Brett McMurphy and Andy Katz of ESPN.com have reported that NBC has verbally offered the remnants of the Big East between $20 million and $23 million per year for six years for the conference’s TV rights for all sports (including both football and basketball). That would be approximately $2 million per year for each school in the league. By way of comparison, each individual school in the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12 (and depending upon who you talk to, soon the ACC) will make about as much TV money on its own annually than the entire Big East conference. This is the latest news in the stunning decimation of the Big East since the league rejected an offer from ESPN two years ago worth an average of $130 million per year. During that time frame, the Big East has lost 5 football members that have actually played in the league (Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Rutgers and Louisville), 8 non-football members (Notre Dame, Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and Marquette) and 2 3 schools that defected before they even played a down of Big East football (TCU, Boise State and San Diego State). In the middle of that process, the conference also lost its place in the college football postseason structure, where it failed to secure a “Contract Bowl” slot (with its former BCS AQ counterparts Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC) and is now part of the “Gang of Five” non-power conference group (with the MAC, Conference USA, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt as new counterparts). The Big East made a huge gamble in taking its sports rights to the open market when it turned down that lucrative ESPN offer and even the largest conference naysayers couldn’t have predicted how badly that decision would backfire.
The argument that ESPN systemically devalued the Big East to the point where it was effectively destroyed is taken as gospel by many Big East partisans. It started back in October 2011 with a quote from the then-AD at Boston College stating that ESPN “told [the ACC] what to do” in the wake of Pitt and Syracuse defecting to the ACC. This line of thinking then continued on as the Big East lost more access in the new college football playoff system than any other conference (in fact, they’re likely going to be the only league that will end up making less money in the new format than it does in the current BCS system) and then suffered a literal avalanche of defections in the past 5 months.
However, it wasn’t the Bristol-based network that effectively killed off the Big East as we once knew it. Instead, Fox, in its pursuit of becoming the main competitor to ESPN in US sports television, ended up pulling the trigger. Consider two critical moves:
(1) Big Ten expands with Maryland and Rutgers – When the Big Ten added Maryland from the ACC and Rutgers from the Big East, Jim Delany wasn’t looking to aid its first tier national TV slate that’s being shown on the Disney networks of ABC and ESPN (unlike the addition of Nebraska in 2010). Instead, the main beneficiary from this expansion was Fox, which is 51% owner of the Big Ten Network (BTN), since it now has an argument that the network should be carried on basic cable in the New York City and Washington, DC markets. If anything, this move was terrible for ESPN since it makes Fox/BTN much stronger on the East Coast and took away schools from the two main conferences – the ACC and Big East – in which the Worldwide Leader owns all tiers of conference multimedia rights. Without Fox and the BTN, the Big Ten doesn’t take Rutgers directly from the Big East or indirectly causing Louisville to defect (since the ACC replaced Maryland with the Cardinals). The Big East still had the ability to survive as a viable football conference with Louisville and Rutgers in the fold, but once they were gone, Boise State (and subsequently San Diego State) didn’t believe that they would receive enough TV money to justify being complete western geographic outliers.
(2) Catholic 7 leave the Big East… because Fox convinced them to do so – A few weeks after the Rutgers and Louisville defections, the 7 remaining Catholic non-football schools (DePaul, Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence and Marquette) decided to split off from the Big East’s football members in order to form a new league (hereinafter called the “Catholic 7”). Multiple reports from both ESPN (including the McMurphy/Katz report linked above) and Sports Illustrated have stated that Fox is the leading suitor for the rights to the new Catholic 7 league with offers of between $30 million and $40 million per year depending upon whether it has 10 or 12 schools. That represents the Catholic 7 making around $3 million per year for basketball rights, which is more than the NBC offer to the Big East of $2 million per year for both basketball and football.
I’ve previously set forth reasons why the Catholic 7 would be more valuable than the new Big East even when they don’t offer any football (namely that football in and of itself isn’t what’s driving value and the Catholic 7 brand names and markets are much stronger top-to-bottom in order to garner a premium). Even if you don’t want to believe that’s the case in terms of comparing the inherent values of the Catholic 7 versus the Big East, a Tweet from Brett McMurphy on Saturday should put this into clearer focus:
Do you see what occurred here if this is true? Fox approached the Catholic 7 before they split off, which means it’s not so crazy to believe that Fox wanted them to split off. So, if you believe that Fox is overpaying for the Catholic 7, then you might be right. However, the point is that Fox needed to overpay the Catholic 7 in order to serve as a catalyst for them to split off. If Fox just merely offered “fair market value” to the Catholic 7, then they likely would have stayed in the hybrid. (Anyone that thought that the Catholic 7 would have split off without the knowledge that they’d be getting paid more compared to staying in the hybrid Big East isn’t thinking straight.) There needed to be an extraordinary financial windfall from Fox in order for the Catholic 7 to take the extraordinary step of splitting off from the Big East football schools. As a result, it’s almost pointless to try to compare the on-the-court basketball quality of the Catholic 7 versus the New Big East. The amounts that are being offered by Fox to the Catholic 7 reflect a “blood money” premium offer that they couldn’t refuse, whereas the Big East isn’t going to garner any premium at all and will be subject to the “normal” market forces in play.
That leads to a corresponding question: why would Fox do this? Why would it want to pay this much for the Catholic 7 instead of, say, simply bidding for the entire hybrid Big East? Well, let’s take a step back and examine what Fox actually needs in terms of sports content. The reality is that Fox (and when I say “Fox”, I really mean its new cable networks Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 as opposed to over-the-air Fox) already has a fairly full sports slate in the fall with Major League Baseball, NASCAR, Pac-12 football and Big 12 football rights. As a result, they don’t have much of a need for other college football games. The biggest programming gap that Fox has right now is during the winter, where its cable networks are pretty much wide open outside of some Pac-12 basketball rights.
I’ll put on my own tinfoil hat here, where my semi-educated guess is that Fox: (a) no longer had much interest in the New Big East football product after Rutgers and Louisville left, (b) still had interest in the Big East’s basketball product in order to provide winter programming and (c) didn’t want to get into a bidding war with NBC and/or ESPN to buy a Big East package for both basketball and football when all it really wanted was basketball. As a result, Fox went straight to the Catholic 7 (who represented most of the schools that they wanted to showcase for basketball, anyway) and offered up enough money that would simultaneously be a financial boon to those schools while allowing the cable network operation to save money compared to a competitive bidding situation for the all-sports hybrid Big East rights. It’s the very essence of a “win-win” for both the Catholic 7 and Fox here.
Meanwhile, the Big East has been left with only one legit suitor with NBC since Fox obviously has no interest (seeing that it made an offer to the Catholic 7 to split up the league), CBS has little funding for its fledgling CBS Sports Network and ESPN has had lukewarm feelings toward the league. Without a bidding war, the already thrifty Comcast/NBC organization zero incentive to drive up the price of the Big East on its own, so this very low offer reflects that reality. Either NBC takes the Big East rights or ESPN comes in to match it with its right of first of refusal (which the McMurphy/Katz article notes that the Worldwide Leader has), but there’s no other potential fountain of cash out there.
Sometimes, it’s not quite as simple as saying “UConn is a much better basketball program than DePaul, therefore, UConn should get paid more than DePaul”. Timing matters in conference realignment and TV contracts, so in this case, Fox had a specific need in a situation where the Catholic 7 was in the right place at the right time. Granted, that’s no consolation for the fans of schools that are left in the Big East and who may need to start hanging up pictures of Rupert Murdoch on their dartboards instead of Mickey Mouse.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Blackhawks DL)
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go BLUE!
LikeLike
Luv ya Lions!
LikeLike
It isn’t “overpaying” if they are making money on it.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, that’s very true. Fox could very well make money on the deal (or at least justify it in the event that Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 end up with the basic cable carriage that they’re looking for). I think the overall idea is that it was going to take a large amount to cajole a group from the status quo position.
LikeLike
Precisely ~ there is a difference between “fair market value” in the sense of $1 more than the second highest bid and “fair market value” in the sense of a fair share of the advertising and cable rights market value of the content. That is, “fair” as in “value in a fair rights market auction” versus “fair” as in “a fair share of prospective rights revenue”.
Consider ESPN’s $130m offer for the current Big East. At 30% of the value for BBall, that places a value of $40m for current Big East Basketball. And that was the maximum “contract share” promised in the deal with Boise State, but arguably. Given the imbalance between strength of Big East Football and Basketball, Basketball could well have been 35% to 40% of the prospective revenues driving that bid, which would price Big East basketball including Rutgers (market) and Louisville (brand) at $45m-$50m.
So $30m-$40m as a fair market value for the Basketball rights of the C7 subtract Rutgers, Louisville, UConn and UC but plus some more of the cream of non-football Division 1 seems quite reasonable.
As the post says, its paying more than one would have to bid of the league already existed, but if Fox wanted the league to exist in the first place, they had to pay a “fair share of prospective revenues” value, rather than a “competitive market value in an auction market”
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
3 than never played a down: TCU was supposed to go as well.
LikeLike
Yup. What a bloodbath!
LikeLike
That was my first thought, but TCU may have bolted before the Big East turned down the ESPN deal. I don’t remember the exact dates.
LikeLike
Kylepitt is correct. TCU replaced Texas A&M in the Big 12 even before Missouri officially decided to leave. So, that was all after the Big East turned down the ESPN deal.
LikeLike
Yep, just checked. Big East declined the ESPN deal in July 2011 and TCU announced their departure in October 2011.
LikeLike
Oh man, I can’t believe that I forgot to include them! “TCU to the Big East” was something that I advocated for a long time while they were in the MWC. I’ll update that pronto.
LikeLike
I was thinking you missed them but wasn’t sure of the dates. How can you forget the conference killers? Darrell Royal once said of TCU after an upset loss, “They’re like cockroaches. Its not what they pick up and carry off. Its what they fall into and mess up.”
The conferences they have fallen into:
RIP TIAA
RIP SWC
RIP WAC
CUSA shadow of its former self (only UAB and USM charter members)
Big East shadow of its former self (only UConn long time member and not for football)
The MWC would join that list, but TCU joined the Big East and jinxed it, sending Boise and SDSU back to the MWC. Still they lost BYU and Utah.
LikeLike
Which reminds me that given the TV offer, the NuBigEast might think about their basketball standing and number of Big Dance appearances, and be better off with Southern Miss (current Sagarin BBall 50th at 80.77, about the same as the average ranking of the Pac-12 and Mountain West and higher than the #7 SEC, #8 A-10 or #9 Missouri Valley) rather than Tulsa (current Sagarin BBall 160th at 73.32, which is dragging down the average of #11 Conference-USA)
LikeLike
Historically, Tulsa has a much stronger basketball program even if that’s not true at the moment.
LikeLike
Is that only stronger than they are at present, or generally stronger than Southern Miss / Middle Tennessee over the past decade?
LikeLike
Tulsa has generally been stronger than USM in basketball over the last 20 years, if not always. USM has only been to the tourney 3 times and hasn’t won a game. Tulsa has been there 14 times.
LikeLike
Ah, and I see they had one run to the regional finals. 12-14 in NCAA tournament appearances, 11-8 in the past twenty years looks a lot better than their more recent rankings ~ its just that the most recent of those appearances was 2002.
Well, that puts a better spin on their bid.
LikeLike
of course the only person still active in College Athletics that was involved in the death of the SWC and collaterally the WAC. is UT’s Deloss Dodd. You may want to check for his fingerprints on all of those as well.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe (who investigated SMU, which many believe was the downfall of the SWC) has a nifty twitter account in his name!
LikeLike
Go Hawks!!!
LikeLike
For now, Connecticut is the biggest loser, diminishing from a multiple national basketball champion and BCS bowl participant to a member of a league of also-rans. The ACC won’t take Storrs until it needs it (probably alongside Cincinnati)…although if the Big 12 was sufficiently Machiavellian, it might pursue the two UCs, if only to destabilize the ACC by depriving it of the two programs it would need if replenishment was required. In a scenario where Virginia and Georgia Tech go to the Big Ten, the ACC would be stuck at 12 — and if the Big 12 then successfully wooed Florida State and Clemson, it would dwindle to 10 for football, lose its CCG and look a lot less attractive to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
<em… if the Big 12 was sufficiently Machiavellian, it might pursue the two UCs, if only to destabilize the ACC by depriving it of the two programs it would need if replenishment was required….
There’s Machiavellian, and then there’s foolish. Taking the two UCs would cost the Big XII too much money, for too little value. If the ACC is unstable enough to lose Virginia and GT, then the Big XII can probably hook FSU and Clemson without taking on two extra schools that it clearly doesn’t need.
the ACC would be stuck at 12 — and if the Big 12 then successfully wooed Florida State and Clemson, it would dwindle to 10 for football, lose its CCG and look a lot less attractive to Notre Dame.
The ACC wouldn’t be stuck at 12; it would replenish, most likely with USF and one other school, such as Memphis or Navy. Notre Dame doesn’t care whether the ACC has 12 or 10 schools; it only cares if the ACC continues to have its bowl access.
LikeLike
FSU only wants to go to the Big XII unless it has ‘multiple’ partners, just Clemson probably doesn’t work YET as FSU prefers the B10/SEC. It sounds like FSU wants Miami, Clemson and one other ACC school.
LikeLike
Yes, this is why the Big12 is a “second mover”. All the schools that would be worth its while to add are not going to be going to the Big12 unless the ACC is destabilized. And the most worthwhile ones wouldn’t pick a Big12 invitation unless they are confident there is no BigTen and/or SEC (depending on school) invite coming.
If the Big Ten or SEC moves, and then especially if the other moves, there will be opportunities, though the Big12 may still have to add four in order to construct a “Big14 East” that is preferable to sticking it out in a “New ACC” that bears a striking resemblance to the Old Big East.
LikeLike
The only fault with this is that UVA/VTech, Duke/UNC/NCState/WakeForest (UNC ‘owns’ NCState’s board) won’t move without one another–in some cases it requires state legislatures to approve it.
I especially don’t see Tobacco Road leaving. UVA won’t leave without VTech (and vice versa), the only school that MIGHT leave is GTech and that’s only if they can realistically join UGA in the SEC.
FSU might leave. Clemson I sincerely doubt, but it could.
okay, big deal.
USF, Cincy, UCF, Navy, ECU aren’t the best in the world but they’d be able to step up. UConn, on the other hand, will be a very, very, VERY last resort.
LikeLike
Virginia and North Carolina can probably move to the Big Ten with little difficulty if Virginia Tech and N.C. State move to the SEC simultaneously.
LikeLike
UVA will will not insist that VT comes with them. Just that they land safe. VT can go to SEC
UNC will not insist that NC State come with them. Just that they land safe. NC State can go to SEC
UNC WILL hwoever insist that Duke comes with them
GT has no friends.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight. USF, Cincy, USF, ECU and Navy can step up in conference. But UConn will be a very very very last resort. Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
Last resort for the ACC, yes, not the Big Least. They’ll be the flagbearers for the Big Least.
LikeLike
I’m curious where you’re getting that from. The Louisville AD said that, before a last-minute switch was made, UConn was very close to getting the ACC invite after Maryland left. A number of ACC sources said that UConn and Cincy would probably get the next two bids.
LikeLike
I think you flipped your wig.
LikeLike
So the ACC has raided and pillaged five Big East schools (Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt) dating back to 2004, but the plucking of Rutgers by the B1G (which then allowed the ACC to take a sixth (!!) Big East team in Louisville) is seen as the catalyst that broke the conference’s ability to be a player in big boy football.
Damn you, Delanyyyyyyyy!
I know. Timing matters. Yada yada. But my god the ACC gets such a pass. Now, after being the biggest conference cannibal of the last decade, they get to play the poor victim card while mean ol’ Delany and Slive come together to discuss how best to carve up the most valuable parts of this conference.
LikeLike
It could have as easily gone in the other direction, had the Big East been more aggressive than the ACC. It could have wooed Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State as all-sports members in 2002 or so, joining a football conference that already had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Rutgers and Temple. With Connecticut reaching I-A status, you would have had 12 football members and a CCG. Meanwhile, the ACC would have shrunk to six members and would have been the league forced to take in Conference USA emigres. There was going to be only one strong conference east of the Alleghenies.
LikeLike
Not “easily”. That was the problem with the hybrid structure to the old Big East. You couldn’t add any new teams without basically overloading the basketball side of things. And Clemson, GTech and FSU were not going to join as football only members. The Big East had no ability to grow.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“But my god the ACC gets such a pass.”
You say that like killing the BE is a bad thing or the B10 is getting some horrible press for doing it.
LikeLike
Um, yea… Actually a lot of people are upset about the Big East being broken up (mostly Big East basketball fans), and the B1G, Delany in particular, is definitely being portrayed as a destroyer of college sports, long time conference rivalries, etc. in the quest to maximize profits.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard a peep from anyone. Have you heard it from anyone outside the northeast? It would be a bigger story if the ACC collapsed, but the BE has been seen as a dead conference walking for a long time.
LikeLike
@Blapples: So the ACC has raided and pillaged five Big East schools . . . .
No, they haven’t. Conferences are voluntary membership organizations. The ACC had a better product at the time (and still does), and those schools took advantage of it.
Assuming you believe in capitalism, that is how it should work. Failed conferences (like the Big East) ought to pay a market penalty for their errors, and successful ones ought to reap the benefits.
LikeLike
MHVer3 reporting tonight that B1G will meet in April to vote on 2-6 more members (this comes from a source at OSU and a source at Penn State). If they go past 16, they go to 10 game schedule. UVA is a lock, at least right now. Believes this will open up Orange Bowl to renegotiation.
LikeLike
I officially put MHVer3 in the same category as Greg Swain and the Dude. Just too much nonsense to give any credence to anything coming out.
LikeLike
Is there a website we can go to to read that info?
LikeLike
I believe MHVer3 is his twitter handle and his name on the WV Scout board. IMHO – Don’t waste your time.
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/301125421959884800
LikeLike
That is some smart crystal-ball reporting. Around the new year, “The Dude” was reporting dates for UVA announcing that it was moving as “early next week”. Giving himself until April for the VOTE and no prediction of the announcement gives MHVer much more leeway.
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
College Baseball starts Friday. My Tigers versus Vincent’s turtles.
LikeLike
The bib game Friday is Stanford at Rice. 😉
LikeLike
loki – congrats on your Owls taking 2 of 3 from Stanford.
LSU’s weekend attendance in sweeping Maryland was 34,334.
LikeLike
If the B1G is actually considering Vandy I think the PAC might/should consider Rice.
LikeLike
I thought the Dude and MHVer3 may be the same guy.
LikeLike
No, just both from West Virginia. They do talk to each other. And MHVer3 is known for talking to himself.
LikeLike
Gotta love competition in the TV industry.
If you think about it the BE schools all won … that is those who left the league. Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse get somewhat more than the BE turned down. West Virginia, TCU, and especially Rutgers quite a bit more. And the C7 will double their revenue.
The losers are three: USF, UConn, and Cincy.
Two of them (USF and UConn) have terrible and stupid and way overpaid leadership, and the 3rd (Cincy) simply didn’t have enough time to get things together – they need another 5-10 years like Jurich had at Louisville.
Good luck Bearcats, screw the other two. As for the BE, the rest are happy (LOL the newbees bought the Brooklyn Bridge)
LikeLike
How long have UConn and USF been playing Division 1 football again?
I’m still hopeful that UC will get into the ACC. Sometime before August 15th, there will be some announced departures from the ACC (but perhaps not enough departures to make The Dude and MHVer truly happy) and the ACC will reload.
LikeLike
Forget, even Boise State came out better, pushed the MWC to rework their TV contract and their distributions, which while not FBS level, could easily double what the new Big East works out to for each school.
LikeLike
Reminds me of Danny Devitto in “Other Peoples Money” when he discovered this company that was worth more dead than alive (i.e., sold for scrap). That is the Big East
LikeLike
At Big East meeting in Dallas last month, a rumor was floated that the Catholic 7 would bring in UConn and Cinci in all sports other then football, then UConn and Cinci would place their football teams in the MWC.
UConn came out and publicly denied the rumors, but now that it looks like UConn and Cinci will get no more then $2 million, and the Catholic 7 will get $3 million in TV revenue, why not explore that option? You would be in a better basketball conference that geographically makes more sense then the Big East now, and if you can make enough in the MWC just to pay the cost to travel, they would still make more then they would in the Big East. Likely the MWC could pry away Houston and SMU from the Big East if this happened, so you would then be in, by far, the best non auto birth playoff conference, and even if Houston and SMU don’t come along, the MWC would be equal at worst compared to the conference your leaving.
This obviously would be beneficial to UConn and Cinci and in a vacuum great for the Catholic 7 (Classic East) which would be retaining the two best remaining teams from the Big East and for the MWC your adding two teams that have made it to BCS games and give you some exposure for your teams on the east coast. The problem I see is that if you want to build a stable league would you bring in two schools that will not be happy until they are in the ACC or another big conference? Do you want to deal with rumors that they are leaving each year? Would it be worth the temporary advantage?
I think it could still be worth it. I think if you build your league in a way that UConn and Cinci make sense, but if they leave you don’t have to scramble to find new teams. If the Catholic 7 picked up 5 teams as is rumored to get to 12, then threw UConn and Cinci on top of that with the other university and your TV partner understanding that this is possibly only a temporary bonus and then when they leave we are still a tight 12, then it could possibly work.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21540637/cincinnati-uconn-caught-between-big-east-catholic-7-mountain-west
LikeLike
The biggest advantage of bringing along UConn and Cincy is that it would give the C7 the 2 FB votes they need to actually dissolve the Big East. That would allow them to leave whenever they wanted without penalty and let them keep the name “Big East” amongst other things.
LikeLike
@Frug, good point. This would not likely accelerate departure as the talk right now is summer of 2014, summer of 2013 is probably not possible at all… though the Big East does not have a basketball media contract in place for 2012-2013 yet (it does cover football for 2013 season).
But as you say, If you could get UConn and Cincy to come along, even if just for a few years, being able to dissolve the league, take the name, and distribute credits and departure penalties the way you would like would be highly advantageous.
Honestly, other then South Florida, the remaining teams under this scenario shouldn’t receive any revenue anyways since at this moment they have not contributed anything.
LikeLike
Sorry, basketball for 2013-2014.
LikeLike
The reality of the matter is Connecticut , Cincinnati, South Florida, SMU & Houston will not remain in the Big East (Or whatever it is called) five years from now. One thing I do not see is the Huskies and Bearcats parking their teams in the Mountain West until the move somewhere else. Why? If I am the Mountain West, I see an opportunity to pick up two Schools who will more likely make a long-term commitment to my Conference (Houston & SMU) who are located far closer to where most of my Schools play (Texas), plus Houston will be heading into a brand new facility, so the growth potential is there as well. South Florida looks like a real possibility for the ACC, if the Conference has Miami & (or) Florida State poached by the Big XII, SEC or Big 10. Basically, Connecticut and Cincinnati are in the same boat as USF (Although I believe USF should be a higher priority for the ACC (If Florida State leaves which I suspect will happen)). I think the next two Schools to switch Conferences will be SMU & Houston, to makes too much sense for all concerned.
LikeLike
But what’s the value to the MWC? Making themselves the clear #6? Is that worth anything? Just makes it easier for Houston or ECU to go unbeaten in the BE.
LikeLike
The benefit to the Mountain West is expansion into Texas (Without adding the likes of UTEP). Keep in mind Texas is one of the top recruiting areas in the Country. Beyond that, Ii you look at some of the Schools in the Mountain West, there are some that are either who cares (San Jose St), offer little growth opportunity (Wyoming), or Both (New Mexico). As far as being unbeaten in the Big East is concerned, keep in mind, Houston will NOT go unbeaten in the Big East, because they likely will not be playing in the Big East (I see them in the Mountain West).
LikeLike
I was referring to Cincinnati and UConn.
LikeLike
I doubt that any conference is going to feel very good about taking two schools, Cincinnati and UConn, who are known to be itching to leave for the ACC at the first opportunity.
It does not help your conference when the two most prominent members are openly pining to be elsewhere. If the MWC and the C7 want anything, it’s stability.
Now, SMU and Houston to the MWC makes a lot more sense to me.
LikeLike
This is the main reason why such a plan is unlikely.
UConn and Cincy represent an ongoing “instability” factor if they are in the a conference outside of the ACC.
In the Big East, they’re the first two to replace ACC teams that move to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12.
In the MWC (for fb) and Catholic-7 (for bb), they bring that instability factor to those two conference.
Better to leave such things alone.
LikeLike
Precisely. Invite UC and UConn for Olympic Sports into the Classic East, and they could well have their exit already announced in the Classic East’s first season.
The only stability in admitting a football school to the Classic East would be a school that has thrown in the towel on chasing a bigger conference membership, and that kind of school wouldn’t be applying to be FB-only in the MWC over halfway across the country … they’d be applying to be the second FB-only school in the MAC.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Imagine if Fox, somehow, got UCONN in the B1G ( I realize what a monumental long shot that would be). That would put Fox in ESPN’s back yard. It makes me wonder why ESPN would not push for the ACC to take UCONN when they had the chance?
LikeLike
Because Fox would much rather save that spot for UNC or UVa or Georgia Tech.
We’re at 14, the spots are getting limited now. Need as many spots as possible for Southeast expansion.
LikeLike
According to West Virginia bloggers the Big 10 is going to conspire with the Big XII and SEC to take every school except Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
Those guys are nuts. I’ve never seen people throw as much crap at a wall to see what sticks.
There’s a more than even chance that nothing changes with the Big 5 for a long time from where we are currently.
LikeLike
The Big 10 and Big XII are in discussions as to whether to put up a “No Panthers allowed” sign on their future tree fort.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Pingback: The Morning Mix | CollegeBasketballTalk
GBR
LikeLike
Spartans > Wolverines. Go Green!
LikeLike
If Fox Sports doesn’t have much of a need of additional college football games with its 51% share of the BTN along with Pac 12 and Big XII games, do you think they will make a competitive bid for the Big Ten’s Tier 1/2 football and men’s basketball when the current television contracts end in a few year’s time?
LikeLike
@cutter – I think Fox would be very interested in the Big Ten 1st tier rights, but it would likely be more to fill out slots on the over-the-air network with its commitment to prime time games along with open Saturday afternoon spots as more MLB games shift to cable. The Big East has little to no value as an over-the-air property, so it would have been a pure cable play for Fox (and that’s not where they need more college football).
Now, what’s interesting is that ESPN might be the more desperate party here. Losing Big Ten games would leave gaping holes in the schedules if ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. My long-term belief is that ESPN won’t let that happen – just like they did to keep the NFL and SEC, ESPN will pay up to the Big Ten. Fox might get a smaller package (e.g. a prime time package that could be created if you read between the lines of what Delany said about “prime” games yesterday).
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank – Your comments are pretty much in line with my thinking. Fox could become something akin to what CBS Sports currently is with the SEC for prime time games. And yes, ABC/ESPN will be in a position where they don’t want to lose the B1G on Saturday afternoons.
So how do you think this all plays out in the 9 v. 10 conference game decision/debate in the B1G? Will they go to ten games because it offers better inventory to the networks and five home/road conference games per year to help competitive balance? Or do they go with nine games in order to keep at least seven at home each season and increase the probability of more interesting home-and-home matchups outside the B1G region?
ESPN’s last B1G blog post yesterday talked about the divisions being shaped by time zones, i.e., geography. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/71477/time-zones-might-shape-b1g-divisions The entry had a link to MSU AD Mark Hollis talking about wanting to showcase Michigan State in Chicago, which would indicate a preference for being in the western division. Do you think that’s going to happen or will it be Purdue going to the west with MSU in the east?
LikeLike
Right now 10 is likely just a discussion thing. To open minds and to have something to debate against 9.
It’s extremely unlikely that the conference moves to 10 games before it secures a 15th and 16th member.
LikeLike
The key to the debate of the # of conference games is to “move the bacon” if you will. By moving the default level to 9 games, they basically made it fiat accompli. But you can only do that by making this a debate 9 v 10 rather than 8 v 9.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten ADs are that unsophisticated. They had already agreed to do 9 games previously, before the Pac-12 alliance temporarily put the idea on ice.
Used car salesmen can trick unwary customers like that. I don’t think it works with Jim Delany and the Big Ten ADs.
LikeLike
Thing is, among the Big Ten AD’s are those who would benefit more from the 10 game schedule, so so all that is necessary is to raise the question whether in going to 14 schools and 7 school divisions, they play 8, 9 or 10.
Those lining up for fewer games have no substantial difference in 8 or 9 ~ trading off a second level Home and Home OOC for a conference Home and Home is at worst a wash, possibly an upgrade since conference record is on the line. So put the question of 8, 9 or 10 on the agenda, and it quickly becomes 9v10 on its own.
LikeLike
I was thinking about this when I read the article as well, and I thought the proposed B1GW teams will likely push to keep MSU and Michigan in the same division. This would eliminate protected cross-overs for Michigan and give the western teams more chances to play Michigan. Purdue would have the protected rivalry game with Indiana, so Indiana would have less exposure to the western teams at the expense of more exposure to Purdue. This scenario would still guarantee MSU plays in Chicago once every four years (once per class).
LikeLike
Conversely, the eastern school may well push to send MSU west in an attempt to give some balance to the divisions.
LikeLike
@ Brian,
That may be true, but I guess my thinking is that the benefit/demand for more access to Michigan by the B1GW schools would outweight any perceived difference in strength between MSU and Purdue (assuming the decision is between Purdue and MSU going west).
For non-king B1G schools, records/relative strength can vary significantly in a short amount of time. Ten years ago, Purdue would have been considered a stronger football program than MSU, so I’m not sure there’s a strong case to be made for sending MSU west based on competitive balance. Will B1G ADs feel the same way?
LikeLike
Quacs,
“That may be true, but I guess my thinking is that the benefit/demand for more access to Michigan by the B1GW schools would outweight any perceived difference in strength between MSU and Purdue (assuming the decision is between Purdue and MSU going west).”
1. MSU wants to go west and PU doesn’t (as far as I know).
2. MSU is a much better program now than PU.
3. With 9 games, they still get MI twice every 12 years.
4. Less MI also means more OSU and PSU (twice every 6 years instead of every 7, essentially).
5. Net result is 7/9 (0.78) of an eastern king annually versus 6/7 (0.86) if MSU is in the east. That’s 1 less king game every 12 years, roughly.
6. But PSU isn’t MI, you say. Well, they’d only get 1 fewer game against OSU and MI every 10 years.
7. As I showed elsewhere, MSU in the west does provide better balance.
8. MSU in the west also provides better brand balance.
LikeLike
@ Brian – here’s my response “Brian style”-
1. MSU wants to go west and PU doesn’t (as far as I know).
>I agree that MSU wants to go west, but I bet PU also wants to go west too, especially if they keep their IU rivalry protected and maintain the ND game (which could buffer losing some eastern king appearances with the IU crossover). Have you seen anyone from PU say they would rather go east? I would expect PU would want to go west for the same reasons MSU does.
2. MSU is a much better program now than PU.
>Delany and B1G PTB have consistently said these are long term decisions, not ones based on the immediate past. MSU has only been significantly better over the last 3-4 years.
3. With 9 games, they still get MI twice every 12 years.
> That’s not a lot. I would bet every B1GW team would rather play Michigan more often.
4. Less MI also means more OSU and PSU (twice every 6 years instead of every 7, essentially).
> As you say below, playing PSU isn’t nearly the same as playing Michigan – not nearly as appealing or lucrative for B1GW teams.
5. Net result is 7/9 (0.78) of an eastern king annually versus 6/7 (0.86) if MSU is in the east. That’s 1 less king game every 12 years, roughly.
> So, not only do B1GW teams play fewer kings, but a higher frequency of PSU and less Michigan? That’s even less appealing for all 6 B1GW teams.
6. But PSU isn’t MI, you say. Well, they’d only get 1 fewer game against OSU and MI every 10 years.
> See above.
7. As I showed elsewhere, MSU in the west does provide better balance.
> I believe you took a sample of win/loss records over a ten year timeframe. If we look at the last fifteen years, we can see PU has made more bowls, and had more Rose Bowl appearances than MSU. I don’t think the two programs are much different strength-wise, especially when taking a longer term view of both teams. I think anyone that says MSU is a significantly better football program than PU is clouded by recency bias.
8. MSU in the west also provides better brand balance.
> I lukewarmly agree with this, but only because of MSU’s basketball success, not because MSU’s perceived strength as a football program. I still think MSU and PU are very close on the Q-score spectrum, but this is meaningless anyway since brand balance is not a criterion the PTB have claimed they will use to select divisions.
MSU going west is better for MSU, but worse for six other schools, and arguably for Purdue as well. Will the B1G PTB cave for MSU if the other six or seven schools express their preference for MSU in the east, especially when MSU going east still gives them games against NU just about once for each class? What if NU agreed to have MSU as a protected rival – that would satisfy MSU’s two top preferences in division realignment without sacrificing the others access to Michigan. I’m not sure NU would go for that, but the point is there are other ways to satisfy MSU’s Chicago love and still keep them east.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“I agree that MSU wants to go west, but I bet PU also wants to go west too,”
Based on what?
“especially if they keep their IU rivalry protected”
Obviously that’s a condition for wherever they go.
“and maintain the ND game”
That’s not going anywhere.
“(which could buffer losing some eastern king appearances with the IU crossover).”
But they can go east and get those OSU and MI games, too.
“Have you seen anyone from PU say they would rather go east?”
Have you seen anyone from PU say they would rather go west?
“I would expect PU would want to go west for the same reasons MSU does.”
NW means nothing special to PU and PU isn’t trying to get out from under the shadow of IN. MSU will play MI annually regardless but that game is huge for PU. So is OSU.
“Delany and B1G PTB have consistently said these are long term decisions, not ones based on the immediate past. MSU has only been significantly better over the last 3-4 years.”
MSU is better over the past 5, 10 and 20 years. It’s been a bigger gap lately, but the gap has been there over the long haul, too. That doesn’t mean PU can’t catch up, but their ceiling is lower.
“That’s not a lot. I would bet every B1GW team would rather play Michigan more often.”
And yet they all seem OK putting OSU and MI and PSU all in the east. They can’t have it both ways.
“6. But PSU isn’t MI, you say. Well, they’d only get 1 fewer game against OSU and MI every 10 years.
> See above.”
Your above complained that PSU wasn’t MI. Here I removed PSU from the equation. 1 game every 10 years is not a valid complaint.
“I believe you took a sample of win/loss records over a ten year timeframe. If we look at the last fifteen years, we can see PU has made more bowls, and had more Rose Bowl appearances than MSU.”
MSU has a significantly better B10 record over the past 5, 10 and 20 years. 15 years cherry picks when they were basically equal (PU was up and MSU was down in years 11-15).
“I don’t think the two programs are much different strength-wise, especially when taking a longer term view of both teams.”
I do. MSU has been the bigger brand for a long time. Stadium size is indicative of their relative status.
“I think anyone that says MSU is a significantly better football program than PU is clouded by recency bias.”
Or isn’t clouded by liking PU. MSU is a top 30 program all-time in W%, PU is top 60 (28 vs 58). It’s #30 vs #44 if you look at total Ws. MSU has national titles and PU doesn’t.
“I still think MSU and PU are very close on the Q-score spectrum,”
Maybe in IN.
“but this is meaningless anyway since brand balance is not a criterion the PTB have claimed they will use to select divisions.”
They don’t have to say it. They did it last time. It’s part of balance which is still #2 on their list.
“MSU going west is better for MSU, but worse for six other schools, and arguably for Purdue as well.”
WI is really the only school it is notably worse for, and they want to play MSU more. There are miniscule differences for the rest.
“Will the B1G PTB cave for MSU if the other six or seven schools express their preference for MSU in the east,”
Is it caving if half the schools feel one way and half the other? MSU wants the west and PU hasn’t said they don’t want the east. That’s enough reason right there to do it.
“What if NU agreed to have MSU as a protected rival – that would satisfy MSU’s two top preferences in division realignment without sacrificing the others access to Michigan.”
If that happened, then MI/MN would also get locked and everyone would play MI less anyway.
LikeLike
Regarding the relative strength of Purdue vs MSU (conference winning % in 5 year increments from 1940 onward)…
LikeLike
That graphic from Scarlet_lutefisk above shows that over the last 30-40 years, there hasn’t been a major difference in conf winning percentage between the two schools. The graphic doesn’t cherry pick years – the “best fit curves” merge around 1975 and are almost the same down to present day.
I *speculate* that Purdue wants to go west for the some of the same reasons MSU does – maintaining active recruiting channels in Chicago (for both students and athletes), and once PSU returns to prominence, having fewer kings in the division to compete with on a yearly basis, especially with ND on their yearly schedule. That’s not unreasonable or necessarily incorrect, and I don’t need to prove anything – I freely admit I’m speculating. Also, NU doesn’t mean any more or less to MSU than it does to PU as you infer in your response – MSU just wants to maintain access to Chicago.
Moving MSU west and instituting a UM/MSU crossover creates an imbalance for B1GW’s access to B1GE schools. Sure, you can backfill gaps created from the UM/MSU crossover w/ OSU and PSU, but I still think B1GW schools would prefer equal access to all B1GE programs rather than more of one and less of another. This is a league that trumpets equality as one of its core strengths. I know that the division format creates an imbalanced schedule by its very nature, but why exacerbate this imbalance for B1GW schools and their access to UM, a very important program for all of the B1GW teams? This would be benefit MSU, but cost six B1GW schools. You can believe those costs are insignificant, I just don’t happen to agree.
Also, it’s not unreasonable to believe B1GW schools accepted PSU, OSU and UM in the same division while requesting that MSU be placed in the east to maintain a more balanced schedule. This is the essence of compromise, not “having it both ways” as you state. It’s not a hypocritical stance to give and take during this process.
I couldn’t care less where Purdue ends up – I have no dog in that fight – and I don’t like Purdue any more than I like MSU. I just think that recency bias skews a lot of people’s opinion of the relative strengths of MSU and PU, and it looks to me like Scarlet’s graphic bears that out.
LikeLike
I’ll split the baby here. I agree with Brian that MSU is a better long- and short-term brand than Purdue. But it’s not so dramatically better that it would tilt the decision, unless the other factors are tied.
We can all enumerate the other factors at play. How the B1G ADs would weigh them is not so clear. The Legends/Leaders split wasn’t very popular; so obviously, the way the ADs think is not always aligned with the way the fans think.
I suspect that the negotiation in the room is a delicate dance. Iowa can say, “We want to play Nebraska every year,” and it is uncontroversial. But access to Chicago is useful to many teams, not just MSU. So if Mark Hollis says, “I’d like to be in the west, so that we can play in Chicago every other year,” 13 other guys might say they want the same thing. If he insinuates that he wants to be in the west because the schedule will be easier, he won’t get a lot of sympathy for that either. ADs have to at least put up a show of thinking on behalf of the whole league.
For the record, Illinois is Purdue’s second most-played rivalry, behind Indiana, and ahead of even Notre Dame, so perhaps they’d want to keep that. Michigan State is Northwestern’s least-often-played Big Ten rivalry (mainly because the Spartans joined the league much later than the other pre-Penn State schools).
So I don’t think there is any particular history to the Michigan State-Northwestern rivalry, other than the Spartans simply wanting it for their own benefit. There’s nothing wrong with a little selfishness, at times, but I doubt it will prevail unless it’s what the ADs already want, for better reasons.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“That graphic from Scarlet_lutefisk above shows that over the last 30-40 years, there hasn’t been a major difference in conf winning percentage between the two schools. The graphic doesn’t cherry pick years – the “best fit curves” merge around 1975 and are almost the same down to present day.”
And the huge gap before that shows why MSU is a bigger brand.
“I *speculate* that Purdue wants to go west for the some of the same reasons MSU does – maintaining active recruiting channels in Chicago (for both students and athletes),”
PU is much closer to Chicago, plus they have a smaller fraction of their alumni in Chicago IIRC. Still, you are welcome to speculate, of course. The difference is that we have evidence that MSU wants to go west.
“and once PSU returns to prominence, having fewer kings in the division to compete with on a yearly basis, especially with ND on their yearly schedule.”
MSU has NEVER said that fear of tougher teams is why they want to go west. That’s also speculation by you, and goes against what some of their fans have said. It also goes against the math which says it wouldn’t make a huge difference.
“Also, NU doesn’t mean any more or less to MSU than it does to PU as you infer in your response – MSU just wants to maintain access to Chicago.”
Show me all the quotes from Burke about playing NW being PU’s second most important game. Hollis has been saying that for years, and Alvarez has said MSU is campaigning to go west. He could have mentioned PU at the same time, but didn’t.
“Moving MSU west and instituting a UM/MSU crossover creates an imbalance for B1GW’s access to B1GE schools.”
No more so than IN/PU being locked would. It just changes the teams involved.
“Sure, you can backfill gaps created from the UM/MSU crossover w/ OSU and PSU, but I still think B1GW schools would prefer equal access to all B1GE programs rather than more of one and less of another.”
1. Equal access is impossible with a locked game. They’ll have equal access to the other 6, though.
2. PSU is not an equal replacement for MI for some schools, but OSU is pretty equivalent team for all but MN. The increase in OSU games would almost equal the loss of MI games.
“This is a league that trumpets equality as one of its core strengths.”
So that means it shouldn’t matter who goes where. Since MSU wants the west, they should get it unless PU is campaigning just as hard for it.
“I know that the division format creates an imbalanced schedule by its very nature, but why exacerbate this imbalance for B1GW schools and their access to UM, a very important program for all of the B1GW teams?”
WI wants to play MSU more according to their fans. IL prefers OSU to MI slightly, so they get what they want. In addition, all these teams seemed to support sending OSU and MI east knowing that this sort of decision would have to be made.
“Also, it’s not unreasonable to believe B1GW schools accepted PSU, OSU and UM in the same division while requesting that MSU be placed in the east to maintain a more balanced schedule.”
It’s not unreasonable, but none of the leaks support it. They’ve said they agree on sending 3 kings east and are debating where MSU and PU go. If it was conditional on MSU also going east, then the western schools wouldn’t have supported the 6/6 split. That’s not the word we’ve been hearing, though.
“This is the essence of compromise, not “having it both ways” as you state.”
It’s compromise if they made it a condition of agreeing to send OSU and MI east. It’s hypocritical to agree to sending them east and then complain about not playing MI enough when there were 50/50 odds of MI/MSU being locked.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I agree with Brian that MSU is a better long- and short-term brand than Purdue.”
Hah. My plan has worked. I’ve forced you to agree with me on something. The brain washing will now begin.
“But it’s not so dramatically better that it would tilt the decision, unless the other factors are tied.”
I wouldn’t say tied, but close. I agree we’re not talking MI versus IN here.
“So if Mark Hollis says, “I’d like to be in the west, so that we can play in Chicago every other year,” 13 other guys might say they want the same thing.”
I can almost guarantee RU, MD, PSU and OSU wouldn’t make that claim (it certainly wouldn’t be credible), and clearly NW and IL wouldn’t. So at most 7 other guys would say it. Now subtract the obvious western schools (NE, WI, IA, MN) since they’ll clearly get that chance and you’re down to MI, MSU, PU and IN. We know MI is going east with IN, so it becomes just the two. And we know Hollis is saying it but we haven’t heard it from Burke.
“If he insinuates that he wants to be in the west because the schedule will be easier, he won’t get a lot of sympathy for that either.”
Nor should he.
“For the record, Illinois is Purdue’s second most-played rivalry, behind Indiana, and ahead of even Notre Dame, so perhaps they’d want to keep that.”
Yeah, the Purdue cannon has meaning. IL would also like to keep Illibuck. They tend to be the school getting screwed with this setup because they are near the E/W border.
“So I don’t think there is any particular history to the Michigan State-Northwestern rivalry, other than the Spartans simply wanting it for their own benefit. There’s nothing wrong with a little selfishness, at times, but I doubt it will prevail unless it’s what the ADs already want, for better reasons.”
Until we hear that PU also wants it, there’s no reason to deny MSU.
LikeLike
Hah. My plan has worked. I’ve forced you to agree with me on something. The brain washing will now begin.
I agree with you most of the time. I just don’t write a lot of posts to that effect, as there is no point unless I have something different (or additional) to say.
LikeLike
Will they go to ten games because it offers better inventory to the networks and five home/road conference games per year to help competitive balance?
Some of these concerns are more imagined than real. As long as all the teams in a given division have the same number of home/road games, competitive balance is not really an issue.
Moreover, even in the current 8-game structure, most teams play 3 OOC home games, and those are part of the Big Ten inventory anyway, regardless of opponent. Of course, Indiana vs. a BIg Ten team is going to get better ratings than Indiana vs. Ball State or Western Kentucky; but no one forced the Hoosiers to schedule those games; they did that to themselves. And with one less OOC game, what will Indiana drop? Will it drop Ball State (a game it ought to win easily), or will it drop USF (a game it could lose)?
Or do they go with nine games in order to keep at least seven at home each season and increase the probability of more interesting home-and-home matchups outside the B1G region?
Ohio State has said they intend to keep their competitive OOC games, and I believe Michigan will as well. What’s interesting is what the bottom half of the conference will do.
LikeLike
About 90% of me believes that the Big Ten is simply going to 9 conference games, with 10 only being a theoretical discussion point.
The last 10% of me, though, looks at it from the perspective of a school like, well, Illinois. Sure, Ohio State has a nice slate of non-conference games lined up and if Purdue and Michigan State are able to maintain their Notre Dame series long-term (which isn’t necessarily a given since the Irish are giving priority to maintaining the Stanford series above them, much less Navy and USC), then they’ll obviously want to keep those games. For the “masses” of the Big Ten, though, how many non-conference opponents are out there that would be more intriguing (or more bluntly, would sell more tickets) than having more games against Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska? The vast majority of Big Ten schools don’t really play other marquee non-conference opponents – they’re typically schools that are at about the same level of quality or worse (or have some type of historical tie-in like Purdue-ND or Iowa-Iowa State). Maybe Big Ten ADs are starting to ask themselves about whether there’s any point to going through the headache of non-conference scheduling when the schools that your fans want to see and buy tickets for are located in your very own conference. Once again, a school like Ohio State or Michigan that can sell 100,000-plus seats whether they’re playing a MAC opponent or Notre Dame won’t necessarily think of it from that angle, but I’m sure the Illinois/Indiana/Northwestern/Minnesota-types that have to work to sell tickets (and aren’t as concerned about having a pristine on-the-field record to compete for a national championship) have a different perspective.
LikeLike
@Frank-
I’m of roughly the same mind you are right now concerning the nine v. ten game conference game discussion. I have to think that the athletic directors are going to be a bit conservative here in their thinking and put themselves in a situation where they can more readily schedule seven home game per year, which means nine conference games. It may just be an interim measure at this point to be implemented in 2016 because the conference may have 16 or more members by then.
But with the cost of pay for play non conference opponents going up and given some of the revenue figures that have been tossed around regarding annual conference distributions being buttressed by post-season and television revenue, I could also really see them considering a ten-game conference model as well.
If nothing else changed, a ten-game conference schedule with fourteen total teams could mean a 6-1-3 setup that would accomplish Delany’s stated goal of having the conference teams play one another as much as possible. With this setup, every team would play the other at least twice over a four year period.
I do agree with you that schools do vary in their practices concerning non-conference game scheduling. For some, it’s a path to get enough victories to get to a bowl game. For others, it’s a way to showcase their program on a large stage and to be in the post-season discussion for the BCS or in a few years, the four-team playoff.
One of the takeways I had from some of the articles written about the division split in the Big Ten is that the athletic directors really seem to value having their division opponents within a reasonable driving distance of one another. I suspect their thinking is that if I have to sell tickets for a less than stellar opponent’s game, it makes sense to be more accessible to that other team’s fans so they fill up the seats. That’s one of the reasons why I never thought that inner-outer division alignment wouldn’t work and it’s also one of the reasons why I suspect Northwestern was not interested in going to the east division (per the ChiTrib).
What do you think would be the fallout if the Big Ten was an “early adapter” of a ten-game conference schedule? Would other conferences follow the B1G’s lead (SEC, ACC)? Would it be a clear signal that the B1G intends to expand? Would schools be willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven home games in order to have at least one compelling non-conference game per year or would this kill off major inter-conference play? And if the B1G does have conference games in the first three weeks of September on a regular basis, what does that do to the non-conference schedule? I don’t think programs would be willing to play a major opponent late in the season in the midst of conference play.
LikeLike
What do you think would be the fallout if the Big Ten was an “early adapter” of a ten-game conference schedule? Would other conferences follow the B1G’s lead (SEC, ACC)?
The other conferences would send Jim Delany a thank-you card for making their playoff access easier, and the Big Ten’s harder.
Would it be a clear signal that the B1G intends to expand?
They already signaled that anyway.
Would schools be willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven home games in order to have at least one compelling non-conference game per year or would this kill off major inter-conference play?
I think the lower half of the Big Ten will stop scheduling competitive OOC opponents.
And if the B1G does have conference games in the first three weeks of September on a regular basis, what does that do to the non-conference schedule? I don’t think programs would be willing to play a major opponent late in the season in the midst of conference play.
I think you’re right about this: the marquee OOC matchups will continue to be in September. I don’t think any conference schedules those games after October 1, aside from traditional rivalries and games against independents.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd-
It’s interesting that you say a ten-game Big Ten Conference schedule would make access to the four-team playoff easier for other conferences? Why would that be the case? If B1G teams opted to swap out a difficult non-conference opponent for a difficult conference opponent, it’s really a no change situation. Mind you, we also don’t know the exact parameters the committee will use for choosing these four teams, but being a conference champion and strength of schedule are supposedly part of it.
As far as B1G expansion goes and clear signals, I’d say they’re still a bit murky at this point. Are the ADs saying they could see a larger conference? Absolutely. I even think it will happen as well. But there’s been no definitive statement from Delany that this is absolutely our plan. But the adoption of a ten-game schedule would definitely be another tell about where the conference is going.
I do agree with you that the lower half of the conference will stop scheduling any comparable or major non-conference opponents. Getting into a bowl game is key–just look at what Minnesota just did with their schedule. Also, if the marquee non-conference games are going to be played earlier in the year, then I imagine the early B1G matchups (in the first three weeks of September) aren’t gong to be between the major programs. You”ll see Ohio State-Indiana or Michigan-Minnesota as possibilities more than, say Michigan-Wisconsin or Ohio State-Nebraska.
Assuming Michigan State does go to the west and is Michigan’s protected rival, that means UM would play some combination of three of the following schools in a ten game schedule: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois. If the B1G were to break this up, it’d be Neb-NW-Minn for two years, then Wis-IA-IL for the other two years. Given those options, I could see the Wolverines playing Minnesota or Illinois earlier in the season than Iowa, Northwestern, Nebraska or Wisconsin.
LikeLike
@cutter: It’s interesting that you say a ten-game Big Ten Conference schedule would make access to the four-team playoff easier for other conferences? Why would that be the case? If B1G teams opted to swap out a difficult non-conference opponent for a difficult conference opponent, it’s really a no change situation.
Ohio State says that they intend to play one major OOC opponent every year. I assume Michigan and Nebraska will do the same: they have certainly scheduled the games, out to 2020 and beyond.
If there are ten conference games, that would give the “kings” — the schools more likely to win the conference in most years — eleven games against major-conference opponents. It would also give them six road games at least half the time.
Compare that to the status quo, where these schools seldom play more than nine or ten major-conference opponents (sometimes only eight), and seldom more than five road games (sometimes only four).
I think it’s fairly apparent that this system will more frequently produce a Big Ten champion with multiple losses, who would probably not be ranked in the top four, and would therefore probably not make the playoff.
Jim Delany, of course, was anti-playoff for years, and that the Rose Bowl was his top priority. The idea of a ten-game conference schedule is quite consistent with that, as the B1G’s Rose Bowl deal does not require the conference champion to be a great team; it only requires them to win the conference somehow.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
I read Gene Smith’s comments about wanting to have Ohio State continue playing at least one major non-conference opponent per year, so I assume he’d be willing to do that even with a ten-game conference schedule.
But let’s say Frank is right and Michigan State does go to the west. Ohio State is looking at playing Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue and a depleted Penn State in the near future. That’s not exactly Murder’s Row with the onlly real opposition in the division being Michigan.
Let’s make Ohio State’s protected cross divisional game Illinois because of the Illinibuck. So that means OSU would have its other contests with three of the following–Wisconsin, Nebraska, Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa and Minnesota. By our definitions, one of those teams is a “king” in Nebraska.
So you have a schedule with one king annually (Michigan), one depleted king (Penn State) and and a third king semi-annually (Nebraska). Then you add one major non-conference opponent to that list. On the top end, that’s actually a pretty typical Ohio State schedule. Where the difference is might be the bottom side.
For example, OSU’s 2012 opponents were Miami (Ohio), Central Florida, California (home-and-home) and Alabama-Birmingham. In a ten-game conference schedule for OSU, Cal and one of those three other teams would be on it. The two dropped teams (let’s say UCF and UAB) would have been replaced by some combination of Maryland/Rutgers and/or a team from the west division. I don’t see that as a major strength of schedule upgrade for Ohio State.
You could make the same sort of argument for Michigan or Nebraska, but I think the larger point is that a ten-game conference schedule only gets appreciably more difficult if you add high quality programs to your conference. If Florida State and Notre Dame were #13 and #14 on the list instead of Maryland and Rutgers, then I would agree with your point. The B1G would have six major program “kings” out of 14 instead of the four out of fourteen that we have now.
We’ll see what happens. I think we’re both agreed that if the Big Ten does opt to play conference games during the first three weeks of September, then the major non-conference opponents would only be played in that same time frame. It might be a little tougher to match up a date with a major opponent if there is only one slot available in September. It’s not impossible, but it may be a bit more difficult.
That leaves me with one more thought. One reason why the Big Ten might go to a ten-game conference schedule earlier rather than later is that it allows the athletic directors more time to plan ahead and to get their non-conference games in place. If they go to nine and leave the possibility of ten in the future, It could make their jobs a bit tricky. To be frank, that’s not the most compelling reason to go to ten conference games, but it’s just a thought.
How far out do you think the conference will release its schedules this spring? Will they only go for 2014/5 or will the extend it out a few more years beyond that?
LikeLike
@cutter: If OSU goes from eight home games to six, and they replace UCF/UAB with two Big Ten teams, you don’t think the schedule gets harder? Remember, they’re making a decision that’s going to have a long tail; Penn State won’t be under sanctions forever.
One reason why the Big Ten might go to a ten-game conference schedule earlier rather than later is that it allows the athletic directors more time to plan ahead and to get their non-conference games in place.
All they’d do is pick a date well into the future, and say: “Don’t schedule more than two games past this year.”
LikeLike
@ Frank ~ I reckon the lineup is both ends against the middle, the big stadium schools and those at the very bottom who want three cupcakes to have a better chance a going bowling against the middle, with those who have an annual Home and Home OOC series making the balance likely to tilt to 9 games.
LikeLike
cutter,
“But with the cost of pay for play non conference opponents going up and given some of the revenue figures that have been tossed around regarding annual conference distributions being buttressed by post-season and television revenue, I could also really see them considering a ten-game conference model as well.”
The big schools still make a huge profit off a home game after paying the other team.
“What do you think would be the fallout if the Big Ten was an “early adapter” of a ten-game conference schedule?”
Everyone else would point and laugh.
“Would other conferences follow the B1G’s lead (SEC, ACC)?”
Of course not. Who rushed to join the P12 at 9 games?
“Would schools be willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven home games in order to have at least one compelling non-conference game per year or would this kill off major inter-conference play?”
I think it would largely kill off good OOC games. Gene Smith says OSU would keep playing them, but I hope the accountants would tell him otherwise. There is talk of the B10 making schools whole for not having a 7th home game (maybe drop gate sharing), but they can’t replace the loss of fan interest from fewer home games.
“And if the B1G does have conference games in the first three weeks of September on a regular basis, what does that do to the non-conference schedule?”
It screws them up. You’ll have to buy the games later in the year, because no AQ coach will accept a road OOC game in November.
LikeLike
cutter,
Regarding SOS:
1. Road games are harder than home games.
2. Conference games are harder than OOC games because the opponent knows your style and your personnel so well. That’s why lesser teams can pull upsets in conference but rarely do OOC.
3. Assume the extra games are against 2 median B10 teams. For 2012, median in the B10 was #32 in Sagarin. That would be #3 in the ACC, #2 in the BE, #6 in the B12 and P12, #9 in the SEC and #1 in all non-AQs. That doesn’t leave many OOC options that are the same or better than 2 median B10 teams. In other words, adding 2 B10 games makes the scheduler harder.
Going to 10 games means more losses. Until they prove otherwise, it’s hard to believe they’ll reward a tougher schedule with 2 more losses, especially when part of the difficulty comes from location rather than opponent. Maybe you get by with 1 more loss, but the B10’s bad reputation won’t help there either. In essence, the B10 will lose more often and miss out on playoff spots because of it. Both of those things will reinforce the B10’s bad reputation, leading to more missed spots.
LikeLike
For my post above, assuming a 9 game league slate with the current 14 teams. 10 games would give MSU more access to Chicago.
LikeLike
Yes, mathematically that’s true. The question is whether the other 13 members would agree to play 10 games (unless they already want that anyway), just to do MSU a favor.
LikeLike
@cutter – I don’t really know if 10 conference games necessarily impacts TV inventory that much. This is probably more of a “ground game” concern for the schools – the plebeians of the Big Ten might be coming to the conclusion that they’d rather trade 1 or even 2 non-conference games in exchange for playing Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska more often. As much as we talk about TV revenue here, game day ticket sales are still the driving force behind athletic department finances.
It’s good to see all the comments coming out of the Big Ten that geography is going to be priority #1 in creating the new divisions. My gut feeling is that Michigan State will end up in the West and everyone will have a permanent cross-division rival like they do now. Whether it’s going to actually be true on the field or not, the perception is going to be that the East has the power with Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State (despite the likelihood of PSU being weak compared to the other 2 until the effect of their sanctions have run their course). Putting Michigan State in the West and keeping both Indiana and Purdue in the East mitigates that perception a bit.
LikeLike
@Frank – I could make arguments both ways about where Michigan State is going to end up. I just don’t know what the Big Ten athletic directors will think about the eastern division having Michigan and Ohio State along with a depleted Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue and Indiana. While we acknowledge that PSU has been a historic king, the perception of that program given its well publicized problems and the division itself may be that it’s not as competitive as it should be and that MSU should be in place of PU.
One thing I found looking at Michigan’s past budgets is that annual conference disbursements (which include television revenue) have been a growing piece of the revenue pie relative to all other sources, including ticket sales. If the conference is really looking at disbursements of $43M by 2017, that could well means that most of the budget of the B1G schools is covered by that revenue source and not tickets sold to the general public. That said, I’m sure they’re looking at what having fewer home games would mean to donations, PSLs, etc. as well.
We’ll see what happens. I do think they’ll adapt a nine-game conference schedule for 2016 and publish it with the disclaimer that it’s subject to change. 2014/5 will stick at eight games because of the existing non-conference games already scheduled. And if the conference adds two or four more members, we’ll toss all this out the window. 🙂
LikeLike
Frank, the idea of putting Michigan St in the West, might create three no votes (Michigan, Michigan State & Minnesota (No annual game vs Michigan)). I hate to admit it, but as far as Penn State is concerned, a number of possible schools in the West do not care if they play my Nittany Lions or not (Guess why Indiana moved their home game to Maryland?), which is quite different than Michigan & Ohio State (Sickening to admit this). You can apply that to Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State, Minnesota and of course, the Hoosiers, so they will not exactly cry if Penn State is not on their Schedule (Unless it is expressing regret over not having a guaranteed win in basketball). The sad thing is at Penn State we care zero about College Basketball (Sort of like Football at Bloomington, Indiana). How bad is it? A Wrestling match at the Rec Center has better attendance than a hoops game at the Jordan Center, and our attendance in Hockey is far superior as well.
LikeLike
@ Frank: One of the interesting thing is what it will mean for the mid-tier Big East / Mountain West teams. If the B1G is going to play only two non-conference games schools like Purdue will not schedule Cincinnati or Marshall in the future. That’s too big a risk for a loss. They will make sure they play Eastern Michigan or similar directional from the MAC and Eastern Kentucky or some similar 1-AA school. This will starve schools like Cincinnati and Houston from some of the money they need since they are only getting $2,000,000 from their Big East contract. There is virtually no chance that a school like Purdue will ever actually play at Cincinnati or Toledo again. This will put tremendous strain on the budgets of the Big East schools since they have a national footprint and will have insane travel costs wtihout the revenue to support those costs.. Are we on the path to have a more pronounced tier of schools between 1-A and 1-AA whose teams for economic reasons are going to have to organize regionally. Does it make more sense for Cincinnati to be in the MAC with Miami, Toledo and Ohio where they will have the same access to the major bowls that they have in the Big East? Does it make more sense for SMU and Houston to return to a conference with Rice, Tulsa and UTEP for the same reason. You may have national mega-conferences and a return to tier-2 regional conferences. Those conferences won’t have national television deals but they will provide important regional programming.
LikeLike
@Otts: The folks at Cincinnati think they and/or UConn have the next ticket up to the Big Leagues, as soon as the ACC loses two more teams—which everyone expects will happen. Even after the current round of re-alignment, the Big East has a considerably better reputation than the MAC. For a school like Cincinnati, stepping down to the MAC would amount to capitulation. I doubt that the travel costs are onerous enough to justify taking such a huge step down.
Besides that, if you look at Cincinnati’s past and future schedules, they are not hugely dependent on getting games with the Big Ten. At most, it’s one game a year, which they can easily replace in other ways.
LikeLike
@Otts ~ all SMU and Houston have to do to get one or more of Tulsa, Rice and UTEP is to wait for a bit. They are not likely to play four seasons without one or more of those three in the NuBigEast.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I just don’t know what the Big Ten athletic directors will think about the eastern division having Michigan and Ohio State along with a depleted Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue and Indiana.”
1. The new divisions start in 2014
2. The 9th game starts in 2016 or so (automatically helps with balance)
3. PSU should be near full strength by 2018
PSU won’t be down for long in the new setup. It would be silly to make a major decision like this based on 4 years of PSU down an unknown amount. PSU was better than many thought they’d be this year.
Also, there’s no reason not to expect RU to be a midpack B10 team to start. Much like NW, they aren’t what we all remember them as. Now that they are in a real conference, they might reasonably be expected to improve, too. Purdue should solidify under Hazell. I don’t know where MD will fit in, but they must have bottomed out under Edsall.
“One thing I found looking at Michigan’s past budgets is that annual conference disbursements (which include television revenue) have been a growing piece of the revenue pie relative to all other sources, including ticket sales. If the conference is really looking at disbursements of $43M by 2017, that could well means that most of the budget of the B1G schools is covered by that revenue source and not tickets sold to the general public. That said, I’m sure they’re looking at what having fewer home games would mean to donations, PSLs, etc. as well.”
Yes, TV money is rapidly catching up to ticket sales. It’ll pass it for the smaller school if it hasn’t already, but the big boys should still make more from tickets for a while. OSU should be making $42-50M in ticket sales in the next few years.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I hate to admit it, but as far as Penn State is concerned, a number of possible schools in the West do not care if they play my Nittany Lions or not (Guess why Indiana moved their home game to Maryland?), which is quite different than Michigan & Ohio State (Sickening to admit this).”
Why is it sickening? Doesn’t PSU prefer to play eastern rivals to IN or MN? Why wouldn’t those feelings go both ways? Don’t you prefer your lifelong friends to new acquaintances?
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten will be offered a similar ABC-Fox plan as the Big 12 got.
LikeLike
I think FOX will be VERY interested in getting valuable B1G rights whenever available, to help propel FS1+2 distribution across the board, to create synergies with BTN and to weaken ESPN in order to access some of the money the WWL charges carriers.
When the Pac-12 and Big XII deals were negotiated, FOX’s main need was to create a strong CFB package for their broadcast network (which IMHO they did; actually, add on a few marquee B1G games a year and they would be stronger than ABC especially on Saturday nights).
Plus, FOX didn’t have a national sports net (or two) to sell like they do now. IIRC, B1G is the Conference with more population across its footprint.
LikeLike
The split will be far worse for the football side of the Big East, which is reportedly looking at a best-case offer from NBC
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/21427455
Another shining moment for the IOC. Wrestling has been dropped from the 2020 games for consideration between Wushu, Sport Climbing, and Roller Sports.
I can’t say I’m the biggest wrestling fan, but how can they justify dropping one of the ancient sports over things like Dressage. It’s just asinine.
LikeLike
Unbelievable.
Its best for the Olympics to drop a sport done pretty much around the globe in favor of obscure sports? One of the sports from the ancient Greek Olympics? And its a sport that can be done by people of different sizes without access to a lot of money and equipment. Maybe Nike isn’t paying enough sponsorship money.
LikeLike
If you follow wrestling you know that it has been under siege by the IOC for two decades. Beginning with reducing the number of wt classes from 10 to 8, then 7. Insisting on reducing match duration, weight class must be decided in 1 day, qualifiers to limit entrants, and in 2004 the complete alteration of the rules turning it into a hybrid tennis (2 out of 3 rounds regardless of total score), sumo (stepping out of bounds scores same as a takedown or 1 pt exposure),and lottery (scoreless period results in random draw to create wrestling from a position that neither contestant could achieve on their own, and 90% of time draw winner scores from). All this was decided by TV, marketing reps, IOC governance, advertising reps, but no one involved in the sport until they were told to take it, or risk exclusion from the Olympic$.
Should have retained the integrity of the sport and been excluded, rather than unrecognizably bastardize the sport – and get excluded anyway. Backlash in the US may be very muted as many, like me, have stopped following the international styles in anything other than a passing way inspire of being involved with wrestling since 1965.
Big lesson: market your sport. But do not alter the sport in order to market it, certainly not at the dictate of not invested commercial enterprise! You may lose some income, or more, but you retain your soul.
LikeLike
I thought that two out of three rounds was odd this last time and wondered why that had changed.
LikeLike
It’s totally a fabricated “competition”. Nothing against the competitors or coaches, they are just playing the cards they were dealt. But when you can win a match without scoring (and the opponent has)? Or win a round in spite of trailing? Best thing for wrestling may be to get away from the IOC and rebuild as an actual competitive sport. I’ve advocated that since they began reducing the number of wt classes.
LikeLike
They should ask to be moved to the Winter Olympics. The Winter Olympics would get more participating countries, and the IOC in return could allow it to return to being a wrestling competition.
LikeLike
It’s probably a matter of not “contributing” enough to the “right” people.
http://tracking.si.com/2013/02/12/ioc-drops-wrestling-from-2020-olympics/
LikeLike
I’ve been advocating for a while now that the Summer Olympics (which are now gigantic) should be split in to a Summer Olympics and Indoor Olympics. The Indoor Olympics would actually have some of the most popular sports (gymnastics & swimming as well as wrestling, boxing, basketball, & volleyball) while the Summer Olympics would feature sports that take place outdoors (track is the big one). Baseball can be brought back as well.
4 year cycle for all 3:
Year 1 Summer: Indoor Olympics
Year 2 Summer: Summer Olympics
Year 4 Jan: Winter Olympics
The Olympics would take place every 1 to 1.5 years (exciting sponsors) but the 4 year cycle would remain for all sports.
There are a ton of reasons to do this: Besides allowing more sports, it would allow the Summer Olympics to always take place in the same part of the year (NBC would much prefer always July/August, after the NBA and NHL end but before football starts), yet southern hemisphere countries like Australia could still host the Indoor Olympics in what for them is the dead of winter.
LikeLike
This sounds like a great idea. It would also be nice if NBC showed some competition at the Olympics instead of all the human “interest” stories.
LikeLike
Or four ~ the team olympics, for sports with teams of more than four people, indoor, outdoor summer, outdoor winter.
But it could go a way in that direction if they moved some gymnasium sports to winter. Which ones would move would be drive, of course, by ratings. Gymnastics would stay in summer, but if they decided that the rating for wrestling and proper volleyball didn’t draw the ratings for the Summer Olympics, move it to the Winter Olympics.
LikeLike
Going to 3 Olympics sounds fine, although you shouldn’t separate between ‘indoor’ and ‘outdoor’. Call them ‘Alpha Olympics’ and ‘Omega Olympics’, or whatever.
The reason the IOC tries to cut sports when it adds new ones is it wants to keep the costs from growing too much larger for host cities. Oftentimes the cities have problems finding uses for all the facilities they build for summer games, leading to little used facilities that cost a lot to build and then cost a lot to maintain.
So you’d want to split the outdoor and indoor summer events between the 2 Summer Olympics; every large city can use some outdoor stadia and indoor arenas . Afterwards, some of those can be re-purposed to appropriate venues if necessary. If a Berlin Olympics hosts a summer Olympics that has baseball but not soccer, that baseball park can be built to be re-shaped into a soccer stadium after the Olympics.
Shifting events between summer and winter Olympics is also a good idea. I know the NHL hates having Olympic hockey in the middle of their season, so that can move to one of the Summer events even as some summer events go to the Winter games.
LikeLike
M(ag)H
Except that people will have trouble remebering what events are in which. Indoor/Outside is a simple split.
Also, it would allow southern hemisphere countries like Australia to host one of them in their dead of winter.
LikeLike
FtT: great article.
As you all know, I have commented many times about the street fight going on between FOX and ESPIN. I had not yet processed the reports that FOX approached the C7 before they split off. And now add the “news” (to me) that the Big East “inventory” was ESpin “inventory”, it is clear that this was a very nimble move by FOX. FOX picked up 2 CFB and 10-12 Bball “properties” and denied these to ESpin.
And the fact that FOX is “overpaying” seems, IMO, yet more proof that the networks and conferences are playing long-term strategies here. They are spending $$ now to accomplish 20-year goals. ESpin spent a lot of $$ on the LHN to keep the BXII intact and keep some of that “inventory” with ESpin; FOX spent $$ to hasten the end of the Big East and get some Bball inventory to enhance the long-term viability of FoxSports 1 and 2 and to diminish the value of other Big East “properties” “owned” by ESpin; the B1G may go to 10 conference games and take less $$ short-term to accomplish longer-term goals of conference cohesion.
I think it is also worth noting the zero-sum nature of CFB and Bball from the networks’ collective perspectives. As FOX grows, it grows at the expense of ESpin. This last move took 12-14 “properties” from Espin. There are only a finite number of “properties.”
By contrast, this also shows (again) the brilliance of Delany and the BTN. The BTN is not playing a zero-sum strategy. They are trying to expand the “pie” by finding cable-tv “value” in what ESpin can’t/doesn’t want to broadcast (that is, the “body bag” football games, olympic sports, hockey, lax. etc.). And slowly, that additive strategy is working.
Frank, my only criticism is the photo. This is NOT conspiracy theory and tin-foil hat terrain. This is straight-forward hard-nosed business. To the networks, teams are “properties” and “inventory” and the goal is to get as many “properties” under contract as you can and to deny as many as possible to the opposition. I don’t think there is any question the networks are influencing and manipulating conference realignment/consolidation.
Delany understands. Proof is the B1G’s no-apologies in-the-dark-of-night hostile take-over of cash-strapped Maryland. This not conspiracy theory; this is what the networks and the powers conferences are DOING.
LikeLike
You might note that it was Fox, not ESPN, that saved the Big 12. ESPN promised not to cut the contract. Fox delivered a new contract 450% higher than the old one. ESPN’s LHN deal was a little further down the road. That deal wasn’t until January 2011.
LikeLike
hmm… interesting. I’ll just ignore that. Why let facts get in the way of a good story. LOL
In all seriousness, that is interesting. Wonder what the FOX strategy was there? Why would FOX be interested in keeping the BXII alive?
LikeLike
Because even though Fox has part of the Pac-12 deal, a Pac-16 with Texas/OU is far more expensive per team.
It’s in the interests of both Fox and ESPN to keep Texas/OU separate from the Pac-12 because they already pay for both conferences. They don’t want to pay another level of magnitude more for those 16 teams.
And Fox has regional deals with plenty of the Big 12 teams for Tier 3 rights that helps fill their regional sports programming.
LikeLike
They didn’t “overpay.” They paid a fair price. And they got inventory. Noone knew who would win the Pac contract. It was later Fox and ESPN got together to thwart NBC.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — How FOX (Not ESPN) Killed Off the Big East For Good | Atlantic Coast Convos
Pingback: Conference Realignment–ACC Needs to be Wary of History Repeating Itself | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
🙂
LikeLike
Pretty dumb comment by dodds.
Top 3 out of the last 6 seasons for Mizzou
12-2
10-3
10-4
Bottom 3 out of the last 6 seasons for Texas
5-7
8-5
9-4
And in Basketbal Mizzou has been significantly better than Texas for a while now.
In baseball Mizzou won the series with Texas last year and won the Big 12 title.
So I’m not sure what sport that would be true in. Not Softball, Mizzou has been above Texas there for a few years. Women’s soccer has been pretty even. Maybe tennis? Track and field? And this is considering UT’s budget is twice the size of Mizzou’s.
LikeLike
I think he was talking about the whole program.
He’s ticked because Missouri cost the conference $15 million in WV exit fees. He likes to make every $ he can.
LikeLike
There’s a reason he is often listed as Delo$$ Dodd$.
LikeLike
Well if all he’s talking about is money than no doubt Texas has Missouri beat.
LikeLike
He’s talking about measurements like the Director’s Cup. Its been a bad couple of years by Texas standards overall. Baseball had its worse year in a long time last year. Basketball has struggled the last couple of years. Football hasn’t done great. We haven’t won the swim title since 2010. Some of the spring sports haven’t done as well as usual. UT finished 15th in 2010 in the Director’s Cup, 12th in 2011 and 6th in 2012. The 8 years prior to that were more typical-2nd, 2nd, 10th, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 5th, 6th. 2001 when they were #19 was the last previous year UT wasn’t top 10. If you did a cumulative Director’s Cup over the last 20 years, UT would probably be either 2nd or 3rd (Stanford #1, UT or UCLA most likely #2).
So there are a lot of complaints about the relative lack of success, particularly in the high profile sports. He’s defending it by saying a bad year by Texas standards is a good year for a lot of schools. And since Missouri cost him money, that’s probably why he chose Missouri to take a shot at.
LikeLike
Yeah, Missouri isn’t competitive enough in the non-revenue sports to score all that high in the directors’ cup. Usually in the 30s or 40s.
As far as that $15M, Mizzou paid that off with their exit fee. The Big 12 basically broke even on that deal.
LikeLike
Another post on ESPN’s B1G blog about how Delany is looking at partnerships, different bowl setups and how he wants to push individual conference members to schedule better non-conference games – See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/71489/b1g-open-to-alliances-for-scheduling-bowls
One excerpt on non-conference scheduling:
Delany points out that different Big Ten programs have different goals, whether it’s competing for national championships or making bowl games on a regular basis. But the message from the league office to its members is to push themselves more in non-league scheduling.
“What we’ve got to do is upgrade,” Delany said. “It doesn’t make any sense to be playing people from different divisions with fewer scholarships [FCS]. It doesn’t make sense for everyone to be playing Southern Cal and Texas, but there’s comparability there that we could seek out. We’re trying to find out ways that we can create fair schedules, good schedules, healthy schedules for our teams, our players, our coaches and our fans.”
END OF EXCERPT
Cutter’s Comment: It sounds like Delany wants the B1G teams to upgrade the inventory of non-conference games and drop the Division 1-AA opponents (FCS). While that may not effect the major programs in the conference, it will definitely touch on a number of the others.
LikeLike
Delany has been saying that same thing for years. You’ll notice how little impact it has had. He can’t force them to change, and many schools view their priorities as more important than upping the TV deal another $1M.
LikeLike
I’ve advocated on this blog that each of the major conferences, while negotiating with the networks promise:
1) no FCS games
2) 10 games a year against major conference opponents (with 9 conference games, every school would need 1 ‘major’ OOC game), with 1/2 of them at home (or a neutral game that they maintain the TV rights for).
This would make the TV packages more valuable, so the networks would bid more (offsetting the losses). An individual school that failed to meet the scheduling requirements (unless a truly last minute happening made it impossible) would forfeit a percentage of TV money back to the networks.
I think it would be great for college football.
Good for the Big Ten for adopting the no FCS rule!
LikeLike
Yeah, good for us right up until we never make the playoff because we lose more OOC games while the SEC thrives on I-AA wins on their way to 3 playoff teams per year.
LikeLike
The SEC’s dominance in CFB will not end until the oversigning problem is solved. Either the SEC (West) has to stop or the B1G has to start. And this is a competitive advantage for the SEC (West). Every school experiences attrition between NLOI day and the August “deadline” for being at 85. For B1G schools, any attrition means the school is under the 85 limit. For the SEC (West), attrition just gets them to the full strength at 85. ‘Bama oversigned by 6 to 10 players a couple of weeks back. Saban’s 2013 March to 85 started off with a BANG with four players arrested for robbery. Sad that happened, but will have no impact on ‘Bama’s ability to win.
My point is that the # of cupcakes and bodybag games is trivial compare to other factors that will lead the SEC to multiple bids in the playoffs.
LikeLike
Where do you get that Bama oversigned by 6 to 10 players this past signing period? Bama signed a total of 26 kids, with several of those backcounting against last year’s class. The SEC schools can no longer sign more than 25 kids against a class. Now they can only “oversign” if they undersigned the previous year.
And btw, UF signed 29 kids and UGA signed 32 kids in this class. So the “SEC (West)” being the only SEC schools that “oversign” insinuation that goes around on this blog gets a little old.
LikeLike
bamatab,
Oversigning isn’t about the 25 limit, it’s about the 85 cap.
Hypothetical example:
Say AL had 85 people on scholarship last year with no walk-ons among those 85. Now say 20 players graduate/go pro/quit/transfer by February 1. AL can legally sign 25 recruits, but they only have 20 spots open. That would be oversigning by 5 if they signed 25 recruits.
The reason the SEC west gets that reputation is because they earned it.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
Average Class Size 2002 – 2010
SEC West
Auburn 28.11
Miss. State 27.44
Arkansas 26.56
Ole Miss 26.33
Alabama 26.11
LSU 24.89
SEC East
South Carolina 26.89
Kentucky 25.11
Tennessee 24.00
Florida 23.33
Georgia 23.00
Vanderbilt 21.22
Considering a full class is 25, I presume you can see why others take issue with this. The highest number in the B10 was 24.22 for PU. OSU, PSU and MI were all below 22 (OSU was at 20.00).
To be fair to the SEC West, those aren’t the only teams that do it. But they are most of the good teams that do it.
Average size > 25:
SEC W – 5 – AL, AU, AR, MS, MSU
SEC E – 2 – SC, UK
B12 – 3 – ISU, KSU, OkSU
BE – 2 – UL, WV
P10 – 1 – OrSU
ACC – 0
B10 – 0
Clearly there was something different about recruiting in the SEC West than anywhere else.
LikeLike
Just for the heck of it ,I went back and checked the number of 5 stars on the major rating services from OH. There was a total for all 4 was 1. On scouts Ohio State had 4 (5 stars) but only 1 was from Ohio ,the other 3 were not from Ohio and were not rated 5s by the other services. Quite simply something smells. Southern and Texas bias ?
LikeLike
“On scouts Ohio State had 4 (5 stars) but only 1 was from Ohio ,the other 3 were not from Ohio and were not rated 5s by the other services. Quite simply something smells. Southern and Texas bias?”
The only thing that smells is Scout’s ratings. Their ratings as a whole are usually not as close to the other 3 major recruiting sites (Rivals, 247 Sports, & ESPN) as the other 3 are to each other. I’ve gotten to where I use 247’s composite rankings to get a better feel for the actual classes since it uses all 4 of the major sites rankings in their composite formula, not just their own.
LikeLike
Simply saying ‘X school signs more in an average class’, without examining things further, is not much of a charge. Any school that gets a higher percentage of its players for less than 5 years (4 years playing + 1 redshirt year) is going to need to sign more players:
-A school that recruits more Juco players will need to sign more each year (they start with less eligibility)
-A school that uses less redshirts will need to sign more each year (they’ll be out 1 year sooner)
-A school that has more people leaving early for the NFL will need to sign more each year (oftentimes the same players who are in the previous category)
-A school that takes a chance on more marginal students will need to sign more, as more of these will not qualify or drop out. (unlike others, I don’t think it’s an immoral act to take a chance on such students)
-A school that takes more transfers from other schools will need to sign less, as transfers don’t count as recruits.
There’s a lot of SEC schools that meet more of first four categories than a given Big Ten school, and that’s not sinister.
I know a lot of you are going to say ‘blah blah Houston Nutt’, but not everyone who signs more players than Northwestern is Houston Nutt.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“Simply saying ‘X school signs more in an average class’, without examining things further, is not much of a charge.”
Like any stat, it’s can only tell part of the story, sure. But it is a quick way to show that one small group of schools is very different from the others. It’s different from the SEC East and every other major conference.
“-A school that recruits more Juco players will need to sign more each year (they start with less eligibility)”
No credible school should have a large number of JUCO players, especially ones they sent to a diploma mill out of high school.
“-A school that uses less redshirts will need to sign more each year (they’ll be out 1 year sooner)
-A school that has more people leaving early for the NFL will need to sign more each year (oftentimes the same players who are in the previous category)”
No other kings came close to AL’s numbers, IIRC.
“-A school that takes a chance on more marginal students will need to sign more, as more of these will not qualify or drop out.”
This is a good point, and invites two responses.
1. The recruiting services should do a better job of redoing their rankings in August to show only the players that actually made it to the team and stressing that those are the real rankings. That helps the SEC by not counting all the players they signed knowing they couldn’t make it and had to place in a JUCO, so it looks less like they are running off tons of players. It also helps everyone else by making it a more level playing field for comparing classes for all the schools that recruit by the spirit of the rules.
2. Why is any self-respecting major university accepting people that can barely graduate from high school and can’t even match the incredibly low standards the NCAA has to qualify?
“(unlike others, I don’t think it’s an immoral act to take a chance on such students)”
Oh, please. They aren’t “taking a chance on them.” They’re hoping that between cherry-picking easy classes and majors and having a stable of tutors doing all their work for them, they can keep them eligible with a 2.0 long enough to help them win some games. Taking a chance would be if there was some cost to them if it didn’t work out and they actually cared if the players succeed in life.
“-A school that takes more transfers from other schools will need to sign less, as transfers don’t count as recruits.”
Do you really think that’s why AL took 55 more players than OSU over 9 years?
“I know a lot of you are going to say ‘blah blah Houston Nutt’, but not everyone who signs more players than Northwestern is Houston Nutt.”
No, but there is quite a bit of room between signing 37 and the 19/year of NW.
It’s important to point out that these numbers predate the recent recruiting rule changes and now the four year scholarship (for those that give them). The numbers gap should shrink.
LikeLike
In case anyone is interested in the Maryland non-compete, the Washington Post has it up with a story on it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/university-of-maryland-releases-big-ten-non-disclosure-agreement/2013/02/04/5aa35c52-6ed8-11e2-aa58-243de81040ba_blog.html
LikeLike
@Quacs – That’s a very straightforward and standard NDA. You could literally copy and paste that document and use it for any type of business transaction.
LikeLike
Interesting post from MrSEC concerning B1G expansion.
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/big-ten-to-add-more-conference-games-is-this-another-lure-for-uva-gt-unc-and-duke/#more-267138
LikeLike
Good comments as well. Especially concerning FSU to the B1G.
(MrSEC’s writing style is very similar to FTT’s. Do you have an evil twin you’re not telling us about?)
LikeLike
I tend to agree with virtually everything he says.
The Big Ten is considering 9 versus 10 right now but the 10 game schedules are likely to be in conjunction with expansion to 16 or 18.
I am also of the opinion that the Big Ten’s interest in JHU is very real (and not just because I’ve spent 4 years convincing myself that it’d be a brilliant move). The lure to bring them into the CIC as well as set up an elite lacrosse league is a valuable opportunity that shouldn’t be passed up if it is possible to pull it off.
LikeLike
I have no idea if Johns Hopkins would go to the Big 10, but it certainly would make some of the Lacrosse playing Schools in the ACC (Such as North Carolina) look long and hard at the Big 10 if they ever decided to leave the ACC and choose between the SEC and Big 10. Keep in mind the SEC does not have a lot of Schools playing Lacrosse (Florida I know is one), while the Big 10 is on the rise. To be fair, the SEC has a great baseball Conference (Particularly LSU, Florida & Georgia), and the Big 10 is awful at it, so that becomes a wash. Obviously the SEC is best in football, but not so hot in hoops (Except Florida & Kentucky), the Big 10 is the exact opposite (Only Ohio State Football is great. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska (And when sanctions end) Penn State can be). But if you look at Academics and Research $$$$$ it is not close. Big 10 all the way, and Hopkins would simply make that disparity even greater.
LikeLike
This dynamic is very similar to the one that played out with the Big 12 that led to Nebraska and Colorado leaving, right?
Regardless of what takes place with the exit fee lawsuit, ESPN could come in and sweeten its offer to the ACC to hold it together which is what ultimately happened with the Big12 before the second round of departures (Mizzou and aTm).
A big chunk of the league could depart leaving the rest of the conference in big trouble, similar the much discussed Texas/Oklahoma schools leaving for the Pac12. This could play out with either a package of old school ACC members departing for the B1G, or a package of ACC schools with the right 3rd tier assets leaving for the Big 12.
Or it could end up a slow leak, does ESPN care that much if UVA and GT were to leave and head to the B1G? Would it raise an eyebrow if NCState and Virginia Tech decided to head to the SEC?
IMHO, ESPN probably is primarily focused on keeping access to ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson and then holding onto UNC/Duke for the winter months.
LikeLike
The Big XII similarity breaks down in a few ways. In the Big XII, Texas and Oklahoma are the football kings, and they also run the conference: if those two schools are in agreement, they get what they want, every time. So the dynamic in the Big XII was very simple: if they stay, you’ve got a league; if they leave, you don’t. To put it differently: anywhere that Texas and Oklahoma want to be, you can always assemble a league around them, no matter who else may stay or go.
In much the same way that Texas and Oklahoma run the Big XII, the North Carolina schools run the ACC. But the North Carolina schools are football weaklings: they have just one league title between them in the last 20 years (Wake Forest, 2006). The schools who keep winning the league are relative newcomers, who do not have long-term emotional ties to the ACC.
LikeLike
That would certainly be consistent with a lot of thinking on this board concerning the addition of Johns Hopkins for lacrosse in concert with further expansion to 18 members.
I actually feel that Florida State might not be such an outlier as he believes. Yes, it is a non-AAU school, but given its location and the status of its football program, it’d be a valuable add to the conference in terms of what it could do for the athletic departments’ bottom lines.
He’s right about the Big Ten being in a position to sell a very compelling package to any school it may opt to invite into the conference. I’ve also heard that Virginia and Georgia Tech would be the next likely pair to join the conference once the ACC/Maryland lawsuit is completed, so that’s consistent as well.
In the remarks section, he does admit that have three 6-team divisions isn’t workable per the NCAA regulations. With a ten game schedule and 18 schools in fixed divisions, it’d be a 8-2 setup and it’d take ten years to play every team in the other division twice in a home-and-home setup.
In a straight east west lineup, it’d go like this:
East: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State
West: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
With two 5-team pods and two 4-team pods swapping out every two years, it’d take six season to play every other team twice in a home-and-home setup. If UVa, Duke, UNC and Ga Tech join the current lineup, then the pods could be like this:
Pod A (4 teams): Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B (4 teams): Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Pod C (5 teams): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Pod D (5 teams): Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
In Years 1 & 2, Pods A and C form one division with Pods B and D the other
In Years 3 & 4, Pods B and C form one division with Pods A and D the other
Teams would play the eight teams in its own division and two from the pod its own size (A&B, C&D).
LikeLike
I tend to agree that FSU has a much better shot than he gives them credit for. But overall, I consider him a very sober-minded source, and well worth reading.
I’ve said this before: pods suck. In your proposed alignment, half the time Michigan, MSU, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin would be in the same division. If you were a Big Ten AD, you’d be laughed out of the room if you proposed that.
The scheduling format won’t ever be perfect, but it can’t be that imperfect.
LikeLike
It’s a tough combination of programs to work with because you want to keep the inter-state rivalries in place while keeping the pods regional. That lineup above does that, but as you mention there would be a perceived competitive imbalance between the divisions half the time if the status quo remained in place.
As far as athletic directors laughing are concerned, if the television networks are writing big checks with this lineup, those ADs will be laughing as they deposit them in the bank. But ideally, you’d like to split up the major programs into different pods. A possible swap could have Penn State in Pod D with Maryland in Pod C to balance it out a bit more, but then you lose the annual OSU-PSU game. It’s all trade offs at this point.
When you do these types of exercises, you realize why a program like Florida State or Notre Dame would be attractive additions to the Big Ten outside of the dollars and cents. At the minimum, adding those two schools would make for perhaps a better pod system:
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Pod B: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana
Pod C: Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Purdue, Notre Dame
Pod D: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
This set up keeps much of the regionalism intact, but also loses some of the instate rivalries. OTOH, it also splits up the major programs 1-2-2-1 among the four pods and you can’t do much better that that. Two-thirds of the time, the major programs would be split within the divisions 3-3. With nine conference games on the schedule, that leaves three non-conference games for each team to schedule as they see fit.
Of course, if Notre Dame wants to remain a hold out and a program Pittsburgh takes their place, then you could do something like this:
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State
Pod B: Michigan, Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers
Pod C: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland
Pod D: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
When Delany talked about having nine or even ten conference games per year, he said that the teams in the conference want to play one another more often than not. If that holds as the conference expands, then a pod system is the best way to accomplish that objective while trying to hold onto the more important/rivalry games each year.
LikeLike
As far as athletic directors laughing are concerned, if the television networks are writing big checks with this lineup, those ADs will be laughing as they deposit them in the bank.
The trouble is, I don’t think your lineup achieves that. It’s not in the Big Ten’s competitive interest (and therefore, in its TV interest) to have waaaaaay imbalanced divisions half the time. We can’t predict future performance, but your proposed alignment is so far unbalanced that it wouldn’t be a close call.
I agree that if the Big Ten lands FSU and Notre Dame, a pod structure becomes at least possible. Your proposed structure (with FSU and ND included) would work, with just one extra rule: in the years when Illinois and Northwestern aren’t in the same division, then they play each other as a protected crossover; likewise, Indiana and Purdue. (This assumes 10 conference games.)
Otherwise, your structure protects every rivalry that I believe the conference would regard as essential (i.e., no way in hell they’d sacrifice it). One could argue at the margins about exactly which rivalries are essential, but I don’t think they would ever sacrifice the in-states, UM-OSU, or WI-MN.
As I indicated two or three FTT posts ago, I do think there are far better ways.
Simplistically, if the NCAA didn’t require divisions, you would schedule the way the Big Ten did before Nebraska joined: protect whatever 2 or 3 games each team requires, and then put together a full slate among the remaining games, whatever way you want. At the end of the season, the top two face off in a CCG.
This has the advantage of protecting ONLY those games you really need to protect. In your structure, you fail to protect some games that the teams really want, and you protect others that nobody wants.
If the NCAA refuses to change the rule, then you just create two arbitrary divisions every year, with an algorithm that protects the minimum rivalries that you care about, and otherwise just arranges the teams into fictitious one-year divisions using whatever algorithm you choose (I could easily come up with several).
You can’t say that’s too complicated, because no sport other than football fixes its schedule more than a year in advance; and before Nebraska joined no school was guaranteed more than two protected games.
LikeLike
Marc,
With no divisions, I’d go for the simple math:
18 teams, 10 games – 3 locked, 7 games against the other 14
18 teams, 9 games – 5 locked, 4 games against the other 12
20 teams, 9 games – 4 locked, 5 games against the other 15
The one exception is:
20 teams, 10 games – 1 locked, 9 games against the other 18
That needs to become:
20 teams, 10 games – 3 locked, 7 games against the other 16
LikeLike
Or you have 3 “divisions” and split the middle division 3/3 each year.
Hard to see a fixed 9/9 split that would make sense with 4 more ACC schools.
LikeLike
Three “divisions” with the middle “division” split in half to form two divisions … is four groups.
Two six school anchor groups and two three school swing groups, or two four school anchor groups and two five school swing groups would both work.
LikeLike
He may mean splitting the middle 6 differently every time, so they really aren’t like normal pods.
Years 1-2: OSU/MI/MSU, GT/PU/IN
Years 3-4: OSU/MI/GT, MSU/PU/IN
Years 5-6: OSU/MI/PU, GT/MSU/IN
Years 7-8: OSU/MI/IN, GT/PU/MSU
Years 9-10: OSU/GT/MSU, MI/PU/IN
Years 11-12: OSU/PU/MSU, GT/MI/IN
Years 13-14: OSU/IN/MSU, GT/PU/MI
Years 15-16: OSU/GT/PU, MI/MSU/IN
Years 17-18: OSU/GT/IN, MI/MSU/PU
Years 19-20: OSU/PU/IN, MI/MSU/GT
LikeLike
cutter,
“In the remarks section, he does admit that have three 6-team divisions isn’t workable per the NCAA regulations. With a ten game schedule and 18 schools in fixed divisions, it’d be a 8-2 setup and it’d take ten years to play every team in the other division twice in a home-and-home setup.
In a straight east west lineup, it’d go like this:
East: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State
West: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech”
That’s horrible. The B10 minus OSU and MI and PSU but with NE versus the ACC. That sucks for everyone.
“With two 5-team pods and two 4-team pods swapping out every two years, it’d take six season to play every other team twice in a home-and-home setup. If UVa, Duke, UNC and Ga Tech join the current lineup, then the pods could be like this:
Pod A (4 teams): Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod B (4 teams): Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Pod C (5 teams): Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Pod D (5 teams): Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
In Years 1 & 2, Pods A and C form one division with Pods B and D the other
In Years 3 & 4, Pods B and C form one division with Pods A and D the other
Teams would play the eight teams in its own division and two from the pod its own size (A&B, C&D).”
You have to balance the pods better than that. A > B and C > D. I’m sure Richard can remind everyone of his 6 pods of 3 plan. I’d go 2 pods of 6 and 2 pods of 3, I think.
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C1 – OSU, GT, PU
C2 – MI, MSU, IN
E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
Lock OSU/MI, MSU/GT and PU/IN. Rotate C1 and C2 every two years. W and E play 2 rotating games against the other (no home and homes), so they get everyone in 3 years. C1 and C2 play alternating home and homes against the two teams they aren’t locked with. That gives decent balance and exposure to everyone while keeping the rivalries alive.
LikeLike
@Brian
Your east/west example is why I said it was hard to see a fixed 9/9 split that made any sense. That one is a total non-starter.
LikeLike
That wasn’t my split, that was his. I quoted it to show how bad it was. You’re correct, there is no good 9/9 split for the B10. That’s why I’ve suggested going to 22.
Real B10 – OSU, MI, MSU, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, NE
ACC – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, Miami, ND, BC (sub in others if you prefer)
If you get 24, then PSU can slide west with the B10 schools.
Play 10 games in division with no crossovers.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech would probably prefer to remain with its ACC brethren.
LikeLike
vp19,
Probably, yes, but the E needs a power for balance and PSU should be with RU and MD. Besides, GT would still play the ACC teams half the time, plus GT never had strong FB rivalries with UNC, Duke and MD. In exchange, they get OSU and PU (enginerd battle) annually and the rest of the B10 teams 1/3 of the time.
GT definitely gets the short end of this alignment, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not that bad. Their biggest rivals are UGA, Auburn and Clemson, none of which are options.
GT games played:
1. UGA – 102
2. AU – 86
3. Duke – 80 (no rivalry since Duke stinks so bad)
4. Clemson – 76
5. AL – 52
6. UNC – 48
11. UVA – 35
17. UMD – 21
GT isn’t losing much there compared to getting to play UNC, Duke, UVA and MD.
Also, consider travel distances:
UNC & Duke – 380 miles
IN – 525
UVA – 540
OSU – 567
PU – 600
IL – 621
UMD – 651
MI – 711
NW – 734
PSU – 757
MSU – 779
IA – 815
RU – 841
WI – 867
NE – 999
GT isn’t driving anywhere, first of all. Second, being in the east wouldn’t save that much travel for them. This distance and the lack of strong ACC rivalries are why I pulled GT into the central group.
LikeLike
@Brian-
It’s interesting that you criticize the NE v. ACC lineup since that’s what the Inside-Outside division alignment would have done on an annual basis–and that was one your were advocating earlier when there were discussions surrounding what a 14-team B1G would look like.
The problem with the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 setup is the same one we have now with the Legends and Leaders–a possible rematch in a conference championship game one week after the Michigan-Ohio State game. Unless you’re willing to move the date of the game, your lineup would go against what the UM and OSU ADs have recently said about the upcoming alignment scenario..
While I appreciate the “balance” argument, you’re thinking like the French General Staff again by assuming these football programs are going to remain static vis-a-vis their relative strengths through the seasons this plan is adapted. Do you know how the new teams admitted to the B1G are going to be like in the future now that they have greater resources and play in a better football conference?
I actually do like the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 arrangement for all the reasons you describe except the one above, so here’s my modification to solve the problem mentioned above:
W – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State
C1- Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue
C2 – Illinois, Michigan State, Indiana
E – Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke
With a ten-game conference schedule, they could get through everyone in three years with no home and homes or six years with home and homes. Is it a tough road to hoe for Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska? Sure, but OSU played UM, UW and UN-L this season and went undefeated while Nebraska did the same thing and got to the Big Ten Championship Game (where they got blasted by Wisconsin in the rematch).
Besides, television would love having Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State playing one another each year along with Penn State playing one or two of those teams as well. As a Michigan fan, I’m game. How about you?
Michigan Conference Schedules
Years 1 & 2 – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Years 3 & 4 – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, Duke
Years 5 & 6 – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Maryland, North Carolina
LikeLike
@cutter: Why the obsession with static 4- and 5-team pods? They are totally unnecessary. They solve no problem, while introducing many others. Every permutation you’ve suggested has issues that are easily avoided with one answer: no pods.
While I appreciate the “balance” argument, you’re thinking like the French General Staff again by assuming these football programs are going to remain static vis-a-vis their relative strengths through the seasons this plan is adapted. Do you know how the new teams admitted to the B1G are going to be like in the future now that they have greater resources and play in a better football conference?
There is overwhelming evidence that college football programs tend to revert to their historical averages. Michigan may have a few bad years, but it returns to strength. Illinois may have a few great years, but it returns to mediocrity.
Now, across a 14-team Big Ten, there will probably be one or two surprising teams. But you can’t put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State, and Wisconsin in the same division, and then say, “We have no idea how well they’ll do.” The odds of that many teams defying their historical average are vanishingly small.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
The reason why the WAC used the pod-system and why the Big Ten might do it if the conference goes to 16 teams or better was stated quite plainly by Jim Delany when he talked about the conference adopted 9 or 10 conference games. Simply put, he wants to see the B1G teams play one another as much as possible. That same sentiment was echoed by UM AD David Brandon as well.
Once you get to 16 teams and decided on static divisions, there are two options:
1. A 9-game schedule with a 7-2 split. In a home-and-home arrangement for games with teams in the opposite division, it takes eight years to get through them. If the B1G went away from the home-and-home, then each team could play the other at least one time in a four year period.
2. A 10-game schedule with a 7-3 split. The same as above, except we’re talking six years for the home and homes in an opposite division.
A pod system with sixteen teams in a 4X4 setup and a nine-game schedule has each team playing the other at least twice in a home and home setup. Problem solved.
Are you seriously suggesting that an 18- or 20-team B1G have fixed divisions? We’re talking about 8-1 or 8-2 splits for the former and 9-0 and 9-1 splits for the latter. Now if you think at that point the conference should act as two mini-conferences (Big Ten East, Big Ten West) administered by one entity. than I’d happily endorse that.
Why can’t you put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State and Wisconsin in one division? I actually expect all of them to be excellent to good per their historic norms, so why not showcase those teams? If those programs can’t run that gauntlet, do they really belong in the national championship discussion or in a four-team playoff? If strength of schedule is one of the criteria for the playoff, what’s the objection here?
The SEC manages to have a number of high profile games within and between division teams and they’ll have more of them when they adopt nine conference games. The SEC East has Florida, Georgia,Tennessee, Missouri (admittedly a down year for them) and South Carolina. The SEC West has Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU and Texas A&M. It hasn’t slowed them down vis-a-vis national titles.
No, I’ll stick to my guns on this. The networks would like that lineup. The fans who pay for PSLs and tickets and luxury boxes deserve a good line up of home games for their money–especially with one less every other season. In my original lineup, teams would play all the ones in their region as well–also a plus for the fans.
LikeLike
@cutter: You misunderstand me. I am not advocating static divisions in a 16-20 team Big Ten. I am advocating no divisions or pods whatsoever. Protect only those rivalries that you care about — no more, and no fewer — and write whatever schedule you want, as the Big Ten did before Nebraska joined.
You can either stage a CCG between the top teams, or create artificial divisions to remain within the literal wording of the rule. You can always put Michigan and OSU in the same division, if you want. I could come up with a dozen ways of doing it, without pods.
Your proposed system, based on the WAC system, changes the divisions every couple of years, but it’s hampered by artificial pods that have no actual value: Purdue doesn’t want to play Maryland every year, so don’t make them, just because static pods force you into it. You don’t need the pods. They’re a crutch that just makes the result worse.
Why can’t you put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State and Wisconsin in one division? I actually expect all of them to be excellent to good per their historic norms, so why not showcase those teams?
You’re borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. By creating one super-division, you’re also creating a lousy one. You’re not adding value, just re-arranging the value that already exists. Where it breaks down is in the CCG, where you’re liable to have an underwhelming match-up.
LikeLike
cutter,
“It’s interesting that you criticize the NE v. ACC lineup since that’s what the Inside-Outside division alignment would have done on an annual basis”
Nebraska versus the ACC? New England versus the ACC? What? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
As for Inner/Outer, you’re talking apples and oranges. Your plan involves 6 new teams, all medium to light weights in football, all in one division. There is no balance, and whichever B10 teams get stuck in the division with all the newbies get screwed. Inner/Outer had only 2 new teams and had a balance of power with OSU, MI and MSU versus NE, PSU and WI.
“and that was one your were advocating earlier when there were discussions surrounding what a 14-team B1G would look like.”
You seem to conveniently forget that I advocated that only if the B10 stuck to 8 games. It wouldn’t require locked crossovers. That was the basis for my supporting it. I didn’t give it universal support.
“The problem with the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 setup is the same one we have now with the Legends and Leaders–a possible rematch in a conference championship game one week after the Michigan-Ohio State game. Unless you’re willing to move the date of the game, your lineup would go against what the UM and OSU ADs have recently said about the upcoming alignment scenario.”
First, it’s an artificial problem. It’s never happened yet so we have no way to know what it would be like. OSU/MI on Saturday night is not UCLA/Stanford during rush hour on Friday. Second, they’ve said they’d do what is best for the conference in terms of divisions. Third, you can split the middle 6 in multiple ways as I showed elsewhere. OSU and MI could be together with MSU and PSU in the other group (OSU/MI/IN vs PSU/MSU/PU, for example).
“While I appreciate the “balance” argument, you’re thinking like the French General Staff again”
Making you the Nazis? Heil cutter! You might want a different analogy.
” by assuming these football programs are going to remain static vis-a-vis their relative strengths through the seasons this plan is adapted.”
You’re the one making assumptions. Did I ever say that’s what would happen?
“Do you know how the new teams admitted to the B1G are going to be like in the future now that they have greater resources and play in a better football conference?”
Yes. I know all.
“I actually do like the 2 pods of 6/2 pods of 3 arrangement for all the reasons you describe except the one above, so here’s my modification to solve the problem mentioned above:
W – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State
C1- Northwestern, Georgia Tech, Purdue
C2 – Illinois, Michigan State, Indiana
E – Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke”
Yuck.
“As a Michigan fan, I’m game. How about you?”
No. It’s a horrible plan. It’s bad for almost everybody.
LikeLike
Whether this expansion scenario has now entered the realm of conventional wisdom or not, the consensus seems to be growing, which has to make the ACC nervous.
LikeLike
Comcast is buying out GE’s 49% stake in NBCUniversal according to WSJ.
It doesn’t change the direction of anything since Comcast has been in control of NBC’s recent moves as majority owner, but it’s an indication that Comcast is all in on content.
LikeLike
Comcast buying out GE is good news. I wonder if they will do the Country a favor and get rid of MSNBC, and all of the awful shows on NBC and the bad films at Universal (I admit I liked “The Fast & the Furious” series. (Of course, Jordana Brewster, Eva Mendes, guns and muscle cars are my thing)) Basically, I cannot watch that Network with the exception of Football, Hockey & Golf.
LikeLike
This is OT, David, but why do you capitalize so many words? Are you of German descent?
LikeLike
The Dude of WV just tweeted: “The biggest hurdle for FSU and the B1G – Michigan”.
Given that Michigan has the B1G’s highest research budget, and voted Nebraska out of the AAU, that is not a crazy claim.
LikeLike
Too bad he doesn’t say how many other hurdles there are, and how much lower they are.
LikeLike
WI will be another hurdle, and almost as high as MI.
LikeLike
Making claims that sound plausible is what he’s actually good at. Accuracy is his issue.
LikeLike
Well, if the Big Ten Conference is seriously discussing Florida State as an invitee, then the conference is likely going from 14 to 18 pretty quickly. There might be some scenario for FSU to come in with Georgia Tech, but that would leave Virginia hanging in the wind unless there was a commitment in place for one of the Carolina schools (preferably UNC).
So which one do you invite as #4 if Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech are lined up? Duke or Florida State?
LikeLike
With those givens, Florida State in a heartbeat. At least, that’s my opinion as a fan and businessman. Duke would no doubt have some pull with the academics who actually get to make the decision. Duke is terrible in football, but their basketball program is one of the best brands in all of sports. Academically, they run rings around FSU, and most of the Big Ten.
The reality is, if you have got any four of those five to leave the ACC, the fifth would almost certainly accept a Big Ten invite. The only question, then, is whether you go to 20 right away (and if so, with whom), or do you hang out for the ideal 20th member.
LikeLike
Some ‘expert’ on the BTN thinks the expansion bomb is going to drop sooner rather that later because the schools don’t want to go through conference realignment (scheduling etc.) more than once.
LikeLike
With those 5 to make 19, you’d have to think Delany would wait for a call from South Bend. If that doesn’t come, he has to choose from Miami, VT, NCSU, UConn, Syracuse or BC. None of those are exciting, but all have some positives. You can’t stay at 19 long term unless you don’t need divisions.
LikeLike
I think you’d have to include Pitt on the list of options (which at least would be an AAU option). Yes, they duplicate a state but so does NC St, Va Tech and Miami (FL) in that situation.
LikeLike
Or Pitt.
Once you’ve added FSU and FL (and well as 3 other states and 4 extra AAU schools), it may make sense to add a school who is a perfect fit in every way but doesn’t bring any extra TV sets in order to get a member like Michigan (which would find Pitt agreeable and wants to play schools who are close by) to vote for the package.
LikeLike
I didn’t include Pitt for these reasons:
1. PSU dominates in FB in PA. Not true for UVA, FSU or even UNC.
2. PSU has been in the B10 for 20 years, so it’s already B10 territory. VA and NC would still need converting.
3. Population: FL – 19.3M, PA – 12.8M. You can justify adding Miami to gain more south FL fans while Pitt adds a lot less. It also means a major media market getting the BTN for sure.
That’s not to say Pitt shouldn’t be on the list at all, I just thought they were too low on the list to include.
LikeLike
I would advocate for Miami if not for the place being underwater several decades from now.
LikeLike
I’m not sure Miami has any local fans. They sure don’t show up anyway if they do.
LikeLike
metatron,
Yes, Miami has a bandwagon fanbase that only shows up for big games. But south FL is full of B10 alumni that will happily go to the games. And Miami fans might be more interested in MI, OSU, PSU and NE than many of the ACC teams. Besides, Miami is a large TV market with plenty of CFB fans.
LikeLike
Brian – in an earlier discussion about all the B1G alums in the ATL that would prop up GA Tech, I asked you if you would buy season tickets to GA Tech. I seem to remember you saying “no.” Assuming most B1G fans are like you, I fail to see the value when Atlanta and Miami may be “full of B10 alums” but will only attend a GA Tech or Miami game when they play your team. Also, like ATL, the vast majority of cable subscribers are not B1G fans. Asking non-B1G fans to pay for the BTN on expanded basic is probably a non-starter as well.
I’m not so sure that Miami even has “plenty of CFB fans.” My impression has always been that Miami is a Dolphin town, and then a bandwagon town, whether it be the Heat or Hurricanes. The bandwagon never seemed to jump on the Marlins, even when they were good. Maybe with a combination the new stadium and a competitive team, the band wagoners may show up. I have now knowledge of the NHL Panthers.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – in an earlier discussion about all the B1G alums in the ATL that would prop up GA Tech, I asked you if you would buy season tickets to GA Tech. I seem to remember you saying “no.” Assuming most B1G fans are like you,”
That would be a terrible assumption. It’s just too much money to me, but others may feel otherwise. I wouldn’t buy season tickets for OSU even if I lived in Columbus due to the prices, either. Clearly tens of thousands of people disagree with me on that.
LikeLike
Brian –
“That would be a terrible assumption. It’s just too much money to me, but others may feel otherwise. I wouldn’t buy season tickets for OSU even if I lived in Columbus due to the prices, either. Clearly tens of thousands of people disagree with me on that.”
This discussion is interesting. I have a friend who grew up as a Nebraska fan and is an Illinois alumnus. He just moved to Alpharetta, Georgia (Atlanta suburb) and would be ecstatic if Georgia Tech joined the Big Ten so that he could see his two favorite teams play in person less than an hour away from his home.
LikeLike
Stephen,
I might buy single game tickets when OSU is in town to play GT, but I wouldn’t buy GT season tickets to get them. It’s just not worth that much to me. I know plenty of people would do it, though.
LikeLike
If it makes sense to bring in the Johns Hopkins University into the B1G fold for Lacrosse and the CIC, and it certainly seems to, the B1G may as well invite MIT to compete in rowing.
LikeLike
I could see MIT as an additive to, say, BC, if BC is #20. It might alleviate some of the concerns about academics.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the presidents think about it that way. In the hypothetical case where MIT joins for rowing, it doesn’t make BC more acceptable than they were before. (MIT doesn’t compete in Division I rowing, so the idea is way, way out there — far more than Johns Hopkins for lacrosse.)
LikeLike
Yes, this was my reaction to the idea that the Big Ten is looking at expanding with UVA, FSU and John Hopkins Lacrosse, with the academic appeal of UVA and JHU overcoming the resistance to FSU ~ there’s no obvious reason why that would be a three school package deal, so the obvious response would be to accept JHU for Lacrosse and invite them as a guest member of the CIC, and then move on to the UVA and FSU proposal.
LikeLike
You need to add a couple points to add context to this document.
1. The BE president and all but 4 of the schools approved the ESPN bid three years ago. They didn’t have the required majority (11 to 4). The 4 schools that voted against the offer all left. So, it’s not really accurate to say the rejection of the deal was myopic.
2. I’d like to see how the deals shake out when all is said and done, because we still don’t know what anyone is going to make. But assuming the numbers are correct, you can’t compare these because you are essentially comparing apples to oranges. Who owns tier 2 and tier 3 for the BE? Does Fox own all the rights of the C7? Don’t imagine that this is an insignificant question for the likes of UConn. It earns $24.75 million a year in broadcasting and licensing rights (mainly the coach’s shows on SNY and all the games shown there as well, but added to that the IMG contract).
UConn is not going to give up those rights. That’s why this comparison is not apt.
3. I don’t consider Fox the killer of the conference since the C7 split should have happened many years ago regardless. They all voted to split in 1992 (ironically, UConn got the Catholics to agree to take on the football schools) and in 2004 (but the money loss for the Catholics was too great, and brokering an agreement was impossible). In spirit, the conference schools had split already. And when you realize that the vast majority of the NCAA credits came from Ville, Syracuse, Pitt, and especially UConn, the strength of the conference in basketball was not going to be hurt much (though G’town has had a recent resurgence).
For all these reasons, I’m not buying the idea that the Fox money is some sort of coup.
Also realize that the BE has over $70 million in its coffers of NCAA credits, as well as $68 million in exit fees, and it will recoup some more from ND, Ville and Rutgers’ departure, as well as the negotiations with the C7. So there’s a lot of dough there. For schools like Cincy and UConn, the licensing money plus the load in the bank vault should last for at least 5 years until there is more clarity.
LikeLike
Do you have a source on #2? Texas isn’t making $25 million from the Longhorn network…
LikeLike
It’s not just Tier 3. It’s not just the games on SNY. It’s also the coaching show and all licensing through IMG. If you look at the USA Today NCAA database, you’ll see $24.75 million under licensing for UConn. Which is $10 million a year from IMG (they produce the coaches’ shows and also market the school), $1.2-1.5 from women’s bball, and then the men’s bball and football are separate. I suspect that adds up to about $15m when you include IMG. Then the rest of the $9m is in marketing/ads at the games. So, UConn is going to protect that $first 15 million at the very least that’s tied into the SNY games and shows.
LikeLike
“But assuming the numbers are correct, you can’t compare these because you are essentially comparing apples to oranges.”
To a certain degree, no doubt… Every conference’s contracts are different in the rights a school retains vs. what are pooled. The value of retained rights is also going to differ for every school. That said, and we’ve discussed it here on previous blogs, I think these differences are largely over blown.
“Who owns tier 2 and tier 3 for the BE? Does Fox own all the rights of the C7? Don’t imagine that this is an insignificant question for the likes of UConn.”
We’ll like I said above, I don’t think it as big as you are trying to make it out to be.
“It earns $24.75 million a year in broadcasting and licensing rights (mainly the coach’s shows on SNY and all the games shown there as well, but added to that the IMG contract).”
1) That $24.7 million isn’t mainly their coaches shows, no way… 2) The Syracuse IMG contract is an $80 million/10 year deal or $8 million a year. Nebraska, Michigan, and Ohio State all have larger IMG deals than that in a conference that has less “2nd and 3rd tier” rights. 3) According to the the USA today database you are using for your $24.75 million a year in “broadcasting and licensing rights,” under the same column Michigan is at $46.75 million and Ohio State is at $43.6 million, again in a conference that has less 2nd and 3rd tier rights. I’m not sure how you want to explain that.
“It’s not just Tier 3. It’s not just the games on SNY. It’s also the coaching show and all licensing through IMG. If you look at the USA Today NCAA database, you’ll see $24.75 million under licensing for UConn. “
See above though. Michigan is earning almost double that in a conference most would say doesn’t have any 2nd tier rights and has some of the more limited 3rd tier rights.
LikeLike
It’s impossible for me to figure out what portion of the tv rights are aggregated under the $24.75 million. I know only portions of it which you can find in the press, such as the fact that UConn’s IMG deal is worth $10 million a year, and that’s IMG putting together the shows. Beyond that, there are deals with SNY for women’s bball at $1.2-$1.5m a year. For some reason, UConn’s football and men’s basketball is not announced. Say that together they make $3 million, that’s $4.2 to $4.5. This is why I stated that about $15m of the $24.75m comes from broadcasting rights. By the way, if you compare UConn’s licensing to Rutgers or the average ACC member ($17 million) UConn’s is way higher. Rutgers’ huge TV market hasn’t been captured yet, whereas UConn’s is saturated with UConn 4 days a week.
LikeLike
“It’s impossible for me to figure out what portion of the tv rights are aggregated under the $24.75 million. “
I don’t think you need to though. That is what I’ve been trying to tell you. When Michigan is nearly doubling that amount without any third tier television rights in the two major revenue sports; that is a fairly good sign it doesn’t matter.
“I know only portions of it which you can find in the press, such as the fact that UConn’s IMG deal is worth $10 million a year, and that’s IMG putting together the shows.”
It isn’t $10 million. It is an $80 million deal over 10 years, so an average of $8 million. Again, Nebraska and Ohio State both have IMG deals larger than that. Said IMG deal is going to be had in virtually any conference for UCONN. For the purposes of apples to oranges comparisons in your first post, they are pretty darn close regardless of the conference and thus largely irrelevant. Even in the SEC where schools retain the rights to a football game, most of the contracts are only in the range of $10 million a year.
And it isn’t just coaches’ shows. I’d wager those are some the less valuable things in the deal. The IMG/Learfield deals typically cover radio rights, corporate sponsorships, advertising both on the media platforms and in stadium, and potentially managing media rights retained by the schools.
LikeLike
The reason I mention the IMG deal is because they do produce the shows and the shows so far have gotten very high ratings. To give you but one example, the women’s games have been the highest ranked show on TV not only on cable, but on all TV including network, with the coaches show doing half of that. If UConn were to leave SNY for a comprehensive Fox deal in the C7, all that would be lost. So how do you monetize that? I’m thinking again it’s more than $4.5m (the direct SNY tier 3 payout) but probably not too much more.
LikeLike
The reason I mention the IMG deal is because they do produce the shows and the shows so far have gotten very high ratings.”
Yes but the production, distribution, and advertising pertaining to the shows is covered in what IMG paid UConn $8 million a year for. It is covered in what IMG pays Nebraska $8.7 million a year for.
“To give you but one example, the women’s games have been the highest ranked show on TV not only on cable, but on all TV including network, with the coaches show doing half of that. If UConn were to leave SNY for a comprehensive Fox deal in the C7, all that would be lost. “
Another moot point. Short of joining the Big Ten (and even then it looks like schools have plenty of games to do with as they please especially non-conference) no conference has as you put it a “comprehensive” deal for women’s basketball. It is a sport that UConn is fairly unique in being able to monetize.
“So how do you monetize that? I’m thinking again it’s more than $4.5m (the direct SNY tier 3 payout) but probably not too much more.”
I don’t see anything about a $4.5 million SNY payment on the internet. I see stuff about a sub $2 million rights fee payment from SNY for women’s basketball. It is unclear if UConn gets all of that or not.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing some points here. UConn also did a deal with SNY for football and men’s basketball, not only women’s basketball. That’s the $4.5m I’m referring to. If UConn doesn’t get it, then who does? They did the deal, they get the proceeds. As for IMG, yes they produce the show–but there is no show if there is no game! That’s the point. IMG does not get money for UConn’s tier 3 rights.
LikeLike
“I think you’re missing some points here.”
I don’t believe I am…
“UConn also did a deal with SNY for football and men’s basketball, not only women’s basketball.”
I see no evidence of this deal at all on the internet and quite frankly I don’t think it is possible. Those are ESPN’s rights. I see more circumstantial evidence though that the SNY content (other than the women’s basketball) is sublicensed from ESPN the rights holder for the conference. This means any direct financial benefit of the football games for sure and more than likely the basketball games as well broadcast on SNY goes not to UConn, not to the Big East, but to ESPN.
“That’s the $4.5m I’m referring to.”
Like I said above, I’m not convinced this $4.5 million exists. The women’s deal is clearly on the side (but still not clear that UConn is getting 100% of the $4.5 million/4 year deal).
“If UConn doesn’t get it, then who does? They did the deal, they get the proceeds. “
Well as noted above, the men’s rights may not have been retained by the school to give to SNY. And even if there was a “deal” it wasn’t necessarily UConn that negotiated it (IMG) and it wouldn’t necessarily be UCONN getting all or part of the revenue (IMG). That would all depend on what UConn ended up selling to IMG when they signed their contract.
“As for IMG, yes they produce the show–but there is no show if there is no game! That’s the point.”
They not only produce the show. They are responsible for distributing it and selling advertising for it. They’ve basically paid UConn for the rights to the show. No different than ESPN paying the Big East for the right to football and basketball games.
“IMG does not get money for UConn’s tier 3 rights. ”
Yes they do. That is why they are willing to pay schools $8+ million. 3rd tier rights in the sense that it is anything retained by the school is a broad range of things. The coaches shows (ads and distribution), the radio rights(ads and distribution), potential television rights, in stadium advertising, corporate sponsorships are all 3rd tier rights. They also are the things IMG and Learfield buy from the schools. Buying those rights shifts the risk over to IMG. The tradeoff is IMG also is in line to get any excess profits. The schools have sold their rights to them just as conferences sell their 1st and 2nd tier rights to ESPN or Fox. ESPN and Fox bear the profits and or losses depending on how they monetize the inventory they buy.
LikeLike
You are without a doubt definitely wrong on this. ESPN does not have the BE’s tier 3 rights, and UConn sells those rights direct in deals with SNY.
http://www.ctpost.com/football/article/UConn-SNY-announce-three-year-contract-605055.php
IMG gets the money from the shows around the games. But without the games, there are no shows.
SNY pays ESPN for production. But it pays UConn for the rights.
LikeLike
“You are without a doubt definitely wrong on this.”
No I am not.
“ESPN does not have the BE’s tier 3 rights”
In a sense no one does. ESPN controls the rights for football and basketball.
From MattSarz’s site,
“Big East – UPDATED: Same as the ACC. ESPN owns everything. Schools can buy back some content from ESPN (some OOC basketball, replay rights, etc.).”
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2012/05/third-tier-rights-what-are-they.html
“UConn sells those rights direct in deals with SNY.”
That article you linked to provides no such evidence of this.
“IMG gets the money from the shows around the games. But without the games, there are no shows.”
Yes, but they also get money directly from the games via radio broadcasts, and other multimedia rights. The IMG’s and Learfield’s of the world basically pay to become the 3rd tier rights holders for the schools they have deals with. That is IMG’s college business model.
“SNY pays ESPN for production. But it pays UConn for the rights.”
The fact that ESPN is willing to produce the games is a pretty good indicator the games were ESPN’s to begin with. And again, if these games are ESPN’s, no UConn is not getting paid for the rights to games that they don’t have the right to sell.
Especially in a basketball power conference like the Big East was, ESPN is going to come in and pay for everything. Short of the SEC and now the Big XII, and their exceptions are very public, major conference schools don’t get the rights to valuable content like football games. They assigned those rights to the conference and the conference sold them off to ESPN.
LikeLike
You write this: “Yes, but they also get money directly from the games via radio broadcasts, and other multimedia rights. The IMG’s and Learfield’s of the world basically pay to become the 3rd tier rights holders for the schools they have deals with. That is IMG’s college business model.”
And you write this: “And again, if these games are ESPN’s, no UConn is not getting paid for the rights to games that they don’t have the right to sell.”
So, which is it? Does UConn give rights to IMG? And, if so, hen why did you write that it doesn’t have the rights to sell?
The article I linked to said that UConn contracted with SNY. So, you think the contract is charity? Or is the article wrong? We know ESPN has the right to these games, but that doesn’t mean it shows them. It doesn’t. So why does ESPN take a fee to produce? Because, one, it defrays the cost of production, and two, ESPN does show these games out of market on ESPN3.
LikeLike
“So, which is it? Does UConn give rights to IMG? And, if so, hen why did you write that it doesn’t have the rights to sell?”
Those two statements aren’t contradictory at all. Statement 1) IMG is a 3rd tier rights holder for colleges Statement 2) In this situation these are not 3rd tier rights. If ESPN has the rights to Big East football games and chooses to sublicense some UConn games to SNY, that is a separate transaction that does not involve UConn’s and or IMG’s rights.
“The article I linked to said that UConn contracted with SNY.”
It says SNY reached a deal to show 300 hours of programming. That doesn’t say anything about how the programming was acquired, who is getting paid and how much.
“So, you think the contract is charity?”
Of course not. Although the University is certainly going to be pleased with the publicity SNY provides.
“ Or is the article wrong?”
I don’t know that I would say the article is wrong necessarily. It just doesn’t mention where anyof the content is coming from and anything about compensation.
“We know ESPN has the right to these games, but that doesn’t mean it shows them. It doesn’t. So why does ESPN take a fee to produce? Because, one, it defrays the cost of production, and two, ESPN does show these games out of market on ESPN3.”
In the old Big XII contract, Fox had the rights for anything not shown on ABC for football. That is a lot of inventory and more than Fox could fill (this is pre games on FX and pre games on Big Fox). Fox sold sublicensed games to TBS for a while, Versus (now NBC Sports), and ESPN. The SEC and ACC have had sub-licensed syndication packages with Raycom and Jefferson Pilot, etc. So when you have more inventory than you can show, you sell it.
This happens at the network level though. ESPN paid for the games and they can do with them as they please subject to their agreement with the Big East. Some conferences have clauses for profit sharing if the rights are sub-licensed, some conferences have clauses where they have to sign off on any sub-licensing deal. But this is all taking place above the school level.
You want me to belive that UConn has a separate unreported contract for football and basketball games that it probably doesn’t own with unreported income. Let’s try this a different way. Look how easy it is to find the value of the UConn IMG deal and the SNY women’s basketball deal. Why is there nothing on the basketball/football?
LikeLike
Good feature on Maryland’s wrestling program, which is looking forward to the challenge of the Big Ten: http://maryland.247sports.com/Article/Maryland-Wrestling-Coach-Kerry-McCoy-has-Terps-Thriving-116332
LikeLike
Very few non-revenue sports conferences as brutal as Big Ten wrestling.
LikeLike
UVA, UNC, Duke all pass the wrestling test. I hope all adds do.
LikeLike
That’s why I think those three schools will lean towards Big Ten as opposed to SEC if push comes to shove. The SEC doesn’t sponsor wrestling, or men’s soccer, or men’s and women’s lacrosse. Kind of hard to park all those teams in a lower-tier conference (e.g., MAC, C-USA) and then retain your top 25 status in the Directors’ Cup.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten does get those 4, it’ll give the Pac-12 a run for its money as far as non-revenue sports goes.
LikeLike
The question isn’t whether they’d prefer the B1G or the SEC, but what it would take to shake them loose from their current moorings.
LikeLike
2 SEC schools offer Men’s soccer, and a different 2 play women’s lacrosse. If 2 ACC schools joined, I could see Slive moving to get a couple more current schools playing those sports to add to the SEC inventory.
If the upcoming network really does have the reported financial projections, I hope the conference passes a requirement that each school adds at least 2 sports (1 men, 1 women) to their current offerings.
LikeLike
That would be like watching the Bad News Bears play the Yankees.
LikeLike
Only tangentially related but the IOC can take a flying leap.
LikeLike
Hopefully they undo their decision before finalizing the list of sports. They have another meeting in May and the final one in September, I believe.
LikeLike
Unless there is an unbelievably massive international backlash wrestling (in the Olympics) is dead. The executive committee wants it gone because it doesn’t provide the massive kickbacks other sports do.
ccrider had an excellent post earlier giving some information about the poor treatment wrestling has dealt with at the hands of the IOC.
To be brutally honest IMO opinion it’s time to just tear the whole thing down and start over.
LikeLike
It will be Russa, all the ‘stans, Iran, plus Turkey and Japan who both are bidding on the ’20 games that have the juice to maybe get this reversed. Quite a few of their top political leaders are former wrestlers and very avid. I’m not sure the board members that voted this thing would be safe visiting many of those places unprotected. In some places their wrestling fans make SEC football fanaticism seem like the British Royalties polite, subdued attendance at Wimbledon.
LikeLike
I respect the true wrestling, the one with the tradition going back to the ancient Greeks. Never understood adding dirt biking or women’s boxing to the program. Score another one for political correctness.
LikeLike
No kidding….wtf……seems like there were 90 different rowing competitions in the summer…no room for baseball, softball, wrestling?
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Doh
LikeLike
No network killed the Big East. It was the make up of the Big East from the beginning that killed it. A make shift group of part time, football only and basketball only schools. There was no stability from day one. THAT is what eventually killed the Big East, NOT some TV network.
LikeLike
Now you are arguing whether killing the Big Least was murder or euthanasia. I think that Fixed Sports did indeed kill the Big Least ~ but lean toward the euthanasia side.
LikeLike
No more FCS opponents for B1G.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190943281.html
LikeLike
THANK GOD!
LikeLike
Eastern Michigan’s phone is going to be ringing off the hook.
LikeLike
UMass and all the other “new” I-A’s will get a ton of calls, too. Also NMSU and Idaho since they will be independents and desperate for games.
LikeLike
If only NMSU could play two games a week in September, they’d have no trouble putting together a 12 game schedule.
LikeLike
Pat,
It’s funny to see Alvarez decrying the poor OOC scheduling of the B10. Pot, meet kettle.
LikeLike
Something you’ll never see in the SEC (and they’d be dragged kicking and screaming out of it if the playoff rules require that to happen). Good for the B1G. Another reason why I’ve become a fan of this conference. Now if they can swing another 4 to 6 schools then they’re good to go.
LikeLike
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190943281.html?ipad=y
Good scoop on Big 10 I found on Texas board. No more FCS. Purdue or MSU likely in west according to Alvarez.
LikeLike
Follow
Chad
@TeddyGreenstein – Unexpected side benefit to 10 game conf. schedule: the Big Ten’s name would make sense again. Kinda.
LikeLike
That’s why the 20 team conference will work out on the branding side. B1G east B1G west.
Tradition and brand awareness maintained.
LikeLike
I think it should be the B1G Classic and B1G Money Talks divisions.
LikeLike
Interesting that Michigan State is actively lobbying to be in the West.
This confirms something that I posted a couple threads ago asking Michigan State fans if they’d rather have a better chance of success than being in the same division as Michigan.
Definitely makes sense to get the last spot in the West than be in the East with OSU/Michigan/Penn State.
LikeLike
MSU’s largest alumni group is in Chicago and they do a lot of recruiting in that area and throughout Illinois which is also moving west. It’s a short drive for the fans from East Lansing to Evanston and tickets are easy to get. Wouldn’t be surprise to see MSU as Northwestern’s first opponent at Wrigley Field. Also, Wisconsin is a big rival and will be in the west, plus it sets up the possibility of playing Michigan twice in one season. As a resident of the state of Michigan, I would love to see the teams in separate divisions.
LikeLike
As an MSU man, I’m coming around to the idea. Not sold on the idea yet, but I wouldn’t be upset about it happening either.
LikeLike
Strikes me as a very risky move for MSU.
First, you put yourself at a disadvantage vs your division rivals by playing a more difficult schedule on average.
On top of that, you guarantee yourself fewer games in the recruiting rich states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.
LikeLike
Their schedule wouldn’t be that much harder because they’d play OSU and PSU less often than everyone else.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d imagine Northwestern being in the West is important since their AD has said on a couple of occasions that they view the Chicago visits as the second most important thing to playing Michigan on an annual basis.
LikeLike
MSU in the west would guarantee annual games with NU, MI and WI, all of which are highly desirable for MSU.
NE and IA are pretty well enjoyed as well. So assuming a 9 game season, 5 games are guaranteed interesting matchup for the MSU fanbase and I’m sure there will be more in most years. I’m a big fan of the season-ender. Maybe we can set up NW or WI as a locked season ender; that would be interesting.
I also think it could help MSU’s recruiting frankly as they might be able to break away a little bit from UM and OSU.
If we can keep ND as a more or less annual affair, we’d have good home schedules every year. I’d rather play ND than anyone else OOC – no question.
The downside is not playing OSU or PSU as much. I’m not overly concerned about playing MD and Rutgers often.
There are a lot of positives to it.
LikeLike
If Michigan St goes East then Michigan can have a Little Brown Jug Bye Week every year as their crossover.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Interesting that Michigan State is actively lobbying to be in the West.”
Do you have a link to go with that? I’m not doubting you, but I haven’t seen any recent quotes to that effect.
“This confirms something that I posted a couple threads ago asking Michigan State fans if they’d rather have a better chance of success than being in the same division as Michigan.”
Didn’t you get mixed answers to that? I know at least one of the MSU guys said they’d rather be in the east and beat the best despite me showing that MSU would expect to lose an extra game per year that way.
“Definitely makes sense to get the last spot in the West than be in the East with OSU/Michigan/Penn State.”
More importantly, it improves balance a little.
I used B10 results from 2003-2012 to determine W% against each team. For NE, I assigned the average of PSU and MI. I looked up the conference W% of all 14 teams and found RU was about the average of NW and PU, so I used that value across the board, and MD was about the average of PU and MN, so I used that value across the board.
The following table is the number of expected wins in a 9 game season for 3 different alignments. The first number is for E/W with MSU in the west (only MI/MSU locked). The second is with MSU in the east (only IN/PU locked). The third is for no divisions (the ideal balanced schedule).
IL – 1.97, 1.94, 2.01
IN – 1.25, 1.20, 1.44
IA – 5.16, 5.16, 5.01
MI – 5.95, 5.89, 5.89
MSU – 4.91, 4.81, 4.94
MN – 3.23 , 3.30, 3.25
NE – 5.75, 5.83, 5.78
NW – 4.41, 4.49, 4.23
OSU – 7.15, 7.29, 7.24
PSU – 5.79, 5.72, 5.66
PU – 3.94, 4.16, 3.90
WI – 5.82, 6.06, 6.00
MD – 3.57, 3.48, 3.57
RU – 3.99, 3.91, 4.07
Notes:
1. E/W really hurts IN and helps IA, NW and PSU.
2. MSU in the west hurts WI, PU and OSU the most while helping MSU, RU and MD. I know OSU seems counter-intuitive, but they have a better record against MSU than PU over the past 10 years. That shouldn’t continue, but I didn’t fudge any of the data.
3. I didn’t include the numbers, but MSU in the west comes much closer to the balanced schedule of no divisions (difference of 1.24 versus 1.63 wins in the sum of absolute differences)
4. MSU in the West is mathematically more fair. It also better balances the brands, which is often the more important form of balance. MSU gets 2 rivalries they want (WI and NW) while keeping MI. WI gets everyone they want, including MSU.
LikeLike
zeek,
I found a link.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190957011.html#!page=0&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
“I know Michigan State was lobbying in the West Division instead of the East.”
LikeLike
I did get mixed answers, but if jj is coming around that helps tip the balance I suppose.
And yeah, it’s better for balance to have Michigan State in the West than Purdue for sure.
Michigan State’s potential is more similar to Wisconsin and Iowa than any other school in the Big Ten of the non-kings.
LikeLike
I also hope that they only lock Michigan-Michigan State if this is the case. I don’t like the idea of Penn State locked into Nebraska as well as the other two kings, and who would Ohio State get locked into? Wisconsin?
LikeLike
I reckon Ohio State would get locked into Illinois.
LikeLike
@Bruce
As an Illinois fan I would like that, but I could see Michigan pushing back against that idea. It would give the Buckeyes a much easier path to the CCG.
LikeLike
But, but, but … TRADITION!
I’d rather the Buckeyes not be locked at all, and see the balance of the other division more often. If That School Up North doesn’t want being locked to the Spartans to give the Buckeyes an easier path, they can damn well pull for MSU in the eastern division.
LikeLike
frug,
It is OSU’s second biggest rivalry, just like MSU is for them.
But I hope they won’t lock anything but the one split in-state rivalry.
LikeLike
MSU in the West is mathematically more fair.
The options are within ~1/4th of a win for practically all teams, in all scenarios. One win every four years is close enough to be, in essence, statistically tied. There is probably at least that much error in the analysis, due to the fact that 3 out of 14 teams don’t have much history competing against the others.
MSU gets 2 rivalries they want (WI and NW) while keeping MI. WI gets everyone they want, including MSU.
I suspect the debate among the Big Ten ADs is whether this arrangement is giving WI and MSU a bit too much of what they want, at the expense of the other western teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“One win every four years is close enough to be, in essence, statistically tied.”
It’s not a statistically significant difference given the inherent error in estimating 3 teams and the yearly fluctuations for teams anyway (or at least I can’t show that it is significant), but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
“I suspect the debate among the Big Ten ADs is whether this arrangement is giving WI and MSU a bit too much of what they want, at the expense of the other western teams.”
Has anyone heard of PU wanting to be in the west? If not, that means the two schools in question both want the same thing. So let’s look at the rest:
Favor MSU in west – WI
Don’t really care – OSU, PSU, MD, RU
Don’t really care as long as split rivalry is locked – MI, IN
Favor MSU in east – IL (PU cannon), maybe NE, IA, MN, NW (SOS reasons)
I don’t see SOS concerns winning the day, especially when the math doesn’t support that as an issue for most teams. So where is the expense to the west? As I’ve shown elsewhere, they won’t play kings that much less often.
All eastern kings – 1 in 12 years lost
OSU and MI only – 1 in 10 years lost
I don’t see enough cost to not give MSU and PU what they seem to want.
LikeLike
Didn’t the Buckeyes AD say something along the lines of a schedule with Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland every year being less than exciting? While the Buckeyes might prefer to swap Indiana for MSU, the Spartans is an upgrade in terms of selling that ticket book.
LikeLike
He said he didn’t want RU, MD, IL, IN and PU every year. That would have been 5 of 8 games back when he said it. Now you have 9+ games and IL isn’t included. That’s very different. Besides, many fans in western OH and IN go to the games at PU.
LikeLike
Maybe Masochist State University football needs a new approach. They’ve been beating their heads against a wall for almost 30 years.
LikeLike
One idea:
Especially if the Big10 becomes the Big20, but even if they don’t, they may lobby the NCAA to allow schools in those conferences who don’t play a conference championship game an exemption to participate in a kick-off-classic-type 13th game the last weekend of August every 4 years.
On net, that would likely be more lucrative for the B10 as well as pretty much every other conference outside of the SEC, and even the SEC may drop their title game in order to have 4 schools (in a 16 school league) participate in a kick-off-classic-type game every 4 years and so that they don’t decrease their chances of sending 2 schools to the 4-team playoff.
With 20 schools, the B10 could have 5 schools playing in that type of game every year. They could have one matchup against the Pac, one against the B12, one against the ACC (or, if the ACC refuses to play because of the raiding, one against the BE), and one against the SEC if they’re allowed to as well as one against the MAC (which would essentially be an extra home game for the B10 school). For those schools who are insistent on having 7 home games, an extra 13th game every 4 years would allow for 10 conference games, 1 major OOC opponent, and still 7 home games (if they face a MAC or SunBelt school in the kickoff game) 3 of every 4 years.
Thinking about this more, if the SEC joins in, the B10 could have 5 series:
vs. SEC
vs. Pac
vs. B12
vs. MAC (for schools who want an extra home game)
vs. SunBelt (for schools who want an extra home game)
With an expansion to 20, B10 schools would already be regularly visiting places in the Midwest and the entire Eastern seaboard.
This setup would allow B10 schools to visit the rest of the south and the west as well.
LikeLike
If FSU, GTech, UNC, Duke, UVa, and Pitt are added to form a B20, I would want 3 protected games with 10 conference games (meeting the nonprotected schools 7/16 of the time, so every class would play almost every other conference member home and away over 4 years).
OSU-Michigan
FSU-PSU
FSU-UNL
Would be annual games (as well as a bunch of others that I figured out).
FSU gets a little bit of a tougher schedule, but they also have the best recruiting grounds (over 16 years, in 12 years, all the kings would face the same number of kings:2 each for 10 years and 4 each for 2 years; the other 4 years, FSU faces all 4 kings while the other 4 face 2 each). All members of the current 14-school B10 would have an annual series with a king except for Northwestern, Maryland, and one of IU/PU (I have them rotating in a spot against OSU). Even those schools who don’t have an annual series with a king would face a king 35/16 of the time, or a little over twice a year on average. That’s worse than in the 12-school B10, when the least often a school would face a king on average was 2.4 times but better than in the traditional 10-school B10, when a school faced a king only 1 or 2 times a year.
You could have only 2 protected games, allowing you to meet the other schools 8/17 of the time, but that would mean sacrificing annual series like Iowa-Wisconsin, the Little Brown Jug game, and either UNL-FSU or UNL-Wisconsin, which to me would not be worth it given the minimal gain.
LikeLike
The NCAA and the schools have shown they no longer want the kickoff classics.
LikeLike
greg – the neutral site opening weekend big ooc games are gaining momentum though. In addition to Atlanta and DFW, add Houston to list for the upcoming season.
Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Game – Bama v. VA Tech
Cowboys Classic – LSU v. TCU
Texas Kickoff Classic – OK State v. Miss State
LikeLike
Alan, I agree those games are coming back, but they aren’t an exempt game like they used to be. THAT concept has been squashed.
LikeLike
They weren’t wanted back when the haul of a regular season game was a fraction of what it is now and the revenue of an exempt game wasn’t directly controlled by the conferences.
Exempt games that bring in 8 figures with revenues that flow to the conferences directly may be a different story. Especialy if they can be packaged as an experience for the players. Kind of like a pre-season bowl game experience.
LikeLike
Also, with the exemption for a 13th game every 4 years, a school could have 7 home games every year even with 10 conference games if they are OK with playing a major OOC opponent only 3 out of 4 years.
LikeLike
Especially if the Big10 becomes the Big20, but even if they don’t, they may lobby the NCAA to allow schools in those conferences who don’t play a conference championship game an exemption to participate in a kick-off-classic-type 13th game the last weekend of August every 4 years.
Which conferences are you thinking of? Currently, every major conference except the Big XII has a CCG. And the Big XII will probably have one within the next five years. I don’t see any scenario where the SEC gives up its championship game; it’s one of the most valuable non-bowl games in the sport.
So what you’re talking about, really, is just adding a 13th regular-season game for some teams. Once you’ve done that, why limit it to four or five teams per conference? Bear in mind, some schools could play up to 16 games (13 regular-season, CCG, two playoff games). There are concerns about the battering the players’ bodies would absorb.
A more likely scenario is that they add a 13th game for FBS teams to host FCS teams, in a sort of regular-season tune-up in late August that wouldn’t count in the standings. A number of coaches have said they want this.
LikeLike
Marc:
Think outside the box. My proposal is either/or. Either a conference title game or kick-off classics (in order to limit the total number of non-postseason games to 13). Yes, many conferences have conference title games now, but except for the SEC and B10, they’re not all that lucrative; likely not as lucrative as several kick-off classics, so I forsee those conferences abandoning title games for kick-off classics if they have a choice. Even the SEC might for the reason I gave above if the kickoff classics bring in more dough.
LikeLike
@Richard: The people in the sport who know the real numbers don’t agree with you.
LikeLike
Marc:
Feel free to share those “real numbers” (any what they think about 1 title game vs. several kick-off classics) any day that you like.
LikeLike
@Richard: Feel free to share those “real numbers” (any what they think about 1 title game vs. several kick-off classics) any day that you like.
I didn’t say that I have the real numbers; only that the people who do are not proposing your system.
What I know is that several conferences have added CCGs in recent years. The one major conference that doesn’t have a CCG (the Big XII) is calling for liberalized rules, that would make it easier to stage one.
No one is calling for your idea.
LikeLike
Marc:
“I didn’t say that I have the real numbers”
Pity; I was willing to be convinced with some data.
“What I know is that several conferences have added CCGs in recent years.”
Right, because in a system where pre-season 13th games are not allowed, it’s logical to play CCGs instead.
“No one is calling for your idea.”
Possibly because many folks are like you and unwilling to think outside the box. Also possibly because regular season games didn’t go up in so much value until relatively recently. Also because megaconferences didn’t exist in the past.
No one was calling for CCG’s either until the SEC did one and showed how lucrative it is.
No one was calling for a conference network until the B10 did one and showed how lucrative it is, so the “no one has proposed it yet” argument is a weak one.
LikeLike
@Richard: The set of things that hasn’t been done is infinite. Most ideas in that infinite set will never be done, because they are terrible.
College football is an inherently conservative sport: change comes very slowly, and usually not until there has been very considerable public discussion. So before such a change would be made, the people in charge would be talking about it. Right now, they’re not. They’re actually moving in the opposite direction. Hence, I readily conclude that it ain’t happening in the foreseeable future.
Maybe they’re wrong, but intuitively, your idea sounds just awful, so I’m not surprised that no one is pursuing it.
LikeLike
Mark:
“College football is an inherently conservative sport: change comes very slowly, and usually not until there has been very considerable public discussion.”
I must have missed the very considerable public discussion before the B10 decided to launch a conference network or the SEC decided to hold a CCG.
LikeLike
@Richard: Since NCAA rules had to be changed for the SEC to stage a championship game, there was extensive discussion of that, whether you noticed it or not.
The Big Ten network didn’t require any public discussion, because the NCAA doesn’t regulate which channel broadcasts your games.
LikeLike
“Since NCAA rules had to be changed for the SEC to stage a championship game”
The SEC exploited (or leveraged) an existing rule to stage their title game.
LikeLike
Marc,
You’re simply wrong about there being a discussion before the SEC planned a CCG.
Given that, I have little faith that you are right about what people in power in college football think.
LikeLike
Marc:
No, the NCAA rule allowing CCG was already in existence. The SEC simply took advantage of an existing rule, enacted to help oversized lower level conferences arrive at a logical, acceptable championship.
LikeLike
@Richard: I’m not going to spend an hour doing google research to disprove you.
I have little faith that you are right about what people in power in college football think.
I’m not the one proposing something new. I have nothing to prove.
LikeLike
And it did take the 80’s OU lawsuit to end the NCAA regulating TV broadcasts.
LikeLike
@Marc
You’re wrong. Everyone on this board has told you that you are wrong. The only discussion was in that article posted in the last thread when the NCAA head tried to tell the SEC commissioner not to use the existing rule, that it wasn’t meant for Division I football.
LikeLike
@bullet: I have no disagreement with anything that you have said on this subject, or for that matter, anyone other than @Richard.
LikeLike
Who wouldn’t want to trade and market a game pitting two teams that have possible immediate NC aspirations for preseason exhibition games between teams that may be contenders, or may suck…
LikeLike
. . . teams with possible immediate NC aspirations who could be knocked out of the running by the title game.
LikeLike
Join the B12…
LikeLike
It’s about eyeballs. There’s a reason why playoffs get more than the regular season.
LikeLike
metatron:
I agree that it’s about eyeballs. The question is how much more of a premium a CCG draws over a regular game. Note that for a 12-school conference, the CCG only has to draw 1.5 times more than a regular game to be more worthwhile than my proposal of late August games every 4 years, but for a 20-school conference, the CCG would have to draw 2.5 times more.
Schools in conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt can count on 3 X $1M = $3M in guarantees annually under my proposal. Does the MAC currently get that much for its CCG? I’d be a little surprised if they do.
LikeLike
You’re forgetting something: exclusivity. People are watching the playoffs even if their teams aren’t in it, and they often have wide-open windows where nothing else is on. Advertisers will pay more for big games. They always have and always will.
To say nothing of the actual emotional attachment that a championship run can do for the viewer. I mean, you’re essentially proposing MLB drop the World Series for 105 games spread between 30 teams.
LikeLike
metatron:
Exclusivity is all fine and good, but if the CCG brings in less financially than 5 kickoff classics, what inherent value does exclusivity have?
“Advertisers will pay more for big games. They always have and always will.”
It almost seems like you didn’t read my post. I didn’t dispute that a CCG will bring in more money than 1 regular season game, but will it bring in more than 1.5 times more or more than 2.5 times more money?
“To say nothing of the actual emotional attachment that a championship run can do for the viewer. I mean, you’re essentially proposing MLB drop the World Series for 105 games spread between 30 teams.”
Actually, it’s more like dropping the divisional playoff series, unless you’re saying that the B10 CCG means more to you than the Rose Bowl or national title game.
Speaking of which, when did you become so attached to the B10 CCG? Did you feel a vast, empty, unfillable void in your soul the 100+ years when the B10 didn’t hold a CCG? Did no B10 team ever stage a title run before 2011?
LikeLike
Actually, it’s more like dropping the divisional playoff series. . . .
Nevertheless, in case you’ve noticed, MLB is increasing the number of divisional playoff games, not curtailing them.
Speaking of which, when did you become so attached to the B10 CCG?
The practical reality is, without it, you could easily have two 8-1 teams who didn’t play each other, and no fair way to decide which one gets the Rose Bowl or playoff bid. That becomes far more probable as the conference grows.
LikeLike
Marc:
The B10 had that situation a bunch of times when we had 10 and then 11 member schools.
The world did not end.
Personally, I’m all for using the old Rose Bowl tie-breaker of the school that hadn’t been there the longest getting to go.
I sometimes wonder just how old some folks on this board are.
LikeLike
Actually, @Richard, I am probably older than you. I remember rule that very well.
I’m just asking you: who is it, with decision-making influence in the sport, that has shown any indication of pining for those old days? Everything they are saying and doing, is moving in the opposite direction.
Can you show me one example to the contrary. Just one?
LikeLike
So…follow the Oregon example a couple years ago and lose a NC shot first week by losing (to LSU in this example) by playing a high profile opener? How much value is lost for each game the rest of the year?
Is this just a re-do of the B12 attempt to get a 13th game without enlarging the conference?
LikeLike
The substantive problem, is this:
You’d be adding 20 new football games the weekend before the current regular season. (As I understand @Richard’s proposal, it’s four games per conference, for all five of the major conferences.)
There aren’t enough time slots in one weekend for all of those games to be featured; many of them would be relegated to undesirable time slots on second- or third-tier networks, with a number of competing games played simultaneously. Moreover, it would be a weekend in late August, traditionally a low ratings period, when many viewers are on late summer holidays, and not yet focused on football. Those games aren’t all going to be Michigan vs. Alabama. You’re going to have miscellaneous Purdue vs Texas Tech type games too, that aren’t big draws, except perhaps for the fans of those two schools.
In contrast, the CCGs are shown on a weekend when most teams are no longer playing. They have featured time slots on major networks, without a ton of other games competing with them, and with a major bowl appearance or playoff spot at stake. My guess is that one big game at the end of the season is worth more money to the SEC than four overlapping and far less meaningful ones in late August.
And that’s before you consider all of the competitive issues (conference championships not decided on the field, uneven numbers of games, extra road trips, etc.).
LikeLike
ccrider55:
A team could lose luster after a kickoff classic-type game, but it could gain it as well.
The same holds true for conference title games. Plus, if a 4-team playoff had been in place, Oregon probably would have gotten in.
Note that in a world with a 4-team playoff, you will find yourself in a situation where a team may be better off by losing and not making the conference title game than by winning and going. For instance, in 2012, UGa went to the CCG because they beat UF, but UF likely would have benefitted if a 4-team playoff was in place as they would have been selected while UGa would have had to beat ‘Bama to make the playoff.
Imagine the uproar that would have resulted.
Marc:
Superconferences have not existed up to now. Nor has a 4-team playoff. With the changing landscape, people may well discover that the old ways were better after all.
LikeLike
Jr size super conferences (large enough to hold CCG, the only truly distinguishing feature) have existed and have CCG’s. The PAC and B1G have joined in. The only conference to no longer hold one is the one that got raided/abandoned to a level they were unable to replenish with valuable enough schools to not net a loss getting back to 12 including the CCG value.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that most CCG’s are not the SEC title game either.
The TV ratings for most CCG’s just aren’t that impressive. A regular season Texas-KSU game outdrew the Pac CCG and the regular season OU-TCU game outdrew the ACC CCG (by a lot):
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/
LikeLike
“Keep in mind that most CCG’s are not the SEC title game either.”
Huh? Of course only the SEC CCG is the SEC title game.
Yeah, I get it. But I call BS. Will every year be great? No, but OSU/ Neb or USC/Ore certainly are potentially their equal, at least to the regions and fan bases.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that most CCG’s are not the SEC title game either.
Part of your premise, though, was that the SEC would drop their game, and I have a lot of trouble imagining that. You are correct that some conferences’ CCGs have not been blockbusters.
LikeLike
Did you guys read what I wrote? Here it is again:
“On net, that would likely be more lucrative for the B10 as well as pretty much every other conference outside of the SEC, and even the SEC may drop their title game in order to have 4 schools (in a 16 school league) participate in a kick-off-classic-type game every 4 years and so that they don’t decrease their chances of sending 2 schools to the 4-team playoff.”
Notice the word “may”. How does that become me premising this idea on the SEC dropping their CCG?
Even if they don’t, the B10 and other leagues may find it more lucrative to hold the kickoff classics instead.
ccrider:
Sure, the CCG’s may be more lucrative. In fact, I’d expect them to be more lucrative than regular season games. But the key question is if they are more than 1.5 times as lucrative (to a 12-school league), more than 2 times as lucrative to a 16-school league, and more than 2.5 times as lucrative to a 20-school league.
LikeLike
For simplicity assume media contract is 80% for FB. PAC (because i remember their numbers…i think) is getting 4.4mm per contracted game. Fox supposedly paid 25mm for the CCG plus other obligations. I think the game itself was about 15mm of that. So you’re over 3X the reg season, before diluting the season with additional games of questionable value.
LikeLike
ccrider55:
That’s only the TV revenue, though.
For conferences like the Pac that has to host on school sites (the B12 as well if they ever expand to 12 and hold a CCG) and the ACC (and a bunch of lower conferences) who usually don’t come close to selling out their CCG, 2 regular season games almost certainly bring in more ticket revenue than 1 CCG.
Overall, I’d wager that the extra money a CCG brings in over a regular season game is less than double for most conferences and possibly less than 1.5 times for some conferences.
LikeLike
Which conferences would drop their CCG in order to have a kick-off classic?
I can’t see the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 or ACC doing it. So that leaves the Big 12 and whichever Mid-Majors would do it.
I don’t follow any of the Mid-Majors closely except the MAC ~ surely the MAC wouldn’t trade a kick-off classic weekend to give up their championship game. Their CCG is typically their biggest profile game of the year ~ and the only big profile game where a MAC school is guaranteed to come out as winner.
LikeLike
It all comes down to money. A 14-school B10 may not find it more lucrative, but a Big20 may find kick-off classics featuring 5 B20 teams to be more lucrative than 1 CCG.
Again, note that, outside of the SEC CCG, ratings for CCG’s just aren’t all that impressive.
That “biggest profile game of the year” for the MAC garnered a 0.9 rating.
LikeLike
It’s not ratings, but what is bid for the CCG that matters, and that’s done years in advance. Far more certainty at ESPN/Fox/etc that a CCG will be valuable. Far more certainty that media really isn’t looking for a boatload of more exhibition/preseason inventory, too.
LikeLike
Uh, the CCG bids are based off of projected ratings. The networks are not in the business of losing money, and if the CCG’s get only 1.5 times the ratings of a regular season game on average, they’ll get only 1.5 times the payout of a regular season game.
As for inventory, I disagree. Unlike in pro football, there are no exhibition games in college football; these games would count just as much. Also, if you haven’t noticed, the networks (and sports fans) have an insatiable appetite for NFL pre-season games (due to boffo ratings).
LikeLike
I understand. But the media bidding on a CCG package isn’t bidding billions over a decade plus for maybe 500+ games. They are bidding on the POTENTIAL ratings of a few games at the end of seasons that have separated the wheat from the chaff. A year that doesn’t meet expectation wont be felt at all compared to over biding for regular season contract.
LikeLike
0.9 compared to what regular season ratings? Bowling Green – Ohio 0.5, Ball State – Toledo 0.4, Toledo – UNI 0.4, Akron – Toledo 0.4, Ohio – Ball State 0.2, Ohio – Kent State 0.1
Play a bunch of FCS schools, at the same time that big name schools are playing a bunch of FCS schools, and if they get on TV at all there’s no reason to expect them to rate above 0.1 to 0.2.
LikeLike
A 14-school B10 may not find it more lucrative, but a Big20 may find kick-off classics featuring 5 B20 teams to be more lucrative than 1 CCG.
Once you allow 25 percent of the schools to play a 13th game, why not just allow everyone to play it? The CCGs have a sporting purpose, i.e., to determine a champion. And you have to earn your way there, on the playing field.
Once you introduce games for the sole purpose of expanding the season (and making money from it), the other 75 percent are likely to say, “Why not us?” I’m not really seeing the logic of limiting it to a quarter of the programs. There is no rhyme or reason to that.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
Except that MAC schools would be playing a bunch of guarantee games against power conferences, drawing higher ratings and bigger guarantees, not each other.
LikeLike
Marc:
“Once you introduce games for the sole purpose of expanding the season (and making money from it), the other 75 percent are likely to say, “Why not us?” I’m not really seeing the logic of limiting it to a quarter of the programs. There is no rhyme or reason to that.”
In order to limit the wear and tear on athletes. Once every 4 years means a kid only plays an extra game once over his school career (while someone on ‘Bama’s squad could have played a bunch of extra games over his career with a CCG setup). The other programs will be allowed to play the extra game when their turn comes, so I don’t see anyone saying “why not us?”
Oh, and let’s be real: the CCG’s are money grabs, plain and simple. The B12 currently has a very fair, simple, and elegant way of determining a conference champion, yet they still want to hold a CCG (for no good reason other than getting more money).
LikeLike
@Richard: I entirely agree with you that CCGs are money grabs, but there is a legal fiction at work. The NCAA purports to promote player safety, amateurism, and fair play. For every rule, they can at least claim that is the purpose, even if it also happens to make money.
Those who vote on the rules would ask, I think rightfully: how are these goals advanced by more-than-doubling the number of teams that play an extra game; and once you’ve allowed that, what is the rationale for stopping there? What meaningful difference is there [in terms of player safety] between one game every three years, rather than one every four? After all, comparatively few players actually see much action for four full seasons.
LikeLike
“he B12 currently has a very fair, simple, and elegant way of determining a conference champion, yet they still want to hold a CCG (for no good reason other than getting more money).”
I’ll point out that their system produced 2 co-champions this year, and could produce more than that in future years.
Of course, the Big 12 also understands that ties also come up with divisions.
LikeLike
At least the in division ties cannot occur between teams that have not met.
LikeLike
No current B12 ties involve teams that haven’t met either.
LikeLike
“@Richard: I entirely agree with you that CCGs are money grabs, but there is a legal fiction at work. The NCAA purports to promote player safety, amateurism, and fair play. For every rule, they can at least claim that is the purpose, even if it also happens to make money.”
Really? What was the noble purpose of going from 11 regular season games to 12 regular season games?
As for the 13th game every 4 years, it can be spun as a cultural enrichment experience; an opportunity for every player who plays 4 years to experience something akin to a bowl game at least once (if their conference sets it up that way) even if their team isn’t good enough to go to a bowl ever during their playing career. Even if the game takes place in their home stadium, I’d require the kickoff classics to organize kickoff breakfast/lunch/dinners and events over a day or 2 for the players.
Note that they can be played either Saturday or Sunday; I’d schedule most on Sunday.
LikeLike
Brian:
That’s the point. Full round robin in division to eliminate what is eliminated by full RR in a conference small enough to achieve it, and is required of divisions in larger conferences to qualify for the 13th game as a CCG (as you know). It doesn’t eliminate ties.
LikeLike
The biggest move Delany made was when Penn State was down taking Rutgers and Maryland. Penn State was considering a move to ACC. With the whole eastern seaboard locked up. The ACC could have made a move to a super conference with Notre Dame.
That was not something the B1G could let happen. Which to get the ball rolling it gave Maryland a full share right away unlike Nebraska.
LikeLike
Maryland will have to pay their 6 year buy in at a later time when their financial situation is less problematic.
That’s the only difference between them and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Given the Big Ten GOR, how the heck could Penn State have left for the ACC, especially considering the huge penalty it had to pay the NCAA? Delany’s add of Maryland and Rutgers helped prevent the Big Ten from becoming invisible on the eastern seaboard for the next few years (PSU basketball gets no ink at all outside State College) and will pay off in the long run.
LikeLike
Theoretically, PSU might have left the B1G the next time the GOR was up for renewal. I never thought there was much chance of that happening.
LikeLike
Penn State was never leaving the Big !
LikeLike
This. 1000x this.
LikeLike
The biggest move Delany made was when Penn State was down taking Rutgers and Maryland. Penn State was considering a move to ACC. With the whole eastern seaboard locked up. The ACC could have made a move to a super conference with Notre Dame.
That would have been huge… if it was possible (which it isn’t)
LikeLike
Lots of great lines on the Alabama arrests:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130212/NEWS/130219947
Dan Wetzel-Bama boosters need to step it up. Got players arrested for beating students and stealing to buy vending machine snacks. No $100 handshakes?
Andy Staples-I think its an Alabama rule that if you are going to commit a crime, take a few underperforming upperclassmen with you.
EverydayshouldbeSaturday-After seeing Auburn pull off the legendary Switzer Slam, a national title, Heisman and Fulmer Cup all in the same year-Alabama naturally had to attempt the same one day.
And a Texas fan on ShaggyBevo commenting on Texas’ recent troubles-Mack can’t even teach this &#%$ correctly. FIRST you win the *(#$&!$ title, THEN you get arrested.
LikeLike
I the twitter hashtag #ParoleTide was funny (sorry bamatab)
LikeLike
Pingback: Pitt Blather Permalink » Remains of the Big East
If the B1G invites UVA/UNC/DUKE/GT/FSU (as well as Johns Hopkins) and they accept,
but ND doesn’t wish to join at number 20 I would look for another jaw-dropper in the form
of VANDERBILT. The offer to join a conference with that much academic fire power, yearly pay out, and newly expanded Southern footprint would be hard to resist. I know SEC fans can’t imagine one of their own defecting, but that’s my dark horse and I’m sticking with it.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt’s never leaving the SEC. It just doesn’t make sense.
In any case, I don’t understand why the Big Ten wouldn’t sit at 18 and wait for Notre Dame. It wouldn’t really even be waiting, 18 is a full conference. Getting ND after that to go to 20 would be gravy (may take 30 years though).
LikeLike
Oh gee. Okay. Thanks for setting me straight. If you don’t mind, please humor me. If the scenario I laid out occurs, explain how it ‘doesn’t make sense’. That’s quite a bar to clear, considering the Universities involved. I look forward to your expert analysis.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt’s not going to get an invite to the Big Ten. They don’t bring a monetizable market that they can claim (they probably have less claim to Nashville than Georgia Tech has on Atlanta).
As far as culture and the like matter, there’s no real fit there. They’re a worse fit than Duke probably as far as cultural fit goes. I spent 3 years at Vanderbilt, and it’s as different from Northwestern as I can imagine two private universities of similar academic standing being.
In any case, where’s the money in it? Duke brings a top 10 hoops program and its rivalries in that arena.
Why would a school leave the SEC for similar payouts in the Big Ten?
LikeLike
I’m not really seeing what either side gets out of it.
Tennessee is not an especially coveted media market, and whatever it may be worth, the dominant school is UT. Vandy football and basketball games don’t attract much fan attention. They would probably dilute the Big Ten media deal. Academically, the Big Ten would probably be very happy to have Vandy, but not at the expense of taking on a school that doesn’t carry its weight financially.
When the new media deals are settled, I doubt that the SEC and the Big Ten payouts are going to be very far off. Schools will abandon rivalries if the money is good enough. But we’re not talking ACC vs. Big Ten, where the discrepancy will be huge. We’re talking SEC vs. Big Ten, where there won’t be much difference.
Vandy’s best major sport is baseball, and the SEC is obviously a much better home for that sport than the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
Speaking of Vandy – Welcome to the SEC facilities arms race.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130212/SPORTS0602/302120045/Vanderbilt-looks-ways-improve-stadium.
From the article:
“Vanderbilt is building a $31 million indoor practice field and multi-purpose facility that is due to be completed about Oct. 31. There also are more planned phases for renovations to McGugin Center.
Vanderbilt Stadium underwent several changes prior to last season that included artificial turf, a new video board and a berm in the open end zone that offered hillside seating. The berm expanded the stadium capacity to 40,550.
Williams said he thinks the ideal stadium capacity at this point would be 45,000, with the likely area for additional seating being in the corners or back of the open end zone.
“We’re going to meet with some people who have done some renovations, have them come in and walk the stadium with a number of our people and look at plans of the stadium as it is now,” Williams said. “We’ll get the possibilities and attach the cost to it.”
Part of the planning for stadium changes will have Williams and other key university figures setting up trips to visit and study approximately eight new or recently renovated college stadiums.
Williams cited California, Houston, SMU, Stanford, TCU and Wake Forest as probable stops. Houston has plans for a $105 million stadium that will seat 40,000 with built-in expansion options to reach 60,000.”
The SEC schools currently planning or constructing stadium renovations/expansions include LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Mizzou, A&M, Kentucky and now Vandy.
LikeLike
It would be a jaw dropper for a reason ~ it doesn’t offer a net benefit either Vanderbilt or the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think Missouri is more likely to go to the B1G than Vanderbilt.
LikeLike
Apologize if this already posted, do not have the time to go read all the other psots. Interesting post from Mr SEC…………..
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/big-ten-to-add-more-conference-games-is-this-another-lure-for-uva-gt-unc-and-duke/
UNC And Duke?
February 12th, 2013 11:38 AM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Schools: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Tags: ACC, Big Ten, GT, North Carolina
Send This Story To A Friend
The Big Ten will move to at least nine conference football games per season and possibly 10 according to league commissioner Jim Delany. The move has been rumored for several weeks, but Delany confirmed the decision yesterday:
“There’s real recognition that we now live in two regions of the country, and we want to make sure those are bound together as best we can, so more games (makes sense). Eight games is not on the table. It’s nine or 10.”
Ohio State AD Gene Smith also said: “There’s television considerations there when you have intriguing conference matchups that are better than some of our non-conference matchups, that’s an important piece.”
That could also be an important piece for the SEC moving forward. Under current plans, the Big Ten, Pac-12, and Big XII will all be playing at least nine conference games per year. The SEC currently plays eight league games. The SEC’s format results in one more cupcake game per year for each school and fewer visits to and from conference rivals.
Eventually — as we’ve stated for more than a year — the Southeastern Conference will move to a nine-game schedule. It will have to (barring a scheduling alliance with another conference). Its television partners and the league’s own SEC Network will require such a move for content purposes. And with a selection committee deciding each year’s four playoff participants, the SEC won’t be able to allow other leagues to claim their teams are playing tougher schedules. There is already a move to “spread the wealth” of football championships or else there would be no new playoff in the first place. If members of the selection committee can point to something as simple as “SEC teams play more creampuff non-conference games,” you better believe they’ll do so in order to get teams from as many leagues as possible into the playoffs each year.
But look again at Delany’s statement. “We now live in two regions of the country,” meaning the Midwest and the East. There are hardly as many Big Ten schools in the East as there are in the Midwest. But more are probably on the way.
In recent weeks we’ve reported that our sources have said Virginia and Georgia Tech have both had contact with the Big Ten. We’ve been told those schools are waiting to see the final bill Maryland will have to pay to get out of the ACC before they decide whether or not to follow the Terrapins’ lead. Everyone and their brother is now reporting the same thing (or at least reporting on the reports that are already out there).
There have also been rumors that the Big Ten is wooing North Carolina, Duke, Boston College, and Florida State. At MrSEC.com, we don’t see BC or FSU as being realistic partners with the Big Ten as they lack AAU status, but we’ll mention the rumors just the same.
By adding Maryland and Rutgers late last year, Delany’s league made it clear that it is a) looking to add large numbers of cable households for its Big Ten Network and b) trying to expand southward. As Delany himself has mentioned time and again, part of the decision to look south is driven by population shifts and demographics. Several Big Ten states have the slowest growth rates in the country. Some of the fastest growing states are in the South. So if you want more television revenue and you need robust populations to create new students and donors, clearly you try to grab a number of top schools farther south.
So what’s this have to do with adding conference games?
A move to nine or 10 conference games could be a lure to a number of ACC schools. “Come with us and you can continue to pal around with a number of your old buddies.” If the Big Ten — and this is simply speculation — were to add Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the recently nabbed Maryland and Rutgers, well, that would be an East Division.
And Delany seems to be considering several moves that would please the ACC schools on his wish list.
There have been recent rumblings that the Big Ten might add lacrosse power Johns Hopkins to its roster of teams in some partial capacity. That league’s academic consortium — the Committee on Institutional Cooperation — already includes the University of Chicago, once a full-fledged Big Ten member before it downshifted out of the world of big-time athletics. Opening a door to Johns Hopkins for lacrosse and the CIC would not require a paradigm shift as the Big Ten already has a partial member.
Now consider the fact that the Big Ten has three lacrosse-playing schools who have to play that sport in other conferences. And also keep in mind that the four current, lacrosse-playing ACC schools are Maryland (moving to the Big Ten), Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke. Hmmm.
Let’s take a step back and look at the big picture here. Delany has said that his league has to pay attention to population shifts into the Sun Belt region. He’s just grabbed Rutgers and Maryland. One of those schools brings the nation’s largest television market into the Big Ten fold. The other provides the Washington, DC and Baltimore markets as well as a gateway into the South. Adding Johns Hopkins would give the Big Ten the opportunity to create a lacrosse league for new ACC targets and it would further strengthen the Big Ten’s academic reputation. Finally, Delany’s league will be adding conference games which will allow any new ACC targets to play each other more often and soften the blow of realignment/expansion.
That’s a lot to sell to the administrations of Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Duke.
They could join the richest college conference (which also makes the Big Ten a stable college conference). They could enter a peer group of some of the top academic universities in the country (including the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins). Lacrosse schools like Virginia, Duke and North Carolina could partner with Johns Hopkins, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan to form a strong league. And those Eastern/Southern teams could play each other more often in football and basketball.
Imagine a Big Ten consisting of three six-school divisions:
West Central East
Illinois Indiana Duke
Iowa Michigan Georgia Tech
Minnesota Michigan State Maryland
Nebraska Ohio State North Carolina
Northwestern Penn State Virginia
Wisconsin Purdue Rutgers
It would be hard for the SEC or any other conference to match such a league in terms of cable households, nationally-known sports brands, and academic reputation. If the Big Ten could pull all of that off it would — in theory — set itself up for years of success to come.
LikeLike
The interesting thing about UNC and Duke is that they are the only ACC schools that haven’t been ranked in the final AP football poll in the BCS era.
LikeLike
I am not sure it has been touched on in here but I have interesting theory about the BIG’s latest moves. I think the BIG is attacking the SEC’s strangle hold over college football.
1. Jim Delaney last winter encouraged all BIG schools to start offering 4 year scholarships. This is an assault on the SEC’s schools (not all as I think Florida and Georgia don’t) advantage in oversigning. If this becomes the standard, Alabama and LSU won’t be able to get rid of underclassmen who are not performing and replace them with new recruits so easily.
2. No longer scheduling FCS schools is not only to improve the BIG’s quality of schedule, but a response to the SEC. Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina were all ranked in the top 5 this year based on only beating themselves. None of them played a division 1 school out of conference until their rivalry game against the ACC the last week of the season, which all happen to be in their own state. The SEC also likes to schedule FCS schools late in the season to allow for defacto bye weeks to break up tough conference play, that the BIG currently grinds through.
3. Increasing to 9 or 10 conference games is great for television. It will definitely force the SEC to match especially if they want to get that extra tv money boost. Last Georgia and Alabama didn’t have to play a single ranked power in the other division. That helped in keeping loses down. Increasing the number of conference games will increase the chances of these schools meeting more often, thus increasing their loss total.
4. This isnt a football point as much as it is competition in expansion. Trying to add John Hopkins as a partial member would be great all around for the BIG, but is also a shot at the SEC. The SEC has been rumored by the Sportingnews to be pursuing UNC and Duke for three years now. One of the biggest hurdles the SEC faces is its academic reputation and the fact it doesn’t offer all the sports that UNC and Duke play in conference. Lacrosse, despite what some think, is of some importance to those schools. Adding JHU significantly adds to the academic prestige of the BIG even more and creates a very strong and appealing lacrosse league. In what will be a close decision for UNC either way, adding lacrosse could be that little bit that sways the university’s decision.
5. This is pure conjecture, but the news of FOX starting a competitor against ESPN is interesting for the BIG against the SEC. Espn are king makers in college sports, and for some sports in general. They actively promote some teams and stories over others. If the BIG goes to Fox, does that weaken Espns power in college football. Would the BIG take the initial hit in national recognition by going to Fox just to weaken ESPN in the long run? I think it might.
LikeLike
fat lot of good those things will do you if you can’t sign top 20 recruiting classes.
LikeLike
Andy, athletic programs do not live by football alone…although now that Mizzou is in the SEC, I can see you being indoctrinated into that belief.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
So, where did Missouri end up in this year’s recruiting rankings? National? In-conference?
LikeLike
According to the SB Nation wrap up:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2013/2/11/3976050/college-football-recruiting-2013-sec-conferences
… 38th, 14/14th in SEC, falling below 7/14th in Big Ten (w/RU&MD), 5/10th in Big12, 4/12 Pac-12, 8/15 in ACC (w/ND).
LikeLike
General comment to those on the Board espousing rotating pods: change the name to something better.
On the previous thread (or the one before that), someone complained that “pods” would never be accepted because they were too strange. Someone responded by saying that the “fans would be educated.”
The first step in “educating” the fans is to choose a name that is comfortable and familiar. I suggest forever dumping the word pods and just say rotating division (“RDs”).
Feel free to suggest other names.
the marketing for RDs is straightforward: every conference has divisions; the BIG has divisions; the NFL has divisions that are 4 teams; the B1G will have divisions that are 4 teams. So, it’s not strange and weird and the butt of jokes. Oh, and our divisions rotate; pretty cool that they rotate, huh? Yep, the B1G is innovative with its rotating divisions,
by contrast, “pods” sounds weird. Pod-people, drink pods, peas in a pod, pod rhymes with odd and no one wants to be odd. Pod is just an ugly sounding word. A doddering clod plodding along sees a nodding toddler on the sod while while drinking from a pod wearing a mod cod-piece made to look like a codfish which is really just a big wad of cash. The only pod that’s not odd is an iPod.
LikeLike
Yes, it always makes me think of Invasion of the Body Snatchers when I read a discussion of “pods”
“Group” sounds a lot less nerdy than “pod”. “Rotating divisions” would be the annual championship divisions ~ or “Alternating divisions” if its the anchor group and swing group system.
LikeLike
The 1996-98 WAC always referred to “quads,” which sounds more collegiate to begin with.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, some or all of the Big Ten’s quads may have five members in them (or three and six if we divide the teams up that way). I don’t know if that term would work.
How about the term “regions”? That might be coupled with a geographic or directional term to differentiate one from the other.
I was criticized earlier for this hypothetical 18-team conference setup, but I’ll use it again to show the example:
Plains Region: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Mid-West Region: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Mid-East Region: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Coastal Region: Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Maryland
The problem now is how do you describe the two divisions. East-West doesn’t work because the two regions permanently assigned to a division are both in the eastern part of the country.. Names probably won’t work because someone would feel left out. Colors are possible (Black Division/White Division), but not very interesting.
I hate to do this, but–
The Leaders Division could have the Plains and Coastal Regions in Years 1 & 2 while the Legends has the Mid-West and Mid-East Regions.
In Years 3 & 4, the Leaders Division has the Plains and Mid-East Regions and the Legends as the Mid-west and Coastal Regions in it.
LikeLike
@cutter You’re essentially saying that the Plains schools will never play the Mid-West school, and the Mid-East schools will never get to play the Coastal schools. How is that a good thing?
Pods can work when the pods have an equal number of schools in them. I.e. 4 pods of 4 (16 schools), or 4 pods of 5 (20 schools). I don’t see how four pods work at 18 schools.
LikeLike
You’ve got to switch it to 4 on both ends and five in the middle, because you have to put the Kings Group playing away to each East Coast team more frequently than once every decade.
Plains as is.
Central: Illinois, Northwestern Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers
East: MSU, TSUN, OSU, Penn State, Maryland
Coast: UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU (or Duke, if that was the four).
Plains / Coast play through in four years with 9 conference games, two years with 10 conference games, North/East plays through in five years with 9 conference games, to/three years with 10 conference games.
Massively unbalanced, but no way to make it not massively unbalanced without break up OSU/PSU. If it is assumed that the expansion is worth sufficient to drop OSU/PSU to once every three years, you can have:
Plains: UNL, IA, MN, WI, IL, NW
North: MSU, TSUN, OSU
Central: IN, Purdue, PSU
Coast: Rutgers, MD, UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU
… which is a bit more balanced.
LikeLike
@Blapples
If you have a ten-game conference schedule, a team like Michigan would play the four teams in its region (MSU, OSU, PSU, RU), the four teams in the other region (either Mid-West or Plains) and two from the Coastal Region (4-4-2). If you do a home and home for all these schools, that scenario has Michigan playing all the teams in the conference at least twice in a six-year period.
If the conference adopts a nine-game schedule, then its 4-4-1 and with no home-and-home for the Coastal Region schools, it would take five years to get through them. Now that would be problematic.
I do agree with you that the pod (regions) system is cleaner with 16 or 20 teams in four regions of four or five teams apiece. With 16 teams, a team could play each program in the conference a minimum of twice in four years with a home and home (and with 20, its twice in six year with a home-and-home). 18 doesn’t work as well.
If you scroll up, you’ll also see a discussion about having two pods of 6 and two pods of 3. The teams in the pods with 3 members would play each other annually in a fixed game while rotating between the two larger divisions. That’s certainly another way of doing it.
In the midst of all this discussion about pods for 16 or 18 or 20 teams, the one thing you have to keep an eye on is what’s happening to college athletics at large. We’ve written about the possibility whereby Division 1-A shrinks into a 64- to 80-team entity. At that point, we might be talking about four super conferences with two large fixed divisions apiece (of 8 to 10 teams each) as part of a structure to support an eight-team playoff (with the super conference championship game being the first round of the playoff). If that were to happen, all this discussion about pods or regions will become a thing of the past.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“You’ve got to switch it to 4 on both ends and five in the middle, because you have to put the Kings Group playing away to each East Coast team more frequently than once every decade.”
I’d restate that as the outside pods should be the same size and so should the middle pods. It doesn’t matter which is 4 and which is 5 for that purpose. You make the ends 4 because the western group of 4 works much better than any group of 5.
“Plains as is.
Central: Illinois, Northwestern Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers
East: MSU, TSUN, OSU, Penn State, Maryland
Coast: UVA, UNC, GTech, FSU (or Duke, if that was the four).”
You can’t do that to Rutgers. 6 and 3 works better based on the teams.
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
N – MI, MSU, IN
E – OSU, GT, PU
S – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
Lock OSU/MI, MSU/GT and PU/IN and play 8 division games. Games between the S and W rotate every year. You scramble the groups of 3 every two years (in order of locked games) so all of those teams play each other.
1. MI, MSU, IN vs OSU, GT, PU
2. MI, MSU, PU vs OSU, GT, IN
3. MI, MSU, GT vs OSU, IN, PU
4. MI, OSU, IN vs MSU, GT, PU
5. MI, OSU, PU vs MSU, GT, IN
6. MI, OSU, GT vs MSU, PU, IN
7. MI, OSU, MSU vs GT, PU, IN
“Massively unbalanced, but no way to make it not massively unbalanced without break up OSU/PSU.”
Dropping that game has to be on the table at 18. It’s too much of a constraint in a divisional alignment.
LikeLike
Scrambling the groups is driven there by having locked cross division games which is driven by putting MSU, TSUN and OSU in different groups. But its too tinkery. The benefit of the tick tock system is there are only two division lineups, so of all the rotating divisions, its the least confusing for normal people.
Break PSU from OSU, and we’re back to the 4/5/5/4 with the Illinois schools in the “North” and the Indiana schools in the “East”
West: UNL, IA, WI, MN
North: NW, IL, MSU, TSUN, OSU
East: IN, PU, PennSt, MD, Rutgers
South: 4 ACC newbies.
After all, MSU wants to play That School Up North and Northwestern, Illinois wants to play Northwestern and OSU, OSU wants to play That School Up North and that School Up North wants to play OSU and MSU.
As far as strength of schedule and the easier path to the CCG for PennSt than for OSU and TSUN, no telling whether Purdue will go on an upward cycle and Rutgers will grow into a Prince. So long as there is one King in the 4 ACC newbies, its as well balanced as one can make a system looking at four incumbent kings and none of them in the South.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Scrambling the groups is driven there by having locked cross division games which is driven by putting MSU, TSUN and OSU in different groups.”
It’s mostly driven by only playing 9 games in an 18 team conference. If I can use 10 games, I wouldn’t rotate the middle groups. They’d have 1 locked game and 1 rotating game, so they play everyone twice in 4 years.
“Break PSU from OSU, and we’re back to the 4/5/5/4 with the Illinois schools in the “North” and the Indiana schools in the “East””
No. Those groups never work well because you either split important rivalries or have terrible balance.
“West: UNL, IA, WI, MN
North: NW, IL, MSU, TSUN, OSU
East: IN, PU, PennSt, MD, Rutgers
South: 4 ACC newbies.”
You chose terrible balance.
“As far as strength of schedule and the easier path to the CCG for PennSt than for OSU and TSUN, no telling whether Purdue will go on an upward cycle and Rutgers will grow into a Prince.”
PSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, NW, MN, IL
Are you seriously suggesting that makes sense?
“So long as there is one King in the 4 ACC newbies,”
Huge assumption since many don’t think FSU will even get consideration.
“its as well balanced as one can make a system looking at four incumbent kings and none of them in the South.”
No, it isn’t.
LikeLike
“PSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, NW, MN, IL
Are you seriously suggesting that makes sense?”
If the Big Ten adds six schools straight with no Kings, all from one side of the current conference footprint, you either accept some competitive imbalance or engage in geographic contortions that make the widely unpopular Leader vs Legends look geographically sensible by comparison.
And of course, that’s just one cycle, and assumes that the conference realignment process itself ignores competitive balance. If the conference realignment process has more respect for competitive balance, its a substantially better cycle:
FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, NE, WI, IA, MN
FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL vs PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN, NE, WI, IA, MN
LikeLike
If the Big Ten adds six schools straight with no Kings, all from one side of the current conference footprint, you either accept some competitive imbalance or engage in geographic contortions that make the widely unpopular Leader vs Legends look geographically sensible by comparison.
The ACC schools already agreed to be in a conference where they’d be traveling as far south as Miami, and as far north as Boston, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh, with occasional trips to South Bend. You can probably add Cincinnati and UConn to that list, next time the ACC has a vacancy. Even in the current Big Ten, most games are plane trips for the teams, and only a minority of them attract traveling fans who arrive by car in very substantial numbers.
Leaders/Legends was ridiculed because of the exceedingly dumb names and just one or two oddities that the fans disliked: splitting Iowa from Wisconsin and Minnesota; splitting Michigan and Ohio State. They also did themselves a disservice by insinuating that UM-OSU might be moved to an earlier date in the season. Though this never happened, the negative publicity created the impression that they didn’t give a damn about the fans.
Once you expand to 18 teams, a lot of the scheduling goals are in tension with one another. It’s a matter of choosing your poison. Travel, as an issue, is much overrated, as long as teams get the key rivalries they care about. The Big Ten has apparently decided not to go with the Inner/Outer alignment, but it was more about getting Michigan and Ohio State into the New York/Washington markets. The actual travel difference wouldn’t be huge, bearing in mind that with nine conference games, you play three opponents in the other division regardless of the alignment.
It also invites ridicule if a team is sent across the country for no good reason, e.g., a hypothetical pod of Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, and Purdue. I think they would try to avoid this.
I agree with you that the scheduling problems are far more acute if they go to 18 schools without FSU, as you get a cluster of schools in the same region, none of which are great at football. If you don’t break them up to some extent, you’re almost certain to end up with an intolerable competitive imbalance .
…no telling whether Purdue will go on an upward cycle and Rutgers will grow into a Prince
There is a pretty long history suggesting it’s improbable that both of those events will occur.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“PSU, GT, Duke, UNC, UVA, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, NW, MN, IL
Are you seriously suggesting that makes sense?”
“If the Big Ten adds six schools straight with no Kings, all from one side of the current conference footprint, you either accept some competitive imbalance or engage in geographic contortions that make the widely unpopular Leader vs Legends look geographically sensible by comparison.”
That’s not some competitive imbalance, it’s a ridiculously large amount of it. Based on the last 10 years of conference play, you have 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 vs 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 by conference W%. Swap PSU and GT for MN and IL and you’d have a clean sweep.
“And of course, that’s just one cycle,”
Yes, otherwise known as half of the time.
“and assumes that the conference realignment process itself ignores competitive balance.”
It your realignment plan that makes no sense. I’m saying the B10 would be too smart to follow geography so strictly as to cause that embarrassment of a lineup to happen. If, on the other hand, you mean the additions ignoring balance, that makes no sense. It’s not who you add, it’s where you put them.
“If the conference realignment process has more respect for competitive balance, its a substantially better cycle:
FSU, GT, UNC, UVA, PSU, MD, RU, PU, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, NE, WI, IA, MN”
You replaced #18 with #3 (and everyone else drops down a notch, obviously). That’s all that changed. 7 of the top 10 are still on one side half the time.
LikeLike
I agree completely and was thinking along the same lines. The worse thing the Big Ten could do is say we are using pods and these are it. It would sound better to most to say the divisions will rotate, but every team will have x teams it plays every year (and then list those teams).
LikeLike
They should just lock whichever rivalries they feel are necessary, and let the rest of the schedule rotate freely, according to whatever rotation rules are deemed useful.
Static pods (or groups, or quads) are unhelpful, because you wind up competitively unbalanced, or you invent extra rivalries that no one wants. There is no need to lock groups of four or five schools permanently together. The NE/WI/MN/IA quad works really well. But others are just made-up contrivances that have no basis in geography or history.
Everyone just assumes the B1G would do this, apparently for no other reason than because the WAC did it. Is there any reason, besides that? It seems that people are twisting themselves into the shape of a pretzel, to create a structure that no one needs, doesn’t work very well, and was a failure the one time it was tried.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“They should just lock whichever rivalries they feel are necessary, and let the rest of the schedule rotate freely, according to whatever rotation rules are deemed useful.”
Except for making it hard to obey the NCAA rules, that makes perfect sense.
“Static pods (or groups, or quads) are unhelpful,”
Wrong.
“The NE/WI/MN/IA quad works really well. But others are just made-up contrivances that have no basis in geography or history.”
Yeah, UNC, UVA, Duke and MD have nothing in common. Why would anybody group them together?
“Everyone just assumes the B1G would do this,”
No they don’t. They discuss it because the B10 could do it and perhaps they think the B10 should do it. As usual, you’re the one making assumptions.
“Is there any reason, besides that?”
Frequency of play while following the current NCAA rules to allow a 13th game exemption for the CCG.
LikeLike
@Brian:
<em“They should just lock whichever rivalries they feel are necessary, and let the rest of the schedule rotate freely, according to whatever rotation rules are deemed useful.”
Except for making it hard to obey the NCAA rules, that makes perfect sense.
It is trivially easy to rotate the schedule, without pods, while complying with the existing rules. All you need to do is have two divisions. No rule says that you need have static four- and five-team subdivisions within the divisions. That’s just one way of doing it.
“Static pods (or groups, or quads) are unhelpful,”
Wrong.
Oh, yeah? Show me a pod alignment that doesn’t have fictitious rivalries, and that doesn’t separate any rivals that actually want to be together.
“The NE/WI/MN/IA quad works really well. But others are just made-up contrivances that have no basis in geography or history.”
Yeah, UNC, UVA, Duke and MD have nothing in common. Why would anybody group them together?
I didn’t say none of the others work. But in every structure I’ve seen, you wind up with some teams arbitrarily thrown together, or historical rivals separated. Why do that, when you don’t have to?
“Everyone just assumes the B1G would do this,”
No they don’t. They discuss it because the B10 could do it and perhaps they think the B10 should do it. As usual, you’re the one making assumptions.
OK, correct me: what other ways are under discussion.
“Is there any reason, besides that?”
Frequency of play while following the current NCAA rules to allow a 13th game exemption for the CCG.
As I said, pods aren’t required to follow the rule [assuming, for argument’s sake, that they couldn’t just get the rule changed].
LikeLike
“Its trivially easy to rotate the schedule” ~ the thing is that if you have a collection of locked games for each school and a round robin schedule, a lot of of the schedule rotations fall off the list of feasible choices.
As far the claim of it being trivially easy ~ that’s a bit of handwaving, isn’t it? Give a demonstration of the first four years of the division rotation, and how they respect all Big Ten rivalries and offer so much better divisional balance and make so much more geographic sense than eastern and western anchor groups and two central groups alternating between the two.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF: This is how it works:
1) Decide which rivalries you want to protect. Let’s assume the current 14 teams plus UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, and ND, for a total of 20. You might protect the following:
UM: OSU, MSU
OSU: UM
MSU: UM
WI: MN
MN: WI
NW: IL
IL: NW
ND: PU
PU: ND, IN
IN: PU
NE: IA
IA: NE
PSU: RU, MD
RU: PSU
MD: PSU
UVA: DK, UNC
DK: UNC, UVA
UNC: DK, UVA
GT: FSU
FSU: GT
This is just a possible list. Arguments could be made for protecting more or fewer games than that. This is just an illustration. Within the “classic Big Ten,” I didn’t protect any game if that game has been unprotected at any point within the last 20 years. I didn’t protect MD with the rest of the ACC, because they’ve already decided to give that up. But I did give each school at least one guaranteed annual game. Some have two.
2) Now, it is not a difficult combinatorial problem to generate two divisions that protect every one of these rivalries. There are many, many solutions. Brian could probably tell us exactly how many. He is good at that.
With 9 conference games, every rival needs to be in the same division. With 10 conference games, a team can be in the opposite division as one of their rivals, since every team will have an opposite-division flex game. If you’re separated from your rival, that’s the flex game; otherwise, the flex game can be any opponent.
You can also impose constraints, such as: “No more than 4 kings in a division” (the kings being UM, OSU, PSU, NE, FSU, and ND). Even with that constraint, there are many solutions.
So anyway, you generate divisions with those constraints. A year later, they rotate to another combination using the same algorithm, mixing up the schools as much as possible while retaining the rivalries. These divisions can be generated as long in advance as you want. [On another thread, I suggested generating them dynamically, based on performance the preceding season. That is not at all necessary, but it is one available option.]
The advantage of this, is that you protect exactly what is wanted, and no more. You don’t, for instance, create an artificial “Purdue-Maryland” annual game that no one wants, just because you needed a five-team pod.
To give but one example of the many possible rotations, the first divisions could be:
A: UM, OSU, MSU, UVA, UNC, DK, NW, IL, NE, IA
B: PSU, RU, MD, ND, PU, IN, GT, FSU, WI, MN
And then…
A: UM, OSU, MSU, PSU, RU, MD, NW, IL, GT, FSU
B: ND, PU, IN, UVA, UNC, DK, NE, IA, WI, MN
And then…
A: UM, OSU, MSU, ND, PU, IN, NW, IL, WI, MN
B: PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, DK, NE, IA, GT, FSU
In that rotation, everyone plays everyone at least once in three or six years, with no rivalries broken. It can rotate annually, or bi-annually, as wanted. The above examples work with 9 conference games. With 10 conference games, many more divisions are possible, since rivals can be split.
If you prefer settled scheduling, the rotation can be announced as many years in advance as you’d like. It could also be adjusted dynamically according to performance (my preference, but not at all necessary).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It is trivially easy to rotate the schedule, without pods, while complying with the existing rules. All you need to do is have two divisions. No rule says that you need have static four- and five-team subdivisions within the divisions. That’s just one way of doing it.”
I never said you had to have static pods to do it. Your way is so trivial that you have yet to even show that it works when preserving all the appropriate games. I haven’t said it won’t work, but it will be harder on the scheduler. What is the rotation? What is the frequency of games for each pairing?
“Oh, yeah? Show me a pod alignment that doesn’t have fictitious rivalries, and that doesn’t separate any rivals that actually want to be together.”
That’s impossible. Many fan bases disagree on which are real rivalries and which aren’t. I’ve given multiple pod examples that preserve all the necessary games. You’ve failed to show a problem with someone having an annual game against a team they aren’t rivals with yet.
“I didn’t say none of the others work. But in every structure I’ve seen, you wind up with some teams arbitrarily thrown together,”
You mean like NW/PU and MSU/PSU? Those are from the days of 11 teams and no divisions, but needed to make scheduling easier. We have them now with 12. Guess what? You’ll have them at 14, too.
“OK, correct me: what other ways are under discussion.”
Just recently? Changing the NCAA rule to go with no divisions, static divisions and various sizes and types of pods have all been discussed. Richard always has his 6 pods of 3 plan for 18 teams, too.
LikeLike
Sure arguments COULD be made “for protecting more or fewer”, but you didn’t actually present the argument for protecting so few. I presume the actual argument for not even protecting all of the old traditional rivalries in the conference, never mind the games that are really appealing as travel partners is that the more rivalries you protect ~ and the more actual demonstrated benefit of doing the scheduling that way instead of with groups ~ the harder it is to draw up the divisions.
IA ~ UNL, WI, MN
MN ~ IA, WI, TSUN
MSU ~ TSUN, NW
OSU ~ TSUN, IL, PSU
IL ~ OSU, NW, (??? Illini fans, y’all tell me)
TSUN ~ OSU, MSU, MN
… and it starts to get substantially harder, because its really hard to have an average of two and a half protected rivalries without it being a fairly densely connected graph.
LikeLike
Your way is so trivial that you have yet to even show that it works when preserving all the appropriate games.
I did it above. About three FTT blog posts ago, I did another. I could give a third, fourth, fifth; as many as you want.
I haven’t said it won’t work, but it will be harder on the scheduler.
The scheduler is a Big Ten employee. He is well paid to do this. We’re all tossing this stuff out in our spare time, by some definition. If I make it your job, you’ll do better (I assume).
“Oh, yeah? Show me a pod alignment that doesn’t have fictitious rivalries, and that doesn’t separate any rivals that actually want to be together.”
That’s impossible.
You can come a good deal closer than your last attempt. Eliminate all of the fictitious rivalries. Protect whatever you define as necessary.
You’ve failed to show a problem with someone having an annual game against a team they aren’t rivals with yet.
Opportunity cost. Since we clearly can’t preserve everything, every fictitious rivalry you create, carries the cost of multiple desired games that can’t be played. That’s why it’s better to protect no more than necessary — given whatever definition of “necessary” you want.
Of course I agree that fans will not have the same view of what is “necessary”. But I assume you’d agree that an annual Michigan State/Georgia Tech rivalry (which I believe was part of your scenario) is “necessary” by no rational definition. By protecting it, other Big Ten teams and the Yellowjackets see each other less often.
Why protect a game that no fan of either school has agitated for, when others they want are left unplayed for years at a time?
“I didn’t say none of the others work. But in every structure I’ve seen, you wind up with some teams arbitrarily thrown together,”
You mean like NW/PU and MSU/PSU?
That’s a system no longer in use. There were a lot of jokes about that made-up MSU/PSU rivalry. What was so great about that system, that would make you eager to return to it?
Of course, those were simpler times: you saw 80 percent of your conference mates every year, and no team was off your schedule for more than two years at a time. Then, they’d be back again for at the next eight years or so. With a 20-team Big Ten, inefficiencies like that are far more costly.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“1) Decide which rivalries you want to protect. Let’s assume the current 14 teams plus UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, and ND, for a total of 20. You might protect the following:
UM: OSU, MSU
OSU: UM
MSU: UM
WI: MN
MN: WI
NW: IL
IL: NW
ND: PU
PU: ND, IN
IN: PU
NE: IA
IA: NE
PSU: RU, MD
RU: PSU
MD: PSU
UVA: DK, UNC
DK: UNC, UVA
UNC: DK, UVA
GT: FSU
FSU: GT
This is just a possible list. Arguments could be made for protecting more or fewer games than that. This is just an illustration.”
It’s a ridiculously minimalist list that even you know is crap. Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
“2) Now, it is not a difficult combinatorial problem to generate two divisions that protect every one of these rivalries.”
It becomes harder when you have a more realistic list.
“There are many, many solutions. Brian could probably tell us exactly how many. He is good at that.”
Count them yourself. It’s an important part of your argument to show how this plan works.
“The advantage of this, is that you protect exactly what is wanted, and no more. You don’t, for instance, create an artificial “Purdue-Maryland” annual game that no one wants, just because you needed a five-team pod.”
And the harm in PU playing MD annually would be what?
“To give but one example of the many possible rotations, the first divisions could be:
A: UM, OSU, MSU, UVA, UNC, DK, NW, IL, NE, IA
B: PSU, RU, MD, ND, PU, IN, GT, FSU, WI, MN”
Which shows several rivalries that should be kept but are split.
Again, I’m not saying it won’t work but you reduced it to a trivial problem here.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF:
Sure arguments COULD be made “for protecting more or fewer”, but you didn’t actually present the argument for protecting so few. I presume the actual argument for not even protecting all of the old traditional rivalries in the conference, never mind the games that are really appealing as travel partners is that the more rivalries you protect ~ and the more actual demonstrated benefit of doing the scheduling that way instead of with groups ~ the harder it is to draw up the divisions.
You’re absolutely correct that it is possible to so tightly constrain the problem that an acceptable rotation becomes impossible.
But even in the system they’re considering NOW (with East-West), UM-MN and OSU-IL are not going to be protected. They were also not protected in the scheduling system before Nebraska joined.
Now, I think it’s obvious that if some rivalries had to be sacrificed in an 11 or 14-team Big Ten, they surely will have to be in a 20-team Big Ten. As I said in my post, if a particular rivalry has not been protected historically (the last 20 years or so), then it’s hard to make the argument that it is essential in a 20-team league.
But it is clearly possible to give each school their one or two “must haves”. And if you can do that, why wouldn’t you? In a 20-team league, I am not sure you can give anyone three or four annual rivals, without someone else making a larger sacrifice.
Likewise, it seems apparent that if you give schools a “made-up” rivalry, you are creating an extra scheduling constraint that no one really wants, and in so doing, taking away flexibility for other useful games to take place.
LikeLike
This is just a possible list. Arguments could be made for protecting more or fewer games than that. This is just an illustration.”
It’s a ridiculously minimalist list that even you know is crap. Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
I believe most of what I left unprotected, has been unprotected at some point in one of the recently employed systems. If they were willing to leave it unplayed some years in an 11, 12, or 14-team Big Ten, how can it suddenly be essential in a 20-team Big Ten?
I think the only exception is that I didn’t protect PSU/OSU, but I think in your proposal you didn’t protect it either.
Just for fun, rewrite your own proposal without fictitious rivalries, but protect whatever you want to protect. If you want to max-protect, go ahead, but don’t protect anything unless you need it. Now see how much more the rest of the conference gets to play each other, because, e.g., Georgia Tech isn’t locked into Michigan State every year.
All I am really saying is, don’t protect more than you need to, so that the remaining teams get to play each other more often.
LikeLike
I have to throw in my 2 cents:
Any scheme where the game for the pig or the game for the Jug or even Iowa-Wisconsin or even UNL-Wisconsin (which, according to Alvarez is a high-priority series for UW nowadays) or even OSU-PSU (without Pitt joining and taking the place of OSU) or UMD-UVa are not protected is not a realistic list. MSU also wants to visit Chicagoland very often as well.
Ironically, Duke & UVa do not have to play annually. I have no idea why you threw that in there.
LikeLike
@Brian: Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
Umm….why? Georgia Tech and FSU’s rivalries, both with each other and with the rest of the ACC, are fairly recently minted. Maryland was prepared to give up 100 percent of its ACC rivalries to join the Big Ten.
Penn State and Nebraska had no annual rivalries with any Big Ten teams before joining the league. During the long period of an 11-team Big Ten, no team had more than two protected rivalries. Some of those were highly meaningful (UM-OSU), but some were just made-up, so that every team would have two. You know that PSU-MSU wasn’t that important, because as soon as Nebraska joined, they kicked it to the curb.
LikeLike
“I believe most of what I left unprotected, has been unprotected at some point in one of the recently employed systems.”
Floyd. The game for Floyd has been played continuously since the Great Depression.
Just wondering, are you a Nebraska, UMD, or Rutgers fan?
“All I am really saying is, don’t protect more than you need to, so that the remaining teams get to play each other more often.”
Have you thought this through? With 10 conference games in a 20 school league, protecting 2 games and rotating the rest means you face the non-protected schools 8/17th of the time. Protecting 3 games and rotating the rest means you face the non-protected schools 7/16th of the time. That’s a 3.3% increase in frequency. That’s 1 extra game vs. each non-protected school every 30 years, or one extra HaH series every 60 years. If you think that’s worth killing off the oldest trophy game either (the LBJ game) as well as a bunch of lesser rivalries, you need your priorities examined.
Also, if FSU joins, I’m pretty certain that the B10 would want FSU-PSU and/or FSU-UNL to become protected rivalries (for the TV value). Likely both.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I did it above.”
That comment wasn’t there when I wrote that.
“About three FTT blog posts ago, I did another.”
Then copy and paste should make it easy to do.
“You can come a good deal closer than your last attempt.”
Probably not. On the other hand, teams regularly play a lot of conference games against teams they don’t care about.
“Eliminate all of the fictitious rivalries. Protect whatever you define as necessary.”
I hereby define I all the games I locked as necessary. Problem solved.
“Opportunity cost. Since we clearly can’t preserve everything, every fictitious rivalry you create, carries the cost of multiple desired games that can’t be played.”
And yet you’ve failed to produce a viable list of all these desired games that are being lost and how much more valuable they are than the “unwanted” locked teams. Most schools don’t really care who fills out their schedule beyond a certain set of teams. That reduces the opportunity cost.
“Of course I agree that fans will not have the same view of what is “necessary”. But I assume you’d agree that an annual Michigan State/Georgia Tech rivalry (which I believe was part of your scenario) is “necessary” by no rational definition. By protecting it, other Big Ten teams and the Yellowjackets see each other less often.”
Actually, it was mathematically necessary. That’s as rational as it gets. I had OSU/MI and IN/PU locked to preserve important rivalries. That left MSU and GT to play each other. That locked game could go away with 10 conference games. Or maybe it stays because MSU wants GA access for recruiting and GT has limited interest in IN or PU.
As for other teams seeing GT less because of MSU/GT, that only applies to OSU, MI, IN and PU. I think they’d rather keep their major rivalries locked than play GT more often. The other 12 teams would get them 50% of the time.
“Why protect a game that no fan of either school has agitated for, when others they want are left unplayed for years at a time?”
Again, what are all these neglected games that fans want that my system ignored?
“That’s a system no longer in use.”
Nice reply from Mr. “If it’s never been done before it’s a ridiculous idea and not worth discussing.” Now past methods are also no longer worthy of discussion. Way to limit any disagreement.
“There were a lot of jokes about that made-up MSU/PSU rivalry. What was so great about that system, that would make you eager to return to it?”
It preserved the major rivalries and gave an equal rotation through the other 8 teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: Every team would have at least 2 and many need 3. Some might need 4.
Umm….why?”
NE – WI, IA, MN, maybe PSU
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, IA, MN, NW (look how much of their base is from or in Chicago)
MN – NE, WI, IA, MI
NW – IA, IL, MSU
MSU – MI, NW
MI – OSU, MSU, MN
Get the idea?
“Maryland was prepared to give up 100 percent of its ACC rivalries to join the Big Ten.”
Out of financial need, yes. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t want to play them if they were also B10 members. Some history is better than none.
LikeLike
“You’re absolutely correct that it is possible to so tightly constrain the problem that an acceptable rotation becomes impossible.
But even in the system they’re considering NOW (with East-West), UM-MN and OSU-IL are not going to be protected. They were also not protected in the scheduling system before Nebraska joined.”
But in the scheduling system before Nebraska joined, the schools in the conference played most of the conference most of the time.
And if your point is that your system is no WORSE in protecting rivalries than static divisions or alternating groups … then why go with your system? Static divisions are simpler, alternating groups are simpler. Static divisions are simplest, at the cost of not seeing half the conference very often, alternating groups are not as simple, for the gain of seeing the majority of the conference every two years.
If it can be BETTER at protecting the fabric of rivalries that have grown up over the past century and half century, then you’ve got a case for living with the downsides of your system.
LikeLike
@Richard: Ironically, Duke & UVa do not have to play annually. I have no idea why you threw that in there.
It was really just an illustration. I’m more trying to ask, “Why protect extra games annually that no one has asked for?” The actual set that’s necessary to protect is less meaningful; we all have different opinions on that.
But it is useful to have a sense of history: there were four years that Michigan and Minnesota didn’t play, between Penn State’s entry to the league and the current divisional set-up. And in the proposed east-west set-up, it appears they’ll again go some years without playing.
So, how essential is that?
LikeLike
You’re assuming that the LBJ game won’t be protected in an E-W setup.
Also, there’s a giant difference between playing 75% of the time and playing less than half the time in my book.
LikeLike
But if teams have to give up their second or third or fourth most desired games … how is that fundamentally any different from forming divisions from rotating or alternating groups that also can only respect two to four out of most team’s desired collections of games?
At least with alternating or rotating groups, there is certainty that you’ll get to play the others in your group on an ongoing basis.
LikeLike
And that is shifting the goalposts mid-post. You say “why protect games nobody has asked for”. MSU has asked for NW, MN has asked for TSUN, IL has asked for OSU, the four western schools have asked to play each other, Penn State got the two east coast entrants THEY asked for, so I will treat that as asking for those games.
How ESSENTIAL? Well, obviously there are different priorities, some games are more important to one school than the other, and sometimes in a conference you can’t get what you want so you make the best of what you can get.
Lots of systems can protect a small number of “essential” games, especially when leeway is granted to dictate to schools an arbitrary cut-off of how “essential” their preferred games are to protect. If THAT’S all that the system can offer, its doesn’t seem to be offering very much.
LikeLike
And that is shifting the goalposts mid-post. You say “why protect games nobody has asked for”. MSU has asked for NW, MN has asked for TSUN, IL has asked for OSU, the four western schools have asked to play each other, Penn State got the two east coast entrants THEY asked for, so I will treat that as asking for those games.
How ESSENTIAL? Well, obviously there are different priorities, some games are more important to one school than the other, and sometimes in a conference you can’t get what you want so you make the best of what you can get.
This is what makes Purdue to the West/Michigan State to the East a preferable setup in terms of keeping members satisfied — protecting not only the Old Oaken Bucket, but the Little Brown Jug, Illiniwek, MSU-Northwestern (these first four as crossovers) and the Purdue-Illinois game (in the West division). You can legitimately argue that it lessens divisional balance, but if more members are happy, it would override that disadvantage. And while you can’t assume this is a short-term move, there’s a reasonably good chance (thanks to the upcoming TV deal) that before the 2010s are up, the Big Ten will have more than 14 football-playing teams.
(P.S. The first time I saw the term “TSUN,” I thought someone had misspelled the acronym for Cal State Northridge. Oh, you crazy Buckeyes.)
LikeLike
And that is shifting the goalposts mid-post. You say “why protect games nobody has asked for”. MSU has asked for NW, MN has asked for TSUN, IL has asked for OSU, the four western schools have asked to play each other, Penn State got the two east coast entrants THEY asked for, so I will treat that as asking for those games.
Shifting the goalposts…how? Everyone agrees that it’s impossible to preserve every desired rivalry annually. Even the current system fails to do that, and it only gets harder when you add teams.
It therefore seems to me rather obvious, that you shouldn’t gum up the system with unsought locked rivalries, because that’s fewer slots available for the games the schools really want.
Beyond that, I am not advocating a particular number of rivalries to protect. My idea is about the opposite kinds of games — those no sane person would believe need to be locked, like GT/MSU or Purdue/Maryland.
And my suggestion is: don’t.
LikeLike
vp19,
“protecting not only the Old Oaken Bucket, but the Little Brown Jug, Illiniwek, MSU-Northwestern (these first four as crossovers) and the Purdue-Illinois game (in the West division).”
It’s a big assumption that the B10 will choose to lock a bunch of crossover games. We know they’ll have to lock 1. It’s unclear that they’ll lock more than that. Limiting everyone to 1 rotating game really reduces how often teams can play. If only IN/PU gets locked in your version, then how do you feel about it?
“You can legitimately argue that it lessens divisional balance, but if more members are happy, it would override that disadvantage.”
But will more teams be happy? That hasn’t been shown. We’ve yet to hear who prefers PU in the west and who prefers MSU in the west. We can guess, but we may well be wrong. If it’s split 7/7 or 8/6 or maybe even 9/5, doesn’t it matter how much they care more than how many prefer 1 over the other?
LikeLike
Pods is a term the NCAA uses in the tourney. But terminology doesn’t matter here. Call them whatever you want for PR. For practical use, though, pods is the accepted term when discussing the issue on the internet. Pods are just a means to an end and the B10 never needs to talk about them publicly. They can just discuss having dynamic divisions are whatever BS term makes you feel better about yourself.
LikeLike
@ Brian: You said: “Pods is a term the NCAA uses in the tourney. But terminology doesn’t matter here. Call them whatever you want for PR. For practical use, though, pods is the accepted term when discussing the issue on the internet. Pods are just a means to an end and the B10 never needs to talk about them publicly. They can just discuss having dynamic divisions are whatever BS term makes you feel better about yourself.”
My, you were in a foul mood yesterday. I hope you got a good night’s sleep and are less cranky and irritable today.
You say “terminology doesn’t matter.” I disagree. “Leaders” and “Legends” are good examples of bad names. “Edsel” is another classic example of a bad name. The Chevy “Nova” was shunned by Spanish speaking consumers because “No va” in Spanish means “it does not run.”
Naming matters. The “Rose Bowl” sounds wonderful; the “Broccoli Bowl” not so much.
You say that the NCAA uses the term “pods.” First, I’ve never heard the term “pods” used by the NCAA. But, whatever. Second, I still think “pods” is a bad name even if the NCAA has used the term. Just because it has been done, doesn’t mean it needs to continue. Dead hand of the past begone !
You also say that “pods is an accepted term.” I did not say otherwise. If it makes you feel better about yourself to limit yourself to the “accepted term,” feel free. My post was an attempt to suggest that the “accepted term” has limitations and that there are better alternatives.
You say finally: “They [the B1G] can just discuss having dynamic divisions are whatever BS term makes you feel better about yourself.” (I assume “are” = “or”). As should be clear, the name matters and is not “BS.”
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“You say “terminology doesn’t matter.””
No, I said it doesn’t matter here, as in on Frank’s blog. That word is kind of important to the meaning of my sentence. PR experts can decide on the proper term if and when the B10 decided to use them.
“You say that the NCAA uses the term “pods.””
They do. It’s their fairly new method of grouping schools for the first 2 rounds to reduce travel.
LikeLike
More news on the lower-level realignment front — UMass Lowell, already Div I for hockey, will upgrade the rest of its program from Div II and go to America East, replacing Boston University in that market. Another rejection for NJIT, which has sought America East or Northeast Conference membership for years: http://collegesportsinfo.com/2013/02/13/report-umass-lowell-to-join-america-east/
LikeLike
I’m not a huge Clay Travis fan, but this article is absolutely brilliant:
http://outkickthecoverage.com/texass-deloss-dodds-grapples-with-losing-legacy.php
LikeLike
Typical Travis drivel. I’m sure you like it because it returns the unneccessary shot Dodds took at Missouri. The last half of the article is just stupid. But .500 for Clay Travis. Hits his norm.
LikeLike
I think UT and Oklahoma better turn it around quickly on the recruiting trail or this article will be written many more times in the future.
LikeLike
Yeah, he’s always over the top. Tone it down about 50% and it’s accurate.
LikeLike
Clay Travis knocking it out of the park! Lack of a conference network will eventually lead to the demise of the B12. Longhorn Network is a cluster f…….
LikeLike
Not saying anything but interesting article about scheduling from a ND perspective:
http://www.subwaydomer.com/2013-articles/february/notre-dame-the-big-ten-and-the-future-schedule-battle.html
LikeLike
I know I am in the minority among Irish fans; but I hate the animosity between the B1G and the Irish. For the most part its been a fun struggle through the years, I love the Michigan St series as well as the Michigan series these past few years. I understand the sentiment and angst by some in the fan bases on each side; but College Football is better as a whole when Notre Dame and Michigan/Michigan St are playing. This is sad to me.
LikeLike
@OrderRestored83: As far as I can tell, all three of Notre Dame’s regular rivals in the Big Ten wanted to keep playing Notre Dame. It’s true that some (sadly ignorant) fans say, “To Hell with Notre Dame.” But that attitude is not shared by the athletic directors.
It was Jack Swarbrick’s decision to cancel the Michigan series.
His apparent reasoning was that if he plays annual series with Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Navy, Stanford, and USC, that locks six games a year. The ACC league office is going to determine five other games, for a total of eleven. That would leave him with just one game a year under his control. He wanted more flexibility than that.
LikeLike
@Marc
Yeah, as of now it sounds like the MSU and Purdue games will continue; but for how much longer? As for the Michigan series ending, regardless of whose decision it was; it was a bad one for the game. I went to both Michigan/ND games and the atmosphere was only rivaled by games against ‘SC. College Football needs that. I was outspoken against the partnership with the ACC; I don’t feel a connection to any of those schools (and could care less about playing any of them outside BC/Miami/Florida St). Who knows where this will end up; but games like Michigan/Notre Dame shouldn’t be sacrificed in the process.
LikeLike
@OrderRestored83: My guess is that Swarbrick will keep the Purdue series, no matter what. They’re Notre Dame’s third most-frequent rival (after Navy and USC), and they have a better winning percentage against Purdue than either MSU or Michigan.
LikeLike
Michigan State’s AD said last month that they would continue to play Notre Dame but probably only 4 of 6 years instead of the previous 8 of 10. Both schools want to schedule other rivals periodically. By the way, the cancellation of the Michigan vs ND series had been rumored for well over a year. No big surprise, other than maybe the way Swarbrick delivered the message to Brandon.
LikeLike
@Pat-
Once I saw that Notre Dame had agreed to a four-year series with Texas that included season opening games in 2015/6, I thought the UM-ND series was potentially on the ropes. If the Irish had kept the Wolverines on the schedule, the first two games for those seasons would have been UT followed by UM. That’s not smart scheduling for any college football team.
Brandon was asked about the Notre Dame series cancellation in the following article from 25 September 2012–http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/09/dave_brandon_explains_notre_da.html
While Brandon says he wasn’t surprised that Notre Dame wanted to opt out of the contract after they joined the ACC, he did say that Swarbrick never contacted him about ending the series in the immediate aftermath of that decision (announced on 12 September). The first formal notice he had was when Swarbrick handed him the opt out letter before last season’s game.
Brandon also said he didn’t realize the 2012 games was going to count as part of the three-game notice until after it was over and he was headed back to Ann Arbor and pulled the letter out of his pocket. Until that point, I think he assumed the 2015 game was still on the schedule.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I wouldn’t say “To Hell with Notre Dame”, but as a Michigan alum and fan, I was happy to see the series end. My freshman year in Ann Arbor was 1978–the same year the UM/ND series was resurrected. That game was pretty much a “don’t miss” game for years after I graduated because the series was so great.
The problem is that when Penn State came into the conference, the 85-scholarship limit was introduced and a half dozen years after that, the BCS came into being. All that meant that a non-conference schedule with three pretty good opponents went down to one, and that one was Notre Dame.
At that point, I wanted to see some more variety in Michigan’s non-conference schedule when it came to the one major home-and-home series the Wolverines played. I didn’t want ND completely off the schedule, but it would have been fine if they were part of a rotation (maybe 2 years out of every 6 or 8) with some of the other major college football powers. That really hit home when I attended the 2005 (?) Rose Bowl in person against Texas. Here was a team that Michigan had never played before meeting for the first time (for the record, UM hasn’t played LSU either). It was a great game and an even better experience and it whet my appetite for non-conference games against the other major programs in the country.
We’re in early days yet on the non-conference scheduling as far Michigan is concerned because there was supposed to be an agreement with the Pac 12, then it ended, now we’re looking at 9 or 10 conference games, etc. UM does have a home-and-home set with Arkansas–that’s okay, but not really a ND comparable opponent like Oklahoma or Florida State or USC.
Who knows? If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten Conference as part of a 18- or 20-team setup, those games with Michigan and Michigan State could become annual affairs again. As far as I’m concerned, having ND as a regular conference opponent would be just fine.
BTW, Bo Schembechler was prepared to end the ND series in the very earlier 90s, but he left the AD job before he was able to change anything. I have it on good authority that Bill Martin considered it as well. Not all of Michigan’s AD’s in recent times have been in love with Notre Dame, and seeing that Jack Swarbrick didn’t give David Brandon a head’s up regarding the ending of the series before he handed him that letter right before last season’s game, I imagine he isn’t in love with them right now either.
LikeLike
@cutter: You may have better contacts at Michigan than I do. But you can count up the number of ADs at Michigan since 1978. If they disliked the series that much, why did they keep renewing it?
I don’t know what Dave Brandon thinks of Jack Swarbrick now, but he sure sounded disappointed when he was handed that letter—not merely by the way in which it was done, but also the fact that the series was ending. Up to that point, I saw no inkling that he wanted to end it.
LikeLike
I honestly thought a fairly large portion of the M crowd was very disrespectful to ND. They are 2 very different places. Might be the same the other way around as well, but I was closer to the M crowd.
LikeLike
Just an addendum on this point: it’s hard to schedule OOC opponents of Notre Dame’s stature. You can look up the one or two-dozen [we could dispute precisely how many there are] potential marquee opponents, and look up their availability. Michigan isn’t the only school trying to schedule them.
Brandon just hooked Arkansas for 2018-19, after being turned down (reportedly) by a number of others. [We’ll assume for argument’s sake that Arkansas is of comparable stature to Notre Dame, which they really aren’t.] An additional problem is that a lot of the potential marquee opponents are in the south, and a hot-weather September game in their stadiums would put Michigan at a rather considerable disadvantage.
Some Michigan fans got tired of Notre Dame, but the rivalry produced a very large number of iconic games, including three of the last four years. (I am considering them iconic not just because they were Michigan wins, but how they were won; some of the ND wins fit that description too.)
I’m not saying I don’t want variety in the schedule, because I do. I am just pointing out that it’s easier said than done.
LikeLike
@ Marc
I agree with all of what you said. The loss of the series, to me, is a sad thing.
LikeLike
@Marc
A lot of Michigan’s scheduling problems are their own fault though. About a year ago Brandon said that Michigan would no longer play any road OOC games besides ND and it had a major effect on their future schedule.
He has since reversed it (obviously) but it takes time to catch up. Similar schools like Texas, USC and OSU have games scheduled out as far as 10 years.
LikeLike
@frug: You are entirely correct, although the problem pre-dates Brandon; Bill Martin scheduled a bunch of cupcakes, too. My comment was really addressing the people who think Notre Dame can easily be replaced on the schedule with comparable opponents; they can’t.
This year, for instance, Ohio State’s OOC opponents are Buffalo, San Diego State, Buffalo, and the return game at Cal — and the Buckeyes have been scheduling up for a while now. I assume Cal was the best they could do, and although they’re not chopped liver, they’re not Notre Dame.
The Buckeyes’ future home & homes are Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, North Carolina, TCU, Oregon, Boston College, and Texas. A few of those are clearly of Notre Dame’s stature, but several are not.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shepherd-
Don Canham was responsible for getting the Michigan-Notre Dame series back on the calendar. He contacted ND in 1969 and the first game played was in 1978.
Canham was replaced by Schembechler, who as I mentioned earlier, nearly cancelled the series during his tenure from 1988-90. Bo always wanted that ND game to be the mutual season opener for both teams, but Notre Dame began scheduling games prior to playing Michigan after Holtz got there. If Bo had stayed on as AD longer, the series may have ended in the early 1990s.
His successor, Jack Weidenbach, was only there for two years, but he did two things. The first was to change Michigan’s schedule so that UM would have a game in hand when they played ND. The second was to contact his counterpart at Notre Dame and get a scheduling agreement in place that would make UM-ND the season opener again. That was the plan for 1998 and 1999.
Joe Roberson was the next UM AD, but he was only there for four years (two of which included a break in the ND series) before he was replaced by Thomas Goss (1997-2000). As we both know, Goss was fired for mismanagement of the athletic department. But something interesting happened on his watch.
In 1999, Michigan and Notre Dame were scheduled to play one another in Ann Arbor in what was supposed to be the two teams’ season opener (like it was in 1998). What ND did, however, was play Kansas in the Eddie Robinson Classic a week earlier (28 August) in what was clearly a prep game for Michigan. Lloyd Carr made a public statement about ND breaking a “gentleman’s agreement”, but never elaborated on it. I asked Carr about that at a charity event years later and he told me that ND “conveniently forgot” the agreement that Weidenbach had made with ND in early 90s. Let’s just say he wasn’t real happy about that, and to no surprise, Michigan has never again tried to open the season with Notre Dame. UM has always put at least one warm up game on the schedule before playing the Irish.
Bill Martin considered cancelling the series late in his tenure, but held off because he was leaving as AD and was going to let Brandon make the decision for keeping it or not. I never got a good feel for why he was considering it, but Brandon made it very clear in public that he wasn’t happy with having Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State on the schedule as either all road game or all home games. ND wouldn’t budge because they wanted to play Michigan in South Bend when they played USC in LA and vice versa. I don’t know if Brandon was working with the B1G on getting the conference schedule changed, but happily for him, Notre Dame solved the problem by joining the ACC and cancelling the series.
To be completely frank, neither school needs the other. They didn’t play one another from 1910 through 1978 with two exceptions–games in 1942/3 during World War II. Both of them are big time programs that have profitable athletic departments, recognizable and marketable brands, lots of loyal fans,etc. As far as any future scheduling between the two programs, it’s clearly not in Notre Dame’s immediate future and it may not be in Michigan’s either. The B1G is going to at least a nine-game conference schedule, and if the decision is to make it ten, I don’t know if there’d be much opportunity for such a game. The conference is also looking at expanding, and how that works out along with the way the playoff system is finally set will also effect on Michigan sets up its non conference games.
LikeLike
USC again…
http://reignoftroy.com/2013/02/13/usc-baseball-frank-cruz-fired-as-head-coach/
And Kiffin outlasts both basketball and baseball coaches.
LikeLike
Another Big 10 voice (Gerry Dinardo) doubts the B1G ever plays at only 14:
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/2/12/3974794/ote-interview-with-gerry-dinardo-part-2
LikeLike
They’re running out of time to add someone in time for the 2014 season. Integration takes a year or more usually.
LikeLike
Besides, Dinardo is dumb as a stump. He thinks moving OSU/MI to September is a good idea.
LikeLike
Nebraska accepted the Big Ten’s invitation on June 12, 2010 and became a conference member on July 1, 2011. See–http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276551
It’s a theoretically possible scenario. Outside of the exit fee, I don’t believe there are any other requirements for programs to leave the ACC, such as a waiting period.
If the ACC-Maryland lawsuit is settled in three or four months and schools are still willing to move in the wake of the settlement, then precedent shows that additional schools could be integrated into the Big Ten in time for the 2014 football season.
Goodness knows that Delany will have had plenty of time to vet the candidate schools, gauge their interest and gather the opinions and address the concerns of the COP/C and ADs these past months and through the last spring/early summer in order to quickly make a decision.
Notre Dame announced it was joining the ACC on 12 September last year. Maryland and Rutgers joined the Big Ten a little over two months later. If the conference is prepared to issue and accept invitations like I imagine they will be, the whole process could happen even faster than that.
LikeLike
Texas A&M, and then TCU, and then Mizzou, and then West Virginia, all announced they were leaving with even less notice than Nebraska gave.
LikeLike
DiNardo was born in NY, played at ND & only coached at a B1G school for 3 years out of a 3 decade long career.
Regardless of where he is currently employed, Gerry is not a Big 10 voice.
LikeLike
He was a mediocre coach, but he has been covering the league regularly for several years and has contacts the rest of us could only dream about. He could be wrong, but I’d say he is manny degrees more reliable than the two West Virginia tweeps.
LikeLike
Just for laughs:
(JHU is Division III in every sport except lacrosse. Moving up to Division I would be an arduous process, in which they’d get clobbered for years and would have no value to the Big Ten. That’s to say nothing of the expense, given what I have to assume are highly sub-standard facilities by Division I standards.)
LikeLike
That would alleviate all the associate membership and minimum number is sports concerns. And probably get them considerably more (if not full) conference distribution.
LikeLike
I’m guessing the Big Ten would make them park their DI sports in another conference for a few years before they would be part of the Big Ten.