GOR's?

[B1GALUM]

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

Missouri seems a much bigger grab.

Agree. This exact issue was discussed a few weeks ago on the ESPN Big Ten Blog: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75325/big-ten-mailblog-207

Adam Rittenberg: Greg, I think it ultimately comes down to how much the Big Ten actually wants to expand again. Remember, the last expansion was all about bringing in new markets and becoming a true bi-regional conference (Midwest and East Coast). Although Missouri and Kansas also bring in new markets -- most notably Kansas City -- they're not located in a new region like Maryland and Rutgers are. If the ACC is indeed out of poaching play, there aren't many if any attractive expansion options on the East Coast, so the Big Ten once again has to ask itself, is getting bigger any better? I've always thought Missouri would be a good fit in the Big Ten and seems to be out of place in the SEC. Kansas doesn't do much for me because the football program has been erratic, to put it nicely. This isn't about basketball, as much as fans wish it were. Missouri is one to watch in my view, but I'd be surprised if another Big Ten expansion doesn't include a team closer to the East Coast.

 

[pj]

I think Rittenberg underestimates the value of Kansas, for much the same reason many national pundits are underestimating UConn. For the ACC and SEC expansion has been about football, but for BTN and Delany basketball is just as important as football, because 3x greater inventory and games 7 days per week more than makes up for 1/4 the value per game. Also, Missouri is geographically split with divided loyalties, St Louis co-roots for Illinois and Missouri and Kansas City co-roots for Missouri and Kansas, so arguably Kansas adds more value than Missouri to the BTN since Kansas + Illinois will get BTN coverage in Missouri, even though Missouri is a bigger state than Kansas and KU splits Kansas with K-State. Kansas is better academically and Kansas basketball is a national brand. I think Missouri would be a great addition for the B1G but Kansas might be just as good.

 

[pj]

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

For the same reason UConn will be an easy add, when it happens: Great basketball, national brand, good academics, rabid fans, dominates its market.

 

[upstater]

For the same reason UConn will be an easy add, when it happens: Great basketball, national brand, good academics, rabid fans, dominates its market.

Market is different.

 

[Cleanface]

I think Rittenberg underestimates the value of Kansas, for much the same reason many national pundits are underestimating UConn. For the ACC and SEC expansion has been about football, but for BTN and Delany basketball is just as important as football, because 3x greater inventory and games 7 days per week more than makes up for 1/4 the value per game. Also, Missouri is geographically split with divided loyalties, St Louis co-roots for Illinois and Missouri and Kansas City co-roots for Missouri and Kansas, so arguably Kansas adds more value than Missouri to the BTN since Kansas + Illinois will get BTN coverage in Missouri, even though Missouri is a bigger state than Kansas and KU splits Kansas with K-State. Kansas is better academically and Kansas basketball is a national brand. I think Missouri would be a great addition for the B1G but Kansas might be just as good.

Let me add something to this.

Conventional wisdom says that both the SEC and the B1G would have taken UNC and Duke as a package deal, completely engulfing NC for their Networks (10MM pop). Both basketball blue-bloods, but both pretty bad RE FBall. UNC is completely sporadic (and has NCAA problems), and Duke is just terrible.

HYPOTHETICALLY, If the B1G were to consider adding UCONN (4MM + NYC) and Kansas to solidify MO as posted above (6MM pop + KS @ 3MM), would that be comparable to adding UNC & Duke?? Both are also blue-blood BBall programs with inconsistent football, but overall I think KU/UCONN would be at least as good if not better RE FBall than UNC/Duke. Both KU and UCONN have had greater recent FBall success than either, and RE BBall, Kansas is a national 'brand' ala NEB. Not a big market, but a HUGE well-known national power.

Academically, UNC/Duke would be much better, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

With UCONN and their NYC influence, which is impossible to calculate, the pull of the UCONN/KU combo could be greater than UNC/Duke RE eyeballs. As has been said many times, combining UCONN with PSU and RUTG would blanket NYC (20MM).

Overall, I think the UNC/Duke combo would be better for the B1G, but taking all of this into consideration, is the combo of KU/UCONN really that far behind??

 

[huskymedic]

Let me add something to this.

Conventional wisdom says that both the SEC and the B1G would have taken UNC and Duke as a package deal, completely engulfing NC for their Networks (10MM pop). Both basketball blue-bloods, but both pretty bad RE FBall. UNC is completely sporadic (and has NCAA problems), and Duke is just terrible.

HYPOTHETICALLY, If the B1G were to consider adding UCONN (4MM + NYC) and Kansas to solidify MO as posted above (6MM pop + KS @ 3MM), would that be comparable to adding UNC & Duke?? Both are also blue-blood BBall programs with inconsistent football, but overall I think KU/UCONN would be at least as good if not better RE FBall than UNC/Duke. Both KU and UCONN have had greater recent FBall success than either, and RE BBall, Kansas is a national 'brand' ala NEB. Not a big market, but a HUGE well-known national power.

Academically, UNC/Duke would be much better, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

With UCONN and their NYC influence, which is impossible to calculate, the pull of the UCONN/KU combo could be greater than UNC/Duke RE eyeballs. As has been said many times, combining UCONN with PSU and RUTG would blanket NYC (20MM).

Overall, I think the UNC/Duke combo would be better for the B1G, but taking all of this into consideration, is the combo of KU/UCONN really that far behind??

Help me out here... I get the "Boilers Up" part --- the "Hammer down" meaning escapes me.

 

[Cleanface]

Hammer Down is the second half of the saying. Boiler Up, Hammer Down!

You know, The Boilermaker, Purdue Pete, etc etc, all carry a big sledge hammer = Hammer Down

'Boiler Up' is the real questionable saying here, IMO. lol

 

[The Funster]

UNC/Duke, while better, is not a cultural fit.

 

[huskymedic]

Hammer Down is the second half of the saying. Boiler Up, Hammer Down!

You know, The Boilermaker, Purdue Pete, etc etc, all carry a big sledge hammer = Hammer Down

'Boiler Up' is the real questionable saying here, IMO. lol

£%#!@$ The sledgehammer. Totally forgot about the sledgehammer. Brain fart. I knew it was like the Rock/Chalk chant. Thanks!

 

[kyleslamb]

PJ hit the nail on the head in this thread RE: the Grant of Rights.

Like he said, the Grant of Rights is an addendum to the league television contract, which stipulates the rights to televise home games are then exchanged to the broadcast partner for distribution. In exchange for "granting" those rights, schools must be paid by the league. So if a school were to leave the conference, the rights to their home games would continue to be granted for the duration of the television contract. However, as long as they're still granting their rights, they must continue to be paid for said rights (as that is the consideration which binds the GOR).

The point here is that while so many people are talking about whether the GOR is "iron clad," that's not quite as big an issue as it's made out to be. The teams would continue to get paid if they left. This GOR is only designed to make teams less attractive to conferences rather than take away the incentive of schools to leave. Even then, if a school is still getting paid for their home games, broadcast on another league's media package, a new conference could simply deduct that share from the team's new conference distribution and you'd essentially have the old league paying part of the new league's share. Of course, there would be less inventory and slightly less revenue for the new league, but it would still be manageable for a league to take Texas, North Carolina, etc. in such a scenario.

 

[frankthetank]

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

Missouri seems a much bigger grab.

Two points:

(1) Before the Longhorn Network was formed, guess which school made the most money off of its 3rd tier rights in the Big 12? It wasn't Texas. It wasn't Texas A&M. It wasn't Nebraska. It wasn't Oklahoma. It was KANSAS.

(2) The Big Ten has passed on Missouri multiple times in the past 3 years. They were BEGGING to get in at all costs and Delany and the Big Ten presidents continued to reject them. The Big Ten simply wants nothing to do with them - they believe that they can either get stronger national brand names in the long run (of which Kansas would qualify) or better markets. This has always been the problem that I've seen in the "Big Ten could take Mizzou" scenarios: they keep rejecting them outright (and this is a flagship AAU school in a geographically friendly state that has 6 million people, so they legitimately think that they could do a lot better).

 

[upstater]

Two points:

(1) Before the Longhorn Network was formed, guess which school made the most money off of its 3rd tier rights in the Big 12? It wasn't Texas. It wasn't Texas A&M. It wasn't Nebraska. It wasn't Oklahoma. It was KANSAS.

(2) The Big Ten has passed on Missouri multiple times in the past 3 years. They were BEGGING to get in at all costs and Delany and the Big Ten presidents continued to reject them. The Big Ten simply wants nothing to do with them - they believe that they can either get stronger national brand names in the long run (of which Kansas would qualify) or better markets. This has always been the problem that I've seen in the "Big Ten could take Mizzou" scenarios: they keep rejecting them outright (and this is a flagship AAU school in a geographically friendly state that has 6 million people, so they legitimately think that they could do a lot better).

I understand #2 very well. If #1 meant anything, UConn would have a conference. Our licensing rights combined with tier 3 were by far and away the most valuable in the BE, at $25 million a year, or $10 million more than Louisville. Hasn't worked for UConn.

 

[frankthetank]

I understand #2 very well. If #1 meant anything, UConn would have a conference. Our licensing rights combined with tier 3 were by far and away the most valuable in the BE, at $25 million a year, or $10 million more than Louisville. Hasn't worked for UConn.

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

 

[WestHartHusk]

I understand #2 very well. If #1 meant anything, UConn would have a conference. Our licensing rights combined with tier 3 were by far and away the most valuable in the BE, at $25 million a year, or $10 million more than Louisville. Hasn't worked for UConn.

To add to #2, I think Frank is living in the past a bit here. The B1G thought they could do better, but it turns out they can't which is why some of us think Mizzou could / should be on the table. But what do any of us know...

 

[frankthetank]

To add to #2, I think Frank is living in the past a bit here. The B1G thought they could do better, but it turns out they can't which is why some of us think Mizzou could / should be on the table. But what do any of us know...

Well, sure, you could argue that with 20/20 hindsight, adding Missouri 3 years ago is better expansion option than any of the realistic Big Ten expansion options that they have now (e.g. picking through the AAC or MWC). If that's what you're getting at, then I wouldn't argue with that line of thought. However, this is also assuming that expansion in and of itself was a primary motivator for the Big Ten, which I don't believe was ever the case. If Missouri comes along with a blue chip name (e.g. Notre Dame, Texas, UNC), then that would have been more than acceptable, but going up to 16 with Missouri and a non-blue chip name wasn't ever going to be acceptable. As much as people enjoy the Armageddon scenarios of 18 or 20 teams in the Big Ten, there's a definite feeling that spots #15 and #16 would realistically be the very last spots that the conference would ever conceivably offer to anyone, so there's heightened scrutiny for such spots.

 

[B1GALUM]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

I understand this rationale for Kansas being a candidate for the B1G but, aside from the Big 12 GOR, there is still the issue of whether Kansas and Kansas State are even severable as was discussed earlier. I have to wander if this issue may have been why the B1G did not move forward with Kansas as well as Oklahoma for that matter since there is the issue of whether Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are even severable.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

As it regards all of the above, is there any benefit to UCONN of being comparatively unencumbered financially vis-a-vis a future selection process?

 

[upstater]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

Won 3 national championships.

UConn is a national name for the top talent and most fans. Forde recently put the school in the top 5 of bluebloods. And again--Kansas doesn't have the market. Football territory is worse than UConn's.

 

[B1GALUM]

As it regards all of the above, is there any benefit to UCONN of being comparatively unencumbered financially vis-a-vis a future selection process?

I think UCONN being unencumbered - at least with respect to not being tied to another school (KU to KSU and OU to OSU) - would be of benefit. However, I think UCONN will need to be a member of the AAU based on comments made by B1G presidents regarding any future members. I know PJ has spoken to this issue and it sound like UCONN is taking steps to make this happen. I think the other challenge for UCONN even if AAU, while not being tied to another school, is who would be #16 to UCONN being #15. Missouri - no interest from the B1G to this point and question if would leave SEC, Kansas - tied to KSU + Big 12 GOR, Oklahoma - tied to OSU + Big 12 GOR, ACC teams - not based on desire by all to now sign GOR. I would be surprised if B1G goes to #15 without a #16.

 

[whaler11]

I understand that people don't like the reality that Frank expresses.

Notice how much he is posting here - because it's the last place still talking about this topic.

Please forget Missouri, the Big 10 doesn't want them and no one is leaving the SEC anyway.

The Big 10 is not expanding for the sake of expanding. UConn has one angle into the Big 10: if Rutgers can't get the BTN onto cable in NYC at the rate the network needs.

Seriously you can take two years off and watch the television negotiations. No one available makes UConn acceptable as 16 to the Big 10 unless UConn gets the BTN over the hump in NYC.

When the ACC circled the wagons the Big 10 and SEC put down their swords. Unless you think the Big 12 can be convinced to take UConn with South Florida or Cincinnati it's over for now.

UConn fans need to support the hell out of the team in the AAC and get over the fact they are on the outside looking in - because if they don't the programs will be dead before anyone is interested.

 

[Adios]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

Duke is NOT a multi-generational blue-blood. Their first championship was 8 years before UConn. Somehow, they just have loads of bandwagon fans. But so does UConn! We're in the top 10.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hile-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html

We definitely have the most popular women's basketball program.

 

[noeynox]

Sadly, whaler there appears to be a portion of fans that seem to want to show Herbst, and Warde, that this conference is unacceptable by not going to games.

Now is the time for UConn to go all out marketing its sports instate and pick up/create new fans. I felt they should have done this from day one in the Big East for football, but whatever, that ship sailed. Lets pick it up from here

 

[upstater]

Duke is NOT a multi-generational blue-blood. Their first championship was 8 years before UConn. Somehow, they just have loads of bandwagon fans. But so does UConn! We're in the top 10.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hile-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html

We definitely have the most popular women's basketball program.

It's a good point about Duke. They had success in the early 60s, and had some really good players back then, but they are a Coach K. construction. They are definitely a blue blood, but they came up a notch in the 80s. In the 50s and 60s, they experienced some success, more than UConn, but we're talking about the difference between the F4 and F8. They had 2 or 3 great players in that period, but UConn also had Toby Kimball and Wes Bialoskunia. Both schools ramped it up during the 1980s. UConn actually started out the decade well by winning in a very tough BE, but then they went into a 5 year drought. It's been all uphill since then.

 

[upstater]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hile-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html

Very interesting link as well. Kansas is not in the same national consciousness, but they are a blue blood.

On the other hand, the Harris poll has been knocked around pretty badly. A few years ago, they polled fans in NYC about football, and overwhelmingly Notre Dame was the favorite team with Penn State close behind. UConn was third ahead of Rutgers and Syracuse. So.... who knows?

 

[UPitt]

Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Indiana and UCLA.

That's the full list of schools where basketball may actually matter for power conference realignment. As multi-generational blue bloods, those are the 6 schools that move the meter nationally year-in and year-out whether they win or lose. Everyone beyond those 6 is effectively interchangeable with a "What have you done for me lately?" standard, whether it's fair or not. And believe me, I have no personal affection for *any* of those schools, so it's certainly not because I support them. I'm just saying that it wasn't an accident that Kansas was studied by the Big Ten.

Completely agree. Win or lose, these are big 6 basketball schools, with Duke to a slightly lesser extent than the rest. These are the only schools that will carry that "National" following win or lose. For everyone else, they have a following if they are winning. Some have a better following than others, but they have to be winning to make the "national" TV coverage. Kentucky and UNC both stunk this year but I heard those two names mentioned more than anyone else. Kentucky made front page of national news when they lose to Robert Morris in the NIT. Then again the following day when they landed the #1 basketball recruit. Then again when Louisville won the title, with everyone comparing Louisville to Kentucky and how Kentucky has reloaded for next year. Because realignment is about football money, only these few schools may be able to have a basketball impact on realignment.

Texas, OSU, MSU, Mich, Florida, Marquette, Gonzaga, Butler, Uconn, Memphis, Georgetown, Louisville, Villinova, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, and about 20 to 30 more all fall in the group that has had some recent success. Without being a homer, what does UConn's basketball program have to offer that the others don't. Now compare UConn or anyone else in that group to the big 6 mentioned above and think about who you saw more times on ESPN or any other national sports news. Realignment is not about being fair. It is about TV time. TV time is a direct correlation to ratings. Ratings equal dollars. More dollars drives realignment. Thats the loop.
As for Duke, they are the lucky little brother. Duke is only in this group because of UNC. If not for the close proximity to UNC and the ESPN created and overhyped rivalry, Duke would be on the level of Wake Forest.