(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

Well I can imagine the discussion with ND went pretty quick.

Delaney- Want in?

Swarbrick or Jenkins- No.

The end/

I definitely agree that the conferences are very much going to listen to their network partners when making these decisions, although I do suspect that they may also have a longer-term vision in mind when doing so. The likes of ESPN hold major cards at the moment in terms of letting conferences monetize their content without having to get into the business of distribution, but there's also a reason that ESPN and Fox are willing to pay so much - the conferences' content is very valuable.

We're already seeing some changes in terms of over-the-internet distribution occurring, like in KU's case with their T3 rights being ESPN3 content. Admittedly, that's a distribution channel bound to a traditional broadcaster, but nevertheless it's an alternative to just turning on the cable box and flipping to a random channel.

That's just one example, but it shows how things are changing, and it's likely that alternate delivery channels will continue to evolve. For now, the conferences are more than content to partner with broadcast partners for instant monetization as well as promotion of their product to help enhance their brands, and make them even more valuable when the current deals expire and the landscape may be quite different.

(09-18-2014 11:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

Well I can imagine the discussion with ND went pretty quick.

Delaney- Want in?

Swarbrick or Jenkins- No.

The end/

It's probably one of the few schools the conference would actually pick up the phone to call. I've had a hunch for some time that conference creates much of the hype and lets the ensuing chaos unfold and come to them to decipher.

The way Nebraska became a member, based on how Perlman told it, after that ridiculous rumor about the four schools getting invites...it always rubbed me the wrong way, and the way the Big Ten played it off...it wouldn't surprise me if they started that rumor just so they could get a different applicant pool. Like, really? The school who was trying to become a member of a conference for almost a century "comes out of nowhere" and somehow lands it? Riiiiight.

For a decade or so (the 2000's) Delany needed to preserve an option for ND if they should call. The scenario in which Delany would call ND is hard to picture. Each side knew each other very well; no need to convince anyone of anything. No special deals either.

(09-18-2014 10:21 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Ironically, the Texas and TAMU to the Big Ten move was shelved very early on in the discussion because of "politics." The prevailing idea was that Texas Tech would have been left behind, and UT/TAMU didn't want the "blood of the Big 12" on their hands.

Now, look where they are. TAMU and UT's rivalry is dead. The Big 12 is the flimsiest conference out there (it may have been all along, but it certainly is now).

In retrospect, I feel comfortable in saying that the SEC would have snatched up TTech, OU, OkSt in a heartbeat if the Big 12 imploded. Maybe Baylor too, if the whole thing would have gone to 16.

Rutgers still would have gotten its invite. They were long on the Big Ten's radar. But I doubt they would have tried to break up the ACC with the Maryland grab. Probably just Missouri (if ND wouldn't have been Big Ten team #16...and they wouldn't have).

Which would have left Kansas, KSt, TCU, Iowa St., WVU out in the cold...to go to the 14-team ACC (still with UMD) or the still-existent Big East.

A&M was in discussion with the SEC in earnest since 1991. Listing Texas and A&M as actual viable targets of the Big 10 derailed by politics is a pipe dream. Who a conference may have interest in and who may have interest in them are two different things. Contacting all other adjacent conferences to determine the relative value of your program is just a matter of due diligence and all schools do it regularly. Since the networks have been behind most of this business anyway, and the carrots they have dangled have been about market footprint, do you really question why a state as crucial to ratings as Texas would have the networks encourage a division of their top programs?

If I'm a conference and things are measured by my regional metrics, instead of those of the Networks, then I want both Texas and A&M. Together they lock the 26 million viewers and the recruiting of that state. If I'm the SEC and it is about football cache then F.S.U. is a no brainer and does the same thing for you that having both Texas and A&M do. But the conferences are not in control here! The networks are and they want the largest states split so that two or more conferences benefit from the eyeballs and the total product of college football maximizes viewers weekly.

Now this rule cannot apply to California. They aren't geographically close enough. It could apply to Virginia and North Carolina and might well have, if the Irish didn't throw their hat into the ACC (although obliquely). So now the issue becomes how to divide up the rest of Texas and it is the perfect state with which to divide a very large market. The PAC, Big 10, SEC, and with only a little stretch the ACC could all find a share there. Remember OU or OSU delivers DFW, so it doesn't even have to be a Texas school to gain a portion of that market.

So I don't fault Delany for his selections, nor have I ever considered the SEC's prospects and the Big 10's prospects to be anything but a wish list. But if I were judging the Big 10 by your metrics I would be forced to say this, "Delany could have gotten Texas, A&M, OU and Mizzou and settled for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland!" "Fire him." And by that same metric who would you have rather had Mizzou and A&M or Rutgers and Maryland? So if the SEC landed Mizzou and A&M and the Big 10 didn't all I can ask you is if the Big 10 is all of that and a can of nuts too how in the hell did that happen?

(09-18-2014 10:16 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  There had to be mutual interest. The B1G likely wanted some combo of UNC, GT and UVa, but those three schools were not interested.

The B1G settled for par (Rutgers, Maryland).

UNC came out and released information that they were feeling the pressure for moving. When it became public discourse about The Big Ten looking into UNC, the school received hordes of emails and calls about how angry folks would be if they joined the Big Ten.

So UNC was feeling pressure to possibly leave the conference, when someone feels such pressure they at least have talks to see what their options are. All the negative reaction from the baby blue mob was about the Big Ten so naturally that would cause pause and a chilling affect towards any possible talks there but...there wasn't much negativity at all about the SEC. They could have easily made that move without facing much backlash and yet they didn't choose to.

There was reciprocation in terms of talks between The Big Ten and UNC. To think otherwise would be silly, after all, the Commissioner of the Big Ten is a UNC Alumni. In the end though UNC did not want to make the move. Whether that was point blank period or whether it was because the Big Ten Presidents weren't ok with a major move to 20 teams that might have been necessary in order to budge UNC, who knows.

It is funny though that you folks seem to have to tell yourself this fallacy that UNC Admin wouldn't have even engaged in talks. So naïve.

(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

We will have to wait for Deleny's memoir to come out.

The Big Ten needs to pick up Louisiana,sorry I mean the University of Louisiana at Lafayette UL-L the sister companion school of the University of Louisiana at Monroe ULM. But I heard that they are sadly leaving the Sunbelt and going directly to the Big 12 as they espouse on all their websites.

You would think GT would be on the list.

(09-18-2014 11:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

Well I can imagine the discussion with ND went pretty quick.

Delaney- Want in?

Swarbrick or Jenkins- No.

The end/

A little historical perspective. In the 90s Notre Dame agreed to join the Big 10 as a full member. It was approved by the president, AD and enthusiastically by the faculty senate. It was the board that vetoed it.

(09-19-2014 08:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

Well I can imagine the discussion with ND went pretty quick.

Delaney- Want in?

Swarbrick or Jenkins- No.

The end/

A little historical perspective. In the 90s Notre Dame agreed to join the Big 10 as a full member. It was approved by the president, AD and enthusiastically by the faculty senate. It was the board that vetoed it.

I know, thanks for the history of Notre Dame. Just a couple things have changed since then.

Did you know you could save 15% on car insurance by switching to Geico? :)

(09-18-2014 03:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:21 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Ironically, the Texas and TAMU to the Big Ten move was shelved very early on in the discussion because of "politics." The prevailing idea was that Texas Tech would have been left behind, and UT/TAMU didn't want the "blood of the Big 12" on their hands.

Now, look where they are. TAMU and UT's rivalry is dead. The Big 12 is the flimsiest conference out there (it may have been all along, but it certainly is now).

In retrospect, I feel comfortable in saying that the SEC would have snatched up TTech, OU, OkSt in a heartbeat if the Big 12 imploded. Maybe Baylor too, if the whole thing would have gone to 16.

Rutgers still would have gotten its invite. They were long on the Big Ten's radar. But I doubt they would have tried to break up the ACC with the Maryland grab. Probably just Missouri (if ND wouldn't have been Big Ten team #16...and they wouldn't have).

Which would have left Kansas, KSt, TCU, Iowa St., WVU out in the cold...to go to the 14-team ACC (still with UMD) or the still-existent Big East.

A&M was in discussion with the SEC in earnest since 1991. Listing Texas and A&M as actual viable targets of the Big 10 derailed by politics is a pipe dream. Who a conference may have interest in and who may have interest in them are two different things. Contacting all other adjacent conferences to determine the relative value of your program is just a matter of due diligence and all schools do it regularly. Since the networks have been behind most of this business anyway, and the carrots they have dangled have been about market footprint, do you really question why a state as crucial to ratings as Texas would have the networks encourage a division of their top programs?

If I'm a conference and things are measured by my regional metrics, instead of those of the Networks, then I want both Texas and A&M. Together they lock the 26 million viewers and the recruiting of that state. If I'm the SEC and it is about football cache then F.S.U. is a no brainer and does the same thing for you that having both Texas and A&M do. But the conferences are not in control here! The networks are and they want the largest states split so that two or more conferences benefit from the eyeballs and the total product of college football maximizes viewers weekly.

Now this rule cannot apply to California. They aren't geographically close enough. It could apply to Virginia and North Carolina and might well have, if the Irish didn't throw their hat into the ACC (although obliquely). So now the issue becomes how to divide up the rest of Texas and it is the perfect state with which to divide a very large market. The PAC, Big 10, SEC, and with only a little stretch the ACC could all find a share there. Remember OU or OSU delivers DFW, so it doesn't even have to be a Texas school to gain a portion of that market.

So I don't fault Delany for his selections, nor have I ever considered the SEC's prospects and the Big 10's prospects to be anything but a wish list. But if I were judging the Big 10 by your metrics I would be forced to say this, "Delany could have gotten Texas, A&M, OU and Mizzou and settled for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland!" "Fire him." And by that same metric who would you have rather had Mizzou and A&M or Rutgers and Maryland? So if the SEC landed Mizzou and A&M and the Big 10 didn't all I can ask you is if the Big 10 is all of that and a can of nuts too how in the hell did that happen?

I've never heard of any interest by A&M in the Big 10. It was always (other than the Big 12) the SEC. They really had very limited interest in the Pac options.

As for the networks wanting states split, its just simple economics. FSU has more value to the ACC or Big 12 than it does to the SEC when the SEC already has the Gators. A&M provides more value to the SEC than it did to the Big 12 when the Big 12 already has the Longhorns.

The Big 10 and SEC have the most power. And its in part because the Big 10 has 14 schools-1 private, 7 lone flagships (states with no secondary flagship), 2 primary flagships coupled with the secondary flagship and 2 primary flagships w/o the secondary flagship while the SEC has 14 schools-1 private, 5 lone flagships, 2 primary flagships coupled with the secondary flagships, 3 primary flagships w/o the secondary flagship and 1 secondary flagship. That's a lot of states both dominate and they do it without a lot of duplication by their member schools.

(09-19-2014 08:37 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

Well I can imagine the discussion with ND went pretty quick.

Delaney- Want in?

Swarbrick or Jenkins- No.

The end/

A little historical perspective. In the 90s Notre Dame agreed to join the Big 10 as a full member. It was approved by the president, AD and enthusiastically by the faculty senate. It was the board that vetoed it.

I know, thanks for the history of Notre Dame. Just a couple things have changed since then.

Did you know you could save 15% on car insurance by switching to Geico? :)

Geckos have been around for millions of years.

(09-18-2014 01:13 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  For a decade or so (the 2000's) Delany needed to preserve an option for ND if they should call. The scenario in which Delany would call ND is hard to picture. Each side knew each other very well; no need to convince anyone of anything. No special deals either.

From what I can recall, there were no other institutions the Big Ten was so public about in their discussions than ND. The others came to look as purposefully vague, even if they were discussing matters for years.

I'd like to know if the applicant pool "available" to the conference back when they added Nebraska was that group of Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse. That the Big Ten presidents didn't like the pool, let it leak, and then let the ensuing chaos shake Nebraska loose.

It obviously worked for Rutgers in the end, even if they had to wait a few more years. I'd like to know just how long ago or far back the conference started eying up UMD.

(09-19-2014 08:56 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:13 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  For a decade or so (the 2000's) Delany needed to preserve an option for ND if they should call. The scenario in which Delany would call ND is hard to picture. Each side knew each other very well; no need to convince anyone of anything. No special deals either.

From what I can recall, there were no other institutions the Big Ten was so public about in their discussions than ND. The others came to look as purposefully vague, even if they were discussing matters for years.

I'd like to know if the applicant pool "available" to the conference back when they added Nebraska was that group of Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse. That the Big Ten presidents didn't like the pool, let it leak, and then let the ensuing chaos shake Nebraska loose.

It obviously worked for Rutgers in the end, even if they had to wait a few more years. I'd like to know just how long ago or far back the conference started eying up UMD.

The B1G had Rutgers pegged since the early 90s, but a lot of the influential personalities within the schools were pissed about adding Penn State, so they held off on Rutgers. Later on several times the conference tried to add Notre Dame with Rutgers as a pair but then ND board voted it down.

(09-19-2014 05:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:56 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:13 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  For a decade or so (the 2000's) Delany needed to preserve an option for ND if they should call. The scenario in which Delany would call ND is hard to picture. Each side knew each other very well; no need to convince anyone of anything. No special deals either.

From what I can recall, there were no other institutions the Big Ten was so public about in their discussions than ND. The others came to look as purposefully vague, even if they were discussing matters for years.

I'd like to know if the applicant pool "available" to the conference back when they added Nebraska was that group of Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse. That the Big Ten presidents didn't like the pool, let it leak, and then let the ensuing chaos shake Nebraska loose.

It obviously worked for Rutgers in the end, even if they had to wait a few more years. I'd like to know just how long ago or far back the conference started eying up UMD.

The B1G had Rutgers pegged since the early 90s, but a lot of the influential personalities within the schools were pissed about adding Penn State, so they held off on Rutgers. Later on several times the conference tried to add Notre Dame with Rutgers as a pair but then ND board voted it down.

Most member of the ACC wanted to add Penn State in the 1970's and 80's but were always stymied by Maryland and it wasn't was Paterno wanted. Usually there has been a very long lag time between an official contact or feeler, and a vote.

VT:

Feelers to overcome the initial blackball - 1953, vote 1954, feelers again in 1965 and 1977.

West Va:

Feelers to overcome initial blackball - 1953, vote 1954. New feelers 2012.

Florida:

Feelers - 1970's - no vote due to Maryland's opposition

GT:

Feelers - 1973 - vote 1977, join 1978

PSU:

Feelers - 1970's, 80's, 90's, and again starting in 2010

FSU:

Feelers - Feelers/contact 1987, vote 1991, join 1992

Miami, BC, Syracuse:

Feelers - 1987 http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-05...r-swofford
contact 1989, vote 2003, Miami joins 2003, BC joins 2004, Syracuse joins 2012

VT Redux:

Feelers - 2002 (Regarding who to use to make the power play on UVa-Duke and UNC) Power Play 2003, vote 2003, joins 2003.

Notre Dame:

Feelers - 1998, contact 2003 (this is what delayed the vote on BC) vote 2012, joins 2013

Pitt:

Feelers 2003, contact 2011, vote 2012, joins 2012

Texas:

Feelers 2010, contact 2011

Unnamed Big 10 Schools:

Feelers 2011/2012

Louisville:

Feelers - 2012, contact and vote 2012, joins 2014

Lag time between feelers and joining the ACC

VT - 50 years
ND - 15 years
Syracuse - 15 years
Pitt - 9 years
BC - 7 years
Miami - 6 years
FSU - 5 years
GT - 5 years
Louisville - 2 years

VT and Louisville are outliers. VT was a defacto ACC team that was blackballed by MD and UVA in 1953. Louisville was move or lose situation. So tossing them out, the average lag time between real feelers and joining the ACC has been 9 years.

MD, in concert with Duke blocked final negotiations with Penn State and UF, (it may be difficult for folks to remember but UF football had gone into the toilet for more than a decade in the 70's and some there wanted to improve their academic image by moving to the ACC). NC State blocked voting between Syracuse and BC in 2003 to start the effort to court Notre Dame. The only reason VT got back with the league is that Duke and UNC allowed it to happen by exposing UVa to the in-state political pressure instead of taking them of the hook. In all cases WF has voted to expand.

I don't know of a league approved feeler to UConn. I do know that MD leaving has given West Va a potential path back to the group. MD was their key blackball along with UVa and Duke.

That leaves Texas, Penn State, and two other unnamed B10 teams with contact or active feelers. The weakness of the B10 relative to the ACC is that the B10 has several schools that can not compete against the huge football stadiums of Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, and Wisconsin and there are several schools that are the little brother to a better funded B10 school in the B10.

Let's face it, as far as football goes, Northwestern, Indiana, and Purdue in particular would be more competitive in the ACC - not that they would ever move. And that inability to compete with the huge stadium is one of the major reason a 50-60 seat ACC football school can afford to move to the B10 and remain competitive - you have to make that move knowing you are giving up football competitiveness.

(09-19-2014 08:56 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:13 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  For a decade or so (the 2000's) Delany needed to preserve an option for ND if they should call. The scenario in which Delany would call ND is hard to picture. Each side knew each other very well; no need to convince anyone of anything. No special deals either.

From what I can recall, there were no other institutions the Big Ten was so public about in their discussions than ND. The others came to look as purposefully vague, even if they were discussing matters for years.

I'd like to know if the applicant pool "available" to the conference back when they added Nebraska was that group of Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse. That the Big Ten presidents didn't like the pool, let it leak, and then let the ensuing chaos shake Nebraska loose.

It obviously worked for Rutgers in the end, even if they had to wait a few more years. I'd like to know just how long ago or far back the conference started eying up UMD.

I don't think they really understood how destabilizing they were being in 2010 until after the fact. Not sure they weren't using that strategy trying to shake an ACC school loose in 2011-12.

(09-19-2014 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:37 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).

Well I can imagine the discussion with ND went pretty quick.

Delaney- Want in?

Swarbrick or Jenkins- No.

The end/

A little historical perspective. In the 90s Notre Dame agreed to join the Big 10 as a full member. It was approved by the president, AD and enthusiastically by the faculty senate. It was the board that vetoed it.

I know, thanks for the history of Notre Dame. Just a couple things have changed since then.

Did you know you could save 15% on car insurance by switching to Geico? :)

Geckos have been around for millions of years.

Haha. We had them living in base housing in the Philippines. You could always tell the newly arrived wives. They wouldn't go into the houses. The ladies who had been there a while named them. Ate lots of bugs and considered to be good luck in most of Asia.

The Big10 may have been interested in Vandy but Vandy wasn't interested in them.