October 17th, 2016 at 5:47 PM ^
I'm not saying Nebraska is a bad school - it isn't. And your last two points regarding ag sciences and medical school are exactly what Nebraska's chancellor cited upon expulsion from the AAU.
HOWEVAH, the rankings* are not kind to Nebraska on ag sciences. US News ranks 26 U.S. schools on ag sciences, and Nebraska comes in ... 24th. (Sparty comes in a respectable 10/26 - and while I'm not a fan of their sports, I have great respect for their ag sciences.) So if I was Nebraska, I might not beat that drum too loudly.
See
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/search?country…
*And yeah, I know U.S. News & WR is not the final word. But still - bottom 10%? That's ... ungood.
October 17th, 2016 at 4:56 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 17th, 2016 at 4:40 PM ^
Three of those schools are/were/could be Big Ten expansion targets!
It's weird. I think we all suspected that one more conference had to fall, but between the Big 12 and the ACC I figured the former would win out.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 17th, 2016 at 8:10 PM ^
The Big XII's problem is that it still uses an unorthodox revenue-sharing model that benefits Texas to everyone else's detriment. All of the other conferences have equal revenue-sharing.
When the SWC fell apart in the early 90's, Texas was the biggest fish among its members who were looking for a new home. Texas flirted with both the the Pac-10 and the Big 8, and in order to land Texas, the Big 8 offered UT a sweetheart deal that basically guaranteed the Longhorns a disproportionate share of money and influence within the new conference. It seemed like a good trade-off at the time, but as the years went on, the original members of the old Big 8 began to resent Texas as it threw its weight around. The addition of four TX-based schools also turned what used to be a Midwest/Rocky Mountain/Plains conference into a conference that mostly revolved around the State of Texas. The tensions created by the Big 8's 1996 expansion are what have caused the Big XII to splinter.
October 17th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^
October 17th, 2016 at 8:41 PM ^
October 17th, 2016 at 9:29 PM ^
Houston would be a top 3 team in the league when it comes to football.
BYU has been solid in basketball in recent history.
...this is far from add Rutgers as it seems you're suggesting.
October 17th, 2016 at 10:38 PM ^
October 17th, 2016 at 4:57 PM ^
A decent summary here - LINK
Apparently, the list of candidates was as long as 17 schools at one point, most notably Cincinnati, BYU and Houston.
The part about the argument for Houston being the argument against Houston - i.e., recruiting competition - was something I think we probably all expected. The BYU problem is one of their Honor Code versus Big XII bylaws and Cincinnati....well, you don't just add them by themselves in their opinion, which I would agree with really.
October 17th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^
Yeah but if you could add Cincy and one of UCF/USF that would be a pretty good move. You'd get another P5 team in ohio, although I'd have a hard time believing it would lead to more recruits being open to Big 12 schools. And you'd get the Orlando/Tampa TV markets.
Heck you could add both Florida schools, Cincy, and Air Force to get to 14 teams without the baggage of Dividing up your precious TX recruits. Cincy is going to focus on recruiting Ohio. UCF/USF would recruit Florida. And I'm sure AF would continue to recruit nationwide.
The only problem with that is none of those schools are "blue bloods". UCF/USF are interchangeable as the 4th or 5th best team in the state of FL. Cincy is second fiddle to OSU. And AF isn't even the best military academy let alone the best MWC team available. They would give you back Denver as a media market though.
I've actually convinced myself this is a good idea. Tampa/St Pete's is the 11th largest media market, Denver is the 17th, Orlando is the 19th, and Cincy is the 36th. Those would be decent additions to renegotiate a TV deal.
October 17th, 2016 at 5:57 PM ^
Air Force would be a worse addition than Rutgers. Tiny school, very small following, very low ceiling.
They have fewer than 4,000 students, and not nearly the football history or following of even Army or Navy.
I would guess that Air Force is the 3rd most followed/supported team in Denver, behind CU and CSU.
Air Force bringing back the Denver market is like saying adding EMU would give you the Detroit market.
October 18th, 2016 at 9:37 AM ^
It's a stretch, but beggars can't be choosers. Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Colorado have already left. Oklahoma is rumored to be unhappy. The ship is sinking. USAF is not a football blue blood I can see the people in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, etc. enjoying a game against a military academy every year.
October 17th, 2016 at 9:32 PM ^
But I absolutely would've added Houston and Cincinnati.
BYU should remain independent.
IF you wanted to go to 14, then UCF and USF make sense, but they need to be a packaged deal.
That said, no reason to dilute it that much. Houston and Cincy would've been perfect, IMO.
October 18th, 2016 at 9:31 AM ^
But Houston would be too much competition for recruits. Ideally for the Big 12 they need programs that have their own recruiting bases and won't immediately dilute texas P5 recruiting.
October 17th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^
Kind of off this topic, but since we are talking about TV contracts I thought it would apply... But does anyone know when we should expect Big Ten games to air on Fox? Is it only the Big Ten championship game Fox gets? Or will they get regular season games down the road?
October 17th, 2016 at 6:24 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 17th, 2016 at 5:34 PM ^
Since expansion began, and through the initiation of the CFP, 4 super conferences seems inevitable.
Personally I think it stinks, because it means there will only be (probably) 64 top division schools.
Financially it probably makes sense. The lucky 64 will spend like superpowers, and everyone else will become banana republics. MAC schools will no longer feel pressured to spend big bucks to compete.
The talent disparity will, of course, grow. The Purdues and Oregon States of the world will probably get better, while the Westerns and Boise States will find it harder and harder to compete.
It seems more and more likely that the BIG, SEC, ACC and PAC will be the winners.
I'm not convinced Rutgers will make the final cut.
October 17th, 2016 at 5:51 PM ^
Currently there are 64 P5 teams
14 in the B1G
14 in the SEC
14 in the ACC
12 in the PAC 12
10 in the Big 12
If we do end up at 4 16 team conferences and they are the first 4 listed above I'd say Rutgers is safe because they are already in the club.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:09 PM ^
What about the little green people? Who goes undrafted from the grade school big12 kickball pool? Iowa State? KSU? TCU, Baylor?
ND, BYU, UConn, USF, Cinci, anyone else more desirable for the 4 megas?
October 18th, 2016 at 9:42 AM ^
If BYU can't get in the Big 12 I don't see them getting into any of the other 4.
Would ND join one of the mega conferences? They've held out this long. If they do join one it will likely be the ACC.
UConn is a worse version of Rutgers.
USF, Cincy? I don't know if they are any better than some of the bad P5 teams.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:07 PM ^
You forgot Notre Dame. Also, BYU is generally considered P5 for scheduling purposes.
October 18th, 2016 at 9:32 AM ^
To hell with ND.
And BYU was in the MWC before they went independent. They aren't P5, they are a solid G5 team.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:12 PM ^
With 5 P5 conferences, it's not pre-determined who gets in the CFP. IMO, that uncertainly at least leaves the door cracked open for a non-P5 team to sneak in.
If/when there are 4 16-team conferences, the winner of each conference will probably automatically qualify for the CFP.
Regarding Rutgers, you might be right Tuebor, but I'm not convinced. They somehow sneaked into the club, but seemingly everyone is wondering how and why.
Their horrible on-field performance, coupled with scandals and turmoil in their athletic department must give the BIG buyer's remorse.
I just can't imagine the BIG wouldn't be willing to swap them out if/when the Big 12 implodes.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:20 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 17th, 2016 at 6:30 PM ^
IMO, there will be more shake-ups until we're left with 4 16-team conferences, and some of the schools currently "in" will be "out".
There will probably be some chaos before the final 64 shakes out.
ND will eventually be forced to join a conference, and it's not too hard to figure out which teams are on the bubble:
Iowa St.
Kansas St.
Texas Tech
Wake Forest
BYU
Vandy
BC
Rutgers
Boise St.
Houston
Cincinnati?
A few other teams might be in trouble:
Baylor - recent scandal can't help their position
TCU - may not be that attractive, despite recent football success
Kansas - basketball prowess helps their case
Duke - ditto
October 17th, 2016 at 6:53 PM ^
I honestly don't see anyone leaving the ACC, B1G, SEC, or PAC. The only thing I can think of are rumors FSU or Clemson going to the SEC, but there is no reason for that if the conference survives.
It will be ND, Texas, TCU, Baylor, TTech, Oklahoma, OkSt, Kansas, KSU, ISU, WVU, BYU, Houston, Navy, Boise, USF, UCF, Cinci, UConn, Memphis, CSU --a few others will put their hats in like Tulane, UNLV, etc-- battling for :
1. ACC
2. ACC
3. B1G
4. B1G
5. SEC
6. SEC
7. PAC
8. PAC
9. PAC
10. PAC
Feel free to take your guesses at who goes where.
Best case scenario, IMO, would be if the B1G added Oklahoma to the West and ND to the East and called it a day. If ND is forced to be all in with a conference it would be really stupid for them to stick with the ACC--they'd lose all of their rivals--but who knows with them.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^
Most schools will cling to their place in the club.
However, I think the ever-escalating arms race may cause some soul-searching in some places, and conferences getting increasingly ruthless.
When it all shakes out (and it could take years and years), I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some schools say "enough".
Wake Forest, Duke, Vandy, BC, hell even NW may decide it makes more sense to de-emphasize football, and conferences might kick liabilities like Rutgers and Baylor to the curb.
October 17th, 2016 at 7:17 PM ^
All of the Power 5 conferences except the SEC have grants of rights in place (the reason the SEC doesn't have one is that it doesn't need one). For the B1G, the Pac-12, and the ACC, a grant of rights effectively prevents members from leaving, since the headache of challenging the grant of rights in court isn't worth the minimal financial benefit of defecting to another conference. Since the Big XII is the weakest of the Power 5 and seems to be falling further and further behind its peers, its grant of rights may not be worth the paper it's printed on.
October 17th, 2016 at 7:54 PM ^
I continue to be amazed at people acting as if the 4x16 model is the inevitable result, and that once achieved it will settle things for all time. You're expecting a neat and tidy result from an inherently chaotic process. Chaos does not turn into order without a greater force pushing it there, which doesn't exist here. Four conferences of 16 teams is no more likely than any other possible outcome. Everyone has their own list of interests at heart, and making sure the conference structure ends up all pretty and nice is so far down all of those lists it's not even conceivable.
October 17th, 2016 at 8:20 PM ^
Great point. The current alignment is already a bit of a mess with so many geographic outliers and odd fits that were driven by money and self-interest rather than what makes sense for college athletics as a whole (WVU in the Big XII, Colorado in the Pac-12, Missouri in the SEC, etc). There's no reason to think re-alignment will somehow bring forth order out of the chaos.
October 17th, 2016 at 8:39 PM ^
Wahoo, you may be correct that the NCAA and its conferences are too chaotic and undisciplined to reach a logical endgame.
However, there's plenty of evidence that a 4 conference, 64 team field is a very realistic outcome of all this:
- 4 team CFP makes 4 super conferences extremely logical. Conference championship games make de-facto 8 team playoff.
- Big XII is crumbling. Losing Mizzou, A&M, Nebraska and Colorado does not bode well. If they keep getting shut out of the playoff, especially with an undefeated team, they very likely would either expand or implode. Even expansion could further erode their prestige (AAC, anyone?).
- ND moving ever closer to conference affiliation
- B1G and SEC growing beyond 12 teams. To me, that confirmed my belief that 16 teams is inevitable. A conference with 10 teams simply can't compete with a much larger conference.
- Conference self-interest - moving to 4 super conferences would clearly eliminate any chance one of the little guys could sneak in. It's pretty clear the big guys are holding a winning hand, and they want to play it.
It's very conceivable. That's why so many people here and in the media have talked about it.
October 17th, 2016 at 9:15 PM ^
Of course it's conceivable. It's just not inevitable. I think you mistook my meaning in that last sentence there, so let me rephrase: Nobody in a decision-making capacity cares if the end result is 4x16. At all.
To address your bullets one by one:
- Nobody cares what's logical, only about how to get the best out of the situation for their own institution.
- Yes, but that doesn't do anything to drive conferences to 16 any more than it drives them to 14 or 18 or 15.
- See above.
- See above.
- Sneak in? This makes no sense at all Is the SEC going to take Oklahoma to preclude the possibility of waking up one day and finding Tulane has stealthily joined? Or do you mean the four conferences are worried about the Sun Belt weaseling its way into a guaranteed playoff spot? They don't need a particular number to avoid any of those scenarios. As you say, they're holding a winning hand. They've already played it and will continue to do so, and don't need to organize any special situation. In fact, they're smart enough not to collude too much lest they incur some kind of antitrust wrath, which is the ace in the hole that led them to the concession of allowing a Little 5 team into the "new BCS" in the first place.
Yes, of course 4x16 is conceivable, but that's not why people talk about it. People talk about it for the same reason they talk about promotion/relegation: they like to imagine everything working perfectly just the way they want it. Equally conceivable is 14-16-14-16, or 16-16-14-12, or 16-18-14-12 followed shortly thereafter by 16-10-8-14-12. Or, in fact, a great many different combinations. The last 16-team football conference exploded three years after its formation and is now a pitiful shell of its former self (not to mention no longer sponsoring football). There's nothing so magic about 4x16 that can't be ruined by self-interests chasing even more money.
October 17th, 2016 at 10:05 PM ^
Especially the part about self interest driving decisions.
To clarify, I meant that with 4 16-team superconferences, no other school could be in the playoff - thus, nobody outside those 64 teams "sneaking in".*
Right now there are 4 spots for 5 conferences + independents and Go5, so it would indeed be in the interest of the B1G, ACC, PAC and SEC to guarantee their spot in the playoff.
So yes, I absolutely believe people in power have and do consider the benefit of a 4x16.
Furthermore, I think the real power brokers (Delany, fmr. SEC commish Slive, ESPN pres.John Skipper) play a long game. They may not always get their way, but they're at least looking beyond the current chaos. Maybe I give them too much credit.
As for why "people" talk about it - well, I can only speak for myself. I don't want it, and don't like it. I simply feel it's the destination the train is rollin' toward.
Just as you probably meant it's "inconceivable" to you, I meant it seems "inevitable" to me.
*I hadn't considered the possibility of antitrust or other legislative issues - I don't know much about that, so I can't comment. Even with a 4x16, they could still hold a token "vote", I suppose.
October 17th, 2016 at 10:33 PM ^
Even if every word of that were absolutely true, though, none of it guarantees a 4x16. One conference may want 14 teams, one may want 18 teams. And really, the conferences aren't going to necessarily agree with each other on what's best for whom. The Pac-12 may think it best to guarantee each conference a spot, but the SEC or B1G, for example, may prefer to hold out for simply having the top four teams. They're not guaranteed to agree.
Furthermore, they're not likely to think of it in terms of squashing the AAC and CUSA. I think your post is still thinking too collaboratively. The P5 conferences have operated far more often at odds with one another than together. They're going to try and get all they can for themselves, not set up a system by which they can collectively profit at the expense of the Little 5. That may mean expanding to 18. Or it may mean expanding the playoff to six or eight teams (the latter of which is not at all guaranteed to mean they'll just agree to guarantee themselves two spots each.)
I don't at all think it's inconceivable. I am sure, however, 100% convinced, that there are ten zillion variables involved in all of this and any one of them can throw off the supposedly inevitable. Nothing is inevitable, not in this game. And let's face it, if people like Delany played the long game, there sure as hell would be no Rutgers in the Big Ten.
October 17th, 2016 at 11:23 PM ^
You're right.
I think 4x16 is the most likely scenario, but it's far - light years - from certain.
Many weird combinations could happen, and maybe the whole thing blows up and half the schools go independent.
Just because I think it's inevitable doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I'm not sitting in any meetings, what do I know?
The mess we have now is evidence that these guys are recklessly self-interested and far from master planners.
I do feel there's more collaboration than we're led to believe. Delany talks to Slive (now Sankey, and Scott, and Swofford). It's very possible they have (or could formulate) a shared vision for the future structure of college football, including conference size and CFP. If/when that happens, there's a good chance they have the power put it in place.
One thing you said I believe is wrong - they absolutely do act to collectively profit at the expense of the little 5.
Both previous pphs are not in opposition to self-interest. Big guys working together to keep all the toys is all about self-interest.
Of course you're right about Delany and Rutgers.
I'd like to think his "master plan" of bringing in Rutgers and MD had something more to it than just adding eastern seaboard schools near big cities. It had to, right? Right?
October 18th, 2016 at 1:00 AM ^
October 18th, 2016 at 3:32 PM ^
The logic of 4x16 is creating a simple, known path to the CFP, nothing else.
If you look at it from the perspective of (future) P4 power brokers (commissioners, AD's, coaches) monopolizing the path to the CFP and guaranteeing their conference being included, it's perfectly logical to them.
If you look at it from the perspective of making every game valuable, you're absolutely right.
I don't like it, but it appears to be the direction things are going. We've already seen the elimination or marginalization of many traditional rivalry games, and conferences structured to create division champions (de-emphasizing cross division games).
Initiating the CFP already has turned college football in the direction of pro football, where teams are in defined conferences and there's a known playoff structure. Moving to a 4x16 seems to me the way this is all going. Maybe they'll add a couple wild card teams to keep some intrigue.
It also seems clear that the arms race and disparity in $$ between haves and have-nots is growing. I believe some schools are going to stop trying to fight a losing war, or just decide they've had enough. That includes (IMO) some schools currently in P5.
Let me be clear - I don't like this path. Why?
1. Many winners vs. 1 - I never even liked the BCS. One of the best things about college football was that numerous teams could have "successful" seasons, with the satisfying conclusion of winning a bowl game. When Michigan made (and won) the Rose Bowl, the season was an unqualified success. Now even the Rose Bowl is an unsatisfactory consolation prize.
2. It was fun to argue about who was mythical "national champion". I liked the 4 major bowl games. They were fun, and 4 teams (or more) could feel their season was a complete success.
3. College football was more about rivalries and the regular season than about making the CFP. Now, pretty much every college football show is dedicated to guessing "who's in?". Boring!
4. Once a team has 2 conference losses, they're out of contention. I saw an interview where Jimbo Fisher had to justify why his 3-2 team should even be motivated to play the rest of their schedule.
5. A 4x16 structure could well eliminate the tantalizing possibility of an "outsider" school crashing the playoff. One of the best things about college football is the little guy who challenges the established powers.
Sorry for the long post.
October 17th, 2016 at 8:51 PM ^
October 18th, 2016 at 1:06 AM ^
October 18th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^
They prove my point. Did anyone think they would regularly challenge to win the conference? Of course not. They were added for $$.
As someone mentioned, there are already 64 P5 schools + ND and BYU. Add Boise St, UConn, Houston, Cincy and UCF/USF to the mix, there are enough schools to choose from.
Every conference has bottom feeders, middle tier, and traditional powers.
The PAC needs 4 schools to get to 16. They could add:
Oklahoma and Okie St - seem to be a package deal, and PAC likes having regional pairs.
Texas and [TCU, Texas Tech, Houston or Baylor]. Adds Texas to their footprint.
Kansas and Kansas St - not ideal, but historically not much worse than OR/OSU or AZ/AZ St (and good for hoops).
Boise St and BYU. BYU not likely, but not impossible.
That's 8+ plausible additions for 4 slots.
ESPN didn't like the non-P5 choices available to an already weak Big XII. Increasing the footprint of the PAC by adding current P5 schools is a completely different question.
I don't think the PAC network would mind expanding their reach - sounds like something another conference did recently.
Again, let me emphasize. I don't like this!
October 17th, 2016 at 6:26 PM ^
That will make things interesting (and be an easy way to get rid of Rutgers)!
October 17th, 2016 at 10:17 PM ^
October 17th, 2016 at 10:41 PM ^
Relegation only works where its almost statistically impossible for the major powers to get relegated (other than being punished, eg Rangers, or some of those teams in Serie A). All of the CFB bluebloods tho have had periods of gross incompetence -- us, USC, ND, Bama, Texas, etc. No way a TV network takes that risk.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
Not to mention that conference affiliation is about more than just Football.
As much as we pick on Illinois for having a "rivalry" with us they have been playing football games against us for over a century. Replacing them with Northern Illinois because they have a bad stretch would be a terrible idea.
October 17th, 2016 at 11:30 PM ^
As long as they don't move NYC, Rutgers will make the cut. That's how they wound up in the B1G in the first place.
October 17th, 2016 at 5:46 PM ^
Here in the Big D the talking head consensus last week was that if the B12 didn't expand it would become quickly irrelevant as other conferences started poaching even more teams.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
Oklahoma holds all of the cards. If the Sooners and the SEC (and the Cowboys, since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are probably a package deal) can work out a marriage, then the Big XII will either collapse altogether or fade into the second tier. No one wants to deal with Texas and its bullshit, so I think Texas will go independent in football and leave its other sports in a castrated Big XII, which will then re-brand itself as a basketball conference.
I honestly don't know if the B1G would be interested in adding anyone from the Big XII. Oklahoma is a possibility, but it's more of a natural fit in the SEC. WVU is a terrible school academically. Outside of Texas, no one else has sufficient cache to justify expansion, IMHO. Kansas' basketball program is attractive, but probably isn't enough of a money-maker to justify taking on its putrid football program.
October 17th, 2016 at 6:16 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 17th, 2016 at 7:18 PM ^
Wordwide, you're absolutely correct that Rutgers and Maryland were added almost solely to attempt to add the NYC, DC and Jersey markets to the BIG, and Nebraska was added to improve the BIG's football standing/reputation.
That said, I believe there's serious concern about those decisions.
Rutgers is the weakest BIG school athletically. Their football and hoops teams are a joke, most of their other teams stink, and their athletic department is a scandal-plagued disaster.
I also think there's a fair amount of disappointment in Nebraska's getting booted from the AAU shortly after joining the conference. Nebraska doesn't match the rest of the conference academically.
Maryland seems like a "meh" addition so far. Good in hoops, lower-tier for the BIG in football and academically. Probably does help the BIG presence in DC area.
When/if the Big X11 implodes, I'm not sure Oklahoma would be welcomed into the BIG. Small market, poor fit geographically and culturally, inferior academics.
Then again, I never imagined they'd add Rutgers, so what do i know?
October 17th, 2016 at 10:36 PM ^
The reality is that Md is an ACC school -- culturally and historically tied to tocacco road and UVa. Totally stupid to put them in the B1G. Was a cash grab by school mgt that wasnt from the ACC but was from the B1G. Its nonsense for a completely illusory reason.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad