Well, I strive on this blog to be 100% right approximately 1% of the time. I’ll have to co-sign this column by Stewart Mandel: it’s looking more and more like I was wrong about the Texas A&M to the SEC rumors (as he also admitted), but it still doesn’t quite make sense to either of us from a rational perspective. Up until literally a few hours ago, it has all looked like completely fan-based chatter. I’m honestly taken aback that it now appears that the SEC university presidents are going to meet on Sunday to discuss an A&M invite and the school’s Board of Regents will follow up with a meeting on Monday. (We’ll address various rumors regarding schools like Florida State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma and Missouri if necessary if something actually happens next week.) I’ve always understood why Texas A&M fans wanted to go to the SEC and frankly, never disputed that it would be a good move for them. The SEC is absolutely a superior conference to the Big 12 (both competitively and financially) and any Longhorns that think A&M wouldn’t benefit from moving are being disingenuous. That’s the whole reason why that I argued in my last post that it would be UT people more than those from Baylor or Texas Tech that would work to block such a move. I certainly understand the resentment/anger factor, as well. As an Illinois alum, I’m still envious of Michigan’s central connection to the The Big Chill, which is a landmark achievement in the history of white people dancing. Despite some interesting comments from various A&M factions about my loyalties or biases, I personally have nothing against the Aggies at all.
That being said, I share Mandel’s befuddlement about what’s in it for the SEC (although for slightly different reasons). Let me be clear: my opinion has nothing to do about the value of Texas A&M itself. As I’ve stated many times before, Texas A&M is extremely valuable and I could see why the SEC would want them in a vacuum where there is no domino effect on the rest of the college football landscape or there’s a clean slate in terms of TV contracts. However, there’s a fairly good chance that we’ll see significant domino effects if this move occurs and, more importantly, it continues to be unclear to me how the SEC can monetize expansion with the length of its current TV contracts with ESPN and CBS. Dennis Dodd yesterday stated that all conferences have a “look-in” provision that Mike Slive had described, so it’s not as if though that the SEC has some unique terms here where they get to expand at will in a manner that other conferences aren’t able to do. At the very least, it’s not as easy as “expansion = look-in trigger = more $$$”, or else we’d see conferences expand every single time that their own TV contracts fell behind by a little bit. To paraphrase a wise little green dude, that leads to fear, and fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. To the extent that the SEC can open up its current TV contracts by expanding, every other conference can do it, too. If it’s that “easy”, then the conference with the most incentive to expand is the ACC considering that the deal that they signed last year is looking quite outdated and could get outpaced by the Big East next year if the status quo holds. It’s for those reasons why conferences only have a “look-in” when they expand, but networks have an explicit termination right in the event of conference contraction.
From a long-term perspective, Texas A&M certainly adds a ton of value to the SEC. The Aggies have a rabid fan base and truly bring in the entire state of Texas as a market. The recruiting benefits are also unquestioned. Still, I still haven’t hard anyone explain how the SEC is going to cajole ESPN and CBS to throw more money around when their TV contracts last until the mid-2020s. It’s one thing for those networks to maintain a good working relationship with the SEC, but entirely another to have to throw hundreds of millions of more at contracts that are locked-in for over a decade. Maybe ESPN and CBS could ensure that the SEC schools still get the same per-school share (so the current SEC members end up being revenue neutral), but those two networks, who have dealt with much larger entities like the NFL, aren’t simply going to be pushovers and provide some type of massive financial incentive that would encourage expansion.
I also know that a lot of readers believe that I overemphasize state politics, but I’ll continue to disagree on front. Texas A&M might procedurally be able to get around Texas politicians by approving the move to the SEC on Monday in a year when the legislature is not in session. (And I thought Illinois legislators were lazy! We’ll still take down anyone in blatant corruption, though.) However, as a practical matter, the A&M Board of Regents are going to have to work with these legislators in the long-term, so it’s not as if though they can just ignore them. Besides, if I’m a state legislator, do you think I want to put out more sound bites about crushing budget deficits, ignoring entitlement/pension reform and and failing to cure stagnant job growth? Fuck that shit. I’d be all over talking about college football like white on rice under any possible tangential hook. (The federal guys in Washington certainly do it regularly when they complain about the BCS.) Maybe it’s a moot point and the Aggies know that they have the requisite political support, but that’s to be determined in the maybe-too-late Texas House Higher Education Committee meeting that’s supposed to take place on Tuesday.
Last year, the entire world was convinced that the Pac-16 was a “done deal” on a Friday without any doubt in anyone’s mind, but after a weekend of rampant discussions, it ended up collapsing within a few days. In conference realignment discussions, absolutely nothing is a done deal until you see an announcement with both the inviter and the invitee at a press conference with signed paperwork. This goes double in the case of public universities located in the state of Texas. Also note that Tony Barnhart (about as plugged-in with Mike Slive as anyone) and Mr. SEC seem to intimate that it’s not necessarily full speed ahead from the SEC side with a lot more smoke coming from College Station as opposed to Birmingham.
So, while it looks there’s a good chance that I’m going to be eating some crow with a Texas A&M move to the SEC, let’s just wait to see if we get some Stevie Wonder signed/sealed/delivered action on Monday. After that, we can get back to doing what we do best here: engaging in rampant completely unsubstantiated speculation!
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Mr SEC)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Buckeyes #1
LikeLike
Hawks #1 in the Legends.
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
Try again.
LikeLike
One more time.
LikeLike
Add. GBR
LikeLike
bacon
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Re-add.
LikeLike
After all of these years the dam might break. Game on!
First?
LikeLike
A lot can still go wrong here, true. Nevertheless, I think there is a lot more traction this time around rather than last year’s shocker offer from the Pac. I think having the Gov as an alum does/did or will help this happen
LikeLike
New post, so I’ll repost this here:
OK, the wheels in my head started spinning when I read in one of the articles above the following quote:
“The possibility of being left out if FSU bolts the ACC has the Hurricanes, “scared to death,” said a source.”
So if FSU is taken to complement TAMU in the 14-team SEC, you can be sure that Shalala (who was chancellor at Wisconsin before) would start working the phones in B10 country (if she hasn’t already). I don’t think the B10 would take Miami by itself, but could it be a way to reel in ND and Texas?
Say they do (and Texas gets to bring along Baylor/Rice). You could see pods like this:
NW
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minny
SW
Texas
Baylor
Illinois
Northwestern
SE
ND
Miami
PU
IU
NE
Michigan
OSU
PSU
MSU
Say Texas and OU still continue the RRR & Texas plays all OOC games in Texas. Texas would play 4 conference games outside of Texas, 3 of them in cold-weather states some years (when they visit Miami). That compares with 2.5 conference games outside Texas now (2 in cold weather states. Is an extra 1-2 games outside Texas and/or in cold weather states going to affect Texas recruiting?
Now what about ND’s national schedule?
Well, in this set up, they play Miami and a Texas school every year (as well as USC & Navy every year, and let’s say they rotate between BC & Stanford).
Plus, I think IU would be willing to move their home games against ND to southern/eastern locales half or more of the time.
They’d visit Midwestern schools 3.25 times (though if IU is willing to move their home sites to the south, that’s knocked down to 2.75 times.
Eastern schools 1 time
Western schools .75 times
Southern schools 1 time (1.5 times if IU makes their home games in the south).
That’s Midwest-centric, but where does ND play now?
From this website, from 2011-16, ND will on average play in
MW: 1.67
East: 1.67
West: 1.5
South: .83
It’s a shift, but not a big one. In fact, ND would play more often in the south even if IU doesn’t move their home games (and if IU is willing to move some home games east, the biggest shift is that ND would stop visiting the mountain west (BYU & AF) and visit the plains a bit further east instead (UNL, Iowa, Minny).
So why would Texas go for this (join the B10)? I have to say that I don’t think they would unless
1. OU & OkSt. bolt for the Pac or SEC
2. The Pac is not going to be flexible about the LHN while the B10 is.
Why would that be? Because the Pac is more unbalanced than the B10. If Texas can get away with the LHN, USC would want its own network as well as the Pac essentially has only one superpower right now. The B10 is secure enough and has enough superpowers so the big dogs see value in pooling their resources and gains.
Would ND join, in that case? Touch-and-go, I think. ND may stay independent. However, they won’t be joining a weakened ACC or fly their non revenue sport teams to the west coast as rich2 may want.
Even without ND, would Texas+Baylor+Miami+GTech/Rice work and be worth it?
LikeLike
Rice and Baylor in a league with Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin et al. Yeah, right.
LikeLike
Rice Baylor
Well, OK, maybe Rice and Baylor if Delany gets desperate.
LikeLike
Ahem. If you’re looking for a Texas private school, there’s a better option than either of those. And of course, the “Tech Problem” remains.
LikeLike
True Jake. I forgot SMU. 🙂
Seriously, regarding the “Tech” problem, Texas would not be on the hook this time as it would be TAMU causing the breakup. Still, the OK schools + TTech & Texas to the “desert” division of the Pac is the other major option of Mizzou goes.
LikeLike
Here was my last reply to this on the other page, edited to skip the corrections:
I think a lot of teams would have an issue with your pods. UT doesn’t want NW and IL annually, ND doesn’t want IN and to lose annual MI and MSU games, the SE pod doesn’t want to be that much stronger than others, IN doesn’t want to lose OSU, etc.
Maybe this:
N – ND, MI, MSU, IL – 2 kings, 1 tradesman, 1 peasant
E – OSU, PSU, IN, PU – 2 kings, 2 peasants
W – NE, WI, IA, MN – 1 king, 2 princes, 1 peasant
S – UT, Miami, Baylor, NW – 1 king, 1 prince, 1 tradesman, 1 peasant
It would require locking OSU/MI and IL/NW, but not much else. People play the local teams for the most part, and every pod has some strength.
LikeLike
Here’s my reply:
While I can see UofI and NU playing OOC, UM and OSU both need to play 7 home games, and playing each other OOC would mean very few marquee OOC games. Plus, would the respective fanbases stand for their game having no meaning in the B10 standings?
In any case, I see both MSU and Michigan playing ND only 4 times in 6 years even with no expansion once the Big10 goes to 9 conference games.
LikeLike
I said OSU/MI would have to be locked for a reason. They won’t play OOC. The schedulers will have to deal with it. 33% of the time their pods will be grouped. The other 67% there is a 25% chance that they would be on the rotation, for a total of 17% chance they’d be schedule. That means 50% of the time the standard schedule would be OK. The other 50%, OSU and MI would be locked and they would rotate through the other teams more slowly.
ND will play MI and MSU less in the current scheme, sure, but if they have to go in a pod they either want all national brands (UT, Miami & PSU, for example) or familiar faces from the midwest (MI, MSU, PU). They don’t want or need annual games locked with IN.
If you do pods, they have to be balanced. To do that and preserve rivals is tough.
I think ND would to play UT, Miami, PSU, MI, MSU, PU, OSU, NE and NW in about that order. I don’t think they have as much interest in WI, IA, MN, IL, IN and Baylor. UT would want many of the same teams, plus Baylor. The same for Miami. It’s too many new faces too soon to work out well.
LikeLike
I would put PU higher simply because they’ve played annually without breaks since the end of WWII while the Michigan and MSU series have had breaks. Something makes ND value their PU series.
LikeLike
A long post to describe something the would never happen in a million years. Jim Delaney has spent the better part of a year explaining why the Big Ten won’t partake in any Texas-level shenanigans.
LikeLike
Yoda!
LikeLike
Texans take football seriously and realize politicians are a joke. Only a stupid pol jacks with football.
LikeLike
And I was enjoying my inbox being flooded with “Why Angry Aggies Aren’t Enough to Move A&M to the SEC”-labelled messages that contained more and more evidence that angry Aggies actually are enough to move A&M to the SEC…
Seriously though, I’m with Frank (and Mandel) on this one. I did not expect this to happen, especially in August (18 months before the earliest possible start date). Slive said he didn’t want conferenceaggedon and now he’s pulling the pin.
LikeLike
Frank I agreed with everything you said and was making similar arguments. I’m still most shocked about this from an ESPN perspective if this gets through (and I think it’s going to). I just didn’t think they could get around that easily if at all.
General question: Do you guys think Texas and Texas A&M will keep playing if the Aggies go to the SEC. I’m guessing the series ends which will be sad.
LikeLike
This is a completely separate issue, but might actually be even more important in the long run: a majority of the Big Ten and Pac-12 ADs have come to a consensus to support a seeded plus-one BCS system:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2015896289_proposal13.html
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/31289595
Not sure if the university presidents will agree, yet getting even the ADs of those leagues to consider it is fairly significant.
LikeLike
4-team playoff is coming.
LikeLike
Absolutely hate that! I’d rather drop the BCS and go back to poll and bowl than go to a playoff.
And keeping the Rose Bowl out to hold onto the Big Ten vs. PAC-12 isn’t going to work out very often. How often are both the Big Ten and PAC-12 champs not going to be in the top 4 (probably top 4 conference champs).
LikeLike
??? Actually, it’ll mean that the second-place B10 & Pac teams will play in the Rose Bowl often. The two conferences would not mind at all.
LikeLike
Tobe clear for those who don’t read the articles, another BCS bowl would be added (probably Cotton) and the top 4 would be seeded for semi-finals in rotating BCS bowls. The Rose would not host semis, but would get to keep B10/P12 and still be a rotating host for the NCG.
What isn’t addressed:
Does the limit of 2 teams become 3 with the 2 extra slots? What happens if the B10 or P12 champs are in the semis? Does the Rose automatically get a replacement from that conference? Is there a cutoff rank? What about the other bowls? Do their tie-ins carryover to a replacement? Is anybody tied to the Cotton? What if the B12 goes away?
LikeLike
1. I think all tie-ins besides the Rose may go away.
2. An easy way to ensure that the Rose gets to choose a B10 & Pac team is to always give it first choice of teams after the 4 playoff teams are seeded (which would be fair since they never get to host a semifinal).
3. If the B10 and Pac champs both make the playoffs, the Rose would choose the second place teams (really, the teams that it wants) from those 2 conferences.
The B10 and Pac would like this arrangement. Would the SEC complain? Maybe they’d allow 3 teams from a conference (as you predict) to go to a BCS bowl to mollify the southerners.
However, there wouldn’t 2 more slots; still 10 BCS teams.
LikeLike
I would think the replacement rules would be pretty similar to now except a little looser (still 10 teams in and probably all the automatics still). Only switch might be to let the Rose drop the having to take a non-AQ once.
I am not sure about other tie-ins. They might still be in place when the bowls aren’t national semi-finals.
I wonder why the Cotton would be thrown in the championship rotation though. I think one concession to the existing BCS bowls would be to let them keep the 4 year rotation and let the Cotton be satisfied with moving up.
LikeLike
Other thought: Would you take the top 4 or top 4 conference champions? If you take the top 4 overall, you’d have 2 from one conference a lot of years (especially the SEC).
LikeLike
Top 4 overall. It’s ridiculous otherwise. What if 3 of the 4 best teams in the country actually do reside in one conference that year? Why should they be excluded for a conference champ that is ranked #15 (or unranked, which is very possible with all top conferences besides the B12 holding a conference title game now)?
LikeLike
@Richard – Yeah, I sympathize with the notion of having the top 4 conference champs play each other, but since the BCS has never required the top 2 in the rankings to be in separate conferences for the championship game, then there’s no way they’d impose that rule on the top 4.
LikeLike
Because we want the regular season to matter. Why should we be declaring someone who can’t be called conference champ the national champ?
Personally, I think it’s already ridicious that we can have one team with a better record beat an opponent, have a better record, and then have to play them in the CCG to be declared conference champ.
LikeLike
Eric:
So how does the regular season matter if an 8-4 team that wins it’s division wins 3 straight upsets in a row to become national champions?
Why does an NCAA champion have to be a conference champion in football? That isn’t the case with any other NCAA sport.
LikeLike
Richard,
That 8-4 team wouldn’t make the top 4. They’d get a BCS spot but not in the semis.
I agree that teams that don’t win their conference shouldn’t be eligible for the Football Four. If you aren’t the best in your conference, which was the majority of your schedule, then you don’t deserve it. Go play the BE champ in a BCS bowl and like it.
The top 4 conference champs or independents should make the Football Four. That’s not what will happen, but it’s what should happen.
LikeLike
9-3, then, Brian.
So Brian, say you have Team A, who goes 12-1, losing in their conference championship game to the other unbeaten team in the land. They are in what is considered the hardest conference in the country (by Sagarin ratings, whatever).
Team B goes 10-3, plays in the third hardest conference in the country, doesn’t end up with the most wins in its conference, but wins it’s conference title game and is the 4th highest conference champ.
Oh, and Team A drubbed Team B 49-7 in an OOC game earlier in the season.
You’re saying that Team B is more deserving of getting a shot at being national champion than Team A.
Why, exactly should Team B winning its conference by whatever silly measure it’s conference sets trump head-to-head results?
LikeLike
Personally I’m saying that neither the team that lost it’s ccg or the team that was 9-3 deserves a chance for the national title, which is why I oppose an expanded playoff at all. Since we are forced to choose and since I’d rather keep more attention on the regular season and winning your conference, I’d choose putting the 9-3 team in if its a conference champ.
LikeLike
Eric:
Ironically, you’d make all OOC games meaningless preseason games, then. Not sure how that enhances the value of the regular season.
LikeLike
Richard,
A 3 loss team would barely make the top 10. That’s why your scenario is so bad. The worst team in the top 4 would be 10-2 at worst. Even in crazy 2007, the top 3 loss team in the final regular season AP poll was #9 UF with LSU and GA ahead of them.
Past BCS years:
2010 – UConn had 4 losses
2008 – VT had 4 losses
2007 – 4 champs had 2 losses
2005 – FSU had 4 losses
2004 – Pitt had 3 losses
2003 – KSU had 3 losses
2002 – FSU had 4 losses
2001 – LSU had 3 losses
2000 – Purdue had 3 losses
1999 – Stanford had 3 losses
1998 – Syracuse had 3 losses
In 13 years, no 3 loss team has come near the top 4 and it won’t happen now either.
The rest of your scenario:
“So Brian, say you have Team A, who goes 12-1, losing in their conference championship game to the other unbeaten team in the land. They are in what is considered the hardest conference in the country (by Sagarin ratings, whatever).
Team B goes 10-3, plays in the third hardest conference in the country, doesn’t end up with the most wins in its conference, but wins it’s conference title game and is the 4th highest conference champ.
Oh, and Team A drubbed Team B 49-7 in an OOC game earlier in the season.
You’re saying that Team B is more deserving of getting a shot at being national champion than Team A.”
Yes, I am. Especially since B would have to be 11-2 at worst to make the Football Four. That means they went 10-2, with 1 loss to 12-1 A, and then won their CCG. If A didn’t win their CCG, they aren’t the best team in their conference according to their own conference. They certainly aren’t NC worthy to me with several other 0 or 1 loss conference champs available.
You asked:
“Why, exactly should Team B winning its conference by whatever silly measure it’s conference sets trump head-to-head results?”
Because A agreed to the rules to determine the best team in the conference. Why should Team A get another shot at the team that beat them in the CCG?
LikeLike
Uh, Brian, if you take only the top 4 conference winners, they don’t have to be anywhere near the top 4 to make the playoffs. That was my point.
In any case, say 11-2 conference winner Team D already got drubbed by conference winner team C 56-7 in an OOC game. Why shouldn’t 12-1 Team A get another shot at Team C when Team D gets that opportunity?
LikeLike
I would say, however, that the non-AQs would love your setup. TCU in 2010, Cincy & TCU in 2009, Utah in 2008, Utah in 2004.
Irony: In 2005, #6 ND would have gotten in over #4 OSU (OSU actually beat ND that year in the bowl game).
LikeLike
C’mon now. Always putting down the Big East…
LikeLike
Richard,
The BCS has never had a year with 2 conference champs with 3 losses. For your scenario, all but at most 3 of the ACC, BE, B10, B12, P12, SEC, MWC, WAC, CUSA, MAC and SB champs, plus ND, BYU, Army and Navy would all have to have 3 losses. That’s 11 conference champs plus 4 independents, or 15 total teams. How often do you expect at least 12 of those 15 to have 3 losses or more?
Unless that really seems probable, you’re just fear-mongering to make your position sound better.
You’ll get no sympathy from me for a 12-1 team passed over for a 11-2 conference champ (or 10-2 for some conferences and independents).
LikeLike
And you still have tiebreaks. 2008 OU was 1st in the BCS, Texas 3rd. Both teams 11-1 regular season, Texas beat OU by 10 but lost at Tech (also 11-1) on a last 2nd TD who lost badly at OU. OU won the tiebreak which was the BCS-higher poll and higher computer rankings. Then OU lost to Florida by 10 in the BCS championship game.
Big 8 had one year with the top 3 teams in the country in the final polls (71 or 72).
LikeLike
bullet,
In these days of limited intersectional games, I’d take the B12’s word for who their best team is and go from there. Especially in a case like 2008 where the issue was conference losses, the conference champ is the only one that should play for the title.
What 2008 showed is that the 2 team limit is fundamentally flawed and should be bumped to 3, perhaps with limited payment and/or the loss of a future at-large bid.
LikeLike
There is no logical reason to limit it to conference champions. Conference championships are determined only on the basis of conference games. The national championship (or, the participants in a 4-team playoff) should be based on the outcome of all games. There is no inherent reason why the team that was superlative over the 75% of the schedule that was conference games is the same team that was superlative over 100% of the schedule.
LikeLike
Richard,
Conference races have always been the heart and sole of the season. Non-conference games would still matter to the extent that you have to be one the top 4 conference champions and not just a conference champion which is more difficult with a conference loss.
Again, I don’t like the result, but I like it better than taking teams that don’t win their own conference and calling them national champs (I know this is regularly done in other sports, still don’t like it for college football).
LikeLike
The SEC (Slive) has been in favor of this for some time, but couldn’t get the B1G or the Pac 10 to back them. I just hope they leave it at a plus one (actually a 4 team playoff to be more percise), and don’t try to create some crazy 16 team playoff or something.
LikeLike
ACC was also for it. Many of the BE and Big 12 ADs were for it, but their presidents opposed.
LikeLike
I’ll agree with you again. THAT is the big news of the day. I didn’t think B10 and P12 would go for it this round. I thought it might even be possible the rest of the conferences went for it at some point w/o P12 and B10 as they did with the BCS predecessor.
Maybe the SEC is triggering this for 5 conferences of 14 and an 8 team playoff now or next time.
LikeLike
I just had a crazy thought. Could the SEC’s making this move and the news that the Pac-12 and B1G are leaning toward a plus-one be related? The SEC was in favor of the plus-one a few years ago so the Pac-12 and B1G give them that for the SEC starting the expansion dominoes falling.
Expansion was going to happen eventually but neither the Pac-12 or B1G had a way to leverage UT and force them to make a decision. The SEC taking A&M sets up the B12 for dismantling but doesn’t force it’s collapse. And that is a benefit to the long term expansion plans of the conferences. If there is no imminent danger to Texas schools, and it may even benefit one Texas school such as Houston, the legislature is much less likely to have a problem with the first move, A&M to the SEC.
The long play here is keeping the B12 weak enough that it cannot survive another defection. When the time is right, say when the B1G’s contract expires, the Pac-12 and B1G make their play for UT.
LikeLike
I posted this without seeing your post bullet. It sounds like we were thinking along the same line though. The B1G and Pac-12 give this to the SEC for their grabbing A&M.
LikeLike
Love the 4-team playoff. This is always the type of playoff I thought would win out because it stays within the bowl system. I don’t see why you’d need to get rid of any tie-ins (other than the B12 would probably now want the Cotton): each bowl can still grab the tie-in conference teams when it is not in the playoff rotation.
Also, of course you take the BCS top 4 rather than conference champions. You can’t risk a 3 or 4 loss team making it in (unless somehow their schedule is soooo difficult that it ends up in the top 4). Four teams is probably the best in terms of making sure each team with a legitimate claim makes it while not allowing a non-worthy team in the tournament.
LikeLike
There is zero risk of a 3 or 4 loss champ in the top 4 champs. There are 11 conference champs and 4 independents, and all but 3 of them would have to lose 3 or more games. The BCS has never had more than 1 AQ champ with 3 losses. It is a strawman argument.
I don’t mind that people disagree on who should be in, but where do you all get this ridiculous notion of 3 loss champs among the top 4 conference champs?
Stop fear-mongering and argue your position by the merits.
LikeLike
There haven’t been a ton of highly-ranked 3 loss conference champions because (1) there have been very few major conference seasons with 9 games since the BCS started. and (2) there might not be 6 “major conferences” by the time they go to a plus one. One can argue whether the Big East is a major conference as it is.
Speaking of strawmen, why mention the fact that there are 11 conferences? The Sun Belt champ isn’t sniffing a 4-team tournament. If your plan is to take a 2-loss CUSA champ over a 3-loss SEC champ, it’s a flawed plan.
Also, assuming that the BCS rankings would be used to determine whether an independent makes it into the top 4 for a playoff, how can you justify putting a #4 BCS Notre Dame into the tournament but leave out a #3 BCS Michigan who beat Notre Dame in non-conference but didn’t end up winning the B10 championship? If you use the BCS ranking for choosing which conference champions get in, and you’re willing to use the BCS for choosing which independents get in, then just use the BCS rankings period, no ban on non-champions.
LikeLike
First, I’m allowing for the possibility of good teams in bad (or weaker) conferences. 12-0 Boise in the MWC would deserve a shot. 12-0 Houston in CUSA would, too. I’d take a 1 loss non-AQ champ over an AQ non-champ, too. I’d take a 2 loss AQ champ over a 1 loss non-champ.
I never said conferences should use the BCS as a tiebreaker. If they do, that’s their problem. I don’t believe you can be the best team in the nation and not win your conference. It’s tautological for me.
Moral of the story: Win your conference
LikeLike
So Michigan can’t be the best team in the country if it doesn’t win the B10, but ND can be the best team in the country even though it loses to Michigan. How is that tautological?
Also, you realize the incentives of your plan, don’t you? Texas could join the WAC and make the playoffs every year.
LikeLike
As for 9 game schedules, the P10 never had a 3 loss champion in the 6 seasons so far (twice had 2 losses).
The B12 CG had more upsets than most, and only had a 3 loss winner twice (1996 UT, 2003 KSU) in 15 years. The SEC CG produced one (2001 LSU) in 19 years.
So while 9 game schedules and CCG can lead to more losses, it will be a strange confluence of events that leads to many 3 loss league champs in the same year (plus ND and BYU).
LikeLike
I didn’t say a conference should use the BCS to determine their champion either. But even under your plan, you have to have some way to choose which of the 11 conference champions (and ND and Navy and Army and BYU) get into the 4-team tournament. If it’s not going to be the BCS, what are you going to use? Pure number of losses? That’s ridiculously arbitrary. Selection committee?
LikeLike
Richard,
“So Michigan can’t be the best team in the country if it doesn’t win the B10, but ND can be the best team in the country even though it loses to Michigan.”
Exactly. Just like MI could be the best team in the country despite losing to ND. Nice to see you understand If you aren’t the best team in your subset, you can’t be the best of the whole set.
And yes, I realize teams could try to join bad conferences. However, they’d sacrifice a lot of money to do it. How many schools would say it’s worth it? And how many teams could do it without others just filling up that conference, too?
LikeLike
Regarding the number of 3-loss champions, keep in mind that the P10 has never played a 9-game schedule along with a championship game. Nor has the B10 ever played a championship game. The chance of a 3-loss conference champion goes up exponentially because the championship game allows for a weak division champion to win the whole thing.
And of course, it is exceedingly easy for Notre Dame and BYU to both be out of the running. Also of course, it’s exceedingly easy for a CUSA or MWC champion to end up with only two losses overall. But noone wants them in the 4-team tournament.
LikeLike
Brian:
That’s only true if the selection criteria for determining winners of both the subsets and whole set are the same. If the selection criteria for, say, subsets of marbles is “size” but the selection criteria for the whole set of marbles is “weight”, then you most definitely could have a marble that finishes first among the whole set while not finishing first in a subset.
As Adam pointed out, the selection criteria for national champion is naturally different for that of determining a conference champ, as one does (and should) take in to account OOC games while the other doesn’t (shouldn’t).
LikeLike
What you’re saying, in other words, Brian, (when you use that subset example) is that because the ND-Michigan game has no bearing on the B10 title, it should also have no bearing on the national title. I’m sorry, but that logic is too stupid for me to accept.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
I wouldn’t use the current BCS standings system, no. An improved version, maybe. A committee would be nice in theory, but who can you choose that doesn’t have a dog in the fight? It’s a little easier to do the hoops bracket because so many teams get in, the bubble isn’t a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Choosing #4 versus #5 would be a lot of pressure. That’s the advantage of computers.
I’d prefer a set of advanced computer polls all designed to consider different things (stats, scores, locations, weather, injuries, styles of play, etc) and weight them differently, too. I’d prefer the human element to be restricted since everyone carries so much inherent bias.
In your example above, I justify letting in #4 ND but not #3 MI (who beat ND) because MI didn’t win their conference. I’d ask how did MI stay #3, since they must have lost the CCG (no 2 loss team would be #3). The only way MI only drops to #3 for losing the CCG is if the winner is #1. That means the undefeated B10 champ is already in the Football Four, and nobody deserves a chance at a rematch for the NC.
2008 SEC CG – #2 UF beats #1 AL 31-20
AL drops to #4 in the AP poll
2009 SEC CG – #2 AL beats #1 UF 32-13
UF drops to #5 in the AP poll
LikeLike
jcfreder,
I admitted that 9 games will increase losses, and so will the CCG on occasion. You need to provide some evidence if you’re going to claim that the odds of 3 loss champions goes up exponentially, though. Run some numbers based on past conference winning percentages and how often the 9th game will lead to an extra loss (remember to reduce the odds of losing OOC). Then figure out how often the winner had 2 losses already. Combine that with CCG odds of an upset, and give me some results. Until you have some approximation of that, you’re fear-mongering.
With 8 game schedules, it happened 3 times in 34 seasons combined for the B12 and SEC with a CG. It has never happened in the just 6 years of a 9 game P10 schedule (too small of a sample to tell us much).
It’s easy for plenty of teams to be out of the running. The key is they all have to be out of the running at the same time.
If you’re asking me to choose between a 2 loss conference champ and a 1 loss conference non-champ, it’s no contest. There is no situation under which I would choose the non-champ. For them to still be highly ranked, then the team that beat them in the CCG is in the top 4 already. Nobody deserves 2 teams in the Football Four.
LikeLike
Richard,
No, it’s not. It’s only true to you if the criteria are exactly the same. The conferences could use the whole season to determine their champion. That’s up to them. The Football Four doesn’t in any way dictate how they determine their champions. Once the conference picks a method, it’s stuck with the results. If MI is upset that it didn’t get in, it should discuss the procedure for determining the B10 champion with the other schools.
The selection criteria isn’t naturally different, it is different by convention. Every conference could use BCS standings as their first choice rather than a late tiebreaker. They choose not to do so.
I’m saying that the postseason shouldn’t care if that game impacted the race for the B10 title. It definitely has bearing on the national title race, though, as every loss generally lowers a teams ranking. Your example requires the B10 to have an undefeated champion already in the top 4. Why would MI deserve a second chance to beat them in the postseason versus another conference champion?
LikeLike
Fear-mongering is a poor choice of words. I’m not saying that the sky is falling if you take only conference champions; I’m merely saying that it’s a better system if you allow non-champions because there is a decent chance that you end up with dogs as champions with a 9-game schedule and the CCG.
And I don’t need to get out a calculator to show that the odds of a 3-loss champion are significantly greater in leagues that have adopted CCGs. It was difficult for the B10 champ under the old system to have 3 losses, because they took the #1 record out of 11 (actually they didn’t even do that, they used the stupid tiebreaker where a team got to go to the rose bowl if they hadn’t been there last). Now they’ll be adding a game and putting in a CCG. Putting the best of 6 vs. the best of 6. (and in which the non-conference losses don’t count.)
You said that it happened 3 of 34 times in the B12 and SEC (with 8-game schedules, mind you, not the tougher 9-game). I see you left out the ACC. They’ve had a 3-loss champ two out of 6 years and a 2-loss champ every other season, with only an 8-game schedule.
So thats 5 of 40. 12.5% with only an 8 game schedule. Now go to 9 games, blow up the B12 and BE, ending up with maybe only 4 or 5 superconferences.
Under your system, I think Texas has no choice to be an independant, so it can avoid the onerous conference gauntlet and go to the tourney every year even if it has 2 losses.
But in any event, your system is simply not going to be adopted. No major sport in the US limits participation to conference or division champions, not even the current BCS. If they go to a plus-one, you’ll be able to have 2 teams from the same conference get in, which makes sense seeing as sometimes the SEC has 2 of the best 4 teams in the country.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
The fear-mongering is all the supposed examples of elite non-champs being left out in favor of 3 or 4 loss champs, and saying the odds of 3 loss champs goes up exponentially. Exponential growth is a very specific thing, like cells dividing repeatedly (2, 4, 8, 16, etc):
x(t) = a * b^(t/T)
and it grows very fast once it kicks up. I said the odds of a 3 loss champ would increase, but you need to back up an assertion of exponential growth.
I didn’t check the ACC for two main reasons. First, they have the fewest CCGs. Second, I was tired of doing research.
Everybody agrees 9 games will lead to more losses, but how many more for the conference champ? Most of those extra losses will go to the middle and bottom teams.
I did a quick check with the B10 and P10 since 1993 (stopped P10 in 2005). Combined, the conference winners averaged 7.2-0.8, or a 0.900 winning percentage. That means the extra game is going to cost the conference winner a loss once every 10 years on average. The P10 numbers since going to 9 games back that up with the winners averaging 8-1, or 0.889. The extra game shouldn’t be a big factor compared to now.
The CCG adds a top opponent to the schedule, though, so there will be upsets leading to a champ with more losses. The question is how many 3 loss teams make the CCG. For the SEC, it’s 7 of 38 or 18.4%. For the B12, it’s 9/30 or 30%. For the ACC, it’s 6/12 or 50%. Let’s assume the SEC is the lower bound and the ACC the upper bound, and call it 30% overall.
Assuming a CCG is a toss-up, 15% of the time a 3 loss team will win or 1 in 6 years.
So if there are 3 loss CCG champs 15% of the time, and 4 conferences have them, that makes a 60% chance of 1 but less than a 7% chance of 2 (once every 15 years) and less than a 1% chance of 3. That still leaves the BE, B12, MWC, ND and BYU as likely sources of a 0-2 loss champ to replace the 1 3 loss champ. I don’t see this as a major problem.
The thing to remember with superconferences is that having a lot of teams also means that 1 or 2 should be really good and not have 3 losses.
If you read carefully, I said from the start that my plan wouldn’t happen. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a better plan.
LikeLike
Brian,
Why shouldn’t Michigan get another shot? To use another example, say Texas played OSU and OSU got whupped. Texas is undefeated and wins their conference. OSU wins their conference as well. By your logic, OSU shouldn’t be given another shot either.
Ultimately, it comes down to who you think deserves to go in to a (4 team) playoff. You seem to think that only league champions should go in, regardless of how good they actually have been (compared to certain other non-league champions). I happen to think that the 4 best teams (by their results over a season) should get in, regardless of what conference they are in.
To use a thought experiment, say that conferences were determined randomly. You could end up with the 4 strongest teams in one conference. You think that excluding 3 of those 4 for less deserving teams is OK. I don’t.
LikeLike
Richard,
Why should MI get another shot? They lost their last game to the undefeated B10 champ. The B10 champ has just proven they are the better team, why should they have to prove it again a few weeks later? Why shouldn’t the SEC, ACC, P12, B12 or BE champs, for example, get a shot at the B10 champ instead? They most likely haven’t played the B10 champ yet and have proven they are the best team in their conference.
In your example, I’d expect the loss to hurt OSU in the rankings. If the SEC, P12 and ACC champs are all 12-1 or 13-0, they do deserve a shot more than that hypothetical OSU team. I’d love to have a no replay rule for the BCS, too. Once #1 is in, nobody they beat already should get in. The same in descending order with 2, 3 and 4.
Of course it comes down to who you think should go. I thought that’s what we were discussing. I never said otherwise. I also admitted my idea would never be put into place.
I think only league champs should get in because there are a lot of them, and they have shown they are the best of a group of teams. Due to the lack of intersectional games, there is no good way to know how one conference compares to another. Maybe 6-2 in the SEC with a tough schedule was as good as 9-0 in the P12. Who knows? But if the SEC decides that A is better than B, why should B get another chance to beat A? Let the champs from other conferences take a shot.
The problem is that there is no way to know which 4 teams are the best. Because of that, I’ll take an 11-2 champ over a 12-1 non-champ. Your position assumes that the BCS rankings are very accurate, and mine is less dependent on opinion polls and crippled computer models.
I thought this was already a thought experiment. Random conferences are nonsensical. But even if they existed, I’d stay with champs. The other 3 teams had a chance to beat #1 and didn’t do it. I see no reason to let them try again.
LikeLike
There is generally too much nonsense in this conversation for me to follow it closely, but it makes no sense for the league to allow non-conference games to factor into the league standings. The schools get to choose their non-conference opposition — that would only encourage an (even faster) race to the bottom to pick your non-conference opponents.
Winning your conference championship and winning the national championship are two different animals. Every school belongs to two conferences: their conference and the Football Bowl Subdivision. Each conference has its own set of standings and championship qualifications which are particular and appropriate to that competition. Linking the two is the big mistake.
LikeLike
And now for something completely different:
“Penn State Players All Worried They’re Going To Be The One Who Accidentally Kills Joe Paterno”
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/penn-state-players-all-worried-theyre-going-to-be,21120/
LikeLike
I needed a good laugh. Thanks.
LikeLike
After a year and a half following FtT, this is the first time I laughed out loud. You must not be a lawyer! 🙂
LikeLike
Nice article, Frank. The only way I can see this working for the SEC is if they’re already sure their look-in will get them more money.
i also don’t think Slive will be looking at another Big 12 team for the 14th member. If he can sneak away with one ACC team that can be replaced, he can avoid setting in motion dominos that would strengthen the B1G and the Pac 12.
If FSU were to go SEC, the ACC could quickly pick up Syracuse, Pitt, or even Louisville to take their place.
Really don’t know what this means for B1G expansion. Not many good options left. As Gordon Gekko said to Bud Fox you’ve got a dog with fleas (Mizzou) and a dog with different fleas (Rutgers).
LikeLike
Maryland would ideally prefer to go to the Big Ten as part of a bloc with Virginia, UNC and Duke, but if that isn’t in the cards, it would enter the mix, since its academics are better than Missouri’s and its athletics better than Rutgers’. And if the SEC takes an ACC team as part of its expansion, further diminishing its football brand (what little it has), there’s the impetus you need.
LikeLike
What about NC politics? Could UNC leave NCSU behind? I honestly don’t know; if anyone has any insights, that would be great.
LikeLike
UNC and NC State are part of the same school system and thus share a Board of Regents who would have to sign off on any move. The BoR would probably (if begrudgingly) approve a separation if the schools pledged to continue to play each other OOC, but only if both schools signed off on the deal, meaning the schools have veto power over each others movements.
LikeLike
This works for the SEC regardless of their media contracts. When you have a chance to land a big fish, you do it. Had Notre Dame asked to join the SEC, they would have taken the Irish, too.
LikeLike
the only reason “the entire world” was convinced that the pac 16 was a done deal was because Chip Brown, the texas athletic department mouth piece, was given full throttle access on sportscenter every hour on the hour for the nation to see. If it wasn’t for Chip Brown, not ONE person following this would have thought it was a done deal. As if Mike Slive was going to let the 2 flagship institutions in one of the biggest media regions in the country just waltz to the west. That’s why he came to A&M in the first place. Their school is a better fit for the SEC, and the SEC wants no part of Texas trying to control their conference.
You have a lot of truths in your post, and a lot of bullshit. Make no mistake about it, when A&M makes it official, those TV deals are going to be re-done.
LikeLike
Dear JoePa,
LikeLike
Frank,
Good post but i don’t think you are taking into account that a few of the Texas Reps. you mention are looking at running for statewide or national office next year. With one of our own having a good shot at winning the Republican nomination (Perry) there will be plenty of Ags at the polls they can’t afford to upset. Also, the unique funding system for Texas schools any threat to TAMU and PUF funding will also threaten UT for any practical general fund issues (which is a consistantly decreasing % of our budget). A second point would be most of the concerns you mention don’t apply to Texas politics. Last, since the governor would have to call them into session for any hearing to have legal consequences before Jan 2013 any resolution they may come to will be forgotten by that time in favor of the issue du jour.
LikeLike
Just checking in (after a year+ away)…
LikeLike
Me too. Expansion’s like crack and Frank’s the candy man.
LikeLike
I just wish he wrote more often: his non-expansion stuff is great too.
LikeLike
The reason why A&M is leaving is basically this: They are tired of dealing with Big Brother Bevo the Bull(y), and they see a way to escape their demands like Arkansas & Nebraska did, and Missouri would in a Nano-second. UT is a school like Notre Dame that believes that they are entitled to special and unique treatment, and wants schools around them that will essentially enable their behavior (See Baylor and Ok. State). What is frightening from the perspective of the Big XII teams, is no one knows UT like the Aggies (They were essentially joined at the hip), and even they reached the Point Of No Return when it comes to dealing with UT. Assuming A&M is gone, what does this mean for the Big XII (Talk about an oxymoron)? They could add Houston (They would be elated to join a BCS Conference), or maybe even TCU (Although they were another school screwed over by Bevo). But sooner or later OU, Kansas, or maybe even Texas Tech (Remember they said no to putting their game on the Longhorn Network), are going to get up and leave. One possibility could be Kansas taking their basketball team straight to the Big 10. If the Big 10 could get a Kansas and maybe even Oklahoma for football, they could return Michigan (And Michigan St) to the East, and be a real competitor for the SEC as the best Conference.
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
So who joins w/Texas A&M if this happens?
Florida St.?
Missouri?
Va Tech?
West Virginia?
Louisville?
Why do this if it is not a major add??? Does anyone get you excited other than Florida St.? Missouri is TV sets and Va Tech seems to have shot them down already. WVU and Lville seem to add little from a markets standpoint. I get that the SEC can ask anyone… but is there anyone worth adding?
It would be funny if they added East Carolina or someone like that. The ultimate snub. “The SEC is so good we can MAKE a program into something.”
Anyway… just when you think expansion talk is over… it comes dragging you back in…
LikeLike
Not Louisville. I don’t see the appeal (to the SEC) of Missouri either. VT would be an interesting choice as they have roots as a military academy similar to A&M.
LikeLike
They don’t need to ‘get you excited’ they need to make you money! Coming from someone in tv, everyone should calm down about tv sets. They are important, but having butts in chairs paying attention to commercials is more important.
NYC doesn’t care about college football as much as Alabama, and Alabama earns $50 million a year more than Rutgers.
LikeLike
TV sets are important when you have a subscriber fee for your network.
LikeLike
. . .which the SEC doesn’t. I expect the SEC to go grab name brands (so certainly FSU).
LikeLike
But the B10 does. I never mentioned the SEC. I was questioning his basic premise that TV sets don’t matter that much, and he didn’t mention the SEC either.
LikeLike
Pat was responding to someone talking about SEC expansion, so I assume he was talking about the SEC’s situation as well.
In any case, his general point holds: Half or more of revenue for all conferences still comes from national first tier/second tier rights, and those are driven by brands/advertising.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this for over a year. Rutgers isn’t a draw, they’re nothing. You might as well ask Columbia or Yale to join.
Notre Dame is the prize. They’ll deliver the East Coast for you, and hell, most of the nation. We might cherry pick a Big East team (Syracuse?), but all the Big East talk is mostly designed to get Notre Dame to panic and join the Big Ten.
But the question is, is ND the 14th member, or the 16th member? I remember some talk last year about Notre Dame joining the Big Ten, but only if they were the 12th and final member. When Texas came into play everything changed, but we ended up with Nebraska and the sky didn’t fall down on ND’s head.
LikeLike
As long as Notre Dame believes it’s bigger than the game (sort of the Texas syndrome), it has no desire to enter an all-sports conference. And ND is rapidly losing its luster as a brand, which has largely diminished to old urban ethnic Catholics. For the Big Ten to be disproportionately focused on Notre Dame when it has other alternatives would be counterproductive.
LikeLike
People forget, The SEC doesn’t need to get markets, they need to get ratings. The Big Ten is the only conference out there that needs markets because of the BTN. If the SEC can fill slots with more premier games, they can get more money from CBS and ESPN. The Big Ten is really the only conference that “markets ” really come in to play when thinking about expansion.
I have no facts to back this up, but I do have programming here in So Cal. SEC football is always aired out here were 20% to 30% of Big Ten football is pushed to ESPN3 or on the BTN. And out here with the Rose Bowl tie in, one would think the Big Ten would get a higher billing so the Pac 12 can keep up on the compitition.
LikeLike
I appreciate your MICHIGAN/BIG CHILL reference but I don’t think the image of white people dancing to Motown in a refurbished plantation in the heart of SEC country is what Delany has in mind for a Big Ten marketing strategy.
Oklahoma
Missouri
Texas
Notre Dame
It’s doable if we bend like the willow and not like the oak.
LikeLike
I could never see the likes or ND or UT subordinating their not so small egos to the Big 10 or anyone else. UT is the Jeff George of Colleges…. They harm everything they touch: SWC, Big 12, Nebraska, Arkansas, TCU, SMU, & A&M (If I am in Waco, Texas or Ames, Iowa I am not feeling happy tonight, bacause I know I may be next).
LikeLike
@David Brown – “UT is the Jeff George of Colleges”
I don’t know if I totally agree with that, but anyone that uses Jeff George as a proxy for disaster gets a +1 from me.
LikeLike
I certainly wouldn’t agree about the SWC. It was the Oilers, Cowboys, OU & UGA (breaking the NCAA TV monopoly), Arkansas (jumping ship), TCU/SMU/A&M (paying players) that sunk the SWC. And maybe a little Tom Osborne and Nebraska for losing to Miami in the Orange Bowl and giving them an MNC and license to recruit top players from Texas (took a little while, but I knew I could figure out a way to throw UNL in there). Texas (and A&M) trying to make it work was the only thing that held it together for so long.
LikeLike
Don’t think OU will be able to leave OkSt. behind.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-08-12/super-sizing-mass-expansion-of-top-conferences-on-horizon
The SEC will stop at 14.
LikeLike
I can tell you that if A&M leaves they will become my favorite college team (Except for my Nitts of course (Since UNL is on the PSU annual schedule I can’t like them)). Like list: 1: Yankees. 2: Nitts. 3: Steelers. 4: Penguins. 5: Islanders. 5a: Aggies. Dislike list: 1: Cowboys. 1a: UT. 2: Ohio St. 3: Ravens. 4: Red Sox. 5: Mets.
LikeLike
You’re not a real Penn State fan if Michigan isn’t on your dislike list.
LikeLike
Agree! IMO a minimum of 2a.
LikeLike
I never said I don’t dislike UM (Notice what I said regarding the Huskers). But you can’t put everyone on a top 5 list. I certainly do not like the Bengals, Browns, Eagles, NY Rangers, Flyers, ND, Iowa, Pitt Panthers, Blue Jays, Orioles & Rays either. But if you put a finite number out there you have to stick to it. Besides, UM is not on the schedule, and since they are not as relevant to the current team as before, they are not as disliked (Sort of like Baltimore: Hated them with a passion in the late 90s….. Today, they are an afterthought).
LikeLike
It hasn’t been fan chatter until the past few hours. You just were not even attempting to listen. Just about every comment you’ve ever made about A&M has been wrong. You relied on Peter Bean and other Texas sources and they made you look foolish. You wonder why Aggies question your bias when you were ignoring any and all A&M input? Really? Even now you won’t give up on the Texas Legislature pull. Dan Branch and the HEC committee will not stop this and in fact, he has commented to Aggies today, that he believes the move with STRENGTHEN the state universities. Last you point to Tony Barnhart. First, he doesn’t discount the move instead he says it is more like 90% probable. Second, he is just about the only one not seeing smoke. What the hell do you call the SEC President’s meeting on Sunday?
Even now, when clearly 100% wrong, you repeat your flawed logic. I’m certain the SEC will monetize this expansion and it will do so almost immediately. I think you know it to but just are not ready to admit it. The SEC is the 2nd most valuable sports entity in the US after the NFL. That value gives them real leverage and allows the conference to negotiate from a position of unparalleled strength. The SEC with the Texas market isn’t like any other conference. Texas A&M insiders have discussed numbers approaching conference payout amounts of $40M in the first year of the move.
LikeLike
The logic Frank used was sound. It turned out to be wrong, but if you are going to be making future predictions, you base them on how you think contracts are structured and on history. Both suggested this wouldn’t happen. That it now appears to be happening does not mean expecting it not to happen was any kind of bias or even that it was not the most rational expectation. It means we were wrong about a few the weight we put on a few things and/or assumptions we made.
LikeLike
Actually, MLB and the Big 10 are both more valuable properties than the SEC.
However, regarding you main point, I do have to agree with you that Frank has certainly over emphasized Texas politics recently. It was a legitimate issue when the legislature was still in session, but once they adjourned for two years they became a non-issue. Sure they can hold hearings and blast the Aggies in public rallies but so what? By the time they are back in session (2013) it will be too late to do anything (threatening the school’s funding would be pointless at that point). And the idea that Perry’s presidential run would make him likely to call the legislature into session made no sense at all.
That said, Frank’s points about the TV contracts was better thought out.
(For the record, I always maintained that the Aggies would only be added if they were paired with a “national” brand like Oklahoma or FSU. We should know soon if I will have to issue a mea culpa for that prediction).
LikeLike
Of course its entirely possible I’ll have to issue an apology for this post so we’ll have to see what happens.
LikeLike
frug, you’re going to have to explain to me how you figure that the B1G is a more valuable property than the SEC when it comes to the televising of football games?
LikeLike
FranktheAg didn’t say football property, he said sports entity, and while the SEC’s football package is moderately more attractive than the Big 10’s, the Big 10’s massive advantage in basketball value more than makes up the difference.
LikeLike
He’s probably talking about overall, not just football. FrankTheAg did say “sports entity”, not “football entity”, and the B10 brings in more sports revenue per school overall than the SEC does.
In any case, FrankTheAg is exaggerating a bit. Considering that Forbes estimates the least valuable NBA franchise (the Bucks) at $258M while they put the value of the top college football team (Longhorns) at $119M and top college basketball team (UNC) at $26M, I think it’s safe to say that the NBA is third most valuable behind the NFL and MLB. The NBA also gets $930M yearly in TV money ($31M per team), which is still slightly more than any college.
Oh, and even the lowest NHL team (the Coyotes) is valued by Forbes at $134M.
LikeLike
Tony Barnhart is the most respected and knowledgeable college reporter in the SE. His opinions are worth listening to.
One part that makes this hard to believe is that so little has changed since last summer when the same players made the decision to stay. The only things that changed were that ESPN did the LHN instead of UT doing it themselves and the Big 12 got even more money than they expected on their 2nd tier rights (and the latter is a positive for staying). I don’t think angry Aggies are driving this. Something has changed Loftin’s and Byrne’s minds and I’ll be interested to see their reasons after the exit fees get settled. I think they are reasonable people making what in my mind seems like a bad decision. Now anything they say before the fees get settled is just bluster in case there is a lawsuit.
Did the Aggies dislike the fact that they aren’t going to get a disproportionate share of the exit fees? Did they dislike that TV appearance fees are going to be shared more equally? Are they so desperate for money they jump to the SEC in the hope of getting more money now instead of waiting until 2015? Did a marketing professor convince them they needed to try differentiation to try to quit being 2nd fiddle or a psychology professor suggest differentiation to get rid of their inferiority complex and obsession with UT? Did CBS promise the SEC tons of money too late in the summer of 2011? Are they afraid the SEC goes to 16 without them limiting their choices? What else?
LikeLike
bullet,
What changed in 1 year is the TAMU fanbase, and how they have changed. 1 year ago the TAMU administration thought the SEC folks were a minority. This past year they have come to realize they are the majority because short of burning Loftin and Byrne in effigy, they have made their displeasure known that they were unhappy with the result last june. The LHN is just good cover to make the move. I think it is safe to say that their fanbase is not like any other in college football. 😉 I do think Loftin and Byrne see something in the numbers that you and I are not privy too, but I will give TAMU the credit for having a unique fanbase. 🙂
LikeLike
That it also comes at a time when the Texas legislature is off and you have an A&M ex in the governor’s mansion made this a perfect storm for an Aggie move.
LikeLike
Duffman what changed in the last year is Pac-12 solidifying and Texas not having a place to go. Without the threat of Texas bolting and imploding the conference, Tech and Baylor stay in a BCS conference. This keeps Texas politics at bay. A&M made the right move waiting a year as a move last year in the middle of all the realignment would have certainly made it more difficult as a move then would have imploded the conference. Now not so much. Remember the key to the whole political equation is finding places for Baylor and Tech in a BCS conference. As long as this happens, there will be no issues.
LikeLike
Whether the B12 survives or not will hinge on whether Mizzou stays or goes. Would Texas and OU be content with what is essentially a glorified SWC?
LikeLike
I think it was pretty clear last year as well.
LikeLike
Your UT bias is showing through pretty heavily there. A&M has a lot to gain by going to the SEC. Conference stability seems pretty high on the list with more money not far behind.
LikeLike
Who are you replying to? Who said TAMU didn’t have a lot to gain? Who is biased? I don’t see anyone in this thread of the discussion that said any of that.
This post is so busy you really should address a bias accusation like that by name.
LikeLike
His response refers to Bullets post a bit up (and slightly to the left). As does mine below.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
I still don’t see where he said TAMU didn’t have a lot to gain. He asked why this year but not last year and ran through several possible factors.
Does TAMU have more to gain this year than last year? If not, then what changed wasn’t the gain but the impetus to leave and that’s what he was asking about.
LikeLike
He said-
“I don’t think angry Aggies are driving this. Something has changed Loftin’s and Byrne’s minds and I’ll be interested to see their reasons after the exit fees get settled. I think they are reasonable people making what in my mind seems like a bad decision.”
LikeLike
I just take that to mean he thinks they’ll lose more than they gain, be it in athletic success, recruiting, academic reputation, rivalries or something else. Clearly there are benefits to TAMU joining the SEC. You must admit that there are also some (non-financial) costs involved.
LikeLike
m(Ag)
I’m biased because I disagree? That’s typical Aggie thinking.
If you read my post I said “in my mind.” I am willing to see there are possibilities for differences of opinion.
LikeLike
from Bullet:
“m(Ag)
I’m biased because I disagree? That’s typical Aggie thinking.
If you read my post I said ‘in my mind.’ I am willing to see there are possibilities for differences of opinion.”
You’re getting me confused with RedDenver; I never called you biased. All I said in my own post was that I disagreed with you.
That said, I will say that the phrase “typical Aggie thinking” does indicate some bias.
LikeLike
Sorry m(ag)-I’ve always found you and the other Aggies normally on this board very reasonable. I did confuse you with another poster. But you have to admit the new Aggies on this board with their attacks on Frank aren’t doing A&M proud. That continued nonsense really triggered my response.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that when a school makes a dramatic move, it brings out the fans who talk more out of passion than rationality. The last few days I’ve seen a surge in ‘passionate’ posters from both our schools around the internet (and you know both our schools normally have plenty). I also seem to remember a huge surge in Nebraska fans last summer who came to this board to thoroughly disparage your school when their move to the Big Ten became official. I congratulated them on their move, even while I tried to correct some of their factual errors.
When you enter into a new relationship, I think it’s human nature to disparage the previous one. It just helps ease the transition, emotionally. I think the Big 12 is an OK conference, but it would be frustrating to remain there when I believe the SEC is a better one. (for that matter, so is the Big Ten and Pac 12).
LikeLike
Actually its seems like the UT posters have been unusually quiet, although I haven’t visited the Aggie sites, so I can’t say what’s been going on there.
LikeLike
I thoroughly disagree that this isn’t a good move for A&M.
About what changed, I did read a report from some ‘insider’ who said that officials at A&M were completely unprepared for conference realignment last summer. Which I have to say disappoints me, because once the Big Ten stated they were examining expansion they should have started thoroughly exploring various possibilities themselves.
When it was reported that the Longhorns were negotiating to go to the Pac-16 (and by the way, they were negotiating for A&M too!), A&M’s administrators were surprised and quickly tried to do there own research. They decided that the SEC looked better that the PAC 16, but they certainly hadn’t the time to thoroughly study the issue. When the Longhorns backed down, they were content to stay put for the time being. Now that they’ve had a full year to do their own proper studies, they believe the SEC is the better long term option for the school.
Again, this is just what I read from someone else who claims to have knowledge, but it certainly seems to fit the facts. A&M officials never gave the impression that they were prepared for everything that happened in a few short weeks (was it even that long)?
LikeLike
I don’t know about all the rest of your answer, but I agree that this seems like a good move for TAMU. I reserve the right to change my mind if the politicians punish them later, but I think they can fail to win division titles in the SEC just as well as in the B12 and get paid better for it. They also won’t have big brother looming over them.
LikeLike
It remains to be seen whether they will be paid better. It seems almost certain that if nothing changed, they will be making more money in the Big 12 in 2015 when the ESPN contract renews.
The question is how much the SEC can get out of CBS and ESPN for expanding.
LikeLike
This certainly makes more sense than the LHN being the sole trigger. I think Byrne and Loftin are rational and don’t make decisions based on hatred of UT.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Don’t count out the political/legal wrangling putting the breaks on the A&M escape to the SEC just yet.
A&M is woefully under-represented in the Texas legislature & positions of power around the state. Why? Because most politicians are lawyers. Baylor – law school. Texas Tech – law school. Texas – law school. A&M – no law school.
The politicians are fuming right now. They are super-pissed that A&M usurped the authority of the legislative committee by doing the end run around he Tuesday meeting.
This ain’t over folks……
LikeLike
A&M has been begging for an unneeded law school (UH, TSU and private South Texas are 90 miles away in Houston as well as Texas and private Baylor about 90 miles away in different directions) for precisely this reason.
Baylor sympathizers will be unhappy. Tech probably will. The question is whether UT will try to stop it. If all 3 do, it will be stopped. Baylor alone is irrelevant. Not sure about Tech and Baylor-they had a unique alignment of power 17 years ago. But I have no idea how Texas will react.
I think its bad for all the Texas schools long run, even UTSA and Texas St. Differentiation doesn’t offset loss of recruits to SEC schools and I think that hits A&M worst of all. I think Dodds probably agrees. But is it worth fighting? There could be at least 4 lines of thinking:
1) A very Texan philosophy of not trying to force someone to do something they don’t want to do-stay in a conference when they want to leave;
2) A pragmatic approach-don’t set a precedent. Let A&M choose its own course and UT has a better chance of being allowed to chart its own course (this also applies to topics other than sports and has been a huge issue for UT on admissions and tuition);
3) Keep as many friends as possible. Perry and the people he listens to are trying to wreck research at the state universities (its a philosophic view that teaching is everything and research is mostly worthless). UT has had to rally alumni to stop his destruction. The Senate and House don’t view universities as important as they did 30 and 40 years ago. The universities need to all work together to avoid being gutted in these tight budget times.
4) They may just be tired of all the whining and belly-aching and temper tantrums. Nebraska left, but they still can’t get rid of Bill Byrne. Don’t let the door….
My gut feeling is that UT lets it go and Tech and Baylor fight it for fear of what might happen next. It could get nasty and the outcome uncertain. I do think moving up the regents meeting is a real poke in the eye to the legislature and hurts their cause. They must be taking political lessons from Chancellor Pearlman. Probably the first question asked is, “Why did you move your August 22 meeting up to August 15 just after we announced the hearing on August 16?”
LikeLike
Well, bullet. we certainly know that Texas and Baylor tried to stop this deal first with politics and then with an ineffective legal strategy. Neither worked. I guess you had it wrong. UT hardly let it go. They propped up Baylor and Ken Starr as the bogeyman but they were 100% opposed to A&M leaving but failed to stop it.
LikeLike
First, A&M hasn’t gotten out yet. The Big 12 is better with them than without, so of course, noone wants them to go.
I don’t see any indication there has been a significant political effort. Ken Starr making a speech doesn’t constitute a coordinated effort. What I was wrong about was that Tech and Baylor would fight it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Texas A&M Leaving Big 12 - Page 68 - CycloneFanatic
Frank,
I just don’t understand how you can’t see that Slive already has a very good understanding of how the renegotiations will go once aTm and whoever is added (the guy is a lawyer and ex-judge). The SEC presidents aren’t going to just add teams and risk igniting the expansion race for equal or less payout per school than what they already are getting. Slive would’ve had to already received assurances from CBS or ESPN, or both that they would be able to get more money per school by expanding, especially considering the timing. One rumor that I have heard is that the assurances came from CBS, but that is just a rumor. I’m not even going to say what the rumor was on the amount of the raise for per school payout other than to say that even I can’t believe that it would be that much. Also don’t be shocked if the SEC expands to 16 teams (if they wait a little while after going to 14 teams), that they renegotiate again for the 15th & 16th teams.
Look, the tv networks (especially CBS) know what the SEC is worth and wants to keep them happy. Drawing the Texas tv market viewership away from the Big 12 and ABC (and Florida viewership from the ACC if FSU is the 14th team, or pulling in the DC viewership if VT is the 14th team) is enough incentive to up the contract enough to get the per school payout back to or above the Pac 12 and B1G.
LikeLike
@Bamatab – I’m not questioning Slive’s negotiation skills, but no matter what, the leverage still lies with the networks from a pure contractual standpoint. Being worried about making the SEC mad is one thing if your contract is going to be up in 2014 and you’re worried they’ll start their own new network pronto. It’s a lot different with a contract that’s up in 2024. Sure, CBS and ESPN will come back to the table in good faith, but are they going to be throwing out some of the very high numbers that you’ve alluded to (I’ve seen some rumors of $40 million per school)? My guess is that CBS and ESPN want to keep the SEC happy, but not *that* happy.
LikeLike
What if Slive has realized the cash that could come from a SEC-NET and isn’t all too concerned about negotiations going badly. Maybe they will partner with CBS to lauch and freeze ESPN out / or the other way around since ESPN seems to be into making new specialty networks in the state of Texas.
LikeLike
I am with Bamatab (and other posters below) in thinking that the SEC will have assurances of more money it this happens.
Here’s why: ESPiN is playing a game of Monopoly with the other networks. A&M is Park Place to the Boardwalk that they just got with the Longhorn Network and ESPiN is going to build hotels. This, btw, is just an extension of FtT’s logic from last year. ESPiN paid a lot of money to keep the BXII together basically to prevent Fox/Pac12Network from getting Park Place, Boardwalk and a couple of other nice properties.
Now, ESPiN will pay a lot of money to pick up another piece of the BXII and to pick up properties from the east as well.
The more ESPiN has in inventory the better. Thus, the long-term contract is a PLUS, not a negative.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt Slive would be doing this if he wasn’t damn near certain he get a new TV deal. As you noted before no one will ever vote to take a paycut and Slive knows it.
LikeLike
ESPN is bidding against themselves and hurting their other contracts (potential interference lawsuit by B12 or ACC-maybe no real basis, but a real nuisance). They have no incentive to significantly raise their bid. They get A&M on the 2nd tier in the SEC and lose them on the 1st tier in the Big 12. Maybe they tick off the Big 12 who is renewing in 2015. With an ACC school, they just lose them on the first and third tiers. They already have them on all tiers. Only CBS has an incentive and they can’t increase their number of games. They can only get better ratings. The SEC championship game is around $15 million. Isn’t that part of the CBS $50 million a year? Its just hard to see the numbers of $17.9 million/school/year going up significantly going from 12 to 14. Adding teams doesn’t make the SEC more valuable to everyone. It might even make things less valuable for ESPN.
Remember, ESPN was part of the secret group that shot down superconferences last summer. They didn’t want to renegotiate all their contracts.
I have seen comments supposedly from insiders that the SEC hasn’t approached the TV partners yet. And the TV people won’t tell you what its worth until you tell them who you have. And we haven’t really heard much about #14.
I’m now convinced that the Slive and A&M are trying to make this happen. There are still a lot of hurdles to cross.
LikeLike
ESPiN shot down the Pac-16 to prevent FOX/Pac-16 Network from getting the inventory of the Texas-based teams. ESPiN paid a lot of money to keep that from happening, paid $300 million to get Texas and will pay a lot of money to add A&M to ESPiN’s inventory (via the SEC).
LikeLike
This is what a lot of people are missing about the LHN. ESPN viewed overpaying Texas by ~$200M as a way to keep the B12 together and prevent the super conference movement. With a super conference movement comes bigger conference networks that will want to cut out the middle man (ESPN).
Now ESPN was too clever by half (or IMHO 2/3s) because their LHN deal really turned off the rest of the B12. Other teams could accept always being behind in money – but those with options can’t accept being buried. And ESPN, while it can never hope to break even on the LHN, was hoping to make up something by broadcasting a second Longhorn game and high school sports.
So, who has options? A&M obviously. Missouri possibly (but prefers B1G to SEC).
Oddly, Oklahoma has problems. Their main problem is that their alumni and future recruits live in Texas. They can’t leave the B12 without potentially pissing off Texas residents, losing Texas recruits, and losing Texas TV coverage. This is the reason OU has openly said they’ll follow UT in whatever it does – not because they need UT, but because they need the state of Texas. Their secondary problem is OSU.
LikeLike
Regarding the Texas legislature, on January 20, 2013 former Aggie Yell Leader Rick Perry will at minimum still the governor of Texas and perhaps might have become the most powerful man in the world. Either way think TAMU will be OK politically.
LikeLike
Hi, Frank. You and I batted these questions around on twitter quite a bit on Tuesday. I’m not here to say I told you so. Promise.
However, I still think you’re underestimating Slive when it comes to TV contracts. At least one national college football writer (forgive me for not recalling who – I’ve read roughly 37 articles today – but it was someone significant and I meant to bookmark it to mention to you) intimated that there were strong indications that modifying the TV deals was likely if the SEC added teams of real value. I also think it’s highly unlikely that Slive makes this move (or that SEC schools sign on) if they haven’t already obtained some pretty strong indications from CBS and ESPN that some sort of mutually beneficial amendments to the deals can be made.
I honestly can’t see a reason why they networks wouldn’t modify in this scenario. Their motivation is not merely maintaining a good relationship with the SEC. The networks carry SEC football because it makes them money. Adding a team like A&M and the Texas market (and possibly an east coast team with a significant TV audience) is a financial win for the networks, not just the conference. Even if they modify to pay the SEC more, they’ll do so under the same logic that they always negotiate deals: we pay you more because we can make even more than we’re paying you.
On the political front, you’re not wrong that there likely will be a bit of a show before it’s all said and done. However, this story has been building for a week in Texas, and legislators have not rushed to take sides. It’s been surprisingly quiet, in fact, and even the calling of this completely powerless committee hearing next week stirred absolutely no one to make a single public comment opposing A&M’s move.
There are also a few other relevant factors that may keep legislators at bay. First, the legislature made a point in this year’s session (they were in session this year, they just adjourned a few weeks ago) of encouraging state universities to get creative in exploring ways to advance their brands and generate revenue streams outside of the tax base and tuition and fees. With that as a strong piece of the legislature’s message to state institutions, they’ll be hard pressed to make too much noise about A&M doing exactly that.
Even more interestingly, the Texas House Higher Education Committee — the one that called the special session next week — is chaired by Representative Dan Branch of Dallas. Following a committee hearing on February 23 in which the Longhorn Network was discussed, Branch made the following statements:
“I do not think this Legislature ought to penalize people that are going on and being successful in maximizing their assets and getting a higher return and finding revenues that are not a tax base.”
“I certainly will do everything I can to make sure that people who take care of their institutions and raise them up and bring in more revenues and create value that somehow that wouldn’t be a detriment as they go through the appropriations process.”
It’s going to be politically dicey for Branch and the legislature to ultimately create too much interference for A&M in light of their recent positions on these matters.
Finally, consider the fact that this stands to have a net positive effect for Texas universities by allowing a school like U of H, TCU, or SMU to back-fill A&M’s spot in the Big 12. Suddenly the state has an additional university in a BCS conference alongside A&M considerably expanding the national footprint of Texas universities by virtue of its participation in the SEC. Never mind that every conference home game in College Station will generate millions in local and state tax revenues from out of state fans – the potential for multiple Texas schools to benefit from the conference shuffle is significant.
Again, there is no doubt that UT is going to exercise their full weight to try to foil this thing, and if they can’t do that, they’ll do their best to make it as bloody an exit as possible. That’s the real political threat, and they certainly have considerable influence. Unfortunately for them, they’ve also alienated more than just A&M with their Longhorn Network agenda. Even in trying to invite Texas Tech into that land of lollipops, they offended the Tech administration by offering them cash to air their game on the LHN. Certainly Tech and Baylor folks aren’t thrilled with A&M’s escape east, but they’re also not eager to line up behind UT and take orders. The net effect is likely to be a mostly dispassionate response from anyone but the staunchest of UT supporters, statewide and in the legislature.
I agree with you, Frank, that this deal isn’t done until it’s done. It’s close, but it’s not done. God help us all if it doesn’t happen, as the level of spite and infighting likely to happen in the resulting Big 12 would be unprecedented (and that’s saying something for folks who endured the Pony Excess era of the SWC). However, my last clarification is this: what you’re watching happen this weekend is not the result of a situation that has gone from unlikely to likely in the last day or two. This has been in the works for some time now. Slive and A&M President Bowen Loftin just managed to do the impossible – actually get something done without all of us knowing about it ten minutes after they began talking.
LikeLike
I don’t see how another Texas university benefits the Big 12. A&M will almost certainly be replaced by someone out of state.
LikeLike
had a similar thought. but, other than Nebraska, the rest of the BXII has never challenged Texas’ right to dictate what happens in the conference. As noted elsewhere, “Co-Commissioner” DeLoss Dodd has a list of 20 schools ready to be added as A&M’s replacement. I feel confident, Texas will add another texas-based school to the BXII.
if the other 8 schools were to vote Texas down on adding Texas’ choice, the BXII dies that day.
LikeLike
Texas does what’s in their financial best interest like everyone else. Adding a Texas school doesn’t help. Even if you accept that Texas can dictate, there’s no financial reason for adding a Texas school. Its not recruiting since you already have 3 Texas schools. The only reason for adding a Texas school would be if UT and TT wanted to help UH and somehow secure the recruiting area better from the SEC. And there’s some bad blood so I don’t know if that’s likely they want to help UH.
LikeLike
thank you. appreciate the long and thoughtful post. and 100% agree with your take on the money side of this.
Slive and the SEC won’t do this without the money being assured and ESPiN/CBS will pay the money. They paid $300 million just for Texas. They did this not because Texas is worth it; but because it is more inventory for ESPiN. A&M has similar worth, particularly when added to the SEC. Think about it this way: FL vs. A&M is more interesting and will get better ratings than FL vs. Florida Atlantic (or whatever cupcake is on FL’s schedule). So, give every school another $4 million and pony up $480 (just to make the math easy).
And, btw, the length of the current contract between ESPiN and the SEC is a positive. If ESPiN is adding A&M (and other teams) to their inventory, ESPiN does not want to have to bid on that inventory anytime soon. That inventory is now locked up for a good long time.
LikeLike
A couple of other quick notes with some relevance…
The “end run” to have Regents meet before the special legislative committee meeting is absolutely not an effort to escape the legislature’s authority – it’s an attempt to escape potential meaningless posturing that could slow down the process indirectly. The committee has no power to do anything but talk with the legislature is not in session, and the legislature has no power to tell A&M what it can and cannot do with respect to conference affiliation. A few legislators may rant and rave for a while, but ultimately they know this to be true and recognize A&M didn’t do anything the legislative committee didn’t do first. In the end, I simply don’t believe enough legislators will be motivated enough to make A&M “pay” in any way politically in the years to come. That wouldn’t play well for long, as Texas voters would see through it as detrimental to a state institution.
Baylor and Texas Tech likely will measure their words and strategies carefully, as they’re going to want as much freedom as possible to make decisions for themselves in the years to come. The same is true for Texas, though they seem to have absolutely no belief that their actions might have any consequences, so I doubt this will give them much pause. Nonetheless, I think this is yet another reason it will be difficult to build a meaningful and passionate quorum opposing A&M’s move. Liberty is a big deal to Texans, and not many are going to want to have to be reminded that they opposed A&M making its own choice when they want the freedom to make their own choices.
LikeLike
Baylor is a private school and doesn’t answer to the state legislature. And athletically they’ve got no options and noone cares what they do. They’ll fight this.
Tech may have very limited athletic options. They’re filler and will have to tag along with A&M or UT as #14 or #16. Although they do have non-athletic issues where they will want freedom. I made the same point above regarding UT before reading your post. Contrary to your opinion, Texas seems the least likely to fight it (although I have no idea how likely or unlikely that is).
And politicians tend to have big egos. That’s far more important than political philosophy.
LikeLike
What if the SEC takes Texas A&M, then what?
Oklahoma is the clear next choice based on revenue, but are they tied to OSU? Would the SEC go after Missouri or Texas Tech and just systematically dismantle the Big 12?
After kicking around some AD revenues today, a few things jumped out, out of the schools NOT in the top 3 conferences, Texas is a gold mine. Notre Dame and Oklahoma are 2 & 3, then A&M and Duke are 4 & 5. Then UNC, OSU, Va Tech, WV, Syracuse, and BC. FSU Missouri, Kansas, Texas Tech, the U are all about 5-10 million behind the UNC group.
Let / encourage / nudge the SEC to take A&M and Florida State, or A&M and Virginia Tech…. shaking up the ACC. The Big 12 implodes sending Oklahoma, OSU, Texas Tech and Kansas to the Pac West. SEC decides to move to 16 quickly and grabs FSU / Va Tech then 1 of Clemson / Miami / West Virginia / Louisville.
ACC shattered, major conferences going to 16, BIG TEN has been negotiating with and setting up UNC / Duke / Boston College and Notre Dame. ND finally sees the need to join when the big players all go superconference. All good acedemics, big basketball and hockey improvement. Not crazy out of footprint, broad national appeal for what they do. Huge year round ratings for the Big Ten Network. Big Ten – ACC challenge all the time…. Wis, Minn, MSU, Mich, OSU, ND, BC and PSU for Hockey?
All opinion of course, this would be a huge steal for the BTN.
LikeLike
As a Penn State fan this would be an ideal situation. The reality of the matter is it will not happen. The only way you force ND into the Big 10, is they become limited in who they play (They are already adding UT, the U, NW to the schedule, so it will not be Tulsa on the schedule like last year). However, BC would be an ideal school for the Big 10. Not just their Hockey program for the Big 10 Network, but their academics, and the NE market as well.
As for UT, What I see happening is UT will hold things together, and will be successful at it. Why is that? There will always be pissant schools who are willing to be enablers for Bevo, just so they can get BCS Conference money. Baylor, K-State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State (Unless OU could take them west with them), and possible future members of the Longhorn Conference such as Houston, SMU, Rice & UTEP come to mind. (Does anyone think the UTEP Miners would say no to putting their home game with UT on the Longhorn Channel for a chance to be in the BCS?). Even if OU, Texas Tech, KU, and Missouri left it would not matter, all they would need would be about 3 Big time schools on their schedule to make it work (ND, A&M, and OU?) might be enough.
LikeLike
BC is hardly “ideal” for the BIG………cultural fit people, cultural fit………..
LikeLike
BC seems like a better fit culturally to a PSU fan than it does to a NE fan. PSU, MI and NW would get along fine with BC.
LikeLike
Michigan & Northwestern would get along fine with UNC & Duke as well.
LikeLike
Yes, they probably would. MI has more of an eastern feel to me than mid-atlantic, but maybe that’s changed lately.
LikeLike
The funny thing about “AD revenues” is that the top 10 is rounded out by 2 Big East schools and then 2 former Big East schools. And then you have Miami at #10. So 1/2 the non top 3 was the Big East in 2002. And they couldn’t figure out a way to stick together? Nice work by Mike Tranghese.
LikeLike
Can you get UNC without NCSU? That’s the key question.
If SEC takes FSU, Miami is ripe for the picking. Would getting the U help get ND?
You could come up with a NYC strategy with ND, Duke, and the U (and PSU & Michigan). Risky, though, with no local school.
LikeLike
So, any rumors on B1G reaction? BigPurpleCat (or whatever his name) from the Northwestern board suggested B1G is interested in A&M stand alone. By proxy, this would be FOX trying to prevent the ESPiN monopoly of the best texas teams.
Any rumors or thoughts?
LikeLike
Sorry: mean to start a new thread:
So, any rumors on B1G reaction? BigPurpleCat (or whatever his name) from the Northwestern board suggested B1G is interested in A&M stand alone. By proxy, this would be FOX trying to prevent the ESPiN monopoly of the best texas teams.
Any rumors or thoughts?
LikeLike
A&M is either going to the SEC or is staying in the Big 12. I don’t think that going to the B1G is even an option in their mind right now.
LikeLike
That was certainly my thought when PurpleCat threw out the idea of A&M as a stand-alone addition to the B1G. But wondered what, if anything, were rumors about a B1G reaction.
LikeLike
The B10 should follow Beebe’s lead and offer USC, UF, UT and AL. Maybe the Cowboys and Steelers would join for football only, with the Lakers and Celtics for hoops.
LikeLike
I have never heard that rumor, but it does not mean it is not true. If A&M does not go to the SEC, then expect it to put in for an application to PAC12. The Aggies will not stay in the Big12. Too much bad blood now.
It would be interesting if the Aggies were denied entry in the SEC, and it decided to gain entry into the PAC12; and whether Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Oklahoma decided to break free of Texas’ sphere of influence.
LikeLike
Btw, what happened to the “Oklahoma to SEC” rumors? Thought this was a package deal (A&M + OK)? That would certainly be better for ESPiN’s inventory. OK is somewhat hard to lever into a new space; no natural fit. Too south for B1G; too elite for MWC; too east for Pac-12.
By contrast, Florida State is an easy natural fit with the SEC/ACC and even Big East.
So, for ESPiN to end up with OK, getting A&M + OK as a package to the SEC may be the best way to get the OK “property.”
Anyway, I have not read enough, but where did the Flordia State rumors start?
Just curious.
LikeLike
I think that OU is in a “wait & see” mode right now. Actually, they are in a pretty good position if you think about it. Once they see what the fallout is from aTm going east, they can then let the SEC and Pac 12 make their sales pitches to them. Once they’ve heard both sides best pitches (which I’d bet is already going on actually), and once they know the fallout of aTm leaving the Big 12, then they can make up their mind whether staying in the Big 12, going to the SEC, or going to the Pac 12 is best for their longterm well being.
As I stated in the last topic page, the Pac 12 doesn’t have very many options when it comes to expansion. There aren’t very many “good” football schools left west of the Mississippi. If UT’s LHN takes them off of the table for the Pac 12, then OU is really a must have for them in order to get a good enough “football power” to justify expanding.
When it comes to OU’s decision, I think it will come down how OU feels in regards to being hitched to OK ST. If the Big 12 implodes after aTm goes east, then OU might feel it can justify leaving OK ST and go East. But I would be very shocked if the SEC would take OK ST, so if OU feels they have to take OK ST wherever they go, OU will go west if the Big 12 is no longer a viable option in their sight. The SEC still has enough options left in the east to not feel it has to take OU.
LikeLike
excellent points; OK can wait; no need to rush (with, I guess, the only thought is that SEC might stop (at least for awhile) at 14 so the window closes for at least awhile).
LikeLike
OU was most committed to keeping the B12 together last summer. I’ve seen several commentators suggest that they will NOT go to the SEC. But I also saw one report that said every school except OU had put out a statement that they were committed to the Big 12.
LikeLike
If things end up with 16-team superconferences when the music stops then I’d expect the Big Ten to add Pitt, Rutgers and Missouri — in part because they’re all American Association of Universities schools and the Big Ten school presidents would be reluctant to add any schools (except Notre Dame) that weren’t in the AAU.
Note that Nebraska just lost its AAU membership: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/26078/nebraska-loses-aau-status
Notre Dame would be the likely 16th team once they saw that superconferences were inevitable.
The Big Ten would just have to live with the shame of only having 14 out of 16 schools in the AAU.
LikeLike
Syracuse voluntarily gave up their AAU membership shortly after Nebraska; I don’t think either has been in decline. The AAU is still powerful as a name and bloc, but their way of measuring a university’s production may not be as valuable in future years as it once was.
LikeLike
If you looked at research numbers, Syracuse was clearly not doing research at the same level as the major research universities any more, so, yes, relative to their peers, Syracuse was in decline in research. UNL (IMHO) was far less cut-and-dry.
LikeLike
Maybe ESPN has realized that all the money they paid to keep the big12 together last year was not worth it. I assume they can get out of that contract if A&M leaves.
Four 16 team super conferences makes a tremendous amount of sense for a lot of people, especailly if you are a TV exec, TV viewer, or alum of one of the chosen 48. Maybe ESPN has decided that trying to stop something that makes so much sense is not a good investment in the long run. Sort of like trying to bail the Greeks out, you find yourself having to ante up more and more frequently to protect your past irrationality.
the 4×16 gives you an eight team playoff. Really about the max that is reasonable for a number of logistical reasons. The conferences keep their conference championship games. Rose bowl is preserved. SEC gets a plum by playing the remnant conference in the Sugar Bowl, which they probably deserve as the top confererence. And if you force UT, ND and the U intot he remnant conference, it might not bee that imbalanced.
The B1G needs to add four eastern teams. The west division would be: UNL, Iowa, MN Wisc, NW, UI, PU and IU. East: UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, MD, UVa, UNC, Duke. Note the preservations of natural rivalries. A 4 team pod would work very well from a rivalry standpoint, our pod of UI, NW, IU and PU would be too weak from a football standpoint though. The real key for the B1G is to add the right teams that are cultural fits. The 4×16 configuration could be stable for some time, and I would really hate to have to live with UT or ND.
LikeLike
Of course if you add two in West & two in East you can just as easily split along the Illinois/Indiana border.
LikeLike
Agree, but the key is you need to take two. If you needed just one, maybe Mizzou. Taking two, I guess it would be two of Mizzou, Oklahoma and Kanas. Just not sure that is as helpful from a demographic standpoint as MD, UVa, and UNC – not to mention the academics which I think will be a bigger issue after being burned my UNL with the AAU. Also, I think the PAC (or the remnant conference) needs Oklahoma for football balance.
LikeLike
@John. You make a very interesting point about ESPiN’s money. As you point out, if A&M goes to SEC, ESPiN has out-options with the new BXII tv deal. They already have TX; maybe during this “alignment round,” they prod the downfall of the BXII.
Maybe that is how ESPiN can “afford” to pay the SEC another $960 million for their tv rights through 2024 with 14 teams (again, just making the math easy).
LikeLike
@John. You make a very interesting point about ESPiN’s money. As you point out, if A&M goes to SEC, ESPiN has out-options with the new BXII tv deal. They already have TX; maybe during this “alignment round,” they prod the downfall of the BXII.
Maybe that is how ESPiN can “afford” to pay the SEC another $960 million for their tv rights through 2024 with 14 teams (again, just making the math easy).
LikeLike
There are incredible forces at work within Texas state politics, but people falsely believe that its to keep the B12-2 together. The politics are to keep Baylor and Tech in a BCS conference. When Tech and Baylor were on the outside looking at the MWC or some other conference is when the cries were loudest. Either one of these schools going to a non-BCS conference will lead to much lower enrollments and more economic troubles in those respective communities, Waco and Lubbock. If they remain in a BCS conference, it will not matter. The problem is Texas is too large a player and any move by it will lead to the entire conference imploding – thus they can’t move. A&M doesn’t bring that amount of heft so it can move and not implode the conference. Now for ESPN wanting to tear up the contract…that’s an absolute possibility which might bring Fox back into the picture. Either way it will be an interesting week.
LikeLike
Hangtime, you took the words right out of my mouth. I articulated very similar thoughts last night at BON after I had an epiphany and saw the error of my thinking over the past several months.
Before I get to that, I do want to clear up a misperception some on this thread have repeated: the belief that Texas legislators are “powerless” to act when they are not in session, as is the case now. This should be Politics 101, but having the ability to vote on and pass laws is just one of a plethora of ways legislators have to wield influence. Just because the Legislature isn’t in session right now doesn’t neuter the ability of its members to thwart an A&M move to the SEC if that’s what they chose to do.
Just look at realignment history of you don’t believe me. Legislative pressure came into the mix in both of the past two decades’ realignment scrambles in February 1994 and June 2010. In neither case was the Texas Legislature in session, yet in both cases, pro-Baylor and pro-Tech forces were able to ensure that their particular schools’ needs were met.
But just because legislators continue to wield considerable influence doesn’t mean that they will wield all of their potential influence in this particular case.
Which brings us to the current talk of A&M moving to the SEC. Like Frank, it’s appearing increasingly likely that I will be wrong, and, like Frank, a large part of my being wrong lies with my miscalculation of the political calculus involved.
My mistake has been a very simple one: an assumption that the pro-Baylor and the pro-Tech forces within Texas state government would view a unilateral departure by either Texas or A&M with an equal amount of concern that such a departure would lead to the death of the conference and likely relegation to non-BCS conferences.
But clearly that is not the case. While I maintain, as you seem to indicate from your sources, that Baylor and Tech would continue to view a unilateral departure of Texas in such a light, the unilateral departure of A&M isn’t nearly as threatening to their status as BCS conference members. As a result, we’re not witnessing the marshaling of legislative resources to prevent an A&M departure that I had erroneously assumed.
Now don’t get me wrong — A&M’s departure does weaken the conference. It doesn’t destroy it as a Texas departure would, but it does weaken it, so it does serve UT’s best interest to see if some token legislative roadblocks could easily impede A&M’s move. (From what I’m hearing from my Texas sources, though, there’s been a whole lot of nothing in that regard so far.) But if A&M were not to be easily deterred, I am now of the belief that pro-Baylor and pro-Tech forces would see this as not being the opportune time to deploy whatever nuclear options they might have in their arsenals. And without Baylor and Tech seeing a need to go all-out legislatively to stop A&M, there’s little incentive for UT to go all-out to stop A&M either.
LikeLike
And just for fun: one completely random conspiracy theory which I in no way believe but the thought did cross my mind: A&M and Texas are playing a well-coordinated good cop/bad cop routine so that both schools can get what they want. Now that begs the question of what UT’s end goal would actually be, but a good conspiracy doesn’t need to tie up all the loose ends, no?
LikeLike
Texas wants 1) control of a conference, and 2) the ability to go independent in football if absolutely necessary.
I don’t see Texas inviting BYU to the Big 12, but Texas inviting Houston to the Big 12 makes a lot more sense than Texas having to go independent in football and park its other sports in the Big East or worse (i.e. Conference USA, Sun Belt, WAC, or Southland.)
The massive egos in college sports all want their own conference to control:
1. Texas controls the Big 12
2. Notre Dame controls the Big East
3. BYU controls the WCC
The only big ego that has no control of a conference is USC.
LikeLike
I don’t see the rest of the conference going along with UH especially the northern schools. I see the northern schools fighting for a more independent school in the vain of ND, Boise State, or BYU. A 10 team realignment could like the following:
South:
TT
UT
Baylor
OU
OSU
North
ISU
K-State
Kansas
Mizzu
–new northern school
BYU might be interested in that the conference would work with their scheduling and already has a very religious school, Baylor. Also, this will be the only conference that will not have a problem with BYU having its own network.
Also, for those of you jonesing for ND to join the B10. I think their is a better chance of them joining some form of the B12-3 because ultimately this conference is setting up to be the “eat what you kill” conference in terms of media. Will see what happens this week.
LikeLike
Neither BYU nor ND is going to sign up to play ISU, KSU, KU and Baylor in football every year, and divisions don’t work below 12 schools because you can’t play a CCG.
LikeLike
If the odds of ND joining the B10 is 1% (or less), then the odds of ND joining the B12-3 is .0000000000000000001% (or less).
I’m not completely sold that BYU would pass up joining a major conference. But the others are right that there are good reasons for them not to do so.
If I were the B12, I’d at least strongly consider inviting BYU.
LikeLike
HH, trust me I have been pondering that angle for about 6 months right now. It has to be a Texas thing, that would not be picked up on my Indiana radar – Much like high school basketball eludes Texas radar.
LikeLike
Hopkins:
That was kind of my point with my question yesterday. Whether there is actual colusion or not, there may be concurrent goals.
LikeLike
Rick Perry, former Aggie yell leader and current Texas governor, declared his candicacy for president today. This puts Texas A&M on a short timeline to get into the conference of their choice before their political cover vanishes. If Perry has his eyes clearly on the next rung of his political career, he may not be as beholden to in-state political allies with ties to Baylor. Plus this enables a group of four universities (Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) that may use the opening A&M has created to make their own escape west together and supersize the PAC12 to sixteen teams. A PAC16 eastern division of AZ, AZ St, Utah, Colo, UT, Texas Tech, OK St and OK would seem pretty workable… Anyways, that’s my conspiracy theory.
LikeLike
That leaves Baylor and most or all of the four northern Big 12 schools in limbo. They then have to hope the ACC and/or Big East are sufficiently decimated that they need them as a western flank, or that an agreement would be made to promote the Mountain West to BCS status were it to take them in.
LikeLike
The above was a reply to the scenario of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State heading to a Pac-16.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “well-Coordinated” but I think A&M moving first does get UT’s ultimate goal…and that is Independence or the only major university in a Mid-major type conference. The LHN contract and the actions so far by it/espn can only lead to one spot, which is no one wants to be in the Big 12…which is Independence for UT that they couldn’t have gotten if they said “hey were going independent”.
There will be some schools that have no choice and will see UT’s crumbs as mana, like Baylor or Houston. Others will see it as serfdom to UT’s dukedom, and want to leave.
LikeLike
For some reason I had always assumed that the Tech/Baylor forces were latched onto Texas mainly simply because of the power of Texas as the strongest of the national power schools, and the school that would always be in a BCS conference simply by its presence. A&M never had that kind of value, so I assumed the Tech/Baylor forces would be willing to hold save their energy to prevent a Texas independence push. As long as Texas was/is signaling an intent to remain in the Big 12, I haven’t seen any likely backlash against an A&M move.
LikeLike
Your post reminds me of an historical footnote. The most credible story of what happened in 1994 was in a story in the San Antonio paper. Lt. Gov. Bullock (along with Speaker Laney and others) called UT and A&M officials into his office and informed them they were going to the Big 12 with Baylor and Tech. UT understood. A&M said, “No, we are going to the SEC.” A&M was made to understand.
This wouldn’t be the first time A&M wanted to go to the SEC.
LikeLike
The Baylor poster way up the thread said his Baylor contacts said they would not fight. Like you, Baylor was a school I was certain would fight.
LikeLike
@bullet
Baylor will only fight if they get left out of a BCS conference. Baylor just approved a $400 MM operating budget for the coming year. Further up thread I discussed Baylor’s and probably Tech’s big fear, enrollment loss. Now if you think about that operating budget and what would happen with loss in enrollment modeled you start to understand how critical it is for both these schools to remain in a BCS conference. That $10MM payment UT is getting from ESPN each year is probably 1/10 the possible loss of conference affiliation is worth to each school. Seeing that you should understand the kind of weapons both schools will unleash if anything threatens the BCS conference affiliation. Back to my point about not unleashing its weapons.
Read the statements both from Ken Starr in today’s Waco Tribune Hearld and Ian McCaw’s, Baylor’s AD, issued yesterday.
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=98171
http://www.baylorbears.com/genrel/081211aaa.html
They both talk about traditional rivalries, commitment to the B12-2, and other platitudes. However, you will notice what’s not there, there are no calls to action. There is no call to talk to your reps, no write to other papers, no discussion about this severely weakening Baylor or the surrounding economy. Now juxtapose these statements with last year’s where they talk about damage to the Waco economy, Baylor itself, and to get involved and stay involved.
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75443
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75510
In effect, we now are seeing a token defense to keep A&M. Baylor feels that A&M leaving will not blow up the conference and therefore is not going to deploy its arsenal to keep A&M which probably makes the conference less stable anyway given the little brother-big brother dynamic between the institutions. Thus, whatever Rep Branch’s committee meeting is going to talk about on Tuesday sure won’t be pushed by Baylor.
Really the only school that will lose with A&M leaving to head for the SEC is UT and therefore I think any pressure for A&M to stay will be coming from that direction.
LikeLike
@bullet
Baylor will only fight if they get left out of a BCS conference. Baylor just approved a $400 MM operating budget for the coming year. Further up thread I discussed Baylor’s and probably Tech’s big fear, enrollment loss. Now if you think about that operating budget and what would happen with loss in enrollment modeled you start to understand how critical it is for both these schools to remain in a BCS conference. That $10MM payment UT is getting from ESPN each year is probably 1/10 the possible loss of conference affiliation is worth to each school. Seeing that you should understand the kind of weapons both schools will unleash if anything threatens the BCS conference affiliation. Back to my point about not unleashing its weapons.
Read the statements both from Ken Starr in today’s Waco Tribune Hearld and Ian McCaw’s, Baylor’s AD, issued yesterday.
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=98171
http://www.baylorbears.com/genrel/081211aaa.html
They both talk about traditional rivalries, commitment to the B12-2, and other platitudes. However, you will notice what’s not there, there are no calls to action. There is no call to talk to your reps, no write to other papers, no discussion about this severely weakening Baylor or the surrounding economy. Now juxtapose these statements with last year’s where they talk about damage to the Waco economy, Baylor itself, and to get involved and stay involved.
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75443
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75510
In effect, we now are seeing a token defense to keep A&M. Baylor feels that A&M leaving will not blow up the conference and therefore is not going to deploy its arsenal to keep A&M which probably makes the conference less stable anyway given the little brother-big brother dynamic between the institutions. Thus, whatever Rep Branch’s committee meeting is going to talk about on Tuesday sure won’t be pushed by Baylor.
Really the only school that will lose with A&M leaving to head for the SEC is UT and therefore I think any pressure for A&M to stay will be coming from that direction.
LikeLike
This is silly on so many levels……….
You talk about cultural fit, after just mentioning NC, Duke, and Va. Sillly
And you think Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin will vote to add all eastern teams? Silly.
Or that NC, Duke, and VA. will leave the ACC? Silly.
LikeLike
Looking backward of course you are right. If you make the asumption that I have laid out, that the 4×16 configuration creates value, the question becomes how do you best fill out a 16 team B1G in a way that adds maximally to BTN revenue and remains in some sense a coherent conference with enough shared values that it defines the brand. You are not going to get to 16 by adding midwest land grant colleges ranked in the US News top 75.
A corollary to this assumption is that as stronger surrounding (football) conferences (SEC and B1G) get to 16 they will do so at the ACC’s expense, the old ACC will not be an option for UNC, Duke and UVa. They would have a choice, B1G, SEC or ACC/BigEast/Big12 remnant. I think under this assumption, they would choose B1G in a heartbeat.
So I think the logic is sound. Using Occam’s razor, if the result is silly, it must be in the assumption. Which is 4×16 is a stable value creating configuration that cannot be resisted in the long run. Old William was a pretty bright guy, this might be silly.
LikeLike
Wisconsin might not mind adding eastern teams if that means they get to play in the west.
LikeLike
ESPN didn’t really put out any money. They just didn’t cut. And that contract runs out in 4 years.
LikeLike
Pods can work, but you have to balance them. You can’t have IL, NW, PU and IN in one while OSU, PSU, MI and MSU are in another.
I think the IN schools would have issues with your divisions, losing games with OSU and MI especially.
LikeLike
A better, more equitable Big Ten pod system would switch the Michigan and Indiana schools, so you would have Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue and Indiana in one pod and Michigan State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Northwestern in another. (The westernmost pod would be Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.)
LikeLike
You wrote: “it’s not as easy as “expansion = look-in trigger = more $$$”, or else we’d see conferences expand every single time that their own TV contracts fell behind by a little bit.”
Aren’t you missing something here? The reasons conferences can’t just just expand every day are obvious. First, the only way they get more money is if the expansion target is a desirable one. Adding the whole state of Texas to the SEC makes the SEC a significantly more valuable property. Adding Florida A&M does not. A “look-in” is what it literally says: “taking a look.” It does not mean more money unless the expansion actually adds value.
And of course, expansion is two-way street. It needs to be good for the expanding conference, but it also needs to be good for the school, too. The ACC could certainly sweeten its TV deal by adding Penn State. But even a sweetened ACC TV deal wouldn’t be better for Penn State than just remaining where they are.
So the reason you don’t see expansion every day is that there just aren’t that many possibilities where both the institution and the conference stand significantly to benefit.
LikeLike
I suspect the prime catalyst for Mike Slive and the SEC to make this move is Larry Scott and the Pac 12.
Over the past 14 months or so, Scott tried to create the first 16-team super conference and failed. He then put together an oustanding media package and set up the groundwork for a Pac 12 Network that will include a national channel coupled with six regional/state channels. Scott has publicly said he expects there to be further realignment in college football and given past history, there’s not much doubt he’d be a major change agent in that process.
Slive and the SEC’s perception of the matter may be strategic. If they’ve become convinced that 16-team super conferences coupled with a post-season college playoff are the wave of the future, then the timing of the move to accept Texas A&M plus at least one more team into the conference makes sense. The SEC could wait, but perhaps the conference leadership has decided its time to forge the future now or else be left in the wake of a Pac 16 Conference (or a Big 16 Conference with Jim Delany at the helm).
I can see the SEC stopping at 14 for now as part of the famous two-step conference expansion strategy that’s been discussed on this blog many times. But I have little doubt they’ve identified the desired programs that will get them to 16. Whatever happens is going to be the main driver dictating how much momentum is behind what may be the next round of conference expansion.
I also suspect that because all these issues were touched on last year and that all the interested parties are all pretty well-versed in pros and cons, etc. of any move, decisions on going foward regarding conference realiignment will be made much more expeditiously than last summer. That in itself carries its own momentum. We saw last year, for example, how the Big Ten felt compelled to move up its time table and invite Nebraska to the confernce given all the turmoil in the Big XII. Now we’re reading about Texas A&M moving up its regents meeting and the possibility of a meeting of the SEC presidents on Sunday. The bottom line is this–things may fall in place on a much faster timetable than people expect.
Obviously, there’s lots happening behind the scenes we don’t know. but I think we can be pretty sure that Slive, Scott and Delany in concert with the networks are the major change agents here. Obviously, the university presidents have a big say in this, but I suspect the Pac 12 and Big 10 presidents have alreadly laid out what they want to see happen to their conference commissioners.
We’ll see, but this may be another “Guns of August” scenario, except instead of the beginning of World War I, it’ll be the beginning of a major realignment in collegiate athletics.
LikeLike
I think Slive understands that the BIG has no expansion response that will work. Adding Rutgers and MO is doable and would make sense, but the Presidents and fans probably aren’t ready for it after just adding Nebraska. And it would obviously be a less than exciting response anyway. All the TX, OK, NC, Duke, VA, MD to the BIG talk is nonsense, and he knows it.
It’s all about ruling the world, IMO.
LikeLike
“All the TX, OK, NC, Duke, VA, MD to the BIG talk is nonsense, and he (Slive) knows it.” Say it again, brother, say it louder. This is not Stratego.
LikeLike
As long as Texas has the potential to go independent, there’s less motivation for ND to do anything.
Seems like that will be the case, with Texas staying in the Big 12 until it falls apart. Given that, the B1G’s moves seem limited – there are a lot of options, but few great ones.
LikeLike
We know why a conference would go to 12 (to get a championship game)
We know why a 12-team conference would go to 14 (if you can land a slam-dunk team like TAMU)
So why would a league go to 16? Just to get to get 4 4-team pod symmetry? The money probably won’t be there to go from 14 to 16. (Although Oklahoma is a semi-slam dunk that might only be available in a 16-team scenario)
LikeLike
Agree with all of this Cutter. I think last year Scott took the initiative and people were moving faster than they were comfortable with. Now the pencils have been worked. Another great point is that Scott, Slive and Delany have more in common with getting this done rationally than they do competitvelyas rivals, althought that element is no doubt present to a lesser degree. Particularly Delany and Slive. If the answer is 16, how does Slive get there w/o A&M. The B1G and SEC need to emerge as the top two conferences, the PAC needs to emerge as an intact entity, and the Remnant conference needs to be roughly as strong in football as the PAC to have a balanced seeding in Sugar and Rose Bowls.
LikeLike
ooooh, a Naming Contest. Okay, board: NAME THAT FOURTH CONFERENCE!
Drwillini offers: The Remnant Conference. LOL
I’ll offer: Conference All Over The Country
LikeLike
The What’s Left League (conference slogan: “Thank God we’re still BCS”)
LikeLike
You do have a good point that these 3 really won’t compete for teams much. Basically for the Pac 12 its just vs. the SEC for A&M and OU and vs. the B10 for UT. For the SEC and B10 Missouri is the only school that both might want and be able to get (UT and UNC won’t go to the SEC).
LikeLike
For those who remember me from last year, I again spoke with my contact in the Baylor administration on Thursday. Apparently there was a lot of rumors and scuttle coming out of the Big 12 BOD meeting last week. My contact thought that the BOD would kick A&M something extra (and may still) to keep them, but thought they would eventually jump. However, he did not believe A&M leaving would blow up the league as long as Texas stayed. If B12 minus 3 still has Texas and was still intact Baylor and Tech would not fight A&M leaving.
When the analysis was done last year Baylor forecasted enrollment dropping precipitously due to losing the B12 (between 15% – 30%) and going to a non-BCS conference. The same forecasts I’m sure would hold for Tech. The football revenues are important but the enrollments more so for both Tech and Baylor. As long as Baylor and Tech remain in a BCS conference, even if that conference is one smaller without A&M, then its good for both schools. In fact, the loss of A&M may help the B12-3 stay together as either another Texas school could be included or an invitation could go out somewhere else. Remember it wasn’t Arkansas leaving the SWC that killed it, it was Texas. As long as Texas is onboard to keep the conference together than there is no political fight to keep A&M from moving.
BTW, what’s better for Texas than being an independent? Texas being able to schedule and act like an independent while being associated with a BCS conference.
This is my lay of the land as of the moment.
LikeLike
Question for my Illini brothers:
Will you be spending more time with conference realignment “stratego” this weekend or watching our boys in the PGA?
LikeLike
Frank,
you gotta pay more attention to the duffman! 🙂
Word is you were sourcing fat ketch for your previous blogs while I was sourcing the guy that designed the artwork you used in this one. 😉
I said this to you near the beginning of the blog and I will paraphrase it here again because I am too overwhelmed to go back and look for it. it went something like this….
If the B1G is to come out on top of realignment, we must anticipate what the SEC will actually do rather than what we would like them to do. The day we plan on what we would like them to do is the day we have already lost!
I stick by this as my guiding principle today. If we say no way to Cincinnati, Louisville, and West Virginia in the B1G, it is safe to say that any discussion of these teams in the SEC is moot as well. While I have proposed that the ACC could implode the same way the B12 has, I have always considered that the SEC might get at least 1 academic jewel in the fight. To say that this is impossible is to be blinded by personal views. Realignment is about football money and research money! Georgetown is a great school, but without a football brand and big research dollars, they will not enter the realignment discussion.
I could be wrong, but early on in this blog, we all agreed that the 2 Texas schools should wind up anywhere but the SEC, yet here we are on the verge of it happening. I for one will only believe it when I see Loftin and Slive in the photo op press conference, but I will say this is one time it was good to be an IU basketball fan. I was in Indy this spring sitting with some other IU fans for the NCAA championship game between Notre Dame and TAMU. I came away from that game with the impression that the fan base was already SEC bound, and it was only a matter of time. Say what you will about thinking like a college president, but to ignore the majority of your fanbase (and big donors) is probably the quickest way to finding yourself out of a job. Loftin and Byrne have quietly been revamping sports at TAMU, and the NCAA championship was a vision of things to come.
TAMU is now a serious competitor in the Directors Cup, and with their money and fanbase could easily become a serious contender in the SEC football world. When I did the research on the “underperforming” football schools of all time on FtT, TAMU was at the top of my list. yet during this time they were shackled as the “little brother” of the mighty longhorns. Over the past year of realignment discussion it has become more obvious of what a future TAMU unshackled might become. If I as a humble blogger could see this, I am fairly sure the administration and big donors at TAMU could see this as well.
Tomorrow, this may all blow up, and TAMU might be back in the B12 fold, but today they are at the podium in the national press, and they have entered a place they have not been. I have a feeling this is the point of no return.
LikeLike
IMO A&M has been underperforming because of coaching, not talent.
LikeLike
bullet,
My research on TAMU that I posted on here ages ago confirmed that. Going back to Dana Bible and others, TAMU has had great coaches they have failed to keep, and kept coaches they never should have hired. I would counter with Florida until Charlie Pell became their coach. Without Pell, there would be no Spurrier or Meyer. If TAMU gets the gateway coach – which Sherman may be – then the coach that follows will be the future of TAMU.
LikeLike
Frank, any idea whether the Big Ten has looked into adding Florida State and Miami? I get that research is important, but with Nebraska losing AAU, that can’t be the be-all end-all of enlargement of the Big Ten at this point. Florida State and Miami are both strong research universities, probably on par with Nebraska (especially with the removal of their AAU), and that in my opinion is the only way to 14 right now other than Notre Dame + 1.
The Big Ten can’t take Missouri/Rutgers or Maryland/Rutgers at this point. I think we need a slam dunk to go to 14 and that means some school from the list of Notre Dame/Florida State/Miami. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I’d love to know whether Florida State/Miami would entertain the thought of joining the Big Ten together.
LikeLike
The other thing is, is that you can just move Wisconsin to the “Northwest” division if you do grab a combination like FSU/Miami in order to maintain competitive balance.
LikeLike
I have heard speculation about B1G and the U, but I’m not buying it. To me what will define the big post-expansion is what drives the BTN revenue machine, and that is lots of nationwide alumni and graduate programs that generate research dollars and more alumni that cross pollinate with other conference schools. Not sure either of these schools offer that. Ironically, I think UF does.
LikeLike
Re: Big 10 adding FSU and UMiami (Zeek)
And on and on it goes
LikeLike
new ESPN link
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6858985&categoryid=2378529
TAMU to SEC, probable official announcement monday after SEC meeting this weekend, and BoR meeting on monday.
LikeLike
here is same thing
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6857085/texas-system-board-regents-calls-special-meeting-monday-discuss-conference-alignment
with a different link
LikeLike
But why should we have to wait to engage in rampant speculation? Here’s my scenario. The private schools get tired of dealing with the politics that the big state schools bring and decide to form their own conference. The current FBS conference privates (including TCU), plus Notre Dame and BYU, create this:
West
USC
Stanford
BYU
TCU
Baylor
Vanderbilt
East
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Boston College
Duke
Miami
Non-football
Georgetown
Villanova
St. John’s
ND gets protected rivalries with USC and Stanford, and the league would have to stick to eight conference games so the Irish could keep playing Michigan, MSU and Navy every year. Doesn’t leave them a whole lot of flexibility, but they get a national schedule. For basketball, you play each of your fourteen conference opponents once, and four of them twice, including some protected rivalries. I thought about including Gonzaga to give the conference a presence in the Pacific NW, but I could go either way on that one. Also, I left out Wake Forest, because really, now.
LikeLike
Jake – add Tulane, SMU & Rice to the West, move Vandy to East, add Wake Forest to the East and you have a deal for the first 16-team Super/private/exclusive Club/conference.
LikeLike
12’s a good number, and I’m not sure those four bring enough to be worthwhile. But either way, this is going to be a VERY exclusive club. Imagine if that group formed its own version of the CIC.
As for Vandy in the West, I didn’t want to split ND and Northwestern, or have ND and USC in the same division, as that seemed unbalanced. So, Vandy it is.
I’m also still working on a name for this thing. The National Athletic Concerence? The Parochial Conference? Suggestions are welcome.
LikeLike
Re: name for proposed private school conference (Jake)
How about: the “Unlikely conference”: UC
LikeLike
The Country Club?
LikeLike
southern version of the Ivy league – good academics, without the national football attention
LikeLike
Not sure why my last post went up there, but such are the mysteries of WordPress comment sections. And while we’re talking about Aggies and white people dancing:
And yes, I would have posted that even if EDSBS hadn’t put it up yesterday. I’m from Texas; it’s canonical.
LikeLike
The Big-10 infatuation with ND or the Carolinas is clouding their judgement about Mizzou. How can the Big-10 waste a lifetime of John Hughes movies, solid Mid-West values, and allow the Slive and the SEC to snake away Mizzou. Mizzou is AAU, hard working, and not very athletic but could probably be paired up with Maryland. Mizzou is a that awesome friend everybody takes for granted! That’s a home run. Not ND grand slam, but something worth plenty at 14 teams. Plus, the Tigs and Terps definitely add something to the basketball. Moreover, the Big-10 can stop at 14 and wait until they are stomach punched by ND again after NBC signs another dumb Olympic size mistake with the Irish.
LikeLike
Don’t see the SEC going for Missouri, but if the Big Ten has to expand again, I agree they are toward the top of who I want (other than maybe Kansas). I’d rather keep the Big Ten primarily Midwest focused so we go to 16 eventually, at least most of the conference will remain there.
LikeLike
I think Slive and the SEC go to 16 teams:
A&M, already in the pocket
FSU, the state of Florida is big enough for two quality teams
West Virginia, because they just feel like an SEC program and the SEC can’t convince any other ACC teams.
Missouri, because the Big-10 will allow it and Mizzou will not have any choice.
Slive talked about paradigm shift and I think the Big East turning down ESPN’s offer was it. The SEC could see in a couple of years where they are fourth in media money and more importantly for their Olympic sports, fourth in exposure. The SEC knows from recent history it is better to be taking risks rather than letting events pass you by. Those non-revenue sports can become revenue sports with enough exposure.
LikeLike
Doh! I forgot to mention the main reason for going to 16. The SEC needs a conference network and now really want regional networks the Pac just negotiated and the only way to force ESPN and CBS to renegotiate is to be able to have enough rights to make valuable for ESPN and CBS to renegotiate. An increase of 25% of rights should be enough to force ESPN’s hand and probably CBS. Slive needs to be able to say, “I’ll go to Fox with these rights.” Splitting them won’t be pretty, but hey, conference networks and regional networks are the only way to keep pace.
LikeLike
I also agree, this isn’t done in the ways of expasion for the Big Ten. Even their new logo looks like the G is set up to make a 6.
LikeLike
Todd – A&M and Florida State are basically SEC schools that aren’t in the conference. I agree that the B1G should be looking for B1G-like schools that just don’t happen to be members.
I’d go with Mizzou and Pitt. They would be stand-up doubles much like Arkansas and South Carolina were for the SEC in the 90s. It took some time for them to assimilate, but both were happy and grateful to be in the SEC. But last season, South Carolina made it to the SEC CG for the first time and Arkansas played in its first BCS bowl game.
Mizzou and Pitt are competitive, but not championship caliber – just like the Hogs and the ‘cocks back in the early 90s. Twenty years ago, TV money wasn’t nearly the consideration it is today, but with Mizzou you pick up a new state with two big cities primed for BTN carriage. Pitt is a great school, good tradition, and the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Alan, I’d agree with you if the Big Ten was where the SEC was. But I think we all know that the Big Ten is still another power school away from being able to match the SEC. The SEC already had Florida/Alabama/Tenn./Georgia/LSU (maybe replace Tenn. with Auburn looking forward); they needed to fill out the middle of the conference, so SC/Ark. made a whole lot of sense as well as getting the SEC CCG.
The Big Ten is aleady at 12, but I think the Big Ten is still yet another power school away (i.e. Notre Dame but that doesn’t look to happen any time in the next 5 years unless they have a series of losing seasons).
The Big Ten needed Penn State and Nebraska to help fill out the top of the conference since it was OSU/Michigan and the little 8, but I still think the Big Ten needs one more of those kinds of additions. The other thing is that going to 14 is so different from going to 12 in which the CCG helps satisfy the move from 1/10th to 1/12th shares of the pie.
In going to 14, the two schools had better be able to satisfy their two shares worth. Missouri and Pitt can’t do that. They might have been able to take the Big Ten to 12 if you include CCG money (and remove two schools…), but I don’t see how they get the Big Ten to 14 if you already value the next Big Ten contract at near $30M per school.
Texas A&M can do that for the SEC because of the size of the Texas TV markets and what that will do for recruiting for schools like Alabama that don’t really hit Texas as hard as they could if they were in a division with A&M.
LikeLike
zeek,
I think you are wrong. The SEC has one traditional king (AL) on par with the B10’s 4 (OSU, MI, PSU, NE), with TN, GA, AU and LSU trailing them. What the B10 needs are those next level teams to strengthen the middle, and WI is in that role now and both MSU and IA are trying to get there regularly. The B10 suffers from the kings not all being near their peaks and the middle and bottom of the conference falling short. If NW would win a bowl, and IL would meet their potential, that would help. PU keeping their ACL’s intact will help too.
Solid mid-pack addition would be just fine competitively. The problem that they rarely pay for themselves. MO might work, but Pitt doesn’t bring new TVs which makes it hard to justify.
LikeLike
What happened to UF? In any case, I’d put UF, UGa, & LSU alongside ‘Bama as “kings” now. All 4 of them (as well as AU) brought in more football revenue than Michigan or tOSU.
LikeLike
UF is a modern king, but not a traditional/historical one. I meant to include them on that list of SEC schools trailing the kings.
I stand by my points. The B10 needs the kings to play like kings and the middle to man up. NW is much better than their national reputation because the only game many people see is NW losing a bowl. IL has flashes of brilliance and then Zooks themselves the next year. MSU seems to be growing out of that under Dantonio, but I’m waiting to see them follow up 2010 with a solid season. IA is only good if they have no expectations. WI seems to have finally gotten past that problem.
LikeLike
UGA can’t claim king status based on a few great years under Richt.
FL has 7 SECCG titles and 3 NC since 1992.
AL has 3 SECCG titles and 2 NC since 1992.
LSU has 3 SECCG titles and 2 NC since 1992.
TN has 2 SECCG titles in 5 appearances and 1 NC since 1992.
AU has 2 SECCG titles in 4 appearances and 1 NC since 1992.
GA has 2 SECCG titles in 3 appearances and 0 NC since 1992.
GA is 6th in the recent history of its conference, and is on a string of off years. They are WI or maybe IA right now.
LikeLike
Brian – neither Wiscy nor Iowa have a 1980 NC and final #2 ranking as recently as 2007, like UGA. I don’t know if either Wiscy or Iowa have 12 conference championships though, like UGA.
LikeLike
My list of “kings” (not in order):
Michigan
Ohio State
Nebraska
Penn State
Florida State
Miami
Florida
Alabama
LSU
Tennessee
USC
Texas
OU
Notre Dame
Almost kings:
Georgia
Auburn
Right behind them (not in order):
Va. Tech
Wisconsin
Oregon
Washington
Iowa
Clemson
Texas A&M
LikeLike
Alan,
#2 finishes don’t mean much more to me compared to #3-10 except that you for sure won a good bowl game and are a media darling. Doing it once in 19 years isn’t king material by itself. The last 3 seasons have taken the luster off of 2007.
GA has 7 AP top 10 finishes since 1992 (including 2 #10s), WI has 5 and Iowa 4 (both with no #10s). Both WI and IA have 12 conference titles as well, and IA has 1 NC. I don’t see GA’s NC in 1980 as really any more or less relevant than IA’s 1958 title.
WI is on a high right now, like GA was in 2002-2005 or 2007 (we’ll see how long it lasts), while GA has been on a down slide.
LikeLike
Michael,
I assume you are talking about modern day kings, not traditional ones.
That said, I think you have to downgrade Miami. They’ve been down too long to stay on your list (out of final AP top 25 4 of last 5 years, #19 in 2009, #17 in 2005, not top 10 since 2003). TN is also sliding off the list, along with FSU (the downside of listing modern kings is that they can silide off the list with several bad years in a row). In the 2000’s, FSU wasn’t a AP top 10 finisher except for 2000 (TN not since 2001). The good news for you is that Fisher seems to have FSU coming back to prominence while TN is still several years away.
Some references for final AP top 10s since 2000:
OSU, OU – 8 out of 11
USC, UT – 7
LSU – 6
FL, GA, VT – 5
Miami, IA, AL, OR – 4
AU, WI, TCU, BSU, probably several others – 3
I think you give Auburn too much credit for last year, with 4 out of 11 years out of the top 25. UW can’t be in that next tier after 1 bowl game in 8 years. Clemson and TAMU have no results to justify inclusion either (1 top 20 each in 11 years).
LikeLike
Brian,
A king to me is a program that is simply legendary and highly relevant to this day. It may have traditions that date back to 1803, when Michigan first started collecting its victory totals, or those traditions may not really go back even before color television, like Miami. But it’s a program that is always relevant.
“King” status, as far as I’m concerned, has to be subjective. Michigan has won 1 national title in the past 62 years, but no one would question whether they’re one of college football’s kings. Miami, FSU, and, to a lesser degree, Florida, trail Michigan, Penn State, Tennessee, OU, Texas, etc. in total victories by hundreds of games, but they combine for 10 of the past 27 national championshps. They’re kings.
I think of the really old-line programs kind of like the Rockefellers and Carnegies. They’re families of generational wealth whose riches will continue into perpetuity.But programs who came on relatively recently are more like Bill Gates. 100 years from now, the Gates name will be another name of generational wealth. Right now, no one thinks of him that way, but we might as well. Ten national titles and 7 Heismans collective, Hall of Fame coaches like Bobby Bowden, Steve Spurrier, and Urban Meyer, all in the middle of one of the two most fertile recruiting grounds in the nation–that’s generational wealth, even if they didn’t really hit the scene until the 80’s and 90’s, much like Gates.
Having said all that, I’ll admit LSU was in my gray area. I gave them the nod because they’ve won titles in multiple decades, including two in the past seven years. As for the subjective quality, LSU is pretty famous for their Saturday night games and for their past two coaches’ antics. They’re probably not a ratings draw by themselves the way a Florida or USC would be, but they’re close enough. Some say Tennessee should be questioned. I think that’s nonsense. They’ll recover eventually.
I don’t think I gave Auburn too much credit. They’ve had three seasons in the past 18 years with no losses: ’93, ’04, ’10. They’re about as close to a king status as one can be without being one.
LikeLike
Michael,
You have to also look at the surrounding years. AU was undefeated 3 times, but they also lost 5 or more games 7 times since 1992. They only have 5 10 win seasons in that period. They were 13-12 the 2 season before last year.
MI has been down lately, and still has 6 10 win seasons over that period and lost 5 only the 3 RichRod years. They also have 2 undefeated years and 1 NC during that period.
I agree that being a king is subjective, but there are objective data you can use to support it. The problem for Miami and FSU is that when you don’t have a long history, it doesn’t take long to forget your past. FSU seems to be back to being nationally competitive, but Miami has to show that. Miami is only relevant when they’re good, even to their own fans. VT has been dominating the ACC for 5 years and was never in the hunt for a national title since Vick left. FSU and Miami have to prove they can win their conference first, and then prove they can compete nationally, to be relevant again in my opinion.
LikeLike
richard, 2 issues with your “kings” list
#1 standard bell curve would indicate a max of 12 “kings” or 10% of 120 team totals – tho I would argue the number be half of that, or a number closer to 6
Michigan – true king
Ohio State – true king to lesser king (others had your glory early on)
Nebraska – true king to lesser king (factoring the forgotten years)
Penn State – true king to lesser king (JoPa factor)
Florida State – near king (?? post Bowden)
Miami – near king to second son (lived fast, died young)
Florida – near king (SEC has the round table)
Alabama – true king
LSU – near king (SEC has the round table)
Tennessee – near king (SEC has the round table)
USC – true king
Texas – true king to lesser king (UT has numbers, but Sooners have the history)
OU – true king (way to go Ohio University)
Notre Dame – true king
Almost kings:
Georgia – near king
Auburn – near king
Right behind them (not in order):
Va. Tech – possible future king
Wisconsin – possible future king
Oregon – ????
Washington – ????
Iowa – ????
Clemson – ????
Texas A&M – ????
#2 This is America, not Europe, we have no kings here, we have “brands” 😉
LikeLike
edit: for some odd reason it bolded UT, but I had the TX school as a near king not a true king
LikeLike
Duffman,
I will, of course, call you crazy for not counting OSU as a true king.
#5 in total wins
#5 in total winning percentage
7 national titles with 3 different coaches (real ones, not the crap that AL fans count)
34 B10 titles
7 Heisman trophies, including only 2-time winner
6 HOF coaches, with 1 on the way (4 in a row and Tressel will make 5)
The Ten Year War
The Game
What else would they need to be a king?
LikeLike
brian,
It is splitting hairs, and I did the same thing with Nebraska if you noticed. Nebraska had the big 20 – 30 year gap, and tOSU gained their steam in more modern times. Michigan has been there since the beginning, but tOSU’s king status was gained by the loss of early king status of Minnesota and Chicago. As you are well aware I have had tOSU listed as a “brand” in every post I have made on here, so I am not saying they are not worthy in the big picture. The only thing I am pointing out is the lack of the early history. If the gophers had maintained their early success, today the UM folks would hate them more than you guys right now.
Basically it was like pick a part of the country and pick only 1 team
Northeast = ND
Midwest = UM
South = BAMA
West = OU
Coast = U$C
if this makes it easier to see what I was doing
LikeLike
duffman,
NE fans can defend their own team.
As for lack of early success, how far back are you going?
OSU won at least 3 B10 titles in every decade since the 40s, and also won 3 in the 10s and 2 in the 30s. I guess you could call the 20s and early 30s a down period. Still, from 1913 (when OSU joined the B10) through 1941 (start of the war, which screwed up many teams) OSU was #14 in winning percentage, behind powers like Duquesne, Dartmouth and Washington & Jefferson.
Chicago’s last B10 title was in 1924, and 4 of their 7 came before OSU joined in 1913. MN had a run from ’33-’41. IL was great in the 10s. I just don’t give much credence to that very early part of CFB because the game has changed so much since then (forward pass, integration, platoons, rule changes, polls, etc).
Well, there is no reason to assume each part of the country had 1 king, nor that each region could only have one king. ND is also midwestern like MI. The early northeast king(s) were some combination of Army, Pitt, Duquesne, Dartmouth, maybe even BC and the other Ivies.
OSU has been a power since the mid-30s. I would think that is long enough.
LikeLike
brian,
The gophers were “golden” from the beginning of football till WWII
16 B1G championships in roughly 40 years means they have a B1G about every other year. As I said in an earlier post, the gophers biggest opponent were WW I and WW II. From 1900 to WW I coach Williams brought 7 championships home to Minnesota. After the war it took the gophers about a decade to recover. Coach Bierman would lead the gophers to a dominance of the B1G that would only be abated by WW II.
During this time (1900 – 1941) the Buckeyes had only 5 B1G titles (2 were in the WW I years). Again, as stated in a previous thread, pre WW II it was Minnesota, and post WW II it has been Ohio State. Michigan (granted with fewer MNC’s post WW II) was able to exert a football presence both pre WW II and post WWII. As stated above, I am not negating the football ability of the Buckeyes in modern times, just saying that history can not be re written to the benefit of Ohio State and the exclusion of Minnesota.
On Notre Dame, they have a base in Chicago, but they have been the defacto east coast team since the beginning. Be it the void they filled by the B1G not having a NY/MA/PA/MD member back in the beginning. Or filling the void once Harvard / Yale / other IVY faded into the sunset of college football days of old. The point is ND is more east coast than IN or B1G, hence I defined them as east coast
LikeLike
duffman,
OSU didn’t join the B10 until 1913. Only 1 of MN’s pre-WWI titles came against OSU. As I said, they went on a run again from 1933-1941. During that run, who had the second most B10 titles? OSU with 1.5
I never said MN wasn’t good in the early years. I questioned why OSU wasn’t a true king on your list. You said it was a lack of early success. I’m just arguing that OSU was the third best B10 team pre-WWII, it’s not like the big down time of NE (a team you gave the same status). I’d add that WWII and beyond is the past 70 years. At some point you have to draw a line for when a school needed to be dominant, and I’d say 70 years is a pretty good sample size. Offensive linemen were legal receivers 70 years ago and teams were segregated. That wasn’t the same game.
ND is in Indiana. They are a midwestern school with eastern ties and fans. Just because the east coast media fell in love with them doesn’t make them eastern.
LikeLike
Duffman. UT does have the numbers, 2nd all time in wins, 3rd in winning %, 4 national titles (it would be a lot more if we counted the way Alabama and Tennessee do-and admittedly is fewer than OU). Another # 59-41-5 vs. the Sooners. All of this realignment armageddon talk revolves primarily around 2 schools, neither of which is OU.
Now OU is certainly a true brand. But to say UT is not, you would have to be living in the pre-Darrell Royal era.
Per NCAA record book-top winning %
1. Michigan
2. Notre Dame
3. Texas
4. Ohio St.
5. Oklahoma
6. Boise St. (but only 42 seasons)
7. Alabama
8. USC
9. Nebraska
10. Tennessee
11. Penn St.
12. Florida St. (but only 63 seasons)
13. Georgia
14. LSU
15. Miami (FL)
16. Florida
17. Auburn
18. South Florida (13 seasons)
19. Miami
20. Arizona St.
I would put UGA at the top of the SEC near brands. Tennessee, except for the 90s Fullmer/Spurrier battles, has been pretty mediocre since Bob Neyland left. They are still normally solid, unlike Minnesota, but not a team that’s always in the mix for the top. LSU I would put 3rd among that group. They have 2 recent national titles, but they were BAD for most of the 80s and 90s. And we aren’t talking 5-6 and 6-5 like UGA in the 5 year Goff era. Auburn is clearly 4th among that group, but still roughly at the same level.
And for a change, I will have to agree with Brian. Its pretty hard to leave out Ohio St.
You value extended success. I think the unprecedented success FSU and Miami had starting in the mid-80s makes them a brand. They could lose it like MN and quicker than a Michigan, but they are there. Everyone talks about them even after 7-5 and 8-4 seasons. And in reality, with the Florida recruiting base, they will always recover.
IMO there are 12 major brands. Just maybe you could put Penn St. and the 3 Florida schools on a lesser tier (I wouldn’t), but the top 8 are hard to separate (the top 9 on the list above less Boise). There’s no way to limit it to 6.
LikeLike
Another interesting stat in 2010 NCAA record book-most consecutive non-losing seasons-dominated by the major brands:
1 PSU 49
2 UNL 42
2 ND 42
4 Mich 40
4 Texas 40
6 AL 38
7 FSU 33
8 FL 30
9 OU 29
9 Texas 29
9 BC 29
Texas is in there twice and only Boston College among the non-brands is there. USC and Ohio St. are tied for 19th-25th with 21 straight seasons. Miami FL isn’t in the list (only shows the 26 streaks with 20 seasons or more).
LikeLike
Correction-Ohio St. also has a 23 year streak, so their longest streak is the 18th longest.
LikeLike
While I’m on the same page in the NCAA records book, 2 of the 23 longest played rivalries will come to an end this year, although along with OU-OK St are among the 3 most lop-sided on the list-UNL-KS #3 with 117 games and #19 UNL-Ia St with 105 through 2011. One other game on that list Baylor-TCU was the 2nd most played back in 1996, but has dropped to 18th since the breakup of the SWC. It is the most even on the list-49-49-7.
LikeLike
Just for fun, longest active streaks of years without a losing season (BCS conference):
Florida 24
Ohio State 22 (0 if you count 0-1 in 2010)
Texas Tech 18 (14 if you count sanctions)
Virginia Tech 18
Boston College 12
Oklahoma 12
LSU 11
USC 10 (5 if you count 0-1 in 2005)
WVU 9
Wisconsin 9
South Carolina 7
Missouri 6
Oregon 6
Penn State 6
Oklahoma State 5
Northwestern 4
Connecticut 4
Iowa 4
Alabama 4 (3 if you count sanctions)
(TCU is at 6, Utah at 8)
Teams at risk this year:
Boston College- seems headed in the wrong direction, get VT and Miami in crossover
USC- sanctions are going to start hurting
WVU- crazy coaching situation, could be good, could be really bad
I’m tempted to add LSU, more because of the schedule than anything else. It’s entirely possible that LSU could play 4 BCS bowl game opponents: 2 from the SEC, Oregon, and WVU. I don’t know if the Mad Hatter has enough perfect bounces on fake field goals or 13 men on the field penalties left in him.
LikeLike
@M,
You left out the longest one:
Florida State: 34 seasons
The last time FSU had a losing season was Bobby Bowden’s first year, the year after my parents graduated from FSU. They’re now retired. So the football team was awful and essentially irrelevant when they were in college and they have been above average to excellent since.
LikeLike
bullet,
again not saying, nor have I ever said that UTexas was not a brand (or king), but winning early on against bad teams and padding the wins in the SWC is not the same as Alabama playing in the SEC, or Michigan playing in the B1G. When you stack up the hardware next to OU, UTexas is the next step down.
Look at Duke in basketball
Sure those wins in the ACC are great but pulling 140 wins of your total from the SoCon (87 against davidson alone) goes a long way to padding the stats. Mushroomgod may find another team but Butler is IU’s davidson equivalent and they have only played each other 48 times with IU winning about 3 out of 4 as a rough average. They have lots of games against ND and UK, but nobody would claim they were the basketball equivalent of Davidson. All time wins must always be placed in context to the teams they got those wins from.
LikeLike
The SWC was arguably the best conference in the late 70s and early 80s. With the Cowboys down, SMU was the best professional team in Dallas. The SWC also dominated the 30s when SMU, TCU and A&M all won MNCs from 1935-1939. By Alabama standards using any poll that has ever existed (we don’t claim it) UT won a title in 41. SMU and TCU were serious national players in the late 40s and 50s. UT had OU every year and Arkansas. UT and Arkansas were #2 and #3 in winning % in the 60s. In the 60s and 70s the Big 10 was Ohio St., Michigan and the 8 drawves.
And when the SWC was weak in the late 80s and early 90s, UT had one of its worst stretches in its history and didn’t rack up too many wins.
And as for the SEC, they were only playing 5 or 6 conference games and racking up wins outside the conference until the 70s. They didn’t go to 8 conference games until expansion to 12. Most of the SEC schools ooc was really weak. While Texas historically played one of the toughest ooc schedules prior to the formation of the Big 12.
And as for Duke, Duff, you are old enough to remember that Davidson basketball was very good in the 60s. Don’t really know about before that time.
LikeLike
@bullet:
“Most of the SEC schools ooc was really weak.”
Was?
LikeLike
But Pitt is in a state the B1G already has covered. Rutgers, Syracuse or Maryland make more sense. Mizzou’s a solid addition. And they’re readily available, which is a plus.
LikeLike
Guys, the B10 isn’t going to expand (and dilute conference rivalries) just for the sake of expansion, no matter what the SEC does. No disrespect to Pitt & Mizzou, but those 2 aren’t going to enhance the B10 in any way.
I can see justifications for Texas, ND, UNC, Duke, UVa, Maryland, & Miami (heck, even OU, since we’ve already taken UNL, though OkSt. is harder to justify), since all those schools enhance the B10 in important ways (academically, football, other sports, recruiting + growing population). That isn’t true for Mizzou or Pitt.
LikeLike
Nothing wrong with doubles. In fact, stringing a few hits produces big innings and then hit a three run dinger … Earl Weaver style.
Larry Scott turned Utah and Colorado into a feast for a king. Great schools, but nobody is going to mistake them for Texas or Notre Dame. Perhaps the lesson of the Pac expansion is there is more value in the Utah’s, Colorado’s, Missouri’s and Maryland’s of the world. Football is on only 4 months of the year, and the conference network need programs for the other 8 months.
LikeLike
P10 a “feast” because getting they were getting to 12. There is no feast for a B14 by adding Pitt and Mizzou. They are teams you think about once you land ND or Texas and need to get to an even number. Maaaaaaaybe Mizzou gets consideration if the B10 thinks the SEC is going to take them.
LikeLike
I respectfully disagree. Perhaps Mizzou and Maryland don’t pull their weight football-wise, but basketball, they can offer up these matches during a season: Tigers-Spartans, Tigers-Buckeyes, Tigers-Fighting Illini, Terps-etc. Mizzou football can surprise people too. These two teams can serve up hours of quality basketball games for the Big Ten Network.
They also open at least 4.3 million homes to a higher subscriber fee. I think the rate for Big-10 states was 70 cents so if you add 30 cents in ad rates for a $1/subscriber to make the math easier those two teams probably pull in over $48M. The Tigers and Terps would be pulling their weight and come first and second tier renewal negotiation, the added captive states do seem to make great difference.
LikeLike
Basketball, unfortunately, contributes only a fraction of the revenues of football. Now, that isn’t so true with UNC & Duke (and KU & UK), but there are literally only 4 basketball programs in the country who can add even as much value as an average BCS football program.
LikeLike
Richard,
You have to include UL in your list. They are the only team to rival Duke for revenue. UK is #7 and KU #11. AZ, Syracuse and WI all beat UK, while IN, OSU, and MSU are before KU. Not in reputation, but in revenue. Duke beat KU by over $10M last year, and #3 UNC was still over $6M behind.
Duke’s MBB revenue is still fairly low compared to AQ FB teams, but ahead of IL for example.
LikeLike
I don’t think that many people are clamoring for Mizzouri-Michigan State or Mizzouri-Ohio State in basketball. And at any rate how dare you exclude Mizzouri-Wisconsin!!!!!!! 🙂
LikeLike
Brian:
I guess I should narrow my list down to 2 (UNC & Duke, which may explain why Delany was rumored to hanker after them), as those 2 are the only bball programs that generate football-level money for themselves and also football-level money for their league & opponents (in terms of drawing TV eyeballs and selling tickets).
LikeLike
Richard,
That works, too. UL and UK in the same conference might match that, though, or at least come fairly close.
LikeLike
A big part of their benefit was how undervalued the P10 was before Scott.
LikeLike
True, Brian. I’d add a third factor: the P12 just got very lucky. They are currently being overpaid.
In any event, generaly speaking, adding schools similar to Colorado and Utah to get to 14 or 16 is not going to move the needle.
LikeLike
Todd, the infatuation is not with “the Carolinas”; I doubt we’ll be seeing Clemson’s purple and orange in the Big Ten mix anytime soon. It’s more based on the growth of the middle Atlantic region from the Baltimore-Washington corridor at the north to North Carolina (Research Triangle, Triad) at the south. It’s booming with population, affluence and research. Given the economic struggles of the American interior, it makes sense as an area for the Big Ten to covet as a healthy complement to its current base.
LikeLike
I was imprecise about the geography but it is still an infatuation since the schools in North Carolina and Virginia have not shown any inclination to leave the ACC so there is little chance the ACC will disintegrate. Thus, it is unrealistic for the Big-10 to pine for the Tar Heels, Blue Devils and Cavaliers. This is an example of unreciprocated attention. It’s wasted energy…and amusing for bystanders and a little embarrassing and uncomfortable for friends.
I feel the ‘decline’ of the Midwest is overstated. It’s not a decline (except Detroit), but not expanding as rapid as the South. The Midwest still leads the South in the vast majority of economic and social data….except in BCS bowls. Which would you rather lead in?
LikeLike
Wait until the SEC raids off some combination of FSU/VTech/Clemson.
LikeLike
Forget Va. Tech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/hokies-journal/post/virginia-tech-administration-has-no-interest-in-joining-sec/2011/08/12/gIQAzoZmBJ_blog.html
They’re pretty darn firm about not being interested in anywhere but the ACC.
Unfortunately, the same type of sentiments don’t seem to come out of Tallahassee. It’s a bummer. I’ve always liked the Seminoles in the ACC. Now that I’m living in NC, I love them in this league. Oh well. I guess 20 years’ history in a league is pretty meaningless when one considers Colorado left schools it had been playing for almost 60 and Nebraska, over 100, in some cases.
Let’s beef up the oversigning and NCAA probation, Seminoles, and act as though affiliation with some of the nation’s most respected universities is worthless.
LikeLike
According to Sporting News, the SEC doesn’t want FSU anyway. They want a new state from number 14.
LikeLike
@Brian: Good. I hope Sporting News is right.
There aren’t a lot of options for new southern states that don’t already have a school in the SEC, though.
Oklahoma? Probably uninterested, and requires both OU and Ok. State.
Missouri? They’d be an odd fit. If Kentucky’s population is 20% Midwestern in nature (along the Ohio River, especially) while the rest is as southern as Alabama, then Missouri is probably more along 80-20, Midwestern-to Southern. I don’t rule them out, though.
Kansas? Maybe there are some southern accents in Kansas, but that by no means makes Kansas a “southern” state, and I don’t think mediocre football tradition is what the SEC is looking for, anyway. No chance the SEC is interested.
Virginia? Both ACC schools are already ruled out.
West Virginia? They fit just fine culturally, but WVU would kind of be on an island, geographically, compared to the rest of the league. Their state’s population is very small with very, very low growth and very little wealth, comparable to Mississippi. They’re like Nebraska, except without the deep tradition, nationwide fanbase, and widespread TV appeal.
North Carolina? NC State might relish the opportunity to stand out from the shadow of UNC. They might be an interesting option. Then again, NCSU is a charter member of the ACC and would be a tough one to pry away. UNC, Wake, and Duke would reject based on ACC loyalty.
This leads me back to the best options within the SEC’s current footprint. FSU is far and away the most attractive one out there. No, they don’t add a new state, but they add a heck of a lot of viewers nationally.
After A&M, I think their realisticwish list goes:
1) FSU
2) NC State
3) Clemson
4) Missouri
5) West Virginia
6) Louisville
If options 1-4 all reject, I doubt it’s worth adding A&M. The other new team wouldn’t be worth it.
I guess we should all just stay tuned…
LikeLike
Michael,
I agree that adding a state limits the viable choices.
Already SEC: FL, GA, SC, AL, MS, TN, KY, LA, AR
Other AQ schools there: FSU, Miami, USF, GT, Clemson, UL
Miami and GT wouldn’t go anyway, I don’t think. The others would probably at least consider it.
Other southern(ish) states: NC, VA, WV (more like KY than southern), TX, OK, maybe MO
AQ schools there: UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF, VT, UVA, WV, UT, TT, Baylor, TCU, OU, OkSU
No chance – UNC, Duke, WF, UVA, UT, Baylor, TCU, OkSU
Said no – VT
Unlikely – NCSU, TT, OU
Possible – WV, MO
I don’t think OU is interested, and they may not be able to drop OkSU. I doubt the SEC wants TT and I really doubt TT wants the SEC without UT. It’s hard to believe NCSU would leave UNC.
As for WV, it would be by far the smallest state in the SEC with less than 1.9M people, but MS supports 2 SEC schools with 3.0M. WV fans also spill over into the surrounding states somewhat, getting parts of PA, VA and MD. It would be a good fit culturally and is good in hoops which is a plus, but the academics are a little weak. WV borders KY, so they aren’t that much of an outlier despite UK being 330 miles away from WVU. It’s a huge increase in travel for WV though.
MO is more midwestern than southern to me, and their academic aspirations make the SEC seem less likely. It has a decent population but nobody seems excited about adding them. I think MO would prefer to keep their old Big 8 ties if possible. Also, MO is another western team which would force realigning the divisions and I don’t think the SEC wants that.
Like you, I think they have to consider doubling up in a state. My guess at their preferences:
1. NCSU
2. FSU
3. Clemson
4. WV
5. UL
If they all say no, I think the deal is dead.
LikeLike
Of that list, I think the cutoff is somewhere between Clemson (who’s said “no”) and WVU. I don’t think they’ll bother with Louisville.
LikeLike
Heard a reporter on a sports show on Sirius XM say he had talked to several SEC ADs and that the SEC wasn’t looking at ACC schools for #14.
LikeLike
@Brian:
That was a really good analysis.
I think the two schools the SEC will try the hardest for are FSU and NC State. FSU is very attractive because it adds the biggest national brand within an SEC or a state surrounding the SEC (excluding Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas). No further explanation needed.
NC State would fit fairly well culturally. There are certainly not nearly as many casual State fans UNC fans, but the one they have are pretty rabid. They do travel very well to bowl games and don’t leave empty seats in their modest-sized (by SEC standards) stadium. There’s even a little bit of Texas A&M in them, so to speak, being a large land-grant school whose academic strengths mirrors A&M’s–except that its resentment towards UNC is much more of an understandable Michigan-Michigan State dynamic, not a hatred that would drive them to actively seek a new conference, but I digress. NC State also offers a new, growing state in a wealthy local market.
Would State want to leave? I don’t know. It’d be awfully weird around here to have three major universities with major college sports within a half-hour drive–and suddenly have them in separate leagues. These three universities work together cooperatively all the time on all kinds of projects. Call me crazy, but breaking bonds in something so emotionally-driven as college athletics, especially without the benefit of the warning signs that A&M fans have put out for years, could definitely plant some seeds of bitterness into those professional relationships among the universities. In other words, there could be unforeseen, non-athletics consequences of breaking up the schools in the Triangle. Yes, there would definitely be a fight if State showed interest in leaving.
LikeLike
@bullet,
If that’s true, then it means either:
A) They’re looking at Big East schools in the South (WVU, L’ville, USF, TCU)
or
B) They’re looking at Big 12 schools who don’t require a second or third team to tag along.
It doesn’t add up to me. The SEC wants to go to 14, not 16, if it decides to add A&M. Texas Tech wants to stick with Texas. Baylor’s unappealing. Missouri thinks Big 12 schools aren’t up to snuff academically–what would it do in the SEC? And while the Big East schools would say yes before Slive could get the words out of his mouth, to use some FtT lingo, they’re not exactly home runs. They’re not even stand up doubles. They’re more like getting hit by the pitch. Is that what the SEC wants?
Short of Oklahoma, the SEC has GOT to get an ACC school to pair with A&M.
LikeLike
MIchael,
Since the SEC probably hasn’t really sat down and started to think about this too seriously yet, perhaps they’re still on this phase of the list:
1. UT
2. ND
3. OU
Slive also genuinely doesn’t seem to want to cause too much damage, so maybe he wants to leave the ACC alone for the good of the game. That, or he knows all the good choices would say no or cause an internal struggle for the SEC.
You’d think he wants an eastern school to keep the divisions, so maybe he is focused on WV and UL. He could get almost any non-AQ, but the SEC doesn’t add a non-AQ. I say almost any because even the SEC can’t match the deep pockets of Uncle Sam for Army and Navy, and they don’t really need more exposure.
LikeLike
@Michael & Brian
Your scenarios all make sense.
The scary one from the standpoint of a Big 12 fan is that they are thinking OU and OU is listening.
LikeLike
bullet,
OU doesn’t want the SEC. They’ll go P12 before SEC.
LikeLike
Brian
I think you’re right, but OU has been noticeably silent and we all have been wrong before.
Losing A&M is bad, but survivable. Losing OU or UT and the league, if it survives at all, is at MWC level.
LikeLike
Barry Tramel is not OU’s Chip Brown, but does probably reflect feelings within the school.
http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-ou-wants-no-part-of-the-sec/article/3594510
LikeLike
NCSU’s probably going to be hard to pry away from UNC since they share the same governors. Likely the B10 would have to take UNC for the SEC to take NCSU.
Agree that OSU (especially with OkSt tied to it) is must more likely to end up in the Pac than the SEC if the B12 falls apart.
LikeLike
Do we actually know that the B10 is infatuated with UNC, Duke, Maryland or Virginia? Not that I don’t think they’d be good additions.
LikeLike
Well, the Big Ten president is a UNC grad (played basketball there, too), so he knows the region. He likely feels that as a bloc, retaining their three traditional rivals while creating new ones, those schools’ collective value would be more than adding each of them individually. All are peer institutions with Big Ten members and would add quite a bit to the CIC consortium. They are in a region that will likely be among the most buffeted from a recession, thanks to the federal government (for Maryland and Virginia) and the Research Triangle (for UNC and Duke). Athletically, all four are usually among the top 30 in the Sears Cup or whatever it’s called these days; right now, Maryland, UVa and UNC are in the middle of the pack in football, but all three would get a boost from changing brands. (Look what it’s done for South Carolina.) Duke isn’t much in football, to be sure, but Big Ten membership could make it competitive in a Northwesternish sort of way. Right now, the ACC seems fairly united, but if a few of its members were picked off by the SEC and it appeared the future is 16-team conferences, these four would probably be fairly easy to get, if the alternative was a low-revenue league.
LikeLike
The problem is the ACC is unlikely to ever be THAT low revenue of a league. The SEC can only pull away so many members, and the ACC can always add Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc.
You do list a bunch of good reasons to take a look at these ACC schools. I just don’t think where Jim Delaney played basketball is one of them. Nobody would be using that as a factor if he played at Louisville.
LikeLike
“to North Carolina (Research Triangle, Triad) at the south. It’s booming with population, affluence and research.”
@Vincent,
Your description is quite accurate. I’ve lived here for two months, and I’ve never seen so many luxury vehicles outside of downtown Chicago. (Never been to NYC or LA.) They’re everywhere. There is some serious growth around here (Raleigh had one of the top 3 population growth rates for the decade, at over 40%) and serious cash, too.
LikeLike
From Espn’s Doug Gottlieb Twitter:
GottliebShow http://twitter.com/#!/GottliebShow
High ranking source at Texas A&M confirms, going to SEC.Clemson,FSU,Missouri likely to join.
LikeLike
I don’t think I buy the A&M source about those other schools and am guessing speculation was interpreted as fact. There has been no other information suggesting 4 teams to the SEC now.
LikeLike
And another thing, is the SEC really going to invite two more teams with Tiger mascots. 🙂
LikeLike
Eric – with a 16 team SEC, they could them set up a 4-team Tiger paw-d.
LikeLike
The Bulldogs will vainly try to keep up in the SEC mascot arms race (who could join Georgia and Miss State? Fresno State? The Citadel? Yale?)
Taking out Clemson and FSU would seriously further weaken the ACC football brand, and could encourage a Big Ten raid, although without N.C. State going to the SEC, the Big Ten would probably have to substitute State for Duke in a bloc with UNC, UVa and Maryland to make it palatable to NC politicians and to win the valuable property that is Chapel Hill.
LikeLike
vincent,
if they get the yale bulldogs, you know the princeton tigers are next! 😉
LikeLike
lol. Maybe the worst team would have to be called kitties the next year.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt its these 4 schools. Taking Clemson instead of VTech & taking Mizzou makes no sense unless the SEC is hellbent on getting to 16 schools (which doesn’t seem to be the case) and VA politics is keeping VTech in.
From the B10’s perspective, though, the SEC going to 16 would be terrific as it means the B10 can pick off some combination of ACC schools (and maybe entice ND?) at their leisure.
LikeLike
Richard,
VT has said it doesn’t want to go anywhere. The SEC can’t force them to go.
MO has also said they aren’t going to the SEC.
LikeLike
MO would be crazy not to consider the SEC. No guarantee the B10 or P12 ever comes calling.
LikeLike
Unless cultural fit, academics and rivalries mean something to them, then yes they’d be crazy to turn the SEC down.
LikeLike
I said “consider.” And at any rate, in a few years there may very well not be any conference available to MO that gives them cultural fit, academics and rivalries.
LikeLike
They have the B12 and B10 right now as fits. I’m not saying the B10 is looking to add them, just that it would be a fit for MO. If KU goes with them, then the P12 would work, too. Otherwise, they should try to keep the B12 afloat with UT and OU.
LikeLike
As much as Missouri bad mouthed some of the Big 12 members on their academics, its hard to imagine them going to the SEC.
LikeLike
Virginia politics played a role in placing Tech into the ACC, but it would have no role in its going out to a wealthier conference. The fear in 2003 was that if Tech wasn’t included in the ACC expansion mix, the Big East was going to crumble as a football conference, leaving Tech without a home. Tech and UVa, which over the years have usually been in different conferences, really aren’t joined at the hip in a way comparable to NCSU and UNC, Okie State and OU, or K-State and KU.
LikeLike
Added
LikeLike
Take it FWIW…
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Board/120/Deep-in-the-Heart-of-Texas-Alignment-heating-up-3633355/1
In case this is a link you can’t access, the gist of it is that someone who claims to have an in with someone in the UT AD office is saying that ND and UT to the B1G is heating up. Take it with a grain (or more) of salt.
LikeLike
This is either untrue or a bluff by UT admin.
LikeLike
I read the piece. No way B10 takes Oklahoma St. unless Texas mandates it, and even then not 100% guarantee.
LikeLike
texas isn’t mandating shit to the b10.
we don’t play that.
LikeLike
that said.
that would be pretty intense and damn hard to win.
LikeLike
Probably means nothing, but I have been wondering what ND has been waiting for to announce plans on where they will play hockey. As a Western Michigan alum I would like them to go to the new National conference as WMU would go with them. The delay has started me wondering if there is something in the works with the Big Ten.
It would be fun to see Texas, Oklahoma, ND and with maybe Boston College join. The B1G could have 8 hockey schools and ND gets another Catholic school as a partner.
LikeLike
I can’t fathom for the life of me why the SEC would want to invite Mizzou. That’d be like the B1G going after Kansas State or the ACC going after Purdue.
LikeLike
I can’t fathom for the life of me why the SEC would want to invite Mizzou.
One word, Badgerholic. Branson.
LikeLike
Touche Vincent…touche
LikeLike
I wonder if the Gatlinburg, TN politicans will force Tennesse to block Missouri’s admission. There is only room for one redneck playground in the SEC and that’s Dollywood.
LikeLike
vincent, I CAN NOT STOP LAUGHING!!!!
certainly a top post on this blog today! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
course, being an old guy, branson is my Vegas.
LikeLike
I might be wrong, in fact, I’m 90% sure I’m wrong, but I keep getting this thought in my head that we are going to see in the future the demise of the Big 12 and Big East as we know it. (TOTAL CONSPIRACY)
What if…
Let’s assume that Texas has been wanting to go Ind. for some time now and the Big Ten was made aware of it. (Possibly in discussions during the 3 meetings Ohio State and Texas met) I’m sure the university pressidents and AD’s were at all 3 of those games.
Let’s also assume that Delaney and Slive really don’t hate each other and are putting on a show more like Bo and Woody did. This woul;d make everyone possitive that each move their conference made was out of spiteb for the other. (Expecially Big Ten fans)
And lets say, that both, the Big Ten and the SEC were in this together and they want to see 4 major conferences.
Why would they want to do it and how to get there?
Right now, there are 120 universities playing in the FBS division, out of those 120 schools, there’s a few handfull of programs that draw in better than average ratings. The rest, not so much. Even in the Big Ten and SEC, there are programs that just can’t get the ratings that their top programs can get but since they are already in the conference, they get to come along for the ride.
Now look at the Big 12 and the Big East. The Big 12 still has Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Bylor. (Keeping Texas out as the idea is they want to go Ind.)
The Big East has West Virginia, Pitt, Cinn, Conn, Louisville, Rutgers, South Fl and Syracuse.
Let’s say the SEC and the Big Ten have already put the pcs. on the board and have decided what Universities they are going to go after and what universities they want to leave for their other counterpart conferences.(The Pac 12 and the ACC)
The SEC grabs Texas A&M and follows with West Virginia.
The BT grabs Rutgers and Syracuse.
Then the SEC grabs Texas Tech and Missouri.
The BT grabs Conn and Kansas.
This allowing the PAC 12 to sweep up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State and Kansas Sate.
The ACC to sweep up Pitt, Cinn, Louisville and South Florida.
Why would the SEC and the Big Ten leave some powers on the board like that, To allow for conferece coverage. The ACC is already mixed in between the SEC and the BT where the Pac 12 is out of the picture nationally compared to the other 3 conf because of time zones. This also draws some more bigger name schools towards the Pac 12 to help with their rating and they need it due to the large area they cover compared to population. (I also see the Big Ten protecting them because their history with each other as I see the SEC doing so for the ACC)
Now we have 4 super conferences with alot on the table to offer. Copmpared to the conferences that play clean up with the extra pieces, there is very little they offer regarding National appeal.
The 4 super conferences break free from the the current FBS division and create a new division while forcing the NCAA to allow a new format for their conferences. (Mostly because they will own college football ratings and the cash coming in will be greater then anyone has ever seen.
This would allow a 4 team playoff without the dreaded interfearance of the non AQ leages and the money wopuld be greater than the current BCS system we have now AND! the current bowl tie ins between these 4 conferences would stay intact. (there would be some tweaking for any Big 12 and Big East tie ins with any of the 4 conf. but all in all, much better football in the end.)
Could it happen? I doubt it, just a conspiracy that I wanted to get out there….but think of the possibilities.
LikeLike
I forgat to include in this that UT could be in on this to help it happen while getting assurances that they will be in the mix of scheduling of the top programs so they stay more relevant then ND.
LikeLike
Why would the Pac take K-Stae and I-State as a pair?!? They wouldn’t.
LikeLike
james in SoCal,
a) welcome, we need more voices from the west coast
b) I will go one step further (you would have to go back to last year and my predator vs prey post on here) and say the ACC is just as vulnerable, if not more because of borders. The B12 had teams that all 3 predators could use (B1G, PAC, SEC) but the BE fears only the B1G. The ACC has the 2 power football conferences that could both eat parts of them. I think you are looking at the BIG 3 + a “scraps” conference with the best leftovers of the B12 / ACC / BE.
LikeLike
James, why would you place the Big 12 and Big East as equal for Big Ten/SEC raids and not include the ACC, which has several properties both conferences would covet more than they would most Big East members, in the mix?
LikeLike
If the report regarding A&M, FSU, Clemson and Mizzou is correct it could lead to the perfect (dystopian) storm for Texas. Assume that the two OK and KS schools cannot be split from each other; assume also that Texas will be widely blamed and villified for imploding the Big 12 and because of that, UT will be unable politically to walk away from TTech and Baylor. What happens next?
(1) The two OK and KS petition, en bloc, to join the Pac 12. They would join CO, Utah and the two AZ schools in one division, the original Pac 8 would comprise the other. The Pac 16 would gain one national football powerhouse and one of the most storied college basketball programs ever (I know, basketball isn;t supposed to matter …).
(2) The SEC now has extended its tentacles into the Midwest and the Southwest. This would force to B1G to respond. Since Texas can’t go without its two sisters, the B1G goes east and offers membership to Rutgers/MD/Pitt and says to ND, “Its’ now or never.” Faced being left out, ND will have to consider joining the B1G or the “what’s left” conference cobbled together from the ACC and BEast. The B1G would certainly want Texas. but not at the price of TTech and Baylor.
(3) Texas, even if it got Houston/Rice/SMU/TCU in the fold, is unable to reconstitute SWC 2.0.
As Bill Simmons might say, the lesson as always: karma is a bitch.
LikeLike
If Karma’s a bitch, then Boston College should be left out of the musical chairs for bailing on the Big East after promising not to do so.
LikeLike
Hard to see the Pac and B10 leaving Texas on the table. Specifically, the Pac taking the KS schools if Texas shows any interest at all makes no sense.
And for the last time, the B10 isn’t taking BE schools to entice ND. If that could work, the B10 would already be at 16.
LikeLike
First off, congratulations to Texas A&M from this Longhorn. It is the best move they could make, given their fans’ overwhelming sentiments, and the time is now right.
It is also quite exciting to learn that at a minimum, we almost certainly will get a starter 4-team playoff from the next round of BCS negotiations. Should 4×16 super conferences emerge, that’s effectively an 8-team playoff. Should we have more conferences, a 4-school Plus One will inevitably evolve over time into a larger one with at least another round. Incorporating the bowls into the playoffs will also insure the overall bowl system survives. Win, win, win all the way around.
There are incredible forces at work within Texas state politics, but people falsely believe that its to keep the B12-2 together. The politics are to keep Baylor and Tech in a BCS conference.
Exactly. There have been a lot of false assumptions floating around here being used to frame expansion scenarios. And now those false contructs are collapsing.
While UT to a P16 or B1G can’t be ruled out, it might be wise to listen to UT AD Dodds’ own words instead of self-serving conspiracy theories and simpleton scapegoat fantasies. He’s pretty much told or telegraphed us beforehand what he wants to do. In 2008 UT proposed forming a B12 network, voted down 1-11. He later approached aTm to partner in a Lone Star Network, aTm declined the offer. Only then did UT pursue a LHN by itself.
When expansion talk exploded 1.5 years ago, UT said it preferred to keep the B12 together but if the situation changed too much they might have to join another conference. Options were pursued but ultimately UT chose to stay in the B12. Now Dodds says that he’d prefer to keep the B12, does not favor independence, but may have to look at other options if the landscape shifts too much. Said what he’s hinted at before, that if the B12 can’t remain viable UT’s first choice may be to create a new super conference with Notre Dame. If the SEC goes to 16, with the B1G following, it might be wise to think UT may then move in the direction they’ve said they would.
My guess is it all depends on if the SEC goes past 14 and if the ACC can stay together. If the SEC stops at 14, it is not certain that the B1G and P12 will do anything. In that case the B12-2-1 likely taps BYU and becomes the B12-2-1+1, ACC nabs a BEast school, and the BEast holds or taps a CUSA friend or two. Would not be shocked to see this hold for several years.
However, if the SEC does goes to 16 (whether quickly or behind the scenes) the feeding frenzy begins. Does the ACC hold together and rebuild, or does the B1G pretty much get its pick? Plenty of buzz for a while that Miami is nervous, so they could be a target or a potential anchor of a UT/OU/ND super conference. Same for GTech. The more that peel away, the better the odds that the B1G can lure 2 or more from MD/VA/NC/Duke. Some sort of merge of much of the remaining B12-x and ACC is possible, but the CIC temptation will be strong. The problem for the P12 and B1G in luring Texas and the heart of the ACC is that they only have 4 slots to offer. There are lots of benefits to having several regional partners, including the travel issues in all sports. Clear reasons why UT may prefer to keep TTech, Baylor, OU, Okie St, Kansas, and maybe even another Texas school in whatever conference the Horns end up in. So while TCU and UHou might not bring in new markets and thus not of much value to the current B12, when aTm and maybe the Oklahoma schools are gone they may become legit replacement candidates, for example.
What can the P12 do in a race to 16? If they can’t get UT, do they hold their uplifted noses and settle for the Okie schools and some combo of KS/MO/TTech/UHou? Do they go for a northeast quad of say Rutgers/Syr/UConn/Pitt (if the B1G go for ACC schools.) Perhaps instead of via pure conference expansion, done as a partnership with what’s left of the BEast in football, including a joint P12-BEast network? If none of those work and we see 3 other 16-school super conferences, do they partner with 4 other ‘independent’ schools in football only to fill out a 4×16 BCS setup?
Back to Texas politics. If UT does have a P16 endgame, then I could see attempts to force aTm to take with them to the SEC one of TTech or Baylor (or even Okie State if a UT/TTech/Baylor/OU move is an option.) Wouldn’t count on that happening, however. A UT/OU/ND+ super conference might provide the most BCS homes for Texas schools. Might consider alternate solutions, for example say UT does want to go to the B1G with ND, OU, and TTech. Might see an agreement between aTm, the SEC, UT, and the B1G to include in the BCS (or whatever replaces it) a 5th conference of leftovers that would provide safe haven for schools like Baylor, SMU, UHou, and TCU. Or alternatively an agreement to expand the BCS and a clear slot for qualifying teams from a non-BCS conference. Not saying any of that is likely, but don’t rule out right now unconventional solutions/compromises.
Of course politics could also end up having little effect on expansion. As I stated last year, once the Texas governor’s race was complete (11/10) and the TX legislature finished their session (6/11) any expansion becomes less messy. No important bills that could be killed/held hostage by grandstanding legislators. However, there are plenty of ways an unwise or sloppy move by a school can be punished with long lasting repercussions. The Aggies and other schools just have to weigh the costs/benefits and gamble accordingly. (BTW, any talk of national elections impacting aTm’s move is pretty much laughable. Though 4×16 pulling away from the NCAA might be a different matter.)
There’s not much I’d completely rule out right now.
LikeLike
I need to ensure I have spell check insurance…
LikeLike
playoffs now, how do you get the BOLD type in your post?
LikeLike
Duffman,
You can use standard html tags to do it like this: bold BOLD
LikeLike
In case you don’t know, the standard tags are to start bolding and to end it (remove the quotes I put in).
LikeLike
Sorry, it keeps trying to interpret the tags.
You can use the old html tags (b) to start and (/b) to end, or the more recent (strong) and (/strong). Similarly, you use i or em for italics.
Replace the opening parentheses with a less than sign and the closing parentheses with a greater than sign.
LikeLike
brian,
test
I am so old I still think binary 😉
or maybe that was morse code 🙂
or maybe smoke signals
LikeLike
There you go. Now you can add to your resume that you can code HTML.
LikeLike
somehow having fortran or cobol would diminish my value.
LikeLike
Duffman
I think at one time I put Fortran, LISP and Pascal on my resume. Wonder if any of those are still used?
LikeLike
bullet,
Fortran is still going because it is so good at crunching numbers, but it isn’t nearly as popular as it used to be, obviously. Pascal is much less common, but I know there are still some legacy uses of it if nothing else. It used to be used for teaching a lot, but they moved on to Java and such.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I don’t think the AI guys will ever get tired of LISP (it, rather Scheme, was the teaching language dejour at my CS department when I went to school). Of course, it’s never found favor outside of AI.
LikeLike
If I’m not mistaken, the Google search algorithm, MapReduce, is written in LISP.
LikeLike
Re: possibilities (Playoffs Now)
First I’ve read of a possible PAC 12 – northeast conference (with Pitt, RU, UConn, SU)
PAC 12 plus could market the conference to all of Europe as well as Asia.
Perhaps the Northeast schools could maintain a PO Box address in CA to preserve the PAC name.
LikeLike
SETI is back up. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/seti-institute-allen-telescope-array-to-go-back-online-in-september.html
Unlimited marketing potential.
LikeLike
So Frank, does A&Ms move revive the possibility of texas to the Big Ten, with or without the Longhorn Sports NEtwork?
LikeLike
Rumors say yes, especially if they can talk ND into it, but rumors say a lot of things.
LikeLike
Not sure if anyone else has posted this, but the NY Times has an article up about this.
Key points:
– “there was a 30 to 40 percent chance that the presidents could vote against Texas A&M’s membership.”
– “We realize if we do this, we have to have the 14th,” the SEC official said. “No name has been thrown out. This thing is much slower out of the chute than the media and blogs have made it.”
– “The official said that three weeks ago, Texas A&M’s president, R. Bowen Loftin, called the SEC commissioner, Mike Slive, and said the Aggies regretted not joining the league last summer. Two weeks ago, Slive and the SEC counsel met with Texas A&M officials. The SEC requested that Texas A&M figure out the legal viability of leaving the Big 12 contract they signed last year.
LikeLike
What would be hilarious is if the SEC says “no” to TAMU.
The ratings for the Texas-TAMU game would be tremendous, though.
LikeLike
If the SEC turns down the Aggies the reactions of the other Big XII schools will great. Can you imagine the taunts that will be thrown around games, to say nothing of the signs?
LikeLike
If the SEC turns down TAMU because they can’t renegotiate their contracts, then the SEC was really dumb to sign such long contracts. Did they think there’d never be any more conference shakeups?
LikeLike
Well, the more likely reason, if they turn down TAMU, is that they weren’t able to pry away a good enough 14th school.
LikeLike
I know there have been some denials (and some non-denial-denials out there) but I find it hard to believe that the SEC won;t be able to pull the trigger on a quality 14th.
LikeLike
jcfreder:
If they don’t want to destroy the ACC (and thinking about it more, they have good reason not to; not just getting sued but also letting the B10 in to the south and allowing a superconference to form in SEC territory from the remnants of the ACC and B12), their good options are limited.
LikeLike
But it won’t be destroying the ACC to take one team. Even if they somehow took three (which is extremely unlikely), the result wouldn’t be a B12-ACC superconference; it’d be a couple BE teams moving to the ACC.
LikeLike
jcfreder:
Not sure about that at all. Maybe if the one ACC team the SEC took was Clemson (or GTech, which they wouldn’t want). If they take FSU, Miami would be looking to jump to the B10 (or maybe even a Texas-led conference) first chance it gets. I think the only chance they get VTech or NCSU is if the ACC breaks up with portions going to the B10 and SEC.
LikeLike
It could be worse. Missouri just got ignored. Noone cared.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see what the B10 does if this comes to pass. Vincent is in love with MD – I don’t think MD offers much. NC/Duke do, so maybe MD has to be part of that. I think the B10 will just stand pat for a while and see how things shake out. There is no reason for them to match the SEC or the P10 in further expansion.
LikeLike
True. Can you pull off
UNC/Duke/UVa/ND?
UNC/Duke/UVa/Miami?
UNC/Duke/ND/Miami?
UNC/Duke/ND/BC?
Duke/ND/BC/Miami? (holy private school Batman! Would you even want that?)
LikeLike
No. No. No. No. Hell no.
LikeLike
in defense of vincent,
MD or not, I think he is pointing out that the ACC may not be made out of solid concrete, but concrete blocks. Take out a block or two, and the dam breaks. MD because it offers new markets, has football upgrade options, is a state school without an instate twin or rival, academics, and decent not football sports would be a block to take rather than leave behind like WF or Miami.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-delany-report-that-big-ten-favors-plusone-playoff-is-erroneous-20110813,0,1664625.story
The B10 will do nothing according to Delany. He also denies yesterday’s report about B10 ADs favoring a plus 1.
LikeLike
Uh, no, he said they’ve “closed down active expansion”, which could mean that they are not seeking out new members (but that doesn’t mean they would not respond to schools coming to them).
LikeLike
I should say “mean that they are not seeking out new members _for_now_.”
LikeLike
SH,
MD offers a decent population, especially with spillover into DC and northern VA. It also offers PSU an old rival and fellow eastern school. MD has good academics and decent sports. Like any new state, MD also adds congress-critters to get money for the CIC
LikeLike
isn’t it possible that the ACC goes after the BEast schools of Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt first and maybe others to get to a 14 or 16 team conference…and if so, does anybody think those schools would decline and wait for a B1G invite?
LikeLike
They wouldn’t decline or wait. They’d take the ACC invitation. If the Big Ten comes calling later looking to pair someone with Notre Dame, they’d immediately jump to the Big Ten. Such is the way of conference expansion.
LikeLike
They’d take the time to mention it to the B10 and say they have to decide soon. They’d much rather move once than twice. That just makes the intermediate conference look bad, and they did you the favor of offering a step up. Down the road they could accept the B10, but they wouldn’t want to do it in the same year.
LikeLike
thus making the 2 stage B1G expansion successful in forcing ND’s hand and getting the Irish and the NYC market……..I think the Delany is gonna get the Domers in South Bend, Domers in Syracuse and Rutgers, for the NYC market. I think Mizzou will be left in the cold!
Sidenote, I see Boise State being left in the cold Mountain West as what’s left of the Big 12 will court others.
is this a strong possibility???
Love the thread, guys!
LikeLike
If Missouri would actually go to the SEC, the happiest people should be those at Big 10 Headquarters . It could lead to either UT or more likely ND ending up in the Big 10. The Texas scenario would be more obvious. If OU, along with Ok. State and the Kansas schools head to the Pac, it would be curtains for the Big XII, and it would be the Big 10 or independence for UT (Probably taking along Tech). Here is the ND scenario: Florida State and Clemson leave for the SEC, and the Big 10 takes Maryland and BC.That means there are four openings in the ACC. Which would likely be filled by some combination of USF, Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse & Rutgers. You could figure TCU heading to the Big XIi (Replacing Missouri), that essentially ends the Big East Football Conference. The threat to ND is if this occurs, then the Big 10 could put the screws to ND, by giving them a take it or leave it offer. Come to the Big 10 with (Most likely Pitt), or we just might grab UNC and NCST instead.
LikeLike
BC’s value is being wildly overrated. It really hasn’t had much impact on the ACC (perhaps it would have in concert with Syracuse, but we’ll never know), and it’s a relatively small institution that doesn’t get much attention in pro-oriented Boston. It’s a Catholic version of Wake Forest, and merely because it’s in Boston, it shouldn’t be viewed in the same breath as Maryland or Rutgers.
LikeLike
The Big Ten doesn’t invite, A school must request to be part of the leage. Just like Nebraska had to do.
LikeLike
My money is mainly on the Big Ten waiting for 2014. The Big Ten’s contracts come up in 2016 along with the 9 game schedule, so I think they want to see how the current format plays out before making a move if one is necessary at that time.
And regardless of what schools get taken off the table, there is always going to be the Notre Dame expansion option to get to 14.
Considering that the Big Ten didn’t get a bump up from Nebraska’s addition, it’s hard to see why they would go for another 2 schools until we’re closer to the contract negotiations.
LikeLike
Timing may be important. Some schools may only be available for a period of time, like NE last year. If an important school is weighing its options, the B10 has to strike then. If they want more midpack teams, then they can probably wait. However, it’s always easier to expand when everyone is doing it rather than when the scene is calm.
LikeLike
Exactly. Strike when the iron is hot. You’ll make up the cash in the next round of negotiations.
LikeLike
If I’m any Big 12 outside the state of Texas, I would veto any recommendation from UT, TT, or Baylor to invite Houston as a replacement. Houston as a replacement is not in the conference’s best interests. It’s only in the Texas schools’ best interests. Check that… it’s only in the Texas legislature’s best interests.
The non-Texas schools know that what’s best for the conference, and therefore, what’s most likely to give themselves hope for the league’s survival, is to replace A&M with only with a school that gives them the most negotiating power to maintain/improve its TV deals. There’s just no way that that school is Houston.
Rather, with some common sense, they should realize the best single option out there is BYU. Seriously. And as far as creating appealing matchups for television, TCU is a much better bet than UH. Forget potential–it’s a perennial top ten program right now.
LikeLike
They’ve already said they would stay at 9 for now. BYU isn’t going to drop independence before it even starts to join a floundering conference. They already get the benefits of scheduling UT without the downside of ISU, KSU and Baylor. Staying at 9 means more TV time for the bottom schools and even the second tier like OkSU and MO. Their TV deal will be cut some, but TAMU was going to get $20M. How much more will it be cut?
LikeLike
@Brian,
You’ve got a good point that BYU might very well prefer independence over the Big 12. Who could blame them, anyway, given the conference’s instability?
I kinda doubt, though, they’d have much problem with playing ISU, KSU, & Baylor. Those schools are still more interesting than the San Jose State-types that are their schedule right now, and they’d still get two kings on their schedule annually (OU, UT) plus other good ones, provided no others leave.
I still don’t see why the non-Texas schools would allow Houston in. It’s not their job to appease the Texas legislature. For that matter, they don’t even have to appease Texas, considering that neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 would take them and their network. Where else would UT go? Independence in football and the Big East for other sports? That’s worse off than their current conference.
LikeLike
Michael,
BYU can get more home games against those WAC type teams, plus their local fans know them. Take Utah State as an example. They’re local and BYU plays them in the next 5 seasons with 4 games at home.
Their current schedules take them all over the country, but focus on the west where they have more fans and more church members. They still have 5 AQ schools this year (I’m including TCU) and 7 home games.
They get exposure in OR, CA, UT, TX, FL, MS, ID, NM and HI.
Why trade that for ISU and KSU? Those are small states with even fewer LDS members, and the least attractive schools of all the AQs.
LikeLike
Texas recruiting (which all the B12 schools north of Texas depend on now) would be the only reason.
LikeLike
Despite the common refrain the UT rules the conference, the conference just raised the shared % of conference revenues from around 50% to around 75%. That sounds like something the have-nots (previously 5 of 12, now 5 of 10), TT,BU,ISU,KSU,OSU, would want, maybe joined by have-no-suitors MU.
LikeLike
While I could imagine BYU turning down the Big East, I don’t see them turning down the Big 12. It’s still a major upgrade that will gain them more exposure than it will lose.
LikeLike
. . .unless BYU judges that the B12 won’t last more than a decade, in which case it makes a lot of sense for them to remain independent.
LikeLike
BYU would get fewer ESPN games than they have now, and get crappy FSN coverage instead. For that, they get regionalized to the plains. How does that help the LDS spread their message, which is the whole point of BYU sports?
LikeLike
Frank: Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I’ve never seen where anyone has actually seen the SEC TV contract and compared it to others. To assume that the SEC, as arguably the most powerful confernce in the country, has a contract that is identical on critical terms such as expansion to the terms that appear in other conference TV contracts is, to my mind, a rather suspect assumption. I do some oil and gas work in my practice, and while the basic construct of an O&G lease never changes, key terms do vary greatly depending upon how attractive the prospect happens to be.
To assume that the SEC didn’t negotiate a more favorable contract than C-USA or any other conference is, to my way of thinking, not very likely. I have to believe that Slive wouldn’t have pursued expansion this year, or last, unless he was confident that he would be able to turn this expansion into a benefit for existing SEC members.
On the political angle, state politics didn’t kill this deal last year, and they won’t kill it this year. Everyone keeps looking back to 1994, but that set of facts will never be repeated. Bob Bullock is dead (so is Ann Richards, for that matter, but she was irrelevant), Pete Laney is retired, the current governor is an Aggie, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriatoins Committee is from Bryan/College Station. With the Legislature not meeting again until January of 2013, the prospect of going before Dan Branch’s committee isn’t going to intimidate A&M. Furthermore, Dan Beebe gave A&M the perfect counter argument to any concern they might raise about A&M leaving the Big XII when he said that Houston was a viable replacement. Certain members of the Houston delegation in the Legislature will be all over this, and only to happy to see A&M go to the SEC if it frees up a space in a AQ BCS conference for UofH.
LikeLike
Getting into TX is a benefit. Adding a team like TAMU or FSU is a benefit. Even if the SEC gets bumped just enough to break even financially, they benefit from this. What Frank and others are fighting is the notion that the SEC will come out of this with $40M per school in TV money. Nobody disputes that the SEC will get some more money, but how big of a raise they get is definitely up for debate.
LikeLike
Going from 12 to 14 loses a lot in tradition and rivalries, which translates into ticket sales. And TV revenues are around 20% of their revenues.
The SEC is not going to expand to just break even.
LikeLike
One does wonder why the SEC would have signed such a loooooooong contract with no renegotation rights even though we are in a period of conference instability.
LikeLike
Well, when they signed their long-ass contract, they probably weren’t expecting Conference Armageddon to be right around the corner. There weren’t hints of conference instability, the BTN was just getting started, and there didn’t seem impetus by anyone to expand.
LikeLike
Richard – really?? Even if they didn’t see this coming, this is why you don’t sign 20-year contracts — the unforseen happens more often than you think. Very shortsighted move by the SEC if they truly are locked in at the same $$$ for that long.
LikeLike
Frank’s previous post about current instability in television content is probably something conference commissioners are well aware of. Maybe they recognize this fact and believe they better cash in while sports programming is over-valued.
It’s a gamble to be sure, but not an unreasonable one.
LikeLike
Why does everyone assume this is a conspiracy with 9,000 moving pieces behind the scenes?
The most likely scenario is that, last year, Texas A&M and others did not have the stomach to cause the conference breakdown dominoes to start to fall. The Pac-12 and possible SEC expansion never happened. Everyone walked away (other than a handful of changes).
Now.. a year later… Texas A&M is pissed off and willing to make the move. There is less risk that Tech and Baylor get left behind because now it will be Texas’s problem. If Texas decides to go independent, now they are abandoning Tech and Baylor. If Texas goes independent while A&M is around, it’s a shared problem.
The worst case scenario is that the SEC says… “no, we can’t do it without a 14th and nobody can agree on a 14th, or, simply, we are not ready to expand.” But what’s the downside for A&M? Now they are a loose cannon that needs to be dealt with because the SEC can always decide that they ARE ready to expand/make a move. And who knows when/if the Pac 12 or B1G might invite them later on. Suddenly, they become the hot commodity. Not a bad place to be.
Or the SEC says “fine.” And A&M wins.
To me… it is little more than A&M looking around and deciding that there is not nearly enough downside to not explore this seriously. Conversely, the SEC has to look at it to see if there is enough upside to do it today vs. some time in the future. If today is it, this move can be made.
No need to assume that this is part of a grand plan to do anything other than solve the issue of what to do with A&M.
LikeLike
Because it’s more fun?
LikeLike
vincent still wins with the branson comment, but that one is up there 😉
LikeLike
Anyone who’s a fan of a playoff has to be a big proponent of the A&M to the SEC angle because of what it means for college football to have the big time conference going to 14+ teams and eventually setting up for a playoff scenario between those leagues.
LikeLike
And all right minded people see the decay of what makes college football great. Being more like the NFL is not a good thing for CFB.
LikeLike
There’s one other assumption that I think needs to be reconsidered: that ESPN does not want super conferences. That appears to have been the case last summer, but that in no way means it’s still true. Perhaps they just weren’t ready for the unknown and have had time to figure it out since then.
But personally I believe, with no real evidence, that ESPN has made one major move which may change their stance: the LHN. What if ESPN wants UT to go independent so they can snag up all those 1st and 2nd tier rights? There’s nothing that says UT even has to be in favor of this, but just that ESPN has positioned themselves for that possibility. If the B12-x does not get the kind of contract they want in a few years, that may be the point when UT jumps ship and ESPN has the leverage to do just that.
LikeLike
I believe, and it is only my belief, that ESPN’s concern is NOT necessarily super-conferences (or at least, not as much as something else). I believe ESPN is concerned with FOX’s growing hold in college football. Who helped to start the BTN? FOX. Who is helping the PAC 12 with their network? FOX. If Texas and Oklahoma had joined the PAC 12, who would have their 3rd tier rights? FOX. So ESPN rushed in and saved the Big 12 and, low and behold, now ESPN has Texas’ third tier rights with the Longhorn Network. Much of this, in my opinion, is the FOX vs. the ESPN-hound for market share.
And now they are whispering in Texas’ ear: it would be great to have Notre Dame involved in this. And what did we hear Texas’ AD say? Notre Dame would be a good option to fill out the conference. That is also what we heard from the Big 10 last year when FOX was whispering in Jim Delaney’s ear: Texas and Notre Dame would be great in this conference. Why would Texas go the the Big 10? Or Notre Dame to the Big 12? Who comes up with this stuff? Networks who want to increase their ratings, that’s who. And the conference commissioners and ADs have a vested interest to listen; after all, FOX does own 49 percent of the BigTen Network and what is good for FOX should be good for me. And the B1G did add Nebraska.
Well, now ESPN has Texas’ 3rd tier rights; FOX has the PAC 12 and the B1G. And ESPN and FOX have paid a lot for those rights.
And the SEC is not happy; because it is left out. And the SEC is locked into a contract that cannot benefit from this fight. Even the Big East is going to benefit from this fight, but not the SEC. So how does the SEC use this to their advantage? Add Texas A&M and threaten ESPN with going to FOX for third tier rights if they don’t open up the contract and renegotiate now. What do you think ESPN is gonna do? Anything they can to fight off FOX.
Granted, all of the other things often talked about on this board (conference money, academics, politics, etc.) also have their place and the schools are looking for as much money as the TV industry. But I just wonder if this aspect of the FOX vs the ESPN-hound is getting way over-looked?
LikeLike
Don’t forget that CBS has a cable sports channel and works with the Turner family for hoops. They could compete with ESPN to get the rest of the SEC’s rights.
LikeLike
I don’t think ESPN would have sunk so many resources into the Longhorn Network unless they thought that they’d be broadcasting Texas-Oklahoma on it someday. This isn’t about volleyball games or “cultural programming.” This is about getting a foot in the door.
LikeLike
The PAC chose not to have Fox, or any other partners in the P12N. Fox and ESPN joined together in a joint bid for the PAC 12 primary contract. Not sure how that is limiting Fox’s CFB access.
LikeLike
Good analysis, but remember that ESPN & Fox actually both ganged up to get the Pac’s first tier rights (the Pac actually owns its own third tier rights). Why did they gain up? To keep out NBC/Comcast. It’s a network fight, but not between ESPN & Fox.
LikeLike
Or, perhaps, not only between Fox and ESPN.
LikeLike
It is sort of semantics but what the PAC holds isn’t 3rd tier. More like junior 1st tier partner, along with espn and fox. They kept aprox one third of FB Nd BB and will have first selection twice and second five times next FB season. Plus they will know the order through the season before setting the schedule.
LikeLike
Don’t forget, Comcast wants to be a dog in this fight too.
LikeLike
Anybody want to comment on how quiet the B1G and PAC are right now?
Delany I can see to some extent, but why is nobody tracking Larry Scott travel this weekend like we did last year? I think at one time we had his flight plans?
anyone?
anyone?
Beuller?
Beuller?
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-delany-report-that-big-ten-favors-plusone-playoff-is-erroneous-20110813,0,1664625.story
I linked to it elsewhere, but Delany has said the B10 isn’t expanding right now.
LikeLike
“Right now” is different from, say, “tomorrow”.
LikeLike
Letter to the TAMU faithful,
http://www.aggienetwork.com/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?postId=TzRfJ65X%2bGo%3d
anybody post this yet?
LikeLike
Just to rehash where we stand:
1. ESPN says the SEC wants TAMU, Clemson, FSU and MO
2. VT, Clemson, FSU and MO have all denied any interest in the SEC
3. The B12 has said it could stay at 9
4. UT has said it doesn’t want to be independent
5. The B10 has said it isn’t looking to expand right now (http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/8/13/2361425/ncaa-conference-realignment-rumors-no-big-ten-expansion-syracuse-rutgers-pittsburgh-uconn)
So why is it that almost every article on the topic assumes the schools and conferences are all lying? Yes, circumstances could change, but all these schools know that TAMU to the SEC is highly possible.
Who would be the 14th team if you take all the schools at their word? What viable candidates haven’t said no publicly?
LikeLike
Did FSU deny interest? I thought they just said they hadn’t started down that path.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-08-13/sec-presidents-will-not-meet-sunday-texas-am-florida-state-oklahoma-bob-stoops
According to SN sources:
1. SEC presidents won’t meet Sunday
2. There has been no discussion about possible 14th schools
3. There is no way they go past 14 schools
4. MO and OU aren’t interested
5. The B12 does have a conference call today to update everyone on TAMU
6. TAMU leaving wouldn’t affect the other 9 B12 schools
7. The SEC doesn’t want 2 teams in any more states (non FSU, GT, Clemson), but UK might not oppose UL
8. BYU wants to stay independent
LikeLike
Perhaps the schools Gottlieb has named as schools # 14, 15, and 16 (FSU, Clemson, and Missouri) are actually options A, B, and C just for school #14: Ask FSU first. If they get a “no,” ask the orange & purple tigers, then the black & gold tigers.
LikeLike
I assumed it was just a list of likely candidates. However, those are just the obvious suspects and it’s not clear to me there has been any discussion by the SEC of actual likely targets.
Unfortunately for the SEC, those 3 have all said no preemptively.
LikeLike
Do you expect them to say yes and run the risk of ultimately looking as foolish as Missouri did last spring? They can always later say “the environment changed” (and no, I don’t mean global warming) or something to that effect. Take these comments with the largest grain of salt you can find.
LikeLike
They could have given non-denial denials (like the SEC with TAMU), but they didn’t. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t change their minds, but it is more negative than usual.
LikeLike
Actually, only Va. Tech has preemptively said no. ” ‘Virginia Tech is exceedingly pleased with our membership in the ACC. It is the perfect conference for us,’ university spokesman Larry Hincker said in a statement after consulting with Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. ‘The university administration has no interest in any discussion concerning affiliation with any conference other than the ACC.’… ‘We always wanted to be in the ACC,’ Weaver said. ‘Now we’re there. Why would we want to go somewhere else when we finally have what we want?’ “–Washington Post
I’d say that’s a firm no, as in, “It doesn’t matter who offers us membership. We’ll say no.”
Contrast that with Clemson, FSU, & Mizzou. All they’ve said is that they’ve had no contact with the SEC. FSU said they’d be surprised if they were contacted. In no way does that mean they’d say no.
LikeLike
If the SEC is going to pry a school from the Big East, West Virginia makes a heckuva lot more sense than Louisville. More widespread fan support, a state flagship (OK, not a top-tier flagship, but one just the same), and it would give the SEC peripheral coverage in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Washington, whose markets include the northern and eastern tips of West Virginia.
LikeLike
I presume the thought would be to bolster basketball and add a major rivalry for KY. UL hoops makes ridiculous money, much more than UK ($25.9M to $16.8M). UL has also demonstrated a commitment to FB.
LikeLike
what you guys are forgetting is the population of West Virginia would be the lowest in the conference. Even Arkansas is about 10 slots higher in population. If you are adding eyeballs, and you are a top conference, why go for the bottom of the barrel?
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-08-13/report-longhorn-network-has-zero-carriers-in-state-of-texas
It amuses me that all of this is about the LHN and it still doesn’t have any carriers yet with 2 weeks until launch. If a network launches and nobody carries it, does it still make programming?
LikeLike
Evidently the politicians had their affect: the BoR meeting this Monday will now only be about “beginning serious discussions with the SEC.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-aggies/20110813-update-texas-am-may-not-be-pulling-sec-trigger-on-monday.ece
I’m guessing the SEC called off its Sunday meeting to wait for A&M gets through this political hurdle.
Oh, and the political hearing will also be about pushing Houston or SMU as candidates to replace A&M.
LikeLike
That’s all the meeting was going to be about. They have to give someone the authority to pursue negotiations before anything serious could ever happen. Then they can sit down with Slive and unofficially ask if they would be accepted if they applied.
LikeLike
I read a couple months ago that the Pres was given authority last winter. David Sandhop (aggie websider publisher) I believe said that. If that is the case the BOR could be meeting to ratify (or not) a move the pres has already made. “Pending regents approval” is the phrase used here. http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/31293612
LikeLike
I’ll believe that if they announce a deal on Monday. Otherwise, he has no power to do anything without the BOR giving it to him and then he can negotiate.
LikeLike
And once UT makes it clear that UH aren’t just no but are “hell no” alternatives, then what?
LikeLike
I say the conference is already done. If we heard that fast about the SEC meeting being canceled, it’s because they wanted us to hear about it that fast. A&M is giving the others time to figure out their situation before blowing up the conference. Baylor and the like would prefer to go about that process without rampant media speculation.
LikeLike
Duffman posted the link above by the Aggie foundation group to contact representatives. Clearly the Aggie administration thinks it may become a problem.
The delay could also be related to the Big 12 contract issues that apparently the SEC asked A&M to work out. Or it could be because Slive didn’t have the votes yet.
LikeLike
Dallas Morning News
UPDATE: Maybe Texas A&M will not be pulling the trigger on an SEC move Monday like people expected and media reported. State Rep. Dan Branch (R-Dallas) seems reassured that A&M officials will wait until his special hearing of the Texas House Committee on Higher Education. After using the term “highly inappropriate” to multiple news outlets today regarding A&M movement to the SEC, Branch took a different approach with Morning News Statehouse reporter Robert Garrett. “I’m pleased to hear from A&M officials that the board meeting [Monday] is about beginning serious discussions with the SEC and not about finalizing or completing the acceptance of such a bid,” Garrett said. “I don’t think it would be wise to pre-empt an opportunity for legislators to ask them questions.
“I’m trying to keep an open mind. If a bid is extended, that makes sense for A&M — that doesn’t have undue consequences on the other Texas schools — I’m keeping an open mind. I don’t have any predisposition. My only predisposition is to have something that is a value-added opportunity for the state of Texas.” He added that he would like to see discussion of an emerging Texas tier-one institution to the Big 12 if A&M leaves and specifically mentioned Houston and SMU.
UPDATE: A&M’s Association of Former Students is calling on its members to “engage their elected officials and ask them to consider Texas A&M’s need to do what is right and best for our school and our future.”
LikeLike
As I posted earlier, trying to beat the hearing to the punch was a clear poke in the eye to the legislators (none of the Aggie posters seemed to think it was an issue). Branch clearly poked them back very hard.
LikeLike
I wonder if the change in their agenda meets the legal requirements for the open meetings act.
LikeLike
Mr SEC thinks it’s likely that the SEC will reject A&M. “we simply do not believe that the SEC will OK a 13-school existence (without knowing that a 14th school will closely follow). The trick to voting A&M down, of course, would be doing so gently enough so that the Aggies would want to come back in the future when the college football landscape shifts in a major way or when the SEC can take its time to find a 14th school that truly fits.”
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/08/the-sec-and-texas-am-are-up-against-the-clock/
I think Mr SEC has got it wrong. Surely the SEC can accept A&M now and delay the start date to 2013 (or even 2014). That will give them plenty of time to arrange a 14th team. Obviously A&M won’t like playing another two (or three) seasons in the Big 12, but it will reduce the exit penalty and give the SEC lots of time to find the perfect partner.
LikeLike
Looks like Mr. SEC was right.
LikeLike
Not football related, but a stage collapsed in Indy and killed 4 people and injured another 40, please keep them in your prayers.
LikeLike
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=205242781
I didn’t see this linked here already. It’s the official B12 BoD Report after their conference call today.
A few tidbits:
“The Board strongly conveyed to Texas A&M its unanimous desire that it remain a Big 12 member, and acknowledged its value to the Conference.”
Really? Now you tell TAMU how great it is after the alleged Beebe comments? I’m sure they believe you.
“The other nine members reaffirmed their long term, unconditional and unequivocal commitments made to each other and the Conference last summer. Although the Board hopes Texas A&M remains in the Conference, the Board is prepared to aggressively move forward to explore expansion opportunities.”
Didn’t they all make these sorts of commitments last summer, including TAMU? And does anyone believe UT is unconditionally and unequivocally committed for the long term to the other 8 teams?
LikeLike
brian,
they want to expand the brand, but they lose the footprints in Colorado and Nebraska!!!
funny stuff! 😉
LikeLike
I think UT is as committed to them as they are to it.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/08/13/sec.presidents.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a3
Odds of #14 being FSU are about 0. Odds of it being any ACC team are also near 0. Most likely candidates are WV and UL, with UL as the favorite unless UK strongly objects.
I’ll just through this out there – would the SEC offer UC to get a toehold in Ohio? New market, closer to UK than WV is, and that’s about it for redeeming features.
LikeLike
A lot of these expansion reports make no sense. Its about the $. UH to Big 12 makes no sense from that standpoint. UL to the SEC doesn’t make much more sense. WVU maybe, but UL no. I don’t think UK would be concerned about UL, but who else would want them? Fb drives the bus and UL just expanded their stadium to 55k, still smaller than any SEC school except Vandy. To justify going to 14, you need some contribution in $ from both schools.
I also don’t believe the SEC is particularly concerned about breaking up another conference. I don’t see that as being anywhere on Slive’s list of priorities. Maybe keeping UNC from the Big 10 is on his list, but concern for other conferences has never been anything he has expressed.
LikeLike
Slive isn’t getting North Carolina into the SEC to begin with, so why would he be worried about it going into the Big Ten?
LikeLike
I can see the SEC being afraid of destroying the ACC (which, IMHO, crumbles if a football power is taken away) because of lawsuits (and maybe of letting the Big10 in to the south). ESPN didn’t sue last time because the B12 survived, but if the ACC crumbles, ESPN would just have had a favorable TV contract taken away from it.
LikeLike
richard,
I might counter with cost savings and the Big 2 (B1G / SEC)
If the ACC was raided, and their top 6 were spread among the B1G and SEC, then they would save money there, and shift money to the SEC to battle the B1G / FOX head to head. ESPN knows they are not getting the B1G, so they default and support the SEC as a football conference, and support a reformed BE + ACC as a basketball only conference that offers some football teams a possible AQ slot at the end of the season.
LikeLike
They could try to get a toehold in Ohio but have yoy ever been there? That is a Buckeye State with a few straglers for Cinn, Toledo, Ohio and Akron and then you have a small handfull that are Michigan fans because they want to be different. Cinn would alway be the underdog to OSU. I think the SEC would see more potential in West Virginia as it has the most possibility to grow.
LikeLike
I grew up there and am an OSU grad, so yes I’ve been there. UC doesn’t have a big fan base, but the SEC would still get Cincinnati as a market. More importantly, they could thumb their nose at the B10 by invading. i don’t really think it would happen, but it would be amusing.
LikeLike
Cincy is not the SEC radar, and it wouldn’t be thumbing their nose at the B10. Would the SEC care if the B10 “stole” Memphis?
LikeLike
Thanks to Kentucky (on the other side of the Ohio River), the SEC gets its share of attention in Cincinnati. You can make an argument for Louisville based on its basketball $, but its football brand is still lackluster, and Cincinnati is below Louisville in both sports.
LikeLike
UK and IU have better market share in Louisville than UL does, ask folks that live there
UK and tOSU have Cincinnati in the same way, with a pro element as well
just an observation
LikeLike
I don’t see the SEC trying a northern state. Any state that can at least argue its southern is fair game, but Pitt and Cinci are out because Ohio and Pennsylvania just can’t be called southern.
The SEC’s identity as a southern conference just benefits it too much. People combine southern pride with conference pride. If you add a northern school you creating a biin balancece in that and that’s risks going forward. West Virginia oLouisvillele would be a lot safer as both can at least make an argument for being southern.
LikeLike
If the conspiracy theories are fun… how about this…
Texas A&M threatening to leave could be a huge benefit to Texas the state. If there is some way where it ends up that Houston and SMU end up in the Big 12 as a means to placate Texas A&M.
You could end up with these divisions:
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St.
South: Texas, Texas A&M,Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and SMU
What’s in it for the Big 12? It steps away from conference implosion. It gets its conference game back. It placates Texas–a reason for Texas to not go independent. With 12 teams, more bowl game tie-ins. More bowl games = more happy universities and maybe more money. For Iowa St and Baylor, better from a competitive standpoint than taking on Boise St. and BYU.
What’s in it for Texas the University? I don’t see this weakening their conference power one bit. They now get conference games against Houston and SMU. Maybe they get those games on the LHN. Not exactly a tough road to get to the CCG. Beat A&M and Tech and you are in. Plus, if this version of the Big 12 takes off… there is a much more solid Big 12 for them to leave behind someday to got independent.
What’s in it for Texas A&M? 5 guaranteed games against in-state teams. Houston and SMU are decent, but not roadblocks by any stretch. Certainly a better path than having to play LSU, Arkansas, etc. If they can beat Texas and win the division–conference championship game. Maybe Texas makes the H.S. game concessions for the LHN. if Texas were to go independent, Texas A&M would get to be the big dog and not be stuck in a conference that is on life support.
What’s in it for the State of Texas? They get Houston to be part of the BCS riches… and an infusion of revenue. Plus, having Texas play Houston and SMU every year cannot hurt any of the schools. Think Texas @ Houston wouldn’t have greater attendance? How about TV revenue. If this can do for Houston or SMU what the Big East did for Cincinnati, now you’ve got more legitimate schools at the table. If those schools can keep more of the Texas players at home, they can be much more competitive.
What about the diminished revenue for the other North schools? Well… they are already hitched to Texas/Oklahoma and there is nothing they can do about it. I am sure Oklahoma’s share can be protected. The rest of the schools have little bargaining power. Where are they gonna go? The Big 10 is not taking Missouri alone. The SEC is not taking Missouri alone. And Missouri is not likely to cause the next conference break down. Is the Big East really a solution for any of the schools? Kansas and Kansas St. going to break apart to join the Big East? Not sure that it an increase in stability or revenue. Iowa St.? Don’t get foolish… you just shift from the 10th best team in the conference in everything to the 12th best team in the conference in everything. If the only other option is Texas A&M leaving…. and then being one step away from having your future negotiated by the whims of Texas… well, they’d probably have to go along with it.
In five years, nobody would look at Houston and SMU as C-USA schools. They would just be the equivalent of what USF is. Now… if the 16-team superconferences become an issue… there are 6 (7 with TCU) Texas schools that need to be protected. If 2-3 are left out, there is a reason for Texas the State to become interested in what happens. Texas the State has a nice share of Congressional reps to have a reason to take a look at what is happening.
So, in a sense, such a scenario would make it less likely for the 16-team superconferences to get started. If the Big East ends up with UCF somehow. Now you have 2 Florida schools and 2 Texas schools with a very real interest in keeping its place at the big table. Quite a bit different than when it is Utah, Idaho, and Iowa that is at risk of losing the $$$.
If ESPN cares about preventing superconferences, then such a plan would likely help them too. Can the Big 12 turn its back on ESPN, who kept them together? Of course. But would they?
LikeLike
Anybody ever hear of the demise of the SWC and the reasons for it?
LikeLike
History tends to repeat itself.
LikeLike
Yes! But not so fast. It took 80 years for the original SWC of UT,A&M,OU,OkSt., Baylor and Arkansas to be replaced by UT,A&M,OU,OkSt, Baylor and TT.
LikeLike
Everyone would get a lot less money. Why would non-Texas schools agree when they can just vote no? It’s not like UH and SMU add any value, and people will still think of them as CUSA schools in 20 years just like USF.
LikeLike
You consider USF a C-USA school?
LikeLike
I don’t think of them as AQ. UC has the same problem.
LikeLike
Sometimes you make more money by building a bigger pie.
If Texas goes independent someday, what happens to the Big 12? That is a future that the northern schools need to take a look at.
All the Big 10 riches can’t help Illinois field a hockey team. And it can’t give them a good football team either. Knowing that there place at the table is secure has some value to help get them to turn it around.
LikeLike
My favorite conspiracy theory is Slive, Delaney and Scott trying to divide up the universe. Slive take’s A&M to force UT and ND’s hand. UT goes to Pac 12, OU Pac 12 or SEC, ND to Big 10. FSU goes to SEC and ACC and Big 12 get gutted. There are not 4, but 3 superconferences. And then they spend the rest into oblivion by paying the “full” cost of attending the university and raising the sports sponsorship requirements for Division I. The 48 schools of the Big 3 win nearly every NCAA championship and drive a lot of schools to Division II or III or at least dropping football. Big 3 then also get a larger share of the NCAA bb money.
LikeLike
bullet,
I see you read my post on here from april / may just before UNL took a powder from the B – 12
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
apology if this is a repost
NYT article on future of college football
LikeLike
thanks for link; saw it referenced elsewhere, but no link.
LikeLike
Thamel’s a Commie.
LikeLike
Atlanta reporter decries the shifts-“expansion turns into shameful arms race.” Also typifies SEC fans attitude about adding A&M-“…this is like a high-end mall expanding to add a Walgreens.”
http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/
LikeLike
Hyperbole much? Realignment is Orwellian?
This guys sounds like the crazy old man who tries to tell kids about life back in his day at the same time he is yelling at them to stay off his lawn.
LikeLike
More like a strip mall trying to add a Macy’s
LikeLike
I don’t see any school in the ACC bolting for any other conference and the reports are looking that way as well. (I see them being stronger then most people do.) I think the only BCS conferences that have anything to worry about is the Big East and the Big XII. And being that Oklahoma has said that if the situation came that they had to find a new conference, they would #1 look to the PAC 12 first and if that failed..#2 then request admission with the Big Ten and if that failed…#3 the SEC would be their last resort. So, If the Big XII implodes, expect the PAC 12 to get their pickings..
Personally, I could see Oklahoma in the Big Ten to get back with Nebraska. That rivalry might not mean so much to the younger generation but those making the decissions…I see them thinking that is still a big deal. (Plus, OU’s farewell letter to Nebraska lets me know thatb members there did care)
LikeLike
No football brand, James, the ACC has no football brand. That’s why it’s vulnerable, especially for a school such as Maryland whose ties aren’t as strong to the rest of the conference and is bleeding because its conference rivals are not a draw. You can scream basketball till the cows come home, but that’s not where the money is. If the Big Ten said it would take Maryland, it’d leave the ACC ASAP.
LikeLike
Report on CFB yesterday said Oklahoma and a group of schools contacted the B10 for possible admission but were turned down for academic reasons. Other schools weren’t named, but I assume Okie St, Missouri and Kansas.
LikeLike
I was thinking OU, OSU, KU and KSU. Either way there was no way the B1G was accepting that group. I hope if OU would come alone that the B1G would jump on that deal. Even if OSU is a must I might say yes. If OU doesn’t end up in the B1G they end up in the Pac-12 and that’s another home run that the B1G loses out on.
And for anyone that think OU’s academics are too light. They are at just about the same level as UNL. They’ve just never had an AAU membership to lose. No disrespect to UNL. Can you imagine the UNL and OU rivalry started up again in the B1G! Anyone who can remember what that meant before the Big-12 came into being should be excited. I even heard a rumor last week that Osborne was politicking for OU.
LikeLike
A second brand with no local market (and mostly the same national following UNL has already secured), that also is light by B1G standards? I’m sure the presidents would jump at that.
It would reduce the ability to move significantly into large media markets (east) and still hold a place for ND (and potentially a friend they require)?
Sure, go for it…
LikeLike
They may want, or require, ND to get one king but who will be the other? If not OU then who? Are you holding your breath for UT? Maybe you’re one of those that thinks adding Duke is a home run. I’m not. Getting UNC and Duke together is not a home run. You end up with 2 not so hot fb programs and split the NC market.
Taking OU is great as a national addition. Think about the OU/UNL drama. It could become the new (old again) RRR. Plus they would do the same thing that UNL did for the BTN, making the state, small as it may be, a near lock for statewide coverage.
LikeLike
Joe4:
I’m not discrediting OU. If UNL was not aboard I might support OU, and then say the same about gaining only a name with no new market regarding UNL. UNL is probably a better cultural fit, too. I am also strongly of the opinion that UT is the one school that could be disruptive to even the B1G. Any conference that asks them in is making a Faustian bargain.
LikeLike
OU, UT and ND are the only 3 left that are going to splash.
ND may never come, UT has the LHN hung around it’s neck. Then there is OU light on academics but a rabid fan base and a national brand. Rutgers may get NYC but we are past that point. Individual markets don’t mean very much for a NATIONAL network and that is how the BTN has positioned itself. Nebraska brought few tv’s but a ton of rabid fans, and they are not the same fans. It has become, and is more bout ratings and following and value than tv market sizes.
LikeLike
Are any other person’s comments awaiting moderation?
LikeLike
Multiple links in one post always makes it await moderation. It’s an anti-spam thing I assume.
LikeLike
so, any news?
FWIW: someone called Silky51 on BON wrote this at 1:27
“twitter world buzz…
Allegedly SEC votes 11-0 to invite for Aggies”
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2011/8/14/2362366/realignment-sunday-open-thread-taking-the-cheese#comments
Any other news/rumors?
LikeLike
um, sorry: meant to start a new thread.
so, any news?
FWIW: someone called Silky51 on BON wrote this at 1:27
“twitter world buzz…
Allegedly SEC votes 11-0 to invite for Aggies”
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2011/8/14/2362366/realignment-sunday-open-thread-taking-the-cheese#comments
LikeLike
Odd
http://twitter.com/#!/billyliucci/status/102830816064831488
LikeLike
*snicker*
LikeLike
SEC presidents and chancellors vote to stay at 12.
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/31318268
LikeLike
Has this been posted? SEC doesn’t invite A&M, yet.
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2011/8/14/2362858/sec-passes-on-a-m-for-now
SEC Passes on A&M, For Now
In a surprising decision released Sunday afternoon following the meeting of SEC presidents earlier in the day, the league opted to pass on extending an official invitation for Texas A&M for the moment, seemingly tabling expansion talks and forcing the Aggies to remain in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Lack of a suitable partner? Pressure from ESPN and “the powers that be”? Biding time until all the details can be worked out?
There are probably plenty of people in College Station ticked off that the status quo has won, for now.
LikeLike
Of course, the key phrase is “for the moment.”
LikeLike
I’m trying to put together the 11-0 and passing on A&M stories together. Some on the A&M boards think this is mostly procedural, that the SEC won’t invite the Aggies while they are committed to the Big 12, but once they leave, things open up.
It could be the case the presidents either informally voted 11-0 to see what they could muster or else gave Slive permission to invite teams not supposed to be members of other conferences, but that wouldn’t right now include A&M. If A&M voted to leave the Big 12 though, that would open things up immediately, which might be the plan.
LikeLike
The SEC has to be 100% certain it has a partner in expansion for A&M. It doesn’t want to be left with a 13-team conference and all the logistical headaches that brings.
LikeLike
Actually that’s pretty much my guess. I’d prefer the status quo, but I get the feeling the SEC absolutely doesn’t want to be seen as the aggressors this time and want it to be A&M asking them after officially announcing plans to leave the Big 12. That also would probably help out the SEC from any lawsuits from the Big 12.
LikeLike
I kinda of believe the Aggies here. If the SEC were to invite the Aggies ahead of all the legality, the SEC could possibly be sued by ESPN/Fox/ABC for interference in the B12-2 contract. Everything probably has to come from the Aggies side. What B12-2 needs right now is a dance partner and fast in order to keep its conference from dropping below 10 and thus putting their contract in peril.
LikeLike
Sounds like more of a slap at Slive than A&M. Criteria and procedure instead of this rush.
I don’t think its over, but I’m sure its not a done deal just waiting for the i’s to be dotted and t’s to be crossed. I wonder if the Presidents reacted to any of the editorials contrasting their behavior here with the recent NCAA conference. Or if its just a matter of Slive essentially inviting someone before having a TV contract, analysis of legal contractural problems, scheduling plan, 14th member or discussing it with any of the Presidents (one article said UF and UGA were the only presidents who had any info).
Frank, don’t expect any Aggies to apologize for trashing your “obvious” bias and “irrational” analysis . This obviously would have happened, but UT must have called the SEC Presidents and threatened not to let them play on the LHN blackmailing them into staying at 12 for now.
LikeLike
Laughable. You didn’t really understand the process did you. I was 100% certain, I’d find this type of post from you. I’m sure you will soon post that this deal “isn’t final yet”. Frank’s logic was flawed because he never developed any type of A&M contact and relied on Longhorns. Their bias (not FranktheTank’s bias) lead him down a very wrong path.
LikeLike
GEORGE SCHROEDER
RT @PeteThamelNYT: A high ranking SEC official called today’s statement a way to tap the brakes so Texas A&M can get its house in order.
LikeLike
So “Standing Offer” was actually “Standing Pat”? Damn iphone auto-correct…
LikeLike
But a bunch of Ag trolls posted just the other day that its a 100% done deal. Didn’t the SEC get the memo?
LikeLike
Just kidding. I knew what you meant.
LikeLike
Here’s a good article explaining ESPN’s conflict of interest and how the TV contracts are holding everything up.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/how-espn-is-complicating-am-to-sec-deal.php
LikeLike
This article is an expansion of the legal points on my post above about the conflicts ESPN has and how it might not be in their best interest to give the SEC a big increase.
ESPN rights:
Big 12-1st tier
SEC-2nd tier
ACC-1st, 2nd and 3rd tier
LikeLike
An admitted, “pro Big Ten” guy here…
Could the Big Ten be TAMU and UT’s way out of this mess? If ESPN creates a situation where the SEC doesn’t financially gain and TAMU is threatened with legal action from the Big 12, why not simply dissolve the Big 12 TOGETHER (TAMU and UT) and head up north?
LikeLike
I think if aTm & UT were to stay together outside of the Big 12 (which I very, very, very seriously doubt at this point), then it will be out west in the Pac 12. That’s because the Pac 12 would probably be willing to take OU and OK ST as well. That way there would be more regoinal teams to play and be easier to travel. If it is just aTm & UT going to the B1G, that is just a logistical nightmare in my book. Plus I’ve seen it speculated (although it was for a UT, OU, OK ST, Tex Tech move) that the way that the Pac 12 has their conference network divided up into regional networks, that the LHN could be somehow altered to accomidate that setup. Then the Pac 12 could break the conference up into clean pods and have a TX/OK pod, Cal pod, Northwestern pod, desert/mountain pod.
But I honestly don’t see any way that UT and aTm go to the B1G. And to be honest I don’t see UT and aTm going to the Pac 12 either. If aTm doesn’t stay in the Big 12, then I think that Ut and aTm will seperate. JMHO
LikeLike
I believe protocol is being followed. aTm still headed to the SEC.
Here is an interesting take on ESPN and conflict or interest: http://outkickthecoverage.com/how-espn-is-complicating-am-to-sec-deal.php
LikeLike
@ccrider55
That’s a great read and a terrific point of view that hasn’t come to light much in this whole SECede mess. As a fan I’m concerned over the role ESPN plays in college sports. As a Big XII fan, I’m concerned that a portion of my monthly cable bill will be going to fund Longhorn athletics.
LikeLike
concur. thank you for linking that article.
LikeLike
GEORGE SCHROEDER
RT @PeteThamelNYT: A high ranking SEC official called today’s statement a way to tap the brakes so Texas A&M can get its house in order.
Just FYI.
LikeLike
My hope is A&M doesn’t move to the SEC until 2013; I’d like TCU to get at least one season in the Big East as it currently stands before everything goes to hell. What deadlines are we looking at as far as making a move for 2012? Seems like they’d have to get it done this month, IIRC.
LikeLike
No real deadlines that I know of except the sheer difficulty of adding a team if they wait too long. They’re past the deadline to pay a lesser exit fee, so I think the SEC would set the deadline now.
LikeLike
I may very well eat my words because the SEC expansion to 14 story clearly isn’t over, but this was what initially went through my brain when I first saw the news that the SEC is staying at 12:
“SEC? Florida State don’t need no stinking SEC!!! (Neither do Clemson, NC State, Va. Tech, Ga. Tech, Miami, or UNC.)
It’s a good day to be a fan of both Florida State and its very much-maligned conference!
That is all.
LikeLike
The opportunity to join the SEC, the Tiffany of college football conferences, will probably stoke several ACC fan bases, particularly in Clemson, Tallahassee and Blacksburg. (Maybe Raleigh, too.) That pressure will probably make it easier for Slive to pry one of those ACC members.
LikeLike
Yeah, I know. That’s what stinks, from my perspective.
There are, however, a lot of Seminole fans who share my views that sticking with the ACC is the better route to go. Va. Tech has already made it clear they’re not going anywhere; their president called the ACC “the perfect conference for us.” Clemson fans would be tempted, but their administration might not be. They recognize that affiliation with the stronger academic schools is a big advantage for them. And NC State is just about as purely ACC as UVA, Duke, and UNC. There’s never been any pining away for the SEC.
Getting an ACC school will still be an uphill battle.
LikeLike
*Should say, “There’s never been any pining away for the SEC from NCSU fans.”
There has been, though, a fair amount of pining away from Clemson fans.
FSU fans are very divided about it, from what I gather, and I’m a little surprised some faculty representatives haven’t spoken up in favor of staying in the ACC the way that Notre Dame faculty did for the prospect of Big Ten membership back in 1999.
LikeLike
I am too a FSU alum that is happy to stay in the ACC (well as long as those BS crazy 40 million stories are not true). I too am surprised there where not more faculty and administrative types talking about staying in the ACC.
LikeLike
I’m not actually an FSU alum, just a huge fan. However, my parents, aunt, cousins, and a few in-laws went to FSU.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/14/am-addresses-sec-decision-to-stand-down-on-expansion/
Today’s Aggie statement:
“As we have seen over the past several days, there has been a considerable amount of misinformation regarding these discussions and any associated timelines. The chairman of our board has indicated that the regents will proceed with tomorrow’s agenda item, which authorizes the president of Texas A&M to take all actions related to athletic conference alignment. I will also accept Chairman Branch’s invitation to participate in his committee’s hearing on Tuesday. These are extremely complex issues, and it is imperative that we proceed methodically and in the best interests of Texas A&M.”
LikeLike
Loki,
I found the Rice link again
Go to TexAgs
Go to their Forums, and click on Football Board
Look for a thread titled
“SEC could choose to add 1 Academic School to SEC West”
started by Gator1 on 08/11/11 at 9:25pm
Some TAMU folks were showing Rice the love 😉
LikeLike
From what I’ve been able to gather from various local, national, SEC-centric, and Rivals sites, it looks like the SEC Presidents & Chancellors were really wanted to slow this Aggie train down without rejecting them. The Aggies have a lot of work to do on their own before the SEC would consider them for membership. The Aggies may first just quit the Big XII-2. Apparently, the SEC doesn’t want to commit adultery with A&M, but if A&M is already divorced, then the Aggies are fair game.
Talk of #14 seems to center on Mizzou. No ACC school could come in time for the 2012 season, as an ACC school would have to notify the ACC office that its quitting the ACC no later than Aug 15 (tomorrow).
It sounds like A&M (and Mizzou??) may have suicide rush the SEC, forsaking all others including the Big XII, before the SEC would consider them for membership.
See below, for a phone interview with CBS analyst and Louisiana native Tim Brando for his take on today’s events:
http://www.cbs42.com/sports/story/Tim-Brando-Reacts-to-SEC-Not-Inviting-A-M/5hSmPtsT2UCZpZ6Mgyhx6Q.cspx
LikeLike
If A&M and Missouri both split for the SEC, what’s the Big 12’s next move? Invite two new members to placate its TV rightsholders? (And who would they be — Houston and Southern Methodist? Might it include Brigham Young, which might not be completely convinced this is a stable arrangement?) Would Texas be encouraged to investigate Pac membership (probably with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State in tow), if its Longhorn Network is somehow blended into the Pac’s plans?
And don’t think the ACC is completely out of danger in this scenario. Slive could take two of its members for 2013 to even things out east and west, which in turn would sufficiently weaken the ACC for a Big Ten raid in this new 16-member environment.
LikeLike
OU sources have said if TAMU and MO leaves, the B12 is dead.
LikeLike
Perhaps observe due process more than slow things down.
When Nebraska left had not the Big 10 “informally” polled the presidents (in secret) so that as soon as Neb left the Big 12 there was a conference call to officialy invite/accept their application? Today probably represented that Big 10 preliminary meeting, although with far more attention being paid, and expectations of something that simply was not going to happen today.
LikeLike
Chip Brown thinks the Aggies are still on their way out.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1251783
“Texas A&M wants the SEC, and the SEC wants Texas A&M,” the source said.
LikeLike
One of many things that made me doubt the initial reports was the timing-August or September for 2012? That’s an unreasonably short time line for everyone, especially the Big 12 teams. If the SEC pulls two teams out of the Big 12 in September that might be more grounds for a lawsuit. Its as disruptive as the SMU death penalty. Most potential additions would be legally obligated to their conferences. If they can get teams, it would be really disruptive to conferences all the way down the line. Some of the Big 12 schools might not be able to schedule the 2 lost games. Some might have to schedule 2 FCS schools. If 2012 is really the target date that would be the height of arrogance and hypocrisy by the SEC and A&M.
Besides, kickoff is in 2 weeks. Aren’t we supposed to be talking about football.
LikeLike
I don’t know if this was ever discussed…
http://twitter.com/#!/greggdoyelcbs/status/102471825287680001
LikeLike
Who were the 2 other Big 12 schools?
LikeLike
If I had to guess it would be Kansas and K-State. I believe the Kansas schools share a board of regents and are tied at the hip.
LikeLike
Only other option would probably be Missouri and Iowa State.
LikeLike
I will say though, if the Big Ten ever goes to 16, that’s how I would want it. You get one more big brand in Oklahoma and a few other decent Midwestern teams. That said, the powers that be would rather make it an expanded national coference for TV purposes.
LikeLike
I would love OU to be one of the next 4. The B1G needs 2 home runs to fill out the conference and there aren’t many out there. It’s just as likely that UT and OU end up in the Pac-12 with their tag alongs. If that happens ND is really the only home run left for the B1G. If it meant accepting OSU to get OU I say do it. OU is on the level of UNL and OSU can grow into the conference academically. If Boone was willing to spend all that money to upgrade their athletics in the B12 maybe he’ll do the same for academics to get them into the B1G.
I hope 2 schools come from the east. If ND joins then at least 1from the east. Don’t leave us (PSU) hangin’ out here alone.
LikeLike
Your idea of a “home run” and the Big Ten presidents’ idea of such are probably entirely different things. They may have felt that they got the fourth football brand name they needed in Nebraska, which was as low as they could go academically (and UNL’s subsequent loss of AAU status had to sting), so no more from the Big 12. (I wouldn’t be surprised if one of those investigating was Missouri, as a last-chance inquiry. The Big Ten rejection now paves the way for it to pursue SEC membership, perhaps not its first choice but certainly a more stable alternative to the Big 12.)
From a research/academic/overall athletic perspective, the Maryland/Virginia/North Carolina/Duke bloc would be a collective home run, and provide PSU with the neighbors it needs. Rutgers might be able to substitute for Duke, but I don’t see any other Big East member (from the football conference) satisfying Big Ten officials, not Syracuse, not Pittsburgh, certainly not Connecticut.
LikeLike
A home run is a home run. Academics are very important but Duke is a great academic institution and a great bb school but they are a double at best because fb is driving the bus. Adding the ACC bloc sounds great, and is great academically, but would leave the B1G far behind the SEC as a fb conference.
Even you say that RU could replace Duke. RU is a good academic school but Duke is an academic and research powerhouse. In every academic category, in endowment and research $’s Duke crushes RU but this is about fb and markets. Academics cannot be forgotten but they are not number 1 in importance.
Adding OU as 1 of 4 is a home run. Period.
LikeLike
I think if Oklahoma is interested, the B1G needs to consider making the move even if it means adding Oklahoma State. For all the talk about academics, the league added Nebraska, which even with its then AAU status was well below Michigan State in terms of bringing up the rear in the B1G. All that mattered was that the Cornhuskers were a storied football program with a national audience. That’s pretty much what you would get with Oklahoma. The much ballyhooed ACC four pack would be great as a whole but they bring nothing but mediocrity in terms of football. Virginia and North Carolina have to be two of the most underachieving football programs in the history of college football. Duke is flat out awful. Maryland is average. Also, if you pass on OU now, chances are they head west to the Pac 12 with Texas Tech and maybe even A&M, giving the Pac 16 a presence in California and Texas…
Which brings me to my next point. Any chance the B1G offers A&M along with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and possibly Missouri? You add two big name football schools, a big state with two major TV markets, and you achieve the goal of getting a conference presence south into Texas. A&M is dying to get out of the Big 12 and they were just very publicly spurned by the SEC. What about keeping that final spot open instead of Missouri and offering Notre Dame? In the end, you would have one shoddy university, but a plethora of big time football schools. Granted I’m a fan and not a university president, but I’d make that trade.
LikeLike
No reason to take Okl/OSU/TAM/Miz, leaving both ND and Texas out there. I agree that maaaaaybe it makes sense to add Okl/OSU of it also means Texas. It’s hard to conceive of a 4-team addition that does not include ND, if the idea is that everyone is going to 16 as some kind of armageddon.
LikeLike
Anyone else kind of annoyed at the role of academics with conferences? I like it in the sense that it makes expansion less likely, but I still find it an odd set-up that conferences designed for athletic scheduling should care so much about the academic make-up of the colleges. I guess in the sense that sports are used to market the school, there is some validity there, but that’s as far as it goes in my mind. There is no inherent reason that the CIC has to remain the academic arm of the Big Ten instead of its own separate organization. There’s also no real harm by playing in a conference with a team perceived to be academic inferior. Maybe I’m underestimating how people group things, but I don’t really think of a school as better or worse because of the conference it’s in.
LikeLike
@Eric – It really depends on which conference you’re talking about. In the case of the Big Ten, there’s definitely an academic component to its brand that exists. For instance, there was a Wall Street Journal article last week about various substance abuse programs at colleges. This article had no mention of sports whatsoever and was in the lifestyle portion of the paper. It referred to a whole bunch of BCS schools, such as Texas Tech, Cal and UNC. None of their conferences were mentioned. However, Michigan and Penn State were specifically called “Big Ten schools”. This shows that, at least in the case of the Big Ten, there’s a general academic image to the conference that goes beyond sports (not necessarily at the Ivy League level, but certainly more than anyone else). Being a “Big Ten school” is truly part of the identity of each member institution. The Pac-12 and ACC definitely care about academics, but there’s more of a sliding scale. Larry Scott had no qualms about taking Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to get Texas and Oklahoma, but Boise State has no chance at all.
Also, public flagships tend to be the most valuable schools for athletic purposes AND are higher up on the academic food chain. So, there’s a fairly strong correlation between the two when you get past the elite private schools.
LikeLike
@vp19 – I would still say football homeruns are required for the Big Ten financially. Yes, any of that ACC bloc would add a ton in terms of academics and sheer market presence, but the entire premise of 16-school superconferences is football-driven (protecting regular season dollars and setting up a new postseason system). The calculation for the Big Ten finding who is academically acceptable that brings the most in terms of football value (not the opposite of who is acceptable football-wise that brings the most in terms of academics). That’s why I like Miami. No, it’s not an AAU school, but it’s in the top 50 for undergrad and much farther ahead of ND in terms of research capabilities. Their ties to the ACC are also much weaker than the MD/UVA/UNC/Duke core. I’d like any of that ACC core, but you need at least one other football powerhouse (and probably 2) to make it all work.
LikeLike
Frank – there’s a reason why so many Midwesterners now live in South Florida. They’d rather be in Miami than Madison in late November.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Anyone else kind of annoyed at the role of academics with conferences?”
Not me. I’m much more annoyed at the role of ESPN, and TV dollars in general, in conferences. Conferences should be about grouping similar schools in the same region, not about maximizing income and inventory.
LikeLike
If the B10 had to take OkSt., we’d need to get both OU and Texas as well as another school that either excels in athletics and is good in academics (ND or Miami) or is a Texas-based school with great academics (Rice).
LikeLike
(Rice)
Stop, just stop.
LikeLike
I would say that to take OU and Ok St we need to get 1 of ND or UT. Getting Ok St with 3 home runs throws competitive balance out of whack. I still think it is best to get 2 home runs and 2 lesser schools. Adding 3 or 4 home runs makes the conference too tough. Even the SEC couldn’t match that. We need some teams to beat too.
It would be great to add UT, OU and Ok St with an eastern school from a PSU perspective. Adding OU, Ok St, ND and an eastern school would be even better. I dislike the idea of UT or ND in the conference but having both would make me cringe. It could also be setting up the conference for failure. Neither UT or ND play well with others.
LikeLike
@Joe4PSU – I agree that would be necessary to even consider that proposal (and even then, there’s just no way that Oklahoma State is getting into the Big Ten). The only way a bloc of 4 schools would’ve even received a hint of an evaluation is if it included UT and OU (presumably with Texas Tech and Oklahoma State coming along, too). *Maybe* if Missouri and Kansas approached with OU and OSU there would’ve been a discussion, too. Even then, it all has to make financial sense when all is said and done. People might move mountains to get UT (assuming that they play nice), but there’s really no one else other than maybe ND that meets that standard.
LikeLike
I agree whole heartedly. Oklahoma is the gateway to a truly elite Big Ten. Oklahoma will help bring Texas which will bring Notre Dame. If you have to take one underachiever (Oklahoma State) to make it happen, you do it. In this age of budget cuts and small government, the research grants are going to begin drying up (and to a smaller degree, alumni donations). Going forward these research universities are going to rely (more and more) on BTN money to keep them flush. The eyeballs and contracts football powerhouses like OK bring are far more important at this stage than some sports anemic AAU member.
LikeLike
You have the relationship inverted.
If a research university has to rely on BTN money, they have long sence ceased being a research university.
LikeLike
No way would adding Okie State to get dirty OU be worth it unless the B10 was ensured to also get ND & Bevo.
LikeLike
OSU is a Tier 3 school. It will not happen, period.
This isn’t the PAC-12; we’re not going to be dictated to. Oklahoma has no leverage anyway: they want in, and don’t want the PAC-12 or the SEC.
LikeLike
The B1G will be dictated to as much as the Pac. If the Pac were a research consortium they wouldn’t have invited Ok. St. But they fit just fine with a number of Pac schools, WSU, OSU, ASU. If Notre Dame says we’ll come if you invite school X (think Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Duke, Vanderbilt, Miami) and that school is either a research university or a highly regarded private school they will almost certainly invite them.
LikeLike
No way OK ever gets invited to the BT. In additiion to being a Tier 3 school, they are also the #1 cheating football school in history. Think OSU onn steroids.
LikeLike
“Think OSU onn steroids.”
Whoa whoa whoa… hope you’re talking about Oregon St there. 😛
LikeLike
You’re making a mistake of several orders of magnitude. Wisconsin received $840,672,000 in research grants (2007). Last year Wisconsin got roughly $7,900,000 from the BTN. The research money is over 100 times the BTN money. Put in other terms, if the BTN payouts increased by 10% a year, it would take almost half a century to be equal to the current research grants.
Not all Big Ten universities have quite that differential, but 8 had at least $400,000,000 in grants while 2 others had at least $300,000,000. The BTN is a nice boost to the athletic department, but it’s never going to be more than a tiny amount of the overall university income.
LikeLike
No way to OU. OU is “big money” football. From there scandals in the 70’s…to the scandals in the 80’s…to the 2000 probation…OU belongs in the SEC, all the way. I know that geographically close to Nebraska…but they do not fit at all. Ditto for their little brother OkSt.
Sorry. That’s a closed door. I think the Big Ten would be more likely to take Kansas or Mizzou (which they WOULD NOT!) than OU.
LikeLike
Not to say that Doyel is right or not, but it’s an interesting coincidence that the only national guy to report this particular rumor (as far as I have seen) has been by far the most anti-Texas journalist on this issue out there (“repulsively greedy and self-serving” from his most recent column is relatively mild compared to what he wrote last week, which I can’t find now for some strange reason). Also, Doyel just happens to report this rumor not dispassionately but rather in the context of “Oklahoma rediscovered its backbone” relative to its relationship with UT.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank,
I’ve had Naughty by Nature stuck in my head for two days thanks to your clever little title.
Anyway, excellent post, as usual.
LikeLike
Timeline for aTm to SEC
http://prevailandride.blogspot.com/2011/08/cfb-offseason-in-ms-paint-dateline-aggy.html
LikeLike
lol. That’s awesome. The Miss. St. panel is classic.
LikeLike
loki,
look above for the link info I attached to your other post
LikeLike
For all the people saying UH is a prime candidate to replace A&M in the Big 12, there is a pattern over the last 35 years or so (the list below may not be complete-its hard to keep track of the WAC, but its close enough):
Pac 12-Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Utah
Big 10-Penn St., Nebraska
ACC-Georgia Tech, FSU, *Miami*,BC,Virginia Tech (they wanted Syracuse)
SEC-Arkansas, South Carolina
BE-Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, USF, TCU
MWC-TCU,Hawaii,*Fresno St.*, *Nevada*, Boise St.
WAC-*Fresno St.*, Hawaii, UNLV,TCU,SMU,Rice,Tulsa, *San Jose St.*,La Tech,Idaho, Boise St., Nevada, NM St., Utah St., UTSA, Texas St.
CUSA-ECU,UAB,USF,Marshall, *UTEP*,*SMU*, Tulsa, *****Rice*****
Rice! is the only school who was voluntarily added in a market the conference already had. There were only a handful, Fresno, Nevada, San Jose, SMU, UTEP, who were in existing states, but all were in separate markets far from the existing school. Miami also fit that mold and they were a king, although FSU did have a piece of Miami. Even the Sun Belt and MAC (except for Akron) have followed the same pattern. Conferences seeking TV contracts expand their markets. They don’t overprotect existing markets.
LikeLike
Obviously there’s something about Houston that makes other schools goes crazy over the city. Must be the hot Viet chicks.
LikeLike
The Vietnamese really make you feel history. I worked with a “hot Viet chick” in Houston who was on one of the last choppers out of Saigon. Knew another one in a doctor’s office who was one of the 80s boat people.
Maybe its all the great restaurants in the city, many run by Vietnamese. And they contributed Dat(?) Nguyen to the Aggies.
Or maybe with CUSA they just wanted the M.O.B. (Marching Owl Band).
LikeLike
Maybe everyone is lightheaded after the giant mosquitoes sucked out half of their blood.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
Rice? C’mon now.
The only reason the BigTen will go that far south is because UT is worth so much it’s impossible to ignore for rivals to pick up. But they certainly aren’t going to take Rice. Hell, it certainly won’t be Miami either. If we’re thinking academics, it’d have to be ND or bust in that combination. But then again I can’t see the BigTen taking OU/OSU regardless. The academic side would likely be too big a pill to swallow for the presidents, especially after UNL lost their AAU status right after joining.
LikeLike
Purple Book Cat is back, and he says the B1G Ten is pushing hard for Texas and Texas A&M.
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&mid=161402679&tid=161240718
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&mid=161402743&tid=161397753
Interesting to see what happens here. I think TAMU still wants to go east, but Texas might come onboard if what he says about the TV deals is true.
LikeLike
Question that I haven’t seen answered yet in response to Purple Book Cat’s “insider info from Big Ten offices”…
Would the Big Ten (or Pac-12) allow Texas to withhold participation in BTN but participate in every other way? Or is Texas truly in a “Big 12 or independence” scenario?
LikeLike
Well, last year supposedly UT told the Pac it was a done deal, if they could start their own channel. The Pac said “see ya later”. It’s all rights in or nothing. Whether that was actually the reason the P16 didn’t happen, or just a cover for the actual reason (politics?) is a matter of conjecture.
LikeLike
Another TV question…
If the LHN flops, what happens? Can ESPN buy their way out of it? What are the options in that scenario?
LikeLike
It was reported that $240 million was guaranteed regardless of the network’s success, but some people have said that some language in the contract gave ESPN some wiggle room in the event the network was a complete disaster.
LikeLike
And a question for the lawyers.
Reports seem to be that the SEC wants deniability with regard to A&M and #14. If A&M is recruiting B12 schools to join them as #14 (i.e. Missouri), doesn’t that potentially open A&M up to big liability? BC was in some trouble because they left the BE and the President was part of a board with fidiciary responsibility to the conference. Fidicuciary duty would not likely be the issue with A&M, but actively recruiting members might be interference with the existing contracts.
LikeLike
Latest from Mr.SEC on the Aggies, Seminoles, Mizzou Tigers, Hokies, and even . . . the Mountaineers.
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/08/a-qa-on-sec-expansion-monday-morning-edition/#idc-container
LikeLike
I really enjoy Mr. SEC’s posts and he’s one of the most knowledgeable writers around on this topic. That said, I lol’ed at this line
“Later today, A&M’s board of regents will meet with the goal of handing over to the school’s president the power to negotiate the Aggies’ future with various conferences — SEC, Big 12, whoever he likes. It’s a little like Congress giving the President the right to go to war.”
Now I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I’m 80% sure that when Congress gives the President the right to go to war, they are rather specific about which country he can go to war with.
LikeLike
Did we “officially” go to war with Grenada? 😉
LikeLike
I don’t think we’ve been “officially” in a war (i.e., declared by Congress) since WWII.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add2
LikeLike
Getting A&M to the SEC is all about getting Rick Perry into the White House.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=11098
LikeLike
Will K-State do it?
http://www.statesman.com/sports/9-things-and-1-crazy-prediction-1744914.html?viewAsSinglePage=true
LikeLike
To contrast what Byrne said, I’ve heard from Texas sources that A&M didn’t think the “Flagship” network was feasible and wasn’t interested. The fact that UT and UNL funded a study of a Big 12 network together supports the view that A&M wasn’t interested at the time.
LikeLike
K-State thinking about allowing their game with Texas to be on LHN.
http://blogs.kansas.com/kstated/2011/08/16/emptying-the-notebook-on-big-12-future-conference-realignment-university-networks/#ixzz1VE7dhrzp
When asked if the report was true, Currie danced around the question by saying he has discussed all kinds of things with every team in the league. The Big 12 decided the Longhorn Network can televise conference games as long as both schools agree to it, and while I can see Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Texas A&M refusing to play on a network owned and operated by their rival, I doubt K-State has the same objections.
Would it be an ideal situation? Probably not. But my guess is that if K-State agrees to play on the Longhorn Network, the Wildcats find a way to also show the game on their new online network with their own broadcast team. Picture that, a game televised by two university networks at the same time.
Currie didn’t rule out the possibility.
“We’re in kind of a brave new world,” he said. “There are all kinds of things to be considered.”
LikeLike
Texas Tech president Guy Bailey
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/texas-tech-president-guy-bailey-no-pac-1.html
LikeLike
Nice to see someone officially shoot down Larry Scott’s garbage excuse that it was Baylor that killed the PAC-16 not the LHN.
LikeLike
If true, I wonder why Mr. Scott didn’t come out and say it. It would have stopped a year’s worth of undue praise on Dan “The Natural” Beebe.
LikeLike
Because then he would have had to admit that UT played him like Clapton with a Strat. Texas publicly flirted with the PAC-10 in order to leverage what it wanted all along; its own TV network and a conference they can dominate as long as they keep their frienemies in Norman content.
LikeLike
Scott said that UT was good to come, but required that they be able to start a network. Scott said no, all rights in or no deal. Baylor was a no go from the start. Everyone knew that.
LikeLike
From Wilner’s article after that decision and before the Utah invite:
“* One of the Big 12′s top selling points to Texas was allowing the Longhorns to cut their own TV deal, a Burnt Orange network that could generate several million dollars over and above what the Big 12 will provide.
The Pac-10 was an “all in” situation — UT couldn’t freelance on the TV end — and the league stuck to its guns on that issue”
LikeLike
In all honesty, I’ve come to the opinion over the past year that 14 is a far more favorable number than 16 in the near term (at least the next 5-10 years), especially to the presidents of these schools. If you go to 16, you essentially have to split the divisions and make 4 pods that can totally change the expectations on the teams that you’re playing and how rarely you end up playing them over a 4-5 year period. I think you go too far to the NFL model where you have your 3 main division rivals and then are sort of disconnected from the other teams except when you play them. I really don’t see anyone favoring this approach unless the right schools are on the table (i.e. Texas/Oklahoma going to a Pac-16 being the only one that I can see happening any time soon).
With 14, you can have your two divisions of 7 in which you play the other 6 and up to 3 crossover games if you move to a 9 game conference schedule. I fully expect the SEC to go to a 9 game conference schedule if they do move to 14 teams because that’s the best way to maintain an intimate conference if you can play almost all of the teams in three years (1 of the 7 teams annual crossover, other two rotate). Once you move to 16, you remove that intimacy, and you really lose that sense that you’re going to play a certain set of 7 teams every year, since that would probably get chopped down to 4 or 5 teams (3 division + 2 annual rivals).
The other thing is the whole money aspect of course. Getting to 12 was way easier because you could count on the $10-20M CCG payout to make it easier to handle the addition of teams. It’s a lot harder to get to 14 if you have to find two schools that can more than add their weight, and getting to 16 is probably going to be even more difficult.
That’s probably why I don’t think the Big Ten will expand again unless Notre Dame comes. It’s hard to see the Big Ten going to 14 without Notre Dame, especially since Notre Dame becomes even less likely to join on the way to 16.
As much as everyone likes to talk about the 4×16 scenario, we’ve learned that you really need schools of value if you’re going to push beyond 12. For the Pac-12 to go to 14 or 16, they must have Texas or Oklahoma. For the Big Ten to go to 14, it must have Notre Dame or Texas. For the SEC to go to 14, it must have Texas A&M or FSU or Texas or Oklahoma.
That’s mainly why I think it’s unlikely that we see more than one 16 team conference. Most likely the Big Ten will wait to go to 14 for Notre Dame, and most likely the SEC will settle at 14 for the long haul. The Pac-12 still wants its Texas/Oklahoma scenario, but Texas wants to run its own show and ESPN is going to help make sure that happens for a long time.
As for the 4th conference in the 4×16 scenario, it’s really hard to see the ACC going beyond 12. It’s not as if going to 14 would ever stop a FSU or Va Tech from leaving, so I’m baffled why people still think the ACC will be proactive and grab say Syracuse and Pitt. Syracuse and Pitt are good replacements if you lose a school and want to go back to 12, but there’s no reason for the ACC to push to 14 any time soon since those schools don’t bring enough football value to justify their addition.
At the end of the day, there’s only 4-5 schools left that can justify conference expansion beyond the current situation with 4 “stronger” 12 school conferences, so it’s hard to see how much more consolidation is left.
LikeLike
Good post zeek. I think you can get to 16 by ditching the protected rivalry game. You play the other 7 teams in your division, plus two from the other side. You play each team in the other division once every four years. In that sense 16 has more symmetry than 14.
The only thing that makes me argue B1G expansion sooner and to14 is that the BTN is a huge lever that only we have at this point. I think the B1G can and will expand to 14 wherever it can to add to the conference footprint and not diminish the brand image. Where I think you are right is that we will not expand beyond 14 anytime soon without a heavyweight – e.g. Texas or Notre Dame. We will “save them a spot” until the music is much closer to stopping than it is now.
LikeLike
I do think the BTN played a big role in the Big Ten’s search for Nebraska. Thinking about how this pushes much higher quality games onto the BTN (i.e. if Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State are all playing other schools, that’s 4 guaranteed quality games so the BTN will be much more likely to get a quality game).
As we shift to the search for #13 and #14, the BTN will play an even bigger role because there’s no CCG to count on for bonus returns to expansion. It has to be two schools that can increase the average value of the Big Ten’s contracts more than the average take is projected to be without those two extra schools. ND does that, as does Texas (of course Texas has a whole host of other issues in terms of not wanting to be equal, but we’re ignoring that for now).
As to your final point, I agree completely. Until we get more clarity on Texas’ ambitions with respect to independence as well as Notre Dame’s intentions for the long haul (i.e. relative to Comcast/NBC and their TV contract), I think we’ll hold the spot open as the music is nowhere close to stopping.
LikeLike
Great Post
I guess I could see the following, but when and how we get there is a mystery imo.
B1G adds: Missouri, ND, Syracuse, Rutgers (although I’d rather have Pitt) (hard to break up the Backyard Brawl)
SEC adds: A&M, FSU, Louisville, Clemson
Pac adds: Oklahoma, Ok State, Tech and UT
ACC adds: Pitt, WVU, Cincy, South Florida, UConn, Kansas
4 16 Team Supers in a virtual 8 team playoff, with a Final Four, and a playoff NC works for me….
LikeLike
No way that if A&M adds FSU and A&M that they’d add Louisville & Clemson as well. The law of diminishing returns would kick into gear, especially with programs that aren’t exactly home runs.
LikeLike
Well, they are currently talking about FSU, A&M, Missouri and Clemson. But I believe Missouri would ultimately rather be in the B1G for any number of academic reasons.
I guess I really don’t see the stark (deal breaking) contrast from which you speak…
LikeLike
If you already have a Texas school in A&M, a national brand in FSU, the states of Kentucky, and the inability to add a new championship game (because you already have one), you’d already be diluting the product by adding L’ville and Clemson.
Let’s go crazy and say that adding A&M and FSU would open up the ESPN contract for renegotiation. Let’s say that with that those two schools, the contract goes from an average of $205M/year (or 17.08M/year per school, not taking into account that in reality the contract is divided 13 ways, one to the SEC office, not 12) to $310M/year (22.14/year per school, divided 14 ways, not 15). Adding Louisville and Clemson would raise that $310M/year even further, but it would lower the average per school. In fact, it might lower the average significantly because each year, there would be fewer LSU vs. Georgia and Florida vs. Alabama type games and more LSU vs. Louisville and Florida vs. Clemson. It’s the law of diminishing returns. Plug in Missouri for Louisville–the average isn’t lowered by as much, but it’s still the same effect.
Remember that it’s about maximizing the average revenue per school, not just the total number.
LikeLike
I am speaking of a league with 4 16 Team Supers and a playoff that would generate large amounts of additional TV revenue.
LikeLike
Michael,
Don’t forget that the extra inventory becomes rights the individual SEC schools can sell to increase their payout. Schools like UF and GA are making $10M a year on those rights now. I think the extra games would make up for any per capita payout loss. And if they add 4 teams at once (unlikely), they can’t lose money they never had.
LikeLike
William:
They could have a large playoff without 4 16-team leagues, and they haven’t, so don’t expect to see more than a 4-team playoff anytime soon. If anything, having fewer bigger, more powerful conferences care would make a big playoff less likely because they’d want to protect the value of their big inventory of high-profile regular-season matchups.
LikeLike
you missed the whole point of zeke’s post. conferences will expand slowly and for value. There is no incentive for the Big Ten to land on Mizzou and Syracuse. I can see the value in ND and Rutgers, yes. The Big Ten and SEC are going after home runs and triples. The Pac-12 settled for doubles (utah and colorado). The push for 16 is going to be about gathering singles to score runs.
LikeLike
What if taking MO is necessary to prevent the SEC from taking TAMU? That gives them huge new markets and a recruiting bump, and probably a big pay raise. The B10 can’t match that unless UT joins, or maybe ND (no native talent base). Is it worth it to the B10 to make a marginal addition to prevent a big leap forward for the SEC?
LikeLike
Taking MO to prevent TAMU to the SEC would be a mistake. For one thing, its impossible to know that taking MO would prevent TAMU, or if TAMU was even going to move, etc.
Who cares if the SEC gets a raise? B10 is ahead of them in revenue distributions now, and that may not change even if TAMU/MO joins them. Two more mouths to feed is two more mouths to feed. It’d take a HUGE raise to pass the B10.
Think like a college president. You aren’t making a 50 to 100 year decision just to spite Mike Slive.
LikeLike
I agree; it doesn’t make sense to take teams as some kind of blocking move. And I think that a little conference-realignment chaos unleashed by TAMU probably makes it more likely that a true home-run addition gets shook loose for the B10.
LikeLike
Zeek,
I completely agree with you that 14 would be much more palatable to school presidents than 16. They don’t like too much change too soon. (Neither do I.)
You’re spot on about why the Pac-16 would have been an exception. The Arizona schools would have been transferred to the Big 12 South (minus its weakest link in Baylor, plus former national champion Colorado), who would have dissolved their relationships with their northern Big 12 neighbors. There would have been a few crossover games, and a championship game, but they’d have been two separate conferences. Every member except the Arizona schools could have been fine with that.
(Regardless of what anyone says about the Arizona schools’ short period of time in the conference relative to the rest of the membership’s affiliation with each other, I’m sure the Arizona schools felt disappointed at how readily their conference mates of 30+ years were willing to separate themselves. Still 80% of the Pac-10 schools (the original Pac-8) would have been very happy.)
As for your note about the ACC, say what you will about Florida State, Ga. Tech, Clemson, or NC State, but can we let go of the idea that Virginia Tech would leave the ACC for the SEC?
Va. Tech president Charles Steger:
From http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-weaver-dismisses-notion-of-hokies-leaving-acc-for-sec-20110812,0,6078363.story
LikeLike
I’m 100% with you on Virginia Tech. I only mention it because it is probably the most valuable Mid-Atlantic school in terms of its football brand currently and the most recently added to the conference.
Regardless, I agree with everything you’re saying about the Pac-16’s uniqueness. And I have been bemused by the fact that a lot of the former Pac-8 schools see this as their chance to re-establish the Pac-8 inside a Pac-16.
LikeLike
if they were leaving they’d say “proud member”
LikeLike
i think you’re right, Zeek. A lot of people have been talking about 16 as if that is a magic number, but the truth is, 12 was the magic number. To get above 12, you need a really really good reason. TAMU does that. Texas or Notre Dame do that. Other scenarios are murkier.
LikeLike
We’ve only had one experience with pods, which I thought was a great unique idea at the time. It failed. The WAC was switching to permanent divisions because the fans couldn’t figure out who they were going to play (and then they upset members by splitting rivals-leading to the MWC). Its somewhat similar to the issue with the ACC random divisions that noone can remember.
If a conference goes to 16, they will probably find they have to have permanent divisions. And with the lack of cross-divisional play, you take an unwieldy number of 16 and create a split that encourages instability. I also don’t think the Big 10 can make a split that doesn’t destroy many rivalries. The Pac could do it as they had a former Pac 8. The ACC might, but their current setup indicates they wouldn’t figure it out right. The SEC could with Alabama and Auburn in the east, but that east might be too much of a murderer’s row-Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee? Plus South Carolina?
I much prefer 12. I like championship games (even if UT lost a shot at a BCS championship game one year and a BCS bowl another). 12 teams is still a conference and not a TV consortium. There’s nothing to stop two 12 team conferences from forming a joint TV consortium. The MWC and CUSA are discussing it. The only reason I like 14 or 16 teams at all is that it makes a playoff easier when you only have 4 or 5 AQ level conferences instead of 6.
LikeLike
Yeah, your points are the big reason why I think the Big Ten and SEC will not push past 14 unless there’s a very compelling reason to take that approach (read: Texas; ironic that one school alone seems to have the power to create 16 team conferences). The amount of change required to go to the 16 team format, and the dilution of rivalries will do exactly what you state in terms of turning the conferences into “made for TV” product like the NFL.
Barring some kind of school that’s worth moving from 14 to 16, I think the Big Ten (with its eye on ND) and the SEC (with its eye on A&M) will remain at 14 as a stable situation.
LikeLike
I read about 4 super conferences of 16 teams leading to a NC game. What is the playoff system that everyone advocates?
12 season regular season+conference championship game. Then four league champions + four at-large teams. The participants in the final game each play 16 games? All playoff games at neutral sites (presumably in domes)? With NC game the last weekend in January?
An important issue is whether you add 4 at large teams. It adds significantly to the length of the playoff. But if you don’t and only allow the four conference champions then the method in which the conferences were created will certainly raise cries of unfairness — maybe more than today.
There is no guiding hand that will create 4 equivalent conferences. One or two will be structurally weaker than the others. It would seem that you could not have one of four spots go to the “weak sister” every year. For example, what if many on this board have your dreams realized and the ACC is eviscerated? What if the fourth conference is an amalgam of the BE, two or three ACC and a few strays? The BE winner will participate every year in the playoff while the loser of the SEC championship super-conference game sits home alone?
It would seem that a playoff would have to be 4 conferences plus 4 at large — if the 4 at large are selected using a “BCS” type of formula that relies on polls — then I bet that the loser of the SEC Championship game plus two other SEC conference teams will be selected as 3 of 4 at-large teams for a long time — I assume that there will be few or no OOC. Thus, polls will mean everything when comparing performance in a conference. If 12 of 16 SEC teams begin the season in the Top 25 and there is no OOC, I think this is a good bet.
I guess the scenario will be perceived to be fairer by some fans.
I am certain that the advocates for 4-16+playoff have anticipated these problems and have a better plan — what is it?
LikeLike
I agree that 12 is the ideal number for the inner workings of a specific conference for sure. But we have an awful system from which we crown our NC.
4 16 Team non BCS related Super Conferences gets us where we need to be in terms of crowning a champion. An 8 team playoff is perfect IMO. Because it is decided on the field without playing an extra ordinary amount of playoff games (attractive to University Presidents). It keeps the regular season very relevant, while not punishing schools for harder pre conference schedules. In addition, it still provides a venue for some Cinderella runs. remember when Missouri beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship an number of years ago? They would have made the final four, instead of Ok going on to the NC without even winning their conference?
With this system, Big names are important, but not essential to $$ drivers if we have a playoff system in place. Yes, there will be some winners and losers with singular conference deals, but the conferences would be much more insulated because of the new money the playoff system (which Delany has spoken too) would provide.
It is an exclusive model yes, But once you are in, you are on a much more equal playing field minus the coaches polls and beauty contests of the BCS. Besides, if other schools qualify there could be future expansion to include others if need be (although I doubt it would be needed)
Now we have a system where a team like Boise gets a year to prepare for their opener, a cupcake league and 40 days to prepare for a Bowl game so they can be ranked in the top ten again the next year. That is madness imo.
4 16 teams supers although not perfect seems better then 6-8 12 team leagues imo.
LikeLike
The point you make is important with respect to the overall MNC situation. While the conferences seem to have realized that 12 and possibly 14 (with the right expansion options) are the most stable scenarios, it leaves us with 5+ conferences that can have teams ranked near or at the top and still leaves us with the murky situation of years in which you have multiple teams with a claim on the title berths.
I don’t really know how to get from the current situation to what you speak of, although I’ve come around to the +1 approach of late. I do think eventually we’ll have some sort of mini-playoff, but I don’t know what it looks like.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if 14, 16 or 12 is the number, I guess it depends how inclusive or exclusive the commissioners want to be, because I believe with a break from the BCS the money will be there if a playoff is instituted. A final four of the four conference champs, after a conference championship game (or 8 team playoff) makes easily the most sense if crowning a national champion is the goal.
A +1 imo still falls in many of the BCS traps, of polls and beauty contests, (not to mention the PAC and B1G are not huge fans of it) and would be discriminatory against league champs who do not place well in those contests even though they have won a major conference championship.
I also believe the Final Four and NC game would be big money makers, that could bring in “Super Bowl” type revenue numbers for the 3 college games played, to be split between 64 or 56 team leagues, with incentives for the champs. I believe that additional revenue could make the Supers more inclusive then some believe. Of course, the proof would be in the numbers…..What would networks bid for the Final Four and NC game? one thing is for sure, this wouldn’t be a regional spectacle, it would be a nation wide event imo.
LikeLike
willarm1,
“I agree that 12 is the ideal number for the inner workings of a specific conference for sure. But we have an awful system from which we crown our NC.”
No, we don’t have an awful system. We have a system you don’t like. Those are two different things. If 12 is the ideal number for a conference, then any postseason plan which requires going past 12 is a bad idea. The best thing for CFB has to be to have conferences at their ideal size.
I think the bowl system is better for CFB than a playoff despite a playoff making more money potentially (more for the postseason, sure, but will the regular season lose value like in hoops?). Money isn’t the end all be all, and neither is a NC determined by a playoff.
LikeLike
I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said.
1st: I’m not the only one who believes college football has a creditability problem when it comes to crowning a national champion.
B: I believe crowning an NC in a clear fashion is worth taking less money for, we should be getting it right. I also believe the revenue from that playoff system could be used to make the system more inclusive. That is why I believe going to 4 16 team conferences in the future would be a step in getting it right.
2: You can still have a very viable Bowl System surrounded by a playoff. Keeping traditional rivals and tie ins. It is not rocket surgery.
3: Anyone who has played a sport at a high level understands that players want to settle it on the field, not let some SID or AP sports writer decide who is more deserving to be a champion or worse yet play for a championship.
E: If you are 1 of 8 teams in a division every game (or nearly every game)will count toward getting to the Conference Title game. I would argue the regular season would be better because in a system you do not have to play patsies early in fear of blowing your chance. You can stack your schedule because you know if you take care of your division you still have a shot at a championship. It is settled on the field.
Basketball is a terrible comparison. look at the NBA, lots of games, lots of teams make the playoffs and what do you get? a lack luster regular season, just like the NCAA, but the NCAA works because it is a single game elimination at the end of the year.
I think the NFL is a better comparison. And I believe they have a successful model, league champions get a shot no matter what their record (Seattle beats NO last year) damn near every game matters. And it is the most popular sport in the US. But best of all, it crowns a true champion on the field.
I simply do not believe the regular season would be diminished one bit.
LikeLike
willarm1,
“I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said.”
That’s good, because your response is ridiculous in my opinion.
“1st: I’m not the only one who believes college football has a creditability problem when it comes to crowning a national champion.”
Lots of people think lots of things. The fly diet argument doesn’t make your case. I couldn’t care less about the supposed credibility of the CFB D-IA National Champion for the year. College sports are an activity to enhance the college experience, and everything else is a bonus. Watch the NFL for your “credibility” and playoff.
“B: I believe crowning an NC in a clear fashion is worth taking less money for, we should be getting it right. I also believe the revenue from that playoff system could be used to make the system more inclusive. That is why I believe going to 4 16 team conferences in the future would be a step in getting it right.”
Playoffs don’t get things right, they find the hot team late in the year and make money. That’s all they do.
“2: You can still have a very viable Bowl System surrounded by a playoff. Keeping traditional rivals and tie ins. It is not rocket surgery.”
No, you can’t because you are killing the best bowls with the playoff. When the Rose Bowl becomes a 3 day business trip for schools looking to move on, it is devalued. When the fans only stay 1 night, it loses value to the community.
“3: Anyone who has played a sport at a high level understands that players want to settle it on the field, not let some SID or AP sports writer decide who is more deserving to be a champion or worse yet play for a championship.”
Players also want to skip class, use steroids and get paid. I ignore them on those issues, too.
“E: If you are 1 of 8 teams in a division every game (or nearly every game)will count toward getting to the Conference Title game. I would argue the regular season would be better because in a system you do not have to play patsies early in fear of blowing your chance. You can stack your schedule because you know if you take care of your division you still have a shot at a championship. It is settled on the field.”
They play pasties at home to make money. In your system, that’s all CFB is about so they would play even more patsies. Why play a good team OOC and lose a home game? I’m sure that will make CFB better.
“Basketball is a terrible comparison. look at the NBA, lots of games, lots of teams make the playoffs and what do you get? a lack luster regular season, just like the NCAA, but the NCAA works because it is a single game elimination at the end of the year.”
What was I thinking, comparing one NCAA sport to another. Yeah, the NBA playoffs make no money at all I’m sure. The NCAA hoops season used to be a lot better before the tournament became so big (literally and metaphorically). Ask Duffman.
“I think the NFL is a better comparison. And I believe they have a successful model, league champions get a shot no matter what their record (Seattle beats NO last year) damn near every game matters. And it is the most popular sport in the US. But best of all, it crowns a true champion on the field.”
The NFL model is terrible. You talk about credibility of the champion and then use a model that includes teams with losing records. If you call that credibility, I want no part of it. It crowns the hottest team at the end of the year that manages to get in the playoffs. That doesn’t make it any more of a true champion than any other method.
“I simply do not believe the regular season would be diminished one bit.”
Then you are either naive or dumb.
LikeLike
Giant +1 to @Brian for summing up my thoughts exactly on every point. I don’t understand the obsession some fans have with getting a playoff.
LikeLike
Well a couple of things are obvious with your response one of which is the lack of class within it. But putting that aside, again I respectfully disagree.
Remember you were the one who compared the NCAA Basketball tourney to a possible NCAA football playoff? Of course there is very little to compare, but you seem to try to back that statement by saying Basketball used to have a better regular season. Without googling could you please name one of those great games? (Wait! I’ll give you one UCLA v. Houston) How was the regular season better? If it was the conference tourney results that got you to the next level. Guess what? The regular season then meant the same that it does now, The conference tourneys then held more weight.
Hell I don’t have to ask Duffman lets ask Len Elmore of Maryland who was on a couple of teams that were national powerhouses that didn’t get to play for the title because of the B-Ball rules of the past. (one team in from the ACC) The current NCAA basketball format fits very well with the multiple levels of talent we have throughout the nation. Conferences have multiple teams that deserve to compete for the national title. The old way left out plenty of top quality national teams because of the region they were from. But it still didn’t mean the regular season meant more? Say what you will about the NCAA B-Ball tourney but imo they get it right in terms of seeding and how those teams perform over the time the field of 64 has been around. How else would you do the NCAA B-Ball tourney? Is Back to the Future really the mantra here?
You speak of me being naive and yet you say the NFL model is terrible because it let an under 500 team in the playoffs. Spoken like someone who hasn’t played a competitive game in his life. Seattle was a division champion an earned their way into the playoffs. They beat out the rest of their division. They earned it. then in another breath you say it only benefits the hottest teams at the end of the year? please excuse me but again, you sound like a sports talk show host, The NFL is an 16 game grind. Playoff spots are earned often during the last game of the season. How many teams that start 0-2 make the playoffs? Everyone who has ever been coached or coached someone else knows especially in football because the season is so short and wins are so hard to come by that every single week counts. (this is very different in B-Ball but you tried to compare the two?as if they were remotely similar?)If Green Bay just caught fire at the end of the season what happened in the Detroit game that nearly made them miss the playoffs?
I’m sorry but the NFL crowns true champions because it is earned. And I don’t know many who would dispute that, better alone call it terrible. Maybe we should have the sports writers decide who gets into the NFL playoffs, or better yet lets just have ESPN’s power rankings select the participants. And you call me naive…
A couple other notes:
I said they played patsies because one loss at the beging of the season could ruin any chance at becoming a national champion. I said nothing of money. With a playoff system non-con losses wouldn’t end the season in week two. Therefore better matchups could be scheduled, Because becoming a division champion is your way forward. (again, on the field performance gets you to the next level. not coaches poll results)
You obviously don’t understand what it means to be a student athlete.
with this gem….
“I couldn’t care less about the supposed credibility of the CFB D-IA National Champion for the year. College sports are an activity to enhance the college experience”
Talk about naive….
LikeLike
willarm1,
I compared CFB to MBB because both are NCAA sports and one has a playoff and one doesn’t. And the hoops regular season used to be much better. The regular season mattered more, it was covered more (on a relative basis) and people actually cared. It wasn’t about having a few big games like it is now, but about every game being bigger. Now everyone knows you can scrape into the tournament with a weak team and fans don’t watch. Even the college basketball “experts” all lament the loss of value to the regular season. I think they are in a good position to know since they pay closer attention than you or I every will.
Believe it or not, not everyone is obsessed with tournaments. The B10 didn’t even have one until 1998. The SEC didn’t have one from 1953-1978. From 1956-1986 the P10 didn’t have one, and from 1991-2001 the tournament didn’t decide the conference winner. The regular season literally meant more back then.
The current tournament is designed to make money and keep coaches employed. There is no way 68 teams deserve a chance at the national title. The 11th best team in the BE does not deserve a chance at the title.
If they seed so well, why doesn’t the math back up their seeding? Why do 12’s beat 5’s so much more than 11’s beat 6’s? If the tournament is so great, why is being a 10-15 seed better than being an 8?
The tournament would be better if it had fewer teams. It would do a better job of finding the best team if it was double elimination, too. And since it would only have real contenders, there would be no need for seeding. But instead, it is a made for TV event designed to make money rather than find the best team.
I said it was naive to think that a playoff wouldn’t devalue the regular season. If you make the postseason more important, then the regular season loses importance.
The NFL model that allows a losing team to compete for the championship is terribly flawed. Even NFL fans had a lot of complaints. How does it build credibility to have a losing team compete for the title? The NCAA won’t even let a losing team go to the worst bowl game.
Yes, every week is so important that the undefeated Patriots lost the Super Bowl to a 10-6 wild card Giants team that they beat the last week of the regular season. The Super Bowl has also recently seen great teams like the 9-7 Cards in 2009. Clearly those were very deserving teams. Boy, I sure wish more 7-5 CFB teams could play for the national title.
Every single week counts so much in the NFL that the top teams rest their players. I’m sure the Iron Bowl would have been just as good last year if Auburn had rested Cam Newton, Nick Fairley, etc. That’s what I want to see.
Yes, it’s not at all possible to have played years of competitive sports and not like the NFL model. Nobody could possibly believe that the regular season proved their value, and that a playoff should be very limited. Letting everybody in is a pure money grab, or else it’s very little league.
I know lots of people that think the NFL playoffs are random and the best team often doesn’t win. Any given Sunday, isn’t that what they claim? Ask some 2007 Pats fans if the best team was crowned that year. 5 wild cards have won the Super Bowl. If the regular season is so important and the playoffs are so accurate, why do wild cards win almost 15% of the Super Bowls?
No, a playoff wouldn’t lead to better OOC games. Good teams don’t schedule them more often because they’d rather make the money from home games. There is no real advantage to them for the schools, and a playoff won’t change that. Most big name schools still play one big game despite the added risk. With 9 game schedules looming, teams aren’t going to add yet another big game. The easy win still helps the min a playoff situation. In the BCS, OOC losses aren’t a penalty at all except for the NCG. You can lose OOC, win your conference and a BCS bowl and finish #2.
And, yes, i couldn’t possibly have been a student athlete. Except, of course, for all the time I spent as a student athlete. And then there were my years of coaching in college, but I have no idea what college sports mean.
“I couldn’t care less about the supposed credibility of the CFB D-IA National Champion for the year. College sports are an activity to enhance the college experience”
I believe it. I have zero concern for the opinion of fans about the “credibility” of the national title because of the BCS. They can watch the NFL if it bothers them so much. Letting Cam Newton play bothers me much more than TCU not playing for the title. The BCS winner is a worthy champion, even if other teams might also be worthy. A playoff won’t make the winner any more legitimate, it’ll just change what people complain about.
LikeLike
For someone who doesn’t care about the creditability of a national champion, you sure have a lot to say about changing the way CBB should be run. But everything cannot be fixed with a different formula or rating system, you still are going to have upsets when evenly matched teams meet. Saying an 11 beats a 6 or a 12 beats a 5 doesn’t prove anything except that team was better on a neutral court that day, after qualifying to be there. Yet you seem to think that is a flaw? That is sport, it isn’t tested in a lab and the results often differ because of the millions of variables that make a team a champion. Making the tourney smaller may fix some of those problems but would be less inclusive for the smaller mid-majors and other talented teams with in a powerful league, that deserve a shot.
But again, comparing CBB and CFB because one has a playoff and one doesn’t is a fools errand because they are vastly different sports with vastly different schedules, CBB has more room to navigate because of its length of non-con schedule watering down some of the intensity, But once the conference schedules begin those teams are again competing for a common goal, Just because ratings are not as big for these events or you don’t like it, doesn’t make them less relevant to the coaches and teams involved. In addition 68 teams out of 300+ CBB teams seems like a fine sample size to me…..And it works, and by working doesn’t mean the highest ranked team wins every year. It is settled on the court. With the better teams getting a reward for their performance during the year by getting a higher seed.
IMO you have not made a very convincing argument that CFB’s regular season would be diminished. In fact you make a better argument saying it would stay the same. Which is good enough for you in our current system so what’s the fuss about adding a playoff? I contend that AD’s would not be has hesitant to add more quality non-con home and homes more often because a loss doesn’t hurt a teams chance at a national title. Which logically would make for better match ups and a better product then what we have now. But either way we do not have a diminished product.
Reviewing some more of your gems:
“The NFL model that allows a losing team to compete for the championship is terribly flawed.”
They won their division, they earned their shot on the field. Would you rather have a committee decide? (of course you would)
“Every single week counts so much in the NFL that the top teams rest their players. I’m sure the Iron Bowl would have been just as good last year if Auburn had rested Cam Newton, Nick Fairley, etc. That’s what I want to see”
If you think any player would be rested during the “Iron Bowl” or “The Game” or any other major rivalry you don’t understand what it means to compete for something. In addition, it isn’t often when NFL teams rest players, Did the Giants and Patriots rest players with your previous example? Did the Bears and Packers rest players last year? It doesn’t happen very often, but yes it does every now and again. But again this premise is flawed. I would say CFB teams rest just as many or more players during the early cupcake pre-season, then the NFL does all year long.
“I know lots of people that think the NFL playoffs are random and the best team often doesn’t win.”
I know lots of people who believe we haven’t landed on the moon as well. The Best team who qualifies for the playoffs always wins the Super Bowl because it is settled on the field.
“Yes, every week is so important that the undefeated Patriots lost the Super Bowl to a 10-6 wild card Giants team that they beat the last week of the regular season.”
You don’t believe the game during the regular season showed the Giants they were every bit as good as the Pats? They believed it and proved it on the field during the most important time of the year. Again it is sport, It isn’t going to follow your preconceived model of right and wrong, it can’t be answered with formulas or sub committees. The playoff model gives us a battle tested proven champion. Just because some of us believe this is the best way forward doesn’t make us hate the regular season or want to diminish it, we believe it should be settled through competition not polls and committees or beauty contests, If you are in a qualifying conference and you win your division you deserve to have a shot to compete for a championship.
“And, yes, I couldn’t possibly have been a student athlete. Except, of course, for all the time I spent as a student athlete. And then there were my years of coaching in college, but I have no idea what college sports mean.”
“OOC losses aren’t a penalty at all except for the NCG. You can lose OOC, win your conference and a BCS bowl and finish #2.”
Let me guess you are not coaching anymore…….
“I believe it. I have zero concern for the opinion of fans about the “credibility” of the national title because of the BCS. They can watch the NFL if it bothers them so much.”
Were not bothered by it, we just think the system should be fixed.
But the point is we don’t have to watch the NFL to watch a playoff, or a true champion being crowned….We can watch Div 1a football division 2 or 3, we can watch college soccer, lacrosse, Hockey, Basketball, Baseball, water polo, gymnastics, field hockey, softball etc…. to see how a national champion is crowned correctly.
We just would like it settled on the field…….and I do not think this is a minority view point.
I simply believe you do not do a very good job proving your point about CFB regular season being diminished, simply saying it would be because we have a playoff is a little weak to say the least.
But I respect your opinion.
LikeLike
The NCAA tournament has largely put college basketball on the map. It has been a huge boon financially. I admit that it’s not the best way to crown a champion but the first weekend is probably the best four days in sports.
The NFL postseason is arguably a round too long, but it;s hard to say that the playoffs have killed interest in the regular season. It’s still tough to make the playoffs, barring the rare occassions you’ll have a putrid division.
As for how a CFB playoff would work, I think many people assume that you’d have autobids for the BCS conferences (mandating at least an 8-teamer) or for all conferences (mandating a 16-teamer). I actually think the 4-team, “plus one” conept might be the best way to do it in terms of balancing tradition while still settling it on the field. If you limit it to the top 4 in the BCS poll, there’s no “7-9 Seahawks” problem. Also, some of the major bowls get played pretty much as usual. Pulling 4 teams out of the normal rotation to join the national semifinals isn’t that much different than pulling 2 out like we have now.
There’s probably more money to be made with an 8-teamer though — my assumption is that the first-round games would end up on campus. It beomes tougher to fit that system into the traditional bowl schedule.
LikeLike
Well said Brian
LikeLike
I agree with willarm on this one.
I don’t see College Football losing any regular season steam if it implemented a measured system. Final Four or +1
Note to Brian, you come off like a DB when you say you don’t care about people who advocate for a playoff. Just take your ball and go home already lol
Anyway, Love the site Frank
LikeLike
willarm1,
You asked my opinion about the hoops tournament. You can’t turn around and complain because I gave it to you. And for having “a lot to say” about it, I suggested fewer teams and double elimination. That doesn’t seem earthshaking to me, nor particularly verbose.
Of course there will be upsets. But you said you thought the NCAA did a good job with seeding. I’m simply asking why, if they seed well, do 5s beat 12s so much more than 6s beat 11s? Simple math tells me a 6/11 game should be more evenly matched than 5/12 if the seedings are correct. There have been enough years with 64+ teams to see that isn’t true, though. And feel free to make a case for why a team that finishes in the bottom half of its conference really deserves to compete for the national title.
You are welcome to define “working” as being determined on the court/field, just don’t assume that is a definition that others accept. You brought up credibility. To be credible to me, the best team should win the postseason. Winning 6 games in a row in March/April doesn’t make you the best team, it makes you the tournament winner. Some people conflate the two, but I don’t.
You’ve made no argument the regular season wouldn’t be diminished. You magically assume more intersectional games. You assume losses won’t matter, but I think the opposite will be true. Seeding will be too important to risk an extra loss. Play patsies to pad the record and the wallet, and save your losses for in conference.
You can contend that all you want, but actual statements from big program ADs consistently say that getting 7 home games is their priority. Especially with 9 game conference slates coming, they aren’t going to 2 home and home series if there is a playoff.
I’d rather only include good teams. But I really don’t care what the NFL does. They can put in all the teams for a full tournament and it wouldn’t bother me. They are a pro sports league and I pay next to no attention to them.
“The Best team who qualifies for the playoffs always wins the Super Bowl because it is settled on the field.”
You are, of course, welcome to believe that. Don’t expect me to drink that KoolAid, though.
“The playoff model gives us a battle tested proven champion.”
No, it most certainly doesn’t. It gives you a “game tested” team that won a playoff. Sports are not war.
I never said that you hated the regular season, or even that you wanted to diminish the regular season. I said you will diminish the regular season, because your zealotry for playoffs blinds you to their downsides.
As it turns out, the system already determines it on the field. Auburn beat Oregon and won the title. They got to play because they won games on the field all season long.
The popularity of your opinion does not indicate the correctness of it. Lots of sub-optimal things are popular.
I don’t need to make a case to you to support my position. Look at all the discussion over the B10 divisions. One of the major complaints was that The Game can never be as important as it used to be, because now there is a playoff after it. When you put more focus on the postseason, the regular season is diminished. If all I have to do is be #16 to get in, regular season games are less important and the fans know it. Who cares if I lose a game or two? I’ll still make the playoffs.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
You are completely right that March Madness is huge and has brought in a lot of casual fans. It makes a ton of money and does have the best 4 days in sports. But I also agree with this:
“I admit that it’s not the best way to crown a champion”
I’m not saying playoffs are pure evil. They definitely have positives. I just wish their proponents would acknowledge the downsides and say they choose to make that tradeoff. That would be a position I can respect, even though I wouldn’t make that tradeoff.
I didn’t say the NFL playoffs have killed interest in the regular season, but how many fans watch a week 17 game when Payton Manning and company sit out because their spot is locked? How many fans respected the Seahwaks as deserving of a chance to win the Super Bowl. Even the former NFL players on TV were split on the topic.
Bigger will always make more money, yes, The question is, is that better for the game? Do the regular season TV contracts grow more slowly because the games are a little less important? How do the students and fans deal with the extra travel? How much is it worth to a player to have the bowl experience? How many bowls can survive with a playoff, and how much are they diminished?
As for the form of a CFB playoff, I think it’s fair to say there is no consensus. Some want 16 so all conferences get in, and that’s a very NCAA approach to take, but others say that is too long and too many of the wrong teams get in. Some say 8 is better so all AQs get in while non-AQs have to earn it, but others see that as favoritism and bias. Some want just 4, to keep it to the most elite teams and not extend the season too much, but then you are reliant on polls and such to pick.
LikeLike
@Brian
I don’t recall Auburn or Oregon deciding it on the field by beating TCU.
LikeLike
It is obvious you haven’t read or understood the option of an 8 team playoff with four super conferences: 8 divisions winners, a CC, Final Four and NC. Who said anything about seeding 16 teams.
You were the one who concluded that I was either naive or dumb to suggest that the regular season would not be diminished in a four super conference league, and then you compared it to CBB? (which was a terrible comparison)
You have not given one logical example that it would be diminished in regards to the system I have written about and others have purposed.
you wrote: “Seeding will be too important to risk an extra loss. Play patsies to pad the record and the wallet, and save your losses for in conference.” (that is happening now!)
Who said anything about seeding? Your division winners play for the Conference Championship. (Overall record would be a distant tie breaker, like it is now for Division winners)
Then Big v PAC (rose) and SEC v ACC (Sugar or Orange ) on New Years day plays to determine who plays in the NC(revolving between the majors) a week later.
You still could have the rest of the bowl games built within this system. You still have two major bowls that a Non-AQ could qualify for, you could even add The Cotton Bowl for the fifth Major.
In this system Non-Con losses don’t hurt your ability to be NC, (like it does now)They would hurt your record, but your path to a championship is still intact. Leaving the door open for better non-con match ups. And a stronger regular season, not diminished because AD’s would not be afraid to schedule big time opponents because a path to the NC would still be viable, even if they lost every single non-com.
I agree a seeded 16 team tourney gives us the same problems we have now. I have never said anything else. Because I believe any system that has AP or Coaches votes is flawed from the start.
With that said, I do not believe the regular season would be diminished with a playoff system built into the Conference Championship model. I believe College Football can do a much better job crowning a champion like every other College and Pro sport already does today. Yes their are flaws, but they are not as flawed as the BCS imo.
That is all…..
LikeLike
bullet,
TCU not playing in the title game doesn’t mean the title wasn’t determined on the field. AU and OR had to go undefeated to stay ahead of TCU. They played tougher schedules and were rewarded for it. That is determining it on the field. That doesn’t make the current system ideal, and I never said it was. Every system has tradeoffs.
Professional sports generally have 2 conferences that meet in a playoff. They have more games with fewer teams, so all the teams are interconnected during the year. CFB can’t do that with 120 teams, 11 conferences, 4 independents and 12 games. What works for the NFL doesn’t automatically work for CFB.
LikeLike
3 undefeated CFB teams creates the exact definition of “not settling it on the field.” Sure, Auburn and Oregon had to win out in order to block TCU, but the point is that TCU did not have control over its own destiny because they didn’t get a shot at the other undefeateds. This is the huge flaw with the current system, one that is so glaring that it calls out for a solution.
Because it seems to me that postseason change in CFB will most likely be incremental, I think the plus-one idea is way more likely to happen (at least at first) than an 8 or 16 teamer. Going to a 4-team “national semifinal” setup would be even better.
Seeing as change in CFB postseason seems to come when people gripe about who gets left out, I could see a 4-teamer lasting a long long time, because it will be very difficult for #5 to gripe in a way that actually makes people listen.
LikeLike
willarm1,
“It is obvious you haven’t read or understood the option of an 8 team playoff with four super conferences: 8 divisions winners, a CC, Final Four and NC. Who said anything about seeding 16 teams.”
I’ve read and understood it. But we don’t have 4 super-conferences and not everyone thinks 8 is the right number. Who decreed that ND had to join a conference? Did BYU also give up on the concept of independence? Who or what forced them? And what about teams outside the 64?
I was arguing against specific statements you made, and the generic concept of the playoff (so I wouldn’t have to answer people who chime in with fixing it all by going to 16, or seeding differently, etc).
Now you are adding details to your plan as if I was supposed to have read your mind. A playoff seeds teams. The plan you are outlining now is a plus one system (CCGs, bowls, then 1 NCG). You talked about an 8 team playoff in your early post on the topic, and specifically said you had problems with a plus 1. I hate to break it to you, but your plan is an unseeded plus one for a world with 4 conferences (tie-ins place teams in bowls rather than ranking, and the 2 winners play for the NC).
If that was what you meant, you shouldn’t have been advocating an 8 team playoff. That is 8 teams advancing to the postseason after the CCG, and would require seeding unless otherwise indicated.
A plus one system naturally has fewer new problems as it is a small change from the current system. I like championship systems that require the teams to win their conference. You provide no access for teams other than the 64, though, so that will bother many people. I don’t see the need for the extra game, but if there were 4 superconferences and nobody else in the top division, your plan is the least offensive system that includes more teams.
In your system, OOC games would be meaningless except as a distant tiebreaker. It still wouldn’t increase good OOC games because fear is NOT what prevents them from happening. Coaches don’t want more of them for job security, but ADs care about money. It’s not worth it to OSU or TN or MI or PSU or AL to give up even more home games. That hurts their local economy and fans as well as their wallets. A home game is worth millions to those schools, probably well over $10M when you add everything up. Why schedule more home and homes that don’t help you in any way (better rankings are meaningless, and there will be plenty of tough conference games to toughen the team up)?
LikeLike
jcfreder,
No, the definition of not settling it on the field would be drawing a name out of a hat and declaring them the champion.
TCU had control over their schedule, and played OrSU, TN Tech, Baylor and SMU OOC to go with their MWC schedule. OR played 10 AQ teams, 1 MWC team and 1 patsy. AU played 10 AQ teams and 3 patsies. I have no problem saying that one of those schedules is not like the others.
I agree that postseason change will be gradual, with a plus one the most likely next step. I don’t think it’s needed but I agree it will probably happen. The presidents will continue to fight going to 8 or 16, though, and the more it is mentioned the more they will resist a plus one. They see the inevitable bracket creep coming.
LikeLike
Um, no, Brian, virtually everyone agrees that “settling it on the field” means that the undefeated teams actually get to play each other. While I understand the point about TCU, this concept becomes even more clear when 3 “major conference” teams go undefeated, like when Auburn got left out in 2004.
I’m not saying that no reasonable person can oppose further playoffs, but to say that TCU or Auburn got to “settle it on the field” robs that phrase of all logical meaning.
LikeLike
Brian
What I have been advocating has been clear from the beginning of the thread, with regard to 4 14-16 Team Supers and the playoff that would ensue afterward. What you have chosen to read or comment on is on you.
I disagree with your take on the BCS settling the championship on the field.
I disagree that the regular season would be diminished in either the non-con or division play.
I disagree that the non-con would be meaningless. Because I don’t believe AD’s are just money hungry robots, in fact many AD’s understand the marketing behind big time match ups, and destination games.
I disagree that coaches are just worried about their job and will continue to schedule more cupcakes in an attempt to cling to their very lively hood.
I believe independents or non AQ’s do not deserve a shot at the championship unless they show they can hang in a big time league. (having a year to prepare for the first game a cupcake schedule and 40 days to prepare for a bowl game, does not show me they can do it week in and week out)
I believe a limited playoff is the best way forward. Where a championship is settled on the field by properly qualified teams..
“Well, I also believe in the soul. The cock. The pussy. The small of a woman’s back. The hanging curveball. High fiber. Good scotch. That the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitution Amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas eve. And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days”
And I do not believe in the BCS….
Have a great evening gentlemen….
LikeLike
jcfreder,
Not to me it doesn’t. Two teams played a game with the National Championship explicitly on the line. That is determining it on the field. You just want more teams to have a shot.
And AU in 2004 shouldn’t have played The Citadel. The other two didn’t play a I-AA team.
LikeLike
willarm1,
You specifically advocated an 8 team playoff and disparaged a plus one early on.
Your plan, as expressed just above, is a plus one.
It may have been clear in your mind, but it didn’t come across that way. You said 8 team playoff, but apparently meant a plus one. How is that clear to anyone but you?
As for the rest, you’re welcome to your opinions. You are factually wrong on the basis for a couple of them, but it isn’t worth arguing about.
LikeLike
Or it can be both things. We have both a bad system and one that a lot of fans don’t like. And they don’t like it because it is a bad system. What’s so hard to understand about fans wanting championships settled on the field?
LikeLike
It could be both, but people not liking it doesn’t make it bad. That just makes it unpopular. I have no problem with people preferring a playoff, either. Reasonable people can disagree about the subject.
The assumption that a playoff is better bothers me, because it smacks of the grass being greener. It doesn’t have any problems yet because it hasn’t been done, while the BCS and bowl systems have had time to expose their flaws. Playoff proponents ignore all the objections critics raise and trumpet the increase in money and the “credibility” of the champion. As if nobody has ever questioned whether certain teams should make the playoffs or not, or whether somebody better was kept out.
However, my response dealt almost entirely with his statement about the ideal size of a conference and the quality of the current postseason system, rather than the nature of the postseason.
I’m not the one that said 12 is the ideal size for a conference. Once someone says that, though, I think they have to show why then going to 16 is actually better for CFB. How is making conferences worse better for the game? Most of the season is played in conference. Why would diminishing that part of the year help?
LikeLike
The best money maker isn’t always the fairest system. That said, I don’t think there is a lot more money to be in college football with a playoff and I think an 8 team one would lose money (it would be worth more than BCS but would take money from the regular seasno). Right now, everyone knows that all it takes is one loss from a top team to change the national title picture. This gives an incredible amount of incentive to watch any close games during the regular season for the top teams (anyone within reach, not just top 2). Unless you are a complete die hard, there isn’t as much reason to watch as many regular season games if they aren’t as important and the interest for the 8th team would be a lot less than interest for the top 2 now. Think about this, how many of you watch a lot of games in college basketball for conferences outside the one with your teams. I don’t pay much attention because they have almost 0 effect on my team or the national championship (if they are any good, they’ll be making the tournament anyway).
The other bigger point though is with conferences. How many of you root for the American League in all games vs. the National League? What about NFC over AFC? Heck, how many of you watch a lot of nonconference college basketball games?
Conferences matter so much in college football and have fans rooting for all their teams for several reasons, but the biggest one is the structure of the sport. I know that Big Ten teams doing well out of conference helps Ohio State get to the national championship or at least a better ranking. If there is any kind of a large playoff, that matters much less and I stop caring if the rest of the conference is good out of conference.
LikeLike
Terrific, Eric.
LikeLike
Here is another wrinkle.
The Big East turned down ESPN’s generous offer to re-up at a significant price hike. They are sitting in a nice position to start a price war with Fox and CBS and ESPN because all three networks need inventory. Even Big East inventory. So, there was o reason for them not to hold off until 2012 and start negotiating fresh.
Unless…. uncertainty. If the SEC can get the funds to take Texas A&M, then there is the risk of the SEC getting the funds to take an ACC school. From there, the ACC can take a Big East school. Or West Virginia to the SEC. Or Louisville to the Big 12. And if the Big 10 decides to match the SEC, now the northern Big East football schools are all in play.
So… what does the Big East do? Do they decide that we better take what ESPN is offering because that will give teams a reason to not make the lateral move to the ACC? Or does the Big East wait until 2012 and see if it still has enough teams left and loyal to generate a bigger offer from Fox or CBS.
In a strange way, ESPN may end up saving money and protecting inventory by giving the SEC the green light to take Texas A&M. Paying more for the SEC makes more sense than paying more for the Big East, right?
LikeLike
But does ESPN have that much capacity? They joined with Fox on the Pac 12 contract. And how much more SEC do they want? They already carry a lot. They have no desire to be all SEC all the time. They actually lose inventory if they take an ACC school since they already have 100% of their rights. With A&M they lose tier 1 and gain tier 2.
Unless FSU joins, I have a hard time figuring how any of this will result in a significant bump in TV revenue (and maybe even then). Are UGA/USC or LSU/Auburn going to get that much better ratings on CBS because A&M is in the SEC? Or on ESPN you jump up because you have 14 teams instead of 12 and can show A&M/WVU instead of Arkansas/Ole Miss? Houston and Dallas are not Atlanta. They are very much pro sports towns. You’re relying on the big alumni base. This isn’t like adding #12 when you add $15-$20 million for the championship game. You’ve got to get enough better ratings on CBS and ESPN or additional slots on ESPN to generate at least $35 million for the two schools just to break even. And you have an ESPN that doesn’t benefit because they already carry all the candidates at a lower price.
If A&M gets past the legislative hurdles and the contractural hurdles, I’m just not sure the math is going to add up for the SEC. The Big 12 found that losing UNL, a king, didn’t hurt them that much. And CU, who won a Big 12 championship, had a national championship 20 years ago and was in the title game 4 times (A&M was in twice-tied with Mizzou), actually was below average and in leaving resulted in the big 12 teams earning more per school (per the conferences TV consultants).
There may be intangibles as well as long run benefits, but there is no way the SEC goes to 14 just to break even on TV revenue. You’ve got Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee and LSU who have all won national championships since A&M last won a conference title. You’ve also got UGA, Arkansas and Ole Miss who have more recent national titles. That’s a tough group to significantly bump up the average on. TV is very fickle is you aren’t a king. Just because Syracuse or A&M were powers in the early 90s doesn’t mean anyone is going to watch them now other than locally.
LikeLike
If the B12 is gone there is now more available “shelf space”.
LikeLike
The SEC and to a lesser extent the Big 10 have a lot of rivalries that really promote interest regardless of the team’s records. UGA’s rivalries with Auburn, Florida, Georgia Tech and even S. Carolina are all about as fierce as Texas/OU. The SEC has been together a long time and generated all these rivalries. When I was in school Texas had 4 pretty big rivalries-1. OU, 2. Arkansas, 3. Houston and 4. A&M. Two of those have gone away. UGA, in the SEC 10, had pretty big rivalries with Ole Miss and Clemson. When they went to 12, those diminished. Clemson is rarely played now-although S. Carolina has replaced them on the schedule. With expansion beyond 12, the SEC risks diminishing some of what they still have.
And the Big 10 faces that same risk going beyond 12.
LikeLike
All the more reason that ESPN is behind this. If the Big East were to jump to Fox or CBS, that leaves the ESPN with even less that would appeal to the Northeast and Upper Midwest. But that is exactly what the Big East is threatening to do. The Big East rejected the ESPN contract.
So why not call the Big East’s bluff and say… “why should we pay more for the Big East when we can just pay the SEC to go get two more schools? If we are spending more money than is on the table right now, it will go where our bread is buttered.” or “If you want us to trigger the dominoes that lead to your destruction…. just watch. You think you have a loyal, cohesive group? Just watch what happens if the SEC poaches a school from the Big 12 and the ACC.”
It would be funny… but perhaps a lot of this talk is caused by ESPN wanting finality with the Big East before a bidding war starts in 2012. For once, the conference is relevant!
LikeLike
bullet – as I mentioned in the last blog, with expansion to 14 teams, the SEC will then have 16 games not covered by current contracts. SEC partner CBS has a cable network, CBS Sports, that doesn’t have much carriage and doesn’t have much quality content (the academies and the MWC, I believe). ESPN entered into the big contract with the SEC for two reasons: 1. stop a SEC network, and 2. get carriage and content for ESPNU. Mission accomplished. Why would CBS-SN do the same thing? Even if its the 2nd worst SEC game of the week, its still valuable. The single worst game of the season is reserved for each school for PPV.
Is it worth, say $500mm for 10 years for CBS-SN to pick up 16 games per year, and get on many more cable systems all over America. I’m guessing the answer is yes. Also, what’s it worth to ESPN to prevent CBS-SN from getting carriage similar to ESPNU?
LikeLike
Just using your numbers, that’s $50 million/year. With $34 million for the two new schools, that’s $16 million left to split 14 ways. You’re only going up about 6%. It takes a lot to make a significant improvement.
LikeLike
bullet – I just threw a number out there for the inventory not covered under the current contracts. I’m assuming CBS (broadcast) would also up the ante. Assuming its A&M and FSU, that’s UF/FSU every year, possibly UTx/A&M every other year, LSU/A&M every year, possibly A&M/Bama every year in the Bryant/Franchionne Bowl. FSU/Bama, FSU/Auburn, A&M/Arkansas, FSU/UGA, LSU/FSU. . . the list of good games goes on and on.
Some of those games will also make it down to the ESPN & ESPN2 prime time slots. ESPN probably won’t play hard-ball with the SEC since they will also benefit from even more high rating games. ESPN also wouldn’t want to alienate the SEC, especially if CBS-SN becomes a viable Tier 2 platform, or the SEC intends to set up its own network at the end of the ESPN contract.
I don’t know what the number would be, but if the SEC goes up to 14, they ain’t taking a haircut and they will make sure the new deal is worth it.
LikeLike
Don’t you think the SEC schools want to hold onto their 3rd tier rights? Without significant pro competition in most of the markets, they have more value than those of most schools and vary a lot from school to school. Personally, I think them pooling 3rd tier rights is about as likely as Atlanta building a statue to General Sherman.
LikeLike
Bullet – I never mentioned the SEC schools giving up 3rd tier rights in my earlier posts, but the SEC did seriously consider creating a SEC Network similar to the BTN, prior to the last SEC-ESPN deal. I have no idea whether the SEC Network would have aired the cupcake game usually reserved for PPV or not.
In spite of Louisiana being a relatively small and poor state, LSU probably has a disproportionately good deal with Cox on 3rd tier rights, in addition to keeping the PPV game, that LSU produces, for themselves.
That being said, if the case is made that everyone benefits and makes more money by pooling 3rd tier right, I think the SEC members would be open-minded.
LikeLike
ESPN has the 2nd tier rights, so the CBS College Sports deal you threw out as a hypothetical would be a 3rd tier. If ESPN for some reason didn’t want more content (and of course be willing to pay for it what the SEC wanted), it by definition becomes 3rd tier and goes to the schools.
LikeLike
Are you really comparing the states of NE and TX in terms of TV value? NE has 1.8M people. The suburbs of Houston are bigger than that. There is a lot of advertising revenue to be made for CBS and ESPN by getting more TX TVs to watch SEC games.
On top of that, they increase inventory to either sell individually or sell a new rights package.
LikeLike
Nebraska is a king and has more national appeal. A&M is not. They just have Texas appeal.
LikeLike
Yes, but the TX appeal and recruiting access is what the SEC wants. TAMU is still a bigger draw than schools like MS, MS St, KY and Vandy, and bigger than SC most years.
LikeLike
Those are secondary. The SEC wants $. If it doesn’t generate noticeably better TV $, they aren’t going to add them for the intangibles. They don’t NEED the intangibles and getting them involves a price in other intangibles.
LikeLike
Good think Texas A&M’s “local” market includes 24 million viewers.
LikeLike
http://blog.chron.com/cougars/2011/08/state-representative-asks-branch-to-consider-uh-for-big-12/
here we go…
LikeLike
The best part of that letter is that it acts like the Texas legislature is controlling B12 expansion.
LikeLike
@Greg.
Exactly. It’s like the Southwest Conference all over again. Except that it seems even more arrogant now. With the SWC, there was only one non-Texas school. Now, Texas schools are outnumbered 6-4, soon to be 6-3. I’m not saying politics don’t have an influence, but sheesh! What leverage does the legislature in Texas have over schools outside of their state?
LikeLike
Adding the University of Houston in replacement of Texas A&M would be doing what’s best for Baylor, Texas Tech, and Texas. Adding BYU, or simply staying at 9, would be what’s best for the league as a whole.
So if you’re the president of Iowa State, Missouri, KU, K-State, Oklahoma, or Oklahoma State, why in the world would you approve an invitation to Houston?
What leverage does Texas have to bully them into taking Houston? Only the Big 12 can give UT what it already has:
(a) membership in a conference that allows for the Longhorn Network. This rules out the Big Ten, Pac-12, and ACC.
(b) a strong conference for all sports, including football. This rules out the ACC and Big East.
(c) a conference with rivalries that appeal to its fans. This rules out the Big East (even if it’s the Notre Dame model of independence for football), the ACC, and perhaps the Big Ten if its fans desire mostly southern/western opponents.
(d) a conference that its administration and faculty deem acceptable. This rules out the SEC.
UT loves the Big 12 because its the only league that allows for (a), (b), (c), and (d), and the schools in other Big 12 states know this. So how in the world would they bow to UT on THIS issue?
And if anyone really believes that adding Houston would do any good for the non-Texas schools, please speak up because I’m lost as to how that school would help.
LikeLike
Why would you think Texas, Texas Tech and Baylor would want UH?
LikeLike
I don’t think they’d want UH. But UVA didn’t want VT in the ACC, either, but they were coerced into becoming their leading cheerleader by the governor and the legislature. Even if Baylor is relatively immune to the influences of the legislature, Tech and UT especially could be persuaded to do the same for UH.
There’s a big difference between VT-to-the-ACC and UH-to-the-Big 12, though. VT was a fast-rising power, only four seasons removed from a national championship game appearance and regularly winning 10 games a year. Thus, convincing other conference members to take VT over Syracuse was not a very outlandish task for UVA to take. Houston is a different story. Sure, they’ve definitely improved under Kevin Sumlin, but they get no national attention at all. They’re not a VT equivalent, or a Syracuse equivalent, for that matter. Asking BYU instead would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given the fact they’re in a market untapped by the Big 12 and they have broad national fanbase. If not BYU, then someone else. Houston just makes no sense.
LikeLike
I think the Big 12’s fear is losing Texas. This is Texas A&M’s fear too. Or annoyance. They will be OK. But better to be preemptive and leave than have Texas decide when they need to do so.
In any event, how is Houston a bad add? You lose a Texas school and pick up another. Houston will be no worse than Iowa St.
As I said before… what if it’s a play to get Houston and SMU in? If A&M is worried about stability, strengthening the Big 12 to protect against a Texas defection is helped by getting a few other schools up to BCS caliber now. Say what you want about USF, Cincy, and Louisville, but it gives the Big East a cushion if someone decides to leave.
South: Texas, A&M, Tech, Baylor, Houston, SMU
North: Oklahoma, Okie St., Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., Missouri
What’s wrong with that? Texas schools play 5 games in state. That can’t hurt.
LikeLike
UH is a bad add because they add no value. I’m sure they would become reasonably competitive in about 5 years. But they don’t add $. BYU adds $. Louisville adds $. Notre Dame adds lots of $. New Mexico and Colorado St. probably add more than UH.
Now if the Big 12 didn’t have Texas and didn’t have A&M, then UH could be a valuable add.
LikeLike
Houston’s value is keeping Texas happy in its fiefdom and preventing it from either going independent or making some sort of agreement with Scott and its likely partners in a potential move west (Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State). The serfs in Ames, Lawrence, Manhattan and Waco fear the alternative.
LikeLike
That’s the imaginary Texas wants control of everything viewpoint. Dodds is about $ and he’s very good at it.
UH probably makes UT unhappy. There’s some bad blood over the last game between the two as posted in an earlier thread.
LikeLike
@bullet – I agree. UH going to the Big 12 actually helps A&M’s cause much more in terms of political cover of moving to the SEC. UT, on the other hand, has much less flexibility if it’s shackled with UH. Other conferences were perfectly fine with A&M coming along with UT and the only real concern was also having to take Texas Tech. If A&M splits with UT, then UT is still fairly flexible if it’s only requirement is that Tech has to come along. However, it becomes much tougher if UT has to bring both Tech and UH along from this point forward.
If I’m running the Big 12, it’s BYU or bust if A&M leaves.
LikeLike
Frank:
Well, if you’re Beebe, you _want_ Texas to be shackled to the B12 (and thus, it may make sense for all the little sisters of the poor to the north to favor UH as well; pretty much anyone who would be hurt if the B12 blows up, which would be everyone except OU and maybe OSU, Mizzou, and TTech). I don’t think BYU will give up independence for a conference that may not last out the decade.
LikeLike
Adding Mizzou decreases the attractiveness of the Big Ten for the ACC schools that are (supposedly) in play: UMD/UVA/UNC/Duke. The ACC is already the highest ranked academic conference (barely beating the Big Ten, but a win is a win) and that’s a huge strength.
There is no way that the Big Ten wants to further lower it’s academic average or that the ACC “Core Four” schools are looking to downgrade their academic conference. Nebraska has already become an academic blemish for the Big Ten. I doubt they want to repeat the experience. If the AAU is looking to shed members for a more elite branding, Mizzou can’t be too far down the road.
If the Big Ten can get the Core Four, then the Big Ten regains the Academic BCS title, with only the PAC 12/14/16 close behind.
LikeLike
I know a lot of people want those 4 ACC schools in the Big Ten, but I think you create a problem in terms of assimilation if you just pick up a pod full of schools from a different conference and try to slap them onto the Big Ten.
LikeLike
There’s another, more fundamental, problem; the Big 10 will always leave a seat at the table for ND which means they can’t go to 16 without the Irish.
LikeLike
Not to quibble too much, but “highest academic” ranking depends on which source you go by. If you use the USNWR then the ACC does come out ahead. But those are undergrad only. If you include graduate programs (like the ARWU or THE do) then the Big 10 comes out ahead and no one else is particularly close.
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct. If you look at the ARWU US Top 50, the Big Ten has 10 (everyone except Nebraska and Iowa) and the ACC has only 3 (#27 Duke, #28 Maryland, #30 UNC). I’m surprised that #52 Virginia wasn’t ranked higher considering they have top-rated Business, Medical, and Law schools. Maryland’s numbers also don’t include their medical, law, and dental schools, which are considered separate entities. That should change in a year since the Maryland legislature wants them all under the same University of Maryland as a way to game the rankings (combining research dollars and endowments).
http://www.arwu.org/Country2010Main.jsp?param=United%20States
LikeLike
UVa’s a relatively small school, and ARWU likes lots of research.
LikeLike
Clever. Iowa St to NFC North.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15441477/iowa-states-move-to-nfc-north-flying-way-under-radar
This made me laugh.
How many “legit” tweets from should have been sourced this way?
LikeLike
If the power conferences were to withdraw from the NCAA, then…
…they can expand into Canada immediately without having to wait for the Canadian schools to spend x number of years in NCAA Division II before spending another 4 years in reclassification…
…that means…
…B1G can grab a whole bunch of TV sets by admitting Toronto and McGill, two schools that fit the snooty academic profile of the B1G…
…and…
…the PAC can grab TV sets by snapping up UBC, Simon Fraser, Calgary, and Alberta to get to 16.
Pac 16 North
Oregon
Oregon St
Washington
Washington State
British Columbia
Simon Fraser
Calgary
Alberta
Pac 16 South
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
LikeLike
I really hope that doesn’t happen. I like that the sport is only American and have no desire to expand to Canada in the name of markets.
LikeLike
Eric – just think about the opportunity to play on a 110 yard field.
LikeLike
Well maybe then 🙂
LikeLike
jj, do you have a relative posting as OT 😉
LikeLike
i’m not familiar with the west coasters.
i’ll only add that UT (Univ of Toronto) is the only one I’d likely want.
american football is pretty popular in ontario.
LikeLike
Toronto and McGill are the only two Canadian schools with AAU membership.
Because McGill is an English-speaking school in a TV market that is over 80% French-speaking, the B1G TEN might not see McGill as a good fit.
(The biggest school in Montreal is UQAM, which is French-speaking.)
Toronto is a no-brainer for the B1G TEN if the B1G TEN were to withdraw from the NCAA.
==
As for the schools in Western Canada:
1. The NCAA visited UBC Vancouver 6 years ago. UBC is bigger in student population and in endowment than most of the schools in the Pac 12. The big issue UBC has with the NCAA is the NCAA’s requirement for Canadian schools to join Division II first and then reclassify over a 4-year period (during which the school is ineligible to compete for NCAA Champonships in team sports.) UBC wants Division I right away if it were to join.
2. Simon Fraser’s 1st football season in NCAA Division II was a disaster: 0-8 in conference play, 0-9 overall (one non-conference game against an NAIA opponent.) The only win for Simon Fraser was in an exhibition game at UBC, played under Canadian rules.
3. Calgary and Alberta (Edmonton) are the only other western Canadian schools that are big enough (in student population, endowment, and TV market size) to potentially fit in the Pac 16.
LikeLike
jj,
I tend to agree, after Toronto, I am pretty “meh” about Canada. I never can tell what the french want up there, because at times I am not sure they actually know. I just have a feeling that Toronto will get you football & hockey, and going french will get you drama & politics. I think McGill is a good school, but is the baggage worth it?
I am in debate about the western part of Canada. Family up there says it is the boom, and who knows if there is a school to fit the PAC mold. If there were I would support such a move by the PAC. Yes the vision of an all – canada rose bowl cartoon has flashed across my mind and made me laugh a bit. Who knows after we are all dead and gone.
LikeLike
Why would they focus on Canada and not grab a Mexican school or two? Mexico City is a bigger market than anything you’ll get in western Canada.
LikeLike
The Big 12 will actually have a shot at getting back to 12 schools by taking ITESM (a.k.a. Monterrey Tec) and UNAM if the power conferences were to leave the NCAA.
Los Borregos de Monterrey Tec might just be good enough to beat Kansas State and Iowa State.
LikeLike
seriously?
haven’t we outsourced enough?
LikeLike
Um, Canadians don’t watch their college teams (in part because their college teams are worse than some intramural teams at large American State U’s).
LikeLike
What does that Purple Book guy that you outed last year say about all of this?
LikeLike
Texas House Higher Ed Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow is postponed.
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/08/the-latest-on-ams-potential-move-to-the-sec/#comments
LikeLike
I find the second half of that article interesting. There is a public relations battle going on against A&M.
LikeLike
I find the loss of money and jobs to be unbelievable. It’s not like TAMU would stop playing games. I’m guessing SEC fans would more than make up for any loss from B12 fans.
LikeLike
Baylor may yet decide to fight politically.
LikeLike
Bayor will try, but Baylor will also fail. The only arrow in their quiver, to date, to slow A&M is the threat of lawsuits. That is exactly why Chip Brown is “reporting” the end-game for the SEC is to expand to 16-teams. No one knows who the 14th team will be, let alone tell Chip the battle plan is to add 15th and 16th teams to the conference — the threat is to put pressure on the SEC to stop the addition of the 13th team.
LikeLike
Sorry to tell you this Aggie in Forth Worth, but Baylor is not fighting to keep you. A&M leaving doesn’t kill the B12-3 in terms of keeping Baylor and TT in a BCS conference. That Perryman Group report was probably completed last year and is getting pulled out for the current arguments here. See my other posts. This is about enrollment for Baylor not for rivalries presumed or otherwise. Being in a BCS conference is worth possibly $60 – 100 MM a year to the university. As long as both schools stay in a conference that is a part of the BCS there is no reason to fight. Also you will notice the tone this time from the Baylor PR is not about the dire straits Waco and Lubbock would be in but maintaining historic rivalries. That is not nearly the compelling argument, but a resistance must be put up. So the best I can tell you is enjoy your time in the SEC because you will be there shortly minus some forgone revenue for leaving.
LikeLike
I responded to the comment – “Baylor may yet decide to fight politically.” If Baylor does decide to use political pressure, as someone has used Branch’s committee, then it will end in the same way. The legislative branch is not taking up this issue, and we know the governor is not going to do it either.
I should have made it a little clearer that the use of lawsuits, from anyone associated with the Big12 Conference, has been the only way of slowing the process of A&M leaving the Big12.
LikeLike
“Also you will notice the tone this time from the Baylor PR is not about the dire straits Waco and Lubbock would be in but maintaining historic rivalries.”
Perhaps Baylor is not going to try and keep A&M in the SEC; instead, it may try to get legislators to pressure A&M into playing Baylor and Tech home-and-home as a non-conference game. Of course, if A&M plays UT, TT, and Baylor every year, that would leave little to no space for A&M to ever schedule any other Texas school, so a school like SMU, who’s on A&M’s schedule this year, would be opposed.
LikeLike
Follow up to the earlier post.
ESPN’s Contract
Interesting
Issues with Texas A&M Illustrate Larger ESPN Problem
http://outkickthecoverage.com/espns-issues-with-texas-am-illuminate-larger-problem.php
LikeLike
That should read “ESPN’s Contract Issues with Texas A&M Illustrate Larger ESPN Problem” no idea how the word “Interesting” got in there.
LikeLike
They don’t get into the issue of ESPN having different rights with different conferences which further complicates things. The Fox contract is also an issue. Some Aggie suggested a few days ago on this board they were hurrying in part related to the Fox contract. It was the Fox promise of a better contract that kept the league together.
I don’t think ESPN kept Big 12 rights the same for legal reasons. It was due to 1) they were already undervalued like all the other leagues; 2) they didn’t want to blow up everything and have to renegotiate the ACC and SEC contracts while new players were trying to get in the game; and 3) they were afraid of losing Texas and OU to the Pac and potentially Fox.
The Big 12 split the 1st and 2nd tier rights to diversify on the ups and downs of the markets (which apparently hit the ACC hard). Then they regretted last summer not being able to combine the rights for marketing purposes. It appears there is an unexpected side benefit. It makes it harder to leave.
LikeLike
two issues for today
a) looks like the U is on the NCAA radar today
b) BoR meets, and Loftin speaks
http://v4.texags.com/Stories/2662
Manic Monday or calm before the storm?
LikeLike
Well, today gave Loftin the power he needs to actually do something. Now he can take a couple of days to “research” his options before unofficially talking to the SEC about getting in. The SEC can then unofficially tell him yes or no, and he goes from there. I’ve heard from multiple usually knowledgeable people that it could be done by Labor Day or there about.
LikeLike
brian,
I would also add the elephant in the room
with the power, Loftin can now approach the B1G as well 😉
LikeLike
Duffman,
I’ve heard that rumor, but I just don’t see it unless the SEC says no. I think the fans would riot if they turned down the SEC to go north.
LikeLike
Please do not use Chip Brown at Orangebloods as your source to news about Texas A&M and its goal to leave the Big12 to the SEC. The guy is not a reporter but rather a mouthpiece to put out spins that benefit his boss, Deloss Dodds.
The meeting that was to occur tomorrow, as being reported by Chip, does not look to ever happen! Chip put a spin that benefits his point of view and not what will occur. What Chip doesn’t tell you in his report is that Rep. Branch has been hit by political backlash – especially when Chip has used Branch as a source in a way to convey the train to the SEC will be derailed. The Aggies in general have risen up to make their voices heard, as well as some big Aggie political donors in Dallas area have supposedly threatened to withhold monetary contributions to his political warchest when he begins his campaign to be the state’s next attorney general.
What Chip has also failed to mention is that there is a senate committee with the same name, but to do date, it has not been called together to discuss this most “highly inappropriate” topic (as Dan Branch was quoted in yesterday’s Orangebloods report ). Why? The chairman is from College Station. Branch’s office was the only branch of government that was going to take this challenge, and he may end up regretting it in the long run.
Secondly, Chip is reporting that Aggie sources are telling him that the SEC is pushing to go to a 16-team conference. Unless Deloss Dodds has an honorary degree from Texas A&M University, no Aggie in his/her right mind would tell Chip anything when he spins stories to portray either A&M in a bad light or Texas in a good light. Truth be told from A&M fan forums, the sources at Texas A&M have no idea what the SEC is planning to do about the 14th team to even out the SEC, let alone what the SEC has in store to add teams #15 and #16.
Just please stop using Chip Brown, unless there is a disclaimer that the information is tainted with a heavy burnt-orange flavor.
LikeLike
You’re pointing to the fact that the meeting got called off as evidence of something, but if it was just to pressure them into withholding action without legislative oversight, it accomplished its goal, no?
LikeLike
Aggies a litte bold.
http://twitter.com/#!/suzhalliburton/status/103241096594862080
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind: The scenario of four 16-team conferences, with no independents, can’t happen under the current BCS setup. This fall, there will be 67 BCS members — 12 in the Big Ten, Pac, SEC and ACC; 10 in the Big 12; eight in the Big East; and Notre Dame. Texas Christian will become the 68th BCS participant next fall when it joins the Big East. BCS leagues may reduce from six to five, but there are too many members to allow for only four unless you’re going to have conferences with more than 16 teams.
For political and legal reasons, you can’t throw a member out of the BCS; just see what would happen if Baylor or Iowa State were left out of a BCS conference after reorganization. They wouldn’t have to clout to succeed as independents, and saying that they could as a defense of tossing them out probably wouldn’t stand up in court.
This also means that Notre Dame frankly has no reason to abandon its independence in football
LikeLike
Temple got tossed. Baylor or Cincinnati or USF or Wake Forest (depending on which conferences disappear) just don’t get invited. TCU, SMU, Rice and UH effectively got tossed, although the $ difference wasn’t as big in those days. You do avoid that problem with 5-14 team conferences.
4-16 could happen. But I don’t think its inevitable as Scott and others do.
LikeLike
I don’t think it would be an issue. The Big East tossed out Temple with no problem and no politicians in Iowa were threatening legislation if ISU were stuck in Conference USA last year.
LikeLike
Didn’t Temple get “tossed” because it was a football only member and was told it had to maintain certain standards and then didn’t?
LikeLike
Actually Sen. Grassley of Iowa (and ?) sent a letter to the B1G about the expansion issue last year as it heated up. I heard that it was, in part, to discuss tax free status of collegiate organizations. Hint, hint. Screw with the state schools and congress will be on your back.
Temple was different for another reason. It is a Pennsylvania school. The politicians in PA haven’t gotten themselves involved with the sports affiliations of their schools. Thus you have PSU in the B1G, Pitt in the BE and Temple now relegated to MAC status. Although once in a while some politician may bring up PSU and Pitt playing football it is never a serious issue.
LikeLike
Relegated? Do you really believe Temple deserves to be in a better conference than the MAC?
LikeLike
Technically, all Division-1A schools are “BCS schools”, and there’s 120 (and four more coming) of them. There are eleven conferences, and four official independents.
Notre Dame will be an independent as long as they can play the schools that are important to them, which is why this talk of them joining the Big XII is ludicrous. They want to play their rivals and showcase themselves nationally, so they can recruit nationally.
If the “mega” conferences do come to fruition, they could lose a lot of games to these rivals; the B1G Ten has already removed one out of conference game from their schedules, and many programs will want to schedule teams that they can easily beat and won’t ask for a home and home arrangement.
LikeLike
“the B1G Ten has already removed one out of conference game from their schedules, and many programs will want to schedule teams that they can easily beat and won’t ask for a home and home arrangement.”
This is one of the reasons I like the idea of a playoff based on conference champs. If only you’re conference record counts then you can play an OOC schedule as tough as you want. Of course if there are at-large bids then they’ll probably be based on total records and a school could be hurt by a tough OOC schedule in that case.
LikeLike
Joe & metatron:
AD’s aren’t scheduling because of who they think their team can beat but in order to maximize revenues and donations. The B10 kings aren’t scheduling patsies for guarantee games because they think they’re easier (well, for the most part), but because only patsies are willing to travel for guarantee games. Even if OOC didn’t count at all, needing 7 home games & having a 9 game conference slate means only one OOC game will be with a BCS peer.
LikeLike
Richard,
I agree that a lot of crummy scheduling has to do with finances. IIRC, this issue has been discussed on this board before, but I wish schools would schedule more neutral site games. There is no need for a return game so if the money is right then both schools win. Another nit I have to pick is how much is enough? Like the federal government, schools spend any money they bring in. At what point will tv contracts and other income be enough?
LikeLike
Joe:
It’s never enough. However, no school can unilaterally disarm, so to speak, or else it will fall behind in resources, leading to few victories, leading to less fan interest, and good luck trying to get all the schools to agree to only have 6 home games.
As for neutral site games, sure, it’s a viable strategy for the few kings out there (and it’s what Nick Saban prefers, though he’s still keeping 7 home games along with the high-profile neutral site game Bama plays every year), but there are only so many that you can schedule. It has to be a site with a large NFL stadium as well as large number of fans of both schools (unless one of the schools is Boise or BYU and willing to give up fan support). For instance, in the case of PSU, what lucrative neutral site games can be scheduled beside Syracuse in the Meadowlands and maybe VTech in FedEx?
LikeLike
WOW! Emmert has guts. He’s taking on Slive, Delany and Scott.
How about any AQ conference that takes a school from another AQ conference with less than 18 months notice loses its NCAA basketball bids the next year? Taking from an FBS conference with less than 15 months notice same thing. Taking from any Division I conference with less than 12 months same thing (you have to have time for the trickle down).
LikeLike
This would be a bolder move if Emmert had any leverage. Best he can do now is just ask nicely.
LikeLike
I imagine that was interesting….
LikeLike
How about they worry about trying to apply the rules they have in a understandable way.
Conspiracy theory: Perhaps he is providing additional reason for the BCS conferences to leave the NCAA?
LikeLike
@bullet – Interesting to see the ACC and Big East get together with the Big 12 here.
LikeLike
Not surprising at all that the Big East would side with the Big XII. Everyone knows they are next if shit goes down. What is surprising is the ACC basically admitting that they are way down on the food chain. It was always assumed that if conference Armageddon came to be, whatever ACC/Big East hybrid that emerged would be the weakest of the superconferences, but the ACC never looked like it was in the same danger as the BEast and the Big XII, but here they are seeking the same protection.
LikeLike
Frug:
If you’ve read these boards, you’d know that the ACC is just as vulnerable as the B12 (the BE actually is less vulnerable as really on the B10 can poach from it and the B10 probably won’t be inclined to because the BE schools bring too little value). The only differences between the ACC and B12 is that they don’t have a TAMU raring to leave and a Texas that likes to throw its weight around.
LikeLike
I always knew that the ACC would subject to poachers if there were move to 16 team conferences, but I (and I think others) assumed that they were on a slightly higher level than the other two, since the ACC would be less likely to collapse.
LikeLike
I think the BE is less likely to collapse than the ACC because they don’t have enough attractive properties that can be raided off. You’ll always be left with 7 schools or so that could always easily promote from the BE’s minor league system (CUSA)
LikeLike
I don’t know that the NCAA can do anything to stop moves, but I bet the conferences could decide together to set-up a standard time period for transition. I don’t think it would even have to be anything official. If everyone knows the standard period is 2 years, I think the conferences would probably follow that.
LikeLike
How about the power conferences tell Emmert to keep his nose out of their business and focus on actual NCAA business instead?
I’m shocked to see the B12, BE and ACC were the conferences to run to daddy and say the other kids were being mean. I’m guessing their version of being more collegial means not ever taking any of their teams. Perhaps the other conferences should share their money with them, too.
LikeLike
Emmert’s just doing what ESPN told him to.
Where was Emmert last yr when Nebraska was running to the Big Ten and CU & Utah to the Pac? How come when ESPN is content giving Texas 300 million and therefore thinking they’d bought conference stability the NCAA stays out of it. Once A&M makes a play for the exact same wealth & stability Nebraska found in the Big Ten, suddenly the NCAA Pres wants a summit on conference expansion. Because A&M’s move to the SEC is SOOO much more major that Larry Scott inviting the Big XII South into his conference?
B. S.
ESPN’s in a bind and their stranglehold on the power is threatened, therefore its time to bring out everything in their armory. Couple that with the lobbying firm UT’s using and the “A&M Smear Campaign” is in full effect.
LikeLike
Where was Emmert last year? He was finishing up his tenure as president of the University of Washington. He didn’t assume office at the NCAA until November 2010, so how could he assemble this meeting of the commissioners before then?
Not everything is a conspiracy…
LikeLike
Ok. Then whomever was NCAA president. There was somebody in the NCAA offices last year, correct? Point is, last NCAA did not get involved, why is different this yr? The superconference”threat” to the landscape was just as great, if not greater, last yr was it not?
LikeLike
Whomever was NCAA president didn’t exist last summer. Myles Brand died in September 2009, and Emmert didn’t assume office until November 2010. There should be no wonder the NCAA president was so quiet last year.
LikeLike
The lack of a president last summer is proof of a conspiracy. Jim Delaney and Mike Slive invented cell phones to give Myles Brand pancreatic cancer.
LikeLike
If we’re going to make unfounded, suspicious accusations, Emmert is going to listen to CBS and Turner, not to ESPN. The NCAA’s biggest television contracts by far are for the basketball tournament. Sure, ESPN shows NCAA championships for basketball and Olympic sports, but those contracts are piddly compared to b-ball.
This is nothing more than Emmert trying to be a mediator with the situation. He obviously doesn’t have any leverage, but he can still try to persuade with a voice of reason.
Why wasn’t the NCAA getting involved last year? The same reason that nothing was being done about teams making the NCAA tournament with APR scores below 925 and that nothing was being done about making the rules enforcement process more efficient: an absence of leadership.
LikeLike
*ESPN shows NCAA championships for baseball and Olympic sports…
LikeLike
@ Micheal,
Good info. I didn’t realize the NCAA was in that poor of shape last year. However, to the naive, it does seem odd that expansion talk has been roaring for over a year now. The Pac expanded. The Big Ten expanded. The Big East expanded. Now, when expansion puts Texas and ESPN in a tough spot, the narrative changes and expansion needs to be examined. What makes A&M to SEC so different?
LikeLike
brian,
I can actually see it quite easily your comment on the ACC / B12 / BE
It only reinforces my predator vs prey argument I have continued to maintain since early on in FtT. I just think the ACC has been in denial when thinking they would be safer than the B12 or BE. I, right or wrong, has just never been able to accept their inability to accept this as affecting the ability of B1G / PAC / SEC to expand. I still feel realignment means expansion for the predators, but contraction for the prey.
Iowa State / Wake Forest / Baylor / Boston College and others just can not bring enough $$ or eyeballs to warrant inclusion in the Big 3 power conferences.
ps. if your comment was just sarcasm, I may have missed that part.
LikeLike
It was, in fact, sarcasm, but plain text doesn’t always make that clear. I just can’t bring myself to use emoticons, though. Not my style.
LikeLike
By my count, the Big East and ACC have been as bad/worse about raiding other conferences as the Big Ten/Pac-12 and SEC.
LikeLike
What happened last year where nearly the entire conference setup was about to be overturned in a month was ridiculous (it was fun for us, but still ridiculous). A&M & the SEC planning to announce a move to the SEC in September for the next year is also ridiculous and disruptive.
Emmert is absolutely right. There needs to be a much more orderly way to do this without disrupting and damaging many schools. Conferences need time to replace members and renegotiate TV contracts. It isn’t that complicated or big a deal if the Ohio Valley loses a member. Its pretty major when the larger FBS conferences lose a member. And its pretty major for anyone if they lose multiple members.
Swofford and the ACC aren’t really vulnerable except financially. If the supersized SEC, Pac 16 and Big 10+6 happen, they could be drawfed financially and have limited additions that could justify them going to 16. They could find themselves marginalized and be in a position similar to the MWC-the best of the rest, but still not in the top group. And they really like being at 12 and not being a mega-conference.
Delany rushed his deal last year and it led to a lot of crazy activity.
This is not supposed to be like business mergers and acquisitions where speed is critical to beat someone else to close the deal. It shouldn’t be predatory like when the MWC tried to harm the WAC last year by taking teams it had turned down many times in the past.
LikeLike
When PSU joined the Big Ten, it took 3 or 4 years for the football team to actually play games, as the schedules were set. But Nebraska joined with basically 15 months notice, and A&M was going to switch conferences with less than 13 months notice. It really is damaging to leave conferences in such a bad spot.
LikeLike
Something similar happened with Georgia Tech when it entered the ACC about a decade earlier.
In response to Bullet, the ACC is vulnerable because its football brand hasn’t noticeably improved since it expanded; it’s still rather mediocre. (Nothing against Wake Forest — Jim Grobe does more with less than just about any coach I know — but if that school can win a conference title after expansion, you know the ACC has problems.) Yes, Bobby Bowden’s aging and Urban Meyer’s arrival had something to do with it, but even now that both are gone I don’t see the brand improving nationally.
LikeLike
Penn State was also an independent and didn’t have to deal with bad blood. I heard last year was brutal for Nebraska and Colorado.
LikeLike
One thing I just thought of, now that Utah is a member the PAC-12 the politicians in Utah (who are apparently the most anti-BCS in the country) could hold the whole expansion process hostage since the PAC-12 requires unanimous consent for expansion.
LikeLike
I’d bet Scott’s authority to invite is still a continuing one granted last year. Limitations on Utah’s voting authority could reasonably be expected to be limited to some extent until they are fully vested, in a couple years.
LikeLike
Is there any chance that some of this is coming in the wake of the increased APR rules? Look at the schools that would have been ineligible for the Big Dance last year. Purdue, Ohio St., Syracuse, and USC. While two of those schools have tainted reputations lately, these are major, respected educational institutions. No SEC schools today, but what does next year bring? And what if the rules are set up to keep Calipari/Kentucky’s new one-and-done program from qualifying?
If the NCAA is going to exclude major programs from the post-season because a few guys quit school in March to further their NBA careers (real or perceived), this could be a major point of contention for schools in the SEC and the other BCS conferences. Meanwhile, an argument can be made the NCAA doesn’t let schools give kids a true full ride–forcing them to not work AND not have all living expenses covered. So it creates the problem and then punishes the school for failing to solve it. While the APR rules are a nice PR tool to pretend that the NCAA cares about the student-athlete relationship, the $$$ from the Big Dance shows that the NCAA is being hypocritical.
Just thinking out loud as to whether this APR thing is the catalyst for the conferences to start the process of seceding from the NCAA… with Texas A&M merely serving the role as the catalyst for the change.
LikeLike
I’ll try not to use the word catalyst in every sentence fragment moving forward… sheesh. Sorry.
LikeLike
The question is how the formula will actually work. I saw one reference that they don’t count players turning pro if they were in good academic standing. Without that type of situation, many of the major baseball programs would be locked out. The devil is in the details.
LikeLike
Well, when it comes down to deciding details, it’s always nice to be on the brink of conference armageddon. Nice to have that in your back pocket walking into the meetings…
LikeLike
Yes, that’s why Kentucky actually has the highest basketball APR in the SEC with Vanderbilt. It has many one and dones, but they have all left in good academic standing save for Daniel Orton, I believe.
LikeLike
Most of the problem for the schools you named were one and done players. People didn’t understand the impact it would have, and players quit school and started to focus on career prep. I think the schools now understand the process of getting players to withdraw properly so that it doesn’t hurt the school.
OSU’s annual APRs have been well above the cut lately, but the Oden/Conley/Cook year set them back on the 4 year number. OSU got a 952 (4-year number) just after the tournament (it was 929 before), and it should continue to rise with a 979 and 986 the past couple of years.
LikeLike
I was really surprised to see Purdue on that list when I first saw that list a few months ago. I’m not aware of anyone leaving early for the NBA under Painter. When watching or listening to interviews of the players when living in Indiana, they all seemed very well-spoken. They seemed like genuine STUDENT-athletes. It’s a head-scratcher.
LikeLike
There were a number of transfers in Painter’s early years and these haunt for a while.
LikeLike
Um, the university presidents were the ones who pressed for the APR rule, and they would be the ones deciding whether to leave the NCAA or not, so unless they’re super-Machiavellian, then, no.
LikeLike
No kidding. Which presidents were on the board responsible for the decision? Hartford? USF? Oregon St.? Not exactly a murderer’s row of success or revenue-generation.
LikeLike
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=BOARD
There is the NCAA board. Do these Presidents speak for everyone? 1/3 are BCS conferences. And, within that, I don’t see Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Florida, Alabama, etc. represented. Only Michigan St. has won anything in football or basketball recently.
LikeLike
So there’s been a lot of talk about the Big Ten and academics, especially in light of Nebraska’s removal from the AAU. I want to know which statement commentators here agree with more:
1- Adding Nebraska shows that the Big Ten doesn’t care about academics, so other marginal schools like Oklahoma, Florida State, and Virginia Tech are now viable candidates
2- Adding Nebraska was a singular exception. After all the bad publicity from the AAU ejection, any further addition must have impeccable academic credentials.
My inclination would be #2, but that might just be wishful thinking.
LikeLike
I don’t think FSU and VT belong in the same sentence as OU when it comes to academics. One could make a strong argument that the former two schools are probably in the top ten of research schools not already in the AAU, whereas I don’t think you could say that about OU.
That said, I think you’re right that Nebraska was the exception to the rule rather than being indicative of the beginning of a trend
LikeLike
My impression is that they care about academics, but that AAU won’t be the deciding factor. OU might be to low, but FSU and Virginia Tech might get in.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is as simple as your #1 and #2. The Big Ten does care about academics, but they will make some compromises to make valuable additions to the conference.
Nebraska’s AAU status has been in doubt for several years, and the Big Ten presidents knew that when they voted unanimously to let them in the conference. Even if Nebraska was still AAU, it would be a clear #12 in the conference academically.
There is no question the conference would admit Notre Dame, that institution, while a fine undergraduate university, doesn’t do much research and is not AAU either. But there is no question they would be admitted.
The Big Ten doesn’t seem to want AAU member Missouri. Is it because Mizzou doesn’t bring enough to the table athletically? TV markets? National draw? Or is it because they’ve dumbed down undergrad admission requirements to boost enrollment? I don’t know.
Big Ten also doesn’t seem to be interested in Oklahoma. Although I don’t see what separates OU from UNL, other than the turd in their pocket (OkSU).
So I think there are some complexities, especially now that expansion is reaching the point that the Big Ten may not be able to evaluate candidates on an institution by institution basis, but rather in pairs or even blocks.
LikeLike
There is an interesting rumor making the rounds among Buckeye fans that, if accurate, could have an impact on whether Missouri ever gets a B1G invite. The rumor goes that the only reason that OSU found out about the fact that Tressel had received emails about the players who traded memorabilia for tattoos was that they were searching Tressel’s email in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed on behalf of the University of Missouri. Apparently Mizzou was alleging collusion in the exclusion of Missouri from B1G expansion in favor of Nebraska and were looking for emails between Tressel and Osborne.
Suffice it to say, I imagine that if this rumor is true, Missouri definitely has the attention of the B1G – whether it improved or hurt their position is debatable.
LikeLike
To be honest, I would be surprised if that were true. But maybe that’s just me.
LikeLike
I believe FOIA requests are public knowledge. Or maybe the Columbus Dispatch should do a FOIA request about the FOIA request.
Or maybe just paranoid Buckeye fans looking for a reason to blame anyone but OSU for Tressel.
LikeLike
Cuts both ways, while Missouri might lose a vote to tOSU for B1G inclusion, UM might vote for them for the same issue. 😉
LikeLike
Not sure if this was linked before,
http://www.riddickandreynolds.com/2011/08/if-invited-should-state-leave-for-the-sec/
Rumblings from TAMU’s mirror in the ACC
LikeLike
The guy’s clueless as he doesn’t seem to realize that NCSU shares the same board and president with UNC, so it’s not going anywhere without UNC’s permission. The only way NCSU’s going to the SEC is if UNC is going to the B10.
LikeLike
Realignment even hitting national politics as Rick Perry campaigns in the home state of Iowa State University:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/08/rick-perry-texas-a38m-big-12-sec-move/1
At least now we know the timing of when the SEC will invite A&M (assuming the legal and tv partner hurdles are overcome-looks like BU/TT/UT aren’t going to put up a big political fight). What is the day after the Iowa primary?
LikeLike
Dissent from former Aggie QB Stephen McGee in the Houston Chronicle (http://chron.com–actual link is about 150 characters so if you’re interested look on their sports). He’s not enthused about Aggies leaving the Big 12.
“…We’re starting to take back some recruiting in the state of Texas, get some really good young guys. But now you go in the SEC its a whole new monster.” And later, “He said, “you won’t escape Texas’ shadow by leaving the Big 12 for the SEC. “I don’t think you get out of the shadow of anybody until you beat them and until you win a national championship….Unfortunately for us at A&M we haven’t been able to do that yet.”
LikeLike
Coach Sherman won’t be happy about that. He asked the players not to talk to the media about it, not to go on Twitter or Facebook, etc. (which is the ONLY approach to make, in my opinion, so as not to take the focus off the team’s task at hand, which is to win the Big 12).
LikeLike
Well, he’s playing for the Dallas Cowboys now, so it won’t distract his current team.
LikeLike
Um, yeah. You caught me red-handed reacting without reading the article. Touche.
LikeLike
Mizzou Loves the Big 12!
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/aug/16/missouris-change-of-direction/
“The atmosphere is different this year,” Deaton said. “The Big 12 is real solid together. We’ve been through a lot over the last year, and we’ve done a lot in terms of planning and looking strategically at where we’re going. We would prefer that everyone in the conference is absolutely totally happy with where we’re going, and I understand there’s dissonance that occurs, and the discussions with Texas A&M reflect that right now, but I see that as a bit of an exception — not a bit of an exception, quite an exception
LikeLike
Bloomberg News — Rutgers Boosts Athletic Spending at Expense of Academics.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/rutgers-boosting-athletics-at-expense-of-academics-fails-to-emulate-texas.html
LikeLike
There has been a lot of talk about academics, especially research rankings so I figured I should post this link.
Click to access research2010.pdf
It’s the Top American Research Universities 2010 Annual Report from the The Center for Measuring University Performance at Arizona State. While it is not perfect (no rankings are) it is THE most comprehensive document on American research schools. If you are interested in how research departments stack up against each other this is the best place to look.
LikeLike
The other rankings that hold some weight are the quasi-official AAU rankings leaked from Nebraska’s defense:
http://chronicle.com/article/Documents-Related-to-U-of/127360/
Every decision by the AAU in the last decade (e.g. removing Nebraska and Syracuse, adding Georgia Tech) can be traced to those rankings.
LikeLike
Very interesting.
Oklahoma, which is derided on here for their underwhelming academic standing, is 30th. Eight positions higher than the much heralded (on here) Rutgers and only five slots under Indiana. You have to think that number would only improve once they join the Big Ten. ………………Mr. Delany.
LikeLike
If you must be misreading the report because Oklahoma is no where near Rutgers or Indiana. Amongst all schools Rutgers is 46th overall and Indiana is 57th. Oklahoma is 67th, ranking in the top of 50 in only one of the 9 criteria they measure to form the rankings. (ok, technically that’s not exactly how the list is organized but it is, essentially, what it means).
LikeLike
That first sentence should have read “if you are referring to the MUP report you must be reading it wrong…”
Anyways, OU has a tiny (by Big 10 standards) research budget (only about $88.3 million) it would be major drag on the CIC and the conference’s reputation.
LikeLike
I’ll take your word for it, thanks.
I’ll also take Oklahoma in the Big Ten -immediately. We can take Duke later to make up for it.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – OU is on the borderline in terms of academic acceptability but if the Big Ten can get them without having to take Oklahoma State, I think you have to do it of you’re Delany. There are only so many kings and one of them (Miami) might get hammered down for years by the NCAA.
LikeLike
Even without OSU I still think Oklahoma is an academic non-starter for the Big 10. You look at where they rank on most lists (especially those that include grad programs and not just undergraduate) they aren’t even close to Big 10 standards.
The ARWU, for example, has them in the 301-400 range*. For comparison, Nebraska is in the 150-200 range, Iowa is in the 100-150 and everyone else is in the top 90. That’s not even close to border line.
*The ARWU only gives ordinal rankings for those in the top 100. All others are put in ranges with other schools.
LikeLike
Based on how GLS seems to have a stick up his a** about a certain school in NJ I am starting to think that at some point they rejected his application.
LikeLike
Which can only improve if it joins the Big Ten. No doubt all of these presidents and chancellors are looking to improve their own academic standings, and see the Big Ten as a means to do just that as well as increase their athletic revenue.
The idea that these schools will forever drag down the rest of us, when we have institutional controls to enhance and grow their own academic standards is ridiculous. Notre Dame’s own faculty (an outstanding undergrad school) wanted to join the Big Ten (and thus the CIC) for this very reason.
We can rebuild them, we have the technology.
LikeLike
You know, I’d be willing to take OKSt. if it means both OU and Texas (or OU & ND). Just OU & OK State isn’t enough, though, and neither Mizzou or KU are attractive enough.
LikeLike
@Richard
No. Not just for academic reasons; if OSU gets to come, why not Texas Tech or Baylor?
The line must be drawn here; this far – no further.
LikeLike
metatron5369 says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:33 pm
The line must be drawn here; this far – no further.
And I will make them pay for what they’ve done!
LikeLike
I don’t think derision is fair (to us or to OU). OU would be on the low end for the B10, but not so bad as to be automatically unacceptable if the money was right. The much bigger problem is most people believe OU is tied to OkSU, and OkSU’s academics are a no go for the B10.
LikeLike
So, NE fans, what impact is not getting Bubba Starling likely to have on you? I seem to recall you’re a little thin at QB after losing some guys. Was Starling going to be a factor this year, or was he #4 and holding a clipboard?
LikeLike
IMHO – Since he hadn’t been practicing in fall camp yet, I didn’t see him making much of an impact this year. Taylor Martinez and Brion Carnes (RFr, a relative of Tommie Frazier) have the top two spots nailed down. Behind them are two walk on QBs, So. Ron Kellogg III and TFr. Tyson Broekemeier. TFr. Jamal Turner was recruited as a QB was moved to WR to get him on the field.
LikeLike
Turner is supposedly getting some snaps at QB this fall, but he is more valuable at WR/Special teams. This year’s class will be small, but it would be nice to get a legit QB recruit this year, instead of the athlete/QB’s we have mostly been signing lately.
LikeLike
Here are the top 10 most expensive tickets for CFB games on the after-market.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44162451?slide=1
I have tickets for #1 and #10, and am glad I didn’t have to pay these prices.
Three of the games are in the DFW Metroplex, and half of the games are neutral site games.
LikeLike
alan,
Thanks for the link, I hate slide shows, why can they not just list it all on one page! Even down, ND still makes the list twice. I am already favoring your tigers over the ducks, but the UNL vs tOSU game is one I would want to see live. i really want to see BSU and UGA, just to see how real the broncos are.
LikeLike
Duff – thanks for the Duff karma. With the schedule the Tigers have, we need it. I’ve been meaning to respond to your earlier post in the last thread, but with these hundred of e-mails a day, I just haven’t been able to find it. I think you were asking about my favorite Les Miles quote, press conference, or speech.
My favorite herbivore called an impromtu press conference right before the 2007 SEC CG in order to respond to Herbie’s pre-mature reports on ESPN that he (the Mad Hatter) was going to Michigan. Its may be an oldlie but its still a goodie.
Have a great day!
LikeLike
Duff – here’s a video that Crazy Uncle Les put together with Scot Van Pelt as part of their running schtick on his radio show about Les’ shoes.
How many major college coaches are that comfortable in their own “shoes” to make a silly video like this?
LikeLike
Did they lower the rim for Uncle Les to dunk?
LikeLike
Very, very funny. Always refreshing to see coaches with a sense of humor.
LikeLike
which is the bigger issue
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports-headlines/ci_18693534
a) BE reaches out to B12
b) Marinatto has been in constant contact with Swofford
I would argue the second one, as it would tend to suggest that the ACC is actually the concrete blocks that some on here have suggested, and not the concrete wall others have suggested. What say you FtT readers?
LikeLike
I think they’re about the same. It’s 3 conferences that may lose teams getting together to see what they can do about it. They could try to find ways to help each other be stronger, but I don’t see it.
LikeLike
@Brian – History indicates that raids come from meetings like this. The ACC met with the Big East to discuss a potential merger/joint venture in the late 1990s and the Pac-10 and Big 12 got together to discuss a possible joint TV network 2 years ago. I’m not surprised as competing conferences can often get some recon on who might be skittish in other leagues.
LikeLike
Yes, but those were meetings of near equals. There is a clear food chain here. The BE cannot take a team from the ACC or B12 unless those conferences implode. The B12 doesn’t want any BE or ACC schools, either. The ACC might raid the BE, but that would only be in response to being raided first. The last thing the ACC wants is to start the aggression, because then they can’t complain if the SEC and/or B10 come calling for teams.
LikeLike
brian,
I go back to our conversation on here long ago that the BE might be in the best spot because of location. I argued the B12 should go first because it bordered 3 predators in the B1G / PAC / SEC. The ACC should go next because it borders the B1G / SEC. The BE really only had to worry about the B1G, because if the top 6 in the ACC were taken, the BE would actually become the “vulture” of the ACC scraps.
LikeLike
Their vulture status is very precarious. While they look to pick off the remains of the ACC or B12, nothing keeps them from losing teams at the same time. Without a big new TV deal, the BE is the place of last resort for an AQ team right now. If the SEC and B10 hit 16, then the BE could look at merging with the ACC and/or B12. They’d have to split from the BB only schools to do it, though.
LikeLike
The Big East also is encumbered by its hybrid status, which makes it difficult to be the aggressor in this situation. I would expect the ACC to survive in some shape and form because of this, while the Big 12 would have to drastically change its philosophy to a more equitable format in order to last (though if Texas wasn’t involved, such a change might be surprisingly easy).
LikeLike
brian,
but if you will remember, the lack of football “pickings” is worse in the BE, which could actually work in their favor. The B1G and SEC will not take UL / UC / WVU / Uconn /etc, so the BE would have more “core” intact than a depleted ACC. If the top ACC schools are gone, and Miami finds an end result similar to SMU, then your “core” ACC becomes BC / WF type schools the BE could easily pick from. Heck Tulane could get a BE invite before WF.
LikeLike
First, UL and WV are still getting some talk as possible SEC candidates.
Second, even if the ACC gets raided it is still more desirable than the BE. The hybrid model of the BE means no AQ would ever join them. And the ACC TV contract is miles ahead of the BE right now. The ACC will restock by raiding the BE, as those schools don’t believe Marinatto’s promises of TV riches any more than I do.
LikeLike
Brian:
The ACC won’t be miles ahead after the next BE contract. The BE already got an $10M/school offer, and the ACC pays out $13M/school.
As for the ACC being more desirable after being raided, that all depends on which schools leave. If FSU, UNC, NCSU, VTech, & Virgina (maybe UMD as well) get picked off by the B10 and SEC, the ACC would literally consist of Clemson and a bunch of small private schools (and, in GTech, a public school with the fan following of a small private school). Heck, Clemson may get picked of as well. In that case, it would be hard to argue that the ACC would be more desirable than the BE.
LikeLike
Richard,
I used the words “right now” for a reason. Nobody knows what the next contract will be for the BE. They could get less than ESPN offered last time, the same, or more.
The ACC will stay more desirable until the hybrid form of the BE dies. New FB schools will expect to get to 12 and have a CCG, and the BB schools can’t accept that. Something has to give. Until that is figured out, a normal conference will remain more desirable.
LikeLike
WVU or UL might be pretty likely in the SEC.
If you accept what the schools are saying (of course they always say they aren’t interested until they are, but it makes sense to believe them), logical SEC #14s OU,VT,FSU,UNC,NCSU aren’t interested. That leads to Mizzou as the #6 candidate. They are also saying they are happy and, given their negative comments about TT/OSU/KSU and their ultimate dream to join the B10, they might be reluctant to join the SEC which has a lot of TT/OSU/KSU type schools. Who’s next? WVU or UL.
LikeLike
Well…
The Big XII and the Big East are limited to “promoting” schools from non-AQ conferences, and the ACC lacks the resources/will to expand beyond twelve members.
LikeLike
. . .more like the ACC lack good candidates in the BE (I’m sure they’re glad they didn’t take Syracuse last go-around).
LikeLike
Oklahoma – may not be an exact fit culture-wise and otherwise but they worked just fine in the Big 8 for decades. Just giving them to the Pac without inquiring seems like a huge waste to me.
LikeLike
Are you talking about the B10 or SEC? For the B10, the problem is OK State (and the fact that they’re not academically up to par or desirable in their own right). For the SEC, the problem is also OK State (they have much better options).
LikeLike
New report out on Miami booster scandal and… WOW. We are talking millions of dollars in benefits, prostitutes, strip clubs, private yacht parties and even abortion.
And that’s not the most damaging stuff from the NCAA’s perspective!
There are members of the coaching staff taking part in their players extracurricular activities and players getting payed bounties for injuring opposing players like Tim Tebow.
Seriously, this stuff would make Barry Switzer blush.
http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=cr-renegade_miami_booster_details_illicit_benefits_081611
LikeLike
Nothing would make Switzer blush. And I don’t think it was millions although it was hard to add up all the stuff mentioned in the article.
Sounds like Miami’s ready to join the SEC.
LikeLike
Maybe if they replaced the chalk lines with cocaine and the players carried guns during the game?
LikeLike
It can’t be good when you investigate a guy’s background for trying to fistfight the head of compliance, discover he’s a part owner of a sports agency, and do nothing about it. Or when coaches (from both revenue sports) are actively engaged in the violations. Not to mention he has documentation on so many of these things, and Yahoo seems to have a bunch of witnesses and even former players that admit it.
This stuff goes back to 2002, and all of it could possibly be used by the NCAA. That means the 2001 NC may be the last game they won in the decade, vacating 2002-2009 (69 wins). Maybe they’ll stop complaining about losing the NC to OSU if they have to vacate the season.
Other schools have to be worried, too. The named coaches have moved on to UL, AL, and UF.
people have been looking for the NCAA to lay down the law and make an example of somebody. This may be the case that gets it.
LikeLike
So, it would appear that you can take Miami off any candidate list. If the NCAA has at least what Yahoo! got access to, there is going to be a redefinition of the “death penalty”.
[url]http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=cr-renegade_miami_booster_details_illicit_benefits_081611[/url]
“In 100 hours of jailhouse interviews during Yahoo! Sports’ 11-month investigation, former Hurricanes booster Nevin Shapiro described a sustained, eight-year run of rampant NCAA rule-breaking, some of it with the knowledge or direct participation of at least seven coaches from the Miami football and basketball programs. At a cost that Shapiro estimates in the millions of dollars, he said his benefits to athletes included but were not limited to: cash, prostitutes, entertainment in his multimillion-dollar homes and yacht, paid trips to high-end restaurants and nightclubs, jewelry, bounties for on-field play (including bounties for injuring opposing players), travel and on one occasion, an abortion.”
“In an effort to substantiate the booster’s claims, Yahoo! Sports audited approximately 20,000 pages of financial and business records from his bankruptcy case, more than 5,000 pages of cell phone records, multiple interview summaries tied to his federal Ponzi case, and more than 1,000 photos. Nearly 100 interviews were also conducted with individuals living in six different states. In the process, documents, photos and 21 human sources – including nine former Miami players or recruits, and one former coach – corroborated multiple parts of Shapiro’s rule-breaking.”
Also:
“Perhaps most troubling is Shapiro’s sustained impropriety could trigger the NCAA’s “willful violations” exception to its four-year statute of limitations. Under bylaw 36.2.3, an investigation can expand beyond the statute if information reveals that an individual tied to a university has engaged in “a pattern of willful violations” over a sustained period beyond the previous four years.”
In the vein of conference expansion, what are the chances the ACC would consider booting Miami if they end up with penalties at least similar to SMU? I was just a kid when it happened, but how precisely did SMU figure into the demise of the SWC? If they do get the boot who, if anyone, will be approached for their slot? Yes, this all premature speculation, but for kicks and giggles please speculate anyway.
LikeLike
Crap, beaten!
So, it would appear that you can take Miami off any candidate list. If the NCAA has at least what Yahoo! got access to, there is going to be a redefinition of the “death penalty”.
http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=cr-renegade_miami_booster_details_illicit_benefits_081611
“In 100 hours of jailhouse interviews during Yahoo! Sports’ 11-month investigation, former Hurricanes booster Nevin Shapiro described a sustained, eight-year run of rampant NCAA rule-breaking, some of it with the knowledge or direct participation of at least seven coaches from the Miami football and basketball programs. At a cost that Shapiro estimates in the millions of dollars, he said his benefits to athletes included but were not limited to: cash, prostitutes, entertainment in his multimillion-dollar homes and yacht, paid trips to high-end restaurants and nightclubs, jewelry, bounties for on-field play (including bounties for injuring opposing players), travel and on one occasion, an abortion.”
“In an effort to substantiate the booster’s claims, Yahoo! Sports audited approximately 20,000 pages of financial and business records from his bankruptcy case, more than 5,000 pages of cell phone records, multiple interview summaries tied to his federal Ponzi case, and more than 1,000 photos. Nearly 100 interviews were also conducted with individuals living in six different states. In the process, documents, photos and 21 human sources – including nine former Miami players or recruits, and one former coach – corroborated multiple parts of Shapiro’s rule-breaking.”
Also:
“Perhaps most troubling is Shapiro’s sustained impropriety could trigger the NCAA’s “willful violations” exception to its four-year statute of limitations. Under bylaw 36.2.3, an investigation can expand beyond the statute if information reveals that an individual tied to a university has engaged in “a pattern of willful violations” over a sustained period beyond the previous four years.”
In the vein of conference expansion, what are the chances the ACC would consider booting Miami if they end up with penalties at least similar to SMU? I was just a kid when it happened, but how precisely did SMU figure into the demise of the SWC? If they do get the boot who, if anyone, will be approached for their slot? Yes, this all premature speculation, but please speculate anyway.
LikeLike
I think we’re a little quick to start with the SMU death penalty calls for Miami, but that article is really crazy. I’m trying to take it with a grain of salt; as an Ohio State fan, with everything we’ve had to deal with for the last eight months I’ve tried to not jump to conclusions from articles. But… damn… that is a crazy article. But, like OSU, what’s said in articles means little — it’s what the NCAA can actually pin on Miami that matters. *If* they can pin all of this on Miami, however, they’re going to get hit with sanctions that’ll make USC’s fate look like a slap on the wrist.
LikeLike
It’s also a lot easier to penalize a private school such as Miami or Southern Methodist because state politics (and politicians) tend to stay away from the fight.
If Miami did receive the “death penalty” and had to shut down football for two years, how would it affect Florida State’s SEC chances?
LikeLike
As Frank said in his twitter, SMU got the death penalty for getting caught continuing to pay players after already getting on probation for paying players. And it was approved at the highest level, by the board of regents led by former Texas governor Bill Clements.
The only indication is that it is one booster and a number of assistant coaches and, so far as I know, Miami is not currently on probation. The death penalty is not possible in this case.
But this ought to put them 1st on the SEC’s list to join A&M. SMU has cleaned up its act so doesn’t qualify anymore. If you look at the teams with the most major violations, A&M and SMU are right up there with Auburn.
LikeLike
Actually the “a second major violation within 5 years or while still on probation” is a guideline, not a hard rule. The NCAA can still hand out the death penalty to first time offenders if they feel it is warranted.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yeah, the “death penalty” gets thrown around a lot, but too many people forget the context in which SMU received it. Miami may get slapped pretty hard if this hooker and stripper stuff gets pinned on them by the NCAA, but the program won’t get shut down over it. That being said, while I’m pretty numb to most allegations of NCAA violations these days, yet that article was pretty crazy. Looks like the Big Ten won’t be inviting Miami like I’ve wanted.
LikeLike
I think the biggest problems for Miami are that it is multiple coaches from two sports, and that the compliance office found out he owned a sports agency and didn’t cut him loose.
If all this is true and the NCAA can prove it (and that’s a big if), I’d expect huge penalties in both FB and MBB. I don’t expect the death penalty, but just about everything else including TV bans and massive scholarship reductions. Both teams will be crippled for a decade. The president, AD and head of compliance will all be gone as well. I’d expect major show cause penalties for the assistant coaches that have moved on, too. UL, AL and UF better hope their behavior was constrained to their time at Miami.
For now, I’ll just pose these questions:
How quickly can the NCAA react – will players get suspended this year?
Will NCAA issues impact Miami more than OSU for the game in September?
How does this impact Al Golden, especially if JoePa retires soon?
LikeLike
frank,
There are special circumstances where the death penalty can over ride the “second” time rule. Point shaving, throwing games, and the like. This thing about 5,000 “bounties” may be enough to flag a much steeper penalty. Besides, this last meeting of the NCAA they said they were going to come down hard, and Miami could be the “example”. A small private school that had such a terrible football history that they almost dropped the program just before Schnellenberger got there.
LikeLike
So a “vegetable/catatonic penalty” seems more probable. I guess it depends on what and how investigators judge and handle the additional allegations from Shapiro beyond the ones Yahoo! could substantiate.
Donna Shalala gone? Just for appearances, or for very poor judgment? I was under the impression she was doing very well for the school on the academic side.
I think Al Golden is now well below Urban Meyer on the coaching succession wish/speculation list.
LikeLike
Miami would clean house for appearance’s sake if nothing else. When you’re in pictures taking money from the guy, and the alumni are irate over the violations, it’s hard to just say I didn’t know.
LikeLike
This is from 2008, but it couldn’t have changed dramatically:
http://blog.al.com/bn/2008/03/sec_no_2_for_most_ncaa_infract.html
LikeLike
Didn’t we do the per school average when this was posted before?
Big 12 = 55/12 = 4.6 per school
Pac 10 = 41/10 = 4.1 per school
SEC = 48/12 = 4 per school
Big Ten= 40/11 = 3.6 per school
The SEC is ‘average’ if this is your metric.
LikeLike
Looks like Miami is moving up.
LikeLike
I think the death penalty is only a 1 year ban, though SMU kept their team out for 2 years because they were rebuilding from scratch and had no upperclassmen.
I doubt Miami gets the death penalty. If they did lose their football team it would cause serious problems to the ACC. They would have to find a (temporary?) replacement member in order to remain at 12 teams and a championship game, and they would see a reduction in the number of games that get national attention.
As for FSU moving to the SEC, well, this is coming on the heals of the UNC scandal. Noone can argue that the ACC has ethical superiority. They could stay for the better academic reputation, the better basketball, or the easier conference schedule.
LikeLike
SMU had a one year total ban and a one year ban on ooc games. They decided it wasn’t worth it and totally sat out the 2nd year.
LikeLike
SMU’s penalties from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_%28NCAA%29
The 1987 season was canceled; only conditioning drills (without pads) would be permitted until the spring of 1988.
All home games in 1988 were canceled. SMU was allowed to play their seven regularly scheduled away games so that other institutions would not be financially affected. The university would ultimately choose not to do so (see below).
The team’s existing probation was extended to 1990. Its existing ban from bowl games and live television was extended to 1989.
SMU lost 55 new scholarship positions over 4 years.
The team was allowed to hire only five full-time assistant coaches, instead of the typical nine.
No off-campus recruiting would be permitted until August 1988, and no paid visits could be made to campus by would-be recruits until the start of the 1988–89 school year.
LikeLike
Depends how far down the road FSU is thinking. If short term, I think it actually decreases FSU’s chances of jumping. Think about it: UNC and Miami are both cooked now (presumably). That means that for the forseeable future, they’ve got Virginia Tech as the only formidable foe between them and the BCS. Far, far cry from the SEC gauntlet.
LikeLike
“21 human sources”
What other kind of sources are there? Talking goats? C-3PO?
LikeLike
I think they were trying to differentiate from all the documents, which could also be considered sources.
LikeLike
“Nearly 100 interviews were also conducted with individuals living in six different states. In the process, documents, photos and 21 human sources – including nine former Miami players or recruits, and one former coach – corroborated multiple parts of Shapiro’s rule-breaking.”
Using human to modify sources is just a lay person’s attempt to sound important. In the end, it just makes it sound like some of the 100 interviews were with non-humans. Found it funny. I guess you did not. I’ll try to be more serious in the future.
LikeLike
Sports articles are serious business.
LikeLike
Has anyone taken John Swofford’s belt and shoelaces away?
UNC is about to get slapped by the NCAA.
Miami may be on the way to the worst penalties in years.
FSU and others may be looking at jumping to the SEC.
And just 15 months ago he was on top of the world with his gigantic new TV deal and no NCAA issues.
LikeLike
Don’t forget about Ga. Tech.
LikeLike
At this point, GT is barely a blip on the radar. Compared to UNC and Miami, GT is small potatoes.
LikeLike
Anything compared to Miami is small potatoes. There were no yachts, prostitutes, $10,000+ gifts, boosters, etc. with UNC. Not that the UNC case isn’t a big deal–everyone around the school is mortified by the entire situation–but the Miami case is absolutely egregious.
The worst part is that I feel duped. I sincerely thought Miami had cleaned its act up, especially with Randy Shannon as coach, and my own distaste towards Miami (as an FSU fan) had waned to the point where I’d pull for them against non-conference opponents.
LikeLike
If it helps, Shannon wasn’t named and Shapiro wanted to fight the new head compliance guy because he was restricting booster access to players. I think Shannon did his best to run a clean program and didn’t know about this stuff.
Still, your Seminole instincts should have kicked in by now. The U has been dirty pretty much from the day they started to win. Deep down you’ve always known that.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-08/um-violations/story/miami-allegations-bring-game-closer-to-wild-wild-west-nevin-shapiro-yahoo
Supposedly Danny Sheridan is going to announce who “allegedly” paid Cam Newton to play at Auburn tomorrow on the Paul Finebaum show.
LikeLike
“‘allegedly’ paid Cam Newton”…that’s ridiculous. Everyone know $cam Newton didn’t get pair to play at Auburn…
…his DAD got paid for him to play at Auburn.
LikeLike
Well, Sheridan said he knows the name of the bagman and the bank in GA, but he was told by his lawyer he’d be sued so he refused to name names. I’m not a lawyer, but the truth is supposed to be an absolute defense. Wouldn’t the person he named have to prove that the NCAA doesn’t think he is the one who paid Cecil Newton? Wouldn’t that be a really simple case when Sheridan calls his source as a witness?
He did offer to take a polygraph if anyone would put up 6 or 7 figures of cash, and donate the money to charity when it proved he wasn’t lying.
LikeLike
If I tell Paul Finebaum “I know something you don’t know” will he give me 20 minutes of air time?
LikeLike
If it’s about an SEC scandal, probably so. Especially if you spend 25 years in the business building a reputation.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-08-17/danny-sheridan-doesnt-reveal-bagman-in-cam-newton-case-auburn
A short story about it. Sheridan’s reputation is taking some shots over this.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe sets a deadline. I’ll bet this works out well. Date not actually given in the article but, “There has to be a very short time for an institution to commit.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-aggies/20110816-deadline-coming-dan-beebe-says-big-12-deserves-to-know-am_s-intentions.ece
LikeLike
Well, that did hurry things along last year. Of course, the conference lost 2 schools in the process.
Of course, if we’re playing next year in the SEC, I think it’s quite fair that we move really quickly.
LikeLike
This may inadvertently be what TAMU needed. If they just refuse to sign any new pledge of commitment, the B12 will either have to swallow it, kick them out, or institute some penalties that TAMU can use as cover for leaving. If the B12 kicks them out, they get no penalties and TAMU can’t be blamed for whatever happens in conference realignment. If the B12 puts penalties into place, TAMU can cite those as the cause for leaving.
LikeLike
I have asked this elsewhere, but what is Beebe’s leverage? What is the punishment for non-compliance?
This just seems goofy to me.
LikeLike
They kick them out?
LikeLike
Double Secret Probation.
LikeLike
Force the Texas/Texas A&M game to be on LHN?
Just kidding… I don’t want all the uber-serious folks poking holes as to why that couldn’t happen.
LikeLike
Threaten to kick them out and have Texas not play them in anything for 10 years? 20% of the Aggies would probably commit suicide without the obsession with Texas to keep them occupied. 20% would be driven to drug and alcohol addiction. 40% would recover and live normal lives. The other 20% are the “2 percenters” or others who were someone immune to the brainwashing (probably were drunk the whole time in college) and are already normal.
LikeLike
The only obsession i can see, as a long time resident of Austin, is the 100% wall to wall coverage of all things Aggie by the Texas media. Bullet you are so full of it as to be laughable. Even my homeowners association wants all longhorns to notify their legislators that they should force A&M to stay in the Big Xii-3. Texas has hired the Hillco lobbyist group to pressure the state legislators. Your legal team has paid phony economists to predict the cataclysmic economic destruction of the state economy if A&M is allowed to leave. Texas and Baylor, through Buddy Jones are threatening lawsuits of Tortious Interference.
As they say…obssession noted.
You guys stepped in it and now will pay the price. Toodles!
LikeLike
I’m guessing you are in the 2nd 20%.
LikeLike
Oh, and for your facts, Perryman seems to be the authority on Texas economics. You see his reports more than anyone else. Not that I am saying anything about whether I agree with his report or not (seems questionable, but I haven’t read any of it), but he is anything but a phony. But since he takes a position A&M doesn’t like, he must be a phony.
And you don’t seem to realize you are just reinforcing Aggie stereotypes.
It was a JOKE! You’re supposed to come up with a witty comeback, not get angry.
LikeLike
Help me out as to why any fan would eagerly give up such a heated rivalry, just to make a few extra bucks losing to the great SEC teams and beating the ones that nobody cares about (Vandy, KU, MSU, Ole Miss, SC) outside of the region?
I know why the school would want it. $$$.
But, as a fan, what does $$$ help? You think the Big 10 cut ticket prices to match their infusion of cash from the BTN? Has that money helped Illinois start a hockey program? And $$$ can’t make Indiana competitive in football or allow Northwestern to make the Big Dance. It hasn’t made Ohio State less dominant.
The $$$-machine didn’t stop USC, OSU, and Miami from having boosters get sneaky. If anything, it just makes it worse. The school makes all that money and the kids are eating ramen. Hard to turn down surf-n-turf, no matter how sleazy the guy picking up the tab.
Not sure why fans have to worry about real or perceived money problems.
And if you hate Texas… why not want to beat them every year??? That’s what makes that game special. I just don’t get it.
LikeLike
The Big 12 is an inferior conference. I think everyone would be happy to keep playing the Longhorns every year, but we shouldn’t have to play 8 other schools just to keep playing them. If they really are making that requirement, then we’ll have to end the series.
Just before I was a student, A&M had 3 big games each year: Texas, LSU, and Arkansas. The Arkansas series stopped right before I enrolled. The LSU series stopped while I was a student.
This idea that A&M will be without passionate rivals if we go to the SEC is an idea in the national press that makes no sense. The Big 12 was formed to bring Texas’ rivals together, not Texas A&M’s.
Since OU turned it around about a decade ago, it’s been exciting playing them, but Alabama will be at least as exciting. Baylor/A&M is one of the most played rivalries in College sports, but it’s a joke to have a home and home with a team which has effectively a 4500 seat stadium that is at least 50% occupied by your fans when you play them. Texas Tech is an OK rivalry, but noone sees them on our level and there is much more passion from them than us. Despite the fact that we’re both in Texas, LSU is closer and Arkansas is about the same distance.
LikeLike
I’m with m (Ag) on this. I don’t understand where this idea that A&M has all these Big 12 rivals comes from…; the old Big 8 schools don’t count, the former Big 8 and Texas Tech/Baylor aren’t A&M’s rivals in any way shape or form…; going to the SEC would actually increase A&M’s value in terms of rivalry games if it could also keep the Texas game. As for the other teams, the rest of the games only matter on a national scale if the teams are ranked. That’s how it’s always been.
LikeLike
And I’m referring to the rivalry value in terms of what outsiders would see. You’d have way more interesting games if you stick A&M in the SEC West, than you have in a 9 game Big 12 schedule. I’m pretty sure no one at A&M minds giving up the rest of the Big 12 if they can keep Texas and replace the rest of the schedule with Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Auburn along with a rotation of Florida/Georgia/Tenn. etc. Really hard to make the rivals argument against a move to the SEC.
The Big 12 has always been a marriage of convenience. The only schools that you could make the rivalry argument with was Nebraska/Colorado (especially if Texas agrees to keep the series alive with A&M), but that was weakened in the case of Nebraska by removing the annual Oklahoma series.
LikeLike
To help illustrate my point, I looked up the total number of games A&M played versus opponents on the website http://football.stassen.com/records/all-opponent.html. (I should note that I believe its earliest records are incomplete; I think I was looking at some A&M series a year or so ago and it didn’t have a few games in the very first years that were listed in other sources.)
Games played vs. A&M 1869-1995 (last year before Big 12):
Arkansas-65
Texas Tech-54
LSU-48
OU-14
OSU-11
Games played vs. A&M 1946-1995 (arbitrarily chose last 50 years of SWC):
Texas Tech-48
Arkansas-46
LSU-32
OU-8
OSU-5
Once they were turned down by the Big 10 and Pac 10, the Longhorns decided to cooperate with the Sooners to pull each teams’ rivals in 1 conference. It’s no coincidence that the ‘Red River Rivalry’ became the centerpiece rivalry of the whole conference. It’s also no coincidence that, of the schools with options, UT and OU seem to be the only ones who will remain.
LikeLike
Dodds & UT are very focused on maximizing value and aren’t going to be punitive. The rivalry will continue, although there may be a small gap in football with the difficulty in re-scheduling. UT has their schedules out about 10 years.
It is possible it may be like Michigan-Notre Dame and not be every year. If UT is playing 9 conference games, they may not want to spend that 10th game on A&M every year. From a fan’s standpoint and possible TV interest, which is better-12 years straight with A&M or every other year with A&M, 2 years with Notre Dame, 2 years with USC and 2 years with Ohio St.? With 9 conference games + A&M and the desire for a certain number of home games, its hard to subject your team to also playing a team of that caliber and you could only do it home-and-home.
It also doesn’t work well logistically if the Big 12 goes back to 12. You wouldn’t want it too close to the OU game in October and you wouldn’t want it Thanksgiving if you have a championship game the next week.
LikeLike
Be careful what you wish for. There is no replacing a rivalry game grounded in true hate. That is what Texas and A&M have right now. True hate.
And if A&M didn’t form any similar rivalries during the years in the Big 12, what makes them think that they will form them in the SEC? There will be exciting games and look-forward-to games, but nothing tops a long-standing rivalry based on true hate.
And then the proximity issue. Michigan-Ohio St. is an exception, but most great rivalries involve in-state clashes. Auburn-Alabama… Duke/UNC… etc.
Don’t get me wrong…ESPN will call it rivalry week or whatever else to get things juiced up. But beating Alabama and Florida and LSU will never be better than beating Texas. Some thing cannot be duplicated.
LikeLike
1) A&M already knows what games are like that aren’t grounded in hate. We have them weekly in the Big 12.
2) The ‘hate’ of the Longhorns is vastly overblown. There were Longhorn students mixed in the A&M student section at the A&M/UT games I attended, and everyone was treated cordially. From what I understand, this is still the norm in both College Station and Austin. Right now, there’s an intense reaction because A&M and its fans are unhappy with the Big 12 and UT is trying to trap us in the conference. Staying in the conference we don’t like just to make ourselves hate UT more would be a bizarre and unhealthy thing to do.
3)Old Ags will tell plenty of stories about playing LSU. There is a healthy amount of hate (and respect) there already. I admit to not hearing much about old Arkansas games. Young Ags have already gotten a sense of the rivalries. We’ve started playing Arkansas annually as a non-conference game; that game made the list of the ’10 most expensive tickets in college football’ that Alan posted. This past year A&M got to play LSU in the Cotton Bowl, which lead to a lot of excitement on both sides. A&M wanted LSU to be the opponent, even though schools like Alabama were also eligible. There were also LSU fans wanting to be the opponent, even though they could have been chosen for the higher-ranked bowl in Florida. When tickets went on sale it sold out instantly. “This is the first time in the history of the AT&T Cotton Bowl for our game to be a sellout before we even visited the campuses” according the chairman.
(And don’t just take Aggies’ word for it. Here’s a columnist from Baton Rouge: “An LSU-A&M rivalry would be one of the SEC’s best.” http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/582623-64/waiting-for-lsu-am-may-be.html)
LikeLike
Actually, I should use the word ‘passion’ instead of ‘hate’ for LSU, as I haven’t heard many who truly hate them. But when I was a student I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who truly hated the Longhorns. They were our biggest rival; that meant there was lots of jokes and some mascot-stealing, but I never felt anyone was truly obsessed.
LikeLike
m(Ag) – I was a student at LSU during the mid-to-late 80s, when LSU v A&M was the season opener. Just to stir the pot in anticipation of the Aggies arrival, back in 1987 LSU opened the season at Kyle Field and defeated the Aggies 17-3. After the game, I witnessed (and took part in) the LSU students rushing the field. Kyle Field. On the Texas A&M campus.
I don’t recall ever seeing opposing fans rushing the home team’s field, before of since.
I’ve seen a few posts commenting about how bad LSU was in the 80s and 90s. The 80s weren’t bad when I was a student. 5 straight bowl games. Two Sugar Bowls. Two SEC championships.
LSU did go through 4 coaching changes during the 80s, after Cholly Mac retired at the end of the 79 season. LSU was inconsistent during the 80s, but did have 7 winning seasons, 6 bowl appearances, including 2 Sugars and an Orange, 2 SEC championships, and a #5 final ranking.
LikeLike
When Iowa won at Minnesota in 2002 to clinch a share of the B10 title, Hawkeye fans not only stormed the field, they tore down one of the goalposts.
LikeLike
Was the Corps too shocked to come after the Tigers and start a brawl? I’m amazed you got away with it. They are very sensitve to anyone messing with their traditions.
As for LSU the “bad” comments are relative to status as a “king”, not relative to average schools. In the 80s and 90s (pre-Saban) LSU had a 2 win season, two 3 win seasons, four 4 win seasons and three 5 wins seasons to go along with two-7, three-8, three-9 and two-10. LSU was ten games under .500 for the decade of the 90s. You may have been there during 3 of the 5 9&10 win seasons (1985-1987).
LikeLike
Because he’s worried about Texas, Oklahoma, or Missouri about leaving. Texas A&M has all but joined the SEC at this point, but the other three are (not so) secretly talking with other conferences.
But, like last year, it just might just force everyone to a decision that isn’t favorable for the Big XII.
LikeLike
Your entertainment for the day: Luther Campbell on Miami booster Nevin Shapiro:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/08/nevin_shapiro_can_kiss_my_ass.php
LikeLike
We need a new thread… the Miami issue would be a good jumping off point. For the sake of argument–if the Miami program was given the death penalty, or something very very close to it, would it impact realignment? And how?
LikeLike
@EZCUSE: Well, for one, any notion people might’ve had about Miami->BigTen can be thrown out the window (looking at you Frank). The BigTen is pissed enough dealing with Ohio State and Michigan’s issues, they aren’t going to want to add ‘Da U’. Frankly, I’ve never believe Miami was a possibility for that reason alone; whatever you want to say about their academics, fanbase, or on-field performance, the perception is that trouble has seemed to follow them for the last three decades, and perception is a big deal.
LikeLike
The ACC is weaker now.
FSU’s main/only ACC rival will be down for years. Maybe that weakens their ties to the ACC.
The ACC has had 2 of the biggest NCAA scandals over the past year or two, hurting the conference’s perception. Maybe the SEC doesn’t seem so bad anymore to ACC presidents.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel article says, “All that’s seemingly left is the biggie — the death penalty — and it’s entirely possible: Miami qualifies as a repeat violator for any violations before Feb. 27, 2008, stemming from it mid-90s Pell Grant scandal.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/08/16/miami.hurricanes.allegations.reaction/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a1
If they were on probation before 2008, then there’s the “second” offense to warrant the death penalty. I very much doubt the NCAA gives them the death penalty, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility.
LikeLike
I doubt it either, but they may lose 15 scholarships a year for 5 years, 5 year postseason ban, TV ban for 2 years, 3 fewer coaches for 2-3 years, no off campus recruiting, no official visits for 2-3 years, and have no outsiders allowed (on plane, in press box, on sidelines, in practice, etc).
That said, I think with lessons learned from SMU the death penalty could be applied in a way that doesn’t kill a program for so long. Frankly, SMU should have been able to recover more quickly but they took way too long to find a good coach to rebuild them.
LikeLike
Most penalties are pretty minor. You hear about 15 scholarships and then realize it is 5 scholarships for each of 3 years. That’s rounding error. Those are the scholarships you give to walk-ons when the numbers don’t work exactly right. You can just not red-shirt 5 freshman.
If they really did reduce scholarships by 15 each year for 3 years or even prevent any new recruits for a year, that would be significant.
The TV bans did make some difference, but there is collateral damage. But then again, that might encourage conferences to take violations more seriously.
LikeLike
bullet,
USC lost 30 scholarships over 3 years, or 10 per year. That’s why I suggested 15 per year for 5 years, or 75 total lost (about equal to the 73 players in the article). That would mean 10 new scholarship players per year and a cap of 70 over that period.
TV bans, to me, are the best way to hurt schools. It also stings ESPN and the ACC, but I think that’s necessary. This will inspire schools to let someone know if they think there is a problem at a school. Delany said recently he wouldn’t be against using them again.
LikeLike
I don’t see anything wrong with decade-long postseason bans if the offenses warrant them.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4224-2011-2012-ncaa-division-i-manual-august-2011.aspx
For those that are interested, you can download the NCAA D-I manual at that web site. The relevant section is 19.5.
Richard,
I don’t see anything that prevents them for punishing for that long, but I don’t know if they’ve ever gone beyond 5 years for any punishment except a show cause (Dave Bliss got 10 years).
SMU lost 55 scholarships over 4 years plus two years of play. What I proposed is worse except for the TV ban replacing the loss of games. I think the program would still be hammered but could perhaps recover quicker since they wouldn’t lose all their experienced players. I’m sure Duke would enjoy kicking their butts for a few years, though.
I think the NCAA would prefer harsher penalties in a shorter time frame rather than a whole decade. They need a chance to clean house and build a clean program, but 10 years might essentially kill the program anyway. A death penalty would let the program start to recover sooner.
LikeLike
I actually disagree. The problem with shorter penalties is that they just can’t be severe enough. Many boosters would think giving up 5 years for a national championship (or shot at it) is a worthwhile trade. The problem with the death penalty is that too many innocents are hurt. Would you have thought it fair if the NCAA had given the death penalty to Miami before last year and OSU had to replace their one marquee OOC home game with a MAC opponent on short notice?
Crippling a program for a decade but not harming innocents should be the goal.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I actually disagree. The problem with shorter penalties is that they just can’t be severe enough.”
It took SMU 20 years to get back to a bowl. How severe are you looking for?
“Many boosters would think giving up 5 years for a national championship (or shot at it) is a worthwhile trade. The problem with the death penalty is that too many innocents are hurt.”
I think one of the best ways for the NCAA to punish is to use group punishment. In this case, Miami gets the worst of it, but the rest of the ACC also pays a price for letting their conference member get away with this for so long. Nothing is stopping the AQ leagues from starting their own investigatory bodies to keep tabs on their schools. I think the TV money would more than cover it. The point is to give everyone incentive to report any potential violation they know about. Knowing that the fraternity of coaches won’t keep it quiet, I think at least the coaches and administrators would stop cheating. Players and boosters will keep doing it, but permanent ineligibility for the violator and everyone that knew about it and didn’t report it would be a start.
“Would you have thought it fair if the NCAA had given the death penalty to Miami before last year and OSU had to replace their one marquee OOC home game with a MAC opponent on short notice?”
I would have been fine with that, and the contract probably included a fee for cancelling that would have helped cover the cost. You want other programs to feel the sting a little bit so that they are more willing to report possible violations. I don’t believe that no other schools heard rumors about what was going on at Miami.
OSU’s schedule would have been less exciting, but that’s no reason not to apply a punishment to somebody in my opinion.
LikeLike
Brian:
When talking about “shorter penalties”, I was speaking of non-death penalty shorter penalties (like what USC got).
The problem with your theory that hurting other schools would make them more likely to report is that I don’t think it would actually work like that in practive. Few other schools would know (outside of cases like Cam Newton being shopped around to different schools). If anything, they would be incented to _not_ report if punishing another school also hurts them.
LikeLike
Richard,
I don’t think the rulebook allows it, but there are more severe things they could do for a short period.
They could get no scholarships at all for several years. They could have to forfeit their share of the conference’s TV contract for a number of years.
SEC schools have been known to tell on each other before (Phil Fulmer and AL ring a bell?). I just don’t think not playing a Miami is a big penalty for the other schools so I don’t think it would deter them from turning in a Miami. And from what I hear about the CFB world, everybody hears the rumors about other departments. They just don’t report it unless they have proof. I think the NCAA needs to give incentive to report the rumors, and then the NCAA needs enough people to follow up.
LikeLike
1st good press discussion regarding the flexibility of TV contracts that I have seen-contract question is about midway down in the article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski-110816&sportsCat=ncf
LikeLike
bullet, great find on the TV contracts. Slive has repeatedly used the “look-in” name, so it appears that they have the lessor of the two options. As I have said a number of times on this board, they may have the ability to open a negotiation, but they aren’t guaranteed to WIN a negotiation. It looks like ESPN has the clout.
Even if ESPN doesn’t pay more for their current rights, as Alan in BR points out, maybe the source of new money is the increased inventory they can now sell.
—
But a deal is a deal, right?
It is unless the SEC invokes a “look-in” clause or an “opener” clause in the contract.
I spoke with network officials and major conference officials about the boiler plate workings of college football contracts. Here’s the nutshell version:
A “look-in” basically says both parties can talk about adjusting the deal, but there is no obligation to do so on the broadcast partner’s part — in this case, ESPN. “Look-ins” are the 98-pound weaklings of TV contract clauses.
But an “opener” has more meat on its bones. An “opener” means the broadcast partner must negotiate in good faith. And if a deal can’t be struck, then the dispute goes to arbitration.
You lost me. What does this have to do with Texas A&M and the SEC?
The SEC can’t go on the open market for its next TV contracts until fiscal 2025. That’s a long time to watch other conferences make more money than you. According to several conference officials familiar with such deals, the SEC’s best chance of getting more money added to its existing deals (which looked great to the SEC back then, but less great now) is to meet the requirements of its “opener.” I haven’t seen the contract, but here’s guessing the SEC would have to add two more teams to the conference to trigger those good-faith negotiations.
In the business, they’re also called “conference composition clauses.” If the number of SEC members changes, then so could the existing deal. And one way the SEC changes is if it adds, oh, I don’t know, maybe Texas A&M and a 14th team to the league.
So the SEC could go Chris Johnson on ESPN?
If it adds, presumably, two more teams to the conference, SEC commissioner Mike Slive could argue that he’s provided more value to ESPN and wants his league to be paid accordingly. ESPN, say those familiar with such contracts, could counter (and this is waayyyyy above my pay grade) that this is a pro rata situation.
In other words, it could give the SEC more money for the two new teams, but only in proportion to the existing deal. It wouldn’t blow up the contract, only revise it relative to the present member shares.
And thus the negotiations would begin. Maybe it ends in arbitration, maybe it doesn’t.
LikeLike
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski-110816&sportCat=ncf
Your link didn’t work for me, so I’m trying again.
LikeLike
Has Cliff Harris (118 mph) traffic stop been posted yet? If it has my bad.
But it is Gold Jerry….Gold
LikeLike
At least they were “smart” enough to smoke all the evidence.
LikeLike
No doubt, do you think that police officer still has his job?
LikeLike
It’s pretty hard to fire a civil servant. I’d guess minor punishment at most.
LikeLike
Cliff Harris has been suspended for the LSU game. But seriously, how does he have any eligibity left? Didn’t he play safety for the Dallas Cowboys back in the 1970s?
LikeLike
And Thomas has been the passenger at least 3 times one of his teammates has been busted. Perhaps your QB and team leader should tell the driver to slow the hell down.
LikeLike
Nice Alan
Ahh…..Cliff Harris of the 70’s, back when a football player, scratch that, pro-bowl football player could look like an insurance salesman.
Thanks for the blast from the past.
LikeLike
It’s good to see that ND is the top story on ESPN.com. I can’t imagine any other story that might deserve front page status.
LikeLike
Future map of the Big Ten?
It’s completely unofficial, so take it for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
And (not that anyone would really care) but the Big Ten would unseat the ACC as the lacrosse power house league, swapping out Duke for Michigan’s new D1 team.
LikeLike
Someone’s been cooking up a scenario.
But I still don’t understand why you have to push past 14. If the Big Ten gets Notre Dame and one other (Missouri or Rutgers or Maryland), that’s all it needs. I don’t think the Big Ten is in the business of trying to destroy the ACC by taking UNC as much as UNC brings huge value to any conference.
LikeLike
Nice post with the map.
I keep seeing several people saying B10 won’t go to 14 unless it’s with ND.
Is this set in stone? Will B10 possibly go to 14 with 2 different schools, then 16 with ND?
What is everyone’s best guess as to when ND joins the B10? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
LikeLike
My best guess is that we are still at 12 in ten years. Expanding further means we all lose games against each other and everyone is less likely to win a championship. It also makes the conference feel more like a coalition than a conference.
LikeLike
From a poster at Orangebloods:
“This is just what I am hearing,so take it as such.
“UNC will be willing to let NC State walk and The Legs. in Virgina would be willing to let Va. Tech walk to the SEC.
“The catch would be if that does happen, UNC-Chapel Hill along with Duke, Virginia and Maryland would walk to the Big Ten. I am hearing that the Big Ten doesn’t want Mizzou at all, and is done with ND and willing to move forward to 16 if those 4 would apply. Apparently OU, Okie Lite, Kansas and Mizzou talked to the Big Ten last week, and the Big Ten said don’t even apply.
“Again, just a rumor, but a interesting rumor.”
http://texas.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=61&tid=161535251&mid=161535251&sid=902&style=2
LikeLike
Also FWIW:
Looking at a Villanova board since BE expansion has been so quiet lately (quiet on that board as well). Did see on vuhoops.com a supposed personal discussion from some time back with a Louisville official, saying that Louisville was committed to the Big East and wasn’t interested in ACC or Big 12. Also that, similar to what Frank has been saying, the big city bb schools are valuable because they give entry into the big cities even if, like DePaul, they have been dismal lately. Official also said no way any ACC school goes to BE.
LikeLike
It’s mostly plausible on the surface, but there are way too many moving parts. You’d need inside info from multiple places to know this.
NCSU and VT would have to want to leave, and VT said they don’t.
UNC, Duke, MD and UVA would have to have reached an agreement already, and I highly doubt that.
The B10 is mostly done asking ND, but will never be completely done with them. I think the B10 would still ask ND before going to 16, with the understanding that getting to 16 is a final decision and there would never be another chance to join.
I could believe OU, OkSU, KU and MO being the 4 rumored to have talked to the B10 and been told no. MO and KU would be borderline academically and they are the best of the bunch.
LikeLike
Would the Big Ten be willing to shed a member down the road for ND?
Read: Nebraska
LikeLike
@Atlanticist,
No way. Nebraska is a big get for the B10, no way they or anybody else gets the boot.
LikeLike
No, the B10 wouldn’t drop anybody. Almost no conference drops any school except for extreme cases (rampant cheating, not even trying to win in sports, loss of accreditation, etc).
Most/all B10 schools bring significant value, and they do it in complementary ways. Nobody is going anywhere unless they want to for some strange reason.
LikeLike
If this happens, its because UVA and UNC have been sitting around for a year with open invites to the Big Ten but feeling unable to leave their sister schools. When the SEC expansion news hit this last week, they decided together to tell VaTech and NCSU that they would be happy to let them go together.
That’s all unlikely, but if it happens does the Big 12 get back to 12?:
OU, OSU, ISU, MIssouri, KU, KSU
UT, TT, Baylor, GT, Clemson, Miami
LikeLike
I think a new atlantic conference might form if MD, UVA, UNC and Duke go B10 and FSU, VT and NCSU go SEC with TAMU (I assume that’s what you mean).
Miami, Clemson and GT could provide a boost for a conference with most of the BE FB schools plus some others if needed. Try:
South – Miami, USF, GT, Clemson, UL, UC
North – WV, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers
Possible extras – UCF (Orlando, USF rivalry), ECU (adds NC), Temple (Philly), WF (also NC, decent sports, good academics)
LikeLike
Could the B1G, SEC, Big XII and Big East just walk in and divide up the ACC?
Given the above scenarios:
B1G – Maryland, Virginia, UNC and Duke
SEC – Florida St., VA Tech, and NC St. (and Texas A&M)
Big XII – Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Miami
I would guess Boston College and Wake Forest end up in the Big East. Notre Dame may end up there too. (Kind of becoming the Catholic / private school conference.)
All four of the above conferences would be able to claim victory for their additions (and / or survival), and the respective schools would be able to claim victory or at least great sufficiency “given the current state of affairs”. The great blood-letting of moving to super conferences would be over with only one notable conference death; but, sadly, who outside of Wake Forest would truly mourn it? It could be the big change that goes with a lot more ink spilled than tears.
How ironic that two of the seemingly most unstable conferences (Big East and Big XII) would survive?
The more I look at this, the more I wonder what would prevent this from happening? It is a near perfect scenario for everyone but ESPN. OH, that’s who would not want to see this. Look for ESPN to renegotiate the ACC contract within one year to “bring it up to speed” with other conferences.
LikeLike
Or, look for the ACC to raid the Big East, out of no where, in order to save itself; and then ESPN would renegotiate the contract. Either way, this potential scenario will cause chaos first.
LikeLike
BTW, the B12, if it takes in Clemson, Miami, and GTech, could very well expand to 14 eventually by taking 2 of BYU/TCU/Houston. That way, Texas could still tell recruits that they’d be playing virtually all their games in Texas as the divisions would be split between the “Texas” division and the “non-Texas” division (OK, the divisions would likely be called “West” and “East”). More importantly, the Big 14 could claim with to recruits that it’s the true Texas conference with 4-5 Texas schools vs. just TAMU in the SEC.
The northern Big8 schools also still get access to southern recruiting grounds.
Texas division:
Texas
TTech
Baylor
TCU/Houston/BYU
OU
OSU
non-Texas division:
Clemson
GTech
Miami
Mizzou
ISU
KSU
KU
LikeLike
crpodhaj:
But couldn’t the B10 and SEC raid the ACC as it’s raiding the BE? The ACC can’t claim innocence in that case, and the B10 and SEC will always bring in more TV money than any conference composed of ACC+some BE schools.
LikeLike
Or the B12 stays at 12 but Texas decides to claim Miami for its fiefdom (especially if the U is struck prone for decades by sanctions).
North:
Mizzou
KU
KSU
ISU
Clemson
GTech
South:
Texas
TTech
Baylor
OU
OSU
Miami
Interesting fact: Miami is the same distance from Atlanta as Columbia, MO is.
LikeLike
Schumpeter, indeed.
LikeLike
If Miami gets hammered and gets the death penalty (or even a few years of TV bans), could we even see the U get left out in the cold? If the U can’t play for a few years and FSU decides to go to the SEC (maybe in part because of what happens in Coral Gables), the ACC is ripe for the picking.
New B12:
East:
Mizzou
KU
KSU
ISU
Clemson
GTech
West:
Texas
TTech
Baylor
OU
OSU
Miami
BYU
LikeLike
What stops it is that it requires too much coordination between the SEC and Big 10.
LikeLike
Riffing on this idea, why not go Big20 (a Big20 with pods would actually allow more rivalry games than Big16 with pods: 4 permanent intrapod rivals and 10 schools you play half the time vs. 3 permanent intrapod rivals and 12 schools you play half the time).
East:
PSU
UMD
UVa
UNC
Duke
Central:
Michigan
OSU
MSU
IU
PU
Midwest:
UW
Iowa
Minny
UofI
Northwestern
West:
Nebraska
OU
Texas
2 other schools (OKSt.? Baylor? Rice?)
Central would rotate with East and Midwest to form divisions (as would West).
Central and West would never play each other, nor would Midwest and East, but I don’t think anyone would mind.
LikeLike
The divisions would even be fairly balanced.
LikeLike
The Big 12 would tell the SEC and Big 10 thank you!!!!!!!!
The logical 16th would have been Mizzou to fit geographically in the SEC.
So the new Big 16 would be the top dog with 5 kings.
UT,TT,Baylor,OU,OSU,KU,KSU,ISU
FSU,Miami,Clemson,GT,BC,WF,Pitt,Notre Dame
Not that I believe this rumour.
LikeLike
Uh, the SEC would pick FSU. You’d also have to wait a long time for ND to join a conference. Not sure why you’d want WFU or BC (or even Pitt).
LikeLike
The common theory is that the SEC has a gentlemen’s agreement not to take teams in the same state and the FL would block FSU. FSU or Vandy would have to be in the west if they did.
WF in this scenario is because this is a remant B12/ACC merger. And to keep ND happy by adding more private schools (but you’re right, they probably wouldn’t make the cut). This is the superconference scenario where ND feels compelled to join somewhere.
Like I said, I don’t believe the starting premise, but this is a relatively logical followup.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the SEC passes on FSU to take Mizzou no matter what UF says (and Mr. SEC, who’s probably most knowledgeable about that conference, scorns that idea as well).
LikeLike
I thought of this scenario before, but the rub is that the SEC would want to take both VTech and NCSU. The SEC doesn’t want to be first to 16 or be said to blow up a conference, but it would gladly let the B10 do the dirty deed. However, the B10 wouldn’t want to be said to be killing a conference either (and it would take a fair amount to get the B10 to 16). The core four ACC schools would _want_ to be hellbent about joining the B10 (they do have economic reasons for doing so) to put this in motion.
The B10 would not be getting the choice football properties, though good academics, great basketball, southern expansion (for recruiting) and population growth _may_ do it, especially if the B10 believes it can monetize basketball games with the BTN to a greater degree than previously (or the academic/research ramifications are greater than we think).
LikeLike
Compare these two maps:
Proposed Big Ten Future State (posted above):
US Density Map:
LikeLike
OK, how about a US density map that’s NOT 20 years old…
This one includes projections to 2030
LikeLike
Honest question: what are getting at?
LikeLike
If the goal is to get BTN to the areas where the eyeballs are, the MD/VA/NC corridor is the place to do it.
LikeLike
If we go to 16, I would have much rather had those 4 from the Big 12 than the 4 from the ACC. They just seem like (for sports at least) they’d integrate faster with the existing teams rather than feeling like an island of their own.
LikeLike
Neither is going to happen. It’s all bullshit.
LikeLike
I agree and fully expect their to be no Big Ten expansion.
LikeLike
Ironically, for a Buckeye fan, Columbus, OH is actually closer to any of the ACC core four than it is to the closest of the supposedly rejected B12 schools (Columbia, MO)
LikeLike
Richard,
There is more to separation than pure distance.
UNL is over 800 miles from Columbus. UK is less than 200, UTK is just over 350, Vandy is 375, SC is less than 575, UGA is under 600, Ole Miss is under 625, AL is 625, AU is under 675, MS St is 675, Ark is 775. That’s 10 of the 12 SEC schools (UF and LSU are farther). Does that mean OSU would fit better in the SEC than with NE?
LikeLike
The SEC is going to be sneakier moving about the country than the conferences were last year. They told their presidents to make sure the tail number on their plane wasn’t tracked when they went to the expansion meeting last Sunday.
http://www.macon.com/2011/08/17/1668880/sec-and-expansion-lunch-is-provided.html
LikeLike
Wow, seriously m(ag)? Now the SEC >> FAA? You’re infatuation is starting to creep me out. You’re like that freshman cheerleader head over heals the first week of school with that senior kid showing her attention, nevermind he is in his third year of sophomore math and taking two study halls and independent auto shop.
LikeLike
Yo Tex.
m(Ag) is saying the SEC learned from the fact that the flight plans of Larry Scott were traced last year in real time when he was visiting the great southwest. In flight plan changes, and even the plan to go to Lawrence that was then canceled were enabled by knowing Pat Kilkenny’s plane’s number. at least that is how I understand it.
LikeLike
I believe BoilerTex’s point is that the SEC planes cannot elect to secede from our nation’s air traffic control system. The P12 plane was purposely giving an erroneous flight plan before takeoff and changing mid-flight to confuse anyone tracking it. But you can’t just elect to not be tracked.
LikeLike
Agreed. But you can avoid being tracked by someone outside the system if they are unable to see the tail number on a plane that someone is observed to be boarding.
LikeLike
There is also a procedure delist your plane from websites like FlightAware. I believe that was what the SEC was asking the presidents to do.
LikeLike
Understand Crider. But, correct me if I’m wrong, that is all regulated by the FAA, right? Flight plans are pre-registered. I’m pretty sure the SEC can’t call up the FAA and tell them they have a secret trip to make and would prefer they don’t track their trip. Or at least I hope they can’t do that…Al Quaida may be infiltrating the Mississippi State AD before too long 😉
LikeLike
I think the SEC presidents will use planes not associated with them normally (like renting a plane owned by someone else). While the plane must file a flight plan, it does not have to report which passengers are onboard.
LikeLike
Red Denver.
There were pics of the Auburn and Florida plane sitting next to each other on the Atlanta tarmac this past weekend (the modern world of cell phones and TMZ stalkers) that showed up on the internet already.
The bigger issue is why is somebody like TMZ not assigning a person or two to just follow Larry Scott around. He wanted 16 in the first place, so he should be pushing for OU + oSu right now.
LikeLike
Duffman, et al
If this report was true to any extent, doesn’t this all sound totally ridiculous to you? If the SEC is sending out these type of instructions, they really do need a massive overhaul of college athletics.
LikeLike
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1818
A look at football versus MBB attendance (ave % capacity over 6 years) for all the AQs. Clearly, FB is king.
There are 2 big outliers – Miami and NW are both around 60% for both sports.
LikeLike
http://blog.philsteele.com/2011/08/12/2011-12-bowl-projections/
Phil Steele’s bowl projections from last week.
I’m guessing he might want his projection of Miami in the Sun Bowl back now.
LikeLike
Totally macro-thought here but there needs to be a few kings and barrons standing for the 4th superconference after the Big Ten, Pac and SEC consume who they want. Otherwise the 4th conference bastardization of the Big 12, ACC and Big East remnants, if any, will not be competitive and will eventually drain the likely end game of having the champions square off. Perhaps the current and future independents in football, ND, BYU and UT once the Big 12 folds, will be the anchors of the 4th super. I think any school would separate their football from the other sports if necessary to be part of the future super conferences.
LikeLike
Maybe those 3 want only 3 at the top tier. And presumably it would be 8 teams so they could all get at least their #2 in a playoff. The 4th conference would generally just get one team.
It almost looks like a conspiracy to eat the Big 12. Big 10 takes a nibble on Husker. Pac 12 dines on Buffalo. SEC is going after farmers. But I don’t think any of them have been able to plan that well. Everything seems to be kind of crazy and done on the fly.
LikeLike
If we actually got superconferes and a playoff to go with it, I’d expect that 3 superconferences would have automatic spots with the last spot up to the highest team of those left. I’m not sure it’s necessary to have 4 superconferences.
LikeLike
MIKEUM,
3 is all you need.
You keep the 4th spot every year for a “floater” that does not rely on a conference for its power like BSU / ND / UT / BYU / FSU. Why commit to a conference that offers up a DOA come bowl time – like Uconn this past season – when you can cherry pick the best of the rest each and every year.
LikeLike
Provided that a school would be readily available to replace them after its last year in the league, what are the chances that the ACC votes out Miami?
If Miami gets the death penalty, I think they’ve got to go. In spite of the scandals at UNC recently and FSU in recent years, I happen to believe the ACC has a certain level of credibility that it has to keep up, similar to the Big Ten. Keeping a program so horrendously laden with scandal that it manages to get the death penalty would ruin whatever credibility of “winning the right way” that the conference has left. Besides, if SMU’s post-death penalty history is any guide, Miami’s value would be rendered useless for the remainder of the ESPN television contract. I doubt Bristol would have any real objections.
If Miami doesn’t get the death penalty but gets long-term severe penalties, like a maximum of 60 scholarships per year for 5 years, postseason ban for 4 years, reduction in coaching assistants for 2-3 years, etc. (enough to drive away Al Golden and any decent head coaching candidate), would the ACC have a case to give them the boot?
I would say yes. Death penalty or not, Miami is going to be set back for a decade. They’re still going to be in awful shape when the ACC’s current contract runs out, especially if the sanctions actually fail to get handed down for another few years due to the NCAA’s snail-paced investigation process.
Thoughts???
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh – I really don’t think it will come to that. Besides the fact that I think a lot of people are jumping to the “death penalty” conclusion way too quickly (as I don’t believe that would happen at all), even if that ruling came down, Miami isn’t SMU in terms of stature or expendable like Temple. We’re talking about one of the 12 or 15 kings of college football
in one of the most important football recruiting areas in the country. No one seriously entertained the thought of the Pac-10 kicking out USC or the Big Ten kicking out Ohio State when they went through their recent troubles. Miami is in that same category – even if they’re down for a few years, that will always be a program that’s one good recruiting class away from being a national title contender again. The attractiveness of going to school in Miami is a massive draw that can’t be underestimated when trying to attract 18-year kids. Of course, that’s part of the reason why Miami (the school) is in trouble now. It’s a whole lot easier to get into a lot of precarious positions in Miami compared to, say, Tuscaloosa.
LikeLike
Frank,
They are number 3 in their state
They are private
They were almost terminated before Howard got there
They have fickle fans
They have been ineffective since the ACC went to 12
They have multiple pro teams in their home market
I disagree they are a “king” and can easily see the NCAA hammer fall
U$C & tOSU
#1 in their state
Both are in predator conferences
Fickle fans are not an issue
Both have MNC’s in current conference
Both have Rose Bowl “protection”
these 2 are actually kings
Look at the graph link from above, and Miami is right next to Northwestern in fan demand. Geeze, if Baylor is ahead of you in football fan support, the king argument goes right out the window ! I have said this before, but FSU, PSU, and Miami all did better before joining predator conferences with CCG’s (granted the B1G stayed at 11 for quite some time)
PSU was independent in 1982 & 1986
FSU was ACC in 1993 & 1999 (ACC had not added Miami, VT, BC yet)
Miami was 83 / 87 / 89 as Independent and 91 / 01 as Big East
compare the two
SMU had 2 MNC’s in the SWC in 1981 and 1982 (3rd in 1935)
Miami had 2 MNC’s in the BE in 1991 and 2001 (+3 others)
SMU = Dallas market, with Dallas Cowboys
Miami = Miami market, with Miami Dolphins
SMU = small private school
Miami = small private school
SMU = imploded SWC
Miami = implodes ACC ??
SMU = lead to 12 team model
Miami = lead to 16 team model ??
Frank, I know you like Miami, but step back and look as this from a “presidents” or “businessman” mindset. I think SMU is to UT / OU as Miami is to U$C / tOSU.
LikeLike
i agree with Duff. convict U is not a king. if the ncaa doesn’t come down hard on this, they may as well pack up and call it quits.
LikeLike
USC has very fickle fans as well if you look at their attendance over the years. Its just that their base is about twice as high as Miami.
I think of a king as being a nationally recognized “brand” that is frequently a threat to win an MNC. Miami fits that. Their merchandising fits that. You can find Miami shirts and caps everywhere in the country.
Yes, their attendance over the last 15 years is right between Texas Tech and Kansas State, but UGA is #5 and South Carolina is right between Notre Dame and Oklahoma. Noone would argue that S.Carolina is a king and noone but a really extreme SEC fan would argue that UGA is.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree with bullet on this. There are various indicators included in any measurement of what a “king” is, but Miami is a king. Among them are attendance, recruiting, location/TV markets, football revenue, MNCs won, conference championships won, major bowl games won, etc. Obviously, Miami is lacking on attendance/fanbase, but when you consider the national brand that they have in terms of moving the dial in places outside of Florida along with their 5 MNCs, and their recruiting location/talent availability, they’re clearly a king.
Even if Miami is solidly hammered by the NCAA (assuming a few years of bowl bans, heavy scholarship reductions, possible TV removal of games, etc.), they’ll be able to compete within a couple years of the reductions being removed. The location of Miami is one of the more unique for attracting talent in the southeast and is much more similar to USC than SMU in terms of how it captures the South Florida non-affiliated fanbase.
Florida is unique for having three kings, but it makes sense when you consider the locations of the three schools as well as the fact that they were in different leagues for so long, as well as the general quality of high school football in Florida (second only to Texas).
Texas A&M is obviously hoping for a similar result by going to the SEC. Even if you consider OU to be a “Texas-based” king because of how it’s almost entirely dependent on Texas recruiting, there’s enough space in Texas for three kings.
LikeLike
Frank’s fascination with Miami is indeed very odd……………Miami’s style has always reflected the larger city……that culture is as far away from that of the middle west as is possible…..not to mention the other points Duff makes…….Duff isn’t right too often but he is here……………
LikeLike
Duffman,
Frank said they were a top 12-15 program. Where would you put them? I wouldn’t call the whole list of 12-15 kings, but are you disagreeing about the title or the placement?
LikeLike
brian,
a) I hate the word king in america. We are a democracy, and folks have fought and died to keep us free. May be a small point, but it is a point.
b) I have posted before I believe in “brands” and as such I look at the math. If you have 120 D1 teams, I find it hard to believe you can have more than 12 “brands” (10% =12). As of right now my “brands” are:
B1G = Michigan / Ohio State / Nebraska / Penn State = 40%
SEC = Alabama / +1 (combination of UT / UF / LSU / UGA) = 20%
B12 = Oklahoma / Texas = 20%
PAC = Southern Cal = 10%
IND = Notre Dame = 10%
All these schools are the real deal
All have multi generational history
All can and do sell tickets – even when they are down
All have won MNC as strong conference members (ND plays good schedule/ JoPa is JoPa)
All maintain success (even if they falter for a decade or two)
All can move merchandise when they are down
All can operate 80,000+ seat venues
All are #1 in their home state
All are state schools (ND and U$C are grandfathered in)
What many on here are missing is that I am older, so my window is much greater with respect to time and history. Florida is hot now, but I remember MANY years when they were not. The thing I look at is who gets displaced to move the next school up BECAUSE there are a finite number of slots at the top. That is what greatness entails. For me to make FSU a brand, it means they must overtake PSU or UT.
some teams are “rockets” that rise and fall with a single coach, or single generation
FSU so far is Bobby Bowden, but will they be a force 10 or 20 years from now? If they can keep it up, and Texas had last year repeat for a decade or two, then UT would fall and FSU would rise, but that history has not been written yet. I am old school so this “everybody gets a ribbon” is not my mantra for being the best of the best. Love or hate Adolph Rupp or Pat Summitt they both stamped their mantra of “play the best to be the best” on their teams DNA. I not only understand this, but applaud it, and wish more top teams followed this over time.
Miami rode the lightning of independence the same way Boise State is now. Look at their 1st MNC in 83′. Florida owned them, and they played a few tough teams all season. In 88′ they played 12 games, and 8 were on their home field and FSU still kept them in state for the 9th. On the road they faced UC / Ark (SWC) / ECU on the road was not a killer road schedule. The 89′ team reminds me of Utah a few year ago when they beat BAMA. They played 4 ranked teams all season and one was their bowl opponent. They played Notre Dame at home that season. In 91′ EVERY ranked team they played, they did so in the state of Florida. That year they beat JoPa by 6 pts and FSU by 1pt. If they played PSU that year in Happy Valley do they still win that game? I was in the stands for some of the games when Miami was hot, and they played some real dogs (like BSU does right now).
I am not saying they were terrible, and they had many who went to the next level in the pros, but once you start playing in a decent conference those 0 – 2 loss seasons may become 2 – 4 loss seasons, and then you are no longer playing for a MNC. TCU and BSU may be the best teams ever, but until they play the same type of schedule that Alabama or Penn State does, they are not on a level field. If a team is great, it should still be able to win MNC’s but so far FSU and Miami have not done this (and ACC football is not the B1G or SEC top to bottom). I tell folks over and over that getting to the top is hard, but staying there is harder. Were teams getting up for teams like FSU and Miami in 1980 the same way they were for Michigan or Alabama in 1980? If Boise State played Ohio State last year, who is the underdog based on history?
If we ever do get to a playoff I think the days of Boise State & TCU now, and FSU & Miami in the early 80’s will become the exception, and not the rule. Like the NCAA, where you see the early round upsets, but none can keep winning to bring home the banner. In basketball teams like IU, UNC, UK, and KU you have teams that are used to EVERY team they play, plays them like it is their championship. The fact that they can continue to win in spite of this is what really separates the GOOD from the GREAT. If you are 20, your “window” of great is much different than if you are 80, and have a much bigger data pool to draw from. Yes the players are bigger / faster / stronger but maybe the guys from the 50’s were tougher (forged in a youth of depression and war).
Do I think FSU or Miami “could” be a brand? Sure, they just are not there yet, and their future history has not yet been written. However, a school like TAMU could overtake them with a separation from UT. Minnesota could return to glory, or all that Nike money could lift the ducks to long term sustained success. If we already knew what would happen, why would we watch in the first place? 😉
LikeLike
Duffman,
I get all of that, but you failed to answer an important part of the question. Where would you put them? Frank has them at 12-15. Would you go top 20? Top 40?
LikeLike
Boise hasn’t played a schedule anywhere as tough as Miami’s schedules during their MNC years. You would be better off comparing Miami back then with TCU, except with TCU playing the Longhorns every year (just as Miami played FSU every year).
LikeLike
Brian,
I would look at who else is knocking at the door, but top 20 sounds reasonable. Part of the problem is the SEC. Alabama is a “brand” and a top 5 one at that. Years ago I would have put UT as the SEC “brand” #2, but the past 20 years has clouded the issue with the rise of Florida and LSU. That gets you to 12 at least. VT and FSU are the teams in the ACC. B1G and PAC have at least 2 schools that could turn the corner. I would probably put them between 15 – 20 now, but if the future is big state schools and super conferences, they could easily drop from there. I sometimes look at Miami’s rise and fall and look at UCLA as the rocket version in college basketball. I think Ben may be the best thing for UCLA in awhile, but they are still not “Wooden Era” UCLA.
Richard,
I can buy that with no problem. At least TCU has bumped up to the BE. I can actually see TCU making a go in the ACC. Still, think playing a B1G or SEC schedule would add some extra L’s at the end of the season for the Horned Frogs.
LikeLike
Duffman,
Nobody will ever be Wooden-era UCLA again. You can’t use that as a measuring stick.
LikeLike
brian,
never say never, but I agree with you, just using it as an example anyone can follow. The Miami “rocket” in football, and the Duke “rocket” in basketball are similar. Women’s basketball offers the best view of “rockets” in the UTn and Uconn model. Pat = Adolph and Geno = Wooden, so who will be the coach K in women’s basketball in a decade or two? I think if the Super Conference comes, you will actually see another Wooden type coach possibly arise (maybe not to the same extent, but relative to the age). If realignment’s end result is consolidation and not expansion, then a shrinking pool means a possible higher probability for clear separation. In a 4 team football playoff, or a 16 team basketball playoff, it would insure the probability that an “brand” team does not get upset early on. I think of the KU loss in the NCAA, and their exit from a championship game, might become a distant past.
LikeLike
If the U gets the death penalty or even multi-year TV bans, we very well could see the ACC disintegrate. They won’t get kicked out, but it’d be questionable if they’d get picked up (which means that a decade or 2 later, they could set off conference expansion again after rising up).
LikeLike
At the risk of piling on…
Private schools have a constant struggle for attendance and support even when they are good, dwindling to almost nothing when they are bad. In 5 years or 10 years when they recover from the sanctions, no recruit and no fan under 30 will remember that they were once good. Adding to that Miami doesn’t care about any sports teams and Miami U has an undergraduate population of ~10k. They simply won’t have the facilities, the stadium, or the budget.
I bet USF or UCF makes a BCS bowl before Miami does again.
LikeLike
Very few schools have recruting grounds as fertile as Miami’s, however. USF is somewhat nearby (and there’e FAU & FIU), but even the other Florida schools are a long drive away from Miami. SMU never recovered because Texas, OU, and TAMU can easily take from DFW. Miami is in a similar situation (geographically) to USC/UCLA. Even if both LA schools get the death penalty, the local talent is so fertile (and so far away from any other schools) that one of those 2 (USC) should rise up again.
LikeLike
SMU never recovered because the only times they were really good was 1935-1950 and then 1981-1984 when they were paying players. On top of that, they lost their major conference membership and they implemented some strong academic standards so they won’t take a lot of people Miami would.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree that the DP is unlikely, and it is certainly too soon to assume it (if the NCAA backs up Yahoos claims and more, then things get real).
I think you might be surprised at how slow Miami would be to come back from the DP, though. A lot of other schools will move in and take over their recruiting grounds, including local schools like FIU. UF wasn’t a power for much of Miami’s success, either. On the plus side, I’m not sure the shame factor that kept so many away from SMU would be as big nowadays.
LikeLike
Just because the NCAA President says they need to start doing more severe penalties, that doesn’t mean they are ready to implement yet. I don’t think its going to be significantly worse than USC. Miami can also argue these were on the same time frame as Ohio St. who got a tiny slap on the wrist for severe infractions known about by the head coach and so they shouldn’t get two arms and two legs amputated for doing the same thing with just more players and more coaches knowing, but only one rouge booster.
LikeLike
@bullet: At the risk of starting an unwanted argument, I have to defend my school. If Miami tries that defense the NCAA should backhand the attorney. What OSU was charged with by the NCAA versus what the media opted to charge them with in the court of public opinion are two drastically different things. The SI and Dispatch articles have been largely disproven or, at the very least, couldn’t be proven by the NCAA. This is ultimately why I’ve said that while the Yahoo article looks quite well researched and documented, wait for the NCAA to officially charge Miami before determining the validity of a punishment. In the end the NCAA didn’t charge OSU with a third of what ESPN and others were publishing daily. You’d think Tressel was covering up the second JFK gunman the way ESPN camped out in Columbus digging for stuff (which they did, for weeks, and couldn’t come up with anything substantial still).
But, in all honesty, let’s compare these for a second. All the NCAA was able to prove was that (a) OSU players were trading memorabilia and equipment for tattoos and cash, and (b) Tressel knew nine months prior to the NCAA being notified. My understanding is they couldn’t prove they received the bigger stuff (cars, weed) for memorabilia. The other stuff wasn’t proven or was proven to be shoddy journalism — some examples being Thaddeus Gibson’s free 300M that wasn’t (reported by the Dispatch and debunked by Ohio BMV) and Pryor’s oh-so-shocking $18k 350Z, which a quick glance on KBB.com would’ve told any journalist that $18k for a used, base model 350Z with 80k miles isn’t entirely unreasonable. But hey, why let logic get in the way of a good narrative. SI’s claims of 24 athletes? Largely debunked or couldn’t be proven. Admittedly, there’s been way too much smoke around Pryor (especially with Sarniak), but the NCAA hasn’t been able to prove anything yet aside from the tats. Does it mean nothing happened? No, of course not. But truth and what the NCAA finds aren’t always the same.
Now juxtapose that with Miami, assuming all of this is true and can be proven by the NCAA (again, nothing’s been proven yet). Buying basketball recruits. Cash, strippers, prostitutes, apparently an abortion, use of a yacht, cars, etc. Claims of more than 72 players. This wasn’t just some rogue booster running around the outskirts of campus trying to leech onto players as they stepped out for a sandwich — this guy had his own luxury box a couple doors down from the president, he ran out of the tunnel with the team on more than one occasion, was meeting recruits, etc. He was very close to the program.
How are these two even close?
Moreover, and I can’t stress this enough, OSU self-reported their transgressions to the NCAA. A whistleblower didn’t do it for us. The feds tipped off Tressel, supposedly he held onto it (I’m still undecided), and eventually an email audit caught him. Also, OSU didn’t receive “a tiny slap on the wrist”, given that they haven’t been given anything yet whatsoever aside from the punishments OSU suggested. The NCAA has yet to hand out official punishment. They aren’t even officially done with the entire investigation.
LikeLike
If Miami doesn’t get the death penalty or the next closest thing to it, seriously… why even pretend to be amateur anymore? Why have any rules at all?
This was a program that was deemed a repeat offender in 2004-2005 regarding baseball based on the events of the 1990’s–which just happens to be the right in the middle all of this was going on. Forde called it a repeat-repeat-repeat offender.
Granted, these allegations are more severe than the prior ones. But does a murderer avoid punishment because his only prior convictions were for two larceny felonies? No. He is a third-time felon and sentenced accordingly. The first and second felonies were the warning to straighten up. Miami had its warnings.
LikeLike
Remember with SMU it was a regular planned set of large $ payments approved by the board of regents and then continued after they got penalized the first time. Its said one player (don’t remember whether it was Eric Dickerson or Craig James or someone else) joked that he had to take a pay cut to play in the NFL. That’s a whole scale beyond Miami’s assistant coaches and one booster doing what they did.
LikeLike
bullet,
I agree SMU’s was much worse, especially since they just kept paying players after being busted for it and it was done by the school itself.
The risk is that if the NCAA uses the willful violations exception, then Miami football is a repeat offender from the Pell Grant scandal of the 90s. That’s worse than it being 2 different sports (baseball in the 00s). Also, 2 sports are involved here which is worse than just one.
I think Miami avoids the DP, but I’m guessing that you are underestimating their penalties (assuming everything Yahoo charged gets charged by the NCAA).
LikeLike
They’re close in style, but obviously not in scale. Both had well known benefits available to players. And to me, the head coach hiding info and lying to the NCAA and continuing to play players is very serious. That’s much more “institutional” than assistant coaches (although they may have participated at Miami rather than just covering up).
Some people say the NCAA protects brand schools. I just think they are petty and incompetent. The reality (beyond the cooperation issue once the investigation started) of what happened at Ohio St. and Georgia Tech was vastly worse at Ohio St., but GT is getting very serious penalties, basically because they ticked off the enforcement officers. The NCAA seems to hit the recurring offenders, like SMU was, Auburn, Texas A&M, Arizona St. very hard. They hit schools like UK who they suspect they just haven’t caught very often very hard. Schools with good reputations who play nice once they get caught just don’t seem to get hit very hard.
LikeLike
@bullet:
I can certainly agree with part of that. They’re close in style, but certainly not in severity. I’m not disputing the seriousness of Tressel’s violations. As much as I hate it, he made a poor decision and has paid the price for it.
The key to the NCAA has always been cooperation. Fight them and it’s just worse in the end. That’s a big reason why USC was hit as hard as they were — they fought with the NCAA every step of the way it seemed. Same with GT. Kind of like when you were a kid. Backtalking and bickering about stuff generally ended in more discipline.
The media likes to point out how many infractions OSU has reported during Tressel’s era. What most seemed to ignore is that OSU was self-reporting them, even the tiny ones, and because of that OSU generally fared better in the end. In regards to whatever sanctions are handed out this time, I doubt that will be different. On the whole OSU’s compliance has been pretty good; unfortunately, they let their guard down with someone they trusted and got burned for it.
LikeLike
OSU had a handful of players while GT had 2. OSU’s coach lied by the department cooperated fully, while GT’s administration obstructed an investigation by directly disobeying instructions from the NCAA. GT also had multiple sports involved. That seems more institutional than 1 coach to me.
GT got probation, a fine and vacated 3 games (only 1 win, but it was the ACCCG). OSU vacated a whole season, is paying back more in bowl money than GT was fined, fired their coach and will also get probation. How does that translate to OSU getting a slap on the wrist (from an earlier post) while GT gets very serious penalties?
As for punishing repeat offenders harder, of course they do. And they should. UK got hit hard in hoops the last time because they were a repeat offender. Having an active compliance department and a history of cooperation should help a school.
LikeLike
bullet,
I agree the DP seems unlikely at this point. I do expect the sanctions to be much worse than USC’s though. If all the Yahoo stuff is supported by the NCAA, you are talking an order of magnitude more players involved than OSU and for much larger total benefits (over $1M) than anybody else.
OSU’s case isn’t over, and UNC’s has barely begun so I don’t think they are great comparisons. I also think you are overstating the severity of the OSU violations. Of the charged ones, only Tressel’s was a major violation and he lost his job and will presumably get a lengthy show cause penalty. You may have wanted more to be charged, but that’s a different subject.
To paraphrase you, Miami is looking at severe infractions by 10 times as many players and known about by multiple coaches in multiple sports for many years. How many years of lying to the NCAA by signing the same form as Tressel signed did all those coaches go through? And as you noted, being actually involved in the infractions is worse than not telling about them (which they also did). On top of all that, they had a background check that said he owned a sports agency and they still let him around the program. This case sounds more like USC than OSU to me, but with many more players involved.
USC lost 2 bowls and will start to lose 30 scholarships over 3 years (75 max). I’d expect more from Miami, maybe as many as 15 per year for 5 years (75 total). I’d also expect a longer bowl ban and maybe a TV ban or large fine.
LikeLike
Michael,
What are the ACC’s rules for membership? Do they specify reasons to get rid of a school? What sort of vote is required? It takes 75% to add a school IIRC, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it takes 75% to kick one out. It may require unanimity.
A change in membership could also lead to ESPN renegotiating the TV contract. The replacement for Miami could lead to a drop in value. Of course if Miami gets the DP, which they won’t, the ACC would only have 11 teams competing and that potentially means no CCG and a renegotiated contract (or a clause kicks in to devalue it automatically).
LikeLike
I think the real concern for the NCAA is that so many players and schools are peripherally involved (assuming these claims are true). The coaches are at 4 or 5 different schools.
LikeLike
They seem to be clearing all the players. Marve and Charles have already been cleared to play according to UGA and Purdue.
The coaches may be a problem for the other schools, though.
LikeLike
Cam Newton was cleared to play too. They aren’t going to stop anyone from playing unless they have solid evidence. These players aren’t necessarily permanently out of the woods.
LikeLike
They haven’t taken the usual step of declaring them ineligible first and then having the schools petition to reinstate them, though. Even Newton had to go through that process. As I noted below, they also haven’t said anything about the current Miami players.
LikeLike
Apparently the rules violations do not follow the player once they transfer. That’s what K-State said the NCAA told them.
LikeLike
That makes some sense, since the violation supposedly gave Miami an advantage. Still, you’d think there would be at least a token suspension for the players.
LikeLike
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/17/1978033/opinions-vary-about-miami-probes.html
Here’s a link with a quote that discusses the topic a little. I’m guessing this rule might change as part of the overhaul the NCAA has mentioned.
LikeLike
Georgetown – China brawl.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/photos-of-georgetown-brawl-in-china/2011/08/18/gIQApHsVNJ_blog.html
LikeLike
The expanded NCAA tourney and conference tourneys have been blamed for making college basketball’s regular season less important and less followed relative to the postseason. For me, one of the contributing factors was Georgetown and the Big East. They turned college basketball into more of a wrestling match, much like the NBA could be, reducing the differentiation. The foul calls are so much lighter and more discretionary than they used to be before the Big East style took over in the 80s. The skill sets of the players are so much worse as well (incredible athleticism, no skills). Its hard to get a rhythm with all the bumping of the ball handlers. And if its not a foul without broken bones, its hard to get pure shooters like a Larry Bird or Rudy Tomjanovich.
LikeLike
Saw in the paper the other day that ESPN and CUSA settled their lawsuit. ESPN got the CUSA championship game but Fox got to keep the regular season. No financial terms were discussed. I would speculate they just matched what Fox was going to pay and CUSA and Fox decided to accept that and move on.
LikeLike
So… who came out better?
I vote “none of the above.”
LikeLike
Two Tweets from Krik Bohls.
>>Longhorn Network will show a second UT football game this season, ESPN veep Burke Magnus says<> Longhorn Network also hopes to show highlights of high school football games. Oh, boy. Here we go<<
LikeLike
I’m guessing second game will be K-State (see above). Sorry about the formatting.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-08-18/college-football-has-a-rulebook-it-needs-a-conscience
An article I totally agree with. The problem isn’t the rulebook, it’s a lack of conscience. Unless people want to follow the rules, it doesn’t matter what the rules are.
LikeLike
Actually, the problem is that the incentives aren’t aligned with the rulebook. People will always do what’s in their self-interest (yes, there are benefits to trusting others, relying on rule of law, and all the societal aspects that are the foundation of an open democratic capitalist civil society, which doesn’t rely at all on people having a conscience).
Make it illegal to buy/sell at market price (rent control; college player “wages”) or engage in consenting activities that don’t harm others (drugs; certain sexual acts like homosexuality in the past; college players partaking in goods and services provided by boosters) and surprise, surprise, people will break the rules.
LikeLike
The individual incentives are never aligned with the rule book/laws/code of ethics. If they were, the rules would be unnecessary. The rules exist (ideally) in order to make individual incentives closer to societal incentives.
Every society, even an open democratic capitalist society, depends on at least some of the people have something of a conscience. Otherwise, those in power decide that what they have is golden, and they shouldn’t give it away for nothing.
Someday I hope to live in a world where a 40 year old can buy a prostitute for a teenager and not face these sorts of attacks on his character.
LikeLike
They can try to turn it in to an oligarchy, but whether they succeed or no depends not at all on whether they have a conscience but whether the masses are enlightened enough to oppose them (or whether they vote for the Alabamization of the whole country).
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-08-18/miami-players-eligibility-others-already-cleared-marve-brown-brothers-ncaa
Important and interesting questions are raised in this article. How/why have all of the non-Miami players in the Yahoo report been cleared to play already? And why haven’t the Miami players also been cleared, or have they?
LikeLike
http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2011/08/mark-white-former-tx-governor-says-am-would-be-making-a-permanent-mistake-to-leave-big-12.html
Former TX governor and Baylor grad think Rick Perry and the legislature should consider funding cutbacks for TAMU if they join the SEC, to keep them in the B12. He cites the Perryman report of the cost to TX of the B12 losing TAMU, but it should be noted that Perryman is also a Baylor grad.
LikeLike
http://www.alongtheolentangy.com/2011/8/18/2370075/expansion-the-dollars-and-sense
The first in a series looking at conference expansion. This one has some good financial details in it.
LikeLike
Great link. Looking forward to part II.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/45060/big-ten-ads-discuss-9-game-league-slate
3 B10 ADs (WI, PU, NW) talk about the 9 game schedule. It would have been nice to get one of the kings, too, but WI has many of the same issues (just to a lesser extent).
According to them, they expect the I-AA games to be the ones that go away.
LikeLike
I think you got almost everything from the three of them (the ND concern from Purdue, the attendance issues from NU, and the top program concerns from Wisconsin which is clearly the #5 school in the conference in terms of football program strength just below the kings).
I think Wisconsin and the others just accept that they’re going to increase the value of the TV contracts in an amount that will probably outweigh the loss of that game and considering the cost of a guarantee game as well, that should help mitigate the loss. Also, it’s more about making things tricky in terms of maintaining the 7 game home schedule, since most schools only rarely dabbled with the 8 home game schedule before, so it’s not as if it’s that much of a detriment.
LikeLike
If he was limited to 3 ADs, I agree that was a solid choice of 3. But MI also has the ND issue and can give a very different perspective from Purdue, while OSU, PSU and NE could give the perspective without the locked OOC opponent. IN probably has a different opinion from NW on some issues due to the rural/Chicago differences.
LikeLike
ADs like to talk about strong scheduling, but in order to maintain 7 home games, these schools are going to have to schedule 5 of every 6 OOC games in a two year span at home. Which probably means BCS, MAC, FCS. I don’t see how they can remove FCS from the table. I guess they could remove FCS and just play teams from the lowest FBS conferences. Having two BCS OOC games in one season is darn near impossible, outside of neutral site games.
Schools like Indiana and Purdue may be able to drop to 6 home games, as they may have trouble selling tickets to the worst matchups.
LikeLike
Schools like NW have often played 6 home games before.
LikeLike
As for FCS, right now many schools play 1 AQ, 2 non-AQs and 1 I-AA. It’s still a net benefit for fans that they’ll probably drop the I-AA for the extra B10 game. Even if they drop the second non-AQ and keep the I-AA, fans still win. It’s only if they trade the OOC AQ for the extra B10 game that fans lose, and only a little bit at that (less variety).
LikeLike
I think the reason the I-AA will more likely go away is two-fold. One as they said, they may be sold out, but the stands aren’t full. Fans aren’t happy. Second is that with the AQs (P12, B10, B12) going to 9 games the demand for ooc games will go down driving down the price. Right now the I-As are going for around $1 million and the I-AAs around 400k. So more schools are scheduling the I-AAs. So in recent years the demand for ooc games from AQs has (or will) dropped by 32.
LikeLike
NU, IU, PU, and Minny (after the new stadium effect wears off) may drop their FCS game for a home-and-home with comparable OOC schools if the increase in fan interest is big enough. The mathematical fomula is simple. NU is especially incented to go this route as we have alums nationwide (but especially on the East Coast) and we don’t have students on campus the first 2 weeks or so. HaH > 2*FCS – guarantee (in either ticket sales or donations or TV ratings) for it to make sense. Maybe they’d drop the FCS game for a MAC opponent if the differential is made up for by increased fan interest/TV ratings (though that’s harder to see).
Or maybe the PU AD is just speaking for himself.
The schools that want 7 home games will still (pretty much have to) schedule an FCS opponent.
LikeLike
Richard,
Your logic escapes me. Why would teams that want 7 home games have to schedule a I-AA? Other than OSU throwing a bone to YSU, OSU never plays I-AA’s and plays 7 or 8 home games. Why wouldn’t OSU be able to keep buying 2 MAC games every year?
LikeLike
True, they wouldn’t have to, so I should just say that they are financially incented to, since the kings would still fill their stadiums regardless of who they play, and FCS schools are cheaper.
LikeLike
I also wonder how much of this is pressure from the BTN (especially on the lower-rung members) to drop their FCS games for more HaH games with OOC peers. Considering that advertising revenues increase expotentially, one game with a rating of 2.0 is almost certainly worth more than two games with a 1.0 rating each. I doubt anyone but diehards would watch NU or PU vs. an FCS team so even NU vs. Army (or Duke) or PU vs. Cincy would easily garner twice the raings of a game vs. an FCS opponent.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m guessing that overall a MAC game pays for itself versus a I-AA because fans and donors are happier and probably spend more.
LikeLike
That logic is, um, tenuous. You mean they’re happier so they donate more? I can’t imagine that fans buy more concessions or gear during a MAC game than during an FCS game.
LikeLike
More fans stay until the end, even for a MAC game. Also, many fans feel like they got screwed with a I-AA so they intentionally buy less than normal (food and gear). People won’t travel as far or stay in town as long, either, so it hurts the whole city.
The intangible benefit of not playing a I-AA has value, too.
LikeLike
Brian:
You have proof of this?
LikeLike
Richard,
My proof is anecdotal, but I’ve been to MAC games at OSU and I talked with fans after the Youngstown St games. People left the YSU games extra early and spent less on concessions and gear because they felt like paying full price was a rip off. Many alumni got YSU as their 1 game that year, so they weren’t going to just not go but they weren’t happy. More people than usual drove in the morning and said they were going straight home. Only knowing it was because they were Tressel’s old school made it even marginally acceptable to many fans.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/08/18/texas-longhorn-network.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a7
“The opportunities are just huge for each (Big 12) institution,” Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said. “I think as time goes by we’ll all learn how to better use those opportunities and get past somebody having a network.”
During an open house of the Longhorn Network studios, on the outskirts of the UT campus, Dodds sounded confident of the Big 12’s survival. He called the league too unique to simply mirror the television deals struck by the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC, and said he believed every Big 12 school could launch a network of its own.
Dodds singled out Kansas State, which this week announced that it will launch an online sports network.
“I think in 30 years the Big 12 will look smart for doing it this way,” Dodds said.”
—————————————————————————————
The funny thing is that Dodds is way too smart to believe any of what he just said. Sure, Texas will probably look smart for going this route, but for the rest of the schools with the lone exception of possibly Oklahoma, the synergy of a conference network (i.e. in terms of carriage inside/outside footprint and having all the non-Network/Cable TV games on it) far outweighs the value of a solo network over a small state/population with no power over out of state providers.
Also, that 30 years bit is such a joke. I mean if that rumor about Oklahoma inquiring the Big Ten about an OU/OSU package with two other Big 12 schools, that means that even Oklahoma has considered leaving Texas’ side if it has to…
LikeLike
And if that report of the LHN looking to air HS FB highlights is true …
LikeLike
What a worthless article – of course UT and ESPN think it’s a good idea. The only real news in there is that, despite the recent B12 moratorium on a conference game and HS football on the LHN, UT and ESPN are still pursuing it.
Seems to me UT is doing just about everything they can to push the rest of the B12 as far as they can. I hope this is their way of going independent by blowing up the conference, otherwise they’re just making their own conference into a hate fest.
LikeLike
The article points out that KSU just launched their on-line network. And Hawaii beat UT to the punch. They just launched their U of Hawaii network. The Pac 12 is doing the same thing, just pooled, with their 6 regional networks.
And for all the complaining about UT, the fact is that they have no more rights than they did in 1996 and they have LESS rights than ANY SEC school does. SEC schools get to withhold one game from the network package.
Its funny to hear the SEC schools talk about how equal they are when they are closer to the Big 12 model than they are to the new Pac 12, ACC or Big 10. Its also funny for them to talk about equality when the old Big 12 produced 6 different champions and 7 different division champs in 15 years while the SEC has produced 6 different champions and 9 different divisions champs in 20 years. Looks pretty similar. Big 12 (including 2) had 7 different teams finish in the top 10 in the last 10 years + TT finishing 12th after being in the top 10 most of the year. SEC has had 6, the same 6 who won conference titles.
LikeLike
UT had the right to a home conference game (with approval and a payout) in 1996?
SEC schools get one game and UT gets one too. What rights do SEC schools get that UT doesn’t?
LikeLike
UT doesn’t have the right. They can get conference approval (assuming the internet stories are correct) AND get the other school to agree to it. SEC schools get to select a game and don’t have to get permission (although I am sure some games are off-limits).
LikeLike
SEC schools don’t get conference games, or even their top home OOC game (FL/FSU, GA/GT, etc).
And you should note that I included the conditions for UT to get that home B12 game. Did they have anything like that right in 1996?
LikeLike
Bullet:
I believe the phrase i’ve seen several times is “aproval of the conference office”. Does that mean all of the conference? 75%? Simple majority? Dodds alone? The secretary? 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe having ESPN being the official owner of the Longhorn Network will allow them to get away with broadcasting high school highlights, but I don’t think there is any doubt that it violates the spirit of the recruiting rules. When coaches aren’t allowed to mention recruits names or schools are not allowed to show a recruit on the video screen if they are visiting during a game, it makes no sense that their games can be televised on a school’s network.
Forget the Big 12, the rest of the NCAA schools should be fighting this. The more I hear about Texas the more I realize they would not be good partners in the B1G.
LikeLike
I would guess this is more ESPN than UT. ESPN needs something to draw subscribers and viewers. HS FB is so big in TX that they are counting on it to put pressure on distributors.
LikeLike
http://www.mac-sports.com/News/tabid/969/Article/136246/MAC-Announces-New-Basketball-Tournament-Format.aspx
The new MAC BB tournament plan – innovative, idiotic or something else?
LikeLike
Assuming the old format didn’t have byes (or only one buy for the top 8), I like this better. For the big conferences it doesn’t matter, but I always hate to see the regular season winner of any conference not make the NCAA Tournament. This gives the team that did best in the regular season an extra leg up, which I think they deserve.
LikeLike
My thoughts exactly, Eric.
LikeLike
The BE coaches sometimes complain about the bye making teams rusty. Is that a problem for this layout?
LikeLike
The MAC has always had trouble with math. I didn’t study the article, but it looks like they go from 12 to 8 with 4 as 4 teams have byes. Then they go from 8 to 5 with 2 byes. Then they have 5 teams in a semi-final when they are supposed to have 4. So unless I missed something by reading quickly, I vote something else-beyond idiotic.
My concern even if it did work mathematically is that the 1 & 2 would face a tough 3 & 4 without having a game to work out the jitters.
LikeLike
1 and 2 get byes into the semis. 3 and 4 get byes into the quarters.
Bold = bye into that round:
First round:
5/12, 8/9, 7/10, 6/11
Second:
5/8, 6/7
Quarters:
4/5, 3/6
Semis:
1/4, 2/3
LikeLike
See it now. I missed a round and was thinking quarterfinals meant 8 teams. I think they’ll find more upsets.
LikeLike
@Brian
One of the discussions when they expanded the bb tourney from 52 to 64 was that there were a lot of 1st round upsets because of the rustiness/nerves factor. I think UK may have been upset two years in a row after getting a bye.
LikeLike
TV bans and the death penalty are unlikely to return according to Julie Roe Lach (NCAA VP for enforcement). They lean more towards postseason bans and coach suspensions and that’s the feedback they get.
Also:
A former NCAA investigator said if this all bears out, the Miami case is similar to USC but much bigger in scope.
LikeLike
I should point out that NCAA president Mark Emmert said on the radio today that he is not opposed to bringing back the death penalty. He thinks people need to fear the NCAA’s sanctions.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=ys-miami_violations_statute_of_limitations_081811
And the NCAA has officially told Miami they are considering using the willful violator clause to void the statute of limitations in this case. That could extend the case back to 2002, and Miami was on probation from 2003-2005 for baseball.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why they don’t ban home OOC games. I understand that OOC games are scheduled up to a decade out, but you could ban them for, say, 4 years starting 4 years from now, which would allow schools to reschedule. The violating school could juggle the schedules so that they play virtually all their OOC games at home in the years around the ban period, but it would still hurt power programs that depend on 7-8 home games a year, and it would kill recruiting if kids know they’ll play only 4-5 home games a year (plus it’s tougher to win when you play 7-8 away games a year). If that and decade-long postseason bans don’t put the fear of violations in programs and boosters, I’m not sure what will.
LikeLike
Rumor is that aTm wasn’t on the Big 12 call/meeting in which it was decided to let UT have their conference game on the LHN.
http://twitter.com/#!/stevefullhart
http://twitter.com/#!/ChipBrownOB
LikeLike
That’s highly uncool, even if he was counted as an automatic “No” vote for the conditions they approved. Why shouldn’t TAMU get a say, unless he voluntarily left the call in protest?
LikeLike
That’s the question. Did Loftin hang up, or was he asked to not vote? I don’t see why the Big 12 would ask him not to vote if they want to keep aTm around.
LikeLike
He probably knew what the agenda was before hand. By not being on the call, he can claim the Big 12 was being underhanded if he leaves, or if aTm stays, he can claim that he never voted against the initiative.
LikeLike
Since he was on the call at the start, whether he hung up or was asked to hang up is an important distinction.
LikeLike
Couple Internet Rumors: OU, Missouri and Va Tech to the SEC from an A&M booster at a meeting last night to a Houston Radio station…has already been shot down by Billy Lucci of Rivals of A&M.
All the rumors/assumptions coming out of Oklahoma has OU and OSU going to the PAC. as an OU fan, personally I hope we ditch OSU, and can get B1G to think being tier one University and the best football program in the nation (historically..and recent success) would be enough.
Today was not a good day for the Texas 10 Conference.
LikeLike
Redhawk
Is what you are hearing still that OU has no interest in SEC?
LikeLike
yep…and that’s about all I’m hearing. Our President wants NO part of the SEC. Thinks the recruiting is too slimy for OU…and that’s saying something. PLUS SEC doesn’t want OSU too. OU will only give up OSU for the B1G. (and even then I’m not sure OU has reached that point yet)
I have a friend that knows people, and he said last week, “OU is talking to EVERYBODY”….which isn’t really saying anything.
My bet is Okla will end up in the PAC
LikeLike
Does that mean Oklahoma is not tied to Oklahoma State? That could be a big factor in future expansion plans.
LikeLike
yes, that’s what it means. OU would prefer to stay with OSU but there is nothing legally tying the 2…but for the B1G I think OU could separate..for the SEC, they wouldn’t, and the PAC would most likely prefer them as a pair.
I wrote a long article on it here:
http://www.crimsonandcreammachine.com/2011/8/12/2360002/are-oklahoma-and-oklahoma-state-really-a-package-deal
LikeLike
I know they are not legally tied together, but do you think the politicians would step in a force the Sooners to take the Cowboys with them if it looked like Oklahoma State would be left with no good options? If they aren’t packaged with OU there is a very good chance OSU would be stuck begging for Big East membership or accepting mid-major purgatory.
Given that the new governor is a Cowboy and T. Boone has money to throw around, aren’t we looking at repeat of what happened in Texas back in the mid-90’s when the legislature, governor and LT governor forced UT and aTm to drag along TTU and Baylor?
LikeLike
@fruge The Gov. being an OSU person is the biggest issue. The legislature doesn’t have any say. They aren’t going to pull funding and hurt the premier University in the state. And it’s a college football state, no one wants OU AND OSU in the MWC.
As for T.Boone, OU’s Pres David Boren is an equal politician.
LikeLike
I know they would never force both of them to go to the MWC, but what if the the options were OU and OSU both go to the PAC-1X or OU goes to the Big 10 and OSU goes to the MWC. Then would OU be allowed to the accept the Big 10 invitation? (let’s assume for a moment that OU would prefer Big 10 to the PAC even though they may not be true).
LikeLike
Good write up on the situation. It will be interesting to see how long OU sticks with OSU if the Big 12 starts to crumble.
LikeLike
Of course, talking to everybody could mean just being properly prepared for contingencies. That would be consistent with that Austin article which said A&M was making everyone nervous.
LikeLike
@Bullet yes his answer was vague. I asked, “even the Big 10?” and he said “everybody”. I get the feeling it’s a bit more than “contingency” planning…more like trying to work the best deal. Also OU has National Title dreams, so I doubt anything will be done during the season that might hurt OU’s chances and calls (see Neb vs A&M last year)
LikeLike
If I was Delany, I’d take OU if Texas comes along and we don’t have to take OK State. Delany almost certainly feels the same way. The B10 presidents may need convincing, but I think they can be persuaded (especially with UNL already part of the conference).
However, I also think that the Pac is most likely for the OK schools since they’d likely take OK State to get OU (which I believe neither the B10 or SEC is willing to do, and it seems like OU has no interest in the SEC anyway).
LikeLike
Riffing on this, Texas becomes more likely 2 years from now if the LHN turns out to be a money-loser for ESPN (not out of the question).
LikeLike
(for either the B10 or Pac)
LikeLike
Pryor eligible for Supplemental Draft, yet suspended for 5 games.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6873163/terrelle-pryor-eligible-nfl-sit-first-five-games
LikeLike
Austin paper’s take.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/aggies-should-just-man-up-create-a-network-1761419.html
And compared to last year, there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of rumours floating around. Maybe everyone is telling the truth. 9 of the Big 12 are looking to stay and noone in the ACC is interested in the SEC. Unfortunately, it looks like the SEC and A&M will drag it out into the football season.
LikeLike
“No one in the ACC is interested in the SEC”…..man, I hate to tell you guys I told you so, but………….I told you so.
It will be WVU or MO for the SEC 14th team. MO is the better choice, but might not be “southern enough” for the sons of the Confederacy.
No NC, MD, VA, Duke, Miami, OK, TX, Syracuse, Kansas to the BIG. Maybe, in a couple of years, MO and Pitt/Rutgers……esp. if ACC also goes to 14 by taking some combination of Syr, Pitt, U Conn, Rutgers, and Pac to 14 or 16 by taking some combination of OK, OK ST, Kansas, TT………
One thing people might not realize about Rutgers…..I knew Pitt and Rutgers had bad overall athletic programs……but I read on the Rutgers forum that RU was dead LAST in the NCAA last yr in the Director’s Cup…..if that’s accurate that and the $60M subsidy the State has run for the AD might be enough to keep them out of the BIG….doesn’t appear as if they know what they’re doing there………..
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – Definitely can’t put Pitt (strong football history and excellent basketball currently) in the same category as Rutgers in terms of athletic achievement.
LikeLike
You would think Pitt would be pretty high because of basketball and football, but in 2011 Pitt was tied for #123 with Albany and Illinois State, behind such schools as Delaware, Sacred Heart, Stony Brook, Army, Lehigh, Navy, Brown……….Rutgers was at #158!!
For comparison, the worst BT schools were Purdue at 49 and NW at 46.
This is from the D1 final standings as of 6/29/11. Here’s some others of interest: Syracuse-61; BC-64; Kansas-72; Butler-100; MO-41; NEB-33.
LikeLike
I gotta agree with Frank, we just disagree on the overlap
I would take Pitt, but Frank said no on the overlap
Rutgers is more like Uconn in unproven, but could grow to be something.
LikeLike
I like MO, Rutgers and Pitt, but they all have issues….
Pitt and Rutgers would need a major infusion of $ into the “olympic” sports to be competitive…, but both are good schools academically…..Pitt’s campus is only 132 acres–different than the other BIG schools…
Rutgers’ AD has been subsidized to the tune of $60M or so by the school over the last 10 years (same for MD)……..
The main problem with MO is that it is ranked fairly low (#94) academically….somewhat higher than NEB but very close…..I think the BIG presidents are somewhat gun shy about adding another school in that range….so you would need the “cover” of ND, Pitt or Rutgers.
LikeLike
shroom:
They would be hesitant to take a school in that range that doesn’t raise the average in athletic value. Again, the B10 has no need to expand just for the sake of expanding.
LikeLike
All the ACC is saying that and I believe them, but that is also what schools always say just before they leave. Loftin was quite notable saying that a few weeks ago. It seems like OU/VT/FS/UNC/NCSU will all say no. Then as you say its MO or WVU. Since Missouri doesn’t so much want out of the Big 12 as they want into the Big 10, they may very well say no. Then its down to West Virginia. When WVU is #14, that brings up the question, does A&M bring enough to pay for #13 and #14 and give everyone else a noticeable increase in TV$? That’s still a big hurdle for the Aggies to cross.
Business week is weighing in. At the end of the article on a separate note they throw in that North Texas just got a very big $20 million naming rights deal for their new stadium. Last week I saw that UH made some gains on their efforts to get into the Big 12 or Big East by getting a $10 million donation moving them up to $61 million towards their $80 million goal before breaking ground on a new 40k seat, $120 million stadium. They are still negotiating on naming rights.
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/state-of-football-is-texas-a-mess-08192011_page_2.html
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
[quote]
“No one in the ACC is interested in the SEC”…..man, I hate to tell you guys I told you so, but………….I told you so.
[end quote]
Who are you talking to? The most commonly mentioned ACC schools were NCSU, VT, Clemson, GT and FSU (all not on your list of schools not going to the SEC), and we rejected several of those as highly unlikely. If offered, nobody’s sure what FSU or Clemson might do. Even NCSU might think about it. What we don’t know is whether or not the SEC would offer an ACC school, especially one in a current SEC state. The rumors say they won’t, but rumors have been wrong before.
LikeLike
Maryland has been singularly focused on beefing up its academic cred for the past decade. There is no way they will leave their tight association with UVA, UNC, and Duke. The only conference they’d go to willingly is the Big 10.
Look at the ARWU, there are only 3 ACC schools in the top 50: Duke, Maryland, and UNC (in that order). The new president will not jeopardize that ranking by taking his eyes of academics for one second.
LikeLike
I didn’t even mention MD.
LikeLike
no, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
I was just replying to the end of the thread in response to mushroom’s “No NC, MD, VA, Duke, Miami…”
LikeLike
shroom,
I have been reading some ACC boards the past month or two and they get it, so not sure if you are seeing the bigger picture. Last year TAMU said no to the SEC from the administration side and over the next year walked into a donor & fanbase “S**tstorm”. I think I remember reading somewhere how Loftin was caught off guard by the fan and donor response. Fast forward to now, and you are seeing the same grass roots comments on the VT and NCST boards. The mods are putting the issue out there, and the fanbase is waking up that the ACC may not be so secure. Read the comments, and you see folks changing their mind from their previous beliefs. When you see the “stay in the ACC” folks talk of adding ECU / UL / WVU, then you see where that will lead long term for the ACC.
Human nature craves security, and the sheep have always outnumbered those tending the flocks. Not to debate the Super Conference issue, but what is not in debate is the stability of the B1G or SEC for any school east of the Mississippi River. With the U under fire, and schools looking at stadiums seating / filling 80,000 + the ACC schools can see how this will all turn out. Va Tech can sell 80K seats as an SEC school, but selling those numbers in the current ACC seems to offer more uncertainty. If the city fathers of Blacksburg see SEC tourist dollars being spent on hotels, food, gas, and the like, then you have voters and politicians with a vested interest in Va Tech jumping to the SEC.
The same can be said for UVA if PSU and tOSU folks invade and leave behind B1G dollars in ticket sales and the like. My ongoing debate with Frank and Brian is Duke’s and Wake Forest football dollars. My basic theory is the simple equation PSU + tOSU >>>>>>>> Duke + WF when it comes to economic impact on the economy of Charlottesville. The local voters, businessmen, and politicians probably are all aware of such an impact. This does not even add the potential tourist “free advertising” as UVA and the state can now be seen across the entire BTN.
Here is a link to the VA tourism database
http://www.vatc.org/research/economicimpact.asp
for brian and others to play with
LikeLike
Bohl’s article is quite slanted (no shock there). He claims TAMU could be making UT into a sympathetic figure. That won’t be true anywhere but maybe Austin and Longhorn living rooms.
He also says it is TAMU causing all the instability, and even he knows that isn’t true.
LikeLike
SIAP: Alternate view of the Yahoo! report on the U.
LikeLike
‘All About The U’ certainly sounds like an objective rebuttal.
LikeLike
But points out the weaknesses in some of Yahoo’s accusations which is something that is being ignored by mainstream media and their rush to issue a death penalty.
LikeLike
There are a lot of weaknesses in his case, too, like when he argues about the death penalty. He quotes the NCAA rulebook and bolds the sentence about repeat violators having to offend again within 5 years, and proceeds to explain how that doesn’t apply to Miami. He totally ignores the next sentence, which he also quoted, that says the violations can be in different sports. In the next paragraph, he calls it a “back door” and a “HUGE stretch” for the NCAA to use that exact sentence to make them repeat violators.
If that’s how he treats a direct quote from the NCAA rulebook, then his opinion on everything else is so biased as to be worthless.
LikeLike
There’s a ton of spin in his analysis.
For instance, “On 14 occasions, Yahoo! backed up a report with 1 source. This is a little murkier, but you have a pathological liar, and one source…that is hardly strong evidence.”
Uh, OK. Considering that we send people to death row based just on the testimony of one person some times and one corroboration, I’m not sure what he considers “strong evidence”. Not to mention that Yahoo likely didn’t publish every single piece of evidence that they have.
Oh, and “only” 12 violations (that Yahoo detailed out in their article) instead of 72. Right. That’s going to convince the NCAA to go lighter on Miami.
LikeLike
Notre Dame, BYU are Big 12 top Targets.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20110818-carlton-a-big-12-with-notre-dame-byu-would-be-off-the-charts.ece
(paywall)
Chuck Carlton (@chuckcarltondmn) Tweets
Key fact in Big 12’s strategy: Notre Dame makes $15M reportedly from NBC. Irish could keep current deal and make additional $20M in Big 12
Big 12 source: on ND “It would definitely be a conversation worth pursuing and having.” Irish would have to join as full members.
Big 12 thinking: Try to go big and see where that leads with the ability to field a lucrative ($$$$) school network? Why not?
LikeLike
Good luck with all of that.
LikeLike
(non paywall version)
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/FBC-TEXASAM_5839858/FBC-TEXASAM_5839858/
LikeLike
The Big Ten has those financial advantages, far more name brand teams, and better travel conditions. If Notre Dame has rejected the Big Ten despite all that, why would they now join the Big 12? Spite?
LikeLike
Flexibility.
I think ND eventually needs to join a league. I’m sure they will hold out as long as they can. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided they didn’t want to join a bunch of Enormous State Universities and chose the ACC over the Big 10. Like the Big 12, the ACC could give them flexibility instead of the one size fits all mentality of the Big 10.
LikeLike
I think that’s right bullet. If ND ever joined a conf, it would be the B10 or the ACC. No one else has any chance.
LikeLike
Agree that ND won’t join the Big 12 under any circumstances………
I COULD see ND going to the ACC over the BIG—-if so, it goes to show a total lack of gonads, IMO
LikeLike
jj,
ACC makes the most sense from a flexibility sense, as ND needs outlets in national market. If in the B1G those OOC game would dry up and be replaced by IU and Minnesota. I like this, but my guess is that the ND folks do not share my desire. If the ACC could land ND and UT, they really would become a viable 16 team conference. Not sure the folks in NC would like being moved to second fiddle in a conference they have owned tho.
LikeLike
Actually this discussion brings up a reason UNC and Duke would probably prefer NOT to be in the Big 10. Notre Dame might prefer the ACC, not because they are afraid of Big 10 competition, but because they want to be with similar schools (in addition to the flexibility issue). Maryland is the only ACC school that fits the Big 10 giant state research school model. UVA, UNC and GT are much smaller schools. The ACC has BC, WF, Duke and Miami as privates, more than any of the other AQs. And the remaining schools, VT, NCSU, Clemson and FSU are smaller than the norm for the Big 10.
LikeLike
I don’t have any direct data on this point, but I doubt that a large number of ND fans are in the ACC footprint. The ACC is centered in a region with a very low density of Catholics. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are 27th, 38th, 41st, 43rd, and 39th by percentage of Catholics, and those states contain 3/4ths of the ACC. While not all ND fans are Catholic (and not all Catholics are ND fans), there’s a strong correlation.
LikeLike
Whenever I think ND in the Big 12 I think the reasons they might are ND-Texas and ND-OU. However, the reasons the Irish wont are Waco, Lubbock, Manhattan, Stillwater. No offense to those towns, but not exactly the stages the Irish prefer to play on.
LikeLike
I actually can see Notre Dame “joining” the Big XII in a certain scenario. They’re never going to outright join the conference as is and start playing games in Waco, Lubbock, Manhattan, and Ames. But I can imagine Notre Dame and Texas wanting to throw a collective wrench in the conference consolidation movement.
It’s going to be pretty difficult to consolidate all of the major powers into only 4 conferences. Texas doesn’t want to leave a conference where it is the puppet master. Notre Dame doesn’t want to join a conference and give up the freedom and flexibility it currently enjoys. So I can see a scenario in which the Pac-12 / SEC / Big Ten pillage the Big XII (currently happening) and the ACC / Big Ten / SEC? pillage the Big East. At this point, it might seem inevitable that Notre Dame and Texas claim the last openings in existing conferences. …or they could join forces and start their own loose federation of enablers and dare the Big 4 conferences to leave out Texas and Notre Dame. Texas can run a western division pulled together from the spare parts bin of Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, BYU, and whoever else was not claimed by another conference. Similarly, Notre Dame can run an eastern division pulled together from the spare parts bin of Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Rutgers, Louisville, UConn or whoever else was left behind by other conferences. Because the divisions don’t have any history with each other, there is no need for cross-division games. This would give Notre Dame and Texas the flexibility to schedule more OOC games. Notre Dame and Texas could also monetize their TV rights as they see fit. The enablers would be so desperate to cling to the coattails of Texas / Notre Dame and not be left behind that they would not put up a fight.
LikeLike
Consolidating all of the major football powers into 4 conferences for the purposes of a playoff or a non-NCAA system will/would be difficult. Neither Texas nor Notre Dame wants to abdicate their current power situation. Texas runs the Big XII. Notre Dame has football independence and a home for their non-football sports. The only way I can imagine Notre Dame “joining” the Big XII in any way is by forming a loose “conference” with Texas, daring the Big 4 conferences to leave both programs (and their enablers) out of any playoff system…
West – Texas plus Big XII scraps
East – Notre Dame plus Big East scraps
Notre Dame and Texas control this loose “conference” and keep their own TV rights. the enablers will be so desperate to cling to Notre Dame and Texas that they will not object. the enablers also give each school a home for their non-football sports. because there is no history between the divisions, there would be no need to need to schedule cross-divisional games except in the CCG. fewer divisional games means more OOC flexibility – 7 conference games, 5 OOC games, and a CCG. Texas can still schedule Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and anyone else who wants access to Texas recruiting. Notre Dame can still schedule its traditional rivals.
LikeLike
Something would have to give in the TV deals. ABC and Fox aren’t going to agree that NBC magically gets all of ND’s home FB games when they are paying for rights in the B12, and NBC isn’t going to keep paying full price to only get 1 or 2 games.
LikeLike
ABC and Fox would be delighted to get the ND road games and the shot at getting the whole thing when the NBC contract ran out. It would all have to be written up, but getting agreement in principal would be easy. Getting Notre Dame to go to the Big 12 even if they wanted to join a conference would be the hard part.
LikeLike
To gain ND road games, they lose all TAMU games. Fox would lose big in that equation as inventory gets smaller. They also face the issue of UT demanding the right to equal freedom as ND. At some point, the conference has to stand up for itself or it goes away.
LikeLike
ABC/ESPN already get practically all the ND road games. CBS gets the neutral site games with Navy, and I think has a shot at the games at SEC teams.
The idea of ND in the Big XII minus two or three had amused me greatly after a long week, so that was nice.
LikeLike
If the choice is add the Irish and get several of their away games or let them stay indepdent and get fewer, I think ABC and Fox might actually be willing to bend. If the Big 12 had a deal with NBC that might be different, but I think this could actually work logistically. I just don’t think the Irish will go for it.
LikeLike
That’s why I don’t see them leaving Indep/ Big East any time soon. Since the Big East is turning down ESPN big offers for contract extensions, the rumor is that NBC is interested in the conference (mostly because they are rebranding Versus in 2012, the BE is available in 2013 and no one else is until 2016).
If the BE does end up on NBC, ND can probably play 2-3 games against BE teams a year to get a few extra road games on NBC, still keep their home package with NBC and keep their BB where they want it.
LikeLike
But they also lose road conference games from everybody else. Why pay the same money for even less content and choice? Losing all TAMU games plus all games at ND is not a fair trade for gaining ND road games. Plus, how long until UT demands the same rights as ND?
LikeLike
In this scenario they’ve already lost A&M and they don’t have ND home. 4 ND road games or 8 Louisville games(or WVU or…)? Pretty easy choice.
LikeLike
An even easier choice – pay them less.
LikeLike
ND thinking: Why the hell would I join a conference to be the anchor of a division with Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Missouri? If I want to play Texas/Oklahoma, I will try to schedule a game against them.
LikeLike
Aggies having fun with Flight aware.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N749SS
LikeLike
Was SEC Commish Mike Slive on that Learjet?
Notice the flight path: from Talledaga to College Station and back after 2 1/2 hours.
LikeLike
Aggies think so. Given the Slive has been careful in the past (see the FOIA email obtained from Georgia above, where he instucts people not to allow their planes to be tracked) I doubt it.
LikeLike
Must read from Jon Wilner.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/08/19/bcs-football-texas-am-to-the-sec-how-the-big-12-might-respond-and-more/
LikeLike
@Mike:
I think he ignores one simple issue that’s at the heart of this, which is football drives the expansion bus. Duke and UNC do nothing for the BigTen in that regard. Terrific academics, terrific basketball, generally terrible football. I’m not sure why it makes more sense for the BigTen to pursue UNC/Duke than Virginia/VT (although I admit to not knowing VT’s academics). VT has good football, and the state of Virginia has (I think) similar TV numbers and is a comparable recruiting ground to NC for football. UNC/Duke->BigTen feels like we’re taking the academics argument too far, much like Rutgers->BigTen takes the television argument too far.
LikeLike
I can’t say I disagree with you. However, a move into the Carolinas just might be aimed at convincing Notre Dame that the time is now.
LikeLike
While as a general rule I agree, I’m not sure a North Carolina/Duke combo might be an exception. This is actually were the Big Ten Network might be most effective. The network is stronger in basketball coverage than football because of the way games work. That could play out very well in North Carolina. You are talking about a state with a pretty good population that is basketball mad (North Carolina-Duke is already the only regular season game that can rival a regular season football game). This is one of the few places I think basketball might be worth expanding for in a monetary sense (I still don’t want any expansion though).
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
Football drives the bus, but MBB has a really good seat. The revenues tend to split about 2 to 1. Most B10 schools split their BTN money 65-35 when breaking it down by sport.
I agree Duke and UNC aren’t good in FB right now (IN and MN might like to add a Duke to give them some easier games). The thing is, part of that is being in the ACC where hoops is more important to almost everybody. I’m guessing that OSU, MI, PSU and NE coming to town might spur more interest in football. They’d certainly have more money to spend on it, which is a big factor.
UVA/VT bring much worse hoops and UVA is just as bad at FB. VT’s academics are worse, too (USNWR – Duke 9, UVA 25, UNC 30, VT 69; ARWU – Duke 27, UNC 30, UVA 52, VT 70-89). Not bad, mind you, just worse. To top it off, NC’s population is about 1.5M larger (almost 20% bigger). NC has an even bigger advantage in terms of HS players going to play D-IA football.
You also need to remember that Duke and UNC are 2 of the top 3 in MBB revenue and they are ahead of some B10 FB teams. Combined they make about $46M in hoops.
LikeLike
Brian,
I would be okay with IU vs Duke in FB and BB, but FB needs fans that will travel to grow. UNC would drive up, but will Duke fans buy seats?
LikeLike
Usually road teams get a pretty small distribution of tickets in the B10 (3000, I think). No, most Duke fans wouldn’t travel for FB, or even attend home games, but they might travel for MBB.
LikeLike
Duke fans hardly attend home games, let alone road games.
LikeLike
brian,
I was noticing in the Dosh article that they were talking 7,000 visitor tickets, not 3,000. If somebody knows the policy for PSU – with the biggest stadium – it would be helpful. The second tier football schools 60K – 80K stadium seats that are not “brands” would be interesting to know what their policy is. I read on a Va Tech board they wanted 80K stadium, and SEC fans to buy tickets, as their ACC conference mates do not.
LikeLike
I believe the B10 conference game ticket rule is 3000 or 4000 tickets to the opponent. I jave heard that Nebraska, Minnesota, and one other school are the only ones who elected to offer opponents 3000 for this year.
LikeLike
Duff – I think visitors’ sections in the SEC ranges from 5000 to 7000.
LikeLike
alan,
when your tigers travel to a UK or MSU how many of the seats in the stadium are Tiger fans past that 5,000 or 7,000 K allotment? When it comes to UK basketball, no matter where they play, they seem to get well beyond whatever their allotment.
LikeLike
Manifesto – I think saying football drives the bus is an oversimplification. Money drives the bus and UNC and Duke make plenty of it. The Athletic Departments are earning more than UVa or VT or Maryland. UNC and Duke would be the highest earning Athletic Depts available in any expansion outside of UT, A&M, or Notre Dame. Plus they are 11th and 18th in Federal Research Grants and 7th and 25th in total academic research. Which would be 3rd and 6th in the BIG 10 and fit well with CIC.
Think of this – you add two schools that don’t threaten your football powers, and draw millions of eyeballs to your Big Ten Network during Basketball season increasing the Year Round earning potential.
I honestly think it is the best play possible – the football diehards are already going to watch BTN, this draws the basketball diehards.
Along that line, I believe you invite Notre Dame and Boston College in addition to Duke & UNC to add value to the BT Hockey Network as well as adding a couple of mid-level football and basketball programs that may be competitive under the right circumstances.
LikeLike
BTN only gets half of that revenue, the other half it shares with Fox which owns half the BTN.
LikeLike
The tough part will be separating NCSU from UNC. They share the same president, board, etc. as they’re part of the same university system.
The B10 would have to get the SEC to take NCSU, which they might do, though more likely as school 16 than school 14.
Would adding UNC & Duke land ND? What happens to VTech (likely SEC), UVa, and Maryland?
B20 with ND, Duke, UNC, NCSU, UVa, VTech, Maryland, & BC/GTech?
Working out the pods would be a mess, though.
LikeLike
Football does indeed drive the bus, but only indirectly through television viewership. Its really the viewers that drive the bus, and nationwide viewers would rather watch football. If viewers in the 10th largest state, that would add indrementally to the footprint would rather watch basketball, that works out better for all. This Illini and Purdue fan would argue that we don’t neccessarily need ten of the top ten football teams in our country in our conference. Frankly in our drive toward 6 wins seeing Duke on the fb schedule would not be all bad. Not to mention getting them at home on the basketball schedule.
LikeLike
ND doesn’t go to a conference until the BE is no longer viable for Basketball. BE is no longer viable with a loss of several of Pitt/Cuse/UConn/WVU/Rutgers. At least this was the general thought during the last B1G expansion talks.
LikeLike
Big Ten did meet on expansion. Said no, unless…
http://thegazette.com/2011/08/19/big-ten-statement-on-expansion-no-but-wait/
LikeLike
An interesting back half of that quote. I’d think two or more teams going to the SEC would qualify as a significant shift, no?
LikeLike
Doubt it. The rest of the article sounds to me like they have little interest in further expansion. My guess is that you’d need both the PAC-12 and SEC to 16 before the Big Ten would feel the need to respond.
LikeLike
I think the SEC plus 1 other conf going to 14 would do it…..
LikeLike
Translation: We’re not looking to be the first ones to expand this time around.
LikeLike
Unless ND asks to join, that is.
LikeLike
B1G is waiting for the SEC to poach from the ACC. Which in turn will poach from the BE giving B1G the opportunity for the big prize, ND.
LikeLike
Quiet on the blog today, so I thought I’d share the ugliest “trophy” in college football. The new Iowa-ISU trophy was unveiled today. Its a family gathered around some corn. Its terrible.
http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg610/scaled.php?tn=0&server=610&filename=c17vi.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640
LikeLike
That’s two new trophies that Iowa is part of that kind of suck. I’m not sure they get that these things are for football. The Iowa-Nebraska one is the hero’s trophy (or something like that) and they’ll honor a hero from each state with it before giving it to the winner. It’s good to reconize hero’s but does it really help build excitement for a football game when you are reminding people with the very trophy that there are much more important things.
LikeLike
Wisky-Iowa had a trophy invented in 2004. The game is great, but no need to add a trophy. Then the Nebraska-Iowa game has a trophy announced before it even starts, and goes with the Legends/Leaders-inspired Heroes Game. Finally, the CyHawk trophy is announced to be replaced and they replace it with a Precious Moments statue.
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh debunks the conclusions of the Perryman study.
LikeLike
Say, Brian, will the B10 or Navy own the TV rights to the 2014 OSU-Navy game in Baltimore?
LikeLike
Navy I assume. It’s their home game.
LikeLike
When Ohio State played Toledo in Cleveland, it was technically a Toledo home game and the MAC had the rights. I think this works the same with Navy keeping the rights.
LikeLike
Time to Kill Miami Football ?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/18/university-of-miami-football-scandal-time-to-kill-the-program.html
LikeLike
No. The NCAA shouldn’t have the power to do that, and I don’t think they do. They could prohibit it from ever being an NCAA team again, I suppose, but even that is too much. Only Miami can kill the program, and I don’t think they should.
LikeLike
By now it’s pretty clear what the pecking order is in college conferences’ long-term security, not necessarily on-field strength:
1) Top Tier: SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten. These conferences are poach-proof. The Big 12 could never get Utah, an Arizona school, Iowa, Arkansas, or LSU. The ACC could never get Georgia, Tennessee, or Penn State. The Big East could never get Maryland, Boston College, or Penn State. And the SEC, Pac-12, and Big Ten are incapable of stealing each other’s members. Their futures are extremely bright and comfortable. By no coincidence, they have the three strongest conference commissioners.
2) Second Tier: ACC. Yes, the ACC is more vulnerable than the Top Tier leagues because its TV revenue is lower than theirs, plus the Big 12’s, and its on-field struggles haven’t helped conference morale. On the other hand, the ACC has yet to be poached in its nearly sixty year existence, and there’s reason to believe the SEC would be unable to poach any ACC members, even with the revenue differential. (South Carolina did leave and become an SEC member 20 years later, but that is no different from Ga. Tech leaving the SEC and becoming an ACC member 15 years later.) Its members have not had highly publicized disagreements (i.e., Texas vs. Nebraska on B12 headquarters site, Texas vs. A&M on LHN, Big East Football-First schools vs. Basketball-first schools, etc.) and they take pride in a strong academic reputation. Even if it lost a few members, or voted Miami out, there will definitely be an ACC for decades to come, even in a wacky era of 16-team super[bly bad for fans]conferences.
3) Vulnerable, but strong anchors make the league hard to kill: Big 12. The Big 12 will always be able to land no worse than the fourth strongest TV contract as long as it has its two biggest anchors in Texas and Oklahoma. But even though networks are increasing their payouts enormously, its true net worth still took a major hit with the loss of Nebraska, and it will take another huge blow if it loses A&M. The league does manage to have enough solidarity, somehow, to keep Texas, Oklahoma, and perhaps even Missouri to refuse an offer of SEC membership, but any northern school president would give his right arm for Big Ten membership, and perhaps the Oklahoma schools would, too, according to some reports.
4) Vulnerable, and could be easily picked apart by any of the above leagues: Big East. Should the Big 12 decide to replace Texas A&M, it will look to BYU (a school that sells out a 65,000 seat stadium, has a widespread, loyal following, and a national championship under its belt), to Houston, or to a Big East school like Louisville, TCU, USF, or West Virginia. That tells you all there is to know. The Big 12 could feed off the Big East if it wants, but it could choose either BYU or a non-AQ instead. The Big East also could be picked apart directly by the SEC or Big Ten, or indirectly if the ACC needed replacements after being raided itself.
5) Top of the Food Chain for Non-AQ’s: The Mountain West. The MWC may have lost schools to AQ leagues and to independence, but it still has been able to pick off from the WAC at will since its inception, and it also plucked away a gem with then-C-USA school in TCU. It also either has been or will be the home of every non-AQ team that has earned a BCS bowl bid. It’s the only conference with even a flicker of a chance at meeting the BCS’ criteria for becoming an AQ conference. (Not that that will ever have any practical value, but perhaps it could be twisted into some kind of recruiting pitch???)
6) Warm-Up League for the Big East (and others?): Conference USA. This league I find fairly unique. It includes former members of major conferences, former southern independents, humoungous new schools, tiny private schools, and spread-out geography that wouldn’t make a Big Ten AD lose sleep but has to be killer for these schools’ limited budgets. Members have to feel teased by the Big East and Big 12 when they allude to the possibility of expansion, especially when four former members are now in the Big East (L’ville, USF, Cincy, TCU) and three current members were once conference mates with current Big 12 members.
7) Where else would they go?: MAC Temple might have a chance at C-USA membership or even the Big East, if that league badly needed to reload on members. Long-term, maybe UMass could be Big East material as well. Otherwise, MAC members have nowhere else to go. The good news is that the schools seem to recognize that they are where they are and that they should just make the most of it, and that probably reduces a lot of the angst that exists in C-USA.
8) At least we’re not as bad off as the WAC: Sun Belt. There are only tow possible reasons La. Tech is not joining this league: a) LT is pining away for C-USA and will reject the SB, even to its own detriment. b) The SB just doesn’t want LT.
9) At least we can get Southland Conference teams if we want ’em: WAC
LikeLike
The Big 12 and the Big East are the same, IMO. The Big 12 almost died last year. Died. And there is an end game scenario on the table for the Big 12 still.
Although I 100% agree with the ranking of ACC as #2 and ahead of the Big 12 and the Big East, I remain interested in what everyone’s opinions are as to who survives a 3-team SEC raid of the ACC. If the ACC were to lose FSU, GT, and Clemson… where would the ACC go for new members if their TV contract was actually less than the Big East, with the risk of potentially going even lower due to losing members? The zeal for Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, and WVU to join a more stable league begins to fail when the ACC is at the point of losing its conference game if it cannot add 3 teams. At that point, its contracts are even less valuable because it is a 3 state league–NC, Maryland, Virginia. In the end, the ACC’s only source of teams is probably the Big East. So if a network ponies up substantial money for those NE rights… no longer a no brainer that Big East schools would immediately leave for the ACC. This is particularly true where Boston College may say it’s happy, but denial is the more likely scenario.
I suppose the ACC could add UCF or East Carolina. That seems very very very very very unlikely. So suddenly the cracks in the armor start to emerge. And all of this assumes that the schools that were not thrilled with the last expansion from 9 to 12 are interested in doing it again so that they can have an conference championship game viewed by a lot more empty seats than fans. Right now, the ACC appears to be equal to the SEC only in scandals.
And all of this assumes that a 3-team raid of the ACC would not invite the Big 10 to start sniffing around the ACC remnants to see if there are win-win opportunities. That has to be concerning for a Big East school being recruited by the ACC to fill their gap. Who is to say that the teams doing the recruiting will even be around. A Rutgers-Maryland rivalry means little if Maryland slides to the Big 10. Basketball games featuring Duke-UNC-UConn-Syracuse-Pitt mean very little if the Big 10 goes after Duke and UNC. And so on.
So…does the SEC care whether the ACC survives? I think an argument can be made that the SEC would want the ACC to return to the level of the Big East and the Big 12. If Miami and Florida St. had performed as well as they did in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the ACC could have been a serious threat to the SEC’s dominance. In the end, it did not pan out. And it looks very likely that it will be several years before Miami is even in the position to dominate. And perhaps the SEC has the desire to go for the jugular. Adding those three teams may not add markets, but it sure as hell adds quality.
If the SEC decides that Texas A&M is enough of a new market to matter, and that taking 3 teams in duplicate states is the only fair way to solve that issue, the ACC could drop right down to the Big East’s level–a 9-team league that is basketball heavy and football light.
LikeLike
I believe the essential difference between the Big East and the Big 12 is that the Big 12 has schools that would be grabbed first (i.e. as team #13 or #15), whereas the Big East’s schools are going to be grabbed at #14 or #16 to round out an expansion or as a recovery pool for the ACC should two ACC schools leave (i.e. Syracuse/Pitt).
None of the Big East schools can justify expansion in and of themselves beyond 12 (in the case of the Big Ten/SEC/ACC) or even to 12 (in the case of the Big 12 although this may change if ESPN so dictates in the future), so that’s where their strength as a league comes from…
Essentially, the Big 12 has the strong “anchors” that can keep it alive regardless of poaching (Texas/OU), whereas the Big East has none of those schools, so each conference has some measure of safety unless someone’s looking for a school to pair (i.e. WVU).
The problem is that in virtually every sceneario, if the 4 12 team conferences don’t lose teams, the Big East is highly likely to lose a team in any Big Ten or SEC expansion scenario (i.e. Big Ten’s ND + Rutgers although maybe Mizzou takes that #14 spot, or the SEC’s A&M + WVU scenario).
LikeLike
You’re assuming everything stays the same. I think the SEC’s rise and ACC’s decline are partly normal cyclical changes. Before the ACC added VT, BC and Miami (who have probably been 3 of the top 4 fb programs since they joined) they were very competitive with the other big conferences in fb. Remember that until last year when the BE was really bad, the only conference the MWC had any chance of catching in average strength in the AQ calculations was the Big 10. I’m sure noone on this board believes the Big 10 will spend a lot of time at #6 and that it was a normal cyclical decline. I think the ACC’s name brand, academic stature and fb strength along with their unity will be enough to keep the conference stable.
I think Michael’s analysis is pretty good. The only reason you could argue the B12 is on the same level as the BE in stability is that noone wants the BE teams. But I think the most likely scenario if the major B12 programs leave is that the remants cherry pick the Big East, MWC and CUSA.
LikeLike
bullet,
I have been around a long long time, and never do I remember the ACC in football terms of the way I remember the Big 10, Pac 8, SEC, Big 8, and SWC. If ESPN had not “settled” for the scraps of Uconn and the ACC, we would not be talking about the ACC today. The ACC football brand has always relied on scraps to keep it alive. I am unaware of any raid on the Big 10 or SEC teams, much less the core teams of these conferences. Yes Ga Tech left, but that was Bobby Dodds, and not the ACC poaching them.
Michael in Raleigh,
I still defer to the borders theory:
B12 has 3 : B1G / PAC / SEC
ACC has 2 : B1G / SEC
BE has 1 : B1G – a loss of 4 – 6 “cherry” ACC teams would be weaker than the BE
I can still see at least 2 – 4 current B12 teams in the Big 3
I can still see at least 4 – 6 current ACC teams in 2 of the Big 2
LikeLike
You’re right the ACC was 2nd tier until FSU joined. The ACC has never gotten respect from the press, but if you look at the records, from 2000-2005, there really wasn’t a lot to separate the top 5 conferences in football. And in the 90s they were pretty tough, but since noone could beat FSU, they didn’t get respect (of course, noone else but Miami and Florida could beat FSU in that time frame) And until this last set of contracts, the ACC earned more than the SEC. They’ve got better markets.
The ACC has slipped since 2005, especially at the top, but I don’t think that slide continues indefinitely, anymore than I think the SEC will continue to win MNCs every year. So here’s an early prediction for this year:
BCS championship game: FSU 27 OU 17
LikeLike
Agree with pretty much everything you’re saying, only thing I would add is that the Big East’s weakness may end up being its greatest strength in that it won’t be poached first.
None of the Big East schools are a “necessary and sufficient” to facilitate expansion beyond 12, and the Big 12 won’t raid the Big East to split its pie further to schools that don’t bring sufficient value to pay for themselves, unless ESPN dictates that it requires the conference to have 10 teams and BYU isn’t available.
So ironically, the Big East won’t get raided first but would get raided second if a conference needed to recover schools or add a partner (i.e. ACC recovering to 12 with Syracuse/Pitt or the SEC taking WVU to pair with A&M if FSU/VaTech are unavailable).
Also, TCU probably won’t leave on its own unless the Pac-12 sends an invite on the way up to 16 because TCU needs brand differentiation and it wouldn’t get that in the Big 12 (just in my opinion).
LikeLike
I’m not quite sure where the MWC and CUSA stand at this point. The MWC’s status is diminished, and CUSA just got a new TV contract. If Craig Thompson called up Houston and offered them an invite, would they go? They would certainly have to think about it a bit.
LikeLike
Looking around and I’m not seeing a lot of chatter popping up when I’m searching. I saw a link about Missouri to the SEC and the board was in a long discussion about the Missouri Compromise and the Mason-Dixon line!
Anyone from SEC schools or potential candidates (other than A&M) seeing much discussion other than pure speculation on their boards? Maybe everyone’s just more interested in THIS season.
LikeLike
North Carolina
Duke
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
-It’s being printed on a tablet as we speak.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState,
Are you saying, those 4 schools to the B10?
If so, I like it. Let’s make it happen!!!!
LikeLike
Dividing the pods would be extremely hard, however. Not that I think it’s happening, (separating from NCSU would be an issue; separating from OKSt. would be an issue) but it’s probably ideal for the B10.
LikeLike
I can’t ever tell if someone’s serious when they type stuff like this…..I assume you’re not………..
LikeLike
A post to comment on before monday:
a) we have gotten away from B1G realignment debate
b) each posters own thoughts before we go forward
For each reply all I would like to see is which 12 teams make the cut in your opinion, so in short all I am asking for in your reply are what 12 names would you put where if you were making the call 🙂 No “what teams fill any any other conference” like ACC / B12 / BE. 12 schools and 12 schools only is all I am asking for.
Thanks.
fill in the 16 blanks below:
B1G + 4 = team #1 + team #2 + team #3 + team #4
PAC + 4 = team #1 + team #2 + team #3 + team #4
SEC + 4 = team #1 + team #2 + team #3 + team #4
LikeLike
I don’t like 16 and, while possible, I don’t think its inevitable, but to play along:
B1G-Notre Dame, Maryland, Rutgers, BC
I think the B1G has a better chance of penetrating the east than the Big East. I don’t think they need more than 5 kings. While UNC has merit, the B1G starts to lose its cohesion when it moves into the south. BC is solid in fb and Maryland was one of the best in the ACC from the 50s to the 80s, so they could be good again. The east also helps with the non-athlete student recruiting. There’s a vast population and they attend private schools moreso than in the rest of the country.
PAC-Texas, Texas Tech, OU, Ok. St.-rivalries are important, so sorry Kansas.
SEC-A&M, Missouri, Virginia Tech, NC St. (FSU is overkill and might make the conference too strong and everyone would suffer-NCSU adds markets-I would add Kansas to get someone for bb w/o really strong fb, but the divisions don’t work-moving AL & Auburn to the east would make the east too strong. As for rivalries, 2 east and 2 west best preserve the existing ones and all but Missouri should have no problem finding good new rivalries).
LikeLike
B1G+ 4 = Missouri, Maryland, Notre Dame, and Virginia Tech.
Legendary: PSU, OSU, Maryland, Va Tech, Ohio St., Purdue, Indiana, Notre Dame.
Leadership: Michigan, MSU, Wisc, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Missouri, Nebraska.
Mich, OSU is a protected game to keep every year. 7 division games, plus 2 more in the other division. Only leaves ND 3 OOC games. USC, Navy, and ????. Fat chance of that happening.
SEC + 4 = Texas A&M, Florida St., Georgia Tech, and Clemson. Zipper 1: SC, FLorida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky; Zipper 2: Clemson, FSU, Ga Tech, Vandy, Auburn, Miss St., LSU, A&M. Zipper 1 is easy to remember… all state schools with no modifying description. Zipper 2–modifiers, Auburn, and Vandy. Protected rivalry game (LSU and A&M rotate using Kentucky/Arkansas).
PAC +4 = Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas, and Kansas St. Joining Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona schools in the “East.”
And, although specifically ordered not to do so, this leaves a new, East Coast Conference with: Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Maryland, USF, Lville, TCU, Cincy, West Virginia, Pitt, Rutgers, UConn and Syracuse.
South: Duke, UNC, NC State, WF, Maryland, USF, TCU
North: Lville, Cincy, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, UConn, and Syracuse
Kansas St. and Iowa St. are the big losers here. Sorry to those schools.
Independents: BYU, Academies, Texas.
LikeLike
That’s not happening. The B10 will go to pods if it ever gets to 16, because the idea that PU & IU would give up hardly ever playing Michigan again or Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and MSU virtually never playing OSU again just isn’t going to fly with the presidents.
Not to mention that ND would have to end their rivalries with Michigan & MSU as well under your scenario, so why would they join?
LikeLike
It’s not what I think will happen. It’s what I would do if I had to give 12 teams to those 4 conferences.
I cannot begin to fathom what I think will happen because so much of it depends on scenario. The Pac 10 took Utah and Colorado. That quite a fall off the desired Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Tech scenarios. What actually happens and what will happen are two different things.
I can’t see ND joining any conference. And if Texas is going to go independent someday, doesn’t that suggest that ND has even LESS reason to leave independence. The rules will have to be written to allow these schools a chance. Same with BYU. And how long until a few other schools look around and go back that route.
Right now, the Big 10 has 5 schools that, if starting from scratch, would not be top 30 teams–Purdue, NW, Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota. If the Big 10 was disbanded for some hypothetical reason…who would want Minnesota? “Well… they do capture the twin cities market.” Missouri doesn’t do the equivalent? Illinois and NW? Mediocre football… and you need both of them to carry Chicago…if that is even possible… its NYC all over again. Indiana and Purdue? Again, ND is probably the football king of Indiana. And we know basketball is worthless.
LikeLike
That’s true of any conference. Even the mighty EssEeeSee would leave behind Vandy and both MS schools if they were starting from scratch.
LikeLike
B1G: NC, Duke, Maryland, UVA
SEC: NCST, VATech, A&M, Missouri
PAC: OU, OKST, TX, TX Tech
LikeLike
B1G – OU, UT, ND, VT
Get OU and the pieces start to come together. It’s either that or Texlahoma goes to the Pac.
—————–
SEC – A&M, FSU, NC St, Mizzou
SEC doesn’t want to expand within footprint but FSU is too good to pass up. NC St is the only school they can pull from the ACC. The rest of Tobacco Road is solid.
—————-
Pac – screwed
KU, OSU, Tech and TCU
——————————–
Leftovers
Iowa St, KSU, Baylor
Clemson, UNC, Duke, WF, UMD, UVA, UM, BC, GT
Pitt, WVU, UConn, SU, USF, UL, Cincy, RU
———–
(qualifies as BCS)
B12/MWC – ISU, KSU, BU, BSU, SDSU, Nevada, BYU, AF, FSU, Houston, SMU, Louisville, Cincy, Hawaii
2 of UTEP, UNLV, Memphis, Col St, one of the NM schools
UCF and ECU are too far away
——–
BE/ACC – Clemson, UNC, Duke, UVA, WF, UMD, UVA, UM, BC, GT, Pitt, WVU, UConn, SU, RU, USF
LikeLike
Texlahoma goes west. ND stays indy.
B1G – screwed
UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, RU, SU, GT
—————
SEC – A&M, FSU, NC St, Mizzou
———-
Pac – UT, OU, TTU, OSU
LikeLike
BTW, the preferred portmanteau when referring to the Red River states collectively is Texoma. There’s a lake and everything.
LikeLike
Jake,
I just like the way Texlahoma rolls off the tongue. Plus, Texoma sounds like it has more in common with Tacoma than Texas or Oklahoma. (Insert smiley face imoticon)
LikeLike
B1G + 4 = Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke. (Assuming Notre Dame is unattainable, this is the best four for academics, hundreds of millions in research funding — from the federal government to the Research Triangle — subscriptions to the Big Ten Network and all-around athletics. The football powers remaining would either demand too much control or drastically lower Big Ten academic standards.)
PAC + 4 = Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech, Texas. (This is assuming the Longhorn Network can be assimilated into the Pac network. This strengthens the Pac brand, restores the original Pac-8 as a separate division and, from a Big Ten perspective, puts Texas and OU in the Rose Bowl family, away from the SEC — a conference neither apparently want.)
SEC + 4 = Texas A&M, Missouri, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. (Gives the SEC four new states, lets it challenge the Big Ten in two states, and also isolates Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Miami to the benefit of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.)
LikeLike
Now for what’s left:
ACC — The six remaining members take in six Big East football members, resulting in these divisions:
North — Boston College, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
South — Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest
Big 12 — It survives in drastically different form, aligning its four survivors with three from the Big East and a few others:
East — Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Memphis
West — Baylor, Boise State, Brigham Young, Houston, Nevada, Texas Christian
The Big East reverts to a non-football conference. You now have 73 BCS members (including independent Notre Dame).
LikeLike
I’d second those who say that we will not see all-16 team conferences just for the sake of symmetry, but just for fun:
P16: Texas, Okl, Okl St, Tex Tech
B10: ND, Pit, Rut, Miz
SEC: TAMU, Fla St, WV, VaTech
LikeLike
Boy, a lot of people have the B1G getting short shrift. I think the conference needs 2 of OU, UT, ND and VT. If the Tennessee and UK scenario came true it would be 1 of the others. The point is unless the B1G gets 2 princes/kings the conference is weakened in the most important area of expansion. Football power. The B1G would be forever behind the SEC and possibly the Pac.
This is the reason I think the conference needs to work on OU. Get OU and major chips fall. I don’t believe that UT wants independence but the network is a major problem. If ESPN sees that it is a money trap, which it appears to be without hs fb, maybe ESPN cuts their losses and pays off UT. The only thing that may save the network is current B12 schools giving in to UT again and allowing their games to be broadcast on the LHN. Which appears to be happening if I’ve heard correctly. Long story short, OU convinces lawmakers that OSU will end up in the Pac or a B12/MWC/C-USA/BE hybrid that will have BCS status and moves to the B1G which draws UT.
If the B1G gets OU and UT then they can flip off ND and move on. But if ND comes calling I believe that the conference needs another prince or king to maintain balance. Adding OU, UT, ND and UMD or RU throws things off. If UNC could come alone that may keep things balanced enough. There is that long shot possibility of Tennessee too but I think that has about a 1% chance of happening.
LikeLike
@joe4psu – I largely agree with you here. I’m really a hoops guy at heart, but going up to 16 schools is about setting conferences up for maximum football revenue and whatever postseason format may rise in the future. You’re completely correct that the Big Ten MUST have 2 football superpowers added to make going up to 16 worth it. The equation is to find 4 schools that bring in the most football value that are academically acceptable (not the 4 schools that bring in the most academic value whose football is acceptable).
If ACC schools are poachable (and I continue to be skeptical of that), then I’d like to see the Big Ten go after Maryland, UVA and VT, with spot #16 for ND. It’s fun to talk about SEC schools, but I don’t think there’s any use to it. None of them are leaving that league anymore than a Big Ten school would be leaving for the SEC. Lots of weird things can happen, but the one thing I’ll wager everything on is that absolutely no one will be leaving the Big Ten, SEC or Pac-12. Those leagues are completely solid.
LikeLike
From a stature standpoint I don’t see why the B1G needs to have 6 of the 12 kings. 5 would be plenty. I don’t see any scenario where the SEC gets more than 4 or the Pac more than 3. Now, financially may be another issue.
LikeLike
I think the B10 is best served to stay with 4. Too many kings leads to too many losses for the kings, which hurts everybody. Solidifying the middle is what the B10 needs, either by adding middle teams or by the current middle teams improving.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t think they need to add 2 more kings to get to 16, but I do think they need 2 more kings in the nest 8 to get to 20 (+ UNC & Duke for bball).
LikeLike
B10 + 0 = B10
P12 + 0 = P12
SEC + 2 = SEC + TAMU + WV
I think people are greatly overestimating the odds of major realignment.
LikeLike
To follow up to several other posts I’ve read:
The idea of the B10 going to 20 is ludicrous. Getting to 12 was difficult. It would take a minor miracle to convince Delany and the presidents to go to 16 let alone 20.
Equally as unlikely is the KY/TN scenario I’ve seen mentioned again recently. We’ve discussed the importance of fit before, and KY and TN will never fit. They are way too southern and have way too much invested in the SEC.
LikeLike
Brian:
Which is why I think UK + Tenn is likely only if the B10 takes 4 (or even 2) ACC schools first.
Long term, the B10 has incentives to turn the heart of the ACC in to “Big Ten country”.
Culturally, KY very similar to southern Illinois, southern Indiana, and southern Ohio.
LikeLike
KY thinks it is part of the south and wants nothing to do with the B10. Other than that, they’re quite similar. TN is part of the south and also wants nothing to do with the B10.
LikeLike
@duffman
What I hope and what I would bet are two different things. Here’s what I think:
B1G: Missouri, Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt/or Syracuse
PAC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas
SEC: Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville
(BYU, Notre Dame, Texas are independents)
LikeLike
I agree with Redhawk’s PAC. I would probably substitute MO for VaTech in the SEC. And I don’t think the B10 expands unless either ND or UT are involved. If they do come, the other 2-3 schools are from the much discussed list of ACC/BE schools (in my order of preference but almost certainly not in order of likelihood) UNC, UVA, Duke, Pitt, MD, SU, and Rutgers. Just my uninformed two cents.
LikeLike
I don’t see Louisville going to the SEC. I actually buy into the theory that UGA, UF, USCe & UK have banded together to keep schools from common states out of the SEC expansion. I think WV is the backup plan/last ditch resort if they can’t find another dance partner for aTm.
I find it somewhat strange that the SEC has been able to clamp off the information leaks on what they are actually doing and who they are actually talking to.
LikeLike
As awesome as OU is, I just don’t see the PAC expanding without Texas.
LikeLike
What I hope is everyone stays at 12. Things just feel better that way to old guys.
What I think is the SEC will add aTm and West Virginia next year because Florida State, Ga Tech and Clemson will not be offered membership, and Va Tech and NC State will decline membership. Not wanting to start realignment armageddon by imploding the UTX, and borrowing from the B1G CoP/Cs direction to Delaney that any more Big XII schools are off limits(not to mention the cultural fit issue), the SEC will not offer Missouri membership either.
Maybe, five years from now, the B1G offers Missouri and Rutgers membership if the $ numbers add up. If the numbers don’t work, I believe the B1G will stand at 12 until the second coming, at which time ND will be allowed to join with Pittsburgh. The B1G doesn’t go beyond 14 without ND.
What I think is the Pac 12 are stuck at 12, because the UTX will not disband. The planet UT will pull just enough to keep its moons in orbit around itself. And, the universe will rest.
I know this isn’t what most posters on here want, but I would be happy with it because I could stop reading this damn blog!
LikeLike
largeR, I think there is less expansion in the future rather than more, so I agree with you. Conferences are just not going to see the financial reasons to expand, and the non-financial reasons almost entirely point to not expanding. B1G would only add Mizzou and Rutgers for cable televisions, and the B1G is making a 50 to 100 year decision, and you don’t make that move for cable.
LikeLike
An AT&T President, talking about technology said that change will be slower than you expect, but when it happens it will be more profound than you can imagine. I think the same is true about conference expansion. 16 team conferences could be formed and implode with new unexpected configurations. Or if Scott/Slive/Delany push 16 teams, UT and ND might work together and create a nationwide conference that leaves the Pac, SEC and B1G as 2nd tier. They wouldn’t get any B1G teams, but imagine a conference with USC, UT, ND and FL as 4 regional anchors.
I’m not predicting this, but there are just a whole lot of possibilities besides simple 4X16 consolidation (I don’t think I’d bet on any result-its unpredictable from week to week, let alone from decade to decade!).
LikeLike
Hard to see any national conference pushing the B10 and SEC to second tier. Even if they get USC to leave the Pac, the idea of such an unwieldy configuration getting UF to leave the SEC invites disbelief. UF would sooner leave the SEC for the B10 than for this monstrosity, but UF leaving the SEC isn’t happening anyway (unless there are scandals of such epic proportions that several SEC schools get the death penalty).
LikeLike
However, I do agree that there is no rational reason for all the conferences to go to 16. We could see the B20 at 20, the SEC at 14, the B12 back to 12, and the Pac staying at 12, for instance.
LikeLike
Richard, the one thing I feel most strongly about when it comes to expansion is that we’ll never end up with 3×16 or 4×16. The majestic symmetry is an impossible goal for a million reasons. Even if radical realignment happened, the more likely end game is a mish-mash of conference sizes.
LikeLike
Antitrust is one reason for it not to happen. Just to talk to the conference commissioners about doing expansion in an orderly way, Emmert had to talk to the NCAA lawyers first.
If it all happened close to the same time it would look like implicit cooperation. It could be explicit if the Big 12 put itself up for bid, asking their 3 neighbors to make sure everyone had a home. That would still leave potentially leave them at risk legally from non-AQs.
LikeLike
B1G: Maryland, NC, Duke, Notre Dame
SEC: A&M, NCSt, VaTech, Florida St
Pac: Oklahoma+State, TexTech, Texas
If Texas and Notre Dame stay independent, B1G takes UVa and Pac16 takes TCU.
LikeLike
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=161564953&mid=161564953&sid=901&style=2
Two different expansion plans, but I especially disbelieve the ACC raid.
People need to remember, we’re the premier conference in this deal. People are asking us if there are spots open, not the PAC-12, and certainly not the SEC (well, except Texas A&M, but there was talk that they were previously unaware that we are interested in them). We’re looking to make ourselves stronger, beyond reproach.
Virginia? Maryland? These do nothing for the conference, and are only mentioned because people think Duke and UNC require them to come along or they think that we need them for the vaunted “DC Market”. They’re an option, but we’re going for the kings of college football here, not the also-rans.
We’re not shooting for regional markets at this point, we’re looking for national exposure. Notre Dame is THE East Coast school, Texas and Oklahoma deliver their corner of the country. All three are huge national brands that are must-see-TV when you pair them up with Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, or Penn State.
LikeLike
On a side note:
I don’t know if you can improve the football imprint beyond those three teams. Missouri and Pitt are no slouches, but do they really add enough for a sixteenth spot?
I wonder if we might go after a basketball school then. Duke and UNC if there are two spots open, or Syracuse/Kansas if only one.
I’m not sure. Football IS king after all.
LikeLike
Honestly, if you sift through the comments, I think most of us have reached the consensus that the Big Ten will wait for Notre Dame at this point.
The optimal expansion solution (excluding Texas due to the LHN) is Notre Dame + 1. That’s the best way to maintain the geography (i.e. Missouri or Rutgers or Maryland as the #14), academics, etc., while getting to 14 with a pair of schools that can increase the size of the pie by more than they take.
LikeLike
Of course they will, they’re the reason why the Big Ten stayed at eleven members for two decades.
This is all about them, it always was. This whole conference realignment happened because the Big Ten wanted to add them, but Missouri got in the way and the Big XII turned out to be highly unstable.
I do think Delany would like to stop at 14, but Oklahoma is the problem. They’re too good to leave dangling, and either the SEC or the PAC-12 will gobble them up. Do you leave money on the table, or do you take the risk and expand to sixteen?
LikeLike
Yeah, Oklahoma is an interesting wrinkle. That “rumor” that they approached the Big Ten with a take it or leave it offer of OU + 3 was interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
@zeek
OU on it’s own is a fine piece, OU with OSU isn’t. Even Kansas and Missouri take up spots for Notre Dame and Texas, so…
As much as this expansion talk excites me, I get really worried about the cohesion of this conference. I almost want to take a Big East/ACC school just to balance the Big XII exodus out.
LikeLike
@zeek – Maryland seems like the most likely option in this case, because it opens the door to further teams from the ACC. I suppose the same could be said for Missou if Big 12 teams were going to be considered (OU, UT?).
LikeLike
To paraphrase an old joke, “What do you mean WE, Paleface?”
Va or MD would be great additions to the BIG. Neither would happen, but both would be great additions.
The thing that a lot of you don’t realize in your enthusiasm is that the BIG 10 presidents don’t think like a bunch of 19th century robber barons. Cultural fit and congeniality means a LOT to these guys. They have it pretty good. If you have a 4 team addition, they’re not going to take more than 1 prima donna institution–that would be ND. OU’s not coming because of academics, culture, and a history of cheating. TX’s not coming if ND is–too much to deal with. N Carolina’s not coming because they’ve called the shots for 70 yerars and aren’t about to play 2nd fiddle. Duke’s not coming because nobody can stand them and they don’t know what a football looks like.
LikeLike
Uh, UNC calls the shots? Is that why, even though UNC and Duke both opposed ACC expansion last time, the ACC expanded anyway?
UNC is not Texas (unlike the Longhorns, UNC’s athletic department doesn’t bring in many millions more than its conference mates, being about the same as Duke, UVa, BC, and Clemson). Don’t make them out to be.
LikeLike
To paraphrase an old joke, “What do you mean WE, Paleface?”
Some of you guys think the BIG presidents are like a bunch of 19th century robber barons looking to dominate the world.
You grossly underrate the importance of culture, fit, geography. These guys have it pretty good. At the end of the day, they don’t won’t to spend all day arguing with each other ala’ the BIG 12 presidents.
Therefore, IF the BIG expands past 14, there will be only 1 prima donna added—ND. They’d be a pain in the ass, no doubt, but it’s kinda silly they’re not already in the BIG. No TX. No OK–academics, culture, cheating are issues. No Carolina–they’ve run everything for 70 years. They have no interest in being anything other than master of the show. No Duke. Nobody can stand them.
MD would be a great addition, but won’t happen. Va would be a good addition, but won’t happen.
LikeLike
People who dismiss Oklahoma because of AAU status (which they would eventually attain once in the B10 anyway) have blinders on. By taking Oklahoma you are not only acquiring another powerhouse football program to couple with Nebraska, but crippling the PAC’s expansion options and greatly increasing the possibility of adding Texas and ND. It would also give Slive some major Delany-pain in his superioris.
The only thing squelching this scenario is that Delany is a North Carolina grad and determined to bring NC and Duke into the B10. That’s why I’ve settled on Oklahoma, Notre Dame, NC and Duke.
Texas can wait until we go to 20. By that time their britches will have shrunk back down to B10 size.
LikeLike
OU is too dirty…and academically lower than B1G….wont happen
LikeLike
OU will never be in the AAU. There are already 20 schools with better credentials than current AAU members waiting to get in. OU ain’t one of them, either.
LikeLike
OU seems to have no interest in the SEC, too shady apparently (pot, meet kettle).
I think the only way OU gets into the B1G is as part of a package deal, say with Texas and ND where an expansion to 16 adds mostly/all western teams to the conference.
But its pretty unlikely.
LikeLike
The OU admin and Stoops seem to have OU on the up and up. When they had issues with that qb a couple of years back he was gone.
This isn’t to say that boosters aren’t breaking rules but that can happen anywhere.
LikeLike
yes – at the moment OU seems relatively clean and an elite or near elite level team. If they go to the SEC probably they are going to have to choose between elite or clean.
LikeLike
Oklahoma would need to triple its research budget in order for the Big 10 to take them.
LikeLike
You mean like these guys?…
http://www.uky.edu/OPBPA/whytop20.htm
I think they might be a perfect B1G candidate in a few years.
LikeLike
Todd,
I have been banging my head here for over a year with the same argument, but getting no traction on this blog. My basic argument was where will they be long term, and like MD, they are at the edge of a conference, so easier to pick off. Somewhere I listed a host of positives and where they ranked in football and basketball capacity compared to current B1G schools. The bonus was the long term rivalry between IU and UK in football and basketball to say nothing of the big possible rivalry
http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/w-soccer/spec-rel/082610aaa.html
🙂
LikeLike
Duff,
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about that possibility for awhile, but the idea of poaching a team from the mighty SEC seemed a bit much. The pros and cons as I see them for inclusion in the B1G are:
Pros
Geography
Natural rivals IU and UL are not members of the SEC.
Tremendous basketball in a non-basketball league. (I know the B1G is not considered a BB league like the ACC or Big East, but its a lot closer than the SEC.)
Popular hockey club team would fit well in the new B1G hockey conference.
Large research university (if they achieve their goals)
Cons
Founding member of the SEC
Smaller TV markets (might not matter much if ND and/or TX is added.)
These are just a few off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many others I’ve missed (both Pro and Con).
LikeLike
Duff,
I’m really coming around to the UK + Tenn to B10 idea, either by themselves or as part of a B20 (they would have to come in a second wave, after the ACC core four, preferably with Mizzou & OU, or Georgia/GTech and Florida/FSU).
I think the B10 becomes much more appealing to UK & Tenn if we add the ACC core four as
1. They wouldn’t be the only southern schools; in fact, the Big16 wouldn’t even be a purely Midwestern/Northern conference at that point)
2. The academic cachet (and probably the CIC) would be even better/the difference with the SEC would be even starker.
We may have to wait until one or more SEC schools get the death penalty or TV bans, though.
LikeLike
Todd,
There was a rumor a year or so ago that Tennessee actually sought to join the B10 but Delany & company wanted UK as well and the Wildcats didn’t want to join.
The rationale the Tenn. booster gave was that in the current SEC, UT has no chance of winning a national championship because it has no chance of winning the SEC. Its brand name is as good as or better than LSU, UGa, and Auburn), but East TN is no where as fertile a recruiting ground as where any of those schools are located (or SC). Heck, even Arkansas has better access to Memphis than Tennessee. In the B10, it would compete with other top brands, but only OSU & PSU (and maybe UM, though they have to share MI with MSU) have more fertile recruiting grounds in state, and UT would have a substantial advantage of over all the northern schools in terms of football talent out of state but at it’s doorstep (only PSU comes close).
The reason he gave for why UK rejected a move (they wanted to dominate and win SEC bball titles) seems specious, but from a purely athletic standpoint, I can see why UK wouldn’t want to move. In either league, UK football would be an also-ran, so they don’t have national title aspirations, but at least now they can say they’re part of the mighty EssEeeSee. being close to the border, UK may also be more sensitive about asserting their southernness. Conversely, being closer to the deep south, Tenn. may not care and just care about contending for national titles.
LikeLike
todd and richard,
My argument for UK was football based, as everybody is aware of the basketball. UK and USC are historical oddities in college football in that both can sell stadium seats even when their team is not winning.
Commonwealth seats 68 K but sells between 68K and 70K +. Last season they were #25 in attendance in the country, and #22 the year before. This is unusual in a small population state, and more unusual for a football team with such a weak history.
Last season they would have been # 6 in the B1G just behind Iowa – granted UM / tOSU / PSU had spots #1 / #2 / #3 locked down, so #6 is pretty impressive when # 4 Wisconsin was in the Rose and # 5 Iowa was in the Insight, while #6 UK was in the Compass!
LikeLike
Duff,
Yeah, I’m sold. The more-than-respectable football numbers is icing on the cake.
Are there any UK people here that have ever weighed-in on the prospect of moving to the B1G?
I might visit one of their boards and see what kind of feedback I get.
LikeLike
Todd,
slim to none pickings on fan sites as they tend to gear to the 12 – 28 crowd in discussion and length – KSR type sites. Aseaofblue is better than most, but it is still limited once you get past games or recruiting discussion. When I go down for a game it means I am around the “old guy” set, so the IU – UK bonds are still strong in this age group. They still see IU as a peer, and UL as the “kid”. In addition actual blood relatives bind IU and UK as many long time families expanded from Kentucky into Indiana when Indiana was settled. The problem is these people probably do not post on boards, but they probably have more sway. They are in the odd spot of being easily placed in B1G / BE / ACC / SEC in a move to the Super Conference model – tho only the B1G and SEC fit the revenue part of the equation.
The biggest issue might be the tier 3 TV money. According to Dosh, UK pulled in 8 million in tier 3 TV $$$$, with only Alabama #2 and UNC #1 ahead of them and Florida behind them in the #4 spot. If TAMU got added, the state of Texas is full of UK fans (at least 2 heavy hitters on the list below have texas roots).
Their current mayor is a Vanderbilt / Harvard guy and their former president at UK was MIT, and why I brought the UK option up earlier. Folks in leadership have degrees outside the state, so may have different views. I was at Rupp for the Villanova vs Georgetown NC and was very surprised by the local powerbase that had ties to Georgetown that I met while I was there. If Frank is right about presidents making such a decision, then I would not rule it out. I am linking the article below on who the current mayor appointed on the Rupp discussion. It should be noted this group was just in Columbus to look at their arena and there are already Columbus and Indianapolis developers in the downtown / campus core.
While UK is a small state, their “brand” is strong outside of the state and I think they were in the top 10 of the CLC in their annual EOY results. They control Lexington and the rural part of the state, but they also outstrip UL in Louisville, and have a big fan base in Cincinnati. In essence, adding UK squeezes UL and UC for B1G domination. Think of a triangle of IU / tOSU / UK and you see how it would strangle UL and UC in the future in getting a better foothold.
The big question is the new president who came from UAB. I feel sure he was brought in to advance medical research dollars at UK, but who knows how he feels about the SEC. The fact his youth was spent in Alabama, and his undergrad was obtained there would make you think he would be pro SEC, but he did get his doctorate from Harvard, so who knows.
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/29/1687802/mayor-appoints-task-force-to-study.html
LikeLike
Won’t happen. Kentucky is southern. They have less than no interest in leaving the SEC. You need to get over it.
LikeLike
Although it would be fine to listen to the strains of “My Old Kentucky Home” after football games–
“The sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home,
Tis summer, the darkies are gay….”
They still sing that song Duff.
LikeLike
Kentucky is a very southern state. I can’t imagine their fan base having any interest in the Big 10. It would be a hard sell for any academics to sell the sports fans. And while the Big 10 is good in basketball, there is noone who would excite the UK fan base. They already play IU. Michigan St. just doesn’t have the stature of UNC, Duke, Georgetown, UConn, etc. I say that as someone who grew up in Lexington and lived in Big 10 states, so I know there is good basketball.
Even if the Big 10 were interested, I don’t see UK being interested. I don’t see UK ever leaving the SEC, but if they did, it would be for the ACC.
LikeLike
Bullet:
That’s why I think the B10 has to grab 2-4 ACC schools first before UK & Tenn would come on board.
UK & Tenn to the Big10 won’t take place soon; maybe a decade from now.
LikeLike
Take it from someone who lived in Lexington, UK will never leave the SEC. They have too many historic ties to the league, and love being the undisputed king of the bb conference.
LikeLike
Exactly. There is no feasible scenario that I see the B1G taking OU.
LikeLike
I dismissed the idea of the Big-10 raiding the ACC too quickly. The idea of Tar Heels mixing with Biolermakers seems too jarring, but this article made too much sense.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/the-battle-for-survival-between-the-big-east-and-acc.php
I am wondering what the hold up for #14 for the SEC is and think Slive really does not want Mizzou or WVa and is thinking about the ACC.
NC State, Virginia Tech., FSU is much better than Mizzou, WVA, FSU
The ACC has much better candidates for expansion for both the SEC and the Big-10. If the ACC were to disintegrate, it would be easy for the SEC and the Big-10 to expand to 16. Mean while the Big-12 can easily reach 12 teams.
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland to the Big-10 is much better than any foursome from the Big East.
Florida State, Virginia Tech, and NC State to the SEC is much better than FSU, Mizzou and WVA.
While the Big East would welcome the return of BC, Miami and new team/new state, Georgia Tech.
Financially, all the teams in the ACC would be much better off in the new conferences. Those going to the SEC and Big-10 would be gaining $20M over their old media contracts and more exposure. Those going to the Big-10 would gain access to leading research institutions. Those going to the Big East would return to familiar homes and a much more stable conference. Everybody but Wake would be taken care of. I would try to include every Wake sport into the Big East that would fit and four years from now give ND the boot.
If the SEC, Big-10 and Big East coordinate their actions, expansion mania could be over in half the country and the old ACC teams would not have to pay exit fees. I never thought the ACC could cease to exist, but the Big East good fortune and timing of coming after the Pac-12 and the extra monies to Big East teams make the ACC very vulnerable and worthwhile to pull the plug by everybody involved.
The biggest loser could be ESPN. ESPN has played a really poor hand. Hindsight is 20/20, but the LHN and saving the Big-12 is turning out to be a really bad play. ESPN in a few years could be losing the ACC to expansion and the Big-10 to Fox and the Big East to Comcast. That’s a disaster for ESPN.
LikeLike
The day former ESPN executive Mark Shapiro low-balled the Big Ten on their new contract, leading to the creation of the BTN is a day that will live in infamy for those SEC suck ups. The Big Ten might sign one more ESPN contract in a couple years, but after that, you have to believe the BTN will be strong enough to stand on its own. Here’s a good article on how it all went down.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-01/sports/ct-spt-0701-big-ten-nebraska–20110701_1_commissioner-jim-delany-john-wildhack-espn-officials
LikeLike
todd,
this has been my thought all along, that the ACC as we know it is no longer
just seems like many are arriving late to the thought process
from a logical point it makes the most sense tho
LikeLike
It certainly seems like the best and cleanest solution for all involved. And watching Duke use their Jedi mind tricks on Midwest basketball teams would be really entertaining.
LikeLike
It would be weird seeing Duke only get, say, 80% of the calls. 😉
LikeLike
IU vs Duke 3 – 4 all time
W in nearby Cincinnati
W in nearby Lexington
only 1 game was in Assembly Hall (05) Duke won 75 – 67
Duke 14 FTA / 10 FTM vs IU 13 FTA / 7 FTM
only 1 game was in Cameron Indoor (06) Duke won 54 – 51
Duke 29 FTA / 20 FTM vs IU 15 FTA / 7 FTM
I think the Blue Devils in Bloomington yearly could get closer to 50% 🙂
Any ACC fan can tell you that the 6th man in Cameron is wearing Black / White uniforms 😉
LikeLike
I think the ACC comes out OK. People are rushing too much to the super conferences. Expansion has rarely been that quick and is even rarer to be coordinated. The Big Ten is unlikely to jump the gun with just an SEC expansion to 14 and the ACC core schools are unlikely to come begging to the Big Ten with the loss of 1 member.
LikeLike
I am wondering what the hold up for #14 for the SEC is and think Slive really does not want Mizzou or WVa and is thinking about the ACC.
Slive may not want Missouri, but the SEC’s east-west split may leave him with no other choice if Texas A&M comes in. And he can’t realistically take more than two ACC members unless he enters a state where the SEC already has a member or somehow persuades a more likely Big Ten candidate (e.g., UNC) to go his way. On the west, he might like to lure Oklahoma, but he’d almost certainly have to take Okie State, resulting in a 3/1 split the other way. And at least, Missouri has more to offer the SEC than West Virginia does.
LikeLike
not really sure how much sense that article made. Yes the analysis about why the Big East might survive was decent but really Duke and UNC to the SEC? Yea the academics really fit there. There really is no Big East team the B10 would want. UConn? Please
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t buy the UNC and Duke to the SEC arguments. In addition to your points there is the more fundamental issue of UNC and Duke’s financial reliance on their MBB programs means they pretty much have to be in a conference with other BB schools in order to pay the bills. UNC might do it if they don’t have any other viable choice (like Big 10) but I could imagine the academic side of Duke vetoing any move to the SEC period.
LikeLike
I think it’s just the opposite of what you assume. IMO, Sleeza thought he could pick up NC State, Va Tech, FSU, or Clemson for the asking, and he’s finding out otherwise. The internet football fans from those schools may pine for the SEC, but the presidents and profs think otherwise…….
I now think Sleeza is aware that the path of least resistance is WVU or MO, and neither is very attractive to him. WVU is redneck enough, but the academics make even the SEC blush. MO is a little more northern than the good old boys want……
LikeLike
WVU’s in a small state. I don’t think academics is what’s holding their candidacy back. If WV had 10M people, WVU would already have the invite even if their math department was teaching remedial 8th grade algebra classes.
LikeLike
Financially, all the teams in the ACC would be much better off in the new conferences. Those going to the SEC and Big 10 would be gaining $20M over their old media contracts and more exposure. Those going to the Big 10 would gain access to leading research institutions. Those going to the Big East would return to familiar homes and a much more stable conference. Everybody but Wake would be taken care of. I would try to include every Wake sport into the Big East that would fit and four years from now give ND the boot.
If the SEC, Big 10 and Big East coordinate their actions, expansion mania could be over in half the country and the old ACC teams would not have to pay exit fees.
I think the SEC and Big Ten need to work in concert in order to pry the ACC members they want, especially regarding having Virginia Tech and N.C. State enter the SEC and Virginia and North Carolina (with Duke) the Big Ten, along with Maryland; the Big East really doesn’t have much of a say in this. To ruffle few feathers politically, it’s important the Virginia and North Carolina schools are brought in simultaneously. And it would probably be easier to have most of the Big East football members join the six ACC remnants under ACC auspices than under the clumsy hybrid called the Big East, with the three westernmost members — Cincinnati, Louisville and Texas Christian — linking with the Big 12 survivors (and several others, such as Boise State and Brigham Young) in a new incarnation of that conference.
LikeLike
Well, there aren’t political ramifications to separating Virginia & NC. UVa & UNC have their rivalry, but that could continue out of conference. Splitting one state first before splitting another has got to be the way to go.
Or the B10 could bring in both UVa & VTech at the same time. . .
LikeLike
So in order to go to Big20, you’d have to go in stages:
1. UVa, VTech, Maryland & GTech (or maybe UMD + GTech followed by UVa & VTech)
This is the tough one, but possible if Miami gets the death penalty or some ACC school is lured to the SEC.
At that point, the ACC is weakened, and UNC has to decided whether to go to the SEC with NCSU or B10 with Duke.
2. UNC & Duke (possible only if NCSU can be put in the SEC).
3 UK & Tenn. (maybe)
LikeLike
Why stop at 16? With pods, 20 teams in a league actually preserves more rivalries than 16.
If I was Delany, here’s what I would do (assuming this gets ND):
Big20:
South:
UNC
Duke
VTech
UVa
Maryland
East:
PSU
BC
ND
MSU
GTech
Central:
Michigan
OSU
PU
IU
Northwestern
West:
UNL
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minny
Illinois
South alternates with East & West to form divisions, as does Central. South & Central never play each other, and neither do East and West. MSU & Michigan will play OOC in years when they don’t meet in conference as will Illinois & Northwestern.
NCSU is allowed to join the SEC with TAMU.
FSU, Miami, & Clemson join the B12 to make it 12 again (in the B12 East with Mizzou, ISU, and KU?)
LikeLike
Oh, and ND gets a national schedule as well assuming they keep playing USC & Navy every year and Stanford half the time.
LikeLike
If the conference goes to 20 create 2 separate conferences/divisions that play round robin. Any cross division games are counted as OOC games. The original B1G schools get back together and are happy. The reason to get together is tv contract. All schools under one umbrella with a CCG. Maybe one cross division game by design. In this scenario Texlahoma has gone west.
Original 10
PSU, ND, VT/UVA, UNC, Duke, UNL, Mizzou, Kansas, 2 of RU/UMD/Louisville
Louisville keep states contiguous and keeps things more balanced east and west.
LikeLike
Joe:
Yeah, I was thinking this over, and to have a balanced Big20, you really can’t have ND. You could take the ACC core 4 initially (or maybe even UNC, Duke, UK, & Tennessee), then, if the LHN fails, add Texas, OU, & 2 others (OK State? Baylor? Rice? TCU? TAMU from the SEC? Vandy? Mizzou?) in the west.
East: PSU + ACC core four (or UNC/Duke/UK/Tenn)
Central: Michigan, OSU, MSU, PU, IU
Midwest: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minny, NU, Illinois
West: Texas, OU, UNL + 2
The divisions would even be somewhat balanced.
LikeLike
Bingo. This is why I think the Pac at 16 (hopefully not more) can most easily adapt. Offers partial Big 8 reunion if UT wants to try indy with OU, OkSU, MO, KU rejoining Colo (plus Utah, Az, Asu) in the east and the Pac 8 in the west. Works just as well if TU, TT come. The marketing leverage of the Pac and the Big 12ish is combined. In this case 1+1>2.
LikeLike
But Kansas prefers the Big East over the Pac 16 if the XII were to implode. Big East offers Kansas 1) much better basketball than the Pac (which has been awful during the past 2 seasons,) and 2) a chance for Kansas football to punch in its own weight class.
LikeLike
@OT – really? Kansas would choose the Big East over the P12? (as apposed to being forcced to go there because they are tied to K-St). It’d be a terrible financial move for them; nor does the geography make sense.
LikeLike
Kansas (along with Iowa State and Kansas State) will probably end up in some sort of amalgam with Big East and ACC leftovers. No current BCS member will be relegated to the Mountain West or another non-BCS league; the political fallout would be too big a risk.
LikeLike
@vp19
Gotta disagree. Last year the Big East was planning on inviting UK, KSU, ISU and Missouri, so if the Big East folks end up running the show in a BEast-ACC hybrid, then they should all be fine. If the ACC is in charge, Kansas would definitely still be fine and KSU probably as well, but there is no guarantee on ISU.
That said, even if all those are do alright, I can not imagine a situation where Baylor ends in an AQ if the apocalypse comes. The PAC-1X will not allow them in under any circumstances (they were apparently one of the few schools on Larry Scott’s no invite list), the SEC has zero use for them, the only SWern schools the Big 10 would take are UT, TAMU and maybe Oklahoma, and if the Big ACC were to take another Texas school it would be better off going for someone like Houston.
LikeLike
frug:
Baylor finds a BCS conference home only if Texas goes to the B10 and insists on a Texas companion that they can bus to. I don’t think the B10 is as stuck on religious affiliation as the Pac is as the B10 is willing to take ND.
Wake is in bigger trouble if the ACC collapses.
LikeLike
I think it is far from clear that the B10 would accept Baylor even if it brought them Texas.
LikeLike
In any case, I don’t buy the “political ramifications” argument keeping all current BCS schools in BCS conferences. We’ve already seen 4 schools relegated to the minors before back when the SWC disintegrated, and Houston is even a public school.
LikeLike
jcfreder:
Right. I should say that that is the only hope Baylor has of finding a BCS conference home if the B12 disintegrates. It might not even happen (and I put the odds of the Longhorns ending up in the B10 at maybe 5%, in any case).
LikeLike
I think there is a good chance that any B12 schools left will keep BCS status while inviting MWC, C-USA and possibly BE schools. Of course, that is in line with my theory that we will not see 4 conferences of 16 schools but will have 5-6 conferences of 12-16 schools. I don’t see any current BCS school ending up on the outside looking in. Instead, scraps from BCS conferences will join together and/or with other schools in new or updated BCS conferences. I could even see a couple of B12 schools ending up in the MWC which would receive immediate BCS status.
LikeLike
I feel kind of dirty saying this, but Baylor isn’t really THAT bad. Sure, they’ve been terrible at football the last few years (decades?), but they have a fairly sizable alumni/fan base, and they’re pretty good at most other sports. If they could get into a league where they weren’t just the “other” Big 12 team from Texas, they might be able to thrive. That doesn’t appear to be their strategy, however – they’re clinging to UT for dear life.
And speaking from experience, teams can indeed be left out in the cold if the major conference they belong to collapses. Just because it hasn’t happened in the BCS era doesn’t mean it won’t. No one is obligated to provide a home for ISU, Baylor or Wake Forest. Or TCU, for that matter.
LikeLike
Baylor is regularly in the middle of the B12 in the all sports standings. KSU, TT and CU were the ones near the bottom.
LikeLike
@Jake
That’s the rub, they can’t get into any other decent league except by clinging to UT and/or A&M.
LikeLike
I think there is a good chance that any B12 schools left will keep BCS status while inviting MWC, C-USA and possibly BE schools. Of course, that is in line with my theory that we will not see 4 conferences of 16 schools but will have 5-6 conferences of 12-16 schools. I don’t see any current BCS school ending up on the outside looking in. Instead, scraps from BCS conferences will join together and/or with other schools in new or updated BCS conferences.
Agreed. With 16-team Big Ten, SEC and Pac conferences, how about a 12-member ACC with Boston College, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse and West Virginia in the North and Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida and Wake Forest in the South? Or a reconstituted Big 12 that has Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville and Memphis in the East and Baylor, Boise State, Brigham Young, Houston, Texas Christian and either Nevada or UNLV in the West? (That’s a pretty solid hoops league for KU.) Going west wouldn’t be that big a deal for Cincinnati and Louisville, which both have roots in the Missouri Valley Conference.
LikeLike
Jake,
I agree with you about Baylor. Their athletic programs have been pretty good overall. The problem has been that football took a downturn about the time that Grant Teaf left.
The schools you listed that could be left behind would just need to join with a few others from other BCS conferences or even the MWC and C-USA to be a BCS conference. I just have a feeling that, to paraphrase, “no school left behind” will be the motto of the larger conferences who want to get the better programs that are attached at the hip with other state schools.
LikeLike
I’m generally the voice of reason on this blog, but if A@M does end up going to SEC, I COULD see the following expansion for the BIG: TX, ND, MO, Pitt…
Couple things would have to happen first…..#1 PAC 12 would have to expand by taking OK,OK ST, TT, Kansas…or at least have those plans. That would give TX the cover to blow things up. Also, TX would have to decide that the $ within the BTN would be as good or better than on the LHN.
I know some have said the BT could add the TX with some version of the LHN remaining intact, but I don’t see that. It would be too tempting for OSU, ND, MICH to follow suit.
But if ND and TX joined the BIG, how much would the BTN be worth?? I know sharing the wealth with NW and INdiana wouldn’t be appealing, but you buy a small country with that investment…..
As far as what’s in it for TX, ND other than $$……for TX, they ensure that the conference they play in is AT LEAST as competitive as the SEC….and as academic snobs they’re associating with a higher class of folks….
As for ND, the academics would be happy as the BIG 16 would be an academic powerhouse. Also, they would be in a position, along with the other BIG members, to essentially call the future shots for the NCAA…….
Now, why MO and PITT?
Pitt instead of Rutgers because of ND’s rivalry with Pitt, and because Pitt’s the better school academically…..MO because they would be TX’s choice that would be acceptable to the other BIG members….no Baylor please………having TX, Neb, and MO in the west would work for them……
LikeLike
To go along with the above:
east:
Pitt
MSU
MICH
PSU
OSU
IND
PUR
ND
west:
TX
MO
WIS
ILL
NW
NEB
MN
IOWA
This would appeal to the ND traditionalists, as much as anything could, because you’d be playing PUR, MSU, UM, and Pitt, all traditional rivals, evry year. Plus playing IND, PSU, and OSU would all have some appeal. You’d play 6 games in your division, and 3 cross-division
LikeLike
Some final thoughts as to why this might be plausible—
–that league would be so good, powerful, and appealing that it would break down a lot of the resistance from ND alums to joining the BIG
–It’s known that ND and TX have been talking a lot about future plans…guess everyone has seen the silly ND and TX to the Big 12 rumors….this makes a lot more sense
–playing 9 league games, ND could still play USC and Navy each year…the 3 other games would include BC, Stanford, Syracuse, Rutgers et al….
–TX’ schedule wouldn’t be as attractive to them but they could still play TT, Baylor, OK, OK ST et
al in pre-seaon
LikeLike
Mushroom:
However, I don’t see why Texas wouldn’t just join OU, OSU, & TTech in the Pac in that case.
Also, I don’t see adding Mizzou doing anything for Texas. Maybe adding OU or another Texas school, but they’re not going to get any extra Texas recruit by telling them that they get to visit Columbia, MO.
LikeLike
OK, honestly, the last comment on the subject….
With 16 teams, you’d have to have a BTN2 so as not to lose “face time” for the individual schools….BTN1 would have more content about the east teams….2 would have more content about the west teams….with enough cross-over content that it’s still seen as one league…with that scenerio, you could actually give more face time to the individual schools………
LikeLike
Good point Richard, and TX’s president certainly scoffed at the suggestion of TX joining the BIG last time around……however, that was before NEB was added, and there was no hint ND was ready to go….AND A@M was going with them……….
Were TX to join the PAC, their 3 “comfort” games would be OK, OK ST, and TT. If they joined the BIG, the 3 “comfort” games would be NEB, MO, and Iowa….not a huge difference, I wouldn’t think…
TX would be indifferent, I would think, as to the other division rivals–WIS, ILL, NW, MN v. AZ, ASU, Utah, Colorado..
And they would be joining a conference with an existing, proven network, with 6 of the all-time top 10 collge football names…..vs. a PAC with a network to be established, with 3 of the all-time names….
LikeLike
mushroom:
We’d have to ask the Texans on our board, but I get the idea that an extra conference mate in Texas and 2 in a neighboring state is quite a bit different from 3 in the cold north to Texans and Texas recruits. . .
LikeLike
Those divisions wouldn’t work. You have four of the six money teams in the East and both IL teams in the West. When the Big 10 divisions were being created two of the things that were emphazied were making sure they went 2 and 2 with Neb, PSU, OSU and Michigan and also making sure everyone got a game against an Illinois team to make sure everyone got exposure in Chicago.
LikeLike
Richard…not sure where this post will end up….
Good post about OK, OK ST, TT being closer….when I get out the old Rand Mcnally, it looks like TX’ travel distance in a PAC east div. would be about 3/4 of what it would be in a BIG west division…..on the other hand, the potential trips to Oregon, OSU, WASH, and WSU would be longer than any to the BIG’s East division….
What it might come down to is:
1. Weather–I know TX’ president didn’t want anything to do with the frozen tundra…as long as
he’s the presidentit might not happen
and
2. Would TX rather be around OK, OK State, TT, and USC or Neb, MO, Iowa, ND, PSU, OSU, and Michigan
LikeLike
frug:
Are you sure about the stipulation about splitting up the IL teams and that wasn’t just a conjecture by Frank?
In any case, that division wouldn’t work because all the old B10 teams want to play everyone else too much. Can you imagine any original B10 school willing to go over a decade without playing OSU or Michigan? We’d much more likely see pods.
This is also why (IMHO) a Big20 actually may be looked upon more favorably than a Big16, as under a B20 pod setup, all of the original B10 teams would play 4 of the other 9 all the time and the other 5 half the time. Compare to the current 12 team setup where they play 4 of the other 9 all the time and the other 5 40% of the time (60% with a 9-game conference slate).
LikeLike
Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin don’t do much for UT fans even if they have better programs than TT and Ok. St.(Ohio St. and Michigan are different, but the programs are a LOT better). And the California schools resonate more than B10 in general. There’s just more cultural ties and probably more movement between regions. And I think the Pac 16 idea was to limit most play to the divisions, so the states of TX, OK, CO and AZ would be together, reducing the amount of travel. Clearly the Big 10 overall is closer than the Pac, but the scheduling would reduce the west coast trips.
LikeLike
That also reflects why B12 is so vulnerable to Big 10, in addition to $ and CIC. The B12N schools have more ties to the midwest than to the southwest. The Southwest has more ties to the Southeast and West than to the Great Plains. MO, KU, KSU, ISU didn’t generate much interest. Even when those 4 had top 10 teams, an unranked Tech team might generate more interest. UNL generated interest because they were a “king.” Colorado was a good program and there are lots of TX/CO state ties, so they generated interest.
LikeLike
Yeah, some newspaper in Nebraska just ran a multipart series on the factors in determining the divisions, and exposure in Chicago was one of the major issues addressed along with competitive balance, rivalry preservation and making sure they split up the big money programs.
LikeLike
BTW, whatever happened to the Tennessee & UK rumors? In terms of recruiting grounds, they’d add as much as Mizzou (that is, not much at all) but on purely athletics terms, those would be 2 good adds (and their academics are close enough; about the same as Nebraska’s).
LikeLike
Kentucky is an interesting darkhorse. It’s hard to see them leaving the SEC, and the cultural fit leaves something to be desired, but the athletics/revenue/fanbase portion of UK is very underrated.
LikeLike
see the conversation Todd / Richard / myself have been having above….
I also put up some comments on FtT posts back in April or May of 2010, but am too lazy to go search for them. UK was very much under the radar during those discussions, and I still think they are a school worth a serious look.
LikeLike
anti-superconference column:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/20/3850143/super-conferences-the-wrong-path.html
LikeLike
Re: what happens next
The real question is who is SEC 14? Only FSU or VT would seem to be great adds that enhance and fit in well.
However, not sure it is clear that either school would want to leave ACC. Thus I could see the SEC just adding A&M for the time being.
The next question: does the Big 12 need to add a 10th team?
Does the ACC add a 12th team if FSU or VT leave?
Not sure there is any clear consensus add for either conference?
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC would sit at 13. TAMU isn’t worth the headache. If they can’t find a satisfactory 14th school, they’ll just tell the Aggies to wait and see.
LikeLike
If the ACC can get the same deal from ESPN that Fox gave to the Big XII (continuing to pay for the CCG even though it’s being played) I suspect they could just stay at 11. Heck, given the laughing stock the game has become I wouldn’t be shocked if they stayed below 12 even if they did lose the TV deal.
LikeLike
Sure, but first the SEC has to pry a satisfactory school away from the ACC. Taking WVU or Louisville in order to add TAMU is pretty crazy (and short-sighted), in my view.
LikeLike
I do not see how the SEC does not take A&M at this point, no matter what the cost. Outside of them pulling in Texas and/or Oklahoma alone, which seems unlikely at this point, there are no expansion candidates that can bring them what A&M brings by itself, including Florida State. Passing on A&M at this juncture would just cost SEC and A&M more down the road. There is the political clout necessary for A&M to make this happen now, but it may not be there the next time around.
LikeLike
I think the main issue is the #14 team at this point. If the SEC could have lined up FSU or Va Tech, then I think they would have already pulled the trigger.
Everyone’s already acknowledged that A&M more than pays for itself in the long run, but the question of #14 is important. Maybe Missouri or WVU is adequate if paired with A&M, but maybe the SEC wants to be sure it can line up FSU or Va Tech (both of which seem unlikely at this point unless something changes).
At this point, the conferences have to choose extremely carefully because now there’s limited spots left. If you want to stay at 14 and not go to 16 (because of the pods and destruction of annual rivalries as well as the increase in years because of games), then you almost have to choose the next two teams as if they were the last two in for the long term (even if the conference isn’t completely shunning the 16 team idea).
LikeLike
I think zeek raises the real issue, in what combination of 4 schools gives you the best long term potential. TAMU jumping to the SEC not only gets the SEC in Texas with the #2 school in the state, but it gets a bigger gem folks keep missing. Everybody plays the academic card on the SEC, but adding TAMU changes the SEC hand overnight. The B12 lost CU to the PAC, and UNL to the B1G (when they still had AAU), but TAMU to the SEC means a strong AAU school with no realistic long term shot at losing the AAU status. Add in Vanderbilt + Florida and now you are at 3 AAU voters in the SEC. Suddenly the B12 is down to 4 AAU schools, and 2 – MU and KU – were in near the start of the AAU – 08′ & 09′ respectively. Georgia is no academic slouch even tho they are not the research school in the state.
Now look at the ACC with only 5 AAU schools :
UVA 1904 = added in SoCon move
UNC 1922 = former SIAA member [NCST was SIAA as well]
Duke 1938 = added near demise of SoCon
MD 1969 = added in 2nd year of SoCon
Ga Tech 2010 = former SEC school with UGA football overlap
The ACC could add AAU schools Rice and Tulane, but will lose football value, and fall farther behind in the Super Conference arms race.
On the flip side, say the SEC could land 1 or 2 of the current 5 (because even if the B1G adds 4 ACC schools to get to 16, they still leave one ACC AAU school for the SEC).
Sure the B1G and PAC already have a substantial AAU lead, but depending on how Slive adds teams #14, #15, and #16, they could jump to # 3 overnight.
LikeLike
Actually, there was been some speculation that Rick Perry’s “reforms” could cost A&M its Tier One research ranking which would almost certainly be followed by a lose of AAU membership. It is probably not a huge risk, but its a non-zero chance.
LikeLike
frug,
I thought the PUF insulated both UT and TAMU from such issues, and that TT and the other state schools were where funding was a bigger issue. Am I not understanding this correctly? If so, please explain some more what you are thinking here?
LikeLike
There is a former UT professor who is leading a movement in Texas with the philosophy that teaching is important and most research is worthless (and that a lot of professors don’t bother to teach). Rick Perry has appointed people to the board of regents who believe in that philosophy. A&M implemented some of the reforms and got a warning letter from the AAU. The UT board hired someone as a consultant who supported those reforms, but his contract was not renewed after the alumni got involved to stop the threat.
Its not a funding issue, but a de-emphasis on research. Its a direct contrast to everything the state is doing on its tier I funding plan trying to bring other universities up to tier I.
LikeLike
Yeah, Perry can’t directly dictate policy per se, but he can stack the BoR with like minded individuals.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Not sure about worthless, but he has a point that higher education has moved to the business of research, and away from educating future generations of americans. I see this all the time now where folks are on the research payroll with minimal if any student interaction. I learned more drinking with my professors after class than many things I did in class. Back then it was about teaching and my professors were engaged in the classroom. It may have carried on after class, but they were reaching students first in the classroom. I blame much of my way out of the box thinking on two specific people, and both were my professors. Sure they did research, but back then they were educators first, and foremost. Sure I learned what was in the books, but they taught the intangible things as well.
Teach a guy to use a slide rule is one thing, but teaching someone what the numbers mean is the bigger skill.
LikeLike
Hasn’t universities primary function been research nearly forever? Publish or perish? Learning is the students responsibility, and a university gives students the opportunity to glean from those more advanced in their fields, not require professors to hand feed hundreds each year. Advanced students, post grads may be taken under a wing, if they have earned it.
LikeLike
There’s a surprisingly balanced discussion in the UT Alumni magazine-Alcalde. Jeff Sandefer is the one promoting the changes which would separate teaching and research and aim to make the student the “customer.” I’m sure you could find something looking him up. A&M implemented one of his suggestions, separating the teaching and research budget and “grading professors based on how much money they “made” or “lost” the university.” That was what generated the negative response from the AAU. “Separating research from teaching and oversimplifying the evaluation of faculty does violence to the values that have produced the American universities that are envied and emulated across the globe,” was the response from current AAU and former Cal, UT and Illinois President Robert Berdahl.
LikeLike
@bullet
“There is a former UT professor who is leading a movement in Texas with the philosophy that teaching is important and most research is worthless (and that a lot of professors don’t bother to teach).”
Who’s that? I’m curious to hear more about this, and my searches aren’t returning anything useful.
LikeLike
@ Mike
I googled Jeff Sandefer and saw a lot of references, including his 7 breakthrough solutions.
He was a professor of a very successful entrepeneurship program at UT. There was a falling out and he and much of his fellow faculty members are at Hardin-Simmons.
LikeLike
To this point that leaves AAU Members Rutgers, Pitt, ISU and Kansas all as available options from the BE and B12 likely to be poached. Does this AAU standing plus location make Rutgers attractive to the ACC? What about Pitt? Does B1G bring in ISU (rivalry to Iowa) and Kansas to increase AAU member schools?
LikeLike
No. College athletics is still, ultimately, about athletics (and eyeballs). ISU doesn’t add enough in that regard. For that matter, neither does RU (in athletic fervor) and KU (in eyeballs). Pitt would be a good addition if they were located outside the B10 footprint. Put Pitt in Jersey and they’d probably be in the B10 already.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1097657.html
The best programs according to final AP polls. This is the all-time list, but they also have them by decade.
1 Oklahoma 936.5
2 Ohio State 908
3 Michigan 905
4 Notre Dame 872.5
5 Alabama 825
6 Texas 750.5
7 USC 737
8 Nebraska 699
9 Tennessee 678
10 Penn State 645
11 LSU 530
12 Auburn 517
13 Miami 511
14 Georgia 510
15 UCLA 503
16 Florida 469
17 Florida State 443
18 Arkansas 393
19 Michigan State 349
20 Texas A&M 337
21 Washington 330
22 Georgia Tech 317.5
23 Pittsburgh 293
24 Iowa 291
25 Wisconsin 289
B10 – 7/12
SEC – 7/12
B12 – 3/10
ACC – 3/12
P12 – 3/12
BE – 1/9
Other – 1
LikeLike
Iowa’s football history is much better than a lot of casual fans assume.
I think they bring that on themselves by puffing up Nile Kinnick all the time….but they have a lot Of BT all-timers like Cal Jones, Alex Karras, Chuck Long, Gordon Locke, Duke Slater, Randy Duncan, Aubrey Devine, Andre Tippett…although MSU and WIS are ranked higher in the all-time polls, IMO, Iowa’s football history is slightly superior to those schools……..
LikeLike
It all depends how you look at it. All 3 programs cycle between down periods and up periods.
NCs – 1. MSU – 1952, 1965, 1966, 2. IA – 1958, 3. WI – none
All time AP Polls – 1. MSU, 2a. IA, 2b. WI
B10 win % (since ’53) – 1. MSU 0.550, 2. IA 0.502, 3. WI 0.466
B10 titles (since ’53) – 1. IA 8, 2. MSU – 7, 3. WI 6
Rose Bowls – 1. WI 7 (3-4), 2a. IA 5 (2-3), 2b. MSU 4 (3-1)
Bowls – 1. IA 25 (14-10-1), 2. WI 22 (11-11), 3. MSU 21 (7-14)
Heismans – 1. WI – 1954, 1999, 2. IA – 1939, 3. MSU – none
MSU – 1+1+1+2+2+3+3 = 13
IA – 2+2+2+1+2+1+2 = 12
WI – 3+2+3+3+1+2+1 = 15
You can make an argument for IA, but it’s more about consistency while MSU has higher peaks. WI is clearly doing the best lately.
LikeLike
I think MSU has been better overall since the early 1950s….but they hadn’t made much of a splash before that. Iowa was damn good from 1910 or so all the way through the early 1960s….they then had a 20 year drought which kind of changed their public perception….a lot of people think they sucked all the time prior to Hayden Fry (with the exception of Kinnick), and that definately wasn’t the case…
I know this is ancient history, but I kinda like ancient history………..
LikeLike
I gave the B10 winning percentage since 1953 because that is when MSU joined.
All time WP (since ’53):
MSU – 0.550 (0.550)
WI – 0.478 (0.466)
IA – 0.456 (0.502)
IA was worse before 1953 than after.
Total winning percentage before 1953 (since MSU wasn’t in a conference):
28. MSU – 0.646
46. WI – 0.620
94. IA – 0.528
LikeLike
Responding to Brian’s post–
MSU’s history prior to ’47 was similiar to PSU’s before Paterno–they won a nice % of their games, but didn’t have much of a national impact.
For example, prior to ’47, MSU had only played in 1 bowl game in its history. At one point they had lost something like 18 games in a row to Michigan. And while Iowa has 4 CFHFers that played before ’47 (Slater, Devine, Kinnick, Locke), MSU had none.
When Munn got there in ’47, and continuing with Duffy, they were as good as any program in the
country (ie..froom ’47-’66). However, from 1967 to the present, by my calculation (omitting ties), they’re only 254-232 overall, and 176-169 in the BT.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
I’m not trying to argue anyone’s case here. I’m just trying to provide facts relevant to the discussion. You said you felt IA was slightly better than WI and MSU historically.
PSU was relevant under Engle, including 4 bowls in a row back when that was difficult, but JoePa made them a power. I agree that MSU wasn’t as good before Munn or after Daugherty, but I don’t see your point.
You talked about how good IA was from the 1910s – 1960s but that MSU hadn’t made a splash before the 1950s. I provided winning percentages to show that may not be true. MSU won a lot more often than IA before 1953 (when MSU joined the B10).
I’ll take your word for IA having the edge in pre-1947 CFB HOFers, but so what? It’s a team game.
You point out MI beating MSU a bunch of years in a row, but that just shows MI is better than MSU historically which everyone already knew. If IA had a king for a rival maybe they would have lost a bunch in a row, too. Who knows?
You also mention MSU only playing in 1 bowl game before 1947. How many did IA play in before 1947? (For the studio audience, the answer is 0). How does this help make IA look better than MSU?
Since 1967, MSU is 254-243-9 (0.511). Iowa is 268-238-9 (0.529), which is only slightly better and aided by playing ISU annually instead of MI. MSU-MI is 13-31 over that period while IA-ISU is 23-11. Subtract those games, and the records become MSU 241-212-9 (0.531) and IA 245-227-9 (0.519).
Since 1967, MSU is 180-165-7 (0.521) in B10 play according to my source while IA is 175-169-8 (0.509). MSU is 4th best in the B10 over that period behind OSU, MI and PSU. Again, I don’t see how this helps your case.
LikeLike
Casual fans don’t recognize 75% of the names on your list.
Purdue has Len Dawson, Bob Griese, Mike Phipps, Leroy Keyes, Gary Danielson, Otis Armstrong, Jim Everett, Rod Woodson, Mike Allstott, Drew Brees, Kyle Orton, Ray Edwards, and 32 other current NFL players.
I totally give you props that Iowa football is much stronger than PU, but our “top celebrities” are very comparable to your’s.
And, BTW, just because I can’t resist, Purdue has the best all-time BB record in B10.
Prost.
LikeLike
Good points about Purdue’s football history–again, much underrated..
What people don’t realize about the BIG is that ILL, PUR, WIS, IOWA, NW, and MINN were all pretty damn competitive until the mid-1960s…..even IU was competitive until the huge mid-50s scandal…prior to that IU had guys like Chuck Bennett, Corby Davis, Pihos, Taliaferro, Hillenbrand…that could play with anyone…
It wasn’t until the early ’70s that the BIG became the Big 2 and Little 8…since then it’s been a mixed bag as to how the “Little 8” have fared……..
LikeLike
OK, I’ve decided to look it up, so here are all the times IU has managed to string together more than one winning season in a row after 1910 and before 1970:
’35-’37
’44-’47
’67-’68
IU’s been pretty bad at football for a long time now (and in all those years, they never had more home games than away games, which tells you what the fan interest in IU football was like).
LikeLike
Richard,
when you yearn for the return of the IU vs UK football game, you get a quick feel on where the program is.
LikeLike
As to basketball……………..while IU’s 5 banners are getting a little dusty, that 1 Helms banner is all eaten through by the mice…….
LikeLike
Boiler Tex,
Because I can not resist,
PU wins the battle
IU wins the war
LikeLike
Well played.
LikeLike
Thought it would be interesting to look at how the schools have done by decade, 30s to 00s. Below are where they rank in poll points each decade (N-not ranked in decade):
9 kings
1. OU 16,14,1,18,1,4,33,4
2. OSU 18,6,4,4,6,12,9,1
3. Mich 31,1,17,23,4,3,5,15
4. ND 1,2,3,5,7,19,12,32 (pretty steady downward)
5. AL 5,15,23,1,2,11,8,12
6. UT N,4,12,2,9,26,24,2
7. USC 10,17,20,6,5,12,28,3
8. UNL 12,48,N,14,3,1,3,25
10. PSU N,30,42,8,8,6,6,17
3 newer kings
13. Mi N,N,21,38,N,2,7,10
16. FL N,N,31,34,43,22,2,6
17. FSU N,N,N,N,27,7,1,22
Near kings
9. TN 5,5,7,15,15,24,4,20 (Neyland era king, but not at same level)
11. LSU 10,20,24,7,17,18,35,5
12. Aub N,67,13,19,13,7,16,10
14. UGA N,8,39,21,21,9,17,7
15. UCLA 28,29,9,10,16,5,19,55 (someone we never talk about who probably belongs up here-
lack of success last decade and long time since last MNC and so they don’t come to mind
as frequently)
Other top 20
18. Ark 26,67,38,2,10,20,42,37
19. MI St. N,45,2,13,29,35,31,50
20. A&M 24,27,25,N,22,24,11,58
It was also interesting to look at who made the top 10 in a decade who was not top 20 overall-30s Pitt #2, Duke #3, Minnesota #4, Forham #7, Santa Clara #8, TCU #9;
40s Army #3, Duke #7, Navy #9, Penn #10;
50s Wisconsin #4, Georgia Tech #6, Maryland #7, Mississippi #10.
After that, its been overwhelmingly the teams who are all time top 20. Only ones since then to crack the top 10 for a decade:
60s Missouri #9
70s Arizona St. #10
80s Clemson #10
90s Colorado #10
00s, VT #8, Boise #9
LikeLike
would you do a similar thing for basketball?
LikeLike
Nebraska…..14,3,1,3,25 last 50 years, just sayin’ that’s a damn strong modern era run!
LikeLike
It is very impressive.
Some stats for everybody:
10 of the top 20 were ranked in every decade.
5 were ranked in all but the 30s (UT, PSU, AU, UGA, MSU)
2 more were ranked in all but one decade (NE – 50s, TAMU – 60s)
UF was not ranked in the 30s and 40s
Miami was not ranked in the 30s, 40s and 70s
FSU was not ranked in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s
7 schools were #1 for a decade – OU twice, OSU, MI, ND, AL, NE, FSU
Best was #2 for 5 – UT, Miami, UF, Ark, MSU
Best was #3 for 1 – USC
Best was #4 for 1 – TN
Best was #5 for 2 – LSU, UCLA
Best was #6 for 1 – PSU
Best was #7 for 2 – AU, UGA
Best was #11 for 1 – TAMU
Best worst decade – OSU 18, AL 23, TN 24
Best runs (totaled):
Over all 8 decades – OSU 60, AL 77, ND 81
7 decades in a row – OSU 42, ND 49, OSU 59
6 in a row – OSU 36, ND 37, OSU 41
5 in a row – ND 18, OSU 32 twice, OSU 35
4 in a row – ND 11, ND 17, OSU 20
3 in a row – ND 6, NE 7, ND 10, MI 12, OSU twice & AL 14
2 in a row – AL & ND 3, NE 4 twice, OU & ND 5, MI 7, OSU & MI & ND & UF & FSU 8
Best numbers (totaled):
Over all 8 decades – OSU 60, AL 77, ND 81
Any 7 decades – OSU 42, ND 49, AL 54
6 – OSU & ND 30, AL 39, OU 40
5 – ND 18, OSU 21, OU 24
4 – OU 10, ND 11, MI 13, OSU 15
3 – OU & ND 6, NE 7, MI & AL & UT 8, OSU 9
2 – OU 2, ND & AL 3, MI & UT & NE 4, OSU 5
LikeLike
UNC officials are hoping to hire an athletic director with ties to both “Carolinas” — but he won’t come cheap:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/22/1428047/hyman-uncs-disinterested-choice.html
LikeLike
I really don’t see much happening for the foreseeable future. The ACC schools seemed content with their deal. and making the maximum deal isn’t a goal. The only item that could have an effect is the Miami situation. If they get serious probation and loss of scholarships, to the degree that it hurts other teams around them, and if Florida State secretly wants to move to the SEC, I could see them using that situation as the excuse to justify it. Nothing I see seems to suggest that FSU wants to move.
A&M may or may not escape the B12. If they do, the SEC will likely take WVu. The SEC won’t take Missouri as that would be piling on the B12 and be frowned on. WVu can be replaced in the Big East without disrupting college football.
Texas has the least freedom of movement of any team. Any suggestion of being independent is sheer talk. They have TT and Baylor shackled to their ankles right now. If by some miracle A&M escapes, Texas may even become responsible for Houston. Texas either keeps the B12 alive somehow, or moves to the Pac12, taking as many of those schools with them as it can, and I don’t see that realistically as happening.
The B10 isn’t expanding. They are waiting and will wait for eternity for ND. ND is never joining a conference short of total Armageddon and perhaps not even then. There will always be enough left-overs to fill a minor sports calendar, and they can schedule whomever they want for football.
The idea of 16 team super conferences is too much based on logic to actually happen. There are too many people involved and people always tend to messy end results.
LikeLike
Please, mouse, you are throwing cold water on the hopes and dreams of many on this blog. If you can’t go along with the 4×16, don’t comment.:)
I feel the same as you. aTm and WVa to the SEC and everything pretty much stops. The UTX, or the UTIX will not implode. Pac 12 is locked out. ACC is good unless, Va Tech and NC State want the SEC money. Big East is safe because they can always fill out with CUSA.
Thank gawd, only 10 days to football!!!!!!
LikeLike
Those two moves are exactly the two I am expect. West Virginia and A&M moves and it is close to stopping there I think the Big 12 might go for BYU at that point and the Big East might decide for one more, but none of the 16 team conferences and only 1 more 14 team one.
LikeLike
If Slive adds TAMU, then adding WVU seems impossible. In football terms that is like getting the 5 star quarterback, and then getting a walk on center. Sure, it could happen, but what coach wants to risk his job on that deal.
LikeLike
Duff – I agree that West Virginia is probably not the SEC’s #14. In spite of what is being said, I still think its Florida State, with Virginia Tech as the back-up plan. Florida State is a home run, VA Tech is a triple, while West Virginia is a line drive single. During the last round of SEC expansion, the SEC got two stand-up doubles that have worked out just fine. However it works out, the SEC will do just fine.
Duff – in a post over the weekend, you asked me about LSU’s fan turnout for SEC road games. LSU fans always find ways to get additional tickets. I think we had 20 thousand fans show up in Seattle a few years ago. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina and with only one week’s notice, we had over 20 thousand fans attend the Arizona State game in Tempe.
For SEC games, LSU fans usually have about 10 thousand in the stands, and depending on the importance of the game, several thousand fans may travel without tickets and just tailgate.
LikeLike
Alan, how many viewed South Carolina as a “stand-up double” when it entered the SEC? It was a so-so ACC member that hadn’t done much in the 20 years since leaving, and it was renowned as one of the more dysfunctional athletic departments around. Arkansas at least had a solid football heritage under Frank Broyles. Save for its relatively small population, West Virginia has as much to offer the SEC as South Carolina did in the early ’90s.
LikeLike
WV doesn’t have anywhere near the quality & quantity of football talent or the population that SC has. Plus, while SC is still growing in population, WV would be lucky to keep what they have.
LikeLike
Alan:
FSU is the best option for all involved, IMHO, but VTech really can’t be a backup plan because I really don’t think they’re heading to the SEC unless UVa is willing to go to the B10 (and the B10 wants them). In fact, they’re the only ACC school so far who’s not only said they haven’t been in contact with the SEC, but talked about how the ACC is better for them than the SEC, which is a pretty emphatic rejection.
So if FSU says “no”, what then? Taking Mizzou is too dangerous because it would almost certainly mean the destruction of the B12, sending Texas + OU & company to the Pac (or, less likely, the B10). WVU & the ‘Ville aren’t worth it.
I suppose there’s Clemson, which isn’t a great option with SCarolina already in the league. There is some support by NCSU fans for going to the SEC, but for that to happen, UNC (and Duke) will have to join the B10 as well.
It’s still quite questionable that any ACC school will defect. Pulling out the first school is going to be the hardest part, and I don’t think the SEC takes TAMU without a suitable 14th school (one that they would want for 100 years, etc.). The Aggies may have to stay in the B12 against their will for a while (or explore joining the B10).
LikeLike
vincent,
I think USC had several “intangibles” that made it a solid double when added
+ Old SEC school
+ Much bigger population # 24 @ 4.6 M vs # 37 1.8 M (~ 3 million eyeballs is big)
+ Southern feel and footprint (easier travel for SEC east schools)
+ Loyal fan base (not many schools can still sell seats going 1 – 22)
+ growing population
+ vibrant economy
+ tourism (seriously, most folks drive through WV, not to it)
LikeLike
WV has some great white water rafting, hiking and other mountain fun. And coal mining if you’re into that.
SC has Charleston, golf, beaches and tourist attractions like the giant Peach water tower and South of the Border.
I live in GA and have still spent more time in WV (not counting driving time), but I don’t play golf or go to the beach.
LikeLike
Hey Brian, you’d get to see your team (plus some you hate) every 4th year under my Big20 pod system!
LikeLike
Richard,
The B10 isn’t going to 20 in my lifetime. There are not 8 more teams available that would add value, and the B10 likes to be collegial. Having half of the conference be new is highly unlikely.
LikeLike
Slive would probably take Missouri over WVU as a partner to Texas A&M, though it would probably mean the SEC would have to ultimately expand to 16 by eventually taking in two from the east (preferably two from the ACC, at worst WVU plus one ACC emigre). It’s probably apparent by now that Missouri doesn’t really fit into the Big Ten’s expansion plans, so the SEC is its best alternative.
The potential drawback to taking Missouri is that it weakens the Big 12 to the point that Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech and Texas will head west to the Pac. Then again, Texas has no real interest in the SEC, and OU apparently doesn’t either (although having OSU as part of a package deal hardly helps matters).
LikeLike
But who else?
I’m convinced A&M’s admin has done a 180 degree turnaround from last summer and now wants to go to the SEC. I’m convinced the SEC has done a 180 degree turnaround and is willing to upset the apple cart and see what happens. I’m pretty convinced Baylor and TT aren’t concerned enough to fight in the TX legislature and despite paranoid Aggie comments, there’s no indication UT will either. I know no contractural legal problem exists that can’t be solved with money, so whether its a) 2012, b) 2013 or c) when the ESPN contract runs out (most likely b) 2013) the Aggies will figure out a way to go.
But “who else?” is why I don’t believe this is a sure thing yet. A&M might have to pay for #13 and #14 and generate a raise for the 12 existing members and may not be valuable enough to do that. The SEC may still say no.
LikeLike
Slive could do a B1G, and just take TAMU. At first I thought no way, but they are the “white knight” to TAMU in their desire to get away from UT. Slive could just sit and wait for the #14 to come to him. Think about it, as you want to get the biggest bang for the buck, and the SEC is hot right now, not like back in 91′. I keep saying you have to decide what your opponent will do, and not what you want him to do. I think Missouri is an okay add, but I am not sure it would be the first or second add if the B1G passed 12. I think the same with WVU and the SEC, a 16 add at best, but not a #14 when there are still better #14’s possible.
Say the SEC took TAMU and stopped at 13. Then told TAMU to play all 12 SEC teams each year until #14 was added. Each SEC school would drop an OOC game on its schedule, and puts TAMU in their place. I am guessing this would add value because the games they would replace are the worst team on each schools schedule. Use this season as an example:
Alabama drops N Texas adds TAMU
Arkansas already plays TAMU
Auburn drops FAU adds TAMU
LSU drops NWST adds TAMU
MSU drops MTSU adds TAMU
Ole Miss drops SIU adds TAMU
Florida drops FAU adds TAMU
Georgia drops CCU adds TAMU
Kentucky drops CMU adds TAMU
USC drops ECU adds TAMU
Tenness drops Buffalo adds TAMU
Vanderbilt drops Elon adds TAMU
I am just guessing the media values of adding TAMU far outweigh media values for crappy OOC teams. Every SEC schools plays the same number of SEC games, except TAMU who plays an extra 3. Long term it is not favorable to TAMU, but it is the way to get through a season or two until the 14th team can join.
Some possible benefits for TAMU
+ good kickstart to TAMU’s own Tier 3 network
+ exposes TAMU to every SEC school in one year, instead of over time
+ exposes TAMU across the entire SEC footprint their first year in
+ skipping tu for a year or two might strengthen rivalry
+ HOME or neutral games for all SEC West teams / AWAY or neutral for all SEC east
say Arkansas in Jerryworld
say South Carolina in Ga Dome
say LSU in Reliant
say UK in Paul Brown or
say Vanderbilt in LP Field
LikeLike
Duff:
That actually sounds like a really good idea, except for one thing: Is TAMU going to contend for the SEC title somehow, or are they shut out? Are they essentially an independent in football (at least in the standings) until a 14th school is found? 12 SEC games also seems pretty insane (it would also mean only 6 home games for TAMU). Maybe 9 (6 against the SEC West and 3 against the SEC East).
LikeLike
Last year reports were that the SEC was willing to take at A&M and stay at 13 schools for a while. I didn’t believe it at the time, but now I think there’s a chance they might do it for a year or 2.
I see 2 different ways to do it:
1) Put A&M in the West division right away This means everyone in the West plays 6 divisional games, while everyone in the East plays 5.
Place a rule that says only divisional games count towards divisional championships (because teams won’t be able to have the same number of crossover games). Then you need a total of 5 teams that either a) play a 9th SEC game if they’re in the West or b) play only 7 SEC games if they’re in the East.
There are 2 obvious programs to do this at first. A&M already has scheduled 9 conference games + a game against Arkansas in future years, so it can go to 9 SEC games and still have space for UT as a non-conference game. (It might also rearrange things and add another game to see the East teams quicker). Arkansas has scheduled 8 SEC games + A&M in future years, so going to 9 games with A&M in the SEC wouldn’t require them to rearrange anything.
You’d just need 3 more West schools to add a 9th SEC game or 3 East teams to go with only 7 for awhile (or 2&1, or 1&2).
2)Have A&M as an independent with a scheduling alliance with the SEC. You could go with Duffs idea of playing SEC teams as their 9th game (maybe not all 12 in 1 year!), but you could also do it without reducing SEC schools’ current non-conference schedule.
This would have A&M takeover some of the crossover slots between SEC teams. For example, let’s say the following cross-divisional matches would occur in 2012 (note, I haven’t looked up actual schedules): LSU v. Vanderbilt, Arkansas v. Georgia, Alabama v. Kentucky. You could skip those matchups for the time being and have LSU, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Kentucky each play a game versus A&M that would count as one of their ‘crossover’ SEC games. Each current SEC school would still have 4 non-conference games to schedule. Outside of a division, A&M wouldn’t be eligible for the SEC championship, but it would be in the bowl rotation. The SEC could schedule any even number of games against A&M this way.
LikeLike
richard,
it is harder for TAMU, but they would have to “earn” their way in the way gangs beat in new members 😉 Seriously tho, If they have the best record in the west by the end of the season they rematch with SEC east team for CCG in atlanta. If they can get that far there is no voter in the country that would not put them in the MNC because they would have the toughest schedule in the country with no OOC bunnies for an extra 3 or 4 wins on TAMU’s schedule.
LikeLike
@duffman
I absolutely agree the SEC wants FSU or VaTech, but after them, if they say no, there is no discernable difference between Clemson, NCSt, GaTech, and WVa. Missouri might bring more cable money, but at the risk of being responsible for the conference disintegrating. I don’t think the SEC, being Southern gentlemen, will want that. I just don’t see them throwing aTm away because they have ‘to settle’ for WVa as a 14th.
LikeLike
Well, if Clemson was in another state, they’d be more attractive, but being in SC, I can see WVU being more appealing.
LikeLike
you guys were missing the point is Slive can just wait. Look how long the B1G waited between #11 PSU and #12 UNL. granted if it went that long they could jockey the football schedules better to be more even.
LikeLike
Duffman,
11 is a lot easier to deal with than 13.
LikeLike
A serious secondary question on the realignment debate?
We talk on here all the time about AAU membership, but after this past year will the debate change? I ask this as the AAU has never booted anybody out until UNL, and only 4 schools are no longer members in over 100 years. Catholic and Clark were both dropped about a decade ago, and now UNL and SU went out this year. This approaches 10% of membership in a time frame closer to 10% of the total history of the AAU. I guess I am asking if this is a one time thing, or an indication this will happen with greater frequency going forward?
Going forward should we be evaluating the probability of expulsion / dropping of current AAU schools in the realignment debate? Anybody care to address the AAU “locks” vs the AAU “shaky” realignment schools.
Thanks
LikeLike
The AAU question becomes much more complex in the future, especially for the Big Ten. The Big Ten has to consider that the AAU is much more likely to remove the designation from some universities that received it many decades ago but haven’t been able to keep up with research expenditures under their definitions.
Obviously, none of the Big Ten’s 11 AAU members are at risk, but I don’t think the Big Ten will consider any universities at the bottom of the AAU’s unofficial rankings that placed Nebraska last.
This also may make the COP/C much less willing to entertain an option like Oklahoma. Several presidents may put their foot down and say that Notre Dame is the only non-AAU institution that they’re willing to consider.
I do think it affects the Big Ten in several ways if it impacts the expansion choices because the COP/C doesn’t want to have another situation like Nebraska’s re: the AAU. This likely means we’ll be waiting for Notre Dame for a long time to move to 14.
For the other conferences, the SEC is gaining A&M presumably in the next two years, so that will help their perception. The other thing is that the AAU has been looking at adding Southern institutions of late (and removing older Northern members that have fallen behind in their definition of research expenditures), and that will help to make the organization more representative. But I don’t think it will impact SEC expansion, since that is almost-100% driven by the search for new brands/markets/recruiting grounds. The SEC isn’t going to reject Oklahoma State or Texas Tech because of academics, but because those schools don’t bring any TV/football value to the conference.
As for Pac-12 expansion, the Pac-16 scenario shows that they’re willing to disregard the academic side of the equation as long as they can get Texas/Oklahoma into the Pac-16. They’re willing to accept Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to get that done because they’ll get their old Pac-8 back in a Western division.
The ACC is probably going to stay at 12. Syracuse and Pitt are likely to be their first choice replacements if they lose a school, but I don’t think Syracuse losing AAU changes that equation. Maybe they’d be more likely to take Pitt because of academics/research, but either way, they’re more looking at how to stay at 12. Unless Notre Dame comes calling, it’s really hard to see the ACC pulling the trigger on active expansion because Syracuse/Pitt don’t pay for themselves in a move to 14 (they shrink each school’s portion). As you can see with Notre Dame and Syracuse, neither is AAU, so I don’t think AAU will impact the ACC’s options.
LikeLike
Jackie Sherrill
http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2011/08/jackie-sherrill-predcits-am-sec-move-will-play-out-and-questions-big-12s-long-term-survival-in-radio.html
Sherrill told the station that he considers the Pac-12 the primary driver in the move to 20-team leagues, with the Big Ten willing to follow suit.
“With 20-team conferences, there’s only room for four,” Sherrill said. “So who are the four conferences? That’s going to be the Big Ten, Pac-10 (now the Pac-12), SEC and ACC, for sure. I don’t know of anybody (else), the Big East, the Big 12, Conference USA or any of the other conferences will ever get strong enough to bounce those teams out.”
…
Sherrill also weighed in with thoughts about why the SEC presidents, in an Aug. 14 meeting, opted to take no action in regard to A&M but left open the door to expansion at a later date. The next day, A&M regents unanimously approved a motion to let school president R. Bowen Loftin negotiate on the school’s behalf in regard to conference realignment.
“The attorneys advised the SEC what to do and how to do it. And they also put in parameters,” said Sherrill, who likened A&M’s situation to a spouse seeking a divorce before taking steps to re-marry. “In laymen’s terms, it’s very simple. You have to file for a divorce, you have to obtain a divorce, then you’re going to be courted, then you’re going to get engaged and then you’re going to get married … The bottom line is what’s best for Texas A&M today, tomorrow, 10 years … and 100 years down the road.”
LikeLike
Finally! Someone else who sees that 20-school conferences can make more sense than 16-schools conferences. Could the Pac and B10 collude to pull off a double-raid?
Pac adds all the B12 schools except TAMU & ISU
B10 forgets about ND (I do believe they’ll be more irrelevent in the future anyway with no recruiting base) and adds all the AAU and near-AAU schools in the ACC (UVa, VTech, Maryland, UNC, Duke, NCSU, GTech, & FSU).
SEC adds TAMU & Clemson (ironically, this could all be set off by the SEC adding TAMU & Clemson).
SEC would fight against this, but if all of the other 4 conference agree, it could happen.
The Pac actually has 2 clear divisions (essentially 2 leagues sharing a TV channel and contract).
Big20 would need pods, but set up right, and the original B10 schools actually would hardly play each other less than they do now (annual games against 4 of the other original 10 + half against the other 5 vs. annual games against 5 of the other original 10 and 40% or 60% against the other 4).
LikeLike
Trying to envision Big Ten pods under this 20-member scenario:
South pod — Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State
North pod — Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Central pod — Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Wisconsin
West pod — Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
LikeLike
Well, first, all of the original Big10 schools would have to belong in 2 pods that are adjacent (as each pod would get together with an adjacent pod half the time to form a division; pods I&III as well as II&IV would never play each other), so
pod II
Michigan, OSU, MSU, IU, PU
pod III
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minny, NU, Illinois
PSU would have to be in pod I and UNL in pod IV.
How to divide the ACC schools?
I envision
pod I
PSU, VTech, Virginia, Maryland, GTech
pod IV
Nebraska, FSU, UNC, NCSU, Duke
UNC-Virginia would have to play their rivalry game OOC half the time, but that shouldn’t be a problem as games that would have been OOC are now conference games.
All of the B10 teams get some access to recruiting in the south. In terms of strength (with 4 being “king” and .5 being “Duke”), here’s how I would rate the pods:
pod I
PSU: 4
VTech: 3.5
Virginia: 1.5
Maryland: 1
GTech: 2
=12
pod II
Michigan: 4
OSU: 4
MSU: 2.5
IU: 1
PU: 2
=13.5
pod III
Wisconsin: 3
Iowa: 3
Minny: 1
NU: 1.5
Illinois: 2
=10.5
pod IV
Nebraska: 4
FSU: 3.5
UNC: 3
NCSU: 2
Duke: .5
=13
Pod III is the weakest, but they also have the worst recruiting grounds, so maybe they deserve a break.
LikeLike
“Could the Pac and B10 collude to pull off a double-raid?”
No, they couldn’t.
LikeLike
Revision on this: Pac would not take sectarian Baylor so Texas brings Houston instead for another Texas team.
ND forms a BCS conference with their dream collection of privates and academices from the remnants of the ACC and Baylor:
ND, Miami, BC, WFU, Baylor, Army, Navy, AFA
ND still plays USC, Stanford, & PU every year OOC and MSU & Michigan 2/3rds of the time. ND literally visits every part of the country they care about (west coast, mountain west, Texas, Midwest, Florida, SE outside Florida, and Northeast).
LikeLike
1,300th post.
Not much to say.
Well, I do hate the idea of “pods.”
LikeLike
@EXCUSE
1,327th post
Not only do I hate pods, I despise pods, and anything that has more than 14 members and calls itself a conference!
LikeLike
I love pods. It gives our alums more chances to see NU.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110820/SPORTS/708209797
Omaha World-Herald ran an article about how important Ohio is to B10 recruiting. The article has a link to a map of all B10 recruits this decade.
LikeLike
The writing’s good, but the map actually doesn’t support some of his assertions. For instance, the Badgers took only a handful of players from Ohio. They have an absolute lock on WI, but they get far more from the East Coast (NJ alone supplies the Badgers more players than OH), a lot from DFW, and a ton from great Miami.
LikeLike
WI had 221 total recruits, 69 from WI, 23 from OH and FL, 20 from IL, 17 from TX, 14 from MN and 10 from PA.
OH is their second best source (tied), and if OH wasn’t providing so many players then I doubt WI would do as well at home. WI got 69 of 96 local recruits, with MI the only king to go there and they only took 2. If OH wasn’t helping to stock OSU and MI so well, don’t you think some more of those WI recruits might be lost?
OH provided 52 for MSU, 43 for IU and 40 for UM. NW, MN, IA, IL and WI all took about 25 players (+ or – 2). Another 30 total went to PU, PSU and UNL. Without those 291 extra B10 recruits coming from OH, all the other states would be raided much more.
LikeLike
Brian: That map must be mislabeled, then, because I don’t see a lot of black dots in OH.
LikeLike
. . .or the dots are all on top of each other.
LikeLike
Exactly. Go to the top of the map and select WI under “Browse by team.” It provides a breakdown by state, position and HS.
LikeLike
The map’s actually quite fascinating. We can see that UNL pulls everywhere (including the rural areas) in Texas, UW concentrates on DFW. UW concentrates on south Florida as well while PU goes all over the state, covering it more than most SEC schools.
DC area’s very big for PSU only, while everyone hits NJ and greater Atlanta.
UNL is pretty strong in SoCal while Northwestern pulls more from NoCal than any other B10 school.
LikeLike
It’s actually somewhat stunning just how much the B10 still relies on the Midwest and East Coast for its top talent. Of the (subjective) list of top 50 B10 players, only 4 come from outside of B10 country, an adjoining state or the East Coast (Mid-Atlantic and up). For all the talk about how Florida, Texas, & Cali are hotbeds of talent (and the B10 does go down in to Texas, Atlanta, and especially FL to get talent), Cali contributed 1, FL contributed 2, and Texas contributed none.
LikeLike
The Big Ten used to get plenty of black prep talent from the segregated South in the ’50s, ’60s and much of the ’70s, as SEC and some ACC schools either didn’t recruit black players or did so sparingly. By the ’80s, much of that had changed and the pipeline effectively dried up.
LikeLike
That area has over half the US population. It’s not that stunning that a large proportion of Big Ten players come from the highly populous footprint and surrounding area.
LikeLike
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2011/8/22/2378057/ncaa-to-review-high-school-sports-ban-on-school-conference-networks
Not to cause any B12 instability or anything, but people from ESPN, LHN and UT (among others) have been meeting with the NCAA to try to get the rules about televising HS FB changed.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/august/ncaa+hosts+discussion+about+youth-sport+telecasts
Here’s the NCAA’s release about it, including the full list of attendees.
UT – 3
LHN – 1
ESPN – 1
MWC – 2
The Mtn – 1
B10 – 1
BTN – 1
BYU Network – 1
BYU – 1
WCC – 1
Turner Sports – 1
P12 – 1
other college – 3
high school – 3
other business – 3
LikeLike
I don’t see the Big Ten putting up with flash like this:
http://www.testudotimes.com/2011/8/22/2378279/marlyand-unveils-new-football-uniforms-16-combinations-no-helmet-logo#comments
Maryland’s new uniforms. Is there too much of a cultural divide here?
LikeLike
Nike has done things just as bad for OSU, but it was only for one game thankfully.
All the apparel company presidents need to be shot for the horrible new looks they put out.
LikeLike
This train wreck will be there every game… I can only imagine what they’d do for a bowl game.
The shell pattern on the helmets is a pretty good idea though….
LikeLike
Price they pay for being UnderArmour’s version of Oregon. The founder is a MD alum and he is a big booster.
LikeLike
Better pictures:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/post/maryland-unveils-new-football-uniforms/2011/08/22/gIQA19BQXJ_blog.html
LikeLike
@Brian:
Took the words out of my mouth. Last year’s Michigan game uniforms were atrocious.
LikeLike
As long as they never wear the same color jersey and pants together (aside from white over white), they will be okay. I don’t believe Maryland has ever worn a gold jersey before. I probably would have made the helmet white with a red, gold and black tri-color stripe (somewhat evoking the Jim Tatum era).
LikeLike
I think they should wear the Maryland state flag pattern on their uniforms. That would be awesome. The Terps would win every game simply because their opponents would fall down blind.
LikeLike
Ken Starr lobbying SEC presidents with Chip Brown articles?
http://twitter.com/#!/richardjustice/status/105779760176701440
LikeLike
Emails here?
http://t.co/nvwtmWC
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/8/22/2376974/sb-nation-conference-realignment-draft-twelve-rounds-complete
The 12th round of the re-draft is over. Some conference will go on, but most are done at 12. The last picks (67-72): UCF, Georgetown, KSU, Fresno St, Nova, NW
At least the last B10 team finally came off the board. ISU and Baylor did not get picked. Neither did Army, Navy, Houston or ECU.
LikeLike
Georgetown? Wake didn’t get picked either.
LikeLike
Nor did WSU and Rutgers
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15469158/ncaas-limited-immunity
Some more details about NCAA procedure. Apparently violations can follow a student to another school, but the NCAA generally doesn’t bother to pursue it unless there was an agent involved. However, the NCAA does provide limited immunity in special cases to players. The players avoid being punished for their violations in exchange for detailed testimony about what went on. Players are obliged to cooperate with the NCAA, so I assume this is used only when the player has no incentive to tell the whole truth otherwise.
LikeLike
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/8/22/2376732/parting-shots-longhorn-network-college-football-realignment
An SEC view on the LHN.
LikeLike
Kind of a ridiculous article. Last year UT had $140 million in revenue. Only $10 million of that came from conference and TV distributions. TV is a SMALL part of the difference between the programs. Look at the difference between OSU/UM,PSU and Northwestern. UT athletics has guaranteed at least $5 million to academics. There’s only so much you can spend on athletics.
And everyone will have some sort of network. KSU is on the internet. BYU and Hawaii have their networks. Pac 12 will have 6 regional networks (although revenue is shared). BTN will undoubtedly follow the Pac 12 model. And it isn’t clear that the internet isn’t where the big network viewership will be 15 years from now. And 1 or 2 college networks are niche programming. How many people watch coaches shows even from their own school?
There may be some reason for concern that ESPN owns the LHN and that ESPN might play favorites. But they already do. The Big 12 (including UT) and Pac 10 got pretty much ignored as they originally signed with Fox. NBC promotes Notre Dame. CBS promotes the SEC.
LikeLike
bullet,
I’ll just throw this out as a possibility. Are you, perhaps, too close to this to be objective? The SEC guys have no built in bias for or against UT, they all make millions on the side for their third tier rights, and ESPN is their buddy. The fact that they still consider the LHN worrisome should tell you this isn’t restricted to TAMU having a little brother complex. A lot of people have issues with the LHN and what it represents.
If you can’t see that, even though I’m sure you disagree, then you need to take off your burnt orange glasses.
LikeLike
I grew up an SEC fan and still follow pretty closely. And I can tell you noone is more biased than SEC fans. And you should read some of the stuff they are writing now that A&M is trying to join. But even then, most of it is typical UT is evil stuff and not any concern that the LHN will threaten the SEC dynasty. They aren’t worried about that.
And you probably don’t remember, but HopkinsHorn and I were both skeptical the LHN would work. But clearly everyone is trying to do something similar.
Many people look at TV $ as if that is all there is. It is really a small part of the gap, which is very large and growing, between the haves a lot, haves some and have nots. That’s why the article saying the LHN was armageddon for college football was ridiculous. UT may very well make less than Florida (I’ve seen $8-$10 million quoted) on tertiary rights this year as the UT contract starts around $11 million and includes licensing fees which go to IMG.
As I said, I can understand some concern about UT and ESPN being too close, but I think there’s plenty of that sort of stuff already out there.
LikeLike
SEC fans are totally biased, but they aren’t all inherently anti-UT. All the anti-UT stuff started with the LHN and airing HS and B12 games.
There is a lot more than TV money, but TV money helps drive the gap. If it wasn’t important, why would all the conference commissioners be making such a big deal about falling behind?
LikeLike
No, they aren’t anti-UT. They never pay much attention to anyone who isn’t east or at least on the banks of the Mississippi (don’t really even pay much attention to Arkansas except for maybe LSU fans). Maybe the anti-UT slant started with A&M joining the SEC rather than with the LHN issue (and UT not being interested)?
Of course, TV money is important. Most schools are losing money on their sports programs. They want every $. But TV $ is what the commissioners control. The rest is up to the school.
LikeLike
bullet,
The anti-UT stuff isn’t TAMU related. SEC people are split on that at best, with many seeing no need to add them. But seeing the ESPN influence, the B12 games, the HS issue and UT trying to avoid the issues as if they knew nothing about them set off the masses. The SEC respects hubris, but only if you admit to it. They don’t respect trying to deflect the blame when people get upset. If UT stood up and admitted they always planned to show HS and B12 games and that they don’t really care if it destabilizes the B12, much of the SEC crowd would be quiet.
LikeLike
The guy’s not thinking. For one, small state programs like Bama, OU, and UNL will not start their own networks (if UNL thought starting their own network was the hot sh*t, they would have stayed in the B12). Then there’s the actual dollars. Without a network, tOSU gets more money from its third-tier (BTN) and media rights than Texas does from it’s third tier and media rights (the $15M was for the LHN and also Texas media rights). No other powerhouse state school can pull off their own network (besides possibly UF) because no other powerhouse state school has the population base and fervor for college football that Texas has (Florida & SoCal are close to Texas in population, but only Florida has the same passion for college football)
LikeLike
Hawaii has one. They were first out of the gate, just going live last week.
I can’t imagine the B1G NOT following the Pac 12’s footsteps and at least trying to do regional shared revenue networks that coordinate with the BTN. There would be simulcasts, so its not like the regional networks would pull good games off the BTN. They could have 1 in IN, 1 in ILL, 1 in MI, I in MN/WI, 1 in IA/NE and then 1 or 2 in OH/PA. Or possibly group 3 schools in a network.
LikeLike
Again, unlike the Pac (which is essentially several urban areas separated by forests, mountains, or desert), it’s hard to draw the line around where regional networks should be. For instance, there’s probably more interest in Chicago for OSU or Michigan’s minor sports and school productions than there is for Northwestern or Illinois related stuff.
LikeLike
Plus, it’s not like the Pac is going to make much if any money on their regional networks (they’re sports tier only, so I can’t see any but diehard alums paying extra for them).
LikeLike
I believe it has not been decided exactly how the out of region P12N regionals will be handled. Probably, as you say, on a sports tier. However, both the national and the local regional will be on basic package in each region. I assume there will be cross region sharing, ie UW vs ASU events will be available in both regions on each region’s regional channel. I’ll probably get the sports package to see how it goes (and possibly to justify getting some of the other sports channels I have been able to resist, so far 🙂 .
LikeLike
Actually, Oklahoma is currently working on developing its own network. The process has stalled a bit recently (likely because they want to make sure they are going to be staying in the Big XII and also to see if the LHN proves viable).
LikeLike
Sorry. I should clarify:
No school network is going to be such a big deal or make much money outside of the LHN or possibly one started by UF.
LikeLike
Big news in my part of the world: Appalachian State board recommends seeking membership in FBS conference.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/08/22/appalachian.state.fbs.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a10
LikeLike
Correction: Not the “board,” but the feasibility study’s committee. The board of trustees and chancellor haven’t voted on it yet.
(God help us if we wind up in the Sun Belt… Believe it or not, to matter how many of you may call FCS “jayvee,” it was a hell of a lot of fun to win three straight FCS national titles. The Sun Belt really isn’t all that much less obscure than the best FCS programs, and winning that conference, in the eyes of fans, just doesn’t seem like it would be all that fulfilling. As a matter of fact, a few FCS conferences have higher computer rankings than that league, even with 22 fewer scholarship players per team.)
LikeLike
Your best hope right now is Sunbelt to CUSA. The MAC is overcrowded already. CUSA doesn’t need any more teams unless the BE takes someone. Would you prefer the WAC? They need FB teams.
LikeLike
I’d prefer the lower revenue but lower costs Socon/FCS over the Sun Belt. Joining the WAC would be blatantly dumb. My preference would be to go directly to C-USA, but the alternatives aren’t great. C-USA would be nice because it’s a decent league (as far as non-AQ leagues go), it has a decent TV deal, and it has a potential in-state rival in ECU and a former SoCon rival in Marshall.
C-USA would be a real longshot for a team coming directly from FCS, although our average attendance is better than about 35 FBS schools.
I’ve figured that App’s best chance to be invited into an expanded C-USA would be if the league did it as a travel-conscious move: Go to 14 schools and add new matchups with closer opponents in exchange for more distant ones in the opposite division. It would make a huge difference in savings for the non-revenue sports. (Keep in mind that non-AQ leagues have to take travel costs into account much, much more than the AQ leagues.) One option would be for two teams to be added to the eastern division (App State and Troy or MTSU or whoever), and shift Southern Miss to the West. The other option would be to add App State to the east and La. Tech to the West…
I realize that this is all a little far-fetched, but seriously: people on this blog are taking about FSU, UNC, Oklahoma, and others being in the Big Ten. I’ve read about the Big East plucking Maryland away from the ACC. That’s not far-fetched?
LikeLike
ApSU needs at least a year or two in the Sunbelt to prove to CUSA they deserve to move up. By then, the BE will have expanded and there may be an open slot in CUSA.
The committee wouldn’t have approved this if they didn’t think it would work out well for ApSU.
LikeLike
BE taking Maryland is farfetched while the B10 taking FSU, UNC, & OU is not because the ACC takes in more money than the BE will while the B10 takes in substantially more than the ACC & the B12 is unstable.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1084323.html
CFN rolls out their 5 year program rankings all day today. They use a formula that includes:
– Attendance: Home attendance average over the last five years divided by 10,000. Avg. Score: 4.39
– APR: The most recently released Academic Performance Rate. 90th to 100th percentile (best) gets a 10, 1st to 10th percentile (worst) gets a 1 Avg. Score: 5.84
– Quality Wins: Wins over FBS teams that finished with a winning record. Avg. Score: 10.58
– Total Wins: Wins over FBS teams. Avg. Score: 29.76
– Players Drafted: Number of players drafted. Avg. Score: 9.56
– Conference Win %: Conference winning percentage times 10. Avg. Score: 4.97
– Elite Win Score: Wins over FBS teams that finished with two losses or fewer, or on the road, at a neutral site, or in a bowl over teams that finished with three losses or fewer. Add an additional 0.5 for an Elite Win over a two-loss team on the road. Avg. Number: 1.18
– Bad Loss Score: Losses to teams that finished with three wins or fewer or any loss to a non-FBS team. Subtract each loss from the overall total. Subtract an additional 0.5 for each Bad Loss at home. Avg. Number: 2.20
– Elite Losses: Losses to teams that finished with two wins or fewer. Take 0.25 of the number. Avg. Number: 5.14
– Bad Wins: Wins over teams that finished with three wins or fewer or any win to a non-FBS team Avg. Number: 11.27
#120 WKU 0.92
#61 UCF 56.86
AQs in the bottom 60 (61-120):
116 Duke
99 WSU
97 ISU
88 MN
87 Baylor
84 CO
81 Vandy
80 IN
79 Syracuse
75 KSU
73 Purdue
72 Ole Miss
71 UW
70 UVA
68 NW
67 MS St
66 IL
64 NCSU
62 ASU
ACC – 3
BE – 1
B10 – 5
B12 – 3
P12 – 4
SEC – 3
This is what kills the B10 in conference comparisons. 2 or 3 of these teams need to step up their game. Not surprisingly, the BE has the fewest because the league has so much parity. They won’t have many in the top 20, either.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1098612.html
41-60 are out.
60 KU 57.25
56 UNC
52 MD
51 UL
50 UConn
49 Stanford
48 UK
47 WF
45 UCLA
44 USF
43 TAMU
42 AZ
41 ECU 71.49
By conference (# so far/total)
ACC – 3 (6/12)
BE – 3 (4/8)
B10 – 0 (5/12)
B12 – 2 (5/10)
P12 – 3 (7/12)
SEC – 1 (4/12)
No surprises here, as the middle of the weaker AQ conferences (or those with more parity) show up. Only SEC and B10 don’t have half of their teams in the bottom 80 (B10 is close, though).
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1098780.html
26-40.
40 MSU 72.29
39 TT
38 Miami
37 SC
35 Rutgers
34 MI
33 GT
32 OkSU
31 Pitt
30 Cal
29 ND
28 FSU
27 Clemson
26 Ark 79.93
That’s 15 schools in about 7.5 points, so not much difference.
ACC 4 (10/12)
BE 2 (6/8)
B10 2 (7/12)
B12 2 (7/10)
P12 1 (8/12)
SEC 2 (6/12)
By simple math, the top 25 will have 6 SEC, 5 B10, 4 P12, 3 B12, 2 BE and 2 ACC schools (22 of the 25, plus Boise, TCU and ???)
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1098781.html
11-25
25 OrSU 81.24
24 TN
23 BC
22 UC
21 IA
20 BYU
19 WI
18 NE
17 MO
16 Utah
15 PSU
14 AU
13 WV
12 OR
11 TCU 99.21
Now the scores start to separate as the better teams come in.
ACC 1 (11/12)
BE 2 (8/8)
B10 4 (11/12)
B12 1 (8/10)
P12 3 (11/12)
SEC 2 (8/12)
That leaves 4 SEC, 2 B12, 1 ACC, 1 B10 and 1 P12 for the top 10, plus Boise.
Again, this hurts the B10 in conference comparisons. More of the top programs need to play like elite programs rather than top 20ish. Not surprisingly, the BE has no top 10 team.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1098795.html
1-10 get their own pages. Link goes to #1.
10 UGA 100.77
9 VT 103.37
8 AL 104.65
7 BSU 109.68
6 LSU 112.50
5 UT 113.97
4 OU 121.48
3 USC 122.47
2 OSU 128.51
1 UF 131.55
Comparing OSU and UF:
OSU, UF
Attendance Score: 10.51, 9.05
APR Score: 9, 9
Drafted Players: 27, 27
FBS Wins: 54, 51
Quality Wins: 27, 36
Elite Win Score: 6.5, 6
Bad Loss Score: 0, 0
Elite Losses: 6, 5
Bad Wins: 10, 8
Conference Score: 9.00, 7.75
The big difference is UF with 9 more wins over teams with winning records (Quality Wins). OSU beat UF on attendance, total wins, elite wins, elite losses and conference winning percentage, while UF won on quality wins and bad wins. They pushed on APR, drafted players and bad losses. I think it came down to the SEC being a better league from top to bottom, so UF played more winning teams than OSU did.
LikeLike
Remember kids,
just say no to drugs
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/08/23/big-cigar-with-some-realignment-news/
less you write something like this
LikeLike
Jeez, enough already.
Big Ten just needs to grab their 20 and move on:
Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas
Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Michigan, Michigan St, Notre Dame, Ohio St, Purdue
Duke, Maryland, N. Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
LikeLike
why not a 120 team conference? then no one can stop us!
LikeLike
There’s nothing stopping two conferences from doing a joint TV deal. The Big 10 and Pac 10 did it at one point. The CFA TV deal, before it fell apart, was over 80 schools-all the major conferences and most of the current CUSA and MWC schools.
It makes a whole lot more sense than expanding forever.
LikeLike
IMHO, this commentator gets what Texas is up to.
LikeLike
If it doesn’t work because the Big 12 is insisting on penalties in its by-laws and protecting its legal rights how that is anyone’s “fault”? It will be enforced by the commissioner as is his duty. It is what it is and the deal either works financially or it doesn’t. If it was the Texas legislature getting involved, then A&M & the SEC could point fingers, but legal and financial are just part of the deal. And A&M can’t be stopped because of contractural clauses. They can only be made to pay damages.
Colorado didn’t really care about the financial aspects (as long as it was reasonably close) and was willing to take a hit if necessary. Nebraska joining the B1G didn’t really have to worry too much about ending up ahead. The money possibly may be a bigger deal on this move.
LikeLike
ND giving up independence for the B12 is, um, unlikely.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6888321/tennessee-lady-vols-pat-summitt-early-onset-dementia
A really bad bad for TN hoops. Pat Summitt has early-onset dementia and sources say Bruce Pearl will get a multi-year show cause penalty and his assistants a one year penalty.
LikeLike
That’s too bad about Coach Summit. She is arguably the greatest coach in the history of college athletics, regardless of sport, and an all around classy human being. I hope she can continue to coach for a long time regardless of the condition.
LikeLike
i agree about Pat Summitt except I don’t think I can call her the best ever in all sports. I’ve got Dan Gable and John Wooden ahead of her based on pure ridiculous levels of success. She built a sport and program from nothing and is the winningest BB coach ever, though, so I don’t want to knock her accomplishments.
LikeLike
Yeah, gun to my head I’d take Gable and, if you are strictly talking NCAA accomplishments, probably Wooden (though if you count Summit’s Olympic success I’d call it a push). That said, it’s incredibly close and that’s why I said arguably.
LikeLike
That’s terrible about Pat Summit.
LikeLike
Some of these Texas scenarios are laughable, especially where ND gets involved. ND isn’t going to join the Pac-16, that setup makes no sense for their non-revenue sports (still somewhat of a consideration here), and they’d end up being in an eastern division playing against mostly Arizona/ASU/Colorado/Utah/Texas/TTech/OU/OSU of which only two of those schools are really “choice” games for them.
The ND to the Big 12 rumors are even worse. It’s hard to see any division setup that would make ND happy unless it’s really geographically imbalanced, and that’s not really a good geographical fit if they have to join in all sports without a straight north/south setup. Also, the fact that none of their traditional rivals are in that conference means that they’d end up pissing off most of the fanbase with this kind of move. At least the Pac-16 (with ND) would have USC and Stanford in there, so this scenario is even less likely than the Pac-16 one. The perception of the fans matter, and I think that joining the Big 12 would provoke an even bigger firestorm around Domers than joining the Big Ten would…
The only Texas-ND scenario that makes any sense is if they create an entirely new conference and try to grab USC (and a few western schools like BYU), along with OU/OSU/TTech (for Texas’ pod/division), and BC/Navy/Pitt/Syracuse (or some other combination of BC/Navy + Big East schools for ND’s Northeast pod). Maybe they’d try to recruit FSU or Miami or both to be the heart of a Southeast pod (Florida isn’t going anywhere).
That’s really the only Texas-ND scenario that I can see happening that involves them both in a conference in the near term. The main problem I see with this scenario is that USC and FSU/Miami are probably not that interested in this scenario given how much travel would be involved; however, the money would be ridiculous of course. It’s easier to get Texas/OU and ND to this kind of scenario because of how centrally located they are geographically in the US.
The Big Ten scenario is pretty much exclusively focused on ND at this point. The main mistake that a lot of people make is that ND is about the money. Yes, ND would make more money in the Big Ten or maybe even the Big 12 with Texas/OU/BYU, but that’s not what drives them. They’re driven by the ability to schedule nationally and have rivals in the Midwest and on both coasts. The best scenario for that is some kind of national Texas/OU-ND-USC/BYU-FSU/Miami conference built around 4 geographical pods. The only conference that even comes close to giving them a couple of their rivalries is the Big Ten where they’d be with Michigan/Michigan State/Purdue but the Big Ten’s move to 9 games complicates that…
LikeLike
ND would have broken even if they joined the Big 10 in the late 90s. Now they would make more. They don’t care about the NBC contract. Now they aren’t going to share with BE schools who are worth less, but the contract itself isn’t an issue. As Zeek says, its about independence and scheduling flexibility. They want to differentiate themselves from everyone else. The current Big 12 schools just don’t match their fanbase location or traditional rivals. I think someone posted who they had played the most on here recently. I don’t remember the order, but it included Navy, Purdue, USC, Michigan St., Northwestern, Michigan, Pitt, BC, Georgia Tech, Miami and possibly 2 or 3 other schools (out of Army, Air Force, Stanford, BYU, Penn St.).
I’m sure the Big 12 is talking hot and heavy with BYU and ND-they have to ask, but if one really believes ND is going to the Big 12 (in football-partial membership is possible-Big 12 is desperate enough to try to stabilize things by locking up ND), the guy with the big cigar in that article must have a little different type of tobacco in that cigar.
With the B1G at 9 games, the ACC may be a place they eventually end up at.
LikeLike
Eh. Notre Dame has five major rivalries (six if you count Pitt), three of which are in the Big Ten (four if Pitt joins). Assuming they joined and played a nine-game conference schedule, that still leaves three games for their OOC rivalries. USC and Navy every year, with a rotating spot for their other “rivals”.
Notre Dame’s biggest problem is that they’re an East Coast school in the Midwest. A large portion of their alumni would prefer the Big East over the Big Ten, as insane as that sounds.
LikeLike
Pitt’s not a rivalry, they’re a team that shows up on the schedule a lot. BC is a game that matters more to most fans, and most ND fans won’t acknowledge it as a rivalry.
It’s true that ND is an East Coast school in the Midwest, but there’s no way we’d ever join the Big East in Football. Even with 4 OOC games, with our rivalry games our schedules would be locked in perpetuity. Anyone who says they prefer the Football Big East over the B1G just dislikes the B1G.
LikeLike
What if the Big East allowed Notre Dame to be in a 6-team division, with 5 obligatory conference games and only 1 other game against a team from the opposite division. Heck, the Big East could take Navy under the same program, put them in the opposite division, and now a 7th game is a conference game. 1 shy of everyone else.
East:
Navy
Rutgers
Syracuse
UConn
Pitt
WVU
West:
UCF
USF
ND
TCU
Cincy
Lville
Notre Dame would get a trip to Florida every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Plus, 4 other OOC games… USC; Michigan or Michigan St; Purdue or Stanford; Texas or some other game.
LikeLike
Sorry, 5 other OOC games. But if they happened to have Syracuse or Pitt on the schedule, it might be only 4.
LikeLike
A division with glorified C-USA commuter schools? Every year? Seriously? As opposed to the B1G?
LikeLike
What if A&M and an ACC team went to the SEC and the ACC offered ND a chance to play in the following division:
Miami
Boston College
Duke
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech
The ACC told them they wouldn’t have to play any cross-divisional games, leaving them 7 games a year for rivalries. They would get to play in the ACC championship game if they won the division.
Would the fanbase get upset about that arrangement?
LikeLike
They’d probably trade UNC for Wake. Maybe Maryland or UVa for Duke as well, to get closer to their East Coast fanbase.
LikeLike
re: m (Ag)’s suggestion
ANY conference joining will make the fanbase upset, but there’s reasons that for many Domers the ACC is a better landing spot than the B1G. That’s about as good of idea as I’ve seen just off the top of my head. Still don’t see it happening without a 4 Superconference world first.
LikeLike
Q: Is Notre Dame overrated as an expansion property? If so, by how much?
Interested to hear what you guys think.
LikeLike
It’s not really overrated. It’s almost as valuable as Texas in its own way (small local base, biggest national following). It has the strongest following in the Northeast (i.e. cracking the New York region), and it’s the easiest way to expand into the rest of the US without getting a school outside of the Big Ten’s footprint.
It’s one of the two schools on the table that can justify expansion regardless of the school that it’s paired with, the other of course being Texas.
When you get down to it, there’s only a handful of great expansion options left out there for the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC (the three conferences likely to go beyond 12). Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, maybe Florida State and Va Tech. This is especially true if you see the core of the ACC as being relatively off-limits. There just aren’t that many expansion options left for the expanding conferences.
LikeLike
Depends on what concessions the conference is forced to grant the Irish in order to get them to join. It runs the continuum from the current ND/Big East agreement (why let them use you with no tangible gain?) to the assumed Big Ten “share everything equally” scenario (yes plz).
LikeLike
The BE got tangible gain by getting better bowl partners and getting to play ND in all the other sports.
LikeLike
Have you seen the Big East’s bowl partners? If that’s better, I’d hate to see what they’d have otherwise. Plus, Notre Dame gets to yoink a game away without penalty whenever they need/desire.
And, congratulations, they get to play Notre Dame in all the sports where they’re just another team. What is the tangible gain provided by this?
LikeLike
The bowls were worse without ND (and the payouts for them). ND can take a bowl slot, but not the same bowl all the time. For example, the BE just added the Champs Sports Bowl and it can take ND once in 4 years. ND still adds value to MBB and non-revenue sports for the BE, too.
LikeLike
Brian-
I disagree with you on the bowl partners issue with Notre Dame and the Big East.
The BE’s current bowl line-up is as follows (see http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2011/6/17/2228857/2011-2012-bowl-schedule-released-with-big-east-tie-ins-and-kickoff)
BCS Bowl Game
Champs Sports Bowl – #2 BE v. #3 ACC ($2.25M; 2010 – W. Virginia v. NC State)
Belk Bowl – #3 BE v. #5 ACC ($1.6M; 2010 – Clemson v. South Florida)
New Era Pinstripe Bowl – #4 BE #4 v. #7 B12 ($2.0M; 2010 – Syracuse v. Kansas State)
BBVA Compass Bowl – #5 BE v #9 SEC or Sun Belt ($900K; 2010 – Pittsburgh v. Kentucky)
Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl St. Petersburg – #6 BE v. C-USA or Sun Belt ($1.0M; 2010 – Louisville v. So. Miss)
There is no bowl on this list that the Big East couldn’t get if Notre Dame was’t included in the package. Even when ND was included in the package, it didn’t matter to the Gator or Insight Bowls who both sought arrangements with other conferences over the Big East when it came to looking for new bowl partners.
I could add a number of other things as well. None of these bowls are on 1 January. There are no matchups with the Big Ten or Pac 12 in this lineup. Two of these games are against Conference USA or Sun Belt opponents. If ND really was a valuable bowl commodity for the the Big East, don’t you think the BE bowl lineup would be a little bit more compelling than its current setup?
I honestly don’t know what tangible benefits you can point to regarding Notre Dame’ s contribution to the Big East is regarding other sports outside the men’s and women’s basketball teams. Having ND in the mixup certainly hasn’t led to the creation of a Big East Network like the Big Ten enjoys. Does Rutgers enjoy a big bump in women’s softball ticket sales when ND comes to play them in Piscataway, for example?
After Miami-Fl (2004), Boston College (2005) and Virginia Tech (2004) announced leaving the ACC in 2003, Notre Dame has played or will play the following BE teams in football:
2003 – Boston College, Pittsburgh
2004 – Boston College, Pittsburgh
2005 – Pittsburgh, Syracuse
2006 – None
2007 – None
2008 – Pittsburgh, Syracuse
2009 – Pittsburgh, Connecticut
2010 – Pitttsburgh
2011 – South Florida, Pittsburgh
2012 – Pittsburgh
2013 – Pittsburgh
2014 – Pittsburgh, Syracuse
2015 – Pittsburgh, Syracuse
2016 – Pittsburgh
Notre Dame’s future schedules aren’t complete, but looking at past history shows Notre Dame’s support of Big East football has been lukewarm at best. Outside of almost regular games with Pittsburgh and and occasional sprinkling in of Syracuse, no other Big East team has played ND on any sort of consistent basis. Lousville, West Virginia and Cincinnati aren’t even on the list and Rutgers won’t play ND because RU insists on having the games on campus and not in the Meadowlands. I even think Connecticut eventually back out of a series with ND because all thsoe games were going to be played off campus as well–I need to confirm that.
The winner in the Notre Dame-Big East arrangement isn’t the BE–it’s ND. Notre Dame gets to place its non-football teams into the conference while remaining an independent in football. The Big East doesn’t get a “ND bump” in terms of football bowls and Notre Dame schedules at most two games football games with conference teams per year (one home, one away). Does the Big East get help in basketball from ND? I’d say yes, but if you took Notre Dame out of the current BE men’s basketball lineup, it wouldn’t be a huge loss if they were to be dropped from the conference.
The major thing Notre Dame has done for the Big East is to not join the Big Ten. Because if that happened, I think most of us on this board would agree that one or two current BE teams would go with them in a 16-team Big Ten Conference and that might really signal the end of the BE (or at the minimum, there’d be another shakeup within the conference with teams like UCF getting promoted from C-USA).
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big East would have gotten the Champs Sports Bowl if Notre Dame wasn’t involved. Perhaps ND gets more out of the whole partnership than the BE does, but that doesn’t mean the BE is the “loser” in the deal. I’ve never understood the idea about kicking ND out or giving them an ultimatum.
LikeLike
Look at the other schools in the Big East. Who besides ND moves the guys in the blazers? WVU? U of L? Pitt has trouble selling out. Syracuse is as low as I’ve seen them as a program, UCONN was I-AA in the last decade, Cincy doesn’t control their own city, and USF couldn’t get a bowl invite before they joined the year they were 9-2. Who knows how embarrassing the Big East bowl situation would be without the Irish. The Irish may get the better end of the deal Football-wise, but all-together it’s pretty even.
LikeLike
Going back to the 2003 season, here’s the bowl games which Notre Dame has participated in:
2003 – None, 5-7 Record
2004 – Insight Bowl, Lost to Oregon State 21-38
2005 – Fiesta Bowl, Lost to Ohio State 20-34
2006 – Sugar Bowl, Lost to LSU 14-41
2007 – None, 3-9 Record
2008 – Hawaii Bowl, Beat Hawaii 49-21
2009 – None, 6-6 Record
2010 – Sun Bowl, Beat Miami-FL 33-17
In those seven seasons, Notre Dame went to two BCS bowls, one bowl affiliated with the Big East, two non-affiliated bowls and didn’t participate in a bowl three times. If I add the 2002 season where ND lost to NC State in the Gator Bowl, that would add another BE affiliated bowl to the list.
When you see Notre Dame participating in two Big East affiliated bowls in eight years, you can see why they aren’t really a valuable commodity to the BE or to the bowls that ND and the Big East both participate in. Also to reiterate a point I made above, the Gator and Insight Bowls both dropped their affiliation with ND/BE even though Notre Dame played in both of them.
To me, that indicates that the bowls don’t really see Notre Dame’s participation in them as a major bonus. I submit that what’s actually happening here is ND needs to work with the Big East to get BCS bowl bids because all the conferences have tie-ins with the bowls. The only way Notre Dame is going to shoehorn itself into a bowl like the Insight or the Gator or the Champs Sports is in conjunction with the Big East. The reason why ND got into the Hawaii and Sun Bowls is that there was an open spot because the conferences affiliated with those teams didn’t have enough teams to participate in them.
I think the only people who want to kick Notre Dame out of the Big East are some of the fans and football coaches. I think the latter are misinformed because recent history shows ND only occasionally plays in a BE affiliated bowl. In fact, I imagine the Big East Commissioner and ADs are happy to be tethered to Notre Dame because once ND joins a conference, there’s a high likelihood that the Big East will dissolve with the basketball schools becoming another version of the Atlantic 10 and the football schools looking for another conference affiliation.
I still submit that the existing teams in the Big East could put together a comparable bowl lineup without Notre Dame in the mix. This simply isn’t a “wow’ lineup of bowl games with the best opponent on the list being the #3 ACC team. With Texas Christian joining the conference next year, they probably need Notre Dame’s participation to get a similar bowl lineup even less.
The Big East had six of its football programs in bowls last yer while Notre Dame went to the non-BE affiliated Sun Bowl (ND took the place of a Pac 12 representative to play Miami-FL, the ACC representative). If there was such a huge clamor for Notre Dame to be in one of the BE affiliated bowls, why didn’t it happen last year? Probably because ND wanted to play in another Catholics v. Convicts matchup against the “U” over playing NC State in the Champs Sports Bowl.
In a financial sense, Notre Dame really doesn’t do much if anything for the Big East. Even if they helped add one bowl game (which I don’t think they do), we’re not talking about a lot of money to be split among the eight (soon to be nine) teams in the Big East. ND has no sharing arrangement with the Big East if they make a BCS bowl, so that’s no help. The Big East’s eight football teams will play 96 games during the regular season–only two of them will be against Notre Dame and one will likely be in South Bend on NBC, so that doesn’t exactly help the BE either.
What Notre Dame does for the Big East now as an independent in football is help keep the ACC or Big 10 from raiding the conference. In basketball, the men’s and women’s teams both add to the BE’s basketball portfolio, but keep in mind that ND is going to be one of 17 men’s basketball teams when TCU joins the conference. I can’t imagine ND’s men’s basketball team being a major cog in a league with so many quality teams.
In the final analysis, it’s pretty easy to see that both sides benefit to a degree, but Notre Dame gets the better of the deal. In the end, though, if a Big East team were to eventually join the Big Ten or ACC because ND opted to end its independence, I have to imagine they’d feel like they hit the jackpot because both conferences have better bowl ties, stronger compeition and more money than the current BE. We’ll see if that holds true come next year when the Big East renegotiates its contracts, but if you asked Pitt or Syracuse or Rutgers right now if they’d join the Big Ten along with or without Notre Dame, I have little doubt they’d say yes in a heart beat.
LikeLike
cutter,
In response to your first mega-post.
BE Bowl lineup:
1. BCS Bowl Game
2. Champs Sports Bowl – #2 BE v. #3 ACC ($2.25M)
3. Belk Bowl – #3 BE v. #5 ACC ($1.6M)
4. New Era Pinstripe Bowl – #4 BE #4 v. #7 B12 ($2.0M)
5. BBVA Compass Bowl – #5 BE v #9 SEC or Sun Belt ($900K)
6. Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl St. Petersburg – #6 BE v. C-USA or Sun Belt ($1.0M)
I don’t agree that the BE would have the exact same bowl lineup and payouts without ND involved. If ND didn’t matter, the Champs Sports Bowl wouldn’t have a clause in the contract that lets them take ND instead of a BE team. The BE also wouldn’t have a clause limiting it to once every 4 years. Without ND, the payout goes down significantly and it drops in the order for the ACC behind the Sun Bowl.
How does other bowls dropping the BE help your case? It shows how little value BE teams have for the bowls, especially since ND was down recently.
How does the bowl lineup being weak help your case? That says nothing about what it would be without ND. The bowl deals always limited ND to once every 4 years at most because the BE knew that ND was their most valuable team and every bowl would take them instead of a BE team if they could. That shows that even the BE knows that ND increases their value overall.
“I honestly don’t know what tangible benefits you can point to regarding Notre Dame’ s contribution to the Big East is regarding other sports outside the men’s and women’s basketball teams.”
Outside of the other revenue generating sports (MBB and WBB with UConn), ND doesn’t help generate revenue in your view. So what? You just admitted that ND added tangible value to the total package of non-FB sports which is all I claimed anyway. I’m guessing some of the other non-revenue sports see a bump from ND being involved (better attendance, lower losses) but I’m not going to bother to look for evidence.
The BE doesn’t have a network, but they’re talking about it. It’s only chance to get on a decent tier in major cities like NYC is to have ND involved.
“The winner in the Notre Dame-Big East arrangement isn’t the BE–it’s ND.”
I’d say they both win. It isn’t a zero sum game. ND may get more out of the deal, but that wasn’t the topic that was posed. It was whether or not ND provided tangible benefits to the BE.
You claim the bowls aren’t better with ND involved, but I think the bowl contracts show the exact opposite to be true. If ND didn’t increase the value, why have clauses that limit their involvement? In black and white the BE is saying we have to stop the bowls from taking the more valuable team (ND) every time, and the bowl is saying they need the right to take ND at least once to justify the deal.
LikeLike
cutter
In response to mega-post #2.
Since 2002, ND has gone to 2 BCS bowls, gone to 4 lesser bowls and missed bowls 3 times. Of the other 4 bowls, 2 were BE slots. ND took a BE spot in 2 of 3 seasons (2 in 9 total seasons since 2002).
That tells me the BE got great value out of their bowl deals because the bowls couldn’t get ND as much as they wanted. That means BE teams got slots they wouldn’t have gotten if ND were better. The bowls are generally limited to ND once in 4 years anyway, so it’s not like they could have taken 9 straight slots.
“I submit that what’s actually happening here is ND needs to work with the Big East to get BCS bowl bids because all the conferences have tie-ins with the bowls. The only way Notre Dame is going to shoehorn itself into a bowl like the Insight or the Gator or the Champs Sports is in conjunction with the Big East.”
ND needs no BE help with BCS bids. They have a special clause to help them already. It does help ND to have some bowl tie-ins for those mediocre years when they go to a non-BCS bowl, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t help the BE too.
You can submit whatever you want, but you don’t seem to be persuading many of us. TCU will boost the BE’s value, but they aren’t going to sell out east coast non-BCS bowls while ND can.
“In the final analysis, it’s pretty easy to see that both sides benefit to a degree, but Notre Dame gets the better of the deal.”
Nobody was arguing that ND didn’t benefit. ND might get more out of the deal than the BE does (how do you put a value on keeping the conference together?). None of that was the point. This all started as a discussion of whether or not ND brought tangible value to the BE.
LikeLike
I think ND got them better bowl deals at first, but they bring no value now. For one thing, the BE put in the rules limiting how much ND could be picked and bowls started dropping the BE. For a second, there are so many bowls now, many are desperate for teams. And the better ones are taking #9 SEC schools or B1G schools over BE+ND. But the ones they have don’t have much choice. ND isn’t helping anymore. Also the bowls are doing contingencies and ND has their separate backup deals now.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yeah, ND doesn’t really do that much for the BE bowl tie-ins anymore. Now, if you just look at ND as any other non-football Catholic member of the BE, they actually do provide a ton of value. ND is consistently in the top 5 or 6 in BE TV appearances for basketball – the networks like them even in sports other than FB.
LikeLike
bullet,
Even if the bowls stay the same, do you think the payout would? What about the opponents? The ACC could easily slide the Champs Sports Bowl behind the Sun Bowl if they can’t ever get ND to play and the value goes down.
LikeLike
For Brian-
I disagree with your premise that the Champs Sports Bowl wouldn’t take the Big East’s #2 team only if Notre Dame was included as a possible opponent one year out of four. I submit that the Big East could have done the same deal for the same payout ($2.2M) if the Irish weren’t in the picture. In fact, I’d further add that TCU’s addition to the Big East provides a much greater impact to the Big East’s bowl lineup and revenue than what Notre Dame provides at this point.
While Notre Dame does have the tie-in with the BCS, past history clearly shows that ND doesn’t participate in them every year. When ND is in a non-BCS bowl, they either have to get a slot in a game via its dealing with the Big East or as a stand-in when a conference doesn’t have enough teams that are bowl eligibile (such as last year’s Sun Bowl).
I also reiterate what I wrote before–if Notre Dame was such a valuable commodity for the Big East as a bowl partner, why did the Gator and Insight Bowls drop the BE for other conferences? The answer is fairly plain–having Notre Dame play in a particular bowl game one year in four is not considered a great deal when the other three bowl games include Big East participants. Is that Notre Dame’s fault? My answer would be no, because I suspect the reason bowls aren’t big on BE teams is because their football fans don’t travel–just look at what happened to Connecticut at this year’s Fiesta Bowl and how many tickets UConn had to eat because the school couldn’t sell them. But does Notre Dame add any real value to the Big East’s non-BCS bow lineup? Again, I would say the answer is no–it’s a weak line up of bowls because the Big East is considered a weak football conference. Also, if the BE allowed ND carte blanche to participate in any bowl affiliated with the conference at any time, you’d have a major pissing match on your hands within the Big East–that’s why ND is limited to one year in four.
In terms of men’s basketball, I repeat what I said before–Notre Dame will be one of 17 teams in the Big East when TCU joins. If ND were to leave BE basketball, I doubt there’d be too much hand wringing in Providence, RI about it. But if ND were to leave along with Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati and West Virginia, then we’d be talking real impact there. The bigger problem with BE basketball isn’t the major programs–it’s the smaller ones. I can remember when St. Johns and Providence and Seton Hall, for example, were getting some press, but that’s not the case anymore. I grew up in the Chicago area and I remember Depaul’s glory days with Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings, etc., but that’s long in the past.
As far as Notre Dame’s other olympic sports outside of women’s basketball, I assume you largely agree with me that they really provide little value to the Big East. We both know those are not revenue generators and I really doubt having Notre Dame’s baseball team or cross country team coming to Syracuse, for example, is really going to boost the number of tickets sold by any major degree. If you think otherwise, then you’re kidding yourself.
As far as the Big East Network is concerned, we’ll probably know more next year as the conference figures out what it wants to be and when the BE opens up the negotiations with the network. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the NBC Sports Network get involved along with Notre Dame to put on some of the BE Olympic sports because they need content to fill in the hours. If that happens, then the scales meansuring the overall relationship between Notre Dame and the Big East will shift a touch into the BE’s favor.
But no, I’m sorry–your overall argument remains largely unpersuasive at this point. What would be interesting test to see is what would happen if the Big East football schools did break off from the rest of the conference. It’d be a nine-team league with Cincinnati, Connecticut, Lousville, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse, Texas Christian, and West Virginia. Would that group extend the same sort of associate membership to Notre Dame that the current Big East does? Or would they look to maintain or expand their membership and tell ND they needed to become a full-tiime member (including football) in order to have a future relationship with them?
I think that group would give ND an ultimatum–become a full-time member or get out. They could probably launch their own network without ND given the inventory of basketball teams within that group. If they were to add a few other programs like Kansas or Missouri or Houston or UCF, they might even have a good combination of football/basketball programs. And since ND really doesn’t help them with the BCS because the Big East gets an auto berth or with non-BCS bowls as we discussed in detail, this new BE wouldn’t need ND on that front. ND only plays at most two games per year with the conference–even if that number went to three it’d only be a tiny percentage of the total of 144 regular season football games that this 12-team conference would play.
Perhaps then ND could get an associate membership with the ACC or the Big XII and keep its independence. Or maybe Notre Dame would just up and join the Big Ten as a full-time member. Talk about good times . . . .
LikeLike
Ultimately, there’s no way to run the counterfactual, but I’ll reiterate my view that the BE by itself would not get as good of bowls (or at least payouts) without Notre Dame. Keep in mind that the previous Bowl Coalitions and the BCS have chosen Notre Dame over higher ranked teams in the past because of what ND brings to the table.
The problem with recent bowl seasons is that ND has either been pretty good or very mediocre. The sweet spot for the Champs Sports Bowl is something like a 9-3 or 8-4 ND team, because ND will go to a BCS bowl with a 10-2 record, and 7-5 or 6-6 is so weak the the shame factor starts to enter the picture for the bowl, such as last year, where a 9-3 WV team went over 7-5 ND, although WV is maybe the one team in the BE that travels well enough to be compelling in their own right. Do you really think a bowl would take a 9-3 USF team over a 7-5 ND team?
I’ll go out on a limb right now and say that if ND wins 8 or 9 games, they absolutely go to the Champs Bowl this year over any 8-10 win BE team.
The argument that the Gator and Insight bowls have gone elsewhere is a red herring. If anything, it just shows how bowls follow the money — if you can get the B10, SEC, or even B12, you have to take it over the BE + ND, because ND is not enough by itself to pull up the other BE teams. The inability of the BE to keep those bowls says more about the BE than it does about ND. If there were 3 Notre Dames in the Big East, they’d have HUGE tie-ins. As it is, they have a bunch of teams that do not move the needle.
The argument that TCU brings more to the table than ND money-wise is ludicrous. I mean, it’s great that TCU has a really good program right now, but give them 3 losses and see if the Champs Sports Bowl takes them over a 8-4 ND team. I think we all know how that plays out.
In a bizarro world in which every BE team went 9-3 (just to keep everything equal) you know full well that any bowl would take ND over any BE team every single time. So of course ND brings value to the bowl deals. They’re the most valuable team in the equation!
Now, if the BE football schools break off from the basketball schools, they’d be crazy not to invite ND as an associate member, and they’d be insane to give them some kind of ultimatum. Keep in mind that a football-school-only league probably tries to get to 12 so you’re adding Villanovas, Temples, Central Floridas or East Carolinas. Do you think ND is joining that football league?
There’s nothing the Big East can do to make it a first-tier conference in football. Short of adding Notre Dame, perhaps. Which isn’t going to happen.
LikeLike
In a BE breakup, why wouldn’t ND just park its non-football programs with the basketball schools?
LikeLike
There seems to be some belief (I don’t know what it is based on) that ND would be afraid the bb schools would become mid-major. And clearly, many of their non-rev sports would not have as strong a competition. Personally, I wonder whether they would want ND and get out-facilitied by a ND program funded by football.
LikeLike
Considering the butts in seats and eyeballs on TV that ND would bring and that in bball, having stronger schools in conference helps you get in to the postseason, not hinders you, I’d say they’d definitely want ND. Are the WWC schools worried that they’d be out-facilitied by BYU?
LikeLike
“WCC”
LikeLike
Obviously, the WCC isn’t, but they get out-facilitied by just about everyone in Div I. And they have some success in spite of that. But you really don’t want a school that will dominate in nearly every sport (obviously they wouldn’t in bb). Maybe they wouldn’t, but they do pretty well in a 17 team league.
LikeLike
Uh, BYU won almost everything in the nonrevenue sports in the MWC. I imagine they’ll do even better in the WCC. Doesn’t seem to faze anyone.
LikeLike
Not by much if any. When ND is down, people forget their impact. On the list of Kings, Barons, and Knights, ND was once God. For many fans over the age of 30, Notre Dame is college football.
The caveat is of course that for younger fans, ND is a little more than a name. The longer they continue their slide, the less pull they have. If they continue at 7 wins a year (their average over the last 15), the more that impact trickles away.
LikeLike
“The caveat is of course that for younger fans, ND is a little more than a name.”
This would be my concern. As much as I hear zeek’s point about getting into the Northeast market, I have to wonder what Notre Dame’s worth will be longterm. The losing isn’t helping them, no, but demographic changes might be an even bigger factor. Much of their fanbase is Catholic, and the (white) Catholic population is declining.
I’m not very well traveled, though. I don’t know how strong a presence they have in, say, New York. You hear all about these “Subway Alumni,” but I have to wonder how many of them are in their 20s and 30s?
LikeLike
Those are all fair points, and M makes a good point about how having the top tier king status isn’t a permanent status by any stretch.
Tenn. would have been on most lists of kings a decade ago, but now almost no one would have them on that list.
And the demographics issue is a legitimate concern, but that’s something that we have to see going forward. ND’s recruiting has still stayed in the area of the kings even if the teams haven’t shown much for it, so that probably shows their ability to appeal to 4 star+ recruits across the US. The fanbase issue is legitimate in some sense because ND’s slide definitely has to be arrested if they’re going to build a younger fanbase that didn’t go to the school, which is always going to be their major challenge as a national brand. The only school with a similar problem is Miami (as a small private school type of king), but they’re going to be able to have a “national” impact simply due to the strength of Florida recruiting and the allure of South Beach. They can always rebuild after a down period based on that, whereas Notre Dame has to make sure that they remain relevant because they don’t have a de facto local base like every other king has.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s got every Catholic school in the nation recruiting for them, and I think they have a monopoly on East Coast recruiting.
LikeLike
Whatever problems ND has, Miami’s are a hundred or a thousand times worse. Miami has effectively no fanbase of any age, especially when they are down. Their singular advantage is location. If they are down for too long, they become Rice with fewer wealthy alumni. ND has a stronger fanbase, alumni base, and recruiting base (inside track at every parochial high school in the country). They may never be a consistent power ever again, but their floor both in performance and impact is much higher than Miami.
LikeLike
I suspect much of their support came from the discrimination Irish Catholics felt. The portion of the demographic that felt that is getting older and dying off. Irish descent Catholics are much more mainstream now. I’ve never seen any sign of strong support from Notre Dame by Hispanic Catholics in Texas or really any Catholics in SEC country. I don’t even remember much support for Notre Dame in central Indiana when I lived there (of course central Indiana is heavily protestant). So I think you are right that their support will diminish over time (as their poll rankings have decade by decade) unless they get back to being a regular national title contender. But their support as a national powerhouse school isn’t going to be as strong as it was as THE Catholic school.
LikeLike
As a reply to metatron5369 above, if ND has every Catholic school in the country recruiting for them, and they own East Coast recruiting, why is it shaping up that they will get NONE of the top 5 recruits at Don Bosco (the NJ HS ranked #1 in the country)?
LikeLike
@M – I agree with this.
Remember what happened when ND had just a smidgen of success in the first two seasons that Charlie Weis was there. For a team whose best game was a LOSS to USC in 2005, Weis was able to parlay that into a big book deal and being hailed as a football genius on 60 Minutes, the Sports Illustrated covers came back, the ratings were sky-high, recruiting classes were back in the top 5 in the nation again, and they got 2 consecutive BCS bowl berths (where they were pummeled, but the TV networks certainly didn’t care). That’s what happened when ND were just BCS bowl LOSERS and it wasn’t all that long ago. There’s no other football program – not Ohio State, Florida, Texas, USC or Alabama – that has such an instant massive platform.
What makes a King different from other programs is that there’s a built-up historical respect that never goes away. For my school, Illinois, it takes years to build up that program to respectability and the instant that success goes away, so does all of its respect and it has to start from scratch. In contrast, the very *second* that ND has any hint of success, it’s back to “Waking Up the Echoes” again and the media and recruits act as if though the school’s national championships just happened in the last couple of years.
I would apply this to a school like Miami, too. Sure, they’re kind of the noveau riche among college football’s kings, but I don’t think anyone should really hold it against them that their success, and for that matter, the successes of Florida and Florida State, have largely come within the last 30 years. The past 30 years have also coincided with a fundamental population shift towards the Sun Belt (and specifically Florida) which gives the Florida schools much more of a base for continued success in the future even if they haven’t been “kings” as long as Alabama or Michigan. For someone my age (33), Miami is almost the flip side of ND – all I’ve known since I’ve been old enough to watch sports is that Miami is a national power and arguably has been more consistent than any other program during that time period as the only school with national championships in each of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. I give them much more of a leash with their fairweather fan base because their national TV drawing power is as high as anyone outside of ND itself.
LikeLike
When you look at the television ratings for Notre Dame’s football games over the past five years, one conclusion you might make about them is that they’re soft, or perhaps better described as extremely variable.
I agree with you that when Notre Dame is perceived to be good and is in one of their “Return to Glory” periods, then the interest and publicity around that team will move up pretty quickly. You can’t set aside the fact that polling data has consistenly shown ND to be the country’s most popular football team.
But when things go bad, those ratings drop quickly and Notre Dame’s viewership is reduced to the hard core fans only. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/sports/ncaafootball/11sandomir.html and http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_53/b4065037218411.htm for articles in past years discussing the ratings drop offs surrounding Notre Dame.
I’m not saying that Notre Dame wouldn’t be a valuable commodity to any conference wishing to add to its membership. I just don’t know how valuable ND is relative to other teams that have “higher energy” fan bases in their fold. If Notre Dame is having a less than stellar season, they get eclipsed pretty rapidly by other programs and all the pre-season hype that ESPN indulges in with that program goes up in smoke.
We’ll see what happens with Brian Kelly at the helm this season and the next. His three immediate predecessors weren’t able to get Notre Dame into the type of position they were in during the late 80s and early 90s when Holtz was the head coach. A lot has happened since then–the 85 scholarship limit, major conference membership growth, the BCS and increased television coverage for college football have all taken hold since ND was part of any national championship conversation. All those things are going to make it tough for Notre Dame to become a god, let alone a king in the current era of CFB.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that NBC has made less money than expected on that plan, but those comparison’s are completely ridiculous. CBS is paying $55 million a year for 1 game a week and they get to pick the best SEC game including the #1 vs #2 conference title. ABC usually gets the 3 best games out of the ~50 each week for which ESPN has paid an absurd amount of money. If ND can get half CBS’ average over all of its games coming off its worst 3 year period, that’s probably worth it.
Does anyone know the average viewers for any other team’s home games?
Did that article seriously use a 15 year old quote from JoePa?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/31518500
Not that this means much, but Kelly actually daring to suggest Notre Dame might sometime join a conference is interesting. Not surprisingly, a couple of fans came on and bashed him.
LikeLike
I’m glad we agree on ND, but I still don’t think Miami has that much draw. National or not, who was the last “King” to have averaged sub-50k attendance like Miami in 2009? It’s possible that hasn’t happened to any of them in the last 50 years. Any school will have a national drawing power if they’re consistently in the top 10 (e.g. Boise State). Miami doesn’t appear to be returning to that position any time soon.
LikeLike
I think your analysis is leaving out the TV aspect. Of the current ACC teams, Miami is one of the best draws for ratings outside of the footprint, especially in places like New York (one survey had them at the top of the ACC along with FSU and Va Tech in that category).
Yes, the local fanbase is fickle in terms of filling the seats, and they always will be. But Miami is vastly different than Rice because of its location, which basically makes it the USC of the East.
Think about this, UF and FSU are both north of Orlando. UF is at least 300 miles away from South Florida. That’s a huge distance. Miami is the de facto TV draw among unassociated fans in South Florida.
The idea of a king includes all aspects; of course, Miami is the weakened king in terms of attendance, but their location and recruiting ability is probably at the very top of the list. If that program gets hot, they can fill a Top 5 class with recruits drawn from just within 100 miles of campus.
LikeLike
Meant to say weakest, not weakened.
LikeLike
Miami already had long term problems before the whole scandal. Like M said they average less than 50k a game, the only game they can count on more than 60k for other than a 1 and 1 with a power house is the FSU game. Doing that 1 and 1 cost the program a home game and lowers their 2 year revenue. They have to pay a highish rent for the stadium and its 30 miles from campus. They don’t have the money or the local support to build a stadium on campus or even closer to campus.
They also don’t have the facilities or the alumni/booster base to raise money for the facilities. As far as being the local team FSU, UF and UCF all have more living alumni in the area and every year more kids from that area go to each of those 3 schools over Miami. They have a smallish endowment.
FSU and UF have the money to spend on large support staffs that Miami doesn’t. FSU and UF have the money to pay top dollar for coaches and coaching staffs which Miami can’t match and more importantly pay to correct any mistakes in hiring.
Each year that passes by without Miami mattering is just that much more likely kids forget about the history of the “U” and sending players to the pros.
LikeLike
Also, you think Illinois has it tough? Every review of Northwestern for the last decade plus has been “Wow, I didn’t realize these guys weren’t as horrible as the last time I noticed them in the ’80s”.
LikeLike
One thing you are all forgetting… for every person that likes Notre Dame, there are 4 that dislike them enough to be happy to watch them lose. 15-20 years ago, it was because Notre Dame was THE team. Now, it is because Notre Dame still is treated like THE team, even though they are not.
In any event, people like watching the Kings fall… and despite Notre Dame’s lack of success recently… people still enjoy them losing. How many people watched the end of the Notre Dame/Navy or Notre Dame/Tulsa games just to see them lose? If Notre Dame comes to your town for a game, the stadium will be packed. No matter the records, nobody feels sorry for Notre Dame football when they lose. 4-7? Fine, let’s make it 4-8 and win by 50. This isn’t Washington St…. pile it on.
It’s part of the same reason that the Big Dance is successful. I can give two craps about Kansas St. or Iowa St…. however if they are a #3 seed and about to lose to #14 Idaho or Belmont, now I am interested. Who doesn’t mind flipping the TV over to see Michigan lose to Appalachian St. or Duke losing to anyone in basketball? Notre Dame gives you that every week… only they are more likely to lose these days.
I think that is part of the appeal to having elite programs join the conference. Rutgers may be close to NYC, but nobody considers beating Rutgers in any sport to be a feather in your cap. Same with Missouri and NC State.
That’s why the Nebraska add was so good for the Big 10. People will show up to see if Purdue can beat Nebraska… regardless of the records.
LikeLike
And for all the talk of markets. If Nebraska is playing Ohio St., the nation will be interested. If Texas A&M plays Missouri… those markets will be interested. If Florida St. was playing Alabama, I think the nation will be interested. It might not add a market, but it adds the country.
LikeLike
I think you hit on the lesson of last summer. Brands matter more than markets. Colorado and Missouri had markets, but not much value. Nebraska didn’t have much of a market, but had great value. That’s where regional networks like the Pac 12’s have value. They can penetrate particular markets even if there isn’t much national or even regional appeal. CBS and ABC are only doing limited regionalization, so its national appeal that matters.
FSU might be the most valuable team the SEC could add among the likely candidates even if the SEC is already in Florida.
LikeLike
I’d rank the SEC targets, after A&M:
1a. Va Tech
1b. Oklahoma
2a. Florida St.
2b. Clemson
2c. Georgia Tech
3. Oklahoma St. (not alone, only in a package with Oklahoma)
4. West Virginia
5. Missouri
6. NC State
7. Louisville
As I just don’t get the logic of 16, to me… A&M and Va Tech is the HR for the SEC. Oklahoma is great, but dragged down by OSU. Then they need a 16th.
LikeLike
I’d rank the SEC targets, after A&M:
1a. Va Tech
1b. Oklahoma
2a. Florida St.
2b. Clemson
2c. Georgia Tech
3. Oklahoma St. (not alone, only in a package with Oklahoma)
4. West Virginia
5. Missouri
6. NC State
7. Louisville
I’d juggle things around a bit, putting Missouri at #4, followed by NCSU and WVU. I put State ahead of West Virginia because North Carolina is a bigger, more affluent (and growing) state, and making it the NC “SEC” program would provide a substantial boost to its football recruiting. And I don’t see any of the trio listed at #2 as possible contenders (aside from FSU as a darkhorse) because it weakens Florida, Georgia and/or South Carolina. Moreover, even if OU could be pried away from Okie State, it may have no interest in the SEC and would probably prefer to look westward; think of a little book from John Steinbeck called “The Grapes Of Wrath” to understand the longstanding cultural ties between Oklahoma and the Pacific coast.
LikeLike
A little historical note: Darrell Royal the Longhorn coaching and Sooner playing legend actually went to California as a kid during the dust bowl, but later moved back to Oklahoma.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this since people started talking about Rutgers. The day I see the Scarlet Knights playing a conference game in Ann Arbor is the day I run for the University of Michigan board of regents.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/31427700
Biggest AP pre-season poll busts since 2001. Who joins the list this year? I’ll guess Stanford.
LikeLike
Alive is quite a salesman.
Of all the writings I have read I think it at least possible
That he will convince A&M, FSU, OU and Va Tech to
become members of the SEC
LikeLike
Big20 with ND:
Pod I:
ND, PSU, Maryland, Virginia, UNC
Pod II:
Michigan
OSU
MSU
PU
IU
Pod III:
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minny
NU
Illinois
Pod IV:
UNL
FSU
Miami
GTech
Duke
UNC-Duke would have to be OOC half the time.
The division with Pod I would always be tough.
VTech, NCSU, & Clemson to the SEC with TAMU.
In a 13 week schedule, weeks 1-2 for OOC games, weeks 3-12 feature 8 conference games a week (so each team would play 8 conference games over 10 weeks, with byes, one of which they’d have to fill with an OOC game, in both the first and second halves of the season). Last week is all conference play (10 games)
Week 12 (traditional rivalry week), ND, Virginia, FSU, & GTech will always get byes (for ND to make their late November trip west and the other schools to play in-state rivals).
LikeLike
At all times, we’ll see the following season-ending rivalries:
Michigan-OSU
IU-PU
Northwestern-Illinois
Miami-FSU
When pods I&II (and III&IV) form a division, we’ll see
ND-MSU
PSU-Maryland
UNC-Virginia
UNL-Iowa
Wisconsin-Minny
GTech-Duke
When pods I&IV (and II&III) form a division, we’ll see
PSU-UNL
UNC-Duke
Virginia-Maryland
ND-GTech
Minny-Iowa
Wisconsin-MSU
LikeLike
Black Friday always featuring either UNL-Iowa or UNL-PSU in the daytime and Miami-FSU at night (maybe Illinois-NU would be played on Black Friday as well). Saturday would always feature MIchigan-OSU in the morning. ND-MSU would follow in the afternoon half the time.
LikeLike
Thinking about it, with ND now part of the conference, Michigan and Minny may play for the Little Brown Jug OOC all the years they don’t meet in conference as well.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/08/24/lsu.bar.fight.jefferson.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a6
Police searched Jordan Jefferson’s home and took a DNA swab. How high is the level of concern in LSU land, Alan?
LikeLike
Brian – The level of concern in Baton Rouge is very high. There are conflicting accounts of what actually happened, as would be expected for a bar fight at 1:30 in the morning. What we do know is that many members of the team broke curfew after a 10:30 pm bed check last Thursday night. Thursday was the last day of fall practice and no practice was scheduled for Friday. A fight occurred in the parking lot of Shady’s Bar about a mile off campus at about 1:30am, Friday morning. Four guys (not LSU players) got beat up, but refused medical attention at the scene. After going back to their apartment ( and possibly speaking with an attorney) they all sought medical treatment. One of the guys that lost the fight has some cracked vertebrae, allegedly from being kicked while he was down. His injuries are probably the reason this is being treated as more that just a disturbing the peace situation. Four LSU players (three reserves and Jefferson) were identified as taking part in the fight, but it appears that all the witnesses were either drunk or have picked a side. I can’t imagine why there aren’t any sober witnesses to a bar fight that occurred at 1:30 in the morning.
It is not known whether any of LSU players actually took part in the fight. They have been questioned. No charges have been filed. No warrants have been issued. The Baton Rouge Police Department has a brand new police chief and he is treating this investigation like its CSI – Baton Rouge. The BRPD did take a number of shoes from Jefferson’s apartment to determine whether any of them match a footprint on a shirt.
For those that broke curfew, Miles has been running the entire team as punishment. We are told the Jefferson and Jarrett Lee have been splitting snaps with the first team during practice. The concern, from a team standpoint, is that even if Jefferson is cleared, he will not be prepared to play the game against #3 Oregon.
While Jefferson is not a great QB, he has never been in trouble before, but there is always a first time for everything. FWIW, today is Jefferson’s birthday.
LikeLike
Informative NYT article. First paragraph made me laugh.
Explains why we may not be hearing much about #14. Also supports the points Frank made and that I have made that the SEC can’t just tear up their contract and the networks aren’t interested in paying a whole lot more for what they already have.
LikeLike
“The official acknowledged that because of the length and structure of the SEC’s current television contract, adding Texas A&M and a 14th member would not be financially beneficial from a rights standpoint.”
I wonder if this quote will finally put that issue to rest.
LikeLike
@Richard – The quote will be freely ignored. It’s way more fun to think that the SEC will make $40 million per team by expanding.
LikeLike
Frank,
To be fair. 2 things stand out in that article
#1 The “sec official” is freely quoted, but all the direct quotes are very vague, yet when asked about the TV contract no direct quote is offered . As an attorney I would at least question if the article has “teeth”.
#2 The person who is quoted by name is Joel Lulla who the article identifies as a NYC lawyer who is on the B12 payroll . Call me old, call me cynical, or call me skeptical but I must take the comments with the same faith as a B1G lawyer commenting on a PAC contract. Sure they are closer to the situation than you or I, but they still may have never seen the actual contract. If a SEC attorney or CBS / ESPN lawyer made the same statement I would have more faith in the comment in the first place.
LikeLike
BTW, for those folks scoffing at a Big20, annexing the ACC is probably the one sure way to entice/force ND in to the Big20. Right now, ND is reliant on BE and ACC teams playing them late-season. Plus, by joining the Big20, ND would be in a conference that has 80-90% all of the BCS football schools that are also academically elite, and under the pod system, ND would still regularly visit the East Coast, Midwest, and South. Add in their annual meeting with USC & (maybe) Stanford, and ND would still have a national schedule. They may even be able to get Maryland to move a game or two up the East Coast to Philly/NYC and Navy to regularly move games to Philly/NYC as well as Texas.
LikeLike
Forgot to add–
“that has 80-90% all of the BCS football schools that are also academically elite” . . .east of the Mississippi.
LikeLike
Also, I don’t think this happens unless Miami gets the death penalty or TV ban, but if they get the death penalty, I think it’s likely that this occurs, with 6 ACC schools joining to form the Big18 in 2013 (VTech, NCSU, & Clemson joining TAMU to start in the SEC that year) with Miami & ND joining in 2015, just in time for the new first tier TV contract.
LikeLike
I could care less. Sixteen teams is already fraught with danger, twenty teams is sure folly. All this for Notre Dame? Only if their plan is to break up the Super Conferences by having them implode. It’s unwieldy, and destroys the ties that make the conference so strong.
Besides, as a fan I have no interest in watching UNC play anyone, let alone steal a matchup between traditional Big Ten rivals. I suspect the country likewise feels the same, if the ratings for ACC games are to be believed.
Scheduling is already a mess; adding a number of rivals as a group only causes more problems. Integration would never happen; you’d have voting blocs in conference meetings, and some of these divisions (I refuse to call them pods) are absurd – original Big Ten teams would hardly play one another in favor of teams their fans have no emotional ties to.
It’s madness. The Big Ten/CIC is a family. That is our strength. It is the reason why we’re safe and the other conferences are scared.
LikeLike
Um, under my plan, the original B10 schools would play the 4 of the other 9 annually and the other 5 half the time. Under the current setup, they play 5 of the other 9 annually and the other 4 40% of the time (60% with 9 conference games).
As for voting blocs, that’s why you get likeminded schools with the same ideals. I daresay the GTech administration and fanbase are closer to Purdue’s in outlook than they are to Auburn’s, even though Auburn is a lot closer geographically.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/08/24/mark-cuban-proposal/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a1
Mark Cuban has a postseason proposal. 2 games matching teams that don’t play in a CCG. They’d play in December, either CCG weekend or Army/Navy weekend. The goal would be to help a team build their resume for the BCS, and make some money. they are invitational games, so teams may opt out.
LikeLike
Another reason for the Big10 to annex the ACC if they lose Miami to the death penalty. If this idea catches on, there may be less incentive for schools to join and B10 conference champ could get potentially hopped for a title game shot.
LikeLike
@Brian – Interesting proposal and at least Cuban is smart enough to know that he’s not going to be able to create a playoff.
I’m all for teams being able to play an extra game in this situation if they want to do so. The ones that would benefit the most would be non-AQ schools that are within striking distance of a national title shot (like TCU last year). However, it would be difficult to see AQ schools that are already fairly assured of BCS bids participating in this. If they aren’t playing in their conference championship games, they wouldn’t have realistic chances to make it to the national championship game no matter what (so it’s not as if though they could get a boost on that front). ND is likely in the same boat – unless they’re sitting right outside of a national title berth, there isn’t much incentive for them to play an extra game since they are almost a lock to get a BCS bid if they’re eligible at all.
LikeLike
I’d be interested to see what an undefeated Boise-type team would do if they had a BCS bid locked up, but could play an extra game with a chance to move up to the NCG over a 1 loss team. Is it worth the risk, or would the desire to lock in the payday win out?
Jake, what would you have suggested TCU do last year if they were #3 behind a 1 loss SEC team?
LikeLike
You bitch about it and then go to the farking Rose Bowl. Bird in the hand, man. You’d look pretty dumb if you tried that, lost, and then ended up in Las Vegas or Shreveport.
LikeLike
Frank,
last year I suggested on this very blog that the Sun Bowl be moved to the CCG weekend and put teams like TCU vs Boise State against each other if they wanted a shot at the title game. It creates more buzz for them when the B1G / PAC / SEC are still on TV and they are not. Look at this year if such a Bowl were in place, you could see Boise State playing the top team in the B12 (who now no longer has a CCG). I think you could sell that game for some nice media $$$$. If schools declined such a game, they would forfeit any chance for playing for a MNC.
LikeLike
A short article quoting CBS from the Ft. Worth paper
http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2011/08/cbs-sports-chairman-says-he-does-not-envision-sec-expansion-in-the-very-near-future.html
LikeLike
So Vanderbilt is unhappy about A&M joining the SEC. How unhappy? Unhappy enough to jump to the B1G?
LikeLike
StevenD,
I think it was taken from this article, but there is a problem
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/sports/vanderbilts-williams-not-interested-texas-am-joining-sec-ever
David Williams is not the president of the university, he is the Vice Chancellor of athletics, and does not serve on Vanderbilt’s Board of Trust. The article does not quote Nicholas Zeppo (current chancellor) or Mark Dalton (chairman) – [John R Hall is a member of the trust, and his bio has strong ties to the state of kentucky the bio was interesting, Lee Bass is also a member, and is a name well known to Texans]. To me it would be like Fred Glass at IU saying the B1G will never expand to add Notre Dame. Sure it could grab a headline, but Fred just doe not have the power to add Notre Dame.
I would not get my hopes up of Vanderbilt jumping to the B1G, as the are THE founding school of the conference that predated the SEC. Vanderbilt had the chance to break away when the ACC was formed from the old SoCon. Vanderbilt could have walked away when Tulane and Georgia Tech left the SEC. My guess is the odds of Vanderbilt leaving the SEC is slim to none. They have had many opportunities to leave in the past, and yet they never did.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why the B10 would want Vandy anyway.
LikeLike
@bullet – I wonder what his definition of the “very near future” is in this instance.
LikeLike
I wondered the same thing with rumours talking about decisions in the next 3 weeks.
LikeLike
That morning.
TIme for a new thread Mr. Tank…
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/08/ncaa_to_speak_to_danny_sherida.html
Here’s a twist. The NCAA will interview Danny Sheridan about the Newton affair. Sheridan has claimed he has a source inside the NCAA that told him who the NCAA thinks paid for Cam and where it happened. Now the NCAA wants to ask him about it. What can he possibly tell them that they don’t already know?
LikeLike
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/8/23/2378584/a-conference-title-game-has-no-effect-on-conference-bcs-bids
A blog post about the CCG not impacting the number of BCS bids for a conference. It does hurt NCG bids, but not BCS bids.
LikeLike
@Brian – Good to see someone finally debunk that line of argument. Even beyond that, getting a 2nd BCS bid has as much to do with how well schools travel as merit, which is why bowls generally love Big Ten and SEC schools no matter where they’re ranked.
LikeLike
Another Q: How much revenue will the B1G Network be pulling down per school in the next 3-5 years? It’s only gone up and up so far, but will that plateau somewhere in the near future? Anyone willing to make numerical projections?
Could it get high enough that the B1G would have its pick of expansion candidates, even Texas/ND?
LikeLike
It’ll follow: 1. population 2. B10 ratings 3. advertising rates 4. carriage rates
All three continue to rise with advertising rates rising drastically (for college football) the past couple years.
LikeLike
According to the St. Louis newspaper website, here’s the amounts paid by the Big Ten Network/Other Televison (ABC, ESPN, CBS)/Total Revenue
2007/8 – 6.1M/7.7M/13.8M
2008/9 – 6.4M/8.0M/14.4M
2009/10 – 6.5M/8.4M/14.9M
See http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illlni/article_6f757914-17cd-53df-8f62-586b8d968470.html
With the ABC/ESPN and CBS contracts growing the Big Ten’s television revenue by 0.3M to 0.4M per year and using information from Michigan’s Athletic Department Budget for FY 2012 (http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf), here’s what we can project:
2010/11 – 8.1M/8.7M/16.6M
2011/12 – 8.5M/9.1M/17.6M
Over a four year period, the overall television revenue has gone up around 3.8M or about 0.95M per year. The increases are due to the escalator clause in the ABC/ESPN contract in addition to the success of the BTN. I assume there may be even further increases due to the contract with Fox Sports for the confernce championship game, so the actual figure going forward may end up being more than that.
To keep it conservative though, let’s assume 1.0M in total growth per year thru 2015. The projections based on past trends would be something like this:
2012/13 – 9.2M/9.4M/18.6M
2013/14 – 9.8M/9.8M/19.6M
2014/15 – 10.5M/10.1M/20.6M
These are back of the envelope calculations, but projections based on the assumptions above showing the BTN paying the conference approximately the same as ABC/ESPN/CBS by 2014.
An article from last fall on the Big Ten Network in the New York Times is here; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/sports/02bigten.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=1
As the article points out, the Big Ten’s deal with ABC/ESPN runs thru 2016 and Delany expects the rights deal will be worth more than the 10-year/$1B contract that is currently in place. The money from the BTN’s growth plus the projectionss for the new contract with ABC/ESPN (or perhaps some other network) are going to be the drivers in determining conference expansion and whether or not programs like Notre Dame or Texas feel its in their best overall interest to join the Big Ten (or would it be Big 16?).
That said, money might not be the major driver for ND and UT when it comes to conference alignment. Both schools will work their own network deals and they’re going to weigh that factor along with where they want to fit within college athletics. If Notre Dame, for example, isn’t compelled by some future college football realignment to join a super conference, then I have to imagine they’ll opt to stay independent even if it might mean less money.
LikeLike
Is the tail wagging the dog?
Have bloggers with no research and no liability driven the realignment debate to such an extent that now old fashioned media is is printing rumor and speculation as fact?
Over the past week of reading a mind numbing number of posts and articles from across the US I find myself reading between the lines and finding only empty space. When the NYT and Bloomberg are sending conflicting messages on the same topic, while offering no concrete clues, how are we to have faith in anything? I have a strong case of conference realignment syndrome – coming soon to your 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – as more with similar traits show up across the US. 🙂
If this comes to pass, I find myself more in doubt of the future save a press conference with Slive and Loftin making a statement from the same podium, or Bebee and Loftin doing the same if they are staying put. Murray State and Louisville can not get here soon enough to get my mind back on the actual game!
LikeLike
Wilner on Pac 12 expansion. Not much here other than nothng is happening, but some interesting OU financial numbers.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/08/24/pac-12-expansion-assessing-the-options/
LikeLike
That’s actually a very fair take on their expansion options. It really is “Texas or bust” for the Pac-12. Grabbing Oklahoma-Oklahoma State to a Pac-14 doesn’t really work because they want the old Pac-8 back along with a SWC division, so they almost have to look exclusively at 4 team scenarios.
The ideal of course was the Texas/A&M/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Colorado expansion to the Pac-10, but we’re way past that scenario now of course. Missouri/Kansas would make the most sense if they have to get to 16 without Texas + 1, but the problem is that it doesn’t really justify going from 14 to 16 in monetary terms.
I do enjoy reading the random posters who somehow think that Texas Tech has value because of its size or media market or whatever. Didn’t they learn anything from the fact that the Big Ten went for Nebraska?
LikeLike
Would a Missouri move to the SEC alongside Texas A&M make it more or less likely that Texas would decide to head west with Texas Tech, Okie State and Oklahoma?
LikeLike
Here’s a question for the lawyers. Mizzou’s chancellor is president of the Big 12’s board and has been quoted as working to address Texas A&M’s concerns about the Big 12. If Missouri were to move to the SEC with A&M would that open up Missouri to charges of self-dealing?
LikeLike
Further erosion of the B12 makes it more likely that Texas heads to the P12, but I don’t think the loss of Mizzouri would accomplish that. If the TV dollars start to dry up for the conference, then Texas will have to consider their options:
1) stay with the B12
2) go to another conference (probably the P12)
3) form a new conference along with ND, providing a limited conference schedule – making these teams hybrid independents.
4) go independent (might be difficult in the legislature of Baylor and TTech are hung out to dry).
LikeLike
At this point, I think that the Texas-OU two-some is enough to hold the Big 12 together if it was able to weather Nebraska and presumably A&M. Missouri is like losing another Colorado, it hurts the conference to be sure, but it’s not like losing a national brand like Nebraska or even the second Texas-based brand in A&M.
The only scenario that has Texas jump out of the Big 12 in my mind is if Oklahoma wants to move and sort of forces Texas’ hand. There’s no way Texas will stay alone in the Big 12 without Oklahoma, you can take that to the bank for sure.
So while losing Missouri on top of A&M does make it slightly more likely that Texas would choose to head west, I’m pretty sure that they’d be willing to stay in the Big 12 as long as ESPN/FOX keep the contracts the same if they replace A&M/Missouri with say BYU/Houston.
LikeLike
Vincent,
I think that’s why it doesn’t happen. If the SEC takes Missouri, the Big Xii could die right there, and they’d create in the PAC a longterm competitor for top football conference. A&M gives them access to Texas recruiting, which is great, but the addition of Missouri sends the majority of Texas recruiting to the conference that already has the entirety of California recruiting.
LikeLike
Whoops. There’s already a Mike. Should’ve figured that.
LikeLike
I think the SEC would rather see UT in the Pac-? than the B1G. Slive knows UT will never join the SEC and OU joining isn’t likely either. If the SEC waits UT could end up in the B1G and they might bring OU along too. I think Slive is a smart guy and may want to intentionally blow up the B12 while Texlahoma to the Pac-? seems like the most likely outcome.
LikeLike
Joe:
Slive would rather see the B12 exist indefinitely than see Texas & OU head off either west or north. As the B12 will survive so long as Texas & OU stick around, and those 2 schools will stick around so long as the B12 makes enough money (which is dependent on conference footprint), I can’t see Slive taking a thoroughly average school in Mizzou just to potentially trigger mega-expansion and bring a rival superconference right to it’s doorstep.
LikeLike
Richard,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think Slive is thinking long term and sees the B12 as too unstable to last long.
LikeLike
I believe they are making a smaller arguement that is vaguely similar to UNL. Lincoln=small but Neb market very large (national). Lubbock=small but their market, while not anything similar to Nebraska, does encompass very large markets in a very large state. Also to be considered is with the P12N having basic carriage in all footprint states would adding TT bring the whole state? That would be worth a pretty penny or two.
LikeLike
I get the comparison, I just don’t think it’s valid.
Texas Tech is similar to USF in Florida. Maybe it has a bit better recognition in Texas than USF has in Florida, but I can’t imagine the situations to be too different. Both have become quite sizeable in terms of student populations and have access to large markets, but I’m not sure that really does anything to pull in unaffiliated viewers. Most unaffiliated viewers probably watch Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma in Texas just as most unaffiliated viewers in Florida watch Florida, FSU, and Miami.
Neither is sufficient to justify a regional network in their respective states, so I don’t really know that the Pac-12 would go that route, which is the point the author of the blog post was making.
LikeLike
If TT by itself delivered the P12N onto basic carriage in Texas. with only the current carriers, I’d be tempted to say they would be delivering a value to the P12N that would rival any other member. Would TT significantly contribute to a revalueing if the primary contract? No, not in the same ballpark of what UT might. But as we have seen with the BTN there has been, and is, a significant under estimating of what a conference network can deliver in both revenue and exposure.
LikeLike
I’ve read when the Big 12 was being formed the TV execs were asked what the value would be of a Big 8 + Texas + Texas A&M. Then they were asked what would be the value of those 10 + Texas Tech and Baylor. The answer was exactly the same. It became inevitable the Big 12 would have to have a conference championship game so those added some value.
Now if you don’t have Texas and/or A&M, Tech has some value, but its limited. They have a pretty big alumni base in DFW, but they are very limited elsewhere outside lightly populated west Texas. You rarely run across Tech people in Houston. If you go to the sporting goods stores in Houston you see apparel for Texas, A&M, UH, Rice, LSU, Baylor, but often no Tech.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I totally agree. I’m not suggesting that TV execs would like TT, or that the actual fanbase is larger than it is. What I’m wondering is what the agreement with the cable carriers contains. I’m sure future expansion is addressed. Whether TT shirts and bumperstickers are absent in Houston has little little concern if the addition of a single Texas school is enough to trigger basic coverage through out the state. Certainly UT is the plumb, but absent them the state isn’t a wasteland. An OU, OSU, TT, ?? add opening Texas to P12Ns on basic carriage, while not a home run, seems a reasonable business move for growing a network.
LikeLike
There’s a fair OU fanbase in Dallas. As for Tech, my Mother was cleaning out her garage a couple months ago and came across my Dallas area senior class newspaper which listed where everyone was going to school, and, much to my surprise, more people went to Texas Tech than any other 4 year school. And that was back when Tech was a smaller school and UT and A&M weren’t as hard to get into as they are now.
LikeLike
It’s tough to say if Tech, even with OK / OK St, would be enough to open Texas to cable carriage. It’s possible, but that’d be a fairly tough fight w/ the cable companies, and not one the league would be guaranteed to win. Another reason why the league’s expansion plans, whatever they publicly say, really boild down to Texas or bust.
LikeLike
ccrider:
Cable companies ultimately only pay for products that their customers demand to see. As TTech doesn’t seem to draw many viewers outside of west Texas and maybe DFW (though even there, I have doubts; heck _TCU_ wasn’t able to get the mtn on basic cable in DFW, and they’re a local school), I seriously doubt they would put the PTN on all of Texas and still earn any sort of carriage charge. Maybe if they offer the PTN for close to free (5-10 cents) outside of west Texas and DFW, you’d get the PTN on basic everywhere in Texas, but it wouldn’t make the league much money.
I think the USF comparison is apt. Would the BTN (or PTN) adding USF put the league network all over the state of Florida? I serously doubt it.
LikeLike
TCU’s not really a good comparison if you understand DFW. TCU is NOT a local school in Dallas. SMU is NOT a local school in Ft. Worth. I haven’t seen TV ratings compared, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tech is 3rd and OU 4th in DFW before the 2 small privates and UNT.
LikeLike
Richard:
That is what I am asking. If current P12N carriers Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and a fourth I’m not remembering have already agreed to basic coverage in a state within the footprint going foreward, as they have with current the makeup (Utah and Colorado only have one school per state), then TT would make a fair amount of sense by it self. A big part of UT’s attractiveness is the assumption that it delivers the whole state. I guess the only way we’ll know (I doubt the agreement details will be available to the public) is if TT is invited on it’s own, which I don’t think is likely anyway. Just thinking it might make business sense to grow a network into a very large state.
LikeLike
Uh ccrider, did you see that I mentioned dollar amounts? Adding a state where the carriage rate is as low as outside the footprint may not be worth it. I’m sure the PTN gets far higher carriage rates in Utah and Colorado than in Texas.
LikeLike
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/25/3096556/bcs-to-justice-department-maybe.html
BCS and Anti-Trust Issues.
LikeLike
Seen this before
A&M Notifies Big 12
http://v4.texags.com/Stories/2741
LikeLike
Here is the official writeup on the aTm official athletics website: http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27300&ATCLID=205247891
LikeLike
Via Chuck Carlton of the Dallas Morning News (http://twitter.com/chuckcarltondmn)
LikeLike
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/aggies/2011/08/aggies-notify-big-12-they-intend-to-explore-options-on-league-front/
LikeLike
“and the Big 12 likely would officially begin its pursuit of a 10th member to take A&M’s place – perhaps BYU, Houston or SMU, among other candidates.”
Fixed it.
LikeLike
You at least have to ask Notre Dame. They will probably say no, but you should ask everyone that will move the needle. They should call LSU, Arkansas, the Arizona schools, and Illinois. Case in point, the Big East actually asked Penn St if they wanted to join after the ACC raid.
LikeLike
It looks like that aTm has officially “filed for divorce” from the Big 12.
http://v4.texags.com/Stories/2741
LikeLike
Can you say “Houston to the Longhorn Conference”?
The Texas State Legislature can.
LikeLike
I definitely see Houston as the main fallback plan. Big 12 will probably go first to ND and BYU and probably speak with TCU as well. Houston makes the most sense though looking at the situation right now if those three decline.
LikeLike
Interesing comments from the Aggie Websider ace reporter. Hop was the reporter who kept insisting that A&M and the SEC kept the lines of communication open for the last 15 months and it appears that he knew of what he spoke. The stadium will be pretty well rebuilt from the ground up on the East and West sides plus the South end zone. The North end zone, The Zone, is only 7-8 years old. Total cost will exceed $250 million. The quote follows
A Few Post-Release Nuggets (2 votes)
——————————————————————————–
I’m hearing that shortly after the press release, the university started making calls to those that made significant conditional pledges pursuant to A&M going to the SEC to get confirmation on those commitments and to establish timelines for payment. I’m hearing the amount is “substantial”.
I’ve been told that there’s a stadium renovation fund and an SEC fund based on many of these conditional pledges. It’s been suggested to me that the stadium project has been fully funded ALREADY through this fund. Yes, there does appear to be a certain major donor involved.
The SEC fund will handle the exit fees and other expenses incurred as a result of this pending move. I have also heard that the fund will cover expenses over and above the existing endowment to send the Aggie Band to every SEC venue for A&M’s first trip to that stadium so every SEC school can see the band and put the A&M culture on display for its new members.
LikeLike
Why does A&M need to rebuild its whole stadium?
I have figured out the reason for the Aggie rush. The Fox contract goes from $20 million to the $90 million average in 2012-13. A&M is trying to get out before the exit fees essentially double. They are getting around $10 million a year in distributions now, but it will go up to over $20 million. The exit penalties are 80%-90% of the annual distribution (2 years if you only give 1 year notice).
LikeLike
Congrats to you swesleyh and to all the Aggies. I know many of you have been waiting for this to happen.
I also agree Hop is an ace reporter and has been on top of this move. He must know the right people. 🙂
LikeLike
Chip Brown on Texas – Notre Dame. Has there been any noise coming from South Bend or is this just Texas thinking out loud?
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1256278
Less than a month ago, Dodds told a gathering of the Young Men’s Business League of Austin that Texas wants the Big 12 to stay together if A&M moves on to the SEC. But Dodds said if there is not sentiment for the nine remaining schools to keep the Big 12 alive, Dodds said Texas might want to partner with a school like Notre Dame and start their own conference.
LikeLike
Dodds has said before he has had discussions of this nature. Its basically independence within a conference. Note that this is a contingency in case the Big 12 falls apart. ND wouldn’t necessarily be on board, but it might meet their needs. I think Dodds said he had discussions with about 20 schools.
LikeLike
Some kind of quasi-independent conference makes a certain amount of sense for ND and Texas. You figure Texas could bring TTech, Baylor, Oklahoma and Okla St in a west division, but the problem is figuring out who could come along as an every-year divisional opponent for ND. This probably works better if the ACC gets heavily raided as well. A division made up of ND, Pitt, BC, Miami and Rutgers is pretty good from revenue/competitive perspectives, and probably tolerable for ND.
LikeLike
Isn’t the CW on here that anything Chip Brown says is basically what the powers-that-be at Texas want everyone else to think. I view this as merely UT’s way of threatening TAMU without point blank threatening them. ND and Texas forming a conference with whatever’s available? Not seeing it.
I wouldn’t have a problem with picking up Texas for Thanksgiving weekend. Some might for the @U$C years, but I personally wouldn’t care if we played them in mid October every year.
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh says rather than the Death Penalty, the NCAA should just eliminate home games for 1 or 2 years. This is a huge financial penalty for the school, but leaves the opponents and TV contracts unharmed. Combined with scholarship reductions and bowl bans this should have the desired effect.
LikeLike
Here is my plan.
The BI64, eight pods of eight teams.
NE Pod: BC, UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Penn St. WVU, and Pitt
ATL Pod: Maryland, Va, Va Tech, Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake, Marshall
OHIO Pod: Ohio St., Cincy, Louisville, Toledo, Akron, Youngstown St., Canton Bulldogs, Cleveland Browns
MICHIANA Pod: Michigan, MSU, Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Butler, Hickory, and, I don’t know, that walk-on Rudy and 70 of his friends.
NORTH pod: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Boise St.
MW pod: Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas, Kansas St., Missouri, Iowa St. (need that Iowa trophy in the mix to capture the full Iowa market)
NW pod: Washington, Washington St., Utah, BYU, Colorado, Colorado St., Nevada, Utah St.
CAL Pod: Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, San Diego St., Fresno St., Arizona St., Arizona.
Let’s see the SEC top THAT!
LikeLike
No love for Phil Knight’s Ducks?
LikeLike
Hey Michael,
Michigan is hosting App State for the home opener in 2014!
This is nuts.
UM has zero to gain and everything to lose.
I can’t wait for 2014.
LikeLike
Oh, and Brian, I hate to break it to you, but this is now “The Game” in AA.
LikeLike
Not by 2014 it won’t be. Hoke should have MI back to competent by then, so getting the first win in Columbus this millennium (and potentially ending a 0-10* streak) will be more important.
LikeLike
that’s what they said about RR.
that said, i like hoke too.
LikeLike
At least Hoke isn’t forcing a 3-3-5 defense on a team lacking the players for it and a DC with no knowledge of it. That has to help. Just an average defense would have won several more game for RR.
LikeLike
UM has a lot to gain, like not having an 0-1 record against a I-AA opponent. Of course ApSU may be I-A by then (in that transitional limbo, anyway).
LikeLike
risk v reward my man.
LikeLike
I didn’t say they didn’t have more to lose, just that they didn’t have zero to gain.
On the other hand, what other I-AA opponent could they bring in that would draw this much attention? This will have more juice than a MAC opponent but for much less money.
LikeLike
i get it, but sweet jesus, the downside is just so bad and the attention might really backfire. they sell out everything and get prime tv all the time; they don’t need this.
LikeLike
You can’t be an elite program and be scared to play a I-AA team. If they can’t get motivated for that game, they deserve to lose.
LikeLike
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/08/25_remaining_ccha_teams_will.php
The WCHA has invited the five remaining CCHA teams to join them in 2013-2014, when the BTHC and NCHC form, and they have 30 days to agree. You have to figure LS St, Ferris St and Alaska jump on the offer. WMU and BG may wait to see where ND decides to go and if they get NCHC offers (NCHC might want two of ND, WMU and BG).
LikeLike
Good read on the situation. ND’s the wildcard here. I wish they’d make a decision.
LikeLike
You and me, both.
UAF accepted.
http://www.uafnews.com/headlines/alaska-nanooks-hockey-to-join-wcha
I’m more shocked by the invite than the acceptance.
LikeLike
Maybe they think they can play both Alaskan schools with one trip to Alaska. Wed-Thurs followed by Sat-Sun games (followed by a week off), anyone?
LikeLike
I’d assume they would try to combine them into one trip, or else everybody only plays at one of the AK schools each year.
LikeLike
LSS already accepted.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110825/SPORTS08/110825049/WCHA-invites-five-remaining-CCHA-teams-merger
LikeLike
What choice did they have, really? No other conference would want them and going independent would be dumb. This way they get the 3 closest teams in their conference, and get to play a lot of other small schools. I think it will help them, if the money is OK.
LikeLike
i think it’s a good solution. i think BG and WM are smart to hang around a bit
LikeLike
http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/566171/Lake-Superior-State–Alaska-Fairbanks–Ferris-State-set-to-follow-NMU-to-WCHA.html?nav=5010
“The WCHA did request that LSSU and Ferris upgrade their arenas – Taffy Abel Arena in Sault Ste. Marie and Ewigleben Ice Arena in Big Rapids – and both athletic departments agreed to make improvements.”
LikeLike
I don’t really get college hockey. It seems obvious to me that these teams would be better off in separate conferences (with 2 auto bids) than in one bigger conference. Plus smaller conferences would mean more OOC games which would given more opportunity to either (1) play away for guarantee games and money or (2) schedule some series (probably unbalanced) with name teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, etc. and get them to come to your arena for season ticket sales purposes.
Yes, there’s been limited opportunities for OOC games in the past, but that’s because everyone was in big conferences with 28 game schedules. Now, you have the Big Ten planning on 20 game schedules and the NCHC potentially going with 20 (or 24 if they add only Notre Dame) which leaves a lot more opportunity for OOC opponents. Plus the CCHA and WCHA teams would be able to play each to fill out schedules if needed.
At this point, assuming LSSU is going, I kind of hope UAF goes as well and the remaining CCHA teams can convince the Atlantic Hockey teams to join (with or without Alabama-Huntsville) so there can still be both league. The Atlantic Hockey teams apparently don’t want to join the CCHA if Alaska-Fairbanks is still a member.
LikeLike
Two smaller conferences mean that one school deciding to leave would end the conference, or at least the auto bid. A new WCHA of 10 teams is safe. A conference of similar schools should be more steady than one that mixed B10 schools with tiny schools.
You are assuming the big boys want to play them. Except for old rivalries, wouldn’t the NCHC and BTHC rather play each other for more money and exposure? The concept of payday games doesn’t apply so well to what is a non-revenue sport for most teams.
LSSU has said yes. UAF and FSU probably will really soon, too. WMU and BG are waiting on ND and/or the NCHC to make a decision. The AH schools are SOL in my opinion. What I’d like to see is UAH get a slot somewhere.
LikeLike
I think with the four exceptions (Niagara, Mercyhurst, Canisus, Robert Morris) none of the rest of the AHA has any desire to play with a full compliment of scholarships. One of the posters on the USCHO fan forums theorized that the meeting between them and the CCHA must not have went well if the CCHA schools were willing to throw in with the WCHA. The risk must have been too great that the CCHA would survive another round of defections, especially since the WCHA makes too much sense for Lake State after NMU left and UAF generally.
LikeLike
There is no way the CCHA could be stable with 4 new programs that are just bumping up to a full compliment of scholarships. It make a lot more sense for LSSU and FSU to join their GLIAC brethren in the WCHA.
LikeLike
If you add in the Atlantic Hockey four and UAH, you can get two conferences of 8 teams depending on what happens with WMU (I’m assuming ND is a goner to somewhere). That would give some cushion for teams leaving and actually provide some room for teams to start hockey and join. With a merger, we go back to a situation where there’s basically no room for new schools to add ice hockey and might likely see UAH killed off.
And I don’t see why there can’t be guarantee games in hockey. Pretty much all the Big Ten schools would want extra home games and I could see the same for schools like North Dakota and Notre Dame. Sure, they payouts won’t be massive, but it probably be more revenue than the schools get from playing home conference games against other small schools.
I’ve also seen suggestions of novel 2 for 1 type deals. Like, UM and MSU go to the upper peninsula one weekend playing LSSU and NMU 1 game each (UM plays LSSU on Fri and then NMU on Sat while MSU plays NMU on Fri and LSSU on Sat) and in return the following season LSSU and NMU play 2 games each at both MSU and UM (or some variant, maybe one away series the year before and one series the year after). These kinds of deals would be limited with fewer non-conference games.
I’d imagine that BTHC schools would rather play cupcakes than play a lot of games versus NCHC schools (especially nearby cupcakes with less travel costs). They’re conference schedule would be tough enough and they stand to make more money IMHO by getting extra home games than playing home and away series with Denver or Nebraska-Omaha.
LikeLike
BY merging, they get to play more familiar foes that are often closer and have a history at the top level. Instead, the CCHA should add 4 schools that haven’t had to support a full contingent of scholarships and maybe add the only southern team? So they get to travel to AK and AL every year? How would LSSU afford that?
It is not the responsibility of these schools to create conferences with open slots for new schools. How many new programs are likely in the next 10 years besides PSU? There are 58 teams now. Will there even be 60 by 2020? Hockey is expensive and the last thing most schools need are more male athletes in their Title IX calculations. Even the other B10 schools show no interest, and they have the money. Do you expect some D-III schools to move up?
LikeLike
Sideshow – interesting point about the autobids. But I think the goal is to create a conference that ends up being solidly second-tier. A 6-teamer or one with AHA schools brought in would probably be seen as pretty bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately for them I don’t see these teams hosting many of the major schools. I think the Wisconsins and North Dakotas are going to try and line up as many home games as possible (as it stood I don’t think Wisconsin has played a true road game in non conference in a long time). The few road series non-conference they do play will probably be against former “first-tier” conference mates. I see Wisconsin playing North Dakota or Minnesota Duluth on the road rather than ever going up to Michigan Tech.
LikeLike