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

[kyleslamb]

The taking of Maryland was a pure reaction to the ACC addition of Notre Dame.....Maryland and Rutgers were a couple of pawns moved in to protect a more important piece on the board.

Total ignorance. Everyone behind the scenes knew Maryland and Rutgers were already in the Big Ten's plans long before the ACC's move. That's the point.

As I said once already, I even posted that in May of 2011, six months before the Big Ten took either. And I wasn't guessing, either. The timing is the only thing that may have changed with the ACC news. The Big Ten always had Maryland Rutgers in their sights -- always. Period. That is an absolute fact.

The ACC homers have an inflated value over themselves.

 

[kyleslamb]

I've seen figures on both ends of the spectrum. There's the 90% advertising figure, then there's the 40%. I think a lot of if is accounting funny money, how it's reported, and when the figure was reported.

I haven't been following H1 lately, but he once stated that the advertising money is really coming on strong.

@kyleslamb -- would you agree?

In many cases of cable networks, the carriage fee/ad fee split is close to 50/50 (which would support the 90% figure). But with the Big Ten, as of a few years ago I believe SBJ reported the number was around 80/20. It's since gone up a bit, I think, but it's still nowhere near 50/50.

In fairness, part of the reason is not the ability to sell but that there are some industries that would pay a lot of money to advertise that the league has said they won't deliver (such as beer and liquor companies, for instance).

 

[BC1978]

Total ignorance. Everyone behind the scenes knew Maryland and Rutgers were already in the Big Ten's plans long before the ACC's move. That's the point.

As I said once already, I even posted that in May of 2011, six months before the Big Ten took either. And I wasn't guessing, either. The timing is the only thing that may have changed with the ACC news. The Big Ten always had Maryland Rutgers in their sights -- always. Period. That is an absolute fact.

The ACC homers have an inflated value over themselves.

I believe this to be true - but, IMO, in no small part due to the fact that other schools like UVA and UNC were not interested and unavailable to them.

 

[Fishy]

The ACC homers have an inflated value over themselves.

It's their way.

You'd think they'd simply be happy that they survived and are part of the P5, even if they're not making the money of the other conferences.

But no...

They're like a toddler who falls down and then jumps up and tells everyone within earshot that they're okay.

 

[TerryD]

Total ignorance. Everyone behind the scenes knew Maryland and Rutgers were already in the Big Ten's plans long before the ACC's move. That's the point.

As I said once already, I even posted that in May of 2011, six months before the Big Ten took either. And I wasn't guessing, either. The timing is the only thing that may have changed with the ACC news. The Big Ten always had Maryland Rutgers in their sights -- always. Period. That is an absolute fact.

The ACC homers have an inflated value over themselves.

I think that all parties involved are guilty of that offense.....

 

[kyleslamb]

I believe this to be true - but, IMO, in no small part due to the fact that other schools like UVA and UNC were not interested and unavailable to them.

I imagine if people were privy to all the discussions that went on behind the scenes, they'd not be continuing with the 'not interested' narrative. Nonetheless, people keep forgetting how much the Big Ten wanted a presence in NYC and DC. Markets, folks... markets. I can't believe how many people are forgetting why this all came about. The Big Ten's very first words, after announcing in December 2009 they were seeking to expand, talked about TV markets. That was always the very first and primary reason for expansion.

They wanted a) to obtain those markets and b) expand further in a GEOGRAPHIC sense. They didn't want to skip over 3-4 states in order to take new members. They wanted to get there as contiguously as possible.

Yes, they're interested in UNC and UVA. Yes, they've been interested in Texas. But ultimately they've made a very big deal about expanding methodically because they don't want to be seen as a league leapfrogging halfway across country in order to expand. It might be semantics, but that's how they view it. So while they want UNC and UVA, they were able to kill two birds with one stone by taking Maryland & Rutgers first... getting two big markets they so craved and being able to bridge themselves into the Mid-Atlantic to where now taking Virginia is contiguous.

 

[B1GALUM]

I believe this to be true - but, IMO, in no small part due to the fact that other schools like UVA and UNC were not interested and unavailable to them.

I have a difference of opinion. Yes. Delany would like UVA and UNC to join the Big Ten. However, I do not think Rutgers and Maryland were fall back options. Rather, Rutgers and Maryland have been on the Big Ten radar for some time and were the next step in Big Ten expansion.

 

[kyleslamb]

It's their way.

You'd think they'd simply be happy that they survived and are part of the P5, even if they're not making the money of the other conferences.

But no...

They're like a toddler who falls down and then jumps up and tells everyone within earshot that they're okay.

I just think it's hilarious that the same people that have said the GoR insures the ACC's safety are arguing the Big Ten desperately expanded with Maryland and Rutgers out of fear the ACC would snatch Penn State (also signed to a GoR), and all because Notre Dame parked their olympic sports in the ACC.

 

[BC1978]

I imagine if people were privy to all the discussions that went on behind the scenes, they'd not be continuing with the 'not interested' narrative. Nonetheless, people keep forgetting how much the Big Ten wanted a presence in NYC and DC. Markets, folks... markets. I can't believe how many people are forgetting why this all came about. The Big Ten's very first words, after announcing in December 2009 they were seeking to expand, talked about TV markets. That was always the very first and primary reason for expansion.

They wanted a) to obtain those markets and b) expand further in a GEOGRAPHIC sense. They didn't want to skip over 3-4 states in order to take new members. They wanted to get there as contiguously as possible.

Yes, they're interested in UNC and UVA. Yes, they've been interested in Texas. But ultimately they've made a very big deal about expanding methodically because they don't want to be seen as a league leapfrogging halfway across country in order to expand. It might be semantics, but that's how they view it. So while they want UNC and UVA, they were able to kill two birds with one stone by taking Maryland & Rutgers first... getting two big markets they so craved and being able to bridge themselves into the Mid-Atlantic to where now taking Virginia is contiguous.

With all due respect, if UVA and UNC had any interest in joining the BiG, I don't think they would have signed the GOR. Look, I would not be surprised if one or both of these schools at some point talked to the BiG, but, they ultimately concluded they wanted to stay in the ACC. If they had any doubts, they would have kept their options open and not agreed to the GOR. Not rocket science here.

 

[XOVERX]

I honestly believe it will be the XII as that conference is more unstable due to the role that Texas plays and the ACC offers a larger market (DC to FL versus TX); but the ACC has that cancer of conferences called ND (just ask the old Big E). Time will tell.

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas would probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would, especially if the Sooners followed Kansas to the B1G -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just talk for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." In truth and fact, it appears inevitable today that either the B12 or the ACC is going to be destroyed at some point in the next 10 years. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. The ACC GOR might well keep the ACC intact if the B12 is wrecked. And there's UConn at #18 with no GOR to get in the way.

I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that might well freeze UConn out of the B1G, in favor of BC, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think. Of course, there's still the possibility that FtT's information is dated or wrong, and maybe the B1G does esteem UConn more than BC, so there's that, too.

Still ... from the pov of UConn to the B1G, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. UConn's great advantage is that they are not subject to a GOR. Again, this is all JMO.

 

[upstater]

I just think it's hilarious that the same people that have said the GoR insures the ACC's safety are arguing the Big Ten desperately expanded with Maryland and Rutgers out of fear the ACC would snatch Penn State (also signed to a GoR), and all because Notre Dame parked their olympic sports in the ACC.

They also miscontrue what Barry Alvarez meant. He meant that PSU would perhaps down the road look at the ACC if the ACC became the east coast conference and thereby saw all its revenues jacked up into the B1G range. Penn State had absolutely no incentive to leave for the ACC otherwise. It would be an "all else being equal" type of decision.

The interesting thing is that Alvarez's words reveal a calculation inside the B1G that the eastern markets are lucrative enough to have made it possible for the ACC to rise into the B1G's range, but the ACC, instead of grabbing New Jersey, half of New York City, Maryland and DC, ended up with Syracuse, Louisville and Cleveland Circle.

 

[whaler11]

I imagine if people were privy to all the discussions that went on behind the scenes, they'd not be continuing with the 'not interested' narrative. Nonetheless, people keep forgetting how much the Big Ten wanted a presence in NYC and DC. Markets, folks... markets. I can't believe how many people are forgetting why this all came about. The Big Ten's very first words, after announcing in December 2009 they were seeking to expand, talked about TV markets. That was always the very first and primary reason for expansion.

They wanted a) to obtain those markets and b) expand further in a GEOGRAPHIC sense. They didn't want to skip over 3-4 states in order to take new members. They wanted to get there as contiguously as possible.

Yes, they're interested in UNC and UVA. Yes, they've been interested in Texas. But ultimately they've made a very big deal about expanding methodically because they don't want to be seen as a league leapfrogging halfway across country in order to expand. It might be semantics, but that's how they view it. So while they want UNC and UVA, they were able to kill two birds with one stone by taking Maryland & Rutgers first... getting two big markets they so craved and being able to bridge themselves into the Mid-Atlantic to where now taking Virginia is contiguous.

So questions: If you are so plugged into the conversations and have such great access...

1. Why are your posts so long? You should have better things to do.

2. Should you be sharing so much information so freely. Your sources don't mind you laying out their every thought and strategy?

 

[B1GALUM]

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas could probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." But some league is going to get destroyed and those 2 possible leagues are the B12 and the ACC. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that would probably freeze UConn out of the B1G, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think.

So ... from the pov of UConn, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. Again, JMO.

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.

 

[kyleslamb]

They also miscontrue what Barry Alvarez meant. He meant that PSU would perhaps down the road look at the ACC if the ACC became the east coast conference and thereby saw all its revenues jacked up into the B1G range. Penn State had absolutely no incentive to leave for the ACC otherwise. It would be an "all else being equal" type of decision.

The interesting thing is that Alvarez's words reveal a calculation inside the B1G that the eastern markets are lucrative enough to have made it possible for the ACC to rise into the B1G's range, but the ACC, instead of grabbing New Jersey, half of New York City, Maryland and DC, ended up with Syracuse, Louisville and Cleveland Circle.

I appreciate your post greatly. I think you summed it up far better than I was trying to do.

 

[BC1978]

So questions: If you are so plugged into the conversations and have such great access...

1. Why are your posts so long? You should have better things to do.

2. Should you be sharing so much information so freely. Your sources don't mind you laying out their every thought and strategy?

My thoughts exactly, Whaler. In my experience, people who actually DO have access to confidential information of any sort are generally not sharing this information in public forums. Also, he has not answered why UVA and UNC would go ahead and sign the GOR if they had any intentions of keeping options open for a BiG invitation.

 

[kyleslamb]

My thoughts exactly, Whaler. In my experience, people who actually DO have access to confidential information of any sort are generally not sharing this information in public forums. Also, he has not answered why UVA and UNC would go ahead and sign the GOR if they had any intentions of keeping options open for a BiG invitation.

A lot of people share information. How do you think ESPN breaks stories? How do you think CNN and FOX break government stories? It's true that "sensitive" information is rarely shared, but what I've said on this board could hardly be construed as sensitive material, especially since I've shown a quote from Delaney himself where it stated their goal of contiguous expansion. And unlike the ridiculous poster you quoted above, I've never claimed to be getting "all their thoughts and strategies" nor do I get anything resembling frequent blow by blow accounts. I imagine I only get a fraction of the things that go on behind the scenes and I've never purported otherwise.

As to the UVA/UNC signing a GoR, I've answered this question so many times on this board it's getting ridiculous that people still can't grasp it.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the GoR isn't the absolute brick wall stopping people from changing conferences that perhaps you think it is? I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's unlikely any school would commit themselves absolutely to any league for 10+ years without a way out. If you really think UNC and UVA signed a GoR binding themselves to the ACC for over a decade no matter what happens on the advice of legal counsel, then I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world.

Fact of the matter is one tenet of contract law is that no entity, or their inherent rights, can be bound to another party for an unfair duration. Any person or entity has a right to make a living. The Grant of Rights is absolutely NOT a contract that was meant to bind schools to their conference for 10-15 years. The agreement was meant to protect the interests of the television networks, and by proxy, the league, so that if the schools wanted to leave, they would continue receiving just value.

The problem here is a lack of understanding for what a Grant of Rights really is and what it's meant to accomplish. I've stated this a great many times on this board. And until you listen to what I've said on the topic, you'll continue to falsely construe my stance as not answering why UVA/UNC would sign it. But that is based wholly on a false premise.

 

[SAMCRO]

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas could probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just talk for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." In truth and fact, it appears inevitable today that either the B12 or the ACC is going to be destroyed at some point in the next 10 years. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that would probably freeze UConn out of the B1G, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think.

So ... from the pov of UConn, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. Again, JMO.

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

 

[RegisteredUconn]

It's their way.

You'd think they'd simply be happy that they survived and are part of the P5, even if they're not making the money of the other conferences.

But no...

They're like a toddler who falls down and then jumps up and tells everyone within earshot that they're okay.

Not just that they're okay but that, in fact, they meant to fall down.

 

[mavblues]

LOL yeah they are working backwards taking the lesser targets first.

UVa signed the GOR because they want out so badly.

Your personal attacks are fine because every bit of evidence points at Virginia wanting to be in the ACC and if they wanted to leave they would have been welcomed with open arms.

Geezus dude, step away from the keyboard. Seriously, you don't know one damned bit more than anyone else.

Stop pretending you alone have some cosmic connection to the ultimate decider of conference realignment.

News flash: everything you post is YOUR OPINION. As much as you think YOUR OPINION is correct, many others (myself included) do not share your views.

Stop trying to cram YOUR OPINIONS down everyone else's throats. It's getting old.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I have a difference of opinion. Yes. Delany would like UVA and UNC to join the Big Ten. However, I do not think Rutgers and Maryland were fall back options. Rather, Rutgers and Maryland have been on the Big Ten radar for some time and were the next step in Big Ten expansion.

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% correct.

 

[BC1978]

A lot of people share information. How do you think ESPN breaks stories? How do you think CNN and FOX break government stories? It's true that "sensitive" information is rarely shared, but what I've said on this board could hardly be construed as sensitive material, especially since I've shown a quote from Delaney himself where it stated their goal of contiguous expansion. And unlike the ridiculous poster you quoted above, I've never claimed to be getting "all their thoughts and strategies" nor do I get anything resembling frequent blow by blow accounts. I imagine I only get a fraction of the things that go on behind the scenes and I've never purported otherwise.

As to the UVA/UNC signing a GoR, I've answered this question so many times on this board it's getting ridiculous that people still can't grasp it.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the GoR isn't the absolute brick wall stopping people from changing conferences that perhaps you think it is? I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's unlikely any school would commit themselves absolutely to any league for 10+ years without a way out. If you really think UNC and UVA signed a GoR binding themselves to the ACC for over a decade no matter what happens on the advice of legal counsel, then I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world.

Fact of the matter is one tenet of contract law is that no entity, or their inherent rights, can be bound to another party for an unfair duration. Any person or entity has a right to make a living. The Grant of Rights is absolutely NOT a contract that was meant to bind schools to their conference for 10-15 years. The agreement was meant to protect the interests of the television networks, and by proxy, the league, so that if the schools wanted to leave, they would continue receiving just value.

The problem here is a lack of understanding for what a Grant of Rights really is and what it's meant to accomplish. I've stated this a great many times on this board. And until you listen to what I've said on the topic, you'll continue to falsely construe my stance as not answering why UVA/UNC would sign it. But that is based wholly on a false premise.

I don't know what to say. You claim that "I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world" , but you clearly have no problem doing just that.

I think you are the one that has a misunderstanding of the GOR. The GOR does NOT bind a school to a conference for a set period of time. It only deals with the specified media rights that they have sold. That's it. The school can leave whenever they want (subject to whatever exit fees provisions can be enforced).

What you are missing here, IMO, is that IF UVA or UNC had ANY intention of considering a BiG invitation, why would they sign a GOR to begin with? Regardless of whether they can find a "way out", why would they even take that risk? They simply would not support or sign it. Generally, in my experience, parties do not knowingly undertake actions which are not in their best interests.

The other issue would be how any school would position their opposition to the GOR (after voluntarily agreeing to it) in a court if they were going to another conference with a GOR, where they would be expected to sign the new conference's GOR. At the very least, IMO, they would be running against the "Clean Hands" doctrine.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

With all due respect, if UVA and UNC had any interest in joining the BiG, I don't think they would have signed the GOR. Look, I would not be surprised if one or both of these schools at some point talked to the BiG, but, they ultimately concluded they wanted to stay in the ACC. If they had any doubts, they would have kept their options open and not agreed to the GOR. Not rocket science here.

What choice did either have? It was sign or leave and neither appear to have had an invitation to the B1G. Seems even more likely to me than UNC and UVA rejecting the B1G, that the B1G knew they needed to swallow the northeast, something they were already committed to, before they attempted such a big bite in the southeast.

 

[kyleslamb]

I dont know wat to say. You claim that "I'm not sure you're in a position to speak of the ways of the world" , but you clearly have no problem doing just that.

I think you are the one that has a misunderstanding of the GOR. The GOR does NOT bind a school to a conference for a set period of time. It only deals with the specified media rights that they have sold. That's it. The school can leave whenever they want (subject to whatever exit fees provisions can be enforced).

What you are missing here, IMO, is that IF UVA or UNC had ANY intention of considering a BiG invitation, why would they sign a GOR to begin with? Regardless of whether they can find a "way out", why would they even take that risk? They simply would not support or sign it. Generally, in my experience, parties do not knowingly undertake actions which are not in their best interests.

The other issue would be how any school would position their opposition to the GOR (after voluntarily agreeing to it) in a court if they were going to another conference with a GOR, where they would be expected to sign new conference's GOR. At the very least, IMO, they would be running against the "Clean Hands" doctrine.

See, now I have confirmation you haven't been reading my posts very much or very closely. Of course it doesn't bind a team to a league. That's been my point all along. So the question being asked "why would UNC or UVA sign the GoR if they had intentions of keeping their B1G options open" is an irrelevant question, because it assumes that signing the GoR eliminates the possibility. It doesn't.

The GoR does attach the media rights to a league. That's not in dispute. In fact, that's been my point all along. But the other point I've made repeatedly, if you'd paid any attention, is that for a GoR to be legal, the teams would have to continue being PAID for their rights if they leave. And that is the big takeaway here is that any team could leave the ACC and if the GoR continued to be honored on both sides, would not preclude a team from leaving.

Signing the GoR was in their best interests at the time, because it was the only way the ACC was going to receive competitive compensation from the media networks. Even if Virginia and UNC were theoretically interested in the Big Ten, it doesn't mean they wouldn't try to better their current circumstances. And frankly, I have never argued they were trying to leave the ACC. I've merely stated that if the time comes where the Big Ten is offering, they'll listen. Signing the Grant of Rights was their only real choice at that time. There were no guarantees and no other offers on the table officially, and yes, they wanted to maximize the ACC's earning potential so of course they signed. It was the best thing they could do at that moment.

 

[BC1978]

What choice did either have? It was sign or leave and neither appear to have had an invitation to the B1G. Seems even more likely to me than UNC and UVA rejecting the B1G, that the B1G knew they needed to swallow the northeast, something they were already committed to, before they attempted such a big bite in the southeast.

Why did they have to sign? Nobody knew about the ACC GOR as it was being discussed among the schools. If they had refused to sign, what was the. ACC going to do, kick them out? Of course not. All that would have happened is that the ACC GOR would not have gotten done. In fact, if they really did want into the BiG, not signing the GOR would have resulted in the continued rumors of the ACC's demise and probably hastened a BiG invitation.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas could probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just talk for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." In truth and fact, it appears inevitable today that either the B12 or the ACC is going to be destroyed at some point in the next 10 years. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that would probably freeze UConn out of the B1G, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think.

So ... from the pov of UConn, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. Again, JMO.

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, Kanas 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.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Why did they have to sign? Nobody knew about the ACC GOR as it was being discussed among the schools. If they had refused to sign, what was the. ACC going to do, kick them out? Of course not. All that would have happened is that the ACC GOR would not have gotten done. In fact, if they really did want into the BiG, not signing the GOR would have resulted in the continued rumors of the ACC's demise and probably hastened a BiG invitation.

Precisely. UNC and UVA could have seriously destabilized the ACC without having a certain place elsewhere. Don't you think that sort of petulance would have sent up seriously red flags in the B1G and SEC? Why not just hang out signs in Chapel Hill and Charlottesville: Prima donna available, inquire within.

 

[kyleslamb]

As a B12 alum (Texas), I also think it will be the B12 that craters and not the ACC.

There are 3 keys to the continued viability of the B12, and in order of importance those keys are: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. However, the importance of the schools is actually an inverted pyramid because Texas can definitely be forced by Oklahoma, and Oklahoma might play along with Kansas if Kansas took a hankering to leave the B12. Thus, Kansas may actually turn out to be the critical domino in the demise of the B12. Here's what I mean ....

Texas' LHN has now found national carriage with DISH and DirecTV will probably be on-board with the LHN by the end of 2014. The LHN will almost certainly prove to give Texas a nice boost in national recruiting, plus there is the prestige factor involved with having your very own 24/7/365 national network dedicated to all things Longhorn. Thus, Texas wants mightily to keep the B12 glued together since it is not at all clear that any other major conference would allow Texas to keep the LHN in its current form if Texas ever migrated out of the B12. Texas, then, is strong for the continued viability of the B12 into the long and distant future.

The glue to Texas' keeping the B12 together is Oklahoma. With the losses of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri, obviously several good football schools in the B12 have been ripped out, leaving only Texas and Oklahoma as recognized football anchors. The B12 is not viable for Texas as the only football power if Oklahoma were ever to migrate out of the B12. So, really, Oklahoma carries a trump card over Texas, "keep us happy or maybe watch your LHN go bye-bye".

Which brings us to Kansas. While I have no information as to the thinking of Kansas' PTB, I can tell you anecdotally that there appears to be a sizable majority of Kansas folks that would like to see Kansas move out of the B12 and into the B1G. And why not? The B12 is severely weakened by previous defections and the B12 footprint has shrunk drastically -- basically to Kansas City and the State of Texas (both of which are shared with the SEC). More importantly, the B12 is not drawing TV viewers outside of the limited B12 footprint. In fact, the B12 is severely slipping in TV ratings behind the SEC in the City of Houston. Also, Kansas lost its major rival in Mizz to the SEC. There is little remaining loyalty to the B12 among Kansas folks that I can glean.

Out of B1G territory, the rumor is that the B1G may have some interest in Kansas, especially if things don't work out for the B1G in adding any more eastern schools. This is not particularly earth-shaking news since Kansas is AAU, the founder of basketball, a basketball powerhouse, is contiguous to the B1G, and therefore brings significant value to the B1G (and the B1G to Kansas). There is every reason to believe that Kansas would be attractive to the B1G, at least in a back-up plan capacity. Personally, I think that if the B1g offered Kansas toward the end of the B12 GOR, and before the GOR is re-upped, Kansas would accept a BiG offer in a heartbeat. This is assumption #1.

How would a Kansas defection, if it happened, affect Texas? Texas wouldn't like a Kansas defection -- not at all -- but Kansas -> B1G wouldn't likely shake Texas out of the B12. So long as Oklahoma stays in the B1G, I have no doubt Texas stays put.

How would a Kansas defection affect Oklahoma? Here I think things get interesting. Oklahoma's PTB yearn for academic validation. Both Boren and Castiglione have been quoted to the effect that they want to raise OU's academics to the first rank. They don't get academic validation in the truncated B12, and, frankly, probably never will. They don't get it in the SEC, no matter how many new AAU schools the SEC has added in the recent past (Mizz and A&M). Oklahoma would get academic validation in the B1G, being able to join the CIC, with fast-track toward AAU membership. Oklahoma would also re-establish the OU-NU rivalry, no small matter. I also think the Sooners would guess that they could preserve OU-Texas even if Texas didn't follow them to the B1G. I think, if offered by the B1G (that's a big "if"), there is a very distinct probability that Oklahoma would follow Kansas to the B1G. OU to the B1G is assumption #2 (and is the weakest of the assumptions).

Thus would Texas' hand be called out. Texas cannot remain in the B12 without Oklahoma because without OU, the B12 loses its last remaining football anchor (other than Texas). If KU and OU defected, ushering in the final crisis of the B12, Texas could probably pick the conference that gave it the best deal on its LHN. To me, the B1G has the most ability to fold in the LHN into the BTN, and, financially, give Texas the best deal there. My guess is that for Texas it would boil down to the B1G and the SEC in the end, with the PAC as an outside possibility. If Texas did join the B1G -- and I personally think we would -- then UConn suddenly comes into focus.

A league of 17 is disjointed. A league of 18 is not as manageable as a league of 20, due to the symmetry of pods, but a league of 18 can work adequately, schedule-wise.

There are a lot of wild-cards.

For example, right now, the B12 grosses more money "per school" than any other conference. If this continues, nobody -- including Kansas -- is going to want to leave the B12. But if the B1G really does begin to gross $44.5M per school beginning in 2017, as rumored, then that might persuade Kansas to hesitate before agreeing to re-up the B12 GOR when that time arises. The B12 is expected to reach $40M-$45M per school, but not until the 2025 time-frame. In 2025, the B1g will undoubtedly be grossing much, much more than $44.5M per school since these TV contracts are always back-loaded. Assumption #3 is that the B1G grosses around $44.5M beginning in 2017, with payouts increasing thereafter.

Also, I think Delany prefers to expand with east coast schools down the eastern seaboard, not schools in the prairie states. I think the B1G is determined to wait out MY-ACC to see if UVA shakes out of the ACC, and then add UVA and some other school to balance out UVA. I used to think that other school would be UConn, but now, after synthesizing dayooper's information about BC upthread (via FtT), I am not so sure. Maybe BC looks a whole lot better to the B1G than I previously realized.

At any rate, if UVA doesn't shake out, then Delany may decide to examine a potential B12 gambit to the west. Delany's said he doesn't want to be responsible for destroying a conference, but maybe that was just talk for public consumption, to make him sound like "a good guy after all." In truth and fact, it appears inevitable today that either the B12 or the ACC is going to be destroyed at some point in the next 10 years. You pick.

If Delany does pull out KU, OU, and Texas from the B12, then I think UConn would be sitting pretty because there's no guarantee at that point that the ACC will ever fracture beyond the loss of Maryland. I think B1G and SEC raids on the ACC produce the worst case scenario for UConn. If the B1G and the SEC successfully dismantle the ACC, that would probably freeze UConn out of the B1G, leaving UConn with an option to join a crippled ACC, or, as a remote possibility, a crippled and distant B12. Neither being good choices for UConn, I should think.

So ... from the pov of UConn, I think it is better for the B1G to raid the B12 and not the ACC. Again, JMO.

I echo the sentiments of this post being very thought-provoking.

I think you raise a lot of compelling points. While I have maintained that UVA and UNC are 'interested' in the Big Ten, I also have never claimed they would automatically jump at the first sign of an invite. I do think all things being equal, they'd absolutely stay in the ACC. While all things are not equal, they might be enough that they'd elect to stay in the ACC.

Say, for a moment, that the Big Ten was ready to expand but those two stayed put. You could definitely make a case that the Big Ten could then go to UConn and Kansas as 15 & 16, given Kansas might be more likely to leave the Big 12 for the reasons you mention than perhaps those ACC schools. That gives more contiguous expansion for the Big Ten, but might then produce an all-out bidding war for Oklahoma and Texas.

Interestingly, the Big Ten isn't necessarily resolved in simply stopping at 16. So if they had Kansas & Nebraska, I think they could make a more compelling case for Oklahoma and Texas this time around. You know neither wants to join the SEC, so it would probably be a matter of the Pac-12 and Big Ten fighting for those two.

 

[Seaa Blue]

So questions: If you are so plugged into the conversations and have such great access...

1. Why are your posts so long? You should have better things to do.

Unless, of course, he's a... writer/author/journalist.

 

[dayooper]

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, Kanas 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.

I think UConn is now more attractive to the Big10 then it was 4 years ago. BC is in a larger DMA in of itself, but not part of the NYC market. I also believe that being a flagship school with a large enrollment and alumni base is important as well. I'm not sure, but I believe that BC does very little of the research that the Big10 finds important. I want to stress that those were very preliminary and some holes may have been punched in that since. I brought it up because of the whole reactionary piece that certain posters were bring up. I wanted to show that both Maryland and Rutgers were being looked at for quite a while before the ACC expanded.

 

[whaler11]

Unless, of course, he's a... writer/author/journalist.

Yeah those are professions where people get paid...