Expansion/realignment chatter post TAMU

[nelsonmuntz]

You are forgetting a simple basic rule: 2 parties can "allow" a contract to re-open. The clause gives leverage. But, I think there are compelling reasons for ESPN and/or a conference to simply morph into a new paradigm. The fact that the BE has the "next" contract that comes open ... gives me little to no confidence that we are OK.

What leverage? Even if ESPN reopens the deal, they would never let another network enter the picture, so the deal becomes a bilateral negotiation without competition. How do those typically work out?

 

[Pudge]

Remember ... I AM only interested in HOW WE do.

From the UConn perspective, I would like to know that we have a Payday next September (2012). The multiple contracts that are out there effect our (meaning the BE conference) ability to hammer home a solid economic deal & stability for this Program. The fact that the ACC could (might be incentivized) to go grab a few BE schools to ... once again ... change their market appeal & raise their profile & earn more per ACC program ... gives me the willies. I'd like to see OUR conference dominant after a long slog of work. But, I think that we are not positioned to do that.

 

[freescooter]

Remember ... I AM only interested in HOW WE do.

From the UConn perspective, I would like to know that we have a Payday next September (2012). The multiple contracts that are out there effect our (meaning the BE conference) ability to hammer home a solid economic deal & stability for this Program. The fact that the ACC could (might be incentivized) to go grab a few BE schools to ... once again ... change their market appeal & raise their profile & earn more per ACC program ... gives me the willies. I'd like to see OUR conference dominant after a long slog of work. But, I think that we are not positioned to do that.

And the reason we are not positioned to dominate, the reason it is very difficult to get the Big East football teams in position to cooperate frankly, is the hybrid nature of the conference. When you have to placate both the football schools and the basketball schools, major athletic programs and modest ones, it becomes exceedingly difficult to get anything done. There are size limtiations as well. You can't add 5 teams from the B-12 if they become available, because a 22 team basketball league is impossible. You can't go to a 16 team football league if the SEC, PAC-howevermany do because you can't have 24 basketball teams. And then you add the fact the fact that there isn't unanimity of views on which is more important, football or basketball, among the football members, and you just have a mess that can't be solved. While I would love to see the Big East come out of this as a solid long term propositon, I continue to be concerned that as a basketball first league, it will never be able to take the needed steps.

 

[Pudge]

I agree freescooter. And a lot of it is pure sentimentality. The Prime Movers just don't want to upset the lowly small time hoop schools. But, that is precisely why OUR hated enemy BC got on their uppity horse & moved on. My view is that the New Regime, led by Oliver Luck & Tom Jurich, is here. I am not overly confident that a good thing is coming ... just expectant that some of the folks in key position know what has to happen.

 

[ZooCougar]

I am really impressed with Oliver Luck. I wish he were the commissioner. Actually I wish we had a former high level NFL exec like him as our AD.

 

[freescooter]

I agree freescooter. And a lot of it is pure sentimentality. The Prime Movers just don't want to upset the lowly small time hoop schools. But, that is precisely why OUR hated enemy BC got on their uppity horse & moved on. My view is that the New Regime, led by Oliver Luck & Tom Jurich, is here. I am not overly confident that a good thing is coming ... just expectant that some of the folks in key position know what has to happen.

That is my view, too. I think for the first time with the Villanova situation, the football side said "ENOUGH" though if the reports are accurate, it was a minority that stopped that move. And you're absolutely right about the sentimentality of things...how else do you explain the "keep Villanova, St Johns and Georgetown" setiments. It will be interesting to see how things progress, but I don't have high hopes that the big East as currently constituted can pull it off.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

That is my view, too. I think for the first time with the Villanova situation, the football side said "ENOUGH" though if the reports are accurate, it was a minority that stopped that move. And you're absolutely right about the sentimentality of things...how else do you explain the "keep Villanova, St Johns and Georgetown" setiments. It will be interesting to see how things progress, but I don't have high hopes that the big East as currently constituted can pull it off.

A minority was vocal but there were a couple of football members who for many reasons could not public support the decision to stop the Villanova upgrade (even if they did privately support it). I believe that the decision was pretty close to being unanimous, even if public perception was that three members were driving the bus on the decision (and that two charter BE members remained in support of VU).

 

[FfldCntyFan]

NY Post (Lenn Robbins, whose credibility is open for interpretation) chimes in on potential 12/20 BE.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_east_thinking_big_ou8JdQKJUhWEeCUtGv7dNP

Only a couple of new items:

1 - He claims (although it defies logic) that Missouri would prefer the BE to the SEC if it received an offer for both.

2 - Interesting quote form Swofford who both affirms his statement that they are not looking to expand yet also leaves the door open for the possibility of adding a member (UT) who would cause a revenue disparity within the conference.

John Swofford, commissioner of the ACC, all but shot down a report out of Austin that his league was interested in taking Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn and Texas.

He also alluded to the reason why the Big 12 is in trouble is because of the Longhorn Network and the uneven distribution of TV monies.
Swofford was asked if he would bring in any entity that created uneven distribution.

"I don't think that you ever say never about anything these days but that has been a very strong principle in our league since the middle '80s," he said. "I think that it's one that has a lot to do with the stability of conferences."

 

[businesslawyer]

1. Surely, no one here is giving any credibility whatsoever to what Swofford says, are they? Because they shouldn't.

2. I can see Mizzou picking the Big East over the SEC (assuming that the financial disparity lessens considerably, which there is every reason to think it will). At some point, someone about to join one of these superconferences is going to ask the following question: "Wouldn't it be good for my career if I put our teams in a league we can compete in, and occasionally win, as opposed to being Vanderbilt or Duke in football?" Maybe the Mizzou President or AD is asking that question.

 

[upstater]

Does Mizzou sell out? Does it have a lot of fans? If so, then the SEC is the place to make more $$$. Someone might crunch numbers and figure out that they can draw more fans to home games by joining the BE, however, and the extra ticket sales may make up for lost SEC revs. But, I doubt any AD would be that brave.

 

[businesslawyer]

Why does a school have to pursue the most dollars in athletic revenues, when those extra dollars never make it out of the athletic department anyway? Why wouldn't a school be just as happy making some less money and being more competitive? Why does the President care what the assistant coaches make, for example, or whether they fly coach or business class when recruiting?

 

[upstater]

First answer, fear. Fear of alumni, boosters, politicians, boards of trustees, etc. Presidents don't mess with sacred cows. They allow athletic departments to maximize revenues if it means they can hire the next Mack Brown.

Second, Missouri's academic side contributes cash to athletics.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

1. Surely, no one here is giving any credibility whatsoever to what Swofford says, are they? Because they shouldn't.

2. I can see Mizzou picking the Big East over the SEC (assuming that the financial disparity lessens considerably, which there is every reason to think it will). At some point, someone about to join one of these superconferences is going to ask the following question: "Wouldn't it be good for my career if I put our teams in a league we can compete in, and occasionally win, as opposed to being Vanderbilt or Duke in football?" Maybe the Mizzou President or AD is asking that question.

The financial disparity between the BE and SEC, even after the new contract (assuming the BE survives that long) ispart of the equation but (as things appear) the move to four superconferences is becoming more of a when, than an if, with three (P-12, B1G & SEC) conferences assured of survival. I imagine that a home that will be permanent will be far more attractive to most than a home that may not survive would be.

 

[businesslawyer]

I hear those arguments. I understand why, to conference commissioners, bigger is always better. I still wait for a University President to question that (but maybe I'll be waiting forever).

In any event, I can't see it happening. The SEC would be acting absurdly to invite a Mizzou over a FSU, Clemson or Va Tech, even if it couldn't get an Oklahoma.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I agree that Missouri should be very low on the SEC's list of candidates. I also believe that the SEC will add a minimum of two schools from the east (ACC). This may not happen immediately as unlike the P-12, the SEC would have no problem expanding to sixteen in two steps.

My concern is that once the ACC loses members to the SEC, the BE will be carved up.

 

[upstater]

I hear those arguments. I understand why, to conference commissioners, bigger is always better. I still wait for a University President to question that (but maybe I'll be waiting forever).

In any event, I can't see it happening. The SEC would be acting absurdly to invite a Mizzou over a FSU, Clemson or Va Tech, even if it couldn't get an Oklahoma.

When you see how small athletic budgets are compared to university budgets, it becomes clearer. Here we have Presidents involved with congressional committees and politicians each and every day, as well as lobbying firms in every state capital. They are not going to make rational decisions about athletics (which is about 5% of their budget) when their budgets are being slashed by 20-30%, and they're fighting to get that money back. They risk alienating the very people they are trying to sweet-talk.

 

[businesslawyer]

I would understand that, Upstater, if making more money in athletics meant that you had more money for math and history. But I think you're agreeing with me that the more "big time" you go in athletics, if anything you have less money for academics as the athletic department requires buildings or student fees.

So why is there no logic in the decisionmaking process?

 

[IMind]

I also wonder how the new management at UConn effects the dynamics of the league. I could see the Hathaway AD being much more on the basketball side of things and a new AD aligning itself much more heavily with the "New Regime" of ADs in the Big East. The Villanova football to the Big East move seems very much like a Paul Pasqualoni hire (I like the hire personally, not a huge fan of the Villanova move) in that it's a very conservative play.

As to Missouri to the Big East over the SEC... I think it the long run in might very well be the best move for Missouri financially and competitively... but if you're the AD/President that makes that decision.. you'd better have some hardcore support from the boosters and feasibility studies coming out the wazoo to justify it... because to the casual fan it would be an idiotic move.

That being said I never really bought the Missouri being invited to the SEC angle, even with the market they bring... I just think there are bigger fish closer to the SEC...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

BL, I believe that a large part of the illogical decision making has to do with college presidents, local politicians and fan bases placing excessive value in the branding/advertising that successful athletic programs bring to a university. Yes there is an intrinsic value (UConn over the past few decades is proof of this) but all too often (see Rutgers recently) many provide far too much of an intangible worth on a cost as a means to justify the expenditure.

 

[upstater]

I would understand that, Upstater, if making more money in athletics meant that you had more money for math and history. But I think you're agreeing with me that the more "big time" you go in athletics, if anything you have less money for academics as the athletic department requires buildings or student fees.

So why is there no logic in the decisionmaking process?

Right. I have been making that argument for quite a while now.

On the other hand, maybe there's an endgame in play that I'm not seeing. Maybe athletics will detach at some point. Maybe that's where all this is headed.

All I know is that, even though athletics is still a small part of the university, it's treated like a sacred cow because of political concerns, and because it's not yet big enough to truly threaten the way business is conducted in the entire university. The former president of Texas A&M put her foot down when football suffered an unexpected $18 million loss. She might have been rational, she might have been principled, but in the end she lost her job. She was also replaced by the current president who is a prime mover and shaker for the SEC move. Texas A&M is also a school that recently instituted pay increases not based on research & publishing & teaching and service, but it was entirely based on customer satisfaction: i.e. student evaluations. One can safely say that rationality rarely enters into the equation when we're discussing higher echelon decisions made by schools like Texas A&M.

 

[businesslawyer]

BL, I believe that a large part of the illogical decision making has to do with college presidents, local politicians and fan bases placing excessive value in the branding/advertising that successful athletic programs bring to a university. Yes there is an intrinsic value (UConn over the past few decades is proof of this) but all too often (see Rutgers recently) many provide far too much of an intangible worth on a cost as a means to justify the expenditure.

FCF: I agree with that. But big time is good if you're winning. UConn's spin off of goodwill to the rest of the university is because we have multiple national championships in two sports. My point is that Mizzou in the SEC is buried in the second division forever. How can that be as good for branding/advertising as being an a somewhat lesser superconference but one in which you can be competitive?

Upstater: once people are not making decisions based on rationality, I find it's not worth spending energy trying to predict their decisions. So, I guess I will stop based on what I think is agreement between us that chasing every last dollar that simply gets spent chasing further dollars is in fact pointless.

 

[upstater]

FCF: I agree with that. But big time is good if you're winning. UConn's spin off of goodwill to the rest of the university is because we have multiple national championships in two sports. My point is that Mizzou in the SEC is buried in the second division forever. How can that be as good for branding/advertising as being an a somewhat lesser superconference but one in which you can be competitive?

Upstater: once people are not making decisions based on rationality, I find it's not worth spending energy trying to predict their decisions. So, I guess I will stop based on what I think is agreement between us that chasing every last dollar that simply gets spent chasing further dollars is in fact pointless.

You're making the argument that Andrew Zimbalist made that the benefits of athletics (in terms of marketing the university) are reaped by a few schools (BC, ND, Boise St, maybe UConn, etc.) while other schools either lose their "investment" or else develop a negative reputation for losing. Far from drawing more students to the school, students turn away because they don't want to be associated with a loser's degree. That's pretty rare since many of the schools at the bottom of the top conferences are known for academics (Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, Northwestern) but then you look at Rutgers and note that their sports build-up has coincided with a precipitous fall in the academic rankings.

I looked at the top 45 schools in USNWP recently (after the UK's Guardian newspaper published the world's best universities ranking) and I noticed that only 11 of the top 45 schools play bigtime football, and of those schools, many are fine universities (such as Virginia) regardless of their sports success or failure. So, in the end, I wonder how powerful that marketability really is for each school, especially when places like SUNY and Cal-San Diego or Cal-Davis, etc., are experiencing the same exact 20% rise in applications and out-of-state applications that the football schools are.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

FCF: I agree with that. But big time is good if you're winning. UConn's spin off of goodwill to the rest of the university is because we have multiple national championships in two sports. My point is that Mizzou in the SEC is buried in the second division forever. How can that be as good for branding/advertising as being an a somewhat lesser superconference but one in which you can be competitive?

I agree with you BL but many have delusions of grandeur and in some cases (look where we are compared to twenty five years ago, Bosie St) these delusions may not be completely deluded.

I still see the most significant issue being that in this game of musical chairs, unless you are already a brand that will be guaranteed a seat once the music stops, finding a seat that will absolutely not be removed is of far greater importance than being immediately competitive. All members of the SEC will have a seat once the music stops. If the eventual move becomes four sixteen member BCS conferences and the BE's next move is to the 12/20 model, there is little chance that the BE will survive ahead of the ACC and a limited portion of the twelve football members will be able to find a home. In Missouri's eyes, a move to a 12/20 BE may do little more than put their school on the chopping block again in a few years. Many current Be football members may also see things this way.

 

[upstater]

Northwestern sought assurances during talk of the Big10s conference expansion that they would not be kicked out. Northwestern actually withheld their approval vote of Nebraska until receiving those assurances. It's shocking to me that they sought them out at all. Is the SEC isn't thinking the same about Vandy? These schools don't have the eyeballs of the others, and they are more or less free-riders on all the cash coming in.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I agree that Missouri should be very low on the SEC's list of candidates. I also believe that the SEC will add a minimum of two schools from the east (ACC). This may not happen immediately as unlike the P-12, the SEC would have no problem expanding to sixteen in two steps.

My concern is that once the ACC loses members to the SEC, the BE will be carved up.

So you say that college athletics are moving to super conferences, but then say the Big East will be carved up by the ACC if the ACC loses a couple of teams. Walk me through that again? How do we have superconferences where the entire Big East is not merged with the ACC? Give me a scenario.