2346 replies to this topic

[BigMike]

Here's the other shoe: http://www.bloguin.c...es-network.html

So NewsCorp is going to bundle Yes, Fox News, and the BTN into one package to get it put on basic cable in NYC. I'm sure they won't have to push hard to get Fox News and BTN in Maryland and DC.

There are, by some estimates, over 20 million cable subscribers in NYC/DC/Maryland. That's a lot of freaking television revenue. Not even considering what TV rights will be like in 2017.

Good thing the NCAA is a 501©(3).

Of course if you believe that article than this expansion brings absolutely NOTHING to the table for the Big Ten network, and Murdoch had to go out and spend 800 million n YES network, so he could bully cable companies into taking the Big Ten network. If Rutgers added any value then he wouldn't have needed to do that.

Now admittedly he bought the YES network because he believe it is a good investment

[Infield Infidel]

Weinreb eloquently rips the B1G a new one

Forgive me a personal indulgence, but I want to get this down so I can forever remember where I was the moment that the Big Ten extended its clublike footprint all up into the Northeast corridor's blue-state posterior: I was actually sitting in a press box at Camp Randall Stadium in Madison, Wisconsin, preparing to write a story about the epic football-related failures of the Big Ten conference. Adam Rittenberg, one of ESPN's hardworking Big Ten bloggers, informed me of the rumors, and I did not believe them at first, because I could not imagine that even this tree sloth of a conference would engage in such a reflexively cynical exercise in eastward expansion.

By the third quarter, the story had broken: Maryland and Rutgers, a pair of athletic programs with questionable finances and perpetually bland football traditions, were barreling headlong toward membership in the conflagration once known, in its earliest days, as the Western Conference. It was all about television markets, we were told, about "expanding reach," about every damned MBA concept you could think of except the actual product, because I guess the assumption in the Big Ten offices is that the product will eventually catch up to the money being thrown at it.
Not long after, the Snuffleupagus of a football game I was attending resumed. The host Wisconsin Badgers had already clinched the championship of what I am certain is either the Leaders or Legends Division — honestly, I've studied hard, but I still don't know which is which — by virtue of locking up third place; the visiting Ohio State Buckeyes were undefeated at 10-0 and playing in the same division with no real shot at winning anything, largely because their ex-quarterback had procured discount tattoos.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 20 November 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[OnWisc]

Weinreb eloquently rips the B1G a new one

I read this earlier today and found it an incredibly cynical stream of vitriol more worthy of being posted on a message board than presented by a major media outlet. I've documented my issues with Delany and recent Big Ten developments elsewhere in this thread, but at no point have I felt "burdened by positive feelings" to Wisconsin, or "bled" for the few extra dollars that bring the BTN and countless Badger games into my home. And I can say the same about the numerous other Big Ten alums with whom I associate.

While the SEC remains the class of the nation when it comes to on-field product, the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Big 12 will continue to jockey for second through fourth positions, and will likely occupy each spot on a cyclical basis. The author's tactic of basing part of his argument on the draft positions of Big Ten quarterbacks, and on the home state of quarterbacks, seems somewhat nonsensical. When the conference has produced guys such as Brady and Brees, who cares if they weren't taken in the first round? That's an indictment of the NFL. The fact that both came from outside Big Ten country is either irrelevant, or supportive of the Big Ten's ability to recruit nationally. Neither really seem reasons on which to base the derision he is directing toward the conference.

Perhaps to fans outside the conference, Big Ten games have become slower and less compelling. Or perhaps it's just that, as a professional, Weinreb can simply no longer appreciate the game as a fan. While I'm less than pleased with the Wisconsin offensive line this season, it's exactly the kind of football that I like to watch. And simply walking past the bars on Lincoln Avenue in Chicago on a Saturday afternoon will show that there are plenty of people that find the various Big Ten matchups each week compelling. The fact that he characterizes the final few thrilling possessions in Madison last Saturday as a cold fish swimming upstream, and the offensive playcalling and execution that led to Wisconsin tying the game with 8 seconds left as "mind-bogglingly infuriating" (I will admit he may have a point on one play he's referencing here) and "unsightly", should do little more than underscore the fact that his opinions are pre-determined. As far as his theories on competition, Wisconsin can serve as a case study for a program that routinely plays on New Year's day despite national recruiting abilities that are limited, at best.

Weinreb begins the article by asking forgiveness for a pending indulgence, which then comes in the form of a hastily assembled opinion piece that portrays him as little more than the embodiment of the stereotypical Penn State fan who remains bitter over joining the Big Ten, and who cites conspiracy and bias on part of the Big Ten establishment as the only things separating Penn State from the heights it achieved as an independent. But I'm not sure if he's expecting forgiveness, or hearty thanks from the unenlightened masses for throwing back the curtain and revealing the plodding dullness of Big Ten games, the inarguable demographics that portend the demise of the conference as a competitive threat, and the overall vileness of the conference leadership who take advantage of the great unwashed by force feeding us a deteriorating product that I apparently should smarten up and stop enjoying.

EDIT: Alright, kind of a talk radio rant that adds little (or nothing) to the realignment discussion. But had to offer something in the way of a rebuttal that, at the very least, is hopefully spelled and punctuated properly.

Edited by OnWisc, 20 November 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Dan Murfman]

Take it for what's worth but the guy who broke the Maryland to the Big 10 is hearing UNC and Virginia might have Big 10 offers.

[RedOctober3829]

#Hokies AD Jim Weaver says there "may be potential interest" in talking with the #SEC about future membership.

https://twitter.com/...074542850568192

[Dan Murfman]

So I would have to say its looking good for UConn to the ACC

[Captaincoop]

So if true, we now have 8 lifeboats remaining, and at least a dozen deserving schools out there looking for a spot.

Let the games begin!

[Clears Cleaver]

The ACC is toast unless ND commits full time. No chance. If UNC passes on a Big10 invite they are morons. The big 10 gets UVa and UNC and,FSU and Clemson and GTech go big 12. VaTech to SEC with NCS.

Fun, right? Thanks ND

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Of course if you believe that article than this expansion brings absolutely NOTHING to the table for the Big Ten network, and Murdoch had to go out and spend 800 million n YES network, so he could bully cable companies into taking the Big Ten network. If Rutgers added any value then he wouldn't have needed to do that.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Obviously, it should help immensely in any negotiation to have both YES and BTN with Rutgers in a discussion of what channels belong on basic cable. The issue is that Fox/Big10 want their channels on basic cable where people are required to pay for the channel rather than on the premium tiers, where people can opt-out.

On another note, a pretty good lamentation on the state of college athletics: http://www.cbssports...-college-sports

[Captaincoop]

The ACC is toast unless ND commits full time. No chance. If UNC passes on a Big10 invite they are morons. The big 10 gets UVa and UNC and,FSU and Clemson and GTech go big 12. VaTech to SEC with NCS.

Fun, right? Thanks ND

There is still a major variable in play - the Pac-12. Who will they take to get to 16? Apparently the Big XII schools are not an option because they had their arms twisted into signing the grant of rights on their TV deal.

The other options for the Pac-12 on the west coast make no sense - they won't stoop to SDSU or Boise, and there was a lot of opposition to BYU the first time around. Do they try and put something together to grab a share of East Coast markets? Make a play for ND (I still think that is the most likely conference to actually land ND fulltime at some point)?

[BigMike]

There is still a major variable in play - the Pac-12. Who will they take to get to 16? Apparently the Big XII schools are not an option because they had their arms twisted into signing the grant of rights on their TV deal.

The other options for the Pac-12 on the west coast make no sense - they won't stoop to SDSU or Boise, and there was a lot of opposition to BYU the first time around. Do they try and put something together to grab a share of East Coast markets? Make a play for ND (I still think that is the most likely conference to actually land ND fulltime at some point)?

See that is what blocks the 16 team superconferences. Sure the Pac 12 would take ND, but other than that the only other teams they seem to have any interest in are Texas and Oklahoma (and they might take OSU and/or another Texax team to make it work)

No way they will take Boise. It sure seems like no way they will take BYU. Air Force, maybe as a pair for ND, but not under any normal circumstance. And there is no one else west of the Mississippi who makes any sense

And were OU and UT to leave the Big12, then the Big 12 immediately becomes a second rate conference.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Obviously, it should help immensely in any negotiation to have both YES and BTN with Rutgers in a discussion of what channels belong on basic cable. The issue is that Fox/Big10 want their channels on basic cable where people are required to pay for the channel rather than on the premium tiers, where people can opt-out.

The article that was linked basically had FOX buying YES network as a way to Bully the cable companies to take Big Ten network. No cable company in NY will be adding BigTen to the package because a Rutgers team with a very limited fan base will have all their second rate games broadcast on

[OnWisc]

There is still a major variable in play - the Pac-12. Who will they take to get to 16? Apparently the Big XII schools are not an option because they had their arms twisted into signing the grant of rights on their TV deal.

The other options for the Pac-12 on the west coast make no sense - they won't stoop to SDSU or Boise, and there was a lot of opposition to BYU the first time around. Do they try and put something together to grab a share of East Coast markets? Make a play for ND (I still think that is the most likely conference to actually land ND fulltime at some point)?

I had pegged ND as, ultimately, a Big Ten team. But in the wake of the recent additions, coupled with the rumored UVA and UNC contact (which I still acknowledge is purely rumor at this point), I don't necessarily feel that way any longer.

I thought Delany was blowing smoke during the UMD press conference when he stated that they were not joining a Midwestern conference. But now I'm honestly considering the possibility that the Big Ten is on the verge of becoming a conference consisting primarily of large, state universities almost equally distributed between the Midwest, and the mid-Atlantic/northeast region. UNC or UVA to the Big Ten in isolation makes little sense, but a conference including Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UNC and UVA has a strong regional presence in the mid-Atlantic region despite where the rest of the conference is located.

Again, the UNC/UVA rumors may be nothing but just that, however, if there is truth to it, then as opposed to simply swallowing a few additional programs, the fundamental nature of the Big Ten would actually change. Viewing the possibility of UNC/UVA in such a light makes it seem more feasible. Those two, coupled with UMD and Rutgers would present almost (but not quite) as big a change for the BignTen as it would for the new programs.

As a Wisconsin fan, of course I'm in favor of this, as it would not only strengthen the conference as a whole, but would have to allow Wisconsin to get back to playing most of our conference games against the west. But with a very interesting eastern division to follow.

Edited by OnWisc, 21 November 2012 - 12:50 AM.

[Infield Infidel]

Unless Pac-12 add BYU and Air Force, I don't really see how they could expand. They would make great geographic rivals, and both have national brands, but they don't add markets or improve quality (unlike the Big 12, which would only get stronger adding the ACC football powers.)

So maybe the ACC gobbles up the rest of the Big East just to stay afloat with a frankenconference

BC, UConn, Syracuse, Temple, Pitt, Cinci, Wake, Duke, USF, Miami
+ ND and the Eastern Big East basketball schools (PC, GTown, Nova, St. John's, Seton Hall)
=16

Weirdly, this looks more like the Big East adding ACC schools.

[Morning Woodhead]

Take it for what's worth but the guy who broke the Maryland to the Big 10 is hearing UNC and Virginia might have Big 10 offers.

This is the rumor I've heard all along:

UNC/UVA to Big 10.
VT/NCSU to SEC
GT,FSU,Clemson to Big12

That leaves Miami,BC,Pitt,Wake,Cuse,Duke

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The article that was linked basically had FOX buying YES network as a way to Bully the cable companies to take Big Ten network. No cable company in NY will be adding BigTen to the package because a Rutgers team with a very limited fan base will have all their second rate games broadcast on

I think the article stated that packaging together the FOX News, YES, and BT networks together gives Fox some good leveraging power to get all on basic cable in the NYC area, which would mean huge money for Fox and big money for the BT. I don't know much about NYC but if it is anything like MD/DC there are hordes of BT alum who would welcome a chance to watch BT football on basic cable.

My read is that the purchase of YES by FOX had a not insignificant part in bringing Rutgers to the BT.

Here's another article on the subject: http://www.usatoday....ansion/1718311/

[StuckOnYouk]

Blaudschein surmising along with others that the B1G will go to 16 and throws out New England as a "potential" target (UConn and/or BC) due to TV sets, albeit lower on the pecking order than Texas or the Southeast...

http://ajerseyguy.com/

[Infield Infidel]

This is the rumor I've heard all along:

UNC/UVA to Big 10.
VT/NCSU to SEC
GT,FSU,Clemson to Big12

That leaves Miami,BC,Pitt,Wake,Cuse,Duke

13 would be a weird number for the Big 12 to stop at. If they add Louisville, Duke and Pitt, they get to 16, get into three more states, and can go to East/West divisions, or even 4 pods. (4 in texas, Ok/Ka, ISU/WVU/Louisville/Pitt, FSU/Duke/Clem/GT). Plus that's a really good basketball league

[Morning Woodhead]

13 would be a weird number for the Big 12 to stop at. If they add Louisville, Duke and Pitt, they get to 16, get into three more states, and can go to East/West divisions, or even 4 pods. (4 in texas, Ok/Ka, ISU/WVU/Louisville/Pitt, FSU/Duke/Clem/GT). Plus that's a really good basketball league

Definitely. I haven't heard that they stop at 13, those are the schools that it seems like have their parachutes ready with landing spots in sight. I'm sure Big 12 will jump to 16 too.

[BigMike]

13 would be a weird number for the Big 12 to stop at. If they add Louisville, Duke and Pitt, they get to 16, get into three more states, and can go to East/West divisions, or even 4 pods. (4 in texas, Ok/Ka, ISU/WVU/Louisville/Pitt, FSU/Duke/Clem/GT). Plus that's a really good basketball league

Not to say it wont happen, but I think I hear the words not over my dead body coming out of coach K's mouth.

[mabrowndog]

This is the rumor I've heard all along:

UNC/UVA to Big 10.
VT/NCSU to SEC
GT,FSU,Clemson to Big12

That leaves Miami,BC,Pitt,Wake,Cuse,Duke

If that happens, we'll likely see

Louisville --> Big 12
Boise St --> MWC
SDSU --> MWC

Which sets up the bigger conferences as follows for their football divisions:

* BIG TEN - Wisconsin can move to the Legends where they belong. Flipping the Michigan & Indiana schools leaves two more competitively balanced divisions that also fit better geographically:

Leaders - MD, MI, MSU, NC, OSU, PSU, RTG, VA
Legends - IL, IN, IA, MN, NW, NE, PUR, WI

* BIG 12 - Still a bit of an issue with Iowa State and the Kansas schools, but IMO the best solution is:

East - CLEM, FSU, GT, KS, KSU, LVL, WV
West - BAY, ISU, OK, OKSU, TX, TCU, TT

* SEC - Missouri moves to the west, and you get:

East - FLA, GA, KY, NC St, SC, TN, VAN, VT
West - AL, ARK, AUB, LSU, MS, MS St, MO, TA&M

* MWC - If BYU returns, the conference probably (and reluctantly) adds New Mexico State just to balance things out. I can also see them rescuing Denver and Seattle from the WAC as non-FB members, giving them 2 more choice markets and allowing them to keep the divisional setup for hoops.

East - AF, BSU, BYU, CSU, NMX, UTSU, WY (+DEN)
West - FRES, HI, NV, NMSU, SDSU, SJSU, UNLV (+SEA)

* ACC & BIG EAST - This assumes UConn stays put for now. Regardless, a football merger seems inevitable. I'd be less optimistic about it working for basketball since the sheer numbers are just so unwieldy.

FB schools
ACC (6) - BC, Duke, MIA, PIT, SYR, WF
BGE (9) - UCF, CIN, CT, HOU, MEM, Navy, USF, SMU, TMP

BB schools
ACC (7) - BC, Duke, MIA, ND, PIT, SYR, WF
BGE (15) - UCF, CIN, CT, DEP, GT, HOU, MRQ, MEM, PVD, SJ, SH, SMU, USF, TMP, VIL

There are so many ways this could go. One would be for the Big East to add UMass (or even Army) for FB only, giving the two leagues 16 schools for that sport and 22 BB schools. For hoops, they could be split into two mega-divisions similar to what the MWC and C-USA were planning to do with their merger. But man, is it going to be tough to keep things balanced competitively, especially in football. It's also going to be a scheduling nightmare, with everyone in the South pining for games in the NY, Philly and Chicago markets.

FB Divisions
North - BC, CIN, CT, MA, Navy, PIT, SYR, TMP
South - UCF, Duke, HOU, MEM, MIA, USF, SMU, WF

BB Divisions
North - BC, CT, DEP, MRQ, ND, PVD, SJ, SH, SYR, TMP, VIL
South - UCF, CIN, Duke, GT, HOU, MEM, MIA, PIT, SMU, USF, WF

Can't really see Cinci, Duke, Georgetown or Pitt being thrilled with the basketball side of things, as the South would clearly be the weaker stepsister in terms of program depth and market size. But I can't see splitting up the NY and Philly schools.

Edited by mabrowndog, 21 November 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[SumnerH]

This is the rumor I've heard all along:

UNC/UVA to Big 10.
VT/NCSU to SEC
GT,FSU,Clemson to Big12

The Virginia legislature flexed their muscle to force the ACC to take VT over Syracuse, because they wanted UVA and VT in the same conference. Is there any reason to think that's changed and they'll let the two split up?

[Dan Murfman]

The Virginia legislature flexed their muscle to force the ACC to take VT over Syracuse, because they wanted UVA and VT in the same conference. Is there any reason to think that's changed and they'll let the two split up?

That's not how I remember it. They flexed their muscles so VT wouldn't be left behind In the Big East. I think they would be fine with Virginia in Big 10 and VT in SEC.

Edited by Dan Murfman, 21 November 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Morning Woodhead]

That's not how I remember it. They flexed their muscles so VT wouldn't be left behind In the Big East. I think they would be fine with Virginia in Big 10 and VT in SEC.

I think this is true. As long as neither one of them gets left out in the dark, I think they'll be o.k. if they are split.

[Infield Infidel]

Seriously. Virginia and NC legislatures go from having their state schools in the ACC to having them in the SEC and Big 10. Cha ching

[8slim]

This is the rumor I've heard all along:

UNC/UVA to Big 10.
VT/NCSU to SEC
GT,FSU,Clemson to Big12

That leaves Miami,BC,Pitt,Wake,Cuse,Duke

Why wouldn't the B12 take Miami? And since this realignment has become entirely about greed and ego, I suspect they'd want to get to 16 to match the B1G and SEC, so they'd probably take Louisville and some other school too (Cincy?).

Which would then leave my Orange in an absolutely dreadful spot with BC, UConn, Duke and Wake. If this were to happen I'd probably advocate them forming as small of a football league as possible just to survive, de-emphasize the sport and focus on hoops. So maybe a conference of...

Football:

Syracuse
BC
UConn
Temple
Duke
Wake Forest
Navy
Army

Hoops:


Syracuse
BC
UConn
Temple
Duke
Wake Forest
Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Seton Hall
Providence
Marquette
DePaul

Ugh, I'm nauseous just thinking about it.

[StuckOnYouk]

How radioactive is Miami right now? Isn't the NCAA chasing down all the players involved in the latest scandal telling them if they don't testify than that shady booster's story sticks?

Not to mention their on-the-field performance is light years behind what it was supposed to be

[Morning Woodhead]

Why wouldn't the B12 take Miami? And since this realignment has become entirely about greed and ego, I suspect they'd want to get to 16 to match the B1G and SEC, so they'd probably take Louisville and some other school too (Cincy?).

Which would then leave my Orange in an absolutely dreadful spot with BC, UConn, Duke and Wake. If this were to happen I'd probably advocate them forming as small of a football league as possible just to survive, de-emphasize the sport and focus on hoops. So maybe a conference of...

Football:

Syracuse
BC
UConn
Temple
Duke
Wake Forest
Navy
Army

Hoops:


Syracuse
BC
UConn
Temple
Duke
Wake Forest
Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Seton Hall
Providence
Marquette
DePaul

Ugh, I'm nauseous just thinking about it.

This is probably off topic, and I know it would never happen, but in an ideal world you let the football schools create whatever the hell type of conferences they want. Go crazy making a 64 team system.

Then all other sports including basketball have their own, more regionalized conferences. Football is ruining the stability of all sports (and yes I know football helps pay for most of the other sports). I always think of today's ACC, where the diving team of BC, or softball team has to go to Miami once a year. You'd save millions in travel alone to regionalize all non football athletics.

[8slim]

How radioactive is Miami right now? Isn't the NCAA chasing down all the players involved in the latest scandal telling them if they don't testify than that shady booster's story sticks?

Not to mention their on-the-field performance is light years behind what it was supposed to be

I imagine they're hoping that by self-imposing 2 years of bowl bans the NCAA ends up giving them a USC-esque scholarship reduction, acknowledges time-served for missing bowls, and is done with them.

I can't see Miami not getting an invite to at least the Big 12. They've been down, but they were a premium college football brand for 25+ years. There's value in that. And most importantly, the school is in south Florida. They don't need to drive more than an hour from campus to load up on 4 and 5 star recruits. They'll be back, its a matter of when, not if.

[8slim]

This is probably off topic, and I know it would never happen, but in an ideal world you let the football schools create whatever the hell type of conferences they want. Go crazy making a 64 team system.

Then all other sports including basketball have their own, more regionalized conferences. Football is ruining the stability of all sports (and yes I know football helps pay for most of the other sports). I always think of today's ACC, where the diving team of BC, or softball team has to go to Miami once a year. You'd save millions in travel alone to regionalize all non football athletics.

I'm with you. But as these conference create and/or expand TV networks they need content to run from January to June, so hoops and olympic sports become necessary inventory filler.

The BEST thing for the long-term stability of college sports would be to do what Larry Scott (Pac-12 commish) has been advocating. Have the top 65-70 athletic programs split off from the NCAA and form their own league. Let that league negotiate media deals as one entity, and reorganize into divisions that make geographic sense. Then you wouldn't have this eternal conference shuffling, and they'd almost certainly get a more lucrative media deal than doing it the fractured way they are now as competing conferences.

But the same greed and ego that fuels the current system will probably make that impossible to pull off too.

[OnWisc]

If that happens, we'll likely see

Louisville --> Big 12
Boise St --> MWC
SDSU --> MWC

Which sets up the bigger conferences as follows for their football divisions:

* BIG TEN - Wisconsin can move to the Legends where they belong. Flipping the Michigan & Indiana schools leaves two more competitively balanced divisions that also fit better geographically:

Leaders - MD, MI, MSU, NC, OSU, PSU, RTG, VA
Legends - IL, IN, IA, MN, NW, NE, PUR, WI

I think you get better balance keeping the MI schools in the west and the Indiana schools in the east. Nebraska, and to a lesser extent, Wisconsin, are the only teams that are a good bet to be consistently strong in your proposed west. After that it's Iowa, and then a bunch of programs that are no stranger to spending multiple seasons at or near the bottom of the conference. That's not to say that the Cats, Illini and Purdue won't have their good seasons, but I think there'd be a lot of seasons that would spark the dreaded "well, the 3rd/4th place team in the east could've won the west easily."

Keep the MI and IN schools where they are, and unless all of the new entrants fall flat on their face, I think you've got better balance. The Indiana schools probably don't offer much to the east, but you've got a professional franchise plus PSU holding down that division, in addition to whomever steps up out of the new guys.

Only problem I could see is OSU not being happy about being lumped into what probably is a more legitimately 'eastern' division than anyone imagined would exist at this point last week, and also being stuck with the two Indiana schools. Indiana shouldn't mind because their football is irrelevant anyway and the prospect of conference hoops games against UNC and Maryland should keep them satisfied (especially if the conference goes to divisions for basketball as well). Purdue may not care for it, but they still get their in-state rival, and also have the basketball considerations.

I love the prospect of playing divisional games every year against the Goofs, Hawkeyes, Cats, Huskers and Illini, with the occasional road game down at UVA or UNC. I still think there are alot of dominoes that need to fall before something like this goes down. But while it would overhaul the face and character of the Big Ten, not hard to see some real positives in it. Especially for Wisconsin.

Oh yeah, and we can ditch the absurd division names and just go with West and East.

Edited by OnWisc, 21 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[mabrowndog]

Only problem I could see is OSU not being happy about being lumped into what probably is a more legitimately 'eastern' division than anyone imagined would exist at this point last week, and also being stuck with the two Indiana schools.

I definitely had that in mind with my suggestion. And they'd be on a very lonely island when it comes to football and traditional match-ups. Sure, they'd still get Michigan every year, but the bulk of their schedule would be against new and/or historically mediocre-to-inept schools.

Oh yeah, and we can ditch the absurd division names and just go with West and East.

I'm completely on board with this. It's almost as annoying as having sponsors rename historic bowl games to include their own hideous and often ridiculous corporate monikers.

I'm still waiting for some board of dipshits to name their conference's divisions "Power" and "Glory", or something equally wretched.

Edited by mabrowndog, 21 November 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[berniecarbo1]

I'm with you. But as these conference create and/or expand TV networks they need content to run from January to June, so hoops and olympic sports become necessary inventory filler.

The BEST thing for the long-term stability of college sports would be to do what Larry Scott (Pac-12 commish) has been advocating. Have the top 65-70 athletic programs split off from the NCAA and form their own league. Let that league negotiate media deals as one entity, and reorganize into divisions that make geographic sense. Then you wouldn't have this eternal conference shuffling, and they'd almost certainly get a more lucrative media deal than doing it the fractured way they are now as competing conferences.

But the same greed and ego that fuels the current system will probably make that impossible to pull off too.

Well said....this is the probable end game of all of this.

[Captaincoop]

If the next domino here really is two more ACC teams leaving for the Big Ten, and another two leaving for the SEC, then at that point you're down to 8 schools. At that point, if I'm one of the remaining 9, I would be combing through the conference bylaws and the TV contract with ESPN to find a way to make the ACC disappear entirely along with that TV deal.

If they could get rid of Swofford and his lousy ESPN deal and grab a real player to be the commissioner of a new league, I think they might be able to put together a more attractive arrangement for FSU and Clemson than what the Big XII can offer. You'd have Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake, and Duke - some attractive properties and a wide range of pretty large markets in a much tighter geographic area than the Big XII, and without the media market flotsam that the Big XII brings to the table in Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech, etc.

Grab Connecticut to lock down New England's markets, and now maybe you're into a stalemate with the Big XII for a while. Texas and Oklahoma are tremendous football programs, but the depth and media market reach of the new conference would be way stronger.

[8slim]

If the next domino here really is two more ACC teams leaving for the Big Ten, and another two leaving for the SEC, then at that point you're down to 8 schools. At that point, if I'm one of the remaining 9, I would be combing through the conference bylaws and the TV contract with ESPN to find a way to make the ACC disappear entirely along with that TV deal.

If they could get rid of Swofford and his lousy ESPN deal and grab a real player to be the commissioner of a new league, I think they might be able to put together a more attractive arrangement for FSU and Clemson than what the Big XII can offer. You'd have Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake, and Duke - some attractive properties and a wide range of pretty large markets in a much tighter geographic area than the Big XII, and without the media market flotsam that the Big XII brings to the table in Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech, etc.

Grab Connecticut to lock down New England's markets, and now maybe you're into a stalemate with the Big XII for a while. Texas and Oklahoma are tremendous football programs, but the depth and media market reach of the new conference would be way stronger.

The problem is that schools not currently in the SEC, B1G and Pac-12 are terrified and making snap decisions based on fear and uncertainty. Good luck convincing FSU, Clemson, GaTech and Miami that they should wait it out and see what the ACC can do, when they could just bounce to the Big 12 and get $20 million a year.

[Captaincoop]

Well said....this is the probable end game of all of this.

It sure looks that way. The big losers, at least in the short term, will be the Georgetowns and Gonzagas that have built elite basketball programs without big time football. Goodbye, billion dollar TV deal that keeps the NCAA running. The NCAA would be doomed without that basketball money, and what we'd probably see down the road is those 64 teams allowing other schools to play with them in basketball, and maybe in other sports as well, but on their terms and with their vision of revenue distribution. Basically, after the dust settled, we would have something similar to what we have now, but without the NCAA, and with the de facto 1-AA cutoff moving from 119 to 64.

[Captaincoop]

The problem is that schools not currently in the SEC, B1G and Pac-12 are terrified and making snap decisions based on fear and uncertainty. Good luck convincing FSU, Clemson, GaTech and Miami that they should wait it out and see what the ACC can do, when they could just bounce to the Big 12 and get $20 million a year.

That's exactly right - but if you're one of the schools likely to be left behind, you're better off trying to make that proactive play than you are sitting around depending on Swofford to save you.

[OnWisc]

I'm completely on board with this. It's almost as annoying as having sponsors rename historic bowl games to include their own hideous and often ridiculous corporate monikers.

Agreed. Although I do garner some enjoyment each holiday season when once again reminded that there exists the Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl.

If the next domino here really is two more ACC teams leaving for the Big Ten, and another two leaving for the SEC, then at that point you're down to 8 schools. At that point, if I'm one of the remaining 9, I would be combing through the conference bylaws and the TV contract with ESPN to find a way to make the ACC disappear entirely along with that TV deal.

This is nothing but speculation which, coming from me, means it's almost certain to be wrong, but I'd see the next domino as any confirmation that FSU is engaging in talks with the Big 12. Which itself may be predicated upon the resolution of Maryland's exit fee.

While there are almost certainly discussions going on behind the scenes as administrations try to line up life rafts, I think most of the schools in the ACC are willing to stick for the time being. As has been mentioned, in isolation, Maryland's departure is hardly a crippling blow. Certainly not enough to spur any other exits. But if it seems likely another school is bailing, then I think the dominoes start to fall. It sounds like al eyes are on FSU (and to a lesser extent, Clemson) at the moment. Unless they get confirmation behind the scenes that a Florida State move is imminent, I don't think you see UVA or UNC be the next ones out the door. But I would think they'd quickly follow.

And while the FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 is often mentioned as perhaps the most likely next step, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that NC State and Va Tech have agreed to join the SEC. Either way, should either of those go down, I think everyone is heading for the exits.

Edited by OnWisc, 21 November 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I'm with you. But as these conference create and/or expand TV networks they need content to run from January to June, so hoops and olympic sports become necessary inventory filler.

The BEST thing for the long-term stability of college sports would be to do what Larry Scott (Pac-12 commish) has been advocating. Have the top 65-70 athletic programs split off from the NCAA and form their own league. Let that league negotiate media deals as one entity, and reorganize into divisions that make geographic sense. Then you wouldn't have this eternal conference shuffling, and they'd almost certainly get a more lucrative media deal than doing it the fractured way they are now as competing conferences.

But the same greed and ego that fuels the current system will probably make that impossible to pull off too.

It'll never, ever happen, but it seems to me that if there were a 65-70 school league with geographic divisions and a huge TV deal that they could still keep the other 50 or so FBS schools invested by creating some sort of relegation and promotion system, similar to the EPL. As things stand now, it seems inevitable that there's no real reason for the MAC/Sunbelt type schools to continue funding FBS level programs.

[8slim]

It'll never, ever happen, but it seems to me that if there were a 65-70 school league with geographic divisions and a huge TV deal that they could still keep the other 50 or so FBS schools invested by creating some sort of relegation and promotion system, similar to the EPL. As things stand now, it seems inevitable that there's no real reason for the MAC/Sunbelt type schools to continue funding FBS level programs.

Americans will never do relegation because we like revenue certainty. But, I imagine the media deal an Uber College League could generate would be so valuable that they could essentially buy off the left-outs. I'm guessing that the UCL could give more money to the left-outs than what they're making now from their highly fragmented media deals. Plus the UCL would own a new college hoops tourney, which would throw off another couple billion in revenue.

It actually makes a ton of sense, but I think short-term greed and ego will keep it from ever happening.

[Dan Murfman]

I found this amusing

@bradwolverton: Notre Dame president: "We're really happy in the ACC. But I am concerned about continual instability of this conference situation."

[SumnerH]

If the next domino here really is two more ACC teams leaving for the Big Ten, and another two leaving for the SEC, then at that point you're down to 8 schools. At that point, if I'm one of the remaining 9, I would be combing through the conference bylaws and the TV contract with ESPN to find a way to make the ACC disappear entirely along with that TV deal.

If they could get rid of Swofford and his lousy ESPN deal and grab a real player to be the commissioner of a new league, I think they might be able to put together a more attractive arrangement for FSU and Clemson than what the Big XII can offer.

Is the ACC deal actually that bad? It's $17 million/year per school, compared to $20 million/year for the Big 12 and $19 million for the Pac-12--but those conferences have much, much stronger football programs than the ACC.

[Captaincoop]

Is the ACC deal actually that bad? It's $17 million/year per school, compared to $20 million/year for the Big 12 and $19 million for the Pac-12--but those conferences have much, much stronger football programs than the ACC.

There are varying reports, and I don't think any of the numbers are actually public, but the ACC's deal with ESPN locks up way more of the available conference TV inventory than the Pac-12 or Big Ten deals with Fox do. Those conferences retained enough additional games/material to fuel their cable TV networks. The total difference in media revenue is reportedly projected to be more like $40 million/year in the Big Ten versus $20-$25 million in the ACC a few years from now.

[Clears Cleaver]

the ACC deal is back end loaded, as well

the only way the ACC is not carved up is if ESPN renegotiates. and they have some interest in doing so as they own a bigger part of the ACC than they do the SEC/big10 or big12. Now all you ACC fans know what its like to have been in the Big East the last five years. play with espn and ND and you always get fucked

I think u can make the the ACC deal equal to the Big12 deal if you're ESPN. if not, then this is going to be a crazy month

[SumnerH]

There are varying reports, and I don't think any of the numbers are actually public, but the ACC's deal with ESPN locks up way more of the available conference TV inventory than the Pac-12 or Big Ten deals with Fox do. Those conferences retained enough additional games/material to fuel their cable TV networks. The total difference in media revenue is reportedly projected to be more like $40 million/year in the Big Ten versus $20-$25 million in the ACC a few years from now.

Thanks, that makes a ton of sense.

[doldmoose34]

I'm with you. But as these conference create and/or expand TV networks they need content to run from January to June, so hoops and olympic sports become necessary inventory filler.

The BEST thing for the long-term stability of college sports would be to do what Larry Scott (Pac-12 commish) has been advocating. Have the top 65-70 athletic programs split off from the NCAA and form their own league. Let that league negotiate media deals as one entity, and reorganize into divisions that make geographic sense. Then you wouldn't have this eternal conference shuffling, and they'd almost certainly get a more lucrative media deal than doing it the fractured way they are now as competing conferences.

But the same greed and ego that fuels the current system will probably make that impossible to pull off too.

one of my fellow old timers might have info, but didn't the Big'uns try something like this back in the 80's called the 'college football association' but the NCAA quickly put a jackboot to the idea

[8slim]

one of my fellow old timers might have info, but didn't the Big'uns try something like this back in the 80's called the 'college football association' but the NCAA quickly put a jackboot to the idea

The opposite.

The CFA came about after the Supreme Court ruled the NCAA couldn't force TV deals on its members, rather they were free to negotiate on their own behalf.

I think the CFA included a few dozen schools, but not the Big Ten and PAC 10, who made their own deals. Eventually the whole thing fell apart as all conferences made their own deals.

[StuckOnYouk]

Blaudschun's got a new article up, says that the ACC held a conference call today to discuss options.

http://ajerseyguy.com

Still thinks UConn is the favorite if they just add 1 for now and a virtual lock if they go for 3 (speculates UConn/Ville/3rd (Cincy or USF?). He says they'll ask ND to go full and will likely be rebuffed (shocker).

Also says a meeting is scheduled for Monday in which a plan of attack could be finalized, so he's got someone in the ACC giving him timelines at least.

[doldmoose34]

The opposite.

The CFA came about after the Supreme Court ruled the NCAA couldn't force TV deals on its members, rather they were free to negotiate on their own behalf.

I think the CFA included a few dozen schools, but not the Big Ten and PAC 10, who made their own deals. Eventually the whole thing fell apart as all conferences made their own deals.

Thanks 8s, I just had a vague rememberence of it

Edited by doldmoose34, 22 November 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[8slim]

I've been reading that the ACC is going to invite UConn, Louisville and Cincinnati.

If this happens then its clear that conference expansion has gone completely off the rails. If the ACC was willing to go to 16 why the heck wouldn't they have added Rutgers and UConn a year ago and locked down their presence in the northeast? Or since this signals academics is not important, why didn't they add West Virginia last year?

I can only imagine the league is about to get picked apart by the B1G and SEC.

Edited by 8slim, 25 November 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[StuckOnYouk]

I've been reading that the ACC is going to invite UConn, Louisville and Cincinnati.

If this happens then its clear that conference expansion has gone completely off the rails. If the ACC was willing to go to 16 why the heck wouldn't they have added Rutgers and UConn a year ago and locked down their presence in the northeast? Or since this signals academics is not important, why didn't they add West Virginia last year?

I can only imagine the league is about to get picked apart by the B1G and SEC.

If the Big 10 came calling Rutgers would have left the ACC for the Big 10 in a heartbeat too.
Also, if I recall correctly, the ACC wanted to add UConn and one of Cuse or Pitt, can't remember which (I think Cuse), but BC put up a stink. How much of their stink ended up resulting in Pitt getting the nomination, who knows.