Thoughts on Conference Expansion

To me, the most fascinating thing about conference expansion is the ripple impact of every move. It's extremely unlikely that Team A can move to Conference X without a corresponding move by Conference Y. So what does the end game look like?



Many pundits have speculated for over a year that we'll end up with four 16-team Super Conferences. That's probably true, but it looks like we'll see an incremental approach to that destination as only Larry Scott in the Pac-12 has put forth a real 16-team plan.



So...what happens when Texas A&M accepts the invitation to become the 13th member of the SEC? Here's my thoughts on the ripple impact...



What if Team 14 is Virginia Tech?

If the Hokies are the 14th team in the SEC, who will the ACC pursue to fill that spot? The best geographic/TV fits which generate the most revenue are Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia. In fact, if I were the ACC, I would try and replace Virginia Tech with all three schools and jump to 14 teams.



The problem...taking three teams from the Big East virtually eliminates that league's existence. Without a scheduling partner in the form of the Big East, and with the ACC (at 14 teams), Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 12 all at 9 conference games each, how does Notre Dame still fill out a schedule? Doesn't that finally give Jim Delany the Notre Dame pitch he's always wanted? Then Big Ten will need a 14th team. The Big Ten would go looking for a 14th team before the ACC could lock down Pitt, WVU and Syracuse.



What if Team 14 is Louisville or Missouri?

Then Mike Slive needs to be terminated immediately. Plus , if Louisville is the 14th team, that could be enough to destabilize the Big East enough for Jim Delany to make a move on Rutgers and get Notre Dame in the process. In other words, adding Louisville could end up strengthening the Big Ten. If it's Missouri...who knows.



What if it's really 16 teams with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and someone else?

Look at how difficult it is to get one team to jump. It creates contractual problems, TV partner conflicts and most importantly political problems for the members. I just don't think a 16-team league can happen all at once. It'll take a few seasons to get there.



What about Oklahoma?

The Sooners are in a tough spot. They can't leave Oklahoma State behind for political reasons, and they need to play Texas every year for recruiting purposes. Texas will end up being forced to play Texas A&M by their state legislatures. There's no way Texas is going to play a nine game conference schedule plus Texas A&M and Oklahoma out of conference every year. OU isn't in a good position for leaving Texas' side now that the Aggies are gone.



So who do you think Team 14 will be? What unseen consequence of adding TAMU could be out there?



PWD

Texas A&M's Breakup Talk with Big 12

Good stuff from from Bandit Ref.







PWD

SEC Expansion: Bama and AU to the East?

If the SEC expands to include Texas A&M plus another school slotted for the West, I expect Alabama and Auburn to both move to the East.

SEC East:

Alabama

Auburn

Georgia

Florida

Tennessee

South Carolina

Kentucky



SEC West:

LSU

Texas A&M

Arkansas

Miss State

Ole Miss

Vanderbilt

TBD

If the league slots FSU or Missouri caliber program in the West, the balance would be reasonable. If they go after Virginia Tech again, then the divisions would basically stay the same as they are now and Bama/AU wouldn't move.



A nine game SEC schedule would likely be a part of a 14 team league. Especially now that the Pac 12 and Big Ten are going in that direction.



What's the benefit to UGA beyond more quality home games? Well...we would get a balanced SEC home/away schedule of 4 home, 4 road and 1 neutral. Today, Georgia has a 4-3-1 SEC schedule on odd numbered years and 3-4-1 on even numbered years. It would actually be easier to keep the Cocktail Party in Athens if the SEC expands to 14 teams and goes to a 9 game league slate.



Imagine a slate like this on an even numbered year:

Home:

UT

Alabama

Arkansas

Kentucky

Georgia Tech



CUSA Team

Div I-AA Team



Away:

Auburn

Texas A&M

South Carolina

Mississippi State



Neutral:

Florida

What's your take?



PWD

Will the Aggies move to the SEC?

Dying or just getting started?

It seems like a good move.  Texas A&M and the rest of the 8 leftovers in the Texas Longhorn conference, are getting a complete rodgering less than advantageous deal.  Don Beebe might have saved the Big 12, but due to the concessions given the Longhorns, it is only a matter of time that several of the other schools will look for a change.

So we are working on the assumption that the change would be a power play by the SEC to get TAMU and another top tier team or three, in all likelihood from either from the Big 12 or the ACC.  Oklahoma or Oklahoma State come to mind.  Georgia Tech, Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech and Miami do, too.  For what it is worth, TCU makes some sense. But is SEC expansion the only thing that makes sense?  As Blutarski put it, I'd be more impressed if Mike Slive were talking about A&M moving to the SEC.  If the SEC does this, it won't be out of charity to TAMU or another team.  It'll be because Slive and the Presidents think it'll be a long term net money win.

Does adding TAMU help expand the TV footprint significantly enough?  I don't know.  The SEC is already on two national networks each week, with nearly every game broadcast regionally. Yes, it gets the SEC into the Texas market.  It would be good for SEC fans in Texas to be able to see the SEC regional games, but what does that do for the conference? Would adding TAMUs football and basketball revenue be a strong enough argument, when added to the expanded TV footprint, to make the move without knowing what other team would be used to balance the conference?

Is it more plausible that the Little 9 of the Big 12 look to balance their conference.  I can see a scenario that they make moves to encourage Texas to go independent, either by figuring out how to get them out of the Big 12 or otherwise.*  Otherwise isn't as good a deal, as any newly formed conference would not be a BCS conference, although it would likely quickly qualify, especially if Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas Tech and Texas A&M are in play.  What if you add TCU to that mix?

The best argument against this happening is that the Big 12 needs Texas more than Texas needs the Big 12. Is that still the case? Texas has made it such that those programs are subservient to the Longhorns.  Is a Big 12 without Texas better off long term for the majority of those schools than with a Texas dominated Big 12?  That might be the question of the day and the source of the TAMU to SEC talk.

If the next best argument for Texas to stay in the Big 12 is that Texas A&M and Oklahoma wouldn't want to give up playing Texas every year, the simple counter to that is that Texas doesn't want to stop playing them, either. The Red River Shootout and the Texas-Texas A&M games are two of the top 10 or 15 rivalry games nationally.  An independent Texas can't afford to give up those games. The Texas legislature probably wouldn't let the Longhorns give up TAMU or Texas Tech (or probably Baylor), anyway.   I'm not sure what the arrangement would be, but I feel pretty good about the leverage those teams might have if Texas chose, or were forced, to leave to be independent.  Furthermore, Texas probably doesn't have the leverage that Notre Dame does, so they might be outside the BCS looking in for a while.  Is it worth being equated with BYU, Army and Navy at BCS time?

Finally, the Longhorn network complicates any move of Texas to another conference. Again, I'm not sure of logistics and finances, but somebody, somewhere will have to convince Texas a move to their conference is a win for them.  No other conference is going to sell out to get Texas the way the Big 12 did to keep them.  What does giving up some of that Longhorn network money, or more fairly sharing conference money, and with more forks in the pie, do to Texas' decision making? 

From a fan's perspective, we seem to love this (FWIW, I'm ambivalent about a 14 or 16 team SEC).  From a business standpoint, if this is a move foreshadowing the true super conferences, it might make sense. If this is just a grab for A&M because we can, does it make sense?  For whatever reason, something isn't adding up with A&M just up and moving.

Am I way off base here?

TD

*I looked at the current Big 12 bylaws.  By my view, a vote of 75% of the board of directors of the conference, by amending the bylaws, vote Texas out of the conference.  I'll grant this is a very quick reading and interpretation of the bylaws.  If anyone knows for certain this is or isn't the case, please let me know in the comments.

Your Expansion Update

For a situation in constant flux, here's your morning update:

• Last night the Houston Chronicle reported that the Texas A&M Board of Regents will meet as early as Thursday to vote to join the Southeastern Conference. The other Big XII schools are expected to join the Pac 10. AggieSports.com points out that all eyes are on TAMU this week.
  
  
• The Texas legislature really wants everyone to take a deep breath and slow down. That's one of the reasons they've set up Wednesday hearings on this to find out what's going on and why.
  
  
• One Aggie blogger weighs in on the possibility of losing the series with Texas. Personally, I don't think it will come to that...regardless of what league everyone ends up in.
  
  
• And Rivals.com weighs in on expansion as it relates to recruiting.

PWD

Hold that Dial

Orangebloods.com (who has been all over conference expansion like no one else) says that Texas is considering a proposal to keep the Big 12 together as a 10 team league. I still don't understand why the Big 12 AD is being so reactive in this. Why not offer Cincy and Louisville to replace Colorado and Nebraska? You'd be adding two new media markets and two quality basketball programs who badly need a home.

PWD

Texas A&M Considering SEC

It's going to be very tough to pull off, but we're hearing that Texas A&M is receptive to joining the SEC with or without Texas. And the Longhorns, Sooners, Red Raiders and Cowboys are considering the Pac-10 offer with or without Texas A&M.

It'll be very hard for the Aggies to leave without Texas. They would likely need a commitment from Texas that they could still play each every year, but Gene Stallings and the TAMU president are looking at the SEC vs. Pac-10 decision in a very logical manner.

From the standpoint of distance for non-revenue sports and cultural fit, the move to the SEC is a no brainer. From a revenue standpoint, it's no worse than break even given that the Aggies would be able to sign their own TV / electronic rights deal outside of the SEC contract like UGA and Florida have ... both having long term deals worth more than $90 million.

If only the Aggies were added, the SEC would look to the East for the final piece of the puzzle with the most discussed name being Virginia Tech.

In my opinion, a 14 team SEC would move to a nine game conference schedule including a 6-1-2 rotation. All traditional cross divisional rivalries would be kept in place. The only sacrafice the league would be making would be in the area of non-conference scheduling. It would be incredibly difficult for schools like UGA, Florida and South Carolina to schedule non-conference games beyond their non-conference in state rivals and play a nine team SEC slate. But if we were adding Va Tech and Texas A&M to the mix....who cares about playing Oregon.

See Also:
-- The rift in Texas - Sportsline
-- Aggies listening to SEC - Orlando Sentinel
-- Texas has to listen to SEC - Tony Barnhart
-- A&M considering SEC - Sporting News
-- Texas won't hang around - ESPN
-- 16 team conference TV deals not a slam dunk - CNBC

PWD

It's Official: Colorado Joins the Pac 10

The Pac 10 conference announced today that The Colorado Buffaloes are joining their conference. This announcement was made moments ago. (Source: ESPN). This is on top of the likely news within the next 48 hours that Nebraska is joining the Big 10.

According to ESPN (and this was also discussed last night by Pete Thamel of the NYTimes):

Texas and Texas A&M officials are scheduled to meet [today] at an undisclosed location to discuss the future of their athletic programs and the Big 12 amid speculation the league could be raided by rival conferences and broken apart.

Things are moving very quickly. One of the big problems with expanding to 16 teams is...how do you keep fans happy when they are fewer titles to go around? Well, the Pac 10 may have dreamed up a very obnoxious answer to that question (ht - blutarsky):

The coach said it's possible the Pac-16 would push for two automatic bids to the BCS, one for each division champion. That potential bonanza could open the possibility of the two division champs from one league playing for the national title, and it would eliminate the need for a conference championship game.

"The Pac-10 doesn't believe in a championship game," the coach said. "And coaches in the Big 12 don't like it anyway."

If they move in that direction, the Pac 10 is essentially not a single conference at all. It's a modified version of the Pac 8 meets the Southwest Conference in a marriage for TV purposes only.

Imagine the SEC applying this thinking and expanding to 16. You'd have a league whereby the SEC East and SEC West champs both earned a BCS slot automatically, but there would be absolutely no "settling it on the field" in that scenario as the two division champs wouldn't meet in Atlanta. Bizarre.

See Also:
-- Texas A&M and the SEC in talks? - SI.com
-- Scrambling to save the Big XII - NY Times

PWD

Why the 16 Team Mega Conferences won't happen Part 1

I just don't see the Big 10 expanding to 16 teams any time soon, and if they don't do it. No one will. In my opinion, most of their talk about 16 teams is aimed at:

• Making Notre Dame Nervous - The only way for a 16 team conference to really work would be moving to a 10 game league schedule. You really wouldn't play the other side of the league often enough to call yourself a conference unless you went to 10 games. Ten league games for the Big 10 would mean extremely little scheduling flexibility for Midwestern teams in booking Notre Dame. Also, a 16 team Big 10 would eliminate the Big East. Currently, Notre Dame is guaranteed 4 games a year against Big East foes. Combine that with three more Big 10 teams, and it becomes hard to see how they would book a full slate of 12 games. There are only so many service academies.
  
  
• Making Nebraska Nervous - If the Big 10 takes Missouri and the Pac 10 takes Colorado, the team left standing in the Big 12's game of musical chairs is Nebraska. Texas and Texas A&M can do pretty much anything they want due to TV demographics and fan support. Nebraska doesn't have that luxury.

In the end, I think the Big 10 will expand by 1 team and the Pac 10 will go to 12. And most of the 16 team talk is brilliantly aimed at getting the Big 10 the best possible team to reach out to them for inclusion.

From there, all the leagues will take a deep breath. Because the contractual complexities of moving to 16 teams in one or more conferences are just too great. And University presidents are too risk adverse.

More on the Revenue side in a little bit.

PWD

To Dome or Not to Dome

Image: AJC
Tim Tucker caught up with Gary Stokan of the Atlanta Sports Council for an update on the possibility of UGA playing a game at the Georgia Dome. He basically says what I suggested earlier....the idea of UGA giving up its 6th home game for a match-up at the Dome is NOT on the table for 2010 or any other year.

The options on the table are:

A. Push out or cancel '10 non-conference road game (ie: Colorado)
B. Play only 6 home games in '11 (ie: push out opener vs. Lville)

I've seen an uproar on this site about not wanting to move the Colorado trip in 2010. I don't get it. It won't be like the ASU trip last year. Arizona State has a 76,000 seat stadium that rarely sells out. UGA fans got their hands on a near unlimited supply of cheap tickets to the game, and 15,000-20,000 of us turned into a de facto bowl game complete with a side trip to Sedona, the Grand Canyon and/or Vegas. Plus, ASU was a pre-season Top 15 team.

Colorado won't be like that. Folsom Field only seats 53,000 people. Their tickets aren't as accessible, and the Denver area's strongest suit is the Winter. Not early October. Their program is also in rebuilding mode, and the female talent will most certainly not be comparable to the Sun Devils. It's extremely unlikely that we're going to face a Top 15 team. (Granted: ASU had started tumbling before we got there, but we were booking flights and hotels based on the assumption that they wouldn't lose to UNLV the week before)

I'm looking forward to the trip to Boulder. Hell, Dawgnoxious and I actually saw UGA play hoops in Boulder. But I don't see what the fuss is about or what the problem would be with pushing the game out a bit. Especially, if we could replace that game with a more logistically manageable, less expensive game in Atlanta versus a much bigger name team. What am I missing?

Also, Georgia's best seasons since 1964 (when Vince Dooley arrived) usually began with a game that caught the player's attention and forced them to work harder all off season.

2007 vs Oklahoma State (#2 final ranking)
2005 vs a hyped Boise State (SEC Champs)
2003 at Clemson (SEC East Champs)
2002 vs Clemson (SEC Champs)
1997 vs Ark State (10 wins. Top 10 Finish) -- EXCEPTION
1992 at South Carolina (10 wins. SEC East Co-Champs)
1983 vs UCLA (10 wins. Cotton Bowl Champs)
1982 vs Clemson (SEC Champs)
1981 vs Tennessee (SEC Champs)
1980 at Tennessee (SEC Champs)
1976 vs California (SEC Champs) -- See Update*
1971 vs Oregon State (11-1 team) -- EXCEPTION
1968 at Tennessee (SEC Champs)
1966 at Mississippi State (SEC Champs)

Update: SpartanburgDawg sent me a note -- "Total speculation, but I’m guessing the 1976 Cal Bears had our undivided attention, as well, given that they were co-Pac 10 champs in 1975 and had won 8 of their past 9 games. A year later, they opened the season by whipping Tennessee’s ass in Knoxville." (touche)

That's 11 12 of 14 seasons that we've won 10 or more games and/or won the SEC East or better that began with an attention getting game. Compare that to Richt's seasons in which we've underwhelmed or underachieved '01 (Ark St.), '04 (GSU), '06 (WKU) and '08 (GSU).

I don't want to screw the Buffs. I'm just saying....do what it takes to get us a quality opponent in Week 1. If that requires a game at the Dome. Fine. It doesn't ensure greatness to play those tough openers, but not playing big opponents immediately sure does seem to lead to lackluster seasons.

See Also:
-- UGA ponders the Dome - Blutarsky

PWD

To Dome or Not to Dome

Image: AJC
Tim Tucker caught up with Gary Stokan of the Atlanta Sports Council for an update on the possibility of UGA playing a game at the Georgia Dome. He basically says what I suggested earlier....the idea of UGA giving up its 6th home game for a match-up at the Dome is NOT on the table for 2010 or any other year.

The options on the table are:

A. Push out or cancel '10 non-conference road game (ie: Colorado)
B. Play only 6 home games in '11 (ie: push out opener vs. Lville)

I've seen an uproar on this site about not wanting to move the Colorado trip in 2010. I don't get it. It won't be like the ASU trip last year. Arizona State has a 76,000 seat stadium that rarely sells out. UGA fans got their hands on a near unlimited supply of cheap tickets to the game, and 15,000-20,000 of us turned into a de facto bowl game complete with a side trip to Sedona, the Grand Canyon and/or Vegas. Plus, ASU was a pre-season Top 15 team.

Colorado won't be like that. Folsom Field only seats 53,000 people. Their tickets aren't as accessible, and the Denver area's strongest suit is the Winter. Not early October. Their program is also in rebuilding mode, and the female talent will most certainly not be comparable to the Sun Devils. It's extremely unlikely that we're going to face a Top 15 team. (Granted: ASU had started tumbling before we got there, but we were booking flights and hotels based on the assumption that they wouldn't lose to UNLV the week before)

I'm looking forward to the trip to Boulder. Hell, Dawgnoxious and I actually saw UGA play hoops in Boulder. But I don't see what the fuss is about or what the problem would be with pushing the game out a bit. Especially, if we could replace that game with a more logistically manageable, less expensive game in Atlanta versus a much bigger name team. What am I missing?

Also, Georgia's best seasons since 1964 (when Vince Dooley arrived) usually began with a game that caught the player's attention and forced them to work harder all off season.

2007 vs Oklahoma State (#2 final ranking)
2005 vs a hyped Boise State (SEC Champs)
2003 at Clemson (SEC East Champs)
2002 vs Clemson (SEC Champs)
1997 vs Ark State (10 wins. Top 10 Finish) -- EXCEPTION
1992 at South Carolina (10 wins. SEC East Co-Champs)
1983 vs UCLA (10 wins. Cotton Bowl Champs)
1982 vs Clemson (SEC Champs)
1981 vs Tennessee (SEC Champs)
1980 at Tennessee (SEC Champs)
1976 vs California (SEC Champs) -- See Update*
1971 vs Oregon State (11-1 team) -- EXCEPTION
1968 at Tennessee (SEC Champs)
1966 at Mississippi State (SEC Champs)

Update: SpartanburgDawg sent me a note -- "Total speculation, but I’m guessing the 1976 Cal Bears had our undivided attention, as well, given that they were co-Pac 10 champs in 1975 and had won 8 of their past 9 games. A year later, they opened the season by whipping Tennessee’s ass in Knoxville." (touche)

That's 11 12 of 14 seasons that we've won 10 or more games and/or won the SEC East or better that began with an attention getting game. Compare that to Richt's seasons in which we've underwhelmed or underachieved '01 (Ark St.), '04 (GSU), '06 (WKU) and '08 (GSU).

I don't want to screw the Buffs. I'm just saying....do what it takes to get us a quality opponent in Week 1. If that requires a game at the Dome. Fine. It doesn't ensure greatness to play those tough openers, but not playing big opponents immediately sure does seem to lead to lackluster seasons.

See Also:
-- UGA ponders the Dome - Blutarsky

PWD

Recruiting Story: Oklahoma vs. Texas

Jamarkus McFarland is a 5 star defensive tackle out of Texas. Yesterday, he committed to the Sooners, and ended a nasty Oklahoma vs. Texas recruiting war.

Much like you, I really don't care who OU or Texas signs. However, the story is made universally interesting to recruiting buffs because the NY Times followed the process inside and out for six months with inside access from McFarland and his mother.

The NY Times story involves stretch limos, bare breasted Longhorn fans, drugs, booze, financial offers, and maids. Basically, it's everything fun about recruiting for the kids and every parent's nightmare.

It's solid read that is getting press all over the country.

See Also:
-- Recruiting Spawns Captivating Journalism - Chicago Sun-Times
-- "Freakiness" sends recruit away from Texas - Dallas Observer
-- Innuendo, Rumor and Speculation...Oh My! - NOLA.com


PWD

Recruiting Story: Oklahoma vs. Texas

Jamarkus McFarland is a 5 star defensive tackle out of Texas. Yesterday, he committed to the Sooners, and ended a nasty Oklahoma vs. Texas recruiting war.

Much like you, I really don't care who OU or Texas signs. However, the story is made universally interesting to recruiting buffs because the NY Times followed the process inside and out for six months with inside access from McFarland and his mother.

The NY Times story involves stretch limos, bare breasted Longhorn fans, drugs, booze, financial offers, and maids. Basically, it's everything fun about recruiting for the kids and every parent's nightmare.

It's solid read that is getting press all over the country.

See Also:
-- Recruiting Spawns Captivating Journalism - Chicago Sun-Times
-- "Freakiness" sends recruit away from Texas - Dallas Observer
-- Innuendo, Rumor and Speculation...Oh My! - NOLA.com


PWD