Conference Realignment Thread

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,877
deep inside Guido territory
QUOTE (jsinger121 @ Jun 10 2010, 11:28 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016207
Colorado is officially jumping to the Pac10.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5271438

Great move for them that has been rumored and talked about for many years. They fit better academically with the core pac-10 folks and have a ton of alumni in California and Arizona among other west coast destinations. They really need to improve their facilities though and they are. A new basketball practice facility is under construction.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
7,322
South of North
I'm not a fan of one of the "forgotten" schools, so I find all of this stuff wildly entertaining. I'm sure if I was, this would suck balls. As far as the *Midwest* (formerly known as the Big 10) conference goes, I like the Nebraska add - this is a storied program that fits into the Big Ten mold. I think Pitt also works and to a lesser extent, so does Cuse. ND would be a terrific add obviously, but I don't understand 2 things:

1) Why Mizzou is being shafted. Both football and basketball would help conference prestige, it tightens up the hold on markets in KC and St. Louis.

2) Why add Nebraska AND Rutgers? I know I know, the $ is the obvious answer, but I think what's being lost here is identity. Right now, as constituted, I think the Big 10 has a bona fide identity. Adding Nebraska and Missouri definitely doesn't change that, Pitt probably doesn't either, but I think Syracuse and Rutgers (more so) does (what the hell does Joizey have in common with Lincoln Nebraska???).

One of the biggest weaknesses of the ACC is that it covers so much geography that some [football] matchups just seem arbitrary, IMHO (pretty much anything involving BC, FSU-Maryland, Miami-UNC for example). The Big East isn't a power football conference to me (even though WVU, USF, and Pitt are good programs). The SEC and Pac-10 both have identities, Pac-10 being watered down a bit in my mind with CU coming on (no pun intended), and the SEC having the strongest conference identity.

I think this also gets us, hopefully, closer to a playoff. The damage done to tie-ins definitely helps this cause. I could see a format that pits the winner of each conference into a postseason tournament. The question in that scenario is what do you do with the MAC winner, Mountain West, etc. and there's a host of options there. I honestly believe realignment gets us closer to ditching the BCS.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
3,696
Alameda, CA
QUOTE (Zososoxfan @ Jun 10 2010, 12:20 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016272
The question in that scenario is what do you do with the MAC winner, Mountain West, etc. and there's a host of options there. I honestly believe realignment gets us closer to ditching the BCS.

Odds of it happening are slim, but you'd just have the smaller conference champions play off the week of the major conference championship games, so that major conference championship week doubles as round one of the overall playoffs.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
3,391
Boston
QUOTE (Zososoxfan @ Jun 10 2010, 12:20 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016272
I think this also gets us, hopefully, closer to a playoff. The damage done to tie-ins definitely helps this cause. I could see a format that pits the winner of each conference into a postseason tournament. The question in that scenario is what do you do with the MAC winner, Mountain West, etc. and there's a host of options there. I honestly believe realignment gets us closer to ditching the BCS.


I think this is a no brainer, no? Its so much easier to see a playoff system this way. Conference champions play in the Rose Bowl - Pac Vs. Big and Sugar Bowl - SEC Vs. ACC... Then the winners play a "Championship game"

In that system we basically have a 3 round playoff. 1st round is the conference championship, then we have the bowl round, then we have the final national championship game. On the negative side, there will be 4 - 8 solid programs that will be left out... but this will fix a lot of the problems and make a quasi-playoff VERY easy to set up. 96 teams will be included which is a pretty good number.

Edit (or as Joe says above, add a 4th round to the playoff where you put the small schools against each other for the right to play the big conference winners prior to the championship game)
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
15,093
<null>
The problem is that it's unclear how the addition of a playoff system increases conference revenue. Conferences don't care about having a "true champion" or whatever else. It's all about money.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,877
deep inside Guido territory
Here's some additional information regarding Colorado's move to the Pac-whatever number.

QUOTE
It's a done deal.

The University of Colorado will announce at an 11 a.m. Friday press conference that the school will leave the Big 12 and join the Pac-10.

The Pac-10 confirmed the deal Thursday morning with an official announcement on the conference Web page that said, "The Pacific-10 Conference announced today that the University of Colorado at Boulder has accepted an invitation to join the Conference as it's 11th member, the first new member since July 1, 1978."

In the release, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said, "This is an historic moment for the Conference, as the Pac-10 is poised for tremendous growth. The University of Colorado is a great fit for the Conference both academically and athletically and we are incredibly excited to welcome Colorado to the Pac-10."

The release also quoted CU chancellor Phil DiStefano and president Bruce Benson.

"On behalf of The University of Colorado students, faculty, alumni and fans, we are proud to accept this invitation from the Pac-10 and join the most prestigious academic and athletic conference in the nation," DiStefano said.

"The University of Colorado is a perfect match - academically and athletically - with the Pac-10," Benson said. "Our achievements and aspirations match those of the universities in the conference and we look forward to a productive relationship."

Scott, Benson, DiStefano, CU athletic director Mike Bohn and other officials will appear at a press conference Friday at Folsom Field.


QUOTE
Colorado officials have spent the week working behind the scenes to make sure the school was part of the Pac-10's expansion plans. The deal was finalized Wednesday after CU's board of regents gave athletic director Mike Bohn the go-ahead to secure an invitation at a meeting Tuesday night in Denver.

Speculation has mounted for the last week that Colorado would be part of the Pac-10's massive expansion. The Camera reported last week that CU would be part of a six-team deal that would also include Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

That speculation hit a snag after Baylor officials became incensed when the Bears were not included in the group, and mounted a late campaign in the Lone Star State to replace Colorado.

Those efforts failed. While Baylor took its case to the public, CU officials quietly worked behind the scenes to procure an invitation from the Pac-10 and were successful.

The move could produce a huge boost in revenue for CU's athletic department. If the Big 12 South schools follow CU into the Pac-10, one estimate has television revenue approaching the $25 million to $27 million range when a new contract is signed. That would be approximately three times what CU received from the Big 12 this year.

What is also likely is that the Big 12 is a dead conference walking. Wednesday, it was reported that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds told UT staffers that the conference couldn't be saved. Those reports surfaced after reports said that Nebraska was ready to join the Big Ten.

Colorado, however, did not want to hinge its decision based on that of any other school in the Big 12, including Texas and Nebraska. CU athletic department officials have been working on proving the school's worth to the Pac-10 for months, and they utilized a wide variety of CU resources - including prominent faculty members and administrators - to make their case.


Boulder Daily Camera
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,877
deep inside Guido territory
Another twist in this whole story is the presence of Gene Stallings on the Board of Regents at A&M. He is pushing for the SEC as hard as he can but the Governor wants A&M to go wherever Texas goes. Chip Brown is making a national name for himself by breaking all these stories before the big boys can.

QUOTE
The only potential stumbling point for the six Big 12 schools to move west if Texas A&M's heart was in it.

The Aggies have been talking to the Southeastern Conference. Gene Stallings, who won a national title as coach at Alabama, is a regent at Texas A&M who has been VERY active in all the talks involving the Aggies and where they could land if the Big 12 fell apart.

Orangebloods.com has been told by sources that Gov. Rick Perry would encourage his alma mater to go where Texas goes to keep harmony in the Texas Legislature.

There is a state-run, multi-billion dollar mineral rights endowment for both Texas and Texas A&M called the Permanent University Fund, which was threatened by lawmakers the last time realignment happened (when the Big 12 was formed) if the two schools split up.

One thing that should be reassuring to Texas A&M is that in a move to the Pac-10 Texas all but loses its chance to start its own TV network.

That was a point of contention for A&M, which has an athletic department $16 million in debt and had to borrow that money from the school's general fund to pay it off.

That became a big rift at A&M between the administration and athletics department and may have contributed to the forced resignation of A&M president Elsa Murano, who wanted the athletic department to be more diligent in paying the loan back.

A&M was not excited about having Texas, with $125 million in revenue and its coffers overflowing, starting a TV network and adding yet another revenue stream that A&M couldn't match.

But with all schools on an equal revenue playing field in the Pac-16 (or whatever we're going to call this league), A&M's worries probably subside.

Stay tuned.

Chip Brown
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
7,322
South of North
QUOTE (Joe D Reid @ Jun 10 2010, 12:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016288
Odds of it happening are slim, but you'd just have the smaller conference champions play off the week of the major conference championship games, so that major conference championship week doubles as round one of the overall playoffs.


I'm with you on this - I just don't think the NCAA can move to a 4-team playoff and screw over the rest of the conferences. Three reasons for this - 1) This pretty much means they have to lose their tax-exempt status, right? If this is all about money, which I think it is, this is the holy grail for schools and if congress gets that far along with all of this junk, the schools will fall into line to keep that $; 2) The Big 12 hasn't disbanded, yet. Let's say Nebraska is the only school to join the Big 10 (now 12, also) and CU is the only Big 12 school to jump to *new* Pac-12. Let's say the Texas schools get cold feet and instead of the conference falling apart, it recruits BYU and another Mountain West school. You obviously can't say sorry to the Big 12 if Oklahoma, Texas, and other quality programs remain; 3) let's say the Big 12 does go kaput and ND stays independent, what then? Is ND not eligible for the postseason by virtue of not being in one of the 4 new superconferences?

Ok, so now let's say that the major realignment we're discussing does come to fruition, and the Pac-16 and the Big-16 come into existence. This still leaves C-USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and WAC. Instead of trying to figure out how to get an even number of teams out of five conferences, I would suggest that you consolidate two of the western conferences, so you have a tidy 4 conferences, with 4 champions correspondingly, ready to compete with the 4 major conference champions in a simple 8-team, single elim. playoff. The one issue I see with this is that the mid-majors are at huge advantage in that their competition is much easier, but I think this is mitigated by the fact that they don't bring as much money in during the regular season. But, if this was the format for postseason, I think you'd see a radical redistribution of talent, spreading it more evenly throughout the country.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
28,569
Alexandria, VA
QUOTE (Rudy Pemberton @ Jun 10 2010, 10:28 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016135
Money. That's what this, and most everything in life, is always about.


Right, that's obvious. It's why I question UMD's interest, as they'd be dooming the football team for the forseeable future.

Unless I'm wrong, having a solid football team = beaucoup dollars. Maryland in the ACC (which presumably has 16 teams when the dust settles) is a borderline contender, with a good shot at multiple conference championship games and a decent bowl if the bowls survive. Maryland in the Big 10 is a cellar dweller. I can see why FSU, , Miami, VaTech, or WVU would jump to the SEC or Big 10, but for a strong basketball/mediocre football team doesn't the ACC seem like a much better shot at big postseason football appearances? Or is the regular season difference enough to swamp that, even when the ACC gets their network up?

The impact of losing basketball games that people watch heavily is presumably a smaller amount of money-small enough to ignore?
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,746
Row 14
QUOTE (Rossox @ Jun 10 2010, 11:15 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016192
Exactly. This is all being driven by the Big 10's landmark TV contract. But how landmark is it really? The figures being thrown around by overzealous journalists IMO are not true. $22M per school? No freakin way! If this was true then ND would have joined already.

Teddy Greenstein from the Chicago Tribune first reported the $22mm number. He has personally taken that back -- in a Q&A a few weeks ago. ND's deal with NBC, according to the NYT, is reportedly worth $15mm a year. I personally don't think it's that much and ND has never confirmed (or denied) that figure.

I'm just curious how all of this realignment is going to affect what is already a water-downed and ridiculous post-season, not to mention recruiting.


NBC deal is just for home games. Notre Dame gets paid for their away games separately along with their individual BCS money. 22 million probably doesn't touch it.
 

Dan Murfman

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2001
3,732
Pawcatuck
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 10 2010, 02:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016463
NBC deal is just for home games. Notre Dame gets paid for their away games separately along with their individual BCS money. 22 million probably doesn't touch it.



Notre Dame gets 1 mil a year if they don't make a BCS game and 4.5 if they do. And who pays Notre Dame for their away games?
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
3,391
Boston
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 10 2010, 02:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016463
NBC deal is just for home games. Notre Dame gets paid for their away games separately along with their individual BCS money. 22 million probably doesn't touch it.


But how long will Notre Dame be worth that type of money? They've been playing off their reputation for a long time. NBC first signed ND in 1991 and their reputation has fallen since then. People like winners and ND of the past 10 - 15 years is not a winner.

In this article, the author questions how much money ND makes:
QUOTE
Chances are, you still think that Notre Dame is banking major revenue from this agreement in comparison to other teams. Chances are, you're wrong. What do Vanderbilt and Northwestern have in common when it comes to football? Answer: They likely both get more money for their televised football games than Notre Dame does. As does every other team in the Big Ten and the SEC.

In 2008, NBC ponied up an extension to the Fighting Irish television contract. USA Today reported that the current contract paid Notre Dame in the neighborhood of $9 million per year. The new deal won't begin until 2010, but it's doubtful the rights fees increased very much, since Notre Dame's television ratings have been dwindling for several years. (Last season, the average Notre Dame game on NBC drew less than half the ratings that CBS and ABC averaged for their college football games.) The new NBC deal only covers eight Irish games a year (seven home tilts plus one neutral site game), Television rights for the remaining four away games are part of the rights packages sold by those other teams. The Irish also bring in a share of revenue from the Big East for basketball. But that number is set contractually and isn't particularly large.

For example, Syracuse, a member of the Big East for football and basketball, took in just $4.7 million from the Big East in 2007. Even assuming that Notre Dame gets half of this number (which it likely doesn't, because football floats the boat in college athletics), Notre Dame's television and shared Big East conference revenue in 2009 will be, at best, $11.35 million.

Why's that number important? Because in 2008, every school in the Big Ten will clear north of $15 million from the conference, a number that will only increase in years to come. Every school in the SEC will bank, conservatively, $17 million. (Looking at the numbers it's likely the SEC will hit $20 million within a couple of years.) The reason for these increases is simple, spiraling television money. The Big Ten Network distributed $7.5 million to each conference school last year, and in conjunction with the 10-year, $1-billion deal that the Big Ten signed with ABC/ESPN, there's a whole lot of new television money floating around. Let me repeat that, the Big Ten Network alone has almost equaled the payout for Notre Dame's sacrosanct contract with NBC.

Every team in the SEC has also eclipsed Notre Dame since signing a new $3-billion contract with CBS and ESPN that tripled existing rights fees ($2.25 billion reportedly comes from ESPN, while the CBS deal is $825 million). Throw in that Notre Dame now nets just $4.5 million for an appearance in a BCS game (against $1.3 million each year if it doesn't go to a BCS bowl) and you're looking at a financial mountain that is becoming increasingly uphill for Notre Dame. Television revenue at most conferences is rapidly accelerating while at Notre Dame it's staying the same. Where once the Fighting Irish were king of the television universe, conference affiliation deals are now lapping the Irish.


For people my cousin's age (college-ish) ND is getting into "Never Were" type of status and it is affecting their TV ratings. School's like Florida, Ohio State, and USC have been great programs for almost 10 years and are having the best ratings now.

via - http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/06/1...ts-independenc/
 

Sea Bass Neely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,353
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 10 2010, 01:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016463
NBC deal is just for home games. Notre Dame gets paid for their away games separately along with their individual BCS money. 22 million probably doesn't touch it.


ND will get more money in the Big Ten. The BTN deal is likely in the same ballpark as the NBC deal, and then you have the ABC/ESPN deal on top of that. My guess would be they stand to make anywhere between 8-20 million more a season by joining the Big Ten.

In addition, scheduling as an independent becomes much more difficult in the era of 16 team conferences.

They should join. It makes sense on a lot of different levels, but they value their independence.
 

Butch Hobsons elbo chips

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2000
3,704
Lehigh Valley, PA
As someone who wore the uniform for Coach Talley, I can tell you VILLANOVA football is never going to become D I-A // FBS. It can't and won't happen for so many reasons that it's tiresome to even list them.
Villanova is just like the other 6 Catholic schools of the Big East not named Notre Dame. All 7 schools are on the outside looking in at this time and all 7 schools will likely have each other's back when this is over because in the end they have more in common than just their Catholic identity when it comes to being small private schools without BCS money to back up their athletic programs. If ND Football remains an independent, they are more than welcome to stay put as the 8th school who brings a very unique following to their athletic programs.

I can also assure you that St Joe's, LaSalle & Temple are not getting into any League that Villanova is part of in the near future...they will be veto'd just as Georgetown will veto George Washington and St John & Seton Hall will veto any schools in the NYC market.
Xavier & Dayton are obvious targets to get to 10 teams but if you add 2 more then you have to look at a list that includes, St Louis, Duquesne, Butler, Old Dominion, Richmond and other non-FBS schools that might add either a market or a competitive basketball program.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,746
Row 14
QUOTE (Sea Bass Neely @ Jun 10 2010, 02:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016491
ND will get more money in the Big Ten. The BTN deal is likely in the same ballpark as the NBC deal, and then you have the ABC/ESPN deal on top of that. My guess would be they stand to make anywhere between 8-20 million more a season by joining the Big Ten.

In addition, scheduling as an independent becomes much more difficult in the era of 16 team conferences.

They should join. It makes sense on a lot of different levels, but they value their independence.


I don't get this. There are less teams geographically for Big16 and such to schedule. The more they clump the more desire for a Notre Dame as non conference game. Especially if the teams have the conference networks you will get much more as a buy game with Notre Dame as you are guaranteed a network game.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Somebody's going to write a book about all the inner workings, behind-the-scenes negotiations and back-door deals involved in these machinations. I hope whoever attacks this project is up to the task, because the number and profile of participants is staggering. Chancellors, ADs, network execs, conference execs, governors, senators, congressmen, prominent alumni. I mean, holy freaking shit. The Baylor vs Colorado situation alone and how it played out seems fascinating enough to be its own chapter.

Some other random thoughts:

* I assume all these conference moves, while taking effect immediately, will only start to affect conference scheduling beginning with Spring 2011 sports, right? Considering how much logistical and budgeting b-s is involved in setting up each season's football schedules to begin with, are they going to scrap what's already on the table now for this fall and start from scratch? Nebraska's 2010 schedule includes 4 games vs departing Big 12 teams (Texas, Okla St, Oklahoma, Tex A&M). Even the college hoops season seems to be too close to do anything about it.

* The networks with broadcast tie-ins would seem to have as much pull in this as anyone. What are the schools' obligations to fulfill these contracts, and what legal remedies can the networks take to enforce the agreements?

* I was at Barnes & Noble in Hyannis today and they've already got a huge point-of-purchase rack set up for the Athlon Pro and College Football annuals. Man, talk about shit being obsolete the very moment it goes to press. I've always loved their publications but unless there are assurances that these conference moves won't alter existing 2010 schedules, who in their right mind is going to buy one now? Ditto for Sporting News, Street & Smith's, etc. These could be some crippling financial losses for the publishers.

* If we do indeed see the formation of four 16-team super-conferences, I'm still not convinced that bodes well for an all-encompassing playoff. If anything I could see either the formation of a separate football-only association for these 64 teams that's outside the NCAA's jurisdiction, or a brand new NCAA division involving only these 64 teams. In either case only those 4 conferences would be able to vie for the upper-division national championship, and we'd pretty much be right back to the 1-A and 1-AA setups within FBS. That would put an end to the claims of mid-majors that they've been shut out, since they'd have their own (albeit far less prestigious) national championship to contend for. Obviously government intervention could (and likely would) throw a giant monkey wrench into either of these scenarios.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Regarding Notre Dame, other issues I've seen cited with the NBC deal are a lack of internet streaming and low ratings. They've pulled a 1.7-2.2-2.4 in 2007-08-09, and last year's numbers were only that high because of the 4.1 they drew vs USC.

What we still don't know are (A) How the new conference alignments will affect the games the Irish play annually vs Stanford, USC and Michigan, and (B) What leeway they have to back out of their NBC deal or how much it will cost them. Maybe someone else knows this, but I don't know how much Stanford, USC and Michigan make from their games vs Notre Dame and whether that revenue is shared within their conferences. Might we be looking at a situation where Michigan-Nebraska and USC-Texas become more prominent rivalries and Notre Dame is rendered an afterthought? Or is their brand strong enough to withstand all these shifts?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,877
deep inside Guido territory
QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jun 10 2010, 03:44 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016579
Somebody's going to write a book about all the inner workings, behind-the-scenes negotiations and back-door deals involved in these machinations. I hope whoever attacks this project is up to the task, because the number and profile of participants is staggering. Chancellors, ADs, network execs, conference execs, governors, senators, congressmen, prominent alumni. I mean, holy freaking shit. The Baylor vs Colorado situation alone and how it played out seems fascinating enough to be its own chapter.

Some other random thoughts:

* I assume all these conference moves, while taking effect immediately, will only start to affect conference scheduling beginning with Spring 2011 sports, right? Considering how much logistical and budgeting b-s is involved in setting up each season's football schedules to begin with, are they going to scrap what's already on the table now for this fall and start from scratch? Nebraska's 2010 schedule includes 4 games vs departing Big 12 teams (Texas, Okla St, Oklahoma, Tex A&M). Even the college hoops season seems to be too close to do anything about it.

* The networks with broadcast tie-ins would seem to have as much pull in this as anyone. What are the schools' obligations to fulfill these contracts, and what legal remedies can the networks take to enforce the agreements?

* I was at Barnes & Noble in Hyannis today and they've already got a huge point-of-purchase rack set up for the Athlon Pro and College Football annuals. Man, talk about shit being obsolete the very moment it goes to press. I've always loved their publications but unless there are assurances that these conference moves won't alter existing 2010 schedules, who in their right mind is going to buy one now? Ditto for Sporting News, Street & Smith's, etc. These could be some crippling financial losses for the publishers.

* If we do indeed see the formation of four 16-team super-conferences, I'm still not convinced that bodes well for an all-encompassing playoff. If anything I could see either the formation of a separate football-only association for these 64 teams that's outside the NCAA's jurisdiction, or a brand new NCAA division involving only these 64 teams. In either case only those 4 conferences would be able to vie for the upper-division national championship, and we'd pretty much be right back to the 1-A and 1-AA setups within FBS. That would put an end to the claims of mid-majors that they've been shut out, since they'd have their own (albeit far less prestigious) national championship to contend for. Obviously government intervention could (and likely would) throw a giant monkey wrench into either of these scenarios.


All expansion won't begin until 2011 or 2012 Dog.
 

Sea Bass Neely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,353
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 10 2010, 02:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016552
I don't get this. There are less teams geographically for Big16 and such to schedule. The more they clump the more desire for a Notre Dame as non conference game. Especially if the teams have the conference networks you will get much more as a buy game with Notre Dame as you are guaranteed a network game.


Some of this is based on assumption, but:

- Likely an increase in conference games.
- The Big Ten being pissed at them and not scheduling (you might get a game or two vs Michigan and Purdue, but you won't get Pitt, Nebraska, etc)
- Teams not willing to go on the road. Home games are revenue and teams want all they can get.
- So this means, ND is looking at scheduling a lot more mid-majors and this toughens their route to a national title bid. ND having to schedule 12 games and everyone else having to schedule 2-3 is a pain in their ass.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
4,278
02148
The St. Louis Post Dispatch took a look at the University of Illinois' books to figure out how much money Big Ten schools actually made. This is what they found out:

A breakdown of annual disbursements received by the University of Illinois from the Big Ten Conference:
School year: Big Ten Network Other TV Total TV Total* 2007-08: $6.1 million $7.70 $13.80 $18.80 2008-09: $6.4 $8.00 $14.40 $19.20 2009-10 (projected): $6.5 $8.40 $14.90 $19.90 * Includes money from TV, bowl games, NCAA Tournament.

This does not include revenue sharing from the Big Ten Network, which is private and does not report to the SEC. According to Derek Baine of SNL Kagan, the BTN's cash flow was $61.7 million in 2009, which roughly translates to profit. The BTN first gives 49% to Fox Cable Networks and splits the other 51% percent among the 11 member schools.

No one knows for sure how much Notre Dame, a private institution, makes from NBC. Reports have guessed the number to be anywhere from $9 million to $15 million. Notre Dame is in the final year of a 5-year contract with NBC. Another 5-year contract begins in 2011. As mentioned earlier, Notre Dame gets $4.5 million from the BCS if they play, and $1 if they do not. They also would receive a payout from any other bowl it attends, in addition to Big East basketball money and NCAA Tournament money, which are all included in the above table.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,557
Houston, TX
QUOTE
... I could see either the formation of a separate football-only association for these 64 teams that's outside the NCAA's jurisdiction, or a brand new NCAA division involving only these 64 teams.

I am convinced by the logic of money that one of these two things will happen. It seems most likely that once the new power conferences are more or less settled, they'll propose something along these lines to the NCAA and see what the response is. If it is insufficient, they will probably try to force something on their own outside of the NCAA. There's just no way that these new conferences, with the market and therefore negotiating power they will have, will allow the NCAA to continue to dictate silly terms like the BCS and the bowls in a status quo ante configuration.

QUOTE
Regarding Notre Dame ...

I think ND is playing their hand poorly here by waiting (but am obviously not privy to anything that's being negotiated). I understand the power of the brand, but remaining independent just seems dumb here - no one independent team will be able to build the kind of schedule (both on the field and for TV) that would be as attractive as the conference schedules will be. Assuming the four-super-conference structure comes to pass, there will be important games in each conference virtually every weekend. Why would the conference powers then want to waste (or risk) a game against ND? It would be like the Brewers opting out of the NL Central because it has too many teams, then independently trying to schedule a 162-game season with the other MLB clubs. Further, by isolating themselves from the realignment process, ND risks having to take what is left when the dust settles, because they will clearly never allow themselves to be left out of the structure that decides the "real" national championship.

But browndog is certainly right in that none of us has a clue as to the real depth and breadth of the negotiations going on - it probably resembles the last days before a presidential election or scrambling to put together a peace treaty. Much more to come before it is finished.

And the way it looks to be going, many traditional rivalries will survive, which is good for the game.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,746
Row 14
QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jun 10 2010, 03:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016583
Regarding Notre Dame, other issues I've seen cited with the NBC deal are a lack of internet streaming and low ratings. They've pulled a 1.7-2.2-2.4 in 2007-08-09, and last year's numbers were only that high because of the 4.1 they drew vs USC.

What we still don't know are (A) How the new conference alignments will affect the games the Irish play annually vs Stanford, USC and Michigan, and (B) What leeway they have to back out of their NBC deal or how much it will cost them. Maybe someone else knows this, but I don't know how much Stanford, USC and Michigan make from their games vs Notre Dame and whether that revenue is shared within their conferences. Might we be looking at a situation where Michigan-Nebraska and USC-Texas become more prominent rivalries and Notre Dame is rendered an afterthought? Or is their brand strong enough to withstand all these shifts?


The schools themselves get the money from these out of conference games.

A) It would do nothing to those who are on existing contracts and there would be no reason to change. What does it matter to Stanford, USC, and Michigan if they are in Pac 10 or Pac 16? Out of conference game they have played for eternity and have contracts running forever on. USC and Notre Dame have played every year except 43-45. The MegaConferences will only have 2 or 3 non conference games but Notre Dame will be an attractive option.

The only way Notre Dame can get fucked by staying out of the Big 10 right now is if the ACC was capable of moving as quickly as the conferences and creating the last Super Conference without Notre Dame and all four mega conferences agreeing to make their own championship and saying that each team will play their non conference games against a team from each respective megaconference (makes sense).

However there is no chance this will happen. None. I doubt it is even going to be an existing conference in the East that becomes the East megaconference.

Why? Because SEC's natural move is to grab Clemson, GTech, Florida St., and Miami if they are going to expand not the Big 12 floating waste product. That leaves the ACC crippled and with two real football schools, both old Big East Schools. So then the Eastern Schools need to reorganize. Both the Big East and ACC will crippled with neither one really strong enough football wise to eat the other one.
 

Statman

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
998
Los Angeles, CA
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 10 2010, 04:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016635
Why? Because SEC's natural move is to grab Clemson, GTech, Florida St., and Miami if they are going to expand not the Big 12 floating waste product. That leaves the ACC crippled and with two real football schools, both old Big East Schools. So then the Eastern Schools need to reorganize. Both the Big East and ACC will crippled with neither one really strong enough football wise to eat the other one.


I just don't see the SEC going hard to pick up those teams. They've already got those TV markets locked down so it's not like those four teams are going to bring them extra revenue. I can see them going after Texas and Oklahoma though. Silve would love to expand into those markets.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
4,278
02148
QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jun 10 2010, 03:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016583
Regarding Notre Dame, other issues I've seen cited with the NBC deal are a lack of internet streaming and low ratings. They've pulled a 1.7-2.2-2.4 in 2007-08-09, and last year's numbers were only that high because of the 4.1 they drew vs USC.

The biggest issue with the Notre Dame deal is that it is on broadcast television. ESPN pays nearly twice as much as NBC to air seventeen NFL games each season. The reason is ESPN, or any other cable network, can earn more money because it can charge for advertising and subscribers. This follows the recent trend in sports broadcasting to move events off of network television and on to cable. The best example of this was ESPN's outbidding of Fox for the BCS. As it stands, Notre Dame is the only FBS team that does not have a deal with a cable network.

QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 10 2010, 04:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016635
However there is no chance this will happen. None. I doubt it is even going to be an existing conference in the East that becomes the East megaconference.

For now, the superconference trend appears to be a western phenomenon. The SEC will probably not expand. Their contracts with CBS and ESPN run all the way through 2023-2024. The have no incentive to grow the conference into new markets, unless their contracts have an out clause I am unaware of. The ACC also just signed a television contract with ESPN. The Big East's television rights are not tied up for a long term, but no one wants to join their conference.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
The Kansas City TV station KCTV5 is reporting, citing multiple high-level sources, that Texas and Texas A&M are now looking to move to the Big Ten Conference and have petitioned for membership, leaving Oklahoma scrambling to join the SEC, and Oklahoma State, the Pac-10.

KCTV5’s sources say OU must bring a school with it to enter the SEC.

Edit: just repeating what I'm seeing now, I think it's kind of bullshit.
 

gmogmo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
741
Hingham, Ma
QUOTE (Sea Bass Neely @ Jun 10 2010, 04:07 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016612
Some of this is based on assumption, but:

- Likely an increase in conference games.
- The Big Ten being pissed at them and not scheduling (you might get a game or two vs Michigan and Purdue, but you won't get Pitt, Nebraska, etc)
- Teams not willing to go on the road. Home games are revenue and teams want all they can get.
- So this means, ND is looking at scheduling a lot more mid-majors and this toughens their route to a national title bid. ND having to schedule 12 games and everyone else having to schedule 2-3 is a pain in their ass.

Everything about ND not being relevant in the national title picutre of late is spot on, but you're nuts if you don't think schools line up to get ND on their schedule......
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
QUOTE (RingoOSU @ Jun 10 2010, 04:41 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016656
The Kansas City TV station KCTV5 is reporting, citing multiple high-level sources, that Texas and Texas A&M are now looking to move to the Big Ten Conference and have petitioned for membership, leaving Oklahoma scrambling to join the SEC, and Oklahoma State, the Pac-10.

KCTV5’s sources say OU must bring a school with it to enter the SEC.

Edit: just repeating what I'm seeing now, I think it's kind of bullshit.


I don't get why they just don't go get TCU into the Big 12 and one other team, maybe Houston and keep the conference intact.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
QUOTE (jsinger121 @ Jun 10 2010, 03:53 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016674
I don't get why they just don't go get TCU into the Big 12 and one other team, maybe Houston and keep the conference intact.

The TV revenue just hasnt been there for the big 12. They have no contracts close to what the other conferences get. Reportedly joining the pac 10 doubles the tv revenue for the schools that have supposedly been invited.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
3,696
Alameda, CA
QUOTE (jsinger121 @ Jun 10 2010, 04:53 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016674
I don't get why they just don't go get TCU into the Big 12 and one other team, maybe Houston and keep the conference intact.

At this point, they maybe could get Utah and BYU if they wanted them as well, since the PAC-10 seems not to be interested. They'd slot right in to the B-12 North to replace Nebraska and Colorado.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,768
New York, NY
It is a bit weird to me that there hasn't been more Texas to the Big Ten talk in recent days. It's not just clear why the Pac 10 is a better fit than the Big Ten is, considering the Big Ten network already exists. I would be thrilled if that Kansas City report were accurate.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
10,737
The Yay Area
I think the benefit from Stanford's point of view is that in the wholly unlikely scenario where absolutely everything broke the right way, they stole a couple games they didn't deserve, U$C was on probation - wait, maybe that's not totally unlikely - and so on, if they ran the table in the Pac-16, they would get a chance to play for a title. The staggeringly small odds of them going undefeated in the regular season maybe falls from 3 in 10 million to say 2 in 10 million because now you've got Oklahoma and Texas and a bunch of really tough teams, but the odds of them going undefeated and then *not* getting a bid to play in a title game just fell by an order of magnitude.

Basically, it'll never happen anyway, but if it did, they would be pretty much assured of a shot at the BCS championship, whereas the combination of "It's Stanford" and any east coast bias against the existing Pac-10 could theoretically fuck them out of a title game berth under the current system.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,143
My Desk
If Texas goes to the Big 10 and Oklahoma goes to the SEC or PAC10 that further erodes some historic rivalries. No more Nebraska - CU, Nebraska - OU, Texas - OU and potentially Texas - A&M. What we're witnessing this week is nothing short of historic in terms of NCAA history.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,143
My Desk
From @chipbrown:

There is no truth to reports that Texas and Texas A&M are considering the Big Ten. But A&M is still considering the SEC.

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech appear to be in lock step to the Pac-10 but will wait til next week to announce anything.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
4,278
02148
QUOTE (Trautwein's Degree @ Jun 10 2010, 07:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016985
If Texas goes to the Big 10 and Oklahoma goes to the SEC or PAC10 that further erodes some historic rivalries. No more Nebraska - CU, Nebraska - OU, Texas - OU and potentially Texas - A&M. What we're witnessing this week is nothing short of historic in terms of NCAA history.

The rivalry aspect of conference realignment is overblown. Nebraska-CU hasn't been an important game in some time and has been overshadowed by the Iron Bowl on Black Friday. Nebraska-OU has not been an annual game since the formation of the Big 12 in 1996. The Red River Shootout Rivalry was an out-of-conference game (Big 8 vs. SWC) until 1996, and will likely continue even if the Big 12 collapses. Texas and A&M will likely have to stick together due to political reasons.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
QUOTE (Trautwein's Degree @ Jun 10 2010, 06:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016985
If Texas goes to the Big 10 and Oklahoma goes to the SEC or PAC10 that further erodes some historic rivalries. No more Nebraska - CU, Nebraska - OU, Texas - OU and potentially Texas - A&M. What we're witnessing this week is nothing short of historic in terms of NCAA history.

OU-Texas existed 90 years before the big 12 did.
 

AgentOrange

Member
SoSH Member
May 15, 2007
476
QUOTE (bowiac @ Jun 10 2010, 04:50 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016724
It is a bit weird to me that there hasn't been more Texas to the Big Ten talk in recent days. It's not just clear why the Pac 10 is a better fit than the Big Ten is, considering the Big Ten network already exists. I would be thrilled if that Kansas City report were accurate.


I don't understand it either, unless it's completely tied to Texas being forced to stay in the same conference with Tech and Aggy. I've been a Big Ten booster from the beginning. I'd rather not deal with a bunch of Pacific Time Zone games. And it would be great to be in the same conference as Michigan, tOSU, and PSU. I'm pretty sure it would be better financially than the Pac-10 as well.
 

roundegotrip

Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2008
1,940
Nebraska
QUOTE (Trautwein's Degree @ Jun 10 2010, 06:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3016985
If Texas goes to the Big 10 and Oklahoma goes to the SEC or PAC10 that further erodes some historic rivalries. No more Nebraska - CU, Nebraska - OU, Texas - OU and potentially Texas - A&M. What we're witnessing this week is nothing short of historic in terms of NCAA history.


NU-CU is a rivalry in the minds of Colorado fans only, and NU-OU pretty much died when the Big 8 ended. The end of the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry was a bitter pill for NU fans to swallow, and that bitterness still lingers. One of the many reasons the NU fan base doesn't feel too bad about waving goodbye to the Big XII is that they feel they already lost the one rivalry game they really cared about 15 years ago.
 

SoxScout

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2003
30,149
Video interview with Chip Brown: http://vimeo.com/12474386

Pac-10 might put A&M on the clock and Kansas or Utah could get their spot if they don't commit to Pac soon.

QUOTE
@ChipBrownOB A&M regent Gene Stallings is really driving the Texas A&M-to-SEC movement. But Texas Gov. Rick Perry (A&M alum) wants UT and A&M together.

@ChipBrownOB Gov. Rick Perry appointed Gene Stallings as a regent. These two need to hug it out. They are at odds over SEC vs. Pac-10 right now.

@ChipBrownOB SEC commish Mike Slive laying down the red carpet to get Texas AND Texas A&M. Offered to move 2 teams from SEC W to SEC E for them.
 

roundegotrip

Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2008
1,940
Nebraska
Btw, every NU conference game this year is going to be insane. Everyone will be gunning for Nebraska, and Nebraska will be doing everything they can to go out on top. Texas @ Lincoln on Oct. 16th is going to be must see TV.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
The Big East supposedly had officials on KU's campus today. Adding the Big 12 North leftovers would help the Big East gain some piece of mind should the ACC or Big Ten cause a defection or two. It could even discourage teams from looking elsewhere, knowing it would have enough teams to host a conference championship game.

East Division
Connecticut
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia

West Division
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Louisville
Missouri

And for basketball, the Big East would be a 20-team juggernaut. Imagine what the Big East quarterfinals at MSG might look like. As for the travel, KU and K-State are both closer to Syracuse than USF, so when you look at it like that, it's not completely crazy. Should there be any defections from this football group, maybe UCF gives USF some company, or maybe Memphis adds a new market.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
28,569
Alexandria, VA
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 11 2010, 03:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3018880
The Big East supposedly had officials on KU's campus today. Adding the Big 12 North leftovers would help the Big East gain some piece of mind should the ACC or Big Ten cause a defection or two. It could even discourage teams from looking elsewhere, knowing it would have enough teams to host a conference championship game.

East Division
Connecticut
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia

West Division
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Louisville
Missouri

And for basketball, the Big East would be a 20-team juggernaut. Imagine what the Big East quarterfinals at MSG might look like. As for the travel, KU and K-State are both closer to Syracuse than USF, so when you look at it like that, it's not completely crazy. Should there be any defections from this football group, maybe UCF gives USF some company, or maybe Memphis adds a new market.


This just highlights how crazy things are at the moment. Of those 12, South Florida and Cincinnati are the only one that don't have serious rumors in this thread (or the previous one) suggesting they may not be in the Big East.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,557
Houston, TX
Gene Stallings is really killing A&M here if he succeeds in getting them into the SEC. They can't even crack the top echelon of the Big XII South, their athletic program operates at a deficit, they haven't won anything meaningful in years, and they're supposed to compete in the SEC? I for one have no love for aggy, but A&M's regents are blind if they don't see that this is a path that relegates them to Mississippi State-status for the rest of time. Dumb move.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
3,696
Alameda, CA
QUOTE (Kremlin Watcher @ Jun 11 2010, 08:40 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3018933
Gene Stallings is really killing A&M here if he succeeds in getting them into the SEC. They can't even crack the top echelon of the Big XII South, their athletic program operates at a deficit, they haven't won anything meaningful in years, and they're supposed to compete in the SEC? I for one have no love for aggy, but A&M's regents are blind if they don't see that this is a path that relegates them to Mississippi State-status for the rest of time. Dumb move.

Plus, that would rob us of the spectacle of seeing how A&M's traveling fans would handle the occasional weekend in Berkeley. That would be a cultural-exchange program, not a football game.