Expansion/realignment chatter post TAMU

[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.

 

[freescooter]

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.

A&M and Missouri to the SEC as 13, 14. VaTech and Florida State to the SEC. as 15 and 16 UCONN, West Virginia, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, USF to the ACC as 11-16. TCU, Cincinatti and Rutgers to where? And you can substitute any of the left outs for any of the ins. Depending on the way the big 10 goes, and they aren't taking TCU, or Cincinatti, if the Big East doesn't work it correctly, it is possible that anywhere from 2-4 teams could be left in the cold.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'll try to do this slowly so you can follow as when things are presented at a normal pace it appears to be beyond your capabilities.

1 - A&M does officially move to the SEC, leaving nine remaining members of the B-12.
2 - The P-12 takes four of the remianing nine (just to keep you up to speed, current ten as although they are called the B-12 they only have ten members, less A&M) to expand to sixteen.
3 - Likely in two steps (one to get to fourteen, the second to get to sixteen) the SEC finds another three schools to add to their conference. For the sake of argument, I will project what appears to be the worst case for the ACC, which would be three members of that conference jumping to the SEC.
4 - The ACC will immediately grab BE schools to replace those that they lost to the SEC and later add other BE members when they move to sixteen.

If this was too fast for you I apologize but I constructed this in a manner which a fifth grader should be able to follow with ease.

The thing is, as a 16/24 model would be beyond anything that could be considered realistic, among the few certainties is that the BE will not be able to start with its own (nine members once TCU joins) football membership and increase to sixteen. Another certainty is that the P-12, B1G and SEC will all survive this round of expansion (to four super conferences). This will leave three players remaining for the last one spot (as a superconference), the B-12 (which will be nearly completely decimated by this point), the Big East (which will be limited in what it can expand to without a split from the catholic schools) and the ACC.

As a hybrid BE cannot get to sixteen, it will be obvious to all that they cannot be a final destination. This will not only make the ACC a more attractive landing point for football members who want to remain part of the BCS, this will by default make them the fourth superconference.

 

[RS9999X]

If the SEC goes to 16 to match the PAC all bets are off.
The ACC could stay at 10 for a 9-game conference schedule. They could add 2. They would drive if the decisions is to go to 16. The BE couldn't drive and pretend to rep the basketball schools.

Of course I think they will add Nova, SJU, ND and GU as basetball members in that scenario and become the BE in all but name. And yes, RU would be in the mix over USF.

 

[jpm25]

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?

it is known as The Flutie Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect

 

[mattp]

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.[/quote]

when all is said and done i think the idea that the BCS will become more exclusive is wrong. so far every move has been to give more teams BCS access, and i think that will continue. there's anti trust to think about. i don't think musical chairs is an appropriate metaphor b/c they keep adding chairs, not taking them away

 

[freescooter]

it is known as The Flutie Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect

There have been a number of studies, including one by a guy on the BC faculty, which suggest that the Flutie effect was total nonsense. BC had been seeing significant increases in applications before and after Flutie. There have been other studies which indicate that successful football programs do bring about increases in such things as alumni giving, though successful basketball programs tend not to have much effect.

 

[upstater]

it is known as The Flutie Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect

Zimbalist pegs the probable success of such an effect at a 10% chance of success, and then he brings up the Loser's side, what happens when your school loses games.

One might tromp down Commonwealth Ave to see how Boston U's average class score has risen by the same amount as BC's in the time since Flutie. BU was also recently ranked through an international survey above BC.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

One might tromp down Commonwealth Ave to see how Boston U's average class score has risen by the same amount as BC's in the time since Flutie. BU was also recently ranked through an international survey above BC.

It's the Jack Parker Effect!

No, but seriously, the Flutie Effect is mostly garbage. It is true that continued success in a big time football or basketball program can increase applications, it happened at UConn post 1999. Of course, there are many, many other factors involved, so athletics is probably a secondary factor.