Great read, Some key points:

Notre Dame to stay independent in football.

12 teams is the magic football model

Big 10 is done with expansion.

B10, PAC 10, SEC. and ACC all at 12.

B12 will try and make 10 work.

Big East is a "Super Conference".

Here's the link:

College football: Q&A with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany

Now my take is this, everybody will have 12 football teams soon. That means 5 get to move up. 3 to the BE and 2 to the B12.

How can they not have the title game in Soldier Field Chicago, in a great city, in the elements? The CCG will be successful no matter what, but it's such a lost opportunity to make the game an "event". Nothing against Indianapolis, but this would be like holding the Big East Hoops Tourney in Albany* rather than NYC, or the Rose Bowl in Bakersfield*.

*Nothing against Albany and Bakersfield.

(12-15-2010 11:29 AM)billyjack Wrote:  How can they not have the title game in Soldier Field Chicago, in a great city, in the elements? The CCG will be successful no matter what, but it's such a lost opportunity to make the game an "event". Nothing against Indianapolis, but this would be like holding the Big East Hoops Tourney in Albany* rather than NYC, or the Rose Bowl in Bakersfield*.

*Nothing against Albany and Bakersfield.

Or like holding the Big East basketball tournament in Providence.

any comments about the new ugly logo?

(12-15-2010 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 11:29 AM)billyjack Wrote:  How can they not have the title game in Soldier Field Chicago, in a great city, in the elements? The CCG will be successful no matter what, but it's such a lost opportunity to make the game an "event". Nothing against Indianapolis, but this would be like holding the Big East Hoops Tourney in Albany* rather than NYC, or the Rose Bowl in Bakersfield*.

*Nothing against Albany and Bakersfield.

Or like holding the Big East basketball tournament in Providence.

Exactly.

(12-15-2010 11:29 AM)billyjack Wrote:  How can they not have the title game in Soldier Field Chicago, in a great city, in the elements? The CCG will be successful no matter what, but it's such a lost opportunity to make the game an "event". Nothing against Indianapolis, but this would be like holding the Big East Hoops Tourney in Albany* rather than NYC, or the Rose Bowl in Bakersfield*.

*Nothing against Albany and Bakersfield.

I agree with this - I've hated the fact that Indianapolis seems to be getting these events over Chicago. Part of it is Indy does have VERY strong leadership in terms of obtaining high profile sports events (see the constant rotation of Final Fours coming to the city, the Super Bowl, etc.) whereas Chicago's bids always seem haphazard and relying solely on "We're freaking Chicago and the other cities in the Midwest are lame" instead of proposing anything substantive beyond that.

And Indy happens to have a dome, which is convenient in December. The SEC had theirs in New Orleans before thy got it right. ACC, in Jacksonville and Tampa. B12 in Kansas city and St. Louis. It's not a bad move to have the first one indoors.

He also says they haven't talked with ND about membership in 10 years.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-15-2010 10:20 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Great read, Some key points:

Notre Dame to stay independent in football.

12 teams is the magic football model

Big 10 is done with expansion.

B10, PAC 10, SEC. and ACC all at 12.

B12 will try and make 10 work.

Big East is a "Super Conference".

Here's the link:

College football: Q&A with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany

Now my take is this, everybody will have 12 football teams soon. That means 5 get to move up. 3 to the BE and 2 to the B12.

I would hope they add a second conference in the west. Currently you have 3.5 conferences in the Eastern time zone: Big East, ACC, SEC and .5 Big 10. Only 1 sits in the Pacific Time zone. BCS teams relative to population is sparse in the west. Once the Big East adds 3 more C-USA teams it will be even more unbalanced. Assuming BE adds Houston, East Carolina and UCF and the Big 12 adds Memphis and Tulsa major markets without a BCS team would be: Cleveland 17, Sacramento/Modesto 20, San Diego 28, San Antonio (37), Las Vegas 42, Albuquerque 44, Providence 52, Fresno 55

Again I think the MWC and Big East could team up to form a strong network connection. We currently have 3 top 25 basketball teams while the Pac-10 has none. We aren't as strong as the Pac in Football and don't have the national interest they do but the same can be said for the Big East on the west coast relative to the Big 10. A shared television plan would benefit both leagues...

No offense, but an association with the Mountain West can only diminish the Big East.

(12-15-2010 01:50 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The SEC had theirs in New Orleans before thy got it right.

It was played at Legion Field in Birmingham for its first two years; it has been at the Georgia Dome ever since.

(12-15-2010 01:58 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  He also says they haven't talked with ND about membership in 10 years.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, that's an outright lie. Mike Brey is already on the record that ND was on the doorstep of joining the Big Ten back in 2003 if the BE had collapsed.

(12-15-2010 01:50 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  And Indy happens to have a dome, which is convenient in December. The SEC had theirs in New Orleans before thy got it right. ACC, in Jacksonville and Tampa. B12 in Kansas city and St. Louis. It's not a bad move to have the first one indoors.

For the SEC and Big Ten, the neutral sites are fine. Everyone else is better off holding the game at the stadium of one of the participating teams, as the Pac-12 will be doing. That often posted image of the two-thirds-empty stadium for the ACC title game in Jacksonville is all the explanation you need.

(12-15-2010 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 01:50 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  And Indy happens to have a dome, which is convenient in December. The SEC had theirs in New Orleans before thy got it right. ACC, in Jacksonville and Tampa. B12 in Kansas city and St. Louis. It's not a bad move to have the first one indoors.

For the SEC and Big Ten, the neutral sites are fine. Everyone else is better off holding the game at the stadium of one of the participating teams, as the Pac-12 will be doing. That often posted image of the two-thirds-empty stadium for the ACC title game in Jacksonville is all the explanation you need.

Agreed. Consider that the Big Ten and SEC already have very large traveling fan bases and then add on top the fact that Chicago/Indianapolis and Atlanta are reasonable driving distances from nearly all of their respective conference members. Even the Big Ten 2 geographic outliers (Nebraska and Penn State) happen to have fan bases that are willing to travel virtually anywhere, so the distance is mitigated. For the other conferences that are more geographically dispersed and/or have less rabid fan bases, the game being played at the home of the higher seed is better.

Quote:and the Big 12 adds Memphis and Tulsa

No. Just No. The Big 12 has no interest in Memphis or Tulsa (especially Tulsa)

Delaney is right in that the Big 12 will try to make 10 work. This is because it is trying hard to pay its 3 major properties (UT,OU and A&M) what they would make in the B10/SEC. This is not easy because while one of the best all around athletic conferences in the country, the Big 12 has the smallest population base of the 6 power conferences.

So, small markets and trying to pay top guys what they are worth so they will stay.

Expansion would threaten to make these problems worse because frankly, other than BYU (who poses other challenges like distance and the Sunday issue) there simply aren't any viable programs (ie would actually join the Big 12) in its footprint that would add enough money to make the pie bigger and not make it drastically smaller for everyone.

The other big motivator behind staying at 10 is the real belief that the B12 went to divisions too quickly. It works in other conferences because the core members have been together so long that cohesion isn't an issue. Obviously that as not the case in the B12. There is a general feeling that IF this is going to work, there needs to be time where everyone plays everyone and develops actual rivalries and ties to each other before expanding again.

So at this point, the strategy is come together and wait for a pair of Western teams to really begin to stand out academically and athletically. I say western team because while there are some BE teams that would be good candidates, the belief seems to be that it would be better to go after western teams who aren't competing for attention against the B10 and SEC in their own home markets.

(12-15-2010 03:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:and the Big 12 adds Memphis and Tulsa

No. Just No. The Big 12 has no interest in Memphis or Tulsa (especially Tulsa)

Delaney is right in that the Big 12 will try to make 10 work. This is because it is trying hard to pay its 3 major properties (UT,OU and A&M) what they would make in the B10/SEC. This is not easy because while one of the best all around athletic conferences in the country, the Big 12 has the smallest population base of the 6 power conferences.

So, small markets and trying to pay top guys what they are worth so they will stay.

Expansion would threaten to make these problems worse because frankly, other than BYU (who poses other challenges like distance and the Sunday issue) there simply aren't any viable programs (ie would actually join the Big 12) in its footprint that would add enough money to make the pie bigger and not make it drastically smaller for everyone.

The other big motivator behind staying at 10 is the real belief that the B12 went to divisions too quickly. It works in other conferences because the core members have been together so long that cohesion isn't an issue. Obviously that as not the case in the B12. There is a general feeling that IF this is going to work, there needs to be time where everyone plays everyone and develops actual rivalries and ties to each other before expanding again.

So at this point, the strategy is come together and wait for a pair of Western teams to really begin to stand out academically and athletically. I say western team because while there are some BE teams that would be good candidates, the belief seems to be that it would be better to go after western teams who aren't competing for attention against the B10 and SEC in their own home markets.

Good points, especially regarding conference cohesion. One of the reasons why the TV revenue differences were so stark in the Big 12 was that the presence of UT and OU (and to a lesser extent, A&M) in the Big 12 South put the TV coverage completely out-of-balance. The only hope that the Big 12 North schools had in getting regular national TV appearances was their annual Nebraska game, so when Nebraska went through a down period, it's as if though that entire division evaporated from ABC. Now, every single school in the conference is guaranteed annual games against all of UT, OU and A&M, which is going to help even out the TV revenue shares in practice even if the distribution formula is the same. As much as the "Little 4" might despise what happened this past summer, they're not going to willingly give up games against UT/OU/A&M in order to be put into an entirely separate division from them again (especially without the marquee name of Nebraska there anymore).

(12-15-2010 03:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The other big motivator behind staying at 10 is the real belief that the B12 went to divisions too quickly. It works in other conferences because the core members have been together so long that cohesion isn't an issue. Obviously that as not the case in the B12. There is a general feeling that IF this is going to work, there needs to be time where everyone plays everyone and develops actual rivalries and ties to each other before expanding again.

This factor could be a compelling reason for the Big East not to get to 12 by 2014, but instead wait for a while. Of course, the BEN, could be the reason why 12/20 is even being talked about.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-15-2010 04:37 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 03:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The other big motivator behind staying at 10 is the real belief that the B12 went to divisions too quickly. It works in other conferences because the core members have been together so long that cohesion isn't an issue. Obviously that as not the case in the B12. There is a general feeling that IF this is going to work, there needs to be time where everyone plays everyone and develops actual rivalries and ties to each other before expanding again.

This factor could be a compelling reason for the Big East not to get to 12 by 2014, but instead wait for a while. Of course, the BEN, could be the reason why 12/20 is even being talked about.

Cheers,
Neil

This is why I honestly believe 10 football members will be the max...for a long time (10+ years).

We could stay with the current 9 and be happy due to the balanced sechdule and no clear available home-run.

However going to 10 provides the following benefits:

1. Maximum conference games with a 10th member (minus CCG)
2. An additional market
3. Provides depth and security against everyone having a down year
4. No longer the "smallest BCS conference" (now equal to Big12)
5. Leaves 2 "open spots" for teams that grow and prove themselves over the next 5,10,15 years. (Umass? UCF? ECU? Memphis? Nova? Gtown?)

So long as the environment and stable and conference realignment is put on hold I doubt we will move past 10 for the foreseeable future.

(12-15-2010 02:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 01:58 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  He also says they haven't talked with ND about membership in 10 years.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, that's an outright lie. Mike Brey is already on the record that ND was on the doorstep of joining the Big Ten back in 2003 if the BE had collapsed.

Rick Pitino also said that UCF might be coming. Coaches know something but I doubt that they know a ton. Big Ten fans want to think that Notre Dame is coming but they're not. Delaney admitted as much.

(12-15-2010 03:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:and the Big 12 adds Memphis and Tulsa

No. Just No. The Big 12 has no interest in Memphis or Tulsa (especially Tulsa)

Delaney is right in that the Big 12 will try to make 10 work. This is because it is trying hard to pay its 3 major properties (UT,OU and A&M) what they would make in the B10/SEC. This is not easy because while one of the best all around athletic conferences in the country, the Big 12 has the smallest population base of the 6 power conferences.

So, small markets and trying to pay top guys what they are worth so they will stay.

Expansion would threaten to make these problems worse because frankly, other than BYU (who poses other challenges like distance and the Sunday issue) there simply aren't any viable programs (ie would actually join the Big 12) in its footprint that would add enough money to make the pie bigger and not make it drastically smaller for everyone.

The other big motivator behind staying at 10 is the real belief that the B12 went to divisions too quickly. It works in other conferences because the core members have been together so long that cohesion isn't an issue. Obviously that as not the case in the B12. There is a general feeling that IF this is going to work, there needs to be time where everyone plays everyone and develops actual rivalries and ties to each other before expanding again.

So at this point, the strategy is come together and wait for a pair of Western teams to really begin to stand out academically and athletically. I say western team because while there are some BE teams that would be good candidates, the belief seems to be that it would be better to go after western teams who aren't competing for attention against the B10 and SEC in their own home markets.

The Big 12 knows they can't get those Big East schools and, in fact, would risk losing their schools to the Big East.