I see these as two separate events. The Big Ten and Pac Ten probably want to move to 12 schools at this time. This would have some impact on the Big XII and Big East, trickling down to the smallest conferences.

This concept of 16 teams would destroy the Big East and the Big XII. But I don't see the Big Ten making the first move there.

I'd love to hear the information you have that Lew Perkins is "dirty"? If anything he's known as an AD that makes the university accountable (Wichita State and KU). He's also a recipient of the AD of the Year. You've been listening to Kevin Kietzman for way too long.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if the state regents did try to handcuff KSU with KU. I think it's a silly move given that neither KU nor KSU has that kind of clout. I'd love it if KU were like Texas and we could say "it's all of us or none of us", but that's never going to be the case unless the state of Kansas merges with New York, Texas, or California. I would hope Lew Perkins and the KU athletic department could show the board the reality.

Have you ever looked at the revenue numbers? Per the numbers in ESPN's article, Texas made about $1 million more than Kansas (10.2 vs 9.2) and about $2 million more than Missouri. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but the differential has never been more than a few million between the bottom and top teams.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_...-sharing-funds

Arkansas to the Big 12 rumors? I've heard the rumors, but I've always thought it was a pipe dream given how much Arkansas earns from the SEC tv contract. The article suggests that if Missouri leaves the Big 12 then they would go after Arkansas. Arkansas would certainly be a great fit. I honestly don't see it happening because of the tv contract, but maybe MJ4H has some info on it.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...rumors-emerge/

Yeah, no one around here thinks this will happen, though it is brought up a lot. Including people connected with the University. Basically, the Big 12 has nothing to offer that is better than the SEC, so we ain't goin' anywhere.

That might be the case, but I just don't see BYU ever being given an invitation to join the Pac-10.

I believe they participate in a lot of the similar sports that the PAC-10 participates in, it's the whole Sunday game aspect that is a deal breaker

Sunday play is major and the whole BYU is a conservative religious school that does not follow the liberal aspect of the PAC 10 schools.

I almost wonder if the state lets Utah join a conference without BYU though.

But there isn't that pure hatred at Arkansas for the other SEC schools like there is for Texas. That's gotta count for something. :)

I dont think the religious aspect would play that much into it. Sure we let USC get away with murder, but it's not like the rest of the conference condones it :D

Unless the opposition came from BYU itself.

That's not anywhere NEARLY strong enough to get us out of the SEC. I don't know of a single person that wants to leave the SEC for the Big 12. Definitely no one at the university, and especially anyone at the university that has anything to do with finances.

Actually, I need to dig up the article where it quoted several presidents against BYU for their conservative, religious nature and the main one against it.....*gasp*.......Stanford.

If Utah goes PAC-10 and we go PAC 10 or Big 12, I am happy, if Utah goes PAC 10 and BYU sits in the MWC I will be pissed..

That's what I figured. I'd love to have Arkansas in the Big 12, but I figure it's not likely to happen.

Wait, so nothing is close to happening yet? I sure hope somebody posts a new thread when it does.

According to this thread, the Big Ten is meeting tomorrow on expansion. Maybe we will hear something by the end of the day.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_...12-partnership

Interesting. Depends on what happens, I could see the Big-12 making an effort to keep Missouri, letting Colorado go to the PAC-10, TCU replacing Colorado, and Utah joining the PAC-10

Here's my Big Ten additions, if they decide to ask me to choose:

1. UConn - this would let me see my Hoosiers play in person fairly often. :)
2. Kansas - Wife went there. Might be a way to draw her into watching sports.
3. Pittsburgh - Would like to see Penn State beat up on Wannstedt
4. Notre Dame - Would like to see everyone beat up on the Golden Domes
5. Syracuse - mostly for another interesting basketball team

honest question, why isn't wvu ever mentioned? they fit geographically and competitively, no?

That's what I've been saying, except I've been a motherfucking asshole when I say it.

Not so much with the academics.

Two things that pretty much kill WVU: academics and TV numbers. WVU's academic reputation generally is perceived to be lower than what the Big Ten is seeking. As has been repeated fairly often in the thread to this point, the B10 is just as much an academic consortium as an athletic one.

The bigger thing, though, is probably the TV issue. West Virginia has a regional-to-semi-national profile and a strong traveling fan base (crucial to any bowl game), but TV potential is very limited since West Virginia itself is one of the lower-populated states in the country. If another factor the B10 is considering is whether their TV network gets more eyeballs and thus better carriage rates from cable/satellite providers, West Virginia isn't going to deliver as much as the "potential" of stronger access to the New York City market provided by either Rutgers or Syracuse or Connecticut.

The odds at this point are that if the Big 10 were to super-size to 16 with some combination of Big 12/Big East schools, then what the SEC does in response may dictate what happens to WVU. If the SEC raided the ACC, I could see the ACC responding by absorbing the best (or even all, depending on who survives from both leagues) of the remnants of the football Big East that aren't taken in by the Big 10. The ACC also has a strong academic bent, but that probably would crumble in the face of an existential threat to the conference caused by the SEC taking in more than one of Clemson, FSU, GT, or Miami. An ACC without at least three of those southern schools will continue to drift to mid-major status because no one else in the league outside of VT is really considered to have much football tradition. WVU would help with that, but may not be enough, especially if other Big East football members aren't any better than current ACC members. The basketball conference would be on par with the current Big East, though, especially if Syracuse and UConn were part of any merger. Too bad the money's not in basketball like it is in football.

ok. i knew it was about money and not academics. just figured they churn out a lot of alums. shurg.

I think it is probably about 80% academic profile and 20% market size for WVU. While Morgantown itself isn't a big population center (it is actually considered part of Pittsburgh's market), I would think that their inclusion would guarantee the entire state state would demand the Big Ten Network. WVU has also been involved in a number of the highest rated ESPN games.

If you factor in the travelling fan base, attendance, facilities, geographic location, and the current and traditional strength of the football and basketball programs, it is hard to think that they wouldn't be near the top of the list of the academics were not Tier 3. Unfortunately, with the population (and its traditionally substandard education system) of the state and the fact that WVU is a land grant/state university, it would be nearly impossible for WVU to improve its academic profile to the point that it would come close to fitting in with the Big Ten schools.

Not sure that matters a whole lot once you consider that all the DMA's in the state of WV combined are slightly smaller than Columbus, OH by itself.

Another article on the recent meeting between the Pac 10 and Big 12. I'd love to see these two conferences hook up on a network deal. I've been hoping the rumor was true, but always figured the inept Big 12 front office would mess it up.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/06...-alliance.html

:lol:

Wait.............you were serious??????

Sure, I'd love to hear the "dirt" you have on Lew Perkins. Check out Wichita State before he arrived. Same with Kansas. Both had major NCAA issues before he arrived and he was the one who put procedures and departments in place to improve in those areas. So yes, I'm interested to hear how an athletic director who is respected by many of his peers is "dirty".

Listen, I know you're still bitter about the whole Orange Bowl thing. But doesn't it make you wonder that maybe it's your AD who isn't doing his job after Iowa State received a better bowl this year? That's twice where MU has gone to a lesser bowl vs a team they beat. Unless you think Lew Perkins rigged that bowl as well.

Which would still be considerably more than Pitt would add to the network (since Pitt's entire market is already covered by Penn State) and they are considered a shoe-in due to their academic strength.

You realize that the Big 10 has already had several meetings about expansion right? The earliest expected formal announcement has never been earlier than this summer/fall.

That post was a joke based on the (since edited) thread title and the constant flow of "a guy with an inside connection to the athletic department at Rutgers says that Kansas to the Big 10 is a 'done deal' as long as they add a womens lacrosse team by 2012. This guy's information has always checked out in the past"-type rumors delivered with breathless urgency as if they are mere moments from breaking unto the ESPN ticker.

Lots of information on local radio here in KC today.

-Big Ten expansion will most likely be formally completed before kickoff of 2010 football season (effective 2012-2013 season).
-Only way Big Ten expands by one is if Notre Dame is the one (which isn't likely given that they want to stay independent).
-Colorado is already assuming that Mizzou and Nebraska are gone and is actively talking with Pac-10.
-OU and OSU will move to the North if Big 12 decides to continue on. Allows for OU/UT championship matchup.
-Texas won't consider a move to SEC. Pac-10 is likely destination if they move along with A&M.
-TV agreement between Pac-10 and Big 12 very unlikely due to Texas refusal to abandon attempt to create their own network.

There was talk on some of the Texas' message boards that the PAC-10/Big-12 would combine to form a 20 team mega conference for football alone, with the winner of each meeting in a championship game that rotates between Jerry's World and LA

There are a lot of fundamental reasons why this would be difficult to make happen, as the Pac 10 (old conference with academic as well as athletic relationship, and a link to the Rose Bowl) and the Big 12 (newer conference, whole different geographical region that is significantly far from all Pac 10 schools) are so different in many ways.

That said, if they can work through those differences, I think a Big 12-Pac 10 marriage is perhaps the only true way that either conference will have the clout in the long run to stand up to a 16 team Big Ten that extends from Missouri to NYC, or the powerhouse SEC with football-rich additions from the ACC.

A conference that could put USC, Texas and Oklahoma (as well as solid second level football schools like Washington, Oregon, UCLA, Oklahoma State, Utah--if they're asked to join and Texas A&M) in the mix for football, and have UCLA, Washington, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas (among several other solid programs, Stanford, Oregon, KState, etc.) for basketball would be a very significant conference powerhouse.

The big problem with that is that the B12 South teams have made a lot of enemies at this point. The former B12 commissioner left the B12 for the Pac-10 because he was so frustrated with the lack of cooperation shown by the schools in the B12. He's not very likely to enter a new deal with the people who irritated him enough that he left the conference in the first place. In addition, the remaining North teams are going to want an even piece of the pie, something the South teams probably aren't going to be willing to give up in any agreement.

Not quite right. The former Big-12 commish left/resigned/quit/fired worked independently before the current PAC-10 commish hired him on. Not sure an assistant will make the call on whether or not the PAC-10/Big-12 will enter an agreement, though I'm sure Larry Scott will probably ask for some advice from him. Our commish is formerly incharge of the Woman's Tennis Tour. He landed them a pretty nice TV deal so he has that going for him

You can be sure that if Weiberg has even the slightest say over it, he'll say no. He's well aware of just how dysfunctional the relationships in the Big 12 are. There's a reason why it's the most likely league to break apart in these scenarios.

Smoke is quickly becoming fire. Reports coming out are that Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Syracuse have all privately accepted invites to the Big Ten. The lone hold-up is Notre Dame. If they agree to include football, they will be the fifth team. If not, Pitt will be the fifth team. Notre Dame has been given a certain amount of time to make their decision.

Also, the four team, four division setup has given way to a 2 division setup to preserve the existing rivalries that would have been split up with four divisions (which was mentioned by some in this discussion).

Link?

I wanted to say Nolan Richardson :)

This is all I found, but doesnt include the Cuse though

Big Ten expansion Q&A - chicagotribune.com

He got it off of a Kansas City Penguins blog.

Nice one!

He shoots ... he scores !!!
:D

It is unlikely that they would have offered invitations to both Rutgers and Syracuse without figuring out what Notre Dame is doing. It is also very unlikely that Notre Dame goes into a 16-team Big Ten without Pitt, in my opinion.

In any case, the line up, aside from the Notre Dame portion, sounds about right to me and I think an announcement (if it is coming) will come by the end of the month because the Big East has a 27-month waiting period (+ $5-million) up exit from the league. I do think that we'll finally hear something concrete before the end of the month. Waiting past May would essentially keep the Big East teams from joining for an extra year.

Under the Rumors section of ESPN:

Despite what on the surface appears to be a good match (and reports a couple weeks ago that it was a "done deal"), Vahe Gregorian of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says that questions remain about whether Missouri is all but guaranteed an invite to the Big Ten.

In the early 1990s, when the Big Ten was studying further expansion following the addition of Penn State, the Missouri chancellor said he was told by three or four Big Ten presidents that they were more interested in the New York and Philadelphia markets, and that they considered St. Louis covered by Illinois. Has that changed?

Missouri is just 102nd in the latest U.S. News and World Report rankings, far behind three Big East schools under consideration (Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers), which are between 56th and 66th, and the lowest current Big Ten school, which is 71st. The school's athletic budget of just under $59 million would place it ninth in the Big Ten. And the Tigers are a lowly 42nd in the latest Directors Cup standings measuring overall athletic department performance, which would also be ninth in the Big Ten.

One source also told Gregorian that some of the posturing that has been done on the school's behalf "creates an impression that it is both whining and rattling a tin cup to the Big Ten," which could turn off its prospective partner.

So despite the things Missouri has going for it -- a more natural geographic fit, built-in rivalry with Illinois, longtime membership in the Association of American Universities -- the school could still find itself on the outside looking in if the Big Ten only adds one or three schools.

Sorry, I had to laugh a bit. You just quoted Gregorian as a source for any legitimate Mizzou information. Anyone who is familiar with the Ricky Clemons/Quin Snyder situation would know that Gregorian is about the last person that would get any information about Mizzou. Mizzou and Gregorian are like oil and water.

Not enough Mike Anderson in this thread

Or dudes bowling in bad hats for that matter. Or even Mike Anderson bowling in a bad hat.

Just because they have a mutual dislike of each other doesn't automatically invalidate the information

I'll take your word for it.