Back in 2010 and 2011 when the Big 12 was under siege by the then-Pac-10, Big Ten and SEC and appeared to be on the verge of collapse, basketball blue blood Kansas was looking like it could left out of the power conference structure. Circumstances were so dire at that point that Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and other Big 12 schools without any realistic prospects of moving to another power league actually approached the Big East to join if the worst case scenario came to fruition. It was a scary thought to a lot of fans: if Kansas could be left behind, then football is truly all that matters and basketball must have virtually no value in conference realignment. The 10 points (out of a total of 100) that I assigned to “Basketball Brand Value” in the original Big Ten Expansion Index was looking like a massive overweighting of hoops back then.
To the extent that it was already clear, the maxim was set in stone: “Football is everything in conference realignment.” Discussions about basketball value went by the wayside over the past couple of years as conference realignment discussions focused intensely upon how to maximize football dollars. Now, to be sure, much of this made (and still makes) sense for the power conferences. First tier TV contracts for college football dwarf those for college basketball while the top conferences (via the bowl system) are able to funnel postseason football money directly to their own coffers instead of having to deal with the NCAA for basketball postseason dollars.
However, any hard and fast rule is bound to be broken. As the Big East started suffering from a disintegration over the past 18 months that was originally prescribed for the Big 12, the seven non-football playing Catholic members of that league decided to break off and form a basketball-focused conference. There was quite a bit of skepticism that this could be financially viable considering that the Atlantic 10 signed a new deal worth only $350,000 per school per year (compared to the $1.3 million per year that each of the Big East schools were receiving for basketball under the current ESPN contract that’s about to expire). The perception was that football was propping the “Catholic 7” up and they would be taking a substantial haircut by splitting off from the gridiron portion of the conference.
Then, the TV offers came in. The Catholic 7 received an offer from Fox worth $3 million to $4 million per school per year just for men’s basketball, while the remnants of the Big East will be getting about $2 million per school per year for both football and basketball. Think about it this way: Cincinnati, which has been to 2 BCS bowls and was seconds away from making it to the football national championship game in 2009, is going to end up making 50% to 100% less TV money for football and basketball than crosstown rival Xavier will be making from basketball alone (assuming all of the reports are correct that Xavier will be joining the Catholic 7)… and Xavier is going to end up being in the conference named “The Big East”, too.
If the Big East/Catholic 7 TV contract situation hasn’t changed how you view conference realignment overall, it should. This should be a glaring warning signal any conference that is not named the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, Big 12 or ACC: football in and of itself isn’t going to get leagues paid and they better start paying attention to basketball if they want to maximize revenue. For instance, if I was running UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and/or Temple, I would start questioning what the point is of having massive capital expenditures and operating expenses for football when nearby schools are getting paid more than my athletic department based on perceived basketball prowess. Now, schools like UConn or Cincinnati are still be positioning themselves to get into the ACC or Big 12, so they obviously can’t downshift in football, but maybe they would be better off creating a public university version of the Catholic 7. For instance, take UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and Temple as a base and then add on UMass, Old Dominion and Charlotte as all-sports schools and Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) and Wichita State (and maybe a couple of other public schools like Rhode Island) as basketball members. Navy might actually prefer to be a football-only member in that type of league compared to the Big East as currently configured, as well. That’s just throwing a list of schools against the wall, but what’s clear to me is that very high basketball value of UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and Temple is getting severely diluted by the rest of the “new” Big East that won’t be called the Big East anymore. (For the purposes of this post, I’ll define the Big East football schools left behind as the “Big X”.) UConn getting a fraction of what Providence is receiving in terms of TV money ought to be unacceptable to the people in Storrs (even if the Huskies’ long-term plan is to get into the ACC at all costs), so it’s time to start rethinking the conventional wisdom of the role football plays in conference realignment.
What we have seen over the past 3 years is a lot of moves on paper, but the overall effect being more of the same. The power club when the BCS system was created in 1998 consisted of 6 conferences and 63 schools (including independent Notre Dame). 15 years later, the power club now has 5 conferences and 65 schools, with 3 schools moving up (Louisville, TCU and Utah) and 1 school moving down (Temple, who was kicked out of the power structure due to performance as opposed to anything related to realignment). That is a net change of 2 schools over the course of 15 years. Essentially, every single school that isn’t already in a power conference is praying for a winning lottery ticket with their respective football programs with those odds. As any financial adviser could tell you, though, pinning your dreams on winning the lottery isn’t a viable investment plan. When the Big East became too filled with “riff raff”, the entire league got kicked out of the power club instead of being integrated. It’s clear that the power club doesn’t want to get much larger (if at all), so everyone outside of that top tier needs to start looking at other ways to maximize revenue.
While basketball is much less of a concern to the power conferences at face value, consider which school is the top target for both the Big Ten and SEC (the 2 richest and most powerful conferences): North Carolina. It certainly isn’t due to UNC’s prowess at football or avoiding academic fraud. To the contrary, UNC is a basketball blue blood, and more importantly, Tar Heels basketball games are so critically important in the state of the North Carolina that a conference TV network carrying such games can effectively charge whatever carriage rate that it wants in that market. Think of the Big Ten’s addition of Maryland, as well. Fan enthusiasm for Terps football has been tepid lately, but part of what the conference is banking on is that there is a critical mass of interest in Maryland basketball where it can get the Big Ten Network basic carriage in the Washington, DC and Baltimore markets.
For conferences that don’t have their own TV networks, then the main way to monetize expansion is through first tier football TV contracts. In contrast, the “market” model of conference TV networks means that basketball needs to be taken into account more. (See the BTN garnering its highest-ever rated month in prime time in January based on the strength of the hoops league this year.) At the same time, the number of strong football brand names that are willing to move is pretty low right now. In 2010, everyone in the old Big 12 that had Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M, everyone in the Big East that had Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and Louisville, and the ultimate hammer of Notre Dame was conceivably on the table. Now, the biggest football brand name that seems to be possibly available is Florida State, but there’s a feeling that they’re just rattling sabres about their supposed dissatisfaction with the ACC (where they’d be happy to move to the Big Ten or SEC, but don’t dislike the ACC enough to go to the Big 12). As a result, it simply might not be realistic (or possible) for conferences that are in acquisition mode to add much football prowess even if that’s their top priority. Thus, those leagues have to look to other factors such as monetizing basketball, which is very much possible (if not completely necessary) under the conference network model. Football might bring in the largest audiences for conference networks, but basketball is what keeps the lights on and provides enough content to justify basic carriage.
Make no mistake about it: all things being equal, of course conferences would want top football programs over top basketball programs. There’s nothing that generates more revenue than a power football school. However, what people need to start questioning is the misguided logic that any football program is more valuable than any basketball program. The Catholic 7 has shown that this isn’t the case at all. Athletic departments across the country need to take note in trying to figure out how they want to position themselves in the new college sports landscape.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from AP)
🙂
LikeLike
Addy addy add add. Go “Shagging Worms!”
LikeLike
The Catholic 7 will eventually invite Butler, Creighton & Xavier will get the first invites and after their first season while Fox will want more inventory then the Big East will invite Saint Louis & the push will get Richmond in thanks to Butler so Butler isn’t the only non-catholic private university in the league while adding a nice market as well with a good b-ball program. Funny thing is, I suspect that UMass will get an “America 12” invite soon then the Atlantic-10 will invite George Mason and keep the league at 10 so they split a much bigger pot for themselves and the CAA will invite Davidson after that. It’s good that basketball is getting their expansion and realignment tightly knit together while the football conferences are royally fucking up every chance they have.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
I wonder why I read this sometimes,seems like a waste of 5 mins reading this
LikeLike
Yeah, I felt the same way after reading your comment.
LikeLike
NFL let’s a chick kick at the combine. Chick then kicks like a chick:
LikeLike
She’d already paid for a tryout spot, but then injured her quad.
LikeLike
She was a club soccer player. She just wanted the spotlight. If it was that 6’2″ LSU all America goalee, that was a serious athlete.
LikeLike
I’m sure Cincinnati and UConn will eventually get a life raft thrown their way to get away from the Big X,, but it has to suck for the next couple of years after seeing the Catholic 7 get this deal on hoops value alone.
LikeLike
These three schools (with USF) get to keep the lion’s share of the exit fees. If they get scooped up soon enough, they will get a windfall PLUS a safe landing spot.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you’d assume those two would eventually get a life raft thrown their way. I’d think further consolidation and elimination (whether it be Baylor, ISU etc. from Big 12 or Wake, BC etc. from ACC) is as or more likely among the “big boys” than additional schools joining the club. I guess I could see UConn and/or Cincy getting an invite to a watered down ACC, but I have a fairly hard time seeing a better fate for those two than that.
LikeLike
I’d think further consolidation and elimination (whether it be Baylor, ISU etc. from Big 12 or Wake, BC etc. from ACC) is as or more likely among the “big boys” than additional schools joining the club.
Only one school in recent history (since the demise of the SWC) has ever been expelled from the club: Temple.(*) But that was not merely because it was terrible at football, but also because it had such poor attendance at its home games. I haven’t seen any indication that the leagues want to expel the likes of Baylor and ISU. They need the inventory, and not every game can be Texas vs. Oklahoma.
I guess I could see UConn and/or Cincy getting an invite to a watered down ACC, but I have a fairly hard time seeing a better fate for those two than that.
I assume the watered-down ACC is the life raft that he meant.
LikeLike
Actually the leagues don’t need the inventory. The networks arguably want inventory, but as it is plenty of high- to medium-profile games end up going head to head against each other every Saturday. Being able to better sift out games that matter from the ones that don’t (or having fewer Texas vs ISU and Oklahoma vs Baylor and more ISU vs Baylor and Texas vs Oklahoma type games) has value in terms of public interest and fandom.
It’s a somewhat fair point about only Temple being directly expelled from the club in recent history. OTOH, a number of schools were essentially expelled from the club when the SWC died. And the Big East is basically a tale of a number of schools getting promoted and then some of them (USF, UConn, Cincy) subsequently getting left behind again.
So I’d agree with you that no league will throw out weaker members. But we have seen before and very possibly will see again leagues fold or drop down to a lower status level, dragging down a number of their members along with them. That’s part of the point of the speculation about the ACC’s demise; not everyone would get a life raft.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing a few points. The kings can’t (and won’t) play only top- and mid-tier teams. They need some easy wins on their schedule. That’s why no one ever so much as suggested kicking Minnesota out of the Big Ten, Washington State out of the Pac-12, or Iowa State out of either of its predecessor leagues (Big 8 or Big XII). The only discussion in the Big XII right now is whether to grow, not whether to kick out Iowa State and upgrade. From the league’s perspective, the Iowa State games are more valuable than losing both the school and the market. I do agree that if a league folds or disintegrates, its less valuable members might wind up in a worse home, as happened with the SWC and is happening now with the old Big East.
LikeLike
Yes and no. In the current environment they need easy wins. But in a future environment there’s much less indication that this need continue. The biggest reason programs “need” a bunch of easy wins is that bowl eligibility requires six wins (which is completely arbitrary) and the national rankings tend to be biased towards W/L records and away from schedule strength (which usually functions more or less as a tie-breaker among AQ teams with the same W/L records). Also, the finances these days (gate + TV value) seem to still favor two bodybag home games compared to a strong home and home.
It’s fairly tough to see the first reason falling away barring an exodus from the NCAA, but the second (which among kings matters more than the first, since they’re competing for titles not the Belk Bowl) could absolutely change given a committee that places a conscious emphasis on schedule strength. And the third is less of a driver every year, as TV revenue becomes more and more important, while home attendance at MANY places, especially for bodybag games, becomes more and more under pressure.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms: I think you’re mistaken in a couple of respects. The new playoff selects four, rather than two, teams to compete for the national championship. That’s not a huge difference. Every other team is still doing as it did before; competing for position in regular bowl games.
As for strength of schedule, I am VERY skeptical that it will matter to anywhere near the extent you’re suggesting. To give but one example of the problem: last year, both of the major human polls ranked Notre Dame second after they got whacked by Alabama, but the Sagarin computer poll had them fifth. Humans were much more impressed with the gaudy 12-1 record, and ignored Notre Dame’s multiple ugly wins against mediocre opposition. I’ll believe humans are going to start properly weighing schedule strength and quality of wins, when I see it.
LikeLike
@Marc: Did I say that the playoff was 2 teams? Not sure where that came from. I agree to a degree with the skepticism that the committee will truly value schedule strength as much as they should, but I also expect they’ll at least value it more than we see today, especially from the human polls. I also really do think that the economics are shifting, and that this trend is likely to continue for a while.
I think that’s a big part of why leagues are discussing 9 game schedules and/or scheduling arrangements; we’re near or past the point where someone like Purdue can probably make more from an extra B1G game per year (even though 50% will be on the road) than they can from an extra bodybag every year, and I’d guess that within the next decade or so (especially if attendance for bodybag games keeps declining)
Also, clearly no one in the Big 12 is discussing tossing Iowa St per se. But that would essentially be the effect of the league splitting up, just as the formation of the Mountain West tossed out everyone left in the WAC, or the split of the Southwest Conference left behind Rice, TCU etc. , just as the breakup of the Big East is leaving behind UConn, Cincy, USF and everyone who had joined in.
It’s a weird aspect of realignment that it’s much easier for a team or group of teams to dump a bunch of schools at a time (by leaving the league themselves, which happens fairly often) than it is to get rid of just one or two (which to date has ONLY happened to Temple among AQ leagues).
LikeLike
A good case study of how the system is biased towards win-loss records is the case of #8 Kansas and #6 Missouri in 2008. #6 Missouri beat #8 Kansas, but lost to #4 OKlahoma for the second time in the Big 12 championship game. However, #6 Missouri got snubbed by the BCS over #8 Kansas because Kansas was 11-1. Forget the fact that Kansas avoided both #4 Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12 and had a horrid out-of-conference schedule, the BCS expressly stated that it took Kansas over Missouri because the Jayhawks only had one-loss (albeit to Missouri).
LikeLike
@boscatar – Although W/L record was a factor, it was down on the list for the reasons to send Kansas to the OB.
LikeLike
I would not lump Baylor with those Schools (Maybe Washington State belongs there). Remember they won the Women’s Basketball Championship, had RG III, and are getting a new on-campus Stadium.
What is great about the B10, is Schools do not have to worry about being thrown out of the Conference (Even if they are not very competitive (Such as Purdue or Minnesota), not a member of the AAU (Nebraska), or have the Sandusky incident and long sanctions hovering over it (Gut feeling is the NCAA will not lessen the penalties (I hope I am wrong)). I think there will be room for Cincinnati, Connecticut and USF somewhere. I actually think because of location, the Bulls may have the most value to a Conference going forward. I
LikeLike
Baylor is a relatively small church school that has a relatively small fanbase, in a relatively small market (Waco), with a below avearge (for an AQ) academic reputation ( see http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/baylor-university-6967 ), they were absolutely atrocious for most of the history of the Big 12 in football, and they lack anything particularly meaningful that would offset those disadvantages (no one cares about winning women’s basketball championships; UConn has won lord knows how many women’s titles and they’ve been voted off the island with little chance of getting back on).
There’s a reason that no one from any other power league wants Baylor, and why the Pac-10 was so clear about having zero interest in bringing them along back in 2010 (yes, not liking church schools is part of it, but it wasn’t all of it).
I’d say Baylor very much lumps in with Wazzu, Iowa St, Wake Forest etc. in the realignment game. They’ve basically been grandfathered into a power league, and if said league ever dies or loses its status as a power league, there’s basically no reason to think they’d have a reasonable shot at staying as a “have.”
LikeLike
While basically true, Wazzu, ISU, WF are feeling a bit demeaned by the association.
LikeLike
Baylor hasn’t done well in the B12 in bb or fb until recently, but they have normally been in the top half of the conference overall. Conferences do want schools that take non-revs seriously. Not a primary factor, but still something that is looked at. Baylor finished 25th in the Director’s cup last year.
LikeLike
I think the New Stadium sets Baylor apart from Washington State, Boston College, Wake Forest, Boston College (Hockey excluded) and the rest. I remember how bad things were for the Bears, but things are changing in Waco (Thank you RG III). Are they better than Texas & Oklahoma? No but better than SMU, Houston, and possibly will be on par with TCU and Texas Tech.
LikeLike
@bullet: Baylor had about a 15-year period where they were a consistent train wreck in football. I’d say that’s a pretty clear establishment of “normal.” Even in the Southwest Conference they were basically mid-tier, and half of those programs got dumped back down to mid-major level when the league folded. I don’t see any meaningful evidence they’re suddenly middle class in an AQ type league.
Now, if you specifically mean non-rev sports, you might be right for all I know, but even then it’s basically irrelevant. Unless they’re a consistent national elite in non-rev sports (and “top half of the conference” and 25th in Directors Cup last year as the arguments says otherwise), that just doesn’t matter. And even if they were elite in most non-rev sports, there’s basically no way for a league to monetize that sort of thing. Even the Pac-12, which basically kills in non-rev sports, hasn’t figured out how to do it (though MAYBE the Pac-12 Networks will end up doing something with it). Succeeding in non-rev is basically worth an attaboy, not really much more than that. Or at least there’s little evidence saying otherwise.
@David Brown: A new football stadium also doesn’t really matter in terms of worth to other league members. Neither does being better than SMU and Houston (and those aren’t necessarily slam-dunk big gaps either). I do agree that the dark ages seem to be over, but IIRC their 6-3 league record in 2011 was the ONLY time they’ve ever been above .500 in Big 12 play. Especially with RG3 gone, they look like a generally lower division team, though at least they’re not Kansas.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms: I am not sure where you’re going with this. Every league has mid- and bottom-tier schools. In the SEC, 80 out of the 83 football championships have been won by just seven schools. Over 70 percent of the championships have been won by just four schools. Three SEC schools (Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State) are all-time sub-.500 teams, and South Carolina is only barely above that. No one has suggested kicking these schools to the curb.
LikeLike
The SEC isn’t, never really has been, and isn’t perceived to ever be in any real danger of folding or getting raided. The Big 12, on the other hand, has been in such danger (and has been raided 3 different times over the last couple years). So the status of its various teams is more relevant than whoever is bringing up the rear in the B1G or SEC. The two power leagues in most apparent danger of getting hurt in the next decade or so are the Big 12 and ACC, so a discussion of those two leagues’ weaker elements seems fairly relevant, as those are the programs most likely to lose power conference status going forward if indeed anyone will (and “no one will” is certainly also possible).
LikeLike
@cfn_ms: I’m still trying to get your drift. The Big XII just signed a 13-year TV deal that is better than the Pac-12’s deal. Anything is theoretically possible, but that league would not seem to be in any danger of crumbling in the next 10 years. It will more likely gain schools than lose them. As for the ACC, practically everyone agrees that in the worst scenario, their leftovers and the better half of the Big X would merge, probably keeping the ACC name, and forming a conference that resembles the late-90s Big East without the basketball-only schools. I don’t think anyone has suggested that both leagues would die, so I don’t see where the danger to Iowa State and Baylor is supposedly coming from. I do get that you apparently don’t like Baylor.
LikeLike
How is the B12 contract better than the P12’s? P12 equal or greater pay, one less year, withheld 1/3 of FB inventory, creates P12N, which through priority selection process is a jr. tier 1 partner, not like a whatever is left over tier 3 system.
Point is B12 seems like a group held together by a GOR and a contract, FtT’s golden handcuffs. Perhaps it’s enough, but it leaves the impression as still unstable, just perhaps not in immediate danger.
LikeLike
I tend to agree w/ ccrider55’s assessment. Also, FWIW, I enjoy debating, so the back and forth is entertaining.
LikeLike
Anyone saying the Big 12 is in any danger in the next 10 years is stuck in a time warp. They have a GOR. Their average payout in 2014 (pending SEC ever getting their deal done) is better than any other conference (playoff money is divided 10 ways, not 12 or 14). The schools, despite FtT’s comments, really do want to be in the Big 12. It makes sense. Maryland didn’t say they wanted to be in the B1G. They said they wanted $100 million extra.
Baylor has been (if I’m remembering correctly) a game away from the final 4 in men’s basketball the last 2 years. They made some mistakes (bad hires, questionable recruits academically and otherwise) in the mid-90s and are just now getting out of them. They had 3 SWC fb championships once they won in 1974. That’s one less than Arkansas (with Frank Broyles, Lou Holtz and Ken Hatfield) or Houston and ahead of everyone else but Texas and Texas A&M. They were mid-pack, but they were competitive.
LikeLike
Baylor is the Milhouse Van Houten of the Big 12.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The Big XII is marginally weaker than the Pac-12, in that it has lost schools, and several others have at least entertained the idea of leaving, even if they never carried it out. But with the contracts in place, it is hard to see the Big XII being in any danger whatsoever, at least for the life of their TV deal. The only Big XII school that might prefer another conference, if it had the chance, is Kansas. But even if they lost Kansas, that’s the only one I could see them losing, because their TV deal is so good, and they only have to split it 10 ways. It’s more likely that the Big XII would grow (by taking ACC schools) than shrink.
LikeLike
“The only Big XII school that might prefer another conference, if it had the chance, is Kansas.”
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were denied entry to the PAC 12 a couple years back.
West Virginia would definitely prefer to be in the SEC, but they don’t want them.
Texas likes being Texas, but they would have an invite to any league it wanted as soon as it made up its mind.
So that totals 4 or 5 out of 10 schools who would jump ship just as soon as a better offer came along. The only schools who “like” being in the Big 12 under Texas’ thumb are those schools who know that the Big 12 is their ceiling. I.e. Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, etc.
Contrast that to the ACC schools who like being in the ACC, but they just hate their contract/TV deal.
LikeLike
@Mike. I read that as Nelson Van Alden from Boardwalk Empire which had me laughing pretty hard.
LikeLike
@Blapples: I think KU is the only school NOW that might covet another conference. Even that, we don’t even know for sure, but at least it’s a plausible hypothesis. I don’t think any of the others NOW are wishing they were somewhere else. In fact, they’re looking at their TV deal, and saying: “Look how great we have it.”
LikeLike
@Marc
Given the choice every Big XII school besides Texas and Oklahoma would accept an invitation to the Big Ten or the SEC and all but WVU would take a PAC invite. Not only would the pay be better for all those schools (none but Kansas can command the sort of Tier 3 contract that would outweigh a share of the BTN, PTN or SECN), but (more importantly) it would be the only way they guarantee themselves a permanent seat at the Big Boys table (which is every schools top priority).
This isn’t to say they are unhappy in the Big XII, it just everyone’s third or fourth choice.
LikeLike
@Frank – this was what I was thinking.
LikeLike
Having a nice stadium won’t save anyone from being left behind in the conference shuffle. It didn’t save Rice who had a 70,000 person stadium on campus that was nice enough to host the 1974 super bowl. Politicians saved Baylor last time, but if I don’t think they’ll be able to if it happens again.
LikeLike
Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, ND, G’town, Marquette, Villanova, etc. were all worth $1.3m each to ESPN so it’s no surprise that UConn, Memphis, Cincy + he rest are worth less. On the other hand, if the post is right that, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, Ville and all the Catholics are worth $1.3m each, let’s just Fox is out of its mind.
LikeLike
This is a different world than 2-3 years ago.
2-3 years ago, there was just ESPN/ESPN2.
Now there’s also NBC Sports Network, and Fox Sports 1/Fox Sports 2 will be launched later this year. All these cable networks need content. College basketball is a great way to fill up time from December to March when there’s no football on (after college football regular season ends).
Timing is always a central issue to conference pay deals. Look at the ACC rushing to get a deal only to get what looks like an undervalued deal just a few years later.
LikeLike
There’s a lesson for the Big 5 as well. In the extension of the BE bb contract, the C7 + Big X is only worth $10 million including football. The C7 + Butler & Xavier w/o the Big X is worth $30-$40 million. Not just addition by subtraction, but multiplication.
Over-expansion sometimes loses money, not just per school. The SEC’s TV ratings dropped this year despite 6 ranked teams in the top dozen because they hardly played each other.
LikeLike
How else can they get 6 teams ranked?They have to play cupcakes in and out of the SEC.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s something that the Big Ten and SEC have to look at very hard if they want to go to 16 or more schools.
If Alabama and Georgia are playing other big names less, that’s not a good thing for the TV contract.
Yes, you get more overall inventory, but you might be reducing its aggregate value.
LikeLike
@bullet – Excellent point. Even with a vehicle like the Big Ten Network, over-expansion eventually dilutes value. Look at the NHL in the Sun Belt or Krispy Kreme going into too many markets.
LikeLike
Disagree, regarding with a BTN type of network. We aren’t trying to sell a limited number og games to ESPN. BTN currently showing indoor track dual meets, a few baseball games (and fewer with a quality team involved), way to many talking head shows, etc. Adding schools would be like adding some ACC baseball, basketball, other, conference and inter conference games to the current shelf space, and getting paid to do so.
LikeLike
Wait – that was a horrible point. The overall ratings for TV went down and that included CFB. However, while the SEC trended down with the industry, the dominated ratings in college football. So ratings were UP compared to their competition and the value of the programming is now worth more. Just a completely incorrect position by bullet and I’m stunned Frank agreed with it.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this for over a year now.
Why else do you all think I am loathe to admit any more ACC schools into the Big Ten?
LikeLike
The SEC CBS ratings dropped partly because the previous years’ ratings were so high with 2 primetime games, and also because of what they gave up to get that 2nd prime time game.
They had to pick behind ESPN two weeks last year because of that deal. The week of October 13 was one of those weeks; they had to bypass the #9 LSU vs. #3 South Carolina game, and instead took the Mizzou/Alabama game. Mizzou played Alabama like a Big Ten team and got blown out before lightning delays damaged the ratings even more.
The fact that CBS had to pick its primetime doubleheader week the year before also hurt. If it had been able to pick its primetime doubleheader during season the correct choice would probably have been October 6, when they could have aired #4 LSU vs. #10 Florida in the afternoon and #5 Georgia vs. #6 South Carolina in the evening (or vice versa). The LSU/Alabama game they did air at night got great ratings, but their afternoon game that week was Georgia/Ole Miss, which didn’t do great itself.
CBS’s decision to get bigger ratings 2 years ago lead them to miss out on some of the biggest SEC games the following year.
LikeLike
To be fair Bama blew out almost everyone, and Mizzou actually did better againt Alabama than Notre Dame did in the title game.
LikeLike
Why the bad mouth about the big. Mizzou is not part of the big 10, if anything they would play like someone from the Big 12 or one of the SEC cupcakes .
LikeLike
The $10M for 2013 was basketball only; still $10M for the C7 + Little East vs. $30M for C7+3 is a huge difference in how ESPN and Fox value the C7.
LikeLike
Yes, because ESPN a surplus of content, and Fox Sports needed content.
Reminds me of when the Japanese anime industry got a windfall earlier in cable channel expansion, because with new titles that had been launching four times a year, dubbing the best of their back catalog made it easy to get big slices of new content. Then those same cable companies started commissioning their own animation, which they owned, and the cable anime bubble burst.
LikeLike
Pingback: Is ESPN’s Greed Causing it to Lose Profit? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
GBR
LikeLike
This one’s for you, Clay.
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Heh!
LikeLike
If you go back 20 years, only Louisville and Utah have been added to the club, while SMU, Rice and UH join Temple in getting left behind.
Its notable that Louisville and Utah were known as basketball schools.
LikeLike
To some extent, with the expanded number of games, the Big 5 have crowded out the rest. The other conference’s games are competing against 3 or 4 of the Big 5 games except on weeknights and except for Hawaii and their midnight eastern games.
LikeLike
And of those four left behind, three get one last crack at AQ status next year. Only Rice misses out the chance to make one last attempt at the brass ring.
The Universe, it seems, has something against Rice.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Could you see the Big 10 and the Catholic Seven Big east forming a scheduling alliance? That could bring big basketball ratings for fox and the big ten network? think Indiana butler Georgetown Maryland Wisconsin Marquette Rutgers St. John’s
LikeLike
@Jeffrey Juergens – Assuming that the Big Ten doesn’t destroy the ACC, I definitely think that ACC-Big Ten Challenge will continue. It’s really the standard bearer for all of these non-conference scheduling events and ESPN does a great job with it.
LikeLike
If the B10 does destroy the ACC, prepare to see a B10-SEC bball challenge. The PAC, B12, ACC, and BE will be paired up against each other somehow. Probably the 2 eastern conferences playing the 2 western conferences.
LikeLike
That assumes that the ACC doesn’t end the challenge out of anger towards the Big Ten. I think there are some very ruffled feathers on Tobacco Road about the whole swiping a charter member without warning thing. I assume that would only get worse if another change occurs. The ACC if it survives would still be able to partner with anyone.
And in any case, why can’t both leagues schedule with the big ten and have two challenges. That would only be two games, guaranteeing most big ten teams at least one challenge game a year. Obviously this is just pure speculation, but it would make sense. The real beneficiary would be fox, who has the rights to both the catholic seven and the big ten network.
LikeLike
That assumes that the ACC doesn’t end the challenge out of anger towards the Big Ten. I think there are some very ruffled feathers on Tobacco Road about the whole swiping a charter member without warning thing. I assume that would only get worse if another change occurs. The ACC if it survives would still be able to partner with anyone.
If the Big XII’s decision to partner with the SEC in the Sugar Bowl has taught us anything it’s that hurt feelings isn’t a problem that can’t be solved with money.
LikeLike
Also, does the ACC wants to go to war with the Big Ten regarding Bowl Game schedules? Especially after Jim Delaney helped the ACC by politicking for Va Tech to get the Sugar Bowl bid against Michigan a few years ago (over Boise State).
LikeLike
Jeffrey,
Also, my suspicion is that The Big Ten will be extending their conference basketball schedules when Maryland and Rutgers join. The Big Ten schools would prefer to drop a few cupcakes instead of dropping another couple of conference opponents. They want to keep Indiana and Ohio State and Michigan State visiting as much as possible. If that happens, it’s going to be that much harder to schedule another Challenge series.
LikeLike
That doesn’t really preclude the idea of a B1G vs C7 (or soon to be C10 or so) alliance, though. For a number of reasons (primarily relating to TV) I think that, especially for sports other than football, formalized league to league scheduling agreements (at least among leagues that see themselves as peers or reasonably close to such) tend to be beneficial.
LikeLike
I am not sure there is room on the B1G schedule for a scheduling alliance with two different leagues. The B1G schools still need to have room for games under the schools’ control, e.g., in-state rivalries, or whatever other games they want to play.
LikeLike
There’s obviously not room in football, but I would think there would be room in most other sports. One of the nice things about a formalized agreement is you can create history between programs and then be able to market those games when they come on TV.
LikeLike
I don’t see any use for a scheduling alliance (especially from the Big Ten’s side).
The point of a scheduling alliance is to help spread your brand into other parts of the country, but all the Big East schools sit in markets the Big Ten already controls.
LikeLike
Go Hawks!
LikeLike
Go Yudichak!
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Frank,
Any thoughts of doing an updated version of the expansion index? A lot has changed since the first one. Maybe your formula is different now. Certainly the targets have changed. I think it might be interesting to see how you weight the factors and how you score the schools now.
Old formula:
Academics – 25
TV value – 25
Football brand value – 30
Basketball brand value – 10
Historic rivalries/Cultural fit – 5
Mutual interest – 5
New targets:
UVA
VT
UNC
Duke
GT
FSU
Miami
KU
UConn
BC
Maybe they should be treated as pairs this time since the B10 isn’t looking for #12 any more.
LikeLike
Great idea.
LikeLike
Maybe they should be treated as pairs this time since the B10 isn’t looking for #12 any more.
Another way of asking the question, is: What schools are so valuable that you’d take them as an “odd-numbered” team, even if the “even-numbered” team hadn’t been identified yet? UNC, I think we can all agree, is an odd-numbered team. UConn, assuming they have any shot at all, is probably an even-numbered team. Others are not clear, but could be part of many different pairwise combinations.
LikeLike
I don’t assume that UConn has a shot at all, but yes, if they did, it would only be as an even team.
ACC odd teams in revenue, without respect to whether they might move: FSU*, UNC, UVA
ACC even teams: GTech, Duke, Pitt
FSU is an unusual case in that they might be an even team in terms of academic status, having to make a group of adds that are so appealing academically that the academics allow grudingly decide to not make a fuss over adding an academic fixer-upper.
Big12 odd teams, without respect to GOR and whether they might move: Texas
Big12 even teams, without respect to GOR and whether they might move: Kansas
LikeLike
@Brian I like that idea. I would also add Missouri and Syracuse since they get thrown around a lot. I know Frank has been busy though and that would be quite a bit of work.
@Marc Odd teams vs even teams is another interesting way to classify the teams.
LikeLike
Also Notre Dame. May be a longshot, but they were included last time and they are just as available as they were 3 years ago…
LikeLike
I’d add Syracuse and Missouri to that list along with Pitt.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
While all of the Big Ten attention has been pointed towards the southeast, I keep thinking that Delany is head-faking us again. I’ve been rattling cages about Missouri…
…but this post definitely points to the possibility of Kansas. How many games of their 32 bball games might make it on to the BTN? 18? The average Kansan might not care about Charlie Tuna’s football team much…but–like Frank stated about UNC basketball in that state–if ESPN only had a handful of Kansas games but all of the rest were carried by the BTN, would that put them on basic carriage in Kansas (and on a higher tier in Missouri?). Just thinking out loud here… I know GOR, GOR, GOR…
LikeLike
I’d still go on the record as saying that you have to have a route to Texas in order to go back West and get more schools in that direction.
After going East for Rutgers/Maryland, it still makes more sense to continue in that direction in order to build a legit Midwest-East Coast Conference hybrid.
LikeLike
The important thing about Kansas, is that because they’re a “king” in basketball, their games are of interest beyond the local market. I’m not saying the Big Ten wants Kansas…only that their value, whatever it may be, is more than just basic carriage in their home state and neighboring states.
I know GOR, GOR, GOR…
The GOR is like any other contract: breakable at some cost. Bear in mind that the GOR doesn’t include Tier 3, doesn’t include road games, and has an exemption for one football and four basketball home games per year. So even before you consider the GOR, you get a lot of inventory.
Now, if Kansas leaves the Big XII, the damages are not the entire value of its home athletics inventory, but that value minus the value of the school that replaces them in the Big XII. Depending on what school that is, it could actually be a negative number, i.e., the Big XII might be better off, since the next school they get would probably not duplicate a market, as Kansas does.
Assuming the Big Ten wants Kansas (that’s a big IF), there are ways around the GOR.
LikeLike
Violate the Grant of Rights in the sense of permitting somebody to cover your games when they haven’t been authorized by the going concern that you have granted the exclusive rights to, and the cost is that broadcaster/distributor cannot broadcast/distribute that performance without infringing on that going concerns rights. Since a television broadcast or cable network is not going to broadcast or narrowcast an infringing work, that means the cost is there’s no media value for the covered works.
As note, however, there is a residual value in away games covered by other conference participants valid home game rights and in however many home games in whatever sports are excluded from the Grant. There’s no enough total aggregate value in Kansas’ media rights for the residual value to weigh very heavily … given the aggregate value of Texas’ media rights, the residual value would be substantially more considerable. But then again, they’d have to give up the Long Horn Network to move to the Pac-12 or Big Ten, which they do not seem to want to do, which renders the GOR a moot point for Texas at this point in time.
LikeLike
Not saying KU is coming to the Big Ten, but you may be thinking about it the wrong way.
The GOR is a two-way street. KU gives up rights to its home games, but gets a share of the Big XII’s TV payout in return. (If it were a one-way street, it wouldn’t be an enforceable contract.) That means the Big XII’s TV partners, rather than the Big Ten’s partners, get to televise Ohio State at Kansas; but KU continues to receive its share of the payout, as if it were still in the conference.
As both sides would no doubt find that arrangement awkward, they’d arrive at a settlement, which would probably resemble an exit fee, and perhaps not even as high as that. So that’s what I mean, when I say there is no magic to the GOR: it’s just like any contract, breakable at some price.
LikeLike
That means the Big XII’s TV partners, rather than the Big Ten’s partners, get to televise Ohio State at Kansas; but KU continues to receive its share of the payout, as if it were still in the conference.
Actually, no. The Big XII’s GOR specifically stated that if a school left early it would forfeit its share of conference distributions in addition to leaving behind its TV rights.
LikeLike
OTOH, the “you have to leave your revenues behind” component is essentially an exit fee, and we’ve pretty consistently seen those not get paid in full…
LikeLike
Except its not *actually* the exiting school *paying* an exit fee. A challenge with exit fees is how do you actually force the prior member to pay, when the biggest clout that a conference has is what it can do to punish its current members. However, when the “essential same as an” exit fee is that the conference does *not* write a check to the former member … that’s pretty easy for the conference to do. Just don’t write the check.
LikeLike
The point isn’t whether there’s a mechanism, the point is how enforceable it is. I’ve seen some arguments about whether a GoR is even enforceable in terms of keeping the TV contract together ( http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2365&t=11330892&p=3 for one example ), but that aside, the idea that a team can suddenly lose the entire value of their TV rights just because they leave a league seems like a VERY sketchy argument.
Effectively, the GoR as structured is the combination of an agreement to mutually organize and negotiate home TV rights (OK unless you think there’s a monopoly argument against it) combined with a punitive clause that takes away 100% of the value of a team’s TV rights if they leave the league.
That second clause is no less punitive than any other type of exit fee, and I would anticipate that, just as exit fees have been consistently reduced (and sometimes by a lot) during negotiations, that “you get no value from your TV rights” clause would have the same thing occur. Or the leaving school would pay some amount of money to the league and/or TV partners to gain the release of their rights and said amount would be materially less than the actual value of said rights.
Of course, that’s only if it’s tried, and while it’s fun to speculate on things, it really doesn’t seem like any of the GoR leagues are especially vulnerable at this point. Five years from now, when there’s less time remaining on the GoR’s (in the event of non-renewal), things could get more interesting. I rather doubt anyone is going to rush to push the envelope on things given the remaining length of contracts at this stage.
LikeLike
Note that a party with full intellectual property that has granted rights for a certain period in return for a specific consideration has a very hard case to make if that party wishes to argue that the grant should be invalidated. And the fact that the conference payout is contingent on participating in athletic contests in the conference is a specific instance of a quite normal situation in intellectual property rights contracts.
As noted before, unlike an exit fee, the Grant of Rights is not a rule about some transaction to be made in the future … it is a transaction that has already been executed. The Grant has already been made. The Big 12 already possesses the specified intellectual property over the the granted period under the grant. So long as the Big12 plays strictly by the rules set down in the Grant, then if some member in full knowledge that conference payouts are contingent on participation elects to not participate, there is no particular reason to believe that the Big12 will be found to have breached the contract.
It is true that the Big12 cannot exploit the full value of the impaired media property either: for instance, the departed member can simply lock out the broadcast crew from the Big12, so while the Big12 can surely prevent the game from being broadcast by the new conference media partner, actually monetizing the media rights in its own turn would be difficult. Therefore, there would be some basis for a negotiated settlement. However, the Grantee has much more leverage in that negotiation than a conference that is owed an exit fee.
LikeLike
cfn_ms: “the idea that a team can suddenly lose the entire value of their TV rights just because they leave a league seems like a VERY sketchy argument”
Yes, if that’s how a grant of rights worked, that would be very sketchy.
However, how it actually works is that they’ve ALREADY handed over their TV rights. Not the value of the rights: the rights themselves. So nothing *changes* when they leave the conference. Its just that, in order to sell themselves out to the new conference, they would *need* something to change: they would need to somehow take back the intellectual property that they previously handed over.
Its just like a novelist signing over their rights to their work to a publisher in return for publishing and promoting it. Just because they are not happy with what the publisher DID with those rights does not mean they can just take those rights back and give them to another publisher. As long as the original publisher met their commitments under the original contract, the original publisher holds the rights until the rights expire.
“I regret signing that contract and I wish that publisher no longer held those rights” is not sufficient grounds for voiding that contract. They’d have to show some obligation of the publisher under the contract that the publisher had failed to fulfill.
Indeed, because of that, many rights contracts include performance clauses on the part of the party acquiring the rights, such as a date that someone buying the movie rights have to make a movie before the rights lapse. We have seen, for example, some comic book franchise sequels that were made not because someone had come up with a great treatment, nor because the previous made so much money that the studio couldn’t help themselves, but because otherwise the rights would lapse and so its time to crank another one out or lose the rights.
LikeLike
I think the sketchy bit is the total forfeiture of conference distributions. If that provision is found to be punitive, rather than merely liquidated damages, then it is skating on thin ice.
LikeLike
Why would it be unusual for a former member who has resigned from a voluntary association to not receive revenues from current activities of association members?
LikeLike
Normally, when you resign from a voluntary organization, you take your future rights with you when you walk out the door. You gave the analogy of a novelist who sells the rights to his book. If the author gets paid, he can’t back out of the deal, just because he doesn’t like what the publisher does with it. But in this case, you’re suggesting that KU would give up its future rights, and NOT get paid. I am not sure how that could hold water.
LikeLike
This language of “future rights” is ambiguous, since it is putting both a future grant of rights and a current grant of rights extending into the future into the same box, when they are quite substantially different.
And we are not talking about a future grant of rights, we are talking about a current grant of rights. It is already in force, and remains in force until the end of the agreed period. Just as Prince signed away the right to use “Prince” to promote his musical performances and recordings, and ended up changing his name to a symbol and describing himself as “the artist formerly known as Prince” ~ a lawyer-written formulation if ever there was one.
While the consequences can sometimes turn to the weird, the ability of the holder of intellectual property to grant rights to a second party in return for such considerations as the original property rights owner sees fit at the time is not itself some weird technicality, its a basic feature of a wide range of types of rights deals underlying our media industries.
LikeLike
So they become a road team on paper. Big deal.
LikeLike
No reason for the B1G to bother. KU isn’t worth much.
LikeLike
Easy – have Kansas football agree to play only 4 conference home games each year, hosting Indiana/Purdue, Minnesota, Maryland, and Rutgers/Northwestern. Play two “neutral-site” conference games in Kansas City against better conference competition. Thus, the Big Ten Network doesn’t really suffer much from the grant of rights consequences.
LikeLike
TBH, you could have paid me $0 and I would’ve said the same thing. One thing that grates me about this whole CR business is the braggadocio on the part of the football-firsters through the entire process. The “football drives the bus” méme is really a thinly-disguised way of expressing their antipathy towards the other sports like basketball. Almost as if there’s a divine reason to disdain the sport of basketball and justify their anti- agenda.
I’m glad the C7 schools are getting some value for their product. We can debate whether Fox is throwing good money after bad. However, I am beginning to realize that it is going to take a Rupert Murdoch to break the ESPN monopoly over college sports. Who deemed ESPN to be the only player that matters in the college sports business? Only ESPN and their lackeys in the sports media and college sports business do. Well boo to that!
Also, it’s sickening to see football-firsters representing B10 schools not challenging the asinine opinions from SEC and B12 types who visit B10 message boards. Some do (including on this board) but others don’t care because they only care about how their football team does. Say what you will about SEC types but they stick together in their belief that a conference is worth defending and bragging about. That thing never happened in the old Big East, which helps to explain its collapse. Even as that conference splits there’s still sniping between fans of those schools over who really mattered in that essentially-defunct conference. No unity, whatsoever. Everyone blaming everyone else but themselves.
I just hope B10 fans don’t fall for the trap set up by SEC/B12 types who want to convince them to doubt their own conference/leadership. Sure, any constructive criticism is healthy but I wouldn’t trust anyone from competing conferences who want to give advice over what they think the B10 should do.
Anyway, this rumor looks crazy on first read but it may not be so crazy if you put some thought into it. The I-4 corridor in Florida will be important for recruiting purposes for years to come. If the B12 can’t get the likes of FSU then perhaps this wouldn’t be bad as a Plan B (of course, the know-it-alls in that part of the country would say otherwise).
LikeLike
IIRC, Texas played a football game at Central Florida (part of a 2-for-1?), so I could see USF and UCF going as a package if the Big 12 can’t do likewise with Florida State/Miami. Still, it would be a longshot, and require plenty of faith from Big 12 members because of the perception of slumming. Iowa State might not be as averse to it as some think, since the Cyclones heavily recruited Florida during Big Eight days.
LikeLike
Iowa State actually got several Florida recruits this year.
LikeLike
I have said this before on here and been laughed away on the basis that it would be Florida State/Miami or bust for the Big XII. Although it was OK for the Big 10 to grow Maryland/Rutgers, it was never OK for the Big XII to do so.
USF, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, UCF
WVU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
Every single OOD game for the non-Texas, non-Florida schools would be against Texas or Florida. With a 9 game conference schedule, 4 OOD games means at least two games in one of Texas or Florida.
Why not? 9 of 10 teams made a bowl last year. They need teams at the bottom, not the top.
Tampa and Orlando are huge markets–for talent and TV.
Heck, they could add USF/UCF for $10M a year with $1M/year increases and be fine financially. Both USF and UCF would be thrilled with that.
LikeLike
One would think that by having those schools located where they are, even if they’re still green in terms of football history, they would give more of the schools located in low population states the opportunity to visit and show off what they’re made of to potential recruits. But, perusing on a couple B12 message boards, they act like they should be setting the terms just because they’re getting Fox/ESPN money right now. Some of those posters, though, actually get UCF/USF’s true potential.
My thoughts on divisions are that they shouldn’t go to divisions, considering how far flung some of those schools are. The B1G and SEC can do divisions because of geographical distributions. The Texahoma schools want to play against each other yearly, anyway. So, games like UT-OU, KSU-KU, BU-TCU, TT-UT, whatever two Florida schools and OSU-OU would be protected. That probably would be impossible to do without the schedule getting out of whack. I’m not a scheduling wiz.
If there has to be divisions I’d do it this way:
TCU, BU, WVU, USF, UCF, ISU
TT, UT, OSU, OU, KU, KSU
LikeLike
Throughout realignment, I have consisitently thought that USF and UCF were the most undervalued schools. While they do have absolutely no tradition, they are in huge markets with massive recruiting areas. But most importantly, they are going to have obscenely huge alumni bases. Between the two schools, there are over 107,000 current students, and both are still growing. Assuming an average graduation time of 4 years, there will be another 25,000 new UCF/USF alumni. Meaning that in 20 years (A small fraction of time if conferences are really making “100 year decisions” there will be more than 500,000 UCF/USF alumni, a number roughly equal to the entire population of Wyoming. In 40 years, that’s more than 1,000,000 alumni, which would be more people than currently live in 7 states and the District of Columbia. Considering that alumni (especially wealthy older ones) are generally a schools most dedicated fans and best donors, those are big numbers for any conference with a huge population problem (the Big 12s total media markets are as small or smaller to those of the Mountain West and New Big East) to seriously think about going into the future.
LikeLike
I could see a scenario where USF and UCF end up in the ACC, not the Big 12. If FSU and Miami leave for the B12, USF/UCF would keep the ACC in Florida. At that point, football may not matter that much, as long as the ACC keeps an 8-game schedule. Clemson might be appeased with UCF, USF and Cincy. UCF/USF could develop their baskeball programs in due time, given the proper resources. With Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, VT, and on occasion, GT, Pitt, Syracuse, NC State and whenever they can play ND, I think that’s enough for Clemson to stay. USF and UCF have enough potential in football, given the growing alumni population, that they can alleviate somewhat the loss of FSU and Mia
Adding UConn and Cincinnati would provide UNC with additional basketball power that they can be comfortable with. Tobacco Road was said to favor UConn over Louisville but the football-first faction won out. I think ND eventually winds up in the ACC and commit to their five games with that conference. ESPN gets access to 16 schools (plus ND Olympic sports and 2.5 football games) exclusively (no need to share with Fox unless they sublease some games).
BC, UConn, Cincy, Clemson, Duke, GT, Louisville, Notre Dame, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, UCF, UNC, USF, UVa, VT, WF
For divisions, I’d split VT from UVA, Louisville and Cincy, UNC/Duke and NCState/WF and UCF/USF. There would be almost equivalent access to Florida, NC, Ohio Valley and Virginia.
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, USF, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Division B: GT, UCF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Cross division games: GT/Clemson; UNC/NCState; UVA/VT; USF/UCF; Louisville/Cincy; WF/Duke; Pitt/UConn; Syracuse/BC
LikeLike
Alternatively, switch out Clemson, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and USF with GT, Cincinnati and UCF. Then this might work with most:
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Division B: Clemson, USF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Cross division games: GT/Clemson; UNC/NCState; UVA/VT; USF/UCF; Louisville/Cincy; WF/Duke; Pitt/UConn; Syracuse/BC
LikeLike
I’d guess divisions would be:
W – UT, TT, TCU, BU, OU, OkSU
E – ISU, KU, KSU, WV, USF, UCF
OU and UT really don’t want to be split. It makes for horrible balance, though.
Better:
A – UT, TT, BU, ISU, KU, KSU
B – OU, OkSU, TCU, WV, UCF, USF
Locked games – UT/OU, TT/OkSU, BU/TCU
LikeLike
I think the Big 12 wants the division requirement thrown out so it can do a championship game without divisions if they expand.
If they get to 12 teams, I’d say they go to 8 conference games with 2 locked games for each team. WVU and the 2 new (presumably Eastern) teams would be locked together. KSU, ISU and Kansas would be locked together.
For the other schools:
UT: TT & OU
OU: UT & OSU
OSU: OU & TCU
TCU: OSU & Baylor
Baylor: TCU & TT
TT: Baylor & UT
That gives every school 2 games against the Kansas/Iowa schools, 2 games against the Eastern schools and 4 games against the Texas/Oklahoma schools, easing recruiting concerns.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“I think the Big 12 wants the division requirement thrown out so it can do a championship game without divisions if they expand.”
Until and unless the rule changes, I don’t care what they want.
LikeLike
One thing that grates me about this whole CR business is the braggadocio on the part of the football-firsters through the entire process. The “football drives the bus” méme is really a thinly-disguised way of expressing their antipathy towards the other sports like basketball.
Sorry, that’s ridiculous. FTT has been a “football-firster” for years, but if you follow his twitter feed, you can tell he’s a basketball fan. “Football drives expansion” is just an empirical statement about how realignment has generally worked. Right now, the C7 TV deal is a notable exception, but not one that invalidates the general rule.. For all we know, Fox may have over-paid.
LikeLike
Mark Shepard: ““Football drives expansion” is just an empirical statement about how realignment has generally worked.”
Indeed, the C7 would not have left the Big East without football conferences taking away Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and Louisville.
Football is still driving expansion. Just as the decisions of the major football conferences are driving decisions all the way down to the Sun Belt and beyond (c’mon, App State), those same decisions are also having an impact on the non-football conferences.
I think that Fox made a smart play for some basketball teams who currently have bigger name recognition as a group than the A-10 because of football-driven expansion.
LikeLike
And “football drives expansion” is not the same thing as “only football matters”. Other things can enter into calculations of how valuable a school in and whether it would be acceptable to existing members, but the foundation of the decision to consider expansion in the first place among the Big Boys is the impact on football media revenues.
Consider the Johns Hopkins rumors. If it were the case that adding Johns Hopkins as a Lacrosse associate and guest member of the CIC would grease the path of inviting FSU to the Big Ten, then making JHU good for their ESPNU contract would be close to a rounding error in the total media value added by FSU.
LikeLike
IMHO – don’t waste your time with Tuxedo Yoda. He’s a page hit chaser like Swaim and the Dude.
LikeLike
“True Premise” … “Insane Conclusion” (spiced up by hot coed pictures)
Hmmm … page hit chaser seems quite plausible.
LikeLike
That guy probably IS Tuxedo Yoda.
LikeLike
One of the big lessons of the WAC-16’s demise is that simply being in a good market doesn’t get you prestige, recognition and value. You have to matter in those markets, and USF/UCF really don’t. Adding those two would be a major gamble on the part of the Big 12, and basically a desperation move when it doesn’t make much sense to do so.
I do, however, buy the argument that the Big 12 and/or Fox floating this idea is a low-risk way to increase pressure on FSU and anyone else in the ACC they might actually be interested in.
LikeLike
Central Florida and South Florida to the BigXII seems about as likely to me as the Western version that we sometime see bandied about; some combination of SDSU and Boise State, Fresno State, or UNLV. The Big XII establishing a presence in Florida or California by elevating a mid-major to the ranks of the Big Five would serve as merely an affront to a competing major conference, and it wouldn’t be in the BigXII’s interest to stick it to the PAC or SEC by breaking into their stranglehold regions.
LikeLike
I honestly wonder if the Pac-12 or SEC would even care. Lower-tier programs are very likely to stay lower-tier programs, no matter what league they’re in. California recruits are still going to want to stay in the Pac-12, and Southeast recruits (including Florida) are still likely to want to stay in the SEC (or ACC in some cases). If anything, the Big 12 blowing spots on lesser programs would seem likely to increase instability and make the league more vulnerable to poaching, with the Pac-12 and SEC then potentially able to benefit.
LikeLike
That was my thought, too. It would probably cause too much discomfort in Austin. Would even the most optimistic of benefits be worth that risk?
LikeLike
It only further degrades the B12’s reputation. FSU has no interest in joining. My guess is the ACC sticks together.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
I don’t see where 7 like minded schools who get to cherry pick the best available schools in their sport, then have interest from a network that has to overpay to steal them from their incumbent partner, who still end up with slightly less annual TV revenue than they were going to get if the 2011 Big East had just stayed together and accepted the ESPN offer, justifies the premise that basketball is important.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a gut feeling about what ND will do? Is it 100 % that they will go to the ACC? Or, if after parking in the new BE for a year, will they stay there?
The B1G was right to state that they have given up on adding the Irish. I hope that they meant it.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a gut feeling about what ND will do? Is it 100 % that they will go to the ACC? Or, if after parking in the new BE for a year, will they stay there?
There’s no such thing as 100%, but I am pretty sure they’ll go to the ACC.
For starters, you have to look at why ND joined the ACC in the first place: bowl tie-ins. The new Big East doesn’t have that. Also, the ACC is a better basketball league, and it is FAR better in the non-revenue sports. The new Big East would be worse for ND than the old Big East, which they already decided to leave.
The B1G was right to state that they have given up on adding the Irish. I hope that they meant it.
I am not sure they ever said that, and I am sure they don’t mean it. They probably don’t think it’s very likely, but Notre Dame would be welcomed with open arms at any time.
LikeLike
ND could have stayed with the C7 before. They chose to go to the ACC. There’s no reason to think they aren’t still going to the ACC.
LikeLike
If ACC is willing and able to accommodate them a year early in their Olympic sports, without starting the football agreement until the following year, I’d guess they go to the ACC a year early, which would leave the ball in the ACC’s court.
I’d say the ACC takes them for the same reason that the New Big East would take them … playing a farewell lap in the New Big East consolidates the New Big East’s brand. Notre Dame saying “hell with this, I’m out of here” is better for the ACC’s brand.
And the New Big East will be scrambling to organize their Olympic sports ~ I didn’t look at the individual timing/distance sports (cross country, track and field, swimming), but (NB. Yes of course one year standings are not long term strength of program, but OTOH we are only talking about next year anyway, so last season is the best proxy). These are numbers of participants and average standings in 2012 (either last or this academic year)
Which leaves actually not so many current Big East team sports left to look at:
Baseball ~ Notre Dame = #7, BEC avg(4)=#6: St. Johns #2; Seton Hall #4; Nova #8, Georgetown #10
Softball ~ Notre Dame = #2, BEC avg(6) = #9.5: DePaul #5; St. John’s #6; Providence #10; Nova #11; Georgetown #12; Seton Hall #13
Field Hockey: ND does not play, BEC avg (3) = #5.67/7: Providence #4; Nova #6; Georgetown #7
Men’s Golf: (2012 Champ 3rd round), ND=#1, BEC avg(6) = #6.17/12: Nova #3; St. Johns #4; Georgetown #5; Seton Hall #7; Marquette #8; Depaul #10
Womens Golf: (2012 Champ 3rd round), ND=#2, BEC avg(3) = #6/8: Seton Hall #4; St. Johns #6; Georgetown #8
Rowing: ND = #1.5 (2012 championships; GF placings, then Petit Final placings, average of +4 and +8): BEC avg (3) = #5.17/8: Louisville #3.5; UConn #6; Rutgers #6
M Tennis: ND #1 (tournament seedings), BEC avg (5) = #5.8/9: St. John’s #3; Depaul #5; Marquette #6; Georgetown #7; Nov #8
W Tennis: ND #1, BEC avg (5) = #7.6/12: Depaul #4; Georgetown #5; Marquette #7; St. Johns #10; Seton Hall #12
Volleyball: ND = #3 (regular season), BEC avg (6)= #8.67/14: Marquette #2; St. John’s #6; Seton Hall #9; Nova #10; Depaul #11; Georgetown #14
Lacrosse: Big American only has one Lacrosse school
Fencing: Current Big East does not sponsor fencing
Hockey: Current Big East does not sponsor hockey
(I looked at Men’s Soccer before)
As far as making up the numbers, the expected two additional New Big East members play:
Butler: Men’s baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, soccer, tennis, track and field
Women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball
Xavier: Mens baseball, basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor & outdoor track and field
Women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor & outdoor track and field, volleyball.
So, not a complete list, but: BEC+Butler+X:
9: BBall, M&W Soccer
8: M Golf, Volleyball
7: M&W Tennis
6: Baseball, Softball
5: W Golf,
3: W Rowing, W Field Hockey
W Golf would need an associate member, unless 10th member plays, W Rowing & W Field Hockey would likely need to find associate spots or a sport-specific conference (though Creighton rows crew and SLU plays Field Hockey).
LikeLike
Either way, ND is going to have to pay up to leave Aresco’s conference. Not sure if we’re talking West Virginia money or what.
LikeLike
Unless there is some rider in the FB scheduling agreement, or they changed the bylaws on that score dramatically since the WV case went to trial, the fee is not as high for Olympic sports members as for FB members.
LikeLike
Bruce, there is no exit fee at all for Notre Dame. There is a 27 month waiting period. WVa paid $20 million or $15 million over the exit fee to get out in time.
Notre Dame would have to negotiate its exit.
LikeLike
Are you talking based on information from someone who’s read the most current bylaws and knows how to interpret them? I know that the bylaws regarding the exit of the BBall-only schools were changed from the publicly available copy that I saw ~ which is what created the majority of each side of the hybrid league to dissolve the league, and which created the option for all seven BBall schools to exit without penalty ~ I don’t know how that spills over to the eighth BBall only school, Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I read the rider someone posted a couple months ago on Georgetown’s board. But this morning McMurphy on ESPN covered ND’s situation and he reiterated what I wrote.
LikeLike
Now that the ACC has said they’d be willing to accommodate Notre Dame in BBall and non-revenue sports next year, this is the only question to be settled for that to happen. It will be interesting to see how quickly they resolve it. Thanks for the pointer, I’ll see if I can find the rider over the weekend.
LikeLike
Philly.com story cites Big East sources that Olympic sports without the numbers on either side may play together for at least a year or two: “According to Big East sources, look for sports such as field hockey and women’s lacrosse to continue in a combined Big East for at least a trial period of a year or two.”
http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-09/sports/37583253_1_big-east-mike-aresco-new-league
LikeLike
Denny ;So do I, their far more problems than they are worth.
LikeLike
The premise is that between football and basketball of the same status, football is substantially more important, but its not true that any football is automatically more important than any basketball. The New Big East getting paid more than the Once Was Big East would seem to be a substantial support for that premise.
LikeLike
The new Big East is being paid more than the Once Was CUSA, which really doesn’t support the premise at all.
LikeLike
But the premise is simple a generalization from the fact that the New Big East is being paid more than the “Big American”, how could the fact NOT support its own generalization?
“Big American” football is a Mid-Major, and not even the clear strongest of the Mid-Majors, and its strongest football brands want to get out at the first invite up.
The New Big East will be in amongst the Majors during basketball season.
And the higher status basketball is getting paid more than the lower status football and basketball.
The New Big East is not going to be making AS MUCH money as the conferences it will be mixing among … except for the MWC when its also mixing amongst the Majors, and that further reinforces the rule, since that’s a Mid-Major football conference with only three top-50 media markets.
LikeLike
It is not a given at all that G’town, Marquette, Butler, Xavier and Villanova will outperform UConn, Memphis, Cincy and Temple. We’ll have to wait to see how this plays out. A team like Butler could drop off rapidly with stiffer competition, or it could ramp up. We’ll see if Temple can draw more Philly area kids with an improved schedule. Memphis already recruits well. UConn will have a very strong team for its first season in the new conference.
So, I’m not buying this distinction that the Catholics are a major in basketball while the football schools are not.
LikeLike
The New Big East are going to have more recognizable brands in basketball, and more of their games per week are going to be matchups between recognizable brands, so its pretty straightforward that the media value of New Big East basketball is going to be greater than the media value of “Big American” conference basketball. The Big American will be a top-heavy league, with the diminished media value that follows from that.
LikeLike
I wasn’t referring to their market value. I was talking about their play, their level of competition.
LikeLike
The premise was about their media value, so evidence for and against the premise would involve their media value. But why would we doubt that after Louisville leaves, and even assuming UC and UConn stays, the BMW (“Big American / Metro / Whatever”) Conference will be top heavy, with a substantial drop in RPI after you get past the top four schools? It is basketball, after all ~ the strength of the middle of the conference does matter for how many tournament bids the conference receives. It seems as if playing in the New Big East will be better for a team on the bubble than playing in the BMW Conference.
LikeLike
And you are also looking away from the basketball implications of the moves since 2011 ~ the Big East BASKETBALL of 2011 was more valuable than the New Big East BBall will be. The fact that the BBall schools could have made $40m on the notional 30% BBall value of the 2011 Big East contract, playing in the same conference with Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, UC, UConn and Temple BBall, is entirely reasonable on basketball grounds alone. It is, indeed, plausible that the $130m contained more than the $40m in BBall value than the pro-forma 30% distribution implies.
The fact that the Once Was Big East can’t sustain that with UC, UConn, Temple, Memphis and then a substantial step down in BBall brand value is just the network economies ~ even playing home and away against each other, that’s only 12 games among those four, and lots of games in the inventory of little but regional cable level interest.
Indeed, which gets to the second part of the post ~ extend that to six teams with some appreciable BBall brand value, and then you could have as many as 30 games among those six.
LikeLike
What is a realistic conference distribution per institution estimate for the Big Ten Conference in 2017 seeing that (1) we can expect Fox Sports to be an aggressive bidder for B1G Tier 1/2 football and (2) per Frank’s post, the attractiveness of men’s basketball as part of a larger television package?
Here are the scenarios to examine:
A. B1G stays at 14 members for the 2017 season
B. B1G has 16 members with additions of Virginia and North Carolina
C. B1G has 16 members with additions of Virginia and Georgia Tech
D. B1G has 18 members with additions of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Duke
E. B1G has 18 members with additions of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State
F. B1G has 20 members with additions of Virgina, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Duke, Florida State and one school TBD
There is one data point for Scenario A that was provided in the stories discussion the addition of Maryland in the Big Ten. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/67782/maryland-to-get-front-loaded-deal-from-b1g According to that story, the projected conference revenue is $43M per school once the television deal is completed.
So what about Scenarios B through F? Conference distributions in the Big Ten include television revenue funds (including from the Big Ten Network, ABC/ESPN, CBS), net bowl revenue, NCAA men’s basketball revenue, football conference championship game revenue, and other miscellaneous sources.
Per http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8736544/sec-big-ten-big-12-pac-12-acc-average-91-million-new-playoff-format-sources-say, the Big Ten should receive an average of $91M from the new post season format. Can that number be adjusted, for example, if the conference expands beyond its current membership?
The BTN has recently contributed $7.8M and $7.2M per school the last two years. Would that be expected to go up with these scenarios?
What would the credits be worth from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament be under these scenarios?
The current ABC/ESPN deal was $1.0B for ten years with an escalator clause that was put in place in 2006. What can we expect a new deal to look like under the scenarios outlined above?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t conflate the $43 million projected revenue projection that Maryland was given with scenario A necessarily.
Loh said that the Big Ten had shown him shocking projected expansion scenarios. That revenue projection may very well have included expansion to 16-18 (and the Big Ten Network hitting all benchmarks).
LikeLike
The Washington Post article that talks about the $43M figure can be found here–http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-to-big-ten-its-money-versus-tradition/2012/12/11/3c5da16c-3fd0-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story_4.html
Here’s an excerpt from the article:
The Big Ten’s desire was to have new members earn a gradually larger piece of the revenue over a six-year period. But Maryland felt its stability in the ACC offered more bargaining leverage than Rutgers had in the crumbling Big East.
“There is no reason for us to leave,” Loh said. “So if we are going to consider, seriously, leaving, it has got to be worth our while.”
Perhaps, if the Big Ten really wanted Maryland, the two sides could figure out a way the Terrapins could receive a larger share of the Big Ten’s pie earlier. The potential solution was to get creative, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. By front-loading the deal — moving some money from years well into the future to the Terrapins’ first six years in the conference — Maryland was able to secure the cash it will need to address some of its immediate financial problems.
Neither Maryland nor the Big Ten would provide specifics of the deal. Sports Illustrated reported the Big Ten projects Maryland would make $32 million in 2014-15, a huge increase from the $20 million the ACC is projected to pay out that year.
The Big Ten’s pitch also includes a huge bump in revenue when the conference renegotiates its television deal in 2017, projecting a $43 million payout for Maryland that year, an enormous gap over the $24 million the ACC projects. A person with knowledge of the deal confirmed those were the figures Delany pitched to Loh.
So the two sides left the Willard with significant progress, but without a deal, and without a timetable. And Loh still had one problem: Pacifying a sure-to-be-upset fan base if, in fact, he took the Terrapins to the Big Ten.
END OF EXCERPT
So you could be correct in that the $43M per year figure for 2017 could be for a scenario other than a 14-team conference. The Sports Illustrated article referenced above is here–http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
The article says that Maryland could look at revenue of $32 million in 2014, $33 million in 2015, $34.5 million in 2016 and then $43 million in 2017.
Those numbers continue to steadily climb, as the Big Ten payout projects to jump to $44 million in 2018 and $45 million in 2019
Regardless of the scenario, the numbers that the B1G gave Maryland projected an $8.5M jump between 2016 and 2017 in conference distributions. Multiply that by 14 programs and the number is $119M. With 16 programs, that’s $136M and with 18 the number is $153M.
If you look at grand totals, if the Big Ten had 14 programs and paid each of them $43M, then the total disbursement would be $602M. In 2010, the conference’s total revenue was $265M with a payout of $22.9M per member–see http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/conference_realignment_follow.html
In 2010, the BTN provided $7.9M with ABC/ESPN/CBS adding in another $8.7M for a total of $16.6M in television revenue per school. The remaining $6.3M came from net bowl revenue ($3.2M), the NCAA tournament ($2.6M) and other miscellaneous sources ($0.5M).
So how does $43M per school in 2017 break down? A guess would be something like this:
NCAA Basketball Tournament – $3.0M
Miscellaneous Sources – $1.0M
Big Ten Conference Championship Game – $1.0M
NCAA Football Post Season and Bowls – $10.0M ($3.6M for bowls, $6.4M for playoffs = $90M/14)
Those four items would account for around $15.0M, leaving $28M per year for television (including the Big Ten Network). The BTN has annually paid out between $7M to $8M in recent years, so let’s bump that up to around $9M with the new additions (or $126M total for 14 schools). That puts the amount of money per school from the networks (ABC/ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc.) at around $20M per school per year or an average of $280M a year (assumes 14 schools).
The Big XII deal from September of last year was $2.6B for 13 years or $200M for the ten schools in the conference (or $20M per year). See http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox The Big Ten number above would be comparable to what the Big XII received six months ago, but of course, the Big XII doesn’t have a conference network comparable to the BTN.
Keep in mind these are back of the napkin calculations based on past numbers brought forward plus figures published for the post-season. But this is probably a rough approximation of what the Big Ten told Maryland give or take a million or two in the different categories.
So the question going forward is this–does one of the 16, 18 or 20 team combinations mentioned above markedly change those numbers? I can’t imagine a big change in revenue per university taking place from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament or from the football post season (CCG, bowl games, playoffs) with additional members, so the main drivers here then becomes what the Big Ten Network would provide, and of course, what sort of bid comes back from the television networks for a larger Big Ten entity.
LikeLike
The article in the Washington Post and the one on CNNSI both talked about $43M in 2017, but didn’t specify if the conference had 14 members in that scenario. Here’s the Pete Thamel article from 19 November of last year on CNNSI–http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
The link has the projected revenues for Maryland as follows:
2014 – $32.0M
2015 – $33.0M
2016 – $34.5M
2017 – $43.0M
2018 – $44.0M
2019 – $45.0M
The $8.5M increase between 2016 and 2017 has conference distributions going up about $120M for a 14-team Big Ten. Total conference distributions (assuming equal shares for 14 teams) would go from $483M per year in 2016 to $603M in 2017.
How would that $43M per year per team come about? A rough guess based on recent numbers plus what’s been published about the playoff would be like this:
Miscellaneous Revenue – $1.0M
B1G Conference Championship Game – $1.0M
NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament – $3.0M
Net Bowl Game Revenue – $3.6M
Playoff Revenue – $6.4M ($90M divided by 14 teams)
Those categories above add up to approximately $15M plus or minus $1M. That means the remaining revenue would come from television.
The BTN has been paying between $7 and $8M per year per school, so assuming it goes up to $9M with the additions of Rutgers and Maryland by 2017, that means around $20M to $21M per year would come from the new television deal. The Big XII just signed its deal last September for an average of $20M per school, so that number isn’t out of the ball park (although the Big XII doesn’t have a conference network like the BTN).
The question going forward is what would happen with the different conference configurations mentioned above. I wouldn’t expect additional teams to move the needle too much in the five categories that add up to the $15M per team mentioned above. Where the big changes would come from would be what’s left, i.e., what the BTN provides per team plus what the networks provide for B1G Tier 1/2 rights and men’s basketball. If a case can be made that a 16- or 18- or 20-team network would net, say $25M in non-BTN revenue per team on an annual basis, then it could be an attractive option.
I’m writing this assuming that the $43M figure was what was given for a 14-team conference. Maryland didn’t know Rutgers was also being approached by the Big Ten at the same time (although there may have been rumors), so it’s a possibility this is a fourteen-team conference revenue projection.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s good analysis.
My hunch is that any addition of UNC and other big states/markets like UVa or Georgia Tech or FSU won’t move the dial that much on the deals that accrue over the next 5-7 years, but will end up affecting the BTN earnings per school significantly in the 2020 and on range.
That’s why I don’t think we’ll see much of a change in those revenue projections that Maryland got regardless of the size of the Big Ten by 2020.
Unless you add a school like Texas or Notre Dame, you’re not going to see a massive change in the contracts immediately.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying for a while (back when the B10 had 12 schools) that the B10 will get $30-$40M in TV money per school on average over the life of the next TV contract & that total payout would top $50M . . .
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — How Much Does Basketball Matter in Conference Realignment? | Atlantic Coast Convos
Here’s a good article from SB Journal discussing the relationship between Fox and ESPN. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/03/04/Media/ESPN-Fox.aspx
LikeLike
That’s also why the Big Ten’s 2016 media package is likely to feature some sort of alliance.
The way they’ve partnered on the Big 12 and Pac-12 to split those games will sort of lead to a similar consideration for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Imagine you’re the president or athletic director of an ACC school and the new deal you just signed with ABC/ESPN for football and men’s basketball is worth $17.1M when Pittsburgh and Syracuse join the conference this year.
Then imagine that the Big Ten is looking at getting conference distributions of $43M per year in 2017 (per the reports filtering out after Maryland joined the conference) with the television portion from the BTN, etc. coming out to around $28M to $30M. Your escalator clause has you at around $20M in television revenue by that time with a total conference distribution of $24M.
What do you do? In dollars and cents, that may be the question being posed at a lot of campuses located south of the Potomac River. It gets doubly interesting when you think about if joining the B1G means that television money in 2017 is actually $33M or $35M per school and the annual conference distribution is in excess of $45M?
Maryland was also told that it’d make more than $100M in conference revenue by 2020 with the switch to the Big Ten from the ACC–see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
Conference realignment has largely been driven by schools and athletic programs looking for additional revenue. Is there any reason to think it will be different for the Big Ten, etc. with these types of revenue numbers being put out there and with a new sports network looking for content in direct competition (or cooperation) with ABC/ESPN?
LikeLike
Frank, wouldn’t the kind of basketball-first conference you proposed be too much like the old Big East? Doesn’t the fact that the new Big East (“catholic-7) is composed of similar, like-minded institutions provide some of it’s strength? Shouldn’t cohesiveness still be a long-term goal for any conference that hopes to survive?
LikeLike
Yeah, I believe that’s why the suggestion is to aim for public universities ~ the idea being it was not JUST football versus basketball, but also big public vs small private.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t cohesiveness still be a long-term goal for any conference that hopes to survive?
Cohesiveness is an ellusive term, but I can definitely see the problem with Frank’s idea. The C7 conference works because none of them play FBS football, nor do they intend to. Unless schools like UConn and Cincy want to leave the FBS (which I think is exceedingly unlikely), they need a football-playing conference. Even Temple, as terrible as they were, didn’t leave the FBS. They just went to the MAC, an all-sports league.
LikeLike
Well, they could always go independent and hope (probably in vain) for an invite to a non-devastated ACC. But to be honest I wonder, especially for UConn, if it wouldn’t just be better to admit defeat for football and focus on everything else. Not drop down to AA or anything (at least not in the near term), but more just focus money and resources on other stuff, primarily basketball (where they still are a national elite program).
About a decade into the 1-A experiment, UConn football is nationally irrelevant, they’re in an even worse competitive position (no AQ anymore) than they started out as, and there really isn’t much of a reason to think it’ll suddenly get better. Obviously waving the white flag is a rough pill to swallow, but I do have to wonder if it would be a wise alternative to pursuing a huge long shot of a return to AQ status.
LikeLike
That day of reckoning could be coming for many FBS programs. But the whole point is that, unless you don’t play football at all, you need to be in a conference. Whether they drop down to mid-major, FCS, I-AA, or Pop Warner, if they play the sport, they need a conference. Outside of Notre Dame and service academies [and possibly not even for them], independence is not a long-term option. By the way, I don’t think AQ status is a longshot for UConn, in the least: they probably have the next ACC invite, and almost everyone thinks there will be more defections from the ACC. They’re as nationally relevant as, say, Texas Tech or Washington State, neither of which is going to be losing I-A status anytime soon.
LikeLike
But TT and WSU are sheltered. UConn’s roof blew off.
LikeLike
I certainly think the Connecticut is more important than Washington State, Wake Forest, Iowa State and a few others. That said, the big questions for the Huskies, are: 1: will there be another expansion or not? 2: If so, who goes first? I think Cincy and USF, are better fits for a Conference. If the ACC & Big XII agree, they may be better dropping football and rejoining the Big East.
LikeLike
Beta>VHS.
Which survived longer?
It’s not always just the value of an item. Often the surroundings and support system are decisive. Huskies need to be valuable enough to warrant inclusion in existing systems. ACC-probably if they do suffer defections. B12-not unless they start falling apart for some reason.
LikeLike
Betamax survived longer ~ pushed out of the consumer market, it transitioned to the professional and in many media markets survived as the standard physical transport for broadcast quality video productions long after VHS had dwindled to net to nothing.
LikeLike
I don’t know whether a return to AQ status for UConn is a long shot or not ~ there’s a balance between the ACC being raided enough to need UConn but not so badly that they lose their AQ status ~ but if not, I expect they have at least as good a chance of ending up in the Best of the Rest conference as they do of staying in the Equal Best of the Rest conference.
And being in either the or one of the two best of the rest conferences is not all that bad for a school with as little football history as UConn. Miami U (the M, not the U) was where Woody Hayes got his start, and now the highest profile competition they can dream of is a good Ice Hockey team with dreams of the Frozen Four.
LikeLike
Here is the problem for the Huskies: They are making less TV $$$$ than Schools like Seton Hall & DePaul, neither of which has the tradition and Championships over the past 25 years as UConn, while having to maintain a football program that is quite expensive for the Athletic Department with no traditional rivals anymore. I also know that Boston College will do whatever is necessary to keep me out of the ACC (A problem not faced by Cincinnati or South Florida). Maybe the solution is to stay with the Catholic Schools, and eliminate the football program (I know it would be painful), but even worse would be a future of seeing other schools (Like SMU, Houston, and of course, Cincinnati & USF) get upgraded Conference memberships, while I am like Temple (Basically in Athletic purgatory).
LikeLike
If the ACC faces further raids, I am not convinced that BC will be able to keep UConn out of an ACC, even should they wish to (and I agree its likely that they wish to).
I think that the opposition in the C7 to adding a football school that would jump at the first call from the ACC is broader than any one team. Even if UConn applied to the MAC to play as a football associate there, that would not eliminate the grounds for that opposition.
So just as New Mexico State and Idaho will try to play as independents for a couple of years to see if a conference bid comes their way, UConn seems like it would be well advised to keep playing in the BMW (“Big American / Metro / Whatever”) Conference in the next few years and see if any more realignment is coming.
If not, it can just downgrade its investment in football in place.
LikeLike
That’s an important point.
One might speculate that part of the lack of cohesiveness in the Old Big East was due to the imbalance ~ eight BBall only members, and the rest all-sports members.
A *balanced* hybrid league would have an all-sports core, a certain number of Non-FB-schools, and an equal number of FB-only schools. Say, ten all-sports members, two Non-FB members, and two FB-only members.
Then if the two Non-FB members are either non-football or FCS football schools with a brand name for their basketball, you go from a BBall inventory of 12 games among four recognizable schools to an inventory of up to 30 games among six recognizable schools.
I think that after Navy, the ideal second FB-only school for the “Big American” conference would be Army, but there may be other candidates who would be useful members of an “equal best among the rest” conference for football, but whom you wouldn’t want dragging down your basketball.
As far as two Non-FB members, who would be the ideal? It should be a reasonably large public university, that has long since decided that its not going to enter the big college football ratrace.
LikeLike
UC/UC/USF at least get a warchest. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_id/9019093/big-east-football-schools-keep-close-110-million-league-split-according-report
LikeLike
correct link: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9019093/big-east-football-schools-keep-close-110-million-league-split-according-report
LikeLike
SNL once did a great spoof biography of Tiger Woods (played by Tim Meadows); My favorite line is Tiger’s recollection of putting on 18 in the 1997 Masters:
“When I was on the 18th green, putting on the last hole of the Masters, it was totally quiet except for my father, who kept saying, “Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching!” Just like a cash register, you know? He was high-fiving everyone.. it was really embarrassing.” (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96rbiography.phtml)
With today’s official announcement of Fox Sports 1, Jim Delany has to be Ca-Ching-ing all around Park Ridge right now like Earl Woods, high-fiving rather confused Chicagoans on the street, at the mere thought that ABC/ESPN, CBS/CBS SPORTS, FOX/FS1, and NBC/NBCS will all engage in a full-throttled bidding war for the B1G tv rights in 2017.
Methinks that after that deal, combined with the BTN, only SEC schools will even approach what each B1G school will get from the various TV deals.
Ca-ching, indeed.
LikeLike
Here’s the official announcement for Fox Sports 1 – http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/FOX-Sports-announces-FOX-Sports-1-network-030513
I still have to laugh at the idea of Regis Philbin being on Fox Sports 1. No offense, but he’s 81 years old and if you’re trying to appeal to a younger demographic, having a host who is as old as their grandfathers may not be the way to go. Perhaps he and Lou Holtz can have a UFC fight (or given the Notre Dame link, a “Bengal Bout”) as representatives of the rival networks with simulcasts on ESPN and FS1
LikeLike
Why? Notre Dame’s fanbase consists entirely of elderly white men and people who want to be elderly white men.
LikeLike
Yes. The Big Ten is the only major sports property up for bids in the near future (I think the NBA comes up a year or two afterwards). I expect ESPN, Fox, and NBC/Comcast to all make strong efforts to get them or at least a piece of the pie.
Like many, I see ESPN and Fox dividing up the rights, would seem to work well for both. I’m curious to see how the OTA football rights are done, as the Big Ten seems to be in a position to get a weekly national game a la the SEC’s CBS deal — that’s probably the one aspect where NBC could be the most flexible and get an in to the conference by offering to put them on the OTA channel every week, which would compliment their Notre Dame coverage. Fox and ABC have less time available for constant national games — though I could see a deal where Fox and ABC alternate/share national Big Ten network broadcasts.
Big Ten football and basketball games would be another big get for Fox Sports 1 and they certainly have an in with the CCG and BTN. And it wouldn’t hurt to have Big Ten ice hockey and other sports as generic filler for FS1/FS2 either.
LikeLike
The ESPN and Turner portion of NASCAR is still out there for someone to bid on. The big story to watch will be local MLB TV rights. Thw Nationals, Phillies & Cubs are coming up. Interestingly enough, the Cubs have been on WGN since 1948 and that relationship may end. The big question is do the Cubs want to remain on a Network (Comcast) where the White Sox have an equity stake? I could see the Cubs and Fox setting up their own Network to compete vs the Sox. I wonder if Frank has some insight into the situation?
LikeLike
@David Brown – The general feeling is that the Cubs absolutely want to start their own separate network (and even speaking as a White Sox fan, I can’t blame them). They see what the Dodgers are getting for their new network and they know that they can get a similar amount (or even a larger one). Chicago is an interesting regional sports network market to watch because there really isn’t any competition (unlike NYC, LA, the Bay Area and Boston, where there are multiple RSNs). Comcast SportsNet Chicago has complete control because all of the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks have equity stakes. That has generally been a good deal for the Sox, Bulls and Hawks, but the Cubs would definitely make a lot more on their own (as in enough to make them the 2nd most valuable team in MLB other than the Yankees), as much as I hate to admit it. The only way that CSN Chicago would retain the Cubs would be with an astronomical amount (e.g. likely in excess of $200 million per year) that may or may not be possible.
LikeLike
Thinking about this more, what’s probably “best” for the Chicago teams (although not best for our pocketbooks in this market) is for the Bulls and White Sox to own one RSN and then the Cubs and Blackhawks own the other RSN. That would maximize the revenue for everyone involved without saturating the market with too many channels (which is what’s happening in NYC and LA right now).
LikeLike
Frank: Thank you for getting back to me with such a timely response. Always good to get some local perspective on this issue (Particularly because you are well versed on the subject).
LikeLike
OK, New Big East sports with the C7, Butler and X:
9: M/W BBall, M/W Soccer
8: M/W Xcountry, W Tennis, Volleyball
7: Softball, M Golf, M Tennis, M/W Track
6: Baseball, W Golf, W Swimming
5: M Lacrosse*, M Swimming
4: W Lacrosse*
3: Football, Field Hockey
2: Rowing
Single sports, none of them Big East sponsored sports: M Crew, W Crew, M/W Sailing, M/W Ice Hockey, W Water Polo, M/W Fencing
*Lacrosse includes Marquette, which started teams this year but did not start out as members of the Old Big East, and Loyala, whose women’s team is an associate member of the Old Big East.
It turns out there are very few sports on the bubble for six members. If it is presumed that FCS Football teams stay where they are, while field hockey and rowing find an associate membership or sport-specific conference, its just Men’s Lacrosse, Men’s Swimming, and Women’s Lacrosse.
which narrows down which (BBall driven) expansion would have knock-on effects on non-revenue sports. SLU would bring a sixth for men’s swimming. It also has MCLA Lacrosse teams, which if it promoted would bring M/W Lacrosse to 6/4. If Big Ten Lacrosse is a will-o-wisp, Rutgers could do the same. If Richmond were invited for 2014/15, it would do the same. Two of those three, and Loyola continuing as an associate W Lacrosse member, and the could sponsor both sports.
So the New Big East sports would like be:
Baseball, M/W Basketball, M/W Cross Country, M/W Golf, M/W Soccer, W Swimming, M/W Tennis, M/W Track, Volleyball; and possible M Swimming, M Lacrosse, and W Lacrosse.
LikeLike
FWIW: Creighton sponsors M/W Basketball, M/W Soccer, M/W XC, M/W Tennis, M/W Golf, Baseball, Softball, W Volleyball, and W Rowing (in the WCC).
LikeLike
Do they row? I have them down in my spreadsheet as sponsoring women’s crew.
LikeLike
I believe Crew and Rowing are interchangeable. If they’re not Wikipedia says they do sponsor rowing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_Bluejays
LikeLike
I didn’t go to Wikipedia, I went to the individual school sites. But, yes, after some looking around, Crew and Rowing are different names for the same thing, I’ll fix my spreadsheet to reflect that. The NCAA only sponsors Women’s championships in three events, which are a subset of the broader range of rowing disciplines raced at various collegiate regattas.
Its not a difference that makes much of a difference ~ I’ve also included Creighton, Dayton, SLU, Richmond and VCU in the spreadsheet, and even if both Creighton and Dayton are invited, it still makes only four women’s rowing teams.
LikeLike
“Big American” sports in 2014, pure status quo (before they formalize ECU as an all sports member, without including widely expected Tulsa):
10: Football
9: M/W BBall, W Tennis, W Cross Country, W Track, Volleyball,
8: Baseball, M Cross Country, M Golf, M Track, W Soccer
7: M Soccer, M Tennis, W Golf
6: Softball
5: W Swimming
4: W Rowing
3: M Swimming, Field Hockey*, W Lacrosse
0: M Lacrosse
Really only Women’s Swimming and Rowing on the bubble, the only change with ECU/Tulsa is that Women’s Rowing moves closer to the bubble, because Tulsa sponsors Women’s rowing.
*Including current associate Old Dominion.
LikeLike
Men’s Swimming and Diving for the Big 12 is at 3 members (A&M and Mizzou both left, but WVU and TCU both have the sport). You qualify for the NCAA nationals by getting some of the best times in the nation, not by winning conference titles.
Only having 3 men’s teams and 5 women’s teams just means that the conference meet will be small.
LikeLike
Yes, I left swimming, track and cross country out when I did it in the previous post.
So the NCAA doesn’t enforce a 4-school minimum in those sports, as in the others?
So that would only put Field Hockey and W Lacrosse on the sport sponsorship bubble, rowing on the AQ championship bubble.
LikeLike
I don’t think the NCAA cares about swimming or track ‘conferences’. Schools don’t qualify for the national championships: individual athletes do. If you get a qualifying time, it doesn’t matter if there’s 1 other school in the race with you or 12, as long as it’s in an NCAA recognized meet.
Maybe some other conferences are different, but in the Big 12 and SEC, there is no ‘regular season’ conference meets for those sports. All schools schedule their teams to compete in meets around the nation, which may include a few meets against a single conference school.
They’re essentially independents except they all attend a conference meet at the end of the season to determine the conference champions.
LikeLike
Pingback: News, Discussion and Rumors 3-5-13 | Conference Expansion
Frank – Good Post.
As an additional illustration just think about what Butler has just accomplished. Imagine that if you had predicted 5 years ago that Butler’s take form their conferences Basketball TV deal would be greater than what the University of Connecticut is getting for Football and Basketball. Their return on investment must be insane. What did they do other then up Stevens’ contract? Maybe up their recruiting budget and improve their locker room? No new indoor $100 million practice facility, no $150 million for stadium improvements, no $10 million a year on 3 new women’s teams for Title 9 compliance, no need for additional $5 million a year for new assistants, etc. You can say that things timed out for perfectly for them but you can say the same thing for Rutgers in that if a lot of things had went differently they would not be on their way to the Big Ten. How much cash has Rutgers laid out there trying to keep their FBS football team viable in the hope for a Big Ten invite. I have always been a Big Ten fan and I think both Rutgers and Maryland were good additions, (I would like not to expand any further though) however both were in deep yogurt if the Big had not come along. Large state funded universities can put a lot of money out there a take greater risk for greater reward and a big time Football program in a major conference will generate considerably more in gross revenue and gross profit than an equivalent Bball program. Bball has much lower barrier to entry, less risk, and higher ROI, that’s why there are so many more DI Basketball teams than FBS football teams. On the flip side the power conferences have a much wider moat around their football programs, they essentially have a giant monopoly in football were in Basketball they just have a nice lucrative business with a high ROI, low risk, but not enough gross profit to support an a bloated athletic department with 20 to 30 non- revenue teams.
LikeLike
@DR – Yes, going from the Horizon League to the Atlantic 10 to the “new” Big East in consecutive seasons has been a dramatic rise for Butler. They are definitely one of the largest winners of conference realignment.
LikeLike
Well, Butler’s kind of like the basketball version of TCU. Granted, TCU had to take a few more trips (to CUSA and the MWC as well as a phantom stay in the BE) and stay longer between hopping from the WAC to the B12, but I think that’s mostly due to Butler being content to stay in the Horizon for many years rather than hop-scotching to marginally better leagues.
Both are small private schools with limited fan bases but both have the advantage of being located in major cities in states that are absolutely mad about the sport they’ve excelled in.
For the record, I have thought for a long time that Butler could move up if they had wanted to.
LikeLike
OK! We need to ensure acaffrey knows this and notes it in his journal of anonymous bloggers having off the record thoughts that accurately predicted future events. 🙂
LikeLike
The Butler model is probably not replicable. Generally, you do have to invest big to win big. Just because Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates became billionaires, does not mean that dropping out of college is a likely path to success.
LikeLike
If you don’t have the money and fanbase, you almost certainly have to be located in an extremely fertile recruiting area for your sport (like Butler and Miami and TCU are) to have a shot.
LikeLike
I dint understand why the MWC doesn’t add Gonzaga as its 12th member for non-football sports. Clearly, they don’t want Hawaii for anything other than football. Gonzaga would do nothing to dilute their football value because they wouldn’t be accounted for in TV contracts.
The Mountain West is already a pretty impressive basketball league. Gonzaga would solidify that.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting idea.
In particular, plenty of the younger MWC programs are starting to mature in basketball as well like SDSU over the past couple of years.
Combine that with already established programs like UNLV and New Mexico and soon to join Utah State and you’re talking about a pretty good group.
Only issue is that I’m not sure Gonzaga wants to join a grouping that may have future instability if there is future conference movement in the West…
LikeLike
UNC to B1G a good idea.
http://www.thehoopsreport.com/article.aspx?id=1107
LikeLike
http://www.redandblack.com/football/athletic-board-cuts-football-student-seats-takes-leap-of-faith/article_1fd63640-850c-11e2-88f3-001a4bcf6878.html
This is one way to get your attendance and revenue up.
Highlights:
UGA currently sells 18,645 students season tickets
They allocate 17,910 seats (oversold by 735)
On average, only 11,802 students show up (6108 empty seats)
UGA will now sell the same number of tickets but reduce the seats to 15,856 (oversold by 2789)
The extra 2054 seats will be sold to young alumni for $40 in addition to the $8 students pay
That’s an extra $500k before annual contributions ($0 the first year, then $125 minimum for years 2-5).
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/03/05/former-metro-commissioner-wouldnt-mind-if-big-east-revives-name/1965393/
The media agrees with me (and a few others here) – Metro Conference is the way to go. The former Metro commish thinks it could be a good idea, too.
LikeLike
Well that’s a terrible idea.
The FB Big East schools are already going to have to deal with constant jokes about their stability so why would they want to name themselves after a conference that failed?
LikeLike
As opposed to calling themselves “Big East” you mean?
LikeLike
They aren’t calling themselves the Big East.
LikeLike
Arguably along the same lines as calling themselves the Big East ~ either way could be seen as the football schools naming their new conference after a previous football conference that failed.
But time is a funny thing ~ maybe the Metro failed long enough ago that the memory of it folding due to its schools moving onto greener football playing pastures has faded a little.
LikeLike
To be honest I like Metro better than any of the other suggestions I’ve heard. Big America and such just sound like C-USA part deux.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with @frug that the name of a conference that folded isn’t going to sound terribly appealing.
LikeLike
There was a story on AP the other day saying the Big Ten may seek to have some nonconference baseball games played in the fall and have them included in a team’s spring record: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-backs-proposal-to-shift-portion-of-baseball-season-to-fall/
LikeLike
I don’t see how it works to play some games the previous August thru October, then take 5 months off and start up again. Maybe they are hoping it they propose something so ridiculous, they can get southern schools to agree to something more reasonable.
Like push the start of the season back a month. Have the CWS in Omaha right around the 4th of July. Not perfect, but much better.
Few students attend college baseball games anyway, so I don’t think it matters that most of the schools will be out for the last month of the season. And there are more and more students taking classes in the summer anyway.
MLB may not like it though, as it would push back when they could get some of their draftees into their system.
LikeLike
MLB already drafts kids out of high school. They don’t care.
LikeLike
What I mean is that the MLB draft occurs in June. Any of the college players that are drafted generally get placed somewhere in the farm season as soon as their college season is over. If you push the college season back a month, then it pushes back the date that the college kids would be able to report that summer. It might be later in the season than MLB would want.
LikeLike
Or, more likely they sign and report, and college baseball post season qualifiers, teams, seeding, etc. is screwed up
LikeLike
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2013/03/05/big-12-football-fan-attendance-concerns-bowlsby/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Interesting comments from Bowlsby on the future of attendance and college football. It coincides with comments by Maryland’s AD and Georgia’s concerns about student attendance.
LikeLike
Note that these comments come from a commissioner of a conference whose attendance is up. Over that 5 year period he mentions, everyone but WVU (most of those years in BE) and Kansas (bad teams) has been on a noticeable upward trend in attendance. And Georgia from the SEC is concerned.
LikeLike
And yet the SEC still has far and away the highest attendance of any conference, with the Big 12 substantially behind them.
LikeLike
@ Andy, “Far and away”? I believe the SEC had company at the top with the Big Ten not far behind. If I remember the numbers right; the SEC only averaged 3,000 more per game.
LikeLike
2012 numbers:
SEC: 75,444
B1G: 70,377 (66,409 counting Rutgers and Maryland)
Big 12: 58,993
LikeLike
@Andy ~ so posting average figures 8% above Big Ten attendance intended to to withdraw your claim that SEC attendance is “far and away” bigger than any other conference?
LikeLike
I was counting Rugers and Maryland.
LikeLike
The rest of us don’t yet known Rutgers and Maryland’s attendance playing in the Big Ten ~ must be nice owning such a specific crystal ball.
LikeLike
Your point is?
Mine is that even schools with growing attendance or very good attendance are concerned about the long term trends. Students aren’t going in the same numbers.
LikeLike
I wonder whether the schools that are emphasizing out-of-country enrollment are experiencing a greater attendance decline than schools with higher in-state enrollment.
LikeLike
Looks like Missouri has a rival in the SEC:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger-college-basketball-blog/mike-anderson-receives-hostile-welcome-return-missouri-022918975–ncaab.html
LikeLike
You’re so desperate. You have become a caricatue
LikeLike
caricature*.
LikeLike
Desperate for what? This forum doesn’t have the ability to directly message people. Arch Stanton and others were telling me the other day that Arkansas/Missouri wouldn’t be much of a rivalry. Well, the two schools have played 39 times, with Missouri winning 19 of them, and the games have always been a hot ticket and fans seem to be pretty into it. I’m not even sure what the basis would be for claiming that people wouldn’t care about this game. Tickets were selling on stubhub for a minimum of over $100 for nosebleed seats for both games, the one in Fayetteville, and the one in Columbia.
I wouldn’t have to post this sort of thing if there weren’t so many oddly delusional people on here.
LikeLike
I’m suddenly very thankful that there is not a direct message ability on this forum!
Andy, please go back and review everything I posted about Missouri-Arkansas. I very clearly stated that Missouri-Arkansas had a decent shot of being a basketball rivalry, especially because of the Mike Anderson angle.
My point was, and remains, that Arkansas is not going to care about playing Missouri in football. That there are at there are four annual football games that Arkansas will look forward to before Missouri. My other point was that it is pathetic of you to insist that Arkansas is your new rival,(seriously, it is Arkansas) and it is funny to me that you feel this new invented Bromance with Arkansas is some sort of revenge that you are getting against Kansas for not scheduling your Tigers. Reminds me of the girl in high school that is dumped and then hangs around some average dude all the time and tries to act like he is her new boyfriend when, in reality, this new dude is just not that into you (her).
LikeLike
You’re basically talking out of your ass, sorry to say, but it’s obviously true. You say you live in Arkansas, so I’m not sure why you’re so off base here. The truth is the last time Missouri played Arkansas the game sold out easily. People were desperate for tickets. That was the 2007 Cotton Bowl. There were a ton of Arkansas fans there. Maybe a couple of your buddies down in little rock say they don’t care about Missouri, but the Arkansas fanbase at large seems to care plenty. Otherwise they wouldn’t talk about us so much on their message boards and they wouldn’t pay so much on the secondary market to go to games against us.
LikeLike
Arkansas has played in the Cotton Bowl 4 times in recent memory. The attendance from Arkansas at the game has not depended on the opponent. They are generally just excited to be playing in what they consider a “good bowl”.
I just asked 6 co-workers in Little Rock, “when did Arkansas last play Missouri in football?”
This may not be a scientific poll, but these are the facts of their answers:
– 3 people replied something to the effect of “I Don’t Know”
– 1 guy thought it was the Independence Bowl “about 12 years ago”
-1 guy remembered they played when he was in school, so over 20 years ago.
-Last guy said, “they played this year, didn’t they? With the lightning? Oh, no, nevermind, that is the Kentucky game I am remembering.” -Word for word, bro.
No one mentioned the Cotton Bowl or seemed in any way interested in Missouri.
These are guys who could probably name half of the recruits in Arkansas’ most recent class and where they went to high school, so they are definitely engaged fans. To my dismay, they spend much of the work day discussing Razorback football, year round. Yet, I have never, ever heard anyone mention Missouri.
can’t speak for the message boards that you read. My advice: if you really want to start a rivalry with Arkansas, you should totally post on these Razorback message boards as much as you do here. Arkansas fans will start hating Missouri in no time!
LikeLike
Arch, the fact that we have played Arkansas twice in the last 30 years in football has more to do with it than anything. We played them every year in basketball for 35 years and the rivalry got pretty heated. The schools are nearby. If they play every year (and they will starting in 2014) the both sides will notice.
As for how much fans care, I think the best way to judge that is not by asking random fans but by checking how much the tickets sell for on the secondary market. If the basketball tickets this year in Columbia and Fayetteville are any indication then there’s a lot of high interest. Cotton Bowl tickets are pricy too.
Maybe you rcoworkers *wanted* o forget that game. Missouri won 35-7.
LikeLike
That wasn’t the 2007 Cotton Bowl, it was the 2008. I remember, because I listened to the game on my way to watch Kansas in the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
@FtT:
You were right three years ago about basketball. A general caution is in order to not confuse “basketball” with “market.”
You said in the OP: “While basketball is much less of a concern to the power conferences at face value, consider which school is the top target for both the Big Ten and SEC (the 2 richest and most powerful conferences): North Carolina. … UNC is a basketball blue blood,”
From this you are suggesting that basketball is really important now for realignment.
But then you go on to say: “… Tar Heels basketball games are so critically important in the state of the North Carolina that a conference TV network carrying such games can effectively charge whatever carriage rate that it wants in that market.”
From this you are identifying the real reason that UNC is a target for the B1G and the SEC: its tv market. This is what you said three years ago; it is still true. “TV value” is 1/4th of your formula.
Kansas ~~~ again ~~~ is the counter example. They too are a basketball blueblood and, even now, the B1G and the SEC do not want them. The Kansas tv/media market is not big enough to justify adding another slice to the revenue “pie.”
You were right three years ago and not much has changed.
As Brian posted above, your formula was/is:
Academics – 25
TV value – 25
Football brand value – 30
Basketball brand value – 10
Historic rivalries/Cultural fit – 5
Mutual interest – 5
You properly said “Football BRAND value.” (emphasis added). No one on this Board has ever suggested that the Mountain West was going to get a lot of $$$ from the networks. All the good Football brands left the (former) Big East and, as you say, the Big East was left with “riff raff.” No one ever suggested that the football “riff raff” was going to get a lot of $$$ from the networks. And I don’t recall anyone suggesting that ANY football brand was better than ANY basketball brand. You certainly did not suggest this.
If there is a “problem” with your formula, it is that your formula is B1G-centric (or maybe B1G-specific). The B1G values academics in a way that other conferences do not. Example: the then-Pac-10 was willing to take academic light-weights like Okie State and TexTech.
My guess is the weight of “academics” varies from conference to conference and my guess is that the weight of “tv value” goes up in proportion as the weight of “academics” goes down.
So, as said, IMO, recent events do not change the analysis.
Plus, recent events are subject to other interpretations.
Alternative interpretation one: Taking the FOX vs. ESPN view of things, FOX is overpaying for the (new) Big East basketball package taking that “inventory” away from ESPN.
Further, FOX (along with the BTN) has figured out how to monetize basketball in a way that ESPN has not.
Further, FOX did not make a serious bid for the ACC media rights. This was purposeful and has done two things. First, has left the ACC with a below-market media deal making the schools in the ACC restless. Second, it leaves FOX with more $$$ to (possibly) over-pay for the (new) Big East and to bid for the B1G media rights.
Assuming FOX is attempting to get UNC, et. al., away from ESPN and into the FOX camp, there is synergy here. “Overpaying” for the (new) Big East signals to UNC & Duke that FOX will really “overpay” from them (if they felt so inclined to join the B1G).
Alternative interpretation two: what FOX is willing to pay for a Bball only league is not relevant to conference realignment. What ESPN agreed to pay the Big X Conference is relevant; but there is no new information there.
The Big X is basically now on the level of C-USA. The Big X got from ESPN C-USA-level $$$. That is exactly what we would have expected three years ago.
Alternative interpretation three: recent events simply confirm the important of “tv value” and “brand value.” The (new) Big East has teams in good and diverse markets with several good-to-great Bball brand names. Why are we surprised that this combination netted $3-4M per school per year? Imagine breaking off the B1G bball teams into a bball-only league. Selling just those media rights, what would it be worth? My guess is $7-8M per school per year. The B1G has a lot of big media markets and several good-to-great Bball brands.
All in all, I don’t think the FOX deal with the (new) Big East represents any sort of “sea-change” with respect to realignment. (That being said, it may represent a sea-change concerning the value of basketball to the networks. There are more channels and thus more demand. But basketball value is still going to be a fraction of the analysis with respect to realignment.)
As for giving advice to Athletic Departments: with due respect Frank, you are thinking like the President of a B1G University. To give proper advice, you must think like the President of a University in the MAC or of a University trying to transition from Div. 1aa up to Div. 1a. I seriously doubt any MAC President thinks the tv networks are going to pay millions for their football product. For those schools, it is about student recruiting. Every time Butler plays basketball on tv or tournament game, that is invaluable “advertising” for the school. Sports matter and it separates schools from the true “no-name” schools.
As for forming Bball-only leagues and getting $3-4M per school from FOX: again, with due respect, you have identified the only four teams that could even try: UConn, Memphis, Temple and Cincy. But, not going to happen. They are good-to-great schools, but they are not in good-to-great markets. The FOX deal with the (new) Big East is unique and will not and cannot be replicated.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau, I think academics are as much of a reason for the difference between the demand for Kansas and the demand for UNC and Duke as anything. If KU were ranked #20 in USNews instead of #111 or whatever they are this year, then they might get some more attention.
LikeLike
Its much more the 9.8 million people in Carolina vs. 2.8 in Kansas as well as the faster growth. N. Carolina is the 10th biggest state & will soon pass Michigan. Another 20 years growth at their pace in the last decade and they will pass Ohio and be almost caught up to Illinois and Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
Sure, there’s that too. But I don’t think anybody’s going to argue that KU is anywhere near UNC academically.
LikeLike
No, people wouldn’t argue that Kansas ranks up with UNC academically, but that isn’t on the basis of the USNWR undergrad rankings, it would be on the basis of research funding and numbers of top flight graduate schools.
LikeLike
KU’s research is the 2nd lowest in the AAU. UNC’s is above average.
LikeLike
Yes, eg, AAU research rankings are far more relevant than than USNWR undergrad rankings, even though USNWR undergrad rankings is easier to find.
LikeLike
If there is a “problem” with your formula, it is that your formula is B1G-centric (or maybe B1G-specific). The B1G values academics in a way that other conferences do not. Example: the then-Pac-10 was willing to take academic light-weights like Okie State and TexTech.
Frank had the formula right. Obviously, the interpretation varies for each conference, so a Texas Tech is acceptable to the Pac-12 (as part of a deal where they also get Texas), but not to the Big Ten.
In the modern history of realignment, hardly any school has switched voluntarily to a worse academic conference than the one they were in. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Schools use conference moves to trade up academically, as well as athletically.
It could be that Frank under-rated academics, where the Big Ten is concerned. After all, he gave it just 25 percent, but AAU membership seems to be practically a litmus test, with Notre Dame being the only known exception they’re willing to make. If that’s true, it would seem the league is ranking academics a lot more than just 25 percent.
LikeLike
If the AAU is so important, why do they allow Nebraska to remain in the Conference? Guess what? It is the same reason that Penn State was not booted post-Sandusky (This from a huge Penn State fan), and they chose Rutgers over say Missouri. It is about Money. Call it “TV footprint” call it ratings, call it whatever you like, it is about who brings in the most money to the Conference and individual Schools. Maybe it is 90% $$$$ while the others are 95% money, but it is still about “Show me the money.”
LikeLike
Agreed. As the BTN network becomes more valueable I can see AAU status and geographic location becoming less important b/c the channel becomes a “runaways train” in good and bad ways. At some point, maybe even more geographic outlander colleges maybe pursued to gain a wider audience (fingers crossed for florida st). If the Big network becomes something similiar to the level of spike or , you telling me they’re going to still be preaching AAU status or geographic location. At some point such talk will become moot. It really depends how big Delany and company wants the channel to get and how safely they want to get there. Once a fluffer college is on the ride (i.e., BTN) they can’t be booted off…looking at you georgia tech, missouri, and maybe even virginia. The phrase ‘100 year decison’ could mean we’re thinking too small and safe, depending on the ambitions of the B10 network.
LikeLike
Missouri’s population is tripple that of Nebraska, and has better academics as well. They are better at football and that’s it. But then Rutgers is bad at football but has decent academics and a good market. Missouri had decent but not great football, academics, and market. Seems there’s no reasly formula for this.
LikeLike
Nebraska has 16 NCAA NC’s. Don’t know about Mizzo, a school I like. Sure you have a better basketball school, but Neb makes bank with women’s volleyball. They are also traditional powers in smaller Olympic sports.
LikeLike
@ Andy, Missouri isn’t much better than Kansas or Nebraska in the realm of academics. That metric is not one to use. Stick with the population arguement as that isn’t such a subjective piece of criteria. It is however subjective how much of that population Missouri can actually draw. The Rutgers/Maryland move makes perfect sense for the members of the B1G. The first move brought in a national football power in Nebraska; the second brought in more of an audience to exploit it.
LikeLike
Also, just the sheer population number (and the sheer number of actual fans) wasn’t the whole story with Maryland and Rutgers. Their location was also important.
I believe the B1G felt they were getting boxed in to the east by the ACC as it added Boston College, V-Tech, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and even Notre Dame over the past decade.
Adding Maryland from the ACC, and Rutgers as well, instantly changes that geography. The B1G now stretches to the east coast by slicing through the middle of the ACC footprint. They have beachheads in the NYC, Baltimore and D.C. areas.
Maryland and Rutgers also secure Penn State into the conference whereas before they were an outlier.
There really is an east coast bias in media coverage and the B1G didn’t want to give that that advantage wholely to the ACC. The eastern seaboard used to be split between the Big East and the ACC (with the SEC owning Atlanta and northern Florida – not what is considered “east coast bias terrain anyway). With the ACC engulfing the Big East, they were poised to dominate the eastern seaboard geographically. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers put a stop to that.
Adding Missouri does none of those things. While I’m sure that Missouri would have been a candidate for number 14 if they hadn’t joined the SEC, I think ultimately Rutgers would have gotten the invite over Missouri even if they were still in a GOR-less Big 12 and very eager to leave.
LikeLike
@gfunk
I’ve talked about this a lot before so forgive me if you’ve seen it, but maybe you’re new here.
Missouri and Nebraska compared
Nebraska 49 bowls in football, 11 claimed and unclaimed national titles, 85,517 attendance average, Missouri 30 bowls 2 claimed and unclaimed national titles, 67,476 attendance average. Nebraska is clearly better at football.
Nebraska 6 NCAA tournaments in basketball, never won a tournament game, 7 conference titles (regular season and tournament), Missouri 25 NCAA tournaments in basketball, 5 Elite Eights, 23 conference titles (regular season and tournament). Missouri is clearly better at basketball.
Nebraska 14 NCAA baseball tournaments, 3 CWSs, 0 national titles, Missouri 22 NCAA baseball tournametns, 6 CWSs, 1 national title. Missouri is better at baseball.
Women’s sports, Missouri is better at softball and maybe soccer. Nebraska is better at the others. Nebraska is pretty strong at women’s sports.
Missouri is a national power at wrestling. They’re pretty weak in tennis and swimming. Used to be strong in track but not lately.
In general on the strenghts of the women’s sports Nebraska will rank higher than Missouri in the overall directors’ cup standings. Nebraska finished 40 last year, Missouri finished 49. 33, 41.
As far as academics, Missouri is still in the AAU, Nebraska is not. Missouri ranks 69th in research dollars, Nebraska ranks 93rd. Missouri is a few spots higher in the USNews ranking as well. Missouri has 35k students, Nebraska has 25k. Nebraska ACT average: 25.4, Missouri 25.7. They are in the same general ballpark, but Missouri is a big stronger than Nebraska academically.
Markets, Missouri clearly leads. State population of Missouri is over 6M. State population of Nebraska is 1.8M.
So basically Nebraska got the nod on the basis of football and not really anything else. They are good at football, I’ll give them that.
LikeLike
@order restored, I gave you some objective academic numbers to look at in the post I just posted. I agree that it’s not a huge margin, but it’s not an insignificant margin either. Missouri is stronger academically. More students. Smarter students. More research. Better reputation. AAU.
LikeLike
As for population, yeah New Jersey has a lot of people, but how many of them are Rutgers fans? Missouri has a ton of Mizzou fans, believe it or not. I’m not so sure about Rutgers with New Jersey. Also, Maryland averaged only 36k fans per game this season. I’m not sure how many fans they even have. They’re right there in DC, I’m not sure how much their state as a whole supports them, at least in football. They’re both good schools though.
LikeLike
@ Andy, I think you are looking at the population of New Jersey with a mid-western thinking cap on. No, Rutgers wasn’t added because of all the Rutgers fans in that area……this is ludacris to even pretend. The east coast is a bit different than the midwest in the aspect of it being more of a melting pot of back grounds (educationally and background speaking). So in essence, Rutgers was added to get carriage for the BTN in New Jersey households who are Big Ten fans; not necessarily Rutgers fans. Think of it that way. Thank you for the objective numbers though on the academic front; I’m not intricately familiar with either institution (Nebraska, Missouri)…..but in the academic circles I am associated with, the two are seen as fairly equal.
LikeLike
@order restored, sounds good in theory. We’ll see it works. Missouri fits the standard Big Ten model: big state school with lots of in state fans, a big (soon to be bigger) stadium that fills up on Saturdays with people cheering for their state school. As far as that goes Rutgers is a fixer upper. But sounds like they’ve got some new fangled ideas they’re trying out with the scarlet knights that may or may not work.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
I hear you. But, 16 NCAA titles is what it is. Also, I started browsing Director’s Cup rankings over the past 25 years. Nebraska has cracked the top 25 often, 7 times since 2000, hardly the case with Mizzo. Nebraska also had a string of top 10 finishes in the mid 90s.
Sadly, I think the BIG let Mizzo get away when they clearly had the opportunity, but the timing wasn’t right. You should know this. I think the BIG simply wanted to get to 12 – hard to refuse Nebraska – esp after 2 consecutive conference title games in football, close losses, a sign that Nebraska football was on the rebound. But the SEC surprising went to 14, thus the Rutgers & Md additions were done and not nearly as popular as PSU and Neb expansion. If 18 is the end game, Mizzo certainly has to be considered, but such a move would be highly unpopular for Mizzo and the BIG. The SEC faithful would have a ball denigrating such a move.
But, Mizzo is more Midwestern than Southern, regardless of Mizzouri-Branson-Ozarks ville.
LikeLike
Yes, gfunk, had the B1G expanded to 14 before the SEC they could have had Missouri, but they waited too long. Missouri can go either way. The southern part of Missouri fits the SEC while St. Louis fits in more with the B1G.
LikeLike
Nebraska doesn’t have much of a basketball program, but overall, Nebraska has one of the best athletic departments in the country. They have been nationally competitive in many sports. Typically, they finished 2nd in the Big 12 in the Director’s Cup, well ahead of typically #3 Texas A&M.
If you look at all time Big 12 titles (including years since Nebraska left) its:
Texas 117
Nebraska 72
A&M 57
Baylor 49
Oklahoma 44
Okie St. 41
Colorado 27
Kansas 24
Texas Tech 12
Iowa St. 11
Missouri 10
KSU 7
WVU 1
Its going to be a long time before Baylor or OU or the Cowboys knock Nebraska out of 2nd place.
LikeLike
So those of you knocking Baylor, yes, Baylor is currently 2nd among active Big 12 schools in conference titles.
LikeLike
OkSU has fewer overall B12 titles than it has NC’s in wrestling?
LikeLike
@cc – Big 8 titles not included?
LikeLike
Mike:
Oops, brain cramp. Thanks.
Although, I’m not sure the number of conference titles over the relative short period of the B12 is as good a measure as including B8/SWC titles.
LikeLike
As I said, Nebraska is very good at most of the women’s sports. No doubt.
LikeLike
If the AAU is so important, why do they allow Nebraska to remain in the Conference?
I didn’t say it’s the only thing they look at. But Nebraska was in the AAU when they joined. Every school they are known to have seriously considered has been in the AAU, except for Notre Dame. I don’t think I’m mistaken to say that it is a VERY large factor for them.
It is the same reason that Penn State was not booted post-Sandusky…..
Whoa there. Talk about mixing your metaphors. The reason Penn State wasn’t booted, was because there wasn’t the slightest reason to even consider doing so. Tragic as it was, the Sandusky scandal was isolated. No sane person has suggested that if Penn State were allowed to remain, they’d continue to be a magnet for child rapist ex-coaches.
If you were ever going to kick a school out of a conference, it would be a school where there is a recurring problem that cannot or has not been fixed, not an absurd scandal confined to a few warped individuals, the likes of which no one has seen before or expects to see again.
LikeLike
“If the AAU is so important, why do they allow Nebraska to remain in the Conference?”
Because not making marriage vows in the first place is easier than getting a divorce. Indeed, moving to get Nebraska before their loss of AAU status became public knowledge is a market of how important academics when trying to overcome the institutional intertia of the Big Ten universities.
LikeLike
I think the academics is over-weighted. The academics is a cliff, not a weighted factor. You either pass or you don’t.
LikeLike
If that were true, Notre Dame wouldn’t be acceptable — and we know they are. It was also widely known before Nebraska joined that they were at risk of losing AAU status, so even for them, it was a factor, but not a cliff. We really have no idea what the B1G thinks about FSU.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is very highly regarded academically. They just aren’t one of the top research universities. So even though they aren’t AAU, they pass the cliff test. Contrast that with say, Cincinnati, who has more research, but isn’t AAU and isn’t as highly regarded as Notre Dame otherwise. Same with UConn.
LikeLike
Research is the driver, because that’s the attribute that the Big Ten derives tangible value from. High GRE and LSAT scores don’t deliver a thing. Notre Dame is an exception they are willing to make, to what would otherwise be their usual standards. The open unresolved question is whether FSU is, as well.
Cincinnati is a red herring, because the B1G wouldn’t duplicate the Ohio market, even if they join the AAU at some point. There are so many issues around UConn that the question of bending the rules for them has probably never even come up.
LikeLike
Totally disagree about academics cliff. Maryland and Rutgers expansion wouldn’t have happened if they had Missouri academics.
Re: attendance decline. The only place we are really seeing it is the crap being added to the bottom of d1.
LikeLike
@bullet and @Marc Shepherd – That was kind of my intent with the academics component. It was an all-or-nothing category – a school either received 25 points or 0 points, with nothing in between. From the Big Ten perspective, either you meet the standard or you don’t at all. The weighting of 25 points effectively ensured that if a school got 0 points on academics, it couldn’t possibly score high enough to be realistically considered even if it was perfect in every other category.
LikeLike
@FtT: Interesting. That may have been your intent (it’s either 0 or 25 points for the “academic” factor), but I’m not sure that’s how the COP/C sees it or even this Board. In this thread, for example, have been discussions of Kansas vs. UNC’s and MO vs. Nebraska’s academic statuses and how such impacted or might impact an invite to the B1G.
Plus, the COP/C is not a unitary black box. It contains 12-14 voting members with hundreds of others offering input into theses decisions. The opinions are bound to be diverse and, thus, the “opinion” of the COP/C is likely to be nuanced. By a combination of thinking and opinions, ND will likely get some “credit” on the “academic” factor, but less than UNC will likely get.
I also want to suggest that the vote on Nebraska was probably NOT unanimous (even if the decision was claimed to be unanimous). Given what is known about Michigan and Wisconsin’s votes on kicking Nebraska out of the AAU, they probably voted “no” on B1G membership. Everyone else out-voted them?
Something like that might be in the offing if FSU were offered.
To be clear, I have no insider information. Just offering theories.
LikeLike
But its a mix of the two, isn’t it? A minimal acceptable level of academic status may be a pre-requisite, but when you get to the level of research funding of the strongest elite research universities, it becomes a driver as well.
LikeLike
If this happens, would the BIG and ACC go further and just get Md, Rutgers & Louisville in by this summer? The article says otherwise. God this is all a headache at this point:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9022342/notre-dame-fighting-irish-join-acc-summer-school-negotiate-big-east-exit-according-sources
LikeLike
Also, if ND does in fact join the ACC this summer, how does that factor into Md’s exit fees? The argument has been pinned already that Md’s loss, but Lville’s arrival diminishes the ACC’s financial loss argument. ND is even more profitable than Lville.
LikeLike
UMD can’t move early with the lawsuit up in the air. I think the B10 strongly prefers to wait for 2014 and will ask RU to suck it up for a year.
LikeLike
@ Brian,
But if ND’s ACC entrance is expedited, as this article suggests, doesn’t such counter ACC claims of financial hardship caused by Md’s departure? Thus, Md would have a stronger case against the ACC and reason to fast track the legal process. Throw Lville in & it seems clear the ACC has limited, if any financial hardship by Md’s departure.
Just my light observations.
LikeLike
I think the legal theory of the exit fee is more than just the damage of losing a particular school. It’s also the instability. In the modern era, I can’t recall a conference losing just ONE school. The first loss almost always leads to more. This perception of instability affects the conference on many fronts, not just TV revenue. I’m not suggesting the whole $54m Maryland exit fee will be upheld, only that the analysis is more complicated than just a revenue spreadsheet.
LikeLike
The lawsuit doesn’t hold them back. Its the B1G not being ready to go to 14. If they went next year, there would be no time to ramp up the BTN.
LikeLike
I think it does hold them back. The settlement/decision may change significantly if they give 3 months notice versus 15 months. Until that suit is settled, they won’t move. IMO and IANAL.
LikeLike
No, because this is not about Notre Dame joining the ACC football championship, its about Basketball, which starts later, and the non-revenue sports, which in the end are just going to shut up and cope with whatever conference realignment throws their way.
LikeLike
Florida State’s AD Spetman speaks.
http://espn.go.com/colleges/fsu/football/story/_/id/9020053/ad-randy-spetman-discusses-state-florida-state-seminoles-program
“While Spetman said he has been a part of high-level discussions regarding Florida State’s conference affiliation, those measures of cost effectiveness are being debated by the conferences as well, and the fit has to be right on both ends.
“Unless you bring in a revenue for them so that they don’t reduce their conference distribution to themselves, they aren’t going to bring you in,” Spetman said. “That’s what I don’t think people evaluate as much. It would be great to be in the SEC with our radius of schools and the way our fans travel and their fans travel, but if they bring Florida State into the SEC, I’m trying to see, how do we sell that we bring them enough additional revenue that we pay for ourselves and they make more money off of us? They have Florida just two hours away that has the TV market here.”
Similarly, a move to the Big Ten or Big 12 isn’t a slam dunk financially for Florida State. Issues surround TV distribution (Maryland won’t immediately get a full share from the Big Ten), travel (West Virginia, for example, has had difficulty adjusting to the demands of travel in the Big 12) and, of course, the not insignificant issue of that buyout to leave the ACC, which would cost the university close to $50 million — a number Maryland is challenging as it works its way out of the league.
In the short term, Spetman said he’s confident that the ACC is moving in the right direction, and the Noles staying remains the most appealing solution. However, he said his priority is to ensure that Florida State is prepared for the next major shift.”
LikeLike
I just don’t buy the travel argument. The ACC in 2013 isn’t the ACC of 2000 or even 2003. Florida State will be playing future conference road games in Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston, Louisville, and South Bend. It could also very likely be playing games in Cincinnati and Storrs, CT if the ACC is raided any further.
Are we all in agreement that FSU is not a candidate for 15 or 16? If so, it stands to reason that FSU would be coming with a block of at least 3 other southern traveling partners. Having yearly games with GT, UVA, and UNC would provide enough “backyard” games.
So I ask… How would FSU’s travel plans be drastically different from their soon-to-be ACC travel plans? Sure, they’ll have to go to Lincoln (996 miles) and Madison (916 miles) every few years, but is that really worse than Boston (1,101 miles) or Syracuse (979 miles)?
LikeLike
You’ve read more into it than what he really said. First, he said the SEC would be great for travel. I think this is hardly disputable. The rest of the article was not talking about a particular conference, and he cited several issues, travel being only one. In a hypothetical case where FSU and Clemson — and no others — joined the Big XII, I think it’s obvious that travel distances for them would go way up. Even in the Big Ten with three partners, they’d go up, though by not as much. (They’d no longer have Clemson; they’d have at most two NC schools in the league, not four; and at most one VA school, not two. If they continued to play Miami every year, it would be OOC.)
LikeLike
Their travel doesn’t go up that much with the Big 12. FSU isn’t really very close to anyone in the ACC so they have to fly everywhere. More miles, but the same number of flights. Not much difference between Big 12 and Big 10 for travel for them. Their travel would go way down if they joined the SEC.
LikeLike
I’ve been an advocate of the “airplane test” (i.e., once you’re on a plane, differences of a few hundred miles don’t really matter very much). But it is obvious from their comments that many fans and athletics administrators don’t see it that way. So the issue is obviously not cut and dried.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind though is that a lot of the Big XII schools are located pretty far from major airports. I don’t know about the ACC, but I know the distance to airports issue is why Nebraska said their total travel time won’t go up in the Big Ten even though their travel costs are increasing by $2 million a year.
LikeLike
@Marc I guess I thought he was insinuating that WVU’s travel difficulties would be similar to FSU’s in a B1G that included 4-5 ACC schools. Agreed that SEC would be great for their travel.
But you’re not including the fact that they don’t play all 4 NC schools, and both VA schools every year. Hell, they don’t even get to play GT at all this year and that’s the closest ACC school to Tallahassee. On average, they’re playing 1.5 games in North Carolina per year, and 0.5 games in Virginia per year.
In the B1G, they’d play somewhere around 0.5 to 1 game per year in NC depending on if Duke is included with UNC, and they’d play the same amount of games in Virginia. Once every other year. (I’m basing these numbers on FSU being put into the pod/division with their ACC friends. I know you prefer your own system where only the vital rivalries arew protected.)
I just think the argument that FSU would struggle with travel in an 18-20 team B1G as opposed to the 2013 ACC travel is completely overblown.
LikeLike
The travel issues are less with football than with the other sports. FSU generally plays all the ACC schools in sports like basketball.
LikeLike
You mean there is more to realignment than football? What is this, a revenge of the basketball thread? Oh, it is. Well then…
LikeLike
The travel argument still holds. Even the farthest ACC schools from Florida state are very easy to get to because they’re in large markets which are well-served by aircraft. It’s definitely faster to fly from Tallahassee to Boston than it is to drive from Tallahassee to Raleigh. Flights are common enough that you can bring all of your sports without too much difficulty. Even Syracuse, which combines actual distance and remoteness more than probably any other school in the ACC for FSU is pretty easy to get to. The Big Ten would be workable in terms of travel for Florida State because most of its schools are relatively close to decent, frequently used airports, with a few notable exceptions. The Big 12 on the other hand, would require a lot of both flying and driving. Since the flights to most of those locations are less common, they are also more expensive. For example, the cheapest plane tickets I saw from Tallahassee to Des Moines (the closest (and I use this term loosely) “major” airport to Ames (where Iowa State is located), are $956 dollars. You then have to pay for buses or taxis the rest of the way. For football, that doesn’t matter, but for your women’s softball team that can get pricey. Although a couple of Big XII Schools are in relatively easy places to get to such as Ft. Worth, most are quite remote. Frankly, it would be easier and cheaper for Florida State to travel if it were in the Pac 12 than if it were in the Big XII. I actually believe it might be cheaper and easier for Florida State to travel in the ACC than the SEC. Although most SEC towns are amazing to visit, it can be a real pain to get there.
LikeLike
Tallahassee is the problem. Austin, Lubbock, DFW, Oklahoma City are all heavily served by SW Airlines. KU is near Kansas City. Manhattan, Waco and Stillwater require a bus trip, but Charlottesville does too. Virginia Tech is a really long way from a major airport. Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and Purdue are bus trips as well.
The Big 12 schools are “out of the way” comment is only true if the ACC and Big 10 and SEC are as well.
LikeLike
Alan, this quote to me somewhat confirms what I’ve heard, that FSU wanted to join the SEC but was turned down in favor of Missouri.
LikeLike
I put more credence in Tuxedo Yoda, 900 year old brain and all, than your Missouri sources.
LikeLike
Highly doubt it.
LikeLike
I prefer to call it the “Big TBA”
LikeLike
Big Ten Not Looking To Expand Now – Mich St AD
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130306/SPORTS0202/303060438/Michigan-State-AD-Mark-Hollis-doesn-t-see-Big-Ten-expanding-again-near-future?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
LikeLike
Of course the conference said exactly the same thing when they were already in active negotiations with Maryland and Rutgers so honestly I wouldn’t read too much into this.
LikeLike
Once negotiations on a new TV contract begin in earnest, there’s no need to do anything. At least overtly.
LikeLike
I meant “until negotiations on a new TV contract begin in earnest”…
LikeLike
Ideally conference alignment will be settled when negotiations on a new TV contract begin in earnest. But if they are going to take the contract to the open market, that is years away yet.
LikeLike
I’m surprised he even acknowledge the B10 as an option publically…thought that dream was just for message boards considering the extreme geography.
LikeLike
above comment regarding FSU AD comments
LikeLike
FWIW…
LikeLike
Awesome news. I hope it’s true. Brian and others should be happy too.
LikeLike
Maybe this means the ACC is too strong to break up for the foreseeable future. Wouldn’t that be great?
I like how things are now. B1G at 14, SEC at 14. I’d like to see the Big 12 get back to 12. Maybe take BYU and Cincinatti?
Then we can just quit all this nonsense until the Big 12 GOR expires in 12 years and then the Pac 12 can finally take UT and OU and then we’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
Hmmm…you think it would be “great” if the ACC is too strong to break up, but you’d love to see UT and OU in the Pac-12? Is this analysis or just homerism? It seems you and the Dude of WV are singing from the same songsheet. The only difference is which particular conferences you’re homering for—or against.
LikeLike
He just wants Kansas to suffer, logic be damned. Never underestimate the strength of one’s bitterness.
As for me, better the ACC sticks around as is until conditions are finally right.
LikeLike
I want KU to stop sulking and play us already. I don’t care what conference they’re in. If anything I hope they end up in the Pac 12 so I can boo them in person. Maybe UT/OU/KU plus one more to the Pac 12 eventually.
LikeLike
Transic,
I’m going to shamelessly us your phrase, “never underestimate the strength of one’s bitterness.”
You need to tweet that at least once a week…
LOL!!!!
LikeLike
I work for a Pac 12 school in California. Would like to see the Pac 12 get those schools and expand to 14. I’d like to see Texas and OU come play on campus where I work. I think the B1G (I went to grad school at Michigan) and SEC (I did my undergrad at Missouri) are big enough. I’m not overly eager to see them expand further. And if they do I’d like to see the neat 16×4 alignment if possible, and this current dynamic doesn’t lend to that, so I’d like to see them stop at 14.
LikeLike
Also, Marc, as far as comparing me to the Dude because I have some personal preferences of who I’d like to see where, that’s a little odd. I thought everyone on here had preferences. Including Frank the Tank, and including, I assume, you.
What makes the Dude such a douche is he makes up fake stories about which team is going where on which date. He’s a huge liar.
I’m just sharing an opinion.
LikeLike
I guess ideally what I’d like to see is:
Current SEC + UNC and Duke
Current B1G + UVA and one of GT/FSU/Pitt/whoever you want
Current Pac 12 + UT, OU, KU, and one more of wheover else they want
Fourth league of the other 16 most worthy schools.
I know it’ll probably never happen, but that’s what I’d like to see.
LikeLike
Exactly what Delaney told AD’s to say, seen similar quotes from other AD’s recently.
LikeLike
That “right now” falls in line with the previous comment about the Big Ten not being “aggressive” about expansion right now. It suggests that the roast has got to stay in the oven a good while longer before it is ready to take out.
The Maryland exit is going to be settled well before crunch time for the Big Ten to conclude expansion agreements in time for its contract negotiations, which gives everyone opposed to moving in the target schools an opportunity to line up behind “we need to know what exist is going to cost Maryland first”.
And “we will be focusing on integrating Maryland and Rutgers into the conference” can easily be read by the cynical as “the schools we want aren’t in such pressing financial straits that they will move on the basis of projections ~ they need to see what kind of cable contracts we are able to negotiate in Maryland and Rutger’s market area”.
And if the mid-period SEC contract renegotiation is yielding tier 1 and tier 2 increases roughly in proportion to the increase in membership numbers, then its quite plausible that barring an opportunity for a big windfall gain, the SEC waits until they get a conference network bedded down so they have a stronger idea what kind of financial impacts they are looking at.
Meanwhile the Big East / “Big American / Metro / Whatever” realignment is actually happening, the West Virginia conference has been dismantled, and the ongoing process of Mid-Major and below realignment that has been going on at faster and slower paces but fairly continuously over the past two or three decades continues on apace.
LikeLike
For discussion…. we are debating the merits of Navy to the ACC in the same role as Notre Dame.
Before dismissing, at least read my rationale for it. There is obviously room for healthy debate. I am not advocating for it, but I see a rationale for it.
What do you think?
http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2013/03/06/the-case-for-navy-to-the-acc/
LikeLike
Problems:
1) Notre Dame won’t commit to 7 league games (much less 8), with or without Navy.
2) Navy on its own merits isn’t worth an ACC invite. Navy has a national following for precisely ONE day a year (and everyone knows what day that is)… and I strongly suspect that even there the long-term trajectory is negative (since the people who remember when Army-Navy mattered are aging and dying off).
Of course, in the scenario where ACC powers start to abandon ship (some combination of FSU, UNC, UVA, VA Tech, Duke, GT, Clemson), then maybe things change, but I really don’t see the incentive to go this route before hand. The last thing the league should want to do is reinforce the perception that the stronger schools/AD’s are slumming it with a bunch of lesser programs, which the addition of Navy would only seem to reinforce.
That said, if somehow the ACC actually could convince Notre Dame to sign on as a full member, and that somehow the Navy addition was key to it, then sure, it’s worth it… but it’s REALLY hard to see that happening.
LikeLike
I agree with @cfn_ms that the premise fails: Notre Dame is not going to play 7 league games in the ACC. As it is, some ND fans consider it heresy that the Irish agreed to play 5. Once they play 7, then they’re practically full members. And if they’re going to be full members, they might as well join the Big Ten, where the TV payouts are a lot higher and the bowl tie-ins are better. Associate membership is the only thing the ACC can offer, that the Big Ten does not. Without that, Notre Dame has no reason to be in the ACC.
LikeLike
Irish take IMMENSE pride in independence despite in reality they are an associate member of the ACC. They’ll shoot themselves in the foot to save face (staying in the ACC) while leaving a ton of B10 money on the table in the name of pride. Big time donors/boosters threatened to drop like flies when the ND to B10 rumors were swirling a couple years ago.
Without the Irish’s pride in their independence, they have nothing left that makes them special. ND’s great fear is they being just a small, Midwestern, private school in the B10…
Only thing that will force ND to the B10 imo is both: 1. destruction of the ACC (as we currently know it) 2. a playoff scenario that heavily favors the conference champions of the 4 ‘major’ conferences (B10, Pac 12, Big XII and SEC).
LikeLike
I get it. But I also think that the move to 5 is a stepping stone. And right now, that is actually 6 if ND is one of the games. So we are talking 2 more games… 1 more game for ESPN. That much more cash. If it helps save the ACC, it helps KEEP Notre Dame independent. The destruction of the ACC could be the impetus that forces ND to have to join a conference.
LikeLike
But why would Notre Dame go out of their way to save the ACC? Going to 8 league games doesn’t keep Notre Dame independent, it makes them a full-fledged league member. Obviously ND going to 8 league games is a great deal for the ACC, but what do the Irish get out of it? Their objection to joining the B1G is primarily an objection about joining a league period, not about the specific league.
It’s certainly possible that the destruction of the ACC could lead to a series of events that forces ND into a league, but even that possibility (and each step along that way is far from inevitable) doesn’t seem like much of a reason for the Irish to take the proactive step of joining a league.
LikeLike
I am thinking 9 games is inevitable for the ACC too. So I was not really thinking of that as a full slate.
But I also said that it applies even in the current 5 game structure. The issue was adding Navy.
LikeLike
So entering today’s ACC for Olympic sports cost Notre Dame one more game than the ideal four that they need to guarantee their second half of the season scheduling. Why would an ACC that is so damaged that Navy is a good addition be in a position to squeeze two more games out of Notre Dame?
If the ACC is so damaged that Navy is a good addition, then 5 games in today’s ACC would be a stepping stone to 4 games + the Navy Game in that future Mid-Major ACC.
LikeLike
or more likely 1-2 games + Navy in a future mid-major ACC. If key players leave the league, it seems VERY likely the Irish would reduce their game allotment to the group that’s left (or perhaps bail altogether). I somewhat suspect there’s some language to that effect in the joining agreement, though I’m just guessing on that one.
LikeLike
The Big 10 just took Rutgers. I’d stack Navy’s on-field performance against Rutgers historically. Although the battle to see who next makes a Big Dance between Northwestern and Rutgers will be fun to watch.
LikeLike
The scheduling agreement is a two way street ~ Notre Dame WANTS four games late in the season when it is otherwise hard for an independent to get home games. And as far as Eastern Exposure, Notre Dame would surely not mind playing in any of BC, Syracuse, Pitt, or the state of Florida, so there’s likely to be plenty of incentive to keep playing Navy + four ACC teams. OTOH, the stronger their bargaining position, the more control they are likely to want over who they play.
LikeLike
Right. ND wants four games a year, but they want them to be against prestige or peer institutions. Assuming that the current deal largely splits those games more or less equally between current ACC programs (this MAY not be true but I’m guessing it is), then a shift in the makeup of the ACC would lead to a shift in the deal. I suppose an alternative to just cutting the number would be to explicitly exclude potential newcomers like UConn etc., or to simply say that it’s going to be Syracuse, Pitt, BC, (a remaining team ND actually wants to play), and one more that rotates somehow.
LikeLike
Under the scenario of the ACC dropping down to Best of the Rest status, I could easily see Notre Dame having it recast as Navy every year, two games from a rotation of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Cincinnati and Louisville, and two games from a rotation of the rest.
LikeLike
The current ACC has six teams that ND has scheduled with some frequency: BC, Pitt, GT, FSU, Miami, UNC. The Irish have not played Syracuse or Clemson very much, and they’ve never played Virginia Tech, but I’d guess those are teams they don’t mind playing. They just finished a two-year home & home with Wake Forest, scheduled long before they ever expected to be in the ACC.
So overall, these are teams the Irish are reasonably happy to be in bed with. If FSU, Miami, UNC, and GT are no longer in the league, I think they’d have a very different view. I assume their commitment to play five league games has an out if the composition of the conference changes.
LikeLike
Yes, therefore why they might want to step down to four … but if Navy joined the ACC and ND was allowed to count the Navy game as one of the five, that IS already stepping down to four.
Though on second thought, under some form of an ACC dismantled and rebuilt from the American 12 scenarios, ND could well have enough leverage to make it 1 against Navy, 3 from their preferred team list, 1 from the balance of the conference.
LikeLike
Here’s the first problem from the ND perspective, the Irish schedule in perpetuity will practically be:
Purdue
Michigan State/ Texas
Stanford
Miami (FL)
VT
Wake Forrest
U of L
Syracuse
Pitt
BC
Navy
southern cal
Would *anyone* want to play that *every* year?
The first problem from the ACC would be that each school was promised the opportunity to play ND at “home”. I’m sure FSU, Clemson, and GaTech would be quite upset they will NEVER play ND.
Thus the whole plan fails right there, it’s not helping either side.
LikeLike
I like Hollis’ statements as well. Unfortunately, pro BIG expansionists will remain in their imperial star destroyers thinking Darth Delany is at the helm assuaging their economically driven desires, & they will somehow obfuscate the statements of Hollis and the OSU AD as cover and concealment for a Va-UNC membership, much in the same way Rutgers and Md were added. Not true, both Rutgers and Md were openly discussed during the public expansion period that led to Nebraska. Discussion of Rutgers, from what I remember, even pre-dated this expansion period. But, nothing will shock me. The BIG (10) has 14 teams, ND and Lville are not on the Atlantic, aTm is certainly in the Southwest, not Southeast, and the Pac12 has 4 schools in states that do not border Pacific. Yes, I get the branding angle.
As I’ve posted before, I’ve certainly pushed my “Risk Expansion Fantasies”, (<– itself a lighthearted way of putting it, as well as a sign not to be taken too seriously). But there are some really delusional posters on here who are driven to see the BIG expand, esp along money lines: money trumps culture. My fantasy, on the other hand, is in the name of trimming the bloated FBS pool, pushing for an 8 team playoff with rotating venues, regardless of region, and adding schools, if such is necessary, who want to be in the BIG for more reasons than not. Call it the Maryland lesson. But, I certainly accept that Md is no longer southern, minus Mason Dixon line pockets, and they haven't been for years. They will also be blocked with PSU and Rutgers, as well as OSU, a mere 6 hours drive away. Neither Md nor Rutgers are outlying in the WVa sense.
Va-GT-UNC & even FSU just seem so far fetched to me. The ACC's history is not equivalent to the Big12-SWC dysfunctional marriage. I've also learned that many of the Big East schools who left for the ACC wanted to make such moves, esp Va Tech, Miami and BC. Syracuse and Pitt ultimately caved, and both also expressed BIG aspirations as well, though Syracuse seemed more ACC, Pitt more BIG. Regardless, these schools dramatically differ than any present BIG expansion wish list for certain ACC schools – none who want to leave, esp if democracy was a factor in expansion. 7 charter members still remain in the ACC, & GT has longer ACC ties than PSU in the BIG – by at least 12 years. FSU has even been in the ACC longer than PSU in the BIG.
As for long-term stability, I believe the Big 12 is ultimately at risk, mainly from the cultural end (which can't be overstated). The residue of the SWC-Big 8 merger still looms. Tx still has an inflated ego, OU still knows it can't remain a football power without Tx, and WVa is a true outlier – these are just some of the many issues steaming at the Big12's somewhat tenuous surface. But hey now, the Big12 somehwat changes this course if they pull the trigger on Cincy. They sadly blew it overlooking Lville.
LikeLike
A lot of the hypotheticals we play around with here are just that, hypotheticals. Whether they are educated guesses by outsiders trying to shape the B10 as we feel is best for the B10. Or what us outsiders think is likely to happen or they just want to have fun slicing up the ACC (and/or Big XII) among the B10, Pac 12, SEC & Big XII while playing Realignment Fantasy games. It’s a very open discussion with a lot of varying interests (pro B10, pro ACC, pro SEC, pro ND, etc.) with people debating from very different point of views.
LikeLike
Thank you. I do the same & really hope all, not just some, realize my semi-delusion on here. But some take me too seriously. Thus here’s a test to see if some of these types come after me : ). Would still prefer a BIG @ 18 with UConn, Kansas, OU and Tx. I like basketball more than football, this makes the BIG the best basketball – sorry ACC fans, not even Lville, ND and Pitt trump Kansas and UConn alone – throw in Tx and OU with their 7 Final Fours – game over! And one helluva a football conference that not only gives us “the Game” but the “Red River Shootout” or whatever they call it down there. Sure UConn and OU aren’t AAU, but they are still flagships that bring great resources to the lobbying power of the CIC, which I think is more about higher ed lobbying than pooled research anyways. Lastly, I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.
LikeLike
I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, B1G membership.
But it works both ways as well. The Big Ten rightly considers itself an “old money” conference, with a heritage dating back to the 1890s. Maryland didn’t reach big-time status until after World War II (the Jim Tatum era in College Park); Rutgers not until the 1970s (the ’76 Final Four team, the gradual abandonment of ersatz Ivy football schedules). The Big Ten’s powers that be don’t view Connecticut in that light, even if it may be able to buy a home football game vs. Michigan. And the Big Ten presidents’ primary goal is building a conference comprised of the top academic/athletic institutions (and note which word comes first) in the two easternmost time zones. For all their combined titles, Connecticut, Oklahoma and perhaps even Florida State don’t cut it.
If you want an 18-member Big Ten basketball powerhouse, I don’t see what would be so bad about adding UVa, UNC, Georgia Tech and Duke to the conference. You certainly wouldn’t be compromising yourself academically.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Would still prefer a BIG @ 18 with UConn, Kansas, OU and Tx.”
You’re welcome to prefer it. Just admit it’s unlikely when you say it. Even plausible is a stretch for that group. That’s why people critiqued you. Even in their “fantasy” picks most people stay grounded in reality.
“Lastly, I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.”
Sure, but who gets to decide which schools want to join the B10? You? Message board fans? Nobody is forcing ACC schools to join the B10. Maybe they’d accept an offer, maybe they wouldn’t. You talk like it’s carved in stone that all the ACC schools are off limits and I don’t think you have solid basis for that strong of an opinion. You would have said the same thing about UMD and they did join.
LikeLike
“Lastly, I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.”
How do you know what those schools want? What are you basing this on? Whose to say many constituencies within the University don’t want to make a move to the Big 10? None of us know. But one thing is certain, they won’t base any decision to change conferences off message board comments from Walmart fans.
Also NC and Duke would be just as good if not better basketball adds than UCONN and Kansas without a worry regarding AAU status or academic prestige.
LikeLike
vp19,
I wouldn’t be discontent, likely intrigued and receptive to UVa, GT, Duke, UNC – my cultural curiosity would be genuinely open to such an expansion. I did some time and service in NC for 2.5 years via Marine Corps service at Lejeune. Tobacco Road is amazing, though saw more hs hoops than ACC games (just a few, and most Wake Forest games). I was in Chapel Hill bars for both flops by the Fab Five – damn that was long time ago. Getting old I am. Furthermore, I’ve road tripped much of ACC land in part because I played on the base soccer team, as well as the All Marine Team – we played many ACC teams, often their second string in exhibition games. I was fortunate enough to face Bruce Arena’s Va teams when they were winning all those NC’s in the 90s. We often lost, but we were respectable & the college kids loved the idea of playing against the military.
The ACC is pretty tight knit, esp the charter members & the conference loves their hoops. They are certainly a blend of cultures, but those charter members are shall I say, semi-elitist southerners, quite proud. It will be interesting to see Pitt and the Cuse integrated. Lville will be an easy fit. But I think Cuse and Pitt have enough cultural compatibility, esp Cuse because of hoops and lacrosse.
Sure Duke-UNC bring you mighty basketball power, no argument here. But Kansas and UConn aren’t to be overlooked: 6 NC’s, 18 FF’s, 3 less NC’s than UNC-Duke combined. UConn’s success has come at Duke’s expense, 2 of 3 NC’s (once in the semi-finals). Allen Fieldhouse, strictly my opinion, is a better venue than the Dean Dome and Cameron, though the Dome was wonderful for a Dead show, RIP Jerry. Allen is quite frankly the best college basketball experience I’ve ever had: Kansas – Mizzo 98 or 99, can’t remember now, but Missouri actually won – the place was in tears. Kansas and UConn may not match a Duke – UNC combo, but it’s as close as you can get. I think OU and Tx have as much basketball prestige as GT and UVa, in fact they have more FF appearances when compared as pairs.
Your combo is perfectly fine & equally as ridiculous as mine : ). Your combo certainly exceeds mine in the academic sense & by a decent margin. OU and Kansas have ridiculously high admission rates. But as I said, you do get 4 flagship schools in my scenario, 2 AAU schools as well (KU n UT). UConn and Tx are also top 60 national universities, undergrad level, so says good ole US News.
From the gridiron perspective, an unlikely Tx-OU to the BIG scenario brings sweeping football prestige. The ACC combination @ 4 doesn’t match Tx-OU, perhaps not even Tx or OU alone. Each school houses 80 plus thousand fans. That’s rather similar to Neb, PSU, OSU, Wisky, and slightly above MSU & Iowa. Pre Dodds era, Tx certainly flirted with BIG around the same time as PSU and the SWC-Big8 merger. But Dodds seems opposed to the BIG. OU, I think, would jump at the BIG, esp if Tx was aboard. Having Stoops there helps, and OU faithful value their Nebraska rivalry, and they haven’t forgotten Wilkinson’s legacy, a man with strong Minnesota ties. He laid the foundation for OU’s success.
Lastly, I have some hope that BIG Hockey could turn into something special and maybe even turn a profit. There will certainly be more games on BTN next year. Minnesota certainly yields a profit on an annual basis. A UConn addition brings another team, though they’re a young brand. But things seem on the upswing for them as they are headed to Hockey East for 2013-2014.
Brian,
All is perfectly good here. I just needed folks to know I’m quite realistic and aware that my thoughts are strictly my own, they are fantasy driven & I welcome sarcasm-wit. But when I see financial figures and legal jargon linked to these posts, then some of this suggests some are being a bit too serious here – it’s sports, college sports. I had to stir the pot on my terms, bull sh&t or not : ).
LikeLike
gfunk,
“The ACC is pretty tight knit, esp the charter members”
Two of the 7 charter members have left or have agreed to leave.
“the conference loves their hoops.”
Well, they’d certainly be a terrible fit with OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PU, IL, MN and WI then.
“They are certainly a blend of cultures, but those charter members are shall I say, semi-elitist southerners, quite proud.”
The B10 would know nothing about academic elitists (NW, MI, WI, etc).
“Lville will be an easy fit.”
Yeah, those elitists won’t have an issue with their academics and mock them for it.
“Your combo is perfectly fine & equally as ridiculous as mine : ).”
No, his is much more realistic. Your combo is the ridiculous one. UNC is too culturally different but UT fits in well? OU does?
“UConn and Tx are also top 60 national universities, undergrad level, so says good ole US News.”
UT is a very good school. UConn is not nearly as good. USNWR puts them at 63, but the AAU says 81.
“OU, I think, would jump at the BIG, esp if Tx was aboard.”
Doesn’t matter since their academics stink. The B10 wouldn’t even give them a look.
“Having Stoops there helps, and OU faithful value their Nebraska rivalry,”
As their #3 rivalry, maybe. UT is clearly tops to them and Bedlam has moved up to #2. At least that was important enough to keep annual. NE would be a close third now and could retake second if it was played regularly.
“Lastly, I have some hope that BIG Hockey could turn into something special and maybe even turn a profit. There will certainly be more games on BTN next year. Minnesota certainly yields a profit on an annual basis.”
B10 schools reported a net profit from men’s hockey in 2011 ($19.8M in revenue, $16.5M in expenses). Unfortunately, they lost it all on women’s hockey.
“I just needed folks to know I’m quite realistic and aware that my thoughts are strictly my own, they are fantasy driven & I welcome sarcasm-wit.”
Fantasy is one thing. Saying OU and UT are cultural fits while UNC isn’t is something else.
“But when I see financial figures and legal jargon linked to these posts, then some of this suggests some are being a bit too serious here – it’s sports, college sports.”
Fans over-analyze. That’s what we do. We were just as over the top in discussing the divisions when NE was added. If you want a less analytical approach, this is the wrong blog for you.
LikeLike
@gfunk:
1) I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership
2) Would still prefer a BIG @ 18 with UConn, Kansas, OU and Tx
Not sure how these two statements jive. Obviously UConn and Kansas would be interested, but I don’t really see why OU/TX would be. It’s fairly obvious at this stage that neither of them want/are able to leave behind ALL of Texas Tech, OK St, TCU and Baylor (though I think it’s much more the first two than the latter two), and that the logistical issues inherent in inviting either or both are substantial.
West Virginia is a substantial geographical outlier in the Big 12 and doesn’t seem to be enjoying that status at all, which has to be a consideration for any program who’s even thinking about doing the same, much less a pair of football kings who REALLY don’t have to take gambles on a questionable fit.
Also worth noting that in terms of cultural fit the Big Ten and Texas/Oklahoma are quite a bit different. Those differences COULD be overcome, but the difficulties inherent make it difficult/unlikely, which is presumably why the Big Ten shifted gears and went East rather than West. If they wanted Texas, then getting a group like Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and 1-2 more in the region make sense, but instead they’ve clearly gone for an East strategy. I’m sure the doors will always be open for Texas, but there just isn’t much reason to think there’s mutual interest, either now or in the forseeable future.
LikeLike
I think expansion should be about adding schools who would want, not oppose, BIG membership.
Isn’t this kind of an empty statement? No one yet has joined the B1G without wanting to.
LikeLike
Marc,
Disagree. Md brass wanted to join the BIG, & they succeeded, but the vast majority of MD fans: no way, to think otherwise is armchair reality! Md is the opposite of Rutgers, Neb, and PSU. In those 3 cases, the brass and most fans wanted it, though a loud group of PSU fans have become discontent with the BIG over the years- delusional reasons, no doubt, always an OSU-Mi fix in their minds. Alvarez, not saying he’s an expert, was pretty public about Rutgers and Md partly added to calm certain PSU fans & pro-ACC types.
I want to respond to others on here, but I’m not as passionate as some of you & these damn things get longer and longer. No need for email notifications either, get enough crap coming in there.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Disagree. Md brass wanted to join the BIG, & they succeeded, but the vast majority of MD fans: no way, to think otherwise is armchair reality!”
1. Where’s your evidence? Message boards are not representative of the entire fan base.
2. Many of the fans also opposed cutting sports and other issues due to their financial problems. They can’t have it both ways.
3. Many of the fans opposed how the change happened more than the change itself. They wanted a voice and were ticked.
4. Many have changed their tune as the benefits of the move have been explained since the announcement.
5. Their complaints were relative to the old ACC, but it doesn’t exist anymore. They also complained about the ACC taking away their home and homes against teams like Duke and UNC and making them play Pitt. Again, they can’t have it both ways.
“Md is the opposite of Rutgers, Neb, and PSU. In those 3 cases, the brass and most fans wanted it, though a loud group of PSU fans have become discontent with the BIG over the years- delusional reasons, no doubt, always an OSU-Mi fix in their minds.”
Actually, many PSU fans were complaining from day 1. They missed the olden days of playing eastern teams and/or Pitt and nothing would satisfy them. That plus not getting their own way with everything since they were now in a conference and not independent never sat well with them. The B10 also did a bad job of integrating them in some ways. The ADs and coaches were mad they weren’t consulted and said some things they shouldn’t have.
LikeLike
Why unfortunately? What difference does it make to you if there are some “pro BIG expansionists” who “will remain in their imperial star destroyers”?
Indeed, if that is a concern to you, why don’t you go to a blog that they inhabit and argue against them there, rather than coming here and talking behind their backs?
LikeLike
Bruce,
Too serious you’re being. Also, my point is to slow down expansion in the name of mutual interests, not just financial euphoria. I would really like to see Rutgers and Md get through a BIG season. I’m also curious to see PSU, Neb, Mi and OSU finally have simultaneous blue blood seasons, sanction free.
Many SEC fans have complained about the 14 team format, esp my cousins in Fla. They would prefer to go back to 12. And please don’t act like some of the storm troopers haven’t come on here, not just other blogs. Btw, it’s very hard to talk about people behind their backs on the Internet. You dig?
LikeLike
As far as, “Also, my point is to slow down expansion in the name of mutual interests, not just financial euphoria,” that is a position that a number on this board have made in a more serious way, without displaying any urgent need to troll your sketched stereotype of sophomoric pro-Big Ten Expansion fans.
As far as being too serious, its the serious discussion of the issue that I find interesting. If you don’t want to get serious responses to arguments that you just slap down without giving them any thought, you could cut your posts here down to just the things you actually mean to say, and save the nonsense just thrown out there to provoke controversy for some other discussion forum.
LikeLike
@gfunk
“Lastly, I have some hope that BIG Hockey could turn into something special and maybe even turn a profit.”
Not sure why Big 10 Hockey wouldn’t still be something special as well as turn a profit without UCONN Hockey when four of the six members have been to 10 or more Frozen Fours. UCONN has never been to a frozen four. Also, 3 of the 6 teams are in the top 10 in attendance while UCONN is 54th. I still don’t see your case for UCONN to the Big 10. What do they bring to the table other than their basketball?
I also don’t understand your concept of “Risk Expansion Fantasies”. It’s been stated ad nauseam in various media circles that it’s a matter of when, not if, the Big 10 expands. The fantasy discussion on here seems to be centered on the number of teams and which ones backed by media reports as well as factual data. Not sure what you are expecting the discussion to center around on an expansion centered fan blog with a high percentage of educated professionals. Do you not believe the Big 10 is going to expand or or is it you do not want them to expand with ACC schools?
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Also, my point is to slow down expansion in the name of mutual interests, not just financial euphoria.”
I’d rather reverse it, but slowing it down is better than nothing.
“I would really like to see Rutgers and Md get through a BIG season.”
That’s always been the B10’s plan. I doubt they ever wanted to expand again before the new TV deal is around the corner.
“I’m also curious to see PSU, Neb, Mi and OSU finally have simultaneous blue blood seasons, sanction free.”
I fail to see how that is tied to expansion.
The last time all 4 finished in the final AP poll was 1998. It’s only happened 19 times in 77 years, or 25% of the time (1969-1970, 1972-5, 1977, 1979-1981, 1985-6, 1989, 1993-8). 1973 was the golden year (2, 5, 6, 7) with 1986 just behind (1, 5, 7, 8). It can’t always be the 70s and 90s, though. If a blue blood year is top 10, it’s only happened 5 times (1972-5, 1986). Thanks to PSU’s sanctions, you’ll have to wait until at least 2018 to see all 4 ranked I think and that’s only if the other 3 stay good.
“Many SEC fans have complained about the 14 team format, esp my cousins in Fla. They would prefer to go back to 12.”
That’s at least in part due to their refusal to go to 9 games, though. The east having to play MO doesn’t help, but the SEC didn’t really have a lot of great choices.
“Btw, it’s very hard to talk about people behind their backs on the Internet.”
No it’s not. It’s incredibly easy.
LikeLike
Brian,
Yes it’s very easy to talk about people people behind their backs, you’re an alias, cyber-dust. Literally speaking, I get your point, no kidding. But in terms of the real world, the origins of the actual idiom we’re at this point overanalyzing – talking behind someone’s back – would suggest that we actually know each other. Maybe some of you know each other, I don’t. Furthermore, I’ve got nothing to hide here.
You raise some interesting points, you’re deconstruction is worthy, but strong opinion at times. Live and let live. I accept your passionate counterarguments.
Minnesota men’s hockey is doing fine, which is all I said in my original post. The WCHA has been our home for many decades & we have a lot of opponents nearby. I see the “potential of BIG hockey becoming profitable” nothing else. But much depends on the evolution of the BIG conference, which has yet to begin. On the other hand, I go back with Minnesota hockey, the Herb Brooks years. The vast majority of Minnesota fans were pissed about the move to the BIG. Our biggest rival is not Wisconsin – it’s UND. And Wisky fans aren’t exactly happy to give up series with Denver, Colorado College, Minn Duluth & of couse UND. Those are fantastic hockey programs & the WCHA ultimately holds the most impressive hockey history, not Hockey East or the CCHA. In fact the WCHA is one of the most decorated conferences in all of NCAA D1 sports – 37 NC’s, at least one team in the Frozen Four 55 of 59 seasons.
I did forget that South Carolina left the ACC long ago. But that’s kind of like Chicago leaving the BIG – the ACC is younger compared to the BIG and Pac12 – but it’s still nearly 60 years old. That’s a respectable chunk of history. Regardless, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSt, WF & Clemson are pretty close. I’m not buying the Big 12 for Clemson. And frankly, I don’t like the idea of the BIG breaking up that tradition, we have enough of our own, actually far more than the ACC. So why not just leave them alone.
As I said in my previous post, I lived in NC for nearly 3 years. The Triangle does have characteristics similar to some BIG cities, but so does Austin, TX. Either school, regardless, is quite proud & will certainly remain that way in the BIG. Of the four I mentioned, plus your scenario, they’d certainly bring the biggest egos.
As for the current BIG bluebloods being great at the same time, I tie it to expansion because I’m concerned about the “dilution” arguments – quality versus quantity comes to mind. I see Nebraska getting stronger again, as they were towards the end of their Big12 tenure. But boom, they switched conferences & clearly had to adjust – don’t think they’re even done yet. That’s got to be tough for a program to do. I vividly remember PSU’s integration into the BIG and I strongly believe they helped improve the BIG, as well as Wisky’s rise under Alvarez, but it took some years.
Mr. Big,
You’re going on about UConn’s lackluster tradition when I already said as much in my op. The point about UConn hockey is that it brings another market into the equation and an Atlantic rival for PSU. I’m lingering on “potential” arguments here, no more, no less. There are plenty of young D1 young hockey schools in Minnesota that are now often ranked and tourney participants: St. Cloud State & Minnesota Mankato come to mind. A program’s rise does depend on conference affiliation and stability. Conn, the state, is also steadily improving their youth hockey.
Bruce,
I think some of the so-called nonsense you claim on my end is actually more serious on my end, just different than what you desire-discern in terms of economic value – I have a tendency to put hope into potential, which is a big reason why I like Rutgers and Md – these are states with pretty solid hs athletics & they are fine state schools, all levels. But I was frankly shocked by the disappointment many Md fans felt about the the BIG move. Sure these sentiments can change, but there is no denying that many Md fans disliked the the move to the BIG. I can’t blame them. I could never imagine a current BIG team leaving, not even newer members. I’ve had surprisingly heated discussions, not on the Internet, but with actual friends in Pa who prefer the ACC. Sure I remember the BIG before PSU, but for well over 20 years PSU’s athletic accomplishments have resonated & many are great memories, pre-scandal. Minnesota had an intense rivalry with PSU under Mason – we beat them 4 of 5 years. I attend wrestling & women’s volleyball matches regularly & beating PSU means Minny must be at their absolute best when they come to town.
I’m actually quite serious when I seek to safeguard ACC charter members. I may be a BIG fan and Minnesota alum, but I lived in NC long enough to know that people love the ACC there, as well as Va and SC. I could never tell in Atlanta, UGA is king in Ga. I just don’t see the point of pushing a pretty solid conference into mere extinction, not in terms of money being priority number one. Perhaps some people on here could package their arguments better, to always include the, positively speaking, academic and cultural possibilities as well.
Ultimately, I’m excited about the BIG @14 and would be very content if FBS could somehow create an 8 team playoff that generally ensures 1-2 BIG teams get a shot. Not worried about the other BIG sports. I gave up on baseball and track n field long ago.
LikeLike
gfunk,
If I may be allowed to pick your brain for a sec.
Like you, I’m OK with an ACC that has most of its founding members (assuming the B1G can’t expand beyond 14) still in. However, let me present a scenario in which the schools you mentioned are still there but the two most coveted schools (FSU, Miami) by the B12 pack up and leave for that conference. Do you think the ACC would still need to get back into the Florida market? The day before, there was a wild, crazy rumor about USF and UCF to the Big XII. However, I think both schools would be better candidates for the ACC, should FSU and Miami leave. Both UCF and USF are located in the growing markets of the I-4 corridor. It’s also an area with a younger population than the rest of the country. A lot of Big Twelvers turn up their noses at them because of their lack of brand value, citing the current TV deal that requires marquee match-ups. It’s a lot of arrogance on their part. However, their perceived lack of football value may not be that problematic for the ACC, as long as they can continue growing their sports.
I think that the ACC (which really means UNC) would not mind UCF and USF. Actually, I think they’re a better fit for the ACC than FSU or Miami, who are both former independents and football-firsters who need tons of money to compete for recruits. UCF/USF are also close to major airport hubs which would make it easier for travel than Tallahassee. Given the available talent, USF/UCF could become basketball powers provided that the resources be used properly. As part of my idea, UConn and Cincinnati are #15 and #16 as full-time members. Getting into the Hartford and Cincinnati markets, along with Tampa and Orlando, would help mitigate any potential loss of FSU/Miami. ND goes in for Olympic Sports as part of their agreement. I think that collection of programs, plus the core members of the ACC, may persuade ESPN to help patch it back together. Football would be okay, with VT, Clemson, NCSU, Louisville, USF, Cincy and maybe more picking up the slack. Clemson could go in a division with VT, UL, USF, NCSU and Syracuse. GT, Duke, UNC, and UVa would be in the same division, the so-called bluebloods of the conference.
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Division B: Clemson, USF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Cross division games: GT/Clemson; UNC/NCState; UVA/VT; USF/UCF; Louisville/Cincy; WF/Duke; Pitt/UConn; Syracuse/BC
I would appreciate any input you may have about my idea. 🙂
LikeLike
@gfunk: “I think some of the so-called nonsense you claim on my end is actually more serious on my end, just different than what you desire-discern in terms of economic value”
Which? Desire or discern?
If you are presuming to address what I desire in terms of economic value and what I discern in terms of economic value, would you sort out whether you are talking about what economic value I desire and what economic value I discern in any specific proposed expansion, since the two very rarely agree.
Except for Notre Dame, and they don’t want to join a conference. If the Big Ten could have got Notre Dame and Rutgers, rather than Maryland and Rutgers, as far as desired economic value, I would have been stick a fork in conference expansion, we’re done.
LikeLike
Transic,
The current ACC has plenty of potential. Despite my strong BIG leanings, and desire to see expansion for the sake of a college playoff – I hope the ACC remains as is. My wish list, is my wish list, while others on here certainly seem more confident than I ever will about ACC fragmentation. Hell, throw in ND FT to the ACC, they don’t impress me anymore. Watching them lose to Bama was easier to predict than tomorrows traffic jam. Regardless, I’ll root for the BIG.
As I’ve said on here before, I like putting hope into potential & think the future BIG @ 14 has plenty. The ACC has the ingredients in football (fine institutions, recruits), but the Swofford fella doesn’t seem to get media deals, nor how to activate football culture throughout the conference. Inevitably, FSU can’t hover too much longer in the 10-15 range, they’ll break through. GT needs to hire a Harbaugh type, though someone who will stick around for a while, and make that school into the Stanford of the South – no reason it can’t be done, esp since similar excellence was done via the Dodd era & Ross to some degree. But Miami and UNC seem to be sitting on a hornet’s nest of NCAA issues, & that’s gotta be a concern.
Thus I don’t think the ACC will ever be forced to add some of the schools you cite, except maybe USF.
LikeLike
gfunk,
So in the scenario where FSU and Miami leave you don’t think they’d try to keep a presence in the state of Florida?
Yeah, I’ve always thought the ACC had a lot of potential to be a sports powerhouse. Heck, the Big XII manages to be competitive in football with just ten members. I think one problem with the ACC is that it has members like Wake Forest and Boston College. At least Duke has their basketball brand. Even then, that shouldn’t be a major cause of their competitive struggles. Perhaps they were expecting FSU and Miami to carry most of the load and slacked off on the other football programs? I don’t know.
You say only USF would be a candidate. Who would you pair it off with to replace two departing schools?
LikeLike
So in the scenario where FSU and Miami leave you don’t think they’d try to keep a presence in the state of Florida?
They’d have to look at it. The thing is, USF and UCF are way, way down the state pecking order after UF, FSU, and Miami. Sure, the ACC wouldn’t be happy about losing Florida; but it’s a fantasy to think that those two schools are adequate substitutes. Who in the state cares about a UCF vs. Syracuse football game?
I’ve always thought the ACC had a lot of potential to be a sports powerhouse. Heck, the Big XII manages to be competitive in football with just ten members.
You can be competitive with just two members, if they happen to be Oklahoma and Texas.
I think one problem with the ACC is that it has members like Wake Forest and Boston College. At least Duke has their basketball brand. Even then, that shouldn’t be a major cause of their competitive struggles. Perhaps they were expecting FSU and Miami to carry most of the load and slacked off on the other football programs?
The problem is not the bottom of the ACC, but the top of it. They expected FSU and Miami to be the league’s showcase teams. Miami has been in a funk since they joined, and has never yet played in the championship game. FSU went into a slide in the late Bowden years, which it seems they’re only just now snapping out of.
That left them with Virginia Tech as their only year in, year out football power. The Hokies have reached BCS bowl games with some regularity, but they’ve usually lost, reinforcing the perception of the ACC as a weak league.
You say only USF would be a candidate. Who would you pair it off with to replace two departing schools?
UConn or Cincinnati. I can’t see them adding two weak Florida schools.
LikeLike
If they listen to BC, it’d be USF and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
@ gfunk:
If I read you correctly, it boils down to this: we are all taking this too seriously and that culture/history matters a lot more than “we” are crediting.
I disagree with both.
As BruceMcF said above, conference realignment is a serious subject that we ~~ including you ~~ are interested in. From what I can tell, this Board is full of relatively serious non-frivolous people. The posts tend to be long, thought-out and coherent. Despite the lack of an “edit” feature, the posts tend to be pretty error-free which suggests that people are taking their time to compose their thoughts and check for typos and mistakes.
So we are mostly serious people.
And conference realignment is a serious business and a serious subject. There are thousands of people being paid, as part of their work, at various Conference HQs, athletic departments and Universities, to consider the various aspects and implications of realignment. TV networks take all of this very seriously too.
And all of the subjects surrounding conference realignment are serious and interesting. Prior to reading this blog, I knew nothing of the business ~~ the money making part ~~ of CFB and of tv networks. A long time ago, someone linked to an on-line PDF version of a home-and-home contract between Iowa and Iowa State. I personally was fascinated to read it; was shocked it was only two page long; etc. etc. At that time, I did not know the home team kept the gate receipts.
Same for tv networks. In the last three years, I have learned so much about how tv and cable networks make money and operate their businesses. It has been enjoyable and interesting to learn new things. And, for me, since the B1G decided to create the BTN, I am interesting in and pleased to follow the progress of our B1G Project. Personally, I was hoping for more student-produced content. But maybe that will come in the future.
In summary, conference realignment is serious and I appreciate people taking it seriously. (That being said, some levity and wit are always welcome in my view. I like the combination of a long memory plus and Yoda locution. More ~ you must write.)
On your second point, I appreciate the strong argument you have staked out concerning the value cultural fit and history/tradition.
At the risk of being too serious about it, here is FtT’s original formula (posted above a couple of times):
Academics – 25
TV value – 25
Football brand value – 30
Basketball brand value – 10
Historic rivalries/Cultural fit – 5
Mutual interest – 5
You are basically arguing that a “5” vastly undervalues that factor.
I do not agree.
First, I am not entirely certain if your argument is “should” or “is.” That is, are you arguing that history/tradition SHOULD be valued more or that it IS ACTUALLY valued more than Frank proposed in his formula. If you want to say SHOULD, then I will agree with you 100% but then remind you that that world is gone. For a long long time now, “tradition” has been slaved to the grubbing after money.
But, for this discussion, I will assume you mean the latter: culture/tradition IS highly valued with respect to conference realignment.
As noted, I disagree.
There is quite a bit of actual evidence that the University Presidents do not put a high value on “culture/tradition.” Nebraska, A&M, Missouri and Colorado all left behind long traditions and rivalries. As Brian reminded us, two founding members of the ACC have left that conference (S. Carolina and now Maryland). Minnesota and Wisconsin are leaving the WCHA.
One of FtT’s first lessons was to teach that we needed to stop thinking like fans and start thinking like University Presidents. Maryland is the best example since we have so much information. Clearly, the fans would never have moved to the B1G. But the fans did not get to vote. The President and the Board of Trustees saw an institutional need/advantage to moving; thus, Maryland changed conferences.
Let’s discuss Minnesota and the WCHA. You and the other fans have no vote and got no vote. Beyond extreme circumstances, fan desires are nearly irrelevant.
So, why did Minnesota agree to take its hockey program out of the WCHA and put it in the B1G Hockey Conference? Because the President of the University of Minnesota had no choice. The B1G wants to turn hockey into a revenue sport by placing hockey on the BTN. The B1G needed six teams; with Penn State going up to Div. 1a, the B1G had six teams; thus, the BTHC was formed and Minnesota joined. As an institution, Minnesota was not in a position to say “no” and probably did not WANT to say “no.” “Fans” matter only in the same way that “customers” matter.
It was a long way around, but that brings us back to UNC and Duke. You have argued strongly that culture, history and tradition matter.
What I heard/read was: “fans would be upset.”
I respond with: “so what?”
I was upset when they put Michigan and tOSU in separate divisions; Wiscy fans were upset when they were sent out east; you are upset that Minnesota is leaving the WCHA. I have no doubt that UNC and Duke fans would be upset at joining the B1G. Tradition, history and cultural fit matter to fans.
But to University Presidents? What evidence is there that tradition, history and cultural fit matter to University Presidents? or to University Board of Regents/Trustees? I see no evidence.
So, continuing the long way around, that brings us back again to whether we are all taking this too seriously and back to this Fantasy Game of Risk we are all allegedly playing. The people actually making the decisions concerning conference realignment are making BUSINESS decisions. They are not glassy-eyed sentimentalists. They are using cold, hard data about consumer demand for various sports products and inventory. They are using cold hard data about how profits can be maximized from such products and inventory.
Most on this Board are trying to “think like a University President.” We also have some access to some of that “cold hard data” through internet research and media reports. Based on that, we can have serious discussions about various schools. Is there enough “upside” for the President and Board of Trustee for the University of North Carolina @ Chapel Hill to consider joining the B1G? From what I have seen, yes. Does UNC bring enough value for the B1G to invite UNC? From what I have seen, yes. This means that UNC will at least think about it. It is NOT an automatic “no.” Conference realignment can be cold-blooded and ruthless.
Personally, this angers and saddens me. I am really glad that my school sits in a position of strength and that Gordon Gee does not have to consider selling my school’s traditions to the highest bidder. But … eat or be eaten. I am glad the B1G is eating.
Back to the Board: there is quite a divergence of opinion concerning whether the B1G SHOULD go beyond 14. Many think B1G expansion has gone far enough; many want a rollback; many favor 16, 18 or 20. Many have focused on structural factors suggesting there is too much $$$ to be made for the B1G to stand pat. Many have pointed to other actors such as the TV networks pushing for further expansion.
In short, I don’t think anyone is really playing a Fantasy Game of Risk.
But as said, while I disagree with your arguments, I appreciate your style, gfunk. Write more ~~ you should.
LikeLike
Thanks BuckeyeBreau,
Worthy responses. We of course differ on some of these issues, but to each his-her sacred own.
I do apologize to anyone on here if you think I’m being a lunatic – I blame the upheavals of conference expansion the past 5 years – so many changes : ).
Ultimately, the BIG needs to add some hardware via football and basketball to the trophy case. Too many second places the past 25 years. Something tells me if we win more in these sports, then some of this conference expansion talk dies down. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think such signature wins-NC’s can happen with current membership, and the 2014 beyond conference.
It would be nice if all states in the BIG footprint approached hs football like Ohio, the way youth hockey is inculcated in Minnesota, or hs hoops mania in all of Indiana, Chicago, parts of Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Phily & now Baltimore-DC, throw in lacrosse mania in Maryland as well. The resources exist, including population, but the will seems to have diminished. These folks who declare a Rust Belt Apocalypse (mostly southerners) and shifting demographics seem to forget no BIG states are losing population, the growth is just slower. Regardless, Il, Oh, Mi, Pa & now NJ are pretty populated states.
I remain incredibly hopeful the current BIG and BIG @14 will maintain strong traditions, athletic greatness & academic excellence. I think the football will improve as well – too much great history to give up on. But I have no idea what this conference will look like in a few years.
LikeLike
Incoming member Maryland has won the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball title (2002, 2006) more recently than any Big Ten school. (Jeez, I hope I’m not sounding like Andy by saying that.)
LikeLike
No idea what Transic’s post above means. Is he expecting FSU to leave the ACC with little Miami? And go where? Nuts.
LikeLike
As a UConn fan, I could not disagree more with what you wrote. And in what world is UConn getting a fraction of the tv money Providence is? The UConn women (!) are making $1.2 million per from SNY. And they are getting a $25 million lump sum this summer. UConn will be absolutely fine. The end of the world proclamations from people about UConn, and Cincy, are ridiculous.
Basketball still means nothing. If Fox Sports wasnt desperate for programming this fall, the C7 would have gotten A10 money.
LikeLike
“Basketball still means nothing. If Fox Sports wasnt desperate for programming this fall, the C7 would have gotten A10 money.”
So the second half implies that basketball with recognizable teams means something to a cable network that is short of late fall and early winter programming. Which is different from meaning nothing.
LikeLike
One comment about *any* football team not necessarily being of greater value than *any* basketball team. In the event that there is one last football team needed to have a conference at all, that could be the case. And, a few times, that’s where the old Big East was sitting.
Otherwise, agreed on all points.
LikeLike
Hey Arch Stanton, I was jut alerted to the existence of this thead on hogville. Pretty humourous:
http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=533826.0
LikeLike
Andy, you’re really pressing with this idea of a MU-ARKY rivalry. You may be right about the southern part of Missouri fitting in with the $EC, but most of the state’s population is found along I-70, not in the southern/Ozarks part of the state. KC, Columbia, and STL are not $EC towns. Most MU students come from these cities. And, most of the people there could care less about Arkansas. They care about KU, Nebraska, and Illinois.
Although, the idea of a trophy game with Arkansas could get interesting. Maybe they could play for the Golden Possum Trophy…….
LikeLike
Well of course KC, Columbia, and STL care about Kansas, Nebraska, and Illinois. We’ve been playing those teams for 100 years. But give them a good annual game every Thanksgiving against a passionate fanbase like Arkansas’s and it’ll turn into something. St. Louis doesn’t have that much in common with Lincoln, NE either, but they got excited for the Huskers. Missouri and Arkansas share a 300 mile border and the two campuses are less than 300 miles apart. That’s commonality enough. As for the fan end of things, as that hogville thread demonstrates, it’s definitely forming into something.
LikeLike
Hey, if you want to spend your time in Hogville, go for it…. I’ll take a rain check…..
LikeLike
They’ll be an easy target for ridicule, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
“They’ll be an easy target for ridicule, that’s for sure.”
Sounds like the perfect match for you, Andy. I am now pulling for a Missouri-Arkansas rivalry to develop.
Let’s call it the Ozark Onslaught!
LikeLike
The award given to the winner of this game should have something to do with Wal-Mart, as the company is based in Arkansas and I believe its first store was in Missouri.
Is that a good substitute for the Telephone Trophy (ISU-Mizzou), Andy?
LikeLike
It’s too bad that Branson doesn’t have a suitable football stadium, because that would be the perfect neutral site to host the Arkansas-Missouri game every year.
Another few possible names:
War on the White River
Methland Mayhem
Battle for the Boot Heel (Arkansas has been eager to reclaim that fertile region for years)
LikeLike
It’s too bad that Branson doesn’t have a suitable football stadium, because that would be the perfect neutral site to host the Arkansas-Missouri game every year.
@Arch – Branson would be terrible. Traffic from any 11AM kickoff would interfere with traffic exiting the 9AM Yakov Smirnoff* show.
*In Southern Missouri, car drive you!
LikeLike
I have to think that Missouri-Arkansas is going to be the CBS primetime SEC game every year. So, that will work out nicely in Branson as most of the tourists will be in for the night by kickoff time. Or, those that want to attend the game can easily hit the early bird special at the buffet at 4 PM before the game.
Maybe Yakov Smirnoff could even sing the national anthem before the game. Nothing says: Cold War is over and we won like that kind of visual.
LikeLike
@Arch Stanton – In Soviet Russia, football throws you!
LikeLike
McMurphy tweeting that the Big East will announce split with C7 later this Thursday. C7 will keep name and MSG contract.
LikeLike
One issue that seems to be missing in these discussions is the fact that B1G conference football games are presently scheduled on home/away basis. I believe that this practice will continue regardless whether further expansion occurs or not. By agreeing to an away game (that occurs on a regular and periodical basis) a school wants to ensure equal treatment by accruing similar benefits as the other school (also for the local community). This is best achieved by agreeing to schedule the reciprocal home game as soon as possible (i.e. the next year).
If this assumption is correct, then B1G expansion beyond 14 teams becomes clumsy.
Yes, pod scheduling is possible for 16 teams. There could be Leaders/Legends pods and East/West pods that combine as Leaders East & Legends West Divisions for every other 2-year periods, alternating as Leaders West & Legends East Divisions for the remainder. There could then be two cross-over games among each of these pairs of pods, which rotate among the other two schools whenever the divisions recombine. In this way, every school can be scheduled as home/away series at least once during any 4-year period.
But is such pod scheduling really attractive?
As it stands, a 14-team BIG conference is attractive when compared with most other expansion options. The only real drawback concerns the championship game. For 3 cross-over games, the chances of a rematch are high. Low attendance and TV ratings could be the result.
LikeLike
@Ravin: I don’t think the “home/away” schedule rotation is sacred. It has some benefits, and it’s what they’ve historically done, but it’s not a fundamental principle that couldn’t be altered if some other, more useful principle stood in the way.
Presidents, ADs, and coaches all over the Big Ten have said that they expect more expansion, sooner or later. If the right schools were available, they’d expand to 16 before lunchtime. Obviously, they don’t believe the schedule poses an insuperable barrier — and I don’t think it does, either. If the discussion on this board has made anything clear, it’s that there are a lot of ways of going about it.
For what it’s worth, I think pod scheduling is a poor choice for the Big Ten. Every pod proposal I’ve seen is either competitively unbalanced, or creates meaningless annual rivalries while relegating more useful ones to second-tier status. But pods aren’t the only way of going about it.
The only real drawback concerns the championship game. For 3 cross-over games, the chances of a rematch are high. Low attendance and TV ratings could be the result.
Is there any evidence for the proposition that rematches have worse attendance and poorer TV ratings? I think what hurts these games is not a rematch, but just a bad matchup in general. Last year’s B1G championship game featured a third-place team with a 7-5 record, because first and second place were ineligible.
Nebraska vs. Ohio State — the game that should have been played — would have been a lot more popular.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Is there any evidence for the proposition that rematches have worse attendance and poorer TV ratings?”
LSU/AL in the NCG. UCLA/Stanford last year.
LikeLike
Brian – the November 2011 LSU/Bama game drew a 12 overnight rating. The BCS NCG re-match game drew a 13.8 overnight rating.
LikeLike
13.8 is a weak NCG rating. Average from 2002-2011 was a 16.4 with a high of 21.7 and a low of 14.0.
LikeLike
If it was a ccg instead of the bcs ncg it would have drawn worse. Wasn’t it the worst ncg ratings ever? If not, it was close.
LikeLike
@Brian: I think you’re mistaken about LSU/AL, as @Alan noted.
UCLA/Stanford had bad ratings and poor attendance because UCLA was 6-6 and didn’t really belong there: USC was ineligible. With the Trojans in the game, it would have attracted a lot more interest.
LikeLike
You’re mixing up 2011 and 2012. 6-6 UCLA played Oregon in the 2011 Pac-12 title game, 9-3 UCLA played Stanford in the 2012 Pac-12 title game. IIRC the bigger issue was the Friday night timing.
The 2012 Big Ten title game might be a good example of this, though, since Ohio St AND Penn St were ineligible, which is why a 7-5 Badger team snuck into the game.
LSU/Bama probably had lower than normal NCG ratings, but that was both due to it being an ugly blowout as well as the controversy turning off a good chunk of the country. Neither of those events are necessarily normal for a rematch.
LikeLike
And Stanford with its 8,000+ undergrads has a hard time filling up a salad bowl…Friday…replay of a beat down, that occured the week before.
I didn’t really feel the LSU/Ala. replay felt like a NCG. They split, and needed a third game to be a tie breaker. Oops, I shouldn’t suggest that. Someone might think its a good idea…
LikeLike
cc – I think that’s a great idea.
LikeLike
Well since LSU played a far tougher schedule, the pollsters should have just given it to LSU.
LikeLike
“One issue that seems to be missing in these discussions is the fact that B1G conference football games are presently scheduled on home/away basis. ”
Yes, that is something that commonly comes up.
A four pod rotation of equal sized pods could indeed work on a single rotation, because the “H/A” line up … Consider a team in P1 and a team in P2, who play in-division in year one:
Year 1: P1 @ P2
Year 2: pod1 v pod3, pod2 v pod4
Year 3: pod1 v pod4, pod2 v pod3
Year 4: P2 @ P1
… so the games that were home in an even year are away in an odd year, and visa versa.
A four pod alternation with unequal sized pods more likely requires two year Home and Away scheduling:
Anchor1 v Central1, Anchor2 v Central2; repeat reverse home & away
Anchor1 v Central2, Anchor2 v Central1; repeat reverse home & away
The two year Home & Home because under single rotation, if a division make-up starts in an odd year, it continues in odd years, and if a division make-up starts in an even year, it continues in even years, and that makes for awkwardness when fitting in the cross-division games, between teams in Anchor1 and Anchor2, and between Central1 and Central2.
LikeLike
http://www.ydr.com/psu/ci_22561285/frank-bodani-how-big-ten-realignment-should-affect
A PA columnist argues for PSU to close the season with a game against MD every year (or RU). I understand his logic, but it seems PSU-centric. Wouldn’t MD/RU be a better season-ender since it is a more fair matchup? Likewise, wouldn’t PSU/MSU be more likely to be a big game?
My suggestions:
If MSU is in the east:
E – OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, RU/MD, PU/IN
W – NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN
—
If MSU is in the west:
E – OSU/MI, PU/IN, PSU/?*, NW/?*
W – NE/IA, WI/MSU, MN/IL, NW/?*
* – Rotate PSU/RU + MD/NW with PSU/MD + RU/NW
LikeLike
York is close to the Maryland state line, and in fact its lead AM radio station has carried Baltimore Orioles games for years. I am certain that a columnist for any of the papers in the Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton area could make a similar argument in favor of PSU closing out the season with Rutgers.
LikeLike
Why should Penn State end its season vs Michigan State? The “Land Grant Trophy” was a mistake of the worst order. Almost no Nitt or Sparty fan liked it. If you think Maryland/Rutgers is a better ending game then I can live with that. However, if it can’t be Nebraska, Wisconsin or Ohio State (That is obvious), then at least let Penn State end with Pitt (Even Temple generates more interest than MSU as far as I am concerned).
LikeLike
Unfortunately, if you decree that every school have a rivalry game on the final weekend of the regular season, somebody is going to be stuck in a contrived game. Penn State can’t play Pitt on the final weekend unless some other Big Ten team agrees to have a bye, and I don’t think that would go over very well.
LikeLike
I bet Rutgers would prefer Penn State over Maryland. I know we would prefer anyone (This side of Minnesota or Indiana (Purdue incuded)) to Sparty. I would prefer to end my season early against Pitt if necessary. Basically no MSU.
LikeLike
Sure, but if Penn State gets Rutgers, then Maryland would have to play Sparty, a game that has even less history than PSU-MSU.
LikeLike
Have PSU end with Rutgers for two years, then Maryland for two years after that, then with Michigan State for two subsequent years.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I bet Rutgers would prefer Penn State over Maryland.”
So would MD. Rather than screw one over and helping the other, neither gets PSU. I had them rotating against PSU if MSU went west, though.
LikeLike
I’ll be honest: my impression is that nothing could push PSU to apply to the ACC (regardless of money) faster than the Big Ten sticking them with MSU as their end-of-the-year “rival” again after finally inviting 2 East Coast schools. I’m fairly certain that PSU will play the Eastern team of its choice at the end of the year (probably Rutgers to be a part of the NYC Thanksgiving scene).
LikeLike
I’m with Frank on this.
The whole point is to maximize the synergy that Penn State (and the other kings) will have in those East Coast markets.
And you have Penn State’s end of year game be Michigan State?
Michigan State-Rutgers and Penn State-Maryland make a lot more sense to me.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’ll be honest: my impression is that nothing could push PSU to apply to the ACC (regardless of money) faster than the Big Ten sticking them with MSU as their end-of-the-year “rival” again after finally inviting 2 East Coast schools.”
Frankly, I don’t care. They can take RU and UMD with them, too. I’m sick of PSU whining. They get to play every single team they want to play annually. They can suck it up on one weekend and play who they get.
“I’m fairly certain that PSU will play the Eastern team of its choice at the end of the year (probably Rutgers to be a part of the NYC Thanksgiving scene).”
That’s actually a terrible plan. Whichever school isn’t chosen (and PSU fans will be split on this) will feel completely screwed. Besides, PSU will crush whichever one they get so it’ll be a WI/MN type of rivalry but with a lot less feeling behind it. The whole western half of the fan base wouldn’t be inspired at all, either. At most they should rotate between RU and MD as I suggested. That let’s both markets develop and gives PSU some variety in which boring game they get each year. If MSU stays a contender, an annual game against them would have more meaning and people might actually watch them. Nobody outside their fans is watching PSU/RU that weekend.
LikeLike
zeek,
“The whole point is to maximize the synergy that Penn State (and the other kings) will have in those East Coast markets.”
No, but it is a point.
“And you have Penn State’s end of year game be Michigan State?”
Yes.
1. MSU is a batter program so the game is more likely to matter in the division race. That means more eyeballs on the game. MSU was mediocre for most of the LGT era – that’s why fans hated it. 9-2 MSU coming in with a division title potentially on the line is a different story.
2. That weekend is filled with major games nationally. Nobody is going to watch PSU/RU.
3. Thanksgiving weekend is actually one of the worst for a weak FB game because students are gone and fans want to be home with their families.
4. Why should RU or UMD suffer not being chosen and the other getting all the benefits? That’s a great way to drive them out of the B10 in the future.
5. All the kings are still playing those teams, just not on that day.
6. Maybe MSU would like to actually play a meaningful opponent that weekend. Where is the consideration for them in all this?
7. As a second choice, I’d take a rotation of RU and UMD with MSU playing the other.
8. I could also live with an equal rotation among MSU, RU and UMD.
LikeLike
“Penn State can’t play Pitt on the final weekend unless some other Big Ten team agrees to have a bye, and I don’t think that would go over very well.”
You’d have to have another Big Ten playing a non-conference game the last week of the season too, preferably one in the opposite division from PSU.
One hypothetical situation would be for the SEC, ACC, and Big Ten to get together and work this out for Thanksgiving week: Pitt plays PSU, Northwestern plays Vanderbilt, & Wake Forest plays another ACC school.
As an SEC/B1G rivalry, that Vandy/Northwestern rivalry would have more interest than Vandy/Wake Forest currently does.
Note that the SEC and ACC would each have 4 OOC games that weekend (3 against each other and 1 against the Big Ten), while the Big Ten would have 2 (1 against the SEC, 1 against the ACC). So everyone else in these conferences could be playing conference games.
If Northwestern was in the West division, the Big Ten could avoid any cross-divisional games the last week of the season.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Why should Penn State end its season vs Michigan State?”
Because it’s the best division game available (if MSU is in the east) so the game would have meaning as often as possible.
“The “Land Grant Trophy” was a mistake of the worst order. Almost no Nitt or Sparty fan liked it.”
The trophy was horrible but many fans on both sides said they came to like the game. Not love it, but like it. Now it would have the bonus of impacting the division race so it would be a little more important.
“If you think Maryland/Rutgers is a better ending game then I can live with that.”
They are closer to peers than either is with PSU.
“However, if it can’t be Nebraska, Wisconsin or Ohio State (That is obvious),”
No crossovers that matter allowed. that’s what everyone said about OSU/MI, so there’s no way PSU gets one with NE or WI. Besides, NE gets IA.
“then at least let Penn State end with Pitt (Even Temple generates more interest than MSU as far as I am concerned).”
I’d be thrilled with that if PSU will man up and play that game annually. Unfortunately, that would leave MSU without a conference game.
LikeLike
I think PSU can get bent. They got what they’ve been crying about for 20 years. I’d rather play WI anyway.
LikeLike
If MSU goes in the west, MSU/WI is exactly the game I’d pick to wrap up the year. It works better for PSU, too, as they can rotate between RU and MD with NW playing the other as a crossover.
It’s if MSU goes east that it’s harder.
LikeLike
So Fox “overpaid” the C7 to get them to leave their conference. What are the odds they do (almost) the same thing again?
Breaking up the ACC is a chicken-or-egg problem. It’s alive while UNC is there, and UNC is there while it’s alive. Unless, maybe, B1G money were a literal tripling or quadrupling of ACC money. Exactly how much sweetening do they need to leave? Maybe Fox is willing to overpay again, if that’s what it takes. A) They get UNC. B) They crumble ESPN’s multi-billion-dollar investment in the ACC.
LikeLike
Yep, exactly.
Of course, there IS an outer limit to how much FOX can overpay. To triple the ACC, each B1G school would need ~~ say ~~ $63M per year; that’s $882M per year or $8.82 billion over 10 years. That’s some serious money. Assume the BTN and other revenue sources = $13m a year, FOX would need to offer $7B over a 10 year contract. That is a lot of billions of dollars.
LikeLike
Division A: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Boston College
Division B: Clemson, USF, NC State, Wake Forest, VT, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
??????????????
Is playing Cincinnati, UConn and Boston College more attractive than playing Ohio State, Penn State or Michigan in football (or any sport for that matter)????
LikeLike
Let’s say the ACC grew to 16 by losing Florida State and Miami and bringing in Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida and South Florida. The conference almost certainly would retain its Atlantic/Coastal format, which under pre-expansion play would feature
Atlantic
Boston College
Clemson
Louisville*
N.C. State
Syracuse
Wake Forest
*Louisville replaces Maryland as of 2014
Coastal
Duke
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Where do the four newcomers go?
I would argue Cincinnati and one of the new Florida members (we’ll make it South Florida) would go to the Atlantic (so UC could continue its rivalry with Louisville), while Connecticut and the other Florida member (Central Florida) would be shipped to the Coastal. (Putting the Huskies in the opposite division from BC might placate the Eagles, even if they had to play an annual crossover game.)
This new-look ACC would still be decent in football, but a lot less glamorous. Then again as a Maryland fan, come the fall of 2014, it’s really not my problem.
LikeLike
Is playing Cincinnati, UConn and Boston College more attractive than playing Ohio State, Penn State or Michigan in football (or any sport for that matter)????
That’s not the question these schools will be asking. It’s, “How much money am I leaving on the table by remaining in a second-tier league?” If it’s not much, then geography and tradition win out. But if it’s $10 million a year, or $20 million a year, the trade-offs are a lot different.
I don’t see how the ACC can remain an AQ league (or its equivalent) in the long term, if it loses both FSU and Miami. Without them, it begins to resemble the late-90s Big East, and we know how that turned out.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not an ACC guy but I have to think there’s space for a major conference that isn’t necessarily the most powerful in football.
Also, UNC would love it if FSU leaves. UCF and USF would just be happy to be there and would toe UNC’s line. Heck, NC State hasn’t yet left (I know that they have a BoG issue in that state) and those two schools don’t like each other. 😉
LikeLike
Sorry for my B1G arrogance. I need a map to check where is the Mason Dixon Line.
LikeLike
No need to apologize for “arrogance.” Southerns have that too. The problem is B1G Imperialism. 🙂
LikeLike
Southerners, that should be.
LikeLike
Wise ass : ).
LikeLike
Mason-Dixon line separates Maryland from Pennsylvania. After two centuries, the markers placed for transit markings are still within millimeters of laser guided transits. Remarkable surveyor accomplishment!
LikeLike
Courtesy of the USAToday, here’s the AD salary database.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/03/06/athletic-director-salary-database-methodology/1968783/
Top Ten in total pay:
1. Vandy
2. Louisville
3. Florida
4. Wisconsin
5. Nebraska
6. Texas
7. Ohio State
8. Notre Dame
9. Oklahoma
10. Duke
LikeLike
Meanwhile Wisky loses football coaches in part because of lower salaries.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought that was ironic. Barry has been in the top 5 since he’s been AD. It’s like they are paying him now for his past achievements. Wisconsin does have a fairly sizable athletic budget ($130 million this year) but I am not sure he warrants top 5 pay especially when Wisconsin nickel and dimes it’s assistant coaches.
LikeLike
Vandy doesn’t have a separate Athletic Department. David Williams is Vice Chancellor for Athletics and University Affairs and Athletics Director.
LikeLike
“America 12”? Ugh. I kind of liked “Metro” even though it was a failed conference.
People make fun that the Big 12 has 10 teams, and the Big 10 has 14 teams, but at least those conferences started with those numbers, the “America 12” is going to start with 10 teams, Navy at 11 in 2014, and an unknown 12.
LikeLike
How long until they adopt a certain song from Team America: World Police as the Conference theme song?
LikeLike
Mike – or they could call themselves the National Athletic Conference, or “the NAC” for short and the use The Knack’s big late 70s hit “My Sharona” as their conference theme song.
LikeLike
“Ugh.”
That about sums it up. You would think they would have learned from CUSA. Appealing to patriotism is a poor substitute for real brand identity.
LikeLike
Numbers are a pretty bad idea too. How many college conferences need to prove to us that they don’t know math? Things change. BE football doesn’t even have 12 members yet. Even if they add one more, they will not have 12 for basketball. Just stupid to put numbers in it. It makes you a butt of jokes. The Big 10 and Big 12 at least had some history.
Maybe they are just tying down an option.
LikeLike
Ad VCU as a non-football member, and A12 basketball would have 12 basketball teams in it.
LikeLike
Problem is that they have no identity whatsoever. Not regional, not historical, not type of school; nothing really links them at all.
My vote was for The Extraordinary League of Also Rans
LikeLike
Sorry, that should be:
The League of Extraordinary Also Rans.
Much better.
LikeLike
The League of Extraordinary Also Rans
“Get ready to LEAR.”
LikeLike
Apparently “America One” is also under consideration.
Double ugh.
LikeLike
If so, will its official soft drink be Pepsi One? (A fine soda, but impossible to find in anything other than 12-packs these days.)
LikeLike
Sounds like a space ship.
LikeLike
“America One?”
No. This sounds like some silly slogan from a politician. In fact, I remember Bill Clinton having some ad on during Super Bowl XXXII (Denver vs. Green Bay, January 1998) where he was talking about anti-discrimination. “Let’s build ‘One America.'” Is that what this league wants?
Even worse, the abbreviated version of this conference’s name (A1) would match that of a steak sauce, and could never be used officially by the league since it’s already another entity’s trademark.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the problem with Conference of Unfamiliar Schools with Ambitions ~ #CUSA is already taken by another conference.
LikeLike
They’re basically re-associating their brand with Conference USA, which they basically are anyway.
LikeLike
Can anyone suggest a better name? Metro, the name of a failed conference, doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
LikeLike
The “Who Everyone Shat Upon Conference” aka the WESUC?
LikeLike
Placeholder conference: park here till you find a better home… About the only thing American/A12 has going for it is it’ll be at the top of every standings when they are alphabetized.
LikeLike
I was thinking the Purgatory Conference. If you’re in the Sun Belt, MAC, or C-USA, or if you’re an FCS school looking to move up, this is pretty darn good. It’s far, far better than the alternative. Of course, you’re hoping like crazy to gain true salvation via the ACC or another power conference.
LikeLike
Mike Bianchi in a short take in his Orlando Sentinal column quips: “The new name of the football league formerly known as the Big East will reportedly be “The America 12.” I personally like the patriotic moniker and think the league’s mascot should be Lady Liberty herself: ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your displaced Conference USA teams.’ ”
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-08/sports/os-mike-bianchi-saturday-circus-0309-20130308_1_victor-gray-magic-teammates-ucf-star
LikeLike
It looks like the law firm that has represented the Big East registered the domain “america12sports.com” yesterday.
http://www.whois.com/whois/america12sports.com
So are we looking at America 12 for the FBEFS (Former Big East Football Schools) ?
LikeLike
Looks like Schroeder beat me to it. I really need to hit refresh more often. lol
LikeLike
America 12 is “Big American” except without the Big.
But it would be so West Coast if they called it the America 12 and set out with a plan to actually get to 12. Here in Big Ten / Big12 country east of the Rockies, the number in the conference name and in any conference standings lists are not supposed to match up..
LikeLike
yep, the America 12 Conference
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/schools-used-big-east-reportedly-might-patriotic-conference-190411319–ncaaf.html;_ylt=AicsSciaZ.NYAYFOsVaeSQ4cvrYF;_ylu=X3oDMTQwbWs3MTN1BG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBOQ0FBRgRwa2cDNzgzYjVhOWMtNzQ3NS0zNTYwLWIwNGYtNDI5YzM0NzAwMzI2BHBvcwMyBHNlYwNtZWdhdHJvbgR2ZXIDOWJjOGEyMDAtODc2NS0xMWUyLWJjZjMtYzczMzU2MmFhZThk;_ylg=X3oDMTFqdXByMzhlBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuY2FhZgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw–;_ylv=3
LikeLike
Merica
LikeLike
So for short it’s going to be A12? If I’m the Atlantic 10 I would be a bit annoyed.
LikeLike