(10-09-2014 01:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  3) The PAC could try to throw out another Texoma package BUT Utah and Colorado now they are in the conference want to protect their turf. The fact that the B1G is making so much money isn't a concern for them. Another possible option is to go with Texas and Oklahoma as non-FB members for a sexy all sport network.

One thing about money. A lot of people have no real use for the money they earn because they have more than enough to buy or do anything they want, but they are competitive people by nature and money is the scoreboard that tells them whether they are winning or losing.

That may apply to people, but not universities. Universities have an insatiable appetite for money and can always find something useful to do with more of it.

(10-09-2014 01:50 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:19 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:08 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:26 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  The AAU is all about money and control. Those 60 US schools do about 60 percent of all the federally funded research in the country. More Big Ten schools means a greater say in that organization agenda and a larger percentage of the funds that the AAU secures.

Massive ignorance

Please explain

When someone makes a statement of fact that is total baseless, like claiming the AAU is some sort of cabal that controls federal research funding or the Big Ten schools would somehow benefit by stacking AAU membership, it outs a person of having a thorough lack of knowledge on the topic of academic research funding, the AAU, research consortiums and academic collaborations, and really, general realignment issues.

The fallacy of these message board-derived myths has been discussed literally dozens of time on this board.

Well according to their own website, 57.7% of all federal research funds go to AAU schools. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...?id=13460. That's about 60%.

As far as stacking the membership: it's just kind of basic logic. Why would the Big 10 be adamant about members being AAU if there wasn't some tangible benefit. In a organization of 62 schools, if 14 all vote one way and decisions are made on a 3/4 or 2/3 basis, i would think that those 14 as one could have an impact on the direction the AAU takes. But I am sure politics play no role in AAU voting.

Since I am ignorant of research funding, please explain why the Big 10 wants AAU schools?

It wants AAU schools because schools/school presidents want to be seen as prestigious (or snobby depending on how you look at it) as possible. The more they associate with stronger academic brands, the higher their brand is seen as.

Keep in mind, that while every AAU member of the Big 12 voted to keep Nebraska in it, two Big Ten schools voted to push it out (I believe it was Wisconsin and Michigan, but can't swear to that).

As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

(10-09-2014 02:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:50 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:19 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:08 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Massive ignorance

Please explain

When someone makes a statement of fact that is total baseless, like claiming the AAU is some sort of cabal that controls federal research funding or the Big Ten schools would somehow benefit by stacking AAU membership, it outs a person of having a thorough lack of knowledge on the topic of academic research funding, the AAU, research consortiums and academic collaborations, and really, general realignment issues.

The fallacy of these message board-derived myths has been discussed literally dozens of time on this board.

Well according to their own website, 57.7% of all federal research funds go to AAU schools. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...?id=13460. That's about 60%.

As far as stacking the membership: it's just kind of basic logic. Why would the Big 10 be adamant about members being AAU if there wasn't some tangible benefit. In a organization of 62 schools, if 14 all vote one way and decisions are made on a 3/4 or 2/3 basis, i would think that those 14 as one could have an impact on the direction the AAU takes. But I am sure politics play no role in AAU voting.

Since I am ignorant of research funding, please explain why the Big 10 wants AAU schools?

It wants AAU schools because schools/school presidents want to be seen as prestigious (or snobby depending on how you look at it) as possible. The more they associate with stronger academic brands, the higher their brand is seen as.

Keep in mind, that while every AAU member of the Big 12 voted to keep Nebraska in it, two Big Ten schools voted to push it out (I believe it was Wisconsin and Michigan, but can't swear to that).

Mary Sue did indeed vote to toss Nebraska, and I also think it was Wisky, but it could have been Iowa. The real point is that the B10 voted to add Nebraksa with the prior knowledge that they would be exiting the AAU, one way or the other - the Syracuse and Clark way or via the boot.

In addition to the club and choice of association issues, a certain B10 institution would face in-state political pressure if that AAU excuse was not tossed out for a cover. It specifically helps one B10 institution that is hi in the middle and round on both ends. Gee, what university could that be?

(10-07-2014 11:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  One thing we've seen is a conference signs a TV deal and is super happy with it and likes how the money slides up each year. Then someone signs a better deal and the league is in a foul mood that they signed such a sorry TV deal.

With Fox missing on NBA and FS1 not having any content from three of the big four of pro sports and no ACC or SEC content, no NCAA Tournament, and essentially no post-season college football, it seems likely Fox is going to throw incredible money at the Big 10 and ESPN will do likewise to keep FS1 a marginal competitor that is mostly nibbling around with niche content.

I think there is a very high probability that the Big 10 is going to sign a deal that leaves the other P5 leagues unhappy with their "undervalued" contracts.

The Big Ten TV deal could end up being very destabilizing to college football.

For example if SEC starts feeling undervalued (along with everyone else) it would be very easy for ESPN to explain that they would be more than happy to get SEC to a similar per school number if certain valuable ACC properties were to rebranded as SEC (or vice versa though I think it is apparent ESPN likes the SEC brand better).

We don't know exactly how a court would deal with Grant of Rights but it is very possible that the answer would be that as long as the original conference gets paid like they are there then there is no harm and if ESPN is on both sides of the transaction that is easily dealt with.

Likewise relocating some ACC properties to Big XII could be done and the home games of those former ACC schools would purely be ESPN's property essentially increasing ESPN's stake in Big XII just as LHN upped their stake.

If B1G hits the big jackpot I don't think we are done talking realignment.

I would be just as interested to see what would happen if the B1G not only doesn't hit the jackpot, but gets a huge disappointment as well.

If you want to learn more, other and I have explained a lot about the AAU and academic research in various post that were in this thread (one of dozens that touches on the topic).

http://csnbbs.com/thread-680747.html

I get snarky because I'm so sick of seeing these stupid urban myth, and explaining their stupidity over and over again. Generally, they originate from bloggers that have no clue about how things actually work in higher education.

When you see anyone, and I mean anyone, start talking about academics or research in relation to athletic affiliations, it should immediate raise your BS alert, because 90% of the time it is pure bs.

(10-09-2014 02:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Mary Sue did indeed vote to toss Nebraska, and I also think it was Wisky, but it could have been Iowa. The real point is that the B10 voted to add Nebraksa with the prior knowledge that they would be exiting the AAU, one way or the other - the Syracuse and Clark way or via the boot.

In addition to the club and choice of association issues, a certain B10 institution would face in-state political pressure if that AAU excuse was not tossed out for a cover. It specifically helps one B10 institution that is hi in the middle and round on both ends. Gee, what university could that be?

There's definitely no significant in-state pressure to add another Ohio team and if there were, you'd have Iowa State, Pitt, Northern Illinois, etc vying just as hard (Illinois released an academic report actually saying it needed another Big Ten school). Regardless of home state team(s) support, no expansion candidate in any existing state would stand a chance of being admitted outside of Notre Dame (if you don't bring new market, you need to be a mega name).

I don't see AAU membership as an excuse (I'd oddly be more accepting of it if it was though). It's more of a strong guideline than anything though. If expansion is considered (which I don't think it's being right now), then the expansion targets needs to be AAU or have other very strong factors to outweigh that. Nebraska was borderline academically, but it was a football king and still had solid academics. If either one of those two hadn't been true, they wouldn't have been invited.

(10-09-2014 11:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  [quote='arkstfan' pid='11224497' dateline='1412867833']
[quote='JRsec' pid='11223810' dateline='1412853593']
[quote='allthatyoucantleavebehind' pid='11223750' dateline='1412838669']

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly outliers in their own conference and don't fit geographically into any of the other power conferences. I'm warming to option #3 because the PAC could use the most help associated with those schools and a partial schedule of 6 PAC games would be "Acceptable" where the ACC has a lot of smaller private schools that Texas wouldn't want to play at like BC, Duke and Wake.
[\quote]

FWIW, in my opinion, you cannot conflate BC with Duke and Wake in this instance for FB by virtue of the size of the market BC plays in. Texas HAS played in Chestnut Hill. USC Has played in Chestnut Hill. Ohio State has played in Chestnut Hill (as has Michigan) and has a future game scheduled in Chestnut Hill. Playing in the 7th largest media market has its advantages.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-09-2014 05:15 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  [quote='arkstfan' pid='11224497' dateline='1412867833']
[quote='JRsec' pid='11223810' dateline='1412853593']
[quote='allthatyoucantleavebehind' pid='11223750' dateline='1412838669']

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly outliers in their own conference and don't fit geographically into any of the other power conferences. I'm warming to option #3 because the PAC could use the most help associated with those schools and a partial schedule of 6 PAC games would be "Acceptable" where the ACC has a lot of smaller private schools that Texas wouldn't want to play at like BC, Duke and Wake.
[\quote]

FWIW, in my opinion, you cannot conflate BC with Duke and Wake in this instance for FB by virtue of the size of the market BC plays in. Texas HAS played in Chestnut Hill. USC Has played in Chestnut Hill. Ohio State has played in Chestnut Hill (as has Michigan) and has a future game scheduled in Chestnut Hill. Playing in the 7th largest media market has its advantages.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I was waiting for a BC fan to set me straight on that lol.

I see how the ACC works for Notre Dame with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Miami all in that conference plus smaller publics and private schools. More so really than the B1G whose backyard they are on top of.

I'm just thinking from the Texas perspective would they rather have that schedule be filled with Cal, UCLA, Arizona St.....big enrollment research schools. Cool places for their student athletes to play. Washington in Seattle. I don't think they want to send the Volleyball team to Pittsburgh or Blacksburg.

(10-09-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

Boston College's AD said after the Pitt and Syracuse additions:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."

Of course, after the uproar he then claimed he "mis-spoke"

(10-09-2014 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  One thing we've seen is a conference signs a TV deal and is super happy with it and likes how the money slides up each year. Then someone signs a better deal and the league is in a foul mood that they signed such a sorry TV deal.

With Fox missing on NBA and FS1 not having any content from three of the big four of pro sports and no ACC or SEC content, no NCAA Tournament, and essentially no post-season college football, it seems likely Fox is going to throw incredible money at the Big 10 and ESPN will do likewise to keep FS1 a marginal competitor that is mostly nibbling around with niche content.

I think there is a very high probability that the Big 10 is going to sign a deal that leaves the other P5 leagues unhappy with their "undervalued" contracts.

The Big Ten TV deal could end up being very destabilizing to college football.

For example if SEC starts feeling undervalued (along with everyone else) it would be very easy for ESPN to explain that they would be more than happy to get SEC to a similar per school number if certain valuable ACC properties were to rebranded as SEC (or vice versa though I think it is apparent ESPN likes the SEC brand better).

We don't know exactly how a court would deal with Grant of Rights but it is very possible that the answer would be that as long as the original conference gets paid like they are there then there is no harm and if ESPN is on both sides of the transaction that is easily dealt with.

Likewise relocating some ACC properties to Big XII could be done and the home games of those former ACC schools would purely be ESPN's property essentially increasing ESPN's stake in Big XII just as LHN upped their stake.

If B1G hits the big jackpot I don't think we are done talking realignment.

I would be just as interested to see what would happen if the B1G not only doesn't hit the jackpot, but gets a huge disappointment as well.

In a world where Major League Soccer (who get miniscule ratings for their games) just had their revenue triple on their new contract, you will probably be waiting a long time to see that.

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:11 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The length of the Big Ten's deal will be very telling. Do they go for a LONG-TERM deal like the SEC did? If so, that really will stabilize the landscape for the length of that deal.

Do they go for a SHORT-TERM deal (like 6-8 year) which would then put their expiration date SIMILAR to the other major conferences? Which would then set up another ARMAGEDDON realignment world in about 2021 or so.

I still don't think Missouri and UConn would be terrible additions for the Big Ten. UConn for hoops (and the BTN inventory during bball) and Missouri is solid for all-sports. I don't think those schools were plan A...but ever since Maryland was added, I don't think the Big Ten is overly obsessed with Plan A.

I always loved the Beatles song "Money Can't Buy Me Love". Well it can't buy wins, championships, or relevance either. Those are things that you earn, and the assets necessary to achieve them need to be on hand and within a reasonable radius of your operations.

I doubt seriously that the Big 10 is going to hook a Southern school South of North Carolina in the East and would be unlikely to get one South of Kansas in the West. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct then whether or not the Big 10 "hits the jackpot" is moot as there aren't any terrific recruiting grounds in terms of yield North of those areas. I agree with those who believe that the Big 10 would be best served by becoming the unquestioned king of basketball and simply look to being competitive in football with a handful of teams that could rise to challenge on any given year.

In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

Personally I think the best additions for the Big 10 would be Kansas and Connecticut. I realize that football first Big 10 fans would love to reunite Oklahoma and Nebraska or perhaps pick up Virginia Tech in the East, but to what point. Would the cutting off of more southerly recruiting ties with the Southwest and Southeast really benefit either of those football first schools? Probably not.

A Kansas school or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't sell in the SEC and such an affiliation would never really benefit them either, other than perhaps in the pocketbook. At some point the economy and finding your conference's natural niche is going to have to trump grand plans and schemes.

Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina all make some sense for the Big 10 as does Kansas. And at least some argument could be made for the benefits that those schools would receive in the Big 10.

Kentucky to the Big 10 speculation which I have heard on this board is ridiculous. Kentucky to the ACC a little less ridiculous except now the ACC has Louisville and doesn't need another Bluegrass school.

Missouri to the Big 10 is within the realm of reason, but doesn't make good economic sense for the Big 10 which is why I don't think they took them in the first place. In that regard Missouri is like T.C.U. and Kansas is like Oklahoma. Having the Jayhawks gains you Kansas City and parts of St. Louis like having Oklahoma gives you DFW. You don't need both and having both becomes an economic drain. Kansas is the better basketball and national brand.

Really any further realignment is going to be small and very precise. The Big 10, ACC, and SEC really have short lists of prospects that they would take in an eye blink. The PAC can be a little less choosy.

IMO the Big 10 would be better served at this point by maintaining its present strategy with Eastward expansion. They should try to expand into the beltway and lockdown New England and the Northeast.

The SEC needs to balance its power so expansion Westward really makes more sense from a stability standpoint. Markets however are better to the East. But at this point if the SEC doesn't shift some West power to the East it risks becoming a predominantly weak conference to the East and too much of a monster to the West.

The ACC needs another football strong school to bring a little more balance to their overall product.

The remaining need for the PAC is central time zones slot with which to increase the marketing of their product.

So none of the present rumors, or ideas about how much impact more money will make, or grand raid schemes by any conference, are anything more than imaginative jabs at your favorite punching bag. It really has reached a point where the next moves will be to fine tune markets and money while maintaining brand integrity. Anything that might go beyond that would be massive consolidation move that would only be mandated by the need for leverage and with compensation packages likely still on the assent I just don't see the negative motivation necessary to prompt such consolidation at this time.

Expounding on your assumption, I would imagine that the SEC would best be served by adding Oklahoma and another Texas school (I happen to believe that Baylor best fits this role).
Texas would then have to decide whether to go independent or head to the PAC.

(10-09-2014 07:31 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

Boston College's AD said after the Pitt and Syracuse additions:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."

Of course, after the uproar he then claimed he "mis-spoke"

In this case, I actually believe it. It's one voice and it's of an AD and not president. If ESPN was actively telling Conference A to raid Conference B, there would lawsuits directed at ESPN and I've never heard that even suggested. Beyond that, the fact remains, realignment cost ESPN a lot of money for very little extra in value.

(10-09-2014 08:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:11 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The length of the Big Ten's deal will be very telling. Do they go for a LONG-TERM deal like the SEC did? If so, that really will stabilize the landscape for the length of that deal.

Do they go for a SHORT-TERM deal (like 6-8 year) which would then put their expiration date SIMILAR to the other major conferences? Which would then set up another ARMAGEDDON realignment world in about 2021 or so.

I still don't think Missouri and UConn would be terrible additions for the Big Ten. UConn for hoops (and the BTN inventory during bball) and Missouri is solid for all-sports. I don't think those schools were plan A...but ever since Maryland was added, I don't think the Big Ten is overly obsessed with Plan A.

I always loved the Beatles song "Money Can't Buy Me Love". Well it can't buy wins, championships, or relevance either. Those are things that you earn, and the assets necessary to achieve them need to be on hand and within a reasonable radius of your operations.

I doubt seriously that the Big 10 is going to hook a Southern school South of North Carolina in the East and would be unlikely to get one South of Kansas in the West. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct then whether or not the Big 10 "hits the jackpot" is moot as there aren't any terrific recruiting grounds in terms of yield North of those areas. I agree with those who believe that the Big 10 would be best served by becoming the unquestioned king of basketball and simply look to being competitive in football with a handful of teams that could rise to challenge on any given year.

In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

Personally I think the best additions for the Big 10 would be Kansas and Connecticut. I realize that football first Big 10 fans would love to reunite Oklahoma and Nebraska or perhaps pick up Virginia Tech in the East, but to what point. Would the cutting off of more southerly recruiting ties with the Southwest and Southeast really benefit either of those football first schools? Probably not.

A Kansas school or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't sell in the SEC and such an affiliation would never really benefit them either, other than perhaps in the pocketbook. At some point the economy and finding your conference's natural niche is going to have to trump grand plans and schemes.

Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina all make some sense for the Big 10 as does Kansas. And at least some argument could be made for the benefits that those schools would receive in the Big 10.

Kentucky to the Big 10 speculation which I have heard on this board is ridiculous. Kentucky to the ACC a little less ridiculous except now the ACC has Louisville and doesn't need another Bluegrass school.

Missouri to the Big 10 is within the realm of reason, but doesn't make good economic sense for the Big 10 which is why I don't think they took them in the first place. In that regard Missouri is like T.C.U. and Kansas is like Oklahoma. Having the Jayhawks gains you Kansas City and parts of St. Louis like having Oklahoma gives you DFW. You don't need both and having both becomes an economic drain. Kansas is the better basketball and national brand.

Really any further realignment is going to be small and very precise. The Big 10, ACC, and SEC really have short lists of prospects that they would take in an eye blink. The PAC can be a little less choosy.

IMO the Big 10 would be better served at this point by maintaining its present strategy with Eastward expansion. They should try to expand into the beltway and lockdown New England and the Northeast.

The SEC needs to balance its power so expansion Westward really makes more sense from a stability standpoint. Markets however are better to the East. But at this point if the SEC doesn't shift some West power to the East it risks becoming a predominantly weak conference to the East and too much of a monster to the West.

The ACC needs another football strong school to bring a little more balance to their overall product.

The remaining need for the PAC is central time zones slot with which to increase the marketing of their product.

So none of the present rumors, or ideas about how much impact more money will make, or grand raid schemes by any conference, are anything more than imaginative jabs at your favorite punching bag. It really has reached a point where the next moves will be to fine tune markets and money while maintaining brand integrity. Anything that might go beyond that would be massive consolidation move that would only be mandated by the need for leverage and with compensation packages likely still on the assent I just don't see the negative motivation necessary to prompt such consolidation at this time.

Expounding on your assumption, I would imagine that the SEC would best be served by adding Oklahoma and another Texas school (I happen to believe that Baylor best fits this role).
Texas would then have to decide whether to go independent or head to the PAC.

Oklahoma could have talked to the SEC at any time, they didn't.

(10-09-2014 08:18 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:31 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

Boston College's AD said after the Pitt and Syracuse additions:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."

Of course, after the uproar he then claimed he "mis-spoke"

In this case, I actually believe it. It's one voice and it's of an AD and not president. If ESPN was actively telling Conference A to raid Conference B, there would lawsuits directed at ESPN and I've never heard that even suggested. Beyond that, the fact remains, realignment cost ESPN a lot of money for very little extra in value.

Do I REALLY have to go dig out the multiple instances of ESPN folks in interviews talking about how they have never had official sit downs which the purpose of such was about whom to invite to a conference but that the topic has come up many times in regular conversations?

Do I really? Come on now people, stop being so naive. First off, an AD is right there in the mix. To say they don't know **** is just hilarious Ohio, come on. The Presidents just made official what has always been the case. The AD's are the one's running the show and the Presidents were just signing off. With such big numbers now and so many ways to anger people, the Presidents are straight up taking themselves out of the picture and letting AD's handle it.

People who don't know anything need to stop saying that AD's don't know what they are talking about. This isn't just about you Ohio, it is this highly illogical statement gets repeated over and over for some damn reason. Seriously? AD's never talk with Network Reps? Who do you think is the final word on Scheduling???????????????

(10-09-2014 08:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:11 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The length of the Big Ten's deal will be very telling. Do they go for a LONG-TERM deal like the SEC did? If so, that really will stabilize the landscape for the length of that deal.

Do they go for a SHORT-TERM deal (like 6-8 year) which would then put their expiration date SIMILAR to the other major conferences? Which would then set up another ARMAGEDDON realignment world in about 2021 or so.

I still don't think Missouri and UConn would be terrible additions for the Big Ten. UConn for hoops (and the BTN inventory during bball) and Missouri is solid for all-sports. I don't think those schools were plan A...but ever since Maryland was added, I don't think the Big Ten is overly obsessed with Plan A.

I always loved the Beatles song "Money Can't Buy Me Love". Well it can't buy wins, championships, or relevance either. Those are things that you earn, and the assets necessary to achieve them need to be on hand and within a reasonable radius of your operations.

I doubt seriously that the Big 10 is going to hook a Southern school South of North Carolina in the East and would be unlikely to get one South of Kansas in the West. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct then whether or not the Big 10 "hits the jackpot" is moot as there aren't any terrific recruiting grounds in terms of yield North of those areas. I agree with those who believe that the Big 10 would be best served by becoming the unquestioned king of basketball and simply look to being competitive in football with a handful of teams that could rise to challenge on any given year.

In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

Personally I think the best additions for the Big 10 would be Kansas and Connecticut. I realize that football first Big 10 fans would love to reunite Oklahoma and Nebraska or perhaps pick up Virginia Tech in the East, but to what point. Would the cutting off of more southerly recruiting ties with the Southwest and Southeast really benefit either of those football first schools? Probably not.

A Kansas school or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't sell in the SEC and such an affiliation would never really benefit them either, other than perhaps in the pocketbook. At some point the economy and finding your conference's natural niche is going to have to trump grand plans and schemes.

Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina all make some sense for the Big 10 as does Kansas. And at least some argument could be made for the benefits that those schools would receive in the Big 10.

Kentucky to the Big 10 speculation which I have heard on this board is ridiculous. Kentucky to the ACC a little less ridiculous except now the ACC has Louisville and doesn't need another Bluegrass school.

Missouri to the Big 10 is within the realm of reason, but doesn't make good economic sense for the Big 10 which is why I don't think they took them in the first place. In that regard Missouri is like T.C.U. and Kansas is like Oklahoma. Having the Jayhawks gains you Kansas City and parts of St. Louis like having Oklahoma gives you DFW. You don't need both and having both becomes an economic drain. Kansas is the better basketball and national brand.

Really any further realignment is going to be small and very precise. The Big 10, ACC, and SEC really have short lists of prospects that they would take in an eye blink. The PAC can be a little less choosy.

IMO the Big 10 would be better served at this point by maintaining its present strategy with Eastward expansion. They should try to expand into the beltway and lockdown New England and the Northeast.

The SEC needs to balance its power so expansion Westward really makes more sense from a stability standpoint. Markets however are better to the East. But at this point if the SEC doesn't shift some West power to the East it risks becoming a predominantly weak conference to the East and too much of a monster to the West.

The ACC needs another football strong school to bring a little more balance to their overall product.

The remaining need for the PAC is central time zones slot with which to increase the marketing of their product.

So none of the present rumors, or ideas about how much impact more money will make, or grand raid schemes by any conference, are anything more than imaginative jabs at your favorite punching bag. It really has reached a point where the next moves will be to fine tune markets and money while maintaining brand integrity. Anything that might go beyond that would be massive consolidation move that would only be mandated by the need for leverage and with compensation packages likely still on the assent I just don't see the negative motivation necessary to prompt such consolidation at this time.

Expounding on your assumption, I would imagine that the SEC would best be served by adding Oklahoma and another Texas school (I happen to believe that Baylor best fits this role).
Texas would then have to decide whether to go independent or head to the PAC.

Oklahoma could have talked to the SEC at any time, they didn't.

They have, twice since 1992.

(10-09-2014 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:11 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The length of the Big Ten's deal will be very telling. Do they go for a LONG-TERM deal like the SEC did? If so, that really will stabilize the landscape for the length of that deal.

Do they go for a SHORT-TERM deal (like 6-8 year) which would then put their expiration date SIMILAR to the other major conferences? Which would then set up another ARMAGEDDON realignment world in about 2021 or so.

I still don't think Missouri and UConn would be terrible additions for the Big Ten. UConn for hoops (and the BTN inventory during bball) and Missouri is solid for all-sports. I don't think those schools were plan A...but ever since Maryland was added, I don't think the Big Ten is overly obsessed with Plan A.

I always loved the Beatles song "Money Can't Buy Me Love". Well it can't buy wins, championships, or relevance either. Those are things that you earn, and the assets necessary to achieve them need to be on hand and within a reasonable radius of your operations.

I doubt seriously that the Big 10 is going to hook a Southern school South of North Carolina in the East and would be unlikely to get one South of Kansas in the West. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct then whether or not the Big 10 "hits the jackpot" is moot as there aren't any terrific recruiting grounds in terms of yield North of those areas. I agree with those who believe that the Big 10 would be best served by becoming the unquestioned king of basketball and simply look to being competitive in football with a handful of teams that could rise to challenge on any given year.

In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

Personally I think the best additions for the Big 10 would be Kansas and Connecticut. I realize that football first Big 10 fans would love to reunite Oklahoma and Nebraska or perhaps pick up Virginia Tech in the East, but to what point. Would the cutting off of more southerly recruiting ties with the Southwest and Southeast really benefit either of those football first schools? Probably not.

A Kansas school or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't sell in the SEC and such an affiliation would never really benefit them either, other than perhaps in the pocketbook. At some point the economy and finding your conference's natural niche is going to have to trump grand plans and schemes.

Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina all make some sense for the Big 10 as does Kansas. And at least some argument could be made for the benefits that those schools would receive in the Big 10.

Kentucky to the Big 10 speculation which I have heard on this board is ridiculous. Kentucky to the ACC a little less ridiculous except now the ACC has Louisville and doesn't need another Bluegrass school.

Missouri to the Big 10 is within the realm of reason, but doesn't make good economic sense for the Big 10 which is why I don't think they took them in the first place. In that regard Missouri is like T.C.U. and Kansas is like Oklahoma. Having the Jayhawks gains you Kansas City and parts of St. Louis like having Oklahoma gives you DFW. You don't need both and having both becomes an economic drain. Kansas is the better basketball and national brand.

Really any further realignment is going to be small and very precise. The Big 10, ACC, and SEC really have short lists of prospects that they would take in an eye blink. The PAC can be a little less choosy.

IMO the Big 10 would be better served at this point by maintaining its present strategy with Eastward expansion. They should try to expand into the beltway and lockdown New England and the Northeast.

The SEC needs to balance its power so expansion Westward really makes more sense from a stability standpoint. Markets however are better to the East. But at this point if the SEC doesn't shift some West power to the East it risks becoming a predominantly weak conference to the East and too much of a monster to the West.

The ACC needs another football strong school to bring a little more balance to their overall product.

The remaining need for the PAC is central time zones slot with which to increase the marketing of their product.

So none of the present rumors, or ideas about how much impact more money will make, or grand raid schemes by any conference, are anything more than imaginative jabs at your favorite punching bag. It really has reached a point where the next moves will be to fine tune markets and money while maintaining brand integrity. Anything that might go beyond that would be massive consolidation move that would only be mandated by the need for leverage and with compensation packages likely still on the assent I just don't see the negative motivation necessary to prompt such consolidation at this time.

Expounding on your assumption, I would imagine that the SEC would best be served by adding Oklahoma and another Texas school (I happen to believe that Baylor best fits this role).
Texas would then have to decide whether to go independent or head to the PAC.

Oklahoma could have talked to the SEC at any time, they didn't.

They have, twice since 1992.

Simple negotiation tactic. When it came to the big time, it was the PAC they tried to pull Texas to...twice.

Your whole 1992 thing? Ancient history. You really had to go that far?

(10-09-2014 08:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:18 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:31 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

Boston College's AD said after the Pitt and Syracuse additions:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."

Of course, after the uproar he then claimed he "mis-spoke"

In this case, I actually believe it. It's one voice and it's of an AD and not president. If ESPN was actively telling Conference A to raid Conference B, there would lawsuits directed at ESPN and I've never heard that even suggested. Beyond that, the fact remains, realignment cost ESPN a lot of money for very little extra in value.

Do I REALLY have to go dig out the multiple instances of ESPN folks in interviews talking about how they have never had official sit downs which the purpose of such was about whom to invite to a conference but that the topic has come up many times in regular conversations?

Do I really? Come on now people, stop being so naive. First off, an AD is right there in the mix. To say they don't know **** is just hilarious Ohio, come on. The Presidents just made official what has always been the case. The AD's are the one's running the show and the Presidents were just signing off. With such big numbers now and so many ways to anger people, the Presidents are straight up taking themselves out of the picture and letting AD's handle it.

People who don't know anything need to stop saying that AD's don't know what they are talking about. This isn't just about you Ohio, it is this highly illogical statement gets repeated over and over for some damn reason. Seriously? AD's never talk with Network Reps? Who do you think is the final word on Scheduling???????????????

Do the ADs know stuff? Absolutely and they are a heck of a lot better than coaches for information, but one AD out of more than 50 at power conference schools saying one thing that implied ESPN was telling them what to do is hardly proof positive (especially when he immediately went back on it). People jump too much onto individual quotes.

Beyond that (although only half related), ADs have a ton of responsibilities and whole conference realignment is not high on the agenda of most of them much of the time. A lot of us on this board have probably spent more time reading/writing on the subject than most of the ADs/school presidents.

Now on ESPN directing or not directing realignment, I don't want to argue too much as it's kind of 6 of one, half dozen of other. Whether it's the networks going to the conferences or vice-versa, the result is the same. That said, I'll put one more post to it...



No reason to drag up any article, I've followed this as closely as anyone for the last 4 years and sorry but there is ample evidence suggesting my belief on how it works. You don't have to agree, but I'm not being dense on this subject because of what I want or won't look at just because I disagree. Things aren't always what I want, but I always state my opinion based on how things actually appear to me and I'd have no problem saying ESPN was directing this if I thought it was actually the case.

I don't think the evidence is there. It is certainly true TV value is what prompted almost every conference move and it would be idiotic if the conferences didn't consult their TV partners. I'm sure some individuals spoke in different ways about things in the conversations. That said, as a whole, I think the only strong evidence we have of networks actually be actively rather than passive in realignment is when the TV networks are trying to prevent realignment, rather than them encouraging it.

-Look at the Big 12 in 2010. The PAC-10 tried to take half it's membership and would have if ESPN and Fox had not come in with a last ditch effort to keep it afloat. That effort meant that both would agree to pay exactly the same thing they already were despite the fact there was now a) no CCG, b) the loss of a national brand in Nebraska and a strong market in Colorado, and c) fewer games to draw on thanks to only having 10 teams. It also meant ESPN sponsoring the Longhorn Network (with large guaranteed money for the Longhorns) despite the fact it would have trouble making money for a long time.

To be clear, I am not saying TV did not effect decisions. It in fact was the primary driver in all this realignment. What I am saying is that the conferences are the boss here and not ESPN, not FOX, not CBS and not NBC . Each and everyone of the conferences was looking to maximize revenue which meant turning to their TV partners which meant the moves they made. It did not mean ESPN calling them up and saying, "We really want you to add...."

(10-09-2014 02:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If you want to learn more, other and I have explained a lot about the AAU and academic research in various post that were in this thread (one of dozens that touches on the topic).

http://csnbbs.com/thread-680747.html

I get snarky because I'm so sick of seeing these stupid urban myth, and explaining their stupidity over and over again. Generally, they originate from bloggers that have no clue about how things actually work in higher education.

When you see anyone, and I mean anyone, start talking about academics or research in relation to athletic affiliations, it should immediate raise your BS alert, because 90% of the time it is pure bs.

Very informative link and there is some good information in there on the research process. However, it's based on the assumption that the federal government hands out billions of dollars in federal funding on merit alone. There is a reason why "peer review" is often referred to as "pal review." Politics plays a part in every government decision. If you don't believe that, far be it from me to destroy any illusion you have about the government. You would be shocked the amount of time college presidents, heads of departments, and top doctors spend glad handing politicians and government appointees at all levels with the express purpose of securing funds and so would the low level researcher who doesn't spend his nights out at the various high brow conferences, benefits, junkets, and dinners. These people have no family lives and they wouldn't be wasting their time if their wasn't a financial benefit to their university or specific department.

Also, it is correct the AAU doesn't lobby for research funds. Most top notch lobbying firms don't lobby for direct funds. What they do lobby for are rules and bylines, stipulations and regulations and so on and so forth that benefit their clients in how those funds are rewarded. They are often thrown into the back pages of government agencies policies and procedures. No doubt the AAU lobbies for the good of higher education overall but there isn't a lobby firm in the world that tries to help their competitors at the expense of their clients. There is reason every top notch research college not in the AAU wants to be in. Its easy to dismiss it as some sort of cool club only but their is a tangible benefit or administrators wouldn't be pining for it.

How much does AAU and research mean to college athletic conferences? To most of them nothing; to the Big Ten a decent amount. It wasn't enough to keep Nebraska out as it appears that was a foregone conclusion before the vote even took place with Wisconsin and Michigan voting to "review" their AAU membership before they were even on the Big tens radar. Here's an article that gives the whole time line of events and says 3 Big Ten teams voted against Nebraska. http://journalstar.com/news/local/educat...acb4.html. But John Hopkins will be an interesting case study as they are on a trial membership. If JHU doesn't join the CIC, then research means nothing and the conference is strictly an athletic property. The only reason to add them would be the fact they are the number one research school in the country since lacrosse brings an almost negligible financial gain to the conference. Another Big Ten school could just as easily add the sport. But if their is no association thru the CIC then research truly doesn't matter.

(10-09-2014 08:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:18 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:31 PM)krup Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  As for ESPN directing anything, I don't buy that it has ever happened. I'm sure conferences regularly went to ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc and said, "If we add ____, what value do you think that brings to our contract." That's very different than ESPN calling them up and saying, "Please add ___." If fact, I'd guess the opposite. ESPN hated realignment. They ended up paying a lot more to basically keep the same teams they already mostly had contracts for.

Boston College's AD said after the Pitt and Syracuse additions:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."

Of course, after the uproar he then claimed he "mis-spoke"

In this case, I actually believe it. It's one voice and it's of an AD and not president. If ESPN was actively telling Conference A to raid Conference B, there would lawsuits directed at ESPN and I've never heard that even suggested. Beyond that, the fact remains, realignment cost ESPN a lot of money for very little extra in value.

Do I REALLY have to go dig out the multiple instances of ESPN folks in interviews talking about how they have never had official sit downs which the purpose of such was about whom to invite to a conference but that the topic has come up many times in regular conversations?

Do I really? Come on now people, stop being so naive. First off, an AD is right there in the mix. To say they don't know **** is just hilarious Ohio, come on. The Presidents just made official what has always been the case. The AD's are the one's running the show and the Presidents were just signing off. With such big numbers now and so many ways to anger people, the Presidents are straight up taking themselves out of the picture and letting AD's handle it.

People who don't know anything need to stop saying that AD's don't know what they are talking about. This isn't just about you Ohio, it is this highly illogical statement gets repeated over and over for some damn reason. Seriously? AD's never talk with Network Reps? Who do you think is the final word on Scheduling???????????????

Sometimes ADs don't know what they are talking about. Witness Villanova's AD when they were looking to move up. FSU's former AD was pretty clueless. Clemson's AD didn't even know how much they were making on the TV contract (that was Swofford's doing). The Big 10 ADs didn't know Penn St. was being added until it was already done. They were overwhelmingly opposed.

Some ADs are in on everything. Others aren't in on much at all.