From the site that broke the Maryland to Big Ten news- UVA likely to join

[businesslawyer]

Hypothetically u are president of uconn with invites to both. Are you still picking ACC?

At this point, answering that question is as pointless as asking whether I would have rather played 18 yesterday with Tiger or the President. The answer to both questions is "yes."

 

[DarthGrumpy]

This is complete conjecture on my part; but, this is what I see and I do not see any moves until the Maryland exit fee issue is clarified. I also do not see B1G standing pat at 14, they are going to go to 16 or 18 now (they will not go to 20 until ND is brought in).

As for how the ‘future B1G would look, I picture a set of 4 ‘pods’ with 5 teams each.
South: Florida State, Georgia Tech**, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia
East: Connecticut*, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
*1 team of Boston College, Connecticut & Syracuse
** 1 team from Duke and Georgia Tech
Thus, each team would play 4 games within their pod, 1 ‘locked’ rivalry game, and a cross-over game with 1 team from the other pods. In addition, the first round of the B1G playoff would feature the 1st place team from each pod playing a semi-final round. In addition, those not in the semi-finals would play a cross-over playoff game (call it #2 in pod A versus either #2 in pod B or #4 in pod B). This would give 8 regular season games (balanced scheduled) and 1 bonus home playoff game (incentive to do good) for a total of 9 games plus 3 open slots. Naturally, the championship game between the winners of the #1 seed semi-finals would be the Championship game, likely at a neutral site.
Basketball would have a 22 game conference schedule (home & away within pod, 1 games versus all others) and 8 open games.

 

[GampelGladiator]

I could live with this but shouldn't be called the Big East? Only Wake and Duke from the ACC.

Good thought. I went with ACC since I suspect the BE name will stay with the Catholic schools and half the league is either current ACC or have committed to moving to ACC.

 

[GampelGladiator]

that would be one hell of a bb league. in a good year, 8-9 bids?

Quite possible, as long as they don't beat the crap out of each other.

6 LOCKS: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
3 BUBBLE:Memphis, Temple, Wake Forest
3 CELLAR:Boston College, Central Florida, South Florida

 

[frankthetank]

As extreme and knee jerk as Nelson is I agree on the GT thing. Money wise if you look at the b1g model it's a great move. I just think they don't fit. I think the B1G is looking for fit as much as anything else.

From the Big Ten fan perspective, I'm not quite sold on GT, either, but I understand the rationale. People can't look at it as GT won't ever be as popular as UGA or that the Big Ten won't ever be as popular as the SEC in the Atlanta market. That is *completely* faulty analysis. The point is that if the Big Ten can just get an ACC-level of interest in the Atlanta market, it's pretty massive. Why? Atlanta might be the #8 TV market overall, but in terms of being a college football market, it's the most valuable one in the country pound-for-pound. The interest in college football overall there (not just for UGA) is unlike anything in any Northern market. It's not even close. That's probably the biggest education point that doesn't seem to be coming across clearly on these boards - I don't think people are quite realizing the size and scope of the chasm where being the #2 or #3 school in a market like Atlanta (or Florida or Texas) can mean much more than being the #1 school in a Northeastern market (even one that has a large population on paper). *Everyone* follows college football there in the same manner that *everyone* follows pro sports in the Boston market. In Atlanta, college football is the dominant spectator sport, so even if GT (plus UVA or whoever else the Big Ten might add) ends up with a smaller percentage of the overall viewer base compared to their SEC counterparts, that overall viewer base is massive (effectively the entire population of that market). Contrast this to, say, NYC, where college football is a niche sport, so you need to capture a much higher percentage of college football fans in a place like NYC compared to Atlanta.

Look at this list of the top 25 highest rated college football markets:

http://johnclay.bloginky.com/2012/08/29/the-top-25-television-markets-for-college-football/#

Atlanta comes in #5 on that list... and remember that ATL *dwarfs* all of those other markets listed in size, so the sheer numbers of people watching the sport in that market is larger on a week-to-week basis than any other place in the country. Read that list again and compare it to the top 10 overall TV market list someone had posted earlier. Atlanta is the only top 10 market that appears on the top 25 college football market list... and it didn't even squeak in at the bottom. It's at #5!

That's why the Big Ten is looking at Georgia Tech. Just as the New York Mets are the 2nd most valuable team in MLB after the Yankees (yes, even more valuable than the Red Sox, Dodgers and Cubs) because the NYC market is so important for baseball, even the #2 team in the Atlanta market brings a ton of value to any conference because that's the single best college football market in the country when you take into account both size (it's a legitimately large market) and fan interest (lots of people actually watch college football there - it's not just "potential").

Now, I think it would be a mistake for the Big Ten to just add on GT as a lone Southern appendage. If the ultimate goal for the Big Ten is to add all 4 of UVA, UNC, GT and FSU, though, then there's more than enough of a critical mass of alums in the Atlanta market where it's perfectly acceptable to be the #2 league in that key college football market compared to the SEC (especially when it's #1 in NYC, Chicago and DC on top of that, which the SEC can't compete with).

 

[ddminct]

Frank might know CFB. He don't know baseball. Mets #2?

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

 

[hexlub]

Frank might know CFB. He don't know baseball. Mets #2?

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

Yeah. Not sure where he got that from. If it wasn't for SNY it probably would be much lower.

 

[frankthetank]

Frank might know CFB. He don't know baseball. Mets #2?

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

I stand corrected with the current valuations. The Mets were #2 for a very long time. Still, the point is that getting hung up on GT being the #2 (or even #3) team in Atlanta is like getting hung up on the Mets being the #2 team in NYC. A share of Atlanta for college football is more valuable than being #1 in NYC for that sport, whereas a share of NYC for MLB is more valuable than owning all of Atlanta for that sport.

 

[freescooter]

From the Big Ten fan perspective, I'm not quite sold on GT, either, but I understand the rationale. People can't look at it as GT won't ever be as popular as UGA or that the Big Ten won't ever be as popular as the SEC in the Atlanta market. That is *completely* faulty analysis. The point is that if the Big Ten can just get an ACC-level of interest in the Atlanta market, it's pretty massive. Why? Atlanta might be the #8 TV market overall, but in terms of being a college football market, it's the most valuable one in the country pound-for-pound. The interest in college football overall there (not just for UGA) is unlike anything in any Northern market. It's not even close. That's probably the biggest education point that doesn't seem to be coming across clearly on these boards - I don't think people are quite realizing the size and scope of the chasm where being the #2 or #3 school in a market like Atlanta (or Florida or Texas) can mean much more than being the #1 school in a Northeastern market (even one that has a large population on paper). *Everyone* follows college football there in the same manner that *everyone* follows pro sports in the Boston market. In Atlanta, college football is the dominant spectator sport, so even if GT (plus UVA or whoever else the Big Ten might add) ends up with a smaller percentage of the overall viewer base compared to their SEC counterparts, that overall viewer base is massive (effectively the entire population of that market). Contrast this to, say, NYC, where college football is a niche sport, so you need to capture a much higher percentage of college football fans in a place like NYC compared to Atlanta.

Look at this list of the top 25 highest rated college football markets:

http://johnclay.bloginky.com/2012/08/29/the-top-25-television-markets-for-college-football/#

Atlanta comes in #5 on that list... and remember that ATL *dwarfs* all of those other markets listed in size, so the sheer numbers of people watching the sport in that market is larger on a week-to-week basis than any other place in the country. Read that list again and compare it to the top 10 overall TV market list someone had posted earlier. Atlanta is the only top 10 market that appears on the top 25 college football market list... and it didn't even squeak in at the bottom. It's at #5!

That's why the Big Ten is looking at Georgia Tech. Just as the New York Mets are the 2nd most valuable team in MLB after the Yankees (yes, even more valuable than the Red Sox, Dodgers and Cubs) because the NYC market is so important for baseball, even the #2 team in the Atlanta market brings a ton of value to any conference because that's the single best college football market in the country when you take into account both size (it's a legitimately large market) and fan interest (lots of people actually watch college football there - it's not just "potential").

Now, I think it would be a mistake for the Big Ten to just add on GT as a lone Southern appendage. If the ultimate goal for the Big Ten is to add all 4 of UVA, UNC, GT and FSU, though, then there's more than enough of a critical mass of alums in the Atlanta market where it's perfectly acceptable to be the #2 league in that key college football market compared to the SEC (especially when it's #1 in NYC, Chicago and DC on top of that, which the SEC can't compete with).

Frank, I get some of this, but I'm sorry, I just don't buy Georgia Tech. yeah, they fit academically, and yeah they are in a "big market," but it really dilutes the Big 10's aura, if you will, to be taking a program that is that pedestrian. UNC, Sure. Virginia, I can see, though I think they are a bad fit, but both of those are flagships of their particular states. Georgia Tech is a "limited purpose vehicle" and not that popular relative to the options. And Florida State is another outlier. They want to be in the Big 12 maybe, and they would be a decent fit there. But the Big 10? Unless you add half of the ACC I just don't see them as any kind of fit. Again, they are #2 in there own state. It would be like the big taking Texas A&M to get a toehold in Texas. and if the thought is that you need to get into florida/the south for recruiting to compete with the SEC, the reality is you want to compete with the SEC, throw the rule book away and recruit criminals if they can throw the football. As someone once said when comparing Florida and Michigan, "well, the difference is you can get a plant into Florida if he can play football."

 

[HobokenHusky]

Frank, I get some of this, but I'm sorry, I just don't buy Georgia Tech. yeah, they fit academically, and yeah they are in a "big market," but it really dilutes the Big 10's aura, if you will, to be taking a program that is that pedestrian. UNC, Sure. Virginia, I can see, though I think they are a bad fit, but both of those are flagships of their particular states. Georgia Tech is a "limited purpose vehicle" and not that popular relative to the options. And Florida State is another outlier. They want to be in the Big 12 maybe, and they would be a decent fit there. But the Big 10? Unless you add half of the ACC I just don't see them as any kind of fit. Again, they are #2 in there own state. It would be like the big taking Texas A&M to get a toehold in Texas. and if the thought is that you need to get into florida/the south for recruiting to compete with the SEC, the reality is you want to compete with the SEC, throw the rule book away and recruit criminals if they can throw the football. As someone once said when comparing Florida and Michigan, "well, the difference is you can get a plant into Florida if he can play football."

They just took Rutgers and Maryland. The aura is already diluted. They are in it strictly for $ now, when it comes down to it.

 

[CL82]

that would be one hell of a bb league. in a good year, 8-9 bids?

Always was. The addition of Duke and Wake certainly don't change that.

 

[CL82]

... not pick one with a family member after work.

Pretty big assumption there Dan.

 

[Jimdish255]

The only thing I'm sure of is Maryland needs dancing partners. A lot of people were not happy when the B1G move was announced because they felt they were on an island. Not sure if Rutgers PSU OSU satisfy that. VA and UNC sure would. I'll leave the numbers to those who know better.

 

[Dann]

whaler wants a real list guys, not the bs your all talking to him now

b10 wishlist:
1) nd
2) texas
3) ok
4) florida
5) unc
6) bama
7) md
8) kansas
9) uva
10) rutgers
11) gtech
12) uconn
13) mizzu
14) fsu
15) miami

 

[frankthetank]

Frank, I get some of this, but I'm sorry, I just don't buy Georgia Tech. yeah, they fit academically, and yeah they are in a "big market," but it really dilutes the Big 10's aura, if you will, to be taking a program that is that pedestrian. UNC, Sure. Virginia, I can see, though I think they are a bad fit, but both of those are flagships of their particular states. Georgia Tech is a "limited purpose vehicle" and not that popular relative to the options. And Florida State is another outlier. They want to be in the Big 12 maybe, and they would be a decent fit there. But the Big 10? Unless you add half of the ACC I just don't see them as any kind of fit. Again, they are #2 in there own state. It would be like the big taking Texas A&M to get a toehold in Texas. and if the thought is that you need to get into florida/the south for recruiting to compete with the SEC, the reality is you want to compete with the SEC, throw the rule book away and recruit criminals if they can throw the football. As someone once said when comparing Florida and Michigan, "well, the difference is you can get a plant into Florida if he can play football."

See, I think there are fit issues with GT, too, but not in the way that you're thinking. As an overall institution, GT is a *great* fit with the Big Ten. In terms of academic focus (heavy on engineering and the hard sciences) and the types of students that it attracts, it looks more like a Big Ten school than even UVA and UNC. Also, you have to define "pedestrian". Sure, compared to FSU or ND, GT is a "pedestrian" football program. However, GT has national championships on its resume (the last one coming in 1990, compared to 1980 for UGA), has made it to top level bowls in the BCS era, and is located in one of the best football recruiting grounds in the country. That compares a heck of lot more favorably than the vast majority of candidates that are thrown out there (including UVA and UNC, not to mention Rutgers, Maryland, UConn, Syracuse, BC and Kansas).

Where I don't think there's a fit is geographically, at least in the way that the Big Ten is currently composed. It's one thing to have a school like Texas (who is effectively an independent in terms of mindset) as a geographic outlier, but GT being over a 6 hour drive from even UVA (much less the current Big Ten) is a long-term problem if neighbors like UNC and FSU aren't added, too.

Look, everything that you're saying makes sense. If it were up to me, either the Big Ten needs to expand with a legit football king (e.g. ND or FSU) or it shouldn't expand any further. However, if the Big Ten is hell bent on expanding, then it's very hard to justify adding any Northeastern school over the Southern ACC options that are available. This didn't just pop up last week. Look back to the Big Ten expansion study that was completed in 2010 prior to Nebraska being added - it essentially screamed that the conference had to move southward.

 

[Jimdish255]

They haven't followed the list very well so far.

 

[The Funster]

If Delany is going to add southern schools, he'd almost have to add 3 (plus ND) or add 4. I know everyone downplays travel in our modern world but the fact is that traveling to just two southern schools for all the olympic sports would be both costly and problematic. Programs lose huge$ on non revenue sports and then if you add add'l travel time and distance that number is only going to go up. Yeah the poached ACC teams will get more revenue but you're also increasing costs for your existing teams. Those costs can mitigated by additional travel partners and perhaps the use of pods.

 

[Danzz]

Hypothetically u are president of uconn with invites to both. Are you still picking ACC?

No, I'm going to opt for the BIG but it isn't going to happen so the point is moot. From a basketball perspective I prefer the ACC.

 

[Dann]

No, I'm going to opt for the BIG but it isn't going to happen so the point is moot. From a basketball perspective I prefer the ACC.

how can u possibly say from a bball point then pick the acc????? the b10 is going to have msu/ind/unc among others like mich/pur/tosu/minn... the acc is going to have duke/wake/cuse. are u serious???

 

[junglehusky]

Here's an interesting read from MGoBlog on research dollars... Interesting to note the amount of money is not exactly pocket change in relation to athletics. A key passage:

CIC members share research resources, but more importantly, they also form a powerful subgroup within the AAU. This is where conference expansion and the AAU come together. Adding established AAU members can increase the CIC’s powerbase within the AAU. With $20 billion dollars in annual research dollars at stake, it only takes a little extra power to put a billion a year in extra research dollars into CIC hands, a figure four times the revenue of the BTN.

I think some of the analysis is a little unclear / confused, or it might just be not well written, in regards to peer review vs. other mechanisms of granting (though he does break it down in the tables). And I don't necessarily think strategy this is foremost in Delany's mind when he's deciding what schools to invite. But it could very well be a part of the picture, even a major one.

As far as UConn's research profile, we have a plan and a leader. Now we just have to execute it and hope we can show we belong. And also have to hope the sequester doesn't take a huge bite out of the funding pool.

 

[methodology]

Somewhat off topic but people have been saying the moves being made are for 20,30,40, etc years down the road because population is booming and growing in the south.

By year 2050 the NE will still have much more residents than the south and its not even close. The Northeast/Mid atlantic corridor will have a high speed rail in place and the best public transportation of anywehre in the country. I believe they are saying you can get from Boston to DC in 2.5 hours.

Add to the fact that many environmentalist say that the water supply in the south is going to be an issue in the future because of droughts, climate change, and over population.

The 2 above things would shift people to move to the Northeast as travel/daily commute would be easier and more jobs would be available becuase of the infrastructure superiority.

NYC and New England is still up for grabs. Someone is going to pick it up.

As Frank said, its not about ratings its about subscriptions. NE might not care about college football when compared to the south but they have the most eyes and households of anywhere and will always be that way till the end no matter what type of population growth happens in the south.

 

[Danzz]

how can u possibly say from a bball point then pick the acc????? the b10 is going to have msu/ind/unc among others like mich/pur/tosu/minn... the acc is going to have duke/wake/cuse. are u serious???

You are assuming that UNC goes to the BIG and I don't think that is happening. I'd rather be playing UNC, Duke, Pitt, Cuse and an annual beating of BSU than the BIG teams you mentioned so yes I'm serious. The fact is you have absolutely no idea who the BIG will have.

 

[Dann]

You are assuming that UNC goes to the BIG and I don't think that is happening. I'd rather be playing UNC, Duke, Pitt, Cuse and an annual beating of BSU than the BIG teams you mentioned so yes I'm serious. The fact is you have absolutely no idea who the BIG will have.

and the fact is u have no clue who will be in the acc 2 years from now. we know ind/msu will be in the b10, thats a fact.

 

[methodology]

Don't sleep on Georgia Tech.

They are a toehold in a huge market.

I went back and looked at some of their television ratings in their DMA. The most watched Georgia game was against Florida and drew a rating of about 18. The most popular Georgia Tech game was against Clemson and drew about a 12.5.

That's very solid and anything but 'zero demand'.

The Big Ten is thinking 30, 40, 50 years out - a presence in the Atlanta market is something worth pursuing.

Im not doubting GT gets viewers in its market but I think that Clemson game is not a good barometer. That is the closest of any school in ACC and pretty much their in conference rival.

I was trying to find numbers in the ATL DMA but was unable.

What I did come across was national ratings of games televised on ESPN, ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC

UGA obviously had better ratings which wasnt surprising but what did surprise me was that GT vs Duke was the 6th lowest rated game on any network last year for college football (192k/ 0.1 rating).

Vandy/Duke (99k) was the lowest rated game with Rutgers/Army (122k) 2nd. The next 3 are non power conference teams.

UGA lowest rated game was a 1.0 vs Ole Miss and 2nd lowest 1.4 vs GTech

Every other game was 1.9 or higher for UGA with 9.8 being the highest vs Bama in the SEC championship

Id be interested in ATL DMA #s for when/if UGA and GT play at the same time. See who actually gets the more viewers.

 

[whaler11]

Well Georgia does. It doesn't hurt that they are good and Georgia Tech isn't.