree that Big East will wait and see what the Big10 and/or ACC do. At 16 schools, it becomes cumbersome to add more. Plus adding a football school that does not add a good BBall team is a problem (viz East Carolina). And adding a good Bball school with a meh football team (Memphis) is also a problem.
So, I think many reasons that Big East will stay put for now.
LikeLike
Speculation a couple hours ago on the MWC board, while obviously self-serving, was that it was a power play to get a new deal.
LikeLike
With Fresno State joining and Nevada joining without even signing that $5M buyout clause, I tend to agree that this may be a way for BYU to extricate themselves from the mtn. and the TV deals.
If BYU can cut itself out of the media deals and get itself a deal like Texas has in the Big 12, then it is likely to stay in my mind.
LikeLike
To be clear, I don’t mean totally remove themselves, I mean to see if they can get themselves a Bevo-TV kind of setup for BYU-TV in the MWC.
LikeLike
One school that I think would be decent but the problem is of course travel is Hawaii. They get enough fans in the seats to justify being considered, but travel budgets would probably go up dramatically for everyone if they’re added…
I think the MWC should aim for 12 and see if a CCG can make their TV package better…
LikeLike
Or wait for the Big XII to fall apart and see what’s available.
LikeLike
That’s true; at the very least they’d be able to grab Iowa State probably if Kansas/KState/Missouri go off to the Big East…
LikeLike
OTOH, if they get to 12 sooner rather than later, maybe the money will be better to add potential Big XII refugees and go beyond 12 teams.
FWIW, I think KSU would be a good fit in the MWC, if it ever comes to that.
LikeLike
and, to be completely mercenary about it, some of the BXII north teams might be good even if no expansion beyond 12: that is, dump the worst teams in the MWC and upgrade to Iowa State and/or the two Kansases…
There are precedents for dropping the worst performing schools in your conference.
LikeLike
If BYU does in fact go independent despite Fresno St and Nevada going to MWC, I’d love to see a BYU/ND rivalry begin. Too bad “The Holy War” is taken for a rivalry name b/c it’d be perfect.
LikeLike
Resume, you mean. They use to play every year.
LikeLike
Yes my bad. Proofreading would’ve been a good idea 😛
LikeLike
Rumors out the wazoo. Something up with UHou since at least yesterday, SMU also buzzing. ESPN scheming. John has a long mustache.
LikeLike
Craziest rumor: ESPN attempting to broker new conference with the new MWC as one division and the CUSA ‘All Stars’ as the other, complete with TV deal.
LikeLike
what? that’s actually a good idea.
LikeLike
That would be interesting. One of the issues the MWC had when setting up their own network, was that ESPN was offering crappy money…AND wanted to many Wed, Thurs, Fri. night games
My cat has no Whiskers
LikeLike
Whoa. And I thought the WAC/Sun Belt merger rumor was a stretch.
LikeLike
if you get a link or even a source, I’d love to know
LikeLike
Nothing on my CUSA board about SMU or UH. My hovercraft is full of eels.
LikeLike
hmm… which would also mean your hovercraft is full of water (or maybe I don’t understand what a hovercraft is?)
LikeLike
I guess we could know in about 45 minutes if some of this is true.
“Fresno State officials have scheduled a news conference for 7:30 tonight to announce the school’s expected move to the Mountain West Conference.
The Reno Gazette-Journal is reporting that Nevada also will accept the offer to join the MWC and that the university did not sign a reported $5 million buyout clause to get out of the Western Athletic Conference. The Reno newspaper also said that Nevada would hold its news conference at 7:30 p.m.”
LikeLike
This MWC/WAC situation is just screaming for a relegation/promotion solution.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking that for a few years now! It could have been a radical and interesting way for non-AQ teams to force their way into the BCS picture.
LikeLike
Would it be fair for me to say that (1) pretty much every American sports fan who is knowledgeable about promotion/relegation loves the concept and wishes we had it in some form for our sports and leagues; and (2) there’s no chance in hell we’ll ever see it in the States? I mean, if even the MLS can get off the ground without it…
LikeLike
1) Yes,
and
2) No shot.
LikeLike
1) Promotion/relegation looks good on paper, but it doesn’t work well in practice. If you follow the Premier League, it’s always the same teams rotating in and out. They would be better off cutting it down to maybe 16 clubs and telling the rest to shove off.
Basically the money difference between the upper leagues is too great for anyone who just got promoted to stay remotely competitive.
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought:
ESPN and the bowls are rumored to have stepped in with a notable offer to TX to keep the B12 and in order to stop the super conference dominoes from tumbling. The B10+? just announced they will be renegotiating with ESPN for the addition of NE and expect a hefty increase. Could that be the bowls and ESPN trying to head off their going to 16?
Along that line, could ESPN and the bowls attempt to meddle in the MWC reorganization, perhaps offering a TV contract and BCS AQ status? Could a similar meddling with the BEast take place, squashing a BEast channel? Shaking out the weaklings to create 7×12 committed to continuing the BCS and fairly safe from congressional inquiry?
Just brainstorming.
LikeLike
To clarify, is ESPN pushing the MWC to get to 12 by adding top-25 potential teams such as Fresno and UHou? ESPN has given UHou and their QB lots of promo the last year.
LikeLike
MWC goes to the new 5th BCS bowl, the JerryBowl.
LikeLike
actually that could be the alternative to the 4 x 16. ESPN owns (biggest money donors)most of the bowl games..they have a vested interest in keeping the current system up and running.
A 4 x 16 with playoffs..and ESPN could be left out or in a bidding war where one wins, and the rest looses.
LikeLike
And Bowl Week does massive ratings, especially against the feeble competition the broadcast networks put out from Dec. 25 to 31.
LikeLike
I don’t think this stops any conference from going to 16, but it does give ESPN/ABC programming to fall back on if the national scene changes.
Right now ESPN has to program sports for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3, and ESPNClassic. Any one of those networks always could use college games (and not just football).
However, in the next 5 years:
1) The Big 10, whether or not it expands, could sell it’s big games to Fox or NBC and/or move more coverage to the BTN or to other cable networks. And that’s even if it doesn’t expand and add more important schools.
2) The Pac 10 could basically do the same thing as the Big 10, though it doesn’t have nearly as much programming on the ABC/ESPN family to start with.
3) The SEC could expand (with a financial assist from CBS), removing some national names from ABC on Saturdays. It could then cancel its ESPN package in order to form an SEC network or to sell its games to CBS buddies TBS and TNT.
4)BYU and maybe some other schools (read: UT) could go independent and sell their game rights.
5)ACC, Big 12, and Big East programming on ABC/ESPN could be hurt by defections to those other 3 conferences. Maybe some of these conferences aren’t around in 5 years.
Making the MWC a bigger conference doesn’t prevent any of the above from happening. However, getting the rights to an enlarged MWC does seem like an insurance policy to have in case it loses some of the programming it currently has.
LikeLike
Its official, Nevada accepts, and says Fresno also accepted.
LikeLike
CBS College channel is showing it.
LikeLike
Nevada says they will be negotiating with the WAC over the exit fee. Says $5 mil is the high end of the negotiating range, but whatever is decided they will come out ahead financially in the 5+ year time range.
LikeLike
Did they mention anything about whether they signed off on the exit fee?
There was something about them not signing it earlier…
LikeLike
Inference was yes, they signed an agreement.
LikeLike
More from the NV news conference: 2011 or 2012 is not decided yet. Not yet known what BYU will do.
Serious discussions began yesterday. (Though earlier said that consideration began months ago with UNLV pushing NV’s membership.)
Boise St did pay the WAC an exit fee, but it was smaller than whatever NV will pay.
LikeLike
I’m just stunned how fast this has happened. Literally 24 hours ago nothing was happening and now I’m watching the “We’re so happy to leave conference X to be in conference Y”.
LikeLike
Agreed. This is so fast it makes you wonder, what could the offer have been that makes you almost immediately drop affiliation with one conference at a significant cost (millions of dollars you don’t presently have) and run to affiliation with another conference? Makes the rumor above regarding significant TV money in play seem plausable.
LikeLike
I would guess that all WAC schools must know already that affiliation with the MWC, even minus BYU, is monetarily and psychologically worthwhile, so when the invite comes, they can jump immediately without looking.
LikeLike
Comments on press conference:
Nevada has mentioned travel costs several times as reason for moving, specifically Hawaii and Louisiana Tech. I wonder how much of that is real and how much is posturing.
Boise State will not get tv money this year, but no additional exit fee. Nevada will pay some sort of exit fee.
Reporter tried to trick speaker into admitting that BYU was gone. Speaker directly denied it.
Nevada is talking up scheduling benefits of conference.
LikeLike
If Boise, NV and Fresno stick together, those Hawaii and LT flights are offset by Moscow, Boise, Fresno, San Jose and Reno bus rides with Logan maybe also. Laramie, Ft. Collins, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, Ft. Worth aren’t exactly next door. SDSU isn’t either for that matter.
LikeLike
Fort Collins is 60 miles from Denver, so is Colorado Springs. It’s not the two hour drive through the middle of nowhere that a trip to Moscow, Idaho is after you fly into Spokane. Fort Worth is close enough to DFW to be in the name. Laramie is a pain, but that’s the only one. United, Delta, Continental, Southwest, American and US Air all fly into Albequerque.
LA Tech is in Ruston. You’re talking about flying into New Orleans and driving 300 miles or going to Shreveport’s regional airport. It’s 2500 miles each way to go to Hawaii. I’m going to say travel costs are a legitimate issue.
LikeLike
Wow, you’ve flunked geography and Travelocity.
La Tech’s stadium is 35 miles from Monroe, LA’s airport, which has direct commercial flights to Memphis, DFW, and Houston hubs. Shreveport is 70 miles, all freeway.
If you must have more choices, Alexandria, LA is 100 miles, Jackson, MS 160, Baton Rouge 210, and even DFW Airport is 265 miles, closer than New Orleans and all freeway.
But don’t most schools fly charter? Ruston’s airport has a 5000′ runway which can handle jets.
LikeLike
It’s still easier for SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, and Nevada to get to virtually anywhere else than it is to get to LA Tech and Hawaii. Is it easier to get to Albequerque or Las Cruces?
Charter flights still use gas and have flight time. Cutting off the trips to Hawaii alone are probably worth the move.
Four of the six remaining WAC schools are a chore to travel to. Seven of the eight MWC schools are within 60 miles of cities with major airports. If you’re going to tell me that it’s easier to travel within the WAC, I suggest you double check the geography yourself.
When Nevada repeatedly cites travel costs as reason for wanting to move, it’s real, not posturing.
LikeLike
I was only replying to this:
LA Tech is in Ruston. You’re talking about flying into New Orleans and driving 300 miles or going to Shreveport’s regional airport.
LikeLike
TCU coach cautions BYU…
“All I can tell you is this: Just wait and see in the next two weeks before you make any judgments and see what happens in the national landscape,” Patterson said. “Things that I know that maybe you don’t know. That’s all I’m going to tell you.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5475303
LikeLike
What would TCU’s Patterson know that BYU wouldn’t involving their conference? Though Patterson could be just blowing smoke, it seems to hit at something outside the MWC. Intriguing….
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s an odd comment. Even if TCU was, just guessing, BE bound, it wouldn’t really affect BYU. The only thing that would really impact BYU would be more WAC defections but he doesn’t really sound like he’s referencing that.
LikeLike
Very odd comment – maybe I’m just looking at the whole hierarchy of the MWC and wondering “what would a TCU football coach know that the BYU/LDS Church doesn’t – as it pertains to the MWC?”
LikeLike
I did not focus on the MWC. I zeroed in on the “national landscape” verbiage.
LikeLike
@loki:
It’s those damn Iluminati again, back to mess around with our realignment fun.
LikeLike
@Hopkins – The Illuminati are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bilderbergers, which is, as we all know, headed by DeLoss Dodds.
LikeLike
@ Loki….Ok, as it pertains to the Nat’l landscape – that means it would have to involve TCU if Patterson is privy right? If it involves TCU – then I presume that it would be some sort of move, so why would TCU then care what BYU is thinking of doing? Like you said…very odd comment to make.
Even if it was something outlandish like…..aTm saying screw the UTen and jumps to the SEC with team x, then the now UT9 goes after TCU and would like to add BYU as well – BYU simply moves from Independent to the new UTen or UTwelve in a matter of moments.
Just not sure what he is alluding to.
LikeLike
Maybe Rutgers to B10? TCU might know because they had discussions with BE.
LikeLike
That’s actually a good thought bullet.
Rutgers to the Big Ten is going to be #13 in my mind no matter how the rest of everything shakes down.
And right now we’re at the window of when the Big Ten was supposed to make decisions under the original timeline…
LikeLike
Rutgers to the Big 10 wouldn’t happen out of the blue like that, imo.
LikeLike
RU to the Big 10 cold happen any moment JD wants it to. I think the Big 10 presidents are already sold on RU, given its research capabilities.
LikeLike
The Presidents would be fine with the academic side; it’s the athletic side that would concern them. The Big10 is still an athletic conference first, and I doubt they’re eager to add a school if it isn’t going to be in the top half of the Big10 athletically.
LikeLike
On the athletic side, RU’s importance is that it would bring the Big 10’s marquee programs — PSU, UM, tOSU and UNL — to the NY metro area on a regular basis. And NJ is prime recruiting turf for lots of sports, turf that will be inviting for the entire league.
LikeLike
The Big Ten won’t invite Rutgers until it has a suitable expansion partner for it, for the simple reason that a 13-member conference is messy. I still sense Maryland is the Big Ten’s preferred partner with Rutgers, as it’s a comparable academic (and better athletic) institution that would complement Rutgers along the northeast corridor, and Delany may wait until the spring of 2011, at which time the new College Park president will be settled in and the governor (either O’Malley or Ehrlich) is safely in office (UMd officials didn’t want Big Ten membership to somehow become a political football in this fall’s campaign).
LikeLike
The most likely scenario might be a bigger bowl deal for the MWC, along with a bit of extra cash for a conference championship game.
The only other thing that comes to mind is the slight chance that a Big 12 team or 3 will preemptively agree to move to the MWC conference in order to protect itself from UT’s future move.
I can’t think of anything else that would entice BYU to stay. If the other BCS conferences stayed the same, the best school for a 12th spot in the MWC would probably be Houston.
If BYU stayed, this would be the conference:
San Diego State
Fresno State
UNLV
Nevada
Boise
BYU
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
TCU
Houston
While a BYU/TCU conference championship match would get some national attention, I think BYU could probably get a better schedule as an independent. Especially since most of these schools would schedule them as a non-conference game.
LikeLike
I’m racking my brain for something that TCU might know that BYU wouldn’t and would also be something that would convince BYU to stay. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that it’s got to originate outside of the conference, likely in the Big 12. If it was in the Mountain West, BYU would know about it. TCU could conceivably get wind of events in the Big 12 though, given that there is likely communication among Texas schools.
Do I actually believe that? Not a chance, but it’s the only thing that I get to that would make the comment make sense and be accurate.
LikeLike
The only thing I can think of is that A&M would bolt to the SEC if it thinks it’s not going to get the $ that it wants…
Everyone except Texas A&M looks to be in a holding pattern…
LikeLike
@zeek:
But why/how would Gary Patterson know that, but BYU wouldn’t?
LikeLike
Your guess is as good as mine.
I can’t think of anything that the coach of TCU would be privy to that would not be available to BYU…
It just seems as if he’s saying something big is going down nationally, but we can only really guess that he’d know of goings on in the state of Texas which BYU wouldn’t have knowledge of…
Still it sounds more like he’s just sounding foreboding without really knowing anything. Either way, within 2 weeks we’ll know whether he’s on to something or full of hot air…
LikeLike
Being a TCU alum, I’ve listened to Patterson quite a bit over the years, and while he isn’t lying, he definitely gets excited about different things than most Internet message board posters. And when he said “I may know things you don’t,” I think he was talking to the assembled reporters, not BYU.
As for things Patterson knows that BYU doesn’t – how about running the Wildcat? That sure came as a shock to them.
LikeLike
More out of Gary Patterson…
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/24838/video-tcus-gary-patterson
Some amusing tidbits:
“What do you think of the news out of BYU?”
“What news is it?”
-“Illinois never went to a BCS game with 3 losses”
Yes they did, 2007 Rose Bowl
-“The only school to go to a BCS game with 3 losses is Florida”
Well other than the Illinois part he’s right, assuming Florida and Florida State are the same school. Of course, Illinois got an at-large bid while FSU won their conference, but whatever.
“If you think being an independent is an easier way to get to a national championship game, you’re fooling yourself”
Domers, take note.
This just reinforces the “Don’t ask coaches questions about this sort of thing. They don’t know what’s going on”.
LikeLike
@M – Patterson and Rex Ryan need to get a TV show together.
LikeLike
I think Patterson was trying to say that you can’t lose two games and reach the BCS TITLE game – but even in that case he’s mistaken, because it was LSU that accomplished the feat, not Florida.
Also amusing:
“The Illini.”
“Who?”
You’d think he’d be aware of Illinois, since they did hire away his OC a couple of years ago (how’s that working out, by the way?).
And I can’t blame him for confusing the Big 12 and Big Ten. It is tricky these days.
LikeLike
That’s the same 3-loss SEC Champ LSU Tiger team that destroyed a 1-loss Illinois Big Ten Champ in the Sugar Bowl that year.
Apologies to FtT for bringing that up, but I just couldn’t help myself.
LikeLike
Wow, the SEC managed to win another bowl game played at home.
LikeLike
Greg – why doesn’t the Big Ten champ quit playing in the Rose Bowl and play in the Little Caesar’s Pizza Bowl if that’s the way you all feel?
LikeLike
“I think Patterson was trying to say that you can’t lose two games and reach the BCS TITLE game – but even in that case he’s mistaken, because it was LSU that accomplished the feat, not Florida.”
There are several true statements only a few words different than what he said. Your guess is as good as mine as to which he was intending.
LikeLike
Avoiding travel to Hawaii and La Tech was a factor.
Wow, Mt West Conference TV set is too busy, hard on the eyes. Circa-1981, nice visible creases in the backdrop.
Fresno St conference now on. Note to idiot FSU cameraman: Not wise to do extreme closeups on an old man. Especially a jittery one. Nose hairs are not attractive.
Blah, blah, blah, they didn’t say anything new (though I may have dozed off.)
LikeLike
So, without BYU and Utah, any chance that national carriers like DirecTV might consider dumping The Mountain, or at least renegotiate for even smaller carriage fees than they already pay?
LikeLike
They probably have the option to do that.
LikeLike
Note to idiot MWChannel producers: don’t do closeups when one of your anchors is the elephant man.
LikeLike
Fresno State prez turning press conference into half time speech.
Wants to start in fall of 11, but apparently WAC has deadline in July, so would have to be negotiated.
Has “not heard that they (BYU) will not” be in the conference. “Not privy” to other decisions.
Also mentioned travel cost.
Mentioned Big 12. “When conference members left their conference” they negotiated exit fees and leaving dates. I wasn’t aware that those negotiations were over.
Fresno said they talked quite closely with Nevada, Nevada said the decisions were independent. Not completely contradictory, but certainly different emphasis.
Dodged the “why do you think they happened to ask now” question.
“have you had discussions with BYU leadership?” “I’ve had discussions with lots of people” That’s an actual quote.
Talking up feasibility of 11 schools. Made joke about Big Ten logo.
LikeLike
‘Mentioned Big 12. “When conference members left their conference” they negotiated exit fees and leaving dates.’
Sweet. Now other conferences can blame Nebraska for screwing everything up.
LikeLike
I was way ahead of you on that one. 🙂
LikeLike
I was going to blame this one on Texas. Had Texas and the Big 12 South (minus Baylor) gone to the Pac-10, Utah would still be sitting in the Mountain West.
LikeLike
See, there’s something in it for all of us!
LikeLike
MWC commish teleconference temporarily drowned out by a heavy-breathing walrus, er, reporter from WY.
Commish says BYU still a member (don’t read anything into that.)
Conf champ game has not been discussed. Conf configuration discussed at most conf meetings. Some schools want 12 members, others are against. (Fits with rumor that UHou is a candidate but one school is creating resistance.)
Entrance fee being discussed, as is paying assistance for exit fees.
“I don’t know BYU’s intentions. They have been on conference calls with our commissioners for the last several days.”
LikeLike
You know what’s nice about a day like this? All the gang’s back together again!
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – This definitely was a nice surprise today! I had no clue this was coming down the pike and it’s a chance to watch a pretty fascinating realignment story unfold from afar (and being right in the middle of it with the Big Ten/Texas/ND).
LikeLike
We need some sort of Realignment Emergency Notification System on a go-forward basis.
LikeLike
I already have a Realignment Emergency Notification System. It’s this blog crapping in my inbox.
LikeLike
Seriously, a crazy, crazy day – like the good ole days of a couple months back
LikeLike
No deadline for BYU from the MWC.
Denver chick reporter sounds drunk.
Met in Philly today with Comcast and CBS.
Claims this wasn’t a defensive move to weaken the WAC and keep BYU. Says adding FSU and NV helps their AQ case.
Waiting to see what else will occur nationally.
LikeLike
Craig Thompson, MWC commissioner
Sounds very tired. He’s added more in 24 hours than any other conference has in 6 months though.
“BYU is a member of the MWC. They participated in several conference calls over the last 48 hours.”
-Yes, but will they continue to be a member over the next 24?
“As we’re speaking at 920, the MWC is an 11 team league… er, soon to be 11 team”
Commish doesn’t seem interested in getting to 12. Says some people in conference do want to get to 12. “It may happen, it may not happen”.
Andy Katz “what about BYU?”
“I don’t know BYU’s intentions
“why now?”
Some garbage about television markets and additional coverage. Apparently Nevada doubled in size in the last 3 months.
The commissioner keeps trying to say that these additions are unrelated to BYU. He’s trying to say that television discussions suddenly made it necessary to kill the WAC.
“Would you have accepted one of them (Fresno, Nevada) without the other?”
-“hypothetical, I can’t answer”
“I don’t know what BYU’s intentions were or are, we simply wanted to make conference better”
Reporters keep asking “What is happening with BYU?” in different ways. Commish is not biting.
“What do you say to BYU to convince them to stay?”
“Same as the University of Utah”-most ominous response ever
He says they won’t make concessions to BYU.
LikeLike
Yes, not related to BYU. So they discuss it with Fresno & NV on Tuesday, meet Comcast on Wednesday (arriving at 2am), make the formal invitation on Wednesday, tell them to make a quick decision, which they do on Wednesday, all without any detailed discussion of admission fees. Fresno and Nevada don’t know how much it will cost them to leave, when they will leave and how much it will cost to enter.
BYU obviously had nothing to do with this. I must say though, Thompson says that very convincingly. He’s a better actor than a lot of professional actors.
Also would not comment on whether one of the two would have been admitted without the other. It was a conditional offer on both accepting.
Discussion of their inability to use the tremendous drawing power of TCU to get on cable in DFW.
LikeLike
And the Big East Providence mafia, with a natural pair of schools out there like TCU and Houston, will instead divide their time tomorrow morning between discussions on:
A) whether Villanova, who drew about 8000 people a game for a national championship FCS team, can move up to the FBS
B) Which italian restaurant will get their Thursday lunch order.
LikeLike
To riff on the possibility of Big East expansion for a moment, if we assume that (1) the Big East wanted to expand by two and (2) the Big East’s top target was TCU, would Houston or Memphis be a better second target?
LikeLike
Houston has a football team. Memphis, not so much…
LikeLike
To me, you would always want to pair schools to make better trips for the non-football sports, so Houston.
LikeLike
East Carolina and TCU might be the strongest available, if TCU is open.
LikeLike
Granted ECU would be stronger football-wise than either UH or Memphis, but I was looking at it from the traveling pair methodology you suggested above.
(Also, would basketball perhaps matter more to the Big East than to the other conferences?)
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t they go after UCF?
LikeLike
To expound on UCF, they would work well with USF in terms of getting each team down to Florida at least once per season, and UCF has the same kind of upside in terms of going for 50,000+ attendance, etc.
LikeLike
@zeek
Does it really add much to grab the fifth team in a state?
LikeLike
One advantage of having both is that a legitimate rivalry could help bring attention to both. If people actually care about the result when the two play, even as a secondary concern at first, it could help both schools gain legitimacy. I don’t know if that’s a big enough factor to invite them, but it’s at least an argument.
LikeLike
I would argue that UCF has as much upside as USF did when it got added to the Big East and hit an upward trajectory.
The ingredients are all there; huge enrollment etc. Fan attendance has been getting there.
And aren’t you discussing doing the same thing in Texas with Houston? Between Houston or UCF; UCF is easily a better fit for the Big East in my mind. Especially if you grab TCU to go with it.
LikeLike
As a fan of a Big East team, I agree that the best of the BE’s admittedly limited options now is to try and get:
-The pair of TCU and Houston
-UCF to pair with USF
-Memphis (because with Cinn and Lville it would fit the travel better than ECU would).
The problem with that is the recent idea that the Big 12 north teams might become available if the Big 12 blows up.
So, I would try the Texas thing for now and keep the other two spots unfilled for a little while (waiting for KU and KSU).
LikeLike
Houston because of travel. Not just the traveling pair, but because TCU would be all alone.
Memphis actually draws better than either of them with worse teams in fb. I’ve always looked at attendance as a key indicator of desirability. Note that Fresno, Boise and Nevada were #2,#3 and #4 in attendance in WAC (behind Hawaii).
LikeLike
@bullet – Memphis draws better than whom? They only had one home crowd over 20,000 last season, and that was Ole Miss. Going back to 2007, an 8-5 bowl season, their best crowd (again, outside of Ole Miss) was 27,000. Meanwhile, TCU averaged 38,000 without any help from giant BCS conference state schools and has been handily topping Memphis’ attendance figures for years now.
LikeLike
Accidently posted the numbers at the bottom instead of here. TCU has only outdrawn Memphis the last 3 years. Memphis was higher the 5 years before that. And Memphis has a higher average since SWC breakup.
LikeLike
“Other conf have made concessions to keep schools, we have not done that for BYU.”
“We want our schools to enter as strong as possible” (suggesting that entry fees won’t be steep.)
“This helps our TV position.”
“Rumor of BYU press conference was totally false.”
Confirmed that NV and FSU were told to give them a decision quickly. Somewhat cornered into admitting that BYU prompted the quick action (without explicitly saying so.
LikeLike
ESPN radio reporter goes AWOL in his question slot.
Catman of the Americas (now with ESPN Dallas?) needles commish on why MWChannel still not in DFW market.
Dang, I may have missed some good TV info.
Dodged question on if BYU could stay in the MWC for everything but football.
“Did the TV networks encourage you to expand?” – “They didn’t discourage us.”
Unanimous vote to bring in NV and FSU.
“Did you talk to WAC commish Karl Benson to let him know this was coming?” – “No. Well, we had email exchanges but I didn’t speak by phone.”
LikeLike
“BYU was fully participating” in adding these two schools.
Re Hawaii-“been part of conversations in the past”
“Was there a deadline for Fresno State/Nevada for today?” “I think that’s fair… conversations started Monday”
I guess I’m still use to major conference timelines. The Big Ten has been looking at expansion for 20 years.
“It doesn’t have to be a Comcast market but it certainly helps”
“We are attractive to television. We have TCU, Boise State, Air Force, Fresno State”-There is no good reason for not listing BYU, unless the Fighting Mormoms are gone.
“Would MWC allow BYU to go independent in football and stay in the conference in other sports?”
“I wouldn’t even venture to guess, hypothetical”
“We’re not going to stand in the way of anyone leaving”
“was Boise State involved?” “involved and had a vote”
“were the tv meetings prescheduled or were they set up recently?” “They were scheduled”
“did tv networks encourage you to expand?” “it didn’t discourage us”
Invitations officially went out today.
“any comments on killing the WAC?” “I’m an employee of the mountain west conference”
commish-“I’ve never been to Fresno”
LikeLike
“It doesn’t have to be a Comcast market but it certainly helps”
Houston is a Comcast market.
LikeLike
I feel for Houston.
LikeLike
That’s why we went U-Verse.
LikeLike
And we went to DirecTV. Unfortunately couldn’t get a clear view of the Southern sky in Atlanta. Stuck with Comcast.
LikeLike
@bullet – That’s a bummer. I switched to DirecTV 6 years ago and never looked back.
LikeLike
Yeah, I had years of tree-blocking Comcast necessity when living in DC. Now that I live in SoCal, where, to the best of my knowledge, there are no trees, I have DirecTV and love it. I’m even not renewing the ESPN College Football Package this season since I discovered last year that a majority of the games featured are also available via the Regional Sports package for pennies on the dollar.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Have you tried this yet?
http://thelandryhat.com/2010/08/06/free-red-zone-channel-from-directv/
I’m planning on calling tomorrow. My one complaint about DirecTV was only offering the Red Zone Channel in conjunction with the $300 Sunday Ticket package instead of including it in the sports pack like other providers. It looks like DirecTV is giving its long-time customers an option, although you have to do a little dance.
LikeLike
Thanks for the tip! I haven’t had DirecTV for two years yet, so I might not qualify.
I’ve actually never had the NFL Package. One of the advantages of being a Cowboys fan (hey, don’t pelt me with tomatoes, I grew up in Dallas and came by it naturally!) is that we’re on TV anywhere 12-14 times a year.
As a PS (not to drive people away from Frank’s site, naturally), the subset of sports fans interested in the intricacies of realignment might overlap with the subset of sports fans who are interested in the intricacies of where and why NFL games are shown where they are. The link below is to a forum to the fascinating forum for those nuts interested in such info.
http://www.the506.com/yabb/YaBB.pl
(And a PPS to FtT: I thinkI sent you an email offline – let me know if you don’t get it!)
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – the506 is great – I post on the message boards there regularly (easily recognizable since I post as Frank the Tank with the same Oscar Gamble avatar). Tons of great discussions there on TV and business issues for all pro and college sports.
I’ll check my email shortly!
LikeLike
At least we have nice trees in the neighborhood. Although, after being in Houston for many years its gets a little claustrophobic, not being able to see the sky (plenty of trees in Houston, just not 200 ft ones).
LikeLike
The WAC throws in the towel…
“The WAC is keeping its options open, too, scouring for schools. Benson said there are five or six candidates from the [b]Football Championship Series[/b] the conference is keeping an eye on.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276064
LikeLike
At the very least, today guarantees us nibbles of realignment action as the WAC orphans find new homes.
LikeLike
SMU may be involved in all this. As in TCU, SMU, and Houston may all end up in the same conference. Not necessarily the MWC.
LikeLike
All I can say is wow (or better, WTF?)!!
Frank, what’s going on? Is this what chaos looks like? At first blush it seems that way, but with all of the dominoes falling, at least some of this is very much orchestrated. There’s a great book to be written about this somewhere… Does any of this feed back and alter thoughts about your last thread re conference stability, or is this all reverberation and exclusively second-tier happenings?
And meanwhile, back at the ranch… Our Big Ten continues forward slowly, methodically and definitively. The $15-$20M championship game grab, short term contract renegotiation with another top ten brand is still the MVP play of expansion to this point.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Paterno rules!
LikeLike
BYU should jump at the chance to go independent. They can improve the quality of their football schedule, and with the TV deal, reap all the financial benefits. To stay in the MWC would mean staying in the 3rd world of the NCAA.
LikeLike
“ESPN giving BYU a golden handshake and a wink parachute to leave the MWC to go independent?!? Sounds familiar……somehow this is all going to come back and screw the Pac before TV negotiations somehow – I just know it!”
Says the Pac 10/12 guy used to getting screwed by ESPN coverage.
LikeLike
WASHINGTON LEAVES COLLEGE FOOTBALL ENTIRELY? Good. I can’t wait for the Huskies to leave college football. They suck hard enough already. Go Ducks.
LikeLike
Studying the 16 team model:
some things up front
1) Big 10 / Pac 10 / SEC = strong
2) Big 12 / ACC / Big East / MWC / CUSA = weak
3) 10 brands = ND, tOSU, PSU, UM, UNL, UT, OU, USC, BAMA, +1 SEC
4) Slots filled DO NOT mean final choice, just placeholders for now
5) Divisions are placeholders, not final decisions, not debating now
6) This is just framework, arguing individual teams is secondary
Conference #1 Big 10 = tOSU, UM, PSU, UNL = 40%
East:
Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, PSU, Ohio State, Michigan, MSU
West:
IU, PU, Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa
Thinking: puts Big 10 in east coast, all adds are AAU schools, adds east coast alumni base, all large state schools
Conference #2 SEC = BAMA + 1 (UF,UGA,UT,LSU mix) = 20%
East:
UNC, NC State, Georgia, Ga Tech, Clemson, USC, Florida, Kentucky
West:
Miss, Miss St, Bama, Auburn, Vandy, Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas
Thinking: Keeps 4 ACC in same division, upgrades academics, adds state schools, expands footprint into North Carolina
Conference #3 Pac 10 = USC, UT, OU = 30%
East:
UTx, Ttech, Oklahoma, OK State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona St
West:
Washington, Wash St, Oregon, Oregon St, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
Thinking: forms last regional of the Big 3, allows tech and oSu to find an academic home, TU runs east & USC runs west, makes 2 Pac 8’s
Conference #4 G&G = ND = 10%
East:
Notre Dame, Army, Navy, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Va Tech, Miami
West:
TAMU, BYU, Air Force, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Tulane, Rice
Thinking: Preserves (independent) power to ND, as collection of private and military schools have similar standards, allows better teams to strengthen value via OOC scheduling, creates bigger footprint and media values for secondary teams while protecting academic standards and private status. Allows second tier team like TAMU, Miami, Va Tech, and BYU to develop “full” brand status.
Conference #5 = B&P = secondary public schools
East:
Uconn, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, ECU, FSU, UCF, USF
West:
Missouri, Kansas, KSU, Iowa St, Memphis, Houston, Boise State, UNLV
Thinking: collective of “lesser” schools that can pool to create more demand for secondary teams, allows a place for the “leftovers” to land where they can build new “brands” outside of current “brands”
Implications for playoff system:
1) all 5 conferences play CCG
2) G&C CCG winner plays B&P CCG winner if neither conference has better record over the other. Say FSU wins B&P CCG and finishes season 12 – 1, while ND wins G&C CCG and finishes 12 – 1. They play following week to determine TEAM #4. If records were FSU 11 – 2 and ND was 12 – 1, then ND would automatically become TEAM #4
3) TEAM #1 = Big 10 CCG winner
4) TEAM #2 = Pac 10 CCG winner
5) TEAM #3 = SEC CCG winner
6) Big 10 champ (TEAM #1) plays Pac 10 champ (TEAM #2) in Rose Bowl
7) SEC champ (TEAM #3) plays (TEAM #4) in Sugar Bowl
8) Rose Bowl winner plays Sugar Bowl winner for National Championship
9) for Big 3 + 2 BCS teams, other 2 get +1 BCS team = 8 teams
10) secondary bowls look like this
Fiesta Bowl = #2 Pac 10 team vs #2 Big 10
Orange Bowl = #2 SEC team vs #2 G&C
Outback = #3 SEC team vs #3 Big 10
Cotton = #3 Pac 10 team vs #2 B&P
Positive points:
a) use CCG to narrow teams to 4, less upset of schedules & academics
b) keeps importance of Rose and Sugar, with historic teams
c) does not require added weeks for playoff system, less disruption
d) Divides top bowls as follows:
Big 10 (3) contractual bids – Rose, Fiesta, Outback
Pac 10 (3) contractual bids – Rose, Fiesta, Cotton
SEC (3) contractual bids – Sugar, Orange, Outback
G&C (1+1) contractual bid(s) – Sugar ?, Orange
B&P (1+1) contractual bid(s) – Sugar ?, Cotton
This covers 70 of the roughly 120 D 1 college football teams
While the Big 10 and SEC currently share, this allows the Pac 10, G&C, and B&P to decide if they want equal or unequal division (a sticking point as we have seen in previous discussions)
LikeLike
Hello to all,
Just back from the islands’. St. Croix was sunny and the water and scenery were beautiful.
I see we have something new to ruminate over. Have just been spending some time catching up on the post and waiting to see if these medium sizes dominos gets the action moving again up top.
LikeLike
Conference #1 Big 10 = tOSU, UM, PSU, UNL = 40%
East:
Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, PSU, Ohio State, Michigan, MSU
West:
IU, PU, Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa
Thinking: puts Big 10 in east coast, all adds are AAU schools, adds east coast alumni base, all large state schools
Could see it, although Big Ten might be cool to Pitt (no new market), and might prefer Syracuse even though SU is private and relatively weak on research.
Conference #2 SEC = BAMA + 1 (UF,UGA,UT,LSU mix) = 20%
East:
UNC, NC State, Georgia, Ga Tech, Clemson, USC, Florida, Kentucky
West:
Miss, Miss St, Bama, Auburn, Vandy, Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas
Thinking: Keeps 4 ACC in same division, upgrades academics, adds state schools, expands footprint into North Carolina
North Carolina is the Texas of Tobacco Road (needs to be the lead dog). Substitute Virginia Tech for UNC and this might work.
Conference #3 Pac 10 = USC, UT, OU = 30%
East:
UTx, Ttech, Oklahoma, OK State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona St
West:
Washington, Wash St, Oregon, Oregon St, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
Thinking: forms last regional of the Big 3, allows tech and oSu to find an academic home, TU runs east & USC runs west, makes 2 Pac 8′s
Of the conference scenarios you envision, this has the most chance of proceeding as you planned.
Conference #4 G&G = ND = 10%
East:
Notre Dame, Army, Navy, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Va Tech, Miami
West:
TAMU, BYU, Air Force, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Tulane, Rice
Thinking: Preserves (independent) power to ND, as collection of private and military schools have similar standards, allows better teams to strengthen value via OOC scheduling, creates bigger footprint and media values for secondary teams while protecting academic standards and private status. Allows second tier team like TAMU, Miami, Va Tech, and BYU to develop “full” brand status.
Conference #5 = B&P = secondary public schools
East:
Uconn, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, ECU, FSU, UCF, USF
West:
Missouri, Kansas, KSU, Iowa St, Memphis, Houston, Boise State, UNLV
Thinking: collective of “lesser” schools that can pool to create more demand for secondary teams, allows a place for the “leftovers” to land where they can build new “brands” outside of current “brands”
Both of these are longshots. I don’t think any of the service academics have BCS status as their #1 priority. Duke will want to be linked with UNC and A&M wants the SEC. Oh, and A&M, Miami and Virginia Tech are hardly “second-tier” schools.
LikeLike
vincent,
this was a “rough draft” as you and I have both discussed VT and ACC teams for quite some time on here. It may not reflect all actual movement accurately but was intended to show an overall perspective without “individual” tweaks to the system. The point of the G&C conference was to illustrate how some “out of the box” thinking could look in a “superconference” world. While I agree in principle about your service academies point, this would allow them participation in a conference with like minded schools. Plus ND and Navy have a long history that extends to “handshake” deals in a world clamoring for “ironclad” contracts.
A&M, Miami, and VT are second tier in football compared to USC, tOSU, and BAMA. While I agree 100 % that Miami and VT are knocking on the “first tier” door, their history of being great has not passed the multi generational test that a team like OU already has. Again the point of the post was to focus on the “big picture” and not get “bogged down” yet with the logistics of each individual team. The goal was to show how a 16 team model could lead to a 4 team “playoff” while disrupting travel and academic conflict in the LEAST way possible. This model was an attempt to show a possible way this could be done, and not intended to become a debate on each team involved (at least not yet 🙂 ). My apology if I was not clearer in getting this basic point across. You know I respect your thinking on this blog, and was not implying that these are the actual teams I would put in each one of the slots.
LikeLike
What was TCU coach Patterson hinting at that BYU might not know about and also make independence risky?
1. Patterson is blowharding, desperate to keep BYU in.
2. He’s been tipped off to likely changes to the BCS. TCU is 20 minutes from JerryWorld, so rumors from the BCS could easily trickle into his circle.
Perhaps JerryWorld is about to be named the 5th BCS Bowl and is looking at the MWC as their tie-in. But wouldn’t word of that quickly leak through the conference?
Perhaps the BCS will propose modifying its format, and making it much harder for non-AQ conf teams and indy’s to qualify. I’ve speculated on if Texas asked for some BCS changes in return for not starting the super conference era, which supposedly the BCS bowls fear. Could be based on 7×12 conf formats or something else.
Perhaps Patterson is hearing from sources close to TX or other pertinent schools that 16 team super conferences are inevitable, but maybe 5×16 instead of 4×16 (JerryWorld added, each super conf gets their own bowl and virtually shuts out non-super conf schools, forcing ND into a conf.) MWC becomes the favorite to be the 5th super conf, but BYU could be screwed if they burn that bridge.
But unless the B10+? moves soon (and there’s been zero buzz about such leaking out, right?) I’m not sure how a domino falls in the next 2 weeks, in regards to super conf. But consider this, TX’s choice of movement becomes politically much easier if connected Texas schools such as Baylor, TTech, UHou, and/or SMU have a BCS-equivalent alternative in the super conf realignment. Say TX does reach an agreement with the P12 to bring 3 friends, the Ags go to the SEC, the BEast is devoured by the B10+?, ACC, and SEC, there are still enough slots left to place most or all of the other B12-2 schools between those conferences and the MWC. Find everybody a home and there isn’t much for the Texas politicians to complain about.
Not sure I buy any of those theories, but they are possibilities. No buzz on the TX or TexAgs boards.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now – TCU alum here. Patterson isn’t lying, but he gets excited about weird things. Maybe he knows something huge, but it could just be that he came up with some clever defensive wrinkle that will drive BYU’s offense crazy when they come to Fort Worth. (Oct. 16, which has suddenly acquired a big red circle on my calendar).
As for BYUtv, my understanding was that their only revenue came from donations – they get no ad revenue or subscriber fees, which is why so many TV providers toss it in their basic tier. What would happen if they suddenly tried to charge subscriber fees? Would the carriers drop that sucker like an Andy Dalton pass in the Fiesta Bowl? Advertising revenues might be easier to start up than subscriber fees, but BYU sports aren’t really a huge sell, and if they refuse to run beer ads (this is BYU, after all) that would be a pretty serious limitation. Banking $1.5 million per year could be tougher than Frank makes it seem.
Frank – from what I’ve seen, BYUtv runs a bunch of genealogy shows and reruns of classic BYU football games, along with some live sports, like men’s volleyball and an occasional baseball game. And broadcasts of church services, naturally. But the Jim McMahon show sounds like a winner.
LikeLike
BYUTV recently showed up on our DVR because they were showing “Anne of Green Gables” sequels. They seem to also have some fictional shows I never heard of, not sure the source of those.
I’d previously watched it once because of the MSU/BYU basketball game.
LikeLike
It is also easier to sell superconferences if the number of BCS automatic qualifying schools (and the apparent money available to them) increases. You can argue, from a large conference viewpoint, that we will have 70 or even 86 teams in AQ conferences as opposed to the current 66. Meanwhile, the real superconferences (Big 10, SEC, Pac10) will have even bigger TV deals actually leading to greater disparity. So while the smaller conference schools will be taking in more money than they do now, and have some more limited prestige, the bigger superconferences will be raking in huge amounts of money with which no one can regularly compete.
This is why, if you are the Big 10, you may support the MWC in obtaining AQ status. It is a trade off to where you think you can go. What is $18 million when it may lead to the right 16 teams in your conference and true, national TV status? The BCS itself becomes a means to an end.
LikeLike
This might be to what “Playoffs Now” is asking.
This is just unsubstantiated rumor so it might be rumor mongering at it’s finest (which I have no problem with)
ESPN is brokering a deal to save C-USA and the MWC and some of the homeless orphans from the WAC. TCU and Louisiana Tech would joining C-USA putting TCU, UTEP, SMU, and Houston in the same conference, and giving them 14 teams.
Both C-USA and the MWC would be tied together for ONE BCS spot that the highest rated conference winner would get.
The Cotton Bowl will be announced as the 5th BCS Bowl Game. (this is part of what Patterson knows)
Another crazy rumor along those lines: C-USA winner and the MWC would play in a inter-Conference championship game,with each conference sending it’s champ/highest rated team. It would be like a playoff play in game. Winner goes to the BCS. Where would this game be played? Jerry World (this rumor I think is a stretch but it makes sense)
All of this is tied to a TV deal with ESPN for both MWC and C-USA.
This is the deal the BYU is balking at. This TV deal didn’t come close to the money per team that Utah is getting in the 12-Pac (10-15 million eventually) BYU thinks they can make more money as an Indy, then they can in this deal.
LikeLike
Average since breakup of SWC:
Memphis 30,268
TCU 30,074
UH 19,790
Last 4 years when TCU has been great they have outdrawn Memphis, but only 32k to 28k. UH has only drawn 22k over last 4 years. Memphis was drawing 40k in 2003-2005.
Others since 1996 (4 yr)
ECU 35,960 (41,872)
UCF 27,208 (38,315)
USM 27,058 (29,128)
LikeLike
@bullet – Interesting. Is there a website where you get those?
LikeLike
You can find individual years on NCAA.org. Not sure how far back they keep them-saw a link for 99-08 archives. I’ve downloaded them in prior years, so I’ve got it back to 96.
Look up football team statistics. They update a variety of stats, including attendance, each week during the season. Always interesting to look at top players’ stats when they are talking about the Heisman and contrasting that with the hype those players are getting.
LikeLike
10 team MWC & 14 team CUSA conference winners facing off? Unless CUSA manages to shed a few teams, it’s hard to see how they can pull this off, scheduling-wise.
I suppose they could both get to 12, then a round-robin in both conferences means 11 conference games and 1 non-conf (vs. a patsy, likely).
If I was BYU, I’d object to that plan as well. Of course, the BE could make things easier by taking 2 of UCF/Memphis/TCU/Houston.
LikeLike
well if the MWC adds some WAC orphans they could get to either 12 or 14 teams. BUT I would assume the MWC schools don’t want to go that big (the 16 team WAC comes to their minds) Plus the teams left even the MWC don’t want I would assume. Utah St, Idaho, New Mexico St,San Jose St are really dressed up FCS schools. And there’s the travel issues with Hawaii
But the 2 conferences wouldn’t have to play each other in the regular season. Just their #1 team play in a playoff game.
LikeLike
Right, but a 14 school CUSA will have it’s own championship game (unless the conference decides that not playing a roundrobin is OK), so fitting in _another_ game at the end of the season would be difficult unless the NCAA gives them an exemption from the “12 game + championship game” limit.
A 12-school roundrobin seems too much, but an 11-school roundrobin probably would fly if the winner is guaranteed a shot at a BCS berth.
LikeLike
and I’m going to guess that’s one of the issues. If they split the conferences into 2 sides…who’s the winner if they don’t play a round robin? Would they have a championship game, then the Inter-championship game? That would be tough
LikeLike
maybe..and this is just thinking out loud…C-USA spins off their eastern schools like Marshall, UCF, E. Carolina. Memphis joins the Big-least.
That would give you 10 teams and 10 teams in each of the MWC and C-USA
LikeLike
Riffing on that theme, I wonder if ESPN is quietly “encouraging” the BE to take in a couple of UCF/Memphis/ECU/Houston/TCU.
CUSA wouldn’t kick out ECU & UCF by themselves; those schools bring too much. Marshall may be sacrificed.
LikeLike
@Richard With the rumors of ESPN behind the scenes brokering all this, that could make sense.
It makes C-USA a Texas and gulf coast conference. Boosts the Big East as well.
The Utah States, New Mexico States, Marshalls of this world seem to be the ones that will pushed down or to the side (and frankly I’m all for that. Those teams are not FBS caliber teams)
LikeLike
Well, they’re Sun Belt-caliber; maybe even MAC-caliber.
LikeLike
Yeah, a 20 team superconference (as others discussed below) could work with 0-1 cross-divisional games and a 9 game divisional schedule.
I suppose if you want to group 24 schools, you could have four 6-team divisions. Then have the highest 2 division winners meet in a ‘Championship game’ while the other 2 meet in another ‘Championship game’. You wouldn’t get a true conference champion, but you would get 2 co-champions. The winner of the first game would end up with a decent ranking most years, with a shot at the BCS.
I think it would require an NCAA waiver, but I think it would look bad for the other conferences if they tried to block it.
LikeLike
“Then have the highest 2 division winners meet in a ‘Championship game’”
That should be “the 2 highest-ranking division winners meet in a ‘Championship game'”
LikeLike
Rivals’ Houston site reports a super conference of 20 teams may be formed among the best of the Mountain West and C-USA.
LikeLike
One of the original rumors of the ‘ESPN Conference’:
http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=5796747
Here’s what I thought was most interesting: A new conference was trying to be started by ESPN — BYU, TCU, boise, fresno st, san diego st, smu and Houston. . . . “No. 2 guy at espn almost had it done. UNLV and SDSU would have had nowhere to go. WAC has better fb tv contract than mwc. The new conference was to have a thurs and fri night game every week. ESPN was to pay big to fund it.” Apparently, they ran out of time and couldn’t get it done.
LikeLike
This rumor seems to have circulated heavy yesterday among some big wig lawyers/boosters.
LikeLike
Well, considering that the new MWC has 11 teams (as of now) and CUSA has 12, a 20-team superconference still wouldn’t be too difficult to form. If the BE takes 2 teams, only 1 team would be kicked out . . .
LikeLike
Or more likely, Get BYU to stay in the MWC, now the ESPNMWDivision, shift TCU to the ESPN East, and take the 9 best applicants to join TCU. Each 10-school division plays 9 games internally, then their champs meets in a conf champ game. Winner gets a Cotton Bowl bid, the 5th BCS bowl.
BEast sounds like they don’t want to do anything until their TV network analysis is done and they know what the B10+? is doing. B12-2 doesn’t want to do anything at the moment. ND wants to stay locked away in its abbey.
Once Delany makes his move it all shakes out again, but ESPN is better positioned to influence the overall outcome. ESPN Conference and BEast likely get raided, but ESPN Conf big enough to likely survive and provide a safe home for B12 castoffs if TX later wants to move, giving TX political cover. Further separates out the hanger on schools getting closer to a true BCS core of 80+ schools that have any legit claim of belonging.
On first glance this may be a win-win for college football as a whole.
LikeLike
Which 3 schools would be cut?
Marshall? Tulane? UTEP? UAB? S.Miss?
Wyoming’s the only obvious candidate in the MWC, but CSU and AF are likely there to protect it.
LikeLike
Richard – Tulane is too fun of a roady to get cut. Southern Miss Figthing Favre’s are usually too good to get cut.
LikeLike
@Richard – On the MWC side, SDSU has been threatening to drop football (or move down to FCS) for awhile. Their president is dead-set against it, but he may not have a choice.
Wyoming is extremely committed to athletics. I believe I read that they have the highest student athletic fees as a percentage of tuition of any school in the country. And yeah, they have a solid rivalry with CSU, but what has that ever done for anyone?
As for this whole MWC-CUSA split BCS berth plan, it sounds nice, but why would TCU and the MWC go for it? TCU already left CUSA once and isn’t at all interested in being in a conference with SMU, UTEP, Houston and Rice; and the MWC is as likely to get a BCS berth on its own as it is with CUSA. Why share the wealth? Now, if it was MWC vs. Big East for that BCS berth, then you might have something, but I don’t think the BEast would be too happy with that arrangement.
LikeLike
Don’t know. Sounds like ESPN originally wanted to dump one or more of the weaker MWC schools but that didn’t go over well.
I’d keep it simple and leave the MWC alone, then raid the other conferences:
ESPNMW Div
Boise
BYU
WY
Colo St
AF
NM
NV
Fresno
UNLV
SDSU (hey, at least it is a SoCal recruiting foothold)
ESPNE Div
UTEP
TCU
SMU
UHou
Tulsa
Mem
UCF
ECU
2 of Hawaii-S.MS-LA Tech-Marshall-Tulane-UAB
An ESPN Conf would solve a lot of problems for the BCS conferences by sequestering every ‘problem’ BCS buster into a single conference. Add the JerryBowl for 10 BCS slots, give the conference one AQ, and you can basically limit them to just 1 of 10 slots instead of potentially 2 of 8. Limit them to 1/10th of the payout split 20 ways. Keeps the BCS conf schools at an advantage while providing enough inclusion to keep Congress (and public opinion) at bay. And of course lays the groundwork for a BCS-bowls based playoff.
LikeLike
As for this whole MWC-CUSA split BCS berth plan, it sounds nice, but why would TCU and the MWC go for it?
If ESPN has reached an agreement with the BCS and its bowls to give the new conference an AQ, that is more attractive to TCU than the crap they go through now. Win conf and you’re in, guaranteed.
LikeLike
I think adding another BCS bowl might be a problem. They did dilute the games going from 8 teams to 10 and I think going to 12 would further that a lot.
LikeLike
So long as adding more BCS bowls doesn’t dilute the payout (and I doubt it would), no one’s going to care about “dilution”.
LikeLike
http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=5801099
Story is BYU got assurances that WAC would hold together, BYU made plans, Nevada and FSU double crossed BYU and WAC
LikeLike
Sorry for forgetting the quotemarks, all of that was a quote. Should read:
“Story is BYU got assurances that WAC would hold together, BYU made plans, Nevada and FSU double crossed BYU and WAC”
LikeLike
MWC said BYU was aware of plans to add Fresno and Nevada. Hmmm.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/24841/three-point-stance-money-talks-again
Ivan Maisel’s nuggets:
1. (Basically says the FSU and NV doublecrossed the WAC and BYU.)
“2. MWC commissioner Craig Thompson said in a teleconference late Wednesday night that he will not make a pitch to BYU to keep the Cougars from leaving the league to pursue independence in football. “They know who we are,” Thompson said. He added that the league won’t make concessions to BYU to stay in the MWC, as Big 12 members did with Texas. If BYU intends to go national, there’s nothing the MWC can offer that would quench that thirst. ”
3. (Says Pelini is immature.)
LikeLike
Another rumor from a UHou board, FWIW:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=215&f=2804&t=6237179&p=2
(requires free registration)
excerpt:
…On realignment MR (UHou AD) is tight lipped as you would expect him to be. He did say we will not know anything until after Sept 1 (I am sure you are aware of the significance of that date).
My other sources highly placed with other schools affected by this as well as ESPN says that U of H is the next target. They are looking to build a 12 team conference. Lots of bucks for ESPN with a playoff.(I assume he is referring to a conf champ game.) I have heard no mention from any source that Hawaii is being considered. There are some other familiar names on the list in addition to us but as I said we are at the top of the list. I feel good about this although I have in the past been concerned about travel expense. But if this aligns the way I am hearing we will have enough schools close by to make this feasible. Plus the powers that be feel there is no way this conference would not be a BCS conference.
LikeLike
Lots of bucks for ESPN with a playoff.(I assume he is referring to a conf champ game.)
Is there really that much money in it for ESPN to have the opportunity to show a conference championship game of a mid-tier conference?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Yeah, that’s got to be overstated. While the Big Ten and SEC championship games are valued around $15-20 million per year, the ACC’s championship game is worth substantially less (I’ve read in the $5 million range). C-USA already has a conference championship game and I don’t think that it provides the conference more than a rounding error in terms of revenue. A mid-tier conference championship game might garner around $1 million – it’s certainly not enough to justify expansion simply for the sake of getting to 12.
LikeLike
Thinking about it, it’s not just the CCG angle that makes the idea of ESPN pimping this seem odd.
Unless the Ocho is finally in the works, or ESPN is planning Tuesday and Wednesday night doubleheaders, when in the world would ESPN find the time to air the games of whatever the hell is supposedly percolating right now?
It’s not as if ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU are lacking for content right now from the mix of games from all of the BCS conferences.
LikeLike
You have to believe that ESPN is thinking of rebranding ESPN Classic since they have stopped producing original content for it. That network could soak up a lot of event programming.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – The Ocho is already here:
(1) ESPN
(2) ESPN2
(3) ESPNU
(4) ESPN Classic
(5) ESPN Deportes
(6) ESPN3.com
(7) ESPN News
(8) ESPN 3D
LikeLike
Damn. I thought there’d be some sort of national holiday when the day arrived.
LikeLike
@MAR1962:
I thought the point behind the concept of the original Classic channel, before ESPN acquired it, was in fact the lack of original content!
LikeLike
It wouldn’t suprise me if ESPN didn’t start showing games on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, & Wednesdays to go along with Thursdays, Fridays, & Saturdays.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think a combination of the MWC and CUSA is much more attractive either of the original leagues.
LikeLike
Depending on the proposal (and I suspect there are several ranging from just a 12-school MWC up to a 20 or 24 pairing) there could be lots of neutral site JerryWorld games throughout the season as part of the agreement. Between JJ and ESPN there could be lots of ways to pump in $$$ to make a viable package (and these wannabe BCS outsiders have a much, much lower buyoff threshold than the B12 schools did. Easier to turn a profit when you’re dealing with penny schools for inventory.)
Also, by appearing to meet the outsiders’ demands for BCS access with a new leftovers conference and a spot in the 5th BCS bowl at Jerryworld, you still sequester these outside threats. The ESPN Conf champ gets a BCS conf wildcard, protecting the big boys’ champs from possible upset. Implement a +1 so in theory the ESPN Conf champ has a title shot, but in reality they’d be more likely frozen out this way than in the current system. TCU-Boise Quarantine Bowl was too obvious for the BCS to keep getting away with that, have to be more creative in the future, this might do that.
My gut says ESPN has floated at least the 10-10=20 plan, a 12-school MWC proposal that drops some of the dead weight (1 or more of SDSU, UNLV, and NM,) and a 12-school MWC with minimal adds. MWC is trying to keep all on board and add either UH, SMU, or HI as the 12th, or two if BYU leaves. TCU doesn’t want both UH and SMU, but if BYU leaves both likely get added. I doubt ESPN is thrilled to have NV signed on, but perhaps that was necessary to kill BYU’s exit. Or maybe the MWC commish and schools want to keep it a MWC conf than the 10-10=20 combo.
LikeLike
MWC is under contract for a few more years, so any ESPN deal would have to pull teams out of there. MWC is an example of a conference network hampering the conference. They would have gotten tremendous exposure and had the potential for lots more $ the last couple of years.
Neutral site games with these teams would result in empty seats which is bad TV.
I suspect this is more idle rumours, but stranger things have happened.
LikeLike
@bullet
agreed about the empty seats. what kind of CUSA/MWC game at Jerryworld would even fill half of it? TCU and some other team may have a chance at an ok crowd, but most matchups would be embarrassingly empty.
LikeLike
1. BYU
2. TCU
3 ……
Uh, yeah, maybe not.
LikeLike
Hearing that MWC is REALLY unhappy with their TV deal. They might try to get out of it’s TV deals as it was promised far wider distribution then it’s gotten. It’s not even available in DFW market where TCU is.
Argument will be THEY didn’t live up to their end of the contract.
LikeLike
@bullet
I think JerryWorld holds about as many people that live in the state of Wyoming
LikeLike
I was thinking along the lines of Jerry World rotating BYU, Boise, and TCU vs schools with lots of alumni in Texas such as OU, OK St, AR, LSU, TTech, NE, aTm, ND, maybe MO. Some of the non-ESPN Conf teams probably wouldn’t want to risk scheduling Boise, BYU, or TCU but might UHou or SMU.
Yeah, I may have oversold that potential, but still think JerryWorld could ink one or two of those games per year, perhaps even beyond AR playing there annually. ND likes games in Texas, NE travels and in a few years after emotions cool might savor a non-B12 game in Texas to pursue recruits. SMU may soon be too good, but for the moment that’s in TTech’s OOC wheelhouse and Dallas is home to their largest alumni base. With aTm you might could get an AF or WY. With JJones perhaps cofinancing the conf and the higher ESPN payouts the conf teams might be obligated to switch 1 home game to neutral every 4 or 5 years.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is a desire for A&M play in Jerryworld for 2 regular season games a year.
Maybe a school like SMU could make a 2 home/1 away series with A&M and have their ‘home’ game at Jerryworld, but I don’t think A&M would add a second neutral game in Dallas.
LikeLike
Actually there is another source on this: The Orlando paper is reporting 2 people with knowledge of the talks:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/os-college-football-expansion-20100819,0,4134695.story
LikeLike
Sorry m(AG), I didn’t realize aTm-AR in Arlington was a 10-year deal with renewal options. Yes, no one is going to play 2 regular season games per year there.
LikeLike
The BCS conferences would want the new super-MWC/CUSA to grow to 20 so that they take in any school that could conceivably challenge for a BCS spot.
So besides Houston, I’d take ECU, UCF, Memphis, S. Miss, Tulane, & Tulsa. Then SMU + one of Rice, UTEP, or UAB. Of course, the math works out easier if everyone pressures the Big East to take in 2 schools.
LikeLike
So, no one thinks that a MAC team could conceivably put together a BCS-worthy season?
LikeLike
I do. Miami, Bowling Green, Northern Illinois and Toledo have all put together seasons that would be BCS worthy.
LikeLike
Yeah, I remember back in ’03 I think when there was a serious debate over which Miami had the better team. Would’ve been cool to see them meet in a bowl.
LikeLike
Think that was when Miami (OH) had Ben Rothlesberger. And their top reciever was Barry Larkin’s nephew. They finished ranked 12th if I remember correctly. The MAC has had some decent teams. It’s almost impossible to build anything that lasts recruiting against tOSU, ND and Team Up North.
LikeLike
Some division news:
Rumors from the Michigan side are that the conference is leaning towards splitting up Michigan and OSU. I guess the feeling is that, just as they have so often historically determined the Big Ten Championship, they should retain that ability in the new Big Ten.
The other news is that, if this plays out, Michigan is looking at being in a division with PSU, while OSU and Nebraska would be together (that’s what Michigan wants anyway).
LikeLike
@Ross Hatton – Ugh. Seeing that Ohio State is the closest thing that Penn State has to a real rival in the Big Ten, that’s a double-ugh at a Michigan/PSU and OSU/Nebraska split. That one makes no sense at all.
LikeLike
Well I don’t know if the Michigan/PSU thing would happen if the split occurred. What’s been said is that this is what Michigan would want as PSU is an eastern partner, and Pennsylvania is a much better recruiting ground than Nebraska.
It remains to be seen if Michigan/OSU will be split and whether or not PSU would end up with Michigan.
LikeLike
Prefer Mich and tOSU staying in the same division, but if they have to be split, I want Michigan w/ PSU. Let tOSU get the bump in recruiting…in Nebraska. Mich has historically pulled great recruits out of PA.
LikeLike
Actually I think I do see the logic there even if I wouldn’t do it myself. The conference does seem to really want to avoid a Big 12 like situation (their comments suggest this is a bigger worry to them than an ACC situation). If that’s the case, Ohio and Pennsylvania are the best states to recruit from. They are both declining in that way, but they are definitely still top. It might make it harder on the other division if both are put in the same division.
That said, Penn State remains more of an outlier than anyone else as the only eastern team (everyone else at least defines as Midwestern). Ohio State was the team they were circling and a rivalry was growing there. I find it hard to believe the conference would abandon that game, which means a 5-2-2 eventually feels likely to me if they go this route.
LikeLike
Where’s the outcry? The only way to stop this from happening is to plaster Park Ridge with negative feedback. Unless the fans make themselves heard, this will be foisted upon us.
LikeLike
Well here’s my thinking…there is no way, no way at all, a split like this happens without the consent of both of these teams. As a Michigan fan/student, I am well aware of how our alumni value tradition. Just look at the past few years…
Fighting over the hiring of Rich Rod, rather than a “Michigan Man”, the mistaken use of the #1 Jersey, the mistakes regarding team captains in football, the fighting against night games until recently, the resistance to PSU in the Big Ten, etc. There is so much Michigan alumni have fought against in wanting to preserve historical traditions. I cannot imagine where the pushback is over this from Michigan, let alone OSU as well.
LikeLike
I think it’s people are either lazy or cynical or both (perhaps they use their cynicism to justify their laziness).
LikeLike
It’s also a problem that most of this will be decided before anyone notices. Unless you are a dork like us, no one is going to be paying that much attention until after the decision is already made.
LikeLike
It astounds me how otherwise knowlageable fans can be so ignorant about expansion. I know lots of people that think Missouri turned the BT down. And people that think Rutgers, Pitt or WVU would have been a better fit than Nebraska.
LikeLike
It actually sounds like they have put a lot of effort into this decision. It might be worth looking at for 2 – 3years or at least till the next expansion. I am in favor of a KISS setup myself but we should be open to change. It might be for the better.
LikeLike
Strongly written letters!
LikeLike
I did just write to OSU’s athletic department telling them that if the OSU-Michigan game date is changed, I would never again be an alumni association member and would cease to be a Big Ten fan.
(I also mentioned that I would not be buying from Nike this year due to them once again having OSU wear those ugly helmets against Michigan.)
LikeLike
What really sickens me about this is that it would mean I’d have to begrudgingly admit that the smug Domers (like rich) were absolutely right: the Big Ten is just diving for dollars. I don’t mind making money, but if they don’t go about doing it the right way . . . . When making money is the point, rather than a consequence, of what the league is doing, it’s lost its way in exactly the way that the Domers have suspected will happen and I spent the last 8 months vigorously denying.
LikeLike
Screw the Domers. By the time they join the conference they will be making regular appearances in its second division. Their smugness will be turn out to be the incentive not to win but not to lose to them.
LikeLike
@Adam:
Substitute “Texas” for “Big Ten,” and you’ll read something very similar to criticisms I’ve seen on here for months. (Not saying that those criticisms are wrong, just that this one is similar.)
LikeLike
Not only that, but if ND didn’t have the dollars it has gained by renting NBC for what, 20 years, and sweet-talking the BE into taking care of non-football, it certainly would be diving as well.
LikeLike
I don’t think the masses are paying as much attention as we are. If the mess up the UM-OSU game, and surprise most people, I would expect there to be a backlash. I have a hard time buying that they are that unaware of the passion of fans when they are banking on it.
I don’t like not doing East-West, but I can understand the rationale. PSU and Neb have to be together and UM and OSU, then I can live with any alignment, although I won’t necessarily like it.
Then again, if they are still planning expansion, say in 2015, maybe this is the plan:
Outer Division
Maryland
Rutgers
Pittsburgh
Penn State
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Inner Division
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Notre Dame
LikeLike
If that they do go Ohio State/Nebraska and Michigan/Penn State, let’s try to picture the divisions. I really can’t imagine the conference letting Ohio State and Penn State avoid playing each year. Ohio State would move on, but I think they are going to have to give that concession to PSU. That means a 5-2-2. So if it goes like this, I’ll guess:
Ohio State
Nebraska
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Penn State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Michigan State
Northwestern
Two permanent rivalries would preserve all/most trophy games, etc. I put Northwestern on that side because I read Michigan State wanted to continue playing them every year, but you could redo the bottom a lot. It might make more sense to push Michigan State to the other side all together.
LikeLike
This is by far the worst possible split of the Big 4.
IMO
1. Geographic-keeps all the rivalries in division
2. Michigan and Ohio State together, Penn State and Nebraska on the other side- keep OSU-UM as in division game, but probably breaks up Wisconsin-Iowa as do all other non-geographic setups
3. Michigan and Nebraska together- splits up two historically best programs (Nebraska/OSU) and keeps Penn State with only real rival
4. Michigan and Penn State together- separates Penn State from Ohio State, puts two best programs on one side
Why the hell does Michigan want this?
Devil’s advocate: This setup would allow the MSU-Penn State game to continue easily which is probably lost any other way.
As a Northwestern fan, I hope the division works out to Michigan-Penn State-MSU-Wisconsin-Northwestern-Illinois. That’s a division the ‘Cats can win maybe every 4 years.
LikeLike
I’ve stayed out of the Big Ten divisional arguments, since I thought cooler heads would prevail with the SEC/KISS model, and I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
Now it appears that all those super smart people at the Big Ten office are going to f-up something as simple as football divisions. So if they aren’t going to go for the SEC/KISS model, how about a modified-zipper like this with one cross-divisional rivalry preserved?
A Div. B Div.
Penn St Ohio St
Mich St Michigan
Indiana Purdue
Illinois Northwestern
Nebraska Iowa
Wisconsin Minnesota
I’m sure I probably just eliminated some trophy, ax, bucket or pig, but that’s how you make sausage.
LikeLike
If you eliminate the axe and the pig, then you really can’t make sausage.
LikeLike
And for the squeamish, you would also need that thar spittoon.
LikeLike
Rather than a 20-team C-USA/MWC, I’m told it may be more likely that C-USA adds two teams to grow to 14. The additions: TCU and Temple. 12 minutes ago via web
Sheesh Louise!
LikeLike
Why would TCU leave the MWC for CUSA now when they didn’t do so before?
LikeLike
@Richard – Yeah, I don’t see why TCU would ever think that’s a good idea. Temple has a legit concern where the MAC could force them to join for all-sports after 2012 or drop them for football, so maybe they like C-USA better as an all-sports option. TCU has no incentive to move to C-USA, though.
LikeLike
I find all these reports questionable.
However, it might work if ESPN goes more regional. Months ago I theorized that we could see a shift of smaller conferences back into regions. While the big conferences could have national networks, the smaller conferences need multiple schools in a market to ensure their network would get coverage. For example, having TCU or Houston in a conference might not get you on cable in Texas, but having both of those schools + SMU + Rice likely does. They’d make much less money that the Big 12 schools, but they’d get some money.
How might this fit in for ESPN? Well, now that they have ESPN3 on the internet, they can get even more regional with their coverage. They could show one game on ESPNU in Texas, and a different game on ESPNU in Utah. The other game could be placed on ESPN3 in both locales. This could provide additional push for cable companies to add ESPNU, and get a few more people interested in ESPN3.
LikeLike
It’s a stretch, but if BYU still intends on going independent, it’s possible Conference USA would like better.
LikeLike
If Temple solidifies the gains they’ve made under Al Golden, they will be a good catch for a conference like C-USA.
LikeLike
If Temple solidifies the gains made under Al Golden, they’d be a good catch for the Big East, which is probably kicking themselves for kicking Temple out of the conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big East is regretting kicking out Temple yet, but if they take the next step (which is increasing fan interest/attendance) I think the Big East would consider asking them back.
I believe Uconn, Cinn, Lville and USF were not part of kicking them out, so there aren’t that many schools that have to reverse themselves.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and the Big East schools that don’t play in the football conference aren’t going to let the football schools grab a majority vote, which is what would happen if Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis or Temple was invited — and all would insist on being all-sports members. Unless the Big East football members have the courage to declare independence from the Providence powers that be, the stalemate will continue.
LikeLike
No advantage for TCU to go back to Conference USA
LikeLike
It would save significant travel dollars for a program that has sold out exactly one football home game the last two years.
LikeLike
only for the Texas state travel.
Would going to UTEP be that much cheaper than going to New Mexico?
What about going to Marshall? Or E. Carolina? Or UCF? Are they easier or cheaper to get to from DFW than the San Diego or Boise, ID?
If travel was the concern, why didn’t they stay in C-USA? I know the MWC TV deal isn’t near as good as it was set up to be, but they still are better than C-USA has.
If TCU joins C-USA it will be due to a merger with the MWC and a new TV deal with ESPN. But why would they add Temple? That’s a long way from El Paso, TX and Temple does nothing.
So at least 1/2 of this Tweet is wrong.
LikeLike
Just reaching for something that makes sense. Considering that I didn’t the original move made a big difference, I don’t think they’ll move back.
LikeLike
Hey conspiracy nuts!
Guess who just scheduled two additional games with the newly-independent BYU?
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2010/08/19/texasbyu_footba.html?srcTrk=RTR_95649
(Oh, and that series with Maryland in 2017-18 finally looks just about official.)
LikeLike
I’ve been mulling over an idea for awhile, whereby the Big Ten could have its cake and eat it, too, and I thought I’d throw it out there for smarter heads to digest or spit out. It might seem like a cake-in-the-sky idea, but even if it didn’t work, it would garner the BT some good PR.
Since ESPN seems to have turned into a conference broker, why doesn’t the BT call a pow wow with ESPN and the Big East to form a TV partnership? The BT could use the threat of expansion and the resultant dissolution of the BE to leverage a new ESPN contract for the BE that would pay them a living wage, with the BTN getting all the secondary rights to the BE events that ESPN didn’t want. Maybe strike a 20-year contract, with the BT agreeing not to raid the BE. The BE would control the advertising on all the BE programming, and would keep all the advertising profits, while at the same time being able to promote the BE without all the costs and risks involved in starting their own network. The BT would keep all (or most of) the money from the new cable subscriptions they’d be getting, which might be substantial, considering that they’d now be covering 28 teams (20 for football), which would be quite an attractive package. Fox might even be willing to kick in something, knowing that they’d be increasing their profits, too.
If the partnership plan went through, the BT would still be free to raid any other conference besides the BE. But if the negotiations for the plan broke down, the BT could throw up its hands and say “We tried,” and then raid the hell out of the BE without looking like total robber barons.
LikeLike
Mmmm … cake.
LikeLike
The cake is a lie.
LikeLike
Trouble is, I think for now the only Big East school the Big Ten really wants to raid is Rutgers, likely in conjunction with Maryland and going to 14. If Maryland couldn’t be pulled from the ACC, the Big Ten might settle for Syracuse or Pittsburgh, but its preference would be only to take one of them if it went to 16 (and as a partner to Notre Dame). In other words, I don’t think the Big Ten has any need to keep the Big East football conference propped up.
LikeLike
The idea is to make money off the BE by getting fans of Big East teams to buy subscriptions into the BTN. If the plan works, the BT can make money off the without taking any of their teams, and the BT can potentially make the BTN into a national network with its vast amount of content. The content of 28 teams, but still only having to split the profits twelve ways. Think of the billions of dollars ESPN spends on buying content, and yet here is a chance to maybe get lots of content for next to nothing. If ESPN can make money on poker and bowling, the BTN can make money on BE fans wanting to watch their teams play. Even if the BT doesn’t really want to raid the BE, can the BE really call their bluff and risk their own destruction? Taking Rutgers and Maryland will probably doom the BE, because the ACC will probably respond by taking a BE team to replace Maryland, and might take three of them to keep up with the arms race.
LikeLike
But how would the Big East’s doom hurt the Big Ten? Picking up some leftovers such as Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Connecticut might ultimately make the ACC a bit stronger overall, but with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland the Big Ten would have a solid hold on the mid-Atlantic.
LikeLike
The Big Ten wants the NYC market. BE basketball is some of the best in the country, and their football is decent. NYC is a basketball market, and they love their NY area teams, like St. Johns, Seton Hall, UConn, Rutgers and Syracuse, all of which the BTN would be broadcasting. And Notre Dame sports are obviously popular there, as are Big Ten sports.
Why kill the goat when you can milk it?
LikeLike
The BTN wants eyeballs. Why take one or two BE teams when you can broadcast all 16 of them without giving them shares in your conference?
LikeLike
Well, it was even more of a war than was obvious. MWC tried to eliminate WAC’s basketball bid by reducing them to 5 teams. Utah State was also invited but declined.
http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/Open-letter-from-USU-Athletics-Director-Scott-Barnes-101122009.html
LikeLike
Combine that with all of these rumors of a potential mid-major superconference, and there was total mayhem brewing among the mid-majors this past few weeks.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, BYU was a big objector to Fresno St. getting in over the years. They apparently wanted Hawaii and Utah St. on their independent schedule. MWC worked to keep SDSU and UNLV happy and didn’t invite Hawaii who probably would have been BYU’s #1 choice.
LikeLike
I wonder if Utah State accepted if Fresno and Nevada both still would have been invited.
Really though I’m not sure destroying the WAC is in the best interest of the Mountain West. They can point out the difference in competition between the two leagues as one reason for a AQ status.
On the other hand, they don’t want another Boise State to emerge and take a BCS bid that the Mountain West champion could have.
LikeLike
What I’ve seen on MWC boards in the past is that they wanted to WAC to survive to have regional ooc games and teams to play in bowl games. And also to have, as you point out, someone beneath them in the pecking order in the west. However, they seem to have gone for the jugular when BYU looked like it was leaving. It isn’t like this is the first time the MWC teams have screwed the WAC.
LikeLike
BYU and the WAC were working behind closed doors, apparently the MWC got word and decided to eviscerate the WAC to punish them and throw a huge wrench in BYU’s plans.
I am not sold that Utah State was invited or would have been, I think the MWC got wind and approached Utah State as the likely broker with BYU, got them to expose their hand and then finished them off.
LikeLike
Go Orrin!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5477851
Orrin Hatch still wants BCS change
LikeLike
Bullet made a great find, but it is now buried way up thread. Here’s the link:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/os-college-football-expansion-20100819,0,4134695.story
And perhaps the most tantalizing excerpt:
…Two sources with knowledge of the discussions told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday one of the scenarios being discussed includes a possible merger of 20 teams from the Mountain West Conference and Conference USA, with the champion claiming an automatic BCS bowl bid. However, the sources stated such an agreement is complex, could easily fall apart and is far from being completed…
Also:
… (NM President) Schmidly said he was not directly negotiating with BYU, but it was his understanding the biggest issue for the Cougars was the Mountain West’s television agreement. BYU has its own television network, but the league’s contract limited the school’s access to games not picked up by the Mountain West’s network.
“Based on conversations around table with BYU officials in the past, it was clear their primary concerns were in the TV area,” Schmidly said. “There may be others developed recently, but my sense has been access and redistribution are a special area of concern for their institution…
…Utah State Athletic Director Scott Barnes…wrote that Utah State was among the schools invited to join the Mountain West, but it declined with the hope its non-football sports would compete in the same conference as BYU, located less than five miles from the Aggies’ campus.
LikeLike
That would be odd. I can’t fathom how it would affect the expansion situation for other BCS conferences. Obviously the Big Ten isn’t going to feel much pressure from some 20 team conference, but I guess I could see it impacting Notre Dame if this leads to another AQ spot but not another BCS bowl.
If it leads to another BCS bowl, then I can’t see much of a change. Maybe it makes recruiting harder for the Pac-10/Big 12.
LikeLike
With 6 current BCS conferences and just 8 BCS slots, why would the BCS conferences give up 1 of their 2 wildcard slots? Hence it looks like at least 1 additional BCS bowl is indeed being given heavy consideration, and would seem to confirm that ESPN is negotiating with the blessing of the BCS and its bowls. Which is what a story a month or two (or three?) ago reported along with that the BCS would probably add a +1 game after the BCS bowls. Of course this doesn’t corroborate the +1 speculation, but gives that report more believability.
Note that a +1 would allow the Rose to guarantee B10+? vs P12 every year. It would also almost certainly evolve into a full blown BCS bowl-based playoff, just as Delany has said it would. +1 is the foot in the door that guarantees a real playoff is coming.
LikeLike
“With 6 current BCS conferences and just 8 BCS slots, why would the BCS conferences give up 1 of their 2 wildcard slots?”
10 BCS spots: Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, & Rose Bowls + BCS championship game makes 5 games.
LikeLike
You’re correct.
I need more sleep.
LikeLike
I hate +1. If you look at the past, it would generate more controversy than picking top 2 before bowls. It could also lead to #1 playing #2 in a bowl and then having to play #3 for the championship.
I prefer the present system to that one. A 4 team playoff using the New Year’s bowls with championship a week later would, however, be an improvement. But it would put a crimp in the B10/P10 Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
@bullet – I used to think the same way about the plus one option, but I’ve definitely come around to it as a reasonable compromise. The plus one allows the traditional bowl matchups to survive with the benefit of giving them all some national title impact again (as opposed to being the glorified consolation prizes that they are now). Unless the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs are ranked #1 and #2 and they play in the Rose Bowl, there’s actually a very low risk of a #1 vs. #2 matchup in the initial set of bowls if the correct selection parameters are put into place. It’s not as clear as a 4-team playoff, but I do think that a plus one is better than what we have now if only that it can provide some better information as to who are the #1 and #2 teams.
LikeLike
My perception is that the bowls frequently don’t show who the best team is due to the long layoff and differing motivations. Think of how many Ohio St. and Michigan squads laid an egg in the Rose Bowl against lower ranked Pac 10 squads.
If its a pure playoff, the motivations are the same. But if 11-0 #1Ohio St. is playing an 8-3 Stanford after a 6 week layoff and looking forward to playing 12-0 #2Florida a lot can happen. The 98 season is the prime example. Those weren’t bowl games, but UCLA and KSU both had a chance on that December weekend and both choked (seems like there was a 3rd team that did the same thing). You can arguably say that shows they weren’t that good, but they all would have played better if matched against each other.
LikeLike
@Frank:
So what happens with a +1 if the only two undefeated teams are, in fact, the undefeated champs of the Big 10 and the Pac 10?
Does that open the door for a much weaker, one-loss #3 team to win the national championship after dispatching a much weaker opponent in its initial bowl game?
LikeLike
And what happens if the #1 and #2 teams are clear (and most likely B10/P10 as you point out), meet each other, and are still #1 and #2? Perhaps #1 and #2 both have 1 loss after their bowl (if old #1 was unbeaten and lost). Do you have a rematch or take a #3 who might have 2 losses?
+1 does have the advantage of making all major bowls potentially relevant and preserving the Rose, but it could make the old no BCS MNCs look non-controversial by comparison.
Compared to the current system, a 4 team playoff makes 2 bowls relevant instead of 1 as now with the only downside that the Rose doesn’t get B10/P10 as frequently. But given the cyclical nature of football powers, will the Big 12 and SEC dominate the next decade again and get 12 of the 20 slots and 7 of 10 championships? Or will the P10/B10 get there more than 5 times and disrupt the Rose that way?
LikeLike
What Hopkins said. You don’t want a plus-one if you don’t need a plus-one. But once you put it in place, it has to be played.
LikeLike
The 10-10=20 model might open the door for FedEx to sponsor the JerryCotton Bowl…
LikeLike
And might make the BEast a dead man walking conference, unless Delany shuts down expansion. When the B10+? starts raiding and other conferences react, a 10+10=20 ESPN conference might be able to absorb more blows and be more attractive to any orphans. Not a given, but the BEast commish has to be sweating, once he looks up from his pasta.
LikeLike
And after he consults with the Providence, St. John’s and Seton Hall people. (We all know who runs the show in that conference.)
LikeLike
Politicians, our economy is literally falling apart. Please, for the love God, focus on something you actually have a Constitutional say in.
LikeLike
As I said long ago, better find a way to satisfy the sentators from the majority of the states, because they can play havoc. Which is why if the BXII were to ever go under, the BCS conferences should figure out a way to take care of Mizzou and Kansas. Senators can easily force their way into this issue, because most of the general public wants a playoff anyway.
LikeLike
That’s actually one of things that bothers me here. The senators are using the non-BCS teams as an excuse to meddle. Few care about whether the system includes them, but rallying against the BCS is popular because so many want a playoff. If the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, SEC, and PAC-10 agreed to a playoff that included them and only them, 90% of the criticism would end within a couple of years. It would be even less fair to all the conferences left out than the current system, but the senators wouldn’t say a word unless their states team was left out.
LikeLike
but the law suits from the other schools left out would start immediately.
LikeLike
So if ESPN is trying to form some MWC/CUSA super conference, I wonder how the Big Ten/Delany reacts to it. I mean if ESPN was one of the forces behind the Big 12-lite staying alive, then maybe that might have caused some reservation from the Big Ten/Delany to continue expansion (they may not have wanted to deal with any ESPN backlash). But if ESPN now has their hands in forming their own superconference (and maybe even in damaging the WAC), then maybe the Big Ten/Delany says to heck with this hypocrisy we’ll do what is best for us even if ESPN (and whoever else was involved in killing the PAC 16 deal) doesn’t want it. I think this might help ease any concerns that the Big Ten/Delany may have had with the powers that be in college football (if they had any concerns).
LikeLike
BYU didn’t participate in decision to add Nevada, Fresno State:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogs/byusports/50139716-65/byu-conference-state-didn.html.csp
Also, I have a hypothetical question. If the 8 best current non-AQ schools would somehow join together in one conference, would that conference be an automatic qualifier?
Just for fodder, here is the conference:
Boise State (MWC)
BYU (MWC)
TCU (MWC)
Hawaii (WAC)
East Carolina (CUSA)
Central Michigan (MAC)
Troy (Sun Belt)
Fresno State (MWC)
My guess is probably yes. If limit the question to “a conference west of the Mississippi”, you drop CMU, Troy and ECU for Houston (CUSA), Nevada (MWC), and Tulsa (CUSA). I think this conference would also get a berth. (If Hawaii is unavailable, Wyoming (MWC) would be next in).
Basically, if you take the top half of the MWC and the top couple teams from CUSA you can make a BCS conference.
All this leads back to the supposed merger between the MWC and CUSA. My guess is that if it happens, it will be more like my scenario than some 20 team monstrosity. “Merger” or “alliance” usually seems to be a cover for a raid: the Big 8 and SWC were supposedly in merger discussions before the Big 8 raid; the ACC and Big East were supposedly contemplating a joint television deal; the Pac-10 and Big 12 first got together to discuss an alliance, which turned into a raid, which turned into a paper cut.
The underlying problem is that it’s not the top of the MWC that’s keeping it out; it’s the bottom. Fresno State and Nevada are fine as the bottom of a conference, but as middle of the pack (lol) teams they don’t work.
LikeLike
Navy has more wins over BCS schools the last 10 years than any you mention.
LikeLike
They play a lot more than those school too, right? How many good schools have they beat?
LikeLike
I left out Navy because I assume they would want to continue independence. They would be just behind ECU according to this blog:
http://www.bcsevolution.com/posts/archive
LikeLike
a view from TCU
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/19/2414774/mwc-c-usa-talking-about-merged.html
“But if the ultimate prize is a berth in the title game with the Conference USA champion, they don’t need to play all of the other teams every season. Nor would it be really necessary for the MWC to add a 12th team and play a league championship game.”
LikeLike
Pulling out a few more quotes:
“…The conference lives. But where will its champion be playing football in the Januarys to come? The question persists.
That is what Thursday’s meetings in Colorado Springs, Colo., were all about, according to various sources.
Late Thursday night, a source close to the situation said that representatives from the Mountain West and another league — believed to be Conference USA — met in Colorado to discuss a plan to match the two conferences’ champions in a title game, with the winner gaining an automatic BCS berth.
“You’re on the right track,” said the source. “The lawyers have told them [the BCS] that it’s time to give someone else a chance.”
LikeLike
There seems to be a lot of frustrations and impatience all around. BYU and USU and WAC with Fresno & Nevada. MWC schools with BYU. Thompson is looking not like a genius, but an incompetent. He couldn’t keep BYU in line for a few more weeks to see if this works out with a promise of a different deal in 2014 or 15 when their contract renews. As a result, they are trying to fit 23 teams into a model that doesn’t really work with more than 20. Otherwise you need to get rule changes on when you can have a championship game (think they would get any votes from MAC/SunBelt/WAC?). Then again, maybe SDSU/UNLV/WYO are afraid they will be left out. Or maybe the MWC is delusional and thinks they really get autobid on their own.
Sounds like 3D double chess to me.
LikeLike
Also, with all of the discussion of BYUtv, I thought this would be worth sharing:
LikeLike
From the San Francisco Examiner:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/Dickey-Latest-additions-to-Pac-10-Conference-not-all-positive-101138474.html
There seems to be some rumblings that the PAC-10 expansion is not set in stone. Apparently some current and former chancellors have been voicing concerns in a game of email tag with one another. The content of the emails was not made public in the article [FOIA anyone?] but among the concerns listed are:
1) Fear of losing the round robin play and annual rivalry games, especially among the Caly schools.
2) Doubt as to whether TV revenue will actually be increased with the expansion.
3) Academic concerns in Regard to Utah, and to a lesser extent Colorado.
The presidents and chancellor still need to vote on final approval and some are calling for a block of expansion.
Looks like we could be shaping up for a real Cluster-$#@!
cheers-
LikeLike
I was getting quite intrigued by this until I noticed that the only person quoted in the article is a former chancellor.
Oh well.
LikeLike
Good catch with just the former chancellor being quoted. I don’t think they’d get a unanimous approval now (the money isn’t likely to be much better and the northwestern schools aren’t going to want to give up access to UCLA and USC), but frankly it’s too late. The conference invited them and they accepted and the other conferences have plans to move on. It would look really bad to keep them out now on any technicality.
LikeLike
The Big 12 is back in business as the “BIg 12″…with Utah as the new Nebraska.
LikeLike
So what do you think of the UT-UMD series later this decade? As a former DC resident, I’m excited by it.
LikeLike
Just wondering whether UT would back out of it were Maryland to join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I would imagine the video rights contractually agreed to by UT and MD couldn’t be screwed over by the BTN down the road. 🙂
LikeLike
Young was UCLA chancellor for a 30-year period, 1968-97…Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said.
He’s FOS.
I wonder what the ‘savings’ would be once all the legal costs of canceling the invites come in. Seems like CO and Utah would have good cases for substantial damage claims.
Well, as long as we’re FOS, how about a conspiracy theory? Perhaps TX has communicated that if Bevo TV and exit fee issues are resolved, they are open again to moving. But TX wants to bring their clan and Utah is in one of their parking spaces. (BTW, Bill Byrne again let it be known he worries about Ags in SEC would be another AR and S. Car, so aTm might still go P16. And a MWC-CUSA BCS AQ agreement suggests a possible home for Baylor, which could ease Texas political hurdles.)
LikeLike
Forgot to close my Italians, let’s try again (asking Santa for a preview feature):
Young was UCLA chancellor for a 30-year period, 1968-97…Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said.
He’s FOS.
I wonder what the ‘savings’ would be once all the legal costs of canceling the invites come in. Seems like CO and Utah would have good cases for substantial damage claims.
Well, as long as we’re FOS, how about a conspiracy theory? Perhaps TX has communicated that if Bevo TV and exit fee issues are resolved, they are open again to moving. But TX wants to bring their clan and Utah is in one of their parking spaces. (BTW, Bill Byrne again let it be known he worries about Ags in SEC would be another AR and S. Car, so aTm might still go P16. And a MWC-CUSA BCS AQ agreement suggests a possible home for Baylor, which could ease Texas political hurdles.)
LikeLike
Bill Bryne may understand fundraising, but he doesn’t understand recruiting. South Carolina and Arkansas are at a disadvantage when recruiting against the teams in their divisions; this wouldn’t be the case for A&M.
That said, I would actually be happier to join a Pac 16 now than I would have been 2 months ago. With Colorado and Utah now joined, we would have to leave either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech behind. Still would slightly prefer SEC (or the Big 10, but it seems unlikely).
LikeLike
I would prefer to leave Okie St behind, but would OK politics then force OU out? I’d love that, and just take TX, aTm, TTech, and Baylor to the P16. But apparently TX strongly wants OU. Would the SEC take both OK schools if aTm didn’t join them? I have doubts, but it isn’t completely inconceivable if the ACC schools pretty much hang together.
I’d still prefer TX in the P16 and aTm in the SEC, hopeful that the Ags can do well there. A ranked SEC aTm would help TX’s SOS and take the game to another level.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now
OU isn’t going anywhere with out OSU. UT isn’t going anywhere with out OU (besides Indy, and I’ve always doubted that). UT and A&M splitting is doubtful.
No other conference wants Missouri or Kansas who are both solid assets in the Big 12.
Why is the idea of the Big IIX staying the way it is, so unacceptable and unimaginable?
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
I raised this on the prior thread, but I think the issue is that too many people have had it beaten into their brains that 12 schools is the ideal number for a conference and have forgotten that a number less than 12 might be ideal, given the realities of geography.
Even if that ideal number less than 12 means foregoing a CCG.
LikeLike
“No other conference wants Missouri or Kansas who are both solid assets in the Big 12.
Why is the idea of the Big IIX staying the way it is, so unacceptable and unimaginable?”
We know from the realignment talks that only UT, OU, and A&M are worth adding on their own to the big conferences, with Missouri apparently about equal to an average member of the Big 10 (wouldn’t add much value to the Big 10, but wouldn’t hurt either). If the other 6 schools brought in more conference money than the average member of the Pac 10, Big 10, or SEC, they would have been pursued separately.
Saying Kansas is valuable to the Big 12 when it isn’t valuable to the Big 10 or Pac 10 is to admit the Big 12 isn’t as valuable as those conferences (at least, not after the first few schools).
The 4 desirable schools are going to get less conference money by associating with the other 6 schools. The Big 10, SEC, and Pac 10 all have a lower percentage of dead weight in their conferences. As Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma continue to grow at a slower rate than the West, South, and East this will get comparatively worse (though Texas Tech will likely become more valuable).
Maybe this doesn’t matter as long as UT makes so much more money from local tv revenues that it doesn’t care about conference money. It’s a probably more precarious than UT officials realize; if they gets too insular with this state-wide network and 9 game conference schedule, recruits may look to more national competition in other states (just like at the end of the SWC).
In any event, I’d much prefer my university to have a more interesting schedule with schools who will be more competitive on a national scale. I think it does itself a huge disservice, both athletically and academically, by being so regionalized. Athletics is one of the big ways universities stay in the public eye. Outside of Texas, the Big 12 has states that total 15.5 million people (Missouri has 6 million of that). Regardless of the conference’s academic reputation, I believe being in the SEC would draw more attention to A&M’s academic offerings over time, simply because it will get more attention from people in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.
I also think College sports overall would be better served with a clearer tiers. If Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State joined the Big East that would be pretty exciting conference, even though it would be a second tier conference.
LikeLike
Yeah there were a lot of credibility issues in that article. I’m certainly not going to claim that CU is on par with UCLA/Cal, but we’re closer to the Washington level then we are to Oregon. Though we did drop slightly in the stupid USNews Rankings which are undergrad focused, speculation is this is because the recent tuition hikes have reduced the number of applicants, thus dropping us a bit in the “exclusivity” formula they use to calculate the number of students rejected from the number that apply. Higher Ed funding is a mess in CO.
LikeLike
I’ve seen this type of attitude before (as portrayed in the article)….from Tom Hansen. I don’t want to go down that road again.
LikeLike
More on Temple to CUSA:
http://templefootballforever.blogspot.com/2010/08/breaking-news-temple-to-join-cusa.html
“an assistant AD at Rice adding the “exciting news” coming later today that Temple and one other school will join Conference USA for football only, effective starting in the 2011 season”
loki, any idea who the “assistant AD” is? I can’t seem to find the original quote from him.
Also, any guesses on the other school? Troy?
LikeLike
Seems inconsistent with the idea of a super middle conference.
LikeLike
Perhaps it is more about the MWC and CUSA somewhat strengthening themselves and reducing travel while creating a play-in game for a BCS berth. Hence TCU and Temple to CUSA makes some sense, TCU gets a more local division and if they are going to have to go through a play-in game to the BCS, it might be an easier route through CUSA than a MWC that still has Boise and probably BYU. Better to be eliminated in the nationally televised December BCS play-in game than mid-season.
I think what happened is that the WAC and BYU tried to pull a fast one on the MWC. In desperation the MWC approached the BCS via ESPN (following up years of negotiation over the AQ) and the BCS said we’ll give you access to an AQ but either you create a bigger conference that swallows virtually all possible BCS buster schools or go through a play-in qualifying game. This lets the BCS limit the gatecrashers to just one instead of possibly two. Not ideal for MWC, but since getting their own AQ was pretty much dead, those 2 options were the best they could do. So the MWC countered by proposing the play-in would be only between the MWC and CUSA. Negotiations ongoing on various scenarios.
LikeLike
UNT with its new stadium and proximity to the DFW market?
LikeLike
I know nothing about North Texas and their future plans, but over the last 5 years they have the worst record of any FBS team over the last 5 years while playing in the worst FBS conference. 3 of those wins came over formerly FCS Western Kentucky, the team Northwestern fans are hoping/dreading breaks the consecutive loss record.
I can’t see how anyone would be excited about them.
LikeLike
I can’t see how anyone would be excited about them.
Can’t the same be said about any potential target out there?
LikeLike
These things can be cyclical. North Texas is one of the largest universities in Texas (36,000 students) and was an absolutely dominant football program in the Sun Belt in the early to mid-90’s with five straight conference championships. It can be dominant again, particularly with the new stadium. Issue for the WAC is that without Nevada, Fresno State and Boise State, it is virtually indistinguishable from the Sun Belt in terms of conference football strength or appeal. Do not really see why North Texas would want to jump from the Sun Belt to the WAC at this point since one main effect would be an increase in travel costs. A merger of the two conferences would be more to the point, you’d essentially wind up with a south/west equivalent of the MAC.
LikeLike
Or, focusing on the “football only” part, would there be any incentive for Army or Navy to join up with the C-USA? (I know it would be “rejoining” in the case of Army.)
LikeLike
From what I understand, Army didn’t think being in a conference suited them (which is why they left) and Navy thinks they would have a similar experience.
LikeLike
If more teams decided to jump from the sinking WAC, both New Mexico State and Louisiana Tech would make geographic sense for the western division. NM State would give UTEP a close school; LATech would be right in the middle of a lot of schools in that conference.
Of course, the WAC president has told us that all the current schools have pledged to stay together; but they apparently said that last week as well.
LikeLike
this gives no main stream media source. It would also go against the C-USA/MWC 10×10 merger/alliance set up.
Temple would also be a pretty extreme outlier.
LikeLike
Actually, the “exciting news” from the Rice assistant AD was the announcement that we now have a coach’s show on Fox Sports Network. Not that big a deal but, for Rice, a nice uptick in our visibility.
LikeLike
Don’t be surprised if the other school is Akron. I was told by someone in their athletic department that they wanted to move to C-USA. They thought the Big Ten would raid the BE. Which meant the BE would raid C-USA and open a spot for them. Since none of that happened they might have decided about jumping anyway.
LikeLike
@MAC Country – That’s weird. What’s the point for Akron to do that? The MAC is so Ohio-centric and they would be a complete outlier in C-USA.
LikeLike
Earlier I posted that word from the Michigan side was saying there could be a split of Michigan and OSU in the new divisions and that Michigan would want to be with PSU in one of the new divisions. Well…here’s some more from Dave Brandon, our AD, on Twitter:
“…distinct possibility.. game will be a later game in the season…not necessarily the last game of the season.’
and
“I’m just warning everybody, change is good and change is going to happen.”
I really, really hope that isn’t a sign that the OSU/UM split is a done deal.
LikeLike
I hope they understand the impact this will have. I can say I’ve had a lot of issues with Ohio State over the years (wasting money while tuition rises a lot for one), but I’ve generally ignored them. This will push me too far. I love the team for state pride. I won’t to give the university another dime though.
LikeLike
Michigan’s AD sure sounds like Michigan and OSU will be in separate divisions.
http://detnews.com/article/20100820/SPORTS0201/8200418/Dave-Brandon-anticipates-U-M–OSU-in-separate-divisions
It certainly appears Michigan and Ohio State will be in separate divisions in the Big Ten, and the annual rivalry game will move from its traditional spot as the last regular-season game.
Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, appearing Friday morning on WTKA 1050 AM, was asked by host Sam Webb if he thinks the rivals will be in the same division, when the breakdown is revealed, more than likely within the next month.
Brandon answered after a long pause.
“No,” Brandon said.
LikeLike
Even as an Iowa fan, I’m depressed at them farking over the best rivalry in the league. They’re giving up a bird in hand in hopes of two in the bush, and will end up with neither.
LikeLike
Adding Nebraska to the Big Ten is a good change.
Damaging Michigan-Ohio State is a bad change. Once a year makes it special. Twice a year, however rarely, renders the first game meaningless. Sometimes less is more. Christmas in July does not equal Christmas in December. There is no reason for it to be necessary to accomodate the addition of Nebraska.
They think a possible UM-OSU rematch is bigger than one of them vs. Penn State or Nebraska? I was a KISS advocate, but I never thought they would split UM and OSU. I am getting angry.
LikeLike
I should say if they aren’t going East-West, I never thought they would go with the worst case scenario and attack the greatest rivalry.
LikeLike
I agree entirely, but nothing will change unless we speak out!
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13730580/division-of-big-tens-super-rivals-would-be-addition-for-all?tag=coverlist_active;coverlist_footer
A article about divisional placement that illustrates the alpha apes in charge are completely out of touch.
Some of the more nauseating quotes:
“Ohio State and Michigan must be separated when the Big Ten ADs divide the league into two six-team divisions”
” The second game would be bigger, Big Ten Network president Mark Silverman said, just talking ratings. As a TV person, it is one of the highest, if not the highest regular-season games out there. I don’t think having a second one would impact the TV ratings. In other words, the nation can’t get enough.”
“No one, though, seems to see my logic. They are hung up on increasingly meaningless stuff like travel and state lines and tradition”
“Three “power” teams are in each division — Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State in the East and Michigan, Iowa and Nebraska in the West.”
If everyone agrees that the 6 “power teams are Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan, Iowa and Nebraska why the hell do we have to get clever and cute with the place a straight east west split still has 3 “power teams” in each division, but know all the rivals are in the same divisions.
This guy not only wants to split Ohio State and Michigan, in his setup he ripped apart the Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota for some reason?
To quote Charlie Wilson:
“These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world…
…and then we fucked up the end game.”
LikeLike
I honestly think that the UM/OSU ADs might be being overrun on this one. Our AD, Brandon, has now repeatedly said that he only has 1/12 of the vote. Now, he’s a business man (former Domino’s CEO), so I think he’s going to voice, at least during the discussions, favor for whatever the likely decision is. After a decision is made, I think we might see his real thoughts.
I could be wrong. He could be totally in favor of this, but you usually don’t go publicly voicing internal discontent during negotiations in business, which is what the Big Ten has become. I just find it odd he’s made repeated mention of his vote share.
LikeLike
Here’s something else to think about. Let’s say UM/OSU are being overrun in this vote and the split is inevitable. The priority for these ADs then becomes the best possible divisional alignment.
Right now, many have said that a West division would include Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska. If Michigan was placed there (most likely with MSU), the East would be PSU, OSU, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana.
Wow. Those two divisions are completely imbalanced. I think, if that split is a risk, Dave Brandon’s priority right now is preventing that from happening. If he goes complaining in interviews, I think he loses much of his ability to do that.
LikeLike
If they are actually being overrun (I sadly not convinced they aren’t on board), that seems kind of risky to me. The conference has always been one where everyone works closely together, equal revenue sharing etc. If you seriously cause damage to the Ohio State and Michigan athletic departments though (say through fewer donations), that might for the first time, push up a few demands. I don’t want that, but it’s not an impossible outcome.
LikeLike
I find it extremely hard to believe that the rest of the conference is forcing OSU/UM to split divisions against their will. If a split occurs, OSU/UM are on board. Maybe not specific people within either institution (ADs), but the main PTB were (presidents, chancellor, provost, etc.).
It is starting to appear that the B10 is whoring itself out for money. I hope we’re all wrong and it results in rainbows and lollipops.
LikeLike
Sadly I agree. If the OSU-Michigan game is moved, I think the schools will both have agreed, maybe a bit reluctantly, but I think they will be onboard.
LikeLike
I just don’t get it. Where are all the people who were so up in arms about us hiring a non Michigan Man.
God I’ve been attending Michigan for three years, and all I ever hear is moaning about tradition and never letting it go. What the hell happened?
LikeLike
The only thing to do is to be a pain in the ass. If enough people are a pain in the ass, maybe they rethink this. That’s all I can think of.
LikeLike
One thing I can kind of understand is trying to maximize the championship game. How much the regular season contract can be changed now is uncertain. They want to maximize the championship game because it’s the one thing they can sell completely on the open market. It’s short sighted, but I can see it.
LikeLike
Makes no sense. Why is the Big Ten suddenly so obsessed with maximizing anything? That isn’t how we do business. An integral component of the Big Ten’s brand value is that we don’t chase that crap. We’re better than that.
LikeLike
No offense man, but how naive are you?
I love my PSU, but I know they’ve always been about the bottom line first and foremost. I have a feeling the rest of the Big Ten feels this type of mentality is another one of the “right ways of doing things”.
In a way its kind of assuring I guess, since I can bank on the “prestige” my diploma has will never go down.
LikeLike
Bullshit. For the last almost 20 years, OSU has had guaranteed games against Michigan and PSU, two of the best teams in the league. PSU has has guaranteed games against OSU (really good) and MSU (middle class). Wisconsin has had guaranteed games against Iowa (pretty good) and Minnesota (crappy). And on and on. The protected rivalries were totally unconcerned with balance and all about maximizing traditional rivalries — even if that meant that the good teams were guaranteed to play other good teams, not some “balanced” mix of good and bad teams. If you had a tough schedule one year, that’s how the cookie crumbled: rise above it, play through it, and win the games that are on your schedule.
For 20 years the Big Ten sat on 11 members, even though 12 would likely have been more profitable and offered greater exposure. For decades the Big Ten has stood in the way of a playoff (which would almost certainly be more profitable than the bowl system) because they want to preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten has staunchly stood against playing weeknight games, even though that would allow for more nationally televised appearances. I am not naive; the Big Ten has consciously foregone many different profit centers in order to do things the Big Ten Way. Now all of a sudden they’re willing to piss all of that away to chase a couple of TV dollars, when what they fail to understand is that by chasing that they’re alienating the people who want the Big Ten to be above chasing that. The Big Ten doesn’t need to chase TV; TV will come to us, because there’s high demand for Big Ten product.
Booster was right: once you let the financial people be in charge of the product, they ruin the product. And I’ll be damned if I’ll have anybody suggest that I’m naive for taking this position.
LikeLike
“or decades the Big Ten has stood in the way of a playoff (which would almost certainly be more profitable than the bowl system) because they want to preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl”
I disagree strongly. The bowl system greatly enhances the value of the regular season of college football. If they made a playoff, they might make more money from the playoff games than they would from the bowls, but the value of the regular season would drop. College football would likely make less money overall and the bigger conferences would be hit relatively harder, as second tier conferences would have their members pushed into the playoff system.
Reporters try to tell you that playoffs would make more money, but they don’t think very hard about this sort of thing. You have to remember that the chief reason they like playoffs is because they don’t have to think at all about the results: Team who wins=greatest team ever! Team who didn’t win=losers! Reporter doesn’t have to consider anything that happened in the previous week, much less any game played in October!
LikeLike
If you have a 96 team playoff it devalues the regular season-see NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball. A reasonable number, <15%, of teams does not.
LikeLike
“If you have a 96 team playoff it devalues the regular season-see NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball. A reasonable number, <15%, of teams does not."
Again, I strongly, strongly disagree with that. To begin with, 15% of FBS is 18 schools!
Even at 4 schools you are starting to weaken the regular season. There would be far less reason for fans from the Big 10 to pay attention to the SEC, and vice versa. Non-conference games and even sometimes cross-divisional games for teams in the top conferences would take on a lesser importance, as winning a conference championship often will be enough to get you a place. There would also be cases where teams can essentially take the last regular week of the season off, because they know they'll be ranked in the top 4 if they win their conference championship game, regardless of what they do the week before. All of this will lead to a drop in ratings, and perhaps less demand for tickets. Not huge, but more than the extra revenue the playoffs would bring.
Playoffs bring a completely different mentality, both for the players and the fans. I expect casual fans, who might watch bits throughout the year, would likely start watching less before the playoffs. Passionate fans will start to watch less games that don't involve their team or conference. And while the lesser bowls might be OK with a +2, I think they'd start to lose appeal with a 3 or 4 round playoff. That would be more losses for the schools. As the other bowls become even less acceptable once a playoff starts, I think the fans will get upset with their current coach/administrator even quicker, which could lead to some drop offs in donations.
And all of that ignores the ethical question: is it a good idea to add a game to 18-22 year olds who already may play 14 games a year? If you tell me they can play another game with no significant long-term health consequences, I'd prefer adding another regular season game for every school than a playoff game for two schools.
LikeLike
Dodd’s plan is amazingly bad. It would be hard to come up with a dumber plan.
He not only splits up OSU-UM, he also splits up IU and PU, and NW and Ill. Finally he splits Iowa and Neb from Wis and Minnesota.
After years of saying that a championship game wasn’t all that important, and even hinting they might not even have a championship game/divisions if they expanded, they now want to put championship game $/ratings above all other considerations. Fricking amazing.
LikeLike
Ditto! Instead of KISS, which is logical and safe, they eff it up from the beginning! Why not wait until you’ve finalized expansion plans for the short term(within five years) and then, gerrymander the league for football. Selling their soul for a possible Michigan-Ohio State rematch seems ludicrous. If this goes down, I will be rooting for Iowa and Wisconsin(no slight intended) to play in the inaugural ‘We’re Effing Stupid’ championship game! Willarm1 has been silent recently. It must be because he is delirious with joy!
LikeLike
Seems like the ‘zipper’ divisions that Alan from Baton Rouge suggested yesterday.
LikeLike
That’s an excellent point. All along they’ve been hinting that a CCG is not the be-all and end-all, and it was totally consistent with the Big Ten ethos of not just diving for every last penny you can squeeze out of your contracts, and now, suddenly, they’re willing to rip apart the rivalries that make college sports fantastic because they think they can make a few extra bucks.
LikeLike
I have to admit, if this goes through I just don’t se any further expansion happening.
I mean with this kind of I just couldn’t see how a Rutgers, Pitt, MD, Cuse, etc would fit.
LikeLike
Alright, now we’re getting somewhere!
Keep an eye on the Big East for football expansion next about 2 hours ago via MogoTXT
LikeLike
This begs the question.
Mark May is a reporter/analyst for ESPN.
If he knows something, shouldn’t be be breaking the story rather than merely teasing that he knows something that we don’t?
LikeLike
A different headline triggered a thought.
What about BYU being a fb only member of BE? Makes no sense geographically, but they are far and away the strongest non autobid program.
If ND had any sense and truly didn’t want to join B10, they would have the BE fb schools secede, do a 12 team league with divisions and they would only be required to play their 5 division games and maybe 1 against the other division, leaving 6 or 7 for their “national” schedule. They could keep their TV contract. You could have the 8 BE, ND, BYU and 2 out of Memphis/UCF/ECU/UH/TCU/Navy/Army/AF. If you add the 3 service academies, you wouldn’t even need to leave the BE. You could have them and BYU as fb only.
LikeLike
I saw someone on another board suggest the same thing. Really in a lot of ways, it would make a ton of sense. BYU gets in a BCS conference, the Big East gets to expand with a name brand school. BYU can still put its non-revenue sports in another conference (plans to anyway) and the Big East doesn’t have to worry about adding a full member and upsetting the delicate football/non-football school balance.
Big issues are there of course too. BYU wouldn’t be playing in highly Mormon areas and the Big East is going to have a hard time being labeled the northeast’s conference (something they want), when they have a team in Utah.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how adding a team like Memphis or UCF or Temple helps stengthen the Big East enough to deter the Big Ten from raiding them. If anything, a Big East expansion along with the MWC expansion and if the MWC & CUSA merge, almost seems to encourage the Big Ten to go ahead and expand further (more blood in the college football water).
LikeLike
Well we know it can’t be the Big East doing something proactive so it must be a raid on the Big East. Maybe the MWC success at destroying the WAC has invigorated the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This sure clears things up:
http://conferenceusa.cstv.com/genrel/082010aab.html
Official Conference USA Statement on Talks with Mountain West Conference
Commissioner Britton Banowsky issues official statement
Aug. 20, 2010
IRVING, Texas – Following up on various media reports, Conference USA and Mountain West representatives met yesterday, a meeting that had been previously scheduled. C-USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky issued the following statement:
“The conferences have much in common and have worked cooperatively for many years and we are exploring creative ways to work together going forward. The discussion included scheduling, television, and post-season football. It is premature for anyone to suggest anything else at this point. We have the strong support of our members as we work on a variety of strategic initiatives. We had a good discussion yesterday and likely will have more in the future.”
LikeLike
http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/24009504
CUSA and MWC discuss BCS play-in game
(Excerpts)
…The source stressed the preliminary nature of the talks.
No information has been submitted to BCS officials from the two leagues. In fact, 2010 begins a new four-year cycle for the BCS. One source termed the agreement “locked in”. That would mean the soonest anything could be in place is at the end of the 2014 season.
“The conferences have agreed to this format for the next four years,” BCS executive director Bill Hancock said…
…The subject of a BCS bowl play-in game among non-BCS leagues has been discussed informally in the past. Conference USA and the MWC would have to get approval from the other nine Division I-A conferences. One potential roadblock: The three other non-BCS leagues (MAC, WAC, Sun Belt) probably would have an issue with those two conferences playing for a BCS bowl instead of them. The WAC probably isn’t on the best terms with the MWC right now. Plus, the WAC has placed teams in BCS bowls three times (winning twice) since 2007.
This would not be a merger between Conference USA and the MWC, but a play-in game to advance to the BCS after both leagues decided their conference champions. Conference USA already stages a conference championship game. The Mountain West is in a state of flux as BYU decides if it wants to leave the league and play as an independent in football. Fresno State and Nevada accepted invitations to join the MWC this week, supposedly beginning in 2012. Since it’s not certain how many members the MWC will have going forward, it’s not certain if it will attempt to stage a conference championship game of its own.
A play-in game could mean at least one of those leagues would be playing 15 games in a season, counting a conference title game, BCS play-in game and bowl game…
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now – I find it strange that C-USA is in the conversation for this play-in game when you could argue that even the depleted WAC has just as strong of a case for inclusion. The MWC is clearly the best of the non-AQ conferences, but I don’t see how anyone else has separated themselves at all.
If there was to be a play-in game, it ought to simply pit the 2 highest ranked non-AQ conference champs against each other and not just limit it to the MWC and C-USA.
LikeLike
The remaining “good” programs from WAC/C-USA merge then have a championship game with the MWC which then goes to the BCS?
The left over’s form a single non-BCS AQ conference and consolidate with the other “lower tier” football conferences?
LikeLike
If there was to be a play-in game, it ought to simply pit the 2 highest ranked non-AQ conference champs against each other and not just limit it to the MWC and C-USA.
I would think that would be the BCS’s preference. But perhaps the MWC is using the threat of lawsuits and congressional hassles and countering with the MWC-CUSA proposal to wrangle the MWC a stronger position for itself, and more importantly to lure BYU back in. The MWC is still in a precarious position and could effectively be killed tomorrow if the expansion winds blow the wrong way. Why would the BCS go along with the MWC proposal? Perhaps the MWC and CUSA have ESPN on their side. I dunno.
LikeLike
Adam Rittenberg “Momentum builds for Michigan-OSU split”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/14767/momentum-builds-for-michigan-osu-split
speculates divisions
West
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
East
Penn State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
pardon me while I go throw up.
LikeLike
That setup is less competitively balanced than the KISS East/West split but it does preserve most rivalries. As an Iowa fan, I am most concerned about having Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin in the same division. I am largely indifferent whether you add some combination of MI/MSU, IL/NW, PSU/IL/NW to that combination.
The team I most feel sorry for would be Minnesota as they would have a brutal time ever making it to the CCG with 5 of the Top 7 programs in their division.
LikeLike
If they are going to split MI and OSU, that plan may make the most sense. NE-MN-IA-WI is good geography, the Mich, Ill, and Ind pairs aren’t split, and 4 of the 5 schools most likely to dwell at the bottom probably have a better shot at winning their division than in any other combo. Beat 1 of OSU and PSU when both are somewhat down (or lose key players to injury) and you could see Pur, IL, or NW in the title game. The 2 best programs in the east and #3-6 in the west somewhat balances out, and you still have several cross division games to level the field.
LikeLike
Plus the more Little Brown Jugs the better.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now – Yeah, I’m semi-OK with that division split (probably better to call it North/South) IF Michigan and Ohio State are split (which I maintain would be a colossal mistake). If there are 2 protected rivalries under a 9-game conference schedule, it provides even further flexibility. It’s probably the best of the batch of bad ideas.
LikeLike
I think that split is awful. I don’t even know what the Big Ten would claim as its reasoning for that setup. Clearly it isn’t traditional rivalries, as the single biggest set is split up. The Big Ten can’t claim its competitive balance over the past 17 years either, as 4 of the top 6 teams are on one side.
The Big Ten has said geography is its last concern, so I can’t imagine that argument either. I can’t see this split happening. It completely disregards the one thing the Big Ten has consistently gone back to: competitive balance over the past 17 years.
LikeLike
@Ross Hatton – Whether right or wrong, it appears that “competitive balance” really means the “Big 4” of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska being split up evenly as opposed to the top 6. So, even though the East/West split is actually more balanced top-to-bottom than this North/South proposal based on records over the past 2 decades, the perception is driven by the distribution of the marquee teams. I don’t really agree with that argument, but it seems like the Big 4 are who really matter to the powers that be (conference leadership, schools that want to maximize dates with the Big 4, and especially the TV networks).
LikeLike
Yeah I understand, I just can’t see how Michigan’s leadership would be content with such a setup. Things are tough enough right now, as if this helps.
Only way I really see this as acceptable is if 9 games is guaranteed at this point.
LikeLike
I’m not entirely sure I agree. I agree it does mean the top 4 being separated, but I think it also means top 6. If they go with Ohio State and Michigan in separate divisions, my most likely guess would be something like this with 2 permanent crossovers to preserve rivalries.
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Michigan State
Until they got up to 9 games, schools would have a choice of playing 2 or 1 permanent crossover.
LikeLike
I think this is a logical split, if all the other illogical choices are a must.
LikeLike
I’m not in favor of that split either. But it does fit the Big Ten criteria if you define them differently than we do. Most of this board looks at competitive balance as a tiered structure with a gradiation of strength. We split up the teams as if we were doing a fantasy league. BUT if you define competitive balance as simply the four brand names then they have split them two in each division.
And as far as the geographic split it can fit. All you are looking for is is to move one of the eastern brand names. Penn State is a non starter apparently because they are too far east. Plus they are integral to the conference’s eastern strategy. So its Ohio State or Michigan. If you look at the west under the KISS view the two furthest east and prime for a flop are Illinois or Northwestern. If you want to protect local instate rivalries you can’t split them so you send them both east. Which means two from the east have to go west. If you send Ohio State you have to send either Purdue or Indiana with them breaking up that instate pair. Since Michigan is paired with Michigan State they make the eaiser move preserving instate rivalries.
Again I really dislike it but can see the apparent logic in it.
LikeLike
As a Buckeye fan, I’d have to say that if UM and OSU are going to be split up, then this is the best best possible scenario. This keeps all other major existing rivalries intact within divisions, which is big. The western division would have a beef with 4 of the top 6 teams being in that division, but rivalry games would be intact within the division (except OSU-UM, of course). Obviously I, like seemingly every other fan out there, wants OSU and UM in the same division, but if that simply isn’t going to happen, I could live with this.
LikeLike
plus it gives the Buckeyes a weak division.
LikeLike
Exactly.
Ohio State – “If we have to be split up, I like this one.”
Michigan – “No way!”
Conference – “cough, Rich Rod, cough, thin ice, cough.”
Michigan shuts up and sits down.
LikeLike
They may have some $$$ reasons on their side as well.
UoM is a very followed school in the mid-atlantic/NYC area…just like PSU and OSU.
Not having UoM play regular games in the “eastern” side of the conference (especially if some BigEast teams are added) might be leaving “money on the table” as far as tv ratings, etc.
LikeLike
great. so you take the school with the largest alumni base and with heavy representation in the NYC and other eastern markets that you want to exploit and you disembowel their largest rivalry game, which also happens to be one of the best publicized college football games each year, and move them away from those eastern markets because you want to make some snide, ignorant, dumbass statenent about a short term coaching situation. real bright.
LikeLike
Yeah, the coaching situation at Michigan has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Michigan still has the largest endowment in the Big Ten, the largest alumni base, and is one of the few (what is it, like, 7?) athletic programs in the black.
LikeLike
Michigan doesn’t have the largest enrollment in the BT………
LikeLike
great. so you take the school with the largest alumni base and with heavy representation in the NYC and other eastern markets that you want to exploit and you disembowel their largest rivalry game
Oh, the huge manatee!
MI-OSU will still be played every year. TX-OU is played midseason and has somehow thrived despite that ‘disembowelment.’
Sure it would be preferable to see MI-OSU continue to end the season, I never suggested otherwise. But it is laughable to claim that moving it up in the season will somehow ruin it. You could play it the first game of the season (cough, MI-ND, cough) and it would still be huge and an always a heated rivalry anticipated all year. It is MI-OSU, not some tenuous house of cards.
And because it is MI-OSU, moving the date is ultimately about as impactful as choosing what color to paint the room. Very little, but people like to fight to death over the most relatively meaningless nonsense. Which is fine, just injecting some honest reality for a second.
It is MI-OSU, it really doesn’t matter when they play.
LikeLike
Forgot to add, most likely we are only talking about a scheduling division for a couple of years. I don’t sense that Delany has shut off the Expansionator.
LikeLike
I didn’t say enrollment. I said endowment. Completely different.
LikeLike
@Ross Hatton
I’m guessing the reason mushroomgod wrote that was because you wrote that UM has the largest alumni base. Unless UM has alumni with ridiculously long lifespans, it is impossible for them to have the largest alumni base considering the disparity in enrollments between them UM and other schools in the conference.
I’m guessing what you actually meant to write is that UM has the largest alumni base in NYC, but that’s certainly not what you wrote. BTW, do you have a link for either statement? I’m curious to see where OSU ranks.
LikeLike
@Hodgepodge
I said Michigan has the largest alumni base and they do. The alumni base includes graduate students. While Ohio State has a larger undergraduate enrollment Michigan has a larger graduate enrollment (16k to 10k) and graduate enrollment turns over more quickly which bulks up the number. The most recent numbers I saw were from 2007 and Michigan had 460,000 living alumni which was the highest in the conference. Also these numbers count only graduated students as alumni (technically incorrect I belive) and while Ohio State has a larger enrollment they graduate 75% while Michigan graduates 88%.
LikeLike
I will have to pull a source for you, been awhile since I have looked. What I said was true for all alumni, not NYC, the reason being Michigan has, I believe, the largest graduate student enrollment or one of the largest, and these programs are much quicker than undergraduate so the discrepancy is magnified.
It’s been awhile since I even discussed our alumni base, last time I checked it was over 400,000 and that was over 3 years ago when I was applying to Michigan. I know if you go to the Alumni site for Michigan you can find it somewhere.
The endowment thing I know to be true, I recently saw those numbers posted again for 2010.
LikeLike
@Hank
Actually, I wasn’t thinking about OSU’s alumni base being larger, but rather Minnesota’s and Illinois’s. Specifically, I was under the impression that Illinois had the largest alumni base, but after a little research realized that the University of Illinois system does, not the Champaign-Urbana campus. PSU also likes to trumpet that their alumni association has the largest numbers.
But since you brought in up, I suspect OSU’s grad rate is now functionally around 80% if you assume the same correlation between graduation and freshman retention rates and between graduation rate and overall caliber of student entering over the past 7 years (the 75% grad rate is for the 2003 freshman class, I believe). Still below UM’s graduation rate, to be sure, but it shouldn’t be too long before it is within a couple percentage points (and assuming tuition rates haven’t priced out most students by that time).
Oh, and FYI, OSU’s grad student population is about 13k. I don’t know about UM, but OSU separates out professional students (Medicine, Vet, Dentistry, Law) from its other graduate students in its enrollment numbers. I personally view them the same, but whatever. So, combined there are around 13k.
LikeLike
That’s true, but Buckeye fans have enough faith in their football program that they could win the division regardless of who is in it.
LikeLike
That’s a distressingly doable conference.
UoM v OSU rivalry is to the point of where it won’t matter if the game means something or not. They just want to beat the other team. The thing they need to watch out for is if OSU and PSU are forced to square off every year for the division championship that game might start to take priority.
I know its blasphemous to the “Old Guard”, but it was decades of back and forth with something on the line that forged the current rivalry between OSU/UoM and that is exactly what would be happening with the OSU/PSU game. IMO, I could see the OSU/UoM game becoming the Steelers/Browns game today…it means something cause of the team, but in the end our real rival is the Ravens because that game usually means something.
What’s more, for expansion purposes it seems pretty easy to adjust:
2 schools from the East join, slide Illinois/NW to the West (or North, whatever).
4 schools from the East join, Illinois and Indiana (the states) take their schools to the other division.
1 School from the East a school like Mizzou might be added in the other or NW could be slid back to pick up its games against Iowa/Wisc/Minne.
3 schools from the East the same from above.
(Note: ND would count as any Eastern team, unlikely as that is to happen).
The only gripe I could see is Mich missing out on playing regular games in any new eastern states that might join. A particularly problematic thing as they have a lot of alumni in the area and would probably prefer to continue recruiting PA and surrounding areas.
Again, I still don’t think this sits well, but it sits better than some of the other “non-KISS” break-outs I’ve seen.
LikeLike
I’d have the opposite issue if 4 teams joined. I want to play in the Midwest. You put 4 eastern teams in the east, push out the Indiana and Illinois teams, and reduce the games against the west and we, for all intents and purposes, aren’t even in the Big Ten anymore.
LikeLike
I’d agree, but I’m just saying its kind of “custom built” for that kind of logic.
Personally, I floated a 4×4 division system a couple months ago that I’ve come to really like.
Play your own group (x3 games).
Play one other group (x4 games).
Rotate through groups to play every team once every 3 years.
Key is to having one “designated rival” in each other grouping.
In a 9 game conference schedule you would play the games mentioned above, but then you’d also have a “2 year on, 1 year off” rivalry with 3 other schools.
IE: if Groups 1 & 2 were playing this year, the 2 extra conference games would be the “rivalry games” from Groups 3 & 4 (one from each group).
Same could be done if there were only 8 conference games (just one less out of group rivalry game).
This would allow every school to play across the Big Ten every year, maintain regional rivalries, but also include/begin further flung rivalries.
Admittedly though, that solution is probably only elegant to an engineer like myself.
LikeLike
Being someone who was championing a 5-2-2 (not the kind that is emerging though) and trying to divide 3 regions equally, I can relate to the mathematical beauty that emerges in these different scenarios 🙂
LikeLike
@Hank
Has there ever been an issue where fans of both programs were so united? I mean, I cannot imagine a single fan or alumnus of either school that wants the two programs in separate divisions.
LikeLike
Oops. Posted wrong place.
LikeLike
As I posted earlier when rumors from the Michigan side indicated there might be this split, Michigan badly wants to be with PSU for obvious recruiting reasons and the whole Eastern partner argument.
I think in terms of money and appearances in NYC, Michigan and PSU together does make more sense, as Michigan has a lot of alumni there.
LikeLike
The only problem is OSU is in exactly the same boat.
The only thing, from a purely $$$ perspective, that makes sense is having OSU, PSU, & UoM in the same division…and that division is on the eastern side of the conference.
LikeLike
I know OSU is in the same boat. The #1 priority should be competitive balance following this UM/OSU split, as I think Nebraska, UM/OSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin together is a massive mistake.
But if you want one team playing PSU every year, guaranteed, is it Michigan or OSU? Right now a lot would be inclined to say OSU for the competitiveness argument; however, the UM/OSU split is clearly motivated by dollars and television exposure.
At the end of the day, Michigan has a massive alumni base and a large alumni following in NYC, second in the Big Ten only to PSU.
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing out that other programs have cards on the table as well.
It would strike me as awfully unfair that UM could keep both their other conference rivalry game (MSU) and PSU in their division, whereas OSU would have to give up their only other rivalry game (PSU) if UM and PSU were in the same division without OSU. Granted, PSU is not as serious a rival as UM, but if you asked OSU fans who their second biggest rival was, probably about 90% would say PSU.
Oh, and before anyone mentions it, the vast, vast majority of Buckeye fans couldn’t care less about the Illinois “rivalry”. The general reaction when they rotate off the schedule is a collective “meh”.
LikeLike
@Hodgepodge
please don’t count Michigan State as something we get to keep. Most Michigan fans have less interest in them than they in us. I’d have no problem rotating them off the schedule.
LikeLike
@Hank
It’s still a rivalry game, no matter how you slice it. Considering MSU values the rivalry so much, you can pretty much count on the people who matter considering it a major rivalry. I’m quite certain Delany et alia are counting it as such in their deliberations. At the very least, you’d have to admit that it means considerably more to the average UM fan than does the “rivalry” with Minnesota for the Little Brown Jug (analogous with the OSU-Illinois “rivalry” for the Illibuck).
LikeLike
granted just please list it as something they get not as something we get in. we’d rather trade it in for keeping the Buckeyes in the same division.
LikeLike
@Hank
Has there ever been an issue where fans of both programs were so united? I mean, I cannot imagine a single fan or alumnus of either school that wants the two programs in separate divisions.
LikeLike
@Hodgepodge
yup. fans of both programs value the rivalry even through times of adversity for the other program. We have to much shared history to just give it up.
LikeLike
If accepted, I agree that OSU-PSU (which should be the season ending game if these divisions are accepted) could end up bigger than OSU-Michigan within a generation.
One interesting thing about this attempt at ‘balance’, is that it doesn’t balance the population at all. OSU’s division has a combined population of 43.4 million; Michigan’s division has a combined population of 25.7 million. The SEC does just fine with that kind of split, probably because the state of Alabama is rather close to Florida and Georgia while Louisiana produces more than enough recruits for an elite team. Of course, the Big 12 was doomed by such a population split.
I don’t find this setup as good as KISS, but it it better than many of the others that have been suggested; it is a geographic split, keeping nearly all of the rivalries.
Now, how many years will this be played before they add more teams and have to readjust? I’m thinking just 1 year, as they’ll get 2 more teams announced next summer to start in 2012.
LikeLike
From an Illinois standpoint that division split really sucks. None of the Illinois teams play in a division with Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota.
LikeLike
I also don’t like any divisions that split up OSU and Michigan, but looking at these from the Northwestern perspective:
Their division is incredibly workable. Indiana and Illinois are the two worst teams in conference over the last 15 years and should be wins much more often than not. Purdue is better but again, no reason to be under .500 against them. Penn State will likely wander in the desert a bit after JoePa retires (or let’s be honest, dies) and Ohio State (mumble mumble).
LikeLike
Are any of the schools’ fanbases generally upset about an East-West split? Or is it just the executives looking to market a championship game. A championship game that we were told they weren’t even sure they would have, even after expansion. What happens if Purdue lands another Drew Brees and becomes a contender. “Oh no, a non-name brand may make the ccg! Our plans have been foiled!”
It seems like avoiding geography, and going for competitive balance is going to upset some fanbase. The least controversial thing they could do is East-West, but that is unacceptable to the powers that be. How is this happening?
Wow, I am seriously PO’d about this. I need to get my priorities in order.
LikeLike
I’m seriously PO’d about it but I don’t consider it a lack of priorities. If you care about college football (and I do) then this matters. A lot. And if you don’t care about college football, you wouldn’t watch on Saturdays or comment on this blog.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the remaining WAC members attempt a merger with the Sun Belt? The Sun Belt currently has 9 teams; the WAC currently has 6 teams (with conversation of adding Montana as a 7th) You could conceivably have two mid-major super conferences with the MWC/CUSA and the WAC/Sun Belt….the could split it up as follows:
West
Hawaii
San Jose St
New Mexico St
Utah St
Idaho
Montana
North Texas
Ark St
East
ULL
ULM
Troy
MTSU
WKU
La Tech
FAU
FIU
…a little far fetched but after the past few days, anything is conceivable.
LikeLike
http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/6270202
Mountain West Conference commissioner Craig Thompson just told me there is nothing to the Houston speculation.
“I haven’t had any communication with Houston,” he said…
LikeLike
Mountain West on Facebook?
http://www.blocku.com/2010/8/19/1632774/the-mountain-west-conference
LikeLike
So…wondering who the most screwed in all this is? How about Hawaii? The very first BCS buster school.
From the Honolulu Star
http://warriorbeat.honadvblogs.com/2010/08/19/independence-day/
“Unless there’s a shift in the continents, Hawaii’s isolation is a deal breaker. If BYU opts to remain in the MWC, and the league needs to add a 12th member, the Warriors still aren’t on the invitation list. Word on the boulevard is TCU wants to bring in Houston; New Mexico wants to invite UTEP.”
He has a follow up entry today, that is basically that U of Hawaii should beg, plead, and bride, whatever it takes to get in the MWC.
http://warriorbeat.honadvblogs.com/2010/08/20/quo-vadimus-2/
“The WAC has been good to UH, but why not also make a pitch to the Mountain West? UH can offer travel subsidies, emphasize the Hawaii exemption, and give up the automatic entry into the Hawaii Bowl.”
LikeLike
Utah was the original BCS buster, and they’ve made out okay so far. Hawaii’s athletics are in a tough spot, but if they wanted to help themselves, they should have made more investments in athletic facilities. That’s one of the things that drove June Jones off.
LikeLike
RE: “Momentum builds for Michigan-OSU split” by Adam Rittenberg
Hank and Madison Hawk,
One of the problems here is that a bunch of old men who are living in the past are making the divisional split decisions. They remember the glory days of the OSU vs UM rivalry and think that they’ll relive those days in the CCG. The problem for them is that the BT has changed. Penn St & now UNL change the balance of power. We’ve had the emergence of Wisconsin and Iowa as power players (although not national brand names) and of course UM is not a conference contender at this point and may not be a contender for a number of years.
I would hope that the BT powers that be are forward looking. I would hope that they see a future for the BT above and beyond just UM and tOSU, I would hope that they promote divisions that have strong rivalries and that develop BT schools into regional and national powers.
KISS Divisions are the way to go, but it won’t happen. It could be years before UM and tOSU face each other in a CCG. The divisions outlined by Rittenberg give Penn St and tOSU a cake walk to the CCG. All the while the western teams duke it out with 5 of the top 7 teams. And poor old Minnesota is destined for obscurity.
As Frank the Tank put it, they see the 4 national brand schools as the key money makers that have to be split up. They’ll split up the 4 national brands no matter how convoluted the divisions become.
It seems apparent to me that UNL has to anchor the “west” and tOSU has to anchor the “east”. Thus, it becomes a question of which of the remaining national brands do you send west, either UM or Penn St. If you send Penn St. that means a whole lot of travel for Lion’s fans and you still have the “problem” that UM and tOSU in the same division. So, that means you have to send the Wolverines west.
I’m not sure, but I would think that UM fans would be unhappy with going west since most of their following and alumni are in the east. It might also negatively impact recruiting and increase travel for Michigan fans. Although the BT powers that be are not asking fans….I’d like to know: Are UM and Michigan State fans happy about potentially being “shipped west”?
LikeLike
@Hawkeye / Gator Boy – Here’s the way to put lipstick on a pig assuming that we go to a 9-game conference schedule in a few years – use 2 protected inter-division rivalries to create an offshoot of the “pod” system.
POD A
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
POD B
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
POD C
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Put 2 teams from each pod in each division and then ensure that every team in each pod plays each other annually via 2 inter-division protected rivalries. This will preserve every current Big Ten protected rivalry no matter how the divisions are split up, integrates Nebraska well since it will always play the 3 next westernmost schools, keeps Penn State from being isolated since they will always play the 3 next easternmost schools and overall makes geographic sense.
LikeLike
It prased it differently, but that’s actually the exact same thing I was arguing they should/would do. I always imagined it would be set up so that season ending games could be preserved though.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2364&t=6227412
LikeLike
It bugs me that this division seems to be driven entirely by television execs. Certainly TV needs to be considered, but not overriding. As I pointed out with Texas, 93% of their revenue does NOT come from TV.
Also, if true, ESPN driving a CUSA/MWC combination bothers me even more. The story is them driving it, not facilitating it.
LikeLike
living in the past? wasn’t it just a few years ago when Ohio State and Michigan were ranked 1 and 2 going into their game? And other than the last two years Penn State had a pretty bad run vs Michigan. Unless you are the main character in Memento that’s not the distant past.
and I prefer the KISS approach. Put Michigan Ohio State and Penn State in the same division.
LikeLike
Yup Hank, living in the past. Their the logic completely ignores;
1) No more big 2 little 8. It’s been long since those days.
2) The emergence of Iowa and Wisconsin as conference contenders.
3) The addition of two more marquee teams in Penn State and Nebraska
4) The ability of Mid level teams to upset someone’s apple cart
Some seem to still be making out their itinerary for a game in Ann Arbor at season’s end. I think for the reasons I have mentioned that is far less necessary than it once was.
LikeLike
Thanks StvInILL, you completed my thought process on how things have changed in the Big Ten better than I could!
My point is that we don’t want to go back to the days of the Big Two little eight. Those days didn’t promote the BT as a competitive well rounded conference. Why watch the regular season games if the whole enchilada is decided by the same two schools in the final game of the year!?
The BT should be looking to develop new powers, the University of Illinois is a prime example of a school that can and should be promoted. It would be good for the Big Ten overall.
If they twist the divisions to help make a potential UM v tOSU showdown, they’re promoting two schools at the expense of ten schools. It just doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
In fairness, by putting Illinois, NW, Indiana, & Purdue in the same division you allow them to start building their programs into what Iowa/Wisc already have.
You could see a 2 loss team from the NW, Illinois or Purdue grouping (never Indiana IMO) on a regular basis.
IMO, that will help develop programs, maybe just not the ones that have already been developed.
LikeLike
PSU Guy,
yeah I was noticing that 🙂
LikeLike
not denying there are changes and there are a lot of competitive programs. but how about preserving a little tradition within the conference? Michigan Ohio State as the last game of the season has been a long tradition including many periods when either one was uncompetitive. How is preserving the tradition of that matchup any less valuable to the conference than preserving Floyd of Rosedale? Its not about competitive balance its about the traditions than make college football passion fun. And most of the fans of the school seem willing to maintain that tradition and sacrifice a competitive advantage (the ability to have the other cycle off if nothing else). Getting rid off the game as a season ending tradition makes no sense.
LikeLike
Hank,
I’m all for tradition. I’m fine with UM v tOSU for the final game of the year. I promote that game.
What I don’t want to see is Jim Delany draft convoluted divisions just to promote the possibility of UM and tOSU in the CCG. Wacky divisions that promote two schools at the expense of ten other schools is a bad idea.
I hope Iowa plays Minnesota for Floyd on the last game of the year. I hope they don’t move that game and make Iowa play Nebraska instead. So call me a traditionalist. But, let’s not promote a new CCG tradition or create obnoxious divisions at the expense of most of the conference members.
LikeLike
@Hawkeye/Gator Boy
I don’t want convulted divisions either. I’m for keeping them in the same division thereby eliminating a possible championship game rematch. The Yankee Red Sox rivalry is every bit as intense despite there being no possibility of it being in the World Series. I’m very willing to have the game be for who gets to a CCG than for the conference championship.
LikeLike
Exactly, UM-OSU playing on the final day of the regular season in the same division does not stop other schools from achieving. If someday, they are both down, it will still be a big game for the two schools. It has been the season finale since 1935. (For the most part, I recall Michigan at Hawaii in the 80’s).
You don’t just throw that away, tradition builds over time. In twenty years sleeping giant Illinois and 55 year old Pat Fitgerald’s Northwestern could be the dominant programs and that will be the big game.
LikeLike
Hank,
I think you and I are in agreement. Heck, it looks like most Big Ten fans are in agreement on what the best division cut would look like.
JD and the BT are not asking the fans what they want. I hope I’m wrong, but the BT may make divisional alignments that piss off most of the fans and don’t promote long term competitive balance. Why do I say this? Because the BT is going to try to promote the four name brands at the expense of tradition and logic. So why promote the four main National Brands? TV share, money. Again, I hope that I’m wrong. I hope someone at the BT office is reading this blog.
Whatever happens I’ll still watch the games and be a Big Ten fan. Most all of us will follow the BT no matter what the divisions look like. I guess they know that at the BT offices….so they won’t bother to consider our opinions. Too bad.
LikeLike
Miopia Hank that’s what they call it. tOSU UM game will always be a big game on the conference schedule. My argument is that the thing that made the game is the significance of winning it. In the old days of the big 2 and little 8, the winner would be catapulted into the rose bowl, “the grand daddy of them all”, and the loser a footnote after an 11 game season. It is not tradition to manufacture what may not be there. Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa may have something to say about who ends up in the CCG. Why manufacture a situation where YOU decide that UM and tOSU has the most to say about that when it may not be the case. Think about it?
LikeLike
@StvInIl
it appears you haven’t read my post. Who is suggesting the Ohio State Michigan game needs to decide anything? I’ve said and other have said make it a division game so that all it influences is a division championship, possibly, and not the conference championship. And the game was important before the Big Two Little Eight era and afterwards. The fans of both schools want to maintain the year end tradition whether it decides anything or not. Maube we should create a Woody Of Rosedale trophy so the game will have resonance to others.
oh and I think the word you were looking for was myopia.
LikeLike
Its sounding like the NBA where they go out of their way to promote certain franchises and players to the extent that they call fouls differently on those players (or fumbles??).
LikeLike
What I don’t want to see is Jim Delany draft convoluted divisions just to promote the possibility of UM and tOSU in the CCG. Wacky divisions that promote two schools at the expense of ten other schools is a bad idea.
Not to the folks at ESPN –– storyline uber alles. This has Bristol’s messy little hands all over it (and I don’t mean Sarah Palin’s daughter). Aside from the occasional Penn State and Nebraska, they don’t want to see one of the “wrong” teams spoil the SportsCenter hype machine of OSU-Mich.
I hope Iowa plays Minnesota for Floyd on the last game of the year. I hope they don’t move that game and make Iowa play Nebraska instead. So call me a traditionalist.
Then let’s be a traditionalist and revive having Minnesota and Wisconsin end the season against each other, which I believe the Gophers did for several decades before the Hawkeyes got involved. Now that Minnesota plays outdoors at home again, why not?
LikeLike
Hawkeye Gator,
You are dead on in your assessment. I have to agree. Though I would add they can not send both Illinois and NW to the east if that’s the plan. They are both in the Central time zone for goodness sakes. They should send no more than one.
LikeLike
Not happy, but OSU won’t be happy with it either. You undermind recruiting in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania is one of few recruiting hotbeds in the Big Ten.
Travel is honestly not a huge concern. Michigan travels well regardless. It does suck that it will be harder for the East Coast fans to make games, though I am not one of them.
LikeLike
Should be undermine*
LikeLike
I still wonder how much more travel Penn St. would incur if they were in the west. Half of the west teams would be coming to Happy Valley every year and you still have three games against teams in the east (four with a nine game schedule). So maybe you are trading one game more western than eastern. One. And that is worth spliting Ohio St. and Michigan? I dunno.
LikeLike
One place I’ll disagree, Hawkeye, is that I am not thinking this is because it’s a bunch of old men calling the shots. If anything, I’d say the opposite: it’s because we have a lot of younger guys with business backgrounds who are the ADs. Or at least, those are the ones who seem to be out in front on this. We’ve heard a lot of non-traditional things coming from Dave Brandon and Mark Hollis, for example, but Gene Smith’s comments on the non-traditional result that’s apparently being pursued here were more hedged, uncertain, non-commital, or whatever other word you want to use.
That’s been my sense of why this is getting messed up: you’ve got younger ADs with business backgrounds rather than sports backgrounds, and they think they need to show off their business acumen by doing something only they’d be smart enough to figure out. I have a feeling if all of the ADs were retired football coaches, it’d be a different result.
LikeLike
The Michigan fight song does declare them the champions of the West…
LikeLike
Hail to the quipper!
LikeLike
Boy did I hate that song growing up. (heard it way too much) And didn’t understand the UM fans inability to understand geography. The perspective of time makes a big difference.
LikeLike
fwiw the song was written when the conference was referred to as the Western Conference.
LikeLike
Frank,
http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=58436
slightly off topic I know, but my thinking long ago seems to have caught others eyes as well! It follows the “Miami” discussion on this blog as noted in said article. Going back to one of your first posts about realignment, and the value of fans who fill stadiums in bad years!
“So, despite having the worst program traditionally, and last year having the 2nd worst team on this list, Kentucky still averaged OVER capacity in home attendance. Something only 12 teams total did, or 10% of college football. Miami averaged 60% capacity last season, and finished 17th in the polls.”
LikeLike
Yeah, UK has always done a really good job filling its stadium. I think a lot of that has to do with a proud basketball history bleeding some support over into other sports.
LikeLike
But they’ve done it when IU, Duke and Kansas haven’t.
LikeLike
That’s a good point. It probably has something to do with being in the SEC as well; I would have to see some sort of breakdown on how many UK fans are there and how many opposing team fans are there on average.
I’m a big UK basketball fan, its history has certainly been nothing special, but I have even been to a number of UK home FB games.
LikeLike
My first guess would be that KU pulls a lot in from rabid SEC football fans. Some who want to see the other teams and some who want to support their alma mater. Going on the road is one thing but going on the road in conference for, let’s face it a sure win, is another. This is what Kentucky offers as much as available seating. My apologies to the KU fans if I am wrong on this. Their numbers speak for themselves otherwise.
LikeLike
Ross – I think every SEC school provides only 7000 to 8000 tickets for visiting fans.
Kentucky and South Carolina have to have the most loyal football fans in the country with not much to show for it.
LikeLike
bullet,
I can see duke as a small private school, but it seems like IU and KU should have better numbers. IU in the Big 10 and KU in the old Big 8 / new Big 12 are not slouch conferences compared to say Louisville in the old Metro or Memphis in the old Missouri Valley.
LikeLike
http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/6270202
Big 12 ADs discuss starting cable network
Eight Big 12 athletic directors met with a media rights holder Friday morning to discuss forming their own cable network.
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Iowa State, Colorado, Missouri and Kansas State had discussions Learfield Sports, a Plano, Texas-based company that manages the multimedia rights for more than 50 universities nationwide. Texas A&M AD Bill Byrne has talked and tweeted about the meeting publicly. The move is not related to any conference shifting, but is seen as a new revenue stream…
…This is the conference’s last season as a 12-team league. Nebraska is headed to the Big Ten in 2011. Colorado is leaving for the Pac-10 in either 2011 or 2012. It wasn’t immediately clear what Colorado was doing at the meeting if it is soon leaving the league…
…Learfield played down the meeting.
“It caused a lot of questions [from media],” a spokesman said. “It was nothing out of the ordinary. It wasn’t anything top secret.”
LikeLike
It wasn’t immediately clear what Colorado was doing at the meeting if it is soon leaving the league…
LikeLike
Probably discussing what to do with Colorado’s rights to past games…would need to be some sort of negotiation with the Pac-10 network yeah?
LikeLike
Then why wasn’t Nebraska there? Maybe CU isn’t leaving until 2012 and they might actually be a part of this thing at the start. Also, why no Kansas? Isn’t this relevant to their interests?
LikeLike
Who knows, the Big 12 has been pretty chaotic and incomprehensible this entire process, why change now?
LikeLike
Kansas football fortunes are up and down but their basket ball is gold. Maybe they think they can cut out a better deal on their own somehow.
LikeLike
Hawkeye / Gator Boy, it warmed my heart to read the thread you started a little while ago. Just really, really glad to see that people are getting angry about this. I believe in the KISS divisions, not so much because of geography but because it maximizes the most rivalries, including keeping important rivalries within the divisions so that the teams are jockeying for position in the standings against each other.
In my opinion, it’s time to say and do something. So I did a little research. Here are some of the people you can write to about this. You can be angry, make threats, be polite and reasonable, or whatever else. But I think it’s time we make our voices heard.
Mr. James E. Delany
Commissioner, Big Ten Conference
1500 Higgins Road
Park Ridge, IL 60068-6300
jdelany@bigten.org
Look up your own school’s president, athletic director, even the Board of Trustees (or at least the chair) and speak out!
LikeLike
I realize there’s a incongruity there; I said “here are some of the people” and then only listed Delany. I started looking up more, but verifying the addresses was a daunting task. I wouldn’t mind doing it for a few, but for several dozen ADs, presidents, and trustees, it just wasn’t worth the time.
LikeLike
Thanks Adam,
I think the frustration that we see on Frank the Tank’s blog has to do with the fact that we all know our opinions and input don’t mean squat to the Powers that Be. If JD and the ADs think that they’ll bring in the most income by putting Michigan or Penn State in the west, then those teams go west.
They should have asked for fan input just to APPEAR like they care about Big Ten alumni and fans. Supposedly ND is staying independent to appease alumni, why doesn’t the BT care about alumni input? Heck, the Big Ten could have done some kind of fan “mail in ballot” just to make fans FEEL like their voice mattered in deciding the conference divisions.
I’ll send an e-mail to JD, and Mr. Barta, I’ll consider it my “good deed” for the week. But, it’s like writing to the President about foreign policy. It might temporarily make you feel good to voice your opinion, but don’t think that it’s going to change anything.
Here’s the contact info for the Iowa AD:
Gary Barta
Athletic Director
University of Iowa
338 CHA
Iowa City IA 52242
319-335-9435
email: gary-barta@uiowa.edu
LikeLike
Hawkeye, I may be naïve, but I feel like if all of the people who are upset by this got angry and in the ear of TPTB, it might make a difference. We are the customers, after all. And unlike foreign policy, this is not an esoteric subject about which a relatively small number of people care. I think it’s clear lots of people are passionate about this, or would be if they realized these deliberations were going on.
LikeLike
I emailed Delaney. That was fun.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. Just fired him off an e-mail.
LikeLike
You’re welcome to the e-mail, by the way. Although I’m wondering whether it’s been changed (or something) along the way; I have to believe I’m not the only one who figured it out during the expansion saga, and if so he must have gotten absolutely bombed. Maybe they leave it open to swallow the e-mails and he really uses something else.
LikeLike
I should probably clarify that by making threats, I mean things like threatening to cancel your season tickets or your membership in the alumni association. Should go without saying but I thought I ought to clarify.
LikeLike
Darn, too late! I threatened to root for Duke against UNC. I imagine he is trembling from both rage and trepidation.:) Seriously, thanks for the address.
LikeLike
Hahahaha I meant more along the lines of I do not mean to encourage anybody to actually threaten anybody’s safety. Their economic security, perhaps, in the sense of no longer being a customer.
LikeLike
Naw, Delany’s old school. Say you’ll root for N.C. State –– then he’ll know you mean business.
LikeLike
More indication of why this is such a non-story: it isn’t even on the College Football page at ESPN, let alone the front page, that Brandon’s comments were on the radio. What gives?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/24009504
MWC Commish Thompson is interviewed. Comes clean about talking with C-USA. Says talks are in infancy stages. Nothing could be done for 4 years when current BCS agreement is up.
Nothing on a new BCS Bowl game.
This would not be a merger, but an alliance and a play in game for a BCS spot.
Thompson, says the numbers are not hard to figure out on BCS AQ. Says MWC is not qualified now, but has 2 year to become qualified.
My take: Why would the MWC even think about this? They might get an AQ on their own. The MWC has put teams in the BCS and C-USA hasn’t come close.
LikeLike
Because they’ll have a lot more heft as a supergrouping of mid-majors than they do individually, whether politically or even on the field.
I mean if you have the two strongest mid-major conferences with a play-in game to a BCS slot, that’s an interesting offer to make to the BCS as a way of not having to give multiple like Boise State-TCU last year.
LikeLike
Redhawk – A CUSA team started all the non-AQ hullabaloo. Remember that the 1998 Tulane Green Wave finished 12-0 and didn’t get a whiff of a BCS Bowl game. At that time, the MWC and CUSA champs met at the Liberty Bowl, where the Greenies destroyed BYU 41-27, with Shaun King at QB, Tommy Bowden as head coach, and RichRod as OC.
Tulane President Scott Cowan then led the crusade for non-BCS (now known as non-AQ) schools that brought us to the compromise we live with today.
If it weren’t for Tulane and Scott Cowan paving the way, Utah, Boise St., TCU, and Hawaii all might have been Liberty,Las Vegas, or Hawaii bowl bound.
FWIW, Tulane’s new law school dean is a Big Ten man. Dean David Meyer earned his JD from Michigan, and was the Associate Dean at Illinois’ law school. Does this mean that Tulane is now part of the Big Ten’s Southern Strategy? I’ll ask him about that when he comes up to Baton Rouge for an Alumni reception next month.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/24012535
MWC says Houston is not in MWC plans and they have not talked to them.
I’m sure the MWC has to be looking at going to a 12th team if BYU stays. Who that team is, wither it’s UTEP, Houston or Hawaii or even Utah St, I’m sure would jump, so there is no reason to have discussions out in the open.
I would assume MWC would stay at 10 teams if BYU leaves.
LikeLike
Utah State, MWC talking
http://twitter.com/DesNewsEborn
“To be clear, that source says nothing impending, but that is the goal of current negotiations for USU.
37 minutes ago via web
Any conference move for USU depends on BYU’s decision on FB indy status. Nothing will happen before Monday at earliest
about 1 hour ago via web
That source at USU says the MWC will expand, again, to 12 teams if BYU can be persuaded to stay in MWC for non-football sports
about 1 hour ago via web
A source close to the USU administration tells the Deseret News Utah State is actively negotiating a berth in MWC with WAC falling apart”
Most key:
“That source at USU says the MWC will expand, again, to 12 teams if BYU can be persuaded to stay in MWC for non-football sports”
Does this mean that BYU going independent but Big-Easting the MWC is a possibility?
LikeLike
They said 2 days ago that they didn’t plan to give any concessions to BYU. Now they’re gonna let them go independent and drop off the rest of their sports there?
Utah State has made sense as a way of keeping BYU tied to the conference, since Utah-BYU seems to be dead, so both Utah and BYU are going to covet their relationships with Utah State.
LikeLike
FWIW, I went and found out the contact information for the Big Ten presidents/chancellors and athletic directors in case anyone wants to plead their school’s case with respect to stacking the divisions. I got emails for most of them, but web forms were all I could find for the Purdue prez and Michigan AD. Feel free to correct any of the info I posted and to spread this around to any other message board/blog you want.
Honestly, I’m not certain that this will make much of a difference, but you never know. Honestly, I think the best way would to be to contact the sponsors of Big Ten programming and tell them that you won’t support/buy their products if they don’t throw their weight around to stop what configuration you are most opposed to. Let’s face it, the Big Ten decision making is all about money, and the only real way to get their attention is by letting them know that their actions can also cost the Big Ten money. It would probably take a concerted effort of fans/alumni of all the schools to pull it off, rather than a a few hundred individuals complaining via email, so if anyone wants to organize a media campaign to get the Big Ten’s attention, be my guest.
Illinois:
President Michael Hogan (uipres@uillinois.edu)
Athletics Director Ron Guenther (rguenthe@illinois.edu)
Indiana:
President Michael McRobbie (iupres@indiana.edu)
Athletic Director Fred Glass (athldir@indiana.edu)
Iowa:
President Sally Mason (president@uiowa.edu)
Athletic Director Gary Barta (gary-barta@uiowa.edu)
Michigan:
President Mary Sue Coleman (presoff@umich.edu)
Director of Athletics David Brandon (http://www.mgoblue.com/feedback/mich-feedback.html)
Michigan State:
President Lou Anna Simon (presmail@msu.edu)
Athletic Director Mark Hollis (AD@ath.msu.edu)
Minnesota:
President Robert Bruininks (upres@umn.edu)
Athletics Director Joel Maturi (maturi@umn.edu)
Nebraska:
Chancellor Harvey Perlman (hperlman1@unl.edu)
Athletic Director Tom Osborne (tosborne2@unl.edu)
Northwestern:
President Morton Shapiro (nu-president@northwestern.edu)
Director of Athletics and Recreation Jim Phillips (j-phillips@northwestern.edu)
Ohio State:
President E. Gordon Gee (gee.2@osu.edu)
Athletic Director Gene Smith (smith.5407@osu.edu)
Penn State:
President Graham Spanier (president@psu.edu)
Athletic Director Timothy Curley (Athletic_Director@athletics.psu.edu)
Purdue:
President France Córdova (http://www.purdue.edu/president/contact/index.html)
Athletic Director Morgan Burke (mjb@purdue.edu)
Wisconsin:
President Kevin Reilly (kreilly@uwsa.edu)
Athletic Director Barry Alvarez (bla2athletics@wisc.edu)
LikeLike
Delightful! My initial feeling had been that paper letters tend to be more impressive and I gave up trying to find everybody’s mailing address, but it probably made more sense to go after these anyway.
I hope nobody’s getting any bounce-backs on that Delany e-mail.
LikeLike
I do believe enough e-mails would make a difference. They are doing this for money. If they worry the money won’t be there, they’ll choose a different paths. I doubt we can organize enough before a decision is reached, but you never know how close their decisions are anyway. Maybe they just need a little tug.
Heck maybe ESPN is one to e-mail too, tell them how many fewer games we’ll be watching if they go that route. Here’s a link to leave them feedback https://r.espn.go.com/members/contact/index
LikeLike
Figured it wouldn’t hurt to send all the offices e-mails, thanks for the info Hodgepodge. I just sent this one to Wisconsin’s AD and president:
Dear President Reilly and Athletic Director Barry Alvarez,
I am an Ohio State graduate, but a huge fan of Big Ten athletic programs in general. I cheer for Big Ten teams in multiple sports and have been a big fan of the Big Ten Network. This most definitely has included the Badgers. Watching them defeat Miami last year in football was particularly satisfying. My days of being a Big Ten fan could sadly soon be coming to an end though. I love the traditions of the conference. No other conference in the country comes close to matching them in my mind. As a Buckeye though, the one tradition that matters most to me is the season ending game against Michigan. If the conference values tradition so little that the Ohio State-Michigan game is moved from its season ending position, I will find another conference to cheer for or else shift my attention to the pros. I understand changes are coming and can accept almost any alignment, but if Ohio State and Michigan aren’t matching up to end their regular seasons, I’m sad to say that I’ve watched my last Badger game that doesn’t involve Ohio State (and I’m not even certain Ohio State). Thank you for taking time to read this and have a great day.
LikeLike
I’d argue that there isn’t any point to them playing the last game of the season unless they’re in the same division.
LikeLike
I think, incidentally, that the way you worded this really gets at the issue. Brandon’s comments the other day that change is coming and that it can be a good thing etc. That’s the PC thing to say because it sounds progressive and forward-facing and so forth, and I don’t necessarily disagree. I had no problem with them adding a 12th member (so long as it was an acceptable 12th member), even though that was destined to shake things up. But what I find frustrating is that they seem to think that, because some change is necessary, they have a license to change anything and everything. That makes no sense, and you’ve gotten at why that is: a big part of the Big Ten’s brand value is its traditions. That’s why a lot of people are so charmed by our league. Some traditions may be forced to go by the wayside (e.g., no matter what they do, the league title could never be on the line again in the OSU/UM season-ending game), but they should try to change as little as possible.
LikeLike
I’ve already gotten responses from both Purdue and Nebraska. Nebraska’s Chancellor said they don’t really have any say (don’t entirely buy that, but they definitely don’t have a vote). Purdue AD (or office) said, “There are lots of variables and not all will or can be managed to each person’s desire.” That does not leave me optimistic.
I e-mailed both Ohio State and Michigan yesterday and haven’t received a word back from either.
LikeLike
That is troubling.
My retort would be that there only need to be a lot of variables if we choose to gin up a lot of variables. Or they can Keep It Simple, Stupid, and make a lot of the variables go away.
LikeLike
At least 2 schools think its significant enough to respond. They are clearly getting some comments.
LikeLike
Soooo…
In the first 6 months of conference realignment, there was only widespread speculation.
In the next 2 months, BSU (MWC » WAC), CU (Pac 1# » B12), UNL (BT » B12) & UUt (Pac 1# » MWC) switched conferences.
Now, w/i the last week, BYU talks about going Ind, the MWC & WAC are re-enacting “How the West was Won” (w/ UUt & BYU battling over USU?) and the MWC & C-USA are talking about an alliance.
Also, the BT, BE, MWC, WAC &/ C-USA may (or may not) expand (again), while the Pac 1# may un-expand? It seems like we’re beginning again, but from different starting positions.
LikeLike
PSU’s President Graham Spanier weighed in on BT divisions, another indication they’re moving away from a KISS solution
“It almost certainly won’t be a rigid straightforward geographical line as in North vs. South or East vs. West,” Spanier said. “But geography will be taken into account. “And that doesn’t mean all historical rivals will be in the same division,” Spanier said. “It might mean every year you play the teams in your division. But you also might play a historical rival every year outside your division.”
From the Omaha World-Herald
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100820/SPORTS/708209830#football-nebraska-penn-state-history-attractive-to-spanier
LikeLike
Spanier has always wanted PSU and Nebraska to play. I doubt he’d be in favor of geo KISS as this would put PSU and Nebraska in different divisions, and would require a crossover to make the game yearly. Even then, PSU would already be playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State every year; if PSU played the crossover with Nebraska they’d be the only team in the Big Ten to play the three other “heavies” (OSU, Mich, and Neb) every year and MSU would likely remain PSU’s divisional rival. Given Ohio State’s dominance I see no particular reason for PSU to make it tough on themselves. Assuming they could beat Ohio State and Michigan stays down, they’d probably be playing Nebraska in the CCG anyway.
I would think that on a personal level Spanier would rather see PSU and Nebraska in the same division, although if the rumored split of OSU and Michigan into separate divisions occurs that doesn’t seem likely. Spanier’s best hope then would probably be PSU and Michigan together in a division with the crossovers being OSU-Mich and PSU-Neb.
LikeLike
Frank,
Something to chew on..
a) CU appears to still be at the table in the Longhorn Conference
b) BYU appears headed to an “independent” life
maybe my math is a little rusty, but what are the odds of:
a) + b) = “new” Big 12?
is it crazy to consider that CU stays, and BYU replaces UNL, and life goes on in the Big 12 south (with UNL out and BYU in) in the easy path to participating in the MNG pretty much EVERY year or at least every other year?
LikeLike
first this post
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/Dickey-Latest-additions-to-Pac-10-Conference-not-all-positive-101138474.html
about CU not getting in the Pac 10
LikeLike
then this post
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/24014910
NOTE: CU is listed among teams participating!
LikeLike
The Boulder Daily Camera beat writer Kyle Ringo got confirmation that CU did NOT participate in this meeting so there is apparently nothing to the Colorado staying conspiracy theory.
http://www.twitter.com/KyleRingo
Looks like SF Examiner article isn’t really anything other than a cranky old guy who probably didn’t like the idea of the PAC-8 going to 10 schools either.
LikeLike
SD,
thanks for the twitter!
if you see a more formal article from the CU president or AD for confirmation, please post link!
LikeLike
I posted the 2 links as replies, so it would clear the moderator filter and get on here quicker that waiting for approval. did not know when you would check back in Frank, and wanted some input quickly on this!
It makes me ponder some things:
a) BYU in the North would have BCS status and would feel pretty good about the chance to do well in the Big 12 North
b) UT covets a tv network, and BYU has one in place
c) UT could use the global reach of BYU to pipeline TU “product”
d) BYU would be easier to handle than that pesky Big Red crowd in the eyes of folks like Powers and Dodds!
LikeLike
Back to whether tOSU and Michigan should be split into two divisions:
There’s at least one online petition against this, and I’m sure there are several others out there.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keepthegameattheendoftheseason/
Personally, I’d like to keep them in the same division and playing at the end of the season. I didn’t get to see a lot of the games growing up because they aired opposite NU/OU, but I don’t think a change is necessary.
LikeLike
Love it! Reading the comments is heart-warming for me. These people (IMO) get it: whether or not they play, whether or not it’s the last game of the regular season, doesn’t matter if they aren’t in the same division jockeying for position against each other in the standings.
LikeLike
I’ve seen their name come up above, but I haven’t been following it closely, so could someone sketch out what’s the situation with Temple? I have substantial familial connections to the MAC and care about the league, so Temple’s situation interests me.
I’m just wondering if someone could maybe sketch out a little brief here on what’s known, what’s speculated, and maybe some links to substantiate.
LikeLike
Seems like the best way would be the simplest:
East
PSU
OSU
MI
MSU
PU
IU
West
WI
IA
NE
MN
NW
IL
Give each school 1 annual cross-division rival:
MI-MN
OSU-IL
PSU-NE
and however you think the other 6 mix best
Sorry for not following closer, but what were the strong arguments against this logical split? The only ones I can recall was that TV wanted the chance for MI-OSU to rematch in the title game and that the east might be too top heavy. Both weak arguments, IMHOutsider’sO.
LikeLike
As I understand it, those are the arguments. I can’t think of anything else anybody has raised.
I agree wholly with you on this.
LikeLike
I don’t feel all that strongly about the cross-divisional pairings, and I guess if there was one place I’d disagree, it’d be putting PSU with NE; if OSU and MI get traditional cupcakes, I would think that PSU and NE would at least not want to face each other; perhaps PSU with Iowa or something. MSU indicated they want to play Northwestern every year, although absent that I’d have paired them with Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading message boards and the comments to online newspapers from all over the Big Ten and it appears that most fans want East-West. I don’t understand why it won’t work for TPTB.
Well, I know they’re thinking about TV for the CCG. It’s one game a year and non-brand names like Purdue or Illinois will win their division occassionally. So, competitive balance isn’t fail proof. I just don’t see how complicating the rivalries and making divisions that may be ACCish builds the brand.
Delaney has been a great commissioner, creating BTN, and I love the Nebraska addition, but he is wrong on how he is leading the creation of divisions.
LikeLike
It’d be one thing if the East/West split gave you 4 or 5 of the top 6 in the same group; or all 4 of the top 4 in the same group; or some other arrangement which, while superficially attractive, would just not be workable. But that’s not the case here.
I am convinced that the leadership is all fouled up from top to bottom here because you have a bunch of people (including Delany) who want to show how brilliant they are by devising some counter-intuitive solution.
LikeLike
As a Husker fan, the East/West split with NU alone among “the Big 4” anchoring the west doesn’t excite me. Once again NU would be the lone national brand in a division where the rest of the teams are of regional interest.
Michigan, Ohio St. or Penn State being placed in NU’s division would please the fan in me a lot more.
That said, I’m not sure achieving that is worth the cost of splitting Ohio St. and Michigan into separate divisions.
LikeLike
I too am a Husker fan and I look forward to Nebraska playing Wisconsin and Iowa in conference. Those would be great games every year. As for games with the big 3 in the east, it is possible to arrange the crossover games so that Nebraska plays two of them every year. Those would be great games too.
LikeLike
OTOH, we would get big yearly games against Iowa and Wisconsin, and I think UNL would travel well to Minnesota, Northwestern, and probably even Illinois.
I would be a bit disappointed if we were not playing Iowa, Minn, and Wisky regularly.
LikeLike
I agree with both of you. Those are great games in great venues, and I’ve been to all of them except the new Minnesota stadium. Still, I’m probably not more excited about those than I am Mizzou or Colorado.
But Penn State? Michigan? Ohio State? Possibly for the division title at the end of the year? Now I’m interested.
LikeLike
So for the vaguely Southeast vs Northwest alignment, here are the title games:
09 Nebraska vs Ohio State
08 Michigan State vs Penn State
07 Michigan vs Ohio State
06 Michigan vs Ohio State
05 Iowa/Michigan/Wisconsin vs Penn State
04 Michigan vs Northwestern
03 Michigan vs Ohio State
02 Iowa vs Ohio State
01 Nebraska vs Illinois
00 Nebraska/Michigan vs Purdue
99 Nebraska/Wisconsin vs Penn State
98 Michigan vs Ohio State
97 Nebraska/Michigan vs Penn State
96 Nebraska vs Northwestern/Ohio State
95 Nebraska vs Northwestern
94 Nebraska vs Penn State
93 Nebraska vs Ohio State
Ohio State 7.5
Michigan 7.3
Nebraska 6.5
Penn State 5
Northwestern 2.5
Iowa 1.3
Illinois 1
Michigan State 1
Purdue 1
Wisconsin .8
OSU-Michigan rematches: 4
Curiously, while we instinctively say the East is the less competitive division the West actually has fewer appearances by teams other than Nebraska and Michigan. Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan State combined would have likely had only three appearances, while Northwestern, Purdue, and Illinois would have had 4 or 5.
LikeLike
I am strongly in favor of KISS divisions; however, it appears the beancounters are determined to split the big four teams 2-2. If that is going to happen, I strongly prefer putting Nebraska and PSU in the same division (leaving OSU and Michigan to play The Game as usual). The PSU-Nebraska division would be geographically ugly, but this could be mitigated by having three teams in the west and three teams in the east, rather than sending PSU to play five west teams. Therefore, I would put Iowa and Minnesota with Nebraska, and Indiana and Purdue with PSU. That would put OSU/Michigan in a compact central division with MSU, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois.
To preserve significant rivalries, the fixed crossover game should be OSU-PSU, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Illinois-Purdue, MSU-Indiana, Iowa-Northwestern, Nebraska-Michigan.
This arrangement of divisiona should keep the beancounters happy with nine headline matchups every year: PSU-Nebraska, PSU-OSU, OSU-Michigan, Nebraska-Michigan, Nebraska-Iowa, PSU-Iowa, OSU-Wisconsin, Michigan-Wisconsin, and the CCG.
LikeLike
it would suck if Wisconsin was in a division without Minnesota, Iowa, or Nebraska. I can’t believe UW would go for a setup like that.
LikeLike
I can’t believe virtually a single thing I’ve heard about this process thus far. They all suddenly have a radically different set of priorities than I thought they did.
LikeLike
It appears that Wisconsin has already signed off on this. As long as they get an annual game with Minnesota, they are prepared to go east and play with PSU and OSU.
LikeLike
What about Iowa? What about Bielema saying he wants the Nebraska game to be the season-ender? What about, you know, people acting like normal people who are interested in sports?
LikeLike
Yeah, I know, Wisconsin should play Minnesota and Iowa both. But the beancounters seem determined to split Iowa and Wisconsin (and split OSU and Michigan). Seems crazy to me, but what do I know. I’m just a fan.
LikeLike
How many months are we into Delany’s original 12-18 months time frame for expansion? I take it the plan is still in motion. Maybe they have their plan set based on the next possible expansion pick. How would that current competitive model point us to the next expansion team? If it’s ND it’s no problem geographically. They are positioned to easily fit into either an East or West division. Culturally more eastern but geographically would bring a marquee to the West. They then become the geographic patsy, leaving Penn State alone as they are now almost a 20 year member of the BT.
LikeLike
Reading between the lines, it appears the Big Ten is heading toward an eastern division comprising PSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin and Minnesota. If Rutgers and Maryland are added to the eastern division in 2013, it would be easy to send Minnesota to the western division (to play with Nebraska and Iowa). That would put seven teams in each division with a minimum of fuss.
LikeLike
My thoughts run in a similar frame. Assuming the conference picks up one or two that are geographically in the east eventually it would be no biggy to slide someone from the west back over to their natural geographic alignment. Evan if they temporarily put NW in the East, its centralized location and O’Hare airport nearby would make the move a non factor temporarily.
LikeLike
Yeah, Northwestern is a convenient placeholder. For example, in a south division running from Nebraska through Iowa to PSU, you could include Indiana, Purdue and Northwestern to make six. Then in 2013 you can add Rutgers and Maryland and send Northwestern to the north division.
LikeLike
Newest rumor de jour is that the B10+? is going to add Pitt and Syracuse, with the Big East responding by pursuing TCU. This is coming from the Uhou to MWC rumor mill, presumably because of the TCU angle.
Just another rumor, but for the moment assume there is something to it. Hard to see Delany taking Syracuse over Rutgers, so if true are we are the edge of getting to 16? Also hard to see ND joining without some major movement or rumors elsewhere, and so far the rumor mills for the BCS conferences are dead quiet. Only buzz is out of the MWC, WAC, and C-DOA. So could we see Delany go to 16 without ND, and what school would join Pitt, Syr, and Rut?
If there is anything to this, the rumors should start flying around Pitt, Syr, Rut, and BEast boards. Until that happens, it may be just a smokescreen put out by TCU or BYU supporters for negotiating reasons, or speculation out west that quickly morphs via the telephone game into a supposed sure thing.
LikeLike
Syracuse and Pitt? No way. Not going to happen. The person who started this silly rumor hasn’t got a clue.
LikeLike
Syracuse and Pittsburgh become the 13th and 14th members only if both Rutgers and Maryland told the Big Ten no…a scenario I wouldn’t see happening. I could envision SU being part of an expansion to 16, with Pitt the last choice if Notre Dame declined, but not the other way around.
LikeLike
Vincent alludes to an interesting requirement: the Big Ten is going to have to expand in pairs of teams from this point forward. No more one-off choices. This raises all kinds of concerns:
Can you get 9 votes for any 2 expansion candidates on the COP/C?
Will the choice of particular expansion candidates be complicated by how to place them in divisions? Or will the COP/C not especially care?
Are there any chicken-and-egg hang-ups? If the league has to proceed in pairs, but you run into a situation where School A won’t join until School B gets the dominoes falling, and vice-versa, the net result could be that nothing happens.
Generally speaking it just seems like a requirement to proceed in pairs will make this (even) more complicated than it was when the league only needed to pick off 1.
LikeLike
MD = single state school, large public new state (new congressmen)
Rutgers = single state school, large public new state (new congressmen)
UVA = single state school, large public new state (new congressmen)
then try for ND, but settle for Pitt
Syracuse is PRIVATE, and is not exactly in NYC
The long term move would be to invite Uconn but it will probably not happen (ESPN started by programming Uconn mens and womens basketball). In terms of untapped potential and “growing” a school Uconn would be it. Again, it will not happen but it would be a long term move that would seal up the northeast.
If anybody wants to have fun, go back and look at Uconn basketball rise, and the rise of ESPN. Interesting correlation 🙂
LikeLike
If the Big East lost Pitt and Syracuse, I would hope that TCU would think real hard before accepting an invite. That would be like the MWC losing Utah and BYU. Oh, wait.
LikeLike
‘ve seen a few very interesting developments of late that bear mentioning.
1) There is a very strong gravitational pull toward the East. Aside from JoePa’s insistence on PSU partners (kinda sounds like UT, huh?), I was shocked to learn that the Big Ten is the most popular conference in NYC/Northeast.
2) Even with population trends leaning Southwest, the Northeast will remain the country’s most densely populated and most populated portion of the country. Delany’s comments without any meaningful expansion head fakes in that direction likely speak more to BTN penetration than expansion, especially with Texas’ need for autonomy (or dominance).
3) Re Playoff Now’s post above, IMO it would be Pitt/Syr/Rut and MD or ND. I admit I’d be surprised by Pitt (instead of say, UVa) only because expansion seems to be geared toward accumulating states as well as universities, and PA seems to already be in the Big Ten column.
Two questions:
1) Unless this continues to be about ND (which I just can’t believe), what does the Big Ten stand to gain by waiting? With the new and ongoing momentum toward super conferences (actually led by the Big Ten), if the schools we desire are obtainable, why continue to allow schools like Texas and ND to create alternative scenarios and countermoves, instead of creating a sense of inevitability. The irony is we still don’t know what’s going on behind this 12-18 month timeframe.
2) Many on this board have spoken strongly about a perception of the Big Ten as a Midwestern conference (which I, and apparently TPTB, disagree with). These trade winds are blowing in a manner that will blow that contention out of the water. I’m surprised there hasn’t been more angst about this than about conference divisions or the fate of various rivalries.
LikeLike
Apologies. The last paragraph was meant to be a question along the lines of why hasn’t there been more angst?
LikeLike
For my part, I do not suffer much angst about it at this point because I’m not convinced that further expansion is sensible until the 12-game cap is increased by the NCAA. I continue to think that 12 will be the number the major conferences settle at until something changes at the NCAA level.
LikeLike
Good point, and I don’t disagree. I’m speaking more to the developing global intentions of TPTB, which seem to be putting financial considerations above what’s always made the Big Ten unique (collegiality/shared member interests and academic/research excellence). This trending evidence of a certain shift in philosophy is also apparent to those raising concerns about Division splits.
LikeLike
Yeah, I definitely find that troubling! I feel like I dodged a bullet when the Big Ten took Nebraska and not . . . some of the other options. And now I’m freaking out that their priorities are all wrong on these divisions.
Your question does make me think of something, though. Assuming that further consolidation appears to be in the offing. We’ve often speculated that that may be what forces ND’s hand to join the Good Ship Big Ten. But if it’s enough to force ND’s hand, will it provoke meaningful pressure from the Iowa or Pennsylvania legislatures for their Big Ten members to push for Iowa State or Pittsburgh’s entry into the league? I think we all anticipate that those would be money-losing deals, but might the legislatures be able to pressure the league into taking them anyway (perhaps on the theory that it doesn’t lose much money, or something)? I would think that if it becomes increasingly clear that there are a shrinking number of spots in a shrinking number of conferences, those states are not going to want a couple of their major schools left out in the cold.
LikeLike
My simple response is the Big Ten is about to pour upwards of $25M into each state’s coffers on the basis of our relationship with their flagship universities. I’d doubt that any of our partner states would do anything to upset the apple cart. In fact, I’ve been very impressed at the amount of cohesiveness not just between Big Ten universities, but Big Ten member states. Besides, there’s no precedent in the Big Ten (although true in TX and VA) for a state legislature applying that type of pressure.
Pitt fits as an all around academic/athletic consideration, but if we wouldn’t do it for Texas, and likely wouldn’t do it for PA, I’d seriously doubt we’d do it for Iowa.
LikeLike
To be fair, I see no difference of philosophy.
The Big Ten has always considered financial concerns as one of its core beliefs, at least in my view.
Why create the CIC if they didn’t want to minimize “duplicate” costs of research?
Why start the BTN if they didn’t care about the profitability of second tier programs/sports?
IMO, the Big Ten has always had the (correct) belief their universities must be large institutions, academically great, with a focus on graduate level research and “practical” sciences, with athletics that encompass many differing sports (the Big Ten IMO fields more sports programs than any other university system).
To do those things, and do them well, financial concerns MUST be placed at the forefront of any major decision.
LikeLike
PSU Guy, that’s the irony of my point. I personally don’t think it’s a difference of philosophy, but to the assembled masses on this blog, it’s more of an illumination of philosophy, which many of us here seem reluctant to accept.
I still believe a goal is the nationalization of the BTN. Tying up the East, Midwest and Great Plains takes us a long way in that regard. The presence of our alumni bases in the South and rivalry/collaboration with the PacTwelve would go a long way to institutionaling that consideration. Unlike most posters, I’ve long believed money and academia is driving this expansion as much as athletics. IMO, these last leaks support that view.
LikeLike
Financial concerns can be at the forefront without being the overriding factor. You can things that are not-stupid for your finances without doing things that are a singleminded pursuit of maximizing finances. There’s a big difference between the two. I expect that the Big Ten institutions be wise stewards of their finances and not act stupidly or irresponsibly, but when they become money grubbers, they’ve crossed a line.
LikeLike
Adam, and that’s why I’ve held my fire to this point. I just can’t believe the same leadership team that’s been so stellar to this point is about to be so colossally stupid. It’s fine to preemptively express our opinions to TPTB, but until we actually see some outcomes and the explanations behind them, I refuse to believe Delany et al will let us down. We’ve already proven we can simultaneously be on top of the academic, financial and (close to) athletic heaps at the same time.
We’re only as smart as our actions prove us to be. We’ve been the best thus far, and I just trust that to continue. I hope not to be proven wrong.
LikeLike
Nebraska-small compared to the rest of the B10, academically not great, limited # of sports.
Financially, very good.
This is a conference that insisted that Rose Bowl invitees couldn’t go 2 years in a row and only 1 team could go to a bowl at least into the 60s and possibly into the 70s. Now its throwing traditions out the window (apparently) to maximize CCG revenues.
LikeLike
Big Ten dropped the no repeats rule in 1972, and dropped the Rose Bowl exclusivity rule in 1975.
LikeLike
In the same vein as bullet’s observation, in 1961 Ohio State University actually turned down an invitation to the Rose Bowl after the faculty decided that the school had a distasteful reputation as a “football school,” which led to Minnesota getting back-to-back appearances (they had finished 2nd that year).
LikeLike
@Bullet
“Nebraska […] limited # of sports.”
Last I checked NU offered more sports than Texas A&M or Texas, at 21. The Longhorns carried 20, IIRC, and the Aggies 18.
LikeLike
@HuskerAl
ALL the B12 schools offer a limited # of sports compared to the B10. Ohio St. has something like 35 or 36.
I am contrasting UNL’s relatively limited #s to that broad based program philosophy, not denigrating it. UNL does does very well in most of what it offers. I know the Texas philosophy is to offer a limited # of sports and try to be nationally competitive in all of them.
Someone posted the numbers a while back on the # of sports offered and I believe all, or maybe all but NW, offered more sports than anyone in the B12.
LikeLike
@bullet
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
Nebraska has a limited # of sports? Really? In the Big 12 Nebraska is the sports leader (21 sports), more than Texas, more than Missouri. If you want to talk about a limited # of sports, look at Pitt (17) or Georgia Tech (15) or Iowa State (14). Even Syracuse offers only 20 sports.
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced the Big Ten is going to 16 with the additions all in the East.
A West division would be the geographic 6 plus Michigan and MSU. That could be why they are transitioning the split of UM and OSU now. It will be easier to seperate them later, and possibly phase out the annual game.
I don’t like it, but I’m trying to understand the reasoning for pairing UM and not PSU with Nebraska and further expansion makes the most sense. There has to be a huge financial projection (BTN in NYC and DC tv markets) for UM and OSU to be willing to split. I don’t think Brandon really believes what he is spinning.
I think we’re going to see: Pitt (best fb brand not named ND), Maryland, Rutgers and one of ND, Virginia, Syracuse (most likely ‘Cuse, although I prefer UVa).
LikeLike
I posted elsewhere here that this split is tailor made for additional expansion…especially to the east.
The only thing I wonder about it schools like Pitt or Cuse. IMO, they actually like the BE due to its bball centricity, even if I think they would be amenable to upgrading the football aspect of the conference.
Not to say they wouldn’t leave, just that they would leave thinking the BigEast wasn’t a bad place to be, just the Big Ten is better.
Rutgers (and to some extent possibly MD in the ACC) might have some belief that their current conference has marginalized, and not done enough to capitalize on, their strengths. Maybe they’d be “grateful” for the shot to be in the Big Ten.
IMO, Mizzou on the west would be the same way.
Personally my perfect additions would be Rutgers, MD, Mizzou then one of Pitt/Cuse (I guess ND could be thrown in there, but I’m really not pushing for them, nor do I really think they’ll come).
LikeLike
Obviusly hard to predict this stuff, but I still think they’ll only go to 14 w/o ND, and I still think the most likely additions are RU and Pitt. The 14 game schedule and Michigan to the West division plus the UM AD’s comments all seem to point to further expansion……..but I think the ultimate conservatism of the BT will prevail at this stage…..ultimately, if the BT DOES go to 16 down the road, I think Mo. will be one of the teams….but I think that will happen only if MD or ND is on board………..
Mo will be added in the 16 team scenerio dispite academic concerns because adding any combination of RU/Pitt/MD/ND will provide sufficient academic cover……..
Again, this is more of a semi-educated guess at this point, rather than a prediction…………
LikeLike
I’ve just thought of another advantage of KISS divisions: you get more marquee matchups. Leaving aside crossover games and the ccg, KISS divisions give you: OSU-PSU, PSU-Mich and Mich-OSU. That’s three marquee matchups each year. One the other hand, if you split the big four teams 2-2, you get only one marquee matchup in each division. That’s two marquee matchups each year. KISS divisions are better.
LikeLike
I can understand the reluctance towards Syracuse, but at the same time, SU is the only outlet available for the Big Ten if it wants the entirety of New York State (yes, metro New York City can be accessed through Rutgers, but SU is the sole conduit to that considerable upstate constituency). I would set some conditions for SU’s entry, including strengthening its current alliances with the SUNY system for research.
LikeLike
Syracuse is not the only vehicle for upstate New York. I’m not advocating this but just pointing out that SUNY Buffalo is a better fit than Syracuse if upsate New York is a target (which I doubt. to large and diffuse.)
Syracuse is a small private school with a small research presence. Buffalo is a public university, like Syracuse and AAU member, has a current research presence 10 times that of Syracuse and on par with Iowa and, like Nebraska, a recenty launched high profile multi year plan to grow the overall university and the research presence. No disrespect to Syracuse but it just does not fit the Big Ten profile. I don’t think Buffalo is a candidate either but if for some reason upstate New York were a target Buffalo fits the profile better and gives you western New York.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten does go to 16 (and assuming Notre Dame isn’t an option), it will likely be four in the East from the group of Maryland, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Virginia. A group of four of those five creates its own “pod,” aligning with 12-team Big Ten pods of MSU/Mich/OSU/PSU, Ill/Ind?Nwest/Pur and Iowa/Minn/Nebr/Wisc.
I suppose Missouri could fit in with Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska, but where does Wisconsin then go? In the pod with Ohio State, Michigan State and Michigan, with Penn State joining its three new eastern brethren? Or do you slip UW in with three of the indiana/Illinois schools, moving IU or Purdue with OSU/MSU/Mich while PSU still bumps eastward?
LikeLike
Pods aren’t going to happen…..a pod of Ill/NW/Pur/IU?……wth…..Va’s not going to happen…..Syracuse won’t happen if they have any sense……….
LikeLike
Oh, how I missed pods!
If you add Missouri, Maryland, Rutgers and 1 more East (Virginia, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse), these would be my pods:
Michigan/MSU/NW/OSU
PSU/Maryland/Rutgers/East
Iowa/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota
Illinois/Missouri/Indiana/Purdue
The Illinois-Missouri rivalry can replace the Illinois-Northwestern rivalry; Northwestern is happy to see Michigan or OSU visit every year. Of course, this means the 2 Big 12 arrivals don’t play every year, but I haven’t seen any Husker fans lamenting the loss of their Missouri rivalry since they joined the Big 10.
LikeLike
I think your Ill/MO/Ind/Pur pod is too weak. You really need to balance the strength in each pod. So put Nebraska in there with Ill/MO/Pur, send Ind to the OSU/Mich pod, and bump NW to the Iowa/Wisc pod. This gives you four nicely balanced pods and reignites the Nebraska-Misssouri rivalry.
LikeLike
I assume the 16 team configuration will be ‘permanent’, by which I mean the Big 10 will stop for at least 20 years.
Given that, I’m more concerned about getting the most rivalries in than making sure everything’s balanced. In the years to come I’m sure some teams will fall back and others rise up.
LikeLike
I still don’t see them expanding further until they can schedule more games, which would facilitate going to a 10-game schedule, which would eliminate the need to have rotating pods. You could have fixed divisions and still have everybody play everybody else a reasonable number of times.
LikeLike
Unrelated, but I thought someone would have said something by now, and since they haven’t, I just wanted to extend Frank a virtual high-five for the Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi reference.
LikeLike
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/aug/21/breaking-from-tradition/
P12 seems to be going the other way. Scott makes the comment that his bias is that it is easy for the fans to understand as well as competitive balance. So Scott gets it. Sounds like mass zipper is dead in the P12, maybe still a California zipper.
As far as competitive balance, as close as all the schools are, I don’t know how you try to do that unless you just kick USC out and split up the rest.
At the bottom of the article, mentions that Kirk Herbstreit comments that east coast bias is real and P10 has a long way to go to overcome it.
LikeLike
Thanks for passing this along. Like you say, this quote is key:
“My bias is for coming up for something that’s easy to understand for fans. I want an easy narrative to follow and it’s important that we have competitive equilibrium. Those are the two things I’m going to emphasize.”
What I find frustrating is that the Big Ten’s leadership apparently is assuming that “something that’s easy to understand for fans” and presents “an easy narrative to follow” has no value. They’re just assuming it’s worth $0, so any money they (might) make off of an OSU/UM rematch obviously is more than $0. But I would say they’re wrong to assume that those things are worth $0, and they’re also wrong to assume that preserving an image of having some integrity and respect for tradition is also worth $0.
LikeLike
FWIW, if I was running the Pac-10, I’d put the California and Arizona schools together in one division, and the Pacific NW and Mountain schools together. That’s roughly north-south, although I have no idea whether Utah and Colorado are north or south of Stanford and UC-Berkeley without checking a map. But that seems to make the most sense from a rivalries perspective.
LikeLike
Adam, I think that plan makes the most sense. And with a 5-2-2 plan you can take care of the NW schools concerns about playing in So. California.
If you split up the CA schools (bay area in north), you either breakup CA rivalries (not likely to happen), or you still have the problem of getting the NW schools into LA as the 5-2-2 would mean the CA schools play each other.
Only issue with the CA/AZ in south plan is that the population and recruiting bases are in the south. IMO a 9 game schedule minimizes that impact.
LikeLike
I would avoid the zipper issue for the Pac 12; I definitely want the rivals together. That said, I’d put USC and UCLA in a division with the 4 Northwest schools; Stanford, Cal, Arizona, and ASU would join Colorado and Utah. Populations about as equal as can be without getting to un-geographic.
According to wikipedia:
SoCal=24.2 million
Wash= 6.7 million
Oreg= 3.8 million
total=34.7 million
NoCal=15.0 million
Ariz= 6.6 million
Colo= 5.0 million
Utah= 2.8 million
total=29.4 million
LikeLike
I might do a limited zipper so that all the non-California schools can take advantage of the NoCal and SoCal markets, big areas for recruiting. I’d put the Washington and Oregon schools with Stanford and Southern Cal, while Cal and UCLA would align with the Arizona schools plus Utah and Colorado. Of course, Cal-Stanford and UCLA-USC would be protected cross-divisional rivalries.
LikeLike
I’m with m(Ag). West division: 4 NW schools + 2 SoCal schools. East division: 2 Arizona schools + 2 Mountain schools + 2 Bay schools. The NW schools are currently screaming the loudest to play in SoCal, so let them have it. The Mountain schools want to play in California, so give them Stanford and Cali. This keeps rival pairs in the same division and produces a nice, simple conference structure.
LikeLike
I think (on the surface) there would be an evident competitive inbalance with that set up. USC, UCLA, Wash, and Oregon (not to mention OrSt) in one division. That looks a whole lot stronger then AZ, CU, UU, Cal and Stanford…..at least to me it does.
LikeLike
I’m not sure we are tied to a Noah’s Ark (2×2) expansion.
1.) If the canididates are coming from different conferences (e.g. Rutgers and Maryland), the exit timetables might be different anyway.
2.) A drawn out team at a time expansion could put the most pressure on ND. More subtle pressure, like the good reports we are getting from Big Red and their excitement for the big ten, and less a feeling the ND is being pressured into doing something in haste. Not that I favor Notre Dame’s expansion, in fact I don’t, but I concede that most people do.
3.) Expansion votes are going to be contested. It think the presidents accepted Nebraska for the national brand, and had just enough cover from the AAU membership that they could vote them in. The only other school with that kind of national brand is ND, but their academic cover is different.
I am sure the original timing outlined by Delany is driven by the new network negotiations timetable. It makes alot more sense to add a team before the contract rather than after, although the BTN allows the conference a bit of flexibility to realize expansion revenues independant of the network contract.
Right now is the best scenario for a high quality expansion per Delany’s original timetable. Expansion news always percolating out, and general feeling of instability and vulnerability, positive news on BTN revenues, and the Nebraska folks crowing about how happy they are to be in the big ten.
LikeLike
Guys,
I was just sitting here reading all of your excellent commentary when something occurred to me.
Is there any chance that those of us who demand strict adherence to the tradition of “The Game” have turned into something similar to the Domers who will sacrifice all to preserve independence?
Is the grouchy green island of misfit toys laughing at us right now?
Just a thought. Peace and love.
LikeLike
In a word, no. The Domers insist upon living in an alternate reality. I don’t see where this is that at all; it simply is taking the position that there is value (real monetary value) in honoring tradition, and that the Big Ten doesn’t do so at its peril.
Someone above quoted the Pac-10 Commissioner as making the appropriate observation that there’s value in having something easily understood by the fans that presents a “narrative” which is easy to follow. You don’t have to live in the land of the Delusional Domers to take that position.
LikeLike
Yes, they are the same. The established traditions of the OSU/Mich rivalry carry the same weight as the established traditions of ND independence. That’s why I support puting OSU and Michigan in the same division AND support leaving Notre Dame out of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
ND stands for No Domers… Let them keep their dwindling piece of the cake on their little island…
I find it interesting that ND’s football history (much of it ancient) is readily discussed in the current realm of a school’s prestige, while some other universities’ history is thrown by the wayside in comparison. Current day, ND is no more of a power on the football field than MSU, Purdue, or Minnesota. Assuming that ND is going to suddenly become a major power again is nothing more than that, an assumption.
ND may be a good institution… However, it has long been the case that their identity and mission is significantly different than ANY of the Big Ten schools.
Square pegs do NOT fit well in round holes… Caulking is only a temporary bandage…
LikeLike
Maybe, I don’t know, but I never understood the hate to Notre Dame to begin with. They’ve always been a football independent, it’s something they value. If they can hold on to it without many monetary sacrifices, they should. They shouldn’t have to sacrifice that because some Big Ten teams would likely them in the conference.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that the Domers associate value with being Independent. The difference is that there is reason to question the long-term financial viability of that. It isn’t a question of profit maximization so much as survival.
LikeLike
The problem with the domers giving value to their independence is its like the Amish giving value to the horse and buggy over the air plane. They believe their horse an buggy works quite well for them but it does not mean it’s not a system who’s time has passed. This all wrapped up in a candy wrapper of smugness is somewhat irritating to the those living in this century.
LikeLike
However you want to characterize it, I do not think that objecting to the Big Ten’s plans for OSU/Michigan is in any way analogous to ND’s obstinateness.
LikeLike
It’s time has passed though is not a foregone conclusion. Being independent wouldn’t work for most teams, but there is no reason to assume it can’t work for Notre Dame. As a matter of fact, I’d make the argument that if they want to be as relevant on the national scene as in the past, they need something like independence that sets them apart. Everyone, love them or hate them, pays extra attention to them because of that. If they are just another member of the Big Ten, Big East, etc. that value drops.
LikeLike
Todd,
I’ve been thinking about it more in terms of UM/tOSU vs UTx.
If UM/tOSU were focused on maintaining power (as we’ve seen out of Texas), the feedback from TPTB would be about protecting The Game and The Importance of Michigan and Ohio State.
But the words out of Ohio State and Michigan have been very open to moving The Game, and letting the process and studies and discussions play out.
Both schools appear to be very engaged and supportive of doing what is best for The Big Ten and in the long run.
That message is probably as important as the wheelbarrows of money from the BTN that Jim Delaney is rolling around in. All schools are fully invested in the partnership of The Big Ten, and not about a centrally located power.
It’s not like Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, or Missouri would turn down an invite. But perhaps this message means something to Maryland or Virginia, if they compare it to the centralized power of the North Carolina schools, and the importance placed on supporting UNC-Duke to the detriment of other basketball teams.
LikeLike
FWIW: the west is dead!
sure missouri and kansas are AAU schools but the Big 10 will not invite them (I am okay with either, but I am not a college pres, AD, or delany). While there has been debate about KU not being able to leave KSU behind, they do not have the same pull as a UT / TAMU, UNC / NC State, or a UVA / VT pair. Knowing this the smart folks in the state of Kansas would rather have at least 1 state school move up, than see both schools left behind. My feeling is that the realignment for the Big 10 is football centric and not basketball centric. I for one would love a future IU vs KU match up, but I do not have a vote here.
UT and TAMU are probably a VERY low probability of joining the Big 10 (UT would get a bigger share in the Pac, and TAMU has the SEC as their future dance partner).
While something could happen, for the sake of the argument, all future expansion is east!
My gut feeling, is that how decisions on divisions fall out, they will probably be more reflective of Big 10 future schools. While as fans we may debate the short term wisdom. I have a feeling that how things pan out in the fall meeting will really be about where the Big 10 goes next (forget about divisions, concentrate on realignment). In short if breaks in rivals must be made, do it now, so new rivals will be open when the Big 10 goes to 16. So if divisions have Michigan in the west and tOSU in the east, it tells me the Big 10 will be adding 4 teams in the east and want to build “new” rivals now in anticipation of adding the 4 new teams.
LikeLike
if it helps, if 16 is the goal:
East 8 =
UVA, MD, Rutgers, Pitt, PSU, tOSU, IU, PU
West 8 =
UM, MSU, NU, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, UNL
If the Big 10 got ND, it would mean no Pitt. Without ND, Pitt is a good choice. Even with the PSU / Pitt overlap, the Big 10 has still picked up new markets in MD (Baltimore, Washington), NJ (Philly, NYC, and state), and VA (Washington + population of state)
LikeLike
100% correct. The Big Ten is going east. I believe Rutgers and Maryland will be added soon (starting play in 2013). This will provide two nice partners for PSU and will establish a Big Ten bridgehead on the east coast. Then we will wait to see how the dominoes fall from there.
LikeLike
If I were JD, this is exactly how I would play it. But I believe we may have kept the door open for ND long enough. I would be more obliged to stop at 14 then go 1 team/school per year gradually ratcheting up the pressure on ND. With the possibility of other dominos falling upon word of our next expansion this brings more pressure on ND. The only way I go to 16 is if ND is 15.
LikeLike
Take it for it is worth, but I read on a message board somewhere, maybe here, that Michigan was against Missouri for academic reasons. I’m not sure how many others may have been anti-Mizzou.
But, I wonder if that would change in the name of preserving the OSU game if capturing the eastern market is a priority with at least 3 schools and Missouri. Of course, I’m assuming/hoping they come to their senses and go with East-West divisions making a western team a neccessity.
Michigan State has already said they want to play Northwestern every year. Just flip them East and Indiana and Purdue West.
LikeLike
When Missouri started lobbying for an invite, Illinois interim President Ikenberry was quoted in the press as saying that Missouri was not a good academic fit. Hard to see how Nebraska is better.
I too recall hearing that 3 or 4 presidents told JD that they would give him a unanimous vote for Nebraska, but he had better not bring another big 12 school that is not UT up for a vote.
LikeLike
Logically, I dont see how you blame them. The football product is one thing and the academics is another. Nebraska’s fotball is a bonofide brand and the academics can be brought up by implication.
LikeLike
A week or so ago the new US News rankings came out. Neb went from #96 to #104, while Mo. went from #102 to #94.
Interesting to contemplate whether things would have worked out differently if the ratings had changed 2 months ago…………
LikeLike
missouri is in a weird spot, it is not like they are a bad school, but not good enough for the Big 10 or SEC. I know folks keep saying what about St. Louis, but it is a pro town and they follow the cardinals above all else by a wide margin. At least UNL had a bonna fide football brand, as KU had for basketball. It just looks like football is more important to the Big 10 at this point than basketball.
The more I look at things it is almost better if a school does not have to compete with a pro football team, especially if the pro team is winning.
LikeLike
@duffman – tell me about it. Things were going great for TCU until the Cowboys came to town (well, Dallas, but close enough). The better the Cowboys did, the worse things got for the Frogs. And TCU’s resurgence just happened to coincide with one of the worst stretches in Cowboys history.
LikeLike
The best way to reduce East Coast Bias is for all of the P12 to consistently schedule and beat SEC, B10+?, ACC, BEast, and (to a lesser extent) B12-2 teams. Especially the top 25 ones.
LikeLike
PAC-10 record against the other BCS Conferences from 2000-2009:
SEC 11-3
ACC 7-6
Big East 9-7
Big Ten 32-21
Big 12 23-23
LikeLike
Oops.
The PAC-10 is 11-9 against the SEC from 2000-2009
LikeLike
What’s their record against the Mountain West?
LikeLike
Compare that to the SEC, the self-titled most dominant conference in the country, in the same time frame, and it becomes clear there is an east coast bias.
SEC record against other BCS conferences 2000-2009:
ACC 47-32
Big East 10-17
Big Ten 18-15
Big 12 20-15
PAC 10 9-11
LikeLike
@Jake,
The PAC-10 is 47-28 against the MWC from 2000-2009
LikeLike
Interesting headline in the Atlanta paper:
“ACC/SEC dominate poll”
That was because the SEC had 6 and ACC 5, more than any other conference in the A/P poll. Accurate would have been, SEC and ACC dominate #16-#25 in AP poll. Each had only 2 in top 15 and ACC had noone in top 9. They did dominate the BOTTOM of the top 25.
LikeLike
Ya know, if BYU goes indy and brings air force with them, suddenly it gets easier for other schools to go indy. (Might not happen right now but rather if the B10+? goes to 16 and triggers SEC and probably ACC reshuffling.) If TX went indy they’d now have ND, BYU, AF, Navy, and Army available for mid and late season scheduling. Rice, OU, and aTm would continue annually, and almost certainly Baylor and TTech would also want to regardless of where they end up. That’s 10 games right there that on average have 3-4 of those schools in the top 25 during the season.
Hawaii may be forced into indy, providing another option. UHou, SMU, and probably TCU would jump at the chance to play TX and arrange with their conferences for the mid or late season slots TX would want. Add 1 or 2 Sept top 25 games and TX’s schedule is solid and set with little difficulty.
Of course the follow up is where would the other sports compete? I don’t foresee TX going indy unless B10+? expansion triggers a big shakeout, after which there will be one or more significant conference of leftovers. Even if that option is closed off, they can always slum with a C-DOA or a state of Texas division of a desperate WAC. Even if the B10+? doesn’t go past 12, if TX goes indy then aTm, OU, and perhaps OK St go SEC. Where do the B12-? leftovers go? Perhaps the MWC and BEast can take most of them, but there are probably enough leftovers that they can be combined with Texas and nearby mid-major schools. MWC might find it hard to turn down an offer to share in the market and TV $’s TX basketball and baseball would bring (1/2 the games would be available.)
I hate the idea of TX going indy, but if BYU and AF do so then it starts to look a good bit easier for TX.
LikeLike
@Playoffs now
You talk as though going independent is a destination like the best steakhouse in town. It’s a more exclusive situation than that I believe. BYU has a unique situation in their Mormon relationship and their possible viewership. I think for most schools the independent thing will see them quickly max out their income potential and they will be looking for new revenue streams in a relatively short time.
LikeLike
Would the addition of UVA, Rutgers, Maryland or any of these other east coast schools that are being discussed be a breakeven to the revenue requirement for the Big 10 Network?
LikeLike
From a Maryland perspective, the interest in Terrapin sports (principally basketball right now, but football when the team is at least competitive) is such that were Maryland to join the Big Ten, cable systems throughout the state, principally the Washington-Baltimore area, would have to add the Big Ten Network to their basic tier — quite a few added subscriptions for the BTN. The same likely would also be true for Rutgers and UVa.
LikeLike
WISCONSIN EAST or WEST?
Reading the tea leaves, as we know them to date, it looks like the Big Ten Establishment is going to split the four name brands with Nebraska and Michigan in the west and tOSU and Penn State west. (lets assume this for the sake of argument). I would think that Iowa goes west given it’s location on the western fringe of the BT and the desire to keep Iowa in the same division as Nebraska.
Thus, I think one of the main issues that Jim Delany is wresting with is where to but the Badgers. Wisconsin west really makes the West division full of tough teams (UM, UNL, Iowa and Wisky) but putting Wisconsin in the east reeks of gerrymandering and complicates the rivalry match-ups.
I would be in favor of Wisconsin to the west even tough a west division of:
Michigan
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Minnesota
makes for a tough western division. I would think that Barry Alvares is considering going east, not only for an easier path to the CCG but for eastern TV exposure and an opening to the rich recruiting grounds in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I’m thinking that the question of “what to do with Wisconsin” is what is holding up the final decision on the Big Ten Divisions.
LikeLike
This might be the best explanation yet for why splitting up Michigan/OSU causes as many or more problems than the benefits it brings. Everything you describe here doesn’t need to happen if they just do the smart thing, instead of trying to out-smart themselves.
LikeLike
MI/OSU with PSU/UNL in the other division gives PSU the shaft (stuck on an island w/o major rivals).
PSU/OSU with MI/UNL in the other division is either seriously unbalanced or WI gets the shaft (stuck on a peninsula w/o major rivals-PSU/OSU/IU/PU/IL/WI).
UNL/OSU with MI/PSU in the other division and OSU gets the shaft (stuck w/o major rivals-UNL/OSU/IA/IL/IU/PU).
KISS! KISS! KISS!
LikeLike
If KISS is not adopted, and the middle option (to me, the least objectionable) is selected, Wisconsin should make sure that its approval is conditional on a) Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa be its cross-division games for 2011 and ’12; b) the Big Ten commits to adding two eastern teams by 2013 (something PSU would certainly endorse) and c) UW then be moved to the Mich/Nebr division.
LikeLike
There is also a question about Minnesota, Wisconsin’s most important rival. If Wisconsin goes east, does Minnesota go with it? If both go east, we are left with three tidy pairs in the west: Iowa-Neb, Mich-MSU, Ill-NW. Then, if the Big Ten adds two (or four) new schools in the east, Minnesota (and Wisconsin) can go west.
LikeLike
The more I hear about splitting OSU and UM, the more I’m getting used to the idea of UM and MSU in the West and Illinois and Northwestern in the East. Not too shabby the more I think about it.
LikeLike
I’m the reverse. I actually kind of liked the idea when I was first running through scenarios right after expansion. Even without moving the date of the Ohio State-Michigan game I don’t like the idea now and if they move the date too well I’m going to be seriously angry. I’m actually coming around to the KISS and hated the idea originally.
LikeLike
FWIW, I know a lot of people who hated the KISS model, in part because they had an immediate knee-jerk reaction that putting UM, OSU and PSU in the same division was “imbalanced.” However, as the numbers have been crunched and the implications for the Big Ten’s various important rivalries have come out, many have come around on the idea. They tend to see it as a “least bad” outcome, rather than an affirmatively good one, but it’s better than nothing.
LikeLike
That’s pretty much my take on it. There are one or two proposals I like better, but any of them involve the conference nailing down a lot of things (9 games being a must for starters). I don’t trust them on that anymore so I’d rather them just do the simple solution.
LikeLike
Wow. I go away for a few days and come back to hundreds of posts. Yet nothing happened. BYU still hasn’t made up its mind. The BigTen++ is thinking about throwing away their marquee game (they should ask Nebraska about how well that works out). My mid-majors had some chaos. I half expect the mega-mid-major scenario to pan out and Rice to be left out and to go to D1AAA. It really makes me have more sympathy for the stability of the place I took my daughter to matriculate.
Go Irish!
LikeLike
Interesting post today on a Rice board about the MWC…
[i]Yesterday, I had a fortuitous, face to face, one on one, meeting with perhaps one of the top four officials of the MWC. I immediately identified myself as loyal Rice fan and, having read this board, I think I was prepared to ask the right questions. The official was quite frank and extremely friendly.
Quick summary:
1. I congratulated him on the quick MWC move to get Fresno and Nevada to secure BYU. He smiled and winked. BYU “…is back…” in MWC, he said.
2. “We think of Rice as one of our best possible partners…it’s all about academics, compared to Rice some of these other schools look like junior colleges. We want to be associated with Rice..”
The official was on vacation with his family in a stateside resort, sort of getting away for the weekend. Nothing important would happen in MWC without him leading it.
He invited my wife and I to his box for an important football game coming up; also to play some golf— I will take him up on both counts. My impression is that Rice has a good friend in him and that he will help Rice over other schools. It will be easy for me to try to nurture our friendship, since we seemed to enjoy each other’s company. [/i]
LikeLike
What’s that poster’s reputation, reliable? So are you buying it or blowing it off?
I could make some arguments for Rice. Most likely is the unmerged MWC plays C-USA for a BCS slot. Next would be the MWC going to 20 or 16 by raiding C-USA and Hawaii with ESPN’s assistance.
But even at 14 it isn’t completely unfathomable. The Rice academic rep would be a plus for the MWC, the baseball team is consistently one of the best in the nation, and the football team was in a bowl recently. Adding UH, Rice, and SMU would give TCU and UH travel partners and another niche in each of the Houston and DFW markets, thus more local content for what would be the MWChannel’s 2 biggest markets. Perhaps TCU wants less travel, though it is hard to see how SMU and Rice add enough value to make 1/14th equal 1/12th. Who knows what was said in the Comcast suites last week.
My guess is that BYU stays and MWC goes to 12 with UHou unless BYU insists on Utah St or someone else instead. However there is a rumor that C-USA is demanding major damages if UHou leaves, perhaps over $10 mil. Perhaps Temple or LA Tech to replace UHou, so not the end of the world for C-USA. Talk of MWC going over 12 is probably a negotiating threat to WAC ’em unless they lower UHou’s exit penalties.
LikeLike
BTW, are we sure the new MWC is going to share revenues equally? How many teams must they add before their horrid TV contracts can be renegotiated?
LikeLike
I have no insight. Just passing on rumors.
LikeLike
Well how about a conspiracy theory? Texas Congressman Joe Barton has for awhile been outspoken in his criticism of the BCS. Could perhaps some state schools lobbied him to approach the MWC with a deal: “Add UHou, SMU and Rice to TCU, and Baylor in the future if they need a home, and I’ll pursue the BCS in congressional hearings once we retake Congress until the BCS gives the MWC an AQ.” But if that was going on, wouldn’t Orrin Hatch be twisting their arms to add Utah St?
So highly unlikely, but not unfathomable. Totally unsubstantiated, I’m just brainstorming ways in theory that Rice could be included.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now…
I have no idea who you root for, but your sarcasm, cynicism and bitterness make me question your objectivity.
LikeLike
I’m a TX fan first. Then I root for all Texas teams when they aren’t playing TX (though LOL when aTm chokes against McNeese St and similar.)
Look, I’m a designer, so I’m always mentally doodling and brainstorming, turning things upside down and backwards to look for patterns or revelations or something I’d missed. Repeatedly questioning assumptions from different angles, including the unlikely, before filtering it back through degrees of realism. So the speculation can get pretty far out, but occasionally odd sequences do happen.
I’m not mocking Rice, sorry if you took it that way.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now
Sorry if I misconstrued. It was too late to be on the web.
LikeLike
No problem. Yeah, I’m not always the best communicator.
LikeLike
TCU fan earlier said Patterson gets overly excited about things. More I hear about this, the less seems to be there.
Extra game isn’t going to happen short of a playoff. And with a playoff, MWC/CUSA winner is not going to get 1 of 8 slots-both might have to play-in against a wildcard.
MWC is tied to Mountain West Network, so if there is some form of merger, it will be CUSA absorbing some of Mountain West. And that is problematic as CUSA has more deadweight.
Everything I hear is that SMU/Rice/UH are sticking together so that none get left behind again (if SEC/Big12 come calling that is a different story). UH doesn’t seem to be pursuing MWC, quite logically. Exposure is better in CUSA, bowls are better, money is comparable, attraction to the local fan base is comparable or better, travel drastically less.
In any event, nothing really changes until 2014 when BCS is up. A lot can happen in 4 years. If SWC had broken up 4 years earlier, UH probably would have been in B12 and Kansas St. in CUSA.
LikeLike
@bullet – that was probably me talking about Patterson. I have no idea what he was going on about, but most of us at TCU aren’t getting ourselves too worked up over whatever it might turn out to be.
As far as bringing another Texas school into the MWC, TCU might not be blocking it, but we don’t seem to be encouraging the idea either. TCU’s marketing strategy revolves around product separation – basically, setting ourselves apart from the other non-Big 12 Texas schools. So, if one of those schools did get in, there would have to be a much better incentive than “maybe Congress will get around to fixing the BCS.” And I don’t put any stock in this MWC-CUSA merger idea.
LikeLike
Pingback: BCS Monopoly and why BYU’s new Holy War may reshape College Football « The Pole's Position
Another scenario I could envision for 2013, if the Big East football schools finally summon up the courage to break free of the Providence shackles. This also operates under the assumptions that Notre Dame is not interested in an all-sports conference, period, and that Texas is legit about keeping a conference for good, not using one as a holding pattern:
Big Ten goes to 14, adding Rutgers and Maryland.
ACC, down to 11 after Maryland leaving, adds Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Syracuse for a 14-team conference.
Big 12 adds the four remaining Big East football members — Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida and West Virginia — for a 14-team conference. (USF joins the Texas and Oklahoma schools for a South division, while the North is comprised of UC, UL, WVU, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas and Missouri.)
If the SEC decides to go to 14 as well, likely picking off Texas A&M and Virginia Tech, the Big 12 replenishes with Memphis and the ACC with Temple.
LikeLike
The highly anticipated 1st annual Mushroomgod Academic Rankings are out.
The idea is to get some idea of where the BT schools rank in graduate programs, and how the US news ratings might look if graduate education was considered.
I used all US News ratings for undergrad and grad programs. I looked at the following grad programs: Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Biology, Business, Law, Medicine (ie,,U hospitals), Engineering, Education, English. I weighed Engineering most heavily because they build everything. I weighed Law next because the lawyers tear everything down. I gave equal weight to Law and Medicine. I counted the remainder of the programs evenly. If you don’t have an engineering school or medical school opn campus (like IU), you get no points in that category.
I counted undergrad as 60% of the rankings, grad as 40%. My thinking was that grad school education is more important for each individual, but something like 75% of students are undergrad.
Here are the US News undergrad rankings:
NW…………..12
Michigan……..29
Wis………….45
Ill………….47
PSU………….47
OSU………….56
Pur………….56
Minn…………64
Iowa…………72
IU…………..75
MSU………….79
Neb…………104
Of note here is that, of all the BT schools, only Purdue gained in the recent rankings. All the others either stayed the same or declined, some significantly.
Mushroomgod’s GRADUATE rankings are as follows:
Michigan………11
Wis…………..17
NW…………. 20
Ill…………..24
Minn………….27
OSU…………..28
PSU…………..40
Pur…………..43
Iowa………….44
IU……………44
MSU…………..49
Neb…………..68
Putting it all together, my overall BT rankings are:
NW………15
Michigan…22
Wis……..34
Ill……..38
PSU……..44
OSU……..45
Minn…….49
Pur……..51
Iowa…….61
IU………63
MSU……..67
Neb……..90
Others of interest:
MD ….46
Pitt…56
RU…..60
SYr….60
Mo…..80
Other notes:
1. The drop-off from MSU to Neb is as substantial in grad rankings as in undergrad:
Physics….MSU 36 Neb 70
Chemistry MSU 38 Neb 78
Biology….MSU 46 Neb 82
Business…MSU 46 Neb NR
Law……..MSU NA Neb 93
Medicine…MSU 46 Neb NA
Engineer. MSU 51 Neb 94
Education MSU 17 Neb 56
English….MSU 63 Neb 63
2. % of grad students/overall enrollment
NW……………..56%
Pirr……………39%
Michigan………..37%
Minn……………37%
MD……………..32%
iLL…………….28%
Iowa……………28%
OSU…………….26%
Wis…………….26%
Syracuse………..26%
Neb…………….25%
Mo……………..23%
IU……………..23%
RU……………..22%
MSU…………….22%
Pur…………….20%
PSU…………….17%
LikeLike
Nice piece of data gather there. But I’m going to point out a major flaw in all academic rankings I’ve ever seen – this isn’t directed at mushroomgod specifically.
Academic rankings are purely opinions based on perception. And, like all opinions, there is bias in the people doing the rankings. I think it would be interesting to see the trends between the schools attended by the people doing the rankings and the ranking results. Another point of my contention is that the rankings favor institutions boasting the leading researchers in various fields. But my experience is that few of the best researchers make the best teachers. Also, what exactly is a good metric for an academic institution? I’m sure there are many other reasons, but those stick out to me the most.
LikeLike
Interesting analysis. Everybody has a favorite ranking, my own is:
http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp
I think the mid-career median salary is a great objective ranking. By mid-career, the liberal arts UGs that go on to professional school are competitive with the engineers. The only bad thing about this ranking is that, when you use it to look a colleges today, is that it is really an indicator of the quality of education 20 years ago. So none of these are perfect, but I think this is better than the subjective BS that USNews, Princeton and Forbes use. Second best, in my opinion iw the ARWU.
LikeLike
My problem with this ranking is that it is not controlled for the area of the country. Pay is higher in California because the cost of living is so out of whack there. And graduates are highly regional. Many more Harvey Mudd graduates in L.A. than in Houston. If you could norm this data for cost of living it would mean much much more.
LikeLike
BTW, I have to give some props to IU here….
If IU’s Indy medical center was counted in the grad ratings, IU would be 31st in grad school ranking nationally……
Psysics……40
Chemistry….26
C.S……….53
Business…..23
Law……….27
Medicine…..44/17
Engineering..NA
Education….19
English……22
Also, I used US News grad ratings for last year, because I was too lazy to look it all up again……..
LikeLike
While most people tend to look at the larger groupings such as the department or college, we see why college provosts look at individual programs when they do their evaluations and benchmarking. Nuclear physics at MSU has been thought to be ahead of MIT for several years but only recently overcame the #1 top brand name.
http://news.msu.edu/story/7715/
as they say rankings are relative… Is there a brewing polling controversy with USN&WR, ARWU etc.?
Of course, there’s The Princeton Review which lists 6 Big Ten universities in the Top 20 of party schools. 🙂
LikeLike
NCAA president Mark Emmert (former UConn, UDub, and most importantly LSU Chancellor) wants to change college basketball/NBA draft rules. Same as college baseball/MLB draft rules.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101&campaign=rss&source=NCBHeadlines
LikeLike
I’m predicting the Cougs rethink their decision and stay in the MWC. Makes no sense to go independent when conferences are still gobbling teams up. For me, the Cougars might be the eye of a much bigger storm, that being just how much Congress gets involved in the BCS business. Using some of Frank’s material, I’ve written about it at my blog at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/08/22/bcs-monopoly-and-why-byus-new-holy-war-may-reshape-college-football/.
LikeLike
The Cougars have two problems. 1) no play on Sundays 2) their strong affiliation to the church LDS.
Otherwise, I would agree with you. In fact, I think they need to go out and be aggressive and beat the bush at conferences they would really want to join. Else that partial independent think might work best for them as a fall back.
LikeLike
If your not already fired up for football season, watch this video.
LikeLike
Alan, you trying to make a grown man cry?
Good job!
LikeLike
That video almost made me hate football.
LikeLike
Jake – do also hate mothers and pupies and apple pie?
LikeLike
alan,
I always liked a good cobbler (peach or blackberry) over apple pie. 🙂
watching that video tho, is why I hate domes. I was an offensive and defensive lineman and I loved playing in mud, rain, cold, and basically any game where when I was finished playing my uniform needed serious washing.
Jake,
did peyton manning teach you to play football?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1603/saturday-night-live-united-way
maybe you were the port o let guy!
at least peyton taught me how to get a car and a date! 🙂
LikeLike
There’s nothing wrong with hating Kenny Chesney. It’s my right as an American.
LikeLike
The video made me flash back to my high school days. Did not play in college. But If you played either, there has got to be a good flashback in there for you.
LikeLike
jake,
just clarify the chesney thing up front, as I like Alan thought you meant you did not like football. 🙂
LikeLike
Pic inside BYU’s HDTV truck:
LikeLike
Taken from this thread:
http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=5820333
LikeLike
Article in the Washington Post regarding amateurism in College athletics, but has some mention of Independence and conference affiliation regardless of geography.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904202.html
LikeLike
That article is the reason I hate so many people in the college sports business (mind you I’ve never actually met one).
The players are already paid so we should just come out and do it! Its already a business, so lets just make them corporations! Schools should be in for teaching, so force them to do only that! We should stop regulating at all because they’d be forced to by the rules already in place (which would immediately be lobbied to nothing)!
Honestly it sounds like the sorry rehashing of a pure bred capitalist (mind you I’m fairly free market economist…there’s a difference) more intent on justifying an already sorry state than ignoring the simple truth that there’s already plenty of schools out there (like the entire friggin’ Big Ten) that play by the rules as best they can and try to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter.
Just because the system doesn’t work perfectly doesn’t mean the system doesn’t work. Instead of screwing all the good schools who do things the right way, how about we do more of the screwing of the schools that screw things up (*cough* USC *cough*) and actually get around to making student athlete requirements to play mean something (GPA, graduation rates, etc).
Just because there’s a ton of money at stake doesn’t mean the system is wrong…IMO in fact with the $$$ at stake, odds are the stakeholders will be VERY likely to follow the rules if they know the repercussions are real and severe.
Its not the game’s fault the players cheat and the ref’s won’t call the fouls.
LikeLike
PSU Guy,
when I went to school it was about getting an education
now they are profitable “non profits” that generate money through “research” and “entertainment”. The difference is that corporate CEO are held to a different set of rules (namely they have their own skin in the game). In the school system political appointments are how they get to run the show, with no money of their own.
LikeLike
Are we getting played?
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I’m sure the Big Ten knows seperating UM and OSU is controversial. It just can’t really happen. They are creating a lot of buzz and making something that should be easy (KISS) overly complicated. After the angry emails and phone calls they can say that the fans and alumni demanded East-West. The Big Ten has received a lot of media and internet attention over potential divisions the last two months.
I can’t believe I’m hoping I was fooled by a marketing stunt. Of course they would never admit it.
Oh well, I’m just a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist hoping divisions end up the way I think is best.
LikeLike
Whatever decision is made, I believe there will be a plan within a plan. Kiss is my choice as well but if my first statement is correct, you can kiss, KISS good bye.
LikeLike
I am absolutely with you yahwrite. I would only say this: if nobody freaks out at the ridiculous OSU/UM split, it stops being a marketing stunt and is confirmed as what they’re going to do. So we still need to be exasperated and furious to stop this.
LikeLike
Agree completely Adam. My hope is that these resent releases were intended to test the market to see what kind of reaction they’d get. Hopefully that’s the case and it’s so negative they’ll go a different route.
LikeLike
One thing I don’t understand is that I keep hearing that an East – West split makes one division stronger than the other. Well, doesn’t it become harder for Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State to reach the conference title game out of the East if they have to play each other every year? If these programs are the most storied programs in the league, then why make it easier for them?
The KISS arrangement would actually result in more parity which is in theory is what the league seems to be looking for. And while it may be tougher for Purdue, Indiana, and Michigan State to win the East division, over time, those programs (except Indiana which has shown no signs of life since the early 90’s,) would only get better by playing the “Big 3” every year.
In the West division, sure Nebraska may be alone, and you can debate how much of a power Iowa or Wisconsin has become, but that means that it is easier for Northwestern, Illinois, and even Minnesota, to rise up one year and snatch the division title and get the chance to play for the league title.
If you separate the 4 traditional powers, 2 by 2, you make it harder for the non – 4 traditional powers to rise up and win a divisional title. (It’s funny that OSU plays both Michigan and PSU every year yet no one is complaining about competitive balance.)
All I know is that if you separate Michigan and Ohio State, and move the rivalry up to October, the importance of the rivalry will fade, and over time, it will become a remnant of the Big Ten’s storied past. If you have PSU and OSU in the east meeting on the final regular season game of the conference season, then that game will become a bigger game than Michigan – OSU, because most years, it will be for the right to play for the title. Over in the west, Michigan – Michigan St. will then become Michigan’s big regular season game. It may not happen right away, but it will happen.
LikeLike
Someone (I forget who) wrote in one of these comments sections that an East/West would make more sense for the Big Ten because it would help them cultivate Wisconsin and Iowa as additional “powers” in the league by giving them a little room to grow. I thought it was a very interesting and well-taken point; the league’s interests aren’t served by trying to entrench the teams that everybody already expects to be good.
And I think you’re right about the Michigan/OSU rivalry inevitably fading if it’s a non-divisional game played earlier in the season. It might not become Michigan/Minnesota or Illinois/OSU, but I think it’d do it damage.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. OU, who Texas plays in October and has only been in the same conference with for the last 14 years, has been the biggest game for Texas for at least the last 60 years even when A&M (who Texas plays in the final game at Thanksgiving) was good.
It will tend to strengthen the PSU/OSU rivalry, but won’t necessarily eclipse UM/OSU.
LikeLike
Not that I think it is a good idea to separate them, but it will not destroy the rivalry.
LikeLike
Destroy? No. Weaken? Yes. It matters that, after 70 years or whatever it’s been, the stakes are fundamentally changing.
LikeLike
I’m a big Ohio State fan, but I’m getting tired of all the whining about The Game. I think it’s time we start thinking about the benefits to the conference that moving the game would engender. I thought Big Ten fans were supposed to be all about one-for-all, but I’m not seeing that right now. I imagine the SEC fans are laughing at all the BT crybabies.
By moving The Game, the BT could redress the wrongs it imposed on Penn State and Michigan State when it pushed them into an unnatural year-ending rivalry game that still hasn’t really taken hold. Penn State’s only real rivalry in the BT is Ohio State, and MSU’s main rivalry is with Michigan. Moving Mich and MSU to the West allows the league to close out the season with the following divisional rivalry games: OSU vs PSU, Mich vs MSU, Neb vs Iowa, Ind vs Purd, Illinois vs Northwestern, and Wisc vs Minn. You want geography? All these rivalries are geographically perfect, and most of them are traditional.
This rivalry-week pairing would allow the BT to feature two games of national interest (PSU vs OSU at noon ET and Iowa-Neb at 3:30) on ABC. The BT would also be able to promote the league with late-season divisional games like Neb vs Mich, OSU vs Wis, PSU vs Wisc and Mich vs Iowa, as well as protected, cross-divisional, October night games like Mich vs OSU, Iowa vs Wisc and Penn State vs Neb. These games would generate interest not only among BT fans but all across the country, which is terrific for the league. By splitting up the big four brands, each of the big four could play two of the other four, which not only provides competitive balance but also gives each team two marquee games. And if you also split up Wisc and Iowa, each of the top six teams gets three guaranteed games against the top six every year. KISS can’t do either.
Michigan and OSU players talk about how incredibly draining– both physically and emotionally– their rivalry game is. Would they have anything left for the BT championship game if it were played the following week?
No matter when The Game is played, people all over the country will watch it. I’d watch it no matter what sporting event was stacked up against it, and I think most Buckeye and Wolverine fans would, too. I think at least a dozen people watch the Red River Rivalry every year, and I suspect a couple people might watch Florida vs Alabama this year.
I don’t have a problem with giving Penn State and Michigan State a little love, or letting Iowa and Nebraska have their day in the sun. Michigan and Ohio State get plenty of attention. Yes, moving The Game breaks tradition, but this website is dedicated to a BT expansion that shatters tradition and might revolutionize the sport, and yet you guys are all glued to this site. So what’s the problem, guys?
LikeLike
I think the biggest problem is the fact that the two will be separated, in the hope for a rematch when the numbers show that a rematch will not occur very frequently.
I am confident that Michigan will get back to its top 10 ways, but if they don’t, then that October game will merely serve as a speed bump for Ohio State as they look forward to the season ending clash against Penn State, and the rivalry will be lessened. If Michigan does get back to its top 10 ways, then OSU-Michigan twice a year will start to get real old, and the rivalry will be lessened. Bottom line, you are lessening the rivalry by separating the two.
With regard to Oklahomas – Texas, OU may have been UT’s biggest game, but OU’s biggest game was always Nebraska, and it didn’t take long for the UT game to supplant it. (Sooner fans, correct me if I’m wrong.) OU – NU is not completely analogous to OSU – Michigan because the OSU – Michigan will still be played every year, but there is precedence for a major college football rivalry vanishing into thin air.
There is a reason why Duke – UNC, Red Sox – Yankees, Green Bay – Chicago, etc., aren’t as intense as many college football rivalries. They play many times a year and each game’s importance is subsequently lessened. As a Michigan alum and fan, of course I will watch every single OSU – Michigan game, but you have to admit that a rematch is merely a novelty. The ACC separated Florida St. and Miami with the hope that the two would meet twice a year. It hasn’t happened as of yet, but if you can remember back to Miami’s final season in the Big East, the two met during the regular season, played in the Orange Bowl that season, then played in the opening week of the following season. It was way too much and it took the air out of what once was a top three rivalry game.
If you want to show love to PSU, then simply move the OSU-Michigan game up to October, but keep all three in the same division. In this scenario, OSU – Michigan would then be very much like OU – Texas. Each school would have its own season ending “secondary” rivalry, (UM-MSU & OSU-PSU.) Again, my preference is for them to be in the East division and play on the final week of the season, ala Alabama – Auburn, but I’m actually intrigued by trying to create an OU – Texas situation, the more I think about it.) I just think separate divisions is a bad way to go.
LikeLike
Part of the thinking in the Miami/FSU scheduling has to do with polls, the “What have you done for me lately?” attitude. They figure if they lose in September or early October they won’t be hurt as much as if they lose late.
OU benefitted from that a couple of years ago. They lost to Texas in October by 10 points. Texas destroyed a highly regarded Missouri team the next week, leading by 4 or 5 touchdowns at half before easing up. Texas also dominated a top 10 Ok. St. before losing by 1 with 1 second left at Texas Tech (a murderer’s row of 4 straight top 10 teams-following a game with a ranked CU team). OU beat Tech, Missouri and Ok. St. at the end of the season, passed Texas in the polls and went to the BCS game. ESPN went on and on about how OU was dominating Missouri and deserved their ranking (they won by more points than Texas), but it was a game until OU ran up a bunch of points late, unlike the Texas/Missouri game which was over at half. It was the “What have you done for me lately” syndrome. Things that happen early get forgotten.
Maybe Michigan/Ohio St. are thinking that way. Separate and play early. Game the system, don’t fix it.
LikeLike
It was the computers that raised OU above UT and TT that year. It had nothing to do with the timing of the games. OU passed UT because they defeated TCU and Cincinnati in non-conference games that year, who were both in the BCS top 15 at the end of the year.
That gave OU a clearly superior strength of schedule, which is why they got the edge with the computers. They had done more over the season to show they could consistently beat good teams.
LikeLike
pollsters did it w/o regard to computers.
LikeLike
I believe Texas was OU’s biggest game, not Nebraska, but I will leave that to OU fans.
OU had two very big rivalries, but Nebraska faded. It was based on two good teams meeting for a championship. Michigan/Ohio St. also has to do with border states and recruiting battles which wasn’t the case with OU/UNL.
Texas did lose some rivalries when the SWC split up. When I was in school, Texas really had 4 big rivalries. 1st was OU, a distant 2nd was Arkansas, 3rd UH and 4th A&M (Texas had lost 3 times in a quarter century so it was still big, but not as big as it had been or as big as it is now). Texas quit playing Arkansas and UH so there aren’t as many big games on the schedule. One of the strengths of the SEC is how many rivalries all the schools have. With UGA– Auburn, GT, UF and S. Carolina are all bitter rivalries regardless of record and TN is turning that way (they didn’t play much before SEC went to 12).
The B10 should focus on maintaining as many as possible instead of TV alignment. Geographic splits do maintain those much better than zippers or creating islands. The MI/OSU rivalry will survive and thrive because of a) the strength of the programs; b) the history; c) the recruiting battles; and d) the fact they are border states. Maybe it won’t be quite as big as at the end of the season in the same division, but it will be fine. However, there are a lot of other rivalries that are much more at risk that aren’t as strong as MI/OSU in factors a),b),c) or d) above. The B10 doesn’t want to be a league linked by a TV contract instead of a league linked by intense rivalries.
LikeLike
I agree that the Longhorns was OU’s primary rival. There is a dislike bordering on hatred that NU/OU didn’t share.
Also, I’d suggest that while the NU/OU rivalry died with the Big XII, it was in decline even before that as OU faded. NU won 9 of 10 games between 1988 and 1997, the last two by scores of 73-21 and 69-7. There was a brief window in 2000/2001 where both teams were excellent, but then NU’s troubles began.
LikeLike
I remember that 73-21 game well. I was at the UT alumni center before a game and we were cheering every time UNL put points up. Switzer commented once something about OU/UNL being a mutual respect rivalry while OU/UT was a mutual dislike (not his exact words).
LikeLike
You mentioned Chicago vs. Green bay as one of those old rivalries that aren’t as intense anymore. You mentioned that they are played too often and this helps to diminish it. I am not sure about that. I believe the thing that diminishes these rivalries the most is lack of competitiveness. When I was a kid and Chicago was “Paton place”, the Bears would win these games regularly with few exceptions. With the emergence of Bret Favre, the situation was quite the opposite with Green bay winning this matchup regularly with few exceptions. I think maybe the winning and losing between UM and tOSU is probably not so one sided.
LikeLike
“Payton Place”
LikeLike
@Tom – Good post overall and the Oklahoma example (shifting focus from Nebraska to Texas when the Big 12 split its divisions) is spot on. My only personal quibble is with your mentioning of the Bears-Packers rivalry (and this extends to the top NFL rivalries in general). There is no single team in any sport, college or pro, that I hate more than the Packers and most of Chicago shares that sentiment. At least in college, there is some benefit from watching your conference rivals win (as a stronger conference overall is good for your own team’s reputation). In contrast, there is ZERO benefit for any Bears fan to want the Packers to win and vice versa (save for the rare and specific scenario where Team A needs Team B to beat the Vikings or another team to aid Team A’s playoff chances). I’ve been to a few Bears-Packers games and it’s about as vitriolic as any game atmosphere as you can imagine.
LikeLike
I disagree on two fronts.
1. You are proposing giving Michigan State and Penn State their dream end of the season match-ups by denying Ohio State and Michigan their own. Sorry, that doesn’t fly with me. Michigan State will continue to play Michigan and Penn State will play Ohio State, but neither has a tradition of playing them at the end of the season and shouldn’t break up Ohio State’s and Michigan’s rivalry. In 20 years, you put them in separate divisions and end with those games, those two games will be more relevant as they will actually determine a lot more than the OSU-Michigan game. Don’t let the talk confuse you, this is something that will destroy the rivalry almost as much as the Big 12 destroyed Oklahoma/Nebraska.
2. The ‘all for one and one for all’ only goes so far. I’ve been a very big Big Ten fan, but I’m an Ohio State fan first. I love Ohio State because of a) it’s use of state pride, b) because I’m an alumni, and c) because of the great rivalry with Michigan (in that order). If the Big Ten moves and separates the game, they are gradually going to dilute c to the point it’s no more significant than our games with Penn State and/or Nebraska or whomever is most significant over the decades in our division. It also shouldn’t be forgotten that the rivalry with Michigan is one of things that most led to so much state pride for the Buckeyes. Penn State, as big as it is, doesn’t have the level of state wide following Ohio State does. Neither does all but a small handful of schools. The rivalry between the two states is one of the things that really helps Ohioans feel that Ohio State is something to rally around and if you decrease it, it will impact Ohio State’s place to Ohioans in the long run.
I’ve been a big conference homer in the past. I cheered for the Big Ten hard when they finally won the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. I watch all the bowl games, virtually all the non-conference football games. In the end though, my loyalty is first to the state of Ohio and to Ohio State. I’ll never rally behind a decision which strikes directly at the heart of the two of the reasons I love the Buckeyes. If that makes me a bad Big Ten fan, so be it.
LikeLike
Eric, your opinion is based on your own experience. The Michigan vs Michigan State game is a better fit for the final conference game of the year. Why?
1) The travel is minimized and the whole state is focused on the game.
2) The other two states with two BT universities play each other as their finally.
3) Big ten team that are the single team in conference likewise end with a border rival.
4) One team is often headed somewhere and the other not-so-much. It’s a good incentive to want to poke you’re in-state rival in the eye before they go to a bowl or to prevent them from going to a bowl. This stokes a rivals.
LikeLike
I guess we can’t possibly come close to agreeing on this one.
The only teams that benefit from this is Michigan State and Penn State. Ohio State and Michigan lose a lot. They lose the game which means everything to them (I don’t joke when I say there are years when Ohio State fans would rather beat Michigan than win the conference title). Why exactly are their concerns and conference tradition in general of so much less concern than Michigan State’s and Penn State’s?
Yes I understand the game will still be played, but so will MSU/UM and PSU/OSU.
Michigan fans (99% of them) don’t want to end the year on Michigan State. Ohio State fans (97% of them) don’t want to end the year on Penn State. If you change things you are being grossly unfair to 2 programs, much more so than not doing so would be to PSU and MSU.
LikeLike
Agreed Eric. I guess it’s too strongly embedded a tradition for YOU to let go.
I think the placement of this (tOSU vs UM) game 3 weeks earlier with say Purdue or a Michigan state sandwich in between would be better for viewing options over all for Big ten fans. It would probably be the game of the week. I have already stated the reasons for peering M-State and UM. It also becomes another intense viewing option.
Penn State vs. tOSU is yet another option that can be moved to the finally. I think the TV strategy would be to have some really compelling games each week. Moving the UM vs. tOSU game gives the conference more games of high interest to market.
Even in the case that the in-state/Border-Rivalry games at season’s end do not produce a lot of National interest, the local interest is intense which is good. You don’t necessarily want to have these finally games eclipse the CCG anyway else participation will diminish.
EXAMPLE
So after M-State beats UM, knocking them out of division championship, OSU beats Penn State. tOSU goes on to the CCG with Nebraska. In the wake you leave some very intense and stoked rivalries.
LikeLike
Speaking as a Michigan alum, I’m not thrilled with ending the season against Michigan State for a selfish reason; I think the game would be overlooked. In the middle of the season, this rivalry isn’t necessarily respected nationally, but it is usually the #1 or #2 game in the Big Ten that week. If played as the last game of the season, it would be overshadowed by OSU-PSU every time, and (right now at least) by Neb-Iowa.
LikeLike
Cliff, I have an app for that. Win enough games so that MSU vs. UM is not the last conference game. Win enough and end up in the CCG. All eyes will be on Michigan and whoever else is in the CCG. Problem solved.
LikeLike
If the SEC fans are laughing, it’s because our league office is not going to create a divisional format which is easy to understand for the fans and presents an easy narrative to follow, per Larry Scott: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/aug/21/breaking-from-tradition/
I also think these remarks are based on a faulty premise. First, there is per se value in tradition, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only valuable thing; it can and should be deviated from when there is something of greater value. Expansion to 12 teams and a championship game is worth changing some things: it creates greater exposure for the league, provides higher entertainment value, and produces a definitive league champion without the possibility of a 2002 scenario. It’s a good sports decision. By contrast, moving OSU/UM from the final weekend of the season is not worth it, because the only reason to do it is because people with marketing backgrounds rather than sports backgrounds are pushing it.
Moreover, the fact that some things must change does not mean that all things may change. Yes, bringing on a 12th member means that some things must change — but the league should be changing as little as possible consistent with the changes they have to make now that Nebraska has come aboard.
The Big Ten absolutely believes in a one-for-all mentality, but it is absurd to say that this automatically means that everybody is treated exactly equally. Instead, in the Big Ten we treat the membership equally in the ways that matter — i.e., those ways which signal to our membership and the rest of the nation that we consider ourselves fundamental equals. Thus, we split revenue equally; we should be making a point to protect Minnesota’s rivalries with Iowa and Wisconsin (even though Minnesota has been down); and we don’t gerrymander the divisions with an eye toward giving one rivalry special treatment. On the other hand, since PSU joined, at least 1 league member has had to take the week off every week of the league season (only an even number of teams can play league games in a given week), and you never saw OSU, Michigan, MSU, PSU, or some other teams asked to take that last week of the season as their idle week (I don’t think you ever saw OSU or UM asked to take the 1st week of the league schedule off either and come into their season-ender having played 8 consecutive weeks). Is that special treatment? Sure, I suppose — but it isn’t special treatment that especially matters, given that it was balanced against the fact that those teams played tougher schedules (e.g., the 2 teams that never rotated off of OSU’s schedule were 2 of the best in the league). It wasn’t special treatment that meaningfully derogated from the league’s one-for-all mentality; it was special treatment we could all believe in because it had been earned. OSU/UM was (and is) special for everybody, whether or not you’re in those fan bases, and not making it a divisional game would be a crime against the history and traditions of the sport — not because it was being changed (if it had to be changed, that’s how it goes), but because it was being changed unnecessarily.
LikeLike
Adam – I’m a SEC fan and I’m not laughing at the Big Ten, but I am scratching my head. How such a smart, well-run conference of great schools can over-think this thing to point of f-ing the whole deal up is beyond me.
It’s really not that hard. The Big Ten has models to look at in the Big XII, ACC & SEC regarding divisions and scheduling. The SEC appears, to me at least, to be the best fit for the Big Ten from a division and scheduling standpoint.
Divisions – The SEC/KISS model should work for Big Ten.
BIG TEN EAST: Penn St., Ohio St., Michigan, Mich St., Indiana, Purdue.
BIG TEN WEST: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska.
Under the SEC/KISS model, the BTW, is currently more competitive than the SECW was back when the SEC went to the divisional format. LSU was down, Ole Miss, Miss St., and Ark were inconsistent, Auburn was good, & Bama was great.
When the new SECE was created, one traditional power was down in UGA (sound familiar?), Tennessee and Florida were great, there were two underachievers, and a perennial loser.
Going to a 5-1-2 schedule is also the way to go. The SEC had a hiccup for the first several years with a 5-2-1 schedule. Learn from our mistakes. We did. Also, in annual cross-divisional games, the big boys play the big boys, the every-now-and-thens play the every-now-and-thens, and scrubs plays the scrubs.
Also, the SEC staggers the non-annual cross-divisional games so you don’t get two powerhouses in one year. For example, LSU plays Florida annually. Here’s LSU’s non-divisional non-annual breakdown for the last five years:
06 – @ Tennessee, v. Kentucky
07 – @ Kentucky, v. South Carolina
08 – @ South Carolina, v. Georgia
09 – @ Georgia, v. Vandy
10 – @ Vandy, v. Tennessee
And then the cycle starts over. Any given team is only off the schedule for three years in the five year scheduling cycle.
Y’all, errr you guys, are supposed to be so much smarter than us. Don’t be afraid to take the SEC plan that works, just because it is the SEC plan.
LikeLike
I agree entirely. The only point I might differ on is that, for rivalry reasons, I think I would probably have the big boys play the scrubs, with the every-now-and-thens playing each other.
But I entirely agree with this: a KISS divisional model, using a 5-1-2 (and learning from the SEC’s 5-2-1 mistake) is precisely what the Big Ten ought to do.
LikeLike
Personally, I think 5-1-1-1 is best. The first crossover game is against the same opponent every year. The second crossover game alternates between two opponents. The third crossover game rotates among the remaining three opponents.
If we have KISS divisions, the 5-1-1-1 model will give Nebraska two marquee crossovers every year (PSU plus either OSU or Michigan). The same applies to Iowa and Wisconsin — two crossovers every year with OSU/PSU/Mich.
By using the 5-1-1-1 model you can maximize the number of headline games (12 per season plus the ccg) and insure the top three teams in each division face the same level of difficulty in their crossover games.
LikeLike
I never knew that everybody in the Big Ten is suddenly so paranoid and concerned about schedule “balance.” I guess a “5-1-1-1” seems like a solution to something that isn’t a problem to me. A 5-1-2 seems more than adequate; 5-0-3 a reasonable alternative.
LikeLike
Adam – I’d prefer the 5-0-3 model in the SEC to the current 5-1-2 model. LSU & Florida would welcome a little relief as we’ve each had the toughest cross-divisional path. But Alabama/Tennessee and Auburn/Georgia would never agree.
LikeLike
Incidentally, it is gratifying to hear an SEC follower describe the Big Ten as “a smart, well-run conference of great schools,” and your general befuddlement at the Big Ten’s bizarre decision-making on this issue further confirms my conviction that an essential part of the Big Ten’s brand identity is not being the kind of place where they make stupid decisions like this.
LikeLike
If you believe that competitive balance can be achieved with having 3 of the top 4 brands in a single division, then the KISS model is definitely best. If you believe the 4 brands need to be split to achieve competitive balance (which apparently TPTB do), then there doesn’t seem to be a better way to accomplish this than the proposed divisions:
East
OSU
PSU
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
West
Michigan
MSU
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa
PSU should not have to suffer a move to the West to accommodate OSU-Michigan in the same division.
LikeLike
Wow, look at that West Division — blood and guts every week. Meanwhile over in the East, it’s wall-to-wall creampuffs till Thanksgiving. Bless you OSU and PSU, you deserve it.
LikeLike
For competitiveness the B10 should try to cycle as Alan says. B10 has done it randomly and it produced a lot of imbalanced schedules where teams skipped 2 of the big 3.
You will still have imbalance when teams are up or down, but it can be reduced. If you were doing KISS using a 5-0-3 schedule: a western school could play MI/PSU/IU for 2 years and then OSU/MSU/PU the next 2. Eastern schools could play UNL/MN/IL and then WI/IA/NW. That would provide geographic balance to scheduling and mostly reduce competitive imbalance. B10 is more likely to do a 5-1-2 or a 9 game model, but the same idea applies.
LikeLike
If/when the Big Ten Conference opts to go to nine conference games (no earlier than 2015 media reports), should they have one or two protected interdivisional games? This would be a 5-2-2 model. Or should it be 5-1-3 instead?
Assuming the divisions divide up Michigan-Ohio State and UM goes to the west, then here’s the divisions:
West
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
East
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Wisconsin
The interdivisional games will likely be Michigan-Ohio State, Nebraska-Penn State, Iowa-Wisconsin, Illinois-Northwestern. The remaining four teams would also need portected games–we’re talking Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State and Minnesota. For the purposes of this exercise, let’s make it Indiana/Michigan State and Purdue/Minnesota.
With a nine-game confernce, the schedule could include five games within your division and two protected interdivision games. That leaves two more games for the remaining four possible opponents on a rotating basis–perhaps two on/two off.
For example, if Michigan were to make its protected interdivisional games Ohio State and Purdue, then its schedule would be as follows:
West Opponents (5) – Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Protected East Opponents (2) – Ohio State Purdue
Rotational East Opponents (2 of 4) – Illinois/Penn State, Indiana/Wisconsin
In that set up, Michgian would play Illinois/Penn State for two years, then rotate Indiana/Wisconsin for two the next two seasons
Wisconsin would likely pick either Minnesota or Nebraska to be its second protected opponent along with Iowa. Let’s assume it’s Minnesota even though Wisconsin does want to play Nebraska on a regular basis.
Going from there, thse could be the other pairings:
ILLINOIS (E): Northwestern, Nebraska
INDIANA (E): Michigan State, Iowa
IOWA (W): Wisconsin, Indiana
MICHIGAN (W): Ohio State, Purdue
MICHIGAN STATE (W): Indiana, Penn State
MINNESOTA (W): Purdue, Wisconsin
NEBRASKA (W): Penn State, Illinois
MORTHWESTERN (W): Illinois, Ohio State
OHIO STATE (E): Michigan, Northwestern
PENN STATE (E): Nebraska, Michigan State
PURDUE (E): Minnesota, Michigan
WISCONSIN (E): Iowa, Minnesota
The three other major Big Ten powers would have scheduling setups like this:
NEBRASKA
West Division (5) – Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
Protected East Opponents (2) – Penn State, Illinois
Rotational East Opponents (2 of 4) – Ohio State/Indiana, Wisconsin/Michigan State
OHIO STATE
East Division (5) – Indiana, Illinois, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Protected West Division (2) – Michigan, Northwestern
Rotational West Division (2 of 4) – Iowa/Michigan State, Nebraska/Minnesota
PENN STATE
East Division (5) – Indiana, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Protected West Division (2) – Nebraska, Michigan State
Rotational West Division (2 of 4) – Michigan/Minnesota, Iowa/Northwestern
I have to imagine the Big Ten Confernce’s planning horizon has to go out to 2015 and beyond if they’re in the midst of a contract renegotation with ABC/ESPN. That might well mean they’ll come to a firm decision on whether or not to go to nine confernce games and when that would happen.
Obviously, they could still keep the one protected game setup in place even with nine-conference games as well a eight.
We’ll know more by next month.
LikeLike
I reckon the 9-game schedule will come in about the same time the Big Ten goes to 14 teams. So we will still be on three crossover games. Whatever pattern we choose now for the crossovers will probably be continued for 9 games with 14 teams.
LikeLike
One thing that is getting very little play is, with a protected cross-divisional rival, there will be teams and stadiums that a student athelete will never see. For example, if Michigan ends up in the west, it is possible for a Michigan recruited player, even with a red-shirt year, to never visit Happy Valley, or for an Iowa player to never see Columbus, or for an Ohio State player to never see Lincoln. Spliting Michigan and Ohio State, which necessitates cross division rivalries, creates senarios in which players would never see some of the best atmospheres in college football during their careers. That is a hit to conference unity and, possibly, to recruiting for some of the schools (i.e. can Nebraska recruit a kid out of Ohio when they know schedule sets up that they will never play Ohio State in that student-athelete’s time at Nebraska?). This needs to be considered, or it will feel like a loss that you cannot put your finger on, but something would be missing.
LikeLike
Good point about the stadiums. I made a similar point I think to someone in an earlier incarnation of Franks blog.
For example, A kid from Niles, IL is a Div I candidate and a 3 ½ star athlete and is a good student but not on Northwester’s “allowed to recruit list”. He favors staying close to home but does not see Illinois headed to a bowl game in the next 3-4 years. In the old days he could go to Michigan or Nebraska ( NE now a BT member) and expect to come home to his closest Big Ten school (Northwestern) twice in his career where a lot of people and family with local interest can come see him play in person.
In a new alignment, this kid may NEVER return to a stadium close to his home town in the conference. I don’t think that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
Isn’t this to some extent a necessary consequence of a divisional format? When you have divisions, it means that there are some schools you start playing more, and as a result some schools that you start playing less.
LikeLike
If you have 3 cross-divisional games per year, and do not have fixed cross-divisional rivalries, you visit every stadium in the other division once in 4 years.
I would suggest the Big 10 go with KISS divisions and no fixed rivalries. Make the schedule so that the East teams host Michigan, OSU, and PSU in different years. Only one year out of the 4 would you not host one of those teams.
LikeLike
That’s just a function of a 12 team league and an 8 game schedule. In the Big 12 Texas played at Lincoln in 2002, 2006, 2010. NU played at Austin in 1999, 2003 and 2007.
In the SEC Florida has played Alabama four times in the regular season since 1993: in 1998-99 and 2005-2006.
LikeLike
Al – that is because the SEC initially adopted a 5-2-1 scheduling format. Now that the SEC has a 5-1-2 format, UF & Bama will never go more than 3 years without playing each other.
LikeLike
Understood. I just offered it as a comparison to the Big XII system, which provided four years between return visits to specific venues.
LikeLike
Doug, all I can say is, Amen!
I would though understand that some are very passionate about the tOSU vs UM rivalry. Probably in the way that some single issue voters will vote for a bad candidate somewhere along the line. It does not negate their passion or the value of that game. We just have to take their hand and try to walk them over to the big picture.
LikeLike
I am also not buying a lot of the fire and brimstone talk. Ohio State and Michigan will remain the biggest game of their season regardless of when it’s played or what division they are in, as long as both are good. Texas’ biggest rival is Oklahoma, not Texas A&M even though they play earlier in the season. USC’s biggest rival is Notre Dame (or at least it was when ND was good), even though that game moves around in the schedule and they aren’t even in the same conference.
If Michigan-OSU diminishes in significance, it will be because Michigan doesn’t return to having a competitive football team, not because of any divisional or temporal alignments.
LikeLike
USC-Notre Dame is big as a non-conference game, but if UCLA and USC both compete for the title a couple of years, I guarantee it will be the bigger game again for USC.
Texas and Oklahoma are in the same division. The winner is often the Big 12 South champion. Nebraska and Oklahoma meanwhile quickly faded into oblivion. Ohio State and Michigan will be somewhere in between. They’ll still play every year, but very little will actually be on the line at that point most seasons besides bragging rights. Meanwhile games against Nebraska and Penn State will likely be later in the season and will actually determine a lot more (a loss to a big divisional foe (and tiebreaker advantage) rather than just a win).
Ohio State Michigan did not arise to its place in a vacuum. A lot of meaningful games pushed it there. If you give those meaningful games away, it will lose its luster within a decade or so. It will be a victim of its own success.
LikeLike
USC-ND was a big game because the two were effectively in the same “conference,” in the sense that they were both jockeying for position for the national championship on a regular basis.
That’s what I think we’re losing sight of. A rivalry in many cases gets its juice from the teams jockeying for position in the standings. ND and USC both were because they were both national title contenders. OSU/Michigan became a national phenomenon because of the Ten Year War — when the two had a duopoly on the Big Ten Championship. When you stop jockeying for position in the standings, something dies.
LikeLike
I agree. But dies? I would not use that word. There is too much history with all those rivaleries. They diminish somewhat. Which is not to say they die. An infusion of interest based on both teams stature at some time in the future can bring it all back for a period. In the case of USC ND I always love to watch that game. But lately ND has not been vying for anything. It would have aided them greatly to have a conference championship (cough Big 10 cough) to regroup on
LikeLike
I didn’t say the rivalry dies. But something about it does.
LikeLike
Folks,
I hate to be the fly in the ointment but in all this discussion everybody is ignoring the elephant in the room. We are still discussing this as a 12 team model. My observations from everybody else on here is that the Big 10 will not stop at 12. Please tell me how this will work at 16 if the following things happen.
a) all 4 adds are in the east (they did not take KU or Missouri when they had the chance, and UT will not be a single) unless someone can show me who they would take in the west?
b) my belief is that ND will not be added
c) pick 4 east teams (mine are probably MD, UVA, Rutgers, and Pitt) and add them to the mix
how would this work? again my feeling is the UM / tOSU is being discussed this way BECAUSE the eventual 16 teams will fall out as outlined in my 3 points. This means they are floating this now to prepare for what will become the future.
Even if the Big 10 gets ND, you are willing to say they will want ND, UM, PSU, and tOSU all in 1 division? I am just having a hard time thinking this can happen.
LikeLike
Simple answer. Don’t do 16!
When B10 was first rumoured to be looking at 16 I thought it would be ND and 4 eastern schools. Then you could have ND,PSU,IU,PU and 4 eastern schools and not a lot would be lost in fb. 8 of the 10 longtime members would be in the same division and IU is pretty irrelevant in fb.
Now the only way you stay tied together at 16 is pods. And I think the WAC experience shows that pods are a great idea that doesn’t work in practice. Its not easy for the fans to understand as Scott put it. Otherwise you only see schools 2 times in 8 years even with a 9 game schedule. That is what the SEC had with their 5-2-1. 14 with a 9 game schedule can work w/o pods. 16 w/o pods is just 2 conferences tied by a TV contract and championship game (and maybe CIC-but that doesn’t help on the fb field).
LikeLike
Amen bullet! The simple answer to the problems posed by leagues greater than 12 (and especially greater than 14) is not to do a league greater than 12 (or 14).
I don’t think any further growth is practicable without an increase in the number of games. If the NCAA increased the cap from 12 to 13, you could play a 10-game league schedule and 3 non-conf. A 10-game league schedule would suddenly make a 16-team conference with 2 divisions of 8 very feasible.
LikeLike
bullet and adam,
I agree in your thinking, but I think 16 will happen wether I want it or not. The fact that they would consider splitting UM / tOSU tells me that 16 is not only possible, but probable. Again, saying it will not happen because I do not want it to happen does not offer debate on a solution when it does happen. I am not sure it would be pods as I think 7 division games and 3 cross division games might be the thinking. This still allows 2 OOC games but strengthens the BTN in control of games by member teams.
I am not arguing this will be good for football, but from a $$$$ and content point of view this would work better for the BTN. Again, the move to 16 has always been predicated on expanding the BTN, and not about current games. Maybe you will call me crazy, but the money train is the most powerful of all in the end. Here we are in a tough economy, and yet schools across the country are increasing their “donations” to allow you to buy tickets.
I heard on the radio / tv / computer in the past day or 2 that only 14 of 120+ D 1 schools wound up in the black last year (anybody have the source, please link it). If anybody on here thinks going to 16 has to do with anything besides money please clue me in. I said one day the NCAA tourney would be a 128 team bracket and just a few months ago they were wanting 96. Such expansion has nothing to do with athletics (If it was they should go back to 32 or 16 teams) but is all about adding “marginal” revenue.
Maybe I am just older, but I will call it what it is. Money grab, and neither you or I can stop that train.
LikeLike
just found the link,
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686
here is a quote:
“The gap between the haves and the have-nots appears to be growing. The largest reported amount of revenue generated by an athletics program was $138.5 million — nearly three times the median of $45.9 million. The top-spending program reported $127.6 million in annual expenses, with a similarly sized gap from the median.”
LikeLike
I don’t see how increasing the number of conference games is a money grab. Conference games are zero sum: for one team to play at home, another must play on the road. At least every other year, that means that someone who would have played a home game is playing a road game instead.
I don’t see how this is a money-maker for the league. Not only do you play fewer overall home games (decreasing gate revenue), you make it harder to qualify for bowl games, particularly top bowl games. How is any of this good financially?
LikeLike
adam,
looking at this as 16 team, not 12, as 16 is where the money grab comes in.
if tOSU game against akron is gone and replaced by UVA that is one more Big 10 game available to the BTN and a new market (akron is in the tOSU footprint and UVA is not). Am I not seeing this correctly?
LikeLike
A little more complicated than that.
Replacing a OSU home game versus Akron with a OSU home game versus Virginia doesn’t give an extra game to the Big Ten network, since all OSU home games can be shown on the BTN. This is why going to 9 conference games doesn’t actually make more games available for the conference to show.
You get more games by having more home games for conference schools. Adding Virginia gives you the rights to all Virginia’s home games, which gives you more product.
If each team averages 7 home games a year, the Big Ten will have 84 home games with 12 teams, 112 home games with 16 teams.
LikeLike
@m (Ag) – Yes, this is true. The way to maximize BTN games is actually for all of the schools to have all of their non-conference games be at home in guarantee games.
Now, the flip side is that we might be getting to a financial tipping point with the costs of these guarantee games now routinely going past $1 million. Not everyone in the Big Ten can absorb these million dollar payments in the same manner as Ohio State and it’s compounded by the fact that the schools that can least afford such payments are the ones that need to bring in better opponents for ticket sales the most. The real point of the guarantee games is to make money off of home games (cupcakes for bowl eligibility is usually a tangential issue), but with the expenses of those games skyrocketing, we may be moving back to more non-conference home-and-homes and/or 9-game conference schedules.
LikeLike
What of making games against FCS teams more attractive? For example, currently a 6-6 team is bowl eligible, but they go to the back of the line, within their conference and nationally, for bowl bids. If the NCAA changed that rule and made 6-6 teams bowl eligible, straight-up, without any special rules or preconditions, that would make FCS teams at least marginally more attractive (maybe?) and put some downward pressure on the cost of FBS guarantee games.
The other thing the NCAA could do is let you count 2 games against FCS teams toward eligibility; like you get 1 every year, but you can use 2 in a season once every 4 years. That also would put some downward pressure on the price of guarantee games (wouldn’t it?).
LikeLike
Normally I don’t believe in the deus ex machina of expecting the NCAA to change the rules, but we’ve seen the NCAA fiddle with these rules enough in recent years to account for market pressures that it seems reasonable to think they would revist the subject (unlike, say, changing the bylaws to allow for league semifinals before a championship game).
LikeLike
I’d much prefer the BCS conferences push their schools to schedule more home/home series with quality schools from conferences. Either by giving a bit extra tv money to programs that schedule good non-conference programs, or by penalizing schools that schedule nobodies.
It also gets more exposure for their conferences. If the Big Ten goes to 9 conference games it can schedule OSU@Wisconsin one year and Wisconsin@OSU the next. If, instead they remain at 8 games and push for quality non-conference games, they can show (say) Arizona @ Wisconsin one year and Georgia Tech @ OSU the next year. I think the second choice gets people around the country more interested in the Big Ten and is more valuable for tv networks. Also, if the money from the BTN will make a difference, the Big Ten should be confident it’s schools will more than half of such games. That would give them more bowl eligible teams than they would with 9 conference games.
LikeLike
@m (Ag) – I hear you re: more higher level non-conference home-and-home games, but today’s reality dictates that the choice is really between (a) more non-conference patsy guarantee games or (b) more conference games.
The Big Ten has a fairly strong conference culture with high-drawing teams, so the benefit of playing more home-and-home non-conference games beyond the Notre Dame/Alabama/USC-type marquee schools is muted. Once you get past the marquee schools from each of the BCS conferences that are usually only willing to play home-and-home series with other marquee schools, there really isn’t much benefit for a middle tier Big Ten school to play middle tier schools from other conferences versus adding another Big Ten game. Now, schools that have weak draws as conference-mates like the Big East, on the other hand, have much more incentive to try to get as many Big Ten/SEC/ACC schools (whether or not they are marquee schools) on the non-conference schedule as possible. The Big East HAS to play home-and-home non-conference games (or give favorable scheduling terms to schools like Notre Dame or Ohio State) to get more exposure, whereas the Big Ten has the outright ability to keep it all in-house.
LikeLike
My reply is to Frank’s comment regarding a 9 game conference schedule vs. more home-and-home series.
LikeLike
To increase the BTN inventory, they would also have to change their schedule. B10 is the most strict about having ooc 1st and then conference later. If everyone plays more home games ooc on the same weekends in September, it really doesn’t increase inventory that much.
LikeLike
I would actually be very surprised if the conference was doing this with the plan for 4 new teams. I think there are probably mixed feelings on any further expansion and doubt they’d make plans that way.
Also, I think pods have to be the way to go if they go to 16. Otherwise you’ve created essentially two conferences. Heck if Michigan is less important and we are playing 5 eastern teams (including Penn State), it would feel like Ohio State had joined a new Big East.
LikeLike
from a fans view I agree, but from a “tv” view I can see:
MD, UVA, Pitt, PSU, Rutgers, tOSU, IU, and PU
25% = tOSU, PSU
50% = Pitt, PU, MD, Rutgers
25% = IU, UVA
UM, MSU, Illinois, NU, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, UNL
25% = UM, UNL
50% = MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois
25% = Minnesota, NU
if the “inverse” thoughts hold it should see UVA and Minnesota rise in basketball to compensate. I suppose you could move IU / PU west and UM / MSU east it could be done, but long term it might mean less balance.
in a 12 game schedule you have (using tOSU):
4 OOC = Marshall, Miami, Ohio, E. Michigan
of these 4 only 2 are BTN games
keeping the 12 game schedule with 16 teams:
2 OOC
7 Divison games
1 Cross Division rival = UM
2 rotating cross games
meaning ALL 12 games could be BTN games!
the probability of tOSU beating UVA and Rutgers is probably the same (a win is a win, not looking at margin of win here) as tOSU beating Ohio or Eastern Michigan. I am guessing the viewer value between Eastern Michigan / Rutgers and Ohio / UVA would be substantially different. I am not understanding why this is so hard to see? If you can explain it to me better, please do.
LikeLike
The Big Ten will likely expand to 14 with Rutgers and Maryland, only going to 16 if Notre Dame says yes. That will make pods almost a prerequisite, since every member will want ND coming in at least once every six years . In other words, don’t expect a 16-team Big Ten without ND, which would be the only way the conference would accept pods.
LikeLike
The Big Ten tradition is that Ohio State and Michigan meet in the final game of the season to determine the Big Ten championship. By keeping them in the same division, that tradition is lost, and their game is reduced to a play-in game. Putting them in different divisions allows for that tradition to continue, possibly with the same frequency as before.
The Nebraska vs Oklahoma rivalry was lost because the Big 12 stopped scheduling their game every year. The Red River Rivalry is as strong as ever, even though it’s mid-season.
LikeLike
And it isn’t just TV people who are advocating separate divisions. The Michigan AD is, also, because he wants to meet OSU in the Championship Game.
I, too, want to maintain as many rivalries as possible, and I was initially an advocate of KISS. Now I’m 50/50, seeing some advantages in a split of OSU/Mich. I’m willing to accept a collective decision of the universities without threatening to boycott games or refusing to give OSU another penny, as I’ve heard on this site.
I don’t want to see an ugly campaign by my fellow Buckeyes that embarrasses the university and the BT. Sure, express your opinions, but I think we need to show more respect for the AD’s, etc., and stop calling them morons. We’ve burned enough couches.
But I admit, if they stop playing the Game, I’ll grab my torch.
LikeLike
I do understand and definitely respect that position. For my part though, I’ve had a lot of disagreements with the university over the years (starting with how they spend money on construction like a drunken sailor) and athletics has been one thing that has really helped me put aside those issues.
The university is getting dangerously close to striking at several of the reasons I love the teams though. If they do that, then I frankly don’t care if they are embarrassed. I won’t call them morons as I think they are very clever (even if this decision is stupid), but there is only so far they can go and still have me be a proud alumni.
LikeLike
The game that Michigan/OSU play (or any other pair of rivals) in a given season is the one that you know is scheduled for that year. The only one you know will be scheduled will be the regular season game. The league title game, by contrast, is one that they may happen to play. It is not the rivalry game.
As soon as the league went to 12 schools, any given pair of rivals playing on the last weekend for the league title went out the window. Grasping at trying to continue that runs contrary to the concept of having a championship game in the first place. It should be a non-factor. Nobody should be worried about rigging a particular championship game matchup. The only analogous situation is competing for the Division title, rather than the league title, because it will still be teh Division titles that are decided on the base of the season standings. Their game isn’t “reduced” to a play-in game, any more than Yankees/Red Sox or Red Wings/Avalanche or Cowboys/49ers was “reduced” to a play-in game for their respective sports’ championship rounds; if anything, those rivalries are elevated by being postured in that way, because it is (or was) very likely that the teams would play regularly for something very important. The Big Ten is now a multipolar world; as they wrote at MGoBlog recently, “It is extremely unlikely that Michigan and Ohio State would ever actually score a championship game rematch. Splitting the two teams is a pointless exercise in hoping that once every ten years you get another one. This is no longer the 1970s.” http://mgoblog.com/content/different-kind-football-armageddon
You can’t compare to the RRR because it was always midseason. This is a change. Think of it this way: during the offseason, the PGA Tour was (rightfully) taking a lot of heat over whether it’s business model is in deep trouble because the amount of prize money has stopped growing and is moving toward negative growth. Yet it would take a decade or more of negative growth just to get back to the prizes of the 1990s. But so what? When you start changing in the wrong direction, you still have problems. It’s like Big Tom Callahan said: “You’re either growing or you’re dying.”
LikeLike
@Adam
And the BT might grow as a result of other teams being allowed to shine on the final game of the regular season. I don’t fear the death of the OSU-Mich rivalry because I believe it transcends calendar dates and divisional alignment. I think we need to put the good of the conference as a whole above the fears of OSU-Mich fans. I want to promote the league by displaying all the marquee teams equally, letting people know our league isn’t just about OSU-Mich any more.
Let Neb, Iowa and Mich fight it out in the West, and OSU, PSU and Wisc in the East, with protected cross-rivalries of OSU vs Mich, PSU vs Neb, and Iowa vs Wisc, so that each team gets three marquee games per year, keeping things relatively equal in terms of both competition and marketing. Spread those games out throughout the season so that the entire country can see that the BT has got game.
LikeLike
As soon as you mention marketing you lose me. I want the league to consciously reject making decisions based on marketing. The only thing that they should be making decisions on is sports and rivalries — that is our marketing, that we’re the kind of place that doesn’t care about marketing.
LikeLike
The good of the conference as a whole is being a place that respects history and tradition. History and tradition have Michigan and OSU playing on the final day of the regular season. They are not being compelled to move it; they’re trying to get clever. Therefore, it’s a bad idea.
The bias should be against change until you’re forced to do something different. Nothing is forcing them to move OSU/Michigan.
I don’t care about showing the country whether the BT has “game” or not. We’ll do things the way we do them, regardless of the rest of the country’s impressions.
LikeLike
No alignment I’ve seen automatically promotes any more/less games because of OSU/Michigan. The media is drawn to traditional games, but it’s also drawn to important ones. The national media will largely ignore Wisconsin/Minnesota if they are out of the race, but pay attention if they aren’t. They’ll pay even more attention if national title chances are in the line.
The same goes for every other match-up and OSU/Michigan playing the last weekend too is not taking anything away from those teams. You’re taking away a lot from Ohio State and Michigan if you ensure the game never determines divisional winners and rarely is the CCG though.
LikeLike
You don’t have to send Michigan west in order to get three marquee games per year. The KISS division does this perfectly well — in fact, you get more divisional marquees from KISS. If the big four teams are split 2-2 between divisions, you get only two marquee matchups (one in each division). However, the KISS division puts three teams in the same division (east) which produces three marquee matchups.
LikeLike
Teams shine or rise on their own merits NOT because Ohio State vs Michigan is moved.
The reason this game out shines the rest is because they have not risen to the occasion. If Iowa vs Minnesota or Penn State vs Michigan State or any other game had the tradition and history of this game, they would out shine Ohio State vs Michigan. Not to say that other teams can not best them or out shine them. Just do it for crying out loud vs bringing Ohio State vs Michigan down to do it.
Ultimately it gets down to doing it on the field. Ohio State and Michigan have done if for decades.
People watch this game because of what it represents. Move it and alomost all of that is gone. Today Chris Spielman went on about moving it and what it would do. Chris said it would ruin it for him if they moved it.
Is two in the bush better than one in the hand.
LikeLike
You guys like a little cheese with your whine? The game won’t stop being played, it will just have to fit into a broader strategy that is not stuck in the 70’s. news is that the Big 2 and little 8 are no more. News is that Penn State, Nebraska has joined the conference. News is that Iowa and Wisconsin have been consistently good for umpteen years.
LikeLike
News is that all of the points you make support putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division, instead of splitting them up in gerrymandered divisions that are predicated on a notion that it’s still the 70s and the rest of the league sucks. News is that a broader strategy that sees outside of those 2 teams would put them in the same division.
LikeLike
MACrifice games are turning into PACrifice games. Ohio State is paying Colorado $1.4 million to visit Columbus next year without a return home game:
http://www.bigtennetwork.com/sports/football/story.asp?list_id=47&story_id=3393309
Colorado must be getting killed financially right now to take that deal.
LikeLike
Does anyone know of any other AQ-BCS teams doing 1 and dones (from the outset)?
LikeLike
@Eric (ohio1317) – The Big East has had a few. UCONN did a 1-and-done with Notre Dame last year while Cincinnati has signed up a 1-and-done with Tennessee and took a buyout from Ohio State to switch a 2012 “home” game that was supposed to be played at Paul Brown Stadium into a road game at Columbus. Notre Dame’s arrangements for its “neutral site” games are also the equivalent of 1-and-dones or 2-for-ones. Miami is effectively giving ND a 2-for-1 with a game at Soldier Field on top of a home-and-home.
LikeLike
Frank-
I’m pretty sure the Uconn-ND isn’t a one and done deal, but instead some ugly deal for something like 6 games with 4 ND home games and the other two games to be neutral sites like Giants Stadium.
LikeLike
Eric – Oregon State did a one and done with LSU in 04. Still drunk from the 03 BCS title and with Gameday present, those pesky Beavers came close to beating our Saban-led Tigers.
LikeLike
Oregon State did a one and done at PSU in 2008 as well.
LikeLike
They were having real problems even before having to potentially pay $15-$20 million to B12. It was rumoured they wanted to fire their football coach but couldn’t afford the buyout.
LikeLike
The CU line isn’t as dire reguarding $$’s
http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=204966522
LikeLike
Hmmm, CU ought to be in financial trouble if they are driving from the Houston airport to aTm or from DFW to Baylor. College Station’s airport is literally across the road from campus, while Waco has 2 airports including one that handled Air Force One with no problems. Topeka has an airport closer to Manhattan and Lawrence. One would think they are flying charter instead of commercial, else their athletes are missing lots of class and running up hotel bills between the end of night games and next morning commercial flights.
But the author is listed as CU’s Associate AD/Sports Information, so maybe they really are clueless.
LikeLike
Frank – the Buffs backed out of a home & home with LSU a couple years back. I think the series was supposed to start this year.
LikeLike
Keep in mind the Buffs play at Hawaii next year, so they can take advantage of the new rule that you can add a thirteenth game. Given the extra costs of the Big 12 penalty and (hopefully) the Hawkins buyout they may view this as essentially free money without screwing up the schedule, though we do take a bit of a perception hit.
LikeLike
CFL reporting spurrier suspends saunders at USC
LikeLike
OK it took awhile, but I’m officially onboard for the KISS. Keep it simple and don’t get cute and risk messing everything up.
LikeLike
BYU is leaving the MWC because no one actually read the TV contract???
“I’m told this MWC TV contract was not sent to MWC schools to study personally. Instead, an executive summary was provided, and if folks wanted to see the actual canon, they’d have to fly to Denver and turn the actual pages with the flesh.
Dumb, dumb and dumber. MWC presidents were so giddy with the new TV deal, they laid down on the couch to watch.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700059600/BYUs-broadcast-issues-boiling-over.html
LikeLike
Great article here with specific contractual details of how the BYU/WAC relationship was supposed to work out:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700059598/BYU-football-Cougar-WAC-prenup-gives-insight.html?pg=1
We want prenup! Yeah!
LikeLike
Very interesting how far along that was with little getting out.
LikeLike
More details regarding the WAC $5 million buyout clause. Not sure if it is enforceable unless BYU actually joins the WAC.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/50160538-77/wac-resolution-byu-state.html.csp?page=2
LikeLike
Interesting 1 year rent a conference idea for BYU to join the B12-1 or P11. Based on the idea that Colo can’t afford to leave until 2012, so both conferences would have 11 teams during 2011 season. BYU offers to be a temporary member for 1 year, allowing that conference to have 12 members and schedule a conf champ game.
http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=5826013
LikeLike
That’s an idea I’ve been thinking about, but I never really believed Colorado wouldn’t be out after next year.
11 schools is an awkward number; with 12 scheduling is much better and you can have one last conference championship game.
The reason it probably won’t happen is because of the possible embarrassment of having BYU do really well for a year then leave. It would leave the impression that the conference is weak.
LikeLike
Several reports out indicating that CU has given up on negotiating a reduced buyout of the B12 to leave early and is planning on staying until 2012. So it appears P10 and B12 will both be 11 for a year. Each article quotes the same $9 million to $14.5 million figure on buyout penalties. That would indicate 50% of revenues for 2 years or 80% of revenues for 2 years ($9 million *50% *2 or 9*80%*2). It seems like if you give one year’s notice you still pay penalties for 2 years.
LikeLike
I wonder if the PAC-10 will officially become the PAC-11 for a year or just hold off on a name change until there are 12 teams.
LikeLike
sounds like Nebraska will still fight on the penalties. probably helps that their new friends a) have a lot of cash and b) are probably willing to help on any cashflow issues as they are not still holding out hope to lure half a dozen of your old friends. Go Big Red!
LikeLike
I imagine B12 is not cutting CU any slack as it might impact what they get from UNL.
Speaking of MACrifice, maybe B12 should rent one of MAC 13 for a year so they could have a championship game in 2011.
LikeLike
But is that really in the Big12’s best interests? Now they have to share revenue among 11 teams for a year instead of ten. And CU didn’t make any pledge to prop up the Big 3.
LikeLike
Not clear. Definitely not in P10’s interest.
LikeLike
If UT and A&M leave in another few years they will have their lawyers use any precedent set this year to get out of their payments.
LikeLike
How would this impact the division of TV money from the little 7(8) and the big 3? Doubt CU will be donating their piece of the pie while still a member. I think CU is stating the default position while negotiations are ongoing. Reducing the penalties by the amount of revenue CU would recieve by staying would seem a good starting point.
LikeLike
The penalties come from the tv money Colorado receives from the league.
LikeLike
Except for A&M’s objections regarding the exit fees, division of TV and exit fees is exactly the same as it has always been. Lot of bad info out there.
LikeLike
What kind of crazy conference would only have 11 teams???
LikeLike
alan,
I am guessing that was humor?
The Big 10 has been at 11 for quite some time 😉
LikeLike
Duff – How’d you guess?
LikeLike
Even a report out of Western Kentucky indicated that they are waiting on BYU’s decision. There is clearly a belief in a major domino effect. New York Daily News is saying BYU will announce on 9/1 they are joining WAC, but I almost wonder if he is just late in his reporting. There is nothing indicating new info. But several people are quoting the article.
LikeLike
here is a link on the colorado story
http://www.coloradodaily.com/latest-stories/ci_15879759#axzz0xYdk2FF4
now the Big 12 – 1 – 1 is about to be a bigger mess as I think Beebe was counting the “exit” money in his payouts, and as far as i am aware, A&M has not signed off on. Any UT or TAMU folks clarify here? Do we have any Pac 10 folks on this to give an opinion on how the Pac 10 is thinking here?
LikeLike
Everyone is agreed TV contract stays as is, 50% even, 50% appearances. 5 offered a share of exit money to UT, OU and A&M IF TV $ projections weren’t met. UT and OU both said exit money should be split according to bylaws and they wouldn’t accept any more than their share. A&M, however, is still insisting on a guarantee.
I always wondered where Beebe’s 35-40 million came from. Based on the CU reports, its more like 24 to 29 million (14.5 UNL, 9-14.5 CU).
LikeLike
this is a negotiation ploy by CU. They don’t have the “Exit” money. So, they have to stay an extra year to get it lower…but that will screw up scheduling and they know it.
so, they’ll get to go early and not have to pay it (after negotiations of course)
LikeLike
Further proof that Jim Delany is a moron:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/14868/jim-delany-talks-michigan-ohio-state
“You could make a good argument that Michigan and Ohio State should never really be playing for a divisional crown. If they’re going to play, play for the right to go to the Rose Bowl.”
“If they’re going to play, play for the right to go to the Rose Bowl.” That is now impossible if you have a CCG. It cannot happen. You can never guarantee that they’ll play to go to the Rose Bowl (which is what “if” expresses: a necessary condition (if–>then)). You can only guarantee they’ll play one game. And that’s why they should be in the same division: because if you can only guarantee they’ll only play one game, you should have a high likelihood that that game will have a lot on the line. If they’re in separate divisions, you have intentionally reduced the stakes of the game in the hopes of getting a rematch. It’d be one thing if he openly said “We’re hoping for a rematch. We’d think that’s great.” But he never even says the word. Disingenuous in the extreme.
LikeLike
Also, how can the divisions be 80% finished? If they haven’t made a decision on how to align Michigan and Ohio State, how can you have made any further progress? A decision one way or the other on that would totally throw off the rest of your planning.
LikeLike
I reckon 80% means they have decided to put Mich/MSU/Neb/Iowa in the west division and PSU/OSU/Ind/Pur in the east. They haven’t decided where Wisc/Minn/Ill/NW will go.
LikeLike
I reckon 80% means they have decided to put Mich/MSU/Neb/Iowa in the west division and PSU/OSU/Ind/Pur in the east. They haven’t decided where Wisc/Minn/Ill/NW will go.
I think Wisconsin and Minnesota will join Michigan State, Michigan, Iowa and Nebraska (the North/West division), with Illinois and Northwestern joining Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Indiana (the South/East division). If Rutgers and Maryland are added to make the conference 14 members, they go to the S/E, with Northwestern sliding over to the N/W (how appropriate!).
LikeLike
But he at the same time says that they’re 80% finished and that they haven’t made a decision on Michigan/OSU. One way or another he is not telling the truth.
LikeLike
“One way or another he is not telling the truth.”
ya think?
LikeLike
I could also be other scheduling arrangements. When to move to 9 games, the order of various things, even other sports. 80% suggests to me they know the actual divisions, which concerns me a lot.
P.S. Sorry about posting so much. I generally do a lot more reading and post infrequently, but this issue really fires me up (in case you couldn’t tell 🙂 ).
LikeLike
With all of the talk of football ‘brands’, surely TPTB realize that the OSU/UM game represents one of the top brand games in all of sports. Guys, they’re not stupid, even if they pretend to be. It’s all hype. What’s good for the Game is good for the Big Ten. The Game’s not going anywhere.
LikeLike
I’m trying to limit any extra posting, but here is the link to the full interview with Delany. It sounds a lot better than an article I saw linked earlier. Hopefully things are still more up in the air than they appeared for awhile.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/14868/jim-delany-talks-michigan-ohio-state
LikeLike
here is the link
http://kilt.cbslocal.com/2010/08/24/texas-independence-aggies-to-sec-and-everyone-else-is-on-their-own/
to the texas independence article
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/08/23/sec-dominance/index.html
No wonder A&M wants the SEC
LikeLike
Nice article/interview with Delany by Teddy G:
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/08/delany-weighs-in-on-michigan-ohio-state-rose-debate.html
Delany: “If Duke and North Carolina were historically the two strongest programs and only one could play for the right to be in the NCAA tournament, would you want them playing in the season-ending game so one is in and one is out? Or would you want them to play and have it count in the standings and then they possibly could meet for the right to be in the NCAA or the Rose Bowl?”
-Hell will freeze over several times before Duke and UNC play for the right to be in the Rose Bowl.
“Delany said the Big Ten would like to protect 17 rivalry/trophy games”
Any guesses on the 17?
Definitely on the list
OSU-Michigan
Wisconsin-Iowa
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Minnesota-Iowa
Michigan-Michigan State
Purdue-Indiana
Illinois-Northwestern
Probably on the list:
Penn State-Ohio State
Nebraska-Iowa
Nebraska-Minnesota
Nebraska-Wisconsin
Michigan State-Penn State
Guesses:
Illinois-Ohio State
Illinois-Indiana
Michigan State-Northwestern
Michigan-Minnesota
Other possibilities:
Michigan-Nebraska
Penn State-Nebraska
Iowa-Northwestern
LikeLike
Here are 14 listed in Wikipedia. Throw in some Nebraska games and that should be all of them…
Illinois-Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy)
Illinois-Ohio State (Illibuck)
Illinois-Purdue (Purdue Cannon)
Indiana-Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket)
Indiana-Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)
Iowa-Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)
Iowa-Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
Michigan-Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy)
Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)
Michigan-Ohio State (No Trophy, but Ohio State football players receive a gold pants charm if they win the game)
Michigan State-Penn State (Land Grant Trophy)
Minnesota-Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan’s Axe)
Minnesota-Penn State (Governor’s Victory Bell)
Ohio State-Penn State (No Trophy)
LikeLike
That certainly makes the math work if you add the most natural Nebraska games (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota). I doubt too many people are fighting for Minnesota-Penn State or Purdue-Illinois.
Also from the article:
“I can’t tell you the number (that will be preserved), but if we got a grade, I doubt it would get much more than 85 or 90 (percent). With 12 teams, we’ll have three (conference) no-plays.”
Percentages for a couple splits:
East/West
14 without crossover, probably 14 with crossover
SE vs NW
13 without crossover, probably 14 or 15 with crossover (depending on if MSU-Penn State is kept)
If we’re right about the rivalries and if they only plan on losing 2-3, I think it’s safe to say that Minnesota/Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska are together.
LikeLike
I think you’ve got it. Minn/Iowa/Wisc/Neb will be joined by Mich/MSU. That leaves OSU + PSU + 2xInd + 2xIll in the east. Geographically those are quite nice divisions (northwest and east), and they do a good job of maintaining rivalries (except Mich-OSU). The biggest issue with these divisions is balance — the northwest division is much stronger than the east. Wisc/Neb/Iowa/Mich will battle every week while OSU/PSU have nothing by creampuffs until Thanksgiving.
Considering that Delany’s top priority is balance, it’s surprising we are headed toward such unbalanced divisions. The only explanation I can think of is that Delany is looking to the future and forsees adding a new team to the east division that will make it more competitive.
So which prospective addition to the east division will give OSU/PSU some real competition? Perhaps Delany sees the Scarlet Knights on an upward trajectory? Perhaps he still harbors dreams of Notre Dame? Perhaps the Big Ten will go south and grab Georgia Tech and/or Miami? All of those are possible, but the most likely candidate to boost competition in the east division is currently sitting at #15 on AP poll.
LikeLike
I would opt for the first scenario that Delany speaks of, incidentally. I don’t want them to “possibly” meet again. That’s kind of the essence of a real college football rivalry, if you ask me. This isn’t pro sports, or even college basketball, where rematches are a routine aspect of the sport.
The fact that Delany doesn’t understand that is really troubling.
LikeLike
Remember, though, he’s speaking to ESPN. Storyline, storyline, storyline! (And, alas, they have the $ to dictate the story.)
LikeLike
The Big Ten can do whatever it wants. Assume we drew the divisions out of a hat; would ESPN suddenly no longer be interested in broadcasting Big Ten games? Of course not. I will not accept “ESPN” or “TV” or some crap as an excuse for this. They’re doing it this way because they want to do it this way, and that’s the most perverted part of it all.
LikeLike
Since it appears that the divisional layout process is 80% complete, I going to guess that all of the “talk” coming out of the Big Ten circles of splitting OSU & UM up will almost assuredly happen.
Also the little nugget of “While the league is close to announcing the breakdown of divisions, it’s months away from naming them” seems to almost eliminate the KISS divisions. If it will take that much longer to name the divisions, then the simple West/East divisions are probably off of the table.
I have a feeling that the divisional split will be just as confussing as the ACC split and outsiders (like myself) won’t have a clue as to who is in each division. I think they are going to over think it and make it a lot more complicated than it should have to be.
LikeLike
Tell Delany! jdelany@bigten.org This crazy divisional split is ostensibly to appease national television interests (i.e., viewers like you), so let him know!
LikeLike
I get a kick out of the sidebar cut of the title. Everytime I see “BYU Independence Day and How I…”
it morphs into:
“BYU Independence Day and How I Learned to Love the Bomb.”
LikeLike
I don’t see Iowa and Wisconsin with Michigan and Nebraska. I think they split Iowa and Wisconsin give the focus on balance.
I think one key part of Delany’s interview was that everyone got to choose one rival to protect. That might create issues for the Minnesota/Wisconsin/Iowa block. Which would each choose? Minnesota would go with Wisconsin. Wisconsin may well choose Iowa, expecting Minnesota to choose them anyway. Iowa is the question though. I could see them saying Nebraska wanting that border war. That might lay the foundation for Iowa/Nebraska on one side and Wisconsin/Minnesota on the other with Wisconsin and Iowa permanent crossovers, but not Iowa/Minnesota.
This whole process is really messed up. Way to go Big Ten 😦
LikeLike
For better or worse, I think that recent statements have revealed that “balance” was code for “split up the 4 biggest names”. I am nearly positive that the divisional setup they are currently leaning towards is the NW/SE split:
Neb/Iowa/Minn/Wisc/Mich/MSU
NU/Ill/Ind/Pur/OSU/PSU
Cross divisional games
Mich-OSU
PSU-Neb
This would preserve all but one of the currently protected games (goodbye Land Grant Trophy) and would add Nebraska to the western trio. It would also restart Mich-Minn and Ill-OSU as every year games.
From a rivalry perspective it’s actually better than geographic, other than that one. Balance-wise it’s a bit better if you only look at top 2, but substantially worse considering the whole slate. However, as I said before, “balance” is just shorthand for “split up the big 4”.
LikeLike
So balance was just a ruse. God, I am so, so, so angry with the league.
LikeLike
you’re not alone Adam. there is a lot of anger in some quarters over the rumored moves. Brandon was on Albom today and it pretty aggravating to listen to.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s quite a strength of schedule for Michigan and Nebraska.
Nebraska plays PSU, Mich, Iowa, Wisc
Michigan plays OSU, Iowa, Wisc, Neb
Meanwhile in the east:
OSU plays PSU, Mich
PSU plays OSU, Neb
Those divisions are very unbalanced. I reckon Delany is planning to add new schools in the east and expects one of them to have a strong football program to give OSU/PSU some competition. Perhaps Notre Dame, or Pitt, or Georgia Tech, or Miami.
LikeLike
great. if they add Notre Dame into this structure into the east then we, Michigan, lose Notre Dame as an annual game as well. But we get to keep Sparty so there’s that.
LikeLike
It doesn’t do anybody any good for Michigan (or its fans) to sniff at the rivalry with MSU. I think the games against MSU and OSU should both be divisional games for Michigan.
LikeLike
@Adam
my frustration with MSU at the moment is not so much with them as a divisional opponent but as to the oft repeated rumor that they will be the replacement for Ohio State as a permanent final regular season game.
LikeLike
Understandable, although I think that is less MSU’s fault than the fact that Brandon and Smith are both open to being in separate divisions (which all but necessitates moving “The Game” from the end of the year). If they were staunchly opposing being in separate divisions, this notion of MSU as a season-ending replacement wouldn’t even have gotten off the ground.
LikeLike
Hawaii now seriously exploring football independence. I’m not sure why those conferences would want them for minor sports. The travel time and cost for those without the football payoff might be huge.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/sportsnews/20100825_UH_making_contacts_with_WCC_Big_West.html
LikeLike
I read in another article [can’t find the link now]that said the Big West would would take Hawaii, because in some sports they do not have enough schools to qualify for AQ bids for the NCAA Torments, Volleyball I thought was one and Hawaii is good in that sport, there where several others that Hawaii would bring them up to the minimum as well, but I don’t recall what they were.
Also in that same article I thought it said the WCC would have little to no interest in Hawaii or any state schools as they want to stay all small and private. BYU they would take and maybe Denver from the Sunbelt if BYU wanted another market, but no WACers 😉
cheers-
LikeLike
Found this article about some educated guess as to what might happen to BYU in the coming weeks.
http://www.deseretnews.com/blog/25/10009844/USU-Aggies-Waiting-hardest-part-for-USU-BYU-fans.html
One outcome I found rather amusing was:
“BYU and ESPN take over. If BYU does not get what it wants from the MWC, it partners with ESPN to form a new western conference that sheds the deadweight of The mtn… under ESPN’s direction and with BYU’s influence, would include BYU, Boise State, UNLV, San Diego State, TCU, New Mexico, Air Force and Utah State… If this new conference wanted to be 10 teams, the other two would come from an mixture of WAC/MWC/C-USA schools such as Wyoming, Colorado State…”
So basically The MWC would have invited Fresno & Reno to thwart BYU leaving only to have BYU hit the reset button and take all nine members of the current MWC and form the “New Coke Conference”. Leaving Fresno and Reno to slink back to the WAC. This is very similar to what happened to the Super WAC.
Also on other thing I don’t understand is how is basically maintaining the exact same conference membership but playing games on ESPN instead of MTN/VS. “shedding deadweight”?
LikeLike
Apparently that would terminate their old tv contract, which BYU has been complaining about for years.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like they would face some sort of legal challenge if all the schools left, then came together with a different name and said the old contracts didn’t apply any more.
LikeLike
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/article_dd73bde0-b0a6-11df-9eaf-001cc4c002e0.html
Alvarez saying the decision is mostly made and Iowa and Wisconsin will be in seperate divisions
LikeLike
I’ve lost a lot of respect for these people. It’s as though they care nothing about anything but money all of a sudden. And in prostituting themselves like that, they’re likely to decrease the amount of money they take in.
LikeLike
I agree. its very frustrating.
LikeLike
Alvarez: Wisconsin and Iowa to be in separate divisions.
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/article_dd73bde0-b0a6-11df-9eaf-001cc4c002e0.html
University of Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez confirmed Wednesday that when a two-division format for football is unveiled by league officials next month, UW and Iowa will be separated.
* * *
Alvarez implied that it shouldn’t be hard to figure out how the 12 schools will be arranged in the two divisions. He said there are four distinct tiers of teams, led by the four that have won national championships in the past 25 years: Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State.
The next level has UW and Iowa “within a hair” of one another, according to Alvarez.
Using comparative data compiled since 1993 when Penn State made its Big Ten football debut, Northwestern and Purdue would likely lead the next grouping, followed by some mixing and matching of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State and Minnesota.
“All you have to do is take a look at our criteria and we haven’t varied from that,” Alvarez said. “We have volumes to look at — records over the last 20 years … bowl records, non-conference records, non-conference opponents’ records, conference records, everything.
“If you go with competitive equality, you divide it up and basically you seed it. Then the next thing is saving rivalries. You can’t get all of them, but you can get close.”
It’s seems certain that UW and Minnesota will be in the same division, meaning they’ll be able to continue playing for Paul Bunyan’s Axe as part of the most-played rivalry among Football Bowl Subdivision schools (119 games dating back to 1890).
Even though the Badgers and Iowa will be in different divisions doesn’t necessarily mean their trophy game — the Heartland Trophy goes annually to the winner of a series currently led by the Hawkeyes, 42-41-2 — will be disrupted.
“We’re all going to protect one rivalry,” Alvarez told the Associated Press on Tuesday. “We’ve decided that and we’re going right back to what we’ve talked about, competitive equality.”
LikeLike
I don’t give a god damned red cent about competitive equality if it means sacrificing rivalries as divisional games and the fact that these people don’t understand that is unbelievably depressing.
LikeLike
My one hope on this rivalry (almost definitely Iowa-Minnesota which is being lost), is that the conference will go to a 5-2-2 when they increase to 9 games. If they do that, it’s only a temporary lose.
LikeLike
Non-divisional “rivalries” and divisional rivalries are enormously different animals. One involves competing against each other in the standings; the other doesn’t.
Important Big Ten rivalries should all be divisional games.
LikeLike
I’ve come over closer to that line of thought, but it’s still better than not playing every year which looks most likely now.
LikeLike
Well I’m wrong again for the 537th time about expansion and expansion related topics. New guess at divisions:
Mich
Neb
Iowa
MSU
Pur
Ind
OSU
PSU
Wisconsin
NU
Minn
Ill
Cross games:
OSU-Michigan, PSU-Neb, Iowa-Wisc, Ill-Pur, NU-Ind, Minn-MSU (only two left over)
-Indiana/Purdue and Illinois/Northwestern probably flippable
FWIW, of the 17 presumed rivalry games, this setup preserves 12, losing Neb-Wisc, Neb-Minn, MSU-PSU, Iowa-Minn, and Mich-Minn.
Balance-wise, its about as perfect as possible. The Otto Graham division has 419 conference wins since 1993 while the Drew Brees division has 422.
Geographically, I’m pretty sure this is just about as bad as it gets.
LikeLike
Dude its the Tom Brady division. Drew Brees? puh-leese.
LikeLike
You could probably flip the IL and IN schools and still match the Alvarez description. OSU/PSU/IU/PU/WI/MN.
ACC model all the way.
LikeLike
Model suggested way up the way might fit description also if MN/WI aren’t together. OSU/PSU/IU/PU/IL/WI
This is not quite so bad geographically and has realtively good balance. Its the Wisconsin peninsula model with the Pont & Warmath divisions (alright I had to look up Warmath-had no idea-still don’t remember hearing the name-but I did remember Pont-bet Duffman does too).
LikeLike
This is absolutely fucking terrible.
I had resigned myself to Iowa/Neb/Minny/Wisky/UM/MSU in a division. It may be the “tougher” division, but at least we’d see Neb/Minny/Wisky/UM come to Kinnick every other season. Now we may not have Minny or Wisky every year. And a 5-2-2 is a poor solution, because then we’ll get to host whoever else is in the Minny/Wisky division (OSU? PSU?) once every 6 years or so.
The only way out of this is more expansion. Even worse.
Fuck Delaney.
LikeLike
What pisses me off is that they act as if all priorities are of equal value and therefore they are facing these extremely difficult challenges involving competing priorities of nearly equal weight.
But actually, that’s bullshit.
LikeLike
For the record, with a 5-2-2, you’d have 2 years on and 2 year off with all non-permanent rivals. You’d host them once every 4 years.
LikeLike
You know I have to admit…the more I think about it the more I wonder if the Big Ten isn’t crazy like a fox on this whole division alignment thing.
The number one problem with expanding conferences, in my opinion anyway, is how to take the regional interests of its fans and project them into non-regional areas.
I mean people complain about “not getting to play everyone” and “what point is there to being in the conference” after a certain number of teams is added, but in reality it is all about that simple statement above.
How do you make sure the conference still feels like a conference after it reaches a certain size?
By purposefully splitting, not just the big names, but all regions, you force each division to actually care what happens 1000 miles away. If Wisconsin and Minnesota are in the same conference with PSU, I’ll tune in to watch those games since they have a direct impact into how my team could do in the division.
“Non-regional” has now become “divisional” and “divisional” has replaced “regional” as the name of the college football game.
What’s more…this might even help facilitate a move to more teams in the conference. If half your division is in one section of the Big Ten and half in another, you are forced to care about the WHOLE of the Big Ten no matter where any additional schools are added.
Admittedly I think this really only works with a maximum of 14 team conference as it allows (in a 9 game schedule) every team in the conference the ability to still maintain an “every team in the division” + “rivalry” + “2 other division” games format and still cycle through the entire conference at least once every 3 years.
I know I’ve been a proponent of a 16 team conference with regional pods, but I really think deliberate “un-organization” of the divisions at 14 teams has a certain elegance to it and is really where the Big Ten seems to be heading.
And all that being said…what better way to propel the Big Ten coverage forward than by being able to say (truthfully) that it won’t just be a “regionally” watched product?
LikeLike
If Michigan and Michigan State get put in separate divisions, then the sports reporters in the state have to report both divisions closely.
However, if you’re a PSU fan, you only have to follow 5 other teams to figure out how you’re going to do in the division. Whether those 5 teams are near or far, you still only really need to track those 5.
Now, if you’re interested in Big 10 football overall, or you want to know who you’re possible Conference Championship opponent might be, then you can track the other 6 teams as well. Splitting the geographically close teams doesn’t change that.
Going un-geographic isn’t going change the number of teams to follow for fans of one team.
LikeLike
While you’re right about not changing the number of teams, I think you need to look at it from a different angle…
Right now Wisconsin and Iowa have a pretty good thing going on, but right now not many people outside that particular area of the mid-west care. The same can be said for just about every rivalry game that ends up not meaning anything (like PSU v MSU).
Now with Wisconsin in a division with PSU that same Wisonsin v Iowa rivalry game suddenly becomes very interesting to the entire state of PA.
By splitting the teams it has taken a good regional rivalry and created, or rather increased, non-regional interest.
I guess I’ve stumbled onto the idea (to me anyway) that most rivalry games don’t really mean anything anyway (since only one set of rivals were ever really playing for the Big Ten championship anyway). Its always really been about pride…and you only need to look at the Trophy Games to realize that (why else even have Jugs, Axes, and the like if not to hoist it above your defeated foe, regardless of whether you’re going to the Rose Bowl or not).
If the Big Ten can split the teams, maintain the rivalries, but incease the non-regional interest this set-up makes a ton of sense.
If not, well then they’ve screwed the pooch.
LikeLike
The problem is that Iow-Wis is probably not going to be a protected game. And if it is, then Min-Iow won’t. In a 9-game schedule, maybe all teh rivalries can be protected, but they can’t in an 8-gamer unless you have 2 protected games (unlikely) or keep Min-Wis-Iow in the same division.
LikeLike
If that’s their mentality, then I’m done with college football. That’s a pro mentality. If I’m going to get a pro mentality in college, I’ll take back my Saturdays (I could use the time) and just watch the pros on Sunday. College football is fun because the teams do ridiculous things like play for a bronze pig, or get fired up about playing for a ceramic jug that hasn’t been an actually competitive rivalry for years.
LikeLike
Interesting thought. But the opposite could also be true. You could not care about the rest of the conference at all. Wisconsin could quit caring about Iowa.
LikeLike
It really should not be that unexpected that they would do something strange and irrational. Top executives (and that’s what college presidents are) tend to destroy, not build on what was already there. They want their own legacy and think they are smarter than everyone else. Most companies succeed in spite of top management, not because of it.
LikeLike
Thus far, it’s been the ADs that have done this, and I think that’s even truer of them. There’s still a slice of university presidents who are just academics who have an affinity for the bureaucratic politics of administration life. The ADs, by contrast, are increasingly business “executive” types; the ex-coaches and other sports people (like Alvarez) are a dying breed as AD, and Alvarez apparently has decided he wants the approval of his younger business-oriented counterparts because he’s playing their game.
LikeLike
The 14-team scenario also makes sense for the Big Ten, as I don’t see any other top-tier candidates beyond Rutgers and Maryland unless Notre Dame changes its mind. That’s when you ponder candidates to partner with ND as #15-16.
LikeLike
This article pretty much settles how the divisions are going to be set up. With Wisconsin and Iowa officially split up, Minnesota going with Wisconsin and Purdue and Northwestern also being split up, the divisions I get are as follows:
West – Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Northwestern
East – Indiana, Minnesota, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin
If the cross-division games are set up like the groupings in the article, then they’ll be as follows:
Michigan – Ohio State
Nebraska – Penn State
Iowa – Wisconsin
Northwestern – Purdue
Illinois/Michigan State – Indiana/Minnesota
If/when they go to nine games, and there’s been no conference expansion, then the 5-2-2 model would make good sense.
For example, Michigan could have protected games with Ohio State and Purdue. That would mean UM would rotate every two years between a combination of Wisconsin or Penn State coupled with Indiana or Minnesota. Perhaps the pairings would be like this:
Indiana: Illiniois, Iowa
Illinois: Indiana, Nebraska
Iowa: Wisconsin, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Purdue
Michigan State: Minnesota, Penn State
Minnesota: Michigan State, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Penn State, Illinois
Northwestern: Purdue, Ohio State
Ohio State: Michigan, Northwestern
Penn State: Nebraska, Michigan State
Purdue: Northwestern, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
LikeLike
Whoops! I have Wiconsin and Minnesota playing as protected rivals, but they’re in the same division.
Let’s make the following changes:
Indiana: Illinois, Nebraska
Illinois: Indiana, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Penn State, Indiana
Wisconsin: Iowa, Illinois
Keep everything else the same and I think that works.
LikeLike
I think this may actually be format that they are using (which I think is a big mistake).
By this plan you would have Minn & Wisc together along with Michigan (to keep the little brown jug trophy) & MSU along with PSU (since they seem dead set to split up OSU & UM and the UM people have been talking about being paired with PSU, plus you keep the land grant trophy). In the other division you would have Iowa, Neb, OSU, along with Indiana & Illinios (since they are in the tier MSU & Minn). Then you would have to put NW in on of the divisions and Pur in the other (not sure how to divide those two up since I don’t know their rivalries outside of NW/Ill & Pur/IN which one would be preserved by the cross divisional rivalry game if they are in seperate conferences).
Then the cross divisional rivalries would be UM/OSU, Iowa/Wisc, PSU/Neb, and either NW/Ill or IN/Pur (depending on which one the split up). I’m not sure who Minn or MSU would be paired up with for cross divisional rivalries.
This is a very confusing split and will be very hard to follow. Plus, it appears that PSU will be isolated unless they decide to expand east.
LikeLike
I am assuming the east will consist of OSU, MSU, UW, PSU, Purdue and Indiana? Would appear the Iowa-Wisconsin rivalry game will be lost at least temporarily.
The nine game schedule can’t get here fast enough. If the conference stays with 12 schools the eventual increased freequency of play will take the sting of the division allignment away somewhat.
LikeLike
Definitely not Michigan State. Michigan will have to be in a division with Ohio State or Michigan State to keep both as protected games.
With the Indiana and Illiniois schools able to flip, I’d guess:
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Iowa
Nebraska
Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
or
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Iowa
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
The Illinois/Indiana schools can switch, but if Ohio State/Michigan is divided, I think they keep them together, because it’s really hard to tell OSU/Michigan to move up their game and do the same to Purdue/Indiana.
LikeLike
THE NEW BIG TEN DIVISIONS ARE BEGINNING TO MAKE SENSE
It looks like from Barry Alvarez’s statements, the information that we know to date and a bit of a hunch, it looks to me like the Powers that Be are matching up pairs of teams. Probable Pairs are:
Wisconsin – Minnesota
Michigan – MSU
Indiana – Purdue
Illinois – Northwestern
Ohio St. – Penn St (by default)
Nebraska – Iowa (new guy with closest team and what seems like a natural rival)
WE ALSO KNOW (OR THINK):
A) The four national brands will be divided (also confirmed by B. Alvarez statements)
B) They want to separate MU from Ohio St (to have possibility of “The Game” in the CCG)
C) Now we know from Mr. Alvarez’s statements that Iowa and Wisconsin will be separated. I wrote about this above when I said that the Powers that Be are wondering if Wisconsin should go east or west.
Given these “educated assumptions” and trying to make sense out of the tea leaves as we know them, the probable divisions look like this:
DIVISION A (with the following pairs):
Ohio St. – Penn St.
Wisconsin – Minnesota
Indiana – Purdue
DIVISION B (With the following pairs):
Michigan – MSU
Nebraska – Iowa
Illinois – Northwestern
This is just my educated guess from what we already knew and Mr. Alvarez’s statements. Even the guys who have spent hundreds of hours going over past data and TV ratings, must look at this and fear how the average fan will react. I can understand the Big Ten’s logic, I may not agree with it, but I can understand their thinking. But, how does the Big Ten explain this to the average fan?
LikeLike
I am a proponent of the geographic model, albeit for non-geographic reasons. But one thing that I think nobody has mentioned (and only just occurred to me) that’s an advantage of the geographic model is that it obviates favoritism in the alignment. The schools are where they are, and if aligned geographically, there is no possibility of an allegation that the league was trying to stack the deck for one school or rivalry, or was otherwise treating any of the members differently or specially.
I say all that because of your comment about the Big Ten explaining it to the average fan. One fan they won’t be able to explain it to is me.
LikeLike
Adam,
I do think that Delany and the AD’s realize that they have a “tough sell” to alumni and Big Ten fans. The reason we haven’t heard much more from them is that they’re figuring out how to sell this package to us common folk. Putting lipstick on the pig, as we like to say down here in the south.
LikeLike
Which makes me wonder why the hell they are so dead-set to swim upstream like this.
LikeLike
Adam,
In corporate terminology, they feel that they are “creating value” with these convoluted divisions. Believe me, their goal here is to increase revenue, not destroy value. They understand the value of rivalries, but they feel that there is some TV value above and beyond Axes, Pigs, and Oak Buckets.
Just a hunch, but I think that they are looking at these divisions and double checking their calculations. They understand that a lot of BT fans are going to be pissed off.
LikeLike
Yes, I am 80% certain that will be the outcome. I am very disappointed that Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota are not in the same division. Hopefully that will be resolved with a nine game schedule and a 5-2-2 split.
On the plus side, the divisional rivalries are the natural geographic pairings so there are certain to be great new rivalries (e.g. IA-NE) and a greater intensity to current rivalries (e.g. OSU-PSU and MI-MSU).
LikeLike
Argh, I don’t even want to hear what the silver linings are in this alignment. There are none.
LikeLike
Madison Hawk,
Iowa’s new BBF, Nebraska, is great, it will definitely help propel the Hawkeye brand to a higher level. This could be the key match-up in our division for years to come. Having Northwestern in the same division is also a key accomplishment. Iowa recruits Chicago as well as any school in the BT.
But, pushing Minnesota and Wisconsin out of conference, to the east is, ugh, very unappealing. Also, pairing up with Two Michigan schools would be a negative. The KISS setup would have been much better for the University of Iowa.
LikeLike
I actually think the divisions will line up like this:
Division A:
Michigan
MSU
Wisc
Minn
PSU
and one of either Pur or NW
Division B:
Neb
Iowa
Ill
IN
OSU
and one of either Pur or NW
The will keep Michigan & Minn together to keep the little brown jug trophy. They will also keep MSU & PSU together to keep the land grant trophy (plus the Michigan folks have already started saying that they might be slotted with PSU).
LikeLike
Why would you create crazy gerrymandered divisions to keep Michigan and Minnesota together? I have nothing against that game, but if there were a game that’s appropriate for the “1” in a 5-1-2, it’d be that one (other examples would be MSU-Northwestern (which apparently MSU cares about) and OSU-Illinois).
LikeLike
I don’t mean you, bamatab, I mean the league.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Adam. It seems like a mix and match setup. I prefer a more regional setup (being a SEC guy, I believe that traveling fanbases help fuel rivalries and gameday atmospheres). But from everything that is coming out of the Big Ten’s and the schools’ mouths seems to point in this direction. Keep in mind they already have the split somewhere near 80% complete. So they basically know how it will shake out.
LikeLike
With everything that has been said thus far regarding divisions. It looks to me like Michigan and Penn State want all the recurring territory for themselves and are trying to lock Ohio State and Nebraska out as much as they can? I am almost certain the divisions will look like this:
The Urban League:
Michigan
Penn State
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
The Corn Field League
Nebraska
Iowa
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
So we will be breaking up the tOSU/UM game, the iron triangle, the closet thing Penn State Had to a regional rivalry in conference, and Nebraska will NOT be playing Wisconsin annually.
But hay at least the little brown jug, land grant trophy, and a wooden turtle are safe!
That’s it’s! been a fun ride Frank, but I’m out! Delaney and the rest of his mental defectives can finish turning the Big Ten into “ACC 2.0: now with crappy basketball” without me.
I wonder what NASCAR’s doing? 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5494796
Could this maybe, possibly, be a fraction, slice, iota, smidgeon, shred, or other infinitesimal particle of hope that our league presidents might exert some control over the runaway train that the ADs have apparently become when it comes to a vote before the COP/C?
Probably not.
LikeLike
IMO, they’d be further ahead inviting 12 teams and giving the top 4 a single bye, instead of this zany double-bye system.
LikeLike
It looks like the power that be want to make the championship game the driving force of the Big Ten. I’m sure they’re expecting the large majority of championship games to involve some combination of Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, which would probably generate a lot of national interest.
I, however, don’t want the Big Ten season being driven by possible national interest in our championship game. Our traditions and regional rivalries are the heart of the Big Ten, not some artificially arranged championship game set up to garner national attention. A straight east-west split would cause the least disruption. Delaney and those in charge should have more faith in all the Big Ten, and stop trying to manipulate the entire league for the sake of one game.
LikeLike
Amen! I have nothing against a championship game, but it should not be driving the bus.
LikeLike
I still believe these divisions are transitional. If Rutgers and Maryland join the Big Ten in 2013, Minnesota will go west (making 7 teams in each division). If Notre Dame and companion join in 2015, Wisconsin will go west. Thus, Minn/Wisc will be reunited with Iowa/Neb and the division will be exactly the same as the KISS west division plus Mich/MSU.
It is amazing how well this works. Minnesota is a fair match for Maryland/Rutgers and keeps the divisions balanced. Then, when Delany goes to 16 by adding Notre Dame (or other football power), Wisconsin goes west to maintain balance.
I reckon Delany is actually thinking this way.
LikeLike
That doesn’t work well at all. Transitional divisions are just as much a betrayal of the Big Ten’s traditions as permanently bad divisions.
LikeLike
By which I mean, the only acceptable thing to do is the right alignment for the teams that are actually in the Big Ten, not a misshapen alignment based on an anticipation of teams which may-or-may-not join in the future.
LikeLike
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5498692
Delaney: “We’ve got the divisions, but we really don’t have the schedules,” Delany said. “The key critical area is we already had schedules [set] for ’11.”
Then announce already and don’t leave us all here hanging.
LikeLike
I’m left wondering this: doesn’t the COP/C need to vote on this? Why do the ADs get to treat the COP/C vote as a foregone conclusion? Aren’t the presidents going to exercise any oversight of this process?
LikeLike
They’re probably waiting until they can do it during a game on TV.
His last sentence would imply a full zipper, which even the ACC didn’t do. But what Delaney says and what he does are often 2 different things. Still there has been enough said by Alvarez and others it looks pretty certain you get:
OSU/PSU/WI in one
UM/UNL/IA in the other.
If you took Delaney’s last sentence as definitive, it would probably be:
IU/NW/MN with OSU/PSU/WI
PU/IL/MSU with UM/UNL/IA
LikeLike
I think it will end up something like this. With Alvarez confirming the Iowa, Wisconsin split, I guess they could be interchanged. but I like the natural Iowa-Neb rival.
—
Division 1
UofM-NEB-Iowa-MSU- NW-ILL
–
Division B
OSU-PSU-WIS-Purdue -Indy-MN
—
section games around Halloween.
UofM-OSU/NEB-PSU/Iowa-MN/MSU-Purdue/NW -Wis/Ill-Indy.
—
Last week of the year
UofM-MSU/Iowa-NEB/ ILL-NW and OSU-PSU/Wis-MN/Indy- Purdue
—
The question is, will Delany let Iowa-Neb be the last weeks matchup or will he insist on UofM-Neb? if that happens Iowa-MSU would be the last week of the year instead?—I’m good either way as a UofM fan.
LikeLike
Alvarez says “We’re all going to protect one rivalry,” and the article makes it sound like the Iowa rivalry would be protected, but it’s hard to imagine a divisional setup where Wis-Iow is protected but yet every other school also protects a rivalry worth keeping. Who would Minnesota protect in that scenario? Nebraska? If anything, Iow-Min and Wis-Neb would seem to make more sense. But then PSU-Neb isn’t happening, unless you put them in the same division, which doesn’t seem likely.
LikeLike
NU fans definitely want to play Iowa every year. Most of Nebraska’s population is on the eastern border, so people are looking forward to this matchup.
NU fans would also love to play Wisconsin every year, but if they had to choose between the two I think Iowa would be the first choice.
LikeLike
@ Husker Al – it makes sense that Neb is looking forward to Iow, but I think they’ll be in the same division, so that game won’t need to be protected. Also, I think this means Min and Wis will probably be in the other division. At least that’s what I gather from Alvarez’s comments.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
Last night I posted a mini rant about the divisions being split up with the schools located in urban centers in one divisions and the semi rural schools plus Columbus being in another, but after having thought about for a night I came to the same conclusion you have, except I have the Indiana & Illinois Twins flip flopped [to persevere the all important turtle bowl and Indiana Michigan State Games].
These lineup still make me throw-up a little, But…
If the powers that be:
1) are going to split tOSU and Michigan
2) are going to split Iowa and Wisconsin
3) are going to split the 4 tops Noah’s Ark Style 2×2
4) are going to a 5x2x2 schedule by 2015
5) want to preserve as many trophy/protected rivalries as possible
6) want to keep from creating a us vs them divisional mentality
7) Don’t want to screw up rivalry week, and still want to create some juice going into the CCG.
8) want to keep it like it is now and have no school go more than 2 years without playing in another schools stadium
Then the divisions need to look like this:
Coastal Division
Penn State
Ohio State
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Atlantic Division
Michigan
Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Indiana
Purdue
Then if they set up the follow cross divisional rivals like so:
Ohio State: Michigan, Indiana
Penn State: Michigan State, Nebraska
Illinois: Indiana, Purdue
Northwestern: Purdue, Michigan State
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Nebraska
Michigan: Ohio State, Minnesota
Nebraska: Penn State, Wisconsin
Indiana: Illinois, Ohio State
Purdue: Illinois, Northwestern
Michigan State: Penn State, Northwestern
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota
Under that setup every current protected rivalry survives, and every trophy game listed on Wikipedia becomes a annual contest. Also rivial week will look like this:
Michigan:Michigan State
Iowa:Nebraska
Minnesota:Wisconsin
Ohio State:Penn State
Northwestern:Illinois
Indiana:Purdue
No school goes more than two years without playing any other school. And finally the divisions and cross protected rivals are so convoluted and contrived that it barely feels like we have divisions at all and are still playing with eleven teams and just rotating two teams off each others schedule at a time.
So for the 3rd time in a week I have tried to rationalize a crappy divisional setup, I am halfway at peace with this round of gerrymandering. If I see some AD tweet about the importance of maintaining an Ohio State/Purdue yearly rivalry I am throwing my computer down the stairs! 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
I came to this same basic conclusion on my own. This is not that bad really. Also, ND can slide right into your “atlantic” division. It really makes sense actually. I just had one crossover, but either way works. I think this is easily the optimum break up UM/OSU model.
LikeLike
this out of denver
http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15895783
BYU stays put
LikeLike
With Brigham Young staying, who does the Mountain West invite for member #12 (assuming it wants to go that route)? Houston? Utah State? (BYU may have made USU’s membership a prerequisite for it staying in the MWC.) Southern Methodist (thus giving the MWC both sides of the Metroplex)?
LikeLike
UTEP makes the most sense geographically.
LikeLike
I don’t think they go after C-USA. Seems as if they’re actually working together somewhat unlike the Pac-10/Big 12 “negotiations” that were exposed as a farce as the schools were negotiating under the table with the Pac-10 for months prior to that.
In any case Utah State makes sense for 2 reasons. 1) Natural way to replace Utah and somewhat keep interest in Utah high. (Yes, this is weak, but still…). 2) Easy way to keep BYU tied tighter to the MWC because BYU-Utah is dead for the foreseeable future (imo), so Utah State-BYU is probably going to be a more important relationship going forward.
I don’t really see Houston bringing net benefit to the MWC if it ruins the potential MWCUSA combo play in the next round of BCS and ends up becoming costly due to being on the fringe of the conference, whereas Utah State is a natural geographic replacement for Utah.
LikeLike
@zeek – That might be the case, although if I were running the MWC, I’d still take a run at Houston. At least UH aids the BCS AQ cause in a “Comcast market” (important for the mtn), while Utah State doesn’t bring a new market and probably hurts the MWC in the BCS criteria.
LikeLike
I don’t think UTEP or UH are likely to join MWC. UTEP has been helped by being with all the DFW and Houston schools. UH just doesn’t seem interested in adding the travel. MWC is not that big a step up.
Interesting that Hawaii has never been mentioned. They’re the only solid program left in the WAC and were with the MWC schools for a long time. If USU gets in, they probably do it in 2012 so they don’t hurt MWC in computer rankings for next BCS.
LikeLike
@bullet
The only Hawaii rumors I’ve seen have them studying independence. Nothing linking them to the MWC.
LikeLike
I imagine people are getting tired of me bitching about this, but this is not only making me angrier, it’s also just plain ol’ not making sense to me.
Rittenberg’s latest is here: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/14936/division-dominoes-wisconsin-iowa-to-split
He makes this comment: “You can make a strong case that the Big Ten is prioritizing the championship game, a likely cash cow, ahead of tradition.”
How is it possibly true that the CCG is “likely a cash cow”? Hasn’t all of the analysis we’ve done here indicated that it’s at best an incremental gain? I read in Sports Business Journal that the Big Ten’s deal with ESPN for football is $1 billion over 10 years, and the News Corp. deal for BTN is $2.8 billion over 25 years. That’s about $212 million/year for regular season football. Sports Business Journal also says that the Big Ten CCG is expected to fetch in the $15-$20 million range. Assuming the high end of that, you’re talking less than a 10% increase in revenue (9.4%).
How is it even rational (let alone doing right by tradition etc.) to do something that threatens your $212 million regular season to try and squeeze as much money out of your $20 million (ballpark) title game? I mean, honestly, which one of these is the real cash cow?
LikeLike
Source on my numbers: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58254
LikeLike
That’s not to say that I don’t want a CCG. It’s just that I think your divisional model should do as much to emulate the way the current regular season works as possible, because it’s the regular season that’s the cash cow. If by fiddling with the division alignment, you increase the CCG’s value by 20%, you’ve added $4 million. By contrast, it only takes a loss in value to the regular season deal of 2 percent to lose more than $4 million.
LikeLike
I know you’ve responded to my post above about the newest apparant split, but I added another piece.
To sumarize my thoughts and address yours, I think we are seeing a clear attempt by the Big Ten to increase non-regional interest in regional rivalry games by splitting the conference into regionally diverse divisions.
If pulled off, it not only maintains, but actually increases that $200+ million regular season value while also adding a potentially very lucrative CCG.
In effect its another “BTN”…has quite some risk associated with it right now, but if it pans out could be huge.
LikeLike
What I resent is the Big Ten trying to “manage” interest in all of this. That’s bullshit. People are interested in it or they aren’t. Stop trying to manipulate the market. Present the best sports product and get out of the way.
LikeLike
this may fire you up more
http://mgoblog.com/content/every-year-same-time-once-last-time
LikeLike
I only wish he’d post the contact information for The Powers That Be and urge people to say something.
The problem with internet bloggers who rant is that real people with real responsibilities to real stakeholders can very plausibly say “If their opinion isn’t important enough to them to do something about it, it isn’t very important.” Anybody can sit at their desk at home and type some angry rant. Most people can even dash of an angry e-mail. It takes some effort to look up a mailing address and put an actual paper letter together. It takes some sacrifice not to renew your season tickets. But those are the gestures that actually make a difference.
LikeLike
@Adam
fwiw I think the base assumption is the contact information is pretty well known. I’m not sure of the Ohio State guys but I know Michigan.
LikeLike
You might be right, but I get so frustrated with people who seem to feel like writing a real letter and putting a stamp on it is a level of effort equivalent to crossing some enormous chasm. If the mailing address contact information were routinely provided, it’d do a world of good to nudge that mentality in a different direction.
LikeLike
@Adam
e-mail works pretty well. early on the process, pre weekend, there were a couple of people on the board I usually post that sent Brandon e-mail and got multiple responses. even relativvely late at night. I think he may have now had the address responded by his pr people but he was answering directly at first.
LikeLike
Maybe we’re giving too much credit to the Big Ten bosses for all these different alignment machinations. It could just be they are convinced that the EAST division in the proposed KISS format would be too top heavy, and they need to be split. PSU does not deserve to be shipped WEST, so the most reasonable split is OSU/PSU – UM/NEB.
LikeLike
Even at that, though, they have to have decided that splitting up UM/PSU/OSU is worth jeopardizing an enormous mountain of traditions. Wrong decision.
LikeLike
Adam. I think its even more mind boggling than that. yes they to be gerrymandering the divisions with the explicit purpose of optimizing the tv contract for the championship game. but its not that they are doing this all for the relatively minor $20 million they are trying to generate from the CCG. The CCG would generate significant revenue in any event. They are doing it for the marginal increase. Dan Wetzel of Yahoo argues http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-umosu082310
that splitting Michigan and Ohio State will increase the value of the CCG by @$2 million. Thats $150,000 per team and about one half a per cent of anticipated revenues.
For half of one percent.
Shameful.
LikeLike
It might be worse than shameful: it might be just plain ol’ pointless and/or stupid. Shameful assumes that this is a successful bid for a mere mercenary increase in rights fees, and we object to the mercenary mentality. What happens when you’re an incompetent mercenary?
LikeLike
OU/UNL has happened once in 14 years and it took 11 years.
Alabama has been to the SEC championship game 7 times and has never played Tennessee again (or Georgia or anyone else but Florida for that matter).
LSU has played 4 times and never met Florida.
Auburn has played 3 times and never met Georgia.
Its hard to predict who will match up. And fact is, when there is an every year rival (AL/TN, GA/AU, LSU/UF), it reduces the chance that both will be in the championship game. UM/OSU in separate divisions will probably not meet in the championship game very often. If you look at all the championship games in all the conferences you will see rematches are pretty rare. And in most cases, the rematch had one division which was relatively weaker that year, so a team could finish 5-3 or 6-2 and win the division.
LikeLike
It seems like UT and CU had a rematch in the Big 12 title game one year. UT won the regular season game, I think, and the Buffs won the CCG. Was it ’01, maybe?
LikeLike
it keeps getting better
a friend on another board attended a luncheon, I believe, at the Ann Arbor Club where Brandon made a few comments:
The Big Ten does not want the top 2 brands in the same division.
We can not have everything we want as we only have 1/12 vote.
It appears that only your games against your Division will determine who goes to the Championship game. The games against the other Division will be used as tie-breakers. Is the SEC like this? I have never paid that close of attention.
Brandon is a guy that is firery and he did not come across as arrogant at all. I can understand people being upset with him, but I think from his tone today he does not hold the cards here as OSU and U of M are outvoted.
Did say he wants the Championship game played at one of the Big Ten Stadiums but he is losing that battle as they want it indoors.
so the Michigan Ohio State game won’t even count towards either winning their division. games with teams in the other division will only count if needed as tiebreakers.
LikeLike
Everyone else counts all the games with the possible exception of the MAC who has issues with their 13 teams and having everyone play the same #.
5 games isn’t a very big sample. Its “fairer” than counting all 8, but makes it easier for a weaker team, especially if they get their competitor(s) at home.
LikeLike
Last year the MAC got some kind of odd exception from the NCAA that allowed them to avoid playing a true round robin in their oversized division; a 7-team group requires 21 games to play a complete round robin, but they only played 19. As a result of that complicated math, they used the full 8-game league schedule as your standing.
Before last season when the league had an uneven number of teams, though, it was a division-only thing.
LikeLike
So, it won’t be played in Chicago, either. Indoors limits it to Indy, Detroit and … Minneapolis, but that seems unlikely. Would they play it in St. Louis?
LikeLike
As I pointed out above, teams playing each other rarely both make it into the championship game. This 5 game schedule is probably to increase the possibility of a rematch. It would really be amusing to see it result in Minnesota 4-4 vs. Indiana 4-4 because other division games didn’t count.
LikeLike
At this point I am cheering for that kind of outcome. Hopefully it will get everybody associated with this disaster fired.
LikeLike
The whole Michigan-OSU split is not the end of the world for me, but if their game doesn’t even count in the league standings, that will be totally insane. It’s an exhibition by that point.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Furthermore, it effectively weakens the chances of one of our brand teams getting a BCS bowl by assuring one of them a loss, which might be justified if it was for a Big Ten title.
LikeLike
@bullet
It’s not *that* uncommon. The Big XII has had six CCG rematches in 14 years:
1999 TX v. Nebraska
2000 OU v. Kansas St.
2001 TX v. Colorado
2002 OU v. Colorado
2005 TX v. Colorado
2007 OU v. Missouri
LikeLike
If memory serves correctly, that 99 game was the 1st rematch ever despite 6 years of SEC, 3 years of B12, 3 years of MAC and 3 years of WAC championship games.
SEC has continued to be unusual. And in the B12 cases, after 99, it was often a 5-3 north squad. CU in 2001 was top 10, but the others were much lower ranked.
LikeLike
Uh oh, the unicorn is dead and the double rainbows gone from the mighty Big Ten (sic.) The conference supposedly so much smarter than the Big Twelve (now sic) appears poised to split into 2 divisions: Dumb and Dumber.
LikeLike
Iowa AD says Big Ten down to final number of divisional scenarios
http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/docs-office/2010/08/26/iowa-ad-says-big-ten-down-to-final-number-of-divisional-scenarios
LikeLike
Pingback: Message to the Big Ten: Don’t Create the New Coke Conference « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
New blog post/rant is up:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/message-to-the-big-ten-dont-create-the-new-coke-conference/
LikeLike
Apparently, BYU is still going indy by Wednesday:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/50185374-77/byu-wac-mwc-football.html.csp?page=1
LikeLike
@M – Interesting stuff. I really think the WCC is the better fit here even if the WAC can add some schools. The main benefit of the WAC relationship seems to be a football scheduling arrangement, but those WAC schools would likely want to schedule BYU as an independent no matter where the Cougars take their non-football sports. From an outside perspective, I’m much more intrigued by a WCC basketball conference that includes BYU over anything that the WAC could offer.
LikeLike
One matter that hasn’t been much commented on is the meaning of going to a 9 game BT con. schedule IN 2015……I’ve assumed that expansion for 2013 was probable, but if so I would have thought the 9 game schedule would kick in that year……this seems to indicate that 2013 expansion is not likely……….
LikeLike
I believe the ABC/ESPN contracts come up in 2015. That was my assumption as to the primary reason for 2015. Increase the games, increase the value of the contract. Secondary is that most schools are scheduled for 3 or 4 years. Not that they couldn’t get out of one game relatively easily, but it might not leave them with an ideal mix of ooc games (strength of opponents, home vs. away, etc.).
LikeLike
‘shroom – I’ve mentioned it in a few other posts, but I think a 9 game schedule will make it next to impossible for a Big Ten team to get a spot in a BCS NCG.
Since going to a 9 game schedule in 2006, no Pac-10 team has made it to the BCS NCG. With 9 conference games and a Big Ten CG, do the math. That’s 10 conference games for the champ – more than any other conference.
Since the BCS began, the only Big Ten team to make it to the BCS NCG is Ohio State, and they did so with an 8 game schedule. I seriously doubt any team is going to go 10-0 in conference play, unless that team is truly exceptional.
So the question for the Big Ten is do you want to compete for national championships or do you want to preserve every little “rivalry” game?
LikeLike
Well we can all breath a little easier today. Our long national nightmare about divisions destroying rivalries is over. We have confirmation that the battle for the LoL trophy will continue:
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/08/northwestern-illinois-rivalry-appears-safe.html
Also, that live event on BTN tomorrow at 6pm cst is labelled “Big Ten Network Football Special” on the DVR.
LikeLike
BYU to WCC in basketball (and indy in football) is now a DONE DEAL:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5517305
==
Folks, we are NOT done yet with conference realignment, not even for the day.
ESPN VP of College Sports Programming Burke Magnus now has until 11:59:59pm Hawaii Standard Time on August 31 (5:59:59am Eastern Daylight Time on September 1) to finish doing a deal with the University of Hawaii at Manoa so that the Rainbow Warriors can leave the WAC and become an independent in football.
(Hawaii will likely land in the Big West for basketball, with travel subsidies provided by the Hawaii tourism authority and ESPN Inc.)
ESPN Inc. basically concluded that the WAC is finished and is beyond help.
Comcast, as expected, didn’t give an inch and basically chased BYU out of the MWC.
The MWC now has a major problem. Without Utah or BYU in the MWC, Comcast can cut its losses and walk away from the mtn. if it wants to.
LikeLike
The next dominoes to fall after BYU’s blockbuster move to the WCC in basketball and independent in football:
1. Hawaii – Big West in basketball and most other sports, independent in football.
2. Louisiana Tech – likely headed for the Sun Belt
3. Utah State – likely headed for the Sun Belt
4. Idaho – likely headed for the Sun Belt
5. New Mexico State – likely headed for the Sun Belt, with the possibility of dropping football
6. San Jose State – likely headed for the Big West in most sports after it decides to drop football
Mountain West Conference – will need a new TV deal if Comcast were to cut its losses and pulls the plug on the mtn.
Western Athletic Conference – will likely be dissolved after the 2010-2011 school year.
LikeLike
OT, bring this to the other thread where there is at least some discussion going on.
LikeLike