We agree that money drives realignment for the most part. So what factors contribute to the money?
1. Market size for the networks which pay for the product through advertising dollars.
2. The ability of the conference of schools to penetrate and dominate the viewing interest of their own conference footprint.
3. Alumni base size which is a contributing factor to a school's economic power by the number of fans that attend games, purchase cable packages, buy licensed merchandise of the conference or teams, and contribute to the Athletic Departments.
4. The interest schools generate beyond their alumni and region.
5. The compelling nature of the matches of the schools themselves against other schools within the conference family.
To fairly judge realignment endeavors it is necessary to examine how the additions of the conferences impact these 5 money generating areas.
Let's start with some basic facts.
The Big 10 has by far the largest alumni base. The PAC may have the 2nd largest alumni base. The SEC would be third. The Big 12 and ACC 4th and 5th depending upon recent additions and subtractions as to which is considered to be which.
No conference penetrates and dominates its market footprint as well as the SEC. The Big 10 is a solid and strong second. The Big 12 penetrates its market extremely well for its overall size. The PAC and ACC statistically bring up the rear.
The ACC has the largest potential market, the Big 10 the second largest, the SEC the third largest, the PAC the fourth largest, and the Big 12 brings up the rear.
When it comes to holding the interest of the rest of the nation the SEC is no 1. The Big 10 is second. The Big 12 is third (thanks to Texas and Oklahoma). The ACC and PAC are statistically very close (the PAC could be much higher but they lack the time slots to be viewed easily and at a decent hour on the East coast).
As far as content goes by having compelling games the SEC is no 1 again as born out by national ratings.
So when you look at all of the factors I think you must ask what the respective needs are based upon the weaknesses of all of the conferences.
The Big 10 needs compelling competition, it wants new markets for its networks, and while it penetrates its existing footprint very well their room for growth would be engaged by better football product and more compelling match ups. They do fine with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. But their additions while great for markets are far from compelling viewing. And neither really puts them in such football rich areas as to really enhance recruiting significantly. The Big 10 needs a Texas and Oklahoma kind of addition, but offering what those schools really need to compel such movement is difficult for the Big 10 to do. They have more of a chance with Oklahoma than they do Texas, but those two are likely to move together and both would like for more friends to go with them.
The ACC needed football product to coax more viewership out of the nations best market. They will get that with Louisville which doesn't require them to relinquish much on the basketball front either. West Virginia and perhaps Cincinnati could truly help them as both programs have good football potential. They already have two schools in Florida and don't need a third or fourth. They have helped themselves with Louisville but overall they sought schools that played to their strengths (basketball & academics) but not to their weaknesses. The oblique association of Notre Dame to the ACC has lent them credibility in the face of a lagging efforts from Clemson, Miami, and until this year Florida State who has finally returned to form.
The PAC is adding markets with Utah and Colorado. What they need is East coast time slots with which to build their national appeal and maximize their commercial value through added time slot penetration as well. They like the Big 10 could use some dynamic football names to add to the likes of Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, and rising Arizona State and Oregon programs. Texas and Oklahoma could boost them as well. They have space on the card to allow friends to tag along. Money making potential is an obstacle they will have to overcome. The Big 10 and SEC will be better able to maximize the earning potentials of joining programs. Proximity is an issue as well.
The Big 12 lost four and replaced two. West Virginia was an outlier with a solid sports program. T.C.U. had recent success in football and a solid baseball program. But it added no new market penetration at all. Culturally the Big 12 is a disparate conference. You have Texas culture, Cowboy and Native American culture in Oklahoma, the culture of the Plains with the Kansas schools, and part of the Corn Belt in Iowa State. Throw in the mountains of West Virginia and it is a collection of eclectic cultures which represent the ascent and dissolution of several conferences with the present members representing the distilling of those past experiences. There are no good targets for the Big 12 to land. Perhaps B.Y.U. and Colorado State could give them a boost. It is by far in the worst realignment condition of all of the conferences.
The SEC needed footprint enhancement, and that's about it. They met their need in spades with Missouri and Texas A&M. The Aggie brand adds in almost every way, markets, market penetration, some national interest, profitability, fan base size, and in enhancing compelling match ups. Missouri might not deliver nationally (yet), but they have met the SEC's weakness (basketball production), added markets, increased their penetration of their market, they have a captive fan base as the prime academic institution of their state, and have become more competitive sparking content value as well.
The SEC's next move will likely be for anything that adds more value.
I'd be curious to see what other factors you think I have overlooked (academics intentionally in that while they enhance the conference they do not necessarily impact what the networks pay us). And how you would evaluate the additions that the conferences have made thus far.
Currently I beleive their are only two programs that can add value without any red tape. Those programs are Cincinnati and SMU. Both would be more than willing to put all of their games on the SEC network. Their additions would also help balance the schedule.
I think that your primary factors are all correct. I agree that academic fit is a secondary (but still important) measure, as is culture.
Given all of those factors, I think it's clear that from a conference perspective, the SEC came out far ahead in the most recent realignment. That builds on the previous South Carolina and Arkansas additions, which while not home runs did a fine job of expanding the footprint in a contiguous fashion with a good cultural fit. Adding aTm to get a foot in Texas is huge, and while I'd argue that aTm has underperformed historically (as has UT, for that matter, but that's another discussion) the move to the SEC primes them to build an exceptional future. Missouri isn't as compelling on its own, but as you've noted it has many strengths as well, and is certainly a home run if seen as a balancing partner to the aTm addition.
I agree that the Big 10 needs more football cache, and with the recent additions to the ACC it would behoove them to build on their basketball brand as well. Viewed in a simple message-board Conference Risk perspective, adding KU and OU would be an ideal combination, but it is of course more complicated than that. It's been pointed out that the Red River Rivalry and Oklahoma football prominence in general predates them being officially in a conference with TX schools, but I agree that the best move would have been one that allowed them to bring friends. It couldn't have happened due to politics, but if the Big 10 had been able to go to 16 by adding KU, OU, MU, and UT at the same time they added Nebraska, it would have been a phenomenal move that would have put them in a great place for the future.
The ACC is an interesting creature - there's certainly some cultural and geographic cohesion, but somehow they don't seem to live up to their potential, particularly in football. The new additions should make Basketball very compelling, however, as they both bolster the ACC brand while diminishing the Big East. Notre Dame's alliance with the ACC does help serve their needs for exposure in areas they covet, while allowing them to remain independent in football.
The PAC has the advantage and disadvantage of geography. Their isolation precludes them from being expansion targets, but it also limits their national appeal. I agree wholeheartedly that a large-scale expansion that gives them a solid Central time zone footprint (such as the 18-team scenario that I believe I first saw posted by JR) would be their best chance to grow and prosper. They've already picked the plums of the Mountain Time zone, so any remaining targets there are projects with limited potential.
It came about by accident, but I do like the Big 12's round-robin schedule. Regrettably, that's almost certain to be a relic of the past soon. Had the Big 12 acted decisively sooner, they could perhaps have expanded in the Ohio Valley in a cohesive way, although in an already fractured conference that had the potential for more more balkanization than was there before. They're in a tough place - if they expand with "lesser" brands they'll look weak, yet without expansion they remain vulnerable to having their top schools eventually cherry-picked by others. Ultimately, there are probably no guarantees for anyone but UT and OU to be in a power conference in the future, so perhaps the question for having the bulk of the conference to stay together is whether or not they can pull off the PAC 18 scenario.
(12-30-2013 04:21 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that your primary factors are all correct. I agree that academic fit is a secondary (but still important) measure, as is culture.
Given all of those factors, I think it's clear that from a conference perspective, the SEC came out far ahead in the most recent realignment. That builds on the previous South Carolina and Arkansas additions, which while not home runs did a fine job of expanding the footprint in a contiguous fashion with a good cultural fit. Adding aTm to get a foot in Texas is huge, and while I'd argue that aTm has underperformed historically (as has UT, for that matter, but that's another discussion) the move to the SEC primes them to build an exceptional future. Missouri isn't as compelling on its own, but as you've noted it has many strengths as well, and is certainly a home run if seen as a balancing partner to the aTm addition.
I agree that the Big 10 needs more football cache, and with the recent additions to the ACC it would behoove them to build on their basketball brand as well. Viewed in a simple message-board Conference Risk perspective, adding KU and OU would be an ideal combination, but it is of course more complicated than that. It's been pointed out that the Red River Rivalry and Oklahoma football prominence in general predates them being officially in a conference with TX schools, but I agree that the best move would have been one that allowed them to bring friends. It couldn't have happened due to politics, but if the Big 10 had been able to go to 16 by adding KU, OU, MU, and UT at the same time they added Nebraska, it would have been a phenomenal move that would have put them in a great place for the future.
The ACC is an interesting creature - there's certainly some cultural and geographic cohesion, but somehow they don't seem to live up to their potential, particularly in football. The new additions should make Basketball very compelling, however, as they both bolster the ACC brand while diminishing the Big East. Notre Dame's alliance with the ACC does help serve their needs for exposure in areas they covet, while allowing them to remain independent in football.
The PAC has the advantage and disadvantage of geography. Their isolation precludes them from being expansion targets, but it also limits their national appeal. I agree wholeheartedly that a large-scale expansion that gives them a solid Central time zone footprint (such as the 18-team scenario that I believe I first saw posted by JR) would be their best chance to grow and prosper. They've already picked the plums of the Mountain Time zone, so any remaining targets there are projects with limited potential.
It came about by accident, but I do like the Big 12's round-robin schedule. Regrettably, that's almost certain to be a relic of the past soon. Had the Big 12 acted decisively sooner, they could perhaps have expanded in the Ohio Valley in a cohesive way, although in an already fractured conference that had the potential for more more balkanization than was there before. They're in a tough place - if they expand with "lesser" brands they'll look weak, yet without expansion they remain vulnerable to having their top schools eventually cherry-picked by others. Ultimately, there are probably no guarantees for anyone but UT and OU to be in a power conference in the future, so perhaps the question for having the bulk of the conference to stay together is whether or not they can pull off the PAC 18 scenario.
Some of the things you mention factor into my belief that the keystone programs of the Big 12 and ACC should be courted now with an eye toward the next round of expansion. I know there are some obstacles to overtly courting these programs, but when the Big 12 GOR gets close to expiration I believe some movement is likely. There will probably be a strong push by the Big XII about two years out to extend the agreement, so at least three years ahead of the expiration, the SEC should target the schools it wants with no preconceived notions of how many they would add.
All of this could be rendered meaningless though if the NCAA consistently rejects the idea of allowing pods or other alternate conference makeup.
(01-03-2014 05:34 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2013 04:21 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that your primary factors are all correct. I agree that academic fit is a secondary (but still important) measure, as is culture.
Given all of those factors, I think it's clear that from a conference perspective, the SEC came out far ahead in the most recent realignment. That builds on the previous South Carolina and Arkansas additions, which while not home runs did a fine job of expanding the footprint in a contiguous fashion with a good cultural fit. Adding aTm to get a foot in Texas is huge, and while I'd argue that aTm has underperformed historically (as has UT, for that matter, but that's another discussion) the move to the SEC primes them to build an exceptional future. Missouri isn't as compelling on its own, but as you've noted it has many strengths as well, and is certainly a home run if seen as a balancing partner to the aTm addition.
I agree that the Big 10 needs more football cache, and with the recent additions to the ACC it would behoove them to build on their basketball brand as well. Viewed in a simple message-board Conference Risk perspective, adding KU and OU would be an ideal combination, but it is of course more complicated than that. It's been pointed out that the Red River Rivalry and Oklahoma football prominence in general predates them being officially in a conference with TX schools, but I agree that the best move would have been one that allowed them to bring friends. It couldn't have happened due to politics, but if the Big 10 had been able to go to 16 by adding KU, OU, MU, and UT at the same time they added Nebraska, it would have been a phenomenal move that would have put them in a great place for the future.
The ACC is an interesting creature - there's certainly some cultural and geographic cohesion, but somehow they don't seem to live up to their potential, particularly in football. The new additions should make Basketball very compelling, however, as they both bolster the ACC brand while diminishing the Big East. Notre Dame's alliance with the ACC does help serve their needs for exposure in areas they covet, while allowing them to remain independent in football.
The PAC has the advantage and disadvantage of geography. Their isolation precludes them from being expansion targets, but it also limits their national appeal. I agree wholeheartedly that a large-scale expansion that gives them a solid Central time zone footprint (such as the 18-team scenario that I believe I first saw posted by JR) would be their best chance to grow and prosper. They've already picked the plums of the Mountain Time zone, so any remaining targets there are projects with limited potential.
It came about by accident, but I do like the Big 12's round-robin schedule. Regrettably, that's almost certain to be a relic of the past soon. Had the Big 12 acted decisively sooner, they could perhaps have expanded in the Ohio Valley in a cohesive way, although in an already fractured conference that had the potential for more more balkanization than was there before. They're in a tough place - if they expand with "lesser" brands they'll look weak, yet without expansion they remain vulnerable to having their top schools eventually cherry-picked by others. Ultimately, there are probably no guarantees for anyone but UT and OU to be in a power conference in the future, so perhaps the question for having the bulk of the conference to stay together is whether or not they can pull off the PAC 18 scenario.
Some of the things you mention factor into my belief that the keystone programs of the Big 12 and ACC should be courted now with an eye toward the next round of expansion. I know there are some obstacles to overtly courting these programs, but when the Big 12 GOR gets close to expiration I believe some movement is likely. There will probably be a strong push by the Big XII about two years out to extend the agreement, so at least three years ahead of the expiration, the SEC should target the schools it wants with no preconceived notions of how many they would add.
All of this could be rendered meaningless though if the NCAA consistently rejects the idea of allowing pods or other alternate conference makeup.
ZW if the NCAA prohibits the structure that the larger P5 conferences want, there will be a breakaway. Your time line is probably correct on what needs to be done. I understand there is a look in on the GOR that may or may not be coming up in about 3 years. So movement could happen sooner. But I agree that we should keep on open mind about the number to be considered. Personally I would favor a move to 18 or 20 to wrap this thing up completely. 3 twenty team or twenty four team conferences all with a network would be fine by me. Otherwise the inequity in earnings potential continue to plague the schools and destabilize the AQ conferences. People are weary of realignment so whatever happens next needs to be final for some time to come.
(12-30-2013 04:21 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that your primary factors are all correct. I agree that academic fit is a secondary (but still important) measure, as is culture.
Given all of those factors, I think it's clear that from a conference perspective, the SEC came out far ahead in the most recent realignment. That builds on the previous South Carolina and Arkansas additions, which while not home runs did a fine job of expanding the footprint in a contiguous fashion with a good cultural fit. Adding aTm to get a foot in Texas is huge, and while I'd argue that aTm has underperformed historically (as has UT, for that matter, but that's another discussion) the move to the SEC primes them to build an exceptional future. Missouri isn't as compelling on its own, but as you've noted it has many strengths as well, and is certainly a home run if seen as a balancing partner to the aTm addition.
I agree that the Big 10 needs more football cache, and with the recent additions to the ACC it would behoove them to build on their basketball brand as well. Viewed in a simple message-board Conference Risk perspective, adding KU and OU would be an ideal combination, but it is of course more complicated than that. It's been pointed out that the Red River Rivalry and Oklahoma football prominence in general predates them being officially in a conference with TX schools, but I agree that the best move would have been one that allowed them to bring friends. It couldn't have happened due to politics, but if the Big 10 had been able to go to 16 by adding KU, OU, MU, and UT at the same time they added Nebraska, it would have been a phenomenal move that would have put them in a great place for the future.
The ACC is an interesting creature - there's certainly some cultural and geographic cohesion, but somehow they don't seem to live up to their potential, particularly in football. The new additions should make Basketball very compelling, however, as they both bolster the ACC brand while diminishing the Big East. Notre Dame's alliance with the ACC does help serve their needs for exposure in areas they covet, while allowing them to remain independent in football.
The PAC has the advantage and disadvantage of geography. Their isolation precludes them from being expansion targets, but it also limits their national appeal. I agree wholeheartedly that a large-scale expansion that gives them a solid Central time zone footprint (such as the 18-team scenario that I believe I first saw posted by JR) would be their best chance to grow and prosper. They've already picked the plums of the Mountain Time zone, so any remaining targets there are projects with limited potential.
It came about by accident, but I do like the Big 12's round-robin schedule. Regrettably, that's almost certain to be a relic of the past soon. Had the Big 12 acted decisively sooner, they could perhaps have expanded in the Ohio Valley in a cohesive way, although in an already fractured conference that had the potential for more more balkanization than was there before. They're in a tough place - if they expand with "lesser" brands they'll look weak, yet without expansion they remain vulnerable to having their top schools eventually cherry-picked by others. Ultimately, there are probably no guarantees for anyone but UT and OU to be in a power conference in the future, so perhaps the question for having the bulk of the conference to stay together is whether or not they can pull off the PAC 18 scenario.
Phog there are a couple of things from your post to keep in mind.
1. Yes the best hope for the PAC is a wholesale move to 18 or even 20 from the Big 12 plus perhaps another regional Western team in the mix.
2. Neither FOX nor ESPN has a controlling interest in the PAC Network although both lease product in roughly equivalent amounts.
3. FOX and ESPN essentially own Big 12 product in more or less equivalent amounts.
4. I believe FOX and even more ESPN are holding up Big 12 movement West until they secure more property rights from the PAC to their product. The PAC network has distribution problems which I believe are lobbied against by the corporate networks. Those too will go away when ESPN and perhaps FOX have a stake in the PAC network.
So my two points are these. When the PAC capitulates, and surrenders stakes in the PACN to ESPN and FOX we will have movement. And the only reason ESPN and to a lesser extent FOX have propped up the Big 12 is to gain those concessions. If they don't get them then the Big 10 and SEC will take the top 4 or 5 pieces of the Big 12 at the end of the GOR.
Interestingly if the PAC falls behind then it too could one day be subjugated to division. Six of its teams would fit in well with the Big 10 which might also make provision for Oregon. The Arizona's and Colorado might also fit into an expanded West for the SEC.
If the PAC plays network ball then I think eventually we will have 3 relatively balanced power conferences. If not we will eventually have just 2. There is too much undervalued product in the ACC for it to remain whole. It is too diverse for its own survival. Geographically, culturally, and in focus of interest it is too diverse. I think ultimately the basketball first schools go Big 10 and the Football & Baseball oriented schools go SEC. Out of the 14 plus 1 of the ACC I think 6 will ultimately find homes in the Big 10 and between 5 or 6 in the SEC. The need to streamline overhead expenses for minor sports will keep the two conferences regionally confined. I see Boston College, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia and North Carolina going to the Big 10 with either Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, or Connecticut. I see Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, and/or Louisville, Miami, or West Virginia to the SEC.
I don't think Nebraska is a good fit for the Big 10 long term and I believe the Big 10 would find more value in another East coast team.
If B.Y.U. is such a big deal then the PAC could go to 20 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Nebraska. The Big 10 could then pick up two of Pittsburgh/Notre Dame/Connecticut instead of just one. I do think the Irish will join a conference if the only way into the upper tier is through membership in one of the P3's 20 team fields.
(01-11-2014 09:43 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2013 04:21 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]I think that your primary factors are all correct. I agree that academic fit is a secondary (but still important) measure, as is culture.
Given all of those factors, I think it's clear that from a conference perspective, the SEC came out far ahead in the most recent realignment. That builds on the previous South Carolina and Arkansas additions, which while not home runs did a fine job of expanding the footprint in a contiguous fashion with a good cultural fit. Adding aTm to get a foot in Texas is huge, and while I'd argue that aTm has underperformed historically (as has UT, for that matter, but that's another discussion) the move to the SEC primes them to build an exceptional future. Missouri isn't as compelling on its own, but as you've noted it has many strengths as well, and is certainly a home run if seen as a balancing partner to the aTm addition.
I agree that the Big 10 needs more football cache, and with the recent additions to the ACC it would behoove them to build on their basketball brand as well. Viewed in a simple message-board Conference Risk perspective, adding KU and OU would be an ideal combination, but it is of course more complicated than that. It's been pointed out that the Red River Rivalry and Oklahoma football prominence in general predates them being officially in a conference with TX schools, but I agree that the best move would have been one that allowed them to bring friends. It couldn't have happened due to politics, but if the Big 10 had been able to go to 16 by adding KU, OU, MU, and UT at the same time they added Nebraska, it would have been a phenomenal move that would have put them in a great place for the future.
The ACC is an interesting creature - there's certainly some cultural and geographic cohesion, but somehow they don't seem to live up to their potential, particularly in football. The new additions should make Basketball very compelling, however, as they both bolster the ACC brand while diminishing the Big East. Notre Dame's alliance with the ACC does help serve their needs for exposure in areas they covet, while allowing them to remain independent in football.
The PAC has the advantage and disadvantage of geography. Their isolation precludes them from being expansion targets, but it also limits their national appeal. I agree wholeheartedly that a large-scale expansion that gives them a solid Central time zone footprint (such as the 18-team scenario that I believe I first saw posted by JR) would be their best chance to grow and prosper. They've already picked the plums of the Mountain Time zone, so any remaining targets there are projects with limited potential.
It came about by accident, but I do like the Big 12's round-robin schedule. Regrettably, that's almost certain to be a relic of the past soon. Had the Big 12 acted decisively sooner, they could perhaps have expanded in the Ohio Valley in a cohesive way, although in an already fractured conference that had the potential for more more balkanization than was there before. They're in a tough place - if they expand with "lesser" brands they'll look weak, yet without expansion they remain vulnerable to having their top schools eventually cherry-picked by others. Ultimately, there are probably no guarantees for anyone but UT and OU to be in a power conference in the future, so perhaps the question for having the bulk of the conference to stay together is whether or not they can pull off the PAC 18 scenario.
Phog there are a couple of things from your post to keep in mind.
1. Yes the best hope for the PAC is a wholesale move to 18 or even 20 from the Big 12 plus perhaps another regional Western team in the mix.
2. Neither FOX nor ESPN has a controlling interest in the PAC Network although both lease product in roughly equivalent amounts.
3. FOX and ESPN essentially own Big 12 product in more or less equivalent amounts.
4. I believe FOX and even more ESPN are holding up Big 12 movement West until they secure more property rights from the PAC to their product. The PAC network has distribution problems which I believe are lobbied against by the corporate networks. Those too will go away when ESPN and perhaps FOX have a stake in the PAC network.
So my two points are these. When the PAC capitulates, and surrenders stakes in the PACN to ESPN and FOX we will have movement. And the only reason ESPN and to a lesser extent FOX have propped up the Big 12 is to gain those concessions. If they don't get them then the Big 10 and SEC will take the top 4 or 5 pieces of the Big 12 at the end of the GOR.
Interestingly if the PAC falls behind then it too could one day be subjugated to division. Six of its teams would fit in well with the Big 10 which might also make provision for Oregon. The Arizona's and Colorado might also fit into an expanded West for the SEC.
If the PAC plays network ball then I think eventually we will have 3 relatively balanced power conferences. If not we will eventually have just 2. There is too much undervalued product in the ACC for it to remain whole. It is too diverse for its own survival. Geographically, culturally, and in focus of interest it is too diverse. I think ultimately the basketball first schools go Big 10 and the Football & Baseball oriented schools go SEC. Out of the 14 plus 1 of the ACC I think 6 will ultimately find homes in the Big 10 and between 5 or 6 in the SEC. The need to streamline overhead expenses for minor sports will keep the two conferences regionally confined. I see Boston College, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia and North Carolina going to the Big 10 with either Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, or Connecticut. I see Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, and/or Louisville, Miami, or West Virginia to the SEC.
I don't think Nebraska is a good fit for the Big 10 long term and I believe the Big 10 would find more value in another East coast team.
If B.Y.U. is such a big deal then the PAC could go to 20 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Nebraska. The Big 10 could then pick up two of Pittsburgh/Notre Dame/Connecticut instead of just one. I do think the Irish will join a conference if the only way into the upper tier is through membership in one of the P3's 20 team fields.
I hope like hell that never happens.
I don't want ND as a football member of any conference, but in my opinion, the worst realignment result for the Irish would be for it to be forced, kicking and screaming, into a Big Ten Conference it absolutely despises, feels would actively work against its best interest and is considered detrimental to ND's athletic and academic identity.