February 15, 2010

Thoughts on these Texas to the Big Ten rumors, how they might affect Notre Dame, and the recent NCAA rule change proposals

With all these rumors out there about Texas joining the Big Ten, I thought I’d break this thing down. Three big questions on my mind:

1) Why would Texas be interested in joining the Big Ten??

The biggest question that seems to come up when you start talking about Texas is why they would even be interested. What exactly does Texas gain from joining a league in a dying economic region where the closest team to them geographically is Iowa?? I looked up the distance between Austin, Texas and Iowa City, and you’re looking at a 1,000 mile trip between the schools (16 hour drive). Then you start talking about trips to State College (1,500 miles) and Ann Arbor (1,375), and you start scratching your head wondering why Texas would be interested.

If we were addressing this question 15-20 years ago, there’s no way this could happen. But the world is flat these days so to speak. With air travel and internet and cable tv deals, there’s not as much separation between these two regions of the country as there would have been before the modern era of technology. Take travel for instance. Purdue takes a 3 hour bus ride to Champaign for a Big Ten basketball game. Meanwhile, it’s a 2-2.5 hour flight from Austin to Champaign.

Now, would shuffling around your women’s lacrosse team and your soccer team by air get expensive?? Oh yea, of course. It's a potentially big budget buster except for one thing. The Big Ten would be promising revenue that would make it more than worthwhile.

Why?? Four words. The Big Ten Network. I will admit that I was leery of the BTN initially (especially when cable companies refused to put it on the air and Big Ten fans suddenly couldn’t watch their teams play on television), but it has turned out to be a genius promotional and revenue-generating vehicle for the Big Ten. Not only does every team in the Big Ten draw in $20+ million from the Big Ten Network, they all have a partial ownership in the network that is something like a $35 million equity position. The thing has become a cash cow, and now that the Big Ten has done the heavy lifting to get it on all the major cable providers, these schools are like OPEC countries right now. Just sitting on a pot of gold.

To put this into perspective, a school like Northwestern (which can’t even sell out their own football stadium) is making DOUBLE what Notre Dame is making right now in television revenue. Can you believe that?? We have a national television deal with NBC, and we’re getting half of what teams like Northwestern and Purdue are getting. Imagine what we could do with an extra $10 million a year. Maybe we could build a new basketball practice facility or any number of projects.

And that’s before you start talking about ABC/ESPN television revenue. Say what you want about the Big Ten, but the league still draws television eyeballs. One reason might be all the transplanted Big Ten people that are all over the country. Think about all the people from the Midwest who went to Iowa and Wisconsin and Illinois and Ohio State who now live in places like Phoenix and Los Angeles and Seattle and Tampa and Miami and Jacksonville and all these other Sun Belt cities.

It’s amazing. I remember being in Seattle for a wedding a couple years ago during the college football season, and the biggest sports bar in the downtown area was rented out by the Penn State and Ohio State alumni clubs. What does that say about those fanbases?? They are national brands. There are huge alumni clubs from these Big Ten schools in just about every major city in the country.

Compare this to the SEC schools or the Big 12 schools. Once you get outside of their geographic footprint, it’s like a needle in a haystack finding their fans in other parts of the country. For the most part, Big12 fandom consists of the Great Plains region. Same with SEC fans. How many LSU fans are there in Philly and Detroit??

As much as demographics are changing in this country, the bulk of the American population is still congregated in these northern and eastern cities. In Big 10 country, you have cities like Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Philadephia. In the Big 12, you have all the Texas cities (Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio), Kansas City, St. Louis, and Denver. In terms of population, it’s a smaller footprint. In terms of money and television revenue, the Big Ten is still a far bigger draw than the Big 12.

The other thing is branding. Texas doesn't need the Big Ten by any means to enhance their sports programs (if anything, it's a step down in terms of competition) but in terms of branding, the possibilities for Texas to take their brand to the national level would be enormous. As great as Texas is as a sports program, is anyone really paying that much attention to Texas outside of the southwest??

If they joined the Big Ten, suddenly they’d be getting a major platform in the Midwest and East coast on a week in and week out basis during the college football and basketball seasons. You’d have games like Texas-Penn State, Texas-Michigan, Texas-Ohio State that would be getting massive ratings on national tv. Not only would Texas remain huge in the southwest, they’d also be a major player in the north as well.

This could be Texas’ opportunity to make a move to become the heir apparent to Notre Dame and USC as THE national program going forward. They could have a coast to coast appeal, and it would take their brand to the next level.

Now, I do see some downside here that shouldn’t be completely ignored. From a competitive standpoint, is it a disadvantage to have all those games outside of your home base in Texas?? Last year, they played three football games outside the state of Texas, and one of them was a fluke game at Wyoming. If they joined the Big 10, they’d probably be looking at 4-5 games a year outside of the state.

Same thing with basketball and all the other non-revenue sports. You’d be going on all these long road trips to the Midwest throughout the year. That can become a grind after awhile.

Will the high school athletes in Texas be interested in playing Big 10 sports?? It seems strange that you’d go to school at Texas and then spend half your career in places like Madison and East Lansing instead of spending time in your geographic region in the Texas area.

And where do the fans stand on this?? Would they be ready to give up their various Big 12 rivalries?? Would they even want to join the Big 10??

The sense that I’m getting from the Texas fans is that they would be perfectly fine with joining the Big 10. They view themselves as a class above their Big 12 brethren, and seem to be attracted by the exposure and academic prestige that the Big 10 would bring. If you look at the US News rankings, it’s clear that the Big 10 is a much stronger academic conference than the Big 12. Not only do you have Northwestern, but schools like Michigan and Wisconsin and Illinois and Purdue have very good academic reputations. In fact, there isn’t a school in the Big Ten that is outside the top 50-60 range, and they all have major graduate and research departments. Compare that to the Big 12 where you have schools like Texas Tech and Kansas State, and there’s a noticeable difference.

Travel for the fans would be a pain if they want to go to road games, but you’re talking about 4 games a year. And Texas already goes on long trips to places like Ames, Iowa and Boulder, Colorado and Lincoln, Nebraska and Lawrence, Kansas as it is. There’s really not much of a difference.

I’ve always thought that this “Texas to the Big 10” thing was a pipedream, but it makes more and more sense as you think about it. For all the talk about this not making sense, I think there are a lot of attractive elements to Big 10 membership for Texas. The money is right, Texas is not enamored with their status as the lone breadwinner in the Big 12, and Texas could set themselves up as the marquee program in the nation by making that move.

2) What would the impact be on the Big 10??

Before we get to football, think about what this move would do for the Big Ten in basketball. You’d have the likes of Izzo, Barnes, Matta, Painter, Weber, Crean, Tubby Smith, and Bo Ryan. My goodness. There wouldn’t be many easy nights in that league.

But this move is about two things and two things only: Money and football. From a football standpoint, it would send a shot across the bow of the rest of the college football world. If the Big Ten could pull in Texas, the league would suddenly have four heavyweight programs (Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas) and would immediately be the 2nd best football conference in America with a legitimate claim to being the best, especially if A&M and Nebraska came as part of a 14 team package deal.

The Big 10 got its mojo back a little bit in the 2010 bowl season, but it’s still a league that is on shaky ground. If a Big 10 team goes undefeated these days, the country still views them with a skeptical eye. But if you added Texas, that would all change. Either you’d have Texas coming out of the Big 10 as the undefeated champ, or you’d have someone who beat Texas. Either way, that’s a game changer.

Think about the bowl lineup that the Big 10 could trot out. They could go 7-8 deep with high quality programs. Instead of Michigan State in the Capital One Bowl, you get Penn State. Instead of Minnesota in some third tier, you might get Iowa or Texas A&M.

Only one concern there from a competitiveness standpoint. What would happen to the Minnesotas and Northwesterns and Purdues of the world?? They would be overwhelmed by the new Big Ten. You’d suddenly have Purdue going to a bowl game once every 5-6 years. In many ways, it would be like the new Big East with all the bottomfeeders who can't sniff the top half of the standings.

If you’re an Iowa fan and suddenly you have Texas, A&M, and Nebraska/Missouri to deal with plus the usual suspects, wouldn’t that make you extremely nervous?? Iowa has a lot to be proud about as a program, but that would be a major infusion of big time programs coming into the Big Ten. Right now, Iowa can crank out 8-4 seasons with an occasional run at a Big 10 title or a BCS bowl game. With Texas and Nebraska on board, would those goals still be feasible??

For the big boys, I think this move would turn about to be beneficial (although it would be an ego check when Texas shows up as the kingpin of the league from day one). Long term, adding a Texas can only help a school like Ohio State or Penn State. Maybe it would keep them out of a few BCS bowl game appearances, but it would validate their seasons if they do beat a team like Texas in the regular season or a conference championship game. Plus, for recruiting, it would be a possible boon for programs like OSU and PSU and Michigan to get more exposure in Texas.

The other thing is scheduling in general. I think it would be a lot of fun for a Michigan fan if you got to play at Texas A&M or Texas every few years, and you’d add another big time possible heavyweight opponent to the schedule. I realize that these teams wouldn’t play every year (which could be somewhat problematic for scheduling purposes), but they would be fun new additions to future schedules.

Money is obviously the other huge factor for the Big Ten. If there isn't a home run fit in the north, why not look south and west?? Adding Texas alone would bring you markets in Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. You add the Big Ten Network to all those Texas markets and go into the next round of negotiations with ABC/ESPN with Texas in the fold, and the Big Ten could make a fortune.

Texas is a no-brainer. I know the Big 10 would lose a little bit of its Midwest identity, but Texas is a home run. You put them in the Big 10, and it would send shockwaves through the rest of college football. Now the question is whether they can get a deal done.

3) What does this mean for Notre Dame??

Wouldn't be a Notre Dame blog unless I threw in some thoughts on how this might affect ND. I gotta admit that I'm staring at this list of possible opponents and feeling a little envious:

Texas
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Texas A&M
Iowa
Michigan State

Are you kidding me?? I realize we wouldn't play all those teams in a 14 team league, but how great would that be if we played six or so of those teams every year?? We'd be getting 3-4 guaranteed heavyweights, plus a possible conference championship game, and whatever games we wanted to play in the nonconference. Plus, assuming we were in the western division, we'd be getting annual games against a Texas team for some national exposure.

I'm staring at a schedule like this and salivating:

NAVY
USC
DUKE
TULSA
@Wisconsin
IOWA
TEXAS A&M
@Minnesota
PENN STATE
@Northwestern
PURDUE
@Texas

Or this one:

NAVY
@USC
ARMY
VANDERBILT
ILLINOIS
@Texas A&M
OHIO STATE
@Indiana
WISCONSIN
@Minnesota
TEXAS
@Iowa

How great would that be?? We'd have 3-4 heavyweight opponents every year, the November schedule could be phenomenal, the home schedule has 2-3 great games a year, and we'd still have room to play Navy and USC in the nonconference if we wanted to. And if we didn't, we'd already have a bunch of great games in the conference schedule. Plus, we'd have every game on either the Big Ten Network or ABC/ESPN. In terms of exposure, there's not even that big of a difference. How great would those Texas matchups be??

Put it this way. Ideally, we would remain independent, but what are we really doing with our independence these days?? It's not like we're doing anything with it. We're scheduling a bunch of dog Big East teams and bogus neutral site games and "buy games." It's not like we're paying any SEC or Big 12 teams as it is. We can sit here and talk about the teams that we could potentially schedule as an independent, but the reality is that we're not scheduling these teams like Texas and Alabama. I don't know if it's because no one wants to play us or we're afraid to play them or if it's some reason, but I'm tired of discussing it. If it takes joining a conference to get better schedules, I'm all for it. I'm tired of getting the ticket application and trying to decide if Purdue or Pitt is the 2nd best home game on the schedule.

I appreciate the argument that ND wouldn't be "special" if we joined a conference because we'd be just like everybody else, but why does that have to stop us from having a great football program?? We still have the ND brand name and the Catholic aspect and a nationwide network of alumni and fans. Every other school in a conference has made it work. Why couldn't we?? Instead of chickening out and throwing our hands up like we can't win, how about we sack up and become a great football program?? It doesn't matter what conference you're in if you are committed and willing to do what it takes to be a champion. If we hire great coaches and have great administrative support and visionary thinking, we can win in a conference.

I've generally sided with the idea of remaining independent in football, but I'm bored with ND football as an independent. I don't like the schedules, I don't like the efforts from the national media to marginalize us, I don't like the mid-majorization of ND football, and I don't like playing our games on god awful NBC with their Olympic broadcasters and NFL preview halftime shows. I could care less if we "lose" the NBC contract. Put us on ABC or ESPN all day long as far as I'm concerned. It's a better broadcast.

Something's got to be done. If it takes joining a conference to make this program exciting again and to put some juice back into Notre Dame Stadium, let's do it.

---) Finally, some brief thoughts on the proposed NCAA rule changes in college football:

--The taunting rule is insane. I'm not in favor of taunting by any means, but taking a touchdown off the board?? Come on. That's insane, and could lead to a disastrous scenario where a player is pumping his fist in excitement as he's running for the goal line and draws a taunting penalty that takes away his touchdown. There's too much gray area with something like that. Couldn't any form of excitement be ruled as a taunting penalty?? All I can think of is that Jake Locker celebration penalty from a few years back. You cannot let a ref take a game out of a team's hands on something like this.

--Interesting move with the television monitors in the coaches booths. Should lead to more informed replay decisions.

--Can we just call the new eye black restrictions the "Tim Tebow Rule"?? I kind of liked the various eyeblack designs, but I can understand why the NCAA felt the need to step in. It was only a matter of time before guys started taking political stands or doing all sorts of other stuff with their eyeblack.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

why would you want to play ohio state, michigan, texas, penn state, usc each freakin year?

that is the stupidest shit i have ever read.

in today's college football era, the goal is compete in bcs games, not get thrashed during a regular season death schedule.

Doug said...

Why not?? In the SEC, you have Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU. That's 5 heavyweights. Why couldn't we be in a league like that?? Are we a football program or would you rather play pattycake with UConn and Duke??

I'm tired of the weak schedules. I want to go and see some actual good games at Notre Dame Stadium for a change. Besides, we wouldn't play all those teams every year. We'd probably play some combination of 3-4 heavyweights. That's what we always played in our hey day. Why couldn't we handle that today if we actually committed to being a championship football program instead of this Disneyland crap that we've been trotting out for 15 years??

Are you basically saying that we can't compete with teams like Ohio State and Texas and Penn State?? Why couldn't we play and beat those teams?? If we lost a game or two, big whoop. At least we'd have a chance to get some big wins. I care about the competition itself not just scheduling our way to a BCS game.

I prefer to remain independent, but not if we're going to trot out these dud schedules every year.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there's any way Texas joins the Big Ten. And there's no way they're grabbing two other teams either.

Without Texas in there, the Big Ten schedule isn't appealling. You just know if ND joined the Big Ten we'd be putting joke teams on the schedule to round out the non-conference games.

Conference schedules are so hit and miss, especially with two divisions. I mean, did Florida really play that tough of a schedule last year?

Anyway, I've heard from Texas fans that they don't want to join the Big Ten. I just can't see them walking away from their region and rivalries for this. Are they really that in need for money?? They made the most out of any football team this year. And Oklahoma has one bad season and all of a sudden Texas is too good for the Big 12?

I do wish that ND was on ESPN/ABC instead of NBC. Why have such retarded announcers? The broadcast just blows from start to finish. Night games on ESPN are a million times better.

Jeremy said...

I know some of the smoke about this has been coming from the Texas camp, but there's no way this happens. If Texas became the 12th team, they would have to honor their historic rivalries with Oklahoma and A&M and all the sudden that schedule becomes an absolute bear.

Plus, it makes no sense logistically for their Olympic sports. That's quite a bit of travel for Texas' cross country team to be doing.

Finally, Texas baseball is one of the best programs in the country. A move to the Big Ten would not make any sense from a baseball standpoint.

Anonymous said...

Great blog... again.

But I have to disagree. I think Texas to the Big Ten is straight-up bonkers. It's insane, and it won't happen. It's just plain bonkers. But if they do, it won't even be about football, or "branding", but strictly about money. Though maybe the dreamers and schemers moving through the halls of power at the UT athletic offices really do nurture these delusions of grandeur, and foresee the Big Ten as their avenue to true, transcendent greatness. So maybe it will be about branding.

But I don't see it. It just seems bonkers to me.

As to ND joining the Big Ten, that would be awesome. I don't care if we give up the NBC deal, just as long as every one of our games is on free basic-cable TV. But whatever. I just want to start winning again.

And lastly, how the hell does the Big Ten network make so much money? All I ever watch is Big Ten games every Saturday on ESPN. I feel like almost all their games on basic-cable are available for viewing totally for free. What are all these big games that only can be seen on Pay-Per-View that people are paying top dollar for? The only game I remember being restricted to the Big Ten network was Michigan/MSU. And that's it.

But I guess the numbers don't lie. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Anyway, good stuff.

Anonymous said...

I also wonder how the Big Ten Network makes all this money. Have they got a boat load of advertisers pumping money into this?

I live in Buffalo and I can watch any important Big Ten football game that's being played. Every week Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, MSU, Wisconsin and Iowa are on a pretty basic cable package.

It makes me wonder who is watching the Big Ten Network, and again, where all this money is coming from. Are there that many people tuning into watch women's volleyball games and men's lacrosse games?

I just get the sense that right now this network is "hot" but in 5 or 10 years it most definitely will not be. Which is why, if I'm Texas, I'd have to severely question uprooting all of my teams to make more money off of basically a brand new sports conference network.

Craig said...

Anon, the BTN is raking in the money because they put a figurative gun to the head of all of the providers in Integer country to insist on putting the BTN in a basic tier with per-subscriber payouts to the BTN to match. I think they're getting something crazy like $1 or $2 per subscriber. It's a license to print money.

Anonymous said...

So, is it fair to say that the BTN itself really isn't that great? In other words, yeah they have this great deal with cable providers, but how long will that last?

Do we have anything on television to compare this to? It seems to me that the BTN is built on a pretty shaky foundation and that down the road they won't be making as much money.

'Til 2012 said...

Wait, you're serious?!?

No way will scUM and tosu allow in two other Alpha Dogs. For a century, the Big Ten has been run for the benefit of the programs in Ann Arbor and Columbus. Penn State was good, but not as good as the "big 2" when they were brought in. What makes you think they'll take us, Texas, and TAMU?

No, if the Big Ten get us, there'll be no further expansion for a generation...unless they can get Texas without TAMU and Rutgers can get themselves together. In the meantime we're looking at schedules like:

Navy
USC
Purdue
IU
Illinois
Iowa
tOSU *OR* Michigan
Penn State

probably two of: Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern

and two of: Army, Air Force, BC, Stanford, Washington, random Texas team, random academic cupcake game, random Big East Team

*FOREVER*

*In Perpetuity*

*Until Christ's Return*

I grew up in the midwest and I still have no desire to go to roadtrip to Champagne or Minneapolis. I can't imagine how the legion of Coast-dwelling Almuni, both actual and Subway, are going to feel about this Big Ten scheduling, but my guess is less enthused than I am by our games against secular Big East Schools. Like you, I've no love for the current scheduling philosophy (seriously? Western Michigan? I know it's a CCHA team, but come'on) but the Big Ten isn't the answer. Let's try having six "road" games a year first.

I can't see how this is possibly a good idea except for the money...unless we're talking about a Big Ten Hockey Conference. ND, UM, tOSU, MSU, Wisc., and Minnesota would be a lotta fun. In your position's defense, it is a *lot* of money that the CIC, and to a lesser extent, the Big Ten, can provide. Since Fox or somebody bigtime owns the other 49% of the BTN, I don't think their going away until Cable goes the way of the evening paper. However, the price of Membership is too high. CUA already left the AAU, and they were the last Catholic school in it. Notre Dame's great strength is that it's professors are there to teach undergrads. I don't know how they'd justify the >50K pricetag if all the classes are taught by TAs like the big secular publics. Not to mention that it will give Michigan what it's always craved, the power to bring us down to it's level. Wadsworth was told right when he warned that if we joined the Big Ten we'd find ourselves on the wrong end of a LOT of 11-1 and 10-2 votes.

If Notre Dame does what I protested against back in '99, I don't know if I'd have an Alma Mater anymore. It wouldn't be anywhere near the same school I went to not all that long ago.