I'm More Convinced Than Ever: UConn & UVA to the B1G

[XOVERX]

I appreciate a Big 12 perspective. What is your take on the political issues with OU-OSU and KU-KSU? As an outsider, it has been my understanding that these schools (OU, KU) are not really separable from their instate rivals.

Well, please take my comments on OU-OSU and KU-KSU with a bit of a grain of salt because I don't read those schools blogs nearly as often, or as closely, as I do Texas' blogs. With that caveat, I think the following observations are fairly close to reality.

As for KU-KSU, my observations are that there are no political issues of any significance. KU folks always seem to say that KSU doesn't matter and can't stop them from leaving the B12. KSU folks don't seem to argue against KU's premise; rather, they seem to accept that KU may leave them behind and they never seem to say, "but politics!". To the extent there must be some kind political fallout on the matter, it does not appear to me that the political fallout is particularly meaningful in the State of Kansas.

Oklahoma is another matter. OU does seem to have a solid and genuine link with respect to the well-being of OSU. OU would like to take OSU with them if OU leaves the B12. In the end, if they can't stay together, the Sooners always seem to conclude that the OK politicos would rather have one school "saved" (if you will), rather than having both schools pulled down into mediocrity due to being members of a declining B12 (if it is declining, which not yet clear).

To preserve the status quo, OU seems to be in full-scale "rebuild the B12" mode, and they are much more interested in investigating expansion than is Texas. After the PAC fiasco, I think OU now wants to preserve the B12, stay with OSU, and stay with Texas.

But, as I point out upthread, Oklahoma also has big dreams. They really want to arrive academically in addition to maintaining a strong national football presence. I think if they saw a path to migrate to the B1G, by piggy-backing with Kansas, well ... I just don't see OU turning that kind of opportunity down, OSU notwithstanding.

 

[XOVERX]

This is a comprehensive post, but for some reason while reading it I had a flashback to Vizzini's classic scene from The Princess Bride

Lol. Hilarious. Thanks for that.

 

[Fishy]

I will respect your wishes and I think a recount would show me ahead of my good friend upstater.

I gotta be honest, I think you're trailing.

You seem to have to be in a mood to start bickering whereas he only needs to be awake.

 

[whaler11]

I gotta be honest, I think you're trailing.

You seem to have to be in a mood to start bickering whereas he only needs to be awake.

Well you are probably right.

@kyleslamb I am sorry I was an towards you. You are a bright guy and we both have strong opinions. I fully admit in the end I can be 110% wrong. If you find yourself in Connecticut the drinks are on me.

@Dooley It's safe to wade back in - my apologies to you and anyone else who was rightfully annoyed by my blowing up of the thread

 

[kyleslamb]

Well you are probably right.

@kyleslamb I am sorry I was an towards you. You are a bright guy and we both have strong opinions. I fully admit in the end I can be 110% wrong. If you find yourself in Connecticut the drinks are on me.

@Dooley It's safe to wade back in - my apologies to you and anyone else who was rightfully annoyed by my blowing up of the thread

I appreciate the apology and it's undoubtedly accepted. Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm cognizant I took a few shots too, so my hands aren't entirely clean. I'm not offended you have an opinion or think I'm full of it, all I ask is that you keep an open mind. I'm honestly not trying to troll anyone.

And in appreciation for the sincerity, I will answer your earlier question: the reason I'm here is honestly because I find the discussion on this board tremendous. It's one of my favorite message boards I've visited, actually. I'm not trying to come off as a B1G propagandist. I'm not even trying to convince anyone I know everything the Big Ten is doing (I confess I probably know only a fraction). I just enjoy the conversation and, when possible, like to pass along a few things I believe to be credible. If I ever come across as acting like I'm one of the WVU insiders getting daily updates, feel free to shoot me dead. That's not my MO and I don't claim to be in a daily loop. Most of what I post here is just out of my own desire to converse.

 

[XOVERX]

Thanks, good food for thought as I never thought of looking at the XII from Kansas's viewpoint and I did not know that Oklahoma has AAU dreams, though, they may want to ask Nebraska how much help the B1G has been with their nor ex AAU status.

General question for you, politically, how tied are the 3 'big' XII (Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas) to their little sisters (Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Texas Tech)? Can the three move to the B1G or another conference without them or so they need to come along, too, or at the very least, have a safe landing place (PAC)?

Another question, would the addition of Texas (and Oklahoma) make the B1G attractive to ND?

Lastly, unless the B1G breaks from their model, i.e. large, state flagship universities, UConn appears to be more of a fit than BC. The B1G already has BC 'type' school that is higher rated academically, has more history with football, is successful in other sports, and does not carry any religious 'baggage.' BC would only add hockey and a new market, Boston, that UConn can also provide.

Thank you for your interest. I gave my thoughts on KU-KSU and OU-OSU just upthread.

As for Texas-TT (or BU or TCU), you can easily find scads of Texas folks that will vehemently disagree with what I think about the Texas situation. But here goes:

I don't think Texas needs to worry about TT any more than Texas A&M had to worry about TT when the aggy migrated to the SEC.

Yea, Texas hopes that TT can become the third great public university in Texas. Yea, Texas hopes TT can find a soft landing place. But no, I don't think TT would be the "Great Wall of Texas", keeping Texas forever handcuffed to TT -- not if Oklahoma migrated out of the B12. Oklahoma's the key for Texas, not TT.

And really, I've never seen TT as the albatross that Texas has claimed TT is in the past during prior expansion discussions with, say, the ACC and B1G. I think Texas uses TT as a convenient excuse to test the expansion waters, and then we say, "well, we've got a Tech problem" when the waters get too deep. TT is a very convenient excuse for Texas to politely back out of committing to joining another league because we know nobody else wants TT.

Look, when people say "but politics!" with respect to Texas bailing out on TT, what they really mean is the "PUF", which represents a huge amount of money Texas and Texas A&M are paid from oil revenues, which is grounded in the 1800s when a guy willed a bunch of "worthless, West Texas desert land" to Texas that happened later to produce ungodly amounts of oil. TT and other schools want to get a portion of that PUF money, and they think that if Texas leaves the B12, angering some of the politicians, maybe that will give them an opening to get a share of the PUF money from the Texas Legislature.

Just one little problem with that thinking: Texas A&M is already gone to the SEC. If the PUF money were attacked by TT politicos (forget the private schools because they can't get the money anyway, being private schools), well ... so what? TT can't out-vote the politicians of Texas and Texas A&M combined.

And while the aggy would hate like hell to have to come to Texas' aid, A&M would have to come to Texas aid or get their own ox gored. Ironically, it would be the aggy that would allow Texas to do whatever it wants to do with respect to expansion, if push came to shove with OU leaving the B12.

I think "politics" is grossly overrated when it comes to Texas leaving TT behind on their own. Besides, Tech hates Texas anyhow, so most of us could personally care less about Texas Tech. For example, TT refused to allow one of their crappy OOC games to be televised over the LHN even though the game would not otherwise be televised. TT actually turned down making more money just to spite Texas, and TT played the game non-televised. Can you imagine?

I don't think TT has the clout to go to the PAC, nor do I think TT has the clout to go to the SEC. But I also don't think there's any way TT can stop Texas from leaving the B12 if Oklahoma bailed on the B12. And Texas would have no choice but to leave TT behind if Oklahoma bailed on the B12 because the B12 is not viable without the Sooners in the league.

Don't get me wrong -- Texas has no intention of leaving the B12, due to the recent success of the LHN, unless we are absolutely forced to leave, and even then we would go with much wailing and lamentations. But I certainly think Texas could be forced to leave the B12 if Delany ever decided to make a move on a very willing Kansas, and an exceedingly intrigued Oklahoma. If Delany takes those two, you tell me: What realistic options does Texas have?

As for ND, I will confess to a certain ND envy that I think Texas is definitely afflicted with. Let me be blunt: Texas would love to be in the same conference with ND, all things being equal. Even now, we wonder how we can corral ND to play us home-and-home on Thanksgiving, replacing the aggy. Texas is so conceited, we would argue to ND, "to heck with Southern Cal and Navy and Stanford -- you need to dump all those schools and make Texas your #1 rival!". Seriously, when it comes to ND, that sentiment is very close to Texas' thinking, lol.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if Texas migrated to the B1G, we would use our best efforts to convince ND to forgive and forget. But, in the end, I personally think the Domers would politely listen ... but say "no". I would love to be wrong about ND, but I just don't think Texas has the clout to entice ND into the B1G. So long as the ACC remains intact, which could happen, I don't think the Irish are going anywhere. The only thing that would bring ND into the B1G, best I can tell, is if the ACC were raided by both the SEC and the B1G, which could also happen.

If Texas, OU, KU, and, say, UConn were to go to the B1G, that would leave 2 additional schools to get to 20. The SEC needs 2 schools to get to 16. If the SEC managed to peel off 2 from, say, UNC, NCSU, and VPI, and if the B1G peeled off, say, UVA, then that last B1G spot might be grabbed by the Domers (rather than, say, Duke). But I don't think Texas alone brings ND into the B1G. JMO.

But now, indulge me while I speak some heresy. Let's assume Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, UConn, and Virginia all opted, at various times, for the B1G. Let's say that last spot at #20 was between Notre Dame and North Carolina. Who gets the spot? In this scenario, my guess would be UNC. I do think ND needs to think fast if the B1G completes a western sweep, fills the northern and southern ends of the NE Corridor, and the ACC is beleaguered. Sure, the SEC and PAC are there for ND, but are those leagues really better options for the Domers over the B1G? Just a thought.

As for UConn, I think UConn is very attractive to the B1G. However, the obvious cap to the NE Corridor is Boston and Massachusetts. I am also impressed by dayooper's cite to FtT's valuation article wherein BC ranked so highly -- startlingly highly. I had no clue. Just goes to show how important Boston is. Lots of people up in that part of the country.

But BC is not AAU. And, as you point out, BC is not a public land grant university either. UConn gives the B1G more of NYC, and a little bit of Massachusetts, right? UConn's definitely got a lot going for it. I would not be surprised at all to see UConn in the B1G someday. And, for the reasons I've set forth here and upthread, I think UConn's best play for the B1G is via B1G expansion out of the B12 before any kind of B1G expansion out of the ACC.

 

[woomba]

I think the challenge for the next round of realignment is that the first mover will be at a relative disadvantage compared to other "takers"- namely the Big Ten, Pac 12, and the SEC.

As you already mentioned in order to stir the football bluebloods to move in the Big12 less valuable pieces will need to move first. If Kansas does move to the Big Ten in your scenario, I think it's equally likely that the Pac 12 or SEC to be able to take Oklahoma/Texas. The only way to avoid this for the Big Ten is to begin negotiations as a package deal...but I doubt the Texoma duo will be willing to entertain such discussions until forced.

A similar situation exists for the ACC as well so I am pessimistic about further realignment for a few years at least. Once everyone has lived through a few iterations of CFP and Div4 appetite for realignment might come back

Thank you for your interest. I gave my thoughts on KU-KSU and OU-OSU just upthread.

As for Texas-TT (or BU or TCU), you can easily find scads of Texas folks that will vehemently disagree with what I think about the Texas situation. But here goes:

I don't think Texas needs to worry about TT any more than Texas A&M had to worry about TT when the aggy migrated to the SEC.

Yea, Texas hopes that TT can become the third great public university in Texas. Yea, Texas hopes TT can find a soft landing place. But no, I don't think TT would be the "Great Wall of Texas", keeping Texas forever handcuffed to TT -- not if Oklahoma migrated out of the B12. Oklahoma's the key for Texas, not TT.

And really, I've never seen TT as the albatross that Texas has claimed TT is in the past during prior expansion discussions with, say, the ACC and B1G. I think Texas uses TT as a convenient excuse to test the expansion waters, and then we say, "well, we've got a Tech problem" when the waters get too deep. TT is a very convenient excuse for Texas to politely back out of committing to joining another league because we know nobody else wants TT.

Look, when people say "but politics!" with respect to Texas bailing out on TT, what they really mean is the "PUF", which represents a huge amount of money Texas and Texas A&M are paid from oil revenues, which is grounded in the 1800s when a guy willed a bunch of "worthless, West Texas desert land" to Texas that happened later to produce ungodly amounts of oil. TT and other schools want to get a portion of that PUF money, and they think that if Texas leaves the B12, angering some of the politicians, maybe that will give them an opening to get a share of the PUF money from the Texas Legislature.

Just one little problem with that thinking: Texas A&M is already gone to the SEC. If the PUF money were attacked by TT politicos (forget the private schools because they can't get the money anyway, being private schools), well ... so what? TT can't out-vote the politicians of Texas and Texas A&M combined.

And while the aggy would hate like hell to have to come to Texas' aid, A&M would have to come to Texas aid or get their own ox gored. Ironically, it would be the aggy that would allow Texas to do whatever it wants to do with respect to expansion, if push came to shove with OU leaving the B12.

I think "politics" is grossly overrated when it comes to Texas leaving TT behind on their own. Besides, Tech hates Texas anyhow, so most of us could personally care less about Texas Tech. I don't think TT has the clout to go to the PAC or the SEC, but I also don't think there's any way TT can stop Texas from leaving the B12 if Oklahoma bailed on the B12. And Texas would have no choice but to leave TT behind if Oklahoma bailed on the B12 because the B12 is not viable without the Sooners in the league.

Don't get me wrong -- Texas has no intention of leaving the B12, due to the recent success of the LHN, unless we are absolutely forced to leave, and even then we would go with much wailing and lamentations. But I certainly think Texas could be forced to leave the B12 if Delany ever decided to make a move on a very willing Kansas, and an exceedingly intrigued Oklahoma. If Delany takes those two, you tell me: What realistic options does Texas have?

As for ND, I will confess to a certain ND envy that I think Texas is definitely afflicted with. Let me be blunt: Texas would love to be in the same conference with ND, all things being equal. Even now, we wonder how we can corral ND to play us home-and-home on Thanksgiving, replacing the aggy. Texas is so conceited, we would argue to ND, "to heck with Southern Cal, and Navy, and Stanford -- you need to dump all those schools and make Texas your #1 rival!". Seriously, that sentiment is very close to Texas' thinking, lol.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if Texas migrated to the B1G, we would use our best efforts to convince ND to forgive and forget. But, in the end, I personally think the Domers would politely listen ... but say "no". I would love to be wrong about ND, but I just don't think Texas has the clout to entice ND into the B1G. The only thing that would bring ND into the B1G, best I can tell, is if the ACC were raided by both the SEC and the B1G, which could happen.

If Texas, OU, KU, and, say, UConn were to go to the B1G, that would leave 2 additional schools to get to 20. The SEC needs 2 schools to get to 16. If the SEC managed to peel off 2 from, say, UNC, NCSU, and VPI, and if the B1G peeled off, say, UVA, then that last B1G spot might be grabbed by the Domers (rather than, say, Duke). But I don't think Texas alone brings ND into the B1G. JMO.

As for UConn, I think UConn is very attractive to the B1G. However, the obvious cap to the NE Corridor is Boston and Massachusetts. I am also impressed by dayooper's cite to FtT's valuation article wherein BC ranked so highly -- startlingly highly. I had no clue. Just goes to show how important Boston is. Lots of people up in that part of the country.

But BC is not AAU. And, as you point out, BC is not a public land grant university either. UConn gives the B1G more of NYC, and a little bit of Massachusetts, right? UConn's definitely got a lot going for it. I would not be surprised at all to see UConn in the B1G someday. And to get to the B1G, for the reasons I've set forth here and upthread, I think UConn's best play for the B1G is via B1G expansion out of the B12 before any kind of B1G expansion out of the ACC.

 

[Kolumbo]

Perhaps it's ADD, but I can't read a post that's longer than 2 paragraphs, unless it's written by someone with inside knowledge announcing a major move in CR.
I get the feeling that time is UCONN's biggest enemy. We thought we were in the ACC a couple times already but passed up for a rising Louisville. Florida has just 3 schools in a power conference and if UCF Football continues to climb, it will get plucked. Same could be said for a few schools in the AAC. Even if Diaco does an amazing job and turns things around quickly, it may not be fast enough and he'll likely be lured away.

 

[coachcap]

Perhaps it's ADD, but I can't read a post that's longer than 2 paragraphs, unless it's written by someone with inside knowledge announcing a major move in CR.
I get the feeling that time is UCONN's biggest enemy. We thought we were in the ACC a couple times already but passed up for a rising Louisville. Florida has just 3 schools in a power conference and if UCF Football continues to climb, it will get plucked. Same could be said for a few schools in the AAC. Even if Diaco does an amazing job and turns things around quickly, it may not be fast enough and he'll likely be lured away.

Who peeed in your Cheerios? Let Diaco work some magic before you cast UConn into the dustbin.

 

[upstater]

I will respect your wishes and I think a recount would show me ahead of my good friend upstater.

Yeah, I'm sure of that too. And the truth is we're just trying to catch up to Fishy who is easily the biggest curmudgeon on the board after McCracken.

 

[upstater]

I am also impressed by dayooper's cite to FtT's valuation article wherein BC ranked so highly -- startlingly highly. I had no clue. Just goes to show how important Boston is. Lots of people up in that part of the country.

I have no idea what Frank and Dayooper are citing, but rodeo on ESPN2 does higher ratings in Boston when BC is playing football on ESPN. This has been proven.

When Peter Gammons was talking to Mike Francesa in early April, Gammons was asked how pysched Boston was for the Red Sox' post World Series opener. Gammons replied that it was all UConn talk up in Boston, and that the sports fans hadn't come around yet to thinking Red Sox. I am NOT saying that UConn has more fans than BC in Boston, but Uconn's success has created more interest in college sports up there (AND in NYC for that matter) than ou normally see. Heck, New York had really good ratings even for the UConn women.

Whatever FranktheTank thinks about BC, he couldn't be more wrong. This would be like me saying that Northwestern controls Wisconsin, Chicago and Illinois. And Northwestern even has MORE fans than BC.

 

[TerryD]

Thank you for your interest. I gave my thoughts on KU-KSU and OU-OSU just upthread.

As for Texas-TT (or BU or TCU), you can easily find scads of Texas folks that will vehemently disagree with what I think about the Texas situation. But here goes:

I don't think Texas needs to worry about TT any more than Texas A&M had to worry about TT when the aggy migrated to the SEC.

Yea, Texas hopes that TT can become the third great public university in Texas. Yea, Texas hopes TT can find a soft landing place. But no, I don't think TT would be the "Great Wall of Texas", keeping Texas forever handcuffed to TT -- not if Oklahoma migrated out of the B12. Oklahoma's the key for Texas, not TT.

And really, I've never seen TT as the albatross that Texas has claimed TT is in the past during prior expansion discussions with, say, the ACC and B1G. I think Texas uses TT as a convenient excuse to test the expansion waters, and then we say, "well, we've got a Tech problem" when the waters get too deep. TT is a very convenient excuse for Texas to politely back out of committing to joining another league because we know nobody else wants TT.

Look, when people say "but politics!" with respect to Texas bailing out on TT, what they really mean is the "PUF", which represents a huge amount of money Texas and Texas A&M are paid from oil revenues, which is grounded in the 1800s when a guy willed a bunch of "worthless, West Texas desert land" to Texas that happened later to produce ungodly amounts of oil. TT and other schools want to get a portion of that PUF money, and they think that if Texas leaves the B12, angering some of the politicians, maybe that will give them an opening to get a share of the PUF money from the Texas Legislature.

Just one little problem with that thinking: Texas A&M is already gone to the SEC. If the PUF money were attacked by TT politicos (forget the private schools because they can't get the money anyway, being private schools), well ... so what? TT can't out-vote the politicians of Texas and Texas A&M combined.

And while the aggy would hate like hell to have to come to Texas' aid, A&M would have to come to Texas aid or get their own ox gored. Ironically, it would be the aggy that would allow Texas to do whatever it wants to do with respect to expansion, if push came to shove with OU leaving the B12.

I think "politics" is grossly overrated when it comes to Texas leaving TT behind on their own. Besides, Tech hates Texas anyhow, so most of us could personally care less about Texas Tech. For example, TT refused to allow one of their crappy OOC games to be televised over the LHN even though the game would not otherwise be televised. TT actually turned down making more money just to spite Texas, and TT played the game non-televised. Can you imagine?

I don't think TT has the clout to go to the PAC, nor do I think TT has the clout to go to the SEC. But I also don't think there's any way TT can stop Texas from leaving the B12 if Oklahoma bailed on the B12. And Texas would have no choice but to leave TT behind if Oklahoma bailed on the B12 because the B12 is not viable without the Sooners in the league.

Don't get me wrong -- Texas has no intention of leaving the B12, due to the recent success of the LHN, unless we are absolutely forced to leave, and even then we would go with much wailing and lamentations. But I certainly think Texas could be forced to leave the B12 if Delany ever decided to make a move on a very willing Kansas, and an exceedingly intrigued Oklahoma. If Delany takes those two, you tell me: What realistic options does Texas have?

As for ND, I will confess to a certain ND envy that I think Texas is definitely afflicted with. Let me be blunt: Texas would love to be in the same conference with ND, all things being equal. Even now, we wonder how we can corral ND to play us home-and-home on Thanksgiving, replacing the aggy. Texas is so conceited, we would argue to ND, "to heck with Southern Cal and Navy and Stanford -- you need to dump all those schools and make Texas your #1 rival!". Seriously, when it comes to ND, that sentiment is very close to Texas' thinking, lol.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if Texas migrated to the B1G, we would use our best efforts to convince ND to forgive and forget. But, in the end, I personally think the Domers would politely listen ... but say "no". I would love to be wrong about ND, but I just don't think Texas has the clout to entice ND into the B1G. So long as the ACC remains intact, which could happen, I don't think the Irish are going anywhere. The only thing that would bring ND into the B1G, best I can tell, is if the ACC were raided by both the SEC and the B1G, which could also happen.

If Texas, OU, KU, and, say, UConn were to go to the B1G, that would leave 2 additional schools to get to 20. The SEC needs 2 schools to get to 16. If the SEC managed to peel off 2 from, say, UNC, NCSU, and VPI, and if the B1G peeled off, say, UVA, then that last B1G spot might be grabbed by the Domers (rather than, say, Duke). But I don't think Texas alone brings ND into the B1G. JMO.

But now, indulge me while I speak some heresy. Let's assume Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, UConn, and Virginia all opted, at various times, for the B1G. Let's say that last spot at #20 was between Notre Dame and North Carolina. Who gets the spot? In this scenario, my guess would be UNC. I do think ND needs to think fast if the B1G completes a western sweep, fills the northern and southern ends of the NE Corridor, and the ACC is beleaguered. Sure, the SEC and PAC are there for ND, but are those leagues really better options for the Domers over the B1G? Just a thought.

As for UConn, I think UConn is very attractive to the B1G. However, the obvious cap to the NE Corridor is Boston and Massachusetts. I am also impressed by dayooper's cite to FtT's valuation article wherein BC ranked so highly -- startlingly highly. I had no clue. Just goes to show how important Boston is. Lots of people up in that part of the country.

But BC is not AAU. And, as you point out, BC is not a public land grant university either. UConn gives the B1G more of NYC, and a little bit of Massachusetts, right? UConn's definitely got a lot going for it. I would not be surprised at all to see UConn in the B1G someday. And, for the reasons I've set forth here and upthread, I think UConn's best play for the B1G is via B1G expansion out of the B12 before any kind of B1G expansion out of the ACC.

As an ND fan, I would love an annual Thanksgiving game against Texas.

The problem is, that weekend is the last week of the season. That weekend is reserved for the Southern Cal and Stanford West Coast games for ND every year.

I don't see ND moving that Southern Cal game in Los Angeles for a Texas game on Thanksgiving, but it is a possibility. ND wishes for a bigger Texas presence for recruiting. See the 2009 "Shamrock Series" game in San Antonio and the "Shamrock Series" game last year in Dallas.

As for the Big Ten, I agree that Texas would get a polite "No thanks, and best wishes" from ND. Non-ND fans really underestimate how much ND does NOT want to be part of the Big Ten Conference, ever.

ND folks are convinced (you can argue they are wrong, but it is their belief that matters here) that the Big Ten is an organization run solely for the benefit of Michigan and Ohio State, one that would go against ND's interests at every turn, even if ND was a member of that conference. There is also the "regionalization" concern, although the presence of Texas and Oklahoma would help with that.

There is a ton of enmity towards the Big Ten from ND people. ND wants no part of the Big Ten, for a bunch of reasons.

In the Realignment Wars, that would be like the Americans surrendering to the Japanese at Bataan. That is the worst case scenario outcome for ND (being "left out" is just not realistic, in my opinion).

Here is a link to a blog that has a map of ND games from 2014-16. (I would just post the map but don't know how to post photos here, sorry.)


http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2014/06/notre-dame-national-schedule.html


One look at this map will tell you all about ND's goals (in addition to remaining independent).


It wants to play in California, the Southeast, Southwest and the Atlantic seaboard, from Boston to Miami. ND has shifted much of its recruiting focus to the Tidewater area of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, etc...

Being in the ACC gives it the Southeast and somewhat of a Northeast presence. USC and Stanford gives it games in California. Games against Texas, Oklahoma and Arizona State give it somewhat of a Southwest presence. The Shamrock Series games will continue to rotate among Texas cities and the Northeast (pro stadiums) from time to time.

Six home games a year give it all the exposure it needs in the Midwest. ND is only in the Midwest by accident, with Father Sorin stopping there in a snowstorm in 1842. It doesn't really think of itself as a "Midwestern school".

ND has adopted a sort of "Southern Strategy" (more of a Southeast/Southwest/Northeast/West Coast) regarding scheduling and recruiting presence.

The Big Ten just doesn't provide the same sort of national coverage that ND has right now, even if Texas joined, especially with a nine or ten game conference schedule.



ND has signed the following agreements with the ACC:

1) Grant of Rights;

2) Exit Fee;

3) A contract that says if ND football has to join a conference before 2027, it must be the ACC.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... dependence


Much of ND's actions since 1999 are reflected by a desire to avoid being a member of the Big Ten.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Thank you for your interest. I gave my thoughts on KU-KSU and OU-OSU just upthread.

As for Texas-TT (or BU or TCU), you can easily find scads of Texas folks that will vehemently disagree with what I think about the Texas situation. But here goes:

I don't think Texas needs to worry about TT any more than Texas A&M had to worry about TT when the aggy migrated to the SEC.

Yea, Texas hopes that TT can become the third great public university in Texas. Yea, Texas hopes TT can find a soft landing place. But no, I don't think TT would be the "Great Wall of Texas", keeping Texas forever handcuffed to TT -- not if Oklahoma migrated out of the B12. Oklahoma's the key for Texas, not TT.

And really, I've never seen TT as the albatross that Texas has claimed TT is in the past during prior expansion discussions with, say, the ACC and B1G. I think Texas uses TT as a convenient excuse to test the expansion waters, and then we say, "well, we've got a Tech problem" when the waters get too deep. TT is a very convenient excuse for Texas to politely back out of committing to joining another league because we know nobody else wants TT.

Look, when people say "but politics!" with respect to Texas bailing out on TT, what they really mean is the "PUF", which represents a huge amount of money Texas and Texas A&M are paid from oil revenues, which is grounded in the 1800s when a guy willed a bunch of "worthless, West Texas desert land" to Texas that happened later to produce ungodly amounts of oil. TT and other schools want to get a portion of that PUF money, and they think that if Texas leaves the B12, angering some of the politicians, maybe that will give them an opening to get a share of the PUF money from the Texas Legislature.

Just one little problem with that thinking: Texas A&M is already gone to the SEC. If the PUF money were attacked by TT politicos (forget the private schools because they can't get the money anyway, being private schools), well ... so what? TT can't out-vote the politicians of Texas and Texas A&M combined.

And while the aggy would hate like hell to have to come to Texas' aid, A&M would have to come to Texas aid or get their own ox gored. Ironically, it would be the aggy that would allow Texas to do whatever it wants to do with respect to expansion, if push came to shove with OU leaving the B12.

I think "politics" is grossly overrated when it comes to Texas leaving TT behind on their own. Besides, Tech hates Texas anyhow, so most of us could personally care less about Texas Tech. For example, TT refused to allow one of their crappy OOC games to be televised over the LHN even though the game would not otherwise be televised. TT actually turned down making more money just to spite Texas, and TT played the game non-televised. Can you imagine?

I don't think TT has the clout to go to the PAC, nor do I think TT has the clout to go to the SEC. But I also don't think there's any way TT can stop Texas from leaving the B12 if Oklahoma bailed on the B12. And Texas would have no choice but to leave TT behind if Oklahoma bailed on the B12 because the B12 is not viable without the Sooners in the league.

Don't get me wrong -- Texas has no intention of leaving the B12, due to the recent success of the LHN, unless we are absolutely forced to leave, and even then we would go with much wailing and lamentations. But I certainly think Texas could be forced to leave the B12 if Delany ever decided to make a move on a very willing Kansas, and an exceedingly intrigued Oklahoma. If Delany takes those two, you tell me: What realistic options does Texas have?

As for ND, I will confess to a certain ND envy that I think Texas is definitely afflicted with. Let me be blunt: Texas would love to be in the same conference with ND, all things being equal. Even now, we wonder how we can corral ND to play us home-and-home on Thanksgiving, replacing the aggy. Texas is so conceited, we would argue to ND, "to heck with Southern Cal and Navy and Stanford -- you need to dump all those schools and make Texas your #1 rival!". Seriously, when it comes to ND, that sentiment is very close to Texas' thinking, lol.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if Texas migrated to the B1G, we would use our best efforts to convince ND to forgive and forget. But, in the end, I personally think the Domers would politely listen ... but say "no". I would love to be wrong about ND, but I just don't think Texas has the clout to entice ND into the B1G. So long as the ACC remains intact, which could happen, I don't think the Irish are going anywhere. The only thing that would bring ND into the B1G, best I can tell, is if the ACC were raided by both the SEC and the B1G, which could also happen.

If Texas, OU, KU, and, say, UConn were to go to the B1G, that would leave 2 additional schools to get to 20. The SEC needs 2 schools to get to 16. If the SEC managed to peel off 2 from, say, UNC, NCSU, and VPI, and if the B1G peeled off, say, UVA, then that last B1G spot might be grabbed by the Domers (rather than, say, Duke). But I don't think Texas alone brings ND into the B1G. JMO.

But now, indulge me while I speak some heresy. Let's assume Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, UConn, and Virginia all opted, at various times, for the B1G. Let's say that last spot at #20 was between Notre Dame and North Carolina. Who gets the spot? In this scenario, my guess would be UNC. I do think ND needs to think fast if the B1G completes a western sweep, fills the northern and southern ends of the NE Corridor, and the ACC is beleaguered. Sure, the SEC and PAC are there for ND, but are those leagues really better options for the Domers over the B1G? Just a thought.

As for UConn, I think UConn is very attractive to the B1G. However, the obvious cap to the NE Corridor is Boston and Massachusetts. I am also impressed by dayooper's cite to FtT's valuation article wherein BC ranked so highly -- startlingly highly. I had no clue. Just goes to show how important Boston is. Lots of people up in that part of the country.

But BC is not AAU. And, as you point out, BC is not a public land grant university either. UConn gives the B1G more of NYC, and a little bit of Massachusetts, right? UConn's definitely got a lot going for it. I would not be surprised at all to see UConn in the B1G someday. And, for the reasons I've set forth here and upthread, I think UConn's best play for the B1G is via B1G expansion out of the B12 before any kind of B1G expansion out of the ACC.

Interesting, thanks again. I especially did not know about the oil money issue. Then again, it’s Texas, it’s always about the oil and I should not have been surprised.

Two critiques based on what I have heard from alumni in Texas.

First, In Austin, the U of Texas has less power than it used to have because of 1) A&M’s recent success, and 2) the current Governor, Rick Perry, is not a big fan of U Texas (Too liberal maybe? UNC has had that issue for years) and has been placing his also not enamored friends on the U Texas board. Thus, the Longhorns may not have the influence they once had, which may impact what they do in conference realignment, such as cutting the cord with Tech.

Second, even without the two big ones (Texas & Oklahoma), the PAC still maybe interested in their little sisters (Tech and OK ST) simply due to the limited number of available programs out West if the PAC wants to get to 16 or even 20 members. Such a move woudl also open the door for the PAC to the Texas market both in terms of TV viewers and recruitment.

I agree that ND and U Texas suffer from some seriously overly inflated egos and any conference that opens the door for them opens a Pandora’s Box. Just ask the old Big East. That said, the B1G and the SEC may have enough weight already in place to potentially balance either out should the dream of independence and/or the XII fades away.

As a FYI, it is roughly 90 miles from UConn (Storrs CT) to Boston and 140 miles to New York City. Syracuse University is 250 miles from New York City.

 

[billybud]

Kyle...the GOR of the ACC (as with the Big 12) can not be fully understood without having a copy of the internally referenced "ESPN agreement".

The ESPN Agreement and the GOR, as with some portions of statute which reference another section, act together as the controlling document. The contractual obligations of the conference and a institutional member are specified in the ESPN agreement (and no one seems to have a copy of that document).

But one can gleam from the GOR specific reference that the conference now has the irrevocable contract right "to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement regardless of whether such member institution remains a a member of the conference".

The GOR does specify that all events of the member institution which are reserved to the conference in the ESPN agreement are subject to the agreement.

1...How does that shake out in the real world of college sports entertainment?

A....If ESPN/ACC own the rights to sports broadcasting and copyrights to all member institution products (as set forth in the ESPN agreement)....the ACC/ESPN would have the right to schedule and broadcast any home football game and the right to all other sports (as specified in the ESPN agreement)...Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. That agreement may include bowl games.

That ESPN owns ACC Tier 3 rights has been pretty well established.

How will that affect a member institution who leaves for another conference? Opinions abound. If it comes to it, the courts will sort it all out.

We do know that all member institutions granted their rights for "good and valuable considerations, the receipt of whom are acknowledged and agreed".

 

[businesslawyer]

So only people that have worked with contracts for 30 years can understand them or understand the fundamentals of law? Got it.

I'd still appreciate you actually bother to have a discussion about what specific points you disagree with about the premise of what I've said. Interestingly, you haven't bothered to disagree with anything. Instead, you're just making sweeping generalizations about me.

I've said the following:

* That the purpose of a Grant of Rights is to protect the media partners, so that they can be confident they'll continue to receive the value of the teams they pay for when dealing with a conference. What part of this, if any, do you disagree with?

* That for any contract to be enforceable, both sides must receive consideration. Do you disagree with this?

* That for 30+ years, conferences have acquired the broadcast rights of its conference members in exchange for negotiation rights with media partners, and then the league payouts of such media revenue is then re-distributed to league members. What part of this, if any, do you disagree with?

* That no entity may be bound to another party, as it has a right to make a living, meaning any contract stipulation cannot be punitive or overly obtrusive in scope. What part, if any, do you disagree with?

* That due to these things, if the league were to stop compensating a departed member for its rights, therefore it would be in violation of the spirit of the consideration of the contract as well as the idea that no person/entity should be bound to another.

It astounds me your implication that another person cannot know anything about law unless they're a lawyer, but what's worse, is that I don't see you disagreeing on any of these points. Instead, you'd rather just make sweeping, ad hominem attacks at me.

O.K., I'm a business lawyer and you lost me at the first bullet point. Who is to say that the purpose of a GOR is to protect a media partner? Why, nobody sherlock. In fact, you made clear about two pages ago that the purpose of the GOR, tied to a conferences's by-laws, is to restrain schools from leaving a conference, ending a business relationship and competing against its former business partners. That, in its simplest form, has many of the indicia of a per se violation of the Sherman Act because its entire purpose is to prohibit competition. And the more punitive it is (by, as you eloquently stated earlier, not letting a school share in the funds from a media contract even while their home games are included in it), the easier the argument is that a per se violation exists.

Do I know that a court won't uphold one of these? No. I'm an M&A lawyer, and I've learned in my field that you never know what a judge will say and anyone who pretends that they do is full of it. But if anyone has convinced you that these provisions are failsafe, and will prevent a school from leaving a conference, they are full of it as well because there are arguments on both sides and we won't know until it gets to a judge.

And, before Nelson or someone tells me why they are sure of the answer, I have a busy day today and unless someone wants to convince me both that they are a lawyer and that they have a real reputation where people actually value their opinion on complicated matters I'm just not going to debate you further. That is my point and people can take it for what it's worth or not.

Good day.

 

[UConn Dan]

Wow. I miss day or two and this thread explodes. Glad everyone has kissed and made up.

My 2 cents:
UNC was not approached prior to Maryland and Rutgers being invited to the B1G - so it's clear to me that Delany went after his intended targets and didn't "settle". This is clear from internal UNC emails concerning 1) the blindsiding of Maryland joining the B1G and 2) how UNCs AD had no clue how much more the B1G payout would be. So Delany did get who he initially went after. His plan was NYC and DC.

It's unclear if either UVA or UNC were approached after MD/Rutgers, but I think they are where they want to be for the time being. We know Swofford made a special trip to UVA prior to the GOR to seal the deal, so there may be some UVA apprehensions. Not sure how rock solid the GOR will actually be, but the fact that the ACC attempted to go after Penn State even though they have a signed GOR must mean that at least the ACC believes there is a way out of them or around them. Of course the ACC could have written their's with stronger language.

 

[Adios]

Speaking of misperceptions, UConn would own New England if it was in the B1G. In all sports. Mention us in the B1G to BC people and you might see horror in their eyes. We already own New England basketball, at least, as well as men's soccer.

 

[Kolumbo]

Speaking of misperceptions, UConn would own New England if it was in the B1G. In all sports. Mention us in the B1G to BC people and you might see horror in their eyes. We already own New England basketball, at least, as well as men's soccer.

Imagine if UCONN Hockey takes off in Hockey East...being on par with BC would be enough to make a statement that UCONN is New England's dominant program. The hockey team wouldn't have to absolutely own BC as it did in hoops for all those years.

 

[TerryD]

O.K., I'm a business lawyer and you lost me at the first bullet point. Who is to say that the purpose of a GOR is to protect a media partner? Why, nobody sherlock. In fact, you made clear about two pages ago that the purpose of the GOR, tied to a conferences's by-laws, is to restrain schools from leaving a conference, ending a business relationship and competing against its former business partners. That, in its simplest form, has many of the indicia of a per se violation of the Sherman Act because its entire purpose is to prohibit competition. And the more punitive it is (by, as you eloquently stated earlier, not letting a school share in the funds from a media contract even while their home games are included in it), the easier the argument is that a per se violation exists.

Do I know that a court won't uphold one of these? No. I'm an M&A lawyer, and I've learned in my field that you never know what a judge will say and anyone who pretends that they do is full of it. But if anyone has convinced you that these provisions are failsafe, and will prevent a school from leaving a conference, they are full of it as well because there are arguments on both sides and we won't know until it gets to a judge.

And, before Nelson or someone tells me why they are sure of the answer, I have a busy day today and unless someone wants to convince me both that they are a lawyer and that they have a real reputation where people actually value their opinion on complicated matters I'm just not going to debate you further. That is my point and people can take it for what it's worth or not.

Good day.

I am a lawyer. I have been involved in commercial litigation for over 27 years. I really doubt that I have anything amounting to a "real reputation", though.

That said, I agree with you. Anyone who thinks that they can safely predict what a judge and/or a jury will do has never done much (or any) litigation practice. There are reasonable guesses but a jury trial is similar to a spin on the roulette wheel. You just never know where you are going to land.

 

[dayooper]

I have no idea what Frank and Dayooper are citing, but rodeo on ESPN2 does higher ratings in Boston when BC is playing football on ESPN. This has been proven.

When Peter Gammons was talking to Mike Francesa in early April, Gammons was asked how pysched Boston was for the Red Sox' post World Series opener. Gammons replied that it was all UConn talk up in Boston, and that the sports fans hadn't come around yet to thinking Red Sox. I am NOT saying that UConn has more fans than BC in Boston, but Uconn's success has created more interest in college sports up there (AND in NYC for that matter) than ou normally see. Heck, New York had really good ratings even for the UConn women.

Whatever FranktheTank thinks about BC, he couldn't be more wrong. This would be like me saying that Northwestern controls Wisconsin, Chicago and Illinois. And Northwestern even has MORE fans than BC.

I hope you don't interpret me posting that as a sign the BC would be a huge asset to the Big10. The only reason I linked it was to show that Rutgers and UMD were not knee jerk reactions, but thought out plans. I never saw BC as a huge draw and to see ND lower than Rutgers, UMD, and BC led me to believe that the numbers were off. That was written four years ago and much has been learned by us fans and the media specialists of the conferences and networks, The only reason to give any credence to those numbers is that The Big10 took schools 2, 3, and 4.

Taking into account what I think they want in their new partners, here is my guess on who the Big10 would like to take get to 20 out of The AAC, ACC, and The Big12:

1. Texas
2. UNC
3. Virginia
4. UConn
5. GT
6. Kansas
7. Oklahoma (The Big10 did research on them, don't know if they would take them)
8. VTU
9. Duke
10. 'Cuse
11. BC

I would put ND in at #3 if The ACC and Oklahoma higher if it meant they were getting Texas as part of the deal. Duke would be a no go without UNC. Obviously, most, if not all of these schools (sans UConn) seem to not want to move.

 

[Fishy]

Yeah, I'm sure of that too. And the truth is we're just trying to catch up to Fishy who is easily the biggest curmudgeon on the board after McCracken.

I'm not going to argue with that because, basically, I can't.

 

[kyleslamb]

O.K., I'm a business lawyer and you lost me at the first bullet point. Who is to say that the purpose of a GOR is to protect a media partner? W

Actually, ESPN says so. They are the ones that requested the Grant of Rights. After all, why do you think the Grant of Rights is an addendum to the media deal? Because it's one in the same. A Grant of Rights has always been to protect the publisher of rights.

The Grant of Rights is assurance to the media partners that when they are paying for certain teams, those teams are going to continue to be a part of the conference. If they didn't have that assurance, the Big 12 could swap Houston and Tulsa for Texas and Oklahoma and ESPN/FOX would have been forced contractually to continue paying the same amount of money as before.

The worst thing that could happen to ESPN is for them to pay a lot of money to the Big 12, and Texas and Oklahoma go off to the Big Ten (or another league) who winds up signing a tier-1 deal with NBC/Comcast or FOX. Then ESPN loses money paying out to the Big 12 based on the premise Texas/Oklahoma would be involved and a competitor winds up getting the value of those members.

The forfeiture clause of the bylaws was added by the Big 12 hoping to leverage the Grant of Rights to be something other than what it has always supposed to be. ESPN didn't request the GoR to bind teams to the league. They frankly don't care, so long as the teams they're paying for remain in their inventory.

 

[clmssun]

Actually, ESPN says so. They are the ones that requested the Grant of Rights. After all, why do you think the Grant of Rights is an addendum to the media deal? Because it's one in the same. A Grant of Rights has always been to protect the publisher of rights.

The Grant of Rights is assurance to the media partners that when they are paying for certain teams, those teams are going to continue to be a part of the conference. If they didn't have that assurance, the Big 12 could swap Houston and Tulsa for Texas and Oklahoma and ESPN/FOX would have been forced contractually to continue paying the same amount of money as before.

The worst thing that could happen to ESPN is for them to pay a lot of money to the Big 12, and Texas and Oklahoma go off to the Big Ten (or another league) who winds up signing a tier-1 deal with NBC/Comcast or FOX. Then ESPN loses money paying out to the Big 12 based on the premise Texas/Oklahoma would be involved and a competitor winds up getting the value of those members.

The forfeiture clause of the bylaws was added by the Big 12 hoping to leverage the Grant of Rights to be something other than what it has always supposed to be. ESPN didn't request the GoR to bind teams to the league. They frankly don't care, so long as the teams they're paying for remain in their inventory.

Yes, and given that ESPN owns the ACC 100% while ESPN's share of the B1G is already less than that and stands to be much less than that after the upcoming TV negotiation, I would not expect ESPN to just "hand over" UVa and/or UNC to the B1G. (Under these premises, FSU/GT/Clemson could go to SEC... but SEC does not want them). I have said before: ESPN is the ACC's sword: the ACC lives by the sword, and the ACC could conceivably die by the sword, but I do not that expect that to happen any time soon.

ADDENDUM: ESPN has full distribution of ACC and SEC (and AAC). ESPN & Fox share distribution of Big 12, Pac 12, and, quite likely, B1G after upcoming TV negotiation. (Fox already has piece of BTN, but I expect them to get a share of Tier 1/2 in B1G as they have in Big 12 and Pac 12). Therefore, with all the grants of rights of signed (not SEC, of course, nor AAC), it seems to me that the "easiest" future movement is among SEC/ACC (UNC/NCSU/Duke/UVa/VPI?) and among Big12/Pac12/B1G (KU,OU,Texas).

 

[SouthronCross]

Wow. I miss day or two and this thread explodes. Glad everyone has kissed and made up.

My 2 cents:
UNC was not approached prior to Maryland and Rutgers being invited to the B1G - so it's clear to me that Delany went after his intended targets and didn't "settle". This is clear from internal UNC emails concerning 1) the blindsiding of Maryland joining the B1G and 2) how UNCs AD had no clue how much more the B1G payout would be. So Delany did get who he initially went after. His plan was NYC and DC.

It's unclear if either UVA or UNC were approached after MD/Rutgers, but I think they are where they want to be for the time being. We know Swofford made a special trip to UVA prior to the GOR to seal the deal, so there may be some UVA apprehensions. Not sure how rock solid the GOR will actually be, but the fact that the ACC attempted to go after Penn State even though they have a signed GOR must mean that at least the ACC believes there is a way out of them or around them. Of course the ACC could have written their's with stronger language.

From my own reading of ACC media, UVA was onboard from the get-go.

Swofford had his toughest sells at FSU and Clemson. If memory serves, he met with each BOG...or maybe it was BOR...member, and, laid out his vision for the league. In Florida, he did so to prevent the necessity of FSU having to call some sort of open, public meeting, in order to vet his proposal.

billybud can answer that last one much better than I can.

 

[UConn Dan]

From my own reading of ACC media, UVA was onboard from the get-go. Swofford had his toughest sells at FSU and Clemson. If memory serves, he met with each BOG...or maybe it was BOR...member, and, laid out his vision for the league. In Florida, he did so to prevent the necessity of FSU having to call some sort of open, public meeting, in order to vet his proposal. billybud can answer that last one much better than I can.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-uva-acc-grant,0,286752.story

Less than 24 hours before ACC presidents unanimously approved the conference’s landmark grant of rights last month, commissioner John Swofford met with Virginia’s Board of Visitors in Charlottesville.

I know that the rest of the article goes on to say there was no interest in B1G, etc., but why the special trip to UVA? I don’t recall a visit to Clemson (the article does mention him going to Clemson the year prior though – if he had gone around the same time as UVA I think they would mention), but may have missed that, I know he also visited FSU just prior to the GOR.

Bottom line, like I said, UVA is where they want to be for the time being. But money usually changes things. If they see the Maryland move working out and the GOR works out to not impede a move, they may seriously consider moving.