Post by elp525 on May 20, 2010 4:43:11 GMT -5
May 19, 2010
By Dave Hickman
Staff writer
MORGANTOWN - Cleaning out a crowded notebook and a cluttered mind as conference Armageddon simmers (still) on the back burner:
One of the places it will be talked about, of course, is at the Big East's annual meetings that begin this weekend in Ponte Vedra, Fla., just outside Jacksonville. A few years back, when word of the ACC's impending raid of the league filtered out, that quiet little seaside resort town was sullied by media types from all over the East Coast in anticipation of the hammer falling that week.
There won't be nearly the rush on Ponte Vedra this time around because, well, nothing is likely to happen given that the Big East - like the Big 12 and just about everyone else - is a spectator for the time being.
Not that the issue of the Big Ten's eventual expansion and the Big East's reaction won't come up.
"It's not on the formal agenda, but the athletic directors and [the Big East officers], we're always talking about membership issues,'' associate commissioner John Paquette said Wednesday. "Obviously it's in the forefront right now, but we're always talking about it and I'm sure it will be discussed.''
Here's the way those Big East meetings work, at least from my one excursion there during that ACC flap in 2003. The ADs schedule a couple of meetings a day and play golf in between. The football coaches show up for a couple of days and do the same, as do the men's and women's basketball coaches.
It's all fairly informal, but things can become contentious during those meetings depending upon the subject matter.
But expansion talk is sure to creep into whatever subject matter is being discussed next week. For the most part this year it's routine - finances, tournament formats, NCAA legislation and the like. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall, though, when somebody from Rutgers or Pitt or Syracuse or Notre Dame starts talking in the long term when everyone else in the room knows full well that their futures in the league could be short term?
It would probably not be wise to read too much into Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany's "sunbelt'' comments this week.
He talked about demographics and population shifts and looking 20 years into the future and sounded almost as if his league would prefer to skip over the Midwest and the Northeast when it gets around to inviting new members. But who in the Sunbelt - the region, not the conference - makes any sort of sense?
No one is leaving the SEC for the Big Ten because it's pretty much a lateral move financially. If there were a few million extra bucks to be gained in the switch they would be eaten up in travel costs [not in the revenue sports necessarily, but in the myriad others], not to mention the hit taken by losing long-time natural rivalries. Picking anyone from the ACC makes absolutely no geographical sense and again drives up costs for everyone and destroys rivalries. And plucking a non-BCS school, well, what does that add to the Big Ten?
No, if you're looking to the Sunbelt for expansion targets, probably the only schools that add significant value to the Big Ten would be in Texas and Oklahoma. But that would probably mean trying to lure Texas and Texas A&M and/or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Neither is going anywhere without the other school in its state.
Would that make for a powerhouse conference? You bet it would. It would accomplish all the Big Ten's financial goals, adding not only that region to its television footprint but much of the nation as well, thanks to those schools' national appeal. Those schools would be much better off financially, too, because an annual Big Ten paycheck in the $22 million neighborhood figures to be almost twice what the Big 12 currently pays. Not only is that more than enough to compensate for travel, but adding all four would keep a lot of rivalries intact.
Still, it just seems a real stretch (and of those four, only Texas A&M is a member of the American Association of Universities, which will be a sticking point for the league's presidents). Then again, Boston to Miami in the ACC is a literal stretch, too, so stranger things have happened.
And finally, in staying on point here, here was a quote from Delany that I found interesting. He was talking about conference movement over the past two decades and said that by his calculations there had been 252 changes in affiliation.
"A lot of them have, in my view, been improperly studied,'' Delany said in way of explaining why the Big Ten will stick to its 12- to 18-month timetable announced last December. "Didn't understand the logistics. Didn't understand the culture. Didn't understand the academic fit. Didn't understand how people did their business. Didn't really understand whether they were doing a merger or whether they were doing an expansion.''
I can't help but think that the ACC's expansion was right up there in Delany's non-specific analysis. Adding Miami and Virginia Tech were certainly positives in almost every sense (Miami's recent football falloff notwithstanding). Boston College? Not so much.
The Eagles were supposed to deliver the Northeast television market, but haven't because no one outside of Boston cares and anyone in Boston watches the Patriots, Celtics, Red Sox and Bruins. Also, BC doesn't fit as a rival to anyone in the league.
From Boston College's standpoint, the ACC is providing a bigger check than did the Big East, but at what price? The Eagles have no natural rivals (which hurts attendance and interest) and the football team has consistently had to settle for lesser bowl trips than it probably deserved because the bowls passed on BC for another ACC team. Think not? Despite averaging almost nine pre-bowl wins in each of the five years they have been in the ACC, arguably the best bowl to which the Eagles have been invited is the Champs Sports (after a 10-win season in 2007).
Also gone are all the natural Northeast basketball rivalries, the Big East tournament a train ride away in Manhattan and any kind of comfort zone for travel in the non-revenue Olympic sports.
Just a thought, but might a Big Ten-Rutgers marriage end up similarly (or Big Ten-Syracuse)? And might Delany have a clear predictor of that?
By Dave Hickman
Staff writer
MORGANTOWN - Cleaning out a crowded notebook and a cluttered mind as conference Armageddon simmers (still) on the back burner:
One of the places it will be talked about, of course, is at the Big East's annual meetings that begin this weekend in Ponte Vedra, Fla., just outside Jacksonville. A few years back, when word of the ACC's impending raid of the league filtered out, that quiet little seaside resort town was sullied by media types from all over the East Coast in anticipation of the hammer falling that week.
There won't be nearly the rush on Ponte Vedra this time around because, well, nothing is likely to happen given that the Big East - like the Big 12 and just about everyone else - is a spectator for the time being.
Not that the issue of the Big Ten's eventual expansion and the Big East's reaction won't come up.
"It's not on the formal agenda, but the athletic directors and [the Big East officers], we're always talking about membership issues,'' associate commissioner John Paquette said Wednesday. "Obviously it's in the forefront right now, but we're always talking about it and I'm sure it will be discussed.''
Here's the way those Big East meetings work, at least from my one excursion there during that ACC flap in 2003. The ADs schedule a couple of meetings a day and play golf in between. The football coaches show up for a couple of days and do the same, as do the men's and women's basketball coaches.
It's all fairly informal, but things can become contentious during those meetings depending upon the subject matter.
But expansion talk is sure to creep into whatever subject matter is being discussed next week. For the most part this year it's routine - finances, tournament formats, NCAA legislation and the like. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall, though, when somebody from Rutgers or Pitt or Syracuse or Notre Dame starts talking in the long term when everyone else in the room knows full well that their futures in the league could be short term?
It would probably not be wise to read too much into Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany's "sunbelt'' comments this week.
He talked about demographics and population shifts and looking 20 years into the future and sounded almost as if his league would prefer to skip over the Midwest and the Northeast when it gets around to inviting new members. But who in the Sunbelt - the region, not the conference - makes any sort of sense?
No one is leaving the SEC for the Big Ten because it's pretty much a lateral move financially. If there were a few million extra bucks to be gained in the switch they would be eaten up in travel costs [not in the revenue sports necessarily, but in the myriad others], not to mention the hit taken by losing long-time natural rivalries. Picking anyone from the ACC makes absolutely no geographical sense and again drives up costs for everyone and destroys rivalries. And plucking a non-BCS school, well, what does that add to the Big Ten?
No, if you're looking to the Sunbelt for expansion targets, probably the only schools that add significant value to the Big Ten would be in Texas and Oklahoma. But that would probably mean trying to lure Texas and Texas A&M and/or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Neither is going anywhere without the other school in its state.
Would that make for a powerhouse conference? You bet it would. It would accomplish all the Big Ten's financial goals, adding not only that region to its television footprint but much of the nation as well, thanks to those schools' national appeal. Those schools would be much better off financially, too, because an annual Big Ten paycheck in the $22 million neighborhood figures to be almost twice what the Big 12 currently pays. Not only is that more than enough to compensate for travel, but adding all four would keep a lot of rivalries intact.
Still, it just seems a real stretch (and of those four, only Texas A&M is a member of the American Association of Universities, which will be a sticking point for the league's presidents). Then again, Boston to Miami in the ACC is a literal stretch, too, so stranger things have happened.
And finally, in staying on point here, here was a quote from Delany that I found interesting. He was talking about conference movement over the past two decades and said that by his calculations there had been 252 changes in affiliation.
"A lot of them have, in my view, been improperly studied,'' Delany said in way of explaining why the Big Ten will stick to its 12- to 18-month timetable announced last December. "Didn't understand the logistics. Didn't understand the culture. Didn't understand the academic fit. Didn't understand how people did their business. Didn't really understand whether they were doing a merger or whether they were doing an expansion.''
I can't help but think that the ACC's expansion was right up there in Delany's non-specific analysis. Adding Miami and Virginia Tech were certainly positives in almost every sense (Miami's recent football falloff notwithstanding). Boston College? Not so much.
The Eagles were supposed to deliver the Northeast television market, but haven't because no one outside of Boston cares and anyone in Boston watches the Patriots, Celtics, Red Sox and Bruins. Also, BC doesn't fit as a rival to anyone in the league.
From Boston College's standpoint, the ACC is providing a bigger check than did the Big East, but at what price? The Eagles have no natural rivals (which hurts attendance and interest) and the football team has consistently had to settle for lesser bowl trips than it probably deserved because the bowls passed on BC for another ACC team. Think not? Despite averaging almost nine pre-bowl wins in each of the five years they have been in the ACC, arguably the best bowl to which the Eagles have been invited is the Champs Sports (after a 10-win season in 2007).
Also gone are all the natural Northeast basketball rivalries, the Big East tournament a train ride away in Manhattan and any kind of comfort zone for travel in the non-revenue Olympic sports.
Just a thought, but might a Big Ten-Rutgers marriage end up similarly (or Big Ten-Syracuse)? And might Delany have a clear predictor of that?
