Lets get to the evaluation part of this 3 part series.
In part one of the series, we looked at what we speculated was happening and ended that discussion with some highlights from our leaks in the distant tail of the conference. They made several predictions and some interesting observations.
Part two of the series was largely hijacked by articles featuring the first-person perspective of OU president David Boren, the head of by far the second most powerful institution in the Big 12. These articles give a very clear picture of where the conference is today and how to interpret the views from the conference tail.
I don't think some of our leaks details/predictions will prove correct, but I do think there are a lot things there that just make sense.
In part three we will reflect on this data and interpret it.
"Sensible Stuff" (well... to me anyway)
It appears that Boren has "won" his battle to convince UT and the Big 12 membership not to embrace blind fealty to not expanding.
It looks like the conference is prepared to accept the findings of the firm they hired. IF the firm says expansion is lucrative, the Big 12 will expand.
Boren likely feels good because he knows the financial argument will favor of his plan (which, tooting my own horn, mirrors the core pillars of the plan I pushed for the conference a few months back.)
I think surprising expansion candidates will emerge.
I do think the potential of the ACC and Pac-12 destabilizing a bit in the next 3-8 years is what is driving current Big 12 behavior.
In general, it is very possible that ESPN may not have a serious motivation to back the survival of the ACC by delivering what they essentially promised the ACC membership in a quality ACC Network.
It is also entirely possible that the basketball/academic core of the ACC has a price that the Big Ten might meet very soon.
I think the PAC is not as stable as it looked a few years ago due to the NFL returning to LA and the troubles the conference has had with revenue generation for their network.
I think there is every reason to think that Arizona State and Colorado could be in play in a few years...and that that possibility might be really blunting support for Colorado State specifically (and San Diego State to a much lesser degree) as candidates for the Big 12.
The idea that ESPN under a Disney financial crunch might pass on the Big 10...?
I can buy that, too.
I believe ESPN is constantly weighing the benefits of the Big 12 survival vs. the ACC's survival.
I can buy that such a big decision as the survival of a power conference may effectively be balancing on a much smaller financial decision by ESPN. ("If we are just going to support one new conference network, do we turn the Longhorn Network, an economic loser for us, into a Big 12 Network --- something we can profit on --- or do we take the ACC third tier rights ---much of which we already own --- use them to create an ACC Network and pay the ACC more money for the privilege of it....like we said we kind of told the ACC membership we would?").
Let's talk about the scenario MHver3 volunteered of a tsunami of realignment
But I think what is being predicted by MHver3 in terms of fallout, is being predicted to fall far too cleanly, giving the wrong conclusions.
It doesn't take into account potential plan distortion due to the national title game caliber play of FSU and Clemson (or the possible emergence of Va Tech, NCSU, UNC, and Miami) potentially making the ACC seem worth saving.
It doesn't account for the changing whims of ESPN and the networks and the personnel at UT, OU, the rest of the Big 12, FSU, UNC, and in the Big Ten.
I believe that, just like in 2010 when the networks were strongly encouraged to pay the Big 12 to keep the conference together and keep payouts relatively stable in the other conferences, every step of the way the networks are going to try to put the breaks on this kind of movement to mega conferences.
Even with ESPN's Disney-specified financial limitations, networks will give some conferences concessions to try to keep them intact and stave off the era of mega conferences --- with it's projected huge payouts.
Still...lets play this out.
What if the ACC collapses?
The Big Ten
The most likely course for The Big 10 is to sweep down for AAU schools Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, and Virginia. I can totally buy they would be targeted. There is way too much smoke there.
The Big Ten need recruiting territories and North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia are three talent rich states.
That is a very big score for the Big Ten that would leave the conference at 18 members.
18 is a fine stopping point, but... so is 20.
I can buy that at TV payouts in the neighborhood of $50 to even $60M per school, there would be mutual interest between the ACC 4 and the Big 10. But...
Lets be clear here. The targeted ACC schools have the leverage here, not the Big Ten.
Surrendering NC State to the SEC in order for Duke and UNC to get into the Big Ten gives the SEC ownership of North Carolina's football talent and resigns North Carolina's keystone schools to football irrelevance forever.
I think the NC keystone schools are going to demand more as their cost of admission.
Lets say the ACC's academic bluebloods demand NC State comes with them.
"We are the research triangle." They bluntly tell the Big Ten.
What is the Big 10 going to do? Kiss off the likely $10-15 Million each extra they were going to pocket by adding the ACC foursome? No.
Virginia likely only comes if Duke and UNC come and Georgia Tech isn't going alone.
UT was going to get to bring five to the PAC. I would think UNC and Duke would want at least one.
The Big Ten will take NC State.
This is a scenario I could totally see happening.
Now an interesting thought. Does the Big Ten take all 5 or do they make a common realignment mistake and grudgingly concede one target school for an unwanted but required random element?
Would the Big Ten add UNC, Duke, Virginia, and NC State and pause at 18 in order to follow expansion conventional wisdom in maintaining flexibility? That is how most conference memberships tend to think.
Could Georgia Tech be lost to the general tendency of conferences to expand a little and then enter a re-evaluation period before the next expansion?
Should they take all five, that would make going to 20 a requirement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy MHver3's prediction that Notre Dame and Boston College would be teams 19 and 20. That kind of expansion is too damned tidy first off. Realignment is never tidy.
More to the point Notre Dame's value is based on their national schedule. In the Big Ten, the Irish are...Northwestern. The Big Ten has never understood this.
Throwing in Boston College would do nothing for the Irish and BC is not an AAU school, so BC does nothing for the Big Ten.
ND is not going to be #19 and, frankly, they probably are not going to be #20.
To me, that is a glossy view and ---with no offense meant --- a sloppy prediction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A much more likely scenario to my way of thinking is that the Big Ten's ideal finishing total is 20 and target #19 is Florida. ...Just think about it for a second.
UF is basically the University of Texas without the headaches, in a state with the same amount of talent, but fewer local suitor schools.
Florida is an AAU school. It may be SEC proud, but they are also pretty much on an island.
The only real incentive for Florida to stay in the SEC if faced with this offer is the rivalry with Georgia. Is it worth it vs. that joining that kind of Big Ten?
If Florida joins, the finances are off the chart. The academic prestige is unmatched ---ridiculously more than the SEC could ever offer. And with the seal broken, anyone in the SEC would be available.
It the Big Ten can avoid NC State and Florida is #19, the options are pretty mind-blowing.
They could offer Notre Dame a membership and even with Notre Dame's desire to keep the national schedule, the money alone could make the offer tough to pass on.
AAU Vanderbilt would also be a sweet #20, giving top notch academics, great basketball, great recruiting, and bridging Georgia Tech. If Florida's leadership could be wooed, Vandy's probably would be as well.
Even though they are not AAU, Georgia would be a fine #20. Imagine the SEC without a member in Georgia and sharing Florida with the Big Ten. It boggles the mind.
...Or Florida State or Miami in with Florida would be amazing too....
But I think in this scenario NC State would be team 19, making it a much more interesting question.
Does Florida join as the last member of the Big 20? If they say no, would Vandy also decline? Who then? Does The Big Ten concede the AAU point one more time and add FSU?
Before you say, "Oh, hell no! Florida would never take that offer..." Remember if they say no, they are rolling the dice they may let little brother Florida State jump into a far richer, far better academic conference.
I can't see Florida's leadership letting that happen, can you?
I think they would join the Big Ten.
And that could change EVERYTHING.
The SEC
It has long been speculated that the SEC would offer Florida State a slot rather than allow the Big Ten to take them.
I think if the Big Ten takes the academic core of the ACC, the choice on where Florida State goes won't be the SEC's to make.
Should the SEC lose Florida, however, it would be immensely in character for the SEC to offer Florida State the Florida slot and invite Va Tech and I think Wake Forest (even though they don't fit the SEC's profile) in order to get the North Carolina TVs they have long coveted. Wake is an academic Gem too and that certainly wouldn't hurt the SEC to add.
Should Florida State accept, the SEC remains the #2 conference in America.
The Big 12
This is where smart action today could mean the world tomorrow.
If the Big 12 can retask the Longhorn Network into a Big 12 network and take their conference footprint headcount from the embarrassingly inadequate total of today (a little under 38 Million) to a number in the same ballpark as the PAC-12 (or a little higher), they have a chance to be in the catbird's seat to carve up the other conferences, due to their central location.
If the conference is sitting on a footprint of say 75M with 12 schools or 90 Million with 14, they may have the best financial argument among the rest of the power 5 conferences to land to these target schools who may be looking at the Big Ten money and thinking "I'm getting what?"
OU President David Boren is probably looking at things and thinking,"....If the Big Ten adds UNC, VA, GT, and Duke; And the SEC adds Va Tech and NC State... That would leave Miami, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and Pitt available for us to consider and possibly a few really nice candidates to the West like Arizona State and Colorado..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida State would probably accept an SEC invite to replace Florida based on the idea that UF would be burning some bridges and FSU might be able to close the gap in southern perception, but this is actually not a given and that potentially could really mess up the SEC.
My perception is that FSU has grown accustomed to thinking of itself as a member of a prestigious academic conference and it's leadership doesn't actually think much of the SEC in that regard.
FSU football fans may crave the southern legitimacy an SEC invite might bring, but there is also the potential that when the day comes FSU fans may harbor more resentment to the SEC membership for allowing UF to block them for years.
Remember the most important rule of realignment: The only conditions that matter are the conditions on the day realignment actually happens.
What happens if the Big 12, due to a smart footprint expansion today, can make a similar financial offer with better perks (more beloved opponents)?
Lets say the Big 12 pulls Louisville (or Georgia Tech), Clemson, & Miami...I think FSU could chose to go either way....
If the Big 12 gets all four, what does that do to the SEC?
Which conference would you rather be in at that point if you are Arkansas, Missouri, and LSU?
If they join, one would think A&M would bitterly come slinking back....
(Or throw in Pitt for an academic bump if the Aggies stick to their guns... it is still a salty conference.)
Overnight there might be two Big 20's and two "little brother" power conferences....
The SEC could be in trouble if things break poorly for them and FSU flips them the bird.
This possibility is likely why Boren is trying to angle for an expansion to 12 only right now.
I think this kind of idealized view is pie in the sky thinking...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My gut feeling is that if Boren was running the show the two schools that would be admitted would be BYU (for their athletic support as well as their nationwide and international value) and UConn (for the NYC market). The fact both are excellent in basketball is just another plus.
Let's roll with that. Given that landing UConn gives the conference Connecticut and the 20M people in the New York City DMA, that expansion would give the Big 12 about 63M people in their footprint.
With the quality of football in the Big 12, that would generate quite a bit of revenue with a Big 12 network probably comfortably putting the conference 3rd in that benchmark ----well ahead of the PAC and ACC.
With the ACC gutted, Louisville, Miami and Clemson would be sensible adds for football strength. Pitt would be a smart add for academic reasons and to better mine the value of West Virginia.
Miami is a great national program, but this scenario screams that it is the right scenario to add UCF and USF to allow the conference to fight the Big Ten and SEC's Florida recruiting efforts by having a Big 12 school in all three of that state's top 20 media markets. That would give the Big 12 pole position in the state.
At that point the finances would be so far ahead of the PAC that Colorado might be agreeable to coming home. They appear likely to struggle in the PAC for the next few years. (I totally get that the move to the PAC was for academic reasons, but at every school there is a point when you just want the bleeding to stop.
Arizona State academics are constantly the butt of jokes in the PAC. They might be more than willing to give that role up for a fat paycheck.
Having a mountain trio of Arizona State, Colorado, and BYU would do a ton to elevate BYU into fulfilling it's potential to be a king.
...Or...
You could see the recommendation of the firm be for the conference to expand to 14 now and both take the best possible money now and maximize the perception of conference wealth to disrupt the PAC in case the ACC doesn't collapse....with some very surprising candidates. I would not be totally surprised to see the Big 12 add UConn and expand from the east.
UConn (+22 M) + Temple (12 M) + Cinnci (12M) + BYU (3M+ national/international audiences) would give the conference 87 Million in the footprint and would likely get the dollars pretty high ---lets guess at 80% of the SEC Network driven payouts?)
It would also be a fantastic academic and basketball expansion (yielding more NCAA tourney money).
Should no ACC collapse occur, the Big 12 could potentially add Arizona State and Colorado and call it a day at 16 members.
Should the ACC collapse, then add Louisville, Clemson, Miami, and Pitt from the ACC and USF and UCF from the AAC and you are at 20.
Rivalries galore. Ideal Spacing/playing off each other. Big markets. Great football and basketball.
(If I sound like I am harping on 20, it is because if the Big Ten has 20 and is blowing every other conference away financially, I think other conferences would feel a need to pull all the markets they can to try to keep up. )
The PAC
The PAC would have some tough choices to make. Staying at 10 would not make sense.
Adding Colorado State to keep the Denver and the Colorado markets could be a smart move. CSU does significant research and would be somewhat academically appealing as an 11th member.
With the high population northern states of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota bereft of non-Big Ten power conference candidates, again the glaring target for the PAC would be the state of Texas.
I could see the PAC inviting limited candidates SMU and Rice for the academic prestige of both schools....As well as access to the DFW and Houston TV and recruiting markets.
The University of New Mexico, with it's good research totals could be a grudgingly tolerable #14 if UNM made some academic reforms. (I'd be tempted to say Tulane would fill the last spot better in PAC terms, but I don't think the somewhat expansion conservative PAC membership would approve the travel).
I wouldn't bet against a real dark horse --- The University of Hawaii --- stealing that last slot. They do a ton of research and the liberal western schools appreciate Hawaiians, even if the travel is no fun.
UC Davis + San Diego State, Tulane + Tulsa, or even a non-football pairing of St. Louis and Denver would be sensible expansion choices too, but I don't see the PAC making those decisions for several years down the road.
It may sound like gloom and doom for the PAC, but really it is more long term thinking. Marketing to Asia and Mexico are lucrative down the road revenue streams.
There are some immediate bright spots though....
Notre Dame would be a natural, sensible, and most importantly, available, ally. The Irish could play basketball in the Big East and football as an independent with the PAC providing them a similar access point to the playoffs to what the Irish enjoy in currently in the ACC.
The arrangement makes sense for both parties in that a strong Notre Dame keeps the PAC relevant in power conference discussions and, if the PAC has a bad year on the football field , Notre Dame would likely be ready to step in.
------------------------------------------------------------
....But given history, predicting a realignment shitstorm is a low odds prediction. It is highly likely someone will slam the breaks when this entropy starts.
I would not be at all surprised to see 4 leave the ACC and ESPN keep the total money to the ACC the same --- essentially mirroring the 2010 Big 12 decision ---bumping up ACC per team take home in an effort to keep the ACC schools from making the SEC and Big 12 into mega conferences.
I would also not be surprised to see the PAC Network suddenly gain steam if realignment is threating to build 20 team mega-conferences. I could see cable companies offering more on the frontend to avoid huge payouts on the backend.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Hurricane Boren alert. (pt. 2)
As I was writing this "catch up" three part series, I thought, "Man it is very conspicuous how night and day the behavior change of OU president David Boren has been".
Last month Boren was basically doing in realignment terms what is one of the last steps to leaving --- whipping up the Boosters to get them chomping on the bit to leave.
Then he went to the Presidents' meeting and came out toeing the company line and singing kumbaya.
I thought to myself, those are the actions of a man who is likely to get what he wants...I should write Berry Tramel and ask (as a fan of a reporter can sometimes do) to try to get him to get to the bottom of that.
I didn't even have to. The BT bomber dropped two big articles on us that pretty much laid it out.
Boren says Big 12 expansion decision should come this summer
It's a great article that pretty much confirms the general gist of part 1 and gives a very, very clear view into the status of the Big 12 today.
It really displaced much of what I had for this part, so I would recommend reading that article.
(Really the only part I am again stumped by is the mention of Boise State as a candidate by Tramel when Boren clearly is very academically focused on his candidates. Tramel seemed to get the importance of academic quality in realignment decisions now....I can only guess that Boren mentioned that Boise State has some love among some members in the conference who may want BYU and envision Boise as stop #2 on a western flight and Tramel took that opportunity to make a quick face-saving drumbeat as he championed Boise State last year. ....Still I think everyone has to know that academically Boise State is reprehensible in the eyes of an academic blueblood university like Texas, which won't even consider the University of Houston...)
And there was this slightly delayed valentine from Boren to UT.
One should probably consider it a makeup to UT boosters for throwing the LHN under the bus repeatedly lately. To my reading it is basically Boren acknowledging that UT's new leadership appears to be on his side with the proposed reforms and he has made things harder for them in the last month by being so vocal about the LHN.
How David Boren feels about Texas
It seems like push has come to shove and David Boren's tough love technique against all odds may have gotten the Big 12 to a point where we may see peace and contentment in the conference in our lifetime.
Great for the Big 12, tough for the PAC and the ACC... Let's look at what might be available and the fallout of all of this in part three.
Last month Boren was basically doing in realignment terms what is one of the last steps to leaving --- whipping up the Boosters to get them chomping on the bit to leave.
Then he went to the Presidents' meeting and came out toeing the company line and singing kumbaya.
I thought to myself, those are the actions of a man who is likely to get what he wants...I should write Berry Tramel and ask (as a fan of a reporter can sometimes do) to try to get him to get to the bottom of that.
I didn't even have to. The BT bomber dropped two big articles on us that pretty much laid it out.
Boren says Big 12 expansion decision should come this summer
It's a great article that pretty much confirms the general gist of part 1 and gives a very, very clear view into the status of the Big 12 today.
It really displaced much of what I had for this part, so I would recommend reading that article.
(Really the only part I am again stumped by is the mention of Boise State as a candidate by Tramel when Boren clearly is very academically focused on his candidates. Tramel seemed to get the importance of academic quality in realignment decisions now....I can only guess that Boren mentioned that Boise State has some love among some members in the conference who may want BYU and envision Boise as stop #2 on a western flight and Tramel took that opportunity to make a quick face-saving drumbeat as he championed Boise State last year. ....Still I think everyone has to know that academically Boise State is reprehensible in the eyes of an academic blueblood university like Texas, which won't even consider the University of Houston...)
And there was this slightly delayed valentine from Boren to UT.
One should probably consider it a makeup to UT boosters for throwing the LHN under the bus repeatedly lately. To my reading it is basically Boren acknowledging that UT's new leadership appears to be on his side with the proposed reforms and he has made things harder for them in the last month by being so vocal about the LHN.
How David Boren feels about Texas
It seems like push has come to shove and David Boren's tough love technique against all odds may have gotten the Big 12 to a point where we may see peace and contentment in the conference in our lifetime.
Great for the Big 12, tough for the PAC and the ACC... Let's look at what might be available and the fallout of all of this in part three.
...In case you missed it, OU just kicked off the last round of realignment. (pt 1)
I've had other things on my mind too.
I've decided to write a three part series to catch up on the Big 12. These will be shorter articles though---I have some time crunches...
I knew the Big 12 had a meeting on realignment, but nothing came of it (nothing was expected to come of it).
I knew the conference won the right to play a title game ....to the modest enthusiasm of some members....
"Hooray! We can play a title game! ...Wait, do we really want to play a title game...?"
I did not know that in mid-January that OU's president pronounced the Big 12 inferior.
Again.
....Leading up to that meeting. (I was painting the house that week...)
In a statement to the OU Daily OU President David Boren did not mince words on his feelings on the conference's position (and ultimately it's "big win" in securing the right to chose to have a championship game):
"The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference," the statement read.
He went on to flesh out his statement to the Tulsa World and any other Oklahoma reporters.
He called the Big 12 the "little brother" in the Power 5 conferences.
“I think if — if — we can get the Big 12 on the right track, if this comprehensive plan could be adopted, then I would rather stay in the Big 12. I think that would be to our advantage. But it’s something that we really need to have happen. But we just need to wait and see what develops. Certainly, my first choice, if we can get the right things done in the Big 12, the right steps taken, especially these three, then I think we ought to stay in the Big 12. If it just doesn’t happen, then I try to think long-term.”
Um...That's kind of huge in realignment terms.
These are not normal, "I'm a little frustrated with the conference's direction"-type statements.
That is turning your cannons on your own conference and saying "change or we walk".
(The big threat would be that OU would announce intentions to walk at the end of the GOR. That would kill the conference way ahead of that date, freeing OU for an earlier departure.)
These statements amount to lighting the fuse on your boosters.
The gist of it strategically is that frustration at the gridlock has gotten to you so now you start letting loose your boosters. You publically pronounce your conference unsuitable and then then let your boosters simmer in the idea. When they are boiling hot, they will rally support behind any idea you put out there.
This is what Missouri did. This is what Nebraska did. This is what Texas A&M did.
This is confrontational stuff. And UT, the local King, responded.
Well... Austin reporter Kurt Bohls responded on UT's behalf with a series of UT speaking points ("Do you really want to recruit against UH coach Tom Herman in conference?" etc.).
These were essentially the Longhorn leadership playing to their boosters by putting their fingers in their ears and saying, "I can't hear anyone who works for the University of Oklahoma! Blah! Blah! Blah! I can't hear you!"
This was the lead in to the Big 12 meetings.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And what came out of the Big 12 meetings?
The Big 12 is now speaking with one voice and David Boren is sheepishly towing the company line.
We are missing something HUGE here.
It isn't like the Big 12 told Boren, "Hey Dude, shut up or we are going to kick OU out!"
That would just lead to Boren laughing as he walked out the door.
The reports say that all the schools laid their cards down and talked freely at the meeting.
I am sure a lot of school leaders expressed their displeasure with Boren.
But I also think it is very likely Boren did not mince words when his turn came around.
"Fix this shit or OU will be leaving at the completion of the GOR and we won't make a secret of our impending departure. You know what that will do to this conference. If you haven't thought about that scenario and what it will do to your school, you should."
"Further, depending on the conference we pick, we will likely be taking along a plus one..." (If it is the SEC --- likely West Virginia. If OU can talk their way into the Big Ten --- unlikely --- or the PAC, they are likely going to talk to Kansas.)
Boren may have been slightly more polite than that. Or not.
His silence coming out and constant deference to the commissioner suggests he was assured by the membership and the commissioner that the conference was going to move to honestly consider the finances and how his agenda addresses it, but they needed some time to save face if they decide to back off long-held positions against expansion.
I think there is a very good chance UT is conceptually on board with selling the LHN to the Big 12 ---- something I advocated the Big 12 pursue a few months ago --- but do not want it to appear that Boren forced them into it.
I think Boren would have no interest in embarrassing a UT leadership willing to work with him.
Boren toed the company line like a pro. Boren isn't one to normally hold back his opinions.
I think he would in exactly that scenario and few others (more on this in part two of the series).
Prior to the meeting Boren continued to talk about a 2 team expansion. I think the reasons for this are three-fold.
1) There is a really good chance better candidates will be available in a few years.
2) The big need right now is adding markets. Two schools could actually be very impactful in those terms laying the financial basis for future members, while keeping slots open.
3) Conferences like to do little expansions then catch their breath and evaluate.
So who is likely coming if they go to 12? I go back to what Boren said about new member criteria.
Which ties into something else that came out of the Oklahoma papers right around that time.
Seven months after pushing Boise State to the Big 12, (something I kind of politely challenged him on at the time) Berry Tramel has finally joined us the "academics matter" reporting group. (I'd like to note that literally overnight after writing Tramel, my blog had hundreds of additional readers ---something I can only take as being a standup guy and tossing the link out some places as I didn't post the link...So thank you...).
Tramel did so with great flair in a fantastic piece titled "Academics matters in conference realignment", in which he discusses Colorado State, Houston, and the like, in academics terms. (Strongly recommended, although I think there is a huge blind spot in not also using the US News rankings as they directly correlate with Power 5 membership.)
“The Big 12 is the only Power 5 conference with a majority of non-elite university members, which gives it [the Big 12] an academic profile more similar to the various mid-major conferences."
You can see that reflected in Boren's statements. The goals from Boren's perspective is to land a combination of markets to offset the Big 12's ridiculously small media footprint, a football ringer, and academically strong schools.
So who is in? I don't think there is any consensus.
My reading between the lines is that of the 7 candidates mentioned frequently (BYU, CSU, Memphis, Houston, Cinci, USF, UCF)... Boren personally really appreciates the value of BYU (power programs, national/international following, great undergrad academics) a lot, and can tolerate Cincinnati (slightly lesser athletically, decent academics, good research, good market), but might strongly prefer the combo of BYU and a surprise candidate getting a lot of talk these days.... UConn (near elite undergrad academics, elite basketball, NYC TV presence) ....as that would make a Big 12 Network a lot more viable/lucrative.
But I think he gets BYU doesn't have the support among the anti-expansion factions in the conference and there are some strong arguments as to why ESPN might want Cincinnati in the Big 12, so Boren would grudgingly take UConn and Cincinnati to advance the network goal. That would be adding 30+ Million to the conference's tiny footprint.
(And for the record, I think "Okefenokee A&M" is Boren talk for Houston, Memphis, and possibly even Cincinnati.)
IF you look at Boren's quotes they suggest he is thinking about another run at the ACC schools as phase two.
All of this makes sense to me in terms of the people involved and their positions.
But wouldn't there be smoke out there if such a thing were to have happened?
Yes, even if the leadership is trying to not leak anything.
So I headed to the leakiest area of the Big 12 (West Virginia) to hear what their local leaks on the tail end of the conference footprint are saying...
(As with everything please keep in mind that leaks are regional specific and reflect people at a certain school's impressions, they do not reflect the beliefs of the entire conference.)
Leak central
Christopher Lambert -- the more driven to be responsible of the two ---is suddenly consumed with writing about the financial value in getting rid of the LHN. He says ESPN will want to transition the LHN into the Big 12 Network as they can make money on the Big 12 Network and cannot on the LHN. That is pretty salty logic.
He further gives 4 (5) schools that could at least double the footprint of the Big 12. (Again, for the record, a larger expansion to substantially expand the market footprint is something I have advocated for years.)
He says the Big 12 has hired a firm to evaluate a Big 12 network and expansion with that in mind and if the numbers add up the membership is likely to bless their recommendations.
And he says potential expansion is tied exclusively to having a Big 12 network. Again, quite financially sensible (ie. believable).
The often doubted MHver3 is saying a lot of things (probably way too many) but they also fit the facts pretty well and could have some truths to them.
He has pretty much said UT is on board with the LHN thing and that expansion with Cincinnati (?) and UConn (?) is coming because ESPN wants it. (Says the two candidates had reps at the meeting.)
He claims to have spoken with an ESPN executive who says 1) ESPN is fully expecting to be blown out of the water on the Big Ten bidding. (ESPN does seem to be on an austerity program under Disney lately.) 2) And that they are not inclined to deliver the kind of ACC Network the ACC members expect. As such, ESPN acknowledges that when the Big Ten is waving $50-60 Million annually at Georgia Tech, Virginia, Duke and UNC, the heart of the ACC will leave. ESPN is ok with that as the SEC will take Va Tech and NC State and the Big 12 will take FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and Miami. 3) ESPN wants the Big 12 to add Cincinnati in particular because they want a presence in Big 12 territory. 4) And that ESPN is putting the kibosh on talks between two Big 12 schools potentially heading to the SEC (likely OU with West Virginia [which brings up the question, "If OU (and West Virginia) are playing the bad cop role in Big 12 expansion, who is the good cop? Baylor???"] )
Finally he laid out his predictions of how the conferences would look....
"Big10: tOSU, Mich, MichSt, P[u]rdue, Iowa, IN, PSU, NWU, Illinois, Wisc, Minn, Neb, UMd, RU, UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, BC, ND
PAC: unchanged....
SEC: Bama, UA, UGA, Tenn, TAMU, Ark, LSU, Vandy, UF, SC, Mizzou, MissSt, OleMiss, UK, VT, NCST
B12: UT, Baylor, TT, OK, OKst, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU, WVU, Cincy, Uconn, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami
ACC: (this is the hardest to predict but here is my guess) Wake, Cuse, Pitt, Memphis, USF, UCF, ECU, Houston, SMU, Temple, Army, Navy"
Evaluating it all
Do I think all this is on the way? No, probably not. But something similarly large in scale could be.
I do think the potential of this type of movement is what is driving current Big 12 behavior.
Now that we have discussed what we think may be going on, Please read part two to see what we can confirm is going on.
I've decided to write a three part series to catch up on the Big 12. These will be shorter articles though---I have some time crunches...
I knew the Big 12 had a meeting on realignment, but nothing came of it (nothing was expected to come of it).
I knew the conference won the right to play a title game ....to the modest enthusiasm of some members....
"Hooray! We can play a title game! ...Wait, do we really want to play a title game...?"
I did not know that in mid-January that OU's president pronounced the Big 12 inferior.
Again.
....Leading up to that meeting. (I was painting the house that week...)
In a statement to the OU Daily OU President David Boren did not mince words on his feelings on the conference's position (and ultimately it's "big win" in securing the right to chose to have a championship game):
"The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference," the statement read.
He went on to flesh out his statement to the Tulsa World and any other Oklahoma reporters.
He called the Big 12 the "little brother" in the Power 5 conferences.
“I think if — if — we can get the Big 12 on the right track, if this comprehensive plan could be adopted, then I would rather stay in the Big 12. I think that would be to our advantage. But it’s something that we really need to have happen. But we just need to wait and see what develops. Certainly, my first choice, if we can get the right things done in the Big 12, the right steps taken, especially these three, then I think we ought to stay in the Big 12. If it just doesn’t happen, then I try to think long-term.”
Um...That's kind of huge in realignment terms.
These are not normal, "I'm a little frustrated with the conference's direction"-type statements.
That is turning your cannons on your own conference and saying "change or we walk".
(The big threat would be that OU would announce intentions to walk at the end of the GOR. That would kill the conference way ahead of that date, freeing OU for an earlier departure.)
These statements amount to lighting the fuse on your boosters.
The gist of it strategically is that frustration at the gridlock has gotten to you so now you start letting loose your boosters. You publically pronounce your conference unsuitable and then then let your boosters simmer in the idea. When they are boiling hot, they will rally support behind any idea you put out there.
This is what Missouri did. This is what Nebraska did. This is what Texas A&M did.
This is confrontational stuff. And UT, the local King, responded.
Well... Austin reporter Kurt Bohls responded on UT's behalf with a series of UT speaking points ("Do you really want to recruit against UH coach Tom Herman in conference?" etc.).
These were essentially the Longhorn leadership playing to their boosters by putting their fingers in their ears and saying, "I can't hear anyone who works for the University of Oklahoma! Blah! Blah! Blah! I can't hear you!"
This was the lead in to the Big 12 meetings.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And what came out of the Big 12 meetings?
The Big 12 is now speaking with one voice and David Boren is sheepishly towing the company line.
We are missing something HUGE here.
It isn't like the Big 12 told Boren, "Hey Dude, shut up or we are going to kick OU out!"
That would just lead to Boren laughing as he walked out the door.
The reports say that all the schools laid their cards down and talked freely at the meeting.
I am sure a lot of school leaders expressed their displeasure with Boren.
But I also think it is very likely Boren did not mince words when his turn came around.
"Fix this shit or OU will be leaving at the completion of the GOR and we won't make a secret of our impending departure. You know what that will do to this conference. If you haven't thought about that scenario and what it will do to your school, you should."
"Further, depending on the conference we pick, we will likely be taking along a plus one..." (If it is the SEC --- likely West Virginia. If OU can talk their way into the Big Ten --- unlikely --- or the PAC, they are likely going to talk to Kansas.)
Boren may have been slightly more polite than that. Or not.
His silence coming out and constant deference to the commissioner suggests he was assured by the membership and the commissioner that the conference was going to move to honestly consider the finances and how his agenda addresses it, but they needed some time to save face if they decide to back off long-held positions against expansion.
I think there is a very good chance UT is conceptually on board with selling the LHN to the Big 12 ---- something I advocated the Big 12 pursue a few months ago --- but do not want it to appear that Boren forced them into it.
I think Boren would have no interest in embarrassing a UT leadership willing to work with him.
Boren toed the company line like a pro. Boren isn't one to normally hold back his opinions.
I think he would in exactly that scenario and few others (more on this in part two of the series).
Prior to the meeting Boren continued to talk about a 2 team expansion. I think the reasons for this are three-fold.
1) There is a really good chance better candidates will be available in a few years.
2) The big need right now is adding markets. Two schools could actually be very impactful in those terms laying the financial basis for future members, while keeping slots open.
3) Conferences like to do little expansions then catch their breath and evaluate.
So who is likely coming if they go to 12? I go back to what Boren said about new member criteria.
"We have been, as a group, looking at expansion, discussing expansion, and we have had outside consultants helping us look at what schools are the possible best fit....So there are more than two out there that could be a good fit. There may be six or seven, and we could pick from that group the right two. There may be six or seven, and we could pick from that group the right two. We have to be very careful. We don’t want to go out and get Okefenokee A&M or something just to have a name....We'll look at the fan base, we'll look at the size of their programs, we'll look at the academics of the institutions. We'll look at them comprehensively as to which is the best fit. And also we'll consider geography to a certain degree."
Which ties into something else that came out of the Oklahoma papers right around that time.
Seven months after pushing Boise State to the Big 12, (something I kind of politely challenged him on at the time) Berry Tramel has finally joined us the "academics matter" reporting group. (I'd like to note that literally overnight after writing Tramel, my blog had hundreds of additional readers ---something I can only take as being a standup guy and tossing the link out some places as I didn't post the link...So thank you...).
Tramel did so with great flair in a fantastic piece titled "Academics matters in conference realignment", in which he discusses Colorado State, Houston, and the like, in academics terms. (Strongly recommended, although I think there is a huge blind spot in not also using the US News rankings as they directly correlate with Power 5 membership.)
“The Big 12 is the only Power 5 conference with a majority of non-elite university members, which gives it [the Big 12] an academic profile more similar to the various mid-major conferences."
You can see that reflected in Boren's statements. The goals from Boren's perspective is to land a combination of markets to offset the Big 12's ridiculously small media footprint, a football ringer, and academically strong schools.
So who is in? I don't think there is any consensus.
My reading between the lines is that of the 7 candidates mentioned frequently (BYU, CSU, Memphis, Houston, Cinci, USF, UCF)... Boren personally really appreciates the value of BYU (power programs, national/international following, great undergrad academics) a lot, and can tolerate Cincinnati (slightly lesser athletically, decent academics, good research, good market), but might strongly prefer the combo of BYU and a surprise candidate getting a lot of talk these days.... UConn (near elite undergrad academics, elite basketball, NYC TV presence) ....as that would make a Big 12 Network a lot more viable/lucrative.
But I think he gets BYU doesn't have the support among the anti-expansion factions in the conference and there are some strong arguments as to why ESPN might want Cincinnati in the Big 12, so Boren would grudgingly take UConn and Cincinnati to advance the network goal. That would be adding 30+ Million to the conference's tiny footprint.
(And for the record, I think "Okefenokee A&M" is Boren talk for Houston, Memphis, and possibly even Cincinnati.)
IF you look at Boren's quotes they suggest he is thinking about another run at the ACC schools as phase two.
All of this makes sense to me in terms of the people involved and their positions.
But wouldn't there be smoke out there if such a thing were to have happened?
Yes, even if the leadership is trying to not leak anything.
So I headed to the leakiest area of the Big 12 (West Virginia) to hear what their local leaks on the tail end of the conference footprint are saying...
(As with everything please keep in mind that leaks are regional specific and reflect people at a certain school's impressions, they do not reflect the beliefs of the entire conference.)
Leak central
Christopher Lambert -- the more driven to be responsible of the two ---is suddenly consumed with writing about the financial value in getting rid of the LHN. He says ESPN will want to transition the LHN into the Big 12 Network as they can make money on the Big 12 Network and cannot on the LHN. That is pretty salty logic.
He further gives 4 (5) schools that could at least double the footprint of the Big 12. (Again, for the record, a larger expansion to substantially expand the market footprint is something I have advocated for years.)
He says the Big 12 has hired a firm to evaluate a Big 12 network and expansion with that in mind and if the numbers add up the membership is likely to bless their recommendations.
And he says potential expansion is tied exclusively to having a Big 12 network. Again, quite financially sensible (ie. believable).
The often doubted MHver3 is saying a lot of things (probably way too many) but they also fit the facts pretty well and could have some truths to them.
He has pretty much said UT is on board with the LHN thing and that expansion with Cincinnati (?) and UConn (?) is coming because ESPN wants it. (Says the two candidates had reps at the meeting.)
He claims to have spoken with an ESPN executive who says 1) ESPN is fully expecting to be blown out of the water on the Big Ten bidding. (ESPN does seem to be on an austerity program under Disney lately.) 2) And that they are not inclined to deliver the kind of ACC Network the ACC members expect. As such, ESPN acknowledges that when the Big Ten is waving $50-60 Million annually at Georgia Tech, Virginia, Duke and UNC, the heart of the ACC will leave. ESPN is ok with that as the SEC will take Va Tech and NC State and the Big 12 will take FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and Miami. 3) ESPN wants the Big 12 to add Cincinnati in particular because they want a presence in Big 12 territory. 4) And that ESPN is putting the kibosh on talks between two Big 12 schools potentially heading to the SEC (likely OU with West Virginia [which brings up the question, "If OU (and West Virginia) are playing the bad cop role in Big 12 expansion, who is the good cop? Baylor???"] )
Finally he laid out his predictions of how the conferences would look....
"Big10: tOSU, Mich, MichSt, P[u]rdue, Iowa, IN, PSU, NWU, Illinois, Wisc, Minn, Neb, UMd, RU, UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, BC, ND
PAC: unchanged....
SEC: Bama, UA, UGA, Tenn, TAMU, Ark, LSU, Vandy, UF, SC, Mizzou, MissSt, OleMiss, UK, VT, NCST
B12: UT, Baylor, TT, OK, OKst, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU, WVU, Cincy, Uconn, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami
ACC: (this is the hardest to predict but here is my guess) Wake, Cuse, Pitt, Memphis, USF, UCF, ECU, Houston, SMU, Temple, Army, Navy"
Evaluating it all
Do I think all this is on the way? No, probably not. But something similarly large in scale could be.
I do think the potential of this type of movement is what is driving current Big 12 behavior.
Now that we have discussed what we think may be going on, Please read part two to see what we can confirm is going on.
Monday, February 1, 2016
The coming storm --- National Signing day has the potential to be a real game changer...
There is a huge story brewing in college football and it circles around something near and dear to my heart ---Charlie Strong's University of Texas Football Team.
For months now critics of Strong have been saying this UT class was going to be very poorly rated and pointing to that as proof Strong should be gone.
"Baylor and TCU are killing Strong in recruiting! He's gotta go!"
Not so fast. While it is true Baylor and TCU are finally recruiting to their records, I have been saying for months it is too early to throw dirt on Strong.
Realignment reporters are buzzing about how Strong and his staff may pull out a major upset on national signing day.
Corbett Smith, Dallas Morning News ---
"Texas can go from fifth (!!!) in the Big 12 rankings according to Scout.com to 1st or 2nd if their bumper crop of kids come through. I think they are going to get slew of last-minute kids. A&M is going to be moving up too, if they can lock down Nac's Brandon Jones."
I'm not normally a fan of UT beat writer Wescott Eberts' work, but he is quite plugged in. He delivered a quality, reporterly piece predicting what additional targets UT might land.
Here are his list of UT targets:
1. Katy running back Kyle Porter
2. New Orleans (La.) Brother Martin tight end Irvin Smith
3. Silsbee offensive tackle Patrick Hudson
4. Cibolo Steele defensive end Mark Jackson
5. Manor defensive end Erick Fowler
6. Euless Trinity defensive tackle Chris Daniels
7. New Orleans (La.) defensive tackle D'Andre Christmas-Giles
8. Houston Westside defensive tackle Jordan Elliott
9. Duncanville defensive tackle Marcel Southall
10. New Orleans (La.) McDonogh 35 defensive tackle Stephon Taylor
11. Fort Worth All Saints defensive tackle Mike Williams
12. Aldine Davis linebacker Jeffrey McCulloch
13. Alief Elsik linebacker Dontavious Jackson
14. Manvel safety Deontay Anderson
15. Nacogdoches safety Brandon Jones
16. Alief Elsik safety Chris Brown*
17. Dallas Southlake WR Lil'Jordan Humphrey
In recruiting there are usually guys who like to wait until the last moment to committ. They might have an idea of playing with some local guys at some school. Usually when the best player in the lot breaks one way, some follow.
Last year, Malik Jefferson played that role for UT and Kyler Murray played that role for A&M.
Eberts asked The UT staff if there was that kind of guy out there and Longhorn Defensive Coordinator Vance Bedford said there were two or three guys.
Given that, the odds of UT landing one guy who starts the momentum for a strong UT finish are very favorable. UT seems to be the only school in the region that appears primed for a late surge of this sort.
Eberts also notes that UT WR committ Reggie Hemphill says there are about six guys who have already made up their minds to commit to UT. (Now you always take this stuff with a grain of salt as people change their minds or say things they don't mean, but it is there...)
Eberts noted that Dontavious Jackson had talked with a number of recruits about playing together somewhere in state.
It sounds kind of similar to last year where a cluster of players were trying to decide between UT and A&M, but it looks a little different in that the only home for six at this point maybe UT.
It's not hard to look at a map of Ebert's UT targets and see that, "Wow, six are from Houston or nearby! --- RB Porter, DT Elliot, LBs McCullough and Jackson, S Anderson and Brown."
It's likely that most of the six he knows are from Houston.
That suggests that UT strategically may be hoping to go say 50/50 on non-Houston targets---looking at them individually as flippable commits--- and land the six (or most of them) from Houston as a group.
(Future Headline? --- "Houston 6 fix UT Football!")
My take on the importance of the "several top dogs" comment is, in part, a Brandon Jones-thing. Jones is supposed to be the best safety in the lot. There is a perception (shared by Smith) that the quality of A&M's class will be dependent on whether Jones can fill that top dog driving recruits to them role.
UT seems of the mindset that while they would love a guy who most think is a ringer like Jones, they have other guys in the group who can start the landslide for UT.
This is pretty smart to just come out and say because it refocuses the question for Jones and the others to what it should be, "Who do you want to play for?"
The Longhorns seem confident in their position.
Eberts predicts that UT will land nine of it's late committ targets --- DTs Daniels, Christmas-Giles, Elliot, Taylor, LBs McCulloch, Jackson, Safeties Jones and Brown and RB (likely turned WR) Humphrey.
(As a fan that would be thrilling. I am not a scout. I have only seen some highlights, but I think most of those guys appear to be players. I would love to see those two linebackers in particular playing with Jefferson. If something like this occurs I think there is a great likelihood that UT has a defense in the top 3 of the Big 12 next year and wins about 8 games. Still, I am holding out hope for Patrick Hudson. I have my candle lit in vigil for you, Mr. Hudson, lol! UT needs all the quality OLs it can get.)
Eberts worked the math and says those 9 would give UT a class of 23 recruits with a class score of 261.39 which would put them 6th currently and again at the top of Big 12 recruiting.
Strictly due to all the implications such finish would do in the region, this may be THE national recruiting story on signing day--- outpacing Michigan's resurgance, Ohio State's #1 recruiting class, and Mississippi's recruiting violations.
And it would launch several interesting discussions...
Taking as many as 6 from East Texas and maybe a couple from Louisiana certainly would be at the expense of Texas A&M. There is no other way to spin it. It would amount to UT pushing the "Aggie curtain" east and re-establishing a strong position in Houston. It would gall Aggie boosters and may make Kevin Sumlin's rope even shorter --- something very good for UT long term.
Where is this eastern resurgence coming from? In part due to the fact LSU is so incredibly loaded with talent and in part that UT is pushing harder in the region. Per Smith, "...Hiring Gilmer's coach was a great bounce-back after Cedar Hill's Joey McGuire turned down the gig. Traylor's doing wonders [for recruiting] in east Texas for the Longhorns."
Then there is the story, what does that do to OU boosters? OU has been somewhat quiet in expansion terms as they bask in their playoff success, but how would seeing UT essentially take the A&M recruiting bounty OU may have thought was coming their way due to their strong season?
Surely some OU fans can see the loss for what it was --- A heavy weight bout where one team had much better talent in depth than the other. Clemson's front 7 depth killed OU's OL. It's the same reason OU lost to UT and the same reason I'd bet money today on UT to beat OU in that rivalry matchup again this year --- OU lacks title caliber depth of talent.
Plugged in OU fans who watched that game had to know that OU was the 3rd best team in the playoffs last year and would have lost to Alabama in exactly the same manner. As great as their offensive scheme was, OU was a pretender in the playoffs last year, not a contender....And this is the best they have been in years.
Something has to change.
It's why people in the know at OU have been pushing expansion for a recruiting edge. OU president David Boren has historically been a proponent of considering Tulane for the Big 12. Should UT land a 1-2 DTs who work out from that region maximizing the poke to the Aggie's eyes, it could help curry newfound UT support for the concept.
Pulling the focus back a bit, this would be the second time in two years Strong has rallied for a top 10 recruiting finish. (He missed his first year. As with any coach, the first year of recruiting is usually skunked by the coaching change. It is an exception when it isn't.)
Remember, only one team has played in the national title game in the last 12 years that hasn't been in the group of top 12 recruiting schools.
Strong is rebuilding Texas into a program that actually can play in the title game and win national titles.
Be patient Longhorn fans and you will be rewarded.
It's going to be an interesting week.
For months now critics of Strong have been saying this UT class was going to be very poorly rated and pointing to that as proof Strong should be gone.
"Baylor and TCU are killing Strong in recruiting! He's gotta go!"
Not so fast. While it is true Baylor and TCU are finally recruiting to their records, I have been saying for months it is too early to throw dirt on Strong.
Realignment reporters are buzzing about how Strong and his staff may pull out a major upset on national signing day.
Corbett Smith, Dallas Morning News ---
"Texas can go from fifth (!!!) in the Big 12 rankings according to Scout.com to 1st or 2nd if their bumper crop of kids come through. I think they are going to get slew of last-minute kids. A&M is going to be moving up too, if they can lock down Nac's Brandon Jones."
I'm not normally a fan of UT beat writer Wescott Eberts' work, but he is quite plugged in. He delivered a quality, reporterly piece predicting what additional targets UT might land.
Here are his list of UT targets:
1. Katy running back Kyle Porter
2. New Orleans (La.) Brother Martin tight end Irvin Smith
3. Silsbee offensive tackle Patrick Hudson
4. Cibolo Steele defensive end Mark Jackson
5. Manor defensive end Erick Fowler
6. Euless Trinity defensive tackle Chris Daniels
7. New Orleans (La.) defensive tackle D'Andre Christmas-Giles
8. Houston Westside defensive tackle Jordan Elliott
9. Duncanville defensive tackle Marcel Southall
10. New Orleans (La.) McDonogh 35 defensive tackle Stephon Taylor
11. Fort Worth All Saints defensive tackle Mike Williams
12. Aldine Davis linebacker Jeffrey McCulloch
13. Alief Elsik linebacker Dontavious Jackson
14. Manvel safety Deontay Anderson
15. Nacogdoches safety Brandon Jones
16. Alief Elsik safety Chris Brown*
17. Dallas Southlake WR Lil'Jordan Humphrey
In recruiting there are usually guys who like to wait until the last moment to committ. They might have an idea of playing with some local guys at some school. Usually when the best player in the lot breaks one way, some follow.
Last year, Malik Jefferson played that role for UT and Kyler Murray played that role for A&M.
Eberts asked The UT staff if there was that kind of guy out there and Longhorn Defensive Coordinator Vance Bedford said there were two or three guys.
Given that, the odds of UT landing one guy who starts the momentum for a strong UT finish are very favorable. UT seems to be the only school in the region that appears primed for a late surge of this sort.
Eberts also notes that UT WR committ Reggie Hemphill says there are about six guys who have already made up their minds to commit to UT. (Now you always take this stuff with a grain of salt as people change their minds or say things they don't mean, but it is there...)
Eberts noted that Dontavious Jackson had talked with a number of recruits about playing together somewhere in state.
It sounds kind of similar to last year where a cluster of players were trying to decide between UT and A&M, but it looks a little different in that the only home for six at this point maybe UT.
It's not hard to look at a map of Ebert's UT targets and see that, "Wow, six are from Houston or nearby! --- RB Porter, DT Elliot, LBs McCullough and Jackson, S Anderson and Brown."
 |
| *Brown and Jackson played for the same school so I just put it under 13. |
It's likely that most of the six he knows are from Houston.
That suggests that UT strategically may be hoping to go say 50/50 on non-Houston targets---looking at them individually as flippable commits--- and land the six (or most of them) from Houston as a group.
(Future Headline? --- "Houston 6 fix UT Football!")
My take on the importance of the "several top dogs" comment is, in part, a Brandon Jones-thing. Jones is supposed to be the best safety in the lot. There is a perception (shared by Smith) that the quality of A&M's class will be dependent on whether Jones can fill that top dog driving recruits to them role.
UT seems of the mindset that while they would love a guy who most think is a ringer like Jones, they have other guys in the group who can start the landslide for UT.
This is pretty smart to just come out and say because it refocuses the question for Jones and the others to what it should be, "Who do you want to play for?"
The Longhorns seem confident in their position.
Eberts predicts that UT will land nine of it's late committ targets --- DTs Daniels, Christmas-Giles, Elliot, Taylor, LBs McCulloch, Jackson, Safeties Jones and Brown and RB (likely turned WR) Humphrey.
(As a fan that would be thrilling. I am not a scout. I have only seen some highlights, but I think most of those guys appear to be players. I would love to see those two linebackers in particular playing with Jefferson. If something like this occurs I think there is a great likelihood that UT has a defense in the top 3 of the Big 12 next year and wins about 8 games. Still, I am holding out hope for Patrick Hudson. I have my candle lit in vigil for you, Mr. Hudson, lol! UT needs all the quality OLs it can get.)
Eberts worked the math and says those 9 would give UT a class of 23 recruits with a class score of 261.39 which would put them 6th currently and again at the top of Big 12 recruiting.
Strictly due to all the implications such finish would do in the region, this may be THE national recruiting story on signing day--- outpacing Michigan's resurgance, Ohio State's #1 recruiting class, and Mississippi's recruiting violations.
And it would launch several interesting discussions...
Taking as many as 6 from East Texas and maybe a couple from Louisiana certainly would be at the expense of Texas A&M. There is no other way to spin it. It would amount to UT pushing the "Aggie curtain" east and re-establishing a strong position in Houston. It would gall Aggie boosters and may make Kevin Sumlin's rope even shorter --- something very good for UT long term.
Where is this eastern resurgence coming from? In part due to the fact LSU is so incredibly loaded with talent and in part that UT is pushing harder in the region. Per Smith, "...Hiring Gilmer's coach was a great bounce-back after Cedar Hill's Joey McGuire turned down the gig. Traylor's doing wonders [for recruiting] in east Texas for the Longhorns."
Then there is the story, what does that do to OU boosters? OU has been somewhat quiet in expansion terms as they bask in their playoff success, but how would seeing UT essentially take the A&M recruiting bounty OU may have thought was coming their way due to their strong season?
Surely some OU fans can see the loss for what it was --- A heavy weight bout where one team had much better talent in depth than the other. Clemson's front 7 depth killed OU's OL. It's the same reason OU lost to UT and the same reason I'd bet money today on UT to beat OU in that rivalry matchup again this year --- OU lacks title caliber depth of talent.
Plugged in OU fans who watched that game had to know that OU was the 3rd best team in the playoffs last year and would have lost to Alabama in exactly the same manner. As great as their offensive scheme was, OU was a pretender in the playoffs last year, not a contender....And this is the best they have been in years.
Something has to change.
It's why people in the know at OU have been pushing expansion for a recruiting edge. OU president David Boren has historically been a proponent of considering Tulane for the Big 12. Should UT land a 1-2 DTs who work out from that region maximizing the poke to the Aggie's eyes, it could help curry newfound UT support for the concept.
Pulling the focus back a bit, this would be the second time in two years Strong has rallied for a top 10 recruiting finish. (He missed his first year. As with any coach, the first year of recruiting is usually skunked by the coaching change. It is an exception when it isn't.)
Remember, only one team has played in the national title game in the last 12 years that hasn't been in the group of top 12 recruiting schools.
Strong is rebuilding Texas into a program that actually can play in the title game and win national titles.
Be patient Longhorn fans and you will be rewarded.
It's going to be an interesting week.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
If you had the money to buy an NBA or NFL franchise, which one would you buy?
I was listening to Freddie Coleman on the way home tonight and he was talking about how Forbes believes the Rams doubled the value of their franchise by moving from St. Louis to Los Angeles. They beleive the franchise value went from # 28 to #3 in the NFL. Coleman expressed some awe based on a mistaken take that just moving to LA did that. You have to remember that Stan Kroenke is building a hugely expensive temple to the NFL and that certainly doesn't hurt the valuation of the Rams.
Still... most of that value gain is from moving from St. Louis about the 21st ranked designated market area with about 1% of the nation's TV households to LA, the #2 DMA with about 5% of the nation's TV households....Even though LA fans will prove to be as fair weather as they get.
As I was pondering the move, I thought of the recent $1.2 Billion lottery win and I thought "that's almost enough money to buy controlling interest in a lower tier NFL or NBA team".
Today I am going to talk about which teams I would think about buying if I had that kind of lottery fortune (that is if I couldn't find a handful of other rich ne'er do-wells to partner with in competing with either league...)
The NFL
Bills
Toronto Bills
The obvious pick is the NFL's least valuable team, the Buffalo Bills. Most people would argue that moving them to Toronto would make a lot of sense. Bills fans could still go to the Games and Toronto is a big market with over 6 Million people. It is about the size of the DFW Metroplex and frankly it is grossly mishandled by the CFL.
Even though Canadians are not anywhere near as crazy about football as fans in Buffalo, it is probably a solid landing point and would see the team's value go from 1.4 Billion to (guessing) about $2.2 Billion.
Brooklyn/Queens Bills
Another sensible landing would be in one of NYC's boroughs if a stadium was built. NY Metro with a population of 20 M is big enough to handle a third team. Stick a stadium somewhere on the border of Brooklyn and Queens, call them "The Big Apple Bombers" or somesuch and you are probably looking at a team worth about $3.2 Billion.
Raiders
I would much, much rather buy a large minority share of the Oakland Raiders though. That is a franchise that is hugely undervalued. The Raiders are valued at $1.43 Billion and probably have the worst stadium in the NFL.
On the flip side they have two fiercely loyal fanbases ---one in Oakland and one in LA --- and one of the best legacies in the NFL. Plus they have one of the NFL's best young QBs.
The owner is cash poor in NFL terms, but absolutely wants to keep his Dad's team. I have a ton of respect for that.
Presumably the 53% owned by the silent partners is valued at about $750M today, but they are probably anticipating it will be worth double that should they move to LA. They'd be right. But what if the Chargers move to LA? There is no way the NFL will allow a third team into LA county if the Rams and Chargers are already there.
Davis has controlling interests and doesn't have the money to build his own stadium, so his only options are to look at areas with better stadiums than Oakland. San Antonio is a possibility, as is St. Louis, but are any of those truly good options?
Look at how dumb the move from Houston to Tennessee has been for the Titan's ownership. The Titans are worth $1.49 Billion; The Texans $2.5 Billion. Talk about letting your money get mad.
A move to either of those cities is going to keep the team value around $1.5 B. Given that, would they take an offer of $1B today for their 53%? Maybe.
I would give the Davises 4% ---giving them a true majority ---in exchange for a some added influence.
Oakland Raiders
I would want to try to leverage my way in as a new voice in the Raiders/Oakland negotiations in order to get things done. I think Davis is just too worn out with the city's antics to get something done.
While his request for a 55,000 seat stadium is modest and practical, I would insist the 55,000 seat stadium overbuilds restrooms and leaves room for additional concession stands and is easily expandable. I would also insist that that the city agree to fund future expansions in 5000 lots up to 75,000, the size of stadium that the Raiders really should have.
(You have to understand, San Francisco has a ton of NFL fans who maybe aren't willing to drive to Santa Clara, but might be willing to go to a new stadium in Oakland. Oakland has a real shot to start pulling fans from San Francisco if they can get the stadium right.)
Now you may ask how I would make that work when they won't even meet current demands...
I would try to come to a meeting of minds with the Athletics' ownership and Davis in order to really turn up the heat on Oakland.
What if both teams made a joint public statement to Oakland saying that they agree in principle to the two relatively cheap stadiums concept on the same land --- if lots of parking garages were added to the plan (in addition to the guarantee of 8000 parking spots) and major access improvements were budgeted?
Then give them a date like July 1st to approve it or both teams walk and go talk to Ed Roski and the Inland Empire "Los Angeles Stadium" guys.
Oakland is playing games and the idea that both teams would be gone would put every city leader's job on the line and generate a more sensible and fair response. The reality is new facilities for both teams are overdue by about 20 years. Davis isn't asking for any gold plating in his stadium and the athletics would likely be OK with something similar to the SF Giants' AT&T Park (cheap at about $500 Million in today's dollars).
Oakland is being offered two stadiums on a budget for the next 30 years. They are just being cheap ---and I would argue somewhat irresponsible given the view of the city outside of their sports teams.
If they build it, I think the Raider's franchise will in short order be worth about what the 49ers are worth...about $2.7M making my share worth about $1.35M, a nice gain, and I'd have a voice in the Raiders. How cool would that be?
Inland Empire Raiders (a.k.a. LA Raiders)
If they don't, I think the NFL would allow the Raiders to look at either LA county option as long as the Chargers aren't there before them.
It seems the mayor of LA is no longer pushing the Carson site. The NFL frankly might do better to allow the Raiders to play Kroenke and Roski off each other to get the best deal possible. LA will prove a soft attendance market. Having two teams there will not prove to be smart.
The Raiders in IE give the team a chance to pull a brand new NFL-sized fanbase in the Inland Empire while also being close enough to help viewership in LA proper with their fans there...To me, it is a proper NFL effort in LA.
I think the Inland Empire site might be better for the Raiders in LA anyway as the idea of Roski also pulling in a MLB team into his complex and the leverage of Kroenke option could bring him down to accepting 20% of the team ownership as his cost rather than his stated 30%.
I think the team valuation would be in line with the Rams at about $3B.
Let's say Davis and I agree to effectively surrender 10% each to Roski, with the understanding that Davis will buy 10% from me at LA value with a loan based on his new team share value of $1.5 B, which he'd be able to pay off over 10-20 years very easily in that stadium... Then my share of the team would only be 29%. I'd have invested $1 B, given 10% to Roski for the stadium and sold 10% of it to Davis for $300M, giving me roughly a $900 M share of the Raiders at a cost of $700 M.
Titans
New York Titans
There is nothing inherently wrong with Tennessee, but this $1.49B team is another team that would make a ton of sense on the Kings/Queens border. It would likely more than double their worth.
The NBA
Philadelphia 76ers
Years of losing has the Philadelphia 76ers' value grossly suppressed today at $700M. Should my lottery winnings allow it, I would totally "overpay" offering $1.4 B today to buy them. They have a ton of young talent. If you flipped a couple for similar young players that compliment each other this talent could easily win 45 games immediately in the east, but the reality is they will yet again add a top 3 pick this year.
It is high time to buy.
If the 76ers became a playoff level team, the value of the franchise would likely instantly hit the $1.9-2.0 B range populated by Golden State and Brooklyn. I see them as a slightly lesser Boston.
The Sixers have a great history of contending, a top 5 media market with 2.5% of the nation's TV households, and a nationally appealing brand.
By next year, this could be the largest collection of top young talents in the NBA. That is a great long term position.
Additionally, NBA Teams are growing more valuable, so I would feel very comfortable in my acquisition.
Seattle Supersonics
I struggled with which NBA team to try to acquire to fix the injustice of the Seattle situation...New Orleans? Oklahoma City? Memphis? Milwaukee? Ultimately I decided to go with the cheapest.
The New Orleans Pelicans ($650 M) have a cool brand, but really that is about it. How anyone in their right mind can move a team from Charlotte to New Orleans is beyond me. Oh, wait. I did say "in their right mind".
New Orleans is a good city with very good general sports fans, but the reality is Seattle is a top 12 market with hard core basketball-specific fans. To me, it's a no-brainer where to play.
I would petition the NBA to allow me to use the Supersonics name and maybe even pay a small fee to OKC for the right to claim the Sonics' history as my teams.
New Orleans has one of the best young players in the league in Anthony Davis and a pretty good group of young to mid-career talents. Dell Demps, to me, seems like quite a good GM. I am less sold on their coach.
I would be inclined to work a deal with Sacramento for George Karl. Karl alternates between being OK and on the rocks in Sacramento. I would offer to take him off their hands. I would essentially give Karl the same deal + 1 year in exchange for him letting the Kings off the hook financially for any future pay.
I think they would be good with that.
Karl does quite well with deep, talented, young rosters and is well liked in Seattle, making it a strong move on and off the court.
Seattle would likely be more than willing to upgrade Key Arena to regain an NBA team.
The new Seattle Supersonics would be in a market with 1.6% of the nation's TVs and would likely be worth about $1.2 B on arrival.
Vancouver Timberwolves
While Minneapolis is a nice market, the reality is that Kevin Garnet is the only star who ever wanted to have a career there. It is a tough market in which to retain players. That makes it a little dodgy as an NBA market.
Minnesota has a very nice young team currently with a pretty promising GM in Milt Newton. It is questionable whether he knows how to build a team, but he does seem to have an eye for talent.
Vancouver is 30% bigger, but it is in Canada where fans just aren't as rabid. Consider it something of a wash in-market, but the reality is having two teams in Canada is much better than just having one. All of western Canada would be eager to buy Vancouver Timberwolves gear if they became pretty good at a time when the Raptors happened to be pretty good.
Still I'd put the value at about $875 M up from $725 M. But I think there would be much better long term potential.
If you look around the league, Canada produces enough good basketball talent that Vancouver and Toronto could start picking off the best Canadian players and building up Canadian basketball per the original dream of the NBA's Canadian basketball expansion effort.
Which teams would you buy?
Still... most of that value gain is from moving from St. Louis about the 21st ranked designated market area with about 1% of the nation's TV households to LA, the #2 DMA with about 5% of the nation's TV households....Even though LA fans will prove to be as fair weather as they get.
As I was pondering the move, I thought of the recent $1.2 Billion lottery win and I thought "that's almost enough money to buy controlling interest in a lower tier NFL or NBA team".
Today I am going to talk about which teams I would think about buying if I had that kind of lottery fortune (that is if I couldn't find a handful of other rich ne'er do-wells to partner with in competing with either league...)
The NFL
Bills
Toronto Bills
The obvious pick is the NFL's least valuable team, the Buffalo Bills. Most people would argue that moving them to Toronto would make a lot of sense. Bills fans could still go to the Games and Toronto is a big market with over 6 Million people. It is about the size of the DFW Metroplex and frankly it is grossly mishandled by the CFL.
Even though Canadians are not anywhere near as crazy about football as fans in Buffalo, it is probably a solid landing point and would see the team's value go from 1.4 Billion to (guessing) about $2.2 Billion.
Brooklyn/Queens Bills
Another sensible landing would be in one of NYC's boroughs if a stadium was built. NY Metro with a population of 20 M is big enough to handle a third team. Stick a stadium somewhere on the border of Brooklyn and Queens, call them "The Big Apple Bombers" or somesuch and you are probably looking at a team worth about $3.2 Billion.
Raiders
I would much, much rather buy a large minority share of the Oakland Raiders though. That is a franchise that is hugely undervalued. The Raiders are valued at $1.43 Billion and probably have the worst stadium in the NFL.
On the flip side they have two fiercely loyal fanbases ---one in Oakland and one in LA --- and one of the best legacies in the NFL. Plus they have one of the NFL's best young QBs.
The owner is cash poor in NFL terms, but absolutely wants to keep his Dad's team. I have a ton of respect for that.
Presumably the 53% owned by the silent partners is valued at about $750M today, but they are probably anticipating it will be worth double that should they move to LA. They'd be right. But what if the Chargers move to LA? There is no way the NFL will allow a third team into LA county if the Rams and Chargers are already there.
Davis has controlling interests and doesn't have the money to build his own stadium, so his only options are to look at areas with better stadiums than Oakland. San Antonio is a possibility, as is St. Louis, but are any of those truly good options?
Look at how dumb the move from Houston to Tennessee has been for the Titan's ownership. The Titans are worth $1.49 Billion; The Texans $2.5 Billion. Talk about letting your money get mad.
A move to either of those cities is going to keep the team value around $1.5 B. Given that, would they take an offer of $1B today for their 53%? Maybe.
I would give the Davises 4% ---giving them a true majority ---in exchange for a some added influence.
Oakland Raiders
I would want to try to leverage my way in as a new voice in the Raiders/Oakland negotiations in order to get things done. I think Davis is just too worn out with the city's antics to get something done.
While his request for a 55,000 seat stadium is modest and practical, I would insist the 55,000 seat stadium overbuilds restrooms and leaves room for additional concession stands and is easily expandable. I would also insist that that the city agree to fund future expansions in 5000 lots up to 75,000, the size of stadium that the Raiders really should have.
(You have to understand, San Francisco has a ton of NFL fans who maybe aren't willing to drive to Santa Clara, but might be willing to go to a new stadium in Oakland. Oakland has a real shot to start pulling fans from San Francisco if they can get the stadium right.)
Now you may ask how I would make that work when they won't even meet current demands...
I would try to come to a meeting of minds with the Athletics' ownership and Davis in order to really turn up the heat on Oakland.
What if both teams made a joint public statement to Oakland saying that they agree in principle to the two relatively cheap stadiums concept on the same land --- if lots of parking garages were added to the plan (in addition to the guarantee of 8000 parking spots) and major access improvements were budgeted?
Then give them a date like July 1st to approve it or both teams walk and go talk to Ed Roski and the Inland Empire "Los Angeles Stadium" guys.
Oakland is playing games and the idea that both teams would be gone would put every city leader's job on the line and generate a more sensible and fair response. The reality is new facilities for both teams are overdue by about 20 years. Davis isn't asking for any gold plating in his stadium and the athletics would likely be OK with something similar to the SF Giants' AT&T Park (cheap at about $500 Million in today's dollars).
Oakland is being offered two stadiums on a budget for the next 30 years. They are just being cheap ---and I would argue somewhat irresponsible given the view of the city outside of their sports teams.
If they build it, I think the Raider's franchise will in short order be worth about what the 49ers are worth...about $2.7M making my share worth about $1.35M, a nice gain, and I'd have a voice in the Raiders. How cool would that be?
Inland Empire Raiders (a.k.a. LA Raiders)
If they don't, I think the NFL would allow the Raiders to look at either LA county option as long as the Chargers aren't there before them.
It seems the mayor of LA is no longer pushing the Carson site. The NFL frankly might do better to allow the Raiders to play Kroenke and Roski off each other to get the best deal possible. LA will prove a soft attendance market. Having two teams there will not prove to be smart.
The Raiders in IE give the team a chance to pull a brand new NFL-sized fanbase in the Inland Empire while also being close enough to help viewership in LA proper with their fans there...To me, it is a proper NFL effort in LA.
I think the Inland Empire site might be better for the Raiders in LA anyway as the idea of Roski also pulling in a MLB team into his complex and the leverage of Kroenke option could bring him down to accepting 20% of the team ownership as his cost rather than his stated 30%.
I think the team valuation would be in line with the Rams at about $3B.
Let's say Davis and I agree to effectively surrender 10% each to Roski, with the understanding that Davis will buy 10% from me at LA value with a loan based on his new team share value of $1.5 B, which he'd be able to pay off over 10-20 years very easily in that stadium... Then my share of the team would only be 29%. I'd have invested $1 B, given 10% to Roski for the stadium and sold 10% of it to Davis for $300M, giving me roughly a $900 M share of the Raiders at a cost of $700 M.
Titans
New York Titans
There is nothing inherently wrong with Tennessee, but this $1.49B team is another team that would make a ton of sense on the Kings/Queens border. It would likely more than double their worth.
The NBA
Philadelphia 76ers
Years of losing has the Philadelphia 76ers' value grossly suppressed today at $700M. Should my lottery winnings allow it, I would totally "overpay" offering $1.4 B today to buy them. They have a ton of young talent. If you flipped a couple for similar young players that compliment each other this talent could easily win 45 games immediately in the east, but the reality is they will yet again add a top 3 pick this year.
It is high time to buy.
If the 76ers became a playoff level team, the value of the franchise would likely instantly hit the $1.9-2.0 B range populated by Golden State and Brooklyn. I see them as a slightly lesser Boston.
The Sixers have a great history of contending, a top 5 media market with 2.5% of the nation's TV households, and a nationally appealing brand.
By next year, this could be the largest collection of top young talents in the NBA. That is a great long term position.
Additionally, NBA Teams are growing more valuable, so I would feel very comfortable in my acquisition.
Seattle Supersonics
I struggled with which NBA team to try to acquire to fix the injustice of the Seattle situation...New Orleans? Oklahoma City? Memphis? Milwaukee? Ultimately I decided to go with the cheapest.
The New Orleans Pelicans ($650 M) have a cool brand, but really that is about it. How anyone in their right mind can move a team from Charlotte to New Orleans is beyond me. Oh, wait. I did say "in their right mind".
New Orleans is a good city with very good general sports fans, but the reality is Seattle is a top 12 market with hard core basketball-specific fans. To me, it's a no-brainer where to play.
I would petition the NBA to allow me to use the Supersonics name and maybe even pay a small fee to OKC for the right to claim the Sonics' history as my teams.
New Orleans has one of the best young players in the league in Anthony Davis and a pretty good group of young to mid-career talents. Dell Demps, to me, seems like quite a good GM. I am less sold on their coach.
I would be inclined to work a deal with Sacramento for George Karl. Karl alternates between being OK and on the rocks in Sacramento. I would offer to take him off their hands. I would essentially give Karl the same deal + 1 year in exchange for him letting the Kings off the hook financially for any future pay.
I think they would be good with that.
Karl does quite well with deep, talented, young rosters and is well liked in Seattle, making it a strong move on and off the court.
Seattle would likely be more than willing to upgrade Key Arena to regain an NBA team.
The new Seattle Supersonics would be in a market with 1.6% of the nation's TVs and would likely be worth about $1.2 B on arrival.
Vancouver Timberwolves
While Minneapolis is a nice market, the reality is that Kevin Garnet is the only star who ever wanted to have a career there. It is a tough market in which to retain players. That makes it a little dodgy as an NBA market.
Minnesota has a very nice young team currently with a pretty promising GM in Milt Newton. It is questionable whether he knows how to build a team, but he does seem to have an eye for talent.
Vancouver is 30% bigger, but it is in Canada where fans just aren't as rabid. Consider it something of a wash in-market, but the reality is having two teams in Canada is much better than just having one. All of western Canada would be eager to buy Vancouver Timberwolves gear if they became pretty good at a time when the Raptors happened to be pretty good.
Still I'd put the value at about $875 M up from $725 M. But I think there would be much better long term potential.
If you look around the league, Canada produces enough good basketball talent that Vancouver and Toronto could start picking off the best Canadian players and building up Canadian basketball per the original dream of the NBA's Canadian basketball expansion effort.
Which teams would you buy?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Rams to return to LA and other NFL movement thoughts.
So a few weeks ago it looked like the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers would be moving to LA. You can look at the attendance fill percentages of the bottom half of the NFL and see the arguments.
The NFL made a business decision to allow the Rams to go as Stan Kroenke was building his stadium come hell or high water.
I think the NFL made a smart move here and not one that I would have thought to make. They allowed the one owner who was absolutely hellbent on moving, willing to torch St. Louis on his way out, and spend his own money to go. Keeping him there would have been horrible for the NFL.
They then put the Chargers owner into a ridiculously tough situation by essentially saying "you can't let Carson build you a stadium but if you want, you can lease from Kroenke".
They don't want to do that, so Dean Spanos will sit stewing for a year. In spite of the harsh relations, I would not be surprised to see San Diego work out a deal in the next year.
The Raiders were totally blocked. They have to wait a year and then if they want they can move in as tenants at the Rams's stadium.
I think the jist of this is that the NFL didn't want two stadiums in a soft attendance market. To me, that's sensible.
Some might ask why the NFL just wouldn't allow the Raiders to move in with the Rams. I think there is some desire to control the perception of migratory teams. Putting the Chargers on the clock for a move they don't want, controls both of the other two teams.
There is a feeling that the Chargers did everything the right way. This vote really screws all that up in a way that is ...well...deniable.
I think there is a perception that San Diego is a solid NFL market while St. Louis may not be perceived that way.
I don't think in the grand scheme of things the NFL cares if the Raiders move into the Rams' stadium next year or if they stay in Oakland long term. Two teams in the #2 DMA or two teams in the #6 DMA is a fairly irrelevant argument.
I think the only thing I would have done differently is put more money on the table to get the teams to stay, AND allow the Raiders the ability to "trade" the Chargers their NFL stadium gift money ($100M) in return for being able to take the Charger's slot in the Ram's stadium.
Would $200M from the NFL and a fat new stadium check from San Diego's city government convince the Chargers to stay...I think it could.
I'll say this again for the record. The City of St. Louis would be smart to make a sweetheart deal with St. Louis University to startup football in a hugely reworked Edwards Jones Dome with a much improved parking situation. That would be making lemonade out of some very sour lemons.
| 16 | New England | 97.20 |
| 17 | Kansas City | 96.50 |
| 18 | NY Giants | 95.80 |
| 19 | Buffalo | 95.60 |
| 20 | New Orleans | 95.50 |
| 21 | NY Jets | 94.70 |
| 22 | San Diego | 94.60 |
| 23 | Detroit | 94.40 |
| 24 | Cincinnati | 93.70 |
| 25 | Tampa Bay | 93.50 |
| 26 | Dallas | 91.50 |
| 27 | Jacksonville | 91.50 |
| 28 | Cleveland | 90.40 |
| 29 | Tennessee | 90.10 |
| 30 | Washington | 89.70 |
| 31 | Oakland | 86.50 |
| 32 | St. Louis | 80.20 |
The NFL made a business decision to allow the Rams to go as Stan Kroenke was building his stadium come hell or high water.
I think the NFL made a smart move here and not one that I would have thought to make. They allowed the one owner who was absolutely hellbent on moving, willing to torch St. Louis on his way out, and spend his own money to go. Keeping him there would have been horrible for the NFL.
They then put the Chargers owner into a ridiculously tough situation by essentially saying "you can't let Carson build you a stadium but if you want, you can lease from Kroenke".
They don't want to do that, so Dean Spanos will sit stewing for a year. In spite of the harsh relations, I would not be surprised to see San Diego work out a deal in the next year.
The Raiders were totally blocked. They have to wait a year and then if they want they can move in as tenants at the Rams's stadium.
I think the jist of this is that the NFL didn't want two stadiums in a soft attendance market. To me, that's sensible.
Some might ask why the NFL just wouldn't allow the Raiders to move in with the Rams. I think there is some desire to control the perception of migratory teams. Putting the Chargers on the clock for a move they don't want, controls both of the other two teams.
There is a feeling that the Chargers did everything the right way. This vote really screws all that up in a way that is ...well...deniable.
I think there is a perception that San Diego is a solid NFL market while St. Louis may not be perceived that way.
I don't think in the grand scheme of things the NFL cares if the Raiders move into the Rams' stadium next year or if they stay in Oakland long term. Two teams in the #2 DMA or two teams in the #6 DMA is a fairly irrelevant argument.
I think the only thing I would have done differently is put more money on the table to get the teams to stay, AND allow the Raiders the ability to "trade" the Chargers their NFL stadium gift money ($100M) in return for being able to take the Charger's slot in the Ram's stadium.
Would $200M from the NFL and a fat new stadium check from San Diego's city government convince the Chargers to stay...I think it could.
I'll say this again for the record. The City of St. Louis would be smart to make a sweetheart deal with St. Louis University to startup football in a hugely reworked Edwards Jones Dome with a much improved parking situation. That would be making lemonade out of some very sour lemons.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Realignment Grades, Raids, and Horse trades (group of 5 conferences edition)
"Just for fun" - In my realignment articles I tend to write about changes that may or are likely to happen, things that appear to have relevance, or frankly movement that I think is very possible and SHOULD happen.
This article is none of the above. In this article I am writing about possible movement that in a vacuum might make sense but where there are hurdles that would prevent them from occurring...even if most of those hurdles are just conventional wisdom driving bad logic. I think it is a good venue for discussing some under-reported, "hidden" internal pressures some conferences feel, but don't expect these to happen. This is strictly looking at unlikely optimal scenarios for entertainment, education, and most of all --for fun.
Like in the previous just for fun article, I am going to run through Grades, Raids and Horse trades, but this time in the FBS's second tier of schools --- the "Group of 5" Conferences going by what I perceive to be their realignment pecking order. At this level, the pecking order is almost exclusively based on the ability to generate TV revenue and the quality of their football.
(With that in mind, these five conferences have reached some fairly mind blowing realignment decisions lately).
Let's start at the Top...
The American Athletic Conference
Realignment Grades: East Carolina and Tulane were the last two adds. ECU was certainly a no-brainer with their strong fan support in a very populous state. ECU made sense.
Grade: A
Tulane was tougher to understand as they are more of a power conference type "academic consideration" than an group of 5 asset, but...still...with the new stadium built, they look like they will work out eventually.
Grade: C-
The MWC offered Boise State stilted media payouts to recover the Bronchos. BSU tried to leverage the conference's need for a football media darling into an inequitable media share with the AAC. The AAC membership said no and Boise walked back to the MWC. With no BSU, the odds of pulling in Air Force and BYU (and fat paydays) went down the toilet.
Grade: C
(I cannot fault the conference for sacrificing a small chance at nice payouts to save their souls.)
The Conference allowed San Diego State to get cold feet and return to the MWC. A huge mistake.
Grade: F
Raids: The Conference would be smart to outlaw realignment "blocks" to open the door to adding the best candidates possible. On the positive side, the AAC has most of the best supported football programs in the Group of 5 level. On the bad side, they are 11 all-sports members speckled throughout the country --- far too isolated. They don't get the western 1/3 of the country and stopping at 11 with these huge gaps doesn't allow real money-making and program-developing rivalries to grow.
Now it is not all bad, division-less play is helping the AAC's strength of schedule as it does with the Big 12. That is OK if your member schools are exclusively about chasing Big 12 or ACC membership at all costs, but I would think that strategy leaves a lot of money on the table unnecessarily.
In general, it is a very smart idea for the AAC to grab the best supported football programs at the Gang of 5 level. If you can pull them away from the other gang of 5 conferences, you create separation from the other conferences in terms of average attendance. Where things stand today, the AAC sits just barely ahead of the MWC. There is no reason for that.
It is also a smart strategy to claim ownership of the best part of the 4 media rich areas that have Gang of 5 members: The Northeast, Florida, Texas, and California. They have the best plays in Texas and Florida and had their best play in California. They could do better in the Northeast.
Finally, the military academies' nation-wide followings offer a tremendous media benefit to the right conference, but given their athletic limitations and the academies' leaderships' desire to play a national schedule, it is debatable whether the AAC is the right conference to nab them.
University fan bases that fuel TV viewership are usually built off alumni bases. Alumni bases are, of course, based on enrollment. Rice for example --- the smallest enrollment school at the FBS level --- has only 44,000 living alumni. The Academies can claim fandom from a large portion of military and retired military personnel.
Navy
326,046 active duty personnel
107,115 reserve personnel
Army + National Guard
546,057 Active personnel (2012)
559,244 Reserve and National Guard personnel (2012)
1,105,301 total (2012)
Air Force
308,016 active personnel
180,084 civilian personnel
71,400 reserve personnel
106,700 air guard personnel
There is a reason the AAC went after the Academies before. If you want to have a national conference, the Academies deliver a nation-wide audience. The plan was to add Boise State University (the group of 5 rockstar) to the nationwide Academies' viewership and use that to lure in BYU.
It was a great plan. Aresco just allowed BS University to screw it up.
The AAC needs to pull in Air Force. If they can land the AFA, they have a real shot at eventually landing Army down the road. Having two or all three academies in the AAC would do a lot to fix their TV revenue problem.
Finally, the AAC has done quite well in basketball, but they could use more competent basketball programs to again allow the conference to emulate the power conferences ---specifically the old Big East ---earning good money with a handful of teams making the tourney each year.
UNM & CSU would likely be happy to join, given the leak in the press a few years back that both schools were discussing bailing on the MWC and forming a central conference. Both have tourney level basketball programs on a semi-regular basis. With the central part of the MWC gone, Air Force would be happy to join the AAC as well as an all-sports or Football-only member.
In the Northeast, Buffalo and UMass make the most sense, bringing Massachusetts and New York state into the AAC TV billfold. Buffalo is fairly decent in both revenue sports. UMass is again solid in basketball and would likely improve quickly in Football with a higher profile conference, local competition, and Florida and North Carolina supplemental recruiting. UMass would be able to leverage games against Army, Temple, Navy, and UConn into nice draws at the Patriot's stadium.
With MWC basketball somewhat gutted, SDSU might be willing to return. BS University narrowly passed SDSU as the second best draw in the G5 ranks this year. This AAC western division is actually relatively travel friendly for SDSU --- with fairly similar flight times to what would be left in the MWC conference MWC --- and offers much better recruiting and basketball.
NE Division
UMass
UConn
BuffaloNavy (FB only)
Cincinnati
Temple
ECU
UCF
USF
Southwest Division
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
Tulsa
SMU
Air Force (FB only)
CSU
UNM
SDSU
The Mountain West Conference
Realignment Grades: The conference added the entire WAC, besides Idaho and New Mexico State ---who were almost certainly blocked by Boise State and the University of New Mexico. (I am well aware that UNM publically denied this, but as a lifelong realignment follower, I am extremely dubious. UNM has always been alleged to strongly prefer to have out of state rival UTEP in conference rather than in-state rival NMSU.). It is very likely that Boise State made it known they didn't want Idaho in the conference. It is very possible that the conference's desire to lure BS University back from the AAC lead their members to not even consider Idaho.
What they pulled in has been a mixed bag. Basketball is great, football...not so much. But they got Boise State from a better conference, even if they had to make some uncomfortable financial concessions to lure them in.
Grade: B
Raids: The MWC is like the Big 12 of this level--- a conference with small populations in their footprint capping the potential media value of the strong programs this conference owns.
I would love to champion the addition of western big market schools like UC-Davis, Sacramento State, Portland State, Northern Arizona and maybe even Azusa Pacific, but history has proven that most of those schools are scared to upgrade. The schools from the Big West and Big Sky that have the balls to upgrade to the FBS are schools with markets the MWC schools might pass on, like Eastern Washington, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota State, and Cal Poly.
I think it would be more prudent to make a play late on a couple of schools out of the lot when slots are scarce than make the same mistake the WAC made in counting on a spine appearing in that preferred lot.
I think the MWC might have done better to pull both Idaho and New Mexico State with the rest of the WAC as western geography makes travel long and the expansion candidates in the West are painfully gutless.
The MWC needs markets, but how do they get them? I think they need to create slot scarcity to force schools in valuable markets to upgrade.
So lets say a raid of the Sunbelt. With both NMSU and Idaho staring at the abyss, the conference could demanded concessions from both host states to buy their universities' inclusion.
Idaho could be admitted if the state government approved funding to expand the Kibbie Dome to 25,000 seats and built a 5000 seat basketball arena. At 15,000 plus seats, the Kibbie Dome is a program killer. At 25,000 seats, it would be a deafening home field advantage and a program maker. Idaho's academics and the Spokane TV market are a nice bonus add at this level if the Kibbie situation can be resolved.
NMSU is a strong basketball school which would help the conference pile up tourney invites. They could also use a state sponsored football makeover --- say a stadium revamp to 22,000 and other sports facility improvements.
Some may question why I would put NMSU ahead of UTEP. It's pretty easy. Two things.
UTEP is a nice add if you want to pursue the Texas markets. The Texas Markets are the big score for western conferences like the PAC-12 and MWC, but the Texas schools have already gone west in a similar "super WAC" and been abandoned by these MWC schools. (I don't know if it is a direct correlation, but there is a very palatable distate in the state for western associations at all levels that seems to extend well beyond not wanting to deal with jet lag and later game times. With that in mind any offer to a Texas school outside of UTEP would have to have limited travel. Pursuit of the Texas markets is probably why UNM and CSU reportedly kicked the tires on starting a new central conference).
Plus this is about getting it done now. UTEP is very much on the fence about joining the MWC. They should be. UTEP was abysmal in the WAC and they are decent sometimes in the CUSA. UTEP only draws well when they are good. Financially, there is not a lot of gain moving west.
NMSU on the other hand has no current options. NMSU is consistently in the running for UNM's best draw and has some decent MWC rivalries. Their facilities are not really good enough to challenge UNM for recruits and there is no money in the MWC footprint so that won't change, so there really is no real reason for UNM to block their inclusion. NMSU should always be an easy win in football. Even for UNM.
This gets the MWC to 13 all sports and Hawaii in football. Add Wichita State to fill the open Olympic slot.
That leaves only two slots. I would start with UC-Davis. Davis will angle for a pairing of Davis and Cal Poly. I think in TV terms the conference can do better, but Davis really can't do better than the MWC. It would be a tough thing for them to pass on a division with SJSU, Fresno, UNLV, and Nevada just to back Cal Poly. (I would not be opposed to offer Cal Poly a slot in general though or even promising Davis Cal Poly would be invited down the road as soon as their stadium is upgraded as long as Davis joins today. Davis needs a larger stadium too, but their alumni are rich.) Let's assume Davis passes for now. How do you turn up the pressure?
The Montanas would be going nuts for those slots as a pair ---and they would fit nicely except for the fact they bring no markets with them. I would talk to the Montanas about potentially a package deal assuming the member schools support the idea. Playing the Montanas' desires against the Big Sky could yield a nice media prize in Portland State.
Then come back to Davis. If they are still out, make a "take it or never, ever get another offer" proposal to Sacramento State. (There was a perception that before nearby WAC schools Nevada and Fresno State shot the wheels off "The Project" --- the WAC's secret plan to add BYU --- in jumping to the MWC, both UC-Davis and Sacramento State were very interested in a WAC invite. So there is a basis there...) Either way the MWC might be able to leverage slot scarcity into the valuable Portland and Sacramento markets.
Conference USA
Realignment Grades: CUSA's adds take a lot of abuse, but most of CUSA's additions were actually pretty solid given their footprint and media needs. They added a team in each state and pulled in a lot of markets. Even the addition of Florida Atlantic (on the surface somewhat superfluous if you have the larger Florida International) makes sense once you realize that working at this financial level, there were probably a lot of member schools wanting a single, two stop trip if they had to fly to distant Miami. Plus pulling both schools gets the Sunbelt out of Florida. In some ways, it is defensible.
The major issues I see is that they were too conservative---too limited --- for a large VCU to UTEP footprint. The conference lacks rivalries. The schools are generally slightly too far apart to help each other's attendances, and all of the schools are pretty forgettable in terms of attendance.
Grade: B
I believe CUSA is in danger of eventually losing UTEP over this conservative streak. Some may say good riddance over travel to El Paso, but the reality is, in a well thought-out CUSA, UTEP could be winning and drawing 40-50,000 fans a game. Can CUSA really kiss that off with their recent membership losses?
Check out the best attendance year of each CUSA school over the last 15 years...
UTEP is on another level when things work down there.
Right now UTEP plays the other 5 central members and then has to play 3 random eastern schools that are totally irrelevant to their fan base. It makes for a poor schedule. That has UTEP's leadership toying with the idea of a return to the MWC. The MWC is a better conference in football and basketball and offers UTEP's fans their historic WAC rivals. The thinking is that such a move would have to be good for attendance.
The thing is, it likely wouldn't, but UTEP could be in the MWC before they figure it out.
Raids: A good sales person could pull off what I am about to suggest, but it would have to be a hell of a sales job.
I think given CUSA's huge footprint, the commissioner would need to propose a move to 18 schools (a 4 school expansion) to give better coverage, to allow an 8 game football schedule made entirely of regional conference opponents, and to ramp up basketball. (Eventually the PAC and Big 12 will expand so even expansions to 18 among the group of 5 conference are all about maximizing assets in the short term. Most will lose 2-4 teams in a few years if they maximize their conferences.)
That is already a pallet of changes which will bother the sensibilities of CUSA conference members. On top of that, I am proposing both an "up conference pecking order" raid of New Mexico from the MWC and that 3 of the teams be schools that conventional wisdom would have CUSA schools rejecting --- St. Louis (a football startup), Texas State (considered competition by UNT and UTSA), and New Mexico State (considered competition by UNM and UTEP).
Lets's take a look at the candidates best recent attendance seasons...
New Mexico's and UTEP's leaderships have historically seemed quite oblivious to why both programs struggle. I don't know why. They just are. UTEP usally draws very, very well when they're in the 7-9 win area. They have gone from a cellar dweller in the WAC to a sometimes reasonable team in Conference USA. Texas recruiting in CUSA has helped them a lot, as has a weaker slate of opponents.
New Mexico would likely experience a similar football bounce if they moved to CUSA. The question is would the move hurt basketball too much?
A: Not if you have local rivals and the conference tweaks the basketball divisions to protect what you've built.
Enter the university that conventional wisdom would suggest is UTEP and UNM's poison pill...NMSU. UTEP and NMSU would be great in-conference basketball rivals for UNM. They are tourney level and travel well to Albuquerque.
The CW is that if you bring NMSU football up to the same level conference as UTEP and UNM, neither of the three school will be able to recruit enough talent to compete. This would certainly be the case in the MWC. But not in a CUSA where the entire rest of the division would be in every major city in Texas, plus some that give access to the rich Mississippi/Louisiana region!
Recruiting for the trio, for the first time ever, would be a non-issue. UNM and UTEP have much better football facilities and fan support than NMSU, so they would profit more.
None of the other Texas schools are dominant enough that the trio couldn't compete. It's a mixture of mediocre football and good recruiting that could actually allow all three schools to fully tap value from their fan base on a regular basis.
Then there is the reality of attendance. The MWC schools may be historical rivals to UNM and UTEP, but if you look at the attendance numbers, they are actually poor draws. UNM may longingly miss UTEP, but UNM's best draws most years are NMSU, Arizona, and Arizona State. Moving the NMSU game in conference could allow UNM to schedule another smart OOC game for their future that would likely draw well --- Colorado.
UTEP similarly draws well hosting high level power conference schools (Big 12 teams), then right under that, it draws well vs. NMSU and UNM, then they draw about the same for in conference games. Usually games hosting the New Mexico schools draw 8-10,000 more fans than their conference slate. Why not move those in conference and open the slate for high profile matchups vs. say Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU?
So what is in this for the conference taking on this "huge travel hit"? Well besides a major basketball upgrade, it protects the conference from a potential raid on of Texas schools and yields several made for TV rivalry games --- something the conference sorely lacks. NMSU was UNT's best rival in the Sun Belt.
Adding Texas State does more of the same. The difference in quality between the new Sunbelt and the new CUSA in football is marginal at best. Texas State is already recruiting against UNT and UTSA. Bringing the Bobcats in house removes the Sunbelt's only Texas football member---a net football recruiting gain.
Just like the UTEP/NMSU situation, UTSA would gain a huge draw with Texas State in conference. Look at the 2014 UTSA schedule. It is eerily similar to UTEP's dynamics. UTSA draws 20K vs out of state in conference foes, 24K vs UNT and 30-33 vs. schools in heavily Hispanic regions (UTEP, UNM, Arizona). It doesn't take much looking at both schools' attendance that a UTSA/Texas State game in San Antonio would draw about 35,000 at minimum.
And that is another made for TV game.
It wouldn't take much for UNT and Texas State to become bitter rivals. This kind of division just makes too much sense. TV rivalries? Check. Good Media Markets? The best in Texas, Lousiana, and New Mexico. Check. fans traveling to see all of their football team's conference away games? Very possible. This conference would have many of the aspects that made the SWC great for fans. Check. Net schedules that drive up attendance numbers? Check.
St. Louis could be allowed to join and play football. FBS football is a safer revenue generating position than being an Olympic-only DI member, but the basketball trio would need to be added to CUSA before St. Louis would consider giving up a spot in the Atlantic 10. The Billikens could bring a nice market, good basketball, and potentially a great program-driving stadium in a reworked Edward Jones Dome. Really all they have to do is average 20,000 for them to be a great fit in CUSA. I think that is very doable right off the bat given the assets on hand.
St. Louis v. Western Kentucky could be a very solid rivalry in all sports and could drive Western Kentucky to a consistently higher level in basketball.
Horse Trades: It could be a very smart trade for the Sunbelt and CUSA to trade Florida Atlantic for Georgia State. It would help both conferences's TV offerings immensely. Karl Benson could recover Florida and Conference USA could pull in Atlanta media --- the sounding board for the deep south -- and a better basketball school. Georgia State would certainly be on board. Perhaps CUSA's membership could just boot out FAU. Where else would they go but the Sunbelt?
Football
Southeast Division
Charlotte
Georgia State
FIU
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
Western Kentucky
UAB
St. Louis
Tex-Mex Division
Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
UNM
NMSU
Texas St.
Basketball
Coastal Division
Charlotte
Georgia State
FIU
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
LA-Tex Division
UAB
Louisiana Tech
Tx St.
UTSA
Rice
Southern Miss
Western Division
Western Kentucky
St. Louis
North Texas
UTEP
UNM
NMSU
The Sunbelt Conference
Realignment Grades: Karl Benson has done a pretty good job of rebuilding the Sunbelt. There is no question that in football terms they are already on par with CUSA due to the injection of FCS superpowers App State and Georgia Southern.
Grade: A+
The football only additions of Idaho and NMSU are more debatable. Benson is too nice. Idaho and NMSU probably didn't back him in the WAC and are incredibly dysfunctional in football. I am reminded of the song "somebody that you used to know". Benson doesn't owe Rob Spear a thing. When the WAC could be saved, the Vandals made their bed with the Montanas and the Big Sky. It was a stupid, stupid decision, but it is all on them. It is time for Idaho to move back down to FCS. It is time for Benson to cut bait on Idaho and make a decision on NMSU.
Grade: F
The addition of FCS up and comer Coastal Carolina seems relatively solid and works geographically.
Grade: C+
Raids:I am going to start by banging the drum for NMSU's inclusion as an all-sports member.
The New Sunbelt is a subpar basketball conference. Benson has seen the money good basketball can inject into a conference. He has several mediocre basketball programs that could develop, but no good ones to lead the way in creating the culture.
To build a conference that could put two or more teams into the tourney, you need a small handful of real basketball schools. There are not many in the footprint and most are unavailable. Having one ringer makes adding another (or developing another) possible. You have to start somewhere. NMSU is an annual tourney team and is very available.
NMSU has actually offered to pay the sunbelt to get in as a full member, but the sunbelt teams still won't vote them in.
(It is an embarrassing situation that NMSU's leadership at the time created when they looked to CW and didn't back Benson when he tried to push Lamar to the WAC at the end of 2011. That add would have reset their conference to 8 football members hitting the threshold to add 2 more years to their compliance clock and likely saved the FBS WAC.)
One bad trip in each sport is not the end of the world for sunbelt member schools. NMSU could be a workable travel partner with UTA or Texas State.
Besides travel, there is a reason the Sunbelt is standoffish. With one exception, every one of NMSU's top 20 all time football draws to their stadium are either UTEP or New Mexico. That tells you a lot.
No doubt losing supresses NMSU's numbers, but...If you look at the top 20 game list and the season by season game numbers, they suggest that UTEP and UNM are capable of bringing in 10-15,000 more fans to Memorial stadium (likely), that NMSU doesn't have a large fan base (something enrollment would suggest is unlikely and basketball support debunks to a degree), that the general love of football that drives fans to see games against good teams may not be present in Las Cruces (the numbers support this, but it would be surprising.), or IMO the most likely scenario, that the stadium design is suppressing attendance by pushing fans too far from the action..
I doubt NMSU's leadership has the will or wisdom to commit the money for even a small-time renovation. And the wrong choices could be tricky or expensive.
Memorial Stadium is a partially below ground level 1970's style bowl. It is a two tier stadium where more concessions were made to style, construction costs, and the underlying structure than to fan appeal. (It is a shame they didn't build it more like West Texas's Kimbrough Stadium.) It has many of the same issues in terms of fan experience as UNT's Fouts Stadium used to have and Eastern Michigan's Rynearson Stadium --- where a good chunk of the seating are bad seats. Those bad seats are rarely filled by home fans (who know the seats suck). The empty seats make the games seem unpopular and discourage fan attendance. Eventually fans become conditioned not to go to NMSU home football games.
I imagine the cheapest way to bring the stadium back into being a positive asset would be to start by demolishing the upper level and taking out the bad end zone seats...
I think from there you could either put in two raised decks, moving your upper deck fans much, much closer to the action...(proximity and construction materials I couldn't faithfully replicate in 5 minutes in photoshop. The Nussli Group could likely build a sensible upperdeck solution cheaply.)
or ...if the money became available, maybe look at creating a ground level, inspiring presentation piece before people descend into the stadium (ala the LA Coliseum)...
or an upper level round or oval balcony/promenande built right over what is there, conceptually similar to what RFK stadium has.
Anyway, I digress...NMSU is not going to upgrade their stadium or run anything but basketball right, so the question is can you tolerate one bad trip for a basketball ringer?
I say take their money and add them.
My next basketball ringer is Florida Gulf Coast. They along with N. Florida will most likely be playing football at the FBS level in the next 20 years anyway, and as the Sunbelt is a hybrid conference, why not? FGCU is big enough, they are a basketball school in a state that has hoop talent to spare.
Lamar is another school with a basketball culture and their football fundamentals and progress make them a smart add. The Louisiana schools are kind of culturally isolated from the Texas schools (and certainly from NMSU). Lamar would be a sensible bridge as football member #12.
I would add Jacksonville State as a 13th football member. JSU is a peer of GSU and App State and you've seen what they have done in the Sun Belt. I can already hear the wailing..."But we already have two schools in Alabama!!" Yes, but JSU is already recruiting against them.
You might as well get the benefit of cheap travel, a good attendance bump by traveling fans, and some made for TV rivalries in an area that is crazy about college football. Plus Florida and Georgia are next door with more than enough surplus talent.
Now that makes a 13 football, 16 member basketball conference. There is still potentially a room for another football-only member. I would offer UMASS instead of Idaho a football-only invite.
Why UMass? Because northeastern schools need southern supplemental recruiting to succeed. For this reason, I think they would take it. It would ultimately be quite healthy to send a dominant App State or Georgia Southern up to play an improved UMASS squad at the Patriot's stadium near Boston. UMass has a good TV audience. That's a good play to have them watch the Sunbelt on TV.
I might be inclined to put JMSU in the central division in football for competitive balance as they are a football rockstar.
Central Division
Jacksonville State (f)
Arkansas State
UALR (oly)
University of Louisiana
Louisiana-Monroe
Lamar
Texas State
UTA (oly)
NMSU
Eastern Division
UMASS (f)/FGCU (oly)
Coastal Carolina
Appalachian State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Jacksonville State (oly)
Troy
USA
The Mid American Conference
Realignment Grades: They added and then forced out UMass in a blown power play to try to pre-maturely force UMass basketball into the conference. Ill-timed.... Dumb.
Grade: F
Raids: I covered much of my thinking on the MAC in the two part series on them last year and it is hard to "trick it up" for this just for fun article.
I am going to run with what I wrote there, tweaking the presentation of part of it into my horse trade --- plus a few extras for a very idealized finish. I feel like I really knocked it out of the park on those two articles---especially the second, so if you haven't read them yet --- give them a shot (shameless plug).
I think you could pull schools that might be a little better than one expects if the schools were added in the right sequence.
Additions would be all-sports Wisconsin-Milwaukee, James Madison, Delaware, and William & Mary. Stonybrook & Albany would be Olympic-only adds until their football is ready. In the meantime, the conference would ruthlessly use UMass and Villanova allowing them to fill their football slots and cover the markets at the cost of 8 OOC basketball games each vs. the highest ranked MAC schools each year. UMass needs FBS opponents they could potentially beat and Villanova craves an FBS invite so both would take the invites.
Horse Trades: Eastern Michigan to the Summit for North Dakota State. EMU's programs are dead at the FBS levels. Their commitment and their assets to sports would be very well utilized at the DII level in the Michigan-centric Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (GLIAC). They could prosper at that level.
I am guessing they would want to hold on to their membership in DI, so a trade to The Summit might make sense for both parties. EMU would be wise to play their football at the FCS level in the scholarship-less Pioneer Football League.
NDSU is playing for an unprecedented fifth straight FCS title. Replacing EMU with NDSU would be a dramatic conference course correction and help correct the fact the conference is well...very, very bad.
This would leave a very nice looking MAC with about as much media relevance in the rich Northeast as they do in the Midwest. The divisional divide would sensibly be in Ohio, where the MAC has 6 schools. In basketball and Olympic sports, they could go with 3 divisions by simply pulling the 3 Ohio schools from each division to be central division.
Midwest
North Dakota St.
UW-Milwaukee
N. Illinois
Ball State
C. Michigan
W. Michigan
Toledo
Bowling Green
Miami (Oxford)
Northeast
Ohio
Akron
Kent St.
James Madison
Buffalo
Albany (oly)/UMass (f)
Stonybrook (oly)/Villanova (f)
Delaware
William & Mary
This article is none of the above. In this article I am writing about possible movement that in a vacuum might make sense but where there are hurdles that would prevent them from occurring...even if most of those hurdles are just conventional wisdom driving bad logic. I think it is a good venue for discussing some under-reported, "hidden" internal pressures some conferences feel, but don't expect these to happen. This is strictly looking at unlikely optimal scenarios for entertainment, education, and most of all --for fun.
Like in the previous just for fun article, I am going to run through Grades, Raids and Horse trades, but this time in the FBS's second tier of schools --- the "Group of 5" Conferences going by what I perceive to be their realignment pecking order. At this level, the pecking order is almost exclusively based on the ability to generate TV revenue and the quality of their football.
(With that in mind, these five conferences have reached some fairly mind blowing realignment decisions lately).
Let's start at the Top...
The American Athletic Conference
Realignment Grades: East Carolina and Tulane were the last two adds. ECU was certainly a no-brainer with their strong fan support in a very populous state. ECU made sense.
Grade: A
Tulane was tougher to understand as they are more of a power conference type "academic consideration" than an group of 5 asset, but...still...with the new stadium built, they look like they will work out eventually.
Grade: C-
The MWC offered Boise State stilted media payouts to recover the Bronchos. BSU tried to leverage the conference's need for a football media darling into an inequitable media share with the AAC. The AAC membership said no and Boise walked back to the MWC. With no BSU, the odds of pulling in Air Force and BYU (and fat paydays) went down the toilet.
Grade: C
(I cannot fault the conference for sacrificing a small chance at nice payouts to save their souls.)
The Conference allowed San Diego State to get cold feet and return to the MWC. A huge mistake.
Grade: F
Raids: The Conference would be smart to outlaw realignment "blocks" to open the door to adding the best candidates possible. On the positive side, the AAC has most of the best supported football programs in the Group of 5 level. On the bad side, they are 11 all-sports members speckled throughout the country --- far too isolated. They don't get the western 1/3 of the country and stopping at 11 with these huge gaps doesn't allow real money-making and program-developing rivalries to grow.
Now it is not all bad, division-less play is helping the AAC's strength of schedule as it does with the Big 12. That is OK if your member schools are exclusively about chasing Big 12 or ACC membership at all costs, but I would think that strategy leaves a lot of money on the table unnecessarily.
In general, it is a very smart idea for the AAC to grab the best supported football programs at the Gang of 5 level. If you can pull them away from the other gang of 5 conferences, you create separation from the other conferences in terms of average attendance. Where things stand today, the AAC sits just barely ahead of the MWC. There is no reason for that.
It is also a smart strategy to claim ownership of the best part of the 4 media rich areas that have Gang of 5 members: The Northeast, Florida, Texas, and California. They have the best plays in Texas and Florida and had their best play in California. They could do better in the Northeast.
Finally, the military academies' nation-wide followings offer a tremendous media benefit to the right conference, but given their athletic limitations and the academies' leaderships' desire to play a national schedule, it is debatable whether the AAC is the right conference to nab them.
University fan bases that fuel TV viewership are usually built off alumni bases. Alumni bases are, of course, based on enrollment. Rice for example --- the smallest enrollment school at the FBS level --- has only 44,000 living alumni. The Academies can claim fandom from a large portion of military and retired military personnel.
Navy
326,046 active duty personnel
107,115 reserve personnel
Army + National Guard
546,057 Active personnel (2012)
559,244 Reserve and National Guard personnel (2012)
1,105,301 total (2012)
Air Force
308,016 active personnel
180,084 civilian personnel
71,400 reserve personnel
106,700 air guard personnel
There is a reason the AAC went after the Academies before. If you want to have a national conference, the Academies deliver a nation-wide audience. The plan was to add Boise State University (the group of 5 rockstar) to the nationwide Academies' viewership and use that to lure in BYU.
It was a great plan. Aresco just allowed BS University to screw it up.
The AAC needs to pull in Air Force. If they can land the AFA, they have a real shot at eventually landing Army down the road. Having two or all three academies in the AAC would do a lot to fix their TV revenue problem.
Finally, the AAC has done quite well in basketball, but they could use more competent basketball programs to again allow the conference to emulate the power conferences ---specifically the old Big East ---earning good money with a handful of teams making the tourney each year.
UNM & CSU would likely be happy to join, given the leak in the press a few years back that both schools were discussing bailing on the MWC and forming a central conference. Both have tourney level basketball programs on a semi-regular basis. With the central part of the MWC gone, Air Force would be happy to join the AAC as well as an all-sports or Football-only member.
In the Northeast, Buffalo and UMass make the most sense, bringing Massachusetts and New York state into the AAC TV billfold. Buffalo is fairly decent in both revenue sports. UMass is again solid in basketball and would likely improve quickly in Football with a higher profile conference, local competition, and Florida and North Carolina supplemental recruiting. UMass would be able to leverage games against Army, Temple, Navy, and UConn into nice draws at the Patriot's stadium.
With MWC basketball somewhat gutted, SDSU might be willing to return. BS University narrowly passed SDSU as the second best draw in the G5 ranks this year. This AAC western division is actually relatively travel friendly for SDSU --- with fairly similar flight times to what would be left in the MWC conference MWC --- and offers much better recruiting and basketball.
NE Division
UMass
UConn
BuffaloNavy (FB only)
Cincinnati
Temple
ECU
UCF
USF
Southwest Division
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
Tulsa
SMU
Air Force (FB only)
CSU
UNM
SDSU
The Mountain West Conference
Realignment Grades: The conference added the entire WAC, besides Idaho and New Mexico State ---who were almost certainly blocked by Boise State and the University of New Mexico. (I am well aware that UNM publically denied this, but as a lifelong realignment follower, I am extremely dubious. UNM has always been alleged to strongly prefer to have out of state rival UTEP in conference rather than in-state rival NMSU.). It is very likely that Boise State made it known they didn't want Idaho in the conference. It is very possible that the conference's desire to lure BS University back from the AAC lead their members to not even consider Idaho.
What they pulled in has been a mixed bag. Basketball is great, football...not so much. But they got Boise State from a better conference, even if they had to make some uncomfortable financial concessions to lure them in.
Grade: B
Raids: The MWC is like the Big 12 of this level--- a conference with small populations in their footprint capping the potential media value of the strong programs this conference owns.
I would love to champion the addition of western big market schools like UC-Davis, Sacramento State, Portland State, Northern Arizona and maybe even Azusa Pacific, but history has proven that most of those schools are scared to upgrade. The schools from the Big West and Big Sky that have the balls to upgrade to the FBS are schools with markets the MWC schools might pass on, like Eastern Washington, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota State, and Cal Poly.
I think it would be more prudent to make a play late on a couple of schools out of the lot when slots are scarce than make the same mistake the WAC made in counting on a spine appearing in that preferred lot.
I think the MWC might have done better to pull both Idaho and New Mexico State with the rest of the WAC as western geography makes travel long and the expansion candidates in the West are painfully gutless.
The MWC needs markets, but how do they get them? I think they need to create slot scarcity to force schools in valuable markets to upgrade.
So lets say a raid of the Sunbelt. With both NMSU and Idaho staring at the abyss, the conference could demanded concessions from both host states to buy their universities' inclusion.
Idaho could be admitted if the state government approved funding to expand the Kibbie Dome to 25,000 seats and built a 5000 seat basketball arena. At 15,000 plus seats, the Kibbie Dome is a program killer. At 25,000 seats, it would be a deafening home field advantage and a program maker. Idaho's academics and the Spokane TV market are a nice bonus add at this level if the Kibbie situation can be resolved.
NMSU is a strong basketball school which would help the conference pile up tourney invites. They could also use a state sponsored football makeover --- say a stadium revamp to 22,000 and other sports facility improvements.
Some may question why I would put NMSU ahead of UTEP. It's pretty easy. Two things.
UTEP is a nice add if you want to pursue the Texas markets. The Texas Markets are the big score for western conferences like the PAC-12 and MWC, but the Texas schools have already gone west in a similar "super WAC" and been abandoned by these MWC schools. (I don't know if it is a direct correlation, but there is a very palatable distate in the state for western associations at all levels that seems to extend well beyond not wanting to deal with jet lag and later game times. With that in mind any offer to a Texas school outside of UTEP would have to have limited travel. Pursuit of the Texas markets is probably why UNM and CSU reportedly kicked the tires on starting a new central conference).
Plus this is about getting it done now. UTEP is very much on the fence about joining the MWC. They should be. UTEP was abysmal in the WAC and they are decent sometimes in the CUSA. UTEP only draws well when they are good. Financially, there is not a lot of gain moving west.
NMSU on the other hand has no current options. NMSU is consistently in the running for UNM's best draw and has some decent MWC rivalries. Their facilities are not really good enough to challenge UNM for recruits and there is no money in the MWC footprint so that won't change, so there really is no real reason for UNM to block their inclusion. NMSU should always be an easy win in football. Even for UNM.
This gets the MWC to 13 all sports and Hawaii in football. Add Wichita State to fill the open Olympic slot.
That leaves only two slots. I would start with UC-Davis. Davis will angle for a pairing of Davis and Cal Poly. I think in TV terms the conference can do better, but Davis really can't do better than the MWC. It would be a tough thing for them to pass on a division with SJSU, Fresno, UNLV, and Nevada just to back Cal Poly. (I would not be opposed to offer Cal Poly a slot in general though or even promising Davis Cal Poly would be invited down the road as soon as their stadium is upgraded as long as Davis joins today. Davis needs a larger stadium too, but their alumni are rich.) Let's assume Davis passes for now. How do you turn up the pressure?
The Montanas would be going nuts for those slots as a pair ---and they would fit nicely except for the fact they bring no markets with them. I would talk to the Montanas about potentially a package deal assuming the member schools support the idea. Playing the Montanas' desires against the Big Sky could yield a nice media prize in Portland State.
Then come back to Davis. If they are still out, make a "take it or never, ever get another offer" proposal to Sacramento State. (There was a perception that before nearby WAC schools Nevada and Fresno State shot the wheels off "The Project" --- the WAC's secret plan to add BYU --- in jumping to the MWC, both UC-Davis and Sacramento State were very interested in a WAC invite. So there is a basis there...) Either way the MWC might be able to leverage slot scarcity into the valuable Portland and Sacramento markets.
Conference USA
Realignment Grades: CUSA's adds take a lot of abuse, but most of CUSA's additions were actually pretty solid given their footprint and media needs. They added a team in each state and pulled in a lot of markets. Even the addition of Florida Atlantic (on the surface somewhat superfluous if you have the larger Florida International) makes sense once you realize that working at this financial level, there were probably a lot of member schools wanting a single, two stop trip if they had to fly to distant Miami. Plus pulling both schools gets the Sunbelt out of Florida. In some ways, it is defensible.
The major issues I see is that they were too conservative---too limited --- for a large VCU to UTEP footprint. The conference lacks rivalries. The schools are generally slightly too far apart to help each other's attendances, and all of the schools are pretty forgettable in terms of attendance.
Grade: B
I believe CUSA is in danger of eventually losing UTEP over this conservative streak. Some may say good riddance over travel to El Paso, but the reality is, in a well thought-out CUSA, UTEP could be winning and drawing 40-50,000 fans a game. Can CUSA really kiss that off with their recent membership losses?
Check out the best attendance year of each CUSA school over the last 15 years...
| East Division | ||
| Charlotte | 14,618 | 2015 |
| Florida Atlantic | 17,617 | 2015 |
| FIU | 19,808 | 2010 |
| Marshall | 30,020 | 2007 |
| Middle Tennessee | 22,037 | 2006 |
| Old Dominion | 20,118 | 2015 |
| Western Kentucky | 18,334 | 2013 |
| West Division | ||
| Louisiana Tech | 25,841 | 2012 |
| North Texas | 21,030 | 2013 |
| Rice | 25,571 | 2010 |
| Southern Miss | 30,696 | 2009 |
| UTEP | 47,899 | 2005 |
| UTSA | 35,521 | 2011 |
| UAB | 23,238 | 2003 |
UTEP is on another level when things work down there.
Right now UTEP plays the other 5 central members and then has to play 3 random eastern schools that are totally irrelevant to their fan base. It makes for a poor schedule. That has UTEP's leadership toying with the idea of a return to the MWC. The MWC is a better conference in football and basketball and offers UTEP's fans their historic WAC rivals. The thinking is that such a move would have to be good for attendance.
The thing is, it likely wouldn't, but UTEP could be in the MWC before they figure it out.
Raids: A good sales person could pull off what I am about to suggest, but it would have to be a hell of a sales job.
I think given CUSA's huge footprint, the commissioner would need to propose a move to 18 schools (a 4 school expansion) to give better coverage, to allow an 8 game football schedule made entirely of regional conference opponents, and to ramp up basketball. (Eventually the PAC and Big 12 will expand so even expansions to 18 among the group of 5 conference are all about maximizing assets in the short term. Most will lose 2-4 teams in a few years if they maximize their conferences.)
That is already a pallet of changes which will bother the sensibilities of CUSA conference members. On top of that, I am proposing both an "up conference pecking order" raid of New Mexico from the MWC and that 3 of the teams be schools that conventional wisdom would have CUSA schools rejecting --- St. Louis (a football startup), Texas State (considered competition by UNT and UTSA), and New Mexico State (considered competition by UNM and UTEP).
Lets's take a look at the candidates best recent attendance seasons...
| UNM | 38,341 | 2005 |
| NMSU | 17,756 | 2008 |
| Tx St. | 20,598 | 2014 |
New Mexico's and UTEP's leaderships have historically seemed quite oblivious to why both programs struggle. I don't know why. They just are. UTEP usally draws very, very well when they're in the 7-9 win area. They have gone from a cellar dweller in the WAC to a sometimes reasonable team in Conference USA. Texas recruiting in CUSA has helped them a lot, as has a weaker slate of opponents.
New Mexico would likely experience a similar football bounce if they moved to CUSA. The question is would the move hurt basketball too much?
A: Not if you have local rivals and the conference tweaks the basketball divisions to protect what you've built.
Enter the university that conventional wisdom would suggest is UTEP and UNM's poison pill...NMSU. UTEP and NMSU would be great in-conference basketball rivals for UNM. They are tourney level and travel well to Albuquerque.
The CW is that if you bring NMSU football up to the same level conference as UTEP and UNM, neither of the three school will be able to recruit enough talent to compete. This would certainly be the case in the MWC. But not in a CUSA where the entire rest of the division would be in every major city in Texas, plus some that give access to the rich Mississippi/Louisiana region!
Recruiting for the trio, for the first time ever, would be a non-issue. UNM and UTEP have much better football facilities and fan support than NMSU, so they would profit more.
None of the other Texas schools are dominant enough that the trio couldn't compete. It's a mixture of mediocre football and good recruiting that could actually allow all three schools to fully tap value from their fan base on a regular basis.
Then there is the reality of attendance. The MWC schools may be historical rivals to UNM and UTEP, but if you look at the attendance numbers, they are actually poor draws. UNM may longingly miss UTEP, but UNM's best draws most years are NMSU, Arizona, and Arizona State. Moving the NMSU game in conference could allow UNM to schedule another smart OOC game for their future that would likely draw well --- Colorado.
UTEP similarly draws well hosting high level power conference schools (Big 12 teams), then right under that, it draws well vs. NMSU and UNM, then they draw about the same for in conference games. Usually games hosting the New Mexico schools draw 8-10,000 more fans than their conference slate. Why not move those in conference and open the slate for high profile matchups vs. say Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU?
So what is in this for the conference taking on this "huge travel hit"? Well besides a major basketball upgrade, it protects the conference from a potential raid on of Texas schools and yields several made for TV rivalry games --- something the conference sorely lacks. NMSU was UNT's best rival in the Sun Belt.
Adding Texas State does more of the same. The difference in quality between the new Sunbelt and the new CUSA in football is marginal at best. Texas State is already recruiting against UNT and UTSA. Bringing the Bobcats in house removes the Sunbelt's only Texas football member---a net football recruiting gain.
Just like the UTEP/NMSU situation, UTSA would gain a huge draw with Texas State in conference. Look at the 2014 UTSA schedule. It is eerily similar to UTEP's dynamics. UTSA draws 20K vs out of state in conference foes, 24K vs UNT and 30-33 vs. schools in heavily Hispanic regions (UTEP, UNM, Arizona). It doesn't take much looking at both schools' attendance that a UTSA/Texas State game in San Antonio would draw about 35,000 at minimum.
And that is another made for TV game.
It wouldn't take much for UNT and Texas State to become bitter rivals. This kind of division just makes too much sense. TV rivalries? Check. Good Media Markets? The best in Texas, Lousiana, and New Mexico. Check. fans traveling to see all of their football team's conference away games? Very possible. This conference would have many of the aspects that made the SWC great for fans. Check. Net schedules that drive up attendance numbers? Check.
St. Louis could be allowed to join and play football. FBS football is a safer revenue generating position than being an Olympic-only DI member, but the basketball trio would need to be added to CUSA before St. Louis would consider giving up a spot in the Atlantic 10. The Billikens could bring a nice market, good basketball, and potentially a great program-driving stadium in a reworked Edward Jones Dome. Really all they have to do is average 20,000 for them to be a great fit in CUSA. I think that is very doable right off the bat given the assets on hand.
St. Louis v. Western Kentucky could be a very solid rivalry in all sports and could drive Western Kentucky to a consistently higher level in basketball.
Horse Trades: It could be a very smart trade for the Sunbelt and CUSA to trade Florida Atlantic for Georgia State. It would help both conferences's TV offerings immensely. Karl Benson could recover Florida and Conference USA could pull in Atlanta media --- the sounding board for the deep south -- and a better basketball school. Georgia State would certainly be on board. Perhaps CUSA's membership could just boot out FAU. Where else would they go but the Sunbelt?
Football
Southeast Division
Charlotte
Georgia State
FIU
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
Western Kentucky
UAB
St. Louis
Tex-Mex Division
Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
UNM
NMSU
Texas St.
Basketball
Coastal Division
Charlotte
Georgia State
FIU
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
LA-Tex Division
UAB
Louisiana Tech
Tx St.
UTSA
Rice
Southern Miss
Western Division
Western Kentucky
St. Louis
North Texas
UTEP
UNM
NMSU
The Sunbelt Conference
Realignment Grades: Karl Benson has done a pretty good job of rebuilding the Sunbelt. There is no question that in football terms they are already on par with CUSA due to the injection of FCS superpowers App State and Georgia Southern.
Grade: A+
The football only additions of Idaho and NMSU are more debatable. Benson is too nice. Idaho and NMSU probably didn't back him in the WAC and are incredibly dysfunctional in football. I am reminded of the song "somebody that you used to know". Benson doesn't owe Rob Spear a thing. When the WAC could be saved, the Vandals made their bed with the Montanas and the Big Sky. It was a stupid, stupid decision, but it is all on them. It is time for Idaho to move back down to FCS. It is time for Benson to cut bait on Idaho and make a decision on NMSU.
Grade: F
The addition of FCS up and comer Coastal Carolina seems relatively solid and works geographically.
Grade: C+
Raids:I am going to start by banging the drum for NMSU's inclusion as an all-sports member.
The New Sunbelt is a subpar basketball conference. Benson has seen the money good basketball can inject into a conference. He has several mediocre basketball programs that could develop, but no good ones to lead the way in creating the culture.
To build a conference that could put two or more teams into the tourney, you need a small handful of real basketball schools. There are not many in the footprint and most are unavailable. Having one ringer makes adding another (or developing another) possible. You have to start somewhere. NMSU is an annual tourney team and is very available.
NMSU has actually offered to pay the sunbelt to get in as a full member, but the sunbelt teams still won't vote them in.
(It is an embarrassing situation that NMSU's leadership at the time created when they looked to CW and didn't back Benson when he tried to push Lamar to the WAC at the end of 2011. That add would have reset their conference to 8 football members hitting the threshold to add 2 more years to their compliance clock and likely saved the FBS WAC.)
One bad trip in each sport is not the end of the world for sunbelt member schools. NMSU could be a workable travel partner with UTA or Texas State.
Besides travel, there is a reason the Sunbelt is standoffish. With one exception, every one of NMSU's top 20 all time football draws to their stadium are either UTEP or New Mexico. That tells you a lot.
No doubt losing supresses NMSU's numbers, but...If you look at the top 20 game list and the season by season game numbers, they suggest that UTEP and UNM are capable of bringing in 10-15,000 more fans to Memorial stadium (likely), that NMSU doesn't have a large fan base (something enrollment would suggest is unlikely and basketball support debunks to a degree), that the general love of football that drives fans to see games against good teams may not be present in Las Cruces (the numbers support this, but it would be surprising.), or IMO the most likely scenario, that the stadium design is suppressing attendance by pushing fans too far from the action..
 |
| "NMSU AggieMemorialStadium" by Terry Umbenhaur - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NMSU_AggieMemorialStadium.jpg#/media/File:NMSU_AggieMemorialStadium.jpg |
I doubt NMSU's leadership has the will or wisdom to commit the money for even a small-time renovation. And the wrong choices could be tricky or expensive.
Memorial Stadium is a partially below ground level 1970's style bowl. It is a two tier stadium where more concessions were made to style, construction costs, and the underlying structure than to fan appeal. (It is a shame they didn't build it more like West Texas's Kimbrough Stadium.) It has many of the same issues in terms of fan experience as UNT's Fouts Stadium used to have and Eastern Michigan's Rynearson Stadium --- where a good chunk of the seating are bad seats. Those bad seats are rarely filled by home fans (who know the seats suck). The empty seats make the games seem unpopular and discourage fan attendance. Eventually fans become conditioned not to go to NMSU home football games.
I imagine the cheapest way to bring the stadium back into being a positive asset would be to start by demolishing the upper level and taking out the bad end zone seats...
I think from there you could either put in two raised decks, moving your upper deck fans much, much closer to the action...(proximity and construction materials I couldn't faithfully replicate in 5 minutes in photoshop. The Nussli Group could likely build a sensible upperdeck solution cheaply.)
or ...if the money became available, maybe look at creating a ground level, inspiring presentation piece before people descend into the stadium (ala the LA Coliseum)...
 |
| By Los Angeles (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons |
or an upper level round or oval balcony/promenande built right over what is there, conceptually similar to what RFK stadium has.
 |
| "DC United" by Phillyfan0419 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DC_United.jpg#/media/File:DC_United.jpg |
I say take their money and add them.
My next basketball ringer is Florida Gulf Coast. They along with N. Florida will most likely be playing football at the FBS level in the next 20 years anyway, and as the Sunbelt is a hybrid conference, why not? FGCU is big enough, they are a basketball school in a state that has hoop talent to spare.
Lamar is another school with a basketball culture and their football fundamentals and progress make them a smart add. The Louisiana schools are kind of culturally isolated from the Texas schools (and certainly from NMSU). Lamar would be a sensible bridge as football member #12.
I would add Jacksonville State as a 13th football member. JSU is a peer of GSU and App State and you've seen what they have done in the Sun Belt. I can already hear the wailing..."But we already have two schools in Alabama!!" Yes, but JSU is already recruiting against them.
You might as well get the benefit of cheap travel, a good attendance bump by traveling fans, and some made for TV rivalries in an area that is crazy about college football. Plus Florida and Georgia are next door with more than enough surplus talent.
Now that makes a 13 football, 16 member basketball conference. There is still potentially a room for another football-only member. I would offer UMASS instead of Idaho a football-only invite.
Why UMass? Because northeastern schools need southern supplemental recruiting to succeed. For this reason, I think they would take it. It would ultimately be quite healthy to send a dominant App State or Georgia Southern up to play an improved UMASS squad at the Patriot's stadium near Boston. UMass has a good TV audience. That's a good play to have them watch the Sunbelt on TV.
I might be inclined to put JMSU in the central division in football for competitive balance as they are a football rockstar.
Central Division
Jacksonville State (f)
Arkansas State
UALR (oly)
University of Louisiana
Louisiana-Monroe
Lamar
Texas State
UTA (oly)
NMSU
Eastern Division
UMASS (f)/FGCU (oly)
Coastal Carolina
Appalachian State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Jacksonville State (oly)
Troy
USA
The Mid American Conference
Realignment Grades: They added and then forced out UMass in a blown power play to try to pre-maturely force UMass basketball into the conference. Ill-timed.... Dumb.
Grade: F
Raids: I covered much of my thinking on the MAC in the two part series on them last year and it is hard to "trick it up" for this just for fun article.
I am going to run with what I wrote there, tweaking the presentation of part of it into my horse trade --- plus a few extras for a very idealized finish. I feel like I really knocked it out of the park on those two articles---especially the second, so if you haven't read them yet --- give them a shot (shameless plug).
I think you could pull schools that might be a little better than one expects if the schools were added in the right sequence.
Additions would be all-sports Wisconsin-Milwaukee, James Madison, Delaware, and William & Mary. Stonybrook & Albany would be Olympic-only adds until their football is ready. In the meantime, the conference would ruthlessly use UMass and Villanova allowing them to fill their football slots and cover the markets at the cost of 8 OOC basketball games each vs. the highest ranked MAC schools each year. UMass needs FBS opponents they could potentially beat and Villanova craves an FBS invite so both would take the invites.
Horse Trades: Eastern Michigan to the Summit for North Dakota State. EMU's programs are dead at the FBS levels. Their commitment and their assets to sports would be very well utilized at the DII level in the Michigan-centric Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (GLIAC). They could prosper at that level.
I am guessing they would want to hold on to their membership in DI, so a trade to The Summit might make sense for both parties. EMU would be wise to play their football at the FCS level in the scholarship-less Pioneer Football League.
NDSU is playing for an unprecedented fifth straight FCS title. Replacing EMU with NDSU would be a dramatic conference course correction and help correct the fact the conference is well...very, very bad.
This would leave a very nice looking MAC with about as much media relevance in the rich Northeast as they do in the Midwest. The divisional divide would sensibly be in Ohio, where the MAC has 6 schools. In basketball and Olympic sports, they could go with 3 divisions by simply pulling the 3 Ohio schools from each division to be central division.
Midwest
North Dakota St.
UW-Milwaukee
N. Illinois
Ball State
C. Michigan
W. Michigan
Toledo
Bowling Green
Miami (Oxford)
Northeast
Ohio
Akron
Kent St.
James Madison
Buffalo
Albany (oly)/UMass (f)
Stonybrook (oly)/Villanova (f)
Delaware
William & Mary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)