The ACC washed away any rumors of expanding up to 16 by sending out a single invitation to Louisville this morning while also indicating a sea change in the thought process of the conference’s leadership. For years, the ACC refused to consider schools such as West Virginia on the basis of academics, which meant that Connecticut would have been a virtual lock over the likes of Louisville and Cincinnati to have received an invite from the conference if this situation had occurred even one year ago. However, the brand value of the ACC’s football side has diminished so greatly over the past several years that conference commissioner John Swofford and company took a different tact this time around. Even the chancellor of the University of North Carolina (which is to the ACC what Texas is to the Big 12) admitted flatly that the addition of Louisville was completely about athletics as opposed to academics.
Kudos to Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich for getting his school into this position. He has proven himself to be one of the top athletic directors in the country in turning a basketball school that was in Conference USA not too long ago into a comprehensive top-to-bottom sports program that made sure it wouldn’t get left behind in a new football-driven world. Louisville already would have the largest athletic budget in the ACC outside of UNC, which is quite amazing considering that the Big East’s conference distributions are completely paltry compared to what the ACC has been doling out to its members. Out of all of the schools that have moved in conference realignment over the past couple of years, no one has gone out and made their own luck like Tom Jurich and Louisville. This is a big-time athletic department that should have been in an AQ conference long before it was invited to the Big East in 2003 and certainly shouldn’t have been sweating it out in the current round of realignment.
Unfortunately, the ACC’s decision left behind another school that deserves better than a watered-down Big East: UConn. I rarely blame the leadership of schools for failing to get spots in different conferences since so much is out of the control of those individual institutions. However, the ACC invite should have been UConn’s to lose. UConn had the academic profile and better geographic fit for the ACC along with a larger immediate TV market (#30 Hartford vs. #48 Louisville) and entry points to two massive metro areas (New York City and Boston). Yet, UConn somehow got characterized as a weaker football addition and athletic department overall compared to Louisville in the past week despite going to a BCS bowl and winning a national championship in men’s basketball in the same season only two years ago. That’s an accomplishment that not even Texas and Ohio State have been able to achieve. I told several UConn fans late last week that their school was doing an extremely poor job in addressing the negative public perception issues and Louisville had taken ownership of being a “football move” for the ACC (never mind that Louisville is the highest basketball revenue generator in the country and it’s not even close). What really wasn’t that large of an athletic achievement gap between UConn and Louisville became perceived as a massive gulf in the eyes of the media and fans and, faced with the increasing scrutiny of whether the ACC ought to maintain its power conference status in football, this might have been the one time that the university presidents were won over by public sentiment in an expansion decision. This is an instance where the UConn leadership can’t take an “it is what it is” look at what has occurred. My impression is that they believed (as I admittedly did) that the ACC was going to vote in UConn over Louisville and Cincinnati on academics just like it did in all of its other raids of the Big East previously. They didn’t bank on the ACC’s mindset changing, failed to address what the ACC was concerned the most about in the college conference landscape and, as a result, got burned. It’s a shame since Connecticut ought to be in a better home than the new Big East, but they whiffed on their best (and possibly only) opportunity to move on up.
I know a lot of expansionistas out there are just waiting for the next defection from the ACC to cause a chaotic exodus beyond Maryland (with names like Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina and N.C. State moving around), but I’ll reiterate that I don’t see that happening. Conference realignment isn’t necessarily a zero sum game. The Big Ten will likely be able to gain more value out of Maryland than the ACC lost from that school defecting, just as the Big East is losing more value from Rutgers and Louisville leaving than the Big Ten and ACC will respectively gain from those schools. UNC and UVA, in particular, still see themselves as Southern schools culturally (hence a negative reaction toward the Big Ten at this time) along with top notch academic standards (which means that notwithstanding the ACC’s addition of Louisville, this is a large mark against the SEC), and as long as those two schools are there, the ACC is going to receive favored status from the college sports powers that be and that decreases the likelihood of others (such as Florida State) going anywhere else. As with all things in conference realignment, we always have to say “never say never”, but it will likely take years for UNC and UVA to get to the point where they’d seriously consider leaving the ACC.
In the meantime, get ready for the ACC-Big Ten Challenge to continue tomorrow night on ESPN, as Rutgers plays Louisville for the Big East football championship.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from 97.1 FM The Fan)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
I’m first!
LikeLike
I’m 178th.
LikeLike
MIZ
LikeLike
N.I.T!
LikeLike
Test
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
First?
LikeLike
No VA? I guess this frees up the Big Ten to take the Washington Redskins to really capture that DC market.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the Redskins football program is up to Big Ten standards.
LikeLike
They do have a nice band though right?
LikeLike
Not an AAU member.
LikeLike
As a UofL fan, this is the first time I have been able to read “the” expansion blog with reasoned analysis where I didn’t leave more depressed after reading than before.
As a UofL fan, I feel for Cinci, but it is what it is. As for UConn, I can say I felt what they must feel almost a year ago. For all involved, focus on what you can control, support your teams, and win games. But I would be lying if the “fair catch” didn’t karma didn’t jump into my head.
LikeLike
Guess that’s all she wrote for the Keg of Nails, huh?
LikeLike
This is pretty much the correct response to this situation.
If you look at where schools like Louisville and Rutgers are today compared to where they were 10 or 15 years ago, it’s a world of difference. They actually look like “big boys” now.
LikeLike
The interesting tidbit in all of this is the budget at UL will put it at the top of the ACC and near the top of the B12! On a related note it would still be in the bottom of the B1G or SEC. 😉
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
When will the big east finally cry uncle? The conference is not c-usa 2.0, it is worse than c-usa was when Louisville and Cincy left it. I think the bb schools should vote not to sponsor football anymore and keep Cincy and UConn (they will probably leave at some point when the next shoe(s) drop, but at least you can keep them until that happens). So you could have Cincy, UConn, St Johns, Seton Hall, Providence, Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, Temple, and DePaul. Maybe add Xavier, VCU, or Butler. Nice little 10-12 team conference.
LikeLike
Uncle?
LikeLike
Busy week for Frank.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Tough day to be from Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Well, at least there is no talk from the governor about dissolving the city, as there has been about dissolving Detroit and allowing Wayne County to absorb it.
LikeLike
What happened to turning it into farm land?
LikeLike
Good question. I am not sure. It depresses me as a Midwesterner either way.
LikeLike
As a former Detroiter, I’ve been advocating this move for the last 3 years. It’s the only way outside of Chapter 9 that Detroit will be able to solve its fiscal problems.
LikeLike
Then I will defer to you on that. It just saddens me that it came to this.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that be a metro form of government? Cincinnati and Hamilton county have discussed merging in the past. And, to bring it full circle, I am fairly sure Louisville has a metro government.
Sigh
LikeLike
Indianapolis does the same. But I would imagine these were generally voluntary moves. This one would not be.
I do not think it is bad per se, but I think it is just bad that it has come to this.
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Dang, not first this time. Go Green!
LikeLike
So odds that the Big East Catholic schools stick around?
LikeLike
Highly dependent on what if anything happens with TV before the window of them having a dominant position in the conference closes.
If nothing good comes from the TV negotiations, Boise & SDSU will almost certainly back out and the basketball schools will either vote to dissolve or to drop football.
LikeLike
Different schools present different cases. Villanova could still upgrade to FBS and campaign for an ACC slot for instance. Georgetown seems to have no interest in this, and its not even on the radar for St. John’s. More realistically, the three big-market East Coast schools have to stay together in one of three ways — in the Big East as it is (this way they keep their NCAA tournament points); as the core of a new coast-to-coast Catholic/private-schools conference (I’ll call it the “Providence-to-Pepperdine” option), or as a basketball adjunct to an existing major conference (most likely the ACC but maybe even the Big XII).
LikeLike
So FSU is going to sit back and watch it’s football die as Big 4 schools make $10-$20 Million a year more?
STUPID move FSU. That money difference turns you into a farm team for EVERY Big 4 program, not just the Bama’s and Texas programs of today.
LikeLike
You rock, Elvis. I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
Well this doesn’t prevent FSU leaving, but it does make it less likely.
The real question is whether they think they have an open invitation to join the Big XII. If they do they can just stay put unless/until their situation becomes unacceptable.
(Another possibility is that they are holding out hope for an SEC or Big 10 in the next few years and don’t want to be tied down by the Big XII’s GOR)
LikeLike
As Jericho points out though, that’s impractical.
If the SEC is looking at the same model as the Big Ten, then they have their eyes on the Mid-Atlantic.
That means FSU’s fate is entirely at the whim of the Texas crew…
LikeLike
Well, it’s really hard to see the B12 turn down FSU if they decide to leave (who else would be better? who else would even be in the same strata?), so FSU probably says “no thanks” to the B12 GOR, holding out hope for the SEC or B10 (neither are likely, but not impossibilities either) until the ACC nears collapse. That’s why I think both/or UVa/VTech have to make the first move to break the ACC.
LikeLike
Agreed. People have seemingly been talking about FSU to the Big 12 for a year. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened. There’s at least one side holding out here and I suspect that side is FSU. If things radically change, then it re-opens the possibility of FSU movement. But Maryland was not it. They were at best the 5th or 6th best program in the ACC. Louisville does a lot to replace them athletically.
The keys to this are North Carolina and Virginia. The Big 10 and SEC both want them. In anideal world the two conferences could split the 4 public schools. But UNC will not be the first to move.It almost entirely seems to hinge with Virginia and what they want to do. And they seem fine in the ACC….for now.
LikeLike
I suspect FSU is holding out as well. But I think part of that was to see how the playoff $ came out, so they could get a better feel for the $ difference. The very first thing all the people said last winter (before they started predicting when it would happen week by week) was that FSU would want to see how the finances worked out including the playoff $. Lots of signs pointing to FSU getting ready to make a decision one way or the other. Not the least of which is that the WV “insiders” sources are sparser than usual. People quit talking when things get serious.
I think the keys are VT and FSU. I thought UVA, but I think they’ve decided not to be the first one to move. Their statement was stronger than necessary. It was stronger than UNC’s. And I think FSU could conceivably move alone. One more school leaving (unless it was UNC when everyone would expect everyone else to head out and would be worried about finding a spot) doesn’t mean everyone feels compelled to leave.
LikeLike
If FSU leaves, Clemson definitely will as well. Unlike FSU, they can’t hold even a slim hope of joining the SEC or B10 if the ACC disintegrates, and they’d still be mighty valuable to the B12 (more than BYU, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, WVU, or TCU).
Oh, and if the southern football schools leave, the VA schools will surely follow.
LikeLike
Quite possible. But I’ve become convinced Clemson is doing their best now to keep the conference together. Their AD sounded like they were on the way out the door. He ended up retiring. Their coach ranted about recruits not wanting to go to the Big 12. They had a board meeting with Swofford. And they apparently voted for the $50 million fee. So its not out of the question that they stay even if FSU leaves. But its also possible FSU won’t leave alone, so at least 2 schools have to be convinced.
Someone really does need to write this book.
LikeLike
Clemson may prefer the current ACC to a Big XII + FSU, but I’m guessing a Big XII+FSU would be preferable to an ACC-FSU.
I’m pretty sure if FSU said to Clemson we’re going with or without you, Clemson would follow.
LikeLike
How many times would Clemson get to play ND in the next decade in the B12? If ACC dropped to 12 teams it Gould be near every other year.
LikeLike
So
1. ND almost half the time
or
2. FSU yearly + Texas & OU sometimes (more than half the time if the B12 stays at 12)
I think they take the latter every time.
LikeLike
Yeah, with a 12 team Big XII, Clemson could play other Oklahoma or Texas every year + FSU.
Much better than ND almost 50%.
LikeLike
The SEC doesn’t want them. Nor does the SEC. And the Big 12 doesn’t offer that much more money. So what exactly should they do?
LikeLike
Big 12 apparently is projecting $30 million in 2014. What is the ACC? TV money is $18 million average over the contract. Not sure what playoff $ are or the escalation on the TV contract. Big 12 could offer a whole lot more money, probably $6-$10 million. And whatever FSU could monetize on owned Tier 3 would be on top of that $30 million.
LikeLike
Also, noone really knows if the SEC wants them or not now. We know there are lots of internet stories of a gentlemen’s agreement. We also know the SEC wanted them 20 years ago.
LikeLike
I just realized I put the SEC twice. I mean the SEC and Big 10 don’t want them. But I can’t buy that the SEC would add FSU when they’re all about network expansion.
I know someone out there put a figure of about $6 million difference between the ACC and Big 12 once you allow for increased travel.
LikeLike
I can imagine confused, dejected UConn fans saying “but Frank the Tank said we were the obvious choice! Don’t those morons in the ACC read his blog???”
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
Elvis – How are Wake Forest, UNC, Dook and State making $10-20mm a year more than FSU? The ACC shares revenue equally.
Oh, wait …
LikeLike
They aren’t….I am talking about the Big 4 conference schools….you know schools that COMPETE in football. ACC schools don’t give a damn. That is why Swofford hasn’t gotten fired yet. ACC schools only care about basketball.
The result is a revenue disparity that makes it impossible for any football school in the ACC to compete with the Big 4.
FSU, Clemson, Va Tech must leave or their football will die.
LikeLike
Is the Big 12 really that lucrative?
LikeLike
Big 12 is less so than the others, but still in the $9 Million plus range. But FSU competes with SEC teams the most (in recruiting for example). How is it supposed to do that making $20 million less than even Vandy, Kentucky, MSU, etc, let alone Bama and UF.
Like Tobacco Road, Frank continually ignores the money issue for FSU (because the BBall schools are either set $$$ wise or they don’t care about football…or both).
LikeLike
I’m not sure I really understand what all that extra money buys you in terms of putting a competitive football team on the field. You can only renovate the weight room and the practice facilities so many times. Where is all that dough going? How does it help you win football games?
LikeLike
Coaches. The recruiting rankings are fairly close (though ‘Bama has beaten FSU every year), but the players Saban gets & coaches are have become better football players than the players Jimbo Fisher gets and coaches.
LikeLike
That’s an exaggerated argument. How’s that extra cash doing helping Indiana COMPETE in football?
LikeLike
That’s a strawman.
Football is always paid for several times over.
It’s the rest of the AD where escalating costs of non-revenue sports have to be met…
You might be spending $15-20 million on football like everyone else, but if your overall costs are $70 million, then you’d better earning a lot…
LikeLike
The money is all bunk anyway. How does Louisville have more overall revenue than all of the ACC, despite having Big East TV revenue of less than $5? They have a competent athletic department, that is how.
Everyone talks about how worthless the non-NC and non-VA parts of the ACC are. But then everyone talks about why those pieces should be valuable to the Big XII. How? If Clemson cannot provide value to ESPN through the ACC, why it would provide value to Fox/ESPN through the Big XII. Because Texas-Oklahoma is so much of a better game? How great will Texas-Clemson be if Clemson is 6-4 because they have already lost to Florida State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, and Kansas State? Texas and Clemson fans are going to watch that no matter what. Is someone in New York City going to care? L.A.? Anywhere outside the fan base? So who cares?
It’s all just double-speak regarding whatever people perceive the B1G would want. Lacrosse does not matter. However, adding Maryland gives the B1G a boost in lacrosse. Basketball does not matter. But the SEC and B1G both want North Carolina. And so on.
This whole board is morphing into a B1G rationalization. Adding Maryland and Rutgers may or may not add money, but nobody here in Michigan that I have talked to is even a little enthused about it.
LikeLike
It all depends on who you ask I suppose. Some of the people I talk to are enthused for Maryland, some not so much. Likewise for Rutgers. Everyone I’ve talked to about it are OSU fans. Personally I’m excited for Maryland, but I don’t want any more expansion unless it brings more football cache.
LikeLike
If lacrosse mattered to the Big 10 then maybe they would sponsor the sport.
More importantly, when did anyone talk about the non-VA/NC schools being worthless? In fact, I’m pretty sure everyone here has said FSU + any combination of Miami, G-Tech, Pitt, Clemson, and Louisville would be a boon to the league.
At most people have said that the schools outside of VA and NC would be less valuable to the Big 10 and the SEC. Which is true. Realignment is about marginal value not absolute value.
So while FSU is a more valuable asset is general than V-Tech, the fact it is a duplicate market means it maybe less valuable to the SEC.
LikeLike
Realize no money there, but Terps are nationally ranked as follows. Your welcome:
Men
2. Soccer
3. Lacrosse
Women
4. Lacrosse
6. Field hockey
9. Soccer
11. Basketball
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“The money is all bunk anyway.”
Of course it is.
“How does Louisville have more overall revenue than all of the ACC, despite having Big East TV revenue of less than $5?”
Naming rights, a decent stadium and a huge BB stadium full of BB-crazy fans. It helps that they are in a region where both FB and BB are popular. Almost every ACC school is all FB or all BB.
“Everyone talks about how worthless the non-NC and non-VA parts of the ACC are.”
No, they don’t. They may consider them not valuable to certain conferences, though. That’s completely different.
“But then everyone talks about why those pieces should be valuable to the Big XII. How?”
SEC gets no gain from Clemson or FSU because they already own those markets. The B12 would be gaining valuable new territory. They’d also be gaining FB brands and access to more great recruiting grounds.
“It’s all just double-speak regarding whatever people perceive the B1G would want.”
Awww, does the Syracuse fan feel unloved?
“Lacrosse does not matter.”
It doesn’t. Until you see a power league add Johns Hopkins, lacrosse doesn’t matter.
“However, adding Maryland gives the B1G a boost in lacrosse.”
It does. That doesn’t mean it had anything to do with expansion, it’s just a by-product.
“Basketball does not matter.”
Ask Kansas how much MBB matters.
“But the SEC and B1G both want North Carolina.”
Yes, but not for their hoops. Both want them for TV markets, population, recruiting and academics, wit some latent FB potential in there. The hoops brand is a bonus, not a reason to expand for the B10 or SEC.
“Adding Maryland and Rutgers may or may not add money, but nobody here in Michigan that I have talked to is even a little enthused about it.”
Who claimed that they were enthused? The expansion does nothing for current B10 fans not on the east coast until they see the extra money come in to their school.
LikeLike
test
LikeLike
Hi folks, sorry I haven’t posted for a while, guess I’m a fair weather conference realignment junkie. I thought I would be interested to look at the value of the alumni base. I took the payscale mid-career median value. I like this metric, as it doesn’t rely on starting salary and therefore over value engineering majors, and allows pre-professional liberal arts majors to acheive their earning potetnial. Furthermore, since it is a median value it equally discounts outliers like Mark Cuban and Warren Buffet, and stay-at-home parents.
So I have taken the payscale mid-career median starting salary and mulitplied it my the enrollment of the schools. Therefore, big schools with high earning alumni score higher than small scholls with low earning alumni.
The result is an effort to measure the economic potential of the alumni base.
payscale enrollment product
B1G
Illinois 95.9 32256 309.33504
Indiana 80 32543 260.344
Iowa 79.6 21564 171.64944
Northwestern 88.2 8475 74.7495
Nebraska 70.5 19345 136.38225
Michigan 84.2 27407 230.76694
Michigan St 78 36675 286.065
Minnesota 83 34812 288.9396
Ohio St 79 42916 339.0364
Penn St 83 38954 323.3182
Purdue 87.2 30776 268.36672
Wisconsin 82.2 30367 249.61674
Maryland 87.1 26775 233.21025
Rutgers 88 31268 275.1584
mean 246.2098914
stdev/mean 0.300010013
SEC 0
Florida 80.8 32598 263.39184
Georgia 79.2 26373 208.87416
Alabama 75.7 26234 198.59138
LSU 83.5 23977 200.20795
Arkansas 81.7 19027 155.45059
Tennessee 80.2 21214 170.13628
Kentucky 74.6 20099 149.93854
Auburn 84.9 20446 173.58654
South Carolina 71.5 22256 159.1304
Vanderbilt 104 6117 63.6168
Missouri 77.7 26024 202.20648
Texas A&M 92.7 39867 369.56709
Mississippi 70.1 15346 107.57546
Mississippi St. 72.7 16312 118.58824
mean 181.490125
stdev/mean 0.403109431
PAC 0
California 103 25885 266.6155
Stanford 114 6988 79.6632
USC 98.9 17414 172.22446
UCLA 91.5 27199 248.87085
Oregon 76.6 20263 155.21458
Oregon St 86.3 20621 177.95923
Washington 90.3 29017 262.02351
Washington St 80.8 22763 183.92504
Arizona 81.8 30665 250.8397
Arizona St 78.5 58404 458.4714
Colorado 87.1 26325 229.29075
Utah 78.3 24297 190.24551
mean 222.9453108
stdev/mean 0.411766861
ACC 0
North Carolina 79.4 18430 146.3342
North Carolina St 82 25176 206.4432
Wake Forest 103 4775 49.1825
Duke 102 6680 68.136
Georgia Tech 102 13948 142.2696
Va Tech 93.6 23700 221.832
Virginia 89.4 15762 140.91228
Florida St. 73.4 32201 236.35534
Louisville 70.9 15597 110.58273
Boston College 102 9088 92.6976
Clemson 86.9 15836 137.61484
Pittsburgh 78.3 18427 144.28341
Syracuse 86.2 14671 126.46402
Miami 81.6 10509 85.75344
mean 136.3472257
stdev/mean 0.406421702
Big 12 0
Texas 90.8 38437 349.00796
Baylor 87.5 12575 110.03125
Texas Tech 86.7 16063 139.26621
Oklahoma 82.2 21413 176.01486
Iowa St. 79.3 24343 193.03999
TCU 79.2 8229 65.17368
Kansas 77.9 19695 153.42405
West Virginia 77.5 22711 176.01025
Oklahoma St. 76.7 19009 145.79903
Kansas St. 75.2 19385 145.7752
mean 165.354248
stdev/mean 0.448085885
Several intersting conclusions. Not only does the big ten have the most valuable alumni base, but it is also the most coherent conference based on its normalized standard deviation. The other major conferences have a normalized standard deviation of around 0.4 and the big ten is around 0.3. This is even more amazing when you consider that Nebraska and Northwestern both add to the variance.
The Big Ten and Pac X have the most valuable alumni bases. Penn St., Maryland and Rutgers all fit into the big ten mold very well. Nebraska not so much. Texas A&M and Missouri helped the SEC, Arkansas and South Carolina did not. The ACC and Big 12 are seen to be the weaker conferences.
LikeLike
For those that might recall I used to post as drwillini. The procedure changed since I last posted.
LikeLike
Interesting post. The key as always is the ability to monetize those people.
LikeLike
wages and cost of living are lower in the flyover states like Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennesssee, etc. You should factor that in for a fair comparison.
LikeLike
All things being equal, would you like to be paid $100k in Chicago, or $100k in Sapulpa, OK? Quality of life matters, but wages often reflect the cost of living.
LikeLike
Very interesting. Reaffirms my long lost hope that TAMU would have been awesome in the B1G.
LikeLike
Frank: Forde was actually using last year’s numbers re athletic budgets. The latest numbers for 2012 indicate Louisville has a larger athletics budget than any current member of the ACC.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8685541/acc-votes-add-louisville-cardinals
“In 2011-12, the latest date available from the Office of Postsecondary Education’s Equity in Athletics, Louisville had a budget of $84.4 million. The ACC’s highest budget was Florida State ($81.4 million), while Maryland’s budget was only $57.5 million.”
LikeLike
http://www.casualhoya.com/2012/11/27/3698576/big-east-tulane-east-carolina-big-ten-big-12-pac-10-acc-maryland-rutgers-ncaa-realignment
Georgetown blog predicts the bubble is going to burst is college sports.
LikeLike
Not sure I agree with him entirely.
Yes, the valuations bubble might flat-line, but I’m not sure why it has to “burst” and why things have to downwards.
This isn’t the housing market.
Sports are more valuable programming because of the content they are and the consumers that they reach.
Can someone explain to the Georgetown folks that consolidation is a process of aggregating value?
To me, college sports is finally unlocking its true value (similar to NFL, NBA, etc.). As Larry Scott and others have said, the problem in college sports is the number of leagues; consolidation helps everyone.
LikeLike
One other thing, content is always going to be king.
The entire point of adding Rutgers and Maryland is that they adding two schools with large alumni bases in their markets along with the fact that they’re flagships. As long as they continue to pump out alumni and local fans, they will be monetizable in the future.
That isn’t even getting into the synergy of sending schools like Michigan or Nebraska or Ohio State or Penn State into those markets.
LikeLike
Consolidation does not help everyone. Let’s be serious. It does not help a university who joins a conference that they do not wish to join but which does not feel that it has a better option, it does not help the alumni who are forced to join a meaningless, emotionally empty assemblage of universities that make a “conference” for which there is no personal attachment, and it does not help fans of collegiate athletics who have always believed and hoped that sports were tied to the life of the student body — and had not become a commercial enterprise. Consolidation represents the hegemony of corporatism and “monetizing” the efforts of student-athletes in order to pay for higher salaries of coaches and administrators and more elaborate facilities. In short, consolidation, especially how this board views the purpose and goal of consolidation, represents the end of college football as I have known it over the past 40 years. Consolidation represents the mindless acceptance of the corporate form over the interests and passions of natural people. In short, consolidation represents everything that I loathe about the current “conventional wisdom.”
LikeLike
I like living in Camelot as well.
LikeLike
It does not help a university who joins a conference that they do not wish to join but which does not feel that it has a better option
So everyone takes the best option available to them. Isn’t that what rational decision making is?
it does not help the alumni who are forced to join a meaningless, emotionally empty assemblage of universities that make a “conference” for which there is no personal attachment
This is most overrated argument that has ever been made. No school’s alumni have ever been damaged by their team moving. Indeed, virtually every move made recently has been overwhelming well received by the school’s fanbases. Nebraska, Texas A&M and Missouri gave up centuries old rivalries when they moved to conferences they had little history with, but everyone of those schools alumni supported the moves (in the case of TAMU they forced). And for you hear about old guard PSU fans being miserable in the Big 10, it has never manifested itself in tangible form (specifically ticket sales and donations), and when pressed even most Big Ten haters will admit that from a purely rational perspective Penn St. is better in the B1G.
and it does not help fans of collegiate athletics who have always believed and hoped that sports were tied to the life of the student body — and had not become a commercial enterprise.
Horseshit. The primary cause of recent conference realignment has been TV money, which means it driven by the fact people like to watch college sports. The fans are the ones that are causing all this.
Consolidation represents the hegemony of corporatism and “monetizing” the efforts of student-athletes in order to pay for higher salaries of coaches and administrators and more elaborate facilities
That happens without consolidation. What do you think schools are doing with all the money they receive from gate receipts and booster donations?
Now, as I said, you are right, that not everyone is helped by consolidation. But it isn’t the entities that consolidate (as you intimated) it is those that are left behind.
LikeLike
Actually, I’ll take this a step further. You find one school that was “consolidated” into a power conference (and by that I mean the AD, the administration and the fanbase) that regrets the decision.
LikeLike
I agree with you but there’s no stopping it.
LikeLike
Hate to point out that which is ovbvious to everyone outside of Notre Dame, but your school has, of its own volition, already joined an “emotionally empty assemblage of universities that make a ‘conference’ for which there is no personal attachment.” And your school belongs in every single sport except one. Domers have no issue with that.
Why did ND join the Big East? Why did ND then abandon the Big East and jump to the ACC?
They did so because of the available options, these choices were felt to be in the school’s best interests at the time. And domers didn’t care one little bit about how your school’s decisions affected any other school or your old conference. Others didn’t matter when you were doing what you, yourself, want to do. Now you’re upset because other universities are behaving according to what they perceive is done in their own interests, and you don’t like the idea that those decisions might not benefit your school.
As for the nonsense about being against monetizing student athletes for salaries and facilities, may we assume ND donates all its ticket prices and its NBC money to charity? Or is it just okay to make money off student athletes when ND does it?
LikeLike
As much as ND hates the BigTen, I’d wager that if the BigTen offered them partial membership they would’ve jumped on it in a second. The animosity, and hypocrisy, arises because the BigTen refuses to let ND have their cake and eat it too.
LikeLike
@manifestodeluxe, I’m not so sure that Notre Dame would have joined even given partial membership. The reason why has nothing to do with sports. I still have close friends within the academia at Notre Dame and one of the major issues with Notre Dame and the schools associated with Big Ten membership is the issue of stem cell research. Notre Dame as an institution is against such research while three of the largest research universities in the field are within the Big Ten (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan). Duke just recently established a start up research program for stem cells; this was frowned upon greatly. It is an issue not often associated with colligiate athletics and expansion; but it is an issue.
LikeLike
A valid argument, but one I’d put into the ‘maybe a factor’ category rather than the final issue. Ultimately I think if the BigTen had told the ND they could park their Olympic sports in the conference it would’ve been done years ago. Maybe it’s not a slam dunk, but I’d be confident it’d happen. But I know you’re a Domer, so I have to defer to you on that.
LikeLike
@manifestodeluxe,
I agree its probably not the ‘final’ issue; but it is enough of an issue in the Notre Dame community where it would push them to look for alternative options. If ND would have went ahead and put its olympic sports in the Big Ten with other options on the table; I think there would have been a backlash from the academia side of things in being associated with those universities. Notre Dame’s stance on Stem Cell’s isn’t just a luke warm dislike of the idea; it’s a staunch moral issue that is almost taboo. There would have to be no other conference willing to take Notre Dame before they would sacrifice that I would think. What do I know though? I’m just a message board poster. 🙂
LikeLike
I was under the impression that the ND academics were initially in favor of a move to the BigTen however, and that the alumni were the ones pushing back against that idea. Especially around 2000 or so. Is that no longer the case due the stem cell research?
You might just be a message board poster, but you probably have your finger on the ND pulse more than I do. Moreover you’re not bitterly anti-BigTen despite working for a school in the conference, aka rich2. 🙂
LikeLike
@manifestodeluxe,
As far as I know the academia weren’t excited about it in 2000 either. I think stem cell research had already started at Wisconsin by that time and it was troubling to ND academia back then (you might want to fact check me though).
I’m not anti-Big Ten at all. Traditionally and historically; Notre Dame football and the Big Ten have had quite the beautiful struggle. You can’t have one without the other. 🙂
LikeLike
This is one of the arguments put forth when domers protest the B1G, but it’s a red herring. ACC members U of Miami, Duke and incoming member Pitt all do stem cell research. Yet ND belongs happily to that conference.
LikeLike
The difference in the two I have been told is that the ACC does not have a CIC cooperative that Notre Dame would have to participate in (there-in also supporting the research being done in a roundabout way). Upon becoming a member of the Big Ten; this would be required as far as I know. Notre Dame can put its non-football athletics in the ACC without having to participate in anything that could be viewed as supporting the SC research going on at those two universites.
LikeLike
The ACC does have a research consortium, but is fairly new.
Anyways, if ND did join the Big 10 they wouldn’t have join to CIC.
LikeLike
Notre Dame wouldn’t have to join the CIC, but I’d think they would. Seeing how ND is trying to improve their research statu, this would be one of the biggest perks. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, I think ND has asked to join the CIC without joining the B1G. Can anyone comment as to whether I am remembering correctly?
LikeLike
You guys are fundamentally misunderstanding how the CIC works. Working together on research projects is voluntary; it’s a cooperative effort to reduce overhead and combine efforts. Notre Dame wouldn’t be forced into anything.
LikeLike
rich2,
“In short, consolidation, especially how this board views the purpose and goal of consolidation, represents the end of college football as I have known it over the past 40 years.”
That’s true, but it isn’t a new phenomenon. Realignment has been a continually ongoing process, often driven by money. There were lots of independents, a bunch of smaller conferences and a handful of TV games each week 40 years ago. Things have changed. People here are split over whether these changes are for the good, but they are almost universally pragmatic about what where things are headed. Analysis doesn’t imply agreement.
LikeLike
I think the big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland is equivalent to investing in pets.com at the end of the dot com bubble. I was wondering about a lot of the same things mentioned on this blog. I am a casual college football fan, but I find myself less interested every year.
LikeLike
I have to disagree. The way that technology is going, sports will be the only thing that people watch live. With DVR, Netflix, streaming video, tv shows and programs will have less and less live audiences. Sports are insulated from that. Most sports fans make it a point to watch their teams live. If anything, modern technology is pushing sports programing to have greater value.
LikeLike
I think its the conferences that may regret their decisions, not the schools that moved. Because of the loss of rivalries, the moves to the SEC could, in the long run blow up in their faces. But it was also a risk not to move. The Pac 12, Big 10, ACC and Big 12 movers all had large upgrades or weren’t leaving much behind, or were bringing all their friends with them. But the schools that invited the new teams (not the Big 12 who needed the numbers) might regret what they did. Boise primarily made their move to be AQ, which has gone away. They still may make several million more a year-for now.
There’s an assumption that TV and cable becomes an ever larger portion of the revenues and that football drives the bus. That might not be true. It might go back to stadium revenues growing fastest. Or it could be the internet. If the assumptions are wrong, the adds could be wrong.
LikeLike
What rivalries did the SEC lose? I’m interested in your answer because I’d say the answer is none.
LikeLike
Auburn-Florida for one.
LikeLike
I’ll add that one thing the writer fails to note is that if the sports bubble really is about to burst then everyone is better off cashing in now. These are long term contracts, (I think the PAC’s new deal is for 20 years), so if the bottom is about to fall out of the market then frankly schools and conferences should be as aggressive as possibly can before that happens.
LikeLike
The PAC’s deal is 12 years.
Bullet, it doesn’t matter what method (cable, Internet, future development) is in vogue. As long as the content is owned and valuable it will be purchased, unless another sport surpasses the current ones in interest. But as that happens the schools and conferences will adapt as the change occurs.
LikeLike
If a la carte came next year and the bubble burst, the Pac 12 would lose a bunch of money on their network. It costs a lot to set that up. Big 10 had Fox do the initial setup. Texas had ESPN. Pac is doing it themselves. Just because they own the content doesn’t guarantee they will get a lot for it off the internet.
I’m not saying I think conference networks are a bad idea. But the projections I hear seem ridiculously optomistic. Cable prices have gotten really high. If it was up to me, I might cut the cord. Maybe sign up every September and quit in March. However, the rest of my family watches almost only cable. As these articles have said, there are cable cutters and those never plugged in. It is going to get harder and harder to get the prices they want on subscriptions.
LikeLike
I think channels that depend on non-live entertainment are more at risk; sports channel carriage fees still make up a fraction of cable costs when I think they should be more like half.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Fox and ESPN spending on BTN, LHN, SECN (future), attempt by Fox to collaborate with the non UT B12 suggests there is considerably more upside and little downside. They are $ driven. The P12 is not only designed to make money, but also to promote the conference and its schools to a larger audience. It is valuable beyond simple generating dollars, and yet dollar driven media giants (with the need to fill and pay for endless hours) see similar endeavors as profit makers even as 50% partners. Every cent they spend says there is no risk.
LikeLike
I share his fears, but not his conclusions. Sports content has long been undervalued because of a distribution monopoly and long-term contracts that don’t reflect growth.
Besides, a la carte will never be implemented now that cable providers are increasingly in the business of content creation.
LikeLike
College sports will be fine. Their nature gives them a built in audience that most professional sports lack.
I’m not too optimistic about the long-term prospects of football though. If you look at it honestly, the medical data of what it does to people neurologically is terrifying.
LikeLike
Yup. Head trauma is the elephant in the room. Pro football will probably continue because its players are being compensated for their risk. Unless head trauma can be *drastically* reduced by technology or rules changes I see universities dropping football due to liability issues, especially the lower revenue generating Div 1A / Div 1AA / Div 2 programs. The upcoming lawsuit frenzy is going to be insane.
LikeLike
I don’t share Frank’s optimism for the ACC. But it may take a few years before some other schools finally break away.
LikeLike
@SH
Agree, SH, it is not the same league as it was long ago when Packer/Thacker and McKinney announced games in basketball. It is a league “long gone” for me, and I’m glad Maryland has moved to the B1G. Really hoping UVA follows…
LikeLike
The new BigEast isn’t too bad.
Give it 5 years, letting new teams rise up, and it becomes a compelling conference.
You’ve got:
SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cinci
USF, UCF, ECU, Temple, UConn
Let’s say you can convince Army and Navy to join as football only members only requiring them to play 6 conference games (5 in their division, plus eachother). They’d still be eligible for the the conf championship game, and they’d still have an additional 6 games to tailor their schedule how they see fit.
They you could have:
WEST: SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cinci, Army
EAST: USF, UCF, ECU, Temple, UConn, Navy
The other teams could still play an 8 game schedule, just have division record determine who’s in the conference championship game.
The BigEast really needs to work with the MWC in some sort of scheduling arrangment that will strengthen both leagues.
LikeLike
I agree. I don’t think this is bad at all.
LikeLike
Are Boise State and San Diego State out for sure?
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
One conclusion I’ve come to:
With 16 schools (4 pods with 1 protected game vs. a school in 1 of the 3 other pods for 6 annual rivals and 9 teams you play 1/3rd of the time), all the major rivalries in the B10 that at least one school cares a lot about can be kept.
Specifically, PSU-OSU, PSU-UNL, and the Little Brown Jug game (sorry, I don’t consider the Illibuck game to be major enough) can be protected.
In a Big20, all 3 of those rivalries would have to go away.
Not sure about in an 18 school Big10, though maybe all of those 3 could be played at least 2/3rds of the time with 6 3-school pods.
LikeLike
OK, 16 schools with pods can be structured in a way to protect the Illibuck as well (and MSU could still get it’s precious annual series with Northwestern so that it visits Chciagoland every other year).
LikeLike
I open the laptop tonight and find all sorts of posts across the net about CUSA adding not only MTSU and FAU but also WKU and NMSU. I think to myself I no longer want to be in this conference. So I scroll about and find posts saying that UTEP, Tulsa, and Rice are leaving for the MWC and it could be announced this week. Now I’m just tired…
LikeLike
With all the Sun Belt schools C-USA keeps adding, can someone explain to me why Troy isn’t one of them? It’s probably the richest Sun Belt school by a substantial margin…
LikeLike
Have you ever been to Troy?
Totally in the middle of nowhere. And its not like a flagship with support all over the state.
LikeLike
I’m really curious if this is the case, seeing only minor message board chatter. I always thought the MWC only expansion option was going back into Texas, this would be interesting with the addition of an Oklahoma school as well. Poor NM State and Idaho.
LikeLike
I didn’t intend to compose a 2,000-word essay, but the words just flowed out of my keyboard. If you’re so inclined to read this whole thing, I apologize for its length and I thank you for your patience. I truly would like to read what you have to say about it.
“…a sea change in the thought process of the conference’s leadership.” This is a very interesting phrase. The B1G(14) made it clear that adding Maryland & Rutgers was about TV markets/money. The ACC flatly states that adding Louisville was about athletics. Academics are an afterthought at this point. This sea change in thought process is what is going to end up bringing the demise of the ACC and the Big 12 imho. 2017 is the year the B1G(14) gets new TV contracts. Everything I read indicates the numbers will be incredible. Schools in certain conferences will find that hard to resist if the B1G(14) comes calling to further expand its cable TV empire.
Speaking of cable TV empires…there is one conference with a wildly successful cable channel, the BTN. The SEC and Pac 12 will both form successful cable channels. The ACC and Big 12, for various reasons, have almost no shot at forming successful cable channels and if they do create these channels, they won’t come close to matching the other three conferences’ revenue in this area. Because of its geographic breadth, the Big East may be able to create a cable operation that produces a profit, but not significant enough revenue to challenge the “Big 3” conference cable operations.
The cable TV industry is what will drive realignment from here on out. When this becomes obvious, schools are not going to want to be left out when the SEC, Pac12 & B1G(14) look for new markets. Virginia and UNC may see themselves as Southern schools, but they will have a choice to make that involves alot of nose-holding. Go north and away from their Southern cultural heritage or go south and associate with a conference with clearly inferior academic standards. Both the SEC & B1G(14) will offer lucrative enticements for one school each in the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Either way, the SEC & B1G(14) divide the spoils of North Carolina and Virginia. My guess is UVa and UNC decide academic standing is the tie-breaker and both join the B1G(14) while Va Tech and NCSU go to the SEC. This won’t be the end of realignment either.
I think the Big Ten has to realize that it was a mistake to not offer Missouri and Texas A&M membership along with Nebraska. I doubt A&M would have gone to the Big Ten because their hearts were set on the SEC. However, Missouri clearly wanted in the Big Ten, practically begging for an invitation, and joined the SEC with not a small amount of reluctance. I think Missouri would listen very hard if the Big Ten came calling. If this happened, I believe the SEC would reach out to Kansas in order to keep Missouri in the SEC and completely lock down the St Louis and Kansas City tv markets (21st & 31st largest, respectively). Despite the rhetoric from Columbia, MO and Lawrence, KS, that rivalry is cherished and means very much to both schools. Sorry, Illini, but you aren’t Missouri’s biggest rival. The SEC would need to get another team to even out its divisions and I feel that school would be West Virginia. WVU is a strong football brand and they have one of the larger fan bases out there (according to Nate Silver’s research). West Virginia makes geographic sense as well (for the Big Ten, too). I think WVU would say yes to leaving the Big 12 for the SEC before the conference could get the complete invitation out of its figurative mouth.
With a Pac 12 cable channel established, Kansas and WVU leaving the Big 12 and no other viable “brand” schools available to join the Big 12, Oklahoma and Texas are going to want out of a geographically trapped conference that is dying; a conference that really had no chance of long term survival from its beginning. The Big Ten might be the favored landing spot for Texas and OU. However, I am not sure the Big Ten would want to take in Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. And yes, I believe those two are a package deal with their more valuable state brethren. The rivalry with Oklahoma is too valuable to be in a conference without the Sooners and the Sooners aren’t going to be allowed by their state legislators to abandon the Cowboys. The Texas legislature probably forces the Longhorns to bring along the Red Raiders. I don’t think Baylor gets favored treatment this time around because the realities of the market are far different than 20 years ago and they won’t be able to drum up enough support this time. Ann Richards ain’t walking through that door. I think the Pac 12 will have no reservations taking the package deals, realizing these are their only chances at adding brand names, and will add Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St thereby becoming the Pac 16.
The Big Ten won’t be too concerned about any of this. It would be nice to get into the Texas basic cable market. But the league won’t want to deal with the headaches of dealing with The University of Texas (ask Husker fans). The Big Ten looks to the East and South. Besides adding UVa and UNC, the other obvious Southern school that matches the Big Ten’s ostensible academic standard is Georgia Tech. This allows the Big Ten to continue its PR campaign about academics and the Atlanta market is obviously valuable. So is the Boston market and that is why Boston College gets an invite from the Big Ten. Syracuse sees the writing on the wall and finally joins the Big Ten, one of the original expansion favorites way back when this started. Connecticut gets left out of the Big Ten party in a numbers game. There simply are not enough slots available and with BC, ‘Cuse (both have bigger fan bases then UConn) and Rutgers, the Northeast corridor is about as locked down as it needs to be for the Big Ten. Adding UConn won’t strengthen the Big Ten’s position enough to give UConn a slice of the BTN pie.
The Big Ten won’t stop here. There are more Southern markets for the BTN to exploit and the ACC will be a goner. Going back to the idea that the thought process has changed, the Big Ten won’t hold new members to the same high standards academically that they have required. Not when massive fan bases and big TV markets are available. This lets them drop all pretenses and go after Clemson, Miami (FL) and Florida State. According to Nate Silver, Clemson has the 10th largest fan base in the country while Miami’s is 14th with a combined total in excess of three million fans. FSU is only the 38th largest fan base (larger than Maryland, Indiana, Purdue & Northwestern) but they are a TV draw and they solidify the Florida cable TV market. I know a lot of people will howl that the Big Ten will never lower its academic standards. That is the old paradigm. Nebraska, as good a school as it is, lowered the overall rankings of the Big Ten academically. With the conference now admitting that money is the overriding factor, academics takes a back seat. And these schools aren’t jucos anyway. The overriding factor will be growing the BTN. If you are not growing, you are contracting. I believe the Big Ten will get more ruthless with its membership decisions not caring at all what happens to other conferences. They’ll drop the PR mirage that they are not trying to wreck any other conferences. As Jimmy Darmody would advise, “You can’t be half a gangster.”
Now we have the B1G(22). Most people would probably argue that 22 schools in a conference is unwieldy. However, the new lineup actually allows the Big Ten to streamline. There will be 11 schools in the East and South and 11 schools in the Midwest. The league stays in two divisions. The Big Ten Atlantic: BC, ‘Cuse, Rutgers, Penn St, Maryland, UVa, UNC, Clemson, GaTech, FSU and Miami (FL). The Big Ten Central: OSU, Mich, MSU, IU, PU, Ill, NW, UW, Minn, Iowa and Neb. By dividing this way, the Big Ten can restore the frequency that the traditional Big Ten schools play each other thereby addressing one of the biggest complaints of these fans about the additions of Rutgers and Maryland. Bonus: ditching the ridiculous Leaders/Legends division names. This also allows the former ACC schools to keep most of their rivalries intact. UNC-Duke would be most affected. However, that is really about basketball. Duke football is irrelevant. Duke basketball is only a little less irrelevant. As a point of comparison, Kentucky, arguably the best basketball program in America and one of the worst football programs in America – at least in one of the BCS conferences, makes 2 1/2 times more money from football than from basketball. Sorry, Duke, your destiny is elsewhere. UNC and Duke will be more than welcome to continue their home-and-home basketball rivalry as a non-conference proposition if they truly value it. There are no protected crossovers between Atlantic and Central. They essentially operate independently in terms of competition sending their respective division champions to the Big Ten Championship Game. (another added bonus: the league can bring back the old logo with the “11” embedded inside “Big Ten” reminding us that there are 11 schools in each division) While there would be no protected crossover games, schools would be encouraged to schedule non-conference games against teams from the other division. This keeps money inside the conference. Why play teams like Pittsburgh, Missouri and Washington when you can play Florida State, Clemson or Penn State?
Note: it’s possible the Big Ten would rather have Louisville than one of the other schools like Miami or Syracuse. Personally, I’d rather have Louisville than Syracuse, but the Big Ten may be chasing that NYC market and they probably think Miami’s fan base is more valuable than Louisville’s. Miami’s fan base is about four times larger than Louisville’s, by the way.
What’s the fallout? The Big Ten has 22 schools. The SEC has 18 schools. The Pac 16 has 16 schools. That’s 56 schools in three leagues and that concentrates power. That is desirable for the conferences. Here’s another bonus: this probably strips away power from the NCAA and maybe we’ll get a common sense reformation of the rule book – another discussion. The ACC and the Big 12 will cease to exist. The schools left out of the Big 3 conferences will join the Big East (my guess: Louisville-unless the Big Ten wants them as stated above, Duke, Pitt, Wake) the Mountain West (my guess: Iowa St, K-State & TCU) or become independent (Baylor – I don’t think the Mountain West will want both TCU and Baylor. One Texas religious school will be enough. The Big East may want Baylor so they have a team in Texas and it would get them to 16 schools)
The post season will be much easier to conduct. The Big 3 conference champions make the playoff along with the best at-large team. I think a selection committee would be the best way to choose the at-large team. I also think it will be very difficult for the schools to turn down the massive dollars available from expanding to eight teams in the playoff; whether my realignment scenario plays out or not. Hopefully, the conferences will decide it’s not worth it any longer to farm out their post season to the bowls and run the playoff completely independent of the thieves in the hideously-colored blazers.
There has been much agitation that the cable TV bubble with burst and that sports properties won’t be as valuable because there will be fewer cable and satellite customers as more people cut the cord or ala cart programming emerges. I think it’s debatable whether enough people cut the cord to make that big of a difference. I also think it’s unlikely that ala cart programming becomes the norm. Content providing companies have too many channels that need to be subsidized by bundling to ever let this happen and ala cart is not in the interest of cable / satellite operators either. Even if I’m wrong and Armageddon does come about for sports TV properties, so what? Whether your conference is 12 schools or 100 schools, the revenue per school goes down. And if we have learned anything about realignment, nothing is permanent. Member schools may decide to go separate ways or conferences may simple eject weak members. The Big East has done this and others could do the same if needed.
I bet this may sound crazy to most people that read it. (I’m not sure how many folks are going to read this long-winded of a comment on a blog-lol) But, I think this is the logical conclusion to the realignment carousel. The entire process is a cynical exercise in greed. Why would it not play out along lines similar to what I’ve outlined? Are the schools suddenly going to grow a conscience? I don’t think so. The people that run these institutions have been prostituting the football (and basketball) teams for many years. They can’t say no to boosters’ demands. They can’t control the salaries of coaches. They can’t say no to the demands of their TV “partners”. They will continue to make decisions based almost entirely on money. Frank thinks this isn’t a zero sum game. I am not so sure about that. Which school president or chancellor at one of these major institutions is going to be the first one to declare that sports are over emphasized and they are pulling back the reins? Most of these people see football as a marketing tool on top of everything else. The madness will continue and we’ll all be along for the ride.
LikeLike
If the B1G is 22 teams as you imply, then 24 or 32 is not out of the question. At that point the SEC is the only other conference that can keep up and you have 2 conferences in the end.
B1G 32 = B1G + PAC + ??
SEC 32 = SEC + ACC + B12 + ??
The other alternative is (4) 16 team conferences :
B1G 16 = adds Duke and Kansas for basketball (already has academics and football)
SEC 16 = adds UNC and UVA for academics and basketball (already has football)
PAC 16 = adds Texas + Texas Tech + Oklahoma + Oklahoma State as options are limited
ACC / B12 16 = collection of #2 market schools and private schools to 16
That being said, I see little chance anybody goes past 16 for at least the next decade or so
LikeLike
It’s less being driven by cable, and more being driven by a need to get to fewer leagues.
We all joke about how it’s the same 64 or 65 schools but in 5 conferences instead of 6.
The ACC absorbs the Big East and the Big East absorbs C-USA.
At the end of the day, the conferences with the most alumni and fans and name brands will always be able to monetize that.
LikeLike
That’s Scott’s philosophy. Strength in negotiating position.
LikeLike
I think ever since his attempted Pac-16 coup, the other 4 leagues have largely been driven by the same philosophy.
The ACC, Big Ten, and SEC by choice (see ACC going after Pitt/Syracuse, Big Ten on Maryland/Rutgers, and SEC on A&M/Missouri; those 3 moves especially capture this), and the Big East by necessity.
LikeLike
Congrats on writing 2000 words on conference realingnment and not mentioning Notre Dame! Any big ten fan likes it already. I would never say expansion will never go beyond 16, but I do think that 16 could be a relatively stable number for some time. As has been often mentioned, 16 with pods gives you and least three other teams that you can build/retain rivalries with, and allows you to see the rest of the conference in a four year college career. The one thing that I believe you are correct about is that there will need be some consolidation of the ACC/Big 12, and I would bet it is done with two clusters in orbit around Texas and ND. Only thing preventing that would be PacX enticing Texas.
LikeLike
As Hopkins Horn would say-Domer Law! He wrote 2000 words, but you couldn’t resist! (Domer Law-if a discussion on conference realignment goes on long enough, someone will jump the shark and start mentioning Notre Dame scenarios).
I think there’s a new law. Needs a catchy name though. GOR law doesn’t quite do it. I’m open to recommendations. Discuss realignment long enough and people start talking about poaching the Big 12 while ignoring the Grant Of Rights that lasts for the next 13 years.
LikeLike
That sounds like something Hitler would say.
LikeLike
Hitler would insist on a 1,000 year Grant of Rights.
LikeLike
Woo Hoo!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
LikeLike
I actually was one of the first to propose a Big20, but for the B10, at least, it’s really hard to move above 18 and preserve all the major rivalries (at 18, Nebraska-PSU would have to be sacrificed, but it’s not like there’s a ton of tradition behind that one).
At 20, all the major rivalries can be preserved only with 10 conference games (most would be, but some, like PSU-OSU, PSU-UNL, and the Little Brown Jug game, would have to be sacrificed). . . which isn’t happening unless the NCAA allows more than 12 regular season games.
LikeLike
Richard Cain,
“The B1G(14) made it clear that adding Maryland & Rutgers was about TV markets/money. The ACC flatly states that adding Louisville was about athletics. Academics are an afterthought at this point.”
That’s unfair, because academics were inherent in MD and RU being candidates for the B10. They are strong AAU members that balance the weakness of NE.
“I think the Big Ten has to realize that it was a mistake to not offer Missouri and Texas A&M membership along with Nebraska. I doubt A&M would have gone to the Big Ten because their hearts were set on the SEC. However, Missouri clearly wanted in the Big Ten, practically begging for an invitation, and joined the SEC with not a small amount of reluctance.”
TAMU had zero interest in the B10, and you don’t offer something that will be rejected. Without a TX school, MO loses its cultural bridge value. Without that, MO wasn’t a priority. Why expand to 13 at that time? MD and RU as a pair make more sense than MO and RU (the presumed #14) with the way they work to bring the east coast and work with PSU. I don’t think the B10 foresaw going past 12 any time soon, but things changed and they felt forced to move. In the meantime, MO moved to the SEC. Not getting MO was the correct decision at the time, and MO is off the board now.
“Now we have the B1G(22). Most people would probably argue that 22 schools in a conference is unwieldy. However, the new lineup actually allows the Big Ten to streamline. There will be 11 schools in the East and South and 11 schools in the Midwest. The league stays in two divisions.”
Actually, expanding to 22 is my last best hope for the B10 at this point. The midwestern 11 versus the eastern 11. Play 1 crossover game that doesn’t count towards the division title and go back to the old 6+2 schedule (2 locked rivals, 6 rotating). Of course, there could be no CCG without a rule change so it’s mostly a merger of the B10 and ACC for TV purposes.
“The Big Ten Atlantic: BC, ‘Cuse, Rutgers, Penn St, Maryland, UVa, UNC, Clemson, GaTech, FSU and Miami (FL).”
I don’t see BC, SU, Clemson, FSU or Miami as likely members. I could see Duke to make it 18. The lack of AAU status hurts SU, VT and Miami as far as I can tell. That’s the rub. I don’t see 8 more available schools that the B10 would accept.
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
Maryland to the B1G
Louisville to the ACC
I guess we have the answer on who will play whom in the future ACC vs B1G Challenge! 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I suspect Maryland would like to play Duke or UNC in the challenge rather than Louisville. 🙂
LikeLike
Feed us Duke, Cutter! ;-o)
LikeLike
Here’s a link with an article in the Ann Arbor News that contains comments from Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman and UM Athletic Director David Brandon on why Big Ten expansion makes financial sense:
http://www.annarbor.com/news/david-brandon-and-mary-sue-coleman-on-big-ten-expansion/
Coleman talks about a 10- to 20-year window and speaks about the demographics, i.e., the Midwest’s population is getting smaller while the coasts are expanding. She also talks about reaching out to Michigan’s east coast alums.
Coleman also is quoted as saying: “At the end of the day, the geography made sense, the demographics made sense, the quality of the institutions made sense.”
Brandon says further expansion is going to happen and that 16 members seems to be a target for many conferences.
In an earlier article that was published after Maryland accepted a spot in the Big Ten, an excerpt:
From a Michigan perspective, Brandon said adding Maryland to the schedule allows Michigan to tap into another very large alumni base in the Washington D.C. market.
“Selfishly, for Michigan, we have a tremendous amount of alums and supporters down there and they’re going to be thrilled that the maize and blue are going to be traveling down there regularly,” Brandon said on the Big Ten Network. “I think Maryland provides us with a great opportunity to connect with another great public institution, another top-20 public institution.
“It’s not just about the great brands and traditions of basketball and football, but this is a great opportunity for the conference to expand and grow in an area that makes a lot of sense.”
And, of course, the role of the Big Ten Network and it’s ability to now expand into more markets also makes things enticing.
Brandon says increased revenues from TV shares only work to provide more funding for the entire athletic department.
And he hardly sees that as a bad thing.
“The media rights and the whole success story that is the Big Ten Network has been incredibly important to all of us,” Brandon said. We’re all out in the game of investing into our facilities. Michigan has recently announced a $300 million facilities expansion plan. We’re constantly investing in capital, we’re constantly covering costs of travel and coaching salaries and we need to maximize and leverage every revenue and line item we can to make it work.
“There’s no big excess surpluses here, it’s all being invested back into the program. The idea that we can expand our footprint, get more people excited about what we’re doing, have more people watching on television and have more people buying tickets (all helps).”
See http://www.annarbor.com/mi/wolverines/2012/11/michigan_president_mary_sue_co_3/
LikeLike
In reality, the Midwest’s population isn’t “getting smaller”. Big Ten country has added millions of new residents since 2000.
LikeLike
Yes, this is a misnomer. As a whole, the Midwest is growing *slower* than other regions, but it’s not outright shrinking (with the exception of Michigan from 2000 to 2010). The Chicago, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Columbus and Madison metro areas are all continuing to grow at a good clip. For whatever reason, most people’s images on the coasts of the demographics of the Midwest are predominated by the more moribund Detroit and Cleveland areas, which give the entire region a perception of suffering from an exodus.
LikeLike
Put another way, we are losing electoral votes.
LikeLike
Or another way, the south and coasts are growing more rapidly.
LikeLike
I don’t have the figures other than an article that said Ohio had dropped 25% in the last 30 years (while the population grew), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the traditional college age population IS shrinking significantly in the midwest overall. The U.S. is much older than it was in the 60s and 70s and nationally HS age population is down. The younger Hispanic recent immigrant group is just now reaching the midwest (other than maybe Chicago), so that contributes to the growth in HS population in the south and southwest.
LikeLike
What a waste – they should use the excess funds to lower tuition – Michigan doesn’t need any more athletic facilities. If all you do is spend the additional money on sports, you have gained nothing worthwhile.
LikeLike
Actually, Michigan has been lagging on the facility upgrades, etc. when you compare them with other program inside the Big Ten and at their competitive level.
In many cases, these aren’t new facilities either. Yost Ice Arena was recently upgraded and it was built in the early 1920s. The same with Michigan Stadium, which was built in the mid-1920s. Crisler Arena (now Crisler Center) was built in 1967, so it didn’t get any major upgrades for almost four and a half decades. Schembechler Hall was built in the early 70s, so it hasn’t seen many major improvements for 40 years.
That’s not to say there isn’t new construction going on, but a lot of that has been backed up by major donors. The indoor practice facility was bought with a major donation by Al Glick (that’s why his name is on it. Stephen Ross donated the money for the athletic support center and for the Michigan Stadium renovation. His biggest contribution, however, was $90M to the UM Business School to replace some of the older structures at the school with a brand new (LEED certified) building.
When it comes to tuition, etc., I suspect that once they finish up the plan for the South Campus and pay down the debt on those projects, the excess revenue will go to an endowment for scholarships. Right now, the Michigan Athletic Department pays the university about $18.3M for all the athletic scholarships. If an athlete is out of state, they pay the higher rate and not the instate rate.
LikeLike
Yeah but this guy ran Dominoes Pizza, which sadly makes money despite being a poor product.
Ultimately, I prefer quality over quantity.
No doubt the potential is there for Md and Rutgers.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
CBS Sports had a couple of interesting articles that basically said the Big XII was in a fairly good position with its current membership of ten schools coupled with its new television contract deals.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21177715/why-the-big-12-is-happy-with-10-amid-the-latest-round-of-realignment
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/21178420/rules-of-engagement-smoke-clears-to-reveal-reworked-acc-content-big-12
One underlying sentiment in both these articles is that all bets are off if the Big Ten and/or the SEC expand to a 16-team arrangement. If that’s correct, then the next major wave of expansion will be set off by Delany or Slive.
Dodd writes about a gentleman’s agreement between the Big XII and the SEC. If that does hold (and they did set up that bowl game together), than any shifting realignment will likely mean teams moving from the ACC to the Big Ten and the SEC. If the SEC stays out of the states of Florida and Georgia, then the two conferences are likely looking at the programs in Virginia and N. Carolina (with the B1G also considering Georgia Tech).
LikeLike
@cutter – Interesting stuff there, although the “gentleman’s agreement” isn’t between the SEC and Big 12, but rather among SEC schools to not invite anyone that is in the same state as a current member without such member’s permission (e.g. Florida State can’t get into the SEC without Florida’s blessing even if everyone else in the league wants the Seminoles).
LikeLike
Frank-
Here’s the exact excerpt from the article –
Further reasons the Big 12 is in good shape:
— Big 12 expansion rests, indirectly, on a perceived gentleman’s agreement with the SEC. The league supposedly would not expand to states where there currently are teams. That seemingly takes Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech out of the mix.
If the SEC honors that agreement, then the SEC might go after NC State and/or Virginia Tech if Mike Slive feels like he has to respond to the Big Ten’s recent moves. In that occurrence, Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech would be in play for the Big 12.
Even then industry sources argue whether one or some combination of those schools brings pro rata – at least equal value – to the Big 12.
END OF EXCERPT
When he writes “agreement with the SEC”, I took it to mean there was an agreement between the Big 12 and the SEC that the latter conference wouldn’t go into those three states and pick FSU, Clemson and Ga Tech as expansion targets. That would leave them as possible expansion candidates for the Big 12 as the SEC would then be looking at the schools in Virginia and North Carolina.
If he wrote there was an “agreement within the SEC”, then I’d go with your interpretation of the quote. You have mentioned before that any move into the states of South Carolina, Georgia or Florida by the SEC would have to get approval from the schools located there. This just reads a little bit differently and implies there’s an understanding between the two conferences, not just within the SEC.
Either way, it sort of works out the same. UF, UGa and USC aren’t likely to approve any move that would put FSU, GaTech or Clemson in the SEC. If the SEC is looking to expand its footprint, then Slive is likely to go into Virginia or North Carolina anyway. If that causes the ACC to lose footing (possibly in concert with a move by the Big Ten), then the Big XII can look to add to their conference (if it makes fiscal sense and Texas approves), with those three schools.
LikeLike
@cutter – I honestly think it’s a typo where he should have written “within” the SEC. It seems that he means that Big 12 expansion depends upon the SEC not going after FSU, Clemson and/or Georgia Tech (as opposed to the Big 12 not going after those schools). I’d have a hard time believing that Chuck Neinas or Bob Bowlsby would have agreed to any restrictions with the SEC only months after the SEC went and poached Texas A&M and Missouri. I know that I wouldn’t trust Mike Slive one iota if I were anyone other than Jim Delany (and vice versa), but that’s just me.
LikeLike
The SEC isn’t going to go after NCST until UNC is off of the table. UNC is (by most accounts) their #1 target. And the SEC definitely doesn’t feel the need to expand to 16, just because the B1G just went to 14. The general feeling is that Slive would prefer to wait another year or two to let aTm & Mizzou settle in before jumping back into the expansion waters. But once the pieces do start falling, Slive will wait for UNC to decide where they want to go before he takes any other school, whether it be NCST or VT or whoever.
BTW, I think the longer ACC holds together, the better chance the SEC has to get UNC when the ACC finally does fall apart (and the ACC will eventually fall apart when the AD financial gap widens to a number that can no longer be ignored). The reason I believe that is that I have been following the UNC boards since this past summer’s FSU/Clemson/Big 12 flirtation just like I did the aTm boards from the summer of the Pac 10/Big 12 south flirtation. And the UNC boards are following the same path that the aTm boards are. While the UNC boards were somewhat more in favor of going to the SEC rather than the B1G last summer, they still preferred to stay in the ACC if it was still viable. That mirrors the aTm boards after that first summer of the Pac 10/Big 12 south ordeal. Now those same UNC boards are starting to want UNC to jump to the SEC even if the ACC isn’t in imminent danger, just like the aTm boards started doing as time went on (and UT kept pulling the LHN stuff that ticked them off). They’ve even started email campaigns to the AD, president, and BORs; which is also similar to the aTm folks. And their reason for wanting to go to the SEC is similiar. They feel they have a much bigger cultural connection with the SEC school, just like aTm felt they had a much bigger connection with the SEC schools over the Pac 10 schools. Also the UNC fanbase seems to be extremely worried that if NCST went to the SEC while UNC went to the B1G, NCST would pass them in football, and eventually pass them in overall sports recognition since football is the driving force in college athletics (this is similar to aTm except aTm is trying to catch UT instead of the other way around). Also they seem to prefer traveling to SEC venues as opposed to B1G venues because of atmosphere, distance and weather (same with aTm minus the weather).
From what I’ve gathered from their boards, the people in the AD (apparently including the AD himself) prefers the SEC, and the academics prefer the B1G. Now I’m guessing that the president would side with the academics as of right now (and who knows how their BOR are leaning). But the longer the fanbase (and especially the big money donors) has to bombard the PTB with demands to go to the SEC, the better the chances that they go that route. In the end the PTB at UNC may end up going to the B1G, but if they do they could end up with a full fledged riot on their hands the longer they fanbase has to build their SEC hopes up.
Back during the aTm ordeal I kept saying that aTm would join the SEC sooner rather than later, and a lot of people on here said it wouldn’t happen for a miriad of reasons (like Texas politics wouldn’t allow it, the SEC would lose money per school because they wouldn’t be able to raise their revenue to account for the new schools, ect.) I see the same ground swell of fan support brewing at UNC. The one difference is that there is no UT type school in the ACC that is ticking UNC off enough to jump immediately. But UL’s inclusion into the ACC isn’t sitting all that well with them (and I’m sure the academic folks don’t like it either). Once the revenue gap grows big enough, the ACC will start springing leaks. And I think by that time the fanbase (and especially the big money donors) will have likely swung the vote of the PTB at UNC in favor of the SEC. But if UNC were jump today, the odds would probably favor the B1G. This is just my opinion based on studying the message boards in a similar fashion as I did with the aTm boards.
LikeLike
All good points.
I think the one thing we may all be underestimating is whether UNC will ever get to be a “free agent”…
The problem is they have so much baggage (same system as NC State, which means they might be the two most closely tied together universities in all of this) as well as Duke and even Wake Forest (which may play the role of Ken Starr’s Baylor).
It’s very difficult to tell just how much freedom of action UNC will ever have; they might be the most tied down university by far in all of this.
LikeLike
The board tie between UNC and NC State is inseparable and as far as I can find, unique in all of the expansion “Little Brothers.” Most of these are just political because both receive state funding from the legislature. This is quite different. The same board members that would vote for UNC to switch conferences cannot take any action that would harm NC State.
Any scenario for UNC leaving the ACC needs to simultaneously (or previously) address NC State to the benefit of NC State. Either they & UNC go together (realistically only to the SEC) or they split with a consensus it’s in both of their best interests.
LikeLike
zeek – UNC and NCST share the same Board of Governors, but they do not share the same Board of Trustees. The BOGs appoints 8 members to each BOTs (sparate people for each university), and the state governor elects 4 members, and the remaining member is the president of the student government.
Now I believe that it would be the individual BOTs that would be voting on realignment issues, not the overall BOGs. Now who knows how much influence the BOGs would have, or the state politicians for that matter.
LikeLike
The UNC Board of Governors has explicit authority over “the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance of all affairs of the constituent institutions.”
A “screw NC State” proposal is not going to happen.
LikeLike
I think the body governing them both is 32 members broken down this way
16 come from inside the 17 campus system
8 are appointed by the state senate
8 are appointed by the state house
This probably means it will be political and money for political issues like jobs, tourism dollars, and pork construction projects will be the royal flush to the full house of sports and the 3 of a kind of academics.
LikeLike
Southern people want to play in a Southern conference.
How shocking.
UNC’s a public school. They’re going to have to answer for abandoning the ACC for the Big Ten. Now, the SEC on the other hand… they may have a holiday.
LikeLike
As I’ve alluded too, if the Big Ten offers Missouri (and they accept), that’s three slots for the SEC. North Carolina, NC State, and Virginia Tech.
Or maybe Clemson and Florida State if they ever move to eighteen (unlikely).
LikeLike
Again, Mizzou and the SEC aren’t parting.
LikeLike
The one problem is the math. Don’t most conference offices take a share of the TV revenue for their own operations? If so, the bigger the conference, the smaller % payout to the conference itself.
LikeLike
They get revenues somewhere. The ACC takes 1 share of TV revenue. I think the Big 12 has assessments and has the conference take the rest it needs out of conference corporate sponsorships, with the rest distributed. When Missouri left, it was mentioned they had to pay an assessment for referee/offical costs. Perhaps the ACC pays that out of their 1 share. So everyone does it differently. Some conference costs are fixed. Some are variable and go up with the size of the conference like referee/official costs. I’m guessing the fixed portion is insigificant. So you pay Delany the same with 12 or 16 schools. Not going to make a big difference.
LikeLike
Right. It’s just that if the BigXII is $20M per year, adding one more share for the league office drops it to $18.5
LikeLike
acaffrey,
Conversely though if the Big XII’s television revenue was $10 million two years ago did everyone in the Big XII office suddenly get their salaries doubled? I have a feeling the percent of revenue or an equal share of revenue has decreased somewhat with this latest round of television negotiations.
LikeLike
according to an article in the Sporting News yesterday (I posted it in the previous thread) the SEC is set on getting UNC and Duke. They’ve apparently been recruiting them for 3 years now.
So the SEC’s master plan was to pick up A&M + Mizzou + UNC + Duke
Possible pods:
Georgia/South Carolna/North Carolina/Duke
Florida/Tennessee/Kentucky/Vanderbilt
Alabama/Auburn/Ole Miss/MSU
LSU/A&M/Arkansas/Mizzou
The Big Ten would likely take Virginia and either Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech
Possible pods:
Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota
Michigan/Michigan State/Illinois/Northwestern
Ohio State/Purdue/Indiana/Georgia Tech
Penn State/Rutgers/Maryland/Virginia
The Big 12 could take either Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech plus NC State, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Pitt.
Possible pods:
Texas/Texas Tech/TCU/Baylor
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Kansas/KSu
Iowa State/WVU/Pitt/Virginia Tech
Florida State/Miami/Clemson/NCSU
LikeLike
I find Duke being in a master plan hard to believe. A scenario, yes, but not the main plan. Maybe one scenario was 4 ACC teams and no Big 12 teams. And if there was a master plan, it would have been OU, not Missouri. Slive tried to get them in 2010.
Splitting UGA from both Florida and Auburn doesn’t work. Those are their 2 biggest SEC rivals. SEC is very difficult to do pods with. Is LSU really willing to give up Alabama (AL/TN has priority)? How hard will it be for Ole Miss to give up LSU (in the SEC 12 they already had to give up big rivalries with Tennessee and Georgia, only keeping their ancient series with Vandy).
LikeLike
Or maybe they knew OU wouldn’t join the SEC, and neither would Texas.
And maybe they believe based on some info they have that UNC and Duke are a package deal.
The fact that they’ve been apparently working on UNC and Duke for 3 years seems to be pretty strong evidence, IMO.
And the fact that they took A&M and Mizzou is very strong evidence.
Yeah there are theoretical combos that would be better like for instance OU/Texas/UNC/UVA. That would have been ideal but apparently they figured out that it wasn’t achievable, so they’re best achievable plan is A&M+Mizzou+UNC+Duke. That’s still pretty good.
LikeLike
Also, bullet, show me a 16 team superconference with pods that doesn’t destroy a bunch of traditional rivalries. It can’t be done.
LikeLike
ACC and Pac 12 can do it. Big 10 and SEC are very intertwined. The strongest rivalries don’t follow neat geographically lines.
LikeLike
There’s also the matter of balance. You could break up the pods like this:
Alabama/Auburn/LSU/Ole Miss
Florida/Georgia/Tennessee/South Carolina
Missouri/Kentucky/Vandy/Arkansas
Texas A&M/MSU/North Carolina/Duke
You’d save a lot more rivalries but those pods don’t make any sense and they’re not balanced at all.
If they end up going to 16 they’ll need to rank the priorities:
1) balance
2) some sort of geographic logic
and then 3) rivalries.
Otherwise you end up with a complete mess.
LikeLike
That scenario kills UK’s biggest rivalry as Alabama/Tennessee trumps that. Ole Miss keeps the egg bowl, but loses their most played rivalry-Vanderbilt. (Since they have been resistant on going to 9 games, I’m assuming 1 protected rivalry). Rivalries are important down here. Its what makes the SEC what it is. Not markets. Its the intensity of the connection that’s bound by geography, economics, recruiting and simple tradition. “Old times here are not forgotten.”
LikeLike
There’s no way around it other than not expanding, and considering they’ve been actively recruiting UNC and Duke for 3 years the plan seems to be to expand when possible.
LikeLike
Oh my. Duke as a cultural fit in the SEC? A conference with a primary focus on cut throat athetics and no consortium.
I am sure the SEC & B1G have both been talking to a number of schools.
LikeLike
The SEC has a consortium. The ACC does not. The SEC’s consortium is only 2 years old so it has a ways to go but they have big plans for it. Which is partially why they’re trying to take AAu schools like Missouri, A&M, UNC, and Duke.
The SEC has Vandy, not much different from Duke, really.
The SEC is trying to put together a league that includes some decently good academic schools, including Duke, Vandy, UNC, Florida, A&M, Mizzou, and Georgia. They want to build up the consortium to be a CIC of the south. That’s what they sold Mizzou on when they recruited them. That’s what they’re likely trying to sell UNC and Duke on now.
The ACC currently has 6 AAU schools. The SEC has 4 with Georgia on the cusp of membership. The ACC has no academic consortium. The lowest ranked ACC school (Louisville) is on par with the lowest ranked SEC school (Mississippi State).
The SEC will make at least $35M per year per school. The ACC makes $15M per year per school.
Unless you believe Richard’s hogwash about a Big 20, then the Big Ten only has 2 spots left. They can’t take everybody.
UNC fans in particular are much more inclined to join the SEC. Many want it already.
In case you haven’t seen a map before, North Carolina is most definitely in The South.
If Slive has for the past 3 years activley been recruiting UNC and Duke specifically as was reported by the Sporting News yesterday, then Slive almost certainly has reason to believe that they are a package deal and should be recruited together. He’s also concluded that Duke is worth taking.
LikeLike
Here is a link to the SECAC (SEC academic consortium): http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/SECSPORTS/THESEC/AcademicConsortium.aspx
Like Andy said, it is new so it is no where near the B1G’s. But the SEC expects it to grow and become a benefitial consortium for the SEC schools over time.
LikeLike
@Andy
The ACC also has a consortium, but like the SEC’s, it is in the infantile stage.
As for your pods, the big problem is that UK and Vandy both consider Tennessee their biggest rival, but Tennessee considers ‘Bama their biggest rival, and ‘Bama also has to play Auburn every year. It makes pods a mess.
LikeLike
@frug – As I pointed out below, you can divide the pods up in a way that doesn’t leave off rivalries (for the most part). A pod configuration with Duke (since that is what Andy used), you could have the following pods:
aTm/Mizzou/LSU/Arky
Bama/auburn/Ole Miss/Miss St
UF/UGA/USCe/Vandy
UNC/Duke/UT/UK
But you would have to include a permenant cross pod game for each of the other pods. Let’s take Tennessee for example. Give them Bama/Vandy/Arky as their permenant cross-pod games. So they would annually play UK/UNC/Duke/Vandy/Bama/Arky every year with a rotation of the 3 teams from the other pods. This would also allow them to play every team in the SEC every 3 years. The only draw back is it would require a 9 game schedule, but it can be done.
LikeLike
That could work, but the SEC would be really banking on UT bouncing back because otherwise that pod is blech. UNC, Duke, UK and UT? Might as well just call it the basketball pod.
LikeLike
Yeah, but if you put UVA, VT, or NCST in there it looks better. Plus with the permenant games with Bama and whoever from the western pod, along with other 3 teams from the pod they are currently aligned with, it looks much better.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to rain on UNC/Duke to SEC parade, but I serious doubt it will happen. Whether or not the SEC is improving its academics or not, perception is that it is a jock conference with Vanderbelt as the token place of higher learning. Perception matters when you are trying to convince academics, who generally define themselves by the rankings of their school and piers versus their actual intelligence. Perception matters when you are navigating thru one of the worst acedemic scandals in NCAA history and are trying to show that you are not indeed a jock only school. Perception matters when a large percentage of students and staff at your prestigious private university come from the elite precincts of the north and view the Deep South around the gulf as stupid rednecks.
I know you have cited Texas A&M as a source that fans matters, but they don’t in the case of the Carolina schools. I have lived and worked in Raleigh and Texas and they are two wholly different entities. Texans define themselves thru football, including the influential boosters. Those of Duke and UNC have as big as an ego as possible when it comes to the smell of their own you know what, that they have complete contempt for SEC academics. He’ll they have complete contempt for nc state academics. And as far as t-shirt fans on message boards are concerned, they look down on them too. They will have zero say.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how much A&M was fan driven and how much was induced. Bowen claims he decided in the summer of 2010 to go to the SEC. He may well have encouraged the fan reaction that had already started while he was getting his political support for the move. Bowen is an Aggie from the early 70s and wouldn’t likely have a much different reaction than the fans.
LikeLike
A&M fans (I would estimate at a 90% clip) rejected any conference move other than the SEC once a potential move became known. The fact is, the A&M fan base never wanted to be in the B12 either but Ann Richards and Bob Bullock bullied the “Texas 4” into an agreement with the Big 8. Go back and check the historical records. A&M had zero ties with the Big 8 and that includes the Oklahoma schools. The two schools outside of the old Texas based SWC teams A&M had any historical ties with were LSU and Arkansas. We also shared some connection with Bama because of Bryant and Stallings.
Bullet once again gets his facts wrong about Texas A&M. Bowen didn’t arrange the movement to the SEC. That is utter nonsense. The original voice was BoT member Gene Stallings (and a few boosters who pushed for the SEC in the 90’s). Nothing had to be done to stir the passions of Aggies for the SEC other than state it was a possibility. That’s it.
LikeLike
@Frank the Ag – Arkansas was in the SWC until 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Conference#Membership_timeline
LikeLike
@Frank the ag
When you read something from a Texas fan does it impair your reading comprehension? I didn’t state any facts other than what Bowen claimed in a video on the Texags website. And there’s nothing you said that contradicts what I said.
LikeLike
And FranktheAg, you do have one fact wrong. OU and Okie St. were charter members of the SWC. Now there aren’t many people around who remember back to the 1920s, but that was history.
LikeLike
Bullet – whenever you discuss A&M you twist the facts. You’ve been wrong on every prediction regarding Texas A&M. What you perceive as “impaired” reading comprehension is just the removal of your burnt orange goggles. You have one post on this thread claiming the move by A&M to the SEC will hurt the SEC in the long run because of the loss of traditional rivalries. Yet you can’t really point to a single rivalry lost because of the move. You and your Longhorn friends are the last holdouts claiming the move by A&M to the SEC will be a failure. I guess you don’t mind looking foolish.
Now to your comment above:
You stated, “I’m not sure how much A&M was fan driven and how much was induced. Bowen claims he decided in the summer of 2010 to go to the SEC. He may well have encouraged the fan reaction”.
First, you clearly state that the SEC drive by A&M fans was “induced”, meaning not a natural occuring event. You also attribute it to Bowen. In fact, the A&M fan base decided the move to the SEC was the right choice (yes, in 2010). That charge was led by Gene Stallings (a BoT member at the time) and not Bowen. Bowen “induced” nothing. He simply reacted to the wants of his stakeholders. My comprehension was fine. Your comments were wrong.
LikeLike
MikeB – of course Arkansas was in the SWC – but they were already gone to the SEC when the SWC / Big 8 merged.
Bullet – I didn’t get it “wrong”. I know OU and Okie A&M where original members. I also know OU left the conference after 4 years in the league and OSU left after 10 years in the league. Prior to the B12, A&M had played OU 15 times and OSU 14 times. Not what I would call a traditional rival. By contrast we had played LSU 50 times and Arkie 60+ prior to joining the SEC.
LikeLike
Nice how you leave out the fan reaction THAT HAD ALREADY STARTED. It doesn’t take much to stir Aggies up. A few negative comments gets it to take off. Bowen claims he had already decided to go to the SEC at the time the 10 Presidents all committed to the Big 12 based in part on a study that showed people outside of Texas didn’t perceive any difference between A&M and Tech. He said something to the effect that he told them he was committed to the Big 12 as it existed. He was talking about the 12 team Big 12 and didn’t want people to accuse him of lying (not the 10 team Big 12 everyone else was talking about). So your President claims it was his idea and his leadership.
As for the reading comprehension, I didn’t say he orchestrated the fan reaction. He certainly was, intentionally or not, encouraging it with his public comments. And if you read what I wrote and what you wrote, I didn’t “clearly” say it was induced. I said “I’m not sure.” Bowen’s actions were of someone who was trying to sway public opinion. Bowen got his Phd at Rice, so I’ll give him credit for being intelligent and having some idea of what he was doing.
Now if you want to claim your President is a liar who takes credit for what other people do, that’s fine with me. There are only a handful of people who know what really happened and you may be right. But his explanation is credible as well.
LikeLike
Again to the reading comprehension. I realize there are a lot of posts, but I have never said the A&M move to the SEC will be a failure for them. I don’t buy that its a slam dunk win. I think there are lots of possibilities and only time will tell. It could be a huge success. It could also turn A&M into an Iowa St. by making them an afterthought in the state. But the biggest risk for A&M and every other Texas school is that more recruits leave the state for Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Arkansas, etc. Very few of the really top recruits chose anyone other than Texas, OU and A&M during the Big 12 years. After those 3, the rest of the Big 12 got their choice and then the remaining talent went out of state. Still some good players, but very few of the very top ones. If state of Texas recruiting started looking like the 80s when many of the very top players did go out of state, that would probably hurt everyone.
LikeLike
@Frank
You just don’t understand the ties the SEC schools have with each other. No traditional rivalry has been destroyed by 14-yet. But Georgia likes playing Alabama and LSU and Ole Miss. They couldn’t care less about Arkansas and they’ve been in for 20 years. They haven’t played Alabama since 2008. Ole Miss used to be an every year rivalry. That was one that got disrupted when the SEC went from a 5-2 fixed-1 rotating schedule to a 5-1-2. Ole Miss also used to have a big rivalry with Tennessee. They also lost that. All of those cross-division games will be decreased in frequency. That IS a negative for the SEC. The intensity of almost all the SEC games is something every other conference wished they had. UGA is kind of blase about UK, Vandy and Miss St., but not any of the other SEC 10.
The intensity of UGA’s rivalries with Florida, Auburn, USCe and Georgia Tech exceed anything Texas has except for OU. Tennessee gets pretty intense as well, as do Ole Miss, LSU and Alabama, moreso than when Texas played Colorado or Kansas St. from the other half of the Big 12 (Nebraska was pretty big).
I hated it when the SWC broke up, but I knew it was necessary and the Big 12 was exciting. There’s nothing necessary and exciting about any of these conferences going from 12 to 14.
LikeLike
And I grew up a UK fan and married a Bulldawg, so I do understand the SEC. And I was a kid a long, long time ago, so I’ve been following the SEC for a long, long time.
LikeLike
Duke fits much better in the B1G and UNC fits the SEC better. While they are both NC schools the attitudes could not be more opposite. Duke is an east coast school in a southern state while UNC is a state school with non alumni fans in the state. If Michigan has the Wal Mart Wolverines then UNC has their own group.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the SEC gets UNC+Duke (Duke? Seriously, Duke?) as UNC would have to find a home for NCSU. UNC+NCSU to the SEC is far more likely.
LikeLike
bullet – I don’t think the SEC would be difficult to separate into pods. You would just have to include a permenant cross-pod game for each pod, and thus you would have to go to a 9 game schedule. You would be playing the 3 in your pod, the 4 in another pod, and the 2 cross pod games from the pods that you aren’t lined up with that year. Doing that, you could include all of the necessary games.
LikeLike
But try to do it without a 9 game schedule. I don’t think there is anything that makes sense.
LikeLike
And the SEC has repeatedly rejected the 9 game schedule. Doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind, but it won’t be easy, much as the Big 10 rejected a 9 game schedule and then was dragging on the Pac cross scheduling deal before the Pac scuttled it.
LikeLike
They haven’t repeatedly rejected a 9 game schedule. This past vote on a 9 game schedule was really the first legit vote at it. And while it was rejected, they is a vibe that if a ninth game is needed for whatever reason (the upcoming SEC network, a new 16 conference schedule, or strength of schedule of the playoff committee) they could get the votes to pass it.
LikeLike
What if the B12 nor the B10 want NCSU?
LikeLike
NCSU is a good school in a good market. The Big 12 would take them.
LikeLike
It’s not an issue of “take.” It needs to be in NC State’s best interests to be separated from UNC. UNC-Duke is meaningless in real world constraints. UNC-NCSU, because of the shared board, is a fiduciary obligation. The board *has* to solve NCSU first.
UNC simply cannot dump NC State unless NC State wants to be dumped. Anyone who writes otherwise has no idea of what they are talking about.
LikeLike
Slive’s a smart guy, and if he’s been pusuing Duke for 3 years I’m sure he’s thought this through.
LikeLike
Andy, suggest that you include VATech rather than Duke. Many, many more eyeballs and a lot more draw in the DC area. UNC or NC State, I would agree with but and this is a big but. The Big 12 was on life support in 2010 when UT, OU, TT, OSU, CO and A&M were all but signed up to become members of the PAC. But A&M, to paraphrase Bear Bryant, heard Momma calling. Then again in 2011 when UT, OU, TT and OSU were a deal to join the PAC. PAC would not accept the LHN nor would the PAC accept OU AND OSU nor Tech without Texas so the BIG 12 escaped disaster again and all the pundits exclaimed that the Big 12 was dead in the water and the boat would sink at any minute. So here is the but, Texas stayed and used their considerable power to plug the leaks and the Big 12 is now a shark in ACC waters. I will suggest to you that if UNC, NC State and UVA remain in the ACC, then the ACC will continue to float also. ANy one of those three leaves, adios ACC.
LikeLike
I don’t think those 3 will accept being in a 2nd tier league. I don’t think any of them will be the first to leave, but if enough key others go, there is no way they stay. Now I agree, if any of those 3 leave, that would trigger everyone else to go.
LikeLike
Wes, I wouldn’t have thought Duke to the SEC made sense, but the article in the Sporting News yesterday quoting prominant ACC sources say that the SEC has been recruiting UNC and Duke for 3 years now. I can only conclude from this that UNC has said they won’t join without Duke, and that the SEC has deemed UNC so valuable that they are willing to take Duke along with them.
It would certainly bolster the SEC in academics and basketball, two of their weakest areas, so in that sense it makes sense. Yeah they miss out on the state of Virginia, but it’s likely that they’ve calculated that UNC + Duke is more valuable overall than VT + NCSU.
LikeLike
UNC/DUKE/UVA/GT/ND/FSU+Warren Buffett to pay for their exits.
Git’ while the Gittin’s good!
LikeLike
Since we’re in that time of year when so many coaches get fired, it’s interesting to note that it really doesn’t help.
LikeLike
Reminds me of Minnesota firing Mason after taking them to 7 bowls in 8 years. Granted he didn’t have a great record in Big Ten play, but for a lot of these schools, who knows what they want.
Just having a mid-level range of success for a long time would probably be better for them than trying to chase glory that isn’t likely to ever be there…
LikeLike
This is A&M’s best year since they fired RC Slocum who did a really good job for them.
LikeLike
Sun Belt looking to backfill with Idaho, NMSU and Georgia Southern.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21190574/new-mexico-state-idaho-and-georgia-southern-now-in-play-for-sun-belt
LikeLike
Banowsky has interesting comments about Delany’s moves at the end of that article.
With all the talk about greed, IMO there are only 2 conferences that really could be seriously accused of that, the SEC and Big 10, neither of whom needed 13th and 14th members to be enormously profitable. And Banowsky is referencing Delany, not the Big East who keeps feeding on the CUSA.
LikeLike
Both the SEC, B10 & Pac 12 with the recent expansions are making power plays, strengthening their conferences by adding assets while weakening competing conferences (Big XII & ACC).
LikeLike
In some ways, doesn’t the BigTen have an incentive to keep the ACC around in a weakened fashion, strengthening the ACC’s southern schools (GT,FSU,Clemson,theU) thereby weakening the northern ones.
The southern ACC would steal interest from the SEC in that region, while the weaker northern ACC would loose out to the BigTen in the northeast.
Would big ten teams playing home and homes with GT,FSU,Clemson, and Miami help that cause while possibly help in recruiting?
LikeLike
While the ACC has an incentive to try and kill the BigEast from both a football and basketball perspective. And they’re doing their best to do it.
LikeLike
I think the rise of the SEC has corresponded with a downturn in the ACC.
The two are intricately tied together.
From what I’ve noticed of Florida-scale football; when one or two of the programs are down (FSU and Miami this past decade), the talent flows more to the remaining schools (Meyer’s UF).
Especially in the East, the fact that UF/UGa/USCe/Vandy/Auburn have all gotten miles ahead of their corresponding rivals at points this decade (FSU/Ga Tech/Clemson/WF/Clemson) just shows that.
Look at the SEC-ACC games this past weekend. As big a disparity as I think anyone’s seen between the two conferences, and that was with 10-1 FSU/Clemson teams in the mix…
LikeLike
Lest we forget that state institutions, and some private institutions, have political followings:
http://www.coachingsearch.com/component/content/article/1869-louisville-ad-tom-jurich-honored-on-us-senate-floor.html
LikeLike
I am so thankful that nothing else important is going on in the US Senate, allowing for time to honor an athletic director. I would rather he spent that time honoring Kentucky, or even just Louisville, veterans. Maybe the Mayans are right. 😦
LikeLike
@largeR – There’s obviously nothing more important than the conference realignment fiscal cliff right now.
LikeLike
If you ever needed further evidence that Mitch McConnell is a complete POS.
LikeLike
Ok, that was a bit harsh but I have loathed the guy ever since I lived in Kentucky and had to have him as my senator for 2 years.
LikeLike
Intriguing article on a mock playoff committee. KSU doesn’t even make top 8 and Oregon beats out Stanford.
Ohio St. AD said he didn’t think much of KSU before. So sounds like the Okie St.s and KSU’s of the world will continue to have a problem in a committee.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/11/29/college-football-playoff-mock-selection-committee/index.html
LikeLike
As if you needed further evidence of Gene Smith’s incompetence…
LikeLike
At what point does increasing conference size begin to hurt fan interest? Back when there were 10 teams in the Big Ten, you could “expect” a championship in any given sport once every ten years or so. I realize this isn’t an exact measurement, but I always felt it was a pretty good indicator; if your team has won at least one title in the past decade then the program is reasonably solid, more than one in a decade is a sign of a true power, and a championship drought of more than 10 years is a sign that the program is not moving in the right direction.
Should I now expect my team to win a title every 14 years? The added depth makes championships harder to come by, and thus lowers the excitement of the more fair-weather fans. Or is gaining the occasional “division” championship enough? I’m not sure.
LikeLike
Well, they’re betting that at one-half the size of professional leagues, you’re still interested.
It’s a question, but I’m not sure we breach that until we’re at 20 team “leagues”…
It still feels like a conference at 14 and even at 16 (although the pods format starts to get you to the league-ish feel).
But I guess what I’m saying is, if people are more interested in their own and *other teams* in the NFL than ever before, why wouldn’t that carry over to college sports?
LikeLike
I really think 14 team conferences will erode some fan interest. Sixteen will be even worse. All the jokes about not knowing who is in which division will become “who is in the conference?”
The pro leagues are all trending towards 4 and 5 team divisions with more playoff teams, while a 16 team conference with 8 team divisions makes it much harder for the non-kings to even hope for a division title.
I guess that will be remedied in the supposed split from NCAA and 4-team division and semi-finals and such.
Sigh. I don’t like it.
LikeLike
I dunno.
Adding more middle-level teams to the conference sort of makes it easier to get to the CCG, in my opinion.
When your team is cyclically up, you’re more likely to have an easier schedule. In the West, we’re all going to have more Illinois on our schedule and less Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin and a bit more Rutgers/Maryland.
LikeLike
“Adding more middle-level teams to the conference sort of makes it easier to get to the CCG, in my opinion.”
That doesn’t make any sense. You can claim that adding mid-level teams doesn’t make it any more difficult, but it sure doesn’t make it easier.
That is as crazy as the claims that the B20 allows you to play teams more often.
LikeLike
Well, I’m looking at Northwestern’s schedule. We’re likely to have our strongest team in at least 12 years next year but Ohio State and Wisconsin are going to rotate onto our schedule.
It does make it easier. You need to think about how easily you can go 7-2 in a 9 game schedule where the 4 kings all have much more difficult schedules because Ohio State-Michigan and Nebraska-Penn State are locked in…
If your team is cyclically up, you should have a team that can beat the rest of the conference but still get a tough game out of the best teams, but if fewer of those teams are on your schedule, you can thread the needle and get to the CCG easier.
LikeLike
Saw an interesting stat the other day. In the Big 12, Texas and OU both had KSU and Nebraska on their schedules the same year. Each had Colorado the other year. There were only 3 times when those 2 had both KSU and Nebraska and made the BCS. Once was 2008 when OU & Texas were in the top 3 and the north was down somewhat. The other time was 2004 when OU was champ and beat a 4-4 CU team in the ccg.
There is a definite correlation on when Northwestern has won Big 10 championships and their schedule. I suspect that is true of all the Big 10 champs during the 11 team era who were not named Michigan or Ohio St.
LikeLike
At bullet:
Amen. In the “modern era” the B10 decided Iowa and Wisconsin were better than msu, MSU’s locked rivals were Michigan and PSU. I liked this, but suspect our stats could have benn better had we not had this deal.
LikeLike
bullet,
It’s similar to how the SEC’s bottom 8 teams were 0-30 against the top 6 teams.
That means the teams that had the fewest scheduled games against the others had the easier schedules.
Florida and LSU as usual got the shorter ends of the stick because they always play each other (and on top of that Florida had to play A&M as its entrance game).
LikeLike
That middle sentence should read:
“That means the top teams that had the fewest scheduled games against the other top teams had the easier schedules.”
LikeLike
jj,
“Amen. In the “modern era” the B10 decided Iowa and Wisconsin were better than msu, MSU’s locked rivals were Michigan and PSU. I liked this, but suspect our stats could have benn better had we not had this deal.”
Yes, but John L. Smith and Bobby Williams didn’t help either.
LikeLike
I agree completely. We’ve been in races a lot more in the past than we’ll be in the future and it will effect interest. They try to mitigate this by giving us two divisions so we are only directly competing with 5 (now 6) other teams, but I think the fact that championships are going to be fewer and further between is definitely going to effect fan interest in the long run. In some cases, it’s why people choose following college over pro in the first place.
LikeLike
Maryland will get their $50 million fee reduced, which will trigger a mad dash for the exits from the rest of the ACC.
ACC will backfill with the likes of Cincinnati, UConn, etc.
ACC becomes the clear fifth conference behind the big four. A marginal player in the football scene. But not Conference USA.
The basketball ends up being pretty good and maybe even adds schools like Georgetown.
As the resident Cincinnati alum, I can live with that.
LikeLike
And to which conference will this “mad scramble” occur? Schools are unlikely to make 100 year decisions based on 13 year grant of rights agreements, and with the Pac 12 likely to make another play for the Texahoma 4 I don’t think the B12 is any more secure than the ACC.
After additional consolidation, the Big 12 and the ACC will be looking to fill the 4th strongest conference slot. The ACC is larger now and has greater opportunities to “backfill” if additional schools are lost. I see them as the 4th strongest conference after the dust finally settles, though obviously quite a bit weaker than the Big 3.
LikeLike
Easy. Big 12 has a GOR, ACC doesn’t.
LikeLike
Unless Big 12 has enough defectors/votes to disband conference (maybe a reason that they are not aggressively pursuing additional teams??? More teams means more votes needed for dissolvement)
LikeLike
That would require a minimum of 6 schools (and possibly more depending on the conference bylaws) to find better homes before the conference disbands. Looking at the present Big XII that is extremely unlikely.
LikeLike
Well if you figure the Pac would most likely be taking 4 of them (UTen/TTU/OU/OSU) then you are talking about 2 more votes/schools to find a home. It is far fetched, but what if the ACC loses another and is open to a KU and re opens doors for a WVU or even a TCU (in light of their shift to UL).
Just spit balling obviously, and all would need to occur in unison, but as a Pac fan it is near the only scenario that merits another expansion for the conference (and hopefully keeping Larry Scott on board).
LikeLike
Well KU shares a BOR with KSU which means they have veto power over each others moves so long as the Big XII remains viable, so that scenario wouldn’t really work.
Plus, this is based on the assumption that the conference can be dissolved by a simple majority vote, when more likely it would require a super-majority like other major decisions (like adding members).
LikeLike
Oh, and I’ll add that moving to the ACC wouldn’t be an upgrade for WVU and especially KU. The Big XII pays more than the ACC and lets schools keep their Tier III rights.
That is a multimillion dollar paycut.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t get your hopes up on counting on some legal verdict as a triggering event for further expansion. Not only does the Maryland suit scream confidential settlement, but even if it somehow went to trial, justice moves slow.
LikeLike
I don’t know how Maryland law would handle it, but most state entities are not able to make confidential settlements. They may not have to announce it, but FOIA laws means it can come out.
LikeLike
I think it was a sign on the part of Tobacco Road that they added Louisville after FSU/Clemson have been shouting for football upgrades.
We’ll see, they’d have to have been unified enough on that end.
LikeLike
“ACC will backfill with the likes of Cincinnati, UConn, etc.
ACC becomes the clear fifth conference behind the big four. A marginal player in the football scene. But not Conference USA.
The basketball ends up being pretty good and maybe even adds schools like Georgetown.
As the resident Cincinnati alum, I can live with that.”
-As a Cincinnati fan you can live with that? You just described probably your best case scenario!
LikeLike
So, the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 are just going to say “I’m good” and sit on their hands?
FSU and Clemson are just gonna say “we’re good” and make $10 mil less per year?
Big Ten is just gonna say “Mighty Maryland has delivered the eastern seaboard”?
Not likely, this stuff is just beginning.
LikeLike
Question is whether Tobacco Road has made enough concessions to make FSU/Clemson happy.
If so, then it might be able to hold together the conference.
If the NC/Va based members are trying to hold it together and if FSU/Clemson think that Louisville is enough, then yes it might hold together.
But how long it might is a legitimate question…; the money differences will become bigger and bigger over time as a result of the ACC’s mix of markets as compared to the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12.
LikeLike
Going to be interesting to see where the Big East’s TV deal goes now. The makeover is pretty much complete with Syracuse/Pitt/Rutgers/Louisville all on the way out…
Is it worth much more than $7-8 million per school? Is it worth even that?
Seems doubtful that ESPN even counterbids at this point…
LikeLike
ESPN wants that basketball still.
LikeLike
Isn’t the basketball worth at most $1-2 million per team?
What’s the football worth then? $3-4 million per team?
LikeLike
Speculation has been $3.0-3.5 million per team for basketball. Wyoming AD recently said Boise and SDSU were told $5-$7 million for football and made their decisions based on those figures. I saw SDSU AD back then saying $6.4 million. There have been a bunch of other numbers thrown around, some lower, some higher, but nothing with more substantiation than TV consultants estimates.
But that was with UL (Congrats Cards-its been a good week) and Rutgers, the soon to be former members, playing for the BCS bid tonight.
LikeLike
CUSA-UH, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, UCF, ECU, Tulsa (team with the best record this year), Rice, UTEP, UAB, Marshall, So. Miss (best team over CUSA’s history and last year’s champ) signed a deal last year for $1.5 million for everything.
new Big East-UH, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, UCF, ECU + Cincinnati, USF, UConn, Temple, Boise and SDSU is worth a lot more? I don’t get it. Unless Boise is all the value. But then they shouldn’t need to travel cross-country to monetize.
LikeLike
Agreed bullet; it just doesn’t make sense.
I’m not even sure how the basketball gets near $3 million without Louisville and even with Louisville it shouldn’t get near that.
Unless the name “Big East” is worth $50 million per year as a conference label (to be split among all the teams), the whole thing doesn’t make sense.
Just going to that label shouldn’t unlock value…
LikeLike
What I mean by that is, what value there is to be unlocked is by going to a bigger stage where you play bigger value opponents.
Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers are the biggest examples of this because they’ll be getting bigger value opponents in the ACC and Big Ten.
If C-USA is just being transplanted into the Big East but without the Big East mainstrays to unlock their value, then what is there? It’s just C-USA 2.0…
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21193767/ncaa-approves-georgia-techs-bowl-waiver
The NCAA has approved Georgia Tech’s waiver to be bowl-eligible should they lose the ACC Championship Game on Saturday and go 6-7 despite adopting a policy almost four months ago designed to keep the Yellow Jackets out, two sources told CBSSports.com Thursday night.
LikeLike
Central Michigan can pack up their stuff.
LikeLike
Maybe if Brian Kelly is willing to ditch the National Championship game to coach his old team, they’ll reconsider. Fire up Chips!
LikeLike
Surprised they did this after just announcing that rule so recently. Just looks bad but I guess there won’t be enough people out there who care…
LikeLike
Amusing comment in the Atlanta paper. GT could argue like UCLA, we wouldn’t really be there if Miami (USC) wasn’t on probation. It was a 3 way tie at 5-3 with Miami winning tiebreaks, but Miami isn’t taking bowls and UNC is on probation.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/29/report-gt-will-receive-bowl-waiver-if-it-loses-acc-championship-game/
MAC commissioner has issued a response. Shockingly, he is less than thrilled.
LikeLike
Just doesn’t look good, but these people have never cared about that…
LikeLike
frug,
It’s a bad decision that screws over non-AQs.
LikeLike
Kansas fans are claiming on their rivals board that KU and Georgia Tech are joining the Big Ten as soon as this weekend. I don’t buy it. Doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Kansas is too expensive and Georgia Tech is too distant and dissimilar. I could see one or the other, but not both. Especially if Notre Dame is still out there.
The Big Ten does offer great scheduling opportunities (games in New York, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia, and even the Rose Bowl), even if we go to nine games – it’s the lack of national television coverage that don’t want to give up.
LikeLike
A thought, if the Big Ten added Missouri, the SEC would undoubtedly have to pick apart the ACC. If UNC, UVa, or Notre Dame are targets, this would help shake the tree for falling fruit.
LikeLike
Missou isn’t leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t think they are either, but it’s still a logical match.
LikeLike
Impossible for Kansas to get out; GOR requires a willing buyer and a willing seller*, on what planet is the Big 12 going to willingly let Kansas buy its inventory back? And as metatron points out, the value of those TV rights is likely to be around $300 million for the remainder of the Big 12’s GOR, does anyone have that kind of money?
Sounds like rumors run amok for it to be those two…
LikeLike
Does anybody know if the GOR actually has teeth? Since these exit fees seem to collapse to half the value, isn’t it possible that smart lawyers could get out of the GOR for minimal cash? What if Kansas leaves and just dares FOX to come after them?
LikeLike
We suspect that GOR have better teeth than exit fees at the very least given that media rights contracts are typically more solid than exit fees which are more likely to be seen as penalties (especially since the latter is mitigated when something like a replacement comes and ESPN is typically like “we won’t change your contract for plugging X school in for Y”).
It’s like that story I brought in another thread from the NBA’s past, where the NBA paid to close down one of the ABA franchises by offering national broadcast revenue streams in perpetuity (sort of like a reverse GOR).
Decades later and the NBA is still paying a defunct franchise TV rights; TV rights contracts are typically much stronger than penalties for action.
LikeLike
Other thing which sort of makes this all moot is that it seems highly unlikely that anyone would ever test this…
LikeLike
Because those rights are a real property.
LikeLike
How is it a penalty and not a liquidated damages clause? This will be interesting.
With GOR–again, EVERYTHING is negotiable or not insurmountable. If the Big 10 wants to pay Kansas a full share to join, they can. If they don’t get the TV also, who cares? If the Big 10 can afford the investment, it can afford the investment.
Plus, does the BIg XII even WANT the TV rights to Penn State @ Kansas in basketball? Probably not. They would want the bigger Big 10 games. But at some point, it really does not matter. Kansas @ Michigan State would be huge. Indiana. Illinois. WIsconsin. A lot of big games.
That being said, the rumors are nuts. Why?
LikeLike
Pacta sunt servanda.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten wants Kansas, but I could see the Big 12 happily letting them go if they’re confident of getting some quality ACC adds.
For instance, if Virginia Tech is worried Virginia might leave them to the Big Ten and 2 NC schools will go to the SEC, the Big 12 could take FSU, Clemson, and VT to create a powerful 12 school conference whose football value would make up for any lost basketball value.
If you’re a fan of 16, this also works well. The Big 12 would be left with 8 schools in the ‘West’, and could add 7 ACC schools to West Virginia to get a conference that wouldn’t need pods; in fact, you could go down to 8 games if you wanted; you’d essentially be 2 conferences joined by a valuable conference championship game.
I think the 12 school option would be the more intriguing one for the Big 12.
LikeLike
The Big 12 makes a lot of money off of Kansas basketball. Hard to pass up a home sell out for each team each year, and all the $ from the Big 12 championship game in KC. You also let go of KC as one of your key TV markets.
Football TV rights may be king, but the Big 12 would give up a lot of bread by letting KU walk away from their commitments.
LikeLike
Lots of smoke on the UNC Tar Pit site about various scenerios as well……….
KU and GT would be horrible, imo……..
LikeLike
Multiple reports that UC coach Butch Jones could be Purdue’s next FB coach by the weekend. Although he doesn’t have a mustache, I’m pretty excited about the hire. Great pedigree, recruits the Midwest well, and seems to have a fire to him. AD Burke has finally opened up the purse strings (thank you cable subscribers in the NJ/MD area) for both HC and assistants.
LikeLike
I really like that hire for Purdue. That’s as perfect a fit as I can think of if true.
LikeLike
Agree that would be a good hire for Purdue, although I fear they are quickly becoming Minnesota again as Danny Hope just trashed the program. Odd that Purdue seems to be able to beat Ohio State every so often while Indiana just gets steamrolled annually.
LikeLike
BoilerTex,
I wrote a letter to Morgan Burke back in 2008 encouraging him to interview Kevin Sumlin. Morgan actually wrote back indicating that Kevin was an unproven commodity at the time and, despite his alumni status, would not be given “special” treatment as a result. Look at Kevin now…
I hope Butch Jones is a good coach because we need it….
Boiler Up!!!!!
LikeLike
Needs more mustachio
LikeLike
Andy, you weren’t joking.
Va Tech’s forums and Virginia’s are full of speculation on the Georgia Tech thing…; kind of surprised that this is getting that much play.
LikeLike
WVU group is saying the same thing regarding Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Swaim saying his calls indicate huge ACC domino in the next week.
Realistically, only UVa is a “huge” domino close to the Big Ten.
Georgia Tech would be smaller than Maryland in my opinion as far as dominos go…; Georgia Tech is much more easily replaceable; UVa isn’t.
LikeLike
I agree that it’d be hard to call GTech a huge domino, but even GTech leaving could cause the implosion of the entire conference. I guess we’ll see.
LikeLike
I think any ACC team leaving, even Wake Forest, would have to be considered a huge domino since it means either the $50M exit fee will be reduced or the money is so good that the $50M is worth the price. Any team that leaves is a huge deal.
LikeLike
what forums are people looking at on this stuff??? For me, its thesabre for VA., The Tar Pit and Phog.net (Scout) for KU, GoJackets(scout) for GT and the CSN realignment board………..is that scout site the best one for GT?
LikeLike
Here is a link to the best VT forum I can find: http://www.techsideline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?83-Conference-Realignment&s=baed637efa1ac4688a9e4e1c862757fc
It’s format is horrible, but it is dedicated to conference realignment. When you click on a thread, you might want to click on the display icon to change the thread format because again, it is horrible.
LikeLike
Clemson board says GT to B1G is a done deal. And Big Ten football gets weaker and weaker and weaker. What good does it do to have the BTN expand its coverage if no one cares about the product? After the Rutgers, Maryland picks we really needed a King or at least a Prince.
LikeLike
“Clemson board says GT to B1G is a done deal. And Big Ten football gets weaker and weaker and weaker. What good does it do to have the BTN expand its coverage if no one cares about the product? After the Rutgers, Maryland picks we really needed a King or at least a Prince.”
Agreed. I was fine with the Rutgers/Maryland add, but I felt the next two needed to have at least one serious football power. GT feels like a really bad idea to me.
LikeLike
Supposedly an Ohio St. site is reporting it also. TheShoe@OSU.
LikeLike
I’ve never heard of that site, and I tend to read a decent amount of OSU news. Take it with a grain of salt. I think if Bucknuts picks it up (not the Boarding House though) there’s probably something there.
LikeLike
If true, Delany sounds like a QB making his rotations on his #15 play: Primary receiver UNC said no, secondary receiver UVA said no, passing to tertiary receiver, GT.
The only way GT is a domino is if ACC members start viewing it as a game of musical chairs.
LikeLike
If UVa says no, then don’t you just stick to 14 and call it a day?
Not sure I even understand how you move to Georgia Tech at #15 without a #16 in the bag…
LikeLike
I think the idea might be “We’re going to 16, there is one spot left. Anyone else who wants the most money your institution can get in your lifetime, #^@! or get off the pot right now. Taking bids.”
LikeLike
This sort of rumor shotgun could also be intentional on the B1G in that they haven’t done this yet, but are fully capable of doing it and are thinking about it. Losing Atlanta and having the life raft seats in the B1G reduced to 1 is a pretty big threat to have to consider. Even if it’s not true at all.
It’s also entirely possible for the B1G to do both – hold a vote on “How would you feel about GT if they applied?” (the B1G may well have already done this a few years ago), then leak THAT. It’s not a vote to accept an application that’s been made, but it sends the same signal. We’re taking applications and only so many.
LikeLike
bullet – B1G picking GA Tech for #15 is more like intentional grounding.
LikeLike
I agree with the both of you.
Maryland/Rutgers I could understand. They both make sense. I still don’t see the Georgia Tech angle.
@manifestodeluxe
Most of us don’t even think that we could get carriage in Atlanta with Georgia Tech…
LikeLike
You can’t with GT.
The game theory would be that Georgia Tech shakes #16 free, whether it be UVA, UNC or Notre Dame. Maybe Georgia Tech shakes some off to the Big 12 which forces UVA or UNC to abandon ship.
LikeLike
And that’s why I don’t think it would happen.
Unless you have UVa in the bag, you don’t go for Georgia Tech.
We saw what happened with the SEC going to #13 without a #14 in the bag. They got lucky that Mizzou was right there for them to pick up.
The Big Ten going after Georgia Tech without a locked in #16 would be a mistake; there’s no one out there like Mizzou just sitting around; heck there’s not even anyone like Rutgers just sitting around.
LikeLike
I don’t see how they would get out of the B12 GOR but Kansas’ basketball inventory would be great for the BTN.
LikeLike
The B1G could grab FSU at 16 if they pull GaTech at 15. Not exactly chopped liver, Zeek.
LikeLike
@zeek:
Even if you get carriage, somehow, you’re never going to “own” Georgia. The BigTen hasn’t taken a school that played second fiddle in a state since MSU, why would you do it now when you have zero need?
That said, it’s also a message board rumor. A rumor that appears to be on the Bucknuts board as well, so we’ll see, but until someone trustworthy picks it up I remain skeptical.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t believe that GT is being added, as 15 or 16. Like Alan said, its intentional grounding. At best, a 2 yard dive play.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just don’t see the angle.
The Maryland/Rutgers angle was obvious, especially with the Fox-YES deal and the sheer markets involved with huge numbers of their own alumni and Big Ten alumni in those markets.
The Big Ten could claim ownership of those states as you say.
Hard to say what the Big Ten will even own in Atlanta, which is why Georgia Tech doesn’t make sense.
The only school that Georgia Tech makes sense paired with is Notre Dame. That’s it.
LikeLike
@zeek:
Agreed. The only way GT makes sense is if paired with an honest to goodness king. I don’t think it even makes sense with UVA. While media markets, academic prestige, and Director’s Cup standings do matter, if football was the original motivator in this you haven’t done nearly enough to balance out the negatives with the positives.
LikeLike
@manifesto – my take, if the GT rumor is true, is that the B1G believes that they have enough football quality (long-term) already – they just want more markets in which to display it and recruit talent from. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but it would fit the latest moves.
I’m not sure that bringing in new kings is something they’re particularly interested in at this time – unless ND has a change of heart, of course.
LikeLike
@NeutronSoup:
I think that shows quite a bit of hubris then, to be honest. The quality of football in the BigTen has already been questioned for almost a decade, with most of the teams doing very little to combat that perception. Bringing in GT isn’t going to change that.
With Maryland, Rutgers, and PSU, the BigTen had positioned itself not only as a midwestern conference but as the Conference of the North. I really liked that idea. Bringing in GT changes that significantly, and I’m not sure why they’d really want to take the risk.
LikeLike
Personally, I agree with you. The Big Ten has been down for a lot longer than the past couple of years – Ohio State just managed to cover that up a bit (and even then, the championship game losses sure didn’t help perception).
LikeLike
@NeutronSoup:
The BigTen was at its peak in 2002, then began a steady decline that hasn’t improved since. The 2006 NCG was just final crack in the dam that was holding back criticism.
As an OSU fan, while I might personally believe Ted Ginn’s injury completely changed the outcome of that game (maybe not the loss but certainly the score differential), fact of the matter is getting demolished in that game and then falling into the 2007NCG when they had no business being there in the first place really hurt the BigTen’s public perception. Tressel went 5-3 in BCS games, 6-4 overall including the 2002 NCG, but because he lost those three in a row (06-08) OSU immediately became a laughingstock outside of BigTen country.
But aside from OSU, no other team has done much to fight the BigTen is sliding perception. In 06, that great Michigan squad that just missed the NCG rematch with OSU turned around and got shellacked by USC. In fact, in the previous ten years the BigTen has sent eight teams and lost all but one of them. That one win is OSU-v-Oregon in 2010.
So while they may be making money hand over fist and talking about how strong their brands are, I hope the BigTen realizes they’re strong now only because they’ve been strong in the past. And if they expect to remain strong in the future they better start doing something to change the results on the field.
LikeLike
@manifestodeluxe
That post is exactly why the Big Ten shouldn’t spurn Virginia Tech.
If this is really about quality of product and not just sticking flags in random places, then you can’t turn away Virginia Tech…
LikeLike
@zeek:
Agreed, 100%. Someone needs to sit Michigan and Wisconsin down and explain some realities. VT is clearly working on getting to an acceptable level, just hold their noses and deal with it until VT gets there. And then you don’t have to act like the BigTen will ever be relevant in Georgia of all places. Might as well try to capture Mississippi.
LikeLike
While from a fans perspective, it’s understandable that everyone wants bigger football names, from the conference perspective, I don’t agree. The B1G doesn’t need anymore kings, unless ND wants to come along. Obviously the league is down, but it doesn’t really matter. The B1G has gotten two BCS teams virtually every year. Adding more kings (to the four the league already has) only makes it more difficult for those teams to win. If the SEC adds FSU and Clemson, all they’re doing is making it more difficult. It won’t matter if the SEC is the best league if it starts getting littered with 2-loss teams at the top of the conference. 2-loss SEC teams aren’t going to make the playoffs and BCS over unbeaten and 1-loss B1G and PAC teams. As long as the league has Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and, to a point, Wisconsin, it’s going to get tons of attention and be competitive at the top.
LikeLike
All this badmouthing of terps football. Historically, hardly a patsy for bowlers looking for their 6th win. Since 2000, they have been nationally ranked in the final poll 3 times (10, 18,17); have been to 7 bowls including one bcs bowl (lost by 30+ to Florida admittedly); beat Tenn 30-3 in peach bowl; beat West Va 41-7 in Gator Bowl; BEAT Purdue 24-7 in Citrus Bowl. Several other w’s as well; at least 2 ACC championships. Md is also one of the few colleges to win national championship in basketball and football (2002, 1951!!). 😉 Not a powerhouse, but far from a patsy historically. Very strong in 70’s and80’s under Ross and Claiborne. By the time they get to big 14, I believe they will be very competitive in many sports, including football. Also top 5 nationally in men’s & women’s lacrosse, soccer, field hockey wome, and 11th in women’s hoops.
LikeLike
Maryland 15th all time in losses.
LikeLike
What kind of losses? FB Total ever? If so, the very worst in NCAA history are 1. Northwestern and 2. Indiana; Terps are 39th in wins, with a 53% win rate. More wins than Iowa, Purdue, IL, NW, and Indiana. Bad stat imo.because of different competition and the fact that it is too historical. May be more meaningful from 70’s or 2000 on. I think my analysis above is closer to apples-apples since it is nationally based vs. conference-based.
LikeLike
Scott,
“What kind of losses? FB Total ever? If so, the very worst in NCAA history are 1. Northwestern and 2. Indiana;”
You’ll never win an argument by pointing out how bad IN and NW have been in FB. We all know and agree. That doesn’t make MD any better.
” Terps are 39th in wins, with a 53% win rate. More wins than Iowa, Purdue, IL, NW, and Indiana.”
And behind Rutgers. How about W% – MD is 62nd. That just nips IL, and beats IN and NW. IA and PU are ahead, though.
And thus we can both agree MD is mediocre at best. Yay.
” Bad stat imo.because of different competition and the fact that it is too historical. May be more meaningful from 70′s or 2000 on. I think my analysis above is closer to apples-apples since it is nationally based vs. conference-based.”
Since 1992 (20 years), MD is 71st in W%. Wow. Very impressive.
LikeLike
You mean all-time losses in NCAA? If so, worst and 2nd worst are Northwestern and Indiana. Terps are 39th in wins, at 53%. Win totals are more than Iowa, Purdue, IL, NW, IN. But a weak stat imo due to conference strengths, etc.over a long history. My analysis is more meaningful because it is recent, and nationally-oriented vs. conference-oriented.
LikeLike
Pingback: Is Georgia Tech the Next to Leave the ACC? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
The bottom rung of the ACC is not exactly my expansion pool of choice. The SEC and B12 must be giddy for us taking all the sediment so they can skim off the cream.
LikeLike
Kind of wondering why the Big Ten feels like it has to move right now. Maryland was an understandable situation.
Probably best to just sit tight for now…
LikeLike
How was the crowd in Rutgers for the Louisville-Rutgers game last night? What were the ratings? After all, Rutgers had a chance to finally go to its first major bowl. If that didn’t juice the area, what will?
LikeLike
ACC defeats B1G for the B-East championship!
You gotta love conference realignment.
LikeLike
And it could be Big 12 vs. B1G for the ACC championship.
LikeLike
I guess this was the tiebreaker for the ACC-B1G Challenge…
LikeLike
I posted them below.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the B12 gets any cream here. They’re the 3rd of 4th conference choice of all these schools.
Best case scenario I see for B12 is that SEC doesn’t want duplicate markets in Florida, B1G takes UVA and UNC. SEC takes Va Tech and NC State and B12 gets FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson and maybe Miami.
That’s not sediment but it’s still 3rd pick.
LikeLike
It is 4 of the best 5 football programs in the ACC and the top two markets. That’s not too shabby.
LikeLike
No doubt. If B12 gets FSU it’s a win, no matter who they come with. I guess my point is it’s not like B12 gets first pick in this thing. There may be some really good options left but it looks like B12 would have to take what’s left, if the ACC really is the next Big East.
On that note I wish B12 would make an offer to FSU+5 the way Larry Scott did with Texas.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is 2nd in division titles in the ACC. VT has won 5 in their division while GT won the other 3. FSU in the other division is only at 3. Clemson & BC have 2 while Wake has one. UVA, UNC, Duke, NCSU, Miami and Maryland haven’t won any.
Maryland did win a title in 2001, which was the only one not won by FSU until Virginia Tech joined the league.
LikeLike
Swofford said during the Louisville presser that there have been no discussions re a GOR. I just don’t understand the naivete of Swofford. This should have been the very next item on the (2 item) agenda after adding Louisville. I don’t think there’s any question that a GOR–which, as I understand it, is akin to an assignment–is more enforceable than a vote of the members to have an exit fee penalty–which is clearly punitive when the TV partner agrees not to alter the deal with an acceptable replacement. How does this dude have a job, let alone one that probably pays several million dollars per year?
LikeLike
Swofford has most likely privately discussed it, realized it’d never fly, so he denies it in a presser. Don’t believe everything that is stated publicly.
LikeLike
Agree with greg 100% on this.
If any school is opposed to a GOR it can’t happen. It’s different from just taking a vote and sticking it in…
LikeLike
Agree as well. If you have one firm no, you can’t do it. I suspect at least Florida State is a firm no (based on them voting against the exit fee increase).
LikeLike
Why? If it is a grant of rights, any two schools could do it. They could make it conditional for new members. Imagine if the Big East had required that for TCU. If you want to come, sign over your TV rights for 10 years. Then what?
LikeLike
GOR generally require everyone in the conference to agree.
No one’s really ever attempted otherwise because it would show the internal divisions.
It would look ridiculous if UVa and UNC signed a GOR but FSU held out; everyone would be like “wait what’s going on here”…
LikeLike
I am just saying. There is no requirement that all participate. If every team except FSU had signed a GOR, how much stronger would the conference be today than it is without anyone have signed a GOR?
Sure, FSU could leave. But nobody else could. Assuming, of course, you believe that the GOR prevents someone from leaving.
LikeLike
Yes, but no one anywhere is going to be willing to do it without just about everyone on board. Say you are Clemson and you want the ACC to succeed and are willing to do it. You see that Florida State isn’t though which makes you nervous they could end up in another conference. The ACC loses a lot of its value to you then (not just money, but a team you like to play) and you aren’t willing to sign unless Florida State signs too (after all, Clemson could be the the other team going with them). Well if Clemson and Florida State aren’t going to sign over, why would anyone in the northeast who wouldn’t mind a Big Ten invite sign on. Sure, they’d take a sure thing ACC over that possibility, but without those two schools you can’t get that anyway. At that point, you have so few schools willing to sign that even those most committed to the conference aren’t going to limit their options by being the only ones to sign a grant of rights.
LikeLike
Sign a grant of rights contingent on Florida State and Clemson being a part of the conference. At least then Florida State and Clemson control the conference destiny.
LikeLike
No one is going to draft or sign something that locks them in if it doesn’t lock everyone in. It’s suicidal, especially when you are doing it because your most unstable programs are also the most valuable ones.
LikeLike
That nobody will do it does not mean that nobody can do it. That was my point.
LikeLike
Swofford holding a presser to announce that 71% of the conference signed a GOR would be lovely.
LikeLike
It’s a lot more lovely than weekly press conferences spinning about the loss of teams that feel the need to leave to ensure that someone else does not take their spot. If everyone except Clemson and FSU had a GOR, there would at least be a solid conference. Instead, people are fleeing out of fear that someone else will flee. This is exactly how Syracuse and Pitt ended up in the ACC–they were told that if they said no, the ACC would ask UConn and Rutgers. Why wouldn’t the Big 10 be doing the same thing with Maryland? Or Georgia Tech? Look, we are expanding whether you like it or not. If it is not Georgia Tech, it will be Virginia or Virginia Tech. We want you most though.
LikeLike
It might be a solid conference, but it would be a death pact financially.
LikeLike
acaffrey:
I can’t see any ACC school besides Wake and BC signing that type of GOR. Any school with any hope of ending up in a better conference if the ACC implodes wouldn’t do it.
LikeLike
I understand that this is the perception (especially in B1G country). But, I truly believe that the first choice of the ACC schools is to remain in a stable ACC. A $50M exit fee of dubious enforceability did not create the stability they all (except UMD and FSU) wanted. A GOR probably would. Maybe FSU is the lone holdout, but if this is the case I put it back on a lack of leadership on Swofford’s part.
It’s looking like only one of the ACC/XII will survive. The ACC currently holds many of the most desirable markets, a long, proud history, a strong relationship with ESPN, and a lot less dead weight than the XII (Wake vs. Iowa St., Baylor, T-Tech, Snyder-less K-State). And, despite the FSU vs. Tobacco Road riff, the ACC doesn’t have the resentment-creating gross inequality of a UT or relative geographic proximity to a potentially imperialistic Pac 12. The ONLY thing the XII has on the ACC is a GOR.
LikeLike
But why should they sign a GOR to guarantee that they remain in the 5th conference on the pecking order.
Perhaps in terms of prestige or whatever, the ACC is higher, but look at the reality:
1) Big Ten/SEC = each get guaranteed 8 games in Rose or Sugar + at least 3 more in Orange
2) Big 12/Pac-12 = each get guaranteed 8 games in Rose or Sugar
3) ACC = gets guaranteed 8 games in Orange
There’s a clear pecking order in terms of money and playoff destination prestige.
LikeLike
Don’t agree with much of anything in your 2nd paragraph
Sorry, ACC has a lot more deadweight, both competitively and financially.
Much more resentment of tobacco road than of Texas among the remaining Big 12 members (Nebraska and A&M are gone-and Nebraska had a pretty good relationship at the adminstrative level). Noone thinks Texas gets any breaks in officiating or from the league office in its penalties. Clemson fans are still talking about what Swofford did in the 80s.
ACC has geographical proximity to the two strongest leagues in long term finances. The Big 12 has noone interested who those two leagues would be interested in.
Scott has big dreams, but the Pac 12 presidents seem to be the most conservative and least imperialistic group.
LikeLike
Slive and Delany are nearing retirement and trying to cement their legacies.
LikeLike
bullet, I think it’s more like they also don’t want successors to screw things up too.
Better in their minds probably to set the conference on a sustainable long-term course…
LikeLike
The Big XII has Texas, and as much as I hate to admit it, that trumps most other conferences alone. I mean, the Southwestern Conference was 8 Texas teams and Arkansas.
LikeLike
Is Florida State is close to gaining AAU status? If they are, wouldn’t GT and FSU coming in together make sense? That would be a fine add for football. Just not sure that the non-AAU status could be overlooked.
LikeLike
Big article in Yahoo today regarding domestic migration to cities. Top 5: 2 in Florida (Tampa and Miami), 3 in Texas (Austin, Dallas, Houston).
I don’t see Maryland or Georgia on this list.
LikeLike
Atlanta has been hit hard by the real estate recession and has higher than average unemployment. There isn’t a lot of in migration right now.
LikeLike
Stop getting my hopes up. Without tapping the Florida market, GT seems like a bridge to nowhere.
LikeLike
A bridge over disinterested water?
LikeLike
GaTech and FSU has got to be the B1G play here if this goes through. Entry into Florida in a major way plus the Atlanta market. One football giant and an academic one. This would also be a death knell to the B12 over time as it ends the possiblilty of future growth for that league. If the B1G is ok going to 18 it still leaves the possibility open for UNC and UVa too.
A very smart play be Delany if true.
LikeLike
darren rovell @darrenrovell
With a BCS bid on the line, only 2.6% of New York City was watching the Rutgers game on ESPN last night.
————————————
Despite that “only”, that’s a pretty good number for a market with 7.5 million households…
Rutgers really just needs to work on its market penetration in northern New Jersey for this to work out; there’s probably at least a million and a half households right there.
LikeLike
Two unranked teams playing on a Thursday; yeah the stakes were high for Rutgers fans, but if they had been ranked and not both blown bad losses the previous week; it likely would have done better.
Here are the other top-rated NYC games in the past back when Rutgers had those two big years:
Rutgers-Louisville in 2006, which drew an 8.1 rating, and includes Rutgers-West Virginia in 2006 (6.04);USC-Ohio State in 2009 (3.74); Rutgers-Cincinnati in 2006 (3.62) and South Florida Rutgers in 2007 (3.35).
LikeLike
Those are just for ESPN btw.
Anyways, my take from this is that the game had the minimum amount of juice that you’d want.
Let’s see what happens when they’re in the Big Ten and a top-ranked Ohio State is visiting.
LikeLike
Isn’t the real issue what is on the line? Both teams were, regardless of record, playing for a BCS bowl appearance. What number would you have not rationalized?
LikeLike
I didn’t even know it was on, to be honest. BigEast BCS appearances also haven’t meant much in the last 5-7 years in regards to moving the needle, no matter who was playing. Their BCS games I would assume have across the board drawn the lowest ratings, but I don’t have numbers backing that up.
LikeLike
So Big East teams are not worth much. Why the self-fellating over the B1G adding one of the worst performers from that conference? If Rutgers best sport with their first chance to go to a major bowl cannot draw ratings, when will it? When it is 11-0 and hosting rival Penn State at 11-0 for the right to win the Legends division? I guess you can look forward to that.
LikeLike
2.6 is a good number for that game.
Under 2 would have been bad. Over 3 would have been terrific and comparable to the lower end of the top 5 all time on ESPN.
But all those top 5 games had highly ranked teams and a lot more hype around them; ESPN was hyping the Big East so much more in 2006-2007 than anything they did the past two weeks; in fact most of the talk was how Rutgers and Louisville were limping to the end here.
2007 Rutgers-USF: USF was #2 in the country and lost @Rutgers. That game pulled a 3.35.
The rankings and hype around the games are important, not just the stakes. Two teams limping to the finish is going to hurt.
LikeLike
So Rutgers needs the Big East to hype a game in order for it to draw ratings? Or does it need ESPN to hype it? You think ESPN going to be hyping Rutgers-Illinois game on the BTN on some saturday afternoon?
2.6 is terrible. It just is. Sorry.
LikeLike
@acaffrey:
I think most people have viewed the Rutgers addition as (1) they could be pretty good if they got their act together long enough to pull it off, and (2) there’s a belief that the massive amount of current BigTen alumni in the area will help justify their addition until they accomplish (1). In the down years, the huge amount of BigTen fans in the area will in theory carry them. In the good years, they’re in a good enough situation to really be something. Look at zeek’s numbers for some of their past games. They don’t need to be OSU-Michigan in 2006, they just need to have consistent numbers.
LikeLike
There’s no other angle on the NYC market.
Has Syracuse or UConn ever drawn over a 1.0 in the NYC market in a football game?
How do you suggest anyone go for that market?
Judge this by the first time a top 5 Ohio State team goes to play at Rutgers. The ratings should be enough to get on the top 5 ESPN list.
LikeLike
OK, if watering down the on-field, on-court product is worth that, then I guess you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.
LikeLike
The 2.6 ranking is terrible considering that Rutgers has never won the Big East or gone to a BCS bowl. This year really was Rutgers chance to show that spending money they didn’t have was worthwhile. Probably doesn’t matter though – as along as the BTN gets $0.50 per sub the Big Ten will get their payday.
LikeLike
2.6 is probably enough to get on the top 10 list (I don’t have the other 5 outside of the top 5, so I don’t know).
I’m not sure what you guys were expecting.
It wasn’t going to be anywhere close to that 8.1 they pulled in 2006.
And it was less of big game than when they knocked off #2 USF in 2007.
So how could you expect it to be much higher than what it was?
LikeLike
Loss last week or not, it was Rutgers’ biggest game in its history. A chance to go to the Orange Bowl.
Rutgers prior bowls:
Pinstripe Bowl: Iowa State
St Petersburg Bowl: Central Florida
PapaJohns; NC State
International: Ball State
Texas: Kansas State
Insight: Arizona State
Garden State: Arizona State
Finally had a chance to get the big press, the big $$$, and a big opponent. If that does not get NYC excited for Rutgers football, you think a regular season game against Ohio State will?
LikeLike
Yes, I think a top 5 Ohio State visiting Rutgers will draw a better rating than last night’s game.
You have to look at the quality of the teams playing and not just the stakes. Why would random viewers be interested in something that’s at stake for just Rutgers fans?
The fact that it drew less than the #2 USF @ Rutgers game is just proof of that.
LikeLike
Query… will Ohio State-Penn State draw bigger ratings in NYC than Ohio State-Rutgers?
LikeLike
And that could be in October (like the USF-Rutgers game).
If you bring a top-ranked hyped all over the place Ohio State team there, that rating will be above 4. I can almost guarantee that.
LikeLike
Of course not.
Rutgers has the largest fanbase in NYC because of the fact that it’s physically located there and they have such a large alumni presence in northern New Jersey (which is a part of the NYC TV market).
Rutgers draws these ratings numbers by just having their local fans in New Jersey watch.
Notre Dame is the 2nd most popular team there; I’d assume that the BCS Championship this year will break the record for ESPN. It’ll probably pull a 10-15 or more kind of number in NYC.
Ohio State and Penn State are probably in the #3-7 range with Michigan among others.
LikeLike
A good question is whether Ohio St. playing Penn St. will draw better ratings in NYC & Philadelphia now that Rutgers is in the league.
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
Of course, I guess it depends on whether it is October or not. Apparently, the fan base is only mobilized at that time of year.
LikeLike
@acaffrey
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at here. Ratings grow and decline over a season based on wins and losses.
It’s why ND-USC was so big this year and Alabama-LSU (regular season) was so big last year. Same as why Michigan-Ohio State was so big in 2007.
Ratings are dependent heavily on momentum and the like of both teams. If both teams take a deflating loss before the Big East championship matchup, that would douse the ratings. It’s just the nature of how ratings work.
What’s at stake in the game is important, but the narrative leading up to the game is just as important. That’s why bowl games tend to be hesitant to take the loser of CCGs; the fanbase is always affected following losses, whether big or small, and it shows up in the way TV ratings oscillate.
The narrative this past week was that the Big East Championship was being fought over by two unranked teams that spent the previous weekend losing to UConn and Pitt. It’s hard to draw a better rating for that kind of matchup.
LikeLike
OK. If that makes you feel better.
One would think that Rutgers could market itself in a way to capture the NYC market for this game. The bottom line is that they are a poorly run athletic department. With the same TV revenue as Louisville, the latter has an athletic department that thrives. And its not like the NYC market does not have corporations around to contribute. It’s not like Louisville had football success before Rutgers’ rise to mediocrity. They both became BCS relevant at about the same time, in the watered-down Big East.
Throwing more money at Rutgers is not going to make them competent or relevant. It is just going to mask the problems.
LikeLike
Rutgers isn’t really much like Louisville though. Louisville has a comprehensive athletics department including the most powerful revenue generating basketball program that anyone’s ever seen. (Rutgers’ basketball program is like Northwestern’s…)
Louisville already has a bigger athletics budget than anyone else in the ACC and that’s with the current Big East revenue share.
They’re like already a top half Big Ten or SEC type of athletics department…
As for Rutgers, they have a long way to go; I think they can eventually consistently get their ratings up over time in the Big Ten; I expect to see them pull better ratings over time as their alumni base increases in size and as the New Jersey market more closely identifies with the Big Ten.
It’s going to take a lot of work though, and that 2.6 isn’t where their “big stakes” Big Ten games are in the future.
But it will take 20 years to judge that…
LikeLike
zeek,
He’s an angry Syracuse fan, upset that no praise or desire is heading SU’s way. If the BE gets positive talk now, it makes him mad. If RU does, it makes him mad. Now SU is being ignored in the talk of desirable ACC teams if and when the ACC falls apart, so he’s throwing a tantrum.
LikeLike
Really? That’s your argument? Lol…
If anyone should be angry about anything, it is the fact that schools like UConn and Temple and Cincinnati and USF were deemed part of the “haves” and then had it taken away. These schools have done nothing wrong. They invested in their programs. And now just because certain conferences/universities need an extra $10M to run their sports programs, those schools have to sweat out what happens to them?
If this had happened in 1984, Virginia Tech would have been a “have not.” If this had happened in 1980, would Florida State be desired? What about UConn and 1988? What schools are going to be deprived of a chance to rise up through the ranks (or even rankings) as the money-obsessed push forward toward breaking away from the NCAA? These schools not only improved on the field, but that improved their educational departments too.
UConn football has been to a BCS bowl. UConn’s mens and womens basketball teams have won championships. They are improving academically and far from an embarrassment. They did this on Big East revenue. And yet the thousands of fans that follow that team have to worry, just because already-rich schools have to make a little more money.
So, yeah, I will not mind at all if these moves implode for the B1G.
LikeLike
Just for reference the ND vs USC game was a 9.4 rating, highest since Michigan vs tOSU in 2006(maybe wrong year) which was a 13.
Obviously, completely different games. ND was playing to go to the NC, and other teams had a stake in that game as well to see who plays for the NC.
LikeLike
All the numbers I’m posting are just NYC numbers; are those NYC numbers or national numbers?
LikeLike
National Numbers.
LikeLike
BCS Bid is faux achievement hyped by ESPN, ADs to boosters and coaches on resumes. To pretend like “BCS bid on the line” is interesting to anyone other than hardcore alumni care about is crazy.
LikeLike
How close is Virginia Tech to gaining AAU status? If the Big Ten wants to entrench themselves in the DC/Baltimore market area it might be beneficial to possibly take a stretch on Virginia Tech in order to land Virginia as well. I’m a Notre Dame alum who has lived in the DC area and I know Virginia Tech has a presence there. This also would open up recruiting in the tide water region which is very under-rated. Just my two cents as an outsider looking in. I’m not sure how the pods would work, but if they wanted to to do divisions of 8, it’d look very clean East to West:
Virginia Tech/Virginia/Maryland/Rutgers/Penn St/Ohio St/Purdue/Indiana
Michigan/Michigan St/Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska/Minnesota/Illinois/Northwestern
Just an outsiders two cents.
LikeLike
Something tells me Ohio State would be more than happy with those divisions.
LikeLike
As long as they play Michigan every year in the last game of the regular season, 95% of OSU fans don’t care who else is in the division. But given where OSU recruits, and where its alumni are located, those would be fantastic divisions.
LikeLike
No argument here. It would work out quite well for OSU…which is what I said.
LikeLike
As an Ohio State fan, I’d despise those divisions. That’s not a Big Ten schedule. That’s an east coast conference schedule where we happen to keep Michigan, Indiana, and Purdue.
LikeLike
Right. As a fellow OSU fan, I’m fine with it. Play Michigan, play PSU, play another random BigTen team, then stomp the rest of the east and meet another BigTen team in the CCG.
That said, 16 team divisions don’t really work. Pods would make more sense at that size.
LikeLike
Nick in South Bend,
“Something tells me Ohio State would be more than happy with those divisions.”
It would get a very split reaction. Many OSU fans care about playing the other B10 schools, so they’d be upset. As for your implication of an easy division, let’s pair them up by success level:
Even – OSU/MI, PSU/NE, VT/WI, PU/MN, IN/IL, RU/NW
Pro-West – UVA/MSU, MD/IA
That’s not as uneven as it looks at first glance.
LikeLike
UMD, however, has far more fertile recruiting grounds than Iowa.
LikeLike
They won’t be divisions of 8 or static divisions of 8.
They’ll be 4 pods of 4 with dynamic divisions of 8.
You can’t lock that much of the schedule down; the pods have to rotate to form the 2 divisions…
LikeLike
@zeek, yeah I understand the nightmare two 8 team divisions would create as far as scheduling. I stated that I wasn’t sure how they’d do the pods; the difficulty would come in where to put Penn St. Anyway, Georgia Tech would be a terrible add for the Big Ten (like most of you have stated without the add of Notre Dame which I am more than confident is set as an independent). Even with Florida St in as a partner I’m not sure this would be a good move.
LikeLike
With UVa & VTech?
PSU in a pod with UMD, UVa, & VTech. Rutgers gets put in a Midwestern pod with either Michigan or OSU (so they have a giant coming through regularly, so they can’t complain too much), and with cross-over games, they could play UMD annually as well.
LikeLike
OrderRestored83,
“I’m not sure how the pods would work, but if they wanted to to do divisions of 8, it’d look very clean East to West:”
Try these.
E – PSU, MD, RU, UVA
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, VT, PU, IN
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
Locked rivals: OSU/MI, NE/PSU, VT/UVA, WI/MSU, MD/IL, IA/NW, MN/IN, RU/PU
LikeLike
More speculation on GT to B1G with a bit of an overblown headline
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2012/11/30/3710442/georgia-tech-approved-by-big-ten-conference-expansion
LikeLike
It is all drawing from the same source though. That WV blog.
LikeLike
No, he is saying he dismissed WVU. He’s quoting a Clemson source. Clemson guy is supposedly getting info from B1G country.
LikeLike
AFAIK, it’s being reported because it’s being reported. I’ve yet to hear anything concrete or something that isn’t basically a retween and gossip.
LikeLike
I’ve been on board the expansion express for a while, but if Georgia Tech isn’t coming with Notre Dame in tow, they’ve thrown me overboard.
Give me UVa/Va Tech or just don’t expand. Please…
LikeLike
Again, I agree 100%.
LikeLike
I am with you. Nothing against GT, but at that point I would switch from “Delany is a genius” to “Delany’s plan blew up on him and he is now grasping at straws.” GT is a solid second addition to a very strong first addition. They don’t deliver much on their own.
I kind of think that, if this rumor has credence, it is a smokescreen for other stuff. Such as UVA or NC or whatever. Kind of like Missouri was for a while.
LikeLike
I just can’t make this make sense is my problem.
Unless it’s Notre Dame or Florida State or a king of that quality; there’s no reason for Georgia Tech to be joining.
There just isn’t.
This would be the absolute equivalent of the SEC taking Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
GT doesn’t make sense. Presidents running the show, Delany running the show, Fox running the show…none of the potential power brokers in this situation would find GT to make a whole lot of sense to be honest, unless of course with an FSU or ND or whatever.
LikeLike
Actually, the Presidents would be impressed by GT academically. Delany might like planting his flag far away. Don’t know about Fox.
LikeLike
Yeah bullet is right on that.
The presidents would love Georgia Tech regardless of football as an academic add.
LikeLike
Agree with you bullet…..if GT rumor is true, it’s likely all about the presidents….Delany wouldn’t be that dumb.
LikeLike
On all the moves to 14, I’ve been, “Why???”
Big East adds Memphis as #13
CUSA adds Charlotte who doesn’t have a team yet and ODU who started one just a couple years ago
ACC adds Pitt and Syracuse
Big 10 adds Maryland and Rutgers
SEC adds A&M and Missouri
I understand “why” they did all these things. The question is why do they need to do it with all the downsides?
Memphis was a market and a good bb program with a lot of upside in football. But are they worth later taking Tulane as #14?
Charlotte and ODU can prove themselves somewhere else even if they add and market and, as I suspected, their primary supporter ECU leaves for greener fields. Now CUSA has two new weak programs out on a peninsula in an already weak league.
Pitt and SU kill the BE, but why is that necessary? Could they have convinced ESPN to look-in without expansion?
Maryland and Rutgers have lots of potential advantages as I have pointed out, but the Big 10 didn’t “need” to expand. They are reducing rivalries for something that is not going to bring immediate significant increases in $ and lowers the overall competitiveness of the conference. Big 10 is going to be most profitable without them.
A&M adds a massive market and devoted fan base to SEC, but the SEC will in the long run likely be the 2nd most profitable conference with or without them. And it dilutes some very old rivalries. Other than Arkansas and LSU, their fan bases just aren’t interested in the new members.
North Carolina could probably write their ticket for lots more money in the Big 10 or SEC. They don’t want to. Colorado headed off to the Pac without regard to the TV dollars. It isn’t necessary for college conferences to maximize revenue. And the teams added for #s13 and #14 don’t move the needle except negatively in competitveness and don’t move it much financially (maybe A&M does).
LikeLike
It is one of those two or UNC. GT is a tree that the B1G is shaking so something else falls out. FSU, ND, or UNC.
Basketball and Hockey are more substantial now with kings being claimed and 8 other months in the year. Those three have followings and high revenue Athletics.
LikeLike
Why add Texas A&M? LOL.
LikeLike
Missouri was real though. I’m not sure they ever received an official invite, but they were the clear favorites going into the process and they knew it.
But, at the time, panic was driving the Big XII into a frenzy, with several schools pointing fingers at one another. I remember that was about the time this blog blew up. The Big XII conference demanded a commitment from Nebraska and Missouri, at which point Harvey Perlman called Jim Delany and started serious talks. Up until that point, neither party was sure the other was interested.
The process was very whirlwind; very short. Perlman and Tom Osborne made a very convincing argument about why Nebraska brought more value as a “brand” than other schools did with population alone. Or so says Perlman anyway. He gave a really interesting interview a few years ago about how things went down on Nebraska’s end.
LikeLike
Delany better keep in mind that if you decide to destroy the family home, forsaking its history and sentimental attachment, you had better replace it with something bigger, better and more exciting.
I think the Big Ten is coming perilously close to alienated its fan base. If they aren’t careful with these remaining additions the Big Ten bubble could burst.
LikeLike
Over the short/medium term, I think the Big Ten is fine. If college football declines in popularity though over the next several decades though, this is recipe for destroying the conference. They say these are 100 year decisions, but I really feel they only help the conference if we assume things stay relatively close to how they are now and that’s a dangerous assumption.
LikeLike
I agree. I think they are make a few risky assumptions.
LikeLike
The assumptions don’t have much risk for Rutgers or Maryland though; demographically they make sense. They’re two big flagships of big university systems located in primo real estate.
It’ll be hard for those two to be proven bad additions. At worst Maryland ends up like Illinois and Rutgers ends up like Minnesota as far as football/basketball quality goes; at least you have two huge schools pumping out alumni into primary markets like Illinois does…
There’s huge red flags though about taking Georgia Tech. The potential for that to not work out is significantly greater because there’s nothing really safe about Georgia Tech as an addition…
LikeLike
In a world where football is banned, most of the B1G schools would be much happier associating with Georgia Tech than Nebraska.
LikeLike
Well, at least you managed to find one safe thing…
LikeLike
Not so much that football will actually be banned or massively reformed (IMO this will happen, but different subject that invalidates much of the college sports landscape…), but the ONLY reason Nebraska is in the B1G is because of the Nebraska football brand. Demographically the state is going poof, it doesn’t do anything in any other sport, it was never much for academics by B1G standards and then lost AAU, etc.
Sure, it’s adjacent, but there are lots of adjacent or same footprint schools the B1G schools have never associated with in any aspect, to any real degree.
As an institutional addition, Georgia Tech is on par with Maryland & Rutgers and all are hugely superior to a Nebraska. Demographically vibrant home turf, good endowment, excellent academic reputation, excellent research funding & brand, etc.
LikeLike
The problem though is that Georgia Tech is basically like a private elite school. It’s like adding another Northwestern.
They haven’t done that yet…
LikeLike
Then we’d better add Princeton and Columbia…
LikeLike
Peter….Neb. is a top 20-30 school in the Director’s Cup…so it’s not just football……but I get your point.
LikeLike
Peter, Nebraska’ state population is not going poof. It will steadily climb however it won’t have a crazy boom. Women’s volleyball is a national title contender every year, women’s bball is typically ranked in the top 25, football is currently ranked in the top 15, men’s basketball has over $200 million in projects, including a new arena, going up. Also the endowment at Nebraska is greater than Maryland and Rutgers btw. Over $1.2B. Perhaps you should educate yourself on topics before you talk about them?
LikeLike
But look at these charts! Don’t spreadsheets excite you? What about subpar football?
LikeLike
I don’t get Frank’s obsession with Miami. Other than undergraduate academic rankings and location, what advantages does it have over FSU? FSU just seems like it fits the b10s model much better.
Advantages for FSU
FSU’s enrollment is 41.7k, Miami’s 15.6
FSU is public, Miami is not
Both are below B10 standards in research, but pretty close to each other.
FSU is just as much of a national brand of Miami(maybe I’m wrong here) and has way less risk of getting some severe institutional penalties in the near future.
FSU with significantly more alumni is probably more likely to get you a higher carriage rate in FL.
LikeLike
Miami (FL) I believe is AAU. There’s also a lot of Big Ten alumni in the area.
Personally, I don’t care for either choice. If we have to go to 16, I’d rather not have any more kings.
LikeLike
Miami is not AAU.
http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474
LikeLike
Miami is not AAU
LikeLike
Miami isn’t AAU but it’s really close to AAU on the AAU metrics…
Much closer than anyone else in this discussion whether Va Tech (not really that close) or FSU (against not really that close).
LikeLike
I don’t think Miami happens for anyone because of the serious death penalty potential. IF that was cleared away and IF Miami looked like it could be good again without being dirty…
LikeLike
Yeah, there’s no way you can add Miami right now.
They cancelled bowl games for two straight years proactively; they have to be expecting something close to what Penn State got…
LikeLike
FSU would be the logical pick. If this really is a ‘100 year decision’ FSU could achieve AAU status in the (relatively) near future. What good is expansion if it’s purely for academic reasons? You have to chose schools that earn their weight or it defeats the purpose. Maryland and Rutgers may in the future. GT not even close.
LikeLike
No soup for you…..and no FSU.
LikeLike
The only school less likely? -Uconn
LikeLike
FWIW, FSU is closer to Columbus than it is to Austin. 🙂 I may be alone here, but if it’s GT and FSU, I’m thrilled.
LikeLike
U Conn would be better than KU, which seems to be getting serious consideration……………
LikeLike
FSU make a great deal of sense.
TV market? Check
Football Brand? Check
Upward Potential? Check
Recruiting Base? Check
Academics? Better than NU who was already added.
It would be a great add for the B1G.
LikeLike
Problem #1 though
Are they interested?
Same issue the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) had with Texas A&M.
FSU really may not be interested in moving anywhere but the SEC, which seems to only want new markets in Virginia/North Carolina; thus, they may prefer a solid ACC over the Big 12 or Big Ten…
LikeLike
FranktheAg, FSU is in a virtual tie with UNL on the US News rankings in a tie at #97. It is a fine institution that is very large and I would like them in the B1G – I am just not sure how they can be considered better by any metric vs. UNL.
LikeLike
brindelin,
“I don’t get Frank’s obsession with Miami.”
I don’t either, but obsession is way too strong. Fascination, maybe.
“Other than undergraduate academic rankings and location, what advantages does it have over FSU?”
Miami is 68-85 in ARWU, FSU is 86-109. They use similar criteria to the AAU. The AAU list from NE has Miami at 59 and FSU at 94.
Outside of academics, I agree with you. Both are too far away and have too many negatives to be realistic options right now.
LikeLike
Both academics & culture, I would say. FSU boards actually seem far more reasonable than certain unnamed SEC (or even other ACC) ones, but the reaction of their former chair of the board (who seemed to think FSU existed to play football) was a warning sign.
LikeLike
Miami isn’t an obsession, but I don’t quite get what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by a lot of people in not considering them.
They aren’t an AAU member, but compared to some of the members that were accepted long ago (e.g. Kansas), they have the academic credentials to be in it and, for undergrad, they’d be ranked #4 in the Big Ten for the US News rankings (after only Northwestern, Michigan and Wisconsin). To me, they qualify in terms of academics.
If you’re worried about fair weather fans, it’s not exactly like Maryland and Rutgers (outside of great seasons by their standards like this year) tear it up on the attendance front. Miami at least is one of the best national TV draws in the country.
If you’re worried about sanctions for Miami, then we ought to be worried about sanctions for UNC. Yet, I doubt anyone here would pass up UNC on the basis of possible NCAA sanctions in the future.
Culturally, it’s the one power conference school that’s in a Sun Belt state that is legitimately more tied to the North than it is to the South. Just this past week, the Chicago Tribune had an extensive report about the out-of-state universities that take the most Illinois high school grads. Outside of the Midwestern schools plus Kentucky (which borders southern Illinois), the only power conference schools that drew over 100 freshmen last year from Illinois were Colorado, Arizona State, Arizona and… Miami. About 5% of Miami’s freshmen class came from Illinois (a higher percentage than every Big Ten school except for Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin and Michigan) and my understanding is that a much greater proportion of Miami students come from the key New York/New Jersey corridor that the Big Ten is trying to lock down.
Demographically, it’s located in one of the fastest growing regions in the US and arguably the best pound-for-pound football recruiting area in the country (the southern half of Florida).
I have a heck of an easier time seeing Miami competing for national championships in football in 5-10 years down the line than I do with any other school from the ACC besides Florida State (and certainly more than Rutgers or Maryland). Even if Miami suffers from sanctions, their location is literally the best place for football recruiting outside of USC. Certainly, no one doubts that USC will recover quickly from the effect of its latest sanctions, so I’m not sure why Miami is really much different.
So, Miami has the academics, TV market, demographics, cultural connection to the North, football history and football recruiting grounds that the Big Ten ought to want. Yet, I see a lot of people trying to convince themselves that Georgia Tech makes more sense. From my vantage point, the only way that GT makes more sense is purely that it’s a public AAU school. On every other metric, Miami brings more value, whether it’s football, national TV value or overall synergies with existing Big Ten members as a Northern school that happens to be located in the South.
To be clear, I don’t really want the Big Ten to expand further at a personal level. However, I’d much rather have Miami over Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
When USC is down, its fair weather fans dwindle and they drop to 60k or so in attendance. With Miami its 28k. There’s some concern Shalala is fed up and will tighten the reins so that Miami looks more like Duke or SMU as a football school. That combined with the sanctions could make it impossible to recover. Also, USF and UCF can potentially take some of the in-state people Miami might have gotten. Its already fiercely competitive in Florida as every SEC school but A&M, the whole ACC and many of the Big 10 schools recruit there.
I’m of the opinion that they will be back. But I’m in a small minority on the Big 12 boards.
The gangsta image is an additional consideration. If you think like a university president, you may not want to be associated with U of Miami. The rumors are that is a consideration among TPTB in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Miami isn’t an obsession, but I don’t quite get what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by a lot of people in not considering them.”
It isn’t kneejerk. It’s the combination of factors that makes Miami seem an odd choice.
“They aren’t an AAU member, …
If you’re worried about fair weather fans, …
If you’re worried about sanctions for Miami, …”
On top of that, it is the most removed school from the B10 footprint in the east that you could consider.
Name one other candidate with that many strikes against it. That’s the issue many of us have with Miami. The other schools all have 1 or maybe 2 strikes against them before we dismiss them, but you’re giving Miami a chance with 4 strikes. we all acknowledge the positives for Miami, we just cant’ see past all the negatives.
“Culturally, it’s the one power conference school that’s in a Sun Belt state that is legitimately more tied to the North than it is to the South.”
Duke?
LikeLike
Frank the Tank wrote: “So, Miami has the academics, TV market, demographics, cultural connection to the North, football history and football recruiting grounds that the Big Ten ought to want”
Sorry, Frank, Miami’s academics just don’t cut it. Not only are they not AAU, their ARWU rank is the same as Nebraska’s, and we all know the B1G presidents are not going that low again.
Nebraska only got in because of its pristine football pedigree. Miami’s checkered past and potential sanctions make it much less attractive.
In addition, Miami is significantly smaller than Nebraska and is way outsie the B1G footprint. I would hate to see the B1G do a “big east” and add teams from every corner of the country.
Miami? No way.
LikeLike
Trending upwards very fast, going down the same route USC and NYU (and Stanford) did years ago.
Trust me, adding Miami would not hurt the B10 academic reputation.
My biggest concern about Miami is actually global warming.
LikeLike
Miami = Stanford ??? You must be joking.
LikeLike
Trying to make sense of it all…
The Top American Research Universities
Click to access research2011.pdf
Maryland – middle of group 2
Rutgers – middle-top of group 3
Georgia Tech – bottom of group 1
Other “candidates”:
Duke – middle of group 1
UNC – middle of group 1
Pitt – middle of group 1, but redundant footprint
Virginia – middle of group 2
VA Tech – top of group 3
Miami – top of group 3
Missouri – bottom of group 3
LikeLike
FSU – bottom of group 3
LikeLike
AAU uses their own metrics (why Nebraska and other ag schools get docked so heavily).
Click to access u-of-nebraska-aau-membership-review.pdf
Here’s the internals that Perlman provided:
It shows you where some of the non-AAU’s are relative to one another.
Georgia Tech – 31 (most recent AAU admit; roughly 50th% of AAUs given that everyone above is practically AAU)
Miami’s right below the 25th% of AAUs at 59
UConn – 81
Virginia Tech – 91
Florida State – 94
Notre Dame – 99
Nebraska – 109
Georgia – 110
LikeLike
zeek,
Isn’t Boston U the newest member?
LikeLike
Ah, didn’t realize they were just invited that recently.
LikeLike
greg,
Don’t forget RU just got to add their medical/dental school, so they’ll gain a lot in research money.
LikeLike
I think it’s nuts that a lot of you can’t see the value in GTech. That’s a program with great history, but in a down cycle due to ACC incompetence across the board. Ga is always a top 5 hs football state. Tech is one genius coaching hire away from sustained excellence. It would be fascinating to see an in-state rivalry game that puts the SEC vs the BG on an annual basis. If some of you actually think Md or Rutgers have a better chance at becoming football relevant than Ga Tech down the road – wow!
We all have a tendency to overlook that programs can either come out of nowhere (Oregon, Boise State, certainly Wisky the past 20 years, God I remember when the Badgers were subpar, & of course Miami’s meteoric rise, then fall from the 80s – 2002), or programs become them ole selves again, which is where Ga Tech lies. Ga Tech has had great success in both football and hoops. Ga Tech is also not as far from the tOSU, Purdue, Ann Arbor, Bloomington, and Urbana Champaign as you think: roughly 8-11 hour drives to most of these places.
The state of Ga has room for two marquee football programs – to see a split between the mighty SEC and B1G, again, will be fascinating OOC rivalry. If Ga Tech makes a great coaching hire, or the current coach turns the program around, there is no reason it can’t be the Stanford of the South, another program that has proven excellent coaching hires translate into consistent success.
Atl is also home to a lot of B1G alum.
The B1G clearly sits in a solid position with the Va schools – the SEC won’t take both & they’ll likely shoot for Va Tech & a NC school and call it a day. Scoring either school, likely UVa, puts the BIG above the SEC in market share because Md has some influence in NoVa – DC. Once you combine Md with Va or Va Tech the BTN is comfortably placed in Va. UVa n Md bring a historic rivalry, many sports, into the B1G, and of course each have developed rivalries with Ga Tech going back to 1978,.
Also want to mention that in football recruiting: Va and Ga produce more per capita talent than NC. The prep football in Ga and Va is only getting better. Some of you seem to forget that while NC produces solid football talent, prep hoops is king in that state, which I saw firsthand for many years. Only Indiana truly compares, they’re about a draw in my opinion.
Programs like Mi, tOSU, PSU, & Neb only need a common opponent in Ga or Va to factor successfully on the football recruiting trail – doesn’t matter if the SEC is competing in these states. These B1G bluebloods will have a better chance at Va or Ga recruits if BIG members exist there. If only an SEC presence, scoring Va or Ga recruits becomes harder. These kids have friends and secondary family members that can’t attend the bulk of road games – if the BTN is present – it provides further justification for recruits to choose a B1G school.
The B1G, btw, is fine without ND. They can remain independent. If the B1G becomes 16, ND can split games between us and the Pac 12 & be where they currently are: playing for a NC. A watered down ACC will still be a formidable conference for the Olympic Sports ND values, you got to suspect that Duke may be stuck reviving a combo of Big East and ACC basketball powers – thus here comes Nova, Marquette and Georgetown – all fellow Catholic schools for ND’s olympic sports. Damn, a hybrid Big East – ACC would be an awesome hoops conference, esp if UConn can’t find a major conference – sports such as Lax and soccer (<–ND values) would be quite strong as well.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s going to work like that.
This is the equivalent of the SEC adding Pitt. I really think that. It would have to be a decision made by the presidents/COPC and not Delany and his bean counters.
Georgia Tech is terrific academically, but it gives nothing that the Big Ten gets out of Maryland/Rutgers, which are two large enrollment universities that pump large numbers of alumni into their direct markets in D.C.-Baltimore and NYC-Philly.
It’s hard to see how Ohio State is going to win recruiting battles against any of the SEC powerhouses because they play 1 game every couple of years in Atlanta. It might help marginally, but it’s not going to make enough of a difference against how dominant the SEC is in that market.
LikeLike
OSU tries to recruit Georgia pretty hard, but the results are mixed. Cam Heyward and Bradley Roby are two players that have come from Georgia off the top of my head, but it’s an uphill battle. The only way I think OSU would have any real improvement with the addition of GT is if they faced each other each year. Otherwise the recruitment argument doesn’t work as easily as it would for the Maryland/Rutgers adds.
At least from OSU’s perspective; other BigTen teams’ alumni base are probably different.
LikeLike
“This is the equivalent of the SEC adding Pitt.”
I wonder how many SEC Alumni live in the Pittsburgh area. Somehow this was in important consideration for east coach adds, but not GT. Pittsburgh area is also not growing like Atlanta.
LikeLike
True, but you get the analogy. It’s just hard to consider adding a distant 2nd in a market like that after all of the Big Ten’s past moves.
LikeLike
schwarm,
“This is the equivalent of the SEC adding Pitt.”
I wonder how many SEC Alumni live in the Pittsburgh area. Somehow this was in important consideration for east coach adds, but not GT. Pittsburgh area is also not growing like Atlanta.
1. The east coast has a lot more B10 alums than Atlanta does.
2. The east coast isn’t dominated by the SEC or any other CFB conference.
3. The east coast talk was about building a market for CFB, and that’s not the issue in Atlanta.
NYC/DC = neutrals
Atlanta = enemies
LikeLike
Because it’s like Pitt, Texas Tech, or San Diego State: They don’t make the league any money, they have no fans, they’re too “different” for most fans to accept (especially when Rutgers and Maryland were met with hostility), and they happen to be located in places where Jim Delany wants to vacation.
The SEC won’t add them for a reason and with their lack of a regional network, they should be grabbing all the local, national draws they can.
LikeLike
Jim Delany wants to vacation in Lubbock????
LikeLike
Texas. The point being, you can’t sneak your way into an area. People are giving Maryland and Rutgers the benefit of a doubt because they have no real in-state competition.
It’s like calling Chicago an American League town. It just isn’t.
LikeLike
You are thinking narrowly. The American League has a 500-year plan.
LikeLike
Hey buddy. Sox fan here; you obviously don’t spend much time in the more populated half of the city. The Sox are the only actual baseball-playing team in Chicago. The Cubs are an amusement. 🙂
LikeLike
@B1g Jeff – You’ll get no disagreement from me.
LikeLike
My main issue with GTech is their enrollment is too small, Nebraska got a pass on that based on being a King, but I’d prefer to continue adding large universities or universities who have a draw much larger than their alumni base.
Having a large fan base, preferably alumni, seem to be a good hedge against the game radically changing with regards to forced carriage.
LikeLike
Completely agree. GT has long been one of my favorite potential additions. Great academics, big footprint expansion into a college sports town, and they have a strong history in both Football and Basketball.
You make a terrific point about the GT/UGA game too. The addition would give the B1G, on an every other year basis a thanksgiving weekend lineup of, OSU/UM, UGA/GT, Nebraska/Iowa, PSUv.XXXXX and potentially other games with BIG championship implications. That is an awesome slate of games at the most important ad weekend of the year. If it does add GT, I think the B1G’s next major push will be to add FSU. On top of everything else, go ahead and do the math if the B1G controlled FSU/UF when it doesn’t control GT/UGA.
LikeLike
Great…..a once/year pre-bowl reminder of how the SEC is kicking the BIG’s football ass………..
LikeLike
Well, the perception exists already and the only way to change the perception is to play the SEC head to head.
LikeLike
Gfunk,
“I think it’s nuts that a lot of you can’t see the value in GTech.”
Maybe we can see the true value, and you can’t.
“That’s a program with great history,”
Not really. Kings have great history. GT is not a king. They have very good history at best.
All time wins: 17th (prince)
Past 50 years: 33rd
Past 20 years: 34th
GT has found their level in modern football, and it isn’t even a prince. They aren’t bad, but they aren’t great, either.
“but in a down cycle due to ACC incompetence across the board.”
No, they’re down because the SEC is better. GT was better when they were in the SEC. Now, they get the recruiting crumbs left after the SEC picks over Atlanta and the rest of GA.
“It would be fascinating to see an in-state rivalry game that puts the SEC vs the BG on an annual basis.”
Why? 87 bowls per year isn’t enough? We need to add a little brother loss 75% of the time to the mix?
“If some of you actually think Md or Rutgers have a better chance at becoming football relevant than Ga Tech down the road – wow!”
Probably not, but the B10 might better be able to monetize them than GT.
“We all have a tendency to overlook that programs can either come out of nowhere (Oregon, Boise State, certainly Wisky the past 20 years, God I remember when the Badgers were subpar, & of course Miami’s meteoric rise, then fall from the 80s – 2002),”
We know it can happen, but it’s unpredictable so why worry about it?
“or programs become them ole selves again, which is where Ga Tech lies.”
Bull. They’ve been at the same level for 50 years. What came before that is the anomaly.
“Atl is also home to a lot of B1G alum.”
And a whole lot more SEC alums.
LikeLike
Ga Tech has better history than the likes of TTech or SDSU, not even close. Pitt’s storied past semi-counter argues Ga Tech’s past – but Pa doesn’t have better hs football talent than Ga. Ga Tech has far more upside than Pitt in terms of local talent & the fact that they aren’t stuck sharing an NFL stadium. Plus Pitt to the BIG saturates the market, whereas Ga Tech offers an alternative to the SEC – clearly two different conferences.
Ga Tech doesn’t look attractive right now because they’ve had a bad decade, but during that run they’ve dominated teams like UNC, Clemson, they’ve been about even with Miami & FSU head-to-head. They’ve oddly been dominated by Va Tech. Ga has dominated them, but many of the games have been closer than most realize.
I honestly think Ga Tech needs a big, younger name to revive their program.
As bad as Ga Tech has been the past decade, if you use the Bobby Dodd measuring stick, they still post a 21-18 bowl record, which is better than most of the B1G.
I also imagine that if Ga Tech joins the B1G, it will be tOSU that benefits the most – Columbus is a 7-8 hour drive to Atl – thus the two will be in the same division or pod.
LikeLike
I have a very healthy skepticism of any Georgia Tech to the Big Ten rumors. However, if you want to talk about B1G Armageddon, I’ll once again say that people would be remiss to ignore Miami as a potential addition along with them (regardless of the fact that they are private and not an AAU member). It’s a Northern school in culture that happens to be located in the South and the southern half of Florida is disproportionately filled with Midwestern transplants. It’s not an accident that the Big Ten chooses to play 3 New Year’s Day games in the state of Florida and just signed up with the Orange Bowl. Also, I don’t think potential sanctions would scare away the Big Ten from Miami any more than what could occur at UNC. If the Big Ten is being forthcoming about getting schools that maximize the synergies with existing members, then Miami should be in play.
LikeLike
And, again, I think you’re crazy Frank. 🙂
Small, private, non-AAU, unable to stay out of the NCAA crosshairs and still win. The very definition of a fair weather fanbase that, if I recall correctly, couldn’t even sell their allotment of BCS NCG tickets when they were going for back-to-back championships in 2002.
It’s a Northern school that happens to be in the South, but also happens to have neither region really care about them until they’re winning big and/or supplying yachts full of hookers and blow for their players. The BigTen was furious about the PSU and OSU stuff blowing up at the same time, and now they’re going to consider perhaps the social definition for the term “out of control college football programs”?
LikeLike
yes….pretty crazy….Miami would be the answer to the question: “What could be worse for the Big than adding G Tech and Kansas”?
LikeLike
How are you going to sell this to the alumni and fans? Or the presidents and chancellors for that matter?
Miami’s like a crooked Notre Dame, located far, far away, and has a very fickle fanbase.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech doesn’t make much sense if the endgame is a 16 team league. After being unable to attract Texas as #12, perhaps Delaney has a new “electoral” strategy?
LikeLike
About Miami:
You have to remember, when you’re a healthy conference looking to expand (as opposed to a BE or ACC expanding just to stay relevant/alive), you have to ask the question: what’s in it for the current membership.
The reasons for both GTech & Miami (and Rutgers & UMD) are obvious: they’re in major growing population centers with a lot of your school’s alums and fans and they provide fertile recruiting grounds for both the football team and general student body. The academics/research also fit the profile (Miami isn’t AAU, but they are close and have improved academically dramatically, following the path that other urban private schools in desirable locales like USC and NYU, and, before that, Stanford, went down). Miami doesn’t have to be a king; in fact, I’d prefer it if they kept their nose clean and recruited like Northwestern (and I think the B10 presidents would prefer that as well). However, SFL is as populous as MD, and the BTN has a better chance of going on basic there (with all the B10 transplants) than Atlanta. SFL being so far from everywhere is also an advantage as well. When you’re not within driving distance of any good school besides the U, you’d be more willing to consider B10 schools.
LikeLike
So the Big 10 should add SMU?
LikeLike
No, Rice. Houston is growing faster than Dallas. Plus that spoiled frat-boy school is not AAU.
LikeLike
Yes, but SMU has history of corruption fueled football success just like Miami…
LikeLike
Indeed. SMU’s research isn’t up to par. Plus while the U + B10 transplants can deliver SFL, SMU would not deliver the Metroplex.
A Rice addition would be very much like a GTech addition, come to think of it (which is why I am lukewarm about GTech).
LikeLike
Even with the Big 10 transplants I’m not sure the U could get the Big 10 in South Florida on basic.
Plus, with the glacial pace of recent AAU expansion (in the past decade they have added 1 school while tossing out 2 others) it could be decades before Miami gets in even if they are close to \admission standards.
LikeLike
And Rice has a prettier campus and better stadium.
If GT/UVA is true, I’m beginning to think Richard may be on to something with regard to 18 or 20.
LikeLike
@Frank – I’m skeptical was well. The timing just doesn’t sound right. I doubt the Big Ten would do anything to take away from the Big Ten championship game and then Sunday is bowl selection day. Not exactly the best time to generate publicity for new members.
LikeLike
The sanctions Miami are facing are much worse than UNC, and unlike UNC (who will always be competitive in BB have a devoted fansbase) there is no guarantee that Miami will ever recover.
Miami has a horrible fan base, subpar facilities and tons of baggage. Unless they are winning 10 games a year they are deadweight, and I seriously doubt they will ever do that consistently.
LikeLike
UNC seems to warrant their own stiff sanctions (apparent institutionalized academic fraud), but Miami is in a whole class by itself because of the willful violator and repeat violator tags ON TOP OF the actual substance of the Shapiro allegations.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech only makes sense as #16 to support a real value add #15. The conference has shown that geographical contiguity is important in expansion, and there is no #15 that allows Gatech to be contiguous. So that opens things up a bit. Instead of Miami, the #15 that GaTech would support is Florida. The Gators expressed an interest in B1G some years ago, and are much more compatible with other B1G institutions than FSU, Miami, or any other expansion candidate.
So Delaney gets GaTech and UF, That allows Slive to pick up FSU, and the 2 ACC schools of his choice. One scenario would be UNC, and VaTech. SEC picks up Virginia and North Carolina all on their own, no problems with existing SEC members. He gives up Florida but gets FSU. The only states where the SEC and B1G directly compete are Georgia and Florida, and GaTech is no real threat outside of Atlanta in Georgia and probably not much there, and Florida is big enough to share.
LikeLike
Frank:
Your odd love of this school is a real vice.
I’ll be here all week, tip the wait staff.
LikeLike
Florida’s population is so large that a salient southern culture will always exist, but it has become increasingly outnumbered by mainstream culture & this is a trend that continues. Deep South culture is mainly relegated tot he panhandle now, where it will always exist. Tampa-St Pete = Midwest transplants that go back 2 generations, Miami-Orlando = Northeast transplants that go back 3 generations. Fla has quickly become the California of the East Coast. I could speak too long about the Latino growth in Fl, which is different enough than southern or northern culture.
Ultimately, I’d agree with you that Miami is a better cultural fit for the B1G than FSU.
But, Miami has so much upheaval right now, it may never rebound if expansion moves fast, they also don’t have an on campus stadium, & it’s a long ways down there. It’s a 5-6 hour trip from even FSU. Columbus and Bloomington are closer to Atl than Atl to Miami.
I don’t think B1G expansion has Miami in mind – but hey now, these presidents with B1G ties matter more than we think. Donny was at Wisky before joining the Clinton Administration.
LikeLike
Maryland, Rutgers, GT and UVA is worse than any expansion scenario I could have imagined two months ago.
Remember the good old days when Texas and company were rejected because of the ‘Tech problem’? Or when expansion wasn’t worth divvying up the moolah pie unless ND was part of the equation? I really hope these rumors aren’t true.
LikeLike
Could and might be worse…..with KU in for VA……
But even with VA….really bad for football, mediocre for basketball, very good for markets and academics.
LikeLike
Your right. That would be worse. Still haven’t figured out the benefits of ‘academic expansion’. ‘Chick Fil A Quiz Bowl’ not included.
LikeLike
Here’s to settling: cheers!
LikeLike
LikeLike
So…..if UVA and GT were it,….I’d look at BT football, moderate to long-term future, like this:
!st Tier: OSU, UM, NEB
2nd Tier: MSU, WIS, PSU, Iowa
3rd Tier: Rutgers, ILL, VA
4th Tier: MD, GT
5th Tier: PUR, MN, IU
I put PSU in 2nd tier because of the sanctions…in 5-6 years, they could return to 1st tier status….
This doesn’t look real strong, imo
LikeLike
mushroomgod, where would you put UVA?
LikeLike
You go to be kidding me with your GT dislike & SEC fear. If the B1G splits a state with the SEC (Ga) it’s not like grabbing Pitt or both Va schools, thus creating market saturation. Jesus, you’d rather see a BIG team go into a NCG without some measurement against the SEC? Ridiculous! Ga-GT is a guaranteed annual game – an incredible opportunity for the B1G to gauge the SEC because Ga is just in the top tier of the SEC, historically speaking.
GT would be 2nd tier BIG asap & like PSU, after their violations end, they’d be in the top tier on a regular basis. There is also more upside with Md versus Ill, because per capita football talent is stronger in Md-DC-NOVA than Ill, let alone a faster growing region than any in the current BIG. Md doesn’t have the comparable in-state rivals of Ill, nor a ND that consistently comes into Ill and takes the top recruits. Ill is no further ahead than Purdue or Minn right now. Minn has beaten Ill twice in a row, they also beat Purdue this year. North Ill and NU are the best football schools in Ill right now. I don’t see Ill getting it’s act together until they hire a decent coach – the past two were duds. Whoever they get, ultimately, won’t be better than Fitzgerald.
Your posts don’t seem to look closer at potential and long-term value. You’re looking for an immediate HR – UNC, ND, OU, Tx – they aren’t on the table. UNC is nearly as egotistical as Tx – no thanks. I never root for Tx, even if in the B1G and they were the NC representative. I could say the same for UNC basketball. UNC t-shirt fans, who ultimately outnumber alum, would rather be in the SEC by larger numbers. I’m more about adding schools whose fan interest is more favorable to the B1G – Ga Tech and UVa fit this bill – though older Cavalier fans have more interest in the SEC. Ga Tech would respond to a B1G membership similar to Rutgers’ fans, though not as great.
LikeLike
Too many odd thoughts in here to respond adequately…..
Suffice to say that if GT were in the BIG there’s no way in hell that they’d ever be competitve on any sustained basis with OSU, UM, and Nebraska…plus very little chance they would rise to the level of MSU or Wisky…
The BIG needs to be very careful with the notion that they can “grow” programs. Schools like GT and Maryland aren’t going to magically solve their problems by coming to the BIG. I see Rutgers as an exception to that rule….as I do see them being able to dominate NJ recruiting at some point…
As far as ILL goes…..I know they suck now…..but I also think they’re one of the most underachieving programs anywhere. All they need to do is keep more in-state players at home.
As far as OK or TX are concerned, I’ve never thought they would be good for the BIG (nor FSU). Compatability/fit matter.
LikeLike
Gfunk,
“Jesus, you’d rather see a BIG team go into a NCG without some measurement against the SEC?”
This may be the dumbest argument for expansion I’ve ever heard. That game could only possibly be relevant if GT was the B10 school going to the playoff and UGA also was good. It says nothing about how NE would do against LSU in the same season.
“Ridiculous!”
Yes, your argument really is.
“GT would be 2nd tier BIG asap”
Based on what?
” & like PSU, after their violations end, they’d be in the top tier on a regular basis.”
Sure they will. What color is the sky in your world where GT will become the 4th king in the B10?
LikeLike
Wisconsin (them playing bad this year notwithstanding) is first-tier by any sane definition. And PSU would be lucky to climb back to second-tier by the 2020’s. The sustained 65 scholarship penalty is extremely disruptive.
LikeLike
I thought they lost 40 scholarships over 4 years,10 per season, starting with next year’s class. They’ve already served 1 of 4 years probation & they can be bowl eligible next season. They’ve yet to lose the hot QB prospect. It appears OB can coach, thus if he sticks around, I simply don’t see them being down after 2015.
LikeLike
PSU has a four year bowl ban, meaning they wouldn’t be going to a bowl game until the 2016-2017 season at the earliest. Moreover, they lost 10 scholarships this year and 20 for the following four years. That’s a devastating number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football#Child_sex_abuse_scandal
LikeLike
Wow! I didn’t know the full scale. That’s horrible.
LikeLike
Losing that many scholarships basically makes them almost as thin as an NFL roster, and no bowl games makes it unlikely they’ll get any substantial amount of talent for at least the next three years. The idea of them being irrelevant for the next 6-7 years feels pretty on the money, and it could be longer than that when you’re then forced to walk into a 17 year old’s living room and convince them to join your program even though you haven’t be relevant since they were 10.
LikeLike
3 more years of sanctions plus 3 full recruiting classes—-6 to 7 years
LikeLike
When Wisky didn’t win big time with Russell Wilson, it showed me that they will never be first tier…..when UM and OSU get it going they will be left behind……look at thier recruiting this year, for example…..not good enough.
LikeLike
Wisconsin = Auburn, Tennessee, Oregon, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Clemson… 2nd tier imo, they have a really strong, rabid fan base but don’t have the in-state talent to be a legit top 10-12 program.
LikeLike
Agree with most of this, but TA&M doesn’t have the in-state talent to be a legit top 10-12 program?
LikeLike
I was speaking purely about Wisconsin in that instance though it fits for other programs in that group mostly too. A&M is a Prince, I think they’ll always be #2 in the state of Texas and need to out-recruit Oklahoma in Texas too, not just Texas.
LikeLike
PSU played this season with 67 scholarship players and did just fine. Barring a mass exodus of returning players, which is very unlikely after this year, the fact that people continue to underestimate how we will perform over the next four years amazes me. But keep on predicting 3-win seasons, it will continue to make it easy to pound Vegas’s clearly uninformed lines.
LikeLike
Well Georgia is one win from the BCS title game and they had 71 to start the season due to injuries, transfers and players getting kicked off.
LikeLike
And if you think that PSU won’t be affected by the sanctions just look at USC. They were projected #1 and ended 7-5.
LikeLike
There’s a huge, huge difference between having 67 players dominated by a large senior class and being in the mid-periods of that sustained scholarship cap. The penalty hurts way worse in the out years.
It’s kind of sadistic in that it’s nowhere near over when the postseason ban goes away. USC found that out.
LikeLike
@frug. USC also had Lane Kiffin as a coach. That was probably worth 3 or 4 losses.
LikeLike
@bullet
I’m not exactly a Kiffin fan, but I don’t think he’s a bad coach. He’s an excellent recruiter and a competent game coach.
LikeLike
PSU will return all WR, including the best in the B1G, the 2 best TE in the B1G, 3 starting OL, it’s top RB, 3 of 4 starters in the secondary, 2 of its top 4 LB, the B1G freshman of the year at DE and the coach of the year. Not to mention the recruiting class looks just fine and includes the top TE, a top 5 QB and possibly the top juco QB. They will be just fine for the next few years.
LikeLike
@Pez: Not much I can say other than good for you for staying a supportive fan. We’ll have to see how it plays out.
But, history has shown that bowl bans coupled with massive scholarship losses tend to have detrimental affects to programs. USC is probably not a good indicator, because even when down Lane Kiffin was picking up 5* recruits left and right. Also, USC went 8-5 in 2010, 10-2 in 2011, and 7-5 this year. Hardly the USC of days yonder. This year USC had serious issues regarding depth, particularly on the defense I believe.
I know these ratings are subjective, but for comparison:
PSU 2013 recruit list (as of right now):
http://rivals.yahoo.com/bwi/football/recruiting/commitments/2013
USC 2011 and 2012 recruits (2010/2011 seasons with bowl bans):
http://rivals.yahoo.com/usc/football/recruiting/commitments/2011
http://rivals.yahoo.com/usc/football/recruiting/commitments/2012
People were expecting three losses this year, but that was silly unless BOB turned out to be a bad coach, which obviously he didn’t. But PSU’s biggest challenges are yet to come, because depth and quality of talent are likely to decline during the years with those penalties. You’ve already seen part of the effect this year, with the top OL in the nation (Dorian Johnson) decommitting from PSU and ending up at Pitt.
LikeLike
Peter,
“Wisconsin (them playing bad this year notwithstanding) is first-tier by any sane definition.”
800 win club? National championships? National brand? Top conference W%? Those are all ways to define the top tier. OSU, MI, PSU and NE fit all of them, though PSU will fall behind for a few years. WI is a regional brand with less history but a lot of recent success for them. They’re not quite as successful as the kings, but they’re more successful than anyone else in the B10. That’s still the top of tier 2.
“And PSU would be lucky to climb back to second-tier by the 2020′s. The sustained 65 scholarship penalty is extremely disruptive.”
They’ll be back to a full roster before the end of the decade, and all their inherent advantages will still be there (biggest brand in a large state, etc). They’ll be competitive in 2018 and beyond. It’s 2014-7 that may be bad.
LikeLike
Did you contract Northwestern? Are they going to go the way of UChicago?
LikeLike
Sorry ’bout that….have to put NW in last tier for moderate to long term………
LikeLike
It’s going to be interesting to see how private schools do with recruiting. I think Northwestern has an advantage in that they’ve never had a local recruiting base in the Big Ten, so they always have to go elsewhere. The rest of the Big Ten has spent decades relying on the Big Ten’s footprint to a much greater extent.
If they can do better there than others like Iowa, they might have a long-term advantage there given that the Big Ten’s recruiting base has gradually weakened demographically.
LikeLike
Frank post this on your twitter to settle everyone down:
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2012/11/30/griffin-speaks-against-tech-big-ten-rumors/
“I’m not aware of any communications between university leadership and the Big Ten or any other conference,” Griffin said Friday afternoon from Charlotte, where Tech will play Florida State for the ACC football championship Saturday.
Griffin acknowledged that an action like switching conferences from the ACC to the Big Ten would take place at an executive level, but said that Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson “has told me there’s been no communication nor does he expect any.”
LikeLike
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/11/30/on-sam-olens-and-the-power-of-twitter-plus-some-angry-tech-fans/
This was amusing as well…
LikeLike
So he’s admitting he’s texting while driving. Shouldn’t he get a ticket. They’re giving out down here.
LikeLike
Good find, Zeek.
I know we disagree on some things, but you always contribute great stuff.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech to the Big Ten might be the most senseless move of this round if it does occur at this point in the process, and I say that within one week of Tulane going to the Big East.
LikeLike
Zeek – If Texas Tech was AAU and located in Dallas, would adding Texas Tech be a senseless move?
LikeLike
If they were coming with Texas, it’d make perfect sense.
LikeLike
It’s just hard to justify an outpost far away unless that outpost is coming joined to a king.
And there’s really no indication on either side that FSU would have any interest in the Big Ten or vice versa, likewise with Notre Dame committed to independence.
There’s just no angle here.
LikeLike
Would aTm on their own have made sense (not that they were interested, but if they were)? Made sense to the SEC. Or are you going to argue that aTm is a King *chuckle*?
LikeLike
A&M will be a king in the SEC in 10 yrs because of proximity to western edge of SEC country and state of texas recruiting..
A&M will be the dominant program in texas in 10 yrs.
Because of this possibility is probably why the big12 GOR is only 13yrs and not longer.
Texas will have some flexibility to change their situation in not too many years.
LikeLike
The Big XII’s GOR is 13 years because that is the length of their TV contract.
Also, Aggie fans having been saying they would be a football power since their program began. If it hasn’t happened in the past 100 years, it’s not going to happen now.
LikeLike
how many of those years were Texas and A&M in different conferences?
Texas overshadows A&M when they’re in the same conference, but now they’re not.
If you look at Texas and A&M schedules, how many games would a casual fan really find interesting on Texas’ schedule?
I think interest for the Big12 outside of the state of texas will slowly whither.
Outside of the OU/Texas game, what other game is must see?
LikeLike
Now A&M will just be overshadowed by Alabama, LSU, and Florida in addition to Texas (and for that matter Oklahoma).
Anyways, in case you haven’t noticed the Big XII is top to bottom the strongest conference in the country and I’m pretty KSU, WVU and Okie St. are pretty good draws, especially considering that Texas has a far more interesting OOC schedule (and it’s not even close).
LikeLike
frug, how many Big 12 teams outrank A&M right now?
LikeLike
Same number who are ranked lower than the average SEC team.
LikeLike
A&M had Bear Bryant.
A&M had Gene Stallings.
Both later went to Alabama and won MNCs there.
A&M won an MNC in the 30s. They went on to win 3 games against Texas in the next 35 years (Bryant and Stallings each got one).
They may do well in the SEC. They may fall on their face. But a single 10-2 season doesn’t mean anything.
LikeLike
You know very well that as of 1960, A&M more closely represented the Citadel than it did a large, modern university. On the football field that lead to some semi-predictable success and failures (when the nation was building up to war, A&M usually did quite well,as soon as a war came, the football program collapsed).
I was born in 1975. In my lifetime, A&M has a winning record over the Longhorns, though it’s only by 1 game at the moment. Yes, A&M went into a down period just as OU and the Longhorns found their coaches at the beginning of the last decade, but it isn’t unusual to go through down periods; LSU, Alabama, OU, and, yes, the Longhorns have all gone through them in the last few decades.
LikeLike
@mAg
And that was irrelevant in 1960 as the state schools were small as well. A&M didn’t end that 35 year streak until 1973. And they struggled off and on until Jackie “probation” Sherrill arrived to do what he did at Pitt and later at Mississippi State. Win pretty good, get his school on probation and leave. RC Slocum did well, but A&M fired him because he quit beating Texas. They haven’t recovered yet, although they do appear to have another good coach.
LikeLike
Enrollment in 1961-
U of Texas: 20,396
Texas Tech: 10,212
U of Texas at Arlington: 8,318
Texas A&M: 7,724
Baylor: 6,395
The boom in enrollment in the state of Texas had already begun; the school in Austin had completely left A&M in the dust and many other schools had passed it by. I’ve read that 5 or 6 scho
LikeLike
{got posted before I was finished}
I’ve read that 5 or 6 schools in Texas had greater enrollment than A&M when they ended the corps requirement and accepted women, but it is very difficult to find historic enrollment info on the internet. The above is what I found after about 30 minutes of poking around while watching this afternoon’s game.
By the time the 60’s rolled around, A&M still had some influential supporters, but it was well on the road to irrelevance. You aren’t being the least bit sincere if you’re offering A&M’s performance in the 60’s as any type of of evidence for its future.
LikeLike
Delany must value chaos as a tactical matter……….not saying ANYTHING concrete about future expansion or not or how many schools after adding RUT and MD…..unusual under the circumstances unless he’s intentionally shaking the tree………
LikeLike
This is all a feint to smoke UVa out…
LikeLike
Or Notre Dame. The B1G will toy with the ACC until ND comes around. The Fighting Irish will never sleep easy again.
LikeLike
Naw, I think this season and the future playoff situation prove that Notre Dame doesn’t need to ever join a conference.
As long as they can schedule most of their late season (5 ACC guaranteed + USC/Stanford), they’re set.
Money’s never mattered to them.
LikeLike
And that’s also why Georgia Tech doesn’t make sense; if ND is never going to be on the table, what’s the angle…?
LikeLike
Moreover, ultimately even if Delany somehow managed to snag ND, in the eyes of ND fans/alumni it wouldn’t be expansion — it’d be colonization. The BigTen would be viewed as aggressors and the marriage would never work. You can’t expand with someone who doesn’t want you, and ND has shown time and again they don’t want the BigTen.
LikeLike
Manifestdeluxe, perfect point! Again, perfect point! The ND wishers need to stop. I hate the idea of forced expansion. Just shows really bad judgement by some & underscores dated, ruthless colonial politics & fantasy. You want like minded partners whose fans ultimately support the conference overall, even when their team is no longer in contention. I think most long-term tOSU-Mi fans support each other if their team is up against a non-B1G member on the big state – at least that’s how I think. I don’t see too many ND fans rooting for BIG schools – see the IU-UNC game. Domers were mostly supporting UNC in this game – pretty sad actually.
Add solid schools who favor joining the B1G. We got the one exception here, most Md fans were upset about the B1G move, on the other hand they also knew the ACC didn’t give them much respec, they’re ath dept is broke, and they are warming to the idea now, esp because a delusional faction of their fanbase thinks they’ll dominate B1G men’s hoops. Yeah right! Other than Men’s Lacrosse & Field Hockey, they won’t dominate in their other popular sports: Women’s Lax and Men’s Soccer. IU and NU will provide a consistent answer in these sports.
LikeLike
Any way you slice it, if I am the B1G, I am waiting for Texas. If that is 13 years, so be it.
LikeLike
Sorry, bad grammar above: “big stage” and “their athletic dept” among other misdeeds.
LikeLike
I see no point in Tx. I really don’t. Far, far away for too many Olympic sports in much of the BIG – Lincoln is the closet campus at roughly 10.5 hours. I also find Tx football a bit overrated. They’re proof that perception overwhelms reality thanks to average fans characterized by obnoxious arrogance. I see them out of the NC equation with Brown on the down slide while up and comer Sumlin at aTm can recruit Tx kids to the best football conference. Half the Big 12 plays garbage, offensively oriented football that pleases merely the conference fanbase, but not much else.
Tx would be more logical if OU-KU were in the equation, but we’re only going to 16 – Delany already got to 14. Anything greater than 16 is pure nonsense & in my opinion it would cause dilution that inevitably kills college athletics. I’d frankly be done with college athletics at this point, maybe a game here and there. Tx and OU will anchor a Big12 that will get to 16 teams on their own. They cannot jump ship to the Pac12. People tend to forget that the Pac12 has the most travel expenses per school – the geography is so spread out in the West. Austin, Tx to Tuscon, Az (closet Pac12 school) is and 11 hours car ride. I can’t imagine bus trips from Austin to the Oregon or Washington schools, heck any of the Ca schools as well.
LikeLike
@GFunk
You do realize that Mack Brown won’t be there forever, and with more money and in state talent than literally in any school over the long run they will always be a contender.
(And that is to say nothing of the fact they are by far the most valuable commodity in all of college athletics)
LikeLike
Gfunk: Texas is overrated? You have high standards indeed. Texas is #4 winningest team in history, and #7 over the past 20 years.
LikeLike
Tx is a “bit overrated” I know, I said it. But here’s a rephrase: a little overrated. Tx got a lot of those wins in the Southwest, which wasn’t exactly a powerhouse football conference. 3 of 4 Longhorn NC’s are no doubt legit, but 70 is a split and undeserving – they lost the last game of the year to 6th ranked ND – Cotton Bowl – no way that season would be recognized as a NC in the modern era. No way.
LikeLike
@zeek @accaffrey
http://atlanticcoastconvos.com/2012/11/30/conference-realignment-rumors-georgia-tech-headed-to-big-ten-next-kansas-maryland-legal-battle-rutgers-expansion/
This is looking real, and I suspect a game IS afoot… The Washington Post had an article on the “exit fee” for Maryland which is interesting as well. Don’t have it handy…
LikeLike
Gfunk
You must be young. The SWC was a powerhouse conference in large parts of its history. SMU, TCU and A&M all won MNCs in the 30s. Arkansas/Texas decided the MNC 3 times in the 60s. Now the SWC was down by the mid-80s, but they were quite good from the 60s to 80s. SMU had the best professional team in Dallas in the early 80s with Dickerson and James.
LikeLike
Bullet, older than you think & quite capable of researching history. If you go back to that period of SWC glory, then you prove my point. Those were the years when the B1G was by far more dominant than the SWC, more NC’s and a lot more conference depth, hence my counterargument against Tx’ total wins – they whopped their conference mates in lopsided fashion: Tx and the rest. Please don’t bring up SMU – they’re a tragedy who deserved their
Jesus, my alma mater (Minnesota) won a lot of NC’s back in the period you’ve cited, more than the SWC combined. That 1970 Tx NC is not worthy. Sorry, but they lost to ND in the Cotton Bowl – not worthy.
LikeLike
@Nemo: Part of me wonders if all of these UVA/GT rumors are part of a plan to smoke out VT, but maybe that’s just hoping. “Look at us VT, we’re leaving you in the crumbling ACC, woooo better jump on board the S.S. B1G Payday with your buddies UVA…”
LikeLike
The acting AD is unaware of any communication between University Leadership and the B1G? Plenty of weasel room in that denial.
LikeLike
Bus trips? Are you serious?? Ever hear of air travel???
Flight time from SFO to Sea-Tac is 1 hour and 45 minutes. Getting to Pullman for WSU is a bit more problematic, but there are non-stops to Spokane – which I believe is less than 2 hour drive away. Flight time from SFO to Phoenix is about 2 hours. And fares to the major metros are cheap. You only have to pay up for non-stop fares to places like Spokane and Tucson.
LikeLike
If people, as sports fans, are not happy with the additions to the Big 10, then it only proves that Frank’s original rule was correct: you need to think like a university president and not like a fan, or even as an athletic director.
LikeLike
It is possible for presidents to make mistakes in realignment. In fact, it happens on a semi-regular basis.
LikeLike
@ Frank
First Vincent goes AWOL when Maryland gets the tap and now Brian is nowhere to be found when Georgia Tech is under discussion. The plot thickens.
LikeLike
I had to work all day Friday away from my computer.
LikeLike
Shroom,
Did you recognize the guy in the IU top behind Dicky V in the Notre Dame vs Kentucky game?
LikeLike
duff…I didn’t watch the UK-ND game because it was between the two schools I hate the most—who are you referring to?
BTW, didn’t I tell you about Yogi? How anybody who watched the guy play in HS and/or on the AAU circuit could not believe he’d be the best fresh. pg in the country….beyond me….
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8695865/nba-fines-san-antonio-spurs-250000-sitting-players
TNT now has the authority to make coaching decisions in the NBA.
LikeLike
Media people keep saying we need a college sports commissioner or czar to oversee realignment and all of this other stuff.
Could you even imagine Stern or Goodell or Bettman or Selig in charge of all of this?
It’d be a nightmare. These guys are all jokes.
LikeLike
One reason I felt the Domers should have joined the BIG as a 12th team was to lend their influence to the BIG’s in the political arguments going forward….
If you think about it, the BIG choosing NEB(or the other way around) opened up A&M and MO to the SEC, which in turn necessitated the BIG grabbing MD and Rutgers to catch up……had the Domers joined the BIG everyone may well have stayed at 12…….SEC probably wouldn’t have gone to 14 so as not to incite the BIG to do the same…..and sanity would have prevailed……maybe……there would still have been that lttle problem of the Longhorn Network…..
In any event, I agree with those who say the ND-BIG ship has completely sailed at this point……this unbeaten season has the Domers more arrogant than ever…and NBC more willing to pay than ever. It will take a good beatdown by Bama and a few more years before any ND minds could be changed….
LikeLike
I fail to see why ND would care whether Mizzou joined the SEC or not . . .
LikeLike
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2012/11/30/3710442/georgia-tech-approved-by-big-ten-conference-expansion
The guy who started all this G-Tech to Big 10 stuff this morning has since deleted his tweet and is backtracking vigorously.
LikeLike
Actually, it looks like the guy has actually deleted his entire twitter account.
LikeLike
The whole GT and KU to the B1G thing made no sense.
I’m still predicting UVA and VT to the B1G and UNC and Duke to the SEC.
LikeLike
Pac-12 commissioner says league at ‘optimal’ size
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pac-12-commissioner-says-league-optimal-size
Scott says the presidents have discussed the other conferences expanding to 14 or 16 and that they are happy with 12. He also said that they have had the chance to go beyond 12 and chose not to. Of course he doesn’t say which schools they could have added.
LikeLike
It looks like “the dude” of WVU has a twin “the dude” of Clemson who started this whole thing. I wish these guys would get exposed by some real journalist and quit with the insane rumors.
LikeLike
I wish people would stop mindlessly parroting these things.
LikeLike
Mr_KevinJones Source: Georiga Tech and UVA will announce decision to leave ACC by Monday. Will join Big 10
This tweet can be found on a CBS affiliate page:
http://www.wusa9.com/sports/blogs/capital9/default.aspx
It is on the right hand side, click on the Mr. Kevin Jones twitter tab.
LikeLike
Another tweet from his says that it is from a source too credible not to report.
Take it for what its worth I guess. By far the most credible pro-expansion scenario internet information out there yet.
I know nothing about this reporter though…you’ve been warned.
LikeLike
He’s some sort of DC sports reporter.
LikeLike
Yea. They come in varying degrees I am sure. It seems at least reasonably credible, as he may/may not be a good journalist, but is likely a credentialed one.
LikeLike
Well, this is the first legit source to actually put this news out there, and he’s claiming to have a solid source.
Still, this whole thing is just weird.
They’re both great schools, but I’m not sure if this is how people envisioned the Big Ten going from 12 to 16. This is just a massive land grab at all costs.
LikeLike
I am troubled as well Zeek. Not sure this is where I would have gone. Like I said earlier, I will go from having utmost confidence in Delany, to thinking that his original plan A and B blew up, and the conference (him, the presidents and Fox) feel compelled to act for some reason.
But I could be wrong, maybe this was always the plan. That is, of course, if it happens.
LikeLike
Well, David Glenn is skeptical, so there’s that.
And I don’t think Georgia Tech’s AD would have put out that statement today if there was actually some backroom discussions going on…
So, I don’t think it’s happening, but nothing would surprise me at this point.
Still, I think I’d much rather go with Virginia Tech over Georgia Tech. There has to be some football credibility to all of this…
LikeLike
Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia Tech make a lot of sense for the Big Ten. They’re all great academic schools, and they get the Big Ten into some huge media markets, namely NY, DC, and Atlanta.
The next move after that will likely be UNC and Duke to the SEC.
Then FSU, Miami, Clemson, NCSU, Virgina Tech, and Pitt to the Big 12.
LikeLike
One reason why this rumor doesn’t make sense though is because UVa has two annual rivalries right?
UVa-Va Tech
UVa-UNC
They’re going to make both of those non-conference?
LikeLike
I think the importance of rivalries is overblown. Missouri has lost their rivalries with Kansas and Nebraska. You do what you gotta do.
LikeLike
I am inclined to agree with you Andy. I would imagine they would feel pressure to keep their VTech rivalry from interested state parties. Who knows. It would be sad to see UNC v. UVA go by the wayside. As you said though, it has been happening a lot. If Texas and A&M can break up, if Kansas and Missouri can break up…then just about anyone can.
LikeLike
True Andy.
But Nebraska and Missouri and Maryland were all in different situations where they felt a need to bolt.
I’m still not sure I get why UVa or Georgia Tech has to bolt. Neither is in the financial situation of Maryland, and the ACC seems more stable than the Big 12 was before its GOR, even with the Maryland defection.
LikeLike
If all of this is true, it’s 4 schools with limited football history and success. Perhaps new recruiting territories make some of the current average schools in the B1G contenders but I don’t see it. Recruits like to stay fairly close to home.
Looks to me that it’s all really just a TV play and a questionable one at that. It’s also hard for me to be believe that the slices of the pie get bigger for each school as a result of this rumored move.
LikeLike
Andy…..3/4 of those schools make sense as single schools (not GT), but collectively they fall short. There’s not a single truly dynamic football or basketball school in the mix…I mean Hell, you might as well take Mou……..oops…..
Actually, all teasing aside, I think Rutgers, MD, Virginia, and MO, then call it a day, would have been a darn good plan for the BIG and better for MO…..because, in the end, Mo’s not going to win anything in the SEC…………
LikeLike
Zeek, Missouri and Nebraska didn’t need to bolt. If you notice the Big 12 is doing just fine without us.
LikeLike
I would have been fine with MU joining the Big Ten but it didn’t happen. The Big Ten definitely could have gotten them last year. It’s too late now.
I think the Maryland/Virginia combo is solid. Two good academic flagship schools. Should fully capture the whole DC metro area. Rutgers I think is a weak addition but I see the logic.
Georgia Tech is iffy but it is an excellent school with a decent history in a great market. It’s by no means a terrible choice.
You already picked up your football kings in Penn State and Nebraska.
Now it seems you’re chasing top academic schools, eastern mega-markets, and high growth geography.
As for the SEC, they’re chasing what they’ve been missing: academics, markets, and basketball. UNC, Duke, and Mizzou deliver all three. UT delivers bigger markets than anyone and have great football potential as well.
Both leagues will do well if all of this goes through and both will come away as far and away the top two conferences.
LikeLike
I meant A&M, not UT
LikeLike
I think the GT AD would certainly have put that statement out there. It was very soft. Its the Virginia statement that was unusally strong if this is true.
Smoke is heavier than the FSU/Clemson to Big 12 stories this spring. Lots of people with lots of stories.
LikeLike
This makes much more sense than “Georgia Tech is #15.” Here, UVA is #15, which is certainly believable. The B1G wants UVA *bad* for a whole bunch of reasons. The B1G also does not want to sit at 14 schools if that can be at all helped.
If UVA is #15, Georgia Tech is a plausible #16. UNC may not want to move or may be impossible to unwind from NC State. If UNC won’t or can’t move, Georgia Tech is far and away the best option in the ACC for the B1G.
LikeLike
There have been three main factors for the B1G in expansion to this point: 1) AAU membership, 2) big, top ten media market (Nebraska didn’t have this and barely had #1, but it was more of a pure football move), and 3) flagship status in the state. Virginia fits all three, sealing up the DC market from the south-west side.
GaTech is far, far from flagship status. It qualifies on the other two counts. But the question has always been, how do you monetize a team that may be fifth in its’ own market (behind Georgia, the Falcons, the Hawks, and the Thrashers)? Maybe FOX has a way of making it work like we think we see in NYC? I dunno. Atlanta is a college football crazy big city, but that is Georgia super-dominated. If the rumor is true, the B1G thinks it has an answer.
LikeLike
Well, I have an answer for you: Notre Dame. If Georgia Tech comes with Notre Dame, there’s national monetization to that.
But your’e right in some sense, there’s absolutely no way to locally monetize Georgia Tech. At least with Rutgers, there’s a chance…
LikeLike
Yeah, Notre Dame – GaTech would make tons of sense (especially with Rutgers and Maryland as prime ND fan territory). But Virginia -GaTech just has a sense of settling to it.
Perhaps Virginia is ready to go and you simply need a partner. However, I don’t see how GaTech isn’t still there in a month or so when other things shake loose. Maybe contracts are such that this has to happen before the year’s end. If this is a matter that you need a partner and it must be now, things fall together a bit.
LikeLike
You said that priority #1 for BiG is to lock up the Dc market. UVA does that. Clear, if GTech comes in, it will be because BiG can’t get UNC and has been forced to “settle” for #16.
LikeLike
Biggest game in MAC history and it was great.
Now, Stanford needs to take care of business against UCLA.
LikeLike
If the Virginia/GA Tech rumor is true….
The foursome averaged a combined 177k per game in 2011. The previous two B1G expansion teams of PSU and Nebraska combined to average 190k.
Its a long term play for research dollars.
What a shit sandwich for football fans.
LikeLike
Considering that the Big Ten has gate sharing, I wonder how Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State feel about this. They’ll have to share more of their dough right?
LikeLike
Gate sharing is capped and PSU, OSU, Mich, Nebraska, Wisky and Iowa all already hit the cap.
LikeLike
@Frank
Atlanta is nearly as SEC-centric as Birmingham.
At least they do acknowledge the Big 10 exists. They tend to forget about the Big 12 and Pac 12.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’ll ever thing this is a good idea. Without ND or FSU, I don’t think Georgia Tech works as an island in the middle of the SEC.
Still not sure what synergy it gets, the Big Ten’s schools almost all have D.C. and NYC in their top 3-4 destinations for alumni and as sources of students.
Really not sure how Atlanta works, or whether there’s much synergy there…; and there’s the issue of BTN penetration in Atlanta….
LikeLike
A while ago it seemed like there were two possible strategies for expansion, eastern population centers or southern opportunities for growth. Maybe Delany is trying to have it both ways, and maybe all this talk of >16 is true. GaTech just seems more like a nice piece than a cornerstone. The one thing that seems to be certain, is that the academic considerations are real. From the football drives the bus standpoint, there are several better directions to go. If this really signals a move into the ssoutheast, from a institutional fit standpoint GaTech is a must get, but not a stand alone. There is one university in the southeast that screams instiutional fit with the BigTen and has expressed a past interest in joining.
LikeLike
One desirable result of adding an Atlanta team — the B1G could host warm-weather events during the winter months. It has always hurt the Big 10 to have to travel to all of their bowls and always be the visiting team. Illinois played LSU in New Orleans and USC in Los Angeles in their BCS bowl appearances – that is a huge disadvantage.
The B1G could also host baseball tournaments during the early part of the season in places like Atlanta and Virginia, which would greatly help those teams.
LikeLike
@bullet – Oh, I know. I’ve been to Atlanta quite a bit. That’s why I’m very skeptical about the prospect of the Big Ten adding Georgia Tech. If that move is paired with UVA, then that makes a little more sense, but Atlanta is simply always going to be an SEC town first and foremost. While I think the Big Ten can own NYC and DC (or at least be the most prominent conference in both of them), going into Atlanta is a pure market grab where the conference knows that it will always be in 2nd place at best. That’s why I have a hard time wrapping my head around Jim Delany going after them. It’s a “looks good on paper” move that I don’t think will work out in practice.
LikeLike
I would think the Big 10 would want to be dominant everywhere they go. And UGA is still in the 30s and GT around 20k, so there’s room for growth in the state schools. It would be hard to get many students out to state schools in the midwest. On that question above, I had GT 4th behind UConn, MU and KU.
LikeLike
Frank….I don’t think it would be Deamy’s idea….
I think the presidents see it as an academic coup.
VA is one of the top liberal-arts oriented public schools in the US.
G Tech is one of the top engineering/hard science oriented public schools in the US. In that sense GA Tech fits with Ill, UM, Purdue,Wisky….esp. Purdue….
If this is the way they go, I think market/football considerations are secondary (important but secondary).
LikeLike
http://www.delanysdozen.com/
Am I the only person who just discovered that there’s a heavily pro-expansion blog out there with this name?
LikeLike
No. Thanks.
LikeLike
Nice find. Good article on Illinois hoops if you scroll down.
LikeLike
Even if the UVA/GT rumors are true (I will believe it when I see the official announcement) it weakens but still doesn’t kill the ACC. As long as UNC and Duke are still there the conference will exist in some form or another. It could mean UConn and Cincinnati may get their wish sooner than they anticipated after Wednesday’s Louisville announcement.
LikeLike
OK….so does NEB/WIS matchup better with Stanford?
Seems like Wisky/Stanford would be a yawner for most fans…..I like smashmouth so it would be fine with me….
I’m thinking Wisky might matchup better…..NEB’s strength on D is the secondary, Wisky has the better front 7(?)
On the other hand, would like to see NEB win as I’d like to see new blood in the RB.
__________________
Quite a wowzer just saw on expansion…..according to the Tar Pit NC site, Roy W. was quoted tonight to the effect that he’d rather see UNC in the SEC than in the BIG IF UNC has to leave the ACC…. not so surprised at the CONTENT of the comment as I am that Roy is talking about it at all…….
If UNC is SEC-bound, I hope for the BIG’s sake it’s not with UVA…..ie…I hope that the BIG isn’t seriously considering going forward with a GT/KU tandem………
LikeLike
I would say Nebraska simply because I’m really iffy on Wisconsin after their past couple of games.
Their offensive line just didn’t seem to get good push in a lot of their games against opponents with good defensive lines. Definitely not like in past years…
LikeLike
Wisconsin lost a lot of NFL talent on that line, not to mention what has turned out to be a starting NFL quarterback and a NFL-caliber line coach. They’ve been dysfunctional all year trying to replace all that – and Ball got himself beat up & concussed in a street fight on top of that (?!).
It’s hard to handicap either Wisconsin or Nebraska versus Stanford because I have no idea which version of those teams will show up. Remember that Nebraska got completely thrashed by Ohio State and had to come back to beat Iowa 13-7; unconvinced that they’re not Wisconsin with better luck.
LikeLike
Iowa game was in 30 degree weather with 35 mph winds.
UNL is going to score more than 13 indoors tomorrow.
If Braxton Miller started for Wisconsin tomorrow, they would win.
LikeLike
If UNL wins tomorrow, Stanford/UNL would be meeting for the second time ever, the first being the 1941 Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
When something doesn’t make sense it’s a good idea to check your assumptions. Most of us have assumed that 16 was the ceiling, so 15 or 16 had to be reserved for a king. Well if Georgia Tech and Virginia are 15 and 16, I think it’s a clear sign that we’re heading to 18 — and 17 and 18, Notre Dame and UNC, would be your kings. And yes, Georgia Tech makes all the sense in the world, if you plan on adding Notre Dame and UNC, and the Big 10 does.
Remember this interview with Dave Brandon from last week? It’s as clear a sign as any that 16 is not a ceiling. Twenty might be, but it’s clear that there’s a consensus for aggressive action and there’s some wiggle room beyond 16.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20121125/SUB01/311259970/big-ten-expansion-a-money-game#
“For us to sit pat in the markets we’re in was an uncomfortable position for me,” he said.
How big the Big Ten gets remains to be seen, but Brandon has some ideas on a membership threshold.
“If you get much beyond 16 members, it starts to get difficult from a scheduling perspective,” he said. “There probably is a point of diminishing returns.”
LikeLike
You make a lot of good points. I think a lot of us are a bit cautious when talking about Big 18 or Big 20 scenarios simply because those involve the addition of as many as 5 or 6 or 7 ACC teams.
That’s an awfully huge number of teams from one conference to assimilate without culture clashes and the like.
I guess the good thing would be that all of the kings would be original Big Ten (12) members, so there’s no real threat of a breakoff, but still…
LikeLike
I would also take this time to remind everyone of some quotes that I recall from Perlman:
Back when the decision was made, he said that they might eventually be in a conference where they’d have to travel to the East Coast and that was a consideration.
He also said that he had seen scenarios with upwards to 20-24 teams in a conference as well (pretty sure he was referring to future Big Ten scenarios as opposed to the Big 12-Pac-12 merger being bandied about)…
LikeLike
Yes. With UVA and GT, Richard’s ridiculous scenarios suddenly start sounding like reality. Maybe there is something to the theory that anyone who denies interest is working on it? We’ve had 3 denials. Virginia, Georgia Tech and UNC.
LikeLike
UNC will likely soon be in the SEC.
LikeLike
Sixteen pushes scheduling to a barely workable mess. Eighteen teams is going to require the NCAA to increase the number of games played per year, or the Big Ten runs the risk of eroding fan support.
LikeLike
I should point out that the three conferences we’ve poached from are all amalgamation that didn’t work out and has continually led to strife and discomfort between the members. While money has been a point of contention, the lack of shared identity and buy-in is what ultimately caused defections.
Rutgers left easily, Nebraska was coaxed into leaving because of a Texas-centric Big XII (to the detriment of the Big 8), and Maryland would have never left if they weren’t broke. We run the risk here of inviting trouble in what has been a very stable conference. This was a source of pride up until recently.
LikeLike
18 or more just feels like asking for trouble…; that and we’ve spent our lives with a conference of 10 or 11 members for the most part.
We’re zooming to 16+ this quickly? It just feels detached…
LikeLike
Actually, at 16 with 9 games, it’s almost no different from 14 with a cross-over (6 annual series & 9 schools you play a third of the time vs. 7 annual series & 6 schools you play a third of the time).
At 18, almost all big rivalry game can still be kept (UNL-PSU would be hard, but it’s not like there’s a ton of history & tradition there) & you can still play 14 of the 17 other schools at least a third of the time.
20 is where it would be very tough to keep all the big rivalries without going to 10 conference games (likely meaning an increase by the NCAA in regular season games allowed).
LikeLike
I agree with metatron. 16 is the absolute max and I don’t see any reason to do it until you have the actual 16 you want. I wouldn’t go for who’s available right now.
LikeLike
You may make a little more money with 18 or 20, but why? My tipping point was 12. You may make more, but why go to 14? Sounds like a number of people here are tipping at 16.
LikeLike
16 is an arbitrary stopping point. The pods would be easier to remember, and the scheduling is easier, but you play major rivals just as often. Once you go past 12 (which means you’ve decided that it’s OK to play some schools 1/3rd of the time or less), there isn’t much difference between 14, 16, and 18.
LikeLike
14 is easier for divisional play than 16 or 18. Really, a 14 team conference with a 9 game schedule isn’t all that different than a 12 conference with an 8 game schedule. (You play your non-divisional opponents 3 years out of 7 instead of 3 years out of 6)
LikeLike
With 14 and 16 you can do divisions and don’t have to do pods which have never been proven to work.
And with 14 you could do an 8 game schedule with pods and play everyone every other year. With 16 that drops to 2 in 6.
LikeLike
OK, fair point on 14. However, there still isn’t much difference between 16 & 18.
LikeLike
Actually, that’s one reason I’m worrying about all the KU talk…….as all the signs point to UNC going to the SEC and ND remaining independent……..if those things happen and GT/UVA are going to the BIG, why all the smoke around KU?
LikeLike
I strongly suspect the smoke around kU is completely bogus. They signed a grant of rights to the Big 12 for 13 years. I don’t see how they can leave. Plus their academics are weak and their football is pathetic. And their state has a very low population.
Sure they’re AAU and they’re good at basketball but they’re a lesser pick than even Rutgers, IMO.
Then again I went to Mizzou for undergrad so I’m more than a little biased.
LikeLike
KU isn’t happening.
Mainly because the Big Ten is so reliant on GOR, why would it ever want to go near a hornets nest like that…
LikeLike
Don’t underestimate the value of a basketball “king”. Their value only increases too, when we can’t find a good football draw to take their slot. There’s a huge benefit in increasing your strength of schedule in college basketball (tournament payouts namely), and the Big Ten should be adding national draws at this point anyway (like Kansas).
A Nebraska/Kansas comparison is inequal, but Kansas/Georgia Tech is not.
LikeLike
OK, then by your logic, the B10 should add Duke (or ‘Cuse, if you ignore the research).
LikeLike
@Richard – Personally, Duke should definitely be on the table for the Big Ten if we’re looking at a mass scale expansion. If the emphasis is going to be on academics, they’re obviously top notch and they are to basketball what Notre Dame is to football. Sports-wise, they’re more valuable to me than UVA or GT.
LikeLike
Except you need to subtract at least $250 million from KU’s added value to finance their GOR buyout and find a home for KSU.
LikeLike
@Richard – I could, but there are better candidates who bring more to the table and are better fits.
@frug – Right. I’m just pointing out that basketball schools have worth. People overvalued them when Texas and Notre Dame were in play, but in an era of Rutgers and Maryland, they’re being undervalued.
LikeLike
@metatron – Agreed. Kansas is pretty valuable. Remember that basketball matters for the Big Ten Network and KU made the most money off of third tier rights in the Big 12 prior to the Longhorn Network being formed. Like Andy, I have no personal love for KU, but I understand why they’d be wanted. If they weren’t politically tethered to Kansas State 2 years ago when it looked like the Big 12 was about to implode, they might be in the Big Ten right now.
LikeLike
KU adds no value in demographics and they have a GOR.
LikeLike
KU delivers KC, has an academic profile very similar to Nebraska (but with AAU, a med center and cancer research designation) and adds another ‘king’ basketball brand to the B1G. In addition, there are large pockets of KU alums in the Twin Cities, Chicago and St. Louis. The DePaul vs. KU game at the Rosemont near Chicago sold out a few years back, and ticket sales have been very strong when the tourney has been in Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis or any other city within 600 miles.
That being said– I think there are less messy additions to the B1G given the GOR. There may be lower hanging fruit.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty big assumption to think that UNC would choose the Big Ten over the SEC, or that Notre Dame would join a conference at all.
I think the B1G gets UVA plus one more. Their options are VT, GT, KU, and maybe Miami. They went with GT.
LikeLike
1. I agree that ND isn’t joining any conference in football soon.
2. I think it’s a toss-up where UNC goes right now.
3. I don’t think the B10 stops at 16.
LikeLike
Dream B1G.
LikeLike
If UVa & GTech are 15 & 16,
possible 17’s & 18’s (I don’t think ND is a possibility for a decade):
1. UNC+Duke
2. VTech+Miami
3. FSU+Miami
I’d like 1 or 2 (though from a purely football perspective, 3 would be best).
LikeLike
Kevin Jones @Mr_KevinJones
I just keep stumbling into college football news…Virginia Tech will reportedly fire offensive coordinator Bryan Stinespring
—————————————
Does the fact that he has another source telling him this make the UVa/Georgia Tech thing more likely? I guess if you’re a D.C. sports blogger, you would know that crowd?
LikeLike
Someone else questioned it, and he stood by his source. Jones did not guarantee it was happening, but sounded pretty confident in both the source and the information.
LikeLike
So I’ve mentioned this a year ago, but I wonder what people think about it now:
What if Jim Delany split up television coverage between two networks? CBS has nothing beyond their SEC coverage and a biennial Navy/Notre Dame game. NBC has six games a year with Notre Dame, and ABC/ESPN can’t fully handle the inventory they have. I know FOX is hungry, but getting their affiliates onboard has been a problem in the past.
With four (possibly more?) marquee programs, at least two networks could conceivably be contracted to have first-tier rights (per division?). Currently the Big Ten does just that with ABC/ESPN, and the BTN has secured the second-tier rates.
I can’t stress how important it is to have a national game. Notre Dame and the SEC have no divided coverage, whereas the ABC slot can and always is divided between two, three, or four games (and the largest being shunted to ESPN).
LikeLike
I fully expect the big ten to sell at least a piece of its first tier rights, if not more, to someone other than espn (likely fox). That would give fox first tier, espn first/second tier and BTN second/third tier. Lots of money to be made.
Also, if the GT/UVA thing happens, I like four pods with two being strong and two being weak, and the weak pods flipping divisions every two years.
East:
UM
MSU
PSU
OSU
North:
NEB
Iowa
Wisky
Minn
South:
Rutgers
MD
UVA
GT
West:
Illinois
NW
Purdue
Indiana
North and East are never together, and West and South are never together in order to keep divisions more balanced. No locked cross division games. Two years of N-W/E-S and then two years of N-S/E-W. The pods that are never combined rotate two teams from their opposite every two years. This setup gives everyone at least a home and home against the whole conference every 4 years.
LikeLike
The Big Ten’s second tier rights are locked up with the BTN. They would have to renegotiate that deal with News Corp. and/or have some creative writing. That’s why I think a divisional split would work; you could sell first-tier rights for half the conference.
LikeLike
Actually, technically, the BTN has third-tier rights. It’s just that those 3rd tier rights (like the Pac’s) includes a lot of content. Like the Pac, to maximize value, the Big18/20 likely will split their 1st&2nd tier rights.
LikeLike
Espn and BTN share second tier rights. Sometimes an espn channel gets first pick, sometimes BTN gets first pick.
LikeLike
Swap GT for Penn St. Remember the idea of Rutgers, UMd and UVa is to leverage Penn St. wouldn’t add them and put Penn St. in a different pod. Also, It tends to balance out the football strength.
LikeLike
PSU still gets leveraged, along with the other major alumni groups in the area, UM and OSU. The idea isn’t to balance each pod, it’s to have 2 stronger pods and 2 weaker pods. The weaker pods rotate every two years and the stronger pods never end up on the same side. Then each team in a weaker pod plays 2 from the other weak pod on a two-year home and home basis, and same with the stronger pods. This way you have play 3 teams every year, and have a home and home with the other 12 teams every four years.
LikeLike
Sounds insane.
LikeLike
Pezlion,
It’s never going to happen. The B10 will not put OSU, MI and PSU in the same pod. You can’t have OSU, MI, PSU and MSU balanced by NE, WI, IA and ???. It’s not even close. All the media attention will go to one division and schools will complain about missing OSU and MI in the same year on a regular basis.
LikeLike
So……IF the SEC took UNC and Dook, and
IF the BIG took VA and GT, would
the Big 12 take FSU, Clemson, NS State, and V. Tech??? Yikes……
LikeLike
You could rename the ACC to the Big East.
LikeLike
Which is why I don’t think the SEC can take UNC/Duke, even if Duke is interested (doubtful). NC State gets screwed, and NC State is much more tied to UNC than Duke is. Duke is private; NC State is another public and under the same NC Board of Governors as UNC.
If NC State wants to go to the Big 12, that makes UNC/Duke just an issue of convincing them to join the SEC, but if NC State views being exiled to the Big 12 like being stuck in Big East 2.0…
LikeLike
I don’t see an NC State invitation to the Big 12 while UNC goes to the SEC or Big Ten as being acceptable to the UNC System Board of Governors. They have to be in the same conference or in equal conferences. The Big 12 would be a distant, distant third in revenue-per-member behind the SEC and Big Ten.
LikeLike
B12 going to be ahead of P12? (Average, not what UT makes)
LikeLike
If FSU joins, absolutely.
LikeLike
I could see the Big XII getting the better national contract, but I’m not sure that the Big XII’s Tier III deals are going to be able to make more than the PAC-12 network
(i.e. PAC national deal + PTN > Big XII national deal + Tier III deals)
LikeLike
Frug:
Agree. Only a few tier 3 games in B12 (individually) will be really marketable. The strength of a group (P12N) including a king is greater than marketing the individual parts. What the B12 promotes as an attraction is actually a weakness.
LikeLike
@cc rider,
Sorry, I could have been clearer with my wording. I wasn’t including the Pac-12 in my comparison. I meant to say that the Big 12 was a distant third-best option for NC ACC schools. The Pac-12 would not be on the table, presumably.
LikeLike
M in R:
Yeah, that would be a reach. However, Duke, UNC, Az, UCLA would make intriguing BB…
LikeLike
I’ve been as big of a pro-ACC Florida State fan as anyone you’ll ever meet, but if the ACC can’t hang onto GT, Virginia, or Maryland, it’s only a matter of time before Clemson, UNC, and others are out the door as well. At that point, the league truly evolves into the 2002 Big East, just expanded and under new management. (Much as the 2014 Big East will be the 2002 C-USA, under new management.)
If these rumors prove true, it pains me to say it because I think the history and tradition behind the ACC deserves better than to broken apart by greed and fear, but I will be ready to throw in the towel. I just don’t want Florida State in a decimated conference.
My order of preference for FSU in world without a real ACC (i.e., the one with GT, UVA, Clemson, Miami, VT, & UNC) is: (1) Big Ten, (2) SEC, and (3) Big 12. I’d be okay with either of the Big Ten or SEC, but the Big 12 would just be disappointing. The SEC at least would offer stability, great football, and outstanding new regional rivalries right off the bat. The Big Ten would also offer stability, several high profile opponents (4 “kings,” plus Wisconsin and possibly semi-local opponent Georgia Tech), and an actual upgrade in academic affiliation from the original ACC. The Big 12, by contrast, would not be regional at all, offers scarcely a more compelling schedule than the ACC (are Kansas, Baylor, and Iowa State that much better than Duke, Wake, and BC?), and would be downgrade in academic affiliation. But any of them would be better than a dying ACC.
Damn. I just wish Swoff could have gotten ND to join full-time. Oh well, twas a pipe dream. 60+ years of tradition coming out of this corner of the country pissed down the drain because these NOT-for-profit, NON-taxed conferences (ACC included) are ever hungry for more and more and more money.
LikeLike
Well, it’s that or ask the taxpayers for more money. College athletics might be big business, but outside of the bowls and coaches, most of the money is shuffled back into the school. Most D-1 schools operate their athletic department at a loss merely to enhance their enrollments and budgets – alumni donations are especially large during football season.
If anything, it’s a very libertarian way to operate: the fans (the public) volunteer their time and money to fund these programs indirectly.
LikeLike
OK, I was probably the first on here to predict a Big20, but I think that the Big10 stops at 18 and would need a big fish to go to 20. 20 would destroy too many major annual rivalries unless the conference plays 10 conference games (unlikely unless the NCAA allows 13 games a season at least some years). Texas would be unlikely. No, they will wait for ND or UF+UGa. Neither of those would happen soon. ND is at least several decades from being willing to give up football independence. UF&UGa would leave only if the SEC gets rocked by multiple scandals and a couple death penalties or so are handed out in that league.
At 18, pretty much all big traditional rivalries would still be annual (or at least played for often than currently, in the case of Iowa-Wisconsin).
So if 15 & 16 are UVa & GTech, if the SEC wins UNC & Duke, 17 & 18 better be 2 of Miami, VTech, or FSU (that, BTW, would give you 5-6 kings for 6 3-school pods).
LikeLike
You know it’s more than just Iowa-Wisconsin, right?
Every school in the conference wants to play either Michigan or Ohio State, and as a Michigan fan, I’m emotionally invested in a large percentage of our schedule.
LikeLike
I was talking about major rivalries.
Also, yes, every original B10 school wants to play Michigan or OSU instead of Purdue or MSU, but is the dropoff to Nebraska or Miami that severe?
In any case, even with 18 teams, if we add Miami, the pods can be structured so that 6 of the other 9 in the 11-school B10 will play either OSU or Michigan annually. Of the remaining 3, 2 (Wisconsin & Illinois) will play Michigan 2/3rds of the time, OSU 1/3rd of the time, and either Nebraska or Miami annually (playing Miami/Nebraska 2/3rds of the time). The last school is Iowa. They only get Michigan and PSU 1/3rd of the time each, but Nebraska and Miami yearly, and a season-ending rivalry game with the Huskers, which should satisfy them.
LikeLike
No, Nebraska’s doing quite well. Miami… yes.
Try breaking up the NFC East. I can’t imagine you’ll have anything short of a riot on your hands. The same principle applies here.
LikeLike
Actually, replace Illinois with Northwestern above. That would be more likely in the pods I’ve thought up.
Also, what principle? I’ve already outlined a pod system where 6 of the 9 other B10 teams in the 11-school B10 play either Michigan or OSU annually, Iowa & Wisconsin play Nebraska annually (and get other good games), and the other school is Northwestern (and I know that the B10 doesn’t care about setting us up with the kings as we missed Michigan/OSU in our schedule far more often than any other B10 school back in the 11-school B10).
The vast majority of the original B10 schools would play Michigan & OSU no less often with my pod system for 18 schools than they would with 14 schools & 2 divisions (even with 9 games), believe it or not (and only a tiny bit less often than in the current 12 school 8 game schedule).
LikeLike
In fact, 4 of the schools (IU, PU, Illinois, and MSU) would get Michigan & OSU _more_ often with my pod system for 18 schools than they do now with 12 schools or 14 schools.
LikeLike
Richard,
OSU played IA and MSU just as infrequently as NW during the 11 teams B10 days – 12 games each. MI played IA, NW and IN equally – 12 games each. NW and IA were treated the same. It was just a matter of when the rotation got to you except for the locked opponents (OSU, MSU, MI, PSU).
LikeLike
I wasn’t paying attention before because it seemed so outlandish, but I don’t see how you mix and match 3 team pods to do that in a 9 game schedule. It takes 20 years to do every combination of mixing with home and away. Anything shorter seems to be hard to spread in an even manner because of the odd number of pods.
So how do you make it work? Or were you using a 10 game schedule?
LikeLike
Nope. You _would_ have to play the pod you’re opposite (3 teams) only 1/9th of the time (so basically never), but that would allow you to play 4 teams annually, another 4 teams 2/3rds of the time, and 6 teams 1/3rd of the time. Also, with 18 teams, the original B10 schools would rarely be opposite some other original B10 school.
The way I envision it, the pods opposite one another would be
Michigan-MSU-Illinois opposite UVa-VTech-UMD
Wisconsin-Minnesota-Northwestern opposite PSU-Rutgers-GTech
OSU-IU-PU opposite Nebraska-Iowa-Miami
Only in the last pairing do you have a school almost never playing opponents they have faced for decades (and Iowa gets 1.5 kings in it’s pod + the annual season-ending rivalry with Nebraska).
LikeLike
Personally, as an IU fan, I’d be willing to pass on OSU and UM every year. Throw in Nebraska as well. Give us the easiest possible schedule. There…..that solves part of the problem.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I don’t think you have the power to speak for your school.
LikeLike
Richard, I honestly think you need therapy: ). Beyond 16 is absurd & tradition is truly, truly dead.
LikeLike
Tradition’s been dead a while, if you’ve noticed.
What’s traditional about annual games between Rutgers and half the B10, UF and Mizzou, OU and WVU, or even Texas and ISU?
At least I can preserve pretty much all the big rivalry games in the B10 even with 18 schools.
LikeLike
If UVa>ech are 15 and 16, I really hope that VTech and Miami are 17 and 18 (FSU would be even better from a purely football perspective, but I think the Noles are even farther away culturally and academically than VTech and Miami).
LikeLike
Some thoughts….
#1 If GT and UVA are true is it an indication FOX is driving the bus now and not Delany?
If FOX has an end run to shift the football schools (FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Miami) to the B12 from the ACC and ESPN it would make sense for them to use the BTN and FOX to start the ball rolling with UVA and GT.
.
#2 The issue on ACC survival is the charter members*
* UVA was not a charter member but was admitted about 6 months later
South Carolina – already in SEC
Maryland – moving to B1G
Georgia Tech – rumored to B1G
Virginia – rumored to B1G
If GT goes that would be 2 current charter members gone
If UVA goes that would be a near charter member gone
LikeLike
Why would Fox want Georgia Tech though?
Georgia Tech is going to be incredibly difficult for Fox to monetize; cable subscriptions in Atlanta?
If anything it’s a sign that the presidents want to bring their academic friends into the Big Ten more than anything…
LikeLike
Does a Fox regional have the Braves? If so, the Braves may be leverage to get BTN coverage just like the YES plan in NY/NJ.
LikeLike
Interesting take. Wikipedia shows that they are contracted with FSN South through 2012.
LikeLike
I’ll have to look that up since I just saw a mention of how the Braves and Cubs (who happen to be the two MLB teams with particularly large fan bases as a result of them having been on superstations) are locked into a long-term RSN contracts that are considered to be extremely undervalued. For a frame of reference, the Dodgers are looking at a $250 million per year offer from Fox, so large market MLB rights for RSNs are skyrocketing (mostly because such RSNs can’t really exist without them).
LikeLike
Yeah, Fangraphs did an article a few days ago about that. By their own admission, the Braves are locked into a terrible TV deal for like another 20 years.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech didn’t join the ACC until 1979.
LikeLike
GaTech and UVa seem to imply a plan for >16, as they are nice additions with great instiutional fit and decent demographic, but hardly the home run the B1G should aspire to with so much chaos swirling.
I’m starting to buy into the idea of 4 five team pods. I think you need the pods to make a bigger conference work and not feel like to separate conferences, and the bigger the pods, the less possibility for out of pod play, so you have to get the pods right to preserve rivalries, balance, etc.
We have UNL, Iowa, UW, UMn and NW in the northest. UI, IU, PU, UM and MSU in the central. PSU, OSU, RU, UMd and UVa in the eastern. Now the interesting thing would be that GaTech would be the first addition to the southern pod. Others could be: UNC, Clemson, and Florida (or FSU/Miami, but I greatly prefer Florida from an instutional fit perspective). For the fifth spot you could take your pick of Duke or Vandy.
These pods are pretty competitive, and geopraphically compact.
LikeLike
How do you determine a conference champion with 5 pods? I see the vision of 4 pods, but how does 5 pods work in practice? Do you petition the NCAA for a seeded conference playoff where the top 4 advance of 5 pods?
LikeLike
If you go to 4 pods of 5 teams, I think it’s pretty much essential that you have all must play rivalries within pods as even with 9 games there is no room for locked crossovers (you could get 1 extra game for that with 10 conference games, but I don’t see that happening).
LikeLike
Georgia Tech would be a gamble athletically but a home run acedemically. Georgia is pushing for its AAU so there will be competition for research dollars in the state of Georgia. Tech’s move will squash that competition. Competition for federal research grants will become much harder with the current US budget problems. The BIG gets two more senators, who dont really care which school in the state gets funding, and significantly more reps in the House as Atlanta is the population center in that state by far. Add the CIC and partnerships with other states and high population centers and the BIG will have a huge advantage in congress. The BIG will dominate Georgia’s research money while limiting a rising SEC schools chance of competing. This will hit the SECs newly founded acedemic partnership. In regards to research, we are talking billions of dollars not millions. Let the SEC dominate the television sets in Atlanta. It won’t matter.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is already in the AAU.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey
I like the way that you are looking at this! As one who was involved in research for 30 years, I can tell you that Federal money is getting incredibly tight and that it is affecting every facet of higher ed and leads to tuition increases, cuts in faculty salaries, departments cut back, etc. Research schools provide money via “indirect costs” for Federal grants and via contracts to individual companies.
MD is almost home to the Federal government, and lots of jobs here depend upon it. However, so do ALL Universities and State budgets. One can look at this from an athletic view only, but to have a team, the University must remain afloat. With the downturn in student numbers in the near future (sheer population numbers alone are dropping; the Boomers are now getting out of the work force), it is imperative for the huge Universities to provide the leaders of tomorrow which Conferences such as the Big Ten have done and will continue to do. I know this may disappoint some on the athletic side of the ledger, but grants are essential to keep Unis going because State funding just can’t. That’s why the CIC is so brilliant an idea, and why the Big Ten is so attractive on so many levels. Your comment about Senators is spot on; they are not apt to want to see cutbacks in research funding if they want their local institutions to survive.
LikeLike
Long-time reader, first time poster.
Assume the B1G goes to 18 and that UVa is definitely one of the schools added. Is there any way to make 6 pods of three work?
1: NE, IA, MN
2: WI, IL, NW
3: OSU, PU, IU
4: MI, MSU, RU
5: PSU, MD, UVa
6: ACC1, ACC2, ACC3
Obviously the ideal pod 6 from an academic standpoint would be GT, UNC, Duke; whereas from an athletic standpoint, you might want to include a king/prince in that group:
FSU, GT, UNC
VT, UNC, Duke
FSU, UNC, Duke
VT, GT, UNC
I’d have to think a little more about how the rotations and scheduling would work, but you could probably keep pods 1 and 2 together more often than not and pods 5 and 6 together more often than not. Have a protected cross division rival you play every year when you aren’t in their division (WI-MN, OSU-MI, and UVa-VT if VT comes would be the most important games to lock in). Go to 9 conference games.
Not that I necessarily think it’s a good idea, but it’s hard to see any conference member who’d be unreasonably unhappy with this setup.
LikeLike
Just asked Richard the same question. He’s been looking at it. I don’t see how the rotation works in a logical way.
LikeLike
Yes, I wrote a thorough 6 pod setup on a previous post.
It actually works very well.
Everyone has 1 fixed game.
Then you just combine 3 pods to form a division and play 8 games in division and 1 crossover game.
18 actually works as well as 16 with pods.
LikeLike
BoilerHup,
The better question is not whether it can be done but whether the B10 would realistically consider doing it. Imagine explaining 6 pods of 3 with a locked rival and schedules for rotating the pods to your average fan. Just because we can draw it up doesn’t make it practical. At most I could see the B10 using 4 pods. More likely is 2 divisions.
LikeLike
For the average fan, it would be simplest probably just to skip explaining pods and lay out the 2 divisions and cross-over games 6 years in advance. Really, they’d just need to remember which 4 schools their school plays annual (and maybe which other 4 their school plays 2/3rds of the time).
LikeLike
Good luck with that. If the simple version requires showing them 6 years of schedules, you’ve lost them.
LikeLike
Does the average fan care more than who his own team plays and the other teams that may be contending with his team for the division title that year (and maybe next year)? I just don’t think so.
LikeLike
That was one of the reasons the WAC dumped pods and their scheme wasn’t as complicated as yours. The fans want to know who they are competing against for a title.
LikeLike
Eh, they can look at a chart laying out the divisions for the next 6 years.
For the average fan of any particular school, it actually wouldn’t be much different from being in a 9-school league with a 7-game conference schedule and 4 locked rivals (you’d face 4 schools annually in both cases & 4 other schools 2/3rds of the time instead of 3/4ths of the time). Biggest difference is that 9 other schools cycle through your division 1/3rd of the time each (instead of being OOC).
LikeLike
In other words, it just wouldn’t be that different from the days of the 11-school B10, when 2 schools cycled off the schedule and 2 schools cycled on every 2 years. Now it’s 3 schools cycling in and out of your division every 2 years most of the time.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Does the average fan care more than who his own team plays and the other teams that may be contending with his team for the division title that year (and maybe next year)? I just don’t think so.”
The average fan is a casual fan who loses interest as soon as they stop understanding who is in which division. Games lose meaning if you aren’t sure whether the outcome matters to your team. Look at how many B10 fans are still confused about the divisions. Then you change them every 2 years to add to the confusion. It’s great for us, but we’re not anything close to normal fans.
LikeLike
Why not 18? With three divisions of 6, a conference semi-final round between 3 division champs and a wild card/at-large? This seems to me it would be better from a matchup standpoint for a conference tournament. Often times there seems to be a 10-2 or even an 11-1 team that did not win its division (Oregon 2012, Alabama 2011,etc). In a 4 team pod set up, I would think it would be more likely that you would have watered down divsions winners. I would prefer no pods even at 16. Keep two divisions, and take the two division winners and two wild cards/or at large teams.
LikeLike
No NCAA rule allowing a conference semi-final (thank God).
LikeLike
NCAA rules changes are just a vote away . . .
LikeLike
Good luck convincing the entire membership to swallow that pill.
LikeLike
You’re assuming any of the power schools WANT conference semi-finals.
LikeLike
The power schools might not, but the conferences definitely wouid. Create more excitement as more teams would still be alive for post season games later in the season. Two win-or-go home games that feed into the national championship picture.
LikeLike
Right, because the CCG tickets have been selling like hotcakes for everyone outside the SEC. I’m sure semifinals will do even better.
LikeLike
Is the endgame for the Big Ten and SEC to go to 20-24 teams each and pull out of the NCAA?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t rule out all the major conferences doing that at some point in the future. How could the Big 12 schools stay if, say, the SEC & B1G decided to leave the NCAA and institute stipends for student athletes (it would have to be across the board because of federal law).
LikeLike
Yes. B1G, SEC, PacX and Big12/ACC. Four pods each in football give you a 16 team football NC playoff. In basketball an all-in post season tournament. Maybe conference tournements feeding into a final four. Inceases value of conference season as they directly seed tournemant. Nonconference games would mean nothing, so have less on them and more conference games (good for BTN) plus an extra week added back to the season. Conference tournaments mean much more, again good for BTN.
LikeLike
Let’s play “Who Am I”.
There is a land-grant university outside a major (top 10) TV market, one similar in size to both Washington DC or Atlanta, one with no competing SEC presence. With 27,000 students (more than Virginia, Georgia Tech or UConn), it’s the largest public university in its state, and really, the region. ARWU ranks the school in the 54-67 range, alongside Georgia Tech, Iowa and Virginia. The Times ranks the school as the 72nd best university in the world, below Penn State #61 and Purdue #69, but above Pitt #76 and Michigan State #94. Its medical research is currently separate from its main university (much as Rutgers was), and it’s not AAU. But if unified (as Rutgers has just been), the combined schools would produce $330 million in research per year, similar to Illinois. From the athletic perspective, the university has had some good success in basketball in the recent past, and it even has a hockey team. By nearly every metric, the school should be a prime candidate for B1G expansion, yet no one ever mentions this school as a candidate for B1G expansion. Why? Because the one thing that would likely preclude the B1G from considering it is the abysmal quality of its football team. Any guesses?
LikeLike
You’re UMass…but you’re still not going to get a B1G invite, maybe in 20 years if you can keep making progress and prove there are actual CFB fans in Boston that care about your games that aren’t fans of the other B1G schools they already watch.
LikeLike
Well, that didn’t take long. It’s just too bad, because they’re pretty strong in everything except football. Much like Pitt is strong in everything except geography.
LikeLike
The Massachusetts land grant was split between UMass (Ag) and MIT (Mechanic Arts). You make a good case on the academic side. I think if UMass had even Boston College quality athletics they would get a serious look.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine this hasn’t been posted here already, but just in case…..
The BTN has a survey (http://btn.com/2012/12/01/big-ten-expansion-tell-us-what-you-think/) set up to give your opinion on conference expansion, including a section at the end where you can add a specific comment re: expansion. Personally, I suggested looking at non-AAU candidates who are making progress towards attaining AAU status and admitting them to the B1G with the provision that they they can’t join the CIC until they attain AAU status.
I imagine these comments will end up in the virtual circular file, but you never know.
LikeLike
Thanks, I filled it out. And FWIW yes, I’m mostly a Mizzou fan, but I went to Michigan for grad school so I have a stake in the B1G as well, which might partly explain why I’m here.
LikeLike
It’s good to get outside voices in here too regardless.
It would be too much of an echo chamber otherwise.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m pretty encouraged by some of the questions they asked. At the very least, everyone should take this survey to let them know just how you feel about the ridiculous division names. Can’t hurt.
LikeLike
They may ask the questions but they don’t care about the answers. Remember that review of “Legends” and “Leaders”? How did that work out?
LikeLike
Frankly anything that gets them to change the division names is positive in my book.
LikeLike
Interesting the things they asked. I don’t like the idea of divisions in basketball at all. I hope they do seriously thing about changing divisions entirely though (rather than just keep the same basic structure).
LikeLike
Announcers pretty biased for Alabama. You’d think you were watching ESPN. Complains about a little jersey (holding) on the UGA TD. On the last Alabama TD, the guy had two hands full of jersey. The guy had one hand full of jersey on the 2 point conversion. Talks about the Alabama player getting there late on that 1st down pass before the big pass. The Alabama player hit him well before the ball got there. It was a great catch to hold on with that hit before the ball got there.
LikeLike
What a finish.
Is it illegal to spike in college? If not, UGA cost themselves 2 plays.
LikeLike
Brainfart of the ages for them.
Well ESPN gets their matchup; Bama-ND. That will blow the roof off the ratings.
LikeLike
I almost didn’t make it through the end of that game. But we came through like champs at the end!
LikeLike
That was one hell of a fun game.
LikeLike
Great game. Hate to see teams kill their own chances to win a hard-fought game like that. It was a great game nonetheless that lived up to the hype.
LikeLike
Bama fans are a great mix of kind, passionate, and football intelligent. Or at least the ones I have met. Just wanted to let you know that your fanbase has earned another fan or the way you guys do business.
LikeLike
Glad to see Bama pull it out as it’s pretty obvious they’re the better team.
Now beat ND by 40….
LikeLike
Anyone think this is just a little sad?
http://tracking.si.com/2012/12/01/pac-12-expansion-boise-state-san-diego-state/?sct=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp
LikeLike
Only sad if you are a snob – both schools would be fine additions to the conference in terms of athletics, especially SD State which would thrive in a Pac 12+. I doubt the Univ of Calf schools will let a Cal State school in their private club, though. A real prize would be SD State + UNLV but I doubt the PTB out west have the vision to make that move.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t they just wait for Texas?
It’s not like they have some kind of markets angle like the Big Ten did on the East Coast…?
LikeLike
Have you ever heard a commish speak insultingly about a school when asked by a reporter about hypothetical future possibilities? I’m not in a position to have to be so polite. SDSU-great school and area but doesn’t deliver anything not already dominated. Chance slightly greater than zero. Boise-ask for odds in fifty years, but don’t expect any then either.
LikeLike
You said what we were all thinking.
LikeLike
@Mark: Not focusing on the merits of the two schools involved, this entire process has been sad on several levels, simultaneous with the wonderful opportunity offered to many.
Opportunity: Several generations of fans new and old are developing heightened interest in college sports based on the new range of possibilities.
Sad: An older generation of fans are seeing their decades of rivalries and loyalties rendered irrelevant.
Opportunity: Schools are securing decades of their future by getting a seat at the right table within the right conference.
Sad: Schools are prostitalizing themselves to gain a seat at these tables and conferences are abandoning the bonds that tied them together for decades.
I consider myself lucky to be among the recipients of this largess, but I would be remiss if I didn’t realize that there’s a hell of a lot of collateral damage occurring.
LikeLike
This is very well said.
LikeLike
Larry Scott wil be fired if he ever proposes adding SDSU and BSU to the Pac-12.
LikeLike
This made me laugh:
“Go home Big East, you’re drunk.”
LikeLike
It’s funny how right he is.
It’s the same teams; and now they’re going to get 10x as much in the next contract? Can someone explain why anyone is going to pay for this?
Is just slapping the name “Big East” worth 10x as much…?
LikeLike
Exactly.
Instead of looking at the Big East as a downgrade of its 2003 or 2011 former self, let’s imagine instead that it is C-USA upgrading the 2011 version of itself.
C-USA signed a deal with Fox in early 2011 that, combined with its basketball deal from CBS, set their members to average $1.167M/year. ($14M per year/12 schools).
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_ucf/2011/01/conference-usa-signs-new-tv-agreement-with-fox.html
Well, take that same $1.167M/year league.
– Remove UTEP, Rice, Tulsa, Southern Miss, UAB, and Marshall from the equation.
– Add UConn (for the time being, at least), Navy (if they still join), Temple, USF, Cincinnati, San Diego Sate (if they still join), and Boise State (if they still join).
– Add the uptick in market demand for college sports.
– Add a slight bonus for Big East Catholic basketball schools, but only for the full members.
Now what’s that league worth? Double? Triple? Four times as much as the previous C-USA deal?
I don’t see how it gets much more than $5M/year. Seriously, who’s the big draw in the league? Not every game will feature Boise or Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Agree on every point.
How can anyone justify paying more than $5M per team? Seems like someone (NBC or whoever) is just going to be throwing away money on this.
The basketball may be more valuable than C-USA basketball, but there’s no way to justify some kind of explosion over that $1.167M per team per year deal that C-USA signed last year.
They just lost Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville…, and in football, they lost pretty much all of the big fanbases that the Big East had…
LikeLike
Huskers need to pull it together. The Big 10’s reputation has taken a big enough hit, the last thing we need is an unranked team in the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
On the plus side, if Wisconsin can play like this in Pasadena, maybe they actually win it this time…
On the negative side, if they go there and lose a 3rd straight Rose Bowl…
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten invited Rutgers and Maryland because deep down, the Big Ten wants to be just like the Big East and ACC.
Why else would the Big Ten be trying so hard to send a five-loss team to the Rose Bowl?
Wisconsin 35
Nebraska 10
2nd Quarter
LikeLike
I’m not even sure what to think of this game. It’s like bizarro world.
LikeLike
Actually, now that I think about it maybe its worth pulling for G-Tech and Wiscy so they can join Louisville in BCS infamy.
LikeLike
Made me look at Wisconsin’s season. This IS their 1st good win of the season. But Utah St. who they barely beat won 10 games. They lost 3 OT games to bowl eligible teams (if they weren’t on probation), and to Oregon St. and Nebraska by 3 on the road. This team was a handful of plays from being unbeaten.
LikeLike
Looking like a really bad BCS season from my standpoint.
Do I really want to watch a 5 loss team play Stanford?
Orange will be FSU/Louisville or FSU/NIU.
Sugar may be Florida/Louisville.
Fiesta with KSU/Oregon will be the one interesting one.
There’s noone I want to see win the BCS title game. I don’t generally have anything against Alabama other than Saban’s stretching of the rules with oversigning and medical redshirts and the fact they got a 2nd chance last year which wasn’t fair to LSU or Oklahoma St. But I don’t want 1 school to get 3 out of 4 (unless its mine), one state to get 4 straight and one conference to get 7 straight. And I never want to see Notre Dame win. So maybe Alabama wins, but gets put on probation and has to vacate.
Early prediction: Alabama 23 Notre Dame 10.
LikeLike
A case study in the logic of failed incrementalism — I couldn’t help but notice before I went out to see a movie tonight that the Big 10 Conference Championship game is being played to a half-empty Lucas Oil Stadium crowd. Of course it is — who the hell cares. To realize a few dollars of fees, the Big 11, expanded to the Big 12 so they could reap all of the benefits of a Championship game — that big payday that not only would give millions in extra tv revenues but add luster to the image of the conference. How is that plan working!!! So, the Big 12 “doubles down” on their failed idea — now we are the Big 14 — and when we become the Big 14 still no one will feel the majesty of the Big 14 championship. I can only imagine the I-70 caravan of cars of Rutgers fans driving out someday to Indy to play Iowa. It will be reminiscent of the ending scene in “Field of Dreams.”
So, according to this board, the only logical step is to expand further to become Big 16, then Big 18, then Big 20. We will continue to expand until we re-capture the feeling engendered by the conference when it was the Big 10. What is the saying, when you have dug yourself into a hole, the first step is … to stop digging. Let me know when you feel that your expansion is a success.
LikeLike
You really don’t think it’d be different if Ohio State was in there at 12-0?
It’s the result of having a 7-5 Wisconsin team in there and no national implications…
LikeLike
Who whizzed in your Wheaties today Rich2? We all know you don’t like the expansion. We get it.
LikeLike
The main problem is the ever increasing important placed on a “national championship” in college football, as opposed to the emphasis on a regular season and just winning as many games as possible. Now, the vast majority of casual fans simply care only about games that have a direct impact on the MNC, which devalues everything else.
Not much for the Big Ten to do other than have teams in the running for the MNC (which tOSU would have been had they not been on probation).
LikeLike
Just heard on TV that Rick Majerus passed away.
Very sad day in the world of sports. Mortifying what happened in Kansas City today.
LikeLike
Man. Huskers getting stomped. At least we will be rolling in B1G money.
LikeLike
Wow.
Ay, Caramba! Nebraska…
This is the worst Nebraska football game I’ve seen in 4 years…; worse than either of their Big 12 CCG losses to Texas/OU over the past 4 years…
LikeLike
At some point, you just give credit to Nebraska.
No one picked them to win this game, and they just came out on fire.
Now, hopefully they bottle this up and bring it out against a really good Stanford team…
LikeLike
Whoops, meant Wisconsin in that first line obviously…
LikeLike
I am pretty surprised the stadium is not sold out. Both schools usually travel well. Nebraska made a name for themselves off of their fan base. I am pretty surprised.
LikeLike
This is why I like the Pac-12’s system better (hosting at team stadiums). They could include season tickets as potential tickets if their team goes to the conference championship.
LikeLike
Yeah because Stanford brought the crowd yesterday. Bottom line, people chose not to go because Wisky makes no sense. It’s a fluke year. It won’t happen like that again.
LikeLike
That is a notable point. Furthermore, even if Stanford’s fanbase is small, the Bay Area isn’t that far at all from UCLA (granted, the game was on a Friday night).
LikeLike
Friday night at 5 pm Pacific. Rain in congested bay area traffic didnt help either. No excuses though, Stanford is generally widely mocked on in the west coast as having the smallest fan base to begin with. Oregon sold out year before I believe.
LikeLike
Wisconsin fans are fed up with the losing. Nebraska fans thought they were saving their money for Pasadena.
Nebraska team apparently thought they were booked for Pasadena as well. Seem to have forgot Wisconsin fought to a 60-minute draw with the same Ohio State team that obliterated the ‘Huskers.
Wisconsin is disjointed, not bad. Biiiiig difference.
LikeLike
I’d expect Badger fans to be lukewarm this year considering their record going in. Nebraska is far from Indy, but their fans are suppose to travel well (not on short notice?)
The B12 title games typically drew pretty well, and the SEC title games have always drawn very well. However, here’s the thing:
Every single B12 championship game featured at least 1 team from the state of the host site or a state adjacent to that state.
For the SEC, the logistics have been even better: not only has at least 1 team from the state of the host site or a state adjacent to that state been in every championship game, but 16 of the 21 featured either a team from the home state of the host site or both schools were located in adjacent states.
The Big10 these days is now as spread out as the Pac12. Lincoln & the Twin Cities are almost as far from Indy as Seattle and SLC are from San Fran. Lincoln to State College as abotu as far as Seattle to LA (NJ, of course, would be even farther away).
I think that it really makes sense for the Big10 to play the championship game on a home site.
The SEC, in a sense, has lucked out by always having at least 1 contending school’s fanbase close to Atlanta (it also helps that they were relatively compact & Atlanta is the capital city of the SEC & had significant numbers of grads from all SEC schools; a Big10 title game in a dome in Chicago definitely would have had better attendance). i’d be curious, though, to see what the SEC title game attendance would be the first time TAMU or Arkansas faces Mizzou in the title game.
LikeLike
Well, Nebraska just showed what they had the whole year: that they have a mediocre (if not straight out bad) defense & a good offense would run them over (see the UCLA and OSU games). They lucked out against Michigan when Shoelace got injured and Michigan was woefully unprepared to deal with that possibility (throwing out a HS-caliber QB as a replacement). To an extent, they lucked out against Northwestern (we kept playing a QB who was missing on passes rather than one who was gaining yards) as well as against Wisconsin (facing them earlier in the year when they were in disarray).
Wisconsin’s problem is that their defense isn’t any great shakes either, and while they did go to OT in 3 of their losses, a good defense seems able to shut down their O enough, and Stanford’s defense is good.
LikeLike
Wisconsin’s defense is fine. The most points they’ve given up in regulation all year is 30…to Nebraska. Most teams haven’t broken 20.
Wisconsin has losses because of a disjointed offense.
LikeLike
Really hope for their sake that they win the Rose Bowl this year. After sending 50k fans out there the past two years, it’s time to get it done…
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, OrSt. barely beat a Wisconsin with a discombobulated offense at home and barely lose to Stanford on the road.
That gives me some hope for B10 pride. Well that and not having to face Oregon.
LikeLike
Well GT doesn’t look that bad in the ACC CG. Playing FSU to the wire. I suspect they’ll lose, but a decent showing.
LikeLike
Can we please just wait until Ohio State starts going to Indy before judging these things?
Wisconsin breaks 70…
LikeLike
Has any team ever had 2 200-yard rushers & another 100-yard rusher in a regulation game?
Come to think of it, some of those great triple option teams may have achieved that.
LikeLike
Nebraska gave up a record for their program; 524 rushing yards…
LikeLike
In other news………….IU beat UNC and advanced to their 18th Final Four in real football.
For any Purdue fans who may read this, “Final Four” is where the top 4 teams go to play for something called a “National Championship”.
LikeLike
Grow up shroom. This is a board where adults discuss sports.
LikeLike
Thank Illinois for not having a men’s soccer program. Indiana has greatly benefited from Illinois high school soccer players over the years (including my cousin, who played in a national championship game for IU).
LikeLike
So NIU will easily outrank 2 AQ champs and in all likelihood will still be stuck in the Pizza Bowl.
I guess they can take consolation in the fact they won’t get killed by FSU.
LikeLike
FWIW, BCS Guru has NIU at 17. He’s been wrong before (he had OSU at #2 last year), but he’s usually pretty good at this stuff.
LikeLike
frug,
WI would wipe the floor with NIU with the way they’re playing now. Their ranking is low because of the bad start and tough OT losses, but no MAC D is going to stop that running game.
LikeLike
I believe he’s talking about BCS rankings. NIU could be this close to jumping from the Pizza Bowl to the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
I know what he’s talking about. And I pointed out that while NIU may easily outrank WI, they couldn’t beat them right now.
LikeLike
So where does sending a 5 loss Wisconsin team to the Rose Bowl rank in the realm most embarrassing moments in Big Ten history?
LikeLike
After tonight, better ask that on 1/2/13.
LikeLike
Penn State and Ohio State are the embarrassments to the B1G, not Wisconsin.
LikeLike
frug,
Sending them isn’t embarrassing. Them getting crushed in the Rose Bowl would be embarrassing. WI was expected to be better than 7-5 this year, and they had 3 OT losses. It could just as easily have been 10-2 WI crushing NE.
LikeLike
frug, let’s wait to see what happens.
If they actually win, it’ll be a better outcome than the past two years where they lost close games to TCU and Oregon.
If they lose…, well that’s a 3rd straight Rose Bowl loss on top of the 5-loss thing. Just very bad.
But they might actually be able to win out there, who knows. They’re playing with house money this time…
LikeLike
The bottom line is the B1G PTB lacked the foresight to change the rules for the CCG. With schools that are ineligible, the 2 teams with the best conference records should be playing in the CCG, regardless of divisional record. Had Wisconsin won their division, this would be a moot point—but 4 conference losses, going to Pasadena–is PURE BS; regardless of the fact that they beat Nebraska in their rematch–which often happens in a rematch game!!
No doubt the Husker’s overlooked the CCG, and laid a HUGE egg…but…
With a 3rd consecutive Rose Bowl loss, the egg on the B1G will only get bigger…
LikeLike
That would have required a chance in the NCAA rules. They could have potentially applied for some sort of waiver, but I guessing it wouldn’t be granted.
LikeLike
They did try (at least asked about the possibility), as did the PAC. Remember the response when the SEC said they were going to start a CCG? NCAA said rule wasn’t intended for D1 football. SEC responded that the rule allows it – we’re doing it by the rules.
I don’t think the NCAA is going to taylor a rule they had not intended to be used by a group at that groups request.
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“The bottom line is the B1G PTB lacked the foresight to change the rules for the CCG.”
The B10 had no power to change the rules.
“regardless of the fact that they beat Nebraska in their rematch–which often happens in a rematch game!!”
Actually, no. The winner the first time is something like 13-5 in CCGs.
Here are the AQ records:
SEC 5-1
B12 4-2
P12 1-0
B10 0-2
Maybe the lesson is for no West opponent to beat WI during the regular season, just beat them in Indy.
LikeLike
So some of you have been interested in how 6 3-school pods in an 18-team B10 conference could still maintain all the major rivalries as well as let almost all the original B10 schools play either Michiagn or OSU yearly.
The basic gist is that you have 3 paired pods:
A-D
B-E
C-F
where the pairs are “opposite” each other and almost never play.
However, that allows the schools in a pod to play the schools in the 2 adjacent pods (for this purpose, A&F are adjacent, forming a kind of ring) at least 2/3rds of the time (and one of the schools in each adjacent pod annually), giving 4 annual opponents, 4 opponents played 2/3rds of the time, and 9 schools played a third of the time.
The pods would “flip”, so that over 3 iterations, the divisions would be
A-D
B-E
C-F
A-D
B-E
F-C
A-D
E-B
F-C
I assumed that the B10 adds UVa, VTech, GTech, & Miami and decided to use the OSU/PSU as a dividing line (as those 2 obviously should not be in the same pod).
The pods would then be–
OSU-PU-IU
Michigan-MSU-Illinois
Wisconsin-Northwestern-Minny
Nebraska-Iowa-Miami
VTech-UVa-UMD
PSU-Rutgers-GTech
I divided the eastern & southern pods this way because this allows everyone access to at least a apart of both the south and the East Coast. It helps that Miami isn’t within driving distance of anyone anyway, and the closest school GTech is to (VTech) is an annual game for them anyway.
The protected games would be–
OSU-Michigan
PU-Illinois
IU-MSU (though you could probably switch IU/PU vs. MSU/Illinois)
Michigan-Minny (LBJ game)
Illinois-Northwestern
MSU-Wisconsin
Wisconsin-Nebraska
Minnesota-Iowa
Northwestern-Miami
Miami-VTech
Nebraska-UMD
Iowa-UVa (these pairings are so that VTech, UMD, and UVa all get to face 1 “big name”–Miami, Nebraska, & PSU, respectively & so that UNL & Miami can’t complain as they get roughly equal strength protected games)
UVa-PSU
VTech-GTech
UMD-Rutgers
PSU-OSU
GTech-PU
Rutgers-IU
The schedules would look like this (where a dash means the schools play each other in an annual series).
OSU-PSU
Wisconsin-Nebraska
Northwestern-Miami
Minny-Iowa
PU-GTech
IU-Rutgers
Michigan VTech
MSU UVa
Illinois UMD
(roughly even)
PSU-UVa
Michigan-Minny
MSU-Wisconsin
Illinois-Northwestern
GTech-VTech
Rutgers-UMD
OSU Nebraska
PU Miami
IU Iowa
(yes, this is somewhat unbalanced, but not as much as just looking at the headliners would show;
MSU & Iowa
Illinois & Northwestern
PU & Minny
Rutgers &UMD
PSU & UNL
GTech & UVa
are roughly equal
OSU & Michigan can’t be matched by Miami &Wisconsin, but
Iowa is clearly superior to IU)
OSU-Michigan
VTech-Miami
UVa-Iowa
PU-Illinois
IU-MSU
UMD-Nebraska
PSU Wisconsin
GTech Northwestern
Rutgers Minny
(fairly balanced)
LikeLike
Let’s take a step back. Could anyone explain which universities need to be added now to the Big 12 to make the current round of expansion a “net increase” in the brand value of the Big 10? By brand value I don’t mean value for BTN or an increased number of alumni — but the perception of quality in the minds of the general American public. I posit that adding Rutgers and Maryland causes a net decline in brand equity (not the value of a cable contract). As a result, the question is what group of two add more to the brand equity of the Big 10 then adding Rutgers and Maryland caused a decline in equity. Take any pair from the usual suspects.
Kansas and GT — ? GT and VT? It seems that the Big 10 is making a trade that is unacceptable (trading brand equity for a few million) until the Big 10 adds UNC, Duke, ND or UVA. The problem with this is: those options might be years away, and they might not be added until expansion hits B18 or B20. Then you might have added four schools that yield a net decline in equity in order to pick up one (what if B18 is UVA and Pitt? or UConn? ) or two if we are very lucky. Thus from an brand equity view, is expanding from 12 – 18 in order to pick up UVA worth it? The powers that be are taking too much risk in betting the single most important asset that the original members of the Big 10 developed — brand equity — on what really seems to be a convoluted plan. Pick up five average members for UVA or UNC?
The next two expansion targets must immediately make expansion a net positive for equity or it looks like dilution of equity (and a few dollars more) is the net result of this round of expansion — and one would think that every Big 10 fan or alum (or employee) would object.
LikeLike
I don’t think ND will ever join the Big Ten. Why can’t they keep their 5 game deal with the ACC regardless of who leaves the ACC?
It’ll still have a lot of their traditional rivals there…
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. As a lifelong B1G fan, I believe if they don’t play their cards right, it could have a ‘bursting bubble’ effect on the base. Quantity over quality has a bad track record. The only additions I can see making this grand (eastern) expansion earn its weight, are a combination of ND/UNC/DUKE/FSU/. Yes, I know FSU is not AAU. Academic expansion, on its face, is ridiculous. This is about sports, and ruling out every appealing sports brand because it doesn’t meet the highest of academic standards makes the whole exercise unnecessary. Why not just stay at 12? A reasonable balance (i.e. Making exceptions for sports Kings) is necessary if this is going to work.
LikeLike
For the record,
I’d be okay with UVa + Va Tech. That is an appealing set to me.
LikeLike
Athletically they are diluting the brand but research wise they are making a monster. Currently the BIG crosses over 11 states so that is 22 senators. Add two more states and that will give the BIG influence over 25% of the entire Senate. Add in the large number of congressman from districts surrounding the these schools and population centers and that is a lot of pull for federal grants. If next two schools are AAU, that will be 16 if you include the university of Chicago. There are only 62 AAU schools total. Again that gives the BIG more than 25% influence in that organization. That is a lot of power to have for one conference.
LikeLike
I think your emphasis on brand equity is misplaced. The reason is actually because of the example of the ACC. In all of its expansion before Louisville, all the moves arguably enhanced its brand equity (or at least did not decrease it). Yet it remained weak because it still only had 3 states that it truly owned, and now that’s down to 2.
That’s why I’m coming around to Frank’s view that the B10 should take both UVa and VTech to lock down VA. After that, it may be OK to add schools in states shared with the SEC for other reasons.
BTW, I’m curious, if you think UMD joining the B10 decreased its brand equity, do you think that UMD leaving the ACC increased its brand equity, or did you think the ACC had lower brand equity than the B10 to begin with? If so, why were you more enthusiastic about ND joining a conference with less brand equity?
LikeLike
If they are really serious about these head hits, they need to suspend that Alabama player who took the cheap shot on Murray for at least half the title game. For those who didn’t see, it was after an interception. Murray was on the opposite side of the field basically standing around watching the action and the player ran up and did a helmet to helmet hit. Ref was standing right there and called nothing. Otherwise they are saying its ok as long as you don’t get caught or the referee is too lazy to reach into his pocket. Suspension for a title game would send a message to players and coaches.
LikeLike
@Brian
I realize that (your post on that Rutgers line of posts).
I just think it’s foolish to think that there’s any other way to attack the NYC market other than Notre Dame itself or Rutgers.
I’ll take Rutgers’ fanbase in that market any day of the week.
They’re the only school that can “easily” draw near a 1.0 in the NYC market just for having football games. They drew a 0.9 in the NYC market on ESPNU against Arkansas, and I’m pretty sure that none of that was due to an Arkansas that had just fallen off the map after losing to ULM and Alabama (52-0).
The people scoffing at that Big East championship game drawing a 2.6 aren’t going to be laughing when a top 5 Ohio State at Rutgers will draw at least a 4.0.
LikeLike
I was just pointing out that he’s basically Syracuse’s Andy, so there’s no point in arguing. Facts have no impact on a closed mind.
LikeLike
Mark Schlabach @Mark_Schlabach
Looks like SEC and Big Ten offices got involved to protect champ game losers
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
15m Mark Schlabach @Mark_Schlabach
Now I’m hearing #UGA to Cap One vs #Nebraska; #LSU to Cotton; SC to Outback and A&M to Chick-fil-A & Miss St to Gator
Interesting turn of events. Both leagues stepping in to protect UGa and Nebraska from falling too far…
LikeLike
Pretty sure Michigan State fans are asking where that protection was when Michigan State ended up in the Outback…
LikeLike
A&M to the Chick-Fil-A?
Huh? Texas exerting pressure on the Cotton?
Also, I wonder what the attendance for the CapOne will be. At least UGa is close.
LikeLike
A few hours ago it was Georgia/Texas in Cotton. Sounds like realignment. Its fluid.
LikeLike
Well looks like Oklahoma-LSU now…
Who knows at this point; the Big Ten and SEC are fitting teams where they want it seems.
Richard, this is from the SEC, not from the Big 12…
LikeLike
OK, so why did the SEC decide to help out LSU at the expense of A&M?
LikeLike
Who knows as well on the Orange Bowl. NIU/UCLA/NE and maybe Michigan will be close. NIU needs to finish ahead of 2 of them to bump OU.
LikeLike
And A&M will get a higher rated opponent playing in the Peach than in any other bowl. Georgia gets to go more than an hour and a quarter down the Atlanta Highway.
LikeLike
The story has been CapOne has wanted A&M for some time. S. Carolina couldn’t go to Peach because Clemson would be there. UGA couldn’t go to Outback since they were there last year. Noone really wanted Texas/Texas A&M in the Cotton-Texas, A&M, the Bowl, TV. Cotton wanted a western team, but SEC office was pushing UGA to Cotton instead of falling to Peach.
Sounds like SEC office told CapOne to get in line. LSU-Cotton, UGA-CapOne, S. Carolina-Outback, A&M-Peach is probably a win for all the bowls. A&M is likely to take a big crowd to any eastern bowl as they are all new destinations.
LikeLike
OK, I don’t understand the “Noone really wanted Texas/Texas A&M in the Cotton” part. With the rivalry/revenge aspect, the hype for that game would have been gigantic & the tickets would have been at a premium.
LikeLike
My guess would be that Texas still isn’t ready to play A&M yet, A&M wants their first SEC bowl to be an Eastern one not a Texas bowl, and the Cotton Bowl might prefer a traditional SEC team to a newbie.
I do think the TV people would love the idea though.
LikeLike
Agreed Richard.
Same thing likely happened on the Big Ten side…; not sure Capitol One wanted Nebraska after that 70-31 beatdown…
LikeLike
On the other hand, bullet has a good point about that.
Maybe the SEC did want A&M going to an Eastern bowl as they’d be the new kids with a new shiny toy; they just didn’t want them as high as Capital One which would have ruined the order…
LikeLike
TV people would rather have an intersectional match.
LikeLike
GT’s President after last night’s championship game. Those of you who weren’t too crazy with this move from a purely athletic perspective should be relieved. http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2012/12/01/peterson-tech-not-going-anywhere/
LikeLike
Is it me or has history proven that the next expansion move will be done by the SEC? When Penn State’s B1G membership was approved, the SEC moved on South Carolina and Arkansas (1991). Granted PSU joined B1G football after the SEC’s additions – but other PSU programs were in the BIG by 1990. After the B1G added Nebraska, the SEC went with Mizzo and aTm, but they weren’t exactly seeking these members – it was the other way around. Nevertheless, for the SEC to go with 14 means 16 is likely in their cards.
I think the B1G will actually wait a bit for the SEC. The SEC is officially in down time after successfully sending a team, yet again, to the BCSCG. For the B1G to become further proactive, esp with the ACC – they’ll appear greedy and let’s face it, most fans of ACC schools on the BIG radar still prefer the ACC. There’s considerably more history in the ACC vs the Big East & Big12 for that matter. The BIG does better with expansion when interested schools seek the B1G – not the opposite.
Whichever two teams the SEC takes: UNC, Va Tech, UVa, Duke, NCSt, the B1G gets an obvious pick of a Va school and then the last 16th spot becomes interesting.
I don’t see the SEC grabbing schools that share a state with their current members: Clem, FSU, GT. Most on here already know this to be true.
On the other hand, if the SEC went after the Big12 – oh boy! That would be a radical move, but certainly plausible. Then the death of the Big12 would be imminent & I honestly don’t know where the B1G goes next. The last two spots would be likely reserved for leftover Big12 schools.
One must confess the SEC has more clout than the B1G with expansion – esp if they wanted to break up the Big12.
LikeLike
GOR law! Big 12 schools have a Grant of Rights. They can’t go anywhere the next 13 years. Texas and OU could have gone to the SEC at any time, but the SEC is 6th or 7th on their priority list, right behind CUSA. There’s noone else the SEC is interested in.
LikeLike
Bingo. Even they could escape, who would the SEC take?
Texas and Oklahoma have made clear they have zero interest in the SEC (UT for 20+ years) and OU has indicated it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to leave OSU and the SEC isn’t going to take the Cowboys.
All that leaves is West Virginia (who applied to the SEC and was turned down prior to joining the Big XII) and maybe Kansas… who is stuck with K-State as long as the Big XII is viable.
LikeLike
Technically anyone can leave the Big 12, it just does not make sense financially. Unless the SEC wants to foot the bill, then maybe. But you’re right, who’s left that anyone wants? It’s basically two schools. The ACC would be the obvious target. It’s just that those schools don’t look to be on the move (yet).
LikeLike
Except that attacking the Big XII would require the SEC to wait 13 years.
LikeLike
Not that the 1st part of this scenario is plausible, but…
Let’s say the BigTen could convince UFlorida and FSU to join as #15 and #16.
Where would the SEC go to replace UFlorida?
They probably wouldn’t want to add a redundant footprint with GT or Clemson.
Would a UNC, NCState, VT, or UVA be allowed to leave the ACC, since the SEC would only need one school, and taking that yet one more school would leave a sister state school in a permanently weakened conference situation.
It seems the only school that wouldn’t have a “sister” state school problem would be WV.
Or maybe they’d really need to get back into the state of florida and they’d pick up a UCF, USF, or Miami?
Seems like it might be a pretty good thing from the state of florida’s perspective if they could move FSU and UFlorida to the BigTen, while also moving an UCF, USF, or Miami into the SEC.
FSU and UF plausible to the BigTen?
I have a hard time justifying the expansion of the bigten to 16 and the loss of playing every team in the conference, but if one could add FSU and UF, it’d be worth it.
I think fantasy land add of FSU and UF would be a better fit culturally than
the fantasy land add of UTexas and A&M that was discussed a few years ago.
LikeLike
Someone on another board made a good point about where you put your games if you expand. With 14, you get BTN, ESPN and ESPN2 at noon; BTN and ABC/ESPN mirrored at 4 and BTN and ESPN at 8. And that is assuming you don’t get beaten out for some of those slots by the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 12 (and also the ACC assuming they don’t get sliced up).
LikeLike
First thing is first though, Big Ten has got to stop stacking so many games for the noon slot.
No reason to have a 14 team conference playing that many games that early…
LikeLike
I’d like to see the BTN start to air some 11 am (eastern time) games that can compete with Game Day. It’s well known that live sports programming gets more viewers than any other sports programming, and the BTN would likely be the only channel to feature live football at that time. I’m not a fan of all the noon starts in the B1G, but at least for the BTN, I think 11 am starts could pay off. Other than that game, and the 2 on ESPN/ESPN2/ etc., all other games should start later
LikeLike
Well, it’s just foolish to me to be playing so many games on top of one another and then only having 2 or so games for later; there’s just no reason for it.
Space it out and own the day…
LikeLike
I think an 11 am BTN game, two noon ESPN family games, a 3:00 BTN game, a 3:30 ABC game, a 7:00 BTN game, and a late game on either ESPN or ABC would work quite well.
LikeLike
zeek,
“First thing is first though, Big Ten has got to stop stacking so many games for the noon slot.”
Shut your dirty mouth. Noon games rule. Many fans love them, especially in November.
“No reason to have a 14 team conference playing that many games that early…”
I’m guessing they try not to compete with the national windows too much. 3:30 on ABC gets a bigger game, so why subtract from the ratings by putting a BTN game against it? That said, they’ll probably spread things out a little more with more games.
LikeLike
“Shut your dirty mouth. Noon games rule. Many fans love them, especially in November.”
Yes, many old fans who might as well be asleep in the stands, love the noon games. Gives them the opportunity to watch the game and still get to Homestyle Buffet in time for the dinner special.
Noon games are terrible. Ohio Stadium is so quiet for them, and the best OSU games almost never happen at noon. Michigan is the only exception, and those games would be so much better at 3:30 or later (see the 2006 game, which started at 3:30).
LikeLike
Think that’s bad, “noon” Big Ten games actually start at 11:00 for those of us who went to school in the central time zone.
God I hated those games…
LikeLike
When I was living one the west coast those noon games killed me. Saturdays aren’t meant for 9am games.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
“Noon games are terrible.”
You’re just wrong. Having a crisp autumn morning as you head to the stadium early, then watch the pregame, is great. It also means the whole game is in daylight, and you get out in time to get home and watch other games. You usually don’t get stuck sitting next to any drunks, either.
3:30 games end in the dark, which makes it cold in November. It’s also more dangerous heading home. You get more drunks around you, and you miss all the other games that day.
Night games are terrible. The fans are drunk and belligerent and you have to drive home really late with a bunch of drunks around you.
If you’re just talking TV, then afternoon and night games are great.
“Ohio Stadium is so quiet for them, and the best OSU games almost never happen at noon.”
That’s the opponent, not the time.
“Michigan is the only exception,”
Case in point. The crowd is just fine for that noon game every year.
” and those games would be so much better at 3:30 or later (see the 2006 game, which started at 3:30).”
No they wouldn’t. It makes the games end in the dark and the weather is significantly colder. There’s also that little matter of tradition, not that you care.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
“When I was living one the west coast those noon games killed me. Saturdays aren’t meant for 9am games.”
That’s not an argument to start later, either. That’s just a reason not to live out west.
LikeLike
@Brian
I think manifest and I are talking about it from the perspective of a student and you are talking about as a non-student.
Students don’t drive to games and don’t mind having drunks with them in the stands.
LikeLike
frug,
That’s possible. There are a lot more non-students than students in the crowd and they pay more for their seats, so I don’t really worry about a lazy 20 year old that doesn’t want to get up before noon. I preferred noon games as a student FWIW.
LikeLike
To each their own, but I hate noon games when I’m attending them. Have to start going out to the game much earlier in the day and limiting the ability to stay up late and have fun the night before. I love 3:30pm as the near perfect kickoff time, but would chose 8pm over 12pm any day.
As a far watching on TV, I don’t care much at all about the kickoff time, I’ll just plan to watch whenever it is. Actually, I probably prefer noon games for TV watching because it leaves the rest of the day free to do whatever I want (which is often watching more college football, but I am less conflicted then if I have other plans).
LikeLike
@Brian:
“That’s the opponent, not the time.”
That’s every opponent but Michigan. Michigan is an outlier in every sense.
“That’s possible. There are a lot more non-students than students in the crowd and they pay more for their seats, so I don’t really worry about a lazy 20 year old that doesn’t want to get up before noon. I preferred noon games as a student FWIW.”
Not a lazy 20 year old student at this point. I’m an alumni, same as you. When I was a lazy 20 year old student, I preferred 3:30 and 8pm games. The atmosphere is entirely different. In the evening, the stadium is electric — it’s the stadium that Matt Barkley calls the loudest he’s ever played in. Noon games give you a stadium atmosphere Urban Meyer questioned earlier this year.
“No they wouldn’t. It makes the games end in the dark and the weather is significantly colder. There’s also that little matter of tradition, not that you care.”
Yes, colder. Please, give me colder. Turn Ohio Stadium into Lambeau Field. Give me darker, with the stadium lights (which need to be installed permanently) shining down, the country entirely tuned in because it’s 8pm, the crowd making ears bleed on the field. I’m all for tradition — I’d rather burn down Ohio Stadium than change the date of The Game — but the noon starts are one tradition I can live without.
LikeLike
I’m indifferent on noon vs. 3. I didn’t like the 11 am games you sometimes get in the central time zone.
Night games often do have crowds more into it, but I like the day game experience and drive back better.
LikeLike
For everyone complaining about the 11am crowds, look within. I am as loud at 11am as I am at 7pm. Then again, I’m not an alcoholic.
LikeLike
@greg – I don’t like 11AM games for a myriad of reasons, none of which have anything to do with alcohol.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
“That’s every opponent but Michigan. Michigan is an outlier in every sense.”
So it’s be quiet for USC or ND or PSU at noon? I don’t think so.
“When I was a lazy 20 year old student, I preferred 3:30 and 8pm games.”
See, we clearly are coming from different places and will never agree.
“The atmosphere is entirely different.”
Yes, more drunk and more dangerous. Great. We don’t have nearly the rioting problem after a noon game that night games can cause.
“Noon games give you a stadium atmosphere Urban Meyer questioned earlier this year.”
The current students aren’t used to seeing the whole season and they suck as a crowd. Maybe if they got off their phones and watched the game it would be different. The students didn’t used to be quiet at noon games.
“Yes, colder. Please, give me colder.”
Help yourself. I’d prefer to wear less than 5 layers of clothes for a game. I also like it when the roads don’t ice up on the drive home.
“Give me darker, with the stadium lights (which need to be installed permanently) shining down,”
Problem #2. No lights, so you want to waste millions renting lights all the time. Noon games never need lights.
“the country entirely tuned in”
I don’t give a rat’s ass if the country tunes in.
“I’m all for tradition — I’d rather burn down Ohio Stadium than change the date of The Game — but the noon starts are one tradition I can live without.”
Then you lied – you aren’t all for tradition.
LikeLike
Hah, that’s fair.
I loved the noon games too when I was a regular attendance fan.
Back on the couch permanently though, I have all day to watch so I’m rooting for the spread.
LikeLike
zeek,
Sure, later is better for TV, but the games should be timed for the attendees.
LikeLike
@Brian:
“So it’s be quiet for USC or ND or PSU at noon? I don’t think so.”
So the criteria is noon games with kings, which rarely get played at noon anyway? Great to see that’s all it takes for a noon game to be not quiet. And, yes, when PSU has played OSU at noon it has been far more quiet than when they’ve played later in the day. 2009 USC was at 8pm (which is where Barkley’s opinion comes from).
“See, we clearly are coming from different places and will never agree.”
I can live with that. You have your memories of attending, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree.
“Yes, more drunk and more dangerous. Great. We don’t have nearly the rioting problem after a noon game that night games can cause.”
This is true. But with OSU Campus Partners finally coming around to the fact that managed bars on High St aren’t a bad thing, I’d expect rioting to dissipate as the partying moves out of the over-capacity campus housing and back into a managed environment. Plus improving the surrounding area helps, as does getting kids into more dorm housing.
“The current students aren’t used to seeing the whole season and they suck as a crowd. Maybe if they got off their phones and watched the game it would be different. The students didn’t used to be quiet at noon games.”
Or maybe it’s the old alumni that bitch about everyone around them standing up and cheering (which I’ve experienced firsthand). Both parts of the crowd have their problems. Current students have phones in the evening too, and yet they’re still louder than during noon. Alumni too. And t-shirt fans who bought tickets. Maybe it’s the fact that students only get 30k out of 105k tickets? Can’t blame it all on 28% of those in attendance.
“Help yourself. I’d prefer to wear less than 5 layers of clothes for a game. I also like it when the roads don’t ice up on the drive home.”
To each their own. I live here in Columbus so driving is less of an issue, and I don’t find thermal underwear a problem. Perhaps get those little thermal glove warmers?
“Problem #2. No lights, so you want to waste millions renting lights all the time. Noon games never need lights.”
Or we could stop wasting money, make the lights permanent, and be done with it. Evening and late afternoon games aren’t going away, so I don’t understand why this hasn’t already been done. The rental lights are there more than they aren’t at this point.
“I don’t give a rat’s ass if the country tunes in.”
I do. It affects OSU recruiting, which in turn affects their ability to compete on the field. It affects OSU in the polls. It affects OSU’s public perception.
“Then you lied – you aren’t all for tradition.”
I’m all for tradition, just not for all tradition. Call me a liar if you want, just remember we root for the same team.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
“So the criteria is noon games with kings, which rarely get played at noon anyway?”
No, but you said it’s only MI. I’m pointing out it’s more than that.
“I can live with that. You have your memories of attending, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree.”
Yep.
“Or maybe it’s the old alumni that bitch about everyone around them standing up and cheering (which I’ve experienced firsthand).”
They’ve always been like that and students always ignored them.
“Maybe it’s the fact that students only get 30k out of 105k tickets?”
They’re welcome to pay full price and the annual donation to get more of the stadium.
“To each their own. I live here in Columbus so driving is less of an issue, and I don’t find thermal underwear a problem. Perhaps get those little thermal glove warmers?”
I’ve been able to walk home as a student, take COTA to a relative’s or drive 2-4 hours home after a game. Weather is an issue when you have to drive. And bringing and wearing all that stuff from that far away is a pain in the butt.
“Or we could stop wasting money, make the lights permanent, and be done with it.”
Yeah, that doesn’t cost any money either.
“Evening and late afternoon games aren’t going away, so I don’t understand why this hasn’t already been done.”
Cost. Design issues. Structural problems.
“It affects OSU recruiting, which in turn affects their ability to compete on the field. It affects OSU in the polls. It affects OSU’s public perception.”
If OSU is winning, people will tune in anyway.
“I’m all for tradition, just not for all tradition.”
So you’re all for some traditions. That’s not all for tradition to me.
“Call me a liar if you want, just remember we root for the same team.”
So does Jim Tressel, and he’s definitely a liar.
LikeLike
@Brian:
“They’re welcome to pay full price and the annual donation to get more of the stadium.”
They do pay an annual donation. It’s called tuition. It’s their school, there should be more seats available for students.
“I’ve been able to walk home as a student, take COTA to a relative’s or drive 2-4 hours home after a game. Weather is an issue when you have to drive. And bringing and wearing all that stuff from that far away is a pain in the butt.”
I’ve done the walk, I’ve done the COTA. I’ve done the drive, admittedly not for 2-4 hours because I either lived here in Columbus or on the west coast. Dress in removable layers? Once you get to your car, take it off? If you’re that concerned about weather, sell your tickets to a student and watch it on television?
“Yeah, that doesn’t cost any money either.”
Gene Smith discussed this back in 2010:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2010/11/30/horseshoe-could-get-permanent-lighting.html
Would you eventually make that money back? Depends. Tough call if it ran $1.8mil like Michigan’s.
“Cost. Design issues. Structural problems.”
Pretty sure they designed the ’99 renovation with this in mind as a possibility down the line, but I could be wrong there. The above article doesn’t really discuss it, but I thought Gene Smith mentioned price at some point.
“So you’re all for some traditions. That’s not all for tradition to me.”
That’s fine. I can live with you not agreeing with me.
“So does Jim Tressel, and he’s definitely a liar.”
Love you too, Brian.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
“They do pay an annual donation. It’s called tuition. It’s their school, there should be more seats available for students.”
They get their money’s worth with tuition. Football tickets aren’t free at OSU.
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2012/08/09/students-alumni-dont-snap-up-football-tickets.html
The students didn’t even sell out their tickets this year, so why should they get more? Osu more than met demand.
LikeLike
Oh, and as for the last bit, I fail to see how being an OSU fan makes someone immune to being called a liar. They are 2 unrelated things, as shown by the Tressel example.
LikeLike
I’m afraid this may lead to more Thursday night games.
LikeLike
Thursday night football without Jessie Palmer? I would enjoy that.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel
BREAKING: Northern Illinois vs Florida State is official in the Orange Bowl, according to a source.
BCS Busted. Oklahoma is out?
Oklahoma-LSU looks likely now in the Cotton…
LikeLike
Good for the Huskies and good for the MAC.
I wonder if this means Jordan Lynch will get an invite to the Heisman ceremony.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/12/02/orange-bowl-northern-illinois/index.html
Full BCS lineup
NCG: ND-‘Bama
Rose: Stanford-Wiscy
Fiesta: K-State-Oregon
Sugar: Florida-Louisville
Orange: FSU-NIU
LikeLike
Ugly lineup. OU loses only to ND and KSU, beats 7 bowl teams and gets replaced by a MAC team, while NIU loses to 4-8 Iowa and beats only 4 bowl teams, all MAC schools. Their best win ooc was Kansas.
LikeLike
That’s what happens when 2 AQ champs finish outside the top 20.
LikeLike
And some of you people want semi-finals with champs of 4 team divisions?
LikeLike
Yes I do. I want the B1G champ and the Pac12 champ in one semi-final, and the SEC champ and the Big XII champ in the other. Irrespective of ranking. You should earn your place in the semifinals by winning your conference. Champions only.
LikeLike
Steven D, he’s talking about 4 pods in a conference.
I.E. a chance for more Wisconsins or possibly worse than that winning the conference.
LikeLike
Interesting stat on the Big 12. They didn’t lose to a single non-bowl team all year. 9 of the 10 will go to bowls and all of them beat Kansas, the 10th. The 4 ooc losses were OU to Notre Dame (12-0), Okie St. to Arizona (7-5), Kansas to NIU (12-1) and to Rice (6-6).
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
From today’s Kentucky press conference: Q: Coach Stoops, everybody in this room, even the media in this room, wants you to succeed.
—————————————————————————
Wow. With a media like this…
LikeLike
Media probably just wants to stay employed – can’t image that there is much demand for info on UK football!
LikeLike
Big 10 bowl lineup is complete according to CNNSI. Big 12 and Pac 12 are waiting on BCS.
LikeLike
Looks like a rough lineup…; what is the expectation 1 win out of 7 games?
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel @slmandel
Oklahoma State, which many of us projected to the Alamo Bowl (Big 12 No. 3), has apparently fallen all the way to No. 8 (Dallas).
Wow.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel @slmandel
Wow. Louisiana Tech is not playing in a bowl game! Was reported earlier this week that it turned down Independence Bowl vs. La-Monroe.
LikeLike
Any chance this is self imposed? Are they expecting sanctions?
LikeLike
Rumor is they refuse to play UL Monroe and were hoping for a better bowl. Somehow NIU getting into the BCS game pushed enough teams down that they ran out of chairs when the music stopped.
LikeLike
That could make sense. The Big XII has 8 tie ins, but 9 bowl eligible teams so without a second BCS bid someone would get moved.
LikeLike
The WAC only had one bowl tie-in this year.
LikeLike
How do they turn down any bowl? That would mean Western Kentucky gets in ahead of them. La Tech and Central Michigan 6-6 would be the two left out. Who picks WKU over La Tech?
LikeLike
WKU AND CMU got into bowls it looks like. Not sure who besides LT got left out.
LikeLike
Wow! Guess Sun Belt got back at MTSU for announcing they were heading to CUSA. Arkansas St. crushes them 45-0 in de facto championship game and then 5th place WKU at 7-5 gets a bowl over 2nd place 8-4 MTSU (MTSU won head to head as well). And Georgia Tech, who MTSU crushed 49-28 in Atlanta, gets a bowl at 6-7. Sun Belt had a backup in the Pizza bowl and put WKU there.
MAC got La Tech. Ohio took their spot for impatient Independence Bowl putting 6-6 CMU in Pizza Bowl while NIU took OU’s spot in BCS giving Iowa St. La Tech’s desired Liberty Bowl bid and Ball St. got an open spot in St. Petersburg.
LikeLike
La Tech’s only win over a bowl team was Rice, but they did have AQ wins over UVA and Illinois. Their 3 losses were to 3 ranked teams with a combined record of 30-6 by 2, by 7 in OT and by 9.
Louisville and NIU played their cards right. This set of Bulldogs played theirs wrong. And WHY did the other Bulldogs play their cards wrong and blow 10 seconds hiking the ball with 30 seconds left after an injury delay???? That would have given them enough time to get another play in after the in-bounds reception. I was sitting there yelling at the screen after both receptions, “Spike it!!! Spike it!!!”
LikeLike
LT AD tries to explain away his failure
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/bruce-feldman/21236470/la-tech-ad-explains-why-bulldogs-arent-going-bowling
LikeLike
Turning down a bowl; just a bad decision. Never know how the dominoes will fall, and this time NIU’s BCS busting broke everything against them…
LikeLike
I agree in hindsight he was wrong to turn down the Indy bowl, but I understand his reasoning – he thought he was going to Memphis or Dallas, and didn’t realize that NIU would put Iowa State in competition with him. Indy Bowl really isn’t a great prize playing another local school, but clearly better than nothing. The system is just so broken at this point, it’s not a surprise.
LikeLike
Gene Smith says hello.
LikeLike
Its possible that LA Tech didn’t want to accept the Independence Bowl bid because they’d lose money. Wikipedia tells me that it pays out $1.1M, and has been trending downwards every year since 2001-2003 when it was $2.4M. Some of the smaller bowls have been known to not payout as much as initially planned.
Small bowls in general are money losers.
LikeLike
Um, you realize where LaTech and the Independence Bowl are located, right? Even if they have to put the players in hotels, I fail to see how bus rides could cost all that much. I seriously doubt they’d have trouble selling out their allotment either (not to mentions that trips to either Dallas or Memphis would be more costly).
LikeLike
Um, you realize that LaTech averages barely over 20k per game? I wouldn’t assume anything about selling out their allotment. Plenty of teams with a larger fan bases lose a lot on required ticket minimums.
LikeLike
What did you think the allotment for a bowl like the Independence is?
I think if they get 10k from a school, they’re happy.
LikeLike
The allotment is 10k.
LikeLike
I figured it was around there. Definitely easy for LaTech to fill considering that it would essentially have been a home game for them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8703346/louisiana-tech-bulldogs-9-3-turns-bid-go-bowl-game
Uh-oh, now Karl Malone is upset too.
LikeLike
NIU wins and as a result, LT loses.
LikeLike
Louisiana Tech not invited? Wow.
@LATechPWalsh: Louisiana Tech has not been selected for a postseason bowl game. Nation’s No. 1 offense ends year at 9-3.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel @slmandel
Oklahoma State, which many of us projected to the Alamo Bowl (Big 12 No. 3), has apparently fallen all the way to No. 8 (Dallas).
Wait, then this is false?
LikeLike
Woops, wrong copy-paste.
I meant the post above yours loki. Mandel said they rejected Independence Bowl invite.
LikeLike
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/coaches-poll12
Check out how individuals coaches voted, and realize how stupid it is to let people with massive conflicts of interest determine the rankings (Bob Stoops voted NIU lower than anyone besides Brady Hoke)
LikeLike
James Franklin from Vandy’s ballot is hilarious. He has ND 4th behind ‘Bama, Florida and Georgia, Oregon 6th behind those and LSU, and K-State 9th, Vandy 16th and and Mississippi St. 21.
He has the highest placement of Georgia, MSU and Vandy, the lowest for ND and K-State and the second lowest for Oregon.
LikeLike
That is interesting.
Baylor and Washington coaches had UGA ranked down at #11
WVU coach had LSU ranked #3.
Clemson coach had FSU #6, higher than FSU who had them #7. All but 2 or 3 others were much lower.
Curious about Texas so I looked. Texas was on 27/59 ballots but none of the Big 12 or former Big 12 people included them except WV who had them 25. Baylor, Tech, OU left Texas off as did Sonny Dykes whose dad used to coach at Tech and Bo Pelini of Nebraska and Frank Solich of Nebraska. Dykes had Tulsa and San Diego St. ranked. Gene Chizek, former DC, not surprisingly, did include UT-at #22. Don’t think Muschamp has a vote. Now half the people left them off so it isn’t unreasonable, but there can be a lot of personal stuff influencing these votes. Recruiting may encourage conference foes to rank a team lower. WV looks better if a team they beat is ranked.
LikeLike
Arkansas St. had 4 votes. Their coach voted them 17th. Two Sun Belt members and the Central Florida coach had them ranked 22 or 23.
Arizona St. had two votes. Their coach voted them 20th. Arkansas St. coach put them 23rd.
LikeLike
I don’t know about the others but I doubt Stoops vote was malicious. Last year he had Oklahoma St. at #2 so I don’t think he has any problem voting for rivals.
LikeLike
And amusing. UK coach was very SEC-centric, but the amusing vote was Kent St. 25th. For those who don’t know, Kentucky beat KSU 47-14.
LikeLike
The voters are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they are lockstep with everyone else, we complain about lack of open thought. If they are edge cases, we complain about bias.
LikeLike
I’m not going to argue that NIU is more deserving of a BCS bid than Oklahoma or Georgia because I don’t think they are, but if I hear Kirk Herbstreit mention the eyeball test again I’m gonna lose it.
That was his same justification of favoring ‘Bama over OSU last year, and it sounds just as dumb this time.
LikeLike
Thank god we’re getting rid of this crappy system. Didn’t think the BCS could get any less interesting than last year, but they managed to top that with this group of games.
I’ll watch the Rose Bowl because I always do, but other than Fiesta and the championship, not interested at all in the other two.
LikeLike
Well, the irony is even under the new system NIU would still be guarenteed a birth in one of the “access bowls” as the highest ranked member of the group of 5.
LikeLike
True, but I mean more in terms of the fact that the committee will be selecting most of the teams.
It can’t be much worse than this…
LikeLike
Just a reminder that the ‘group of 5’ would include the Big East, so this year either Louisville or NIU would be in an access bowl, but not both.
Of course, Louisville will soon be in the ACC…
LikeLike
Yeah, I had my projections below based on the new rules and think Georgia, Texas A&M and LSU would replace Louisville (remember they are also adding a game)
LikeLike
Thank God is right.
LikeLike
Look at the resume, not his eyeball test. Problem is more with the system than the pollsters. NIU is overrated by the pollsters, but its not ridiculous (Kent St. was ridiculous). It was a perfect storm. OSU/PSU on probation. Rest of Big 10 perfectly awful. Wisconsin upsets Nebraska and UNL plays a perfectly bad game. ACC outside of FSU/Clemson perfectly awful. Big East perfectly awful. Middle 6 of Big 12 perfectly even (6 teams 5-4 or 4-5). It took almost all of that together.
LikeLike
I definitely agree on the resume test, but I’m tired of “experts” ranking teams based on the “eyeball test” when there is plenty of objective information out there to use.
LikeLike
Agreed. And they naturally said there was no discussion this year when really there was. Alabama benefitted this year from what was ignored last year, a conference championship. Oregon lost 1 in OT, but didn’t win their conference. Florida had a better resume and beat the team that beat Alabama (as Alabama beat the team that beat them), but didn’t win their conference. KSU won their conference, but had a 28 point loss to an unranked team.
The right two teams got in, but there was definitely room for discussion.
LikeLike
The coaches prejudice and their ballet give aven more reason for the computers to assign rankings.
LikeLike
darren rovell @darrenrovell
CRAZY: Northern Illinois will have to buy more Orange Bowl tickets (17,500) than what they avg’d per game this season (15,670)
——————————————
How much money are they gonna lose on this? UConn lost a lot IIRC…
LikeLike
Maybe the MAC will buy the excess tickets. That’s what all the major conferences outside of the Big East do.
Plus, they could still make up the money through merchandising like Orange Bowl T-Shirts.
LikeLike
That BCS money though ($20 million or whatever) gets split among all 5 of those conferences though, so I doubt the MAC would even be getting enough to help cover that cost.
NIU will probably lose a million or two on this at best…
LikeLike
Fairly certain that the conference who sends the BCS-buster gets a much larger share of the BCS money than the other non-AQ conference, though.
LikeLike
I actually would not be surprised if NIU filled their allotment.
Husky fans would see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and would be as eager to see their team on the big stage as Hawaii fans were for the Sugar Bowl a few years back.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8048429/2012-13-bowl-schedule
Full bowl lineup. Aggies going to the Cotton Bowl after all against Oklahoma.
Big Ten likely in for a rough month.
LikeLike
Outside of Nebraska-Georgia, I kind of like some of these matchups.
LikeLike
I thought it would be interesting to look at Big Ten expansion candidates by looking at the largest TV markets. The clear goal of the conference is to get on cable in as many TVs as possible.
First, BTN is currently on expanded basic cable (or comparable service) in 12 of the top 40 markets as shown below. This should eliminate Pitt, Missouri, Kansas, and Cincinnati from consideration.
3 Chicago (3.5mm)
4 Philadelphia
11 Detroit (1.8mm)
15 Minneapolis (1.7mm)
18 Cleveland (1.5mm)
21 St. Louis (1.2mm)
23 Pittsburgh (1.2mm)
26 Indianapolis (1.1mm)
31 Kansas City (0.9mm)
32 Columbus (0.9mm)
34 Milwaukee (0.9mm)
35 Cincinnati (0.9mm)
39 Grand Rapids (0.7mm)
Obviously the Maryland and Rutgers adds bring the markets below. Many have commented that Rutgers doesn’t deliver New York. That is the wrong way to look at it. Rutgers, plus a large Big Ten alumni base, plus Fox owning YES network to leverage with cable providers, means BTN should get on expanded basic with Rutgers. Wash DC and Baltimore are not as obvious with U of Maryland, but my guess is that the Big Ten has already figured this out.
1 New York (7.4mm); Fox’s YES Network (Yankees)
8 Wash DC (2.4mm); no Fox regional
27 Baltimore (1.1mm); no Fox regional
The next group of west coast states don’t make sense in any realistic expansion plan due to geography.
2 Los Angeles (5.6mm)
6 San Fran (2.5mm)
12 Seattle (1.8mm)
13 Phoenix (1.8mm)
20 Sacramento (1.4mm)
22 Portland, OR (1.2mm)
28 San Diego (1.1mm)
33 Salt Lake City (0.9mm)
40 Las Vegas (0.7mm)
So now we are into realistic markets for expansion. First is the Texas cluster. This is why U Texas is the pipe dream. A state wide brand, some leverage with FS Houston, large markets, etc. But with GOR in Big 12 and with Texas A&M going to SEC, there is no real way to access Texas.
5 Dallas (2.6mm); no Fox regional
10 Houston (2.2mm); FS Houston (Astros, Rockets)
36 San Antonio (0.8mm); no Fox regional
The next group is all the remaining top 40 markets outside of Florida. Boston and Atlanta are the largest markets the BTN could realistically target. This may make Boston College a bit of a sleeper, and while the situation is comparable to Rutgers, I am not sure that Boston College can deliver that market with no Fox regional sports network for leverage. I think Georgia Tech, with a strong Fox regional and a rabid college football base, could potentially deliver Atlanta, making this the top choice except for geographic concerns. U of Colorado could be another sleeper, but GOR takes it out of the running and it doesnt have the synergies the east coast markets have being so tightly clustered. Does North Carolina deliver Charlotte along with Raleigh? If so, UNC is more attractive than Georgia Tech, due to the strength of its program, academics, and better geography.
7 Boston (2.4mm); no Fox regional
9 Atlanta (2.3mm); FS South (Braves, Hawks)
17 Denver (1.6mm); no Fox regional
24 Raleigh (1.2mm); FS Carolinas (Bobcats)
25 Charlotte (1.1mm); FS Carolinas (Bobcats, Reds)
29 Nashville (1.0mm); FS Tennessee (Braves, Grizzlies)
30 Hartford (1.0mm); no Fox regional
37 Greenville (0.8mm); FS Carolinas (Bobcats, Reds, Braves)
Florida is the real interesting market, with close to 6mm in major markets and a decent Fox regional. This makes U of Florida as attractive as U of Texas, but I cant see that happening. What would Florida State deliver on its own? Its in the wrong part of the state, so I am not sure anything gets added if its just Florida State, but its a possibility. A Florida State/Miami combo could deliver the state, though Miami’s sanctions may prohibit that option.
14 Tampa/St Pete (1.8mm); all markets have FS Florida (Magic, Heat, Marlins, Rays)
16 Miami (1.6mm)
19 Orlando (1.5mm)
38 Palm Beach (0.8mm)
Based on the above, I would think the top options in a 16 team Big Ten would be Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Pairing these two with Florida State and Miami in an 18 team Big Ten could also work. Outside of these teams, I dont see anything worth adding…
I dont understand all of the love for Virginia. What market does Virginia deliver? I dont see Big Ten adding Maryland unless it can deliver DC and Baltimore, and if thats true Virginia is redundant. And if we need Virginia to deliver Maryland, adding one without the other was insane.
Outside of these options, there is some logic in BC and maybe even a BC/U Conn combo. But they are small schools and not sure the programs are worth adding, with other options still out there. So GA Tech and UNC, add Florida State and Miami if ambitious, and otherwise wait it out…
LikeLike
Er, cable markets aren’t like traditional TV markets.
Cable markets tends to means households within a state rather than using purely TV market definitions.
Virginia has a ton of households even if it only has a small part of the D.C. market and some smaller markets like Richmond…
LikeLike
Is it true that state population is more important than traditional DMAs? I am no expert in TV but…
–Time Warner, Comcast, etc. are not providers to entire states, but regions within states.
–Its true that the current Big Ten states have full coverage, but I assume thats due more to the popularity of B1G schools in those states.
–Maryland as a state has a tiny population; getting only the state of Maryland would not be attractive for Big Ten.
–Maryland is attractive because it also brings nearly 3mm (out of the 8mm) population in Virginia.)
–Virginia less NOVA (already covered by Maryland) brings a market of only 5mm, which isn’t large relative to other potential options. And does U of Virginia bring the rest of that market? Not sure.
In any event, after Texas and Florida, Georgia and North Carolina are the most populous (realistic) states not in the current B1G footprint.
Virginia does make some sense due to Academics, geography (contiguous), etc…but I still believe Georgia Tech and North Carolina are the options for #15 and #16. Georgia Tech has much more upside– in a much larger potential market, Fox Sports regional, and option value to access Florida.
The conference needs to be picky given the opportunity cost of using one of the remaining 2-4 spots. In my mind, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State make the most sense (with Miami a good complement if Fla State comes on board). Outside of ND, UT, or U FL, nothing else should be on the table.
LikeLike
JB,
“–Maryland as a state has a tiny population; getting only the state of Maryland would not be attractive for Big Ten.”
MD is the 19th most populous state. It’s growing more quickly than most B10 states, too.
15. IN – 6.5M
19. MD – 5.8
20. WI – 5.7
21. MN – 5.3
30. IA – 3.0
38. NE – 1.8
LikeLike
My point was not Maryland’s size vs existing Big Ten states, but Maryland relative to other options. Its smaller than Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Mass. I don’t see how Maryland was added to secure the state as a whole, but rather the DC/Balt markets.
LikeLike
Your logic is flawed. The premise of college sports is that teams are interesting to the viewer.
The Big Ten needs to focus on adding quality programs that land them on national broadcasts, not filler for the cable chum bucket.
LikeLike
“Your logic is flawed. The premise of college sports is that teams are interesting to the viewer.”
Its not my logic, its the logic of those driving B1G expansion….
LikeLike
So under the new system the matchups would be something like this?
Rose: Stanford-Wiscy
Cotton: Georgia- K-State
Orange: FSU-LSU
Peach: LSU-NIU
Fiesta*: ND-Oregon
Cotton*: ‘Bama-Florida
Playoff
LikeLike
Correction
Peach: TAMU- K-State
LikeLike
AHHHH! Messed up my correction!
Rose: Stanford-Wiscy
Cotton: Georgia- K-State
Orange: FSU-LSU
Peach: TAMU-NIU
Fiesta*: ND-Oregon
Cotton*: ‘Bama-Florida
*Playoff
LikeLike
Damn it. That second entry should be
Sugar: Georgia- K-State
Really need an edit button.
LikeLike
I can’t think of a better way to guarantee Frank makes yet another new post than to finally get a chance to post my thoughts on the latest B10 expansion.
I’m still against expansion. I liked 10 better than 11, and both were better than 12. 14 will stink. That said, I understand the reasons for expanding the footprint even if I think the pressure to do so is exaggerated. I think it’s unfortunate that the B10 lowered their athletic standards this far, but I also know you can’t be all kings. Someone has to lose games.
I look at this as Part 2 of the NE expansion as opposed to a separate stage of expansion. The B10 added two large and growing states plus a FB king while getting two more research and academic powerhouses. That’s a pretty good outcome if you have to expand.
I think it was very wise to go east if you had to expand. PSU has been clamoring for eastern partners for years and is in bad place now anyway. Additionally, the B10 has a lot of alumni in the DC/NYC corridor. Adding the large populations in those states will help pay for the addition of teams that don’t bring a ton of on the field value. RU and MD should also help maximize
As for future growth, I really don’t see a need. The B10 got everything it said it was looking for back in 2009. At some point they have to look at the negatives of further growth rather than just the positives. The CIC can’t suffer from overgrowth, but the athletics side of the B10 can. Beyond that, a future expansion should come with some athletic firepower too and there are limited choices.
If they must go to 16 or beyond, they need a plan. It seems they have chose to go SE (VA, NC, GA) if the rumors are any indication. The NE doesn’t offer much. We know CFB isn’t big up there, and Syracuse, UConn and BC all have major fit issues. Perhaps one could argue that Syracuse would further the goal of penetrating NYC, but I get the feeling the B10 has been told it wouldn’t help enough to justify taking a non-AAU school with a different focus from the rest of the B10. Without Syracuse to bring NY and/or NYC, UConn and BC make no sense.
Others have mentioned going west, but I have yet to hear any explanation of how you pry KU away from the B12 and KSU. KU certainly doesn’t add enough to justify trying to break their GOR. Besides, there are no partners out there for them. MO is SEC, OU is unacceptable, and UT is in heaven as it is. That only leaves the SE, particularly ACC schools.
The questions become which schools the B10 will consider, are they willing to join the B10 and how much value they bring. The obvious B10 choices are UVA and UNC, but there will be some resistance from the southern fans and alumni of those schools. GT is a great fit except for location. VT is improving academically and would bring some FB clout while being the most popular school in their state. Of course, FSU is about the same as VT academically and they would bring a piece of a huge state.
I think it is someone else’s turn to expand now. The B10 needs someone else to raid the ACC first to make available their desired schools. The problem is, the B12 may not be able to take any ACC teams right now and the SEC largely has the same primary targets as the B10. I think things are on hold at least until MD negotiates their buyout down. Once that number is set, then the other ACC schools can decide if leaving is worth it. I personally think MD will successfully argue that the older penalty of $20M should be the applicable rule, and then they’ll negotiate it down to 50-75% of that ($10-15M). Once that happens, then ACC schools might flee as they see the money projections for the other conferences versus the ACC (TV revenue, playoff money).
I think the other problem for the B10 is a stopping point. They need an even number of teams, so 16 seems like a logical step. However, It’s not clear what pair of teams they’d get. UVA/VT doubles up in a state and cedes NC to the SEC, but locks up VA and DC. UVA/UNC adds two states but likely lets the SEC take part of each state as well. Besides, UNC might require more rivals to move. UVA/GT presents a similar problem as the SEC would also be in both states and potentially in NC too. On top of that, GT is barely a toehold in GA compared to UGA.
The obvious answer to these problems is going to 18 instead, with UVA/VT/UNC/Duke or UV/UNC/Duke/GT. That gets more states and/or locks VA down more securely. It also doesn’t add much FB power (esp. without VT), although hoops would benefit greatly. The problem is that 18 is ridiculously large and 1/3 of the conference would be new all at once. Scheduling would be problematic as well (both FB and MBB).
I suppose you could progress to 20, getting UVA/VT/UNC/Duke/GT/FSU. That would provide the FB boost on top of demographics and a lot of quality schools. However, it makes the B10 a group of strangers that rarely play each other and vary widely in culture. At that point, I think the B10 would be better served going to 22, adding 2 of Miami, Syracuse and ND. That lets us return to a useful arrangement of 2 separate 11 team conferences that preserves the B10 and the ACC.
B10 division – NE, IA, MN, WI, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI, MSU, OSU
ACC division – PSU, Syracuse, RU, MD, UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, ND
Now, you can’t have a CCG anymore without a rule change, but you could do a 8 game division schedule plus up to 2 crossover games that don’t count for the division race. That leaves room for 2 cupcakes to make 7 home games and would also allow teams to keep locked OOC rivals. All it really does is keep the big OOC games in the same TV deal so you get both ends of a home and home. You could treat each division as its own entity for bowls (B10 for Rose, ACC for Orange, etc).
If they got fancy, you could actually work a CCG into the final week of the schedule. Move 1 crossover game to the final week and alternate which division hosts. Play 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc. The logistics of ticket sales would be a pain, but not insurmountable.
But let’s step back to the present for a moment. I hope the B10 moves to a 9 game schedule with these divisions (in order of locked rivals) and a 6-1-2 schedule:
East – MI, PSU, MSU, NW, IL, MD, RU
West – OSU, NE, WI, PU, IN, IA, MN
I’d miss not playing PU, IN and MSU more, and I’d prefer PSU to NE, but I’d much rather play old B10 teams than RU and MD. It also restores
More realistically, I think they go with these divisions and the 9th game is still iffy:
East – OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IN, MD, RU
West – MI, NE, MN, IA, MSU, IL, NW
LikeLike
The B10 got everything it said it was looking for back in 2009.
Almost everything. Delany mentioned countering demographic shifts as a consideration and Nebraska doesn’t do that.
LikeLike
No, but MD and NJ do.
LikeLike
D’Oh!
LikeLike
He was considering the 3 schools as one addition.
LikeLike
Brian, this post is a pretty good summation of where the Big Ten is and how it got here and why the next step is so hazy.
I do think looking at Nebraska + Maryland + Rutgers is a good way of looking at the fact that the Big Ten got what it needed out of this round of expansion (another 1 million alumni along with a king and two high growth areas and huge markets).
I also think that this is pretty much everything that they wanted out of expansion; it probably is best to just let the next contract talks play out and then let the chips fall where they may.
I don’t think there’s a necessary rush to get UVa right now; it feels like the Big Ten will naturally be able to grab them due to the fact that it now has Maryland nearby and the fact that they just seem like a natural fit in the future.
The right question for future analysis is “where does this end”…; do we have to go to 18 or 20? At what point does this stop feeling like a conference? How much of the Southeast does the Big Ten need? How many flags do you need to plan in Virginia and North Carolina to take them if that’s the future goal?
These questions are far more difficult than any analysis of Maryland or Rutgers, where you had two giant state schools that make the dynamics a lot easier to deal with in those states. The fit was a lot more natural for those two schools than it will be for any schools in Virginia and North Carolina…
I think it’s best to wait now for two key reasons:
Reason #1) Will the Big Ten need more football power in the future? This is another key question concerning Penn State. While I think they’ll be fine post-2017, it’s still a gray area. Will the Big Ten have to go after Florida State in order to better secure its future? Will it at least need a prince the next time around in Virginia Tech?
Reason #2) Demographics won’t be much different in the 2020s and the ACC will only have two states where it’s the real dominant force; it’s not like they can count most of their footprint as their own…
Maryland/Rutgers were a lot more obvious for #13-14 than any schools possible for #15-16. While you could make the case that UVa is the most natural next school, there’s no obvious solution to who to pair them up or whether they need to be paired with Virginia Tech to maximize D.C./Virginia exposure…
LikeLike
Well said and terrific summary. The Maryland & Rutgers additions (along with PSU) solidify the B10’s presence and power in the northeast. It’s taken that away from the Big East and ACC. While Maryland & Rutgers were not incredibly popular moves, I’m a big fan of it mostly due to the B10’s shrinking demographics, at least relative to other conferences footprints which are expanding…
The next turn in expansion imo isn’t the B10’s but the SEC’s or Big XII’s. The dominoes that need to fall are those CFB powers of the ACC (FSU, Clemson, VT & Miami), these schools are largely waiting for SEC offers but might settle for the Big XII. If and when these schools pick-up and move, everyone is available, especially that valuable core ACC school, North Carolina.
I’ve heard from reliable sources that the B10 called NC around the same time they did Maryland and were given a firm no. Regardless, the Tarheel’s fan-base is very pro SEC, and ACC till it’s near death. They’ve long bordered the SEC and it makes sense they’d prefer the SEC to the B10 given their geography. If NC is really off the board, who then becomes the idea #15 & #16 members? I really believe #16 is the end, unless Texas or ND wants in…
Without a clear #15 & #16 wanting to join-up and without the prize of the ACC (North Carolina) interested in leaving the ACC yet, it’s obvious the B10 needs to wait till who they decide who they want and who they want becomes available.
LikeLike
When Delany says he is putting Big 10 offices in the east isn’t he indicating that he will expand further into that region? Would he set up offices for 2 teams?
LikeLike
3 schools. PSU hasn’t disbanded.
LikeLike
Pete,
Those schools are just the excuse to get offices in NYC. Why wouldn’t he want a foothold in the media capital of the world?
LikeLike
Agreed; the urgency is pretty much gone now.
The ACC’s true footprint isn’t really much outside of the Carolinas and Virginia; they can make a credible claim for Florida but not much else.
You’re right that at this point the Big Ten can just let the pieces fall where they may. It’s already secured the Northeast corridor (in particular the NYC/Philly/D.C. markets) with 3 schools in that area and no one else particularly close by; the Big Ten essentially relegated the ACC to having just Syracuse and Pitt in that area going up against 3 much larger and dominant state schools in Penn State/Maryland/Rutgers.
It’s just hard to see who #15 and #16 are; there aren’t many obvious picks like there was for the D.C.-NYC corridor…
Even UVa/UNC isn’t an obvious solution given how many schools are in that area that can make credible claims on it (Va Tech, NC State, Duke), but it’s likely still going to be the starting point for any future analysis.
LikeLike
With Maryland and Rutgers, the ACC claim to the NE is weak. They are a distant #2 in KY, GA, PA. They have 3 teams that are a close #2 in FL & SC. They dominate VA and NC with 6 teams. Then they have two teams in MA and NY but both are private schools and face pro competition. So their control area is small.
The Pac 12 and Big 10 are clear #1s in all their states. The SEC is a close #1 in SC and FL but a clear #1 everywhere else except Texas where the Big 12 dominates with 4 schools, but they have a strong #2 program in the state, much better than the ACC is in KY, GA or PA. The Big 12 is a clear #1 in every state except Iowa where they are #2.
LikeLike
Yep, analyzing areas in terms of control is a much better way of looking at things. The “true” footprint of a conference is how much of its area it can credibly deliver.
That’s partially why the Big 12 is a lot stronger right now than people give it credit for being.
It’s power is centralized in UT and OU; as long as those two stand together, they have enough of a footprint to remain a top conference for as long as they want to keep it alive.
LikeLike
11 is IMO the worst number you could have. It leads to very imbalanced divisional races due to the scheduling. It also leaves you one short of a ccg, although it isn’t necessary to do a ccg with 12. 13, with the impossibility of doing a round robin while giving everyone the same number of games (short of playing teams twice), is the next worst number. So 22 is 2X11. That’s not a good place to be. If you go beyond 18, an affiliation works better than a merger. Pac and Big once shared TV contracts. That sort of thing does have a precendent. 20 is simply too difficult unless you basically split into two conferences and no existing conference other than the Big 12 (with only 10 teams now) could work something like that out politically.
LikeLike
The pods of 5 in a 20 just wouldn’t work with existing conferences as there wouldn’t be good groups of 5. With 10 teams in a division, that leaves no room to continue to play teams outside your division to handle rivalries that don’t fit into your pod of 5.
LikeLike
Actually, for the original B10 teams in the Big20, only the Little Brown Jug game and 2 rivalries that aren’t exactly ancient (PSU-OSU & PSU-UNL) would fall away while 10 rivalries which are as or more important would be preserved (IU-PU and Northwestern-Illinois would have to be OOC sometimes, though).
LikeLike
…and Wisconsin-Iowa would be preserved (which isn’t now), so going from 12 to 20 actually could lead to a net loss of 0 traditional rivalries (though the PSU rivalry games wouldn’t be annual & not all the original B10 teams can play either Michigan or OSU yearly any more).
LikeLike
I think 18 is sort of the Rubicon for me.
I think you can make an argument for 18 to maximize Southeastern exposure (UVa, UNC, Duke and 1 other in Va Tech or Georgia Tech). Once you go past 18 though, the numbers are just too unwieldy…
I don’t like the idea of making a half of the conference non-Midwestern teams…; it just feels like too much non-assimilation if there’s a clump of Southeastern schools are basically in their own division…
LikeLike
bullet,
“11 is IMO the worst number you could have.”
If we were starting from scratch, I’d agree. But anything less cuts off a B10 team (I assume NE doesn’t want to be in the eastern division by themselves). Thus, 11 becomes the best choice for the B10.
“It leads to very imbalanced divisional races due to the scheduling.”
It doesn’t have to. They could pair teams by tier for scheduling purposes (OSU and IN, MI and IL, etc).
“It also leaves you one short of a ccg, although it isn’t necessary to do a ccg with 12.”
I don’t like CCGs.
“So 22 is 2X11.”
Exactly. The old B10 plus NE versus 11 other teams including PSU.
“That’s not a good place to be. If you go beyond 18, an affiliation works better than a merger.”
Again, you’re talking about an ideal situation. I’m starting from the B10 already having 12 members with 2 more on the way. That doesn’t leave 10 or 11 as an option, so 22 is the next number that gives me back my B10 games.
As for affiliation versus merger, I don’t know. Owning all the games has more value.
“20 is simply too difficult unless you basically split into two conferences and no existing conference other than the Big 12 (with only 10 teams now) could work something like that out politically.”
But the B10 possibly could at 22.
LikeLike
I’m guessing Delany thinks the ACC is ripe for picking. Otherwise, it would make sense to wait at least two more years to digest the current additions, start negotiating the new TV contract, and see if they really liked 14 before getting even more. And maybe wait 10-15 years. There isn’t a demographic emergency (as Brian said, there’s no urgency).
LikeLike
Well, it’s hard to tell. I think he felt a need to ensure that he got on the East Coast after ND took themselves out of the Big Ten’s future for good.
The demographic emergency is pretty much gone; the Big Ten is firmly planted in the most populous corridor in the country with a half of the Mid-Atlantic accounted for now.
LikeLike
@Brian – Great comment. I agree with much of what you’ve said and, in fact, my next post in the works (you guessed correctly in your opening sentence) is going to echo a lot of your sentiments. You’re correct that the key is to look at this as a 3-team expansion over the course of the last 2 1/2 years as opposed to one expansion for Nebraska and a separate one for Rutgers/Maryland. For all of the consternation about Rutgers/Maryland being purely TV market-based moves, the addition of Nebraska was arguably the most football-focused move that any conference has made in the past couple of years of conference realignment. Looking at them all together (an elite football brand and fan base coupled with two huge and growing markets) makes more sense.
LikeLike
Bryce Miller from Hawk Central has an article on Big Ten expansion at http://hawkcentral.com/2012/12/01/bryce-miller-big-ten-likely-to-look-south-for-new-teams/
Per his article, the conference is essentially looking at AAU schools that expand the B1G footprint in order to better leverage the Big Ten Network. His primary candidates for the #15 and #16 programs are North Carolina and Georgia Tech.
From my understanding of the situation (based on the people I’ve talked to), the Big Ten’s original plan back in December 2009 when Delany announced the conference’s impending expansion was that it would eventually have 16 members. The COP/C game him Delany a parallel tasking at that time–(1) expand the conference using like-minded institutions to strengthen the CIC/research side of the B1G/University of Chicago and (2) move the conference’s athletic departments into a state of financial self-sufficiency.
Notre Dame was contacted early on in the process and the entire plan was laid out to the ND leadership. For reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum on this board, the leadership in South Bend opted not to pull the trigger.
With Plan A being set aside for the moment, events took over when the Big XII went through all its internal problems. Missouri wanted to leave for the Big Ten, but its research profile didn’t fit what the conference wanted. Nebraska could make a case about being in the same markets as Mizzou, but there were a number of B1G programs that were wary of UN-L’s academic profile. The impending loss of AAU status was troubling to a number of them, but the ironic thing that helped Nebraska was the strength of its agricultural research programs (which weren’t part of the AAU matrix).
When Notre Dame joined the ACC as a partial member, it provided the catalyst for the Big Ten to go to 14 members. ND had originally been considered as essential for any sort of expansion beyond 12 members, but the thinking and analytics had changed. The Big Ten Network was more successful than the conference had projected and the rise in the value of the network contracts showed that Notre Dame was in the “not necessary, but nice to have” category when it came to considering the sort of financial self-sufficiency the conference was looking for in its athletic departments.
So what’s next? The additions of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are essentially 60% of the original plan that the Big Ten had in mind back in the latter part of 2009. All the potential candidates for the 15th and 16th members of the conference have been thoroughly vetted and the potential candidates know it. They’ve all had meetings (informal and otherwise) and other communications with their counterparts in the Big Ten, so none of them should be surprised if they get a phone call like UMD and RU recently did back in October with a detailed briefing and formal offer in the works.
It’s now largely in the hands of the Big Ten and the SEC. Both conferences are interested in the same states (Virginia and Maryland) with the B1G also looking at Georgia Tech. The SEC Network launches early in 2014. The Big Ten’s current contract with ABC/ESPN ends in 2016. Fox is going to be looking for content for its ESPN counterpart called Fox Sports One Network, and of course, they have a 49% stake in the YES Network in NYC. Both of these conferences are jockeying for position for the programs in these states and both of them are going to be offering considerable more money per school than the ACC.
How this works out will be worked out by the university presidents in Chapel Hill, Charlottesville, Atlanta, etc., along with their major stakeholders and decision makers. They know that Maryland’s president said that the B1G was looking at $43M per school payouts by FY 2017 and they know where they’re going to stand financially as well.
One final thing. Michigan is going to lobby the B1G very heavily (and at the presidential level) to be put into the eastern division of the conference with the inclusion of Maryland and Rutgers. The numbers of alumni in the area support that move, but UM also wants to be in the division that is going to get more attention from the major east coast media outlets. The fundraising arm of the university also feels that having an annual game in either the NYC/NJ or DC/Baltimore area is going to be to their benefit as well. We’ll see if it happens or not, but don’t be surprised if geography and rivalries trump perceived conference equivalence when the new divisions are put together.
LikeLike
I’m really coming around to the idea of adding VTech with UVa. UVa is a natural fit academically.
VTech actually has an extremely similar profile to UNL, and the B10 added UNL even though they knew Nebraska was close to losing AAU status. Both are non-AAU but do a ton of ag research. Thus both have overall research numbers that are respectable (if not for AAU purposes). Both are football powers.
Finally, adding UVa with VTech locks down VA, and I’d much prefer converting an entire state (or region) in to “BigTen country” rather than have islands in the south. The only other place where that is remotely possible would be Miami.
LikeLike
cutter,
“One final thing. Michigan is going to lobby the B1G very heavily (and at the presidential level) to be put into the eastern division of the conference with the inclusion of Maryland and Rutgers. The numbers of alumni in the area support that move, but UM also wants to be in the division that is going to get more attention from the major east coast media outlets.”
OSU can make similar claims since NYC and DC top Chicago in terms of OSU alumni. Obviously PSU will be in the east, and I really don’t think 3 kings will be in one division. I think the B10 will choose to put OSU in the east but give MI lots of eastern games.
With 9 games, they can play a 6-1-2 schedule:
Division – NE, IA, MN, NW, IL, MSU
Locked – OSU
Rotating – PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN, WI
If they pair teams, MI could always play 1 eastern team (PSU/IN, WI/RU, PU/MD). That’s 1 eastern game every other year plus Chicago access which is also useful for MI.
“We’ll see if it happens or not, but don’t be surprised if geography and rivalries trump perceived conference equivalence when the new divisions are put together.”
I just don’t see how they can justify putting 3 kings in the east. The other option is to split MD from RU, but that seems highly unlikely.
LikeLike
Brian,
Here’s a telling quote from Delany about Big Ten expansion and the divisional alignment:
“I think it’s realistic to believe that geography will play a bigger role simply because now we span from the ocean to the Colorado border and from the Canadian border to the mid‑South,” Delany told reporters. “So we’re really pushing the limits. We are a national conference in many ways, but even geographically we’re spread, and as a result I think that geography will have to play probably a more important role in the evolution of the next divisional structure.”
See http://thegazette.com/2012/11/30/whats-next-for-b1g-expansion-football-realignment/ for the quote.
The article goes into further detail about what the various programs within the B1G want IRT divisional alignment:
1. Expect the four western schools (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota) to want to play one another.
2. The other regional push has Penn State and possibly Ohio State tied in with Maryland and Rutgers
Another excerpt from the article talks about Michigan and Ohio State in the same division:
If the Big Ten stays at 14, the biggest question is whether the league is willing to place Ohio State and Michigan into the same division. If so, an east-west divide is almost easy. Michigan State could head west with Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Northwestern, while Michigan would move east with Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers. Under that scenario, Michigan and Michigan State would link up as protected rivals. Other annual cross-divisional match-ups could include: Wisconsin-Penn State, Nebraska-Ohio State, Purdue-Northwestern, Indiana-Illinois, Iowa-Maryland and Minnesota-Rutgers.
There’s also a question of boosting the number of league games from eight to nine, which Delany has wanted all along.
END OF EXCERPT
Ohio State apparently doesn’t want to be in a division with Penn State, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland per Gene Smith. See http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2012/11/maryland_makes_the_move_to_big.html#incart_river
I do feel that the conference could go with a divisional alignment with its primary driver being geography and not competitive balance. The B1G has put out a survey to its fans that asks the following questions:
Should the Big Ten form new divisions or just add one school to an existing Legends and Leaders division?
If the divisions change, how important should competitive equality be?
How important is geography when it comes to divisional alignment?
How strongly do you feel about keeping rivalry football games? Should they be “protected games” or should they drive divisional alignment?
Should in-state rivals be in the same division? Should specific schools be in the same division?
What about “Legends” and ‘Leaders” as divisional names? Should the Big Ten keep them, or change them?
Where do you stand on the number of conference games a Big Ten football team should play?
What is the impact of expansion on basketball? Should divisions apply to basketball, and should all 14 teams make the conference basketball tournaments?
See http://btn.com/2012/12/01/big-ten-expansion-tell-us-what-you-think/ for the survey.
It’ll be interesting to see the survey results, but as I pointed out, the actual football division alignment will ultimately be put together with input from the university presidents and the broadcast partners.
LikeLike
@cutter – Thanks for pointing out the link to that survey. I think I’m going to spend an entire post here answering those questions since I wanted to address the division issues, anyway. There will be a new long post on Big Ten expansion going up tonight, though, so the divisional post will probably come later in the week.
LikeLike
cutter,
Here’s a telling quote from Delany about Big Ten expansion and the divisional alignment:
“I think it’s realistic to believe that geography will play a bigger role simply because now we span from the ocean to the Colorado border and from the Canadian border to the mid‑South,” Delany told reporters. “So we’re really pushing the limits. We are a national conference in many ways, but even geographically we’re spread, and as a result I think that geography will have to play probably a more important role in the evolution of the next divisional structure.”
That’s fine, but that doesn’t necessarily say much about OSU and MI. They’re both near the middle of the footprint. It could easily justify doing this:
East – MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, MD
West – OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
rather than the simple IL to the West move. Mostly he’s saying RU and MD are going to be with PSU no matter what, and maybe WI gets to go west. The middle is the tough part, and geography doesn’t clarify it.
1. Expect the four western schools (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota) to want to play one another.
Their desires are well known. Only WI/NE and WI/IA aren’t playing annually now.
2. The other regional push has Penn State and possibly Ohio State tied in with Maryland and Rutgers
Notice no mention of MI there.
Another excerpt from the article talks about Michigan and Ohio State in the same division:
All it does is mention the possibility. No sources, just speculation.
Ohio State apparently doesn’t want to be in a division with Penn State, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland per Gene Smith.
Would you want that home slate? PSU, WI and 4 meh teams including 2 newbies? The road games would be nice, but he has to sell tickets, too. And note, MI moving to the east wouldn’t help OSU much. IN or pU would stop being locked, but OSU would likely end up with a difficult locked rival instead (NE or WI?).
I do feel that the conference could go with a divisional alignment with its primary driver being geography and not competitive balance. The B1G has put out a survey to its fans
They could, but they won’t. They’ll consider both factors. Geography doesn’t do what they want anyway. Pure east/west would also move MSU east and split the IN schools (IN east, PU west) but I don’t see many advocating that plan. If it’s all code for WI moving west, sure that’s possible. It doesn’t mean 3 kings will be in the east, though.
As for the survey, I’ve already seen it. The BTN putting out a survey doesn’t mean the B10 offices are listening.
LikeLike
I’ll have a separate post on the divisional alignments at some point, but if I were running the Big Ten, I’d want his alignment:
EAST
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Indiana
Purdue
WEST
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota
Go to a 9-game conference and lock only Michigan-MSU and Nebraska-PSU (important for TV) as permanent cross division rivalries (similar to how the Pac-12 only locked in the California cross-division games). Everyone else would rotate cross-division opponents. There’s no need to force annual games that aren’t necessary.
An alternative would be to swap Purdue and Michigan State and then only make IU-PU and PSU-NE into protected rivalries, although having MSU in the west definitely makes it look more balanced competitively.
I agree with Brian that OSU-PSU is the 2nd most important game that the Big Ten has to protect. Michigan is also a key to unlocking a lot of the value in the new East Coast schools. This may mean that the Big Ten may not be as hesitant to put 3 kings into the East as long as the depth in the West is perceived to be good enough. Putting Michigan State in the West could accomplish that.
LikeLike
Also, if the Big Ten was insistent upon every school having a protected cross-division game in the setup that I outlined below, I’d do it this way:
Michigan – MSU (Obvious in-state rivalry)
Penn State – Nebraska (Top brand names)
Ohio State – Wisconsin (Top brand names)
Purdue – Iowa (Meaningless “rivalry”, but it’s protected now, so they can protect it again)
Rutgers – Northwestern (Northwestern likely *wants* to travel out east more and there’s a Chicago vs. NYC undercurrent)
Indiana – Illinois (Schools in bordering states passing time until basketball season)
Maryland – Minnesota – (Last 2 picks on the board)
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’ll have a separate post on the divisional alignments at some point, but if I were running the Big Ten, I’d want his alignment:
EAST
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Indiana
Purdue
WEST
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota”
It’s been discussed frequently, but I don’t see it.
1. Media imbalance
The most popular teams are all in one division as are most of the major media markets in the footprint.
2. Competitive imbalance
WI and MSU do not balance two kings long term. This also hurts OSU, MI and PSU competitively as NE doesn’t have to get past a king to reach the CCG and MSU and WI only have to get past 1. Kings beating up on each other too much is bad for business.
3. Unhappy schools
The other schools didn’t want MI and OSU together before. Will they want it now? NE, WI, IA and MN may be OK with just keeping their group of 4 together, but there is definitely a cost with infrequent games against OSU and MI including the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck. Is NE OK with not seeing OSU and MI often?
Gene Smith already came out and said he would fight to avoid being in that alignment. He has to sell tickets at home, and PU, IN, MD and RU aren’t thrilling opponents annually. OSU has lots of eastern alumni they want to play near, but the tradeoff isn’t worth it to him. MI will have similar concerns but may decide the tradeoff is worth it.
I assume PSU, MD and RU are fine with it. PU and IN are likely happy, too, although they have a lot of built in losses playing 3 kings every year. MSU might have some complaints. The move to divisions cost them the PSU rivalry and regular OSU games and they weren’t thrilled with it.
4. Unhappy TV?
Does TV prefer to have OSU and MI separate for the CCG? Do they want the 3 kings together? I don’t know.
5. Locked games
On top of the 3 kings playing each other, you have to look at the locked games.
NE/PSU
WI/OSU
MSU/MI
IA/PU
NW/RU
IL/MD
MN/IN
PU gets 3 kings and a near prince. PSU, RU, MD and IN get 3 kings every year. OSU, MI, WI and MSU get 2 kings and a prince. NE, IA, NW, IL and MN get 1 king and 2 princes.
“Go to a 9-game conference”
We all hope so, but the ADs fought it last time.
“and lock only Michigan-MSU and Nebraska-PSU (important for TV) as permanent cross division rivalries (similar to how the Pac-12 only locked in the California cross-division games).”
The B10 won’t do that. They’ll insist on locking 1 game for everybody (see them refusing to lock only WI/IA as a second locked rival and them insisting on locking PU/IA and IN/MSU now).
“Everyone else would rotate cross-division opponents. There’s no need to force annual games that aren’t necessary.”
Not to us, but they’ve proven they feel differently.
“I agree with Brian that OSU-PSU is the 2nd most important game that the Big Ten has to protect. Michigan is also a key to unlocking a lot of the value in the new East Coast schools. This may mean that the Big Ten may not be as hesitant to put 3 kings into the East as long as the depth in the West is perceived to be good enough. Putting Michigan State in the West could accomplish that.”
Did you factor WI losing Bielema into your thinking? I really think the B10 will resist combining the 3 kings and counting on MSU and WI to balance them, especially with NE not being elite yet.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Also, if the Big Ten was insistent upon every school having a protected cross-division game in the setup that I outlined below, I’d do it this way:”
And they will be.
“Michigan – MSU (Obvious in-state rivalry)
Penn State – Nebraska (Top brand names)
Ohio State – Wisconsin (Top brand names)
Purdue – Iowa (Meaningless “rivalry”, but it’s protected now, so they can protect it again)
Rutgers – Northwestern (Northwestern likely *wants* to travel out east more and there’s a Chicago vs. NYC undercurrent)
Indiana – Illinois (Schools in bordering states passing time until basketball season)
Maryland – Minnesota – (Last 2 picks on the board)”
I came to similar conclusions, except I went with MD/IL to give MD some Chicago access, leaving IN/MN.
LikeLike
If B10 stays where they are I would prefer the following Division Splits (with crossovers inline):
B10 West B10 East
Illinois Purdue
Iowa Wisconsin
Michigan Ohio State
Mich State Indiana
Minnesota Maryland
Nebraska Penn State
Northwestern Rutgers
This would preserve the most rivalries. I like the 6 division games, 1 protected crossover game, & 2 interdivision games, for a nine-game B10 schedule. Each division would alternate years for the extra home game, and I would make that extra home game be the protected crossover game. So you would play 3 Home & 3 Away games in your division, 1 Home & 1 Away games interdivision, & 1 Home/Away alternating crossover game. I think it is most fair to have all teams in each division have the same amount of home conference games each year.
LikeLike
kappadoce,
“If B10 stays where they are I would prefer the following Division Splits (with crossovers inline):
B10 West B10 East
Illinois Purdue
Iowa Wisconsin
Michigan Ohio State
Mich State Indiana
Minnesota Maryland
Nebraska Penn State
Northwestern Rutgers”
There’s no way the B10 drops WI/MN as it’s the most played rivalry in CFB. Given that change, I think they keep IA/PU and add IL/MD.
“Each division would alternate years for the extra home game, and I would make that extra home game be the protected crossover game. So you would play 3 Home & 3 Away games in your division, 1 Home & 1 Away games interdivision, & 1 Home/Away alternating crossover game. I think it is most fair to have all teams in each division have the same amount of home conference games each year.”
I agree that’s the best way to do it, I’m just not sure if they will.
LikeLike
If you add in that the other conferences are unlikely to stand pat, then where do you see this playing out. If this is a 1 or 2 school at a time thing, how do you get exactly to this point? It seems more likely that the SEC would try to grab at least two of UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, GT, and FSU.
I see Clemson, Miami, NC State, Wake Forest, Pitt, Louisville, and BC being left out in your 22-team mix. Add in UConn as still on the outside. Does the SEC take Clemson, Miami, NC State, and Louisville? Does the Big XII decide to try to make a run at the NE by grabbing Pitt, UConn, BC? Whither Wake Forest? Does the SEC want them to add to the NC State thing? Hard to see that making financial success whatsoever.
In any event, if the B1G gets to 20+ teams, does that mean that only the ACC disappears/morphs away or does the Big XII also get eaten up by the PAC/SEC? Do we get to three conferences of 20 to 24 teams eventually:
B1G 24:
B10 division – NE, IA, MN, WI, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI, MSU, OSU, Kansas
ACC division – PSU, Syracuse, RU, MD, UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, ND, BC
Pac-22:
West: Wash, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU, Colorado
East: Iowa State, Texas, TTech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU, BYU, Utah
SEC-24
Northeast: Florida, Miami, Clemson, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, WVU, Pitt, Alabama, Auburn, UConn
Southwest: A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Tennessee, Vandy, Kentucky, Louisville, Cincy, Ole Miss, MSU, Memphis
I added Memphis and BYU just because I had to add two teams. I probably screwed up somewhere.
Anyway… it becomes an interesting exercise to just plot them out. When you factor in that the SEC would probably grab something that the B1G would want, then it gets even harder still.
At the same time, three mega conferences of 20-24 teams really could work. Picture a football playoff with 3 champions and one at-large. Or the divisional winners of each conference, plus two at-larges.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“If you add in that the other conferences are unlikely to stand pat, then where do you see this playing out.”
I have no idea. There are way too many people involved with a range of agendas for me to know. i was just talking about what the B10 might try to do if they want to keep expanding. I wasn’t guaranteeing they’d be successful.
“It seems more likely that the SEC would try to grab at least two of UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, GT, and FSU.”
I’m sure they’d try for the VA and NC schools. I’m less sure about GT and FSU. Regardless, I was just presenting the Big 22 as a pipe dream. It won’t happen, and even if it did the B10 wouldn’t split old versus new.
“I see Clemson, Miami, NC State, Wake Forest, Pitt, Louisville, and BC being left out in your 22-team mix. Add in UConn as still on the outside.”
Yes, because none of them make sense to me in that group of 22 except maybe Miami.
“Does the SEC take Clemson, Miami, NC State, and Louisville?”
No. They don’t want UL or Clemson I don’t think.
“Does the Big XII decide to try to make a run at the NE by grabbing Pitt, UConn, BC?”
No.
“Whither Wake Forest? Does the SEC want them to add to the NC State thing? Hard to see that making financial success whatsoever.”
No, WF is screwed if the ACC collapses. Nobody but the ACC or BE wants them.
“In any event, if the B1G gets to 20+ teams, does that mean that only the ACC disappears/morphs away or does the Big XII also get eaten up by the PAC/SEC?”
That all depends on UT. If the B10 got to 22, I suspect UT would head west to the P12 eventually. OU, OkSU and TT probably can come along. The P12 might want KU for hoops, too, but KSU would be an issue. ISU would be screwed.
“Do we get to three conferences of 20 to 24 teams eventually:”
I’d guess 4, with one being the ACC and BE and other scraps.
“B1G 24:
B10 division – NE, IA, MN, WI, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI, MSU, OSU, Kansas
ACC division – PSU, Syracuse, RU, MD, UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, ND, BC”
No KU or BC, in my opinion.
“Pac-22:
West: Wash, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU, Colorado
East: Iowa State, Texas, TTech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU, BYU, Utah”
No ISU, no Baylor and KSU is iffy. TCU and BYU would be tough. I think the western conference will be smaller than the others due to the lack of schools past the Mississippi.
“SEC-24
Northeast: Florida, Miami, Clemson, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, WVU, Pitt, Alabama, Auburn, UConn
Southwest: A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Tennessee, Vandy, Kentucky, Louisville, Cincy, Ole Miss, MSU, Memphis”
No WF, no Memphis, UC is doubtful and so is Pitt.
“Anyway… it becomes an interesting exercise to just plot them out. When you factor in that the SEC would probably grab something that the B1G would want, then it gets even harder still.”
There are relatively few school the b10 and SEC would battle over. The B10 could only get SE schools that the SEC doesn’t want (GT, etc) or that don’t want the SEC. The opposite is true of northern schools for the SEC (Pitt, etc). The real battlegrounds would be UNC, VT and UVA since those states are between the two conferences and neither conference is a perfect fit for them.
“At the same time, three mega conferences of 20-24 teams really could work. Picture a football playoff with 3 champions and one at-large. Or the divisional winners of each conference, plus two at-larges.”
I’d guess 6 division champs, the other conference champ and 1 at large.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s lack of rivalries made it easier for them to leave the Big 12. They had played KU, KSU, Missouri and ISU forever, but almost always beat them in football. CU had declined in the last 5 years of the Big 12. OU was always their rival.
Texas had similar issues in the SWC. They beat Rice 28 straight years, TCU 26 straight years, Baylor 18 straight years. The A&M series still counted, but it was the #4 rivalry when I was in school(behind OU, Arkansas, Houston) as UT had come off a streak of 31-3-1. Texas Tech tended to be tough, but only won 4 of the 1st 33 SWC games vs. Texas. SMU, despite paying players, only beat Texas 2 times in the last 26 years of the SWC. All of those streaks were running during the late 60s and early 70s and some continued into the 90s.
Rivalries are important to tie the conference together and stimulate fan interest. Dismissing their importance is a huge mistake. 20 team conferences are basically saying they don’t matter.
LikeLike
As I pointed out above, going from 12 to 20 could actualy lead to the net loss of 0 traditional Big10 rivalries (and Wisconsin-Iowa is more competitive than the Little Brown Jug game).
Granted, IU-PU & Illinois-Northwestern would have to be OOC half the time.
LikeLike
Nebraska was a mistake if the goal was 20. Without them you could have the old 10 with PSU in with the new members, including potentially ND.
If the goal was 14, they fit perfectly. They work well with 12 and 16 as well.
18 is awkward not matter how you do it. Richards 6 pod idea is too complex for the average fan. You might be able to do pods of 5 and 4 (W-UNL,NU,WI,MN,IA; N-UM,MSU,PSU,RU; S-IL,IU,PU,OSU; E-MD + 4 new members-it might be a little different with ND as one of the 4 new).
LikeLike
I tend to agree with your views on this.
It’s also why I’m not sure they’ll be in a rush to pick up a half of the ACC. The conference can still claim to be a credible and closely knit group at 14 with additions near the 11-team footprint in Lincoln, College Park, and New Brunswick.
After that point, any additions are going to start to stretch the fabric. Even just going up to 16.
Adding UVa and UNC are an entirely different enterprise than adding Maryland and Rutgers.
It’s similar to the Pac-12 adding Texas and OU. Just a completely different set of additions than Colorado and Utah.
LikeLike
Right. In terms of “stretching the fabric”, the B10 can really only add UVa, VTech, & Miami (and maybe Duke) from the ACC without adding any schools that aren’t really outside it’s cultural zone & at least partially in the Deep South.
LikeLike
Richard — or one of the northern schools like Pitt, Syracuse, or BC, but there are other issues at stake with them (market for Pitt; academics/research/private school for Cuse/BC)
LikeLike
Nebraska’s lack of rivalries made it easier for them to leave the Big 12. They had played KU, KSU, Missouri and ISU forever, but almost always beat them in football. CU had declined in the last 5 years of the Big 12. OU was always their rival.
Honestly, the string of bad luck and losses in football against Texas that fit the narrative that Texas runs the Big 12 (the Omaha World-Herald loved Texas conspiracy angle) made it much easier to move. Before the 2009 Big 12 title game (the Suh/McCoy game) I don’t believe the fan base would have been receptive to the Big Ten. The Big 12 North (except Colorado) was all less than a four hour drive from Lincoln and many Nebraska fans were long time season ticket holders of those schools. Thanks to the lingering fan frustration with Texas that the Nebraska administration was able to channel, the hundred or so years of tradition was much easier to walk away from.
LikeLike
Nebraska lost to Missouri 4 out of the last 8 times they played. Yes, they had a 23 game winning streak that spanned throughout the 80s and 90s, but outside of those 23 years the series is tied. Missouri had 2 very, very bad decades, otherwise they’ve been a top 30 program.
LikeLike
Except for 23 straight losses….
I think you made my point.
LikeLike
Decades are what makes a program what they are. If every program could take its worst 30 years off the record; I suspect we’d have a lot of “kings”. It doesn’t work like that. Those decades are what makes Nebraska a “king” and Missouri just Missouri. Notre Dame removed its years from 1970 -2000; our program would look vastly different. This is laughable that you even suggest this.
LikeLike
Hey, can we pretend the last 35 years didn’t happen?
– King Minnesota
LikeLike
Meant 45.
LikeLike
“Yes, they had a 23 game winning streak that spanned throughout the 80s and 90s, but outside of those 23 years…”
—Sometimes good comedy just writes itself.
Maybe it’s time to repost the decade by decade record of MU again.
LikeLike
Mizzou has a nearly identical head to head record with Kansas. That is a better comparison than Nebraska.
LikeLike
Brian is more than capable of speaking for himself and defending his position, but the scenario he presents actually removes some of the negative stigmata of recent expansion. Trying to focus on the overall theme instead of some of the individual components (which obviously TPTB would figure out on their own) might diffuse concerns being proposed.
Many of us here celebrated when the the B1G/PAC alliance was proposed. Should you choose to view this scenario (a variation of which I’ve presented in previous posts) through this type of prism, it makes perfect sense. Consider what a non-hostile takeover (not merger) of the ACC accomplishes.
1) Massive capture of additional markets and expansion of BTN. This has been sufficiently explained, but owning the best of the old ACC/Big East gives folks in the NE and SE a legitimate reason to care specifically about us.
2) Stratifying the new entity into historical B1G and new B1G (old ACC/Big East) divisions with say, 2 cross over games a year removes the feelings of “we’re losing all of our historic rivalries” on both sides of the fence while building new allegiances to the B1G. Undoubtedly 10×2 or 12×2 works better than any factor of 11.
3) If we could retain and improve upon existing bowl relationships, the B1G’s reach would now extend nationally, inclusive of the Rose Bowl consideration.
4) I hate mentioning ND in general, because their interests are pretty clear, but placing them and say FSU/the U as historic Kings in the new division would legitimize it and shore up the status of that half of the draw.
It would be amazing as a business accomplishment as well as drown the SECs efforts to get its own CIC off the ground. I’d dare say I’d take my chances against the SEC, PAC and Big XII on the gridiron as well. It may offer enough to UNC/UVA/VTT/Duke/FSU/Miami as the only way to ‘save’ their old alliance for them (while bestowing inevitability to ND) to listen to this type of proposal.
LikeLike
I’ll just throw this out there. I’m a much bigger fan of a 9 game, 14 team Big Ten than I was of the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance.
I don’t think there’s that much value to an alliance between the Big Ten and ACC. They already have enough rivalries games in the South between the ACC and SEC.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I’ll just throw this out there. I’m a much bigger fan of a 9 game, 14 team Big Ten than I was of the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance.”
And I was a much bigger fan of a 9 game, 12-team B10 than either of those options. Many of us were.
“I don’t think there’s that much value to an alliance between the Big Ten and ACC. They already have enough rivalries games in the South between the ACC and SEC.”
There is value for the CIC. There’s value in adding student recruiting grounds. There’s value in gaining east coast media markets for the B10.
LikeLike
Stigmata? Really?
LikeLike
Yes, stigmata. Look at certain aspects of our year.
Expansion related:
1) Steward Mandel (NU alum no less) and others have lambasted our efforts as a cash grab and have more or less decried our efforts as the end of all that is good about college athletics (cough, bushit…)
2) ND rejection of the B1G for the ACC.
3) Big perception of not making moves to enhance athletic competitiveness. For a lot of folks, this is just about football.
Other hits:
4) This year’s on the field product, culminating in a fine but unranked Wisky team being our only BCS rep.
5) PSU and OSU sanctions.
6) Legends and leaders.
The B1G’s brand has definitely taken multiple hits this year. Stigmata indeed.
LikeLike
I think Bob feels stigma would be more appropriate.
LikeLike
I love this board. Stigmata is simply the pleural. The implication was that we’ve taken multiple body blows in the way I described…
LikeLike
What, you haven’t seen the wound in Delaney’s side start bleeding when he’s receiving prophecy from on high?!
LikeLike
Pingback: Is Georgia Tech the Next to Leave the ACC? Updated. | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Going to 18, 20 members starts to boggle my mind, you’re really two separate conferences that have a championship game. Yes, with ‘pods’ it works in the same way a friends with benefits relationship works.
16 imo is the end, unless Texas or ND want in.
LikeLike
Somebody mentioned that 4 pods of 5 doesn’t work well to preserve rivalries. I think it works very well, so well in fact in could be the end game that Delany is driving toward.
West: UNL, Iowa, UW, UMn, NW
Central: Illinois, IU, PU, UM,MSU
East: OSU, PSU, UMd, RU, UVa (?)
South: GaTech (?) and 4 of UNC,NCSt, Duke, VaTech, Clemson, FSU, Miami or my own fantasy of UF and Vandy.
These pods are geographically compact and preserve many existing rivalries. I have chosen to separate OSU/UM. You might not like that, but I think those two have to be separated and rely on the possibility of them meeting in a conference semi-final (which I know is not currently allowed). So in football you play within your pod for 4 games and your pod plays another for 5 games, giving 9 conference football games. In a three year cycle you play every other team. In basketball you simply play everybody once, to get 19 conference games.
LikeLike
Ohio State fans will probably go bonkers if the original Big Ten schools are mostly in the West and Central and they get put in the East. I’m not sure how well that’ll go over even though you do have good geography mapped out…
LikeLike
Exactly. Plus with 20, you either have 10 conference games (non-starter) or have to settle for 2 out of 6 with teams not in your division. I think having MI and OSU only 2 out of 6 years is a non-starter for many of the schools.
LikeLike
With the pods you either play every year within your pod or rotate and to play more often you need to meet in the semis. If I am OSU the only thing worse than not playing MI every year is being in the some pod with them and only one gets out. Maybe you could hardwire the semis so that Central always plays East so that increases the chances of a UM/OSU matchup. The other thing you might want to do to balance if you don’t get a UF/FSU/Clemson or two in the south is have OSU go there, but that seems to me even worse for them. But at the end of the day we took in Rutgers and Maryland so that a team like Ohio St plays them to generate east coast interest. You can’t have it both ways, preserving historical rivalries and opening up the NE. Ohio St. could take the long view that it will open up some more recruiting area for them – but they probably don’t need that.
LikeLike
“If I am OSU the only thing worse than not playing MI every year is being in the some pod with them and only one gets out.”
Yet neither UF & UGa or ‘Bama & LSU have a problem with that.
Semifinals aren’t allowed.
LikeLike
I think most OSU fans, myself included, would say that if OSU can’t finish ahead of, and likely by extension beat, Michigan, they don’t deserve to go to the championship game. I’ve never met an OSU fan that would want to “duck” Michigan to make it an easier road to the championship game.
LikeLike
If OSU didn’t get to play Michigan every year, OSU fans would absolutely go bonkers. Under no circumstances would OSU fans (and I assume Michigan fans) want one of the top rivalries in the world of sports to go the way of the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry.
However, if a system could be put in place whereby they play Michigan each year during the regular season, but the remainder of the schedule is dominated by eastern teams, I doubt many OSU fans would care that much.
LikeLike
There would be enough that cared though.
I think a lot of the older fans would especially not want to be put in that kind of situation…
LikeLike
Yeah, Michigan & OSU can’t be in separate pods in a Big20.
One original B10 school would have to go in to an outside pod (I nominate one of the IN schools).
The pain could be lessened by switching the 2 IN schools between the Michigan&OSU pod and the outside pod (which presumably includes at least 1 FL school) every 6 years. Then they either get to visit FL (which the IN schools would want/need for recruiting) or OSU&Michigan on their schedule. Michigan&OSU 2/3rds of the time.
Northwestern & Illinois could switch between the Michigan&OSU pod and western pod every 6 years as well.
Then the only original B10 schools that don’t get both Michigan and OSU at least 2/3rds of the time would be the western trio of Minny, Iowa, and Wisconsin, and they get Nebraska annually.
LikeLike
This would mean that Ohio State’s 4 annual pod games are all vs. eastern teams. We now have some history with Penn State, but basically none with anyone else. I could see them doing something like this, but I’d hate it as to me the Big Ten would be dead and this would simply be a replacement conference.
LikeLike
drwillini,
“Somebody mentioned that 4 pods of 5 doesn’t work well to preserve rivalries. I think it works very well, so well in fact in could be the end game that Delany is driving toward.
West: UNL, Iowa, UW, UMn, NW
Central: Illinois, IU, PU, UM,MSU
East: OSU, PSU, UMd, RU, UVa (?)
South: GaTech (?) and 4 of UNC,NCSt, Duke, VaTech, Clemson, FSU, Miami or my own fantasy of UF and Vandy.”
Problems: OSU/MI, NW/IL, PSU/NE, UVA/UNC, UVA/VT, OSU/IL, MSU/NW
“These pods are geographically compact and preserve many existing rivalries.”
Compact geography is easy. Keeping everyone happy is not.
“I have chosen to separate OSU/UM. You might not like that, but I think those two have to be separated and rely on the possibility of them meeting in a conference semi-final (which I know is not currently allowed). So in football you play within your pod for 4 games and your pod plays another for 5 games, giving 9 conference football games. In a three year cycle you play every other team. In basketball you simply play everybody once, to get 19 conference games.”
Once every three years won’t cut it for major rivalries like OSU/MI. It’s a non-starter.
LikeLike
If there was an eight-team playoff using the final 2012 BCS rankings (see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/bcs/), what would it look like?
Here’s the format I would use given the current conference structure:
1. Autobids for the conference champions of the ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and SEC provided those teams are in the top 12 of the rating system utilized.
2. Three at large bids for the next three non-conference champion teams.
3. Top three conference champions seeded 1 thru 3 . Remaining selected teams seeded 4 thru 8. If Notre Dame or Brigham Young ranked 1 thru 3 in rating system used, then those teams would replace one of the conference champions and the lowest ranked conference champion would get the #4 seed.
4. Quarter- and semi-final games played at the stadiums of the higher ranked teams. Championship game played at neutral site.
Using the BCS rankings and the criteria above, here are the team seedings:
1. Notre Dame (12-0, At Large Independent)
2. Alabama (12-1, SEC Champion)
3. Kansas State (11-1, Big XII Champion)
4. Stanford (11-2, Pac 12 Champion)
5. Florida (11-1, At Large SEC)
6. Oregon (11-1, At Large Pac 12)
7. Georgia (11-2, At Large SEC)
8. Florida State (11-2, ACC Champion)
The opening round games would be as follows:
#8 Florida State (ACC) at #1 Notre Dame (Indep)
#5 Florida (SEC) at #4 Stanford (P12)
#7 Georgia (SEC) at #2 Alabama (SEC)
#6 Oregon (P12) at #3 Kansas State (B12)
If there was a rule in place that two teams from the same conference couldn’t play one another in the opening round of the playoff, then flip #7 Georgia with #6 Oregon so the play Kansas State and Alabama respectively. The opening round games would then be:
#8 Florida State (ACC) at #1 Notre Dame (Indep)
#5 Florida (SEC) at #4 Stanford (P12)
#6 Oregon (P12) at #2 Alabama (SEC)
#7 Georgia (SEC) at #3 Kansas State (B12)
If the Sagarin Rankings Predictor were used to include strength of schedule (SOS) and margin of victory (see http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt12.htm) as part of the rating system, then using the criteria above, here are the team seedings:
1. Alabama (12-1, SEC Champion)
2. Notre Dame (12-0, At Large Independent)
3. Kansas State (11-1, Big XII Champion)
4. Stanford (11-2, Pac 12 Champion)
5. Oregon (11-1, At Large Pac 12)
6. Texas A&M (10-2, At Large SEC)
7. Florida (11-1, At Large SEC )
8. Georgia (11-2, At Large SEC)
The Big Ten would not have a team in either scenario because its conference champion and none of its eligible at large programs are not in the Top 12. In the Sagarin Rankings Predictor scenario, the Big Ten and ACC would not be participating.
The opening round games would be as follows:
#8 Georgia (SEC) at #1 Alabama (SEC)
#5 Oregon (P12) at #4 Stanford (P12)
#7 Florida (SEC) at #2 Notre Dame (Indep)
#6 Texas A&M (SEC) at #3 Kansas State (B12)
If there was a rule in place that two teams from the same conference couldn’t play one another in the opening round, then the lineup of games would be as follows:
#5 Oregon (P12) at #1 Alabama (SEC)
#6 Texas A&M (SEC) at #4 Stanford (P12)
#8 Georgia (SEC) at #2 Notre Dame (Indep)
#7 Florida (SEC) at #3 Kansas State (B12)
The bowl games would remains as they are now–exhibitions between two teams that have successful seasons. We could see games such as Nebraska v. Oregon State in the Rose Bowl, Oklahoma v. Texas A&M (if available depending on scenario) in the Fiesta, LSU v. FSU (if available depending on scenario) in Sugar Bowl, Clemson in Orange Bowl v. Louisville, etc. The South Carolina v. Michigan goes from the Outback Bowl in Tampa to the Chick-Fil-A in Atlanta.
LikeLike
CNNSI’s mock playoff left Kansas St. out of the top 8 with A&M and LSU in (they were looking for a top 4, but had a process where they selected 2, tenatively selected 2 more and then compared them to #5-#8. KSU was not considered in top 8). UGA’s blowout vs. a ranked South Carolina was tolerable to them, but KSU’s blowout to an unranked Baylor wasn’t. Like pollsters, they got hung up on one game rather than the whole record and put 4 2 loss teams, 3 of which were non-champs, ahead of them.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why they didn’t wait until after the season actually ended to do the mock playoff committee. Kansas State would be in the top 8 if they reran it today, I’m sure of that.
Probably wouldn’t have the juice to make a top 4 cut this year though.
Would love to see what the committee would say now though.
The Locks: Notre Dame and Alabama
The contenders for the 2 remaining spots:
Kansas State
Stanford
Oregon
Florida
Georgia
I don’t think you can realistically argue that South Carolina, Texas A&M, or LSU belong in a four team playoff this year.
Kansas State – they have one very bad loss. A blowout against an unranked Baylor team. Baylor did finish the season strong at least. KSU has big wins against Oklahoma, West Viriginia, Texas and were Champions of their conference (no matter what Bob Stoopes says), which was easily one of the top 3 conferences this year.
Stanford has two losses, one to Notre Dame and a close one at that. Washington is not a good loss though. Overall, they have played a lot of close games against both good and not-so-good teams. They have looked more solid than dominate. They did close impressively by defeating UCLA twice to end the season to win the Pac-12 Conference, which was again a top 3 conference this year.
Oregon basically dominated every team they played other than an 11 point win at USC and an overtime loss at home to Stanford. They did not win their conference. Ironically, I think they would be a near lock for a four team playoff this year if Stanford had been a .500 team (assuming they then beat UCLA in the Pac-12 title game). So, sometimes it is actually better to have a bad loss than a “good” one. I can’t imagine a committee this year choosing both Stanford and Oregon though and it would be a hard sell to select Oregon over Stanford based on the last month of the season.
Florida has a very impressive resume on paper. The shine comes off a bit the closer you look but they do have close wins at A&M, LSU, Florida State and a blowout home win against South Carolina. The two big strikes against them are they have multiple unimpressive performances against bad teams and since they lost to Georgia at home they didn’t win their division. (They are basically Notre Dame but with a loss).
Georgia has a bad loss to South Carolina sandwiched between close victories over Tennessee and Kentucky. Other than that 3 week stretch they’ve looked pretty good thoughout although they had the easiest schedule of any of the SEC big boys this year. Then they were one play away from beating Alabama in the SEC title game. Florida is their only win of substance. It’s my opinion that conference championship games are basically the first round of the playoffs, so I think there needs to be special circumstances for a conference title game loser to make a four team playoff. LSU last year, for example, would probably be deserving of a spot in a four team playoff if they had lost in the SEC title game. Hard to argue for Georgia though. They don’t have a series of victories over top ten teams like Florida does. They only played 3 ranked teams, and lost two of those games. Basically, their resume doesn’t have the depth to overcome a blowout regular season loss AND a close conference title game loss. The strongest argument in their favor is probably that they almost beat Alabama in Atlanta. Moral victories don’t get you into the playoffs.
Personally, I think the best playoff seeding would be:
1. Notre Dame
2. Alabama
3. Kansas State
4. Oregon
I think this would probably be the most entertaining too, though that is not why I picked it.
If an actual committee picked, my guess is we would see:
1. Notre Dame
2. Alabama
3. Florida
4. Stanford
I’m not sure if the committee would switch Florida and Stanford to split the SEC teams into different semis and avoid a Stanford-ND rematch. I would think not because most of the committee would want to avoid a potential all SEC final and because Florida and Alabama wouldn’t be a rematch itself. And Stanford_Notre Dame was a close game the first time around.
LikeLike
Don’t see anyone talking about it yet, but what does the group think about the PAC12 Monitoring Boise St and SDSU? How does this fit the business model of adding new viewers? Where is Scott going with this or is this a trial balloon to get intrest from Texahoma?
LikeLike
He was just being complementary.
The Pac-12 is in a holding period until their next run at Texas/Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Whoops, complimentary; I always mix those up.
In any case, the Pac-12 has no viable expansion scenarios outside of Texas/Oklahoma. They aren’t in the positions of the ACC, Big Ten, SEC in that they could find value-adds nearby their footprints…
LikeLike
He was directly asked about those schools and was polite. They aren’t monitoring them.
LikeLike
New Kevin Jones tweet/message:
“GT/UVA
On Friday I tweeted a report about Georgia Tech and Virginia, which turned out to be inaccurate — for the time being. I can only offer my apologies to the people I misled. Changes in the ACC are on the cusp of fruition, but today is not that day.
The reality is that NCAA conference realignment is one of the more complex issues today in sports. Powerful people inside various universities have certain agendas. My sources, no matter how influential and credible they may be, indeed were not enough to run with a story of this magnitude. I found out the hard way.
I vow to not be defined by this error in judgment and look forward to interacting with all of you through various media platforms.
KJ”
Interestingly, he writes “..inaccurate – for the time being…” and “Changes in the ACC are on the cusp of fruition…”.
LikeLike
Thought things were awfully quiet this weekend for the Monday bit to be true.
LikeLike
Most likely he heard from one of his D.C. based sources like how he heard about Va Tech firing one of their football staff.
My guess is a Maryland source told him it was a done deal, and he just ran with it…
LikeLike
He should have ended his statement with “Stay Tuned”
LikeLike
He should have ended his statement with “The Dude”.
LikeLike
The entire GT/UVA B1G rumor cycle seemed a bit odd. The Twitter cycle seemed hell bent on re-manufacturing the “Maryland and Rutgers to the B1G” story. Perhaps this Kevin Jones was merely a pawn in one of the agendas he referred to above. Taking him at this word, perhaps he was fed information by an ACC or the B1G insider to meet some end of an agenda.
Perhaps a Big Ten operative planted information to smoke out another school (UNC??) using GT/UVA as the stalking horse? Leaks by the B1G are not far-fetched as it was no coincidence that Maryland leaked financials on their move to get other schools interest as to what Big Ten membership to offer.
Or perhaps on a more sinister note, the ACC wanted to create enough smoke to put the GT President in an uncomfortable position to declare GT’s loyalty to the ACC at the ACC Championship game. If ACC operatives are going to these sort of tactics, that would surely be a sign that the ACC has a troubled future.
But more likely this was just one guy in DC who was successful in creating a Twitter-storm and will fall short in a quest to be the next Brent McMurphy.
LikeLike
I think that is the B1G’s end game. The ultimate targets are UVa and UNC. Losing UNC cripples the ACC forever. It also ensures that the B1G has ultimate control over the mid-Atlantic. In addition, the B1G adds two of the best flagship public Ivy’s in the land.
The rub is that UNC is the hardest to dislodge. But like Archimedes once said, ‘Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.’ Picking off regional rivals, doubling conference pay outs, and offering ‘lesser’ schools may encourage UNC to grab a seat.
LikeLike
Yes. Also a question of how big is B1G? If you really want to just stop at 16, you can afford to let things play out. If you want 18+ you can afford to do some Whitey Herzog “addition by subtraction” as long as you are happy with the result long term.
Assuming we are looking at 18+, why not go after FSU and Clemson. We seem to have decided they ultimately belong in the Big 12, but why. FSU is no doubt better, and Clemson is arguably better academically than Nebraska. Gives you the best football brands in the ACC, is football crazy warm weather states, and would be a death blow to the ACC.
LikeLike
“and Clemson is arguably better academically than Nebraska”
Er, no.
LikeLike
Payscale mid career median of Nebraska grads’ income is $70.5k, Clemson grads’ is $86.9k For reference the next lowest B1G institution is MSU at $78k. Clemson would be about the middle of the B1G. Also, when I looked I found Clemson near the bottom the the Times top 500 universitities in the world, but could not find UNL. Arguably doesn’t mean is, it means there is evidence to support it.
The Payscale ranking is not perfect, there are regional differences in cost of living, etc, but it is the most quantitiative and least subjective of any ranking I have seen.
LikeLike
If you notice, all the engineering & engineering-heavy schools rank well in the Payscale rankings.
In ARWU (which is closest to how the COPC thinks), UNL is in the 70-89 tier. Clemson is in the 112-137 tier.
LikeLike
Talks were preliminary and weren’t supposed to be leaked.
LikeLike
Or it was a deliberate leak.
LikeLike
Know you can’t come close to selling your ticket allotment but want to ensure you have fans in the stands?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-northern-illinois-football-news-niu-students-offered-free-orange-bowl-ticket-20121203,0,6331302.story
NIU gives free Orange Bowl ticket to every student.
LikeLike
Very cool
LikeLike
Crazy times … beware of short-changing Cincinnati academics.
LikeLike
How is it that Northern Illinois can recruit the players capable of fielding a BCS team and University of Illinois can’t?
Also.
I wonder if Delany/B1G aren’t going to hedge their ‘expansion’ bets with academic/basketball schools, fearful of football being banned from campuses in the future. Yes, I know most assume that will never happen because of the money involved, but these are institutions of higher learning, not the free market. Special interest groups and politicians willing to ban soda, salt, etc. etc. will no doubt set their sights on football sooner or later if kids keep getting concussions. Let’s hope anti-concussion headgear can stay ahead of our nanny-state society.
LikeLike
Look no further than Auburn or Tennessee.
How many highly rated 4-star athletes were on those teams that were unable to win much this year?
There was plenty of talent on that Illinois squad in terms of what scouts look for…, the problem seems to be at the top.
Beckman in particular just seemed out of his league from the start of the season; one troubling situation after another (the Tobacco thing, the sideline interference penalties, weird formation penalties, etc.). I haven’t seen a first year head coach have as many problems at a Big Ten school in a while…
LikeLike
Good luck. 13 of 14 Big Ten schools are public institutions, and the leadership wouldn’t live past a week if they tried it.
And I don’t mean political survival.
LikeLike
@Frank
One thing worth noting though is that Miami is legitimately a lot farther away from the Big Ten than Georgia Tech.
I’ve made the Miami/FLL flight to Chicago and back dozens of times, and Atlanta is practically the halfway point on that journey.
Outside of that, I do tend to think that we understate the value of Miami around here, but it’s just hard to consider that the Big Ten would want to add such a distant school.
LikeLike
It would almost be like the Pac 12 adding Hawaii.
LikeLike
Have you looked at a map, recently? The distance from San Fran to Hawaii is roughly the distance from Chicago to Colombia, not Miami.
BTW, tell me again, how close is Columbia to Gainesville?
LikeLike
About 800 miles closer than Miami FL is to Minneapolis.
LikeLike
By plane, that’s a 1.5 hour difference.
LikeLike
Eh. Once you’re on a plane, there isn’t much difference. 1 hour, maybe? Miami isn’t farther from Columbus or Bloomington than Boulder is from San Fran or Seattle, yet no one thought that the Pac expanded too far.
For that matter, Miami to the heart of the B10 is about as far as Lincoln is from Newark.
LikeLike
And how many direct flights are there to Miami vs. Atlanta?
LikeLike
Atlanta is Delta’s major hub, so I’m pretty sure there are far more to Atlanta, but you can Miami->Chicago->Pretty much any B1G school.
LikeLike
When does a team truly become a “king”? And is it even possible for new schools to become “kings”? I only say this because Wisconsin is never mentioned in this context and yet they have now been to 6 Rose Bowls in the last 18 years. (’94, ’99’, ’00, ’11, ’12, ’13) That is on average once every three years. (Obvious, I know) I guess teams just have to win a few Nat’l Titles to really get to that level.
LikeLike
I think, to be a king, you have to have national appeal. Teams like ND, Bama, UT, USC, UM, OSU, FSU, ect. . . (UNC, Kansas in BB) all have that national appeal. Wisconsin, however successful they have been over the last 15-20 years, still is just a regional power. Teams and fans don’t get excited to play Wisconsin. Maybe it’s the style of play or the lack of undefeated seasons and “in it” for the BCS Championship. I think that excitement to play the kings is what makes them so desirable.
LikeLike
Wisconsin has been strong and closest in the Big Ten to that status, but they really aren’t quite the national success. They are going to their 3rd straight Rose Bowl, but lost the last 2. While they’ve been good, they haven’t been relevant in the national title race for extended lengths of time.
If you have them continue at the same level and they are in the title race in November a few years (preferably making the championship once or twice) then they’ll arguably be there.
The thing with king status is though that it isn’t won over the short term and isn’t lost over it either. Generally speaking you are talking multiple generations growing up knowing the teams names and to speed that up you need a real lot of success.
LikeLike
is it even possible for new schools to become “kings”?
Sure it is. Ten years ago LSU was basically on the same level as Georgia and Auburn, but there success has moved them into the upper tier.
A perhaps even more dramatic example is Florida. Before Spurrier they had never even won an SEC championship, but they exploded and are now one of the sports biggest draws.
The flipside is Tennessee who a decade ago was a considered a top 10 program but has severely decayed.
LikeLike
In the course of five years Oregon has gone from nowheresVille to what I would call Prince status. Granted they would probably need to win a national championship (or two) and be consistently good for another decade before being certified as a King, but they are on the right path.
I actually think Wisconsin has made great strides in the last few years. If they had won both their Rose Bowls, and were eyeing their third, their national following would have picked up quite a bit of steam.
LikeLike
They still need to recruit better. They don’t have the flashy uniforms or Nike money of Oregon, so that makes it tougher. However, they do have good academics and one of the top party campuses in the country. Plus, in the summer, Mad-town is beautiful.
LikeLike
National championships definitely are a big part of it. So is having a dominant run where the school is in national title contention year after year. For example, UCLA played in the Rose Bowl 4 times in 11 years from 1975 to 1985, but I just couldn’t consider them a king like USC.
That said, other than in the sexiness of playing them, UNL and Wisconsin are very much the same these days.
LikeLike
As a Wisconsin fan I really think not playing for National Championships limits any King discussion. Wisconsin needs to improve recruiting, especially at QB to take the next step.
LikeLike
Uh, you guys had Russell Wilson. I mean sure, a Cam Newton would have been even better, but you’re not being held back because the offense can’t score points.
Wisconsin needs defensive playmakers. Those guys might be hard to lure up to the frozen tundra, however. Still, you could develop more JJ Watts (more than one every other season or so).
LikeLike
I agree about the defensive playermakers but I am talking in general about the QB spot. We had Wilson for 1 year. He’s the best to ever play at Wisconsin at that position. Beside him I can’t recall a Wisconsin QB being drafted in the first 5 rounds in the last 30-40 years.
Wisconsin had some really good defensive teams in the past 20 years. They didn’t have a QB. The offensive success (scoring 30-40pts per game) at Wisconsin is really only a new thing with Chryst etc… The Alvarez era was all about ball control.
LikeLike
Wisconsin to me is still on that same tier as Virginia Tech and Oregon. Those latter two played in a national championship game each, but Wisconsin’s played in as many big bowls, so that’s a wash.
The next step is to win multiple national championships somewhat recently (as far back as the 80s and 90s is fine).
Those 3 teams aren’t yet kings because they haven’t taken that next step.
LSU on the other hand has, and most would acknowledge LSU as a cut above Tennessee.
LikeLike
The other test to me of a king is if you automatically expect a team to rebound after extended down periods. If Michigan sucks for a decade, people would still be saying it’s Michigan and will come back. If Wisconsin is bad for a decade and teams like Minnesota and Iowa had more success (say a Rose Bowl appearance or two and competing a lot more than Wisconsin for the divisional title), would we all really still think of Wisconsin as the stronger name brand and program? I don’t think we would and thus Wisconsin is a step removed still.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree completely.
It basically goes into your definition of the level of tradition at a program combined with the intangibles; that “expectation of success” matters just as much as the actual levels of success.
LikeLike
And it partly depends on how long you have been around. I think pretty much everyone around here recognizes 9 kings-Notre Dame, Penn St., Ohio St., Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, Nebraska. Some will recognize more recent teams like Florida, FSU and Miami. I’m in that group. I would still keep LSU in the 2nd tier with UGA, Auburn & Tennessee. I would include UCLA because of history and Virginia Tech because of their past 15 years and growth, much like the Florida schools. Wisconsin, IMO, would be in the next tier with South Carolina and along with schools that have been solid for a longer term-Arkansas, Washington, Colorado, Texas A&M and maybe a few others. I would look at all time win % for tiers with exceptions for schools like Wisconsin and Virginia Tech that may not have been particularly good prior to the last 20-30 years.
But everyone pretty much has a different opinion after the top 9 or so on where to draw the lines. It just takes a long time to be a king and a long time to lose it (Notre Dame has had a couple of good years in the last 20 prior to 2012). I include the 3 Florida schools because they have been the top 3 starting in the mid-80s. Miami has more titles than anyone else in that period. FSU had an unprecedented 15 year top 3 streak. Florida has become the dominant Florida school lately and has 3 titles. They have national appeal and virtually everyone expects them to come back after a down period.
LikeLike
Yeah, each of the 9 “consensus” kings outside of the 3 Florida schools each had a period of 4-5 decades where they were at the top and that’s in the relatively recent past….
LikeLike
Can’t help but notice that of the original 9 kings, over half are in the Midwest (with 1 each in each other populated area of the country: northeast, southeast, southwest, and west coast).
All the new kings & near-kings have been in the south (with the possible potential exception of Oregon). Possibly UCLA & Wisconsin would ascend some day as well, though I don’t hold out much hope.
LikeLike
Dan,
“When does a team truly become a “king”?”
When they are nationally elite for a prolonged period of time without major down periods. They have to regularly dominate their conference and compete for (and occasionally win) national titles. They also need to pump out NFL players.
“And is it even possible for new schools to become “kings”?”
Short term, sure. Nobody has shown the ability to stay at that level, though. FSU and Miami made the leap, but both have fallen on hard times lately. FSU is doing well enough to keep their status as a weak king, but Miami isn’t. UF may be the best example and one that can stick around long term.
“I only say this because Wisconsin is never mentioned in this context and yet they have now been to 6 Rose Bowls in the last 18 years. (’94, ’99′, ’00, ’11, ’12, ’13) That is on average once every three years. (Obvious, I know) ”
WI has several problems:
1. Inconsistency – They have the 4th best B10 W% from 1993-2012. You don’t establish kinghood by being 15 percentage points behind one conference mate (OSU) and 6 percentage points behind another (MI).
Wins per season over that stretch:
<8 – 4
8-9 – 8
10+ – 8
OSU:
<8 – 3
8-9 – 3
10+ – 14
OSU bowls: 2 Rose, 3 NCG, 11 total BCS-type games
WI bowls: 6 Rose, 0 NCG 6 total BCS-type games
WI can't become a king without outperforming or at least matching all the other kings in the B10 over a prolonged period.
"I guess teams just have to win a few Nat’l Titles to really get to that level."
That would help. The kings have.
LikeLike
Oops, I accidentally posted too soon.
Other problems:
2. Style of play
To be a king you need national appeal, and WI’s running game doesn’t excite most people. They want to see an elite QB and great WRs, too, plus an athletic defense.
3. Recruiting
Kings are in the mix for 4* and 5* players. They don’t just settle for 2 * and 3* players and coach them up to fit the system. This is especially true on defense, where you need some elite athletes to be nationally competitive.
4. Competition
The traditional WI weak OOC slate means WI never earns any national respect. You have to beat big names OOC to gain stature. When was WI’s last major OOC win? Probably the 1999 Rose Bowl win over #6 UCLA.
5. Comparisons
OSU, MI, PSU and NE make it hard for WI to become a king. Miami dominated the BE and FSU crushed the ACC. UF topped the SEC and stayed at the top as AL returned. All won at least 2 national titles. Get back to us when WI wins 2 in a decade or 3 total.
LikeLike
I don’t think style of play matters for kinghood at all. UNL established itself as a king while keeping the ball almost exclusively on the ground. Same with Royal’s Texas.
Annually contending for national titles (and getting some) does.
LikeLike
Yes, but fans used to like pure running games. Now, they don’t.
LikeLike
Yeah, you aren’t going to have 5 kings in one conference unless you’re bringing in someone from outside.
LikeLike
The SEC schools built themselves up on 5 and 6 game conference schedules. Very few played 7 even in the 70s. That allowed for an Alabama coupled with Tennesee, Georgia, Auburn and LSU being kings or near kings. They’ve managed to maintain their status with the 8 game schedule starting in the 90s (and adding Florida in their group as a top program) as they had a good base.
LikeLike
Wisconsin has had some top 5, top 10 teams of recent years, but it certainly would help to have a national championship or two.
But to be a king and not a flash in the pan, I think you also have to look at a school’s record all time. By that standard, Wisconsin’s not there. But they have had a pretty remarkable turnaround.
While Wisconsin has had some great years in the distant past, over its entire football history dating back from the turn of the century through 1990, Wisconsin’s overall winning percentage was just #62 in the nation, below schools like Vanderbilt and Northern Illinois and just ahead of Arkansas State and Baylor. (Coincidentally, Maryland occupies #62 today.)
In the past 20 years, however, Wisconsin has ranked #15 in winning percentage, just beneath USC, Georgia and Auburn and ahead of schools like Oregon, LSU and Notre Dame. And they’re tied for #9 (with Oregon) in the past six years, outpacing traditional kings like Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Auburn, Nebraska, Michigan and Notre Dame.
All the winning over the past 20 years has meant Wisconsin has moved up twenty three spots from #62 to #39 in all-time winning percentage in NCAA history. They’ve been moving up a little more than 1 spot per year. The only other school I can think of that’s rising as fast is Oregon.
I don’t think anyone would consider any names ranked in the 40s kings, but there’s the likes of Stanford, Cal and Texas Tech. The 30s has some names like BYU (one spot ahead of Wisconsin at #38), Pitt #36 and UCLA #35, so Wisconsin’s joining some better company, and in the next few years they’ll pass some old-time powers like Syracuse #34 and Army #37.
I’m not sure there are any true kings in the 20s either, but there are some names like West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M and Michigan State.
Most of the schools I think we’d all consider kings are in the top 15 (Auburn) or 16 (Florida), and I don’t think there are any schools above that level that people would question. So maybe you start getting in the discussion when you’re top 25 and rising, especially if you’ve had a national championship or two in the past 25 years.
Personally, I quite like Wisconsin’s hard-nosed running style, (which is really modeled on Nebraska’s) and their stubborn, well, badger-like defense. And I think their ongoing ability to find massive offensive linemen and good running backs is likely to keep them near the top for the forseeable future, and likely bring them closer to at least a reasonable discussion of being a king in the next 10-20 years. Plus Wisconsin has a degree of advantage to many schools in having an expanding BTN for more and more visibility, a great, scenic campus, great academics, nice athletic facilities, and the Jump Around.
LikeLike
Dan,
Kings don’t lose their head coach to a non-king that isn’t that coach’s alma mater.
LikeLike
Interesting numbers for those thinking the TV $ are endless (and that CBS should pay the SEC and that the SEC is all that):
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/11/sec_on_cbs_tv_ratings_drop_15.html#incart_river_default
LikeLike
All the more important for the Big Ten to lock it up for a while in 2016; I don’t think the bottom will fall out by then considering that FS1 should be up and running.
But after that, who knows, I think by the end of the decade things will begin to change.
LikeLike
bullet, a key point here is expansion:
“The top six SEC teams accounted for 68 percent of the league’s regular-season appearances on CBS. Yet only 5 of CBS’ 14 SEC games paired two top-6 teams against each other. Those games were decided by an average of 11.6 points.”
———————————————————-
The past couple of years we’ve had huge regular season matchups between Alabama and Florida among other cross-over matchups between the big brands.
Expansion has diluted the CBS pool of games because the big brands meet rarely.
Georgia only played 2; Alabama only played 2…
Florida and LSU are mandated to play against one another, so they each played more, but the key point there is relevant.
The Big Ten will also have to deal with this. It’s been great the past two years that Nebraska’s crossovers have been Penn State (annual) along with Ohio State and Wisconsin.
Now those rotate off, and will be much more rare unless the Big Ten moves to 9 games…; we could see a hit to Big Ten ratings as well although Ohio State becoming eligible for the NC hunt should mitigate that…
LikeLike
Some good games will be missed (and would be even with only 12 teams). Wisconsin-Nebraska has definite potential as a rivalry (honestly so far more than Nebraska-Iowa). Michigan State-Wisconsin has been a good series the past few years too.
LikeLike
True, I just mean, how many years is it going to take to get Alabama-Florida back on the schedule?
Same thing for Wisconsin-Nebraska? Depends on whether we go to 9 games as for whether it will take as long as it will in the SEC as far as regular season tilts go…
LikeLike
Putting Wisconsin back with Iowa and UNL every year is why moving to 16 may even strengthen rivalries (and why even moving all the way to 20 may not decrease the number of B10 rivalry games that much). I think any pod that contains UNL-Wisconsin-Iowa-Minnny would be all sorts of fun.
LikeLike
This is good for the Big Ten, as now CBS could make an offer.
LikeLike
CBS has the SEC locked down under contract. They don’t HAVE to pay them a dime more than the $55 million average they are paying them now. They get no additional inventory. But CBS hasn’t seemed interested in adding any other top conferences.
LikeLike
They will. Sports programming is always in demand.
Always.
LikeLike
The best way to look at numbers is look at the Election. All of the numbers (Polls) suggested a close race, with Obama winning the Electoral College, and Romney winning the Popular Vote. According to the every poll, people did not want Obama Care and Dodd-Frank. In addition, although people disagree with the who and why behind it, we all agree the economy is awful, and Obama was brutal in the 1st debate. That said, despite those facts, Romney did WORSE than McCain (Despite the American People knowing those things would become permanent). What is the logical conclusion behind this? Simple: In a bad economy, Romney had zero chance of winning, and if the Economy would have been great and Obama would have brought his A-Game, he would have beaten a Republican Ticket of Lincoln & Reagan in all 50 States (This from a hard core Conservative who opposes Obama on every issue). The numbers can be manipulated anyway people want them, but facts are facts. Obama is extremely popular (And always will be, no matter what polls say), and the SEC is the best Conference year in and year out (Georgia, A&M, South Carolina & LSU are better than 1/2 the teams in BCS Bowls). Thus, you can have a down year (Bad Economy or bad Auburn team), and it will only change at the margins. CBS certainly knows the SEC is the best Conference in America (Ask the ACC about it sometime), and if they do not pay to keep them, someone such as ESPN, Fox or NBC will.
LikeLike
All of the numbers (Polls) suggested a close race, with Obama winning the Electoral College, and Romney winning the Popular Vote.
No they didn’t. Gallup and Rasmussen did, but none of the state polls, or other national polls did.
That said, despite those facts, Romney did WORSE than McCain
Romney did better than McCain in both the popular vote and the electoral college.
LikeLike
Though if your overall point is that Obama is the best politician the country has seen since FDR then you are right.
LikeLike
Brian says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:33 am
I can’t think of a better way to guarantee Frank makes yet another new post than to finally get a chance to post my thoughts on the latest B10 expansion.
.
…
.
This should do the trick 🙂
.
…
.
My weekly B 12 is over rated observations :
Sagarin still ranks the B 12 as the toughest conference as updated 12.02.2012 @ 3 am
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc12.htm
I included the ELO numbers this week for Brian (70% of conference has Top 30 ELO)
**** wins VS bowl eligible OOC schools in BOLD ****
#05 Kansas State (11-1) : #19 SoS : #4 ELO :::: W 7-5 ACC, W 4-8 SB, W 3-8 FCS
Wildcats did not beat any OOC team that went to a post season bowl
#09 Oklahoma (10-2) : #5 SoS : #11 ELO :::: L 12-0 IND, W 3-9 CUSA, W 4-7 FCS
Sooners did not beat any OOC team that went to a post season bowl
#14 Oklahoma State (7-5) : #8 SoS : #19 ELO :::: L 7-5 PAC, W 8-4 SB, W 1-10 FCS
Cowboys beat a non AQ that will play ECU in the #31 R+L Carrier Bowl
#15 Texas (8-4) : #11 SoS : #14 ELO :::: W 6-6 SEC, W 4-8 MWC, W 4-9 MWC
Longhorns beat an AQ that will play Pittsburgh in the #24 BBVA Compass Bowl
#20 Baylor (7-5) : #4 SoS : #23 ELO :::: W 6-6 CUSA, W 8-4 SB, W 9-3 FCS
Bears beat a non AQ that will play Fresno State in the #27 Sheraton Hawaii Bowl
Bears beat a non AQ that will play Ohio in the #28 Advocare V100 Independence Bowl
#26 TCU (7-5) : #14 SoS : #31 ELO :::: W 4-8 ACC, W 6-6 CUSA, W 1-10 FCS
Horned Frogs beat a non AQ that will play Fresno State in the #27 Sheraton Hawaii Bowl
#27 Texas Tech (7-5) : #21 SoS : #33 ELO :::: W 4-9 MWC, W 4-8 WAC, W 4-7 FCS
Red Raiders did not beat any OOC team that went to a post season bowl
#28 West Virginia (7-5) : #20 SoS : #21 ELO :::: W 4-8 ACC, W 5-7 CUSA, W 7-4 FCS
Mountaineers did not beat any OOC team that went to a post season bowl
#38 Iowa State (6-6) : #9 SoS : #37 ELO :::: W 4-8 B1G, W 10-3 CUSA, W 3-8 FCS
Cyclones already beat Tulsa who they play again in the #23 Auto Zone Liberty Bowl
#85 Kansas (1-9) : #1 SoS : #89 ELO :::: L 6-6 CUSA, L 12-1 MAC, W 9-4 FCS
Jayhawks did not beat any OOC team that went to a post season bowl
Here is the B12 vs the final BCS Top 25 OOC games :
#01 Notre Dame beat Oklahoma @ Oklahoma 30 – 13
#15 Northern Illinois beat Kansas @ N Illinois 30 – 23
Thats it! only 2 BCS opponents and both were losses!
.
…
.
According to Sagarin Kansas has the #1 SoS and Missouri had the #2 SoS
Here they are side by side – Missouri easily had the tougher SoS
# 2 Alabama (12-1) vs # 5 Kansas State (11-1) = winner Missouri
# 3 Florida (11-1) vs #11 Oklahoma (10-2) = winner Missouri
# 7 Georgia (11-2) vs #15 Northern Illinois (12-1) = winner Missouri
# 9 Texas A&M (11-2) vs #23 Texas (8-4) = winner Missouri
#10 South Carolina (10-2) vs Oklahoma State (7-5) = winner Missouri
Vanderbilt (8-4) vs Baylor (7-5) = winner Missouri
Arizona State (7-5) vs TCU = push or winner Missouri
Syracuse (7-5) vs Texas Tech (7-5) = push or winner Missouri
Tennessee (5-7) vs West Virginia (7-5) = push or winner Kansas
Kentucky (2-10) vs Iowa State (6-6) = winner Kansas
Central Florida (9-4) vs Rice (6-6) = Missouri wins
SE Louisiana (5-6) vs South Dakota St (9-4)= Kansas wins
.
…
.
Sagarin states his numbers are connected yet the following schools are below 80% of the B12 schools (7-5 West Virginia is number 8 at #28) NOTE, teams with 7 wins or more in BOLD :
ACC (10) or 83.3% : #49 (8-4) North Carolina, #54 (7-5) Miami-Florida, #65 (6-7) Georgia Tech, #66 (6-6) Virginia Tech, #69 (7-5) NC State, #79 (6-6) Duke, #99 (4-8) Virginia, #105 (4-8) Maryland, #115 (5-7) Wake Forest, #123 (2-10) Boston College
Big East (8) or 100% : #45 (9-3) Cincinnati , #46 (9-3) Rutgers ,#52 (10-2) Louisville, #53 (7-5) Syracuse, #58 (6-6) Pittsburgh, #94 (3-9) South Florida, #101 (5-7) Connecticut, #104 (4-7) Temple
B1G (8) or 66.7% : #32 (9-3) Northwestern, #35 (8-4) Penn State, #41 (6-6) Michigan State, #61 (6-6) Purdue, #70 (4-8) Iowa, #72 (6-6) Minnesota, #73 (4-8) Indiana, #126 (2-10) Illinois
B 12 (2) or 20.0% : #38 (6-6) Iowa State, #85 (1-11) Kansas
#47 West Virginia 5-4, #88 Kansas 1-9
IND (3) or 75.0% : #36 (7-5) BYU, #74 (7-4) Navy, #153 (2-9) Army
PAC (6) or 50.0% : #29 (7-5) Arizona, #33 (7-5) Washington, #51 (5-7) Utah, #71 (3-9) California, #87 (3-9) Washington State, #143 (1-11) Colorado
SEC (8) or 57.1% : #31 (8-4) Vanderbilt, #37 (6-6) Mississippi, #39 (8-4) Mississippi State, #43 (5-7) Missouri, #56 (5-7) Tennessee, #67 (4-8) Arkansas, #83 (3-9) Auburn, #92 (2-10) Kentucky
Viewed another way here is the worst in each conference
# 85 (1-11) Kansas
# 92 (2-10) Kentucky
#104 (4-7) Temple
#123 (2-10) Boston College
#126 (2-10) Illinois
#143 (1-11) Colorado
My feeling is the SEC is #1, the PAC is #2, and the B12 is #3 or worst out of the 6 AQ’s
LikeLike
B12 didn’t have any elite teams this year. There’s no doubt about that. But every team except Kansas was a difficult out and all but Kansas took care of teams they should have beaten. There weren’t any great OOC wins but there also weren’t any bad OOC losses. It’s 2 sides of the same coin.
If you judge a conference on elite teams, which most do, then yes, #1 SEC, #2 PAC, #3 B12. The award for the most good teams goes to B12.
The bowls this year will be interesting to watch to see who was really overrated. My guess is the SEC because the bottom 8 teams were completely dominated by the top 6.
LikeLike
It’s like comparing the ACC and Big Ten.
Sure the ACC had 2 top 15 teams to the Big Ten’s 1 (ineligible Ohio State).
But the ACC had those same 2 in the top 30, whereas the Big Ten had arguably 6 in the top 30…
LikeLike
Pretty sure K-State was “elite”. Certainly top 5.
LikeLike
Nobody is doubting KSU as top tier this year
We will know more about Oklahoma after the bowl. If Notre Dame beats Alabama that makes the OU loss look better but if Alabama beats Notre Dame then the OU loss to Notre Dame looks worse.
The issue is the rest as all put in 3 easy wins OOC to get half way to bowl eligibility then just had to get 3 more conference wins for full bowl eligibility. The issue is not that the B12 had a bunch of mid to low teams it is that we will never really have a definite assessment of true strength.
Look at the matches for the B12 bowls
Fiesta Bowl = B12 #1 Kansas State 11-1 vs PAC #2 Oregon 11-1
Cotton Bowl = B12 #2 Oklahoma 10-2 vs SEC #3 – #6 TAMU 10-2
Alamo Bowl = B12 #3 Texas 8-4 vs PAC #3 Oregon State 9-3
Then comes the 7-5 teams
OSU (7-5) OOC loss Arizona vs Boilers (6-6) OOC loss Notre Dame
BU (7-5) no real OOC win vs Bruins (9-4) OOC win Nebraska
TCU (7-5) no real OOC win vs Sparty (6-6) win Boise State + loss Notre Dame
TT (7-5) no real OOC win vs Gophers (6-6) win Syracuse
WVU (7-5) no real OOC win vs Orange (7-5) win @ MU + MN, USC, and NU loss
and the rematch game
ISU (6-6) vs Tulsa (10-3)
(3) B1G games, (3) PAC games, (1) SEC game, (1) BE game, and (1) CUSA game
If the B1G can go 3-0 against the B12 it would go along way in shifting perception that the B12 is better than the B1G. All 3 B1G teams had 1 less win but their OOC schedules looked tougher so maybe we will see where the real balance lies.
LikeLike
One thing I’d like to add about GT, many on here seem to think the school is the equivilant og Purdue, Pitt, VT or Stanford. But take a look at the undergrad degrees offered
http://gatech.edu/degrees/
Tech is an engineering school that is parallel to The Cooper Union, Harvey Mudd, IIT or Rose Hulman. It aspect, combined with the requirement that ALL students take Calculus means their are very few places to ‘hide’ athletes. Even at academic stalwarts like Stanford and NW, you can stash someone in the Humanities program. The best Tech can do is Management, Music or Architecture.
LikeLike
Well, they do consider themselves the MIT of the South.
FYI, you can’t really “hide” someone in Architecture.
If they’re good with foreign languages, you could stick them in the Applied Language program.
If not, then it’s International Affairs or Public Policy or Psychology (no music major).
LikeLike
CCGs other than SEC mostly ratings disasters. Texas/KSU led the Saturday night viewing.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/ncaa-week-14-record-low-again-for-acc-title-game-c-usa-down-big/
LikeLike
I think this says that noone would want semi-finals, even if the presidents could ever be convinced to do it. As with the SEC ratings decline, noone is interested in bad matchups.
LikeLike
That shows that the CCG’s themselves aren’t the ratings driver. What is at stake that is the ratings driver. SEC CCG was basicaly a national semifinal this year. Texas/KSU had tons of BCS implications for both teams and OU, which trickled down to the Cotton Bowl and so on.
One thing to watch in the new system: since being a conference champion is not a necessary condition to be in the 4 team playoff, how much weight will the CCG’s carry? Will more access create more interest in CCG’s or will they be seen as even more arbitrary?
LikeLike
I believe TV money is most certainly at it’s peak. It has every quality of every other bubble I’ve seen in my lifetime, .com, housing, student loan, etc.
I also believe there will be a paradigm shifts even more to internet streaming of live events. Couple that with the new college football playoff system which has no conference champion criteria, and I can see a shift to independence for several kings and some princes.
Think about this: in 15 years a University can charge a subscription fee to stream all or most of their college athletics events directly from their own website and make the same or more money than they would while being beholden to the interests of 9-15 other schools. What then, would be the incentive to stay in a conference?
Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Georgia, West Virginia, Florida State would all have several incentives to go out on their own and park their non revs in another conference. This scenario would even cause Notre Dame to distance themselves from the ACC and BYU would certainly follow suit.
LikeLike
Because your fans like it and they’re the ones who make you money?
LikeLike
However, college sports aren’t anywhere near the highest-valued. When the Dodgers by themselves will be bringing in an average of $240M a year and you’re paying a little more than that for an entire conference, college sports are still relatively undervalued.
In fact, the Dodgers, Angles, and Lakers will make an average of a total of $567M in TV money, and that’s just one market.
It’s hard to know what is a bubble and what isn’t. Is CEO pay a bubble? They’re still going up and up and have for decades with no end in sight.
LikeLike
@Richard – at some point there’s a critical mass for CEO pay. Can you pay your employees enough to keep the good ones and still rake in huge CEO dollars? What happens when another company pays your best employees more? The CEO’s company starts to falter and he can’t keep raking in a huge salary. Something has to give and streaming will provide competition for television.
LikeLike
Yes, but “at some point” just isn’t good enough of a guide if you’re trying to make money. California real estate was already showing big signs of overvaluation back in 1990, but if you had held back on on buying a house then, it only got a ton more expensive later on.
The technology sector was already showing big signs of being in a bubble back in 1997, but if you has shorted the NASDAQ then, you would have lost your shirt.
Streaming or something else may eventually overturn the cable subscription model, but if that happens 25 years from now, it makes no sense to bank on it now and forgo hundreds of millions if not billions in subscription fees.
To paraphrase Keynes, at some point, we’re all dead.
LikeLike
I don’t think sports programming will stop being consumed, just as housing will never stop being consumed. The difference in housing versus television rights is that there is an alternative on the horizon. And 15 years is a euphemism for in the not too distant future.
If the LHN works out for Texas and they start coupling that with streaming athletic events for a fee, it’s not a major leap to see television rights fees start to dwindle, a la Blockbuster vs RedBox, Netflix, etc.
LikeLike
Eh, from a business investment perspective 15 years may as well be the end of time.
LikeLike
Honestly, I’m not sure bubble is the correct term.
Sports programming is fairly similar to healthcare in terms of its mid/long-term trajectory.
Both are eating up more of their defined “market space” (sports programming as a share of total TV dollars versus healthcare as a share of total US GDP), but the fundamentals provide support in terms of the fact that sports are basically becoming the de facto live programming while an aging America supports healthcare.
That’s vastly different from the 90s tech bubble or the early 00s housing bubbles where fundamentals detached and you had wild speculation with little long-term basis.
It’s somewhat like how tech right now is driven more by fundamentals of actual sales (Google, Apple, Oracle, IBM, as giant cash cows) versus how tech was driven in the 90s (AOL, Pets.com, etc.).
LikeLike
We’re in a tech bubble right now. We have been for some time.
People think it’s a safe investment and that “social media” will magically monetize, but it won’t. And when people figure that out, the market’s going to buck like a bronco.
LikeLike
We’re not in a tech bubble. A couple giant market cap companies (GOOG, APPL) happen to be tech companies. We’ve already seen Facebook, Groupon and other social media companies stock prices flop. If we were in a bubble, they’d be flying high.
Microsoft’s P/E is about 14. Definitely not a bubble.
LikeLike
The only way that there’s a tech bubble right now is if people are heavily overvaluing these goods/services:
1) the current smartphone/tablet market
2) corporate IT services
3) the search or OS markets
Those are pretty much the biggest drivers of tech valuations right now. But all of those are currently attached to fundamentals; Apple is on pace to sell 50M+ iphones and 50M+ ipads over the next 12 months; it’s not like the 90s where these companies were being valued on potential future sales; the sales actually exist in tech right now…
LikeLike
Um, you realize that the social media sector of tech is no more than around 10% of the tech sector. Even if it completely went up in smoke, that’s no more than a 10% hit to the tech sector…
Apple alone is worth more than all the social media companies combined, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about…
That’s a way different situation from the 90s bubble where around 60-70% of all valuations were driven by idle speculation.
The value in tech is in Apple, Google, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.
Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga are extremely small potatoes compared to the current tech giants.
LikeLike
There really are similarities to the housing market in cable. House prices reached the point where it wasn’t affordable. Cable prices are reaching that point. The idea that carriage fees will continue to go up indefinitely is definitely bubble mentality.
Broadcast is driven by advertising rates which is different. But if advertisers find more bang for their buck elsewhere, they will do so.
The biggest issues are alternative methods of delivery for entertainment and whether younger people will watch at the rate older people do. Those are serious threats to both carriage fees and advertising rates.
LikeLike
That’s where there’s considerable issues.
The two big issues are 1) cable cutters, 2) cable nevers.
The fact is that just as many young people (and older folks as a result of this past recession) decided to forego landlines as a result of the smartphone phenomenon effectively replacing that; there are a lot of people who are cutting the cord on cable or even more importantly, never getting cable in the first place.
Younger people going the “cable never” route just as they went the “landline never” route is the big worry in that direction.
LikeLike
@Zeek you may be right that bubble isn’t the best term. Maybe it’s more accurate to look at it as a Blockbuster vs. RedBox phenomenon. These prices are probably accurate now because there is a fair market for them, but I feel like we can all see the future on this thing.
NFL attendance is down in part because technology has made it so easy to have access to so much from your living room. The pace that technology moves may make long term TV deals fairly burdensome by the time they run their course.
LikeLike
True, monetizing eyeballs at home is the key to the future. But owning content across broad footprints is the major factor to that. It’s why expansion has looked like it has for the most part.
Outside of the ACC taking Syracuse and Pitt; the other moves all look a lot more obvious as land grabs (Texas A&M-Missouri, Rutgers-Maryland, Colorado-Utah); all involve flagships (or A&M as a close second), and all involve large schools with large alumni footprints being attached to their conferences.
The key to what you’re describing is that people will still want to watch their sports live. As long as you can figure out how to own the monetization of that; it will work.
LikeLike
That’s true. I guess my thought is more like an itemized cable menu that has been kicked around, like being able to choose ESPN and Fox Sports and not paying for HGTV.
ESPN is taking a stab at this sort of set up with their digital platforms on ESPN3 and WatchESPN. Right now they are linked to cable providers but it would be an easy transition to start charging one time fees or monthly subscriptions directly to ESPN, pay-per-view style, if the a la carte route is the future of cable.
That has never been their model however, and ESPN would prefer to make their money from cable or internet providers, I’m sure.
LikeLike
How much do you think you’ll be paying your ISP if that in fact becomes the method of distribution for valuable, marketable product? Aren’t current cable and telecoms the primary providers? It’ll just be a different delivery mode, and the live sports content is not going to suddenly lose its value to advertisers (who are ultimately the source for all income).
LikeLike
Looks like Beliema will be leaving Wisky for Arky.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–sources–arkansas-to-hire-bret-bielema-195732340.html
LikeLike
For all of his complaining about how Meyer recruited Decker once he started at OSU, I can’t wait to see his reaction to recruiting in the SEC. SEC recruiting is the definition of cutthroat.
LikeLike
so the 8th or 9th strongest SEC program steals the HC from the 3rd strongest B1G program. Hmmm…
LikeLike
They want to go 7-5?
LikeLike
How did you get 8th or 9th? Arkansas is probably in the 6th range in the SEC. Wisconsin is probably the 5th in the Big Ten. This can be seen as a lateral move for more money. The choice seems pretty simple to me, why did you find this so interesting?
LikeLike
Bielema made $2.5mil at Wisconsin, and Arkansas supposedly offered Miles $5.5mil. Now, he isn’t going to get Les Miles money, but likely he’s going to get a decent pay increase. Doesn’t change the fact I expect him to get slaughtered, but he’ll make a nice bit of change doing it.
LikeLike
Rumor is that Bielema’s Arkansas deal has guaranteed money north of $15 million. If so, that’s pretty good insurance against getting fired arbitrarily.
Not that he won’t get fired eventually when Arkansas still can’t top the SEC, but anyone who took that job without an eight-digit guarantee would be flat out of their minds.
LikeLike
Arkansas is close for 7th-9th with A&M and South Carolina. Maybe they were 4th or 5th or 6th when they joined the SEC with TN and LSU having been down for awhile, but they have slipped. They certainly aren’t now ahead of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee or Auburn.
But basically he’s moving somewhere else for more money. He’s got to figure he has as good a chance to succeed.
LikeLike
In terms of money and facilities though? There can’t be much of a difference between Arkansas and Georgia or Auburn or Tennessee on those measures.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is much difference in the SEC. Almost all are willing to pay.
LikeLike
“so the 8th or 9th strongest SEC program steals the HC from the 5th strongest B1G program. Hmmm…”
Fixed that for you.
That said, it’s telling for sure. But I want to see the coach and coaching staff budget. The average SEC team pays their staffs oodles more than the average BigTen staff, and the results show themselves on the field (when coupled with recruiting areas). The BigTen needs to reinvest into the sport that’s making them all of this money, but most of the programs are hesitant to do that.
That said, Bielema is going to get murdered in the SEC.
LikeLike
Arkansas’ facilities and spending on coaches blows away Wisconsin by any measure; it’s like a different planet.
LikeLike
Also worth pointing out that he lost 6 assistants last year; you think he’d lose them at Arkansas with their deep pockets?
That being said, it’s pretty clear that the Big Ten hasn’t been competitive in coaches pay outside of Ohio State and Michigan.
LikeLike
Who replaces him at Wisky? I am betting on Paul Chryst. The last 2 times Pitt went to the Compass Bowl they were without a coach. Why not go for 3?
LikeLike
Chryst’ll probably be the favorite, but who knows; I’d bet that they have to completely rebuild that staff.
Sounds like Bielema will take everyone with him based on the $ offered…
LikeLike
Arkansas has a bit higher revenue. Spending is about the same as Bucky:
LikeLike
Yes, but go look at their facilities plans and football-specific spending.
LikeLike
That _was_ football-specific spending.
Of course, I don’t know what Bucky spends their money on. . .
LikeLike
Ah, I meant just salaries I guess. Probably too opaque to extract those numbers though.
LikeLike
Wisconsin has a state-of-the-art football complex on the building block. They’re not poor by any means. They do have other sports that they care about to feed.
Wisconsin has 23 varsity teams versus 19 at Arkansas and that’s just the raw count, not how much they care about them.
LikeLike
BTW, Andy, Mizzou is 12th in football revenue in the SEC.
Wisconsin is 6th in the B10 in football revenue; Arkansas is 8th.
LikeLike
Sure, if you go by Big 12 revenue.
Check back in a year or two. Mizzou will likely be in 9th by then.
LikeLike
“Check back in a year or two. Mizzou will likely be in 9th by then.”
Dare to dream, Tigers fans, dare to dream…
LikeLike
Andy:
Where’s your OC going?
LikeLike
Hopefull to the barber.
LikeLike
I know Paul Chryst from Pitt is the obvious choice to replace Beliema, but does anybody else have any guesses?
LikeLike
I’ll throw out one extreme long shot… Dave Doeren. He was Wisconsin’s DC before taking the NIU job and he knows the recruiting in the region better than he does the East Coast.
LikeLike
Doeren was just hired at NCSU, otherwise that would be logical.
I’d guess former QB Darrell Bevell who is now the offensive coordinator for the Seattle Seahawks will be considered.
It’s always possible Alvarez could come out of “retirement” a la Chris Ault or Bill Snyder.
LikeLike
All the cheese in Wisconsin can’t outbid Walmart.
LikeLike
I don’t know, but Wisky better make a splash hire, what about Chris Peterson from Boise?
LikeLike
Peterson has turned down better jobs than Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I guess I’ll expand that by saying that Peterson’s family likes Boise and Peterson seems content being the most popular man in the state of Idaho and I don’t think he has going to leave for anything less than an true alpha dog job like Texas.
LikeLike
PetersEn (my mom’s danish and would be disappointed if I didn’t correct it)
LikeLike
There needs to be a ‘no’ list if we’re going to discuss candidates:
Chris Peterson
Gary Patterson
Pretty much anyone at a school better at football than Wisconsin
Jon Gruden
Bill Cowher
Tony Dungy
Pretty much any other successful NFL coach
LikeLike
I’m not sure they can make a splash hire.
What does it tell you that he’s going to get a huge raise in Arkansas and the ability to hire better staff and keep them…?
LikeLike
Let’s be honest, there’s only two programs in the Big Ten that have raised their coaching staff (HC + assistants) spending levels up to those in the SEC.
That’s what this comes down to…
If it’s a head-to-head football spending race, only Ohio State and Michigan are comparable to the top 6-7 spending programs in the SEC.
LikeLike
PSU has the means to but it would all be a bit futile for the time being.
Also, have you seen Ferentz’s salary? It’s more than Richt’s or Spurrier’s.
LikeLike
Ferentz is easily the most overpaid coach in college football. I don’t understand how you justify that wage.
LikeLike
Ferentz had a lot of early success and then had lots of NFL interest. The unjustified part is his contract through 2020 without a buyout in it. He is un-fireable for at least 2 or 3 more years.
LikeLike
Iowa doesn’t pay their assistants like SEC. Not that it would cause Kirk to hire better ones.
LikeLike
It’s true that Iowa is overpaying Ferentz for now, and thus has demonstrated the ability to do so, but that’s not really a good comparison.
The guys who are getting the big bucks at Ohio State and Michigan are getting market value (Meyer, Mattison etc.).
Bielema’s basically been earning Pat Fitzgerald money or only slightly more than Fitzgerald has been earning of late.
Compare the two; same years; but Bielema’s record is vastly better and he’s now going on his 3rd Rose Bowl.
It just shows how far behind Wisconsin’s spending has been; on top of the fact that they lost all those assistants the past two years…
LikeLike
As greg points out, the issue is larger for assistant salary pools; comprehensively only Ohio State and Michigan have demonstrated that they are there keeping up with the SEC.
LikeLike
You do have a point about assistants’ pay, Zeek.
I’ve felt for a long time now that while HC’s are usually overvalued, assistants are usually undervalued. Considering that a whole staff often costs as much or less than 1 HC and that a couple good/great assistants are more valuable than a bad or even mediocre head coach, assistants are where the value is for your money. The SEC has realized that. Looks like the B10 is just waking up.
LikeLike
Muschamp’s as well.
LikeLike
Cincy’s Butch Jones has turned down the offer to become Purdue’s next football coach. What does that say about Purdue, their offer or they place within the BIG that the Cincy headcoach turned them down? Sad day for Purdue football…..
LikeLike
Depends if he turned Purdue down to stay at Cincy, or because he is negociating with someone else. I’ve heard Colorado rumors. Not that it is a positive to lose out to Colorado, but that is still a better position than Cincy especially with the huge question marks hovering over their conference.
LikeLike
Arch,
Do you think Colorado is a better position than Purdue?
LikeLike
If Colorado offers more money (and larger assistant salary pools), then yes.
The Bielema move shows that money has become the overriding factor in this process; especially if it’s between schools of roughly equal stature.
LikeLike
Depending on the support from the athletic department, Colorado is likely most definitely better. Likely better in-state recruiting, with no ND poaching the best recruits. Colorado is stinky right now, but they have the better history.
LikeLike
They both made their lone BCS bowl in 2001.
LikeLike
Colorado has an MNC and is 24th in all time win % through 2010. Purdue is 63. So that’s an easy yes. BTW, Arkansas was 28 and WI 47 after the 2010 season.
As of 2010 which I have handy, schools in order of all time win %
1 MI
2 ND
3 Ohio St.
4 Texas
5 Oklahoma
6 Boise
7 Alabama
8 USC
9 Nebraska
10 Tennessee
11 PSU
12 FSU
13 UGA
14 LSU
15 Miami (FL)
16 Auburn
17 Florida
18 USF
19 Miami (O)
20 Washington
21 ASU
22 VT
23 Central Michigan
24 Colorado
25 WV
26 Texas A&M
27 Georgia Tech
28 Arkansas
29 Southern Miss
30 Fresno
31 UCLA
32 Michigan St.
LikeLike
Yes, I think it easily has more potential. At least they are a clear #1 in their state. The fact that is somewhat up for debate just shows how low Colorado has been the past 5ish years. The right guy can win their and the setting is incredible.
LikeLike
Colorado is a sleeping giant, but their Athletic Department needs to get itself straightened out financially before it becomes a great job again. On the plus side– great school / location, lower expectations, and it’s been proven you can win there.
LikeLike
Sadly, I can’t disagree with anyof your points. This just sucks….
Despite that, Boiler Up still….
LikeLike
Butch Jones to Wisconsin?
Would be an interesting turn of events here…
LikeLike
My guess is Paul Chryst or Seattle Seahawk OC (and former UW QB) Darrell Bevell. Barry Alvarez is a possibility too if neither of them wants the job.
LikeLike
It’s all just a big ploy to justify further expansion by the Big 10. 🙂
Seriously, if Wisconsin cannot afford to keep its choices, who can?
LikeLike
It’s not an issue of affordability, it’s an issue of values. Wisconsin is one of the richest athletic departments in the country and that’s before the escalations in the BTN money. They’re not going to spend it all on a football coach.
LikeLike
Frankly, I’m shocked that Wisconsin would not match any offer for the best coach the school has ever had. In my view, Wisconsin (under Bielema,) has gotten to the point where it should not be content winning 8-10 games a year. It should be striving to be in the national title picture. Really a sad state of affairs, but I think it pretty much sums up the Big Ten. Unless it changes the collective mindset of not paying market value for coaches and hiring random MAC coaches off the bargain bin, good luck trying to become the best football conference in the country.
I see one big time coach in the Big Ten right now (Meyer), and maybe one other (Fitzgerald) that other BCS programs would come after. Wilson and O’Brien look like good hires, but the jury is still out. Not surprisingly, Meyer is about to run roughshod over the rest of the league.
LikeLike
Wisconsin produces lots of big beefy linemen and not enough of any other type of football player. With that talent pool, you can sustain Alvarez-style smashmouth football good for 8-10 wins a season for perpetuity, but you’re never going to challenge for a national title (unless you get your own Phil Knight). I think the Wisconsin brass realizes that; better to get another Alvarez protege and sustain the same level rather than get weighed down with a Ferentz-type contract and get no better results. Good for them, I say.
LikeLike
Given the political battles in Wisconsin, it’d be hard for the university to justify a huge contract to a state employee, even though it would be 100% covered by athletic department revenues. If I had a nickel every time I’d heard someone complain about Ferentz’s contract being the highest paid state employee in Iowa, I’d make $4M a year.
LikeLike
Peter – since Arkansas joined the SEC in 1992, they have won 24 NCAA national championships in 4 different sports, while Wisconsin has won 9 NCAA national championships in 5 different sports. I’m not trying to flame, as I have absolutely no love for the Hogs and Wisconsin is actually my favorite B1G team, but I’m just pointing out the facts.
LikeLike
“They’re not going to spend it all on a football coach.” … but I thought it is about eyeballs, tv rights and ever-expanding and improving viewer demographics. Wiscy must go against it values.. as must any other sports program in the Big 14… Wiscy owes fealty to the BTN… the show must go on.. the Big 10 just lost the leader of its 3-time Rose Bowl representative… to Arkansas… repeat Arkansas.. Such is the game, the never-ending game with no end-point that the posters on this board urge the Big 10 to pursue. Maybe if we quickly expand to Big18 we can afford to outbid Colorado for a coach or avoid being poached by Mississippi State.
What is the end-game? More sports facilities and higher coaches salaries — 10million a year — in order to “feed the beast” and satisfy the 18-34 demographic on the noon BTN slot. What is the strategy? I think there is none.
LikeLike
Wisconsin runs several more varsity sports than Arkansas does, including some that are very expensive (hockey…). They are not going to put all of the athletics budget into the football program, it’s as simple as that.
They also absolutely aren’t going to divert other university resources and ultra-booster money to athletics. Will not happen, ever. Arkansas obviously will.
LikeLike
@Richard
I agree that the talent pool makes it tough to contend for a national title, but the same issue exists at Nebraska. It’s been awhile but I imagine that’s still the goal in Lincoln. If you look at Wisconsin and Nebraska today, is there really much difference between the two?
LikeLike
I’d add (really need an edit function) that for all that football focus, Arkansas doesn’t really have anything to show for it since they joined the SEC. At the same time, Wisconsin is miles ahead of them in all other things academic and athletic – so who exactly is making the bad bet?
LikeLike
Tom:
I think it’s virtually impossible for UNL to win a national title these days as well. They’d be better off trying to achieve the type of consistent success that Wisconsin has.
LikeLike
Wisconsin likely knows it isn’t going to compete like a king even if it drops 10mil into coaches. The recruiting grounds don’t match up to make it consistently possible. At Arkansas, he’ll have more access to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and Georgia. At Wisconsin, he had Ohio and… maybe Pennsylvania and NJ? Where else does Wisconsin recruit other than their home state and Ohio?
This has nothing to do with BTN, and is more likely just an unfortunate reality. As for the rest of your rant about the immorality of college athletics in the BigTen, I can’t help but wonder what Brian Kelly makes each year at ND in order to ‘feed the beast’ of justifying the NBC contract. Guess that’s another benefit of a private school — no public scrutiny of the books. Either way, it’s easy for a king program to not worry about being poached. For the rest, this is proof of their status.
LikeLike
I feel bad for Pitt…they are going to lose yet another coach.
LikeLike
Personally, I can understand it if Bielema demanded a Ferentz-type contract and Bucky refused.
They’ll still produce NFL-quality linemen and they’ll still have trouble enticing elite athletes up to the frozen tundra (other than the occasional Russell Wilson or 2), and it wasn’t as if Bielema was getting the athletes required to contend for national titles. So long as they hire another Alvarez disciple, they should be able to crank out 8-10 wins almost every year and some B10 titles at a fraction of the cost.
LikeLike
Well, it’s hard to see the Badgers refusing after him going to 3 Rose Bowls.
But, it sort of did feel like he’s maxed out at Wisconsin and cashing in his chips now (hence why he was deciding between two SEC schools).
The likelihood of his value as a coach decreasing over the next couple of years was almost guaranteed…
Sort of like Ferentz a couple years ago.
LikeLike
Wisconsin is a somewhat richer athletic department and MUCH richer institution than Arkansas. They could pay a contract that pays $4+ million/y or $15 million guaranteed over four years (the two main rumors I’ve seen)- but they won’t. From their point of view, they have other major programs to run besides football and that’s (good) NFL money.
I don’t think this is a good move by either side, but I can see why Wisconsin wouldn’t match.
LikeLike
Actually, I think it is a good move by both sides.
Sure, Bielema may have been able to retire at Wisconsin like Alvarez, but I get the idea that he isn’t as beloved as Alvarez, and what happens when he gets Ferentz-type results for a few years without Ferentz-type security? Now, at least, he has 15 bucks inthe bank.
Meanwhile, given Bucky’s natural resources, they should be able to sustain Alvarez-level results with Alvarez-style offenses so long as they don’t do what UNL did after Solich (at a fraction of the cost). It wasn’t as if Bielema had Bucky punching above its weight in recruiting.
LikeLike
What natural resources? They produce some beefy kids; that’s it for their natural grounds, they have to go elsewhere to find the skill players and the rest of the pieces that make things click. Wisconsin is a lot closer to Michigan State and Iowa historically than they are to any of the 4 kings.
There’s no guaranteed baseline of success there just as there isn’t at any of the other non-kings. For their sake, I hope they find the right coach, but they could very easily end up falling off for a while if they don’t…
LikeLike
Both sides here being Arkansas & Bielema. If you are Arkansas, there’s no real reason to believe that Bielema will suddenly elevate long-suffering Piggy over Saban and Miles in the SEC arms race. If you are Bielema, same.
LikeLike
Zeek:
That’s what I was talking about.
Alvarez and Bielema have shown that big Wisconsin kids + a little bit of talent from elsewhere in a system that plays to their strengths is good for 8-10 wins a season.I think they fall off only if they go away from their identity and do what UNL did after Solich.
Peter:
Well, Bielema gets money.
Arkansas gets a place to spend their money.
LikeLike
According to Wisconsin forums, they’re saying Paul Chryst’s buyout is $18 million?
Is that true? If so, we can probably scratch him off the list…
LikeLike
add
LikeLike