New Conference re-alignment thread

[Saulbadguy]

The old one has AIDS.

Anyways, Chip Brown from Orangebloods.com reports OU may apply to the Pac-12 by the end of the month.

Oklahoma will apply for membership to the Pac-12 before the end of the month, and Oklahoma State is expected to follow suit, a source close to OU's administration told Orangebloods.com.

Even though Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said Friday the Pac-12 was not interested in expansion at this time, OU's board of regents is fed up with the instability in the Big 12, the source said.

The OU board of regents will meet within two weeks to formalize plans to apply for membership to the Pac-12, the source said.

Messages left Sunday night with OU athletic director Joe Castiglione and Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder were not immediately returned.

If OU follows through with what appears to be a unanimous sentiment on the seven-member Oklahoma board of regents to leave the Big 12, realignment in college athletics could be heating back up. OU's application would be matched by an application from Oklahoma State, the source said, even though OSU president Burns Hargis and mega-booster Boone Pickens both voiced their support for the Big 12 last Thursday.

There is differing sentiment about if the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors are ready to expand again after bringing in Colorado and Utah last year and landing $3 billion TV contracts from Fox and ESPN. Colorado president Bruce Benson told reporters last week CU would be opposed to any expansion that might bring about east and west divisions in the Pac-12.

Currently, there are north and south divisions in the Pac-12. If OU and OSU were to join, Larry Scott would have to get creative.

Scott's orginal plan last summer was to bring in Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and put them in an eastern division with Arizona and Arizona State. The old Pac-8 schools (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) were to be in the west division.

Colorado made the move in June 2010, but when Texas A&M was not on board to go west, the Big 12 came back together with the help of its television partners (ABC/ESPN and Fox).

If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were accepted into the Pac-12, there would undoubtedly be a hope by Larry Scott that Texas would join the league. But Texas sources have indicated UT is determined to hang onto the Longhorn Network, which would not be permissible in the Pac-12 in its current form.

Texas sources continue to indicate to Orangebloods.com that if the Big 12 falls apart, the Longhorns would consider "all options."

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe held an emergency conference call 10 days ago with league presidents excluding Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M and asked the other league presidents to "work on Texas" because Beebe didn't think the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma without Texas.

Now, it appears OU is willing to take its chances with the Pac-12 with or without Texas.

There seemed to be a temporary pause in any possible shifting of the college athletics' landscape when Baylor led a charge to tie up Texas A&M's move to the Southeastern Conference in legal red tape. BU refused to waive its right to sue the SEC over A&M's departure from the Big 12, and the SEC said it would not admit Texas A&M until it had been cleared of any potential lawsuits.

Baylor, Kansas and Iowa State have indicated they will not waive their right to sue the SEC.

It's unclear if an application by OU to the Pac-12 would draw the same threats of litigation against the Pac-12 from those Big 12 schools.

Stay tuned.

[CrazyPhuD]

Whew that was close....I wondered why this thread was even created, till I peaked inside the old one. If I had stayed any longer than I did I would have caught teh AIDS.

[eazyb81]

Florida State to the SEC? Hmmm.

http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/fsu-for...ion-committee/

I've heard some insiders say the SEC will be the first major conference to 16 teams. Could they add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Virginia Tech/West Virginia in one fell swoop?

It has never made sense to me that the SEC would not want FSU just because it doesn't add to their footprint. FSU is a powerhouse program and Florida is a huge state for talent, it makes sense to add another big-time program there and lock up the state.

[Lzen]

jAZ,
I'm still not sure why you are arguing what you are arguing. WTF would an athletic conference care what money is in a candidate's research budget? How does that help the athletic conference. As we all know, money drives the world. And I doubt those research dollars that school gets is being given to the athletic conference.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Lzen

jAZ,
I'm still not sure why you are arguing what you are arguing. WTF would an athletic conference care what money is in a candidate's research budget? How does that help the athletic conference. As we all know, money drives the world. And I doubt those research dollars that school gets is being given to the athletic conference.

You have it backwards. At it's core, the question isn't about what helps the athletic conference. That assumed the Universities exists for their football teams. It's the opposite.

It's a question of what benefits the University as a whole. I read an SI article a few years ago talking about the rebranding of the Pac-10 just after Larry Scott arrived. It was interesting and helped me realize how important the associated images are to the brand of a University.

At the top levels (President, Chancellor, Board of Regents), just like at Coke and Apple, brand is the most valuable asset the organization owns. It's about recruiting the top talent (students and faculty) which drive the quality of the acadmics, the rankings, which in turn drive the research budgets which in turn drive the overhead generated from research which in turn has a massive budgetary impact.

Research, today, is MUCH more important to the university than sports. My advisor teaches a class for incoming PhD students. He founded my Department at the UA 40 years ago. Last week he asked us why research is so important to the University. Then went into the explanation of the 33% overhead calculation.

But it didn't really click until he explained the history.

At the UA, back when he came 40 years ago, state tax dollars paid for 95% of the University budget. Today it's down to about 15%. The rest of the money is generated from 2 places... higher tuition and research funding.

Higher tuition generally makes it harder to attract students. Attracting talented students is key to attracting talented faculty (it goes both ways) which combined are how you attract more research funding.

That's why research is so important.

And back to the brand of the Pac-10...

SME's report concluded that to its target audiences to the east and west, the Pac-10 needed to exude West Coast-cool. It needs to remind people that the Pac-10 footprint is home to innovators such as Google, Nike, Microsoft and Apple. It needs to remind people that the Pac-10 is home to some of the nation's elite universities. It also needs to remind people that the Pac-10 wins -- a lot. The league has claimed 388 NCAA titles, more than 150 more than the second-place Big Ten.

That's not only the needs of the conference's sports teams. It's the same need of the individual Universities. It's brand is a big part of the thought process of why students attend a University.

[eazyb81]

You still did not answer his question.

Yes, we all can understand the difference between research budgets and athletic budgets, but I have yet to be convinced that an athletic conference affiliation has any direct impact on current or future university research funding.

Vandy and Florida are excellent universities with major research funding, despite the fact their athletic teams are in the SEC. Arizona State and Washington State are pedestrian schools with minimal research funding, even though their athletic teams are members of the PAC-12.

[HolyHandgernade]

To be a super conference you need three basic things:

1. You need at least 3, preferably 4 major football powers: FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech and Texas qualify

2. You need major markets: Raleigh Durham, Miami, other parts of Florida, Boston, the Beltway, Texas and Missouri qualify

3. You need good supplemental football programs: Missouri, Boston College, Maryland, NC St, Clemson and Georgia Tech qualify

That's all you really need, but here's the kicker:

4. There's a whole second half to the academic year and it does actually create quite a bit of buzz and money. UNC-Duke is the crown jewel for ESPN basketball and they awarded the ACC a big basketball contract just for it. Now you're going to add Kansas with Texas, MU and another probably decent basketball school on top of it? That's why they're talking about this as the richest conference deal yet and why nobody is going to leave it. It fortifies the ACC. If you make more money and have the security, why do you want to run your program through the gauntlet of SEC football? Plus, you get to keep your high academic standing by getting at least 3 more AAU schools into your conference.

That's the trifecta right there: Great football, great basketball, superior academic reputation.

I thought the Texas to ACC idea was just a ploy at first, but this idea could actually work.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

To be a super conference you need three basic things:

1. You need at least 3, preferably 4 major football powers: FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech and Texas qualify

2. You need major markets: Raleigh Durham, Miami, other parts of Florida, Boston, the Beltway, Texas and Missouri qualify

3. You need good supplemental football programs: Missouri, Boston College, Maryland, NC St, Clemson and Georgia Tech qualify

That's all you really need, but here's the kicker:

4. There's a whole second half to the academic year and it does actually create quite a bit of buzz and money. UNC-Duke is the crown jewel for ESPN basketball and they awarded the ACC a big basketball contract just for it. Now you're going to add Kansas with Texas, MU and another probably decent basketball school on top of it? That's why they're talking about this as the richest conference deal yet and why nobody is going to leave it. It fortifies the ACC. If you make more money and have the security, why do you want to run your program through the gauntlet of SEC football? Plus, you get to keep your high academic standing by getting at least 3 more AAU schools into your conference.

That's the trifecta right there: Great football, great basketball, superior academic reputation.

I thought the Texas to ACC idea was just a ploy at first, but this idea could actually work.

You never cease to disappoint.

[eazyb81]

LHN is the elephant in the room though. It caused the destruction of the Big 12, and if left unchanged it will pull the ACC apart too. I don't think UT is willing to change it.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

You never cease to disappoint.

Are you not entertained!

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

LHN is the elephant in the room though. It caused the destruction of the Big 12, and if left unchanged it will pull the ACC apart too. I don't think UT is willing to change it.

That's why ESPN, which has the sole contract with the ACC, will make it worth the ACC's while if they accommodate it.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

That's why ESPN, which has the sole contract with the ACC, will make it worth the ACC's while if they accommodate it.

Sure, but from a Mizzou fan's perspective, I absolutely do not want to go to a conference where the rules are bent from the beginning to allow UT to do whatever benefits them. That is exactly what caused the demise of the Big 12.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

LHN is the elephant in the room though. It caused the destruction of the Big 12, and if left unchanged it will pull the ACC apart too. I don't think UT is willing to change it.

that's the reason for all the fires in Texas, even GOD thinks that UT sucks and is trying to burn it to the ground.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's the reason for all the fires in Texas, even GOD thinks that UT sucks and is trying to burn it to the ground.

I have my hopes about this

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Sure, but from a Mizzou fan's perspective, I absolutely do not want to go to a conference where the rules are bent from the beginning to allow UT to do whatever benefits them. That is exactly what caused the demise of the Big 12.

I agree with you on this. And I hope the same for KU.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by jAZ

It's the Chicago Tribune.

And I fully understand why a sports fan outside of the day-to-day operations would overstate the value of the athletic department. It's the lense that sports fans see the University though.

But trust me, you are wrong. Completely wrong.

It's a basic function of math.

The top universities don't just want to be seen as academically elite for the sake of reputation. Research and tuition are now the lifeblood of a University. The contribution from the athletic department, even among the very biggest programs, pales in comparison.

Take UNL for example. Their athletic programs generates a profit. Approximately $10M/year of their $80M/year program goes back to the UNL general fund from the Athletic Department.

Compare that to UNL's $132M research budget. Of that, typically 33% is "overhead", the university's cut to cover general fund expenses... that's $43M.

Even at UNL, research generates 4x more revenue back to the University.

If you look at a school like Arizona, the numbers are even more dramatic. They have a $600M/year research budget and only a $42M/year athletics budget. The same 33% holds and the athletics department generates even less (if anything) back to the university.

It's more likely a $200M vs $0-$5M ratio.

The view that sports fans have of the role of sports money is so skewed its remarkable.

$200M vs (at best) $5M.

Here's a decent explanation for why people covet the Big 10: http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/...nd-the-cic-are

Research in most departments generates zero dollars for the university as a whole. It does increase the overall prestige and marketability, thus ostensibly increasing enrollment, which is the major driver of budgets.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that athletics (primarily) fund an institution.