Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby came out of a meeting with his conference’s athletic directors on Monday with some standard general non-news about any possible expansion plans. However, he reinforced some reports that the Big 12 was evaluating alliances with different conferences, including the ACC. Why would the Big 12 openly suggest an alliance with a conference that many believe would be the primary target for a raid?
People that relish in ACC Armageddon rumors point out that proposed alliances have led to raids in the past, such as the old Big 8 and Southwest Conference discussing that scenario (and the Big 8 subsequently taking Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor from the SWC) and the Big East and ACC exploring the same (leading to the ACC in a decade-long bludgeoning of the Big East). The ACC Armageddonistas surmise that the Big 12 is following the same playbook of luring Jim Swofford to hand over sensitive conference information in “alliance talks” and then stab them in the back in a few months with a raid. Of course, that assumes that ACC schools want to join the Big 12.
Certainly, there’s a chance that the leadership of the Big 12 is leveraging the prospect of an alliance publicly while engaging on a reconnaissance mission behind closed doors to poach the likes of Florida State or Clemson. More likely, though, is that the Big 12 can’t expand with anyone that they deem worth having (according to Bowlsby, schools that would be worth in excess of $26.2 million per year each in additional revenue) on their own. The Big 12 is in a position where it can’t be “proactive” – a school such as Florida State isn’t going to be open to the Big 12’s overtures without the Big Ten and SEC first (a) confirming that neither wants to invite the Seminoles themselves and (b) raiding other ACC members to the point where staying in the league would be unpalatable.
As a result, the Big 12 can’t be the first mover here no matter how much their fans may want them to be. That’s why the news out of that conference over the past month has been about alliances with the ACC and finding ways to change NCAA rules so that they can hold a conference championship game with only 10 teams. The University of Texas might have leverage with other conferences as an individual school, but the Big 12 as an overall entity has much less leverage than what many conference realignment observers seem to believe.
The dilemma is that the ACC schools that the Big Ten and SEC most likely want in expansion happen to be the ones that are least likely to move. I’m often accused of having Big Ten bias as an Illinois alum (by the way, the least 3 weeks of the basketball season have been excruciating), but I’ve been pretty consistent over the past couple of years in stating that Jim Delany doesn’t have complete poaching power over everyone in the ACC. Virginia and North Carolina are the real potential prizes for the Big Ten and it’s probably the same for the SEC. (Football-focused fans often see Virginia Tech and North Carolina State as the most likely targets for the SEC out of the current ACC membership, but make no mistake that UNC and UVA are ultimately the most valuable additions as old money academically elite flagship institutions.) The problem is that neither UNC nor UVA really fit well in either the Big Ten or SEC – they are too Southern to be really desire being in the Northern-based Big Ten and too wine-and-cheese to enjoy being in the SEC. There is also a large split between the academically-minded leaders of these institutions that would prefer the Big Ten while T-shirt fans would want the SEC. The ACC provides the balance of being Southern and the perception of having an academically-oriented league (never mind the fake grades for athletes in Chapel Hill) that schools can’t find anywhere else, which will make it very hard for either UNC or UVA to leave. (Count Georgia Tech and even Florida State in that equation, too.) In essence, UNC and UVA are to the ACC what Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12: the league lives as long as both of those are schools are still there (and those schools know it).
So, that’s where I see the threats of the ACC becoming completely coming apart end up failing. UNC, in particular, has Texas-esque influence (even if it’s more perceived than real) in the ACC, and the actions of Deloss Dodds and the Longhorns have shown that power and big dog status can be even more important as making the most TV money from a conference. (Notre Dame feels the same way.) As a result, the thought that UNC and UVA are going to bolt because they are scared that the ACC will collapse doesn’t hold water with me. Those 2 schools can keep the ACC together alone and they have enough powerful alums with massive pocketbooks and politicians backing them where getting more TV revenue isn’t going to carry the same weight with them as it did with Maryland.
Now, once again, I can never say never in conference realignment. Maybe Jim Delany’s projected revenue figures for a Big 16 or Big 18 are so outrageous that he can put the smackdown on the ACC more than I’m giving the Big Ten credit for. Maybe Mike Slive is freaked out enough about the thought of either the Big Ten or Big 12 getting into the state of Florida by adding Florida State that the SEC would take the Noles in an act of self-defense. In either event, it’s really up to the Big Ten or SEC to make a move. The Big 12 would then have to hope that some other valuable pieces would fall their way. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, but the speculation will continue.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Atlantic Coast Conversation)
#3 Iowa hosts #1 PSU, Friday night, 8pm, BTN.
LikeLike
That will be a great match!
LikeLike
#3 Iowa 22, #1 PSU 16 in front of 15,077 at Carver-Hawkeye Arena. Fun night, hopefully we can repeat the success in the B1G and national tourneys.
LikeLike
Great match. BTN should show more wrestling, especially at Iowa. Few others can match the atmosphere.
LikeLike
Can’t disagree with anything you wrote Frank. I guess there’s just a feeling out there that 14 teams in a conference seems awkward.
LikeLike
14 IS awkward ~ and for static divisions, 16 and 18 is awkwarder.
For two static divisions, 12 schools without locked cross-overs is the smoothest option, followed by 12 schools with locked crossovers.
Pod fans will point out the elegance possible with 4, 4-school pods without locked crossovers, but if you thought Legends and Leaders causes complaints among T-shirt fans, wait until they get their first taste of a conference using pods. Until the NCAA allows confernece elimination semi-finals, which opens up four static divisions and three static divisions with a wild card, the most feasible alternative to two static divisions is two anchor groups and two swing groups, for which in the Big 10’s case, 14 is better than 16 or 18, because the frequency of schools in the two anhor groups and in the two swing groups seeing each other is higher.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
I think the significant conference distribution differences will likely force UVA and UNC to make a move. They may not want to move but they’ll have no choice. Their alums will demand that they be competitive nationally and the academics certainly don’t want to fund athletics through the general fund or student fees.
LikeLike
But it could take a while for the revenue gap to grow to the point that the ACC schools would be put at a true disadvantage. UNC & UVA may try to hold out as long as they possible can, which could be 10 years from now as far as we know.
LikeLike
In addition, most of the ACC schools aren’t football schools. They’ll accept being bowl eligible every year on a smaller budget. Boise does just fine on a pittance, and most ACC schools would love to be as good as Boise in FB. The issue would have to be with Miami, FSU, Clemson or GT, I’d think. The NC and VA schools are happy in the ACC and those farther north lack options.
LikeLike
This is what underlays the 4-school raid scenario. (1) The SEC gets a firm “not even if you are the last FBS conference left on this earth” answer from UNC and UVA, and goes from some combination of FSU, Clemson, NC State and VTech. (2) That plus evolving conference payouts is enough to swing UVA and GTech on the Big Ten. (3) UNC and Duke determine that swapping the four football schools that have left with UConn and UC is good enough, and stand pat there.
Remember that there are two things that can shift the conference realignment landscape in the decade ahead. (1) Basketball gets a substantially smaller share of college basketball TV revenue than football gets for college football TV revenue. If an effort to hold onto the goose that lays the golden eggs requires the NCAA to make concessions on what share of NCAA BBall tournament net revenues that go to participants, that could shift a bit, and that would obviously rebound to the benefit of the ACC. (2) College sports are getting a slice of the sports slice of TV advertising revenue. The sports slice of TV advertising revenues has been growing much faster than the total amount spent on TV advertising has been dropping (in real terms). Growth based on a growing share of a shrinking pie cannot go on indefinitely, so projections of future conference revenues based on the last decade or two of growth may be over-estimating future opportunities for growth. Its a lot easier for a conference at a payout disadvantage to stand pat if it assumes that the difference is going to be stable going ahead, rather than continuing to grow ever larger.
LikeLike
Reminds of ohhhh…2 years ago, when the Pac contract (sired by Hanson) was horrific in comparison to the rest of the BSC conferences. Primary difference is that Pac schools for all intensive purposes have no where to go (geographically). ACC has some options.
Does give me some pause to think though….If 20 is end game for B1G (and who knows if it is or isn’t), and the SEC keeps pace by dividing up ACC. Wonder if alliance would not be coming by way of Big VII and Pac 12 combining in some way….as they would be the lesser (at east in size) of last remaining power conferences.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Blue
LikeLike
MHVer3 with an update from the Big 12 meetings:
Tuesday update!!
Stuff happened and people talked.
Ok ok here it is for real
-2 conditional offers made today
-Miami and FSU
-both have until June 30th to decide but it’s conditional on both schools acceptance.
-TX schools want no more than 12 for now but still think 10 is ideal.
-also formed a committee to explore and negotiate an alliance with one of the other BCS conferences that will report their findings on, get this, June 30th.
-B12 sees that there is real momentum for 20 team leagues with fox even letting us know that it’s something they would definitely be interested in financing.
-talks of this alliance have many ACC schools excited and even served as a catalyst for UNC to cool on SEC talks. UNC wants to keep their little band together and with the alliance seeming to be a way to placate the football schools SOS concerns, UNC now hoping for a GOR.
-I’m told UVA also has already verbally accepted a BIG offer but nothing will be public until number 16 can be decided upon.
-alliance wont end B10 expansion but the talks of one can certainly slow things down to a grind and give Bowlsby a chance to work on securing defections under the guise of negotiating this alliance…or back up plan C: Merger/takeover of ACC.
A lot still in the air but wow are things getting crazy!
I’ll post some more on this later tonight on Twitter.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what the ‘alliance’ will entail?
LikeLike
Big Jim just called me and confirmed all of this.
LikeLike
Is this why the penn state – UVA game was cancelled? (2014?) I wonder…..
LikeLike
Also this
https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/295566795128057856
LikeLike
I said also because my attempts to post a link to the Scout message board this guy posts to keeps getting lost in comment land. If you Google MHver3 it will pop right up.
Between this guy and the Dude I’m starting to suspect that fracking really is having an effect on the water in WV.
LikeLike
Hmm. Hope Hopkins didn’t turn down the B10 in lacrosse. . .
LikeLike
I’m afraid they may have. They are on TV more than 10 times a year as it is, so the Big Ten Network is just not the temptation that it would be for any but 3 schools (including Maryland among that three).
Or Iowa and Nebraska insisted that Kansas be included on the long list, and as a courtesy to them Delany asked Kansas, informing them in no uncertain terms that it was as a pair to an eastern school and no way, no how was Kansas State coming along for the ride.
Kansas would then say no, and Delany would pop open a nice craft brew that evening to celebrate Kansas being scratched off the long list.
LikeLike
What would be the problem with ESPN retaining the “LAX tier one rights” and BTN supplementing it as it does with other sports? They could chose have biding for the other B1G games now, or wait until contract expires.
LikeLike
So you’re saying Kansas, who publicly said they’re not tethered to Kansas State in any way way back in 2009 and was/is flirting with the Big East, of all conferences, would turn down a B1G invite?
Crack is whack, yo.
LikeLike
@Matt
All Kansas said is they aren’t legally required to be in the same conference as KSU.
And guess what, V-Tech and Baylor weren’t legally obligated to be in the same conference as Virginia and Texas and look what happened.
LikeLike
St. Mary’s College in South Bend?
LikeLike
Well, that’s a load of shit. He won’t say who it is, and the no league would run the legal risk of poaching a school without some interest on the school’s part.
LikeLike
What legal risk? “My Conference has authorized me to open talks with you.” “Thanks for thinking of us, but we’re not interested.”
The “my conference has authorized me” is in the public record, after all.
LikeLike
Hint: You’re an idiot.
LikeLike
Appreciate the info! What’s your twitter name?
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Why do you keep posting this like a derp?
LikeLike
Like many people, he makes a short comment so he can check the “Notify me of” box to be kept up to date via email.
Why don’t you know that?
LikeLike
“Wise Owl” should change his moniker to M*therF*c*ingAngryOwl.
LikeLike
No, you’re a derp!
LikeLike
Wise Owl – Here’s a helpful hint. Why don’t you try to figure out how this blog works before you start making smartass comments.
LikeLike
Go Bucks!
LikeLike
Ditto.
LikeLike
I think you’ve hit on the point why the ACC might survive this. UVA and UNC really don’t want to move and the SEC and B1G want those two schools. I don’t see any way UNC moves first. Maybe the B1G projections are good enough to get UVA to move. If so, I think the ACC falls apart quickly. But I’m also inclined to believe UVA doesn’t move first.
FSU holds the key. Is the $ advantage of the Big 12 enough to get them to be a first mover? I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t decided that yet. But there’s no reason for them to be in a hurry. They can sit back and see what the SEC TV deal ends up looking like and see if the SEC or B1G is interested in them.
LikeLike
Did any reporters ever answer your questions from the last post?
LikeLike
@ Frank. thanks for the new post. we need one about every 700-1000 comments. LOL
I will chime in with this thought: the AAU schools available to the B1G are; UNC, Duke, Virginia, GaTech & Pitt. Some have persuasively argued that FSU is an addition worthy of an exception to the rule that a new member must be an AAU member.
Personally, I think the B1G wants to expand and will expand with the best schools that are willing to come aboard. UNC is not required for the B1G to expand; neither is UVa.
I disagree that the Texas example is relevant here because Texas (along with OKLA) is/was able to keep the BXII’s TV contract competitive (relatively speaking) with the B1G and SEC.
By contrast, UNC (even with Duke) cannot do that for the football members of the ACC. Put another way, the ACC has the Big East’s problem which is that football schools are being weighed down and drowned by basketball schools. Basketball doesn’t have enough power to pull in B1G or SEC money. This makes the ACC vulnerable to having its football “powers” raided.
I agree that the ACC will survive, if only as a Bball conference and a weak football conference.
LikeLike
I disagree that the Texas example is relevant here because Texas (along with OKLA) is/was able to keep the BXII’s TV contract competitive (relatively speaking) with the B1G and SEC.
By contrast, UNC (even with Duke) cannot do that for the football members of the ACC. Put another way, the ACC has the Big East’s problem which is that football schools are being weighed down and drowned by basketball schools. Basketball doesn’t have enough power to pull in B1G or SEC money. This makes the ACC vulnerable to having its football “powers” raided.
I agree that the ACC will survive, if only as a Bball conference and a weak football conference.
How much more impotent must the ACC get as a football conference until UNC and Duke change their minds about joining the Big Ten? I agree the ACC’s problem is the same the Big East faced, but as was the case for the Big East, ACC members (the North Carolina “big four,” at least) have this delusion that hallowed basketball can save the day. Sorry, folks, it can’t; get with it.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the B12 contract is an accurate valuation of their individual content worth. It may be…or it may be that the maintaining the payout in spite of losing 1/3 of the conference, plus the LHN, was an overt move to prevent the onset of super conferences, or at least delay it. It succeeded in the latter, but not the former. Could the ACC have pulled an inflated contract had they been the first roadblock to super conferences? Probably.
LikeLike
Its not certain that any network is against superconferences as a general concept, but any would prefer to be on the inside looking out as opposed to the outside looking in. The Big12 Contract and Grant of Right makes the BigThree plus ESPN’s ACC as the four Superconferences much less likely. If the Five Majors collapse into Four Majors in the current decade (whether superconferences or a mix of superconferences and merely biggish conferences), Fox has at least some sort of insider position in three out of four, as the Big12 network, the Pac-12 co-network and the Big Ten’s partner in the Big Ten network.
LikeLike
I totally agree. I also don’t think ESPN, Fox, etc are either schools or conferences. I understand taking into consideration what value media entities would place on specific arrangements, but their motivation is not to maximize the schools positions. ESPN and Fox blocked an arrangement that arguably would have brought the kind of numbers we are talking about for the next B1G contract a few years earlier to the P16. The short term interest of an unamed school served to reduce the longer term costs for ESPN, Fox, etc. and the payments to all the other schools.
LikeLike
I don’t think this article was posted (sorry if it was), but it’s about West Virginia’s upcoming 3rd-tier deal with IMG. Doesn’t have the final dollar amount, but it lists everything IMG is purchasing and includes the value of some other schools’ 3rd-tier package.
Every so often people ask what’s in these deals, and this does a good job of going over that:
http://wvmetronews.com/how-imgs-third-tier-deal-impacts-wvu/
LikeLike
Final $ amount per the local paper was average of $9 million a year over 12 years.
LikeLike
Hopkins to the B1G for lacrosse only? I thought we’d never see something like this.
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/01/17/hopkins-draft
LikeLike
Seems nutty.
LikeLike
Only seems nutty if we keep insisting that this is only about football, instead of the CIC plus other considerations, including football in a major way. Bringing in Hopkins for lacrosse is a pretty cheap date to get at an additional Billion Dollars in research funds.
JHU is unique in a way that simply won’t be replaced elsewhere. It’s not cherry picking; it’s making another move consistent with the overall goals of the B1G. Some of us on this board have been advocating such for years.
LikeLike
Or they could just offer them membership in CIC without the Big Ten.
LikeLike
JHU actually helps solidify that entire DMV corridor. Lacrosse is pretty big there. Plus, I wouldn’t think we’d want such a valuable commodity elsewhere if we were affiliated. That’s kind of been the point of creating the B1G’s hockey and LAX leagues, right?
LikeLike
Plus, I wouldn’t think we’d want such a valuable commodity elsewhere if we were affiliated. That’s kind of been the point of creating the B1G’s hockey and LAX leagues, right?
Then why not grab BU and ND for hockey?
LikeLike
I’m fine with BU if they drop their other sports down to DivIII.
As for UND, they just don’t cut it academically (and don’t exactly address demographic issues). Might as well propose WVU for the B10.
LikeLike
LAX placates academics, because it really is student-athletes, it provides spring filler that keeps moving (why ESPNU signed its deal with John Hopkins) and its got a small but devoted following in exactly the east coast markets the BTN wants to move into. And a women’s Big Ten championship is almost sure to be starting, since Rutgers and MD makes six.
Seems most plausible as a lacrosse-only conference, retaining the ESPNU contract for Johns Hopkins home games and BTN picking up rights to the five schools that are Big Ten members.
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – Sweet that it looks like the Big Ten is actually considering this. Johns Hopkins is a unique situation with lacrosse being its only Division I sport.
LikeLike
And a major add for the CIC, if they go that route.
LikeLike
Yep. Still seems nutty.
LikeLike
Do you know how many Hopkins faculty are on NIH Review Boards or members of the National Academy of Science? This move is brilliant! If Hopkins comes they help form a lacrosse league and get into the CIC and will definitely deliver eyeballs in lacrosse. And Hopkins has an International reputation. Hopkins hospital fell to second this year after riding number one for I don’t know how long. They have alums everywhere.
LikeLike
I hate the concept of associate members. Heck, instead of having Penn State fielding an ice hockey team, the Big Ten could have added RPI or Clarkson, both excellent engineering schools with Div I hockey.
LikeLike
RPI’s a fine school, but neither are AAU.
LikeLike
I don’t really think of this as an associate member. This isn’t having Notre Dame join for ice hockey only. To me, the spin would be that this is the CIC adding another Chicago and allowing that school to have their (only) two Div 1 sports play in the Big Ten. If U of Chicago decided to “play up” to Division 1 in, say, men’s and women’s soccer, would anyone be surprised if the Big Ten allowed them to be Big Ten members in that sport? It could go either way, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Granted that’s a completely hypothetical scenario.
LikeLike
Yes….but the OSU chick seems to say associate membership could happen in other sports as well……given only 6 BIG hockey programs, how about Miami OH?
LikeLike
Not AAU. Maybe NYU should start a hockey program.
LikeLike
I really hope the Big Ten doesn’t do this.
Partial membership is just a bad idea in principle.
LikeLike
Agreed. A certain catholic school in Indiana will be all over this one.
LikeLike
That was a first thought I had. Would the B1G take ND for hockey?
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
They can’t. You’re not allowed to join two conferences that compete in the same sport and division.
LikeLike
“No” aka I hope not.
And I like ND. But I’m a no deals like that kind of guy.
If the B10 did this, they may as well start really cherry picking, take Toronto & McGill for Hockey, JH for Lacrosse, some other prestigious school for ping pong, etc.
LikeLike
@jj “…some other prestigious school for ping pong, etc.”
RICE BASEBALL!
LikeLike
“definitely”
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – No, at least now that the Big Ten has its own hockey league. Adding Johns Hopkins provides a way for the Big Ten to form a lacrosse league with an auto-bid for the NCAA Tournament (Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Michigan). Like I’ve said, I’m not quite as bothered by this since lacrosse is the sole Division I sport at Johns Hopkins, so this isn’t a matter where they’re sending basketball and their other sports to the ACC.
LikeLike
No. We’d take ND as an affiliate member in football, though.
LikeLike
@Richard
I doubt it.
LikeLike
Loki:
Would Rice drop their other sports besides baseball down to DivIII?
It may improve the school, actually. . .
LikeLike
frug:
I wouldn’t if ND was willing to drop their other sports down to DivIII (not happening, anyway).
LikeLike
@Richard Would Rice drop their other sports besides baseball down to DivIII?
I would in a heartbeat. Tear down the football stadium and build a med school.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@loki_the_bubba – No, at least now that the Big Ten has its own hockey league. Adding Johns Hopkins provides a way for the Big Ten to form a lacrosse league with an auto-bid for the NCAA Tournament (Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Michigan).”
UVA plays lacrosse. UNC plays lacrosse. Why add JH if you think you’ll add one of them?
LikeLike
Brian and frug make a good point. Is the prospect of the Big Ten adding Johns Hopkins for lacrosse an indicator that there aren’t any imminent plans to add UVA and/or UNC (as both have elite lacrosse programs)?
LikeLike
. . Or just a BTN strategy for MD (and/or a CIC strategy).
Certainly, I don’t think that the B10 can plan on definitely adding UVa and UNC.
LikeLike
@metatron – Since the ACC doesn’t sponsor Hockey it’s my understanding that ND could join the Big Ten in Hockey only. It’s a similar situation to Boise St. wrestling in the PAC12.
LikeLike
Before Katrina, Tulane seriously considered dropping down to D-III.
LikeLike
@mike – Could be. It was my impression that you can’t play in another conference if yours already sponsors it. It’s independence or death.
How that works with affiliate members, I have no idea.
LikeLike
Metatron:
That’s what the NCAA allows. Missouri wrestling has landed in the MAC since the SEC doesn’t sponsor.
LikeLike
@frug – I think that it’s an important distinction that lacrosse is the only Division I sport that Johns Hopkins has, though. It’s not quite the same as, say, Notre Dame joining the hockey league (since all Irish sports teams are at the Division I level and have chosen to be in another conference).
LikeLike
I still think it’s a mistake. Big 10 has always been all in. Rationalizing the situation doesn’t make it any better.
LikeLike
Sure, I understand what you’re saying. I just see it as a very unique situation. Plus, the academics credentials are off the charts, so the presidents are likely looking at Johns Hopkins as a potential University of Chicago-esque addition to the CIC.
LikeLike
Hopkins would be all-in. Their other sports would be treated roughly the same way by the B10 as Illinois (club) hockey.
LikeLike
@Richard – Yes, that’s exactly how I’m looking at it. Johns Hopkins is contributing “all” of its top level sports to the Big Ten just like everyone else. It just happens to be that they only play one top level sport.
LikeLike
@ richard. that’s a good point actually.
LikeLike
@Richard
They couldn’t be a full member. The Big Ten requires members to compete in a minimum number of sports.
LikeLike
Hopkins would be Chicago +1.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
Everyone keeps assuming JH would also join the CIC. Would you be as positive if it was lacrosse only?
LikeLike
@Brian – I don’t think it’s an automatic assumption, but it’s also hard to see why the Big Ten presidents would object to it. That group may really want that association.
LikeLike
Frank,
You are, however, assuming that JHU wants it. Maybe they just want a home for lacrosse and don’t want to be tied down by the CIC in case they want to move again in the future.
LikeLike
Also, if the COP/C was looking for CIC members, why haven’t they added Carnegie Mellon and CWRU (2 AAU schools in the footprint)?
LikeLike
And then how does Johns Hopkins vote? This is complicated and messy.
LikeLike
Metatron:
How does JHU vote on what? How does Boise vote in the Pac?
Brian:
Maybe that’s why they’re taking their time thinking about it.
As for CWRU and CMU, they don’t bring any sports assets. If they did, adding them may make sense. Same goes for WashU and (especially) NYU.
LikeLike
JH *would* be all in. They would be all in for every DivI sport they sponsor, just like ever other B1G school.
LikeLike
As I mentioned above, the OSU chick talks like associate membership could be considered in other sports as well…..
Nobody has mentioned the complication with ESPNU contract cover all JH home games……it would seem that would have to be addressed before any decision/announcement could be made.
Met–I don’t think ACC has a hockey league, or does it? If not, couldn’t ND be added is that sport only (note-not talking wisdom of doing that..only the legality).
LikeLike
As far as ESPNU, a stand-alone LAX men’s conference, with Johns Hopkins rights as a distinct package ~ kind of as with the MWC and Boise State ~ is more compatible with that. But a Big Ten championship with an associate member would be more expansion-compatible. A Big Ten championship with six members would be one non-revenue sport expansion headache for the UVA AD crossed off the list, since it would be an AQ conference in two years after launch.
Maybe the Big Ten Network would be happy enough to have two or three Johns Hopkins away Big Ten school games to show on the east cost to agree to yield on the Johns Hopkins home games.
As far as the can of worms of associate membership, I’d rather the associate membership bylaws be written as associate membership in all D1 sports, or no dice. That retains the “all-in” principle.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Maybe that’s why they’re taking their time thinking about it.”
Yep. It gets back to my original question – Would people be as positive about this if JHU was joining only for lacrosse and definitely not the CIC? Are associate members such a good idea then?
“As for CWRU and CMU, they don’t bring any sports assets.”
Neither does Chicago, but the CIC kept them. People kept saying JHU would be an eastern version of Chicago but with 1 sport. So why not add 2 more AAU’s in the footprint to help the CIC?
LikeLike
I’d be positive about it so long as it doesn’t open the door to silly season. Its not a big deal, but as a small move, its a positive one.
If you say “join as associate in all of their D1 sports sponsored by the Big Ten”, that cuts off a lot of the silly season arrangements.
LikeLike
“Neither does Chicago, but the CIC kept them.”
Being in a family is different from joining a family.
LikeLike
Its really full membership for all their active D-I sports.
LikeLike
Exactly. Thank you. I don’t see why people are having such a hard time understanding that Hopkins is not picking and choosing its sports conferences by school; it is committing all its sports to a conference; add in the CIC factor, and both the JH and Big Ten administrations win.
Brian – The CIC isn’t looking at Carnegie Mellon and Case Western because it isn’t trying to make the AAU 2.0, there is some form of competitive aspect between all the CIC members (with UChicago’s being historical).
LikeLike
Ted,
“I don’t see why people are having such a hard time understanding that Hopkins is not picking and choosing its sports conferences by school;”
Nobody is having a hard time understanding that. Not everyone likes the idea of associate members. There’s a difference.
” it is committing all its sports to a conference;”
No, it isn’t. It’s committing its 1 D-I sport to the B10. JHU plays other sports and those would be in another conference (or independent).
“add in the CIC factor, and both the JH and Big Ten administrations win.”
JHU may not think so.
“The CIC isn’t looking at Carnegie Mellon and Case Western because it isn’t trying to make the AAU 2.0, there is some form of competitive aspect between all the CIC members (with UChicago’s being historical).”
MI used to play CWRU in football back when they also played Chicago. In fact, MI played Case more times than Chicago. Carnegie Mellon, then Carnegie Tech, played PSU several times in FB, also. Other B10 teams played Case and CM, too. If pre-WWII games against Chicago count, so should that.
LikeLike
Brian:
“No, it isn’t. It’s committing its 1 D-I sport to the B10. JHU plays other sports and those would be in another conference (or independent).”
Sure, just like Illinois commits all it’s DivI sports to the B10 while it’s (club) hockey team plays in the CSCHL
“JHU may not think so.”
In which case they likely won’t join and there won’t be anything to fuss over.
LikeLike
Richard,
I simply corrected his misstatement.
LikeLike
Well then by that definition JH they won’t be any different than any other Big Ten school and should therefore be entitled to an equal share of all Big Ten revenue distributions.
LikeLike
Go Tartans!
Don’t forget, CMU already plays Chicago and CWRU and WU (no need to add any games, just fold in the UAA games). We’re 0-1 in Bowl Games (1939 Sugar), and admittedly 0-6 lifetime vs PSU, 0-3-1, and 1-5 vs Purdue, but 1-0 against UMd, and if GaTech comes on 2-0 versus them.
And this way – the Big Ten doesn’t need Pitt.
LikeLike
All full members of the Big Ten have to compete in a certain number of Big Ten championships ~ under the “all in” associate membership concept, that would be the basis of being an associate member, that the member does not sponsor sufficient D1 sports to be a full Big Ten member.
That would be distinct from the way associate memberships are done by other conferences, where a school adding some but not all of its D1 sports is allowed.
LikeLike
Not this nonsense again.
LikeLike
Well, if it goes through, I wonder if Chicago will ever promote one of their teams again?
LikeLike
I don’t know that Chicago could. From what little I’ve read, Hopkins lacrosse is grandfathered and the loophole is closed.
LikeLike
I’m not sure. I’d have to read the bylaws more closely, but it seems as though you are correct.
LikeLike
Yes, they passed that law a couple years back to stop anyone else from being in Division I in only one sport. Think it was a combination of the II/III schools not wanting a school to have that advantage and the Division I schools not wanting to be flooded by schools with one sport in their division.
LikeLike
Well, a DivIII school can be DivI in one sport for each gender, but they can’t offer scholarships.
However, of all the schools in the country, the U of C is least likely to go that route. Talk to alums of that school, and you’d realize that they have a strong proud culture where DivI athletics simply do not fit in.
LikeLike
@Richard
Are you sure? If so, that’s a very recent change. It was a pretty big deal 2 or 3 years ago when they changed the rules that used to allow them to have a Division I sport. They were at one point not even going to have a grandfather rule.
LikeLike
Last time I checked, any DII or DIII school can compete in Division I in one sport and can offer scholarships. It’s common in hockey and baseball.
LikeLike
No new schools, only grandfathered ones:
http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/06/in-the-news-june-7/
LikeLike
Bullet:
Right, so if you read the article, if a DivIII school currently plays a sport, they can move it up to DivI but not offer scholarships.
LikeLike
Richard, Read the “note:” at the bottom. No NEW reclassifications.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Time to break away from the NCAA. . .
LikeLike
Wow. I have to give Zeek props for being a proponent of this. I did not think it likely.
BTW, if we’re going to go that route, then we should encourage NYU to start a hockey program and join the B10 solely in hockey.
LikeLike
See the ping pong plan above.
LikeLike
Well, the school and sport still have to be accretive.
Will ESPNU show your school in that sport? If yes, then let’s talk.
LikeLike
Precisely ~ there should be emails and phone calls to the local cable providers why they get the schools home ping pong games but are missing on the Big Ten network broadcasts of some of their away games.
Strange as it may seem here in Ohio, there are parts of the east coast where LAX will indeed generate a perceptible number of those emails and phone calls.
LikeLike
One issue, though, is how BTN distributions would work.
Presumably Hopkins would not be buying in to a full ownership share (unless they contribute a ton on the academic side).
LikeLike
@Richard – I’m interested to know how much JHU is getting from ESPNU. That would be the number that the BTN would be working with in determining a lacrosse distribution.
LikeLike
Possible ramifications on UVA/UNC/Duke coming to B1G to join a stronger lax conference?
LikeLike
If the Big Ten thought they were about to add those schools they wouldn’t have any reason to add Hopkins.
LikeLike
Right. And JH would be much easier to add after getting UVA/UNC/Duke than before. As is, I’m not sure the B10 is the most appealing conference for JHU.
LikeLike
Actually, it wouldn’t be bad…right now, MD is #2 (as I recall) and OSU and PSU are top 20….As I recall, JH is now #3 or 4…
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Actually, it wouldn’t be bad…right now, MD is #2 (as I recall) and OSU and PSU are top 20….As I recall, JH is now #3 or 4…”
Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA and ND are in the ACC. Those are closer to JHU on average, I think, and bigger names in the sport.
LikeLike
My assessment is exactly the opposite of yours on this matter. Johns Hopkins is rated #9 on the top research universities listing from the Center for Measuring University Performance and and a research budget of $1.86B in 2009. See http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf
If JHU became a member of the CIC with the participation of its lacrosse team in the Big Ten, then that is only going to enhance the actual and perceived worth of the conference on the academic side of the ledger. It’s a very big, very nice bullet to add to the Powepoint slide presentation any school would receive that’s interested in becoming a member of the B1G.
See http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx
Of course, those go along with increased revenues for the athletic department in the $40M range by 2017, a successful and dedicated conference television network (which could expand to two channels), an enlarged geographic footprint with conference offices in Chicago and probably New York City (#1 media capital in the world). That’s a pretty good package of assets the Big Ten can promote to any university interested in joining the conference.
LikeLike
The additions of Rutgers/Maryland made it pretty obvious that academics/research was a very large component of B1G expansion. The rumored additions of JHU and UNC/UVA/GT make it even more obvious that the B1G is attempting to use their current athletic leverage to solidify their R1 advantage for at least the next century.
I think those who are hoping to see FSU added are going to be greatly disappointed.
LikeLike
cutter,
“My assessment is exactly the opposite of yours on this matter. Johns Hopkins is rated #9 on the top research universities listing from the Center for Measuring University Performance and and a research budget of $1.86B in 2009. See http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf”
Nobody doubts their research cred.
“If JHU became a member of the CIC with the participation of its lacrosse team in the Big Ten”
That’s a big if. What if this is just a lacrosse thing? Then how do you feel about it?
LikeLike
John Hopkins is the #1 research university in terms of money in the country. They are valuable regardless of whether or not Duke or UNC comes aboard.
LikeLike
These two points are pretty much how I see it. JH is valuable in its’ own right and would make the B1G attractive to prospective members who really, really value academics. If the B1G sees itself as the “Ivy League” of big schools, this would be the addition to prove it. And it would send the clear signal that no non-AAU schools will be added; you don’t strengthen your academic brand with a school like this and then water it back down. Other schools that want to be thought of in the same way will come to you.
LikeLike
And if they thought they were on the bubble with one or both, that would be good reason to add Hopkins.
LikeLike
I became obsessed with realignment because I was hoping that onw of my alma maters might join the B1G.
I might get my wish after all!
LikeLike
my two cents: adding JHU in any capacity — in ANY capacity —- to the B1G and/or the CIC is giant and huge and wow, “how cool!!!”
so, if it takes a little thing like LAX to coax JHU into a relationship with the B1G and the CIC, then ‘west, by god, virginia,” do it !!
I don’t really understand the hand-wringing expressed by many above. The B1G will make whatever exceptions needed to get a “King.” ND can join without being AAU; John Hopkins (an undisputed research and university “King”) will get whatever exceptions are needed.
I seriously doubt these exceptions set any sort of precedent. That is, such exceptions will be extended for non-Kings. Oklahoma was apparently told “no.” They are not a big enough “King” to overcome their academic standing. ND is not a hockey “king”; ND’s football is. Thus, exceptions for THAT will be made.
The B1G’s COP/C seems quite pragmatic to me.
LikeLike
ugh… “such exceptions will NOT be extended for non-Kings.”
LikeLike
In 2004 the NCAA almost voted to stop allowing D3 schools to have a D1 team in one sport. Hopkins and RPI lobbied hard to stop that from happening, but I wonder if Hopkins is concerned that going to a major conference could bring up that issue again.
LikeLike
Frank,
Nice summary when you point out that the ACC is Southern, while still academically oriented. That captures the conference realignment dilemma for UVa and UNC.
With expansion, the ACC’s economic value has shifted away from the original members. Florida State, Miami, VTech and Notre Dame (even though only a partial member) are the popular TV brands. Amazingly, Louisville seems to have more value to the ACC TV revenue model than Maryland. The current leaders in generating revenue for the ACC are the newer schools.
Yet it’s still UNC and UVa that are deemed the core, or glue, for the conference. Most other schools want to be in the ACC (with the notable exceptions of UMD and FSU). The new ACC has evolved tremendously over the past 25 years and is no longer a culturally tight-knit group. If UVa and/or UNC decide to leave the ACC, hopefully it is for more than just money.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that the most economically valuable schools to the ACC’s TV contract (where there is no conference-owned network) are schools that have been added in: Florida State, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Even Louisville has economic value arguably (but not decisively) greater than Maryland.
On the other hand, it would be just as damaging to the ACC to lose those core schools as it would be to lose those who have been added through expansion.
In particular, UNC is one of those schools with a lot of untapped value. If ever the team could produce a few top ten seasons in football, it could be a ratings giant. It already is one of the rare exceptions where its basketball brand is so popular that the Big Ten and SEC would consider them to enhance hoops while merely supplementing football, rather than the other way around. Furthermore, UNC is the only school that the BTN or an SEC Network would require in order to get onto basic cable at a high rate throughout a state which will soon have 10 million people. Adding Duke and/or NC State would only be so that the B1G or SEC could get UNC.
UVA carries great untapped value, as well, especially for leagues with conference-owned networks because it is the flagship school in a state of over 8 million. Like UNC, Georgia Tech, and other AAU members, it would be a heck of a catch in terms of further enhancing a league’s academic reputation.
LikeLike
I have been working on this theory for a while, and finally decided to try and write it out and see if it makes any sense. It raises two questions from Frank’s prior entry regarding the SEC’s “Gentlemen’s Agreement” and the BIG contiguous states requirement.
Let’s assume the Delany’s next 2 primary targets are not from the ACC, but actually Georgia and University of Florida. Both are their state’s flagship institutions. Georgia, although not AAU, has shown continued academic improvement. Florida, well, no explanation is necessary why it would be desirable to the B1G.
The only way either of these schools would be remotely interested in leaving the SEC is if somehow the other conference schools forced an overriding vote that both Georgia and Florida were strongly against.
That’s where the SEC’s “Gentlemen’s Agreement” and the continuous rumors of Georgia Tech to B1G and FSU to the Big 12 come into play. Can Delany cause enough uncertainty in the SEC, where Slive would attempt to make a completely defensive move and go after Georgia Teach and FSU to block out the B1G and Big 12 from 2 of the most populous states in the SEC? Would Georgia and Florida use the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” to try and block these additions, but Slive have enough votes to proceed forward with offers?
I have no idea if Georgia would ever consider leaving the SEC, but did following post in response to Frank’s May 17, 2010 blog entry.
aps says:
May 25, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Just a few years back, Barry Alvarez made the comment that they got an inquire from a university that nobody expected. He said it was from out of left field and nobody saw it coming. Barry said it would fit academically and athletically but just was off the map.
People wondered and speculated who it could be. Barry never said if I remember rightly, but eventually most people on the web figured out it was Florida.
So, I would not say anyone is out of reach. Just maybe not likely.
I tried finding reports from other sources which support this posters belief that the B1G was approached by the University of Florida, but I couldn’t find anything. Does anyone know if this was true?
If Georgia and Florida lost the vote, would this scenario even provide enough justification to their fan bases for the schools to leave the SEC?
Obviously, these two schools directly support the demographic requirement for B1G expansion, while simultaneously severely weakening the SEC. Although, Georgia and Florida are not contiguous
This scenario also goes directly against the “rules” of conference expansion:
No one is leaving the SEC
B1G will not look at non AAU schools
Only contiguous stats
SEC will not make a defensive move
SEC will not invite a school within its current footprint
LikeLike
Even if it was Florida, you’re looking at a public university fighting against their fans and legislators. It’s not impossible, but it’s damn near improbable.
LikeLike
um, no.
LikeLike
Actually, I thought “everyone on the web” thought it was Tennessee (because their boosters thought going through the B10 would be an easier route to a national title than going through the SEC).
If UF had wanted in, they would be in the B10 already. There’s little doubt in my mind that UF & UGa have open invitations to the B10 if they want them (they’d have open invitations to pretty much any other conference as well).
LikeLike
That was a rumor, and with their debt it makes sense.
I’d take the Vols.
LikeLike
The post I referenced stated that Alvarez said the school was an academic and athletic fit for the B1G. Assuming the post was accurate, I don’t see how the Vols would be an academic fit.
Can anyone provide a link to a reputable source that specifies what school made inquiries in the 2008 time period?
LikeLike
I remember reading that article and don’t remember Alvarez mentioning that it was an academic fit. I’m quite confident that if UF and UGa had wanted in, they would be in the B10 already, and the rumor was that the B10 sent out feelers to both schools and was rebuffed.
LikeLike
First, I don’t think either would care. UGA isn’t concerned about Georgia Tech. And Georgia Tech might prefer the Big 12 rather than competing head to head against UGA.
But even if your premises are accepted, it wouldn’t be enough. There could, however, be things over time that push UGA and UF to look elsewhere. Georgia and Florida have grown much faster than the other SEC states. Academically they have improved much faster than the other SEC schools. They aren’t enthused about schools pushing the rules envelope (both have done it in the past and don’t like the temptation). So there is a divide that didn’t exist 30 years ago. If the SEC keeps expanding, they create the grounds for schools like UGA and UF to eventually leave. Don’t know about Florida, but you wouldn’t see many UGA fans cheering for Auburn or Florida in the BCS title games. Alabama and LSU maybe since UGA rarely plays them. But there isn’t the “SEC, SEC” mentality you see in other places.
LikeLike
Again, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. UGA fans chant SEC all of the time when they play major OOC games. They are at the heart of SEC country, and their fans are passionate about the SEC.
Here is a video of them chanting SEC during a GT game:
Just in case my attempt at enbedding didn’t work, here is the link: http://youtu.be/ll5hMtcAn84
And they use the same recruiting practices that the other SEC schools use. They currently have 29 kids committed to this year’s class (and they are still in the running for a couple more kids) because they will backcount up to 6 kids against last year’s class, and grey short others (which is the only way SEC schools can now “over sign”). And I’m not going to get into the tactics that Rodney Garnder used while he was recruiting coordinator there, who was there since before Richt took over, and just left to go back to auburn.
I have friends that are UGA fans, work with UGA fans, and go into Georgia quite often. They are as entrenched in the SEC as Bama or Ole Miss or any other SEC school.
LikeLike
I’ve never heard the chant so its not that common. And I’ve been to a number of UGA games and watch the rest. I’m married to a 3rd generation Bulldawg and have lots of Bulldawg friends.
LikeLike
UGA doesn’t have a foot out the door and aren’t even looking at the doorway, but they have more differences than they used to. If you look at history, UGA has a low rate of signees compared to SEC West schools. But yes, they are signing a bunch this year and doing early enrollees.
LikeLike
Mark Richt is NOT a Bobby Petrino in any way shape or form. The early enrollees are probably a desperation move since their numbers are so low as Richt has been strict on kicking people out of the program who violate the rules. I believe they were down to 71 scholarship players last fall.
LikeLike
The worst part of over-signing is when you don’t have the slots or are forcing players out of the program because they don’t perform or are signing a bunch of players because you figure many aren’t going to qualify academically (see Bobby Petrino). Richt has kicked out a couple of players starting or projected to start at AQ schools (LSU’s QB and a RB-forgot where he is going).
LikeLike
While Richt seems like a good guy and a decent coach, he seems to have a hard time keeping his players out of trouble, which is one factor in why UGA’s player numbers are so low. From 2006 – 2010 he had 33 players arrested, and from 2010 – 2012 he had 14 players arrested (and that is just the ones that were actually arrested).
LikeLike
He’s a great guy. But he’s made some bad choices on players. Athens area police, unlike other places, actually enjoy arresting football players. UGA players had a run of arrests for driving w/o a license (you would think after the first couple, the rest would learn…not the case).
LikeLike
@bamatab
The arrests have been for a lot of stupid stuff. One year there were the 7 or 8 driving w/o a license. DUIs. Unpaid tickets. Hit and run on a parked car. Seems like there was one for riding a motorized scooter on a sidewalk (DWB?). No armed robberies or anything of that nature that I recall. But lots of, “How can you be so stupid?”
LikeLike
Just to be clear, UGA is happy in the SEC. There are some minor dissatisfactions and I can’t forsee them ever leaving without Florida. But there are differences that could lead to a departure at some point in the future if they continue to grow. The SEC isn’t the homogenous group + Vanderbilt that it used to be. Sewanee, Tulane and Georgia Tech all left after the SEC wasn’t a fit anymore.
LikeLike
The only thing that would drive UGA and/or UF would be a massive, SWC like scandal that would rip the SEC apart. Aside from an event like that, UGA & UF would have absolutely no desire to change conferences.
Sewanee & Tulane left because they didn’t want to keep investing in their athletic programs to keep them at the level that the other SEC school were heading. There is absolutely no way that UGA or UF would even think about de-emphasizing their sports programs (especially football). And GT left because the person running their athletic department (Dodds) was dumb enough to believe an independant GT could become the ND of the south. Sure he didn’t like the football signing limits (or lack there of), and he didn’t like what he thought was special treatment that Bama got. But in the end, the reason he was able to convience the PTB at GT to leave was that he was convienced that GT could be the ND of the south. Neither UGA or UF would even dream of going independant.
The SEC is as homogenous of a group as they have ever been. As a matter of a fact, they are probably more so under Slive than they were back in the 80s & 90s under Kramer. The SEC brand has grown to the point under Slive that it has become even more important to the identities of the SEC schools, including UF & UGA. Outside of a total collapse of the SEC, they aren’t leaving. The only other scenario I could see is if the SEC expands to a number like 20 or more, that ends up not working out, and then the schools dividing up into smaller conferences. but even in that scenario, UGA & UF would be forming a new conference with other SEC schools.
LikeLike
Neither Georgia nor Florida are stomping out of the SEC because a vote went against them.
If Florida is against FSU in the SEC, its not likely to be adamantly against, since they were supporting FSU a couple of decades ago.
And GTech is not very likely anyway. They left the SEC for reasons, many of which still exist.
LikeLike
@ BruceMcF
Are you implying that there is no “gentlemen’s agreement” amongst the 4 SEC teams that have potential expansion targets in their respective states? None of us know if one actually exists, but assuming it does, I find it hard to believe that Florida would go through the effort of making an agreement with Georgia, S. Carolina, and Kentucky if they didn’t really care about FSU joining the SEC.
Wouldn’t it be one of the two extremes? Either Florida is in full support of FSU as a potential member or adamantly against.
LikeLike
The scenario proposed was Florida stomping out of the SEC in a huff because the vote went against them, and/or Georgia stomping out in a huff because the vote went against them … which PRESUMES either the lack of a gentleman’s agreement or else the other parties flouting it when it becomes clear they are the one facing in-state competition.
If there IS a gentleman’s agreement, and it is respected, then stomping out of the SEC over the entry is a moot point, since there is no entry to object to. And if there is a gentleman’s agreement, and Florida voted in favor of FSU’s entry, then the other parties following Florida lead would be respecting the agreement, and stomping out of the SEC over the entry is still a moot point.
But EVEN IF Florida and/or Georgia presumed there was a gentleman’s agreement in place and it turned out to be dog out dog when push came to shove …
… they might be ticked off, and might sharpen their knives to make their displeasure when an opportunity presented itself …
… but they wouldn’t stomp out of the SEC in a huff.
LikeLike
Absolute crapola. Neither UGA nor UF will leave the SEC in our lifetimes. This is one if the most delusional posts I’ve read in a long time, that’s otherwise well written. The SEC would offer FSU a spot within a nanosecond of UF leaving (and then gaator fans would burn their university president’s house to the ground in the next nanosecond). Lets get back to reality please.
LikeLike
Anyone else find it odd that all the ACC doomsday scenarios originate from WVU fans?
LikeLike
The dude and the mhv guy are like the Terrance and Phillip of conference news.
LikeLike
Bones to pick I suppose.
LikeLike
they hate the acc and obsess about its destruction. they’re also huge liars.
LikeLike
BTW, while the B10 doesn’t seem to have ever had affiliate members, the Pac does (including Boise and a bunch of Cal State schools) in various sports, and no one talks about the integrity of the Pac being compromised.
LikeLike
I’m aware that the PAC has a ton of affiliate members… but they have for a long time.
If the Big Ten had a history of partial/affiliate membership then I wouldn’t have a problem. But they don’t. Full membership is one of the Big Ten’s founding principles.
LikeLike
So was forbidding freshmen participation in varsity sports and no training tables or separate athletes’ dorms.
Times change.
LikeLike
You’re right. Let’s get Boston University hockey and ISU wrestling while we’re at it. Those are AAU schools with elite sports.
LikeLike
Hell, while we’re at it let’s throw in McGill and Toronto’s hockey teams like JJ suggested.
Listen, I’m not some naive slippery slope guy who believes that allowing Hopkins in is the first step towards the Big Ten becoming a Big East style hybrid monstrosity, but philosophically there isn’t any difference between letting JH in for lacrosse and any other partial membership.
LikeLike
Oh, and for your times change condescension, that was the exact same rational the ACC used when they explained why they allowed ND in after refusing to do so for 60 years and things have just gone swimmingly for them.
(Also, to clarify, JJ was being sarcastic.)
LikeLike
Nah, ISU won’t drop down their other sports to DivIII. I would consider BU if they dropped their other sports down to DivIII but their hockey attendance is surprisingly mediocre.
LikeLike
On the flip side, how does the Pac suffer when they take in Boise and some CalState schools in some minor sports? Do you see the Pac disintegrating? BTW, there’s a major distinction between ND and the ACC and the Pac affiliates (which would be closer to a JHU-in-the-B10 scenario: ND is joining the ACC in all sports but the most important one. The Pac (and the B10) pick and choose what schools they admit in what sports. In the case of the B10, they can still say that all DivI sports have to be in the B10 if a school joins.
LikeLike
You’re being a spaz and totally missing the point.
The Big Ten is contemplating addding a member in a sport it has never sponsored, the potential member being one of the lacrosse’s bluebloods, which happens to be that school’s only sport (D1 is all that matters here), that would provide an automatic NCAA bid for the league, and possible make it more attractive to UVa and UNC for one of their premier sports, at an institution that is as or more prestigious than any current conference member.
And somehow that equates to the same thing as adding ND as a football-only member?
LikeLike
Yes, JHU can be added under associate bylaws that specify “all” D1 sports as associate memberships, and that closes off both the “only football” (the “Big East of Reno”) and “all but football” scenarios, without completely slamming the door on moves that the BTN might like for their winter and spring non-revenue sports filler.
LikeLike
@Bruce
And then they can just change the bylaws again to expand associate membership whenever they feel like it.
LikeLike
OK, and you still haven’t pointed out how the B10 suffers even if they do, considering that the Pac seems to avoid implosion despite giving up their viginity, er, exclusivilty, er, whatever.
LikeLike
@frug:
You said: “Listen, I’m not some naive slippery slope guy who believes that allowing Hopkins in is the first step towards the Big Ten becoming a Big East style hybrid monstrosity, but philosophically there isn’t any difference between letting JH in for lacrosse and any other partial membership.”
I my view, JHU is not just “some” AAU member. Adding a B1G relationship with JHU is a big f-ing deal. In my view, there is a giant difference between letting JHU in for Lax and other partial memberships.
LikeLike
OK, and you still haven’t pointed out how the B10 suffers even if they do, considering that the Pac seems to avoid implosion despite giving up their viginity, er, exclusivilty, er, whatever.
You do realize that conferences have different standards don’t you? After all the PAC also added schools like ASU and WSU but the Big Ten wouldn’t because they have higher academic standards.
LikeLike
OK, but why should no-associate-membership be a standard? There are network effects and other positive externalities (as well as some cost savings) from associating with other top research institutions. What’s the positive in keeping yourself pure/virginal/unadulterated/whatever?
LikeLike
Why did the CIC decide to trim the fat and get down to 13 and only 13 schools? They clearly thought extra schools presented some issues. JHU is a bigger spender than those others, but some of the reasons may still apply.
LikeLike
“JHU is a bigger spender than those others”
Well, yeah. That (and academic prestige) are kind of a big differentiator. Plus, the reason UIC was kicked out was because, if they were going to be consistent about branch campuses within the same university system being allowed in to the CIC, IUPUI, a bunch of MAC schools & Cincy in the University System of Ohio as well as the 20 million UWisconsin campuses should have been allowed in as well, which would have been an organizational nightmare. So the CIC was either going to be rationalized or show favoritism to the University of Illinois system.
As with any expansion, you have to weigh the costs and benefits. Adding JHU increases the headcount by 1 and increases the research heft of the consortium considerably. Adding a bunch of branch campuses increases the research heft by not a ton and makes the organizational logistics much more of a headache. Keeping UIC leads to (correct) charges of favoritism.
LikeLike
@Richard – To be sure, UIC is actually a very large research institution (particularly in medicine and the hard sciences), so it’s more akin to a University of California branch academically (at least at the graduate research level) than the typical branch campuses in the Big Ten region. I don’t think the CIC was necessarily worried about, say, all of the University of Wisconsin campuses (I’m pretty sure every town in Wisconsin with more than 10,000 people has one) seeking associate memberships (as they have gone for decades without asking about it), but rather the University of Nebraska-Omaha specifically. UNO has a similar relationship with Nebraska that UIC has with Illinois, where the urban campuses house the bulk of the high dollar medical research. That’s why the CIC decided to remove UIC at the same time that it added Nebraska – it knew that it couldn’t continue granting associate status to UIC without doing the same for UNO.
LikeLike
OK, but why should no-associate-membership be a standard?
Why doesn’t the PAC allow religiously affiliated schools? Why won’t the SEC add states from outside the South? It’s an identity issue. That is a positive enough factor.
LikeLike
frug:
The SEC just added a school outside of the South.
Plus, I don’t see “sponsoring all sports needed to be a full member” as being part of the B10 identity, and as much as you may want it to be otherwise, I don’t think the B10 sees it that way either. It seems pretty clear to me that the B10 sees it’s identity as being a consortium of top research universities who strive to excel both athletically and academically while playing by the rules (that last part, unlike full membership, really was written down at the conference’s founding). JHU fits the bill perfectly.
LikeLike
@Richard
Go back and read the SEC’s statement announcing the addition of Missouri. They spent several paragraphs describing how Southern it is. And Missouri’s Governor signed an Ordinance of Secession leading to competing state capitals. In other words, it was Southern enough that the SEC could argue it was a Southern state.
LikeLike
Frank:
Good point, but point stands that the CIC either had to show favoritism or add a school/campus that they didn’t deem worth adding.
LikeLike
Full membership is one of the Big Ten’s founding principles.
Can you point out to us where the founders said that? I don’t seem to have noticed it before.
LikeLike
Well all the founders were full members and in the 115 since they have never had a partial member.
LikeLike
Well, until 1975, the B10 never allowed a member school to play in a bowl other than the Rose Bowl. Does that mean that in 1974, not playing in a non-Rose-Bowl bowl was an integral part of the league’s identity, and that the league was irrevocably harmed and lost its identity & cohesion after allowing schools to play in non-Rose-Bowl bowls?
LikeLike
@Richard
The Big Ten’s arrangement with the Rose Bowl didn’t begin until after WWII, almost half a century after the conference’s founding.
And the no bowl but the Rose Bowl arrangement was in effect for less than 30 years.
LikeLike
I fail to see how that’s relevant. BTW, partial membership wasn’t even an issue for most of those 115 years, so we have no clue how member schools would have thought about it.
We do know, however, how the B10 stood on bowl games. For a long time, the B10 didn’t allow member schools to participate in any bowl. So the non-Rose-Bowl bowl ban was more like 50 years. Up until 1975, no B10 school had participated in a non-Rose-Bowl bowl. Was not playing in a non-Rose-Bowl bowl an integral part of the league’s character, then?
LikeLike
I’d say that allowing bowls other than the Rose did, in fact, harm the B10 by starting down the slippery slope that let the Rose Bowl become so diminished that the B10 will willingly not play in it in the future. If it was the only goal, as is right and proper, then the B10 would continue to value it properly. Instead, they sold out starting in the 70s.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’ve said for a while this is a Mexican standoff. The B12, B10 and SEC all need something to happen to destabilize the ACC. Maybe the final playoff and bowl money numbers will be enough. Maybe the SEC’s new TV deal will be a trigger. Maybe the B10 signing a new deal will do it. Maybe a large budget issue will occur for an ACC school or two. But until that happens, I see no pressing need for any further expansion.
The B12 has said as many ways as possible that they’re happy as is. They make good money and have no demographic issues. The SEC is doing just fine on the field and is about to get a raise, so they don’t need to grow. The B10 added a FB king and two good size states in a growing region to address all their expressed needs. The ACC would like to make more money, but most of their members really like the ACC. The financial gap will have to be huge to drive most of the members to leave, especially when you consider the cultural differences in their prospective new homes.
This is why I take issue with people taking such a short term view when talking about B10 divisions. Many assume the B10 will jump to 16+ by 2014 or 2016 so they accept obvious long term problems with the divisions as a good thing for the short term. I think future expansion is possible at any time, but it isn’t a given and shouldn’t be taken as such.
LikeLike
OK, JHU football to the East to give tOSU an automatic win every year.
LikeLike
The B12 has said as many ways as possible that they’re happy as is. They make good money and have no demographic issues.
1. Conferences lie all the time. And even if they are happy at 10, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be happier at 12+.
2. The Big XII actually has a massive demographic issue. Specifically, how small it is. The Big XII has by far the smallest population footprint of all the major conferences. That may not be an imminent threat, but it is every bit as problematic for the Big XII’s long term health as the populations shifts are to the Big Ten’s.
LikeLike
@frug – I definitely agree that the Big 12 has demographic issues (namely, they are almost completely reliant upon the state of Texas). Of course, the flip side is that the ACC has great demographics – they have the fastest growing footprint of any conference and, even better, it’s growth that’s largely driven by affluent and highly educated people moving into that region. That might be why the Big 12 and ACC could be natural alliance partners – they seem to have opposite weaknesses, so an alliance would fill in the gaps for each league.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
TX is the fastest growing state in the country (>2%). Considering it’s also the 2nd largest state, that’s impressive growth. It’s lead over NY has grown by 4.5M in 12 years while CA’s lead dropped by 1M.
LikeLike
The jobs growth is biased toward the bottom of the income ladder ~ but the point there is that Texas’s growth is the platform that all ten schools are standing on, just as their second most popular school is making waves in the most prestigious football conference in the nation.
Diversification is likely to give more resiliance, and if they cannot diversity their “home” markets as a first mover, building up their out of conference brand recognition in growing east coast markets is an appealing “can do it now” strategy.
LikeLike
There is approximately 0% chance that Texas’ growth alone will get the Big XII anywhere near the population base of the other conferences.
LikeLike
frug,
It doesn’t need to. It has to supply enough students and players for 10 schools (less than that since WV hunts in other places). CFB is moving to a more national model, so being good will trump their footprint market.
LikeLike
Brian:
That’s still considerably less students/players/eyeballs per school than any other major conference.
LikeLike
So? It’s been that way for a while and they’re doing just fine. Where is the evidence that it’s a problem for them?
LikeLike
@Brian
Check out their TV ratings. The Big XII’s Fox package was pretty disappointing.
Plus, where is the evidence that population trends were negatively effecting the Big Ten?
LikeLike
frug,
“Plus, where is the evidence that population trends were negatively effecting the Big Ten?”
Delany and several presidents saying they thought it was a problem is the evidence. Show me similar quotes from the B12.
LikeLike
Brian:
I guess it depends on what you consider “just fine”. What frug said, and I would argue that those ratings were in a recent period when several B12 schools (OK St., TCU, KSU, and even TTech) have been performing above their historical norm. Neither T Boone or Bill Synder are spring chickens; how will their programs do when Sugar Daddy Pickens goes to the Big Oil Patch in the Sky & Old Man Synder hangs it up for good?
With only 2 kings (and none of the programs outside the 2 kings being able to organically generate the same type of money the kings and princes in the B10 and SEC can), I can easily see the B12 going through a down period like the past decade that the ACC went through. I don’t think they’d be doing just fine if they had to negotiate a new TV deal at the end of such a down period.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I guess it depends on what you consider “just fine”. What frug said, and I would argue that those ratings were in a recent period when several B12 schools (OK St., TCU, KSU, and even TTech) have been performing above their historical norm.
“Neither T Boone or Bill Synder are spring chickens; how will their programs do when Sugar Daddy Pickens goes to the Big Oil Patch in the Sky & Old Man Synder hangs it up for good?”
I honestly have no idea. Some programs change level significantly and stay at the new level (NW, WI, MN, etc), others return to their norm. It’s a new world with universal TV coverage of games and players more willing than ever to go away from home. If TBP gives OkSU a crap load of money when he dies, it may be a program-changing donation. Maybe KSU will find another coach that can succeed in Manhattan.
“With only 2 kings (and none of the programs outside the 2 kings being able to organically generate the same type of money the kings and princes in the B10 and SEC can), I can easily see the B12 going through a down period like the past decade that the ACC went through. I don’t think they’d be doing just fine if they had to negotiate a new TV deal at the end of such a down period.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with you on any of that. My point is simply that TPTB in the B12 are in a better position to know if they have an issue and none of them has ever said that they do. The B10, on the other hand, has said many times that they saw a problem and that they planned to fix it through expansion. People want to apply the same analysis to both conferences but maybe that isn’t appropriate. Perhaps being sun belt versus rust belt makes enough of a difference. Perhaps having TX rather than OH and MI and IL is sufficient. Perhaps it having UT in charge. Maybe it’s an optimism/pessimism thing. Maybe they just all refuse to say anything in public. But for whatever reason, the B12 doesn’t seem to think they have a problem.
I’m not arguing whether they do or not. I’m arguing that since they don’t seem to think they have a problem, that’s all that matters. Their perception of their situation is all that matters in determining their actions.
LikeLike
I think it also highlights an issue for schools like Virginia – how ‘Southern’ is your identity now when most of your economic and demographic growth over the past few decades has been driven by non-Southerners moving in?
This is why I don’t really buy the ‘culture’ argument as being a deal breaker for states such as Virginia and North Carolina. Non-Southern implants make up about a third of total population in both states now and over time I would expect these states to be less Southern over time – a shift that I think that has already happened across most of Northern Virginia
LikeLike
Frank:
If the ACC region’s growth is driven by “affluent and highly educated people moving into that region”, exactly how “southern” are those regions going to be?
I spent about five months in Charlottesville, VA last year and my takeaway from that region is that while it’s in the midst of rural SW Virginia, the town, campus and student body are rather different than the surroundings in the much the same way as northern Virginia, Richmond and the SE tip of the commonwealth are different from its other regions.
Also keep in mind that a little under 70% of the student body is instate with the rest either from other U.S. states and overseas. I don’t have the demographics on the native Virginians who go there, but given the costs involved in attending, my guess is that it’s from the more affluent areas of the commonwealth. I just have to wonder how “southern” UVA really is in terms of its outlook.
I also wonder what an alliance of the two conferences will do to the bottom line finances of the respective schools. Will the ACC be able to leverage it into a better television deal comparable to what the Big Ten and SEC will be offering? Does it mean there will be an ACC Network on par with the networks run by the Pac 12, B10 and SEC? Will it change the post-season in any way, shape or form for football? Outside of having the two conferences schedule more non-conference games with each other (and maybe the ACC will drop its basketball challenge with the Big Ten and take one up with the Big XII–or perhaps do both), what other benefits would these two conferences get (and how realistic would that be if the Big XII sticks with a nine-game conference schedule and the ACC adopts one)?
One of the reasons I’ve felt (and others I know) for awhile that the next two schools coming into the Big Ten were Virginia and Georgia Tech is because they had less invested in being “southern” than the other ACC schools due to their locations (GaTech and urban Atlanta), profiles, leadership, research specialties/fit and student populations. I’m certainly not disputing the idea that it would be easier for them to make a move out of the ACC if UNC and/or Duke and/or Florida State were in the mix, but in my assessment, they aren’t as strictly welded to the ACC as some of the other schools in that conference.
LikeLike
frug,
“2. The Big XII actually has a massive demographic issue. Specifically, how small it is. The Big XII has by far the smallest population footprint of all the major conferences. That may not be an imminent threat, but it is every bit as problematic for the Big XII’s long term health as the populations shifts are to the Big Ten’s.”
That’s not a demographic problem, that’s a market problem. As is, they have TX. That’s 8% of the US and growing and they care about CFB. 15% of the nation isn’t in a power conference (mostly NY, MA and a bunch of small states), and much of the country doesn’t care about CFB as deeply as TX does, so the B12 effective market share is bigger than the simple stats make it seem. They can live off of that as CFB becomes more national anyway. They have a big TV deal and the playoff money will only grow. As long as they keep producing quality teams, they’re fine.
LikeLike
@Brian
The Big Ten had a much larger market than the Big XII and more nationally relevant teams and yet they still felt the need to expand.
LikeLike
And the B12 didn’t, because TX is a rapidly growing area while the midwest isn’t. Not every league has the same needs.
LikeLike
Even if all states continue at their current rate of growth the Big XII still wouldn’t have a population comparable to the Big 10 in 30 years.
LikeLike
And that’s a problem? They don’t seem to think so.
LikeLike
@Brian
Or they see no reason to admit a weakness.
LikeLike
frug,
That is another option, sure. But 4 schools have left and the commissioner has changed and nobody has said anything about it. That makes me think they don’t see it as an issue. Whether they are correct in that assessment is a different matter.
LikeLike
Also, frug, the B12 has been very clear about what would make them happier. If teams 11 and 12 make them more money, then they’ll be happier. They have never expressed feeling a need to expand like the B10 did.
LikeLike
Even the Big Ten had the same view: Jim Delany doesn’t do deals that lose money.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Even the Big Ten had the same view: Jim Delany doesn’t do deals that lose money.”
Nobody wants to lose money, no, but Delany might have been willing to break even while solving the demographics problem of the B10. The B12 has never expressed a concern like that.
LikeLike
The death of the Midwest has been prognosticated and over exaggerated for decades.
LikeLike
Nobody prognosticated the death of the Midwest; they prognosticated that it would lose importance relative to other areas of the country.
And they have been right; look and see how the percentage of congressional seats going to Midwest states have changed over time.
It’s still important, but it has lost the massive population edge it used to have.
LikeLike
Big 12 Presidents aren’t convinced that mega-conferences are the way to go. There has been lots of negative talk about 14 and 16 coming out of the Big 12. Its about quality expansion. Even Deloss Dodds, who has been the most outspoken about being happy at 10, has said he is for expansion with the “right two.” The Big 12 has first hand experience with having diverse institutions in a conference and first hand experience in trying to work through the complexities of a possible 16 team conference.
I think its pretty clear the Big 12 would expand back to at least 12 if FSU would say yes. There have been enough comments on both sides. But the Big 12 isn’t going to expand just to expand.
LikeLike
The B1G has a demographic issue despite some denials here. But adding 15 million people in NJ and MD and tapping into another 10-15 million in NYC, solves the problem for 30 years or so. The B1G will continue to have the largest population and alumni base. There isn’t any rush to add more population. A lot can change over 30 years.
LikeLike
That’s right, but if you’re in charge of the conference do you run the risk of waiting 30 years and finding yourself again on the wrong side of the curve but then with UNC/UVa/Ga Tech unavailable?
LikeLike
No one could accuse Jim Delany of sleeping on opportunity. None of those schools are available right now. I don’t doubt that if he’s able to pry them loose, he will.
LikeLike
I don’t see the B1G’s population/alumni advantage leading to financial strength changing anytime soon. You have to weigh the risk of losing the opportunity vs. what you really want to be. Do you really want to be an 18-20 team conference? Do you want to add more below average teams in football? Do you want to add more schools with less than B1G average football fan support?
And does it really help non-sports? I can see Maryland and Rutgers being beneficial. B1G is now closer to NYC and DC which are centers of power and decision makers on research funding. Richmond and Raleigh aren’t quite the same.
If their goal is to morph into something different than a conference, now is the time to strike. But I’ve heard they want to play each other more and that’s not consistent with a 16 team conference, let alone 18-20.
LikeLike
The Big Ten presidents and ADs have access to more data than we do. When senior people from multiple schools say that they don’t think expansion is done, you’ve got to figure that there’s data behind it.
As I noted above, Jim Delany hasn’t done a deal yet that lost money. If we’re taking bets on whose data is better, his or yours, I’ll take the bet on Delany.
LikeLike
A Delany worshipper!
I don’t see where I said anything about data. I’m talking about value judgements. I doubt they would be talking expansion if they didn’t think they could make more TV $ in the short and medium term. But there are long run consequences that aren’t measurable. And there are choices about what you want to do for a little (or a lot) more money. Its hard to see any of these schools adding a lot (but then its hard to see how Pitt and SU really added anything net to the ACC).
LikeLike
I’m not a Delany worshipper at all. Your post appeared to be appealing to facts, not values, and on the facts I assume Delany has better data.
As to values, there are plenty of people who thought that even Rutgers and Maryland were two schools too many, and I won’t argue with them. We are all entitled to our own values, but we aren’t entitled to our own facts.
When you say, “It’s hard to see any of these schools adding a lot (but then its hard to see how Pitt and SU really added anything net to the ACC).”, you are stating (purported) facts. And here, I’m guessing the conference commissioners know a lot more, since it’s their full-time job, and we’re just amateur sports fans.
LikeLike
“Do you really want to be an 18-20 team conference? Do you want to add more below average teams in football? Do you want to add more schools with less than B1G average football fan support? there are choices about what you want to do for a little (or a lot) more money.”
These are all value choices (there’s no dispute about whether they have been below average in competitive strength or attendance). The SU and Pitt comment is a reference to my “little (or a lot)” comment. I don’t see how they add a lot, but its still a value judgement if they add a lot (however you define that).
LikeLike
This whole thing reminds me of New Coke. Charts and marketing data don’t make for a good conference.
LikeLike
@bullet – I hear you. I’ve never been a fan of expanding for the sake of expanding (despite spending most of my time writing about expansion). Now, I do think that schools such as UVA, UNC and Georgia Tech add value as a collective, but there does need to be some type of football hammer (e.g. Florida State) that comes along with them if the Big Ten goes that route (and if it isn’t clear by now, I’m a skeptic of the Big Ten actually pulling that off even if they want to). Academics and population bases matter a lot, but we shouldn’t go too overboard in thinking that they are the *only* things that matter to the Big Ten – the quality of football still drives the long-term money train off-the-field and Jim Delany knows that as much as anyone.
LikeLike
^I’m beginning to lose faith in the church of Jim. We’ve gambled and lost lately.
LikeLike
Frank:
Agree on UNC & UVa. Don’t think GTech adds enough unless they’re needed to bring in FSU.
LikeLike
Are we building an army? Give me a reason to care about population trends that doesn’t include the word “television”.
LikeLike
Need a talent pool to recruit from.
LikeLike
NJ and MD/DC were huge in that respect.
LikeLike
And the growth of the Midwest hasn’t outpaced the growth of Div-1 BCS programs?
LikeLike
Yes. Army of B10 alums.
LikeLike
The UMD lawsuit claims the ACC Constitution says that modifications to the conference by laws may not be enacted until the start of the following financial year (or something to that effect). We know MD is using this to argue they shouldn’t be subject to the $50M exit fee until it goes into effect mid summer 2013. Would a positive ruling for MD on this point provide more impetus for others to move before the end of the fiscal year? Perhaps member institutions would be pushed to move by a fear of getting “stuck” in a less attractive (fewer valuable members) ACC with exorbitant exit fees and without some combination of valuable members?
On the flip side, if the $50M exit fee is ruled to be unenforceable, could it potentially work to buy time for (and potentially save) the ACC since the “ticking clock” of the end of the fiscal year would be gone?
LikeLike
Believe there is another hearing on the case scheduled for early February.
LikeLike
Bylaws also say you have to notify by August 15th to leave at the following end of June, so that timing issue is more about withholding conference disbursements now than about whether Maryland is subject to an exit penalty: it was August 2012 to be out of the conference before a bylaw coming into effect July 1, 2013.
The arguments that the exit penalty is not due at all are the arguments that due process under the bylaws was not followed in enacting the penalty ~ notification period and such.
LikeLike
Great topic and one I’ve given thought from recent events. It really sounds like Texas doesn’t want any ‘competition’ in its conference and its minions are scared of Texas taking off and joining the Pac 12, B10, etc.
A Big XII expansion of FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville would be a huge boon imo but it’s clear Texas doesn’t want that so it’s very unlikely to happen. Texas wants to play Oklahoma, the Big XII cupcakes and one big OOC opponent every year and not face a threat in a Big XII CCG so they can get to to the 4-team playoff with little risk… I think a CCG should nearly be a requirement for the playoff system.
LikeLike
I think a CCG should nearly be a requirement for the playoff system.
The people making the decisions don’t think so.
LikeLike
the Big XII cupcakes
You realize that, since 2007, eight of the ten current schools of the Big 12 have cracked the Top 2 of the polls at least once, right?
(And one of the two which hasn’t cracked the Top 2, Baylor, merely produced a Heisman winner instead.)
Can any other conference point to that level of depth in its membership?
I’m not sure “cupcakes” is the right word here…
LikeLike
Which is why they really are happy in the Big 12. Except for 3 of the schools that left, the Big 12 has been pretty good for everyone.
LikeLike
Alabama can thank cupcake Baylor for helping its national championship season because if Baylor did not upset that other B12 cupcake Kansas State, Alabama would have not have made it to the NCG to be able to show what it could do on the field against Notre Dame.
LikeLike
And don’t forget cupcake Iowa State last year that allowed them a rematch against LSU.
LikeLike
And Iowa State and Baylor are the two schools that have NOT been ranked in the top 2.
LikeLike
bullet – I can’t forget. That’s why I hate both Iowa State and OK State now.
LikeLike
@Alan
Of course as Joyner noted the fact that LSU success under Miles has been entirely tied to their ability to win the turnover battle, OSU actually would have been the toughest matchup for the Tigers since the Cowboys TO margin last year was not only the best it the country, it was historic.
LikeLike
KC Joyner
LikeLike
frug – that 2011 LSU team beat eight ranked teams including the Pac-12 & Rose Bowl Champ at a neutral site, the Big East & Orange Bowl Champ on the road, and the BCS champ on the road. On its way to a 13-0 record and with only 6 home games, only two games were even close. I like that team’s chances against anybody, even OK State. In retrospect, asking my Tigers to beat Alabama three times in a row was just too much. Had LSU been able to close the deal, that season would be viewed as one of the greatest seasons in the history of college football.
LikeLike
@Alan
I would have favored LSU over Okie St. too, I was just pointing out that on paper at least, it would have been a tougher matchup than Alabama.
LikeLike
The B12 would take FSU immediately if they’d go. They won’t.
LikeLike
Frank,
You are correct, until the core schools (NC, Va & Duke) see no other options they have no desire to leave and the ACC survives.
My guess is Delany’s targets to get to 16 are GT & FSU. Those 2 have the demographics aka tv eyeballs and recruits to make them valuable additions.
Of course Jim has to convince his bosses to take a non-AAU school.
Just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Presidents will go for that. They’re still in charge.
LikeLike
Is this where offering JHU (if it happens) comes in? JHU + GT are huge for academics and research, providing some cover for FSU?
LikeLike
GT and FSU to the B1G is the only real option I see to start a run at the ACC and this might not even do it. To much politics for other schools to be first movers.
UVA has a VT problem. The power in the state that forced VT to the ACC is still the power in the state. Its an assumption that the SEC would just run to grab them if UVA left. And that is if UVA even wanted to leave. They don’t need the money like Maryland. VT will have a hard time leaving for the same reason but they are not as flush with cash.
UNC is has it worse. They control 50 percent minus 1 of the NCST BoT so leaving them on a ledge is horrible optics that will get politicos involved. To maximize the value of UNC you really need Duke and it seems from the outside they are close and likely a package deal. Then of course it only takes one WF alum in the right position to screw the whole deal. For every dollar extra UNC makes more in the B1G/SEC they can take 10 in state funding. In a different context this happened just this last year in Florida where a state rep was not getting his way of an unneeded and unwanted by anyone but him and a few local COC types a 12th state university so he threatened to cut from tens to hundreds of millions in state funding to each of the 11 state universities.
BC offers the B1G nothing. The ACC experiment should be more then enough evidence that BC does not move the Boston dial at all. Other then the Boston market they are about as far from a B1G school as you can get. The idea that they would be used to grab ND is well stupid. They play rather infrequently and the B1G would like ND they don’t need ND.
Cuse is similar and I don’t think they bring all that much more then what Rutgers already gave them.
Pitt is in the footprint.
Clemson does not do research and they are a mid tier brand in a small and poor state.
Miami is probably the closet FBS school to AAU status but they are a non elite private.
The SEC given what it appears what they are looking for and what the B1G appears to be what they are looking for are looking at the same 2 schools as their first choice UVA and UNC. To me they seem by far the hardest schools to pry lose and that is if they even wanted to move.
Even with the loss of FSU and GT there is no guarantee at all that the ACC would break apart.
LikeLike
UVA has a VT problem. The power in the state that forced VT to the ACC is still the power in the state. Its an assumption that the SEC would just run to grab them if UVA left. And that is if UVA even wanted to leave. They don’t need the money like Maryland. VT will have a hard time leaving for the same reason but they are not as flush with cash.
Tech’s problem 10 years ago wasn’t so much being in the same conference as UVa (most of the time, they haven’t been), but that the Big East was seemingly in desperate straits without SU, Miami and BC. If UVa lets Slive know it’s not interested in the SEC under any circumstances (it would be a dreadful cultural fit), he’ll take the Gobblers.
UNC is has it worse. They control 50 percent minus 1 of the NCST BoT so leaving them on a ledge is horrible optics that will get politicos involved. To maximize the value of UNC you really need Duke and it seems from the outside they are close and likely a package deal. Then of course it only takes one WF alum in the right position to screw the whole deal. For every dollar extra UNC makes more in the B1G/SEC they can take 10 in state funding. In a different context this happened just this last year in Florida where a state rep was not getting his way of an unneeded and unwanted by anyone but him and a few local COC types a 12th state university so he threatened to cut from tens to hundreds of millions in state funding to each of the 11 state universities.
You’re playing the SWC + Big 8 = Big 12 game, with Wake Forest in the role of Baylor. I don’t think Wake wields anywhere as much power in North Carolina as Baylor does in Texas. If NCSU can be assured SEC membership, UNC will be able to enter the Big Ten, with or without Duke. But does UNC want to give State the SEC imprimatur, knowing it will probably give the Wolfpack a boost in football recruiting? That’s the $64K question.
LikeLike
When Baylor got into the B12 the Texas governor was a Baylor alum. When A&M left the B12 the Texas governor was an A&M alum. If the NC governor is a Wake Forest alum it may not happen. Any member of the legislature will get swamped by all the NC alums.
LikeLike
Difference is UNC doesn’t have the same leverage as Texas. And neither the SEC or Big Ten will be as desperate to add UNC as the Big XII was to get Texas.
LikeLike
I am not playing the SWC game because the ACC right now is not really close to the SWC before the merger. What I am suggesting is political problems with an ACC that looks like it does today might very well (I think likely) appear. While those of discussing expansion on message boards and blogs think its just logical that if x then y we don’t have the actual information that the decision makers have or what the decision makers are looking at. NCST can very well be left out of the SEC. The SEC does not get UNC plus 1 they might very well stay at 14 or take a different track. NCST is not FSU to UF, MSU to UM or TAM to UT there is a much bigger gulf in brand value for NCST. NCST alone is WVU with better academics.
As for Virginia here I am trying to get at is not so much UVA and VT are tied together as both need to have a landing spot. And while its nice to just VT will get a SEC invite this would require UVA and VT both working and talking together with both the SEC and B1G that is a lot of moving parts. The more moving parts the higher the likelihood it falls apart.
What I am suggesting is UVA and UNC need political cover which would require a school like FSU or GT to leave. Either the football brand or another (near) core member to leave.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
A couple interesting articles for consideration. There was a court ruling that allowed the case to go forward in the NCAA ant-trust suit–seehttp://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money
I can’t find the original article, but it was posted on the Victors Board and the post can be found here–http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1359504476.22341&user=mabee
Excerpts:
The idea that the biggest schools could abandon the NCAA was little more than backroom speculation during the recent college shake-ups, but it hit the mainstream when John Calipari, the charismatic head coach of the University of Kentucky men’s basketball team, floated the idea last spring. Calipari, ever the provocateur, predicted that the large schools would consolidate into four major conferences and break away from the NCAA before his career was finished.
“They’re not going to be around long. The NCAA will not,” Calipari told theSporting News. “Before I retire from coaching, they will no longer oversee college athletics. They will [oversee something], but it won’t be the four power conferences—they’ll be on their own.”
A year before, Calipari had suggested that breaking away from the NCAA would allow the biggest schools to institute a stipend system the way they see fit, without it being derailed by the smaller schools or the NCAA. It would also, he said, result in far more money for the schools.
“All that television, all that revenue goes back to the schools,” Calipari said. “You probably have $10 million that would go directly to the schools, to their academics and not have anything to do with athletics. You’d be able to give that on top of the living expense to all your athletes.”
School presidents are loath to discuss the idea of breaking away from the NCAA, though several have indicated that the largest football programs could soon split into their own division. But that doesn’t mean high-level administrators aren’t talking having quiet conversations about leaving the NCAA behind, especially given the amount of money at stake.
“That’s absolutely a feasible option,” Jay Bilas said. “There are things being talked about now that have never been talked about before. The big schools want to operate the way they see fit. If they can do that inside the NCAA structure, I think that’s preferable. But of course they’re thinking about it. They did it in football. We’re talking billions of dollars here. The amount of money that’s at stake, of course they’re considering it.”
Such a break would not be unprecedented. In 1979, the College Football Association, a coalition of the biggest NCAA football programs, attempted to negotiate a national television contract for its members with NBC. The NCAA, involved in its own television negotiations, put its foot down, saying it alone had the authority to negotiate television contracts for members, which it restricted to no more than one televised game per year. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued the NCAA, claiming it had violated federal antitrust law, and the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling allowed the schools and their conferences to negotiate their own television rights deals and effectively split the largest schools from the NCAA for football purposes. (Even today, the NCAA does not regulate the championship and postseason for the Football Bowl Subdivision, college football’s top division. It is the only sport for which that is true.)
Without control over football or a cut of the revenues generated by television, bowls or championships, the NCAA depends almost solely on the end of season men’s basketball tournament for revenue. And does the tournament ever generate revenue! In 2010, the NCAA reached an 14-year agreement, worth $10.8 billion, with CBS and Turner Sports to televise, for the first time, every one of the tournament’s games. If the largest schools, which, with the help of the Bowl Championship Series, just crafted a football playoff, figured out a way to manage an event similar to the NCAA Tournament; say, if they had 64 members and staged a 64 team tournament, a full split from the NCAA would become even more lucrative – and even more probable. “It’d make (schools) more money because it all goes straight to them,” Bilas said. “TV would flock to that.”
* * *
Others, like University of Illinois professor Michael LeRoy, are examining ways college athletes could organize and associate even without full labor protections. LeRoy published a research paper that argues college athletes operate in an “invisible labor market” and function as employees, and as such, they should have the right to bargain collectively. His proposal to fix that – tailored specifically for college athletes — would not allow athletes to bargain over wages and would not afford them the right to strike, but it would allow bargaining and arbitration on other issues, such as health protections and scholarships. The mere threat of organization, LeRoy argues, could cause the NCAA to grant players more of a say in the system.
LeRoy described his proposal as a “piecemeal” reform that would lead to a more vibrant and complete conversation about athletes’ rights in the future.
“As much as I think the NCAA is pretending that these football players are student-athletes and amateurs, especially at big programs, that’s an immovable concept,” LeRoy said. “And if that’s the case, the question becomes, how do you give them non-monetary forms of compensation that do benefit them? I think that would set up a conversation for future generations to say, ‘What the heck? This isn’t amateur athletics at all, so let’s not pretend anymore.’”
But LeRoy says he is pessimistic about the organizing of athletes. Because of that, he thinks changing the status quo in college sports will ultimately come from outside the game, and from an unlikely place: state legislatures.
As far back as 1988, the Nebraska state legislature approved a law that would allow the University of Nebraska, a football powerhouse, to pay a stipend to its players if other states in the Big XII, the conference Nebraska belonged to until 2011, passed similar laws. The legislation was vetoed by then-governor Kay Orr.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers revived the legislation in 2003, and then-governor Mike Johanns pledged to sign that version if it passed. It never did. In recent years, similar legislation has been introduced in Ohio, California and Utah, but none of the proposals passed (though California did pass the aforementioned Student-Athlete Bill of Rights).
LeRoy, however, believes that as the business of college athletics continues to grow, those efforts will continue.
“At some point, this money-making beast is just going to fall under its own weight, where lawmakers at the state level are going to say it’s kind of ridiculous that players don’t get anything out of this,” he said.
LikeLike
Even President Emmert has openly discussed the possibility of schools breaking away from the NCAA. His comments weren’t that different from those of Jay Bilas in this article. He’s said the NCAA needs to do something different.
LikeLike
When John Calipari becomes the moral compass of college athletics, you know there are issues.
I’ve expressed the thought that ND should have joined the BIG for political reasons as much as anything….to combat the power of schools like Oklahoma and Georgia, the ’79 plaintiffs in the referenced lawsuit. We know the result if the power schools break away and make their own rules…….
Of course, the BIG’s claim to the moral high ground ios weak when we’re busy stealing schools from other viable conferences by making confidentiality agreements with the top administrators of public universities.
LikeLike
I’m a little bit confused on the moral high ground issue. The Big Ten didn’t adopt a twelve-team conference first and put together a conference championship game–that was the SEC. The conference also didn’t do any expansion for a long time with Penn State coming onboard in 1991, Nebraska a few years ago and Rutgers/Maryland in 2014. In the case of the latter two, the Big Ten is actually going to be the means for them to get their financial houses in order.
The Big Ten Network may have never come to fruition if ESPN was more generous with its negotiations seven years ago. When the conference did opt to go from eleven teams to twelve, it made a very public announcement about it–it was hardly under the table.
Is the Big Ten unique with requiring confidentiality agreements be signed by potential members? There is a business aspect to all this.
Now if you want to say the conference has been tarnished by what happened at Penn State or the way Delany handled things with Ohio State and Tressel, then I could find room to agree with you.
But I’m a little unsure about how expanding a financially successful composed of most of the major research universities in the country is reason to say the B1G has lost its “claim to the moral high ground”.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten wasn’t requiring every single person that they were talking to regarding expansion to sign confidentiality agreements, then their attorneys would have needed to be fired. It’s strange that the Maryland president made it sound like it was an unusual request or somehow even nefarious when it’s the most basic (albeit essential) document that you need in place when handing over sensitive information about financial metrics and expansion plans. As an attorney reading that article, it made me wonder if there were actually conferences out there that would be idiotic enough to *not* have confidentiality agreements signed prior to talking. It’s insanity to me to not have those types of confidentiality agreements in place for business dealings that are a whole lot less interesting to the public and media than conference expansion (much less something that causes as much commotion as the Big Ten adding a new member).
LikeLike
I’ve done a few M&As, and on one occasion had to sign an NDA prior to disclosure of the identity of the potential buyer. I agree that NDAs are standard operating procedure, especially when both parties are looking up the other’s skirt.
LikeLike
I work on stuff no one really publicly cares about and I still have to work with NDAs.
As to the people that think keeping talks quiet are somehow nefarious, Wallace Loh said something to the effect of “leaders of institutions shouldn’t make decisions based on public opinion”. People with experience and qualifications get put in positions of power for these exact reasons.
LikeLike
To me, it is completely contrary to the basic nature/purpose of a public university to make a decision like that of the MD President and Board with NO prior public discussioin/imput. If it’s not illegal, it shoud be. It is immoral, imo. If that means a certain deal can’t be made, so be it.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod: Most states have at least one public university that has left or joined a conference at some point, without public input. It’s a fairly common occurrence, and so far no state legislature has made it illegal. If you feel that strongly about it, you should take it up with the government in whatever state you reside, but it doesn’t appear to be a priority in any state I’m aware of. Public universities have fairly wide latitude to operate as they see fit, subject to legislative oversight, but not public input on every decision.
LikeLike
Abandoning D1 sports would be a fundamental decision affecting the values and mission of the University and student-athletes in particular that would be outrageous to decide to do without public input.
Changing who the D1 sports teams are scheduled to play against is more an Athletic Department managerial issue. Surely the President should make the final call, but while boosters and T-shirt fans may be all tied up in knots over the decision, its not nearly so fundamental a decision about the values and mission of a D1 University.
LikeLike
I’m not seeing a moral issue here at all. Conferences are just business arrangements. When schools switch conferences, it’s not stealing; it’s just making a better deal, which anyone is free to do at any time.
I agree with @cutter that confidentiality agreements are just standard procedure that any prudent business would adopt in a similar situation.
LikeLike
I-L-L
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
GEAUX #3 LSU Baseball Tigers!
1st pitch is February 15 against Vincent’s turtles.
LikeLike
Enjoy the slaughter (although Maryland did manage to win two of three last year when opening the season at UCLA). Terrapin baseball is the equivalent of Penn State men’s basketball — an inherent lost cause, although being in the Big Ten will give Maryland a more equal playing field, at least where climate is concerned.
LikeLike
It seems that a school like Florida State may jump at an SEC or B1G offer, but as long as the ACC is viable, they would choose to stay there instead of joining the Big XII. Why get your school locked into a conference with a Grant of Rights deal for the next decade when a better offer might come around in a year or two, especially if your current conference seems fine. I think the Big XII will become a desperation move when no other options are available for some schools if the B1G/SEC do raid the ACC. If the B1G/SEC don’t expand, there’s no reason for the Big XII to expand and, thus, no reason for the ACC to fall apart.
LikeLike
It’s not that the Big XII lacks a reason to expand. It’s that they aren’t currently attractive to the schools they want (mainly FSU).
LikeLike
Another thing, in order to get the $$ that they want, one would think that the Big Ten needs to get their network onto the cable companies in their new markets first. Add too many schools at once and you take the risk of not having the $$ you promised to people in the first place.
If the Big Ten can get BTN on basic in NYC, Baltimore and D.C. fairly soon, they will likely push their next expansion move at that point if indeed they want to go in that direction.
LikeLike
Which is why some of us believe were stuck in this holding pattern, everyone is hoping somebody else throws the first punch. B10 and SEC are both waiting on schools that aren’t available unless the ACC falls apart while the top football schools in the ACC (FSU, Miami, Clemson) are holding out for offers from the B10 & SEC.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — Reasons Why North Carolina and Virginia Aren’t Looking to Leave the Conference | Atlantic Coast Convos
All of this heightened urgency seems to ignore some salient facts:
1) The B1G and its potential targets all are incentivized to wait until the results of the UMD/ACC lawsuit are known.
2) The B1G is planting seeds but still doesn’t have to rush to be first; there’s quite a bit of time before new TV contract negotiations begin.
3) The B1G doesn’t have to rush to act. IMHO, when conference armageddon occurs, none of its intended targets would reject an offer out of hand, and there will be enough valued targets for implementation of a Plan A, B or C that still accomplishes demographic, athletic, academic and financial goals.
It the B1G is willing to pump its breaks a bit, we can avoid the ‘sky is falling’ posture some are expressing. Presumptions about rejection and alternate plans are only speculation and not accurate reflections about ‘moral compasses’ or failures by TPTB. We don’t know what’s going on. All will be revealed in time. Under most any conceivable outcome, we’re fine on the academic and financial measures.
LikeLike
Although not mentioned on this thread, the MD/ACC lawsuit has come up over and over again. I think most people realize that further defections are unlikely before that matter is resolved.
I don’t see any evidence that the B1G is in a rush.
LikeLike
Let’s assume the Big Ten will want to wrap up its television negotiations sometime in late 2015 to early 2016 because that’s when the current contracts with ABC/ESPN and CBS Sports are concluded.
If the conference wanted to have all its membership in place for the beginning of the 2016/7 seasons and the lead time to integrate teams into the conference is 18 months or so, then we’re looking at having all the invitations accepted by 2015.
If the B1G wanted to go into the negotiations with its new conference members already in place, then these invitations may have to be accepted in the 2014 time frame instead.
Of course, we all know the SEC Network is scheduled to kick off in January 2014, so you have a timetable in place there as well.
Can you tell me why again the Big Ten isn’t in a rush?
LikeLike
When the O.P. referred to “a rush,” I don’t think 2 years from now is what he had in mind.
Even one year from now is a comparative eternity, next to what most Internet gossips are claiming.
LikeLike
^^^ What Marc Shepherd said.
Making inquiries and setting dominoes isn’t the same as “Decision by Tuesday!!” If we devised an operational matrix based on accepting your assumption that negotiations are wrapped up in late 2015 and another assumption based on the timing of UMD/ACC concluding the lawsuit, your timetable for announcing new acquisitions (excluding something like JHU which doesn’t affect the football pot) would fall in-between those time frames. Of course if UNC/UVA/FSU (in particular) came to us and said now or we’re going to the SEC (which hasn’t already happened to this point or they’d be in one place or another), the time table might change.
LikeLike
I agree with most of you that the ACC-Maryland suit has to be settled before we see very much movement in any of these scenarios.
The Washington Post wrote an article comparing what’s happening now with what West Virginia did–see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/01/28/maryland-acc-legal-battle-has-similarities-to-west-virginia-big-east-situation-also-possibly-precedent-setting-differences/
Also see http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/51703/update-on-acc-vs-maryland That article says the next hearing on February 18 will help decide if the case is judged in North Carolina or Maryland.
After that, I don’t know what the timetable will be for the lawsuit going forward. There may be a settlement out of court or the ACC may opt to pursue it entirely through the legal system. The lawyers on this board may be able to give us a better timetable on this, but is it realistic to think this will go into 2014 or will it be wrapped up this year?
Let’s say that a decision is made by the fall of 2013 and the SEC Network is due to come on line in January 2014. In that scenario, it’s not hard to imagine that schools might receive invitations later this year so that the newly reconfigured Big Ten and SEC could be in place and running by 2016.
So no, I don’t think this is going to take place tomorrow or next week or next month. But sometime later this year–I could see that.
Of course, Delany went ahead and invited Rutgers and Maryland pretty much knowing there would be a legal battle involved in both their cases. While some of the ACC schools might want to take a wait-and-see position, it’s not going to stop the B1G from greasing the skids and making its case so that when the time comes, they can move pretty quickly.
LikeLike
cutter, you’ve already nailed why the Big Ten isn’t in a rush, I’ll go with your explanation. Having membership in place as of the start of 2016 looks fast enough to me, no need to rush.
LikeLike
I think there is a better chance that the ACC expands west into Big 12 territory. It would make a lot more sense for Texas and Oklahoma to dump TCU, Baylor, and Tech and organize a western flank for the ACC. Likely candidates to accompany Texas and Oklahoma to the ACC include: Kansas, Iowa State, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State…probably in that order.
Why? There is more population, bigger markets, more tv subscribers, and bigger money to be had eastwards. And Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State would love the ACC academia.
First obvious obstacle is the grant of rights. However, it doesn’t last forever and there is always a business solution to undesired contractual commitments. I truly believe the ACC and Big 12 will seriously consider an alliance. It would likely include football and basketball scheduling and even some bowl games or bowl alliances using a tiered approach for selection.
Let’s say the ACC-Big 12 scheduling alliance begins in 2016. It will likely last 4 or 5 years. That gets us to about 2020. By 2020, there will only be about 4 years left on the grant of rights. At that point, the ACC and Big 12 defectors will be able to come to a business solution with the Big 12 to release the grant of rights (ie, an exit fee and a continued scheduling arrangement).
Here’s my guess at the 20-team ACC with five 4-team pods:
NORTH ATLANTIC
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Notre Dame* (full member)
MID ALTANTIC
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Louisville
West Virginia*
COASTAL
North Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake Forest
WEST
Texas*
Oklahoma*
Kansas*
Iowa State*
SOUTH
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
LikeLike
In the alternative, if Notre Dame remains a partial independent, I could see this 18-team divisional alignment (sorry West Virginia):
NORTH
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Texas*
Oklahoma*
Kansas*
Iowa State*
SOUTH
North Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake Forest
Louisville
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
LikeLike
Go UT and OU are going to leave B12 for less money in the ACC? Right.
LikeLike
And suddenly UT doesn’t have the “Tech” problem the B1G referred to a couple years ago, and OU lite is suddenly abandoned by OU?
LikeLike
The ACC has too much dead weight to produce the $$$ that will make it attractive. If an alliance produces enough good will between the top schools then both conferences could be dissolved with a new conference created from the best of the ACC/B12. Even though possible, it is not likely to occur since a majority of both conferences is required in the new one.
LikeLike
SWC/Big8 revisited?
LikeLike
For those interested in the JH lacrosse rumor, check out SB Nation artivle by Honya Suxa filed 1/17/13…….article is nothing special but there are 72 comments concerning the article from JH and east coast LAX fans.
LikeLike
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/1/17/3886382/conference-realignment-maryland-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-big-ten-10
LikeLike
If it does come to fruition and JHU joins the Big Ten and CIC, it’d be a huge addition.
Still not sure how it would work; I’d assume that they’d join both, but who in the world knows.
For the Big Ten, this is uncharted territory to even be considered. How does JHU’s TV deal work and all the rest are huge issues; what kind of say would they even have in the conference affairs if they’re just there for men’s/women’s lacrosse?… Do they want to be in the CIC; they already generate something around $1-2 billion in annual research alone, so do they want to collaborate with the CIC as it would seem they don’t need to?
LikeLike
zeek, I’d have to think JHU would be in the CIC if they joined. Thats the whole reason the B1G would invite them.
LikeLike
ESPNU contract could remain in effect for JH’s home games….purpose of JH is to make a bigger, better league….JH’s games at BIG’s schools could be shown on BTN.
LikeLike
Don’t care for this. I have nothing against associate members in principle, but the Big Ten decided to not have them and avoided them in hockey even though it could have helped a long time ago.
LikeLike
Conferences aren’t religions. They’re just business arrangements for mutual self-interest. I’m not really sure which associate memberships were seriously considered in the past (if any) and rejected. Maybe those weren’t in the Big Ten’s interest, according to whatever definition they were using at the time.
But as long as you’ve nothing against it in principle, you ought to just consider each one on a case-by-case basis. The research synergies, assuming JH joins the CIC, are obvious and should require no explanation. Competitively, JH is a top program in Lacrosse, and they have no other sports in Division I.
As far as principle goes, the Big Ten could still say that they’re only admitting AAU members in geographically contiguous states, and all the member schools are putting all their Division I varsity sports in the conference, if the Big Ten offers the sport.
LikeLike
I suppose part of my objection goes that having Notre Dame as a non-football member makes more sense to me than any other move once we move past all or nothing.
(Note: Oddly I’ve got nothing against school because their academics aren’t considered that good. Different schools have different purposes and I could care less whether a school is a commuter school or a research school. In that light, I kind of think the CIC should be seperated from the Big Ten)
LikeLike
I suppose part of my objection goes that having Notre Dame as a non-football member makes more sense to me than any other move once we move past all or nothing.
The difference with ND is as follows: their athletic reputation is overwhelmingly in football. In men’s basketball, they have never even made it to a Final Four, and they’ve made it to the Sweet Sixteen just once in the last twenty years. They are not a basketball power in any sense.
If they don’t join in football, then what exactly are you getting? Suppose the Big Ten gave them the same terms the ACC did: all sports but football, plus five football games a year, and the Irish keep their existing TV deal. Well, ND is already playing three Big Ten teams annually. You’d add two games, only one of which would be in a Big Ten stadium.
So, you’re going to do that deal for one home game a year?
LikeLike
@Marc
While I don’t disagree with your point, ND did make the final 4 in ’78 when UK beat Duke for the title.
LikeLike
I suppose part of my objection goes that having Notre Dame as a non-football member makes more sense to me than any other move once we move past all or nothing.
The difference with ND is as follows: their athletic reputation is overwhelmingly in football. In men’s basketball, they have never even made it to a Final Four, and they’ve made it to the Sweet Sixteen just once in the last twenty years. They are not a basketball power in any sense.
ND has won a NCAA title in women’s basketball (2001, over Purdue), has become a national power in men’s lacrosse, and has done well in baseball despite its poor climate. ND’s heritage is primarily in football, but it’s no more a one-trick pony than, say, Nebraska. (And Penn State isn’t, either — remember, it’s won NCAA titles in both men’s and women’s volleyball.)
LikeLike
Sure, I’m well aware that Notre Dame is good in other sports. But the Big Ten doesn’t particularly need them in those sports. As I said upthread, conference membership is a business decision, driven by mutual self-interest. You can see why the ACC gave Notre Dame the deal they did, given the ACC’s obvious vulnerability. The Big Ten doesn’t have those concerns, and therefore, it doesn’t gain a lot if the Irish join without football.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Sure, I’m well aware that Notre Dame is good in other sports. But the Big Ten doesn’t particularly need them in those sports. As I said upthread, conference membership is a business decision, driven by mutual self-interest. You can see why the ACC gave Notre Dame the deal they did, given the ACC’s obvious vulnerability. The Big Ten doesn’t have those concerns, and therefore, it doesn’t gain a lot if the Irish join without football.”
Unless the B10 views it as a foothold to get ND in FB later. If ND ever chooses to join a conference, clearly the one with all their other sports is the most likely option. Besides, it gains you some eyeballs in NYC and other places and may soften the negative feelings for the B10 that some ND fans have. That would be a reasonable basis to make the business decision to add ND.
LikeLike
@Brian
That’s what the Big East thought.
LikeLike
frug,
The BE wasn’t wrong, they just couldn’t last long enough to keep ND around until they decided to join a conference in football. The ACC has better odds of persisting. The B10 is unlikely to fold before ND makes their decision.
LikeLike
Eric:
The key point is that the B10 picks and chooses the sport they accept an affiliate member in. The ACC agreed to take ND in in all sports, even though ND’s teams in, say, golf and cross country don’t exactly add value. So sure, I’d be fine with the B10 taking in ND as an affiliate member in football. Maybe even as an affiliate member in hockey. They can house their golf and cross country squads elsewhere.
LikeLike
@ everyone:
the ND “associate membership” question is interesting.
but consider a counter-factual. how would we feel if ND came to the B1G and said they wanted to be football-only, but independent in everything else?
I honestly don’t know.
John Hopkins is lax-only, but independent (or DivII/III) in everything else. this is wow, wonderful, good, yes, please because it’s freaking JHU.
If ND were allowed to be a football-only member of the B1G, it would NOT be on account of its academic reputation.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with all D1 in, even though only 1, satisfying the all in “rule”. I do have a problem with the minimum number of sports (D1, to be consistent) requirement.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame said they wanted to be associate members in football, hockey, indoor track and women’s soccer, and were dropping all of their other programs down to D3 or club, sure, that’s ample all or nothing for me. But I’m not sure I’m down with competing D1 conference affiliation in a Big Ten sponsored sport.
LikeLike
The key point is that the B10 picks and chooses the sport they accept an affiliate member in. The ACC agreed to take ND in in all sports, even though ND’s teams in, say, golf and cross country don’t exactly add value.
You are aware the the ACC chose to add ND’s golf and cross county teams aren’t you?
LikeLike
I may be wrong but JHU has a singular exemption. My understanding is that future drop downs would be limited by the lower levels scholarship rules. Who’s going to do that in a major sport?
LikeLike
frug:
Not on the merits of the golf and cross county teams, they didn’t. You think the ACC would have taken those teams if they could pick and choose which of ND’s sports teams they would admit and which they could leave out?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 ~ the NCAA didn’t directly address the case of a D1 school dropping down to D3 when their own coverage of the rule change linked to above ~ they talked about the case of a D2 or D3 already sponsoring a D1 sport in 2010 (and in the case of a D3 school, having scholarships in 2004 in order to continue to offer scholarships). No indication there whether the grandfather clause that applied to D2 and D3 as of 2010 could be used by a current D1 school to drop down to D2 but to KEEP one each of its men and women’s D1 sports: that text is, after all, characterizing the rule, not the rule itself.
LikeLike
I have no idea if Johns Hopkins would join the Big 10, in a capacity similiar to the University of Chicago, but I have little doubt the Big 10 would be very happy to accept the #2 rated Medical Research University in America (Only behind Harvard). Their Lacrosse Program (And a Big 10 Lacrosse Conference to be shown on the Big 10 Network) would simply be icing on the cake. I have read about comparing Lacrosse to Hockey, and the situations are quite different. The only non-Big 10 members playing Division 1 Hockey, while being an AAU Member are Ivy League Schools and Boston University (Joined last year). Since we know AAU Membership is a requirement for the Big 10 (Minus Nebraska of course), they were not going to add Lake Superior State or Denver College just for Hockey, so they simply waited until an AAU Member (In this case Penn State), decided to add Division 1 Hockey. One other important point: The idea of Big 10 Lacrosse is actually quite new. Possible member number 3 (Michigan) is new to Lacrosse and numbers 4 & 5 (Maryland & Rutgers) have not joined yet. Gut feeling one day the Lacrosse Conference will occur. It could be North Carolina joining, it could be Hopkins, it could be another Big 10 School, but one day it is happening.
LikeLike
Yes, in a very short period of time, Big Ten Men’s Lacrosse went from being in the same position as Men’s Fencing and Volleyball or Women’s Fencing or Water Polo to looking at being one team away from an AQ championship in 2014. Indeed, as “Are we going to be pursuing a Big Ten women’s lacrosse championship” went from a “it might be nice in the long run” question to, “are we going to be pursuing a Big Ten’s women’s lacrosse championship once MD and Rutgers joins?”, and once discussions start along that front, the question of Big Ten men’s lacrosse being one short of AQ would be tagging along right on its heels.
LikeLike
I would be shocked if UNC left the ACC in 2013. The football agent and academic scandals have engulfed the campus. The Chancellor, Holden Thorpe is returning to the faculty. The AD, Bubba Cunningham arrived from Tulsa last year. Who does Delaney negotiate with? The UNC Board of Governors is tied down trying to save state funding with a new Republican legislature. Maybe within 2 years when the Maryland vs ACC lawsuit is settled, when the B1G nails down the new TV contract and when a new Chancellor (the school they come from could be a clue) consolidates power.
And B1G can be patient because UNC will never go to the SEC. Football does not drive the athletic department. Butch Davis tried to create an SEC-caliber football program and all it brought was woe.
LikeLike
Eventually, football will have to drive the athletic department, unless UNC wants to be East Carolina at Chapel Hill. The sooner the folks on Tobacco Road realize that, the better off they’ll be.
LikeLike
Why? Why does everyone assume that you need extra money to run a team? Has anyone ever compared football budgets? Where does the money go? Probably to lesser sports and perhaps the general fund. That might be important with a mismanaged school in a stagnant state, but is it the case everywhere?
Money does not equal football success. Rather, football success = football success. And perhaps football success = money. The fact that the SEC is good at football has less to do with the finances of their athletic departments and more to do with their proximity to some of the best talent in the country–being sandwiched between Texas and Florida.
Long before this money got crazy, North Carolina lost Mack Brown to Texas. Is there any scenario where Texas will not always have more money than UNC? Even within a conference, how many B1G schools can keep up with Ohio State?
This money thing is so WAY overblown it is unreal. It’s not a stat. It’s not an end. I am not even sure its the means…
LikeLike
You’re certainly right that money alone can’t win football games. But if you’re suggesting they’re entirely uncorrelated, that’s probably wrong. It would be interesting to have some data, but I’d be surprised if there is no relationship whatsoever.
Now, to some extent success is self-reinforcing. If you field a winning team, then more fans come to the games, more boosters donate money, more viewers want to see you on TV, and so forth. That is why the top dogs in a sport tend to remain on top: having built up that kind of advantage, it takes real incompetence over many years to squander it.
The real issue is that, in most athletic departments, football and basketball make money, and every other sport loses money. At Michigan and Ohio State, even after they pay for their other sports, they’ve got money left over, which they keep plowing into new facilities. At Maryland, they have a deficit and had to eliminate seven sports.
The real chase is to make more money from football and basketball, so that the other sports can be paid for without having to borrow money or get subsidies from the general fund. Of course, there are some schools that made dumb investments. There are something like 300+ Division I schools. Anytime you have that many of anything, not all will be well managed. But the basic idea that football and basketball pay for everything (or almost everything) else is a good rule of thumb.
So the question for a school like UNC is, if the Big Ten can offer $10 million more a year, or $15 more a year, can they afford to turn that down?
LikeLike
Right, it isn’t irrelevant. But if the Big 10 has the most revenue, but the poorer (right now) SEC teams choose to make football a greater revenue priority–will adding $5M more to SEC coffers impact football? More likely, it will be pocketed or moved to different sports. Meaning that the $5M really does not change the balance.
The Forbes data is flawed, but interesting. The ACC is not that far off the SEC contract per team. Yet $$$ is the excuse. If the SEC can win Championships, nobody else has an excuse.
FSU spent $4M on their WBB last year. Why? Why should FSU go to the Big XII just because they pay stupid money on a non-revenue sport?
Anyway, I agree. I’d like to see the analysis. Not sure any data would be rock solid (reporting money differently, etc.), but it would be interesting.
Either way, I don’t see $$$ making UNC fall off the football or basketball map. For the former, they need to get on the map first; for the latter, it is just a down season. It’s not $$$.
LikeLike
One flaw in Forbes is that they take the 14 team ACC revenue and divide by 12.
LikeLike
And since the SEC hasn’t re-worked their deal, they are taking the 12 team SEC revenue and dividing by 14.
LikeLike
That’s one possibility. The other is that UNC just decides it’s better off getting all their unpleasant business taken care of at once, instead of dragging it out. Like removing a band-aid in one big pull, instead of slowing peeling it.
LikeLike
The meeting showed the B12 has a very realistic view of its expansion possibilities. The B12 indicated that BYU, SMU, UCONN, Cincinnati, etc. will not happen since they do not provide the $$$ required. A B12/ACC alliance is not going to lead to a first strike raid by the B12, but it might give the B12 information useful for moves after B1G and/or SEC raids. It may also make ACC schools more comfortable going to the B12 if the ACC gets raided.
LikeLike
It appears to me that if Delaney really wants to add to 16 teams and mazimize cable TV revenue, he would be on the phone with FSU and Georgia Tech with an invitation today. Five point five million Cable TV boxes in Florida alone. Another two plus million in Georgia. And, I was in Key West two weeks ago and noticed a BIG TEN bar there not far from the dock area. Which suggests there are plenty of existing alumni to support cable sets for the B1G not to mention the many Seminole fans and the few travelingpartner, Yellow Jacket fans.
LikeLike
The open question is, under what circumstances are the presidents and chancellors willing to accept Florida State. Is it: 1) No effing way; 2) We’ll think about it; 3) Yes, but only if 3 AAU schools come with you; 4) Something else?
Those are decisions Jim Delany is not allowed to make.
LikeLike
I would like to see:
The Big Ten grab Virginia and North Carolina. Then have 4 pods that each feature one football King. West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin; North: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern and Rutgers; South: Ohio State, Illinois, Indiana and Purdue; East Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.
The SEC grab NC State and Virginia Tech. North: Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt. South: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State. East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and NC State. West: Mizzou, LSU, Texas A&M, and Arkansas.
The Big 12 then grab Miami, FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Notre Dame. West: Notre Dame, Iowa State, West Virginia, and Louisville. East: Miami, FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech. North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State. South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU.
The PAC 12 UNLV, New Mexico, SMU, and Houston. Those are probably the best 4 mid majors that the PAC will have a chance to get. West: UNLV, Utah, Arizona an Arizona St. East: Colorado, New Mexico, SMU, and Houston. North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. South: Cal, Standford, USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
If you have pods in the Big Ten, then you must have Michigan and Ohio State in the same pod to ensure the play one another annually. The same probably goes for the former ACC/Big East schools, the four far western teams and the intrastate rivalries (IL-NW, UM-MSU, PU-IU).
Assuming a nine-game conference schedule and a four pod system, here’s how it should be done-
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
In Years 1 and 2, Pods A and B form one division and Pods C and D form the other. The teams in Pod B play two teams from Pod D each year and the teams in Pod A play two teams from Pod C each year.
In Years 3 and 4, Pods A and D form one division and Pods B and C make up the other. The teams in Pod B play the other two teams in Pod D and the teams in Pod A play the other two team from Pod C.
This set up preserves most of the rivalries and keeps Nebraska/Wisconsin permanently in one division and Michigan/Ohio State permanently in the other so there’s some semblance of competitive balance. It also ensures that a team will play each team in its pod four times over a four year period and the remaining twelve teams in the conference two times in the same four year period.
LikeLike
Oh, my. The years that A&C pods are in a division together, the league will be seriously unbalanced. I get that future performance isn’t totally predictable, but no one would tolerate over-weighting them to that extent.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd-
Don’t worry because the A & C pods would never be together in this setup.
The only combinations that will exist are A-B, C-D in Years 1 & 2 and A-D, B-C in Years 3 & 4. After Year 4, we go back to the same combination from Years 1 & 2
Here’s what a Pod C program Michigan would be looking at as its nine conference opponents:
Years 1 & 2 (Divisions are A-B and C-D)
Pod C: Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod A: Nebraska, Minnesota
Years 3 & 4 (Divisions are A-D and B-C)
Pod C: Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod A: Iowa, Wisconsin
As I mentioned above, in this setup, Pods A & C would never be put together in the same division in order to maintain some semblance of competitive balance between the two divisions over the four year period. Consider them permanently assigned to one division with Pods B & D moving back and forth between divisions every two years.
So what would a school from Pod D have in its nine-game conference schedule. Let’s use Maryland as an example:
Years 1 & 2 (Divisions are A-B and C-D)
Pod D: Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod B: Illinois, Purdue
Years 3 & 4 (Divisions are A-D and B-C)
Pod D: Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod A: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
Pod B: Northwestern, Indiana
In that four year period of 36 conference games, a team will play the programs in its pod 12 times (3 teams X 4 games over four years) and will play the other 12 teams in the conference 24 times (12 teams X 2 games over four years). In that four year period, each team will have one home and one road game with the teams from the other pods and two home and two road games with the teams in its own pod.
This setup pretty much mimics what the WAC did during the brief period of time it had 16 teams. While every rivalry game in the Big Ten won’t get played each year (ex. Michigan-Minnesota for the Little Brown Jug or Ohio State-Illinois for the Illinibuck), they’ll at least be played two times out of four years. This setup also ensures that the in-state rivalry games (Purdue-Indiana, Michigan-Michigan State, Illinois-Northwestern) are on the schedule annually. Plus the four western teams (Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota) get to play one another each year as well as the four eastern most teams (Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech).
Finally, of course, Michigan-Ohio State is assured of being played each year as well. 🙂
LikeLike
The big ten only took Rutgers to grow into the New York market the best way to do that is to make sure they play one of the crown jewels in football and basketball every year. That’s why I like them to play Michigan and Michigan St. In a home and home every year in basketball and play Michigan every year in football. Northwestern would be a good match-up for them because there at about equal caliber. That’s why I think you play nine games in football and eighteen in basketball in conference. With 3 cross division games, then rotate the other 9 times that are outside of your pod. An example of the cross over match ups would be:
Michigan-Ohio St.-Penn St.-Iowa.
Michigan St.-Indiana-North Carolina-Wisconsin
Rutgers-Purdue-Virginia-Nebraska.
Northwestern- Illinois-Maryland-Minnesota.
North-South-East-West
This guarantees a crown jewel home game every year for Rutgers.
LikeLike
UNC and UVA will never go for that. That “South” division would be straight Yank to them. Only way you get coveted ACC teams is if you take 4+ of them.
LikeLike
I’m just starting a new post because I got lost.
JH is an interesting idea. I like that they are all in, the academics are huge, and it’s a good sweetener for future considerations.
That said. If they do this, they’d be crazy not to figure out a way to get Toronto at least in a similar situation.
Frug, I’m not often sarcastic. The ping pong plan is more of a thought of taking an idea to it’s logical and/or absurd conclusion.
LikeLike
Toronto…..you mean hockey, I assume? I would assume their mens and womens teams play tough competition now….
LikeLike
I’m saying if we’re looking at tying up quality CIC members and possible eyeballs, Toronto is a no-brainer. Question is whether they’d want to move to US hockey.
LikeLike
And if the NCAA let them.
LikeLike
would let them
LikeLike
yes, i am being a broken record (huh? what’s that?). anyway, JHU is not just “some” AAU institution. It is on par with — not the same as — but on par with Harvard, Stanford and Univ. of Chicago. the B1G COP/C will happily, quickly and enthusiastically make exceptions for JHU. the B1G will not do the same for Toronto or Iowa State or anybody other than JHU, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and MIT. This is my opinion.
LikeLike
JHU is #1 in research funding per year.
Getting them into the CIC would be a monster addition.
LikeLike
Agreed. Getting JHU affiliated with other Big Ten schools via the CIC is an academic no brainer. I’ve got to assume that is behind this lacrosse talk and bring able to sponsor a men’s lacrosse league as a result is simply a nice bonus.
JHU is not just “any” school academically, even compared to most AAU schools. I don’t see the fears that this could be the start of a slippery slope given that they are a pretty unique opportunity that wouldn’t be replicated.
LikeLike
Its seems quite possible that what is behind it is they were throwing ideas around, and someone said, “well, if the rules on associate members were to change, who would we want? And who would be most likely to help us get that rule changed?” And the answer was, “Hopkins as a Lacrosse associate is our obvious first choice, and some kind of CIC associate as well would be an angle that might get the rule changed.”
“But would Hopkins go for that?” “I dunno, only way to find out is to ask them.”
That fits perfectly with the reporting from both sides.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
Just because I like talking about them so much, Toronto is on par with all of the schools you mention. It is also sits in a population center of over 5 million people or so – 4th or 5th largest north american market, I think.
I agree JH is worth considering and if the B10 goes down that road, they’d be crazy not to look at Toronto and figure out a way to make it happen.
LikeLike
Toronto’s a monster university. They’d definitely accommodate them if they could.
LikeLike
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=184040569&mid=184040569&sid=901&style=2
—Purple Cat Book speaks!
“My friend went over the top in telling me from the start that Rutgers would not be part of any deal. He laughed in my face afterward, and said “what do you expect?” That thing was kept under wraps for a very long time and only leaked to ESPN after it had been an absolutely done deal. So no, I have no idea what to expect anymore. Further, I just moved from Chicago to Denver to work with the USOC, so no more beers with my friend. It has been a fun ride, but my insider connection to the inner workings of the Big Ten is now exactly 1,200 miles away.
He’s a prick anyway, never should have listened to him. And you all never should have listened to me!”
lol
LikeLike
I am an alum of both tOSU and Northwestern. I know this is harsh, but I don’t care. As I sit here in my chair, I am mortified that anyone would associate that fraud with my school.
LikeLike
“But how many conference games will be played? Burke said the Big Ten has asked the athletic directors to put a moratorium on scheduling non-conference games after 2020. In fact, the league has told schools to schedule four non-conference games in 2014 and 2015, three in 2016, 2017 and 2018 and only two in 2019 and 2020.”
Hmmm, This does make one think.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20130126/SPORTS020101/301260031/How-will-14-team-Big-Ten-look-s-still-anyone-s-guess
LikeLike
Maybe a revived B1G/Pac 12 alliance or somehting like that starting in 2019.
LikeLike
I doubt it. Expansion as made that more difficult. Plus, the Big Ten is still pretty peeved at the PAC for backing out of the deal after the Big Ten had already started clearing their schedules (tOSU alone cancelled series with Tennessee and Georgia specifically because of the alliance.)
LikeLike
Big 12 has also put a halt on future ooc.
The big conspiracy would be a plan to bolt the NCAA.
LikeLike
First off, it sounds like the Big Ten has made a decision to stick with an eight-game conference schedule for 2014/5. That might suggest that they’re planning on having only fourteen teams in the B1G in that time frame. It also probably reflects the reality that teams have already scheduled their four non-conference opponents for those two seasons and that it’d be problematic to cancel or reschedule a number of games. It might also suggest that the B1G isn’t ready to move conference games up the the first three weeks of September quite yet.
The 2016 season and beyond certainly leaves open the possibility of nine-game conference schedules for a three year period with a chance for a 10-game schedule to be implemented in 2019/20. It doesn’t necessarily mean the latter will happen, just that there’s a chance of it taking place.
This might also indicate that the conference feels it’s not prepared to go to 16- or more programs in the conference earlier than the 2016 season. Given the current ACC/Maryland lawsuit and the timeline for when the future television negotiations are going to take place, that makes sense as well.
If new members of the conference have to be in place by 1 July 2016 (start of the B1G fiscal year) and the transition period is a year minimum (it was a little over 12 months between when Nebraska accepted the B1G invite to when it actually joined the conference), then any additional schools would need to be accepted NLT the summer of 2015. If the transition period is 18 months, then the invitations might have to be accepted at the end of 2014.
LikeLike
cutter,
The B10 will likely avoid 9 games before the new TV deal. That would be a fairly major change to deal with 2 years before the TV deal ends. I’m guessing they’d prefer to negotiate just once.
LikeLike
wholly owned subsidiary?
LikeLike
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/1/30/3934068/poll-should-the-b10-add-john-hopkins
Express your opinion on the B10 adding JHU.
LikeLike
Current results:
Hell yes, the BTN needs spring lacrosse (14 votes) – 27%
Only if they also join the CIC (31 votes) – 60%
Hell no, don’t start down the slippery slope of partial members (6 votes) – 11%
___
I think the issue for most people is joining the CIC. Many here are assuming it, but what if they only join for lacrosse? So far, it’s 2-1 against adding them in that case.
LikeLike
However, the what are the odds of that? JHU may decide on that route (B10 hockey with no CIC), but it seems unlikely to me.
LikeLike
Nobody knows the odds of that. Maybe the B10 would refuse that. Maybe JHU would only do it that way. None of us know. But it’s the more interesting question since a large majority of people seems to be OK with the concept of an associate member.
LikeLike
According to a recent post on MGoBlog (see http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/probable-realignment-scenario-971-wxyt), Doug Karsch who regularly covers Michigan sports says his sources tell him that 12 of the 14 B1G schools have been set regarding divisions.
East: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana
West: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota
The conference is still deliberating on where Michigan State and Purdue are going to reside. Not much surprise there, but just another source saying that geography with a sense of competitive balance is what the B1G is looking for IRT the division setup.
LikeLike
If true, I would put MSU in the east. Everyone in the west will want Michigan as much as possible. If they are required to play MSU every year that reduces every else’s access. Splitting IU/PU doesn’t require Michigan to have a fixed opponent.
LikeLike
Yes. I agree 100% with this.
A Michigan-Michigan State crossover game would be a bad idea; keep them together in my opinion.
LikeLike
MSU West, Purdue East and this will be perfect.
LikeLike
Competitively yes, but losing Michigan games would hurt the Western schools.
LikeLike
Then they shouldn’t agree to putting 3 kings in the east. Once they agree to that, they lose the right to complain about not playing one of them enough. When MI is less available, that means more OSU (and PSU).
LikeLike
MSU to the east with crossovers. Just to spite Brian.
Nah, I kid; it is my favored arrangement, though.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter, I hate all of the choices. I frankly hope the B10 suffers from this. I hope NYC never cracks, MD and RU fail, the west shrivels from lack of attention and PSU and MSU (and hopefully MI) suffer from being in a stacked division. By 2014, I’m an OSU fan only.
LikeLike
Brian,
I kind of hope the same thing (or at least am indifferent). All the conference chaos as made me realize I don’t care about their financial strength/success anymore. I’ve got Ohio/Midwestern pride and will continue to have some conference pride, but it’s a diminished pride and based more on talking to conference fans more than rooting because the team is “Big Ten.” This I think is the long term danger in college changes. Conference pride at this level is very unique to college sports. Loosing regional focus and bigger playoffs are going to diminish it over the long run.
LikeLike
Eric,
CFB and the B10 have unintentionally done almost everything in their power to push me away. Going to 12 teams, expanding to 14, talking about annexing the ACC, refusing to go to 9 games while expanding, ruining the Rose Bowl, etc all just lower my enthusiasm for any non-OSU game. I refuse to watch The Game when OSU is wearing alternate jerseys, so I’ve only heard the last several. I will not watch the expanded playoff unless OSU is in it. I may be down to watching a handful of games per year by 2014. On the bright side, I’ll have a lot of free time on Saturdays to do other things.
LikeLike
“I refuse to watch The Game when OSU is wearing alternate jerseys, so I’ve only heard the last several.”
You refuse to watch The Game, but you post utter bullshit here 50 times a day. Grand.
LikeLike
I do it just for you, greg.
LikeLike
I hope this is wrong because if Purdue goes East the Illinois will have gotten screwed. Losing games against both the Indiana schools and tOSU would suck.
LikeLike
I agree that Illinois is hurt the most (tradition-wise) in this scenario. It’ll be interesting to see if they deem this acceptable.
LikeLike
That Purdue-Illinois game is almost a must. Purdue is closer to Illinois than to IU……
LikeLike
Yet in the 11-school era, IU was a protected game for Illinois while PU wasn’t, so the powers-that-be seem to disagree with you (and it isn’t because of Northwestern; neither PU or IU are rivals to us; we’re pretty much indifferent).
LikeLike
I think the B10 went with proximity. PU/IL and IN/IL are similar distances while IN/NW would be a much longer drive. It’s a shame that they dropped the Purdue Cannon game for it, though. Maybe IN strongly requested IL or PU really wanted NW or NW requested PU despite Richard’s ambivalence.
LikeLike
I know that for me personally as an Illini fan, I have a lot more vitriol toward Indiana compared to Purdue (albeit it stems from basketball instead of football). Prior to me writing about conference realignment, the most frequently read post on this blog was this scorched Earth piece (which ended up getting carried on Deadspin) on Satan’s Spawn (Kelvin Sampson) prying Eric Gordon away from an oral commitment to Illinois:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/hoosier-fleecing-a-qa-with-frank-the-tank-on-the-eric-gordon-debacle/
LikeLike
@Frank – I noticed that post only generated four comments. When you started writing about realignment, did you expect the traffic and following you ended up with? Also it seems that you’re a fairly active message board poster, what was your motivation for starting the blog instead of just posting your thoughts there?
LikeLike
@Mike – Good questions.
I had absolutely no idea or expectation that I would end up with the traffic and following regarding conference realignment. All I knew was that I found it to be an interesting topic and there weren’t really many (if any) places discussing it in-depth or beyond “Cincinnati played really well last year and they’re close to Ohio State, so the Big Ten should add them” types of comments. That’s part of why I ended up posting more on the blog as opposed to just message boards, as well. (The blog itself was initially started as a vanity project to post my thoughts on the Illini and Chicago sports.) Back then, only a handful of people were really discussing realignment regularly (Big East fans being one of the few groups doing so since they have been in constant “Should we expand or split?” mode since the ACC first raided them 10 years ago).
Ultimately, I was in the right place at the right time. There was an issue (conference realignment) that wasn’t being discussed or understood very well in the mainstream media or even by niche sports blogs and message boards, that issue quickly exploded into one that dominated college sports, and I happened to be in a first mover position when that occurred.
One general observation after witnessing how this blog has grown over the years: I’m now a large believer in “The Tipping Point” theory of building an audience when it comes to the web. Audiences on the web don’t build in a linear fashion. Instead, they typically build very rapidly as a result of a catalyst or critical mass of factors occurring at the same… or they never build at all. It’s kind of like how a seedy neighborhood can stay that way for decades, but when gentrification occurs, it’s usually swift and completely transforms an area within only a few years. I had been writing this blog for over 4 years with a steady audience and even regular mentions in places like Deadspin during that timeframe, but conference realignment was the issue that made it explode and it happened within literally the span of one month. I wish that I were smart enough to say that I planned it that way, yet I certainly wasn’t (other than subconsciously filling a void in the web marketplace of ideas and stumbling upon the fact that a lot of other people noticed that there was a void, too).
LikeLike
Yes! THAT’S the reason why I want Michigan State in the East. Its not that I’m an annoying OSU snob about playing Maryland, Rutgers AND both Indiana schools every gad domn year ..
… NO, its because I want the Illini to be able to play Purdue, every year, as a concession for the Illibuck being played fewer than half the time.
Yes, that’s the ticket.
LikeLike
why couldn’t purdue have 2 crossover games each year–Ill and IU….? I realize that would mean only 1 game per year against 5 teams….but that Ill-Pur game is too much of a natural to lose, imo…..
On the other hand, I wouldn’t run into the problem, because I’d keep MSU west and send Purdue east….UM and OSU are going to dominate overall in the next 10 years…send as many other good teams west as is possible.
LikeLike
frug:
That would depend on whether there are crossovers or not. If there are crossovers and the Illibuck is preserved, Illinois would keep Northwestern, Wisconsin, & tOSU, lose the 2 IN schools, and gain Iowa (and Nebraska, who will be fun to play). Not much worse (if at all) from my perspective.
LikeLike
Richard,
You are always big on telling others not to judge how another school feels. Why put your judgment of what IL wants above frug’s?
LikeLike
Huh? I didn’t tell him how he should feel or how Illinois should feel. I simply stated what I would desire if I was Illinois. Nor did I say what I would want if I was Illinois is somehow better than his viewpoint.
LikeLike
And if anyone does that for NW you shout them down if their opinion differs from yours. Since he gave his opinion first, that reeks of hypocrisy from you.
LikeLike
In your own mind, Brian. Unlike you, I would not keep insisting that I know best how some other school should feel or do something.
LikeLike
I want to add:
There’s a reason why there’s a lot more antipathy towards you from many people than towards me or any other regular poster here. Ever wonder why?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Unlike you, I would not keep insisting that I know best how some other school should feel or do something.”
You would and do. I’ve seen you called on it.
And despite what you say, I don’t insist that I know best how NW should think or do anything. The last time I checked, however, I was allowed to have opinions. I’ve had you shout me down for saying exactly what other NW fans have said in other forums because you claim I can’t know what NW should be doing/thinking/feeling.
LikeLike
No, I never wondered and I’ve noticed plenty of love for you, too.
LikeLike
Annual crossovers are simpler with Sparty in the East:
Indiana-Purdue
Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)
Ohio State-Illinois (Illiniwek)
Penn State-Nebraska
Michigan State-Northwestern (MSU likes its ties to metro Chicago)
Maryland/Rutgers-Wisconsin/Iowa
LikeLike
vp19,
“Annual crossovers are simpler with Sparty in the East:”
That really depends. My choices:
MSU in east:
IN/PU
MSU in west:
MI/MSU
LikeLike
I prefer Brian’s system, i.e., no locked crossovers except the in-state pair that are separated (UM/MSU or IU/PU). I wouldn’t lock Maryland and Rutgers into a made-up annual “rivalry” that has no historical basis.
All the others that @vp19 listed are real rivalries, so it’ll be interesting to see if the conference protects them, which means the other western teams will see the kings less often. Although Penn State does have a real rivalry with Nebraska, I wonder how they’d feel being the only king that plays all three of the other kings every year. That would be brutal.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd said:
“Although Penn State does have a real rivalry with Nebraska, …”
Yeah, although the PSU and Nebraska have only played a few games in the larger historical perspective, there are reasons why the game has a much larger emotional significance than that in Penn State fans’ minds. 1. The excitement of the 1979-1982 series. 2. The controversy of the 1982 game. 3. The role of the 1982 game in Penn State’s first national championship. 4. The perception that Penn State and Nebraska had similar athletic/academic cultures and that Paterno and Osborne both played by the rules. 5. The 1994 NC controversy. 6. Both being the new kids – new kings – in the Big Ten. 7. The 2011 game after the Sandusky scandal broke. (Lesser reasons are the 1983 and 2002 games, and Curt Warner’s big game at Lincoln in 1981.)
😉
LikeLike
Best to go with MSU in the East so that the Western schools have more access to Michigan. I’d think that’s how this will play out…
LikeLike
I disagree. If the western schools were concerned about that, they shouldn’t have agreed to putting 3 kings in the east. Once you agree to that, you lose the right to complain you aren’t playing them enough. They could have demanded a 2/2 split of kings. They could demand 9 games right away. Besides, less MI means more OSU which is a decent consolation prize.
LikeLike
@Brian: People can legitimately pursue multiple aims at once. It is not inconsistent for the Big Ten to say, “We want 3 kings in the east, but we want them to play western crossover games as much as possible.” Just because the western teams have agreed to a 3-1 split of kings, does not mean they relinquish all interest in maximizing the value of the schedule.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“People can legitimately pursue multiple aims at once.”
Of course they can, but not mutually incompatible ones.
“It is not inconsistent for the Big Ten to say, “We want 3 kings in the east, but we want them to play western crossover games as much as possible.” ”
I’m talking about the western schools losing the right to complain, not the B10.
Let’s look at IA’s schedule under various scenarios.
1. 8 games, 1 locked game a piece:
A. W has MI
MI – 100%
OSU – 17%
B. E has MI and OSU
MI, OSU – 17% each
The result is a drastic reduction in games against OSU and MI combined.
2. 8 games, only 1 locked game
A. W has MI – MI/OSU locked
MI – 100%
OSU – 17%
B. E has OSU and MI – MI/MSU locked
MI – 17%
OSU – 29%
C. E has OSU and MI – IN/PU locked
MI, OSU – 31% each
The result is a drastic reduction in games against OSU and MI combined. Shifting where MSU is makes only a small change. It costs IA roughly 1 game in 6 years against OSU or MI.
When they agreed to put OSU and MI both in the east regardless of where MSU was, they knowingly sacrificed playing MI/OSU frequently. They are free to prefer 0.61 of a game versus 0.45 of a game against OSU and MI annually (that’s roughly 1 extra game every 6 years), but it’s not a complaint that carries much weight with me. They chose to not have an annual game. Getting 1 more game every 6 years isn’t a significant difference. It’s not a sufficient reason to decide where MSU should be.
LikeLike
@Brian: I think you’re answering the wrong question. This isn’t, “How can we mollify Iowa?” It’s, “How can we get the best schedule for all of our schools?” You’re assuming a scenario not known to exist, i.e., Iowa complaining about one home game every 6 or 7 years.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
I think you’re answering the wrong question. This isn’t, “How can we mollify Iowa?”
I wasn’t answering that question.
1. I used IA as a representative western school. It could have been any of them. I specifically avoided MN just because of the Little Brown Jug, but otherwise just wanted a western school.
2. This thread was discussing it being better to send MSU east so the western schools could play MI more often. I ran the numbers to show two things:
a. Where MSU goes makes very little difference in how often they play OSU/MI
b. The playing OSU/MI regularly ship sailed as soon as they agreed to put 3 kings in the east
3. I use those numbers to support my original contention that those schools lost the right to complain about not playing OSU/MI frequently when they agreed to send 3 kings east. That decision instantly cost them a lot of OSU/MI games. MSU’s location has little actual impact on how often they play OSU/MI. That makes it a minor consideration when deciding where MSU should go.
It’s, “How can we get the best schedule for all of our schools?”
No, that was clearly never the question. You don’t send 3 kings east if that’s the question. You don’t strip IL of many of their rivals if that’s the question. The question should be:
Given the craptastic decision to split 12 teams up thusly, what’s best for the B10 in deciding where to put MSU and PU?
Since MSU’s location has such little impact on king games for the western schools, the bigger concern is the competitive balance based on where MSU goes.
“You’re assuming a scenario not known to exist, i.e., Iowa complaining about one home game every 6 or 7 years.”
No, I’m not. I’m answering the concern expressed by zeek and others about the western schools getting to play MI more by putting MSU in the east versus PU in the east.
LikeLike
Since the Big Ten looks like it will have eight conference games for 2014/5 based on what the Purdue Athletic Director is saying, that means teams will either have a 6-2 or 6-1-1 setup for those two seasons. There’s not going to be a 6-3 or 6-1-2 setup until at least 2016.
I think the decision really comes down to the conference’s perception of what Penn State will be like in 2014/5. One athletic director earlier said that they didn’t want to have an “easy division”, so if PSU is evaluated as not being very competitive due to sanctions (which I think they’ll believe), then I can see Michigan State going to the east and Purdue west.
At that point, the conference has options. They can have seven protected cross-division games or just one (Purdue-Indiana). If they feel this division arrangement is only going to be in place for two years, they can forget the protected games and just make sure Purdue and Indiana play one another in a 6-2 setup for 2014/5 while waiting for next change when additional teams come into the conference. All the games vp19 put up there could happen, but not have be labelled annual crossovers.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Since the Big Ten looks like it will have eight conference games for 2014/5 based on what the Purdue Athletic Director is saying, that means teams will either have a 6-2 or 6-1-1 setup for those two seasons. There’s not going to be a 6-3 or 6-1-2 setup until at least 2016.”
Which sucks, just to be clear. 8 games was good with 10 and even 11 teams. It was weak with 12 and stinks with 14.
“I think the decision really comes down to the conference’s perception of what Penn State will be like in 2014/5. One athletic director earlier said that they didn’t want to have an “easy division”, so if PSU is evaluated as not being very competitive due to sanctions (which I think they’ll believe), then I can see Michigan State going to the east and Purdue west.”
I don’t think PSU is the real issue there. The bigger problem is estimating where RU and MD would fit in. Will they be around the middle or down near IN? PSU was competitive this year and was down on scholarship players to 67 according to PSU fans. In the future they won’t be installing a new system or using players recruited for a different offense. On the other hand, the numbers aren’t great:
2012 – 67
2013 – 67 + 15 – 20? = 62
2014 – 62 + 15 – 20? = 57
2015 – 57 + 15 – 20? = 52
2016 – 52 + 15 – 20? = 47
2017 – 47 + 25 – 15? = 57
2018 – 57 + 25 – 15? = 67
2019 – 67 + 25 – 15? = 77
2020 – 77 + 25 – 17? = 85
Obviously I’m guessing at the attrition, but it’s based off of the 2012 PSU roster. Those numbers also reflect only true scholarship players. They’ll also have walk-ons to fill out the roster.
Rather than an easy division, they need to worry about a generic division. They also have to look at balance at the top because that’s all the rest of the country sees. That’s where the impetus to move MSU west comes from.
LikeLike
@Brian. I am confused.
You said: “Which sucks, just to be clear. 8 games was good with 10 and even 11 teams. It was weak with 12 and stinks with 14.”
Logically, this implies you are not in favor of an 8 game conference schedule. Maybe you prefer 9 conference games. From previously posts you oppose a 10-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“@Brian. I am confused.”
Actually, I don’t think you are.
“You said: “Which sucks, just to be clear. 8 games was good with 10 and even 11 teams. It was weak with 12 and stinks with 14.”
Logically, this implies you are not in favor of an 8 game conference schedule. Maybe you prefer 9 conference games. From previously posts you oppose a 10-game conference schedule.”
Yes. 8 games is not enough to play the other 9 traditional B10 schools often enough in a 14 team conference unless I can cherry pick the schedule. Especially with the crappy divisions they are forming, a lot of rivalries will suffer in this new system. 10 of 12 games being in conference is too many because it forces the OOC games to be weak to get 2 home games every year. 9 is the sweet spot where you can still play 1 good OOC home and home series while also playing those other 9 school reasonably often. If the season was 13 or 14 games, then I’d want a 10 game conference season.
LikeLike
Lets be clear, though ~ 8 games starts to see problems with 12 teams IF and ONLY IF there are locked cross-conference games. 8 games, 12 teams, and no locked cross conference games gives playing through the whole opposing division in two years, which is just fine.
LikeLike
9 conference games, rather than 8, is a complete no brainer with 14 teams….No BIG team is playing more than 1 OOC game that’s worth a s### anyway….I guess the question would be how quickly schools could clear their schedules……..
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Lets be clear, though ~ 8 games starts to see problems with 12 teams IF and ONLY IF there are locked cross-conference games. 8 games, 12 teams, and no locked cross conference games gives playing through the whole opposing division in two years, which is just fine.”
That’s true. I was giving the specific answer for the B10 and the alignments they’ve chosen. In the general case, 8 games can work just fine at 12.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“9 conference games, rather than 8, is a complete no brainer with 14 teams…”
I sometimes wonder if the B10 ADs can live up to no brainer status. Gene Smith certainly tries to prove he has no brains often enough.
“No BIG team is playing more than 1 OOC game that’s worth a s### anyway”
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/ohio-state-buckeyes.php
OSU plans to in the future.
2014 – VT, UC
2015 – VT (only 2 of 4 games set)
2016 – OU, Tulsa
2017 – OU, UNC
2018 – UC, TCU, UNC
2019 – TCU (1 of 4 set)
2020 – BC, OR
2021 – BC, OR
2022 – UT (1 of 4 set)
2023 – UT (1 of 4 set)
“I guess the question would be how quickly schools could clear their schedules”
It’s all up to how much the B10 is willing to spend to buy out contracts. Any game can be cancelled for the right price.
LikeLike
While Penn State will have an aggressive walk-on program to help fill the roster, my assessment is that it will be difficult for them to compete on a high level for awhile. As your own projections show, the number of scholarship players in the program is going to be at its lowest in 2016. While Coach O’Brien did a great job last season, you also can’t deny that the quality of recruiting is a big reason for success in college football.
You have been welded to the concept that Penn State is a “king” through many of your posts. To the degree that PSU has a high level of public recognition (outside the Sandusky scandal) and among college football fans, I couldn’t agree more. That’s one reason why the Big Ten presidents agreed to add PSU as the 11th member of the conference back in 1991. Penn State and recent addition Nebraska both are winning, tradition-laden programs that make for “good television”.
But the reality is that Penn State’s football program is going to go through some difficult times here and you can’t think like a French Army staff officer in the spring of 1940 regarding what they’re going to look like in the near term. And while you want to have the Big Ten’s planning horizon on all this to extend for a number of years, the reality is that the situation regarding expansion, etc. means they’re very well making some short term decisions by they’re operating not only in a very dynamic environment, but in one that they have a major role in guiding and forming as well.
You also can’t set aside one of the concerns that been written on this board about having the best Big Ten brands in the east because of the demands of one of the main stakeholders and financial drivers in this entire process–the major networks and cable television. I’d also add the desire to play in front of east coast alumni, fund raising opportunities, the chance to grow the conference in areas with greater population, etc.
But setting aside all that for a minute, I really do think that the Big Ten is grappling with what Penn State is going to look like over the next few years and how to make sure there’s a semblance of competitive balance between the two conferences. I suspect that the proposal to put Northwestern in the east (as reported by the Chicago Tribune) was put forth because of that goal. It would have looked like this:
East – Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
West – Illinois, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue, Wisconsin
Obviously, that would have required fixed crossover games to be put in place to ensure the instate rivalries if this setup was going beyond 2015.
One more related item here. I looked at wikipedia before and it listed 17 rivalry or high-level Big Ten games among the conference members. With a straight east-west lineup that has the two Indiana schools split up, eleven of those games would be part of the schedule each year with no other changes. If there were fixed cross-divisonal games, that number could go up to 15 with the two exceptions being Illinois-Indiana and Penn State-Minnesota. (Note: PSU-Nebraska was not listed as one of those 17 games). So this idea that a bigger conference is going to tear apart rivalries seems to be overblown to me at this point.
Also keep in mind that PSU might actually prefer playing Rutgers and Maryland (and Indiana) over Nebraska and Minnesota anyway given the distance and the current state of the Penn State program.
LikeLike
cutter,
“While Penn State will have an aggressive walk-on program to help fill the roster, my assessment is that it will be difficult for them to compete on a high level for awhile.”
If you mean winning 9+ games per year, I’d agree. I think they can win 5-9 games from 2013-2018 depending on their schedule. They should be good again by 2019 (maybe 2018).
“As your own projections show, the number of scholarship players in the program is going to be at its lowest in 2016. While Coach O’Brien did a great job last season, you also can’t deny that the quality of recruiting is a big reason for success in college football.”
I fully agree. It does help that they’re getting some walk-ons who had scholarship offers elsewhere, but they aren’t taking them from elite AQs (more like MAC to lower B10 level players). Still, their name has enough cache to get some elite recruits. If Hackenberg lives up to his billing, the offense should always be dangerous. The defense will be tougher to maintain up to PSU standards since that takes a lot of highly talented players.
“You have been welded to the concept that Penn State is a “king” through many of your posts. To the degree that PSU has a high level of public recognition (outside the Sandusky scandal) and among college football fans, I couldn’t agree more. That’s one reason why the Big Ten presidents agreed to add PSU as the 11th member of the conference back in 1991. Penn State and recent addition Nebraska both are winning, tradition-laden programs that make for “good television”.”
Yes, and that’s all I mean when I say they are a king. I’m not claiming they’ll magically win 10+ games every year because of who they are. But they stayed a king during JoePa’s dark years in the early 2000s and they will through this. A 7-5 PSU will get more coverage than an 8-4 IA and maybe more than some 9-3 teams.
“But the reality is that Penn State’s football program is going to go through some difficult times here and you can’t think like a French Army staff officer in the spring of 1940 regarding what they’re going to look like in the near term.”
I’m not. I’m just not assuming they’ll drop to NW before 1994 levels. They can be on par with or better than some (if not most or all of) MN, PU, IL, IN, MD, RU and NW. That puts them squarely in tier 3 for a few years on the field. I think way too many people are treating them like they’ll be a 2-3 win team every season.
We also don’t know how RU and MD will fare. RU could easily slot in near the middle of the B10 based on recent performance, or near the bottom. The same is true for MD.
Sagarin rankings:
2012 – RU would be #8/14 in B10, MD #13/14
2011 – RU #6/14, MD #13/14
2010 – RU #11/14, MD #6/14
“And while you want to have the Big Ten’s planning horizon on all this to extend for a number of years, the reality is that the situation regarding expansion, etc. means they’re very well making some short term decisions by they’re operating not only in a very dynamic environment, but in one that they have a major role in guiding and forming as well.”
The ADs have said they are entering this process not considering any possible future expansion. They aren’t precluding it, they’re just dealing with the known facts of 14 schools. To me, that indicates they are making decisions that they think can withstand the test of time. I’ve never said they won’t make some short term decisions, especially with scheduling. They obviously did when they added NE and I assume they will this time, too. That doesn’t mean they will or should use short term planning to decide the divisions.
“You also can’t set aside one of the concerns that been written on this board about having the best Big Ten brands in the east because of the demands of one of the main stakeholders and financial drivers in this entire process–the major networks and cable television.”
I don’t set them aside. I think they are overplayed and that most people ignore other paths to the same goals, and I also think people are choosing to ignore the flip side of the coin. I choose to point out the underbelly of the stacked east because almost nobody else does.
Everyone keeps repeating this plan:
1. Put 3 kings in the east
2. ???
3. Profit
I’ve heard different explanations for what step 2 is, but the opinions vary widely. They also don’t consider the odds of step 2 succeeding, they just assume it will work. I’d prefer to see a more detailed business plan for that.
I’d also like to see more consideration for the unintended consequences. How are the western schools impacted by having 3 kings in the east? It’s clear in terms of scheduling (they’ll play OSU and MI a lot less), but less clear in terms of coverage and attention and recruiting. The east will dominate (2 to 1 or more) in terms of the number of major media markets, population, available recruits and proximity to the networks. That has consequences for the west.
A lack of competitive balance (if there is one) also has consequences. Teams in the harder division suffer extra losses while their competition in the easier division gets artificially inflated win totals. Those extra Ws and Ls change which bowls you get and how much press coverage you get. That can impact the future of your program as recruiting is impacted and even donations fluctuate. If one division is nationally considered to be much tougher, all the teams on the other side will tend to be mocked and/or ignored. That has consequences, too.
“I’d also add the desire to play in front of east coast alumni,”
Which is so important to OSU that they haven’t done it in 15+ years.
“the chance to grow the conference in areas with greater population, etc.”
Do you grow the conference or just the eastern division?
“But setting aside all that for a minute, I really do think that the Big Ten is grappling with what Penn State is going to look like over the next few years and how to make sure there’s a semblance of competitive balance between the two conferences.”
It’s possible. I have no way of knowing. I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t grappling with it.
“I suspect that the proposal to put Northwestern in the east (as reported by the Chicago Tribune) was put forth because of that goal.”
That’s one of several possible reasons. NW’s large percentage of east coast alumni is another. So is the Chicago/NYC rivalry or the urban nature of the school making RU and MD feel at home. Considering the alleged agreement to split 12 teams with MSU/PU being the only remaining issue, it seems less likely to me that you are correct. If they are worried about the east being weak they could easily move MSU east. The fact that they didn’t instantly do that tells me their balance concern likely goes the other way. They are wondering whether MSU needs to go west to maintain balance in my opinion.
But honestly, I think we all suffer confirmation bias on things like this. Depending on what you think, you can parse every statement and spin every decision to fit your ideas. We have no idea why the asked NW about going east or why they haven’t decided about MSU vs PU. We have unsubstantiated theories at this point.
“Obviously, that would have required fixed crossover games to be put in place to ensure the instate rivalries if this setup was going beyond 2015.”
Every plan would need at least 1 except inner/outer.
“One more related item here. I looked at wikipedia before and it listed 17 rivalry or high-level Big Ten games among the conference members. With a straight east-west lineup that has the two Indiana schools split up, eleven of those games would be part of the schedule each year with no other changes. If there were fixed cross-divisonal games, that number could go up to 15 with the two exceptions being Illinois-Indiana and Penn State-Minnesota. (Note: PSU-Nebraska was not listed as one of those 17 games). So this idea that a bigger conference is going to tear apart rivalries seems to be overblown to me at this point.”
And yet multiple PSU people have said they consider the NE game very important. At least 1 person has mentioned IL wanting to play the IN schools. More importantly, you are only looking at the top end games. Nobody thought most of those would go away. The concern is for the other B10 matchups that used to be regular and had meaning becoming not much different from OOC games. I’d much rather play any of the other 11 B10 teams than the two newbies, and any of the traditional 9 before PSU and NE. Those are the games we’re losing as we grow. It’s worse because OSU is stuck with both newbies every year instead of spreading the pain.
“Also keep in mind that PSU might actually prefer playing Rutgers and Maryland (and Indiana) over Nebraska and Minnesota anyway given the distance and the current state of the Penn State program.”
They seem to like NE, and only the PSU fans east of campus seem to care about RU and MD. Those in western PA want to play Pitt instead.
LikeLike
Michigan State-Wisconsin would be better.
LikeLike
If true, it sucks as expected.
LikeLike
Someone, maybe at NU, suggested 9 games where the 5 away and 5 homes were always in the same division. In other words, all legends teams would play 5 away one year and 4 away the next. Then flip. That seems very workable.
LikeLike
The ACC is doing that for 2013 with an 8-game sked — the guaranteed crossovers are at Atlantic members (e.g., Virginia at Maryland, Georgia Tech at Clemson), the extra game is at Coastal members (Clemson at Virginia, Maryland at Virginia Tech)
LikeLike
jj,
That’s the only logical way to do 9 games. My comment was in reference to the divisions.
LikeLike
wonderful !! I’d be happy whatever they do with MSU and Purdue.
Please, please, please, just call the divisions East and West.
Jim, dear, if you are reading along. the marketing potential for East and West is just as good (if different) than your — creepily — beloved Leaders and Legends. East and West give you B1GE and B1GW. With your signature Blue and Black colors, it’s marketing gold. Add silliness like Leader and Legends as an ANNUAL gloss. Next year it can be Warriors and Fighters, then Heros and Saints, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Why not name them after 2 dead guys…..Stagg for the west…one of the BIG commishes for the east…that way you piss off no existing teams but add some flavor………
LikeLike
One thing I never seen discussed with the possibility of B1G at 20 is the chance for November prime time games and how this would boost T1/2 deals and even make the B1G more valuable. Add say UVA, UNC, GT, FSU, Duke and ND (does not matter much the last one) and now you have 7 schools that can host prime time games in at least decent weather.
LikeLike
You’re new here. 18 and 20 has been discussed almost more than 16.
LikeLike
sigh…. @CCrider55. I have enjoyed many of your posts over the months and years. I hope this is not too offensive to you and please do not take it as a huge personal attack. But, I oppose hazing the “new guys.”
On the topic of the OP: maybe I am wrong, but I do not recall any discussions of how adding new ACC teams would impact night games. the suggestion, I think, is that more southern (to wit, warmer) climes would increase the possibility of night games in November. Assuming night games have enhanced value, then more night games = more tv revenue. It is an interesting idea. I do not recall this being discussed.
LikeLike
also, I am not sure “JimIsAwesom” is a “new guy.’ But whatever.
LikeLike
ugh… JimIsAwesome. Can’t type tonight.
LikeLike
Offense, if there, was unintentional. My apology is extended. As to 20 and night games, perhaps it increases a bit. How many ACC night games happen now, how many might be expected to transfer, and would that be valuable in and of itself? Possibly, but compared to the basic gain in footprint, potential BTN penetration, and marketing leverage that comes from achieving around 30% control of the AQ D1 inventory. (Slightly less than what a PAC/B1G association might have achieved, but with only one CEO)
LikeLike
PS: 20 is stupid big. Just my personal opinion, but the only thing good about that many is that 14 or 16 look much better in comparison. 12 becomes almost cozy. 🙂
LikeLike
@CCRider55… LOLing at 12 being “cozy.” What does that make our old 11 teams? In hindsight, the B1G staying at 11 for so many years is amazing. Clearly, the BTN was a monumental change for CFB.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“In hindsight, the B1G staying at 11 for so many years is amazing. Clearly, the BTN was a monumental change for CFB.”
I don’t think it was that amazing. The TV money hadn’t exploded yet, so there wasn’t much pressure to switch conferences. After adding PSU, what worthy candidates were left? ND said no. The surprising thing is that the B10 said no to UT, expansion moratorium or no. Hindsight is 20/20, but clearly the B10 didn’t see a demographics problem 15+ years ago.
Would there have been talk of expanding beyond 12? It’s hard to imagine needing it with the BTN in all of TX, too. Maybe they add NE and MO as a bridge to TX and chase RU and MD for markets, but it’s not automatic.
LikeLike
And not just NIGHT games…but Thursday/Friday night games? With the increased inventory, certain schools can have Thurs/Fri night game each year (Indiana, UNC, UVA, UMD, Rutgers, etc.)…while the Big Dogs can trot out one “exclusive” night game every 4-5 years (110,000 PSU fans don’t want to lose their Saturday tradition too often…). The BTN can carry these games and push up their inventory higher.
With the current 12 teams conference slate, there really isn’t room for stretching 6 games over too many TV spots/channels.
BTN, ESPN, ESPN2, ABC.
12, 3:30, 6pm, 8pm.
Jump to 20 teams (which I believe Delany is angling for)…and 10 conference games per week…and you might just need a Thursday night game each week. FWIW
LikeLike
that is an interesting point too. Like CCRider55 (and others), I am not very happy with the idea of 20 teams. That just doesn’t seem like a conference to me. But whatever. I’m not in charge.
But if the B1G (or any conference) goes to 20 teams, moving games to Thursday and more night games is intriguing. You certainly don’t want the games piled on top of each other during the Saturday daytime windows.
interesting.
LikeLike
Personally, I think I’d try Wednesday nights. No NFL competition and no harm to HS football, plus no short weeks for anybody. It would use up 2 bye weeks, though.
1. Saturday, 10/7
2. Wednesday, 10/18
3. Saturday, 10/28
Make it an important game and give it an exclusive national window.
LikeLike
No, it would only use up 1 bye weeks. In your example, the Saturdays of October are:
1. 10/7
2. 10/14
3. 10/21
4. 10/28
The team would be playing 3 games in 4 weeks, with a ‘half-bye’ the week before the middle game, and another ‘half-bye’ the week after.
LikeLike
I was unclear. I meant it would use up 1 bye week each for 2 teams, thus 2 bye weeks. That limits the conference in scheduling versus giving 1 or both teams a short week for a Thursday night game.
LikeLike
My understanding is that is what the PAC does for Thursday games.
LikeLike
Could be. I just wanted to make it clear I wouldn’t put anyone on that short of a week.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“And not just NIGHT games…but Thursday/Friday night games?”
Well, Thursday night ratings tanked last year by about 35% with the NFL playing on Thursday all season (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/17/Media/NFL-Network.aspx). Except for the P12, most leagues are backing away from Thursdays. As for Fridays, some states really don’t want to compete with high school football. It’s not an issue everywhere, but it is an issue for some. In addition, some schools don’t like the disruption that weeknight games cause.
I’m not saying it’s a terrible idea, but many B10 schools might prefer to not do it and I’m not sure there is a huge financial benefit to the conference. If a school wants to do it to get a window to themselves, more power to them. I think both schools should have to agree to move from Saturday, though.
LikeLike
@Brian – I was thinking of the impact of the NFL playing a full slate of Thursday night games here, too. It’s already making that evening less attractive for college teams. You’d really need to have schools that want extra TV exposure to get them to take a Thursday slot from this point forward (whereas it had been an acceptable non-Saturday slot for a lot of upper tier teams prior to this season).
What I think may change for the Big Ten, though, is the rule against playing night games in November (as jimisawesome has noted). While I understand that a school such as Minnesota might not choose to host them with the unpredictable weather, it’s likely not going to be an issue for at least Maryland and Rutgers (and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an issue for Nebraska in the Big 12). That’s a simple way to add extra time slots to both the BTN and the national TV package (or even create a new separate prime time Big Ten package to auction off to Fox and/or ESPN) without having to play non-Saturday games.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“What I think may change for the Big Ten, though, is the rule against playing night games in November (as jimisawesome has noted).”
I’m sure it will change sooner than later since I like the rule. I really hope they require that both teams agree to move it to a night game, though, rather than just letting TV force it, but I’d settle for the home team having to agree to it without any pressure/threats from TV. Schools should be able to follow their consciences if they don’t feel it’s safe/wise for them to host a night game in November. They should also use average weather data to potentially bar certain schools from doing it (average temps at kickoff time and and 3.5 hours later for that city on that date can’t be below certain thresholds).
As a compromise, how about moving it to a dome for some schools? Detroit and Indy could host them with much less concern about the weather.
“While I understand that a school such as Minnesota might not choose to host them with the unpredictable weather, it’s likely not going to be an issue for at least Maryland and Rutgers (and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an issue for Nebraska in the Big 12).”
If the B10 keeps expanding to the south, it’ll become an issue very quickly. Do you think FSU wants a below freezing kickoff in Madison with a division title on the line?
“That’s a simple way to add extra time slots to both the BTN and the national TV package (or even create a new separate prime time Big Ten package to auction off to Fox and/or ESPN) without having to play non-Saturday games.”
How about they play neutral site games somewhere warm for those slots? It’s like a bowl during the season. PSU vs NE in Hawaii at 8PM EST.
LikeLike
Brian:
1. Good luck trying to convince a B10 team to move a home game someplace warm just because you think that’s better. Tell you want, after you convince OSU to move their home game against PSU to Miami, come back to me with your thoughts on the feasibility of your idea.
2. FSU already plays November games in cold weather locales. 5 of the past 6 years, in fact (Boston & Blacksburg in 2007, MD in late November in 2008 & 2010, Boston in 2011, Blacksburg & MD in 2012). Granted, in the B10, they may have more games in colder weather, but that’s a matter of degree.
LikeLike
Richard,
“1. Good luck trying to convince a B10 team to move a home game someplace warm just because you think that’s better.”
I started off by saying the rule would change.
“Tell you want, after you convince OSU to move their home game against PSU to Miami, come back to me with your thoughts on the feasibility of your idea.”
If the OB committee offered to pay $5M per team, they might have done it last year (no bowl). PSU certainly would have considered it. If Jerryworld would pay enough, teams would consider playing there.
“2. FSU already plays November games in cold weather locales.”
I never said they didn’t. I said they’d complain about a below freezing kickoff in Madison, especially with a division title on the line. Are you saying they wouldn’t complain about that? They bitch about it in the ACC already, and Blacksburg ain’t Madison.
LikeLike
From weather.com:
Difference in mean temperature (ave of max and min) for the date:
Madison vs Blacksburg:
11/1 – 4 degrees
11/15 – 7 degrees
11/30 – 9 degrees
The mean temperature is below freezing in Madison for late November, with average lows in the low 20s. I’m pretty sure FSU would complain. Maybe they’d demand September home games in the afternoon in exchange. Nothing like playing in 90+ degrees with high humidity and intense sunshine.
LikeLike
Personally, I think that the Thursday offerings just weren’t as good this season. Perhaps ESPN wanted to float out weaker games to see if they could still get the solid ratings regardless…or maybe the match-ups were just duds by chance. Not sure.
The Big Ten wouldn’t have to do weekly Thursday games. Four in September…two in October…two in November. In a 20-team league, you’d still only play in one of these games every 2-4 years.
LikeLike
I think that weeknight games are too disruptive and really only are needed during the OOC part of the schedule, if at all. Friday night games would work without disrupting schedules too much.
There’s no reason why you can’t have 3-4 B10 games on at the same time, carried by the BTN, 1st, and 2nd tier. We see that all the time in the noon/11AM slot already.
LikeLike
One possibility for Big Ten and Hopkins
http://deadspin.com/5978363/how-the-ncaa-causes-gigantism-the-story-of-the-small-regional-conference-that-swallowed-up-the-continent
down from nine women’s programs to six, the conference stood to lose its AQ status for women’s sports after a two-season grace period unless it picked up at least one more school
…
the commissioners instituted a somewhat ingenious solution, following the letter but not the spirit of the NCAA’s frustrating conference rules.
…
These schools were “championship” members, meaning they would not play against other GSAC schools during the regular season, but they would participate in the GSAC conference championships to determine qualifying for the NCAA tournament.
I’m not sure whether this would fly at the D-I level (GSAC is D-III), but it would allow the Big Ten to get its auto-bid while allowing Hopkins to continue to schedule as an independent (thus preserving its rivalries) and keep its ESPNU deal.
LikeLike
Dunno, I think you’d want to bind them as tightly as everyone else is bound to the conference.
Last thing you’d want is to create some ambiguous situation, so that means 3 things:
1) CIC invite, 2) men’s and women’s teams in Big Ten lacrosse men’s and women’s conferences, 3) TV deal has to be resolved in some fashion (although you can probably just let them continue to sell their own package).
LikeLike
Another way to let it keep its TV deal is to just let it keep its TV deal. That gives an ESPNU game for each Big Ten school. BTN says “for associate members, we get all otherwise untelevised games.” Its a new category, there is no established rule in place. If the BTN shows 2 games a week in the regular season, there should be two or three home games during the OOC period, then 2 or 3 available during the 5 week conference season, depending on whether JHU is home or away. That’s about 6 TV games for each Big Ten school, up from 1-3 now (other than MD who is on TV about 8 times a season now).
And 5 conference games in a schedule of 10 regular season games and 2 3-game classics is lots of chances to play existing rivalries ~ especially as one of those is in- conference.
LikeLike
All that talk about Big Ten Northern and SEC Southern and ACC being academic and southern…all very poetic but everyone knows none of that matters. Every university is for sale.
LikeLike
Since when?
LikeLike
yeah, I agree with Metatron. in theory, there are some set of circumstances and money that would pry loose any school from any conference. But for schools like ‘bama, Auburn, tOSU, Michigan, USC, etc., those would have to be some damn big set of circumstances. $$ would not be enough.
UNC and Duke are good examples we’ve discussed. Neither can just be bought with $$. we’ve taked about how the ACC needs to be “destablized” first before UNC and Duke (and other ACC schools) become “available.”
Another example: Tennessee. Now there is a school in need of $$. But I seriously seriously doubt the B1G could lure them away from the SEC (even if they were AAU).
LikeLike
Tennessee does not fit in the Big 10 ,would not be asked.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m thinking too hard, but I think Hopkins might be the key to this entire thing.
First, it makes sense to add Hopkins and put in motion a watchable slate of lacrosse games for BTN filler, especially in the spring. Second, Hopkins is going to solidify the mid-Atlantic corridor and the new eastern block of the Big Ten as another voting member and cultural fit for new arrivals, which will help entice other mid-Atlantic schools, such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to join the conference down the road.
But third, and most importantly, I think Delany is using Hopkins as a counterweight to adding schools with weaker academics.
The CIC does not want it’s research dollars diluted, which is a major sticking point in getting university presidents’ approval. It was reported that Maryland and Rutgers additions stretched the CIC’s total research budget to $9.3 billion (http://www.dailyillini.com/news/national/article_bc72b8d8-3f67-11e2-8799-0019bb30f31a.html), which comes out to $620 million per school. I propose that the presidents have a general rule that expansion is only allowed if that number increases or stays the same. This might not be a hard and fast rule if Delany can convince the presidents that the money can be made up in other areas, but it’s probably a good general metric for academic competency in evaluating expansion targets.
Using available 2009 data (http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf), I ran the numbers. There are only TWO combinations of schools that would maintain the mark of $620 million average research dollars per school: Duke ($805 million) + either North Carolina ($646 million) or Georgia Tech ($562 million). That’s it. And none of those schools are Virginia (just $262 million), meaning their will be a geographic gap if they alone are added.
But if Delany adds the research powerhouse that is Hopkins ($1.9 billion), he may brilliantly be giving himself the power back to add who he wants. And the best part is he doesn’t have to add a dead weight football program. Re-run the numbers, and the conference can now add these geographically contiguous sets of schools:
Hopkins + Virginia + Duke = $974.3 million average (16 football teams)
Hopkins + Virginia + North Carolina = $921 million average (16 teams)
Hopkins + Virginia + Duke + North Carolina + Georgia Tech = $826 million average (18 teams)
Not only would Hopkins open up CIC invites for the mid-Atlantic schools, but the numbers even work for adding Florida St ($195 million):
Hopkins + Virginia + Duke + Georgia Tech + Florida State = $736 million average (18 teams)
Hopkins + Virginia + North Carolina + Georgia Tech + Florida State = $704 million average (18 teams)
Add Hopkins, and I think Florida St’s otherwise questionable academics can be overlooked by the presidents.
And note that of all the expansion candidates, Duke has the highest research budget. If North Carolina and Duke are a package deal, the fact that Duke is school #19 shouldn’t hinder them from grabbing someone like Pittsburgh ($623 million), Virginia Tech ($397 million), North Carolina St ($381 million), Miami ($248 million), or of course Notre Dame as school #20.
Last side note, if research dollars are as big of a deal as I’m making them out to be, then this expansion list is exhaustive. There are no other schools that the Big Ten and the CIC would be willing to add. (Apart from more quasi-affiliate schools without a football program like Toronto, McGill, or Boston University.)
LikeLike
DING! DING! DING! ….I think this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
LikeLike
Johns Hopkins gets national air on ESPN – I’m sure they’ll be keeping that airtime. The BTN would be fodder for the unaired games we have.
In any case, there’s no reason to start drawing up conspiracy theories: this is a fit, and end to itself and not merely the means to an end.
LikeLike
And scheduling certainty at the tail end of the season ~ if Rutgers and Maryland try to get into one of the two cross-only conferences and the five C7C schools try to recruit someone else to form a six team conference, might even a blue blood run into trouble scheduling conference schools during the conference end of the season?
After all, ND’s deal is to play five ACC schools. Under the sketched league, that’s the number of Big Ten schools JHU would be playing as an “all-in” associate in a Big Ten cross league.
If it comes with an associated relationship with CIC Medical Schools ~ and maybe a Big Pharma funded Classic ~ that turns an interesting way to deal with the cross schools being on the cusp of an AQ championship into a clear win.
I find the notion that the Big Ten has a particular average research money per school target that they are aiming at quite bizarre ~ its not like the research money is pooled and then paid out in a CIC conference payout at the end of the year. So, yeah, the Top 10 strength of UVA’s medical school is primary care and they are “only” top 25 in Medical Research … and a lot of their academic status is in Social Sciences and the Humanities, where Research budgets are more often measured in the thousands of dollars than the hundreds of thousands or millions … but the Big Ten does not reject UVA because it “brings down the CIC average”.
LikeLike
Hilarious how a theory you happen to disagree with is defined as a ‘conspiracy theory’, yet the thousands of purely hypothetical comments concerning divisions, expansion candidates etc. pass muster. This whole blog is based on pure speculation, his as well as yours.
LikeLike
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
LikeLike
sbrylski,
“Maybe I’m thinking too hard, but I think Hopkins might be the key to this entire thing.”
I think we all over-think this. Welcome to the club.
“Second, Hopkins is going to solidify the mid-Atlantic corridor and the new eastern block of the Big Ten as another voting member and cultural fit for new arrivals, which will help entice other mid-Atlantic schools, such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to join the conference down the road.”
JHU would only have a vote on things relevant to lacrosse and the CIC (assuming they’re in the CIC).
“But third, and most importantly, I think Delany is using Hopkins as a counterweight to adding schools with weaker academics.”
It’s possible.
“The CIC does not want it’s research dollars diluted, which is a major sticking point in getting university presidents’ approval.”
That’s an assumption. NE lowered the average a lot.
“It was reported that Maryland and Rutgers additions stretched the CIC’s total research budget to $9.3 billion (http://www.dailyillini.com/news/national/article_bc72b8d8-3f67-11e2-8799-0019bb30f31a.html), which comes out to $620 million per school. I propose that the presidents have a general rule that expansion is only allowed if that number increases or stays the same. This might not be a hard and fast rule if Delany can convince the presidents that the money can be made up in other areas, but it’s probably a good general metric for academic competency in evaluating expansion targets.
Using available 2009 data (http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf), I ran the numbers.”
Whoa. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Based on your link, the average for the first 12 was $300M not $620M. Both MD and RU lowered the average, bringing it down to $287M.
Here are the relevant schools, with the last number being the research money in thousands.
2. Univ. of Michigan – Ann Arbor 636,216
6. Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison 507,898
15. U. of Minnesota – Twin Cities 390,602
16. Penn. St. Univ. – Univ. Park 386,635
20. Ohio State Univ. – Columbus 339,820
26. University of Chicago 301,159
27. Northwestern University 300,619
32. U. of Ill. – Urbana-Champaign 288,013
38. University of Iowa 252,336
52. Purdue Univ. – West Lafayette 175,302
55. Michigan State University 164,198
93. University of Nebraska – Lincoln 83,702
96. Indiana Univ. – Bloomington 78,498
12 team average = $300M
39. U. of Maryland – College Park 246,985
57. Rutgers – State University of NJ 151,122
14 team average = $287M
___
1. Johns Hopkins University 1,587,547 (5.5x the average, 2.5x the top)
ACC:
12. Duke University 438,767
13. U. of North Carolina – Chapel Hill 431,837
22. Georgia Inst. of Technology 322,452
44. University of Virginia 218,499
71. Florida State University 117,294
Other AAUs in the footprint (if you want to build the CIC without diluting FB)
23. Case Western Reserve Univ. 313,044
54. Carnegie Mellon University 170,260
“And note that of all the expansion candidates, Duke has the highest research budget. If North Carolina and Duke are a package deal, the fact that Duke is school #19 shouldn’t hinder them from grabbing someone like Pittsburgh ($623 million), Virginia Tech ($397 million), North Carolina St ($381 million), Miami ($248 million), or of course Notre Dame as school #20.”
Duke brings athletic value to the B10 even when sharing the state with UNC. Not in FB, but in hoops. Pitt, VT and NCSU don’t bring that same value.
“Last side note, if research dollars are as big of a deal as I’m making them out to be, then this expansion list is exhaustive.”
I don’t think they are quite as important as you are making them out to be. I think they are more worried about having a research focus and whether the school has any specialties the current members lack.
LikeLike
“That’s an assumption. NE lowered the average a lot.”
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
LikeLike
“Whoa. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Based on your link, the average for
the first 12 was $300M not $620M.”
—Brian you were using just the federal expenditure dollars. The original poster was using the total expenditure numbers:
JHU 1,856,270
TSUN 1,007,198
Wisconsin 952,119
Minnesota 740,980
Ohio State 716,461
PSU 663,204
Illinois 563,710
Northwestern 515,229
Purdue 453,799
Chicago 377,652
MSU 373,184
Iowa 329,901
Nebraska 235,492
Indiana 156,965
Maryland 409,190
Rutgers 320,416 (Not counting the medical school that Rutgers recently acquired)
That being said the point remains that Nebraska, Maryland & Rutgers all reduced the average research expenditure for CIC members so it’s still highly unlikely that the original premise (that new members cannot spend less than the group average) is valid.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“—Brian you were using just the federal expenditure dollars. The original poster was using the total expenditure numbers:”
My issue was that he used that report which lists 2009 research dollars to compare against the CIC’s number which is from 2011 budgets. Those aren’t the same thing. I agree that I wasn’t clear, though.
I used the federal numbers because that’s the ranked table at the start of the report and I had to look up a bunch of schools. I also think it’s the more important number, personally. I should have noted that, however.
“That being said the point remains that Nebraska, Maryland & Rutgers all reduced the average research expenditure for CIC members so it’s still highly unlikely that the original premise (that new members cannot spend less than the group average) is valid.”
Yes, the point doesn’t change.
LikeLike
Delany could be doing more than one thing at once. Johns Hopkins is accretive on its own terms, even if the Big Ten never lands another school. It also makes Florida State more palatable, and it makes the Big Ten a more attractive lacrosse league to candidate schools that also play it, like UNC and UVA. In terms of NC and VA joining, the presence of a strong lacrosse program is probably a third-tier issue; still, it doesn’t hurt.
LikeLike
As much as Slive would like UNC/DUKE, I think his alternative play may be to foster the SEC’s BFF relationship with the B12 with the hope of landing TX, OU, OSU, WV to go with VT and NCstate.
I realize TX has no incentive to accept that deal now, but in this Game of Thrones, even an Imp can become King.
LikeLike
Slive better not hold his breath. Texas and Oklahoma have made clear for 20 years they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the SEC.
LikeLike
Duffer: How ’bout those Hoosiers!
To me, Victor has been a first team AA this year to date…he probably won’t get it because his average isn’t high enough, but he’s been that good……..
I think Burke and D Thomas may also deserve first team AA….and I’d put Cody and Hardaway as 3rd teamers…any arguments with that?
LikeLike
worst loss for Purdue at Mackey ever…against anybody…woohoo
LikeLike
Just because I can…..
Rice 79
Houston 69
lol, enjoy Big East.
LikeLike
Post-game tweet from our best player, lol
Tamir:
I’m celebrating this win tonight in the library. Just finish physics hw now bout to read 100 pages bout Aristotle rhetoric for class 2morrow
LikeLike
I found this tool on the
Chronicles of Higher Education that allows you to look at the state-by-state breakdown of the freshmen classes of 1500+ different schools. I thought it could provide some useful insight into where various B1G expansion target schools recruit students…
Florida State
5,286 FL (91.5% in-state)
…9/10 students from Florida. The 10th student doesn’t do much to impact the flavor of the school.
North Carolina
3,234 NC (82.7% in-state)
87 FL
74 NY
59 GA
57 MD
55 VA
50 NJ
38 TX
34 PA
28 CA
24 SC
23 OH
17 IL
16 TN
…larger in-state percentage than either GT or UVA. OOS students from up and down the East Coast, but it’s a heavily NC-centric school.
Virginia
2,179 VA (72.5% in-state)
121 MD
80 NJ
76 NY
61 PA
56 FL
45 TX
44 GA
31 NC
31 CT
30 MA
27 CA
24 TN
19 OH
18 DC
…draws a significant percentage of its students from the DC-NYC corridor.
Georgia Tech
1,708 GA (69.2% in-state)
135 FL
56 TX
47 MD
46 TN
44 NC
43 NJ
43 SC
37 CA
29 AL
29 PA
21 OH
19 MA
15 IL
14 KY
…similar to UVA in OOS percentage. Draws heavily from south — FL, TN, NC, SC, AL, KY are all in top 15 states represented.
Miami
786 FL (41.2% in-state)
202 NY
152 NJ
81 MA
72 CA
60 VA
57 IL
56 CT
56 MD
56 PA
44 GA
41 OH
30 TX
22 MI
21 TN
…school of Floridians and Northerners. Hugely popular in NY/NJ region.
Duke
209 NC (13.4% in-state)
154 NY
148 CA
146 FL
93 VA
92 NJ
85 TX
74 PA
72 GA
53 OH
46 MD
41 MA
38 CT
36 SC
34 IL
…national school, with some deference to the home state.
Notre Dame
268 IL
174 CA
140 OH
130 IN (6.6% in-state)
110 PA
106 TX
102 NY
92 MI
85 NJ
75 FL
57 WI
56 VA
55 MN
53 MA
50 MO
…national school that draws heavily from the Midwest. Southeast poorly represented.
LikeLike
Interesting, to look at Florida. As their academic reputation has increased so has their % of in state students. In 1994 88.8% of their students were from Florida, in 2010 it was 95%.
LikeLike
Also, you can see how desperate Cal is for cash. From ’94-’08 their in state % hovered between 90 and 93. In 2010 it was 83.9. Gotta get those out of state tuition checks.
LikeLike
Cal went from 93% in-state in 2008 to 84% in-state to 2010 after the economy tanked. My friend on faculty said there was a push to follow the “Michigan model” of taking more OOS students.
LikeLike
The thing is, unless they have changed the rules, you qualify for in-state tuition after only a year at Cal . . .
LikeLike
And then only if your parents aren’t paying for your tuition or living expenses at all. I was days away from UCSD…only to find out that my parents helped me too much in the previous year for me to get instate tuition. Ended up going to a private Christian school for the same amount I would spent out-of-state at UCSD.
LikeLike
As it gets more in demand, there is political pressure to reduce out of state students. Don’t know specifically that is the case in Florida, but it has been in Georgia and Texas.
LikeLike
ND’s #s are interesting….on their forum I’ve seen claims about the large #s of students they get from ACC states as a reason to be in that conference…..not so much, from these #s…
LikeLike