PDA

View Full Version : Further Conference Expansion Talk



Pages : [1] 2 3

A-Tex Devil
04-22-2010, 02:03 PM
Feel free to merge with old thread, but it's in the dust, I think. But since the main page has posted several links on it, I thought I'd kick up another discussion.

The "4 conferences of 16" talk is heating up. What this is really going to do is create 8 defacto 8 team sub-conferences/divisions, but each pair of sub-conferences will be tied together through a championship game/tournament/etc. Think of it like 4 mini MLBs prior to expansion to 3 divisions.

The scary talk is the potential for these 64 schools (basically, the BCS schools and Notre Dame, kicking out Cincy, and one of the triumverate of USF, Baylor and Iowa State) creating a tournament to compete with/replace the NCAA basketball tourney in much the same way the NCAA once took on the NIT.

Duvall
04-22-2010, 02:10 PM
The "4 conferences of 16" talk is heating up. What this is really going to do is create 8 defacto 8 team sub-conferences/divisions, but each pair of sub-conferences will be tied together through a championship game/tournament/etc.

ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Florida State.
ACC South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech.

I could live with that.

Tappan Zee Devil
04-22-2010, 02:23 PM
ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Florida State.
ACC South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech.

I could live with that.

I know your intent is to put the old "real" ACC in one division. But politically, I think you will need put Virginia and Virginia Tech together.

so probably Virginia and Maryland go with the north and Miami and Florida State with the south.

Although I like your divisions better.

Jim

uh_no
04-22-2010, 02:30 PM
unsubstantiated claims ftw

wilko
04-22-2010, 02:38 PM
I was never a fan of expansion for FBall.

If we do it, we do it to strengthen our core competency which is BBall.
Add Syracuse, UConn, Louisville and Georgetown.

Overload the conf in BBall heavy schools so that we are THE ONLY East coast option for a TV network carrying an interesting game.

wva_iron_duke
04-22-2010, 02:51 PM
Georgetown doesn't fit due to no football. Try WVU.

A-Tex Devil
04-22-2010, 02:53 PM
unsubstantiated claims ftw

Well the commissioners and ADs are giving sound bites so it's not completely unsubstantiated. The Big East is scared enough to bring in Paul Tagliabue. Things are on the table at the BCS meetings this week (regardless of the spin they are giving ). What those details are, I am not sure.

If the Big Ten just raids the Big East, maybe that's all that happens.

But like DBR says, the Big XII is key. If you pull any piece out of the Big XII Jenga tower, it's all falling down. There are no teams attractive enough to add to replace a Mizzou or Colorado should they leave for the Big Ten or Pac Tec respectively. Don't tell me TCU or Boise St. or the Utah schools. Boise St.'s total student grad rate is worse than most FBS football teams. They are not getting in the BCS. TCU brings nothing new to the Big XII table except a decent football team who can't sell out its home stadium. Utah or BYU would be a half-I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. replacement in terms of academics and overall athletics to CU.

If Mizzou or CU leave. Texas will be hot on their heels and can pretty much pick between the Big Ten or Pac Ten. Texas and the Big Ten are saying now they aren't interested in each other, but that's like Mike Shanahan saying he is going to take a QB with the 5th pick tonight. It's posturing. If Mizzou or CU leave, Texas will be gone within 12 months.

Duvall
04-22-2010, 02:54 PM
Georgetown doesn't fit due to no football. Try WVU.

WVU doesn't fit due to fit. Then again, neither does Louisville.

noyac
04-22-2010, 03:04 PM
The scary talk is the potential for these 64 schools (basically, the BCS schools and Notre Dame, kicking out Cincy, and one of the triumverate of USF, Baylor and Iowa State) creating a tournament to compete with/replace the NCAA basketball tourney in much the same way the NCAA once took on the NIT.

Then why not do the same with college football and create a NIT college football tournament. I know this would likely never happen but I am sure they can get the money from sponsors to support it and TV would certainly follow.

Chicago 1995
04-22-2010, 03:11 PM
Well the commissioners and ADs are giving sound bites so it's not completely unsubstantiated. The Big East is scared enough to bring in Paul Tagliabue. Things are on the table at the BCS meetings this week (regardless of the spin they are giving ). What those details are, I am not sure.

If the Big Ten just raids the Big East, maybe that's all that happens.

But like DBR says, the Big XII is key. If you pull any piece out of the Big XII Jenga tower, it's all falling down. There are no teams attractive enough to add to replace a Mizzou or Colorado should they leave for the Big Ten or Pac Tec respectively. Don't tell me TCU or Boise St. or the Utah schools. Boise St.'s total student grad rate is worse than most FBS football teams. They are not getting in the BCS. TCU brings nothing new to the Big XII table except a decent football team who can't sell out its home stadium. Utah or BYU would be a half-I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. replacement in terms of academics and overall athletics to CU.

If Mizzou or CU leave. Texas will be hot on their heels and can pretty much pick between the Big Ten or Pac Ten. Texas and the Big Ten are saying now they aren't interested in each other, but that's like Mike Shanahan saying he is going to take a QB with the 5th pick tonight. It's posturing. If Mizzou or CU leave, Texas will be gone within 12 months.

The SEC is rumbling about not being left behind. Do they make a play to move from 12 to 16 by adding Texas/TAMU/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State?

Or do they try to raid the ACC and lock up Florida with Miami and FSU?

A-Tex Devil
04-22-2010, 03:20 PM
I've posted this before, but here's how I see it playing out. There are some teams you could switch (GaTech/Clemson/FSU could swap out b/w ACC/SEC, for instance), but generally I think 4 16 team conferences would look something like the below

(To anyone that wants to post "why are we wasting our brain cells on this." Can it. It's purely fun speculation, which I enjoy. Not saying this is definitely going to happen, just makes sense to me if full on realignment becomes reality).

East Coast Snobs:
South: Georgia Tech, Clemson, Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake, UVA, Va Tech
Norht: West Virginia, Miami, MD, BC, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, Pitt

Note: MD gets in the Big East like it always wanted, Miami screwed regionally, but it used to be like this, right?

Monocloud Conference:
East: Penn St., Indiana, Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Minnesota, Purdue
West: Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St., Missouri

Note: I switched Minnesota and Wisconsin so West wasn't quite so awful in football.

Rednecks and Okies:
East: Florida, Florida St., Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisiville
West: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss Akbars, Miss St., LSU, Arkansas, OU, Okie Light.

Note: OU and OSU are as tied together as A&M and Texas. OU and Texas don't have to be in same conference to continue RRS.

Tex-Pacific Goliath:
Far West: Washington, WSU, Oregon Oreg St., Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA
Old West: Arizona, Az St., Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor

Note: Large geographic swath for sure. Aggies on the sunset strip. Hahahahahaha

Bye-bye Cincy and USF. Being commuter schools with weak alumni support will torpedo these 2 over Baylor and Iowa St. Each of which, while historically weak in football, have strong alumni support networks.

jimsumner
04-22-2010, 03:27 PM
If the ACC is going to expand, go all the way to 16.

Is there a way to do this and maintain some rational geographic divisions?

Right now, the ACC has three distinct geographic divisions.

The South is Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami.

Then there's the Big Four.

North of the Big Four are Virginia, VT, Maryland and BC.

We all want to keep the Big Four together.

So, you add four teams north of NC and have a N/S split, with the NC teams in the South. If the BE is cannabilzed, this might be possible, especially if the ACC can go outside the BE for someone like Temple.

Or, you add four teams south of NC and put the Big Four in the northern part of the N/S split. This would be tougher. South Florida and Central Florida would work but where do the other two come from? Other Florida schools? Can South Carolina be lured from the SEC? Not likely. ECU would love an invite from the ACC but they would have to be decoupled from the Big Four and besides, the ACC already owns North Carolina.

So, going north makes more sense, especially if the ACC can get into big media markets like NYC or Philly. Then again, those are pro cities.

Then again, again, if the SEC raids the ACC, the ACC would have to work just to get back to twelve. BTW, I've always thought Vanderbilt belonged more in the ACC then the SEC. Trade? For whom?

I'm not sure any of this comes to pass. Then again, I still miss the SWC, in the same way that I miss that rabid dog down the street.

So, we'll see.

A-Tex Devil
04-22-2010, 03:27 PM
The SEC is rumbling about not being left behind. Do they make a play to move from 12 to 16 by adding Texas/TAMU/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State?

Or do they try to raid the ACC and lock up Florida with Miami and FSU?

I won't say that Texas would NEVER go to the SEC, but Texas would ALMOST never go to the SEC. It would be a last resort (much like the Big XII was). Texas is despised by the other Big XII schools because part of the deal for coming in 15 years ago was that the academic standards had to be raised. No more Prop 40-whatever students. The SEC doesn't have the same entry requirements that Texas has required of the Big XII. Other than geography, Texas is a much better fit with the ACC in terms of institutions than the SEC.

And even though the geography is worse, Texas would much rather raid CA recruiting or Midwest recruiting and risk reciprocal in state recruiting losses than it would have those same battles with the LSUs, Bamas, Floridas of the world.

OldPhiKap
04-22-2010, 03:49 PM
Why don't we just pick up four PAC-10 teams, and change our name to the "Both Coasts Conference?"

Great for football, bad for basketball. Just like the last time.

PumpkinFunk
04-22-2010, 04:50 PM
The problem that I see with expansion for football is that it doesn't help the problem, it worsens it, I feel. Going to 4 16-team conferences with a 4-team playoff doesn't help the issue if people think that 2 teams from the same conference are still the best team. For football, you have an 8-game conference schedule where you play 7 games within your division of the conference and a rotating partner that might as well not be in the same conference for all intents and purposes. For basketball, you get the type of schedule bastardization that the Big East does, with woefully unbalanced schedules. The bottom line is that for basketball, this is far, far worse (which I think would cause the majority of the ACC to want to stay - we're a basketball league who has slowly strengthening football, not a football league with great basketball) and even though the NCAAT is the bottom line, it still would be shocking to see the ACC expand or get raided by the SEC.

My guess is that the Pac-10 and Big Ten destroy the Big East and Big XII (Pitt, Rutgers, Mizzou to Big Ten, Colorado to Pac 10, maybe Notre Dame to the Big Ten), leaving the pieces on the ground while the SEC and ACC don't pick them all up. The SEC is the top football league. The ACC is the top basketball league. Neither wants to dilute that, unless the SEC can pull Texas somehow, or unless the ACC can pull Syracuse, Georgetown, and some other strong basketball schools with (maybe) I-A football and strong academics. That doesn't seem likely to me.

Much like the Big Ten, academics are an important consideration for the ACC. We're not going to take Louisville or West Virginia or UConn. If we do, it's just not the ACC anymore.

bluedevil2012
04-22-2010, 05:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

jimsumner
04-22-2010, 05:14 PM
"We're not going to take Louisville or West Virginia or UConn. If we do, it's just not the ACC anymore. "

Some would say the ACC hasn't been the ACC for some time now. Horses, barn doors and all that.

Are West Virginia and UConn any further down the academic pecking order than FSU?

sagegrouse
04-22-2010, 05:14 PM
Georgetown doesn't fit due to no football. Try WVU.

I don't know what Georgetown's long-range plans are, but in the past twenty years it has moved from club football to Div III NCAA football to Div I-AA.

Others are probably more up-to-date than this part-time DC resident.

sagegrouse

hurleyfor3
04-22-2010, 05:14 PM
How do you keep BYU and Utah out of this discussion? I think you need to cover the SLC area (more than you need, for example, Northwestern) and it's hard to take one and not the other. UNLV too; Vegas is a pretty big metro area now.

hurleyfor3
04-22-2010, 05:24 PM
Some would say the ACC hasn't been the ACC for some time now. Horses, barn doors and all that.

I get your gist, and agree with you in a top-to-bottom sense, but check out how many of the last 10 basketball titles were won by ACC schools. I'm not aware of another 5/10 run by any conference, ever, that didn't involve ucla.

A-Tex Devil
04-22-2010, 05:26 PM
How do you keep BYU and Utah out of this discussion? I think you need to cover the SLC area (more than you need, for example, Northwestern) and it's hard to take one and not the other. UNLV too; Vegas is a pretty big metro area now.

I think there is a chance that the Pac Ten grabs Utah and/or BYU. The problem with BYU is that they won't play on Sundays. The problem with both is they are plan C to getting CU, Texas, etc. and the status quo, regardless.

Would you pick Utah and BYU over, say, Nebraksa? That's a tough one. Sure SLC is bigger than the whole state of Nebraska, but there's a reason Nebraska is one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country. It's not all TV sets. That's a part of it. It's also institutional fit, athletic department budget, and competition in other sports.

If anyone new comes to the party, it will be Utah or BYU, but they certainly won't be anyone's first choice.

hurleyfor3
04-22-2010, 05:40 PM
Would you pick Utah and BYU over, say, Nebraksa? That's a tough one. Sure SLC is bigger than the whole state of Nebraska, but there's a reason Nebraska is one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country. It's not all TV sets. That's a part of it. It's also institutional fit, athletic department budget, and competition in other sports.


This whole setup strikes me as a collective move by large state schools and a very small handful of private schools. Think NW, Vandy and Wake are on the outside looking in. And the next cut would be us -- after all, this is mostly about football. And Wake's recent past in football is a lot better than ours.

Anyway, it's quite possible to squeeze BYU and Utah in if you kick a couple of the smaller private schools out, maybe leave out Baylor too or someone like that. I could see Byu not wanting to go along in the first place, but that would make it more important to add Utah, not less.

SCMatt33
04-22-2010, 05:44 PM
I don't think that this will blow up as much as people seem to think. I see a multitude of scenario's where we end up with 5 conferences ranging from 12-16 rather than just four super conferences. I have seen no indication that the Pac-10 is willing to go east of the Rockies and create a three time-zone league. The Pac-10 is in a very stable postion. They are the only game in town out west right now, and their TV situation is pretty stable because of the east coast bias. Texas is the only team out there that would give a big boost to Per Team revenue. Even if they were willing to go that far east, I don't think that they would take the entire state of Texas plus a team or two to the north, its just to cumbersome geographically, and the Presidents would have too many academic concerns about that much travel to allow it to happen. Without the Pac-10 taking on six extra current BCS teams, the four conference scenario doesn't work.

I think that it is more likely that the Big East is raided and forced to dissolve with not enough football schools remaining. The Big XII will lose a few teams, maybe Missouri and/or Nebraska to the Big 10 and CU to the Pac-10. This will force the hand of Texas, who could either try and help save the Big XII, or bolt somewhere else (it could be anyone out of the Pac-10, Big 10, or SEC depending on how stuff goes in front of them). The remaining BXII teams will join up with one of the other four if they can, but there will be room for not too many at this point. The rest will end up splitting up. One half will go west and form a football conference with the top Mountain West and WAC schools that are left, and the rest will go east and form a basketball focused league with the big east remnants. This will create a scenario with 5 major conferences, though two different ones for B-ball and football.

At the end of the day, though, the Pac-10, not necessarily the Big XII will be key, because I don't think that they want to take six teams from the current Big XII.

RoyalBlue08
04-22-2010, 06:18 PM
My two cents:

If they ACC wants to get ahead of the expansion, they should look for three things in new schools,

1. Solid academic institutions
2. New markets
3. Good football and basketball teams.

For this reason, I like reaching out to Pitt, ND, and Syracuse. (I realize Syracuse doesn't bring in a good football program, but the NY market is very important).

Thurber Whyte
04-22-2010, 06:56 PM
Why don't we just pick up four PAC-10 teams, and change our name to the "Both Coasts Conference?"

Great for football, bad for basketball. Just like the last time.

If all of this is about the geographic footprint of a television network, how about an alliance between the ACC and the Pac-10 rather than expansion if the Big Ten decides to expand? A network shared between the two conferences would have a huge geographic footprint with very attractive demographics and neither conference would have to reinvent itself.

Not only would the demographics be good, but the three hour time difference between the two coasts would be a bonus. It would allow wall to wall coverage with everybody playing at their normal times. For basketball, each region’s weekday games could be broadcast in primetime with early/late games available from the other. For football, the Saturday game times could be handled just as the NFL does, early start times on the East Coast and later start times on the West Coast.

With the ACC and the Pac-10 there would be a real synergy because the weakness of each in its revenue sports (football versus basketball) is the strength of the other.

I think that economies of scale favor a two conference network rather than a single conference one. Even with 16 teams, a single conference would struggle to fill out the schedule of an entire network. With 22 teams, an ACC/Pac-10 network would be more valuable because it had more content as well as viewers.

Mutual interest between fans of the respective conferences could be further heighted by replacing the ACC/Big Ten challenge with an ACC/Pac-10 Challenge and . . . wait for it . . . an ACC/Pac-10 Rose Bowl! The consequences for the Big Ten could not be more appropriate: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.”

In anticipation of such an alliance, please join me as a fully bi-coastal college sports fan in derisively referring to The Big Ten Network as “the flyover network.”

4decadedukie
04-22-2010, 07:14 PM
Georgetown doesn't fit due to no football. Try WVU.

Well, actually, I believe Georgetown plays intercollegiate football, although not Division I. I doubt if on-campus space at Georgetown could accommodate an even Wade-sized stadium (plus parking, etc.), however, RFK (easy student access via Metro) and/or FedEx Field (high-revenue sky boxes and all the latest accouterments) have adequate seating .

G man
04-22-2010, 07:20 PM
I am from Nebraska and I can tell you that the Tom Osborne is trying to be proactive not wanting to be left in a watered down big 12. On a different note everyone has watched the emergence of the moutain west as a legit conference they had a good basketball year and even a better football year. I am a little surprised that the pac-10 would not want some of them instead of say Colorado that sucks at everything these days. Except that Colorado has a large TV market and probably a larger alumni base. I still cannot see why the old golden domes don't want to join the big 10.

jimsumner
04-22-2010, 07:21 PM
Would Thurber's invention be called the "Bi-Coastal Leagues?"

For those of you who wish the ACC to go after academically compatible schools, Army and Navy beckon. Of course, their basketball programs are beyond woeful. But the SATs are off the charts.

If we could just get the University of Chicago to reinstate big-time football.

OldPhiKap
04-22-2010, 08:11 PM
If all of this is about the geographic footprint of a television network, how about an alliance between the ACC and the Pac-10 rather than expansion if the Big Ten decides to expand? A network shared between the two conferences would have a huge geographic footprint with very attractive demographics and neither conference would have to reinvent itself.

Not only would the demographics be good, but the three hour time difference between the two coasts would be a bonus. It would allow wall to wall coverage with everybody playing at their normal times. For basketball, each region’s weekday games could be broadcast in primetime with early/late games available from the other. For football, the Saturday game times could be handled just as the NFL does, early start times on the East Coast and later start times on the West Coast.

With the ACC and the Pac-10 there would be a real synergy because the weakness of each in its revenue sports (football versus basketball) is the strength of the other.

I think that economies of scale favor a two conference network rather than a single conference one. Even with 16 teams, a single conference would struggle to fill out the schedule of an entire network. With 22 teams, an ACC/Pac-10 network would be more valuable because it had more content as well as viewers.

Mutual interest between fans of the respective conferences could be further heighted by replacing the ACC/Big Ten challenge with an ACC/Pac-10 Challenge and . . . wait for it . . . an ACC/Pac-10 Rose Bowl! The consequences for the Big Ten could not be more appropriate: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.”

In anticipation of such an alliance, please join me as a fully bi-coastal college sports fan in derisively referring to The Big Ten Network as “the flyover network.”

"The sun never sets on the ACC empire."

4decadedukie
04-22-2010, 08:17 PM
Is anyone else troubled by additional ACC expansion, especially with more "thuggish" Big East schools? I see very significant cultural and academic differences between universities like Pitt, UConn, WVU, and so on -- or even with Miami, FSU, Virginia Tech -- and with Duke, UNC, UVa, Wake, etc.

Many believe the ACC's recent expansion (Miami, Virginia Tech and then BC) and its next-to-last expansion (FSU) were mistakes that have not even achieved alleged financial promises -- and please consider, the most-reputable ACC universities (Duke, UNC and UVa) opposed the more-recent change (with UVa eventually strong-armed to accede by Virginia politicians, who wanted to have VPI added to the ACC). We should remember that expansions/consolidations of this sort will include ALL intercollegiate athletics, not just the traditional, major revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

If one wants Duke to have excellent competition and cultural/academic compatibility for all sports, why not consider a sixteen-team Atlantic conference (no longer the ACC) that melds the best of the Ivy League -- currently unmentioned in all the uber-expansion chatter -- the ACC, and a few others, such as:
Duke
UNC
UVa
BC
Wake
Syracuse
Notre Dame (a long-shot, but this whole proposal is mighty theoretical)
Army
Navy
Cornell
Dartmouth
Yale
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Brown

Or one could have great academic and cultural similarity, if geographic parameters (and travel costs) were increased, with Atlantic and Pacific Divisions (such as):
Duke
UNC
UVa
BC
Wake
Syracuse
Army
Navy

Stanford
Northwestern
Air Force
Rice
Tulane
TCU
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame

jimsumner
04-22-2010, 08:53 PM
There's a reason why nobody is talking about the Ivies. They gave up big-time football two generations ago and I can't imagine they're interested in coming back.

This whole thing is driven by football and money, an unholy alliance all too often. I don't think Option Two has enough football power to make it work. Like it or not, large state universities control college football and a conference without a fair number of those likely will be driven into something approaching irrelevance.

Indoor66
04-22-2010, 08:53 PM
Is anyone else troubled by additional ACC expansion, especially with more "thuggish" Big East schools? I see very significant cultural and academic differences between universities like Pitt, UConn, WVU, and so on -- or even with Miami, FSU, Virginia Tech -- and with Duke, UNC, UVa, Wake, etc.

Many believe the ACC's recent expansion (Miami, Virginia Tech and then BC) and its next-to-last expansion (FSU) were mistakes that have not even achieved alleged financial promises -- and please consider, the most-reputable ACC universities (Duke, UNC and UVa) opposed the more-recent change (with UVa eventually strong-armed to accede by Virginia politicians, who wanted to have VPI added to the ACC). We should remember that expansions/consolidations of this sort will include ALL intercollegiate athletics, not just the traditional, major revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

If one wants Duke to have excellent competition and cultural/academic compatibility for all sports, why not consider a sixteen-team Atlantic conference (no longer the ACC) that melds the best of the Ivy League -- currently unmentioned in all the uber-expansion chatter -- the ACC, and a few others, such as:
Duke
UNC
UVa
BC
Wake
Syracuse
Notre Dame (a long-shot, but this whole proposal is mighty theoretical)
Army
Navy
Cornell
Dartmouth
Yale
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Brown

Or one could have great academic and cultural similarity, if geographic parameters (and travel costs) were increased, with Atlantic and Pacific Divisions (such as):
Duke
UNC
UVa
BC
Wake
Syracuse
Army
Navy

Stanford
Northwestern
Air Force
Rice
Tulane
TCU
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame

Nice thought but the cost of travel for all teams, especially non-revenue sports would be prohibitive.

-bdbd
04-23-2010, 12:29 AM
Is anyone else troubled by additional ACC expansion, especially with more "thuggish" Big East schools? I see very significant cultural and academic differences between universities like Pitt, UConn, WVU, and so on -- or even with Miami, FSU, Virginia Tech -- and with Duke, UNC, UVa, Wake, etc....We should remember that expansions/consolidations of this sort will include ALL intercollegiate athletics, not just the traditional, major revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

If one wants Duke to have excellent competition and cultural/academic compatibility for all sports, why not consider a sixteen-team Atlantic conference (no longer the ACC) that melds the best of the Ivy League -- currently unmentioned in all the uber-expansion chatter -- the ACC, and a few others, such as:
Duke
UNC
UVa
BC
Wake
Syracuse
Notre Dame (a long-shot, but this whole proposal is mighty theoretical)
Army
Navy
Cornell
Dartmouth
Yale
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Brown


First, I don't see the more tradition-bound ACC as being all that eager to expand again - 'could be wrong, but am only seeing that happen in a "strike first," defensive mode. But I think the most obvious three schools for the ACC to add if we were moving towards a 16-team conference would be the three NYC general area colleges -- Rutgers, Syracuse and UCONN, who provide TV market heft and fall within the currently defined ACC geography. It would also fit the "strike first" mode that I mentioned above, since they are also being eyed by the Big10/11. Then, think in terms of north-south ACC Divisions. And it truly is THE Atlantic Coast Conference.

The 16th school could be any of WVU (geography appropriate), Pitt (another market and expansion into PA recruiting areas), ECU (they'd KILL to get in) or any of a few (long-shot) SEC schools - FL, USC, another FL school, etc.

I'm more concerned that MD gets approached again by the Big 10/11.

Interesting Times...


BDBD
"If I'm the Big East I'm sleeping with a gun under my pillow these days..." :rolleyes:

4decadedukie
04-23-2010, 06:36 AM
There's a reason why nobody is talking about the Ivies. They gave up big-time football two generations ago and I can't imagine they're interested in coming back.

This whole thing is driven by football and money, an unholy alliance all too often. I don't think Option Two has enough football power to make it work. Like it or not, large state universities control college football and a conference without a fair number of those likely will be driven into something approaching irrelevance.

Much as I would like to, I simply cannot disagree.

I would note, however, that until a couple years ago, quite a few substantial Dukies would have agreed that your statement re the Ivy League ("There's a reason why nobody is talking about the Ivies. They gave up big-time football two generations ago and I can't imagine they're interested in coming back.") also applied to Duke. We all now know our program -- under Coach Cut's great leadership and with significant support from every relevant Duke community and governing entity -- is making superb progress. Further, I am not trying to suggest that the anything similar is at all likely with the Ivy League. But it is interesting that the "marginal football" that characterizes the Ancient Eight also applied in Durham for, perhaps, three decades.

4decadedukie
04-23-2010, 07:02 AM
First, I don't see the more tradition-bound ACC as being all that eager to expand again - 'could be wrong, but am only seeing that happen in a "strike first," defensive mode.

I agree; however, I suspect the we all fear that a nation-wide, football and financially driven uber-expansion will force the ACC to act (possibly proactively, or be left attempting to cobble together a viable, sixteen-team conference with unattractive leftovers). Now I hate this -- I really do -- and what I despise most about it is the likely loss of the ACC's traditional character, which (IMO) has already been seriously compromised by the inclusion of universities such as FSU, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Therefore, my dream (please see post #30) concerning a broader -- at least the whole northern/middle seaboard -- conference. With all its deficiencies and its lack of compelling broadcasting revenue, such a conference would represent the academic and cultural values that have characterized the ACC since inception. Dreams are funny things; last November, I dreamed about a Fourth National Championship for our Blue Devils, never believing (at that time) it was possible . . .

4decadedukie
04-23-2010, 07:14 AM
I'm more concerned that MD gets approached again by the Big 10/11.

In my opinion, one of the few potentially positive results of a possible nation-wide collegiate athletics uber-expansion would be shedding Maryland. I realize UMd is a founding ACC member and I recognize their athletic program extends far beyond men's hoops, but -- as has been commented upon so frequently, so fervently, and so recently in various DBR posts -- their culture and values have become incompatible with those that traditionally characterize the ACC, and neither their Administration nor their Trustees appear to be remotely interested in correcting this long-growing malignancy.

RelativeWays
04-23-2010, 08:20 AM
I've not heard of UMD having academic problems in other sports, only Men's basketball.

Expansion is all about TV markets and how many households your conference has access to (not how many would actually watch, otherwise nobody would want BC).
This is all about getting your piece of the pie. The SEC TV deal is driving this, the Big 10 wants to surpass it. Here is something thats interesting. Outside of the Atlanta/Athens and Central Florida markets, the SEC is not in a large TV market at all. Its desired for America's love of football and the competition it brings. The Big 10 would do just as well to bring in teams that create intriguing match-ups for ad revenue, not necessarily what state has theoretically the most TV sets. With that in mind, the Big 10 should pick

Pitt
WVU
ND

If they need two more I guess Missouri and I'd pick KU.

The SEC and ACC WOULD pick up other schools to keep pace.

If the ACC is lucky, the SEC would take FSU and Miami, Unlucky, they'll take Clemson and GT. The ACC should go north for UConn (I can't imagine The U or FSU is much better for academics) Rutgers, UL, Syracuse. All of them have a solid football history, all but Rutgers have a great basketball history, but you have to hope Rutgers would be motivated to improve.

hurleyfor3
04-23-2010, 10:16 AM
I am a little surprised that the pac-10 would not want some of them instead of say Colorado that sucks at everything these days. Except that Colorado has a large TV market and probably a larger alumni base.

CU has value to someone. They're really the only game in town in a quite sizeable catchment area. They have a nice little football rivalry with Colorado State, but the funny thing about the state of Colorado is no other school really has D-IA athletic aspirations, so who else do you take? For a number of reasons, I don't think it matters that much that CU's revenue sports suck. (One is that for many fans, CU football is little more than a diversion between hiking and skiing seasons. Man, this team sucks, but hey, Arapahoe Basin opens next week!) Academically and philosophically they're a great fit in the Pac-10.



I still cannot see why the old golden domes don't want to join the big 10.

Because they have their own teevee network and are their own conference for bcs purposes, that's why. Heck, I would wonder whether we could pull that off in basketball, except that we don't fill an 80,000-seat stadium for basketball games. We already have our own network anyway, it's called espn.

BTW, what's with all this talk about Pitt? They're a decent school with decent sports programs (and Dad is Pitt '59) but all you're adding is western Pennsylvania, which has pretty lousy demographics (declining, aging population, not a lot of disposable income etc). Pitt is no better than the #3 cared-about football program in its area. Pitt has value, and I've argued for including them in a "mid-Atlantic ACC" in the past, but not a lot of value on their own.

tallguy
04-23-2010, 10:36 AM
I've not heard of UMD having academic problems in other sports, only Men's basketball.

Expansion is all about TV markets and how many households your conference has access to (not how many would actually watch, otherwise nobody would want BC).
This is all about getting your piece of the pie. The SEC TV deal is driving this, the Big 10 wants to surpass it. Here is something thats interesting. Outside of the Atlanta/Athens and Central Florida markets, the SEC is not in a large TV market at all. Its desired for America's love of football and the competition it brings. The Big 10 would do just as well to bring in teams that create intriguing match-ups for ad revenue, not necessarily what state has theoretically the most TV sets.

The Big 10 only cares about TV sets, because right now, the Big 10 gets 60-70 cents per TV set in their home markets for the Big 10 Network, but only 10 cents in out of market areas. That's a huge amount of cash, which is why Rutgers and Missouri are in the mix. The only team that they don't care about market size is ND due to its national appeal.

I'll also go ahead and point out that the biggest losers in expansion are going to be Cincinnati, Louisville, and WVU. Funny how lack of academics is going to kill any chance of those schools to join the new conference order. None of those schools have any shot at joining the ACC or the Big 10. I'd shed a tear, but meh.

RoyalBlue08
04-23-2010, 10:46 AM
BTW, what's with all this talk about Pitt? They're a decent school with decent sports programs (and Dad is Pitt '59) but all you're adding is western Pennsylvania, which has pretty lousy demographics (declining, aging population, not a lot of disposable income etc). Pitt is no better than the #3 cared-about football program in its area. Pitt has value, and I've argued for including them in a "mid-Atlantic ACC" in the past, but not a lot of value on their own.

Pitt has alot more value to the ACC than to the Big 10. The Big 10 already owns their market (Western PA), and would like to take over the whole NE (lots of people live in the NE, and they all have TVs). If the ACC wants to stay to continue to compete in the TV revenue game, they need to get into the NE too and not just cede it to the Big 10. Pitt offers something as it isn't as much of a joke school as say UConn or WVU. I say get Pitt and Syracuse now while you can, and with BC you have three NE schools to get your games on in the NE markets.

jimsumner
04-23-2010, 12:42 PM
"They have a nice little football rivalry with Colorado State, but the funny thing about the state of Colorado is no other school really has D-IA athletic aspirations, so who else do you take?"

Well, the Air Force Academy is in Colorado and they play D-1 sports. Obviously, they get their athletes from a different pool and have a much different alumni base. But they are in Colorado.

As for Duke and the Ivies, Duke never stopped giving scholarships for football, never dropped into a lower division and never stopped scheduling traditional football powers. The Ivies did all of the above, a long time ago, for the specific reason that they wanted to get away from overly-commercialized big-time college football. And none of them, to the best of my knowledge, have ever looked back.

hurleyfor3
04-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Well, the Air Force Academy is in Colorado and they play D-1 sports. Obviously, they get their athletes from a different pool and have a much different alumni base. But they are in Colorado.

I know you knew what I meant. I explicitly said D-IA, as in devoting the resources to competing with BCS-type teams and competing in a similar recruiting pool. As in, who is worth taking in this Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia type megaconference dystopia instead of or in addition to CU? Not USAFA, and not CSU, UNC (the "other" UNC) or UD either.

BTW, where do Coloradoans go who want to go to small private schools, but can't cut the top-tier privates? What's their Emory or DePaul or Davidson? Maybe I should ask this on 14ers.com instead.

A-Tex Devil
04-23-2010, 02:19 PM
BTW, where do Coloradoans go who want to go to small private schools, but can't cut the top-tier privates? What's their Emory or DePaul or Davidson? Maybe I should ask this on 14ers.com instead.

Colorado College, Colorado School of Mines, that party school up in Steamboat - Rocky Mountain College or some such, Regent (I think?). There are some.

jimsumner
04-23-2010, 02:38 PM
"I explicitly said D-IA, as in devoting the resources to competing with BCS-type teams and competing in a similar recruiting pool."

But that's not what the term means. Actually, there's no such thing as Division 1-A and hasn't been for several years. We have BCS schools and FCS schools. Technically the BCS schools are members of the Division 1 Football Bowl Series. The former 1-AA schools are members of the FCS, Football Championship series.

The Air Force Academy is a BCS/FBS school in football and competes in the NCAA Division-1 in other sports. They are in the highest athletic classification and the school is located in the state of Colorado. Isn't that what I said?

They've played in bowl games the last three seasons and have a lot more overall bowl appearances than Duke. They've also made the NCAA Basketball Tournament as recently as 2006, the NIT as recently as 2007. Neither Colorado nor Colorado State has played in the NCAAs as recently as Air Force.

So, their unusual and limited recruiting pool seems to be placing them at a level at least comparable to that of Colorado and Colorado State.

Is the Pac-10 interested in the AFA? Not likely. Not sure, they're interested in Colorado State either. Then again, Army and Navy keep getting linked with the ACC and neither has had appreciably more overall athletic success recently than has Air Force.

G man
04-24-2010, 05:33 AM
(One is that for many fans, CU football is little more than a diversion between hiking and skiing seasons. Man, this team sucks, but hey, Arapahoe Basin opens next week!) Academically and philosophically they're a great fit in the Pac-10.



I love that you have heard of A basin. I assume you have been to colorado. I grew up there and while people will tell you they are Buff's fans i can tell you that they really don't know what being a college sports fan entails. To many pro teams in their market! You are probably right they do fit in with the pac-10 all though some of the mountain west teams would bring more competition.

sagegrouse
04-24-2010, 07:55 AM
BTW, where do Coloradoans go who want to go to small private schools, but can't cut the top-tier privates? What's their Emory or DePaul or Davidson? Maybe I should ask this on 14ers.com instead.

A-Tex Devil had a good answer. The well-known liberal arts college in Colorado is Colorado College. He also refers to "that party school up in Steamboat." That would be Colorado Mountain College (http://coloradomtn.edu/), a two-year school with about ten locations throughout the Colorado mountains. Some kids are successful in talking their parents into that option.

Those who are looking for access to ski areas in Colorado famously go to CU. CU has about 30% out-of-state students, and as the Colorado budget woes continue to mount, the percentage is certain to rise. Now only 6% of the CU budget comes from the state of Colorado. College students throughout Colorado get bargain-basement rates on ski passes. CSU in Fort Collins is also a good school, although not as popular with the out-of-state crowd.

Knowledgeable skiers who want a good education often attend Montana State in Bozeman. It is less than an hour from Big Sky, a formidable ski mountain. Boulder and Fort Collins are a full three hours from anyplace good to ski, and the traffic on I-70 in the winter is just awful.

WRT to other four-year liberal arts, students from Colorado will have to travel: Grinnell and Coe in Iowa, Macalester and Carleton in Minnesota, or the Claremont Group in California. Not surprisingly, the American west is public university territory.

And windy Wyoming is an extreme case of limited higher education choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_Wyoming). The only four-year college in the entire state is the U. of Wyoming in Laramie (enrollment of 12,000+), unless you want to count Wyoming Catholic College with its massive student body of 361.

sagegrouse

Indoor66
04-24-2010, 09:33 AM
A-Tex Devil had a good answer. The well-known liberal arts college in Colorado is Colorado College. He also refers to "that party school up in Steamboat." That would be Colorado Mountain College (http://coloradomtn.edu/), a two-year school with about ten locations throughout the Colorado mountains. Some kids are successful in talking their parents into that option.

Those who are looking for access to ski areas in Colorado famously go to CU. CU has about 30% out-of-state students, and as the Colorado budget woes continue to mount, the percentage is certain to rise. Now only 6% of the CU budget comes from the state of Colorado. College students throughout Colorado get bargain-basement rates on ski passes. CSU in Fort Collins is also a good school, although not as popular with the out-of-state crowd.

Knowledgeable skiers who want a good education often attend Montana State in Bozeman. It is less than an hour from Big Sky, a formidable ski mountain. Boulder and Fort Collins are a full three hours from anyplace good to ski, and the traffic on I-70 in the winter is just awful.

WRT to other four-year liberal arts, students from Colorado will have to travel: Grinnell and Coe in Iowa, Macalester and Carleton in Minnesota, or the Claremont Group in California. Not surprisingly, the American west is public university territory.

And windy Wyoming is an extreme case of limited higher education choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_Wyoming). The only four-year college in the entire state is the U. of Wyoming in Laramie (enrollment of 12,000+), unless you want to count Wyoming Catholic College with its massive student body of 361.

sagegrouse

A good summary. WRT U of Wyo, that 12,000 students does represent approximately 2.4% of the total population of Wyoming, so it is a very large school.... :D

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 10:37 AM
So in the midwest, talks are heating up that Nebraska and Mizzou will bolt to the Big Ten if invited - could be as early as end of the month (doubtful, but possible). Mizzou made an illusory request to the Big XII last week that it revisit its revenue sharing policies knowing the answer would be "No." Big Ten shares revenue equally, Big XII does no. UT, A&M, OU and Nebraska make a lot more each year than Mizzou. Many feel this request was made to bolster the argument among the alumni and legislature that the move is a good thing for the school if they get the invite (Duh!).

If the Big Ten strikes out west first, I think this is good for the ACC. In the event the ACC were to ever lose teams to the SEC (and I'm not sure it would unless the SEC wants to split the pie more ways), there are still teams like Syracuse, UConn and WVU it could go after to fill back up to 12. If the Big Ten had struck out east and picked up several Big East schools, then that leaves less attractive options for the ACC to fill up to 12 if the SEC raids it.

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc. For UNC, that move is only good from a $$ perspective (and it would be good from a $$ perspective even if their athletic programs got run over by the SEC schools). I doubt they'd leave the ACC behind as one of the flagship universities, but $$ has made people and entities do some surprising things in the past. And if the ACC ended up on the bad end after conference realignment (which I don't see), who knows.

Anyway -- this is purely speculative, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for the SEC to at least offer should they choose to expand.

Bluedog
05-10-2010, 11:04 AM
One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc. For UNC, that move is only good from a $$ perspective (and it would be good from a $$ perspective even if their athletic programs got run over by the SEC schools). I doubt they'd leave the ACC behind as one of the flagship universities, but $$ has made people and entities do some surprising things in the past. And if the ACC ended up on the bad end after conference realignment (which I don't see), who knows.

Anyway -- this is purely speculative, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for the SEC to at least offer should they choose to expand.

Sorry, but UNC would NEVER got to the SEC. That's a complete joke in my mind. There is a reason that Duke and UNC were the only two schools to vote against conference expansion in the first place. They're basketball schools so attempting to make football better while sacrificing the round robin home-and-away in basketball wasn't worth it for those two. Not only that, but they'd be going to a far inferior conference from a basketball perspective, clearly UNC's cash cow. On top of that, the SEC is definitely weaker from an academic standpoint. I realize that conferences are purely for sports, but being associated with schools like Duke, Wake, UVa, Boston College, etc. has to help UNC somewhat from an academic/recruiting (both athletes and non-athletes) standpoint as opposed to Ole Miss, Alabama, Miss St. (I realize the SEC has Vandy and Florida, but that's about it.) In addition, it's rare for a founding university of a conference to leave as it's part of their identity (I realize south carolina left the ACC, though.) On top of that, they'd be giving up the Duke rivalry! Are you kidding me? Give up that cash cow and something the two universities have been doing for the past 90 years?!? Not going to happen. UNC would never accept an invitation to the SEC. It's almost like Duke accepting an invitation to the SEC. Can you imagine us doing that? hahaha, it's just funny thinking how absurd it is. Not saying the SEC wouldn't try to poach ACC schools if certain scenarios play out, just that losing UNC is completely out of the realm of possibility.

roywhite
05-10-2010, 11:06 AM
So in the midwest, talks are heating up that Nebraska and Mizzou will bolt to the Big Ten if invited - could be as early as end of the month (doubtful, but possible). Mizzou made an illusory request to the Big XII last week that it revisit its revenue sharing policies knowing the answer would be "No." Big Ten shares revenue equally, Big XII does no. UT, A&M, OU and Nebraska make a lot more each year than Mizzou. Many feel this request was made to bolster the argument among the alumni and legislature that the move is a good thing for the school if they get the invite (Duh!).

If the Big Ten strikes out west first, I think this is good for the ACC. In the event the ACC were to ever lose teams to the SEC (and I'm not sure it would unless the SEC wants to split the pie more ways), there are still teams like Syracuse, UConn and WVU it could go after to fill back up to 12. If the Big Ten had struck out east and picked up several Big East schools, then that leaves less attractive options for the ACC to fill up to 12 if the SEC raids it.

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc. For UNC, that move is only good from a $$ perspective (and it would be good from a $$ perspective even if their athletic programs got run over by the SEC schools). I doubt they'd leave the ACC behind as one of the flagship universities, but $$ has made people and entities do some surprising things in the past. And if the ACC ended up on the bad end after conference realignment (which I don't see), who knows.

Anyway -- this is purely speculative, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for the SEC to at least offer should they choose to expand.

Thanks for your info on this, A-Tex.

From what I am reading, Notre Dame still seems determined to maintain their independent football status. They are at the top of the B10/11 shopping list, but reluctant to make the change. There was some talk about UTexas, but not seeing that much now.

Seems like the B10/11 could go to 14, with Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers being possible additions.

sagegrouse
05-10-2010, 11:14 AM
If the Big Ten strikes out west first, I think this is good for the ACC. In the event the ACC were to ever lose teams to the SEC (and I'm not sure it would unless the SEC wants to split the pie more ways), there are still teams like Syracuse, UConn and WVU it could go after to fill back up to 12. If the Big Ten had struck out east and picked up several Big East schools, then that leaves less attractive options for the ACC to fill up to 12 if the SEC raids it.

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc.

I agree that the Big Ten taking Nebraska and Mizzou reduces the risks to the ACC, by shifting the center of gravity of the Big Ten to the west rather than the east (by adding, say, Pitt and Syracuse).

If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big Ten, I would think that the SEC would probably go after the four Texas schools or maybe Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the Big 12 begins to fracture, the financial attraction of the conference to current members will be less.

FWIW, I think the academic side of UNC would be totally opposed to SEC affiliation, not to mention the football coach :rolleyes:. UNC, along with Duke, was totally opposed to ACC expansion. Also, the NC government would likely be unsympathetic: the Big Four is an asset for the state of North Carolina. And what would Calipari say?

sagegrouse

theAlaskanBear
05-10-2010, 11:26 AM
I agree that the Big Ten taking Nebraska and Mizzou reduces the risks to the ACC, by shifting the center of gravity of the Big Ten to the west rather than the east (by adding, say, Pitt and Syracuse).

If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big Ten, I would think that the SEC would probably go after the four Texas schools or maybe Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the Big 12 begins to fracture, the financial attraction of the conference to current members will be less.

FWIW, I think the academic side of UNC would be totally opposed to SEC affiliation, not to mention the football coach :rolleyes:. UNC, along with Duke, was totally opposed to ACC expansion. Also, the NC government would likely be unsympathetic: the Big Four is an asset for the state of North Carolina. And what would Calipari say?

sagegrouse

I can only pray that SEC expansion doesnt take place and it doesnt go West to the big Texas schools. The last thing we need is an SEC-superconference to dominate the college football culture more than it already does.

Duke of Nashville
05-10-2010, 11:50 AM
I can only pray that SEC expansion doesnt take place and it doesnt go West to the big Texas schools. The last thing we need is an SEC-superconference to dominate the college football culture more than it already does.

However, that may be the closest we ever get to a playoff system.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 12:35 PM
I agree that the Big Ten taking Nebraska and Mizzou reduces the risks to the ACC, by shifting the center of gravity of the Big Ten to the west rather than the east (by adding, say, Pitt and Syracuse).

If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big Ten, I would think that the SEC would probably go after the four Texas schools or maybe Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the Big 12 begins to fracture, the financial attraction of the conference to current members will be less.

FWIW, I think the academic side of UNC would be totally opposed to SEC affiliation, not to mention the football coach :rolleyes:. UNC, along with Duke, was totally opposed to ACC expansion. Also, the NC government would likely be unsympathetic: the Big Four is an asset for the state of North Carolina. And what would Calipari say?

sagegrouse

Texas has the same feelings toward the SEC that UNC does. Believe me. Texas does not go to the SEC unless the Big XII collapses and it can't get into the Big Ten or PAC 10, or alternatively create a super conference/alliance with a TV network with leftover Big XII and Pac Ten (a real possibility). OU and Okie St. are more likely to be in the SEC than Texas.

I agree that UNC to SEC is nigh impossible. The scenario that was laid out on the radio, though (again, purely speculative on what the SEC should at least kick the tires on if they look at expansion), was one where the ACC gets raided in realignment with no viable options to add teams that would make it competitive in football. UNC could be the Texas of the East Coast if Butch Davis can turn the football program around. They have real loyalties to the ACC, though, that Texas doesn't have to the Big XII, so people aren't talking about them. The SEC would certainly realize this, but if you don't think the SEC has the hubris to at least ask.... well....

Did UNC vote against expansion? I didn't remember it that way, especially with Swofford leading the charge.

sagegrouse
05-10-2010, 12:52 PM
Did UNC vote against expansion? I didn't remember it that way, especially with Swofford leading the charge.

Ah, yes. This has been one of the legendary themes of DBR posts.

Duke and UNC were opposed to expansion. However, if expansion were to occur, they preferred Miami, BC and Syracuse over any other combination. The expansion required votes from three-fourths of current members, or seven schools and, in fact, seven schools supported expansion. UVa, however, because of in-state politics was required to hold its nose and vote for Virginia Tech. Thus, the only expansion plan that could get seven votes involved VT and not Syracuse.

Duke and UNC managed to confuse principle and outcome. By refusing to compromise, they got the worst possible solution. Very dumb of Nan Keohane and her counterpart at UNC. John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") won a Nobel Prize for his work on strategy taking account of the actions of others. Maybe Duke and UNC didn't offer the course.

sagegrouse

Class of '94
05-10-2010, 01:04 PM
Sorry, but UNC would NEVER got to the SEC. That's a complete joke in my mind. There is a reason that Duke and UNC were the only two schools to vote against conference expansion in the first place. They're basketball schools so attempting to make football better while sacrificing the round robin home-and-away in basketball wasn't worth it for those two. Not only that, but they'd be going to a far inferior conference from a basketball perspective, clearly UNC's cash cow. On top of that, the SEC is definitely weaker from an academic standpoint. I realize that conferences are purely for sports, but being associated with schools like Duke, Wake, UVa, Boston College, etc. has to help UNC somewhat from an academic/recruiting (both athletes and non-athletes) standpoint as opposed to Ole Miss, Alabama, Miss St. (I realize the SEC has Vandy and Florida, but that's about it.) In addition, it's rare for a founding university of a conference to leave as it's part of their identity (I realize south carolina left the ACC, though.) On top of that, they'd be giving up the Duke rivalry! Are you kidding me? Give up that cash cow and something the two universities have been doing for the past 90 years?!? Not going to happen. UNC would never accept an invitation to the SEC. It's almost like Duke accepting an invitation to the SEC. Can you imagine us doing that? hahaha, it's just funny thinking how absurd it is. Not saying the SEC wouldn't try to poach ACC schools if certain scenarios play out, just that losing UNC is completely out of the realm of possibility.

No way UNC would leave the Duke rivalry; its just too big of a rivalry. I could see SEC pitching Kentucky or Florida as the new basketball "rival" to UNC; but it still wouldn't compare to the Duke rivalry; more over, Duke and UNC are rivals in every sport (not just basketball); and that's another aspect the SEC could not effectively counter. And you can't forget about the rivalry UNC has with NC State as well. Just too much "triangle" history for the SEC to counter.

Atlanta Duke
05-10-2010, 01:55 PM
Interesting speculation by college football columnist Tony Barnhart in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding how the ACC could be vulnerable if the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, which would blow up the Big East as a football conference. And these potential expansions are all about football, since the major TV $$ in basketball go through the NCAA for the tournament, not through the conferences.

ACC needs an expansion plan–right now
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/05/10/acc-needs-an-expansion-plan-right-now/

If that happens the SEC might expand from 12 to 16 teams as well - Texas and Oklahoma would be the crown jewels if Missouri and Nebraska go to the Big Ten and the Big 12 falls apart like the old Southwest Conference. Barnhart also mentions rumors of a Pac-10/Big 12 joint TV contract that A-Tex Devil references above.

Barnhart mentions Florida State as a likely ACC candidate to be grabbed by the SEC, but I would add Miami and Clemson as additional potential defectors that do not have a great basketball tradition. At that point the ACC might be left picking up Big East football schools that did not make the cut with the Big Ten (Pitt, WVU and Syracuse being my likely suspects for Big East football schools the Big Ten may not covet).

As Barnhart notes, this avalanche could be triggered in the near future.

theAlaskanBear
05-10-2010, 02:15 PM
Ah, yes. This has been one of the legendary themes of DBR posts.

Duke and UNC were opposed to expansion. However, if expansion were to occur, they preferred Miami, BC and Syracuse over any other combination. The expansion required votes from three-fourths of current members, or seven schools and, in fact, seven schools supported expansion. UVa, however, because of in-state politics was required to hold its nose and vote for Virginia Tech. Thus, the only expansion plan that could get seven votes involved VT and not Syracuse.

Duke and UNC managed to confuse principle and outcome. By refusing to compromise, they got the worst possible solution. Very dumb of Nan Keohane and her counterpart at UNC. John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") won a Nobel Prize for his work on strategy taking account of the actions of others. Maybe Duke and UNC didn't offer the course.

sagegrouse

I dont think the expansion that took place was the worst of all outcomes. My preference would have been if ACC swapped Boston College for Syracuse. I actually really like the fact that Vtech is in the league. They field tough, good ball teams every year and provide some geographical rivalry.

Class of '94
05-10-2010, 02:18 PM
Interesting speculation by college football columnist Tony Barnhart in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding how the ACC could be vulnerable if the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, which would blow up the Big East as a football conference. And these potential expansions are all about football, since the major TV $$ in basketball go through the NCAA for the tournament, not through the conferences.

ACC needs an expansion plan–right now
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/05/10/acc-needs-an-expansion-plan-right-now/

If that happens the SEC might expand from 12 to 16 teams as well - Texas and Oklahoma would be the crown jewels if Missouri and Nebraska go to the Big Ten and the Big 12 falls apart like the old Southwest Conference. Barnhart also mentions rumors of a Pac-10/Big 12 joint TV contract that A-Tex Devil references above.

Barnhart mentions Florida State as a likely ACC candidate to be grabbed by the SEC, but I would add Miami and Clemson as additional potential defectors that do not have a great basketball tradition. At that point the ACC might be left picking up Big East football schools that did not make the cut with the Big Ten (Pitt, WVU and Syracuse being my likely suspects for Big East football schools the Big Ten may not covet).

As Barnhart notes, this avalanche could be triggered in the near future.

I think you also have to seriously consider the possibility of G-tech leaving for the SEC if asked due to Tech's rivalry with Georgia.

I think the ACC needs to be proactive and look to add quality teams as a way of keeping the south eastern teams (like Clemson, Fla. State, Miami, etc.) in the ACC fold.

Dukeface88
05-10-2010, 02:30 PM
Barnhart mentions Florida State as a likely ACC candidate to be grabbed by the SEC, but I would add Miami and Clemson as additional potential defectors that do not have a great basketball tradition. At that point the ACC might be left picking up Big East football schools that did not make the cut with the Big Ten (Pitt, WVU and Syracuse being my likely suspects for Big East football schools the Big Ten may not covet).


Hopefully we could ship Maryland off to the BE as part of the deal. Then they could get a real rival (Georgetown probably) and stop bothering us.

Brian913
05-10-2010, 03:04 PM
It doesn't make sense to me for the SEC to go after Clemson, FSU or GT. They already have the television markets in those states locked up. It would make more sense to go after the Texas and Oklahoma schools.

roywhite
05-10-2010, 03:09 PM
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/article_3f48eefa-5c60-11df-9a57-001cc4c03286.html

There are reports starting to come out that the B10/11 has extended offers to Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers.

G man
05-10-2010, 03:33 PM
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/article_3f48eefa-5c60-11df-9a57-001cc4c03286.html

There are reports starting to come out that the B10/11 has extended offers to Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers.

So i would like to point out that I thought Nebraska would go to the big 10 since the beginning and people tried to say that would not happen. Well now it looks like they will join. Some people here in Lincoln still think Nebraska will stay. The problem lies in the fact that Texas holds all the cards in the big 12. Husker fans I think would rather stay in the big 12 than go to the big 10, but we are afraid of being left out in the cold while conferences form all around us. I have mixed feelings if things stay as they are right now that would keep fans the happiest, but I think the urge to be proactive wins out!

Atlanta Duke
05-10-2010, 03:42 PM
It doesn't make sense to me for the SEC to go after Clemson, FSU or GT. They already have the television markets in those states locked up. It would make more sense to go after the Texas and Oklahoma schools.

The logic that would preclude going after schools where you already have a TV presence would knock out Texas A&M + OK State if you get Texas and Oklahoma as much as it would any other "duplicate" state school. Already having a presence in a TV market apparently is hurting Pitt's bid to get Big Ten consideration since Penn State already delivers that TV market, but the Big Ten also may have more potential partners to poach from a vulnerable Big East than the SEC does. If Texas and/or Oklahoma does not want to join the SEC (which took a run at UT when the SWC crashed and ended up with Arkansas instead) it limits the likely suspects to defect - adding Texas A&M, OK State or the other Texas schools to the schedule is not a dream match-up for any current SEC or PAC-10 school.

Of course since you are dealing with primarily state colleges, you might have state legislatures try and muscle a state school to take care of another state institution not being left out in the cold (as was the case with the Virginia legislature pressuring UVA to support VA Tech joining the ACC).

Atlanta Duke
05-10-2010, 03:44 PM
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/article_3f48eefa-5c60-11df-9a57-001cc4c03286.html

There are reports starting to come out that the B10/11 has extended offers to Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers.

Who then gets the last seat at the table to get to 16 (Syracuse or Pitt)?

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 03:46 PM
Duke and UNC managed to confuse principle and outcome. By refusing to compromise, they got the worst possible solution. Very dumb of Nan Keohane and her counterpart at UNC. John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") won a Nobel Prize for his work on strategy taking account of the actions of others. Maybe Duke and UNC didn't offer the course.

sagegrouse

Hehe. I definitely took that course at Duke. One of the most entertaining courses I had. Can't remember the professor's name for the life of me. I think it was Professor Nou in the Poli Sci department. Young Asian professor, if anyone remembers him. He was great and was able to translate the math behind game theory to non math/science majors in the class. Sorry for the digression.....

blazindw
05-10-2010, 03:47 PM
Who then gets the last seat at the table to get to 16 (Syracuse or Pitt)?

According to the reports, they will only go to 16 if Notre Dame accepts. If Notre Dame doesn't, then they, assuming the other 3 accept, would remain at 14 and then decide whether to offer 2 more spots.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 03:55 PM
Of course since you are dealing with primarily state colleges, you might have state legislatures try and muscle a state school to take care of another state institution not being left out in the cold (as was the case with the Virginia legislature pressuring UVA to support VA Tech joining the ACC).

This is so important. Schools like Baylor, Texas Tech, and basically any land grant school in the Big XII or Pac Ten are going to be lobbying their respective legislatures to make sure they don't get left behind. I really feel that if Texas agrees to take A&M (and A&M really is a prize as well), they can ditch Tech and Baylor wherever they go. Texas wasn't the juggernaut back in 1993 that it is today. It's athletic department is self-sufficient and profitable. It would take the state withholding money from Academia to block anything, and that's not good for anyone.

I don't know whether Oklahoma, KU, Oregon, and Washington have the muscle to leave their State U counterparts behind. Okie St. has Boone Pickens behind it, so it seems the most likely to keep its head above water.

Here's a PAC-Ten/Big XII conglomerate I imagine -- shedding the dead weight: Texas, A&M, OU, Okie St, KU, Colorado, Arizona, Az St, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Ca, Oregon, UW, then whoever gets lucky among K-State, Iowa St, Wazzu and Oreg St. I imagine it would be the 2 Pac 10 schools.

tommy
05-10-2010, 04:37 PM
So in the midwest, talks are heating up that Nebraska and Mizzou will bolt to the Big Ten if invited - could be as early as end of the month (doubtful, but possible). Mizzou made an illusory request to the Big XII last week that it revisit its revenue sharing policies knowing the answer would be "No." Big Ten shares revenue equally, Big XII does no. UT, A&M, OU and Nebraska make a lot more each year than Mizzou. Many feel this request was made to bolster the argument among the alumni and legislature that the move is a good thing for the school if they get the invite (Duh!).


You're obviously knowledgeable about this and getting (and passing on) a lot of good info on it. My question is: understanding why Nebraska would like an invitation to the Big 10 ($$), why would the Big 10 be interested in Nebraska? I understand they're a recognized traditional football power, but what else do they bring to the table? It's a sparsely populated state, very few eyeballs on television sets (relative to other potential invitees), no major media markets, weak basketball w/ no tradition, distant geographically from the most of the rest of the conference, and they don't fit with the Big 10's academic profile. Missouri, sure. But Nebraska?

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 04:55 PM
You're obviously knowledgeable about this and getting (and passing on) a lot of good info on it. My question is: understanding why Nebraska would like an invitation to the Big 10 ($$), why would the Big 10 be interested in Nebraska? I understand they're a recognized traditional football power, but what else do they bring to the table? It's a sparsely populated state, very few eyeballs on television sets (relative to other potential invitees), no major media markets, weak basketball w/ no tradition, distant geographically from the most of the rest of the conference, and they don't fit with the Big 10's academic profile. Missouri, sure. But Nebraska?

First --- today's reports cited above seem to be bogus. I still think 2011 will be Mizzou's last year in the Big 12, and Nebraska may be invited to the Big Ten as well. Tom Osborne has more or less said they are open to anything.

Nebraska is sought after for the same reasons SEC schools in rural states and OU are sought after. When they are good, they are national names that put eyeballs in front of TVs across the country. Nebraska, from what I understand, is also a highly successful, profitable athletic department despite being in a cornfield (it's not, actually, the drive from Omaha to Lincoln is kinda nice).

Nebraska brings more to the table on a national level than ANY big east school right now. The reason the Big Ten may want Rutgers/Syracuse/etc. is so that it can leverage the large Big Ten alumni base in NYC (which would get bigger by adding Nebraska and Mizzou) to increase viewership of its Big Ten Network on the east coast (and increases profits). You sell the pipe dream that NY might one day care about Rutgers if it reaps the benefits of the Big Ten conference money. I think it's misguided because frankly, the upper east coast (who are not otherwise alumni from elsewhere) could clearly care less about the college football being played up there.

Nebraska boosts you now, you hope Rutgers (and I still doubt the veracity of their invitation) boosts you even more later.

roywhite
05-10-2010, 05:09 PM
First --- today's reports cited above seem to be bogus. I still think 2011 will be Mizzou's last year in the Big 12, and Nebraska may be invited to the Big Ten as well. Tom Osborne has more or less said they are open to anything.

.

What makes you think the reports are bogus?

I had one source. Here is another from an ESPN radio affiliate:
http://www.810whb.com/article/3527

As to the NYC market, there are a ton of college football fans in that area that follow their own teams and might be receptive to a Big 10 presence. In September and October, there are the Yankees and pro football, but still plenty of fans who might be interested in college football. Whether Rutgers advances that possibility is a fair question. The Big10 Network has done very well so far.

Further update: Nebraska chancellor is saying they have not received invitation; does note they will consider offers

kingboozer
05-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Add Syracuse, bring back South Carolina giving Clemson its in conference rival back, Vandy would fit if the SEC squeezes them out, and Pittsburgh if the Big 10 doesn't grab them. I would just really enjoy seeing South Carolina come back, they won't rise above water in the SEC as it is.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 05:23 PM
What makes you think the reports are bogus?

I had one source. Here is another from an ESPN radio affiliate:
http://www.810whb.com/article/3527

As to the NYC market, there are a ton of college football fans in that area that follow their own teams and might be receptive to a Big 10 presence. In September and October, there are the Yankees and pro football, but still plenty of fans who might be interested in college football. Whether Rutgers advances that possibility is a fair question. The Big10 Network has done very well so far.

I agree with your last point. It's not "Rutgers" that will move the needle as much as leveraging the Big 10 alumni that are there. But my question is why does adding Rutgers help? Are more Michigan alums in NYC going to watch games on TV now that Rutgers in the conference? The Big Ten Network is already there. I guess the idea is that it may convince local cable to put the Big Ten Network in a basic cable package... we'll see, I'm still skeptical. Has BC helped the ACC's presence in Boston when it comes to college football (or basketball for that matter)? I don't know, frankly.

My source that the report was bogus (or at least premature) was Nebraska's chancellor (http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/perlman_report_untrue.html).

Edited to also add: I believe (but am not sure) that all of these sources ultimately lead back to a Kansas City radio station -- so I think it's still one source that has itself claimed "multiple anonymous sources."

That being said, this may have just come out earlier than expected through a leak, and people are just CYA'ing. But until a school says "yes, we were officially invited," I'll wait and see...

G man
05-10-2010, 05:23 PM
You're obviously knowledgeable about this and getting (and passing on) a lot of good info on it. My question is: understanding why Nebraska would like an invitation to the Big 10 ($$), why would the Big 10 be interested in Nebraska? I understand they're a recognized traditional football power, but what else do they bring to the table? It's a sparsely populated state, very few eyeballs on television sets (relative to other potential invitees), no major media markets, weak basketball w/ no tradition, distant geographically from the most of the rest of the conference, and they don't fit with the Big 10's academic profile. Missouri, sure. But Nebraska?

What most people do not realize is that Nebraska has plenty of followers throughout the mid-west. Omaha and Lincoln are not huge markets but eastern Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, and even parts of Kansas and Iowa have large Husker followings. Not to mention it is a great football program and volleyball program. Reasons not to bring them in are plenty as well crappy basketball program (really crappy), mediocre baseball, no huge markets. I think the desire to add competitive teams will help make this happen.

sagegrouse
05-10-2010, 05:31 PM
I think you also have to seriously consider the possibility of G-tech leaving for the SEC if asked due to Tech's rivalry with Georgia.

I think the ACC needs to be proactive and look to add quality teams as a way of keeping the south eastern teams (like Clemson, Fla. State, Miami, etc.) in the ACC fold.

As you might remember, there is history between Georgia Tech and the SEC, of which GT was a founding member. Tech left the SEC in 1964 and became an independent due to differences over athletic policies and academics.

Like UNC, I can't see Tech going to the SEC. Neither school has an especially high regard for many of the SEC schools.

sagegrouse

G man
05-10-2010, 05:37 PM
As you might remember, there is history between Georgia Tech and the SEC, of which GT was a founding member. Tech left the SEC in 1964 and became an independent due to differences over athletic policies and academics.

Like UNC, I can't see Tech going to the SEC. Neither school has an especially high regard for many of the SEC schools.

sagegrouse

I agree whole heartedly with this. I think if an ACC school bolts it will be a Florida school. They just don't seem to fit as well as most of the other programs.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 05:45 PM
I didn't read Tony Barnhardt's article yet, but the ACC does need a plan. Everyone has been talking about a possible future of 4 conferences with 16 teams. If Nebraska goes east instead of west, I think there is a real possibility that that number, for big time football at least, is even smaller, and the ACC could get "relegated" for lack of a better word in football. This is certainly "doomsday" but hear me out.

Let's just say today's rumors true. Big 10 expands to 16, bringing in Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt. ND is going to blink last and lose its game of chicken, I think, but feel free to substitute them in for Pitt.

Texas will lead A&M, OU, Okie St., Kansas and Colorado to form an alliance with the Pac 10, relegating KSU, ISU, Baylor and Tech to the Mountain West. Sorry guys.

So the SEC is going to keep up right? And they will look to the ACC. Attractiveness of teams for them goes UNC, Florida St, Clemson, Ga Tech, and then everyone else (and Miami is everyone else).

UNC is then looking at a future ACC without FSU, Clemson and Ga Tech, and adding WVU, UConn, South Florida, etc. etc. That's an absolute craphole of a football conference. Really good basketball though. The question then becomes, if the SEC invited UNC, would it retain its loyalties in basketball and other sports even with the VERY real possibility the ACC would be the east coast equivalent of the Mountain West going forward (much like it was in the 80s)? Probably. I guess.

But make no mistake -- given an opportunity to pick any team in the ACC, no questions asked, the SEC would choose UNC.

Duvall
05-10-2010, 05:48 PM
College football is such a cesspool.

Nugget
05-10-2010, 05:50 PM
If the Big 10's plan does turn out to be as reported, I think it highly unlikely Notre Dame would say yes, as it still would not make sense monetarily for them to join, and poaching only Rutgers from the Big East would allow that league to remain essentially intact, by filling just one spot -- i.e., Notre Dame can roughly maintain its status quo.

Adding Rutgers, Mizzou and Nebraska pencils for the existing members of the Big 10/11 by allowing their Network access to enough new cable markets that (along with the additional revenue from a playoff, which, unlike the ACC's, will sell out every year and have tv-friendly matchups like Penn St.-Michigan or Ohio St.-Nebraska) the newbies can more than pay for themselves.

But, moves like these suggest to me that maybe the other conferences might not want/need to do especially dramatic things re expansion. Particular since none of the other leagues has a situation comparable to the Big 10 Network, so that the newbies would bring more cash to the table than they would take by splitting the pie more ways.

In short, if the Big East adds just those three, isn't it more likely than not that the other conferences make moves something like this:

Big East -- Replace Rutgers with U.Mass, Temple or Memphis, which should not materially lessen its viability as either a football or hoops league.

ACC - nothing.

SEC - nothing; they already have a playoff, just signed very long, very lucractive deals with CBS and ESPN and don't have a network to feed like the Big 10, so expansion for its own sake offers less benefit to the SEC (no one except Texas, which doesn't seem interest, would bring more to the table for the SEC than it takes away).

Big 12: Replace Nebraska and Mizzou with 2 of Utah, TCU or BYU.

Pac 10: petition NCAA to allow a title game without expansion to 12 schools.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 06:03 PM
In short, if the Big East adds just those three, isn't it more likely than not that the other conferences make moves something like this:

Big East -- Replace Rutgers with U.Mass, Temple or Memphis, which should not materially lessen its viability as either a football or hoops league.

ACC - nothing.

SEC - nothing; they already have a playoff, just signed very long, very lucractive deals with CBS and ESPN and don't have a network to feed like the Big 10, so expansion for its own sake offers less benefit to the SEC (no one except Texas, which doesn't seem interest, would bring more to the table for the SEC than it takes away).

Big 12: Replace Nebraska and Mizzou with 2 of Utah, TCU or BYU.

Pac 10: petition NCAA to allow a title game without expansion to 12 schools.

I can definitely see a scenario where the SEC and ACC stand pat once everything shakes out. I think there is something to be said for staying at 12 teams. When you grow the pie, you gotta make sure that the people you are adding make it worthwhile.

That is why the 3 schools you suggest for the Big XII don't work. I've talked about this before, and I guess I could see Utah slipping in with the big boys, but as big as Salt Lake is, Utah just doesn't move the needle enough to make adding them worthwhile.

TCU is a sunk cost. BYU won't play on Sundays. The Mountain West is willing to deal with that, but they don't bring enough to the table for the Big XII and Pac 10 to consider them. While Utah has an outside shot, I would lay a hefty bet that no non-BCS schools upgrade conferences if there is realignment.

Which leaves the Big XII to what? I mean, adding Utah may be good for Iowa St. or K-State, but it does NOTHING for Texas. Texas will be on the phone with the PAC 10 sooner than later. And if the PAC 10 plays hardball, Texas can hold its nose and call up the SEC.

mph
05-10-2010, 06:11 PM
I agree whole heartedly with this. I think if an ACC school bolts it will be a Florida school. They just don't seem to fit as well as most of the other programs.

Maybe we can trade them for Vandy, a school that doesn't belong in the SEC.

Nugget
05-10-2010, 06:38 PM
Wonder what the chances are for the NCAA to approve both the Big "12" and Pac 10 having football playoff games with 10 teams, allowing them to each get the major benefit they could obtain from expansion without expanding.

I agree that, other than as required for a playoff, adding more teams (especially BYU, Utah or TCU) does not make sense for either the Big "12" or Pac 10 -- no school that either of those leagues could bring in would "pay" for themselves.

A 16 team league of Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas, Colorado and the current Pac 10 schools would be interesting, but does that bring in enough new money to justify the political firestorm of kicking Kansas St., Texas Tech and Baylor out of the Big 12 (sorry, Iowa St., but no one will miss you)?

roywhite
05-10-2010, 06:43 PM
If the Big 10's plan does turn out to be as reported, I think it highly unlikely Notre Dame would say yes, as it still would not make sense monetarily for them to join, and poaching only Rutgers from the Big East would allow that league to remain essentially intact, by filling just one spot -- i.e., Notre Dame can roughly maintain its status quo.

Adding Rutgers, Mizzou and Nebraska pencils for the existing members of the Big 10/11 by allowing their Network access to enough new cable markets that (along with the additional revenue from a playoff, which, unlike the ACC's, will sell out every year and have tv-friendly matchups like Penn St.-Michigan or Ohio St.-Nebraska) the newbies can more than pay for themselves.



What I read is that joining the Big 10 would be financially advantageous for Notre Dame.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/10740/bt-expansion-push-could-force-nds-hand


The game has now changed. The Big Ten is more attractive than ever, largely because of the successful Big Ten Network. Everyone used to talk about Notre Dame's exclusive TV contract with NBC, but Notre Dame would make much more in television revenue -- possibly double the amount -- if it joined the Big Ten. Notre Dame also could gain more exposure for its nonrevenue sports by joining the Big Ten. The costs of keeping so many sports afloat are only going up, so anything these athletic departments can do to bring in more revenue is key.

I can't vouch for all the numbers, but seems to me that ND is hesitant mostly because of their tradition of independence and the reluctance of many alums, not on a strictly monetary basis.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 06:47 PM
Wonder what the chances are for the NCAA to approve both the Big "12" and Pac 10 having football playoff games with 10 teams, allowing them to each get the major benefit they could obtain from expansion without expanding.

I agree that, other than as required for a playoff, adding more teams (especially BYU, Utah or TCU) does not make sense for either the Big "12" or Pac 10 -- no school that either of those leagues could bring in would "pay" for themselves.

A 16 team league of Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas, Colorado and the current Pac 10 schools would be interesting, but does that bring in enough new money to justify the political firestorm of kicking Kansas St., Texas Tech and Baylor out of the Big 12 (sorry, Iowa St., but no one will miss you)?

I don't think the NCAA is going to allow that petition. Not sure they have a reason to.

I think Texas and Texas A&M have the clout to move without Texas Tech, and definitely Baylor, this time around (LINK (http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/5/10/1465941/realignment-chronicles-that-upon) for background on differences between 2010 and 1993). I can't speak to K-State's hold over KU in the Kansas legislature.

A-Tex Devil
05-10-2010, 07:31 PM
For the record now, none of the the three schools have confirmed an invitation. Nebraska and Mizzou have denied having officially been invited, while Rutgers was more cryptic, saying "They are still proud members of the Big East."

G man
05-10-2010, 10:20 PM
Which leaves the Big XII to what? I mean, adding Utah may be good for Iowa St. or K-State, but it does NOTHING for Texas. Texas will be on the phone with the PAC 10 sooner than later. And if the PAC 10 plays hardball, Texas can hold its nose and call up the SEC.

Two reasons why Texas will never go to the SEC is they can play for a title almost every other year in the big 12 if they go to the pac 10 the competition is worse there than the big 12 (overall) and they do not want to have more recruits from Texas going to SEC schools than already do. It just does not make enough sense. If they go anywhere it will be out west. I do agree that adding a TCU or BYU will not happen, but I do think that Utah would be a good fit. Heck why not try and poach the Arizona schools while they are at it! I think Texas is best off with what remains of the big 12 south, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas St. and trying to get a Utah, Arizona, Arizona State heck you could even look at a Cincinnati. I know this is a stretch but this would be better for Texas than leaving for the pac 10 or SEC

Verga3
05-10-2010, 10:41 PM
Maybe we can trade them for Vandy, a school that doesn't belong in the SEC.

Interesting....Does anyone know why Vandy chose not to have an fulltime AD? Vice Chancellor, David Williams, II is the acting "AD." http://www.vanderbilt.edu/generalcounsel/williams.html

mph
05-10-2010, 11:17 PM
Interesting....Does anyone know why Vandy chose not to have an fulltime AD? Vice Chancellor, David Williams, II is the acting "AD." http://www.vanderbilt.edu/generalcounsel/williams.html

In 2003 Vandy collapsed the entire athletic department into student life. Since that time the vice chancellor has acted as the AD. Here's (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070529/GATORS20/70529004) a quote that sums up the reasoning:


"It’s about making athletics more a part of the university, and not serving as a farm team for the NFL,’’ [Vice Chancellor Patricia] Marett said. ‘‘We had to do something. The other SEC schools make a lot more money in athletics than us.’’

In a nutshell, the crux of Gee’s plan was to integrate athletics and the rest of the university.

Imagine that. Student athletes that are actually students. Wonder how that would fly at UK?

G man
05-11-2010, 02:38 PM
Lets say that Nebraska and Mizzou leave what should Texas do? I recant what I said earlier. I think that the Big 12 south with both Kansas schools should try to get Arkansas, Utah and both Arizona schools. Arkansas (1 national title) cannot replace the Huskers (5 national titles), but it is a good start. Utah would be a fool not to join. Mixed feelings on if anyone could pry Arizona from the pac 10, but it would be good for hoops and football.

Class of '94
05-11-2010, 04:47 PM
I thought folks were kidding about this when it was mentioned in earlierposts; but I heard on the radio today here in Michigan that the Big 10 has approached MD about joining the conference and that MD is seriously considering the possibility.

I cant' see that happening because it would mean that MD would have to give up it's rivalry with Duke; which would mean MD students losing the excuse to riot through College Park. :)

-bdbd
05-11-2010, 06:02 PM
I thought folks were kidding about this when it was mentioned in earlierposts; but I heard on the radio today here in Michigan that the Big 10 has approached MD about joining the conference and that MD is seriously considering the possibility.

I cant' see that happening because it would mean that MD would have to give up it's rivalry with Duke; which would mean MD students losing the excuse to riot through College Park. :)

Sitting here in DC, in the shadow of U of MD, there hasn't been any coverage of the Big supposedly approaching the Terps for a move. There were a lot of rumors that flew around about six years ago, but not recently. I don't see that happening, but who ever knows??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203478.html?waporef=obinsite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051102473.html

kingboozer
05-11-2010, 07:48 PM
In 2003 Vandy collapsed the entire athletic department into student life. Since that time the vice chancellor has acted as the AD. Here's (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070529/GATORS20/70529004) a quote that sums up the reasoning:



Imagine that. Student athletes that are actually students. Wonder how that would fly at UK?

I have now officially given my vote to Vandy coming to the ACC

kingboozer
05-12-2010, 01:47 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/386719-a-history-lesson-should-south-carolina-stay-put-or-jump-to-the-acc



Interesting article on the pros and cons of the gamecocks coming back to the ACC. I for one would welcome them in, getting an original team back in and reigniting some old rivalries, and intensify the Clemson/USC rivalry

gumbomoop
05-12-2010, 09:16 PM
FYI -

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-acc-meetings-0512-20100511,0,4356355.story

kingboozer
05-12-2010, 10:03 PM
FYI -

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-acc-meetings-0512-20100511,0,4356355.story

After what they did to Bobby Bowden, good riddance.

Big Pappa
05-12-2010, 10:13 PM
Maybe we can trade them for Vandy, a school that doesn't belong in the SEC.


FYI -

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/os-acc-meetings-0512-20100511,0,4356355.story

There's a trade I would like to make. FSU for Vandy.

A-Tex Devil
05-17-2010, 02:59 PM
This TV deal is HUUUUUGE for the ACC and Duke. It is the first of its kind to package football and basketball together, and apparently Fox drove the bidding up quite a bit.... so, thank you Mr. Murdock.

This deal makes the ACC much more attractive to (1) remain a part of and (2) attract teams should it need to (which frankly I don't think it does).

It used to be SEC/Big Ten......<big gap>.......... ACC, Big XII, PAC 10, Big East. The ACC has virtually closed that gap. Not completely, but its revenue is now more comparable to the SEC and the Big Ten than it is to the other 3.

I'll be interested to see what the Big Ten does with expansion and more urgently, what the Big XII and PAC 10 do for TV deals. I still contend taking Mizzou causes the Big XII Jenga tower to fall down. But the ACC is now much, much better positioned to withstand any blowback from realignment and a greedy SEC than it was yesterday.

Devilsfan
05-17-2010, 03:16 PM
I only hope we take academics into account which by most standards would elliminate South Carolina and give new light to a Vandy or Georgetown. Georgetown however doesn't have a D-1 football program so I guess their also out.

Olympic Fan
05-17-2010, 03:21 PM
This TV deal is HUUUUUGE for the ACC and Duke. It is the first of its kind to package football and basketball together, and apparently Fox drove the bidding up quite a bit.... so, thank you Mr. Murdock.

This deal makes the ACC much more attractive to (1) remain a part of and (2) attract teams should it need to (which frankly I don't think it does).

It used to be SEC/Big Ten......<big gap>.......... ACC, Big XII, PAC 10, Big East. The ACC has virtually closed that gap. Not completely, but its revenue is now more comparable to the SEC and the Big Ten than it is to the other 3.

I'll be interested to see what the Big Ten does with expansion and more urgently, what the Big XII and PAC 10 do for TV deals. I still contend taking Mizzou causes the Big XII Jenga tower to fall down. But the ACC is now much, much better positioned to withstand any blowback from realignment and a greedy SEC than it was yesterday.

I was just coming to post almost the same thing. The new ACC TV deal makes it much less likely that the ACC will (1) lose any old members or (2) be forced to expand.

The gap in TV money has been reported as something like $4.7 million per school between the top-paying SEC and the third-place ACC. But that's figuring a 12-team split in the SEC and a 12-team split in the ACC. If the SEC expands without expanding its income significantly, the per-team payoff decreases and the gap decreases.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely that an ACC would bolt for a small financial improvement. There are a lot of drawbacks to switching leagues (like losing rivalries, more travel costs, less money from other sources -- for instance, the SEC gets far less NCAA Basketball Tournament money than the ACC). There's also the issue of academics -- when FSU decided to join a conference 20 years ago, the school's academic council vetoed and the SEC and permitted only an approach to the ACC. The ACC and Big 10 are in completely different academic world that the SEC, Big 12 or Big East.

Frankly, I'd be very surprised if the SEC expands. I don't see where it increases their profit (their TV audience is still very large, even outside their region). A bigger league means a bigger split. They don't need FSU or Miami -- they already have Florida. They don't need Clemson -- they already have South Carolina. Maybe Texas makes sense for the SEC, but not for Texas, which has a remarkable deal with the Big 12 (they keep an inordinate share of the confrerence revenues).

The Big 10 IS looking to expand and despite the premature reports of the offers to Missouri, Rutgers, Nebraska and Notre Dame, they will probably add at least one, maybe 4-5 more teams. Theur expansion is driven by the need for a conference title game (they need one more team) and by their TV network, which needs better access to cable networks in the New York City area and throughout the northeast (hence the likely offer to Rutgers).

The Big 10 probably will steal a team or two from either/both the Big East and Big 12, but I can't see how this impacts the ACC. Sure, the ACC could pick up the pieces of the shattered Big East, adding a West Virginia and/or a UConn and/or a Syracuse, but where is the financial gain?

The new TV deal isn't likely to get significantly larger if we add a Big East team ... and that would just mean splitting the financial pie a little smaller.

The only thing driving a possible ACC expansion this time was the fear that the league might need to expand its TV market to get a better TV deal. Now, that urgency is gone.

Fans may love to speculate about addinjg or trading teams, but the ACC is VERY, VERY likely to keep its current 12-team lineup for the forseeable future.

roywhite
05-17-2010, 03:21 PM
I only hope we take academics into account which by most standards would elliminate South Carolina and give new light to a Vandy or Georgetown. Georgetown however doesn't have a D-1 football program so I guess their also out.

Academic concerns?

Should we go they're? :)

Duke of Nashville
05-17-2010, 03:24 PM
I would love to see a Vandy for FSU trade, mostly because I live in Nashville. :)

A-Tex Devil
05-17-2010, 03:52 PM
I
The only thing driving a possible ACC expansion this time was the fear that the league might need to expand its TV market to get a better TV deal. Now, that urgency is gone.

Fans may love to speculate about addinjg or trading teams, but the ACC is VERY, VERY likely to keep its current 12-team lineup for the forseeable future.


Agreed. I think the ACC and SEC stand pat, unless the SEC is able to lure the Texas schools and/or the Oklahoma schools.

A lot of people are asking "why 16 instead of 12," and it's a good question. For the most part, everyone's right. Adding a school makes each conference member's slice of the pie smaller. But these mega conferences are being driven by football and football only. These are steps by the networks to separate the wheat from the chaff in football -- and create more compelling matchups each and every week. It's the NFL-ification of college football. You want a billion dollar deal? Well, add a few teams so I know I'll have multiple great matchups every week and I won't get stuck showing Minnesota Northwestern.

A taste of what is desired has been seen in the SEC the last few years, where there are 2-3 big games virtually every week from late September on. The Big XII had a run of 4-5 weeks of highly rated games in prime time 2 years ago. But for every Texas-Texas Tech, you have a Kansas St-Iowa St. that no one is watching.

TV wants mo betta matchups. They want a quadruple header every week that will pull ratings -- I mean NFL ratings. How do you do this? Well, you make conferences bigger, meaning more conference games and less creampuffs, and you make the pool you are allowed to play smaller -- meaning you only play against the other mega conferences. This is what all this is leading to, and it's why I think college football may even break off from the NCAA at some point.

So moving from 12 to 14 or 16 is definitely costly initially, but the theory is that if you invite the right teams, the pie gets bigger and so does everyone's slice.

camion
05-17-2010, 04:25 PM
I guess the fear is that if you don't invite the right teams, or no teams at all, then your conference's pie becomes smaller and the conferences that do expand also get a bigger bump in pie size.

Big Pappa
05-17-2010, 04:25 PM
Not our conference, but since I live in Austin this is interesting about the Big 12:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5187507

G man
05-17-2010, 08:03 PM
Not our conference, but since I live in Austin this is interesting about the Big 12:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5187507

I live in Lincoln Ne and the newspaper here has talked about the chances of the Huskers going to the big 10. As it stands now the general consensus is that if a offer is given that Nebraska will leave the big 12 to much money to pass up. From everything that has been said from Mizzou is pretty much the same. Missouri has wanted the big 10 for a while now. So Oklahoma may not go anywhere but I think the others are gone.

Newton_14
05-17-2010, 11:10 PM
Agreed. I think the ACC and SEC stand pat, unless the SEC is able to lure the Texas schools and/or the Oklahoma schools.

A lot of people are asking "why 16 instead of 12," and it's a good question. For the most part, everyone's right. Adding a school makes each conference member's slice of the pie smaller. But these mega conferences are being driven by football and football only. These are steps by the networks to separate the wheat from the chaff in football -- and create more compelling matchups each and every week. It's the NFL-ification of college football. You want a billion dollar deal? Well, add a few teams so I know I'll have multiple great matchups every week and I won't get stuck showing Minnesota Northwestern.

A taste of what is desired has been seen in the SEC the last few years, where there are 2-3 big games virtually every week from late September on. The Big XII had a run of 4-5 weeks of highly rated games in prime time 2 years ago. But for every Texas-Texas Tech, you have a Kansas St-Iowa St. that no one is watching.

TV wants mo betta matchups. They want a quadruple header every week that will pull ratings -- I mean NFL ratings. How do you do this? Well, you make conferences bigger, meaning more conference games and less creampuffs, and you make the pool you are allowed to play smaller -- meaning you only play against the other mega conferences. This is what all this is leading to, and it's why I think college football may even break off from the NCAA at some point.

So moving from 12 to 14 or 16 is definitely costly initially, but the theory is that if you invite the right teams, the pie gets bigger and so does everyone's slice.

Thanks for the 12 vs 16 explanation. It makes sense and I understand why that is attractive to the networks. But I am so against 16 team conferences. 12 should be the max. Even though 12 is not ideal for basketball it is at least manageable. 16 is far too many for basketball and really too many for football.

I would hope they can find another way to get the great football matchups they want without going to 16. One thing I am surprised we have not seen yet is a Challenge in Football like the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball. That would eliminate one of the cupcakes off the schedule and add a ton of great non-conference games. Say the SEC vs the Big 12 for example. You could spread it over 2 weekends with Thursday Night, Saturday afternoon, and Sat night games.

There would be a ton of interest in something like that. You could even have it where a conference participate in 2 challengs per year, like ACC-SEC, SEC-Big 12, ACC-Big East, etc. It would only be 2 games per school leaving 2 more games of choice before conference play.

There are other ways to drive match ups like that as well. As a fan I would love to see that. But anything, really, to avoid the dreaded 16 team mega-conference.

G man
05-18-2010, 01:06 PM
Thanks for the 12 vs 16 explanation. It makes sense and I understand why that is attractive to the networks. But I am so against 16 team conferences. 12 should be the max. Even though 12 is not ideal for basketball it is at least manageable. 16 is far too many for basketball and really too many for football.

I would hope they can find another way to get the great football matchups they want without going to 16. One thing I am surprised we have not seen yet is a Challenge in Football like the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball. That would eliminate one of the cupcakes off the schedule and add a ton of great non-conference games. Say the SEC vs the Big 12 for example. You could spread it over 2 weekends with Thursday Night, Saturday afternoon, and Sat night games.

There would be a ton of interest in something like that. You could even have it where a conference participate in 2 challengs per year, like ACC-SEC, SEC-Big 12, ACC-Big East, etc. It would only be 2 games per school leaving 2 more games of choice before conference play.

There are other ways to drive match ups like that as well. As a fan I would love to see that. But anything, really, to avoid the dreaded 16 team mega-conference.


Never going to happen. Even though we would like to see these match-ups the schools do not want to lose out on bowl money. Lets say that the best team in the ACC Va Tech plays the a team in the SEC like Bama or Florida and they lose (which is a safe bet) they will be out of the picture come December and January unless they win out so the schools will keep doing things the way they have.

A-Tex Devil
05-18-2010, 02:39 PM
Never going to happen. Even though we would like to see these match-ups the schools do not want to lose out on bowl money. Lets say that the best team in the ACC Va Tech plays the a team in the SEC like Bama or Florida and they lose (which is a safe bet) they will be out of the picture come December and January unless they win out so the schools will keep doing things the way they have.

Three things on this:

1. TV money >>>>>>> Bowl money.

2. As mentioned before, the endgame in the eyes of the TV networks is the NFLification of big time college football. Instead of two 16 conferences and 32 teams, though, there would be four 14-16 team conferences with 56-64 teams. There WOULD be a playoff, and perhaps some bowls as well. Saturdays would be like NFL Sundays with quadruple headers on 2-4 networks. If you want to watch Michigan in Atlanta and it's up against Georgia-Florida, you may have to go to a sports bar or buy a package just like in the NFL if you wanted to watch a Lions game in Atlanta (there is some of that already, but there is a reason the Sunday Ticket is much more profitable than NFL game Day). I am not saying I like any of this, and it's sad that it's so driven by money, but this is where the TV networks are pushing this.

3. It's very important to note that the reason the BCS conferences prefer bowls to playoffs right now is that there isn't a way to do playoffs without the NCAA getting a cut at this point. Playoffs would make a TON more in TV contracts than the BCS, but the NCAA would get a large chunk of that. I don't know all of the particulars of how they get out from under the NCAA umbrella, but it looms right now. And until it doesn't there won't be a playoff. Any other reason for their not being a playoff is smoke and mirrors.

Atlanta Duke
05-18-2010, 04:02 PM
Tony Barnhart of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution continues to stir the pot on SEC expansion, with today's installment being the pros and cons of Georgia Tech leaving the ACC for the SEC

http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/05/18/if-the-sec-asked-wouldshould-georgia-tech-say-yes/

Given that Georgia already rules the roost for football within the State of Georgia in general and for that matter Atlanta in particular, with college basketball being an afterthought, I do not see what Tech would bring to the SEC from a marketing standpoint. But losing an Atlanta presence, especially if Miami (which claims to be content to stay in the ACC) and/or Florida State bailed definitely would be a hard hit to the ACC's marketing reach.

SCMatt33
05-18-2010, 05:31 PM
Question about the tv logistics of the SEC possibly expanding. The SEC just locked themselves into a very long contract for television rights. Would the terms of that contract change if they add teams? I know all the stuff about better match-ups eventually leading to more money, but that would only come into effect if they got to immediately void the current contract. Otherwise, they are splitting the same amount of money between more teams. It would seem to me that unless they already have a clause addressing the issue, adding more teams to the SEC would cause schools already in the SEC to lose money for the next decade. Anyone know how this would work out?

A-Tex Devil
05-18-2010, 05:50 PM
Question about the tv logistics of the SEC possibly expanding. The SEC just locked themselves into a very long contract for television rights. Would the terms of that contract change if they add teams? I know all the stuff about better match-ups eventually leading to more money, but that would only come into effect if they got to immediately void the current contract. Otherwise, they are splitting the same amount of money between more teams. It would seem to me that unless they already have a clause addressing the issue, adding more teams to the SEC would cause schools already in the SEC to lose money for the next decade. Anyone know how this would work out?

Not having seen the contract, I'm not sure, but I imagine the SEC has very good lawyers, and that something like this is covered. The TV money comes from appearances. I imagine that more teams in the conference means more games, means more TV appearances, means more money. I have no idea if the contract handles this contingency, but I'd be very surprised if it did not. This is the general driving force behind more teams though -- more strong games to air, more advertising, etc. It's why the SEC commissioner has said they would consider expansion if that was required to keep the SEC "on top," when we are all out here saying, "whatever for? why mess up a good thing?"

Newton_14
05-18-2010, 10:52 PM
Not having seen the contract, I'm not sure, but I imagine the SEC has very good lawyers, and that something like this is covered. The TV money comes from appearances. I imagine that more teams in the conference means more games, means more TV appearances, means more money. I have no idea if the contract handles this contingency, but I'd be very surprised if it did not. This is the general driving force behind more teams though -- more strong games to air, more advertising, etc. It's why the SEC commissioner has said they would consider expansion if that was required to keep the SEC "on top," when we are all out here saying, "whatever for? why mess up a good thing?"

I also heard today that the new ACC contract has protection/provisions should they expand during the life of the current contract. Stands to reason the SEC contract would have the same protection in it.

-bdbd
05-19-2010, 12:59 AM
I only hope we take academics into account which by most standards would elliminate South Carolina and give new light to a Vandy or Georgetown. Georgetown however doesn't have a D-1 football program so I guess their also out.

Hey, we might NEED a DC area team to attract that market... as I saw on one of the local TV sports broadcasts tonight citing a DC area publication - The Washington Journal (?) - saying that Maryland is being actively considered by the Big10 as a possible expansion candidate. The story goes on to point out the potential increase in revenue for the Terps. But, as the sportscaster concludes, "it's hard to imagine MD without playing their big rivals at Duke every year..."


:D:rolleyes::confused:



Though I think we tend to think in southern terms as an ACC member, but if the ACC were to expand - especially if doing so defensively, then the logical ($$$/TV market) direction to go would be towards the northeast....Rutgers, UCONN, Syracuse, etc. Not arguing for it, but simply pointing out that would just seem to have better money prospects than moving into Nashville or WV...

Atlanta Duke
05-19-2010, 08:18 AM
The quest by the Big Ten for lebensraum potentially includes a southern strategy based on this quote from Jim Delany

The Big Ten's eight-state region encompasses Detroit, Cleveland and other cities hit hard by a failing economy.

"I think that is reason by itself enough to look at the concept of expansion," Delany said. "I say it for the following reason: We've been blessed in many ways by the economy and density of the population in the 20th century. Our schools have benefitted by healthy economies, by strong job markets, by growth, by immigration. In the U.S. the population started off on the East Coast and moved to the Midwest. In the last 20 or 30 years, it's been a clear shift to movement into the Sun Belt."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13409431/population-could-play-large-factor-in-expansion-plans?tag=pageContainer;column_3

This article states the current laundry list of Big Ten expansion candidiates includes Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Texas, Syracuse, Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Maryland.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051802925.html

If Texas ever left the Big 12 the SEC or an expanded Pac-10 would seem to be a better fit. Adding Maryland and gaining access to the Washington-Baltimore TV market in conjunction with an addition of Rutgers to tap into the greater NYC market certainly would advance growing outside of the Rust Belt - those considerations may be why Pitt apparently is not in the Big Ten's expansion plans even though it is a better fit geographically.

If the Big East is decimated and the SEC picks off some ACC teams I could see Pitt, WVU, and/or UConn added to the ACC

kingboozer
05-19-2010, 09:30 AM
If Florida State leaves to be permanently in the shadow of Florida in the SEC, I seriously think USF would be a school to consider bringing in. The football program would be awesome for the ACC and could garner the ACC some more respect in the football offseason and with Skip Holtz there that team is only getting better. Also, the basketball team isn't terrible, the Sun Dome is a nice facility and the team isn't the worst, they are at least in the NIT consistantly.

A-Tex Devil
05-19-2010, 10:53 AM
The quest by the Big Ten for lebensraum potentially includes a southern strategy based on this quote from Jim Delany

The Big Ten's eight-state region encompasses Detroit, Cleveland and other cities hit hard by a failing economy.

"I think that is reason by itself enough to look at the concept of expansion," Delany said. "I say it for the following reason: We've been blessed in many ways by the economy and density of the population in the 20th century. Our schools have benefitted by healthy economies, by strong job markets, by growth, by immigration. In the U.S. the population started off on the East Coast and moved to the Midwest. In the last 20 or 30 years, it's been a clear shift to movement into the Sun Belt."


OK, not that I haven't speculated enough, but first a few facts:

1. The Big Ten has said it wants to expand. Several times.
2. A radio station in Kansas City broke a story with some confidence, only to be rebuked from every angle, although not all those denials were very convincing (ok, that last part is an opinion).
3. Some Mizzou journalism students requested documents under the Missouri FOIA regarding expansion, and Mizzou countered with the statutory defense that it would harm ongoing negotiations in a contractual matter to release that information..... so can they use that defense if there have been NO talks with the Big Ten? I don't know, but I would doubt it. Hopefully someone in Nebraska/New Jersey will do the same thing.

Here's what I **think** happened (especially based on the "sun belt" comments), and I admit this is very Texas centric. The Big Ten wants Texas (and the aggie baggage that comes with it). It knows that Texas won't be a first mover as it doesn't want to be perceived as the school breaking up the Big XII (this is somewhat true). But the Big Ten also knows that, other than geography, it is the best fit for Texas (e.g. Texas would LOVE to be part of the Big Ten academic consortium that also includes U Chicago). Someone leaks the story that the Big Ten is offering schools that AREN'T Texas to try to force Texas' hand. It didn't work. But as I said, this is pure speculation, so grains, salt, etc.

Olympic Fan
05-19-2010, 11:39 AM
OK, not that I haven't speculated enough, but first a few facts:

1. The Big Ten has said it wants to expand. Several times.
2. A radio station in Kansas City broke a story with some confidence, only to be rebuked from every angle, although not all those denials were very convincing (ok, that last part is an opinion).
3. Some Mizzou journalism students requested documents under the Missouri FOIA regarding expansion, and Mizzou countered with the statutory defense that it would harm ongoing negotiations in a contractual matter to release that information..... so can they use that defense if there have been NO talks with the Big Ten? I don't know, but I would doubt it. Hopefully someone in Nebraska/New Jersey will do the same thing.

Here's what I **think** happened (especially based on the "sun belt" comments), and I admit this is very Texas centric. The Big Ten wants Texas (and the aggie baggage that comes with it). It knows that Texas won't be a first mover as it doesn't want to be perceived as the school breaking up the Big XII (this is somewhat true). But the Big Ten also knows that, other than geography, it is the best fit for Texas (e.g. Texas would LOVE to be part of the Big Ten academic consortium that also includes U Chicago). Someone leaks the story that the Big Ten is offering schools that AREN'T Texas to try to force Texas' hand. It didn't work. But as I said, this is pure speculation, so grains, salt, etc.

Interesting speculation. I think the answer is a lot simpler -- the leaked report merely overstated the progress of the expansion talks. The Big 10 IS looking at the schools mentioned, but had not gotten to the point where they had been offered (with the possible/probable exception of Notre Dame, which has had a standing offer for the last 10-plus years).

The Texas case is a little more complicated than merely the idea that they don't want to be perceived as breaking up the conference. They have a financial deal that is not so very different from Notre Dame's.

Back when the old Big Eight was trying to lure Texas from the old Southwest Conference, they had to pay a premium to get the Longhorns -- essentially giving them a lion's share of the revenue of the new conference. Unlike the Big Ten and ACC, the Big 12 does NOT split it's revene equally. Texas simply gets more than everybody else. A LOT more.

Now, do they get as much as they'd get from the Big 10? That I don't know -- I don't know the details of the contract. From what I hear, it's probably not much more (and as I've suggested before, it's not worth the cost and problems inherent in switching leagues for a small increse in income ... a large one, yes ... a slightly bigger one, no).

However, complicating things is the idea that the Big 12 might be broken up by the Big 10 expansion. Those other Big 12 schools resent the hell out of the Big 12 financial package. The hate that Texas gets so much more than everybody else. If an offer from the Big 10 comes, Missouri and/or Nebraska would jump at the deal.

So for Texas, do they want to jump out of a failing league or stick around and anchor a weaker Big 12 with maybe TCU and/or Houston replacing a big state school?

As I said, it's a tough call and one of the reasons its taking so long to work out.

Right now, Notre Dame and Texas clearly have the advantage and the Big 10 is coming to them on bended knee.

On their other side, the other 11 Big 12 teams and the football-playing Big East schools are on their knees, praying for a Big 10 offer.

The Pac 10 may expand by two teams, but they are unlikely to raid another BCS conference -- unless the Big 12 takes a hit, then they may steal Colorado.

From what I hear, the SEC and ACC are on the sidelines, waiting to see what the fallout is. The SEC is a heavyweight that would definitely be attractive to some other schools -- and the ACC would be their chief target if they expanded. But right now, nobody can see where the SEC could significantly increase its revenues by adding any more schools (again, Texas is an exception ... their hope is that Texas rejects the Big 10, while Missouri, Nebraska and.or Colorado bolt, and that the Longhorns then leave the sinking Big 12 for the SEC).

The ACC is watching the landscape, but would prefer to stand pat ... and with its new TV deal in place, that's the most likely scenario.

sagegrouse
05-19-2010, 11:56 AM
OK, not that I haven't speculated enough, but first a few facts:

1. The Big Ten has said it wants to expand. Several times.
2. A radio station in Kansas City broke a story with some confidence, only to be rebuked from every angle, although not all those denials were very convincing (ok, that last part is an opinion).
3. Some Mizzou journalism students requested documents under the Missouri FOIA regarding expansion, and Mizzou countered with the statutory defense that it would harm ongoing negotiations in a contractual matter to release that information..... so can they use that defense if there have been NO talks with the Big Ten? I don't know, but I would doubt it. Hopefully someone in Nebraska/New Jersey will do the same thing.

Here's what I **think** happened (especially based on the "sun belt" comments), and I admit this is very Texas centric. The Big Ten wants Texas (and the aggie baggage that comes with it). It knows that Texas won't be a first mover as it doesn't want to be perceived as the school breaking up the Big XII (this is somewhat true). But the Big Ten also knows that, other than geography, it is the best fit for Texas (e.g. Texas would LOVE to be part of the Big Ten academic consortium that also includes U Chicago). Someone leaks the story that the Big Ten is offering schools that AREN'T Texas to try to force Texas' hand. It didn't work. But as I said, this is pure speculation, so grains, salt, etc.

Here's what is happening IMHO, in which the H is usually silent.

Expanding a conference is a really big, complicated deal. Changing conferences is the flip side of that coin and is also big and complicated. Nothing is going to happen without extensive discusssions, analysis, and negotiations between the leagues and the prospective additions. Is everyone with me so far?

And would the named schools agree to talk to the Big Ten under a confidentiality agreement? You bet. Texas and ND are the most desirable schools in the country as potential additions to any conference and would certainly want to hear any proposed deal. And Mizzou and Nebraska feel they are getting hosed by the unbalanced revenue split in the Big 12. And Rutgers, Pitt, WVa, and UConn probably feel that the Big East doesn't have much of a future as a football league.

Despite the confidentiality agreements, would word of discussions leak out? Well, does Charlie Daniel play a mean... well, you know.

Anyway, there are going to be a lot of rumors, which no one will confirm or deny -- because they can't. And we probably won't know what happens until the announcements are ready, which won't be for at least a few months.

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
05-19-2010, 12:25 PM
Interesting speculation. I think the answer is a lot simpler -- the leaked report merely overstated the progress of the expansion talks.

You are probably right here. But I also think there is a lot more going on in the background than the schools and conferences are admitting to. A LOT MORE. I hope some NE and NJ FOIA Act requests are done and are more conclusive.


The Texas case is a little more complicated than merely the idea that they don't want to be perceived as breaking up the conference. They have a financial deal that is not so very different from Notre Dame's.

Back when the old Big Eight was trying to lure Texas from the old Southwest Conference, they had to pay a premium to get the Longhorns -- essentially giving them a lion's share of the revenue of the new conference. Unlike the Big Ten and ACC, the Big 12 does NOT split it's revene equally. Texas simply gets more than everybody else. A LOT more.

Now, do they get as much as they'd get from the Big 10? That I don't know -- I don't know the details of the contract. From what I hear, it's probably not much more (and as I've suggested before, it's not worth the cost and problems inherent in switching leagues for a small increse in income ... a large one, yes ... a slightly bigger one, no).

However, complicating things is the idea that the Big 12 might be broken up by the Big 10 expansion. Those other Big 12 schools resent the hell out of the Big 12 financial package. The hate that Texas gets so much more than everybody else. If an offer from the Big 10 comes, Missouri and/or Nebraska would jump at the deal.

So for Texas, do they want to jump out of a failing league or stick around and anchor a weaker Big 12 with maybe TCU and/or Houston replacing a big state school?



This is a little off, I think. The Big XII does not share revenue equally, but it's not as stratified as some people think. They split half the TV revenue equally, and the other half is doled out based on appearances (number and on what network). Nebraska would actually be WORSE off if they agreed to full revenue sharing in the Big XII (although they, and Texas, would make more money revenue sharing tin the Big 10).

There are actually 3 different anti-Texas/South arguments in the Big XII:

1. Revenue sharing -- schools like Mizzou see lack of revenue sharing as unfair. Texas sees it as getting what it is owed. When Texas has 3 ABC prime-time national games in a row, half of that goes to the conference and Texas gets the other half. Texas knows that it will have to share revenue if it were to move conferences, but feel they shouldn't in the Big XII where, frankly, they don't feel schools are giving equal effort.

2. North/South divide -- schools like Nebraska think Don Beebe is in Texas' pocket. Tom Osborne complains about the championship game not being in Kansas City enough. We'll guess what the vote was to have the CCG rotation the way it was? 11-1. And there are a ton of "issues" that Nebraska has complained about that have had similar votes.

3. Conference network -- the conference tabled network talks as the Big Ten network was gearing up. There was a TON of skepticism about the Big 10 Network when it was launched. It's success has been nothing short of remarkable, and it's unclear whether a Big XII network would be as lucrative. I say not due to the demographics of the schools and their fan support across the country (especially in the north).

Texas has its own network in the works, and now the finger pointers in the Big XII are saying Texas' greed is standing in the way as they try to support their own network. What isn't being said is that the other Big XII schools wants to piggy back on Texas' work the last 2 years on developing a network - which was paid for solely by Texas -- and then share the revenue equally. Texas isn't having it. At least not yet.

The Big XII is a dysfunctional conference, and there is a lot of revisionist history happening in light of the success of the Big Ten network. I'll be interested to see how all this plays out, but I am confident that at least Mizzou will be part of the big 10 by fall 2012, and other dominoes will fall from there.

Atlanta Duke
05-19-2010, 01:22 PM
A-Tex Devil

Thanks for the insights based on your knowledge of Big 12 operations.

Given its dysfunctional aspects, do you anticipate the Big 12 splintering apart like the old SWC if Missouri and perhaps Nebraska depart for a Big Ten + 6?

Having grown up in western PA before moving south I have no particular knowledge of what football rivalries are regard as sacred in the Big 12 other than Texas - Oklahoma and presumably Texas - Texas A&M. It appears you believe Texas will be required to take Texas A&M in tow if it ever departed the Big 12. If so, do you believe given its football clout that Oklahoma would go where Texas went?

Alternatively, is Oklahoma State bundled with Oklahoma due to pressure from the Oklahoma legislature, which might result in those two schools attempting to stitch together a new conference from what would remain of the former Big 12?

I am not taking basketball rivalries into account given that all of these conference expansion rumors appear to be driven by how a realignment impacts the football programs.

A-Tex Devil
05-19-2010, 01:44 PM
A-Tex Devil

Thanks for the insights based on your knowledge of Big 12 operations.

Given its dysfunctional aspects, do you anticipate the Big 12 splintering apart like the old SWC if Missouri and perhaps Nebraska depart for a Big Ten + 6?

Having grown up in western PA before moving south I have no particular knowledge of what football rivalries are regard as sacred in the Big 12 other than Texas - Oklahoma and presumably Texas - Texas A&M. It appears you believe Texas will be required to take Texas A&M in tow if it ever departed the Big 12. If so, do you believe given its football clout that Oklahoma would go where Texas went?

Alternatively, is Oklahoma State bundled with Oklahoma due to pressure from the Oklahoma legislature, which might result in those two schools attempting to stitch together a new conference from what would remain of the former Big 12?

I am not taking basketball rivalries into account given that all of these conference expansion rumors appear to be driven by how a realignment impacts the football programs.

I think one of 2 things will happen if Mizzou and/or Nebraska leave:

(1) the Big XII will pick up some subset of Utah, BYU, TCU, Houston to take their place (probability in that order). IMHO, this would be a stop gap in the event there is some time between Big Ten expansion and other conferences moving. I doubt this would be permanent because none of those replacements are as good as Mizzou and Nebraska, and they all have issues: (prob can't get Utah without BYU, BYU won't play sports on Sundays and there is some inherent prejudice in academia against BYU which would be a hurdle - I don't know how large though, TCU brings NOTHING to the table other than a good football team, Houston is a commuter school a la Cincy and USF with a disinterested alumni base, and has some bad blood with Texas/A&M).

(2) Conference falls apart within 18 months with desired teams heading to PAC 10/Big Ten/SEC, and likely that Baylor, Tech, KSU and Iowa St. are relegated to Mountain West status (which might not be as bad as it sounds if MWC gets Boise).

As for rivalries and political factors, UT and OU could be split. They were until 1994 and played every year. A&M will be tied to UT because they are just as big, and are a value add to any conference. Baylor and Tech don't have the political clout in the Texas legislature that they did in 1993-1994 to tag along (based on what I've read on some Texas sites where folks are more in tune with state politics than I).

I think Okie St. is tied to Oklahoma from a political standpoint, but i also think they have a lot to offer a conference (more than K-State and Iowa St.). They have been competitive in all major sports, have a strong and fairly dispersed alumni base, and a HUGE benefactor in T Boone Pickens.

The thing is, if you are Mizzou and get invited by the Big Ten, don't you HAVE to go? More money, but also security. If you don't go, someone else will and it's YOU stuck in a dying conference. Even if they want to stay in the Big XII, it presents a pretty serious prisoner's dilemma for them.

sagegrouse
05-19-2010, 02:02 PM
The thing is, if you are Mizzou and get invited by the Big Ten, don't you HAVE to go? More money, but also security. If you don't go, someone else will and it's YOU stuck in a dying conference. Even if they want to stay in the Big XII, it presents a pretty serious prisoner's dilemma for them.

To quote Gabby Hayes, "Yer dern tootin'!"

Mizzou goes into the Big Ten in a heartbeat. Twice the money, better academics, natural rivalry with Illinois, and twice the money. Oh, did I say that twice?

I think Nebraska goes as well, although the geography is not quite as convenient. But I believe the money and prestige are really convenient. :p

I doubt that Texas and Texas A&M take the bait. Although my time is Texas was many years ago, I believe the Big Ten would be viewed as carpetbaggers for coming after the Texas schools, and the schools, if they accepted, would be viewed as scalawags. Now the SEC is a different matter, although Texas might look down on the academics there.

sagegrouse

sagegrouse
05-19-2010, 02:21 PM
This has the makings of a good contest: picking conference changes (additions and subtractions) to the six BCS conferences.

I am sure one of us won't mind building a spreadsheet of entries.

To declare a winner, it needs an "as of" date. December 31, 2010 may be too soon. What about June 30, 2011? Or, will this takes years and years to shake out?

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
05-19-2010, 08:26 PM
Here's some juicy (probably false) stuff (I imagine rumors about entities are OK? These aren't about players and *I think* are harmless fun).

Read original post here (http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?highlight=expansion&sid=901&fid=57&tid=142885732&mid=143003382)(thread is not necessary). Crazy and dumb, right?

Then read this (http://spartannation.com/?p=12002).

It's way off the wall, but I'll give it credit for being "out of the box."

G man
05-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Here's some juicy (probably false) stuff (I imagine rumors about entities are OK? These aren't about players and *I think* are harmless fun).

Read original post here (http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?highlight=expansion&sid=901&fid=57&tid=142885732&mid=143003382)(thread is not necessary). Crazy and dumb, right?

Then read this (http://spartannation.com/?p=12002).

It's way off the wall, but I'll give it credit for being "out of the box."


This may be the single greatest internet tidbit of all time great work!!!! I don't know what to say except great work!!!!!!!!

tommy
05-20-2010, 01:45 PM
Here's some juicy (probably false) stuff (I imagine rumors about entities are OK? These aren't about players and *I think* are harmless fun).

Read original post here (http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?highlight=expansion&sid=901&fid=57&tid=142885732&mid=143003382)(thread is not necessary). Crazy and dumb, right?

Then read this (http://spartannation.com/?p=12002).

It's way off the wall, but I'll give it credit for being "out of the box."

A-Tex, lemme ask you something. In your mind, assuming that the Big 10 is expanding in some fashion with some unknown number of teams, what is the ideal scenario from UT's perspective and only UT's perspective? And why?

A-Tex Devil
05-20-2010, 02:34 PM
A-Tex, lemme ask you something. In your mind, assuming that the Big 10 is expanding in some fashion with some unknown number of teams, what is the ideal scenario from UT's perspective and only UT's perspective? And why?

Ideally? Launch it's own network and stay in the Big XII, even a weakened Big XII. But that's a great risk if the network is a flop. The Big XII would probably revert to Big 8 status -- 2-3 good teams and a bunch of pushovers. But if that allowed Texas to rake in $20-$30 million on its own from its network and a red carpet to a BCS game every year, I am sure they'd take it.

Great post from Frank the Tank from earlier this week, here (http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/underrated-players-and-issues-in-conference-realignment/). He's an Illini grad and has been the most prolific blogger on conference realignment. He's got a little bit of tunnel vision on Texas being the Big Ten's best option, but he's thorough.

And a glimpse of what the off-season programming of the Longhorn Sports Network might look like, here (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2010/5/18/1476905/the-texas-network-suddenly). :D

MrBisonDevil
05-21-2010, 09:33 AM
Academic fit is extremely important in the ACC. A lot of those schools being tossed in the mixer do not come close to ACC standards. Alumni would be up in arms to see some of those school join our ranks.

Olympic Fan
05-21-2010, 10:24 AM
The Ken Tysiac article linked on the front page pretty much agrees with my prediction that the ACC will stay at 12 -- and pretty much offers the same reasoning. That doesn't mean it's right, only that Ken and I read the landscape the same way.

Again, I don't understand why people want to expand just to expand. Adding West Virginia, Louisville, etc., sounds cool, but what do they bring to the table FINANCIALLY -- the answer is nothing. They split revenues without adding to the total package.

And I'm not sure why the idea of the 16-team super-conference is so attractive. The closest thing we have as a model is the Big East and that's the single most disfunctional league ... the least financially productive and the most vulnerable to raids.

There might be a difference for the Big Ten, if it can significantly increase the value of its Big Ten Network by getting into more markets. But the SEC would be nuts to expand (unless it can get Texas). There's no way that adding an ACC school would convince the networks to renegotiate a bloated deal that was signed just before the recession hit.

Mal
05-21-2010, 11:49 AM
Fascinating thread; y'all are really plugged in on this. Couple humble thoughts:

- I think that, rather than the "on bended knee" analogy Oly mentioned, Atlanta Duke's "lebensraum" is the better characterization of the Big Ten right now. They know damn well they're stable, highly profitable and very desirable, with clearly the second best academics of the BCS conferences. They also know the Big East is teetering, and peeling away either Texas or Missouri/Nebraska would probably crater the Big 12. My sense is that they're casting the net wide, talking about ridiculous potential partners like Maryland and Rutgers, who have zero to offer the conference (IMnsHO the idea that the NY or DC TV markets would give a rat's patootie about a Rutgers or Maryland/Michigan State football game is fantastical), as a way of showing their strength. "Look at us! We can go grab whoever we want! You'd better come along now, ND, and get under our wing, or you'll be left out there in Armageddon all by your lonesome. Because we will be destroying the Big East."

- I can't believe the rest of the Big Ten member schools would go along with a sort of preferred membership status for two new schools. That's a great way to import the hierarchy problems that plague the Big 12. I don't think having the existing fanbases resent the special treatment given the new kids on the block would go over well. Maybe I'm wrong and the $$ is too alluring, but if that's the case, then I'm confident it would lead to significant issues down the road.

- Interesting thoughts, A-Tex, on the evolution of college football toward an NFL organizational and scheduling style. As one who's only peripherally interested in college football, I have to say I for one would fall out altogether if that were the ultimate result of TV driven changes. What's the point of another NFL with a substantially lower quality of football? This seems akin to the NCAA's dalliance with a 96 team basketball tourney. It's obviously driven by money, but in a totally short-sighted way. The end result would likely be the dilution some of the elements that make the current product so popular, driving people away instead of drawing them in. I could see that happening in more of a regionalized, nationalized college football system, too, with a bunchof megaconferences. Some of the big draws that keep people invested in college football would be seriously threatened or watered down. Among them the consistency of playing your big rivals, or at least most of them, every year; the ability to drive to away games en masse; and a sense that the conference in some ways defines your region or corner of the nation and sets it apart from others. Over the long haul, I think taking those things away in favor of moving towards a TV based enterprise ultimately shrinks the base of people who care enough to watch on TV, which is a net loss I would think.

A-Tex Devil
05-21-2010, 01:21 PM
Great posts guys. I don't think the NFL-ification is that good for college football as a whole either (traditions, academics, travel costs, etc.). But the NFL model works better than any other sport. You really aren't diluting anything, though, other than the importance of the regular season as it's highly likely there would be more 2 loss teams with national title shots. I also don't think most rivalries would be lost if you whittle down the pool of teams allowed to play each other. But I also think we need the possibility of App State (or at least a weak 1-A/FBS team) over Michigan, or Boise St. playing Va Tech. We'd probably lose that.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned on the Big Ten side (although it can probably be inferred from the posts) is that, as Delaney said, expansion is not about a conference championship game, or playoffs. It's about the Big Ten Network. The Network may get $1.00 per subscriber in Chicago, but in Houston and Atlanta it's a lot less (maybe as low as $0.10, or part of some special sports package). Same with DC and New York. If the network adds a UT/Rutgers/Mizzou, they can charge the cable companies more for the network in those regions, and the cable companies would have to oblige or they lose customers to Direct TV, etc. If they add Texas and ND, they can up the ante on cable companies in regions where they don't even have teams due to the breadth of those alumni bases.

The Big Ten may be a unique example of a Conference Network working. I'm not sure. The SEC got a Godfather offer from ABC/ESPN, but it even their deal doesn't have the ceiling the Big Ten Network does if it is able to turn up the dial on subscription prices all across the country. I'm also not sure an SEC Network would have the national potential the Big Ten Network did.

Delaney's "sun belt" comments have been, to me, the most telling public remarks in this whole process, though. He's a smart guy (and probably the most savvy of all the conference commissioners), so I don't think that was a slip up on his part at all.

G man
05-21-2010, 01:23 PM
We had a large conversation at work today about the possibility of expansion mainly Nebraska moving to the big ten. Now some of my co-workers hate the fact that lil-red will probably packing his bags for the big ten, but the rest of us were more concerned about being left in the cold if Texas decided to do anything. When the big twelve formed the strong teams of that period were Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. All the power shifted to Texas which has never set well in Lincoln. Well that being said people with connections have mentioned that some of the officials in the AD department said we are gone within two years at the most.

RPS
05-21-2010, 05:47 PM
For those of you who wish the ACC to go after academically compatible schools, Army and Navy beckon. Of course, their basketball programs are beyond woeful. But the SATs are off the charts.

If we could just get the University of Chicago to reinstate big-time football.A better fit would be Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC. Those SATs beat Army and Navy. Median (middle 50%) SAT scores:

Stanford (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3387&profileId=6) 2010 - 2300
Cal (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=988&profileId=6) 1840 - 2190
UCLA (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=992&profileId=6) 1750 - 2110
USC (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3341&profileId=6) 1910 - 2180

Army (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1462&profileId=6) 1680 - 1970
Navy (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=2998&profileId=6) 1170 - 1400 (CR not available)

Duke (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=535&profileId=6) 2000 - 2290
Wake (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=2266&profileId=6) 1180 - 1390 (CR not available)
UVa (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=2350&profileId=6) 1840 - 2150
UNC (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3635&profileId=6) 1790 - 2090
GT (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3738&profileId=6) 1810 - 2100
BC (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=712&profileId=6) 1880 - 2150


If one wants Duke to have excellent competition and cultural/academic compatibility for all sports, why not consider a sixteen-team Atlantic conference (no longer the ACC) that melds the best of the Ivy League....Not gonna happen with the Ivies.


Or one could have great academic and cultural similarity, if geographic parameters (and travel costs) were increased, with Atlantic and Pacific Divisions (such as):
Duke
UNC
UVa
BC
Wake
Syracuse
Army
Navy

Stanford
Northwestern
Air Force
Rice
Tulane
TCU
Vanderbilt
Notre DameI like the concept, but Stanford isn't going anywhere without its archrivals from Berkeley, Cal isn't going anywhere without the baby bears from Westwood, and UCLA isn't going anywhere without its cross-town rivals. Besides, the California schools listed above make loads more sense from an athletic/academic standpoint than the rest of your western group.


Here's a PAC-Ten/Big XII conglomerate I imagine -- shedding the dead weight: Texas, A&M, OU, Okie St, KU, Colorado, Arizona, Az St, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Ca, Oregon, UW, then whoever gets lucky among K-State, Iowa St, Wazzu and Oreg St. I imagine it would be the 2 Pac 10 schools.This makes a lot of sense to me.


Texas will lead A&M, OU, Okie St., Kansas and Colorado to form an alliance with the Pac 10, relegating KSU, ISU, Baylor and Tech to the Mountain West. Sorry guys.There's confirmation (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/05/12/pac-10-expansion-revisiting-the-brigham-young-issue/) that it's being talked about.


It's very important to note that the reason the BCS conferences prefer bowls to playoffs right now is that there isn't a way to do playoffs without the NCAA getting a cut at this point. Playoffs would make a TON more in TV contracts than the BCS, but the NCAA would get a large chunk of that. I don't know all of the particulars of how they get out from under the NCAA umbrella, but it looms right now. And until it doesn't there won't be a playoff. Any other reason for their not being a playoff is smoke and mirrors.The other reason is that the BCS schools don't have to share the money with the rest of the FBS schools.

Atlanta Duke
05-23-2010, 09:29 AM
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review both have articles on the Big Ten expansion today - as A-Tex Devil has posted, apparently it is all about the TV $$ generated by cable TV fees for carrying the Big Ten network

Each Big Ten school earned about $22 million from TV rights deals in 2008. Big East schools, by contrast, earned $4.5 million. Big 12 schools earned between $7 million and $12 million.

The Big Ten Network earns about 88 cents per subscriber in the eight states that are home to Big Ten universities through carriage fees ... That figure plummets to 5 cents per subscriber outside the eight-state Big Ten region, meaning there is a lot of money to be made if the conference can expand to new territory.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10143/1060185-142.stm

By luring Rutgers or even Syracuse and Connecticut, the Big Ten Network can possibly get New York City-based Cablevision, the dominant presence in the No. 1 media market in the nation, to offer the network as part of its basic cable. Rutgers also is 60 miles from Philadelphia, the nation's fourth-largest media market, and has approximately 380,000 living graduates, trailing only Texas (450,000) among the presumed Big Ten list of candidates.

By landing Missouri, the Big Ten's footprint would expand to include St. Louis, the nation's 21st biggest media market, and Kansas City, the 32nd ranked market.

If the 2.2 million households in Missouri started earning the Big Ten Network the 70-cent basic-tier fee rather than the 10-cent out-of-region pay, that would equal potentially an extra $1.5 million per month.

And that's just Missouri.

By contrast, a Big Ten title game in football would raise perhaps $1 million per school, at most, according to industry estimates. The SEC title game, which is much more ingrained since its 1992 inception, made $14.3 million last year for the conference.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_682521.html

Interesting how the success of the Big Ten Network has shifted the expansion focus from what I understand was always the goal of the Big Ten to add Notre Dame as a 12th member to growing revenue through cable TV fees.

Since adding Pitt does not grow that revenue source, given Penn State and Ohio State already drawing western PA TV viewers, Pitt and WVU presumably will be left out in the cold if the Big Ten expands and the Big East dies. While the ACC has no current incentive to add those teams, that could change if the Big Ten's moves prompt the SEC to move on some ACC teams.

A-Tex Devil
06-03-2010, 04:29 PM
This (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747) is from the Texas Rivals site, but Chip Brown is legit and was with the Dallas Morning News for years (i.e. he's not Thayer Evans, the Bleacher Report or a blogger).

Curious to see if his sources are right.

Newton_14
06-03-2010, 08:09 PM
This (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747) is from the Texas Rivals site, but Chip Brown is legit and was with the Dallas Morning News for years (i.e. he's not Thayer Evans, the Bleacher Report or a blogger).

Curious to see if his sources are right.

Appears legit. Multiple sources now reporting. The "Big Pac". Down goes the Big 12 with the Big 10 picking up the leftovers?

Who ends up being the big loser from the Big 12 with no place to call home? Kansas?

SmartDevil
06-03-2010, 11:04 PM
I see references in various threads here and on other boards to WV, SC, and U-Conn as potential members of the ACC. I really think admission of those schools would be HIGHLY unlikely, particularly the first two.

But some of the other schools floated as possible members might make sense.

Reddevil
06-04-2010, 11:03 AM
Appears legit. Multiple sources now reporting. The "Big Pac". Down goes the Big 12 with the Big 10 picking up the leftovers?

Who ends up being the big loser from the Big 12 with no place to call home? Kansas?

I was thinking the same thing. The most talked about scenarios have MO, NE, and maybe some BE schools going to the Big 11+. The article on the front page today involves 3 TX schools, CO, OK, and OK St. going to the PAC 10+. Is Kansas really in danger of becoming irrelevant?:eek:

A-Tex Devil
06-04-2010, 11:52 AM
I was thinking the same thing. The most talked about scenarios have MO, NE, and maybe some BE schools going to the Big 11+. The article on the front page today involves 3 TX schools, CO, OK, and OK St. going to the PAC 10+. Is Kansas really in danger of becoming irrelevant?:eek:

Kansas is too much of a revenue generator in basketball to be ignored. They will land on their feet. Louisville will too, I think, now that their new arena is opening. Someone said they might be the largest revenue generating basketball program in the country next year with new stadium, naming rights ("Yum Brands Arena" or something like that. My god.), etc.

The problem with reporters breaking these stories is that, true or not, they ends up causing the school presidents and ADs to scramble. You have conference commissioners like Dan Beebe giving ultimatums (the Big XII meetings right now are by all accounts VERY tense). Any conference thinking about making an invitation is at an advantage if it doesn't leak out until the invitation is actually made. With this leak coming out (if it's true -- and again, Chip Brown is a legit reporter), the Pac 10 may need to rethink their strategy.

A-Tex Devil
06-04-2010, 03:27 PM
So in a perfect world (for Texas), Texas stays in a status quo Big XII and has it's own network that eventually pays it more than any school currently gets from its cut of conference proceeds, whether it's SEC, Big Ten or ACC.

Now let's set that aside.....

Colorado AD thinks he'll get invite from Pac 10, but "commited" to Big XII. (http://www.buffzone.com/ci_15222068)

Some nifty FOIA work indicates that Texas has told the Big Ten it has a "Tech" problem. Whether that's true or a smokescreen is unclear (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/06/04/e-mails-hint-eyes-are-upon-texas.html?sid=101)

Meanwhile, Dan Beebe continues to play the role of Baghdad Bob. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/060510dnspobig12talk.4c75137.html)

And this curveball (http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/06/sec_reacts_to_pac-10_expansion.html) -- "Texas is exploring its own television network, mainly for non-revenue sports and coaches' shows. If Texas joined the SEC, a Longhorns TV network would remain possible because SEC mem bers in 2008 retained their multi-media rights to mone tize them."

As mentioned before, this is the ultimate prisoner's dilemma. If the Big XII sits tight and gets a TV deal, maybe with the Pac 10, it will be in a VERY good position. FOX and the new Comcast/NBC conglomerate will bid up that price, and while it may not be SEC money, it may be bigger than the ACC. And Texas will get its network if it wants it on top of that. The problem is that no one wants to be left behind, so it's better to be first mover and take what's available if you think your conference brethren are going to do the same thing.

G man
06-04-2010, 03:37 PM
This is better than recruiting info.... I look forward to reading the newspaper everyday. This morning in the Journal star (Lincoln's newspaper) there was two articles about the death of the big 12. Not sure what everyone is feeling in Texas, but everyone up here in Nebraska is afraid of being left out in the cold. We are all hoping that we make the move before the others go to the pac 10. Seriously though Kansas, K state and Iowa state are in a real bind.

G man
06-04-2010, 04:24 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5251329

A-Tex Devil
06-04-2010, 06:04 PM
Idle speculation (http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/04/merger-tactics/) that the story Chip Brown broke was purposely leaked.

Frankly, it makes sense. Chip Brown is not going to print based on bloggers and message boards. He had multiple inside sources and I trust him. But there is a reason the Pac 10 let the cat out of the bag, and a reason they planned to invite Tech (or at least imply that they do).

So Texas has a "Tech" problem with the Big Ten? The Pac 10 bluffs that they DON'T have a "Tech" problem (which of course they do, because it requires a unanimous vote for expansion and Stanford will be a tough sell on Texas Tech). But get it out there in the press, putting the pressure on Texas and stirring up the Tech alumni in the legislature who believe they have a shot to hang on, so long as Texas doesn't zip to the Big Ten.

G-Man is right. This is exciting. There is a big old game of chicken being played by the Big 12 schools. The best solution for them collectively is to stand pat, but it's tough when all the other conferences are telling you how cute you are, and how your current boyfriend treats you like crap.

Duvall
06-04-2010, 06:34 PM
This is better than recruiting info.... I look forward to reading the newspaper everyday. This morning in the Journal star (Lincoln's newspaper) there was two articles about the death of the big 12. Not sure what everyone is feeling in Texas, but everyone up here in Nebraska is afraid of being left out in the cold. We are all hoping that we make the move before the others go to the pac 10. Seriously though Kansas, K state and Iowa state are in a real bind.

Not sure that I would say that this is better than anything. These shenanigans stand a real chance of having a negative impact on Duke, which is the main school of interest for some of us.

mph
06-04-2010, 06:54 PM
Not sure that I would say that this is better than anything. These shenanigans stand a real chance of having a negative impact on Duke, which is the main school of interest for some of us.

And a negative impact on college sports as a whole. I find it distressing that we are continuing to move away from smaller conferences with regional geographical roots. A Big Ten that stretches from Nebraska to Rutgers and a Pac 10 that stretches from Washington to Texas? Blech.

A-Tex Devil
06-04-2010, 07:14 PM
I am on board that it's a bad thing. The Big XII staying put is best, assuming they can get an ACC level TV contract.

But the game theory and back room dealing, bluffs, etc. are really, really intriguing.

uh_no
06-04-2010, 10:20 PM
And a negative impact on college sports as a whole. I find it distressing that we are continuing to move away from smaller conferences with regional geographical roots. A Big Ten that stretches from Nebraska to Rutgers and a Pac 10 that stretches from Washington to Texas? Blech.

need i remind you that it was the ACC who first created a widespread conference with the addition of BC?

Duvall
06-04-2010, 10:39 PM
need i remind you that it was the ACC who first created a widespread conference with the addition of BC?

Interesting definition of first. Boston to Miami isn't any farther than Seattle to Tucson.

mph
06-05-2010, 12:54 AM
need i remind you that it was the ACC who first created a widespread conference with the addition of BC?

No. I'm aware of the history of ACC expansion but it's not relevant to my point since I opposed the addition of BC and Miami.

Atlanta Duke
06-06-2010, 08:57 AM
This may start the dominoes to fall

The Big 12 has drawn a line in the sand for at least two member schools.

The conference, amid a chorus of story lines that would all significantly change the face of big-league college sports, has imposed a deadline of Friday for Nebraska and Missouri to state their intentions on whether they intend to bolt for the Big Ten, with the possibility of an extension for a decision by next Tuesday, The Austin American-Statesman has reported, citing two sources.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5257088

"Nebraska has until 5 p.m. on Friday to tell us what they're going to do," one school official said, adding that he has heard that deadline could be extended to June 15. "The same deal for Missouri. They have to tell us they're not going to the Big Ten or … ."

Or at least six Big 12 schools, including Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech, will be inclined to accept an invitation to join the Pac-10 Conference. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado are the other schools that could leave what would be a dissolving Big 12.

Nebraska and Missouri could be taking the risk that they might not be extended invitations from the Big Ten, which has said it could take up to 18 months to decide whether to expand its current membership of 11 schools.

"I've talked to the Pac-10," said the Big 12 school administrator, who expected the speculation involving the Big 12 to be resolved within two weeks. "There is an invitation. When it comes, it'll come fast."

http://www.statesman.com/sports/nebraska-missouri-given-ultimatum-on-deciding-their-futures-729660.html

As the Austin-American article states, the question for Nebraska and Mizzou is what sort of commitment they have from the Big Ten - whether to say you intend to jump without knowing where you may be landing is a difficult decision.

A-Tex Devil
06-06-2010, 12:45 PM
This may start the dominoes to fall

The Big 12 has drawn a line in the sand for at least two member schools.

The conference, amid a chorus of story lines that would all significantly change the face of big-league college sports, has imposed a deadline of Friday for Nebraska and Missouri to state their intentions on whether they intend to bolt for the Big Ten, with the possibility of an extension for a decision by next Tuesday, The Austin American-Statesman has reported, citing two sources.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5257088

"Nebraska has until 5 p.m. on Friday to tell us what they're going to do," one school official said, adding that he has heard that deadline could be extended to June 15. "The same deal for Missouri. They have to tell us they're not going to the Big Ten or … ."

Or at least six Big 12 schools, including Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech, will be inclined to accept an invitation to join the Pac-10 Conference. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado are the other schools that could leave what would be a dissolving Big 12.

Nebraska and Missouri could be taking the risk that they might not be extended invitations from the Big Ten, which has said it could take up to 18 months to decide whether to expand its current membership of 11 schools.

"I've talked to the Pac-10," said the Big 12 school administrator, who expected the speculation involving the Big 12 to be resolved within two weeks. "There is an invitation. When it comes, it'll come fast."

http://www.statesman.com/sports/nebraska-missouri-given-ultimatum-on-deciding-their-futures-729660.html

As the Austin-American article states, the question for Nebraska and Mizzou is what sort of commitment they have from the Big Ten - whether to say you intend to jump without knowing where you may be landing is a difficult decision.

So do Nebraska and Mizzou cooperate even though the other 6 schools might still leave? Or do they look out for their own self interest with the assumption that everyone else is looking out for their self interest, too? Game theory tells us exactly what will happen. I thought KU would land in a major conference but I am starting to think otherwise.

This link is really funny, but also has a lot of language, so you've been warned:

Expansion Rumors Take us Back to High School (http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/4/1500646/the-rumormill-the-big-xii-to-pac)

mph
06-06-2010, 03:03 PM
As the Austin-American article states, the question for Nebraska and Mizzou is what sort of commitment they have from the Big Ten - whether to say you intend to jump without knowing where you may be landing is a difficult decision.

What's stopping Missouri and Nebraska from making a verbal "commitment" to the Big 12 only to buy time and then bolt when the Big 10/11 extends a formal offer? I don't know if there would be legal implications, but we already have frequent reminders of how little a person's word means in big-time college athletics these days (Lane Kiffin, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Tommy Tuberville, etc.)

G man
06-06-2010, 03:30 PM
I feel bad for everyone in the big 12 but Texas, because they hold all of the cards. Most people who live in big twelve country with the exception of Missouri want things to stay as they are. If I was an AD in the big 12 I would be trying to shop myself around as well, because to be frank no one knows what the heck Texas is going to do! For most of these schools it would be better to bolt from the big 12 than get left on the outside looking into a major conference. Also the Kansas schools are going to get hosed.

Atlanta Duke
06-06-2010, 04:15 PM
What's stopping Missouri and Nebraska from making a verbal "commitment" to the Big 12 only to buy time and then bolt when the Big 10/11 extends a formal offer? I don't know if there would be legal implications, but we already have frequent reminders of how little a person's word means in big-time college athletics these days (Lane Kiffin, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Tommy Tuberville, etc.)

As you observed, my initial thoughts in response to the alleged deadline were: (1) what are the consequences of simply not responding; or (2) Nebraska and Missouri saying they are staying and later leaving, at which point those 2 schools quote Otter's moral point to Flounder in Animal House - "you f**ked up, you trusted us. Hey, make the best of it!"

I assume that the deadline has some sort of liquidated damages payment or extension of the notice period required prior to leaving the Big 12 if those schools do not respond or state they are staying, after which they bolt at a later date.

As G man notes, some high stakes poker being played, with Texas apparently holding the best cards.

A-Tex Devil
06-07-2010, 11:06 AM
Wow. I don't know if I should apply Occam's Razor here or if people like Jim Delaney were really that smart and conniving 2 years ago. From the Wetzel Article linked by DBR:


It’s clear now that Delany used opposition to a football playoff not to preserve some bit of “tradition.” His expansion plans clearly indicate he cares nothing about that. It certainly wasn’t done for the sake of aiding Big Ten football, since a playoff with on-campus home games likely would’ve helped his teams.

The goal was to starve out the Big 12, Big East and even the ACC of the hundreds of millions a playoff would’ve given them and thus turn the future of college sports into a battle of television sets.

Really? If so, well played, evil mastermind Jim Delaney. I picture him sitting in a chair in a big office rubbing his hands together Dr. Evil style saying "Yesss, yesss, it's all coming together now. Soon I will rule the WORLD the BCS!!"

Here are a couple of other rumors out there:

1. The PAC Ten doesn't want to expand, but they and the Big XII want to do this TV deal. However, it doesn't work without Nebraska (name) and Mizzou (TV sets) support. So the PAC 10, staked by Texas, is putting its chips on the table as a massive bluff to force NU and Mizzou to commit to the Big XII. Does the PAC 10 really want Texas Tech? Is Stanford going to vote for that? And what about the Baylor poison pill that the Texas legislature could allegedly throw in there? (More on this in a second).

2. This Baylor thing is essentially a poison pill whereby the Texas legislature could spoil everyone's fun. They know Baylor won't get accepted to the PAC 10, so if it gets forced on the Pac 10, the deal will likely die. Buddy Jones is one of the most well known lobbyists in the state and a Baylor regent. He has a big house here in Austin up on the hill overlooking the lake for everyone to see. He is friends with important politicos in Texas from every school. All that being said, the Texas legislature itself doesn't have the in-house Baylor support it did 17 years ago. I find it difficult to believe that legislators would potentially harm the revenue stream of its 3 most well known state institutions to prop up an athletic department that shouldn't have been propped up 17 years ago. We shall see.

Frankly, I think the Baylor play is just plastic sword rattling. The Baylor alums can't stop this, but (to steal a metaphor form another site), they can be a battleaxe spouse in the legislature and passive-aggressively make the other schools pay for any decision that negatively affects Baylor in the years to come.

Duvall
06-07-2010, 12:26 PM
Really? If so, well played, evil mastermind Jim Delaney.

He did learn from the greatest evil genius the world has ever known.

roywhite
06-07-2010, 12:33 PM
He did learn from the greatest evil genius the world has ever known.

Well, I'd more likely believe there was some master plan to the B10/11 strategy if El-Deano was in charge. I follow Penn State and the conference pretty closely, and haven't seen any indication that Delany is some genius, or innovator. He had to be dragged into instant replay, and this in a league that had more than it's share of questionable and downright poor officiating.

The B10/11 has a fairly strong hand, in part due to the somewhat unexpected success of the B10 network, which is very profitable and becoming more so.

Just a guess, but I'd say the B10 ends up with Nebraska, Mzzou, and Rutgers. Maybe Notre Dame, but they're still living back in their past glory and may not make a move.

theAlaskanBear
06-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Well, I'd more likely believe there was some master plan to the B10/11 strategy if El-Deano was in charge. I follow Penn State and the conference pretty closely, and haven't seen any indication that Delany is some genius, or innovator. He had to be dragged into instant replay, and this in a league that had more than it's share of questionable and downright poor officiating.

The B10/11 has a fairly strong hand, in part due to the somewhat unexpected success of the B10 network, which is very profitable and becoming more so.

Just a guess, but I'd say the B10 ends up with Nebraska, Mzzou, and Rutgers. Maybe Notre Dame, but they're still living back in their past glory and may not make a move.

If I had to guess, I think that this is actually the time Notre Dame JUMPS. The football handwringing the last few years has made them realize they are mortal. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to get locked out of league that contains all my geographical rivals. Notre Dame only gets to play the kingmaker if they marry the Big 10!

RoyalBlue08
06-07-2010, 12:55 PM
If I had to guess, I think that this is actually the time Notre Dame JUMPS. The football handwringing the last few years has made them realize they are mortal. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to get locked out of league that contains all my geographical rivals. Notre Dame only gets to play the kingmaker if they marry the Big 10!

ND will only jump to the Big Ten if the Big East folds, and therefore has no where else to play its non football sports. ND football wants to be independent, but the Big East is the only conference that would take them without football. So basically if Rutgers is a member of the Big Ten, than so is ND...if not and the Big East stays pat, ND won't leave.

tommy
06-07-2010, 01:18 PM
I was thinking the same thing. The most talked about scenarios have MO, NE, and maybe some BE schools going to the Big 11+. The article on the front page today involves 3 TX schools, CO, OK, and OK St. going to the PAC 10+. Is Kansas really in danger of becoming irrelevant?:eek:

Wow. What if Kansas really did get frozen out of a new, expanded Pac-10, and with no more Big 12, they're nowhere? That would be a huge story vis-a-vis big time basketball recruiting. They are in the hunt for, and get, a very large number of the top recruits in the nation, just about every year. If they weren't affiliated with a major conference, their ability to attract top recruits would have to suffer. Some of the other schools that recruit the cream of the crop could benefit. . . Just thinking, when is the last time Duke was going after a guy hard and lost him to Kansas?

Kedsy
06-07-2010, 01:18 PM
ND will only jump to the Big Ten if the Big East folds, and therefore has no where else to play its non football sports. ND football wants to be independent, but the Big East is the only conference that would take them without football. So basically if Rutgers is a member of the Big Ten, than so is ND...if not and the Big East stays pat, ND won't leave.

Why would Rutgers leaving break up the Big East? Would being without Rutgers make it impossible for the Big East to field a football league?

senkiri
06-07-2010, 01:30 PM
All of these machinations by other conferences and nothing much has leaked about what the ACC is planning. I am really worried about how all this affects our league, but information (either concrete or rumors) seems non-existent. Superficially the ACC hierarchy appears content to stand pat after our new TV deal. However, I'm unclear if the radio silence is because we truly have no plans beyond what has been announced, or because we are in a completely reactive mindset waiting to see what happens or if we don't want to tip our hand, but have something up our sleeve. Seems unlikely that NOTHING has leaked from the ACC offices, which makes me think we're in wait and see mode.

Personally I don't want the ACC to expand, but I also don't want us reactively expanding later with schools that aren't a great athletic/academic fit because they are all that remains after other conferences are done making their moves. Hard to believe we are in such a position of weakness.

Has there been any serious talk about an ACC (Or combined ACC-plus-another-conference) network since that seems to be what has put the Big 10/11 in such a commanding position? Or does our new ESPN deal preclude that?

If the ACC feels it needs to expand, schools that I feel would be a good fit would be Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Question is whether they would still be free after the initial dominoes have fallen...

Anyone have any expansion/realignment info with an ACC-centric perspective??

sagegrouse
06-07-2010, 01:43 PM
All of these machinations by other conferences and nothing much has leaked about what the ACC is planning. I am really worried about how all this affects our league, but information (either concrete or rumors) seems non-existent. Superficially the ACC hierarchy appears content to stand pat after our new TV deal. However, I'm unclear if the radio silence is because we truly have no plans beyond what has been announced, or because we are in a completely reactive mindset waiting to see what happens or if we don't want to tip our hand, but have something up our sleeve. Seems unlikely that NOTHING has leaked from the ACC offices, which makes me think we're in wait and see mode.

Personally I don't want the ACC to expand, but I also don't want us reactively expanding later with schools that aren't a great athletic/academic fit because they are all that remains after other conferences are done making their moves. Hard to believe we are in such a position of weakness.

Has there been any serious talk about an ACC (Or combined ACC-plus-another-conference) network since that seems to be what has put the Big 10/11 in such a commanding position? Or does our new ESPN deal preclude that?

If the ACC feels it needs to expand, schools that I feel would be a good fit would be Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Question is whether they would still be free after the initial dominoes have fallen...

Anyone have any expansion/realignment info with an ACC-centric perspective??

Good questions. It seems to me that the ACC is circling the wagons, defending their 12 members against predation. I don't sense anyone in the ACC pushing for expansion. The last time was somewhat cathartic, wasn't it?

My sense is that the only things that would force the ACC to act would be (a) the unexpected loss of existing members or (b) the implosion of either the Big East or the Big 12, leading to a wholesale revision of the conference landscape.

sagegrouse

Kedsy
06-07-2010, 02:53 PM
If the ACC feels it needs to expand, schools that I feel would be a good fit would be Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Question is whether they would still be free after the initial dominoes have fallen...

How about Kansas and Kansas State (who appear to be left out in the cold in many hypothetical scenarios)? Obviously not very close to the "Atlantic Coast," but probably not so much further away than Syracuse. Or am I just being stupid here? I admit I don't know much about this sort of thing.

G man
06-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Wow. What if Kansas really did get frozen out of a new, expanded Pac-10, and with no more Big 12, they're nowhere? That would be a huge story vis-a-vis big time basketball recruiting. They are in the hunt for, and get, a very large number of the top recruits in the nation, just about every year. If they weren't affiliated with a major conference, their ability to attract top recruits would have to suffer. Some of the other schools that recruit the cream of the crop could benefit. . . Just thinking, when is the last time Duke was going after a guy hard and lost him to Kansas?

You know at first I was inclined to agree with your post, but then I thought about Memphis. Memphis has done just fine in one of the worst conferences in the nation. They get great recruits every year. Lets say for argument sake that Kansas went to the mountain west conference. That would be a better conference for basketball and football. I think that they could survive, but just like Memphis they would be irrelevant for parts of the season. Because lets face it when teams like Memphis hit conference play they disappear until March.

Mal
06-07-2010, 03:37 PM
I suspect the ACC's silence in all this stems in large part from geography. The SEC seems comfortable, and there haven't been any indications they're looking to grow, right? I certainly don't get the sense they're at risk of being raided, leading them to turn around and hit up the ACC. Which member school there would be a legitimate target somewhere else (other than Vandy, and the "somewhere else" in their case is the ACC)? So while it's always possible, it doesn't look very likely the SEC will be looking to raid us. And with the Big East, the ACC is well positioned to be a vulture, but unless the conference really thinks 16 is the only place to be for the future, there's no need to be active right now. There was some random talk about the Big Ten targeting Maryland, but that's such a bad fit I can't see it as a legitimate possibility. (And good riddance, anyway! ;))

Who knows, what with all the chaos, and I guess it's possible BC could be legitimately targeted somewhere down the line. But generally, I would guess we don't hear much out of the ACC because it's not that likely to lose anyone, or certainly not a raft of schools, so it's considering contingency plans but that's it. Football may not have panned out as successfully as some of the members wanted, but the academics are still No. 1 by a large margin, basketball's still winning championships, and the general sports success of Duke, Carolina, and now UVa make it a conference no one would actively wish to leave. I think.

If we determined we had to actively get out there and go to 16 (and I hope we don't decide to), I'd hope we'd set our sights on both Vanderbilt and, if the Big Ten doesn't grab them, Notre Dame. We could legitimately pull two of Pitt, Syracuse or Rutgers in, as well, leaving Notre Dame in the position of no leverage. "We're taking enough Big East schools to kill the conference - will you be one of them, or not?"

Re: kedsy's suggestion, actually Lawrence is as far from Atlanta, probably the closest/most accessible ACC town, as Syracuse is from Clemson, which is further away from it than all but 3 existing schools. In addition to that is the leapfrogging issue and the "fit" issue, especially as regards Kansas State. Culturally, it's a midwestern land-grant, ag-based school, and academically, I don't get the sense it's in the same league as even the middle- to lower-tier ACC institutions.

G man
06-07-2010, 03:39 PM
Good questions. It seems to me that the ACC is circling the wagons, defending their 12 members against predation. I don't sense anyone in the ACC pushing for expansion. The last time was somewhat cathartic, wasn't it?

My sense is that the only things that would force the ACC to act would be (a) the unexpected loss of existing members or (b) the implosion of either the Big East or the Big 12, leading to a wholesale revision of the conference landscape.

sagegrouse

It is kind of interesting that the ACC is sitting this round out on the sideline. I have no information to back this up, but I agree with the part of your post that speculates that they are willing to stand pat. I think they only go after a big east team if the Florida schools bail. That being said who knows maybe they go after Syracuse anyway. It is hard to know since nothing is being leaked to the press about the ACC.

roywhite
06-07-2010, 03:43 PM
The 10/11 commissioner Delany had a big talk about changing demographics recently and how the nation's population was moving south and west, meaning a smaller population base (and sports talent pool) for his conference.

This has led to speculation that the B10/11 expansion will attempt to add a southern member or two, with names like GaTech, UVa, VaTech, and Miami popping up. Pretty much standard internet chatter, but it's possible the B10/11 will at least probe some current ACC members for interest.

A-Tex Devil
06-07-2010, 03:58 PM
The ACC just signed a pretty good TV deal. I am sure there are contingencies in there if they lose or gain teams, but any moves made by the ACC are going to be reactive to moves by the SEC, and I don't see the SEC doing anything in this round.

TV is driving this - it's about untapped revenue streams, which is why 16 team conferences are a real possibility. More games on more TV sets is what all of these conferences want. If the Big Ten and PAC 10 make moves, the SEC will need to see if it makes sense for them to do the same. What markets make sense for them to move into that they don't already own?

1. Texas/Oklahoma
2. North Carolina/Virginia

There it is. When the Big Ten first started talking expansion, the consensus was Pitt made the most sense, historically and geographically. Well history is more or less out the window and geography is only important with respect to the TV sets you DON'T own. I don't know if the SEC will do anything. They may not need to. But adding FSU, Clemson and Georgia Tech doesn't really add markets the SEC doesn't already own.

If this REALLY starts going down, I wouldn't be surprised (although I don't expect) if the SEC reaches out to Texas/A&M/OU just to see if it has a shot. If that doesn't work, and the new PAC 16 and the Big Te-fifteen leapfrog the SEC in TV revenue over the course of the next 5 years, I would expect the SEC to entertain talks with UNC, UVA and Va Tech. Then we can worry.

RPS
06-07-2010, 04:11 PM
Football may not have panned out as successfully as some of the members wanted, but the academics are still No. 1 by a large margin, basketball's still winning championships, and the general sports success of Duke, Carolina, and now UVa make it a conference no one would actively wish to leave. I think.I think this view is pretty naive.

Football has panned out much worse than expected. The ACC is a football afterthought. Schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson and VaTech, that really value football as opposed to hoops, have to be extremely disappointed. I should think they might be vulnerable to the right offer and suspect that all would at least seriously consider the SEC, but it isn't clear to me that the SEC is committed to further growth or that FSU and Miami could get the okay from Florida to join.

Oh, and ACC academics aren't clearly #1. Per reports from Texas (http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/kirk-bohls-9-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-731268.html):

"Here's one of the main reasons Texas wants to join the Pac-10: academic elitism. Texas wants to rub elbows with the Stanfords and Cal-Berkeleys of the world and considers itself a better fit with them, UCLA and USC than it does the Big 12."

With respect to a conference teams want to leave, I think you overvalue Directors' Cup and overstate ACC success. Always, follow the money. For the right package, essentially every school is vulnerable.

JayZee
06-07-2010, 04:15 PM
So, someone enlighten me. Is the age of the new uber conferences entirely due to conf football championships? So it all boils down to 1-3 games per year per conference? What am I missing? Do schools get that more TV $$$ from football than basketball?


It seems like basketball would have a much higher ROI, unless the share from the NCAA was much lower. It's not like BB TV revs are that low.

Duvall
06-07-2010, 04:19 PM
So, someone enlighten me. Is the age of the new uber conferences entirely due to conf football championships? So it all boils down to 1-3 games per year per conference? What am I missing? Do schools get that more TV $$$ from football than basketball?


Yes.

It's not due to conference football championships, which have always been overrated. It's due to conference television packages, and in the case of the Big Ten, a conference cable network.

A-Tex Devil
06-07-2010, 04:42 PM
So, someone enlighten me. Is the age of the new uber conferences entirely due to conf football championships? So it all boils down to 1-3 games per year per conference? What am I missing? Do schools get that more TV $$$ from football than basketball?


It seems like basketball would have a much higher ROI, unless the share from the NCAA was much lower. It's not like BB TV revs are that low.

As Duvall mentions, it's due to these TV packages. In the case of the Big Ten, it's the ability to charge $1.00 per cable subscriber in Kansas City, as an example, as opposed to $0.25. Those numbers add up - and it's why they are so gng ho about getting Notre Dame. PAC 10 has similar designs on a channel modeled after the Big Ten and have Weiburg, who helped start the Big Ten network, in fold to help them do it.

Here's an article from Doc Saturday (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Stayin-alive-Three-scenarios-for-Big-12-surviv?urn=ncaaf,246276) laying out how the Big XII could be saved. This is truly a Cuban Missile Crisis between Texas and Nebraska (and to a lesser extent Mizzou).

One of the links in that article is an open letter from a UT fan to Larry Scott to kill the deal if TX legislature forces Baylor on the PAC 10. I tend to agree with it.

Mal
06-07-2010, 04:47 PM
Football has panned out much worse than expected.

I think you're probably right w/r/t the football schools, although again I think geography factors in. As someone else noted, Florida might object to FSU or Miami joining the SEC. It would be interesting to see if VT or GT would think they could hack it in the SEC, football-wise. If I were an alum of one of those institutions, I'd be giddy on the one hand, and lamenting the fact my team might never challenge for a conference title again on the other. But, yes, $$ drives all, so anything could happen.

I do disagree re: academics, however, and note that the particular quote you provided is indicative of nothing re: the ACC vis-a-vis the Pac 10, as the ACC isn't courting Texas. Stanford/Cal is perhaps marginally more hobknobby than Duke/UVa, but not appreciably. UCLA and USC are pretty much indistinguishable from UNC and Wake as an academic pairing. Beyond those schools, the Pac 10 has Washington followed by five schools that have little to no academic reputation (or downright poor academic reputations), whereas the ACC still has BC, GT, and Miami in reserve. In fact, looking at last year's USNWR rankings (yes, they're a joke, but you've gotta start somewhere), the lowest ranked school in the ACC would be 6th in the Pac 10. In fact, we have 11 member schools in the top 88 in US News, while they have 5 in the top 100. Our lower tiers crush theirs, and the top schools are pretty much interchangeable.

Atlanta Duke
06-07-2010, 05:00 PM
If this REALLY starts going down, I wouldn't be surprised (although I don't expect) if the SEC reaches out to Texas/A&M/OU just to see if it has a shot. If that doesn't work, and the new PAC 16 and the Big Te-fifteen leapfrog the SEC in TV revenue over the course of the next 5 years, I would expect the SEC to entertain talks with UNC, UVA and Va Tech. Then we can worry.

At which point Duke would hope to be a third party beneficiary of the North Carolina state legislature insisting that UNC could not leave the ACC unless NC State was able to join the SEC as well, which presumably would kill the deal? Thinking through the contingencies makes my head hurt.:)

So the situation as of this afternoon is that it is the equivalent of the summer of 1914 and Nebraska is Sarajevo?

A-Tex Devil
06-07-2010, 05:16 PM
At which point Duke would hope to be a third party beneficiary of the North Carolina state legislature insisting that UNC could not leave the ACC unless NC State was able to join the SEC as well, which presumably would kill the deal? Thinking through the contingencies makes my head hurt.:)

So the situation as of this afternoon is that it is the equivalent of the summer of 1914 and Nebraska is Sarajevo?

I really think it's more like the Cuban Missile Crisis and Nebraska is the Soviet fleet (because, y'know, they're red), Texas is the US, and the Big XII is civilization. Oh... and I guess Mizzou is Cuba :D. There is an element of mutually assured destruction brinksmanship here. I also think there is a good chance it could have a similar outcome at the end of the day, and everyone puts their guns away.

The thing is, both schools could be armed with duds (although I think Texas has options - including, yes, independence in football). Nebraska may not ever get that Big Ten offer it is expecting, and Texas' legislature may prevent it from this Pac 10 deal if the Pac 10 refuses to swallow Baylor (mmmmm.... tastes like no dancing).

G man
06-07-2010, 05:45 PM
I really think it's more like the Cuban Missile Crisis and Nebraska is the Soviet fleet (because, y'know, they're red), Texas is the US, and the Big XII is civilization. Oh... and I guess Mizzou is Cuba :D. There is an element of mutually assured destruction brinksmanship here. I also think there is a good chance it could have a similar outcome at the end of the day, and everyone puts their guns away.

The thing is, both schools could be armed with duds (although I think Texas has options - including, yes, independence in football). Nebraska may not ever get that Big Ten offer it is expecting, and Texas' legislature may prevent it from this Pac 10 deal if the Pac 10 refuses to swallow Baylor (mmmmm.... tastes like no dancing).

It's funny that you mention Nebraska as the evil empire. Because people up here are still sour because of the conference offices being in Texas. I think I have read every article published on this. I still cannot figure out what is best for Nebraska (who is my favorite college football team) and what is best for the conference. I still do not think that the ACC is in any immediate danger (so I am not worried about Duke basketball). I guess my hope is that everything stays as is right now, with the exception of ND going to the big 10. What do you think Tex Devil how do you want it to play out?

A-Tex Devil
06-07-2010, 06:14 PM
It's funny that you mention Nebraska as the evil empire. Because people up here are still sour because of the conference offices being in Texas. I think I have read every article published on this. I still cannot figure out what is best for Nebraska (who is my favorite college football team) and what is best for the conference. I still do not think that the ACC is in any immediate danger (so I am not worried about Duke basketball). I guess my hope is that everything stays as is right now, with the exception of ND going to the big 10. What do you think Tex Devil how do you want it to play out?

I kid a bit. You can switch the roles and the analogy is the same. Plus, from the Soviet's point of view, weren't we the evil empire?

The thing that bugs me about Nebraska's characterization of Texas is that all of these things I've heard complaints about -- including revenue sharing, championship game site, television network, partial qualifiers, conference offices in Texas, etc. Nebraska either voted with Texas on or lost an 11-1 vote.

I want the Big XII to remain intact. And I believe DeLoss Dodds when he says that as well. The ACC just signed a contract that is telling as to what the Big XII can get when its deal is up. This also allows Texas to keep its network aspirations. Finally it means that Big Ten expansion, if it happens, will include less popular Big East schools, and that none of the big dominoes fall, which is good for the ACC.

So while I love all of the politics and gamesmanship behind all of this, at this point, I hope nothing happens.

mph
06-08-2010, 10:13 AM
DBR asks how Notre Dame hasn't already been made a member of the AAU. According to this article (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2010/04/30/2010-04-30_notre_dame_plans_to_remain_independent_in_footb all_ad_says_despite_push_from_big.html), Notre Dame previously tried to join the AAU. It's also worth noting that The Catholic University of America was a founding member of the AAU but withdrew in 2002, citing different "institutional emphasis and energies." I don't know what that means, but it seems like a big deal for a founding member of an organization to leave after 102 years. Catholic University's withdrawal leaves the AAU without a Catholic institution of higher learning.

Catholic University's withdrawal, coupled with the omission of other Catholic schools (Boston College and Georgetown come to mind), leads me to believe that Notre Dame's omission is more than an oversight. Maybe there's some sticking point between the AAU and Notre Dame over research guidelines? That's nothing more than a guess, but the fact that there are no Catholic schools in the AAU seems too remarkable to be a coincidence. What's that mean for Notre Dame's joining the Big 10/11? It might mean that the Big 10's 11 AAU votes won't make a difference in Notre Dame's AAU status, and, if Andy Katz is right, that makes Notre Dame more likely to remain independent.

Mal
06-08-2010, 10:26 AM
Not being in the world of academia, I'm interested in more insights on the AAU from those on here who might be in that world, or at least closer to it than I. What, exactly, is it? What does it do? Why is membership therein seen as such a big deal by the Big Televen? I'm intrigued by the concept that, in this bu$ine$$ of deciding what schools are in what athletic conferences, a purely academic construct such as AAU membership is actually having an impact. Obviously, Notre Dame is an outstanding school, regardless of AAU issues - is there some legitimate reason to think that its not being an member somehow would diminish the Big Ten's academic reputation or solidarity? What are the politics behind all this?

A-Tex Devil
06-08-2010, 10:39 AM
Not being in the world of academia, I'm interested in more insights on the AAU from those on here who might be in that world, or at least closer to it than I. What, exactly, is it? What does it do? Why is membership therein seen as such a big deal by the Big Televen? I'm intrigued by the concept that, in this bu$ine$$ of deciding what schools are in what athletic conferences, a purely academic construct such as AAU membership is actually having an impact. Obviously, Notre Dame is an outstanding school, regardless of AAU issues - is there some legitimate reason to think that its not being an member somehow would diminish the Big Ten's academic reputation or solidarity? What are the politics behind all this?

I am not completely up on all the AAU offers other than status and guidelines for its members, but the other thing the Big Ten offers (and something that might get UT's president to give up the network) is the CIC, which is the Big Ten schools and U. Chicago. There is literally hundreds of millions in research money shared among the schools. There isn't a stronger alliance and pooling of research money in the country.

hurleyfor3
06-08-2010, 10:40 AM
The 10/11 commissioner Delany had a big talk about changing demographics recently and how the nation's population was moving south and west, meaning a smaller population base (and sports talent pool) for his conference.


Wow, I didn't realize it was that big a deal that I'm (finally) leaving Chicago. Sorry for causing all this realignment stuff, people.

A-Tex Devil
06-08-2010, 10:42 AM
Great Dennis Miller-esque summary of this whole situation from the always stellar Every Day Should be Saturday.

EXPANSION CATECHISM: THE PAC-1O EXPANSION Q AND A
(http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2010/6/7/1504985/expansion-catechism-the-pac-1o)

COULD TEXAS DO NOTHING? Yes. Remember that in all of this, doing nothing and standing pat is always an option. With the Big 12 Texas has a low-effort independent deal in practice already, taking an uneven and generous cut of television revenues and playing a conference that on the whole cannot keep up with its budget, recruiting, and brand profile. We just used the term "brand," and thus proved that we're all moving towards the "Hipster Runoff Singularity" of everyone discussing "brands" in "quotes" all the "time."

Alternately, Texas could just shoot middle fingers in all directions, nod approvingly at Notre Dame, and go full independent. Remember that, too: one response to all of this potential alignment would be labor-intensive but possibly lucrative non-alignment. If you don't think Mack Brown could strike a Marshal Tito pose and hold it for a decade or two, you're underestimating his fondness for epaulets.

sagegrouse
06-08-2010, 11:19 AM
DBR asks how Notre Dame hasn't already been made a member of the AAU. According to this article (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2010/04/30/2010-04-30_notre_dame_plans_to_remain_independent_in_footb all_ad_says_despite_push_from_big.html), Notre Dame previously tried to join the AAU. It's also worth noting that The Catholic University of America was a founding member of the AAU but withdrew in 2002, citing different "institutional emphasis and energies." I don't know what that means, but it seems like a big deal for a founding member of an organization to leave after 102 years. Catholic University's withdrawal leaves the AAU without a Catholic institution of higher learning.

Catholic University's withdrawal, coupled with the omission of other Catholic schools (Boston College and Georgetown come to mind), leads me to believe that Notre Dame's omission is more than an oversight. Maybe there's some sticking point between the AAU and Notre Dame over research guidelines? That's nothing more than a guess, but the fact that there are no Catholic schools in the AAU seems too remarkable to be a coincidence. What's that mean for Notre Dame's joining the Big 10/11? It might mean that the Big 10's 11 AAU votes won't make a difference in Notre Dame's AAU status, and, if Andy Katz is right, that makes Notre Dame more likely to remain independent.

I enjoyed reading your analysis of this situation.

While all eleven members of the Big Ten are in the AAU, only five members of the ACC are. GT, which was admitted this year, plus Maryland (1969), UVa (1904), UNC (1922) and Duke (1938).

WRT Notre Dame's exclusion, I think it may be found in its orientation to undergraduate education. Dartmouth, alone among the Ivies, is not a member, and its peers were all founding members. And BTW ND's high admissions standards would assuage any research institution snobbishness among the Big Ten schools... and, of course, its national TV contract and huge fan base. :);):rolleyes:

Here's my quick perusal of AAU members by conference:

PAC-10 -- seven out of ten schools, all but Wazu, Oregon State, and Arizona State.

Big-12 -- seven out of 12 members. All but Baylor, Texas Tech, the two Okla. schools, and K-State.

SEC -- only two out of 12 (Vandy and Florida).

Big East (football) -- three out of eight (Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse). Three out of 16 for hoops.

The ACC doesn't have a lot to brag about, although the high entrance standards at Wake and BC are of importance.

sagegrouse

RPS
06-08-2010, 11:57 AM
I think you're probably right w/r/t the football schools, although again I think geography factors in.Thank you! In about a week I'll have been married for 31 years and we have three kids, so I don't hear those first five words very often.


As someone else noted, Florida might object to FSU or Miami joining the SEC.I'm sure of it.


It would be interesting to see if VT or GT would think they could hack it in the SEC, football-wise. If I were an alum of one of those institutions, I'd be giddy on the one hand, and lamenting the fact my team might never challenge for a conference title again on the other. But, yes, $$ drives all, so anything could happen.I agree.


I do disagree re: academics, however, and note that the particular quote you provided is indicative of nothing re: the ACC vis-a-vis the Pac 10, as the ACC isn't courting Texas.Yes, but it dovetails nicely with the research I supplied earlier in the thread.


Stanford/Cal is perhaps marginally more hobknobby than Duke/UVa, but not appreciably. UCLA and USC are pretty much indistinguishable from UNC and Wake as an academic pairing. Beyond those schools, the Pac 10 has Washington followed by five schools that have little to no academic reputation (or downright poor academic reputations), whereas the ACC still has BC, GT, and Miami in reserve.But your claim wasn't related to equivalence. You said that the ACC's "academics are still No. 1 by a large margin." I don't think that's true. Look, for example, at the top 100 ARWU rankings (http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp) for the PAC-10 and the ACC:

Stanford (2)
Cal (3)
UCLA (13)
Washington (16)
USC (46)
Arizona (77)

Duke (31)
Maryland (37)
UNC (39)
UVa (91)


In fact, looking at last year's USNWR rankings (yes, they're a joke, but you've gotta start somewhere), the lowest ranked school in the ACC would be 6th in the Pac 10. In fact, we have 11 member schools in the top 88 in US News, while they have 5 in the top 100. Our lower tiers crush theirs, and the top schools are pretty much interchangeable.I would suggest that one should look at large state schools that aren't part of major university systems should be looked at differently because their mission is so different from private or state "flagship" schools. That's why the rankings of Oregon, OSU, Arizona and ASU don't bother me. Of course, WSU is just plain poor.

G man
06-08-2010, 03:27 PM
I hate Kansas like I hate every major program in the nation not drenched in Duke Blue, but the Kansas situation is something we as Duke fans need to be mindful of. Support of the football program is imperative. The sooner Duke is relevant in football the safer our program will be. We kind of laugh off the idea that anything could ever happen to us, but I never thought Kansas would be in this situation either! I just have a hard time seeing anyone go to the SEC. I think we are safe for now, but it just means that we need to appreciate everything we have and not take it for granted.

Mal
06-08-2010, 03:36 PM
But your claim wasn't related to equivalence. You said that the ACC's "academics are still No. 1 by a large margin." I don't think that's true. Look, for example, at the top 100 ARWU rankings (http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp) for the PAC-10 and the ACC:

My initial claim wasn't reacting to the linked article, which implied that hanging with Stanford and was what Texas aimed for. I'm pretty confident that, were the ACC a better geographic fit, an article about UT interest in moving would make a similar statement re: Texas longing to rub elbows with Duke and UVa. That's why it was couched in equivalence language.

In addition, the basis of my statement re: overall academic strength of the conferences, as you've delved into further below, rests more on the second half of the schools in the respective conferences.


I would suggest that one should look at large state schools that aren't part of major university systems should be looked at differently because their mission is so different from private or state "flagship" schools. That's why the rankings of Oregon, OSU, Arizona and ASU don't bother me. Of course, WSU is just plain poor.

I know nothing of the ARWU and its methodology, and of course I see the world through a Duke blue haze, but I'm inherently skeptical of any ranking where Duke (and Northwestern) is behind UCSF, Washington, and Minnesota, significantly behind UCSD, and about on a par with Rockefeller University and Boulder. And where Notre Dame is lumped in a group in about the fifth tier that includes the University of Kentucky and, yes, Washington State. On its face that seems far more ridiculous than even the US News rankings.

As to your larger point, though (and it's likely some of these issues come through in the ARWU methodology), I think we're probably just valuing differently between us. I certainly recognize the differences in missions between land grant/flagship state universities and others. But at a certain point, if we're going to be "comparing" one to the other, whether apples to oranges or not, the resulting institution, and the students and scholars it attracts, is what it is. The "why" shouldn't matter at that point. Anyway, I think I likely am placing more importance on "reputation" and selectivity, and you're putting a bit more on high-level research, which is a place where large, well-funded state schools can often excel despite not being particularly well-known for undergraduate (or even graduate) education/teaching. I don't know which is "correct" here, but based on my elevation of certain aspects of institutions over others, I would, in my own mind, place the ACC members ahead of the Pac members, on average.

Anyway, this is much ink over not much meaning, so I'll stop arguing. I think my general point was that the ACC's strong overall academic reputation is something that would be a general incentive to a school to stay rather than leave. Whether it's clearly the top BCS conference in that category or not. Especially when we're next door to the SEC and Big East.

RPS
06-08-2010, 04:05 PM
I think my general point was that the ACC's strong overall academic reputation is something that would be a general incentive to a school to stay rather than leave. Whether it's clearly the top BCS conference in that category or not. Especially when we're next door to the SEC and Big East.On this we agree.

P.S. I think it was Sagegrouse who introduced me to the ARWU rankings and said that it was one of the very few ranking systems that academics took seriously. I hope I'm remembering that correctly....

RPS
06-08-2010, 04:07 PM
I hate Kansas like I hate every major program in the nation not drenched in Duke Blue, but the Kansas situation is something we as Duke fans need to be mindful of. Support of the football program is imperative. The sooner Duke is relevant in football the safer our program will be. We kind of laugh off the idea that anything could ever happen to us, but I never thought Kansas would be in this situation either!This is a brilliant point. Thanks for making it.

Duvall
06-08-2010, 04:19 PM
I hate Kansas like I hate every major program in the nation not drenched in Duke Blue, but the Kansas situation is something we as Duke fans need to be mindful of. Support of the football program is imperative. The sooner Duke is relevant in football the safer our program will be.

Oh, I doubt it matters. Wake Forest football has been reasonably relevant for about a decade, and it hasn't made them any less vulnerable. Kansas football has been fairly successful in recent year, and they may end up in a mid-major conference within the next year or two.

Duke is a small private school that isn't close to being the most popular school in a medium-sized media market. We aren't going to be safe.

A-Tex Devil
06-08-2010, 04:28 PM
Oh, I doubt it matters. Wake Forest football has been reasonably relevant for about a decade, and it hasn't made them any less vulnerable. Kansas football has been fairly successful in recent year, and they may end up in a mid-major conference within the next year or two.

Duke is a small private school that isn't close to being the most popular school in a medium-sized media market. We aren't going to be safe.

If only Duke had the muscle in the NC legislature that Baylor appears to have in Texas.

It is mind-numbingly stupid, though, that the Texas state legislature is potentially risking the future of its top 3 public universities to prop up a private one. But if Nebraska decides to leave, I think the Pac 10 will end up taking Baylor in order to get Texas/A&M/OU.

Although, I think the powers that be at Tech/UT/A&M would prefer Baylor to Colorado for every reason other than TV sets.

RPS
06-08-2010, 04:30 PM
Duke is a small private school that isn't close to being the most popular school in a medium-sized media market. We aren't going to be safe.In my view, Duke's huge national popularity/hate (which is far greater than that of Kansas, despite KU's history and current success), if coupled with a relevant football program, would mean that it would not get left out the way Kansas appears to be. Duke hoops won't trump UNC near home in terms to TV, and isn't in a great market, but it brings big national numbers.

G man
06-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Oh, I doubt it matters. Wake Forest football has been reasonably relevant for about a decade, and it hasn't made them any less vulnerable. Kansas football has been fairly successful in recent year, and they may end up in a mid-major conference within the next year or two.

Duke is a small private school that isn't close to being the most popular school in a medium-sized media market. We aren't going to be safe.

Duke (basketball) in the terms of North Carolina means very little, but it does on a national stage! Kansas basketball fans are mostly from Nebraska, Kansas, and parts of Missouri. Duke has fans from Calli to New Jersey. So it does matter if Duke can field a competitive team. I am not saying it protects us completely. I am just saying it does help protect the b-ball program. Not sure if North Carolina legislators would protect Duke (another interesting question), but I doubt UNC would want to lose that rivalry! It is the best in college hoops. It generates a ton of TV revenue alone. I know basketball is about tapped as a major revenue source, but that does not mean it gets thrown away.

Atlanta Duke
06-08-2010, 04:53 PM
In my view, Duke's huge national popularity/hate (which is far greater than that of Kansas, despite KU's history and current success), if coupled with a relevant football program, would mean that it would not get left out the way Kansas appears to be. Duke hoops won't trump UNC near home in terms to TV, and isn't in a great market, but it brings big national numbers.

Duke brings numbers as long as it brings K - the program fell off in a hurry when Vic Bubas departed and that certainly could happen again. It probably is in the best interests of Duke athletics for any seismic realignments of schools in the southeast to occur while Duke has the leverage of having a basketball program any conference would want - if Kansas can get left behind so can Duke.

Duvall
06-08-2010, 04:56 PM
Duke's huge national popularity/hate...

...is only guaranteed for the remainder of the career of a 63-year-old man with two artificial hips. After that, all bets are off.

kexman
06-08-2010, 04:57 PM
Big Ten academics are pretty good as well...I think their lowest school is ranked 71 in US News and World Report (better than the ACC). They have Northwestern as their equivalent to Duke or Stanford. Michigan/Wisconsin is pretty similar to UNC/ UVA. They don't really have a Wake or BC equivalent, but the rest of the schools are all pretty good.

RPS
06-08-2010, 04:58 PM
Duke brings numbers as long as it brings K - the program fell off in a hurry when Vic Bubas departed and that certainly could happen again.If there's a major fall-off, all bets are off.


It probably is in the best interests of Duke athletics for any seismic realignments of schools in the southeast to occur while Duke has the leverage of having a basketball program any conference would want - if Kansas can get left behind so can Duke.If only that were something we could control.

G man
06-08-2010, 05:02 PM
...is only guaranteed for the remainder of the career of a 63-year-old man with two artificial hips. After that, all bets are off.

I thought of this as well! Lets hope all changes would take place with him still selling credit cards to the nation from Cameron Indoor Stadium! Lets all just pray that ND comes around.

RPS
06-08-2010, 05:02 PM
...is only guaranteed for the remainder of the career of a 63-year-old man with two artificial hips. After that, all bets are off.I cross-posted much the same thing, but I expect any new coach to get a grace period of some sort to keep the bandwagon rolling. USC football is certainly in flux with Pete Carroll gone, but if Lane Kiffin keeps the winning going, Pete's leaving won't matter (except for the stench).

Bluedog
06-08-2010, 05:11 PM
P.S. I think it was Sagegrouse who introduced me to the ARWU rankings and said that it was one of the very few ranking systems that academics took seriously. I hope I'm remembering that correctly....

I think the ranking many academics take seriously is the one by NRC (National Research Council). Unfortunately, they haven't had new rankings come out since 1995. Frankly, the ARWU's ones are a joke to gauge "prestige" of academic institutions. It's based mostly on research output in the sciences and medicine as well as number of nobel prizes associated with the university. Hence why UCSF (with NO undergraduate school) is ranked in the top 20 in the world. Large schools heavily focused on the sciences/medicine who have a few world-renowned professors whose research is heavily cited get huge lifts.

Take a look at this:
13 UCLA
14 UCSD
16 Washington
17 Wisconsin
25 Illinois
28 Minnesota
........
30 Northwestern
31 Duke
41 Vanderbilt
69 Brown
91 UVa
99 Rice
100 Emory
101-150 Dartmouth (exact ranks not given after 100)

Are you serious? Liberal arts type colleges (like Dartmouth) are hugely penalized. Having said that, I think the Big Ten is the best BCS academic conference in America since all of its schools are solid. The ACC and Pac 10 are brought down by a few laggards, while the Big Ten has none.

formerdukeathlete
06-08-2010, 05:21 PM
Hey, RPS, this is much
more relevant than world rankings which so accurately rank Minnesota twin cities ahead of duke.
A better fit would be Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC. Those SATs beat Army and Navy. Median (middle 50%) SAT scores:

Stanford (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3387&profileId=6) 2010 - 2300
Cal (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=988&profileId=6) 1840 - 2190
UCLA (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=992&profileId=6) 1750 - 2110
USC (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3341&profileId=6) 1910 - 2180

Army (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1462&profileId=6) 1680 - 1970
Navy (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=2998&profileId=6) 1170 - 1400 (CR not available)

Duke (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=535&profileId=6) 2000 - 2290
Wake (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=2266&profileId=6) 1180 - 1390 (CR not available)
UVa (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=2350&profileId=6) 1840 - 2150
UNC (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3635&profileId=6) 1790 - 2090
GT (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3738&profileId=6) 1810 - 2100
BC (http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=712&profileId=6) 1880 - 2150

Not gonna happen with the Ivies.

I like the concept, but Stanford isn't going anywhere without its archrivals from Berkeley, Cal isn't going anywhere without the baby bears from Westwood, and UCLA isn't going anywhere without its cross-town rivals. Besides, the California schools listed above make loads more sense from an athletic/academic standpoint than the rest of your western group.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

There's confirmation (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/05/12/pac-10-expansion-revisiting-the-brigham-young-issue/) that it's being talked about.

The other reason is that the BCS schools don't have to share the money with the rest of the FBS schools.

A-Tex Devil
06-08-2010, 05:24 PM
"NO THANKS, WE'RE COOL." (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2010/6/8/1507510/the-mac-on-conference-expansion-no)

G man
06-08-2010, 05:31 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/06/07/expansion-scenarios/index.html?eref=sihp



This is a bit of a stretch, but a fun read on the possibilities.

TexHawk
06-08-2010, 09:01 PM
Duke (basketball) in the terms of North Carolina means very little, but it does on a national stage! Kansas basketball fans are mostly from Nebraska, Kansas, and parts of Missouri. Duke has fans from Calli to New Jersey.
As a Kansas fan, be sure, I am not ecstatic with our position right now. But this quote is extremely off base. KU has a massive following in Chicago*, Texas (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio), Denver**, LA, and NYC, among others. Not to mention owning the KC market, and parts of St Louis as well.

If this realignment had anything to do with basketball, we'd be fine. But it obviously does not.

* Ages ago, when I lived in Chicago, I read a study that had the size of the local KU fanbase on par with the Big 10 schools and Notre Dame.
** If you ever get a chance to attend the KU/CU game in Boulder, it's their only sellout for the whole year, and it's about 90% Jayhawk fans.

Newton_14
06-08-2010, 09:19 PM
Duke (basketball) in the terms of North Carolina means very little, but it does on a national stage! Kansas basketball fans are mostly from Nebraska, Kansas, and parts of Missouri. Duke has fans from Calli to New Jersey. So it does matter if Duke can field a competitive team. I am not saying it protects us completely. I am just saying it does help protect the b-ball program. Not sure if North Carolina legislators would protect Duke (another interesting question), but I doubt UNC would want to lose that rivalry! It is the best in college hoops. It generates a ton of TV revenue alone. I know basketball is about tapped as a major revenue source, but that does not mean it gets thrown away.

Say what?:eek:

Sorry but as a life long resident who grew up in NC, you could not be more wrong. Are we outnumbered by State and chapel hill supporters? Yes. Irrelevant or "mean very little", not even close to that status. You can also bet the farm that the NC legislators care to protect Duke as well...

Dukeface88
06-08-2010, 10:02 PM
Say what?:eek:

Sorry but as a life long resident who grew up in NC, you could not be more wrong. Are we outnumbered by State and chapel hill supporters? Yes. Irrelevant or "mean very little", not even close to that status. You can also bet the farm that the NC legislators care to protect Duke as well...

This. I imagine the networks would apply pretty heavy pressure as well. Even if the program goes into decline after K's eventual departure (knock on wood), they aren't going to endanger the Duke-UNC games. Army-Navy football is still a big deal, and neither of those teams has been nationally relevant for decades.

Having said that, I'm all for any excuse that will convince adminstators and fans to support the football team, improve our outreach to the locals, or encourage secondary rivalries with Wake and NC State (screw Maryland).

mgtr
06-08-2010, 10:18 PM
I have no clear idea what will come of all this, and I don't really know what I would favor (although, from a BB standpoint, I don't think the status quo is terrible). Ultimately, anything that undercuts the NCAA and reduces their power is a positive, in my view. Maybe it is possible to put together basketball conferences and football conferences. I don't know how it works, but there are some Div I schools with great basketball programs and fair to terrible football programs. Maybe you can get the schools to select for basketball, football, or both. This sounds a little like high-low in poker, which I played in the Army a whole bunch of moons ago.
Somebody much more clever than me can break out teams into these three categories -- mainly basketball (Georgetown), mainly football (I don't know), and mainly both (Ohio State).

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 09:37 AM
Now it's Colorado who may move first. All indications are that they have a PAC 10 invite no matter what. If this is true, it basically means that Colorado is a must out of those six teams (purely because of the Denver market, because their athletic department is in shambles and they have one of the most apathetic state school fan bases in the BCS -- although who could blame them with the mountains right there). The rumor now is that the Texas and Oklahoma schools have to figure out which out of Tech/OSU/Baylor would get left out, and hopefully it will be Baylor.

KyDevilinIL
06-09-2010, 01:47 PM
This stopped being mere expansion weeks ago. It's now full-blown gerrymandering.

TexHawk
06-09-2010, 02:43 PM
Now it's Colorado who may move first. All indications are that they have a PAC 10 invite no matter what. If this is true, it basically means that Colorado is a must out of those six teams (purely because of the Denver market, because their athletic department is in shambles and they have one of the most apathetic state school fan bases in the BCS -- although who could blame them with the mountains right there). The rumor now is that the Texas and Oklahoma schools have to figure out which out of Tech/OSU/Baylor would get left out, and hopefully it will be Baylor.
Look, I don't see how anything to do with Colorado is 100% in the bank. Not only did they come out of their Board of Regents meeting more confused than anyone else (they have no offer), they also announced that they are losing football AND basketball scholarships because of poor academics (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5268018). I am sure Stanford is thrilled.

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 03:23 PM
Look, I don't see how anything to do with Colorado is 100% in the bank. Not only did they come out of their Board of Regents meeting more confused than anyone else (they have no offer), they also announced that they are losing football AND basketball scholarships because of poor academics (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5268018). I am sure Stanford is thrilled.

Yeah-- last night's meeting in Boulder was a bit overhyped. Regardless of the academic issues within its athletic department, though, CU, the university, is in the upper tier of Big XII from an academic side and is on par, if not above, Oregon, and definitely above the Arizona schools and the land grant schools in the PAC 10. The PAC 10 would welcome CU in a heartbeat - CU fits culturally and academically -- and the only potential issue would be if taking CU prevented it from getting Texas

I don't think we've seen the last curve ball here. I still think that any Nebraska offer by the Big Ten is a ploy to get ND and/or Texas in the fold. The PAC 10 offer clearly surprised the Big Ten a bit. It's been silent out of Chicago recently. I would not be surprised a last ditch effort to try to get Texas and A&M in spite of the "Tech" problem. If the Texas legislature allows Tech and Baylor backers to prevent the best move for Texas (assuming the Big XII is toast), it's purely a spoiler move and they are harming the state of Texas. I also would not be surprised to see the SEC rear its head with respect to the TX/OK schools at some point.

The CIC is such an important thing and such an exclusive well funded consortium, I think UT would give up its network aspirations if its choices were PAC 10 or Big 10. The money is just too good athletically and academically.

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 03:37 PM
This (http://www.omaha.com/article/20100609/NEWS03/706099921) is stupid and a bad omen, but I guess ya gotta look out for your constituents. Hopefully the other 98 senators shout it down as the wrong venue to have this conversation.


“There's going to be a lot of litigation, and then Congress will probably try to stick its nose into it,” Roberts said. “I would prefer that that not be the case, but there have always been antitrust concerns.”

SCMatt33
06-09-2010, 03:39 PM
What exact power does the Texas legislature have in this case? Can they directly control what UT can and can't do or do they just threaten to withhold money from them? If it's the latter, is it actually palatable for the public if that were to occur or would members be risking their jobs because of uproar from UT fans and the public at large who don't think education money should be taken away because of sports?

4decadedukie
06-09-2010, 03:43 PM
CU, the university, is in the upper tier of Big XII from an academic side and is on par, if not above, Oregon, and definitely above the Arizona schools and the land grant schools in the PAC 10.

Perhaps your point is generally valid, however, the University of California (Berkley) is a Land Grant institution; I truly doubt if many astute individuals would agree with you that Colorado's academics are "definitely above . . . the land grant schools in the PAC 10.”

4decadedukie
06-09-2010, 03:47 PM
What exact power does the Texas legislature have in this case? Can they directly control what UT can and can't do or do they just threaten to withhold money from them? If it's the latter, is it actually palatable for the public if that were to occur or would members be risking their jobs because of uproar from UT fans and the public at large who don't think education money should be taken away because of sports?

UT Austin (and the other public Big XII Texas universities) is subject to statutes and funding approved by the State legislature.

G man
06-09-2010, 03:56 PM
Say what?:eek:

Sorry but as a life long resident who grew up in NC, you could not be more wrong. Are we outnumbered by State and chapel hill supporters? Yes. Irrelevant or "mean very little", not even close to that status. You can also bet the farm that the NC legislators care to protect Duke as well...

Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant it that in the scope of things majority of people from North Carolina are not as supportive of Duke as they are of UNC. To be honest I have not spent a ton of time within the state so my perspective is limited. Thanks for the correction though. Glad to know the government has Duke's back.

G man
06-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Now it's Colorado who may move first. All indications are that they have a PAC 10 invite no matter what. If this is true, it basically means that Colorado is a must out of those six teams (purely because of the Denver market, because their athletic department is in shambles and they have one of the most apathetic state school fan bases in the BCS -- although who could blame them with the mountains right there). The rumor now is that the Texas and Oklahoma schools have to figure out which out of Tech/OSU/Baylor would get left out, and hopefully it will be Baylor.

I grew up in Colorado and this could not be more true! Fans in Colorado are not die hard college fans. I think this is because their are to many professional teams in such a small state. Not to mention that five of the larger cities in Colorado have their own division 1 program. Fort Collins has Colorado State University, Greeley has University of Northern Colorado, Boulder has CU, Denver has Denver University, and Colorado Springs has Air Force. I know that North Carolina has a bunch of schools as well, but they have two distinct advantages #1 they have only two pro-sports teams to Colorado's 6 and #2 the teams in a Carolina are way better than Colorado. Besides that I am not sure why the following is so weak, but I would be willing to bet they have half as many Husker fans as CU fans in the state.

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 04:26 PM
Perhaps your point is generally valid, however, the University of California (Berkley) is a Land Grant institution; I truly doubt if many astute individuals would agree with you that Colorado's academics are "definitely above . . . the land grant schools in the PAC 10.”

Apologies -- did not know that UCal system was land grant. Had assumed only Cal State was. I meant Wazzu and Oregon St.

SC Matt -- it's all about withholding funds and making life miserable in the future. The legislature actually doesn't have a vote, but if they tell President Powers that the faucet will come to a drip if you leave Tech/Baylor behind, he's going to listen.

I think UT and A&M have the power to get past that now both via other revenue streams (both academically and athletically) and the power they wield in the legislature. All that said, there are some circles that think Texas and A&M administrations want to help Tech (and maybe Baylor). There is a push to elevate Tech into a Tier 1 school over the course of the next 10-20 years and turning it into a solid research institution, and that push is heavily supported (not in $$$, mind you) by the University of Texas. So even though UT alumni don't want to be hamstrung by these "dead weights" on their athletic departments, there is some thought that the administrations/board of regents feel it's in all 4 schools' best interests for all of them to have every advantage.

That's why this push by Baylor is less of an attempt to block a move, a la 1993, and more of an attempt to convince the other 3 Texas schools (via their alumni in the legislature) that they and the PAC 10 are better off including Baylor instead of Colorado.

sagegrouse
06-09-2010, 04:44 PM
UT Austin (and the other public Big XII Texas universities) is subject to statutes and funding approved by the State legislature.

While clearly subject to the laws of the State of Colorado, the funding situation here is so ugly under state spending limits that CU receives only 6% of its budget from the state. Its solution has been to increase the number of nonresident students and charge a market-clearing price: $28,186 for just tuition and fees. I understand that 30% of the undergrads are from outside the state of a total undergrad enrollment of 25,000. That's $210 million in nonresident tuition, unless my Duke math degree is totally worthless.:p

Here's the latest on the CU decision from the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15256185). CU Regents say they do not have a bid to join the PAC-10. But, if Nebraska and Missouri depart, then not only do the Buffalos lose their natural rival, the Huskers, but the dominoes will fall. Texas and Texas A&M will surely leave the Big 12, maybe with OU and Oklahoma State.

CU will move swiftly to make a decision and would likely take a PAC-10 bid. Baylor is maneuvering mightily down in Texas to wrangle an invite in lieu of the Buffaloes, but I doubt it will happen. The PAC-10 should prefer a major state university with AAU credentials and located in a major metropolitan area to a mid-sized religious school, presided over by Duke's own Kenneth Starr. :eek: The legislature could punish Texas and A&M for leaving Baylor behind, but I expect that all the TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice alums would just chuckle at the Bears getting their due. :rolleyes:

I, for one, don't know why the Big Ten wouldn't move west and take Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado and Kansas. Seems a lot more attractive than Rutgers and Syracuse. Yeah, yeah. I know the NY market is big, but I doubt that anyone there cares about any college football teams except Notre Dame and Penn State.

Your faithful Rocky Mountain correspondent,

sagegrouse

G man
06-09-2010, 04:54 PM
Where are you at in Colorado? Also are you a fan of any of the Colorado schools? in anything? Just curious.

Duvall
06-09-2010, 05:01 PM
I, for one, don't know why the Big Ten wouldn't move west and take Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado and Kansas. Seems a lot more attractive than Rutgers and Syracuse. Yeah, yeah. I know the NY market is big, but I doubt that anyone there cares about any college football teams except Notre Dame and Penn State.


Therein lies the diabolical brilliance of the Big Ten Network. It allows the Big Integer to make money by expanding its television footprint, even by adding teams that no one watches, because they can charge much more for cable subscribers in Big Ten markets than they can for subscribers outside the Big Ten footprint. So Rutgers would be a major moneymaker for them, even though nobody cares about Rutgers, just because it would allow them to declare the entire New York metropolitan area as Big Ten country.

sagegrouse
06-09-2010, 05:17 PM
Where are you at in Colorado? Also are you a fan of any of the Colorado schools? in anything? Just curious.

Steamboat Springs, but see bio. I spend a few months a year in Washington DC ("Mud Season" and "Orange Vest Season").

I follow the Broncos and the Rockies, but the CU teams have been really mediocre the past few years.

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 05:38 PM
Therein lies the diabolical brilliance of the Big Ten Network. It allows the Big Integer to make money by expanding its television footprint, even by adding teams that no one watches, because they can charge much more for cable subscribers in Big Ten markets than they can for subscribers outside the Big Ten footprint. So Rutgers would be a major moneymaker for them, even though nobody cares about Rutgers, just because it would allow them to declare the entire New York metropolitan area as Big Ten country.

Bingo. Which is why the Nebraska add perplexes me. I still think if Bill Powers called Jim Delaney up right now and said "Texas is in if we get an invite," Texas would get an invite to the Big Ten.

All that said, here's part of the business that I don't understand. The Big Ten Network can charge cable companies more and require that the Big Ten Network be part of a basic cable/sports package right now. But what if people really don't watch it? Can that **eventually** give cable companies negotiating power to ask the Big Ten to please lower their rates? In other words, the cable companies in Big Ten cities (and elsewhere -- I get it in Austin with my basic package, but I imagine it's at a lower cost per subscriber) have given the Big Ten Network some benefit of the doubt up front that the network should be carried. Does the big ten have a balloon payment of actual viewers down the line?

G man
06-09-2010, 05:47 PM
Steamboat Springs, but see bio. I spend a few months a year in Washington DC ("Mud Season" and "Orange Vest Season").

I follow the Broncos and the Rockies, but the CU teams have been really mediocre the past few years.

sagegrouse

Cool I grew up in Fort Collins. Luckily for me my parents are Husker fans so I have no College allegiance within the state. Always nice to find another Coloradan.

Olympic Fan
06-09-2010, 05:55 PM
Andy Katz has an interesting take on the latest in expansion news (I think it is free):

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/5260419/some-perspective-on-expansion-talk

He claims tha5t the Big Ten is waiting on an answer from Notre Dame, which is SERIOUSLY considering accepting the Big Ten offer.

Katz claims that if Notre Dame says yes, that's it for Big Ten expansionn -- no Nebraska, no Rutgers, no Missouri. Notre Dame would get the Big Ten to 12 for a championship game and its TV clout would openn up more markets than any of those other teams. He claims that Notre Dame would only accept if it is the only expansion team -- not one of four or five.

Texas is the key to the explosion of the Big 12 ... if they jump, the league probably collapses. If they stay put, the league would only suffer minor alterations.

Katz on his chat today said the SEC and ACC want to stand pat ... that the only way either league expands is a chaos situation involving the breakup of the Big 12 and a jump by both the Big 10 and Pac 10 to 16 teams. In that case, the SEC would have to react -- their first choice would be Texas, but after that, they'd go for ACC schools. If the ACC lost any of its southern football schools, they'd raid what they want from from the Big East leftovers.

But if Notre Dame says yes to the Big 10 and Texas says no to the Pac 10, there's not going to be much of a change.

If Notre Dame says no again ... then the Big Ten could go for the Plus-5 mode and Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers and UConn are in play.

theAlaskanBear
06-09-2010, 06:04 PM
ESPN is reporting that the big-12 is dead....

Texas officials met with coaches today to say they tried but that its over. Texas and Texas A&M are headed to the pac-10. If they do, others will follow...

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 06:06 PM
Andy Katz has an interesting take on the latest in expansion news

I think Katz DID have an interesting take when this chat happened on Monday, and ND will always be the key, but the buzz that ND might accept an offer that was floating on Sun/Mon is gone. Swarbrick has said there has been no discussion, and they just added a 4th or 5th non-conference commitment through like 2018 by reupping with Boston College. They are scheduling football games as if they plan to be independent.

The thought was the Big Ten could give ND an ultimatum by joining now, or else the Big 10 would expand to 16 along with the PAC 10 leading the charge for 4 16 conferences where ND would get left out. Yeah right. If The Big 10 does that, and it is imperative that ND join a conference to survive in football, Notre Dame will just kindly ask the Big Ten to let it and an 18th team in (and the Big 10 would oblige) or it would join one of the other 2 mega-conferences.

I still think ND is sitting this one out, and I will continue to go out on a limb and say that the Nebraska invite either gets pulled by the Big Ten or is subordinated to, or in connection with, an invitation to UT and A&M as well, where UT and A&M have a choice of status quo, PAC 10 or Big 10. And it's a tough one, because each has its negative consequences.

sagegrouse
06-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Tom Osborne has privately said that Nebraska will join the Big Ten, and the announcement will be Friday. Mizzou, natch, will also go.

Chip Brown of OrangeBlood.com says that Texas AD DeLoss Dodds has told the assembled UT coaches that "they did everything they could to save the Big 12," but were unsuccessful. So, Texas, A&M and others will likely go to the PAC 10.

Yikes! Is this the college sports story of the decade?

That leaves Kansas -- a huge prize -- K-State, Iowa State, and Baylor without a home.

My guess is that a lot of stuff will happen but maybe not exactly what people are predicting.

This could be really bad news for the ACC, BTW. If the Big Ten adds five teams to reach 16, the SEC may feel the need to expand to 16 teams as well. That will pressure on the ACC southern tier.

sagegrouse

G man
06-09-2010, 06:13 PM
I think Katz DID have an interesting take when this chat happened on Monday, and ND will always be the key, but the buzz that ND might accept an offer that was floating on Sun/Mon is gone. Swarbrick has said there has been no discussion, and they just added a 4th or 5th non-conference commitment through like 2018 by reupping with Boston College. They are scheduling football games as if they plan to be independent.

The thought was the Big Ten could give ND an ultimatum by joining now, or else the Big 10 would expand to 16 along with the PAC 10 leading the charge for 4 16 conferences where ND would get left out. Yeah right. If The Big 10 does that, and it is imperative that ND join a conference to survive in football, Notre Dame will just kindly ask the Big Ten to let it and an 18th team in (and the Big 10 would oblige) or it would join one of the other 2 mega-conferences.

I still think ND is sitting this one out, and I will continue to go out on a limb and say that the Nebraska invite either gets pulled by the Big Ten or is subordinated to, or in connection with, an invitation to UT and A&M as well, where UT and A&M have a choice of status quo, PAC 10 or Big 10. And it's a tough one, because each has its negative consequences.

That is a tiny limb you are now resting on. I think Nebraska is the third choice for the big 10 with ND being the first followed by UT, but I think they sit higher than any school from the big east for a couple of reason, #1 they don't suck like the rest of big east football, #2 national following not UT big or ND but big enough, and #3 scholastics. I think they add Nebraska for the sake of a good team they add Rutgers, and Mizzou for markets. I understand the argument for the most TV sets, but casual fans do not watch crappy games!

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 06:34 PM
That is a tiny limb you are now resting on. I think Nebraska is the third choice for the big 10 with ND being the first followed by UT, but I think they sit higher than any school from the big east for a couple of reason, #1 they don't suck like the rest of big east football, #2 national following not UT big or ND but big enough, and #3 scholastics. I think they add Nebraska for the sake of a good team they add Rutgers, and Mizzou for markets. I understand the argument for the most TV sets, but casual fans do not watch crappy games!

Yeah. It's looking like the Tech problem was real. I don't know how I feel about all this as a Texas fan. I'd much rather travel to the Pac 10 than the Big Ten, but there are some things like the CIC, less time zone issues, etc. that make the Big Ten attractive as well. If Texas gets its own network up and going, though, I think it's probably the best outcome if status quo isn't a possibility.

I will be curious if the Big Ten goes to 16 now or if it's a 2 step plan.

I also wonder who will win the Baylor/Colorado debate.

G man
06-09-2010, 06:44 PM
Yeah. It's looking like the Tech problem was real. I don't know how I feel about all this as a Texas fan. I'd much rather travel to the Pac 10 than the Big Ten, but there are some things like the CIC, less time zone issues, etc. that make the Big Ten attractive as well. If Texas gets its own network up and going, though, I think it's probably the best outcome if status quo isn't a possibility.

I will be curious if the Big Ten goes to 16 now or if it's a 2 step plan.

I also wonder who will win the Baylor/Colorado debate.

Not sure what to think on that one, but I think it is better for the pac 10 to take CU. Baylor just does not help them with any issues in regards to negotiations on a new deal. If they get UT, A&M, and Tech that wraps up most of Texas fan base doesn't it? CU would give a weak Colorado market, but it would be better than Baylor.

Indoor66
06-09-2010, 06:46 PM
Cool I grew up in Fort Collins. Luckily for me my parents are Husker fans so I have no College allegiance within the state. Always nice to find another Coloradan.

You and Sage are both lucky to live or have lived so close to God's home - Wyoming.

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 06:54 PM
I had written a longer post, but it was depressing. Suffice it to say that with more Big XII schools getting left in the cold than anticipated, I don' t know how 4 16 team leagues work without some really awful geographical overlap that makes BC look like its in Greensboro culturally and geographically (KU in the SEC or ACC?).

KU is going to hate being latched on to KSU because they may have gotten into the Big Ten otherwise -- one of our KS residents correct me if I am wrong, but I've read in several places that KU and KSU have to be in the same conference by statute. That seems silly, but there are much sillier laws out there.

G man
06-09-2010, 06:55 PM
You and Sage are both lucky to live or have lived so close to God's home - Wyoming.

I did live in Wyoming as well Lander Wyoming to be exact! It was great for the out doors, but nothing else really to do out there.


P.S. Eastern part of the state is barren!

K>Roy
06-09-2010, 06:56 PM
I really haven't paid much attention to this story at all, so forgive my relative ignorance. I have to ask, though--why is this the end of the Big 12? Has it not looked at expanding to cover potential losses like Nebraska? Maybe a school like Utah or Utah State?

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 06:56 PM
Not sure what to think on that one, but I think it is better for the pac 10 to take CU. Baylor just does not help them with any issues in regards to negotiations on a new deal. If they get UT, A&M, and Tech that wraps up most of Texas fan base doesn't it? CU would give a weak Colorado market, but it would be better than Baylor.

Agreed, but I think the Texas schools administrations and ath. depts. (as opposed to the fanbases) prefer Baylor for proximity of travel for non-revenue sports. The difference in the TV contract by having CU over Baylor may not justify travel costs. Who knows. I'd prefer CU.

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 06:59 PM
I really haven't paid much attention to this story at all, so forgive my relative ignorance. I have to ask, though--why is this the end of the Big 12? Has it not looked at expanding to cover potential losses like Nebraska? Maybe a school like Utah or Utah State?

Cash money. If Nebraska left, they may have been able to bandage things with Utah (doubtful without BYU - who no one wants) or TCU (who adds nothing).

But with 2 teams gone -- Mizzou and Nebraska, there is no one worth adding. Utah is literally the only non-BCS school that brings anything to the table that can even compete with what is leaving as far as TV $$. And they still fall short.

Sadly, TV $$ is driving this. I am still hoping for a last minute save of the Big XII. But we shouldn't crawl out of our bunkers just yet.

K>Roy
06-09-2010, 07:03 PM
Cash money. If Nebraska left, they may have been able to bandage things with Utah (doubtful without BYU - who no one wants) or TCU (who adds nothing).

But with 2 teams gone -- Mizzou and Nebraska, there is no one worth adding. Utah is literally the only non-BCS school that brings anything to the table that can even compete with what is leaving as far as TV $$. And they still fall short.

Sadly, TV $$ is driving this. I am still hoping for a last minute save of the Big XII. But we shouldn't crawl out of our bunkers just yet.

Didn't think Missouri had been officially offered much less bolted yet, but again I'm not nearly as up to date on this circus as most people. Has the Big 12 made any play at Utah at all?

CoBlueDevil
06-09-2010, 07:07 PM
Steamboat Springs, but see bio. I spend a few months a year in Washington DC ("Mud Season" and "Orange Vest Season").

I follow the Broncos and the Rockies, but the CU teams have been really mediocre the past few years.

sagegrouse

I have lived in Colorado my whole life, except for four years for college in Michigan, and I can agree with sage that college sports in colorado are not great. I remember one time in high school when CU football was good. They beat Texas in the Big 12 championship game, but then got there butts kicked by Joey Harrington and Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl. Other than that not much to cheer about.

I mainly cheer for our generally unsuccessful professional teams. The thugged out Nuggets, and the Broncos. Who knows what McDaniels is gonna do next. At least we have Ubaldo!

BD80
06-09-2010, 07:09 PM
DBR asks how Notre Dame hasn't already been made a member of the AAU. ... Catholic University's withdrawal, coupled with the omission of other Catholic schools (Boston College and Georgetown come to mind), leads me to believe that Notre Dame's omission is more than an oversight. ...

I believe that is called begging the question.

BD80
06-09-2010, 07:11 PM
With Nebraska in the Big 10, I hope Texas goes independent.

Big Ten = 12 teams.

Big Twelve = 10 teams.

G man
06-09-2010, 07:18 PM
With Nebraska in the Big 10, I hope Texas goes independent.

Big Ten = 12 teams.

Big Twelve = 10 teams.

I have serious doubts that the big 12 can survive without Nebraska, but I am positive they cannot survive without UT! This is another good question though what happens to Oklahoma if Nebraska goes north and Texas goes independent? Oklahoma is one of the top 5 programs all time in football. Would they be in a similar situation to Kansas or would they get gobbled up?

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 07:22 PM
PacTex - Wash, Washington St., Oregon, Oreg St. Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Az St., Colorado, Texas

Big Ten - Current Big 10 plus Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse and, oh, let's say Uconn.

SEC - Current SEC plus FSU, GaTech, Clemson and Louisville

ACC - Miami, NC State, UNC, Duke, Wake, UVa, Va Tech, Maryland, BC, WVU, Pitt and which 5 out of USF, Cincy, K-State, KU, Notre Dame, Iowa St. and Baylor?

Not. Very. Appealing.

A-Tex Devil
06-09-2010, 07:24 PM
I am assuming the Mizzou invite to the Big Ten. Frankly, the Nebraska invite doesn't make sense unless they were grabbing Mizzou and 1-3 others based on Delaney's justifications for expansion. But maybe they are stopping at 12.

Texas will be the bad guy if only Nebraska leaves and they bolt. There will be a lot of folks that say the Big XII can add TCU and survive.

G man
06-09-2010, 07:28 PM
I am assuming the Mizzou invite to the Big Ten. Frankly, the Nebraska invite doesn't make sense unless they were grabbing Mizzou and 1-3 others based on Delaney's justifications for expansion. But maybe they are stopping at 12.

Texas will be the bad guy if only Nebraska leaves and they bolt. There will be a lot of folks that say the Big XII can add TCU and survive.

They can survive Mizzou with TCU or Utah, but could they really survive not having any good programs in the big 12 north? I don't think so

sagegrouse
06-09-2010, 08:37 PM
P.S. Eastern part of the state [Wyoming] is barren!

Please do not insult the world's greatest producer of bentonite, the main source of kitty litter:


"The Wyoming Mining Association site has pretty detailed info. about the process used to extract this clay from the ground. This group mined 5.2 million tons of bentonite in 2005, and the deposits in Wyoming make up 70% of the world's known supply."

sagegrouse
'OTOH northwest Colorado has huge coal mines (underground), and we have six coal trains a day of 100 or more coal cars coming through town'

Indoor66
06-09-2010, 08:54 PM
Please do not insult the world's greatest producer of bentonite, the main source of kitty litter:

"The Wyoming Mining Association site has pretty detailed info. about the process used to extract this clay from the ground. This group mined 5.2 million tons of bentonite in 2005, and the deposits in Wyoming make up 70% of the world's known supply."
sagegrouse
'OTOH northwest Colorado has huge coal mines (underground), and we have six coal trains a day of 100 or more coal cars coming through town'

Check out Gillette, WY for coal - 100 car trains, 100 tons per car and they never stop. Burlington Northern RR. Wyoming has the largest coal reserves in the world.

Colorado also has bentonite. Check out the destruction of the Rangeland HS Gym in Aurora, CO in the mid 1980's from bentonite expansion.

Bentonite was also the primary material (with water) that made up drilling mud - so prominent in the news lately. Bentonite expands when wet and becomes extremely slick.

uh_no
06-09-2010, 09:11 PM
PacTex - Wash, Washington St., Oregon, Oreg St. Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Az St., Colorado, Texas

Big Ten - Current Big 10 plus Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse and, oh, let's say Uconn.

SEC - Current SEC plus FSU, GaTech, Clemson and Louisville

ACC - Miami, NC State, UNC, Duke, Wake, UVa, Va Tech, Maryland, BC, WVU, Pitt and which 5 out of USF, Cincy, K-State, KU, Notre Dame, Iowa St. and Baylor?

Not. Very. Appealing.

if you read the article....it seems highly unlikely that either the acc or sec are going anywhere....and since the big 10 is not going after BE teams, it seems unlikely that any of the 3 easternmost conferences will be affected

TexHawk
06-09-2010, 09:44 PM
I had written a longer post, but it was depressing. Suffice it to say that with more Big XII schools getting left in the cold than anticipated, I don' t know how 4 16 team leagues work without some really awful geographical overlap that makes BC look like its in Greensboro culturally and geographically (KU in the SEC or ACC?).

KU is going to hate being latched on to KSU because they may have gotten into the Big Ten otherwise -- one of our KS residents correct me if I am wrong, but I've read in several places that KU and KSU have to be in the same conference by statute. That seems silly, but there are much sillier laws out there.
Not true. It will be pain in the rear to leave them (KU would get ripped to shreds locally), but there is no law that states they are tied at the hip.

And Mizzou is far, far from gone at this point. Their fans and the KC media are not optimistic. But I've been wrong about 800 times already, so who knows.

PumpkinFunk
06-09-2010, 09:47 PM
This could be really bad news for the ACC, BTW. If the Big Ten adds five teams to reach 16, the SEC may feel the need to expand to 16 teams as well. That will pressure on the ACC southern tier.

sagegrouse

I can't see the SEC adding any of the 4 southernmost schools. Miami, FSU, GT, and Clemson are already in SEC territory and add very little in TV revenue that the SEC doesn't already have. For the SEC, the most reasonable move is to either stand pat or try and raid some Texas schools from the Big 12. Or, alternatively, they could try and go for a Hail Mary and try to raid Virginia Tech, Maryland, UNC, and 1 more from us (I can't see any of those happening - UVa and VTech are a package deal and VT stands to lose in the SEC, Maryland wouldn't bring enough to the SEC, and no school from North Carolina would be able to leave without the others). The ACC is fairly safe in this round, I think, and we only stand to gain more members rather than lose anyone.