Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[tarcone]

Clemson would be released from ever playing on Friday night. For those reasons alone. And they still get the $$$$$$$$$$.

[Noop]

I think the ACC can fix their problems by:

- By not giving the ACC office an equal share of the television money. I don't know how common this is in other leagues, but I can not understand why the league office needs 14 million dollars. This would make sense if the league used the money to pay teams travel expenses, and awarded it as a prize for winning the conference or something.

- Re-align the divisions. Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State should all be in the same division. Yes it would make the division tough and Virginia Tech would have an easy schedule but at least it will produce better games.

- Fire the refs. The refs are terrible and the constant ineptitude from them is disgusting.

- Stop penalizing teams for not wanting to play on Labor day.

- Schedule. Florida State should play Clemson in September, Miami in October, and Virginia Tech/ North Carolina in November every year. This builds rivalries by having things be familiar, although I think switching Clemson to November would make more sense because it lessens the possibility of play Va. Tech or North Carolina a few weeks later in the ACC title game.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Noop

- Schedule. Florida State should play Clemson in September, Miami in October, and Virginia Tech/ North Carolina in November every year. This builds rivalries by having things be familiar, although I think switching Clemson to November would make more sense because it lessens the possibility of play Va. Tech or North Carolina a few weeks later in the ACC title game.

I think this is a good point. I would also say that I think for leagues that have conference championship games, they should be playing the cross-division games early in the season in case they do end up with a rematch.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Noop

- Schedule. Florida State should play Clemson in September, Miami in October, and Virginia Tech/ North Carolina in November every year. This builds rivalries by having things be familiar, although I think switching Clemson to November would make more sense because it lessens the possibility of play Va. Tech or North Carolina a few weeks later in the ACC title game.

This is another BIG one to me.
The ACC always seems to throw stones at the non TR teams.
Last year FSU welcomes OU into Tally week 2, in thanks the ACC sends them to Clemson the next week. Its not good for the (ACC Football) to have teams down. If you know FSU is bringing in OU send them to Duke the next week. Or at least to their cross division rival. Granted Clemson played Auburn the same day FSU played OU, but the ACC ended the division race for all intents and purposes the first weekend in October last year.

I agree there should be annual traditions. Heck its a fair bet that Clemson FSU will factor into the Atlantic most years, same goes for VT GT why not go ahead and schedule them the last conference game week every year. Create compelling TV.

Oh yeah, and take a page out of the SECs book. If your traditional rival is an OOC give the team a bye or a team scheduled game the week before rival week. Besides its always fun to watch Florida play Furman in November while SC plays SC State, and UGA plays Carver HS.

Why not let FSU play St Thomas Aquinas the week before the gators come rolling in.

The SEC has done a masterful job of building their brand in this way. Not degrading their talent AT ALL, but they artificially impact their OOC record some what with this tactic.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think Swofford is a little girl just as much as every good non-Tobacco Road ACC fan, but Chad Swofford is an upper level manager at Raycom Sports, which is owned by Raycom Media, based out of Alabama. Though he may have some equity compensation as part of his employment, to my knowledge there is no material "ownership stake." This conspiracy theory has gotten a little bit out of hand.

1- He is the Senior Director of New Business Development. His previous gig was junior asistant AD at BC.
2- When Raycom was rumored to be filing Chap 11 in 09, Chad bought in at a 33% clip, reportedly with Daddy's money. Unless that assistant AD gig let him drop $7MM in cash.
3- Have you ever been to Raycom's offices? You wouldn't hire them to film your wedding. They are incompetent at best.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is another BIG one to me.
The ACC always seems to throw stones at the non TR teams.
Last year FSU welcomes OU into Tally week 2, in thanks the ACC sends them to Clemson the next week. Its not good for the (ACC Football) to have teams down. If you know FSU is bringing in OU send them to Duke the next week. Or at least to their cross division rival. Granted Clemson played Auburn the same day FSU played OU, but the ACC ended the division race for all intents and purposes the first weekend in October last year.

I agree there should be annual traditions. Heck its a fair bet that Clemson FSU will factor into the Atlantic most years, same goes for VT GT why not go ahead and schedule them the last conference game week every year. Create compelling TV.

Oh yeah, and take a page out of the SECs book. If your traditional rival is an OOC give the team a bye or a team scheduled game the week before rival week. Besides its always fun to watch Florida play Furman in November while SC plays SC State, and UGA plays Carver HS.

Why not let FSU play St Thomas Aquinas the week before the gators come rolling in.

The SEC has done a masterful job of building their brand in this way. Not degrading their talent AT ALL, but they artificially impact their OOC record some what with this tactic.

Jimbo smacked Spetman around enough that they added Chattanooga to the schedule in 2014 or 15 the week before Florida. GT and Clemson may as well follow suit as long as the ACC isn't going to make any requirements about when non-conference games are scheduled. Of course, as soon as this is done, the ACC will outlaw having 2 non-conference games to end the season.

The ACC's problem is winning non-conference games. They actually play more BCS schools than any of the other leagues. However outside of 2008, they've been .500 or worse vs. them every year since the expansion. The 3 late season SEC games are the cherry on the **** sandwich. Need to win more of those to get any respect as a league.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

1- He is the Senior Director of New Business Development. His previous gig was junior asistant AD at BC.
2- When Raycom was rumored to be filing Chap 11 in 09, Chad bought in at a 33% clip, reportedly with Daddy's money. Unless that assistant AD gig let him drop $7MM in cash.
3- Have you ever been to Raycom's offices? You wouldn't hire them to film your wedding. They are incompetent at best.

While it has clearly been difficult at times to tell where Raycom stops and the conference offices begin, the ownership stuff is mostly message board gossip. The ACC/Raycom stuff goes way beyond keeping Chad Swofford employed--and further more, it's been known about for years.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Jimbo smacked Spetman around enough that they added Chattanooga to the schedule in 2014 or 15 the week before Florida. GT and Clemson may as well follow suit as long as the ACC isn't going to make any requirements about when non-conference games are scheduled. Of course, as soon as this is done, the ACC will outlaw having 2 non-conference games to end the season.

The ACC's problem is winning non-conference games. They actually play more BCS schools than any of the other leagues. However outside of 2008, they've been .500 or worse vs. them every year since the expansion. The 3 late season SEC games are the cherry on the **** sandwich. Need to win more of those to get any respect as a league.

Historically Clemson has more than held their own in their series with SC, however the last 3 years SC has been on a historical (for them ) run.

I guess thats kinda my point, the SEC has created a self fulfilling prophecy. For years they rarely schedule quality OOC competition and created the brand based on reputation and how they beat on each other. By self proclaiming to be the home of the best, they attracted the best recruits.


The problem is, the ACC offices actually dictate schedule. A few years ago Clemson had scheduled Coastal Carolina the week before SC but the ACC mandated they take their bye week that week. Forcing Clemson and CC to play on Halloween, when each had planned to have byes on Halloween.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Historically Clemson has more than held their own in their series with SC, however the last 3 years SC has been on a historical (for them ) run.

I guess thats kinda my point, the SEC has created a self fulfilling prophecy. For years they rarely schedule quality OOC competition and created the brand based on reputation and how they beat on each other. By self proclaiming to be the home of the best, they attracted the best recruits.


The problem is, the ACC offices actually dictate schedule. A few years ago Clemson had scheduled Coastal Carolina the week before SC but the ACC mandated they take their bye week that week. Forcing Clemson and CC to play on Halloween, when each had planned to have byes on Halloween.

I have heard that is a common complaint with FSU, as well. They have requested byes or home games in the weeks around the Florida game, but the conference often gives them long road trips.

For all of its faults, the Big East has been very good about scheduling smartly (giving well-placed byes, scheduling anticipated "marquee" match ups in the final weeks, using mid-week games to give teams extra rest rather than short weeks for the most part, etc.).

[bronconick]

CU Tiger: Maybe y'all will get another chance to send a nasty letter to Swofford

Report: Class filled with UNC football players under investigation - CBSSports.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More information on upcoming SEC Network. Expected to carry 40-50 football games a year.

SEC Network Could Carry 40-50 Football Games a Season : Outkick The Coverage

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting tidbit on some of the PAC-12 negotiations in the Bowlsby article in the Tulsa World. Appears that KSU was also a team under consideration for a move to that conference. Surprised that KU was not part of the discussion. These were negotiations that occurred a few months before A&M and Mizzou exited the conference.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextr...4339&rss_lnk=2

In Palo Alto, Bowlsby never thought he would lead the Big 12 into a prosperous future. Especially after last summer, when he met with (OSU's) Hargis, Texas president Bill Powers, Kansas State president Kirk Schulz and Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione about those schools and others joining the Pac-12.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

More info from local radio on the B12 expansion rumors:

1. Multiple AD's in the conference believe the WVU move was made too quickly, with one AD at the meetings here in KC terming it 'an embarrassing move'.

2. Clemson is getting cold feet in regards to a move to the B12 and Florida State refuses to move unless they have a southern partner to go with them AND the money is right.

3. Miami and Georgia Tech have been contacted as backup options should the Clemson/FSU deal fall through.

[Swaggs]

I would guess that WVU would not have gotten an invitation if the Big 12 knew that some of the better ACC schools might become available. We will never be located in a desirable location or large market and will never be academically elite, so schools like GT, Clemson, Florida State, etc. are much more attractive.

Still, glad that we received and answered the call. Seems like others (possibly Pitt and Louisville, certainly BYU) passed when the Big 12 looked unhealthy, but I'm glad we landed in a better place than the Big East. The ironic thing is that I am sure we would have preferred to be in the ACC (where we geographically fit and would have been in a conference with 4 of our top 5 "rivals"), but now the ACC looks worse off.

There are rumors that something is going to go down this weekend. The pro-Big 12 folks think that it will be Clemson and FSU as full members and Notre Dame as a non-football. Have also seen that Notre Dame is flirting with the ACC. I think the next trigger will be if/when Notre Dame announces an extension with NBC (if they aren't joining the ACC for football, I think FSU and Clemson join the Big 12 so that they can keep up with their geographical rivals).

[Swaggs]

Some selected recent tweets:

Ingram Smith ‏@IngramSmith
In the last 2 hrs I have had multiple calls saying ND is going to the ACC & Big12. ND is hedging their bets, in the end takes best offer

Brian Ethridge ‏@TruthOrBear247
Was just told by a great source, "Big 12 expansion is imminent."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I would guess that WVU would not have gotten an invitation if the Big 12 knew that some of the better ACC schools might become available. We will never be located in a desirable location or large market and will never be academically elite, so schools like GT, Clemson, Florida State, etc. are much more attractive.

Still, glad that we received and answered the call. Seems like others (possibly Pitt and Louisville, certainly BYU) passed when the Big 12 looked unhealthy, but I'm glad we landed in a better place than the Big East. The ironic thing is that I am sure we would have preferred to be in the ACC (where we geographically fit and would have been in a conference with 4 of our top 5 "rivals"), but now the ACC looks worse off.

There are rumors that something is going to go down this weekend. The pro-Big 12 folks think that it will be Clemson and FSU as full members and Notre Dame as a non-football. Have also seen that Notre Dame is flirting with the ACC. I think the next trigger will be if/when Notre Dame announces an extension with NBC (if they aren't joining the ACC for football, I think FSU and Clemson join the Big 12 so that they can keep up with their geographical rivals).

I find it hilarious that someone thinks that WVU was an embarrassing move, yet says nothing about the TCU move. I'm guessing that has more to do with the Texas-centric conference that the B12 now has more than anything else.

Judging from what's been said around here, I think FSU and Clemson are playing hardball, but are left with few options if they really want to take a step up.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I find it hilarious that someone thinks that WVU was an embarrassing move, yet says nothing about the TCU move. I'm guessing that has more to do with the Texas-centric conference that the B12 now has more than anything else.

Judging from what's been said around here, I think FSU and Clemson are playing hardball, but are left with few options if they really want to take a step up.

I actually agree on TCU -- I think adding them was a pretty short-sighted move, as the market is obviously redundant, their fan-base/alumni are wealthy but few, and they haven't been successful, without Gary Patterson, in a long time. I have heard that the SEC and ACC were sniffing around them, prior to their addition, so it may have been a proactive move (or perceived as such) to keep more hands out of Texas.

The term that keeps coming up is "tortious interference." The Big 12 and their target schools need to make sure that they want each other, without officially engaging. Otherwise, there is apparently the threat of a lawsuit. Although, oddly that has never seemed to stop the ACC itself (or the Big East) from just going for it (with little to no repercussions).

[mckerney]

BCS commissioners reach consensus on four-team college football playoff - ESPN

CHICAGO -- The BCS commissioners and Notre Dame's athletic director on Wednesday endorsed a seeded four-team playoff model for college football beginning in the 2014 season.

The commissioners' consensus still must be approved by the BCS presidential oversight committee, which meets June 26 in Washington D.C. If approved, the four-team playoff would replace the BCS system, which has been in place since 1998.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I actually agree on TCU -- I think adding them was a pretty short-sighted move, as the market is obviously redundant, their fan-base/alumni are wealthy but few, and they haven't been successful, without Gary Patterson, in a long time. I have heard that the SEC and ACC were sniffing around them, prior to their addition, so it may have been a proactive move (or perceived as such) to keep more hands out of Texas.

The term that keeps coming up is "tortious interference." The Big 12 and their target schools need to make sure that they want each other, without officially engaging. Otherwise, there is apparently the threat of a lawsuit. Although, oddly that has never seemed to stop the ACC itself (or the Big East) from just going for it (with little to no repercussions).

That last part is because no one actually wants to reach the discovery phase in a lawsuit.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-footbal...its/in/2257972

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Judging from what's been said around here, I think FSU and Clemson are playing hardball, but are left with few options if they really want to take a step up.

Looks like the ACC deal isnt as bad as maybe first thought.

Currently No ACC school has a copy of the TV contract on campus (reportedly to prevent a FOIA inquiry from making the details public) but the quarterly or bi-annual payments (I'm not clear on which two people who should be in the know have given conflicting reports) received early June was substantially higher than expected. Like $1.5MM-$3MM higher for Clemson. Both sources agreed it would be $6MM more per year than previously expected.

[Noop]

Isn't that because the ACC had two teams in the BCS bowls.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Noop

Isn't that because the ACC had two teams in the BCS bowls.

partially
supposedly the contract is also based on a % of ad sales and ad revenue/demand was higher than expected ?

Maybe Jon could weigh in how common that would be but sounded a bit counter intuitive to me

[bronconick]

A 2nd bid is worth about $6 million to that conference. So there's about half a million of it. I know FSU got about 2 million more than they budgeted for. Again, no idea where it came from before it arrived.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Somebody's fibbing.

Dodds, errrrr, Chip reports that deal with ND for non-football sports is imminent.

Orangebloods.com - Sources: Irish Olympic sports likely headed to B12

That article prompted this response from the Notre Dame AD to Chicago Tribune writer Brian Hamilton....

#NotreDame AD Jack Swarbrick on report of non-football sports to Big 12: "I have no idea what prompted that."

[cartman]

A great quote from the recent Big 12 meetings:

A fly on the wall at the Intercontinental picked up this little nugget during the three days of meetings between the Big 12 athletic directors, faculty representatives and presidents in Kansas City. When all the turmoil over realignment the previous two years was brought up, one Big 12 school official piped up, "Well, Missouri was the first to throw their panties on the field." That started the entire thing, and NCAA President Mark Emmert told us he could see the new college football playoff format leading to even more realignment. Asked if there was one conference that Notre Dame would absolutely not join, Big 12 acting Commissioner Chuck Neinas paused, reflected and answered, "Mid-American Conference."

Horns not shut out, thanks to John Fields' golfers

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

A great quote from the recent Big 12 meetings:

Horns not shut out, thanks to John Fields' golfers

Agreed. It's an excellent demonstration of the lack of true leadership the Big 12 is currently dealing with. There are a couple of schools that are more interested in acting in a juvenile manner and making it 'us vs. them' within the conference as opposed to working as a team to better the conference as a whole.

[cartman]

The irony is jaw dropping!

Another argument could be made that once the malcontents left the conference, all of the bitching and moaning from certain teams about how bad and influential and overbearing Texas was being went away, and they were able to move to serious discussions about the new bowl with the SEC, granting the Tier 1 and 2 rights to the conference, and listening to offers from teams that were interested in joining the conference.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

making it 'us vs. them'

You mean like "Mizzou (us) vs. Texas (them)"?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Dennis Dodd discusses the winners and losers in the new playoff setup......

Playoff is here, BCS is dead, and SEC still runs the show - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com News, Scores, Stats, Schedule and BCS Rankings

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

The irony is jaw dropping!

Another argument could be made that once the malcontents left the conference, all of the bitching and moaning from certain teams about how bad and influential and overbearing Texas was being went away, and they were able to move to serious discussions about the new bowl with the SEC, granting the Tier 1 and 2 rights to the conference, and listening to offers from teams that were interested in joining the conference.

A better way of saying it is that the lesser schools fell in line once the schools that were willing to call Texas to the mat left the conference for greener pastures. Had those schools not done that, Texas wouldn't have given nearly that much up to the smaller schools.

Translation: You're welcome, KU. You can continue to make good money off a losing football program.

Given the new playoff system, the new bowl will likely match up the B12 champion with the 3rd place SEC team. It's an unholy alliance, but I'm not sure it's something to hang your hat on.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Given the new playoff system, the new bowl will likely match up the B12 champion with the 3rd place SEC team. It's an unholy alliance, but I'm not sure it's something to hang your hat on.

Or, if you actually consider facts, it will be the 2nd or 3rd SEC team vs. the 2nd or 3rd Big 12 team. Of the 28 participants in BCS championship games, 9 were from the SEC and 6 were from the Big 12. In the 14 seasons of the BCS, these were the Big 12 and SEC teams that finished #3-5 in the final BCS poll, and would be considered for the other two spots if the new system was used:

2011 - #3 Oklahoma State
2010 - none
2009 - #5 Florida
2008 - #3 Texas, #4 Alabama
2007 - #4 Oklahoma, #5 Georgia
2006 - #4 LSU
2005 - none
2004 - #3 Auburn, #4 Texas
2003 - none
2002 - #3 Georgia
2001 - #3 Colorado, #5 Florida
2000 - none
1999 - #3 Nebraska, #4 Alabama, #5 Tennessee
1998 - #3 Kansas State

[Noop]

I remember when MBBF was pumping up the BIG 10.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Noop

I remember when MBBF was pumping up the BIG 10.

It's a great conference!

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by britrock88

It's a great conference!

Missouri was one of the main reasons they were looking to expand if I remember correctly.

[Kodos]

Big Ten must be kicking itself for missing out on Mizzou!

[Crapshoot]

I sometimes wonder if MBBF actually believes all the crap he spouts. Its like Baghdad Bob.

[Logan]

I think I've linked that pic at least 12 times in this thread.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I find it hilarious that someone thinks that WVU was an embarrassing move, yet says nothing about the TCU move. I'm guessing that has more to do with the Texas-centric conference that the B12 now has more than anything else.

Judging from what's been said around here, I think FSU and Clemson are playing hardball, but are left with few options if they really want to take a step up.

I don't really see anything wrong with WVU. Let's be honest- unless you're the Big Ten, you're only paying lip service, at best, to academics. And even then, didn't they just accept Nebraska into the fold? Not exactly a "get" academically. Hell, of the four schools that have left the Big XII, didn't the Pac-12 get the best academic institution? So let's dispense with the academic side of the argument.

Financially, their endowment is down with Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State at the bottom of the conference so that's disappointing. Enrollment is 30K, similar to all other Big XII schools not named Texas (or Baylor). The basketball arena and football stadiums are in the middle of the pack

Now, TCU is another matter. They just seem so much smaller to me (enrollment of 9000) and in danger of becoming Baylor II. However, endowment is $1.2B!! I never would have guessed that. That makes them on par with Oklahoma and Kansas, only trailing Texas (14B!) in the money department.

Does either really bring any media markets to the table? How many in Dallas are turning into a TCU game? Over Texas or Oklahoma? And how many does WVU bring?

So, let's be honest: when the conference looked battered and bruised, this is who would accept their offer to remain stable. I think WVU will fit in nicely as a middle of the road program and there aren't any others of those in the Big XII footprint (it's not like Illinois or Minnesota or Arkansas were leaving, for instance). Yes, the distance is a bit of a problem but any program of a similar caliber would be even further.

And if the Big XII hadn't picked up these two programs, would anyone from the ACC even be fielding their calls? Or would the ACC and PAC be picking apart the carcass of the weaker conference (Big XII)? I think if the conference doesn't add WVU and TCU (or if they had gone after, say, Louisville- I'm still not keen on the TCU pickup) they're in no position for other conferences to even look at them unless they had made a daring play for 4 teams from the ACC, similar to the rumors of 5 or 6 to the PAC from the Big XII. And those are really hard to coordinate all of the competing interests.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't really see anything wrong with WVU. Let's be honest- unless you're the Big Ten, you're only paying lip service, at best, to academics. And even then, didn't they just accept Nebraska into the fold? Not exactly a "get" academically. Hell, of the four schools that have left the Big XII, didn't the Pac-12 get the best academic institution? So let's dispense with the academic side of the argument.

Financially, their endowment is down with Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State at the bottom of the conference so that's disappointing. Enrollment is 30K, similar to all other Big XII schools not named Texas (or Baylor). The basketball arena and football stadiums are in the middle of the pack

Now, TCU is another matter. They just seem so much smaller to me (enrollment of 9000) and in danger of becoming Baylor II. However, endowment is $1.2B!! I never would have guessed that. That makes them on par with Oklahoma and Kansas, only trailing Texas (14B!) in the money department.

Does either really bring any media markets to the table? How many in Dallas are turning into a TCU game? Over Texas or Oklahoma? And how many does WVU bring?

So, let's be honest: when the conference looked battered and bruised, this is who would accept their offer to remain stable. I think WVU will fit in nicely as a middle of the road program and there aren't any others of those in the Big XII footprint (it's not like Illinois or Minnesota or Arkansas were leaving, for instance). Yes, the distance is a bit of a problem but any program of a similar caliber would be even further.

And if the Big XII hadn't picked up these two programs, would anyone from the ACC even be fielding their calls? Or would the ACC and PAC be picking apart the carcass of the weaker conference (Big XII)? I think if the conference doesn't add WVU and TCU (or if they had gone after, say, Louisville- I'm still not keen on the TCU pickup) they're in no position for other conferences to even look at them unless they had made a daring play for 4 teams from the ACC, similar to the rumors of 5 or 6 to the PAC from the Big XII. And those are really hard to coordinate all of the competing interests.

SI

In the end, Neinas has managed to steady the ship and that's all that was really required of him. They brought in generally the best schools that were available and they entered the deal with the SEC. That keeps them stable. Now they have to work through the issue of Texas wanting the status quo as opposed to adding more teams. If they can get Texas to move in the proactive direction, they'll be in good shape.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A better way of saying it is that the lesser schools fell in line once the schools that were willing to call Texas to the mat left the conference for greener pastures. Had those schools not done that, Texas wouldn't have given nearly that much up to the smaller schools.

Translation: You're welcome, KU. You can continue to make good money off a losing football program.

Given the new playoff system, the new bowl will likely match up the B12 champion with the 3rd place SEC team. It's an unholy alliance, but I'm not sure it's something to hang your hat on.

I'm pretty sure that Kansas made much more revenue than Missouri even before the conference revenue sharing; in this article from 2008 it was 86 million for Kansas (with a successful program) to Missouri's 49 million. In 2011 with a struggling football program it was Kansas with 70 million to Missouri's 59 million. But I don't think anyone is surprised you have a false sense of accomplishment for Missouri.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_...-total-revenue

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_...ost-profitable

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't really see anything wrong with WVU. Let's be honest- unless you're the Big Ten, you're only paying lip service, at best, to academics. And even then, didn't they just accept Nebraska into the fold? Not exactly a "get" academically. Hell, of the four schools that have left the Big XII, didn't the Pac-12 get the best academic institution? So let's dispense with the academic side of the argument.

Financially, their endowment is down with Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State at the bottom of the conference so that's disappointing. Enrollment is 30K, similar to all other Big XII schools not named Texas (or Baylor). The basketball arena and football stadiums are in the middle of the pack

Now, TCU is another matter. They just seem so much smaller to me (enrollment of 9000) and in danger of becoming Baylor II. However, endowment is $1.2B!! I never would have guessed that. That makes them on par with Oklahoma and Kansas, only trailing Texas (14B!) in the money department.

Does either really bring any media markets to the table? How many in Dallas are turning into a TCU game? Over Texas or Oklahoma? And how many does WVU bring?

So, let's be honest: when the conference looked battered and bruised, this is who would accept their offer to remain stable. I think WVU will fit in nicely as a middle of the road program and there aren't any others of those in the Big XII footprint (it's not like Illinois or Minnesota or Arkansas were leaving, for instance). Yes, the distance is a bit of a problem but any program of a similar caliber would be even further.

And if the Big XII hadn't picked up these two programs, would anyone from the ACC even be fielding their calls? Or would the ACC and PAC be picking apart the carcass of the weaker conference (Big XII)? I think if the conference doesn't add WVU and TCU (or if they had gone after, say, Louisville- I'm still not keen on the TCU pickup) they're in no position for other conferences to even look at them unless they had made a daring play for 4 teams from the ACC, similar to the rumors of 5 or 6 to the PAC from the Big XII. And those are really hard to coordinate all of the competing interests.

SI

Exactly, SI. West Virginia and TCU were good additions that provided some stability. West Virginia was the stronger addition of the two, but TCU's addition made it possible. Do you think the SEC takes Missouri if Texas A&M didn't make the move? Probably not. That's not to say Missouri isn't a good school, but the jewel for the SEC in their recent growth was A&M. The Pac 12 grabbing Utah because of the addition of Colorado.

[Swaggs]

One of our insiders is saying that the ACC will issue (and it has probably already made its way through) a formal invitation to Notre Dame for both partial and full memberships. ND is obviously expected to turn down the full, but if they take the partial then Clemson will stay and FSU most likely will. ESPN would be willing to renegotiate if Notre Dame joins, obviously.

Also says that the full membership is so full of benefits for Notre Dame, that they would become the highest earning program "by a mile" and that they would be allowed to essentially have their own network (i.e.: keep their deal with NBC aside).

This is the ACC's hail mary and it could work. A lot of the BCS negotiations about allowing for non-conference winners into the 4-team playoff or allowing for an 8-team playoff are being used to force Notre Dame into a conference, apparently (and not surprisingly).

[bronconick]

I don't see how Notre Dame basketball, lacrosse and tennis make the ACC a better football conference and increases TV $ enough to change what Clemson and Florida State do.

[Swaggs]

ACC wants Notre Dame to commit to playing 6 ACC teams per year. They already routinely play Pitt and BC and has played Georgia Tech and Miami frequently in the past, so they wouldn't have to concede a ton (and they'd get to play in areas where there are a lot of Catholics vs Northeastern teams and areas that are great for recruiting vs Southeastern teams). I'm sure that Notre Dame games would be considered marquee match ups and would move the needle a little, but I'm not sure how it could be enough to augment 14 other teams in a significant way. I guess that is the ACC's job to sell.

Am seeing that the Big 12 would also like to play 6 games vs Notre Dame, but Notre Dame is requesting that they play 3, with a yearly game against Texas (to be played on Thanksgiving weekend) and a strong preference to play Oklahoma each year. Big 12 officials feel like adding Notre Dame (w/ 3 Big 12 home games) would be enough to get FSU off the fence, which together would boost the Big 12's TV revenue.

Who knows how reliable and whether, if it is true, it will be true tomorrow, but it is coming from a guy that has been reliable in the past and threw out the possibility of Dana Holgorsen becoming coach in waiting a few weeks before new broke (when it seemed like an absurd notion).

[Wolfpack]

Getting Notre Dame for non-football sports while pretty much leaving out the football team is kind of defeating the purpose of getting Notre Dame. There's no sense in putting Notre Dame in its own little category in the conference and letting them make all the money they want on the side. That's more likely to breed resentment at Clemson and FSU, not less. Remember the whole misunderstanding about third-tier rights in the ACC deal? Yeah, now let Notre Dame not only opt out of bringing football into the conference, but let it keep that pile of NBC cash for itself. It was only marginally tolerable when a potential deal considered had Notre Dame keeping double-share of revenues from the current TV deal if they joined the ACC. This deal would be replacing half a loaf with none at all. IMO, this is all or nothing for the ACC. If your source describing the deal is accurate, then Swofford is an infinitely more stupid man than I thought possible (and I already consider him only slightly more intelligent than a small rock at times).

It's really going to come down to ease of access for Notre Dame to reach the new playoffs. While I think the general framework has been agreed upon for selecting the teams, the specific rules governing the selections I don't think have been spelled out. If there are "stipulations" placed on at least a couple of berths (conference champion, top 2 in BCS, etc), then it becomes harder to reach the playoffs as an at-large and more so as an independent. If, however, the selections are without restrictions, then Notre Dame could probably finish anywhere in the top 5 or 6 and feel very good about their chances (gotta make those extra $500 million worthwhile, says the TV execs paying out).

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

One of our insiders is saying that the ACC will issue (and it has probably already made its way through) a formal invitation to Notre Dame for both partial and full memberships. ND is obviously expected to turn down the full, but if they take the partial then Clemson will stay and FSU most likely will. ESPN would be willing to renegotiate if Notre Dame joins, obviously.

Also says that the full membership is so full of benefits for Notre Dame, that they would become the highest earning program "by a mile" and that they would be allowed to essentially have their own network (i.e.: keep their deal with NBC aside).

This is the ACC's hail mary and it could work. A lot of the BCS negotiations about allowing for non-conference winners into the 4-team playoff or allowing for an 8-team playoff are being used to force Notre Dame into a conference, apparently (and not surprisingly).

I'm hearing this was supposedly an attempt to replace FSU and appease and save Clemson/GT...in one case the appease had the opposite effect.

I think an offer is definitely formally out there. I just think it was a major strategic mistake by Swoffie

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Getting Notre Dame for non-football sports while pretty much leaving out the football team is kind of defeating the purpose of getting Notre Dame.

Exactly. Ask the Big East how that arrangement turned (is turning) out.

[Swaggs]

Hearing that the ACC believes that the addition of Notre Dame + 1 other team will get them in the $24M-neighborhood. That would be full membership for Notre Dame and 16 total teams. The ACC is reportedly offering Notre Dame 1 1/2 shares for a full membership, so they would be up in the mid $30M range.

One of our guys says that the ACC has called WVU, but I don't know if that has any legs or if WVU would go for it at this point.

Hardly seems realistic, but maybe ESPN really, really wants to get Notre Dame away from NBC?

[Toddzilla]

Well you can put that rumor in the shitcan because (1) The ACC never has and never will offer anything to WVU - it was a non-starter from day one and at this point it's so ridiculous a thought it immediately discredits whomever thought that up. WVU can expect an offer from the Ivy League before it gets one from the ACC, and (2) WVU is in the Big 12 so why on earth would they take a step *backwards* and join the ACC? That's almost as laughable as the former reason.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Well you can put that rumor in the shitcan because (1) The ACC never has and never will offer anything to WVU - it was a non-starter from day one and at this point it's so ridiculous a thought it immediately discredits whomever thought that up. WVU can expect an offer from the Ivy League before it gets one from the ACC, and (2) WVU is in the Big 12 so why on earth would they take a step *backwards* and join the ACC? That's almost as laughable as the former reason.

I think you are generally right and I'm just sharing what I am hearing. I don't think it is absurd to think that there was contact, just as there certainly was between Arkansas and the Big 12, WVU and the SEC, Missouri/Rutgers/Pitt/etc. and the Big Ten, etc.

The ACC supposedly voted on WVU last time around and they didn't have the votes (supposedly the Carolina block all voted against them) and probably never will. WVU and Notre Dame don't particularly have any type of relationship, so I'm sure we aren't a team that they would choose to come along for 16 and I don't think we'd be interested with the direction we are moving in (Texas-centric coaching staffs and administrators).