Big East Conference Expansion Ideas and Discussion

[Bluejay]

Bluejay,

I will mention it again. It's about the numerator of revenue in relationship to the denominator of the number of teams that will split it up. The addition of the two new teams and the value of their televised games, coupled with the value of the championship game all has to fit into the equation.

With the Big 12 primarily located in the central time zone, and given the size of its television markets, I'm not sure this can be made to make sense for that conference.

Otherwise, I agree with your point about the uncertainty it creates.

I don't agree that this is entirely the case. When a new member is added to a conference, it's not simply a matter of what the new member will bring by themselves. Rather, it's a matter of how much new revenue the conference can create in partnership with the new member.

The best example of this is the addition of Rutgers to the Big Ten. There is no way that anyone can do the math and find that Rutgers brings enough revenue by themselves to pay their way. However, the Big Ten apparently believes - I assume based on market research - that the addition of Rutgers makes economic sense for the conference. The only way to view this is that Rutgers gets the big Ten into the NJ market and that the conference believes that the conference as a whole can do a good enough job marketing itself in that market to pay for the addition of Rutgers, their anchor in that market.

TV market is important, but a factor you are missing with the Big Ten is that they look for academic strengths and similarities for their conference members. When they added Nebraska, the common belief was that Missouri was a more logical candidate. But it partially came down to academic ratings for NE v MO. NE had a significantly higher academic rating and was a member of the Collegiate Association (?), [some other academic excellence organization whose name I have forgotten] and Missouri was not. The Governor of Missouri was publically campaigning for inclusion into the Big Ten yet he was rejected, partially due to academic status. You can google all of this if you don't believe me.

You are talking about AAU membership.

The irony though is that shortly after being selected, Nebraska lost its AAU accreditation, at least in part because some of the Big ten members voted to strip it.

I live in Nebraska. I can tell you for a fact that the University of Nebraska is not an academic powerhouse. Nebraska was selected by the Big Ten because of football, not academics. The Big Ten had been getting chided nationally about its weak, slow football and wanted to nab a football powerhouse to improve perception (Nebraska has not held up their end of the bargain since being added). It was Nebraska's football history that got them in over Mizzou, not their superior academics. You can take that to the bank.

[HoosierPal]

[quote="HoosierPal

TV market is important, but a factor you are missing with the Big Ten is that they look for academic strengths and similarities for their conference members. When they added Nebraska, the common belief was that Missouri was a more logical candidate. But it partially came down to academic ratings for NE v MO. NE had a significantly higher academic rating and was a member of the Collegiate Association (?), [some other academic excellence organization whose name I have forgotten] and Missouri was not. The Governor of Missouri was publically campaigning for inclusion into the Big Ten yet he was rejected, partially due to academic status. You can google all of this if you don't believe me.

You are talking about AAU membership.

The irony though is that shortly after being selected, Nebraska lost its AAU accreditation, at least in part because some of the Big ten members voted to strip it.

I live in Nebraska. I can tell you for a fact that the University of Nebraska is not an academic powerhouse. Nebraska was selected by the Big Ten because of football, not academics. The Big Ten had been getting chided nationally about its weak, slow football and wanted to nab a football powerhouse to improve perception (Nebraska has not held up their end of the bargain since being added). It was Nebraska's football history that got them in over Mizzou, not their superior academics. You can take that to the bank.[/quote]

You are right on the AAU. I remember when NE was included, they ranked somewhere between 90 and 99 in the US on some nationally recognized poll. MO was somewhere around 110 to 115. I didn't say that the University of NE is an 'academic powerhouse' like Yale, but they did outscore Missouri on that important issue. If you don't believe academics are important to the Big Ten, you need to do some research. Athletics played a part in choosing NE over MO, yes, but academics may have been a deciding factor. "You can take that to the bank."

[HoosierPal]

TV market is important, but a factor you are missing with the Big Ten is that they look for academic strengths and similarities for their conference members. When they added Nebraska, the common belief was that Missouri was a more logical candidate. But it partially came down to academic ratings for NE v MO. NE had a significantly higher academic rating and was a member of the Collegiate Association (?), [some other academic excellence organization whose name I have forgotten] and Missouri was not. The Governor of Missouri was publically campaigning for inclusion into the Big Ten yet he was rejected, partially due to academic status. You can google all of this if you don't believe me.

You are talking about AAU membership.

The irony though is that shortly after being selected, Nebraska lost its AAU accreditation, at least in part because some of the Big ten members voted to strip it.

I live in Nebraska. I can tell you for a fact that the University of Nebraska is not an academic powerhouse. Nebraska was selected by the Big Ten because of football, not academics. The Big Ten had been getting chided nationally about its weak, slow football and wanted to nab a football powerhouse to improve perception (Nebraska has not held up their end of the bargain since being added). It was Nebraska's football history that got them in over Mizzou, not their superior academics. You can take that to the bank.

You are right on the AAU. I remember when NE was included, they ranked somewhere between 90 and 99 in the US on some nationally recognized poll. MO was somewhere around 110 to 115. I didn't say that the University of NE is an 'academic powerhouse' like Yale, but they did outscore Missouri on that important issue. If you don't believe academics are important to the Big Ten, you need to do some research. Athletics played a part in choosing NE over MO, yes, but academics may have been a deciding factor. "You can take that to the bank."

[Xudash]

Bluejay,

I will mention it again. It's about the numerator of revenue in relationship to the denominator of the number of teams that will split it up. The addition of the two new teams and the value of their televised games, coupled with the value of the championship game all has to fit into the equation.

With the Big 12 primarily located in the central time zone, and given the size of its television markets, I'm not sure this can be made to make sense for that conference.

Otherwise, I agree with your point about the uncertainty it creates.

I don't agree that this is entirely the case. When a new member is added to a conference, it's not simply a matter of what the new member will bring by themselves. Rather, it's a matter of how much new revenue the conference can create in partnership with the new member.

The best example of this is the addition of Rutgers to the Big Ten. There is no way that anyone can do the math and find that Rutgers brings enough revenue by themselves to pay their way. However, the Big Ten apparently believes - I assume based on market research - that the addition of Rutgers makes economic sense for the conference. The only way to view this is that Rutgers gets the big Ten into the NJ market and that the conference believes that the conference as a whole can do a good enough job marketing itself in that market to pay for the addition of Rutgers, their anchor in that market.

That logic doesn't work for the Big 12 though. The Big ten is making decisions based on getting the BTN on local cable systems in big TV markets. The Big 12 has no network (and there are no plans for a network because Texas has the Longhorn network and Oklahoma has its own network in the works), so it is true that a different weighing takes place there.

Bluejay, I didn't take it that you were arguing with me before, I was just trying to amplify the importance of economics - television money to a conference at the increment - in these situations.

Otherwise, your response about what works for the Big12 versus the B1G's motives for adding Rutgers is spot on. All one needs to do is to understand the nature of the joint venture between Fox and the B1G to understand the value of adding eastern seaboard schools like Rutgers and Maryland. To the extent they otherwise "match" the B1G's AAU requirements, all the better for the B1G, given its emphasis on pooled research resourcing.

I'll again suggest that the original model for ultimate realignment was 4 x 16. That essentially provided symmetry: there would have been 8 8-team divisions in the conferences, battling their way to a conference championship game. Didn't happen. The ACC found a way to survive. The governing organization of the new playoff system simply cannot fly over to ACC headquarters to tell them they're history. The same goes for the Big12/UT. And if other conferences are concerned about Texas having an easier path to one of the 4 slots, or if Texas is concerned it will have no shot at one of the four spots based on weakness in the Big12, then I could see noise being made over making adjustments. The problem is that it will never be clear from year-to-year what the standings will look like.

Also keep in mind that the 4 slots will literally be filled by committee.

Finally, judging what the Big12 may do based upon what, for example the B1G may do or has done isn't a good way to look at this from here. We are where we are now, with what is in place and what is available should further expansion find its way to being a relevant topic again.

Over time, change has been constant in college football. I'll be the first to admit that. I wouldn't be surprised if more change does take place, but I just don't see it taking place for the next few years. No one from anywhere owes UCONN anything. Same goes for UC. The same goes for the lesser rans like Temple and Memphis, etc. It has always been about making a club deal; a club of sufficiently exclusive members. The stakes have only gotten higher, which makes the number of available, coveted slots not exactly something that is busting at the seems; inclusiveness is far outweighed by greed and brand advantage.

[Bluejay]

TV market is important, but a factor you are missing with the Big Ten is that they look for academic strengths and similarities for their conference members. When they added Nebraska, the common belief was that Missouri was a more logical candidate. But it partially came down to academic ratings for NE v MO. NE had a significantly higher academic rating and was a member of the Collegiate Association (?), [some other academic excellence organization whose name I have forgotten] and Missouri was not. The Governor of Missouri was publically campaigning for inclusion into the Big Ten yet he was rejected, partially due to academic status. You can google all of this if you don't believe me.

You are talking about AAU membership.

The irony though is that shortly after being selected, Nebraska lost its AAU accreditation, at least in part because some of the Big ten members voted to strip it.

I live in Nebraska. I can tell you for a fact that the University of Nebraska is not an academic powerhouse. Nebraska was selected by the Big Ten because of football, not academics. The Big Ten had been getting chided nationally about its weak, slow football and wanted to nab a football powerhouse to improve perception (Nebraska has not held up their end of the bargain since being added). It was Nebraska's football history that got them in over Mizzou, not their superior academics. You can take that to the bank.

You are right on the AAU. I remember when NE was included, they ranked somewhere between 90 and 99 in the US on some nationally recognized poll. MO was somewhere around 110 to 115. I didn't say that the University of NE is an 'academic powerhouse' like Yale, but they did outscore Missouri on that important issue. If you don't believe academics are important to the Big Ten, you need to do some research. Athletics played a part in choosing NE over MO, yes, but academics may have been a deciding factor. "You can take that to the bank."

If athletics were the deciding factor, why would some of those same B1G schools vote to strip Nebraska's AAU accreditation right after voting to admit them?

It was a football move like all realignment decisions were at that time. Only later did the Big Ten decide to make expansion decisions on financial reasons (Md & Rutgers) instead of football reasons. Frankly, if the B1G was making decisions based on financial reasons (TV sets) when they selected Nebraska, they would have easily selected Missouri since its population is substantially larger than Nebraska.

[notkirkcameron]

Frankly, if the B1G was making decisions based on financial reasons (TV sets) when they selected Nebraska, they would have easily selected Missouri since its population is substantially larger than Nebraska.

Not necessarily true. Remember, Big Ten Network, despite Missouri not being in the Big Ten, is available in the St. Louis market as there are a large number of Illinois fans in the St. Louis broadcast area. Illinois gubernatorial candidates routinely buy air time in St. Louis to appeal to voters downstate. So really, you're only looking at adding one major media market in Missouri by adding the Tigers (Kansas City). So assuming the Big Ten was left with two options if they wanted a football expansion, Nebraska or Missouri.

Nebraska brought a state of 1.8 million people where they are the de facto professional team from what I've seen. Their recent successful run including national championships, conference championships and title game appearances in both speaks for itself.

Meanwhile, Missouri only gives you one TV market you don't already have, and that market only has approximately 941,000 TV sets (about the same as Columbus, Ohio), but unlike Columbus, where OSU is the only game in town, Mizzou has to share those KC TV sets with the alumni bases of nearby Kansas and Kansas State. Kansas City's Metro area is approximately 2.04 million people, but if you assume a split, of, let's say 50% Mizzou/25% KU/25% K-State (which may be generous to Mizzou), that only gets you to 1.02 million Mizzou fans. Suddenly, Nebraska has more new eyeballs for BTN. Likewise, Mizzou is a team with, politely, a "mixed" history on the gridiron (Missouri has not won an outright conference championship on the field since winning the Big Eight in 1945. Other Big Eight titles in 1965 and 1969 were awarded retroactively, and split, respectively). They appeared in three Big 12 championship games, losing all three by an average score of 53-26.

Going with the Huskers was a no-brainer.

[HoosierPal]

If athletics were the deciding factor, why would some of those same B1G schools vote to strip Nebraska's AAU accreditation right after voting to admit them?

It was a football move like all realignment decisions were at that time. Only later did the Big Ten decide to make expansion decisions on financial reasons (Md & Rutgers) instead of football reasons. Frankly, if the B1G was making decisions based on financial reasons (TV sets) when they selected Nebraska, they would have easily selected Missouri since its population is substantially larger than Nebraska.

OK if that is what you want to continue to think, fine. If you don't believe academics played a part, fine. I know what happened, and I don't need you to tell me otherwise.

It's okay for you to have the last reply.

[milwaukeejedi1]

Emails: Wisconsin and Michigan opposed Nebraska's AAU membership

"Martin told the State Journal in July 2010 that while athletics was the primary consideration in adding Nebraska, university leaders weighed academics in deciding whether UNL would fit into the conference's academic consortium."

"I think it would lack integrity to pretend that academics drove the process," Martin told the newspaper, "but for the chancellors, presidents and provosts who were also consulted about (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) membership, academic standing makes a huge difference."

http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/emails-wisconsin-and-michigan-opposed-nebraska-s-aau-membership/article_19188dda-afe7-57c8-aa2c-c1939ec5acb4.html

[Gopher+RamFan]

Some have questioned drawing power, I'll present the statistics for VCU (as obviously they are my team).

Of the 6 away Conference games VCU has played, 5 were sell outs. The only non-sellout was @Dayton, but Dayton still had 12,512 fans in the stands. The VCU @SLU game, was the only sellout for SLU all season (but I do think their GW game is sold out as well).

When #10 SLU played @George Mason this past week, the arena was about 60% full. That's more a knock on GMU fans, rather than SLU. SLU plays great team ball- and better than VCU, but the program is "unsexy". They are not a great "name" program as of yet (hopefully they go deep in the tournament and rectify that).

VCU had the largest contingent of fans at the A-10 tournament in Brooklyn, it helps that basketball is the main sport at a university with 30,000 students.

[marquette]

Some have questioned drawing power, I'll present the statistics for VCU (as obviously they are my team).

Of the 6 away Conference games VCU has played, 5 were sell outs. The only non-sellout was @Dayton, but Dayton still had 12,512 fans in the stands. The VCU @SLU game, was the only sellout for SLU all season (but I do think their GW game is sold out as well).

When #10 SLU played @George Mason this past week, the arena was about 60% full. That's more a knock on GMU fans, rather than SLU. SLU plays great team ball- and better than VCU, but the program is "unsexy". They are not a great "name" program as of yet (hopefully they go deep in the tournament and rectify that).

VCU had the largest contingent of fans at the A-10 tournament in Brooklyn, it helps that basketball is the main sport at a university with 30,000 students.

It's too bad VCU doesn't have a +/- 10,000 seat gym. I think you would sell out every game still. That kind of attendance would be a decent selling point for the Presidents. VCU has stellar attendance, that's for sure, but they are maxed out right now. As to the road attendance, George Mason is really close to you guys so I would imagine there was maybe a higher VCU turnout than would be normal. George Washington is having a great year and plays in a small gym (5,000). UMass is having a great year, and is a large school. I imagine they draw pretty well most games, but that added factor of a great opponent helps a lot. St. Joe's is another small gym (4,200), as is La Salle (3,400). It's still impressive, but you have certainly had advantages.

I am somewhat curious as to what level of emphasis attendance will have for the presidents. The Big East is likely to be either 3 or 4 in attendance this season, averaging just over 10,000, grossly inflated by Creighton's 17,000+ and Marquette's 15,000+ numbers. However, even the lowest drawing team (DePaul) still pulls 6,500+ (inflated or not, all teams count paid attendance). I'm not sure if the conference numbers will be important to the presidents or if they are each more concerned with their own teams.