The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?

[Jderf]

If the "Big Four" start a new football division that's as different from the NCAA as the NCAA is from NAIA, why do they have to allow entry? Now there may be state legislatures upset with this that could play around with funding or the NCAA could threaten non-revenue sports of the exiting schools (but would they?), but is there a lawsuit there outside breaches of various contracts? Boggles the mind.

Don't underestimate all the various institutional interests that would be snubbed by such a scenario. They would not be happy, there would be jobs on the line, and I would assume there is more than one influential person out there who would rather burn it all down than see someone else walk away with the pot of gold. Besides, there are other legal recourses outside of strict lawsuits and countersuits. University presidents are powerful people with many friends. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if the new football division encountered problems trying to establish their tax-exempt status, traditionally enjoyed by amateur college athletics. That's an ENORMOUS bargaining chip, and it would certainly be in play, among many others.

[msdukie]

I think I am going to create my own website, so that I can create "rumors" and "facts" and cite "sources" about expansion too. Also, since I qualify as a Duke booster, I will refer to myself by referencing a "booster" with information. Seriously, 99% of this is total nonsense.

Well, except for the fact that F$U is run by morons.

[A-Tex Devil]

Don't underestimate all the various institutional interests that would be snubbed by such a scenario. They would not be happy, there would be jobs on the line, and I would assume there is more than one influential person out there who would rather burn it all down than see someone else walk away with the pot of gold. Besides, there are other legal recourses outside of strict lawsuits and countersuits. University presidents are powerful people with many friends. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if the new football division encountered problems trying to establish their tax-exempt status, traditionally enjoyed by amateur college athletics. That's an ENORMOUS bargaining chip, and it would certainly be in play, among many others.

Yes. His name is Mitch McConnell.

[lotusland]

I think I am going to create my own website, so that I can create "rumors" and "facts" and cite "sources" about expansion too. Also, since I qualify as a Duke booster, I will refer to myself by referencing a "booster" with information. Seriously, 99% of this is total nonsense.

Well, except for the fact that F$U is run by morons.

I hope you are right but I bet there were similar posts on message boards throughout the Big East last year...

[Faison1]

I think I am going to create my own website, so that I can create "rumors" and "facts" and cite "sources" about expansion too. Also, since I qualify as a Duke booster, I will refer to myself by referencing a "booster" with information. Seriously, 99% of this is total nonsense.

Well, except for the fact that F$U is run by morons.

You're right about the 99%. But for whatever reason, I'm worried this time. FSU doesn't bother me as much as the rumors on Clemson. I live in Charleston now. And work in an office with Clemson grads. None of them are happy about the potential move, but all say they want to be competitive in football.

Let's hope it's all rumors and negotiation tactics. Like I said before, I will be bummed if Clemson leaves the ACC.

FSU, on the other hand...

[theAlaskanBear]

I hope you are right but I bet there were similar posts on message boards throughout the Big East last year...

I just don't see how it makes financial sense at all -- ok they are running a $2mil athletic deficit right now. The Big 12 would solve that, but then they need to cover a $20 million escape clause and all the additional money for traveling the increased distances...

...and if this is really about football, think of the football groupies...do they really want to travel to Kansas and Iowa and Texas?

What the ACC is betting is that because its deal is exclusive with ESPN, ESPN will spend more money and resources marketing the league than if it was a split deal like Fox Sports and ESPN. I think sanity will prevail, but again, we are talking about football fans with more money than sense.

[JasonEvans]

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this (I have not read all the posts in this thread over the past week), but I am of the belief that there is great irony in the ACC's current situation.

The irony is that the ACC's football-first teams (FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech) who are grumbling and making noise about heading to the Big 12 are the very reason the ACC is not considered an elite football conference. If that group was producing the results it produced in the 90s and early 2000s, the ACC would be just fine in football and would be considered on-par with the Big 12, Pac whatever, and probably even the Big Ten (not the SEC, but the SEC is closer to the NFL than the rest of college football... at least in terms of on field performance and payroll).

IF FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech were producing Top 5 or Top 10 ranked teams 3 out of every 5 years (like they used to), the ACC's TV profile would be more attractive and we would command more TV revenues. There was a time when Miami-FSU was one of the high-profile games of the football season. Not any more.

So, while FSU grumbles and looks around for somewhere else to call home, they should be looking in the mirror and recognizing that this mess is their own doing... and if they could get their program back to being relevant in the national title discussion then it might make things better. Instead, FSU seems quite eager to go be one of Texas and Oklahoma's whupping boys. Good luck with that.

-Jason "big ratings coming for that FSU-Iowa State game!" Evans

[lotusland]

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this (I have not read all the posts in this thread over the past week), but I am of the belief that there is great irony in the ACC's current situation.

The irony is that the ACC's football-first teams (FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech) who are grumbling and making noise about heading to the Big 12 are the very reason the ACC is not considered an elite football conference. If that group was producing the results it produced in the 90s and early 2000s, the ACC would be just fine in football and would be considered on-par with the Big 12, Pac whatever, and probably even the Big Ten (not the SEC, but the SEC is closer to the NFL than the rest of college football... at least in terms of on field performance and payroll).

IF FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech were producing Top 5 or Top 10 ranked teams 3 out of every 5 years (like they used to), the ACC's TV profile would be more attractive and we would command more TV revenues. There was a time when Miami-FSU was one of the high-profile games of the football season. Not any more.

So, while FSU grumbles and looks around for somewhere else to call home, they should be looking in the mirror and recognizing that this mess is their own doing... and if they could get their program back to being relevant in the national title discussion then it might make things better. Instead, FSU seems quite eager to go be one of Texas and Oklahoma's whupping boys. Good luck with that.

-Jason "big ratings coming for that FSU-Iowa State game!" Evans

It is also ironic how the ACC plundered the Big East and vastly increased its size and geographic footprint to chase football dollars and now it that faces the same fate as the Big East people are calling for sanity.

[wilko]

I am tired of football messing up my basketball... for the record in case anyone was wondering.

[roywhite]

IF FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech were producing Top 5 or Top 10 ranked teams 3 out of every 5 years (like they used to), the ACC's TV profile would be more attractive and we would command more TV revenues. There was a time when Miami-FSU was one of the high-profile games of the football season. Not any more.

So, while FSU grumbles and looks around for somewhere else to call home, they should be looking in the mirror and recognizing that this mess is their own doing... and if they could get their program back to being relevant in the national title discussion then it might make things better. Instead, FSU seems quite eager to go be one of Texas and Oklahoma's whupping boys. Good luck with that.

-Jason "big ratings coming for that FSU-Iowa State game!" Evans

Good point. Or perhaps the Seminoles just want to flee from having to face Wake Forest, to whom they've lost 4 of the last 6 games.

[A-Tex Devil]

I just don't see how it makes financial sense at all -- ok they are running a $2mil athletic deficit right now. The Big 12 would solve that, but then they need to cover a $20 million escape clause and all the additional money for traveling the increased distances...

...and if this is really about football, think of the football groupies...do they really want to travel to Kansas and Iowa and Texas?

What the ACC is betting is that because its deal is exclusive with ESPN, ESPN will spend more money and resources marketing the league than if it was a split deal like Fox Sports and ESPN. I think sanity will prevail, but again, we are talking about football fans with more money than sense.

The thing is, everyone is right that based on what the current reality is: this move doesn't seem to make financial sense for Florida St. I am still of the opinion that A&M's move and especially Missouri's move won't make financial sense for either of them in the long run when it comes to success on the field... but, you know, S-E-C S-E-C and all. I am comically awaiting Aggies coming off a 4-8 season claiming ownership when the SEC wins its next national championship. But I digress...

Florida St. sees potential and, you may laugh, but stability and access -- at least in the context of the proposed 4 team playoff. Whether that is realistic or not is certainly up for debate. And with respect to the $20MM breakup fee, point me to any school that has had to pay that entire fee during the last 2 years of realignment. I don't think there is one. That will get negotiated down.

As for the message board thing. I get it. 9 out of 10, or even 99 out of 100 end up being false. But virtually every major happening in realignment broke through leaks on a message board first. Ironically, I think the ACC grabbing Pitt and 'Cuse seemed to avoid any leaks, or at least that's my memory. The "Homer 'the Dude' Snead" guy on the WVU boards has been nails on this thing re: FSU since January. And keep in mind, these "leaks" are almost ALWAYS leaking discussions and pie in the sky thoughts of the bigwigs sitting in a conference room. So when the Big XII AD's meet, they may talk about Notre Dame or Arkansas, and that gets leaked to a message board. Big XII fans get excited, others scoff. But what people having both reactions should realize is that most of these leaks are summaries of discussions, While those discussions more likely than not won't come to fruition, it gives insight into what the decision makers are thinking.

If you can look at them from the perspective that this is what leadership is thinking about as opposed to some absolute prediction of what will happen, it's a lot more fun, and a lot less harmful, at least in my opinion.

[Nepos]

As a Duke fan, the most important issue to me is how any of this might impact Duke. The underlying question seems to be which schools would be best for us as conference partners. As I thought about this question, it seemed like the most important characteristics would be (in order of importance): 1) commitment to a very high level of academics, and commitment to a basketball program that can compete for national championships without overly selling its soul to the Devil (TCCFNCWOSISTTD); 2) commitment to a football program TCCFNCWOSISTTD, and commitment to non-revenue sports programs TCCFNCWOSISTTD; and 3) location relatively close to Durham, and a student enrollment size that is similar to Duke.

I thought about the schools that might be most relevant for Duke (those east of the Mississippi that play Div I football -- the ACC, most of the Big 10, most of the SEC, most of the recent Big East, and some noteworthy independents and FCS teams) and it helped solidify a few thoughts for me. Namely,

1) FSU winds up near the bottom of my list of ideal conference partners. All other things being equal (and they are not), Duke should be OK with them leaving as long as it does not lead to other negative consequences (and it very easily could). For what its worth, Clemson was next lowest on my list.

2) The ACC is probably the conference with the best set of partners for us right now, but the Big 10 is not far behind (Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, etc. are very desirable partners).

3) UNC is at the top of the list (face validity here), and thus is the most important partner. Were they to shift conferences, Duke would certainly be wise to consider a shift themselves (to the Big 10; especially if UNC were to go to the Big 10).

4) Notre Dame winds up second on my list. Duke should be at the front of the bandwagon to see that they join the ACC. However, if they were to join the Big 10, and especially if UNC and/or other desirable partners (e.g., UVA, GTech) were to go with them, Duke might want to look long and hard at a move to that conference.

5) If Notre Dame were to become the 15th member of the ACC and the conference were to expand to 16, then my Duke-centric perspective on partners would be (not counting those in major conferences): Georgetown (if they were to upgrade their program and stadium in a big way between now and decision time; probably highly unlikely), Temple, and Rutgers.

This was probably just an exercise in confirming my biases, but it did make me feel much better about some of the conference turbulence. To me, the key entities to focus on are the most-desired partners (other moves are most important if they impact these schools): UNC, Notre Dame, Michigan, UVA, Georgetown (only if big upgrade in Fball), Wisconsin, GaTech, Wake, Northwestern, and Vandy (to name 10 in decreasing order of importance to my Duke-centric eyes).

[Bluealum]

As a Duke fan, the most important issue to me is how any of this might impact Duke. The underlying question seems to be which schools would be best for us as conference partners. As I thought about this question, it seemed like the most important characteristics would be (in order of importance): 1) commitment to a very high level of academics, and commitment to a basketball program that can compete for national championships without overly selling its soul to the Devil (TCCFNCWOSISTTD); 2) commitment to a football program TCCFNCWOSISTTD, and commitment to non-revenue sports programs TCCFNCWOSISTTD; and 3) location relatively close to Durham, and a student enrollment size that is similar to Duke.

I thought about the schools that might be most relevant for Duke (those east of the Mississippi that play Div I football -- the ACC, most of the Big 10, most of the SEC, most of the recent Big East, and some noteworthy independents and FCS teams) and it helped solidify a few thoughts for me. Namely,

1) FSU winds up near the bottom of my list of ideal conference partners. All other things being equal (and they are not), Duke should be OK with them leaving as long as it does not lead to other negative consequences (and it very easily could). For what its worth, Clemson was next lowest on my list.

2) The ACC is probably the conference with the best set of partners for us right now, but the Big 10 is not far behind (Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, etc. are very desirable partners).

3) UNC is at the top of the list (face validity here), and thus is the most important partner. Were they to shift conferences, Duke would certainly be wise to consider a shift themselves (to the Big 10; especially if UNC were to go to the Big 10).

4) Notre Dame winds up second on my list. Duke should be at the front of the bandwagon to see that they join the ACC. However, if they were to join the Big 10, and especially if UNC and/or other desirable partners (e.g., UVA, GTech) were to go with them, Duke might want to look long and hard at a move to that conference.

5) If Notre Dame were to become the 15th member of the ACC and the conference were to expand to 16, then my Duke-centric perspective on partners would be (not counting those in major conferences): Georgetown (if they were to upgrade their program and stadium in a big way between now and decision time; probably highly unlikely), Temple, and Rutgers.

This was probably just an exercise in confirming my biases, but it did make me feel much better about some of the conference turbulence. To me, the key entities to focus on are the most-desired partners (other moves are most important if they impact these schools): UNC, Notre Dame, Michigan, UVA, Georgetown (only if big upgrade in Fball), Wisconsin, GaTech, Wake, Northwestern, and Vandy (to name 10 in decreasing order of importance to my Duke-centric eyes).

I was thinking along these lines as well. With all the talk about dollars it's easy for schools to use only one metric. However, if a collection of academically focused schools were to coalesce, I think there would be tremendous incentive/pressure on Presidents to join this league as there is a measure of prestige that all schools aspire to. While lunacy abounds and all types of scenarios are floated...here is one that may be the longshot of longshots, but as a Duke fan, one I would love to see.

North Division:
ND
UVA
Georgetown (would need a big football upgrade)
BC
Vanderbilt

South Division:
Duke
UNC
Miami
GT
Wake

Great academics and all around athletics. Three Catholic schools in the North which is attractive to ND. Solid if unspectacular football programs. I would think that a lot of University presidents would yearn to be added to this conference. It's nice dreaming isn't it?

[ForkFondler]

Duke is solidly positioned to be in the fifth best football conference in the country. The only question is who else will be in it. Wake Forest is the only sure bet.

[lotusland]

As a Duke fan, the most important issue to me is how any of this might impact Duke. The underlying question seems to be which schools would be best for us as conference partners. As I thought about this question, it seemed like the most important characteristics would be (in order of importance): 1) commitment to a very high level of academics, and commitment to a basketball program that can compete for national championships without overly selling its soul to the Devil (TCCFNCWOSISTTD); 2) commitment to a football program TCCFNCWOSISTTD, and commitment to non-revenue sports programs TCCFNCWOSISTTD; and 3) location relatively close to Durham, and a student enrollment size that is similar to Duke.

I thought about the schools that might be most relevant for Duke (those east of the Mississippi that play Div I football -- the ACC, most of the Big 10, most of the SEC, most of the recent Big East, and some noteworthy independents and FCS teams) and it helped solidify a few thoughts for me. Namely,

1) FSU winds up near the bottom of my list of ideal conference partners. All other things being equal (and they are not), Duke should be OK with them leaving as long as it does not lead to other negative consequences (and it very easily could). For what its worth, Clemson was next lowest on my list.

2) The ACC is probably the conference with the best set of partners for us right now, but the Big 10 is not far behind (Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, etc. are very desirable partners).

3) UNC is at the top of the list (face validity here), and thus is the most important partner. Were they to shift conferences, Duke would certainly be wise to consider a shift themselves (to the Big 10; especially if UNC were to go to the Big 10).

4) Notre Dame winds up second on my list. Duke should be at the front of the bandwagon to see that they join the ACC. However, if they were to join the Big 10, and especially if UNC and/or other desirable partners (e.g., UVA, GTech) were to go with them, Duke might want to look long and hard at a move to that conference.

5) If Notre Dame were to become the 15th member of the ACC and the conference were to expand to 16, then my Duke-centric perspective on partners would be (not counting those in major conferences): Georgetown (if they were to upgrade their program and stadium in a big way between now and decision time; probably highly unlikely), Temple, and Rutgers.

This was probably just an exercise in confirming my biases, but it did make me feel much better about some of the conference turbulence. To me, the key entities to focus on are the most-desired partners (other moves are most important if they impact these schools): UNC, Notre Dame, Michigan, UVA, Georgetown (only if big upgrade in Fball), Wisconsin, GaTech, Wake, Northwestern, and Vandy (to name 10 in decreasing order of importance to my Duke-centric eyes).

As long as we are dreaming, Vandy seem like an ACC school to me but I don't suppose anyone is interested in leaving the SEC when football $ are driving the bus. Perhaps they are sick of being a whipping boy in football though. Anyway they field both football and basketball teams that would be competitive in the ACC.

I wonder whether the Big 10 would even have an interest in asking Duke to join since this seems to be all about football money. They'd have the NC market locked up with UNC so why add Duke in terms of football anyway? Duke and UNC will play at least once in hoops whether they are in the same conference or not. Why not add UNC and GT to get 2 new markets? It’s strange how the super conference model for success seems to be the exact opposite of what would be good for intercollegiate athletics excluding football revenue. How bizarre that having NCSU in the SEC, Duke left in the ACC and UNC in the Big 10 is actually "better" in the football $ model. How cool would it be if important universities had the testicular fortitude to say "no thanks" and throw a wrench into this evil plot instead of hitting the panic button and jumping ship?

[Jderf]

Last post in this thread, seeing as my previous posts have probably exposed my agenda and lack of expertise on the topic. (My "expertise" is limited to being a follower of this thread.) Since I'm not the biggest fan of expansion in general, I just want to point out a curious irony.

Something that seems to be continuously overlooked is that a lot of these schools chasing the all-mighty football dollar happen to also be schools that have large endowments or university funds -- which routinely are valued in the billions. Yet, these same schools seem more than willing to uproot their historical ties, tradition and culture, all for a few million dollars more per year. The Duke endowment, for example, is estimated to be worth 2.7 billion, and has payed out 2.9 billion in funding over the last century. Do the math, that comes out to 33 million a year. IN GRANTS. Maybe Duke athletics brings in a comparable number in revenue, but the net gain after factoring in the enormous costs (Coach K's salary alone last year was 7 million) does not compare to the funding received from the endowment. Further, the endowment is by no means the only source of funding at Duke. Millions upon millions are constantly going in and out the door. 2-3 million more per year from sports? In the context of the greater university, it is simply small potatoes.


So, let's ask. Is it really the universities that are benefiting from these lateral conference moves? Or is it the salaries within the athletics department that are benefiting?

... but yeah. One-and-dones. There's the real problem with college athletics. They're ruining everything. (sarcasm)

[sagegrouse]

The Duke endowment, for example, is estimated to be worth 2.7 billion, and has payed out 2.9 billion in funding over the last century. Do the math, that comes out to 33 million a year. IN GRANTS. Maybe Duke athletics brings in a comparable number in revenue, but the net gain after factoring in the enormous costs (Coach K's salary alone last year was 7 million) does not compare to the funding received from the endowment. Further, the endowment is by no means the only source of funding at Duke. Millions upon millions are constantly going in and out the door. 2-3 million more per year from sports? In the context of the greater university, it is simply small potatoes.


So, let's ask. Is it really the universities that are benefiting from these lateral conference moves? Or is it the salaries within the athletics department that are benefiting?

... but yeah. One-and-dones. There's the real problem with college athletics. They're ruining everything. (sarcasm)

Actually, the Duke numbers are far beyond what you quoted. Your numbers were for Charlotte-based The Duke Endowment, from which Duke historically gets IIRC 33% to 50% of the grants. Duke University has separate endowment funds that totalled $5.74 billion in 2011 (15th among all universities). I believe this makes your point even stronger.

sagegrouse

[devilsadvocate85]

Last post in this thread, seeing as my previous posts have probably exposed my agenda and lack of expertise on the topic. (My "expertise" is limited to being a follower of this thread.) Since I'm not the biggest fan of expansion in general, I just want to point out a curious irony.

Something that seems to be continuously overlooked is that a lot of these schools chasing the all-mighty football dollar happen to also be schools that have large endowments or university funds -- which routinely are valued in the billions. Yet, these same schools seem more than willing to uproot their historical ties, tradition and culture, all for a few million dollars more per year. The Duke endowment, for example, is estimated to be worth 2.7 billion, and has payed out 2.9 billion in funding over the last century. Do the math, that comes out to 33 million a year. IN GRANTS. Maybe Duke athletics brings in a comparable number in revenue, but the net gain after factoring in the enormous costs (Coach K's salary alone last year was 7 million) does not compare to the funding received from the endowment. Further, the endowment is by no means the only source of funding at Duke. Millions upon millions are constantly going in and out the door. 2-3 million more per year from sports? In the context of the greater university, it is simply small potatoes.


So, let's ask. Is it really the universities that are benefiting from these lateral conference moves? Or is it the salaries within the athletics department that are benefiting?

... but yeah. One-and-dones. There's the real problem with college athletics. They're ruining everything. (sarcasm)

1) Coach K's salary is not $7 million, that was his total compensation.

2) My prediction, which I've mentioned to many people in person is that the ACC ends up with 16 teams by adding ND and Penn State. Good fits academically and non-revenue sports.

[Jderf]

Actually, the Duke numbers are far beyond what you quoted. Your numbers were for Charlotte-based The Duke Endowment, from which Duke historically gets IIRC 33% to 50% of the grants. Duke University has separate endowment funds that totalled $5.74 billion in 2011 (15th among all universities). I believe this makes your point even stronger.

sagegrouse

That's a great catch. With your nudge in the right direction, I did a little more digging* and found this:

The spending rate is approved by the Board of Trustees and is currently 5.5% of the average value of Long Term Pool units over the three previous calendar year-ends.

Doing a blunt calculation, 5.5% of $5.7 billion would yield 313 million spent per year -- but since the end of that sentence is somewhat difficult to interpret, let's be conservative and arbitrarily cut the value in half, saying, "Duke's endowments fund at least $150 million's worth of university programs per year."

(*I don't know why I actually believed that my previous post would be my last in the thread.)

1) Coach K's salary is not $7 million, that was his total compensation.

That's a fair point, but it doesn't change the total sum that Duke paid Mr. Krzyzewski that year.

[TexHawk]

So, while FSU grumbles and looks around for somewhere else to call home, they should be looking in the mirror and recognizing that this mess is their own doing... and if they could get their program back to being relevant in the national title discussion then it might make things better.

Of course, you aren't wrong, but if you are in their shoes, what are their choices? Better coaches? Build fancy practice fields/equipment/locker rooms to attract better players? Upgrade the stadium? All of those things cost money, and money is something that is lacking (at least w/ FSU). The difference in TV money (anywhere from $3-10 million?) seems like nothing in this world of crazy football contracts, but it still adds up over time.

Also, the three schools mentioned the most in this latest round of realignment (FSU, Clemson, GT) all have a fierce in-state rivalry with an SEC school, which could break the bank on their next TV deal (or network). You think FSU can't keep up with Florida now?

Instead, FSU seems quite eager to go be one of Texas and Oklahoma's whupping boys. Good luck with that.

This seems like a good spot to remind everyone that Texas went 13-12 the last two seasons, finishing 6th in the Big12 both years. Oklahoma finished 4th in 2011. While their prospects absolutely look better than most, they are still vulnerable. Mistakes in recruiting, a Top QB prospect not panning out, lazy coaching, etc. Money can hide many things, but it is no guarantee that UT/OU have a default spot in any future playoff.