My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who heard from an anonymous source that five years ago a few teams though about switching conferences. I guess it's pretty serious.

You know, before a certain poster came around on this forum I really liked Mizzou. Particularly after Gary Pinkel became head coach. Now? I root for them to lose every game.

You know, before a certain poster came around on this forum I really liked Mizzou. Particularly after Gary Pinkel became head coach. Now? I root for them to lose every game.

I feel the same way about the Royals. A team I used to root for in the 80's and 90's.

OU President David Boren is rocking the boat after the vote to allow a championship game for the Big XII. He took a shot at Texas and is demanding that the conference to expand to 12 teams to host a championship game and he wants the LHN to convert to a conference network. Oh, and apparently there's an open invitation to join the Big Ten.

Wait. So could Oklahoma really eventually join the Big Ten? - Land-Grant Holy Land (http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2016/1/15/10775388/big-ten-conference-expansion-rumors-oklahoma-ohio-state)

OU President David Boren is rocking the boat after the vote to allow a championship game for the Big XII. He took a shot at Texas and is demanding that the conference to expand to 12 teams to host a championship game and he wants the LHN to convert to a conference network. Oh, and apparently there's an open invitation to join the Big Ten.

Wait. So could Oklahoma really eventually join the Big Ten? - Land-Grant Holy Land (http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2016/1/15/10775388/big-ten-conference-expansion-rumors-oklahoma-ohio-state)

Gosh. No one could have seen this coming.........

OU President David Boren is rocking the boat after the vote to allow a championship game for the Big XII. He took a shot at Texas and is demanding that the conference to expand to 12 teams to host a championship game and he wants the LHN to convert to a conference network. Oh, and apparently there's an open invitation to join the Big Ten.

Wait. So could Oklahoma really eventually join the Big Ten? - Land-Grant Holy Land (http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2016/1/15/10775388/big-ten-conference-expansion-rumors-oklahoma-ohio-state)

I hope OU goes to the Big 10. Then that means Texas and Notre Dame will likely join the ACC.

I hope OU goes to the Big 10. Then that means Texas and Notre Dame will likely join the ACC.

It's hard to explain how terrible it is to be in a conference with Texas until you experience it yourself. It's not their fans at all or their teams just the arrogance of the program and stubbornness of the program. If you don't believe a Missouri fan ask a Colorado fan or a Nebraska fan or an Arkansas fan or a Texas a&m fan or an Oklahoma fan... Of course all of us have that one friend who thinks every ex girlfriend that's left him is nuts. Texas in a nutshell.

I hope OU goes to the Big 10. Then that means Texas and Notre Dame will likely join the ACC.

OU isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Boren is rocking the boat because they want the money that would come along with a conference championship game and a conference network.

It's hard to explain how terrible it is to be in a conference with Texas until you experience it yourself. It's not their fans at all or their teams just the arrogance of the program and stubbornness of the program. If you don't believe a Missouri fan ask a Colorado fan or a Nebraska fan or an Arkansas fan or a Texas a&m fan or an Oklahoma fan... Of course all of us have that one friend who thinks every ex girlfriend that's left him is nuts. Texas in a nutshell.

ACC needs a lot of help. They make no money and are at risk of being poached.

Huh? (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/12/accs-record-revenue-surpasses-300-million/)

Plus the grant of rights deal makes poaching almost impossible.

ACC needs a lot of help. They make no money and are at risk of being poached.

The Big 12 is MUCH more likely to be the one that gets split up. It's right in the middle and easily pieced out into the other four conferences.

Classic Globe hatchet job on Boston College (http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/03/12/big-revenue-sports-hit-bottom-stirring-scrutiny/iWqaOoo6ZnIIKyksVLYSGJ/story.html), and the national laughingstock part is much more due to some bad hires than the move to the ACC, but it is an opening to look at some of the missteps administrators make with conference re-alignment.

From BC's side, having a top 5 Clemson or FSU football team come once a year does generate excitement, but most fans do not care about playing a UVa or a Wake Forest. Likewise in basketball with UNC/Duke generating some buzz in the media or around town/the alumnae base/current students.
The increase in TV money might still make it a good short term thing strictly from a fiscal perspective, but long term it will only hurt them.

From the ACC's side, they looked at market size and assumed they'd capture the same share that old ACC basketball or current SEC football games do in their region, which fundamentally doesn't understand the dynamics at play. A hypothetical scenario where #5 Duke, #8 UNC, #22 NC State headline the ACC standings or tournament naturally generates more regional discussion and brings in more casual fans than #3 Miami, #6 Louisville, #8 Syracuse does.

Boston (and New York) are pro sports towns, but I really wonder how much that dial would be tilted if some version of the old Eastern 8 had been playing for the last 20 years with like BC, UConn, UMass, Syracuse, Rutgers, Providence, Pitt, West Virginia, Temple, Georgetown, Villanova, maybe even a UNH/URI/Northeastern involved. As much as it might have theoretically limited any individual program's ceiling, and certainly would have impossible in real-time due to football, I think it's a no brainer that being in a conference with many of those schools would have been beneficial for every individual one over their current situation, preferred by every fan base over their current one, and led to more regional excitement and water cooler talk. Too bad there wasn't a Dave Gavitt in the Eastern 8's office.The Big 12 is MUCH more likely to be the one that gets split up. It's right in the middle and easily pieced out into the other four conferences.
Unless Bill Simmons Presidential Sports Czar idea comes to fruition and somebody does this in a way that makes sense nationally, we all know what it comes down to. FSU, Clemson, Duke/UNC, Oklahoma and most importantly Texas have all the power there. They'll do what's best for them, whether it's under an ACC banner, Big XII banner, creating something new, or splitting off and making sure they get the last homes in the SEC/B1G/PAC-10. Missouri did a great job jumping early and ensuring they have a seat at the table going forward and not leaving themselves at the mercy of Texas's choice, but the Big XII will never be split up until the moment Texas decides to leave.

I've wondered about BC's long-term prospects in the ACC, too. Any chance they might deemphasize football and hop in the reconstituted Big East? Seems like a good fit, though I'm sure there's a chasm separating the two leagues' TV revenue.

(Admittedly, this is mostly a thought experiment that is but a part of the XII grabbing Cinci and BYU, and the ACC deciding the time is right to bring in UConn.)

I've wondered about BC's long-term prospects in the ACC, too. Any chance they might deemphasize football and hop in the reconstituted Big East? Seems like a good fit, though I'm sure there's a chasm separating the two leagues' TV revenue.

(Admittedly, this is mostly a thought experiment that is but a part of the XII grabbing Cinci and BYU, and the ACC deciding the time is right to bring in UConn.)Even in a hypothetical where revenue was similar, BC will never drop down/eliminate football. The magical Doug Flutie run is the base for their place in the national consciousness - without that they're Holy Cross with slightly worse academics and a better location.

And like you said, that revenue gap is absurdly large. Being the worst team in a P5 football conference is worth much more than being a great non-P5 basketball team like Gonzaga.

A thread popped up over at Hawkeyenation about the B1G taking in 2 more teams.
Nothing was factual, just speculation. But here are the names being tossed around: Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgi Tech and, of course, Notre Dame.

By the way, Notre Dame hockey just joined the B1G.

A thread popped up over at Hawkeyenation about the B1G taking in 2 more teams.
Nothing was factual, just speculation. But here are the names being tossed around: Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgi Tech and, of course, Notre Dame.

By the way, Notre Dame hockey just joined the B1G.

There's no way they take Texas. Just doesn't make any sense. Kansas, Virginia and Notre Dame make far more sense out of that list.

It's really just a matter of waiting for Texas to do something stupid or the rest of the B12 getting tired of their antics. As soon as one of those things happen, the B12 is gone. B10, SEC, and P12 will all fill to 16 teams and the rest will fall into place. No telling when it will happen, but it will happen. Immediately afterwards, Texas will point the finger that it was everyone else that broke up the conference.

That poor, poor chicken..........

I'd bet on it being UNC and one of GT or UVA. I have tormented my college buddies with this idea.

[EDIT: "bet on it" meaning "most likely to happen... if this were actually a thing that would happen, which it isn't."]

A thread popped up over at Hawkeyenation about the B1G taking in 2 more teams.
Nothing was factual, just speculation. But here are the names being tossed around: Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgi Tech and, of course, Notre Dame.

By the way, Notre Dame hockey just joined the B1G.I don't see any way that domino falls on its own. The B1G won't expand to a 16-team group that excludes Notre Dame and Texas, and both those schools are extremely happy in their current situation. I think the ND fans would be in favor of B1G membership and more "traditional" opponents, but the administration uses the football team as a tool to increase their national appeal and broaden their applicant base. They think (correctly) that they're already known everywhere in the midwest and northeast, those are demographically static or shrinking, so they've been making a big push to be more known in the Southeast and Texas, where ND is less known and the population is growing faster. (I haven't seen the idea of broad long term regional growth trends play this big a role in where a team plays since FOF2 when you could go through a 100+ year career!) Playing basketball in the ACC and one football game a year in Texas let's them hit those areas. Texas is still raking in money hand over fist despite a terrible football team, will always have a PAC-12 offer if the conferences are going to 16, and kind of loves the power they wield in the Big 12. If other events force their hand, I could see any permutation happening, but I think all 3 entities are quite content where they are.

ND/Hockey East was just a terrible fit from the start (http://ndsmcobserver.com/2015/01/carson-nd-left-outside-hockey-east/), possibly driven by another sport-specific national TV deal, and every fanbase except maybe BC's is ecstatic they're leaving. I don't follow quite as closely as I did when I was at UMass (and we weren't a joke - fingers crossed the new AD nails this hire), but it always was a regional league. Orono is a hike, but every school was in New England. (And the B1G cracked the door by changing their policy on associate {one sport} member when they admitted Johns Hopkins in lacrosse.)

Speaking of that, the Hockey East replacement talk has an interesting rumor. Quinnipiac is thought to be the obvious replacement (HE is better than the ECAC, QU has poured a ton of money for a university their size into hockey, is now a top 5 team), but the QU President allegedly values being in a league with the Ivy's more than the increase in revenue and publicity a move to HE would bring. Face value, that's dumb, but if he can use hockey to pull QU into the Patriot League?

PS - MBBF, I get that you hate Texas (and you're not entirely wrong about how they act), but I know you don't think that it makes more sense for the Big Ten to add a state with 3 million people and the #31 and #69 media market's over one with 30 million and the #5, #10, #37 and #41.

MBBF, I get that you hate Texas (and you're not entirely wrong about how they act), but I know you don't think that it makes more sense for the Big Ten to add a state with 3 million people and the #31 and #69 media market's over one with 30 million and the #5, #10, #37 and #41.

I don't disagree with the simple media equation, but there's far more than that to be concerned about. If it was all peaches and cream (and money/media market) to be in a conference with them, we wouldn't be seeing every conference they enter collapsing. SW Conference implosion was due to Texas. B12 will eventually implode due to their ego and greed as well (most would say it's already partially collapsed). They're like a dance partner at a masquerade ball. They're appealing until they take their mask off. After that, you're looking for another partner as quickly as possible.

There's plenty of other partners available. Don't make the same mistakes that other conferences have made.

I don't see any way that domino falls on its own. The B1G won't expand to a 16-team group that excludes Notre Dame and Texas, and both those schools are extremely happy in their current situation. I think the ND fans would be in favor of B1G membership and more "traditional" opponents, but the administration uses the football team as a tool to increase their national appeal and broaden their applicant base. They think (correctly) that they're already known everywhere in the midwest and northeast, those are demographically static or shrinking, so they've been making a big push to be more known in the Southeast and Texas, where ND is less known and the population is growing faster. (I haven't seen the idea of broad long term regional growth trends play this big a role in where a team plays since FOF2 when you could go through a 100+ year career!) Playing basketball in the ACC and one football game a year in Texas let's them hit those areas. Texas is still raking in money hand over fist despite a terrible football team, will always have a PAC-12 offer if the conferences are going to 16, and kind of loves the power they wield in the Big 12. If other events force their hand, I could see any permutation happening, but I think all 3 entities are quite content where they are.

ND/Hockey East was just a terrible fit from the start (http://ndsmcobserver.com/2015/01/carson-nd-left-outside-hockey-east/), possibly driven by another sport-specific national TV deal, and every fanbase except maybe BC's is ecstatic they're leaving. I don't follow quite as closely as I did when I was at UMass (and we weren't a joke - fingers crossed the new AD nails this hire), but it always was a regional league. Orono is a hike, but every school was in New England. (And the B1G cracked the door by changing their policy on associate {one sport} member when they admitted Johns Hopkins in lacrosse.)

Speaking of that, the Hockey East replacement talk has an interesting rumor. Quinnipiac is thought to be the obvious replacement (HE is better than the ECAC, QU has poured a ton of money for a university their size into hockey, is now a top 5 team), but the QU President allegedly values being in a league with the Ivy's more than the increase in revenue and publicity a move to HE would bring. Face value, that's dumb, but if he can use hockey to pull QU into the Patriot League?

PS - MBBF, I get that you hate Texas (and you're not entirely wrong about how they act), but I know you don't think that it makes more sense for the Big Ten to add a state with 3 million people and the #31 and #69 media market's over one with 30 million and the #5, #10, #37 and #41.

I think UNC would move the needle enough to get the Big 10 to expand. The key would be finding a 2nd team to pair with them. UVA would be a great fit, but I'm not sure how appealing they are.

I don't disagree with the simple media equation, but there's far more than that to be concerned about. If it was all peaches and cream (and money/media market) to be in a conference with them, we wouldn't be seeing every conference they enter collapsing. SW Conference implosion was due to Texas. B12 will eventually implode due to their ego and greed as well (most would say it's already partially collapsed). They're like a dance partner at a masquerade ball. They're appealing until they take their mask off. After that, you're looking for another partner as quickly as possible.

There's plenty of other partners available. Don't make the same mistakes that other conferences have made.

+1. As I said earlier in thread Cartman can take this as MBBF and Mizzou "envy" and he is likely right as well but it still doesn't explain Arkansas and basically the entire SWC, Colorado, Nebraska, A&M...

Rumors have the B1G and Texas in discussions.

UNC, UVA, GT and ND are non starters. Take a look at the grant of rights deal for the ACC.

Any school leaving the ACC has to pay back all TV revenues from the time the new deal was signed (2 years) and forfeit their TV rights for 10 years in their new home.

Now if the new home was better for UNC Swofford would probably allow them out without recourse...only FSU and Clemson refused to sign the GOR unless it was explicitly stated that a commissioner didn't have that power and that the only allowable exclusion was a unanimous vote by all other league members.

also ND's deal with the ACC says if they ever join a conference in football it will be the ACC for a minimum of a 5 year run.

UNC, UVA, GT and ND are non starters. Take a look at the grant of rights deal for the ACC.

Any school leaving the ACC has to pay back all TV revenues from the time the new deal was signed (2 years) and forfeit their TV rights for 10 years in their new home.

Now if the new home was better for UNC Swofford would probably allow them out without recourse...only FSU and Clemson refused to sign the GOR unless it was explicitly stated that a commissioner didn't have that power and that the only allowable exclusion was a unanimous vote by all other league members.

The Big 12 has a GoR as well, but it doesn't put an end to the speculation. I honestly think expansion is on hold outside of the Big 12 deciding to add 2 teams which itself is unlikely if the rumors of Texas being willing to come to the table about transitioning the Longhorn network to a Big 12 network are true.

I'll keep going with my evergreen prediction of "we're done with expansion, until these schools eventually break from the NCAA".

SW Conference implosion was due to Texas.

That feels ... incomplete.

The SWC imploded because the SEC left the CFA to cut its own TV deal. Once that happened the CFA consortium was heavily devauled. And THAT led to Texas and several others looking to create a more attractive package with the move.

It wasn't like Texas just randomly decided to take flight or something. Sure, they looked for the $$ but that was already set in motion by other events.

All true, plus you had the backdrop of pretty much everyone in the SWC being in serious hot water with the NCAA, causing the conference to really decline in the second half of the 80s.

More interesting points on B1G expansion. GA Tech and UNC bring the Atlanta and Charlotte TV markets to the BTN. That means the BTN has Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Indianapolis. NYC, Philly, Minneapolis, Cinci, Cleveland, Detroit.

Those are alot of TVs

And now Florida St. may be in the mix.

B1G will go first to get the cream of the ACC. That will signal the end of the ACC.

GT gives you the 15 fans in Atlanta off campus that care about them. I'm one. Jon's another. Enjoy it.

Unless Tech is top 15, Im guessing a Vandy-Miss game outdraws them.

You're a Notre Dame fan, and Jon's a non-Georgia fan. :devil:

The ACC isn't going anywhere.

I'm a ND fan that went to Tech. But fair point. So there are 13 fans off campus.

Agreed that it would take crazy amounts of money to break up the ACC.

GT gives you the 15 fans in Atlanta off campus that care about them. I'm one. Jon's another. Enjoy it.

Unless Tech is top 15, Im guessing a Vandy-Miss game outdraws them.

TV ratings are not kind to 95% to non-SEC games in the ATL period. Even when GT plays, unless it's prime time or a big opponent (basically FSU, Miami or ND) the 3rd or 4th SEC game of the week opposite them pulls a better number most of the time.

Having a team in a market is vastly different from having the market care about the team (or the conference they're in). I've seen coaches shows post better ratings than an random ACC game of the week, and the random ACC GOTW outdraws the current Big10 telecasts in Atlanta (again, aside from the most marquee of marquee pairings)

I'd love if it happened, because as a ND fan i grew up with the teams they played against from the Big 10 and never really embraced the ACC rivals of Tech, but its pretty unlikely unless the whole system gets destroyed.

I'm not even sure how much individual games' ratings matter. Having a B1G team in the state/DMA (I say DMA because Rutgers includes New York here) allows the network to increase the rate from like $0.39/subscriber to $1. Estimates were that BTN revenues increased by about $50MM the first year just from Rutgers being added.

Having a team in a market is vastly different from having the market care about the team (or the conference they're in).
Yup. Way too many people look simplistically at TV markets without considering how many people in those markets watch (or are likely to watch) games involving that team and/or conference.

I'm not even sure how much individual games' ratings matter. Having a B1G team in the state/DMA (I say DMA because Rutgers includes New York here) allows the network to increase the rate from like $0.39/subscriber to $1. Estimates were that BTN revenues increased by about $50MM the first year just from Rutgers being added.

At some point the TV side of the equation will have to figure out what a sucker bet that is too.

They increased the rate & got away with it ... but for the carrier it's a deal that makes no real sense.

*Now I realize, the carriers are among the dumbest bunch of mothers I've ever come across. Many don't seem to be run by people who could find their ass with both hands, a bloodhound, a map and a GPS. But still, sooner or later (and I'd suspect sooner) operators will figure out that the value of networks that have no audience in their market aren't a good bet.

At some point the TV side of the equation will have to figure out what a sucker bet that is too.

They increased the rate & got away with it ... but for the carrier it's a deal that makes no real sense.

*Now I realize, the carriers are among the dumbest bunch of mothers I've ever come across. Many don't seem to be run by people who could find their ass with both hands, a bloodhound, a map and a GPS. But still, sooner or later (and I'd suspect sooner) operators will figure out that the value of networks that have no audience in their market aren't a good bet.

Agree, but the networks that provide live sports are very likely to be stickier than the vast majority of the others. So I'd disagree with the "sooner" part of your statement, at least in comparison to a lot of the rest.

Soon, the B1G will sell games to any network. BTN is an absolute cash cow for the conference. The B1G wont need to sign a new contract with a network when they will be able to sell game individually. Dont think FS1 wont bid high doillars on a Michigan/Ohio St. game. And the lesser games will remain on BTN.

And TV is not how many watch, it is how many are in the area. If The B1G were to get Ga Tech and Texas, the BTN would be in 50% of all households in the US. And they see the channel to the satellite and cable companies.

Dont think that wouldnt bring in big dollars.

Delaney has been a genius when it comes to TV. He absolutely nailed it. And none of the other conferences can touch what the BTN is.

And TV is not how many watch, it is how many are in the area. If The B1G were to get Ga Tech and Texas, the BTN would be in 50% of all households in the US. And they see the channel to the satellite and cable companies.

Only if you aren't parsing who gets the money / in which transaction.

If nobody is watching (and frankly, the number of viewers for random B1G in any southern market, including Atlanta, is sparse and even that word might be kind) then the carriers are fucking stupid to pay top dollar to add it. They can't sell ads on stuff nobody is watching at a price high enough to recover their costs. And cable systems don't lack for worthless (i.e. unwatched networks) inventory to give away as it is.

My argument is that, sooner or later, the stupidity of that has to stop.

My argument is that, sooner or later, the stupidity of that has to stop.

It's matter of when, not if. With the number of people cutting cable networks are going to realize that raw numbers of potential subscribers doesn't mean a damn thing.

Making people pay more money to watch a school they have no interest in watching is going to catch up to the conferences and the networks at some point.

The stupidity comment needs to be directed at the subscribers who pay for it but don't watch it, either out of ignorance (not realizing they're paying for it) or laziness (not wanting to go through the trouble of calling and downgrade their package).

It's matter of when, not if. With the number of people cutting cable networks are going to realize that raw numbers of potential subscribers doesn't mean a damn thing.

Making people pay more money to watch a school they have no interest in watching is going to catch up to the conferences and the networks at some point.

Agree overall, but again I'll come back to live sports still being king. I'm making up the numbers here, but if BTN needs to start charging 10x what they are currently charging every month (so from $1/month to $10/month) in order to maintain the same revenue base once only the real fans decide they want it, they'll probably have a much better likelihood of achieving that than HGTV does in getting their audience from $0.30/month to $3/month.

It's matter of when, not if. With the number of people cutting cable networks are going to realize that raw numbers of potential subscribers doesn't mean a damn thing.

Making people pay more money to watch a school they have no interest in watching is going to catch up to the conferences and the networks at some point.

I think pretty much everybody involved already knows that, except for the most ignorant of advertisers.

But it isn't the networks (from MTV to B1G) that has to have the light bulb for it to stop, it's the carriers.

The number of subscribers they gain with something like a random regional sports network outside its footprint is negligible. And their portion of the commercial inventory (the "local avails") has little value since the audience is so small 99% of the time. There simply isn't, in a direct transaction, any reason for them to pay (made up figure) $5.00 per subscriber to the network to get rights to carry. They can't make that money back, there's negative ROI.

If B1G (or any network) says "you can't have us in Indiana if you don't carry us on the same deal in Georgia" then you have number crunching to do in order to see if there's a figure that makes sense for the carrier.

The sports networks -- conference owned or otherwise -- badly want a national footprint, because otherwise they become more limited in who they can sell advertising to (i.e. "the network inventory"). And that's a problem because the usual multipliers for live sports costs -- often 5x - 10x the cost of the same demographic in another program -- mean you have to have relatively deep pockets in order to participate. So the networks need those carriers in order to maximize that revenue stream.

The carriers, honestly, have very little need for these sort of networks outside their true footprint (and, no, Atlanta doesn't become B1G territory if GT joins tomorrow any more than Boston suddenly became an ACC town)

College Football Is About To Change (http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-college-football-is-about-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/)

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but figured why not post it here.

At that point, we can probably assume that FBS vs. FCS games will either cease to exist or be extremely limited. (Here’s a solution to the argument that it’s okay to see the big boys bludgeon the little guys so FCS programs can pick up a much-needed paycheck: add a 13th game to each FBS season with the caveat that it has to be a game against an FCS opponent. Play them the first couple weeks of the season, possibly treating them as exhibition games, kinda like college basketball already does.)

Meanwhile Power 5 vs. mid-major games will also be strictly limited. Perhaps Florida gets one game a year against, say, Florida Atlantic, but that’s it. Again, perhaps those are games that must all be played before September is over.

In the end, I’d expect the top level of NCAA Football to consist of roughly 64 teams that will carve up the vast majority of the financial pie.

Do. It.

I think those top 64 games should be strictly professional deal outside of the NCAA, but assuming they don't go that far, I think the lower-tiered teams in that group won't be worth as much as perennial 1 and 2 win teams as they are when they start every season 4-1 against competition outside that group.

Could USF and UCF join the Power 5 party? All other things being equal, if you’re the SEC or ACC, would you rather have the programs located in Tampa (market #11) and Orlando (#19) in your conference or would you rather have largely noncompetitive programs in big, but still smaller markets?

On the other hand, this is the same logic that gave us the friggin' Jaguars. Florida is covered.

Ohmigodohmigodohmigod, what happens when Notre Dame or Ohio State gets relegated. THAT CAN’T EVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN! Actually, it won’t happen. Ever. Okay, so Notre Dame had that 3-9 disaster in 2007. That, friend, is a massive outlier.

This makes no sense. If every team is playing strong competition year around, then they will have relegation seasons. Even Alabama eventually.

College Football Is About To Change (http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-college-football-is-about-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/)

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but figured why not post it here.

Written by someone who doesn't understand college football fanaticism in the slightest apparently. What it doesn't grasp at all (based on the hypothetical of the Vandys & Kentuckys of the picture playing SEC basketball but CUSA football) is that fans of any SEC team are equally or even more interested in seeing Bama-Kentucky than the are in seeing Bama vs other conferences midcarders. And even in the hypothetical 64 team universe there will still be midcarders. No meaningful number of fans at Bama, Florida, LSU, whomever are jazzed about replacing Directional State with Illinois.

(I recall very specifically hearing that stuff when UGA played Colorado in 2006 and 2010 ... "why the hell did they go to Colorado when they could have played somebody at home?" as well as the home game version of "why the hell are we playing ... Colorado?") edit to add: Hell that still happens when it's conference expansion teams like Missouri or even Arkansas to some extent, and how long have the Razorbacks been in the SEC now?

Even the media aspect includes a fallacy early in the article
In the media, the bigger the market — the more people who can watch your product — the more revenue you generate.

Nooooo ... the more people who watch your product the more revenue you will generate. As quoted, it's true only for potential revenue, not actual dollars.


What's described here isn't college football ... and I'm fine with that. I've long said that athletic departments were an extension of the marketing department for the university & I have no real problem with turning it into a full blown professional league for the football factory level & making them university employees at that point.

But as described here, a mere illusion of college football, they'll kill the golden goose just the same way NASCAR did/has.

Eh, kill it? This plan would be going more of an NFL route -- and I think the NFL is doing just fine (and from the number of teams standpoint, they'd have two NFLs).

Fans of an SEC team might care about Bama-Kentucky (I think games like Bama-Western Kentucky are more the issue), but there are a lot more eyeballs out there to be had, I think.*

* Though yes, yes NASCAR ran into issues thinking that too. But this is football. It's not a regional endeavor.

Eh, kill it? This plan would be going more of an NFL route -- and I think the NFL is doing just fine (and from the number of teams standpoint, they'd have two NFLs).

Fans of an SEC team might care about Bama-Kentucky (I think games like Bama-Western Kentucky are more the issue), but there are a lot more eyeballs out there to be had, I think.*

* Though yes, yes NASCAR ran into issues thinking that too. But this is football. It's not a regional endeavor.

College football is a regional endeavor, in a sense. It's far closer to NASCAR in how fan support works than the NFL.

Trying to shoehorn a professional format into college football would a great way to kill off interest.

Well it would still have regions. SEC teams are going to predominantly play SEC teams, etc. You're not introducing a new sport to a new area though. Big deal if that SEC team plays an extra ACC team instead of a cupcake.

Well it would still have regions. SEC teams are going to predominantly play SEC teams, etc. You're not introducing a new sport to a new area though. Big deal if that SEC team plays an extra ACC team instead of a cupcake.

But it isn't entirely about regionality for football-as-religion fans (and that's a very big part of the audience in CFB hotbeds).

Picking on UCF 'cause I remember them being in the article specifically. Location doesn't give them much advantage with a Bama/Auburn fan, it's simply not enough on its own to make them more interesting -- or even equally interesting -- than Vandy* that you've played since 1903.

Hell, there are still people in major fanbases who think of South Carolina as an ACC, rather than SEC, team. And they've been in the SEC for 24 years, and out of the ACC for 44 years.

*picking on Vandy here, like my Kentucky reference earlier, specifically because they were mentioned by name in the article.

Ok, I get Vandy. Or Kentucky, or Iowa St, really. Any league is still going to have bad teams, and I really don't have any problem with the dregs being the same teams 9 out of 10 years. Even in the NFL we have that (HI, BROWNS!*) I really have no problems cutting out the teams below that out. As I've said time and time again, I don't need to see anyone playing Louisiana Tech though. Or Tennessee Tech. Or Kent State. I'd rather see Penn State face Virginia, or North Carolina rather than Kent State.



* I mean, I would be against the NFL saying "London is a bigger market than Cleveland, so no more Browns." Or Green Bay, or Minnesota. That would be stupid. History does have its place. I do also think it's dumb to try to carve out new fan bases in "covered" areas - like UCF. Really, I think most allegiances down in Florida are pretty determined. Like my point with JAX - pretty sure my in-laws near Daytona can't stand that they have to watch the Jaguars when the Dolphins or Bucs are also on.

That said, I really wouldn't mind seeing Temple build their program...

Hell, there are still people in major fanbases who think of South Carolina as an ACC, rather than SEC, team. And they've been in the SEC for 24 years, and out of the ACC for 44 years.

Oh, well yeah. I still think of the Oilers for Houston, consider the Brewers an AL team (never mind the Astros), and only begrudgingly accept the Braves as a divisional foe over the Cards, Cubs, and Pirates.

I'd rather see Penn State face Virginia, or North Carolina rather than Kent State.

Ok, double dola. I just looked at Maryland's schedule, and they open with Howard, FIU, and UCF. I get this is what Big 5 schools do. But shit, Maryland - you've been in that group, but you really haven't established yourself and DON'T have that huge a following. I don't think you're drawing fans by playing those teams (wait, and you're AWAY to the latter two of those?!?). You are better off marketing like the Bullets in the 80s/90s - COME SEE MICHAEL JORDAN AND THE BULLS IN PERSON (against your hometown Generals)!!!

That fucking Deloss Dodds ruins everything...........

B1G is negotiating their new TV contract. This Summer would be prime time for them to expand.
Here are the 4 that are on the clock: Florida St., North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia.

Of those 4, I think Geo Tech and Virginia are the 2 most likely.

Still no.

I don't see conferences expanding any time soon. There just isn't any reason to.

B1G is negotiating their new TV contract. This Summer would be prime time for them to expand.
Here are the 4 that are on the clock: Florida St., North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia.

Of those 4, I think Geo Tech and Virginia are the 2 most likely.

Who is writing 300 million dollar check? 75 per...plus their TV revenues will go to the other acc teams for the next 9 years.

Sounds legit

It's just not happening. I do love how these threads proliferate on every forum, because it'd be fun if someone had a wild ass idea and then ended up being right. But c'mon, we're only in what the going on 3rd year of the new playoff system? No new bowls? Conferences are stabilizing at least for the time being.

Even the bombshells that happened back when they were happening didn't happen this late and no team wants to deal with the whole "being denied a tournament bid for their conference tourney" situation that many teams dealt with a few years ago.

If we do see some expansion, it'll be a league like the Big East that might want to increase its footprint or something along those lines, not a major league that has nothing to really gain in the immediate by expanded and thinning the pot even more.

I don't see conferences expanding any time soon. There just isn't any reason to.
Besides the payouts to buy out ACC teams, I question whether the addition of any two of those teams raises the overall average distribution for the conference. Sure, they'll get a bigger TV deal from ESPN if they have North Carolina and Virginia added to the mix, but enough to offset splitting the pie 16 ways instead of 14?

Dont forget the extra TVs the schools bring. Increase in revenue for the BTN.

Plus, athletic money in the B1G is tiny compared to the research dollars the conference brings in. Dont think the Presidents dont have their eyes on that. Nebraska was allowed in to appease the athletic side of the ticket. But Maryland and Rutgers were brought in for the research dollars.

That is what the B1G is concerned about.

And TV sets.

And the B1G isnt going to be a reactive conference, picking up scraps from whats left over. The B1G will fire the next shot before anyone else.

Dont forget the extra TVs the schools bring. Increase in revenue for the BTN.

Plus, athletic money in the B1G is tiny compared to the research dollars the conference brings in. Dont think the Presidents dont have their eyes on that. Nebraska was allowed in to appease the athletic side of the ticket. But Maryland and Rutgers were brought in for the research dollars.

That is what the B1G is concerned about.

And TV sets.

The networks are already regretting the latest round of TV deals. None of the schools mentioned are going to stop people from dropping cable at the current rate. That's what cable companies and networks are really looking at right now.

But with the best sports network outside of ESPN and Fox, the B1G could survive easier with out the big networks than the networks could live without the B1G.

Also, the B1G is looking at a pay per event type deal with networks. They may not go all in with a network. Who does that hurt more?

The B1G is starting to sound like Best Conference.


FWIW, I will watch whomever is on ESPN/ABC/CBS. I've turned on the BTN maybe once. Ever.

But with the best sports network outside of ESPN and Fox, the B1G could survive easier with out the big networks than the networks could live without the B1G.

Huh?

The B1G could cease to exist tomorrow & the amount of shits the networks would give would be limited at best. It currently has one team that consistently matters nationally, it could stretch that to two if Sideshow Bob continues to find amusing ways to annoy the NCAA. Otherwise they're are as interchangeable to the national landscape as midcarders on the TNA roster.

I believe you. But how much would a network pay for the Michigan/Ohio St. game?
The B1G has always been the standard bearer in these type of situations.
Look at the title of this thread. The B1G has been very proactive.

I believe they will continue to do so.

Huh?

The B1G could cease to exist tomorrow & the amount of shits the networks would give would be limited at best. It currently has one team that consistently matters nationally, it could stretch that to two if Sideshow Bob continues to find amusing ways to annoy the NCAA. Otherwise they're are as interchangeable to the national landscape as midcarders on the TNA roster.

Really?
You think ABC would rather have Kentucky vs. Vanderbilt over Ohio St. vs. Wisconsin?

Doubtful. the B1G brings in the 2nd most revenue of the conferences. And soon it will be right there with the SEC. Or surpass them. Its the B1Gs turn to cash in.

Pay per game? Maybe and the networks would jump.
Fox Sports? They would LOVE to have the B1G. They are desperately trying to beat ESPN. The B1G helps that tremendously.

I think you underestimate the B1G.

I think you misunderstand the grant of rights acc teams signed. They granted their TV and media rights away to the acc. The acc then pays those schools if they are still a member.

So if unc joined the big 10 and TV revenue increased 15 million. The big 10 would have to pay the acc unc entire share of the tvo rights and unc would get zero TV revenue for 10 years. Additionally if the big 10 pays a distribution. To unc the acc gets that as well.

That says nothing for the fact that unc doesn't care about football, and you are taking them away from their rivals in the only sport they do care about.

Dont forget the extra TVs the schools bring. Increase in revenue for the BTN.
I'm not forgetting, but what you have to remember is however much additional revenue that the Big Ten would get from having the TV markets from the schools they add has to be enough to make up for splitting the pie 16 ways instead of 14 ways. In other words, would adding whichever two schools they pursue going to bump the average money all of the Big Ten schools would get in a new deal? I have my doubts.

And that doesn't even begin to account for paying off the grant of rights that the ACC teams signed.

(FWIW, when I mentioned Carolina and Virginia it was only in the context of being two big state schools that Penn State could play out-of-conference that I'd rather watch over patsies, not that I think or want them to move to the Big Ten. I would have offered Maryland, but hey, they already moved. And they actually play Pitt this year. WVU could be another one. 'Cuse if they still mattered.)

I'm not forgetting, but what you have to remember is however much additional revenue that the Big Ten would get from having the TV markets from the schools they add has to be enough to make up for splitting the pie 16 ways instead of 14 ways. In other words, would adding whichever two schools they pursue going to bump the average money all of the Big Ten schools would get in a new deal? I have my doubts.

And that doesn't even begin to account for paying off the grant of rights that the ACC teams signed.

I don't think this is happening either, but people questioned the B1G being able to increase the pie enough to go from 12 to 14 and that turned out to not even approach being a concern.

I think you misunderstand the grant of rights acc teams signed. They granted their TV and media rights away to the acc. The acc then pays those schools if they are still a member.

So if unc joined the big 10 and TV revenue increased 15 million. The big 10 would have to pay the acc unc entire share of the tvo rights and unc would get zero TV revenue for 10 years. Additionally if the big 10 pays a distribution. To unc the acc gets that as well.

That says nothing for the fact that unc doesn't care about football, and you are taking them away from their rivals in the only sport they do care about.

Let's not forget that the grant of rights has to have a minimum number of teams remaining in the conference to be in effect. The Big 12 is the same way. Someone can check this, but I believe in the Big 12 it's less than 6 teams voids all agreements. So it only takes five teams leaving that conference to void out all money that would be due. The ACC has a similar minimum number in their agreement. Neither of those agreements guard against elimination of the conference if it were to happen. It's the main reason why the smaller B12 teams want to add two new teams to have a bigger buffer while the bigger B12 teams want to keep it at 10. Those numbers are going to come into play when the next round hits.

The B12 is likely the more vulnerable of the two just because they could see different teams go to all three of the clear leader conferences (B10, P12, SEC). It's not that hard to think that they'll lose five teams in a hurry when the dominoes start to fall.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aOliYadnvW0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Really?
You think ABC would rather have Kentucky vs. Vanderbilt over Ohio St. vs. Wisconsin?

Doubtful. the B1G brings in the 2nd most revenue of the conferences. And soon it will be right there with the SEC. Or surpass them. Its the B1Gs turn to cash in.

Pay per game? Maybe and the networks would jump.
Fox Sports? They would LOVE to have the B1G. They are desperately trying to beat ESPN. The B1G helps that tremendously.

[quote]I think you underestimate the B1G.
And I think you, almost comically, overestimate how many people actually give a damn about the teams in the conference (aside from the ones I referenced)

Fox Sports isn't beating ESPN with or without the Big 10. It closes up the gap some, sure, but it doesn't make things suddenly a horse race.

Pay per game? I don't think of that in terms of even being a "network" issue. At that point you're a PPV-provider, that wasn't even part of the context I was looking at when I said "networks", and honestly still isn't. It's an entirely different discussion.

Fox Sports is reportedly close to a landmark deal for a share of Big Ten rights (http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/fox-sports-is-reportedly-close-to-a-landmark-deal-for-a-share-of-big-ten-rights.html)

Huh

For Big Ten, Jim Delany, new deal is a stunningly big deal (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/04/19/big-ten-jim-delany-new-deal-stunningly-big-deal/83247570/)

So Georgia Tech isnt important to the B1G?
Sure sounds like it will be.

Sounds like the B1G maybe selling the Big 10 Network as part of this negotiation if rumors coming out are true.

Plus its quite the spin to say that a short term contract in this era of downward spiraling cable numbers is a positive.

The ACC, also known as Almost Completely Caput

:)

The average Big Ten school has nearly 10,000 more undergraduate students than the average SEC school. That’s a big difference.

Penn State has the largest living alumni base in the nation, at over 600,000. Indiana has 580,000 while Michigan has 540,000. Ohio State has over 500,000, as does Minnesota. Rutgers is over 450,000, Minnesota over 435,000, Illinois has over 420,000.

Auburn? 200,000. Heck, Iowa has 251,000 living alums and they are one of the smaller schools in the Big Ten.

Eyeballs.

http://hawkeyenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-19-at-7.25.27-PM.jpg

This link shows TV homes

Atlanta 9 and the NC Metro areas 22 qnd 25

And there is a possibility that Delaney goes after 4 teams, taking the B1G to 18. The 4? Geo Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame and Texas.
If anyone can do this, its Delaney. Forbes named Jim Delany the most powerful man in college sports in 2015.
The man has the muscle and wherewithall to do it.

Stewart Mandel
‏@slmandel

New twist in satellite camp ban. Pac-12 commish Larry Scott says their rep, Dan Guerrero, "did not vote the way he was supposed to vote."


Stewart Mandel
‏@slmandel

Larry Scott confirmed that 11 of the 12 Pac-12 schools did not support a satellite camp ban. Would not say the 12th, but, now you can guess.

4:52 PM - 20 Apr 2016


I'm guessing UCLA's AD might be off some Christmas card lists

@GeorgeSchroeder
Scott: 11 of Pac-12’s schools did not want satellite camps banned. Which school wanted ban? “I’m not gonna say. Form your own conclusion."

@GeorgeSchroeder
Pac-12 commish Larry Scott says UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, voting for a ban on satellite camps, “did not vote the way he was supposed to vote."

@GeorgeSchroeder
While Pac-12 didn’t want satellite camp ban, some in the league are flabbergasted the concern over Guerrero’s vote became a public spat.

Satellite camp ban: UCLA AD Dan Guerrero explains his vote (http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/04/20/satellite-camp-ban-pac-12-dan-guerrero-ucla-ad)

And there is a possibility that Delaney goes after 4 teams, taking the B1G to 18. The 4? Geo Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame and Texas.
If anyone can do this, its Delaney. Forbes named Jim Delany the most powerful man in college sports in 2015.
The man has the muscle and wherewithall to do it.

They have been after Notre Dame since the 90s. I doubt UNC moves and gives up the great tradition/rivalries as maybe the #1 CBB school in the nation. Texas seems more like a SEC program IMO. I have a hard time seeing them in the B1G.

Flipping The Field: What we wish college football expansion and realignment looked like (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15492344/wish-college-football-expansion-realignment-looked-like)

I'd like a hit of whatever that guy is on.

Lots of talk in this area that the B12 hopes to add two members this summer. Sounds like Cincinnati is probably a shoe-in and Memphis is campaigning for the other spot. Colorado State has interest too and would be an interesting fit now that they're building a new $250M football stadium.

What about UCF?
2nd largest University in the country and in Orlando.

BYU isn't necessarily out on that, we aren't as sold on our 3rd tier rights, we can give them up if required.

From what I have heard it's BYU and Cinci, however we never expect it anymore.

It wouldn't surprise me to see them take Cinci and Memphis.

I have a feeling we will be the odd man out, due to the religious ties. I do think we will secure scheduling agreements with the PAC and B12 if that does happen.

BYU isn't necessarily out on that, we aren't as sold on our 3rd tier rights, we can give them up if required.

From what I have heard it's BYU and Cinci, however we never expect it anymore.

It wouldn't surprise me to see them take Cinci and Memphis.

I have a feeling we will be the odd man out, due to the religious ties. I do think we will secure scheduling agreements with the PAC and B12 if that does happen.

I think that West Virginia is the main reason there won't be a BYU. Sounds like they're already not terribly pleased with the travel and have basically said they'd move on to a new conference before having BYU in the same conference just from a travel perspective. They want more teams on their side of the territory and it sounds like the B12 is willing to grant that wish.

There are some rumors going around right now. A well-connected booster (long time friends with multiple former conference commissioners) on our boards posted some of the wild talk going on right now:


Notre Dame to Big Ten
Jerry Jones essentially buying Arkansas to the Big 12, with Texas willing to convert the Longhorn Network into the Big 12 Network, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston the main contenders to be the 12th team
The Pac-12 kicking the tires with UNLV and possibly Colorado State (with a chance BYU could get consideration if they dropped their objections to playing on Sundays)


Probably just talk without a lot of chance of happening. The Pac-12 part in particular seems far-fetched - while I could see UNLV being a good longer-term investment, I don't see what Colorado State brings, and I just don't see the Pac-12 Presidents lifting their academic objections to BYU.

There are some rumors going around right now. A well-connected booster (long time friends with multiple former conference commissioners) on our boards posted some of the wild talk going on right now:


Notre Dame to Big Ten
Jerry Jones essentially buying Arkansas to the Big 12, with Texas willing to convert the Longhorn Network into the Big 12 Network, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston the main contenders to be the 12th team
The Pac-12 kicking the tires with UNLV and possibly Colorado State (with a chance BYU could get consideration if they dropped their objections to playing on Sundays)


Probably just talk without a lot of chance of happening. The Pac-12 part in particular seems far-fetched - while I could see UNLV being a good longer-term investment, I don't see what Colorado State brings, and I just don't see the Pac-12 Presidents lifting their academic objections to BYU.

I didn't mention it before, but the Longhorn Network to Big 12 Network change is a matter of when, not if. The B12 members aren't willing to move forward with anything other than that.

Notre Dame to Big Ten



When ND signed the ACC non revenue sports and football scheduling contract a stipulation is that if and when they ever join a conference in football they have to play 5 years in the ACC. The weasel clause out of that is "equal to 100% of ND AD Tier 1 TV rights for a period of 5 years plus interest paid up front, plus the entirety of any subsequent conference affiliation revenues for the same 5 year period."

Far be it from me to ever approve of anything John Swofford does, but he got that one right.

When ND signed the ACC non revenue sports and football scheduling contract a stipulation is that if and when they ever join a conference in football they have to play 5 years in the ACC. The weasel clause out of that is "equal to 100% of ND AD Tier 1 TV rights for a period of 5 years plus interest paid up front, plus the entirety of any subsequent conference affiliation revenues for the same 5 year period."

Far be it from me to ever approve of anything John Swofford does, but he got that one right.

I've heard this before, probably in other words, but it seemed like such an extreme penalty compared to what they would actually be receiving in return that I always figured there was some kind of clause in there, somewhere, that would give them an out. Just logically speaking would the ACC have said no to all of this if ND was only willing to give them two years of those rights? Seems unlikely.

When ND signed the ACC non revenue sports and football scheduling contract a stipulation is that if and when they ever join a conference in football they have to play 5 years in the ACC. The weasel clause out of that is "equal to 100% of ND AD Tier 1 TV rights for a period of 5 years plus interest paid up front, plus the entirety of any subsequent conference affiliation revenues for the same 5 year period."

Far be it from me to ever approve of anything John Swofford does, but he got that one right.
Yeah, I know. Seems unlikely given the amount of money that the Big Ten would have to throw at the ACC to get Notre Dame out of that deal (I'm sure it would end up being less than 5 years plus interest, etc after getting negotiated/taken to court), but then again it also seems crazy that Jerry Jones would throw tens of millions of dollars at Arkansas just to get them out of the SEC and into the Big 12 for, I dunno, nostalgic reasons I guess?

All of those rumors seem highly unlikely to me, but the source is good. I would guess what he's hearing is high level conference and TV folks engaged in idle speculation without really drilling down on what's likely given all the various stipulations and deals already in place.

All of those rumors seem highly unlikely to me, but the source is good. I would guess what he's hearing is high level conference and TV folks engaged in idle speculation without really drilling down on what's likely given all the various stipulations and deals already in place.

The stipulations and deals that are in place aren't as airtight as people think. There's all kinds of outs depending on number of teams left, if a certain number of teams agree, etc. Also, the whole Jerry Jones thing is ridiculous. The SEC has no exit charge. They can leave tomorrow without spending a penny. And if the rumor is that he's giving money to Arkansas to leave, that only further shows how good the SEC has it. No other conference has that problem.

The Pac-12 kicking the tires with UNLV and possibly Colorado State (with a chance BYU could get consideration if they dropped their objections to playing on Sundays)

From what I heard back when Utah was added, they were going to bring BYU on board, the AD's approved but the Presidents of Cal and Stanford objected, which because it wasn't 100%, they moved on.

BYU will never give up their Sunday play rule, it's who they are and they have walked away from Championships in the past because of it.

I would love to see BYU in a conference like the PAC or the BIG12, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Also, the whole Jerry Jones thing is ridiculous. The SEC has no exit charge. They can leave tomorrow without spending a penny. And if the rumor is that he's giving money to Arkansas to leave, that only further shows how good the SEC has it. No other conference has that problem.
I'm assuming him bribing the school is to cover the potential difference in revenue from dropping out of the SEC and their mega-TV deals and going to the Big-12 which still makes a lot of money, but not SEC money.

The stipulations and deals that are in place aren't as airtight as people think. There's all kinds of outs depending on number of teams left, if a certain number of teams agree, etc. Also, the whole Jerry Jones thing is ridiculous. The SEC has no exit charge. They can leave tomorrow without spending a penny. And if the rumor is that he's giving money to Arkansas to leave, that only further shows how good the SEC has it. No other conference has that problem.


Actually....

I looked into this a while back after you and I volleyed the idea of conference dissolution.

I can only speak for the ACC. And this is a direct quote emailed to me from someone who would be in the know on any contract negotiations that happen with the ACC offices.


The ACC is in an interesting position. They are a separate and autonomous entity, a legal corporation that also owns a member based affiliation of which schools are members of. No amount of dissension will dissolve the corporation whose autonomous articles are filed with the Attorney General in multiple states.

What does that all mean? Simple. Every team can take their ball and go home. The ACC still exists and all these member clubs still owe all their TV rights money to the ACC corporation. So even if everyone leaves, you create a Billion dollar company that doesn't have to do anything but draw a check. So you can bet your tail that 1 school wouldnt leave, they would remain and be due the entirety of the conferences TV proceeds. Imagine Wake Forest with a $1,000,000,000 athletic department budget. Where else are they going to go to get that kind of pay out. And remember this would be assuming that the ACC as a conference got no money from their existing deals assuming that they are voided by the lack of a schedule.

Of course in that scenario you have an obvious case of collusion because why would teams leave with no where to go? They wouldn't so if they leave another institution has to have colluded and/or tampered so on top of all their TV money they would also have a series of damages cases.



Its fun time filler, but for the time being movement has stalled with the exception of independents joining P5 conferences. And of course several B12 schools arent even sure they WANT a championship game.

I've heard this before, probably in other words, but it seemed like such an extreme penalty compared to what they would actually be receiving in return that I always figured there was some kind of clause in there, somewhere, that would give them an out. Just logically speaking would the ACC have said no to all of this if ND was only willing to give them two years of those rights? Seems unlikely.

The ACC's position was they wanted ND as a full time member for football or they wouldnt grant Olympic sport acceptance. Considering the hammer that is the GOR deal, this was a huge "win" for ND to get their cake (olympic sport opponents) and eat it too (keep their NBC deal and independent status.)

There are some rumors going around right now. A well-connected booster (long time friends with multiple former conference commissioners) on our boards posted some of the wild talk going on right now:


Notre Dame to Big Ten
Jerry Jones essentially buying Arkansas to the Big 12, with Texas willing to convert the Longhorn Network into the Big 12 Network, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston the main contenders to be the 12th team
The Pac-12 kicking the tires with UNLV and possibly Colorado State (with a chance BYU could get consideration if they dropped their objections to playing on Sundays)


Probably just talk without a lot of chance of happening. The Pac-12 part in particular seems far-fetched - while I could see UNLV being a good longer-term investment, I don't see what Colorado State brings, and I just don't see the Pac-12 Presidents lifting their academic objections to BYU.

Ugh... okay, the Arkansas - Big 12 rumors has been going on forever. There's even been talk that Arkansas+ND would be going to the Big 12 with TLN turning into the Big 12 network with Arkansas being given a boat load of cash since 2011. There was last year's rumor of LSU and Arkansas leaving for the Big 12 even last year. Arkansas is seen as a key piece based on location for both conferences. We were the piece when it started in the 90's and we will be the piece now that would cause everyone to make the move to 16.

I just don't think it's ever gonna happen.

Location plays a key part on why some want Arkansas moved to the Big 12. We are 11th in the SEC for distance to other schools. I just don't think it will happen because of the brand name SEC vs Big 12. You would have to convince 3 other schools to leave and and go to the Big 12 (LSU, TAMU, MIZZ) for it to happen probably (unless that ND crap starts again). Arkansas won't leave with Cincy or Houston just because they made that mistake before. The original SEC move was FAU, TAMU, Tex and Ark until the Texas schools got cold feet one night.

11. Arkansas--Avg. miles: 493
Athens—629
Auburn—550
Baton Rouge—425
Columbia—757
Como—225
CSTX—397
Gainesville—818
Knoxville—574
Lexington—551
Nashville—413
Oxford—288
Starkville—354
Tuscaloosa—426

----

UNLV to the PAC-12. You mean the conference that has bowl ties to the city and has their conference basketball tournament here? As crazy as this sounds, it probably all hinges on the Raiders Stadium proposal in town. I remember when Utah joined and everyone said they would get their asses handed to them... it never happened. I could CSU going giving Colorado a dance partner and UNLV-Utah being combined. BYU won't get another chance probably because of the Sunday issues.

The ACC's position was they wanted ND as a full time member for football or they wouldnt grant Olympic sport acceptance. Considering the hammer that is the GOR deal, this was a huge "win" for ND to get their cake (olympic sport opponents) and eat it too (keep their NBC deal and independent status.)

How much do you think you can conservatively estimate five years (in a lump sum payment) of ND's tier 1 rights and the TV revenues they'd get in a conference? $40MM per/$200MM total? I'd guess more but for the purposes of what I'm asking...that's a lot of money to be willing to part with just to have a home for your Olympic sports for a few years.

Ugh... okay, the Arkansas - Big 12 rumors has been going on forever. There's even been talk that Arkansas+ND would be going to the Big 12 with TLN turning into the Big 12 network with Arkansas being given a boat load of cash since 2011. There was last year's rumor of LSU and Arkansas leaving for the Big 12 even last year. Arkansas is seen as a key piece based on location for both conferences. We were the piece when it started in the 90's and we will be the piece now that would cause everyone to make the move to 16.

I just don't think it's ever gonna happen.
If these rumors are happening, I figure it's basically Jerry Jones spouting off, nostalgic perhaps about old rivalries. I also doubt Arkansas would really want to leave the SEC.

UNLV to the PAC-12. You mean the conference that has bowl ties to the city and has their conference basketball tournament here? As crazy as this sounds, it probably all hinges on the Raiders Stadium proposal in town. I remember when Utah joined and everyone said they would get their asses handed to them... it never happened. I could CSU going giving Colorado a dance partner and UNLV-Utah being combined. BYU won't get another chance probably because of the Sunday issues.
Yeah, UNLV could make some sense. Utah was in a much better position in terms of the strength of their football program - I think UNLV would get their asses handed to them the first few years (hell, look at how much Colorado has continued to struggle). But I also think the prestige boost of joining the P12 would help the Rebels actually have a chance to be good in football, and of course the precedent is already there in basketball.

Not only are there the many ties to the conference in terms of bowls and the basketball tournament, there's a potential TV audience to mine (which is the main reason to make such a move). And the lack of a big TV audience is why I don't see Colorado State making much sense for the conference. They are not a brand and are not associated with a TV audience that would do anything but diminish the per-team TV money distribution for the rest of the conference.

BYU would potentially have enough TV draw to be a contender, but I have a hard time seeing the issues that have prevented that move in the past (playing on Sundays, academic/research freedom at the school, etc) being overcome. Unless the conference is faced with a "you have to field a 16-team conference if you want to join the rest of us in a super-league" type of ultimatum, I think the conference would just as soon stand-pat.

I think the ACC is in a dire position. Being in the middle of the B1G and the SEC.

If those conferences come calling, they are going to go after the ACC. And if there are 3 schools left in the ACC, buy outs are moot.

I think the B12 is safer. With Texas and Oklahoma staying put, there is a more stable base. Of course that could change if the B1G goes after Texas. Or Oklahoma if they can exclude Okie St. But I think Okie St. is tied to Oklahoma by a state law.

I wouldn't call the ACC's position dire. Their 2015 distributions from the conference were up over 40% from 2014, at about $27-28 million per school. They are slated to do better than that for 2016 due to the NCAA tournament success which is worth another $3.6 million or so per school.

It would take a ridiculous financial package to make it worthwhile for someone to move (and for someone to take them) factoring settlement costs (and with that I'm acknowledging that a leaver doesn't pay the full buyout, but they don't pay 0 either).

BYU would potentially have enough TV draw to be a contender, but I have a hard time seeing the issues that have prevented that move in the past (playing on Sundays, academic/research freedom at the school, etc) being overcome. Unless the conference is faced with a "you have to field a 16-team conference if you want to join the rest of us in a super-league" type of ultimatum, I think the conference would just as soon stand-pat.

If it came to 16 is a must and the Pac-12 couldn't break up the Big 12 then I think they grab Boise and SDSU who are affiliated members and then the UNLV/CSU scenario to just own every state on the west coast. I'm not sure they all fit but there aren't that many option out west especially if BYU sticks to their policies. Boise would be the smallest school out of them at 21k but it's not that bad.

UNLV's biggest problem is the school isn't even 60 years old so they would have to be betting on potential with them.

I think the B12 is safer. With Texas and Oklahoma staying put, there is a more stable base.

Huh?

Duke, UNC, NCSU Anchor the ACC.

When the ACC was in a "dire" position was when the Big 12 came calling and FSU and Clemson were about to walk. For years the tobacco road boys viewed football as an after thought to their basketball party. That woke everyone up. Clemson and FSU sit at the proverbial heads of the table now and everyone acknowledges the cash cow that is football.

I dont think many folks writing about UNC going to XYZ conference realize that #1 the ACC commissioner is a UNC grad, the former UNC AD and his nephew runs Raycom which is a major cash cow and one could argue the first conference network.

Secondly, while I dont share this sentiment, you have to live here to understand the arrogance that UNC and Duke carry about their academic prestige. While the rest of the world recognizes the quality institution that say Michigan is, the "Public Ivy" crowd would have an impossible time taking a backseat to anyone. And they have that position as masters of their domain.

This is more disjointed thoughts than a cohesive argument but I can assure you UNC and Duke arent looking to leave. And neither is going anywhere without the other, or without NCSU and Wake tagging along for that matter.

In a doomsday scenario I could see the "Southern 4" (GT, Clem, FSU, UM) leaving before anyone else and I think that is beyond unlikely.

Im not saying the ACC isnt a strong conference in terms of revenue and education.
But the B1G is sniffing around already. And dont think if the B1G moves, the SEC follows suit.
Money and arrogance can always be overcome.
And if UNC is a Public Ivy League type school, dont you think the multi-billion dollar research money in the B1G, could play a part in UNC jumping to the B1G?

Im not saying the ACC isnt a strong conference in terms of revenue and education.
But the B1G is sniffing around already. And dont think if the B1G moves, the SEC follows suit.
Money and arrogance can always be overcome.
And if UNC is a Public Ivy League type school, dont you think the multi-billion dollar research money in the B1G, could play a part in UNC jumping to the B1G?

UNC runs the ACC. If they move to the Big 10 they have to accept being just another school. That's a tough pill to swallow.

If it came to 16 is a must and the Pac-12 couldn't break up the Big 12 then I think they grab Boise and SDSU who are affiliated members and then the UNLV/CSU scenario to just own every state on the west coast. I'm not sure they all fit but there aren't that many option out west especially if BYU sticks to their policies. Boise would be the smallest school out of them at 21k but it's not that bad.

UNLV's biggest problem is the school isn't even 60 years old so they would have to be betting on potential with them.
Yeah, if they can't poach from the Big 12 then there would have to be a lot of betting on potential. I think SDSt has some potential - similar to UNLV, if you put them in a Power-5 conference I think the prestige boost could turn them into a legit program. And while San Diego is already by default in the P12 TV footprint, I would think they'd gain some additional eyeballs with SDSt in there.

But that's the issue here in that outside of maybe BYU and Boise State, none of these programs bring with them an established and reasonably big TV audience. UNLV and SDSt have some potential, but I just don't see Colorado State bringing anything more than simply adding a school because you have to. Not that there's any more obvious candidates - BYU has a number of issues that put them at odds with the P12 leadership and none of Wyoming, Colorado State or the New Mexico schools bring much in the way of TV market potential. I guess they could look to Texas for one of the mid-major schools. Rice has the academic pedigree the conference loves and is in Houston, but that's a huge bet there that the Owls could ever become a program good enough to draw significant eyeballs in that state.

UNC runs the ACC. If they move to the Big 10 they have to accept being just another school. That's a tough pill to swallow.

I'll throw out a "what if", and you tell me if it realistic or plausible.
B1G offers UVA, Geo Tech, UNC and Texas. Thats 3 teams out of the ACC.
Dont you think the SEC is coming in and grabbing what it can? FSU, Clemson, NC St. and another team?

Could this happen?

I'll throw out a "what if", and you tell me if it realistic or plausible.
B1G offers UVA, Geo Tech, UNC and Texas. Thats 3 teams out of the ACC.
Dont you think the SEC is coming in and grabbing what it can? FSU, Clemson, NC St. and another team?

Could this happen?

Texas and UNC both are positions where they have a lot of power in their current conference. The reason I don't see these big conference realignment plans happening is because both are going to be extremely reluctant to give that up. Both also lose power with every school that gets added, which is part of why Texas has drug its heels on conference expansion (IMO).

Both schools give up their power by moving to another conference. UNC currently has NCState, Wake, and Duke that votes with them on pretty much everything they really want. You can also include BC on most things recently. Texas has Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU.

UNC is also going to have no problem finding a home if the ACC implodes so there's absolutely no reason for them to be the first to jump. Same with Texas in the Big 12. Texas can find a home in any conference, any time they want. Why jump when you don't have to?

Both schools could wait until the Big 12 or ACC are nothing but a smoking pile of ashes and land in a great spot. They're in no rush to do anything.

Florida and SC don't want Clemson and FSU in the SEC. If not for that Mizzou and aTm wouldn't be there now.

UNC goes nowhere without Duke ,period.

Go back to my statement, John swofford is ACC commiush and formerUNC AD and STILL sits on the special advisory board good UNC, they literally get whatever they want from. The ACC.

Assuming all that is overcome. How do you escapethge "irrevocable grant of rights" UNC literally couldn't make a penny off sports media right for over a decade. If the B1G tried to make it up, those funds would be due to the ACC....you really need to read up on the deal and understand what it would take to break it up.

You would think being the epicenter of the whole bathroom controversy isn't helping UNC much either. Much like Mizzou and the "concerned student" protests, right or wrong, this is what UNC is for the foreseeable future.

EDIT: I think it might be the other UNC that is the actual university involved but the point still stands that entire state is known for this.

Money is becoming nothing to the B1G. I think they could afford to pay the "Get Out of the ACC" bill for a decade. Remember, the B1G is only signing a 6 year deal with Fox and, most likely, ESPN.
I believe the estimate each school will get around $36 million a year.
Shoot, the Iowa Admins are starting to talk about taking money from the Athletic department to help with the University as a whole. Iowa makes that much money.

Wont the SEC abandon the "We wont take Clemson and FSU" rhetoric? If the B1G raids the ACC first, doesn't the SEC have to follow suit?

Money is becoming nothing to the B1G. I think they could afford to pay the "Get Out of the ACC" bill for a decade.

You're paying it twice in that scenario. Once to the ACC (since they have a claim to the money) and then to the schools since, presumably, they'd not be inclined to just walk away from it for a decade.

At what point

Wont the SEC abandon the "We wont take Clemson and FSU" rhetoric?

Could happen, but it'd be over the dead bodies of SC and Florida. (And perhaps the third member of their pact, UGA, who has a role in the agreement in order to block Georgia Tech ... who I've never gotten any feeling would like to go back to the SEC anyway).

And since someone will likely do so, I'll go ahead & throw out the possibility that a hypothetical GT-to-Big10 move could cause Georgia to waver on that agreement ... but you'd be talking about the stuff of blood feuds for generations if that happened.

Money is becoming nothing to the B1G. I think they could afford to pay the "Get Out of the ACC" bill for a decade. Remember, the B1G is only signing a 6 year deal with Fox and, most likely, ESPN.
I believe the estimate each school will get around $36 million a year.
Shoot, the Iowa Admins are starting to talk about taking money from the Athletic department to help with the University as a whole. Iowa makes that much money.

Wont the SEC abandon the "We wont take Clemson and FSU" rhetoric? If the B1G raids the ACC first, doesn't the SEC have to follow suit?



You are missing the detail here.

The AD CAN NOT PROFIT FROM TV RIGHTS FOR THE DURATION.

Their TV share goes to the ACC. Then the B1G gives them a make up amount and that too goes to the ACC. All Tier 1 rights go to the ACC and any compensatory money paid. The schools would have to agree to basically live on borrowed fund for 10 years. Its a crazy stringent requirement. That is why Maryland jumped immediately when it was presented. The B1G Maryland offer had been on the table for over 2 years. Their president saw the draft of the GOR and bolted.

FWIW I told Clemson's President personally I thought we should have as well. The ACC GOR scares me for our future.

BTW Clemson has never taken a dime of University money to fund the AD and the AD has been the single largest donor to the general University fund for something like 41 of the past 50 years. Its nothing new.

I guarantee the GOR issue will never go away strictly with a payment by the letter of the contract.

Come on CU, I agree with you on this, but there's no need to embellish stuff. Clemson is what, a year or so out from trying to tack on a Student Activities Fee to tuition?

The Grant of Rights is a great marketing ploy, but we all know contracts are broken all the time and buyouts are not paid in full. It's the starting point of the negotiation, which for the ACC as a league is still a very good spot to be.

Y'all know a lot more about the ins and outs than I do.

I will say one thing from anectodatal observation. There is a sizable contingent of old school UNC fans that would be happy if the conference were just Duke, UNC, NCSt. and Wake Forest playing round robin basketball forever.

These folks reluctantly acknowledged that (1) expansion was necessary, and (2) football was king.

But it will be a harder sell to them to become part of a midwestern or southern geographic footprint and to leave Wake or Duke or State behind.

Y'all know a lot more about the ins and outs than I do.

I will say one thing from anectodatal observation. There is a sizable contingent of old school UNC fans that would be happy if the conference were just Duke, UNC, NCSt. and Wake Forest playing round robin basketball forever.

These folks reluctantly acknowledged that (1) expansion was necessary, and (2) football was king.

But it will be a harder sell to them to become part of a midwestern or southern geographic footprint and to leave Wake or Duke or State behind.

It's actually usually the other way around. Those kind of tight groupings of schools usually becoming voting blocks that sway how things play out one way or another. Look no further than the B12. It went from being a midwest-centered conference to moving its headquarters and its focus to Texas in no time at all based on the number of schools voting together in that area.

You're paying it twice in that scenario. Once to the ACC (since they have a claim to the money) and then to the schools since, presumably, they'd not be inclined to just walk away from it for a decade.

At what point



Could happen, but it'd be over the dead bodies of SC and Florida. (And perhaps the third member of their pact, UGA, who has a role in the agreement in order to block Georgia Tech ... who I've never gotten any feeling would like to go back to the SEC anyway).

And since someone will likely do so, I'll go ahead & throw out the possibility that a hypothetical GT-to-Big10 move could cause Georgia to waver on that agreement ... but you'd be talking about the stuff of blood feuds for generations if that happened.

Do they want to block FSU, Georgia Tech, etc. just so they can be the only SEC school in their respective states? Is that all it's about, or it there more?

Do they want to block FSU, Georgia Tech, etc. just so they can be the only SEC school in their respective states? Is that all it's about, or it there more?

I won't speak as firmly about SC/Clemson or FSU/Florida (not my back yard) but for UGA/GT it's the recruiting advantage that comes with being the only SEC school that's particularly large.

You'll also find at least some minor lingering sentiment about never letting Tech back into the conference since they left of their own accord back in 1964. But it's mostly about keeping that huge advantage.

On a related note, here's an interesting look back at the story behind Tech's departure.

Georgia Tech erred when it left the SEC | The Telegraph (http://www.macon.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/bobby-pope/article30145833.html)

edit to add: Yes, you'll still hear that "hey, they left, screw 'em" sentiment occasionally from people who literally weren't born when it happened.

You were wondering what Garth Brooks thought about Big 12 expansion? Of course Arkansas comes up first on his list...

WholeHogSports - Garth Brooks says Arkansas would make sense for Big 12 (http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2016/may/11/garth-brooks-says-arkansas-would-make-sense-big-12/)

Come on CU, I agree with you on this, but there's no need to embellish stuff. Clemson is what, a year or so out from trying to tack on a Student Activities Fee to tuition?



They did add a student activity fee. $125/yr/student. A the time it was dded they were the only power 5 school that didn't have one and they are now 3rd lowest.

They also are proposing to add a $250 premium student ticket fee to guarantee students reserved seats in the lower bowl. Those are AD revenue drivers for sure. None of that takes away from the $$$ donated by the AD to the general University fund and the 1 Clemson fund.


The Grant of Rights is a great marketing ploy, but we all know contracts are broken all the time and buyouts are not paid in full. It's the starting point of the negotiation, which for the ACC as a league is still a very good spot to be.


That is just it. it isnt a marketing ploy. The league member literally "granted away their rights to TV revenue" to the league in exchange for a guaranteed spot in the league. There is no reason for the ACC to negotiate a beak up. Fine, leave. You gave us your rights to money. Its really that simplistic.

The buyouts are an entire separate matter. The ACC willingly removed and waived the previous $50MM buyouts in exchange for the GOR.
That is what makes the legislation have so much teeth. The league waived a $50MM agreement in exchange for your signature. If you want to talk about breaking the GOR the $50MM reinstated PLUS our 10 year revenue number is a starting point.

You guys think I am approaching this as if defending the ACC. I'm not I am approaching this as the damned league has handcuffed its cash cows. While BC, Wake and a few others sit back spend nothing and collect checks.

I'd wager anything I owned on this fact, the Big 12 will cease to exist before another team leaves the ACC prior to 2026

That is just it. it isnt a marketing ploy. The league member literally "granted away their rights to TV revenue" to the league in exchange for a guaranteed spot in the league. There is no reason for the ACC to negotiate a beak up. Fine, leave. You gave us your rights to money. Its really that simplistic.

The buyouts are an entire separate matter. The ACC willingly removed and waived the previous $50MM buyouts in exchange for the GOR.
That is what makes the legislation have so much teeth. The league waived a $50MM agreement in exchange for your signature. If you want to talk about breaking the GOR the $50MM reinstated PLUS our 10 year revenue number is a starting point.

You guys think I am approaching this as if defending the ACC. I'm not I am approaching this as the damned league has handcuffed its cash cows. While BC, Wake and a few others sit back spend nothing and collect checks.

I'd wager anything I owned on this fact, the Big 12 will cease to exist before another team leaves the ACC prior to 2026

It's one thing to say what the deal is. It's another thing to see if it withstands a court challenge. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the airtight claims are a bit premature.

Good point.

The GOR also includes an arbitration clause that disputes must be arbitrated in the state of NC, since the league is HQ'd there.

Care to guess where most NC lawyers and judges went to law school?

Good point.

The GOR also includes an arbitration clause that disputes must be arbitrated in the state of NC, since the league is HQ'd there.

Care to guess where most NC lawyers and judges went to law school?

List of Justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_North_Carolina_Supreme_Court)

And in a surprise ruling today, the NC Supreme Court held that 1/7 of Clemson and FSUs football revenues go to . . . Harvard.

The ACC made such a tough contract to break because it is in such danger of being poached. IMHO, there are only two conferences that are not in danger of being poached. The PAC 12, because they are the only big dog out West and the SEC because
https://youtu.be/wMEq1mGpP5A?t=1m27s

Every other conference should at least be aware of its neighbors.

The ACC made such a tough contract to break because it is in such danger of being poached. IMHO, there are only two conferences that are not in danger of being poached. The PAC 12, because they are the only big dog out West and the SEC because
https://youtu.be/wMEq1mGpP5A?t=1m27s

Every other conference should at least be aware of its neighbors.

Do you really think the B1G can be poached?
2 things prevent that:
1. The HUGE amount of money each school will get off this TV contract and then the next, which happens in 6 years.
2. The HUGE amount of research dollars that each university gets.

The B1G will not lose any teams.

The Big Ten is safe for the foreseeable future. At some point demographics may reduce the alumni base of those schools (given the much slower population growth in their main footprint), but we're talking decades and there will certainly be other, more immediate factors that could change the landscape before then. And hell, climate change might reverse that slow growth and send more people back to the rust belt...

Shoot, I could be closer to the Pacific Ocean when the San Andreas fault lets loose.

That would certainly put a damper on the PAC 12.

Do you really think the B1G can be poached?
2 things prevent that:
1. The HUGE amount of money each school will get off this TV contract and then the next, which happens in 6 years.
2. The HUGE amount of research dollars that each university gets.

The B1G will not lose any teams.

Thing is, the other conferences aren't particularly interested in poaching them - okay, what's left of the Big 12 might- but otherwise I'd say they're all pretty content to let them do their thing.

If one were to judge from from this board though it's hard not to get the impression that there's a major inferiority complex up that way.

Thing is, the other conferences aren't particularly interested in poaching them - okay, what's left of the Big 12 might- but otherwise I'd say they're all pretty content to let them do their thing.

If one were to judge from from this board though it's hard not to get the impression that there's a major inferiority complex up that way.

Thank god most rational people dont judge an attitude on the responses from a message board. They are content to let them do their thing that part is correct. They also arent looking to expand into the middle north of the country. I am sure if they(anyone including the SEC) felt Ohio State or Michigan were an easy poach they would latch on in a heartbeat.

The Big Ten is safe for the foreseeable future. At some point demographics may reduce the alumni base of those schools (given the much slower population growth in their main footprint), but we're talking decades and there will certainly be other, more immediate factors that could change the landscape before then. And hell, climate change might reverse that slow growth and send more people back to the rust belt...I think college football dying is a lot more likely a scenario. Whether because of increased lawsuits/drying up youth numbers due to brain damage worries, or more likely because the courts (or Congress) finally step in and effectively force the NFL to pay for and create it's own minor league system that is no longer officially tied to colleges. Or with the advances in technology maybe the current college model where large groups of students live in/near a central location becomes anachronistic.

I don't think any of that's likely by 2050, but I'd say that's slightly more realistic and likely to happen before the stagnant demographics of the rust belt or global warming starts playing a role :)

I think college football dying is a lot more likely a scenario. Whether because of increased lawsuits/drying up youth numbers due to brain damage worries, or more likely because the courts (or Congress) finally step in and effectively force the NFL to pay for and create it's own minor league system that is no longer officially tied to colleges. Or with the advances in technology maybe the current college model where large groups of students live in/near a central location becomes anachronistic.

I don't think any of that's likely by 2050, but I'd say that's slightly more realistic and likely to happen before the stagnant demographics of the rust belt or global warming starts playing a role :)
Exactly. My point being, the Big Ten is safe for a long time.

Shoot, I could be closer to the Pacific Ocean when the San Andreas fault lets loose.

That would certainly put a damper on the PAC 12.
I know this is not a serious response, but my inner geology nerd can't resist - the San Andreas is a transform fault, so what happens when it "lets loose" is the land west of the fault (a thin sliver of California and all of Baja California) moves north relative to the rest of North America. And north of the San Andreas, the Juan De Fuca plate subducts under the North American plate (hence the volcanic Cascade Mountain range from northern California up through southern British Columbia), which results in more material added to the western edge of the continent.

So no, you're actually getting farther away from the Pacific Ocean.

Thank god most rational people dont judge an attitude on the responses from a message board.

Which is why I left the conference largely blameless.

I am sure if they(anyone including the SEC) felt Ohio State or Michigan were an easy poach they would latch on in a heartbeat.

I think you'd be surprised at the difference in enthusiasm about that. Those two, yeah, the credibility is there enough that anybody would take them. But they're also the only two teams in the conference that can be said about.

I think you'd be surprised at the difference in enthusiasm about that. Those two, yeah, the credibility is there enough that anybody would take them. But they're also the only two teams in the conference that can be said about.

I would say its pretty much regional/conference based. As a Missouri fan I cared about Iowa State, Kansas State, Colorado athletics more than most for years and now follow teams like Miss State, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt of which I previously had zero (not 0.1% but 0) interest. What does any conference really have? 2-3 big names, several more moderate names? Even the SEC has Bama and then rotations of LSU, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, etc...

Tarcone's homer-ism has a much larger view of the Big Ten's importance (especially Iowa) than reality but same could be said for random Baylor fan, UCLA fan, Tennessee fan (see what I did there?), NC State fan and their conference. The Big Ten is not some jewel that the ACC will dissolve knocking each other over to join but it also isn't the Mountain West and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Yeah, tarcone goes a bit overboard on the homerism, but don't we all at times? I know I have.

I know this is not a serious response, but my inner geology nerd can't resist - the San Andreas is a transform fault, so what happens when it "lets loose" is the land west of the fault (a thin sliver of California and all of Baja California) moves north relative to the rest of North America. And north of the San Andreas, the Juan De Fuca plate subducts under the North American plate (hence the volcanic Cascade Mountain range from northern California up through southern British Columbia), which results in more material added to the western edge of the continent.

So no, you're actually getting farther away from the Pacific Ocean.

So...no Otisburg?

Yeah, tarcone goes a bit overboard on the homerism, but don't we all at times? I know I have.

Bah, I went to a DIII school. Speak for yourself. ;)

I read that Cascadia fault line story in the New Yorker which won a Pulitzer. The Pac 12 is totally fucked.

Yes, I admit to homerism and an inferior complex. But, i also, know the B1G is as big a fish as the SEC.
As the thread title says, the B1G is finally ready for a playoff. And guess what happens? A playoff.

So, while, I am a die hard and,probably overzealous. I know the B1G will be the driving force in the next seismic shift in expansion.

College Sports: College football analysts: Texas, Oklahoma have eyes on 'greener pastures' | SportsDay (http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/texaslonghorns/2016/05/10/fox-sports-audible-texas-oklahoma-eyes-greener-pastures)

So long as Harbaugh is coaching in the B1G, it'll be fine.

Harbaugh > SEC
Harbaugh > NCAA
Harbaugh > The Sun
Harbaugh > Oxygen

Can we get a ruling against Ditka please?

What does any conference really have? 2-3 big names, several more moderate names? Even the SEC has Bama and then rotations of LSU, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, etc...

Here's the difference, I believe, in what I was getting at.

In some quarters there seems to be an undue amount of enthusiasm for the Big 10 getting those "moderate names" from anywhere/everywhere else than would be the case for other conferences.

Steal FSU away, okay, I get the enthusiasm. They're a traditional draw that has history of having national appeal. Pretty much anybody else in the discussion though, honestly ... c'mon. (As noted previously UNC & Duke ain't going anywhere). GT doesn't generate much excitement in their own city, much less state, so why would someone get overly jacked up about them as some sort of hypothetical coup?

The enthusiasm is Atlanta.

Here's the difference, I believe, in what I was getting at.

In some quarters there seems to be an undue amount of enthusiasm for the Big 10 getting those "moderate names" from anywhere/everywhere else than would be the case for other conferences.

Steal FSU away, okay, I get the enthusiasm. They're a traditional draw that has history of having national appeal. Pretty much anybody else in the discussion though, honestly ... c'mon. (As noted previously UNC & Duke ain't going anywhere). GT doesn't generate much excitement in their own city, much less state, so why would someone get overly jacked up about them as some sort of hypothetical coup?

In terms of enthusiasm for this Big Ten fan, bringing in GT would leave me as enthusiastic as when they brought in Rutgers and Maryland. I.e. Not at all

Nebraska was a different story. Geographic and cultural fit. Beyond that, Notre Dame is about the only school that would tick those two boxes on the enthusiasm meter.

If only Mizzou would've went to the Big 10...... Pandemonium

The enthusiasm is Atlanta.

Except that hardly anybody in Atlanta actually cares.

They don't care about GT or the Big 10 now, they won't care tomorrow, they won't care three years from now.

Yeah yeah, "but the TV market" ... problem is that only fools buy into a market that doesn't deliver eyeballs. Sooner or later, you may not run out of fools but fools do tend to run out of money.

In terms of enthusiasm for this Big Ten fan, bringing in GT would leave me as enthusiastic as when they brought in Rutgers and Maryland. I.e. Not at all

Nebraska was a different story. Geographic and cultural fit. Beyond that, Notre Dame is about the only school that would tick those two boxes on the enthusiasm meter.

If only Mizzou would've went to the Big 10...... Pandemonium

I think Mizzou and ND would be a good fit in the BiG. Never been enthused about Nebraska, Rutgers, or Maryland.

Can we get a ruling against Ditka please?

Harbaugh >>>> Ditka

Atlanta is an SEC city.

It has been a few years and numbers could have changed, but Ga Tech used to actually do pretty well in national tv ratings, much better relatively than in Atlanta. That isn't the point of expansion, by any means, just an interesting tidbit.

I think Mizzou and ND would be a good fit in the BiG. Never been enthused about Nebraska, Rutgers, or Maryland.

Yeah my guess is it was a joke about MBBF but the Big Ten makes a lot more sense than the SEC. Illinois has always been a rival, Nebraska was an old Big 8 rival, Iowa could quickly become one, and a lot of the other state schools are very similar to the Tigers in lots of ways. The SEC on the other hand is such a cultural mismatch. I love the football, hate the basketball, and don't really feel much in common with any of the schools outside of maybe UK and Arkansas.

But the BTN will get a cut of the TVs that buy the tier that has the channel., even if they don't watch.

That's the enthusiasm. Not Geo Tech.
Who, by the way, would be the Easts version of Northwestern.
There is the other thing about adding them.

I was really hoping Mizzou would have joined the B1G. A short drive to watch Iowa athletics would have been awesome.

Yeah, I know he was joking about MBBF there. But as a fan of the Big Ten, Mizzou would be a great fit. No offense to Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland fans. They just don't feel like Big Ten schools, mostly due to being out of the footprint. I love Penn State, and even they seem like a bit of a mismatch.

Yeah my guess is it was a joke about MBBF but the Big Ten makes a lot more sense than the SEC. Illinois has always been a rival, Nebraska was an old Big 8 rival, Iowa could quickly become one, and a lot of the other state schools are very similar to the Tigers in lots of ways. The SEC on the other hand is such a cultural mismatch. I love the football, hate the basketball, and don't really feel much in common with any of the schools outside of maybe UK and Arkansas.

Tongue in cheek, yes, but I do think Mizzou would have fit in well with the Western schools of the conference. Pretty much for the reasons you outlined.

I was really hoping Mizzou would have joined the B1G. A short drive to watch Iowa athletics would have been awesome.

Yeah we used to play you guys all the time in basketball and in football and it was fun. Two similar Midwestern schools. Don't get me wrong it was fun beating Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and the other blue bloods of the SEC but those road trips were like a whole other world. (And distance wise sort of were)

I think Mizzou and ND would be a good fit in the BiG. Never been enthused about Nebraska, Rutgers, or Maryland.

Nebraska fits in pretty well with the schools in the West, football wise at least.

Except that hardly anybody in Atlanta actually cares.

They don't care about GT or the Big 10 now, they won't care tomorrow, they won't care three years from now.

Yeah yeah, "but the TV market" ... problem is that only fools buy into a market that doesn't deliver eyeballs. Sooner or later, you may not run out of fools but fools do tend to run out of money.Unfortunately as a UMass fan I'm guessing the ACC and B1G realized the truth in this only after they added BC and Rutgers (though Rutgers does have sleeping giant potential.)

(though Rutgers does have sleeping giant potential.)

Honest question about fandom; say Rutgers gets good in oh, 2020. Will alumni from thirty years earlier much care, or does enthusiasm for a program start with the students who were there when a sport was big? In other words, if football wasn't a thing when you were in school, will you much care if it becomes a big thing? Are bandwagon fans as big as they can be in the pros (where it is largely a geographical)? Or are we just thinking of the NY/NJ area getting into it rather than just alumni?

Except that hardly anybody in Atlanta actually cares.

They don't care about GT or the Big 10 now, they won't care tomorrow, they won't care three years from now.

Yeah yeah, "but the TV market" ... problem is that only fools buy into a market that doesn't deliver eyeballs. Sooner or later, you may not run out of fools but fools do tend to run out of money.

We've talked about this before. It's not eyeballs, it's carriage rates. All those BTN subs (actively or passively subscribing) in states containing B1G schools. Rutgers and Maryland have been a goldmine for the B1G. No other way to say it.

Will that last for 10 more years as people get smarter about what they subscribe to and what they will no longer pay for when they don't use the product? Who the hell knows. But while everything involving TV and cable is sure to change, I'm still willing to guarantee that the component that will be the most resistant to change and come the closest to maintaining its subscriber base, when compared to virtually every other cable network, are these sports networks. And the advertising dollars will continue to go where the most active and engaged viewership is...DVR proof sports.

Honest question about fandom; say Rutgers gets good in oh, 2020. Will alumni from thirty years earlier much care, or does enthusiasm for a program start with the students who were there when a sport was big? In other words, if football wasn't a thing when you were in school, will you much care if it becomes a big thing? Are bandwagon fans as big as they can be in the pros (where it is largely a geographical)? Or are we just thinking of the NY/NJ area getting into it rather than just alumni?

Even if Rutgers turned into a dynasty, NY/NJ will always be a pro sports town. You would need to overcome literal generations of people being interested, but not obsessed, with college football in order to become the big thing. That being said, the benefit of the area is that even having a portion of such a large area being fans results in being a pretty big fanbase compared to a lot of areas.

The B1G affiliation helps a lot there. If we didn't get in, stayed in the AAC and made some kind of ridiculous run as a G5 school to the playoff, I don't think that would go as far in sustaining and building a large fanbase. Every Rutgers fan in the NYC area knows plenty of Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin fans and playing these schools so often will help build up college football here. Again, please note I said "help"...I'm talking incremental in the grand scheme of things.

As for the timing, there's definitely a dedicated core group of fans who are dying for success going back to the 70s. If we popped now, it would be a pretty big thing. Just not "Giants Super Bowl run" like.

FWIW, I think Bishop meant more of a giant based on the fertile recruiting ground than a giant fanbase waiting to explode, akin to an SEC territory, but obviously that goes partially hand in hand.

We've talked about this before. It's not eyeballs, it's carriage rates. All those BTN subs (actively or passively subscribing) in states containing B1G schools. Rutgers and Maryland have been a goldmine for the B1G. No other way to say it.

Will that last for 10 more years as people get smarter about what they subscribe to and what they will no longer pay for when they don't use the product? Who the hell knows. But while everything involving TV and cable is sure to change, I'm still willing to guarantee that the component that will be the most resistant to change and come the closest to maintaining its subscriber base, when compared to virtually every other cable network, are these sports networks. And the advertising dollars will continue to go where the most active and engaged viewership is...DVR proof sports.

And what I'm saying - also repeatedly -- is that it isn't about subscribers forever. It's about viewers. The prices that systems are willing to pay for networks that aren't being watched by significant numbers cannot hold.

Any systems outside the footprint of the BTN that are paying them anything more than a pittance are systems run by fucking idiots. Plain & simple. Granted, there's not been a shortage of those in the cable/TV industry but the margin for them to remain in place & continue shrinks every day.

They're essentially buying commercial inventory that has no meaningful value, they can barely give that shit away. (same would be true with SECN inventory in Alaska or Hawaii). They aren't buying a meaningful number of new/continued subscribers since the stuff isn't being watched. Consumers can be stupid too of course but that is starting to show limits as well.

Sports isn't "dvr proof" when it's stuff people don't care about. And the number of people in Atlanta that care about watching Georgia Tech volleyball on TV -- much less Northwestern vs Indiana field hockey -- couldn't fill a small bar. The number of people that will even watch GT football on TV regularly isn't a threat to fill an arena either.

No viewers ultimately = no advertisers (aside from a handful buying it on the relative cheap because they're too dumb to know any better/their egos compel them).

And a hypothetical association with the Big 10 instead of the ACC would only serve to drive interest in GT athletics down even further. For every transplanted northerner you might snare, you drove away 5 viewers that might have stopped on the game to watch if the UAB-Bama slaughter was stuck in a lightning delay.

Honest question about fandom; say Rutgers gets good in oh, 2020. Will alumni from thirty years earlier much care, or does enthusiasm for a program start with the students who were there when a sport was big? In other words, if football wasn't a thing when you were in school, will you much care if it becomes a big thing? Are bandwagon fans as big as they can be in the pros (where it is largely a geographical)? Or are we just thinking of the NY/NJ area getting into it rather than just alumni?

Anecdotally, every Rutgers fan I know cares far, far, far more about college football then when I went to school there (98-02 - when we were TERRIBLE). When the school was really good in the late 00s, Rutgers alumni all over the country really did care quite a bit.

In addition, as Logan pointed out, the switch to the B1G helps a lot. I remember all the Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State fans who lived in NJ. By being in the same conference, it really increases the amount of interest - now you can discuss football with your friends (and how much our team got killed by them... well sometimes we pull a win out)

I think Jon's argument about market size vs viewership rates will ultimately be the crux of the whole discussion.

Now it wont be until the next round of TV negotiation potentially, but I could see a scenario where if viewership falls off and the conference networks arent willing to reneg, they find themselves without a dancing partner at all next go round.

All this is in the face of attendance figures that are declining nationwide (with a limited but significant number of exceptions) and spending that has skyrocketed to untenable levels.

I'm especially sensitive to the spending wars, but Jon knew where we'd be 4 years ago (and said as much) when Radakovich made the move.

Anecdotally, every Rutgers fan I know cares far, far, far more about college football then when I went to school there (98-02 - when we were TERRIBLE). When the school was really good in the late 00s, Rutgers alumni all over the country really did care quite a bit.

In addition, as Logan pointed out, the switch to the B1G helps a lot. I remember all the Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State fans who lived in NJ. By being in the same conference, it really increases the amount of interest - now you can discuss football with your friends (and how much our team got killed by them... well sometimes we pull a win out)

Ok, that last part makes some sense. There is a big mix of those fans all over the PA/NJ/NY area (similarly there is a LARGE number of students from those states at Maryland).

I would not imagine there would be many GT fans up there. Or Penn State fans down in Atlanta.

I would have liked if Missouri had been added to the B1G. As an Illini fan, it'd be nice to have the rivalry back even as one sided as it tended to be. Unfortunately, they just didn't fit in academically. I guess you could say Nebraska doesn't either, but their football tradition makes up for it.

There are around 6000 Geo Tech alumni in NJ/NY/PA according to their alumni site.

And about 6500 Penn St alumni in Georgia according to PSUs alumni site.

6,000 out of 41M+. Yuge percentage.

Even if Rutgers turned into a dynasty, NY/NJ will always be a pro sports town. You would need to overcome literal generations of people being interested, but not obsessed, with college football in order to become the big thing. That being said, the benefit of the area is that even having a portion of such a large area being fans results in being a pretty big fanbase compared to a lot of areas.

The B1G affiliation helps a lot there. If we didn't get in, stayed in the AAC and made some kind of ridiculous run as a G5 school to the playoff, I don't think that would go as far in sustaining and building a large fanbase. Every Rutgers fan in the NYC area knows plenty of Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin fans and playing these schools so often will help build up college football here. Again, please note I said "help"...I'm talking incremental in the grand scheme of things.

As for the timing, there's definitely a dedicated core group of fans who are dying for success going back to the 70s. If we popped now, it would be a pretty big thing. Just not "Giants Super Bowl run" like.

FWIW, I think Bishop meant more of a giant based on the fertile recruiting ground than a giant fanbase waiting to explode, akin to an SEC territory, but obviously that goes partially hand in hand.Mostly, but like you guys are saying, NYC will never be a B1G city like Chicago is but I'd still say the B1G holds the most sway there from a viewing percentage since BE basketball dissolved. There are Michigan bars, and Ohio State bars, and Minnesota bars, and there really aren't those in Boston (ok, Mich and PSU have some pull). There certainly aren't a large percentage of alumni from FSU or Clemson up here in Boston, and even in NYC only Duke really has a decent alumni base from the ACC schools. I also don't even think people from other parts of the country understand that Boston is not only a pro sports town, it's a very, very, fractured fanbase because there are so many private colleges. BU, Northeastern, Harvard, Tufts, etc students are never going to support BC in anything, unlike other parts of the country where the students at smaller schools will at least cheer for Big State in football/basketball. Even less academically rigorous schools like UMass-Lowell and Merrimack compete in Hockey East with BC, in what's the marquee sport for all 3 schools.

Rutgers alone probably wasn't enough to get the B1G on NY cable packages, but combined with those hardcore and vocal fanbases of the other big state schools it was the tipping point. Atlanta will clearly be SEC country, so unless you really want GT's academics, no reason to add them. I'm not sure how DC works, I always got the feeling too many people there looked down on sports. Maryland isn't sexy, but was a fairly obvious add though if things go to 16, and I think the B1G may have gotten a little skittish when Missouri/Colorado were taken off the table as potential options. ND and Texas are clearly their pipe dreams, but now they've always got UConn and maybe UMass* and a play for all of New England as a fallback (or just seeing what happens with the ACC/B12 since one of those conferences will be decimated if the move to 16 happens - UConn/Kansas or UConn/Cuse as a basketball play would make sense.)

* even I doubt it, and don't love the affiliation although an East split with UConn/PSU/Maryland/Rutgers would be the ideal scenario, but I have to assume we're in line ahead of the Dakota's or the SUNY's if every other B1G plan falls through and they NEED a 16th. I think our more likely dream scenario is some merge between the Big 12 & southern ACC schools (a.k.a. FSU/Clemson), where UMass and UConn could come into an ACC as a package deal if the ACC wanted to make an NYC play. For now though we'd just be ecstatic with an AAC invite!

I'm not sure how DC works

How DC works:

Washington Redskins >>>>>>>>>>>> everything else

But from a college standpoint, it's a basketball town. Maryland, Georgetown. John Thompson had a show in the market for years, and Gary Williams is a semi-regular on 980. Talk used to include the ACC and the Big East, but...yeah.

Really though, during football season it's all Redskins, with a sprinkle of Nats and a dash of how much Maryland and Virginia football suck.

Edit: ok, fine - there are probably more VT grads in the DC area than you'd expect. But that only moves the needle so much.

So, the ACC is set for the next 20 years. They extended the grant of rights to 20 years, and ESPN will start a ACC network, to start web broadcasting soon, and be a formal channel by 2019.

ACC, ESPN agree to 20-year rights deal that will lead to 2019 launch of ACC Network (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17102933/acc-espn-agree-20-year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network)

So, the only way the ACC gets raided is if they agree to dissolve the league, don't think that's going to happen.. And Notre Dame has joined the ACC in everything but football, and MUST join them if they join a conference. So, looks like things are set on the east coast.

So, the ACC is set for the next 20 years. They extended the grant of rights to 20 years, and ESPN will start a ACC network, to start web broadcasting soon, and be a formal channel by 2019.

ACC, ESPN agree to 20-year rights deal that will lead to 2019 launch of ACC Network (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17102933/acc-espn-agree-20-year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network)

So, the only way the ACC gets raided is if they agree to dissolve the league, don't think that's going to happen.. And Notre Dame has joined the ACC in everything but football, and MUST join them if they join a conference. So, looks like things are set on the east coast.

I think CU stated you can't dissolve the league (at least not without a long protracted and expensive legal battle) because they incorporated...

RIP Raycom Sports?

I think CU stated you can't dissolve the league (at least not without a long protracted and expensive legal battle) because they incorporated...

As long as 1 team is still standing the league exists. It takes a consensus, not a majority, to dissolve.

I dont understand why it will take ~3 years to get the network up and running when everyone else did it in 15 months. Unless you believe the theory that they never intend to get it up and running with the current cord cutting trend.

20 years is a long dang time to be anchored to anyone...I hope the contract has look ins.

Rumor has it the Big 12 vote for expansion is today. My sources from within the BYU program has stated the offer has been extended and accepted pending the vote.

Basically, straw poll = expansion phone calls were made to say this is the offer, would you accept if approved, said yes and they said they would let us know today after the meeting.

It is the Big 12, so I take it all with a grain of salt.

Rumor has it the Big 12 vote for expansion is today. My sources from within the BYU program has stated the offer has been extended and accepted pending the vote.

Basically, straw poll = expansion phone calls were made to say this is the offer, would you accept if approved, said yes and they said they would let us know today after the meeting.

It is the Big 12, so I take it all with a grain of salt.

Wouldn't be shocked to see West Virginia start shopping for other options if that's the case. They were already lamenting the travel difficulties and campaigning for places like Memphis and Cinci. They'd be a better B10 fit anyway.

Wouldn't be shocked to see West Virginia start shopping for other options if that's the case. They were already lamenting the travel difficulties and campaigning for places like Memphis and Cinci. They'd be a better B10 fit anyway.

The B10 wouldnt touch WVU with a 10 foot pole.
Their academics would preclude them.

The B10 wouldnt touch WVU with a 10 foot pole.
Their academics would preclude them.

My son brought up WV as a potential visit a while ago. I kind of looked at him funny; in the rankings for Aero Eng. programs, the B10 is pretty sell represented. Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, Maryland (in-state). WVU by USNews' calculations is 42nd (T) (https://about.wvu.edu/rankings). There's "safety," then there's "if everything possible that could go wrong goes wrong." :D

My son brought up WV as a potential visit a while ago. I kind of looked at him funny; in the rankings for Aero Eng. programs, the B10 is pretty sell represented. Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, Maryland (in-state). WVU by USNews' calculations is 42nd (T) (https://about.wvu.edu/rankings). There's "safety," then there's "if everything possible that could go wrong goes wrong." :D

Eh, I'd say probably don't worry about his outlier there too much. There were a couple of schools on my son's list that were "umm ... WTF?" too, nothing more than idle curiosity when push came to shove.

Wouldn't be shocked to see West Virginia start shopping for other options if that's the case. They were already lamenting the travel difficulties and campaigning for places like Memphis and Cinci. They'd be a better B10 fit anyway.

Well, the 2nd school would be UC from what my sources said. Holgerson interviewed today said he is for expansion as is his President.

With the ACC locking stuff down, I don't see much out there for WVU to go too.

Eh, I'd say probably don't worry about his outlier there too much. There were a couple of schools on my son's list that were "umm ... WTF?" too, nothing more than idle curiosity when push came to shove.

I'm not really worried, but it was a WTF moment. I think he was probably thinking more proximity and setting, without really accounting for academics. Which was weird given that his #1 for a long time was MIT which was basically the opposite (he's not quite so firm on that now, though were he to get in it would be really tough to turn down).

I'll keep going with my evergreen prediction of "we're done with expansion, until these schools eventually break from the NCAA".

.

.

The Big12 HAS to grow.
Has to.

Or they will crumble.

The Championship game is so huge. If they dont announce expansion before the end of this year I expect the CFP committee to announce a new requirement that the final 4 have to win their conference championship game.

The Big12 HAS to grow.
Has to.

Or they will crumble.

The Championship game is so huge. If they dont announce expansion before the end of this year I expect the CFP committee to announce a new requirement that the final 4 have to win their conference championship game.

They have already added a conference championship game.

The Big12 HAS to grow.
Has to.

Or they will crumble.

The Championship game is so huge. If they dont announce expansion before the end of this year I expect the CFP committee to announce a new requirement that the final 4 have to win their conference championship game.

The expansion isn't as important as the network. The conference will survive at some level for awhile until the big conferences look to go to 16 teams. At that point, Texas decides if they're going to stick it out with the B12. In order for the conference to remain at that point, they'd have to give up their network. If they switch it to a conference network, everyone's happy and you likely have five 16-team conferences. If they don't, the remaining schools scramble to get out and some are going to get left behind, resulting in a significantly watered-down B12 mid-major conference. Honestly, that might not be a bad thing for some of those schools.

The Big12 HAS to grow.
Has to.

Or they will crumble.

The Championship game is so huge. If they dont announce expansion before the end of this year I expect the CFP committee to announce a new requirement that the final 4 have to win their conference championship game.

Absent the correct championship game stuff, I'm talking about meaningful expansion like what got this thread started in the first place...raiding one conference to bolster another type. "UNC and Virginia to the B1G" type. The stuff that gets all the clicks and leads to people coming up with wild scenarios to get all the clicks.

ah..
yeah we agree there.

I Dont think we will see anyone leave a P5 conference anytime soon.

No expansion announcements for the Big 12 today. They have given the commissioner marching orders to evaluate schools that have expressed interest.

News report out of Denver CSU Survives ‘First Cut’ For Big 12 Conference « CBS Denver (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/08/31/csu-survives-first-cut-for-big-12-conference/) says the Big 12 has narrowed their choices from 18 down to 6-8, and those making the cut includes Colorado State and Air Force.

Big 12 should flood the West and take Air Force, CSU and BYU. And one West Virginia partner.

News report out of Denver CSU Survives ‘First Cut’ For Big 12 Conference « CBS Denver (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/08/31/csu-survives-first-cut-for-big-12-conference/) says the Big 12 has narrowed their choices from 18 down to 6-8, and those making the cut includes Colorado State and Air Force.

@McMurphyESPN: Big 12 cuts expansion list to at least 12: AF, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, CSU, UConn, UH, Rice, USF, SMU, Temple & Tulane sources told @ESPN


I thought only 17 year old kids conducted themselves in such a douchey, attention-seeking manner. The next time an adult chides a kid for coming out with a top 12 list, just
Remember the big 12.

The whole process is pretty embarrassing for the Big 12, IMO. I'm not really sure what the end game is for any of the decision-makers. Of course, decision-makers in this conference doesn't really mean anything. Texas and Oklahoma could be outvoted in expansion, but they are probably the only ones who can control their own Power 5 conference destinies.

So this is about one of the only expansion I do get inside information on. Not only from the BYU side, but on the B12 side.

Every piece of information I have received from both sides have been "Remember, this is the B12, they can change their mind at anytime"

But the information I have is as follows

ESPN / FOX are willing to pay out for expansion, but only if BYU was included. ESPN doesn't want to double dip and by bringing BYU into the fold, it frees up a ton of money for the year (This came from my B12 source)

BYU has been told they are #11 and have the votes, again (The LGBT thing threw a wrench in a little, but BYU's response was accepted by the B12...this came from my BYU Source)

As for #12, UT has dug their heels in for UH while OU has dug theirs in for Cinci and it is why we have a stalemate, the facade that is going on right now is all about hiding the behind the scenes battle, and will allow UT to save face with politics if they cave. (B12 Source)

Anyways, it's interesting to hear this, then see the media reports, and hear stuff from media guys that are close to other schools in the B12.

As for #12, UT has dug their heels in for UH while OU has dug theirs in for Cinci and it is why we have a stalemate, the facade that is going on right now is all about hiding the behind the scenes battle, and will allow UT to save face with politics if they cave. (B12 Source)

This should come as a surprise to no one. The rest of the B12 outside of Texas is all on board with OU (and has been since the other teams left) about making sure future schools do not come from within the state of Texas. The rest of the schools see that as just one more vote that Texas can control.

Interesting. This is pretty timely given my previous comment. Looks like OU may walk instead of bothering to fight.

Report: Nebraska wants to rejoin Big 12 | Yardbarker.com (http://www.yardbarker.com/college_football/articles/report_nebraska_wants_to_rejoin_big_12/s1_127_22041061)

No way Nebraska is leaving the Big Ten.

I read that. I doubt it is serious. Why would Nebby rejoin when they left because of Texas. They make more money in the B1G. And they can blam the B1G causing a lack of prestige building, when it is really crappy football that is doing it.

But I would trade Nebby for Oklahoma.

So the Big 12 is going to die now, isn't it?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: The Big 12 will not expand and stay with 10 members for the time being, per <a href="https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter">@Jake_Trotter</a>.</p>&mdash; ESPN CollegeFootball (@ESPNCFB) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNCFB/status/788105539066720256">October 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

hahahha. The big 12-4+2+0 just writes its own jokes. What a shit show

That is an astonishingly stupid decision.

That is an astonishingly stupid decision.
I think it's pretty clear that Texas and Oklahoma don't want to be locked-in to a long-term relationship, and forgoing expansion right now is akin to a player declining an extension so he can test free-agency. With all due respect to the schools being mentioned, it's unlikely that the options for the Big-12 would be any less appealing down the road.

This allows Oklahoma to play footsie with the SEC and Texas to play the Big Ten and Pac-12 against each other for the best deal they can get.

I heard some rumblings that ESPN and/or Fox were looking to get the conference to re-work and extend the TV deals to better support expansion. Maybe that is why they are emphasizing the "not at this time" language, instead of a blanket rejection.

Steven Godfrey
‏@38Godfrey
You know, it’s kind of funny – the Big 12 was pinned down by a room full of media on Baylor questions, yelled "expansion" and we chased it.

So the Big 12 is going to die now, isn't it?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: The Big 12 will not expand and stay with 10 members for the time being, per <a href="https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter">@Jake_Trotter</a>.</p>&mdash; ESPN CollegeFootball (@ESPNCFB) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNCFB/status/788105539066720256">October 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Absolute hot mess. You can't make this shit up.

If Texas and Oklahoma bail, does the Big 12 pick up replacement teams and retain its status as a power 5 conference, or does either the AAC or Mountain West replace it?

If Texas and Oklahoma bail, does the Big 12 pick up replacement teams and retain its status as a power 5 conference, or does either the AAC or Mountain West replace it?

I'm thinking it maybe ends up a power 4 in that scenario.

If Texas and Oklahoma bail, does the Big 12 pick up replacement teams and retain its status as a power 5 conference, or does either the AAC or Mountain West replace it?

Power 4 with each of the 4 moving to 16 teams. It's always been the end game scenario since teams moved a few years ago. This sets up the TV scenario that Broyles dreamed of when Arkansas was first talking about moving to the SEC(the major 4 station back then). ABC/ESPN gets one conference, CBS another, NBC one and Fox/FS1 get the other. The rest of the conferences get divided up with either teams being bid on individually or used to fill Sat morning spots.

Power 4 with each of the 4 moving to 16 teams. It's always been the end game scenario since teams moved a few years ago. This sets up the TV scenario that Broyles dreamed of when Arkansas was first talking about moving to the SEC(the major 4 station back then). ABC/ESPN gets one conference, CBS another, NBC one and Fox/FS1 get the other. The rest of the conferences get divided up with either teams being bid on individually or used to fill Sat morning spots.

It continues to be the most likely scenario and has been for a few years now. The more we move towards it, the more your going to see some of the smaller teams in the B12 scramble for other conferences to avoid being one of the odd-men-out. I wouldn't be shocked at all if a couple schools like KU, ISU, OSU, KSU end up scrambling and that's what triggers OU or UT to make a move. More and more, I'm not sure the power players are going to be the one that triggers the avalanche otherwise known as the B12's death.

It continues to be the most likely scenario and has been for a few years now. The more we move towards it, the more your going to see some of the smaller teams in the B12 scramble for other conferences to avoid being one of the odd-men-out. I wouldn't be shocked at all if a couple schools like KU, ISU, OSU, KSU end up scrambling and that's what triggers OU or UT to make a move. More and more, I'm not sure the power players are going to be the one that triggers the avalanche otherwise known as the B12's death.

I think the opposite. OU holds all the cards right now. Football makes money and OU is the only team with a stadium over 61k minus Texas. If OU runs to another conference then where do the others go? MAC? MW? Too far away from the ACC and PAC. Not sure the Big 10 wants any of them (but who knows, they took Rutgers and Maryland). Supposedly Texas was the first to leave the meeting yesterday before anyone else left so it's no OU's turn to either find a new home or be a lap dog to Texas still.

I think the opposite. OU holds all the cards right now. Football makes money and OU is the only team with a stadium over 61k minus Texas. If OU runs to another conference then where do the others go? MAC? MW? Too far away from the ACC and PAC. Not sure the Big 10 wants any of them (but who knows, they took Rutgers and Maryland). Supposedly Texas was the first to leave the meeting yesterday before anyone else left so it's no OU's turn to either find a new home or be a lap dog to Texas still.

Big Ten would look at ISU (creates a great rivalry in their footprint). KU would land somewhere despite their HS football program. KSU is in a pinch. OSU needs some help. WVU could do ACC. Who knows what the Texas schools would do.

ACC had no interest in West Virginia previously. That may have changed now with Louisville in the conference, but it is worth noting.

It continues to be the most likely scenario and has been for a few years now. The more we move towards it, the more your going to see some of the smaller teams in the B12 scramble for other conferences to avoid being one of the odd-men-out. I wouldn't be shocked at all if a couple schools like KU, ISU, OSU, KSU end up scrambling and that's what triggers OU or UT to make a move. More and more, I'm not sure the power players are going to be the one that triggers the avalanche otherwise known as the B12's death.

Possibly but who takes ISU/KSU with OU and UT still at play.

The ACC is looking to add 1 maybe 2. (Depending on the Notre Dame fallout. Which I still think belongs in the B1G but appears contractually destined for the ACC)
B1G and SEC both looking for 2
Pac 12 need 4

From the Big 12 you have
Baylor - Fairly toxic currently but once this "blows over" moderately desirable
Iowa State - Fledgling Interest
Kansas State - See Iowa State
Kansas - Basketball makes them desirable
Oklahoma - Major Want for all
OSU - Probably tops along with Iowa among Tier 2 (after OU/UT)
UT - The unprohibited A player here
TCU - A lot like Baylor. Huge Regional attraction. Close to Big TV markets. $$$
Texas Tech - More desireable than ISU or KSU but below everyone else
WVU - Wildcard. Strong following. Only D1 player in entire state. Interest spills into PA and OH. Academics hurt them. Current acceptance of Partial Qualifiers limits the ACC and B1G interest.

So who moves. I'd suggest that Houston, USF, UCF, Memphis and Cincinnati all hold higher appeal to some conferences than ISU/KSU.

For the PAC 12 specifically - Is Boise More attractive?

The ACC is convinced they will land Notre Dame in the next shuffle. But regardless it is safe to say that ND will be part of the 4 x 16 meaning at a minimum there is 1 current P5 school thats getting left out. Which makes perfect sense why all of the C and below players in the Big 12 dont want expansion. Id disolution is inevitable you dont have to be attractive if you are KSU, you just have to be better than ISU. If you add 4 teams to the mix, then those are 4 additional competitors for that sacred last spot. With the assumption being that in that scenario the former P5s would be picked up before a GO5 by the other Big 4...Im not sure that is a good asumption but it is the assumption I presume.

ACC had no interest in West Virginia previously. That may have changed now with Louisville in the conference, but it is worth noting.

Correct.
And also, there are folks in Greensboro who think Texas was a strong ACC possibility a few years ago. I dont buy it mind you. But I've been told by 2 different ACC ADs that Swofford had Texas "ready to sign if Notre Dame signed full membership"

Lets not forget about Texas and that lovely LHN. Will they give that cash cow up to join another conference? Will other conferences allow them to have their own network? Will E!SPN finally pull the plug on that money drain? Stay tuned! Riveting B12-4+2+0 drama!!

Lets not forget about Texas and that lovely LHN. Will they give that cash cow up to join another conference? Will other conferences allow them to have their own network? Will E!SPN finally pull the plug on that money drain? Stay tuned! Riveting B12-4+2+0 drama!!

No conference will allow them to have their own network. Out of all the uncertainty, that's a pretty big certainty. ESPN would love for UT to move just so they can get out of that mess.

Possibly but who takes ISU/KSU with OU and UT still at play.

The ACC is looking to add 1 maybe 2. (Depending on the Notre Dame fallout. Which I still think belongs in the B1G but appears contractually destined for the ACC)
B1G and SEC both looking for 2
Pac 12 need 4

From the Big 12 you have
Baylor - Fairly toxic currently but once this "blows over" moderately desirable
Iowa State - Fledgling Interest
Kansas State - See Iowa State
Kansas - Basketball makes them desirable
Oklahoma - Major Want for all
OSU - Probably tops along with Iowa among Tier 2 (after OU/UT)
UT - The unprohibited A player here
TCU - A lot like Baylor. Huge Regional attraction. Close to Big TV markets. $$$
Texas Tech - More desireable than ISU or KSU but below everyone else
WVU - Wildcard. Strong following. Only D1 player in entire state. Interest spills into PA and OH. Academics hurt them. Current acceptance of Partial Qualifiers limits the ACC and B1G interest.

So who moves. I'd suggest that Houston, USF, UCF, Memphis and Cincinnati all hold higher appeal to some conferences than ISU/KSU.

For the PAC 12 specifically - Is Boise More attractive?

The ACC is convinced they will land Notre Dame in the next shuffle. But regardless it is safe to say that ND will be part of the 4 x 16 meaning at a minimum there is 1 current P5 school thats getting left out. Which makes perfect sense why all of the C and below players in the Big 12 dont want expansion. Id disolution is inevitable you dont have to be attractive if you are KSU, you just have to be better than ISU. If you add 4 teams to the mix, then those are 4 additional competitors for that sacred last spot. With the assumption being that in that scenario the former P5s would be picked up before a GO5 by the other Big 4...Im not sure that is a good asumption but it is the assumption I presume.

Does UConn have an appeal to the ACC now, to pair them with Syracuse and Boston College potentially? If Notre Dame were to bail on their ACC agreement somehow, I would think UConn plus either WVU or Cincinnati would make the most sense.

Let's say something like this:

ACC: UConn, Cincinnati
SEC: Oklahoma, West Virginia
B1G: Notre Dame, Texas
Pac-12: TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Does Houston hold more appeal than TCU or Baylor? Is UConn too much of a stretch in that scenario? I feel like they could have a Kansas type appeal for basketball, and they do have a decent football stadium.

The football schools screamed to high heaven about UConn over Louisville and if UConn had won that vote, said football schools would have put feelers out to the Big XII and what not. I don't see UConn being admitted anytime soon.

For the PAC 12 specifically - Is Boise More attractive?
No. As much as the money is driving things now, the Pac-12 still has a mindset similar to the B1G that they are not just an athletics conference but a union of similar universities, and they maintain a high standard - the member schools must all be significant research universities.

I don't think the Broncos have enough TV viewership pull to get past their academic limitations.

The big prize for the Pac-12 would be Texas, but (obviously) the big sticking point would be TV revenue and what to do with the Longhorn Network. How to structure a mega-conference, who plays who and how often and which other schools come along would be the other main issues.

Longhorn Network is the perfect platform to convert to a Nationwide Pac-12 Network instead of whatever bullshit they are doing now.

Longhorn Network is the perfect platform to convert to a Nationwide Pac-12 Network instead of whatever bullshit they are doing now.
The issue is that DirecTV and Charter don't value Pac-12 viewership as highly as they do with other conferences, and they've thus far refused to meet the Pac-12's asking price. It didn't help that the Pac-12 failed to ensure that Comcast would guarantee nationwide distribution, or that they didn't retain digital distribution rights so they could put more competitive pressure on those two carriers. And so far the Pac-12 has refused to drop their pricing to get DirecTV and Charter on-board.

You could blame Larry Scott for miscalculating, but the more fundamental issue is that Pac-12 fans simply aren't as desirable a viewership market as those for the B1G or SEC (or even arguably the Big-12 and ACC). The conference is trying to broaden their base by marketing to Asia, but that's a long-term strategy. And you could certainly argue that taking a dip in carriage fees with Comcast, Dish, etc. in order to get DirecTV and Charter on-board would be worth it in order to get the content out there in the hopes of driving up interest in the product.

For the PAC 12 specifically - Is Boise More attractive?

This may sound crazy but if that Raiders Stadium actually happens, UNLV would probably by higher on the list. The PAC already has it's conference tourney here and ties to the Bowl game. I think they'd finally sell out and consider the metro area for Vegas as a TV footprint (think we're 10th biggest in the west). About all you get from Boise is another market the size of Utah that can only play one sport. Isn't Boise St's stadium like 35k?

The issue is that DirecTV and Charter don't value Pac-12 viewership as highly as they do with other conferences, and they've thus far refused to meet the Pac-12's asking price. It didn't help that the Pac-12 failed to ensure that Comcast would guarantee nationwide distribution, or that they didn't retain digital distribution rights so they could put more competitive pressure on those two carriers. And so far the Pac-12 has refused to drop their pricing to get DirecTV and Charter on-board.

You could blame Larry Scott for miscalculating, but the more fundamental issue is that Pac-12 fans simply aren't as desirable a viewership market as those for the B1G or SEC (or even arguably the Big-12 and ACC). The conference is trying to broaden their base by marketing to Asia, but that's a long-term strategy. And you could certainly argue that taking a dip in carriage fees with Comcast, Dish, etc. in order to get DirecTV and Charter on-board would be worth it in order to get the content out there in the hopes of driving up interest in the product.

This is why I have 15 different versions of the Pac-(insert town) channel on my Century Link Prism feed?

This is why I have 15 different versions of the Pac-(insert town) channel on my Century Link Prism feed?
The way they do it is there's the main channel - the Pac-12 Network - and then there are six location-specific feeds that focus their content on the two schools in that footprint:

- Pac-12 Washington (UW & WSU)
- Pac-12 Oregon (Oregon & Oregon State)
- Pac-12 Arizona (Arizona & ASU)
- Pac-12 Bay Area (Cal & Stanford)
- Pac-12 Los Angeles (USC & UCLA)
- Pac-12 Mountain (Utah & Colorado)

And on top of that there are likely SD and HD versions of each feed.

The football schools screamed to high heaven about UConn over Louisville and if UConn had won that vote, said football schools would have put feelers out to the Big XII and what not. I don't see UConn being admitted anytime soon.There's also UConn's lack of attendance - well under 30,000 per game the last few years. Just like Syracuse and BC are also a big drag on the ACC attendance and viewership numbers. The real mistake was thinking BC would grow and ever capture a significant part of the Boston market, but if I were the ACC I would be looking west, with UConn as an acceptable and unexciting C level fallback option that will always be on the table.

There's also UConn's lack of attendance - well under 30,000 per game the last few years. Just like Syracuse and BC are also a big drag on the ACC attendance and viewership numbers. The real mistake was thinking BC would grow and ever capture a significant part of the Boston market, but if I were the ACC I would be looking west, with UConn as an acceptable and unexciting C level fallback option that will always be on the table.
as long as Duke and Wake are charter members football attendance cant even be a discussion point.

I could see Texas and Kansas landing in the B1G.
OU seems destined for the SEC and I believe they take OSU with them. Isnt that a state law?
ND is destined for the ACC. I dont understand why the B1G and ND could never get together.
No way the B1G takes ISU. Why would they take the 2nd team in a really small state? ISU goes to the MAC or the MVC.

This is getting interesting.

I would have to think if Notre Dame joins the ACC as part of this, that West Virginia joins with them as the Big XII implodes. They just make too much sense.

as long as Duke and Wake are charter members football attendance cant even be a discussion point.

Pretty much truth. UConn outdrew both by a couple thousand people/game last season.

No way the B1G takes ISU. Why would they take the 2nd team in a really small state? ISU goes to the MAC or the MVC.


Kick out Iowa :)

as long as Duke and Wake are charter members football attendance cant even be a discussion point.Pretty much truth. UConn outdrew both by a couple thousand people/game last season.

And would Wake Forest even be considered by any P5 conference if they were currently in the AAC or CUSA? (I do realize that Duke is the better comparison for UConn with the basketball success.) The standards for kicking out a team are much different than the ones for inviting new schools in to get a slice of the pie.

I have my doubts at this point that the Pac-12 will expand. The conference can't compete with the B1G and SEC in terms of TV contract money, so it's hard to imagine Texas or Oklahoma heading west. And there's no reason for the conference to expand unless doing so raises revenue for all schools. I would bet that only those two schools can do that.

Unless the Pac-12 is the only conference that would be able to work out a deal with Texas that they and the conference can accept, I'd bet on the Big-12 remaining as-is, or the Longhorns finding a home in the B1G.

What would change that is a landscape where the conference was required to be at 16 members, but I think that's mainly a dream of fans that like the symmetry of four big super-conferences and not so much the desire of the schools, conferences and TV networks.

Kick out Iowa :)

Then who would Wiscy lose too?

Kick out Iowa :)

or just have the Iowa/Iowa State game early in the year decide who gets the conference affiliation that year. :lol:

but the more fundamental issue is that Pac-12 fans simply aren't as desirable a viewership market as those for the B1G or SEC (or even arguably the Big-12 and ACC).

I'm virtually certain I get what you're saying here, but I suspect somewhere along the way somebody won't.

It's not, IMO, that the Pac 12 viewers aren't as desirable nearly so much is that there simply aren't as many of them. It's likely not believed to be as loyal an audience, nor one that would be as emotionally tied to the product (or by extension the advertisers) but there's nothing inherently 'wrong" with Pac 12 viewers or anything of that sort that I know of. If the body count was there, it'd overcome a lot of advertiser objections easily enough IMO.

I'm virtually certain I get what you're saying here, but I suspect somewhere along the way somebody won't.

It's not, IMO, that the Pac 12 viewers aren't as desirable nearly so much is that there simply aren't as many of them. It's likely not believed to be as loyal an audience, nor one that would be as emotionally tied to the product (or by extension the advertisers) but there's nothing inherently 'wrong" with Pac 12 viewers or anything of that sort that I know of. If the body count was there, it'd overcome a lot of advertiser objections easily enough IMO.
Yep, exactly. I'm sure on a per-person basis Pac-12 fans are actually a highly desirable advertising demographic, but there just aren't as many of us tuning in consistently as with the SEC and B1G. There are absolutely some insanely devoted fans of each school that would compare with the craziest SEC fans, but on average we just aren't as passionate.

Case in point - not one of our stadiums as at 100K capacity. Closest are the L.A. Coliseum and the Rose Bowl (93K and 92K respectively), but neither come close to selling out on a regular basis and the Coliseum will lose some seats once USC renovates it (capacity will drop to 77.5K). Compare attendance between the SEC, B1G and Pac-12 and it's not really close - the other two kick our butts.

I don't know what it is - perhaps there's stronger competition for our entertainment time and money in the Pac-12 footprint, maybe there's just something inherently different in west coast culture that doesn't put the same level of fanaticism about CFB - but the numbers just aren't there. Which is a shame, because the product is outstanding. Perhaps as the demographics of the country change and the west gains in population relative to the B1G footprint we'll see things shift.

Wait, so the B12 mishandled something? Shocking.

Dana O'Neil
ESPN Senior Writer

Houston's Kelvin Sampson said the Big 12 expansion chatter turned into an "avalanche" after Cougars beat Oklahoma, and a constant question on the recruiting trail. He added that while no one can tell a league how to run their business, he wishes it had been handled differently.

Wait, so the B12 mishandled something? Shocking.

This one's not even a B. Gonna go with a Gentleman's C for you here.

But A+ for the irony of asking Kelvin Sampson if Oklahoma's administration didn't handle something correctly!