The B1G is perfect at 14 teams.
So Unless Texas and UND lose their minds and want to join, then they should stay at 14 forever.
So Unless Texas and UND lose their minds and want to join, then they should stay at 14 forever.
Expansion 5 years later
- Thread starter rutger80
- Start date
What if the numbers show that adding those teams would mean that future payouts are 70 million instead of 40 to 50? I hate to break it to you, but that 40 to 50 million is going to go real fast in order to end the subsidy. Rutgers is going to need additional funds for facility enhancements and coaching increases along with a general increase in expenses. The fan aspect means nothing at all.
This charge makes no sense and has never made sense. To start, when all of this was going down, people argued that ND had to join a conference as a full member to give themselves a better chance at the playoffs. Because the playoff committee would look more favorably on a conference champ than an at large team.
Two, the idea that ND would be afraid of playing a Big Ten slate is odd on many levels. Their schedule year and year out has been as good if not better than the best schedules in the Big Ten conferences. So ND is playing as tough, if not tougher, schedules than most Big Ten teams. And the idea that they are "afraid" of BIg Ten teams while playing USC every year and having future tilts with the likes of Georgia, Texas, OSU would make even less sense.
It's very simple why ND did what they did. They want the ability to operate their football program as they see fit and not be constrained by conference commitments. They want as much control over their schedule, control over their TV appearances as much as possible, etc. Throw in the fact ND has a lot of tradition in being an independent and you get the decision that they made.
This. ND isn't scared to play the Big Ten at all. Their schedule is always one of the harder ones in the nation.
Not a stretch, but highly unlikely.
If ND joined a conference, the B1G would be it's best choice overall.
But there isn't a good reason, no matter how hard one tries, to overcome what ND has now as an Ind. in FB.
First of all , it can place its other sports in conferences that won't force it to bring the football program with them.
The Big East wouldn't turn up their noses on ND if the ACC made a FB or leave power play.
I'm actually surprised that ND agreed to play 5 games a year against ACC FB programs.
Second of all: forget about the money, it's the status ND has on the Playoff and NCAA power structure that will keep its FB program independent of any conference affiliation. Having an equal voice in the decisions those organizations make would end by joining a conference for all sports.
Instead of having an equal voice with all the conferences when issues are discussed and acted upon , ND would only have their voice heard
when deciding what the conference will say bowing to the decision the majority of the conference schools decide.and not having a say when the playoff committee and/or the NCAA make their decisions .
Third thing to consider is : with the money being made from their FB TV contract with NBC and what they get from bowl games ( keeping it all) ,
ND receives enough money from their NBC TV contract to make being an equal voice a priority and not forced to give that up because of a huge difference between what their getting now ( overall) then what they would receive from being a full conference member.
Also, ND will continue to be popular enough to keep receiving TV contracts that keep them from having to lose their football independence.
I might knock ND, but will admit: as a business Notre Dame can take care of itself without needing to rely on any conference to make ends meet and have a name that makes conferences willing to accept its other sports programs without demanding football be part of the package .
So I doubt ND would be included if and when a new round of conference expansion begins.
But am sure they will have a strong voice in any NCAA dealings that concern schools changing conferences .
I would say the exact opposite. If ND had to join a conference for sports, I would say the odds it would be the Big Ten are not great.
One, the alumni base is largely against a BIG affiliation. Two, most in the athletics department favor other conferences. The only "group" at ND that would favor the BIG would be the academic side of the school but in the end, as it was before, their voice would be a minority voice.
That's not to say ND would absolutely not join the BIG in the future. But I think people put the odds of the BIG being the choice much higher than they really are.
One, the alumni base is largely against a BIG affiliation. Two, most in the athletics department favor other conferences. The only "group" at ND that would favor the BIG would be the academic side of the school but in the end, as it was before, their voice would be a minority voice.
That's not to say ND would absolutely not join the BIG in the future. But I think people put the odds of the BIG being the choice much higher than they really are.
Also factor in that the ACC academically is right on par with the Big Ten (higher high, lower low, but the mean about the same), and it's a no-brainer, IMO. When you all are ready to join the ACC full time, give PSU a call and let's get this thing done.
--------------------------
I already said that the quest for more dollars should not be at the expense of a good product......
the only thing I could add to that is that
tv viewership in the NJ/NY market area will suffer if there is a steady diet of RU/North Carolina, RU/Virginia, and so forth, instead of
RU/Ohio state, RU/Michigan.....I would think that you should be able to agree with at least this.....
If tv viewership goes down because
attractive games are lost, eventually I would think the tv payout would not go up as much as thought when these teams are added to
our division or pod.
Sorry, but the value of the product is not what matters at all. No offense, but if they value of the product meant anything, Rutgers would not have received an invite (that's not meant as a dig at Rutgers, it just is what it is).
All that matters is what the presidents think. They have total control over this and, by far, their main concerns are:
1) Will this affiliation help our academic prestige?
2) Will this help our AD's bottom line?
That's it.
Nebraska was unhappy in The Big 12 for years. TCU, Baylor and The B1G are the winners of expansion. TCU is no longer The Little Engine That Can. That school is now King if the hill in The State of Texas. Baylor was almost left for dead in a dying B12 and since climbed the rankings, built a stadium and produced a Heisman winner. Rutgers and Maryland are huge gets for The B1G and have yet to meet their potential. There is a lot of money to be maid here that can serve so many different sectors.
------------------
I already knew that, as most RU knew....we sounded like a very weak addition.....our addition was with the hopeful stimulus to the NY/NJ tv market, and I believe that will bear out.....RU getting better in football would just be a bonus.....we all get that
what I can say, again, is that the hopeful gains in that tv market will suffer if we are in the ACC light....it all depends on how important our
market area is to the big 10.
No, it is an average of every 2 years. With four, 4-team pods, there are 12 teams not in your pod. In a 9-game schedule, you play the 3 teams in your pod plus 6 other conference games every year. That means you play 6 of the 12 teams not in your pod every year, and all the teams in your pod on an average of once every two years.
I also don't understand why you would suggest creating 3 permanent cross-pod rivalries for each school. The whole point of pods is there are only 3 schools you play every year, letting you play the remaining schools on average of every other year. If you have 3 additional schools you play every year (making a total of 6 schools you play every year), you have really gained nothing over going to two permanent 8 team divisions where you play the same 7 schools every year.
And pods don't need to be geographic. Divisions work better if they are geographic, since they represent 7 of your 9 conference games (or 6 of 9 games in a 14 team conference). Thus you need some geographic alignment to keep travel costs in control. But since pods represent a much smaller portion of your schedule, you don't need geographic alignment. In fact you probably don't want geographic alignment because it could make for a season with a lot of long trips. (For example if Rutgers were in an Eastern pod and was paired with a western pod, then we could end up with long trips to 3 of Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin, and a cross-divisional trip to Northwestern. But if pods are not geographic, then the 4 western schools wouldn't all be in the same pod, so some of those trips to schools in that season's paired pod would be shorter trips.)
I disagree, I think pods need to be geographic as a way to promote rivalries. We already tried the non-geographic divisions (I know that pods are different...) and it sucked.
I still don't believe that to be the case. Ratings mean nothing for the BTN, they only matter for the tier 1 contract. And when you add FSU and Clemson in football and Kansas, UVA and UNC in basketball, there is a whole lot more meat to sell.
Agree with this. If you are only playing 3 teams eveyr year - they had better be teams with whom you have a good chance of being rivals with. No offense to Minnesota or even Wisconsin - but I want to play MD and PSU every single year, because I know even if we are bad and they are good (or vice versa) it will have some meaning.
The issue is that you also have competetivness concerns. The west makes sense with WI, NE, IA, and MN - but thats 3 tradtionally good Big Ten schools. Meanwhile an east that is UVA, UNC, RU, and MD isnt even a Big Ten division, let alone on the field.
Which is why divisions makes sense
UNC, UVa, RU, PSU, MD, OSU, MI, MSU
NE, WI, MN, IA, UI, IU, NW, PU
Yes - it makes crossovers less frequent - but it keeps the real rivalries intact and doesnt really exclude any major ones. It does have a real competitiveness issues though.
Or you could just scrap divisions if that proposed NCAA legislation takes hold. Then you could have certain designated rivalries and everyone else rotates.
When I suggested that WVU was a loser it wasn't because I thought they'd rather be in the AAC. That never crossed my mind. I just think relative to where Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Louisville (and RU) ended up, WVU came out of the Big East jailbreak looking worse than any of us. They can't recruit the northeast anymore with any swagger and recruiting Big 12 territory, which is a thousand miles away, must be tough.
University travel costs are much higher and their fan base doesn't seem to like the added travel distance in general. They seem to be a misfit in their conference.
ALSO, undergraduate students from New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania dropped 14.7%, 5.2% and 2% respectively in 2014! To me, that's telling and is exactly why they come out losers in my mind...they are losing their relevance in the northeast and it is hurting not only sports but their student population as well. I'll bet the student population from Oklahoma and Texas has increased but their website clearly states that their "primary feeder states" enrollment has declined. In fact, out of state freshman population peaked in 2012 (the year they joined the big 12) and is down 9% in the last two years. They are realignment losers!
Last edited:
But where were they going? WVU's academics hurt their options as only the SEC and Big 12 would have accepted them academically. The ACC rejected them as an option because of their academics. Once the SEC took Missouri over West Virginia, the Big 12 was the only place they could have gone. WVU would be in the American today if the Big 12 chose Louisville over them.
You're so right. They didn't really have an option. They are misfits in their own conference...no close rivalry and losing their primary feeder states. They are losers!
I Don't think football in the B12 is the main reason their out of state enrollment dropped. It may have more to do with more seats available at Rutgers, Rowan, and other schools the students were looking at. With an improved economy some of the students may be at the area private schools over a State U in a neighboring state. I also think the social scene at WVU has calmed a bit after a few incidents with their greek system.
The unbalanced strength of pods is exactly why I am advocating having three permanent cross-pod "rivals". It allows a balancing of the schedule and 6 permanent opponents to help foster rivalries. It also allows for a reasonable amount of frequency with facing non-pod/rival teams (once every three years).
You can't have 3 permanent crossover rivals in a pod system. The whole point of a pod system is that you rotate the pods between the two divisions. That means you have 7 division games already, so 3 crossover games puts you at 10 conference games.
Exactly
You would have 7 division games a year plus 2 cross games. You can make 1 of the games a locked game (ie. RU vs PSU) that becomes an extra free cross game in years they are in the same division.
WV was the first to leave and probably figured the B-12 would go after Louie and Pitt next.
Just my guess , but when Luck thought he got lucky , just about every BE football school wanted out.\ and it shouldn't be that far out to
think the WV AD would think that way.( in my opinion)
Sorry to see WV get the shaft when it comes to the best landing places, but happy to see Luck can't claim how he saved WV and
cut and run once he found out the move wasn't everything he thought it would be ( not including my thoughts about who he thought would join WV in the Vitamin Conference) and sold WV fans on.
If the B-12 does add some eastern based teams like Cincy or Memphis , the move might become a little better .
I feel BYU will eventually be in the Vitamin Conference and ( to make 14) 3 south/eastern based schools are added , WV will be
a lot better off then they are now in the B-12
Just my guess , but when Luck thought he got lucky , just about every BE football school wanted out.\ and it shouldn't be that far out to
think the WV AD would think that way.( in my opinion)
Sorry to see WV get the shaft when it comes to the best landing places, but happy to see Luck can't claim how he saved WV and
cut and run once he found out the move wasn't everything he thought it would be ( not including my thoughts about who he thought would join WV in the Vitamin Conference) and sold WV fans on.
If the B-12 does add some eastern based teams like Cincy or Memphis , the move might become a little better .
I feel BYU will eventually be in the Vitamin Conference and ( to make 14) 3 south/eastern based schools are added , WV will be
a lot better off then they are now in the B-12
Examine his crossover "rivalries" and you'll notice there is one school from each pod for every school in the conference. That means you would have 9 conference games as one of your crossovers will always be a division game every year. Basically his scheme is a way to know what a team's conference schedule will be an any year in the future provided the rotation of the pods remains consistent.
Yes you can.
You would have one x-over rival per pod. On the years that you would be in the same division with a x-over rival, it would simply be an divisional game. The other two x-over rivals would be your x-over games.
Correct. Scheduling would be a breeze because pod rotations would be consistent, as would home and away schedules. It would be a very simple system.
West Virginia and Louisville were vying for the 10th and final spot in the Big 12. While Louisville obviously had other options, WVU knew the SEC chose Missouri over them, they were rejected by the ACC, and they didn't have B1G credentials. The people and fans of West Virginia might not be happy, but it was either the Big 12 or the American Athletic Conference. Given that, there is no question that Luck "saved" West Virginia because they are sitting at the big boys table while Cincinnati and UConn are not. That is the reason why I think the column posting in the OP of this thread missed the mark. You don't think Luck "won"? Read these articles crying about how the Big 12 chose the wrong school.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/spo...the-big-12-make-a-mistake-by-turning-down-the
http://newsok.com/big-12-football-lamenting-louisville-looking-ahead/article/5338492
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/66223/should-the-big-12-have-invited-louisville
And the NY Times article stating that the Big 12 might take Louisville over West Virginia (before they chose WVU)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/s...2-may-admit-louisville-not-west-virginia.html
If you're counting one of those games as a "crossover" even though it's in the same division, then yeah it would work. He didn't really say that though. He just said he wanted 3 crossover rivals. I realize he set it up that way, but the way he wrote his post, he made it sound like you could do it any way, which you can't.
I used the term "cross over" because I didn't know how else to say it. Basically, the three cross over permanent rivals will be one from each of the other pods. Clearly, one of those rivals will be in your division each year as you rotate pods.
I see what you are saying now, but I wouldn't use the term "clearly" to describe it. The best way to say it is you just have permanent rivals when they are outside your division.
This is true. I dont think Louisville had any idea they woudl be invited to the ACC until the moment it happened. In fact the fact that WVU got shut out probably told them that they had no shot (similar profiles at the time - strong in FB, good BB, small markets, bad academics).
What is interesting is that the Big XII shut out Louisville and the ACC shut out WVU.
That, by definition, is other options. Had the Big 12 chosen Louisville instead of West Virginia, would the Mountaineers have been chosen by the ACC to replace Maryland after they left? Doubtful. I believe the ACC would have either have selected Cincinnati, UConn, or stayed at 13 before selecting WVU to replace Maryland.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
I would find byu to the b12 entertaining as ****. It would mean that;
Byu agreed to relax its stupid no Sunday sports rule
Or...
All b12 members (Texas, really) agree to no Sunday games with byu, so essentially special treatment...
And...
It's two newest members, wvu and byu would be 1700 miles apart! That'll rock when it comes to softball and vball games that no one, at either school, cares about!
And...
1/4 of its members would be private, "religious" school...nothing says mass appeal on a nation-wide scale like a religious school!!!
Byu agreed to relax its stupid no Sunday sports rule
Or...
All b12 members (Texas, really) agree to no Sunday games with byu, so essentially special treatment...
And...
It's two newest members, wvu and byu would be 1700 miles apart! That'll rock when it comes to softball and vball games that no one, at either school, cares about!
And...
1/4 of its members would be private, "religious" school...nothing says mass appeal on a nation-wide scale like a religious school!!!
2 days after Maryland announced they were leaving for the B1G, Louisville was the first school (UConn mentioned second) mentioned to replace them.
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/48514/terps-leave-acc-in-a-bind
