Expansion Speculation

Submitted by ForestCityBlue on

The Big 12 and the Big East look to be firmly on the path to destruction.  What will things look like when the dust settles?  What will it mean for the Big 10?  The recent moves of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC throws a monkey wrench into everyone's thinking, in so much as it was always thought that football and the TV revenues from football would be the driver.  The ACC expansion shows that basketball is on the table as well.  Again, where will things settle out when it is all said and done? 

One of the factors that is important to the Big 10 is academic standing, and a part of that is membership in the AAU (Association of American Universities).  Although important, it is not the only criteria as the addition of Nebraska shows.   Apparently the Big 10 is working with Nebraska to facilitate entrance into the AAU.  As the Big East and the Big 12 crumble, what AAU schools might be attractive to the Big 10?  Which of them adds value both in terms of academics, but also TV revenue from expanded markets in both football and basketball?

Here are the teams:

Iowa State (Big 12)

Rutgers (Big East)

Kansas (Big 12)

Missouri (Big 12)

If the Big 10 were to add Kanasas and Missouri, could they add Oklahoma as now you would have contiguous geography, even though they are not an AAU member?

david from wyoming

September 20th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^

Boy, I'm glad you posted this. I haven't heard of the AAU before, much less what schools are part of it and what aren't.

Shakespeare

September 20th, 2011 at 6:12 PM ^

With the Big East looking like a thing of the past they should use that impending threat to woo Notre Dame (despite Notre Dame's bullshit stance that they'd rather join the ACC than the Big Ten cause they're pussies). Notre Dame has to be number one on the list for the B1G right now... but I think the second most desirable school out there to grab is West Virginia. Obviously it isn't anywhere near as good a school as Michigan, Northwestern, or even Wisconsin, but can you honestly say it's that much worse a school than Nebraska or Ohio State? Solid programs across the board and one of the few school's that is within a reasonable distance from the rest of the conference. I could see a West Virginia-Penn State rivalry brewing. 

The next most desirable team out there is Kansas, but Kansas is a pretty decent ways away from the eastern school's in the B1G.

justingoblue

September 20th, 2011 at 6:59 PM ^

WVU is probably the worst state flagship institution in the continental US. They would bring nothing in viewership, little in tradition, and would add literally nothing to the CIC.

I keep seeing WVU to the Big Ten speculation on these threads and quite honestly the MAC has a better chance landing OSU and Cincinnati than WVU has of landing in the Big Ten.

orobs

September 20th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^

 

Why does the B1G need to add any more teams?

If this ultimately leads to a playoff, I highly doubt the conferences will be required to field 16 teams in order to compete in the playoffs.  I see no reason to add any team other than ND.  Any of the teams you listed weakens the conference.

orobs

September 20th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

Why?  The SEC hasn't added a 14th team yet.  The MAC has 13 teams.  There is no rule that there has to be a perfect balance.  If you add ND, and, say, Iowa State, the divisions are going to end up lopsided anyways from a competitiveness standpoint.  Expanding for the sake of expanding is pointless.

Wave83

September 20th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^

Chuck Todd at NBC just retweeted a CBS tweet that reported that WVU had been rejected by both the SEC and ACC.

I honestly can't keep up with what exactly has been on the table, so I don't know if this makes sense.  It sounds as if the schools left behind in the Big East and the Big 12 are merging to save themselves.

MilkSteak

September 20th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

If we add ND I imagine that we'd have to add at least 1 other team as well to keep the two divisions at the same number of teams.

Also, at some point we have to start worrying about our non-conference schedule. If every other conference has 16 teams, that's less non-conference games each team will be able to play. It may become a factor in trying to get quality games if we only have 12 or 14 and everyone else has 16.

Tacopants

September 20th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^

The one positive I can see coming out of superconferences is that they will be forced to play more conference games and eliminate 2 bodybag games.

Think about it like this, a 8 game conference schedule in a 14 team conference means 6 games in your division + 2 cross games.  You don't see some opponents for 4-6 years.

A 10 game conference schedule means 6 division games + 3 crossover games + 1 protected rivalrly.  You would cycle through all cross division opponents in a 4 year span.

 

This would make life on the margins of I-A hard, but then again, were they really useful to begin with?

Wolverine96

September 20th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

Unless it is Notre Dame or Texas.  There is no need otherwise.  Those are the only two schools out there that will increase the revenue each Big Ten school currently receives. 

raleighwood

September 20th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^

Missouri bringsl two major cities (Kansas City and St. Louis).  This isn't so much about the quality of the athletics programs, it's about how many homes will subscribe to BTN.

If we assume that Texas and ND are off the board, I think that Missouri and Kansas are the most logical options.  Actually, 'Cuse and Pitt were probably the best options but the ACC got there first.

The B1G can stay at 12 right now but Delany definitely needs to be ready to react quickly.

buckeyeh8er

September 20th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^

I think if we do add anyone then it would be mizzou and Kansas. my question is : why? is the football money and maybe basketball that good that it can support the travel other teams will make? it has to be a pretty penny for Nebraska softball to go to psu. I am sure every dollar and factor is looked at - both current and potential. I just hope this improves our game and does not hinder a great sport in some way.

nuclearblue

September 20th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^

ND

Mizzou

Kansas

Texas/Rutgers (only because we apparently can't have Pitt)

 

In that order.  But honestly, I'm not so sure expansion is a good thing.  I guess only time will tell.

joeyb

September 20th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^

It's about expanding the conference footprint and trying to get BTN onto every cable package. Kansas gets us no new markets and doesn't have a national program, except in basketball, which is irrelevant. OU gets you Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and possibly even Dallas without Texas. They are also a national presence on TV, so it would be one more reason for a cable provider in California or New York to add BTN to their package by default. Can you imagine what would happen if the Red River Shootout was on BTN and a majority of the country couldn't see it? There would be multiple Red River Shootouts.

Oklahoma also has rivalries with Nebraska, Texas, and a recent one with Mizzou. Although, if Texas isn't an option (which it almost assuredly isn't) OU, KU, Mizzou would be a pretty good pickup too and they'd be more contiguous than replacing KU with Texas. Honestly, I think OU and KU are pipe dreams without their State counterparts and, as I said, texas almost assuredly isn't happening, so this was just my vision of what would be awesome.

As a side note, I see us expanding into the midwest rather than the east coast. I just don't see any of the teams we could get commanding any presence in NYC. One nice thing about going East, though, would be potentially picking up hockey teams, and maybe even getting enough Lacrosse teams to have a B1G Lacrosse conference. Those are just side effects, which won't even be taken into consideration, though.

fatbastard

September 20th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^

I really fail to see the logic  behind the segment of people here that believe the ACC is not ripe for poaching by the B1G.  First, the apparent increase in the buyout is only by 7 or 8 million from what it was.  Second, it's a one time payment.  Third, inrease in revenue for a school like UVA joining a power football conference is immense.   Football is the driver is this stuff and the dollars are astronomical for the B1G, SEC and PAC.  ACC is, at best, an also ran in the money column.  Fourth, why do you think the ACC increased the buyout?  Panic, panic, panic.  They've already stated the need to be proactive and strengthen the conference.   I would think some, if not all, of that "need" comes from discussions between ACC schools and the SEC and B1G. 

If the B1G wants to expand, UT and/or TX are the first choices.  UT will have give up some autonomy is currently enjoys.  If UT joins, ND has no choice but to join a conference.  It wouldn't  have to pick the B1G, but probably would.  

If one or neither joins, B1G won't expand without a major attraction.  It already turned down Mizzou last year.  As Mizzou is the last team to "fit" from what is left of big 12 other than TX, we can presume no other school there will be considered.  I believe Mizzou is still possible if TX or ND join and we're looking for one other.

Where does that leave B1G expansion:  East.  If East, we already could have had Pitt, Rutgers, 'Cuse.  None were invited.  So if expansion happens, it's a school higher on the pecking order.  To me, that means one or two of the following (depending on what ND and TX do):  UVA, Maryland, Boston College (I don't think UNC would ever consider leaving since NCState and Duke wouldn't be invited, but it's at least a possibility).

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 20th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^

Third, inrease in revenue for a school like UVA joining a power football conference is immense. Football is the driver is this stuff and the dollars are astronomical for the B1G, SEC and PAC. ACC is, at best, an also ran in the money column.

You're making some bad assumptions here. First, that football is the sole driver. If it were, the Big East would've collapsed long ago. Basketball is not as big as football but ESPN offered the Big East $11 million per school for their rights. That is not because ESPN wants to watch Syracuse and UConn play football.

Second, that the revenue gap is all that big or that it won't close a bit with ACC expansion. The Big Ten gets roughly $21 million per school; the ACC gets about $13. The ACC wouldn't have expanded if that money were going to stay the same. I think in the next 12 months you'll see the number go up to $15 or $16. That is not "immense." That is four years before you can just break even on the buyout.

Third, what is the obsession with money and ONLY money? What good is more money if everyone you compete with is also getting that money? Take a look at all the moves that have actually happened.  Think about it: Nobody has moved for the sole purpose of increasing revenue.  They've done so for other ulterior reasons as well: getting off a sinking ship, increasing exposure and competitive abilities, or getting away from an overcompetitive bully.  You move to improve your ability to compete, not solely your cash flow.  And I will promise you that UVA would be much less competitive in every sport we care about (not just football and basketball) in the Big Ten.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 20th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^

It's all about recruiting:

Football - Big Ten powerhouses like U-M, OSU, PSU, etc. would have much greater access to the very talent-rich state of Virginia than we would get in return in Ohio, Chicago, etc.  At best we'd compete with Illinois and such for sloppy fourths in Ohio after OSU, Michigan, and Penn State have had their fill, but I shudder to think where Virginia recruits would go when they get to see all these schools playing in their home state.  We lost Curtis Grant to Ohio State even though we offered a stable coach, no scandals, and a spot on the depth chart.  How do we compete when OSU plays a game in Charlottesville?

Basketball - We have very nice facilities and an excellent coach but still our biggest draw is three letters: A, C, and C.

Baseball - No way around it: B1G baseball is a one-bid mid-major.  You wouldn't expect that going from the ACC to the MAAC in basketball would help you compete; it would be the death of our baseball program too.

Lacrosse - C'mon, ACC lacrosse is lacrosse.  B1G lacrosse doesn't even exist.  It might not hurt our status too badly but there's no way it would help.

Soccer - About even at best.  We just won a natty a couple years ago in soccer, so there isn't a lot of room for improvement.  I guess playing Indiana would be cool.

Hockey - I'll let you know if we start a program.

I mean, sure we'd have extra cash flow.  Like I said though it would take about four years before that cash flow broke even with the buyout, and then what?  What would we do with that money?

raleighwood

September 20th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

I'm not so sure that the basketball draw is about three letters....A, C and C.  I think that it's more about two names, Duke and Carolina.

I live in the middle of Tobacco Road and can tell you that the ACC basketball "mystique" is highly over-rated.  It's about two teams, not about the conference.

B1G Football, on the other hand, is about the conference.  I think that UM, OSU, Wisky, PSU, Iowa and  Illinois have all made BCS bowls in the past five years. MSU and Nebraska have had seasons that were BCS worthy but they just missed the cut.  Only three ACC basketball teams have made it to the Sweet 16 during that time.

 

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 20th, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^

All I can tell you is how many of our recruits say "ACC" when they list why they chose UVA.  And how few of Michigan's recruits I've ever heard say "I came to play Big Ten basketball."  I don't remember ever hearing that.  Whenever we're recruiting against a Big Ten school or SEC school in basketball - which is all the time - the ACC is our ace in the hole.  They might also choose UVA for other reasons but they always say "ACC."

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 20th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^

I think if that were so undoubtedly and clearly the case, the ACC would have whored out its values and principles to Texas, which is looking for nothing more than a place that won't give them a hard time about the LHN.  Instead the ACC went for fit and stability and played to its strengths, which in the long term will be much, much more sustainable even if it doesn't give the conference any more football cachet in the short term.

fatbastard

September 20th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^

You are obviously smart and informed.  However, ask yourself a couple of questions:  How much more will the B1G make when/if adding the DC and Texas markets?  Answer:  An immense amount more than the ACC.  Did you think the B1G would be able to add Nebraska before it happened?  Most people here were talking about Pitt, 'Cuse, etc.  You vastly underestimate the attraction of the B1G IMHO.  

Were I a fan of UVA sports, I too would question whether my basketball and football team would be competitve on a long term basis.  On the other hand, if UVA joined the B1G with Maryland, ND, and BC, why would UVA be significantly differenct than where it stands now?

Last, understand I doubt UVA will end up in B1G.  My best guess is that B1G is UT and/or ND with only one other potential school if both don't join.  Nonetheless, were B1G to look to 16, you can bet UVA, Maryland and BC would be listenting very closely.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 20th, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

Well, in response to your question, see my above post.  It's mainly about recruiting.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the Big Ten; I think you're underestimating the ACC, however.  In the event you mention, where there's something of a mass exodus, then perhaps UVA would be silly not to leave a sinking ship.  However, I think the ACC is in very good health, and not likely to be raided.  The SEC doesn't need to expand; they're more concerned with dilution of their revenue distribution.  The only thing that will help them is the Texas market; that's where A&M comes in.  All they need is some low-hanging fruit to balance that out, and the obstacles are far, far fewer for WVU or Missouri than for an ACC school.  The Big Ten doesn't need to expand either; I'm of the belief that the B1G is happy to wait for Notre Dame.

So unless there's a full-on collapse in store for the ACC - highly unlikely - I don't think the ACC schools are as easy a target as you might think.  And in that event, again it would be about an ulterior motive instead of simply a cash grab.

fatbastard

September 20th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^

Well, the ACC is not a sinking ship.  Frankly it's probably the 4th of the 4 "superconfernces" although their place in the pecking order isn't solidified yet.  I'm not suggesting a mass exodus.  I am suggesting that two or three teams could easily depart for a combination of the B1G and/or SEC.  Whether the ACC can hold out in "4th" ahead of some amalgamation of the Big East, Big 12 and Mountain West is yet to be seen.  My bet is on ACC as the weakest link in a 4 member superconference football playoff. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 20th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^

Whether the ACC can hold out in "4th" ahead of some amalgamation of the Big East, Big 12 and Mountain West is yet to be seen.

I have absolutely no doubt that it can and certainly will.  Having a loose, geographically stupid confederation of schools with no attachment to each other is part of the reason the Big East collapsed in the first place.  There are lot of rivalries and academic cachet attached to the ACC name.  If "fourth of four superconferences" is its fate, that'd probably be just fine by the conference and its member schools, though I don't see any kind of 4x16 model appearing any time soon.  It's a lot easier to change the pecking order of superconferences than it is to become one if you're not, as the Big East has learned.

M2NASA

September 20th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^

I'm agreeing on not seeing a 4x16 model right now.

The ACC looks like it firmed up its ranks and with Missouri going to the SEC, I don't see any good additions, so SEC stays at 14.

If the Big Ten doesn't add ND, then are they going to add someone like Rutgers and UConn which is just two more mouths to feed?  So the Big Ten stays at 12 or maybe goes to 14 if ND joins.

So with the ACC firmed up, do they try and add UConn who SU and BC dislike, and Rutgers who sued the ACC during their last expansion in 2004 who no one likes?

I see ACC at 14, SEC at 14, Pac-eleventy at 16, and Big Ten at 12.  And ND gets to stay independent and has a home in either the Left-Behind Conference or the basketball-only Big East Catholic schools conference for their non-football sports.

raleighwood

September 20th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

I agree that the $20MM buyout shouldn't be a major obstacle.  It's only $7-8MM more than the original fee and the B1G could probably absorb that.

That being said, the ACC looks pretty well positioned.  None of the "established" teams would want to leave.  I would think that the best option might be Boston College.

1.  Good academic fit

2.  Provides access to East Coast

3.  Good potential "partner" for ND

4.  No strong ties to ACC at this point

5.  Could add to B1G Hockey

The B1G will continue to make more money than the ACC based on the current configuration.  That might be an enticement for some ACC schools.

 

Tater

September 20th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^

I think Kansas has KSU as its designated remora, thus making a move a bit more difficult.  The teams mentioned would be a great combiniation: two tomato cans and two teams that look good on paper, but never quite grab the brass ring.  They would make the Big Ten cosmetically better for both pollsters and educators, while not threatening to derail a truly elite team's season.  

Since nobody is really making a lot of sense right now, though, it probably won't happen.  All hell has broken loose, and it is becoming more and more difficult to predict what may happen.  

The only thing we do know: it's going to be a carnival ride for college football fans the next year or two.