Demise of the Big East & impact on the ACC

[hurleyfor3]

Who's left in the Big East now? Uconn, Cincy, South Florida and whatever expansion teams haven't left already a la TCU?

Did I hear they're trying to turn things around by making Tom Watson their commissioner?

[lotusland]

Who's left in the Big East now? Uconn, Cincy, South Florida and whatever expansion teams haven't left already a la TCU?

Did I hear they're trying to turn things around by making Tom Watson their commissioner?

The golfer?

[ForkFondler]

This might take the Navy/G-Town hybrid out of the running for the Who-Does-Notre-Dame-Want sweepstakes. The Huskies must be ecstatic.

[uh_no]

This might take the Navy/G-Town hybrid out of the running for the Who-Does-Notre-Dame-Want sweepstakes. The Huskies must be ecstatic.

After reaching the title game this year, the odds that ND joins the ACC in football anytime soon regardless if the ACC brings anyone along is ~0. I think it would be much more likely the ACC sures up with cinci and uconn for the sake of hardening the conference rather than ND joining in.

[Duvall]

After reaching the title game this year, the odds that ND joins the ACC in football anytime soon regardless if the ACC brings anyone along is ~0. I think it would be much more likely the ACC sures up with cinci and uconn for the sake of hardening the conference rather than ND joining in.

How would adding Cincinnati or UConn "harden" the ACC in any way?

[uh_no]

How would adding Cincinnati or UConn "harden" the ACC in any way?

hardening often refers to preemptively guarding against future failure....at least in the software world. If the SEC/Big10/12 came knocking again, the ACC would have to make another move..."hardening" now prevents them from having to scramble in the future to replace someone.

will they? i dunno. do i have another dog in the race?yeah...i hope uconn has a place to play. does that cloud my opinion of what the acc should do? probably.

[throatybeard]

I certainly know that when I think of UConn, the first adjective that comes to mind is hard.

That was funny in my head when my head said it, and now it isn't.

[Duvall]

hardening often refers to preemptively guarding against future failure....at least in the software world. If the SEC/Big10/12 came knocking again, the ACC would have to make another move..."hardening" now prevents them from having to scramble in the future to replace someone.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the chances of either school being taken by another league before the ACC has a chance to move are slight enough that the ACC can wait and hope that the remaining expansion spots can be filled by better options.

But then the Big Ten did take Rutgers, so anything is possible.

[OldPhiKap]

I certainly know that when I think of UConn, the first adjective that comes to mind is hard.

That was funny in my head when my head said it, and now it isn't.

If the humor last more than four hours, call your doctor.

[throatybeard]

But then the Big Ten did take Rutgers, so anything is possible.

That really could stand as an epigram for this entire grease fire.

[SCMatt33]

hardening often refers to preemptively guarding against future failure....at least in the software world. If the SEC/Big10/12 came knocking again, the ACC would have to make another move..."hardening" now prevents them from having to scramble in the future to replace someone.

will they? i dunno. do i have another dog in the race?yeah...i hope uconn has a place to play. does that cloud my opinion of what the acc should do? probably.

I think there are a lot of interesting questions to be answered regarding what will happen to UConn, Cincy, and USF. I tend to doubt that the ACC would preemptively add UConn and/or Cincy because this doesn't change the fact that they won't be available later on. I don't see a scenario where the B1G, SEC, or even BXII would want them right now. I don't think that the ACC wants to go to 16 in football unless it absolutely has to. I think that conferences are hitting the point of diminishing returns in expansion in terms of TV negotiations. In fact, the only reason this last round happened was because the B1G gets to play by different rules than everyone else with the cable network. The rumor was that the Big XII was told by ESPN that with the size of their current contract, the only way to add value on a per team basis was to get ND (out of the remotely realistic options).

Realignment tends to be a trickle down issue. Usually, a move starts a chain reaction in leagues lower on the pecking order, but rarely has an impact on those higher. The main impact that this move will have is to accelerate the moves of Rutgers, Maryland, Louisville, and Notre Dame by a year. On the other end, though, there will be great impact. On that front, there is a lot yet to be determined. The reason that it is such a big deal how the Catholic schools leave is because of a) division of financial assets and b) what will happen to the schools left behind. For the first issue, there are several potential assets. NCAA tourney revenue is distributed based on bids and wins from the last several tournaments (I think it's the last 6, but not 100% on that). Who gets to keep those from the Big East. The second big asset is the money owed by schools who already planned to leave. If the league is dissolved, are those buyouts voided? If the league isn't dissolved, will the Catholic schools be subject to buyouts themselves? On the second issue, if the league isn't dissolved, the remaining schools can keep a basketball bid by merely getting to 6 teams. If the league is dissolved, NCAA rules seem to point to them needing to join another conference to get a bid. There is a two year grace period for most auto bid rules, provided that there are at least 6 DI teams in the league (see WAC), but this seems to only apply to existing leagues. The Catholic schools have 7 teams who have been in the same conference since 2005, so they will qualify even as a new conference, but that's not the case for UConn, Cincy, USF, and whoever they would find to join them. Ironically, if the league is dissolved, and most of the new schools abandon their plans to join, Cincy and USF might be forced to crawl back to C-USA, dragging UConn along with them. At this point, there would only be 4 available FBS conferences (CUSA, MAC, MWC, and Sun Belt). The Mountain West is too far away, and CUSA is light years ahead of the MAC and Sun Belt as an all sports option. Temple will have to decide whether to try and throw its lot in with those other three or go back to it's old arrangement with the A10 and the MAC.

So much to be determined, and at the end of the day, I fell really good for the basketball schools seizing the day for themselves. I really hope to see some other basketball schools join up with them to make a conference that will be really fun to watch for years to come.

[ForkFondler]

After reaching the title game this year, the odds that ND joins the ACC in football anytime soon regardless if the ACC brings anyone along is ~0. I think it would be much more likely the ACC sures up with cinci and uconn for the sake of hardening the conference rather than ND joining in.

I believe this is wrong. The negotiation has been going on for years, and the final sticking points are in the public domain:

1. Revenue sharing. The more successful programs spend more money, and a substantial part of that money comes from fan/donors. Rumblings are that more post season revenue will end up in the pockets of the individual schools that succeed.
2. Scheduling. ND has other teams they want to play. Nine games was out of the question. Eight might work, but it would work better if one of those teams was Navy.
3. Geography. Sure ND has fans all over the country, but the athletes still go to school in the midwest. Was ND the deciding factor in Louisville over Uconn? If so, don't be surprised if Cincy trumps UConn as well. Indianapolis would be a great addition to the ACC tourney rotation, n'est pas?

[uh_no]

I believe this is wrong. The negotiation has been going on for years, and the final sticking points are in the public domain:

1. Revenue sharing. The more successful programs spend more money, and a substantial part of that money comes from fan/donors. Rumblings are that more post season revenue will end up in the pockets of the individual schools that succeed.
2. Scheduling. ND has other teams they want to play. Nine games was out of the question. Eight might work, but it would work better if one of those teams was Navy.
3. Geography. Sure ND has fans all over the country, but the athletes still go to school in the midwest. Was ND the deciding factor in Louisville over Uconn? If so, don't be surprised if Cincy trumps UConn as well. Indianapolis would be a great addition to the ACC tourney rotation, n'est pas?

Even with all that, why would ND agree to join the conference? They have a killer TV deal on their own, they've effectively ensured they have a seat at the playoffs table for the near future, they have 5 guaranteed opponents each season (and with army, navy, and USC, a huge scheduling burden has been lifted).

Anyway, I'm curious as to what the source is that says if we only had to force 8 games on ND (or 9 with Navy) and one of those teams was in the midwest, they would have joined the conference as a full football member. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it and would be curious to.

[throatybeard]

I salute Notre Dame on their 12-0 season, but I have a lot of trouble believing that one 12-0 season, culminating in them probably getting waxed by an SEC school, changes their long-term viability as an independent or semi-independent. In the long term, the question is whether they fancy us or the B1G.

Heck, if K-State doesn't wet the bed against Baylor, and Notre Dame beats K-State, I'm not sure the Dame's championship changes things long term. And yes, I've heard of NBC.

(Prove me wrong, and beat Bama--I'm sort of halfway rooting for you).

I don't know what I'm talking about; that's just how it smells to me.

[burnspbesq]

The ESPN story says that the seven Catholic Big East schools may reach out to Xavier, Dayton, Creighton, St. Louis, Gonzaga, and St. Mary's.

So the ripple effects could ultimately tear apart the West Coast Conference, and really mess up the Mountain West and the Big West.

Is there any conference other than the Ivy League that is going to look the same two years from now as it looks today?

[throatybeard]

The ESPN story says that the seven Catholic Big East schools may reach out to Xavier, Dayton, Creighton, St. Louis, Gonzaga, and St. Mary's.

So the ripple effects could ultimately tear apart the West Coast Conference, and really mess up the Mountain West and the Big West.

Is there any conference other than the Ivy League that is going to look the same two years from now as it looks today?

The SEC will look tremendous, as it does now. I'm not even sure if they need to screw around with 16.

I actually kind of like this notional Catholic basketball superconference. How about St Joseph's?

Is Creighton Jesuit?

[burnspbesq]

I actually kind of like this notional Catholic basketball superconference. How about St Joseph's?

Hard to imagine Nova agreeing to be in the same league with St. Joe's (or LaSalle, for that matter).


Is Creighton Jesuit?

Yes, it AMGD is.

[mgtr]

Any chance that Boston College would want to jump to the new rosary league?

[Duvall]

Any chance that Boston College would want to jump to the new rosary league?

Not unless they decide they don't like football and/or money.

[kdavis]

Hard to imagine Nova agreeing to be in the same league with St. Joe's (or LaSalle, for that matter).

I disagree with this sentiment. Big 5 basketball is not what it once was in Philadelphia, but it stills has a place in the city. I think the two schools could easily co-exist - especially since building a real conference rivalry would benefit both schools in terms of ticket sales for their annual game(s) ($$ always drives these decisions anyway).

[Dev11]

Hard to imagine Nova agreeing to be in the same league with St. Joe's (or LaSalle, for that matter).

Well they did agree to take Temple in the Big East.

[BlueDevil16]

Yes, it AMGD is.

Jesuit schooling!!!

[ForkFondler]

Putting west coast teams into an eastern CYO conference for all sports is silly. Duquesne and Detroit would be better additions.

[JasonEvans]

Note: I will move this to the Big East demise thread in a bit, but felt it significant enough about the ACC to let it stand on its own for a while.

Here is Mike's article (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-12-14/cincinnati-uconn-acc-big-east-leaving-conference-realignment-connecticut).

Mike says there is talk of the remaining Big East teams (UConn, Cincy, SFla, and so on) forming a big league with the best teams in the West (Boise St, UNLV, New Mexico, San Diego St and so on). But, here is the rub...


In order to form such a league, however, UConn and Cincinnati would have to make some sort of profound commitment -- perhaps even a “grant of rights” similar to the Big 12’s, meaning they’d lose their media revenue for the length of time if they leave -- to convince the Western schools involved that they would not exit immediately if invited to join the ACC.

That could become leverage to convince current members of the ACC -- especially some of its more vulnerable longtime schools, such as Duke and Wake Forest, to invite Cincinnati and UConn now and bring the current conference membership to 16.

It is an interesting notion. Not sure I see it quite as clear as he does and not sure I see Duke as profoundly worried about the future of the ACC, but it is not totally without logic.

-Jason "I wish the ACC would just do a 'grant of rights' to ensure that everybody sticks around... sigh" Evans

[-bdbd]

A couple of thoughts on this theme, which I saw in another article today too:
1. It is reasonable to say that, IF the ACC was thinking about adding U-con or Cincy eventually (but not immediately), then this new conference with a 'grant of rights' might provide some motivation for the ACC to ACT NOW. But obviously the ACC hasn't raced to add these two programs, and probably for some good reasons - they don't deliver significant TV markets, don't have super-strong FB programs/traditions, culturally don't fit, etc (I'd have included "academically don't fit," but, hell, we just added L'ville!??). So, assuming that they weren't just waiting to add them later for some reason, then why would you want to add them suddenly now - they're still not all that attractive (or at least that seems to be the view from the ACC Commissioner's office anyway).
2. I don't get it why he thinks a school like Duke is so vulnerable, then goes on and touts the strength the new proposed "Trans-Continent Conference" in terms of number of BB National Championships a couple of the schools have won. Duke has won twice as many as ANY of them. Given Duke's assets - BB power program, strong non-rev sports, improving FB program - I just don't see Duke feeling vulnerable enough to panic like he seems to suggest they might.
3. Adding Cincy and U-con doesn't guarantee anything for the ACC, other than two more (overall) mediocre programs. These two are NOT FB powers/traditions at all. I see Football driving additions nowadays, and the ACC certainly wants to improve its FB product. I just don't see them looking to add more non-FB-power schools in the near term. And if they did, well then the ACC could still get raided anyway.

Anybody here, as Duke fans, really all that worried that Duke'll get left out in the cold once the music stops?? Really?

:confused: :rolleyes: :p

[sagegrouse]

Note: I will move this to the Big East demise thread in a bit, but felt it significant enough about the ACC to let it stand on its own for a while.

Here is Mike's article (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-12-14/cincinnati-uconn-acc-big-east-leaving-conference-realignment-connecticut).

Mike says there is talk of the remaining Big East teams (UConn, Cincy, SFla, and so on) forming a big league with the best teams in the West (Boise St, UNLV, New Mexico, San Diego St and so on). But, here is the rub...



It is an interesting notion. Not sure I see it quite as clear as he does and not sure I see Duke as profoundly worried about the future of the ACC, but it is not totally without logic.

-Jason "I wish the ACC would just do a 'grant of rights' to ensure that everybody sticks around... sigh" Evans

I never ceased to be amazed how easy it is to write and publish a nonsensical column that says, "The sky is falling!" after some upheaval.

First, why should Cincy and UConn make a permanent grant of media rights to put together the most ridiculous-looking conference I have ever seen proposed?

Second, I don't think Duke is especially vulnerable: good athletic revenue, outstanding academics, amazing research, best basketball brand ("D-u-k-e" says it all), football bowl team. That, plus big donations to athletics (2 times $10 million just recently). I think Duke is a real catch, and I tend to believe there "was" substance to the Duke and UNC to the Big Ten rumors.

Third, why would the ACC get stampeded to add second and third-choice teams because of the prospect of a nation-wide conference of second-tier schools? Because the ACC might lose another team or two and won't be able to build back up to 14 + 1? I thought 14 + 1 was the bulwark against further losses.

sagegrouse

[lotusland]

Anybody here, as Duke fans, really all that worried that Duke'll get left out in the cold once the music stops??

:confused: :rolleyes: :p

I'm not worried about Duke basketball either way but Cincy and UConn fit in geographically with the current conference pretty well so at this point it would be a relief to have it somewhat settled. I'm not sure how adding those schools keeps our football-centric schools from bolting but if it helps I'd be all for it. I was actually impressed that the Big East hoops schools said enough of this crap and went there own way. So if this makes the ACC stronger and calms uncertainties about conference reallignment then I'm all for it. On the other hand if GT, VT, Clem, FSU and any other school still bolts then what was the point?

[hurleyfor3]

That sounds like a "start with the conclusion I want to prove and work backwards" argument.

[mgtr]

Whether the article is right or wrong, I simply don't understand why Duke would be vulnerable. Vulnerable to what? Being left out in musical chairs? It makes no sense at all.

[bob blue devil]

i think duke is possibly vulnerable. this is exclusively football money drive; it's been said a million times, but people seem not to get this. duke does not generate football money and the argument a 6-6 season changes this is laughable.

here's a scenario:
- big10 decides to raid again, but goes after properties sec covets - unc and vtech, so sec steps in and scoops them up, going to 16
- big10 takes virginia and gtech as a consolation prize (this move is a rumor at the moment) and goes to 16
- now the acc is done - it's remaining big boys go to/merge with the big12 -> definitely fsu, clemson... likely nc state, miami... notre dame probably needs to align, at least they can't stay with the acc

so who is left in the cold? duke, wake, louisville, syracuse, pitt, bc... maybe 1 more goes to big12...

maybe the order or the parts is wrong, but this is not an unthinkable scenario - so where is duke left? in a non-power football conference. maybe you don't care, but i don't think this is good for the school or for basketball in the very long term.

p.s. remember maryland already left and several other schools are hurting for $s or are simply scared about being the odd man out; the acc loyalty argument is a joke

[Kedsy]

i think duke is possibly vulnerable. this is exclusively football money drive; it's been said a million times, but people seem not to get this. duke does not generate football money and the argument a 6-6 season changes this is laughable.

here's a scenario:
- big10 decides to raid again, but goes after properties sec covets - unc and vtech, so sec steps in and scoops them up, going to 16
- big10 takes virginia and gtech as a consolation prize (this move is a rumor at the moment) and goes to 16
- now the acc is done - it's remaining big boys go to/merge with the big12 -> definitely fsu, clemson... likely nc state, miami... notre dame probably needs to align, at least they can't stay with the acc

so who is left in the cold? duke, wake, louisville, syracuse, pitt, bc... maybe 1 more goes to big12...

maybe the order or the parts is wrong, but this is not an unthinkable scenario - so where is duke left? in a non-power football conference. maybe you don't care, but i don't think this is good for the school or for basketball in the very long term.

p.s. remember maryland already left and several other schools are hurting for $s or are simply scared about being the odd man out; the acc loyalty argument is a joke

But how would having UConn and Cincinnati help fix this doomsday scenario?

[NSDukeFan]

i think duke is possibly vulnerable. this is exclusively football money drive; it's been said a million times, but people seem not to get this. duke does not generate football money and the argument a 6-6 season changes this is laughable.

here's a scenario:
- big10 decides to raid again, but goes after properties sec covets - unc and vtech, so sec steps in and scoops them up, going to 16
- big10 takes virginia and gtech as a consolation prize (this move is a rumor at the moment) and goes to 16
- now the acc is done - it's remaining big boys go to/merge with the big12 -> definitely fsu, clemson... likely nc state, miami... notre dame probably needs to align, at least they can't stay with the acc

so who is left in the cold? duke, wake, louisville, syracuse, pitt, bc... maybe 1 more goes to big12...

maybe the order or the parts is wrong, but this is not an unthinkable scenario - so where is duke left? in a non-power football conference. maybe you don't care, but i don't think this is good for the school or for basketball in the very long term.

p.s. remember maryland already left and several other schools are hurting for $s or are simply scared about being the odd man out; the acc loyalty argument is a joke

Here's a different scenario:
-people don't watch television as much because they get all the visual content they want from their computers, tablets, or phones
-television advertising revenue goes down because fewer people are watching television
- football youth enrollment decreases because parents are concerned about the risk of their children getting concussions
- fewer top athletes play football and the collisions are less fierce due to rule changes to decrease the risk of injury
-fewer people watch pro and college football
- television football contracts decrease and traveling extra hundreds of miles for conference games in all sports is seen as perhaps not the wisest move

Perhaps your scenario is more likely, but there is an argument that aiming to get 4 - 16 team (any particular reason for 16 teams vs. any other number?) conferences to maximize football revenue may be a bit shortsighted for colleges to avoid thinking about anything else when it comes to conference affiliations.

[OldPhiKap]

p.s. remember maryland already left and several other schools are hurting for $s or are simply scared about being the odd man out; the acc loyalty argument is a joke

Perhaps. But in the 50+ years of our history, only two teams have left (South Carolina and Maryland). It is not nearly as transient a conference as the Big East was (for example), and it has not had a weird hybrid of football and non-football schools.

I am certainly concerned about all of this shuffling, and which we could reach some point where everyone knew it was on hold for a while. And yes, I am concerned that there are scenarios where Duke ends up in a worse position than it is now. But I would rather be in our shoes than many other institutions out there.

Duke is a valuable property with international name recognition and academic cache. I think we'll be fine, and the ACC seems to be very proactive in protecting/expanding its turf. If we gain Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and ND for all but football (though get five games per year), at the expense of Maryland, I say we got the better part of that bargain.

[A-Tex Devil]

Notre Dame is not joining the ACC in football - at least not under the current set of TV contracts and playoff and bowl format. We should stop talking about it. The ACC is certainly an "in case of emergency, break glass" conference. But so long as ND continues to get into any reasonably good bowl game, BCS or not, it is making as much money as it might otherwise sharing it across the conference. Add to that the TV contract that isn't going away anytime soon and the ingrained culture of independence. There is not a Notre Dame alum that I know that wants to join a conference. Sure the ACC is probably "as good as any." Certainly better for ND than SEC, Big XII or PAC 12, but why, if there is no need?

If the playoff format had fallen out a different way, I maybe could have seen it. But the playoff format allows ND in by not guaranteeing a thing to conference champions (which I am fine with).

I am a bit surprised that the 7 catholic schools didn't throw a bone to UConn's olympic sports. I really don't want UConn or Cincy in the ACC.

I kinda feel like things may have ground to a halt here in expansion. But maybe we are in the eye of the storm, though. If any move happens in the ACC, I imagine it will still be from Tallahassee. There is some rancor about the NIU bowl matchup (and the continual crappy, but frankly deserved, bowl matchups for ACC BCS teams). I think if Clemson had beat Scar and not gotten into the BCS, it would have been a bigger deal, though.

I just don't buy any of the additional Big Ten raids on the ACC. MD was uniquely situated to be picked off. Not sure anyone else that the Big Ten would want is.

[bob blue devil]

so... judging by the posts in response to my comment it looks like i've flamed a little bit - sorry about that! this conference realignment stuff scares me - i would really love the status quo, and don't want duke to end up in a spot similar to uconn.


Here's a different scenario:
-people don't watch television as much because they get all the visual content they want from their computers, tablets, or phones
-television advertising revenue goes down because fewer people are watching television
- football youth enrollment decreases because parents are concerned about the risk of their children getting concussions
- fewer top athletes play football and the collisions are less fierce due to rule changes to decrease the risk of injury
-fewer people watch pro and college football
- television football contracts decrease and traveling extra hundreds of miles for conference games in all sports is seen as perhaps not the wisest move

Perhaps your scenario is more likely, but there is an argument that aiming to get 4 - 16 team (any particular reason for 16 teams vs. any other number?) conferences to maximize football revenue may be a bit shortsighted for colleges to avoid thinking about anything else when it comes to conference affiliations.

i don't disagree that people are being short-sighted w.r.t. conference expansion. that's a shame and may ultimately hurt duke. let me be clear - i hate conference expansion. but i can't wish it away.

i agree that 4 16-team conferences is arbitrary. but what isn't arbitrary is that schools have an incentive to leave lower $ conferences (acc) for higher $ conferences (sec, big10). it's up to the sec to decide whether 14 is right or whether they can make more money by expanding their geographic footprint to whatever level (assuming they don't care about other considerations, like the welfare of the student-athlete). and yes, i think the sec could pick-off just about anybody from the acc it wanted.



But how would having UConn and Cincinnati help fix this doomsday scenario?


eh, i don't think it does much for us. i guess the leftover conference is slightly more appealing.

[OldPhiKap]

I certainly don't think you flamed, bob. I thought it was a well-reasoned post, although there are some parts I see a bit differently. That's why we have a board -- to discuss such things.

Cheers.

[budwom]

People are free to believe the ACC is just fine, but be advised that if UNC were to leave for the Big 10, the ACC would be major league screwed. And this is not a farfetched notion.

[ForkFondler]

Even with all that, why would ND agree to join the conference? They have a killer TV deal on their own, they've effectively ensured they have a seat at the playoffs table for the near future, they have 5 guaranteed opponents each season (and with army, navy, and USC, a huge scheduling burden has been lifted).


Notre Dame is not joining the ACC in football - at least not under the current set of TV contracts and playoff and bowl format.

Right, if joining the conference means equal revenue sharing then Notre Dame won't join. But I think the contracts will be renegotiated. ND and FSU will get to keep more bowl money. Maybe ND gets a bigger slice of an ACC network. Maybe Duke will get to keep more NCAAT revenue too.




Anyway, I'm curious as to what the source is that says if we only had to force 8 games on ND (or 9 with Navy) and one of those teams was in the midwest, they would have joined the conference as a full football member. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it and would be curious to.

No source, that's just me looking for and finding an explanation for Louisville over UConn. I don't give the football argument that much weight since the programs are rather comparable. A year ago, Louisville had geography working against them. This year, it worked in their favor.

[OldPhiKap]

No source, that's just me looking for and finding an explanation for Louisville over UConn. I don't give the football argument that much weight since the programs are rather comparable. A year ago, Louisville had geography working against them. This year, it worked in their favor.

BC may have a lot to do with UConn being on the outside looking in. IIRC UConn sued BC when BC left the Big East to join the ACC, and Storrs is not very far from Boston. BC may not want the competition in the market and/or may have an old score to settle.

Just a guess, though.

[ForkFondler]

Even with all that, why would ND agree to join the conference? They have a killer TV deal on their own, they've effectively ensured they have a seat at the playoffs table for the near future, they have 5 guaranteed opponents each season (and with army, navy, and USC, a huge scheduling burden has been lifted).


Notre Dame is not joining the ACC in football - at least not under the current set of TV contracts and playoff and bowl format.

Right, if joining the conference means equal revenue sharing then Notre Dame won't join. But I think the contracts will be renegotiated. ND and FSU will get to keep more bowl money. Maybe ND gets a bigger slice of an ACC network. Maybe Duke will get to keep more NCAAT revenue too.




Anyway, I'm curious as to what the source is that says if we only had to force 8 games on ND (or 9 with Navy) and one of those teams was in the midwest, they would have joined the conference as a full football member. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it and would be curious to.

No source, that's just me looking for an explanation for Louisville over UConn. I don't give the football argument that much weight since the programs are rather comparable. A year ago, Louisville had geography working against them. This year, it worked in their favor.

[BD80]

For some reason, this continuous activity gives rise to a little voice in my head:

"gird your loins."

It is somewhat like mob mentality, or a frenzied stock market reaction: actions that simply are not reasonable nor rational in isolation become imperative when "everybody else" is doing it.

[Duvall]

People are free to believe the ACC is just fine, but be advised that if UNC were to leave for the Big 10, the ACC would be major league screwed. And this is not a farfetched notion.

Yeah, but let's be honest. Nobody's going to burn down the gym or the library if Duke ends up in a league with Syracuse and Louisville instead of North Carolina and FSU. It's just sports.

[OldSchool]

I actually kind of like this notional Catholic basketball superconference. How about St Joseph's?

Is Creighton Jesuit?

A big city Catholic school superconference would be great for college basketball, very "old school" if I may say so. I would expect it to raise the profile of those schools, attract more media interest and help them in recruiting.

Perhaps it would help move things nationally in the direction of divorcing FBS football conference alignment from other sports. Let FBS football align in whatever conferences they think will make the most money, and let the other sports pursue their traditional geographic and historic conference ties.

[ChillinDuke]

I just have no idea what to believe anymore. It's as if every individual post sounds right when I read it.

Is there any value in the ACC creating an online network? Something similar to what GoDuke provides? Heck, I subscribe to the GoDuke On Demand content and find it excellent. I'm sure this doesn't really hold a candle to TV deals at this point, but at $5 per month, that's nothing to sneeze at across a large enough subscriber base.

- Chillin

[lotusland]

I just have no idea what to believe anymore. It's as if every individual post sounds right when I read it.

Is there any value in the ACC creating an online network? Something similar to what GoDuke provides? Heck, I subscribe to the GoDuke On Demand content and find it excellent. I'm sure this doesn't really hold a candle to TV deals at this point, but at $5 per month, that's nothing to sneeze at across a large enough subscriber base.

- Chillin

I'm in if I can watch all the games at the same site without a zillion pop-ups and malware or 147 channels I don't want. I just broke down and ordered direct TV. I guess that is what ESPN wanted to happen when they started blacking out all the live games.

[lotusland]

Here's a different scenario:
-people don't watch television as much because they get all the visual content they want from their computers, tablets, or phones
-television advertising revenue goes down because fewer people are watching television
- football youth enrollment decreases because parents are concerned about the risk of their children getting concussions
- fewer top athletes play football and the collisions are less fierce due to rule changes to decrease the risk of injury
-fewer people watch pro and college football
- television football contracts decrease and traveling extra hundreds of miles for conference games in all sports is seen as perhaps not the wisest move

Perhaps your scenario is more likely, but there is an argument that aiming to get 4 - 16 team (any particular reason for 16 teams vs. any other number?) conferences to maximize football revenue may be a bit shortsighted for colleges to avoid thinking about anything else when it comes to conference affiliations. I do think a strong consensus is forming regarding the link between football and long-term brain damage primarily referred to as CTE and that the danger is significantly magnified for younger athletes. The drumbeat is getting louder and several experts are already recommending a ban on tackle football for kids under 14. I may be wrong but I do think that will happen and once the sport is virtually banned before HS it won't take long for the effects to filter down to the bottom line. Super athletic kids almost always "pick" a sport to focus on well before HS. We're already seeing attempts to mitigate the risk by restricting the kind of hits that are allowed in both college and pro ball but I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't coach players to hit hard but, at the same time, "be careful and don't use your head or hit your opponent's". I think in 20 years the landscape will be completely different and we may see major shifts even sooner.

[mgtr]

One simple approach would be to let only the offense wear helmets, the defense wears none. That should reduce the number of head to head hits, at least after a few games!

[kingboozer]

I wouldn't say that I'm panicking but definitely concerned about the future of the ACC. FSU and Clemson are all that's keeping this conferences 'prestige' in football afloat right now and both would bolt at first chance to do so, Georgia Tech too. I used to think that the NC 4 of the league would stick together no matter what, and still do for now, but I could easily see Debbie Yow taking the Pack elsewhere if given the opportunity. UVA and UNC make sense to me for the Big Ten and if the conference looks to be sinking I think both would jump. Miami and Virginia Tech could be in play too, solid brands and good football tradition as well as Pitt, right in the Big Ten footprint. Say the Big 12 brings in FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, why stay at 13, take Louisville to get to 14. There's too many scenarios and without a meaningful blood oath between the school president's, who knows what happens and when. Its dog eat dog right now and football is in the drivers seat, and to me that makes us vulnerable. We have no recent tradition, while 6-6 is a great accomplishment, it's nothing to big time conferences. Our basketball brand is incalculable, but that's obviously not seeming to matter these days. I do fear we will be left out in the cold with Wake, BC and Syracuse. If the ACC really wants stability, lets adopt a grant of rights between the schools. The fact that we haven't worries me and we need to look out for ourselves at this point.

[sagegrouse]

I wouldn't say that I'm panicking but definitely concerned about the future of the ACC. FSU and Clemson are all that's keeping this conferences 'prestige' in football afloat right now and both would bolt at first chance to do so, Georgia Tech too. I used to think that the NC 4 of the league would stick together no matter what, and still do for now, but I could easily see Debbie Yow taking the Pack elsewhere if given the opportunity. UVA and UNC make sense to me for the Big Ten and if the conference looks to be sinking I think both would jump. Miami and Virginia Tech could be in play too, solid brands and good football tradition as well as Pitt, right in the Big Ten footprint. Say the Big 12 brings in FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, why stay at 13, take Louisville to get to 14. There's too many scenarios and without a meaningful blood oath between the school president's, who knows what happens and when. Its dog eat dog right now and football is in the drivers seat, and to me that makes us vulnerable. We have no recent tradition, while 6-6 is a great accomplishment, it's nothing to big time conferences. Our basketball brand is incalculable, but that's obviously not seeming to matter these days. I do fear we will be left out in the cold with Wake, BC and Syracuse. If the ACC really wants stability, lets adopt a grant of rights between the schools. The fact that we haven't worries me and we need to look out for ourselves at this point.

Have you considered decaf? Your "road to ruin" has FSU, Clemson and GT leaving for the Big 12. I can't see why any of these East Coast schools would leave the ACC for a place in the FCC (Flyover Country Conference).

As to your other fears: The ACC didn't want Virginia Tech. Why should it be a priority for another, supposedly stronger conference. NC State's and Miami's economics are worse than Duke's.

I think Duke is one of the more attractive schools in the ACC from an athletic standpoint -- and the academics and research only help the situation.

sagegrouse

[devildeac]

BC may have a lot to do with UConn being on the outside looking in. IIRC UConn sued BC when BC left the Big East to join the ACC, and Storrs is not very far from Boston. BC may not want the competition in the market and/or may have an old score to settle.

Just a guess, though.

I believe your "guessing" has a lot of merit. I think the ucon/BC lawsuit is correct and the "grudge" factor a likely result.

[kingboozer]

Have you considered decaf? Your "road to ruin" has FSU, Clemson and GT leaving for the Big 12. I can't see why any of these East Coast schools would leave the ACC for a place in the FCC (Flyover Country Conference).

As to your other fears: The ACC didn't want Virginia Tech. Why should it be a priority for another, supposedly stronger conference. NC State's and Miami's economics are worse than Duke's.

I think Duke is one of the more attractive schools in the ACC from an athletic standpoint -- and the academics and research only help the situation.

sagegrouse

Haha maybe I should! What I wrote is a conglomeration of rumors I've heard, one domino falls and could spark an avalanche would be the way I'd sum up my thoughts. The economics at NC State and the U are why I think they could potentially make a move, similar to what Maryland did. I agree that our athletics and academics help us out greatly, defiantly gives us a leg over say Wake(the team with the most to loose if they ACC implodes) but I still see us behind UNC, State, FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, UVA in regards to realignment. Football is driving this ship and quite frankly, we don't bring a lot to the table there. Maybe in another 5-10 years if we remain on our current path, but not now.

[throatybeard]

"without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?"

[ChillinDuke]

I would also like to point one thing out that perhaps gets lost in this whole mess. The ACC has to take a long look in the mirror and wonder what the heck these schools have been doing over the last decade regarding football hires and on-field success (or lack thereof).

Unfortunately, that won't lead to a solution in any form.

But just wanted to point that out. Duke has done and is doing its part to shape up. What about everyone else? Pretty much every one of these schools has the ability to field a nationally competitive football team on a somewhat regular basis but hasn't done so over an extended period of time. The same can be said in basketball.

- Chillin

[Olympic Fan]

If I can get back on topic (I can't stand to go through the whole 'the ACC is falling apart' thing again), there is one interesting bit of fallout to the breakup of the Big East.

Remember Austin Nichols, who passed up Duke (and Tennessee) to sign with hometown Memphis? His father said that Memphis' pending addition to the Big East was a factor in his decison:

"Memphis going to the Big East played a role in Austin choosing Memphis, not necessarily a big, big role," Mark Nichols told Jerry Meyer of 247 Sports. "But we knew Memphis was coming out of Conference USA to go to the Big East, and that was a plus. We could have gone to the ACC or anywhere, but everyone was saying Memphis is going to the Big East.

"Someone needs to get a grip on this situation. Enough is enough. I'm a little bent out of shape. I'm not happy about it. It irritates me that these young kids make a decision and are bound by it, and then these big schools are jumping wherever they want to go."

What a shame ....

[mgtr]

If I can get back on topic (I can't stand to go through the whole 'the ACC is falling apart' thing again), there is one interesting bit of fallout to the breakup of the Big East.

Remember Austin Nichols, who passed up Duke (and Tennessee) to sign with hometown Memphis? His father said that Memphis' pending addition to the Big East was a factor in his decison:

"Memphis going to the Big East played a role in Austin choosing Memphis, not necessarily a big, big role," Mark Nichols told Jerry Meyer of 247 Sports. "But we knew Memphis was coming out of Conference USA to go to the Big East, and that was a plus. We could have gone to the ACC or anywhere, but everyone was saying Memphis is going to the Big East.

"Someone needs to get a grip on this situation. Enough is enough. I'm a little bent out of shape. I'm not happy about it. It irritates me that these young kids make a decision and are bound by it, and then these big schools are jumping wherever they want to go."

What a shame ....

Here is a young man and his father who just got a lesson in Econ 101 -- "Greed will find a way."

[JasonEvans]

Here's a different scenario:
-people don't watch television as much because they get all the visual content they want from their computers, tablets, or phones
-television advertising revenue goes down because fewer people are watching television
- football youth enrollment decreases because parents are concerned about the risk of their children getting concussions
- fewer top athletes play football and the collisions are less fierce due to rule changes to decrease the risk of injury
-fewer people watch pro and college football
- television football contracts decrease and traveling extra hundreds of miles for conference games in all sports is seen as perhaps not the wisest move

Perhaps your scenario is more likely, but there is an argument that aiming to get 4 - 16 team (any particular reason for 16 teams vs. any other number?) conferences to maximize football revenue may be a bit shortsighted for colleges to avoid thinking about anything else when it comes to conference affiliations.

Worth noting, the timeframe of your scenario would appear to be a decade or more away. Agreed? The timeframe of other major members of the ACC being poached is probably significantly shorter... heck it could happen next week for all we know (not predicting anything, just talking possibilities and time it takes to achieve them).

--Jason "I agree that, long term, these moves may look silly in retrospect -- but that could have little effect on the present" Evans

[JasonEvans]

BC may have a lot to do with UConn being on the outside looking in. IIRC UConn sued BC when BC left the Big East to join the ACC, and Storrs is not very far from Boston. BC may not want the competition in the market and/or may have an old score to settle.

This is just more fuel for the fire that the ACC is dominated by the Massachusetts schools. Maryland was right to feel like it was on the outside looking in.

-Jason "I keed, I keed" Evans

[devilsadvocate85]

Notre Dame joins in FB as soon as they lose a BCS or playoff spot to a one-loss team that gets an extra game because the one-loss team gets to play an extra game in their conference championship after ND's season is over.

[uh_no]

Notre Dame joins in FB as soon as they lose a BCS or playoff spot to a one-loss team that gets an extra game because the one-loss team gets to play an extra game in their conference championship after ND's season is over.

Notre dame is guaranteed a position if they finish top 8, and if ND is a one loss team, there's no chance they're not top 8.

[NSDukeFan]

Worth noting, the timeframe of your scenario would appear to be a decade or more away. Agreed? The timeframe of other major members of the ACC being poached is probably significantly shorter... heck it could happen next week for all we know (not predicting anything, just talking possibilities and time it takes to achieve them).

--Jason "I agree that, long term, these moves may look silly in retrospect -- but that could have little effect on the present" Evans

I agree completely that TV dollars are there now and my hypothetical scenario would not happen for years, though I wouldn't be surprised if the value of TV contracts decreased in the next few years as viewership patterns changed. Maybe the conference commissioners are being shortsighted, but maybe that is to get all the dollars they can out of this paradigm, while they can.

[snowdenscold]

Two thoughts:

1. I blame the short-sighted and arbitrary rule about needing 12 teams in order to have a conference championship for much of this mess. I feel it was a catalyst for many of the subsequent conference changes.

2. I think NSDukeFan brings up some good points I've been thinking about. While it definitely is probably more long-term, there is still a decent chance we'll look back in a decade or two and just shake our heads at the tearing apart of local conferences for what was ultimately pointless. We'll have thousands of athletes travelling all over the country for their field hockey and lacrosse games, hampering their academics (and remember, almost all of them will not go pro and will need their degrees for their careers), all for the sake of football, or whatever the new incarnation will be.
Could we just press a giant 'Reset' button and put things back in some pre-2004 position? ;)

[Ranidad]

I agree completely that TV dollars are there now and my hypothetical scenario would not happen for years, though I wouldn't be surprised if the value of TV contracts decreased in the next few years as viewership patterns changed. Maybe the conference commissioners are being shortsighted, but maybe that is to get all the dollars they can out of this paradigm, while they can.

In my mind the only thing driving all of this everchanging conference nonsense is the escalating TV revenue. I agree with NSDukeFan that this TV revenue escalation is a bubble that will burst as new business models emerge for changing viewership patterns. The TV money is growing because live sporting events are about the only remaining programming that still works in the "free" advertising supported business models that the networks are built upon. Who knows when it will change, but 5-10 years from now I think college conference affiliations will have to shift back to traditional regional rivalries to maintain viewership.

Ultimately, college sports are more fun when you live and work with people who attended the colleges that your college is playing. How many Rutgers alums live in Wisconsin? Or Louisville alums live in North Carolina? Viewership of those match ups just won't hold up long term especially when games with local rivals (e.g. Duke - NC State) are reduced to make room for games with more far-flung colleges.

I guess that you need to play the game now with the dollars so big, but I'll think in 10 years or less we'll be unwinding most if the shifting from this current period.

[hurleyfor3]

In case it matters, it's official (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8749700/seven-schools-decide-leave-big-east-pursue-new-basketball-framework).

it was amusing listening to Doug Gottlieb feign moral indignation over this during halftime of the butler/iu game. I'm not sure what he was complaining about, but that's Doug Gottlieb for ya.

One of the cbs guys (the others were Brando and Seth) mentioned the catholics may go after the "Big East" name. They're certainly no less big or less east than the teams remaining.

[ForkFondler]

The Big East name is totally worthless. What remains for the surviving members is the concept of a hybrid league. Albatross? I think not. The ability to segregate the football and basketball marketing contracts is brilliant. Soooooo, what UConn, Temple, and Cincy, and Memphis need to figure out is who they should be playing basketball plus a few other sports with. There are some really good options out there, most of which are in the A10.

Hello Catholic league, goodbye A10. What morons said it's all about football?

[rocketeli]

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe someone already said this--but why not think outside the box? Have the infamous 16 team bcs conferences--but ONLY for football--with the schools getting the revenue that they are due, and have every school in another completely different league system for all other sports, so they can play locally to keep rivalries, keep down costs, and keep the non-revenue kids in class? Seems like the Big East was sort of reaching for this model, but it would probably work if every Division I team did it.

[ForkFondler]

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe someone already said this--but why not think outside the box? Have the infamous 16 team bcs conferences--but ONLY for football--with the schools getting the revenue that they are due, and have every school in another completely different league system for all other sports, so they can play locally to keep rivalries, keep down costs, and keep the non-revenue kids in class? Seems like the Big East was sort of reaching for this model, but it would probably work if every Division I team did it.

In Maryland, home of the Twerps, high schools are categorized by a) enrollment for the playoffs, and b) prior performance for the regular season. SOrt out the TV contracts, and the same at the college level. Sport-specific promotion and relegation. Do it, Go team.

[alteran]

Anybody here, as Duke fans, really all that worried that Duke'll get left out in the cold once the music stops?? Really?

:confused: :rolleyes: :p

Yeah, really. Here's the current membership of what I call "the expansion winners":


Big 1x: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin. Plus Maryland and Rutgers.
SEC: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, The other USC, Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU, Miss State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M.
PAC: Arizona, ASU, UC-Berkely, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State.

There's three private schools in that list-- one in each conference. ONE.

Okay, now let's look at schools recently admitted to these power conferences. And by recently, I mean, "since 1990."

Big 1x: Penn State*, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers.
SEC: Arkanas*, Little USC*, TAMU, Missouri.
PAC: Colorado, Utah.

Not one of these conferences has added a private school since football expansion started-- even if you use the generous timeline of 90 to present. 7 schools have been added in the last TWO years-- ALL public. This isn't a coincidence, these schools are being invited for specific monetary reasons which do not apply in the case of private schools-- fanbase, (local) market dominance, and, as I've argued before, specifics in how cable contracts are paid.

If the larger question is "will Duke be fine?", the answer is, of course it will. It will continue to draw great students, do fantastic research, and invigorate its community. Playing in a conference devoid of historical rivalries is, in the larger scheme of things, no big deal.

But if I'm answering your question above, then absolutely I'm concerned. Not hopelessly so, but pretty convinced that we face long odds if the ACC collapses. It'd be foolish not to be.

--alteran

* Denotes schools admitted further back than the last couple years.

[sagegrouse]

Yeah, really. Here's the current membership of what I call "the expansion winners":


Big 1x: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin. Plus Maryland and Rutgers.
SEC: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, The other USC, Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU, Miss State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M.
PAC: Arizona, ASU, UC-Berkely, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State.

There's three private schools in that list-- one in each conference. ONE.

Okay, now let's look at schools recently admitted to these power conferences. And by recently, I mean, "since 1990."

Big 1x: Penn State*, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers.
SEC: Arkanas*, Little USC*, TAMU, Missouri.
PAC: Colorado, Utah.

Not one of these conferences has added a private school since football expansion started-- even if you use the generous timeline of 90 to present. 7 schools have been added in the last TWO years-- ALL public. This isn't a coincidence, these schools are being invited for specific monetary reasons which do not apply in the case of private schools-- fanbase, (local) market dominance, and, as I've argued before, specifics in how cable contracts are paid.

If the larger question is "will Duke be fine?", the answer is, of course it will. It will continue to draw great students, do fantastic research, and invigorate its community. Playing in a conference devoid of historical rivalries is, in the larger scheme of things, no big deal.

But if I'm answering your question above, then absolutely I'm concerned. Not hopelessly so, but pretty convinced that we face long odds if the ACC collapses.

Your timeline was cleverly designed to omit Baylor, which went to the Big 12 with the end of the Southwest Conference. And your definition was narrow enough to exclude Miami, BC and Syracuse, all of whom went to the ACC.

Also, there is the geographic dimension. Here are the private schools in the BCS conferences (+ND) by time zone:

Pacific: USC, Stanford
Mountain: None
Central: Baylor, Northwestern, Vanderbilt
Eastern: Notre Dame, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Boston College

Whatever else happens, there will be a reasonable football and strong basketball conference left to cover these East Coast teams including a number of state institutions that don't happen to appeal to the Big Ten and SEC. And no, I am not particularly worried about what the Flyover Conference (Big 12) will do to the ACC.

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

Your timeline was cleverly designed to omit Baylor, which went to the Big 12 with the end of the Southwest Conference. And your definition was narrow enough to exclude Miami, BC and Syracuse, all of whom went to the ACC.

Also, there is the geographic dimension. Here are the private schools in the BCS conferences (+ND) by time zone:

Pacific: USC, Stanford
Mountain: None
Central: Baylor, Northwestern, Vanderbilt
Eastern: Notre Dame, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Boston College

Whatever else happens, there will be a reasonable football and strong basketball conference left to cover these East Coast teams including a number of state institutions that don't happen to appeal to the Big Ten and SEC. And no, I am not particularly worried about what the Flyover Conference (Big 12) will do to the ACC.

sagegrouse

Wow, I suppose I should have known this, but the idea that there are only 10 private schools in BCS conferences (plus Notre Dame) really boggles my mind. And since six of the ten are in the East, and the seventh (Notre Dame) has repeatedly rebuffed overtures to join a conference for football, it makes sense that there wouldn't be so many private schools in the Big 10, Pac 12, or Big 12. It's possible the OP's point is valid concerning the SEC, however.

Good call noting that USC is a private university (the OP counted them as a public school). I do have one minor quibble with your post, though -- the OP didn't cleverly omit Baylor, he doesn't count the Big 12 as an "expansion winner" at all, presumably lumping the Big 12 in with the ACC.

[crimsonandblue]

Your timeline was cleverly designed to omit Baylor, which went to the Big 12 with the end of the Southwest Conference. And your definition was narrow enough to exclude Miami, BC and Syracuse, all of whom went to the ACC.

Also, there is the geographic dimension. Here are the private schools in the BCS conferences (+ND) by time zone:

Pacific: USC, Stanford
Mountain: None
Central: Baylor, Northwestern, Vanderbilt
Eastern: Notre Dame, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Boston College

Whatever else happens, there will be a reasonable football and strong basketball conference left to cover these East Coast teams including a number of state institutions that don't happen to appeal to the Big Ten and SEC. And no, I am not particularly worried about what the Flyover Conference (Big 12) will do to the ACC.

sagegrouse

TCU is private. I'm not particularly sure why they were added to the Big XII, but they were. Well, that's not entirely true. I do know why they were added and it was the unique circumstance of finding a good football school that also was capable of making a quick move to the conference to shore up the existing TV contract (which required a certain number of schools).

[cowetarock]

In case it matters, it's official (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8749700/seven-schools-decide-leave-big-east-pursue-new-basketball-framework).

it was amusing listening to Doug Gottlieb feign moral indignation over this during halftime of the butler/iu game. I'm not sure what he was complaining about, but that's Doug Gottlieb for ya.

One of the cbs guys (the others were Brando and Seth) mentioned the catholics may go after the "Big East" name. They're certainly no less big or less east than the teams remaining.

For any conference searching for a new name now that geographical location and/or numerical count are no longer accurate,I would suggest the Hanseatic League is available.

[alteran]

Your timeline was cleverly designed to omit Baylor, which went to the Big 12 with the end of the Southwest Conference. And your definition was narrow enough to exclude Miami, BC and Syracuse, all of whom went to the ACC.

Also, there is the geographic dimension. Here are the private schools in the BCS conferences (+ND) by time zone:

Pacific: USC, Stanford
Mountain: None
Central: Baylor, Northwestern, Vanderbilt
Eastern: Notre Dame, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Boston College

Whatever else happens, there will be a reasonable football and strong basketball conference left to cover these East Coast teams including a number of state institutions that don't happen to appeal to the Big Ten and SEC. And no, I am not particularly worried about what the Flyover Conference (Big 12) will do to the ACC.

sagegrouse

I'm not really sure you needed to imply there was something untoward about my timeline to make your argument. In fact, I think it would have been stronger without it.

Baylor (unknowingly) got left out because, as I stated above, I considered the Big 1x, SEC, and PAC the clear winners of the expansion madness, I'm not sure the Big 12 qualifies (yet). I'll grant, it seems the likeliest outcome. The subtext of dinging me for leaving them out, though, is that the Big 12 is the 4th clear winner (and hence it should have been included).

That fact alone-- that the ACC is the 5th conference out of 4-- should be sufficient cause for worry all by itself.

However, if it makes you feel better, please feel free to add Baylor all by its lonesome into my count. The latter-day expansion schools go from 10-0 to 11-1-- not exactly an argument-breaking difference. A stronger counter argument might have been "you counted Southern Cal as public in your conference count, you dolt." I honestly had never known before that USC wasn't a public institution. Oops. Still, no big shifts in the numbers.

I agree that it's intriguing that much of the east coast is entirely unrepresented (currently!) in the expansion madness. Is that much media market going to fall outside the mainstream? That certainly makes it plausible that the remainders will either have SOME national credibility OR will be included in the big event-- if only at the kids table.

But even with these possibilities, I think Duke has a lot to be concerned about.

[sagegrouse]

TCU is private. I'm not particularly sure why they were added to the Big XII, but they were. Well, that's not entirely true. I do know why they were added and it was the unique circumstance of finding a good football school that also was capable of making a quick move to the conference to shore up the existing TV contract (which required a certain number of schools).

Sorry, I forgot the Horny Frogs. Actually, they were first recruited for the Big East, which has now added private SMU and Tulane (we'll see how that works out).

Sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

I'm not really sure you needed to imply there was something untoward about my timeline to make your argument. In fact, I think it would have been stronger without it.

Baylor (unknowingly) got left out because, as I stated above, I considered the Big 1x, SEC, and PAC the clear winners of the expansion madness, I'm not sure the Big 12 qualifies (yet). I'll grant, it seems the likeliest outcome. The subtext of dinging me for leaving them out, though, is that the Big 12 is the 4th clear winner (and hence it should have been included).

That fact alone-- that the ACC is the 5th conference out of 4-- should be sufficient cause for worry all by itself.

However, if it makes you feel better, please feel free to add Baylor all by its lonesome into my count. The latter-day expansion schools go from 10-0 to 11-1-- not exactly an argument-breaking difference. A stronger counter argument might have been "you counted Southern Cal as public in your conference count, you dolt." I honestly had never known before that USC wasn't a public institution. Oops. Still, no big shifts in the numbers.

I agree that it's intriguing that much of the east coast is entirely unrepresented (currently!) in the expansion madness. Is that much media market going to fall outside the mainstream? That certainly makes it plausible that the remainders will either have SOME national credibility OR will be included in the big event-- if only at the kids table.

But even with these possibilities, I think Duke has a lot to be concerned about.

I didn't mean to imply anything sinister -- just artful arguing. When, however, you have named premier conferences to be the Big Ten, the SEC and the PAC-12, encompassing states with very, very few private schools attempting to play big-time athletics, I have a hard time seeing how the absence of recruiting private schools for these conferences has any implications for Duke (or Miami or Syracuse or BC or Wake) Therefore, I don't agree with your argument that Duke, as a private school, is in a world of hurt.

In a more positive way, I see Duke's position as pretty good: (a) There is bound to be a good strong conference left for Duke, even if there is more poaching of ACC teams. (b) Duke is in the top 30 of universities in athletic revenue -- ahead of a bunch of schools in the conferences you named. (c) I wouldn't be surprised if there were more talk of Duke and UNC to the Big Ten.

sagegrouse

[hurleyfor3]

If the ACC rips apart I think the catholic league gives Duke an out, as least as far as basketball is concerned. They're gonna drop any pretense of religious mission pretty fast if it means letting Duke in. Losing football (I-A at least) is not obviously a bad thing, if the major-conference-membership ship has already sailed.

[alteran]

I didn't mean to imply anything sinister -- just artful arguing. When, however, you have named premier conferences to be the Big Ten, the SEC and the PAC-12, encompassing states with very, very few private schools attempting to play big-time athletics, I have a hard time seeing how the absence of recruiting private schools for these conferences has any implications for Duke (or Miami or Syracuse or BC or Wake) Therefore, I don't agree with your argument that Duke, as a private school, is in a world of hurt.

In a more positive way, I see Duke's position as pretty good: (a) There is bound to be a good strong conference left for Duke, even if there is more poaching of ACC teams. (b) Duke is in the top 30 of universities in athletic revenue -- ahead of a bunch of schools in the conferences you named. (c) I wouldn't be surprised if there were more talk of Duke and UNC to the Big Ten.


Fair enough.

As I've argued before, I actually think the dominant factor isn't private vs. public per se, but fanbases and in particular REGIONALLY dominant fanbases both for cable and broadcast. Some of the private schools do well nationally (Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, and ahem, USC), but to me, the driver seems to be regional dominance and that quality is something the larger state schools have in spades.

We'll ultimately have to wait and see how well taken our positions are.

--alteran

[luvdahops]

If the ACC rips apart I think the catholic league gives Duke an out, as least as far as basketball is concerned. They're gonna drop any pretense of religious mission pretty fast if it means letting Duke in. Losing football (I-A at least) is not obviously a bad thing, if the major-conference-membership ship has already sailed.

Agreed. Butler and VCU are among the expansion candidates for the Gang of Seven, and neither is Catholic in affiliation. Xavier, Creighton, Saint Louis and Dayton all are though.

As a hoops fan, I would hope to see the new league capped at 10 teams to allow for a full home and home schedule and a relatively tight tournament format. 8 would be even better but seems highly unlikely. It sounds like Xavier and Butler are the primary targets at this point. Both are private and are located in relatively large metro areas.

[Duvall]

If the ACC rips apart I think the catholic league gives Duke an out, as least as far as basketball is concerned. They're gonna drop any pretense of religious mission pretty fast if it means letting Duke in. Losing football (I-A at least) is not obviously a bad thing, if the major-conference-membership ship has already sailed.

Why would Duke do that, when there will be plenty of schools in the east for an all-sports league as strong in basketball as the Catholic league?

[hurleyfor3]

Why would Duke do that, when there will be plenty of schools in the east for an all-sports league as strong in basketball as the Catholic league?

I'm saying that's a worst-case scenario, not a best-case. We won't be left out in the UColdd.

[ForkFondler]

Why would Duke do that, when there will be plenty of schools in the east for an all-sports league as strong in basketball as the Catholic league?

Exactly. Worst-case is that Duke ends up in a lesser football league and a better basketball league. Which, come to think of it, wouldn't be that bad at all.

[nyesq83]

It will be interesting to see where collegiate lacrosse vs. football are in 20 years...

[budwom]

If the ACC rips apart I think the catholic league gives Duke an out, as least as far as basketball is concerned. They're gonna drop any pretense of religious mission pretty fast if it means letting Duke in. Losing football (I-A at least) is not obviously a bad thing, if the major-conference-membership ship has already sailed.

In fact on the day this story broke, I heard some quotes on SportsCenter to the effect they did NOT want it to be exclusively a Catholic league. After all, what benefit would that be? And they would like
to appeal to a broader range of schools.

[tieguy]

Why would Duke do that, when there will be plenty of schools in the east for an all-sports league as strong in basketball as the Catholic league?

Serious question - who?

(And, if an ACC meltdown gives us the opportunity to ditch football, which is simultaneously expensive, morally questionable (head trauma), and something we have been bad at for 50 years, why shouldn't we seize that opportunity?)

~tieguy (who would prefer the Ivies with a Hopkins-lax style exception for basketball than a hypothetical Big East Splitters league, and suspects lots of younger alums would be in the same boat)

[Duvall]

Serious question - who?

(And, if an ACC meltdown gives us the opportunity to ditch football, which is simultaneously expensive, morally questionable (head trauma), and something we have been bad at for 50 years, why shouldn't we seize that opportunity?)

~tieguy (who would prefer the Ivies with a Hopkins-lax style exception for basketball than a hypothetical Big East Splitters league, and suspects lots of younger alums would be in the same boat)

The Ivy League plays football, or something that they call football, anyway. I can understand wanting to drop football, but I can't understand choosing to play football in a lower subdivision. All of the moral quandaries, but with much less fan interest.

In any case, it probably would have been better to have this conversation before Duke committed to spending $100 million on upgrading its football, basketball and other athletic facilities.

[blazindw]

~tieguy (who would prefer the Ivies with a Hopkins-lax style exception for basketball than a hypothetical Big East Splitters league, and suspects lots of younger alums would be in the same boat)

Most of the younger alums that I know (and I'm throwing myself in that boat despite my recent ascension to the age of 30) would completely disagree with this. Most of us love college football and want Duke to be successful in FBS/D-1A, not drop football to a lower division or, worse, get rid of it altogether.

[TruBlu]

Most of the younger alums that I know (and I'm throwing myself in that boat despite my recent ascension to the age of 30) would completely disagree with this. Most of us love college football and want Duke to be successful in FBS/D-1A, not drop football to a lower division or, worse, get rid of it altogether.

I'm not young, and I'm not an alum. I completely agree with you disagreeing! I have suffered many disappointing seasons as a ticket holder and fan. I am not willing to give up (or go down) now, especially when it appears we have turned the corner.

[DueBlevil]

Most of the younger alums that I know (and I'm throwing myself in that boat despite my recent ascension to the age of 30) would completely disagree with this. Most of us love college football and want Duke to be successful in FBS/D-1A, not drop football to a lower division or, worse, get rid of it altogether.


I'm not young, and I'm not an alum. I completely agree with you disagreeing! I have suffered many disappointing seasons as a ticket holder and fan. I am not willing to give up (or go down) now, especially when it appears we have turned the corner.

I am a young alum and I agree with both of you. I would be crushed if Duke dropped football or decided to drop to a lower level of competition. Believe it or not, I would rather have a bad football team than just give up on the program altogether. To be honest, I've never understood the sentiment (by some) in the older generations who seem to be fine with just dumping a program (in the most visible, popular, lucrative sport in all of college athletics) because we're not good. I am so glad the administration has decided to go in the opposite direction!

[pamtar]

This may have already been mentioned but I don't believe so. If the ACC implodes and Duke is left in the cold then why not go independent? We have the credibility in hoops to get a fancy TV contract from ABC/ESPN, and I believe the football team has enough current and historical clout to remain a FBS school in whatever system is implemented in the future.

This way we keep a home/home with unc, play state, wake, or whoever once a year, and then load the schedule up with marquee matchups and cupcakes the rest of the season. Personally, there are very few teams in the ACC that I find intriguing on a year-to-year basis. Who wouldn't want to see Mich St, UCLA, KU, etc play at Cameron every other year?

In fact the more I think about it the more I feel that Duke may one of the only schools under the expansion gun who could pull this off and actually be successful. Would football not be in a better position as an independent? If Cut could pull off a few big time SEC or B1G wins wouldnt that be better than beating FSU or Clemson in terms of national relevance? A yearly game against ND or USC wouldn't be out of the picture, nor would a possible invite to the playoff - should our record deserve it I presume.

A lot of me sleepily type/thinking here but I think Im actually kinda sorta rooting for this happen now.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

This may have already been mentioned but I don't believe so. If the ACC implodes and Duke is left in the cold then why not go independent? We have the credibility in hoops to get a fancy TV contract from ABC/ESPN, and I believe the football team has enough current and historical clout to remain a FBS school in whatever system is implemented in the future.

.

What does that do to all of the other non-revenue sports? If you look at Notre Dame, yes, finding a home for basketball is part of it, but I am convinced that a major reason they joined (non-football) the Big East and now the ACC is to have a home for their other sports.

Jim

[BlueDevil16]

I feel like most younger duke alums and students want Duke to move to the SEC/Big 10 if the ACC loses a few more teams. Although students don't care too much about football, big games (Like UNC) had a fantastic turnout.

[blazindw]

This may have already been mentioned but I don't believe so. If the ACC implodes and Duke is left in the cold then why not go independent? We have the credibility in hoops to get a fancy TV contract from ABC/ESPN, and I believe the football team has enough current and historical clout to remain a FBS school in whatever system is implemented in the future.

This way we keep a home/home with unc, play state, wake, or whoever once a year, and then load the schedule up with marquee matchups and cupcakes the rest of the season. Personally, there are very few teams in the ACC that I find intriguing on a year-to-year basis. Who wouldn't want to see Mich St, UCLA, KU, etc play at Cameron every other year?

In fact the more I think about it the more I feel that Duke may one of the only schools under the expansion gun who could pull this off and actually be successful. Would football not be in a better position as an independent? If Cut could pull off a few big time SEC or B1G wins wouldnt that be better than beating FSU or Clemson in terms of national relevance? A yearly game against ND or USC wouldn't be out of the picture, nor would a possible invite to the playoff - should our record deserve it I presume.

A lot of me sleepily type/thinking here but I think Im actually kinda sorta rooting for this happen now.

Being independent in football is one thing. Being independent in basketball is another. Remember, as an independent, there's no chance of us automatically qualifying for the tourney (with the new conference the 7 non-football Big East teams are forming, there will be probably 32 conferences that will get an automatic bid). Now, you would think that we wouldn't have to worry about being on the bubble every year, but as an independent the margin for error is that much smaller. Plus, it will create scheduling problems in January and February as most every other team is in the thick of conference play. We're one of the only schools from big conferences to (except this year) schedule a nonconference game in the middle of conference season. It will be much harder to get those quality opponents that we would want to play.

[Mudge]

I think there are many facts being ignored, in this discussion; I'd like to reiterate some of those facts-- and then make some inferences (with which others may differ) from those facts, but at least we'd be arguing over inferences from a set of facts, instead of starting with (in many cases) wild suppositions as our starting point:

Facts:
1) At major research universities (generally, but not always, "flagship" state universities), research budgets dwarf athletic budgets (on the order of 5-10 times bigger, on average-- at Duke, for example, research money [$800M] is ~10x bigger than the athletic budget [$80M]); moreover, at these research universities, the athletic budget is an even punier aspect of the institution, when compared with the overall budget-- at Michigan, the university's total budget is 45-50 times larger than the athletic department's budget-- making athletics roughly ~2% of the total (at Duke, the ratio is 40X, or ~2.5%). At these institutions, research is often 20%-30% of the total budget.

2) The major research universities are (generally) all members of the American Association of Universities (AAU)-- because having highly-rated research is a major scoring factor in attaining (and maintaining) the privilege of membership in the AAU; there are currently 60 US universities in the AAU. Current ACC members who are in the AAU include: Duke, UNC, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia Tech (which was just offered membership in 2010); future ACC members who are currently in the AAU include Pitt. Syracuse recently voluntarily withdrew from the AAU (because its membership status looked likely to be revoked, due to a decline in its research quality, and Syracuse did not want to go through the acrimony that Nebraska experienced, when Nebraska fought the AAU over revocation of its membership, due to deterioration in Nebraska's research quality). It is worth noting that the U. of Nebraska chancellor has flatly stated that the Big 10 would not have offered Nebraska membership in the Big 10, if Nebraska had not been a member of the AAU, at the time that the Big 10 extended the invitation to join the Big 10. It is further worth noting that future Big 10 members, Rutgers and Maryland, are members of the AAU (which is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has a lobbying group in DC which lobbies for federal research funds for its members, exclusively), as are all other current members of the Big 10 (except Nebraska); the Big 10 also operates its own little subdivision of the AAU, called the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation), which lobbies for research dollars for its 15 members (the 14 current/future members of the Big 10, plus Chicago, which was a Big 10 member until 1946), exclusively.

3) In most of the major television markets on the (northern) East Coast, there is not one college that dominates the landscape and holds most viewers' interest, the way the Big 10 schools hold sway over the various bigger midwestern TV markets, or the SEC schools dominate the Southern TV markets. BC is not an overwhelming draw in Boston, neither Syracuse nor Rutgers (nor any NYC-located school) is a dominant draw in NYC, Temple is not dominant in Philly, and Maryland is far from dominant in Baltimore or Washington-- certainly not the way that Ohio State dominates Cleveland & Columbus, Wisconsin dominates Milwaukee & Green Bay, Minnesota owns Minneapolis & St. Paul, Michigan/Michigan St. dominate Detroit & Grand Rapids, Penn St. owns Pittsburgh/western PA, Nebraska dominates Omaha, Indiana/Purdue own Indy, and (to a lesser extent) Illinois holds sway over Chicago. This is partly a reflection of the diversity of colleges in those East Coast cities (Boston splits allegiances between BC, BU, Harvard, UMass, and dozens of other private colleges-- NYC, Philly, and Washington have the same situation), as well as the long, deep, entrenched presence of pro sports in those cities, making college sports, in general, a much less dominant player in those cities. Also, the large number of people from other areas waters down the level of interest in any one local college-- NYC has too many transplants who retain their allegiances to some school located elsewhere, for there to be a dominant viewer focus on one of the local colleges' teams-- never mind that none of the local schools is good enough in athletics to engender that kind of rabid support.

4) The Big 10's current TV contract pays each of its members more per year ($32M) than Notre Dame gets ($15M) from its own exclusive national contract with NBC. ACC members currently get nearly as much ($13+M) from the ACC's TV contract as Notre Dame gets from NBC ($15M), and that gap will close, when the ACC renegotiates, to include Notre Dame playing 5 games/year against ACC schools.

Now, some of (my) inferences:

A) At the big research universities, athletics (~2%) isn't even the tail of the dog-- it's more like a wart on the tail of the dog; academic research (~20%-30%), on the other hand, is more like a vital organ. There is no way that President Brodhead should be making athletics ($80M), or which athletic conference Duke belongs to, his primary worry, as he goes about running a $3.2B (annual budget) university... Duke could drop football, basketball, and every other sport down to Division III, or spend $10-$20M on all the sports combined (as the Ivy League schools do), and not seriously change the fiscal situation of the university-- who can seriously say that completely lopping off 2% of an organization's budget is going to endanger the fiscal soundness of the organization-- especially when roughly equal amounts of expenses and revenues are being lopped off at the same time (since Duke, like most colleges, spends virtually every dollar it earns from athletics on athletics-- there is next to no excess revenue to contribute back to the university's general fund). In fact, at colleges like Rutgers (the most egregious example), and many others, sports cost more than they bring in, and are a significant drain on the university's coffers.

B) The Big 10 is serious, when they say that academics (and the research budget/quality/reputation of a university) matters when they consider a school for membership in the Big 10... all of their current schools are major players in research-- and Rutgers and Maryland fit that (AAU) profile... and it appears that Nebraska wouldn't have been offered Big 10 membership without their status as an AAU member (at that time).

C) Those who think that athletics success/revenues (specifically football) and/or TV markets are driving the Big 10's moves are letting their vision be obscured by minor, side issues. It certainly wasn't Rutgers and Maryland's football revenues or on-field prowess that led the Big 10 to offer those two schools membership in the Big 10. Nor can Rutgers or Maryland reasonably be counted on to deliver major TV viewing audiences in NYC, Philly, Washington, or Baltimore-- neither school has that kind of rabid following in those cities. For those who say it doesn't matter how many watch, as long as the Big 10 Network gets put on the local cable systems (and thus on the monthly cable bill for millions of local subscribers in those areas), I argue that it is far from a slam-dunk that the Big 10 Network gets on those systems (I live in the heart of Big 10 country, and most people around here do not have the Big 10 Network), and even if the Big 10 Network does get on some systems (at anything like the subscriber fees that the Big 10 hopes for), good luck maintaining that level of usury from the populace, when it becomes apparent that next to no one is watching the Big 10 Network in those areas-- especially when cable systems already recognize that their subscriber base is under attack from ever more people choosing to disconnect from TV service, and only watch shows on demand over the internet-- the cable guys have become much more aggressive in fighting additional channel subscription charges being added into their base costs, as they see their customers react to higher costs by turning off their cable subscriptions.

D) Notre Dame is not in as great a negotiating position, vis a` vis the ACC, that some here seem to think they are... yes, Notre Dame, despite not being an AAU member, and not having a premier level of research, holds some interest for the Big 10 and the Big 12, as well as the ACC-- but I think the Big 10 has moved on, realizing that they are playing a much bigger stakes money game (i.e.- research) than Notre Dame-- and therefore realizing that they never needed to kowtow at the feet of Notre Dame (with unequal revenue sharing for football), because the benefits to Notre Dame from ND's membership in the Big 10 would have been bigger than the benefits to the Big 10... and I don't think the ACC (if they are smart) needs to do so, either. If the big football playing conferences ultimately make a putsch to shove aside the NCAA, and control their own athletic agenda, they can easily afford to ignore Notre Dame, and leave ND out in the cold... at which point, ND will come crying, hat in hand, to obtain membership in one of the conferences that make up the new association (whatever it is called)-- Notre Dame is too reliant (much like the academically-weak, research-poor state schools in the South) on football for its reputation and overall budget (ironically, since ND has gradually become a top-quality undergraduate school)- ND believes (mistakenly, IMO) that it can't afford not to be included in the top level of college football play.

E) The ACC schools in the best position to gain offers of admission to another, more attractive conference are going to be the AAU members-- UNC, UVa, followed by GIT, Duke, then Pitt-- with the big, state flagship universities more attractive, because they offer both large research budgets, and large athletic fan followings (the best of both worlds, to the Big 10). Although Duke has a massive research budget, it has the same problem as GIT and Pitt-- it has far fewer fans (and thus is far less attractive from a potential incremental athletic revenue perspective) in its home city/region than an alternative school-- UNC (for Duke), Georgia (for GIT), and Penn State (for Pitt). I see UNC as the most prized addition for the Big 10, followed by UVa, with a big drop down to GIT, then Duke and Pitt. None of the other ACC schools will likely hold any allure for the Big 10.

[sagegrouse]

Thanks for your carefully thought out post -- much of which I agree with. My comments are below:


Now, some of (my) inferences:

A) At the big research universities, athletics (~2%) isn't even the tail of the dog-- it's more like a wart on the tail of the dog; academic research (~20%-30%), on the other hand, is more like a vital organ. There is no way that President Brodhead should be making athletics ($80M), or which athletic conference Duke belongs to, his primary worry, as he goes about running a $3.2B (annual budget) university... Duke could drop football, basketball, and every other sport down to Division III, or spend $10-$20M on all the sports combined (as the Ivy League schools do), and not seriously change the fiscal situation of the university-- who can seriously say that completely lopping off 2% of an organization's budget is going to endanger the fiscal soundness of the organization-- especially when roughly equal amounts of expenses and revenues are being lopped off at the same time (since Duke, like most colleges, spends virtually every dollar it earns from athletics on athletics-- there is next to no excess revenue to contribute back to the university's general fund). In fact, at colleges like Rutgers (the most egregious example), and many others, sports cost more than they bring in, and are a significant drain on the university's coffers..

You might want to think of athletics as the marketing budget of the university. Frank Broyles described athletics as the "front porch of the university." Adopting the Wash U. or U. of Chicago model, i.e. Div III athletics, would change Duke in a fairly fundamental way, IMHO (where the H is silent) and I think Brodhead and the Board would agree. Does Duke benefit from being a household name among universities? I think so.

Anyway, these are all concerns of the President,. Academics and research? You do recognize that the faculty is jealous of its prerogatives and, for good reasons and bad, want the school president to focus on fund-raising.

Fund-raising? Do athletics help with fund-raising for academic programs? You bet!


B) The Big 10 is serious, when they say that academics (and the research budget/quality/reputation of a university) matters when they consider a school for membership in the Big 10... all of their current schools are major players in research-- and Rutgers and Maryland fit that (AAU) profile... and it appears that Nebraska wouldn't have been offered Big 10 membership without their status as an AAU member (at that time)..

Totally agree. Faculty say has always had a bigger role in the Big Ten than in other conferences.


C) Those who think that athletics success/revenues (specifically football) and/or TV markets are driving the Big 10's moves are letting their vision be obscured by minor, side issues. It certainly wasn't Rutgers and Maryland's football revenues or on-field prowess that led the Big 10 to offer those two schools membership in the Big 10. Nor can Rutgers or Maryland reasonably be counted on to deliver major TV viewing audiences in NYC, Philly, Washington, or Baltimore-- neither school has that kind of rabid following in those cities. For those who say it doesn't matter how many watch, as long as the Big 10 Network gets put on the local cable systems (and thus on the monthly cable bill for millions of local subscribers in those areas), I argue that it is far from a slam-dunk that the Big 10 Network gets on those systems (I live in the heart of Big 10 country, and most people around here do not have the Big 10 Network), and even if the Big 10 Network does get on some systems (at anything like the subscriber fees that the Big 10 hopes for), good luck maintaining that level of usury from the populace, when it becomes apparent that next to no one is watching the Big 10 Network in those areas-- especially when cable systems already recognize that their subscriber base is under attack from ever more people choosing to disconnect from TV service, and only watch shows on demand over the internet-- the cable guys have become much more aggressive in fighting additional channel subscription charges being added into their base costs, as they see their customers react to higher costs by turning off their cable subscriptions..

I don't agree with the conclusion. The Big Ten expansion to the East Coast was driven by economics, IMHO, which had both offensive and defensive components. Offensive: I really think the Big Ten believes that Maryland and Rutgers will increase revenue per school. Defensive: expansion gives the Big Ten a larger footprint and puts the ACC on the defensive. Now FWIW I think the larger footprint is less stable than the traditional Big Ten membership, but we'll see.

Maryland and Rutgers research was a necessary condition, to get past the faculty overseers, but was not in any way sufficient. I really believe this was and is about dollars.


D) Notre Dame is not in as great a negotiating position, vis a` vis the ACC, that some here seem to think they are... yes, Notre Dame, despite not being an AAU member, and not having a premier level of research, holds some interest for the Big 10 and the Big 12, as well as the ACC-- but I think the Big 10 has moved on, realizing that they are playing a much bigger stakes money game (i.e.- research) than Notre Dame-- and therefore realizing that they never needed to kowtow at the feet of Notre Dame (with unequal revenue sharing for football), because the benefits to Notre Dame from ND's membership in the Big 10 would have been bigger than the benefits to the Big 10... and I don't think the ACC (if they are smart) needs to do so, either. If the big football playing conferences ultimately make a putsch to shove aside the NCAA, and control their own athletic agenda, they can easily afford to ignore Notre Dame, and leave ND out in the cold... at which point, ND will come crying, hat in hand, to obtain membership in one of the conferences that make up the new association (whatever it is called)-- Notre Dame is too reliant (much like the academically-weak, research-poor state schools in the South) on football for its reputation and overall budget (ironically, since ND has gradually become a top-quality undergraduate school)- ND believes (mistakenly, IMO) that it can't afford not to be included in the top level of college football play..

I honestly think the Big Ten would have accepted Notre Dame in a heartbeat, letting its generally excellent undergraduate programs and high-caliber student body make up for the fairly minute research program. Of course, there is ancient history here, where Notre Dame would not have been welcome in the Big Ten as a Catholic school.

I completely agree that the Big Ten would not have cut the same deal as the ACC.



E) The ACC schools in the best position to gain offers of admission to another, more attractive conference are going to be the AAU members-- UNC, UVa, followed by GIT, Duke, then Pitt-- with the big, state flagship universities more attractive, because they offer both large research budgets, and large athletic fan followings (the best of both worlds, to the Big 10). Although Duke has a massive research budget, it has the same problem as GIT and Pitt-- it has far fewer fans (and thus is far less attractive from a potential incremental athletic revenue perspective) in its home city/region than an alternative school-- UNC (for Duke), Georgia (for GIT), and Penn State (for Pitt). I see UNC as the most prized addition for the Big 10, followed by UVa, with a big drop down to GIT, then Duke and Pitt. None of the other ACC schools will likely hold any allure for the Big 10.

I think the attractiveness of ACC schools depends on the conference. Your list is reasonable for the Big Ten, although I would put Duke at the top of the "most wanted" list, mostly because I am deluded by the attractiveness of the combination of ahtletics and academics.

For the SEC it would be UNC, State and UVa, I think -- given the conflicts from already having member schools in FL, GA, and SC.

For the Flyover Country Conference (Big 12) it would be FSU, Clemson, and UNC, I think.

sagegrouse

[mgtr]

Some years ago, when I was arguing with the Chancellor on behalf of the athletic department, I wasn't clever enough to come up with "front porch." My argument was that about 80% of the positive press that our school (relatively small, still in Division II at that time) achieved came from the athletics department. While the Chancellor agreed, we still didn't get much more money. Those were back in the new days of Title 9, and the Chancellor wanted to strip money from mens' athletics budget to fund womens' athletics. This approach worked for a year or two, but then a new source (student fees, where else) of funds was found to fund both mens' and womens' programs.

[greybeard]

When does a conference sufficiently lose connection with its traditions and history to no longer exist. To me that happened to The Big when Syracuse, Pitt, and ND joined BC as loses to the ACC. I said so here. There were, of course, other changes, the recent discordant additions, but to me the losses were what were most significant. The question to me is soon posed, can a conference sufficiently lose connection with tradition and history primarily through addition that it loses identity? "Not really a soup question," now is it. Finding Forrester.

[hurleyfor3]

"It's kind of hard to rally around a math class." -- Barry Switzer

[Mudge]

"It's kind of hard to rally around a math class." -- Barry Switzer

Yes, but how important is it really, to "rally around" something in college? As noted elsewhere, fewer and fewer students at Duke are finding it necessary or compelling to attend basketball games, as evidenced by the ever-shrinking section in Cameron devoted to student seating-- and yet it is not hard to argue objectively that Duke is as good a university (in the most complete, holistic sense of that concept) as it has ever been.

[nocilla]

Being independent in football is one thing. Being independent in basketball is another. Remember, as an independent, there's no chance of us automatically qualifying for the tourney (with the new conference the 7 non-football Big East teams are forming, there will be probably 32 conferences that will get an automatic bid). Now, you would think that we wouldn't have to worry about being on the bubble every year, but as an independent the margin for error is that much smaller. Plus, it will create scheduling problems in January and February as most every other team is in the thick of conference play. We're one of the only schools from big conferences to (except this year) schedule a nonconference game in the middle of conference season. It will be much harder to get those quality opponents that we would want to play.

Well the answer to this would be to join the Catholic 7 and just be independent in football. Not that I want this to happen, nor do I see it as likely, but it fits the scenerio 'pamtar' has created. I could see a decent Army rivalry. Although Idaho, New Mex St, and BYU would make for long road trips. But if they keep the rest of the schedule on the east coast (former ACC foes) it wouldn't be to bad.