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

[Ksyrup]

If it's that close between the two of them, they can't find a third team and bring both of them in? Louisville makes much more sense geographically and demographically, but of course those concerns are near the bottom of the priority list.

[panerd]

What!?!? You mean the report that West Virginia was joining the Big 12 may have been premature and not completely accurate? That's a first!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The Big 12 North hasn't exactly been murderer's row during the golden era of football that Mizzou is currently enjoying. Nebraska stunk through the Callahan years and Kansas State struggled during Snyder's retirement. The 2007 Mizzou team had a nice year but they lost twice to the same Oklahoma team that WVU clubbed in the Fiesta Bowl, so forgive me if I am hesitant to crown that particular team with any hypothesized conference titles just yet.

But what about Kansas and... Oh, never mind. I'll go sit and wait quietly in the corner until basketball season

SI

[timmynausea]

From what I've gathered, WVU to the Big 12 was all but signed and sealed. Marinatto and the Big East got word of it and leaked it to the NY Post way earlier than WVU or the Big 12 wanted it out there. Upon getting wind of this, Louisville went into panic mode and got Senator Mitch McConnell to pull strings on their behalf to try to get the Cardinals in over WVU.

And now pretty much no one knows what is going to happen.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

From what I've gathered, WVU to the Big 12 was all but signed and sealed. Marinatto and the Big East got word of it and leaked it to the NY Post way earlier than WVU or the Big 12 wanted it out there. Upon getting wind of this, Louisville went into panic mode and got Senator Mitch McConnell to pull strings on their behalf to try to get the Cardinals in over WVU.

And now pretty much no one knows what is going to happen.

No offense but hasn't this been the rationale behind every story (about 99% of them) that didn't pan out. I have heard Mizzou to about 10 different conferences, Texas to the Pac-12, Notre Dame to the ACC, Clemson to the SEC, Rutgers to the ACC, FSU to the SEC... The stories are never wrong just "leaked and delayed due to damage control". We have entered a new era of journalism... facts and sources on the record be damned!

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by panerd

No offense but hasn't this been the rationale behind every story (about 99% of them) that didn't pan out. I have heard Mizzou to about 10 different conferences, Texas to the Pac-12, Notre Dame to the ACC, Clemson to the SEC, Rutgers to the ACC, FSU to the SEC... The stories are never wrong just "leaked and delayed due to damage control". We have entered a new era of journalism... facts and sources on the record be damned!

That's a good point. The only reason I believe the WVU story is that WV reporters got information directly from the Athletic Department yesterday afternoon to expect a Wednesday press conference regarding the Big 12 move. By Tuesday evening WVU issued a statement saying that there would be no press conference and that they had no further comment at this time. I think most of the other stories had much less official sources regarding the countless "done deal" announcements, but who knows?

[Izulde]

Las Vegas Review-Journal article confirming the Big East/MWC/C-USA talks.

Sheer madness.

Mountain West, Conference USA to talk to Big East about joining forces - Sports - ReviewJournal.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Las Vegas Review-Journal article confirming the Big East/MWC/C-USA talks.

Sheer madness.

Mountain West, Conference USA to talk to Big East about joining forces - Sports - ReviewJournal.com

Actually, I think that sort of merger makes more sense than a good bit of the conference movement (especially the rumors) we've seen so far.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, it seems crazy, but it also seems to make a good deal of sense from the perspective of those involved, given the positions they find themselves in.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If it's that close between the two of them, they can't find a third team and bring both of them in? Louisville makes much more sense geographically and demographically, but of course those concerns are near the bottom of the priority list.

Cincinnati?

[Ksyrup]

The problem becomes, does adding 2-3 teams really do anything other than cut into the money being shared? I'm guessing they want to hold at 10 because the quality of school they can bring in for 11 and 12 is not to the level that will increase the payouts under the TV contracts. And who knows, maybe it would even cut the other way.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

They were talking about possibly four 7 or 8-team divisions, with the 4 division winners in a mini-playoff, I guess, for the "conference" championship and, I assume they hope, the "conference's" BCS bid.

That's not a bad idea, and might as well toss some more non-BCS conferences in there, with the winner of the playoff getting a BCS bid. I'm fine with one of these schools getting a BCS bid if they win the playoffs, and that way everyone has a legitimate chance of getting into it.

[Ksyrup]

Well, then there's this:


McMurphyCBS Brett McMurphy
Big East never was interested RT @schadjoe: Big East was invited but chose not to attend that CUSA-MWC pow wow

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

3 10-team divisions, promotion and relegation?

Big East
|
MWC
|
CUSA

Clearly.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's not a bad idea, and might as well toss some more non-BCS conferences in there, with the winner of the playoff getting a BCS bid. I'm fine with one of these schools getting a BCS bid if they win the playoffs, and that way everyone has a legitimate chance of getting into it.

I'm sure all the AQ conferences would love for this merger to happen, as it will basically spread the Big East's one autobid among three conferences and let the BCS promote that it has given automatic "access" to an extra 20+ teams. Rather than having the Big East AQ AND a Boise/TCU/Utah/Hawaii-type team receive an additional bid or two, they will all be folded into a single bid by eliminating one another in the mini-tournament.

I don't see why the Big East (until it is absolutely clear they have lost their AQ bid) or MWC would want to do it, to be honest. It clearly reduces the odds for a Big East team to make a BCS bowl, but probably also makes the road more difficult for an undefeated MWC team like Boise the last few seasons.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

That's a good point. The only reason I believe the WVU story is that WV reporters got information directly from the Athletic Department yesterday afternoon to expect a Wednesday press conference regarding the Big 12 move. By Tuesday evening WVU issued a statement saying that there would be no press conference and that they had no further comment at this time. I think most of the other stories had much less official sources regarding the countless "done deal" announcements, but who knows?

Not to sound like MBBF, but I think this stuff actually does have a lot to do with Missouri. The Big 12 and Missouri are almost certainly negotiating the details of their exit, which will include a buyout and an exit date to begin play in the SEC. By announcing Missouri's replacement AND having an idiot administrator boast about how little they will miss them, they are harming the Big 12's case to recovery damages. Someone put the cart before the horse here and, I think, the lawyers told them all it was time to zip it up until something is finalized.

[Ksyrup]

I think this pretty well sums up the clusterfuck that is conference realignment right now:

Louisville coach Rick Pitino is actively lobbying the Big East Conference and its member schools to add Memphis and Temple for basketball, regardless of whether the Big East adds Central Florida, Houston or SMU.

Pitino said Wednesday that he has expressed his opinion to Big East commissioner John Marinatto and wants the league to seriously consider raising the basketball profile of the conference during the turbulent period of realignment.

Pitino said the Big East has to combat the ACC's move of taking away two of the league's best basketball programs in Syracuse and Pittsburgh, and then possibly the Big 12's desire to take West Virginia, if the Mountaineers end up replacing Missouri -- a potential SEC member -- in the Big 12 Conference.

But West Virginia has been notified by the Big 12 that its expansion process is on hold, a school source told ESPN's Joe Schad on Wednesday.

The Big 12 is waiting on Missouri formally to withdraw from the conference and that there has been some late "hard lobbying" by Louisville for Big 12 inclusion, the source told Schad.

So....Louisville's basketball coach is lobbying the Big East hard to add a couple of basketall schools to replace 2 schools that left, and a third that might leave. The third? Possibly Louisville. My head will now explode.

[timmynausea]

Brett McMurphy tweet with some confirmation that WVU to B12 was very close to becoming official before things took a left turn:

Big 12 had press release prepared about WVU; now torn b/w WVU & UL. Also, no Big East/C-USA/MWC meeting today How close did Big 12 come to adding WVU? - CBSSports.com

[bronconick]

If Louisville gets into the Big XII in the next 10 days over West Virginia, their football team might die in Morgantown on the 5th.

[Ragone]

you know what would really be funny.. if sec got tired of waiting on missouri's hemming and hawing and told them to f off and invited wvu or louisville.. because i guarentee you if wvu or louisville got an sec invite.. they'd be gone within minutes..

[Solecismic]

There was a time when newspaper editors would tell their reporters that no story would appear, barring corroboration from multiple sources and a compelling story of great importance to the readers, without full attribution of all sources quoted.

That era of journalism as a profession is gone.

Our newspapers today are all blogs, basically, fighting over the scraps of rumor. Mid-level officials regularly use reporters to float all sorts of wild stories, rarely with more than a hint of the truth.

Twenty years ago, a journalist would call Chuck Neinas and say, "tell me when you've invited someone - we'll run a story."

Today, someone with no training whatsoever will call up the assistant to the assistant janitor at Louisville's student activity center and invite him to speculate. That then becomes "a source close to the Louisville president," and the "reporter" will have bought his lottery ticket to having his blog read by thousands, and maybe a guest appearance on one of those ESPN shows where talking heads drown each other out with senseless noise.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There was a time when newspaper editors would tell their reporters that no story would appear, barring corroboration from multiple sources and a compelling story of great importance to the readers, without full attribution of all sources quoted.

That era of journalism as a profession is gone.

Our newspapers today are all blogs, basically, fighting over the scraps of rumor. Mid-level officials regularly use reporters to float all sorts of wild stories, rarely with more than a hint of the truth.

Twenty years ago, a journalist would call Chuck Neinas and say, "tell me when you've invited someone - we'll run a story."

Today, someone with no training whatsoever will call up the assistant to the assistant janitor at Louisville's student activity center and invite him to speculate. That then becomes "a source close to the Louisville president," and the "reporter" will have bought his lottery ticket to having his blog read by thousands, and maybe a guest appearance on one of those ESPN shows where talking heads drown each other out with senseless noise.

Jim:

I agree completely. And I wonder if the traditional media had any alternative if it wanted to stay economically viable. We are all media consumers, and our eyeballs tend to go toward the rumors instead of the facts. Especially in sports.

Everything worth saying about TA&M to the SEC was said before it was responsible to write a story saying that TA&M was going to the SEC. Any media outlet that waited for proper confirmation was going to be literal days behind the competition.

Is it possible to run a profitable and professional sports news organization these days?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There was a time when newspaper editors would tell their reporters that no story would appear, barring corroboration from multiple sources and a compelling story of great importance to the readers, without full attribution of all sources quoted.

That era of journalism as a profession is gone.

Our newspapers today are all blogs, basically, fighting over the scraps of rumor. Mid-level officials regularly use reporters to float all sorts of wild stories, rarely with more than a hint of the truth.

Twenty years ago, a journalist would call Chuck Neinas and say, "tell me when you've invited someone - we'll run a story."

Today, someone with no training whatsoever will call up the assistant to the assistant janitor at Louisville's student activity center and invite him to speculate. That then becomes "a source close to the Louisville president," and the "reporter" will have bought his lottery ticket to having his blog read by thousands, and maybe a guest appearance on one of those ESPN shows where talking heads drown each other out with senseless noise.

so much truth

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think this pretty well sums up the clusterfuck that is conference realignment right now:




So....Louisville's basketball coach is lobbying the Big East hard to add a couple of basketall schools to replace 2 schools that left, and a third that might leave. The third? Possibly Louisville. My head will now explode.

To be fair, Pitino recently used this analogy. Not the brightest.

Rick Pitino uses relationship analogy to describe Big East defectors Syracuse and Pittsburgh - New York Daily News

[Ksyrup]

Didn't that era of journalism as a profession only exist because (a) of the technological limits, and/or (b) no one realized, or was able to capitalize on, the "value" (in a monetary, not societal, sense) of the public's insatiable appetite for rumor and innuendo?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There was a time when newspaper editors would tell their reporters that no story would appear, barring corroboration from multiple sources and a compelling story of great importance to the readers, without full attribution of all sources quoted.

That era of journalism as a profession is gone.

Our newspapers today are all blogs, basically, fighting over the scraps of rumor. Mid-level officials regularly use reporters to float all sorts of wild stories, rarely with more than a hint of the truth.

Twenty years ago, a journalist would call Chuck Neinas and say, "tell me when you've invited someone - we'll run a story."

Today, someone with no training whatsoever will call up the assistant to the assistant janitor at Louisville's student activity center and invite him to speculate. That then becomes "a source close to the Louisville president," and the "reporter" will have bought his lottery ticket to having his blog read by thousands, and maybe a guest appearance on one of those ESPN shows where talking heads drown each other out with senseless noise.

I love this post.

[Chubby]

Was this the same time in newspaper-land where reporters didn't report stories because of favors given to them by players (access, etc...)

20 years ago they used rotary dial phones, shit changes.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jim:

I agree completely. And I wonder if the traditional media had any alternative if it wanted to stay economically viable. We are all media consumers, and our eyeballs tend to go toward the rumors instead of the facts. Especially in sports.

Everything worth saying about TA&M to the SEC was said before it was responsible to write a story saying that TA&M was going to the SEC. Any media outlet that waited for proper confirmation was going to be literal days behind the competition.

Is it possible to run a profitable and professional sports news organization these days?

I don't know. No one has tried it in a long time.

Did traditional media have an alternative? Absolutely. There came a time about ten years ago when it was obvious that internet would kill the print media star. What did newspapers do?

They promoted their "stars" online - buy a subscription to The New York Times to read a star columnist, for example. Problem is, there isn't that much difference between a columnist and a blogger, in terms of quality.

Meanwhile, they tried to compete in the one arena bloggers can't lose: speed to publication. They decided they would become better bloggers. And largely they did.

But in doing so, they sacrificed journalism. Which gives people no incentive to buy their products.

I don't envy their position, but the current model of creating a spin and trying to sell that spin has a very limited upside and is more suited to broadcast (Fox, for example, makes a lot of money selling a conservative spin and CNN makes a lot of money selling a liberal spin).

Newspapers need a "Walter Cronkite" moment, when they can create a product so journalistically honest that people say, "I won't believe it until I read it on +++++," the way they used to say, "I won't believe it until I hear it from Walter Cronkite's mouth."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting how different the reporting on the WVU/UL situation is. KC Star is reporting that the hangup on the situation is yet another OU/UT fight. OU wants UL over WVU. Texas is saying just the opposite and neither want to budge.

Also rumors on Rivals that OU is threatening to jump to SEC over the matter.

Mizzou can't get out of this clusterf%#@ quick enough.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting how different the reporting on the WVU/UL situation is. KC Star is reporting that the hangup on the situation is yet another OU/UT fight. OU wants UL over WVU. Texas is saying just the opposite and neither want to budge.

Also rumors on Rivals that OU is threatening to jump to SEC over the matter.

Mizzou can't get out of this clusterf%#@ quick enough.

More or less what I've heard. WVU went from having the votes to get in to OU (and thus OSU) changing their mind after Mitch McConnell applied some pressure. Right now WVU suppoedly has more support than Louisville (5 votes to 3) and "likely" ends up getting in, but politicians are getting involved as well so who knows what happens.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting how different the reporting on the WVU/UL situation is. KC Star is reporting that the hangup on the situation is yet another OU/UT fight. OU wants UL over WVU. Texas is saying just the opposite and neither want to budge.

Also rumors on Rivals that OU is threatening to jump to SEC over the matter.

Mizzou can't get out of this clusterf%#@ quick enough.

It's a shame no other conference wants them. I don't think 2 votes is going to do it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting how different the reporting on the WVU/UL situation is. KC Star is reporting that the hangup on the situation is yet another OU/UT fight. OU wants UL over WVU. Texas is saying just the opposite and neither want to budge.

Also rumors on Rivals that OU is threatening to jump to SEC over the matter.

Mizzou can't get out of this clusterf%#@ quick enough.

OU's threat to jump to the SEC is also empty as long as they're attached to OSU.

[timmynausea]

Chip Brown tweet:

I'm still hearing West Virginia. A little patience required, I'm told.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

OU's threat to jump to the SEC is also empty as long as they're attached to OSU.

Agreed.

T. Boone is stoking the fire yet again. Not a fan of him, but you don't have to read between the lines to figure out the meaning of his comments.

Boone Pickens needs to be ‘convinced on West Virginia' | NewsOK.com

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

Big East
|
MWC
|
CUSA

Clearly.

If the conferences are merging, I think you can pick and choose which teams go where to begin with, ignoring what conference they were in before. I don't know how you do that, and how money gets split, but that wouldn't be my problem.

[RomaGoth]

OU and TEX should just form their own 2-team conference called the "Big 2". They would forever be legends in their own mind.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

If the conferences are merging, I think you can pick and choose which teams go where to begin with, ignoring what conference they were in before. I don't know how you do that, and how money gets split, but that wouldn't be my problem.

I was really thinking of the names of the promotion relegation aspect. And bashing the CUSA in the bargain

[Ragone]

Big 12 should just punt missouri out before they leave.. to be done with them entirely.. and add byu/wvu and louisville.. but they don't wanna get back to 12.. they want more of the tv money split... so it once again comes down to greed in college sports.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting how different the reporting on the WVU/UL situation is. KC Star is reporting that the hangup on the situation is yet another OU/UT fight. OU wants UL over WVU. Texas is saying just the opposite and neither want to budge.

Also rumors on Rivals that OU is threatening to jump to SEC over the matter

Wait? What? Why do OU or UT care more about WVU or UL? Enough to bolt? No way

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There was a time when newspaper editors would tell their reporters that no story would appear, barring corroboration from multiple sources and a compelling story of great importance to the readers, without full attribution of all sources quoted.

That era of journalism as a profession is gone.

Our newspapers today are all blogs, basically, fighting over the scraps of rumor. Mid-level officials regularly use reporters to float all sorts of wild stories, rarely with more than a hint of the truth.

Twenty years ago, a journalist would call Chuck Neinas and say, "tell me when you've invited someone - we'll run a story."

Today, someone with no training whatsoever will call up the assistant to the assistant janitor at Louisville's student activity center and invite him to speculate. That then becomes "a source close to the Louisville president," and the "reporter" will have bought his lottery ticket to having his blog read by thousands, and maybe a guest appearance on one of those ESPN shows where talking heads drown each other out with senseless noise.

Seriously. And the NYTimes is now apparently an insider blog that posts crap just like the rest of them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jim:

I agree completely. And I wonder if the traditional media had any alternative if it wanted to stay economically viable. We are all media consumers, and our eyeballs tend to go toward the rumors instead of the facts. Especially in sports.

Everything worth saying about TA&M to the SEC was said before it was responsible to write a story saying that TA&M was going to the SEC. Any media outlet that waited for proper confirmation was going to be literal days behind the competition.

Is it possible to run a profitable and professional sports news organization these days?

The problem with journalism these days is that this makes as great a post as Jim's- how do you reconcile the two

SI

[lcjjdnh]

Many of you idealize an era of journalism that only existed for a short period of time when newspapers had fat profit margins thanks to their ability to extract monopoly rents. The good ol' days really weren't much better, in many cases.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Many of you idealize an era of journalism that only existed for a short period of time when newspapers had fat profit margins thanks to their ability to extract monopoly rents. The good ol' days really weren't much better, in many cases.

Very much disagree. Go read a paper from 20-30-40 years ago and then read one from today. Don't look at profits (many papers have failed/folded/merged) but compare content and quality of writing - from articles, op-ed to sports.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Very much disagree. Go read a paper from 20-30-40 years ago and then read one from today. Don't look at profits (many papers have failed/folded/merged) but compare content and quality of writing - from articles, op-ed to sports.

Well, that's exactly the "short period of time" I referenced. When newspapers had fat profit margins, they could produce that work. Before they achieved those monopolies by prevailing in various newspaper wars, they produced tons of garbage (Hearst, Pulitzer, etc.).

Not surprisingly, now that monopolies have disappeared, profit margins have shrunk and they've laid off all their reporters. Difficult to produce quality work when you're now covering what four people did with one reporter.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Well, that's exactly the "short period of time" I referenced. When newspapers had fat profit margins, they could produce that work. Before they achieved those monopolies by prevailing in various newspaper wars, they produced tons of garbage (Hearst, Pulitzer, etc.).

Not surprisingly, now that monopolies have disappeared, profit margins have shrunk and they've laid off all their reporters. Difficult to produce quality work when you're now covering what four people did with one reporter.

Understood on the time frame but I would argue that large circulations (re: ad revenues) contributed to the profit margins besides monopoly rents.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wait? What? Why do OU or UT care more about WVU or UL? Enough to bolt? No way

SI

Yeah, that's ridiculous.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wait? What? Why do OU or UT care more about WVU or UL? Enough to bolt? No way

SI

Also rumors on Rivals

I think that covers it.

[vex]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting how different the reporting on the WVU/UL situation is. KC Star is reporting that the hangup on the situation is yet another OU/UT fight. OU wants UL over WVU. Texas is saying just the opposite and neither want to budge.

Also rumors on Rivals that OU is threatening to jump to SEC over the matter.

Mizzou can't get out of this clusterf%#@ quick enough.

So the rumors on Rivals about OU are coming from where, the Mizzou board? Because there is no such thing on OU's board.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Understood on the time frame but I would argue that large circulations (re: ad revenues) contributed to the profit margins besides monopoly rents.

Aren't the circulation and ad revenues the result of monopoly rents (just in case it wasn't clear, I meant rents in the economic sense, not actual rent)? Newspapers essentially possessed the best means of delivering information to people. Even TV/Radio couldn't match the ease of getting news, box scores, TV listings, etc. on your doorstop everyday. Having a delivery mechanism to large portions of any given community made newspapers an attractive sell for advertisers.

And quality was a result of those profits rather than the cause of it in many cases. Indeed, the demise of evening newspapers is partially attributed to the rise in midday, inner-city traffic, which hurt their ability to get their papers to readers (which is why many newspapers have moved presses to the suburbs), not anything to do with putting out a lower quality product than competitors on the editorial side.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Well, that's exactly the "short period of time" I referenced. When newspapers had fat profit margins, they could produce that work. Before they achieved those monopolies by prevailing in various newspaper wars, they produced tons of garbage (Hearst, Pulitzer, etc.).

Not surprisingly, now that monopolies have disappeared, profit margins have shrunk and they've laid off all their reporters. Difficult to produce quality work when you're now covering what four people did with one reporter.

There has almost always been yellow journalism, from Hearst to Murdoch. But even during the era of Hearst and Pulitzer there were still papers of record that served the public well. In broadcast, the fairness doctrine kept things in line. I often wonder if we would be better served if we brought it back.

I still feel the problem is simply too much editorial space and too much ego. When you had the daily paper, the nightly news, three networks and no Internet or cable, there was finite editorial space and you had to be good to get published or on the air. Now, there is too much space, and everyone has an ego. Fifty years ago commentary was the exception rather than the rule and was labeled a such. Now it's all commentary and news is the exception.