And so another summer of conference expansion rumors begin...

[GGGG]

--Talk that Clemson and Florida State have outstanding invitations to join the Big 12.  Both would rather be in the SEC, but both would take more $$$ if the Big 12 gets a substantially better deal than the one the ACC just signed.

--If they say yes, the ACC would likely pluck two more from the BE.  UConn and Rutgers are the two mentioned most.

--If they say no, the B12 would look to Louisville and BYU. 

[muguru]

--Talk that Clemson and Florida State have outstanding invitations to join the Big 12.  Both would rather be in the SEC, but both would take more $$$ if the Big 12 gets a substantially better deal than the one the ACC just signed.

--If they say yes, the ACC would likely pluck two more from the BE.  UConn and Rutgers are the two mentioned most.

--If they say no, the B12 would look to Louisville and BYU. 

I believe the BXII just signed a deal that will pay teams $20mill per year. That's not counting the rights to have your own TV network.

[Dawson Rental]

UConn and Rutgers would be poor substitutes for Clemson and Florida State.  Why would the ACC feel the need to go beyond 12 teams, if they lose those two?  They probably only added Pitt and 'Cuse, so that they would be covered if they got raided.  So, if they get raided they're good, they're still at 12.  Why dilute the brand and the money by adding two poor football programs.  Once the Big 12 is back at 12, they'll probably be satisfied, so no need to further protect themselves.  Assuming that the ACC adds again if they go back to 12 just sounds like amateur speculation to me by people who don't know what the real issues are for AD's.

Of course, UConn and Rutgers as well as Louisville and Cincinnati would all be banging on their door.

[GGGG]

UConn and Rutgers would be poor substitutes for Clemson and Florida State.  Why would the ACC feel the need to go beyond 12 teams, if they lose those two?  They probably only added Pitt and 'Cuse, so that they would be covered if they got raided.  So, if they get raided they're good, they're still at 12.  Why dilute the brand and the money by adding two poor football programs.  Once the Big 12 is back at 12, they'll probably be satisfied, so no need to further protect themselves.  Assuming that the ACC adds again if they go back to 12 just sounds like amateur speculation to me by people who don't know what the real issues are for AD's.

Of course, UConn and Rutgers as well as Louisville and Cincinnati would all be banging on their door.

I believe their current television contract calls for 14 teams.

[Dawson Rental]

I believe their current television contract calls for 14 teams.

Ooops! 

[Big Papi]

What I find amazing is that the Big 12 was on life support about a year ago or so and now they are in a position of power.  Its too bad the Big East couldn't have delivered the death blow to them at that point in time.

[GGGG]

What I find amazing is that the Big 12 was on life support about a year ago or so and now they are in a position of power.  Its too bad the Big East couldn't have delivered the death blow to them at that point in time.

Big East had no leverage.  The only thing that would have killed the B12 was if Texas left.

[Dawson Rental]

The Pac-10 (Pac-12?), Big 10, and SEC are untouchable.  (The SEC doesn't even have an exit fee.)  Any of the three could have ripped the Big 12 to shreds by taking Texas (if they would have been willing to let Texas keep all of the revenue from its own cable network) or by stripping away pretty much the rest of the Big 12 away from Texas.  Like you say, it didn't happen, and now the Big 12 is reviving itself.  

The ACC, Big 12, and Big East are all susceptible to being raided by the above three.  The Big 12 is trying to raid the ACC and may or may not be able to.  The ACC doesn't have the inclination (and probably the football TV revenue) to raid the Big 12.  And either the Big 12 or the ACC can pretty much have any Big East team anytime they ask.  That, like it or not, is the pecking order.  On the plus side, aside from BYU, the Big East can probably have any football playing school it wants that is not in the any of the above mentioned conferences.

[TribalRage]

Amazing that the obit for the Big 12 was all but written and now they are ravaging Untouchables. We don't know what we don't know in all of this.

[Dawson Rental]

Amazing that the obit for the Big 12 was all but written and now they are ravaging Untouchables. We don't know what we don't know in all of this.

The Big 12 didn't come away unscratched.  Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri were significant losses.  If they can pull off the ACC raid, they'll move from a tie for fourth place to being all alone in fourth. 

I sometimes wonder whether North Carolina will ever regret missing the opportunity to join the SEC which they undoubtedly could have as the 14th team before Mizzou got that spot.

[TribalRage]

The day UNC leaves the ACC is the day Rush Limbaugh endorses Obama

[texaswarrior74]

Despite what you might think, academics drives the bus at UNC and as a result, it would never consider a move to the SEC. It's one of 59 American universities that make up the AAU (Association of American Universities) which are the research powerhouses among all schools in the US.

The  ACC as a whole has 5 member institutions (Pitt will be the 6th) putting it in the upper echelon of conferences along with the Ivies and B1G. By comparison the SEC has only UF and Vandy among AAU memebers.

http://www.aau.edu/

UNC's grant revenue exceeded $803 million last year with over $240 million from the NIH alone.

Athletic revenue is chump change by comparison and the PTB will never take a chance of losing the cash cow researchers to others schools by affiliating with lesser regarded institutions.

[warthog-driver]

Despite what you might think, academics drives the bus at UNC and as a result, it would never consider a move to the SEC. It's one of 59 American universities that make up the AAU (Association of American Universities) which are the research powerhouses among all schools in the US.

The  ACC as a whole has 5 member institutions (Pitt will be the 6th) putting it in the upper echelon of conferences along with the Ivies and B1G. By comparison the SEC has only UF and Vandy among AAU memebers.

http://www.aau.edu/

UNC's grant revenue exceeded $803 million last year with over $240 million from the NIH alone.

Athletic revenue is chump change by comparison and the PTB will never take a chance of losing the cash cow researchers to others schools by affiliating with lesser regarded institutions.

Membership in the AAU has nothing to do with a university's athletic decisions. UNC will stay in the ACC for tradition, not AAU members.

[warthog-driver]

I looked at the list of AAU members and here are some thoughts:

Our son was graduated from Washington State, where he played football. Did he get less of an education than if he had attended U Dub (or Madison or Texas A&M?) Not at all. While he did not get into the NFL he did get into Michigan's Medical School.

Our other son attended Middlebury College. Was his education inferior to what he would have gotten at University of Kansas? That is a ridiculous.

Our daughter attends Dartmouth. Is she somehow going to be penalized in the future when compared to grads of UC Irvine? I really, really doubt it.

At no time did any of our children consider AAU status when applying to and enrolling in a university.

[Dawson Rental]

Despite what you might think, academics drives the bus at UNC and as a result, it would never consider a move to the SEC. It's one of 59 American universities that make up the AAU (Association of American Universities) which are the research powerhouses among all schools in the US.

The  ACC as a whole has 5 member institutions (Pitt will be the 6th) putting it in the upper echelon of conferences along with the Ivies and B1G. By comparison the SEC has only UF and Vandy among AAU memebers.

http://www.aau.edu/

UNC's grant revenue exceeded $803 million last year with over $240 million from the NIH alone.

Athletic revenue is chump change by comparison and the PTB will never take a chance of losing the cash cow researchers to others schools by affiliating with lesser regarded institutions.

Texas A&M will be another AAU school in the SEC when their membership is finalized.  Explain to me how changing athletic conference affiliation will threaten UNC's AAU membership.  Because everything I've seen regarding AAU membership suggests that its irrelevant.  The Big 10 is an all AAU club, and so the presidents have a strong preference (which they would have set aside for ND) for only adding AAU schools.  But I've never heard the argument that a school's AAU status could be threatened by who it competes against in athletics.

[4everwarriors]

I looked at the list of AAU members and here are some thoughts:

Our son was graduated from Washington State, where he played football. Did he get less of an education than if he had attended U Dub (or Madison or Texas A&M?) Not at all. While he did not get into the NFL he did get into Michigan's Medical School.

Our other son attended Middlebury College. Was his education inferior to what he would have gotten at University of Kansas? That is a ridiculous.

Our daughter attends Dartmouth. Is she somehow going to be penalized in the future when compared to grads of UC Irvine? I really, really doubt it.




Dynamite pedigrees. Nothin' middle of the road, for sure. Way to represent.

At no time did any of our children consider AAU status when applying to and enrolling in a university.

[GGGG]

And Florida State thinks the new ACC television deal stinks and has now publicly stated as such:

http://bloguin.com/crystalballrun/2012-articles/may/florida-st-trustees-blasts-acc-realignment-talk-gains-credence.html

[Dreadman24]

Here we go again...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/05/14/florida-state-realignment/

[nathanziarek]

Well ... at least it keeps things interesting? If it wasn't for bad rumors, I'm not sure what we'd talk about...

[Spotcheck Billy]

some interesting notes on expansion from Gene Corrigan, who served as the athletic director in South Bend (1981-1987) between stints as AD at Virginia and commissioner of the ACC here:

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/sports/2012/jul/01/ratcliffe-corrigans-view-notre-dames-independent-s-ar-2027629/

[Benny B]

It's times like this that I can't help but to reflect on the adage: "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."

With the incipient fire in DC about student loan debt load, interest rates, rising tuition costs, etc... if I were a major conference or any association of the largest (and "richest") universities in the country, I wouldn't be flaunting $20M, $10M or even $5M/yr television deals and acting like it's not enough.  These institutions should be very mindful that the people who have been driving the "99%" and "Occupy" protests over the past couple years are already living on their campuses.

Except for the Ivy schools, athletics - directly and indirectly - plays a major role in college fundraising, and the most ardent supporters of college athletics are the baby boomers.  Unfortunately, the boomers are going to start dying off soon, and with them will go a major stream of university (i.e. athletic) donations... kids today already care far less about athletics, and many are being saddled with decades of debt when they graduate.  Selling out to the TV networks today is a very shortsighted solution to a long-term problem... alienate your younger alums now, and not only will you never see a dollar from them in the future, the TV money will also dry up once the networks realize that the only people watching games are on fixed incomes.

[Dawson Rental]

It's times like this that I can't help but to reflect on the adage: "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."

With the incipient fire in DC about student loan debt load, interest rates, rising tuition costs, etc... if I were a major conference or any association of the largest (and "richest") universities in the country, I wouldn't be flaunting $20M, $10M or even $5M/yr television deals and acting like it's not enough.  These institutions should be very mindful that the people who have been driving the "99%" and "Occupy" protests over the past couple years are already living on their campuses.

Except for the Ivy schools, athletics - directly and indirectly - plays a major role in college fundraising, and the most ardent supporters of college athletics are the baby boomers.  Unfortunately, the boomers are going to start dying off soon, and with them will go a major stream of university (i.e. athletic) donations... kids today already care far less about athletics, and many are being saddled with decades of debt when they graduate.  Selling out to the TV networks today is a very shortsighted solution to a long-term problem... alienate your younger alums now, and not only will you never see a dollar from them in the future, the TV money will also dry up once the networks realize that the only people watching games are on fixed incomes.

And the days of the paid student-athlete keep creeping closer and closer.

[MUCam]

And the days of the paid student-athlete keep creeping closer and closer.

Never say never, but that day will likely never happen. Worker's Compensation implications, among many other issues, prevent it from happening.

[kmwtrucks]

http://clemson.infusionsports.com/2012/07/09/acc-notre-dame-discussions-heat-up/

[The Equalizer]

It's times like this that I can't help but to reflect on the adage: "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."

With the incipient fire in DC about student loan debt load, interest rates, rising tuition costs, etc... if I were a major conference or any association of the largest (and "richest") universities in the country, I wouldn't be flaunting $20M, $10M or even $5M/yr television deals and acting like it's not enough.  These institutions should be very mindful that the people who have been driving the "99%" and "Occupy" protests over the past couple years are already living on their campuses.

Except for the Ivy schools, athletics - directly and indirectly - plays a major role in college fundraising, and the most ardent supporters of college athletics are the baby boomers.  Unfortunately, the boomers are going to start dying off soon, and with them will go a major stream of university (i.e. athletic) donations... kids today already care far less about athletics, and many are being saddled with decades of debt when they graduate.  Selling out to the TV networks today is a very shortsighted solution to a long-term problem... alienate your younger alums now, and not only will you never see a dollar from them in the future, the TV money will also dry up once the networks realize that the only people watching games are on fixed incomes.

So the schools should just accept below-market rates for their TV rights and let the networks take the excess profit?  That doesn't sound like its in the schools best interest.

If the long term problem that you think should be addressed is that the younger kids aren't interested in sports, then the long term solution is that schools should start phasing out or deemphasizing sports and start investing in things that the younger kids will be interested in.

In the meantime, what do you propose schools do when presented with the bucketloads of money currently available based on today's boomer-driven oportunity--based on the increasing fees willing to be paid by the networks to gain access to content?

As I see it, the pragmatic solution the schools are following now is to take in as much of that funding as the current market will support.