Realignment Survivor
by bigreed on Sep 17, 2011 2:16 PM CDT
Email
PrintAssume the following:
1. OSU and OU to the Pac 10
2. Pitt and Cuse to the ACC
3. Conferences are scrambling to get the best combination of teams in their conference
Let's meet the competition.
I've tried to be as unbiased as possible and think these are all pretty easily defensible scores. What I'm not sure of is how to come up with the math that the ACC, Big 10 and P10 would use to come up with their invite lists. I am even more confident after looking at this list that we're in great shape for whichever conference.
| Size of Market | Interest of Market | Football | Basketball | Academics | Enrollment | Endowment | AAU | |
| Cincinnati | B 2.1m | A | C | B+ | C | 31k | 937m | No |
| Uconn | C 1.2m | B | C | A | B | 21k | 255m | No |
| Louisville | C 1.3m | A | C | A- | C | 15k | 600m | No |
| Rutgers | A+ 20+m | F | C | D | B | 28k | 640m | Yes |
| West Virginia | C- 150k | A | B+ | B+ | C | 30k | 406m | No |
| Missouri | A 5m | C | A | B | B | 33k | 975m | Yes |
| Kansas | B 2.2m | A | C | A+ | B | 30k | 1005m | Yes |
| Kansas St | D (?) | B | B | B- | C | 23k | 278m | No |
| Iowa St | C+ 562k | A | C | B- | B | 28k | 867m | Yes |
| Baylor | A 6.5m | F | C | B- | B+ | 14k | 872m | No |
| Texas Tech | C- 275k | B | B | C | C- | 32k | 775m | No |
| Texas | A 7.25m | A | A | A- | A | 40k | 14000m | Yes |
| TCU | A 6.5m | C | B+ | C- | B+ | 8k | 1100m | Yes |
Some Notes:
- Rutgers could lay claim to New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia. Pretty massive population wise. Not that many folks around there care about college sports in general much less Rutgers specifically but they're really in the middle of a LOT of TVs
- On the other side of the coin is Silo Tech. I tried not to get too cute with population numbers, giving Missouri both St. Louis and KC though they could claim at most 30% of KC and 50% of StL. TVs are what matters and they probably deliver the conference network in both cities. Now KSU, what markets do they bring?
- The 'academics' was general and based on perception. I just divided it into Great, Respected, Not thought of, and thought of poorly. I'm sure you can get a stellar education at any of the schools on the list.
So the name of the game is you need 4 teams to get to 16 in the B1G, 3 in the SEC, 2 in the PAC and 2 in the ACC. Did I miss any schools that could be considered? I'd put BYU on the list but their only viable conference option is kind of a non-starter.
84 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No need for that basketball column
Hell you might as well put in a column for women’s volleyball. It has about the same amount of relevence in conference realignment as basketball.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
the jokes are phenomenal
but I am required to mention the no trolling allowed and all that mumbo jumbo
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
by fetch9 on Sep 17, 2011 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Look
this isn’t just my opinion. Go read anything out there. Go read the SI column where Lew Perkins himself bascially says….basketball doesn’t matter.
You can wish it were otherwise, but all the wishing in the world will not make it so.
Years and years and years ago we, as a collective fanbase, choose to focus on bball. Now we are seeing the consequences of that choice.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
totaly agree
that’s why pittsburgh and syracuse were just taken by the acc. because they have so much football dominance and attendance and offer nothing in the way of basketball. oh wait.
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
If Kansas was in Pittsburgh
we would have our choice between B10, ACC and maybe SEC. Being the inconvenient travel destination for every conference is what pushes us down a ways.
It’s ultimately a failure of our own administration for being too conservative and not seeing this coming.
No
It pains me that so many of my fellow Jayhawks refuse to see reality and learn from our mistakes.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
So do you agree with his logic or no?
Pointing out that Rivet is sticking to his argument doesn’t really further the discussion.
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
if continuously shouting something made it so
we would have found a ton of WMDs in Iraq
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
But that's not what I asked...
I get that we tire of making and reading the same arguments but by forcing those to defend and re-phrase their arguments it brings out further nuanced points and perspectives for us all to consider.
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
People have brought up points before that have been ignored
by Rivet and his rec’ing crew. I’m not responsible for tracking every complaint when someone just keeps repeating the same stuff with obvious “I TOLD YOU ALL” relish.
But you have a point, so sure I’ll play a little:
It’s clear that geography and state population have a hell of a lot to do with it, and that Kansas is in a very poor position on both of those. For example, Syracuse to the ACC was a huge move, and not part of the grimdark future where people live inside of giant footballs and wear clothes of pigskin.
Also it’s common sense that just because Kansas has been able to build an elite basketball program, which has a lot to do with the luck of history, that doesn’t mean we /could/ have built an elite football program. Nor does it mean we weren’t trying to, if only somehow all of us fans flexing our muscles and clenching our teeth and going grrrrrrr would have improved the quality of coaching hires.
No, there was no magical point in the past where our ancestors were presented with a glowing basketball on one side, and glowing football on the other, and a voice boomed out “CHOOSE YOUR SPORT, JAYHAWKS, BUT BE WARNED THAT YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL PAY A BLOOD-PRICE IN ETERNITY”.
by sax solo on Sep 19, 2011 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
LOL -
Okay, I’m not conceding my argument but I must tip my hat here, this was pretty good…
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
At least I got a laugh!
Snark aside, I mean you can look at NU and OU and say, “Why don’t WE have an elite football program instead of this crappy elite basketball program?” And I agree having one would better our situation. But you can also look at CU, KSU, MU, and ISU, and say, “Oh man, we’re just lucky to have an elite anything.”
Another way of saying it: if KU swapped places geographically with CU somehow, in the past, with everything else the same, do you think we’d be in the PAC right now?
This is where I disagree
“if only somehow all of us fans flexing our muscles and clenching our teeth and going grrrrrrr would have improved the quality of coaching hires.”
This is EXACTLY where I think we have failed, over time, as a fan base. We got comfortable being a bball school and largely ignored our other programs. There was no pressure from the fanbase (including big-time donors) and thus guys like Bobby Fred felt no real pressue to make good hires (for example, I think our football program would be in much better shape had we hired Franchione over Terry Allen, but instead Bobby Fred got on his knees and bowed to Roy Williams and took the gamble on the unproven DII coach (who obviously posed no threat to Coach Williams)).
You are right about geography playing a part…..but it’s simply a multiplier. A state with a lower population that is rapib about it’s althletic programs and spending lots of money is still more valuable than a populus state not spending a dime on theirs. This is why (IMHO) that NU was so attractive……them damn bugeaters will spend a ton and travel all over to follow their team…..even though there are only 1 million of them.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
Explain to me the difference between your plan and what K-State did
Or explain to me the difference between where K-State is and where we are
KSU
doesn’t have nearly the size endowment we do. Any focus they put on any sport is going to be miniscule compared to what KU could have done.
In my view, KSU did exactly what we should have done….they focused on all their sports to the best of their funding abilities. They didn’t consciously sacrifice one for the other.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
You think K-State basketball just happened to be crappy the whole time Snyder was there?
They went all in for football, had great success for a decade, and it improved their standing not at all.
Schools aren't the same things as states
But K-State does have a much smaller alumni base than KU or Mizzou.
Still, if it were as simple as you claim, K-State would be in much better shape than they are.
For information on fanbases, nothing beats this NYT analysis:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
NU also had geography to the B1G, and a history with them.
(It also had something else we don’t have, which is no competing school in the same tiny state. And our major market is also shared with Missouri. We’re really screwed six ways to Sunday.)
There’s no guarantee that KU could have built an ELITE program which is probably what it would take to overcome our geographical woes. Do you think there was room in the Big 8 for another OU/NU?
Even if we’d somehow clawed our way up to the middle that wouldn’t be enough. Mizzou’s football program isn’t bad, but they’re no big prize or big player in this either, despite their best wishes and better geography. Though I’d say they have a higher chance of staying in the BCS than we do. And then there’s CU which—-what’d they do exactly do get a safe landing?
I just don’t think this idea that “elite football program or death” is something that anyone could have known, or that it was even that likely or possible to achieve, and I don’t buy this story that we could have had an elite football program if only for that pesky meddlesome basketball. If basketball didn’t exist at all we still might have the same damn football program. Could we have encouraged football more? Absolutely. Would we have wound up with an elite football program that would make us relevant to conference realignment? Seems highly unlikely.
What mistake are you referring to?
I agree that being a basketball school is hurting us right now, but there was never a mass consensus that KU fans would collectively disregard the football program. One program took off, one didn’t. The fans logically developed a better following for the better team. You can’t blame the fans or the school for the position we’re in. We’ve spent millions on the football program, but for various reasons, we haven’t turned into a regular contender. If the University could have snapped its fingers years ago to give us a championship caliber football program, it would have.
by PenHawk on Sep 18, 2011 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The opportunities to develop KU
as a football school have been there and various moments of opportunity go back many decades. I wasn’t around during the 60’s and I barely remember the Coach Fam years but I DO remember the early 90’s when there was a buzz about the KU football team. We had talent, we won bowl games, and we were sending people to the NFL. What Bob Fredrick (RIP) and by extention Roy Williams did was near criminal.
They failed to see THEN what the SWAC schools were seeing. While schools all around the country were planning new facilities and stadiums we were low-balling our own programs and flat out eliminating others because they didn’t have the vision or the know how to bring money into the AD. The only priority was not to upset the golden goose that was and is KU basketball.
KU was penny wise and pound foolish then, and if we’re not aggressive again now, we stand to lose a lot more than a few more football games….
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
by labbadabba on Sep 18, 2011 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is a lot of 20/20 hindsight
If the BCS had been blown up (by Congress or by giving into public hatred), being in a BCS conference wouldn’t matter nearly as much for football, and the pressure for realignment wouldn’t have been as intense.
If the big schools had taken basketball away from the NCAA in the same way they did football, KU would have been sitting pretty.
If Texas hadn’t had a couple really good years in the mid-2000s, they wouldn’t have gotten their egos swollen to the point that they started demanding more and more until they forced all the other powers out of the conference.
If ESPN hadn’t been outmaneuvered by Fox and the Big Ten network, they wouldn’t have been willing to give so much money to Texas in order to destabilize the current conference set up.
I think Roy was petty in his attitude toward the other sports, and Dr. Bob let himself get bossed around, and that’s a shame, but for people to say that they knew this would happen ten years ago is a joke.
I still think that, if college sports don’t completely implode (and I don’t rule out that possibility as they look increasingly like just another profit-minded minor league like MLS or the NBDL or AAA baseball), KU will be in good shape by having a dominant program in one of the two revenue-generating sports.
Your ignoring everything we did over the past 5-7 years
After Perkins and Mangino arrived, we pumped millions into football. Have you seen our new facilities and coaching offices? They are some of the nicest in the conference.
The new practice fields?
How about the fact we pay our coach 2.1 million a year?
We’ve pumped a lot of money into the football program and we’ve won some games in recent memory too. Shit, Perkins wheeled and dealed us into the ORANGE BOWL so we could showcase Kansas on one of the biggest stages (and we beat a big name team).
If you want to argue going 8-16 over the past two seasons hurt us than go ahead. But I don’t understand what history has to do with this. I mean, KState had a very good consistent run in the 90’s and early 00’s. They developed into a football school. And at the moment, they are in worse shape than we are in regards to finding a good home.
To further defeat your development argument, look at Missouri. They slowly grew into a very good program that wins 8-10 games every year. And if things go down the way it looks like they will, they will be in the same boat we are.
No, let’s get real. Kansas is getting screwed because we don’t have a partnership with a heavyweight like Oklahoma State or Texas Tech does. That is the only difference, and that is why KU, KSU, MU and ISU are all getting the shaft.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Sep 18, 2011 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
i will add
I love the hypocrisy of certain people complaining about paying our coach so much in one breath, and then complaining that we don’t support football enough in the next.
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
It's not hypocrisy
You don’t seem to understand they are separate issues:
Issue #1) supporting the football program over time
Issue #2) paying a coach for proven experience
We grossly overpaid for Turner Gill if year #1 didn’t convince you, you’ll never be convinced.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
i am glad you admit you are being hypocritical
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
Why does that have to hypocritical?
besides Gill being paid as much as he was paid in conjunction with the Gridiron Club proposal while coming off a few strong years and an Orange Bowl win is what smart athletic departments do if they want to progress and survive. It’s what we should have done after our two Aloha Bowl wins.
I don’t think Rivet is complaining about the resources used in paying our coach, I think he’s probably thrilled that we’re sinking real money into the program even if we are late to the party. I think he’s simply expressing that he would rather have had the AD spend the money elsewhere…
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Yes
Not necessarily elsewhere…..more wisely.
I’ll repeat the analogy I used last year: just because you can afford a BMW doesn’t mean you should just walk in to the dealership and pay the sticker price.
I’m overjoyed that we are finally spending money on football AND allowing football to be a focus rather than an afterthought. That mindset started with Bohl and went main stream with Perkins.
But we should have done that a long time ago (early 90’s would have been great).
And we should have done a better job of paying a coach coming out of the MAC (with a losing record) what he is really worth (it’s not $2.1 million).
Two separate issues.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
Especially if the money is actually buying a Honda.
I’ll repeat the analogy I used last year: just because you can afford a BMW doesn’t mean you should just walk in to the dealership and pay the sticker price.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Not a good analogy
We actually bought a Cadillac, a car that many people realize cost a lot of money. Realtors, for instance, often drive expensive cars to give their potential clients the impression that they are successful regardless of whether or not they are. It’s all (potentially) cyclical. This is analogous to paying whatever coach you find a certain dollar amount. It makes it clear to any potential coaches that you’re willing and able to be successful.
My analogy was more thinking our Honda = BMW
No matter what I pay for my Honda, it’s still a freaking Honda.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
hmm
I don’t know, it seems I hear Mizzou’s name mentioned a lot more often than KU’s…
And I think had Perkins been around in the 90’s and we had a chance to build momentum off of the Mason years the conversation WOULD be different right now.
You’re right that Mizzou may end up in the same boat as KU, KSU and ISU but maybe not. I’ve not heard anyone mention KU to the SEC, or anywhere really other than the Big East.
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
That's only because
Missouri “brings” another 2.8 million TVs.
Sure Missouri is in better shape
But like bigreed said, this is due to a more populous state and being more east more than football success.
Look, unless you are a big name, marquee program with a rabid fanbase, conferences don’t give two shits about your onfield success. They care about TVs, population, metros, academics (slightly. maybe. I dunno. maybe not actually).
If KU had gone to bowls the previous two seasons, and had four straight bowl trips and a sustained period of success it wouldn’t matter. Tech would still get to go to the Pac with Texas, and Oklie Light would still be going with Oklahoma.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Sep 19, 2011 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Something I don't understand about the "basketball doesn't matter" comments
A lot of the people who think basketball doesn’t matter also want the superconferences to secede from the NCAA and play by their own rules. If that happens, the NCAA stops siphoning off billions that basketball generates in the postseason, and basketball is suddenly just as valuable as football.
If the USCs and Texases of the world are serious about getting out from under the NCAA’s thumb, even schools like Georgetown are really valuable.
That's interesting
And something I don’t think anyone is discussing.
The football powers seem to be setting this up so the basketball powers are left out of the conferences and not making as much money. If I’m one of the basketball powers in the Big East or Big 12 that’s about to be out of a BCS football league I’m wondering why we keep letting the NCAA take our dough.
There is a precedent for this of course- it was only about 50 years ago that the NCAA became “The Post-season tournament”. Before that it was private. What’s to stop the Big East/Big 12 refugees from turning down the BCS tournament- which is what they’ll call it for PR purposes- and form their own. I think the validity of all the mid-majors + the BE/B12 leftovers would be more than enough to end up with dual national champions.
750 million per year
is the estimate of what the tournament brings in. If the basketball schools are going to be left out of the BCS money, they’d be foolish not to consider this potential income source. The NCAA derives 90% of it’s operating budget from the tournament but I’m not sure these athletic departments can afford to be charitable- the football schools don’t seem too interested.
Also, congress is getting involved now as well thanks to Ken Starr. Not like they have anything else to do…
If the people who want schools to secede from the NCAA get their way
I’m not sure what these schools plan on doing with their olympic sports. I don’t think that they’ve thought through much except ways to get more money.
Of course, I think they’re on their way to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Minor leagues are not generally very popular or profitable. College sports are different because of the tradition and the ties to people’s school experience. The more they turn it into a business, the less that separates them from other minor leagues.
As congress gets more involved,
I suppose there’s more risk that this money might begin begin taxed. Keeping athletic departments as non-profits seems increasingly untenable as they make decisions that make no sense but for money.
Why do we assume all conferences are going to 16?
Also, where is Notre Dame?
re notre dame
they’re making an announcement in 7-10 days about what their hockey team is doing as far as a new conference affiliation. Could be a clue as to what they’re doing overall
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
I thought hockey conferences were a totally different thing
Don’t the Big Ten hockey teams share a conference with Minn-Duluth and No. Dakota and other schools like that?
currently yes
but starting in 2012-13 the Big 10 hockey conference is a reality thanks to Penn State going D1 (and +1 for the UND shoutout)
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
Interesting
So the theory is that if Notre Dame hockey moved from wherever they are now to the Big 10 hockey conference, that would show something? Does the rest of the Big Ten play hockey (I’m especially wondering about Indiana, Purdue, Iowa)? Does the rest of the Big East play hockey?
I'm looking it up
and it looks like ND is currently in the conference (CCHA) that includes the most Big Ten members. Would it really be a surprise if they stay in the successor conference? It seems like we’d only really learn something if they decided to stay out of the Big Ten Conference and strike up an alliance with the Minn-Duluths and Lake Superior States of the world
well
duluth is part of a group (north dakota, omaha, colorado college, denver, maybe western michigan) that is creating a new conference. Notre Dame is rumored to either go there, the Big 10 or Hockey East. And (as far as I know) they can’t join Big 10 hockey without the whole school going to the big 10
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
How many hockey conferences are there
sounds like ND may be possibly joining any of the 3 :)
right now
there are 5. after this year there will be 5 still, they’ll just be organized differently
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
the only big 10 hockey schools
are minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, michigan state, ohio state and starting next year penn state.
big east: none i can think of off the top of my head
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
i am an idiot
uconn plays hockey
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
ND
was left off because they’ve already gotten the best offer out there (many times) and turned it down. If they want a spot in the Big 10 it’s there for the taking. They’re not going anywhere else (though the idea that they go somewhere besides the BE in ‘all but football’ is still possible- ala ND and Texas to the ACC in all but FB).
BYU yes. Boise State, no.
BYU has a decent athletic department and fanbase. They are somewhat valuable as a school to add.
Unfortunately for Boise State, their entire ‘relevance’ is predicated upon football. Otherwise, they couldn’t be less relevant athletically.
Undervalued in all of this is the academic portion. A lot of people keep saying the the only conference that cares is the B1G, but I have a feeling that conferences do look at academic prowess as a factor in pursuing schools.
For this reason, BYU still should be on the list… and even moreso, Boise State should not. (But I love me some Broncos football. Kellen Moore is a stud)
"C.J.: They sent me two turkeys. The most photo-friendly of the two gets a Presidential pardon and a full life at a children's zoo. The runner-up gets eaten.
Bartlet: If the Oscars were like that, I'd watch." - The West Wing, 'Shibboleth'
Byu
BYU would be near the top of the list, the only problem would be that the only conference that makes any sense for them isn’t going to touch them with a 10 ft pole.
As for basketball, of course it matters. A dollar is a dollar. The AcCs tv deal will absolutely be bolstered a great deal by basketball (if not made by)
by bigreed on Sep 18, 2011 5:56 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
The people that think it's all about football should think Boise State belongs on this list, right?
Their entire relevance is predicated upon football, but I’ve also heard that football is all that matters.
Anyone else thnking
That with the results of yesterday, OU and Texas become the poachers? Lots of vulnerable And relatively valuable teams out there and it ultimately makes more sense for both to keep their contract and go get Louisville, tcu and cincinatti. Only issue would be if the big 10 wanted to expand.
by bigreed on Sep 18, 2011 10:33 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Add wvu and byu/afa
And they’d be in a better spot than they were before a&m left and get to keep the lhn?
by bigreed on Sep 18, 2011 10:36 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
TCU
has gone on record as saying they’re “not very confident” about the Big East now that Pitt & Syracuse are leaving. We could pick up TCU if UT & OU can find a way to get along.
by P. J. Karasek on Sep 18, 2011 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Assuming Texas has to lose the LHN to join the P10
Not sure how they’ll be able to justify moving now. The current contract would make them richer, maintain their rivalries and still get to be in control. Not thrilled about the last part, but it is better than flying 1000 miles to see every away game.
Word coming out of Texas and the west coast is that the Pac1# will let tu keep a modified v. of the LHN
With that, if they and OU (and thus OSU) go west, the only chances for a BCS seat KU has on my radar screen are:
1. The Pac1# membership really doesn’t want Tech, so they offer KU first a’ la CU last year, and/or
2. The B1G decides to go to 16.
With a Pac16 on the horizon, I figure:
3. MU is gone to the SEC, which goes to 16 by adding WVU, MU and South Florida (they aren’t going to be able to get any ACC school after this weekend) and
4. The ACC goes to 16 by adding Rutgers and UConn, leaving
5. The B1G with no east coast options, and ND as (in their eyes) the only really desirable target left. So it’s only if the B1G feels it must got to 16 because the other have that KU gets an invitation. But give they went for 20 years with 11 before adding NU, I don’t see them making a move beyond 12 unless it makes solid economic sense to them.
"So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."
Option #1 is likely out of the question
because Texas knows what they’re worth, and if the Pac-12 tries to subvert Texas’ plans like that, UT will walk. Option 3 is our only hope.
You may be right, but it's hard to say with the Pac1# execs
If they really do not want Tech and find KU a more attractive option, they may be willing to test tu’s resolve to bring Tech simply because they know that tu has nothing else to fall back on except trying to rebuild the Big 12 if tu decides that no Tech means not moving to the Pac1#.
Remember, the Pac1# is the buyer in this situation. No one is forcing them to “buy” tu. They like tu, but they don’t need tu. They have the power, and they’ve shown they are willing to use it. It would also reinforce up front to tu that as attractive as its bonafides might be, it is coming in as one of many, subject to the decisions of the group, or not at all.
"So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."
Under this scenerio
even if the B1G goes to 14 we’re in, right?
I think MU Is the SEC’s choice for 15 but they’d prefer to wait it out as long as possible to see if a B1G offer is coming. I’d bet we get interest over South Florida for 16 as well. My guess right now is they actually poach Florida State, sending this whole thing into round 2.
Florida St is staying put
FSU’s president just voted for raising the ACC exit fees from $13M to $20M, and has said in the press — before the Pitt and ’Cuse announcement today — that FSU is quite happy with the ACC.
We might be in with the B1G if they go to 14, but it’s going to come down to economics for them — are they financially better off with KU than without KU?
"So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."
If Missouri to the SEC
then we claim 2.2 million for the Big 10 network so we’re absolutely a +. If Missouri to the B10 it becomes a trickier sell. Either way they can’t hold at 13.
As for FSU, I go back and forth. On the one hand he has no choice but to say that stuff and vote the way he did. The SEC is obviously the premier football conference/bigger contracts/etc. On the other hand though, his road to a championship is MUCH easier in the ACC.
Missouri doesn't want to go to the SEC
Its one reason they didn’t waive their right to sue A&M. The Tigers seem content to wait until they get a shot at the Big 10, no matter how long they have to wait.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Sep 18, 2011 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Not disagreeing
necessarily but how does the SEC get to 16 without taking Missouri?
They can get to 14 with West Virginie
And then explore their options. They might give Missouri an offer it can’t refuse. But Missouri doesn’t want it. However, they might not have a choice in the end…
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Sep 19, 2011 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions
12 is a good number
16 is a good number. 14 is considerably less good though not impossible. Assuming everyone is going after 16, the SEC NEEDS to get some markets (the best market they own outright is Nashville). Sharing KC and StL with other conferences would be worth it.
If they can’t get FSU, Clemson or VaTech I really wonder if they don’t call us. That’s certainly been discussed (though I’ve not seen it in MSM).
This has been bugging me for a while
But does anyone believe that the SEC is/was ever serious about 13? And if so, how would you do that?
I guess I could see 14 for a few years (though it would obviously present some challenges) but don’t you have to add in pairs?
Maybe there’s no magic in 16 but isn’t it valuable to have even divisions in all sports? Is anyone with divisions getting by with uneven numbers even at the non-bcs level? I wonder how the scheduling works… Bye weeks?
Also
And this will be my last time replying to myself (at least tonight): Matt Tait wrote on his ljworld blog that there is a possibility that the Pac takes more than 16. I distinctly remember a quote from Scott that said something of the same (that there was no magic in 16 as long as they added in market pairs, etc).
I prefer the B1G (and I’m sure everyone involved with both KU and MU do) but if you’re Scott and really want to take over the western half of the US (as is pretty clearly his Dr. Evil-like goal), do you go ahead and take the 6 or 7 million folks in Kansas/Missouri country as well and further increase your basketball and football brands?
The Big 10
won’t add anyone, no matter what number the other conferences go to, without adding Notre Dame. There is no other team on this list that makes sense (read:money). That being said, at 13 they may look west to round out the conference and the only two real choices are Kansas and Missouri.
I’m less acquainted with the dynamics of the Pac #, but it seems like Kansas’ overall profile would look very attractive to them, assuming they don’t land Texas. In terms of actual fans, Kansas would be a decent sized school out there, and it’s not hard for me to imagine KU competing year in and year out with all but the most storied Pac schools (USC, Oregon, Oklahoma) in football.
Pecota, watch over us.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
