Only One Winner in the Expansion Game

The 2010 expansion race ended not with the cataclysmic change that was expected, but instead with a small whimper.

The expected galvanization of the college athletics landscape never materialized in the manner many thought it would.

Instead of mega conferences, we had:

1) Colorado bolting to the Pac-10, where they seem to be quite happy with each other so far.
2) Nebraska bolting to the Big Ten, torching their peers and feeling like they were forced out. Stay classy, Nebraska administration.
3) Boise State moving up another weight class by joining the Mountain West Conference.

There are still a couple of smaller dominoes that need to fall, as it appears that the Pac-10 might invite Utah to join the conference as a 12th member and, it is assumed, that the Mountain West would then invite someone to replace Utah.

But the Big Ten going to 16 teams, plundering the Big East and the Big 12? Didn't happen.

The mega Pac-10, which would have encompassed three time zones and a large geographic footprint? Didn't happen.

The long desired marriage of the Big Ten and Notre Dame? Yeah, right. That didn't happen either.

Instead what we wound up with was a Big 12 with ten teams, a Big Ten with 12 teams, and a Pac-10 with 11 teams.

Larry Scott, Pac-10 commissioner, tried to hit a home run and instead appears to have hit a ground rule double.

Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner, tried to swing for the fences as well as and came up short, too.

The Mountain West tried to get on base, but may have just hit a foul ball if they lose Utah.

As far as I can see, only one institution has emerged from this dust up as a winner.

It's Texas.

Texas has played the role of Verbal Kint/Keyser Söze brilliantly in all of this. Texas has controlled the narrative over the last week or so and played the media game with an amazing level of skill.

In fact, Texas has been so good at controlling the spin surrounding this conference expansion game that they have somehow managed to be painted as the savior of the Big 12 — even though they were talking with not one, not two but THREE different conferences. In addition to having the Pac-10 on the hook, Texas was chatty with the Big Ten (and there were emails that said as much) and met with the SEC.

No matter what anyone else says, this came down money. As Randy Moss would say:



Texas wins because:
1) They controlled the narrative from start (on June 9) to finish.
2) They will, if Dan Bebee's deus ex machina is working properly, a significantly larger amount of revenue from the Big 12 minus 2 television deal.
3) They have been given the go-ahead to create their own Longhorn Sports Network, which will reap them additional cash
4) Assuming most things in the conference play out like they have, it will truly come down to Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 12 title most years in the new round-robin format for the league. Considering that poll inertia occurs most years, Texas remains in the BCS hunt without having to play that pesky conference title game.
5) They have asserted their will and flexed their muscles, cementing their hold on a conference they already dominated to some extent. Hell, there is even a chance that the five lost souls (Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State) have decided to vote the income that will be withheld from Colorado and Nebraska to be redirected towards Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma.

Gangsta.

Nothing about this situation suggests largesse on the part of the Longhorns; they held the power in this situation and used some well timed and placed media leaks to get information out there, and kept feeding that source to serve their own purposes.

Of course, again, I think it's prudent to remind folks that this is all dependent on a new Fox Sports Net television deal that is not exactly, um, real or finalized at this point; this whole thing is hanging by a handshake.

Plus, considering the enmity that this has brought out, I don't buy that this game is over.

So once again, congrats Texas. Check and mate. Job well done.

The Bell Starts Tolling for Big 12: A Rare Fan's eye view post

It’s a muggy, typical late summer night in Missouri.

It’s August 31, 1996. I’m about a week or two into the start of my undergraduate career at the University of Missouri. I’m sitting in the lounge in the basement of my residence hall because I didn’t have a television in my room.

I’m watching history as the University of Texas kicks off against Mizzou to signal the start of a new era.

I was able to watch the on-field birth of the Big 12 conference, an amalgamation of the old Big 8 and four survivors from the wreckage of the old Southwest Conference (Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor).

Now, from my office and home 14 years later, I find myself watching its death throes.

Colorado has tipped the first domino, bolting for the Pac-10, where they actually are a better cultural fit (although geographically it’s a haul).

Nebraska announced their intentions to apply to the Big Ten Friday afternoon.

Texas will wait until Tuesday to announce that they are moving to the Pac-10 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, according to Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com.

Texas A&M is apparently talking to the SEC about membership over there. We will see what comes after the Texas State Board of Regents meets on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Missouri’s chancellor came out and affirmed Missouri’s commitment to the Big 12—for now.

It’s a time of upheaval right now; an uncertain future lay ahead for some of the schools in the conference.

And as a fan of one of the schools with an uncertain future, it leaves me nervous.

“Stop being so sensitive about your alma mater. If you want to write about this stuff, you can’t be so sensitive.”

I was chided on Twitter today by SI.com’s Andy Staples for being oversensitive about the characterization of my alma mater as crawling back to the Big 12 after being snubbed by the Big Ten.

It was a moment of weakness, to be sure. I consider myself to be fair and honest in assessing all teams in college football; I don’t think it’s fair to any of my readers to do otherwise when it comes to on field performance and off-field behavior.

But at the same time, there is a lot at stake here. Expansion is a big deal, both in the classroom and on the athletic fields and courts. It’s hard to sit by and see your school mocked as weak or whining; as having to crawl back home because you were played by someone else.

And make no mistake about it: It will be a blow to the ego for fans of all of the left behind schools — especially if it means merging with a Conference USA or coming up with some other kind of zombie league.

So pardon me for having pride in my school, but know that this Tiger is worried about what the future holds for him and his school.

After all, central theme of this whole expansions debate has been looking out for number one.

An Ultimatum? That's the best you can do?

(Update: 12:08pm PDT) According to the Austin American Statesman, it was the Big 12 presidents who delievered this ultimatum to Nebraska and Missouri. My original sentiment still stands, though, that the conference commissioner has to have something to do with this ultimatum. Oh, and I still think the ultimatum is bullshit.)
I rarely use this space to beat the drums for my own school or to vent about the goings on affecting my alma mater.

But with the expansion rumors flying fast and furious over the last few days (while I've been fighting sickness, naturally), I feel that I need to take a stand.

I've yet to say anything about the spineless, feckless leadership of Dan Beebe, current commissioner of the Big 12 conference.

Well, I think it is time for that to end.

Dan Beebe took over as commissioner of the conference in 2007.

In three years, he might be overseeing its death, and he has no one to blame but himself for this.

Of course, instead of owning up to the responsibility, he is trying to force the responsibility for the demise of the league on two schools from the North division.

At least, that is how it appears to me with the rumor that Nebraska and Missouri have been given until either this coming Friday or next Friday to pledge their loyalty to the Big 12.

Excuse me?

This is all Missouri and Nebraska's fault for wanting to move to the Big Ten?

The timeline for Big Ten expansion still has about six months (minimum) before it will probably be resolved.

And having worked at a Big Ten institution, I can tell you that the glacial timeline is appropriate for that league. Tradition demands that one be deliberate, after all.

Meanwhile, the Pac-10 appears to already be set on offering the entire south division except for Baylor an invitation, and yet there is no mention of an ultimatum for those schools — who are a helluva lot closer to being given an shot at a new league.

Let's say you run a multi-million dollar corporation. You have two fellow corporations looking to steal away some of your twelve employees. You know that one company may be coming by within the next six to twelve months to poach two solid employees, and that another company is planning on trying to poach six employees tomorrow. Those six include your top two producers.

So why would be willing to let those six employees talk with the rocket fast corporation while telling the two employees who might be interested in the opportunity six to twelve months away that "We need to know your future plans now?"

It logically makes no sense to shame Missouri and Nebraska into staying, telling them, "You'd better stay or else." while letting Oklahoma and Texas et. al do whatever the hell they want.

You've already acknowledged, by refusing to discuss changes to the revenue-sharing model, that you consider the conference's bread to be buttered by Texas and Oklahoma.

If that be the case, then why let them walk with a smile and a hearty wave and instead try to lower the hammer on Missouri and Nebraska?

The perception is already out there that Missouri isn't worth the trouble; they're too busy trying to run away from the league because it's been too hard for them and hell, even if they leave, it won't matter because the league will thrive. Heck, they might even get an exemption to play a championship game because it's Division 1 football. It's the Big 12. It ain't intramurals.

Never mind if perception is reality or not in this instance, because in Dan Beebe's world, you don't try and get loyalty oaths from the schools that are bringing in the most revenue. That, apparently, is too logical.

Would a Big 12 network have been a panacea in this instance? Who knows? If the revenue from that network was distributed inequitably, it probably wouldn't have been.

But why have the talks about a Big 12 network seemingly been ongoing for three years with no movement towards actually establishing a network, while the Big Ten and the Mountain West both have television networks? (Granted, the Mountain West Network has issues of its own, but that's a conversation for another time.)

Can someone tell me what Dan Beebe's greatest accomplishment has been in three years running this league? Because as hard as I try, I can't seem to find anything that he has done that has helped move the Big 12 forward.

As far as I can tell, the death of the conference might wind up being his greatest accomplishment.

But if the conference goes down in flames next week, well, he can always say he stuck it to the Huskers and the Tigers.

Way to go, Dan.

Big Ten Expansion Speculation: Realignment into divisions

Because I love doing these speculative expansion posts in pairs, here's my thoughts on Big Ten realignment. Again, I see four possible scenarios, but unlike the Pac-10, where there appears to be two distinct rumored favorites, there are at least five contenders. I tried to incorporate all five into the different scenarios. Alignment one assumes that Missouri is selected and is based on an East/West split. Alignment two assumes that one of the other schools (Pitt, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Syracuse) is selected, but is still based on an East/West geographic split):

Alignment 1:
East
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Ohio State

West
Missouri
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Alignment 2:
East
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Pittsburgh (or Syracuse, ND or Rutgers)

West
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Purdue
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Alignments three and four as based on North/South divisions:

Alignment 3:
North
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State

South
Missouri (or Rutgers or Pittsburgh)
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Penn State
Ohio State

Alignment 4:
North
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Syracuse (or Notre Dame)
Northwestern
Michigan State
Michigan

South
Iowa
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Penn State
Ohio State

I don't see the Big Ten taking the radical step of just placing the teams into a hat and pulling names out and slotting them into divisions. The Big Ten is too traditional to do something like "Mountain" and "Plains" divisions; after all, this is a league that was still known as the Western Conference officially until sometime around 1987—even though they had had ten teams since the mid 1950s.

Progressivism is not their style.

Big Ten Expansion Sidebar: A preliminary list?

The company that the Big Ten hired to help them determine whether or not to expand and who to look at has come back and said, "Yep. Expand."

Interesting piece by Teddy Greenstein in the Chicago Tribune today with his thoughts about who would be the best fit for the conference.

Teddy cites the following factors as being important in his view:

1) Revenue. Football stadium size, basketball arena and (most importantly) TV market
2) Geography to keep travel costs down
3) Academics
4) Recruiting (fertile recruiting area)

The winner, according to sources?

The consensus among Big Ten sources, officials from other conferences and TV executives is that Rutgers offers the best package. Missouri is second and Pittsburgh third.

Why Rutgers? It doesn't hurt that the New Brunswick, N.J., campus is less than 40 miles from midtown Manhattan. Or that the state of New Jersey alone would be the nation's fourth-largest television market -- after New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The New York market has 7.5 million TV homes, and the Big Ten Network would love to get them on expanded basic cable rather than forcing subscribers to pay extra via a sports tier.

Rutgers just completed a $102 million renovation of its football stadium that added more than 12,000 seats, 1,000 club-level seats, a $5 million recruiting lounge -- and earned the ire of opposition groups. Capacity is up to 52,454 with an option for building a third deck.

Rutgers will play the first ever major-college football game (vs. Army) at the new Meadowlands Stadium, a $1.4 billion facility that will open for the Jets and Giants this fall. Think there's be any trouble selling out the 82,500-seat stadium for a Penn State-Rutgers game? Or when Ohio State or Michigan visits?

The Newark Star-Ledger reported in January that the school also plans to overhaul its outdated Rutgers Athletic Center, a 32-year-old facility that holds 8,000 for men's and women's basketball.

The New York/New Jersey area feeds the nation's top-rated basketball conference, the Big East, much of its talent.

Four other factors can't hurt Rutgers' cause:

• Newark Liberty International Airport is 23 miles from New Brunswick, making Rutgers more accessible than many Big Ten campuses.

• Rutgers calls itself "The Birthplace of College Football." It beat Princeton in what must have been a thrilling contest in 1869. Final score: 6-4.

• Delany hails from the Garden State -- South Orange, N.J.

• By leaving the Big East, Rutgers could quadruple its annual TV share to more than $20 million. Meaning that unlike with Texas and Notre Dame, an R.S.V.P would be a mere formality.

Yes, there are other schools that need to be considered that aren't being mentioned. Rutgers, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Syracuse are simply the obvious suspects.

But quite frankly I don't see too many other teams that fit the profile and would make the impact that these five would.

Frankly, I'm not 100 percent sold on the Rutgers angle just yet.

Yes, New Jersey has been a good solid recruiting area for football talent and some basketball as well.

But I still find that "New York market" argument to be weak.

Sure, the Big Ten would love to expand their footprint and get the Big Ten Network into those homes.

But I don't know if Rutgers has the pull make that happen.

College football is still a novelty in the NYC area for most folks who are NY natives.

And for college basketball, NYC is Big East country.

Yes, you might be able to capture the alums from Northwestern, Michigan and Penn State and have them reconnect with their teams.

But frankly I don't see Rutgers as drawing eyeballs to the screen on Saturday afternoons simply because they are on.

They have to win games to make that happen, and the step up in weight class would make that a daunting effort, I would say.

Big Ten Expansion Round 3: C.R.E.A.M.

(For previous installments on Big Ten Expansion, visit here and here).

One thing that I found interesting about the Pac-10 analysis was how few of the athletic departments ran overall surpluses. Football made money and was in the black, but the departments were balanced.

In the Big Ten? Not so much.

Big Ten Financial Analysis

I would say that Texas and Notre Dame come out favorably in this examination based on overall revenue and how well their football programs have performed financially (and in Texas's case, on the field as well.)

Of course, I probably should mention that it appears that Texas will not be joining the party, if Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez is to be believed.

I believe that this is a fluid situation, so we will have to stay tuned.

Big Ten Expansion Round 2: Television Market Share

In the first round of Pac-10 expansion talks, I posted the reputational academic bonafides of the current Big Ten Schools and their potential new brethern.

In this round, we will look at the television markets that are currently being utilized and what a newcomer would have to offer.

Now, when talking markets, we are going to refer to the specific regional markets for these teams. The market sizes are done based off of data from Nielsen Media Research.

As with the Pac-10 television markets exercise,  note that some markets may contain more than one city. With the Big Ten, the largest market may not necessarily be the city where the school is actually located (see Penn State):

Illinois (Champaign-Urbana/Springfield/Decatur): 84
Indiana (Indianapolis): 25
Iowa (Cedar Rapids): 88
Michigan (Detroit): 11
Michigan State (Lansing/Jackson): 115
Minnesota (Minneapolis/St. Paul): 15
Northwestern (Chicago): 3
Ohio State (Columbus): 34
Penn State (Altoona/Johnstown): 101
Purdue (Lafayette): 191
Wisconsin (Madison): 85

Not a lot of large markets. At least, not as many as the Pac-10. But that's also because of the nature of where the campuses are located and how the conferences evolved.

So let's look at the schools that the Big Ten has an eye on (allegedly):

Missouri (Columbia/Jefferson City): 137

Notre Dame (South Bend/Elkhart): 91
Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh): 23
Rutgers (New York City): 1
Syracuse (Syracuse): 83
Texas (Austin): 48

Now it looks interesting, doesn't it?

If the Big Ten wants to pull in a new market, why not try and tap into the largest market that is still out there in New York City?

Michigan and Penn State have huge alumni bases in the city already, and New York is the unconquered final frontier as far as college football goes.

And if the NFL locks out its players for the 2011 season (and if Rutgers can find the magic of the 2006 season again....)

Big Ten Expansion Round 1: Academics

Since I had so much fun doing it for the Pac-10, let's run the same drill with the Big Ten.

Parameters are the same as for the Pac-10. Only thing that's changed are the schools involved. For the Big Ten, while there have been a few names tossed about, let's focus in on the six likeliest candidates: Missouri, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse and Texas.

That's right; Texas.

On with the show. First, the current residents of the Big Ten (11):

Illinois:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 39 (highest ranking number assigned—128)
Enrollment: 40,687

Indiana:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 71
Enrollment: 37,821

Iowa:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 71
Enrollment: 28,442

Michigan:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 27
Enrollment: 39,533

Michigan State:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 71
Enrollment: 44,836

Minnesota:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 61
Enrollment: 50,954

Northwestern:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 12
Enrollment: 17,747

Ohio State:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 53
Enrollment: 50,995

Penn State:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 47
Enrollment: 41,289

Purdue:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 61
Enrollment: 40,108

Wisconsin:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 39
Enrollment: 40, 455

Average ranking for the Big Ten: 50.1
Average enrollment: 39, 352

And now, on to the contenders for that coveted one spot:

Missouri:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 102
Enrollment: 27,003

Pittsburgh:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 56
Enrollment: 26,731

Notre Dame:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 20
Enrollment: 11,479

Syracuse:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 58
Enrollment: 18, 247

Rutgers:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 66
Enrollment: 34,696

Texas:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 47
Enrollment: 50,377

Interesting, no?

It would seem that Texas is a good fit after all academically. Out of the group, Missouri would appear to be the weak link in the chain, as their US News ranking is significantly higher than anyone else on this list.

Academically, while not part of the AAU, Notre Dame has exemplary academics.

But as I've said before, there is more to this than just academics.