Eagles Should Contemplate Move To Big Ten
by jackaramsey on Aug 14, 2011 3:31 PM EDT
Email
Print[Ed. Note -- Front Page'd]
With all of the crazy rumors flying around regarding conference realignment, I started thinking about how BC would be impacted and what the ideal outcome would be for the Eagles. Assuming Texas A&M does leave the Big 12, the SEC will look for a fourteenth team to even out the conference. Two of the most likely targets are Clemson and Florida State. While I’m not going to get into exactly how that changes the ACC or who we could potentially poach, I will say that BC could very easily be impacted, probably for the worse. And if the college football landscape continues to progress to "super-conferences" made up of 16 teams, then Boston College needs to be proactive. What should they do? I suggest trying to get their way into the Big Ten.
The main reason that BC should consider this move is stability. The question isn’t if the ACC will get poached by the SEC, it’s when. However, the Big Ten showed with the addition of Nebraska that they are going to do the raiding instead of being raided. The only other conferences that could challenge them in terms of power, the SEC and Pac-12, can’t take Big Ten teams due to geography. So, going to the Big Ten would assure BC long-term stability, something the ACC doesn’t currently offer.
Another huge benefit of the Big Ten is money. The main source of income for a conference is going to come from TV contracts. Each ACC team makes $11.9 million per year off of their deal. Each Big Ten team gets $18.3 million. This is an enormous disparity, and that extra $6 million would be a big boost to Boston College’s athletic department.
I also believe that Boston College fits better in the Big Ten than the ACC. The Big Ten is a hard-nosed, tough, Northern conference, while the ACC is a southern conference based around speed, something BC has and always will lack. I think that if BC joins the Big Ten with another northeast team such as Syracuse, Pitt, or Rutgers then geographically we would be better off than in the ACC.
Now many will question why the Big Ten would want BC. I actually think we would be a prime target. We bring Boston, one of the greatest sports markets in the country. We also bring terrific academics that will fit with other Big Ten schools such as Northwestern and Michigan. BC also offers good, solid football and basketball programs, as well as the greatest hockey program in the country (although I doubt we would leave Hockey East.) I think that if the Big Ten does decide to expand, BC would be one of the first programs that they approach.
Boston College can’t afford to just sit back and watch all of this conference turmoil unfold. Due to stability, revenue, and an overall better fit, I believe it is in Boston College’s best interests to join the Big Ten if possible.
12 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Better fit
Maybe this is a rationalization, but I truly believe BC is a better fit in the ACC than it would be in the Big Ten. Unless BC would make a move to the Big Ten along with Notre Dame and/or Syracuse, we would stick out with Northwestern as the only two smallish private schools playing in a conference dominated by large, public state universities. In the ACC, we fit with Miami, Duke and Wake Forest in terms of private schools, and also with North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech academically.
Geographically, speaking as a fan, it’s easier to travel to Atlanta, Raleigh, Charlotte, DC and Miami than it is to travel to Madison, Lincoln, Iowa City, Columbus, Urbana-Champaign, Bloomington, East Lansing and State College. There are short, quick flights up and down the East Coast that is easier than traveling to a majority of Big Ten towns.
A move to the Big Ten would also have to be accompanied with a move to the BTHC for hockey and as it stands now, Hockey East is a much stronger conference than the BTHC with underachieving Minnesota and Michigan State and Ohio State and Penn State (large ADs don’t always equal great college hockey). Plus we’d lose out on our established rivalries with BU, UNH, Maine and other HEA programs.
I don’t think that the Big Ten will seriously consider expansion in the near-term and seem pretty content with 12 programs (also benefit from the new symmetry with the Pac-12 and the Rose Bowl tie-in). And the 14-team or 16-team super conference model is still unproven, so I’m not sure we can say with certainty that an expanded Big Ten would offer any more stability than a 12-team ACC (the 16-team WAC was very unstable and didn’t last long.)
Very interesting take, but I don’t believe Boston College is a Big Ten school. We’d likely be another Northwestern-type program and would not excel in the Big Ten. Think there’s more room for growth and stability with an ACC – FSU or Clemson and + Syracuse.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Aug 14, 2011 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hey thanks for the reply Brian. You make a compelling argument, but although I agree we would stick out as different in the Big Ten, I think that BC also is unique in the ACC being so far north. And although there are many private universities, many aren’t very similar as they lack in the quality education that BC provides (GT, Clemson, even Miami to an extent) I also think our style of play in football matches up much more with the Big Ten. I will concede that we would probably stay in Hockey East, as we would never move away from BU and UNH. But if the Big Ten expanded to 16 with a bunch of northeast teams like BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers or something along those lines, I think it would be a great fit. Ultimately though, even if it isn’t a perfect fit, stability is the first priority, and I think the Big Ten gives us that. Thanks again.
I agree that our style of play on the gridiron more closely matches that of the Big Ten, but these decisions aren’t made based on football style of play.
As for stability, even though I have my differences of opinion with Swofford, I don’t believe the conference will get picked apart from both north and south. So long as the Virginias and Maryland stick with the North Carolina schools, the ACC will remain a viable BCS conference going forward, in contrast to the current instability of the Big East with its basketball/football split.
The ACC can and will move forward without either Florida State or Clemson. I actually believe they could even survive the loss of both of those programs.
Editor, BC Interruption
As for hockey, I don’t think a move to the Big Ten could be made without also moving to the Big Ten Hockey Conference.
And while he may not be there if / when any move would be made, Jerry York is very opposed to the BTHC and its effect on the current members of the WCHA and the CCHA (particularly Bowling Green, where he won his first title). I can’t see York signing off on a move from HEA to the BTHC after being so opposed to the conference from the get-go. While he doesn’t have any say on the matter, he could be a strong voice of opposition as (we think) Boeheim was when Cuse was a target for ACC expansion back in 2003.
Editor, BC Interruption
You're right
The B10 is an all in conference. Members don’t get to opt out of the conference for certain sports. MN and WI weren’t thrilled with it, but once the B10 had 6 teams the BTHC was going to form and they were going to be members. Period.
Still can't understand...
Why no one on this site will even consider Uconn as being good enough to be in their league is beyond me. Uconn is so much stronger then Rutgers in all sports. They do not control the New York market, Uconn does. They are working toward AAu status and are also an internationally recognized research university. They are a natural rival and the longer BC holds them at arms length the more they hurting themselves in the eyes of the Northeast recruits.
The issue isn’t the SEC taking one team. The issue would be if the SEC went to 16 and took FSU, Clemson, and GT or VT. Then the Pac-12 and Big Ten also go to 16. BC would need to go to the Big Ten to avoid being in a conference consisting of lowly ACC and Big East teams. That’s my worry, although it is unlikely.
I don’t believe that Delany and the Big Ten would take a “me too” approach to conference expansion, simply as a way of keeping up with Mike Slive.
A 16-team conference isn’t easily workable to begin with and several SEC schools would likely block the addition of Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech or Miami. GT and Miami to the SEC also seem like nonstarters.
Editor, BC Interruption
A critique from the Big Ten perspective
1. The Big Ten is secure from raiding because the ties between the Big Ten schools are very strong and the Big Ten brings in a ton of revenue. The figure you cited regarding Big Ten revenue is old. With ballooning BTN revenue and the new championship game, every Big Ten school is making over $20 million a year. I canot find the most recent figures, but Big Ten schools will make, from this year forward, somewhere around twice of what the ACC schools make every year.
2. It is unclear whether BC can fully deliver the Boston TV market. Please note that by fully delivering the BC market, I mean that the cable companies in Boston would have to add the BTN to basic cable. The Big Ten will only add schools that either significantly enhance our national profile so that we can make more money from our national TV contracts or provide a lot of new households for the BTN. Since BC is not going to provide a substantial boost to the national profile, providing the Boston TV market for the BTN would be essential.
3. Even if BC adds the Boston TV market to the BTN, it is unclear whether the additional revenue gained by the conference would even be $20-25 million, which would basically be breaking even on the deal.
4. While BC is an excellent academic institution, BC is a very different institution from the other Big Ten schools. Every Big Ten school places a lot of emphasis on research. Indiana University has the lowest research expenditures, at just under $110 million annually*. This number is much lower than the other Big Ten schools, due to IU’s relationship with its medical campus (most medical research dollars don’t go to the IU campus) and lack of engineering program. BC, in contrast, makes less than $40 million per year*. As such, BC’s academics will not be considered a major asset by the Big Ten because their priorities are different from those of the Big Ten schools. This does not mean that the Big Ten would refuse BC admission on academic grounds, as would likely happen with schools like Oklahoma, but BC’s academics would not be considered a major asset either.
5. All teams within the Big Ten must be a member for all sports that they and the conference sponsors. This means that BC would have to join the Big Ten for hockey. Also, as a Michigan fan, I take issue with your claim that BC has the greatest hockey program in the country. However, that is not relevant to this issue. At any rate, BC’s hockey program is certainly an asset in its favor, especially as the Big Ten hopes to make hockey into a decent source of revenue, but BC would have to leave the Hockey East.
In conclusion, BC is not a good primary choice for further Big Ten expansion. BC does have some attraction as a secondary option if the Big Ten can grab a school like Notre Dame and needs another school to balance the divisions. Other secondary options include Syracuse, Missouri, Maryland, Rutgers, Kansas, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Connecticut, and Pittsburgh. If the Big Ten added Notre Dame and Notre Dame could add the NYC market by itself, then BC would be high on the list. If not, then the Big Ten would probably look to a school able to shore up the market.
Also some quick notes regarding SEC and ACC expansion:
a) None of the SEC schools, with the possible exception of Kentucky, appear willing to allow a major in-state rival into the SEC because they use their SEC membership as a recruiting tool against their rival schools. As such, it is unlikely that FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech will receive an invitation. Furthermore, the Virginia Tech AD has stated that he believes that Virginia Tech would politely decline an invitation. As such, unless the political situation within the SEC changes, the ACC appears to be safe from SEC raiding.
b) If I remember correctly, Syracuse was ready to go to the ACC, but Virginia, at the behest of its legislature, managed to get Virginia Tech in as a substitute option.
*These numbers are from 2007.
I simply don't see BC as a Big Ten institutional fit
And that’s not a knock against it as an institution. Perhaps the only ACC member that does make sense — as a land-grant flagship with AAU status, substantial research funding and a good all-around athletic program — is Maryland. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech would theoretically qualify as AAU members, but UVa, UNC and Duke are sort of culturally tied together. Tech is a longshot if the Big Ten wants to cultivate the deep south.
The only way BC would get into the Big Ten would be under Notre Dame’s wing, and the Big Ten doesn’t go for package deals. Sorry, ND.
I agree
I don’t see BC in the Big Ten, except when it comes to college hockey.
Editor, BC Interruption
BC could go to the Big Ten
but only if that would deliver Notre Dame.
The Big Ten would have to add Syracuse, Pitt, and BC. Then Notre Dame has to get desperate enough to join a conference. Get Notre Dame on top of that and they will actually deliver the NYC and Boston markets for the BTN because of the draw of Notre Dame. This would give Notre Dame 5 rivalry games in the Big Ten.
Personally I think BC is better in the ACC, especially if the ACC adds UConn in the next decade.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on BC Interruption
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
