What about North Carolina? Other than that, no other school in the East really does it for me, except maybe Va Tech.
BSD - Conference Expansion: Delany Goes Corleone
i have always thought syracuse was a good fit for the B1G; Syracuse and ND would be ideal, add NC and Duke and you have my ideal 16 team B1G.
Pitt used to be mentioned by some, as it is a pretty decent school.
Nebraska was a great get. The problem is there are fewer Nebraskas out there.
I would love to add VA and VA Tech to the conference.
UVA intangible: students run around naked at graduation time. That should count for something.
I don't know where the hell you got that idea.
Streaking the Lawn is not limited to only graduation time.
"Yep - the Big Ten makes the most money today, with the oldest set of contracts, in a fast growth market."
The B1G is a fast growth market? Can't remember the last time I heard this region referred to in that way. Both coasts and the south are much too fond of referring to this as the Rust Belt. The author could be referring to CFB as the fast growth market, though that would seem redundant given the content of the article.
That's the market that he means is growing fast, at least that's how it reads to me.
The B1G market does have one huge thing going for it - Big Cities. Maybe Detroit proper isn't as big as it once was, but the metropolitan area's growth has been flat (people leave the city for the suburbs). Not to mention nationally huge cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and to an extent Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Plus all of Ohio.
Check out the B1G footprint vs. the SEC footprint in terms of population:
States in the B1G Footprint: Iowa: 3M, Illinois: 13M, Indiana: 6.5M, Michigan: 10M, Minnesota: 5M, Nebraska: 2M, Ohio: 11.5 M, Penn: 12.5M, Wisky: 5.5M. Total of 69M people
States in the SEC Footprint: Alabama: 5M, Arkansas: 3M, Florida: 19M, Georgia: 10M, Louisiana: 4.5M, Tennesee: 6M Kentucky: 4M, South Carolina: 4.5M. Total of 56M People
Numbers rounded and taken from here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-Votes-By-State.htm
The reports of population dearth in the midwest are exaggerated
the midwest are all old people, or people too worried about the safety of football, over much safer sports like say hockey ..... /s
he means CFB/TV market.
It isn't so much about local economies as it is about viewership and rights, and those transcend traditional regional boundaries, of course.
As I recall, the Big Ten is second overall in football ratings per Nielsen, and first in basketball (behind the SEC in football, and just in front of the ACC in basketball). This site ESPN blog entry has the contract breakdown - http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/705/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
Some of the highlights -
* First-tier (ESPN): $1 billion through 2016
* Second-tier: $2.8 billion through 2032
* Select contracts with CBS (basketball) for $72 million through 2017 and Fox (bowl coverage) for $145 million through 2016 (although I wonder how this one actually works).
Whether the valuations of these contracts given the viewership numbers is appropriate would be a separate debate, but if Larry Scott can get a $3 billion deal for first-tier rights (and somehow still come in under Big Ten numbers in per school average revenue), then I'll say that rights and licensing in general is a growth market, and it is growing the fastest in conferences with greater viewership.
If the potential revenue from such deals is a primary driver in further realignment, then it is interesting to note that third in overall football viewership is the ACC.
I think Pitt is a good add. Revive that rivalry with PSU, although I guess you're not adding much in the way of new tv markets. I could get on board with VT and UVa (if we had to take UVa, which we would to get VT). Add GaTech if ND finally gets with the program, and you have yourself a 16 team conference.
Penn State used to play both Maryland and Syracuse fairly regularly, and have played UVa 7 times, but have never played VaTech. But I don't think the rest of the Big Ten has much if any history with these schools.
I've lived in Pittsburgh and worked on Pitt's campus for two years now. I disagree that they would be a good addition to the B10. First, their football team plays in Heinz field and rarely if ever sell that out. So much so they struggled to sell-out ND and WVU the past two years and those are their "biggest" games. Secondly, Pitt has incredibly fickle fans. Few people in Pittsburgh care about Pitt football because of the Steelers and not many more care about Pitt basketball unless they are in the top-3 of their conference (See 2011-2012 season and attendance figures). Finally, adding Pitt adds no extra TV markets or regional draw. PSU has already accomplished whatever the B10 could hope to accomplish with Pitt. The only reason Pitt is thrown around is their relatively comparable academic standards. I don't think it's a good fit as much as I enjoy Pittsburgh and Pitt athletics.
we don't need anybody else in the Big 10, 12 is plenty, and Va isn't good enough and screw V Tech, we dont need those kind of teams in our conference, no more expansion!!!!
VaTech has fairweather fans that don't travel well. People say their fans travel well, except their AD is begging people to buy tickets most years. It is just like Nebraska football a few years ago when alumnus had to but a shitload of tickets to keep their "sellout streak" alive. You have 80,000 seats, no MSU, EMU, CMU and no other pro teams within driving distance. Yeahhhh look at you go! No more teams!
I like the idea of adding UNC/UVa, could make the Big 10 the public-ivy conference. Great for our academic standing
Fine for football, but there are plenty of other schools with better academics that would fit. One of the unique things about the Big Ten is the high academic standing of the institutions, generally speaking. I thought adding Nebraska hurt that a bit. Virginia would be a great addition from the academic perspective, VT less so.
UVA and VT are a package deal. UVA was essentially forced by the state legislature to fight for VT's acceptance into the ACC. Though VT isn't as great academically, they are no worse IMO than some of the lower tier B1G schools, but what they do have is an energetic and large fanbase.
For me, the always fun hypothetical question of "If we have to expand to 16 because super conferences are coming to eat our children" would be answered by adding ND, UVA, VT, and either Maryland or Rutgers. I think that would keep balance in terms of academics and athletics, and then the conference divisions actually could be re-created to have an east/west balance for football that includes a power football/crappy football balance.
Going from the Big East to the ACC meant a lot to VT and UVA was in a position to either help them or blackball them. UVA won't have that kind of power again and VT might well find it's way into the SEC if the ACC were to disintegrate. Considering that expanding footprints is driving expansion, why would the Big Ten even consider adding two schools from VA? Any expansion candidates are going to compete with schools that add a desirable new market or a national following.
I agree. I don't think they're the package deals every thinks they are.
UVa and VaTech are as much of a package deal as South Carolina and Clemson, Georgia and Georgia Tech, Florida and Florida State, and Texas and Texas A&M are.
Especially if VT finds a happy home in the B12. Then VA could go to the B1G and the Virginia legis is happy too.
that guarantees an LSU/Bama '11 situation every year, plus Appy State or Western Michigan advancing to the semi-final every seven years or so? This is fine by me, but imagine the howling if UGA had beaten LSU in their conference championship this past season.
I like the VT bass fishing team. Man could the B10 use a bass fishing league or what, we have got the lakes and rivers that would clearly make us the top conference in that sport.
We can also use Kevin Van Damn as a recruiting tool, but the SEC would counter with Bill Dance and Hank Parker.
B1G Original Teams Division
B1G New Teams Division
Boston College ( could replace with pick one of Maryland/Rutgers/Syracuse)
UVA (could replace with UNC if VA legislature allows it)
Play 12 Conference games, sorry MAC and Pac12 see you in Rose Bowl, plus CCG.
7 intradivisional games + 2 permanent crossovers (Ohio and MSU) leaves 3 games out of 6 opponents. So you would play everyone frequently. Now that would be a schedule.
to be a big change, the first thing I would do is get UM/OSU back into the same division. I don't know how deadly serious DB was about prioritizing a once-every-nine-year-or-so UM/OSU matchup in the neutral-site conference championship; for me, when the annual UM/OSU matchup ceases to be a central event in CFB, then CFB is a strange and new sport to me. You can molify me if you move the championship to the home venue of the higher-ranked division winner and UM and OSU both win their division three years in a row. In the meantime, the split into separate divisions puts our favorite game at high risk over time.
As far as VTech, I'm not sure this conforms to what we learned last go-round, which is that Universities make ten or more times the money off research grants correlated to membership in the AAU than they do off Football/TV. When speculating on conference realignment, I would consult this list first.
What's the latest on Nebraska's AAU status? Apropos which, this guy said the following, which I hadn't heard before:
The application process to the AAU, assuming initial academic standards are met, requires a vote among the existing AAU members. A relatively small block of schools can blackball a university. For example, the 12 CIC (B1G plus Chicago) members were not able to protect Nebraska's membership from the jilted Big XII schools. As such, Nebraska's membership has been put on hold.
I really don't want Virginia Tech - they're a solid football program, but not histrorically, and they bring nothing else to the table. I'd much rather have UNC, UVA, Maryland or Syracuse, in that order (in addition to ND, of course). BC, no thanks.
I read your header and I was like EFF YOU and then I read your post and I was like NEVER MIND.
In all seriousness, I know I should be flattered when I see people say they want UVA in the B1G, but really the opposite is what happens because I don't want to be in the B1G at all.
And then really I take it a step farther than that, and can't understand why people aren't happy with the 12-team conference we've got. I feel like it's some kind of new toys phenomenon. Gotta collect em all. But why should we (Michigan, I mean now) have any desire to play UNC or GT or UMD or UVA as conference mates? Bored with Iowa and Wisconsin? The B1G is a midwestern conference, I don't even remotely get the desire to start adding these outliers that are totally different from the schools we have now.
Yeah, I agree with you, I'e like to stay put if possible. It's more of a "if we need to add, who should it be" discussion.
For my edification, what would be a scenario where the B1G needs to add anyone? All I can think of: Needing a 14th team for balance if ND joins.
This is why, by the way, I think notions of the ACC disintegrating are far-fetched. The B1G is much more likely to sit tight than to act as a lifeboat for ACC teams. The B1G is in the best place of any of the major conferences. Their renegotiation window is the soonest, and even then, they don't even have to renegotiate to boost their revenue stream. The BTN will keep pumping out money basically forever. ACC schools are roughly half the size of B1G schools, so I really don't think the B1G can add enough revenue with any of them to offset the extra payment.
Yeah, the only scenarios where that would come up would be if ND wanted in and we needed a pair or the landscape was such that all major conferences needed 14 or 16 teams.
However, I think a team like UNC would bring more than they take. They would probably be slightly above average compared to other Big Ten teams in terms of revenue - their football team ranges from meh to pretty good (like much of the Big Ten), and their basketball, baseball and lacrosse teams are top notch. They would be better than Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern and MSU in terms of revenue.
And it's hard to see the second scenario, given that the Pac 12 is now landlocked by the newly stable Big 12. Since the Pac 12 is now fundamentally the Big 10's partner conference, I don't know where the outside pressure to expand would come from.
Delaney has said repeatedly that he would like to expand the B1G's footprint into areas of the country that are growing . . . Maryland/DC, Virginia, NC, Atlanta would all do this if he is indeed serious about it.
The outside pressure I see is losing out on expanding the footprint of both the BTN and the ABC/ESPN teir 1 contract. If the "good" teams, the ones that will bring in more large markets are snapped up before we get around to expanding the footprint, we stay put. That may sound great to you and me, but to the AD departments of the exsiting B1G schools, that's unacceptable. If the SEC takes VTU and NCST while the Pac 12 makes an Eastern Pod with UNC, Duke, UVA and Maryland and the Big XII snaps up ND, GT, FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville, we can't expand the footprint and lose out on money.
The ACC, if it loses FSU, Clemson, and VTU will be severly hurt as a football conference. Will it die? Not in a million years. But the money they can bring in will be severley hurt because they will become a non entity in the landscape of college football. IMO, The B1G will make a play for some of those ACC schools when those schools realize that they can't make enough money to support their other programs (read Title IX). If or when those schools are ready, the B1G will listen and probably expand.
If you added ND, than Texas would be a willing participant to join the B1G. I think you could snatch both of them and add Syracuse/rutgers and Virgina and that in itself would bring huge payouts.
ND and Texas would minimize their losses by joining the same conference and something that was rumored to happen.
UTx's entitlement issues will survive the 16-team conference era?
I have trouble seeing them go gently into this dark night.
No one else is leaving the Big 12 for at least 6 years, since all the schools have pledged their first and second tier media rights to the conference for that time. That means that even if they were to switch conferences, the right to broadcast Texas games and the revenues that come from them, would go to the Big 12.
Texas has alrady broken up two conferences.
When a woman is smoking hot but you find out she's been divorced twice in a row, you've got to believe in the interest of self preservation that something's up.
If Miami somehow decides to stop all of the ridiculous violations could they be a plausible choice? We bring a national fanbase, a lot of tradtion, the most fertile recruiting ground in the nation, and our academics have improved drastically over the past 10 years.
Hardly, on all counts. Does Miami have a national fanbase? I've lived in a handful of places outside of the South, and I don't remember seeing many Canes fans at all.
A lot of tradition? Miami was a nobody team until the 80s, and they were a great program (from a W/L perspective) until about 2002, and now they're again just above average. 20 years of good football (that we now know was riddled with scandal) does not mean "a lot of tradition."
Academics are borderline (and not up to par with the other schools we would consider) and although the recruiting ground is certainly fertile, there are already tons of schools fighting over that area. I don't think that's enough.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was just wondering where Miami might stand. I wasn't sure about the national fanbase idea, and it just seems that a large portion of our fanbase continuously plasters that on message boards. I would just like to see my school not get left out of a BCS conferenc. Where do you think, if anywhere, Miami will end up?
Miami may be in the process of getting nuked by the NCAA and until that's settled, they're probably radioactive (see the synergy there, eh??) to the power conferences. They also have never really been committed from a school standpoint to football. They don't have an on-campus stadium, don't sell out games, and have subpar facilities.
Miami is a good fit for the SEC from a geographic standpoint, but otherwise, I don't see them as a great fit anywhere besides the ACC. Miami is a long, long way from Tallahassee, much less Austin, TX, which I think would be the nearest school to them in the current Big 12 membership.
Bottom line, I think they're going to struggle if another round of realignment happens soon. That said, Miami does have one of the best recruiting grounds in the country. If they get serious and start winning again, they can still be a player and be an attractive candidate for the SEC or Big 12 if things fall right for them.
I still don't understand why people ignore BC in favor of other schools. They are often mediocre in football, but they do occasionally have bouts of quality; meanwhile, you would suddenly be dumping the B1G network in the massive Boston metroplex. And if you're looking at schools like Syracuse, this is geographically more appropriate than a Southern school like UNC.
The problem is that after a hypothetical pickup of Notre Dame, all the best football teams are off the table for the B1G (we are not getting FSU or Miami), so you're looking at secondary qualities. UNC and Duke as a package deal would expand the B1G footprint and be a monster basketball move, but UNC's football program isn't very good and Duke would fight Indiana for the basement every year. Va Tech is a football plus, but they aren't a "name brand" and UVA is no better at football than BC. The upside is that the B1G Network could move in on the DC metroplex.
I suppose Georgia Tech, allegedly a sound academic institution, would be a nice add to get a foothold in the South, but... Georgia Tech?
I'm also a bit surprised that BC isn't mentioned more. If Notre Dame is in the mix then the BC would seem like a natural. Football is definitely popular in New England and BC is really the only major team up there. Seems like low hanging fruit to me.
I lived in Boston for four years, and I didn't get the impression that many people cared about BC. I didn't get the impression that people cared much about football at all until the Pats started winning...I'm not saying that my impression was necessarily right, but I do question NE as a college football market.
The last time big-time college football mattered in the Northeast was when the Ivies were still giving out athletic scholarships and Army was a top 5 program.
First off, like New York, Boston is a pro sports town. Secondly, there are very few D-IA schools in the area. In the 6 New England states, only BC, UConn, and I guess now UMass are D-I. Only BC has any history and it's a small, private school to begin with.
So you have a school with few alumni in the area for a sport that isn't supported in the area in the first place. High school football isn't particularly big in this region as well and other sports do fill the void: lacrosse, hockey, etc.
It's somewhat analogous to Rutgers in New York, although at least that's a state school and New Jersey really likes its high school football.
Rutgers, although another sub-par choice, would actually be better than BC because, unlike BC, Rutgets has a huge enrollment (like 50k) and therefore a huge alumni base, concentrated in the area(s) we're looking to target. If you listed the criteria for adding a program, BC checks off almost none of them.
Football is so popular in New England that BC, their "only major team" managed to average under 36k per game, despite being near a major metropolitan area. Sounds like people really love their BC football - let's jump on that.
I think New Englanders' taste for watching large men smash each other leans mostly toward hockey and the Patriots.
The only way BC would be invited to the B1G is if ND insists that they be part of a package deal. (Truth be told, the B1G would probably take anybody that ND wanted as a package deal, as long as they're coming in with ND.)
It's nice that Minnesota received that 24 million dollar payout or whatever it was, but doesn't that include ALL media money.
The SEC and Big XII schools can all negotiate their own Tier 3 rights. For Vanderbilt, I can't imagine that's a ton (although I figure it's north of 0). For the Florida's of the world, that's 10 million a year which means UF made nearly 30 million this past year.
What am I missing?
BTW, what do schools like NW and Indiana do with all that money? They don't seem to be spending it on football facilities
Why expand for the sake of expanding? The only real candidate out east for me is Virginia Tech. They would be a home run like Nebraska, but they have a better academic standing than Nebraska.
Pitt: Is already in a market we own
Syracuse: Poor football team
Rutgers: Poor sports teams in general/ pro sports fan area
Maryland: Poor football team
Virginia: Decent football team/ hasn't had the success of their neghbor VT
Connecticut: poor football team/pro sports fan area
Growth media markets.
I do not want to see the Big Ten add someone like
Although I agree that would be nice, that's like asking underpaid employees to stick with their jobs just because they know everyone. But if people can make more money somewhere else, they go somewhere else. Same goes with college athletic programs.
I down vote expansion. I see no positive from it. It just increases the problem that we see now with only seeing Wisconsin once every half a decade.
I have the complete opposite reaction. IF the B1G goes to 16 teams, UVA, UNC and GT (along with ND) are exactly the teams that I'd like to see.
UNC and UVA are two of Top 5 Public Universities in the US and GT is a strong school as well. Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia would all be in the top half of B1G states in terms of population (and growing). UNC basketball speaks for itself. UNC and UVA lacrosse would put the B1G on the map in that sport. GT isn't a school that I'd get excited about but it certainly looks like a viable option (in a fertile recruiting area).
Syracuse, BC,Pittsburgh and Maryland all seem like incredibly boring options to me. Don't even get me started with Rutgers.....zzzzzzzz.
why does it seem like so many people are so eager to expand, i don't get why so many people think we need more more teams in our conference, 12 is more than enough, i have no problem with Nebraska, they were a good get. but more than 12 is too many. lets just keep things how they are.
I'm with you on not being behind expansion.
Though it's fashionable now, it dilutes the B1G brand too much at this point.
Even ND (gasp!) at this point I feel is questionable whether it's worthwhile to bring on board (mostly due to the need to bring ANOTHER team to maintain divisional balance... And I can't think of a team available that is worth bringing on for the sake of ND, especially since ND has ceased to be a worthwhile trophy program for awhile now.
Rutgers has a bad football program though which is number 1 on the reasons for expansion.
I live in Atlanta so Im biased..It would be AWESOME to have Michigan teams play in Atlanta..
Ga Tech is a great academic fit and has a very good national athletic program not to mention the Atlanta TV market... and its straight shot down 75...Im guessing Ga Tech is closer than Nebraska /Penn St..maybe even Iowa
Bring in Ga Tech!!
Having made all of those drives I can tell you definitely that, from U-M, Nebraska is a little bit further than Atlanta, but Iowa and PSU are much closer. Besides, geography isn't about the numbers on the GPS. GT is a southern school. Nebraska and Michigan are midwestern schools. Even if it were about numbers on the GPS, the closest Big Ten school to GT is much farther away than the closest Big Ten school to any other Big Ten school. It's obviously as geographically ridiculous as WVU in the Big 12.
Also: Atlanta is an SEC town more than anything else. GT isn't big enough to turn it into a Big Ten town.
I think the next round of expansion, if it happens, will be a net neutral for the Big 10 unless Notre Dame is pushed into the fold by some crafty championship arrangements. I was one of the people who initially argued that Rutgers would be a great pickup to expand the BTN's reach, but I've come to side with Delany's view that quality football is what really matters. Nebraska was a huge, huge pickup for the Big 10, but there probably isn't another Nebraska out there.
The Big 12 is suddenly very stable and no one is going to leave the SEC. The great pickups from a football standpoint in the ACC are all down south and much more likely to be pulled into similarly lucrative deals with the SEC or Big 12--which also happen to have more invested in other sports that Southern schools dominate, like baseball. In my mind, there isn't a Big East school worth pursuing and there aren't any independents left after Notre Dame.
To me, North Carolina would be a solid pickup to balance out a hypothetical addition of Notre Dame, but then they'd have to partially walk away from their rivalry with Duke and ditch NC State, which may be politically impossible. Virginia would be wonderful academically, but they don't bring much in terms of sports to the conference, which is the whole point of expansion.
In the end, I think the BIg 10 is too rich to become unstable and too powerful to not get an equal share of any new playoff/bowl arrangement. If that's the case, why add any school that isn't a serious net gain for the entire conference? The schools would rather split their TV and playoff/bowl revenue 12 ways instead of 14 or 16 if those additions don't increase everyone's share of the pie.
If we want to compete with the SEC, we need to bring in more strong football teams. That's why insert random Big East school will hurt us in prestige and it would dilute our brand.