Per Jeff Ermann (inside MD sports), UNC offered spot in B1G

Submitted by orobs on February 19th, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Ermann was one of the the first that called the Rutgers/maryland move, so this isn't complete random speculation. @insidemdsports: Big 10 talk buzzing again. #UVA being mentioned often as likely to join. Georgia Tech still in the mix. #UNC, the big domino, has an offer.

Comments

Frank Drebin

February 20th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^

This is right on. NC State is the school that would be tied to UNC in the eyes of the legislature. Howeva, if the dominoe's fall, I could really see VT, who is most likely the SEC's top target (along with UNC) and NC State heading to the SEC without much fuss from the NC legislature. The same would be true for VT and UVA as the state gov't would be fine with them both landing in top conferences. This would also be nice for the SEC, as they could move MIZZOU to the SEC West and VT and NC State to the East.

Even with no Gov't pressue to add Duke, it still might make sense. If the goal is to stay at 16, then UNC and GT should be the choices for TV sets and markets. NC and Atlanta are big markets, and this makes sense. If the goal is to go to 20 teams, then we might as well add Duke, along with UVA. If the ACC crumbles like this, that would make Syracuse available as well, so we would just need 1 more to make 20. Would we take a look at Kansas? They would suck as a football addition, but help with b-ball. ND would once again make sense, but I think that ship has sailed for good. There may not be any other good options that are AAU schools and relatively close to the midwest/eastern footprint.

I think if the ACC falls apart, FSU and Clemson will join the Big 12. I also think that ND will have some affiliation with the Big 12 as well. VT and NC State head to the SEC. The B1G would have 16-20 teams, but I don't see every conference getting that big. There isn't enough of a draw. Would the Pac 12 really add Boise St, SDSU, Nevada and BYU to get to 16? Doubtfull, as all it does is water down the conference. Same with the Big 12 and SEC, as there just wouldn't be enough viable candidates to join. Wake Forest isn't going to make anyone happy. Still a long way to go before any of this happens, but if UNC jumps, everyone better find a landing place before the ACC ship goes down.

ChopBlock

February 19th, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^

And you wondered why ADs were considering a 10-game conference schedule. An 8-game schedule is untenable, because you'd play ONE team from the other division each year. Even a 9-game schedule means you'd only see Wisconsin twice in 8 years.

93Grad

February 19th, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^

will move to the Western Division and UM and Ohio will be in a conference with no other original Big 10 teams.  Great, thanks Delaney. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 19th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^

OK, you asked for it.  Essay warning in advance.

Let's look at it by sport:

-- Football: First off, Virginia is pretty fertile recruiting ground, and giving Michigan and OSU extra access to the state is bad news for UVA.  Plus, I'm not convinced the state legislature would let UVA go without ensuring VT is taken care of.**  Since the B1G won't want VT, "taken care of" means the SEC.  Great, so now UVA gets to try and recruit its home state against another home-state program in the SEC and Michigan and OSU (whom we don't win very many battles against, as Curtis Grant, Maurice Hurst, and others would attest to) all as competition.  Fun times.  UVA, even in a decade that hasn't been the greatest for its football program, has at times controlled its destiny to get to the ACCCG.  In other words, contended for ACC titles.  UVA will never, ever contend for a Big Ten title.  Not ever.

-- Basketball: UVA's primary recruiting chip is spelled A-C-C.  I might in a more candid moment admit that UVA could sell itself fairly well in the B1G, but not as well as in the ACC.

-- Baseball: I like our baseball program.  In a good year, the Big Ten is a mid-major at best.  We have an awesome baseball coach who'll have 30 programs calling him with a lucrative contract offer within an hour of the announcement of UVA moving to the B1G.  We currently expect, basically, to get to Omaha most years and we pack the baseball stadium.  Moving to the B1G would destroy it.

-- Lacrosse: Maryland has already seen its lacrosse recruiting take a hit from moving to the B1G.  Admittedly, though, if UVA, Maryland, and UNC were in the B1G, it'd probably all just even out again.  Although again, more access to the East Coast for Michigan and Ohio State means less for UVA.

My main concern, though, is this: in the ACC, UVA is one of the most profitable schools with possibly the healthiest cash flow in the whole conference.  So we do pretty well.  The B1G offers (theoretically) more money, but when you have $18M and your competition has $12M, why would it make sense to go where you have $25M and your competition has $35M?  That sounds like rank stupidity to me.  UVA can't compete with the 80-100,000 seat stadiums in the B1G.  We have an alumni base and a donor base about a third the size of the average B1G school.  I don't even mean Michigan and Ohio and Penn State, I mean Illinois and Wisconsin and Michigan State.

And on a personal level, I despise the idea of throwing away the old matchups for ones against Minnesota and Iowa.  And I also despise the idea of Michigan doing the same, for what it's worth, although both of these have been pretty much eroded by now anyway.  Also on a personal level, I do not want to deal with a yearly UVA-Michigan game.  You see a lot of the comments in this thread that basically brush UVA aside as a competitor.  I spent a lot of time on Michigan and UVA boards last year prior to the basketball game patiently explaining to both fanbases why the other team did not suck and I know I could just ignore it but I really don't look forward to that being a yearly thing.

Basically, I do not expect UVA would be competitive in the B1G.  Probably not in basketball, certainly not in football, and absolutely, positively not in baseball.  We don't have a hockey team so from a UVA perspective I don't give a shit what the B1G offers there, and if we did, that'd get murdered on a nightly basis too.

**It's the generally accepted rule that the legislature wants to tie UVA and VT to the hip, and I believe it 95%.  However, the money that UVA gets from the state is pretty token.  It's something like 8% of the operating budget, if that.  If it really, really came down to it, and the ACC became a smoldering wreck, and the B1G were our lifeboat, and the legislature started making threats, it's possible UVA could tell the legislature where to stick its money.  That's farfetched but not totally outside the realm of possibility.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 19th, 2013 at 5:50 PM ^

Oh, I agree.  If someone says they want UVA to join the B1G, they're thinking in terms of "what can UVA do for the B1G" not "what does the B1G offer UVA" which is understandable.  Although I think of it more as "what would the B1G do to UVA."  In one sense it's nice to be wanted, but I just don't see what's in it for UVA and therefore don't like the idea one bit.

DH16

February 19th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

Teams of note in the 2013 (this season) USILA Coaches' Poll Rankings, from laxpower.com:

1 - Maryland (2012: 10)

3 - Notre Dame (2012: 5)

6 - Virginia (2012: 8)

8 - Penn State (2012: 14)

9 - North Carolina (2012: 6)

14 - Duke (only include them because of ties to UNC) (2012: 3)

19 - Ohio State (2012: NR)

20 teams are ranked in this poll.

That's a pretty good lacrosse conference, and with some young teams due to get better, woah.

 

 

 

Blazefire

February 19th, 2013 at 3:27 PM ^

THis isn't really a bad thing. Pick up two, say UNC and UVA (I'd rather VT, but that doesn't sound like it's even a thought at the moment). Anyhow, then you've got two nice, easy 8 team divisions that preserve a lot of the old rivalries. My ONLY problem here is that to make a geographic split, M and OSU probably end up in the east, where the only other team with a history is PSU, and whoever else comes along (Indiana?).

HOWEVA, if we go to a 10 game schedule you see everyone in the conference at a maximum of 5 years. Most of them in three. As below:

Year 1: OOC, OOC, @Minnesota, MSU, @Wisky, PSU, Maryland, @UVA, @Rutgers, UNC, Indana, @OSU - Big Ten Title Game

Year 2: Same opponents, reversed location.

Year 3: OOC, OOC, Illinois, Nebraska, @NW, Rutgers, UNC, @UVA, PSU, @Indiana, Maryland, @OSU - BTTG

Year 4: Same opponents, reversed location.

Year 5: OOC, OOC, @Iowa, Purdue, MSU, Minnesota, Div Sked

If You leave off ONE division team each year, suddenly everyone in the other division is two years on, two years off. That ain't so bad. It would still feel like the Big Ten to me.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 19th, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^

Well, you can't leave off a division team because NCAA rules say you have to play everyone in the division or else you can't have a championship game.  So that's out.

Sorry, but a Big Ten where we play Maryland and Rutgers every year, but a player can play for Michigan and theoretically never play Iowa, Indiana, or a Brown Jug game would not still feel like the Big Ten.  Plus a 10-game schedule means never playing a fun OOC game again in all of history.

The larger point really though is that there will always be a very annoying contigent of people who, no matter how big the conference gets, will go "oh man wouldn't it be cool if we added (fill in the blank.)"  That's new-toy syndrome.

Blazefire

February 19th, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^

As I said, it would be a pretty rare player that would miss a cross divisional game entirely, even if you couldn't leave out one divisional opponent. HOWEVA, there are multiple workarounds to this if you really want to get every team playing every other at least two out of five years..

One: Apply for a waiver or request a rule change. The Big12 has already asked the NCAA to change this rule anyway. WIth the growing/shrinking/rapidly changing conferences, they're probably gonna have to do something about it.

Two: Play happy funtime games with each team's division alignments as needed. Just call them Divs 1 and 2, and make it so that the only thing winning them does is gets you to the championship game. No trophies for winning your Division. No banners. So there won't be any divisional pride and nobody will care when you flop them around.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 19th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^

Unless you got creative with the solutions, every player would miss out on at least one conference opponent.  The rarity would be that it'd be one specific opponent, but there would always be someone.  And like I said, a 10-game conference schedule also means an OOC slate almost completely filled with MAC teams, so I don't consider that a good tradeoff at all.

lilpenny1316

February 19th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^

He knows what bringing that program does for the B1G.  Even if Duke has to come along, it's probably worth it.  Don't forget that Duke is improving as a football program, even if it's a slow improvement.

PB-J Time

February 19th, 2013 at 3:21 PM ^

Returning to the gloryous days where they occaisionally make a bowl game against a team with an outgoing coach...

All kidding aside my point is this: adding UNC would IMO be the best football addition from these ACC schools and they could be a consistent bowl team. I know a lot (or all) of this is about money and perhaps other sports, but we should try to be adding good, if not great, football teams

mgobaran

February 19th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^

Poor mans OSU in Football (Ya kno, cuz da sanctions)

Rich mans MSU in Basketball.

Personally, I can't wait till the B1G Network starts showing Jordan highlights like all that history is now consumed by the B1G. Or whatever the B1G will call itself by then.

Jinkin Mongol

February 19th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^

I have a vague memory about there being a Big Ten rule that only allowed expansion into states that are contiguous with a current Big Ten state.  Anyone else remember this?  If true, then that would make UVA joining next pretty likely (or a silent commit).  If not true, then my wife's comments about my memory and attention span are true. 

the Glove

February 19th, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^

My heart was broken when Maryland and Rutgers joined. At this point all I can hope for is Michigan being on the side of the conference with the rest of the original Big Ten teams. If I were a betting man, I don't even see that happening.

lilpenny1316

February 19th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^

UNC and Duke will travel a few hundred miles to Indiana for the B1G hoops tournament.  You add those programs and all of a sudden you're able to pack 30,000-50,000 people into Lucas Oil Stadium or another dome.  

joeyb

February 19th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

I wonder if the ultimate goal is to have 20 teams. They might be trying to poach UNC, UVA, and GaTech in order to weaken the ACC. If they all join, that's 17. Then, they go after Syracuse and FSU. That would be the nail in the coffin for the ACC. Notre Dame, seeing the writing on the wall, then joins the conference, knowing that they wouldn't be able to play any good midwest or east coast schools if they don't (because we'll be going to 10 games).

MichiganManOf1961

February 19th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^

I think they're going for 24 teams.  Those 24 will be split into 2 "divisions".  Those 12-team "divisions" will be further split into 6-team "groups".  Each of the 6-team "groups" will be split into 3-team "sectors".  So the scheduling rotation would align and rotate opposing "sectors", 2 "sectors", each from a different "group" and each of the "sectors" which is from a different "group" will be from a different "division".  There will be a total of 2 "sectors" in each "Pod".  A "Pod" will consist of 3 "sectors" and there will be a total of 4 "Pods".  However, each "Pod" will consist of 2 "units" which will play a corresponding "unit" in a different "Pod" to total 9 games against B1G opponents in the conference.  Does everyone understand that?  I think it makes a lot of sense. 

This is what we are heading towards you fools.  Does this sound like "fun" to you?  Does it make sense?  No, goddamnit.  It damn well doesn't.  And the sad thing is the plan above sounds reasonably feasible and something like it could be proposed. 

~Herm

rederik

February 19th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^

Everyone looks good next to Rutgers. I don't even care anymore. The war is over- Delaney won. We might have won the battle over those ridiculous division names, but the Big Ten as we knew it is dead. Here's to cheering on Michigan against Ohio, Penn State and whatever east coast teams populate the rest of our division.

Jmilan

February 19th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^

Serious question, who does everyone want to join the conference that would actually be a possibility? I mean I think the UNC and UVA is better than MD and Rutgers. Realistically if they are trying to move into a super conference status and they are the first to do so who would people want to see come to the B1G because every time these rumors pop up about half the board dislikes the idea.

GoBlueYork

February 19th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^

Have idiot Delany and the greedy conference presidents ever considered staying at 12? They're diluting the product and profits while eliminating any identity this conference had.

They can spew all this leaders and legends BS, but these are disgusting unethical, greedy people.

Jmilan

February 19th, 2013 at 4:17 PM ^

Very true, but unfortunately I think staying at 12 is extremely unlikely. There is too much money at stake and no one wants to be left out. I'm in favor of super conferences if they are going to do a 16 team playoff and weed out the BS games. You can keep the bowl games for those not involved in the playoff and keep some of the bcs games such as the rose bowl for like final four games. The super conferences could be regionally done and would make way more sense and you could just take the top four teams in 4 super conferences. I'm sure there are things I'm missing but it's just my grand idea I suppose.

Don

February 19th, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^

not in the midwest turns Delaney down cold. I'm one of those lonely cranks who believes that relative geographical proximity and the associate cultural proximity made college football conferences successful, and that abandoning that principle will ultimately be a bad thing for the sport, regardless of the alleged short-term financial advantages.

PB-J Time

February 19th, 2013 at 4:37 PM ^

I would argue that UVA & UNC actually are culturally similar to U-M in that they are World class Universities that are the flagship for thier (rather large) states. Yes they are in the south and not midwest, but they aren't as dissimilar as you suggest. 

I have concerns about non-midwest teams as it would likely push U-M into a division with 2 actual B1G teams to have more east coast teams join. I am less concerned about spreading further geographically. 

Said another way though, who would you suggest we add as 15 and 16? Some would say stay at 12, but that simply won't happen. I also think staying at 14 doesn't seem like it'll happen. So who? Oklahoma & Ok St? Unlikely. OU & Kansas? T Boone Pickens would NEVER allow it (and don't think he can't buy a decision in his favor). Don, I ask (not trying to be a dick) what is your solution?