Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[stevew]

A 64 team mega conference could basically tell the NCAA to pound sand, right? They could basically pay athletes a reasonable wage, and there would be no more of these Bush type scandals?

[JonInMiddleGA]

A 64 team mega conference could basically tell the NCAA to pound sand, right? They could basically pay athletes a reasonable wage, and there would be no more of these Bush type scandals?

Theoretically perhaps, not so sure in practice.

I mean, are the 64 megas willing to forego things like the NCAA basketball tournament (and it's 98% of all revenue produced by the NCAA) for a much shorter national tournament and the reduced revenue?

Because I have a tough time seeing the NCAA willing to allow member schools to compete against non-members in other sports (i.e. letting those 64 break away for football but nothing else) and still feed at the trough for those.

And while the rest are theoretically free to break away for their own group of "The Rest", then negotiate with The 64 & end the NCAA altogether, that wouldn't be something that comes easily nor quickly.

Not to mention having to tear up every contract that's in place currently & start over (not sure what the legal wrangling over that would even look like)

edit to add: Not to mention what 50 different state legislatures would do with the concept of paying players as employees while laying off academic staff.

[albionmoonlight]

Also, things work really, really well for the powers that be right now.

Players play football for free (I, know, they get a scholarship, so it isn't totally free).

Colleges make money selling tickets, TV rights, etc.

NFL gets a free minor league system that both develops the players and makes the best of them stars.

While it is possible to start paying players, I'm not sure that that would not be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[MrBug708]

Cowherd was saying that CU and Utah to the PAC-10 was a done deal. I think they tried to kick Texas' tires and while Texas to the PAC-10 was probably more likely then to the Big-11, it probably bordered on next to nil.

[digamma]

Fun fact: on average about half of a college football program's revenue comes from ticket sales and alumni contributions. Conference distributions (which includes bowl money and television money) are a distant third as a revenue source.

In other words, there is more to this than just television money, and the value of having an extra home game a year is huge for most schools. This ties into JIMGA's point regarding teams not being able to play the BIG 64 teams if they split off and to albion's regarding how good it currently is.

[cartman]

edit to add: Not to mention what 50 different state legislatures would do with the concept of paying players as employees while laying off academic staff.

Quite a few of the big schools have athletic departments that are self-funding, and don't receive any money from their respective states.

[molson]

Even Cowherd is getting in on the fake rumors. I'm ready for a federal gag-order or something.

And ya, I think the everyone's armchair analysis, including my own, is going to prove to to be way off base when we see what actually goes down. There's likely all kinds of politics and negotiations and hidden factors at work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Quite a few of the big schools have athletic departments that are self-funding, and don't receive any money from their respective states.

I know (the Vols are definitely one of them) ... but there aren't 64 of them either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This would seem to be very low on the totem pole, but I read that one of the attractions of UConn was that it already has a DI ice hockey team and that is one of the sports that the Big Ten (do they already have hockey as a Big Ten league?) and the BTNetwork want to feature prominently.

Seems a little shaky, as I'm sure Syracuse or Pitt or any one of a number of other schools could get a hockey program up and running, relatively quickly, if they have the Big Ten's media money to assist.

Interesting. Mizzou has had a club hockey team for several years that they've been looking to upgrade to play at the top level.

[dawgfan]

Cowherd was saying that CU and Utah to the PAC-10 was a done deal. I think they tried to kick Texas' tires and while Texas to the PAC-10 was probably more likely then to the Big-11, it probably bordered on next to nil.
Texas is obviously (along with Notre Dame) the big prize out there. I have little doubt that if the Big-10 goes big and starts carving pieces out of the Big-12, the feeding frenzy will be on - the Pac-10 will have to try to grab Texas (and A&M) and whatever else it can get from the remains of the Big-12 in order to stay competitive with the Big-10 and SEC (which will also be looking at trying to grab Texas and A&M).

This is assuming the Pac-10 has the guts to make the bold move, but they have to realize they will be in a precarious position when the dominoes start falling, and merging with/absorbing parts of the Big-12 is their ultimate path to survival.

[Swaggs]

If Texas is passing up the overtures from the Big Ten, I have to think that the Pac 10 need not bother with them. Perhaps their thinking is that they are heavyweight enough to anchor their conference without having to move (and, they are almost certainly correct in that regard). As long as they have Oklahoma as their wingman (and, again, probably even w/o them), their conference will always be relevant and one of the two will almost always be in the national title picture.

[DeToxRox]

As far as hockey goes, the next two schools most likely to get a D1 team would be Penn State and Illinois. I dunno if it can feasibly happen because of Title 9 but they are most likely.

[Dr. Sak]

As far as hockey goes, the next two schools most likely to get a D1 team would be Penn State and Illinois. I dunno if it can feasibly happen because of Title 9 but they are most likely.

Title 9 and the fact that Penn State wasn't smart enough to make sure the Bryce Jordan Center could be fit for ice when the built it are two big reason Penn State is just Club Hockey.

[dawgfan]

If Texas is passing up the overtures from the Big Ten, I have to think that the Pac 10 need not bother with them.
Maybe, but as with anything it just depends on the quality of the offers. Perhaps the Pac-10 would be more willing to create an arrangement that benefits Texas more than any offer from the Big-10? Maybe the Pac-10 is more willing to take on Texas A&M as well, and perhaps others from the Big-12?

The Big-10 is obviously in a much stronger position financially right now than the Pac-10, and that gives them greater leverage. But at the same time, maybe that leverage makes them less likely to bend to what Texas would want in return for joining...

[albionmoonlight]

I also wonder how much U. Texas has the ability to do that without the blessing of the Texas state legislature.

And, if enough Baylor, A&M, Texas Tech, etc. grads are in that legislature, they may make Texas' approval of the move contingent upon that conference being willing to take [x] other schools.

[dawgfan]

I also wonder how much U. Texas has the ability to do that without the blessing of the Texas state legislature.

And, if enough Baylor, A&M, Texas Tech, etc. grads are in that legislature, they may make Texas' approval of the move contingent upon that conference being willing to take [x] other schools.
Yeah, that would be the potential complicating factor. It's already assumed that any conference that takes Texas has to take Texas A&M. That's doable, but if Texas Tech & Baylor are also requirements, that pretty much kills the incentive to grab Texas.

I also wonder how much Texas would insist on Oklahoma coming along too so they don't have to make the Red River Shootout an OOC game...

[cartman]

A&M has a ton of leverage right now politically since the current governor went there. That was a big part of the reason Baylor got pulled in to the Big 12, but their political clout is nowhere near what it was back in the early 90s.

As for OU being a non-conference game, it was that way up until the formation of the Big 12, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It would be, however, if Texas went out on its own. I doubt there would be much support for having A&M and OU be two of the 3 or 4 OOC games every year.

[Passacaglia]

The Big 10 and the Big 12 should just merge to form the Big 22. But I guess then they'll have to add 2 more teams if they want a second championship game.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the cuse community seems to think we're getting an invite. we've certainly been posturing that way with football scheduling the past couple years.

i'm torn. but big east leadership has been so abysmal for so long i guess it was only a matter of time.

[cartman]

The Big 10 and the Big 12 should just merge to form the Big 22. But I guess then they'll have to add 2 more teams if they want a second championship game.

But 25 teams would make for some awkward scheduling... :)

[Samdari]

Theoretically perhaps, not so sure in practice.

I mean, are the 64 megas willing to forego things like the NCAA basketball tournament (and it's 98% of all revenue produced by the NCAA) for a much shorter national tournament and the reduced revenue?


Well, the revenue from the tournament comes from those 64 teams being in the tournament. With the NCAA only handing back a miniscule percentage of the money to the schools that earn it, those schools could have their own tournament, sell it to tv for half the rights fees, and still get more tournament revenue per school.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, the revenue from the tournament comes from those 64 teams being in the tournament. With the NCAA only handing back a miniscule percentage of the money to the schools that earn it, those schools could have their own tournament, sell it to tv for half the rights fees, and still get more tournament revenue per school.

I'm not entirely sure you could even get half, there simply isn't enough commercial inventory to make up for the difference in game.

Lemme see here, a little extremely loose math based on what I've seen spots go for in the past.

Now (I'll skip the nearly worthless play-in game)
32 R1 Games @ 1x dollars = 32 dollars
16 R2 Games @ 2x dollars = 32 dollars
8 S16 Games @ 3x dollars = 24 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 4x dollars = 16 dollars
2 FF Games @ 5x dollars = 10 dollars
1 Title Game @ 6x dollars = 6 dollars
63 Games Revenue = 120 dollars

Then (with a bump for the higher profile & spot scarcity)
8 S16 Games @ 4x dollars = 32 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 5x dollars = 20 dollars
2 FF Games @ 6x dollars = 12 dollars
1 Title Game @ 7x dollars = 7 dollars
15 Games Revenue = 78 dollars

So yeah, a little over half if my generosity is accurate, but that's strictly TV spot revenue and I think I'm probably overestimating it.

[Samdari]

I'm not entirely sure you could even get half, there simply isn't enough commercial inventory to make up for the difference in game.

Lemme see here, a little extremely loose math based on what I've seen spots go for in the past.

Now (I'll skip the nearly worthless play-in game)
32 R1 Games @ 1x dollars = 32 dollars
16 R2 Games @ 2x dollars = 32 dollars
8 S16 Games @ 3x dollars = 24 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 4x dollars = 16 dollars
2 FF Games @ 5x dollars = 10 dollars
1 Title Game @ 6x dollars = 6 dollars
63 Games Revenue = 120 dollars

Then (with a bump for the higher profile & spot scarcity)
8 S16 Games @ 4x dollars = 32 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 5x dollars = 20 dollars
2 FF Games @ 6x dollars = 12 dollars
1 Title Game @ 7x dollars = 7 dollars
15 Games Revenue = 78 dollars

So yeah, a little over half if my generosity is accurate, but that's strictly TV spot revenue and I think I'm probably overestimating it.

You are assuming they'll only let 16 teams in their tournament. I think it would be at least 32 (since that's roughly how many of those 64 make it every year) if not all 64.

Right, but the amount of revenue currently going to the top 64 teams is nowhere near half - its more like 5%. Having their own tournament with half the revenue would represent a HUGE windfall for the 64 teams.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You are assuming they'll only let 16 teams in their tournament. I think it would be at least 32 (since that's roughly how many of those 64 make it every year) if not all 64.

Right, but the amount of revenue currently going to the top 64 teams is nowhere near half - its more like 5%. Having their own tournament with half the revenue would represent a HUGE windfall for the 64 teams.

LOL, devalue a tournament much? What's the point to a regular season, strictly seeding?

By the very nature of things, you're talking about a tournament that consistently has .500 or even sub-.500 teams in it at that point, since they're virtually certain to only be playing each other all year.

[Samdari]

LOL, devalue a tournament much? What's the point to a regular season, strictly seeding?

By the very nature of things, you're talking about a tournament that consistently has .500 or even sub-.500 teams in it at that point, since they're virtually certain to only be playing each other all year.

Yeah, I think that is the big problem to basketball breaking loose - losing the ability to pad records against NCAA schools.

But, a 32 team tournament would not change things all that much - right now around 32 of those 64 are making the tourney anyway, and the worst of those have .500 or less records against each other. All that's lost is the record padding games against inferior competition. I think people would adapt.

I'd be hard pressed to envision a scenario in which the teams that break away losing NCAA tourney money out of creating their own tournament. They just end up with so little of the current pot, and are responsible for so much of the revenue. They've got to be able to make money by cutting out the funding of everything the NCAA does out of their product.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They've got to be able to make money by cutting out the funding of everything the NCAA does out of their product.

Planning to drop championships in those other sports eh? And enforcement? And attorneys to negotiate these new deals? And logistics? I mean, "funding everything NCAA does" covers a lot of ground.

And, although not at all the problem of The 64 but probably worth at least a miniscule mention somewhere (might as well be here), it also means the end of funding for the 87 other championships the NCAA administers. Free market at work & all that, I know, just saying that it's at least worth a split second of noting.

[Samdari]

Planning to drop championships in those other sports eh? And enforcement? And attorneys to negotiate these new deals? And logistics? I mean, "funding everything NCAA does" covers a lot of ground.

No, but having the championships, enforcement, logistics, etc. for those 64 schools is a lot cheaper than doing it for the thousands of schools and conferences that add nothing to the pot. "Funding everything the NCAA Does" is a LOT cheaper when doing it for dozens of schools than doing it for 1500-ish schools in the NCAA. All of those costs for not only lower level D-I, but all of D-II and D-III are funded from the D-I basketball tournament.

[Young Drachma]

Some things about higher education to remember:

1. Innovation isn't really cherished by the status quo. It's all about following what the leaders are doing.

2. Nothing happens quickly or overnight. And when it does, it's almost always political.

3. The overwhelming majority are always working to maintain the status quo.

So all of these conversations are nice, but...it's just unlikely it'll lead to any cataclysmic changes like everyone seems to be bracing themselves for. And if does happen, I can't see Big 10 expansion as the domino that starts the nuclear winter of college sports.

[the_meanstrosity]

A friend and I were talking about the BCS conferences potentially shifting away from the NCAA and how it was coming from the university presidents. We both thought it made sense since a number of universities are getting less funds from their respective states now and thus maybe the presidents are looking at the athletic departments to fund the difference. Just another potential reason for those schools to leave the NCAA.

[Young Drachma]

A friend and I were talking about the BCS conferences potentially shifting away from the NCAA and how it was coming from the university presidents. We both thought it made sense since a number of universities are getting less funds from their respective states now and thus maybe the presidents are looking at the athletic departments to fund the difference. Just another potential reason for those schools to leave the NCAA.

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings.

Let's not overstate this.

[sterlingice]

A 64 team mega conference could basically tell the NCAA to pound sand, right? They could basically pay athletes a reasonable wage, and there would be no more of these Bush type scandals?

(not specific to stevew) Yeah, again, to all the "pay athletes" people- IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN. EVER. EVER! EVER!!?!! I can't emphasize this enough.

Until you have some magical court challenge or structure that can work around Title IX, you will never, ever, ever have athletes being paid. They would have to become separate entities from the University (moreso than they are now where they are their own corporations) because as soon as you want to pay athletes, you have to pay EVERY athlete, not just revenue generating sports. The wink-wink, nudge-nudge agreement of giving everyone a scholarship while having fairly unbalanced budgets (about 60/40) is all they can do right now to keep from being challenged in court.

Bush had signed an executive order saying that you could have a survey around campus that demonstrated less demand for female athletics then you could unbalance the payment field further but that was recently struck down by an Obama executive order.

I don't like it at all because I think it completely decimates male non-revenue generating sports and, honestly, I don't think the interest is there.

Similarly, I don't really feel sorry for someone who gets to go to college for free, even the ones who "football is their life" because, really, they probably weren't going to go to college otherwise.

But it's not going to change. At all. Unless you have some magical court precedent or way around Title IX and I'm guessing you don't.

SI

[molson]

(not just to stevew) Yeah, again, to all the "pay athletes" people- IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN. EVER. EVER! EVER!!?!! I can't emphasize this enough.

Until you have some magical court challenge or structure that can work around Title IX, you will never, ever, ever have athletes being paid.

I've seen a lot of magical court challenges when this much money is involved, and certainly Title IX itself isn't set in stone or immune from modification.

[sterlingice]

But where's the money that will push that? The NCAA doesn't want to have to pay- this arrangement works well for them. Any "interested third party" like the ACLU wants gender equity in sports. It's a cute story for the media but they don't care. The only ones who really want it are current and future players and they don't have anywhere near the clout to change what is in the vested interest of the previous parties.

SI

[Swaggs]

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140740/1/index.htm

[JonInMiddleGA]

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings. Let's not overstate this.

In many cases, it's pretty close. If you think that UGA without a football program doesn't turn into Georgia Southern or Gainesville College (academically, enrollment, etc.) in a relatively short time, you're kidding yourself. And the same could be said for a lot of larger state schools.

edit to add: And the issue of state funding multiplies several times over as well, as there will be little voter support for funding UGA from the majority of taxpayers whose only connection or interest in the school at all is football.

[digamma]

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140740/1/index.htm

Yup, thanks for posting. That's what I meant by my "Blame Notre Dame" post a page or so back. When they bolted from the CFA to sign their own television contract, it really started all of the dominoes toppling.

[Abe Sargent]

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings.

Let's not overstate this.

9 schools have more money coming into the athletic program that goes to the general fund - and it;s usually in the millions of dollars. It's just 9 though. I'm sure you can figure out which 9 pretty easily.

[molson]

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140740/1/index.htm

It's interesting how little the discussion has changed over the last 20 years:

"As the haves consolidate their power, the have-nots will be all but shut out of any shot at the major bowls or TV exposure, begging the question of why they simply don't drop back to I-AA or split off and form an entirely new division"

[Abe Sargent]

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140740/1/index.htm

Good arty

[sterlingice]

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140740/1/index.htm

Nice find :)

SI

[sterlingice]

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings.

Let's not overstate this.

Agreed, to a point. Basically, college athletics basically advertisement for Universities. They pay back to the University for what they borrow or use (i.e. rent on facilities, etc) and, in exchange, they have quite a bit of autonomy. They're essentially an independent entity who swaps scholarships for "free" advertising.

SI

[cuervo72]

It's interesting how little the discussion has changed over the last 20 years:

"As the haves consolidate their power, the have-nots will be all but shut out of any shot at the major bowls or TV exposure, begging the question of why they simply don't drop back to I-AA or split off and form an entirely new division"

Actually...I think I suggested something similar in one of the other threads.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Agreed, to a point. Basically, college athletics basically advertisement for Universities. They pay back to the University for what they borrow or use (i.e. rent on facilities, etc) and, in exchange, they have quite a bit of autonomy. They're essentially an independent entity who swaps scholarships for "free" advertising.

SI

My understanding from MU's standpoint is that the athletic department isn't a big factor in the discussion. The main consideration is research money. Mizzou stands to get a large research funding boost if they were to join the Big 10. I don't know the specifics, but I've been told that Alden and the athletic department really just have to go with what the university leadership decides.

[Swaggs]

A Big East note: Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to Advise BIG EAST Conference on Strategic Planning - BIG EAST Conference Athletics (http://www.bigeast.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=19400&ATCLID=204933535)

Probably won't hurt to have him aboard (if he has anything left to work with), particularly TV contract-wise. The folks that want a football/basketball school split will probably be disappointed, as he is a Georgetown Alum and has been working for them.

[dawgfan]

Mizzou stands to get a large research funding boost if they were to join the Big 10.
This is an angle that doesn't get a lot of attention by most, but it's an important point. The Big-10 and Pac-10 are more than just athletic associations - they also take seriously academic associations and there is a lot of sharing that goes on in terms of research between the member institutions. Given that the University Presidents are the ones that ultimately make the decisions with regard to the Pac-10 (and I would guess the Big-10 as well), academic considerations should not be underestimated when discussing possible mergers and expansion...

[Young Drachma]

Mountain West making strides toward automatic BCS bid - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5123705)

[sterlingice]

Mountain West making strides toward automatic BCS bid - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5123705)

Well, about the time they get that, there will be massive realignment and they'll be screwed again

SI

[Samdari]

Well, about the time they get that, there will be massive realignment and they'll be screwed again

SI

One wonders if that might be a factor to spur the BCS schools leaving the NCAA.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

well if the big ten loots the big east i'm sure they'll lose their bid.

[Young Drachma]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/21/big.ten.expansion/index.html?eref=sihp

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany broke his silence concerning conference expansion Wednesday and said almost nothing during a 30-minute chat/filibuster with reporters. A few hours later, SEC commissioner Mike Slive needed about 30 seconds to speak volumes.

Slive poured himself a cup of coffee, took his seat, unfolded a slip of paper and began to read.

"Given the success the SEC has experienced over the past decade, we are very comfortable with the position in which we find ourselves today," Slive said after a day of BCS meetings. "Having said that, if there is going to be a significant shift in the conference paradigm, the SEC will be strategic and thoughtful to make sure that it maintains its position as one of the nation's pre-eminent conferences."

Declarations of war have been less emphatic. Translated, Slive's statement means this: If the Big Ten expands into a superconference, the SEC will make itself just as super. Just listen to Slive himself, from a more off-the-cuff moment Wednesday. "I won't just sit back," he said, "and ignore what is going on around me."

Meanwhile, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said his conference should decide by year's end -- before it begins its next round of television negotiations -- whether it will expand. If it does, Scott said, the conference will use the "Noah's Ark philosophy, two-by-two." The plan, it seems, would be to add just two. But if the Big Ten and SEC supersize, who knows?

Get ready, college sports fans, because everything is about to change.

If the Big Ten expands to 14 or 16 teams and prompts the SEC to expand, everyone will go looking for shelter. If you didn't like the idea of six conferences controlling everything before, just wait until four conferences have all the power.

Big East commissioner John Marinatto and Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe are understandably nervous. Their conferences stand to be annihilated if the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-10 move simultaneously. Judging by Slive's pledge to be proactive, that's exactly what would happen if the Big Ten decides to go really big.

"It would be irresponsible of me not to be concerned about all of that stuff," Marinatto said. "It's not the elephant in the room anymore. Everybody talks about it -- although it's not on our agenda. We're all concerned about it. Not only the Big East, but everyone. How will -- if they do anything -- it expand or contract the marketplace for intercollegiate athletics?"

Moments before Delany met reporters Wednesday, the Big East e-mailed a release that former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue had signed on to provide strategic assistance. Tagliabue's main role, in the long run, may be to help the Big East pick up the pieces for the second time in less than 10 years after another raid. Marinatto and former commissioner Mike Tranghese did a brilliant job reinventing the league after the ACC snatched Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech. The job could be considerably tougher if the Big Ten takes Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Before you deluge me with e-mails about how some team would be a better choice for the Big Ten because of its football record the past few years, remember one thing. Despite the commissioners' collective ability to rattle off the number of championships their conference's teams have won, this has little to do with what happens on the field. This is about money and power and the accumulation of both.

The Big Ten has a hammer. It's called the Big Ten Network, which allows the conference to distribute $22 million to each school in the league each year. That's why even Notre Dame, which cherishes its football independence more than it cherishes money, could become a candidate for the Big Ten if that league smashes up the Big East, of which Notre Dame is a non-football member. Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick has maintained that the program will do everything to protect its independence, but if everything changes, can the Fighting Irish afford to?

The SEC also has a hammer in the form of a pair of monster deals with CBS and ESPN that allow the SEC to pay out $17 million a year to each team and -- unlike the Big Ten -- still allow teams to negotiate their own local rights deals. The Pac-10 doesn't have as much leverage, but it owns the Los Angeles and Bay Area television markets, and that's a very big deal.

So while expansion wasn't on the agenda for the BCS meetings, it hangs over the proceedings. Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said that while he understood everyone wanted a sound bite to encapsulate the mood, he couldn't provide one. A few seconds later, he produced the perfect one.

"It's a little complicated right now," said Castiglione, who could find himself reporting to Slive instead of Beebe if realignment gets radical.

It's fitting that Castiglione used the phrase any Facebook member would use to describe a confusing courtship, because that's essentially what this is. Just ask Delany. "You're not trying to find somebody you're going to spend a year with," he said. "You're trying to figure out what you're going to be for the next 25 or 50 years."

Delany isn't going to propose this week, but he could propose soon. Big Ten athletic directors and presidents will do their homework. They will crunch the numbers. They may even go on a few dates. Then they'll authorize Delany to drop to one knee and invite one, three or five lucky schools to live in the mansion of a conference that boasts its own television network that could soon appear on the expanded basic cable systems in more than a third of American homes. That may not sound sexy to you, but to an athletic director and a university president, it's the equivalent of a flawless three-carat, round-cut diamond.

Delany said little of substance, but one nugget stood out. "It's possible," Delany said, "that we may act in a way that it would be more than a single member." That's his first public acknowledgment that the league might expand beyond 12 teams. Delany also said Big Ten presidents might not approve expansion at all, but why would the league put out a release in December announcing its plan to examine expansion without having some ducks already in a row?

As Delany spoke Wednesday, two non-media folks hung near the front of the room. The first was Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary who now serves as the chief spin doctor for the BCS. The second was WAC commissioner Karl Benson, who, like all of his colleagues, wanted to hear what one of the guys with a hammer had to say.

Because once Delany or Slive takes that first swing, the blow will reverberate through all of college athletics.

[Passacaglia]

As this all has snowballed, I'm getting confused. What's the advantage of going to more than 12 teams? I though the whole point was that 12 was the sweet spot where they could add a championship game, but not have to split the total money between too many teams. Wouldn't teams 13 and 14 be unable to bring in enough to warrant the cut they'll take?

[Toddzilla]

I think the advnatage is the added television money: More TV markets = more ad revenue = more cash. The Big10 being able to sell ad time on their network with Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn means a whole shit-ton more ad revenue.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Discussion over at ESPN about the basketball end of the Big Ten expansion........

Big Ten expansion: Making college hoops weird - College Basketball Nation Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/CollegeBasketballNation/post/_/id/11033/big-ten-expansion-making-college-hoops-weird)

[Ksyrup]

There's also this:


Big East expansion worry-o-meter (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21839/big-east-expansion-worry-o-meter)

April, 28, 2010 Apr 28
11:14
AM ET

Comment (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21839/big-east-expansion-worry-o-meter#comments) Email (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation#) Print (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/print?id=21839) Share (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var stobj = SHARETHIS.addEntry({title:"Big%20East%20expansion%20worry-o-meter",url:"http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21839/big-east-expansion-worry-o-meter",published: "2010-04-28"});stobj.attachButton(document.getElementById("espnstlink-21839"));</SCRIPT>
By Brian Bennett


So the Big Ten says it won't move on expansion until December. Still, we all know that timetables can change, and even if nothing happens over the next few months, fans and schools will be sweating out the potential ripple effects.

In that spirit, I present the first Big East expansion worry-o-meter. This is a list of which schools should be most nervous about the possible changing landscape. Programs are listed in order of least to most worried.

1. Rutgers: It's almost impossible to find a Big Ten expansion proposal that doesn't include Rutgers. The Scarlet Knight may not bring the best overall athletic program or a history of great football success. But they have the best geography, and the Big Ten seems infatuated with the possibility of gaining a foothold in the New York City market. And the Big Ten likes that Rutgers is a state flagship university.

2. Pittsburgh: Pitt doesn't bring a new market for the Big Ten. Yet that league appears to love the Panthers' academics and the strength of their overall sports program. Pitt figures to get invited in most scenarios that involve multiple teams.

3. Syracuse: If the Big Ten doesn't want Rutgers, it can always opt for Syracuse to try to invade New York. Or it could grab both to ensure that state's attention. Add in great academics and tradition, and Syracuse is a top candidate.

4. Connecticut: Unlike the first three schools on this list, UConn is not a member of the Association of American Universities, which may be a sticking point for the Big Ten. But word on the street is that Jim Delany really likes Connecticut. The Huskies have top-notch facilities, tremendous success in both men's and women's basketball and an improving football program. Their proximity to both New York City and Boston helps, too.

5. West Virginia: There's almost a zero percent chance that the Big Ten invites West Virginia. The Mountaineers are in a small state that doesn't bring much to the Big Ten Network, and they're not an AAU member. But the Mountaineers rank just below the leading contenders because whatever happens, they're going to be OK. The football and other sports programs are too good and have too much of a loyal, rabid fan base not to end up fine, even if that means getting gobbled up by the ACC or SEC.

6. Louisville: The Cardinals are in much the same boat as West Virginia. They're not going to the Big Ten -- it's just not a fit academically -- but they have the top revenue-generating basketball program in the country and a slew of other successful sports teams. They might face some initial problems if the Big East blows up, but eventually a BCS league would scoop them up.

7. South Florida: On the one hand, the Bulls have a huge and growing alumni base, are located in a major market and boast worlds of potential as a football program. On the other hand, their other sports programs haven't produced a lot to write home about, and the geography may work against them. Do Florida, Florida State and Miami really want another team in their state to join their league and compete for recruits/attention?

8. Cincinnati: Without a doubt, this is the team that needs to worry most about Big East destruction. The Bearcats just don't seem like a natural fit with the ACC or SEC. They've got a small stadium and a struggling overall athletic program saddled by debt. The one thing they have going for them is recent major success in football. That's something they need to keep going to stay relevant for what the future may hold.

[sabotai]

Don't know if this has been explained in the thread before, and I don't read too much on college sports, but I'm wondering if anyone really knows why a conference would care about academics so much. I've heard several people online and on ESPN mention how much the Big Ten cares about academics. What benefit does the Big Ten get from having teams with high academics? Is it mainly for PR and recruiting?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There's also this:

First five are all definite possibilities, but those last three shouldn't even be in the discussion. Mizzou or Nebraska would be pulled in before any of those last three schools.

Edit: Nevermind. Just noticed that's Big East only. My bad.

[Passacaglia]

First five are all definite possibilities, but those last three shouldn't even be in the discussion. Mizzou or Nebraska would be pulled in before any of those last three schools.

The article was about how Big Ten expansion affects Big East teams.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Don't know if this has been explained in the thread before, and I don't read too much on college sports, but I'm wondering if anyone really knows why a conference would care about academics so much. I've heard several people online and on ESPN mention how much the Big Ten cares about academics. What benefit does the Big Ten get from having teams with high academics? Is it mainly for PR and recruiting?

I mentioned earlier in the thread how Mizzou's main motivation to join the Big Ten has nothing to do with athletics. Mizzou would see significant increases in research money to the university by joining the Big Ten. We're talking as much as tens of millions in funding. It's a big deal.

[Ksyrup]

The article was about how Big Ten expansion affects Big East teams.

Yeah, the article isn't about who would be taken, but which Big East schools should be most worried if the Big Ten does expand.

[Klinglerware]

I mentioned earlier in the thread how Mizzou's main motivation to join the Big Ten has nothing to do with athletics. Mizzou would see significant increases in research money to the university by joining the Big Ten. We're talking as much as tens of millions in funding. It's a big deal.

In the Big Ten, revenue from research grant money still trumps athletic revenue by a huge margin. For example, Ohio State athletics generate about $120 million or so per year in revenue, but Ohio State's research entities generate about $650 million.

This is not to say that the Big Ten is the primary reason for Ohio State's research revenue success. However, the academic cooperation among the member schools certainly plays a part--the systems in place that promote resource sharing and other forms of cooperation often puts the Big Ten schools at an advantage when competing for grant money.

[dawgfan]

In the Big Ten, revenue from research grant money still trumps athletic revenue by a huge margin. For example, Ohio State athletics generate about $120 million or so per year in revenue, but Ohio State's research entities generate about $650 million.

This is not to say that the Big Ten is the primary reason for Ohio State's research revenue success. However, the academic cooperation among the member schools certainly plays a part--the systems in place that promote resource sharing and other forms of cooperation often puts the Big Ten schools at an advantage when competing for grant money.
Yep. It's a similar story with the Pac-10 - the research cooperation and grant money is significant.

[DeToxRox]

Just c/p this from another site:

----
Tom Dienhart of a certain other site Tweeted the following:

"Big Ten expansion buzz has league adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse and splitting into four, four-team divisions. "

Then tweeted the break down:

1 Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Penn State
2 Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota
3 Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois/Northwestern
4 Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois/Northwestern

[MrBug708]

If Mizzou and Nebraska leave the Big-12, I guess that ushers Texas to the PAC-10

[cartman]

If Mizzou and Nebraska leave the Big-12, I guess that ushers Texas to the PAC-10

or TCU and a MWC/CUSA team coming to the Big 12.

[Ksyrup]

If you have 4 divisions, you pretty much have to have a 4-team conference playoff, right?

Would (or does) the NCAA allow teams to add that potential extra "semifinal conference championship game" to their schedules? Isn't there some rule that you can only have 13 total games before bowls?

[molson]

Why do they need 4 divisions? They're not allowed to do a conference championship tournament, I don't think. And while it would make sense for scheduling purposes to try to preserve rivalries (you'd play everyone in your division every year), you wouldn't seperate Michigan and Ohio St.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just c/p this from another site:

----
Tom Dienhart of a certain other site Tweeted the following:

"Big Ten expansion buzz has league adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse and splitting into four, four-team divisions. "

Then tweeted the break down:

1 Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Penn State
2 Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota
3 Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois/Northwestern
4 Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois/Northwestern

This expansion plan makes a lot of sense. By adding Nebraska and Mizzou, they really nail down the STL and KC markets. They also really help the NY-area markets with the Rutgers/Syracuse additions. And of course, they add two very good regional rivalries to the mix with MU/Ill. and Pitt/PSU. Definitely the best layout thus far.

[MrBug708]

or TCU and a MWC/CUSA team coming to the Big 12.

Ya, I could see that happening as well, but you would also lose Colorado in a PAC-10 expansion so that's three teams to replace. Maybe add TCU, UNM, and Rice/Houston? Tulane?

[DeToxRox]

Why do they need 4 divisions? They're not allowed to do a conference championship tournament, I don't think. And while it would make sense for scheduling purposes to try to preserve rivalries (you'd play everyone in your division every year), you wouldn't seperate Michigan and Ohio St.

That is what I don't get. Seems all very strange.

[cartman]

Ya, I could see that happening as well, but you would also lose Colorado in a PAC-10 expansion so that's three teams to replace. Maybe add TCU, UNM, and Rice/Houston? Tulane?

Or Colorado State. Not sure if they would add another Texas team outside of TCU. But who knows.

[MrBug708]

Or Colorado State. Not sure if they would add another Texas team outside of TCU. But who knows.

Boise St? BYU? Probably just talk at this point, unless the PAC-10 turned into a huge West Conference and added Texas and Oklahoma as well :)

[albionmoonlight]

Who does the SEC take to get to 16 (assuming it follows suit)?

South Florida? WVU? Louisville?

[Ksyrup]

Why do they need 4 divisions? They're not allowed to do a conference championship tournament, I don't think. And while it would make sense for scheduling purposes to try to preserve rivalries (you'd play everyone in your division every year), you wouldn't seperate Michigan and Ohio St.

If they're guaranteed to play each other during the regular season, I'm sure they'd be happy not to be in the same division - assuming the division winners advance to a conference playoff. Why would they want to guarantee only one of them could play for the conference title and an automatic BCS berth? It'd be pretty much like the deal FSU and Miami set up in the ACC.

[DeToxRox]

Who does the SEC take to get to 16 (assuming it follows suit)?

South Florida? WVU? Louisville?

Florida State & Clemson would be my guess.

[sterlingice]

If Mizzou and Nebraska leave the Big-12, I guess that ushers Texas to the PAC-10

I would assume some competition from the SEC. Why wouldn't the SEC want to go try to take a bite out of the Big 12 and go for some combo of Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why do they need 4 divisions? They're not allowed to do a conference championship tournament, I don't think. And while it would make sense for scheduling purposes to try to preserve rivalries (you'd play everyone in your division every year), you wouldn't seperate Michigan and Ohio St.

I actually think it's pretty clear cut with 4 divisions for basketball. In basketball, you'd play each of the teams in your division twice (6 games) and then all the other teams once (12 games) for 18 games total.

In football, not quite as sure how that would work.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I would assume some competition from the SEC. Why wouldn't the SEC want to go try to take a bite out of the Big 12 and go for some combo of Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma?

SI

I agree with this. I think the most likely result is that the B12 would be dissolved with the big schools getting picked off by the Big 10, Pac-10, and SEC.

[Ksyrup]

Florida State & Clemson would be my guess.

I guess that's possible, but if you believe the stuff about there eventually being 4 16-team super-conferences, then who are the 4 conferences going to be?

Definite:

SEC
Big Ten
Pac 10

The fourth would either be the Big Twelve or the ACC, I'd say, with the either one of those conferences and the SEC fighting it out for the leftover teams from the east coast and midwestern states, and the Pac 10 swallowing up the best of the plains/western teams, right? So I guess it's possible that FSU/Clemson and maybe Miami/VT jump ship and the ACC folds, but it's equally likely the Big Twelve gets torn apart between the Big Ten, SEC and Pac 10.

[Toddzilla]

I would have to guess the SEC makes the big move and gets FSU, Miami, USF and either GT or Clemson.

[DeToxRox]

I guess that's possible, but if you believe the stuff about there eventually being 4 16-team super-conferences, then who are the 4 conferences going to be?

Definite:

SEC
Big Ten
Pac 10

The fourth would either be the Big Twelve or the ACC, I'd say, with the either one of those conferences and the SEC fighting it out for the leftover teams from the east coast and midwestern states, and the Pac 10 swallowing up the best of the plains/western teams, right? So I guess it's possible that FSU/Clemson and maybe Miami/VT jump ship and the ACC folds, but it's equally likely the Big Twelve gets torn apart between the Big Ten, SEC and Pac 10.

I think the ACC would take on WVU and USF for sure if they lost FSU/Clemson. They'd need to add one more team though to even things out and at that point I assume Notre Dame would be in the fold because otherwise they are totally phased out of the game.

That would leave the "new" ACC with Miami, Va Tech, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, North Carolina, Notre Dame. Definitely formidable.

[cartman]

I could see a scenario where the ACC blows up, and the Big 12 survives. The ACC is geographically more vulnerable than the Big 12, with a lot of overlap with the Big 10 and SEC. The southern ACC powers would join the SEC, and LSU and Arkansas would peel off to join the Big 12.

[Swaggs]

I don't see why Texas would go to the SEC or Pac 10 if it rebuffs overtures from the Big Ten. Particularly the SEC, since Texas seems to be a school that, if it would leave the Big 12, would be interested in being in an academic-minded sports conference.

I'm pretty sure that both Texas and Notre Dame realize that they don't have to be involved in this game of musical chairs if they choose not to be. Neither are going to be strong-armed into a conference. Notre Dame can obviously survive and do well on its own and Texas (w/ its other in-state allies) has enough pull that they can anchor a conference and it will be involved in the BCS.

I don't think the Big Ten goes to 16 schools without Texas and/or Notre Dame. I think the value of the Big Ten Network was obviously underrated when folks first started talking about expansion, but I still don't think that it will produce enough to feed five more non-Texas or Notre Dame mouths without taking money away from the existing schools.

The more I think about it, the more I think they move to twelve with either Missouri or Rutgers (either of whom can deliver a big enough in-state market + the title game to make the money work) or go to 14 with those two plus Nebraska or Pitt.

[albionmoonlight]

Living in the heart of ACC country, I can also say that there's a decent number of people who miss the days of a small conference dominated by basketball and the North Carolina schools.

That approach, clearly, seems like suicide in the current era of football motivated mega-expansion, but it might stay the ACC's hand a bit, causing it to miss out on the feeding frenzy.

[the_meanstrosity]

or TCU and a MWC/CUSA team coming to the Big 12.

This is what I've been hearing. TCU would be at the top of the list as a replacement.

I'm just a bit shocked the Big Ten is expanding this quickly. I assumed they'd add one to three teams now and then more later to eventually get to 16.

[Solecismic]

This is what I've been hearing. TCU would be at the top of the list as a replacement.

I'm just a bit shocked the Big Ten is expanding this quickly. I assumed they'd add one to three teams now and then more later to eventually get to 16.

I see no reason to expect the Big Ten to add more than one right now. They have the advantage of being able to react after the other major conferences, should they decide 14 or 16 is better.

The interesting side-story this week is the Big East may issue an ultimatum to Notre Dame - join in football, or else leave. It's designed to force Notre Dame to consider the Big Ten, so that the Big East doesn't lose Pitt.

[Kodos]

For my purposes, I want Connecticut to be one of the new Big Ten teams. That'd give me a lot more chances to see Indiana play in person.

[Young Drachma]

Don't know if this has been explained in the thread before, and I don't read too much on college sports, but I'm wondering if anyone really knows why a conference would care about academics so much. I've heard several people online and on ESPN mention how much the Big Ten cares about academics. What benefit does the Big Ten get from having teams with high academics? Is it mainly for PR and recruiting?

The Big Ten is actually an academic group that coincides with the athletic conference, unlike some of the other sports conferences that are sports only. So the fits then have more to do with just sports, but about making sure the schools priorities are the same. So it's important to have schools participating in the league that have those same sorts of academic values.

I mean, they're not the Ivy League or anything...but it works similarly. It's about having a shared set of core values and if a school comes in that doesn't have that, it's very hard to communicate in a common way.

In other words, it has everything to do with institutional politics and little to nothing to do with sports.

[MrBug708]

The PAC-10 is the same way. It's why BSU, Fresno State, SDSU don't get any offers to join the conference. (Besides lack of a relevant media market).

[sooner333]

Four team divisions would keep the eighteen-game basketball schedule intact. Home and home vs. your division, plus one game against the other twelve teams.

For football it's somewhat confusing unless they are allowed to run a playoff. Or, they do it by essentially having a playoff and then scheduling a game during that week for every team (division winners play each other, then division runner-ups play each other, etc.).

[Celeval]

For football, I'd imagine the conferences would be combined, and it'd be two 8-team conferences... that'd be the simplest solution.

[Swaggs]

The interesting side-story this week is the Big East may issue an ultimatum to Notre Dame - join in football, or else leave. It's designed to force Notre Dame to consider the Big Ten, so that the Big East doesn't lose Pitt.

I can't see this happening. The Big East non-football schools have an equal vote with the football schools (8 to 8) and the office is run out of Providence. The basketball schools would be shooting themselves in the foot if they booted Notre Dame. At worst now, they can break off and still have a pretty respectable basketball (and all-sports) conference (G-town, 'Nova, Notre Dame, Marquette are all routinely NCAA tourney teams w/ G-Town and 'Nova frequently in the top 20 and St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence, and DePaul have all been good in the past and help to seal up the Northeast market -- they can grab Xavier and St. Louis and have a pretty strong basketball conference). If they kick out Notre Dame and then the Big Ten still grabs some of Rutgers, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, then they are pretty much in the same spot w/o Notre Dame.

[Logan]

The Big East issuing the ultimatitum is exactly what would cause the quick breakup of the conference...if ND feels the pressure to join the Big 10, they then take Mizzou, Rutgers, Cuse, and Pitt because there won't be the added pressure of securing a big fish like Texas or Nebraska.

[tarcone]

Im curious about how the 4 team divisions work. Does that equate into a 4 team playoff system to find the Big10 champion?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Im curious about how the 4 team divisions work. Does that equate into a 4 team playoff system to find the Big10 champion?

Celeval has the most likely scenario. The 4 division setup is likely only for basketball. The football setup will join the divisions into two eight-team divisions.

I think the Big Ten and other schools/conferences are working much faster than most people realize judging from the local rumor mill overnight. There's no question at this point that the Big Ten will expand to 16. It's sounding like Mizzou is pretty much a done deal to the Big Ten. If Notre Dame doesn't bite, Nebraska will also go. Have also heard that if Mizzou and Nebraska leave the conference, Texas and Texas A&M are gone to the Pac-10. Absolutely zero chance they go to the SEC. Much like Mizzou, the Texas and A&M moves would be almost entirely financially motivated.

[Logan]

Agreed, I think everyone in the Big East already knows where they will land. When the conference hired Paul Tagliabue as a "consultant" and the first thing he did was bash Rutgers, that pretty much sealed the breakup to me.

[Ksyrup]

Knowing virtually nothing of the finances involved (except some info about TV contracts and payouts), what makes the Pac 10 a slam dunk move over the SEC for UT and TAMU? Just curious.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Knowing virtually nothing of the finances involved (except some info about TV contracts and payouts), what makes the Pac 10 a slam dunk move over the SEC for UT and TAMU? Just curious.

The research and education grants that would come the way of these school amount to tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. The Pac-10 and Big Ten offer huge financial incentives on the academic end of the spectrum. The Mizzou, Nebraska, Texas, and A&M are 90-95% academic decisions. Athletics has very little to do with these moves, even though the sports fans love to talk about the athletic ramifications of these moves.

[Swaggs]

Why wouldn't Texas and A&M just go to the Big Ten? That part doesn't add up to me, academically or athletically (not to mention the obvious fact that they would be in a different time zone from the rest of the conference).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why wouldn't Texas and A&M just go to the Big Ten? That part doesn't add up to me, academically or athletically (not to mention the obvious fact that they would be in a different time zone from the rest of the conference).

The Big Ten doesn't need to reach that far to get good members. They have plenty of good options much closer to home.

[Swaggs]

The Big Ten doesn't need to reach that far to get good members. They have plenty of good options much closer to home.

They have decent options closer to home, but Texas (and A&M) would essentially deliver the second most populous state's market, one of the nation's elite football brands, and one of the most prestigious public universities in the country. Not to mention access to one of the best recruiting areas in the nation.

I don't doubt that the Big Ten is going to grab a few Big 12 North and Big East teams and call it a day (although it will not surprise me a bit if they just add one team now). I just doubt that their first option (or second, after Notre Dame) was not Texas and that Texas, if they turned down the Big Ten, would find the Pac 10 more desirable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't doubt that the Big Ten is going to grab a few Big 12 North and Big East teams and call it a day (although it will not surprise me a bit if they just add one team now). I just doubt that their first option (or second, after Notre Dame) was not Texas and that Texas, if they turned down the Big Ten, would find the Pac 10 more desirable.

I'm not sure that they find it 'more desirable'. My understanding is that Texas was never seriously considered by the Big Ten. For Texas, the Pac-10 is the only other option if they want to get on the right end of the conference realignment and nail down some major funding.

And just to make sure it doesn't get taken the wrong way, I'm not downplaying Texas in any way. With a little closer proximity, I have no doubt that Texas would be a shoe-in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Notre Dame says that it will remain independent in football. That's not an option in the Big Ten, so that takes them out of the equation.

Notre Dame plans to remain independent in football, AD says, despite push from Big Ten (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2010/04/30/2010-04-30_notre_dame_plans_to_remain_independent_in_football_ad_says_despite_push_from_big.html)

[sooner333]

Let's say that Nebraska and Missouri go to the Big 10. Colorado goes to the Pac 10. The Big 12 is now the Big 9. Do they expand, or do they get poached by the SEC? The politics in Texas making poaching difficult. A&M would have to go with Texas (and that would make sense). Would the Tech and/or Baylor lobby get to go with them. Would the SEC take those teams? Would Oklahoma and Oklahoma State make sense? Or would the SEC look to the ACC and either expand into NC or expand their current base with FSU, GT, Clemson, and Miami?

[MrBug708]

The Big-East should draw a line in the sand and tell Notre Dame they need to be a full member or withdraw from the conference. Can Notre Dame exist as an independent in every sport it participates? I can't imagine the revenue it receives in basketball is anything that significant. If Notre Dame defects, the Big East can poach other team teams in response, no?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Let's say that Nebraska and Missouri go to the Big 10. Colorado goes to the Pac 10. The Big 12 is now the Big 9. Do they expand, or do they get poached by the SEC? The politics in Texas making poaching difficult. A&M would have to go with Texas (and that would make sense). Would the Tech and/or Baylor lobby get to go with them. Would the SEC take those teams? Would Oklahoma and Oklahoma State make sense? Or would the SEC look to the ACC and either expand into NC or expand their current base with FSU, GT, Clemson, and Miami?

We know that there's likely going to be 4-5 'mega conferences' once this is done. I'm guessing that how the Big East and ACC shake out will dictate this. I'm not sure the remaining B12 schools would be deciding as much as they would be reacting. I think this is a big reason why Mizzou and Nebraska want to jump now. They want to decide their destination rather than wait on the dominoes to fall and have their options limited.

[Kodos]

I wish the Big Ten teams would refuse to play Notre Dame in football unless they join the conference.

[albionmoonlight]

I wish the Big Ten teams would refuse to play Notre Dame in football unless they join the conference.

I have nothing against Notre Dame, but I agree that it benefits from a lot of enabling. If the Big 10 refused to play it in football for as long as it is independent, and if the Big East refused to let it be a "anything but football" member, then it is hard to see how it could stay independent in football.

[sooner333]

The Big 10 makes sense for those schools, at least in a academic and regional way. They don't like the way the Big 8 schools have been treated in the conference (which has likely been in large part due to Nebraska's fall from the top). Missouri makes more sense to me than Nebraska does as far as the Big 10's perspective, but if you want 16, you're probably going to have to expand a little further then you want to.

I think if the Big 12 lost Mizzou and Nebraska, they would be able to reload. They would take in TCU. And maybe they could take in a school like Utah or Houston. It would lower the conference prestige some, but TCU and Utah have been similar to Mizzou and Nebraska in recent years in football. The revenue would be the part that hurts.

If Colorado goes too, the Big 12 starts seeing problems. Not because Colorado is a crown jewel in the conference, but because you start wondering who you are going to get to replace. Utah might not jump if Colorado's not there. If the goal is to get to at least twelve, then the Big 12 is starting to run out of options, at least in-region. You see a situation where the SEC could try to get to 16. Although I don't see the SEC needing to expand because they don't have their own network like the Big 10 (sure, they have a syndicated network, but that's pretty much national anyway, and certainly in the region they would expand to). The Pac 10 would already have Colorado, and could shoot for Texas, but I don't see this as likely as other people do. Texas A&M is going wherever Texas goes, and the question is whether they fit in with what the Pac 10 wants.

[MrBug708]

I think Utah has a wink/nod with the PAC-10 already, I think it is up to Colorado. Not many other schools make sense unless BYU decides that it will allow its athletes to participate on Sunday

From the discussion I saw, if TAMU is what it takes to get Texas, I doubt that it would be too bad

[digamma]

We know that there's likely going to be 4-5 'mega conferences' once this is done.

We do?

[Toddzilla]

I wish the Big Ten teams would turn down a big pile of free cash and an easy win against Notre Dame in football unless they join the conference.fixed

[Kodos]

Sometimes principles are more important than cash. If ND is too good for the Big Ten, then they are too good to play Big Ten teams at all.

[gstelmack]

Notre Dame says that it will remain independent in football. That's not an option in the Big Ten, so that takes them out of the equation.

Notre Dame plans to remain independent in football, AD says, despite push from Big Ten (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2010/04/30/2010-04-30_notre_dame_plans_to_remain_independent_in_football_ad_says_despite_push_from_big.html)

I'd love to see the megaconferences form and then rescind Notre Dame's auto-lock into the BCS.

[Kodos]

I'd love to see the megaconferences form and then rescind Notre Dame's auto-lock into the BCS.

That would be AWESOME.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

We do?

If the Big 10 moves to 16 teams, you'll see the Pac-10 and Big East both quickly move to 14 or 16 teams as well. Then all that's left is to see how the Big 12, SEC, and ACC reshuffle. Best guess is that those three conferences take their remaining members and form two large conferences.

What's also becoming apparant is that the BCS will need to be juggled a bit to work in its current state.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have nothing against Notre Dame, but I agree that it benefits from a lot of enabling. If the Big 10 refused to play it in football for as long as it is independent, and if the Big East refused to let it be a "anything but football" member, then it is hard to see how it could stay independent in football.

Why? I mean, you say that as though ND would have a hard time replacing Purdue/Michigan/Michigan St/Pitt with other teams. The only one of those that might be a challenge to replace with equal stature would be Michigan & even then there are quite a few options.

Just glancing at ND's opponents over the last 30 years (I had to pick a time frame), the most often played non-B10/BE teams not on their 2010 schedule are Air Force, Miami, LSU, Georgia Tech, and Tennessee. That's not exactly a chopped liver group and ND is going to sell tickets pretty much no matter who/where they play. Would it be a shame to see some very traditional games lost? Sure. Would it have some sort of crippling effect on ND? Not a fucking chance.

[digamma]

If the Big 10 moves to 16 teams, you'll see the Pac-10 and Big East both quickly move to 14 or 16 teams as well. Then all that's left is to see how the Big 12, SEC, and ACC reshuffle. Best guess is that those three conferences take their remaining members and form two large conferences.

What's also becoming apparant is that the BCS will need to be juggled a bit to work in its current state.


That's a lot of ifs and guesses for you to state that we "know" something.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's a lot of ifs and guesses for you to state that we "know" something.

Not really. The only thing that needs to happen to trigger that chain is the Big Ten expansion to 16 teams, which has quickly become a primary focus. After that, it's very easy to see how it will all play out.

[I. J. Reilly]

Not really. The only thing that needs to happen to trigger that chain is the Big Ten expansion to 16 teams, which has quickly become a primary focus. After that, it's very easy to see how it will all play out.

Why would the Pac-10 go past 12 at this point? It’s still up in the air if they even want to add 2; unless they can hit a homerun and add Texas and aTm the numbers don’t make sense from the existing schools perspective.

[digamma]

Not really. The only thing that needs to happen to trigger that chain is the Big Ten expansion to 16 teams, which has quickly become a primary focus. After that, it's very easy to see how it will all play out.

Ha ha. OK, glad you have it figured out.

Have you worked out how a conference like the SEC is going to increase the television contract they just signed by 33% to account for the additional four teams they have to distribute proceeds to?

Considered how playing in a tougher conference and likely losing more games is going to affect a middle of the road SEC school like Auburn? What if they find themselves mired in mediocrity, and football ticket sales (which covers about 30% of their entire athletic budget) falls? Are alumni contributions going to drop? Is all of that going to be offset because of the invasion of Longhorns every four years (assuming they would be in different divisions)? What about their increased travel costs?

Point is, you're trying to make it as neat and simple as rearranging a few few files in your FBCB conference folder. There are a lot of smart people who have made a lot of money in these conference offices and at the school's athletic departments (particularly the SEC). We may end up with several "mega-conferences" but it is going to be because the math makes sense, not because the Big Ten and the SEC needs to "do something."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ha ha. OK, glad you have it figured out.

Have you worked out how a conference like the SEC is going to increase the television contract they just signed by 33% to account for the additional four teams they have to distribute proceeds to?

Considered how playing in a tougher conference and likely losing more games is going to affect a middle of the road SEC school like Auburn? What if they find themselves mired in mediocrity, and football ticket sales (which covers about 30% of their entire athletic budget) falls? Are alumni contributions going to drop? Is all of that going to be offset because of the invasion of Longhorns every four years (assuming they would be in different divisions)? What about their increased travel costs?

Point is, you're trying to make it as neat and simple as rearranging a few few files in your FBCB conference folder. There are a lot of smart people who have made a lot of money in these conference offices and at the school's athletic departments (particularly the SEC). We may end up with several "mega-conferences" but it is going to be because the math makes sense, not because the Big Ten and the SEC needs to "do something."

Sure, you can argue who it will be and how it will all fall, but it's going to end in less major conferences than we have right now.

[digamma]

Sure, you can argue who it will be and how it will all fall, but it's going to end in less major conferences than we have right now.

Which is different from 3-4 megaconferences.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Which is different from 3-4 megaconferences.

I believe my scenario laid out 5 'mega conferences' of 14-16 teams.

[I. J. Reilly]

I believe my scenario laid out 5 'mega conferences' of 14-16 teams.

But you haven’t explained the math yet.

Take the Pac-10; how does a 16 team league generate 60% more revenue than a 10 team league? And that’s just to break even from the existing schools perspective; they would need to see an increase in order to justify the wholesale changes.

[digamma]

Like I said, glad someone has it all figured out. Please post new conference and universe files ASAP.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Fewer major conferences.

[Easy Mac]

I'm salivating over the hairbrained idea of the sec as follows:

West: OK, UT, A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

East: Ark, UGA, FLA, Tenn, Vandy, USC, Kentucky, FSU

If 16 team conferences are inevitable, I can't be the only one who prefer it look like the following:

Big 16
PAC 16
SEC (16)
ACC/Big East hybrid (16) **would likely need CUSA teams**
MWC/WAC/B12 hybrid (16)
MAC/CUSA hybrid (16)
Leftover teams from Sun Belt, CUSA, MAC, MWC, WAC (16)
Notre Dame and the service academies (3)

That would mean a few teams would have to move down to 1-aa, but I'm fine with that. Or just add 8 more teams (I think) to go to eight 16 team conferences.

[Celeval]

I believe my scenario laid out 5 'mega conferences' of 14-16 teams.

Ok, call it 3x14 and 2x16 = 74 teams. There are currently 67 BCS teams. Add Boise State, Utah, BYU, and TCU as the supposed no-brainers.

Which other three are getting pulled in?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile the NCAA has certified 35 bowl games for next year, a total of 70 of the 120 D1 teams are due to go bowling (even if 1 or 2 have a losing record).
edit to add: Those certifications are good through 2014

[Ksyrup]

I don't think anyone's pointed out the best possible result of all this reshuffling (unless I've missed it in this thread somewhere)... Jim would almost certainly have to release TCY2 to keep the game semi-relevant rather than just small updates to the schedule!

[RendeR]

allowing 70 teams to get bowl games is fucking retarded. Bowls are meaningless that way.


just my grumpy nickel, please carry on!

[Solecismic]

allowing 70 teams to get bowl games is fucking retarded. Bowls are meaningless that way.


just my grumpy nickel, please carry on!

That ship sailed somewhere between 20 and 30 teams.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ok, call it 3x14 and 2x16 = 74 teams. There are currently 67 BCS teams. Add Boise State, Utah, BYU, and TCU as the supposed no-brainers.

Which other three are getting pulled in?

Obviously, we'll never know for sure. I'm guessing that Memphis and Houston would both be prime options for selection, especially if the Big 12 teams decided to stay together. No matter which way you go, there's going to be a couple of watered down teams selected at the end.

[RendeR]

Obviously, we'll never know for sure. I'm guessing that Memphis and Houston would both be prime options for selection, especially if the Big 12 teams decided to stay together. No matter which way you go, there's going to be a couple of watered down teams selected at the end.


At the end? wtf? the entire system is watered down past oh, say 30 teams.....

[dawgfan]

But you haven’t explained the math yet.

Take the Pac-10; how does a 16 team league generate 60% more revenue than a 10 team league? And that’s just to break even from the existing schools perspective; they would need to see an increase in order to justify the wholesale changes.
You don't think a 16-team Pac consisting of the old Pac-8 schools in one group and the Arizona schools joined by Colorado, Utah, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska & Oklahoma wouldn't increase the revenue per school for the entire conference?

Not to mention, a 16-team conference works out a lot better for scheduling than expanding to 12 does. With a 16-team conference, the old Pac-8 could be one division and all those schools would continue with a round-robin schedule (assuaging the issues the PNW schools have in potentially losing annual trips to LA) plus 1 or 2 rotating games with teams in the other division.

[Swaggs]

You don't think a 16-team Pac consisting of the old Pac-8 schools in one group and the Arizona schools joined by Colorado, Utah, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska & Oklahoma wouldn't increase the revenue per school for the entire conference?



Probably not as much as just adding Texas and Colorado and then having a championship game would.

For example, I have a tough time seeing Utah creating enough revenue for the Pac 10 to justify the other teams creating another slice of the pie.

[MrBug708]

Most of the talk is designed to coincide with the PAC-10's television contract being up. If the PAC-10 can add a conference championship game as well as 2-6 more teams, it will surely up the ante

[Swaggs]

Maybe Jim Delany really is the smartest commisioner in all of sports (pro or college). The Big Ten actually has the base to expand itself to 14 or 16 and be just fine. If the other conferences follow along, they could succeed, but they could just as easily find themselves with too many mouths to feed and end up setting themselves back while the Big Ten continues to move forward.

The other interesting piece to this is that the Big Ten Network is, to the best of my knowledge, jointly owned by the eleven Big Ten schools (51%) and Fox (49%). Will the existing teams sell their shares to the new teams and, if so, for how much? I cannot imagine a scenario where they agree to split that 51% sixteen-ways, rather than eleven-ways without the new schools spending millions (tens or hundreds of millions?) to buy their way in.

[I. J. Reilly]

You don't think a 16-team Pac consisting of the old Pac-8 schools in one group and the Arizona schools joined by Colorado, Utah, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska & Oklahoma wouldn't increase the revenue per school for the entire conference?

Not to mention, a 16-team conference works out a lot better for scheduling than expanding to 12 does. With a 16-team conference, the old Pac-8 could be one division and all those schools would continue with a round-robin schedule (assuaging the issues the PNW schools have in potentially losing annual trips to LA) plus 1 or 2 rotating games with teams in the other division.

Well, that’s kind of my point. We have to create a perfect scenario before it starts to look good. And as far as your list goes, let’s dump Utah and bring along Oklahoma State to maintain the regional rivalries.

As far as generating more revenue with these new teams, it’s a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum. It will be impossible for the Pac to pull those schools in without a lucrative TV contract, or their own network, and it will be impossible to negotiate those without having a proven commodity to bargain with. So the most likely scenario is that each school coming into the new Pac will have to take a leap of faith, signing up without really knowing how much revenue they will be gaining. It still makes sense for Utah to jump at it, and probably for Colorado too with the uneven TV distribution of the current Big-12, but not many other schools will be happy with that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The other interesting piece to this is that the Big Ten Network is, to the best of my knowledge, jointly owned by the eleven Big Ten schools (51%) and Fox (49%). Will the existing teams sell their shares to the new teams and, if so, for how much? I cannot imagine a scenario where they agree to split that 51% sixteen-ways, rather than eleven-ways without the new schools spending millions (tens or hundreds of millions?) to buy their way in.

The percentage of ownership between the conference and Fox would remain the same, but you'd obviously have a 25-30% increase in games on the network and an increase in revenue with markets like KC and STL along with the East Coast making a change in what tier the network was located on. So you see an ad revenue and a subscriber revenue increase as far as network revenues go.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

As far as generating more revenue with these new teams, it’s a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum. It will be impossible for the Pac to pull those schools in without a lucrative TV contract, or their own network, and it will be impossible to negotiate those without having a proven commodity to bargain with. So the most likely scenario is that each school coming into the new Pac will have to take a leap of faith, signing up without really knowing how much revenue they will be gaining. It still makes sense for Utah to jump at it, and probably for Colorado too with the uneven TV distribution of the current Big-12, but not many other schools will be happy with that.

Just so you're aware, most of the BCS conferences are planning to follow the Big Ten model when their current TV contract runs out. The Big 12 is already talking about setting up their own network. SEC is looking to do one as well. I've heard that the Pac-10 is waiting for expansion before diving into that, but that may come sooner rather than later at this point.

[Swaggs]

The percentage of ownership between the conference and Fox would remain the same, but you'd obviously have a 25-30% increase in games on the network and an increase in revenue with markets like KC and STL along with the East Coast making a change in what tier the network was located on. So you see an ad revenue and a subscriber revenue increase as far as network revenues go.

I understand that there will be additional revenue and I think the Big Ten can make it work so that its current teams will, at worst, remain at the same income level. I also know that the percentage of ownership between Fox and the schools will, almost certainly, stay the same. And, we can also assume that the new schools are going to increase their revenue by joining up.

I'm more interested in what the dynamics of ownership (of the schools' portion) within the Big Ten Network will be. It doesn't make sense for the existing schools, who each own a little less than 4.5% of the network to let five new schools into an already profitable venture (where the risk has already been assumed and overcome) and lessen their shares to roughly 3% (even if a percentage becomes worth more) without the new schools earning ownership, somehow.

I'm sure there are smarter folks than us that are working on this, at all levels, right now. I'm just curious as to how it will work.

[I. J. Reilly]

Just so you're aware, most of the BCS conferences are planning to follow the Big Ten model when their current TV contract runs out. The Big 12 is already talking about setting up their own network. SEC is looking to do one as well. I've heard that the Pac-10 is waiting for expansion before diving into that, but that may come sooner rather than later at this point.

I think a lot of the “we’re going to start our own network!” talk is simply posturing before they sit down to actually hammer out a deal ESPN/ABC/FoxSports/CBS et al. My guess is that all of the conferences will launch something they call a “network,” but it will look a lot more like ESPN3 than The Big-Ten Network

[JonInMiddleGA]

SEC is looking to do one as well.

Umm, the SEC pretty much abandoned that notion when they signed the largest conference TV deal (jointly, with CBS & ESPN) in history back in 2008, it runs through 2023.

[sooner333]

Umm, the SEC pretty much abandoned that notion when they signed the largest conference TV deal (jointly, with CBS & ESPN) in history back in 2008, it runs through 2023.

Yep. What is the SEC Network is simply a re-branding and nationalization through better syndicaiton of the Jefferson Pilot/Raycom deal.

[Swaggs]

Does anyone know how long the Big Ten Network was in development before it took to the air?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Does anyone know how long the Big Ten Network was in development before it took to the air?

Roughly a year or so, best I can tell from Googling to find vague references to it's being founded in 2006 (board of directors formed 10/19/06) with on-air debut in fall 2007. Nothing I've found seems to indicate how long Fox & the conference were in negotiations before an agreement was reached.

[Young Drachma]

The fact that there are too many bowls is okay. I mean, there's no playoff and so there's no reason to prevent players from participating in postseason games since they work hard all year and to go largely to locales that aren't glamorous unless it's one of the better bowl games.

Even though it ends up costing schools more than they make in many cases, who cares about postseason integrity if the games are just glorified exhibitions anyway?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm having a hard time following this thread by now, but DeToxRox promised me Big 10 expansion back in January. Has this shit happened yet?

[molson]

I'm having a hard time following this thread by now, but DeToxRox promised me Big 10 expansion back in January. Has this shit happened yet?

I'm pretty close to just expecting that nothing at all happens.

Also - wasn't the USC/NCAA stuff supposed to happen this week?

Nothing ever happens. Except old ladies doing their grandkids.

[Pumpy Tudors]

But the insiders said it was going to happen... :(

[dawgfan]

Well, that’s kind of my point. We have to create a perfect scenario before it starts to look good. And as far as your list goes, let’s dump Utah and bring along Oklahoma State to maintain the regional rivalries.
Oklahoma State doesn't have nearly enough TV market pull. Salt Lake City is the nation's #31 ranked media market, ahead of places like San Antonio, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Memphis, New Orleans, etc.

Utah wouldn't help a new Pac-10 TV contract as much as Colorado would, but it's not far off.

Besides, as far as regional rivalries go, Utah/Colorado wouldn't be creating a new rivalry, it would be reviving a long-standing existing rivalry. Rivalries would work out just fine in the 16-team arrangement I suggested.

And I still maintain that 16 teams makes a lot more sense in many ways than 12 teams, especially if the 16 includes Texas (and that's probably the only way you get Texas).

Whether or not the resulting conference is technically the Pac-10 absorbing big chunks of the Big-12, or whether it gets described as more of a "merger" or partnership, whatever - I think if the Pac is going to expand, don't pussy-foot around - go big and do it right. Be proactive instead of reactive.

[kcchief19]

I agree with this. I think the most likely result is that the B12 would be dissolved with the big schools getting picked off by the Big 10, Pac-10, and SEC.
I've said from the beginning of all this that any one team leaving the Big 12 is a death knell for the league. There is simply no logical solution to replacing any one team, much less more than one team. Missouri to the Big 10 and Colorado to the Pac 10 seem like very likely probabilities at this point.

The Big 12 isn't going to peel anyone away from the SEC, Big 10 or Pac 10 because those conferences have better TV deals and league structure. The Big 12 would turn to Arkansas to replace Missouri but Arkansas is not leaving the SEC.

The most logical teams for the Big 12 to pursue are TCU, BYU, Utah, Houston, UTEP and Tulsa. Some of those are nice schools but they simply aren't Big 12 mega-conference material.

If the Big 10 expands to 14-16 teams, you have to think the Pac 10 and SEC will follow suit. Maybe Texas ends up in a bidding war between the two, but I've read the Pac 10 wants Texas and might be willing to take A&M and Tech to make it happen. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be looking for a life raft too, and the Pace 10 or SEC would be good fits. In a mega expansion of the Big 10, I think Missouri and Nebraska both join.

The schools that should be scared are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. I don't see a home for them unless they convince the Big 10 to take them. Whoever gets left out of the conference free for all is going to end up in a place they don't want to be, like Conference USA.

[dawgfan]

The schools that should be scared are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. I don't see a home for them unless they convince the Big 10 to take them. Whoever gets left out of the conference free for all is going to end up in a place they don't want to be, like Conference USA.
Kansas has the best shot of those three to get scooped up by a major conference. Their basketball program would be a boon to any conference, their football program is respectable, their academic status is good enough for the Pac-10 and Big-10, and Kansas City roughly comparable to Salt Lake City in terms of media market size.

I could see the Pac-10 debating the merits of Kansas vs. Oklahoma if they decided to expand to 16. Kansas has an edge on Oklahoma in terms of academics, and that's not an afterthought factor...

[the_meanstrosity]

I honestly don't see the Big 12 going anywhere unless Texas and Texas A&M elect to leave (which I doubt happens). People forget that the current Big 12 tv contract is much smaller than the SEC and Big Ten packages because they elected to make a short term deal due to the fact they couldn't come to an agreement on revenue sharing. If the Big 12 presidents are smart they'll all come to an agreement and either start their own network or sign a long term deal with a cable company. The Big 12 will never make as much as the Big Ten or the SEC, but they have enough pull that they can garner something within range.

[dawgfan]

So if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10 and Utah joins them, who does the Big-12 go after to replace Colorado? And if the Big-10 peels away a team or two also?

[DeToxRox]

So if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10 and Utah joins them, who does the Big-12 go after to replace Colorado? And if the Big-10 peels away a team or two also?

TCU would make the most sense at least from an athletics perspective.

[the_meanstrosity]

So if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10 and Utah joins them, who does the Big-12 go after to replace Colorado? And if the Big-10 peels away a team or two also?

If the Big 12 is smart they would be talking to TCU, BYU, and Utah. BYU and Utah would be placed in the north division and TCU is placed in the south. Of course you have to wonder if the Pac 10 would just stop expanding with Colorado.

[dawgfan]

If the Big 12 is smart they would be talking to TCU, BYU, and Utah. BYU and Utah would be placed in the north division and TCU is placed in the south. Of course you have to wonder if the Pac 10 would just stop expanding with Colorado.
If the Pac-10 expands with Colorado, they'll also be taking Utah to make it an even 12. Unless they go big and try to pull 4 more teams from the Big-12...

[MrBug708]

Utah is already a forgone conclusion when the PAC-10 expands. Colorado gets the public mention because people have basically written in Utah with the PAC-10.

Adding BYU means the conference can't play games on Sunday. Not sure how that would work with certain games. Just glancing at Texas' baseball schedule, looks like baseball games are played Sunday. That is one of two reasons the PAC-10 isnt considering BYU to add to their conference

[Young Drachma]

Oh and Colorado had been invited to the PAC-10 once before and their existence in the Big 12 isn't exactly all roses; largely for competitive reasons, but in general, the PAC-10 is just a better for the more academically minded CU.

[dawgfan]

And there seems to be growing evidence that Colorado would like to join the Pac-10 - see the comments by Colorado's Chancellor in this article:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14979982

[Celeval]

Adding BYU means the conference can't play games on Sunday. Not sure how that would work with certain games. Just glancing at Texas' baseball schedule, looks like baseball games are played Sunday. That is one of two reasons the PAC-10 isnt considering BYU to add to their conference

IIRC, when it hits the NCAA tournament, BYU typically has a Friday-Saturday-Monday schedule.

[JeffNights]

It was briefly mention before..but this thread is somewhat Ironic in its reasoning, we are discussing this as if these conferences are basing everying on 90% Athletics, whereas in reality the University presidents care much more and base all this on 90% Academics.

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.

[kcchief19]

If the Big 12 is smart they would be talking to TCU, BYU, and Utah. BYU and Utah would be placed in the north division and TCU is placed in the south. Of course you have to wonder if the Pac 10 would just stop expanding with Colorado.
If the Big 12 were smart they would be looking at landing a decent TV deal or creating their own network and sharing revenues like the Big 10 so that Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado or anyone else wouldn't want to leave. If the Big 12 agreed to a TV revenue sharing deal like the Big 10, Missouri wouldn't want to leave.

No offense to fans of TCU, BYU or Utah, but the Big 12 would no longer be a major conference if those schools are in the conference.

[MrBug708]

If the Big 12 were smart they would be looking at landing a decent TV deal or creating their own network and sharing revenues like the Big 10 so that Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado or anyone else wouldn't want to leave. If the Big 12 agreed to a TV revenue sharing deal like the Big 10, Missouri wouldn't want to leave.

No offense to fans of TCU, BYU or Utah, but the Big 12 would no longer be a major conference if those schools are in the conference.

Huh?

[BishopMVP]

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.The Big 10 is considering adding UConn... I agree that Texas Tech would be a stretch, but I could easily see the PAC-10 agreeing to a UT/aTm package deal.

[dawgfan]

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.
Not sure what you're talking about. While I agree that the Pac-10 is unlikely to go after Texas Tech, there's no reason I can see that they wouldn't offer Texas A&M along with U of Texas. First off, you're wrong that A&M isn't part of the AAU, and secondly there are a few Pac-10 schools that aren't (ASU, OSU, WSU). Thirdly, A&M is one of the more significant research universities in the country.

[the_meanstrosity]

It was briefly mention before..but this thread is somewhat Ironic in its reasoning, we are discussing this as if these conferences are basing everying on 90% Athletics, whereas in reality the University presidents care much more and base all this on 90% Academics.

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.

Edited since Dawgfan covered my point regarding A&M being in the AAU not to mention they are ranked slightly better than Colorado in the US News and World Report rankings.

[the_meanstrosity]

If the Big 12 were smart they would be looking at landing a decent TV deal or creating their own network and sharing revenues like the Big 10 so that Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado or anyone else wouldn't want to leave. If the Big 12 agreed to a TV revenue sharing deal like the Big 10, Missouri wouldn't want to leave.

No offense to fans of TCU, BYU or Utah, but the Big 12 would no longer be a major conference if those schools are in the conference.

Well, the Big 12 is indeed looking into creating their own network. They must wait till their current deal expires in 2015 (I think) before they can put plans to a new one. As for the revenue sharing, that right now is the major sticking point. Hopefully with NU, CU, and MU all showing interest in other conferences the Big 12 will finally get their act together and come up with an agreement.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's an article with the three likely scenarios for expansion (one, three and five teams). All three involve Missouri moving and then other teams based on how many more they add.

The Big Ten is on the verge of adding one, three or - 05.03.10 - SI Vault (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1168948/index.htm)

[Logan]

It was briefly mention before..but this thread is somewhat Ironic in its reasoning, we are discussing this as if these conferences are basing everying on 90% Athletics, whereas in reality the University presidents care much more and base all this on 90% Academics,

And there are many on here who understand that the 90% athletics is related to the money that it generates, and the 90% academics is related to the money generated/afforded to that.

[BishopMVP]

Is Missouri or Colorado alone left and the Big XII grabbed TCU, would TCU go to the North division? I can't imagine them splitting up Ok/Ok St. If both leave, would they add TCU and Houston/Rice and go to an all-Texas South division?

[JeffNights]

And there are many on here who understand that the 90% athletics is related to the money that it generates, and the 90% academics is related to the money generated/afforded to that.


The money universities gets from being major research institutions DWARFS the money that College Football generates, sorry.

[JeffNights]

Is Missouri or Colorado alone left and the Big XII grabbed TCU, would TCU go to the North division? I can't imagine them splitting up Ok/Ok St. If both leave, would they add TCU and Houston/Rice and go to an all-Texas South division?

If one leaves, the other will follow, and it will be the last one left in the BIG12 turn out the lights.

[CU Tiger]

The money universities gets from being major research institutions DWARFS the money that College Football generates, sorry.


That varies GREATLY based on the University...

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account. Do they really get 50-100M annually in education grants?

I am sure the Medical schools probably do, but your average engineering (and admitedly this may be a horrible example as I have no knowledge of UT's med program) school i doubt gets these kind of donations ANNUALLY

[miked]

GATech likely gets wayyyy more money from research than from football.

[Celeval]

That varies GREATLY based on the University...

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account. Do they really get 50-100M annually in education grants?

According to The University of Tennessee: UT Among Top National Public Universities (http://www.utk.edu/features/rankings.shtml), UT's research grants were $179M in 2009. $24M of that alone is from the NSF.

[molson]

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

[Celeval]

...and those may not be the right numbers. According to Research- The Center for Measuring University Performance (http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html), looking at 2006 (most recent data I could find easily on that site), UTK had $240M total research money, which ranked 70th. The lowest DI school in the top 200 was San Diego State, with $34M, they were 197th.

[Celeval]

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

Much of it, sure. And I don't know that anyone is making the argument that research grant $ is dollar for dollar more important than athletic revenue - but keeping that stream intact is just as high if not higher a priority.

[flounder]

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

Schools get a cut of all research grants for overhead. Plus a lot of the money goes to pay professors' salaries, saving the school more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account.

And the benefit extends well beyond the money that the Athletic Foundation puts back into the school in direct cash. Without them, the promotion of the school itself suffers, the interest in the school itself suffers, & with that the willingness to donate to the university as a whole declines.

(and admitedly this may be a horrible example as I have no knowledge of UT's med program) school i doubt gets these kind of donations

It's actually quite good.

[miked]

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

For the University at which I work, they get $0.53 for every dollar I bring in. It's not out of my money either. If I get a grant from the NIH for 1M, the University gets an extra 530k for overheads and such. Most of that goes to the Dean's office, provost, etc, to pay for salaries and other expenses (building maintenance). So if a University gets 300M in NIH funding alone, that brings back over 150M in overheads (like PIT, though I'm sure it's more). It also varies by funding agency (some only allow 10% overhead).

The University gets a nice shot from research dollars as it brings in donors, private companies, employs a lot of people, and brings in prestige.

[gstelmack]

And yet they still keep skyrocketing tuition rates...

[miked]

And yet they still keep skyrocketing tuition rates...

Well, they always tell us research is a money-losing business (remember, they are non-profits). The amount of infrastructure to support research (equipment, buildings, pre-grants staff, post-grants staff) is quite large. Now I'm not saying I agree or even can see the books, but the prestige prominent research brings is quite high. That and many institutions have profit centers set up for licensing technology so it can be quite lucrative. But the tuition part bugs me too. From what I hear, most of the monies brought in from grants go to support the medical schools and very little is transferred over to liberal arts and the regular college.

[Samdari]

especially if the 16 includes Texas (and that's probably the only way you get Texas).


Actually, there are rumblings from Texas of a virginia like state government nixing of a UT conference move that would leave Texas A&M/Texas Tech behind. They won't be going to the Big-10/Pac-10 without A&M and Tech.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Actually, there are rumblings from Texas of a virginia like state government nixing of a UT conference move that would leave Texas A&M/Texas Tech behind. They won't be going to the Big-10/Pac-10 without A&M and Tech.

Yeah, that's been the case for some time. Those universities are a package deal. All or nothing.

[Abe Sargent]

That varies GREATLY based on the University...

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account. Do they really get 50-100M annually in education grants?

I am sure the Medical schools probably do, but your average engineering (and admitedly this may be a horrible example as I have no knowledge of UT's med program) school i doubt gets these kind of donations ANNUALLY


According to CNN/Si only 9 schools in teh country bring in enough money from their football programs to not only prop up teh rest of athletics, but also to contribute top teh school's general fund . Everybody uses it to prop up non-revenue sports, bu tvery few have enough to rollover. Just nine schools.

[Samdari]

Yeah, that's been the case for some time. Those universities are a package deal. All or nothing.

That makes Texas much less a slam dunk revenue producing machine. Adding three mouths for essentially the same increase in revenue.

The amount of infrastructure to support research (equipment, buildings, pre-grants staff, post-grants staff) is quite large.

And that is largely paid for by the school "taxing" research money on the way in the front door. Schools typically lop 40% off the top to pay for overhead.

[Klinglerware]

According to CNN/Si only 9 schools in teh country bring in enough money from their football programs to not only prop up teh rest of athletics, but also to contribute top teh school's general fund . Everybody uses it to prop up non-revenue sports, bu tvery few have enough to rollover. Just nine schools.

Yes, most athletics programs do not generate enough revenue after expenses that could be rolled over outside of the athletics department.

But I think it was Jon who nailed it on the head with why Universities put an emphasis on athletics even though it is usually a money-loser: athletics are a useful tool to promote the University "brand", to build equity and awareness with prospective students and people not associated with the school, and to act as both an interest generator and conduit for overall "institutional development" (i.e., fund-raising) for targeted (read: wealthy) alumni and other prospective donors of interest (i.e., again, wealthy ones).

[sterlingice]

Yes, most athletics programs do not generate enough revenue after expenses that could be rolled over outside of the athletics department.

And even those that could, it's kindof like an executive budget- if you have some spare change at the end of the year, I'm sure it will get spent on something worth the price like a gold plated bathtub for the Athletic Director's private bathroom.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

My co-worker is a Davidson alum. She keeps moderately on the pulse of what's going on there, and she said that applications spiked sharply after Davidson's NCCA run with Stephon Curry a couple years ago.

Now, I am not sure whether the increase in the quantity of applications actually increased the quality of admitted students, but it is an anecdote worth noting.

It probably would not be that hard to look at schools that have recently become national players in men's basketball or football (Butler, Gonzaga, Boise State, TCU, probably about 5 obvious ones that I am forgetting) and see whether you can also spot an increase in alumni donations and/or admitted student quality.

[dawgfan]

Actually, there are rumblings from Texas of a virginia like state government nixing of a UT conference move that would leave Texas A&M/Texas Tech behind. They won't be going to the Big-10/Pac-10 without A&M and Tech.
I think everyone pondering Pac-10 expansion knows that Texas is a package deal with Texas A&M, and that's doable. If Tech is also a requirement, that might be a different story - it further dilutes the revenue bump from adding Texas. But it may still prove viable...

[cuervo72]

So...is this meeting still scheduled for tomorrow?

[digamma]

So...is this meeting still scheduled for tomorrow?

Yes, but every day they reschedule it for the next tomorrow.

[miked]

I thought it was set that invites were going out to ND, PIT, and MIZZOU.

[I. J. Reilly]

I think everyone pondering Pac-10 expansion knows that Texas is a package deal with Texas A&M, and that's doable. If Tech is also a requirement, that might be a different story - it further dilutes the revenue bump from adding Texas. But it may still prove viable...

The Pac-10 should jump at the Texas schools, even if they have to take Baylor and Tech. While the current schools may not see a huge revenue bump right of the bat, being the main conference in both CA and TX would be a pretty nice recruiting footprint.

[albionmoonlight]

Insiders now say that every Division I, II, and III school in the country is merging into the Big-Eleventy-Billion.

Notre Dame will remain independent in football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And even those that could, it's kindof like an executive budget- if you have some spare change at the end of the year, I'm sure it will get spent on something worth the price like a gold plated bathtub for the Athletic Director's private bathroom.

Riiiiight.

In FY 2010, the Tennessee athletic department handed over $10.3 million dollars to the general fund. And that's not counting over $4m the department paid in sales tax, nor the nearly $24m take on sales tax from concessions & tickets alone, nor that they're funding Title IX requirements with only $1m in state money (similar programs are getting $2.5m to $8m in that area).

I think Mike Hamilton (the AD) is an idiot, but the money isn't going into gold plated tubs there.

[MrBug708]

I think everyone pondering Pac-10 expansion knows that Texas is a package deal with Texas A&M, and that's doable. If Tech is also a requirement, that might be a different story - it further dilutes the revenue bump from adding Texas. But it may still prove viable...

If they can grab Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Utah and they are forced to take Texas Tech, that leaves them at 15. I would assume that Oklahoma would be a natural 16th team? If not them, then UNLV?

[dawgfan]

If they can grab Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Utah and they are forced to take Texas Tech, that leaves them at 15. I would assume that Oklahoma would be a natural 16th team? If not them, then UNLV?
From a football perspective, I'm sure they'd love to take Oklahoma. From an academic standpoint though, I think they'd prefer Nebraska.

It's probably a pipe-dream though - I'm afraid the Pac-10 Presidents are too conservative to act this boldly. And besides, they'd have to convince Texas that their revenues would increase, and at this point it's all speculation until they get a new TV deal and start figuring out a Pac-10 network and what kind of revenue that could generate.

[MrBug708]

One thing that has its advatange is that the UC president is also the former University of Texas president. (Not the school but the system) Most of the smaller schols would have to agree. The usual detractors are the California schools. If the UC's are on board, it probably would fall fairly quickly

[Eaglesfan27]

One thing that has its advatange is that the UC president is also the former University of Texas president. (Not the school but the system) Most of the smaller schols would have to agree. The usual detractors are the California schools. If the UC's are on board, it probably would fall fairly quickly

I think the schools in the northwest (Washington, WSU, Oregon and Oregon State) are going to be against it as well unless a plan is written up that keeps their trips to Los Angeles intact.

[sterlingice]

Riiiiight.

In FY 2010, the Tennessee athletic department handed over $10.3 million dollars to the general fund. And that's not counting over $4m the department paid in sales tax, nor the nearly $24m take on sales tax from concessions & tickets alone, nor that they're funding Title IX requirements with only $1m in state money (similar programs are getting $2.5m to $8m in that area).

I think Mike Hamilton (the AD) is an idiot, but the money isn't going into gold plated tubs there.

I was speaking towards the schools that weren't the 9 that actually put money towards the general fund. Honestly, I was surprised that any did.

SI

[MrBug708]

I think the schools in the northwest (Washington, WSU, Oregon and Oregon State) are going to be against it as well unless a plan is written up that keeps their trips to Los Angeles intact.

Washington might have some pull and maybe oregon as well, but the every other year visit would probably be offset by the foray into Texas

[dawgfan]

I think the schools in the northwest (Washington, WSU, Oregon and Oregon State) are going to be against it as well unless a plan is written up that keeps their trips to Los Angeles intact.
If the Pac-10 were to go to 16 teams, I would guess it would operate more as two loosely affiliated conferences, with the old Pac-8 schools in one division and playing a full round-robin inter-division schedule plus 1-2 rotating games against teams from the other division (the Arizona schools, Utah, Colorado and whatever Texas schools and/or Nebraska/Oklahoma).

That would eliminate any concerns from the PNW schools about losing the annual trip to L.A. The only real scheduling issue would be how to schedule the 1-2 games with teams in the other division.

[the_meanstrosity]

From a football perspective, I'm sure they'd love to take Oklahoma. From an academic standpoint though, I think they'd prefer Nebraska.

It's probably a pipe-dream though - I'm afraid the Pac-10 Presidents are too conservative to act this boldly. And besides, they'd have to convince Texas that their revenues would increase, and at this point it's all speculation until they get a new TV deal and start figuring out a Pac-10 network and what kind of revenue that could generate.

Maybe I'm naive here, but why would any Big 12 team outside of Colorado be interested in the Pac 10? If the Texas schools leave the Big 12, I would think it'd be for a conference like the SEC that already has a large tv contract in place.

No matter how this Big 10 expansion shakes out, I see the Big 12 remaining simply because Texas, Texas A&M, etc have little to gain from leaving. The SEC is the next big threat to expand and I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after a few ACC schools. The Big 12's tv contract is up in 2015 which means they'll likely create their own network. I've even seen it suggested that the Big 12 may do a joint network with someone such as the Pac 10. I don't know how far fetched that idea is though given the Big 12 rarely agrees with one another so I can't see them agreeing with the Pac 10. But I think at the end of the day the Big 12 will continue so long as the Texas schools are committed to it.

[MrBug708]

The PAC-10's contract is up next year, that's why it's a destination for Texas et al. If they load up on more schools, any existing contract negotiations would be basically torn up and they can get ESPN in a bidding war

[I. J. Reilly]

Maybe I'm naive here, but why would any Big 12 team outside of Colorado be interested in the Pac 10? If the Texas schools leave the Big 12, I would think it'd be for a conference like the SEC that already has a large tv contract in place.

Academics; whether it’s justified or not the Pac-10 is seen as an academic conference and the SEC is seen as a football factory conference.

And as far as Texas is concerned, if they join the Pac-10 the TV revenue will increase substantially. Of course they would have to get used to sharing that revenue equally, which might be hard for them to swallow. If the Big-12 only looses 1 or 2 teams I don’t see Texas going anywhere; but if the Big-10 goes ape shit and grabs a bunch of teams out of the North Division, and Colorado leaves, then who knows?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The PAC-10's contract is up next year, that's why it's a destination for Texas et al. If they load up on more schools, any existing contract negotiations would be basically torn up and they can get ESPN in a bidding war

Exactly. In addition, the other conferences will renegotiate or rip up their contracts as well. There are clauses in all of these conference TV contracts that allow them to be voided or changed. Conference and team realignment\movement is one of those situations.

[the_meanstrosity]

The PAC-10's contract is up next year, that's why it's a destination for Texas et al. If they load up on more schools, any existing contract negotiations would be basically torn up and they can get ESPN in a bidding war

Adding Texas would certainly boost the Pac 10 revenue, but that's true of any conference they join. Even if they stay in the Big 12, they will most certainly boost their revenue in 2015 when they sign a new deal. Plus Texas isn't exactly hurting for money as is so I'm not seeing that as a big factor for them joining a conference. The money doesn't hurt, but I have to think there are other factors that are probably more important to them. Currently they are in a conference where the headquarters are in their backyard. I'm sure that will play a part as well.


And as far as Texas is concerned, if they join the Pac-10 the TV revenue will increase substantially. Of course they would have to get used to sharing that revenue equally, which might be hard for them to swallow. If the Big-12 only looses 1 or 2 teams I don’t see Texas going anywhere; but if the Big-10 goes ape shit and grabs a bunch of teams out of the North Division, and Colorado leaves, then who knows?

Based on the rumors, the Big 12 is potentially looking at losing Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado. Nebraska will probably be the biggest loss of the three because of their national following, but I honestly don't see the Cornhuskers leaving the Big 12. If it did happen though then it would hurt the Big 12, but they could off-set some of the damage by adding three new teams.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Based on the rumors, the Big 12 is potentially looking at losing Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado. Nebraska will probably be the biggest loss of the three because of their national following, but I honestly don't see the Cornhuskers leaving the Big 12. If it did happen though then it would hurt the Big 12, but they could off-set some of the damage by adding three new teams.

1. If Mizzou leaves which would trigger Colorado to leave, Nebraska won't have to be asked twice to leave. Judging from Harvey Perlman's comments when asked about expansion and Osborne's hatred for the old SWC teams, they'll be on the first plane to the Big Ten offices if asked.

2. I'd love to hear what three teams would offset the damage if Mizzou, NU, and CU left the conference.

[dawgfan]

Academics; whether it’s justified or not the Pac-10 is seen as an academic conference and the SEC is seen as a football factory conference.
Bingo. I have my doubts that research funding in the SEC is anywhere near what it is in the Pac-10.

[the_meanstrosity]

1. If Mizzou leaves which would trigger Colorado to leave, Nebraska won't have to be asked twice to leave. Judging from Harvey Perlman's comments when asked about expansion and Osborne's hatred for the old SWC teams, they'll be on the first plane to the Big Ten offices if asked.

2. I'd love to hear what three teams would offset the damage if Mizzou, NU, and CU left the conference.

I highly doubt Missouri leaving triggers Colorado. Colorado has more than enough ammunition to leave on their own. Out of all of the Big 12 schools they are the one who has always been on the outside looking in. Out of the three schools, Nebraska leaving would have the largest impact due to their national fan base. And Nebraska certainly owes itself to listen to the Big Ten to ensure their future. But again, I think when the time comes unless the Big 12 looks like it's in danger (Texas and Texas A&M leaving) then Nebraska will stay put.

The teams the Big 12 will look to add are teams like TCU, BYU, Utah, Memphis, New Mexico, etc. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Big 12 and Pac 10 partner up in some way if things go really crazy. Eventually the future BCS conferences could end up creating their own version of the NCAA (something that's already been discussed).

[Swaggs]

If Colorado and Missouri leave, that really kills two of the (if not the two) teams with the largest media markets outside the state of Texas. At that point, it pretty much depends on what, if, and how much Texas wants to continue inclusion in the Big 12.

Realistically, if the Big 12 replaces Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska with TCU, BYU, and Utah (although they are probably likely to join Colorado in that scenario), wouldn't they probably be better off, from a stricly athletic standpoint, in football and men's basketball? I mean, if you absolutely had to bet on those teams playing one another in football over the past few years, you'd have to think all three would be favorites over Colorado, would probably be favored against Missouri, and it would be, at worst, toss-ups against Nebraska.

[Chief Rum]

If Colorado and Missouri leave, that really kills two of the (if not the two) teams with the largest media markets outside the state of Texas. At that point, it pretty much depends on what, if, and how much Texas wants to continue inclusion in the Big 12.

Realistically, if the Big 12 replaces Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska with TCU, BYU, and Utah (although they are probably likely to join Colorado in that scenario), wouldn't they probably be better off, from a stricly athletic standpoint, in football and men's basketball? I mean, if you absolutely had to bet on those teams playing one another in football over the past few years, you'd have to think all three would be favorites over Colorado, would probably be favored against Missouri, and it would be, at worst, toss-ups against Nebraska.

Hmm, one issue no one's mentioning is that Colorado leaving for the Pac 10 has more or less been linked to Utah also going to the Pac 10. In fact, it's Utah that's already the more or less given, and Colorado the one on the edge, if reports I have read/heard are true.

So whatever the B12 does, if they lose Colorado to Pac 10, it's doubtful Utah will still be available.

[the_meanstrosity]

If Colorado and Missouri leave, that really kills two of the (if not the two) teams with the largest media markets outside the state of Texas. At that point, it pretty much depends on what, if, and how much Texas wants to continue inclusion in the Big 12.

Realistically, if the Big 12 replaces Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska with TCU, BYU, and Utah (although they are probably likely to join Colorado in that scenario), wouldn't they probably be better off, from a stricly athletic standpoint, in football and men's basketball? I mean, if you absolutely had to bet on those teams playing one another in football over the past few years, you'd have to think all three would be favorites over Colorado, would probably be favored against Missouri, and it would be, at worst, toss-ups against Nebraska.

You're right in that losing St. Louis and Denver would be a blow, but again everything relies on Texas and Texas A&M. It is more likely the Big Ten or Pac 10 offer Texas and Texas A&M first before Colorado or Missouri. If Texas and Texas A&M leave first then the Big 12 would pretty much be done. So I'm not too concerned that MU or CU leaving would impact Texas' decision since at that point it is likely they would have already made their decision since they would have first choice.

TV markets are certainly important, but a program like Nebraska has a national fan base so in my opinion there is more value to NU than regional programs like MU and CU.

[Chief Rum]

You're right in that losing St. Louis and Denver would be a blow, but again everything relies on Texas and Texas A&M. It is more likely the Big Ten or Pac 10 offer Texas and Texas A&M first before Colorado or Missouri. If Texas and Texas A&M leave first then the Big 12 would pretty much be done. So I'm not too concerned that MU or CU leaving would impact Texas' decision since at that point it is likely they would have already made their decision since they would have first choice.

TV markets are certainly important, but a program like Nebraska has a national fan base so in my opinion there is more value to NU than regional programs like MU and CU.

Actually word is the Pac 10 has already offered Colorado.

Colorado and Utah are the choices for now. I don't think the Pac 10 has gotten to the point where they are seriously considering going to 16 teams.

[the_meanstrosity]

Hmm, one issue no one's mentioning is that Colorado leaving for the Pac 10 has more or less been linked to Utah also going to the Pac 10. In fact, it's Utah that's already the more or less given, and Colorado the one on the edge, if reports I have read/heard are true.

So whatever the B12 does, if they lose Colorado to Pac 10, it's doubtful Utah will still be available.

That might or might not be true if the Big 12 looks to expand. Utah would then have a choice. My guess is that the Big Ten expands before the Pac 10 and thus if there is an opening the Big 12 may come knocking on Utah's door before the Pac 10 does. There's a chance that Utah joins the Big 12 with Colorado remaining in the fold as well. Who knows how good of a chance.

[Chief Rum]

That might or might not be true if the Big 12 looks to expand. Utah would then have a choice. My guess is that the Big Ten expands before the Pac 10 and thus if there is an opening the Big 12 may come knocking on Utah's door before the Pac 10 does. There's a chance that Utah joins the Big 12 with Colorado remaining in the fold as well. Who knows how good of a chance.

Heh, not sure you're hearing me. Word on the rumor mill is the offers are already made, and if anything, Utah's already locked up. Also, with the Pac 10's TV contract up next year, they are under strong time pressure to get this done before they negotiate a new deal, while the Big 12 are not under that sort of pressure.

[Young Drachma]

No way that the Big Ten takes Oxford without Cambridge.

[the_meanstrosity]

Heh, not sure you're hearing me. Word on the rumor mill is the offers are already made, and if anything, Utah's already locked up. Also, with the Pac 10's TV contract up next year, they are under strong time pressure to get this done before they negotiate a new deal, while the Big 12 are not under that sort of pressure.

Again as I suggested before those are rumors. I'll believe it when they are both signed. There are way too many rumors out there right now to start taking any of them at face value.

As for the tv contract unless I'm totally wrong about this, I can't imagine the Pac 10 couldn't just re-negotiate their tv deal if teams are added to the conference. So the tv contract shouldn't have much bearing on if they do or don't expand since they could opt to re-negotiate the deal.

The Big 12 is under the most pressure right now given that anywhere from one to three teams are rumored to be gone. If that happens then it could open up re-negotiation for their current tv deal. So they'll need to act fast if they want to remain the Big 12.

[the_meanstrosity]

No way that the Big Ten takes Oxford without Cambridge.

I think Rob Lowe would beg to differ.

[dawgfan]

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Big 12 and Pac 10 partner up in some way if things go really crazy. Eventually the future BCS conferences could end up creating their own version of the NCAA (something that's already been discussed).
That's kind of what I think a 16-team Pac would be - more of a merger with the bigger fish in the Big-12.

And if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10, Utah comes with them - that's the other team that would bump the conference up to an even 12. It seems likely both schools have been offered...

[Chief Rum]

Again as I suggested before those are rumors. I'll believe it when they are both signed. There are way too many rumors out there right now to start taking any of them at face value.

As for the tv contract unless I'm totally wrong about this, I can't imagine the Pac 10 couldn't just re-negotiate their tv deal if teams are added to the conference. So the tv contract shouldn't have much bearing on if they do or don't expand since they could opt to re-negotiate the deal.

The Big 12 is under the most pressure right now given that anywhere from one to three teams are rumored to be gone. If that happens then it could open up re-negotiation for their current tv deal. So they'll need to act fast if they want to remain the Big 12.

Yeah, but you're talking about the B12 reacting to these "rumors". Can't call one set of rumors true (Big Ten taking Mizzou/Nebraska) and assume the rest aren't or are just false or that the B12 will suddenly move from a wait and see mode to jumping past the Pac 10, which is already fully investigating its expansion options.

[the_meanstrosity]

That's kind of what I think a 16-team Pac would be - more of a merger with the bigger fish in the Big-12.

And if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10, Utah comes with them - that's the other team that would bump the conference up to an even 12. It seems likely both schools have been offered...

What I would like to eventually see is four or five "BCS conferences" that have anywhere from 64-100 teams. Cut out the eventual NCAA middle man and create your own improved version of the NCAA.

[the_meanstrosity]

Yeah, but you're talking about the B12 reacting to these "rumors". Can't call one set of rumors true (Big Ten taking Mizzou/Nebraska) and assume the rest aren't or are just false or that the B12 will suddenly move from a wait and see mode to jumping past the Pac 10, which is already fully investigating its expansion options.

I'm not saying any of the rumors are true. I'm suggesting that the Big 12 needs to react to these rumors as if they are true and thus they better be contacting potential candidates as we speak. In all honesty though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 Commish is sitting on his hands as we speak given his incompetence. I'm just saying what I hope is happening though I have my doubts given the Commissioner.

As I said before, Colorado is the one program that I see with the most to gain by leaving simply because they already have relationships with the Pac 10. So I could see Colorado leaving for the Pac 10 unless the Big 12 can show it's serious about expanding. I think the Big Ten only takes one and maybe two programs on this expansion. Notre Dame is the obvious choice, but Pitt or UConn could be next in line. So there's a chance the Big 12 (if they are play their hand right) could leave this expansion unscathed. My confidence is low given the commissioner, but I'm not giving up hope just yet.

[MrBug708]

I think even if the Big-12 doesnt lose any teams to the Big-10, Colorado leaving might be just as well because TCU is probably as attractive at this juncture

[Chief Rum]

I'm not saying any of the rumors are true. I'm suggesting that the Big 12 needs to react to these rumors as if they are true and thus they better be contacting potential candidates as we speak. In all honesty though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 Commish is sitting on his hands as we speak given his incompetence. I'm just saying what I hope is happening though I have my doubts given the Commissioner.

As I said before, Colorado is the one program that I see with the most to gain by leaving simply because they already have relationships with the Pac 10. So I could see Colorado leaving for the Pac 10 unless the Big 12 can show it's serious about expanding. I think the Big Ten only takes one and maybe two programs on this expansion. Notre Dame is the obvious choice, but Pitt or UConn could be next in line. So there's a chance the Big 12 (if they are play their hand right) could leave this expansion unscathed. My confidence is low given the commissioner, but I'm not giving up hope just yet.

I hear ya on the weak commissioner. I like the way the new guy we have thinks and his track record, but the best thing about him is he is not the staid and backward-thinking ex-commissioner Tom Hansen, whose only seeming positive quality in the office was his ability to remain in that office for way, way too long. He hamstrung conference efforts to expand to get a championship game, tied the conference to low tier bowls, locked the conference in to regional networks while everyone else was getting national pub on ESPN and pretty much anything that could be considered progressive was discarded as too risky. He was also commish while the conference featured some of the most awful refs in the country.

[the_meanstrosity]

I think even if the Big-12 doesnt lose any teams to the Big-10, Colorado leaving might be just as well because TCU is probably as attractive at this juncture

I'd hate to lose Colorado only to add another college from Texas. I'd much rather add a Memphis, BYU, Utah, etc. Of course the power of the Big 12 is in Texas so maybe they look in their backyard first. I hope not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You're right in that losing St. Louis and Denver would be a blow, but again everything relies on Texas and Texas A&M. It is more likely the Big Ten or Pac 10 offer Texas and Texas A&M first before Colorado or Missouri. If Texas and Texas A&M leave first then the Big 12 would pretty much be done. So I'm not too concerned that MU or CU leaving would impact Texas' decision since at that point it is likely they would have already made their decision since they would have first choice.

TV markets are certainly important, but a program like Nebraska has a national fan base so in my opinion there is more value to NU than regional programs like MU and CU.

It's not more likely that UT or A&M get offered by the Big Ten before Mizzou. It's clear that Mizzou would be the Big Ten's first option out of the Big 12. The Texas to Big Ten ship has already sailed. It ain't happening.

If we're talking solely about athletics, your second statement about NU might hold weight. When you combine academics into the mix (which is exactly what the Big 10 is doing), Mizzou is the obvious choice over NU. Regardless, it would be a pretty big surprise if both of them weren't offered by the Big 10.

[Samdari]

Heh, not sure you're hearing me. Word on the rumor mill is the offers are already made


Because all of the other rumors in this thread have come true, so once something reaches rumor stage, people need to accept it as fact and stop discussing the possibility that its not true.

[albionmoonlight]

I know that scheduling, academics, and non-football sports make this impossible, but how cool would it be to convert the entire NCAA into a promotion/relegation model?

[albionmoonlight]

We can all agree that the U.S. News Rankings are flawed in many ways. But they do have Nebraska ranked higher than Mizzou. When you add athletic success and fan-base size into the mix, I don't see why MU is such a slam dunk choice over NU. It might still be the choice, but it does not seem to be much more than a toss-up, really.

[the_meanstrosity]

It's not more likely that UT or A&M get offered by the Big Ten before Mizzou. It's clear that Mizzou would be the Big Ten's first option out of the Big 12. The Texas to Big Ten ship has already sailed. It ain't happening.

If we're talking solely about athletics, your second statement about NU might hold weight. When you combine academics into the mix (which is exactly what the Big 10 is doing), Mizzou is the obvious choice over NU. Regardless, it would be a pretty big surprise if both of them weren't offered by the Big 10.

You don't think that if Texas showed interest in the Big Ten that they wouldn't jump up and offer it to them over Missouri? The point of my argument was that if Texas was interested in leaving the Big 12 then they'd be first in line for the Big Ten (or SEC). And thus I feel safe that Texas isn't looking to leave the Big 12.

My second statement was with regards to fan base vs media markets. Missouri has the better media markets, but Nebraska has the better fan base which should result into more overall viewers.

And Albion hit the MU academics is greater than NU academics argument you're suggesting. They seem pretty close to me.

[the_meanstrosity]

I know that scheduling, academics, and non-football sports make this impossible, but how cool would it be to convert the entire NCAA into a promotion/relegation model?

I would be all for that especially over the current system.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and just to be fair, if I had to choose a school for my son between the two, I'd probably want him to go to MU over NU. But only after I walked around the campus to make sure that the smell of Quinn Snyder's hair gel had finally dissipated. ;)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You don't think that if Texas showed interest in the Big Ten that they wouldn't jump up and offer it to them over Missouri? The point of my argument was that if Texas was interested in leaving the Big 12 then they'd be first in line for the Big Ten (or SEC). And thus I feel safe that Texas isn't looking to leave the Big 12.

My second statement was with regards to fan base vs media markets. Missouri has the better media markets, but Nebraska has the better fan base which should result into more overall viewers.

And Albion hit the MU academics is greater than NU academics argument you're suggesting. They seem pretty close to me.

Texas isn't leaving because they'd have to take A&M and Tech with them. That's not going to happen in the Big Ten under any circumstances. It's a non-starter.

Your second measure is pretty subjective. Both have a wide ranging and active alumni base. Also, strictly from an athletic perspective, Mizzou has a much better basketball program and football is about the same between the two schools right now. Mizzou also has a hockey program, which is something the Big Ten is looking to improve, which is something that Nebraska doesn't currently have.

We'll let the U.S. News report stand on it's own merits, flawed as they may be as albion noted.

[Chief Rum]

Because all of the other rumors in this thread have come true, so once something reaches rumor stage, people need to accept it as fact and stop discussing the possibility that its not true.

That's so cool of you to re-enact discussions we have already had, Samdari! Thanks for being such an entertaining poster and so onto current events here at the FOFC!

[sterlingice]

I hear ya on the weak commissioner. I like the way the new guy we have thinks and his track record, but the best thing about him is he is not the staid and backward-thinking ex-commissioner Tom Hansen, whose only seeming positive quality in the office was his ability to remain in that office for way, way too long. He hamstrung conference efforts to expand to get a championship game, tied the conference to low tier bowls, locked the conference in to regional networks while everyone else was getting national pub on ESPN and pretty much anything that could be considered progressive was discarded as too risky. He was also commish while the conference featured some of the most awful refs in the country.

Hell, sounds an awful lot like the Big XII since its inception: silly tv deals, way too conservative with regards to helping the conference move foward, awful refs, etc. That's why I have a feeling if one of the big conferences is going to be ripped apart (aside from the Big East- that's pretty much a given), it probably will be the Big XII. They'll be in react mode the whole time and be dealing with contingencies they didn't even plan for.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Oh, and just to be fair, if I had to choose a school for my son between the two, I'd probably want him to go to MU over NU. But only after I walked around the campus to make sure that the smell of Quinn Snyder's hair gel had finally dissipated. ;)

BP has deployed booms across the campus in an attempt to control the continuing gel problem.

[Samdari]

That's so cool of you to re-enact discussions we have already had, Samdari! Thanks for being such an entertaining poster and so onto current events here at the FOFC!

Right, you whining "but guys, MY rumors are true, quit acting like they're not fact. WAAAAAHHH" is much more entertaining.

[Swaggs]

Hmm, one issue no one's mentioning is that Colorado leaving for the Pac 10 has more or less been linked to Utah also going to the Pac 10. In fact, it's Utah that's already the more or less given, and Colorado the one on the edge, if reports I have read/heard are true.

So whatever the B12 does, if they lose Colorado to Pac 10, it's doubtful Utah will still be available.

I mentioned it in the post you quoted above. ;)

[the_meanstrosity]

Texas isn't leaving because they'd have to take A&M and Tech with them. That's not going to happen in the Big Ten under any circumstances. It's a non-starter.

Your second measure is pretty subjective. Both have a wide ranging and active alumni base. Also, strictly from an athletic perspective, Mizzou has a much better basketball program and football is about the same between the two schools right now. Mizzou also has a hockey program, which is something the Big Ten is looking to improve, which is something that Nebraska doesn't currently have.

We'll let the U.S. News report stand on it's own merits, flawed as they may be as albion noted.

I guarantee you that the Big Ten would take Texas A&M and Texas if they were tied together. Texas Tech is just a rumor at this point, but I highly doubt the Big Ten would turn their nose up at taking them if it meant they could grab Texas and Texas A&M. There is just way too much tv revenue and fan base tied up into those two programs. Again though, the point remains. Texas is likely not leaving the Big 12 for any conference.

Nebraska football has a long tradition of success. They were one of the football powerhouses in the 90's with a few national titles in tow. You're very biased if you believe MU has a fan base as strong nationally as the Huskers. MU football may be equal to NU football as far as on the field talent right now, but the NU fan base has been growing since when...the 80's at least?

Hockey? Really? You don't think Nebraska couldn't scratch together a hockey program with their budget? They have a much larger budget than Missouri so I'm sure a hockey program wouldn't too difficult to drum up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Nebraska football has a long tradition of success. They were one of the football powerhouses in the 90's with a few national titles in tow. You're very biased if you believe MU has a fan base as strong nationally as the Huskers. MU football may be equal to NU football as far as on the field talent right now, but the NU fan base has been growing since when...the 80's at least?

Stronger legacy? In football, yes. In basketball, no. As good as NU has been in football, they've been extremely poor in basketball. They are one of a short list of major conference teams to never win a NCAA tournament game. Stronger fan base? Really depends of your definition of that. They've fallen pretty hard in recent years.

[the_meanstrosity]

Stronger legacy? In football, yes. In basketball, no. As good as NU has been in football, they've been extremely poor in basketball. They are one of a short list of major conference teams to never win a NCAA tournament game. Stronger fan base? Really depends of your definition of that. They've fallen pretty hard in recent years.

NU can afford to be extremely poor in basketball since they were extremely good for so long in football. The fact is they have multiple national titles under their belt in the last 20+ years. That means they were front and center of the college football world for a while. They've certainly declined since then, but that doesn't destroy the fan base. See Kentucky basketball, Notre Dame football, etc.

So are you suggesting that Missouri has a larger fan base nationally than Nebraska?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So are you suggesting that Missouri has a larger fan base nationally than Nebraska?

You've switched your argument from stronger to larger here, but we're arguing semantics at this point. Mizzou was and still is the #1 option for the Big Ten in regards to expansion. There's little question about that.

[Chief Rum]

Right, you whining "but guys, MY rumors are true, quit acting like they're not fact. WAAAAAHHH" is much more entertaining.

My point is, read the following posts to see that meanstrosity pretty much already had that conversation, and I would rather let that stand than repeat that conversation with you, Mr. Reading Comprehension.

[Chief Rum]

I mentioned it in the post you quoted above. ;)

Speaking of reading comprehension... :p