Is that conference realignment's faint heart beat that I'm hearing?

[Rumrunner]

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2013/04/michigans_dave_brandon_confere.html

By Nick Baumgardner | nbaumgardner@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on April 28, 2013 at 6:59 AM, updated April 29, 2013 at 3:51 AM

"I don't know when, I don't know who. But I'd bet it'll happen."

Brandon didn't specify where he believed more expansion would take place, but there's been plenty of speculation that the Big Ten isn't done adding more ammo to its already incredibly wealthy arsenal -- in terms of dollars and cents.

A 14-team league creates two 7-team divisions. By adding two more teams and going to a 16-team model, scheduling with a pair of two 8-team divisions would theoretically become much easier.

In addition, the league would be able to venture into more television markets and give its television company, the Big Ten Network, more games to air and more money to make.

-----------------------------------------------------

The Big Ten just released their fb schedule. It sounds like that they worked very hard and very long on it. 14 teams is not a good number for fb scheduling. Just ask the SEC. Whether that in and of itself propels further expansion, time will tell. Let's give Mr. Brandon and Michigan the biggest reception to the rent that anyone can ever imagine come September 21st.

Also, some of us (ahem, a lot of us), malign Warde Manuel. He is a Michigan man. What Michigan wants in the Big Ten, michigan gets. Maybe Herbst plucking Manuel from the obscurity of Buffalo was an ingenious move, in hindsight.

And yes, for those wondering, this article was published well after the ACC GOR ended expansion forever mantra that has been repeated.

 

[CTGoonie]

Problem is it may not happen for 10+ years.

 

[pj]

We have to get in the AAU and build up our athletic programs and fan base. If Connecticut embraces the Huskies in all sports, we'll get an invitation somewhere.

 

[The Funster]

We'll be in the B1G to start the 2016 season.

 

[jrazz12]

We'll be in the B1G to start the 2016 season.

That's an absurd notion.

2015 at the latest

 

[coachcap]

We'll be in the B1G to start the 2016 season.

From your keyboard to God's ears.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Problem is it may not happen for 10+ years.

If scheduling a 14 team football league is really that difficult, (I didn't follow it, so I have no idea to what degree it was) you can bet they'll go to 16 before long. They'll find a way. Something tells me that most of the big leagues at strange numbers, 14, 14, 15, 10 simply don't work in the long term, and that they'll either consolidate to 4X16, or move to something more linear at 12 and/or 16 across five leagues.

 

[frankthetank]

Note that Dave Brandon has long been one of the biggest expansion proponents in the Big Ten (at least publicly). He provides interesting quotes, but he's also very much a 100% pure business person (as he was the CEO of Domino's Pizza prior to becoming the Michigan AD) as opposed to an ivory tower figure. In a way, he's sort of like Larry Scott - he will push the boundaries publicly via his outsider status, but that doesn't necessarily reflect what the universities presidents think, especially in dealing with long-term decisions dealing with conference realignment. Frankly, Ohio State's AD has been much more accurate over the past few years in projecting the types of schools that the league was interested in and what the overarching goals were.

Whatever may happen, it has never, ever, ever, ever, EVER made sense to state that scheduling is easier with 16 teams as opposed to 14 teams. It's one of my pet peeves of conference realignment - I have no clue why a number of observers think that's the case. It's only "easier" if the schools don't care about playing the ones in the opposite division. That's actually the case in the SEC - even when they were a smaller league prior to expanding to 12 teams, schools that weren't designated protected rivals would go through long stretches without ever playing conference games with each other. So, playing the other division only a couple of times per decade is OK with them. This has never been the case in the Big Ten. They want to play each other as much as possible, which was the impetus behind the new 9-game conference schedule (and even considering a 10-game conference schedule) and only locking in Indiana-Purdue as a cross-division rivalry. Going for an 8-year stretch without playing Michigan or Ohio State simply won't fly in the Big Ten.

There are some "exotic" ways to make a 16-team conference work outside of splitting them into two permanent 8-team divisions, such as rotating pods of 4 schools to increase the frequency of playing everyone in your league. However, the notion that it's "easier" than scheduling for 14 is a complete misnomer for a conference like the Big Ten. To the extent expansion ever occurs again in the Big Ten (and my firm belief is that it won't happen until ACC and Big 12 options are realistically available again, which is a decade down the road), they need to be schools that carry enough weight to make it worth it for the western schools to play Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State even less often than they will in a 14-team league. The bar is actually getting much higher to make it into the Big Ten at this point.

 

[hthusky74]

That's an absurd notion.

2015 at the latest

No way. To quote someone who has posted on this topic many times, "20 minutes".

 

[tzznandrew]

Yeah. Sadly, I too, am struggling to figure out why 14 is such a big deal. Six games in division (3H, 3A), two games against teams from the other division (1H 1A), and you're done.

When you move to 9 teams, you just rotate which division gets the extra home game (2H 1A; 2A 1H).

 

[djct1999]

Note that Dave Brandon has long been one of the biggest expansion proponents in the Big Ten (at least publicly). He provides interesting quotes, but he's also very much a 100% pure business person (as he was the CEO of Domino's Pizza prior to becoming the Michigan AD) as opposed to an ivory tower figure. In a way, he's sort of like Larry Scott - he will push the boundaries publicly via his outsider status, but that doesn't necessarily reflect what the universities presidents think, especially in dealing with long-term decisions dealing with conference realignment. Frankly, Ohio State's AD has been much more accurate over the past few years in projecting the types of schools that the league was interested in and what the overarching goals were.

Whatever may happen, it has never, ever, ever, ever, EVER made sense to state that scheduling is easier with 16 teams as opposed to 14 teams. It's one of my pet peeves of conference realignment - I have no clue why a number of observers think that's the case. It's only "easier" if the schools don't care about playing the ones in the opposite division. That's actually the case in the SEC - even when they were a smaller league prior to expanding to 12 teams, schools that weren't designated protected rivals would go through long stretches without ever playing conference games with each other. So, playing the other division only a couple of times per decade is OK with them. This has never been the case in the Big Ten. They want to play each other as much as possible, which was the impetus behind the new 9-game conference schedule (and even considering a 10-game conference schedule) and only locking in Indiana-Purdue as a cross-division rivalry. Going for an 8-year stretch without playing Michigan or Ohio State simply won't fly in the Big Ten.

There are some "exotic" ways to make a 16-team conference work outside of splitting them into two permanent 8-team divisions, such as rotating pods of 4 schools to increase the frequency of playing everyone in your league. However, the notion that it's "easier" than scheduling for 14 is a complete misnomer for a conference like the Big Ten. To the extent expansion ever occurs again in the Big Ten (and my firm belief is that it won't happen until ACC and Big 12 options are realistically available again, which is a decade down the road), they need to be schools that carry enough weight to make it worth it for the western schools to play Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State even less often than they will in a 14-team league. The bar is actually getting much higher to make it into the Big Ten at this point.

hmmm, i think a football game each year in either foxboro or met life is very appealing to ohio state and michigan.....besides, i still believe rutgers was a piece of the nyc pie, not the end result. if delaney and the btn really wants to lock in nyc, it has little choice but to add uconn. mark my words, once uconn is invited to one of the big 3 conferences, their presence in nyc will exceed expectations. i also doubt very much that realignment is done for the next 10 years. uconn being left out is a head scratcher, and sooner rather than later, one of the three conferences will be proactive and add them before its too late.

 

[UConnJim]

Note that Dave Brandon has long been one of the biggest expansion proponents in the Big Ten (at least publicly). He provides interesting quotes, but he's also very much a 100% pure business person (as he was the CEO of Domino's Pizza prior to becoming the Michigan AD) as opposed to an ivory tower figure. In a way, he's sort of like Larry Scott - he will push the boundaries publicly via his outsider status, but that doesn't necessarily reflect what the universities presidents think, especially in dealing with long-term decisions dealing with conference realignment. Frankly, Ohio State's AD has been much more accurate over the past few years in projecting the types of schools that the league was interested in and what the overarching goals were.

Whatever may happen, it has never, ever, ever, ever, EVER made sense to state that scheduling is easier with 16 teams as opposed to 14 teams. It's one of my pet peeves of conference realignment - I have no clue why a number of observers think that's the case. It's only "easier" if the schools don't care about playing the ones in the opposite division. That's actually the case in the SEC - even when they were a smaller league prior to expanding to 12 teams, schools that weren't designated protected rivals would go through long stretches without ever playing conference games with each other. So, playing the other division only a couple of times per decade is OK with them. This has never been the case in the Big Ten. They want to play each other as much as possible, which was the impetus behind the new 9-game conference schedule (and even considering a 10-game conference schedule) and only locking in Indiana-Purdue as a cross-division rivalry. Going for an 8-year stretch without playing Michigan or Ohio State simply won't fly in the Big Ten.

There are some "exotic" ways to make a 16-team conference work outside of splitting them into two permanent 8-team divisions, such as rotating pods of 4 schools to increase the frequency of playing everyone in your league. However, the notion that it's "easier" than scheduling for 14 is a complete misnomer for a conference like the Big Ten. To the extent expansion ever occurs again in the Big Ten (and my firm belief is that it won't happen until ACC and Big 12 options are realistically available again, which is a decade down the road), they need to be schools that carry enough weight to make it worth it for the western schools to play Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State even less often than they will in a 14-team league. The bar is actually getting much higher to make it into the Big Ten at this point.

16 is easier to schedule with a 9 game conference slate than 14. With 16 and two 8 team divisions, you can play everyone in your division, plus 2 of the other division each year and play all 8 teams of the other division once over the 4 year cycle. Or, if you want to play all teams more often, you can break into 4 pods, with 3 against your pod, 4 against another pod, and 2 against a third pod. Thus, every 4 year cycle, you play all teams outside your pod both home and away.

Then you would have conference semi finals and a championship. Not approved today, but a formality.

Fourteen teams doesn't provide even scheduling as you play 6 games in division and 3 of the other division out of 7. And, no conference semis.

I think Big 10 will go to 16, but the question is when.

 

[GopherHawk]

For the longest time I thought UCONN would be in the B1G. I sorry to say I think the shift is in. I believe the B1G did homework on OU for a reason. UT can not be happy with the way the SEC has turned out for A&M. They are expanding the stadium to 102,000 just to be bigger than UT. UT may start to fear being an equal or #2 in Texas. A league with just OU as a proud football counterpart isn't working. UT will need to play tOSU, Neb, Wis, Penn State and UM to keep up with A&M's schedule.

Look for OU and UT to break for it. Either to the PAC or B1G.

UT will not stand for A&M one upping them. They must put them in their place soon.

 

[frankthetank]

It's not about Michigan and Ohio State wanting to play in Foxboro, etc. It's about Nebraska and Wisconsin playing Michigan and Ohio State less in exchange for Expansion Candidate A and Expansion Candidate B. That's a big deal and a reason why there aren't going to be protected cross-division matchups outside of Indiana-Purdue in the new Big Ten alignment. Could there be pods? Maybe, but that's not "easier" no matter how people want to describe it. (Joe Blow Sports Fan could hardly wrap his mind around Legends and Leaders. Now imagine the equivalent of Legends and Leaders with teams switching divisions every 2 years.) Could there be 4 divisions and conference semifinals? Maybe, but that is *definitely* not a formality with the NCAA to get that rule changed. From what I've seen, it's less likely that the rule will be changed today (where there seems to be a growing consensus/desire for stability) than it did 2 years ago when the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC were actively and openly on the prowl.

Regardless, 16 in and of itself is NOT a goal of the Big Ten. With the right schools available, the Big Ten would probably be willing to go to 18 or even 20 schools. Without the right schools available, though, the Big Ten won't expand at all. This has never been about expansion for the sake of expansion.

 

[cheech63]

We'll be in the B1G to start the 2016 season.

Don't tease me.

 

[freescooter]

I think the Big 10 will eventually get to 16, too. the scheduling thing is actually quite messy with 9 games and 14 teams as you point out. It might take a few times around the horn for it to work itself out, though. but I think the first move will be from the Big 12 because they are going to get pressured by everyone else to add teams. After all, wasn't it Ohio State's coach who said that leagues who don't have a conference championship game will eventually be left out of the playoffs? Plus, for good or ill, the B-12 has to deal with the problem they created with the addition of West Virginia. Depending on the Big 12's moves, the Big 10 might feel forced to move to protect its options.

 

[Rumrunner]

UconnJim nailed it. Scheduling sucks when you have divisional alignments with 14 teams. The sec and pac and now the big ten all know it.

Is it enough to prompt further expansion? Who knows. But never forget, just by going to a 9 game schedule the big ten increased its inventory by a third. Add two more teams, vioa increase it again. Markets and inventory.

As far as brandon the michigan AD being a businessman? Expansion is ONLY about $'s. It is run by businessmen. Shocking, I know.

 

[thatguyed]

That's an absurd notion.

2015 at the latest

20 minutes

 

[frankthetank]

For the longest time I thought UCONN would be in the B1G. I sorry to say I think the shift is in. I believe the B1G did homework on OU for a reason. UT can not be happy with the way the SEC has turned out for A&M. They are expanding the stadium to 102,000 just to be bigger than UT. UT may start to fear being an equal or #2 in Texas. A league with just OU as a proud football counterpart isn't working. UT will need to play tOSU, Neb, Wis, Penn State and UM to keep up with A&M's schedule.

Look for OU and UT to break for it. Either to the PAC or B1G.

UT will not stand for A&M one upping them. They must put them in their place soon.

OU is a possible long-range option for the Big Ten, although I still think the Grant of Rights for all leagues is a stumbling block. The Big Ten itself doesn't have any desire to challenge the strength of Grant of Rights arrangements since it has one itself. I also don't know whether that's enough to pull Texas along (they have shown to want power and control over even money). Finally, Oklahoma State is a big-time impediment to OU going anywhere alone (and it's the same with Kansas State and Kansas).

That being said, the mere fact that the Big Ten studied OU is an important point. At the end of the day, there's still nothing like a massive football brand. For all of the talk about markets, remember that the Big Ten chose to add small market/elite football brand name Nebraska first above everyone else and wouldn't have started looking around for additional expansion candidates 2 years later if the Pac-12/Big Ten alliance hadn't been nixed. This is also the challenge for UConn. If you hope that the Big Ten is going to disregard the lack of AAU status for UConn, then you also have to start comparing other non-AAU schools like OU and Florida State that would surely bring in a crap ton of money for the conference. They might not match up with UConn in undergrad metrics, but on the graduate research metrics that the Big Ten really cares about, they're very comparable and have elite football brands, to boot.

The Big Ten will wait for who they believe is the right school. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

 

[GopherHawk]

If UT feels that A&M is getting an upper hand, all bets are off. Much like ND, UT will make sure their interests are taken care of. Once they determine the Big 12 does not meet their needs no GOR will stop them.

 

[ASweet3781]

We have to get in the AAU and build up our athletic programs and fan base. If Connecticut embraces the Huskies in all sports, we'll get an invitation somewhere.

You talk of UConn as if it is Eastern Connecticut State. Build up our athletic programs? We are cluttered in the Gampel rafters with national championship banners.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Frank, I just want to chime in and say I appreciate your insight as somewhat sobering for UConn as it may be.

I hope there is a need to talk expansion until UConn finds a seat at least and hope you continue to post on our board!

 

[frankthetank]

UconnJim nailed it. Scheduling sucks when you have divisional alignments with 14 teams. The sec and pac and now the big ten all know it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It sucks if you have an 8-game conference schedule and protected cross-division rivals like the SEC does. With that arrangement, yes, it's bad because you rarely get to play anyone other than your cross-division rival in the other division. In the way that the Big Ten has done it with a 9-game conference schedule and only one protected cross-division rival, though, it doesn't suck at all. In fact, it works very well if you're a conference that actually likes playing the other teams in your conference. The "scheduling for 16 is easier than scheduling for 14" argument seems to be one of those maxims that keeps getting repeated without ever looking at what the conferences are actually trying to achieve. Fans like symmetry and even numbers (hence the perception that scheduling for 7-team divisions is supposedly more difficult than scheduling for 8-team divisions), yet what the Big Ten schools really care the most about simply playing each other as often as possible.

Is it enough to prompt further expansion? Who knows. But never forget, just by going to a 9 game schedule the big ten increased its inventory by a third. Add two more teams, vioa increase it again. Markets and inventory.

On the one side is some more outright inventory, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but one has to consider the impact of seeing less Nebraska vs. Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State games. Those are the ones that the networks are paying a real premium for at the top level. Inventory in and of itself isn't the be all end all. In fact, the 9-game conference schedule will actually reduce inventory since they will largely be replacing guarantee home games against MAC/Sun Belt teams as opposed to home-and-home series against power conference schools. The hope is that the *quality* of the inventory in a 9-game conference schedule goes up and, as a result, makes the league more valuable.

As far as brandon the michigan AD being a businessman? Expansion is ONLY about $'s. It is run by businessmen. Shocking, I know.

Yes, it's about business, but it also means that he's not quite as schooled in the nuances and politics of academia. So, he has often spoken out in more aggressive terms than what the Big Ten university presidents are really willing to do, and those are the guys that are the decision makers.

 

[Vowelguy]

I fail to see the difficulty in scheduling with 14 teams. Folks describe it like it's trying to build a rocket to go to Mars.

 

[OkaForPrez]

Frank, thanks for spooning our medicine with a delicate hand.