As we come ever so closer to something official somewhere about Texas A&M moving to the SEC, the college football world has naturally turned to speculating on who is going to be SEC school number 14. I can buy that the SEC might spend a year or two at 13 schools, but with divisional play having long been in place, an odd number of members is not going to work long-term in the same manner that it did for the Big Tweleven.
Mr. SEC had a nice breakdown of the SEC’s realistic expansion options last week and I agree with his overarching point that there are not nearly as many choices for Mike Slive as the average college football fan believes. (Note that Mr. SEC is as close to that conference as anyone, so he’s not some biased and blasphemous Big Ten blogger like yours truly.) I’ll reiterate my belief once again that the ACC is much, much, much stronger than so many people that just see the recent results on the field, current TV contract cycle, and preponderance of hookers and blow in Miami seem to give it credit for. The ACC has extremely strong academics (which, whether sports fans like it or not, actually matter to academic institutions) along with a core of UNC, Duke and UVA that’s never going to realistically leave. Mr. SEC’s contention (and I once again agree with him) is that when you’re not including ACC schools (although I’ll evaluate a few of them as cursory measure in a moment) and it should be assumed that the Big Ten and Pac-12 aren’t poachable, then the list of schools that can (1) add value to the SEC and (2) aren’t tied down by home state politics (i.e. the Oklahoma – Oklahoma State situation) is cut down to Missouri, West Virginia and Pitt. That’s it. As a result, Mike Slive just can’t start blowing up other conferences like Emperor Palpatine (not that it’s in his best interest to do so, anyway). Let’s take a look at those 3 schools along with a handful of specific ACC members that often get mentioned as potential SEC candidates:
VIRGINIA TECH
Virginia Tech is probably the most oft-rumored addition to the SEC these days and it certainly makes sense from a financial perspective. The Hokies have a large fan base that also opens up a brand new fast-growing Southern state for the SEC while providing access to the Washington, DC market. Here’s the problem (and I know many readers believe I harp on this too much): Virginia state politics.
Let’s take a look at the historical timeline of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s ACC members:
1819 – The dude that wrote the Declaration of Independence founds Big Brother University.
1872 – Little Brother University is founded.
1953 – Big Brother becomes a founding member of the ACC. Little Brother kicks around in the Southern Conference and then as an independent later on.
1991 – Little Brother joins the Big East.
2003 – Big Brother’s league raids Little Brother’s league. Little Brother then gets Virginia politicians to pressure Big Brother to scuttle the league’s expansion plans entirely in order to have Little Brother join instead. It works!
Does that timeline really look like a situation where Little Brother can go and completely screw Big Brother only 8 years when Big Brother directly called in favors to get Little Brother into the ACC? Make no mistake about it – UVA would be screwed in this situation. The notion that UV A would be unscathed if Virginia Tech left is a fallacy. If we believe that the ACC would lose TV money with Virginia Tech leaving (very possible) and/or even worse, the long-term stability of the ACC that UVA founded (another strong possibility), then Virginia legislators are going to put the smackdown on that move. It’s not just about the ACC or UVA simply surviving here. At least in the case of Texas A&M, leaving for the SEC wasn’t ever going to damage Texas financially at all and in a strict political sense, the Aggies is closer to UT’s equal in terms of power. The Commonwealth of Virginia, however, is heavily ACC country and it wouldn’t go over well to see a Virginia-based university that begged politicians to force it in then turn around and completely destabilize it less than a decade later. As a result, I don’t believe that Virginia Tech going to the SEC is realistic. It’s the best combo of new markets and solid football for the SEC, but that doesn’t mean that they’re attainable. There’s NFW that a public flagship university that was founded by Thomas Jefferson is going to get screwed by a fellow in-state institution here.
(It’s certainly ironic that a school that the ACC didn’t originally want in 2003 may end up being the key to the conference’s long-term stability. Just as UVA had circumstantial veto power when the ACC last expanded due to the UNC/Duke bloc against any type of addition, Virginia Tech has ended up in the position where it may singlehandedly determine whether the ACC stays intact. That’s the type of position that legislators love to pounce upon.)
NORTH CAROLINA STATE
Here’s a link to the website of the University of North Carolina system. If you look at the list of institutions controlled by the UNC Board of Governors, you’ll find North Carolina State University listed there. This means the UNC system has to ultimately approve any conference move by NC State. If you haven’t figured out by now why UNC and NC State will never, ever be separated, I can’t help you. Considering UNC isn’t going to ever head to SEC for academic and control reasons, NC State isn’t going anywhere, either.
FLORIDA STATE
Florida State is really the only ACC school that I could realistically see heading to the SEC. Its Big Brother is the one that’s already in the SEC, so this isn’t a situation where Little Brother would somehow be abandoning Big Brother like Virginia Tech or NC State. It’s probably up to the University of Florida as to whether FSU would get an invite. The rumored “Gentlemen’s Agreement” among SEC schools to not add any expansion candidates in current SEC states seems more rooted in giving deference to fellow in-state institutions as opposed to some type of outright ban. FSU doesn’t bring a new market, but the Seminoles clearly have the top national football brand in the ACC and that may trump any territorial overlap concerns with the Gators.
CLEMSON
Clemson is one of the other ACC schools that may accept an SEC invite despite the difference in academics, but the issue is whether Clemson actually brings much to the SEC. I find Clemson to be more of a fan-based wish as opposed to a financially-sound addition. To be clear, Clemson has a great fan base and solid athletic programs across-the-board. However, I think that the SEC looks at them in the same manner that the Big Ten looks at Pitt: a great fit in everything but straight cash homey. The SEC already has the flagship in Clemson’s home state of South Carolina with a relatively low population while the Tigers don’t have the national name of FSU to compensate. If you could move the Clemson campus to virtually any state outside of the current SEC footprint, then it would be a top target. Unfortunately, the one thing that a school can’t change is location unless it’s an online diploma mill. Speaking of Pitt, by the way…
PITTSBURGH
Even as a guy that is largely known as the blogger that wrote about the possibility of Big Ten adding Texas, the thought of Pitt going to the SEC feels geographically out of whack even though the actual distance may not actually be as far as you think. It’s a strange thought on the surface and not a cultural or institutional fit, although with the footprint and mishmash of different types of schools in the Big East now, we’re probably at the point where it doesn’t matter. Pitt has everything checked off that you’d want in a school with great academics, a long football history, and a top tier basketball program. This would be purely a money play for the SEC to get into Pennsylvania, though, and while money is certainly factor #1 in any conference decision, those types of moves generally don’t work out without some intangible cultural and institutional ties, too. Pitt might end up being the beneficiary of the domino effect in the event that the SEC takes Florida State and then the ACC needs a replacement (where the Panthers would be a much better match).
WEST VIRGINIA
A year ago, I couldn’t see any reasonable way for West Virginia to end up in the SEC. Now, though, the Mountaineers might be the most realistic frontrunner with the way everything has played out. WVU is pretty similar to Iowa – a rabid statewide fan base in a small immediate market but whose grads disperse to major markets nearby and have an incredible traveling reputation. (Differences: WVU has a functioning basketball team along with top tier rifle and couch burning programs.) The Mountaineers would be a great cultural fit with the SEC while getting the conference some exposure in the Mid-Atlantic region. Whether the SEC can get over the school’s small market the way that the Big Ten got over Nebraska’s low population base is another story.
MISSOURI
Ah, Mizzou. I know that there are a lot of Missouri fans that are convinced that I have it in for them as an Illinois alum, but to be honest, it would’ve been great strictly from an Illini perspective to have had the Tigers as a conference rival in the Big Ten. The issue was that Mizzou is the kind of school that makes a lot of sense in a multi-school expansion (good TV markets, academics, football and basketball), yet they aren’t necessarily stellar enough in any category to make them the lone addition. The SEC is probably going to look at Mizzou in a similar fashion, where they likely weren’t going to make the Tigers the primary target but could be very attractive in a pairing with Texas A&M.
My somewhat educated opinion is that the ACC is going to stay intact, so it’s going to come down to a choice between West Virginia and Missouri for the SEC. Mizzou has the advantage in TV markets and recruiting areas, while West Virginia has the edge in cultural fit and fan base intensity. If I were in Mike Slive’s shoes, I’d choose Missouri, but I’m getting the impression that Mizzou may stick around the Big 12 minus 2 minus 1. That’s what happens when your university president heads up the Big 12 expansion search. As a result, West Virginia is who I’d wager on becoming SEC school #14.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from The Movie Mind)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Bacon. (add)
LikeLike
Add. GBR
LikeLike
Try again.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
cool
hook’em
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add .
LikeLike
#1 Hawkeyes hosting Tennessee Tech this weekend.
LikeLike
I’m slow, re-add.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Lets not forget that the lawyers on the Big 12 side might let A&M so to the see without rolling out the TI suit card, but taking both A&M and Mizzou would leave the Big 12 no real choice. As it is, A&M/SEC is skating on thin ice on this entire thing. If it gets to the point that the SEC is poaching 2 members of the Big 12, they better be confident that the entire league is going to fold. If not, the entire move will end up tied in court.
LikeLike
The ironies of history that West Virginia will be joining the South because Virginia doesn’t want to…
———
“…preponderance of hookers and blow in Miami seem to give it credit for”
The most shocking part of the Miami revelations was the apparent absence of any blow. Has Miami gone so corporate that a Ponzi-scheming jock-sniffer can’t get some of the good stuff?
—-
The argument laid out in this article points to the SEC not expanding to 14. Negotiators might have trouble saying that A&M adds to the average value of SEC games, but there’s no way A&M + WVU adds to the average value.
I think the SEC would take one of the other options (not expanding, staying at 13, convincing UF to let FSU in) before taking WVU.
LikeLike
@M – You’re so dead-on about Miami. When I was reading the Yahoo! article for the first time, I was just waiting for the point where they were going to start talking about coke dealers. I don’t want to say it was a disappointment that it wasn’t there (because kids should say no to drugs), but if a player at The U can’t score some good product, there’s little hope for everyone else.
LikeLike
I find it hilarious that commenters on this board continue with any discussion that the SEC isn’t adding Texas A&M. The only person who could still make an observation like that has their head in a dark, and stinky place.
LikeLike
College Station?
In a little over a year, Texas A&M has been “certain” to stay in the Big 12, go to the Pac-X, stay in the Big 12, go to the SEC, stay in the Big 12, and go to the SEC again. I hope you can grasp why someone might think of them as duplicitous.
LikeLike
Completely false, but keep spinning. A&M didn’t explore other options until Texas began tallking to the Pac-10 and attempted to package a deal with A&M. At that point, A&M expressed no interest in the Pac-10 and begin discussions with the SEC. A&M and Texas agreed to remain in the B12 (despite the huge lose of NU) based upon assurances from Beebe that revenues would hit $20M and assurances from Texas that the B12 would be their focus. The $20M assurances have yet to materialize and we’ve all seen the LHN contract and its heavy handed approach to denegrate the B12 tier 2 and tier 3 rights.
Texas crapped all over this deal. Not Texas A&M.
LikeLike
For Nebraska, the first official announcement of search came two weeks before they joined the conference. The trustees had their vote to enable a conference move in the morning, Tom Osborne had a press conference with Jim Delaney in the afternoon.
Meanwhile A&M has been grousing for months. They announced publicly with the conference over a month ago. They gave the president the power to move two weeks ago. Either they are simply incredibly disorganized or something is holding them up.
It could be something unrelated to A&M like looking for a 14th team, but it’s something.
LikeLike
Frank.. Does adding Virginia do anything for ya? Perhaps VT is the OU of the East…. Would Virginia be an acceptable price to pay in order to get VT, the best remaining choice available ?
14,15,16… VT, Virginia, and Mizzou or WVU… call it a day.
LikeLike
@Houston – Well, UVA has value in and of itself. The issue with respect to the SEC is that UVA is in the same position as UT or UNC where they won’t consider that move because of academics.
Now, if the Big Ten wants to add both UVA and VT, I’m all over that.
LikeLike
It MIGHT conceivably be possible that the Big Ten adds UVA and the SEC adds VA Tech at the same time, which would presumably be OK by VA politicians. That seems a somewhat unlikely scenario, though.
PS It’s worth asking whether losing NC St would be a substantial blow to the ACC, and if not, why the NC politicians would especially care about them moving out.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms – Yes, I could see where VT could leave if UVA got a Big Ten invite. My question would be whether the Big Ten would just let the SEC take the much better football program in that market. That’s why if the Big Ten could actually pick off any ACC schools (and I don’t think that’s realistic), it ought to target MD, UVA and VT. I know some others like the MD/UVA/UNC/Duke combo, and that’s certainly great for academics, markets on paper and basketball, but a complete downer for football quality (which is the whole point of superconferences).
I don’t think losing NC State leaving the ACC would be a huge blow to that conference, but there might be no state in the country more intimately tied to a particular conference than North Carolina is with the ACC.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily agree about the duke/unc anaylsis. I think they would be great for the big ten. In the end we don’t need 16 schools competing for a football national title, we need maybe 8. Just enough to keep the conference in the limelight. The thing the big ten needs is what the big east has, we need to be considered a power confence for basketball also. Duke and UNC bring that along with adding a ton of value to our academics and their expanding TV markets. I would wager that duke or unc will provide more long term value then VT.
LikeLike
Frank, the ACC “core four” is probably the Big Ten’s best bet right now for expansion, because none of the football “home runs” fit. You’re not getting Notre Dame, which has no reason to abandon its treasured football independence and won’t until absolutely necessary; Texas has shown over the years that it looks out for Texas and no one else, and thus would be a gigantic headache for the Big Ten; and Oklahoma simply doesn’t work academically (not to mention the whole Okie State problem). Better for all concerned to have UT and OU take Texas Tech and Okie State west, where they would be part of the Rose Bowl equation.
And working with Slive to pick off the ACC (with Virginia Tech and N.C. State going to the SEC, along with A&M and Missouri) helps his conference, too. It seriously weakens Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State by rendering them to a second-tier conference.
LikeLike
Better yet, it means the possibility of landing GTech & FSU. I’d actually not as wedded to the ACC core four as I previously was after I looked at how much revenue the athletic departments of these schools bring in. UNC & Duke, despite their stellar basketball, would be middle-of-the-pack at best in the B10, while UVa and Maryland would be firmly in the lower reaches. Even FSU doesn’t bring in that much (though it has the football brand and recruiting). If the ACC is weakened, I think the B10 should make a pitch for GTech & FSU, not so much for themselves (though FSU has value and GTech is in a geographically favorable area, the the BTN would be expanded in to those 2 states at some carriage rate), but if a school in the SEC gets the death penalty or TV ban, the B10 would then be in a good position to pick up UGa & UF if those 2 schools ever were to defect from the SEC.
LikeLike
As for the VTech brand, I do wonder how that would be after Beamer retires. We’ve heard plenty of talk about how sustainable the Duke brand would be after Coach K goes, but what about VTech? They were nothing before Beamer.
LikeLike
@Richard,
I have a hard time buying GT to the B1G based upon the theory that they’ll be able to pick up carriage in ATL. The Jackets command so little of the metro market. Yes, there are a lot of B1G transplants in ATL, but if those numbers couldn’t get the BTN on basic cable, how would adding the Purdue of the South help?
LikeLike
Purdue would get carriage in Indiana.
Between GTech, B10 alums in Atlanta, and FSU (which penetrates southern GA), I’m confident that the BTN would get carriage in GA. Only question would be the rate.
LikeLike
What about a Syracuse/UVA/UNC/Duke combo?
You mentioned a few months ago that NYC was more of a college basketball town than a college football town, and that the college basketball program with the largest share of the NYC market was — Duke. UNC was #5 there, and and Syracuse was either third or fourth, depending on how UConn was faring.
If the Big 10 were to get UVA and VT, or even UVA by itself, its footprint would then include the DC area. In that case, adding Maryland would be similar to adding Missouri. Both schools would have support in two metro areas (DC/Baltimore or St. Louis/KC), but the conference would already have a presence in one of the areas, and getting the other one doesn’t add very much.
Syracuse should be able to add something in football, as it’s the only BCS school in the state of New York, and it does have a long football tradition. Syracuse football might not be enough to pick up the NYC market, but Syracuse basketball, coupled with the UNC/Duke duo, probably would get the BTN carried in the area. (Incidentally, how did Duke become more popular in NYC than St. John’s? And why would UNC be more popular than Seton Hall?)
To get UNC and Duke out of the ACC, the Big Ten would probably have to invite Virginia as well, as UNC and Virginia also have a long rivalry. Once you have those three, Syracuse would be a much better choice than Maryland as the conference’s sixteenth member.
Finally, while football quality may be the biggest point of superconferences, a small decline in quality may be an acceptable price to pay for getting the NYC market.
LikeLike
Richard,
We’ll just have to disagree. If that exclusivity and passion existed, why didn’t the ACC form there own network to monetize it? And while many scoff and the SEC’s decision to partner with ESPN, I think they realized that the dirt road alumni far outnumber real grads and that creating a network would alienate the Harvey Updikes of the world and marginalize the SEC’s appeal.
LikeLike
vandiver:
They don’t have cable in the south? As for the ACC not forming a channel, hindsight’s 20-20. When the ACC was negotiating their TV deal, success for the BTN wasn’t ensured. However, the Pac (which is very similar to the ACC in terms of fan fervor) formed their own channel a couple of years later.
LikeLike
sam:
I don’t think the NYC market is gettable without ND, and even with ND, the BTN may not be able to get on basic cable. NYC is very much a pro sports town, and outside of alums, college sports just doesn’t command the interest that the pro sports teams do. There’s also the fact that ‘Cuse, UVa, and Duke would all be below B10 average in football (Duke way below average). That’s a problem in a league that not only splits league revenue equally but also shares football gate receipts (bball gate receipts as well, but the dollar amount of bball sharing pales compared to the football dollar amount). That’s why the B10 would need to add a football king in order to add any other program (UNC & TAMU are probably the only non-kings who can justify expansion solely by themselves).
LikeLike
First reaction is that you may have overstated the degree to which UNC and NC State are bound together. While agree that they would never willing part with one another, I think that the BoG would certainly agree to split them (if begrudgingly) so long as both schools signed off on the move and they agreed to continue playing each other. Again, I don’t think this is likely, but if it looked like the ACC were in danger, it could certainly happen.
LikeLike
The issue is your final statement.
The SEC is looking for #14. Allowing NCState to become that #14 is what creates the danger for the ACC.
I think this is the reason why the ACC is so hard to poach at this very moment. With the Big Ten now stable at 12, the only cause of instability to the ACC would be a team choosing to go and be #14 in the SEC.
At this moment, the stability of the ACC is held in the hands of a school that would choose to bolt.
That’s entirely different from the Big 12 situation where the power imbalance between Texas and the rest created the inherent instability as well as the fact that the Pac-10 was logically eyeing Colorado, and the Big Ten was looking for #12.
The circumstances are so much more different with the SEC alone looking for an expansion candidate.
LikeLike
I agree, but my point was that it could happen despite Frank’s “never, ever” talk. I mean if Miami gets hits with sanctions that sends it back to the stone age and FSU bolts for the SEC, then the ACC could be in really serious trouble, particularly if the Big 10 were to make a play at a Big Xii school.
Like I said, UNC is never going to willing let NC State bolt, but a perfect storm of plausible (if not necessarily likely) events were to occur, it may not have much choice.
LikeLike
But what would cause the most instability for the ACC? Letting NCST go to the SEC, or forcing the SEC to back and “convince” UF/UGA/USCe (which btw would need one more team to block a vote) to allow FSU join the SEC? I think losing FSU is way more destablizing to the ACC than losing NCST.
LikeLike
If UNC believes they have a Big 10 invite in their back pocket, then I’m guessing that they would block an NC State move, and then gamble that UF, UGa, USC and UK (remember they were part of the supposed “gentleman’s agreement) would stick together.
LikeLike
I don’t think any team that is potentially affected by all of this is going to be willing to “gamble” on anything. UNC sure isn’t going to “gamble” as to what the SEC will or won’t do. I think Slive has proven that you don’t know what he (and the SEC) is willing or unwilling to do.
I also seriously doubt that the “gentlemen’s agreement” between UF, UGA, & USCe (if UK is apart of that agreement, which there isn’t a whole lot of speculation that they are, they aren’t near as dedicated as the others due to Louisville not being a serious candidate to be added) would be held together if it meant that the conference as a whole would suffer. Sure…UF, UGA, & USCe don’t want their state counterparts in, but if it meant that the SEC would have to settle on a team that wouldn’t bring in the things needed to improve the profitability of the conference (and thus their schools), they will relent on that agreement.
The last thing that the ACC wants is FSU or Clemson to leave, if it can sacrifice NCST in their place.
LikeLike
Something to note, the WVU add would immediately create an intense rivalry with Kentucky. I am a huge UK fan, and, even though Calipari and Huggins are friends, many UK fans absolutely hate WVU and Huggins (from his time at both Cincinnati and WVU).
In addition, the states border each other, and there is a relatively well known family rivalry on the border from way back…I’d have to recheck the names of the families involved, however.
LikeLike
Givens and Bennet?
LikeLike
Hatfields and McCoys! That’s it.
LikeLike
Interesting the two of the top rifle programs in the NCAA are:
Kentucky and West Virginia.
UK and WVU used to play each other regularly in football in the 60s/early 70s.
LikeLike
Yep. I the UK-WVU rivalry would certainly be a bonus to the SEC, especially in basketball.
LikeLike
I think*…
LikeLike
The two schools also had a football rivalry of sorts for a while, playing each other through the 40s, 60s, and 70s.
LikeLike
The two schools had a football rivalry of sorts for a while, playing each other through the 40s, 60s, and 70s.
(Sorry if this double-posts, site is acting weird.)
LikeLike
The tooth counting contest would be particularly intense………
LikeLike
that was cold but i literally laughed out loud.
LikeLike
You forgot abortions. Hookers, blow and abortions. I’m just going to assume there was blow; maybe finding coke at the U isn’t considered newsworthy these days.
FSU – seems like Florida might be a state worth double dipping in. SC, not so much. Same goes for Georgia Tech.
West Virginia – do they really have enough to offer? I mean, how much exposure in the mid-Atlantic are we talking about? Enough to get the SEC Network syndicated games on TV stations in DC/Baltimore?
Pitt – the SEC will be playing second fiddle to the Big Ten here. Will they be down for that? Do they want a potential 24/7 SEC Network to have to compete with the BTN for basic carriage? And seriously, Pitt?
Mizzou – this one just feels right. Expands the footprint without straying too far from home, and they would definitely bring in some good markets. The SEC Network currently is not carried by stations in MO, and that would change, for one thing. OK, the Big 12 could sue, but so could any conference. You think the Big East will let WFV go without a fight? You do have the not-insignificant problem of division alignment that comes with adding two to the West, but that may not be insurmountable.
And as much as I enjoyed Forrest Gump, a more appropriate image for this article might have been Pickett’s Charge, if we’re talking about the South invading Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
He also forgot players acting as hired goons.
LikeLike
The problem with Missouri is that they may well be the lynchpin holding the Big Xii together right now. If that’s the case, to annex Missouri is to send UT and OU westward and introduce a future contender for top conference in the PAC. That is so no worth it.
LikeLike
Other MIke,
Look at it from Slive’s prospective. He can’t get TX, so he wants to mitigate his worst case scenario, TX to the B1G. By taking MO, he could force TX to move to the PAC before the B1G is ready to accept them.
LikeLike
Vandiver:
I’m not sure why Texas to the B10 is Slive’s worst case scenario or how having another superconference (the Pac16) at his doorstep is better for the SEC.
LikeLike
Guess I didn’t realize how bottom of the academic pecking order the SEC really was.
Source for 2010 Rankings – http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/03/15/athletic-conference-breakdown-atlantic-coast-conference
I calculated the avg ranking for each conference.
ACC – Avg 42 – Range 10-102
Big East – Avg 53 – Range 1-84 – 7 Tier3 Schools (Incl Basketball schools)
Big Ten – Avg 54 – Range 12-96
Pac12 – Avg 69 – Range 4-126 – 1 Tier3 Schools
Big XII-2 – Avg 82 – Range 47-102 – 3 Tier3 Schools
SEC – Avg 91 – Range 17-128 – 2 Tier3 Schools
What’s Funny… A&M’s move to the SEC makes those 2 conference virtually tied.
Big XII-2-I – Avg 86 – Range 47-102 – 3 Tier3 Schools
SEC 13 – Avg 88 – Range 17-128 – 2 Tier3 Schools
Another Funny.. Big Ten would have been in 2nd with Avg of 50, before adding Nebraska.
LikeLike
3rd Funny… If Big XII-II-I adds TCU, ranked at 110… It will earn them the title of “Worst Academically ranked Conference ” with an avg of 89
LikeLike
TCU was 99th in the latest USN&WR rankings; these appear to be from the previous year. And we get the new ones in a couple of weeks.
LikeLike
Also, the Big 12’s ranking would be lower if they somehow included the Tier 3 schools in the average. Same goes for the SEC and Pac-12. And wow, I didn’t realize how many Tier 3 schools there were in the Big East.
Other screwiness: the Big East’s ranking is amplified by Nova and Providence, which are ranked 1st and 2nd … in the Master’s University (North) category.
LikeLike
Those aren’t really all that funny; I would expect that when a pretty good school like A&M leaves the Big 12 for the SEC, it would hurt the former and aid the latter. What’s funny is that if NC State left the ACC for the SEC, both conferences’ rankings would improve. And if Florida joined the ACC, both conferences would drop.
LikeLike
Things get for worse the SEC if you use rankings that incorporate graduate programs also (USNWR are undergrad only) since they only have 2 big research schools (though A&M will add a third).
(FWIW, rankings that include grad schools also push the Big 10 past the ACC)
LikeLike
Actually, you should include the Tier 3 universities in the averages. They actually do have a ranking if you pull up their individual page. For example, WVU is ranked 176.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/west-virginia-university-3827
Given that, these are how the conferences shake out:
ACC – Avg 48.7 – Range 10-102
Big Ten – Avg 54.0 – Range 12-96
Pac-12 – Avg 75.3 – Range 4-139
Big 12 – Avg 99.9 – Range 47-159
SEC – Avg 100.0 – Range 17-151
Big East – 105.6 – Range 58-183 (all schools except Villanova and Providence, which are only ranked as regional universities)
Big East – 117.1 – Range 58-183 (football schools only)
So, even with Nebraska, the Big Ten is clearly 2nd based on this criteria. However, given that all of the Big Ten’s universities are in the top 100, and 11 out of 12 are in the AAU (versus only 5 of 12 for the ACC), one might argue that the Big Ten is tops academically out of major conferences.
And, clearly the Big East is not 2nd. They are dead last, and easily so if looking at football schools only.
LikeLike
BIG is probably first if you factor in graduate schools….issue is what weight to give to each….
Everyone who talks about NEB in the same breath as PSU should realize that the BIG took a big academic hit with NEB. NEB was in no way as significant an addition as PSU when you factor in enrollment, markets, academic rep, research………I’d rate the recent additions/proposed additions as follows: PSU A+ MD B+ NEB B MO and Rut C+ Pitt C
LikeLike
PSU was way below the Big 10 average in academics when they joined. The Big 10 has dramatically helped them move up. I’ve read several articles where PSU officials have talked about how it helped them to where now they get mentioned in the same lists with Wisconsin, Illinois, etc.
LikeLike
PSU was way below average? By what measure?
The only thing I can find is this link with historic USNWR rankings:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/
Earliest PSU entry was 41 in 1996, and it was 47 last year. Which is about B10 average. If it was “well below average” in 1989 (voted entry) or 1992/1993 (actual entry), they made a heck of a turnaround.
LikeLike
greg, bullet is referring to research funding and the like.
Penn State’s research programs have been helped massively by their inclusion in the Big Ten, and many administrators at Penn State have said it’s made it a lot easier to access such funding. (Over the past 20 years, they’ve posted some of the biggest jumps in graduate research funding).
Undergraduate rankings aren’t really impacted at all by conference realignment.
LikeLike
In 1990, the year before Penn State joined the Big 10, the university received around $137 million in federal research funding. By 2009, Penn State’s federal research funding had more than tripled, coming in at $446 million for the year.
Those are the Penn State numbers. I’m fairly certain that their % increase is higher than most, if not all of the Big Ten over that period of time.
LikeLike
PSU wasn’t below the BIG 10 average when they joined………that’s all bunk……and their growth in research $ hasn’t been particularly dramatic either. People like to put the best spin on things. This is one instance.
LikeLike
You didn’t hear PSU mentioned among the best overall graduate institutions in the 80s. Now they clearly are. As Zeek was saying, I was referring to “academic reputation” which primarily means research.
LikeLike
Went back and looked at some research funding #s….In terms of federally financed R@D #s from 2001-08…
UM……up 49%
WIS….up 56%
Pitt……up 70%
PSU….up 65%
MINN….up 38%
OSU….up 108%
ILL….up 36%
NW…up 68%
Iowa….up 48%
IU….up 60%
PUR….up 81%
MSU….up 37%
Rutgers….up 82%
NEB…up 97%MO…59%
Viewing the BIG schools v. would-be BIG schools, there is no correlation # wise to BIG membership and res. $ growth.
LikeLike
Boomer.. Good find. Appreciate the more accurate rankings.
LikeLike
Yeah.. I’m sure there are more accurate rankings out there… I just went with the quickest ( that sorted by conference).. to get a rough idea since I didn’t realize just how big the gap between ACC and SEC really was.
LikeLike
If you ranked the SEC W and SEC E separately, you would see why many Big 12 schools are reluctant to join the SEC. I haven’t looked it up, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see all the SEC East schools ranked higher than any SEC West schools. Vandy, UGA and FL are clearly the top 3 schools in the SEC 12.
LikeLike
SEC W average 119 (79-151)
SEC E average 78 (17-129)
LikeLike
@ Frank – Just a thought here – could UNC (aligned with Duke) be willing to ‘allow’ NC State to go to the SEC in a back room attempt to break up the ACC and go with Duke to the Big Ten for academic and Basketball BTN dollars? I know it sounds like a giant conspiracy but maybe Duke/UNC are unhappy about the addition of VT and would like to get their high profile academic programs into the CIC. Delaney said when all this began 2 years ago that he was looking further south than people might think (or something to that effect). I think UNC/Duke is a slam dunk for the BIG TEN, they might need cover though.
That being said – There seems to be some stuff going on with OU & OSU tonight. Not sure what, but the rest of the week could get interesting. There have been some rumblings of OU / OSU to the PAC. Haven’t seen any others mentioned, seems UT would be left as an independent in this scenario.
If that is the case, I think Missouri goes SEC and everyone calms down for a while.
LikeLike
http://buzztap.com/link.jsp?id=5893191&cid=368&source=feed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
“Think about it,” Stoops said. “A (league) championship game in the Rose Bowl, going to USC to play, the Rose Bowl and playing UCLA (the storied stadium serves as the Bruins’ home field) …”
A year ago, Stoops endorsed the idea of OU joining the then-Pac-10 when that league attempted to expand to 16 members. He confirmed Tuesday that membership in a Pac-16 still excites him……Stoops also still believes if the Sooners eventually head west that it’s vital to take at least three Big 12 teams with them.
LikeLike
I get it for OK, OK ST, MO and TT…..but I’m not sure there is quite enough there for the PAC……As others have said, it they’ve decided that TX is REALLY off the table and this is the best they can do, I could see it…..but out of 16 teams, you only have 2 traditional powers–that’s a little thin, though better than 1/12…..biggest advantage is the old PAC 8 teams can all be grouped in 1 division……….
LikeLike
I have seen OU and OSU – maybe stop at 14, but I’ll bet OU is pulling hard for some regional friends and the PAC doesn’t have many options as most have been saying.
I have no info but I would think that Kansas and Texas Tech go with OU and OSU. Texas would go independent (which I think has long been the goal despite the UT talking points). Obviously in that situation the Big 12 is dead and Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor are left in the cold. I would imagine that Missouri would end up going SEC in this hypothetical scenario. At least OU gets Colorado, OSU, Kansas, Texas Tech (along with UA ASU and Utah) in a Pac 16 mountain division.
Kansas brings a pretty strong athletic department, especially for BB. This would be ideal for OU – with their support and resources I could see them being THE big dog long term in the PAC 16.
LikeLike
@Patrick,
KU is more tied to KSU than any school is to little brother as they have the same Board of Regents. While KU is fine, but together they are not in this super-conference race being pushed by football, not basketball.
it’s OU, OkSt, Tech, and either Texas or Mizzou. It’s all a matter if UT actually wants to be a team player and swallow some pride and arrogance and the LHN, or if they really are looking to be independent (or head of a Neu-SW Conference
LikeLike
Redhawk, I disagree.
The super-conference race isn’t being pushed by football – it’s being pushed by money and brand.
Kansas has pretty good AD revenue from BB and a very good brand. KSU is dead in the water. I don’t think UT has any interest in giving up the LHN for anyone, and I don’t know if Missou would go west. I don’t know how closely KU and KSU are tied, but maybe Texas Tech gets left in the cold instead of KSU. Kansas has a strong value for TV – KSU and TTU have little value.
LikeLike
Patrick, it’s being pushed almost entirely by football.
Look no further than the Big Ten’s latest two additions: Nebraska and Penn State.
Penn State’s basketball program just lost an alumni coach (born in Penn., first assistant job at Penn State) to a woeful Navy program. Yes, he’s had a mediocre record in terms of coaching there, but Penn State’s basketball program is one of the worst in the Big Ten. Nebraska’s going to join Penn State’s at the bottom, although they’re putting a new arena together and trying to rebuild what they once had. I’m not saying this as a shot at the schools (as a Northwestern alum, I’ve seen a lot of woeful basketball).
But, I don’t know how to make it more stark a contrast between the football driving the bus at this point in time, and basketball being along for the ride. The TV money is mostly driven by football, although there are some notable exceptions like UNC-Duke, but those are extremely rare and generally not going to be obtainable.
Having a football brand is way more important than anything else in the discussion. If a university even moves the football dial even just a bit, it’s going to be more important than the most valuable of basketball brands.
LikeLike
@Patrick
It’s brand and market…in FOOTBALL. KU is a great basketball program, and easily the best west of the Mississipi…and still that’s not football. It’s why they would be fine with out Kstate. but add the 2 together..and it doesn’t work
Also…football recruits come from Texas, not Kansas…so Tech has far more value, plus they have a large alumni base, large school, and really help bring the DFW market.
As for Missouri…what they want (invite to the B1G) may not be what they get. They would take the PAC over the SEC as the SEC player payrolls are pretty scary.
LikeLike
@Redhawk – How much value does playing in Lubbock have to recruiting in Texas? I’ve been told Lubbock is very similar to Stillwater, a long drive from anywhere.
LikeLike
@Mike It is a long drive and it’s way out in west Texas, and not the recruiting hot beds of Houston and South Dallas but OU use to rule recruiting out there especially out of Odessa area.
It’s still in Texas….which gives it a better draw to recruiting Texas kids than say Manhattan, KS does.
LikeLike
Tech should not be considered a viable target to anyone unless they’re part of a package deal for UT.
OU is a big enough brand to cover OSU’s entrance in most cases. KU is not a big enough brand to cover KSU’s cover charge. The ideal situation for the Pac 12 would be to take OU alone.
In the current environment, their best bet is to expand with OU & OSU. This leaves them options should Texas become available. KU & MU add value, but: (1) It may not be enough value given their contracts & (2) Eating up two slots may eliminate the ultimate prize– the Texas market.
LikeLike
@ Redhawk – I just plain don’t see it like that. The tv market talk is not very important anymore. The BTN see itself as national. As for football, it is more important but not exclusive. Kansasbasketball has a brand, like Duke. While Pitt (or Georgia Tech) would kick them around in football and have good followings the BRAND of Kansas or Duke from their basketball product brings more value.
As far as football driving the bus – I see the Big Ten Network as driving the bus, the value added to the BTN needs to be maximized. Whether that’s BB or FB I don’t think they care as long as they maximize the value. Comparisons to Penn State aren’t valid anymore as the landscape is so much different, Nebraska made sense because of their brand and revenue. I respect that many of you disagree, but that is how I see it from a tv perspective.
LikeLike
@Gopher
Tech is a bigger and more important player on the Texas scene than you give them credit for. They are number 3 in the state as far as popularity and Texas is a BIG state. They have a ton of students, and alumni. They are the state school kids go to that can’t afford or can’t get into UT if they are from the DFW area. (UofHouston being the choice for the Houston area kids) West Texas is HUGE area. TECH is valuable on their own.
Between Tech and OU, I would say you have almost a majority of the college football fans in the DFW area.
LikeLike
@Redhawk – I would have thought OU was the 3rd most popular team in Texas.
LikeLike
@Mike
I should have said #3 FROM the state of Texas, not IN the state…yeah, OU would probably be 3rd, but it would be close to Tech. There is a lot of people that hate/dislike anything not in or from Texas
LikeLike
@Redhawk – Granted Tech gets you part of Dallas, but what else do you get? Lubbock? Amarillo? If you’re looking for a stand alone after OU, you take MU (state of MO.) or KU (Kansas City).
LikeLike
I agree with you redhawk. Tech is much more viable than many on this board would suggest. If you are only assessing them as they stand today, then Tech probably misses the mark (other than results on the field in the last 10 years). However, if you project Tech’s potential out over the next 20 years, I think you are looking at a much stronger university with tier 1 status and AAU membership.
They also have a ton of alums in the DFW area and can get TV sets dialed in when they play.
LikeLike
TTech isn’t joining the AAU in 20 years unless they go on a massive hiring/spending spree and jump over about 50 schools. Considering that the Republicans who run Texas seem keen on cutting public spending on education (including universities) and TTech doesn’t have access to the PUF, that seems a tad unlikely.
LikeLike
Damn, I often feel like I’m the only rational person on this board. Sorry Frank, but your love for all things Miami disqualifies you……….
So UNC doesn’t like VT? But they’ll move to the BIG, lose all their power, and get along just peachy with UM, OSU, and PSU?
I don’t want to start a big brewhaha about the CIC, but that is SO overrated and over-blown……as a BIG 10er I don’t like to admit that, but it’s the truth.
The ONLY reason schools like NC and MD would consider leaving the ACC for the BIG is for TV/BTN $$$, and that’s not enough of a reason to make such a drastic move.
MD would be an IDEAL Big 10 addition (not UNC), but it’s not happening folks. Get over it.
LikeLike
mushroomgod, do you know anything about the CIC?
LikeLike
mushroomgod, that came out wrong. I was wondering your level of familiarity with the CIC to make such a statement.
LikeLike
yep…I’ve researched it. It was begun by IU’s most famous president, Herman Wells, back in the late 50s (as I recall).
Myth is that BIG 10 schools share research funds through the CIC. Doesn’t happen. Biggest benefit is group purchasing arrangements. While nothing to sneeze at, not a huge deal either.
LikeLike
I am not too familiar with the research side, which I agree gets overblown. I think its a huge factor institutionally, rather than academically, and group purchasing is part of that.
LikeLike
Frank alluded to some discontent from UNC / Duke about VT joining the ACC in his post. I’ll try to be more rational with this……
From a tv perspective Maryland is not as valuable as many other options. I think the power of UNC over the other members of the ACC that you are suggesting is way overblown. This is about money, and more money. The Big Ten and Pac 12 are in a different boat than the SEC because of the BTN and soon to be PTN. They will add value and brand to their networks, they see themselves as national, UNC and Duke BB have that brand. Maryland has no brand in any sport. Maryland is nearly useless to the big ten now. Maryland will never go to the Big Ten, you need to let that die.
The CIC may be overrated but the presidents value research and the overall profile of a university. From the academic side UNC / Duke are a fit culturally although the students may be more southern, but that could help drive the BTN numbers up through new regions and additional sports.
Saying UNC will never happen is fine, I actually think it is unlikely. From a tv perspective I think that the BEST play the Big Ten has, after Notre Dame or Texas is to go after UNC / Duke.
Also, UNC / Duke may consider leaving the ACC if it is significantly damaged by an SEC raid on VT or FSU or NC State and Miami gets a significant penalty.
LikeLike
Pretty silly to say MD would have no value to the BIG……40000 flagship school in a populous state, next door to the entire fed. govt, #17 ranked in Director’s Cup rankings last yr, #42 ranked in fed, res. funds for 2008–ahead of Iowa, IU, Purdue, MSU, Rutgers, Neb, and MO, amoung others…but it’s all academic…..MD’s not going anywhere.
LikeLike
A university that has, over the past decade,
* won men’s and women’s national basketball titles
* appeared in a half-dozen bowl games
* has significant fandoms in two large affluent metropolitan areas (Washington and Baltimore)
is no “brand”? has no value?
I would have to disagree.
Maryland is no Notre Dame, Oklahoma or Texas, to be sure, but it would have genuine value to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
IMO it would have more overall value, by quite a margin, than did Nebraska, and certainly more than Oklahoma……but it’s not going to happen.
In explanation, I’m talking about overall value to the BIG universities, not just to the BIG as an athletic conference.
LikeLike
You have a curious definition of what constitutes “significant” fandom in football.
It would be better than Pitt for the B1G, though.
LikeLike
mushroom & vincent:
Not no value, but UMD’s biggest assets (research, footprint, lacrosse) are outside of athletics (or rather, the athletics that matter: football), and the B10 is first and foremost an athletics conference. That’s why the B10 has lusted after ND even though ND brings no footprint or research prestige.
One thing to keep in mind is that the B10 shares a lot; not just the CIC and conference money, but also gate receipts, and very few people attend UMD football games. I don’t think schools like Wisconsin or the kings would be happy with essentially another IU leaching off the conference teat. It’s why I’m not as strongly for the ACC core four idea after looking up the amount of revenue these athletics departments bring in (UMD and UVa would pretty much be at the bottom, below IU, PU, and Northwestern).
It’s also why Nebraska is a much better addition than UMD. Unlike the turtles, UNL would contribute to the conference above and beyond what they would take.
LikeLike
I don’t think schools like Wisconsin or the kings would be happy with essentially another IU leaching off the conference teat.
NW is by far the biggest leach. NW gained $1.16M in 2010 football revenue sharing (the most of anybody), and NW also gains from MBB revenue sharing. For 2009-2010 NW gained $214,467 (only IA, NW and PSU gained) while IU lost the maximum.
LikeLike
Brian:
Yes, and if the B10 adds Duke, I’d compare their football to NU. However, I believe Maryland would only leach off about as much as IU.
LikeLike
Patrick,
Well, if FSU is wlling to leave the ACC, I think the B10 should make a play for them too (added to GTech). I don’t think FSU to the SEC is a slamdunk considering that they rejected them last time to go to an academically superior but athletically inferior conference.
LikeLike
MD would be an IDEAL Big 10 addition (not UNC), but it’s not happening folks. Get over it.
I like its chances better than Pitt’s, which you promote till the cows come home.
LikeLike
No doubt MD would be a much bigger addition than Pitt……not even close. One thing I found out about Pitt that really bugs me is the size of the campus–132 acres…not exactly like the BIG’s other campuses, even if the Cath. of Learning is very impressive…..The other biggest problem I have is that the overall ath. dept. isn’t very strong–something like 125th in the D.C…..Pitt really only makes sense if ND is coming…….
Problem is, MD’s not coming. Even if the President/Board was interested, does it make any sense to add a school when 80% of it’s alums/fans don’t want it to happen? So I still contend Pitt’s chances of being in the BIG eventually are greater than MD’s, cause MD’s not coming…..
LikeLike
Pitt, however, is another school who’s athletic department revenue would be at the bottom of the B10 and football attendance would be near the bottom of the B10. Plus they bring no market. BTW, that would true about Mizzou’s athletic department revenue as well.
New rule of thumb: Candidates for B10 expansion won’t be considered unless their athletic department revenue is reasonably above Northwestern’s and football attendance is at least close to the B10 average (~70K/game) or above.
Caveat: Candidate may be considered if they are necessary to land a king (so GTech/Miami & FSU, BC/Pitt/GTech & ND, or Rice/Baylor(?) & Texas).
LikeLike
I am only 40 acres
LikeLike
As a Pitt fan I hope Nordy says “no thank you” but immediately calls Syracuse and conference-calls the ACC. I prefer “northern” football, but I’d accept the ACC for their pedigree and institutional focus.
LikeLike
ACC would be great for PITT…but you guys are going to have to put some $$$$$ into your athletic programs other than football and basketball…..Pitt was something like 125th in the Director’s Cup standings, and ACC was the #1 conference overall there….One reason ACC might be better is you could get along with fewer olympic sports teams (I would think) than in the BIG…
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Kardashian
LikeLike
Geaux Fightin’ Tigers!
add
LikeLike
Frank says “it would’ve been great strictly from an Illini perspective to have had the Tigers as a conference rival in the Big Ten.” I wish Zook would agree, guess he didn’t like going 0 – 1 every year. : )
http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/newspaper/sports/ct-spt-0831-illinois-football–20110831,0,7322656.story
LikeLike
Illinois is SUCH an underachieving program—they haven’t REALLY had it all together since 1963………
LikeLike
@mushroom
The 1983-84 school year says hello (9-0 BT in Football, Rose Bowl; BT Co-Champs in Basketball, 2 seed Elite Eight Loss to Kentucky in Rupp).
LikeLike
Yes, but that was in the Mike White scandal years when Illinois almost quit/was thrown out of the BIG. I’m talking about the program having it TOGETHER and moving in a positive direction for any length of time. Has’t happened since Butkis…..
And, I wasn’t talking about basketball, but I’m glad you brought that up…….isn’t it AMAZING that Illinois has never won an NCAA championship….several near misses including the Whiz Kids having to go off to war, and the great Battle/Anderson team, and the lass great Dee Brown team….just can’t win the big one………..
LikeLike
That team is – and is very likely forever to be – the only one in B1G history to have defeated every other conference member in football in the same season.
LikeLike
@Frank – do you envision a time in the near future when the BTN moves up from airing just 3 Tier games to 2nd Tier (i.e. ESPN) games, for both football and basketball? Would this change the expansion formula at all, making football “kings” less important and growing population centers more important?
Do you think it will ever be feasible for the BTN, via widespread cable/satellite coverage plus online streaming to be the sole provider of in-conference B1G sports?
LikeLike
@mike in st. louis – I don’t think it will happen very quickly if ever. The Big Ten understands that the proverbial golden goose is to still have a large national presence and the best way to do that is to use broad-based platforms like ABC and ESPN. The NFL could’ve made the NFL Network into the most valuable network on Earth if the league had kept all of its games for that channel (or even had just moved the Monday Night Football package there), yet it knows that would be getting a short-term revenue gain at the expense of long-term fan interest. I believe the Big Ten (and SEC and the other power conferences) have the same mentality. As long as broad national platforms exist, then the power conferences are going to want to be on them (and after the NFL, college football is really the top sports property for those national platforms). It’s not in the long-term best interests of the Big Ten to only put its events on a channel that is largely geared toward Big Ten fans. The casual fans are the ones that bring in real money, and for them, if you’re not on ESPN or an OTA channel, you’re largely out of sight and out of mind. Keeping ESPN and others as partners also spreads the financial risk – conferences don’t necessarily want to be entirely dependent upon their own networks for TV money.
LikeLike
In ten years nothing will be on what’s called television/cable. Having access to the BTN online will be just as easy as NBC, ESPN etc. It all comes down to talent. If the BTN has the money to hire the best on-air talent they will win. All you have to do use Netflix as a test case of what is about to occur across the board. They are creating their own original content and are on the cusp of becoming the ‘new’ blueprint. Sorry, but ESPN will continue to lose influence and power as this new world unfolds.
LikeLike
I think this view is missing the point though.
Most college football fans also watch other schools/conferences instead of just their own alma mater. If you as a conference/school want to get those viewers to randomly tune in as they cruise other games, you had better be on a national platform.
That’s the point that Frank is making. The Big Ten and SEC (and especially the Pac-12, which needs to grab the less passionate viewers) have to go to where those general college football fans are.
I watch SEC games on CBS and ESPN, but if they were on their own SEC Network, I’d never watch them, since I’d only go to the non-national platforms for Big Ten teams. I’d imagine a lot of college football fans are like that…
LikeLike
I think that’s right, but change of some sort is coming. People are starting to resist increases in cable rates. Digital hasn’t hit its full stride. In Atlanta with all the sub-channels, we’ve got 60-70 over the air TV Channels (although about 20 are music only). I bet very few know that. But if they unplug, they will start to realize. Personally I’d drop cable except for football season, but my family watches it. I guess now I would need it through March with cable taking over the NCAA tourney.
LikeLike
Frank—One factor you didn’t mention on the WV v. MO argument is that taking MO and assigning it to the SEC West division would mean having to move either Alabama or Auburn (presumably Auburn), which might cause a few headaches, UNLESS MO is added as an “East” team—–I saw that mentioned in one post on a fan forum, and it might not be too far fetched—-MO to UK, Vandy, TN isn’t too bad distance wise, and you could protect ARK as a rival……If MO MUST be in the West, that’s a big reason to add WV instead……….
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
So what’s this mean for the B1G, particularly if the SEC takes Mizzou? Like the SEC, there simply aren’t that many appealing expansion candidates to get to 14/16.
From the ACC – Maryland, Duke, NC, Virginina&Tech?, BC?
Big 12: Kansas? Assuming OU/USO are off the table because of academics
Big East: Pitt obviously. UConn? Rutgers?
Independents: If the B1G goes to 16 at some point in the future, ND will be #16.
If the SEC takes Mizzou I think four 16-team conferences will not happen, because expanding will be a non-starter for the B1G.
LikeLike
I don’t think it really changes anything for the Big Ten if Missouri goes to the SEC.
OU is focused on the Pac-16 approach (because they can take OSU and at least one or two Texas teams).
SEC would probably stay at 14 for at least the medium term.
Big Ten is probably just looking for ND + 1 (Rutgers or Pitt) to go to 14 for the long term.
LikeLike
The problem with that is ND will not join a conference unless by not doing so they are barred from national title contention (i.e. four 16-team conferences which feed into a playoff). So it’s ND+3.
LikeLike
If that’s REALLY the case, ND will never join a conference, because they won’t be excluded from the NC chase even if conferences go to 16……that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen if it was ever tried.
I I keep thinking that ND MIGHT join the BIG someday mainly for political reasons. If conferences did go to 16 political power is even more concentrated in the top 3/4 conferences. And if the recent trend of SEC on the field success continues unabated ND might feel it’s in their best interest to join and strengthen the BIG as a countervailing force…….
LikeLike
ND would have no legal recourse. If the B1G, Pac-16, SEC, and ACC/BE mishmash got together and said “screw the NCAA, we’re just gonna do our own thing,” there’s nothing that could stop them. They could decide that the winner of the B1G and Pac-16 would play each other, and with winner of the SEC-ACC, and then the winners of those games would play each other for the “BCS Title” or the “Big Four Title” or whatever. If the AP or something wanted to name ND national champion in any give year, more power to them. But no one would care.
LikeLike
@George – That’s what already happens, except Notre Dame is invited to the BCS every so often.
The BCS isn’t a real NCAA championship, but it does settle a lot of the rankings that the NCAA record in their logs.
LikeLike
I agree that Mizzu to the SEC changes nothing for the B1G. My feeling is that Mizzu wants to be in the B1G, then wants out of the Texas-ME league. Even if Mizzu goes to SEC, B1G could extend an offer and I bet Mizzu would jump from the SEC to the B1G.
LikeLike
I could see a scenario where the Big is at 12 teams – the SEC at 14 – and the Pac is at 16 for a few years.
The funniest part is that the Big Ten has the best resources and the best availability to expand. The PTN isn’t in place yet and west coast fans are less intense, the SEC tv contracts are already written and may need to be re-negotiated. The Big Ten has the BTN and additional schools add additional FB / BB / Hockey / BB games to the Big Ten Network, less repeats, more original content, more BIG games, more viewers and more money. 2 additional schools would add about 18 games / maybe as much as 24 games to the network each year. The Big Ten could add Northern Iowa Community College and they would probably break even.
LikeLike
You could still do ND, Rutgers, Pitt and either Syracuse or U Conn, if you really wanted to……not too exciting…..or just do ND and Pitt/Rutgers and stop at 14.
LikeLike
Frank,
If you are gonna put Pitt and WVU on the list, and leave off Maryland, I gotta call foul!
so he’s not some biased and blasphemous Big Ten blogger like yours truly
biased = yes, but not sure I would call you blasphemous Frank!
I still say it is 3 and 3 split between the B1G / SEC similar to this:
B1G gets UVA + Duke + MD + ND
SEC gets VT + UNC + NCST + TAMU
I still say this academic “snobbery” issue is going to backfire on the B1G. TAMU is a huge academic get, and right now they appear SEC bound. Schools are run by boards. These boards are appointed by Governors. Governors are elected by the citizens of the state. Since “fans” exceed “alumni” by a wide margin I think the “academic” argument will not matter to the voters. I said this at the very beginning on the trend to large STATE schools in conference realignment.
When Loftin turned down the SEC last year from the presidents seat it was from the school. The firestorm that has propelled TAMU since has been driven by voters and donors (things that politicians need to stay in office). I still wonder why TAMU did not go to the PAC, as it certainly offered academic clout, and the only thing I can come up with is the voters / donors said no.
“the SEC cheats” and yet UNC and Ohio State are in the NCAA spotlight right now
“SEC academics suck” and yet the best academic school so far in realignment is about to join
I KEEP SAYING THAT IF YOU IGNORE WHAT YOUR OPPONENT DOES, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST !!!!
Instead of saying something can not happen, figure out how it does happen. Then you know how to counter this, and win for your side.
A year ago the Big 12 had seven AAU schools and a year from now they could have 2. That is a huge switch an a very brief span of time!
LikeLike
The Big 3 academic realignment rankings
#1 SEC – The “dumb” conference is getting TAMU # 53 in the ARWU. While below CU in the rankings now, TAMU has the PUF, a massive student body, 83,000 seats in their stadium, and a growing state population.
#2 PAC – They got # 24 in the ARWU as a very solid academic add, but CU has a tiny endowment, much smaller student body, a 54,000 seat stadium, and about 1/5 the state population of Texas.
#3 B1G – The “smart” conference got Nebraska, who has lost its AAU status
Do not get me wrong, as I love Big Red in the B1G, but from the academic realignment adds the B1G is not winning right now, and the B1G is supposed to be about academics. How do you fix this?
LikeLike
@duffman
LOL.
Bottom line, B1G got stood up by Texas and ND. Nebraska was the fallback to the fallback.
LikeLike
You don’t fix it. You hope that Nebraska over time does what Michigan State did, which is to get AAU (back in this case), and build out its research programs.
LikeLike
zeek,
I agree! I am not saying I am unhappy with UNL in the B1G at all. I am saying in the public view – ie folks outside of the B1G footprint – the SEC has scored an academic home run. Going forward it will be harder to raise the “academic” argument. Sure they still have the Mississippi schools, but they added an AAU school like TAMU, and not a football school like OU.
LikeLike
Duffman,
You’re absolutely right regarding academics. While people love to pick on the SEC schools, I happen to think they are doing their jobs. Yes, the Miss. Universities are Tier III institutions, but as the state ranks near the bottom in secondary education (as does most of the south), is it really that surprising? The taxpayers expect these schools to primarily educate the in-state residents, not attempt to be the Yale of the deep South.
This has always been one of my issues with GaTech. In an attempt to because the MIT of the south, standards were raised to the point where in-state residents who wanted to be engineers were being turned away. Auburn and Clemson were more than happy to accept and eventually graduate these kids.
LikeLike
1- If Nebraska joined the SEC, it would improve their academic standing.
2- Joining the SEC should be cause for a “Lack of Institutional Control” violation, as it’s clear that the athletic department runs the university and not the other way around (i.e. the definition of lack of institutional control). They have already been admonished once by the AAU and basically blew them off. The only other institution to take that course was CUA, who was subsequently removed.
LikeLike
I still say this academic “snobbery” issue is going to backfire on the B1G. TAMU is a huge academic get, and right now they appear SEC bound.
It’s not so much academic “snobbery” as it is culture, which is why A&M is heading to the SEC instead of the Big Ten, and why any thoughts of UNC (or Maryland) going to the SEC are inherently absurd (whereas both would likely feel comfortable in the Big Ten). Also, one would sooner split UNC and State than UNC and Duke, assuming all would find new, profitable homes in a post-ACC world.
LikeLike
vincent,
To clarify I agree on the “culture” term inside the borders of the B1G, but once you go out of the footprint I hear “snobbery”. My point was more to show how others view the B1G, and not the way we view ourself. What I am trying to suggest is some ACC schools will not equal 4. I look at the following schools for B1G adds:
ND
Pitt
UNC
UVA
MD
Duke
Missouri
Kansas
Right there you have 8 teams for 4 slots, and that does not include VT, NCST, GT, RU, SU, Uconn, Miami, etc….
Just saying who lands where is limited by space.
LikeLike
Let me help you out there Duffer………
UNC and Duke won’t happen….down to 6….
MD and VA won’t happen……….down to 4….
Kansas is “Missouri Lite” in every relevant factor except basketball…..smaller enrollment, more distant, in a less populous state, with another BCS school(barely) in state, less R@D $s, less football tradition/prospects…Kansas won’t happen…down to 3 realistic candidates: ND (someday); Pitt; MO. now add Rutgers and got er done………
LikeLike
@mushroomgod, You’re a little off. Have you ever been to Columbia? That’s in the middle of nowhere. KU’s in the outskirts of a 2M+ metro that happens to be fanatical about college athletics. According to a recent article here, 46% in Kansas City are college football fans versus the Pac 10 footprint was between 21-27% (I can’t remember the exact number).
KU has had a larger enrollment almost always except for the past 2-3 years when Mizzou passed KU. KU has the larger alumni base and endowment. If you know you’re geography at all, eastern Kansas and even western Missouri (KC) has a big KU flavor. Just to give you an idea, in KC for every Mizzou alum, there’s 4 KU alums. Even K-State has more alumni in KC than Mizzou and KC has more population on the Missouri side of the line.
KU’s also been the larger budget school with generally an extra $10 million (more some years) more revenue than Mizzou. Mizzou’s blessing of being in a larger state is also their curse because it’s a little bit of a hike to get there from the state’s two largest cities.
KU may very well get left in the cold, but someone will be missing a golden opportunity because when the TV dollars slow down, ADs and conferences will be looking for the next growth opportunity and it will be by breaking off from the NCAA to hold their own basketball tournament. The NCAA mismanages that money so badly that the BCS schools could break off, get less than 1/2 the TV deal and probably quadruple the money per school for participants.
LikeLike
hawkfan,
I’m not sure sharing the money equally counts as mismanaging the tourney money.
LikeLike
Duff:
Not sure why you have the B10 adding some athletic lightweights + ND (and FSU going no where). From the B10’s perspective (where the schools share a LOT, including football gates), FSU makes sense even if you have to take GTech or Miami as well, and I’m not so certain FSU would choose the SEC automatically (even if the SEC lets them in) as they chose the academically superior, athletically inferior, poorer conference last time, and this time, they’d get a raise.
LikeLike
Another comparison of the conferences:
B1G 9 U of (Michigan, Ohio St. & Penn St. count, Illinois, etc.)
2 State U (Michigan State, Purdue)
1 highly regarded private (NW)
SEC 9 U of
2 State U (Auburn, Miss. St.)
1 highly regarded private (Vandy)
Big 12 4 U of
5 State U (Tech, A&M, Ok St, KSU, ISU)
1 good private (Baylor)
ACC 3 U of
5 State U (FSU,NCSU,Clemson,VT, GT)
2 highly regarded private (Duke, BC)
2 good privates (Miami, WF)
Big East 3 U of (UConn, WVU, Rutgers)
1 State U (Pitt is here, but it could fit in commuter)
3 commuter schools (UL-but could be considered state U, UC, USF)
2 good privates (SU, TCU)
Pac 12 7 U of (I’m including UCLA)
3 State U
1 highly regarded private (Stanford)
1 good private (USC)
This reflects part of the strength of the B1G and SEC. They haven’t filled up their lineup with the State Us, but have taken the top flagship in numerous states.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what criteria you used to distinguish between “highly regarded” and “good private”, but USC is #23 in the US News rankings and Wake Forest is #25. You have them in the latter category, while BC at #31 is “highly regarded”. None of those 3 schools (nor Miami at #38) should be in the same category as Syracuse (#62), Baylor (#75) and TCU (#96).
LikeLike
I still don’t buy the theory that Virginia state politicians would be able to block VT from going to the SEC. The same thing was said about aTm ad nauseam. Politicians are far less likely to try and force an issue like this when the backlash from a very strong voting base has the potential to be directed at them. That is one of the reasons that has been suggested as to why the Texas state politicians have backed off from trying to force aTm to stay in the Big 12. Apparently they got inundated with very negative responses by big money donars (and normal everyday voters) that are Aggie fans.
I think that the political pressure applied by state politicians in this type of situation would’ve been worse in the state of Texas than it will be in Virginia. From what I’ve heard, Texas state politics are far “crazier” when it comes to this football related stuff. Plus, in the state of Texas, both Baylor and Texas Tech are in far more danger of being left out of one of the supposed four super conferences than is UVA. UVA will end up in one of the 4 remaining super conference (if and/or when that happens), whether they get picked up by the B1G, or if they are part of some sort of ACC/Big East merger.
Back when the ACC was expanding by raiding the Big East, there was real concern that the Big East would lose its AQ status and fall way behind the SEC, B1G, ACC, Pac 10, & Big 12. UNC and Duke had already stated that they were going to vote against expansion and only needed one more team to stop it. So this left UVA with the opportunity to stop the expansion. So the Viriginia state politicians saw this as a great PR move, and an opportunity to gain some more donations from the VT folks, so they convinced UVA (UVA probably didn’t care either way seeing as how they haven’t been tied to VT in a conference is a very long time) to force the ACC’s hand to allow VT in. Now the politicians were able to do this without any backlash from either fan bases since it helped VT and really didn’t pose that big of an issue for UVA.
Now the situation is different. If the state politicians try and force VT to stay in the ACC against their will, they run the risk of a backlash from the VT fans. And I don’t see the UVA fans applying a whole lot of pressure on the state politicians since they have only recently been tied to VT, and there really isn’t a risk that they’ll be left out of a super conference when all is said and done. I don’t see, when the rubber meets the road (they may posture to begin with, but will back down like the Texas state politicians), the Viriginia state politicians taking the risks when they really don’t absolutely have to. That is just how politicians are.
LikeLike
The big difference is that the Texas state legislature is out of session until 2013 and does not have the ability to call itself back into session. (That is one of the main reasons why this has all happened during the summer as opposed to earlier in the offseason.)
In Virginia, on the other hand, the governor could put the kibosh on all this, adn the legislature could get involved as well.
LikeLike
@Bamatab – I understand your point, but the difference is that VT fans aren’t clamoring en masse to go to the SEC in the way that A&M fans have been. Joining the ACC was an end goal for VT for several decades for both athletic and academic reasons. Would joining the SEC be a move that a lot of VT fans would like? Sure. However, staying in the ACC is also perfectly fine for most of those VT fans, whereas the Aggies were ready to torch the capital building if they were blocked from moving. A&M fans have been pushing for the SEC from the moment that the Big 12 was saved last year, while the SEC interest in the VT is more unsolicited. There’s a wide gap in intensity of feelings on this issue.
I’d also characterize UVA as being completely forced by the legislature to block the ACC’s expansion. UVA certainly cared as they were originally on-board with the Northeastern strategy of adding BC and Syracuse up until the point that the politicians intervened (and then they had to change their tunes). Make no mistake about it – that was a heavy legislative hand meddling with the ACC and, unlike the formation of the Big 12 of the 1990s, those events were recent enough where a lot of the people directly involved are still there. If we were 20 or 30 years removed from the ACC expansion, it would be one thing, but VT only started playing in the conference in 2004, so this is a situation still relatively fresh in people’s minds.
LikeLike
I definitely agree with you that aTm’s fan based currently wants to join the SEC a lot more “passionately” than the VT fan base, which would apply more pressure on the politicians to not stand in their way. I definitely won’t argue with you there. But I have been reading several different VT sites, and their fans (and big donars) desires to switch to the SEC are starting to grow. Now it is nowhere near the leval of the aTm fans, but it is growing.
But with that said, I still don’t see a reason for the Virginia state politicians to put up a big enough fight to keep VT in the ACC, if VT decides it is in their best interest to go to the SEC. Trying to get VT into the ACC was important, not because the state politicians felt the need that the two schools absolutely had to be in the same conference, but because the Big East was/is a far lesser football conference and an all around lesser conference in other sports outside of basketball (which VT isn’t that big in anyways). As you stated, it had been VT’s end goal to get into the ACC for several decades. If VT’s end goal changes, who are the state politicians to tell VT they can’t continue to work towards what they believe is the best direction for the school.
LikeLike
frank and bama,
I think what both of you are missing is VT is where TAMU was a year ago! The TAMU ground swell took another year to gain a full head of steam. I was on a VT board about a week ago, and I see the same comments I saw on the TAMU boards a year ago. The VT folks are not blind, and if TAMU enters the SEC it only leaves 3 more slots. Do you really think VT will sit there and watch FSU or Clemson claim them first. I have said all along that once you hit 13 in any of the Big 3 B1G / PAC / SEC, all bets are off! If TAMU becomes #13, then no telling where the musical chairs will end.
On the flip side if Slive lands TAMU, then WVU seems like failure. I just have a hard time thinking this will happen. At least adding Arky got the Wal Mart money, and USC got a foothold in South Carolina. Who is the “sugar daddy” for West Virginia who can buy them a seat at the table?
LikeLike
duffman,
I’m with you on WV. They would be the absolute last choice for the SEC. I think SEC would stay at 13 for several more years (possibly up to 4 or 5) before buckling and adding WV. They would definitely put the kibosh on the UF/UGA/USCe block and add FSU or Clemson way before it came to adding WV.
As I stated earlier and as you just stated, all you have to do is go over to the VT boards and see that the sentiment for going to the SEC is gaining steam. Reading their boards over the past week or two is far different than it was a month or two ago. The last thing they want is for FSU and/or Clemson (the only other real football traditional schools in the ACC outside of Miami) to jump to the SEC and end up in a weakened (especially from a football standpoint) ACC. Heck from a football standpoint, the ACC is already weaker than the SEC, B1G, and Pac12. What ACC games do you actually get excited about other than when FSU, VT, Clemson, or Miami play each other? I personally would much rather watch a B1G game or SEC game than a VT vs NCST/UNC/MD/or even UVA.
The ACC football product is already down. Throw in Miami possibly getting hit with sanctions and the possibility of FSU or Clemson jumping ship, I wouldn’t fault any ACC fan base for wanting their school to explore whatever options are available, especially VT’s.
LikeLike
WVU doesn’t have a sugar daddy, which is one of the big reasons it’s trying to expand its exposure/revenue via games at FedEx Field in DC.
The biggest things that WVU has going for it are its level of on-field success / fan interest (higher than MD/MO/Pitt), and that it’s not encumbered (shackled like VT/NCSt or cockblocked like FSU/Clemson).
LikeLike
Duff – believe my the passion to move to the SEC was there a year ago. If it wasn’t, we’d be in the Pac-16 right now. A&M has been pushing for the SEC since the demise of the SWC, not just since the past year.
LikeLike
Big 10 should really make a play for Oklahoma. If you add four (4) schools, you need to add another power, some fertile recruiting territory and new TV markets.
What makes the most sense is Oklahoma and Missouri to the West, Maryland and Rutgers to the East.
You have a perfect geographical split. The East has one more top 10 program nationally, but the West has Iowa and Wisconsin to make up for it. You would add three (3) nice recruiting territories in NJ, Baltimore/DC and Missouri.
East
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Maryland
Rutgers
West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
LikeLike
Oklahoma needs OSU or Texas in the same conferenece (especially when its choices Pac-12/Big Ten are going to be at 9 conference games).
OU is pretty much exclusively looking at the OU + 3 to the Pac-16 strategy.
LikeLike
Too many moving parts for that to ever happen.
LikeLike
Since the B10 shares gate receipts, you need 2 powers to add 4 teams (for each below the average, you need one above the average). Rutgers & Maryland would be at the bottom of the B10 in terms of football attendance and AD revenue (Mizzou would only be a little better).
LikeLike
The Aggies have now officially stated that they will seek to join another conference.
http://www.tamu.edu/athletics/conferenceChange.html
LikeLike
I wonder which conference they will try to join?
LikeLike
I think Loftin would see a sea of glowing torches and glistening pitchforks outside of his window if he seeks to join any other conference than the SEC.
LikeLike
Sun Belt, I think.
LikeLike
It’s official, shit just got real.
LikeLike
I misread this the first time. I thought they were sending a letter to apply to leave.
They only sent a conditional leaving letter. They aren’t leaving unless they get accepted somewhere else. So everyone is still on hold until the SEC makes a formal decision. And that may still be waiting on A&M & the Big 12 reaching an agreement at least on waivers and how to settle the exit fee amount.
LikeLike
This is the exact process NU followed last year. A&M has been accepted into a conference “somewhere” and the exit fees are finalized. I know you don’t want that to be true but, sorry, it is true. The exit fee has been agreed upon at $12M. There will not be a formal announcement until Tuesday after the games this weekend based on input from the Texas A&M AD (and probably the SEC ADs) to avoid a media circus prior to the games being played.
LikeLike
BOOM!
http://www.tamu.edu/athletics/conferenceChange.html
goes the dynamite
LikeLike
Bama,
haha I was still reading it all the way though before hitting the post button, jinx 🙂
LikeLike
Looks like Frank’s article was pretty well timed. He said he would write this when something actually happened. He beat it by a few hours.
I read this as Loftin sent an offer on settlement of exit fees and is waiting on an answer.
LikeLike
I agree with you Frank. Its highly likely everyone higher up their wish list says no. I’d say its 60/40 Missouri says no and they realize they have to settle for WVU and they’re all beginning to wonder how much of this is sound financial decisions and how much is Slive’s ego. Slive’s 16 teams in 15 minutes are A&M and a bunch of Big East and CUSA teams.
LikeLike
My thoughts are similar right now. I’m not seeing why Va Tech and FSU would jump from a stable conference for a few million dollars in exchange for far fewer BCS bowls and the like.
Any BCS conference could go to 16 in a matter of minutes. The problem is that none of them would be smart moves.
LikeLike
Is there a possibility that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State make the same sort of calculations that Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M have done regarding their future and the Big XII Conference? Would that mean Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be willing to leave for the Pac 16 without Texas?
Bob Stoops said a move by OU to the Pac 12 would best be served by having two Texas schools go with them. If Oklahoma’s president and AD feel that their school’s athletic and academic futures are best served by joining by Pac 12 what two Texas schools would they be willing to make the move with if Texas didn’t want to come with? Texas Tech seems one logical choice, but what other school is the next best? The old SWC included Baylor, SMU, Rice, Houston and Texas Christian, so they’d be the more likely possibilities.
Or is any move by Oklahoma to the Pac 12 effectively checkmated by Texas much like further conference expansion within the Big Ten is vis-a-vis Notre Dame? Could OU make the move if there was only one Texas school included and Kansas was part of the formula? Or would Oklahoma (for recruiting purposes) and the Pac 12 (for network purposes) really need to have two schools in the state of Texas to justify the move? If yes and Texas Tech is one of the schools, should the other one come from the Houston or Dallas-FW metropolitan areas?
Baylor
Location: Waco, TX
Enrollment: 15,000 total
USN&WR Ranking (2011): 79
Current Conference: Big XII
Stadium: Floyd Casey Stadium holds up to 50,000
Football Record over last 5 Years: 22-39
SMU
Location: University Park, TX (enclave of Dallas)
Enrollment: 11,000 total
USN&WR Ranking (2011): 56
Current Conference: C-USA
Stadium: Gerald J. Ford Stadium holds 32,000
Football Record over last 5 Years: 23-40
Rice
Location: Houston, TX
Enrollment: 5,760 total
USN&WR Ranking (2011): 17
Current Conference: C-USA
Stadium: Rice Stadium holds 50,000 (expandable to 70,000)
Football Record over last 5 Years: 26-36
Houston
Location: Houston, TX
Enrollment: 38,752 total
USN&WR Ranking (2011): Tier 2
Current Conference: C-USA
Stadium: Robertson Stadium holds 32,000
Football Record over last 5 Years: 41-25
TCU
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Enrollment: 9,142 total
USN&WR Ranking (2011): 99
Current Conference: Big East
Stadium: Amon G. Carter Stadium will hold 50,000 following recent renovation
Football Record over last 5 Years: 55-10
LikeLike
I’m an Oklahoma guy, and I have a few weak connections down there.
Yes…OU and OkSt are planning on leaving. Yes, to the PAC. They want to Texas schools cause that makes it easier to recruit the state. Texas Tech is in…that’s 3 and one from Texas.
The 4th is what is going on right now in negotiation. OU wants UT to come along, and actually be a team/conference player, and that would require giving up the LHN as it stands today. UT doesn’t want to do that.
You can rule out all the religious schools, as that won’t fly in the PAC and with Stanford and Cal especially. My sources/friends are saying that the 4th will be Missouri. KU and K-state are heading east for more basketball oriented grounds but rumors from out of LA media says KU, but for that to happen KU would have to separate from Kstate..and I don’t think that happens
LikeLike
If KSU were guaranteed a Big East (best they are going to do if the Big Xii splinters) invite with or without Kansas would the BoR agree to let KU head west? I know they want to be with other basketball schools, but KU the dominate program in the PAC-1X in a way they wouldn’t in the BEast.
LikeLike
The Big East should have the statue of liberty as its motto “give meyour poor, your tired”
K-State, Kansas and Iowa State in the Big East makes little sense. K-State and Iowa State would be best served cobbling together a conference with a couple Texas leftovers (SMU and Rice), couple western schools (CSU, UNLV, Nevada).
How about this for a conference
Nevada
UNLV
Iowa State
Kansas State
Colorado State
Air Force
Wyoming
Boise State
Not bad.
LikeLike
We have that conference…it’s called the Mountain West. You just added Iowa St and Kstate, and forgot a few schools.
LikeLike
Moreover, I don’t see how those three schools in the BigEast make any less sense than TCU.
LikeLike
Loved your statue reference; almost as much as. I believe mushroomgods, teeth counting reference.
LikeLike
I can see that for the 4 schools involved, but it doesn’t look that great from the PAC perspective, IMO.
LikeLike
If OU and Missouri, and probably just OU stay put, this expansion mania fizzles like last year. Otherwise, it gets even more chaotic than last summer.
LikeLike
This is like a Jenga game. Nebraska and A&M were parallel bricks to OU’s central brick in a row.
OU (and the Pac-12’s willingness to go to 14 for them or possibly 16 if both sides can work that out) now controls the entire game.
LikeLike
Yep. OU know has the ball. They pretty much have two options – stay or go to the Pac-12.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see how UT and ESPN reacts here. If there are 4 Big 12 schools (and the four best that are remaining candidates) willing to leave for the Pac 12, then the Big 12 is DOA. That mean that basically UT has two options. Going independent, or changing how the LHN is laid out. And ESPN has the decision to make as to whether or not they want to pay for an independant UT’s 1st and/or 2nd tier rights and still pay for a possibly unprofitable LHN, or do they tell UT they can’t afford both?
I’m thinking that those scenarios will force UT and ESPN to renegotiate the current tv deal that they have together. If UT goes independent, they’ll have to get ESPN to pay for their 1st & 2nd tier rights. I know that they have a deal with ESPN to pay them for their LHN, but the current amount they get for the LHN isn’t enough to pay them anywhere near what the other Pac 12 schools will be making). And the Pac 12 sure isn’t going to let UT with the current LHN setup. So how would the renegotiations go in either scenario? Then there is still the question as to whether the LHN (in its current form) can even be profitable over the long haul.
I think both UT and ESPN have to make a decision on whether or not the LHN is even worth holding together (in its current state), or if it would be in the best interest of both parties. While ESPN has to pay UT, what, $15 million a year for 20 years. But UT can make more than that by joining the Pac 12 and turning the LHN into one of the Pac 12 regional networks. And ESPN has to decide whether it would have to buy UT’s 1st and/or 2nd tier rights, and still pay the $300 mil for a network that appears to be questionable (at best) when it comes to profitability.
It will be very interesting to see how UT and ESPN react if the Big 12 implodes.
LikeLike
Someone actually posted a part of the supposed contract (I think), that basically lays out that ESPN has an exclusive negotiating period for UT’s rights if they end up independent during the LHN contract, and they have the right to match any other offer after that period.
ESPN’s probably going to be willing to pay for Texas’ independence if they really did insert those provisions.
LikeLike
If at any time during the lifetime of their contract with ESPN UT is no longer a member of the Big XII, ESPN has a 60 day exclusive window to negotiate the purchase of ALL of UT’s tv rights, and if a deal is not reached ESPN will have the right to match any offer from any conference or other media company.
(That’s a copy/paste from a post I made in the last thread)
LikeLike
I know that ESPN will have 1st dibs on signing UT once they are out of the Big 12. But will ESPN be willing to give them a separate tv deal outside of the LHN deal, or will they renegotiate and combine the two (thus paying UT less than if they kept the two separate).
LikeLike
Well, they’d pay them for like 5 home games on ESPN (ABC) and then let the LHN take the other 2 or so.
My guess is they’d get a separate contract that would probably rewrite some of the terms of the LHN contract.
LikeLike
As for money yes, the other rights all have to be paid for; LHN is just like an options contract as well has having space for 1-2 Texas football home games and some other things.
LikeLike
@Bamatab
And that call has to happen BEFORE the Big 12 actually implodes….once OU, OkSt, Tech and Missouri walk to the PAC…it’s too late for UT to join them. (unless the PAC goes to 18 or 20)
I’m guessing that decision is what is going on in Austin/Bristol right now.
LikeLike
Why should the PAC stop at 16? By taking Missouri, TexTech, and the OKlahomas, Larry Scott blows up the Big12. Texas then has to decide what to do: join TexTech and Oklahoma, go independent or go to the B1G without a partner. Scott is probably betting that Texas joins its friends in the PAC.
If Texas does join, then BYU or Kansas will be invited to the PAC18. If it’s BYU, it will be quarantined in the east division (with Utah); and Colorado will go west (it was promised games in California when it joined). If BYU isn’t joining, then Kansas will partner Missouri for a regional channel based in Kansas City.
Since the original PAC8 don’t really want to play the unsavory teams to the east, they would be happy to play 8 games amoungst themselves (plus Colorado). A PAC18 suits them just fine. Even a PAC20 would be sweet.
LikeLike
18 or 20 actually would be less difficult for the Pac than for any other conference. It’s not like the old Pac10 schools and old B12 schools have rivalries with each other that would have to be broken.
LikeLike
Uh, Steven, BYU isn’t getting an invite to the Pac. Texas may be allowed to bring a friend, though it can’t be Baylor either.
LikeLike
There are lots of options. And the Pac or Big 10 would certainly admit UT and the LHN with an agreement that it eventually gets folded in by some method. Everything expansionwise can be solved by money. I see 4 main options:
1. Get with ND and others to create as HopkinsHorn posted hypothetically on another board a “national conference.” This is where, if it happened and several other schools were willing to play, expansion could blow up in Slive and Scott’s faces and college football as we know it would be changed forever. This scenario is not likely, but its like the Big 12 inviting ND and Arkansas. Its the first option and you have to ask.
2. Join the Pac
3. Join the B1G
4. Keep the Big 12 5 or so together, invite some non-AQs with high potential and effectively create another BE level AQ conference, while collecting $100 million in exit fees. Then in a few years, re-evaluate everything.
LikeLike
The last option has a lot of potential for the short term at least, while LHN is getting carriage agreements done, etc.
And for the long term, Texas may be able to declare football independence while keeping the rest of the sports parked in a Big 12 (Big East version).
LikeLike
Redhawk, you are nuts. Consider looking at this from the Pac-12’s perspective for once.
Why would the Pac-12 expand without Texas? What does it get them?? I could see taking OU and OSU in hopes of forcing UT’s hand, although I am not sure this would be wise. But no way would the Pac-12 ever take TTech w/o Texas. And Mizzou would likely only get an invite as #16 AFTER UT,OU, and OSU.
LikeLike
@Redwood86
I really have no idea how to explain conference alignment to those that only see 2 schools worthy of expansion…and really think that everyone is really sitting and waiting on what Notre Dame and UT will do/join.
LikeLike
Anyone who doesn’t think OU is coveted by every conference has no idea what they’re talking about; the issue is more what OU wants.
OU could be in the Big Ten if it was willing to schedule OSU/Texas nonconference (it’s not).
OU could be in the SEC with A&M if it wanted to be there without OSU (it’s not).
OU can get into the Pac-12 without Texas (in my opinion), the question is whether it’s a move to 14 with OSU or to 16 with TTech/Mizzou (if Texas isn’t coming).
OU is one of those schools that easily pays for an expansion to 14 and possibly 16 if the Pac-12 decides that Texas is going independent for the long haul.
LikeLike
I don’t see the Pac going to 16 with those 4. OU/OSU for 14 yes, but not those 4.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt that the BIG presidents covet Oklahoma.
LikeLike
@Redhawk – Isn’t Joe Castiglione on the Big 12 expansion committee? I imagine he won’t broker a deal to expand the Big 12 while brokering his own deal to leave. Is our first sign of PAC expansion Castiglione leaving the committee?
LikeLike
@Mike
“expansion committee” for the Big 12 is akin to rescue party signaler for the Titanic. OU, and the other schools that have choices aren’t going down with the ship as loyal captains.
There aren’t that many schools for the conference to have leaders from….so no that’s not a sign.
The sign…if you need it is for LONG TIME OU Media mouth pieces like Dean Blevins in OKC and Dave Sittler in the Tulsa World talking up the PAC and saying OU is going. They are more respectable versions of Chip Brown. If they are saying OU is looking….then it’s beyond the looking stage.
LikeLike
Possibly, the Pac-12 might take OU and OSU to make 14. But, you have not made the case for the Pac-12 to do so. How does the Pac-12 benefit? The schools suck academically and are located in a geographically undesirable market. What’s in it for the Pac-12???
And Texas Tech provides ZERO net value to the Pac-12 unless UT comes along. Stanford and Oregon already recruit very well in Texas. Being in Lubbock ain’t gonna enhance that.
As for Mizzou, again, what’s in it for the Pac-12? Mizzou is much more compelling for the Big-10 and SEC. If they don’t see the value, why would the Pac-12??
Bottom-line, contrary to conventional wisdom here, the Pac-12 has little incentive to expand unless UT is part of the package. That may be unrealistic. But if so, so is the very idea of Pac-12 expansion.
LikeLike
OU/OSU pay for themselves in a move to a Pac-14. OU is a king that moves the dial.
Heck, OU/OSU add much more to the Pac-12 than Utah/Colorado did. OU is a national brand located in the central timezone.
They’d be the Pac-12’s second king. Those are the kinds of teams that the Pac-12 has been craving as they’ve targeted the eastern media markets. OU is one of the keys to getting to those markets.
Obviously, Texas is the biggest key.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think it would probably be smart for the P12 to add Okla and Okla St to get to 14. They add a king and solidify their front-runner status as far as someday adding Texas.
Adding Mizzou and Texas Tech to go to 16 probably doesn’t pay for itself and might also hamper their ability to add Texas later on.
LikeLike
Pac 14 w/OU/OSU has the same issues as the SEC 14 except bigger. They likely move Utah to the Northwest and still leave the Cal schools split. So the NW schools don’t see USC/UCLA much. They would have to trade those issues vs. extra $ OU might bring.
LikeLike
Redwood: Also, the Pac doesn’t care about academics (so long as the school is a non-sectarian research university) as they see themselves as purely an athletics conference. That’s why they were OK with taking TTech last go-around. Trust me, Stanford and the UC schools want nothing to do with WSU academically.
LikeLike
B12 Committee members: ND, you interested? NO?..ok.
Arkansas, how about you? No?…ok.
Pitt, how about you, please? No? Damn…ok.
Committee disbanded! OU to Larry Scott – can I come over?
LikeLike
Missouri is a pawn in this game, in order to persuade Texas to join in. Whether Mizzou is a willing — or unwitting — pawn is something else entirely.
LikeLike
Bingo. Mizzou isn’t a prize here– they’re a lever to move the prizes.
LikeLike
@Redhawk
I’m not sure UT *can* do that. They have a big, long contract with ESPN for the LHN.
Seems to me that UT’s options might be limited to
1) Football Independence
2) Patching together a rebooted Big 12 that can a) remain AQ and b) collect the exit fees
LikeLike
@Mike in STL
the LHN contract states that it’s voided if UT joins another conference. It then goes on to say that ESPN gets first right to negotiate the contract for UT in the new conference.
LikeLike
and the right to match any other offer…
LikeLike
WVU has historic ties to alot of the SEC teams already…from the SoCon. So BLUF they fit.
LikeLike
OK, this is funny. Spot A&M in this picture
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2011/8/31/2395715/can-you-spot-texas-a-m-in-this-picture-hint-theyre-the-ones-pressing
LikeLike
Time for college sports over/unders!
1. Number of days until Texas A&M is granted acceptance to the SEC: 5
2. Number of months Oklahoma will remain in Big Xii: 24
3. Number of teams in the SEC on July 1, 2012: 14
4. Number of teams in the SEC on July 1, 2014: 14
5. Number of Florida teams in the SEC on 7/1/14: 1.5
6. Number of Missouri teams in SEC on 7/1/14: 1
7. Number of South Carolina teams in the SEC on 7/1/14: 1
8. Number of full members in the Big Xii on 7/1/14: 10
9. Number of football members in the Big Xii on 7/1/14: 10
10. Number of teams in the PAC-1X on 7/1/14: 12
11. Number of teams in the Big 10 on 7/1/14: 12
12. Number of schools from North Carolina in the ACC on 7/1/14: 4
13. Number of schools from Virginia in the ACC on 7/1/14: 2
LikeLike
Whoops, the over/under on the last one should be 1 not 2
LikeLike
And the second to last one should be 3.5, wow I really did a crap job on this.
LikeLike
Team Speed Kills did a good piece on WVU being the SEC’s #14: http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/8/15/2365243/is-west-virginia-the-secs-number-14
WVU’s academics aren’t on a part with Vandy, and nobody would say they are, but they’re not quite the laughingstock that they’re made out to be. To wit:
WVU is classified as a Research University (High Research Activity) by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Twenty-five WVU students have received Rhodes Scholarships for study at Oxford; few public universities have produced more Rhodes Scholars than WVU. WVU’s 25 Rhodes Scholars lead the Big East, and would be second to only Vanderbilt in the SEC.
WVU ranks nationally for prestigious scholarships. In addition to the 25 Rhodes Scholars mentioned above, WVU has produced 21 Truman Scholars, 33 Goldwater Scholars, two British Marshall Scholars, two Morris K. Udall Scholars, five USA Today All-USA College Academic First Team Members (and 11 academic team honorees), eight Boren Scholars, five Gilman Scholars, two Fulbright Scholars, and one Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Graduate Scholar.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching recognized the scope and success of WVU’s impact by selecting it for the Community Engagement Classification, putting WVU in the top 6 percent of higher education institutions that Carnegie recognizes for engagement out of all U.S. institutions.
WVU’s combined varsity athletic teams have an academic progress rate score of 974. The APR is based on eligibility and retention of student-athletes over a four-year period. The NCAA average score is 970. WVU had six teams with perfect 1,000 scores: cross country, rifle, women’s soccer, rowing, men’s soccer, and tennis.
More than two dozen WVU graduate programs were ranked by U.S. News & World Report as among the best in the country: primary care, pharmacy, industrial and manufacturing engineering, rehabilitation counseling, and clinical psychology were among the top 50, with another twelve in the top 100.
The WVU School of Medicine has been recognized as the 7th-best school of medicine in the country for rural medicine, according to U.S. News & World Report’s 2012 edition of “America’s Best Graduate Schools.” It also placed in the top 50 for primary care.
LikeLike
They were probably afraid to give those rifle team members lower scores.
LikeLike
That’s a 750 for Mr. Ernest T. Bass…………….
LikeLike
In all seriousness…what is “rural medicine”?
LikeLike
Presumably training GPs to work in rural areas where access to hospitals and specialists is limited. Most GPs today just refer people to specialist for anything even slightly unusual, but that’s not really possible for people who live hours away from the nearest specialist. They also have to be more cost conscious since many patients can’t afford much.
Now, I have no idea how many medical schools even offer this so the rankings may not mean that much. According to USNWR, WV is #7 on their list of top rural medicine programs. They say the full list is 22.
LikeLike
I’m going to say the odds on the SEC’s 14th team currently look something like this: West Virginia 50%, Missouri 30%, FSU 10%, Va Tech 10%.
The main reason why FSU and Va Tech are so low is that the ACC is a stable conference with easy paths to the BCS for both of them, and money isn’t a sufficient reason to leave that kind of situation when you’d be going from 3-5 BCS bowls a decade, which is the expectation for each, to probably 1-2 per decade.
LikeLike
Looking up at that TSK post, this line in particular intrigues me about WVU: “The public report of team evaluations done in 1990 had you as the team should South Carolina decline and rejoin the ACC. It’s actually in print so google it. If South Carolina had passed then you’d have been in the SEC for more than 20 years now.”
LikeLike
Pretty good, but I’d say it’s 40-40 between MO and WV:
MO’s the bigger and better school school…..
Mo’s the more populous state….
WV’s football is probably slightly better, long-term…
WV’s fans are more passionate…
MO’s basketball is significantly better, long-term…
MO’s overall ath. dept. is better….
Adding WV causes less disruptiopn unless MO is added to the East Div…
MO may not be sufficiently redneck for the SEC…
The SEC may feel MO secretly longs for the BIG, esp. after they get to know the UK fans…..
On average, MO residents have 2.8 more teeth than WV resiidents….
tough call
LikeLike
It’s a really tough call, and all of your reasons are strong for why it’s probably 40-40 between them. I just think that they’re looking harder at schools in the East (ergo a 50-30 split for WVU), and that line above from TSK really intrigues me.
If WVU was the backup for SC back then, I could easily see it once again as the expected Eastern addition to balance out A&M’s western addition, since it was the backup when SC balanced Arkansas.
LikeLike
yep…..if anything, WV’s academics have improved significantly since then……….it just seems to me MO is the more logical choice…….but cultural fit is big…….
LikeLike
“MO’s basketball is significantly better, long-term…” about a wash the last 10 years and when they hooked up a couple years ago in the NCCA’s, WVU was the victor.
“MO’s overall ath. dept. is better….”
close………..Sears Director’s Cup WVU #38
Missouri #45
LikeLike
Missouri hasn’t been to a Final Four, their former head coach jumped at an offer and their new head coach has been implicated in a huge scandal during his time at Miami. I don’t see how they have any edge over WVU in basketball.
LikeLike
HA. In regards to the last aspect, have you been to southern Indiana recently?
LikeLike
Zeek,
if the odds on Mizzou to SEC is 30%, what are their odds to the PAC? 🙂
LikeLike
I have been saying this for awhile, MU makes the most sense to the PAC, as the PAC would want them more than the B1G or SEC. If I was Larry Scott I would already be on a plane to Columbia. If the PAC landed MU as their #13, then they have a dog in the fight to land OU or UT. If neither jumps, they can fall back to KU or TT. Missouri is hoping for the B1G instead of courting the PAC where they will have more leverage.
LikeLike
OU/OSU are basically already packaged though as the Pac-12’s #13 and #14. The question is whether they can bring Texas/TTech along or come up with some other arrangement.
LikeLike
It seems to me pretty clear what would be “best” for MO if all options were on the tablel:
1. BIG
2. SEC
3. PAC
4. BIG 12
5. Big East
6. Mountain West or some such conference
LikeLike
They’d prefer the Pac to the SEC. No non-southerner wants anything to do with the SEC recruiting culture, and despite the geographic distance, in cultural distance, Midwesterners have more in common with Westerners than Southerners.
LikeLike
Makes sense to me. I don’t think the SEC would admit a non-AQ, but if the ACC schools turned them down, I’m not sure ECU doesn’t make a better long run choice than WVU. It would be much like the BE betting on South Florida and Cincinnati, except that ECU has better fan support than those two.
Like I said, the SEC would never do it, but it might be a better long run choice. WVU has good programs, but they’ve got very little upside potential.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting option, but you’re right that the SEC wouldn’t go for it.
LikeLike
If the BE (or any league) had to choose between WVU or Cincy, they’d choose Cincy. WVU has a home state that they have locked down (even if it is small and poor). A school like ECU/Cincy/USF does not.
LikeLike
If the BE (or any league) had to choose between WVU or Cincy, they’d choose Cincy. WVU has a home state that they have locked down (even if it is small and poor). A school like ECU/Cincy/USF does not.
Impeccable logic. WV has their state locked down, unlike those other schools, so of course the BE would choose UC instead.
LikeLike
Mistyped (though it did come out hilarious).
Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to have made that leap in deduction that would require you to be more aware than a 5-year old, Brian.
LikeLike
Interesting. Kirk Bohls (@kbohls)
LikeLike
that’s actually much more then interesting. Means UT would actually consider giving up/changing the LHN…and so far they haven’t shown any willingness to do that.
the Remaining in the Big 12 is what I’ve called the “New South West Conference option” . UT could rebuild the Big 12 with SMU, Rice Houston, UTEP, maybe New Mexico, plus Baylor, KU, Kstate, Iowa State, plus UT gets you 10 teams. Maybe add TCU and another they are at 12.
LikeLike
I think you and others have mentioned before, but Texas right now is examining its options as hard as anyone else (like OU, etc.).
The question is whether they can create a ND-like situation with the remnants of the Big 12 if OU heads west and whether ESPN would be willing to foot the bill for at least football independence, or whether it ends up a better long run solution to just head west and negotiate something with the LHN.
LikeLike
IF the 4 Big 12 to the Pac happens AND UT stays in the Big 12, its more like UT, BU, KU, KSU, ISU, BYU, Fresno, Houston, UNLV, Memphis. Maybe Boise, New Mexico or Colorado St. replaces one of those. They might also peel off part of the Big East-UL, WVU, Pitt, Cincinnati, TCU might be the 5 additions. Notre Dame joining the Big 12 tomorrow is a vastly higher probability than SMU or Rice getting invited to the Big 12.
Anyone suggesting a “new” SWC just doesn’t understand why it broke up in the first place. 1) TV $; 2) national exposure; 3) non-competitive non-rev progams among the small privates; and 4) empty seats encouraging alums to watch their team in Houston or DFW instead of buying season tickets in Austin or College Station. Maybe you’ve bought into the “Texas wants control” nonsense. What Dodds & Co. want is $$$.
And Texas Tech going to the Pac 12 w/o any other Texas school is hari-kari. A&M IMO will be hurt by going to the SEC, but they might indeed thrive. Hance is just not so stupid to send Tech off alone to the Pac to commit athletic and student recruiting suicide.
LikeLike
I don’t think many of the schools you mentioned would want to switch minor conferences to go to one dominated and owned by Texas. getting to play Texas in Fresno wouldn’t sell that many tickets. But SMU, Houston, Rice, etc are missing the UT teet and would more readily jump back on.
As far as TV money goes, I remember when the SWC folded. But ESPN has said the only team in the Big12 worthy of any money is UT. So for them, so long as they have UT, the other teams matter little now. …yeah, I don’t buy it, but that’s what they have said.
LikeLike
If you had a chance to quit your job for a job for 4 years that might continue but 75% would go away after 4 years and earn as much in 4 years as you would in 40 otherwise, while improving your skills for a job in the future, would you say no? So you’re saying Fresno shouldn’t schedule Texas or Wisconsin or any other major school because it wouldn’t sell tickets? This argument is even more empty than someone saying OU has no value without UT.
LikeLike
@Bullet
It’s not that simple. There is also stability, and using your analogy, only so many jobs, you don’t want to look like a job jumper and go back hat in hand hoping your old job takes you back in. The impact of Texas selling tickets to say Rice or SMU I think would have a greater impact then for Fresno…UT fans can just drive across town to play SMU in the Cotton Bowl or Jerry World, and thus would be more money for those local than it would be for Fresno.
I look it at more like old lovers….yeah, UT broke there hearts and treated ’em like crap…but it gave SMU/Houston sweet sweet lovin’. Fresno isn’t missing it so they will be less likely to jump into that sack.
LikeLike
Your “stability” is the 10 times salary and the skills/prestige you built up. It IS that simple. For BE schools maybe its not so simple and its not 10 times salary. But for non-AQ its a total no-brainer.
LikeLike
Redhawk, I think the Fresnos of the world would jump at the chance to join a B12 that has a major cable deal and presumably still has AQ status.
Also I normally would say that bullet is crazy to suggest that ND has a chance of joining the B12, but if enough teams leave the conference, perhaps the B12 could be retrofitted into the “Texas-Notre Dame quasi-independent” conference that some of us have thrown around. But I still have a hard time seeing ND enter into yearly rivalries with Kansas, K-St, Iowa St or Baylor.
LikeLike
Texas would be willing to create a SWC-II if it knew it would leave almost immediately for football independence or quasi-football independence (i.e. schedule 3-4 games against Big 12 remnants) and be able to park the rest of its sports there.
Texas isn’t going to just sit around in a SWC II and play 7-8 games against that group though…
LikeLike
Unrelated to this thread, I have this question: where is all of the money going, exactly? Let me explain what I mean.
Fifteen years ago, the NCAA allowed only an 11-game schedule. Although there were a few “exempt” preseason games (Kickoff Classic, Pigskin Classic, etc.) there were not so many of these that, for all practical purposes, everybody was playing 12; that is a real and recent change. Major programs generally played 6 home games and 5 road games. Of the 11 games, 8 were conference games and 3 were non-conference. Of the 3 non-conference, one was generally on the road. It was not unusual to play a major conference opponent; for example, in 1996, Michigan’s 3 non-conference opponents were UCLA, Boston College, and @ Colorado.
Since then, we’ve gone to the universal 12-game schedule. Major conference teams all play 7 home games, instead of 6. Stadiums have generally expanded in size. We’ve got a new conference title game which will throw more money in the pot this year. Ticket prices have gone up faster than baseline inflation. Rights fees from the league’s broadcast partners have also gone up faster than baseline inflation. Add to that the fact that the league has a major new revenue fountain in BTN.
My question is: where is all of that extra money going, exactly? It’s not my sense that the teams are performing any better than they did 15 years ago, broadly speaking. If anything, the minor conferences seem to be closing the gap (15 years ago, Big Ten vs. MAC might as well have been playing a high school team; that is just not the case now). Although some new facilities have been built, these are generally associated with big donations (e.g., Minnesota’s new football stadium and Penn State’s hockey arena each have an Uncle Pennybags), not the general fund. I am not aware of a spate of new teams being launched during the last 15 years; Michigan made waves when it announced that its Lacrosse teams are being promoted to Varsity status because it was like the first new lacrosse program in 30 years, and (again) PSU’s hockey program is only getting off the ground because a bazillionaire is footing the bill.
The Big Ten has twisted itself into a pretzel with going to a 9-game league schedule because its members all want to play 7 home games a year. This is treated as a virtual necessity. Yet only 15 years ago, relatively few teams played 7 home games a year, and none of this other money existed. Where is it all going?
LikeLike
Well, you’ve got to fund all the other sports, since other than football and men’s basketball, they’re all money drains for the most part (some exceptions for certain baseball/hockey programs that are profitable I’d guess).
Administrators also have large salaries (mostly 6 figure salaries) at these athletic departments. Obviously, coaches salaries have exploded along with their assistants over the past two decades.
I’d still say that the main thing is paying for the rest of the athletic department.
LikeLike
Re: your first point, my point though is that those other teams mostly existed 15 years ago, no? There hasn’t been some explosion of golf and cross country and track teams in the last 15 years that would explain what’s soaking up all of the money. The money-losing sports today were losing money 15 years ago, too, and I don’t see what would cause them to lose money at a substantially accelerated rate. If anything, some may lose a bit less now (e.g., Women’s Basketball?).
I realize that they’re paying for the rest of the athletic department, but they were doing that 15 years ago. What has changed such that enormous new sums of money has flowed in but the quantity of services being provided looks the same?
LikeLike
I think the answer is “everywhere”. There are no entities on Earth that can waste $ like universities. Coaching salaries, even in non-revenue sports, are very high. Asst coaches salaries in the major sports are climbing….You’d be shocked at how much the fricking women’s tennis coach makes……recruiting expenses, facilities…..IU has just upgarded the stadium, added BBall practice center in last few years…now, baseball and softball fields are being replaced….transportation expense–ever seen the baseball team’s schedule? I saw something recently where the ath. dept. pays the U something like $42000 for each sch. athlete (maybe that’s on average, don’t know), and that expense has skyrocketed in recent years…….
LikeLike
Shroom,
I have traveled with the team, and there are no Scots managing the expenses! Thrift is not the mantra in college sports.
LikeLike
Perhaps it is coaches salaries, but I’d be interested in some numbers on that to demonstrate how an increase in coaching salaries is soaking up all of that new money.
My fear is that, in the last 15 years, athletic departments have added small armies of people with important-sounding titles, which your average person has no reason to know exist (and which may have no actual reason to exist). I’d like to figure out whether that’s actually the case or not.
LikeLike
There are more coaches, vastly higher paid coaches, very expensive facilities, vast tutoring facilities.
I think what has helped the MAC has been the 85 scholarship limit and the improvement in training and coaching techniques in HS and college. But I think outside football, the gap is growing.
LikeLike
1. Coaches’ salaries have risen sharply over the last decade, including assistant and minor sports’ coaches.
2. Tuition has also risen sharply for all students, leading to higher scholarship costs. Considered over the 200-300 scholarships the athletic department pays out, that can form a substantial increase.
3. Buy game costs have increase substantially
4. Facilities costs have increased substantially. While they may be associated with large donors, the general fund does provide a sizable amount.
5. New sports have been launched, but they have mostly been women’s sports as Title IX restrictions were strengthened. That was the first men’s lacrosse program in 30 years, while women’s lacrosse has boomed.
6. You are incorrect about the relative strengths of the MAC and Big Ten. In the 1990s, the Big Ten had an .887 winning percentage. In the 00s, it was .863. That’s not a substantial change.
Having said all that, I do think there is some truth in the “make more, spend more” sentiment you seem to be suggesting.
LikeLike
It seems that most of the money pouring into universities (both athletically and via tuition) is spent on shiny new buildings. So the REAL beneficiaries are local contractors.
LikeLike
Well the thing is, this explosion of revenue is incredibly recent, like in the past 10 years for the most part. But here’s the numbers themselves off the US govt’s site:
Big Ten’s 11 schools aggregate football/men’s basketball revenue in 2003: $375M ($276M football, $99M men’s basketball).
In 2009, that number was up to $584M ($446M football, $138M men’s basketball).
So in just 6 years, the revenue from those two sports (mostly from football growth) was $209M.
Now let’s look at the expenses side:
In 2003, the total expenses for all sports across the Big Ten was $288M. By 2009, that number was up to $484M. You can further break down expenses but the tools don’t seem to be too useful for that kind of exercise.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetAggregatedData.aspx
LikeLike
As you can see though, the point is that even though revenue rocketed from $375M in 2003 to $584M in 2009, most of that ended up spent as the expenses rose at nearly the same pace.
Of course, that’s all expenses across all sports, whereas the revenue I included just from football and men’s basketball.
LikeLike
Do athletic departments have to pay the tuition of the student-athletes on scholarship? If so, that would account for a big source of the cost increases.
LikeLike
Most, if not all schools, include that cost.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “include”? Do you mean the AD pays it, or the school eats it? I know for a fact at least on B1G university where the athletic department pays the university for tuition of scholarship student athletes.
LikeLike
By include, they include it in their expenses. How each athletic dept. “pays” their expenses to the school, I don’t know. Most schools support their athletic department to some extent.
LikeLike
Adam,
Great question. Money that is donated or distributed to schools pays for coach’s salaries, scholoraships and facilities in that order. Case in point, I was in college from ’86 – ’91. At that time, the cost to attend the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as an in-state resident was about $7K, which included room, board and tuition. It now costs about $38K to attend U of I as an in-state resident. If you are doing the math, that is five fold increase in 20 years. Athletic departments have to write checks to the schools for tuition at a minimum. A large part of the funds athletics receive goes to paying for the scholarship. It’s a huge deal, and it will become even bigger once the schools are able to provide even more money to student athletes. Lower tier schools won’b be able to compete.
Coach’s salaries speak for themselves, but I think it’s ridiculous tha a non-revenue sport demands a premium salary. I agree with Title IX in theory, but the way it’s being put into practice is criminal. At some point in the near future, the next bubble to burst will be college education/tuition. It simply is becoming to expensive to attend a stata school for the average family.
Finally, facilities are expensive to build and maintain. Once a school within a conference has an extra “whatever,” other conference schools will want a similar facility for their own. Not to mention that this helps the recruiting process. Add to that fact, that universities are state assisted now, versus state funded and you have budget shortfalls all over.
So, the need for more money is very real and very serious. Having said that, I believe universities are not being managed effectively or proactively, which is why I believe that bubble will burst in the near future (much like the current housing market).
I hope that helps…
D
LikeLike
The biggest factor in my opinion is the reduction in scholarships. Big schools now need to pay a lot more for the absolute best coaches and facilities just to hold onto the advantages they once had being able to recruit higher. The talent spreading around a lot more now leaves a lot less room for error.
The other factor is actually the BCS. While smaller programs complain about it, it actually levels things out a lot. Boise State could play a WAC schedule and then be given a chance to shine against Oklahoma and used they that experience to build it’s program into something truly special. Meanwhile the Big East would have been dead as a major conference pre-BCS with the ACC raid, but because of BCS status regrew and allowed a new crop of teams to rise up. I think that as long as the BCS exists in its current form, programs in smaller/less established conferences are going to continue to rise, partially at the expense of some of the bigger teams.
LikeLike
Not sure how much credibility this has, but from a WVU site via the Conference Expansion message board:
http://goldandbluezone.com/announcements/conference-realignment-rumors-continue-to-swirl/
WVU trying to wheedle out an ACC invitation and thinks they are close.
LikeLike
Hard for me to believe that the ACC would be less snobby about academics than the BIG….if not, I could see WV getting snubbed in an addition including Pitt, Rutgers, U Conn, and Syracuse….all of those schools are highly regarded by US News…..Of course, were that to be on the table, I could see the BIG coming in and offering Rut and MO (if still around)…I don’t think Delaney wants anyone claiming that NY market………..
LikeLike
The other thing is that the previous expansion plans in 2004 had Syracuse above Va Tech.
And I’d imagine Pitt to be a very close 2nd to Syracuse.
LikeLike
In conference Armageddon.. Big East and ACC are going to be duking it out for survival. I think academics, while important, are no longer the only factor the ACC would consider.
They need big name acquisitions in order to show VT, FSU, and any other school that the SEC might try to steal, that the ACC means bizness and intends to win that fight.
I think that’s an interesting article because it’s the first I’ve seen that shows the SEC isn’t picking teams in a vacuum… As good as the SEC is, if the ACC can offer WVU more money, stability, and a seat at the super conference table, without having to go through the SEC gauntlet every yr.. they probably take ACC over SEC.
LikeLike
To be clear, WVU would accept an invite from any other AQ conference in less time than it takes you to read this sentence. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that the SEC would be better for WVU than the ACC (and it’s not even close), but I don’t think anybody in AD Luck’s office is going to be that choosy.
LikeLike
Might have some validity, but just for the record, the article was written August 15th.
LikeLike
Frank,
Is Miami an unrealistic target for the SEC because of the “one school per state” expansion mantra or because of the recent Nevin Shapiro revelations?
LikeLike
Because Miami doesn’t really add anything to the SEC. They have very little booster and fan support when compared to other SEC schools. Heck, they can’t even fill their own stadium (which btw is smaller than most SEC schools’ stadiums). They don’t add a new footprint. Yes, they have some football power, but without the fanbase to go along with it, it isn’t as attractive as other schools. I would even say that the SEC would rather have WV than Miami, (and I think I’ve been pretty clear on how I think the SEC ranks WV on their wishlist).
LikeLike
No fans.
No football (massive sanctions comin’).
No basketball.
No new markets.
Why WOULD they take Miami?
LikeLike
More than anything else Miami isn’t mentioned because if Florida schools are on the table, Florida State offers so much more.
LikeLike
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=8809292
Missouri to be #14 in the SEC as early as next Tuesday? Rumor from a source that has been on in the past regarding A&M heading to the SEC. His stuff comes from Texas Tech.
LikeLike
I dunno….got to “show me” before I believe it.
LikeLike
Interesting… “…Missouri is number 14 unless OU panics…”
The implication is that OU may try to cut in line to get into the SEC. Given your earlier thoughts on the Pac-X discussions, Redhawk, they would probably prefer the Pac as an option if they can find a suitable 4th team. I wonder if that’s still on the table if Missouri is heading to the SEC and UT declines to join the western exodus. Would there be a 4th team (in addition to OU, OSU, and TTech) that the Pac-X would approve of?
LikeLike
I should clarify that I don’t necessarily believe that Missouri is really almost in the SEC, but I don’t have any trouble believing that they think they are. Asking the above question as a hypothetical.
LikeLike
Iowa St? New Mexico? 😉
LikeLike
@neutronSoup
well, that’s the panic situation for OU isn’t it? Mizzou to the SEC, UT goes Indy, leaving OU, OSU and Tech hanging.
OU isn’t going to the SEC alone. If OU goes anywhere alone it’s to the B1G.
If the LA media source is right, it would be KU as #16…I think the NEXT option for the PAC would be New Mexico….which is a rival of Tech, has all the fans of a growing state, would be in the geographical footprint, just built a new basketball arena…..but sucks ass in football.
After that? Hawaii in football only? Boise St Community College? Houston? i mean the 16th choice all have an issue then.
LikeLike
Just like last time, Mizzou is a stalking horse. The big time conferences will find ways to pick off only the big time programs without letting marginal schools in. There isn’t any bidding war going on for Mizzou– they’ll still be there after the dust settles. OU is the prize here and leveraging other schools is a tactic to get them to sign on.
LikeLike
Gopher is spot-on, I think. Nobody seems more willing to be hustled than Mizzou. It doesn’t make any sense that the SEC would want to take them and risking breaking up the Big Xii, which would send the prize(s) westward. They’re trying to contrive a situation that gets Oklahoma to leave OkSU out in the cold.
LikeLike
If this is true, OU and OSU are going to the PAC 12 – all hope would be abandon for the Big 12. Question is do they bring anyone with? Does the Big Ten / SEC / PAC add any of the remaining schools? Somebody is going to get downgraded here really soon.
LikeLike
Here’s a question for the panel about Texas going independent and about realignment generally:
If OU/OSU go to the PAC 12, what is the incentive for UT to hold together the Big 12-4? If UT goes independent, what is the incentive for ND to ever join a conference, since many here agree they would do so only if they felt they were on the verge of being denied a seat at the table?
My point: I love reading the endless scenarios, but most of the discussion seems focused on massive realignment triggered by a few schools moving. Is it plausible to ask what is the LEAST that could happen? For instance: (1) SEC adds A&M+1; That’s all that happens or, (2) SEC adds A&M+1, OU/OSU to PAC 12, and that’s all that happens.. Does this make sense? (Zeek, some help please.)
LikeLike
Sorry, the other predicate here was SEC getting to 14 with A&M+1.
LikeLike
It could very easily simply be SEC + A&M + WVU and Big 12-A&M + BYU and BE -WVU + UCF. In fact, I think that’s the most likely. But there’s still the remote possibility the SEC could look at the numbers and balk. And since A&M isn’t leaving unless they get accepted elsewhere, we could have no change as the least that could happen.
LikeLike
There is a case to be made for long term stability if the SEC takes a team like WVU or Missouri to be its 14th (as opposed to an ACC team), and OU/OSU go to the Pac-14. You could end up with a long term equilibrium scenario until some other big shoe drops (i.e. distribution changes much more to online, etc.) or Comcast doesn’t want to renew ND.
If that does happen, then you’d have the Big Ten at 12 coveting ND, the Pac-14 coveting Texas, and the SEC stable at 14 without needing to go up to 16 for a pod setup (or similar split to Pac-16).
You could end up with the Pac-14, SEC-14, Big Ten-12, ACC-12, Big East (9 or 10) as a long term solution because the keys to further expansion would almost entirely be held by Texas (Pac-16) or ND (Big Ten-14).
Texas might seek out quasi-independence if they don’t want to fully give up the LHN to the Pac-16 or agree to a folding in mechanism.
By quasi-independence, I mean they take the remnants of the Big 12 and go independent in football, while agreeing to maybe schedule 1/2 of the remaining Big 12 every year (after the Big 12 adds maybe 1-2 schools to get back up to 8-9).
That might end up being the endgame for Texas (and ND by extension, since ND is probably certain of its independence as long as Texas doesn’t join the Pac-16). Texas could schedule OU/A&M every year along with Tech (annually) + 3 of the other Big 12 teams.
I actually think we’re a long ways off from multiple 16 team conferences. The Pac-16 is the only one that really makes sense unless Slive has some kind of ace up his sleeve to grab FSU or Va Tech.
But 16 really ruins the intimacy of a conference if you go to 4 pods. The Pac-16 is basically a way of creating a Pac-8 and SWC-II held together by a CCG. I highly doubt the SEC wants to follow that approach to 16.
LikeLike
FWIW, I do think we’re a lot closer to the endgame than most people realize. I really don’t think any presidents want to go to 16 outside of the Pac-16 concept, and like I mention above those presidents really want to recreate the old Pac-8 by sending the Arizona schools with their new additions to the East.
Bullet makes a good point that if BYU agrees to join the Big 12, we’re likely already at a medium-term equilibrium.
BYU would likely ask for at least medium-term guarantees (don’t know whether they’ll get them), but I think Oklahoma is likely to stay in the Big 12 if BYU agrees to join. BYU is a decent replacement for the Big 12, since the Big 12 already has Texas’ markets delivered by UT.
The Big Ten is already at medium/long term stability. Big Ten was at 11 for 2 decades before moving on Nebraska, since we were waiting on ND. Now that the Big Ten is at the most stable number, I really don’t see any Big Ten movement before ND is at risk of losing its Comcast agreement, or something else happens.
The Pac-12 can’t expand without OU and/or Texas (to 14 with either, to 16 with both probably).
The SEC has no reason to expand after getting A&M + 1. Unless there’s a national brand like OU or FSU, they have no real reason to go to 16, and it might end up screwing up the intimacy of the conference (not that 14 is even that intimate, but 16 with pods is a mess comparatively).
I really don’t see the ACC going above 12. There’s no $ reason to, considering it just dilutes the payouts to current teams unless there are teams that pay for themselves. Pitt and Syracuse are their best replacement options if they lose a team, but not a good reason to go beyond 12.
LikeLike
What could the Big12 possibly do to give BYU a guarantee that is not directly opposite of what has just happened to promises just a year old?
A history of security would be the only guarantee that a not desperate school would look at. I don’t believe BYU is desperate.
LikeLike
BYU isn’t desperate, but at the same time, they have the same BCS accessibility as Army and Navy, which is to say Top 2 for the BCS NC or hope they get picked (IIRC).
I don’t know what the contract would look like, but it might involve TV rights and big payouts or something like that.
Maybe just BYU joining for football?
LikeLike
Zeek:
I know I’m in the minority here, and with many of my friends, but I just don’t think the LDS church is worried about a monitary payout. In fact they may find it degrading to be thought of as being up for purchase. It is the church, not the AD or even the school, that would have to sign off on this.
LikeLike
BYU does have an advantage in that they are willing and able to go independent. If they join the Big 12 and it implodes, they would be no worse off than their current position (I don’t think the WCC would be too upset).
LikeLike
I think M’s point is operative here.
It wouldn’t hurt BYU in the long run to join in football only or to explain to the WCC that they’re joining the Big 12 for its BCS invite for as long as that’s around. I don’t think they’ll burn the WCC on the way out, so that avenue should always be available to them.
LikeLike
I agree, if FB is the only point. I don’t believe the church and its leaders believe that. In fact they make a stronger statement by rejecting the simple, convenient, possibly profitable move as a principled stand. These are the same people that ended athletics at BYU Idaho (formerly Ricks) because it did not fit the churches mission.
LikeLike
BYU and the Big 12 could always schedule some bb games and make the WCC happy. KU or UT or OU doing home and away with a WCC school along with BYU doing some. Win-Win.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
I think you’re right that it’d be a principled stand of sorts for BYU to turn down an offer, but I still think it’d be a wrongheaded one, and not just for financial reasons. Being an AQ school offers BYU (and therefore the church) a platform to advertise itself that nothing else can. And I think the LDS knows a little something about advertising. I don’t know what kind of results the pamphleting campaigns achieve, but they still do them, and do them a lot. If you turn down the offer, that’s a one-time statement. If you’re an AQ school (assuming the B12 doesn’t break up) then you have a greater advertising voice for decades to come.
LikeLike
Texas would tell Tech to shove it if they left. OU and A&M add value. Tech is nice but easily replaceable.
LikeLike
In that scenario, Tech would remain in the Big 12. He was talking about the Pac-14 with OU/OSU.
I think if Tech would stay behind and Texas agreed to schedule 4 games with the Big 12 remnants if they agreed to take the rest of their sports, then Texas would likely make Tech 1 of those 4 games annually.
LikeLike
@Zeek
Absolutely. I thought they were referring to Tech in a Pac 16 w/o Texas and scheduling them as an ooc.
LikeLike
You’d have a Big 12 “remnants” with Kansas, K-State, Mizzou, TTech, Baylor, Iowa State. They would invite Houston and UNLV (or something like those two) to get back up to 8. Texas would agree to schedule Tech + 3 annually in exchange for putting the rest of their sports in that group.
I’m not saying it’s a likely outcome, but I could see Texas working out this kind of ND-type scenario for themselves. I do think they’d schedule Tech annually in the scope of this kind of agreement with a Big 12 remnants.
LikeLike
TT, or whoever in Texas, may have a somewhat hidden value. The P12N’s carriage agreement makes states within the footprint carry the local regional and the National channel on basic service. If the agreement has language applying this to expansion then TT, or whoever, would have a significant financial attractiveness.
LikeLike
Expecting closer to the minimum is usually closer than expecting whole scale changes in every major conference (at least over the short term). I still think A&M +1 one eastern team to the SEC is most likely with the net result being the Big East loses a year (ACC taking 1 if the Big East doesn’t lose from the SEC) and BYU joins the Big 12.
That said, I think a lot of possibilities are quite possible right now and most the power is in the hands of the Oklahoma administration.
LikeLike
I can’t wait to hear what Gov. Jay Nixon thinks about academics of the SEC.
LikeLike
Nixon is on Mizzou’s poo poo list anyway. Dude doesn’t send them any love (read $$$).
LikeLike
For Redhawk. Barry Tramel puts OU to the PAC at 45%
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-oklahoma-states-most-likely-options-strengthen-big-12-leave-for-a-pac-16/article/3599892?custom_click=rss
LikeLike
which is his highest percentage. Next is a “strong Big12” and he counts BYU along with Louisville, Air Force, Pitt as making it strong…
LikeLike
It happened last year….it’s happening again! Plane tracking!!!!
Plane that Larry Scott used last year’s expansion trips just left Utah. He was on Utah’s campus and is/was there to watch Utah’s game. Is he on the plane? Did he have an emergency change of plans?
http://twitter.com/#!/LisaHorne
LikeLike
“College football fans will never agree on which conference is the best, which teams are overrated or underrated, whether there should be a playoff, whether players should be paid — but they do seem to universally despise Craig James.”
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/08/31/georgia-mailbag/index.html#ixzz1WdYCUTo7
Let us remember that what unites us is greater than our divisions.
LikeLike
SMU fans like him. But then noone really likes SMU fans. People talked bad about Texas, but it was the Mustangs and Aggies who competed for the least favorite opposing fans in the SWC.
LikeLike
I’ll certainly jump on board the hating Craig James bandwagon. I also hate several of the announcers that the panelists love, especially Musburger.
LikeLike
I jumped up and down and cheered when Musberger got fired a number of years back. But then ABC hired him. I prefer James to Musberger. I switch the channel when he’s on unless its one of my teams. He’s not as totally uniformed as he used to be, but he still usually doesn’t have a very good understanding. I remember he used to constantly confuse pro and college rules. And he would go on and on about why the refs didn’t get it right. I can’t believe he’s a favorite to those guys.
LikeLike
Great read re OU’s position and why Texas is the least liked team in the country (and, no, not b/c they play good football cough6-7cough).
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=202&articleid=20110830_202_B1_Whatif864434&r=4078
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Question for the panel…
How hard would it be for universities and conferences to lose their not-for-profit status? It’s becoming clear to me that all of this expansion talk is based on money. Although school athletic departments pay tuition for student-athletes, and sports are part of a school’s fabric, these decisions are not necessarily affecting a schools academic mission. Football is a big business, and the government is missing out on its share by not taxing the process… Given that all states are dealing with increasing budget cuts, this could be a way to earn some money. Is this even feasible?
DITB
LikeLike
All the revenue isn’t profiting the schools, its going back to the athletic departments and/or universities. Football is paying the bills at these schools for EVERY scholarship athlete PLUS all of first class facilities in baseball, softball, track & field, soccer, wrestling, swimming, golf, hockey, gymnastics, cheerleading, etc.
LikeLike
They would have to start paying players above the full COA to lose their exempt status. Most schools lose money on athletics, and states have been cutting education funding massively. States won’t benefit from getting to tax sports, since it will eliminate most donations and thus make the schools pay even more to support it.
LikeLike
Most of the universities we’re talking about are extremely well connected to the most powerful legislators in Congress and in the states.
It would be unimaginable that anything could come out of this that would threaten the not-for-profit status of these universities and conferences, since they’re going to be protected by politicians. We’re talking about mostly state flagships.
LikeLike
End run around texas?
Right now the state of Texas is locked in the B12, but what if each gets a piece?
PAC gets OU / oSu / MU / TT (and a texas foothold)
SEC gets TAMU + 3 from the east
B1G gets ??? + ???? + ???? + ????
fill in the 4 blanks
LikeLike
ND + 1 (whenever ND comes around, whether because of Comcast saying they won’t give them NBC or whatever). The other two blanks remain blank.
Big Ten sat at 11 for 20 years. No reason why it won’t sit at 12 for at least a decade or two or however long ND wants to be independent.
LikeLike
Maryland is a favorite of mine, if you get ND you can ‘settle’ for #14 and that’ll depend on who is available and who is ‘hot’ at that time.
LikeLike
Pac 12 would get a toe into Texas; Texas Tech isn’t much of an attraction. They are a good distance away from the major population of the Dallas/Forth Worth, Austin, Houston & San Antonio markets.
LikeLike
If the SEC takes 3 from the east (meaning the ACC is dead), the B10 is taking 4 from the east (or maybe Texas + a friend & 2 in the east).
I still vote for a Big20:
Texas + friend
FSU + GTech
UNC + Duke
ND + someone (BC? Miami? UVa?)
an SEC school gets the death penalty and UF & UGa join FSU & GTech
LikeLike
As the instigators in the first place, I don’t doubt planes are flying to Chicago right now to meet about moving to 16 teams. Muk-rakers!
LikeLike
Guess we can cross off VA Tech off of the SEC’s list.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/08/31/texas-am-did-its-part-next-move-belongs-to-the-sec/
“We are not interested. Nothing has changed. My president will not dignify wild speculation. Our last statement (from Aug. 12) still stands. Bottom line: this is not on our radar screen.”
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s just not happening. I put the odds at 10% up above, but even that was being really generous.
It’s just really hard to see why teams that have easy routes to the BCS in stable, geographically logical conferences are going to leave. This applies to any of the Mid-Atlantic ACC schools especially.
FSU might be playing coy instead of outrightly denying it as Va Tech, but the notion that FSU is going to give up its easy route to the BCS to play in the same league as its big brother is a non-starter to me.
Either the SEC settles in at 13, which seems unrealistic, or it takes WVU or Missouri.
LikeLike
When you read their comments during the Cam Newton mess, it just seems hard to believe they would turn around and want in the SEC. And they’ve got a top 5 ranking and recruiting class. I just don’t see it.
LikeLike
I’m referring to FSU.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s really hard to see what exactly the SEC offers FSU other than just money.
FSU with a good coach can easily pull in Top 5 or 10 (at worst) recruiting classes every year without breaking a sweat. There’s no reason why they can’t challenge for the NC or a BCS bowl at worst every year from their current perch in the ACC.
That gives them dominance in the ACC with really good looks at the NC. This isn’t even talking about the academic prestige (mostly undergrad rankings but some strong grad research schools as well) that the ACC has over the SEC.
They’re going to give up all of that for a few million dollars? And of course, all of this applied to Va Tech as well (minus the same state overlap with UF and obviously not a king, but the dominant power in their division like FSU is; especially with Miami down).
LikeLike
They’re not only in Florida, but they’re closer to the prime South Georgia recruiting areas than any other school.
LikeLike
Look at their current class; they just got Jameis Winston out from under Nick Saban’s nose. They really don’t need the SEC for anything other than a few extra million (although most of the TV sources have indicated otherwise to national sources like Rovell (CNBC) or Thamel (NYT)).
LikeLike
Concur, FSU is close in distance to the Alabama, Georgia recruiting hotbeds and have tons of talent in their backyard…
Money isn’t ‘that’ significant as the SEC has locked itself into a very long-term deal that other conferences have caught up to be close enough. I don’t see any ACC schools being that interested in the SEC given that success is so much easier in the ACC (you make more money the better your team performs) and the money isn’t too significant…
School #14 for the SEC is imo likely going to be a Big East or Big 12 school.
LikeLike
That original August 12 statement:
“Virginia Tech is exceedingly pleased with our membership in the ACC. It is the perfect conference for us. The university administration has no interest in any discussion concerning affiliation with any conference other than the ACC.”
These denials generally aren’t worth much, but that’s about as definitive as it gets.
LikeLike
Mike,
Sounds like TAMU administration last year, and yet here they are after the donors spoke up. Who uses the word poppycock anymore? 😉
LikeLike
VTech to the SEC won’t happen this year. The SEC may have to wait 2-3 years and weaken the ACC first. . .
LikeLike
After the debacle of the Cy-Hawk WTF trophy, I like this one.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/31615/thoughts-on-big-ten-championship-trophy
LikeLike
Wow, that’s a really good looking trophy.
Overall, the B1G (logo/name) and that trophy are the bright spots in the naming conventions/trophies to come out of this. Hopefully, that Cy-Hawk thing gets fixed, and the divisions will be East/West sometime.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B1G logo/name is a bright spot. It’s better than the full “B1G Ten” logo, but at least that one didn’t start a new abbreviation. I never minded reading B10, but the B1G has become kind of a pet peeve of mine. That said, it probably means it works. The trophy is OK though.
LikeLike
Needs more corn and figurines.
LikeLike
Also. I bet we see it on hardcore pawn if OSU wins it.
LikeLike
“the dichotomy of the two divisions – the Leaders and the Legends…” yep not clunky at all
LikeLike
MrSEC’s beliefs are similar to Franks-He isn’t buying the everyone wants to join the SEC and the networks are going to open the vaults ideas:
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/08/report-sec-would-be-comfortable-with-13-schools/
LikeLike
I think we here in the Big Ten got to that realization last year when it became apparent that TV $ isn’t going to trump geography and culture. The fit issues for both sides really don’t work in a lot of these scenarios.
We were all throwing around the wild Texas/ND/A&M scenarios last year.
I think at this point, barring some kind of change out of OU, there’s going to be only a little movement at best.
And the ACC does appear to be impregnable at this point in time.
LikeLike
I agree that there will be little movement of important schools beyond Texas A&M and one of WVU/Mizzou unless FSU decides to go to SEC or Texas decides to go to Pac-12. Oklahoma need not be hasty unless Texas moves.
BTW, for SEC to go to 16 teams, the ONLY schools that make sense AND are doable are Texas A&M, VT, FSU, WVU, Mizzou, and Clemson – in that order (in terms of making sense). If the SEC takes A&M, can’t get FSU now, and wants to position itself for 16 LT, it will then take WVU or Mizzou and stand pat until somone else shakes up the landscape further.
As for the Pac-12, many people out here are quite skeptical of the value that has been created by adding Colorado and Utah. The only discernible benefit that I see is it made a CCG possible. If the rules don’t change regarding the requirements for a CCG, the benefits of expanding further are very questionable.
To realize the TV and potential recruiting value of having Texas, Oklahoma, and the CA schools in the same super-conference, TX/OU will have to play the CA schools every year, not once every so often. This can only happen if 4 4-team pods are created, with each pod consisting of 2 geographically-paired teams (e.g. – UT/TTU/OU/OSU and USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford). Each pod would play the teams in its pod plus 2 teams in each other pod. The 2 teams played will be 1 from each geographic pair within the pod. So, UT would play TTU,OU,OSU, one of USC/UCLA, and one of Cal/Stanford EVERY year. This arrangement would bring Texas and Oklahoma into SoCal and NorCal (via TV) every year, and vice-versa – the only way to maximize value to the power schools and create a sense of unity in a super-conference. This would be the only hope of binding UT to the Pac-16 for the LT.
Unfortunately, IIRC, CCG requires round-robin within 2 divisions (max). Either this rule will have to be changed, or a Pac-16 would have to forego CCG.
In any event, you guys need to stop blathering about the Pac-12 taking leftover slops from the Big-12 that have been rejected by the SEC and Big-10. It doesn’t need to happen, and it ain’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
So you would institute a situation that reduces regional existing rivalries (which is one of the biggest concerns about forming super conferences) and increases travel costs, etc. as a condition? A reason not to do it is now a requirement? Pac 16(8) west and Pac 16 east is easily the most logical, practical, functional and understandable alignment. Carriage fees will apply whatever alignment and number of particular matchups occur. Pods are simply confusing to anyone not following that conference closely, and even for some that are.
Put me down as one midwest born and now left coast living person that is NOT skeptical about the long term value of adding Colo and Utah. 2 new states, growing media markets, and solid universities as well as 4 new senators.
LikeLike
I really don’t see what would be so hard to follow about 4×4 divisions. I don’t think Redwood is talking about shoehorning pod scheduling into 2 static divisions whether they are organized by geography or in a zipper arrangement. Nor do I believe he is talking about a variable division model where membership changes yearly or every 2 years.
I think he simply means 4 divisions: Pac16 NW, Pac16 CA, Pac16 MtnZona, and Pac16 Texoma.
Ok, one of those needs a better name, but they are all very simple to follow.
The NW schools have already given up the regional rivalries they truly care about, the LA schools. They will play UCLA and USC twice each every four years under the current Pac12 alignment. That is the exact same frequency they would play the LA schools in a 4×4 division Pac16.
And travel? We’re talking about one road game each year to each division (with a second road game within your own division every other year). That doesn’t sound so daunting to me.
LikeLike
Robber Barron:
Perhaps I was a bit harsh but you did have to give me, a person who has been following these discussions, a discription of which “pod system” would be used. I’ll take your word on the frequency. E/W would afford the east schools the same frequency vs LA schools. 7 east games, 1 vs west(cali) and 1 vs west(NW). Rotating them means the east plays every year against a cali, every other year in cali, and every other year vs a LA school. Maintains stronger former Big8(12) ties as well as former Pac 8.
LikeLike
My bad. the frequency would be half. But the benifit is stronger ties to tradition in a new, larger system.
LikeLike
As the rules currently stand, you need two divisions to hold a title game:
NCAA Division I bylaw 17.9.5.2 (c): A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division.
Which is also going to be a huge sticking point if the SEC stops at 13.
LikeLike
I agree, Redwood. If the Pac goes to 16 it should carefully consider the possibility of instituting 4 divisions of 4 (and navigating the NCAA legislative process that would be necessary to allow such an alignment.) While it sounds nice to have the Pac8 back, it would also mean shipping UA, ASU, UU and CU off to the eastern division and only playing them once every 4 years, once every 8 at home. Those 4 schools may balk at such infrequent contact with the west coast schools.
What kind of rule changes do you envision to make 4×4 divisions possible? 2-round conference tournament? Separate CCGs for 2 pairs of 4-team divisions (with Rose and Fiesta berths on the line?) Or just picking the best 2 out of 4 division champs to square off in a CCG despite the risk of a third division champ never having played either participant?
LikeLike
I don’t know if you need pods in order to have the teams from the eastern division play the California schools each year.
The eastern division teams would play the seven other from their own divison plus two in the other division. If you pair up the California schools on the schedule with one from Oregon or Washington on the schedule, then an eastern division team will have at least one of them on the schedule each year.
Schedule pairings could be as follows: USC-Washington State, UCLA-Oregon State, California-Oregon and Stanford-Washington.
Oklahoma, for example, would play Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech and Utah each season plus two teams from the rotation above. OU would actually play in the state of Californa two years out of four, but would have a Cali team on the schedule each year.
Obviously, this doesn’t include the conference championship game, which is currently scheduled to be at the home stadium of the higher rated team. That could add another game in California plus there’s the possibility of playing in the Rose Bowl as well.
I actually like the pod system that you talk about, but the the last time it was tried in a 16-team conference, it didn’t work out well from the standpoint that the fans didn’t like it–I think this was when the WAC had 16 teams.
Hopefully, we’ll see this happening in the near future. If a program like OU adds an attractive non-conference opponent to the schedule each year, then I think their football schedule will look pretty good and they won’t have any problems recruiting with it.
LikeLike
The 16-team WAC had a lot of problems. The pod system may not have been the worst of them.
LikeLike
Redwood: The only recruiting potential the old Pac10 teams care about is SoCal. The only recruiting potential the old B12 teams care about is Texas. TV would be just as valuable even if east and west rarely played. The Pac is the conference that is most ideally situated to expand to 16, 18, or 20.
LikeLike
I agree that Oklahoma is the key here, I suspect the Big 12 is dead.
Here is the statement from BYU: “There is much speculation right now regarding conference affiliation that seems to change by the hour. Commenting on such conjecture is not productive and creates a distraction for our program. BYU is focused on the opportunities ahead. We are excited about our relationship with ESPN as a football independent and our affiliation with the West Coast Conference. The university will have no further comment.”
It sounds to me that other possibilities for Big 12 replacements are going to be ‘hands off’. There is a conference swirling down the bowl that 3 major programs have left in the last 13 months. No AD or university president is going to leave a conference and jump into that train wreck.
I have heard that the FOX – Big 12 tv contract in null and void if the conference drops below 10 members. Does anyone know if that is true? If it is, would OU stay, would Missouri?
LikeLike
Its true, however, A&M doesn’t actually leave until June 30. If BYU (or Houston, etc) were to join, they could join before that date and not risk the FOX contract.
LikeLike
My post was written in haste. I could have done a better job. Robber Baron has my pod break-up exactly right. The reason why 8-team divisions do not suffice is that they would only allow Texoma to play 1 Cali team per year. Cali is a BIG place (bigger than Texas 🙂 ). The L..A market is, completely separate from, and still much larger than the Bay Area market. The L.A market is more rabid about college football (no pro team being one reason) than the Bay Area. Finally, SoCal is MUCH more fertile recruiting ground than NorCal. The point being that it is not enough for Texoma to play a Cali team every year, they need to play a SoCal team every year. Hence you need pods v. divisions.
As for regional rivalries, my/RobberBaron’s pods preserve those rivalries. The PacNW schools only care about SoCal for recruiting purposes and money. The Cali school rivalries are all with each other and, in the case of USC and Stanford, Notre Dame. They only care about the PacNW and Arizonas when a school from those regions stands in the way of the Rose Bowl. Nobody cares about the Arizonas, so they get stuck with Colorado and Utah. Exept for the fact that it can be confusing, I think the pod system would be popular with the Pac-16. Each team will be guaranteed to play at least two of Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA EVERY year. That is an upgrade from the current Pac-12 arrangement.
For the CCG, I think you have to pair up the two best teams from the 4 pods. This assumes, of course, that the Pac-16 gets the rules changed. I doubt that anyone of influence would be in favor of a 2-game Superconference championship playoff at this juncture – although I would be.
LikeLike
The Pac is never going to get the CCG rules changed to allow for four divisions. Why would the remaining 104 FBS teams pass such a rule? Not going to happen.
LikeLike
I think the biggest reason to have Texas and California in the same conference would be for TV leverage. I don’t anything additional you get by having Texas play in Southern California a year would be worth the confusions/lack of identity the pod systems create. They have mathematical beauty with them I’ll definitely admit (especially for a PAC-16 with 4 from Texas/Oklahoma were the pods would be clear), but I think they make the conference feel too random.
With a rule change it could certainly work, but I really hope that rule change doesn’t come. I love college football for how important every game in the regular season seems. Having teams at the top of 4 pods (some years meaning 1 is the 7th or 8th best team in the conference or worse) would be worse at putting teams who don’t deserve in than the current CCG approach and the last thing I want in college football in an NFL type of set-up which this feels a lot more like.
Granted, I’d dump the CCG all together if I could.
LikeLike
The Pac is the conference that is least likely to institute pods, as they have no need to let the Texas schools access to SoCal recruiting or Cali schools access to Texas recruiting.
LikeLike
@Richard – I agree. The Pac can naturally be separated into the Pac 8 and the “new” 8. It would be very difficult to not have pods in the SEC and downright impossible in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The other 104 schools would have no incentive to change the rules to benefit the Pac, just as they had no incentive to allow a CCG for a 10-team league last year, as long as the Pac is the only one at 16 and contemplating 4×4 divisions. But if armageddon really comes and superconferences form elsewhere, isn’t there a chance that the voting block could change? Would other superconferences not want to take advantage of other internal alignment options?
LikeLike
Sure, if a miracle happens and 4×16 becomes reality, then the rules will likely be changed. Then again, pigs may fly out of my rear end.
LikeLike
Hmmm, if superconferences form I’m going to have to rethink my love of bacon.
LikeLike
For everyone talking about rewriting NCAA bylaws:
A 4×4 pod system already fits the description of the bylaws in that each year 2 pair of pods would form what the NCAA calls a “division” and they all play each other in a round robin (i.e. two divisions of 8 teams each). The NCAA bylaws do NOT require the divisions to be fixed from year to year.
LikeLike
But it would require playing everyone in those 2 pods every year.
LikeLike
Where is the TV leverage of having Texas and CA in the same conference if they rarely play each other? Why would ESPN, etc. pay more for the same teams just because they are now in a different configuration?? They would pay more to have more of the L.A. market AND the Texas market watching at the same time, more of the Bay Area market and Oklahoma market, etc., etc. Do you really think that Texas v. Arizona, ASU, Utah & Colorado is going to make ESPN pay more than Texas v. A&M, Nebraska, Colorado, and say, Missouri?
Moreover, what will bind a rather loosely-aligned UT to the Pac-16? The value of the Pac-16 needs to be perceived by UT every day or they will wander. Not sure how being in a division with the Arizonas, Utah and Colorado will bind UT. The Rose Bowl is not THAT appealing.
LikeLike
Leverage is the threat to take the whole Pac to the P12N’s. 25% of BCS FB and BB cutting out the middle man and marketing directly through cable, phone, and internet providers would seem a signifcant bit of leverage. The advantage of being a 100% conference owned network, that has held back a significant amount of tier 1 content for itself at startup.
LikeLike
Redwood:
Where would Texas wander to? By going to the Pac, they’re already rejecting the SEC and B10 (for their own reasons). What would change their mind? It’s not as if they’d get to play in Cali more if they joined the SEC or B10. As for growing interest, fans would still be more interested in teams they’d potentially meet in the championship game and regularly (if occasionally) in the same conference than if they were in a different conference. Note that both back when the SEC played 6 league games in a 10-team league and when they had 2 cross-over games, schools regularly would play 3(/4) schools only 2 times in 8 years. Other than the 2 cross-over games, SEC fans had as much reason to care about teams in the other division as fans in a Pac16 would, yet the SEC didn’t seem to suffer.
Plus, by consolidating, the market power of all conferences (but particularly the Pac) is improved. Also, deadweight (like ISU, Baylor, KSU, etc.) are shed. $X divided by 16 is a bigger number than $X divided by 22.
LikeLike
Serious doubts that Pitt would join the Big 12…
http://blogs.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/sports/pitt-redshirt-diaries/29387-about-this-big-12-stuff-and-some-notes
So if Pitt and BYU and Notre Dame and Arkansas and Ohio State won’t join the BIG 12, then it is rapidly boiling down to Houston / SMU / Tulsa / Air Force etc.
Is this level school palatable for Oklahoma and/or the television networks? I doubt it.
Maybe the Big 12 can get Texas to rejoin the Big 12.
LikeLike
@Patrick – Assuming that the Big 12 keeps Mizzou and isn’t raided beyond A&M, it’s probably BYU or bust for that conference. ESPN and Fox may very well give the Big 12 another contractual reprieve like it did last year – those networks care about UT and OU staying and as long as that’s the case, likely wouldn’t have any use for a Houston-type addition just for the sake of the conference getting back up to 10.
LikeLike
FtT:
If they do that again, what message can the B1G and SEC take? Effectively renegotiating raises with a conference as it shrinks? Yet not willing to for conferences that have increased inventory?
LikeLike
ccrider55, the Big Ten and SEC will grin and bear it (especially the Big Ten), because those conferences will get the full value of their additions when the contracts come up for renegotiation.
Nebraska’s full value is realized in the 2016 contract.
They’ll take the longterm view on this which is that they became stronger conferences for the long haul, and that will be reflected in the next set of contracts. No reason to complain.
LikeLike
ccrider:
Well, ESPN wants to prevent superconferences, so yes, the lesson they want the SEC and B10 (and Pac) to take is to not expand.
LikeLike
Pingback: Texas A&M Makes Big 12 Divorce Official » College Football Daily News - Get all your football news on one site
Adam Rittenberg, ESPN’s “far-too-good-for-that-place” B1G blogger has been at BT headquarters all day and seems to be very plugged in. -Anyhooooo, he said he doesn’t think the B1G intends to expand unless a home run comes knocking, and that begins and ends with Texas, ND, Oklahoma. Called Missouri and Maryland singles and doubles. OUCH.
Love the B1G championship trophy. The (crystal/silver) football on top is removable so they can all pass it around. Also, the winning teams colors will be reflected within the trophy when they award it.
LikeLike
That’s really neat about the colors. I was having video troubles and didn’t make that far into the presentation. My only complaint with it at all is that I don’t care for the “B1G” logo plastered all over the place. I don’t hate the logo completely, but really hope the conference comes up with some variant with the full name (and not the one originally released).
LikeLike
I like the logo so it doesn’t bother me, but I agree it is a bit too prominently displayed. They better hope it ages like a fine wine (and not some old ABA logo) or we may not be looking at the Stanley Cup.
LikeLike
Bingo. Unless there is a fire sale going on (admit it, you thought about Tobias Funke just now), the Big 10 has no reason to add middle of the road teams. They have four spots open, max. One or two of those aren’t going to singles or doubles unless 3-4 homers can be had.
The Big 10 wants a slugging % of 0.750. If that makes sense.
LikeLike
GreatLake:
I’d put FSU (and of course UF & UGa) in that category as well. Of course, those schools aren’t coming unless something else happens (ACC implodes or scandal down south becomes too pervasive for the tastes of the higher-brow Gators & Dawgs and an SEC school or 2 gets the death penalty).
LikeLike
OU is the glue that holds the Big 12 together. If OU leaves then we will see the fall of the Big 12. I still think OU/OkSU to the B1G is possible. Let me be the fisrt to say here and now the the B1G will never get ND to join. When the Death Star conferences start. The fourth DS with be the Big East with ND as it’s top dog. We need to look at other teams.
LikeLike
What happens to the Big 12 remnants in the event of an Oklahoma exodus to the Pac? (And by remnants, I mean likely Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas and Baylor, assuming Texas isn’t part of this.) If they can control rights to the Big 12 name and the BCS status that goes with it, they might be able to scrape up a reconstituted conference with members such as Boise State, UNLV, Houston, Southern Methodist, Memphis and a few others.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt they’d keep the BCS status (unless the power conferences decide that another BE is worth the price of placating the masses/politicians).
LikeLike
In that scenario, KU would certainly be welcome in the Big East, and KSU most likely would come with them. Not so sure about the Bear and ‘Clones, though. Possibly. Of course, the chances of the BEast getting through this one unscathed seem slim (TCU is joining the conference, after all), so maybe the Big 12 dregs pick off some BEast schools. There are a lot of ways this one could turn out, and it all depends on what the SEC decides to do. Unfortunately, we may have to wait a few months for the other shoe(s) to drop.
LikeLike
I think you need at least five members to have played each other for at least five years to be considered for AQ status. It may be more profitable for the remaining teams to stick together and collect exit fees than to jump ship.
LikeLike
If OU, OSU, TTU, UT, Mizzou and KU all decide to leave, they could just vote to dissolve the conference first.
LikeLike
Also, if they decided to hold the vote before July 1, 2012 then A&M could (and almost certainly would) join them.
LikeLike
It might make more political sense to pay the remaining Big 12 schools a modest amount to keep the conference technically in business, so they could expand and take in some newcomers, rather than leave them high and dry, with the very likely possibility they would have no BCS conference to turn to.
LikeLike
Penn State to the SEC!!!
LikeLike
So, when the B1G is in expansion mode the ACC targets are realistic and, for the most part, viable. The archives are full of FtheT analysis discussing Maryland, UNC, Duke and Virginia. Yet when the SEC is in the market to expand, the ACC is locked down tight.
LikeLike
The ACC schools snobbery/culture (depending on your perspective, I think both are accurate) would make them more open to the Big Ten than the SEC, but I don’t think (and definitely don’t hope) they are going anywhere regardless.
LikeLike
@FranktheAg – I’ve been pretty consistent that I don’t believe ACC schools are realistically attainable for the Big Ten (or anyone else). I spoke with connected people last year that said the Big Ten certainly had ACC schools on its wish list as targets. However, I don’t buy that the any of the 4 core ACC schools (MD/UVA/Duke/UNC) would move to the Big Ten unless there was a complete Armageddon situation.
LikeLike
Maryland would leave for the Big Ten on its own because its ties to the ACC are weaker than UVa’s, UNC’s or Duke’s; it’s in a state/metro area that already has plenty of Big Ten alums and fans; and because it needs a stronger football brand more than the other three “ACC core four” do.
LikeLike
Likely true. The problem is that Maryland really doesn’t contribute enough in athletic revenue (and that matters even more in the B10 than other conferences because of the high level of revenue-sharing, including ticket sales), so the chances of the B10 taking them without a king are pretty much nil. If a king does come along (ND, FSU, OU, or Texas), they’d likely want someone other than Maryland (B10 may as well).
LikeLike
FranktheAg; I don’t think anyone here has more than suggested that the ACC schools are on the Big Ten’s wishlist at best.
They’re as realistically attainable as Notre Dame right now for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yep. The SEC would have to do the dirty deed and take an ACC school first. It’s not going to happen this year, though 2-3 years from now may be a different story.
LikeLike
If OU/OSU/TT/4th team goes west and the Big 12 dissolves, can Nebraska and Colorado sue to get their money back since the league only lasted 1 or 2 more years?
LikeLike
It was revenue withheld as a part of a settlement; short answer is no.
LikeLike
I love this blog. Great comments.
LikeLike
Virginia Tech isn’t leaving the ACC for the SEC because we’re happy in the ACC, not because the politicians in Richmond would stop us from moving to another conference. VT’s pull in the Virginia General Assembly got us in the ACC and it would get us into the SEC if we wanted to go.
BTW, the University of Virginia was NOT a founding member of the ACC. The ACC was founded in 1953; UVA joined in 1954. Also, UVA being founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1818 does NOT make them Virginia Tech’s “Big Brother”–LOL! VT is much larger than UVA with a better football program and a much better fan base. If there is a “Big Brother” in the state of Virginia, it’s VT not UVA!
LikeLike
Er, the “big brother” comment doesn’t refer to football status; no one here doubts that Va Tech has the better football program and football brand. It just refers to the flagship state university. That clearly is the University of Virginia.
It’s not meant to denigrate Va Tech.
LikeLike
Virginia is a strange state in that it has three main universities, all are public and all are completely, totally, and utterly different:
UVA
W&M
VT
LikeLike
I might add that the three are also independent of one another. There is no “University of Virginia System” of colleges as there appears to be with UNC in North Carolina. UVA does have a branch college in Wise, Virginia but that’s it as far as I know. Thus the University of Virginia is the “flagship” school of the state in name only.
What I object to is the writer’s assertion that Va. Tech couldn’t leave the ACC for the SEC because UVA would stop us if we tried. I suppose if UVA felt that VT leaving for SEC would severely harm their interests, they might try to stop us through the Virginia General Assembly. But remember, Virginia Tech has a far larger alumni and fan base in the state than UVA, and politicians tend to listen to the voters. The reason VT is staying in the ACC is because we WANT to stay!
LikeLike
Don’t forget VCU, the largest university in Virginia.
LikeLike
Yes, VCU and ODU and JMU too. I didn’t mention them because they’re not well known outside of Virginia.
The three that I listed are known nationally, especially UVA and William & Mary
LikeLike
Virginia has a bunch of urban schools in addition to their 3 “top” schools (in prestige, not size). JMU perhaps not really urban.
LikeLike
George Mason is a hair larger than VCU, by the by.
LikeLike
I believe the largest university in Virginia is George Mason University. The original CAA team to make it to the Final Four.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
It seems to me that WV is the SEC #14 favorite based on the fact that they were almost invited in the last expansion.
If Mizzou stays, the big 12 could add Houston/SMU to try and hold it together a little longer.
If Mizzou is the SEC #14, then I see OU & OKst to the PAC. I could see this happening even if Mizzou isn’t selected. OU/OKst fans are now where A&M fans were a year ago. The LHN was trying to add another Big 12 confernece game to their linup and targeted OKst, and this has really burned some bridges. I think UT has some polical pressure to keep TT in a major conference and can’t leave them behind, possibly forcing them to the PAC 16.
If the SEC really wants the texas TV market, do they possibly consider TCU? LSU and ARK are already playing games in Dallas.
LikeLike
Chip Brown’s been right on certain things and had some details a bit less than perfect on other things.
This Pitt talk though to me, at least right now seems like the same kinds of things a lot of people were guessing about ND and the Big Ten last year.
At the end of the day, I don’t think you just expand for the sake of “spooking” ND. I don’t think the Big 12 will do that either, especially with the SEC looking at a year or two with 13 teams.
There are just too many dominoes that have to fall in order for those things to all go right, and there’s not really any reason for that many dominoes to fall if OU remains committed to the Big 12.
LikeLike
It sounds like he’s getting mouth pieced on this one. The OU faithful are seriously considering an exit. Names like Pitt, WVU and BYU instill confidence. Names like Houston, SMU and Air Force do not.
This conference hinges on OU’s decision making. Austin wants OU to stay. Therefore, Chip is getting info that would influence them to stay.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has no reason to move unless unless OU&TX join the PAC. People seem to forget how close UT was to joing the PAC last year, days away. What kept them from going and how has that changed since last year is the question.
1. The political pressure not to break away from A&M. Not a factor anymore.
2. Political pressure regarding Baylor being left behind. There was some talk of Baylor being the fifth team to the PAC when only CU had joined. This was obviously not going to fly with the PAC and that door was shut with the addittion of Utah.
3. ESPN shored up the conference with money by not reducing their TV contract payout despite the conference losing two teams. This was in ESPN’s best interest at the time to keep from having to renegotiate the SEC contract. Now that seems bound to happen.
The other new wrinkle since then is the new revenue from the LHN. Will they have to or be willing to give this up to join the PAC? How solid is the LHN now? The LHN seemed like they planned to pay the bill by adding conference games to the network and adding HS football games. The HS football games shot down by the NCAA and no significant carriers have picked up the station days away from the only football game that will be shown on the channel this year. Looks a bit shakey to me.
I think we see UT/OU/OKst/TT to the PAC in the very near future.
LikeLike
If I were the SEC, do I necessarily want to add “great” football teams such as OU and FSU? Yes they want to protect their brand as the toughest conference, but at the same time I would assume the big players in the SEC would have issues with that.
I think the Slive realized his TV deal was undervalued. Looking to open the door for renegotiation they expand. There is debate about whether expansion open the contract for renegotiation. Does adding one team open that door? Maybe, Two teams? Probably, Four teams? Most likely. I think the attibutes in teams they are looking for are good football schools (not great), geographic/cultural fit, and good TV markets. If it takes two teams to open the door for renegotiations, I see it as A&M and WV. If it takes four teams, I see A&M and TCU to the west and WV and Mizzou to the East.
LikeLike
Kirk Bohls of the Austin Statesman predicts that Oklahoma will lead the charge to the Pac-16 and Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State will follow:
“Should Oklahoma act upon its earnest desires and seek an invitation to join the Pacific-12 Conference — something I’m fully expecting to happen within days, if not hours — that decision could well be the killing blow to the Big 12 while also providing Texas the political cover to follow suit and ask for admission as well. . . ”
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/one-more-move-and-big-12-is-over-1809134.html
LikeLike
RedHawk thinks so But I trust RedHawk’s opinion more than Bohl’s on this. Bohl’s talks about OU wanting to go last year to the Pac. Every indication is that OU was dragged along reluctantly last year and was the school most committed to the Big 12.
The Big 12 just makes so much more sense to these schools than going all the way to the Pac or B1G. And there would be a number of schools left behind. I don’t see how Iowa State, a solid program, makes any of the “superconferences” unless there is a “negotiated surrender” of the Big 12 with the schools parcelled out. With A&M already out the door, that unlikely scenario is even less likely as there’s not enough left to entice the SEC/B1G/Pac all to cooperate. Kansas State has little chance. Baylor’s only chance would be as a tag-along.
LikeLike
I can see where Oklahoma would find joining the Pac 16 to be a very advantageous move. If OU’s leadership feels that 16-team super confrences are the wave of the future in college athletics, then going to the Pac 12 is arguably their best possible option.
With Texas Tech and Texas in the Pac 16 East, Oklahoma would have enough of a presence wthin the state to maintain its ties with the Texas high schools and the recruits from the state. If you subscribe to the belief that becoming a member of a conference that includes teams on the west coast will open up recruiting in those areas, then OU would have a foot in another high school recruiting hotbed in California.
Oklahoma would certainly remain as competitive in the Pac 16 East as they would be in the present Big XII. I assume they’ll have seven games against the teams in their division plus two with the teams in the Pac 16 West. Add a conference championship game plus the opportunity to have an attractive non-conference schedule and OU would be in as good position to win the Pac 16 and get into the BCS bowl/championship game as they had in the “old” Big XII.
I can’t imagine the OU fans will miss playing Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State. I wouldn’t say the same about Texas A&M or Missouri, but look at the teams “replacing them”: Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah from the east (Colorado is an old member of the Big XII) plus a nice lineup of school from the old Pac 8: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon. Overall, I’d say that’s not a nice upgrade.
Finally, the Pac 16 does have arguably the most dynamic conference commissioner in collegiate sports in Larry Scott. When you compare his leadership and vision with Don Beebe, you can see why Oklahoma would want to become a member of the Pac 16.
LikeLike
Wow, there’s some major historical revisionism going on in that Bohls article.
OU didn’t want to go to the PAC last year…OU wanted to stay. It was UT that wanted to go. The entire thing was Doss and Scott. The Big12 was saved when ESPN came in a promised the schools riches cause they uniquely owned their 3rd tier rights. AND they promised everyone would benefit and get huge payouts, OU, A&M, even the 7 dwarfs…but only UT got paid
Not only did UT get paid, they started to agree to play nice with the rest and go by their rules, then completely ignore the league. (see 1 Conf. Football game, no high school CONTENT of any kind)
It doesn’t take a genius to know it’s time to look for a better home. For OU the options are limited, IF they want to take OSU along, the only real home is the PAC. I’m not sure OU really wants that NOW. They just want to be in a conference where it’s not run by Texas and for Texas.
If the B1G would offer OU, Missouri, Kansas and OSU we’d go there.
and thanks Bullet!
LikeLike
I think realistically the best deal OU could hope for from the B1G would be to bring Mizzou with them. I can’t see a scenario in which the B1G Presidents would take an oSu or a Texas Tech.
But if I had to guess, I’d think the Delaney would prefer to pair OU with an eastern addition.
LikeLike
I agree Mike in STL
it’s why OU isn’t going to the B!G and why we haven’t heard that even rumored, since it was reported OU and 3 others inquired and were rebuffed.
I was just saying as an OU alum and fan, that would be my wish.
LikeLike
Is it really that important? You sacrificed Nebraska’s annual game to go play with Texas, but you’re dead set on playing OSU and UT every year?
I don’t think the PAC-12 is really all that desirable, especially if they go through with the PAC-8/Others divisions. That arrangement screams instability to me.
LikeLike
I’m very skeptical of the whole “super conference” idea. Someone may try it, but like the WAC before they’re going to find a 16+ team conference to be very unstable. This won’t be due to pods, or travel requirements or any of the other reasons given for the demise of the “Super WAC” but simply because teams in a large conference have more “exit” options.
If you’re in, say, a 12 team conference and you want to leave the biggest obstacle is having a place to land. If no other comparable conference wants to pick you up your options are a) go independent, which realistically only a handfull of teams could reasonably attempt, b) go to a lesser conference (which is just dumb, no one’s going to cut off their revenue to spite UT) or c) sit tight and try to work out your issues with the other conference members. aTm wouldn’t be leaving the Big IIX (and still may not) if the SEC (or the Pac12 or B1G etc) didn’t want them. Thus, the major conferences have been fairly stable.
However, get to 16 teams and you have a hell of a lot more options. Let’s assume that the PAC12 goes PAC16 with the addition of UT/OU/OSU/TTech. Sure, they’d probably get a good TV contract and everyone would play happy-family for a few seasons, but at some point the same BS that one feels in a conference of 12 teams will creep back in, along with the program’s diluted voting power in the conference, more conference programs to squabble with, etc that comes with more teams. Now, though, the alpha dogs in the conference have a new exit option: we’ll leave en mass and form a new conference. How long would it take for USC, UCLA, UT, OU, + the four strongest of the remaining teams to figure out that, since they’re the marquee teams, if they split off and formed the “New PAC(ish)-8” that they’d be taking most of the value of the PAC16 with them, but now only have to share it with half the teams. Plus, you don’t have to put up with the peons at the lesser schools, making the administration of the conference much easier. You also may have enough star power and room for growth that you can pinch some big names from other conferences (or ND).
Added to that you didn’t screw the other teams: “Hey, we left you with the PAC-16, we didn’t kick you out of anything”. The downside?
1) NewPAC(ish)-8 lose the Rose Bowl, at least at the beginning. Not a huge loss as the BSC has diminished that over the last decade anyway, and I assume the Rose Bowl would, as soon as they legally could, replace the PAC-16/2 with the NewPAC(ish)-8.
2) Assuming the NewPAC(ish)-8 couldn’t somehow finagle the BCS AQ to come along with you they will have lost their automatic bid to January Madness and some of the cash that comes with it. I’d argue that wouldn’t be that huge of a hit as odds are the winner of the NewPAC(ish)-8 will grab the non-BCS conference invite ever year in the first few years. And you can bet the BSC would start changing by-lays very quickly to get the NP(i)-8 back in the fold ASAP. They’re not dumb, they’ll follow the money.
So, basically any conference that reaches 16 teams will do EXACTLY what the MWC did. The cream will leave and start poaching good teams from other conferences. Except instead of it being among a few mid-major conferences it will be among the big boys. Then things will get really interesting.
LikeLike
From a VT board,
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2011/july/27/vt-joining-sec
note cartoon with homer simpson, I think they get it
LikeLike
Sorry if this has already been posted
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576542833386182742.html#articleTabs=article
WSJ now writing about conference realignment
LikeLike
I sure hate being right all the time. Kinda makes things boring………
SO……no ACC teams to the BIG or SEC…….
Either MO or WVU as the 14th SEC team……
BIG to do nothing, at least until ’14 or ’15 in anticipation of new contract. Possibly/probably nothing then either…Still hope they take Rutgers and MO(if still available) then…
ND won’t be “forced” to do anything, whatever happens in expansion…
PAC 12 and ACC the wild cards…blowing up the 12 and BE, or not? The trio of U Conn, Syracuse, and Pitt have always looked like ACC schools…….
LikeLike
I think what protects the Big East from the ACC is the ACC’s fear of ND’s wild card.
The ACC can hold together at 12 fairly strongly since the major schools (FSU, Va Tech, UNC) are likely to rebuff advances from other leagues, whether the Big Ten or SEC.
The reason why the ACC is unlikely to go beyond 12 is mainly financial, but as a secondary concern, they don’t want to blow up the Big East, which may send ND to the Big Ten and result in a Big Ten raid for 1-3 of their schools to pair with ND.
I think the action in the East (ACC/Big East/Big Ten/SEC) is mostly at a standstill unless the Big Ten or SEC wants Big East teams.
LikeLike
Zeek:
I don’t think a raid of the BE does anything. The action in the East is at a standstill unless/until an ACC school defects.
LikeLike
shroom,
Not saying you are right or wrong, but the next action may have nothing to do with the BE / ACC / B1G / SEC at all. I think the next move will come from Larry Scott and the PAC! The SEC breaks 13 if they add TAMU, and can stop for awhile. The bigger question is if Scott will use this as a window to go after OU + oSu? OU would be a great add for a conference that has academics and eyeballs but needs brands. If he does get the 2 schools he can stop at 14, and wait to fill the last 2 slots. This means 2 out of the Big 3 have passed the 13 barrier, and there will be no putting the cow back in the barn.
Delany can wait for # 13
Slive can wait for # 14
Scott can wait for # 15
Swofford, Marinatto, Beebe will just have to wait till the top teams in their conferences decide to jump before they get left behind in a sinking ship. Either earlier in this thread or in the last one bullet listed the composition of conferences by flagship institutions and you can easily see the haves and the have nots.
LikeLike
@Duffman,
OU and OkSt aren’t going to the PAC alone. hell, given that choice, the Big12 just adds Houston and goes on limping along with UT running the league and doing what ever they please.
LikeLike
Agree that OK and OK ST wouldn’t likely go to the PAC alone……..
LikeLike
It makes sense for the Pac to offer OU and OkSt alone while waiting for UT to make up teir mind, but not for OU and OkSt to accept as the only 2 additions.
The reason to extend to OU only first IS to force UT to a decsion though. With OK schools gone and MO potentially to SEC (in addition torecent defectors aTm, Neb, and CO), the UTen is certain to fall apart. They will be forced to make a call – if they go indy then the Pac picks up a TT/KS type 15 and 16. Or UT decides to give up the LHN dream and joing the Pac. OU and UT have only been in a conference together, what – 15 years? They can survive without each other. I like OU to the Pac
LikeLike
That would be Scott’s reasoning behind bringing in Oklahoma and Okie State — put the pressure on Texas, especially if Texas Tech was brought in at #15 as well. If Texas says no, it’s either forced into independence — leaving the rest of its athletic program in chaos — or to a Big 12 on life support scrambling for any candidates to fill a quorum, while Missouri (a Pac fallback option) takes UT’s place.
LikeLike
Mushroom:
I have to admit that I don’t understand your longing to take schools that have so little brand that their athletic departments generate less revenue than either Minny or IU, attract below the B10 average attendance in football (meaning they would be a net drain in gate revenue sharing), aren’t in growing parts of the country, and (in the case of Mizzou) are academically inferior to boot.
Again, the B10 has no need to expand just for the sake of expansion, and it certainly has no need to expand in order to be a weaker conference.
Unless the B10 can get a king (OU, Texas, ND, or FSU), it shouldn’t and won’t take a school that is below the B10 average in attractiveness, and then only if the academics are B10-average or above. Unless it can get a king or UNC+Duke, the B10 shouldn’t expand at all.
LikeLike
Comments from Birmingham:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/now_come_the_hard_questions_fo.html
LikeLike
Kickoff Tonight!!!!
Who will you watch tonight when the season opens?
6:00 PM ET Murray State at Louisville
7:00 PM ET Villanova at Temple
7:00 PM ET South Carolina State at Central Michigan
7:00 PM ET North Texas at Florida International
7:00 PM ET New Hampshire at Toledo
Postponed Fordham at Connecticut
7:30 PM ET Western Carolina at Georgia Tech
7:30 PM ET North Carolina Central at Rutgers
8:00 PM ET UNLV at No. 11 Wisconsin
8:00 PM ET No. 20 Mississippi State at Memphis
8:00 PM ET Wake Forest at Syracuse
8:00 PM ET Montana State at Utah
9:00 PM ET Bowling Green at Idaho
9:15 PM ET Kentucky vs. Western Kentucky*
10:00 PM ET UC Davis at Arizona State
I was thinking badgers, and flipping between WF vs SU if it is a close game
LikeLike
@duffman – The Wisconsin game is definitely the most interesting one for me.
LikeLike
If you like blowouts, I guess. A lot of those other games will be more entertaining to watch.
LikeLike
I’m looking forward to seeing Russell Wilson suiting up for the Badgers. Also, Wisconsin inexplicably struggles in OOC games. Last year, UNLV was a 3-pt game at the half. Wisconsin only beat Arizona State by a missed XP at home. Two years ago, Fresno State took them to OT, and Northern Illinois was only a one score game. Three years ago, Fresno State was a 3-pt game, and 1-AA Cal Poly was an embarrassing 1-pt OT victory. If I wasn’t a Michigan fan, I would laugh at them.
LikeLike
Frank,
Looks like I was right about the WF vs SU game, close indeed!
Badger fans,
looking good out of the box, good luck on the season.
LikeLike
like all of NY, I’ll be watching Rutgers! can’t get enough.
LikeLike
Love your smart a$$ reply so much, I’m adding.
LikeLike
duffman,
According to my local listings, these are my choices:
8:00 PM ET Central Oklahoma at North Alabama
8:00 PM ET UNLV at No. 11 Wisconsin
8:00 PM ET No. 20 Mississippi State at Memphis
I’ll go WI and watch Russell Wilson, and flip over to MS St/Memphis during commercials.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Pingback: Pitt Blather Permalink » Expansiopocolypse Intrudes Into the Season
Simple question: Does Texas really find it worth risking the Big 12’s existence and having a safe “back up” conference options (Pac-12, Big Ten) just so it can have the Longhorn Network?
Let’s face it, Texas has few options outside the Big 12. The SEC would take them, but Texas doesn’t want the SEC. There’s no freaking way that Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, and Michigan would permit a new member to have their own network when they’re not allowed to have one for themselves. Thus the Big Ten isn’t an option. Same goes for the Pac-12.
What’s that leave? The ACC, which shares all media rights and would have to change its bylaws in order to allow Texas in? The Big East, which might be the only league to allow for football independence?
Someone help me out here and explain why Texas seems to be okay with having a network that is quickly splintering the one conference that could give it what it most wants. Their network has driven away Texas A&M, whose departure may drive away Oklahoma, whose departure would end the conference. Is this what Texas wants?
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh
I, too, have found Texas’ behavior to be weird. Why are they destroying the B12 and their chances at any other conference for only $11M a year? I’ve come to believe that their goal is independence and this is the way they think it can happen. Which is why BYU and ND are their best friends and OU is finally leaving them.
LikeLike
But if they go independent in football, where do they put the rest of their sports? The Big East? The Southland Conference?
You know, that Big East idea might have some merit, with the way UT and ND have been making eyes at each other lately. And it would be kind of fun getting to play the Longhorns in baseball every year.
LikeLike
UT probably thinks the LHN is worth the risk because they are betting OU will stick with them, but they may crap out. If they defiantly continue with the insistence of the LHN in the face of all their Big 12-2-1 bretheren, then independence may have been the goal all along.
If that is the case, I bet that they go indy in football while they leave their other sports in some sort of Mtn West/Big12-most everyone that matters leftover conference. That new hybrid conference will still take UTs non football sports because they are still Texas and can still help with bringing in $$ for Basketball (and baseball?).
LikeLike
I think you’re making the wrong assumption that a network splinters the conference.
SEC schools have the rights to networks and that conference isn’t splintering.
The assumption that Texas is wedded to the Longhorn network is also an incorrect assumption. Texas has an asset and has a fiduciary obligation not to just give it away because Aggies are throwing another temper tantrum (like they did when UT and OU said they weren’t going to take the have-nots share of exit fees and the Aggies insisted on taking money from the “poor”). As Dodds said last summer, the LHN isn’t essential, but he had an asset and wasn’t going to give it away without getting value in return.
Another incorrect assumption is that its Texas or its network driving the Aggies away. Its the Aggies driving themselves away, either because they believe being in the SEC would be better for their football program or just because their inferiority complex is driving them to get away from Texas. Its not really about Texas. Dodds and other conference members tried to talk to A&M to see if they could allay their concerns, but A&M refused to take meetings with anyone. There was a Houston Chronicle article about this with a thinly veiled reference to its source Drayton McLane, Astros owner and Baylor grad. Their mind was made up.
I also think you’re wrong about the limited options. The LHN couldn’t exist indefinitely in its current form in the Big 10 or Pac, but it could be folded in over time.
I think the big concern to everyone is really the ESPN connection. But with Fox having 2nd tier rights, that really limits what ESPN can do to favor its network at the possible expense of other Big 12 schools. Fox has to agree to anything. If people calm down, they might begin to understand that.
If UT were to somehow agree to a Big 12 conference network, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
The Big 12 is splintering because CU fit better on the west coast, Delany announced the B1G with its $ and prestige was inviting new members to its party and Nebraska realized it had a better place to go and because the Aggies are….Aggies.
LikeLike
I’d never argue that A&M’s stubbornness hasn’t been part of the problem, but really, Bullet? There’s no culpability whatsoever on Texas’ part?
I don’t argue that a network splinters a conference. But the SEC schools don’t attempt to air SEC games or high school games on their networks. The SEC schools don’t sign contracts with ESPN that say they’ll try any means necessary to air such games, and then turn around and state publicly that ESPN alone is who is pushing for those games. The SEC schools don’t have any AD’s saying they’ve personally made a list of 20 schools that they’d personally invite to the conference, implying the other members’ input is irrelevant.
I’m not saying it’s all Texas’ fault, but I don’t buy it that it isn’t Texas’ fault at all.
LikeLike
SEC schools are allowed to withhold games for networks. They actually have more rights than Big 12 schools.
I think the HS bit is really ESPN’s way to sell the network to other than Longhorn fans. UT is cooperating as the UIL is part of UT, but its really ESPN pushing that. Its the ESPN official’s comment about airing Longhorn recruits games that really set everyone off. And the reality is that they can’t do anything without NCAA approval, so its really a non-issue.
I don’t think UT or ESPN understood how the ESPN connection would alarm people. If that part is UT’s fault, then sure, UT is culpable. As for anything else, its easy. UT and LHN don’t have rights to B12 games-Just say no. The other Big 12 schools can do that. Texas Tech apparently already did.
Dodds IS throwing his weight around a little on realignment with his statements. And A&M did resent that UT and OU were talking to the Pac 10 on their behalf (and if that is why they are making their decision, the President and AD should be fired and tarred and feathered). But mostly, he’s publically saying what everyone else is doing. Every competent AD is constantly evaluating his school’s options. If his comments slow down Slive and Delany, that’s to the benefit of his KSU alma mater and ISU and Baylor. And UT and OU weren’t trying to leave Ok St. and Tech behind.
LikeLike
Some more great post bullet.
I really don’t understand how all of this is UT fault and TAM is a victim. UT has done everything in their power to take care of TAM and yet they are the bad guys. The whole LHN saga is a joke yeah its UT fault that ESPN paid 5 times as much as everyone thought including UT for the rights. They made no secret that they wanted to set up this network and they even offered up a slot to TAM.
Now look at the actions of TAM. They made this decision at the beggining of a school year, FY and college football season when these issues are the types of decisions everyone else wants to make in the spring and early summer. They rushed head first to the SEC when they did not have the heads up they are in or have done any due dilligence needed to exist the Big 12. They have no idea on how much money they are going to make with this move. They have leaked so much crap in the last month that it might have killed any chance the SEC had of finding a 14th team they actually wanted. They seem hell bent on burning every bridge they cross by trying to avoid and actually avoiding meetings with different Big 12 schools and state politicos.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Does it always look like sunset with those orange colored glasses on?
LikeLike
There’s a bumper sticker:
If God wasn’t a Longhorn, why are the sunsets always burnt orange?
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
Simple question: Does Texas really find it worth risking the Big 12′s existence and having a safe “back up” conference options (Pac-12, Big Ten) just so it can have the Longhorn Network?
Yes.
Someone help me out here and explain why Texas seems to be okay with having a network that is quickly splintering the one conference that could give it what it most wants.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LikeLike
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/52495048-77/byu-conference-officials-football.html.csp
The most interesting thing about this article is who was at the meeting.
If ESPN is pulling strings, then the Big 12 will stay intact at 10 teams with BYU. The last thing they want is a large scale defection to the Pac 1X. They made large scale concessions last year to prevent this very thing.
LikeLike
If Brigham Young says no despite ESPN’s pressure, does that boost the chances of a OU-Okie State-Texas-Texas Tech Pac defection?
LikeLike
I’d say yes, generally. If you think about it, OU is in the driver’s seat (the conference lives or dies based upon if they stay or go). If it looks like they aren’t going to get a good replacement university (SMU, Houston, Air Force), why would they stay?
LikeLike
I don’t think ESPN can pull the strings, legally. At most they can comment on what adjustments they’d be willing to consider in their contracts with BYU and the B12. Fox would have to also chime in if BYU demanded concessions.
Most interesting to me is that ND was involved. Maybe this is part of UT’s national conference in which the league stays small and some members play a limited schedule (4-6 games), with the highest winning percentage getting the BCS bid. That could have UT, ND, BYU and OU (assuming they stay) all play each other, plus 1-5 games against the KU, KSU, ISU, OkSU, TT and Baylors of the world.
ND could have 8 OOC games (play the other 3 plus 1 floater) to play MI, MSU, PU, USC, Stanford and Navy plus two others (BC, GT, etc). UT could play the other 3, plus TT, Baylor and 1-3 games that rotate through the others. Similarly, OU would play the 3 plus OkSU and some floaters. BYU would play a full slate of 8 games, or even all 9. The remnants (BU, TT, OkSU, ISU, KU, KSU) would play a full round robin amongst themselves, plus however many of the powers they get.
LikeLike
What’s even the point of a conference then? Seriously, I want to know.
LikeLike
For sports other than football and filling scheduling holes in October and November.
LikeLike
And an auto-bid to the BCS if you do well.
LikeLike
@Bullet – a four team conference doesn’t really help, does it?
@Brian – Notre Dame already has an easy path to the BCS, they’re just bad at football.
LikeLike
metatron5369,
1. It’s not a 4 team conference. It’s 9 or 10 teams. That’s helpful for hoops and other sports.
2. ND isn’t the only team involved, but they could lock in a southern and mountain team every year and not have to play the lesser team much. They largely stay independent (8 OOC games), though with the addition of an autobid to the BCS if they play really well. I still don’t think they’d do it unless the BE implodes, since they’d rather park their other sports in the east.
UT and OU would also get a lot of freedom while having some important games locked.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what it would look like, but the heavy hitters would almost certainly want flexibility if they signed on. I’m talking ‘Incorporated in the State of Delaware’ flexibility.
I’m not certain if the have nots would agree to such a two tiered system. Sending an equal revenue share out to UT, BYU, ND and OU for a few conference games a year probably wouldn’t fly. However, everything is negotiable.
LikeLike
Can ESPN keep/induce OU from jumping the B12 ship? That’s really the key question.
LikeLike
Chip Brown reports on the Big 12’s candidates and future. There are a lot of moving pieces, but the Big 12’s competitive advantage seems to be its ‘free-market’ mentality:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695
If they can sign on enough big names, then they can prevent a full collapse. If they strike out swinging, it looks like there will be a move west.
LikeLike
p.s. Chip Brown may want to ask his sources if Texas gets $15M a year or $11M a year. He may be surprised.
LikeLike
The amount is $15M. IMG gets approximately 15% of that because they already paid Texas for some of those rights. So $15M is not inaccurate.
LikeLike
I’m sure OU and the other schools have 3rd tier deals. To report them as pulling in $15M “more than any other school” is inaccurate.
LikeLike
So Texas receives $11M net from ESPN. I don’t that’s an inaccurate description.
LikeLike
UT will get $12.375 million net from ESPN average over 20 years ($247.5/$300.0 million) and they have a contract with ESPN that pays an average of $15 million million a year are both accurate statements. Chip was right that UT gets $15 million-although saying “more” is not really accurate. But he wasn’t quoting contract terms.
LikeLike
Because Pitt is so far east of everyone else, does Pitt make sense to anyone as a stand alone #10? BYU is far away, but they are never getting in the Pac and are somewhat isolated now. And a western school just seems to fit better than an eastern rust belt school. The rivalries would seem to work better for BYU than Pitt.
Also, does anyone else believe the SEC talk about not wanting to break up the Big 12? They had no problem ensuring the eventual breakup of the SWC. Taking A&M may well lead to the eventual breakup of the Big 12. The only reason I would believe the SEC would be concerned about the Big 12 would be simply that they don’t want the Pac and B1G to benefit.
LikeLike
If you saw what I wrote above about Pitt, the idea that grabbing Pitt along with the SEC’s domino effect of grabbing a #14 from the ACC or Big East will lead to ND choosing to join the Big 12 is kind of ridiculous.
A lot of us here who are from Big Ten schools were thinking the same thing, but at a certain point the notion is just ridiculous.
No one is going to smoke ND out; the Big Ten would have been foolish to try last year (even though it probably seemed to through the media). The Big 12 is doing the same thing, but actually pulling the trigger is different from saying “we might raid the Big East (to smoke ND out)”…
LikeLike
Eliminating the potential ND effect, does it make sense?
LikeLike
The more I think about it, it might actually be the best obtainable choice other than BYU. What you said about BYU holds, I think they’d probably be the best standalone choice, but they might be more interested in trying out independence if they can’t get a “Texas/Oklahoma” guarantee.
As for the choices behind BYU, I think only Louisville or Pitt really make sense if the Big 12 has to find an option to go back up to 10.
Houston/SMU don’t really make sense. UNLV/UN-Reno are worth considering, but Louisville and Pitt would both create more compelling matchups and bring basketball value as well.
If we’re looking at TV and markets and the matchups you get, I think Pitt might end up being almost as compelling as BYU considering that Oklahoma-Pitt or Texas-Pitt matchups would probably drive ratings as well as any other option.
As for the other half of the equation, you end up looking at whether it works for Pitt. While there might be a bit of a bump as compared to the Big East’s paycheck, I think it’ll center more around whether Pitt thinks that they’ll have a back up option if the Big 12 implodes. Right now, Pitt just has to win the Big East to be guaranteed a BCS bowl. Going through Texas and Oklahoma as well as the distance involved might make that a lot less attractive as an option. Of course, they’ll also have to think that the SEC is at #13 and might be looking at WVU for #14.
The other thing though, is that right now Pitt can just stay in the Big East and wait for the ACC. If the Big 12 does end up imploding soon, they may not have a landing spot if the ACC isn’t willing to push beyond 12 and the Big East doesn’t take them back.
But if you’re asking whether it makes sense from a TV standpoint. If I’m ESPN/FOX, I’d probably put Pitt right behind BYU in terms of attractive and potentially available options.
LikeLike
It might seem rather absurd, but a Pittsburgh/West Virginia/Texas A&M/Missouri SEC expansion could work. If you’re a Pitt administrator and you had your choice between going to a Big 12 whose future no one is sure of or teaming with your closest rival into one of the nation’s most profitable conferences, the choice is self-evident.
That move would also castrate the Big East as a football conference, with the ACC taking in a few survivors to set itself up as the last of the “big four” conferences.
LikeLike
Chip Brown doesn’t consider that if the SEC deals the ACC a death blow, the B10 would likely be going south as well.
LikeLike
For Texas, let’s do a hypothetical “SWC-Texas Nine Challenge” in terms of desirability of opponents:
Oklahoma v Oklahoma, draw
Missouri v A&M, A&M wins
Oklahoma State v Arkansas, Arkansas wins
Kansas State v TCU, TCU wins (at least the current version of TCU)
Texas Tech v Texas Tech, draw
Kansas v Houston, Houston wins
Iowa State v SMU, leaning SMU
Baylor v Baylor, draw
Rice v Rice, draw
In net, Texas will have decreased the quality of their opponents at every slot .
LikeLike
TCU long run and SMU I would disagree with. And for bb, KS would also be better.
This same challenge could be applied to an SEC 14 vs. and SEC 12 and the SEC would do worse. That’s the problem with the de-regionalization of conferences.
LikeLike
The Big 12 with 12 was a big step up from the SWC and that’s reflected by the stadium being 25% bigger and ticket prices quadrupling in the last 15 years.
OU
A&M
Tech
Baylor
all the same
UNL/CU vs. UH better
ISU/KU vs. SMU better
MU/KSU vs. TCU better
Ok St vs. Rice better except for halftime
LikeLike
I actually agree with what you’re saying. And I think it’s the problem with going beyond 12 without the right teams.
Look at the Big Ten for example, you have two kings in each division along with an upper/middle tier brand (Wisconsin/Iowa).
Further expansion really has to bring in another king to create as many compelling matchups as you had before, even without considering the move to 9 conference games.
If I’m Northwestern (or anyone in the “West” division), I want to see Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Penn State more and not less. That’s the main problem I have with the scenarios that get to 14 with say Missouri and Rutgers.
Both are fine schools, but they dilute the matchups. You end up with less games against the top brands since you’re switching a crossover game to Missouri (or Rutgers if you’re in the “East”), and only have 2 rotating among the rest of other division (if you keep one protected), of which those 2 games will hit the big brands less…
LikeLike
If ND is #13, that’s no problem for them, but #14 would almost certainly diminish quality. That’s where a Pitt might grow into a rival even without adding TV$, while a Maryland or Rutgers might not.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think as a pair though, quality ends up going up if it’s ND-Pitt or ND-Rutgers as 13-14.
You end up with a division with 3 kings, whereas the other division has 2 kings + Iowa/Wisconsin in all likelihood. The likelihood of playing those teams would end up probably remaining similar to what it was before; similar enough to justify expansion.
LikeLike
I want the push to 16 team conferences begin with the Pac 16. Hopefully this will spur Notre Dame to join the B1G with Miami as team #14 (Yes, I still see value in Miami and don’t care about their current issues). Resulting divisions would be as follows:
Leaders:
Penn State
Ohio State
Notre Dame
Miami
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Legends:
Michegan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Northwestern
Plenty of “Brands,” as Patrick would like, plenty of compelling matchups.
LikeLike
You sure do read some crazy things on here……….
LikeLike
I like the brand argument but I don’t think the BIG Ten would take in a Miami program that may get severe penalties, and I doubt Notre Dame does anything in the short term.
Medium to Long term – Notre Dame may have a change of heart or conditions may warrant them moving but I doubt it now.
I don’t know much about the ACC or the politics of the ACC. All I know is what I have gathered from links here. Frank and the posters seem to be of a pretty consistent opinion that the ACC is solid.
From my perspective I think the BIG Ten should add television brands – National Brands. Notre Dame being one that is unlikely. From a tv side (and academic), I think UNC / Duke is an extremely attractive pair to add. After that, there aren’t many High Brand, High Value additions to make.
I could argue OU but is OSU attached and are they worth it. I could argue Kansas, but again KSU is useless and really degrades the pair. Maybe Missouri, but who else comes?
If the Big 12 completely implodes does the Big 10 go after any teams? Should they look at Oklahoma and Missouri…. or OU, Missouri and Kansas? Maybe Missouri and Kansas alone? I really don’t have any answers, but I’ll bet the Big Ten is rapidly studying possibilities and scenarios that would make them the most money and be a net benefit. Maybe there aren’t any that are a big enough plus to pull the trigger. They don’t have to take in wayward schools, they can just drop them off at the pound to be euthanized.
From a Big Ten Network perspective, more schools and more games equal more money. But it is a finite well, they can only load in so many teams and have the math work out positively. Are these schools the best way to add value? Are there other additions that may be possible in the future? Eventually the big brands will run out and find their own homes. From the current Big Ten footprint I see Notre Dame, UNC/Duke, and OU as National Brands. Missouri, OSU, Kansas, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, VT, NC State as marginal canidates. Everyone else seem like a non-starter.
I think everything hinges on Oklahoma right now, and I think the Big 12 is dead. What OU does and with whom will key the rest (if any) more expansion.
LikeLike
Patrick:
If the SEC causes the ACC to implode (don’t see it happening this year, but maybe 2-3 years from now), FSU is in play, and I see them as a top brand.
If VTech defects to the SEC, the B10 should make a play for FSU + GTech/Miami (even with sanctions). Ideally ND as well, in which case all 3 of the above. They could make a run at UNC + Duke, but because UNC’s tied so many ways (to NCSU, Duke, & UVa to an extent as well), Fortress Carolina would be the toughest to crack. I could see the ACC stripped of VTech, FSU, Miami, GTech, and maybe even BC yet the ACC limp along back to it’s former ’70’s size.
LikeLike
Here’s a good acticle on trying to do a 13 team SEC schedule. The takeaway is that its basically impossible, and that A&M needs a partner to get to 14. They also bring up divisions going away until they get to 14, but no way that happens.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/mission-impossible-texas-ams-2012-sec-schedule.php
LikeLike
Big Ten and Pac-10 didn’t get CCGs when they were below 12. No way the SEC is going to get it for being at 13.
LikeLike
And by that I mean, without divisions.
LikeLike
Pretty amazing that the guy writes this article without bothering to look up the title game rules.
LikeLike
Greg – indeed. It seems to be fairly common knowledge, and how hard could it have been to find out?
Here’s my crazy, off-the-cuff 13-team SEC scheduling idea:
SEC West: 7 teams, each plays 6 division opponents (because they HAVE to play a round robin to hold a CCG), plus two SEC East teams.
SEC East: 6 teams, each plays two SEC West teams.
But wait, you’re probably thinking, that only leaves the SEC East teams with 7 conference games. Where will that last game come from if they’re losing one of their cross-divisional games? Answer: SEC East teams would play one opponent TWICE in the same regular season. For example, UT-Vandy, UGA-SC and UF-UK could all be home-and-homes for one year (or for however long until they find #14). Or you can mix it up. The Cocktail Party they probably won’t want to do twice, because that means either two neutral site games, or it’s a home-and-neutral for one team.
Disclaimer: I have no idea if the NCAA still allows this. I know it used to happen regularly. If that blogger doesn’t have to read the NCAA rulebook, neither do I.
LikeLike
The NCAA doesn’t care what D-IA schools they schedule, as long as they play a full round robin in the division. They could just decide that since the SEC east teams also play FSU, GT, Clemson and UL OOC, the imbalance isn’t a big deal for a year. TN is the only eastern “power” lacking a standard AQ OOC rival, but they always schedule someone tough (I don’t think anyone is worried about Vandy).
LikeLike
The MAC did a 13 team schedule with two divisions and not-quite round robin for at least a year and maybe more:
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/8/15/2362693/what-a-13-team-sec-schedule-might-look-like
It’s not a great solution, but that’s probably the one they would take.
LikeLike
M, MAC received a waiver from the NCAA to avoid the round-robin rule. I thought they received the waiver for doing a solid and giving Temple a place to land. Will the NCAA be so kind to help SEC form superconferences?
LikeLike
M – No matter how they schedule that, two teams in the SEC West will manage to go undefeated, potentially creating an all-SEC national championship game.
And I always forget about the MAC. I guess round robin doesn’t mean to the NCAA what I thought it did.
LikeLike
The MAC had to completely redo their schedule in 2007 during the summer because they didn’t realize they had to do a round robin. They obviously have gotten a waiver since then, but I have never read or seen anything about it. I don’t see the SEC getting much sympathy for getting a waiver in 2012. And I don’t see the SEC ADs giving Slive much sympathy for taking a long time getting #14 and giving the West a harder road.
LikeLike
I e-mailed the NCAA asking for an explanation for how the MAC was getting around this rule. Someone named Charnele Kemper said that they were “not permitted to provide specific information regarding any specific institution or conference” to me. I was told to contact the MAC, but they did not respond.
I think the teamspeedkills article is not quite accurate. I remember doing the math and it came out different. For a 7-team group to play a complete round robin, it takes 21 games (6+5+4+3+2+1). I think the MAC East has been playing a 19-game schedule for the last few years (since they received their apparent waiver).
LikeLike
Oh, I should note: I e-mailed them last March (of 2010). That’s when they stonewalled me.
LikeLike
In 2010, the round robin was broken by Kent State not playing Buffalo, and Bowling Green not playing Akron. So yes, it looks like my memory was right, they played 19 games toward a 21-game round robin.
LikeLike
Last year, it at least didn’t make much of a difference, because the missing links were between chumps. In 2009, Temple was the co-champion of the MAC East and didn’t play a competitive Bowling Green team; that, I would think, could have caused some frustrations. (That year, Akron also missed Miami; two cellar-dwellers.)
LikeLike
I was left wondering whether the MAC got a waiver because it’s low stakes. The MAC taking on Temple isn’t sending shockwaves through the world of college football. Texas A&M leaving the Big 12 and potentially joining the SEC is a pretty big deal, and I’m left wondering whether everybody else would have more of a “if you’re going to upset the whole apple cart, we’re going to insist that you follow the rules precisely” mentality.
LikeLike
Its the same two pairs not playing in 2011.
LikeLike
It’s simple. TAMU has to play as an independent, but with, say, at least 6 games against SEC opponents for 2 years in football. Integrated in other sports and financially.
LikeLike
I’m sure they would love that. They could actually do it with them playing an 8 game schedule that counts, just they couldn’t be in the championship game as they would play 4 in each division. Those 4 would play 2 other cross-over games while the other 2 would play 3 cross-over games. Each of the original 12 would, of course, play all 5 in their own division.
LikeLike
I think Delany will rue the day (even if the uncompromising presidents wont) that he allowed the Tech problem to keep Texas and Oklahoma out of the Big Ten. The PAC, which are nearly the B1G’s equal in academia will SOMEHOW overlook Okie State to gain recruiting grounds and the academic diamond that is UT. Texas and Cali in one conference? That should be illegal.
Meanwhile the B1G presidents can bask in the glory that is a dying region with dwindling appeal to sports recruits and brainpower alike. They deserve their ‘stone age’ reputation. They reap what their arrogance has sown.
LikeLike
@GLS
The Tech problem didn’t keep Texas out of B1G. Texas didn’t want to come to the B1G. Didn’t want to be part of an upper-midwestern conference, didn’t want equal revenue sharing, didn’t want to be shut out of the LHN.
“The Tech Problem” became a convenient excuse, but if Texas wanted to be the 12th Big Ten team, they could have made it happen.
LikeLike
TX was never coming to the BIG. Don’t you remember the TX President STIFFING little Gordon Gee (or whatever) when Gee suggested the BIG for TX. Guy basically wouldn’t even return the call. Said there was no way in hell he’d ever send the girl’s softball team to the frozen tundra. No way the BIG would ever consider the BIG as long as that guy is the president………
LikeLike
The quote was, “There’s no way I was going to fly the women’s softball team all around the midwest.”
My interpretation was that he actually cared about the student part of student-athlete and wasn’t going to subject them to all that travel. You could also interpret it as he didn’t want to spend the money to fly non-rev teams around. But the press conference also contained a lot of Pac 16 discussion and how they were all concerned about the time demands on the students and were working on ways to minimize that and realized they were just creating two separate conferences with one title. So what was the point if you could do just as well in the Big 12?
LikeLike
I will agree with one thing—that Jim Delaney is one huge, arrogant prick…….
The semi-quote from the BT beat writer in Chicago about the BT not being interested in MO or MD because they are “singles or doubles”….really a dumb thing to say…and it apparently comes from someone is Delaney’s office….
If you guys get a chance to read the story by the same writer (Green something) about the break-down in the BT-ESPN negotiations that led to the creation of the BTN, you ought to do so…an interesting read for sure.
Delaney gets high marks for the creation of the BTN, for sure, but he’s also the same guy who gave away Rose Bowl exclusivity, and thought “Legends” and “Leaders” and the Grange-Randle El-Butkis-Griese-Brees Award were good ideas……he’s hardly infallible…
LikeLike
Those are two different people. Teddy Greenstein (who is with the Chicago Tribune) is the guy that wrote the ESPN/BTN story. It was Adam Rittenberg (ESPN’s Big Ten blogger) who made the singles and doubles comment.
LikeLike
I think Delaney is batting a thousand when it comes to expansion additions. The BTN speaks for itself…..When it comes to the little things (division names) he has been less than perfect, no doubt.
I would guess that was something that was probably delegated to someone else….That he signed off on….(still falls on him)
Delaney was most certainly more interested in the process of phasing Nebraska into the B1G culture……He spoke about the importance of this at length.
I personally like the trophy and awards part of the B1G division rollout, I like how it ties the historic players of the past with todays all-american types. I believe it was a great idea, that was cutoff at the knees by those horrible division names….
When it comes to ego’s, I wouldn’t rank Delaney any higher then the other national players as it pertains to expansion IMO.
LikeLike
It got lost from the forefront because it was posted on the last piece just as this piece went up, but how in heck has Fox managed to now own 51% of the BTN? In an interview during the period when Steve Jobs had been ousted from Apple he was asked what he had learned from building that company. His response was: “Always own 51%”.
LikeLike
Mushroomgod, I am staring to get the impression that you really, really like Maryland. lol
From the tv side – Maryland is second tier just like Missouri.
LikeLike
@Patrick
Fox had an option to buy up to controlling share in the BTN. I noticed the option last year in one of the articles talking about the network but don’t remember which one and I only saw it referenced once. I thought at the time it was an option that Fox surely would exercise…and apparently they have.
LikeLike
http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205264518&DB_OEM_ID=27300
An interesting blog post (at least, for non-UT fans) by TAMU AD Bill Byrne.
LikeLike
Interesting for sure……mentioning the Big 10 and Pac 12 as well as the SEC……I assume he’s just being a typical academic bull shitter but how can you tell for sure?
LikeLike
Note how he’s very careful about the network question. Basically A&M didn’t pursue the joint network, not thinking it was feasible financially. There were a number of quotes from Byrne about that in the past (before the ESPN deal). And of course after UT (and Nebraska) did a lot of work, A&M wasn’t invited in to the $300 million deal at the last minute.
I’d be interested in his definition of “coerce.” If offering money to move a game to a network is coercion, I would agree with him. Then Fox also coerced the Big 12 with a $1 billion 2nd tier deal. If its anything else other than offering money, he should say so.
LikeLike
Note how he’s very careful about the network question. Basically A&M didn’t pursue the joint network, not thinking it was feasible financially. There were a number of quotes from Byrne about that in the past (before the ESPN deal). And of course after UT (and Nebraska) did a lot of work, A&M wasn’t invited in to the $300 million deal at the last minute. Unless its a legal tactic to reduce the exit fees, I don’t see why he doesn’t admit they didn’t pursue it. Most people thought the BTN was a bad idea. Most people have been wrong on this area.
I’d be interested in his definition of “coerce.” If offering money to move a game to a network is coercion, I would agree with him. Then Fox also coerced the Big 12 with a $1 billion 2nd tier deal. If its anything else other than offering money, he should say so.
He also agrees with my comment above that it is ESPN pushing the HS television and he comments that effort will continue regardless of what conference the Aggies are in.
I am curious to see what he does have to say after its all over, particularly if it is public rather than just primarily to an A&M audience.
LikeLike
Dodds on the network issue:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20110901-deloss-dodds-am-didn_t-show-much-interest_in-longhorns_mutual-network-pitch.ece
LikeLike
I’m no expert on any of this stuff, but I do find it fascinating to read about, especially since my alma mater seems to pop up from time to time. There’s always rumors about some of the core ACC schools still being a little bitter about the football expansion. Kind of ironic that the shoe might be on the other foot now. Anyone in the Maryland fan base fighting a move to the B1G is just letting their little brother complex with UNC/Duke cloud their judgment. I guess what I’m wondering is, with the entire athletic department, or more succinctly, new Prez, AD, FB, and MBB coaches if that lends itself more or less to a potential move. Now, in terms of research dollars and all that it pales in comparison, but Under Armor seems pretty intent on making us the Oregon of the East. Oregon was pretty much nobody on the football landscape until Phil Knight starting pumping cash into the program. It’s worked out well for them, from a football success standpoint. I’m not saying Maryland will do the same thing, but, it’s a whole new world in College Park, even from just the turn of the century.
LikeLike
Jason—what would be your guess as to the % of MD fans who would support a stand-alone (ie..with Rutgers or MO, but without UNC, Duke) move to the BIG? And would, in your opinion, the % differ a lot between older and younger fans?
LikeLike
That’s an interesting question. Maryland has no “true” rival. In conference or out. Besides Navy, theres no other 1A school in the state. Nobody circles the MD game on the calendar. Particularly in football. The younger fans would probably point to UNC/Duke, but we’ll never be on either of those schools radar the way they are to each other. And even so, that’s hoops driven. The older alumni (I graduated in 99 as a frame of reference) seem to feel Virginia is the big conference rival. We play WVU a lot, but even that series has had gaps in it. The real push from the fan base would be losing hoops dates with UNC and Duke, were they not to all move as a group. However, I personally think that once tOSU, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, PSU etc start visiting Byrd regularly that they’ll get used to it. Take a look at the last few Maryland home football schedules and you’ll see all you need to know about why we don’t fill the joint. Wake Forest? NC St? We’ve only played Miami twice since they came to the ACC, once at home. Monday will be the 3rd time. Back in the 80s and previously we played Penn St a lot, so there’s some history there, and PSU regularly takes Marylands better football recruits.
But to answer your question, from a purely athletic standpoint, I think it would be about 60-40 against. Maybe higher. But that’s the rub with the ACC, and the BEast too really. It’s a hoops-driven conference in a football-driven world. Speaking only for myself, I’d slap down my credit card the next day for football season tickets if they join the B1G. I think the actual alumni are more in support of a move than the “fans” would be.
LikeLike
Thanks…your % is about what I thought it’d be…..and that’s the problem with a BIG invite to MD. I don’t think the presidentrs would want unhappy campers……..although otherwise, imo, MD would be a great addition.
LikeLike
Some of the boosters/ season ticket holders last year were really ticked that Maryland slid to 8th in the ACC bowl pecking order, even though they finished tied for 3rd in the conference. There’s a perception that because Marylands home attendance has been dropping they don’t travel well, which really isn’t true. But perception is reality. Now whether some of the “Screw Tobacco Road” and NCC (North Carolina Conference) talk was just bluster or not, who knows. Some of it probably was. Not to compare to aTm, but there is always an underlying sentiment that the ACC is more about the NC4 than everyone else. Is it true? I don’t think so. I think it’s a convenient excuse when something doesn’t go our way. But there IS sentiment out there to maybe pull chocks and see what’s out there for us.
LikeLike
The B1G should swoop in and offer OU and TAMU right now, which does two things: effectively kills the Big XII and ignites the powderkeg associated with NCAA realignment. The latter, IMO, will be enough to get Texas and Notre Dame to join the party if TV contracts can be settled.
LikeLike
The problem with that is that 95% of the Aggie faithful have a hard-on for the SEC…….there would be HUGE cultural issues with that move……and huge issues with adding a Tier3 university…….only way in hell I could see that happening would be if TX was also involved…….so it’s about a .2% chance…………..
LikeLike
I’ve found it very interesting that no one is talking about this. It’s the dog that isn’t barking. aTm has been very careful not to name what conference they’re applying to. Certainly, there are legal reasons for that.
There are the travel/cultural hurdles, but don’t think Delany is a asleep at the wheel on this one. Getting into the Houston market, adding a quality institution, adding a great ADept. and setting up UT for entry would be a huge win for the B1G. Most importantly, it would keep the SEC out of the State of Texas.
LikeLike
I think UT and A&M will go into the B1G before OU/A&M will. Translation: it’s not happening. Whatever Delany’s shortcomings are, he can hardly be blamed for feeling as though his conference is the premiere conference; by many yardsticks it is. OK, he failed to get UT or ND last summer, but we can see from this distance that wasn’t going happen no matter what. The fact that the SEC is keeping silent after A&M has announced they are leaving the Big 9 means that the SEC is not the supplicant here–A&M is. The B1G and the SEC can afford not to panic; they will take schools on their terms and timetable. For example, if the standard for B1G expansion is PSU and NE, then my guess is that they are going to stand pat for some time.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree. What I was really getting at is that the media is directing their attention in the wrong places. I’d place aTm to SEC at 99% per the media, but behind closed doors that may not be the case. The Big Ten isn’t favored in this race, but most are foolish to assume they aren’t in it.
A&M is a triple by itself. It turns into a home run from a game theory perspective. Delany is almost certainly talking to them.
LikeLike
TAMU is a home run. The only non-king that is. A 1-run homer (just like Nebraska, in fact). PSU & Texas are grand slams. ND a 3-run homer. Arkansas & SCarolina triples. Mizzou and Rutgers (and WVU) would be singles.
LikeLike
@Richard – I generally agree with your assessment, but ND has got to be the rarest of all: an inside-the-park grand slam. Also, I think UCLA is next to Texas A&M as a non-king that would be a homer.
LikeLike
Right. I didn’t consider UCLA because they’re not (and won’t be) in the expansion sweepstakes.
Also, they don’t even draw the B10 average in football attendance and generate less athletic department revenues than IU.
They’d be a home run in spite of themselves.
LikeLike
There has to be fit for both sides. It would be pointless to go and offer OU and A&M right now, since it’s not what either wants.
OU wants to be in a conference with Texas or OSU (immediately, not waiting for Texas to join later), and their preference is probably to have OSU not get left behind if it doesn’t have to (ergo Pac-16).
A&M’s preferences match the SEC in terms of culture and where the fans want to go matters as well.
LikeLike
Anyone think Delaney is regretting making the first expansion move right now? Don’t get me wrong, Nebraska alone was a nice prize.
But it appears that the end result will likely be A&M moving to the SEC (getting that league into the Texas market) and possibly OU and Texas moving to the Pac (giving that league two king football brands and shutting the Big 10 out of the Texas market forever) or ND and Texas starting their own conference.
Now there’s still a chance ND winds up in the Big 10, but that seems like a last resort for ND at this point, so I’d say, at best, it’s a 50-50 likelihood if conferences go to 16 and ND is forced into a conference.
I guess what I’m getting at is if Delaney knew starting up the expansion process would lead to Texas, A&M, OU and potentially ND winding up elsewhere, do you think he would have passed on Nebraska and kept everything status quo?
LikeLike
No. The Big Ten needed to get to 12. If Texas/A&M/OU end up making their homes elsewhere, that’s just how the cookie crumbles. Also, the Big Ten gains from more consolidation either way if there’s less conferences going to get media deals over time.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
If Texas goes to the PAC, it’s only a matter of time before ND joins them there. Think about it. They will be in a conference with USC, TEXAS, STANFORD, UCLA, CAL and OREGON. It will be by far the most prestigious conference in the country (Ivy excluded) and will be a treasure trove for recruiting. Hell, they’ll probably move the campus to do it. While the Big Ten is dusting off their fifty year old trophies, The PAC is pulling the chair out from under them. I have no doubt Delany is wise to all of this, and would love to act, but the Big Ten presidents=delusions of grandeur. I can hear the echo now, from fifty years in the future. “WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!”
LikeLike
Sorry, but I can’t see ND’s other sports remotely working in the PAC, Unless of course, they move their campus….
LikeLike
Don’t see it happening….ND would presumably be in a division with TX, OK, OK ST.,TT, AZ, AZ ST, Utah, Colorado—not too appealing I would think….and they would make 17…so you going to go to 18? And are you going to move them in with USC and move (who exactly?) to the west division…….you’re something of a “sky is falling” guy aren’t you? Have you noticed that California has a few problems of it’s own? Do you think ND wants to be a part of Mexico?
LikeLike
Why did I know you would bring up the 17. Instead of going to 20 I think they would boot someone for Notre Dame. Washington State anyone? Granted this seems like a stretch. But why wouldn’t Notre Dame consider moving their campus for such long term advantages? Besides, technology (and tuition) are going to render ‘campuses’, as we know them, obsolete in fifty years anyway. (athletic facilities notwithstanding) The idea of walking around a campus to go to classes is going to be laughable. Your classroom will be wherever your computer is.
I can very easily see that Notre Dame, thinking long term, would consider getting out of the Midwest.
LikeLike
LikeLike
“Booting” a member from a conference sounds great in theory, but is virtually impossible to pull off unless said member has committed a slew of NCAA violations. Yes, Temple was expelled from the Big East football conference a few years back, but it was an adjunct member at best (football was its only conference sport). It would be exceedingly difficult to kick out a full member of a BCS conference against its wishes, and anyone who makes that suggestion likely doesn’t understand the machinations of intercollegiate athletics.
LikeLike
@Vincent – Remember you’re replying to an individual who seems to believe that Notre Dame
is planning on PACKING UP THE ENTIRE CAMPUS & MOVING IT OUT WEST
LikeLike
Not sure it wouldve mattered if he made the 1st move or not because from everything that I have seen – Larry Scott was probably going to move forward with an expansion plan regardless. Could it have stopped with a simple Utah and Colorado to Pac (I think Colorado would have moved regardles of Nebraska to the Big 10) and BYU to Big 12? Maybe, but who knows…..
LikeLike
That’s right. No one knows what is, has, or will be discussed. It’s all speculation based on our own personal biases and wish-fulfillment. That’s why I don’t take any of this too seriously, or personally. Let’s face it, we’re probably all wrong.
LikeLike
You may be right about Colorado, although I question whether the Pac would have tried to initiate expansion without any shot at Texas. I’m not sure Colorado and Utah would have been enough to convince Pac 10 presidents that expansion was worthwhile. Regardless, I’m not sure the Big 12 would have cared all that much about a Colorado loss, and might have even stayed at 11.
But, remember, this whole realignment shakeup started when Delaney announced the Big 10 was looking to expand in 12-18 months and the Missouri governor mouthed off about how Missouri would love to get a Big 10 invite.
If Delaney doesn’t say anything, I imagine the Big 12 would have remained stable at least for the next year.
Now, I would say that the LHN may have eventually changed things like it appears to have done with the remaining 10-team conference. And maybe when that network deal was announced, the Nebraskas and A&Ms of the world may have tried to seek out other options if they existed.
LikeLike
Their initial discussion was CU and Utah. I think they fell back to what they were originally going to accept.
LikeLike
No, not in the least.
Also, in the unlikely situation that Notre Dame ever joins a conference, it’ll be the Big Ten. If it’s not the Big Ten, it’s because the Midwest was destroyed (except, miraculously, South Bend) and they have no other choice.
LikeLike
Kansas’ Chancellor confirms that KU and KSU are not tied to the hip:
@mlavieri Mike Lavieri
Chancellor Gray-Little confirmed that Kansas and Kansas State don’t need to be a part of the same conference. #kubball #kufball #big12
LikeLike
They don’t have to be together, but far behind can KU leave KSU? Would P16 and MWC be acceptable, or does KSU at least have to get AQ status?
LikeLike
Here’s my understanding of the situation. The Board of Regents jointly oversees KU & KSU. The State draws a lot of water from having two BCS programs for their population size. They don’t want to lose that if they can help it. You can also be sure that KSU leans on the BoR will try to give them the best golden parachute possible.
With that said, KU’s Chancellor is a pure academic. She was the #2 at UNC and has drawn criticism from many for shaking up the academic policies at KU and putting athletics on the backburner (as a KU grad, I love her for this). If a decision arises between athletics and academics, expect her to choose academics 100% of the time.
The other thing you may want to expect is that KU gets blindsided during this expansion. Word on the street is they haven’t been chattering as much as some of their Big 12 counterparts. During the Big 12 missile crisis last year, the Chancellor was out of the country. In addition, KU has a new AD with fewer connections than their former AD, Lew Perkins.
All in all, my prediction is this: If KU is lucky enough to get an invite to any other conference at the expense of KSU, they’ll do it. The ideal situation would be to grab a B1G or ACC invite, but those are long shots at this point. I’m certain that if a collapse occurred, the BoR would be ok with KU to the Pac 1X, KSU to the Mountain West.
LikeLike
I suppose Kansas could be considered a stalking horse for #16 if Texas says no — but Texas Tech is almost certainly a lock for #15; Scott doesn’t want to lack a Texas outlet, even if the only one is in Lubbock, and UT certainly couldn’t deny Tech the opportunity to go west any more than it did A&M’s option east. Missouri, a larger state with somewhat better football, would be my non-Texas preference were I the Pac commissioner, but KU is a suitable alternative if Mizzou winds up in the SEC or elsewhere.
LikeLike
I don’t see the Pac-12 offering KU, MU or TTU just yet. OU/OSU works by itself and they’d be wise to offer them. Down the road, this leaves two spots for TTU and UT (I’ll let you judge how far down the road).
The point of offering and grabbing OU/OSU first is to destablize the Big 12. Once that happens, if it is made known that TTU has an offer contingent upon UT joining, they may have enough political power to bring UT in the fold. KU & MU may be floated for the Pac 12, but I doubt UT will ever really see them as a threat.
LikeLike
ccrider55 says:
September 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm
It got lost from the forefront because it was posted on the last piece just as this piece went up, but how in heck has Fox managed to now own 51% of the BTN? In an interview during the period when Steve Jobs had been ousted from Apple he was asked what he had learned from building that company. His response was: “Always own 51%”.
——————————————————
My guess is that the Big Ten (Delany) decided that since it was a 20 year contract, he would be okay with just having control in the first 5 years after which FOX would switch to 51% for the remaining 15 years. FOX probably pushed for a switch-in-control provision, and Delany might have been willing because the contract does expire in a reasonable amount of time.
The reason why I don’t think it’s that big a deal is because the payouts will only barely change (a rounding error compared to the growth of it), and because the BTN contract only has another 15 years left.
LikeLike
Also, there are a lot of protections built in, whether you consider the 20 year expiration (15-16 years after the change in control to FOX), the fact that Silverman is currently running the show, the Board that’s running it hasn’t changed, and that the contract also includes protections for what the Big Ten thinks is important.
I just found it interesting that it happened more than anything else.
LikeLike
I believe Fox also exercised a 5 year extension, so the BTN contract actually runs until 2032.
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/#!/McMurphyCBS/status/109367821510782976
KU Chancellor confirms Kansas & Kansas State don’t need to be part of same conference says @mlavieri
Thoughts? Huge blow to “legislature always rule” idea if that holds up. Also could be another sign B12 is falling apart.
LikeLike
If the TEX, OK, OK ST, ? expansion happened, #4 would presumably be between TT, MO, and KU….IF TX wasn’t a part of that 1. Pac might not be interested, or 2. 2/3 of TT, MO, and KU would go. It would seem KU would likely be left out…..so I’m a little surprised he said this….seems like KU’s likely landing place is in the BE with KSU….guess that could change if MO goes to the SEC…
LikeLike
If the TEX, OK, OK ST, ? expansion happened, #4 would presumably be between TT, MO, and KU
It’s actually sort of the other way around — Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech and ?, as the Pac’s goal is persuading Texas to become #16. If Texas is already in the fold, so is Tech, for a variety of reasons — especially since UT can’t leave Tech out in the cold, as it likely could with Baylor.
LikeLike
One by one, Big XII schools are squeezing into their little black dresses, applying makeup, and heading out to the conference bars.
LikeLike
And poor Miss Ames is searching for something at the Goodwill store.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, the guy who originally quoted the Chancellor is a writer for KU’s student newspaper. He followed up with several tweets. He notes that there is no Board of Regents rule against a split, but the Chancellor would prefer KU & KSU together.
LikeLike
What really matters is how far behind can KU leave KSU. Would P16 and MWC be acceptable, or would KSU have to at least get the BE? All of this assumes that KU has multiple choices, some of which bring KSU along (BE maybe) and some of which don’t (P16). If it comes down to both being stuck in a dying B12 and moving to the MWC or one escaping, of course they’d let KU go.
LikeLike
ACADEMIC PISSING CONTEST 2011 (ARWU Rankings 2011)
Format is: School WorldRank (NationalRank)
After WorldRank 100 a ranking range is given instead of an individual ranking. Unranked schools are designated UR.
Pac-12
Stanford 2 (2)
Cal 4 (4)
UCLA 12 (10)
UW 16 (14)
CU 32 (24)
USC 46 (32)
ASU 78 (45)
Utah 79 (46)
Arizona 80 (47)
Oregon State 102-150 (54-68)
Oregon 201-300 (90-110)
WSU 201-300 (90-110)
Big Ten
Wisconsin 19 (17)
Michigan 22 (18)
Illinois 25 (19)
Minnesotta 28 (20)
Northwestern 30 (22)
Penn State 45 (31)
Purdue 61 (40)
Ohio State 63 (41)
Indiana 82 (48)
MSU 92 (50)
Iowa 102-150 (54-68)
Nebraska 151-200 (69-89)
ACC
Duke 35 (27)
Maryland 38 (29)
UNC 42 (30)
GT 102-150 (54-68)
Virginia 102-150 (54-68)
FSU 151-200 (69-89)
Miami 151-200 (69-89)
NCSt 151-200 (69-89)
VT 151-200 (69-89)
Clemson 301-400 (111-137)
WF 301-400 (111-137)
BC 401-500 (138-151)
SEC
Vanderbilt 52 (36)
Florida 72 (43)
Texas A&M 100 (53)
Georgia 102-150 (54-68)
LSU 151-200 (69-89)
Tennessee 151-200 (69-89)
Kentucky 201-300 (90-110)
SCar 201-300 (90-110)
Arkansas 401-500 (138-151)
Auburn 401-500 (138-151)
Alabama UR
Ole Miss UR
Miss St UR
Texas and Friends
Texas 35 (27)
ISU 151-200 (69-89)
KU 151-200 (69-89)
Missouri 201-300 (90-110)
KSU 301-400 (111-137)
OU 301-400 (111-137)
Texas Tech 401-500 (138-151)
Baylor UR
Okla. State UR
Big East
Pitt 57 (38)
Rutgers 59 (39)
Cincinnati 201-300 (90-110)
Notre Dame 201-300 (90-110)
UConn 201-300 (90-110)
USF 201-300 (90-110)
Georgetown 301-400 (111-137)
Syracuse 301-400 (111-137)
DePaul UR
Louisville UR
Marquette UR
Providence UR
Seton Hall UR
St John’s UR
TCU UR
Villanova UR
WVU UR
THE BRAGGING RIGHTS (Average Scores by Conference)
I used the midpoint of ranges when no individual rank was given.
Big Ten 64 (37)
Pac12 82 (40)
ACC 186 (76)
I didn’t compute the other conference averages, as they include unranked schools.
LikeLike
Methodology
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2011.html
LikeLike
Just for clarification, these rankings are generally for research heavy institutions. Schools like Boston College, Marquette and Notre Dame are ranked extremely low under their criteria.
LikeLike
You can use medians instead of means you can get around the UR problem to an extent. Using those the results are:
Big 10: 53
PAC-12: 62
ACC: 175
SEC: 250
Big (I)Xii: 350
Big East: Unranked (500+)
(This includes aTm in the SEC and TCU in the BEast.)
For comparisons sake the Ivy League average is 36 using mean and 10 using median (the fact that Dartmouth College is not a major research school really hurts the Ivies mean).
LikeLike
I have always contended that the ARWU capture the B1G brand better than any other. You can argue one ranking against another, but you can’t argue that the whatever the B1G has, it is measured in ARWU. Obviousy UNL was a stretch. By this metric a UT, aTm, Rutgers and Maryland addition to the B1G would be perfect and has symmetry across many dimensions.
LikeLike
It also captures the SEC W brand or lack thereof as far as the ARWU. 3 unranked, 2 in 138-151.
USN & WR doesn’t capture the differences between SEC, especially the W and most of the other AQ conferences as well, although the Big 12-3 isn’t quite at the same level as the B12-0.
LikeLike
drwillini, ARWU does capture the best of the Big 10. Unfortunately, what is required to keep those rankings steady does not spillover to USNWR rankings (which have declined for the Big 10 steadily and at times startlingly over the past two decades). Having spent the past ten days speaking to various groups of faculty who teach undergraduates, parents of undergraduates and a new group of students who are joining one of the B1G, I wish that the throngs of students that have flooded campus face a brighter career prospects due our ARWU performance – this is simply not the case. Collectively, the Big 10 either needs to do a much, much better job of ensuring that ARWU rankings spillover to enhance the reputation of our massive undergraduate programs or we should do the “unthinkable” — downsize undergraduate enrollments by about 30% to ensure a better fit between ARWU and USNWR. The current “gentleman’s agreement” is dishonest.
LikeLike
“brighter career prospects” than where? Other public schools? The missions of public and private schools are inherently different at the undergrad level. . .
LikeLike
@Richard – Yes, there are definitely different missions. At the same time, public schools are at a disadvantage in that all programs are thrown into the same pool even though they may have different entrance requirements. For example, where rich2 works (Indiana), getting admission to the Kelly business school as an undergrad has gotten extremely tough over the past decade. The size of Kelly alone would be larger than a whole slew of private schools and the entrance requirements are just as tough or tougher. It’s the same thing with Illinois engineering or business or Purdue engineering. The comprehensive nature of public universities is inherently always going to be a drag on the US News rankings. I’m fairly certain that of you just took the ag program out of the Illinois pool, the school would shoot up at least 10 or 15 spots.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, some of the guys from UofI engineering (specifically, CS) have done plenty well for themselves (I know since a few of them went to my high school). Granted, UofI CS (UofI in general) graduates a ton of folks every year, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the average lifetime earnings of UofI CS grads aren’t lower than any private school CS department (other than potentially Stanford’s)
LikeLike
@Richard – Yeah, one of the guys that lived in my dorm was a CS major and went on to be one of the 3 founders of a small startup: YouTube. To say he’s doing well is an understatement.
LikeLike
“Inherently different” — not true at all. Utter bull****. Tell this line to the parents of undergraduates at any Big 10 school. I notice that you did not attempt to address my point at all — that the reputation spillover (or “trickle down”?) from graduate programs to undergraduates in the same institution is weak.
What is different between top tier public and private schools at the undergraduate level is that public schools do not execute their goals as effectively as top tier privates due primarily to underinvestment by the public schools in undergraduate education and the necessity to treat undergraduate programs as a profit center. This leads to two unfortunate outcomes for the public schools — 1. they admit too many undergraduates (which dilutes the quality of the undergraduate profile) and 2. too many undergraduates do not graduate.
Please don’t ever kid yourself again. The majority of parents at top tier public and private schools want their kids to achieve similar outcomes — to graduate and entry to labor force in the most favorable conditions. In fact, it is insulting for 500,000 undergraduates at the Big 10, their parents and families to suggest that they have lower expectations and hopes than the undergraduates at similar top tier privates (again, excluding Northwester, but only Northwestern).
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh makes a case for UH to the B12 (part 1 of 4). I think her Forbes piece is more interesting (link in above article, along with links to parts 3 and 4):
“Take a look at some of the following ratings data for the Houston market:
8.1 Houston vs. Texas Tech (2009)
5.9 Average ratings of Big 12 games on ESPN in 2009
5.8 Average ratings of Big 12 games on ESPN in 2010
5.5 Average ratings of Big 12 games on ABC in 2010
4.7 Average ratings of Big 12 games on ABC in 2009
4.7 Houston vs. East Carolina (2009)
4.5 Houston vs. UTEP (2010)
1.5 Average ratings of Big 12 games not feature Texas-based schools”
Her point is that UH B12 games, especially against TX teams, would pull great numbers in Houston. Of course, this data doesn’t show what the ratings for UH/TT were outside of Houston or how much fan interest in non-UH B12 games would grow. So that leaves three big unanswered questions:
Would the rest of the B12 footprint watch UH?
Would the rest of the country watch UH B12 games (FSN games, mostly)?
How much more interested would fans in Houston be of games like KU/OkSU?
LikeLike
IMO
1. Probably not
2. No more than they would watch Kansas
3. very little
UH is a solid #3 in Houston.
LikeLike
Frank, do your original rankings for B1G Ten expansion candidates still hold up?
I’m sure Texas and Notre Dame are still at the top, but Oklahoma has got to be third by now. What about Missouri or Kansas? Maryland? Pitt?
LikeLike
@metatron5369 – I didn’t examine OU in that original post (as I simply didn’t think of them as a viable Big Ten candidate at the time), but they’d be after Texas and Notre Dame (assuming that they meet the academic threshold). I also didn’t include any ACC schools in the analysis as I didn’t (and still generally don’t) consider them to be poachable. If you recall, I actually had Syracuse at #3 at the time, which probably sounds insane now, although I came into that looking at markets for the Big Ten Network being the top factor and felt (and still feel) that if the Big Ten ever really wants a chance at getting the NYC market, then Syracuse needs to be a part of that mix. NYC is kind of like North Carolina, Kentucky or Indiana – even though expansion in general is about football, those particular markets are really delivered by basketball.
Off the top of my head, I’d probably rank them this way if we’re including ACC schools:
(1) Texas
(2) Notre Dame
(3) Oklahoma
(4) Florida State
(5) Miami
(6) UNC
(7) Virginia Tech
(8) Maryland
(9) Missouri
(10) UVA
Note that I have the top 5 are all kings at some level. I have faith that Miami will get through its current crisis in the long-term. If you’ve been to their campus, you’ll understand why they will ALWAYS be a top place for recruits (just like USC) and I still maintain that their national TV drawing power is as good as anyone else.
Once you get past the 5 kings, I don’t know if the rankings mean as much as which region the Big Ten may want to concentrate upon. I’m not a fan of complete geographic outliers (unless you’re talking about Texas or Miami), so if the Big Ten wanted to concentrate on the Mid-Atlantic region, then the MD/UVA/VT trifecta is good. If the Big Ten wants the Northeast, then maybe a combo of Syracuse/Rutgers/BC could make sense (provided that ND is also part of that equation). While that’s a private school heavy expansion, that may be necessary in the NYC-to-Boston corridor. Getting UNC would also mean getting Duke. Essentially, the Big Ten would be looking for natural pods in a 16-school setup.
I really hate leaving Pitt out of these scenarios, but it’s just tough to see them included with Penn State already in the fold. They’d work really well in the ACC.
LikeLike
I don’t think it makes sense for any of the deep south schools to be in the B1G. You get to the travel and cultural issues. The mid-Atlantic-MD, VA, NC might work, but Florida is just too far away and too disconnected unless you get into the 20 team model.
Going too far just creates long term instability. Delany should solve his demographic problems by simply going for numbers in the NE and growth with MD and VA (not that I like going beyond 12-but if you must).
LikeLike
Over time, I’ve come to this point of view. Culturally and geographically, going south of North Carolina (whether to the west or east) is likely to add teams with weaker ties to the Big Ten, especially as population shifts happen (due to growth), etc.
LikeLike
“Demographics problems”. This annoys me.
Not only is the entire growing (albeit, asymmetrically), but there’s no good indicator of what the future looks like. Fifty years ago, it was the Midwest that was growing and Dixie that was dying. I think people need to take a step back and realize, that at the end of the day, we’re still talking about football, not chess.
Besides, adding lackluster programs from states that may or may not “grow” do ultimately little for your reputation. There’s a reason why the Big East and the ACC aren’t exactly respected in football. Even if the program does become popular, it lacks the long-term appeal to survive downturns in an area notoriously fickle about sports.
Texas is popular expansion candidate because they’re a popular team, not because they live in a populous state. If we wanted eyeballs and hopes and dreams, we could invite San Diego State and Houston. I know, let’s go grab Virginia and kick out Nebraska. They’re in a “dying” state.
LikeLike
The state of Ohio, which has added some people, has 25% fewer High school grads than it did in 1980. That’s a demographic problem for Ohio St. You can also look at who has industries that are growing and who has industries that are shrinking. There’s some pretty clear trends over the next 30 years that the Big 10 area will drop significantly in its % of the nation’s population. Census projections show extremely slow to negative growth in OH, PA, MI and IA as soon as 2030. Illinois is losing people outside the Chicago metro area. In some states they are already looking at a lower local student application pool. Now when you get much beyond 30 years all bets are off.
LikeLike
Help me out Frank. If the ACC is as stable as you think, Mizzou is the fourth highest non-ACC team on you list. With Texas, OU, and ND unlikely near-term B1G additions, why wouldn’t Mizzou/Pitt, Mizzou/Rutgers, or Mizzou/Syracuse be a resonable next step for the B1G? Would still keep room for one (or even two) kings down the road should ACC destabilize or ND go conference shopping.
LikeLike
. . .because the B10 has no need to expand unless the new additions are additive. All of the schools you mentioned would require a king to come along with them (though at least Rutgers fits in research and Syracuse in undergrad quality) for expansion to make sense, IMHO. The B10 isn’t (and shouldn’t) expand just for the sake of expanding.
LikeLike
Is Louisville off the table as far as SEC expansion? I thought I read somewhere (a week ago maybe?) that the SEC was considering them and that Kentucky was hip to it.
LikeLike
Interesting and entertaining article-SI article with some quotes from Dodds. States more importance for the LHN than I have previously heard him say. There’s also a new number in there. Options for Big 12 are 1, 3 OR 5.
http://sportsillustratedcnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/09/01/texas-dodds-realignment/
LikeLike
Interesting to see that 5 there.
But I think that’s more bluster than anything else.
I think the best option is 1 (BYU). Second best option is Pitt if you can’t get BYU.
Maybe you make a play for all 3 of BYU, Louisville, Pitt.
The 5 scenario would have to include ND, I’d guess? No way there’s a 5 team scenario that actually pays for itself without ND. That would be one incredibly diluted league, otherwise…
LikeLike
5 would also include Houston or TCU, to replace A&M as another “Texas” game.
LikeLike
I suspect ND would be only in a 3 model. 14 would require too many conference games for them and still not have enough traditional rivals. The 14 team would seem to be a start the superconference wars and make sure B12 is one of the 4 or 5 by taking the best of the BE-Pitt, WVU, UL + 2 others out of UH, BYU, UNM and the rest of the BE (BYU s/b #2 target after ND, but gets a little awkward geographically and splitting divisions equitably if you are adding 4 eastern teams-OU/OSU/TT/BU/UT/BYU + 1 has a least the 3 strongest fb programs).
Of course, w/o ND, the question is whether 12 makes economic sense, let alone 14.
LikeLike
Of course, Oklahoma may make Dodds’ big talk moot, whether ESPN likes it or not.
LikeLike
The Eastern Front
All of the speculation today has been in the west, about whether OU will decide to form a superconference or keep the B12 a going concern, but I’d like to speculate about what could happen in the east. I don’t think the SEC will settle for WVU (or even Mizzou); they can live with TAMU essentially as an independent in football (but playing SEC teams) and integrated in other sports and financially for 2-4 years. Who they have eyes on is VTech. Right now, the Hokies don’t seem to want to leave, but in 2-3 years? If Miami gets dealt a TV ban or death penalty? Even if the ACC adds WVU and Pitt by that point, VTech may jump. What then? The SEC could get 2 more (to go to 16; I don’t think they would ever go beyond 16), but if I was the B10, I would fight for the only true king in the ACC: FSU. Bringing in FSU & Miami or GTech makes sense financially (academically, FSU is on par with Nebraska, but unlike Nebraska, those schools are in fertile recruiting grounds and adding people). Bring in all 3 if ND is willing to come along (at that point, their late-season options would be limited to BE teams and schools from a weakened ACC).
The SEC wouldn’t want GTech or Miami; they would only potentially fight for FSU (and even then, I’m not sure how much the AL schools or UGa would want FSU in the SEC). Why would FSU choose the B10 over the SEC? Well, they chose an athletically inferior (and poorer) but academically superior conference before. With other southern schools, the B10 wouldn’t be a purely northern league, making it more comfortable for them to join.
I think both the SEC and B10 would make a run at UNC, but Fortress Carolina is especially tough to crack given the ties between UNC and NCSU, Duke, and other core ACC schools.
At that point, the B10 could sit back and wait for UF & UGa if an SEC school to get hit with major sanctions.
Pipe dream? It may make sense for the SEC to not raid the ACC after all, contenting themselves with TAMU, Mizzou, WVU, and Pitt.
LikeLike
man o man….delusional
LikeLike
It’s Richard. What do you expect? In his world a 20+ team B10 with teams from the SEC makes sense.
LikeLike
In other news, football season (ie: the four months every year when teams generally don’t leave their conference) started today. In fact, Wake and Cuse are knotted at 29 with 7 to play as we speak. Fetch me a dream, ESPN Trois!
LikeLike
@Jake – Syracuse just pulled it out in OT 36-29. Wake pretty much collapsed in the 4th quarter.
LikeLike
Final play was a bit anti-climactic, but overall a fitting overture to the Wagnerian symphony that will be the 2011 college football season.
LikeLike
Randall Cobb was the most valuable player in college football last year and most under-appreciated. Gave up about midnight on the boring UK-WKU game in the 4th before a mostly empty stadium in Nashville. UK was dangerous with Cobb last year. With him graduated, they got totally dominated by the worst team in FBS last year, but still somehow won 14-3. SEC teams are going to be able to pad their stats with UK this year.
LikeLike
I am on board with the idea that superconferences are coming. But I believe that once you are on board with that concept, you realize that the battlefront is in the heartland right now, not on the east coast. That wlll come later as the heartland is the Pac’s last hope to expand so they have to move. Right now, it is the Pac, Big 10 and SEC deciding how to split up the Big 12 or let schools “fall” to them based on others’ moves. The Big East will take some of the leftovers. Once the Big 12 is dead, then the Pac will be done (except for UT if they hold out for independence) and the Big 10 and SEC will pick who they want from Big East and ACC and the remainders will band together as a single, 4th conference. The race to superconferences has to have some order to it and having more than one conference destabilized at the same time is worse for the aggressors than just finishing off the Big 12. Big 10 and SEC don’t want to be the bad guys, but the Pac and Larry Scott will gladly start or finish the deed. IMO, if BYU doesn’t join the Big 12, it is history. Then it is on.
LikeLike
Scott and Oklahoma may render any Brigham Young decision moot.
Also, there are too many BCS members to do four 16-team conferences. More than likely, you will have three 16-member conferences (Pac, SEC and Big Ten) and two smaller leagues (reconstituted versions of the ACC and Big 12), perhaps adding a few more BCS members for political purposes (Boise State, UNLV, BYU, etc.)
LikeLike
There’s only too many BCS members if you have a problem with leaving some out. My guess is that the ultimate decision-makers don’t really have a problem with that.
LikeLike
Good call, schools like Baylor, Iowa State look to be left out in most every scenario… Texas Tech, Kansas State are left out in a lot of them too…
If the ACC feels the need to raid the Big East (such as if the SEC takes a school or 2), then the Big East gets picked apart by the ACC taking schools like Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse. That would only get them to 14 if the SEC stole a schools. That would leave 6 present Big East members (TCU, Louisiville, West Virginia, Connecticut, Cincy, USF) as a fringe BCS conference. Fringe is exactly right, how many of these schools were actually a BCS school a decade ago? Just WV by my count, which is why I’d hope of any ACC raid that the ACC would take UConn & WV.
LikeLike
A piece Frank retweeted: http://pressboxpass.blogspot.com/2011/09/ncaa-conference-realignment-primer.html
Good read. It just convinces me even more that there is a bidding war between the SEC and B1G going on with aTm.
LikeLike
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
I wish he had done the analysis for Notre Dame. I want to know just how much money they would be worth to the B1G.
LikeLike
Makes me think that my wish may come true (a very unlikely maybe). A&M officials want the Big 10, the Big 10 wants A&M. A&M fans want the SEC. The SEC probably wants A&M. Not sure the SEC fans want A&M. So how do you please your “customers” (i.e., fan base). Play a little game. A&M basically has seperated from the B12. That relationship is likley beyond repair. The fans are expecting an SEC invite. But what if that does not come. The SEC can say, it just didn’t make any sense to expand to 13 teams unless we had a credible 14th team. The B10 having lived with 11 for so many years can more freely allow to have a 13th team. Plus there options for finding a satisfactory 14th team may be more easily obtained. Particularly if there are discussions with OK. So if the SEC just says now is not the time for A&M – partly because of finances, then the A&M officials can more easily sell the B10. I believe A&M fans would quickly get over not being in the SEC when they realize that the B10 is the premier overall conference. Having national games against Ohio St, Mich, and Penn State will help. If Delaney were to get A&M and prevent the SEC from getting A&M, that would be a great victory. Just a thought.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten would have to add a 14th team. The only reason 11 worked is because they had no divisions or conference championship game. 13 would not work now.
LikeLike
If I were Commissioner of the ACC, and A&M moves to either the SEC or Bigger 10, I would make the move to 16 right now. I would try to reel in Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, and West Virginia and cut both the SEC and Bigger 10 off at the pass.
Everybody thinks that the ACC can be poached by the Bigger 10 and the SEC, yet it has only happened once since 1992, and that may have actually strengthened the ACC conference. Most of the ACC schools look disdainfully at the SEC, as they should. Meanwhile, people here talk about the BTN giving the Bigger 10 a financial advantage, but as the Pac-12 and LHN networks show, anybody can create a network if they have good media markets. So really, what does the Bigger 10 have to offer to ACC schools to entice them away?
I think the ACC is in good position, but a strong offense will be its best defense.
LikeLike
You state that the Pac-12 won’t go to 16 without Texas, so why should the ACC go to 16? Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, and West Virginia are nice add ons for balancing out a king (ND/Texas/Oklahoma) or quasi-king (UNC/A&M).
But the finances may not work out in stretching the ACC to 16 with those 4 schools. You end up diluting the value of the 3 football brands that they do have (2 kings in FSU/Miami, and a semi-national brand in Va Tech).
There’s no added revenue bonus as they got from going to 12 with the CCG, etc. Hard to see why the ACC would be so proactive in this situation.
Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse are likely to always be on the table unless one of them goes to the Big Ten with Notre Dame…
LikeLike
If the SEC were to balk at expansion and if Texas A&M’s relationship with Texas and the Big XII is too far beyond repair, I’m wondering if they would reconsider the Pac-12. I know the school has made statements about not wanting to fly athletic teams to Seattle. But a Pac-16 regional network with Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and friend (Tech? Kansas?) would be a good way to get back at the LHN.
LikeLike
Agreed. And getting TAMU makes it much more probable that the Big Ten gets OU, which makes getting Texas and ND much more likely as well.
LikeLike
Extremely hard to see this happening when the administration is gung-ho about going to the SEC and the SEC seems open to the idea of having 13 teams until they find a suitable 14th.
LikeLike
Zeek, you make good points re: Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers – although if Virginia Tech is a semi-national brand, then so is West Virginia.
My thought process was driven by: 1) Preventing poaching of the ACC, and 2) West Virginia and the likelihood of it being team #14 for the SEC. Over time, the ACC is going to come under a lot of poaching pressure from both the Bigger 10 and the SEC. How do they withstand this pressure? Second, losing WVU to the SEC would really hose the ACC on the expansion front, and it seems like expansion may be the solution to poaching. If we are destined to have 16-team conferences, then the ACC needs to get there ahead of the Bigger 10 and the SEC to remain as strong as it is today.
I actually think that an ACC with BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, WVU, VT, UVA, and MD in the north; and UNC, NC ST., Wake, Duke, GT, Clemson, FSU, and Miami in the south would make for a more prestigious football conference without sacrifcing a lot in terms of academics. Not sure if it will be more lucrative, however.
Your response really highlights to me the lack of good options that both the SEC and Bigger 10 have for expanding to 16 if the ACC holds onto all of its teams. SEC would be relegated to A&M, WVU, Mizzou, and ????? Bigger 10 would be limited to Syracuse,Pitt, Rutgers (whom you seem to assert are not good additions), Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St (these latter two are worse than worthless), and of course Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
Second, losing WVU to the SEC would really hose the ACC on the expansion front, and it seems like expansion may be the solution to poaching.
I’d say WV to the SEC helps the ACC tremendously. It greatly reduces the odds of an ACC team joining, and that’s the concern for the ACC. You don’t expand and dilute your conference, losing money per school and weakening the connections between the schools when you’re under threat of losing a team.
LikeLike
Good piece, Gopher. This article fully explains the difference in the Big Ten model thanks to its network, and while Maryland — though arguably not a “brand” — would hold value for that conference (a value that would be amplified as part of an ACC emigre bloc of four):
Though it was stated the Big Ten makes 36 cents per subscriber per month, there is a similar distinction regarding within the footprint and without, just as ratings work. Inside the Big Ten states, the network brings in nearly 80 cents per subscriber per month. Outside the footprint, the average is roughly 5 cents.
There’s arguably no better example than Maryland for why the Big Ten holds a distinct advantage in revenue.
Currently, the Big Ten encompasses roughly 17 percent of the total households in America. The Big Ten’s goal since the first day it announced expansion plans in December 2009 was to increase the number of households in its footprint, so it could leverage the network on basic or expanded basic in a larger portion of the United States. Remember: earning 80 cents per subscriber per month means by expanding into larger territories, far more people will be subscribing to the network with an interest in the Big Ten, meaning exponential increased revenue.
Maryland has roughly 4 million total households. Since the Big Ten Network is on in roughly 25 percent of the households outside the footprint, we’re going to assume that 1 million are currently subscribing at 5 cents per month. That’s about $600,000 per year being made by the Big Ten in the state.
Now let’s assume the Terrapins become the Big Ten’s 13th team. Immediately, the network would be on basic or expanded basic in the entire state through re-worked deals with MSOs at an average of 80 cents per pop. Even at 80 percent of the state now subscribing to the network, we’re now looking at 3.2 million people paying 80 cents per month which is $30.72 million a year. That’s an increase of over $15 million for the Big Ten’s share of the profits.
But wait, there’s more.
Using the same logic employed with Texas A&M, we must figure the same for advertising. Since Maryland is roughly half the size of Texas, we’ll just simplify matters by using Texas A&M’s totals and cutting them in half. That’s about $1.7 million without Maryland in the Big Ten. Now bring the Big Ten games into focus, and we’re looking at $10.6 million. That’s an increase of about $9 million, of which $4.5 million would be earned by the conference.
So again, without any regard to bowl and tournament revenues, Maryland is worth well over $40 million to the Big Ten Network — about $20 million to the conference itself.
LikeLike
Maryland is half the size of Texas? Where is he getting that from?
LikeLike
Nevermind. I supposed I’m just bewildered to find that Maryland has 4mm households to Texas’s 8mm, whereas their populations are 5.7mm and 25.1mm, respectively. Maryland must have a lot of single people. And here I thought the other side of the Potomac had all the uglies. 😉
LikeLike
I’m sure they’re including DC with MD, which adds another 600,000 people and a lot of single person households. The rule of thumb is roughly 3:1, but I’m sure certain cities skew the number more than others.
The 4M could also be wrong. DC = 2.3M and Baltimore = 1.1M. I’m guessing they counted all of the DC MSA, even though that includes a lot of N VA households too.
LikeLike
I just heard this one from my connected friend:
Negotiations are on strong, but the Big12 schools are having a hard time getting the perfect match. PAC has shown the most willingness to talk.
Tech now has a UT problem, and they maybe out. I’m hearing OU, OkSt, KU, and Missouri to the PAC. PAC could go to 18 later with Tech and UT if UT decides to give up/change the LHN. (I assume in 18, AZ, AZSt go west)
KU and Missouri like that set up as it’s the Big 8 almost vs the Pac 8. OU really is working on UT who is sending mixed signals, and OU officials and the PAC are tiring of it.
LikeLike
That would make my day if it came to be true (KU alum). I still think KU & MU are pawns in this, though. I don’t know if those four add enough value on their own.
OU, OSU, KU, MU, CU, Utah, ASU & AU would sit nicely with the old Big 8 alums.
LikeLike
I think something like that works very, very well. 16 for the B10 and SEC are logistical nightmares. This is pretty smooth for the P16 and gets them a lot of central time zone play, which is important.
LikeLike
I agree, it is much eaiser to picture a 16 team Pac than a 16 team SEC or B10. The only way I see the B10 going there is if means they will get ND or UT and likely both. The only way I see the SEC going there is if the other two conferences go there first, and they just want to keep up.
LikeLike
You Okies are smoking something. Why should the Pac-12 expand now without Texas? OU is a desirable candidate to the Pac-12 in the scheme of getting to 16, and may be enticing to the SEC and Bigger 10. But, the Bigger 10 and SEC do not really want Ok. St, KU, or Mizzou right now. And these schools are just not that valuable to the Pac-12. So why would the Pac-12 blow its wad on 4 schools when only one of them is even close to being highly sought? It makes no sense, and I will be SHOCKED if it happens.
In the Pac-12’s perfect world, they would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. But that almost certainly won’t happen. So the Pac-12 will settle for Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St. But it will not settle for OU and Big-12 slops who are being spurned by the other major conferences.
LikeLike
I think TAM, OU, Kansas and Mizzou would be a home run for the PAC.
LikeLike
The Pac is weaker financially than both the B10 or SEC. The top revenue-generating athletic departments in the Pac (Stanford & USC) would just be middle of the pack in both the B10 and SEC, in part because fans just aren’t as fervent out west. Plus, their expansion options are more limited & they want to get more eastern exposure. KU gets them a BBall brand. Mizzou gets them a decent population (and they don’t care about academics like the B10 does, as they see the Pac as purely an athletics conference)
LikeLike
If the Pac goes to 18 like in your example, it will be a 10/8 split. Arizona or ASU will have to go east.
LikeLike
Utah or Colorado could go west and not split any long time rivals.
LikeLike
If the Pac 12 adds KU & Missou in the place of TT & UT, and they stay with a two divisional format as opposed to a pod system, I bet the Arizonia schools are going to be ticked off. They’ll lose the California recruiting grounds, without being able to substitute with Texas recruiting grounds. That sounds like a raw deal for them.
And if the Pac 12 were to go to 18 teams if and when the Texas schools join, only one team would have to go west, so I would guess it would be Utah.
LikeLike
In this scenario (OU, Okie State, Kansas and Missouri, followed by Texas Tech and Texas for 18), if Arizona and Arizona State go to the “coastal” division, does this mean Iowa State and Kansas State could fill things out for 20 in all? The “continental” division would then essentially be the Big 12 minus Nebraska, A&M and Baylor and plus Utah.
LikeLike
What a difference a year makes. “Tech now has a UT problem”.
LikeLike
Texas Tech will not be left out of a PAC 12 expansion with or without Texas. OU/OSU/Tech are pretty much a package deal. UT will decide to join if the rest go. MU/KU should beg the B1G to pick them up. Otherwise S-E-C for M-I-Z-Z-O-U.
Peace.
LikeLike
KU and MU just became stalking horses to UT (and somewhat for TTU). no way Larry Scott gives up all those Texas TV sets. If Redhawk’s rumor is true it’s an attempt to force UT to playball with the PAC. Either way UT has to give up LHN, – cable providers are simply not going to carry it.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 holds a lot of cards, but certainly not all of them.
They need OU or Texas in order to expand.
If OU tells them that this is likely their last chance at getting OU and eventually Texas, they may jump at the chance to take OU + 3.
They can always go to a Pac-18 or Pac-20 in order to bring Texas in later, and having OU almost guarantees that they will be the landing spot for Texas at some point in the future.
Of course, it’s much simpler to let things play out a little longer and then maybe try to grab OU/OSU to Pac-14 and wait for Texas to come around if you can push OU to join with just OSU.
But, if the Big 12 does manage to stabilize, what are the odds that they get OU/Texas down the road? As we’ve learned, movement occurs when conferences are unstable. The Big 12 is unstable right now, so if Scott wants to set up his endgame scenario with Texas, he might have to do something relatively soon.
The ACC was unstable a couple of years back; if the Big Ten or SEC had made a play for their schools then, it would have likely been a lot more successful than right now when the conference appears to be strong enough to fend off any suitors.
The point is that movement occurs when the ground shifts in various places. Right now the ground is shifting. The Pac-12’s endgame in Texas is secured if they can get OU in whether by Pac-14 or Pac-16 (without Texas) because eventually they can get Texas/TTech later on down the road.
Of course, I’m not saying it’s likely that Scott moves to 16 without Texas, but I’m saying the scenario can make sense if Scott thinks that it’s his only shot at Texas (in a Pac-18/Pac-20) in the next 10-20 years.
LikeLike
Of course, knowing all of this means that OU is really the school that holds most of the cards right now. Texas will stay in the Big 12 as long as OU is willing to stay, so OU holds the key to the eventual Texas endgame that Scott envisions.
LikeLike
Absolutely. If you’re the PAC 12, with the limited options they have, you have to ‘git while the ‘gittin’s good. They can worry about adding Texas later. I (for once) agree with Drew Sharp in the Detroit Free Press. The Big Ten needs to act now. As for the ACC, I believe they will be the fourth ‘mega-conference’ swiping a could gems(?) from the Big East -and maybe even Notre Dame.
LikeLike
swiping a ‘couple’ gems(?)
LikeLike
From the Big East? What gems?
LikeLike
I have to believe it was a tongue in cheek, ‘gems(?)’.
LikeLike
the only school around good enough to be a “gem” in the Beast is Pitt.
LikeLike
i meant all-around good enough
LikeLike
I think you should further qualify that to say, a gem for the ACC if they need to expand! It has been interesting to watch how this board (with FtTs help) has gravitated away from Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers or Mo to the B1G about 16 months ago. There are no gems there for the B1G, just solid filler if they could acquire another ‘king’.
LikeLike
BigR
My best case 14 would be Pitt & ND. Not gonna happen, but that’s the motherload at 14 to me.
LikeLike
jj, that’s Pitt’s only value to the Big Ten — as a Notre Dame lackey. It would have more value by itself to the ACC or even (in a longshot pairing with WVU) the SEC.
LikeLike
OU does not hold all the cards. That is so off-base. Texas holds all the cards. OU is relegated to trying to prod Texas to do something so that it can improve its own position AND/OR convincing the Pac-12 that it is now or never for getting them. In the latter case, I would call that bluff.
The facts belie your statement re: conference stability. If, as you say, the ACC was unstable, it does not appear to be now. And while I agree that the Big-12 was unstable last year, it held. Unless Texas wants to move now, the Pac-12 has no reason to make the next move.
LikeLike
texas is making itself an island. that’s fine if that’s what they want, but i don’t see any real evidence that they are not doing that. OU & ATM together have just as much pull as Texas if not more.
LikeLike
Oklahoma can choose its own destiny, whether that be the Pac 12, B10 or SEC… OU leaving the Big 12 pretty much kills off the conference…
A year and a half ago the Big 12 had three kings (Texas, Nebraska & Oklahoma) and two other programs in the top 20 in all-time wins; Colorado & Texas A&M…
LikeLike
But OU wants to go to the Pac-12. stay married to Oklahoma St., and keep its ties with Texas. Plus, it has weak academics. Given those constraints, its hand does not look so strong
LikeLike
OU’s hand is strong enough to go pretty much whichever conference it wants to go to. Seems plenty strong to me . . .
Texas, on the other hand, doesn’t have a B12 to fall back on if OU goes.
LikeLike
Interesting article about Delany and the ‘new’ Big Ten in the NYT’zzzz.
Being the first in the marketplace is crucial and the fact that the BTN is up and running, with wide distribution gives them at least a two touchdown advantage over their competition. i love to hear how the (embryonic) PAC-12 media deal, with its SEVEN networks blows everything else away. Lets see if it can avoid all the pitfalls that the BTN encountered, before declaring it the gold standard.
LikeLike
Well, the Pac-12 hired the underling staffers that helped set-up the Big Ten network, as well as assembling a staff of professional pro-sports television and marketing people (not college people or football people). They were able to learn from all the issues encountered by the Big Ten, mainly saving premium content and securing wide distribution (it has already secured wider distribution than the big ten network http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pac12confidential/2016090641_pac-12_networks_how_to_get_rich_quick.html), and had a more favorable market to operate within.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. They’re going to need their fans to demand their networks be placed on basic cable packages. Fans who, for the most part, are considered nationally to be fair weather.
LikeLike
The national P12N and the local regional are already guaranteed on basic within the footprint.
LikeLike
chowder,
The B10 doesn’t save premium games for the BTN because they are more valuable as national games. You want casual fans to watch the B10 too, but they aren’t going to tune in for IN/MN in football.
As for carriage, the BTN is in roughly 40M households last I heard (same general number the P12N is throwing around), and probably will make more per subscriber than the P12N. The BTN is also available to about 80M households total while the P12N doesn’t have outside carriage deals yet.
Based on the BTN’s success, the P12 could risk full ownership of their network which is a big advantage. That’s what happens when you let someone else go first.
This was what grabbed my attention in that article:
“Off the top of my head, four years from today, I would not be surprised if the Pac-12 schools saw $12-15 million distribution (each) from the Pac-12 Networks,” Maestas said. “The truth is, it could actually be 30-40 percent higher than that.”
That’s $12M – $21M per school per year by 2016 just from the P12N.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/richard_deitsch/09/01/brucefeldman.cbs/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a9
Bruce Feldman has left ESPN for CBS, and has a few things to say about his former employer.
LikeLike
That’s a good complimentary link to the one someone linked to the other day of the waning influence of ESPN. It is likely that ESPN has reached its zenith, and while it may not go away, it may no longer have the influence it once had. That will be for several reasons: its lack of credibility as a news organization and more because there are other options available, such as MLB network, NFL network, BTN, etc. The big three network news organizations are still well known, have a lot of influence, etc., but they no longer have the sole influence they once had. That is probably what will happen with ESPN.
LikeLike
I am wondering if ESPN may try to use its “journalistic” resources to uh, persuade Oklahoma that its best bet is to be a good boy and stay close to Texas in the Big 12 rather than go to a (shudder!) superconference, especially one tied in with Fox. (In other words, Sooners, we folks from Bristol can blackmail you Okies any time we please.)
LikeLike
Pac 12 primary contract is shared between ESPN and Fox. Wouldn’t they be simply trading one broadcast opportunity for another?
LikeLike
Wow. Pretty scathing. I love it.
LikeLike
All this for Craig James? I don’t get it.
LikeLike
Seconded. Does Craig James have compromising photos of some ESPN execs?
LikeLike
This is why BC is a bad choice for the B10.
LikeLike
Or UCONN for that matter
LikeLike
bingo.
B10 has very little in the way of realistic options that add legit value. that’s just the way it is.
LikeLike
Considering all of the implications of an admittedly unscientific poll, it is kind of surprising that of a self-selecting group of people (after all college football fans are more likely to vote in that poll than not) that somehow New England posts numbers that bad. It makes sense because of the fact that there’s around a half million students in that area alone yet there’s only two “big time” programs in BC and UConn that only appeal to such a small portion of the population and both have small alumni bases relative to the size of alumni of non-football schools in that region.
In general, BC is only coming to the Big Ten if ND makes it a condition of their entry (and they’d likely select Pitt for that role instead), but that’s extremely unlikely anyways with good compromise candidates like Pitt out there…
LikeLike
Adding value to the B10 is much more difficult than adding value to the ACC, Big East or Big 12.
LikeLike
Frank,
http://www.theeagle.com/video/Loftin-talks-about-changing-conferences
note academic question and Loftins answer
LikeLike
sure sounds like an SEC attitude.
LikeLike
SEC it is. It’s rather surprising to see a President be so candid about academics taking a back seat.
LikeLike
With respect to national exposure, IMO B10 would be better for A&M. But his answer on academics certainly sounded like the SEC was where they were going. I think he basically compared A&M to Rice with the rest of the SEC equivalent to the commuters schools of Conference USA.
LikeLike
With the new Fox contract and with a 14 team SEC where they are in the vast middle class vs. 10 team Big 12 where they are in the top 3, I just don’t see how he increases national TV appearances. And since he will be playing mostly in LA,AR,AL,MS I don’t see how that increases visibility over playing in IA,KS,MO,OK and TX.
LikeLike
Their top games will be on CBS, and those games get better ratings than the ABC games. Their other games will be on ESPN, and those games beat the crap out of FSN coverage. TAMU will have more games that casual fans will watch in the SEC than in the Shrinking12.
LikeLike
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/9/1/2398174/how-much-does-sec-expansion-mess-with-tradition
An SEC blogger looks at SEC series amongst the “original” 10 teams before and after 1992. This explains why SEC expansion and B10 expansion are such different animals.
LikeLike
So who has had the most successful conference expansion in the past 20 years? B10 has added two top tier programs, whereas the SEC did not. However, arguably, the SEC championship game has been one factor as to why they are recognized as the premier conference.
LikeLike
For the question: “What would this conference be like without these teams, compared to what it is now?”, not “Which conference is best?”.
1. ACC A+
FSU, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College.
They collectively have 5 of the 6 best conference records since 2005, 10 of 12 CCG appearances, 5 of 6 CCG wins, 11 of 13 BCS appearances and both BCS wins by the conference. Without them, the ACC might not even be a BCS conference.
2. Big East A
Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, TCU
Without these additions the Big East doesn’t exist as a conference. Overall they’ve been pretty much at the conference average. Combined they have 3 of the 6 BCS berths, which is about the expected amount.
3. Big Ten A
Penn State and Nebraska. These are two of the legendary (and leaderly) programs in college football. The Big Ten isn’t first because without them, OSU/Mich/Wisc/Iowa is still a good top 4.
4. Pac-12 B
Utah and Colorado
Decent fanbases, decent teams, decent markets.
5. SEC C+
South Carolina and Arkansas
These are the 7th and 8th best teams by conference record. Combined they have 3 CCG appearances and 1 win. Arkansas BCS bid last year was the first for either one. They don’t bring in particularly large markets. Basically, their biggest contribution was allowing the championship game while being about average quality.
6. Big 12 F
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Texas A&M
No explanation needed.
LikeLike
Well done. Though I think you may have graded the P10 too high, but it is still early. They also have limited options except by going big.
LikeLike
I understand those rankings, but if I was a member school and voting for conference expansion possibilities, I’d rank South Carolina and Arkansas’s effect a lot higher. If you are a middle of the pact team, it does not help your program long term to be adding too many strong teams (and the SEC already had enough). What I’d want aren’t the best possible teams, but the teams that will bring a lot of fans even though they might not usually be that good. In that light, I’d rank both the SEC and Big 12 higher.
LikeLike
A decent point. You don’t want too many kings. I think I would grade the SEC higher simply because the results now are fairly convincing. We could argue over whether Ark/SC had any causation effect to those results. I think he grades the B12 correctly. A conference that has lost 2 members, and on the verge of another, with other members begging other conferences to take them is not a strong conference. Frankly, an F may be too high.
LikeLike
Arkansas was probably a triple at the time, but they have sunk since they have been in the SEC in football. Neither of those two has won a conference championship.
LikeLike
As a fan of a middle-of-the-pack team, I understand that sentiment, but that doesn’t fit with what conferences have done. Conferences always seem to try to add the best possible teams (assuming they fit other criteria). The Big Ten added Nebraska and Penn State. The Pac-12 tried to add Texas and Oklahoma before getting Colorado and Utah. The Big 8 added Texas and TAMU (who was good back then). The ACC added Miami, FSU, and the rest of those teams which have spent their time beating up the original members. In the early 90s, the SEC tried to add FSU, Oklahoma, or Texas before Arkansas and South Carolina. Currently, the SEC seems poised to add A&M and has been conjectured to add VT and Oklahoma. Those last two would be in the top half the SEC and the first one certainly seems to think they will be. The Big East invited TCU, who would have been the best team in the conference the last few years. The MWC invited Boise State.
That last got a little long, but the net result is that I can’t think of a single example where a conference rejected a better team because they were worried about additional losses.
LikeLike
Depends on what you are comparing the Big 12 against. If you are treating it as a Big 8 expansion, its hard to rate it an F when you consider where the Big 8 might have been. 3 football national championships and 9 title game appearances in 15 years isn’t too bad.
LikeLike
I’d rank the Big 12 a lot more succesful than most. Yes it’s unstable now, but it had a ton of success with the 12 teams (consider the Big 12 vs. the PAC-10 since the formation of the former). The only thing I think that could have realistically been better would have been to not add Tech and Baylor, which would have allowed for round robin and a continued season ending Oklahoma-Nebraska which would have secured the Cornhuskers better.
LikeLike
Fair grading if you’re looking at the teams individually, but overall I think the SEC did as well as the Big Ten, and Big 12 did about as well as the Pac-12.
If you really think about it, the SEC didn’t need more powerhouses, it had Alabama/Florida/LSU/Auburn/Georgia (Tenn has faded, so I’m excluding them); that’s more than enough teams that can compete for the NC.
The Big Ten now has 5 in Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska and I’d include Wisconsin as a team that has been ranked in the top 10-15 preseason fairly often enough but hasn’t managed to run the table and get to the NC. Still, the Big Ten needed to really improve the top of the conference, and now it’s done so in terms of teams that can credibly compete for the NC when they’re at full speed.
The SEC needed to fatten up the middle of the conference as it moved to a full conference schedule and CCG. Adding more kings might have actually been a worse expansion than the expansion that they managed (of course hindsight is 20-20, but you never want a league of all powerhouses).
In that respect, the SEC’s additions met their needs as much as the Big Ten’s even though the individual additions themselves were nowhere near as valuable.
As for the Pac-10 -> Pac-12, they needed the Big Ten’s expansion (to fatten up the top of the conference and get a CCG) but had to settle for the SEC’s expansion (two middle-of-the-road teams to get a CCG). That’s naturally a weaker expansion, but I’d differentiate the Pac-12 from the SEC based on the fact that the Pac-10’s needs were closer to the Big Ten’s…
As for the Big 8 -> Big 12, they really had no choice. Sure they could have held their ground and tried to just take Texas and A&M, but they were so desperate for population mass that they ended up taking all 4 (Baylor/TTech as well). The Big 12 was a television contract; nothing more, nothing less. It had the old Big 8 but didn’t really recognize it, and splitting up Nebraska-Oklahoma was the biggest mistake (although Oklahoma wanted to be with the Texas schools in a North/South split, since they needed the games in Texas for recruiting).
LikeLike
The “fatten up the middle” idea sounds good, but as I say above the SEC tried to get Texas, Oklahoma, and FSU first. Those teams would have no intention of fattening up the middle.
The “too many powerhouses” just doesn’t reflect reality. No one is saying “Wow it sucks for the SEC to have 8 teams ranked. They would be better off if some of those teams were not as good”.
LikeLike
That’s fair M with respect to the conference’s first choices, I’m just saying this from a hindsight is 20/20 kind of perspective in terms of which ones worked out the best.
LikeLike
I would rate the SEC higher. Certainly higher than the Pac. Arkansas and SCarolina are better adds than Utah & Colorado.
LikeLike
SH,
You asked:
“So who has had the most successful conference expansion in the past 20 years?”
To be clear, I’m starting with FSU joining the ACC and stopping with TAMU leaving the B12. I’m not including TAMU to the SEC, because I think you really need to see #14 to evaluate that.
Right now, I think you have to go:
1. SEC – They were first to get a CCG and have become the dominant conference. While that isn’t a completely causal relationship, it’s not unrelated either. SC and Ark have provided some memorable games in addition to allowing the CCG to occur. Adding TAMU only furthers their cause.
2. B8 – Second on the CCG bandwagon and enjoyed lots of great UT seasons (and ratings). The CCG hurt them a few times, but also elevated them in other years.
3. B10 – Added a king and then waited a long time to add a second one. They are about to get a CCG, but haven’t fully gotten the NE and CCG bump yet. After a few years I’d move them above the B8, but not yet.
4. ACC – Added some great programs, but it hasn’t quite worked out as expected so far. Everyone’s still waiting for FSU/Miami in the CCG, or for other teams to raise their game. Maybe now that FSU is “back,” the league will start to improve.
5. P10 – Added two decent programs, but they are great fits. Like the B10, they have yet to reap the benefits of the CCG. If the ACC doesn’t improve soon, the P12 might pass them on this list.
6. BE – They kept alive, but they’re still too small for a CCG and they had to add non-AQs to replace AQs. TCU should help them, but with the stigma of a non-AQ becoming the top program in the conference.
7. B12 – They’ve lost a king and two princes so far. They may lose more. Adding BYU would stem the bleeding but it is not a king. The inability to get members to work for the greater good makes the conference look bad.
If you just want to look at the average value of the additions:
1. B10 – PSU and NE + CCG
100% kings
2. B8 – UT, TAMU, TT, Baylor + CCG
1 king, 1 prince and 2 others. Unfortunately, Baylor fell off the map after joining.
3. ACC – FSU, Miami, VT, BC + CCG
2 nouveau kings, 1 prince and another solid program. While FSU had great years in the ACC, Miami fell off right before joining. VT and BC have been quietly carrying the league. The value here is close to the B8, but UT provides too much value as a king in a huge state.
4. SEC – Ark, SC + CCG
Two average programs, and Ark at least had some solid history. Adding TAMU might move them above the ACC if they find a great partner, but otherwise the lack of a king holds them back.
5. P10 – CO, Utah + CCG
Two solid programs, and CO had some solid history. Utah being non-AQ hurts the perceived value, though.
6. BE – added UC, UL, USF, TCU, but lost Miami, VT, BC
They traded 3 solid AQs programs, including a nouveau king, for a bunch of non-AQs. At least they stayed in business.
7. B12 – lost NE, CO, TAMU and the CCG
Losing teams is never good, and losing a king and 2 princes is worse. The CCG loss won’t hurt too much, but they might feel the impact of SEC recruiting coming to TX.
If you want to look at the total value of the additions:
1. ACC – FSU, Miami, VT, BC + CCG
2. B10 – PSU and NE + CCG
3. B8 – UT, TAMU, TT, Baylor + CCG
4. SEC – Ark, SC + CCG
5. P10 – CO, Utah + CCG
6. BE – added UC, UL, USF, TCU, but lost Miami, VT, BC
7. B12 – lost NE, CO, TAMU and the CCG
LikeLike
Lots of SEC teams now only play teams in their own conference lil’ more than 30% of the time. That would only get less often in a 14-team conference though I’d imagine a 9 game schedule would be a must.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
The SEC has a 5-1-2 schedule, as in 5 divisional games, 1 locked rival and 2 rotating games. That means they play 6 of 11 teams 100% of the time, and the other 5 40% of the time.
LikeLike
Ok I figured it out. The B10 just needs to invite Kansas, Oklahoma, and UT – leaving a 4th spot open for ND or MO (which would make it a nice geographicly aligned conference). Also MO would make it easy to split divisions east and west with 3 kings in both. If you go with ND, you can still do the same, with the idea that Wisc/Iowa combined act as the 4th king to the four in the east (assuming ND is counted as a king). You have basically boxed the SEC in. Left the P10 with very little to choose from. You have a great basketball conference. You have a great football conference. You have added three (maybe 4) flagship universities. Now that would be a powerhouse super conference.
LikeLike
My hat is off to Penn State and Northwestern,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576544751757934620.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_6#project%3DNCAAGRID090211%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
Congrats on making us proud
LikeLike
ps, loki, Rice is there too!
LikeLike
Northwestern football wasn’t a joke before 1995. A joke should be funny. Going 3-62-1 over a 6 year period is just sad.
(The tie was 0-0 against Illinois.)
LikeLike
On this grid, as in the football landscape, TCU occupies a lonely void by itself. Couldn’t we have been a little higher up, though? We’ve only had two major infractions in football, the last one was 25 years ago, and we self-reported.
Anyway, I’m off to watch my team play an actual game of football. I’m positively giddy.
LikeLike
Barry Tramel of the Oklahoman on the radio said he expects OU and OSU will accept/announce they are leaving for the PAC next week, during OU’s bye week.
He didn’t say anything about other schools.
LikeLike
In other words, Austin, the ball is in your court.
LikeLike
@Vincent nice tennis analogy. However it looks to me more like a hanging curve ball in UT’s wheelhouse with the bases loaded (OK on third, OK St on second, Texas Tech on first).
LikeLike
However, if ESPN is pitching (and has bribed the umpire), all bets are off.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about that. If the Texas A&M move toward the SEC teaches us anything, it would seem that economics and reason may create the framework under which conference realignment occurs, but it doesn’t (always) drive the bus. I think Frank was right in his original analysis that an A&M move did not make sense, but the Aggies were/are simply determined to do it. They look to be paying a pretty stiff upfront price. Am not really convinced ESPN has power to dissuade Texas in any serious way from making a conference move, they’ll just renegotiate when it’s done.
LikeLike
To me this would be the biggest bomb in armegeddon. You can sort of see the Nebraska, Colorado, Utah and A&M moves. This makes no sense geographically or culturally w/o Texas as a bridge. If this happens w/o Texas, it is armegeddon. If this happens with Texas, it is armegeddon. I really appreciate the folks that tried to look at the situation in terms of the least distruptive stable solution. In that context, what do you all think the least disruptive stable global solution would be if OU/OkSu head west? Is there one?
LikeLike
The least disruptive scenario, if a Pac-14 (OU/OSU) materializes, would be for Texas to commit its non-football sports to a “Big 8” (TTech, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State + 2 new candidates like Houston/SMU or something like that) and agree to play TTech annually along with 3 others in the new “Big 8” in exchange for parking its non-football sports there. Texas would then be free to schedule 8 games outside of the “Big 8” including OU and A&M and probably 6 rotating other teams.
That would be a Texas independence scenario that could keep too many things from changing.
The issue is that the SEC is likely to target Missouri, and the Big East is likely to target Kansas and/or Missouri if OU/OSU do head west.
Thus, we’re likely to see some of the largest shifts we’ve perhaps ever seen if OU/OSU head west. It’s highly likely that the rest of the Big 12 disintegrates if OU/OSU head west.
LikeLike
Givens: TAMU to SEC, OU and OkSU to P14
The least disruptive scenario would probably be:
The B12 adds some (1 or 3) of the top non-AQs that would add markets and/or football quality (BYU, Boise, AF, CSU, TCU, UH roughly in that order). That should be enough to stay AQ assuming UT and MO stay around. They may need to stop at 8 teams so UT can play the round robin and still schedule OU and TAMU OOC while having 3 more OOC games to rotate around. They could go to 10 and still only play 7 conference games, too.
That could lead to the WAC and MWC merging again, at least for FB. CUSA could pick up LT if they need to replace someone. The BE can fill TCU’s spot if they lose them.
I’m not saying the scenario is likely, but it would be the least disruptive I think.
LikeLike
I think the least disruptive global solution if OU and OSU go West is to keep the ACC stable and just shuffle the Big 12 schools:
1)Texas decides to let the Pac 12 buy out the Network, taking TT with them west
2) Missouri follows A&M to the SEC
3) The football Big East schools merge with the remaining Big 12 schools + UCF:
Midwest division: ISU, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati
East Division: UConn, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, USF, Rutgers, UCF
It would probably be easier to just drop Baylor, TCU, or USF, but that would be a disruption. You could add a Houston or BYU instead of UCF (shifting Cincinnati East).
That could be stable:
16 team Pac 16
14 team SEC, Big 14
12 team Big Ten, ACC
Most years the SEC, Big 14 and Pac 16 will send 2 schools to BCS. Big 14 and ACC get at least 1 each. That leaves 2 spots; this actually increases the non-BCS conferences opportunity to get the big time bowls.
The Big 12 leftovers will actually find their BCS chances improved. But people might not watch much regular season games that aren’t in the ‘Big 3’ Conferences: Big Ten, Pac 16, and SEC.
LikeLike
To me, dissolving an AQ conference and forming the first superconference is pretty disruptive. Opinions can vary, though. Part of me agrees that it could be stable, but the other part tells me the SEC and B10 may not be happy with that arrangement.
LikeLike
I do think it’s plausible that Oklahoma is trying to get ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 open, whether that means they give a similar (obviously somewhat smaller) deal to the ONE network that Oklahoma has been working on, but who knows at this point.
LikeLike
You and he know more about OU than I do, but I’ll still believe it when I see it.
Deloss Dodds said in an interview -to paraphrase-everyone was nervous and everyone was checking out all their options. That was to be expected.
Because they are talking doesn’t mean these deals are necessarily happening.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/02/bcs-football-the-latest-on-realignment/
This is a really good recap on where the action stands at this moment with respect to all of the leagues.
LikeLike
Should have also mentioned that it has a lot of new information as well.
LikeLike
@zeek – Wilner is a good reporter. In a way, some of the “Huh?” scenarios out there are so nutty that it makes them plausible. Rutgers as a Big 12 target? Hey, why not?!
LikeLike
You know, I had that same thought about Pitt. And then I really thought about it, and I was like wait a minute, Pitt is probably the 2nd best choice behind BYU.
Can you think of a school that would create more compelling matchups and bring a more solid market than Pitt if BYU is happy with its independence? Obviously, the geography is an issue, but TCU is now in the Big East. No real reason why Pitt couldn’t be in the Big 12.
Rutgers is a bit more out there, but Pitt might want a travel partner, and bringing Texas and Oklahoma to NYC should at least be interesting in some respect, even though Rutgers alone can’t deliver that market.
Ever since the Pac-16 came to light, the scenarios have just gotten so much more wild.
And when you hear from Stallings that the Pac-16 was in the works for years (probably even before Scott) when Texas was trying to take Nebraska/Colorado/Oklahoma/A&M west, you just realize that a lot of these things have been in the works for a long time.
LikeLike
Colorado, at least, has been talking to the Pac pretty much continuously since the Big 12 was formed.
LikeLike
@Frank – nothing really seems implausible anymore. You could tell me that Hawaii was going to move its non-football sports to the Big East, and I’d at least think about it for a second or two.
But if history is any guide, the moves will be big, but not outlandish. A&M to the SEC, Nebraska to the Big Ten, Colorado & Utah to the PAC – these really aren’t huge surprises. That’s why Missouri to the SEC seems like a good bet. Or one or both of the Virginia schools.
LikeLike
Didn’t you hear? Villanova + Hawaii for football only + Alaska Anchorage for football only to get to 12 and encircle the Pac 12 on their Asian plan.
LikeLike
Maybe Pitt is part of a eliminate competition plan and absorb their slots. 14 with Pitt/WVU/UL/RU/SU? That would also asuage their concerns about OU or UT leaving. They would have a sufficient base to continue. But it would have to work financially and that seems questionable. Pitt/RU/UL? Pitt & RU still seem kind of out on a limb. Don’t know how well it would work for them.
LikeLike
Yeah that is one of the better articles to come down the pipe lately. I think its clear UT wants to protect their current setup at all costs, the question is can they hold on to the rest of the league long enough to put something together, and are there Big East football schools disgruntled enough to take the risk of the Big Tex given how unstable it seems, and how much is ESPN’s finger in the pie to try and help broker the deal. There is plenty of stuff in there to make everybody nervous in the Big East and Big 12, so will someone like Missouri or even Kansas try and push the panic button and force OU to make a decision before Dodds can get something lined up?
LikeLike
His final line was interesting. All is quiet on the B10 front, but he wouldn’t expect it to stay that way if dramatic changes take place. What do you think the chances of the B10 expanding again are in the next 5 years? I’d say pretty low – less than 25%.
LikeLike
Nebraska isn’t getting a full share until 2017 because the Big Ten needs its TV deal renegotiated in order to get them up to equitable payments without cutting everyone else’s pay.
Thus, I’d say extremely remote until 2014-2015 barring something like Notre Dame or Texas being available and willing to join (or the ACC-4).
LikeLike
I should modify this to also say that Nebraska is sort of buying in equity into the BTN/Big Ten’s contracts by taking a smaller payment for each of the next 6 years.
Regardless, it’s hard to see the Big Ten add another 2-4 mouths to feed off the current contracts until we’re closer to 2014-2015, unless a king (Texas/ND) or quasi-king (UNC) is on the table…
LikeLike
One of the above referenced blogs did a good job of discussing the value creation of consolidation. It make me wonder about Fox owning 50% of the BTN. The blog showed that Fox gains significant value through an expansion of even a team like Maryland. Seems like they would have some grease.
LikeLike
The odds of the Big Ten expanding in the next 5 years are the odds the same as the odds that the ACC implodes plus the odds that ND wants to join. So maybe 1% + .0001% = 1.0001%
LikeLike
Every single source has agreed on one thing: the SEC will not add a school from a state they’re currently in. Whether it’s a “gentlemen’s agreement” or just a desire to add more real estate, I think we can safely rule out FSU, Clemson, GT, and Louisville (and Wetzel’s wackjob suggestion of TCU).
LikeLike
Even Notre Dame isn’t this emphatic about wanting independence. SEC fans-Give it up! Virginia Tech ain’t coming.
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/09/more-tech-comment-expansion
LikeLike
Agreed. None of the ACC schools are going anywhere right now (whether to the Big Ten or SEC).
Missouri or WVU is the most likely choice if the SEC has to pick one in the next year. I doubt anything will change by next summer…
LikeLike
They are in total spin mode right now. Now I’m not saying that they are going to leave, but I would take everything coming out of VT with a gain of salt. If you believe the statement which he is quoted as saying “No one’s approached us”, then I have some New Mexico swamp land up for sale. VT is on of the top on the SEC’s list. You know the SEC has at least approached them, even if VT turned them down outright. So if that one comment is spin, the everything else is suspect as well. Again, I’m not saying VT would leave, all I’m saying is take everything coming out of VT with a grain of salt.
BTW…you do know that a UVA sports writer is the one that wrote this article right?
LikeLike
Are you getting into conspiracy theories? The UVA sportswriter is making up the story or putting in false quotes from a named VT official? This is not the way people talk when they are leaving. If VT is thinking about leaving, they are putting on the biggest smoke screen ever. And they’d be burning a lot of bridges by going out of their way to mislead other ACC people.
LikeLike
I just threw the UVA writer observation in there because he would be writing the article from an UVA slant/prespective. I wasn’t implying that he made it all up.
As far as the comments coming from VT, the phrase “thou dost protest too much” could possibly apply in this circumstance. If you believe that the SEC hasn’t at least approached them, then you are crazy. And if he wasn’t fully honest on that, what else is spin?
Again, VT may have no desire to leave the ACC. But they seem awfully defensive all of a sudden.
LikeLike
Everything out of the SEC is that they haven’t seriously dug into #14 yet. So, I doubt the SEC has made any direct connections with VT.
LikeLike
Now if the Pac 16 happens, people may think about things they wouldn’t consider before that.
LikeLike
Bamatab,
VT may be protesting too much, or they may be sick of being talked about like a whore willing to do anything for a buck.
LikeLike
VTech isn’t going to the SEC this year. Probably not next year either. It would have to be 2-3-4 years from now for VTech to consider the SEC.
LikeLike
This is consistent with Dodds saying everyone was exploring all their options. Note that Dodds said ND was off the table. Certainly not unexpected, but it makes it clear that is no longer even being discussed.
LikeLike
As an RU fan the interesting part of that is RU/WVU/LVille/Pitt are the schools most fed up with Providence . WVU knows they need to be proactive because their market puts them at risk in any shakeup. Everyone thought the stupid Villanova is dead but Nova sources still act like the Big East will eventually add them for football.
If the Big 12 came to this four bloc group of schools they would of course be nervous about the long term stability but what is worse, being in a conference where you have to do what Texas wants or being in a conference where you have to do what Providence, Depaul and Seton Hall want?
LikeLike
@Phil – That’s the one connection that at least makes this scenario semi-plausible. Those 4 Big East schools have been the ones pushing a football agenda the most, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the Big 12 approached them as a group.
LikeLike
More detailed story with the interview comments from OU’s President Boren that just hit twitter a while ago. Pretty blunt about the lack of a “Proud member of the Big 12” statement following TAMU’s departure because they were evaluating all of their options.
Also his description of what they want from a conference sure sounds more like the PAC or the Big 10 then the current Big 12.
http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2011/09/02/boren-on-big-12-ous-future-in-it-or-out/
LikeLike
I know I am dreaming here but the Big ten with OU and Mizzou at 14 would be sexy to me. If Ok State and Tex tech went to the pac to get them to 14 and the SEC adds A&M and one other to hit 14 I could see kansas and K state in the big east. I know I am dreaming but with all the talk out of OU it makes it seem likely that we are moving closer to larger if fewer confrences.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6923495/oklahoma-sooners-president-david-boren-says-school-interest-multiple-conferences
Well here it goes. OU to make their decision within 3 weeks.
LikeLike
Defcon 1 Zeek
LikeLike
@zeek – Nice vote of confidence from OU there. That won’t distract anyone at all!
LikeLike
Is it just me or do those initial comments (the ones about being in a conference where there are multiple relationships besides athletics, the importance of academics, and the value of stability) sound like someone who would be interested in the B1G, if OU could separate from OSU or if the B1G were willing to accept OSU (not happening)?
LikeLike
The comments certainly point directly at Big Ten or Pac-12.
The problem is they probably don’t want to be without OSU or Texas in conference (i.e. both non-conference games).
I’d say odds are only 5% that they go to the Big Ten. It would be a big shocker for them to make OSU and Texas non-conference games.
The other 95% are probably split 50% Pac-12, 45% Big 12. The Pac-12 scenario depends on whether they can bring Texas along for a Pac-16 or some other grouping without Texas that works to a Pac-16 (I doubt such a thing exists barring something unforeseen). Or they could settle for a Pac-14 with OU/OSU, but in that case they might choose to stay in the Big 12 over that alternative.
LikeLike
Without Texas the odds of Oklahoma going to the PAC are halved. Why? Because for all the talk about Big Ten presidents being puritans who scoff at the very notion of an AAU wannabe joining their ranks, Stanford etc. are equally as protective of who they are.
What four colleges would ‘earn their keep’ without Texas? Even the second best option: Ok, OkSt. Missouri, and Tech would have a difficult time getting the votes. The Arizona’s are NOT going to appreciate being dumped into the PAC East.
I would put the odds of Oklahoma going to the Big Ten at 20% , the Big 12 (which ain’t going to make it) at 35% and the PAC at 45%. A PAC east without Texas is not going to be worth its weight.
LikeLike
They have an old friend in Nebraska. Gold & Silver?
LikeLike
Unlike the B10, the Pac schools see their conference solely as an athletic grouping. That’s why they were willing to take TTech & OKSt. last time. Trust me, Stanford and the UC schools want nothing to do academically with WSU.
LikeLike
4 schools in the Big 12 maintained the unequal division of television revenue. Nebraska is now the Big Ten. Texas A&M keeps saying they’re “SECeding”. Oklahoma is looking at “various possibilities”.
The 4th is Texas.
LikeLike
This generated some interest. ESPN isn’t counting the comments-its 3000+.
Does anyone think it makes sense that schools are deciding their athletic future for the next 20-30 years (Loftin is crazy if he thinks its 100 years-but then he IS an Aggie!) in two or three weeks? This would seem to create the opportunity for bad decision making for all sides.
LikeLike
I do have to say that this is unfolding quite quickly considering that these are decisions that are probably going to be impossible to undo over time…
LikeLike
Bullet,
I think it really depends on how much research they have done. If OU did their due diligence last summer when then looked shaky, or once TAMU started talking again this year, they may have about all the data there is. The only new data is what the new TV deals would be in various conferences. What the president and BOR should have already discussed is what their priorities are, where they would prefer to go, and what games they want to keep.
NE made an even quicker decision and I think it was the right one.
If anyone made an emotional decision, it was TAMU, but they had plenty of time to review the facts and make their choice.
LikeLike
Nebraska had an easy decision. They knew it was more $, the CIC, more academic prestige and the only potential safe landing spot they had were the Big 12 to implode. They really didn’t have big annual rivalries to leave. CU was the biggest and they were heading west.
OU and A&M do not have such easy decisions. TV markets change constantly. How much you can renegotiate existing contracts is at issue. The bar on college sports deals is changing constantly. That’s something that has to be re-looked at and takes a lot of work. And the Pac X has a different look than last year with Utah in and it being unclear if UT and Tech go with them. As has been said, there are a lot of moving parts.
LikeLike
There are a lot of moving parts, but I don’t see where taking 3 more moths to think about it changes any of that. Either they’ve done their due diligence since last summer or they haven’t. If they have, 3 weeks is plenty of time to make this decision. If the yhaven’t, then of course they are going too fast.
LikeLike
Since there’s been a lot of recent talk about athletic department revenues I
thought I’d throw up some actual numbers.
The list below is the average annual athleic revenue for variuos schools from 05-09.
I placed Nebraska in the second category as it was not part of the B1G during the
timeframe (and it should move up the list a bit with the revenue bump it will receive
by switching conferences).
B1G:
2. Ohio St. 112,975
4. Michigan 92,188
6. Wisconsin 86,203
8. Penn St. 83,597
13. Iowa 76,924
15. Michigan St. 73,321
25. Minnesota 63,962
32. Purdue 57,122
35. Illinois 54,692
44. Indiana 49,930
56. Northwestern 42,363
Usual (and a couple of unusual ) Suspects:
1. Texas 115,388
10. ND 81,544
16. Oklahoma 73,134
17. Virginia 72,512
18. A&M 72,001
19. Nebraska 71,401
20. Kansas 71,201
22. Kentucky 65,234
23. Oklahoma St. 65,167
27. North Carolina 60,926
29. Duke 59,226
30. Boston College 58,986
33. Virginia Tech 55,724
36. UCONN 53,988
37. Maryland 53,793
38. Louisville 53,607
42. Florida St. 50,712
43. Missouri 49,930
45. Miami (FL) 49,912
48. Rutgers 47,385
49. Georgia Tech 47,285
50. Syracuse 47,103
54. NC State 43,171
55. Vanderbilt 42,624
59. Pitt 39,051
As you can see 8 of the top 15 top revenue producing AD are in the B1G the rest are
almost entirely SEC schools plus USC (#14) & Stanford (#21).
So you’re making it a requirement to have AD revenue that would place you above the
middle of the pack in the B1G then you have exactly TWO options…ND & Texas.
I think it’s a bit silly to discount the ACC schools under the false premise that
their AD would barely be on par with Northwestern. Clearly that wasn’t the case
from 05-09. A number of the alleged target schools brought in money that would place
them squarely in the same range as other B1G schools….and that was under the
substandard ACC TV contract that were saddled with at the time. With the increased
revenue entering the B1G would bring *Virginia could very well be making more money than
any conference school outside of the top 4 (Ohio State, TSUN, Wisconsin & Penn St).
If a school that was the #17 overall revenue producer over the five year period (Virginia)
wasn’t bringing in enough to meet your criteria…then you should probably re-examine
how realistic that standard really is.
* Virginia had a massive revenue bump in 05-06 bringing in $92M that pushed up their
average quite a bit; but even without that outlier they were still consistently in the
top 25 range ($65M or so).
LikeLike
Wow, that surprises me about UVA, especially as a UVA alum. The Wahoos have been down in football and basketball for so long, but we are great at the “preppy” sports and have been contenders for the Champions Cup. I would love to see UVA in the B10, but just don’t see it happening. They just don’t have that brand name that I think the B10 would want, plus I don’t see any reason to leave the B10. But to be so far up their in revenue is somewhat shocking.
LikeLike
UVa receives a massive amount of revenue via student fees. Last year student fees amounted to almost 15% of its athletic budget, which was second only to USF among AQ schools. They were also second to USF in terms of total student fees. If you look at earned revenue, UVa is quite a bit lower.
Source:
LikeLike
What UVA does is that students have to pay sports’ fee, but they then get in free to any UVA sporting event (including football and basketball). While that’s not a great system, its net effect isn’t much worse than having no fee and then making students pay for tickets.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
It’s Richard. What do you expect?
Thinking people weren’t dismissing schools out of hand for not having better revenue numbers than half of the B10. Most people take the time to educate themselves on the issue before setting a revenue goal for future additions. As you note, you also need to take the B10 bump into consideration, as TV money and attendance will go up (ticket prices, donations and merchandising probably will too).
LikeLike
Here’s the latest numbers from the Department of Education’s website with the numbers from the FY 2009 data for Division 1-A schools. See http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetDownloadSelectedData.aspx
1 The University of Texas at Austin 143,555,354
2 The University of Alabama 129,300,689
3 Ohio State University-Main Campus 123,174,176
4 University of Florida 116,515,907
5 Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College 109,941,869
6 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 106,666,191
7 Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus 106,614,724
8 The University of Tennessee 100,730,439
9 University of Oklahoma Norman Campus 98,661,765
10 University of Wisconsin-Madison 93,901,820
11 Auburn University Main Campus 92,594,273
12 University of Notre Dame 90,887,054
13 University of Iowa 88,510,052
14 University of Georgia 87,988,682
15 University of Virginia-Main Campus 81,841,632
16 Stanford University 81,720,391
17 Michigan State University 80,064,147
18 University of South Carolina-Columbia 79,991,754
19 University of Kentucky 79,700,853
20 University of Arkansas 78,072,620
21 University of Southern California 75,748,665
22 University of Oregon 75,412,029
23 Florida State University 75,209,179
24 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 73,599,999
25 University of Nebraska-Lincoln 73,483,733
26 University of Kansas 71,881,111
27 Texas A & M University 71,857,071
28 University of California-Berkeley 69,034,737
29 Indiana University-Bloomington 68,769,582
30 Duke University 68,536,289
31 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 67,613,805
32 Oklahoma State University-Main Campus 65,568,706
33 Boston College 64,502,395
34 University of Washington-Seattle Campus 64,034,410
35 University of Louisville 63,487,394
36 West Virginia University 62,030,104
37 University of California-Los Angeles 61,875,531
38 Purdue University-Main Campus 61,508,748
39 University of Nevada-Las Vegas 61,240,620
40 University of Connecticut 58,482,290
41 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 58,115,929
42 Clemson University 57,562,999
43 Arizona State University 57,059,932
44 University of Arizona 56,362,700
45 University of Miami 56,084,064
46 University of Missouri-Columbia 55,674,279
47 Rutgers University-New Brunswick 55,564,642
48 Baylor University 54,141,924
49 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 53,502,485
50 Texas Christian University 52,405,010
51 Kansas State University 52,400,839
52 Oregon State University 51,652,370
53 University of Maryland-College Park 51,641,771
54 North Carolina State University at Raleigh 50,335,991
55 Vanderbilt University 49,915,713
56 University of Colorado at Boulder 49,521,519
57 Syracuse University 49,342,459
58 University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus 49,218,556
59 Northwestern University 48,921,823
60 Texas Tech University 48,075,056
61 Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus 46,983,216
62 Iowa State University 46,871,554
63 University of Mississippi Main Campus 43,917,704
64 Wake Forest University 42,253,156
65 Brigham Young University 40,999,979
66 Washington State University 39,352,096
67 University of South Florida-Main Campus 39,190,939
68 Mississippi State University 38,127,591
69 University of Cincinnati-Main Campus 37,101,542
70 University of Memphis 36,951,363
71 Southern Methodist University 36,034,263
72 University of Central Florida 35,690,477
73 San Diego State University 32,082,827
74 University of Utah 31,859,038
75 University of Houston 31,564,286
76 University of Hawaii at Manoa 31,083,698
77 East Carolina University 30,861,024
78 University of New Mexico-Main Campus 30,277,950
79 Rice University 29,432,270
80 Temple University 28,783,706
81 University of Wyoming 26,979,593
82 University of Tulsa 26,292,189
83 California State University-Fresno 26,055,730
84 Miami University-Oxford 25,975,293
85 Boise State University 25,099,155
86 University of Alabama at Birmingham 25,069,712
87 Central Michigan University 24,510,325
88 Ohio University-Main Campus 23,905,953
89 New Mexico State University-Main Campus 23,714,666
90 The University of Texas at El Paso 23,336,396
91 Western Kentucky University 23,243,348
92 University of Akron Main Campus 22,994,889
93 Marshall University 22,949,720
94 University at Buffalo 22,900,990
95 Colorado State University 22,496,161
96 Florida International University 22,004,421
97 University of Nevada-Reno 21,589,070
98 Tulane University of Louisiana 21,309,000
99 Western Michigan University 20,754,204
100 San Jose State University 20,609,552
101 University of Toledo 20,039,546
102 Eastern Michigan University 19,508,307
103 Kent State University Kent Campus 19,446,680
104 University of Southern Mississippi 19,393,678
105 Utah State University 19,233,000
106 Middle Tennessee State University 19,098,901
107 Ball State University 18,772,993
108 Northern Illinois University 18,452,594
109 Bowling Green State University-Main Campus 17,040,837
110 University of North Texas 16,643,811
111 Florida Atlantic University 15,481,401
112 Troy University 15,200,584
113 University of Idaho 15,061,046
114 Louisiana Tech University 14,537,084
115 University of Louisiana at Lafayette 12,357,619
116 Arkansas State University-Main Campus 11,433,185
117 Hampton University 9,751,779
118 Belmont University 8,862,724
119 University of Louisiana Monroe 8,320,207
120 University of New Orleans 3,612,407
121 Chipola College 1,607,228
122 Jefferson State Community College 563,406
In a recent address to the Detroit Economic Council, Michigan Athletic Director David Brandon said Michigan’s revenue for FY 2012 was projected to be $132M and Ohio State was $138M. UM’s figures have gone up dramatically due to the successful leasing of luxury suites plus gifting for PSLs, etc. for the premium seating.
LikeLike
Northwestern is ahead of 2 SEC schools, 2 Pac-12 schools, 2 Big 12 schools, 2 ACC schools and 2 Big East football schools.
LikeLike
How weird is that, that it’s exactly 2 from each of the AQ conferences?
To be fair, Utah has non-AQ TV money for that list, but NW has $48.9M versus $31.9M for Utah. The P12 TV money will make it close (Utah doesn’t get a full share for a while – see below), especially as other revenue streams will go up (NCAA money, bowl money, merchandising, donations, ticket sales, etc), but the B10 TV money is growing too (don’t forget CCG money on top of standard growth) and should jump again in 2017.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsutahsports/52493911-59/hill-utes-million-pac.html.csp
“[Utah AD Chris] Hill’s conservative estimate is that the Utes will receive about $3 million in TV revenue from the league this year, $7.5 million in 2012-13, $11.5 million in 2013-14 and $15.2 million in 2014-15 when the Utes become a full-share member.
“Those figures don’t include any revenue the Utes will get from the Pac-12 network. Hill said he is unsure whether the Utes will be considered a full-share member for that revenue immediately or must work up to that level. It will all come down to whether the network deal is considered ‘new money,’ that wouldn’t exist as it does without the presence of Utah in the league.
Regardless, Hill obviously is happy even with the conservative figures, considering Utah was getting $1.2 million in TV revenue from the MWC.”
So Utah will go from $1.2M to $15.2M in 5 years, and that’s just TV money. Add bowl money, NCAA money, and all the other sources, and they’ll pass where NW is now. The question is how large NW’s revenue will have grown by then.
LikeLike
I think Northwestern’s attendance will improve a bit as well which should move up a few spots. It’s already gone up 25% in the last two years and that was without any home games against Michigan or OSU (or Nebraska). The nonconference schedule has improved from a draw perspective as well: only one buy game (FCS), the rest against BCS opponents. They’re not the greatest draws among BCS schools (Syracuse, Boston College, Vanderbilt, Cal), but they still should “move the needle” more than a MACrifice game. Northwestern doesn’t have a single game against a MAC opponent 2011-2014+.
Northwestern also is starting a major facilities campaign, which should also give a temporary boost. I’m sure donors are pleased with Utah though, so that’s probably a wash.
I’d bet that Northwestern will pass Vanderbilt and Syracuse in the next few years, even if Utah goes up even further. I don’t see any reason Northwestern can’t get up to the Boston College area.
LikeLike
Thing about NW’s attendance is, if I recall correctly, they are on the receiving end of the pool of money that the B1G schools put together from ticket sales. So, any gains in attendance aren’t necessarily going to mean big gains in revenue. Wouldn’t it just mean less from that pool of money and more to the schools paying in (I believe it was Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State).
LikeLike
@Ross
The revenue sharing for attendance is 35% on conference games only. Northwestern would get a little less net from that setup, but improvements in attendance (especially non-conference attendance) would be a significant boost.
LikeLike
M,
I agree that NW will continue to rise in total revenue. I just think it will be fun to watch Utah shoot up the list, and I’m guessing they’ll end up close to NW by 2015. NW may well have moved up the list by then. This wasn’t intended as any sort of slam of NW, they just happen to be the B10 team there on the list.
LikeLike
I’m impressed to see sparty so high. To hear um tell the tape, we’re juco.
LikeLike
Isn’t that more about academics and head to head in FB?
LikeLike
Yes. God help us when we turn to AD revenue in order to bash rivals.
LikeLike
Ross,
At least you can use it on Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Almost no non-AQ are above any AQ. BYU-65 looks like the only 1. Cincy is last AQ at 69, barely ahead of Memphis, next at 70. Then its SMU, UCF, SDSU, Utah, UHouston, UHawaii, ECU, NM, Rice at 79. If B12 and BE are still together in 9 months, there’s really a pretty limited group of non-AQ expansion candidates.
LikeLike
TCU is at 50, and they’re still non-AQ. Utah is #74, and are AQ now. If you only want to count fully vested AQs (which makes sense), then #69 UC is last.
LikeLike
Well Utah wasn’t AQ in 2009. Thought there had to be another non-AQ up there, forgot TCU didn’t count as AQ. Still only two exceed any AQs.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just thought it was unfair to count Utah as non-AQ but not TCU. I thought it was just an oversight, but wanted to clarify in case you did it intentionally.
LikeLike
As the list is from 2009, I would count by conference affiliation at the time. Also, Utah is supposedly expanding their stadium, and you can bet there are going to be some ticket price increases coming along with the bowl and TV revenue boosts. The Utes are hands down the biggest winners from the latest round of realignment. Hopefully TCU can realize a significant increase with the new Big East contract; conservative estimates put it at around $12-13 million per (football) school per year. If the conference still exists when we get there, of course. Still, impressive to be on par with Big 12 members Tech, Baylor, CU, and KSU in spite of the rather paltry MWC TV payout.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of revenue by sport. I’m guessing UVA actually has 4 sports that generate appreciable revenue: football, basketball, lacrosse, and baseball.
LikeLike
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
UVA’s total revenue by sport:
MBB $9,788,223
WBB $369,536
BB total $10,157,759
FB $19,004,653
Other men’s $2,640,604
Other women’s $1,073,795
Other total $3,714,399
Men’s total $31,433,480
Women’s total $1,443,331
Total $32,876,811
Not Allocated by Gender/Sport $48,964,821
Grand Total $81,841,632
The majority of their revenue is not allocated to a specific team. That generally includes TV money, support from the school, merchandising, donations, etc.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm is also useful.
Revenue sources from USA Today:
Ticket sales $14,444,012.00
Student fees $12,160,103.00
Guarantees $275,000.00
Contributions $33,975,775.00
NCAA/conference distributions including all tournament revenues $11,428,793.00
Program sales, concession, novelty sales, and parking $729,711.00
Royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships $6,968,961.00
Sports camp revenues $134,631.00
Endowment and investment income $512,360.00
Other $1,212,287.00
Subtotal operating revenue $81,841,633.00
LikeLike
That gets tricky, as schools break things down differently. TV money sometimes all goes under football, sometimes goes under some kind of generic category. Same for alumni giving that isn’t for a specific sport. But getting a look at the specific revenue streams and expenses would be interesting. Ticket sales, advertising, etc. Don’t see much of that info, though.
LikeLike
Jake,
Here’s the breakdown of sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm
Revenue sources from USA Today:
Ticket sales $14,444,012.00
Student fees $12,160,103.00
Guarantees $275,000.00
Contributions $33,975,775.00
NCAA/conference distributions including all tournament revenues $11,428,793.00
Program sales, concession, novelty sales, and parking $729,711.00
Royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships $6,968,961.00
Sports camp revenues $134,631.00
Endowment and investment income $512,360.00
Other $1,212,287.00
Subtotal operating revenue $81,841,633.00
LikeLike
I was looking at that a couple weeks ago and looked up a handful of schools. It was interesting to see the reasons for the differences between schools. IU, MSU, UM were all pretty similar on donations. The differences between the 3 were mostly ticket sales. I would have expected UM to be well ahead on donations as well.
LikeLike
M,
I posted this before but it had 2 links so it’s waiting for moderation. Here’s the revenue by sport info:
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
UVA’s total revenue by sport:
MBB $9,788,223
WBB $369,536
BB total $10,157,759
FB $19,004,653
Other men’s $2,640,604
Other women’s $1,073,795
Other total $3,714,399
Men’s total $31,433,480
Women’s total $1,443,331
Total $32,876,811
Not Allocated by Gender/Sport $48,964,821
Grand Total $81,841,632
The majority of their revenue is not allocated to a specific team. That generally includes TV money, support from the school, merchandising, donations, etc.
LikeLike
Well, I said that it wouldn’t make sense to take in a school that is below the B10 average in both football attendance and AD revenue (say, less than MSU, which is a good midpoint in both) _unless_ a king (ND, Texas, OU, or FSU) comes along with them. Indeed, the list of candidates is small; that doesn’t mean we should let in schools that weaken the conference.
Schools like Rutgers, Maryland, and Mizzou can pay for themselves with the BTN solely with their footprint, but
1. The TV payment structure may change in the future. Brands will last. Carriage fees may not.
2. Expanding without pulling in a king or to satisfy another need just doesn’t make sense (plus Mizzou is subpar academically). The B10 has no need to expand just for the sake of expanding.
I was an early proponent of taking the ACC core four, but the difficulty there is that there are no football brands; in fact, there seems to be lukewarm interest for college football in those 3 states. In all other aspects (academics, non-football athletics, & demography), they are a perfect fit, and I do believe it behooves the B10 to take in some growing regions within the next half-century.
I’m rethinking whether UVa would be worth it by themselves (without a king). I think I would divide up the list this way:
If they come, can let in 2 academically acceptable schools:
Texas
If they come, can let in 1 more academically acceptable school:
ND, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, FSU
Can come by themselves:
A&M, UNC (& Duke only if with UNC), Kentucky, Tennessee
VTech, Virginia, Miami (these 3 are kind of borderline for different reasons)
Need a king to come as well to get in:
Maryland, Rutgers, GTech, Pitt (preference for these 4 because of research/academics)
Syracuse, BC, (these 2 are OK as well)
Kansas, Mizzou
LikeLike
1. The TV payment structure may change in the future. Brands will last. Carriage fees may not.
Nonsense. As the 1970s ended, neither Florida State nor Miami were “brands.”
LikeLike
Right, but has any school stopped being a “brand”?
OK, Tennessee. Besides them.
LikeLike
Minnesota.
DePaul and St. John’s in basketball.
LikeLike
Anybody tracking Larry Scott right now?
LikeLike
Did you see Boren’s interview? It was his plane going between Columbia, Norman and College Station last week. I guess its hard to refuse to talk to a former US Senator who is negotiating whether you pay 10 or 12 or 14 or 20 or 28 million.
LikeLike
Which out of these three combinations of schools would be more coveted by the B1G:
1.) ND, MD, UVA, RU
2.) ND, MD, UVA, Mizzou
3.) ND, MD, RU, Mizzou
LikeLike
No 2. Rutgers just doesn’t offer much.
LikeLike
I think Rutgers offers a lot when coupled with Notre Dame. You get NY’s most popular team and a place for them to play in New Jersey.
LikeLike
I also think the value of having Penn State especially and Ohio State/Michigan as well visit Rutgers would be interesting given how many alumni those schools have in the NYC area. Throw in ND visiting that area and it’s probably the best option.
LikeLike
Can you see any scenario where the B1G takes Syracuse over Rutgers?
LikeLike
SU would bring a lot in hoops, but I think RU has better academics for the B10 (more research focus) and would maximize the value of PSU better, especially near Philly. PSU might prefer SU to renew their rivalry, though.
LikeLike
Yes, if the Big Ten has a Canada strategy as Syracuse is closer to Ottawa than New York City.
LikeLike
Its a what have you done for me lately world. SU has been bad in football and in their attendance lately. They also just withdrew from the AAU. I don’t see it. I don’t really think SU wants it. They wouldn’t want to be with all the big state universities. I remember one of their officials making a comment like that some years back.
LikeLike
@Other Mike – Yes, I actually think many of the commenters here underrate Syracuse. There’s a reason why they were the original target of the ACC in 2003 as opposed to, say, Rutgers or Pitt (and it wasn’t just that they’re a private school).
LikeLike
Of those three options presented, I’d pick #2, but I don’t think that’s the most like scenario at this point. While UVa has a lot going for it, I don’t know if how much Virgina would bolster a strategy to get the Big Ten Network in the mid-Atlantic thru New England corridor (including all the major metropolitan areas located there).
Syracuse would probably be a better pick than Virginia to accomplish this goal in concert with Maryland, Missouri and Notre Dame. The new Big Ten could well be:
East – Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse
West – Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
LikeLike
The presidents:
4.) None of the above
1
3
2
Delany:
4
1
2
3
Pro-expansion fans:
2
3
1
Old school fans:
4
LikeLike
If Delany can get ND, I think he’ll stop at 14 for the long haul. He’ll probably go for ND-Rutgers, since Maryland doesn’t seem that attainable unless the SEC succeeds in raiding the ACC.
LikeLike
I would prefer #1. ND is good leverage in an East Coast strategy, plus all 3 of the rest are B10-quality research institutions.
LikeLike
TCU goes down
LikeLike
I need a drink. And a placekicker.
LikeLike
A lock down corner might be helpful, too.
LikeLike
Sorry Jake. It was a heck of a comeback, though.
I’m guessing the streak of years with the #1 defense will end this year. On the other hand, TCU will have a veteran QB and be ready to tear through the BE next year.
For once, Baylor didn’t play like Baylor although they sure tried to give the game away.
LikeLike
After that game, we could post 12 shutouts and still not finish #1 in defense. Air Force’s option offense is going to be a nightmare next week.
LikeLike
I’m guessing TCU already spent some time getting ready for it. On the bright side, AF is less likely to throw over your heads for long TDs. I’m guessing the D will be hopping mad and do a much better job.
LikeLike
Couldn’t do much worse. At least cramping won’t be as much of a problem; forecast for C.Springs next week looks pretty nice.
LikeLike
Big 12 has an Emergency Conference Call Friday evening, and UT, OU, and A&M weren’t included.
interesting
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1259825
LikeLike
Yeah, I found that intriguing. Essentially they’re telling the other schools that this is a maximum emergency situation with OU seemingly on its way to the Pac-12 in the next 3 weeks barring some kind of change of plans.
I’m still wondering how they plan to work out the LHN issue, since I assume Texas will also go west. But that’s just money, that can be worked out…
LikeLike
Isn’t it a little odd to exclude UT when they’ve been holding the B12 together since last year?
As for the article, I like these quotes:
Sources said Texas officials told them last year the Longhorns were reluctant to go to the Pac-12 because they would lose a lot of the power they enjoy in the Big 12. The sources said Texas feared being out-voted and muscled in the Pac-12 by the power brokers in that conference – the original Pac-8 (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State).
Isn’t this what everyone but UT fans have been saying all along, and UT fans deny? And really, WSU out-muscling UT?
But Texas’ move to the Pac-12 would also be difficult because of the legislative heat the Longhorns would likely face. Legislative sources said Friday night that part of the reason Texas A&M was allowed to withdraw from the Big 12 was because of assurances from the rest of the Big 12 that the league would survive.
Now that it appears the Big 12 is in serious jeopardy, lawmakers will not be so passive, sources said.
TAMU fans have been insistent that the legislature can’t and won’t get involved in conference realignment, and have been right so far, while UT fans said they would and may be proven right if they try to go west. I’m not sure how much heat UT would face with TAMU in the SEC and TT going with UT to the P16. Do enough legislators care about Baylor to do anything? Maybe they just pass a law requiring UT and TAMU to play every year.
Two Big 12 sources said if Oklahoma and Texas are preparing to lead a charge to the Pac-12 there would almost certainly be a tortious interference lawsuit filed against the Southeastern Conference. That’s if Texas A&M indeed submits its application for membership to the SEC next Tuesday or Wednesday as expected, according to sources.
“Texas A&M leaving has started this whole thing,” one source said. “There is a big-time lawsuit here.”
The potential of such legal action and the real possibility the Big 12 could collapse prompted another Big 12 source to wonder if the SEC would now hesitate to accept Texas A&M, considering the fallout that could befall the Big 12.
I really don’t see how this TI suit could win. First, TAMU has no assurances the SEC will accept them, yet they’ve said they want to leave. Second, the SEC won’t offer TAMU but consider an application from TAMU. Third, as noted above, the rest of the B12 gave assurances that the B12 could survive TAMU leaving. How can they turn around and say TAMU leaving is what destroyed it? Fourth, OU and UT have been 2/3 of the foundation of the B12. Why wouldn’t the P12 be more deserving of a TI suit than the SEC, especially since they would end up with 5/12 of the conference?
LikeLike
I’ve learned to read between the lines when reading Chip’s articles. The guy gets the facts, but they are often sandwiched between info intended to spin public opinion in UT’s favor.
UT doesn’t want to give up its network. It also doesn’t want to be on the hook for breaking up the Big 12. So the focus becomes: OU is being reckless, we won’t have voting power in the Pac 16, blah, blah, blah.
What is most interesting is the threat/assertion at the end of the article about suing A&M. It’s almost like a hail mary to try to keep them from leaving the Big 12. It also may be a sign that UT doesn’t want TTU to tag along. If UT can pin the blame for leaving TTU behind on A&M, it can gain more power as the sole Texas product while also strengthening its future league (with a KU or MU).
Bottom line– UT doesn’t like not having ‘hand’ in its relationships. If they abstain from the Pac to go indy, they’re gonna need it.
LikeLike
Bottom line– UT doesn’t like not having ‘hand’ in its relationships. If they abstain from the Pac to go indy, they’re gonna need it.
Gopher86, you just turned Texas into George Costanza. Congratulations!
LikeLike
I think pushing the lawsuit issue are the left behinds-Baylor, KSU, ISU, maybe Kansas, Beebe.
LikeLike
As a Pac fan, I am both excited and fearful of a UT to Pac move (but love the OU to Pac idea).
On one hand, I love the potential riches and competitiveness across all sports that UT brings. Dominant CA and TX presence in the same conference where the Pac owns 100% to rights through some Tier 1 options as well full ownership in a conference network….wow (not to mention the Phx/Sea/Portland/SLC/OKC markets).
On the other hand, UT seems to be a bear of a conference mate to deal with if all that is read is to be believed. As the article states, they would not wield the hammer in the Pac. They could be outvoted in most everything assuming that the Pac 10 block (+ Utah and CU) sticks together on issues. UT may be able to make more money in the Pac set up but is that enough for them? Scott will not be pushed around like Bebee. That is my fear – what is to stop them from destabilizing another conference in 5 years, 10 years, or 1? They have already proven to be able to stand on their own by generating their own network.
My hope would be that Scott has some pretty strong fail safes included to prevent something like later down the road upon their admittance. But as a Pac fan, I also may be worried for no reason at all….
LikeLike
Texas to the Pac22 will ensure it’s demise in about 10 years. Hopefully, they create divisions that can be easily spun off into their own conferences.
LikeLike
Why is the Big 12 at risk? Greed by everyone. The Big 12 has been run by its 7 “haves.” And its the “haves” that are leaving. CU wanted to be with its alumni and make money off their donations. UNL wanted prestige, more money and stability. A&M wanted more money and guarantees without earning them by taking money from the “have-nots.” Now “haves” OU, MU and UT might leave. OU wants prestige, more money and stability. MU wants prestige and more money and out of the dog house for mocking its neighbors. UT wants to be free to make more money off its brand. The B1G started this whole thing and the other “have” conference, the SEC, also wants to be bigger, badder and richer. The Pac wants to be a “have” and followed the ACC raid model, which was also followed by the BE on the CUSA. ND wants their independence and their BCS cake too. Maybe ISU, KSU and Baylor (great job last night!) are blameless.
OU and UT can still say no to superconferences. Athletes don’t need to travel all over the country all the time. Rivalries can be saved. Good programs like ISU and KSU and yes, Baylor, don’t have to suffer because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
LikeLike
The era of superconferences is entirely dependent on OU/Texas/ND. If those three move, we’ll see 3 14-16 team conferences.
LikeLike
Not sure what’s the most surprising part of this story:
A) The Longhorn Network gets its second game
B) Its against KU
C) Kansas is only getting $500,000 for
selling outsigning off on this dealLikeLike
The fact that it’s Kansas is what surprises me. They’re typically in the top half if not near the Texas/Oklahoma group in terms of TV revenue and overall athletic department revenue in the Big 12, so the money issue may not be as relevant.
But what is the point, is this a way of telling Texas that they’ll be able to get 2nd (and maybe more) games on their network if they stay in the Big 12?
LikeLike
What does it hurt Kansas IF the game is not going to be on TV? With Texas schools, the reason for reluctance is obvious.
LikeLike
well…so far being on the LHN isn’t exactly like being on “TV” either. See: UT vs Rice
LikeLike
I understand if you have that Verizon thing you actually can get it. And there are a few tiny systems. ESPN has 20 years.
LikeLike
You mean other than KU fans having to directly fund UT’s athletic department for the privilege of watching the game on TV?
LikeLike
This deal takes the game off of national TV and puts it on the Longhorn Network. So Kansas fans who don’t live in Kansas will be now be unable to watch this game. Granted, there likely aren’t many Kansas football fans outside the state, but they have reason to be upset.
LikeLike
Coming on the heels of today’s (Friday’s) conference call where Beebe told the people to work on UT to keep them around, the timing of this is curious.
LikeLike
According to BON “select regional stations in Kansas will be able to broadcast the game”. So at least fans locals will be able to watch the game.
LikeLike
ESPN released a statement announcing that over-the-air stations in Kansas would broadcast the Jayhawk-Longhorn game.
LikeLike
Wow…Now the Oklahoma president says they are talking to other conferences and will make a decision in three weeks. Cannot imagine they will stay in the Big Twelve with all the instability. But, are they that tied to Texas that they might stay? I cannot believe Jim Delany of B1G is sitting back and not talking to Oklahoma. Remember, he is going for home runs and they only ones out there are Texas, ND, and Oklahoma. Who would have thunk Oklahoma as a B1G possibility a month ago??
LikeLike
While Delany would probably offer an Oklahoma-Missouri option, it’s hard to see how that works for Oklahoma given that both Texas and OSU would become non-conference games.
LikeLike
I’m really skeptical that Delaney would even offer that. I find it hard to imagine that the Big Ten would pursue 2 additional borderline (or worse, really) academic candidates for the conference and CIC after already taking Nebraska. It would really take the Big Ten feeling like their hands are tied and they have to expand and they are no where near that now IMHO.
LikeLike
Frank, I think he’s referring to an OU powerplay on ESPN with this three weeks timetable.
How much is the LHN worth to ESPN? Because they’re probably going to lose it if OU goes to the Pac-12 and manages to drag Texas along.
Is it worth giving Oklahoma a $150M deal over 15 years for their ONE network in order to be able to keep the Texas LHN?
LikeLike
You get a network! You get a network! We all get networks!
/Oprah’d
LikeLike
The B12 is better than any reality tv, ever.
Also, I’m totally addicted to rotel. It’s like another food group in my house now.
LikeLike
I swear Rotel was the only advertising spot on the BTN for a couple years there. My roommates and I actually bought it up at UM for a game just because it felt right after so many ads. I distinctly remember Rotel Queso “impact players” in various games.
LikeLike
Hey I bought my Ro*tel allotment! 🙂
LikeLike
It was. Just put it in any dish and it is instantly better. It’s magic.
LikeLike
Hopefully contestant Sooner is just tired of the cameras being on contestant Aggie, so Sooner is threatening to leave the house with roommate Cowboy without even being kicked off, but really doesn’t plan on going anywhere.
LikeLike
I’d kind of be curious to see contestants Sooner and Cowboy team up to strand contestant Longhorn on Arrogance Island where it would have to perform a humility challenge to rejoin the other contestants, perhaps in the new Pacific tribe.
LikeLike
Well played, sir.
LikeLike
I find the whole starting a lawsuit against the SEC if Texas and OU go to the Pac-12 to be a joke. I’m not sure the Big-12 can realistically argue that the SEC should pay up if UT, OU, and conceivably two other Big-12 schools left for the Pac-12. In addition, A&M could easily argue that Colorado and Nebraska played a role in the fracturing of the Big-12; I don’t see how the conference could prove that the SEC and A&M were solely at fault for the destruction of the conference.
LikeLike
@Ross – At face value, it’s an extremely dubious case. You’d effectively have to show that the SEC was intentionally trying to break-up the Big 12, which I don’t believe they’re trying to do. If anything, the Pac-12 is who’s most exposed – they’re truly in a position to kill the conference.
LikeLike
So if I am reading you right, the Big-12 has to prove it was the intention of the SEC to destroy the Big-12, not just take Texas A&M? Not sure how they go about proving intent…
LikeLike
The issue is not breaking up the Big 12. Its interfering with the contract. The question with getting substantial damages would seem to me to be who was responsible for losses. That’s where it would be difficult to pin it overwhelmingly on the SEC.
LikeLike
I’m just not sure I understand the ground for a lawsuit. To me, it seems like if a vendor reached an agreement with multiple suppliers, and another vendor came offering a better deal, the only fees/damages that would be reasonable would be those imposed upon defecting suppliers, which is exactly what the Big-12 did with Nebraska and Colorado. What grounds would that vendor have for trying to get damages from another vendor who was simply offering a better deal? I know little about law, and even less about contract law, so someone may need to explain to me the justification for going after the other vendor (the SEC).
LikeLike
Its called torturous (sp?) interference. Basically you are enticing someone to break a valid contract. A&M is bailing on the Fox deal, as well as the ESPN deal, so that would be the theory.
Don’t recall what basis the BE used, but they sued BC and the ACC. The ACC portion of the case was thrown out. BC settled.
LikeLike
bullet,
I believe it’s tortious interference, aka intentional interference with contractual relations. A tort is a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else, as opposed to a crime which is a breach of a duty to society (many things are both). Basically, the B12 (or ESPN or Fox or whoever was bringing the suit) would claim that the SEC knew that TAMU had a contract with them and convinced TAMU to break that contract.
If TAMU broke it willingly and without being convinced, then the SEC is off the hook. The BE sued BC and the ACC for this, and the ACC case was dismissed while BC settled.
LikeLike
You’d have a better chance of proving that Texas was trying to fracture the Big 12.
LikeLike
I just threw the UVA writer observation in there because he would be writing the article from an UVA slant/prespective. I wasn’t implying that he made it all up.
As far as the comments coming from VT, the phrase “thou dost protest too much” could possibly apply in this circumstance. Surely you believe that the SEC has at least approached them to gauge their interest. And if he wasn’t fully honest on that, what else is spin?
Again, VT may have no desire to leave the ACC. But they seem awfully defensive if they haven’t even been approached by the SEC yet.
LikeLike
Ignore this post. I meant it to go under bullet’s post up the board. I wish this forum had an edit feature. 🙂
LikeLike
If the SEC wants to stay out of lawsuits, I would not expect them to approach VT before they extend an invite to A&M.
LikeLike
You know it’s actually somewhat interesting that most of the current moves (ND & UT talking…UT nudging other schools just enough to get them to want out giving the Longhorns plausible deniability etc) actually fits Purple Cat’s (or whatever his name was) machiavelian scenario by Delaney that would result in ND & Texas to the B1G.
Do I see that actually happening? No probably not…but the similarities are fun to speculate on.
Speaking of which … I wonder if he’s weaved any tales lately over in NW land…
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering the same thing. That’s one office in which I’d pay to be a fly on a wall.
LikeLike
I’ve been monitoring their board pretty regularly and PBC hasn’t said anything since that original post several weeks ago.
LikeLike
Frank,
now that we may be at DEFCON ONE might be interesting to play “what if” based on 4 scenarios (all looking at long term conference realignment)
SCENARIO #1 – The Fortune 50 realignment – NCAA football goes private
parameters : 3 Super Conferences of 16 teams (48) with 2 IND (UT / ND / BYU / ????) where college football is “spun off” as a for profit entity. Schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt are grandfathered in, and the B1G, PAC, and SEC maintain current schools.
SCENARIO #2 – Mini Ice Age realignment – Welcome to the NCAA Mexico!
parameters : 2 – 4 Super Conferences based on snow covering the upper half of the USA (B1G and PAC schools most at risk)
SCENARIO #3 – Global Warming – Hello Canada!
parameters : 2 – 4 Super Conferences based on sea level rising 6 to 60 feet. Canada becomes sunny year round. Schools like Miami are off the list because they would be underwater
SCENARIO #4 – The Bible’s Wrath – Milk and Honey or Pillars of Salt
parameters : 2 – 4 Super Conferences based on the wrath of God taking out the bad programs and leaving only the cleanest behind to reform conferences with. Rice leads the west, Vanderbilt leads the south, Penn State leads the east, and BYU leads the far west.
LikeLike
I know everyone’s waiting for the Big Ten to make a move.
But there’s no move to make. The Big Ten is just waiting for ND in a move to 14.
Maybe there’s an ACC scenario, but it’s hard to see. Delany implied that you could have integration problems if you take too many schools from one conference. The only ACC school that looks like a target would be Maryland but that doesn’t seem likely at all to pan out…
LikeLike
I think you have to take a shot when there are three big programs looking for a home. Football has largely become a hot weather sport with ingrained recruiting grounds in Texas, California and Florida. The country’s population has also migrated south and will continue to do so. These are too big of external forces for them to not be a player in the Big 12 sweepstakes.
The Big 10 can still get everything they want. Leave an invite on the table for OU/OSU/UT as a package. TTU will cry foul, but UT can claim that the okies refuse to go to the Pac 12 (which is the only place TTU is going to get an invite). That makes the problem interstate, rather than intrastate. If pushback from the the state of Texas continues, they can claim that UT can’t schedule both A&M and OU out of conference.
That leaves spot #4 for ND. OU & OSU have bad academics, but you add three top flight programs and solidify your future geographically at the expense of your competitors.
LikeLike
When you consider that distribution of the BTN and thereby the B1G brand is priority number one, and crucial to the B1G remaining relevant in the future, I am surprised Delany didn’t twist the arms necessary to get Oklahoma and Texas into the fold, even it it meant taking OSU. Instead the PAC, who apparently can do math, will trump the B1G in every way: Sports, network, prestige, academics and location. -OSU and Tech are just the price of doing business.
PAC=Smart & future forward B1G=Dumb & retrograde
The one question I would have for FTT or anyone else here, is, why isn’t the PAC’s willingness to overlook OSU’s academics considered heresy? Their isn’t a person in the country, outside of the B1G footprint, who considers the PAC to be inferior to the B1G in the area of academics. And that won’t change with the addition of OSU and TT. Laugh if you want, but watch ND join their pals Texas, USC, Stanford and UCLA the PAC.
LikeLike
Uh, no. All the eggs do not reside in the dust bowl. If the Pac does pick up the suggested 4 they paid two to get 1. The B1G will get 4 targets without baggage, when and if they choose to.
LikeLike
Agreed, and the Big Ten will dictate the terms for anyone it takes in, even Notre Dame. So if ND insists on bringing in a lackey such as Boston College that the Big Ten doesn’t want or no go, it will be no go.
LikeLike
Thoughts-WSU,ORSt.,OR,ASU are well below the bottom of the B1G as research universities. So OkSt and TT aren’t a stretch. Pac reputation is because Stanford and perhaps Cal are more highly regarded than anyone in the B1G and UW, UCLA and USC are in the same category.
If B1G could secure the populous NE, it wouldn’t matter that B1G is slower growing. That profile would enable them to get sufficient players from FL like they do now and plenty of students.
LikeLike
@bullet – Agreed. The California schools plus Washington in the Pac-12 are as strong as anyone, but the depth from top-to-bottom academically in the Big Ten is materially stronger. I would say that the main academic competitor to the Big Ten is the ACC, who is stronger in undergrad rankings generally.
LikeLike
True. I probably should have said the perception. But that perception is prevalent, as any Texas or Oklahoma message board will attest.
It amazes me that both the SEC and the PAC understand that BRANDS are priority number one when looking to expand, but football ambivalent population centers seem to be the focus of many here. What evidence is there that a Syracuse, Rutgers, UVA version of BTN would be offered on basic cable in those areas? How many are going to demand it is? Just the fact that the LHN is finding it difficult to secure carriers in Texas makes me think this strategy could be a total bust. Brands are what bring cable interest. I’ll take one Oklahoma over one Rutgers any day.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – To be fair, though, Nebraska is a big-time brand. The Big Ten clearly chose brand value over population centers last year. Who’s to say they still aren’t pursuing that angle? Now, the point is that in pursuit of brands, you also shouldn’t give up your own conference brand (which for the Big Ten, is very strong). Neither the Big Ten nor SEC are entertaining package deals (taking someone they clearly don’t want for someone that they would want). It’s also one thing if the package deal features someone that is at least on the margins of acceptability (say, if ND wanted to bring BC along) versus a school that is solely there for political purposes. I agree that the Big Ten needs brands, but it also shouldn’t add schools that it doesn’t want to get those brands. That’s why the Big 12 is in trouble now – there’s a bunch of schools that are there attached to a “big brother” and that’s why power has been concentrated in only a handful of schools.
LikeLike
I think you always choose that angle. FSU was on the top list of SEC prospects the last time around and they add literally no population at all.
LikeLike
I should add though that the only undeniable exceptions to that rule are probably A&M, UCLA, and UNC.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with any of that. As long as Delany isn’t being constrained in his pursuits, I can accept the outcome.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 10 wish list has changed at all. The hunt is still for ND, who will hold out till the last possible minute. Then look for Syracuse, Maryland and BC as a peer institution for ND. ND will then get to keep playing in Boston and schedule rotating neutral site games in NYC and Philly with Syracuse and Penn State or someone else. Big Ten gets the most penetration into the northeast possible from DC to Boston with that grouping. ND uses its non-conf on west coast games and alternate in TX and FL
LikeLike
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/sportspost.aspx?Boren_has_his_finger_on_Big12s_red_button/13-2430
Interesting perspective on what OU might be thinking.
LikeLike
Your link takes me to a blog post about Bill Russell.
LikeLike
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/sportspost.aspx?/Boren_has_his_finger_on_Big_12s_red_button/13-12430
LikeLike
Were those SEC refs in the Auburn game?
Clearly an inch short on 2nd down by the measurement, they gave Auburn a first down. Later, I was sure they scored with 2:02 left. They added time when they recovered the onside kick up to 2:07. Later, they added time from 1:43 to 1:47 for no apparent reason. On Utah St.’s 2nd down at the end, the clock ran from :14 to :02 when it looked like a 5-6 second play. The clock minder also ran off 6 seconds after USU called a time-out at :23, but the refs corrected that. None of those plays really made any difference, but it was really disturbing.
The game does show the narrow margin between victory and defeat. If USU didn’t let Auburn get the onsides kick or maybe even just made a clean tackle short of a 1st down around the 40 instead of letting him run 20 yards on the last TD drive, they might have won.
Baylor’s win gave the embattled Big 12 some good news, but the embattled WAC is still mis-firing.
LikeLike
http://www.themaneater.com/blogs/sports/2011/9/3/alden-surprised-oklahoma-ads-remarks/
Missouri’s AD is a little more tactful & subtle in his criticisms of conference mates than the governor was.
LikeLike
I really don’t blame anyone for what’s going on…
As we’ve seen and known, the Big 12 was just a TV contract. Money was all that really binded those teams together; especially with Colorado wanting to go West for a long time and Nebraska losing the OU annual game.
And the top brands were always going to be scoping out their options; that’s just the nature of what happened.
This is a game of musical chairs where everyone wants to be sure they have a spot on one of the superconferences (Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC).
LikeLike
I wonder if Osborne and UNL aren’t getting enough credit for breaking up the Big 12 (if it does happen). With their anti-UT tirade to get the exit fees reduced, they setoff the OU and A&M fan bases (who really don’t need any additional reason to dislike Texas), thinking their admins were being Texas lackeys despite the fact that making the same decision as UT might have been in their school’s best interest. Ultimately, it seems the regents at both schools are siding with the fans and are making the conference decision and overruling the ADs. A&M has a very unclear financial benefit from their move. And OU’s President just significantly increased the uncertainty he said he doesn’t like.
LikeLike
I wonder if UT fans are oblivious to what is causing the B12 to dissolve. You are free to believe the blame is unfair because anyone else would make the same decisions as UT in their place, but several schools have made it clear what they see as the root of the problem (hint – try some combo of the letters U, T, E, S, P, N, L, H and N).
Also, the ADs aren’t being overruled because this was never their decision to make. Presidents and regents decide on conference alignments, not ADs or coaches.
LikeLike
Presidents make the decisions but they usually listen to their ADs instead of making decisions while they are in Europe.
LikeLike
Since when do presidents do what ADs say? ADs only care about the department while presidents have to consider the bigger picture. They listen to their ADs, like any advisor, but they have always made their own decisions. It’s just like ADs don’t always do what their coaches want. Maybe UT is different and that is confusing you about how other schools are run.
LikeLike
Also, I’m guessing most AQ schools can afford international phone calls to discuss important things like realignment. You are aware that the AD has staffers who have access to all the background info and could brief the president about why a certain decision was made if the AD was unavailable for a few hours.
LikeLike
Delusional. Flat out delusional. Holding a conference together by crazy exit fees and open threats is idiotic. In the PAC / SEC / BIG you would never see that.
The problem is CLEARLY texas. Any school with any value at all is scrambling to get the hell away from them. Colorado, Nebraska, A&M, and now Oklahoma (and probably Missouri) are running for the exit so fast they are tripping over each other to get out.
To place the blame on Nebraska or A&M is ignorant.
LikeLike
Texas is not without blame, but they are somewhat overblown as the bad guy here.
I said last year the Big 12 could easily fall apart once the Pandora’s Box of realignment was opened.
Colorado had always been looking West, and recent population trends accelerated that.
Nebraska’s one rival in the Big 8 was no longer an annual rival, leaving them feeling less than fully attached to the new conference.
Texas A&M still hadn’t developed a great rivalry outside of the Longhorns.
Missouri has long envied the Big Ten.
Texas only formed the conference because the Big Ten and Pac 10 turned them down 15 years ago. They were happy with success, but they were also happy to renew discussions with both the Big Ten and Pac 10 last summer.
Among the valuable schools, only OU seemed to be in the perfect conference for itself.
As long as none of the other big conferences were taking applications this all held together. The conference was valuable and had good football, but it wasn’t a place to get national exposure. Because of ABC/ESPN’s regionalized broadcasts and FSN’s weak production, only the very biggest games were noticed outside of the conference footprint, which has little population outside of Texas.
As soon as the Pac 10 and Big Ten started announcing they were investigating expansion, both Colorado and Missouri packed their bags and it was reported Texas was talking to both sides. At that point, everybody had genuine reasons to worry about their long term future in the conference.
Eventually 2 members left but the conference briefly stayed together; partly because of money promises, partly because UT and A&M were hesitant to go different directions. But money didn’t change any of the underlying issues of the league, and never had a chance to.
The issues with Texas are equal parts real, imagined, and exaggerated. Schools are going where they (and their fanbases) really want to go anyway. Emotions run high with any breakup, and it’s natural to remember the worst qualities of that spoiled, arrogant cow you once dated when starting a relationship with someone new.
Many of the movements that have happened now are exactly the movements that would have happened 15 years ago if the Pac 10 had admitted Texas then. The Big 12 was just a 15 year ‘pause’ on conference realignment.
LikeLike
Its been publically stated that the Pac invited CU and UT in 1994. The SA paper’s article on what happened made it clear A&M expected to go to and preferred the SEC, but Bob Bullock & Co. twisted arms to create the Big 12. Its never been clear whether UT’s arm had been twisted prior to that meeting or if UT preferred the Big 12. But its possible without the Texas legislature getting involved, you are right, UT and A&M would have been in the Pac 10 and SEC years ago.
LikeLike
There are some articles that say Stanford vetoed Pac 10 expansion in the 80s and 90s and may have at some point. But it was the Pac 10 commissioner or asst. commissioner at the time, who in the last 4 or 5 years, made the comment that the Pac finally decided to go to 12 and invite UT and CU back in 1994 just before the Big 12 came about.
LikeLike
Would Texas A&M plus OU be enough to get Delany to make a move? I think as a Big Ten fan I would be happy to see both schools myself. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I know it has about a snowballs chance in hell but it does kind of get me excited. You would think OU & A&M would pay for themselves and make each piece of the pie bigger. because even if OU does not add many in state cable sets it would add more out of footprint subscribers.
LikeLike
Delany would jump on that. That scenario leads to 2 questions:
1. Are the presidents willing to expand at all right now?
2. If so, have they black balled OU?
If the COP/C is willing to expand and OU isn’t verbotten, Delany would love to get that pair. A king, a prince and the BTN on in TX and OK. That’s about 9.6M TV households, or 8.7M with cable/satellite. That’s roughly $7M per month, or $84M a year in BTN fees. TAMU is AAU, so that’s a bonus as well. The problem would be convincing the presidents to accept OU, but I think they might in that scenario.
LikeLike
OU-Missouri would be enough for Delany to make a move.
OU-A&M would easily be better than that.
The problem is 2-fold: 1) Oklahoma wants to be in a conference with OSU and/or Texas, so they aren’t both non-conference setups for football, and 2) Big Ten COP/C might be hesitant on OU on academics grounds (but I don’t think that’s as big a deal as the first problem).
LikeLike
do it. not crazy about it, but it’s too much to pass on. do it.
LikeLike
Isn’t part of the sell to OU that if OU went to the B10 with A&M that Texas would not go Pac-?, but rather pull some fiefdom together? Thus the RRR would stand because Texas will want that game if they have a group of dwarves around them plus OU gets Nebraska back. OU in the Pac-? probably means saying goodbye to Nebraska forever.
LikeLike
WHAT IF Notre Dame decides to go to the ACC????? Realistic?
LikeLike
To play who? Georgia Tech and Miami?
LikeLike
So they would condense Navy, USC, Stanford, MI, MSU and Purdue into 3 games and have 1 whole game to rotate among other teams? They’d also drop all of their rivalries in the BE in their other sports?
LikeLike
Sounds like nearly an endgame. http://newsok.com/article/3601037
LikeLike
Nebraska – B1G
Colorado – PAC12
aTm – SEC
OU, oSu, TTU, UT – PAC16
MU, KU, KSU – BigEast
ISU, Baylor – Welcomed by Houston, Rice, and SMU…
LikeLike
Agreed on that set of scenarios; definitely looks like the current set of outcomes.
LikeLike
Missouri will go to the SEC, with ISU taking its place in the Big East. It’s Baylor left holding the bag
LikeLike
As a serious question, would the MWC or CUSA accept ISU?
It’s a long trip to the closest school and ISU isn’t prominent in any revenue sport. They may fit the MAC best except for wrestling (they could be a B10 member for wrestling).
LikeLike
Can’t speak for any of them. But CUSA would/should take Baylor. ISU is too far north. But I could see the MWC having some interest.
LikeLike
I can see Baylor getting picked up, as they bring some population with them and are in the footprint with 3 schools within 200 miles. IA is a small state (3M people), UI dominates ISU in it and Ames is almost 500 miles from the nearest team (and Ames would be the only northern city).
LikeLike
Iowa State has more of a constituency than Baylor and is a large flagship university. Right now, it’s about the same level in football as a Syracuse or middle of the pack Big East members. It doesn’t have much value as BCS schools go, but it does have some.
LikeLike
Baylor & TCU sets up a decent Texas presence for the Big East.
ISU’s monster 1 pt win over Northern Iowa may shift the needle in their favor, though.
LikeLike
Vincent,
ISU presumably has more alumni, but TX is 8 times more populated than IA so bad ratings in TX top great ratings in IA (not that ISU draws great ratings in IA). I’m not sure ISU brings enough to a non-AQ conference to justify the travel for the other members. It’s not like they’ll get a TV money bump by adding ISU.
LikeLike
Brian:
Well, CUSA added Marshall, so their standards aren’t exactly high, plus Marshall isn’t close to any other CUSA schools either (besides ECU). Indeed, ISU is about as far from the closest CUSA schools (Tulsa & Memphis) as UCF or UTEP is from any other CUSA school (in fact, ISU may be closer).
TCU was as far from the rest as the MWC as ISU when they were added by the MWC as well. granted, there are more football players in TX, but ISU actually drew more fans than TCU. In fact, if it joined either league, ISU would be amongst the league leaders in attendance. I don’t think you have to worry about ISU sliding all the way to the MAC.
LikeLike
Not sure KU,KSU, ISU, BU don’t welcome the BE. It would be a chance to get rid of the Providence albatross. And MU SEC if 4 to Pac.
LikeLike
Loki,
I think ISU would prefer the MWC. Baylor may as well.
I also think that Mizzou to the SEC is most likely.
LikeLike
Dangit Gophers! 😦
LikeLike
I’m happy they kept the game close. It would have been easy to let the trip and the opponent overwhelm them, but they hung in there the whole time.
LikeLike
Kill’s a good coach. I fully expect him to make Minny at least league-average and a title contender some years after a couple of years.
LikeLike
good game for them. they got nothing to be ashamed of.
bad day for UM. I know they won, but it truly rained on their parade.
LikeLike
Didn’t think it was that bad. Both the defense and the offense showed very little, and when the D started showing blitz packages in the second half it was a completely different game. I think we were definitely trying to show as little as possible for the ND game next week. Though apparently they really struggled with the spread, so hopefully that bodes well for Robinson regardless.
LikeLike
Ross,
I think that was a weather joke from jj.
LikeLike
Thought it was a shot and a weather joke, but that’s my assessment of the game anyway! Could read good and bad from it.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how much room MSU fans would have to take a shot. UM beat WMU better than MSU beat YSU.
LikeLike
No joke. I felt bad for them. It looked crazy out there. I can’t stand those guys but I don’t wish bad things upon them. I thought it sucked for them with Hoke’s entrance and all.
LikeLike
I think Ross thought you were commenting on how the Wolverines played, hence the confusion.
LikeLike
I know guys, but so close, and it would have been a big win for the B1G as well. Looked like a whole bunch of empty seats tho
LikeLike
Yes, but Purdue coming back to win was more important. People expected MN to lose, and they almost won. People are never surprised if IN loses, and they did to a MAC team. Adding a PU loss to a Sunbelt team would have hurt. IL had me concerned for a while, too.
ACC – got their annual I-AA loss from Duke this year, BC lost to NW without Persa
BE – big win over ND, win over WF
B10 – IN lost to a MAC team, NW beat BC without Persa, MN did well against USC
B12 – some close calls (KSU, ISU, MO) but no bad losses, great win by Baylor
P12 – OrSU lost to a I-AA, USC almost lost to MN, OR got crushed, UCLA lost to UH
SEC – LSU crushed OR, BSU crushed UGA, AU got lucky, MS didn’t, UK looked terrible
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6927204/pac-16-oklahoma-sooners-texas-longhorns-being-discussed-source-says
ESPN’s top story: OU/Texas discussing Pac-16 as well as Pac-12 officials.
LikeLike
Way to represent the conference Minny…. 19-17 at USC is a great start to the year….
LikeLike
If Ole Miss, Georgia and LSU lose, will Mike Slive have a stroke or heart attack? Welll, BYU just stopped Ole Miss….
LikeLike
I guess BYU winning was payback for AU making the comeback.
So far, that’s UK and AU looking terrible in wins and MS losing. SEC! SEC! SEC!
LikeLike
Oh, and ECU has 3 fumble recoveries and an early 14-0 lead over SC.
LikeLike
I realize ND is a king, but the officiating in this game is suuuuussssssssspppeeeeccccttttttt!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Anyone else think that if the PAC-16 forms (with both Texas and Oklahoma schools), the Big 12 might still survive. I know there is a lot of thought that the Big East would take the left overs, but that would mean losing a lot of exit fee penalties.
If the left overs can keep the conference from officially dissolving, that’s a lot of money they could use to help build the conference back up. It might make more sense for the Big East football schools to move over to the Big 12 than vice versa in that senario.
If that is the case though, 2 questions are key a) what is the required vote to dissolve the conference and b) Will Missouri be going somewhere too? At the very least I think we can assume a majority is required and A&M + the 4 to the PAC-12 is one vote short. If Missouri goes too though, then that’s 6 of 10 votes. A simple majority might not be enough though for something this big. It might require a 2/3 or 3/4 vote.
LikeLike
Not enough quality schools to add that could hang that conference together let alone their TV contracts. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Big East. Could force ND to move their Olympic sports.
LikeLike
Maybe not, but if those schools leave it was assumed that most the left overs would head to the Big East. Even if they couldn’t maintain the current TV contract, I’m wondering if it might be worth the left overs and Big East football schools to arrange that the other way. Why have the Kansas schools, Iowa State and maybe Missouri join the Big East when you could invite most or all of the Big East schools to the Big 12 and keep the exit fees from the 6 departing teams (likely all greater than $10 million).
LikeLike
I think the real story here will end being what happens with the Big East/B12. Don’t think BT will make any moves until ND is available (see that taking a long time). ACC will end up being tighter than most people anticipated. SEC is in no rush once they get ATM and whoever else. Pac will probably get OU/OkSt and wait for an independent UT just like BT waits for ND.
If a bunch of B12 teams need a home, how do they work that out? BE would be huge–would they finally break away and form a new league?
Just talking random lurker now:
After following this for so many months, my main impression with the BT is that they won’t do any package deals with little brothers involved. But I think you can pretty much throw out academics as long as the school meets a minimum. Can’t tell me the BT didn’t know Neb was about to lose AAU (maybe that’s part of the reason they rushed to get them in). I think they’d take Oklahoma, alone, no problem. But I think OU prefers Pac, or we’d hear some BT rumors by now. I actually like Kansas as a filler school to 16. Basketball, but THAT’S what you call a brand.
Just a note on Missouri and brand. Here in the northeast, I can’t say I’ve ever seen a game, football or basketball, involving Missouri. And if I did, it was that forgettable. I just don’t see the appeal.
A lot of you on this board have turned this long-time ND hater into an ND sympathizer. I’m not so sure I’d even want to be in the BT now. 😀 I was in the minority in ‘Cuse nation wanting a BT invite (most probably prefer ACC), but I’m starting to be swayed. And you guys are really starting to make me worry about population shifts. At least in the ACC that wouldn’t be a problem.
LikeLike
Agreed. But who gets left out may hinge on which group is inviting and which is invited.
LikeLike
Yeah, rather than have the Big 12 schools join the football/basketball conglomeration that is the Big East, the Big 12 schools can just invite the football schools from the Big East (and if they want, leave out a few schools). The Big 12 would keep it’s automatic BCS bid, and you’d have a solid basketball conference with all schools playing football.
It would only be fitting that the conference ended before TCU even got to play a game as a member. Conference Killer!
LikeLike
@m (Ag)
If the remnants of the B12 invite BE teams to get to 12, who gets left out?
LikeLike
If you’re just left with Baylor, Kansas, KSU, and ISU, then adding the current Big East +TCU makes 13 schools. I’d expect they’d add an additional school and go to 14; that makes the politics easier. But there might be some thought to leaving a USF or TCU out and just staying at12, the minimum you need to have a championship game.
LikeLike
@m(Ag) – Add in BYU and that’s a decent looking 14-school conference. The question is whether it would be worth it for the BE to split over that setup as one would think a 22-team conference is an unwieldy confederation. This also assumes that no one leaves from the BE to go to the SEC, ACC or Big Ten as the dominoes fall.
LikeLike
I’m fairly certain that you need five teams that have played together for five years to be considered a conference. It’s going to be hard to make a case for exit fees with only four remaining members. All five would need to stick together.
LikeLike
Yes, if BYU wants to join they’ll welcome them with open arms. However, they seem to now want to stay independent as long as Notre Dame is independent.
Maybe ND and BYU would each put their non-football sports in the conference.
LikeLike
If the schools wanted to keep together, and were adding mostly schools from another BCS conference, I think a waiver would be passed. I don’t know why any current BCS school would vote against it. The WAC, which may be skirting that rule in the near future if Louisiana Tech leaves, would also be supportive.
Of course, they’d have to waive or reduce exit fees for the leaving Big 12 schools not to vote to dissolve the conference, and waive threats of lawsuits.
LikeLike
The continuity rules have gone away. That’s why the WAC still exists. They only have 5 of their old schools. Basically the Big 12 could be the shell and just refill as long as it gets at least 8 teams.
LikeLike
The BE schools could move to the Big 12.
LikeLike
Having Big East football members move to the Big 12 makes perfect sense for all concerned. In addition to ISU, KSU, KU and Baylor (I am assuming Missouri winds up in the SEC), you would have 13 with Texas Christian, Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and South Florida. The east/west alignment would depend on member #14 — Brigham Young? Central Florida? Memphis? East Carolina?
The only impediment to this would be a tantrum from Jim Boeheim saying he won’t go (with the help of SU’s powerful NYC-area alums), in which case the administration has to set him straight.
LikeLike
SU was ready to go to the ACC, Boeheim couldn’t stop them then. He’ll just retire. I forget Frank’s previous comment about Boeheim, but Boeheim just doesn’t like change. I don’t think it really has much to do with being loyal to the conference or anything like that.
Just picking up and moving to the B12 isn’t as easy as it sounds. You’d have to keep the B12 intact to keep AQ, so it’s not like you’re creating something from scratch that you could be proud of. The conference name would stay the same. I assume Beebe would stay the commissioner. And why go through all that trouble, when you a) you might get raided, or b) schools are still hoping to go to BT/SEC/ACC. Seems like the BE would just take the leftovers and continue with the (even more bloated) hybrid.
LikeLike
Jeepers, I think the BCS people would frankly prefer the BE-to-Big 12 scenario rather than the other way around to get the Big East out of the football business. That way, in the event the BCS leagues + Notre Dame (and Brigham Young) eventually decided to split from the NCAA, the likes of Seton Hall, Marquette and Providence wouldn’t be in the mix.
LikeLike
The BE in basketball in an example of the too many kings theory. Although its mainly the bb schools that are doing poorly. Still, UL and UC aren’t where they were.
They could add KS while shedding 7 or 8 bb schools by moving to the Big 12.
LikeLike
If you count becoming a non-AQ conference as surviving, then I suppose it is possible but highly unlikely. The B12 was formed solely for TV purposes. With all the TV draws gone, nothing holds it together. I get the idea of trying to take all the exit fees, but that just makes a few teams a lot of money. It’s not a reason for the BE schools to move west.
LikeLike
Why would the B12 lose AQ status? I don’t think there are any rules in the BCS for eliminating a member conference.
LikeLike
The current AQ bids were given out based on a review of performance over 4 years, just like the review after this season to see if another conference should gain AQ status (nobody can lose it). The 3 criteria are/were:
1. Average highest BCS ranked team
2. Average conference ranking in the computer rankings
3. Adjusted percentage of teams in the top 25
The MWC would qualify under 1 and 3 (ahead of BE and ACC for 2008-2010), but the lack of depth kills them on #2. If the BE is already struggling, how would adding KU, KSU and ISU help them in FB rankings? Those additions would just drag down the conference average
There are no assured AQ bids after 2013, but if the system stays about the same then the requirements will too. WIthout UT, OU, OkSU, TT and TAMU, how will the B12 fair in 1 and 3? Will they be reliant on TCU to prop them up on 1? Will the MWC have dropped enough that the BE is clearly better? Will the system grow to 7 AQs?
LikeLike
As someone who agrees we’re eventually headed to super-conferences, and someone who has NO interest in the northeast strategy, I think it’d be a real shame if all this shakes out and the Big Ten stands pat.
So the thinking is UT/TTU/OU/OSU go Pac16 and the remaining five Big12 teams splinter off to the SEC (Mizzou), Big East (KU/KSU), MWC (ISU) and CUSA (Baylor)? And Delany does nothing?
If the Big Ten is ever going to expand again, I was really hoping some combination of OU, UT, A&M, Mizzou or KU would be involved. The thought of getting NONE of them and then eventually adding Rutgers or Syracuse or any of the other northeastern teams is REALLY unappealing. I hope Delany isn’t holding back until the Domers finally relent, because I don’t think it’s ever going to happen.
LikeLike
At this point Delany’s end game seems to be ND + Rutgers. Maybe ND + Maryland if he can swing Maryland (seems highly unlikely), or ND + Pitt if that’s what ND wants.
I think the Big Ten’s endgame is 14 teams, not 16.
LikeLike
Your mistake is in thinking this is Delany’s decision. The COP/C hasn’t given him permission to expand again. The presidents are the ones that need to be convinced to go beyond 12.
LikeLike
My instincts have turned from expecting close to the status quo to expecting a PAC-16. The only good thing about that to me (and I know this is opposite from most), is that it takes out Texas and Oklahoma as a possibility. Oklahoma would have been kind of nice as new Midwest team, but I don’t want any more expansion at all and I think putting those two in the PAC, means it’s Notre Dame or no expansion.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is like some guy who turns down four supermodels because he’s holding out for the Venus De Milo.
LikeLike
Venus de Milo? More like the Virgin Mary. That girl’s NEVER putting out.
LikeLike
That, or it’s like a guy who is looking to get married instead of having one night stands.
LikeLike
Its improbable that Texas stays if OU goes. But what if OU asks for an invite and UT does decide to stay? Will the Pac still invite OU? I don’t think they have a 16 team configuration that doesn’t decrease $ w/o UT. Are they willing to invite OU in a 14 team league with the ensuing division problems? Does USC want to have to go to Stillwater in division play? Are the NW schools willing to play the southern California schools less? Utah probably goes North in a 14 team league. OU/OkSt likely works financially, but does it work logistically?
With 6-2-1 schedule so the Cal schools still play, the NW schools get USC 2 times in 10 years and only 1 in 10 at home (2 of 7 cross division every year, only 1 game against other 5).
LikeLike
They can split Pac8 and new 6. The 8 play 7 in division, so no loss of frequency, plus 3 against the east. The east play 5 in division plus half of the Pac8 (1 SoCal, 1 NorCal, 1 OR, 1 WA). Since that would be unbalanced (10 games versus 9), the new 6 are required to schedule at least 1 AQ team OOC. The price the original P8 teams pay for getting their old conference back is that they have to play an extra conference game. It’s a bonus for the newer 6 to play only 9 games, but it’s equal in each division.
Pac8 – 7 + 3
UW – OU, AZ, Utah
WSU – OkSU, ASU, CO
OR – OU, AZ, Utah
OrSU – OkSU, ASU, CO
SU – OU, AZ, Utah
Cal – OkSU, ASU, CO
USC – OU, AZ, Utah
UCLA – OkSU, ASU, CO
New 6 – 5 + 4
OU – UW, Or, SU, USC
OkSU – WSU, OrSU, Cal, UCLA
AZ – UW, Or, SU, USC
ASU – WSU, OrSU, Cal, UCLA
CO – UW, Or, SU, USC
Utah – WSU, OrSU, Cal, UCLA
An acceptable 7/7 split would be harder to achieve.
Their other choice is to do a zipper with 7 team divisions and 1 locked rival (OU and USC in separate divisions). That gets everyone games in every area and keeps 2 of the 3 regional rivals on each schedule annually. Assuming they stick with 9 games, they’d have 2 games to rotate through the other 6 teams in the opposite division (play once in 3 years without home and homes).
LikeLike
Brian:
Per NCAA rules, everyone in a division has to play everyone else. I guess they could ask for a waiver, but I don’t think they would get one.
LikeLike
No shit, Sherlock. Perhaps you should check your reading comprehension. Both divisions did play a full round robin, plus the listed inter-division games as an example.
LikeLike
If they go to 14 (i.e., just take OU and OSU), I would think the smart thing to do would be to take the new guys (Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, OK St), pair them with the Arizona schools, and then it’s just a matter of deciding which of the remaining school pairs gets broken up to make 7/7. I would vote for Washington and Washington State – that seems like a classic example of a rivalry where it matters much more that they play every year than what’s at stake in the game.
LikeLike
That might be a good solution-for 13 schools not nicknamed Cougars.
LikeLike
I don’t know what sort of voting majority they require. Even if both Washington schools voted against it, if everybody else liked it it’d be 10-2, which is above 80%.
LikeLike
@Adam
The PAC-12 requires unanimous agreement for expansion, so unless Scott’s unilateral expansion authority has continued from last year, the Washington school’s (or anyone else) could make adding schools conditional on agreeing to acceptable division splits before.
LikeLike
Frug:
Nope, 3/4 required.
Click to access 1112hbv1.pdf
LikeLike
As for whether the Pac would take OU & OKSt. by themselves, I think so. They’d obviously be waiting for Texas to join eventually.
With a PTN, a zipper does make a failr deal of sense as you’d get interest in both divisions in almost every state. Does kill the regional networks, though I don’t think they’re of much monetary value anyway.
LikeLike
Despite the fact that I’ve been following realignment issues closely for over a year and a half, I guess I’m still not used to the new alignment. I was flipping through the stations and stopped to watch Colorado vs. Hawaii for awhile. I thought to myself “I should root for Colorado, since that would boost my conference standings”. It was several minutes before it occurred to me that they weren’t in the Big 12 anymore.
LikeLike
Can somebody tell me what a Big Ten Super Conference might look like now that the other three conferences (SEC, ACC and PAC) control Florida, Texas, California and the Mid-Atlantic? Are we looking at a top secret canadian gold rush strategy which might include University of Halifax?
Delany you sly fox!
LikeLike
Big Ten’s endgame is 14 with ND.
That’s it. SEC will probably end at 14 as well unless they can get a Virginia or North Carolina based team on board (which seems unlikely, just as it seems unlikely for the Big Ten).
Pac-16 may end up as the only 16 team conference when all is said and done.
And as for population shifts, it is somewhat overplayed. Nebraska and Iowa won’t really be impacted by them since they’re smaller states that are still growing at a decent clip and have no pro teams to compete with…
Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State will be unaffected as well as national brands; Ohio State and Michigan in particular already try to grab some top notch recruits from outside their states and will have to do more of that. Penn State already mines the states closeby like New Jersey and Maryland for recruits.
Northwestern is one of the schools that will be unaffected as its application base is national and just dependent on its USNWR rank, so it is going to continue to grow and it already has to get a lot of its recruits from outside the footprint anyways.
LikeLike
Agree. I don’t see either the SEC or Big Ten going past 14 unless some very unlikely schools show interest.
LikeLike
Toronto and McGill are in the AAU …
LikeLike
It will look a lot like this:
OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IL, IN
MI, NE, IA, MSU, NW, MN
You say “now that the other three conferences (SEC, ACC and PAC) control Florida, Texas, California and the Mid-Atlantic” as if this is fact and is something new. First, the SEC doesn’t control TX, the B12 does. Second, those states have always been controlled by conferences other than the B10. Why are you wetting yourself over this?
LikeLike
I think there’s near unanimous agreement on this board that Notre Dame is a prerequisite for any Big Ten Conference with 16 members. Unless Missouri becomes a Big Ten member, then I suspect the other three programs come out of the mid-Atlantic or the northeast.
The likely programs for such a move would be Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland and Virginia. I’m hard pressed to imagine Duke becoming separated from UNC or seeing those two schools in the Big Ten (16). I’m equally hard pressed to imagine Oklahoma or Texas becoming members of the conference–the Pac 16 seems to be their likely future home if UT and the conference can work around the LHN.
If all four new additions come from the northeast, then the conferences could be split this way (using Pitt, Syracuse and MD as the three newest members). I’m going to assume that Notre Dame would want to be in the east due to its ties to that part of the country and a desire to stay in the same division as Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State.
West – Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
East – Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Pittsburgh , Syracuse
If a program like Missouri is added from the west (and Pittsburgh isn’t included), then the divisions look like this (with Purdue going from West to East):
West – Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Misssouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
East – Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
Either of these configurations would work out as well as possible for ND because it would mean at least one game on the east coast plus games with two or three (depending on the scenario) teams that are regularly on its schedules in UM, MSU and Purdue.
LikeLike
cutter, if the B10 goes to 16, they’re going to be pods. I don’t think the western schools would be happy with playing Michigan & OSU twice in 8 years each.
LikeLike
B10 becomes a superconference only if the ACC implodes.
OK, maybe if an SEC team or two get the dealth penalty as well.
LikeLike
Rice band makes the $EC logo at UT game (which nobody saw unless they were there or were one of the 16 LHN subscribers).
LikeLike
This is why the MOB exists.
LikeLike
Big Ten unlikely to act (as many of us have stated):
“For us, I don’t think it really changes a lot for us,” Delany said. “We’d likely not be reactive. That’s my take on it. We thought a lot about 12 to 14 and the 16 when we had the opportunity last year. I don’t think that our thinking will change by what others will do. I don’t know it will change for others. Our view, really, is that it’s about quality and not quantity.”
———————————
He’s clearly waiting on ND at this point, for if they’d ever want to join.
LikeLike
addd
LikeLike
I have been lurking on this board awhile but I have to comment. Everyone here comments on trying to capture the NYC market, by mentioning some combination of Rutgers,Syracuse etc. I think that the only schools that deliver the NYC market are ND, and the UNC/Duke combination. I think that these schools also go a long way towards delivering the DC market (Duke is huge in both DC and NYC) . In addition these schools add to the national brand, which is eventually where the Big Ten wants to go. I know that these things are driven by football, but I think that UNC/Duke are probably the only schools that move the meter from a basketball perspective (Maybe Kansas or Kentucky, but I don’t think those schools deliver the eastern markets like the NC schools do.) I think that UNC/Duke fit very well academically with the Big Ten. I agree that Duke is horrible in football, but, I think the above can offset these things. I also believe the number of TV viewers they bring to the table can make up for the number of seats they don’t sell in their football stadium. You also have to take Duke to get UNC. THere is NO way they separate. I also think that any other addition (other than Texas, which I don’t think is happening), is a “meh” for the Big Ten. The Florida schools don’t have the academic chops and I don’t think would fit with the Big 10 culture.
I actually think the real slam dunk in for the Big 10 to go to 16 with the addition of ND, Duke, UNC, and UVA or MD (I prefer UVA). This would lock up the northeast and mid-Atlantic for the Big Ten in a way that no other combination of schools would.
Granted, I don’t think this will happen unless there is a complete implosion of the current structure. The only thing is if Duke and UNC are still pissed about ACC expansion, then they might be poachable. But again, I think this is highly unlikely.
I would be interested to see what others think….
LikeLike
UNC/Duke would be a great addition in terms of academics, national school brands, and expanding geographic footprint. However, they form the core of a stable conference. Only teams that a) badly want to upgrade or b) are looking to get out of an unstable relationship are likely to change conferences. Unless the Big Ten lands Maryland/Notre Dame and the SEC poaches three ACC schools, UNC/Duke are well-protected by stable conference in which they hold power positions. While I do think UNC/Duke would be more receptive to the Big Ten than Texas, the ACC is much less likely to fall apart than the Big XII.
LikeLike
I agree that this is extremely unlikely. I was just stating that I really think that it would be a potential home-run for the Big Ten, short of getting Texas. I think that the ACC, while stable, is one SEC raid from falling apart.
LikeLike
Also, is it just me, or have the non-AQs really closed the gap on the AQ teams?
Virtually every conference had a few teams that got tested to the end and some of the mid-level AQs (even ranked teams) struggled to put them away until well into the 2nd half.
It just seemed to happen way more this weekend than any I can recall, but that might just be short-term memory.
LikeLike
I think it’s just you. Since the 85 scholarship limit kicked in, the non-AQs have been getting more competitive. There are always a few AQ losses and plenty of close calls. Lots of teams play poorly in week 1 every year. OSU was known for having one of those games almost every year under Tressel, but things usually turned out OK.
LikeLike
I agree with you. Its not just the non- AQs, but the FCS teams racked up a few wins today. Richmond over Duke, Sac St. over Oregon St. I think there was at least one other. Iowa St. and Kansas St. scored late to win. The last 3 years the FCS teams have won 7, 5 and 2 all year. Vs. AQs, they have won 4, 2 and 0.
The non-AQs and weaker AQs seem to have more speed relative to the stronger programs. 7 or 8 years ago, UK didn’t look like they belonged in the same league with the other SEC schools. But since then they are much closer (not so sure it will be reflected on the scoreboard as bad as they looked vs. WKU). Hawaii certainly looked like a better team in beating CU tonight. Utah St. who was a lousy WAC team last year looked like they belonged out there with Auburn.
Perhaps the spread offenses even things out a little. Maybe good coaching techniques are more wide-spread in college and high schools. The bad starts teams have are usually like Texas Tech-Texas St. where Tech trailed 10-9 at halftime and won 50-10. But instead we have several like Auburn winning in the last minute.
LikeLike
FCS wins versus FBS:
2011 2 so far
2010 7 (7-81, 0.080)
2009 5 (5-86, 0.055)
2008 2
2007 9
2006 7
2005 1
It just depends on scheduling.
As for non-AQs or lesser AQs doing better, I think that is just confirmation bias. Teams go through cycles. But for every team that does better, some other team is doing worse.
UK got a new coach and got better. CO slowly got worse lately. AU lost a ton of starters (and payroll), so they are much worse this year. Maybe USU gained experience last year and is better this year.
Spread offenses are designed to even the odds. That’s why the small schools started to use them.
Some bad games are just a bad half, but plenty of them are the whole game and always have been.
LikeLike
http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/article_19188dda-afe7-57c8-aa2c-c1939ec5acb4.html
“Emails: Wisconsin and Michigan opposed Nebraska’s AAU membership”
Just interesting to see all of that come out…
LikeLike
The B10 presidents should put their money where their mouths are and start a new group that values agricultural research as well. It shouldn’t punish a school for not having an on campus medical school, either. Then let the chips fall where they may.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why they would do that. Isn’t it in the rational self-interest of every CIC member to want every other member to have the advantage of AAU membership?
LikeLike
It doesn’t really surprise me, but you do have a good point. Michigan voted against Penn State supposedly, and those two in general are probably the “highest brow” on these kinds of issues, simply because they post some of the largest numbers if I had to guess.
I still think you’re right though, easier probably for Nebraska to grow research as a member than not. But I don’t think it’ll change anything going forward…
LikeLike
And UNL administrators could use continuing AAU membership (and the threat of losing it) as leverage to push for increased research funding. To me its bizarre to admit UNL to the conference, then throw them out of the AAU before they are able to realize academic benefits of conference membership.
LikeLike
I’ve been arguing that for months. UNL losing its AAU membership hurts the 13 member CIC more than it helps the 64 member AAU.
LikeLike
It just seems so self-evident. I’m really at a loss here. I can’t think of a single conceivable reason for Wisconsin and Michigan voting against them. What could it possibly be? Non-rhetorical question.
LikeLike
I find it better not to try and make sense of the things people from Wisconsin and Michigan do. It will make your brain hurt.
LikeLike
Other Mike,
See my answer below. The 2 presidents probably took their duty to vote in the best interests of the AAU seriously.
LikeLike
Other Mike,
My guess would be that those 2 presidents honestly believed that NE was a good addition for the B10 but don’t belong in the AAU. They presumably felt duty bound to vote in the best interests of the AAU instead of putting the CIC’s interests first. Professional people take that sort of obligation seriously.
LikeLike
There’s just a bias among that group against agricultural schools. It seems to be common in academia that its not as worthy a discipline.
Note that at the bottom of that article there is a link to another dispelling the Texas conspiracy theories. Faulkner, former President, as well as Powers apparently supported UNL.
LikeLike
Wisconsin has a pretty big Ag department but there are plenty of academic elitist’s in Madison. Biddy Martin, the UW Chancellor who voted against Nebraska, is a former professor of Germanic studies. Not exactly a scientist. And she didn’t necessarily leave on good terms.
Wisconsin (academia) has a history (60’s through 80’s) not fully understanding the athletic environment or fully supporting athletics.
LikeLike
I don’t that it is fair to say there is a bias against agricultural schools. The reason the AAU doesn’t consider USDA funded research is because it is not competitively awarded. They do consider other federally funded agricultural research.
LikeLike
UGA has historically had a split between its North Campus and South Campus (primarily ag school). In many states, maybe not so much in the midwest, the Ag school is in the ____ State U. (often formerly known as ___ A&M) and not in the main flagship.
LikeLike
I think that split is pretty common (OH being an exception since OSU is the flagship, too), but in the midwest there is a little less looking down on the ag school. It’s so important to the state’s economy that it gets more respect.
LikeLike
And we’re grounded enough to know that eating is pretty important.
LikeLike
A lot of B10 flagships have ag schools. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ilinois, OSU, and PSU (and UNL, of course) off the top of my head.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
LHN becomes UTN? UTEP next?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/utsa/article/Sources-UTSA-football-on-Longhorn-Network-2153941.php
For anyone who’s not aware, UT San Antonio just started a football program and will be in the WAC next year.
LikeLike
What do you think the endgame is here bullet?
The LHN gets folded in as the “Pac-16 Network Texas” regional network with TTech in the Pac-16 Networks scheme, or some sort of football quasi-independence?
LikeLike
I have never believed UT wanted independence. Like everyone else, they want their cake and eat it too. T Boone commented that Dodds had so many cards and he played them all. Dodds has never left a $ on the table. UT wants a strong regional conference with flexibility. I don’t think they have that without OU. Most likely now, I think its Pac 16 with LHN folded in over the next several years. Maybe it becomes the Lone Star network with Tech.
Boren’s comments alone made it more difficult to recesitate the conference. But its still possible.
LikeLike
Re: that last part; I agree. I don’t think the Big 12 is ever dead until I see Scott and Dodds at a press conference announcing the arrival of Texas.
Plus, that kind of thing may take at least a little while to negotiate with respect to the LHN.
There’s always a chance that someone jumps in with enough money to save it (re: Oklahoma).
LikeLike
I think Boren instead of rushing this, should have just said privately, let’s go with 9 and then in April & May either split or go to 12. However, we have lots of examples of politicians who, surprisingly, don’t understand the impact words have. I do think OU is right that 10 is just not going to be a stable number in this environment. They’ve got to go back to 12 or maybe 14 even if it isn’t positive from a $ standpoint. And I think they can get enough mid-level schools to justify 12 or 14 without weakening the conference. It might take 14 to draw the BE schools, creating a stable core even if they were worried some might leave.
LikeLike
And I think you are right about things related to LHN taking a while to negotiate. At that point, ESPN is heavily involved, not just Dodds & Scott.
KSU AD did say everyone was communicating, so that’s different than the Aggie situation. Its a sign OU hasn’t definitively made up its mind. And I think all 8 are sitting and waiting to see what OU decides.
LikeLike
Bullet,
I think the problem with your plan is that trying to delay until May would be a disaster and Boren knows it. Everyone wants this settled one way or the other, not to drag it out for 9 months. Waiting that long would probably force schools to leave because there is no stability in the B12.
By going public like he did, I think Boren is trying to force the issue to be finally resolved. Everyone will feel the urgency, so they may be more willing to compromise (to save the B12). The other conferences will also be more likely to make their best offers.
LikeLike
I’d say it becomes the Pac 16 South Network, to go with California, Northwest and Mountain as the regional networks. Which means Dodds may have to leave a large amount of $ on the table, or try to save his 300 million and LHN by going independent.
LikeLike
Or by cobbling together SWC II under the LHN banner, to finish the thought. I’ve read nothing that indicates Texas wouldn’t have to be a team player in the P16. LHN would be euthanized.
LikeLike
Bullet,
That’s one way to get HS games that the NCAA can’t block.
LikeLike
xxxxx
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6927204/pac-16-oklahoma-sooners-texas-longhorns-being-discussed-source-says
-Scott says they have reached out to no one but have had schools contact them.
-They are not looking to be predetory but will be open to options. Agressive in expansion last go-round in order to secure TV contract, they have done that so are not in “need.”
-UT can not keep their own network in the Pac. They are wedded to revenue sharing and Regional network Pac TV models.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576550540669104736.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
WSJ jumps into the action with “Spare Us Your Superconferences”.
I think they’re onto what we already know though. It’s highly likely that the Pac-16 is the only 16 team configuration for the near/medium-term. Hard to see the Big Ten and SEC going past 14 unless there’s some compelling schools (Mid-Atlantic/FSU) available…
LikeLike
I think there’s a point he misses here–these super conferences can be organized in such a way so that the primary opponents of these schools can be organized into the divisional setups.
The author mentions how Michigan should want to play Wisconsin each year because the two schools share a common boundary, but as a UM alum and fan, I’d say that having annual games with Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State outweighs that. If Notre Dame were to join the Big Ten, then I suspect Michigan Athletic Director David Brandon would work to have ND in the same division so they were a regular opponent. If those four (MSU, OSU, PSU and ND) were in the same divsion as Michigan, then that’d work out fine.
I would put Nebraska, Iowa and WIsconsin in the next group of teams Michigan’s fans would most like to see play. In six years out of eight, I imagine one of those three teams would be on UM’s schedule as part of a rotation of teams from the western division and in the seasons Michigan were to win the eastern division, that game could be played in the conference championship.
The rest of the teams in the Big 12 (or 16) aren’t really opponents with high interest (perhaps with the possible exception of Minnesota due to the Little Brown Jug).
Put yourself in Wisconsin’s shoes–I suspect they’d like to be in a division with regular games against Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota along with Northwestern (in order to get a game in Chiciago every other year) in their division. Add Illinois, perhaps Purdue and Indiana or another team from the west (like Missouri) and I suspect most Wisconsin fans would be pretty happy with that set up.
LikeLike
Can’t put UM, OSU, PSU and ND in the same division. No way a conference can have long term stability when the four wealthiest ADs are all in one division.
LikeLike
Frug:
Per the Department of Education’s website, here’s the FY 2009 revenue for a hypothetical Pac 16 Conference by division (in millions):
North
Stanford – 81.7
USC – 75.7
Oregon – 75.4
California – 69.0
Washington – 64.0
UCLA – 61.9
Oregon State – 51.7
Washington State – 39.4
South
Texas – 143.6
Oklahoma – 98.7
Oklahoma State – 65.6
Arizona State – 57.1
Arizona – 56.4
Colorado – 49.5
Texas Tech – 48.1
Utah – 31.9
Would you separate Texas and Oklahoma into seperate divisions because those two schools had the largest athletic department budgets among the 16 members? Exactly how important is revenue disparity a factor in putting together divisions because I don’t recall it being a factor that was publicly discussed when the Big Ten made their decision on the divisions.
Does average money per team in each division count? Because when you look at the mean for both divisions, it’s not too far apart–68.8M in the South and 64.8M in the North. The problem with the South thous is that the two top schools (Texas and Oklahoma) are well above the average while there is a greater cluster of teams from the North around that average.
Does revenue trump competitive balance,rivalries and geography in your calculations? Here’s the same set of numbers for the current Big Ten in millions:
Leaders
Ohio State – 123.3
Penn State – 106.6
Wisconsin – 93.9
Indiana – 68.8
Purdue – 61.5
Illinois – 53.5
Leaders Average – 84.6
Legends
Michigan – 106.7
Iowa – 88.5
Michigan State – 80.1
Minnesota – 73.6
Nebraska – 73.4
Northwestern – 48.9
Legends Average – 78.5
Three of the top four earners are in the Leaders Division and the overall average revenue in the Leaders is also larger. Would you swap Wisconsin and Iowa to make the overall revenue numbers more equitable?
LikeLike
If put OSU, UM, PSU and ND in one division you are going to make it way, way harder for the schools in the other division to sell out their home games, meaning the have nots would fall even further behind. In order to try something like that you would have to eliminate the cap on gate receipt revenue sharing (currently $1 million per conference home game) and (probably) reduce the floor ($300,000).
In fact one of the reasons that the Big 10 didn’t emphasize geography in making the football divisions is precisely because most the leagues money resides in the East.
(It was touched on in this article http://thegazette.com/2011/07/26/legends-and-leaders-chapter-8-dollars-and-sense/)
LikeLike
brian,
from my rants on here about the future of the “fan”
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/sec_football_ticket_prices_sti.html
“”I think what’s going on is more separation between the haves and have-nots among fans,” said Joe Arnone, Tennessee assistant athletics director for ticket operations. “You’ve heard the phrase ‘the elimination of the middle class’ before? That’s kind of what’s happening.”
LikeLike
I do think many colleges are trying to expand to meet demand as opposed to the pros who are restricting supply to drive up ticket prices. Other than Jerry World, football and baseball stadiums are being built smaller than they used to be.
LikeLike
The “middle class” is a tricky term in college football. I can think of a whole list of groups that could apply to:
1. FCS, the middle class between non-scholarship and FBS
2. Non-AQ, the middle class between FCS and BCS
3. The ACC/Big East, the middle class between non-AQs and the Big Ten/SEC
4. The bottom tier of BCS conferences (e.g. Indiana/Iowa State/WSU)- not in the bottom, but not particularly distinguishable from the top non-BCS schools.
5. The “Baron” class schools (e.g. Wisconsin, Georgia), the middle between the Kings and everyone else
Which one of those is being eliminated?
LikeLike
In the context of the article, it’s talking about the literal middle class of citizens, not about the middle class of schools. It’s about the increase of ticket prices limiting the ability of average joes to attend games.
LikeLike
They’re talking about the three classes of teams in D-1: top flight programs in FBS, middle of the road to bad FBS programs and the FCS. When you consolidate the top FBS programs to four conferences, it’s much easier to leverage tv deals, bowl deals, playoffs, etc. at the expense of ‘upstarts’ or underperforming AQ teams.
In short, they’re trying cherrypick & trim fat to create a premium class. This creates a more defined gulf between quality conferences and second class conferences.
LikeLike
It’s hardly news that season ticket prices have been rising, and that donors get better seats. That’s the natural course as the number of fans who want tickets goes up significantly every year. How else do they make supply equal demand? People can still get single game tickets, especially to the less popular games. Often below face value, too.
LikeLike
Bloomberg reports that the Pac-12 is discussing the OU/OSU/UT/TTU package internally:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-04/pac-12-discusses-adding-four-schools-from-texas-oklahoma-espn-reports.html
They cite an ‘unidentified source’ in the know.
LikeLike
Several years ago I remember reading an article on how Stanford and UC Berkeley were not happy when the Pac 10 went from 8 members to 10 members when Arizona and Arizona State were added. From the article they were pressured by USC (threats of leaving) if they did not expand.
Stanford was supposedly one of the parties who did not want Texas to join back in the 90’s, they were upset about how Texas was buying professors to upgrade their academics at the time.
Both Stanford & UC Berkeley are very good academic institutions (under statement) and were not happy about associating with some of the lessor members of the Pac 10.
Given all of this and the fact that they (Stanford & UC) are academic snobs and the Big Ten is an academic snob conference, why does not the Big Ten seek them.
LikeLike
Who’s to say the Big Ten isn’t seeking them? It is possible for Delany to discuss things confidentially and off-the-record without the press (or bloggers) finding out. Delany’s a very sharp guy who wouldn’t leave a good idea off the table.
But that doesn’t mean anything would materialize. The fact remains that the Bay Area is 2-3 time zones away from every Big Ten school, and without any other BT school anywhere in their region, it would be a brutal schedule for them. Coaches in revenue and non-revenue sports alike would not be attracted to Stanford or Berkeley because of the competitive disadvantage they’d have from their athletes being jet-lagged all the time. Stanford and Berkeley also have an affinity for their old rivals in LA, and it would be awfully hard to leave them behind. It’s also worth noting that even if it’s true that the Bay Area schools were upset about admitting the Arizona schools, it’s been 32 years since then. That’s an awful long time to get over it.
I think what the previously posted Wall Street Journal article said makes a lot more sense for Stanford and Berkeley. The Pac-12 would expand to 16, with the old Pac 8 schools in one division and playing just 1-2 games/year against teams from the other division (which would consist of Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech). Their ties to the original league’s membership would be strengthened while their ties to the new members (“new” including members who’ve been in the league since the late 70’s) would be loosened. Sure, poor old Stanford and Berkeley would have to suffer through the indiginity of being closely associated with the Oregon schools and Washington State (note the sarcasm), but it still would be better than being far, far away from league members located 3/4 of the way across the country, no matter how strong those schools are academically.
I’m sure there are some academics at Stanford, Berkeley, and perhaps Washington, UCLA, and USC who feel they should only be in the same league with the likes of Duke, Northwestern, Vandy, Michigan, UNC, and other academic powerhouses. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are so misguided that they believe that if Stanford can stand toe-toe-toe with Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in any given academic ranking, then they should be in their league athletically, too. But most of them are smart enough to recognize that academics are an important enough consideration when it comes to conference affiliation to exclude, say, open admissions Boise State or non-research-oriented BYU, they’re not so important to set the baseline for membership a good bit lower than their own Ivy League-like standards.
LikeLike
The always quotable T-Boone fills out this article nicely: http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OSU/article.aspx?subjectid=93&articleid=20110904_93_B1_CUTLIN207230
His suggestion? Don’t rush the monkey. Seriously.
LikeLike
His comments were extraordinarily candid.
This about sums it up: “You can fix the Big 12 now,” he said. “We can, but it has to go to an equal deal. If you can’t get it fixed in the Big 12, might as well go west.”
That also implies going west without Texas is a very real possibility.
Combine that with UT-San Antonio going onto the LHN (mentioned above), and it looks like Texas may be considering SWAC II for its’ Olympic sports and independence for football.
LikeLike
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260448
New update from Brown at OB. How long can duct tape and paper clips hold a conference together?
LikeLike
Love it, Texas politicians trying to exert influence on a school in another state (OU) through UT.
LikeLike
All I read was TX politicians telling UT to slow their decision process. OU and OkSU are beyond their reach.
LikeLike
The article said that Texas politicians are pressuring UT to lean on Oklahoma. Doubt it would work, but they are trying.
That said, I don’t think the state pols have much leverage. The assembly won’t return to session until 2013 and Rick Perry can call them back into a special session, which hasn’t appeared willing to do.
LikeLike
Just don’t think a B12-2-1-2 is viable for UT and don’t see legislature forcing them to stay unless A&M does also. But OU doesn’t HAVE to leave. B12-2-1 is very viable. In bb they got better by losing their 3 historically weakest bb programs. In football, UNL is a loss. CU & AM are losses, but more in potential than performance. There is a good argument the Big 12 has been #2 over the last 5 years w/o any contributions from CU and A&M and less than normal from UNL. Over the Big 12 history, conference records are:
#3 UNL 81-39 #6 A&M 64-56 #7 CU 60-60 (TT&KSU are 4th at 69-51). And over the last 10 years the 3 lost teams are only 122-118, 4 games over .500– records:
1. OU 65-15, 2. UT 63-17, 3. Tech 47-33, 3T UNL 47-33, 5. MU 42-38, 6. OKSt 41-39,
7. CU 38-42, 8. A&M 37-43, 9. KSU 35-55, 10. KU 25-55, 10T ISU 25-55, 12. BU 15-65
So losing #6 over the history and #8 over the last 10 years from a state you still control, doesn’t make the conference non-viable.
OU needs to take their time and decide whether they really want a Pac 16 superconference or whether the B12 makes more sense for them. If they leave at least 2 and maybe 4 of their long-time rivals + Baylor will be severely hurt. And noone can argue KU, MU and KSU deserve that fate. ISU has fan support better than BC & Utah and in the same vicincity as Minnesota and Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
More from T Boone:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/collegefootball/osus-boone-pickens-chides-texas-predicts-big-12s-1818353.html
LikeLike
“And BYU? Who in the hell knows where Provo, Utah, is?”
Whether he’s an “official” spokesman for Oklahoma State or not, Boone Pickens ought to have enough experience with P.R. to know that these kinds of statements are toxic. For all we know, BYU could be the #1 target among the remaining schools, and BYU could be taking serious interest. Then when he says something like this, it only makes the other schools feel less secure and it makes BYU less likely to come.
As for Boren’s comments, he might as well be pouring gasoline on the league. He ought to know that if OU merely TALKS about leaving, without actually having made up its mind, it’ll make schools with options like Missouri and Kansas more likely to bail to the SEC or Big East while they can. Comments like his would give them cover to pay lower exit fees like Nebraska and Colorado did, even if the league ends up staying together for a few more years.
LikeLike
His memory is short, to say the least. When Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon made his famous comment comparing the academics of the Big Ten to Oklahoma St, and Texas Tech he was so mad he reportedly wanted to buy the University of Missouri and burn it to the ground.
LikeLike
I never heard that before, but that is hilarious.
LikeLike
Damaged goods? Compared to the juggernaught that is Okie State? Dude’s been huffin that pipe he’s always talking about too much.
LikeLike
T. Boone suddenly wants TCU? He really does have a short memory:
http://www.statesman.com/news/t-boone-pickens-take-on-the-big-12-747411.html
Drinking game: take a shot every time T. Boone says something that he has since changed his stance or been proven wrong on.
LikeLike
T Boone makes himself a target, no question. But that quote above about “You get
tired of saying ahhh ….” is right on the money, I think, and is/will be the reason the
Big 12 eventually implodes.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 breaks up, I’m certain the Big East is going to absorb at least three remaining schools, i.e., those that do not go to either the SEC or Pac-16. (You can take it to the bank that the Big Ten isn’t going to take Mizzou.) This would put Big East football at 12-14 members… and 20-22 members overall.
As a result, I expect one of the dominoes that hasn’t even been considered is that the Big East football schools will finally split off from the non-football schools. A conference as large as the current Big East already has a reputation for being unwieldy. 20-22 members, where 8 of them lack major college football, would be unmanageable.
Potential divisions
West
Cincinnati
Louisville
TCU
Kansas
K-State
Iowa State??
Baylor??
Missouri (if SEC doesn’t take them)
East
UConn
Syracuse
Rutgers
Pitt
USF
WVU (if SEC doesn’t take them)
UCF (added only to get to even numbers, if needed)
LikeLike
Thought about something similar Michael, but getting to a 16 team conference and one of the “winners” out of this entire thing.
Take the 9 from the Big East football
Add the 4 outcasts from the Big 12-2-1
Add the traditional powers of BYU, Boise
Add one additional Texas team for good measure to get you to the size of a TAMU or UT within the state (SMU here, but could be Houston)
4 pods of 4 each
School – Media Market – (B) / Basketball Power – (F) / Football Power
Northeast
Connecticut – Hartford – (B)
Pittsburgh – Pittsburgh – (F,B)
Rutgers – New York
Syracuse – (B)
Mid-Atlantic
Cincinnati – Cincinnati
Louisville – Louisville – (B)
West Virginia – (F)
USF – Miami
Midwest
Iowa State
Kansas – Kansas City – (B)
Kansas State – Kansas City
Boise State – (F)
South aka the Religious Pod
TCU – DFW/Houston/San Antonio – (F)
Baylor – DFW/Houston/San Antonio
SMU – DFW/Houston/San Antonio –
BYU – Salt Lake City – (F)
Each pods is fairly balanced with football and basketball powers with decent regional rivalries. All conference members bring something to the table either media markets, sport prestige, or both. In terms of media markets you have 11 of the top 50. Not great, but not bad. The addition of the three Texas schools gives you about the equivalent of 1 TAMU or UT in the state, but that’s all you need for media. Rutgers, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UConn help in the NYC market.
You have solid football and basketball powers so in leaving the Big East, basketball isn’t totally destroyed for those schools leaving. All-in-all, its probably the proto-typical “new” conference layout built on solid sport fundamentals (not necessarily glamorous but serviceable), and solid media market coverage. You could definitely build a conference network around it.
LikeLike
Michael,
Why would the BB schools agree to adding 3+ B12 schools when they know that would lead to dissolving the conference? For that matter, why would the FB schools that like the other BB schools vote for it?
The BE goes for schools in major cities. Do they want KU, KSU (assuming KU and KSU are a package deal) and MO to get KC and half of St. Louis? Maybe. Do they want ISU to get Ames? No. Having TCU for DFW, does Baylor gain them Houston? Are all the current members willing to become such a far flung conference?
LikeLike
BB schools won’t agree. The BE football would leave the BE basketball-only schools and join the B12 charter + some cash from those schools leaving the B12 conference. (I read through the B12 bylaws and I am unsure what the vote is to dissolve the conference, but you know you would have at least 4 against). Why would BE football leave, fear and self preservation. While Delaney is looking around all the football schools, they all have to be worried being the orphans after not getting getting picked off. At 7 schools definitely and even 8 schools in this brave new world of super conferences BE football is not viable. So why not wait until they get picked off and then go after B12 orphans? At that point, the Big 12 orphans will have already found homes. The key to the entire thing is the speed at which it is moving. The only conference we have seen be intentionally slow is the B10G. Of course that could all be a smokescreen and Delaney is working furiously in the background. B10G wants only kings, perfection is the enemy of excellence. I fully believe that if the B10G doesn’t make its moves in this turn, they will stay at their current size because there will be no one left.
Ultimately this is about football and if the football isn’t viable then all the basketball in the world isn’t going to help. KU and KSU do help with the St. Louis and KC markets. TCU does bring you a portion of DFW (local school but there are more Aggies and Longhorns there then TCU grads). Combining Texas schools gives you the equivalent media market saturation just not the value of TAMU and UT.
Are all the current BE (F) members willing to become a part of that new far flung conference. Good question. Ultimately I think fear of the unknown versus something that is pretty good will get them to move.
LikeLike
Having the Big East football members move en masse to form a league under the Big 12 banner is the best way to go. Adding the likes of Brigham Young, Boise State or Houston would make this new conference even more appealing.
LikeLike
I try to avoid reading ESPN, but this line is just great
“However, a source told ESPN’s Schad that Pac-12 officials believe the parties could work through Texas’ network issues.”
In other words, an ESPN source told ESPN’s Schad that Pac-12 officials believe that ESPN can work through Texas’ ESPN network issues.
LikeLike
Mark Cuban: Save the Big 12. Super Conferences bad.
LikeLike
I know I’m probably alone on this, but with all the money Mark Cuban has you’d think he could get a decent web designer. Geez.
LikeLike
Seems to me like super conferences are the most likely path to an eventual playoff system in college, and hasn’t he been a major proponent of a college playoff?
LikeLike
Love Cubes to death, but I couldn’t make it all the way through that mess. A few thoughts:
1) individual broadcast partners won’t have enough time slots to show all of the league’s games … which is why the Pac-12 has deals with both FOX and ESPN and is looking at starting up seven channels of their own (with more to come pending expansion, presumably). That should just about cover it.
2) lack of regional rivalries. Yeah, A&M messed that one up; if they’d gone along with it last summer they’d still have UT every year, and Utah would be in the MWC. But the Aggies’ll have Arky and LSU. And if UT, Tech, OU and Okie State all go West, everybody wins. Except Baylor.
3) long-distance road games. Yeah, in the most likely Pac-16 set-up, each team will only play one inter-divisional road game a year. And I’m guessing there are enough UT/OU/etc. alums in the Pacific NW and elsewhere who would be more than willing to buy up those meager visiting team ticket allotments once every eight years when their alma mater rolls into town.
4) A&M won’t add interest to the SEC? If you say so.
5) Big dogs becoming little dogs – it generally isn’t the bottom-rung teams that leave conferences, but the top ones.
LikeLike
#5-BE is a case in point. Providence & Seton Hall used to be big size dogs. St. John’s, DePaul and Cincy were really big dogs. Rutgers looked like they were going to be decent size. Now all are just plain dogs.
Baylor is another case in point. They were a regular contender in the SWC. They’re 18-102 in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Yeah, Cuban is right that Big Dogs become small dogs, but his contention that they will depart is tough to swallow. As unhappy as the schools are, they are still better off in the bottom rung of big boy conferences than they are competing in weaker leagues. To paraphrase FtT (speaking in a slightly different context), the worst house in Beverly Hills is still better than the best house in Compton.
LikeLike
Similar to a running post I did last season ( teams lost in bold ):
WEEK 1 – Top 25 and conference summary
SEC 8/25 = 32% : Bama, LSU, USC, Arkansas, Auburn, MSU, UGA, UF
10 wins vs 2 losses = 83%
B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State
10 wins vs 2 losses = 83%
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Missouri, Texas
10 wins vs 0 losses = 100%
ACC 2/25 = 8% : Florida State, Virginia Tech
8 wins vs 4 losses = 67% – ACC game today nets 1 winner and 1 loser
PAC 2/25 = 8% : Oregon, Stanford
8 wins vs 4 losses = 67%
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
5 wins vs 3 losses = 63%
IND 1/25 = 4% : Notre Dame
BE 0/25 = 0%
8 wins vs 0 losses = 100%
What is the game you would watch in week 2 if you could only watch 1 game?
LikeLike
You should probably indicate that the P12 and the ACC each had a loss to a I-AA school.
Congrats to the BE for having a good week, with 2 AQ wins (ND, WF) and no losses.
I’m guessing UGA drops out of the top 25, and maybe AU too. TCU might stay in, but it’ll be close. ND will probably stay in because they’re ND.
Next week’s best game(s):
1. OSU/Toledo – alumni bias
2. MI/ND – 1st night game at MI, ND desperate for a win
3. UGA/SC – Mark Richt needs a win to keep his job and SC was sloppy
4. PSU/AL – PSU’s lack of offense keep this from being more interesting
LikeLike
brian,
I was trying to be nice to Duke, as they actually had 33 K folks in the stands (1,000 short of capacity) if the box score is accurate. The Beavers getting knocked off vs say Oregon losing to Sacramento State is not as “wow”. I think UGA drops out, but not as sure about Auburn. I think ND stays in because College GameDay will want at least 1 ranked team for their broadcast. I think TCU still has a shot to hang around because it was close, and they were playing at Baylor. The media guys will always try to sell the outsider.
Looking at the list you do see the “brand” shift if Larry Scott goes to 16. PAC + B12 jumps over the B1G and pulls neck and neck with the SEC. Such a combination will probably get at least 3 PAC schools and 4 B12 schools. Adding B12 voters to the PAC 12 teams in a combined conference has to help lift all boats.
I have to go with PSU vs Bama as my top game
The 2 PAC vs B12 games will be interesting. MSU vs Auburn is the only ranked vs ranked in that first slot on saturday. I agree your UM vs ND and USC vs UGA could end some seasons early, so there is extra incentive for teams and coaches. If BYU can win back to back on the road this has potential. If they get blown out, that could quash any BYU to the B12 talk. If Salukis can go to Ole Miss and get a win, Nutt probably is out the door.
LikeLike
duffman,
That’s the third time in six years that Duke has lost to Richmond. They shouldn’t be coddled for it. But at least Richmond is a top level I-AA team. OrSU lost to a mediocre I-AA. It’s not likt OR losing to a I-AA, but still pretty embarrassing.
Yes, AU is a definite maybe. The game got so much coverage that I think AU drops some, but may or may not stay in the top 25. Certainly the voters can find 25 teams that looked better in week one than AU. ND probably doesn’t deserve to stay, but the voters will probably keep them just because they are ND. TCU has a chance, but the non-AQs always get punished more for losing. It’s classic backlash for the hype they get.
I assume you’re talking a standard P16 (OU, OkSU, UT, TT). I don’t see how that jumps over the B10. It’s more like it becomes more equal.
Kings:
B10 – OSU, MI, PSU, NE
P16 – USC, OU, UT
Princes:
B10 – WI, IA
P16 – OR (can’t be a king if you lose to every good defense – BSU ’09, OSU ’10, AU ’10, LSU ’10)
Current top 25:
B10 – 5 (41.7%)
P16 – 5 (31.3%)
What the P16 would have is a deeper middle, but that’s the power of numbers. It’s why the BE gets more tournament teams. The P16 will continue to suffer from time zone issues that hurt them a little in the polls.
I’d put PSU/AL higher on my list if I thought it would be a decent game unlike last year’s game. I think PSU will be lucky to score again this year. MI/ND should be more fun to watch despite the horrible throwback uniforms, plus it is a historic game. UGA/SC has more significance than all the other games because Richt’s job is truly on the line. The fans wanted him out already, and getting crushed by Boise is unacceptable in SEC country.
LikeLike
Pingback: Texas A&M Leaving Big 12 - Page 458 - CycloneFanatic
You just CAN’T escape the expansion talk. I did a search on high speed rail texas and it somehow generated a link to this viewpoint arguing for a Pac 18:
http://bleacherrepot.com/articles/834604-why-ou-and-the-pac-12-would-be-wise-to-bring-missouri-and-kansas-too
LikeLike
Link needs an “r” in report to work.
LikeLike
18 teams really does turn you into two leagues linked by a TV contract. What’s the point? Why not just have two truly separate leagues linked by a TV contract?
Its interesting looking at what is happening now vs. the history of TV contracts in the NCAA. UGA of the SEC and OU of the Big 8 wanted more money and exposure and sued the NCAA to break up the NCAA TV monopoly. Then there was a roughly 85 team College Football Association which controlled the TV contract. The Big 10 and Pac 10 got greedy and broke off and did their own joint deal separate from the rest. Eventually the SEC got greedy and broke off from the CFA, leading to its collapse and the collapse of the SWC and Big 8. Once again, the Big 10 and Pac 10 and SEC are grabbing for more and leading to a collapse in the center of the country. Definitely gives you Duffman’s predator and prey imagery.
LikeLike
This has always been about the rich getting richer.
It’s never been about the have-nots.
LikeLike
Why I mean by that is that there are certain have-nots like say Northwestern or Indiana or Washington State or the Mississippi schools or Wake Forest that are lucky to have seats at the major conference tables, so they’ll end up richer over time, but there are others like Baylor or most of the Big East schools that will get left out in the cold.
LikeLike
Two leagues linked by a TV contract is two different TV contracts, unless the conferences share a set of rules governing media rights for the membership. Those rules seem to be central in what the makeup and stability of conferences are, or are striving to become.
LikeLike
Bullet,
The networks probably wouldn’t accept a join contract for 2 separate leagues. By officially joining and playing some inter-divisional games, it legitimately is one contract.
LikeLike
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/834604-why-ou-and-the-pac-12-would-be-wise-to-bring-missouri-and-kansas-too
This one should work.
LikeLike
The New York Times is blowing up the Orangebloods account of events.
It sounds like there will be no political grandstanding to block A&M’s move or UT’s move to the Pac. It also brings into contention the idea that Beebe saved the Big 12 or that UT never wanted to leave. UT simply couldn’t get the extra sweetener it wanted out of Scott.
LikeLike
Chip Brown is somewhat of a mouthpiece for Texas. He tends to report scenarios that Texas often wants to see occur, etc. While he has been right on some things like pointing out that Texas’ entire focus is either a Pac-16 or the Big 12, he’s been wrong on a lot of details because he presents a version that is often too Texas-aligned.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
This NYT article sounds like its all coming from Aggie sources, getting the NYT to put their spin out there. You have to be careful with any of what you read.
LikeLike
The “sweetener” isn’t any new reporting and is the Pac 12 “spin” on why it fell apart. A Pac 10 source (probably posted on this board) said that Texas wanted the Big 12 exit fees covered and the Pac 10 offered to loan them the money. Texas response was that they could loan themselves the money. The Pac 10 source clearly thought Texas was arrogant. But it was really their own arrogance that prevented them from seeing the Texas point of view. The Pac 10 viewed the transaction as an acquisition or an invitation to their private club, but Texas viewed it as a merger or partnership, much like the Big 12 formation, with the Big 12 schools bringing a lot to the table and believed they shouldn’t bear the exit fees alone. There was a similar dynamic among Big 8 fans (not necessarily the administration) who viewed the Big 12 as a Big 8 expansion that was doing the Texas 4 a favor. The Texas 4 viewed it as a partnership with mutual benefit.
The “sweetener” comment could be true and it still be true that Beebe with ESPN and Fox saved the conference by offering a better deal than the one the Pac 10 was offering.
I’m beginning to wonder if some who have posted are right that the B1G (and Pac) shouldn’t invite Texas and Texas shouldn’t accept. Texas brings a lot to the table and doesn’t want to be considered a 2nd class member. But with their century long traditions and ties, the B1G and Pac are likely to have someone new viewed as a junior partner, a new member of the private club who hasn’t quite earned the rights of the long time members, even more so if the newby is from a different region of the country. Would the MI and WI presidents allowed their representatives to have voted Iowa out of the AAU? Its worth noting that UNL believed all the Big 12 schools voted for them.
Also, the NYT and Orangebloods could both be right on the legislature. One of the Aggies reported that the relevant Senate committee was chaired by a representative from College Station who wasn’t about to hold a hearing. Zaffirini, quoted in the article, represents Laredo, home of Texas A&M International, which was added to the A&M system relatively recently (10-20 years). She has promoted improvements to that university. The Orangebloods site talked about the Lt. Governor and the House, where the original hearing was going to be held.
Texas politics are influenced by its dysfunctional higher education system, unlike California which has the UC system with its research universities and the State system with the rest, along with community colleges. Texas has the UT (9 schools) and A&M (10 schools) systems separate. In the last 25 years A&M has been trying to increase its influence by absorbing universities around the state and opening campuses in DFW and San Antonio. In addition there is a state university system with 8 schools, a University of Houston (4 schools) system, a Texas Tech system and a half dozen independent universities. Most of the medical schools are in the UT system, but A&M and Tech have added Health Science Centers in recent years. The community colleges are locally based and tied into the school districts. So its all a duplicative, highly political, dysfuntional mess.
LikeLike
Texas’ value is a blessing for them but a curse in terms of the current conference structure. And they’re growing their value faster than anyone else.
Texas’ TV value is probably at least 50% higher than the next most valuable school in Florida or maybe Notre Dame.
The thing is, that’s just going to grow over time with Texas’ projected population going to go somewhere north of 40M in the next few decades.
Texas is such an anomaly in terms of population growth and their dominance of their state (unlike say USC being predominant in the south half of California or Florida sharing the state with FSU and Miami, both kings).
It makes no sense for Texas to want to be in a conference where it’s an equal, unless it views the stability as being worth it.
I’m obviously a Big Ten partisan, but at this point, I don’t see how the Big Ten makes sense for Texas. Yes, Texas would be incredibly valuable to the Big Ten, but Texas will basically rival Michigan’s, Ohio’s, and Pennsylvania’s populations all combined eventually, and it’s already the size of Ohio and Pennsylvania together. The geography doesn’t make sense either; if the Big Ten were closer, it would, but the fact that the Big Ten features the most similar universities to Texas (giant public state universities with mostly 40,000+ students, mostly research intensive as well), isn’t a good enough reason for Texas to go to the Big Ten. If the Big Ten and Texas were going to get together, it would have happened in the early 1990s.
As for the Pac-16, the geography makes sense and the money will be fine. But the weakness of the Pac-12 is that its region is as weak in terms of football intensity as the Mid-Atlantic region; maybe even weaker. Texas would be one of only 3 national brands in there with OU and USC as the other two. They’ll also be there with only a small group of “supporters” as opposed to the Pac-8 voting block, which is likely to dominate the management of the conference (even though nowadays commissioners are way more powerful).
Some sort of independence scenario is probably the best thing for Texas at this point. But the problem is again geography. ND has the Big East. Texas needs the Big 12 to survive in some form, but that might not be likely given that the Big East is likely to make a move on Missouri/Kansas/Kansas State.
LikeLike
The problem that Texas has, if it’s ever really had a problem; is that the three strongest conferences are all focused around regions that are strongly knit together but far away. Of course, the fact that the central population of the US is so concentrated in Texas makes that a big part of the problem.
There was never really a chance to build a strong conference in the Southwest because there aren’t enough big states there.
So Texas basically has to choose between a weak conference that it dominates (or uses for quasi-independence) versus joining one of the Big 3 conferences as an equal member that is unlikely to get its way against the power blocs that are already present.
LikeLike
The SEC would make the most sense in terms of connections and rivalries, but the universities are so different. The B1G is closer than the Pac geographically (although a Pac 16 might minimize that) and in the type of university, but the connections aren’t there. The Big 12 w/o OU is just not strong enough unless Notre Dame joined and there’s no indication they are going to jump off the independence Titanic any earlier than Jack and Rose did. Notre Dame is not going to be proactive to stop superconferences. So if OU goes, I think UT sooner or later ends up in the Pac.
LikeLike
LSU was in the inaugural meeting to create the SWC in 1914. If they had joined, there might have been enough of a central population base with LA, AR, MO, OK along with TX.
Texas does have a uniquely strong position, but its not total control The state has a lot of newcomers, a lot of universities and Dallas and Houston are pro sports towns, so it doesn’t have the state dominance of a Tennessee or Georgia or LSU. UT also has held its enrollment steady since around 1980 so its proportion of the college alumni in the state is decreasing. Its also a very big diverse state with lots of sub-markets. Independence, IMO, would be a big long term mistake. There’s no guarantee your next coach is as good as Mack Brown and UT doesn’t have the national alliegiance of ND or the military academies or even BYU.
LikeLike
What a lot of people don’t remember is that Texas wasn’t the fifth best team when the Big 12 formed. Mack Brown, CEO, really built that brand into what it is today.
LikeLike
zeek,
UT and TAMU were in the SIAA once (grandfather of the current SEC) but UT left to form the TIAA. TAMU was still in the SEC and the TIAA was failing so UT got TAMU to leave the SIAA and go with UT to form the SWC. IF UT and TAMU had stayed in the old SIAA they would have 100 + years of history the SEC now has. As they say highway 6 goes both ways.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Pac-12 is regretting turning down Texas’ demands last summer. Texas’ negotiating position gets worse every time another school says they are trying to leave the conference, which seems to happen every day now.
An invitation to the Pac-12 is an invitation to a private club. Texas has already destroyed two conferences; I don’t see why they shouldn’t have to spend some time as a junior partner to their third.
LikeLike
bullet,
I’m beginning to wonder if some who have posted are right that the B1G (and Pac) shouldn’t invite Texas and Texas shouldn’t accept. Texas brings a lot to the table and doesn’t want to be considered a 2nd class member. But with their century long traditions and ties, the B1G and Pac are likely to have someone new viewed as a junior partner, a new member of the private club who hasn’t quite earned the rights of the long time members, even more so if the newby is from a different region of the country. Would the MI and WI presidents allowed their representatives to have voted Iowa out of the AAU? Its worth noting that UNL believed all the Big 12 schools voted for them.
Being treated like everyone else is not being a second class citizen. UT would have equal rights in a new conference, they just wouldn’t have any extra power. I fully believe that if the numbers were the same, those 2 presidents would have voted against IA just like they did NE. It was a stand on principle rather than being selfish.
And I have news for UT, it would be an acquisition by the P12 just as the B8 acquired them before. The smaller group doesn’t merge with the much bigger one, it gets acquired with a stake in the new venture.
LikeLike
My biggest complaint with the article is Thamel’s contention that OU isn’t as big of a brand as UT.
LikeLike
Bohls writes up a few more Scott quotes:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/collegefootball/pac-12-commissioner-says-era-of-super-conference-1820070.html
OU, OSU & TTU have contacted the Pac. UT is dragging its heals. It sounds like Scott is going into full non-denial-denial mode in an attempt to not appear like he’s tampering.
LikeLike
It all comes back to what Texas wants. Texas wants the Big 12 to survive but at this point Oklahoma looks like it’s pushing for the Pac-16 really hard.
The question is whether Scott can get Texas to agree to equal revenue sharing and an equal Pac-12 Texas regional network with TTech.
LikeLike
What if Oklahoma just up and leaves? Some of the OU related stories are leaning that way. The Bohls and Chip Brown stories are basically DeLost Dodds PR spin.
I get the overall feeling that Texas is driving everyone away so they can be independent with the LHN. I also get the feeling that they would rather this happens 5 years down the road, but they will ‘reluctantly’ reject the PAC 12 offer and OU will leave – maybe with Kansas and OSU. Texas says some BS line like “We tried to save the Big 12, but everyone left, it’s their fault…. we are still here, this is a bad day for our fellow universities blah, blah, blah.”
They have NO interest in saving the BIG 12 long term, they are only interested in delaying the demise and saving face.
LikeLike
Texas doesn’t have a good football independence scenario without some form of the Big 12 to put its non-football sports in (Big East is somewhat impractical geographically), so that’s their main problem with that situation.
Texas has to want to save some form of the Big 12 if it does go football independent. The problem is that the Big 12 schools are likely to leave for the Big East or maybe it can commit to the Big 12 for 2-3 years and invite Big East schools, and then go football independent.
That’s the problem though, there’s too many actors for Texas to be sure that going for football independence with a Big 12 home for the rest of its sports is a safe strategy.
Texas’ goal is to save the Big 12 with it and OU basically running the show with easy runs to the BCS. The problem is that OU doesn’t want to be in a really weak Big 12.
If OU leaves, I think Kansas/K-State/Missouri are locks to book their tickets to the Big East, and Texas is probably just going to go to the Pac-16.
LikeLike
As I pointed out above, its not a competitively weak Big 12-2-1. A&M and CU haven’t added that much to football during the Big 12 years and UNL has been relatively down lately, with the 3 schools only 4 games over .500 combined in the last 10 years. There is, however, a clear perception of competitive weakness with everyone leaving, but its not so much based on reality.
Without OU, though, it starts to look little different than the Big East.
LikeLike
Yeah, competitiveness is not the problem. TV and markets and most of all perception is the problem (as you point out).
LikeLike
Here’s what I’m hearing and it was backed up by a tweet from Dean Blevins:
DeanBlevins Dean Blevins
#OU Pres DBoren was late 2 meet Stoops & AD JoeC Fri. Source:”Was cuttin deal (#Pac12) & happier than seen him n long time.” #sooners #texas
OU and OSU deal is done, or at least a hand shake deal is done. Hearing the announcement will be the day after A&M’s which is expected Tues. or Wed.
This is NOT contingent on Texas, or Missouri or anyone else. OU got tired of waiting and UT double talk. AAU promise in 10 years was the hook that clinched the deal for OU.
I’m still hearing that Pac would take Kansas and Missouri if Missouri doesn’t join the SEC, though TECH seems fully dependent on Texas. KU plus Tech (if UT goes Indy, and Missouri goes SEC) doesn’t seem to excite anyone.
LikeLike
Makes sense for both sides if true.
LikeLike
Interesting that AAU within 10 years would be the clincher here, given that the conference is accepting OSU into the fold.
LikeLike
you read it wrong Ross. It’s not the PaC would take OU if they got AAU status in 10 years. It’s: the Pac will help OU get AAU status in 10 years if they come and join the PAC. And that is a huge carrot for OU…..OSU is just being dragged along.
LikeLike
The Big Ten couldn’t promise this?
What is going on in Chicago?!
LikeLike
OU needs to be in a conference with OSU and/or Texas. That’s what the Big Ten really couldn’t provide.
Why go to the Big Ten without OSU when the Pac-12 is offering both.
LikeLike
OSU is the problem. OU is going where it can with OSU. It can’t come to the B1G with OSU.
LikeLike
I’m guessing Redhawk’s information isn’t completely accurate here. It’s more likely that the AAU schools in the Pac-12 gave Oklahoma assurances that they would support Oklahoma’s bid for AAU status if they met certain metrics in 10 years. The Pac-12 cannot guarantee AAU status for Oklahoma.
As for the Big Ten, we just voted a new conference member out of the AAU. Nice welcome. For better or worse, the Big Ten is not going to make assurances to a prospective conference member.
LikeLike
B10 won’t take Oklahoma State as a tag along with OU. Can’t see Oklahoma ending up in the B10 unless Texas jumps first and it sounds like Oklahoma is the one on the clock.
LikeLike
@zeek
Where is Texas going, if not to the Pac-16? They can’t be serious about playing in a glorified WAC.
Is their television deal really that big of a hang up?
LikeLike
If OU pulls the trigger on a Pac deal, then Texas’ only choices are the Pac-16 or quasi-independence (with its non-football sports in the remnants of the Big 12, but I’m not sure that’s strong enough to avoid Big East poaching).
Most likely they just go to the Pac-16 after working out a deal on the LHN.
LikeLike
@Zeek and Metatron
I’m not sure UT isn’t thinking independence. UT is still trying to have it’s cake (a good conference) AND their own special TV deal bigger, better, and more special than anyone else’s (may not want to give ownership to PAC or split revenues).
It hasn’t seem to gotten through to Texas that they can’t always have their way in all things.
LikeLike
@Redhawk
We annexed Texas once, we might have to do it again.
LikeLike
That scenario is almost exactly what I would expect, and seems to be backed by actions and statements from OU / OSU over the last week or so.
I bet Missou goes SEC, PAC would love Texas but I think Texas will try out being UTESPN and independence.
LikeLike
Its kind of funny, OU is actually trying to build a university the football team can be proud of!
LikeLike
The things that gets me is that we’re waiting for Notre Dame, but the longer we wait, the less impressive our sixteen-man band becomes.
If we stand pat, that’s not terrible, but if we expand later, the shopping list becomes much, much worse. Say what you will, I’d rather have Kansas and Missouri over Rutgers and UConn.
LikeLike
Not really sure who’s out there that’s a solid add other than Missouri. Kansas has a top 5 basketball brand for sure, but football is 80-90% of the equation here as the Nebraska/Penn State adds, show.
We all know football is driving the bus, and Missouri has a decent middle/upper football brand like Iowa.
The problem is whether that’s enough to expand for? As a pairing with A&M for the SEC, it probably makes sense.
For the Big Ten to go to 13, well then who’s #14?
The Big Ten doesn’t really have a choice if it can’t get ACC schools and ND isn’t coming. You might as well stay at 12 to keep the ratio of national brands:rest of conference as small as possible.
LikeLike
Meant as large as possible on that last line, of course.
LikeLike
Right, but outside of Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame, there aren’t any good football powers after that. Well, Pitt and WVU, but they’re not exactly leading candidates.
I’m the last person for college hoops, but having a basketball power couldn’t hurt. We could do a lot worse than having a good television deal for basketball, or a stable of games to play on the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
you mean “homeruns” like Virginia, North Carolina or Maryland isn’t exciting you?
Yeah, Big 10 has painted themselves in an odd corner if they really want to expand.
LikeLike
The thing is, I don’t think the Big Ten wants to expand. They probably went to Texas and Oklahoma and heard that the 4 schools (Tech, OSU) were something of a package deal.
Besides, they still have to think in the future that ND is most likely to join the Big Ten if it does join a conference in the future, and for the Big Ten and SEC, 14 may be more ideal than 16.
Only the Pac-16 (OU/OSU/Texas/TTech) has a division split that makes traditional/geographical sense with respect to the old Pac-8 along with a new SWC-ish division.
The Big Ten and SEC don’t have those kinds of setups at 16 and would be much more likely to move to pods of some sort (even though the SEC schools went for decades relatively without playing each other).
14 is probably more optimal for the Big Ten and SEC in the long run unless they can get schools that bring huge value like FSU or UNC.
LikeLike
I tend to agree Zeek. I think the B1G might be content at 12 for good, if not for the near future. Why risk the potential disharmony that comes with a behemoth 16-team conference when you can let the Pac-16, and (maybe) the SEC try it out first. It may be that other conferences will go to 16, but the B1G will remain in the most secure and unified position at 12.
I like where we are at 12…I’m not sure we should expand, even for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Calling Mizzou a football power is a bit of a stretch. They haven’t won a conference title or been to one of the BCS bowl games in decades. They’re probably somewhere between a Boston College and an Oregon State; good for 8 wins plus or minus one.
LikeLike
Missouri has won 10 games in 3 of the last 4 seasons and hasn’t won less than 8 since ’05. They are finally ‘building’ their football program up with Gary Pinkel. They are a great fit in the B10 in terms of geography, culture, rivalries and adding population to the B10’s footprint. They aren’t quite at a B10 level in terms of academics, facilities & getting big ratings; 3 of the most important criteria..
I can’t see them being added unless a king (ND or Texas) comes with them; on their own they don’t add enough to make the B10 split its profits 13 ways instead of 12. B10 is done with expansion imo; their only candidates are two schools (Texas & ND) with over inflated egos that’ll demand special considerations that the B10 won’t give them.
LikeLike
re: the popular raid of the ACC; Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina & Duke. Can’t see it realistically happening, these universities have close ties to its fellow ACC members; VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Ga Tech, etc…
The only scenario where I could see the B10 raiding the ACC is if the SEC decided to raid the ACC first by taking a few schools like Florida State, Clemson, VT, Miami, Ga Tech, etc… I can’t see the ‘core’ ACC members leaving otherwise; Maryland is probably the only exception who has felt like a bit of a outlier in the ACC. Again, like Missouri, they don’t add enough to be added unless they come with a king.
LikeLike
If you think about how ND likes to schedule – get exposure in as many regions as possible – the ACC makes more sense than the Bigger 10. If ND went to the ACC along with, say, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers; ND would get to play games in the NE and mid-South through its conference and could still play at least 1 team from the west, MW, and military each season.
If ND joined the Bigger 10, the only non-Midwestern exposure would come from 3 OOC games.
This whole website is predicated on the notion that the Bigger 10 wants to expand due to BTN. That Delaney says he would not react to an implosion of the Big-12 tells me: 1) He doesn’t view expansion to Texas as doable, 2) He doesn’t view expansion to Oklahoma, Kansas, or Mizzou as desirable, 3) He thinks he can poach ACC teams, and/or 4) His ultimate play will be a northeast play.
LikeLike
Welcome to the pissing contest between PAC 12 Commish Larry Scott and Texas AD Deloss Dodds. Here is the sequence of events as I remember them (please correct me if I’m wrong.):
1. (Summer 2010) Texas suggests moving all six members of th Big XII South into the PAC 10. Scott invites Colorado.
2. (Summer 2010) A&M flirts with the SEC. Texas suggest moving remaining 5 members of Big XII South to PAC 10. Baylor is unacceptable so Scott invites Utah into the PAC 10.
3. (Summer 2010) Texas clings to idea of LHN. Scott says he’s done with expansion and wishes Big XII good luck.
4. (Summer 2011) OU flirts with idea of getting out of UT’s shadow. Will Scott take OU/OSU and force UT’s hand once again?
My guess is Texas will try desperately to salvage Big XII by adding at least 1 school from either MWC or CUSA. BYU won’t come despite Big XII offering automatic BCS bid. If Texas does accept PAC 16 membership, Scott is going to regret it. They will be a pain in the ass and will likely lead to the breakup of the conference a la the MWC schism from the 16 team WAC a few years back.
LikeLike
For television ‘inventory’ purposes, the B12 needs 10 teams minimum even if that 10th team is North Texas. They are going to invite a Big East, MWC or C-USA member very soon after A&M leaves.
LikeLike
Just maybe… The B1G is illustrating that academics and research are considerations that won’t be compromised in the pursuit of expanding its football brand/imprint, and they are at least as important as athletics. The intelligence of this blog still remains in what I believe is the most accurate reflection of the perspective of TPTB, and the prism through which this all should continue to be viewed: FTT’s opening salvo (you had me at hello) of “Think Like a University President”. TPTB likely believe what many across the blogosphere (thinking like fans or ADs) either ignore or forget. The B1G already considers itself the preeminent collection of combined academic, research and athletic universities in the country. Its dominance in and commitment to research is unquestioned, and its position in academia, particularly among state universities and on the graduate school level, is unparalleled (looking at this through my prism says we take this seriously enough that we’d punish one of our own – Nebraska – as a challenge, instead of engaging in cronyism that dilutes the true value of our brand, until the appropriate level of commitment is shown by Nebraska to warrant reacquiring AAU status). The B1G’s revenue generation in athletics is at the top of the heap, indeed is the new paradigm, and it’s scheduled to leap by even more dramatic bounds within the next five years (can you say BTN2 and contract renewal?).
Consider the following. While other conferences are struggling for survival and/or securing the future, the B1G has already won. We talk a lot about the performance of the BTN. We don’t talk enough about the escalator effect that will occur once Fox recoups its initial investment in the BTN in just a couple of years. The per school take will skyrocket again. Indeed, what’s the worst case scenario if we stayed at 12 for another 20 years, assuming Notre Dame is still independent? Our schools will be taking home $30M/year, courtesy of our current maneuvers/position, which will still be more than any other conference, (especially with Pac16 dilution). Are we that concerned about National Championships in football? Even if we are, we will always still have a great shot at them: we have four Kings on our team and two very strong Princes. There’s no way super conferences happen without the direction and leadership of the B1G, whether we’re at 12 or 16. Not only are we the B1G; we’re the B1G dog here. Guys, we know what we’re doing. Have there been any better conference moves (including integration) in the last 2 decades than either PSU or Nebraska? Patience is a virtue.
Look to the end game. The B1G can watch with amusement while all the other chess pieces are played, all of which serve to circle the wagons around securing ND (plus possibly/presumably additional population growth-centered, academically stable universities. I’m not saying we’re oblivious to expanding, we just don’t need to compromise or rush). We don’t need to react, much less overreact, to anything. Yes, UT would be great, but only because of the state’s population. Would you marry a schizophrenic supermodel who will destroy your family and ultimately leave, scarring your reputation forever? Yes, Stanford, UF, UNC, UVa, FSU, Maryland, USC, TAMU, etc. would be great, but we can’t have everyone! Yes, OK would be great from a football perspective, but we aren’t taking OkSU (can it be more clear that this is a package deal? That’s the Pac12’s game). Even alone, OK is perhaps a rung too low on the academic/research front (Nebraska comparisons are irrelevant because OK is bound to OkSU). No addition, even Texas or ND would make us greater than we’ve been for a century (insert Legends and Leaders commercial here); it would only enhance what we’ve already created. Notre Dame rightfully is clinging on to their independence for as long as they can. However, ND alone among the remaining Kings fits within our footprint and still offers us the national footprint we seek without disrupting what feels right about being the B1G. When they enter, I hope it’s done with an understanding that we’ve respected their history enough all these years such that integration can be complete and permanent.
I’m ok with waiting unless another King of academia, research, AND football/population growth centers comes calling. I think – and hope – that’s what our university presidents are thinking.
Go U NU!!
LikeLike
“another King of academia, research, AND football/population growth centers ”
There’s only one of those left. And it’s in Austin.
LikeLike
Which is why either we’re sitting at 12 or UT has to get rid of its Tech problem.
LikeLike
Point of fact: UVA was not a founding member of the ACC. They joined within the first year after the league was founded, but they were not a founding member.
LikeLike